Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-CA-UKUKMA.
Accession
PRINTED BY
&
T.
CLARK, EDINBURGH
co.
LIMITED
NEW YORK
BY
GUSTAF DALMAN
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG
D.
M.
KAY,
B.D.,
IN
B.Sc.
THE UNIVERSITY OF
ST.
ANDREWS
I.
INTRODUCTION
AND
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS
^mr^;
"wffiJL
T.
&
T.
years.
to English readers is the result been pursued during a long series of which have The aim of these studies has been to ascertain the
of the
words of our Lord as they must have presented themselves to the ear and mind of His Jewish hearers.
meaning
The author
said
this
is
on not a few important and difficult questions treated in volume but his wishes will be fulfilled if his work
;
serves
to
is
if
direction
strengthen the conviction that labour in this not fruitless, and must be done by many coChristian Theology
is
workers,
to be
As to the relation of the English German original, I have only to add that
of small errors
number
the whole book, and the introductory part has been partly rewritten and rendered more complete. The " Messianic
Texts," which form an
Appendix
to the
not been included in the English edition. had separately from the publisher of the
(J.
C.
Hinrichs, Leipzig),
here.
it
them
GUSTAF
LEIPZIG,
1st
H.
DALMAN.
April 1902.
106511
of the
THE Translator has endeavoured to furnish a German original, but is not responsible
faithful version
for the various
If the Gospel was first positions maintained by the author. announced in the Aramaic language, it is obvious that the Greek versions of the Synoptists cannot be finally interpreted
factor
without taking due account of the Aramaic prototype. This is introduced by Dr. Dalman's line of research, and will
be seen to contribute elements of great value in the minuter exegesis of the Gospels.
to
S.
proofs.
Yahveh
usually called
"
"
the
Kingdom
of
God
"),
he
as a shorter synonym for theocracy " In citing the Talmud, b. before the of God." Sovereignty name of the Tractate stands for Babylonian, j. for Jerusalem ;
occasional
a Baraitha
to
be
a tradition of the elders which did not happen incorporated in the authoritative collection of K.
is
Yehuda
ha-Nasi.
D. M.
KAY.
vii
CONTENTS.
Author's Preface to the English Edition Note by the Translator
..... .......
INTRODUCTION.
.
PAGE
v
vii
I.
The literary use of Hebrew III. The Semitisms of the Synoptic Gospels IV. Some Hebraisms and Aramaisms V. Alleged proofs of a primitive Hebrew Gospel
II.
.
.
. VI. Testimonies in favour of a primitive Aramaic Gospel VII. The Problem before us and the previous studies in the same
VIII.
The
..... .....
.
.....12
1
.
.
.17 20 .43
.
57
71
field
79
FUNDAMENTAL
I.
IDEAS.
A. Sovereignty of Heaven, sovereignty of God, sovereignty B. The Jewish use of the idea
C.
2,
The sovereignty of God is the subject of an announcement 3. The sovereignty of God is regarded as an approaching
pensation
.
.
. .
...... ......'.
.
91
96
101
102
dis-
.106
110 116
128 133 134
.
4.
5.
6.
is is
an order of things under which men are placed an order of things to which men attain
a good
.
is
7.
8.
Concluding discussion
Appendix A. Appendix B.
Luke 16 16 Matt.
,
II 12 '-
Lukel7 20f>
II.
....
.
143
(JEoN).
1.
2.
3.
....
147
X
III.
CONTENTS
ETERNAL
LIFE, LIFE.
PAGE
.
1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
The Jewish usage The verbs connected with it The simple i] The significance of the idea
....... ......
.
.
.156
156
.
.
.158 .158
161
IV.
1.
THE WORLD.
unknown
. .
.
.
2.
3.
The idea
of the
4.
.... ........
" world "
in the Synoptists
.
.
is still
.162 .166
169
177
"THE LORD"
God
1.
Not a name
for
to be found in
common
use
2.
....
. .
179 182
VI.
1.
THE FATHER
.
IN HEAVEN.
.
. .
2.
. .
.184 .189
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
One (6 615X0717x6?) Power (^ Stvaiu*) Holy One (6 &yios) Merciful One (6 Ae^)
VIII. EVASIVE OR
1. 2.
3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
200
.202
204
God
.209 .213
217
10. 11.
From on high
.....'....
. .
. .
Amen
Concluding Statement
.... ......
Glory, the
Word
.229 .231
233
CONTENTS.
IX.
1.
xi
The
2.
3. 4.
linguistic form of the expression "Son of Man " was not a current Jewish " "
Son of Man
of
is
"Son
Man"
Himself
5. 6.
The meaning attached to the title by the Synoptists The sense attached by Jesus to the term "Son of man "
.
........
is
.
no empty formula
..... .....
name
for the
PAGE
Messiah
X.
1.
2.
3. 4.
The second Psalm in Jewish literature The title " Son of God " as applied to Jesus by other persons The divine voice at the Baptism and the Transfiguration
Jesus'
own testimony
5.
The
sense attached
by the Synoptists
.......
.
....
. .
to the title
"Son
of
God
"
XI. CHRIST.
1.
The term
(a)
in Jewish usage
(&) Signification
and content
2. 3.
(c) The idea of pre-existence The application of the name "Messiah" to Jesus . The acknowledgment of the name "Messiah " by Jesus Himself
.
XII.
1.
2.
....
.
.
.
316
.319
XIII.
1. 2.
"THE LORD"
2.
The Jewish use of the term The Synoptic use of the term
324
-327
331
336
... ...
.....
.
.341
345
350
A.
APOCRYPHA.
in Greek,
i.-iii.,
H. B.
Swete,
1887-94.
De Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti apocryphi Syriace, 1861. Sirach: Hebrew Text, 39 15 49 11; edition of A. E. Cowley and A. ^Neubauer,
,
R. Smend, 1897. ' 49 12 50 22, ed. of S. Schechter, Jew. Quart. Eev. x. (1898) 197-206. Tdbit: Aram. Hebr. and Latin Texts, ed. of A. Neubauer, 1878. 1897
,
ed. of
Hebrew Texts,
Supplements
to
ed. of
M.
Gaster, 1897.
B.
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA.
H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, 1891
by R. H.
;
Psalms of Solomon:
ed.
of
ed. of 0. v.
(1895) 297 ff. Book of Enoch: translation by G. H. Schodde, 1882 Greek text, A. Lods, 1892.
184
If.,
710
ff.
vii.
by R. H.
Charles, 1893.
Assumptio Mosis : ed. of R. H. Charles, 1897. Apocalypse of Baruch: Syriac text of A. M. Ceriani, 1871
Charles, 1896. 2 Esdras: Syriac text of
translation
by R.
H.
A. M.
Ceriani, 1868.
Latin text, ed. of R. L. Bensly and M. R. James, 1895. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Greek text of R. Sinker, 1868, 1879.
Hebrew version (Naphtali), ed. of M. Gaster, 1894. Sibylline Oracles: ed. of A. Rzach, 1891.
Testament of Abraham : ed. of M. R. James and W. E. Barnes, 1892. Slavonic Book of Enoch: ed. of W. R. Morfill and R. H. Charles, 1896.
C.
:
TARGUMS.
:
Onkelos Sabbioneta, 1557 (in the original). Jerusalem Targums to the Pentateuch Venice, 1591. Targums to the Prophets and Hagiographa Rabbinical Bible, Veirice, 1517 Basle, 1618. Venice, 1525 Venice, 1548 Targum sheni on Esther ed. of L. Munk, 1876 ed. of M. David, 1898.
: ;
;
:
XIV
D.
Riva di Trento, 1559 Mantua, 1561 Cambridge ( W. H. Lowe], 1883. Tosephta ed. Sabbioneta, 1555 Pasewalk (M. S. ZucJcermandel), 1881. ed. Venice, 1524 Jerusalem Talmud Tractate 'Berachoth, ed. Mainz (M.
Mishna
ed.
:
Lehmann), 1875. Babylonian Talmud Tractate Taanith, ed. Pesaro (c. 1511) ; Sanhedrin, Sota, Nidda, Erubhin, Zebhachim, Menachoth, Beklioroth, Meila, Kinnim, Middoth, Tamidh, Teharoth, ed. Venice, 1520-23. Tractates Shebhuoth, Eduyyoth, Abhoth, Horayoth, Moed Katon, Yebhamoth, Erakhin, Temura, Kerithuth, Nedarim, Nazir, Teharoth, ed.
:
Venice, 1526-29.
For the whole Talmud ed. Vienna, 1840-47 Varise Lectiones, R. EdbbinoviczH. Ehrentreu, 1867-97. Abhoth of Rabbi Nathan ed. Vienna (S. Schechter}, 1 887.
: ;
:
E.
COMMENTARIES
1515
;
(Midrashim).
(/.
Mechilta
ed.
Vienna
Weiss),
1865
Vienna
1545 Vienna (J. Weiss}, 1862. 1545 Vienna (J/. Friedmann}, 1864. Midrash Rabba on the Pentateuch ed. Constantinople, 1512
Siphra Siphre
ed. Venice,
; :
ed. Venice,
Venice, 1545
Salonica, 1593.
ed. Pesaro,
1519
S.
;
Schechter, Jew.
viii.
Venice, 1545 ; Salonica, 1593. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894) 672 ff.
vii.
(1895) 145
ff.,
729
ed.
ff.
(1896) 289
;
ff.
ed. Venice,
:
1545
Mantua, 1563
Wilna
1512-15
Venice, 1546
Midrash on Samuel
Buber), 1893.
ed.
Constantinople, 1517
Venice, 1546
Krakau
(S.
Midrash on Proverbs
Pesikta
:
ed.
Lyck
:
(S.
Wilna
Pesikta Rabbati
ed.
:
Yalkut Shimoni ed. Salonica, 1521-26. Yalkut Makiri Yeshaya, ed. Berlin (J. Spira}, 1894.
:
F.
LITURGICAL WORKS.
; ;
Siddur
Seder Rab Amram, ed. Warsaw, 1865 Maimonides in Mishne Tora, ed. Venice, 1524 ; Siddur Hegyon Leb, by L. Landshuth, Konigsberg, 1845 Seder Abodath Yisrael, by S. Baer, Rodelheim, 1868.
:
Machzor, German
Polish rite
:
rite
ed.
ed. Sulzbach,
:
French
rite
Machzor Vitry,
:
Sephardic
rite
:
Roman
Yemen
rite
Romanian
rite : two manuscripts in possession of Dr. Chamizer, Leipzig, No. the year 1659, No. 2, 16-17 century.
of
INTRODUCTION.
I.
As
the proof has been offered with comparative frequency of " " 2 late l showing that the Hebrew "Hebraists," that is, the
speaking Jews of Palestine, who formed a class distinct from the "Hellenists," did not in reality speak Hebrew but Aramaic, it seems superfluous to raise a fresh discussion on all
the details of this question.
to
"
my
all
on
made Grammatik des jiid.-pal. Aramaisch for information the Aramaic expressions that occur in the New
Yet, while reference
"
is
Testament and Josephus, the most important sources dence now involved must here be shortly summarised.
1.
of evi-
the
second
into
century
after
Aramaic
the text
of the
Hebrew Pentateuch in
of Palestine.
58ff., 8 If.,
an Aramaic version
the Tora.
In this he
is
mistaken.
Yet the high antiquity of the Targum custom of interpreting is incontestable. About the year 200 A.D. the practice is so
Most recently by G. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (1896), and Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, i. (1897) 1-24. 2 Acts 6 1
'
it
a matter
prescription,
but
concerns
only with
iv.
the
more
In the
to his
5,
7,
11).
third century
it
was recommended
sons
that one should not even in private read the text of the
Law
the
necessity that
inviolable custom
was the determining factor in this case, but according to which Bible text and
There must, however, have been
Targum were
inseparable.
tending to depreciate the significance of the Bible text, a time, that is, when the Hebrew text was not understood by
those
who frequented
existed
in
the synagogues.
perhaps be concluded from the story which represents Gamaliel I. as having caused a Targum of Job to be built into the temple while it was building, provided this Targum were written in
Targums
the
time of
Christ
may
Gamaliel n. also would appear have seen a copy of the same Targum. 3 Of course it does not follow that such Targums were widely distributed, least
of all that every
is
only
it
was required to follow each single Meg. the Pentateuch, and every three verses in the
titles
Prophets.
2.
The Aramaic
for
classes
of the people
Testament.
and for
and
the
New
"
Phari-
Ber. 8 a ;
cf.
W. Backer, Agada
i.
141.
That the
therefore be also "read," thus implying the possession of written Targums, is, however, not to be inferred from the expression. 2 Sabb. 115 a ; j. Sabb. 15 C ; Tos. Sabb. xiii. 2 ; Sophr. v. 15.
Targum should
8 4
j.
Sabb. 15 C
i.
Zahn, Einl. in d.
N.
Test.
23,
lies
at
INTRODUCTION
= twn3 (Heb. "Priests"; apaQdpxn*, apa^d^n^ (ibid.) = Kfi Kjna f>han Priest"; ^do^a = Knpa (Heb. jnan), "High "Passover"; avapdd (Ant. m. x. 6) = *tfmj> (Heb. " " 2 Pentecost (Heb. Qpovpa ia, Qpovpal = NJ'ilB " " = Knatf (Heb. natf), Sabbath." Purim <rd/3/3ara
sees"; Xaavalai (Jos. Ant.
1
ni.
vii.
I)
(Heb.
rips),
3.
The use of
the
Aramaic language in
the
Temple.
In support of this is the old tradition that John Hyrcanus heard in the sanctuary a divine voice speaking in the Aramaic language, j. Sot. 24 b cf. Ant. xm. x. 3. 3 In the
;
vi. 5,
As now given
are Hebrew.
in the
Mishna
of
Aramaic
so
must regard
language.
Old
official
documents
"
in
the
Aramaic
These
are, first,
the
days on which fasting was forbidden, first compiled in the time of the rising against the Eomans, 66-70 A.D. secondly, the Epistles of Gamaliel n. (about 110 A.D.) to the Jews of
;
South Judsea,
Galilee,
and
Babylon.
Both
of
these were
destined for the Jewish people, and primarily, indeed, for those
of
Palestine.
my
the basis of the Greek form $api(raioi, because the ending cuoi represents a Semitic final sound in i or ay ; and that from K?>'19 there would have been formed $api<ras. This is not convincing ; for ^aptaas would have been unsuitable as the name of a party, and the Greek language forms with equal ease
from Ad/3t<r<ra, and 'Adyvaios from 'Adyvai. But, of course, it is probable that the formation of the Greek $>apt<raioi depended on the frequently heard plural definite N;n$. Besides, the analogy of 2a5ou/ccuoi must have coAapi<r<raios
operated,
1
Gesch. 161, holds that x avap6P rl* was the original reading ; but it is possible that we have here one of the intentional Grsecisms of Josephus. dpa/3<%i7s was meant to suggest apafiapxr)*. 2 $povpai is due to a reminiscence of the Greek word <f>povpd, plur. (ppovpal.
Wellhausen,
und
Cf.
Priester
Euchler,
Die
4
treatise
Aramaische Dialektproben," 1-3, 32-34; Monatschr. xli. 326, and Gramm. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 7
Epistles
of
Jiid.
The
are
Gamaliel
given
in
Aram.
Dialektproben
,
there4
by Graetz,
the
first
Derenbourg, Neubauer, and Biichler, to Gamaliel but this must be an error, as the four
;
groups of Jews alluded to (Upper and Lower Galilee, Darom (South-west Judaea), and Babylon) point to a date after the
destruction of Jerusalem.
5.
The
language
of
the
public
documents
relating
to
purchase,
of
lease-tenure,
debt,
conditional
divorce,
betrothal,
refusal
of
marriage,
marriage
contract,
renunciation
Levirate marriage.
of these validity,
this
decisive formulae
documents, which were important for securing legal for the most part in Aramaic, thus implying that
was the language commonly in use. Keferences are 5 As there is no rule given in Gramm. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 12.
prescribing the language in which such documents
must be
drawn up,
it is
sometimes mention formulae in Hebrew, as for divorce, Gitt. and for emancipation, Keth. iv. 12 ix. 1, 5 for the ix. 3, 5
;
;
marriage contract.
How
was, appears from Keth. iv. 12, where an Aramaic form is given for dwellers in Jerusalem and Galilee, while one in
given for dwellers in Judaea, with no intention, let us say, of emphasising the distinction of language, but by reason of the varying contents of the formulae. The
is
Hebrew
previously mentioned Epistles of the Patriarch Gamaliel II. and the Koll concerning Easts should properly be also
3 4 5
Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, iii. 373. D6reribourg, Essai sur 1'histoire, 242. Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885), 49.
Euchkr, Die Priester und der Cultus, 63. Only the formula for "conditional betrothals," jiso'D (ff^^wvov), is not b mentioned there ; see, however, j. Kidd. 63 d 64 a j. Gitt. 49 a j. Er. 21
,
;
INTRODUCTION
open to question.
Ac-
Amoraim
at
(about
rate
300
A.D.
1 ),
it
any
one sentence
from
is
reproduced in this
language.
distorted
however, refer
century.
at
the
earliest
to the
But
in
Yeb.
iv.
13
A.D.) says that he too had found a family register in Jerusalem, in which there was used concerning some one " B*N this formula in Hebrew bastard njfco
110
llpo,
of a
wedded
wife."
Whether
the
this
register
was
the one
;
but
it
is
probably
same,
and
its
language therefore
doubtful.
6.
Aramaic
Hebrew in
copies of the
Bible Text.
The change
its
natural presupposition.
,
5 18
inconclusive.
implying that Iwra was the smallest letter, is certainly Vav and yod were both represented at that
distin-
guished by having a small hook at the top, and was thus The original spoke, as in Luke really larger than the vav.
16 17 only of a single hook (pia wpaia), or perhaps of the hook of the yod, as in Shem. E. 9 (whereas Vay. K. 19, presupposing the later style of writing, mentions the yod
,
itself).
The mention
of the
l&ra in
Matthew would be
See j. Taan. 68 a Ber. R. 98; of. Buckler, Die Priester und der Cultus, 41 f. H. Laible, in Dalman-Laible's Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue, 30 f., incorrectly refers it to Jesus. The discussion treats merely of the definition of the term "bastard." In Yeb. 49 b the discovered document is still further embellished with spurious
;
additions.
must
be laid
much more on
second century possessed the Bible text only in " Assyrian," i.e. Aramaic a point of contrast with the Samhandwriting,
aritans,
fact that
translation
character. 1
already
based
Syntax and the vocabulary of the Hebrew of the Mishna, which prove themselves to be the creation of Jews who thought in Aramaic. M. Friedmann is right in
7.
The
" saying in his Onkelos und Akylas, p. 88, that the chief part of the Kabbinic vocabulary is in its forms of speech and its
In regard to the first point, it is specially noteworthy that the Imperfect with the Vav Consecutive has vanished from use, and that a tendency
idioms Hebraised Aramaic."
occurs to use the participle as a present tense. 3
8.
The
custom
of
calling
the
Aramaic
X.
i.
"Hebrew."
ii.
Josephus, indeed,
of the
"
2, xii.
1) quite
Syrians
Hebrews."
And
yet
difference.
Ant.
I.
i.
1, 2,
o-d/3/3ara
and
'ASdfj,
belong to
6)
is
Hebrew
term
of
in. x.
in
which
Josephus addresses the people of Jerusalem (Bell. Jud. vi. ii. 1) is even called by him (Bell. Jud. v. ix. 2) 77 Trdrpios
<y\(t)a(ra,
though in the circumstances nothing but Aramaic can be looked for. Again, in the Johannine Gospel the
Aramaic terms ByQeaSd, TafilBaOa, To\<yo6a, Pa/3j3ovvi are 2 19 13 17 20 16 called "Hebrew," 5 Aramaic, too, must be
-
meant
1
by
the
"Hebrew tongue"
in
which
Paul
of the
spoke
Books of
Samuel
2
i.
See for this, e.g., S. R. Driver, Notes on the (1890), Ixv ff.
Hebrew Text
3
8
See also A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (1845), J. H. Weiss, Mischpat leschon ha-Mischna (1867), 2f.
A.
Geiger, loc.
cit.
i.
40.
INTRODUCTION
to the people of
Jerusalem (Acts 2 1 40 22 2 ), and in which 14 Jesus spoke to Paul (Acts 26 ). E\\rjvicrTai and 1 'Efipaioi were the names, according to Acts 6 of the two
(
,
Jewish people as divided by language, although would have been the more precise counterpart ^upta-rai of 'EXkrjvi&Tal. But if it was possible to characterise
parts of the
Aramaic as "Hebrew,"
everyday speech
far,
it
is
clear
that
of
it
at least, as
All the facts adduced do not justify us in making a distinction between Judsea and Galilee, as if Hebrew was
at least partially a spoken language in the former.
In an
essay which
tine
much
"
requires revision,
of
The
dialects of Pales-
in
the time
Christ,"
"
:
In Jerusalem, and perhaps also in the greater part of Judaea, the modernised Hebrew and a purer Aramaic dialect were in use among the majority of
the Jewish immigrants from
the neighbouring districts understood their own dialect only (of course closely related to Aramaic), together with a few current Hebrew expressions such as proverbs and prayers."
Adequate proof
awanting.
for
all
three
parts
of
this
assertion
is
merely related to the Aramaic, nor the purer Aramaic of the Judseans, nor their modernised Hebrew, can really be
demonstrated.
may be inferred with certainty from the place-names in Jerusalem and its environs 'A/ceXBafid^
dominance in Judcea
:
(KOT
^n)
B^aOd, E^eOd
'
(KfW JV3)
(nnaa)
;
\yo0a
(n^a)
"O-rrXa,
XafavaOd
my Grammatik
des jiig.-pal.
1 2
The
Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885, 39-74. discussion of these words will be found in
It
here be added that Tap/3a6a (Gram. p. 108) is incorrectly explained. Nmaa, which properly means the baldness of the forepart of the head, was a fitting name for the open space in front of the Antonia Castle which
Aram.
may
which was applied to the piece of ground on the Mount of Olives where Jesus tarried on the night of
to the foregoing,
the betrayal.
= *mv (
<3Dtf
n_a
for
Whether one adopts the reading Te6cr7]jjLavei D^pf nj), as I have done Gram. 152, or startyeo-o-q/jLavet,, yrjo-a/jiavet
concludes for
all
= D'3Cf (
^3,
Isa.
28 1 ), the term
is
the
same
Hebrew and not Aramaic. But it does not therefore follow that Hebrew was a language in everyday use. The fact that
Eabbinic literature beginning with the Mishna represents
of the pre-Christian
men
Hebrew and not Aramaic, proves nothing as to the language One might as well by the actually spoken by these men.
same kind
Hebrew.
of
"
"
proofs
the strongly expressed antipathy to Aramaic a on the part of Juda the first, the redactor of the Mishna, one must at once conclude that this language was extruded so far
as
From
possible from
the old
all
traditions.
The more
significant
despite
opposition.
The Hebrew
form
any tradition thus proves nothing at all in favour Hebrew at an earlier date. Biichler 2 may
the
used in
temple
and in the
to
sacrificial
service.
But
infer, because the priests speak obliged descriptions of the temple service given by
Mace. 12 37 ) is not noticed in the be compared the biblical Dinfchn pa may perhaps 17 4 (2 Kings 25 ) and Onkelos' Kfhss for nfyjQ (Gen. 23 ) ; while the interchange of n and I is illustrated by the name 'Pov/^Xos in Josephus for the biblical J;MK-J, and E^ios (Ant. xi. v. 4) for the name of the month 17P2. 1 "Wherefore should I use the Sursi in Palestine? Either the Sot. 49 b
XaQevaQd
Grammar.
With
this
term
vid.
Gram.
d. jlid.-pal.
INTRODUCTION
that
therefore
the Aramaic
had been
A.D.,
expelled from
is
the
6370
At
there
no
is
sufficient
all events,
there
1
In regard to Galilee, however, Hebrew does not come seriously into question. During the rising of the Maccabees
the Jewish population in Galilee was so inconsiderable, that
3000 men under Simon, about 163 B.C., had no other means them from their ill-disposed neighbours than 2 John Hyrcanus (135105) by transporting them to Judaea.
of protecting
appears later to have conquered Galilee and to have forced it into Judaism, so that Aristobulus i. was able to continue
the same process in Ituraaa. 3
after
have established themselves in these parts again in considerable numbers and intermingled freely with the
that by the time of Josephus the
chief element of the population of Galilee as a
Judai'sed inhabitants, so
whole appears
as "Jewish."
Under
Hebrew
lan-
guage was not to be looked for and this applies also to the there is wrongly attributed an little Nazareth to which It had isolation from intercourse with the outer world.
on the one side Sippori (Sepphoris), the then capital of Galilee, and on the other, in close proximity, the cities
Yapha and Kesaloth, and it lay on the important highway of commerce that led from Sepphoris to the plain of Megiddo The actual discourses of Jesus in and onward to Coesarsea.
of
no way give the impression that He had grown up in rural It is true only that He, like the solitude and seclusion. Galileans generally in that region, would have little contact
with literary erudition.
1
A.
1
Resell,
Aussercanonische Paralleltexte,
'
224,
8
Das Kindheitsevanxi. 3.
gelium, 323.
2
Mace. 5 20
23
.
Ant. xin.
10
this
He
did
Hebrew
tongue.
leans as
The Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galiof the people of Gaulonitis, and natives of Syria,
IV.
i.
5),
The language of the prayers in private use and that of the benedictions which were woven into the routine of daily
life,
may
possibly have
been Hebrew.
explicit
prayer in
avowal
the Mishna
Shema,
the daily prayer, and the blessing (grace) at meals might be said in any language (P^ ^J?), 1 are weighty evidence against determining the usage as it really existed among the people
in accordance with the linguistic
tion.
If,
form
of the
Kabbinic tradi-
then,
it
was not
the
it is
to be insisted
was conceded that the Hebrew language on even in reading the Shema, that is,
to be
for
concession.
The
who understood no
Hebrew
this.
at
all,
may
But
"
as
was no hindrance, in their case at to the use of their mother tongue in prayer. That least, even in the third century in Palestine Aramaic was still
the
Hebraists," there
much
used in prayer,
it
may
by Johanan (died 279 A.D.), one of the urged against Palestinian Amoraim. He put forth the statement that the
angels did not understand this language, and were therefore There is a unable to bring Aramaic prayers before God. 2
discussion (Ber.
blessing which
This
is
the expression of the Mishna in the common text and in the Babyin the Palestinian Talmud and in the Mishna (ed. Lowe) the their language," 0:1^9 ; the sense, however, is the same.
;
Sabb. 12b
cf.
Backer,
Agada der
pal.
Amor.
i.
243.
INTRODUCTION
the shepherd
11
bread
it
Benjamin, in Babylon, used to say over his not, however, owing to the language used, but because
name
of
God.
That synagogue
dis-
the
Hebrew, is an impossible supposition for a period in which Aramaic version of the Bible text was a necessity.
Otherwise there must have been an interpreter side by side with the speaker. The more the scribes obtained unlimited control of the Jewish religious system, so much the more
did divine worship adopt the form prescribed by the learned,
and
only for themselves. During the progress of this transition the popular language was graduIn this connection, also, ally extruded from public worship.
specially calculated
Jewish popular life before the year 70 A.D. must not be judged from the appearances created by the Kabbinic
literature.
Not even
times
is it
incontestably certain that their language throughthat, in particular, the legal decisions
We
1
are told, at
is
any
rate (Eduyoth
viii. 4),
who indeed
Zereda,
in
his
school
language.
From
clusion
all
these considerations
and that
be obliged to speak Aramaic to His Of disciples and to the people in order to be understood.
He would
Him,
poor,
1
least of
who
all, who desired to preach the gospel to the stood aloof from the paedagogic methods of the
The
appellation
is held to be genuine by H. Klueger, Genesis und ComHalacha-Sammlung Edujot (1895), 84. See, however, A. Buckler, und der Cultus, 63, 84 D. Hoffmann, Mischnajoth, Eduj. viii. 4.
;
12
scribes, is
it
expected that He would have furnished His discourse with the superfluous, and to the hearers perplexing, embellishment of the Hebrew form.
II.
Hebrew
in all periods.
German, Spanish, Arabic may be the sole language of intercourse, while literary work is done as exclusively in Hebrew.
So
it
dominant.
possess, in fact, some examples of Hebrew from the centuries before and after the birth authorship
of
And we
Christ.
Hebrew
original
must be regarded
as prob-
able for the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 1 2 Esdras? the Book of Jubilees? and for the Jewish ground-
work
"
The same
language
may
composed
Moses,
be assumed for the whole series of writings under the names of Enoch, Noah, Abraham,
Isaiah,
Elijah,
of
Baruch,
so
far
and
at
Ezra,
least
and
as
for
the
Psalms
Solomon,
in
such
works
Who
could without
1 That I have in some respects serious misgivings regarding the considerations urged by R. H. Charles as proving a Hebrew original, see my notice of his edition of the Apocalypse of Baruch, Theol. Litbl. xviii. (1897) No. 15. The same reservation applies to Charles' conclusions as to the Assumption of Moses. Especially must his attempts at retranslation be pronounced almost throughout a failure. But in the affirmation of a Hebrew original he is right. 2 See esp. Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. (1899) 234 ff. 3 See E. Littmann in Kautzsch's Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, ii. 35. 4 M. Gaster, The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Dec. 1893, Feb. 1894, believed he had discovered the original of the Testament of Naphtali but the conjecture of
;
vol.
i.
p. xxi,
that Jerachme'el
is
the translator of the apocryphal writings contained in the Bodleian MS. used by Gaster, holds good also for the Testament of Naphtali. From Neubauer's communications regarding Jerachme'el one does not expect from the latter
Semitic originals that had disappeared, but selections from Western literature See also F. Schnapp, Apokryphen und Pseud-
INTRODUCTION
hesitation have represented
of
13
a book in Aramaic
offered without
scruple, because
Hebrew
"
Among
Hebraists
would
be startling if, in place of the presumed Hebrew original, a mere Aramaic translation had come to light.
real exception. of
Its
chaps.
16,
has
presumably been an Aramaic narrative of the experiences of Daniel and his comrades at the court of Babylon. A
writing,
in
which visions
were
to
the
whole East at
chaps.
visions
the
time.
of
the book,
712,
not less appropriately in Hebrew gave which Daniel himself had had, together with their
interpretation
The redactor may first have ventured to translate chaps. I 1 2 4 into Hebrew, and chap. 7 into Aramaic, and by this means as well as by
through an
angel.
halves
in
;
into
one whole.
the
it
is
In chap.
of
the worldits
power
is
decay when
in chap. 7
ff.
Kingdom
God
(cf.
God makes
-
appearance
chap. 7
tf^y,
of
In
Hebrew
Further
self-evident.
Aramaic part would naturally be composed that in the Aramaic translation of the supple-
ments
to
the Dragon), which M. Gaster has published, 1 at least the choice of language is happily inspired though it must not
;
1 M. Gaster; The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion's Additions to the Book of Daniel, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xvi. 280 ff., 312ff., xvii. 75 ff. Gaster has extracted the pieces from the Chronicle of Jerachme'el, who himself declares at the outset that he had translated them from the Greek
Bible.
14
be fancied that this really represents the original from which Theodotion translated.
of Enoch, the question as to its complicated owing to the different origin original language Semitic original is beyond question for of its parts. In this section the terms (f>ov/ca, 18 8 MavSochaps. 136.
is
favour of Aramaic by ftapa, reason of the ending in -a, though TpB is only known as a Hebrew word, and "ITID, " wilderness," can be equally good
, ,
28 1 Ba^rjpa, 29 1 speak
in
In 10 17 ra adpfiara avr&v stands where "their grey old age" was to be expected; but that is susceptible of explanation equally well through Heb. &?&? as Aram,
Hebrew.
pnrot? or linn^.
In 10 9 pafypeovs (cf. "W???) may also be Hebrew or Aramaic. Expressions clearly Hebrew are Kal eyevero, 6 1 (from Gen. 6 1 ) Trpo TOVTWV TWV \6ycov, 1 2 1
;
(frwvr)
fiowv
(ef.
*n
(
2 ^P), 9
as well as
airb
Trpoo-atTrov,
9 10
22 7
K Segicov
= southwards),
ntot?),
13 7
6
.
and
ev^pavdrja-ovrai
evtfrpawofjLevoi,
(asVIDb^
for
25
An
original in
Hebrew
of
must be
and
for
assumed
chaps.
72-82 on account
77 1
the
-,
Hebrew names
the points of
the compass,
As
for
chaps.
3771,
came
and
it
to pass,"
;
57 1 68 4 70 1 7 1 1
;
-
"and
10
it
will
come
to pass,"
.
39 1 52 7
chaps.
63 9 65 6 66 3 69 29
In
8390
begin
dant
"
striking,
ff.).
and
is
Hebrew
(vid.
As
for the
make a final pronouncement. There can be no doubt that the First Book of Maccabees
Hebrew
original.
is
derived from a
When Jerome
in the
Prologus galeatus speaks of having the book before him in Hebrew, one must indeed, in view of the prevailing ambiguity of his statements on such matters, be careful to see whether
he has here, too, perhaps made no distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic. But the language of the book con-
INTRODUCTION
firms his testimony.
Its phraseology is
15
that of historical
narrative
in
the
Bible,
which
the
author
has obviously
evpia/cew
It will suffice to
;
adduce
tcepas,
evdvTiov
rti/09,
;
10 60 II 24
2 70 9 20
7r\r)(7lov
-
StScWi
2 48
,
(pofielv
cfrdjSov fAeyav,
10 8
Trarda&eiv
7r\rf<yr)v /jLeydX.rjv,
53
cf.
5 34 8 4
KOTrreiv KO7T6TOV
1 6 36
;
n^av,
TOP
23
13 26
opyi^etv opyrjv
(
fjieyd'k'rjv,
;
dvrjp
7T/305
avTov
= one
40 another), 2
eyeWo
1b&
;
1 2 ore, 5 7 9
10 64
88
;
cfe avvdvrrj-
Kara
irpocrwjrov
^ap.
All this
is
specifically
Hebrew
is
The
Aramaic
Book
of
the
Hasmonceans,
is
which
in no
is,
way
connected
its
together with
later
origin.
Of the Book
of
distinct
Hebrew
recensions and
but though M. Gaster believes he has what is nearly the original in one of the Hebrew texts published by him, it still remains possible that all these Semitic texts
are
only translations from the Greek, and that the hypoWhen Jerome says thetical Semitic original is lost to us.
that he had completed the
Book
latter
of Tobit
Hebrew
translation, which
text, it is
from a Chaldaic
may
have been a translation from the Greek, and may itself have The same possibility will hold of the been in Syriac.
Chaldaic text of the
1
Book
of
"The
Transactions of the Orient. Congress, Lond. Neubauer in Jew. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894) 570
in
1891,
ff.,
ii.;
and, further, A.
d.
also
Gram.
jUd.-pal.
Aram.
2
6.
Abodath
Yisrael, 441
ff.
M.
recensions were printed in Constantinople 1516 and 1519 ; Gaster edited in 1897 two more in "Two unknown Hebrew versions of
(also in Proc.
Two Hebrew
Tobit"
(1898)
180
f.
16
although in this case a Hebrew original is the most probable. Whoever wrote after the model of the biblical books would
naturally
"
used the
"
Hebraist," have
Hellenist, the
Greek
however, has the abridged Hebrew language. of the story of Judith, which we possess in a reproduction twofold form,1 an immediate connection with the original of
In no
case,
the book.
to the question of the language of a Semitic gospel, it must be said that some of the primitive incentives favourable to composition in Hebrew at that time
If
we turn now
Aramaic
"
must have
if
Him
intelligible
If,
further, the
such an
"
address were
Hebraists,"
biblical
down
if
particularly
the language in which it was spoken, the record were designed to afford convenient
in
and
Even some
not in
Hebrew but
in Aramaic.
justify the
view unless decisive evidence to the contrary should be found in Church tradition or in the Gospels themthat a collection of the sayings of our Lord designed selves
for
"
gelium),
1
was written
in Aramaic.
Beth ha-Midrasch,
i.
130
f.,
Gaster another
INTRODUCTION
17
III.
Not a
"
Hebraisms
"
of the
New
has
not
of
been
the
with
sufficient
clearness
that
the
Greek
Jewish
Hellenists
must
have
been
affected
by
Semitic
In the first place, it must tongues in several distinct ways. be assumed that the Greek spoken from Syria to Egypt was
in
many
Aramaic language
for
particulars influenced, in no small degree, by the of the country ; and, further, it holds true
in
that portion of the Jewish people that adopted Greek place of its Semitic mother-tongue, that this mother-
tongue had been Aramaic, and that the world of thought in a peculiar to the Jews, which had then to be apprehended
Greek mould, had already been fashioned in Aramaic and The spiritual intercourse also which no longer in Hebrew. Jewish Hellenists continuously had with Hebraists in Palestine
implied a
constant
interchange
between
Greek and
Aramaic (but not Hebrew) modes of expression. influence was active only indirectly first, in so
:
Hebrew
far as
Hebrew
people
;
past underlay the Aramaic present of the Jewish secondly and in particular, because the Greek trans-
lation of the
in-
the Synoptic Gospels of the Christian Hellenists, there has further to be added to the previously
specified relations
In the case
And this by them had been originally created in Aramaic. holds equally true whether their basis presented itself to the
Kaspar Wyss, Dialectologia sacra, Zurich, 1650. Johann Vorst, Philologia sacra, ii., Leyden, 1658, i., Amsterdam, 1665, with general title De Hebraismis Novi Testament! Commentarius, Amster2
:
dam, 1665.
18
authors directly in
medium
of
Greek
be asked
how
far
Hebrew
is
to be held
responsible
is
for
Semitisms.
In the
examination
The material
mould
Gospels might have partly or wholly been shaped in a Hebrew in which it became mixed with Hebraisms, and in
this condition
Hebraising
influence,
on the other hand, might also come into play after the material had already been moulded in Greek. During
this
is
"
gospel
at gatherings of the
applied to
it,
This version being the most important book read the Christians in public and in private, the desire to by give to the gospel a corresponding dress must naturally
model.
have existed
and the conception of the Canon among the Christian Hellenists was none so sharply defined as to cause
;
new
devotional lection-
little
account
is
taken of these
circumstances.
edition
of
W. Schmiedel
Grammatik
"Winer's
2.
Ic, that the Aramaic constituents of Sprachidioms," the New Testament diction have not been sufficiently re-
garded.
in reaching
any
Still
who
in his
INTRODUCTION
4,
19
on the idiom, but
;
p.
to
the
Hebrew- Aramaic
influence
makes no attempt to distinguish Aramaisms from Hebraisms and in the Preface to his edition of the Gospel of Luke l he characterises as Aramaisms idioms which in some cases are equally good Hebraisms, arid in others are pure Hebraisms
and not Aramaisms at
J.
all.
And how
is
it
possible
"
that
Bohmer should
still
many
respects,
Das
'im Namen'" (1898), in which he aims at explaining linguistically and historically the variations ei? TO In this ovo/ma, eiri r&> ovofjiaTi in the baptismal formula ?
very instance the key to the explanation of the expression is to be found in the usage of language among the Jews. Bohmer should at least have said why he looked for no
information from that quarter. further deficiency in the current grammatical studies of New Testament Greek consists in the inadequate attention
directed to the
"
Grsecisms
"
of the Gospels,
i.e.
to the linguistic
held responsible.
over these
a minor degree, Salkinson, they have refused to abandon the principle of a verbally 2 faithful reproduction of the sacred Greek original, or because
Delitzsch and, in
they have not properly recognised the specific Grsecisms, as appears to be the case with Eesch, who was surely indifferent
any such consideration as that just mentioned. Whosoever would know what was the Aramaic primary form of any of the Master's sayings will have to separate
to
these
1
latter
F. Blass, Evangelium sec. Lucam (1897), xxif. In tliis principle, so far as it is This is not mentioned as a censure. applied to a translation for practical purposes, I fully agreed with Franz
2
New
was therefore able to act as editor of the revised llth edition Testament, which appeared in 1892.
20
Hellenistic Hebraisms.
which
is
and which
most closely
Aramaic
as the
Targums present
in the
mouth
of
Jesus.
Lucan writings, will find it a peculiar characteristic of the style of Jesus, that Holy Scripture is cited but rarely, and only when it has to be adduced owing to a definite call
for
it,
Moreover,
it is all
the less
probable that He should have spoken the Hebraising Aramaic of the Targums, inasmuch as no such practical use of it is
anywhere
found among the Jews. Even to Aramaic we cannot therefore impute any tendency to Hebraise them, unless we are to assume on their
to be
The words
of Jesus,
original
IV.
In order to inaugurate an investigation of the Synoptic Semitisms which will better satisfy the demands that must
be made upon
it,
now
be discussed.
Such phrases
substantially define
more
re-
The discussion
of
further details
must be
served
till
The
participles
finite
coupled with a
e\0cov
or
are
INTRODUCTION
the
21
Johannine Gospel. 1 Jesus says, Matt. 5 24 e\6<Sov 44 25 go, offer"; Matt. 12 (Luke 1 1 ) e\0ov evplv/cei, "it goes and 23 27 finds"; Matt. 25 (cf. Luke 19 ) eX0<w eKOfutrdwv, "I should
"
have gone and received"; Luke 15 25 ep-^o^evo^ tfyyurev, "he came and drew nigh." A kindred use is iropevQels eKo\\ij0rj,
"he went and joined himself to," Luke 15 15 The narrative 23 also makes use of such expressions Matt. 2 e\0a)v /carwicrja-ev, " " he went and dwelt Matt. 1 5 25 e\0ovo-a Trpoveicvvei, (Mark
.
:
7 25
ela-ekBovcra
"
TrpoeeTrecrev),
she
came and
fell
down."
^n and
(and)
Nin of the
Old Testament;
see,
15
e.g.,
;
came";
1
Hos.
na^
wm
go
said."
Enoch (Greek
may
iropevOel^
6Ka6i,<ra,
:
13 7
In
idiom is also common. Exx. Wnp* ^tK, "he goes and becomes," Vay. K. 25 niD^ ty, "let him go and die," j. Ter. 45 C Tnfcq ^P, "let him go and testify,"
this
; ;
Jewish Aramaic
j.
E. h.
S.
58 d
argtoi
WK, "I
so to do,"
go and rescue,"
j.
13
nago xnx,
"he came
j.
Khali. 60
'nv,
Shebi.
;
39 a
2^1
"
j.
Ter.
46 b
marry," Ber. K. 65
napjnw nin,
2.
afa
The juxtaposition of Kara\i,7ra)v and afak with a term " " can in no signifying departure, where the idea of leaving
way
be emphasised, occurs in the narrative of Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John. Examples Matt. 1 S 36 a^et?
:
8%\ov<: %\0ev,
v
"He
"
;
left
the
avrbv airr)\6av
(this
also in
13
Mark
1 2 12 ),
"
they
left
a7rf)\0ev
them and
doubtful.
indispensable
is
22
17 KardXiTrobv avTovs e%rfh.6ev, see also departed"; Matt. 2 1 36 Mark 4 In the Old Testament this is not a usual mode of
.
diction.
Salkinson renders
d<f>ievai
by
3Ty,
Delitzsch some-
times by n^n.
signifies in
ment
"
to leave or
let alone,"
is
employed in
"
Wjpatf,
he
left
and went on"; j. Taan. 66 fb frfon BW^, "they left and went away." From these instances it may also be seen
him him
how
by
itself,
which can-
Hebrew merely by
In certain actions of a sedentary kind the evangelists usually make superfluous mention of the posture. Examples
:
Ka0ta-avT6<;
"
<rvve\e%av,
gether," Matt.
13 48
3
;
they KoBura*
sat
down and
"
collected
sat
to-
e'Si'Safev,
He
down and
icaOicras tyrjcfri^ei,," he sits down and reckons," taught," Luke 5 Luke 14 28 KaQicras /3ou\eiWrat, " he will sit down and
;
consult,"
Luke 14 31
6
.
ica6t<ras
"
^pd^ov,
is
sit
down and
write,"
it is
Luke 16
saw him
"
sitting
(Ka0rfjj,evov) at the
(Mark
6
2 14
Luke
^&?.l,
5 27 ).
"
In quite
sat
the same
way
it is said,
Judg. 19 v?K
"
"and they
is
down and
ate," for
to
" sitting
an im"
or sitting and judging Again, the " and ruling," as to which Joel 4 12 Zech. 6 13 are to be sitting 30 28 compared with Matt. 19 (Luke 22 ), falls into the same class.
material concomitant.
"
He
j.
sat
and
a
.
re-
p?f a pan;
njn,
}iin,
they sat
and
studied,"
Ber. R.
17
^n
1
^n;
See
He
sat
and taught,"
Ber. 6
my Gramm.
INTRODUCTION
23
4.
e<
Thus it is said, Standing is the posture during prayer. " " 5 to stand and pray eorcore? Matt. 6 Trpoaev^eaOai,, Mark II 25 orav crrrjiceTe Trpoo-ev^ofj.evoi, "when ye stand and
;
pray";
prayed."
Luke
18 11
o-raOek
irpoa^v^ero,
"he
22
,
stood
4
,
and
Neh. 9 it is In the Old Testament, 1 Kings 8 was the usual attitude at prayer;
" he stood and phrase to say,
is
prayed."
praying,"
j.
On
E.
^p
B^P,
4
.
"
he stood
58
b
;
n^
"
D'Kjj,
Est. E. 3
In
the
is
quite
without
force
in:
ela-TrjKGKrav
Luke
23 10
elo-TiJKet,
35
;
Qewpwv,
ecr-rax?
"the
beholding,"
Luke 23
cf.
warm-
ing himself,"
John 18 18
yni D^J
25
.
Further,
"
we have from
shall
the Old
Testament
"
TOJJi,
and strangers
stand and
5 feed," Isa. 6 1 ;
mn,
TOW
5.
redundant avacrrds
is
of the
Mark
7 24
epx^at,,
;
39 (avaTrnSfaas), Luke 15 TropeveaQai, Luke I 39 38 29 Siafcovetv, Luke 4 eK(3d\\iv, Luke 4 elo-ep^ca-Bai, Luke 4 s3 12 1 avetz/, Luke 23 virovrpefyew, Luke 24 rpe^eiv, Luke 24
Mark 10
1 - 50
20
Here
also is to be
reckoned
eyepOefc
is
avecrrr)
e/c7reipda)v,
Luke 10 25
14
The
synonymous
seen
in
Matt.
2 13<
(with
19 Trapakappdveiv), and in Matt. 9 (with aicoKovdelv). In words 18 20 , spoken by Jesus it is found with iropeveaOai, Luke 15
-
17 19
glance
at
the
examples
QIJ5,
specified
l^pjl,
Dj^,
24
9 44
,
Book
of
Enoch 54 3 89 47
,
48
.
In view of this
"
fact, it
is
Evangelium
the same
p.
xxiii,
Still it is
that
mode waeb
"
of speech is quite possible in Aramaic. Examples are : " stood up to build," Ezra 5 1 ; a$ Djj, 3jJ, they
W
"
b
;
n^ b&q
D|3,
he stood
beat him,"
j.
Yeb. 15 a
"
Dip,
"
"
up
e.g.
j.
up
ride,"
Vay.
28; ^nn
U p!
j.
go,"
Bikk. 65
"up! worship
idols,"
Ab.
z.
39 b
6.
a
of
It is a
well-known peculiarity
is
Hebrew
narrative style
"
that a
said
"
speech
"
tfji*!,
or
and he
"
few,
and
he answered."
1
Mace.,
Tobit,
Book
of
;
Enoch,
it is
Apocalypse
of
Baruch,
Book
of Jubilees
in the Second
Book
of
and in Judith, and occurs occasionally Maccabees. The Synoptists have the and John's Gospel
it is
-
same mode
ception.
2129.30
of expression,
is
here no ex-
found in Matt.
.
25 12
9 (cf. ver. )
26 37 - 40 ** 45
-
Luke II 7 13 25 15 29
In
;
is
Mark
being set side by side, and this latter is the formula nearly a-rroKplveo-Oat, may always used in the Johannine Gospel. also be made the principal verb to which the participle
1
J.
Vorstius,
Schilling,
2
ii.
(1658) 173-176
D.
See especially
6 4 15 1 21 9
227
246 25 1
27 1
INTRODUCTION
25
-
\eyuv
is
37 44 45
-
Mark
3 s3 5 9 9 38 15 9
Luke
also
3 16
4
,
John
26
10
33
12
23
occurs
where no
explicit question
,
Mark 10 51 II 14 12 35
is naturally copied both by the LXX and by the Targums but even in biblical Aramaic "iNl rny, " he answered and said," is frequently employed. In the
later
Jewish Aramaic
Scroll of the
this
formula
is
quite unknown.
The
is
Aramaic
singular
in having it
Direct speech
is
Even
which are considerably prolonged, no " further introduction is added. The word for " answer in
in conversations
is
rarely used.
In Ech. K.
" "
i.
j.
Erub. 1 8
it is
a persistent formula,
answer
used by
term for
"
making
good an objection." Probability supports the view that the formula in question was unknown in genuine Aramaic. In
that case
it
the
Hebrew
Bible.
medium
Greek
7.
6\d\rjaev
(eiTrev)
\6jcov.
^3T1 The circumstantially precise Hebrew phrase 'S " and he spoke to ... and said," is likewise foreign both
,
to
the
biblical
Aramaic and
to
Aramaic, it is true, has the word y? for speak but the use of b?o is essentially narrower alongside of "BN than that of the Hebrew "i?" It is applied, indeed, as the
dialects.
;
5
"
!.
H H?
fe
1
"
then
spake
Daniel
to
But no
Similarly
Book
of
to presuppose it
'^j 1313
26
Hebrew
"ib&6 is
imitated
is
by
">PPp,
used
verb coupled by i, or a participle. When the render "I?" ! by fe, and Ibfi6 by "t&W, this Targums habitually should be pronounced a Hebraism; nor can it be otherwise
only a
1
regarded when the evangelists sometimes have recourse to the corresponding Greek expression of the LXX.
e\,d\ri<rev
\eycov
is
26
;
eiTrev
\eycov (elirav
\eyovre<i),
Mark
(Mark
8 28 1 2 26 (discourse
of
of Jesus),
Luke 14 3
14
27
50
),
because em-
Matt. 13 3 22 1 because \a\eiv (\eyeiv) ev irapajSoKals forms one The expression accordingly is not a composite expression.
common one
of
Its occurrence the Synoptists in the same connection. also in Acts 26 31 and John 8 12 is a warning against hasty
inferences.
Nevertheless \eya)v must not in every case be referred The latter without further examination to the Hebrew "ibxp.
But Aramaic, minding, teaching, charging, murmuring, etc. "lOW "IT3, " he decided and said," too, has similar conjunctions
:
j.
Ab.
"
z.
44 d
ip!
T?.?,
"he
blessed
and
said,"
j.
j.
Ber.
d
;
ll b
said,"
Yeb. 12
he
testified
and
8.
said,"
Vay. E. 34.
Tjp^aro, r)p%avro.
The use
of ijp^aro, jjpgavro
when nothing
of
at all is to be said of
is
the
peculiarities
that
mark the
it
John
5 only once (13 ), where it is perhaps due to the having 38 In Matthew it influence of the kindred passage Luke 7
.
INTRODUCTION
occurs twelve times, in
27
twenty-six times.
Mark twenty-six times, and in Luke In words spoken by Jesus it is found Matt.
-
18 24 24 49 (Luke 12 45 ), Luke 13 25
forms ap%y, apfya-Qe, ap^eaOe.
quite conventional.
26
14 9
18 - 29
1514.
21
2 1 28
23 30
The expression
is
obviously
Old Testait is
it
ment, but in chaps. 8590 of the Book of Enoch Salkinson has ignored with abnormal frequency.
33 1325
found
^
14
in
Luke
in
29
Luke
to
9 29
-
entirely abandons the region of what is admissible by inserting VVhn as equivalent even linguistically
/[JO.
Eesch
if
a volition or determination
do something were to be expressed. And the statement ^Nin " belongs very specially to of the same writer, that this
the epic style of narration in the Old Testament,"
prehensible.
is
incom-
But
all
conjecture
is
case
the
fact that the Palestinian-Jewish literature uses " " in the same fashion. he began The meaningless
by the
corresponding Aramaic term is the " *i Pael of *np, " to loosen begin,"
rived from r&nn, " a beginning," C 14 b j. Shebi. 35 b #., j. Ber. 2
, ;
"
to
desee,
is its
;
substitute.
for
and
5nnn,
j.
Ber. 7
is
d
,
12 b
13 b
j.
Pes.
33 a
Koh. E.
v.
10.
No example
known
to
me which would
speech.
But
if
correspond to the use of apxppat, in direct 'nt? coupled with a participle had become
to say (Luke and "begin not to say" (Luke 3 8 ). This was, of course, " very little different from the mere ye will stand, say,"
:
practically meaningless, it is easy to see " have ye will begin to stand without,
1 3 25
-
why we
"
should
2G
),
"
say not."
JJLT)
When we
find in Matt. 3 9
/^ Sof^re \eyeiv
also,
in
place of
ap^rjcrOe \eyei,v in
Luke
8
,
however,
Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,
iii.
9,
28
Even
in
Luke 14 9 where
,
has omitted ap^y, there is hardly any real difference " in the feeling of the writer between apt; y thou fcaTe^eiv,
shalt begin to take,"
it
"
Still
may
is
^Nin
here be recalled that strangely enough the in most cases rendered in the Targums by
Hebrew
^,
as
in the
LXX
"
by
dp^ofjuat,
in,
so that "}^
<l
may
idea of
acquiescing
,
consenting
I 27
-
to."
,
7 Trg. Josh. 7
17 12 Judg.
is possible
63
This sense
also
9.
evOews evOvs,
irapa^pTJfjLa.
The adverb
evOeax;, evOvs
used by
x
Mark
forty-five
by Matthew eighteen times, by Luke eight times, and The synonymous 7rapa%pfj/j,a is found by John seven times. twice in Matthew and ten times in Luke, Matthew and Luke
" thus having the adverb for " straightway with about equal
In words frequency though only half as often as Mark. 5 5 is found Mark 4 (Matt. 13 ) spoken by Jesus, evQeco? (evQvs)
415.16. (
Matt
1320)17.
,
Matt
"
1321)29
u*. ( Matt
.
2 1)8 (Matt.
21 3 ),Matt. 24 29 25 15 Luke 12 54 14 5 17 7 21 9
recourse here to terms for
nr
Salkinson has
ny, or to
suddenly, quickly," such as V^s, the verb "in*?. Delitzsch, too, has
sought by various Hebrew expressions to do justice to the awkward evOecos. Eesch has frequently expelled it from The Old Testathe text, but has occasionally used D^ns.
ment
corresponding.
It
is
true
also
that the rabbinic literature does not exhibit any such usage
its
common
1
use of
^**p,
IP
In Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas (23), it is incorrectly stated that Luke has evdtws only once, elsewhere constantly irapaxpynO" 2 This appears more appropriate than p '3, which, especially in conjunction with iyi$ or q, usually stands for "as soon as.'
r
INTRODUCTION
Vay. Ab. z.
22
Jerus.
I.
Gen. I 3 Ex. 19 17
,
Hebr.
j.
Pes.
33 a
"
(bis)
iv. 4.
mean
"
suddenly," but
without
delay, forthwith, immediately thereafter," agreeably with the It can genersense of evOvs and 7rapa^prjfjLa in the Gospels. That Matthew and be substituted where these occur. 1 ally
Luke
Its excessive
frequency in Mark must depend on the particular predilection of the author, and is due probably to Greek rather
Kara
Acts 3 13
is
,
"
TrpoacoTrov rti/o?,
cf.
in presence of
8
LXX
""BK?
1 Chron.
31
In Hebrew
Aramaic,
^^
in
"
is
found in an Old
Testament citation Mark I 2 Matt. II 10 (Luke 7 27 ), in allusion 76 in narrative Luke 9 52 to an Old Testament phrase Luke I
,
10 1
It corresponds to the
Hebrew
reproduce
^ab.
7?Pv,
Theodotion, how-
ever,
uses
this
phrase
to
Dan. 2 31
(LXX
a
evavrlov).
Hebrew
ploys
D'Jp
Luke
also
em-
13 24 ), although the idiom is a Hebraism. would be the Aramaic equivalent in Luke 9 52 Acts 13 24
in
, .
to
It is
also
airb
used
But Paul
2 Thess. I 9 with no
Hebrew
,
CLTTO
8 Trpoo-caTrov in Dan. 7
15
and
TT/OOO-CWTTOU
in Dan. 2
27
fill
airo Trpoo-toTTOV.
himself must
n Perhaps with exception of Luke 19 where irapaxPW a use d by the narrator mean "suddenly, unexpectedly."
30
our Lord, reported by Luke (2 1 35 ) for " upon the whole earth " cf. Acts 17 26 e?rt TravTos Trpoo'coTrov TT)? 77}?. This corre-
'
^;
cf.
Jer.
25 26 nffjKn
rsa iy,
LXX
7779.
by sx
y$.
NJB
"
but this
is
intended to
"
mean
mere
way. Hebraism.
"
in this
made
use of a
On
(20
21 )
it
is
(12
14
)
employs \apfiaveiv TrpoacoTrov TWOS, for which Mark and Matthew (22 16 ) put ftXeirew et? TrpocrcoTrov rtz/o?.
.
The Hebrew equivalent is 'B ^B KBO, e.g. Lev. 19 15 Onkelos has 'BK apj, and this occurs also j. Sanh. 29 a r?N |ft aw. Its complete absorption Thus the expression is also Aramaic.
into the Hellenistic idiom appears from the formation of the
substantives
Trpocrwiro^fi^ia,
Rom.
different
2 11
Trpoo-wTroX^yLtTTT^?,
Acts 10 34
substantially
meaning belongs
to
"lapK,
The former is not the alongside of Trpoa-Qmrov \a^j3dvei,v. " term for to be partial to," but means " to regard favourably,
to give
heed
and
51
Gen. 32 20
b.
Taan. 23 a
5.
a glance," Vay.
is
R
is
.
used by Luke
the
for
This
Jer.
LXX
,
Hebrew
E p2 &
s
b>, e.g.
2 1 10
Onkelos
in Gen. 3 1 21 has rendered this phrase literally by pBN in which passage the LXX has varied the rendering; but 10 this literal rendering is avoided by the Targum in Jer. 2 1
,
Ezek. 6 2
literally
the other hand, the synonymous B^B jnj is translated in the by Si&ovcu TO irpocrcoTrov,
On
,
LXX
a
,
2 Chron. 20 3 Dan. 10 15
his eyes upon," b.
In view of a
Sabb.
34
be quite impossible.
But
INTRODUCTION
sented in
31
Luke
Luke makes an inexact application of a Hebraism known him through the Greek Old Testament. 53 TO TrpoawTrov avrov Very exceptional is Luke 9
TTopevo/jievov
els ^epovcrahrj/ju.
rjv
The sense
Eesch
"
is,
he was minded
Ex.
to
repair
to
,
Jerusalem."
compares
of
33 15 and
"
LXX
But
meaning
&"9pn T.JB
(if)
thou thyself goest (not)," a sense quite inapplicable in Luke. In 2 Sam. 17 11 the Targum has rendered TB by n, "thou,"
and therefore had no exact equivalent at hand. Hence this phrase of Luke is, like the preceding, a Hebraism incorrectly
used,
and incapable of imitation in Hebrew. The phrase there used, TO back to ver. 51.
eo-Trtpiaev
Luke
9 53 refers
TrpoacoTrov
avrov
TOV iropevea-dai
els
J.6povo-a\rjfJi,
The expression
1
in ver.
It agrees
to use
some expression
that slips from his pen a second time after a short interval,
again.
11. evtoTTLOv*
evwTTiov,
used by the
Hellenists
in
imitation
of
such
Hebrew
expressions as
^&?,
W?,
is
and Mark, occurs once in John, and in Luke's Gospel about Its use in Luke, and likewise in Paul and in twenty times.
the Apocalypse, merely proves the predominant influence of the
Greek
dialect represented
is
no testimony
favour of
in favour of a Semitic
less in
The inferences
are hasty.
According to Deissf.
Bibelstudien,
40
= Bible
Studies
Stil (1897),
27
f.
2
3
214
D. Schilling, op.
xxii.
cit.
129.
F. Blass.,
32
[T.
&
word belongs
to
"profane" or
non-ecclesiastical Greek.
1
12.
/cal
jev6To, ey^vero
Se.
The expression
/cal
eyevero or eyevero Be
is
used to intro-
duce an added definiteness to an action about to be reported. It is found six times in Matthew, five of these being in the
in
four times phrase Kal eyevero ore ereXecre^ (o-wereXeerez/), times in Luke, but is entirely absent from Mark, forty-two
John.
occurs
Theod.),
also
The formula corresponds to the Hebrew *>?.}? and in 1 Mace., Bel and the Dragon (LXX and
Judith
(not
in
Tobit),
Apocalypse
of
Baruch,
Enoch and Jubilees; but it has decidedly no Aramaic equivalent. 3 Even in biblical Aramaic it is already unfamiliar, and in the post- biblical Jewish
it has entirely disappeared. The rendering of by which the Targums adopt, is clearly not endorsed by the njn^ The Aramaic Scroll of the Hasmonseans spoken Aramaic.
Aramaic
in its present
"
W3
mrn
to pass in the days of Antiochus." But MVBJK, :n when it proceeds with njn PI^JYI this cannot be transijjp, " lated there was a great and mighty king," because Antiochus
it
and
came
himself
is
^3,
njrn,
the king in question. On the contrary, the words 1 probably an imitation of Esth. I and not attested,
,
moreover, by
all
be eliminated.
Any
one
Hebrew
primitive
eyevero.
name
/cal
Moreover,
it
plainly
Luke who
makes
and
1 Th. Vogel, J. Vorstius, op. cit. ii. 168-172; D. Schilling, op. cit. 163f. Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 46. 2 See F. E. Konig, Syntax der hebr. Sprache, 341s, 370. 8 Kal tytvero is found, indeed, Dan. 3 7 in Theod., but not in the Aramaic 91 similarly 3 LXX in the transition from the interpolated Song of the Three
;
INTRODUCTION
33
Semitic
original.
Even the
-
"
We-sections,"
which,
hitherto at least, critics have not assumed a Semitic original, It is further are not without it ; see Acts 2 1 1 5 27 44 28 8 17
-
to
well have afforded occasion for the use of the phrase, hardly As these are reported in Matthew it is not ever contain it.
occurs only in 4 4 where, however, the parallel passages Matt. 1 3 4 Luke 8 5 omit it in Luke 22 and 19 15 while Paul in an address uses it only in 16
found at
all,
in
Mark
it
6 twice, Acts 2 2
Hebrew
Eacts like these forbid the assumption of original as the necessary source of the phrase.
-
17
preceded by ev ry and followed by the 4 is used by Matthew only once (13 ), subject and likewise only once by Mark (4 4 ) in the parallel passage. Luke, on the other hand, has it twenty-five times, sometimes
The
infinitive
of
the clause
with KOI eyevero, sometimes independently, and not confined to any one section of the Gospel; John never has it.
Examples Mark 4 4)
ryeveo-Qai
ev
ev
T>
rat
criretpetv
avrov,
Matt.
1 34
(Luke
;
8 5,
Luke 8 40
ev TO>
rr)v
(frcovtfv,
Luke
of the
;
36
.
This
2
construction, which
Blass
records as an
after the
Aramaism,
has
been
formed by the
;
LXX,
see,
model
Hebrew
ev
e.g.,
Gen. 38 28 iwrfa
LXX
is
Targums
the
biblical
similarly copy it
spoken
Aramaic
it
Once,
however,
the
dialect (Dan.
3.
The
particle
"]3
(H?) with
finite
verb
is
J.
Vorstius, op.
sec.
163-166
D. Schilling, op.
cit.
162
F. Blass,
Gramm.
2
Evang.
Lucam,
xxii.
34
15
,
and Gramm.
d. j.-pal.
Aram. 185.
;
Onkelos puts this particle when the Hebrew text has the infinitive with 3 see Gen. 29 13 \A Stop's Onk. !?j> -JK *13.
;
The construction
as given in eV TO)
eV T
Matthew, Mark, and Luke only in the instance airelpeiv, which is common to all three, and elsewhere
10 35
only in Luke
19 15
There
is
thus
no
ground
for
maintaining that it originally belonged to the language of Jesus Himself. Besides, where it does occur, it may easily be
traced to the Aramaic construction with
*]3.
Here, too, as
to
narrator,
Luke
shows
himself
partial
Hebraising
formulae.
14.
The emphasising of
the
Verb ly means of
its
cognate
Substantive. 1
It is a
mere repetition
citations,
LXX
which
is
written
in the
Matt.
;
13 U
(cf.
Mark 4 12 )
a/coy
TeXeuraTO);
Acts 7 34
I8a>v
el&ov.
occurs
of
the
Old
text
in
;
the
cf.
&jre9vf&Tj<ra,
;
Luke 22 15
Acts
17
An
4 41 Luke 2 9
,
;
allied usage is
tyoPqfapfav
(f>6/3ov
peyav,
.
Mark
emphasising the
finite
verb by
still
infinitive
or
cognate
substantive, though
is
frequent in
Maccabees
(see above),
in the Palestinian
quite unapart from the Targunis The solitary example of its use is the terminus known. technicus of the Eabbinic schools in the Palestinian Talmud,
Aramaic
of the
Jews
"Dp
"lispp,
;
42
C
j.
it
as his opinion,"
j.
C Erub. 18
j.
Yom.
Apart
from
;
this,
it
is
never used. 2
cit.
*Joh. Vorstius, op. cit. ii. 177-193 D. Schilling, op. See my Gramm. d. j.-pal. Aram. 226.
165
ff.
INTRODUCTION
35
in the habit of
Hence we must not assume that Jesus was In Luke 22 15 the allusion to the using it.
of
LXX
for,"
nnapaj
tjbaa,
rendering Gen. 3 1 30
,
will
As
the Synoptists
do not use
is
clear
anywhere else, while John has it only once, it that an original in classical Hebrew need not be
its source.
postulated as
Nor
is it
peyav and
fjL6yd\rjv,
since
reference
I 10 ,
to
the
LXX
nn?pb>
ex-
&TP,
Jonah
and r6nj
np^,
Jonah 4 6
15.
It is of the
is
elvai,
quite
where there
is
no
question
of
became a very common construction when the reference is to the past. 2 This result was brought about by the influence of the Aramaic, as may be seen from the usage prevalent so
early as the biblical dialect
of
Aramaic. 3
One example 4
from
j.
Ber. 2
will
demonstrate
how
:
dialect can
make
^Bf
^3
la
"iptDp
y\w
nm
"
'^^p'f
mrn Npha aipjp *3 tagnp nin tqrayb rvnj ny njj "itrn n|? mni vpt^' ^jj njn Tj^n n^yip^p Kja^ When Eabbi Samuel bar Nachmani went down to
N-J^T
-in
settle the
leap year, he
;
the
and Eabbi Ze'era hid himself among the hampers that he might hear how he read the Shema, and (he observed that) he kept repeating it over till he fell asleep."
grain merchant
2395, c. Konig, Syntax der hebr. Sprache, A Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache Mischnah, i. 39 f. ; J. Weiss, Mischpat leschon ha-Mischna, 88. 3 E. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram. 141 ; K. Marti, Kurzgef. Gramm. der bibl.-aram. Sprache, 104 f.
2
.
36
of
among
the
with
Luke 17 35
The Gospel
23
).
of
John has
There
is
consequently
no ground
is
But it must be remarked, notably rarer than in the first half. as a very striking circumstance, that the construction is
absent from the discourses of Jesus, although the parables might well have furnished occasion for the use of it.
Mark
of
is
regarded by
W.
C. Allen,
"
The Original
Language
ser., vi.
the
436
ff.),
Gospel ace. to St. Mark" (Expos., 6th as an Aramaism, on the ground that it goes
back
the Aramaic use of the participle instead of the finite verb. But the secular Greek also allows the use of a
to
present in historical narrative, and that not only in more extended passages for the sake of vivid presentation, but also
in detached instances
throughout the context of the narrative. Mark's fondness for the present tense is an individual trait,
like his constant use of
It appears, then,
class
as distinct
and
The use
elvai
with the participle to represent a historic tense is The redundant use of e\6u>v,
Aramaic
con-
the
construction
ev
its
rat
with
the
cognate sub-
Lucam,
xxi.
INTRODUCTION
stantive,
37
eKaXycrev
Xeycov,
and the
elirev.
formulae
ical
eyeveTo,
diroKpiOels
As regards the
isms, except a^et?,
Arama-
three Synoptists.
eo-rcw?,
which Luke avoids, are represented in all Further, the idioms with ekBwv, Kadia-as,
elvat,
common
possible
them
all
Aramaisms.
without exception, and these idioms are The genuine Hebraisms are almost exof
clusively
is
peculiarities
Luke's
;
Gospel.
is
which
the Synoptists,
and
the
even employed by John, who almost entirely avoids other Hebraisms and Aramaisms. The Acts of the
The idioms discussed above are marks principally of the narrative style of the evangelists, and in the discourses of
Jesus are to be looked for only in so far as these contain narrative, as in the parables. They show at once the incorrectness
of
Schmiedel's
contention,
is
that
the
narrative
Greek that was spoken among the Jews. The fact is that the narrative sections of the Synoptists have more Hebrew
features than the discourses of Jesus
communicated by them.
it
is
In
the
discourses
of
Jesus,
then,
the
distinct
that Aramaisms, except dfafc are found, and also the possible Aramaisms e\6wv, /caOiaas, eo-rw?, avao-rds. Only in Luke and even there in isolated
instances
are
to
the
participle,
the
specifically Hebrew TrpoacoTrov, and the emphasising of the verb by its cognate substantive and similarly, almost
;
confined to Luke, eV
reporter
of
,
rw with the
/col
infinitive.
eryevero,
Luke,
too, is the
the
Hebraism
which, apart
4. l b .
from
Mark 4 4
1
Luke 16 22 19 15
38
etirev
Mark 12 2G
in a saying of our
Lord.
As
Matt.
for aTTOKpiOek,
it is
a Hebraism,
which should perhaps be regarded as found in the parables of the Two Sons,
21 28ff -; the Ten Virgins, Matt. 25 lff -; the Intrusted 14ff llff Talents, Matt. 25 -; (but not in Luke 19 -); the description 31ff> in the parable of the of the Last Judgment, Matt. 25
;
Importunate Friend,
door has been shut,
Prodigal Son,
Luke l! 5ff -; in the answer after the Luke 13 25 and in the parable of the
;
-
Luke 15 llff
It is wanting, however,
where
it
might have been expected, in the parables of the Tares in the Field, Matt. 13 24ff -; the Unjust Steward, Luke 16 lff -; the Eich Man, Luke 16 19ff -; and the Vineyard, Luke 20 9ff
-
Again in
There is reason, proper are special characteristics of Luke. for a closer scrutiny of the style of this evangelist therefore, In the examples already with its wealth of Hebraisms.
adduced, the fact of their occurrence
is
for
he
does
not shrink
foreign
to
Can the few cases of the Hebraistic use Greek language. of irpoawirov have slipped from his pen by mere inadvertence, while in general he studiously avoided this Hebraism ?
Other data of a like import may be mentioned. Only once 28 (9 ) does he use the quite un- Aramaic phrase fiera rou? on;nn nns once, too, (I 70 ) Sia Xo 7 ou? TOUTOU?, Hebr.
nn
o-To/xaro?,
Hebr.
'S3
also peculiarly
Hebrew.
-
In addition
there
fall
,
from
9 53 ,
pseudo
Hebraisms as TO
eVecr/ceS/raTo
1 Luke's peculiarity in using certain phrases only once or twice is pointed out also by Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 27; and by Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), 113 f., 118.
INTRODUCTION
e'f
39
formed entirely after the Greek Bible and quite impossible to reproduce in Hebrew and the phrase,
in/rot>9,
;
I 78 ,
Acts 2 1
2
chapters of
Hebrew, not Aramaic and not Greek. At the same time, this writer has made no further statement as to the origin
of
these
Hebraisms.
Eesch
is
of opinion
Hebrew
Hebraisms original, although he himself perceives that the and Old Testament Parallels" to Matt. 1. 2, Luke 1. 2, collected
by him in
only the close relation that subsists between those chapters and the Greek Old Testament. 3 While Eesch holds Luke himself
is
quite ignorant of
him the
alleged
Hebrew Hebrew
he supposes that Luke had before source (which had originated with
one of the priests) in a Greek translation done in the style of the LXX, and, further, that in those chapters he had
given his
own
Vogel
of
also
adopts
"
special source
affirms
"
for
the
beginning
Luke's Gospel,
but
that
his
investigation
had
not disclosed
any sharp distinction in point of style beHence the tween the beginning and the rest of the book. of a Hebrew document as the source for Luke 1. 2 assumption
must
and it might at any rate be held as still unproved even be maintained that the strongly marked Hebrew style of those chapters is on the whole due not to the use of
;
2 See Fundamental Ideas, VIII. 10. Mitteilungen, iii. 345. The variations in the text of the Greek should remove the intrinsic proof
for the
4 5
Hebrew
original.
;
Evangelium sec. Lucam, xxiii cf. Philology of the Gospels, 195. Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 32 f.
40
any primary
Luke
himself.
For here, as in
the beginning of the Acts, in keeping with the marvellous contents of the narrative, Luke has written with greater
consistency than usual in biblical style, intending so to do and further powerfully affected by the " liturgic frame of
mind"
of
which Deissmann
speaks.
The correctness
is
of
corroborated by
the Graecisms which also flow from his pen. As a Graecism, must be characterised the form of address av6pu>Tre, Luke e.g.,
520
12 u 22 58
60
.
Delitzsch, Salkinson,
and Eesch
is
avail
them-
an address
rare
and in
the passages concerned quite unsuitable. The same holds good of the form of address aVSpe? aSeX<o/ which Luke likes
to use in the Acts (2 29 7 2
13 16 15 7
13
22 1 23 1
28 17 ).
Any
" may, indeed, stand for people, who are brothers," Gen. 8 13 but cannot be used as a form of address. A Jew
,
speaking to Jews regularly addresses them as l^ns, "our d ab Kidd. 64; Taan. ii. 1, brethren," j. Yom. 43 ; j. Taan. 65 j.
;
tt'nx
"
my
while David, 1 Chron. 28 2 says to the people W] 'n, " brethren and my people and this is made a precedent
,
iv. 4.
And,
16
finally,
let
The
betrayer, according
to Blass,
was
called 2fcapia)0
;
by Luke
(6
6 16
Tischendorf, Tregelles,
; .
In Westcott-Hort prefer 'IcrfcapicoO, 6 16 'lo-jcapiwTrjv, 22 3 case, Luke was ignorant of the form rrtnp (see any The result of the investigations into the under No. V.).
Hosanna cry
pretation
detailed later
It
when he
wo?
TrapaKkrjcews,
have wrestled,3
1
with the explanation of which I too while we seem to have to do with the
2
Bibelstudien, 71 [Eng.
d. jiid.-pal.
tr., p. 76].
Fundamental
Ideas, VIII. 9.
*Gramm.
Aram.
142.
INTRODUCTION
41
"
"
son of Nebo
names
nised.
Baptism and at the Transfiguration, and for his use of irals, If these observations Acts 3 4 see Fundamental Ideas, IX. 3.
,
be
correct, it
follows
by Luke
of
If Semitic sources must be pronounced highly improbable. he were born a Greek, as must be admitted on other
2 grounds, such use, moreover, can hardly be imagined. then, in the case of that Synoptist who If,
is
most
the
author
-
Septuagint should apply to the other Synoptists as well. merely to recall the phrase /cal eyeveTo OTL
ereheaev), used five times
and
should
Let
it suffice
eVe'Xeo-ez/
(crvvthis,
.
has
15 10 eyevero only once (9 ), in agreement with Mark 2 The way in which this expression is used shows beyond
fcal
question
that it originated with the author of our first This applies likewise to the circumstantial formula, Gospel. iva (OTTO)?, Tore) TrXrjpcodrj TO pyOev Sid A^/O^TO?, peculiar to
It sounds very like Matthew, and used ten times by him. Hebrew, and should be compared with the common formula D *i?K "in order to in ancient Jewish exegesis: "^P^ n
establish
what was
said."
And
yet
its
formation must be
309
f.,
f.;
None Bibelstudien
(1897), 15
f.
[Eng.
tr.,
pp.
Th. Vogd, op. cit. 18. Of course it is Luke in his character as Christian annalist that is hero meant. His manner of speaking and writing on general topics appears in the of preface to the Gospel a passage which should not be regarded as evidence
3
S. Backer,
v?x is the formula, introductory to Targam exposition Rom. Machzor (Bologna, 1540), Schebuoth, and the formula in the Kiddush after Seder Rab Amram, i. 10 b n^p nn <<sp ?|$ 'IT? niDxrr 1^3 of Thy might by the f!j?-i, "according to the word which is spoken in the songs mouth of David Thy righteous anointed."
170.
Similar also
rm'3.j
*?# "iDJ-ito,
42
ff.,
Matthew
of the
And what
in
is
to be
And
Mark
3 17
which may indeed be connected in a way with the strange term Boavrjpyes, 1 but is in no sense an accurate translation
seems quite a Hebrew trait when in Matt. 26 17 12 (Mark 14 ) the day on which the Passover lamb was slain is called "the first day of unleavened bread" (Luke 22 7
of it? It
even
"
has
" "
the
Hebraist
and yet no
this
manner,
" Feast of apart from the fact that the designation " unleavened bread was uniformly replaced among the Jews
quite
" by the name Passover." here to have shown meanwhile that the
2
Hebraisms
of the
do
Hebrew
original
that,
on the
isms in any passage, the greater the interference of Hellenistic redactors. It must be noted that the Jewish Aramaic
the people was considerably freer from Hebrew influence than the Greek which the Synoptists write, and
current
among
even in the case of recurring Hebrew formulae exhibits a striking independence of the Old Testament. 4
ology
Gramm. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 112, and p. 49 in this volume. Franz Delitzsch's verdict, "The Shemitic woof of the N.T. Hellenism is " Hebrew, not Aramaic (The Hebrew New Testament, 31), is not without founda1
See
tion,
3
4
but
still is
Of. above, p. 19
Our Lord's manner of speech, therefore, is not a final test of His literary knowledge. A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 56, discusses this point with too
much hesitancy. If Jerome expressly testifies that all the Jews of his time knew the Hebrew Old Testament, could Jesus have been less familiar with it ?
INTRODUCTION
43
V.
As
variants of a
text, as these
may
occur
the
throughout
Gospels.
the
tradition
within
and without
he
found
Wherever
the
Synoptists
such
throughout, he was led consistently enough to adopt a Semitic primary source containing the entire synoptic material, and
even something in addition to it. This source, in his opinion, was written in Hebrew, and may be divided into the two documents WE* nh^in, The Gospel of the Childhood," and
&&
nrn,
"The Sayings
of
our Lord."
Eecently this
the
"
all-
him
Die Logia Jesu" (1898). The three Synoptists, according to this theory, have merely made a different selection and arrangement of
title
2
the same
Hebrew
They cannot rank as independent authors. This conclusion has nowhere met with approval, and rightly. Even the
method by which it was reached was wrong. 3 The fact that Greek synonyms may often be traced back
Church Fathers, Jew. Quart. mother and grandmother initiated Timothy from his childhood into the knowledge of the Holy Scripture 15 5 cf. I ), despite the fact that his father was a heathen, it follows that (2 Tim. 3 " Hebraist " at least as much should be in a in Palestine.
See S. Krauss,
vi.
The Jews
f.
Rev.
(1894) 231
If
Hellenistic-Jewish
A.
Resell,
i.-v., Leipzig,
1893-97.
2 Besides the large edition, with notes in support of its readings, a smaller has also appeared, containing the Hebrew narrative without comment. 3 It seems almost superfluous to repeat the condemnation of this method, as it has already been often enough insisted on by Resch's reviewers with gratify-
ing unanimity
see especially
Ad.
Anz. 1896,
i.
1-9.
44
to
several
Hebrew
synonyms
a
may be discovered, in no way proves that word really lies behind the Greek synonyms.
as well
name an Aramaic
or an Arabic
and then in the same way proceed to argue an Aramaic or Arabic original. The numerous proofs offered by Kesch in favour of a Hebrew original in so far as
word,
are therefore quite they are purely of this character devoid of cogency. in the case of striking deviations Only among the variants could a testimony in favour of a Semitic
original be inferred with some degree of certitude, provided
would remain questionable whether the divergent readings had not arisen through other causes, so that it is only by accident that a Semitic term
sion.
Even
then,
however,
it
This must indeed appears to account for the deviation. be always the most plausible supposition, when one reflects
that the direct use of Semitic written sources, even by the
authors of
our Gospels,
is
doubtful,
and
at
any
rate not
yet proved; further, that at a later date such writings could have been read by only a very few in the Church even a Palestinian like Justin understood no Hebrew
;
that in
Greek versions
of
Semitic primitive gospel equal uncertainty prevails, for the statement of Papias in regard to Matthew's translation of the Logia must not be referred to written works of this
class
;
and
that, finally, it is
much more
canonical gospels, gospel harmonies, translations, and popular expositions in common use influenced the form which the
text
of
its
such an influence was exerted by the after-effects of the fundamental error alleged Semitic original document.
INTRODUCTION
in
45
our time,
Eesch, and
also
in
appears to
of
me
too
to be a
of the
marked depreciation
historical
of the capacity
the authors
treated
are
much
as
exaggerated estimate of the precision of subsequent copyists, translators, and quotations of such books, which has gone so
far that
scrupulous transcriber is, just because of its extravagance, pronounced to be the original reading, or the later correction
of the author himself.
It is not
is
advanced
by Eesch in favour
Hebrew
the inadequacy of his proofs must be demonstrated at this point, so as to place it beyond doubt that we are well
entitled in our investigations to leave the
Hebrew out
of
Hebrew might
the words
of
Jesus spoken in Aramaic and the Gospels I therefore adduce chiefly such instances written in Greek.
as those of
to
Arnold Meyer, 1
Aramaic,
original
and
as
It will then appear language of the ^f=]." that the evidence of these passages, to say the least, is invariably susceptible of, and not infrequently demands,
W&
a very different interpretation. In Luke 9 25 Eesch commends Salkinson's rendering of ri ft>c/>eXemu by JJV3 n *?, on the ground that the variants ri
/ee'pSo?,
ri
6'<eXo?
are
thereby
accounted
for.
Now,
1
this
26
,
phrase
in
TO
np,
is,
view of Ps. 30 10
But the
Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,
iv. 224,
46
according
to
Luke,
is
worthy
his
hire
"
(rov fiiaOov
"
avrov)
his
mainten-
ance
"
(r%
The former, he
s
holds, originates
from Hebrew
mistake for
WO.
;
the latter from n*n, which was read by But "> np cannot possibly be the basis.
" "
hire is called in Hebrew The day labourer's invariably " Aramaic "ti&? " maintenance would indeed be, in biblical "9^,
Hebrew, rrrap, while the later Hebrew, would use n ?J~j|. And thus any retracing
sions to one
is
like
the Aramaic,
of the
two expres-
is
impossible.
Besides, there
of
The proverb made use " Jesus spoke naturally enough of the hire," because that by In Matthew " mainproperly pertains to the day labourer.
no occasion for such an attempt.
tenance
"
is
substituted for
"
"
hire
hire," "
it
which the
Jesus
would think
In
o
of claiming,
maintenance."
TrotTycra?
to
Luke 10
E.
is
an
"emphatic and pure Hebraism." His point is the use of But oy would in this connection be fjLerd in this phrase.
possible also in Aramaic.
According to b. Tarn. 32 King Alexander gives the advice that he who desires to be loved
,
among men
KgfjK ^a).
"
men
"
(QSJ
tt'p
13^
Similarly, the
2 Sam. 2 6 by
quite
faW ^ ^V\
Luke may
in
well
6
.
have
simply adapted
calls
the
LXX
to
expression
2 Sam. 2
In Luke
"
II 3 E.
attention
the
fact
"
that a
of the standard Semitic, more precisely Aramaic, original Lord's Prayer was not transmitted, and maintains that
is presumably the prototype of 6 apros 6 eTnova-ios. has discovered the true sense of eTriovcrios here, it may If E.
Wijjn
on?
still
be asked
why Aramaic
&?? or
INTRODUCTION
affirmed
still
47
more
in
upon a Greek
source.
man
In
K. detects a Hebraism.
d.
But
is
;
also
an Aramaic
it
jiid.-pal.
its
Aram. 84
and
might
for
In Luke 13
to a
"
of ra? -v/ru^a? V/JLWV, Luke 2 1 19 " " E. would alter the teaching in the streets
streets," because
showing
of the
as a misinterpretation of
these
Hebrew words would have been correctly rendered by Luke 13 26 namely, "In our streets " Our streets or lanes hast Thou shown Thou taught."
,
to be quite
differently expressed,
and
is,
moreover, a strange way of expressing what K. takes to be " Thou Thyself hast charged us to come the true meaning, The entire situation, besides, is misunderstood by E. hither."
In Luke 13 29 Ephrem's reading, which treats Oakao-o-a as one of the four points of the compass, is adequately accounted for by its concord with Ps. 107 3 and Isa. 49 12
.
There
is
it
a special Hebrew
source. 2
would be no improvement,
West
is
previously
it
to
Jesus through
3 in that case D is suggestion of Ps. 107 no designation of the West, and the Aramaic 01 would equally
have been quite suitable. For /Staferat, Luke 16 16 E. gives as antecedent P??, "to 12 spread out"; and for (Biaarat, Matt. II D^b, "those that
,
,
break through." In that case neither evangelist has properly But setting aside this understood the former expression.
1
Cf.
The use
for
Resch's proof rests on the consideration that only in Hebrew can one of the directions, the Aramaic for West being
D;
stand
48
assumption, the passage can be fully explained with the help " Fundamental Ideas," I. end. see of the Aramaic
;
mean
"
it
day
of the feast.
Aramaic.
is
conceivable
of
an
"
Aramaist
who
at the
word Dip
"
thought of
in
W,
"
first,"
and besides
D*]PJ
might mean
before
"
So that the solution through Aramaic Aramaic as well. would be more complete. Nevertheless (1) it is in itself hazardous, and (2) it leads to no result, because the possibility
advanced by Kesch
of
an anticipatory celebration
of
the
Passover by Jesus and His disciples is just as incredible of Chwolson and as the more extravagant hypotheses
Lichtenstein. 1
On Luke 22 42
irapeveyicai
conception
to
the
Hebrew "ayn
= "ttJN? (
twofold
or n -^)-
interpretation,
case, is in
But that language masculine, not as in Hebrew feminine. 2 in the Mishna also D13 is of the masculine gender, so that
biblical
variants, however, need by no means be ascribed to a That the same thought may be difference in translation. different writers in different terms, is an obexpressed by
The
servation so
common
that
it
supposition in any temperate treatment of textual questions. In another place 3 Eesch lays some stress on the con1
J. Lichtenstein,
Pes, x. 2, 4, 7.
INTRODUCTION
sideration that from the
49
names
may
their circle.
be concluded that there were three languages in use in Now there is no doubt that much Greek was
1 But in a period when names of the spoken in Palestine. most varied origin were in use among the Jews, no conIn spite of the clusion can be drawn for any special case.
names
of Philip
"
and Andrew,
Hellenists
"
it
is
among
the
though
"
all
the
"
names
still
of
apostles
had
been Hebrew
as contrasted with
all
Hebrew names.
,
Hebrew
as
UN
Aramaic.
term
Hebrew.
linguistic
comments
;
which he adds
it
to the peculiar oa
is
reading,
enough which
to
assert
is
Aramaic.
Hebrew
equally capable of explanation through Further, Jesus could quite well have given a surname to the sons of Zebedee, though He never
Surnames such
as
llpian
in
Talmudic times, and ryian IIKD in the Middle Ages, prove nothing whatever as to the vernacular of those who made
use of
these appellations.
From
the Old
Testament
it
is
apparent
either
1
that
ZejSeSaios had
established
of
On
Test.
i.
(1897) 24-51
(1898) xiii-xxii.
2
I should prefer now to assume that either d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 112. a gloss, which subsequently found its way into the text, ^ov-rj and ^avrj are equally possible. If Mark desired to signify the Galilean indistinctness of o or
Gramm.
is
the
a,
then
oa, his
wrote
oa remains meaningless. would quite suffice unfamiliarity with Aramaic was the cause.
;
If
Mark
really
50
nnar, im3T, in
to
which the
713,
names
iT,
7K correspond
1
the
Palmyrene
origin
of
nny.
Eesch's affirmation
of
Hebrew
the
name must
In regard to Bap0o\ofjia2os, Resch makes the comment that "13 was "usual," even in Hebrew. That is quite
inaccurate.
,
It occurs in the
doubtless a wrong
Testament
on the other hand, significant that the New names which have ">3 in composition are not
accompanied by one single example with J3. twice puts Aefiftalos, for which (!), should, in his be connected with the Hebrew 37, " heart," since the opinion,
bearer of this
latter
name was
Mark
in,
3 18
"
The
in
of
name E. would
2
derive
breast-
nipple,"
which he thinks
also denotes
is
Aramaic.
The
latter
contention
incorrect,
and proof
names
is
wanting.
In any case
"^fl is
Greek
with oniin (@euSa9) and ovnn, and is therefore extraction, while Aeftpaios corresponds to the
Nabataean ^37.
substantiated.
Any
Semitic
formed.
*!?,
The same individual was probably called in and in Greek 0euSa9, from which ^ri had been
establish a
is
To
unnecessary.
to
is
R,
to a
Hebrew
impossible, as |Wj?
the necessary
counterpart, and that would be an Aramaic nominal form. If, however, the text be altered to Kawalos, as seerns to me commendable, then the Aramaic ?j?, " Zealot," is reached
s
Hebrew
NJp.
LOG.
cit.
822.
Holtzmann expresses a
similar opinion in
INTRODUCTION
51
similar
to
As
for
is
that of the
synonymous
the
name
which did not appear among the Jews till a late period, and may be compared with the Palmyrene hariD (Maddafiak) and
its
The names
po''D J
1
IjnV,
11
afe,
rrrifr
(rnv),
^/J
flyptf
(Greek form
information
called, so
but not
Ito
so Eesch),
give
no
that 'laKaptwO,
'Io-/capi,a>Tijs
every probability that 'laKapiwO without the article was the original reading, from which arose through mis-
There
is
understanding
TTJS.
'IcrKapLCtiTrjs
as well as %Kapi(i>6
and '$*apu*-
With
Sin.
'laKapicoO
6 71
;
agrees 6
Cod.
John
Cod.
much
as the
and the
latter to the
or
There is mentioned, Jewish usages. d RBD IBS B* afe, b. Sot. 43 b a rrnn;. Sabb. 14 ,a Christian j. C tey ->s>3 wx Ab. iii. 7 an Nnirnzi ^K "'JF^, j. Bez. 61 a onin
verified as
}
Both may be
N,
j.
Ab.
z.
42 a
j^n
of the
Peth. r^P"
name
or
of the place
as na>n
pn wnN, Midr.
Till.
31.
6; npg
108
a
,
NiiDO,
b.
320.
rrw by means of lp, as nmnm |o njriD, j. Tarn. 27 a 3 D^cniK }l ^ana, Corp. Inscr. Sem. ii. 1, But such being the usage, and rnnp B*K being a
;
Sanh.
common enough form of surname, showing that one " this name was a Kariothite," it thus becomes very
1
with
BUT-
A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 184 [Eng. tr. p. 315], draws attention to For Hellenists it was is the genuinely Greek name Dt/Awp. an easy step to substitute this name for S^uecij' in the form jiD'p it then " Hebraists" also. found its of the into the
G.
language The construction with ^ appears to have been the one commonly used in
way
Palestine.
8 These periphrases are used by preference when a place - name does not readily lend itself to the formation of the corresponding Gentilic designation.
titles like
Hebr.
'yj'ian,
Aram,
52
prising
left
untranslated.
CLTTO
One
would have expected o airo KapiwO, like o in Cod. D, 1 and like John 2 1 2 Na6avarj\6
as Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv.
,
Kapvcorov
vi. 2,
supposing
they
diro
write
or something similar. It is a very plausible that 'Io-/capitoO was already unintelligible to the conjecture Some late writer thought of a place 'Io-/cdp evangelist.
or
'lo-fcdpia,
'Icr/capiwrris,
while
the
preferred a
^KapitoO
2
and
HfcapicoTrjs,
he
followed
Syrian
exemplar. Mistakes of this kind are inconceivable on the part of one who had before him rrinp t^K in a Hebrew source and
wished to translate
if
we suppose
it. They explain themselves, however, that ninp B*K rrnrr wa s encountered by a
Even the
were
Hebrew
cf,
altered
time;
without regard to the language being used at the Ab. z. 41 d in an Aramaic 'pi-ron ty, j. e.g.
narrative.
As
in
still
later
Hebrew formation with PS K occurs also periods, it is clear that Hebrew was not necesthe
E. Nestle, Philologica sacra, 14 f., Expository Times, ix. (1897-98), 140, 240, D has preserved the original reading of the Johannine Gospel.
The
peculiar ending, however, is already in itself an obstacle, as it suggests the Greek Kapvwrbs. The suspicion that the Greek reading 'IcrK-a/ucirTjs lies at the basis, is not improbable. See, further, F. H. Chase, The Syro-Latiii Text of the Gospels (1895), 102 ff., Expository Times, ix. (1897-98), 189, 285 f., who affirms
a Syriac origin for the reading. 2 Syr. Sin. and Peshita have KBinao, K&vnaDK and KBinpon.
8
The case is probably different with the later designation of the Jewish Christians as 'Efiiuvcuoi. Undoubtedly the prevalent opinion is (see recently G. Uhlhorn, Prot. Real.-Enc. 3 under "Ebioniten") that the Christians were
generally
known as D':V:IK, "poor" among the Jews, or that they themselves adopted this designation in Palestine. But since the Jews, any more than the Jewish Christians, did not speak Hebrew, and since this name for the Jewish
INTRODUCTION
53
Mark 15 34
(Matt.
27 46 ),
to
which Eesch
attri-
to the language in
which
He
is
Hebrew form
)Xet 77X66
of
the utterance
represented
by
original.
ta^Oavet, that
a later date,
setting
of
come into
that
being.
the fact
the Evangel. Hierosol. expressly explains ^s by Tita. This last consideration means very little. The translator
could render 6
eo? fiov
events every Jew who spoke Aramaic only by was quite familiar with the word /K, which for that very reason is taken over into the Onkelos Targum without
all
At
text.
If
Psalm
in the
that
be
expected.
mistake of
in supposing Elijah
cides nothing as
whole utterance.
section
of
is
also
impossible
Christians
see
for
what
Greek
the
Hebrew form
Such Christians, indeed, understood comprehension. of both languages, and therefore required the equally little immediate addition of the Greek equivalent. As the Gospel
of
Mark
words of
may
was
also
from the
first
Gospel
of
cated by
Him
we
among the Jews, it is difficult to accept the opinion as old derivation from a proper name 'E/3tt6^ is still the best though do not know any proper name of this form.
is
unfamiliar
The
Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,
ii.
356.
54
case.
Whether, then, Jesus uttered the Aramaic TvK or the Hebraistic vK, is in itself of minor consequence. The latter
appears to
as
me to have the greater probability in its favour, the less natural in the Aramaic context. being Sup-
posing that this were so, it is then conceivable that to secure greater uniformity of language, one copyist corrected
rjXeL into e'Xwet,
1
o-e^a^Oavei into
Xa/m
[a]a(/>-
have
the
whole
in
Hebrew.
it
From
by Eesch,
is
evident that
fact,
On
Eesch,
though with
the aid of a very different linguistic equipment, E. Nestle has also collected evidence in favour of a Semitic source
for our Gospels.
He
that
he has not extended the theory of a Hebrew original to the whole extent of the Lucan writings, nor even decided as to
Aramaic.
whether the sources used by Luke were in Hebrew or in A few remarks may now be made on such of
domain
of
Hebrew
for which Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. x. 8, even puts 'EXwefyz. instead /, of t\aet, I have explained, Gram. d. j.-pal. Ar. 123, as an echo of the Hebrew It is more probable, however, that the duller sound of the d is repreD'cfyj.
by instances
'28?!Ji
ceding
/3
into
transliterated into Greek required afacpOavei, for changes a precf. the % in (repaxdavel = *Mi?3y, and Gram. d. j.-pal. Ar. 304.
;
It is credible
See Chase, The and then translated wvetdurds pe with Cod. D Mark 15 34 Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 107. 3 Of 'less consequence are the unmethodical investigations ofZT. P. Chajes, " Markus-Studien " aims at that several in his treatise
.
Hebrew a^davei
who,
4
Hebrew
INTRODUCTION
of
55
Cod. D, 7roXXwz> Se o^Xwv avvTrepieftovToov /cvK\fp were Gvvirviyeiv, where the common text has, e
TWV fjbvpid^v TOU o%\ov wcrre KaTaTrarelv a According to Blass, the latter was the older text of Luke, the former being the Eoman edition as revised by him.
Now, Nestle
his
is
of opinion
that
Luke
first
of all misread in
text
num,
nm
said
"myriads," but afterwards recognised that But the critic should then have
represent 0^X09 in the alleged n^rn 1 have been confused with
to
Can B^n DW &y The question, moreover, is concerned not merely with TTO\\WV and pvpid&cov, but with the complete change in the expression
source.
of
the thought,
which
all,
is
to
It remains, after
most reasonable
an unde-
signing
alteration of the
N. binding himself to his exemplar in non-essentials. himself mentions the possible dependence of the manuscript
sacra, 88.
itself in
A
ftpcoOf)
commend
16 readings Luke 22
TrXrjpcoBfj of the
common
and KCUVOV
found
in
"
opinion,
b,
to
and accepted by Blass. In Nestle's to complete," have come eat," and nfep,
,
into collision;
has o-vv6Te\6(7av (fan) in place of the ta&OI of the Massoretic In that passage, however, fe^} may be the true text. 1
reading, unless "Wton, like an elsewhere,
of
is
to be understood
the offering at the feast. But what has this to do with Luke 22 16 where the question is concerned not with " eating" and " completing," but with " eating anew " and " fulfilling " 1
,
What we
,
to explain the
awkward
.
26 29 Mark 14 25
1
According to Philol.
sacra, 38,
N. no longer lays
still
stress
on the derivation
of
Hebrew
text,
though
regarding
it possible.
56
We
cannot
accept
N.'s
observation
on
Matt.
27 51
which makes
mistranslation,
/caraTrerao-jjia
depend
on a
misreading and
and
Gospel of
the
testimony
of
of
Jerome,
of
made
mention, not of
rending but of the splitting of the lintel. " has been read as *9 i3, curtain."
i
the
veil
"
the
temple,
">^S3,
lintel,"
he holds,
But
;
"ins?
it
is
nowhere
there-
found
fore
as
the
stood
name
for
for
it
the the
lintel
cannot
the
have
in
Gospel
of
Hebrews,
Perhaps account was affected by the later ignorance of the fact that in the last temple the entrance to the sanctuary was closed by a curtain of extreme costliness, see Bell. Jud.
v. v. 4.
The
New
this
how
i.e.
it
was possible
the
TO Karaireraa^a rov one in front of the Holy of Holies. vaov is, however, the curtain at the entrance to the temple
building, not that before the
Holy
of Holies,
which would
primary gospel in the Hebrew language had to be considered antecedently improbable, because no
The existence
of a
And
special
in
showing
are
that
to
all
the
Hebraisms
of
the
Synoptic Gospels
appearance
Greek
Hebrew
original
are unsuccessful, and that signs are not wanting to show that the authors of our Gospels, in their present form at
least,
it
will
were not conversant with the Hebrew language, then no longer seem hasty if the title of this section
"
spoke of
Hebrew
gospel."
INTRODUCTION
57
ARAMAIC
GOSPEL.
Apart from the well-known testimonies in Eusebius, we have no certain traces of the existence of a primitive gospel
in a Semitic language. It
may now
be considered an acarid
knowledged
of
fact that
that
he
the
day.
believing
that
his
Matthew
are
Hebrew
still
existed
in
Aramaic
now known
to
us,
are
derived from
Greek
originals.
of the
Hebrews
used by Jerome was to all appearance the reproduction of a Greek gospel. We learn incidentally from Eusebius 1 that
martyr, Procopius, had exercised in the service of the Christian community of Scythopolis the
the
first
Palestinian
rwv
2vpwv
(frwvrjs),
Eeader of a Palestinian congregation was also Aramaic Interpreter, it follows that there could not have been in Palestine
any Bible in the vernacular of the land. Holy Scripture in the Greek language was an oral translation into Aramaic. accompanied by According to Eusebius, the Church in his time possessed
A.D.
about 300
The reading
of
a fourfold testimony in regard to a " Hebrew " original of Matthew, first in the form of a tradition to the effect
that Pantaenus had found such a
v.
work
10), and next in the form of statements made by Papias, by Irenseus, and by Origen (Hist. eccl. iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 25).
it
is
Matthew that
is
referred
throughout the canonical Gospel to, and could cite in his support
the statements of Irenseus and Origen, who were of the same The declaration of Papias, however, is open to opinion.
question, and would have
1
B.
Violet,
Die
paliist.
110.
58
we known
what connection
it
When
he says of Matthew, ra \6<yia o-vveypdtyaTo (o-vverdgaTo), one must naturally suppose he meant only a collection of
"
sayings."
this
Papias'
y?j(7is,
and
contained
accordingly
of
expositions
of
those
Matthew had made a " " collection. Hebrew Only from the unknown context it possibly become clear that the work of Matthew might contained anything besides dicta. The translator into Syriac, who straightway put down Jv^niN for TO. \6yia, 1 has certainly
"sayings" of
our
Lord
which
not given the exact sense of Papias within the limits exFrom the statement of Papias, Eesch, it pressed by him.
is
the assumed
title
of his
1
W"
the above
Hebrew
's
meant by TO, \6yia to represent precisely title, and that the latter is in the last
"
resort equivalent to
of the
of
History of Jesus," just as in the Books ^?n often refers to the acts and experiences Kings But Papias gives no hint that ra \6yia was the a king.
of the
title
work
it,
of
Matthew
still
in question;
and even
"
if
he
so considered
it
he would
"
in
any
sayings," not to
the
deeds
"
or
"life
Jesus. 2
But
if
this
work
of
Matthew
were composed in Aramaic, then a title such as W* ^na for a narrative gospel would be highly improbable. 3 or W*!
W
is
It
really
of
1 So JSuseUus, Hist. eccl. syr., edited by P. Bedjan, Paris, 1897; by W. Wright and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1898, without giving variants. " The Oracles ascribed to Matthew 2 Cf. the
anonymous
treatise,
by Papiaa
of Hierapolis," 1894, 48-91. 3 Post-biblical Jewish literature recognises 'B '"i:n as a title of written works only in the sense that the contents are thereby referred to as the words of the " " History of Jesus would have been person named in the superscription. in Hebrew y^: n'^o, in Aramaic &&"} xn^y, as written by Shemtob Ibn called
Shaprut in the unprinted Eben Bokhan (MS. of the Jewish theol. Sem. in b Breslau, f. 180 ).
INTRODUCTION
59
tradition.
Matthew
holds
that
is
attested
far
by the ancient
as
This
for,
incontestably so
Eusebius
is
concerned,
"
in the Syrian
Eusebius also alludes to the fifth word of Jesus language." on the Cross in its Aramaic form, speaking of it as
"
Hebrew."
a
"
whom
to
he elsewhere
"
calls
Syrian,"
first
of all
preached
left
the
Hebrews,"
Gospel
written
iravpitp
7X0^x77, Eusebius
his
means that
the
down
and
Gospel
in
mother-
common
to himself
according to Eusebius'
of that period, in
own view
Aramaic.
understood
all
him
Matthew
as refer-
ring to Aramaic, and in this he was certainly not mistaken. In the case of Irenseus 4 we know for certain that he spoke " Hebrew." But in all of words which are Aramaic as being
these notices the emphasis
is
of
Matthew had
"
his
work
Hebraists." Any one who, like Eusebius, is convinced " " Hebraists was Aramaic, can that the mother-tongue of the
It must be think of no other language in this connection. 5 conceded that even if that work had for any reason whatever
actually
about
it
been composed in Hebrew, still the testimonies But would scarcely have been expressed otherwise.
this
in virtue of
mere
possibility,
the
testimonies
do
not
treatise
ev.
iii.
Demonstr.
Qucest. ev.
7. 10.
Ibid. x. 8.
8 4
postulated also
by Th. Zahn,
Einl. in
60
vernacular
1
and Luke
is
has
not been established by linguistic evidence. Indeed, it must be confessed that even if the sections common to Matthew
and Luke did actually originate from that source, still it was at least not the Semitic original, but only a Greek translation,
that lay before the evangelists.
In that case
original,
would go back
to
an Aramaic
even
2 3 were only orally formulated. Irenaeus, Clement, though 4 and Eusebius must, in fact, have so conceived the situation.
But the
in Papias,6 is
apparently intended to imply that Mark was only the author of a gospel which was founded on the spoken communications of Peter, Mark being thus in a sense his
interpreter,
office
even though he had never actually filled such an in relation to Peter. In that case it would be most
should proceed upon the Greek expositions 24 of Peter, for Peter must have appeared (Acts 10 ) from a very early date as a preacher of the gospel in the Greek
likely that
Mark
language.
to
be
thus a primary form in Greek would have assumed for the Mark document. 6 F. Blass, 7 who
And
understands the statement of Papias to signify that Mark actually accompanied Peter as interpreter, holds indeed that
1
This case
-jrp&s
is
Tro\t/uiov
'Potyuu'ovs
quite similar to that of the original of the Icrropla 'lovdal'Kov of Joseph us, which was composed according to the
y\<Jxro"r)).
Adv.
haer.
iii.
iii.
1. 3, x. 6.
s
5
Hist. eccl.
14.
ii.
15, 16.
See also above, p. 42, and p. 49, footnote 2. F. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 196, 210
cf.
INTRODUCTION
there existed an Aramaic original of
known
the
to
Papias, and
of
various
Mark was
also
He holds that readings of our manuscripts. the author of the Aramaic source which he
112.
of
entirely
what has been or can be proved. A. Bolten, 1 a century ago, had frequently
endeavoured in the exposition of Matthew to recover the original Aramaic terms, so in recent times attempts have
been made for particular passages of the Gospels to go back
original, in the first instance by J. T. and subsequently by E. Nestle,3 J. Wellhausen, 4 Marshall, A. Meyer, 5 and M. Schultze. 6 Wellhausen and A. Meyer aim at reaching the Aramaic word uttered by Jesus; chiefly
to
an Aramaic
2
the
Th.
primary gospel.
Gospel
of
Zahn,
who
considers
our
entire
Matthew
to be a
seeks support for this position especially from the style in which Semitic words are communicated.
it
is
here sufficient
J.
;
A.
see
Bolten,
1792
2
Expositor, Ser.
ff.,
69
ff.
iii.
ff.
;
Iff.,
viii.
109
ff.,
ff.
205
ff.,
275
ff.,
375
ff.,
452
ff.
iv.
208
373
ff.,
435
vi.
81
176
Expositor,
Stud.
u.
Krit.,
and other
periodicals.
Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Gott., 1895; Phil. hist. Kl. 11 f. ; Gott. Gel. Anz. i. 265 Skizzen tmd Vorarbeiten, vi. 188-194. 5 Jesu Muttersprache, Leipzig, 1896. 6 Gram, der aram. Muttersprache Jesu (1899), 80-83, where Schultze aims at translating the words of the Lord into biblical Aramaic without discussing the question of the linguistic form of a primitive gospel. 7 See also flesch, Aussercanon. Paralleltexte, Expositor, Ser. 4, vi. 81 ff. i. 157 f. Here may also be mentioned W. C. Allen's Essay, "The Original Language of the Gospel ace. to St. Mark," Expositor, Ser. 6, vi. 436-443. 8 Einl. in das 1ST. Test. ii. 56.
1896,
;
62
to
provoked.
Some
of their points
Of far greater consequence are the pertinent observations of Wellhausen and Nestle, though even in their
later stage.
case
we
feel the
Hebrew
considers
and Aramaic
possibilities.
Wellhausen,
the
primitive
indeed,
gospel has
been
He
to
must, however, be
this
day
is
still
mainly composed more than a high probability for an Aramaic primary gospel, and dare not speak of a certainty resting on proofs.
see
Hebrew.
For
my own
part I do not
Zahn prove
truly
enough the
but do not
suffice to
Gospel in the Aramaic language. Genuine proofs of an Aramaic, as opposed to a Hebrew, written source of the Synoptists are the harder to produce,
because
the
construction
of
biblical
Hebrew, and still oftener in the style of the Mishna. A whole series of comments that could be made on the synoptic
But text would therefore apply equally to either language. the previous attempts to adduce such proofs are defective on To justify this view in detail, some observaother grounds.
tions
by Wellhausen will first be examined, and then the remarks of Nestle, which are pertinent to the question.
Wellhausen claims
e\er)fj,o(Tvvr}v
that
the
striking
variations
Bore
and
KaOdptcrov,
Luke
II 41
and Matt.
23 26
454-470;
See in opposition to Marshall, W. 0. Allen, Expositor, Ser. 4, vii. 386-400, S. R. Driver, ibid. viii. 388-400, 419-431; against Meyer, J. Wellhausen, Gbtt. Gel. Anz. 1896, i. 265-268 ; G. Dalman, Theol. Litzeitg.
f.
;
A. Merx, Deutsche,
Litzeitg. xix.
Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,
vi. p. v.
INTRODUCTION
are derived from
cleanse."
'at,
63
to give
which means
"
alms
"
and
"
to
This instance seems an attractive proof expressly in favour of a written Aramaic source, as the Hebrew for
"
cleanse
d.
is
"
would be
jiid.-pal.
">ni?.
W.
"OT.
my
give
Gram.
alms
"
"
Aram., in
"
to
authenticated for
He
which contains the root-form, while the correspondtot seems to be wanting in the Jewish ing form in Aramaic
zakat,"
literature.
But KJMJ,
like its
Hebrew equivalent
in?>
is
quite
common
in this literature.
much
would not
"
;
"
practice of
virtue,"
meritorious action
"
NnNfO,
K.
34).
The verb
"
>3t
can
"
to
31 b ).
But why
cup
merit by asking alms (see j. should Luke not have arrived at his
that
icaOdptcrov
?
The
its
coincided
being emptied, the contents being given with the intention of Jesus if His
to
were
applied
almsgiving.
According
s9
,
to
the
the idea implied reading TO Se evuOev v^wv in Luke 11 would indeed be that what was latent in the heart of the
But as an idea
we
should,
In Luke 24 32 Wellhausen
as
is
Mrs. A.
S.
ftaprHJLevT]
He
It
adopted by Blass
text.
disclosed to view
in the (primitive)
Greek
The interchange
and
64
in Syriac 1
by the position
of
But this does not touch the question of a diacritic point. a primitive Aramaic gospel.
an attractive conjecture that is made by in Luke 4 26 the woman to whom suggesting " Elias was sent should be characterised not as a widow,"
It is in itself in
W.
that
Nr6"iN, but as
to
the
mention
standing,
in I
ver.
of
Naaman
25
as
6
it.
u/3o?.
Notwith"
am
Israel
unable to assent to
of
ver.
To
the
many
widows in
in
there
contrast "the
777)09
Besides,
widow
<yvvaiK\ xrfpa,
Kings 17
LXX,
as Nai/jiav o
LXX.
text.
no
call for
emendation of the
is
ev
ry
Kpiaei,
yuera
T?}?
12 41 (Luke II 32 ).
Its
meaning must
<yeved$ "
Taur?;?,
Matt.
be,
they will
measure
themselves in the Judgment with this generation." But this form of expression is found in the Old Testament in Isa.
5417 BBPI2& T]nN
Dlpn,
LXX
JJLOI,
avaffrfoercu
eirl
<re
efc
Kpi<riv,
tn\>\',
also in Ps.
evrl
94 16 D^np oy ^
irovrjpevofievovs.
Dip;
<p,
LXX
Tt?
dvao-rrio-eTal
For the
"in "in Jewish Aramaic compare also j. Kidd. 64 a ay Dp " N^a nnan, some one began a litigation with [rose up Further, Kara/cpLagainst] his neighbour on the street."
VOVCTLV
"
CLVTTJV,
it,"
overcome
they will show it to be in the wrong, will W. connects it need not be an Aramaism.
Aramaic
s
3'n,
but
we have a
cor-
Hebrew
a\3? nn.
54 17
TB?, LXX
Just as
^Trrjo-et?,
Targum
it
Aramaism
which may
is
in
necessary to detect with W. an 23 avOpwiru) /3acrtAet, Matt. 18 along with 2 be mentioned Matt. 22 where the same phrase
little
is
,
13 52
20 1
cf.
2 1 33 with
INTRODUCTION
65
avrjp
TT/JO^^TT;?.
The Old
iepeax:);
Testament says:
N^aj
&*
Lev. 21
(LXX
av0pdnrov
;
8 Judg. 6
(LXX
and in Jewish
see,
e.g.,
3D
at
"oa,
j.
Sanh.
25
d
,
it
ever stands
the
But
avrjp
/3ao-tXeu?
of
avOpcoTros
fiaa-iXevs
also is
not impossible.
In
Mark
I 41
Cod.
a-TrXayxyio-defc of the
common
he was
DjnriN,
That might well be correct, yet it would In this instance we to the Syriac of Edessa. apply only the impression of Syriac influence on Cod. D, and perceive
that all the
see Chase,
this reading
88f.
This
between omriK
and
nDnriN.
,
The readings ef&> T??? %&>/??, Mark 5 10 31 are by Nestle traced back afivcro-ov, Luke S
,
and
efc
Trfv
to K&IJY6
and
KiDinn^,
"
to
the
frontier,"
1
the
latter
As "to
the frontier*
frontier.*
of this
Mark, it is thought, changed it to "across the But without imputing an erroneous translation kind, the variation explains itself from the considera-
tion that in
Mark
In
as
Mark
being
5 11
"
(Luke
"
8 32 )
"
herd
of
swine
"
;
is
mentioned
beside
or
good way
that
off
"
air
avr&v).
Nestle holds
NT^>
1
confusion.
" mountain," and K7J9, distance," are here in But this fcO^ is foreign to the Jewish Aramaic
Neuen Bundes,
i.
(1788) 585.
66
and
the
difference
explanation.
Mark
(Mark
2
,
Luke 8 27 )
immediate
proceeding upon the seashore, the herd being in the " vicinity upon the mountain." Matthew does
not locate the episode on the seashore, but regards Jesus " " in the country of the Gadarenes as being on the way to
Gadara (Matt. 8 28 ), which was situated some six miles inland. The herd of swine is supposed to be at some distance, because, as represented in ver. 32,
seacoast.
it
In Matt. S 48
olKTipfjLwv in
reXeioi, reXeto?
correspond to
olfcripjjLove^,
Luke
6 36
From
the
for
LXX
the
notes
is
that in
de Lagarde's
e^etjfjuov
rj
"Onomastica
eiptfviKos.
explained as
Therefore
N.
infers
all
olKrip^wv
this
But despite
D^
shod translator.
the fact that the divine nature has just before been characterised as X/0770T09.
Matthew
other
uses
re'Xeio?
is
because
to
the
conduct
of
men
and
in
it
relations
forthwith
be
the
mentioned,
transition.
was
necessary
to
provide
for
The
vovQd,
1
10 els TO, pepy Aak^iaphrase in Mark 8 has been derived by J. Eendel Harris 2 from the
peculiar
Aramaic KfTO&^l NJTOD^ on the supposition that the second Kni3C& was an inadvertent repetition, while the real name
of
Nestle 3 has, independently the place has disappeared. To this, however, the of Harris, hit upon the same idea.
serious
has to be urged that ra pepr) with the " is a pure Grsecism, quite incapable of district meaning of Nnj3D in all the being literally reproduced in Aramaic.
objection
"
1
Codex
Bezse, 178.
INTRODUCTION
67
"
Aramaic
dialects
means
thus
"
portions
but
not
"
district."
we
22
find in place of it
"
fcoriK,
region,"
Mark
8 10 Pesh., Matt. 2
13
16 13 Cur.
Sin.
15 21
Cur.
Pesh.
in
22 wnK, "land," Matt. 2 Hier. Nor Jewish Aramaic would expressions other than these be
16
Sin.;
possible.
Therefore
means
In
of xnurf'.
Mark
mention
"
"
recompense.
also,
Now
Luke
the
Cod.
"
has
hundredfold
JSTestle's
"
in
Matt,
"
and in
"
sevenfold."
In
opinion
sevenfold
into
was
original,
and
this has
been received
This
may
possibly be correct, but there is no necessity for deriving the expression from a Semitic original. Seven stands as
number suggesting
cf.
completeness
without
mathematical
the seven years of Anna's wedded life, Luke precision, the seven brothers, 2 36 the seven evil spirits, Luke 8 2 II 26
;
;
Luke 20 29
Luke 17 4
"
In
this
way
"
manifold
and even
"
hundredfold
can be used in
place of "sevenfold."
At
reward
"
it
the
first
remark on Luke
of Matt.
glance there is something plausible in N.'s " 1 9 17 that the mention of the " cities as
,
with the
"
talents
"
25
"
16ff -
is
to be
"
talents
and
r?"]?,
cities."
On
is
this
cities
not correct.
r?"l?
is
not
the
common word
25 21
-
for
"
"
the
might appear.
are
In
the
Matt.
it
is
given
to
Lord
the
will set
"
When Luke
defines
them over "many things." " " many things by cities," the
68
who enters upon his dominion an idea wholly absent from Matthew. In Matt. 2S 23 and Luke II 42 eXeo? and ar/dirrj TOV Oeov
as
should in N.'s opinion be traced back to one form with Dm His supposition is that Pptn, " compassion," its root. and Nnpni, "love," were confounded, TOV 6eov being ap-
pended
that
to
the latter.
But
it
is
at
ayaTrr) were intersynonyms " the changed, and that a<ya7rrj was afterwards explained as
the
Greek
e'Xeo?
and
love of God."
In Mark II 4
properly
it
eirl
TOV
a^oSov
of
is
the
is
translation
in
BijO^ayrj,
accordance with the Syriac KjttD rP2, said, latter, " at the parting of the might in fact have been rendered " But eVl TOV d/j,(j)6$ov means only " on the street ways."
NjttQ
is
l
" " " a network of roads not the term for or cross-
roads,"
Aramaic
either in the Syriac of Edessa or in the Palestinian and JV3 is not used for 3 in Palestinian Aramaic.
;
Besides, ByOtyaytj
therefore,
has
the
indeclinable
origin.
ending
the
e,
and
is,
not
of
Greek
was
really the
From name of
is
Talmud we
a place, 2 not of
if
he
translated,
not content to
3 unripe figs," as I have done, then it 4 is preferable to pronounce the origin of the word obscure rather than to decide upon Kyjs.
In Matt. 27 34 "vinegar mingled with gall" is put for 23 the "wine mingled with myrrh" of Mark 15 through the
,
"
gall,"
with miD,
"
myrrh."
fact that the Syrians in one case attempt to assign the meaning " "cross-roads to &os na would have significance only if Nyjs could be adduced
The
with this meaning in other instances. 2 But not of two places, as StarcJc, Palastina und Syrien, 35, represents.
Gram. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 152. Can Trdyos, "village," perhaps be traced in the name ? According to the Talmud, Bethphage was situated just beyond the city boundary of Jerusalem
4
proper.
INTRODUCTION
69
is
through intentional allusion to the drinking of gall in Ps. 68 22 LXX, and does not call for the assumption of a
Semitic source.
In
TT.
Acts
T.
2 47
of
Cod.
has
Trpbs
0X01^
rbv
/coo-fjiov
for
o.
\aov
the
Textus
Eeceptus. "
this
N.
traces
"
these
people,"
mistake occurs.
He
that
whether he means
and, accordingly,
in
the
whether a
was
the
first
to
alleged
Ber.
source.
bring Luke's document into accord with the In the text of the Palestinian Talmud,
,
also
find
it is
put
Ny
bs.
For
this,
however,
that
ing on the
part of a copyist
is
are quite equivalent periphrases for "every the former being the dominant Babylonian usage, the one,"
NDy,
all
" every one," in the same merely different expressions for 47 the reading nevertheless allows of sense as in Acts 2
,
explanation without reversion to a Semitic original quite as satisfactorily through an interchange of the Greek terms,
as
done by B. Weiss l and there is no occasion to consider with Harris 2 a Latin, or with Chase 3 a Syriac text as
is
;
certainty" in N.'s
"ye
perfect the various reading eftapvvare, judgment by Acts 3 U in place of oppressed," supplied by Cod.
is
raised
to
"
"
rjpvrjcrao-Oe,
1
ye denied," of the
common
text.
Blass
appeals
2 3 4
Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte (1897), 58. Codex Bezfe, 103 f. The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezse
Philology of the Gospels, 194.
(1893), 28.
70
Aramaic source used by Luke for Acts 1-1 2. 1 IBS, " " to deny," and "oa, to molest," are supposed to have been in this case. Both by Nestle and Blass, thereinterchanged
fore,
first
efSapitvare
will
be
reckoned a gross
error.
In the
mistake:
after
only
in
the
he
rectified
it,
he had made a fresh study of his source. Now Blass, at least, according to whom Luke understood only a little Aramaic and no Hebrew at all, should hardly attribute to
is
"
molest."
If,
however, Luke were well versed in Hebrew, this peculiar freak, impossible from the Aramaic side, would be unpardonable.
Long
ago,
however, Harvey,
satisfactory
it
and
after
him
Chase,
explanation of the
reading of Cod. D,
irritate,"
Nestle
Edessene "Q3, " to which could be interchanged with IDD, " to deny." finds this also to be plausible, and, as it seems,
by referring
to the
it
possible that
Luke was
familiar
with the Syriac of Edessa, and thence arrived at his false But far more acceptable would still remain the reading.
theory of
of Cod.
originates not
And since " to be angry falsely read Syriac gospel text. " 6 will be is in Edessene not "na but 133DK, Harris with
saying that yr^o-are read as ^rrrjaare has been the source of the Latin reading aggravastis, which on its
right in
may
2
B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, 25, holds that tpaptvare possibly have been an ancient reading, without giving any opinion on its
of the Edessene T33X, "to make much ado." Harvey, Iren. adv. Hser. ii. (1857) 55. The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezse, 38. Philologica sacra, 40 f.
genesis.
3
4
W. Wigan
5
6
J.
INTRODUCTION
If
71
our criticism of the proofs hitherto adduced in support of a primitive Aramaic gospel be sound, then clearly the account of the primitive Church in regard to an
Aramaic
original of
as still
lacking confirmation by convincing proofs. Since, however, the proofs of a Hebrew written source
is
the effect that the occasional agreement of the Synoptists in Greek expressions implies that the documentary sources
In this there
is
in
i.e.
1 29 From the very beginGreek-speaking Jews, Acts 6 9 ning it thus used two languages, and in gatherings of the
recounted
community the deeds and words of Jesus must have been " in Greek and in Aramaic. The " Hebraists
would mostly
Hellenists
all
have
understood
some
very often no
later
Aramaic or Hebrew.
its
A
a
gospel-
language, have
in
been
any
in
origin
Semitic
dialect.
in
Greek
and
its
Semitisms, so
due to the
VII.
SAME FlELD.
planned by the writer, is not to be reared from the outset on an unstable foundation, it cannot
If
this
work, as
proceed,
as
the
foregoing
considerations
show,
upon the
is
elaborated in our
Synoptic
Gospels.
What
is
firmly established
to the Jews,
only the
Aramaic
72
original apostolic
band at the beginning preached concerning Him though not exclusively in that language. For the words of Jesus only is an Aramaic original form incontestably
secure;
for
earliest
Church tradition
arises
Hence
for literary
and the duty of investigating in what form the words of Jesus must have been uttered in their original language, and what meaning they had in this form for the
science the right
Jewish hearers.
to
form in which these words proceeded from the mouth of Jesus. But it will be recognised with greater certainty than
heretofore
how much
there
is
in
is
specifically Greek, and what at least may be regarded as most nearly approaching to the original setting. The more
one
convinced that the Gospels contain historically trustworthy communications in regard to the teaching of Jesus, the more important must it appear to get even one step
is
nearer to the original by a fresh apprehension of His message and the contemporary
modes
of thought.
As
the words of
the
proper
subject of
our study,
view that
they are presented to us in writings whose authors have so recounted them that their individual apprehension of them, their style and mode of expression, have not failed to exert a
certain influence.
It follows, therefore, that the investigation
should not be limited entirely to the speeches reported by a Whatever their writings may afford towards Synoptist.
elucidating the
must be sought out and In regard to the Johannine exclusion from the scope of the inquiry seems to
words
of
Jesus
end in view.
us justified, because the author's individuality impressed itself so strongly on the Greek he wrote, that a reconstruction
in
little
prospect of success.
INTRODUCTION
73
may
by way
introduction,
is
not
requisite.
Hebrew fragments
of
Ben
Sira,
1
that all
the attempts to
For the book of the applied to every work of this kind. son of Sirach was very obscure in the original language to
begin with and the extant early versions were defective in the highest degree. But in regard to the original of the words of Jesus and their rendering into Greek, no such
;
Thought and expression in this and unmistakable, free from useless ornament
In this
case, therefore,
and
artificial
elaboration.
a retransin the
But even
accounts of the evangelists themselves, emphasis must not be laid on the unessential details in the reported dicta,
which
each
narrator
in
turn
could
were no small achievement to succeed in apprehending these, in the light of the Aramaic language and the contemporary circle of ideas, with increased precision and
It
And such an aim approach to the original sense. must be pronounced quite attainable, provided it be pursued with the proper means.
closer
It is obvious
the words of
enough that a mere Aramaic translation of our Lord, as given in the Synoptists, would For
it
is
have
latable
that
has to be
made
falls
intelligible.
When
the choice
its
the reasons in
1
74
work would be but
at the
same time an
adequate insight were not given into the significance of the newly recovered text, and the form thence acquired by the
problems of exegesis. Nothing but a running commentary, which takes account of the tentative translations, can therefore appear adequate to the
end in view.
No
of
and mutual
our
inquiry,
without
thereby
anticipating
of the investigation.
Only the various contingencies involved must not be left out of view. Naturally all questions of exegesis and gospel
criticism are not intended to receive final solution
;
here the
aim
is
which suggest themselves in considering the Aramaic archeTo New type, and in reviewing the contemporary ideas. Testament science remains the task of applying our results
to the working out of its
of thus
con-
ducting the inquiry to its proper goal. As a number of ideas of substantially the same import
recur throughout the discourses of Jesus,
to
it
will be desirable
begin by submitting the most important of these to a The discussion of the words of Jesus special consideration.
in relation to their collective
import will subsequently afford an occasion in later volumes of this work to add, if necessary,
more precise definitions, and also to treat other ideas accordThus our researches will also be ing to the same method.
Judaising of the words of Jesus, such as easily arises and often has arisen, where isolated dicta, separated from their context, have been compared with
guarded against a
false
by Schnedermann, that Jesus at first His work with Jewish ideas and then gradually charged began
has been advanced,
e.g.,
these with a
1
new
Die Vorstellung
vom
Reiche Gottes,
i.
(1896),
ii.
1 (1893),
2 (1895).
INTRODUCTION
the
75
the
Gospel
accounts. 1
For
there
teaching
of
Jesus,
extending only over a short period of time, appears, in regard to the fundamental conceptions, uniform and unvarying.
Each
single idea
the whole.
must be apprehended in its coherence with What we deem of real significance and worthy
and
follower.
few previous studies from which material directly contributory to our aim can be derived. Even after the dictionaries of Levy, Kohut, Jastrow
It is regrettable that there are so
my own
works,
"
"
G-rammatik des
Aramaisch-neuhebjiidisch-palastinischen Aramaisch," and raisches Worterbuch," there still remain large blanks in
regard to the
syntax, phraseology, and
vocabulary of
the
separate Compilations begun by me, and to be rendered more complete by continuous reading, must serve
dialects.
to
in
the
region
of
Jewish Theology is no less marked. Even an adequate treatment of the ideas of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is not yet to be had. M. Verms, Histoire des Idees Messianiques (1874); J.
V.
H.
2
Stanton,
v.
Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877); The Jewish and the Christian Messiah
Orelli, art.
;
(1886); Oehler
padie,
ix.
"
(1881), 641-672
jiid.
Christi,
;
496-556
(1897),
270-310;
H.
Charles, Eschatology of
the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Liturature, in Dictionary of the Bible, i. (1898), 741-749, and Critical History of the
doctrine of the Future Life (1899); E. Hiihn, Die rnessian-
Die eschatologischen
76
den Targumim,
to
be done.
on the Psalms
of
Ethiopia Book of (1896), on the Assumption of Moses (1897), and especially the translations and expositions of these books published in
1900 by
E. Kautsch,
"
advance on their
authors
here
mentioned are
the
later
first-hand
quaintance
pensable
with
Jewish
literature
is
an
to
indis-
requirement
elucidate
to
Jewish
writings whose
Hebrew
original
has
first
be
ascertained.
it
would be
has to say as to the ideas of the Jews at the beginning of the second religious the earliest period for which it affords century of our era
it
know what
intimate
and
reliable
information.
$'.
Weber's
"Jiidische
it
has
been by
quite in
I. I.
one
the dark through failing to supply the necessary separation of the earlier from the more recent, of the Palestinian from the non-Palestinian, as well as through the lack
The " Kealmore thorough treatment of details. Encyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud," with its supplements (18841900), by J. Hamburger, is altogether a mere accumuof
which require
sterbende
to
be
verified.
"
Messias der Synagoge im ersten nachchristl. Jahrtausend" endeavours to give a treatise published by myself (1888)
reliable data
on one important topic. Apart from the concise and excellent monograph of D. Gastelli, II Messia secondo gli Ebrei (1874), the only works that attain the level worthy
1
See
my
col.
382
f.
INTRODUCTION
of the
77
are far
treatises
of
W. Backer, which
"
by theologians
ii.
i.
aiten"
ischen
i.
(1884),
Amoraer"
(1896),
(1899).
After
by the anonymous Haggada of Palestine, these works will form a valuable thesaurus of the dicta of the
their completion
means
of attaining a real
"theology
Specially useful help should have been obtainable from the collections of rabbinic parallels to New Testament passages which have been prepared by Christians and Jews in Among Christian works of this early and in recent times.
class
may
be
in
named
Joh.
Lightfoot,
Horse
hebraicae
et
talmudicae
quatuor
Evangelistas,
;
published
by
J.
B.
Carpzov, Leipzig,
talmudicae
Leipzig,
1684
Christ. Schottgen,
Horae hebraicae et
in
;
universum
Novum
Testamentum, Dresden-
1733
Novum Testamentum
ex
Talmude
et antiquitatibus
1736;
Novum Testamentum
F.
NorJc,
1752;
Eabbinische
Schriftstellen,
1839
Franz
Delitzsch,
Horae
hebraicae et talmu-
Luth. Zeitschrift,
18768;
Eabbinica,
Theol.
1875, Eabbinische
Analekten,
prot.
der
1876; A. Wunsche, Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Gottingen, 1878.
Of Jewish productions, which, chiefly with an apologetic aim, institute comparisons between rabbinic and New Testament sayings, there may be cited M. Duschak, Die Moral der
:
In order to call increased attention to Bacher's writings, as well as to set a better example in citing rabbinic sayings than that now prevalent in the commentaries, I shall make frequent reference to these writings, although for
my own
2
"Tenipus loquendi.
Amoraer nach
der neuesten Darstellung" (1897), criticism of vol. ii. der Ag. d. pal.
by M. Aschkenaze,
is
intended to be a
Am.
The
only his
own amazing
ignorance.
78
E. Schreiber, Die Evangelien und des Talmud, Briinn, 1877 Principien des Judentums verglichen mit denen des Christen-
tums, Leipzig, 1877; E. Soloweyczyg, Die Bibel, der Talmud und das Evangelium, the German by M. Griinwald, Leipzig, E. Grrunebaum, Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums 1877
;
audern Bekenntnissen gegeniiber, 2nd ed., Strassburg, 1878; S. Ulumenau, Gott und der Mensch, in Ausspriichen der
Bibel alten
Nearly
The
relation of
of
domain
ence between
New
many minds an impression, very unfavourable progress, that little of fundamental importance is
from such
parallels.
to be learned
"
Such a book
as Wunsche's
Beitrage," by reason of quite superficial and inaccurate assertions and faulty translations, must even be characterised
Neue
as directly misleading
further,
and confusing.
of
It is obvious enough,
purposes
Rabbis.
handling hardly calculated to demonstrate the real difference between the words of Jesus and the sayings of the
is
that Jewish
open but to supply the deficiency in by independent work on the post-canonical Our discussion will consequently be literature of the Jews.
other course
also
is
No
this
case
encumbered
been
conducted elsewhere
if
but I trust
it
ultimately render important service in various ways to Biblical Theology, should here be
may
sifted.
INTRODUCTION
79
VIII.
A
sists
way
of
in deciding the
presuppose.
"
There
"
is
my Grammar,
of a
Judsean
"
and a
Galilean
"
dialect of
Jewish Aramaic
rests
upon uncertain grounds. The two dialects so designated are so sharply denned in point of grammar and vocabulary, that
their separation did not call for the exercise of exceptional
penetration.
But
when
to us
and the
"
extent
"
over
is
which
they
then
prevailed.
The
of
Judsean
dialect
known
Judsean origin
in
the
to
the third
(Christian) century;
the Galilean dialect from writings of Galilean origin in the period from the fourth to the seventh
century.
That the
the
"
Galilean
"
at
the time of
its
domin-
ance
among
Jews
by
of Galilee
parts of Palestine
more
closely related
Aramaic.
is
tended
sway proved by the liturgy for the Blessing of the Nile, brought to light by G. Margoliouth. 2 Aramaic was not merely a Church language in that region,
its
into Egypt, as
for
19 18 Jerome explicitly states that there were still, as was well known, five cities in Egypt " in which the language of Canaan, namely the Syriac," was
in
commenting on
Isa.
spoken.
On
the other hand, the Palmyrene and Nabatsean of Christ must be pronounced as
"
than to the
"
Galilean
"
Einleitung in das Neue Testament, i. (1897) 19. G. Margoliouth, The Liturgy of the Nile (1896).
3 S. Krauss, Jew. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894), 249, strangely considers, despite the unmistakable statement of Jerome, that the Coptic language is meant. "Syriac" being the Semitic language of Canaan in his own day, Jerome finds
80
dialect.
knowledge
the
Aramaic
of
is is
derived exclusively from inscriptions, while the Galilean a popular dialect elevated to a literary language.
do justice to the ascertainable situation in saying, that in the time of Christ there was prevalent over all Palestine, from the extreme north to the south, a
will
One
best
In
this literary
Aramaic
written
the
to
Targum
the
Judsean
Onkelos, and the other documents assigned 1 as well as the Palmyrene and dialect,
Nabatsean
inscriptions.
Middle Palestinian, which we can recognise in a later phase as Samaritan Aramaic, and a North Palestinian, which is
known
to us in a
both be-
Aramaic
culture,
of the
Bar Kochba
got the
revolution,
the
dialect
73 70 Luke 22 59 ), Peter (Mark 14 According to Matt. 26 was recognised in Jerusalem as a Galilean on the strength
of a
of Jesus.
few words, and was consequently termed a companion It must therefore be inferred that Jesus was like-
must not, through wise recognisable by His language. the Galilean dialect as known to us, explain this following incident from the consideration that the Galileans were
accustomed at a later period to soften the gutturals. Peter's " I do not know," denial contained the expression OVK olSa,
Isaiah's
We
prophecy fulfilled in the "Syriac" speaking inhabitants of Egypt. His description of the "Canaanitic" as occupying a position between the Hebrew and the Egyptian, and as being closely akin to Hebrew, corresponds " Syriac," but not with the Coptic language. only with what he calls
1
Enumerated
in
Gram.
d. j.-pal.
Aram. 5-12.
INTRODUCTION
or
81
"I do not understand," Matt. 26 70 (Mark 14 68 Luke 22 57 ). In Galilean this would be DDH KJK nb or Dan nri>, but in
,
flv.
way
Jesus or His disciples. The anecdotes told in Babylon centuries later, b. Erub. 53V about the speech of uneducated
Galilean women, must
truth
is
be regarded as a caricature of the even in their own late period. The Galilean as it
to us
known
of
decay or of corruption
from written works bears as yet no trace from outside influence. It is true
signs of more advanced development as with the Judsean dialect may be detected in it. compared It cannot, however, be regarded as a later phase of the latter dialect. It is, of course, not unlikely that the
language of Galilee underwent some changes between the time of Jesus and the fourth century. The pronunciation,
indeed
the formation and scope of words, were in the earlier period nearer by some degrees to the Judaean. For our
is of
that
Greek loan-words had increased, while it is highly probable new Aramaic words from the north - east had found
their
and obtained currency by extruding others. Moreover, the possibility must not be excluded that Jesus,
way
in
when speaking
dialect.
publicly, sought to
conform
to the Judsean
taxgatherer Matthew really recorded the words of Jesus in Aramaic, it is most probable
If
the
Galilean
that
he should
avail
himself
of
the literary
language of
To all Judsea, and not of the Galilean popular dialect. appearance his book was least of all addressed to Galilean
readers.
Compare on this point Gram. d. j.-pal. Aram. 43 f., where I have shown that the defective pronunciation of the gutturals cannot have been developed so markedly in the earlier period even in Galilee. Among the Babylonian
Jews the change had gone much further see Babyl. Talmud, Am. Journ. Sem. Lang. xiii. 29 6
;
C. Levias,
f.
A Grammar
of the
82
It in our
as
if
the
linguistic
basis
presupposed
uncertain.
To a certain
will
extent
Any
investigator
who
be con-
scientious
and sure
and the
of his steps,
must take
of
into considera-
the
biblical
Galilean
dialects
Aramaic. 1
The
Judsean
Galilean.
term
must be considered
yet
it
side
by
side
with the
And
will
coming into question is and that most of the competing options that arise are of little or no weight in determining the exegesis. On the
considerable
appear that the area of language comprised within very narrow limits,
whole, the uncertainty as to language in this case is less than that which confronts the translator of
Hebrew
to
steer a
is
monument
The Greek
the
LXX
is
tendency, and it was afterwards surpassed in that direction The method of Aquila's by the translation of Aquila. translation was further repeated in the probably contem-
porary
in the
Targum
form
of
of
the
Pentateuch,
which,
by a curious
of
accident,
Aquila
in
that Only of Aramaic and Hebrew, a case, owing kinship product which was not quite so peculiar as in linguistic the Greek work of Aquila. By comparison with the other
Onkelos."
there
resulted
to
the
literary
1
remains of Jewish
Aramaic,
it
may, however, be
" " Grammatik der aram. Muttersprache Jesu (1899), has dealt exclusively with the biblical Aramaic, but has furnished it with a vocalisation based upon the biblical transliteration of Semitic names, and repre-
Schultze, in his
INTRODUCTION
determined
83
what should be
re-
with
sufficient
certitude
garded as
Hebraisms in the Targum. Genuine Aramaic is, in cases where the of course, most clearly recognisable Targum, despite its aim of precisely copying the original,
which
the
determine
of
the
the
Targum
(1)
frequent
original
use
the
Hebrew
to
accusative
particle,
whereas
;
particle
(3)
reproduction
peculiar
the
Targum
s
of
the
biblical
the
Hebrew
of
"
1 by "^N, which latter is known in the Mishna in the form ^n, restricted to
the meaning
see,"
literature is wholly
wanting in
the
by
Aramaic
is
njni for
Hebrew
cases of
;
narrative formula
W,
which
for the
"ip'&i
foreign to
occurrence, and of
(7) the
frequent
by
njn
(8) the
common
with
prepositions,
where Aramaic
"n.
would
have
formed a
In regard to Noldeke's 2 assumed disfigurement of the Targum of Onkelos by the Babylonian dialect, I am still unable to cite a single case in point except the occasional
use of infinitive forms in o-e?
careful
One
instance
should be in putting forward any such assumption. iSee Gramm. d. j.-pal. Aram. 186 f., 190 f.; Nttdeke, ZDMG xxii. (1868)
2 3
we
489.
Gram.
Th. ffildeke, Die semit. Sprachen, 32. d. j.-pal. Aram. 225 ff.
84
Sukk.
5 b , that the
name
Now the given to a "boy" (**$ty in Babylon was aofj. Onkelos Targum uses tffj for "boy," while the Galilean dialect does not employ this word. But since the Mishna
attests the corresponding
like-
wise knows
^"J, it is
clear
unknown
Thus, when it occurs in Onkelos, the word should not be styled as a Babylonian intrusion. The regrettable defect of the Judaean Aramaic above
in Palestine.
referred to,
is
in
almost exclusively through the short stories interspersed in the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash and these stories bear throughout the
to us
;
made known
In this case we are popular origin. furnished with what is so much missed in regard to the
of their artless of
mark
Samaritan, the Christian-Palestinian, and the earlier Syriac Edessa, namely the really living speech of the people.
this vernacular
By comparing
the idiom of the Judsean documents (apart from the Targums), we have the only possible means of learning what was the
style
and mode
the view
1
of
expression of
Palestine.
If
put
forward
by Noldeke, Buhl,
correct,
Cornill,
that
the
so-called
Begard
for
this
possibility
jiid.-
caused
pal.
me
to give a
to the
Aramaisch
But
grammatical material in these Targums. from that scrutiny I became convinced that the most
primitive elements in regard to linguistic development to be found in these Targums are exactly the parts taken from the
M. Ginsburger, 289-296, 340-349.
1
Zum
Fragmententargum,
Jiid.
Monatssclir.
xli.
(1897)
INTRODUCTION
85
The style of these Targums had not as yet Onkelos Targum. 1 been closely studied, and theories regarding their origin had
But even been based chiefly on the nature of their contents. on that ground I could discover no sound proofs of a great
antiquity.
As one
passage from the Jerusalem Targum I. upon as a decisive evidence of its preit
Christian elements,
requires to be mentioned.
In Deut.
who give the tithe of the tithe, and graciously the offering of Elijah the priest, which he presents accept upon Mount Carmel; break asunder the loins of Ahab his
enemy, and the necks of the false prophets who withstand him, and let there not be to the foes of Yokhanan the high
priest a foot to stand upon."
less
this
Now as John Hyrcanus was remembered among the Jews at a later date, favourably statement, it is held, must have originated soon after his
time,
own
his partisans.
and have been written by those who were among By these, one would presume, are meant the
itself suspicious.
Sadducees, a fact in
is
familiar
of a
with the
nature
of
these
think
first
Scripture
to
John
we should have before As to the age of the us traces of a very old Midrash. Targum passage, nothing could be concluded. But we are not unacquainted with the Haggada which is here alluded to.
the most, therefore,
At
The Midrash on
the tribe of Levi
Eabba 99) it is also said, with reference to this verse, that the Greek domination was destined to fall by means of the
Hasmonai, because they were of Levitic descent. Accordingly the enemies of Yokhanan in the Targum are the
sons
of
Greeks (Syrians), and any one who has read the Eoll of the
1
See Gram. d. j.-pal. Aram. 21-26 and J. Eassfreund, Das Fragmenten(1896), 65 if., 98.
;
86
Hasmonaeans
Yokhanan,
is
a personal
struggle against
Greece had to be
cited. 1
given in the very late Koll of the Hasmonaeans are wholly unhistorical, the passage in question becomes in reality an evidence for the late date of the Jerusalem Targum I. It is
only in so far as they are evidence of an early form of the Onkelos Targum, and in so far as the Galilean dialect is
traceable
in
them,
that
the
Jerusalem
of
the
of
due
precaution in the use made of them by J. T. Marshall is one of the things which were bound to render his efforts to
failure.
the
Gospels,
other biblical lessons extant in the same language, 2 would, owing to the close relationship of its dialect with the Galilean,
towards the recovery of the Aramaic original of the words of Jesus, if it were not, like all the other ancient translations, merely a Targum, i.e. an imitation of
offer inestimable service
Yokhanan
Yokhanan was a pious man from the beginning." It was Yokhanan who was informed by a divine voice in the temple of the victory of the " boys"
ning, but
in Antioch
2
(j.
Sot. 24 b ).
The
parts of the Scripture from the Old and the New Testaments, which are enumerated by E. Nestle in
Studia Sinaitica vi., A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, edited by Agnes Smith Lewis, xiv. ff. Since then has been added G. Margoliouth, The Palestinian Syriac Version of the Holy Scriptures, four recently discovered portions, London, 1897, and the excellent new edition of the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum by Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson, under the
title
"The
INTRODUCTION
Palestine.
e.g.,
87
is illustrated,
The
by the
with
trifling exceptions,
has no
Greek language pronominal 1 For that only uses the personal pronouns independently. very reason, however, this version, in parts where it does
attached, because
the
all
the
more
the
to
Aramaic language.
the Palestinian
its
Besides, there
is
Gospel Lectionary has been influenced in Unvocabulary by the Syriac version of Edessa. " the Idioticon des christlich - palastinischen fortunately
Aramaisch" (1893), by
F. Schwally, gives
no
light
on
this,
Schwally has aimed at colthe differences in the matter of vocabulary between lecting the Christian Palestinian and the Edessene. But one does
not learn what words are
common
to
which
of
Palestinian Aramaic
known from
the
other sources. 2
It is not
give
but
only
idiom thence
ascertained
any which
service similar
Lectionary
is
rendered also by
various recensions
now known
But no
assistance derived
from any
of these
attainment of a genuine Aramaic diction, unless the same mode of expression can be attested in the Jewish Aramaic.
If
we were
to
investigation, as proposed
would first be by Wellhausen, necessary to prove that in it, and not in the Jewish Aramaic, was the language of Jesus and the earliest apostles preserved.
it
But
1
this
supposition
The
NoldeJce,
2
ZDMG
xxii. (1868)
suggestions of Noldeke,
ZDMG
xxii.
(1868) 517,
522.
3
88
was practically no
Aramaic-speaking
people.
is
spiritual intercourse
The Church
spiritual
the
mother
munities.
Hebrew
the
Their language contained, indeed, a number of words which occur also in Jewish Aramaic. But
the language which had been spoken by the very numerous Jews in Palestine at a prior period. Jewish derivation,
such
as
Noldeke
supposes,
if
circumstance.
Even
it
have
taken
place,
the
Jewish elements would have been obliterated long before. doubts may justly be entertained If, further, any grave
as
to
of
the year
400 was
ing the field of the Jewish Aramaic every valid foundation would be wholly lost.
We
shall therefore
giving too
much weight
The Targum of Onkelos and the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash remain our most important criteria. As the idiom
the
whose vocabulary can also be tested by Mishna, represents in any case a stage of the language nearer to the time of Jesus, we shall attach ourselves principally to it, not failing, however, to note the
of the first of these,
Hebrew
of the
The
vocalisation will
be guided by the tradition as to the pronunciation represented in the Targum manuscripts from Yemen, with the
exceptions specified in
my
"
Aramaische Dialektproben,"
iv.
ff.,
however,
that
in
many
f.,
pronunciation
d. jud.-pal.
1
Jesus
cf.
Gramm.
Aramaic, 46, 48 50
xsii.
59
64
ff.
ZDMG
522
f.,
FUNDAMENTAL
IDEAS.
I.
THE expression
is
77
jBacriKeia TCOV
to the Gospel of
Matthew,
1
of
ovpav&v which it
is is
altogether peculiar
as characteristic as
o ev
Mark and Luke have uniformly, ovpavols (o ovpdvios). Matthew has rarely, f) ftacrikela TOV Qeov. The Jewish expression 2 corresponding to 17 j3a<r. r. ovpav&v is in Aramaic N ^1 KJJ^P, in Hebrew &QW ftwD.
S T
In the latter
without the
Njpt?
is
it
is
3
article,
is always worthy of notice that from which it appears that the Aramaic
&W
of this
The Mishna
3
DW
e.g.
Ber.
tnto,
the fear
of
DW
"the name
God," Sanh.
"
of
ix.
God," Sanh.
6
;
vi.
4;
DW
in
D^,
n'a, "through,
by
IP,
on the other hand, invariably &?p^n from heaven," Sanh. x. 1 Ned. x. 6. 4 The difference
;
is
to
be attributed to the
the
locative
fact
of
that
the
last-mentioned
consciously
phrase
1
sense
DW
was
still
Fundamental
(1898), 180 ff., the Persian idea of the "Supreme Sovereignty" exerted influence when the term originated. This is possible, but not necessary.
3
See Franz Delitzsch, Neuc Beobachtungen tiber hebr. Spracheigentiimlichkeiten, v., Theol. Litbl. 1887, No. 48. 4 See also Fund. Ideas, VIII. ; E. Schurer, Jaln-b. f. prot. Theol. 1876,
p.
171
ff.
Gli.
(1897), 67.
92
for
" "
God."
Compare, further,
b.
EWp
D
wn
1^>
"
one
wh k
is
ftp,
mercy
of
Although KJ?p7
^nopo
it
is
thus
tantamount
to
the
God," "sovereignty trace of the thought, that in the phrase the dwelling-place
of
instead of
there
Simeon ben Lakish, enthroned, must have been obliterated. " about 260 A.D., contrasted the sovereignty of earth (no^o
"
"
sovereignty of heaven
"
"
(Q
rvota).i
For
God.
^1?"?"?
is in this case the dwelling-place the Babylonian saying,2 R?? WHfcO Knoi>p Similarly, " Krvo^o, the earthly government resembles the heavenly
heaven
government," has regard to the seat of human kings, and of God. Again, Yokhanan ben Zakkai, about 80 A.D., makes
mention
of
"
the yoke of
the
"
heavenly
sovereignty
" " the yoke of flesh and blood D^K> nttpp) alongside of " " " 3 God into contrast with men." Dlj "to), thereby bringing
in the point of view is, however, of small because in every case the " heavenly sovereignty," importance, in contradistinction to the " earthly," is nothing else than " the " sovereignty of God as opposed to all human govern-
The
difference
ment.
There
is
no
to
the
It can
only be ascribed to unfamiliarity with Jewish phraseology, that it is still commonly the custom to see in rj /3ao-L\eia
TCOV
of
1
b. Ber.
58 a.
; j. Agada der Tannaiten, i. 30 f. Of. in the mouth of Chanina (about 80 A.D.) the antithesis of Kin 3113 BJVigjj *?iy and orn Tpa "?iy, Ab. d. R. Nathan, 30.
Kidd. 59 d
see Backer,
See, e.g., V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (1886), 209 ; 2 Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu (1892), 197 f.; L. Paul, Die Vorstellungen vora Messias und vom Gottesrcich bei den Syrioptikern (1895),
W.
21
f. ;
93
God.
Least of
exists
all
which no singular
form
anything whatever to do with the heavens being A Hellenist might possibly, indeed, attach seven in number.
to the
Greek
01
a sufficient reason for imputing the idea to Matthew, who makes no allusion of the kind. 1 Evidence of the meaning
attached by Jesus to the words TWV ovpavwv is afforded also by the substitute TOV Oeov, which is used exclusively in
Mark and
with
it is
Luke.
Jewish
safe to
the expression 0*B> flwp, meaning assume the same interpretation in the case of
of
Jesus.
According to
J.
Weiss
and H.
J.
Holtzmann,
it
was
to Jesus, the
actually spoken
being
of
f)
r)
But
it
modern misunderstandings
only
too credible that
ftacr.
ovpavwv render
out of regard to
heathen readers, avoided the specifically Jewish expression, and followed the Greek Bible, which mentions no "sovethe sovereignty of God." See reignty of heaven," but only 1 19 11 12 13 6 5 10 10 4 Ps. of Sol. 17 14 Tob. 13 Wisd. 148 Ps. 103
-
"
Three Children). This is the usage also (Song of the Targums, which put "1 NHwE where the Hebrew text Jesus will speaks of Jehovah as being King (see below).
Dan. 3
54
of the
Mitt. u. Nachr. f. d. ev. K. in Russl. 1895, p. 52 ; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutestamentl. Theologie (1897), i. 189 f. ; A. Meyer, Die moderne Forschung iiber d. Gesch. des Urchristenthums (1898), 73.
1
2 8
In opposition to Holtzmann, loc. cit. 191. J. Weiss, Die Predigt vom Reiche Gottes (1892), Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie, i. 191 f.
9.
4 E. Issel, Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im Neuen Testament (1895), 20, thinks that in this passage the "fulfilment of the Messianic promises" is implied by /SacriXefa Oeov ; it is, however, merely a glimpse given to Jacob into God's position as sovereign that is meant.
94
have preferred the popular expression because abstained from the use of the divine name.
He
also readily
No
doubt can be entertained that both in the Old Testain Jewish literature nOTD,
"
ment and
it
when
"
applied to God,
as
if
means always the kingly rule," never the kingdom," were meant to suggest the territory governed by Him.
the
-
For
,
Ps.
Old Testament, see Ps. 103 19 145 11 12 13 cf. Obad. 21 22 29 (n?w) for the Jewish literature, the instances to
, ;
be cited
"
kingdom is not a body politic in our sense, a people or land under some form of constitution, but merely a " sove" which embraces a particular territory. shall reignty
later "
on. 1
To-day as
in
antiquity
an Oriental
We
un domaine a
la
2 Krop, indeed, in his definition tete duquel se trouve un roi," has regarded
Bousset,
of
God
only now and then does the sense sovereignty " take the place of kingdom of God," and he seeks
reasons
for
this
for
special
interchange.
But
it
is
more
adhere
to
"
uniformly
sight
"
to the
term
-
"
sovereignty," so as never
lose
of
the
starting
point.
Herrschaf t
(sovereignty)
ment
"
felt, e.g.,
can also in a secondary sense is free from the embarrasstried to alternate the
words
"
reign
and
"
f)
/3ao-L\ela
rov
See also Fund. Ideas, I. 8. 28. Schurer, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1876, p. nn^o not quite accurately as the "kingdom in which heaven, i.e. the heavenly King, rules." 2 F. Krop, La pense"e de Jesus sur le royaume de Dieu (1897), 21 f.
183, defines D'O^
3 4
5
W. Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz z. Judentum (1892), 97. B. Weiss, Lehrl). d. bibl. Theol. des N.T. 6 (1895) 46. This is advocated also by K. G. Grass, loc. cit. 50 f. Candlish, The Kingdom of God (1884), quoted by Stanton. The Jewish
95
.
13 43 and 26 29
,
For the
latter
rov deov.
It
need cause no surprise that Jesus should occasionally avail Himself of this mode of expression, for He loved to characterise
God
as
"
Father."
In the same category should also be reckoned Matt. 6 33 31 (Luke 12 ), where rj fSaarikela avrov points back to 6 Trarrjp
V/JLWV
ovpdvio?, ver.
32
(cf.
Luke 12 30
V/JLCOV
6 Trartjp)',
and
also Matt.
where % fiaatXela is unprovided with a further qualification only because, in view of its being prepared for
,
25
34
"
the
blessed
of
My
Father,"
the
addition
appeared un/Bao-iXeta, in
necessary.
delicate
when
f)
This happens only in Matthew, without any supplement. and almost exclusively in composite expressions. Here we
find: ol viol
13
19
7775
11
/Sao^Xeta?,
8 12
13 38
Xo709 T^?
/3aa-tXe/a?,
;
(Luke 8
o X. TOV 6eov
Mark 4
14
o Xoryo? only)
,
and TO
4 23 (wanting in Mark I 39 Luke 4 44 ), 9 35 (wanting in Mark 6 6 Luke 13 22 ), 24 14 (Mark 13 10 TO 13 Mark 14 9). Of these passages, vayje\Lov only, cf. Matt. 26
,
to
the
narrator.
fuller
designation
is
fjivo-Trjpia TT)?
p. T.
(3.
TOV deov,
When
definition,
ritt^sn is
what
is
meant
"
"
government
representing
him be the
Com-
connected with
;
the (Roman) government," b. Sanh. 43 a 2 b. Bab. k. 83 a cf. b b. Sot. 41 with Ab. iii. 8 (Nekhonya ben ha-Kanna about
1
Cf.
Ideas,
I. 4c.
It is incorrect to
make
this passage apply to a relationship with the royal to turn it into a proof of the Davidic descent of Jesus.
96 70
"
Every man, who takes upon himself the yoke of the Law, is set free from the yoke of the (foreign) govern" ment (HWO piy), and from the yoke of providing a livelihood
(H?
46
b
.
TO-
^J>).
ix.
17;
j.
Ber. 6 a
13 C
j.
Ter.
In this
itself
God.
except in the instances given, fuller expressions, it " should not be assumed that even for Him " the sovereignty
had as yet become an equivalent term for " the sovereignty of God." Within the Christian community, and specially the
And
it,
this identification is
more
credible.
used
by Matthew
will
have
been
formed.
B.
IDEA.
is
The
Onkelos
reignty
first
that the
of
sovereignty
in
God
15
for
is
18
an
puts:
eternal
one.
. . .
The Targum
&x\)
njrp,
Ex.
"God
1VJ
endures
ever
and ever
"
(&W
Tpft
W$$
of a
'rf>yfe),
for the
Hebrew
D&6
thus sub-
stituting
for the
more abstract
Abraham made God known upon earth. 113 (Fr. 134 b ) it is said: "Before our
came
into
Abraham
God was, as it were, only the king of heaven but when Abraham came, he made Him to be over heaven and earth." Thereafter at the Red Sea king
the world,
;
and
God.
at
1
Sinai
to
this
sovereignty of
Thenceforward
has
its
It is to
the sovereignty of
God
ben Azaria (about 100 A.D.) refers in a saying, which also " shows the connection of the expressions " heavenly Father " " " and One should not say I sovereignty of heaven
: :
mixed
stuffs, swine's
97
say
:
forbidden
wedlock
for
but
one
should
have
I
?
indeed inclination
such
things,
but what
shall
do
(no
Lev.
forbidden them to
me
1
'by -to
c?$3B>
ns-i
nb>y)
[for
thus are
we
taught,
20 26 ]: 'and I have separated you from the peoples, that here we find him (i.e. man, according ye should be mine'
t
from transgression
of
God"
adopts
rniyn
|p
ante
3
Mm).
According to
(c.
260
A.D.),
the proselyte
who
" takes upon himself the sovereignty of law thereby In the statement of Yokhanan ben Zakkai, 4 adheaven."
duced on page
a slave for
life
92, the
Israelite
who
voluntarily becomes
heavenly sovereignty (D?&B> JTOpp Hy P")3), and takes upon Here the sovehimself the yoke of man (D*]J "fe biy ?3i?). of God is called a yoke, because God is able to reignty
compel
set
Israel,
will,
to accept
spite of
"*?*?
His
service.
In Siphra 112 b
He
says to Israel:
"
"In
3
you
D
do I
?1T??
up
My
(TO- ?*?
TPP9
D?^y).
How
realistic
that the
daily
recitation
the
"
reading of
divided love
repeated
requiring unas a continually regarded acknowledged), " taking upon one's self of the yoke of the
Deut. 6
is
4"10
(where
the
One God
is
sovereignty of
A.D.) replied
God."
n.
(c.
110
to those who maintained that as a bridegroom he was free from the duty of the reading of the Shema on " I yield not to you in that the evening of his marriage to
:
nnx
1
nyg>
DW
rvo^p ^ttp).
2 3 4
wanting in Siphra, Venice edition (1545), d see Backer, Ag. d. Tann. Siphra, ed. Weiss, 93 Tanchuma, ed. Buber, no ? -fr 6 ; cf. Backer, Ag.
This
is
;
1
228.
d. p.
Am.
i.
374,
j.
Kidd.
7
59*>.
Ber.
ii.
5.
98
A.D.)
recitation of
II 13
21
,
the
prior
(&}?& JTDpE
must be assumed
"
1
yoke
of
the
commandments
*fiy
(n^vo
bty).
And
.
the
found exactly as a designation for the recitation of the Shema, e.g. j. Ber. 4 a 7 b
b%\>
is
,
to
Thus the sovereignty of God belongs, in the first instance, the current age, 2 and is as yet fully acknowledged only in
Israel.
The future
will,
ment.
sovereignty of God is to appear in all its glory, Israel must be set free from the sway of the peoples, and
the
God.
The former
is
part of the
common
prayer for
being introduced in
Prayers": fv WB nprn n^nroa uvreft rm^&rns u^Blt? nyp'n nriK 7jnzi B&Bta* P"m 3 D^rnrn nona T\& ^ nrus u^y ?]itai nnjKi
DQ>pi
our
nj'i^
snis
"-pip
"
old
and
counsellors
sorrow
in
the
4 and justice Jehovah, in mercy and compassion, in grace Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, a King who lovest grace
!
and righteousness."
realisation
of
of
the full
:
God's
D^s
over
Israel,
says
*nB*
la^a uayrn
in
tyafc^
^nwfea,
of
Thy
1
sovereignty
;
every
one
those
keep
the
Sabbath day
Ber.
ii.
2.
This
is
rightly affirmed
S.
SchecJiter,
Jew.
Quart. Rev.
vii.
(1895)
195
ff.
in Seder
Rab Amrarn,
free in
8a
67,
has
iss^J?3 wp^Jfi,
pronounce us
this
the judgment."
of
pix
On
translation
and
see
my
treatise,
"Die
richterl.
99
Thy goodness." To a later period belongs the divine word attached to Zech. 9 9 in Pesikta Kabbati, 159 a Speaking
.
as the future
in Israel thus
strictly
King
"
:
of Zion,
God
ones
Ye
I
pious
ye law although not for My sovereignty (DTY'sn^ 7voW> Divan &\ <rnin^),i yet I swear to you that I will
speaking,
praise,
owe
you
words
of
since
waited for
My
bear
witness
for
good
is
to
:
every
'
for
My
'
Wait patiently for Me, saith sovereignty, that day when I rise up as witness-bearer Jehovah, against in favour of the sorrowful ones who mourn with Me over
as
it
said
My
My
desolated palace."
In regard to the future recognition of God throughout the entire Gentile world, the Sibylline Oracles, iii. 47, has
the
following
:
ffacriXela
;
fieyiarTj
iii.
adavdrov
real
/3acrA,?jo5
8*
eTr*
avOpMTToiei
fiacriXrjlov
fyavelTat
et<?
and
76:
Tore
e^ejepel
al&vas Trdvras
eir
avOpaiTrois.
Joshua
ben
Khananya
of
(c.
100
" be abolished, says shall God alone be absolute in all the world, and His sovereignty will endure for ever and ever" (inota *nrn D^ijn S YJT Dip?sn NTI
other gods
shall
when Then
all service
D^bty
'ctosfa
^).2
set up His sovereignty in your lifetime, and in your days, and in the lifetime of the whole house of 4 What Israel, (yea) speedily, and in a time that is near."
1 Cod. de Rossi, 1240, in Parma, has Dirn'ri both times ; but the citation introduced at the end from Zeph. 3 8 proves that niVDn must be meant. a 2 Mechilta, edition by Friedmann, 56 ; see Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 147. 3 On this see Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, 2 385 ; Landshuth, Seder bikkur cholim ma'bar jabbok we-sepherha-chajjim (1867), lix.-lxviii. ; Dalman,
"
So in Seder Rab Amram, i. 3 b and in Machzor Vitry, 64. Maimonides Mishne Torah) after .Tr^D inserts a'sy P'ns^i a'nvp 31,71 a^ijis nsx:i, "and may He cause His redemption to spring up and His anointed to come near and ransom His people."
4
,
(in
100
is
240
A.D.
In
"
it
expressed that
God
will ultimately
"
bring the
world into order by means of His kingly sovereignty ($FV " all shall submit themselves to *}tf TOfoa Dbty), so that then
HK D^a ^ap' the yoke of this sovereignty (tfb&n\ ^nfe toy The same sense appears in the ancient prayer 2 tisbp Dn^j;).
^ntoya spar
nrr")
"
sjetoya
inota
'
fotoya
TJBBJ
nrp
r6x,
"
our
King, our God, make Thy name one in Thy world, make Thy one ') in Thy world, and make sovereignty absolute (lit.
absolute the remembrance of Thee in
Thy
:
world."
Present
and future are included in the doxology 3 Nnopip ton Wtb Tnjn Kpfei jnn tfrfjya, "to Jehovah belongs the sovereignty in this age and in that to come." Similarly
it
is
1 7 3L
rj
TO /cpdros rov
Oeov yfjiwv
rj/jL&v els
rov al&va
lirl
{3a<ri,\ela
rov Oeov
rov al&va
4
ra Wvi) ev
God
our
is
(upon us)
is
"
God
Since
God
is
only requires with power of His sovereignty may after all be termed an Thus the Assumptio Mosis (10 1 ) already says: "appearing."
"
to
be openly recognised,
the
establishment
Parebit
12
regnum
illius
(scil.
Domini)."
The Midrash on
Cant. 2
represents the
"
:
"
sovereignty of
God "
"
and says
time
of the
former
for
as one day T
DW
has
arrived
the
sovereignty of
God
to
be
re-
vealed."
is
The
relation of
God
Zunz,
loc.
cit.
386
and
Machzor Vitry, 75
4
5
101
may His
sovereignty over us be
manifest
This
mode
writers,
of expression
is
Targum
who wish
Isa.
to avoid the
person should
"
Jton^fifj,
appear on earth.
,
In place of
says:
??'
T? ?,
40 9 the Targum
"
7|7D,
Knofe
n^n"
;
and
in
Jehovah
God
Expressions of similar tenour occur in the Targum for the 4 7 Ezek. 7 7 10 II 24 Obad. 21 Zech. 14 9 passages, Isa. 31 52
-
the
divine
rule
in
heaven was
exists
connection.
That which
Euler or Sovereign.
sovereignty.
There
here
the
no
thought
of
of
pre-existent
"realities"
emerging
into
course
the world. 1
But
God
governance exercised by Him, it is quite compatible with this idea that different terms had to be used when the blessings
2 promised to Israel in the Messianic age were to be indicated.
G.
WORDS
OF JESUS.
preliminary analysis of the Jewish usage of the idea of the divine government had to be premised, in order that
its
1
specific application
See also
i.
Fundamental
f.
Holtzmann, Lehrb.
d.
neutest.
Theol.
189.
2 F. Krop, La Pensee de Jesus sur le royaume de Dieu, 22, incorrectly holds that "the reaction against the Messianic hopes after the fall of Jerusalem" has contributed to this result. This reaction is just as little demonstrable as
its
Holtzmann, loc. cit. i. 189, is also inaccurate in speaking alleged results. of the "kingdom of heaven" as only another name for "the days of the
Messiah."
102
light.
This application may be studied to best advantage, in connection with the various composite expressions into which the idea in question enters, in the discourse of Jesus. We
give
them
in six groups.
1.
IS
be pronounced certain that Jesus ever directly coupled any one of these verbs with 17 paa-i\eia rov Oeov (rcov ovpav&v). Luke alone has on one occasion
It
cannot, however,
(4
43
)
The
Mark
38
,
eva<yye\lerai,
to
of
"to meaning always " to receive a message," but not " to be Even the substantive evayyeXiov is only once, announced." 2
Matt. 24 14, connected with
f)
^acriXeia.
The
parallel passage,
Mark 13 10
,
omits
26 13 in connection with evayyeXiov. In Mark I 15 but not " in the parallel, Matt. 4 17 Jesus speaks of believing in the
,
The formula
eveicev
ical
Mark
19
29
(eveicev) rov 6va<yye\lov is so expressed only in S 35 10 29 whereas in Matt. 16 25 (Luke 9 24 ) and Matt. 29 It was (Luke 18 ) the gospel is not mentioned.
,
within
the
Christian
ft.
r. 6., first
attained the
In
1
the
verb
"ifr? }
which
and
must be assumed
to be
the
The
association with
O/JLOIOVV
fyuoios elvai is
.
T. 6. weight for the idea of the 2 In Matt. II 5 (Luke 7 22 ) TTTWXOI etayyeXifoi'Tai corresponds accurately with the Aramaic ptj>2j>p pap.?. Only N^a ^71^3 as complement can hardly be
dispensed with.
103
Aramaic expression, the idea of glad tidings is not so Even in the Old inherent as in the Greek 6vayye\l^ecr6aL
17 "to Testament, 1 Sam. 4
,
is
The
Aramaic
of
announcement
and a glad message, Meg. Taan. xii., Ech. 31, expressly adds the adjective KroB wrnba ( c f. Ber. ix. 1, Hebr. ninitt nVrtfefc). Consequently "to will have
a death
i.
to be translated
by
"
announce
"
Nan D^iyn
i^p
}
Krp,
may
a "top KH? promising the life of the age to come," j. Keth. 35 Nin Kan D?iyn \zw ma y he receive the announcement that he
is
j.
Shek. 47
(Meir,
c.
180
A.D.)
nifciNi
the
b. Sot.
is
(in
the
he
is
the phrase: nfetyn }a wn^ Kin HMD assured that he is a son of the age to come," b.
Keth. 1 1 l a (Yokhanan), or: N^n D^iyn ^rf? nD2D Kin, Siphre Deut. b 305, edition Friedm. 129 compare also: Nby JDTO^ ^nno3K
;
"
D^"!j
me
'ntn
come," Targ.
Euth 2 13
KoJ^ ^3K^
?jnB3,
"he has
assured thee of
father," b.
the age to come for thyself and for thy Sanh. 98 a The phraseology is important as the
.
New
Testament conception
is
of
the
"
"
promise
it.
(e7rayj\ia,
67rayye\\eo-0at)
Jas. 2 5 ,
to be derived
is
from
Compare, further,
;
where
77
paaCkeia
John
f) %cor) rj al&vio? the content of the promise ; Tim. 4 8 eirayyeXta fo>^? TT)? vvv teal TTJS fjL6\\ov(rr]$. To the same class belongs the sentence, which occurs several
,
25
which makes
1
and
times,
mn D^ya p^^
is
there
Apoc. inn
It
of
ion
and
in
the
wafo).
thus
1
appears
that
the
sovereignty of
1
God
is
the
j.
1 Targ. Lam. I puts the fuller form x^ ? Nrriib'3, Kil. 32 b has the erroneous reading V.np.
"bad news."
104
tidings,"
qualification
of
"a message
cf.
of
glad tidings."
With
all
this
Matt. 4 17 (Mark I 15 ),
lead to repentance.
things
The germs of this development may be seen in the Old Testament in such passages as Isa. 40 9 41 27 52 7 The
.
Apocalypse
of
of salvation,
46 6
Subsequently Elijah ranks as the herald of salvation 12 Pesikta according to Targum Jerus. I. on Num. 25
.
77
12
Trypho,
c.
8.
Midrash Vayyosha 1 cf Justin, Dial. To the Messiah Himself the same function
;
;
.
c.
is
13 assigned in Schir. E. 2
36
22 Trg. Ech. 2 ,
" 2 by Eleazar ben Kalir in Az milliphne bereschith." 2 In Luke 9 Krjpvo-creiv r. /3. r. 6. is found as part of a mandate laid by Jesus upon His disciples. Mark 3 14 has Krjpva-
with no complement, while in Matt. 10 7 (cf. Luke 10 9) the charge is thus expressed K^pvacere \eyovres on rjyyiKev
a-etv
:
This last form of the charge (Ba<ri\eia r&v ovpavwv. rj commends itself as most natural on the lips of Jesus. Of
this,
9 (Mark 14 ) should be regarded as shorter form points back to Krn^a "i^3 with which compare
}
rnfcanK KraD
Kn^a, thou hast received good tidings," Ech. E. i. 31; and also in Samaritan iMip WOT nrnpnsjnn, " this announcement which I declare to thee," Marka, Death
"
of Moses, 26.
is
more
1
A.
4 Aphel form f?.?N, which corresponds still the Greek term, and is a verbal form derived
i.
54
;
D.
Castelli,
II
b b. Pes. 13 a Deb. R. 3; but in these ; Ebrei, 196, 201, cites also b. Erub. 43 the announcement of salvation is not attributed to Elijah. passages
2 3
See
my
treatise,
" Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
which would
lead us to expect NrnD3 as the defined form. 4 The Peal also seems to o'ccur Koh. R. 7"
105
,
= Ki'ipv%.
C
,
It is already
applied,
e.g.
j.
Ber. 7
to
proclaimed in the synagogue. &~$ occurs, indeed, through the influence of the Hebrew, in the Targum in Lev. 25 10
Isa.
meaning "to proclaim"; but elsewhere in the Jewish -Aramaic literature &Op seems to be used only for " to summon, to name, to read."
,
6 11
$tayye\\iv
TTJV
/3. T. 0.
occurs in
22
.
Luke
9 60 but is
,
wanting
merely a
Doubtless
it
is
Greek variant
Aramaic term
If
corresponding to
such a
term were wanted, STpN, " to make known," might be proposed, as it can be cited in the sense required from the Book of
1 Daniel, the letters of Gamaliel, and j.
Ber.
7;
j.
Ned. 40 a
Vay. E. 25.
There
still calls
/?. r.
6.,
occuroffers
Luke
9 11
for
which Mark 6 34
merely
is
SiSdo-icew 7ro\\d.
phrase established
by
tradition
In Aramaic fe obviously not present in this instance. s NT Nrnstas would be unusual, all the more as fe, so Pp!
in the Targums,
is
common
35 a
"to
only instances
;
known
to
me
pass,
fenx, j.
Schek. 50 a
2
.
In place of
b.
it
relate," is
Yom.
9b
One might
"
'an,
cf.
to instruct in,"
which
34
3
;
(e.g.
Ab.
d.
E. Nathan, 18).
Peculiar
difficulty attaches
to
phrase
rfj
.
now
to
be
mentioned
66?
rrjv
ftaaikeiq (or
f$a<TL\eiav)
fjiaO^reveiv
13 52
verb, to
which
1
the
sense
the
here
represented
would
(or
correspond,
Jewish
Aramaic
in
See " Aram. Dialektproben," 3. 2 Even here the sense of ND^yn p^onm f"D is not properly intelligible. 3 Vay. R. 34, NJJ?, to learn, is found beside jn, to teach. But ^FI also means " to relate," j. Maas. Sh. 55.
106
Hebrew).
One could only substitute Trf>n Nirn NJOBH RftDpp(2)^, every scribe who is a disciple of the of God/' But probably the phrase is due to the sovereignty author writing in Greek. In that case no precise equivalent
in the words of Jesus need be sought for.
In regard to 6 ^0709
TCL
rr)9
p.
95.
8 10 ),
4
fjLvvTijpia
T.
0.
T.
o. }
Matt. 13 11
Mark 4 11 Luke
cf.
wan NH
"Witf). Subsequently the Greek word also came to be used by the Jews of Galilee, pwpp*] n^p, " mystery," Ber. E. 74. It is significant that according to Pes. Eabb. 14 b the
Mishna
is
Jews
to
(PT9PP) of God proving the be the sons of God, and has been entrusted for
the
secret counsel
"
"
2.
IS
REGARDED AS AN APPROACHING
(a)
To
be at
elvai).
In addition to
(tfyyiKe),
Matt.
4 17 (Mark
I 15 )
10 13
be
(Luke 10
,
9
),
Luke 10
eyyvs ea-rw,
Luke 2 1 31
29
,
in
which
,
parallels in
Mark
Both
T.
6.
as subject.
are
tfyyiKev would reproduction in Aramaic. or nrnp with or without 'rrci; cf. Targ. Ech. 4 18 ?",
:r>ip }
N3B1D
fny
"our end
nnp,
is
Targ. Isa.
13 22
eV
I.
W$
i^
"the
time
to
at
hand."
For
Qi*
1
77^9
;
reference can be
Kin :rnp
;
made
Onk. Deut. 32 s5
^")P
Jerus.
Jerus. II.
Isa.
56
^^Q nnp
*nw,
7 "my redemption nigh"; and Apoc. of Bar. 23 For the phrases under (Syriac version) TiNn ^pniD m nnp. consideration, therefore, we may perhaps assume the original
to
have been
'n'p!>
N;pKh Nnofe
nzin^.
107
more probable than the Aramaic Nipip, to arrive, to The Targums which also it would be possible to revert.
meant
usually put this word for the Hebr. si 3, to express that a set time has
-
when
the latter
e.g.
is
arrived,
Targ.
this
Ezek. 7 2
6 - 7 - 12
;
Amos
82
(in
"
|OT Ktpip,
").
(b)
To come
((f)6dviv,
(a),
To
the
Ktpp,
just
of
mentioned under
original
In
Dan.
21
by
means
"
to
such a way that he cannot escape, Theod. tfyOaaev eirl 2 nva. This, too, can be united with *W?, Targ. Ezek. 7 5y Wtfo KX$ njnia DSD, "the judgment of the end has
:
etc.
"
"
sovereignty
in
(Luke II
); also
,
Luke 17
20
22 18
ex-
Matt.
9
1
26 29
Mark 14 25
are
,
differently
pressed),
this
Mark
"
(differently Matt.
16 28 Luke 9 27 ).
"
With
.
may
44 12
.
.
.
there cometh
;
mn
xzby
NHK)
Targ.
Mic. 4
8
,
ep^evr)
/3aa-i\eia TOV
(c)
To appear (ava$alv<r0ai).
The term
in
by Luke as
narrator (Luke 19 11 ),
connection
with
lOOf.).
of
Ktt^O throughout
It also meets us
(in
the
Targums
(see above, p.
in
Assump. Mos.
10 1 and Apoc.
,
Baruch 39 7
this
1 As a parallel to the sovereignty of the Messiah). sentence given on p. 100 from the Midrash on Canticles,
1 Syr. Trwon nn'srn itann, " manifest.
will be
made
108
there
may
vi.
be
1
cited
l
:
the
Canticles
"
As
of
accomplished
the Messiah,
in view
so
shall
the
sovereignty of
when
^prnsa
it
world
D (
^^
appears, be revealed openly to the r6an n^tari ntt^p The rare rfan^s).
occurrence of the expression on the lips of Jesus shows, at least, that it was not commonly used by Him.
On
of
ecrriv,
Luke 17 21
No.
3.
IS
LIKEWISE
REGARDED AS AN
To
see (ISelv).
In Luke 9 27 Jesus
reignty of God.
The former
"
for
to
to
see
the
sovereignty
cipator in
God
"
it,"
just as
Ntof>
means Tns&
to
survive
j.
be
parti-
nto,
Sanh. 29
(Baraitha),
means
in
"
it."
"
to
live
on into the
the
age
to
come
is
as
:
a partaker
See
also
phrase
adduced
below
^C -?
1
n&n,
to see
the consolation."
Targ.
Isa.
same
siah
"
;
in
53
10
not
quite the
forgiven
Israelites,
will see
the morning prayer on the Sabbath: 2 "jn^pn nj'jon U^y, " may our eyes see Thy (God's) royal sovereignty." In
these cases, then, the thought
in the sovereignty that
is
is
also
is
which
made in Bar. Apoc. 5 1 8 "They now invisible to them, yea, see the
109
(Syr.
why
in
ti
pm
To
to
expect, look
for
narrative,
"
According
the
Gospel
Mark 15 43 (Luke
"
the sovereignty of God is being looked for (irpoo-of Israel or the redempSexeaQai), just as the consolation " looked for," according to Luke 2 25 tion of Jerusalem was
23
51
),
for this is
18
;
Targ.
30 18
its
64 3
Hab.
23
cf.
form
13B>,
which
has
made
Dan.
way
K^ap,
into late
LXX
S
7 25
TrpoaSe^erat,
Aramaic
"no, as
also
the sub-
The Pael ?P "expectation," Ber. E. 53. occurs both in the Jerus. Targums to the Pentateuch and
stantive
in the Evang. Hieros. for
"
I cannot,
however,
verify either
this
or even
"3p
in
the
Jewish-
Galilean literature. 2
Note.
for
the consolation of
Israel"
parallels
in
"
Bar.
(Syr.
Apoc.
44 7 "Ye
}irnn),
will in
the
Targumic Mjom
of
jvnn naonn
and
pBnip,
years In these
"
Nnrpn.3,
the
consolations,"
instances,
of
"
the days
to
Sam.
23 1
svby
fpD,
formula of asseveration
a put into the mouth of Simeon ben Shetach in b. Shebu. 34 as early as 100 B.C., which is also used by Eleazar ben Zadok, 3 Keth. 35 C (c. 100 A.D.), is thus expressed: npnan nxnN, "I j.
"
!
and a Baraitha
b.
Taan.
a 1 l
pro-
nounces the following verdict against any one who in time nxT ?s of distress separates himself from the community
:
let
1
him not
see
Late Hebr. nsv, "to hope for," may be mentioned at the same time. " 2 '? '?p, Vay. R. 34, does not mean but from '? hope in me, " in apposition it is equal to "look upon me 3 See Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 52.
1
110
the
Targ.
Isa.
43
Q.Wvv
nrpmri
w
33 20
the
"
consolation
"
of
Jerusalem"; and
D^pn
nonaa
JW
*\yy t
of Jerusalem."
is, throughout these instances, not the resurrection, but redemption in its full extent.
Consolation
4.
(a)
To
sit
aprov
can be
"
28
.
the
prophets
as the
seen
"
the
sovereignty of God,
well
Luke
parallel,
13
The
8 11 ,
context of the
passage, as
Matt.
Currency
may
avdicet,(r6ai in
-
11
,
):
aprov
r.
6.
As
to
mentioned by Jesus, Matt. 26 29 (Mark 14 25 Luke God, it 18 22 ), in connection with the consummation of the passover
there,
Luke 22 15
rather
16
.
feastirlg in
implied Leviathan and Behemoth, which creatures were one day to The first mention of this is serve as food for the pious.
in
asserted
by the
an ancient portion
it
.
of the
Apocalypse
of
afterwards
2 Esd.
6
occurs in the
It is
Book
something quite different when, as in the case of Jesus, the time of salvation is merely likened to a feast. Dropping the figure, such a comparison only
implies that the Messianic age brings joy and gratification. Thus the Slavonic Enoch (42 5 ) 1 says that the angels will
1
49" 52
111
"as
one
the
Adam
those
to
Paradise,
to
with
whom
one
will
loves
celebrate
festivals/'
feast,
then
"
in
bliss
and
pleasure and untold abundance in the rapture of the light and in the life that never ends."
A.D.
About 120
Akiba speaks
of
a "repast"
iii.
(nTOD) with
16
(IvirHP),
which one
enters from the vestibule ("vntftB) of the current age (Ab. iv. 16), a simile which is repeated in Tosephta Ber. vii. 21.
Only from a later period do we find traces of an actual repast " " which God prepared for the pious the feast of Paradise
(P.*! 1?
^ rnu'Dn).i
ff.
Then the
fable of
is
also
combined therewith.
Detailed descriptions of
iii.
Beth ha-Midrasch
the passage in the
<?2\
76,
v.
45
f.,
150
see
Noteworthy
67):
2
is
Book
(loc. cit.
iii.
&^ &\?w?
of Elijah
"
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the righteous 7 where God says to each of sitting"; and Targ. Eccl. 9 the pious $ J^NT anon nD ata w> ynrh Nnnn Dtytp tyx
I
,
:
fiy
\^
"
t
come, eat thy bread with joy, and drink with a is reserved for thee in Paradise."
See also Targ. Kuth 2 12 nato 5>rni njjrni rnfe> DJ> -^n wb, that thy portion may be with Sarah and Eebekah, and Eachel and Leah."
From
tion of
the Gospels
it
may
an actual repast
established idea.
figure of speech.
was already an oldEven for Jesus this repast was no mere But He speaks of it in plain language only
for the pious
which the
right-
eous of
all
Never did He
Even
ii.
1 Schem. R. 45 (Assi) see also Hamburger, Real-Encyc. f. Bibel u. Talm 1312 ff. 2 See also M. Buttenwieser, Die hebr. Elias-Apokalypse (1897), 25, 60.
112
6 through the sovereignty of God spoken of in Matt. 5 (Luke 6 21 ) there is no idea of a repast. It is rather meant to
13f> the complete contentment express figuratively, like Isa. 65 of those who are for the present suffering want.
,
The determination
here
is
of the
Aramaic expressions
corresponds
in
to be used
1
not without
difficulty.
for to
"recline at table."
To
this
the Targums
inpN;
see,
e.g.,
Onk.
to
to
form a
round a
table."
b (Ber. 1 2
In the
;
Talmud
Taan.
" for this was, at a later date, V?"!, to lie down." " For to eat," ^>?N is a term common to all
Aramaic
use
dialects.
"To
by
DM.
dialects
"
to
eat
occurs in
the Old Testament, and hence also in the Targums, pretty 25 Ex. 2 20 2 Sam. 9 7 in the Gospels, frequently, Gen. 37
, , ;
Matt. 15 2
Mark
3 20 7 2
6
,
Luke 14 1 2
.
few examples.
In
Ber.
42 b a summons
"
;
^?,
"
let
us eat bread
and
b.
Bab.
bar Khanilay, speaking " " of Moses, says that he did not eat bread on Sinai, while
Tankhum
the angels,
"
when
visiting
Abraham,
"
3
(c.
"
ate bread."
"
is
It is self-
Nna^
^3
In
to eat
unsuitable.
100
A.D.) is
given to the
"
man
will
be satisfied
1
with the
bread of the age to come" (Nan tonta). ? mention of the bread is here due to Prov. 28 19
not therefore imply a prevalent idiom.
1
&W
But the
,
and does
On
2
3
12 3pp, "dinner-party." Similarly, as early as Cant. I Of. Joh. Vorstius, De Hebraismis Novi Testament!, ii. 255
ff.
i.
190.
113
must be
cited
1
,
meal," Dan. 5
" the ancient phrase &np 1?5J, to prepare a 19 which the later Hebr. Dr6 iW, Eccles. 10
:
,
least.
The benediction given to him who should eat bread '^tfn theocracy would be thus rendered in Aramaic
:
"
"
in the
'rriliD
KWf
Kirofoa Kni>.
It
is
striking in this
case
that the
Some
expression,
"
Jp^itt,
(b)
To
The righteous shine forth as the sun Matt. 13 43 conformably with Dan. 12 3
.
in the theocracy,
As, however, in Dan. 12 3 the stars are also introduced into the comparison, the idea developed by Paul,1 and by Yehuda i.,2 is not
excluded, that
the
lustre
is
of
different kinds,
and
that,
therefore, degrees of
One may
"
rank are to be found among the righteous. in the theocracy be o fUKpoTepos, Matt. II 11 (Luke
"
,
7 28 ), or e\^io-T09, Matt. 5 19
i.e.
greatest
(6 /juelfav),
34
,
Mark
Luke
46
,
Matt. 1 8 1 (where, however, the parallels, speak only of the greatest among the
"
disciples of Jesus), or
"
great
(yueya?),
Matt. 5 19
(c.
This gradation recalls the statement of Joshua ben Levy 250), that there are men who are "esteemed" ( QV< )i) in
who
3
on the surface ") in the age to come and another son Joseph, who on his deathbed had a vision of " " a world turned upside down (^BH D^V), in which the " " highest found themselves lowest, and the lowest highest
floating
his
of
(rby&
own
2
father. 4
(c.
110)
105.
1 Cor.
15
41
.
b. Pes. 50*.
i.
Loc.
cit.
andb. Bab.
b. 10 b
Amoraer,
187,
ii.
114
said
l
:
He
2 even a simpleton, will in the end be exalted." Yirmeya also " He who humbles taught on similar lines in a later period
:
himself in this age for the sake of the word of the law, will
be
made
According to Yonathan
ben Eleazar
240
A.D.),
all
come there
it
will be great
is
4
is
not
known who
and small, only in the present age in reality great, and who is small.
tells
An
Aramaic narrative
of
woman who
is
afraid
that the acceptance in this age of a heavenly gift prejudices the status in the other world, and she therefore causes the
p*w pro fe) each righteous one (after death) has his own world for himself," ranked as a truth generally recognised. With this Yehuda i. (c. 200) is in accord when he explains (Siphre
gift to
be returned.
"
The principle
D^y
&
toy rm,
a Friedmann, 83 ), that the righteous will in the future have different grades, envying one another no
to Deut.
II 21
ed.
the subject of
a The Palestinian Talmud (in the same Chag. 77 passage) holds that there will be seven such classes, an
6 opinion supported elsewhere. In a similar way Jesus entertained the idea of different
among those who had part in the theocracy. But the principle on which these ranks are assigned is not that of the Eabbis.
grades
As Aramaic has no
for
superlative, there
is
at our disposal
"the
o peifyov,
Between least," "the greatest," only KTJJT, Kfi. Matt. 18 1 and fieyas, Matt. 5 19 the only difference
,
Ber. R. 81
b.
b. Ber.
.
63 b
416.
2
3 4 6
Bab. m. 85 b
Pesikta Rabb., ed. Friedmann. 198b Ruth R. iii. 1 ; cf. Schem. R. 52.
a Siphre, ed. Friedm. 67
i.
;
Backer, Ag. der pal. Am. i. 87. 6 Vay. R. 18 ; cf. Ruth R. iii. 1.
Vay. R. 30
Midr. Ps. 16 12
cf.
Backer, Ag.
d.
Tann.
19, 44.
115
be compared a sma11 thing,"
:
expression
reafc
may
"
tnin g>"
Keth.
29 C and fi.W?
,
njrn
nan,
"the greatest
of
them,"
Ber. E.
38.
(c)
(ol viol
:
-nj?
fia
Matthew
ol viol
rfc
/3<zcrtXe/a?,
13
38
,
still calls
for
mention here.
p. 9 5 f .
On
the omission
The son
as such is he
who
belongs to the father's house by being born of his spouse. son, in contrast to the slaves, is the
successor, in short, the heir,
is
so habitual
Eom.
8 17
Gal.
47
those who belong to it in virtue of their birth, who thereby have a natural right to the possession of it. This is the " " sons of the theocracy sense in which the are spoken of in Matt. 8 12 who are cast forth from its sphere.
,
on the other hand, the viol -7-779 paa-ikeias In this case are set side by side with the viol TOV irovrjpov. " " the sons are those who have in themselves the nature of
In
,
Matt. 13 38
The sons of the theocracy are thus the men of " " a cognate disposition with it, the cf. righteous (Si/cawi) 43 v. Of the same character are the expressions ol viol
the father.
;
. :
(TWV
$apLo-ai(Dv\ Matt.
32 1310; njn nsnipn 15, "this son of a murderer," 2 Kings 6 ; 'K3P -G \S3p, "zealot, son of a zealot," Yay. E. 33 pns> "Q,
;
"son
idiom
of
is
obscure parents,"
recalled
-12,
j.
Sanh.
30 C
The first-named
:
71*0 xnhy
by the comparatively frequent expression "a son of the age to come," b. Taan. 22 a in
; ; ;
Hebr. Kjn tfoyn ja, b. Pes. 8 a b. Bab. b. 10 b j. Shek. 47 C d K2n DT fcyn ^aa, j. Ber. 13 ; n)fn \3a, "the sons of the upper " b room Such is the (the heavenly world), b. Sukk. 45
;
.
116
designation of one
to
the future
,
the other hand, the NTO^D raa, Targ. Eccl. 5 8 are age. the citizens of a realm already in existence tfrnp ^?, j. Taan.
;
On
66 C the inhabitants
,
of
;
guests at a
o/ viol
wedding
a city; nann rja, j. Sukk. 53 a the cf. ol viol TOV vvfiQ&vo?, Matt. 9 16
,
5.
THE THEOCRACY
ATTAIN,
IS
FROM
POSSIBLE
TO
BE
EXCLUDED.
(a)
To attain
"
to,
One can
according
to
attain
(elaep^eo-dai
21
els)
the theocracy
-,
Matt.
5 20
25
),
18
13
;
19
cf.
23f -
18
24
elo-iropeveaOai,
23
10 15 (Luke 18 17 ).
in
It
"
is
the same
"
life
the
attaining
9
43 45
-
unto
,
(et?
faqv),
Matt.
1 88
(Mark
of
9
)
19
(et9
17
and
in
the
parable
the
also
Lord"
"
and
Matt.
7 13
xapav " through the narrow gate (Sm TT}? o~Tevi)s 24 The "attaining to His (Luke 13 ).
TTJV
,
TOV
TruA?;?),
glory,"
cognate.
announces in regard to Himself, " One can also be " not far (ov pa/cpdv) from
the theocracy,
/3.
Mark
16
6
1 2 34
,
The phrase
receive
ftia^vQai
et?
TTJV
T.
0.,
Luke
will
separate
consideration
below.
HN;,
b.
Sanh.
98 a
;
Jewish parallel in b to attain to the age to come," b. Chag. 15 a Hebr. K2n DJnjA Kla, b. Sanh. 110 b 105
et?
TTJV
/3.
r.
6.
has
its
"
(Baraitha)
Ktafr
Tos. Sanh.
j.
xiii.
1 (Joshua
cf.
ben Khananya,
c.
120);
n^npb Kla,
Sanh.
29;
oi>ji
w,
"to bring into the age to come," b. Taan. 29 a Hebr. N^PI an Dj>ijA (Eleazar ben Azarya, c. 110 A.D.), Siphre, ed. Friedm.
73V
1
Quite unusual
is
the phrase:
i.
K$V
ii.
i?y,
"to enter
Q^.
221.
Bab. mez.
117
the
life
40 8 1
.
to corresponds more closely to the original than " to enter into." (Aramaic) There is one instance to which this does not apply elcreKOare Sia 7% errezn?? TruX???, Matt. 7 13 (cf. Luke 13 24 ). to
attain
For
this,
recourse
must be had
:
to ^V,
2
"
to enter into."
The
v^, with which compare " b jnn nna \^y and entering in through one door," j. Sabb. 17 he slipped through that hole," Koh. K. 5 14 KSJM anna bxy,
NPV Njnna
and
self-sacrifice
of
I79
to
me
According to Vay. K. 30 (cf. Pes. King David addresses to God these words: "Show what gate may be wide open into the life of the
age to
come" (Kan
Q/>1yn
nf>
t^aip
"
:
fob nr).
The divine
life
is
If
afflictions
life,"
"
OP?
spy nm D*n
"
(et<?
DK).
On
As
rov
"
attaining to
for attaining to
"
"
-
^apav
tcvplov),
Matt. 25 21
joy,"
it
used specially for " the joy This sense is already present in connected with a festival." late books of the Old Testament, 2 Chron. 30 23 Neh. 12 27
Hebrew nnD'^
is
also
In
Sukk.
v.
rnKltfn
wz nnnv
is
the
title
of
special
festivity during
"
3
To come
to the
wedding-feast"
1
It is prescribed,
expressed in Tob. 9 by nrupba N13. Mo. k. 80 d that one should not intermix
,
HL
"To come
into," moreover,
;
is
by
$>
*?y,
s. j.
Pea
Vay. R. 37 less frequently 3 hy, j. Sanh. 21^ Even "to fall into" is ^, j. Maaser. 52 a
21*
;
. $>
and
ia
Sy, j.
Taan. 66.
2 3
Book
(HL) M. Gaster designates the Hebrew recension of the by him see M. Gaster, Two unknown Hebrew versions
;
118
one
nnDb> with another nnp^, and therefore no marriage In Deb. should be appointed to take place on a feast day. " 9 a father says I will lift up wine in honour of my
:
son's
of the
his
wedding" (oa ?& innb?). The Aramaic reproduction same statement, Koh. E. 3 2 has instead iHWJWW, " for
,
banquet."
This use of
it
illustrates
how
for
"
"
a "wedding-feast" (ydfjuoi,), while Luke 14 16 recognises " " Still in Luke 1 2 36 (belirvov /-teya). only a great supper
of
14 8 the word
yd/iot,
In
any case it was not from his own wedding-feast that the Master came home (Luke 12 36 ), but from that of another
person,
^n'
is
in the
same way
28, "thy wedding," and just the corresponding Aramaic word Nrrnn is
in Vay.
. :
used for "wedding," b. Gitt. 68 b See also Pesikt. 193 a nrw if? ns3^ !|o, " a king to whom there came a festival." would certainly have Whence it appears that ?T}? ^H9f
"
signify,
To
invite (icakeiv).
Not without
banquet
in
:
"
being
theocracy.
bidden
"
does
one enter to
the
the
expression 8acri\eiav
tion
"
TOV
Oeov
TOV
et<?
/cal
Sogav,
which shows
affinity
with the
TTJV "
8f - 14
eavTov
invita-
in the parable of
).
22 3f
(Luke
14
16f - 24
The
,
Amora Yokhanan (c. 260 A.D.) affirms, b. Bab. b. 75 b " " that only those who are invited (E^EJp) go up to the " " Jerusalem of the age to come (?? D^jW D^T). Simeon
Galilean
ben Lakish
(c.
260
" "
A.D.)
all
declares,
Midr.
Tehill.
14 7
that
of
the
patriarchs
"
in
the coming
is
joy
|?T?p
for Israel,
because he
called to the
Isa.
banquet" (nnwpi?
NW
"ab),
conformably with
is
48 12
somewhat
differently
119
17 a where a heavenly voice says of the " destined for the penitent Eleazar ben Durdaya that he is This expression life of the age to come," N2H D^tyn *rA jtsro.
is
person,
Taan. 29
a
.
from heaven in regard to another This use agrees, however, with Acts
13 48
For to invite the Targum of Onkelos, influenced by the 64 Ex. 34 15 Num. 25 2 Hebrew, has always &$>; see Gen. 31 the Targum on the prophets, e.g. 1 Sam. 9 24 has |t (}DJ), just
, , ,
as in late
is
Hebrew
(see above,
1
The invited
.
Still the Kings person Targ. 8 and TO, which is the Hebr. &y> does occur Koh. E. 7 of the Hebr. N")P, in the Galilean dialect, is found equivalent
m,
Sam. 9 13
I 41
Vay. E. 28, while the Jerus. gospel uses only fcOp. Matt. 22 14 7ro\\ol <ydp elffiv K\rjTot, oKi^ou Se
could be expressed in Aramaic by TT ??
1
Hence
PT3?T
T?
(c)
To
le fitted for, to le
worthy of
(eutfero? elvai,
One must, moreover, be worthy of entrance into the " In Luke 9 62 Jesus uses the words he who theocracy. " is not fit for the theocracy lanv rfj 13. r. 0., or (evQeros 14 35 et? KOTrpiav evOerov). T. Q.\ cf. Luke In ei<? rr)v /3.
:
is also
" and 2 Thess. I 6 tcara&wOfjvai, TT}? /8. r. 6. To be " of the age to come is a common expression with worthy
b the Eabbis; see Aram. 'nJO b. Gitt. K3T, b. Erub. 54 b "nxi wJ?A 68 jo yiw NDT, "to be worthy of being satis;
;
p^
fied
with
b.
in
the
b.
age
to
;
come,"
j.
Taan.
66 C
Hebr. nar
K^n ob^,
"
Bab.
10
b
b.
D^V
w'
;
fnji nar,
"to be worthy of
Ber. 51 a
en^
nalr
N3n,
is
he
is
worthy
j. j.
of possessing this
to
come,"
king,"
Ber. Ber.
11; nwBp
4C
.
come
120
to
Kara^uoOrivai,
idea
cf.
of
TV)(eiv.
may
be had
is
fit
to "B>3
Onk.
Ber.
"he who
rttfc&Dl
to
be sent";
D331 itfanp b, "ijrtK^ in^' every (worker) who proves himself fit in the work of the garden " has access to the storehouse also Targ. Lam. I 6 %"3
;
.
DTIBPI
is
preferable to
II.
vn
(Galil.
'pn) as
I.
and
Ex. 4 13
parallel
nnWpi?
^&n,
"
is
'prn ip
Hebrew
meant
2
to
be a passive participle,
it
|3,
E.
also
9 24,
is
\tn
worthy
to
"
,
See
Onk.
49
3Dpi>
mq
1 worthy (it beseemed thee) to take"; cf. Jerus. I. Gen. 22 d and j. Bab. b. 16 njjap FP!? ^n n^, "it did not beseem
him
to drive out."
*tn
afto?, and thus be preferably used in repro46 ducing agioi r^9 alwviov ?&>??9, Acts 13 though here also
Greek by
" D^np nait, he has a fcOJ could be proposed ; see Deb. E. 1 The Christian Palestinian claim upon the life (to come)." " " similar to," uses for a j- to? *\&, which means literally corre:
sponding."
is
already
;
used
in
biblical
Hebrew
and,
for
deserving,"
in
e.g.
Esth. 7 4
also in Neo-Hebraic,
further,
ii.
Aramaic,
Onk.
Gen.
of
"
23 15
Vay.
"
E.
9;
Targ. Esth.
is
2. 1.
equal,"
equivalent,"
case
(c.
where
A.D.):
af iov
3
230
may occur see the dictum of Yannai *W nm-iK 0^1, "he who appraises his way *$
;
is of
great worth."
z.
In the Galilean dialect I can verify n^3 only in the sense "honest," j. A'b. where ~\V3 is the contrary of jy^, "scoffer"; and j. Taan. 65 b where K-v 3 is found by the side of ND'yn, "insolent." 2 The superlinear pointing has frequently, by mistake, \rn, \pn see my " Aram.-Neuhebr. Worterbuch " under Nm, N?0.
39 b
;
Vay. R. 9
cf.
Backer, Ag.
d. p.
Am.
i.
38.
121
(d)
To
forth from,
to
go out
(ickeieiv,
Jesus speaks of the Pharisees "closing" " 13 of the cracy against men, Matt. 23 keys
;
Matt. 16 19
of
"
Matt.
this
"
25 (Luke 13 ); of "casting forth" (eK/3d\\et,v) from 13 Luke 1 3 28 cf. Matt. 13 42 50 25 30 of chamber, Matt. 22
25
10
12 being expelled (e^ep^ea-Oac) from the theocracy, Matt. 8 Similar ideas are reported from Eleazar ben Zadok
.
"
(c.
100
A.D.).
He
life
of
misused the law will be eradicated from the present and the future world (Nan D^tyn jpi njn D^n jo yjn npyj) i and
;
with regard to the godless, he teaches that in the present world God accumulates good fortune upon them, " in order
afterwards to cast them forth, and to compel them to take " the lowest position See also (njinnnn njnnsS \y nirta rnvb)*
the expressions
world,"
b.
:
Bab.
b.
to reject from the future Njn D^iyn j?p nnp 15 b Kfe Ninnc THEN, "to be rejected
> ; .
from the other world," b. Chag. 15 a "To close against" in the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel, and of the Targ. of Onkelos, would be inK in the dialect of the Targ. to the
;
(this also in the Hebrew of Nehemiah, and prophets in the Mishna), in Galilean T)B. For "casting forth," Tip
^K
"
;
to be expelled
from
"
is pB3.
On
THE
"
the keys
"
No, VIII.
6.
G.
THEOCRACY
IS
GOOD
WHICH
ADMITS
OF
BEING
To
Instead of being anxious about food and raiment, one " " to seek earnestly after the theocracy ought (fyreiv rrjv
1
cf.
i.
52.
b.
Kidd. 40 b.
122
avrov,
KOI
rrjv
rov
7rar/3o?),
Luke
1 2 31 (Matt. 6 s3,
where
In the same category are Sucaiocrvvrjv is added). " " " to seek find," (tyyrelv) that one may
-
Matt.
"
7 7f
(Luke
"
seeking
and the parable of the Merchant " " one of great price goodly Pearls, and finding
-),
9f
For
tyirelv
in the
two meanings,
to
"
to
"
"
strive for
"
(someis
search
for
(something that
is
the
means
to
NV3.
;
This
65
Onk. Num.
of the
1
16 10 (where the office of high priest is the object 16 desire), and also "to seek," Onk. Gen. 37 Targ.
;
Sam.
10 2
means "to be
sought for
" The same verb (*W3) is also in use for " to ask see d 29 8 E. 32; j. Taan. 66 Onk. Deut. 4 Dan. 6 But Vay. 9f> where alretv stands alongside in Matt. 7 7f> (Luke ),
; ;
of
fyreiv,
for
the former.
The only term that admits of being proposed is b^p; see Vay. E. 5, which describes what constitutes judicious and
"
injudicious
asking."
Among the means used to win entrance to the theocracy, there is found, according to Matt. 19 12 self -mutilation, Sta
,
rrjv
ft.
T.
ovp.
That
this
is
meant
figuratively appears
most obviously from the consideration that, if it were meant literally, Jesus would here be putting Himself into such an
avowed opposition
ing to the law,
to the
Mosaic law as
He
gives no pre-
was forbidden
to castrate
men
The application
.
by the Eabbis,
b.
Sabb.
A
40.
metaphorical use of
Mia
Antt. iv.
viii.
I.
on Lev. 22 24.
123
find in
the
Eabbinic
literature.
to
l
:
Jesus
6
Gospels
(Agraphon)
yfjfjLai
Kara
evvov%ia<;
ofjuoXoyijaa^
ayafAos
of
Sia/jLeverw,
succeeds probably
in
giving the
sense
the
saying of our Lord, but agrees nevertheless as little with Simeon ben the tendency of E-abbinism as the other.
Azzay
(c.
110
A.D.),
who
impeded
tion. 2
had
to
his celibacy,
vow
most
to replace Bid,
"
for
It
would
also be the
most suitable in
and property " for the sake of" (eiveicev) the theocracy, Luke 18 29 (Matt. 19 29 29 eveicev e/uoO KOI eveitev eveKct rov efjiov ovofiaTos, Mark 10
TOV evayyeXiov). Similarly, Gamaliel III. (c. 210 A.D.) says, " all those who exert themselves on behalf of the Ab. ii. 2
:
community should do this for the sake of and Jose ha-Kohen (c. 100 A.D.) 3 " may
:
'
God,' D?og*
all
B^
"
5
;
thy works be
'
performed
Dtf
DB$.
(b)
To give
"
it
(SiSovai).
"
will be given
(Sodrjaerai), Matt.
7 (Luke 32 you the kingdom" (Sovvai iifjuv rrjv (SaaiXeiav), Luke 12 There can be no doubt that Luke, in placing the latter
it is
.
1 1 9 ),
and
"
sentence in sequence to the invitation to seek the kingdom " " of the Father (v. 31 ), has intended to bear the kingdom
same sense
of the
in both
cases.
Since,
however,
v.
32
in
virtue
15. 97
cf.
Nestle,
86.
2 3
Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 410. Ab. ii. 12 ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann.
i.
72.
124
kingdom
in
here meant of a special authority destined to devolve upon His disciples, who were for the time being quite powerless.
The statement thus belongs to a different series of our Lord's sayings, to which we shall return at the close of this discussion.
On
2 1 43 belongs
to
this
For
"
to give
"
imperfect and
infinitive
SIT,
with
in
But
Galilean these borrowed forms also are occasionally supplied Alretre KOI tio&yaeTCU vjuv fyrelre KOI evprjaere from 2JT. 1
is,
fenw fta
$J?
"
:
T^\ i^Kf
to
pn2B>.
Bar. Apoc.
life to
44 15 may be compared
these
is
given the
(c)
firb.
To
One has
to
"
"
accept
18
1
when
To
it is
Mark 10 15 (Luke 18 17 ).
nitt
this
passage Dan. V
is
tffcK, (cf. 6 ) they will receive the " not available as a parallel, for it means they sovereignty," shall become rulers." We might with better reason adduce
the phrase
DW
nttfe
vb
:
"
baj?,
to take
sovereignty of
one's self the
p.
God," or
&?DB*
nttpo ^y
73J5,
to
take upon
case the idea of voluntary submission the divine authority is present, if not also the idea of The same verb (>|6) is found in appropriating a gift.
to
Dan.
26
is
j.
Ber.
use,
and
in
6a
presents,
Targ.
of
Onkelos.
it
is
applicable in
To be received
Apoc.
14 13 5 1 3
Galil.
p^.
Galil. ftysr
125
^,
"
JVttJn wrofo bp Dip proclaimed by God to the Messiah, receive the sovereignty which I have kept for up
!
thee."
From
"
"
"
accept
(actively)
of
is
to
be
distinguished
;
the
78
taking
(\afifidviv)
what
24
is
bestowed
see
Matt.
22 3 10 (Luke II ) 2 1 (Mark II ); cf. Bar. Apoc. 5 1 "that they " may take and receive the immortal life (Syr.
This
"
takin
"
is
in
Aramaic 3D
(d)
To take
possession of (K\rjpovofjLelv).
Those who have the right thereto acquire the theocracy 34 9f cf. 1 Cor. 6 15 50 as a possession (KXrjpovopelv), Matt. 25
-
Gal. 5
21
,
just as
"
David according
to 1
Mace. 2
57
"
received as
(etcXrjpo-
a possession
vo/jbTjaev,
the throne of an eternal sovereignty " To possess one's self Syr. Vers. rrp).
"
is
of
the
future age
Bar.
Apoc.
44
18
"
promised age (Syr. 100 A.D.) has Kan D^j?n enj, found
b. Sot.
T&n
b.
is
.
7 b in a Baraitha
j.
&?
"
Pes.
b.
33 a
See, further,
D^p^iy
Ber.
ll a
mn D^vn
^n;
HV |a Knj, to take possession of Paradise," j. Ber. 7 Aram. HV }3 nn^ j. 18 Nn^io Pea 15 C Besides, we may compare Dan. 7 fapn^ 24 "they shall possess the sovereignty"; cf. Onk. Gen. 49
D^iyrn;
Nan
Ber.
51 a
*w bm; but
d
;
also
he took possession of the sovereignty Targ. n No5>jn p-in Cant. I 3 "that they may Kpf>y IUDOT " possess themselves of this age and that which is to come
NniD^p poriN,
;
"
"
b%
Targ.
Euth
2 13
'nffj
ND^y |pnp^
Targ. Jerus. on
the Ten
Words (Machz.
come."
Vitry, 341):
*nn Np^y
^^
rsa
|pm, "the
Even
in the
distinguished in
126
J"P)
and
and
howof
ever,
following
in
this
mode
translating.
means
curate.
and therefore the rendering by " inherit is inacThe context must determine whether inheritance is
whether
it is
really meant, or
to
title
or to which
the
acquisition.
In Matt.
25 34
of
the legal
case
in
title
of the heir
may
Jas. of;
25
where the
also
K\Tjp6vofjLoi,
ySacrtXeta? are
spoken
and
in Eph.
5 5 , in the expression:
teal 6eov.
e^etv
Pa&Ckeiq Xpio-rov
The
in
"
taking possession of the theocracy has a synonym " (K\r)povopelv Trjv ^v) on taking possession of the earth
.
"
its
origin
Ps.
where the meek similarly possess the land ^Tl ^?5^-> LXX ol Se irpaels K\ r)povofjLtj(rovo'Lv (T^) 7?}z>).
37 11
,
>
That the expression is metaphorical in Matt. 5, there can be In the Book of Enoch also 4 6ff> Kkrjpovo^aova-Lv no doubt.
appears to be a name for the collective blessings of " This is expressly stated elect." salvation received by the
Tqv
<yr\v
Sanh.
x.
1,
Isa.
land," is explained as referring to participation in the future 1 Keference to the same idea may further be seen in age.
Kidd.
i.
10:
"
the favour of
Every one who fulfils one commandment has God, and God gives him long life, and he in-
On the other hand, the (fnKrrnK in'J]). 19 as well as the Targ. of Onk., under(32 ), stands the promise of possessing the land expressed to Jacob,
Book
of Jubilees
The statement
is
12*7
calls
Abraham
Cf. Vay. E. 36. "in (Eom. 4 ) K\ripovo^o^ rov KOO-/JLOV. time to come they (the Israelites) will take possession of " the world from one end to the other (D^n P)iDD Bn;j? pTnjj
toio
nyi).
Jesus
use
the
"
expression
to
take
in this connection,
mentioned
Psalms,
of Matt.
54
which
is
and
found in Matthew.
literature
Consequently the phrase, though not uncommon in Jewish and employed also by Paul, cannot have been a
usual one with Jesus.
Any
real parallel
to the
"
:
to
have part in the age to come/' words of Jesus. See Hebr. ssn
xiii.
entirely wanting
p^n
A.D.)
;
in the
n^
1
xiii.
&
Tos.
Sanh.
c.
with a negative,
c.
c.
jn--5>
j
pK, Tos.
Sanh.
(Gamliel n.
110);
pn
p,
j.
j.
Shebi.
yi*n
this
ii.
KW*
7
;
H?
Kp^?? Nf^C
i^
niy
n<l
"
^>
(cf.
"
n\b
2.
KO^
K^-TO Dy
|1n^)
no more for them a good portion with the pious in the world 13 cf. Targ. Euth 2 to come," Targ. Eccl. 9 6 In the New
;
.
Testament, see o
20 6
Ty
TrpwTrj,
Eev.
avTov
Matt. 24 51
(e)
To belong
to.
it
be an actual posthereafter
or
merely
the
of
title
thereto,
becomes
The theocracy is referred to as such a property in the phrases avrwv eariv, 3 20 Matt. 5 (Xuke 6 v^erepa etrriv), and TWV TOIOVTCOV ecrriv, Matt. 19 14 (Mark 10 14 Luke 18 16 ). Aramaic would express
the peculiar property the receivers.
: ,
128
pni, the
latter
by
!P
With
"
the
former
may
be
compared
Bar.
Apoc
"
44 13
wan
Kan
wron*
"
vi);
Jews)
irnrn,
to us (the heathen) is this age, to you (the the age to come." For finnvjn may be cited " learn thou with thy fellow," Vay. 34 FPrm *l,
obiyni,
is
Ww
I 6 ;'|inn;2
who
is
.
n$, "there
Targ. Eccl.
7 22
"of
ii.
one who
b.
Palmyr.
Customs
Tariff,
10
To
frb NOT
np b,
"
(/)
prepared
For the righteous the theocracy has been " prepared 34 (rjTOifjiaa-fj,kvri\ Matt. 25 just as eternal fire has been for
,
"
the wicked,
v.
41
.
10
40
),
Messianic King
"
for
whom
it
has been
prepared
fiov).
(ofr ^Toi^da-rai
of
the Great
"
preparation
elvai) of the
(eroifjid&iv),
and a
-
being
ready
(erot/^o?
20 23
it
4 8 17 From Matt. (Luke 14 ). supper, Matt. 2 2 further follows with certainty that the preparation
does not necessarily imply the pre-existence of what is pre" pared, but is synonymous rather with its being allocated." " 34 theoIn the same way Matt. 25 according to which the
,
"
cracy
has been
"
"
prepared
(Aram.
*TO>p
"
:
prepared
in
is
the age
I 14
come"
(Syr.
Assump. Moses
Moses says
of himself
excogitavit et invenit
me
qui ab initio
129
terrarum
prseparatus
sum
1
illius
from which
E.
H.
Charles
wrongly infers
the
personal pre-existeiice of Moses. On the other hand, we must not adduce in comparison with the above the Jewish utterances in regard to the preexistence, or the latent existence for the time being, of things
or persons.
76 b speaking of the law, the declares that these were created before
,
other things. 2
ed.
certain
Bern.
:
Baraitha, according
to Midr.
Tanchuma,
17 b
named seven
Israel,
the
name
of
Messiah, and
repentance.
name
The two latter are (Gehinnom). 39 b instead of the patriarchs and again Israel. According to Ber. E. 1, which contains the firstnamed enumeration with Israel omitted, it was, however, only
also paradise
hell
and
adduced
b.
Ned.
the
couple that were really created before the world, the others being merely designed; and Midr. Psalms (Ps. 93) with
first
a variant
"
list
affirms
seven items.
The
"
tradition
no more than the planning of all the was in this case clearly not fixed.
3.
3
The
light
of
were
made ready for the righteous in Paradise" (NJP V Vinyntf 2 Perek Gan Khayyim (Jellinek, H.jn Knf), Targ. Cant. S Beth ha-Midrash, v. 47). Wine is kept in its own grape;
(flf'Bto
vajya "iBBton
cf.
p;j
rvfjoa <*),
97
(rjj?
b.
13?
Sanh. 99
Targ. Cant.
(Jellinek,
cit.
Beth-
ha-Midrash,
1
iii.
loc.
6.
vi.
151;
treatise,
See also
my
"Derleid.
2 The idea is somewhat different in Ass. Mos. I 17 , which says that from the beginning Zion was destined to the temple mount. 3
Cf.
" Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
Messias," 58.
130
Jerus.
I.
As
and Behemoth, which are destined to supply the " feast of All the above are created Paradise," see above, p. 110 f.
things which merely for a time were withdrawn from use.
in
the subject of remark in Bar. Apoc. 4 3ff 86 and in the though only in an interpolation, in 2 Esd. 13
,
Book
at
(c.
of Elijah (JellineJc,
of
Beth ha-Midrash,
is is
iii.
67).
In the
Testament
Dan.
17
vea 'lepovaaKrm
said
referred to as existing
pre-existence.
of
Meir 2
b Chag. 12 speaks of there being in the fourth of the seven heavens, Jerusalem, the temple, and an altar on
160
A.D.), b.
which Michael
offers
sacrifice;
that
Yokhanan
"
I shall
8 260) represents God as affirming by an oath: not enter into the Jerusalem on high until I be
(c.
earth."
That
the
earthly
some future day be replaced by the follows neither from this statement nor from the heavenly, Midrash kindred paraphrase of Ps. 122 3 in the Targum.
Tanchuma, Par. Pikkude (near beginning, ed. Venice, 1545, 50 a f., not in ed. Buber), correctly apprehends the passages
cited in saying that
Himself a heavenly counterpart of it into which His glory (Shekina) was not to enter until the Thus desolate Jerusalem on earth should again be built up.
the belief in a celestial pre-existence of
the Jerusalem to
come
is
literature.
And
"
in
is
the
New
or
said
of
Jerusalem
1
that
above,"
heavenly Jerusalem,"
Hor. hebr. et talm.
De Hierosolyma
cselesti in his
1205-1248, chiefly on account of including misunderstood Cabbalistic material, is more perplexing than instructive. 2 Meir, according to Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 65. The text of the Talmud
(c.
260 A.D.).
b.
Taan. 5 a
131
concerning 2 1 2 10
-
The name
the Book of
Messiah
Enoch 48 s
things
is
above
on
the
that were
,
to
the
world, also
according to Targ.
Mich. 5 1 Zech. 4 7
personal existence
is
,
Enoch 39 6
46 1 62 7
2 Esd.
(Similitudes),
is
-
Enoch 48 6
to
,
prior
52
the world,
an
12 32 13 26
14 9 and
again
differs
till
33
(ed.
This
the
Messiah
from the
He
moreover do not presuppose any human birth of Messiah. He is to make His appearance upon earth as a fully developed And this is quite distinct from the later Jewish personality.
doctrine
of
the
pre-existence
of
the
souls
of
all
men.
of a pre-existence peculiar
birth
as
a human
being.
of
the
Messiah
circles."
"
dogma
in
apocalyptic
after the
Similitudes of
Enoch the only representatives of the idea independent of Enoch are 2 Esdras in the first Christian century, and the
Appendix
to Pesikta Kabbati, independently of
both these
The dominance
Of.
"Derleid.
cit. 39,
u. d. sterb.
f.
Messias," 58.
Loc.
77
3 W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianIn other points, too, the statements ischen Hoffrmngen seiner Zeit 2 (1892), 85. of this book on Jewish matters require careful revision.
132
of the idea in
circle
upheld.
With what
VIII.
advanced on
p.
based on admittedly meagre data, 3, may be comwords of E. Schurer, Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes 2 ii. 423 pared the 3 Tr. Div. II. vol. ii. p. 133 f., which have caused [ ii. 503], Eng.
Testament theology of the last All the blessings of the future world come down decade, from above, from heaven, where they have previously
various mischief in the
1
New
"
existed
for
from
all
eternity.
'
There
'
they are
treasured
up
the
pious as an
inheritance
which
will
one day be
God
the Messiah,
Every good and can come down only from above, while perfect thing, indeed,
eternity as the perfect king of Israel.
every earthly thing in its present condition is the direct contradiction of the divine. Ultimately, therefore, the hope for the future generally supersedes the limits of this earthly
existence.
Not even
is
in the
Kingdom
of
renovated earth
Of
all
this
But presented themselves in sporadic fashion in Judaism. " " the Jews in the the Messianic hope a picture of among time of Christ ought never to have been given in these
terms.
The conception
of
God and
world
was in that age more transcendental and supernatural than That the future salvation should for at an earlier period. that reason have been apprehended more and more as
1
See, e.g.,
neutest. Lehre
ii.
(1890) 297
A.
Titius,
Die
133
justifiable
is
an idea that
is
only
(g) To take
away
(alpeiv).
What
The
2 1 43
to
,
taken away given may be again. " will be taken away theocracy (apOtjcrerat), Matt. from the Jews, as from those who have the first claim
has
been
"
"
"
its
possession.
to take
recalls "
Sam.
15 18
away
"
to "
"
away
in
Aramaic
^K).
To take
1 15 appears to correspond to an older usage, see Targ. Eccl. 2 " the sovereignty was taken from him RTfiDpD n^p npDpnx, Midr. Abba Gorion I 1 KBfoK 'Jfi *xy>\ K^3n, the lordship
;
of
men was
taken away."
For the
ftp
latter,
which answers
to
7.
Lastly,
there
to
be
enumerated the
is
passages
in
Messiah Here spoken of. we encounter the expression ev rfj {SaaCkeiq avrov, Matt. 16 28 (Mark 9 1 and Luke 9 27 ryv pao-iXeiav rov 6eov)\ ev rfi fBavi\eiq aov, Matt. 20 21 (Mark 10 37 ev ry Sof# vov), Luke 23 42 ev rfj fiadiKeiq pov, Luke 22 30 Just as in Dan. " 6 29 fc^Tl nOT?a must be translated during the reign of
of the
Darius,"
case
;
so
is
it
with ev ry
"
/3ao: pov,
'riotea,
would have
be rendered
when
am
king,"
etc.,
and
Luke 23
"
42
Out
of
1
of
"
(ex
"
TT}?
/3do-t,\ei,a<i
avrov), the
all
angels
Man
is
gather together
" 2
causes
The metaphor
1.
134
of
offence
and
evil-doers,
Matt. 13 41
According to Luke
"i
22 29 the Messiah "gives in charge" (SiariOeaOai. Aram, Dp) to His own, who thereby themselves obtain the rank of
that sovereignty
;
rulers,
Himself
which was committed by God to " " 1 2 32 the (SiSovai, Aram. giving
have
This
first
^l) been
His
(3ao-i\ia,
which
disciples, is
where
called
fj
by God through the Messiah to sharply distinguished from that which is elseIn this case it is merely ftacrikeia rov Oeov.
is
allotted
a ruler's prerogative that is bestowed, whereas 17 /3. r. 0., as being a gift to men, never contains, and, from its associations,
is
Two distinct incapable of containing, such a significance. series of ideas are presented. The one connects itself with
Dan. 7 14<
to the
27
,
where the
of
"
sovereignty," Nni^D,
is
assigned
first
Son
The other
series of ideas is
which says that the " " an imperishable " sovereignty (*& TpW "H *J?Q Njp^ nta D ^ Here pannn), which will annihilate all other sovereignties.
1
to the saints of the Most High. founded probably upon Dan. 2 44 God of heaven " will at the end set up
too,
however,
to the thought
originally
"
must be emphasised, that Jesus has given the Book of Daniel a new application to it, which excludes the idea of an foreign
it
in
establishment
6
"
Acts
is
reignty of Israel
8.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION.
in certain cases to denote the sphere
The use
of
NJTop
of the sovereignty of God is rarely found in the mouth of The use of rvota for " realm," in the secular sense, Jesus.
1
Of.
Dan. T 27
nyy
t
Kflwfy?.
dTTOKaeiffTdveiv, in
A. Lewis,
135
e.g.
2 Chron. 20 30 36 22 Esth. 3 6 5 1
,
7 2 , Dan. 9 1 II 9
and Aram.
of
Ezra 7 13
Dan. 4 15 5 11
earthly
But even
is
this application
the
word
Jewish
once
to
"kingdoms"
In
this
rare
literature. 1
literature
used
to
specify
the
locus
this
of
in
the
power itself in its present always power. 2 and future manifestation, without implying that the idea
It denotes
was or tended
notion
of
is
to
become
distinctively eschatological.
of
The
any
transference
the
divine
another
accordingly
never
entertained
literature.
And
God should
To the
the
royal
the Messiah.
God
grants
that which
is
and
He
Still part, again, imparts it to His own disciples. can any unmediated transference of the divine lordship to men be contemplated. The parallels adduced above from
on His
less
the Jewish literature have proved that the true affinity of the idea of the sovereignty of God, as taught by Jesus,
to be found, not so
is
much
in the
"
Jewish
"
conception of rpO7
future age
"
of the
(wan
Dfcjjn
tion
is
term
God
is
"
" for the blessings of salvation, just as the sovereignty of " " is with Jesus ; and, further, the sovereignty of God
an eschatological
" present can be predicted only because the end is already It is not unlikely that in the time of Jesus approaching.
entity, of "
which a
the idea of
"
of the scribes,
the future age," being the product of the schools was not yet familiar to those He addressed;
II.
see
under No.
it,
it.
1
It
cannot therefore
be
said that
He
rejected
place of
and intentionally substituted another term in Independently of the schools and of the apocaSee above,
p.
95
f.
Of. p.
96
ff.
136
He
created His
own
terminology.
of of
We
" may assume that He borrowed the term sovereignty " God as an eschatological designation from the Book
He
and
used
it
by preference
in His
certain
view of
all
else,
also because
He
considered
it
mankind was
to
ence to His
of
He
God was
on
mere exaltation
of
the divine
Hence, in His view, the completed majesty over the world. establishment of God as sovereign implied, for those who
experienced it, absolute happiness. This thought was not entirely new.
extension over
of
all
men, is clearly stated, among other passages, happiness Translated into the style of the earlier in Ps. 96-99. 1
1 2 "the royal sovereignty Targums, Ps. 97 would run: let the earth rejoice the Lord has become manifest
; ;
of
let
all
The king,
of
of course, is there
regarded
principally
the
judge
his people,
ranked
first
and foremost
it
as
Old Testa"
speak
1
less
of
"
being
or
Das Reich Gottes in den Psalmen, Neue 819-840 also H. Hoy, Die Volksgemeinde und die Gemeinde der Frommen im Psalter (J. B. des theol. Sem. d. Brgem. 1896, 1897), 32. 2 The extant Jewish Targum to the Psalms was composed at a late date, and
this point see J. Eoehmer,
kirchl. Zeitschr. 1897, pp. 620-651, 746-763,
;
On
is
of little use for our purpose. 3 See my treatise, "Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im A. T.," 1897, 10 f. and T. K. CTieyne, The Origin and religious Contents of the Psalter (1891), 344
"The
save."
as
well as of royalty
iS
"becoming" Mug, and more of His "kingly sovereignty" a tendency which in the Targums has led to the (nota), insertion of the abstract RW3W3 wherever God is regular
represented in the Old Testament as personally ruling like This change is the result of an advance in the a king.
idea of God,
tions of
which went beyond the more childlike concepearlier times, and also an advance in the general
mode
thought because the formation of abstract terms " became more and more a necessity. Thus, then, the kinglyof "
sovereignty
of
God appears
community
its future.
salvation of the
its
of revelation
with reference to
present and to
There was already in existence, prior to the time of Jesus, a tendency which laid little stress on the Jewish
1 This aspect national element in the hope for the future. of the future hope Jesus thrust still further into the back-
ground, placing the purely religious element decisively in the foreground, and He thereby extended the conception of the
"
sovereignty of
God
"
For
Him
the sovereignty of
the divine power which, from the present onwards with continuous progress, effectuates the renovation
God meant
of the world,
mankind
will one
day
enter,
which
is
offered,
and therefore can be appropriated and received as a blessing. It must not, moreover, be forgotten that the preaching of
Jesus in regard to the sovereignty of God was directed to a people among whom large sections not only fixed their " sovereignty," i.e. the aspirations on the restoration of the
independence of Israel, but were themselves eager to Accordtake active measures in setting up this sovereignty. 2 3 of Gaulonitis, from to the statement of Josephus, Judah ing
political
1
This
is
f.
(1895), 243
2
Antt. xviii.
1,
Of.
Acts 5 s7 .
138
movement
zealots
"
into active
life.
nise
God
alone and no
man
Their principle was to recog" " as the leader and Lord over
The sons of this man, Jacob, and Menahem, and another of his kindred, Eleazar, Simon, continued this agitation of Judah till after the destruction of
Israel (rjyripova KOI ^ea-Trorrjv).
Jerusalem. 1
kiah,
who
This party also included Judah, son of Hezejust after the death of Herod made himself master
is
represented as having
own
disciples
This movement, to which one of His had once adhered, must have been well known to
the account of the Temptation
it
Jesus.
From
appears that
the tempter had sought to suggest similar ideas in his own inner consciousnesss. Moreover, it is indubitable that He
developed His
own
God
movement.
,
His verdict
22 21 (Mark 12 17 Luke 20 25), shows that He did not consider the political dominance of the
to be
Komans
of
all
any infringement
of the sovereignty of
God.
It is not the rule of foreigners over the nation, but the rule
life
;
of
and
it
agency, not even the Messiah, that by earthly means establishes this sovereignty, but God Himself; for this He does
for the
present through the mere word of preaching and through miracle in the future, however, through the complete advent of supramundane power into this present world.
;
Liitgert
1
kingdom
of
Antt. xx. v. 2
Bell.
;
Jud. n. xvii.
8,
vn.
viii. 1.
In contrast with this case, the name Juda, son of Sepperaios (vlbs 'ZeirQepalov), has nothing to do with Zeppori. This name, according to Bell. Jud. I. xxxiii. 2, was that of one of the two teachers of the law who cut down the golden eagle of Herod from the temple The resemblance is gate see also Antt. xvii. vi. 2 (which has 6 Saratov). really with the Palmyrene proper name max, 2e00e/jas, de Vogue", x. 11. 3 W. Liitgert, Das Reich Gottes nach den synoptischen Evangelien (1895), 26.
Antt. xvir. x. 5
Bell. Jud. n. iv. 1.
;
139
regarded by Jesus principally as "a gift of God." 1 Schnedennann, on the other hand, is mistaken in asserting
God
is
that Jesus
"
sentation of the
adopted from the people of His time the reprekingdom of God with all its peculiar traits,
the
2
including
even
very
considerable
tinge
of
national-
political elements."
out sentences of
Wellhausen has very properly struck similar tendency to be found in the first
nature of
doctrine
the
of
preaching
is
Jesus, not
less
Judaism,
entirely
misrepresented
statements.
It
of the conception
forms the kernel of our Lord's teaching that was new and fact original, but also His application of the term, despite the
that the phrase selected originally belonged to the religious
The theocracy about to make its vocabulary of the Jews. entrance into the world was something more than a gratifying realisation of the hopes entertained regarding it ; it was
a creative force bringing
new
APPENDIX A.
Luke
*Iwdvvov
16 16
vofjios
KOI
ol
Trpoffirai
CLTTO
pe^pi
(D
eco?)
4
17
(D
12f<
add.
7rpo<ptjrvcrav)'
rore
(D
aTrore)
Matt.
airb be
(D om.
fj
Be)
TWV
rjfjiepwv
'Iwdvvov TOV
fiid^erai, KOI
o
fiaTrTKTTOv eco?
apn
/3a<7tXeta
rwv ovpavwv
ITaz/re?
(D
1
yap
Jesu Verkiindigung und Lehre vom Reiche Gottes, i. 152. See also Schnedermann's sentence, Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Leipz. " The kingdom preached by Jesus was none other than Zeitung, 1897, No. 44,
2
that so long desired by His people, the kingdom of God for Israel." 3 Cf. Israelitische und jtidische Geschichte, ed. i. (1894) 308, with edition
iii.
(1897) 374.
4
&<j>
6'rou
(instead of aTrore), as
required by the
Roman
recension.
140
In the
first
we have
to
A. Meyer 1 recommends 18 22 ion, the Aphel form of which, by analogy with Dan. 7 " Still Ipntf, which means merely to would be preferable.
may
take possession
in
of,"
Greek
"
to use fBid&w.
better equivalent
"
is
found in
^i?^,
to
Aphel
LXX
*li?nN,
In 2 Sam. 13 25
one," the
,
27
and
for
The Ithpaal *\\>n* is found Ex. I 12 Onkelos has the Peal IP?. in Gen. 48 2 and Num. 13 20 for the Hebr. pjnnn, "to
strengthen one's exert one's self."
self,"
and
in
18 Kings 12
for
FEKnn, "to
*li?n
has no
2 From this passive any more than pin in the older Hebrew. 12 3 is not it would follow that the passive /3taer<zt, Matt. II The same derived immediately from an Aramaic prototype.
,
test
applies
to
the
passive
"
eva<yye\iTai
in
Luke,
since
to receive a message."
for
The word
Matthew,
which
o 1/0/40? is
an unsuitable
And
as it
is
not original in
Luke, and therefore need not be considered indispensable, it The can hardly be attributed to the original utterance.
of
John
as
"
the
"
Baptist
in
If it be regarded as secondary. similarly in Aramaic, then the Syriac Wioyo (as had to be reproduced in Jerus. Gosp. Matt. II 12 ) would be as inapt as Njyayo (loc.
is
Matthew
to
cit.
1
Matt. II 11 ).
Wellhausen,
indeed, supposes
that "the
Jesu Muttersprache, 88 f., cf. 157 f. Only the Chronicler has as passive
.
pinnrr,
2 Chron. I 1
3
Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 85 f. [Bible Studies, 258], recalls the fact may also be used as a middle voice, and absolutely, meaning "to appear with force." But one can here found nothing on the "exercise of comthat j&cifoucu
"
pulsion
4
J.
43.
141
in colloquial Jewish usage has been derived from ny," and thus proves the occurrence of this " to baptize." verb among the Jews, with the meaning But
Schmatten
'
may
the Talmud, has nothing whatever to do with "baptizing," and ivy. in this sense is quite unknown among the Jews.
"
" To make one take a bath by immersion is expressed among them by bp, b. Yeb. 45 b Hebr. 5>'apn, j. Yeb. 8 d b. Mdd,
;
;
32 a
would
"
;
be
Njtatpp,
formed
JT
^,
"
j;pnD,
teacher of
the Mishna
KJB;>D,
teacher
"
;
"
Mjfijp,
first
tutor."
conclude accordingly that the be presented as follows might .NW"} NJrota fcArfo aon jrp -jjn^
:
We
iy
w&m
It
^nyjiK
of being retraced to IP 73
"
n3
"
flPnp'n. it
This can
mean
it/' i.e.
is
may
also,
how-
"
ever,
imply
He who
it."
may
^liP^P'n
Further, in case of need one might " IP /J, every one who exerts himself
possesses himself of
it."
Somewhat thus
And,
finally,
it
may have
remains
first
been
the
understood
by Matthew.
there
the
clause to
:
N3H
fp
na sigron
ID
bs KJDBH
KHO^D
of
bnS,
God
it."
lays hold of
who
will lay
may
be pre-
supposed in Luke.
To
form
all
this it
with the Aramaic expression. A solution which should be in congruity with the tenor of the Greek would
tally closely
Such a solution
for the
wording of the
phrase in
Matthew may be
made
"
mean
"
to
use force
142
and " to rob." In that case the original utterance would be Krnwx 2 ppijw npi^np $3 * njn ffi *w jo K'iDKn Nmrfeip. The text thus refers to that period of the theocracy which was
introduced
by the imprisonment
but
of
the Baptist;
it
is
its
from
believers,
The words
apTrd^ovcnv avrrfv, corresponding to KTOD3K, are not intended to suggest that the violent rulers seize the theocracy, but
merely that
sentatives.
they maltreat
it
in the persons of
its
repre-
The utterance
connection.
to
is
According to him,
the Pharisees,
who
Jesus declares to them regard to the right use of money. that the proclamation of the theocracy since the time of
John
made
it
possible
it;
for
any
one
it
to
intrude
himself
violently into
estimate, but
but nevertheless
worthy
of entrance.
The
context, however, in
Neither the passive evayye\lpronounced peculiarly Greek. eTcu (see above) nor cw avrrjv ftiatprai are capable of being
D3N directly rendered into Aramaic, especially not in case
used.
15 ~18
is
If it be supposed that, by using (w. ) sayings of our Lord which originally had a quite different association, Luke obtains the transition to a new parable, then it may
has given to v. 16 its present The form, so as to accommodate the saying to the context. saying which Matthew and Luke found in their sources made
be surmised
that he himself
natural to insert
it
in the position
which
reason
occupies
in his
it
Gospel; Matthew
with greater
understood
Galil.
tt3.
Galil.
143
Neither by Jesus
nor by the evangelists is the statement intended to suggest that any one could actually appropriate the theocracy through Unless absolutely driven to it, we the exercise of force.
ought not to try to discover beneath these words an idea so distinctly at variance with the whole style of our Lord's
teaching.
APPENDIX B.
Luke 17 20
,
21
OVK ep^erat
tpowrtV
1
f)
ov$e
IBov
wSe
rj
(D
add.
ISov)
e/ce?
(D
add.
vjjL&v
/Jbrj
TTKrrevo'rjre).
IBov
yap
f]
e<rriv.
f
For
without
copy.
fjiera
7raparr)p7Jo-o)^ Delitzsch
puts
EW
ntFifcz in his
translation of the
New
S
not, indeed,
much
misgiving, as
may
The Talmudic
had appeared to him not impossible but in publishing the llth edition the present writer did not venture to adopt
it.
Salkinson renders
it by ttaen W^>, Eesch by Dnie^a, the Cur. Pesch. has wriltMa, " with observa-
Meyer
12
,
proposes
^?,
"
Job 4
he takes to mean
"
in secret."
lie
in wait for
But "^2, even in Job by lying in wait for," i.e. as robbers 14 It is not amiss any one; cf. Targ. Job 10
.
adduce as a parallel topic a certain Baraitha given b. Eab Zera there appeals to those who busy 97 a themselves speculating about the date of the redemption
to
Sanh.
"
By your
;
leave
for
hinder
it
it
not, I beseech
:
in-
quiries)
we have
iwto
}n
by tradition
^H,
come
Both
insertions in
are omitted
Roman
recension
144
unexpectedly
?
are they
what (literally, while the attention is diverted) the Messiah, treasure-trove, and a scorpion." The Palestinian Talmud generally uses 'in SNpna for 'in nsna, put;
The expression is also quite possible in be seen from j. Taan. 67 b (j. Meg. 75 C ): may " I looked up (at the priests pronouncing the benediction), but my attention was not thereby diverted, ^V^ nypo N^I "
ting y instead of
n.
Aramaic, as
and again in j. Taan. 64 b 'njn ypi nj'in np, was I to turn away my attention from my work ? "
|
^%
5a
,
"
why
The
Ber.
contrary of i^nfl
V^
j.
is
properly perhaps
fPfilR
j.
1.1?,
b.
30 b
of.
simply
to
ft?,
Ber.
or FWnjn an*,
Sabb. 10
"to
But it is the unexpected and anything." of Messiah's coming that is emphasised in startling aspect the Baraitha; whereas Jesus appears to have in view the
pay regard
unostentatious advent of the theocracy.
"
It is certainly not
attention
"
which
He
wishes to exclude.
This being
so,
the
this,
words peTa TrapaTi) peered)? require no other term than "BJ, for " " without doubt, has the force of to observe, watch for
3 15 , Targ. Jer. 8 7
,
Eccles.
127
" "
(ed.
Friedm.
"
;
100 b ).
It
to wait for
the widow who see the phrase of the Mishna, DJJ n< 39^, waits for her husband's brother," Yeb. iv. 3, and the parallels
in the
it
Consequently, only the context of our Lord's saying that can determine the precise sense in which ICM is there used. And the
,
Targum
Jerus.
I.
Num. 27 4 Euth
I 13.
is
context favours
"
to
watch
for,
to be
on the outlook
for."
The
literal translation
which would
2 have to be by KrfiTlMii or l" ^??, sounds to me unidiomatic. " Might not r& PPJ1?> if one lies in wait for it," meet the
case
1
is
distinctly unsuitable
lyoD,
where
it
So
should be read.
The emendation
proposed in
my "Aram.
Dialektproben," 29, is erroneous. 2 The substantive TBJ, "observation," given in the Lexicon of Levy and In Ex. 12 42 Onk. vpj is in both cases of its use the Jastrow, is doubtful. TBI? occurs only Job 4 12 Passive Participle, as may be seen in Jerus. I. II.
.
145
its
whereas
v.
21a
in
is
v.
23
it
is
quite
in
place.
The
whole clause
from
v.
23
.
For eVro? vpwv, the Syriac, Sin. Cur. Pesch. has "among you," Delitzsch and Salkinson have Dasnjpa, Resch
(following
Ephrem)
Baaapa,
is
Meyer
ftosp
fap.
in that view
But the most important element the suddenness would fail to be expressed
in the phrase, so
miswritten
here, it
is
for sjiana.
Meyer As
is
when when
it is
it
is
rendered in the Targums by to followed by a substantive, but generally by ^a attached to a pronominal suffix. Thus in Deut.
frrfriK foa),"
have no inheritance among his but Ex. 17 7 "Is, then, the presence of
shall
"
?
God among
I
us (NJ^a)
Specially significant
is
Targ. Jud.
I 33
"
among them,
O^JJttp
sjlna,
fi'Wa,"
and
they
^?)"
" can be rendered by B^a, n_iia only when they mean within 24 48 for tf na, Onk. Gen. 41 see for nnga, Onk. Gen. 1 8 Lev. 1 1 33
;
,
Num. 35 34
cf.
Gen. 23 9 35 2
Thus there are only two options possible for Luke 17 21 2 The reading is either P^ ?, and this meant "among you,"
.
11
or
1
else
l^^a, with
of
the sense of
would
"
within you."
Vay. R. 34
:
With
:
the
px
*m
also be possible, as in
*?\TN N.T rri?
^m
niq
*03
NH niDN
rrjs *?MN
mn
x} pxi nn?
"when he (who
there
2
!
flees
before the
Roman
power)
:
is
and when he has not come here, say Lo, he is come here " For the simple 3, which can also mean "in" and "among, "we should
!
expect tv in Greek.
10
146
latter
b 7 compare Ezra 5 PW3, and PMa, j. Ned. 39 j. Keth. 31, where in each case the reference is to the matter contained "in" a written document. Both words are found
j.
Taan. 66
C
.
it," i.e.
in a certain
street,
and he
P^" ?,
"
among
;
you,"
i.e.
the inhabitants of
it is
Zeppori.
Against
ftawa it
the
Pharisees
a
final
who
are addressed
for
is
criterion,
the
where
the
saying
of
the Lord
complete negation of ^era TrapaTT^o-ew? required the affirmation of an advent of the theocracy in the secrecy of men's hearts. " In other places Luke has eV //,ecr for " among see Luke 2 46
;
same degree
8r
10 3 22 27
55
24 36 Acts
,
I 15
2 22 27 21
When
he writes
eWo?
"
among," namely, within." run tfn fca KJOBH Nrwte Krn. Ephrem is therefore quite with his rendering " in your heart," although his exright What Jesus had emplar can hardly have been so expressed.
:
view in this utterance was the unseen genesis of the " theocracy caused by the Word," and its effectual working, as
in
the latter
is set
the Grain of
Sower (Luke 8 4ff -), 18ff Mustard-seed, and the Leaven (Luke 13 -).
forth in the parables of the
of the sovereignty of God realised itself Jesus the teaching of Jesus had access. in the word for eVro? vpwv have in view might, therefore,
in all those to
whom
the
general
company
of
His hearers.
Even Luke
felt
no
necessity to
to place
than to explain
the dictum, as an answer to the Pharisees in clear contrast with the very different instruction communicated by Jesus
(Matt. 12 ) Again, in Luke II Jesus says even to the Pharisees when they had obdurately
to
His own
20
28
disciples.
is
|b^"3.
nn'
prra should be
read instead of
am3J3.
(JEOX)
effectual "
147
through
power as
Him
is
e$6ao-ev
(/>'
the theocracy
even to
it
it is the power of Jesus which makes the theocracy recognisable outward vision in the passage under consideration,
;
Word
invisibly,
but not,
II.
(^EON).
1.
ITS
T&
v.
pe\\ovTi,
31
,
Matt.
like
12 32
But
12 10
,
v.
32
is
merely a repetition of
the
"
is
which,
omit-
Luke
the
is
mentions
"
unpardonable
3 29
states
sin,
ting
addition, while
Mark
"
that
the
;
nonthe
remission
valid
for
evermore
there
2
cf.
phrase
JVpbiJJ
j.
^rup ^ P,
b.
Bab.
(Josa).
12 32 appears to have grown out of the shorter form, Hence no certain inference can be TOV alwva, in Mark.
in this instance as to the precise
drawn
Himself.
In Mark 10 30 (Luke 18 30 ) ev
TO)
icaip$
TOVTM and
ev
TW alwvL
TCO
found.
In Luke 20 84f
ol viol
rov alwvos rovrov are found alongside of ol KarafywOevTes TOV alwvos eiceivov TV)(elv\ but Matt. 2 2 30 Mark 12 25 have
,
nothing
1
8 corresponding. again in Luke (16 ), ol viol TOV alwvos TOVTOV occurs as antithesis to the viol
Elsewhere,
0.
Schmoller,
Die Lehre
vom Reiche
is
draws attention
2
cf.
The
Gottes (1891), 140 ff., successfully between Luke II 20 and Luke 17 20 seen, e.g., Ab. d. R. Nathan (39) (Akiba)
.
148
TOV
<ro5 without any parallel in the other Synoptists, In addition to these, we have also y pepiiiva TOV alwvos, Matt. 13 22 (Mark 4 19 al pepifjuvai, r. a.), but not in Luke, and the
expression
peculiar
to
Matthew,
"
f)
o-vvreXeia
"
rov
alwvos.
Hence
it is
this age,"
if Jesus used
vocabulary.
"
were not of importance in His As observed above (p. 135), the idea of the
all,
them at
sovereignty of
God
"
filled
Paul also speaks, and that frequently, of " this age (o al&v ovT09), see Eom. 12 2 1 Cor. I 20 2 6 8 3 18 2 Cor. 4 4
-
Eph.
21
;
"
10
,
this
"
present
,
age
1*;
this
2
;
(6
vvv
"
al<*v\
1 Tim.
6 17
2 Tim. 4
(o
12 Tit. 2
cf.
Gal.
"
;
8 18
(o
/coo^o?
OUTO?),
1 Cor. (I 20 ) 3 19 5 10 7 31 Eph. 2
I 21 is
"the
")
future age
"
Eph. 2
the ages to
come
spoken
77
of.
The place
TOV Oeov.
"
ffacriJXeia,
of the
by Johannine
Gospel.
The
correlative of
perly not
"
never
"
but
eternal
2.
as yet
In pre-Christian products of Jewish literature there is no trace of these ideas to be found. Cremer, in the
Graecitiit," gives Tob.
14 5
Apocrypha.
TOV
o xpovos
a/wj/09, Alex,
Trdcras
r9
yeveas
TOV
alcovos,
Sin.
T&v Kaipwv, Itala " tempus maleclictionum," while The the Hebr. and Aram, texts present no equivalent.
original
reading
ala>v
is
case;
and,
further, o
antithesis of
by two epochs.
itself
Even
in Sir.
18 10
ev
ypepa
149
during one's lifetime," although the translator into Syrian here makes a distinction between KD^J;
"
and Kpnn Nt&J, "the age of the pious." Moreover, the whole verse is an interpolation foreign to the The same holds of original document of the son of Sirach.
awn,
age,"
"
sseculum
"
25
in relation to
33 2
.
"
sevum sanctum
"
in the Latin
version,
24 The Ethiopic Book of Enoch speaks of 17 the "future age" only once, 7 1 15 and of "this unrighteous
,
age,"
the
Book
of Jubilees
lypse of Baruch, in
ideas.
its
They are
first
belonging to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem. " The " age that is promised to the pious (Syr. 4 robon
" this age appears there, contrasted with (Syr. " 14 13 the age to come" (Syr. TI&O, Tnjn KKbv) appears wn), 7f 44 15 "that endless age" (Syr. alongside of "this age," 15
}ir6)
;
-
"
"
"
-ujn),
48 50
cf.
;
40 3
6
;
see also
12 mn), 44
nw h
1
rf>y),
3 13 5 18
.
"^Eon"
is
44
llff -
In 2 Esd. 8 7 50
81
it is said that God has made, not In that book are found the expressions
,
Cf.
Barn. 10 11 eV rotary
TOJ
nba^y
See A, Schlatter, Das neugcfundene hebr. Stiick des Sirach. des griechischen Sirach (1897), 145, 147 f.
2
Der Glossator
6 K6<r/uos r^s
Vay. R. 26
al&v 6 ^eo-rws
irovrjpos,
Gal. I 4
5 adidas, Jas. 3
M.
Ceriani in the
Monu-
menta
5
Cf. T3j; chy (to be read thus, instead of rap 'i?), Jerus. I. Gen. 38 25 That 40 3 does not belong to the older sections of Bar. Apoc., I have maintained against R. H. Charles in a review of his edition of Baruch, Theol. Litbl. xviii. (1897), No. 15. " These are 7 Cf. also Bar. Apoc. 42 13 they who will inherit the time which was spoken of, and whose is the earth in the age that is promised," with 42 15 "to them is given the age to come." 8 Edition of the Latin version by R. L. Bensly and M. R. James (1895), of the Syriac version by A. M. Ceriani in Mon. sacr. et prof. v. 1.
.
150
"
(Syr.
27
&n
"
KO^y),
futurum sseculum
.
"
(Syr.
KB^),
42
69
712.47.112
8 if.
hoc
7 113
tempus,"
8 52
"
(cf.
"futurum tempus"
Bar. Apoc.
(Syr.
why
44 n
~13
).
also
mentions
the
,
56 4 and
6 12
though the text does not seem to be certain in these passages. The Targum of Onkelos makes no use whatever of the
ideas
"
this age,"
"
Even
in the
Targum
to the prophets
1
;
Kjwpn
KJ&B,
Kings
5 13
Tnjri
Kp^va
If the addition to a saying of Hillel, given in Ab. ii. 7, be genuine, then Hillel would be the earliest witness for the The passage runs " He who acuse of the expressions. quires for himself the words of the law, acquires for himself
:
the
life of
is
ft
rnp)."
5
(fl.
c.
A
"
second
A.D.), "
witness
80
who
declared that
God had
"
revealed to
"
Abraham
this age
(njn otoyn),
but not
example may
slightly
later,
third the age to come (Kan D^yn). be taken from Eleazar of Modiim, who lived
the six
good
gifts
the the age to come received by Israel, (Kan Djiy), and " 6 See also the saying of Eleazar ben new world (Bnn D^iy). Zadok given on p. 121, and the prayer of Nekhonya ben ha-
"
(Ber. ix.
Tos.
Ber.
vii.
the temple no more than "W 21) 7 DPiyn use d to be pronounced in the benedictions, until the
to the effect that in
1
R. H. Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (1896). Fundamental Ideas, III. 3 This is the reading of the Venice edition of 1517, and Cod. Reuchl. without insertion of 'c^, which appears in the Venice edition of 1525. 4 The saying is found also without mention of its author, Vay. R. 34.
W. R. MorJHland
See, however,
8
6
;
Ber. R. 44 ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 36. b 25 Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 50 on Ex. 16 ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 202. So it should be read as in Tosephta. oViyn jp would be meaningless.
151
to
Dyn
IJtt
Diyn
jp,
was instituted
combat
This
,
longer form
1 Chron.
.
16 36
Ps.
41 14 106
48
;
the shorter,
D^,
Ps.
72
19
89
53
Such a tradition
merely suggests a historical sequence for the two formulae. Carried out in practice, the prescription would have had no
result.
when the future age would not do so even with the the shorter form was used,
He who
"
"
longer form.
The currency
age,"
is
of the
"
expressions
this age,"
"
the future
by the end
should
of
the
first
Christian
century.
This
reservation
probably
be
expressions period the language of the learned rather than that of the people. As for the sense imputed to the terms, J. H. Holtzmann l
"
the
characterised
says
The
earlier representation
come
to coincide
with the
'
to be inaugurated by that period (Dan., the Similitudes of Enoch, Ps. Sol., Targum, and Mishna) a later view, on the
;
other hand, reckons those Messianic days as part of the present world, and in this
final
way
But
distinguishes
and Apoc.
Midrash
and
Both
this hardly represents the true " " " the days of the Messiah and the
future age
"
When,
subsequently, the world-renovation was located, not before, but after the Messianic epoch, there arose the controversy
whether the phrase K3H D^yn, which meantime had come into use, should be made to include the Messianic age or not.
in this regard represents the former view, it is but in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash the exprestrue, sion everywhere definitely implies no more than that the
The Targum
time of salvation
is
set forth
as
off
Any
fuller significance
i.
always requires
80.
152
to
by on the supposition that the idea of different ages was derived from the plural D^iy, which originally was inOrelli,
1
The
tended merely to enhance the idea, and that thus it came to pass that BJiV was used to designate the now current age.
This explanation
is
And
the Old Testament D'pjn nnna has not even indirectly served as a connecting link, for the Targums reproduce it
by wvfr
*)iDa
see Gen.
49 1 Num. 24 14 Deut. 3 1 29
, ,
Isa.
22
Tnjn oi\ given in the Targum for njn> DV, viz. ; Dig |B " " 12 see Isa. 2 Amos 5 18 the day destined to come from God
:
Joel I 15 Zeph. I 7
,
14
,
Mai.
3 23
for the
comprehensive idea
"
of njiT
DV
is
the
future age."
The differentiating cause must probably have been that, during the development of a doctrine regarding the substance of the prophetic promises, comprehensive terms
In these were a necessity for the instruction of the people. was easier than to set in contrast the circumstances nothing
Further, to eximperfect present with the perfect future. there were available the terms ^N/J, "that press "future,"
which
come."
is
coming," or
WD?
"
1F1>
that which
is
destined to
Nb^ Tnyn, the future," Ber. b a ix. 4; Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 37 Siphre, ed. Friedm. 140 d a also merely Nan, j. Shebi. 35 Shebi. 35 Samaritan, "Tifcn, j. 2 Tnjn n Targ. Eccl. 3 11 of Marka; Aram. Commentary
;
;
For
became
;
in
for
of
the aiwv,
"
i.e.
"
lifetime,"
Die hebr. Synonyma der Zeit mid Ewigkeit, 80 b Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana, iii. 69 -
153
circle
of
medium
of the Syrians.
it
And when
to
would be readily
the
D?V?
was equivalent
ai&va,
"
became
"
age
"
and thence easy to attribute to Thus thy meanings of the Greek aid>v. and it cannot excite surprise that Jewish
for ever,"
it
"
scholarship adopted
as a
"
for
comprising
future
"
and
present."
To
a
b
illustrate the
new
aia>v,
made
to b. Ber.
17 ^\ .n?i naon IOTP, "mayest thou enjoy thine age during " thy lifetime Vay. E. 32 tobto K, he departed from his b b. Yeb. 63 generation"; (ascribed to Ben Sira) "TO??
;
:
KM
ft
"
he
is
of
found encumbering himself for the sake " not belong to him Koh. E. I 3
;
niE^iy "
seven generations (of men), and nj$n the seasons of the year," in the Samaritan Marka. 1
"
y,
of the /cooyto?,
which was
after-
many
apply so early as the time of Paul in 1 Cor. uses o /eocryito? ouro? in juxtaJesus, though 2 Thus in the discourses of Jesus position with o alcov ouro?.
" " the rendering of alcov by world should be avoided, because
But
that term usually suggests the locus of all created things, or else the creation in its entire extent.
point to be noted in the use of the word is that Aram, and Hebr. constantly have H? $??, njn D ^?, " in this age,"
T
""riNi K?yb but almost always " for the age to come," with Kan D^b, just as it is also said Knt n^nyi, in the future."
i>
M. Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana, iii. p. xxii. For age," Marka further uses readily vi, properly, "generation" ; see loc. cit. 67 a f. 2 See above, p. 148. Even in Greek al&v sometimes denotes that which constitutes the contents of transitory time
;
"
see
Heb.
I 2 II 3 ,
cu'cDz/es
and
cf.
2 5 rty
olKov,u,ei>r]v
154
Here
also
it
is
a time;
concept.
Examples
-
Eccl. 1 s 7 llf
15
8 14 9 6
;
j.
72 b
Ab.
59
b.
vi.
Kidd. 81 a
4,
b.
Ab.
z.
65 a
j.
for the
9; for
.
slab
Tnjfc,
Sanh.
usage,
31
b.
Bab. m. 85 b
-
10
;
j.
Eccl.
Both
o al<bv 6 fjbeXkwv
and
have their
^1
^p??.
oi?y,
And
9 U Targ. Eccl. 6 7
the expression Karat;'laOfjvai, TOV alwvos e/cetvov Tv^eiv, see above, p. 119 f. ; for ol viol TOV atwro? TOVTOV, see p. 115.
On
3.
THE SIMPLE
alcov.
22 o pepquta TOV alwvos, Matt. 13 " denotes that which is temporal," without implying that the term is a contraction for o altov ovro?. Even if it were
In
the phrase
f)
some
texts,
passage be needlessly introduced. Jewish phrases are Ni>jn \?P, " affairs of this life," Cognate a b. Pes. 113 the concerns of b. Sabb. H? pi>jn
:
82V
7 18
;
W,
contrast with
b.
j.
K'JOf]
^,
n'T"? "
^,
"
his
own
a
concerns," in
b.
the
things of God,"
a
,
.
Ber.
7b
Meg.
Ber. ll a ,
"
114 DJO^' ^Bn, b. Sabb. 113 food has relation to the " transitory
;
life
According to " 3
(WV
^n),
"
the ever-enduring
"
(nygb
fc6
IV V").
To gain the
"
"
transitory life
(Wy
^n)
the
life of
the world to
b.
Sabb. 82 a expresses blame that any one should call the "life of men" Palestinian parallels \Vp.
fj.epi/jt,vav TO,
s
Cf.
TOV
/c6o>tou (in
apposition with
rot
TOV
itvpiov), 1
Cor. 7 34 .
n^
b.
Yom.
\ n means, Vay. E. 32, in an Aramaic 85 a it has the literal meaning of the words :
;
passage
"the
life
a brief interval
cf.
Jerus.
I.
Gen. 49 18 Nn^rn
fjj-iB,
"a temporary
155
"
Vay. E. 34. See also p. 157. Whether should really be rendered by the Targumic $&x\ anxiety In Sir. 42 9 anxiety on behalf of the be left undecided. may
come" (Kan
"
ivn
n),
daughter
expressed in Hebr. ^J^, Syr. Still v, which tends to support the rendering by Nay. the troubles of firprn NnirnD, a^i appears suspicious their life," might perhaps be the right phrase.
(rj
^epi^va avrf)?)
is
7]
(TwreXeia
TOV
at'wz/o?
occurs in Matt.
13 39f
491
28 20
The same phrase in without parallel in Mark and Luke. 4 3 Matt. 24 is replaced in Mark 13 by orav /ji\\rj ravTa crvvre\eta-0ai Trdvra, and in Luke 2 1 7 by orav fjie\\y ravra
8G yivea-Oai, (cf. v. ).
The theme
Hence
alwv
is
here also
alwv ovro?, but a designation of time as As the term occurs only transitory, of the world's course. in Matthew, it will belong not to Jesus Himself, but to the
no abbreviation
for 6
evangelist,
who has
it
in
common with
26 )
:
the
Hellenistic
Paul also writes, 1 Cor. 10 11 ra reXij TWV alcovwv. There is here a close relationship with TO reXo?, Matt. 24 6 14 22 7 9 24 13 (Mark (Mark 13 Luke 2 1 ); cf. ek reXo?, Matt. 10
-
13 13).
Pi?.
ny,
LXX
ew?
Ti?.?,
LXX
et?
crvvreKeiav
LXX
eo?
reXou?, Dan.
refer
77
7 26
2
.
One might
therefore with
some probability
a-vvTe\eia
TOV al&vos as expressed by Jesus to the simple NDID. Nevertheless the phrase in Matthew has also its Jewish parallels see
;
"
exitus
sseculi,"
Ass. Mosis
12 4
"the
end
;
of
the
age"
of the
"
54 21 69 4 83 7
59 8
;
;
"the end
ages" (Syr.
(Syr.
Kbfcp
Nt&n
23
1
.
Kpfe ejto, Targ. 2 Sam. See also Bar. Apoc. 27 15 fconn Kp^, "completion of
49 article, v. according to some MSS. with nnqxa, for which the Targums have N;D'V
wm
TOI/TOV.
f]io?
;
OT.
ov?;ri
see
above, p. 152.
156
the times,"
cf.
29 8 30 3
Ass. Mosis
I 18
"in consummatione
exitus dierum."
III.
ETEKNAL
LIFE, LIFE.
1.
ITS POSITION IN
r}
aicovio?
(always
one
are
subject
to
perdition.
farj
the
object
of
}
Kk^povo^eiv,
30
Matt.
19 29
(where
Mark 10
has
\a^dveiv Luke 18
e%eiv.
airoka^dveiv),
Mark 10 17 (Luke
In these cases
18 18
f.
cf.
a. is
regarded as a possession.
It is a certain status,
when
25 46
mention
made
f
of
a.).
an
"attaining
is
to"
also
it,
Matt.
(airepxecrOcu et?
sions
This status
on several occa-
referred to as
article).
Again, in
a7ra>\eia in the previous verse (Luke 13 24 contains neither). " " " " " Ways lead in this instance to life and destruction." " One can enter into/' elcrep^eaOai, life els rr}v farjv, Matt.
"to go away," 30 Mark 9 43 (et? TTJV <yeewav), Matt. 5 airep^eadat, into hell or "to be cast into hell" (/3aXXeo-&u), Matt. 18 8f (Mark
-
18 8f (Mark 9 43
"
45
).
The
"
antithesis to this
is
9 45<
47
).
In
Mark
9 47 there stands
et9 TTJV
elaekOelv
2.
The "eternal
tioned in the
life"
of
(CW
is
first
meDfirst
Book
ETERNAL
LIFE, LIFE
157
, ;
16 9 cf. 13 century before Christ in the Psalter of Solomon 3 4 9 1 Enoch 37 40 "to take possession of eternal life," cf. 58 3
62 54
Enoch 65 10
")
;
cf.
come
oj)
;
7 26
(aevaos
4 Mace. 15 3
also
it
is
,
" the age to come," for Np?V ^n, Lev. 1 8 5 not spoken of as Deut. 33 6 (where the Jerus. Targ. incorrectly thinks of the
life of
"
eternal
life."
Further, the
13 21
-
Hos. 14 10 makes
it
and *n is
to
^1
Ktby.
The Targum
Sam. 2 6 also says that God will cause a resurrection from " " eternal life (Npte na), and the realm of the dead in the
Jerus. Targ.
on Deut. 13 19 straightway changes it in this See also Targ. 1 Sam. 25 29 which connection into V??"! tfrfjy.
I.
,
tells
is
"
in the
security of
the eternal
"
life
N (
^n tm),
i.e.
in the safe
keeping of those who are destined to life eternal. Elsewhere throughout the older Jewish literature the term
"
eternal
in
(e.
found almost only in a case where it stands " Eliezer ben Hyrkanos contrast with transitory life."
life is
"
100
A.D.)
life
eternal
speaks reproachfully of such as neglect the " (t&y ^n pri^o) and occupy themselves with the
"
transitory life
(nyp
rm
Pi?DW).
after-
wards imputed also to Simeon ben Yokhai 3 (c. 130) and to The school of Shammai Simeon ben Gamliel n. 4 (c. 160).
(first
D?ty
century) makes use, according to Tos. Sanh. xiii. ^n in a passage containing allusions to Dan. 12 2
to
3, of
An
appendix
statement
D^DjfeJ
of
^n,
Yehuda ben Ilai (c. 150) 5 Tarn. vii. 4. The Aramaic prayer
of a "life without death."
(cf. 62).
In Enoch 10 10
b. Bez. b.
j.
fwrj cu'civtos is
meant merely
2 3
4 6
Bacher, Ag.- d. Tann. i. 108 Sabb. 33 b ; Backer, op. cit. ii. 89. Mo. k. 82 b ; Backer, op. cit. ii. 330.
;
15 b
Bacher,
loc. cit.
i.
336.
158
np says, 1 he who brings forth out of Sheol beginning " into the eternal life (NC? *T$), and a similar formula in the
s
"
appears in NPB&6 r;, (the dead) up to the eternal life." In general, however, "the life of the world to come," Dbtyn n, has taken the place of the shorter " eternal life,"
to raise
after
an interment
them
dtiy
*n
Examples
155, 160.
3.
IT.
As
terms,
ai&vios
;
is
found,
these
,
see,
for
125. 3
,
Mark 10 30
Luke 18 30
For
%&,
on the
contrary, Matt.
parallels in
K\7jpovofjLeLv.
19 16 no equivalent need be sought, since the Mark and Luke have here, as one would expect,
The verb
dnep^ec-Oat,, Matt.
25 46
is
30
.
modified
is
by the adjacent efc Ko\acriv alcoviov, cf. Matt. 5 the only word that can be proposed to render
to &7.g or i\t (Galil. p6TK),
34
,
Yet
?TN
it;
and to
addressed to the
it
righteous
must
can also be said concerning them, K^V **TO |wj, " they To " attain go away (from the judgment) into eternal life." " the eternal life (ela-ep^eaOai) would, on the other unto
Thus
hand, be expressed by
$$$
\*n?
nx
see above, p. 1 1 6
f.
4.
THE SIMPLE
f)
"the
In the Old Testament the scope of expressions like Q^nn, 13 19 ttwi t he way of life," Jer. life," Deut. 30 D n mfe, "path of life," Prov. 2 19 does not extend be21;
-
Seder Eab Amram, ii. According to Baer's Seder Abodatli Yisrael, 588. But the formula is wanting in Seder Eab Amram and in Maimonides. 3 The "heir"(cf. K\r)p6vofj.oi fon/s aluvlov, Tit. 3 7 ) would be win;. On the
1
.
21 b
"promise" of the
life,
ETERNAL
LIFE,
LIFE
159
yond earthly
used
in
Ps.
life
The last-named phrase as and well-being. 16 already seems to contain the idea of a
11
happy
the
to
life
At
"
a later date
the idea of
these
so
that
life
could
of
be
"eternal
the
pious
KXypovofjutfo-ovo-iv
&*?#)
without qualification, meaning thereby, according to 3 16 the In 2 Mace. 7 14 there is also found the "eternal life."
,
abbreviated
avaftiwaiv
"
avdara(n$
0)7)9
et?
faijv
alongside
.
of
et?
alcovlov
^a?
9 dvacmjorei,, in 7
The
treatise of the
Two Ways," 1
generally supposed
"
to
be of Jewish origin,
way
of life."
The Slavonic
Enoch
ways.
(ed. Morfill
and Charles) 30 15
A
of
detailed description of
them
2 Abraham, not, however, without marked Christian influence, which shows itself in the use of expressions from
ment
the Synoptists.
Bar. Apoc.
and
one day will The later Jewish literature has given the preference to " the clearer appellation, life of the age to come." Neverlife
"
"
"
theless
"
there
are
found occasionally as
life,"
correlatives
"
r?D,
they are judged to eternal punishment)," Tos. Sanh. xiii. 2 b. Sanh. (pass " " 103 b 3 It is only when " life and " death form parts of
P?fa?,
;
.
and
quali-
Thus Yokhanan
pious
of
(c.
260
who
are
to
perfection receive
s
ffKi)
1
life"
(D
!n^
'DBtox)
und
and
in
the
prayer
2
57.
have, however, grave It could hardly have been intended for the instruction of proselytes. doubts. 2 M. R. James, The Testament of Abraham (Texts and Studies, ii. 2), 88 ff.,
112ff.;
3
Wege
(1896),
"Two Ways,"
cf.
51
ff.
h. S. 16 b speaks of a recording
and
seal-
160
which begins "O^K
JnV
it is
said
!
"ma
[
W|
KJ-H,
may
the
award
"
2 be pronounced over us The principle that " " the the medicine which brings life (&*(} Dp) may also be
of life
"
death" (nrvp
3
Dp), is
observed
first
of
A.D.), by Benaya (c. Joshua ben Levy (c. 240). 4 In the Samaritan author Marka, 5 God refers to Himself as nnicn nonxi rvn D3~ia, " the stay of
life,
200
and afterwards by
others, as
of death."
:
Qavdrov
et?
Odvarov,
607x77 e/c
Greek phrase
&yv, Matt. 7 may be derived cf. Aram, ^n rnitf, 77 TTJ<S Jo}9 Targ. Jer. rn Krnte, Targ. Jerus. I. Deut. 30 15 19 The Old Testa218; " ment never contemplates a way as " leading to some destina0805
77
aTrdyova-a
ets TTJV
14
6809
tion.
"
But
in post-biblical literature
of the fire, the
we have
Bar. Apoc.
85 13
"
path which leads to Gehinnom and Ber. K. 9 TO nrs wrtib mpon ^3Kn &oin NITVIK) (Syr. K3n D^tyn r6 onn n n^ap, which way is it that leads to
the
way
the
life of
the age to
come
"
?
The
7 14 uses
of
^aitf,
which
is
likewise
is
known
Jewish Aramaic
"
life
Palestine.
Eecourse
bitf,
and
if
need be to
:
:njj.
7
leads to the
xnnx.6
would in Aramaic be
ela-ep'xecrOai
et9
p.
*$ (n^^m) rm&i
fatfv (Matt.
rrjv
Mark
fe,
9 45 )
would
in
be ?r6
late
n,
cf.
116, since
p^ "$
(40
8
),
Targum
to It
the
Psalms
should
the selection.
1
may
ii.
Seder Rab
b.
Amram,
;
20 a .
;
Rom.
5 18
3
4
cf.
Backer, Ag. d. p. Nap and Knion KSD, as in b. Yom. 72 b (Raba). a Heideriheim, Bibl. Samarit. iii. 7 mk in Aramaic is at least generally fern, not masc., as Gesenius-Buhl and
cf.
Yoma
72 b
Backer, Ag. d. Taan. ii. 540. Am. i. 137 ; see also ibid. pp. 37, 262.
is \>rn
the dictionaries of Levy represent. 7 That V.n is readily used as the denned form, see above also Onk. Deut. i9 w here V.n is put for the Hebrew n^nn, and Targ. Mai. 2 5 3015.
; . }
ETERNAL
LIFE,
LIFE
161
Judging from simple rj 0)77 is original in this connection. 17 where rj Matt. 19 represents &rj alvvtos, and Mark 9 47 cf. vv. 43 45 where ; jSaa-Ckeia TOV deov is used in its
,
&V
place,
it
Jesus
not improbable that as used in the words of 13 14 it might excepting, perhaps, Matt. 7 throughis
-
n or
5.
IDEA.
With Jesus
idea
to
eternal life
"
and
"
"
life
The expressions which denote eternal perdition. Jewish term D|H\3 (Aram, form of BS'T.a), Greek rj popular <yeevva, is the one term whose use by Jesus is assured, since
all
Synoptists record it among the words of Jesus. Less certain is TO vrvp TO ao~/3eo-Tov, based upon Isa. 66 24 as
three
,
4S 45 among the words of Jesus only in Mark 9 ( ). Peculiar to Matthew are: TO irvp TO ai-wviov (18 8 ), Ko\acns this being occaaiwvios (25 46 ), 17 fta/iH/09 TOV Trvpo? (13 42 ),
it
occurs
and q aTrwXeia (7 13). The last-named is required as antithesis to f) Jaw; (7 14), and can therefore be reckoned as certain. Both "eternal life"
sioned by the imagery of the parable,
and
"
Gehenna
"
which awaits
decided.
all
have as necessary presupposition a judgment men, in which the fate of men is for ever
is
There
The penalty of death threatens him a judicial process. has been found guilty at the bar of justice the gift of
;
who
life
is
it is
acquitted. judgment, not the ending or continuation of earthly existence that constitutes the decisive issue but either, on the one hand,
;
is
In the
final
the penalty of an eternal death by fire, the scene of which is Gehenna, which involves permanent exclusion from the
theocracy
life
or,
is
to
the eternal
"
which
consummated
in the
Hence
"
"
eternal
"
;
life
it
radically
means participation
ii
theocracy
and
is
substan-
162
tially the
that
spoken
of.
The
forgive"
the
kingdom of negative counterpart " the primary foretaste of the positive possession of life God), it is rather the indispensable condition for entrance into "life,"
;
the
life itself.
Nor
is
there
any
of
97
"
the
"
life,"
of
fwr;,
in its fullest
sense,
The
difference
of Jesus
"
life," but in
and
of
never be attained.
IV.
THE WOELD.
IS
1.
STILL
UNKNOWN.
Old Testament Hebrew has no term which would quite The Alexandrian Version correspond to the Greek 6 /cooyto?.
of the biblical o
"
host
21
,
"
of
heaven (N2) by
.
Koapos
Deut. 4 19 17 3
period,
This
is
an
earlier
also
LXX
in Isa.
" merely for ornament." s5 KSHN, where a term for world might be expected, Dan. 2
19 331 48.
9
,
.
39
26 The Book of Sirach has KOO^O?, (without ^3) 6 " 43 for the Hebr. *% ornament," and 50 19 probably for 3 and alwv occurs 43 6 46 19 4 rnsafl, with the same meaning;
,
Lehrb.
d.
Neutest. Theol.
i.
202.
E. Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu, 85. 8 So S. Schechter conjectures, Jew. Quart. Rev. x. 206. The MS. Hebrew Text published by Schechter has n3;p rn.^, "to serve the altar."
4
text.
THE WORLD
for
163
Cw,
"
eternity."
also appears
38
34
In the Syriac version /mo>ta aiuvos as Koijjn KJVPay, but can scarcely be correct.
The
to
original
"
mean
might probably have here used D^ly adverbially 2 In 39 2 avSpwv ovofjbavrwv (Syr. KEOK always."
time
Koi'jn) "
;
^N,
"
the
men
of
olden
ofe
^inx,
44 1
or even
D>
44 3
And
to
from the
original of the
Wisdom
of the
Son
of Sirach,
so it is not
No
280
(
B.C.)
concerning
the world
"
^n)
rests. 3
The
substance and the form of the expression are equally unfavourable to its authenticity.
* section of the Book of Enoch Nor, again, did the first the original of which was probably in 136), (chaps. 5 Hebrew, contain Djty, in the sense of world. the Greek version o 0eo? TOV ai&vos, I 3
:
The terms
o /Sacr^Aev?
of
rwv
;
3 aitovcov, 1 2
Kvpie o
TT}?
;
iKaioavvr)<s
o tcvpios
TWV
4 alwvcov, 9
cannot be dissociated from the biblical expressions D^iy *?$, 4 Gen. 2 1 33 DJty Niftg, Isa. 40 28 iw, Isa. 26 D^y 10 Venice 1517, ty i$ Venice 1525, Cod. Jer. 10 (Targ.
:
D^y
Ps.
%,
Keuchl.
r&V ^?);
0^ ^ note,
145 13
In any case
it
may
Hebrew
original,
Greek version was made, everywhere employed the article, But the article, of course, may had D^yn <n*>g, oiiyn ijte. i.e.
1
/cricrts,
In additions to the Book of Sirach there occur /c<5<r/ios, " world," 16 18 18 1 16 14 24 3 on which see A. Schlatter, Das neugefundene hebr. Stiick des
;
,
Sirach.
2
f.
Cf. Ps. 61 8 .
Aboth
i.
2.
it
4 The first part of the Book of Enoch can scarcely be the oldest, and at least cannot have originated at the beginning of the second century B.C., as K. H. Charles holds. The divine names 0e6s, /ScurtXerfs, Ktipios, TOV al&vos, ruv al&vtav, currently used by the author, are scarcely in keeping with so early a date.
5
see R.
The decisive proof lies in the Hebrew words contained in the Greek version H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 325 A. Lods, Le livre d'He'iioch, Iviff.
;
164
merely be intended to render the general conception more It is not impossible that the article coupled with definite.
Djty
"
eternal."
'n,
It occurs
Dan. 12
"
7
,
Hebr. Dbiyn
*n
;
Dan. 4
"
;
meaning
"
He
31
n,
the eternal
"
;
life
Gen. 9 12 Nobv
"
^,
"
tions
the eternal
house
"
(grave),
;
de
Vogue, 32,34
Kttbvb,
for ever,"
28 28
Kto
iy,
cemetery," Vay. Palmyr. de Vogue, 21,23; and also NJpbyb, Targ. Isa. "for evermore," Onk. Gen. 13 15 cf. Dan. 2 20
,
E. 1 2)
"
for
.
ever,"
e.g.
Orik.
TpW, Dan.
is
5 10 , Targ. Isa.
25 8
perhaps more probable that &bty when united with the article in the Book of Enoch does not merely reStill, it
"
eternal."
Bjiy ?]b&
means
"
eternal
King
abtyn 7jb&
is
"
the
King who
measurable duration of
the world."
The Greek
translator
by was conscious
of
shows he too
section
in
Thus
Dt>tyn in this
the
Book
,
as
it
bears
it
clear
the incomprehensible range of time God has imposed upon the heart
man, despite man's impotence to survey completely the With o alwv 6 fjLeyas, Enoch works of God therein comprised.
16 1
,
little
for that
1
*|to Di" iy Perhaps passage is doubtless in confusion. bnan stood in the original, and biian by mistake was taken
with obtyn
Dbiyn,
^I3n pin
Di>
"W and
*)iD
ny
Since, however,
the
context contemplates in any case an end of the &?W, it is evident that the author did not regard DjiV as signifying an entirely unlimited range of time.
can thus have in view the world-epoch extending from the creation to the judgment, and Cibiy, in that case, is
He
THE WORLD
differentiated
165
"
of
the
world
"
solely
by
"
its
temporal element.
But he may
end,"
give prominence to the infiniteness of the B/iV does intentionally, especially where the plural
and
is
this
he
sjbp
used,
D^tyn
is
the
King
no t
the
King
is,
He who
eternal
There
God
of
and
"
the
God";
cf.
6 /3ao-tXeu?
TMV alwcov
26
Susanna
LXX 35
Theod.
42
,
0eo? 6
cuomo?
Rom. 16
o alwvios 6eo<$.
Here may
b.
also be
named
:
D'&fcyn
Yom. 87 b (Yokhanan, c. 260); the liturgical phrase i>3 flrj 2 a 12 a D'rffan, "Lord of all the ages," Seder Eab Amram, " a b 27 Rock of the ages," ibid. 3 D'pbfon i, K^y spjan, the 4 Strong One of the ages," Targ. Isa. 26 wpfy sjbp, the King 5 24 33 of the Ages," Targ. Isa. 6 30 Ezek. I Zech. 14 16
i.
,
,
els iraa-as
ra?
j
10 3
22
r9
^/ie/ja?
rov alwvos), 14 5 15 6
;
cf.
Gen.
ba
;
9 12 D^iy n'-rt
Onk. xd?V
r$
Targ. Eccl.
7 29 *? ty
Eph. 3
All Tracra? ra? yeveas rov al&vos TWV alcovcov. " the generations of " the world are not here meant, but all " " " the generations of of the the current age world-period."
e/5
21
In Enoch 9 6 according to the correct text, ra fjLVffTrjpia TOV " the alwi/o?, which are preserved in heaven, must signify
,
"
;
cf.
/jLvorrrfpiov
^POVOLS aiwvlow
Rom. 16 25
it
of
Enoch has
will
20 2>
4
.
in conc ^-
so that
162.
The
chaps.
section
of
Enoch
called
Book
of
Similitudes,
3771,
166
"creation of the world" only in later additions, 48 6 69 16 17 18 6 7 7 1 15 must be considered an interpolation, Further, 48 because (1) it disturbs the connection between vv. 5 and 8
-
3 (2) merely repeats with variations the substance of v. 7 and (3) v. contains terms which suggest affinity with those
v. 6
108 8
"
9 10
-
The
contains
section, chaps.
of Visions,
2
.
It God of the whole world," 84 phrase occurs in a very ornate doxology which belongs to the introduction to the Visions, and this part may very likely have
the
of
Enoch,
see, further,
under
3.
From
for
"
world
in pre-Christian times
must
at least be gravely
doubted.
It is also
obviously improbable
originate early,
which even among the Greeks did not should have prematurely modified the phrase-
Jesus says TO <w9 rov /cooy/,oi>, Matt. 5 14 in proximity with TO aXa9 rrjs 7?}?, v. 13 but the cognate passages, Luke II 33 Mark 4 21 (Luke S 16 ), have no corresponding term.
:
Still
Trdcras Ta?
T.
/3.
KOCT^OV,
Matt.
(Luke 4
TT.
Trjs
it
cf.
may
be
into
and in
"
;
Targ.
Jer.
34 1 N}n
njafe
fei.
All
the
Synoptists
,
have
36 26 Luke 9 25 ). Kepbaivew rbv KOQ-^OV o\ov, Matt. 16 (Mark 8 In Matt. 18 7 occurs oval TO> /COO-JAW, but the parallel in Luke
17 1 omits
To5
rrj
The gospel will be preached eV oX Matt. 26 13 (Mark 14 9 et? 0X01^ TOZ^ KOO-/JLOV), ev o\rj (coafjiq), 10 14 oiKovpevrj, Matt. 24 (Mark 13 et? iravra ra edvr)\ cf:
TO) /coo-pa).
Luke 24 47 );
THE WORLD
rfj
167
ra
eOvrj,
KTiaei,
19
.
Mark 16 15 and
,
/jLadrjTeva-are Trdvra
,
Matt. 28
The
:
field in
is
the world
(Epiphanius
Luke 12 30 speaks of ra Wvt] given in Mark 4 and Luke 8. 32 TOV KocrfjLov, but Matt. 6 has only ra edvy. The world
over which the signs of the end come is called rj olfcov/jLevvj, Luke 2 1 26 but no parallels appear in Matt. 24 29ff or Mark
-
13
24ff>
.
j3o\<f)s tcovfjiov,
Matt. 25 34 Luke II 50 (but not in Matt. 23 s5 ) dif dpxfis KOO-/JLOV, Matt. 24 21 (Mark 13 19 air a/o%)9 KTi<rtDs)
airo (Be)
dpxfc
it is
JCTMTCOS,
Mark
(Matt.
19 4
only
a-ii
In this
surprising that
its
Matthew alone
uses o #007409
appearance in
being
to all the
CLTTO /caTa/3o\f)<;
(/crt'treeo?),
and
As
for the
it
first,
the
,
citation
to Ps.
78 2 where the
it
LXX puts
CLTT
0*1 j?
^p.
Thus
would be
"
term
of the Targ. of
,
Onkelos ptfji^,
.
in
former times"; see Gen. 2 8 3 15 Deut. 2 12 33 27 1 As for an 8 it may reproduce Knwpa or ^n i?']i5 |p. "/%^?> Matt. 19
s
,
For the former, see Onk. Gen. 13 for the latter, j. Kidd. 64 C Hence there appears to be some degree of certainty that
3
;
.
Jesus employed the term p?V in the sense of #007*09 only in the one instance, KepBawetv rbv KOO-JJLOV o\ov.
gaining the whole world, as in that of " " losing one's soul, there is involved a metaphor drawn from
In the case of
"
"
commercial dealings. This consideration will determine the Aramaic words to be presupposed. For " gain " and " loss "
the
cf.
Mishna uses
j.
Bab. m. 10.
.
10 b
1
Cf. Targ.
41 4 where
))?
is
rendered by pcnpj>$.
Of course
is
also possible.
168
"lafeo
and
1pB3, b.
Pes.
50 b (Baraitha); but
i.
also "isn&n
is
and
isnnn, Vay.
34.
In Ber.
2 to "suffer loss"
j.
TD&n.
,
Ned. 38 d
"
seems,
Keth. 30
d
,
means
to
end
,
not
known
verb for " to gain" other than nyitf, j. Ned. 39 b to me and this verb does not properly admit
;
of taking
Matt. 16 26
an object with it. Hence there may be put l for 2 iW'B3 TDBJO "UK fib noi. Kp5>y *?* njn p&s xwvb ^.np
,
The Palestinian proverb, b. Ned. 41 a applied to knowTO an fc&n pra n^a n^n ao^ ledge (ny?.), has some resemblance
:
rijj
no
\3jj
*6
N-J
npn no
\Jjj
*n
:
TO
no,
he in
whom
is
it
(know-
he in
whom
it
what
if
he
this attained,
what more
this,
what
to
"
he attained
"
and
"
not to
and
not admit of being transferred to the saying of our Lord. " " " Still the common correlatives to gain and " to lose may For quite well be inserted without injury to the sense.
these, Aramaic offers NJi? and "ttiK, and the saying of Christ With would be: JWB3 ini&o Kpty ^a Wjp f N^jisti \arip npi. 3 ini^ iW|M may be compared Ab. ii. 35 K. Nathan: "Every
one who keeps a precept of the Law, keeps his own soul fcttn and every one who destroys one precept of iBiM) fl>o
;
own
" of
soul (13NO
wn
i^M)."
4
The
sion
in
"
whole world
is
the
dictum
Meir
160
A.D.)
"When man
comes into the world, his hands are folded together as if he would say, The whole world is mine, and I take possession of
'
if"
1
(ii>nu
yfcn
wn 4& fe D^yn
:
f>3).
On
unqualified,
3 4
Vay. R. 20 K^no ^C !"!? n!? ^niyz? Kpq" what good is there in merriment ?"
5 14
;
"
P1'7
the laughter
is
Koh. R.
cf.
ii.
19.
THE WORLD
is
169
"
understood
to
(c.
denote
"
age
in
the
statement
1
of
80
B.C.),
who maintained
that the
God
of the
esteemed the integrity " the gain of this whole age (**??? P^n '? *W). Of course the possibility also exists of setting aside even
this solitary instance in
Jews (on the part of heathen who of Simeon) was dearer to him than
D^y
= #007,109.
"
NOT
in
the sense of
such as KJHN
earth."
"
;
3.
Mace. (5 times), 4 Mace. (4 times), Wisdom (19 times), should use the conception and the term o #007*09. Among the
2
New
John
in the Gospel
Testament writers, the extensive use of o #607*09 by a and Epistles is specially worthy of note
less frequently
used by Paul, not being found at all in his Epistles to the Thessalonians it occurs also in Peter and James, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in
It is
;
much
Of the Synoptists, Matthew, as remarked above, p. 167, has it most frequently (9 times); Mark, 15 apart from 16 only once; and even Luke only 3 times
the Apocalypse.
,
in the Gospel,
and once
term oiteovptvq
not at
all
;
in
The cognate U in Mark is found in Matthew only once, 24 1 6 Luke, however, 3 times in the Gospel (2 4
only,
,
17 24
in the Acts.
times in Acts; and elsewhere only in Eomans Epistle to the Hebrews twice, and in Revelation 3 times. This choice of terms by Luke must be attributed to
2 1 26 ), and 5
once,
his desire of writing in biblical style.
of
170
and thus his testimony agrees with /cocr/ito? the Synoptists in proving that for Jesus the idea had not attained to any importance.
require to use o
;
that of
If
we turn
to the
72 1 75 3
82
certainly recognised.
It
may
be
left
undecided
whether in 8 1 3 "the King of the glory of the world," 8 1 9 " the Lord of the world," really meant " the eternal King of
glory," as in
75 3 and
,
"
Enoch, chaps.
the
limit is admissible,
all
is
91104,
to all
103
104
14a
,
5
,
where no time"
to
generations in perpetuity."
however, mention
made
judgment before
,
as destined to destruction,
is
is
of
world
I
2
-
"
(orbis
-
only
,
in
its
framework,
namely,
n>1 12 l3 14> 17
-
II 8
16 17
-
2-10.
position
offers
12 4 and not in the proper prophetic part, chaps. It is worthy of note that II 16 and 12 4 have in juxta"
orbis terrarum
"
and
"
sseculum."
For
these, Hebr.
In the Apocalypse of Barucli two of the parts (chaps. 27-29, 36-40), dating from before 70 A.D., do not mention
the
"
world."
sections (chaps.
53-74)
56 2
73 1
5
).
In
the corresponding Syriac word, so that the Hebr. may why 7 be taken to be &^5>. Only in 3 where the Syriac version
,
Dominus
orbis terrarum.
THE WORLD
has NTOvn beside
as parallel to o
xtD^j;,
171
must have stood
and ??n might be
al<i>v.
In this passage
Bpiy
proposed as the Hebrew original. In the Book of Jubilees l it appears doubtful whether D?
has been used for the idea of the
"
world."
Eeference
17
,
is in-
but also
" "the perpetual generations," 4 25 8 12 21 33 16 and to all the generations of the earth," 6 10 12 24 19 20 (which has also cf. above, pp. the reading " omnes generationes sseculi ")
,
164
but
f.,
170.
God
of
is
called
-'Lord
of
the
world,"
25 23
25 15 "God
"
'nV),
13 8 "eternal
God
another reading at least in the Latin " the Creator of all special frequency
s
4 - 27
"Heaven and earth," II 22 17 ). things" (see 2 In the not " the world," constitute His creative work, 2 25
17
.
fills
"
24
.
In the Second Book of Esdras, " sseculum (Syr. ND$>y) occurs with extraordinary frequency in the sense of the created
"
"
world
41.
"
eg.
3 9<
18 34
-
4 24
S 44
49
6 55
59
7 1L
These passages cannot in every case " " be distinctly separated from those in which saeculum re" A Greek original would ^Eon." presents the idea of the
320.
50
92.5.8.13
ipo
necessarily have
firms this
had alwv throughout, and Heb. I 2 11 s conThe Hebrew original had B/W. likelihood.
Jewish literature abounds in instances of the
It must, indeed, be observed
The
use of
outset
"
later
= world. Qjty
that
from the
of the meanings "age," As not everywhere practicable. soon as the geographical connotation of KOO-JJLOS had been transferred to DPiJJ, the speaker could at will apprehend it
clear
distinction
"
is
eternity," and
"
world
as a
of time.
Whether the
2
school of
1
Shammai
that
"
the
710
ff., vii.
H. Charles
ff.,
Eduy.
i.
13
cf.
i.
172
y?
N")??)
immaterial.
century opty is so commonly used for world," that it cannot be doubted that this name for the idea was then in general
use.
It has
G-en.
found
22
;
its
way even
!>?
Targums
"
see
Onk.
in the
cf.
Targ. Isa.
51
Kp^jn
"
;
'W,
28 world"; Deut. 33
(God's)
in the Targ.
to the
I, Jehovah, created the WK, Kobj nna world." Joshua ben Khananya and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (c. 100 A.D.) dispute concerning the mode of origin and the
prophets, Isa. 4 1
form
of
is
(
Djiy.
Both
agree that
God has
its
created
"
"
the world
if
"
?W?).
"
pro-
clamation finds
of the
widest extension
it
goes
Eliezer ben
utmost range
"
of vision. 5
to destroy,"
"
to ruin,"
to
fathers of antiquity
(C&y
J"ii2K)
are
of the
world
"
"
and the
of
(a^V ^n) are the mountains 26 for which Compare D^y niynji, Gen. 49 " " Onkelos has KC&y \&\ N^fl, the mighty ones of old Targ. " " in Marka, the great ones of the world Jerus. I. Kpjp Wan,
primeval mountains
8
the world."
no^y
"
'6OT,
iii.
3b
rwaj
One encounters the prophet of the world," ibid. nft^n, " such expressions as " to come into the world (NOT
:
"
1 2
3
Cf.
b.
John
Yoma
Bab. b. 25*
;
f.;
cf.
Backer,
loc. cit.
Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 136, 139. See also j. Ab. z. 42, which i. 134.
is
says
4
God
rules
a globe.
Mechilt. 56 b
Siphre,
5 6
7
Num.
;
Aboth
j.
11 Chaor. 77 d
ii.
;
Shir. R. I 12
THE WORLD
2 14 Targ. Eccl. 3 4
l
;
173
"
"
to
come
ibid.
5 15
I.
"
;
to
Jerus.
Deut
"
;
to be in the world
of the
(K^ "
($??
Targ.
;
Eccl. I 8
to go out
world
"
(KK&J
|B bra),*
ibid. I 4
.
6 tftfi "to judge the world" (Kpto P ^), Targ. 2 Sam. 23 7 T d rutfn is, the first day of according to j. Shebi. 35 D^J&|>
,
the month
"
Lastly,
can sink down to the mere meaning, " the people." " what is the voice in the world ? " Kttba K^>P no* literally,
world
"
really
means
"
?
"
:
what
is
being talked
about
Of the world in
fullest sense,
God
is
readily referred
no doubt helping as
;
models
22
"
cf.
TOV
/cocrfjiov {3a<ri\evs,
;
2 Mace. 7 9
/cvpio?
TOV
14 Koa/jLov, 2 Mace. 13
.
Sea-TroTys irdarj^ TT)? /crt'crew?, " " Lord of Heaven (fiDB^jn) is called
3 Mace.
Lord
Np/W
}, on an
114
Marka
of
uses as
names
8
for
i>an
nobjn mo,
"
Lord
the
world,"
n^y
"
11
HID,
of the
10
no^jn n^fe,
King
the world,"
the world."
call biblical
These three Samaritan appellations, which reprototypes (see above, p. 163), were in use also
of
the
world,"
(cf.
see
besides
Enoch
12
8 1 10
Jubilees 25 23
above, p.
171), a dictum
fote-j
;
Eliezer
ben
Hyrcanus
K6crfj.oi>,
(c.
100)
.
D^yW
in
the
ds rbv
2
John
I 9,
2pxe<rOai
3
ei's
TOV
K6<r/j.ov
TOVTOV,
Rom. 5 12 John 9 s9
. .
Luke 21 26 John 9 5 5 28 K TOV /c6oyiou afaevai. rbv K^^OV, John 16 47 6 Rom. 3 6 KpLvew TOV Kbapov, John 12
tirtpxe(rda<- rrj otKOVfj.tvr],
elvai ev
r$
/c6cr/iy,
t&pxecrQcu,
Cor. 5 10
j.
8
10
12
iii.
10 b 11^.
,
Ibid. 5 a
Ibid.
iii.
Ibid.
iii.
10 b
14".
Mechilta 56 a
i.
152.
1*74
<# flan
Isa.
Targums,
the simple
Targ.
Eccl.
34 22
Targ.
j.
31
Jp s
ty
rnan,
^2
4 13
(cf.
.
PMiai.
Kjbjrn,
Taan.
68
);
Wwp
fla-i,
Targ. Cant.
52
Subse-
quently the synonymous Np?y ( X T)?) M)5? came into use side 11 by side with NOT flan, and appears, e.#. Targ. Eccl. 5 3 13 1 14 8 Cant. 2 Tob. 8 Targ. Jerus. I. Gen. 22 (Aram,
;
text).
As
"
King
of
the world
"
God
17
,
is
called
*i
K$V ^p
(Cod.
Koto
KaJ
in the prayer
beginning
D^vn,
"
|IJ"1B
i^p*
in
Hebrew,
i.
.. Seder
Kab Amram,
world
;
lb
God
is
of the
"
appears as
K$W
afo,
Onk. Gen. 2 1 33
ff.
Targ. Isa.
It
cf., however, above, p. remarkable that none of these designations has found an entrance into the New Testament. Jesus says,
40 28 42 5
163
Matt. II 25 (Luke 10 21 ), in an invocation of God, not icvpie TOV KOO-JJLOV, but Kvpie TOV ovpavov KOI r?J? 77}?. Elsewhere
we
find:
6 atowto? deos,
.
Eom. 16 26
6 ^acrtXei9
rwv aiwvwv,
15 Only Rev. II speaks of 17 j3a<ri\6ia TOV Koafjuov as having become the portion of God and His Anointed. In 6 #609 TOV ai&vos TOVTOV, 2 Cor. 4 4 Satan is called by Paul
1 Tim. I 17
31
mode
of expressing the
is
of of
"
|i"iK,
Lord
14
5
;
n?)
22
;
"
P,
possessor of
Judith 9 17
in the
"Lord
heaven
of
heaven and
earth,"
Ky-jw
prayer KT DBn
tff^
and
of
Dead;
Tob. 8
Kn^, "God
and earth,"
15
(Aram.).
Of similar nature are the common designations " God of " Lord of heaven," " King of heaven," which have heaven,"
:
Zunz, Nachtrag zur Litgesch. d. syn. Poesie (1867), 1 L. M. Landskuth, Seder bikkur cholim, etc. (1867) 49.
THE WORLD
originated not so
175
l
much with
" Palmyrenians had a Lord of heaven (jot? SJQ), see above " and a " Queen of heaven (D^Dt^n rota) was known in Judah
It was quite even before the Babylonian Exile (Jer. 44 18 ). a common predicate of Deity which the Jews applied to the
God
of revelation,
"
-
Him
4
God
20
of heaven."
(I
24
);
18
;
see also o
20 10 11 12 (Aram.); for "Lord of KJOBH KJ^g, Tob. 8 11 Ass. Mos. 4 4 heaven," see Enoch 106 KJOf top, Dan. K g? np, Vay. E. 25; Kjofn anp, Koh. E. 3 2 for 523.
Dan. 2
"King
of
heaven,"
see
;
Dan.
4 34
11
,
KJf ^D;
Mace.
22
Tob. 1 3
TOV ovpavov.
A
the
KJ&BH
&WE,
"Word
as
"
4 4 11 s
,
form
of
to denominate
God
of
Lord
of the
cannot fairly be
altogether fallen
for
the
the
demons and
this
ripe
judgment."
The Israel which had produced Ps. 104 and the Solomon was not yet extinct in the time of Jesus. Song And one must beware of supposing that the mixed populacreation.
of
tion of Galilee
of life
which
was peculiarly
rabbinic.
d.
Neutest. Theol.
i.
50.
179.
176
whose
:
real use
by Jesus was
KOO-IJLOV, is
found open to question. The phrase <w? rov 5 14 so freely used by John (8 12 cf. 3 19 9 5 12 46 ),
,
,
Matt.
Hellenistic.
John
The
1 1 9 speaks of the
/coafjiov
rovrov.
light
of the
is
sun
is
18 4
called
<9
to
rw
"
ainvi,
is
3 styled (Shir. E. I ) a
"
"
(D^vb
iTiiN),
and according
Tanchuma,
"
a Buber, Bern. 24
God
is
"
World
(^vW
niK).
It
was said
of Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus that he excelled the sun, which gives world only, whereas the light of the teacher
similar figure
employed by the disciples of Yokhanan ben Zakkai in " 13 the lamp of the world (so in calling their teacher Djtyn
f
28 b).
"the lamp of Israel" (so in The lamp illuminating the darkness occupies the
*?*ry&\
"i3,
"In the whole world" (Matt. 26 13 cf. 24 14) would be As for efc o\ov rov KOO-^OV, Mark expressed by **?? ^3. 9 14 it may be recalled that &$% \i?3 is used to denote " " The Galilean dialect everybody in Babylonian Aramaic.
,
,
Key
"
fe,
properly,
"
same
sense.
Hence
"
in that dialect
Again
out that
for "
for irdo-rf
Kriaet,
"
Mark 16 15
it
may
be pointed
NJP")?, literally,
mankind."
as,
early
The corresponding Hebr. rrtnan was used as by Hillel, c. 10 A.D. "Love mankind" is ex3
''.in..
The ND^y
j.
from
NDJ;
*?3.
d. Tann. i. 352. ; Bacher, Ag. under the word Q^y by Levy in Neuhehr. Worterbuch Sabb. 10 C is, on the authority of the Venice edition, to be taken as m. 8 d really contains ND"?V '^12 but as it there points back to j. Bab.
*?3
cited
the immediately preceding NDJ; *?D, it should be amended accordingly. So, too, in j. Ber. 4 b ND*?J; '*?ID does not seem to be original. 3 Ab. i. 12, see also Ab. iii. 10, iv. 1, iv. 2 ; and for the Aramaic term
r)9,
Esth. R. I 1
Vay. R. 22.
THE WORLD
177
world "(Luke 12 30 ) are termed in Hebr. D^tyn ntoN, as by Gamaliel II. 1 and Akiba (both c. 110 2 and in Aramaic this would be Kppv ""BK, though A.D.);
The "peoples
of the
instances to verify
it
are awanting.
here D^iyn contains no suggestion, as Holtzmann 3 supposes, that the peoples are regarded as alienated from " The " peoples of the world is a name for the sumGod.
total of the peoples existing
And
upon the
earth,"
nn,
the
"the families
beginning
recalls
of
the
of
in
Zech.
14 17
(see
"Since
above,
p.
;
(creation)
the
world"
Ber. E.
I1
inna
Mp1<
"
rfpnnip,
Kft^y flD?-
the
p, Targ. ; the second day in the creation of " 6 since the beginning of the world," Targ. Cant. 8 ;
3
Euth
NJJjn Nfti\
27 creation," Jubil. I .
4.
(for
The unusual expression eV rfj irdXivyevrjala, Matt. 19 28 which Luke 22 30 has ev rfj ftavCkelq /AOU), is distinctly
Aram.
Greek, and cannot be literally translated either into Hebr. or It must be attributed to the evangelist himself.
The
Jerus.
W~\ p*r
Kflffl&VD,
it
version (Cur. Sin. Pesh.) despaired of a verbal reproduction, " This, in fact, is what using Nmn KD^JD, in the new world."
would have
Apoc.
of
to be proposed in
uses,
Jewish Aramaic
also.
The
Baruch already
44 12
"
the
term
"
the
is
(c.
new
to be
world"
(Syr. (Syr.
mn
Ki>y),
and 57 2
renewed"
world
"
mnnDl
ND^y).
Eleazar of
Modiim
"
100
150) mentions
also
the
new
("jn
1
^V).
The Targums
know
.
Pesikt. 12 b .
2 3 4
179.
n<
The Targ.
Hab.
I 12
even says
12
178
Onk. Deut. 32 12
Tng
He
(God)
"
2
;
will
renew";
I.
KJ&ya, "in the world which 14 Kirn Targ. Mic. 7 K>ya Tnj|
"
;
Kirn
Krnnn&o,
in the world
cf.
Targ.
Hab. 3
also
a
,
Jerus.
found in
The phrase used by Onkelos is the Kaddish prayer see Seder Eab Amram, i.
;
Deut. 32
55
and
The renewal
of
the world
,
is
spoken
said to
92 b 97 b the
,
upon a Hebrew document which is have been found in the archives (treasures) of Eome. 2
" This " renewal of the world has nothing to do with a^pi 21 This is suit%p6va>v aTroKaTaa-rda-eo)^ Trdvrcov in Acts 3
.
ably rendered by the Syriac version in keeping with the con" text l pta prfan wan K^li NOiy, until the fulness of the
:
(God has spoken). The matters the prophets shall in their entirety be " estabpredicted by Palestinian lished," i.e. realised, but not all things in general.
times, touching all that"
*!
S NT >?
i>3
H$ni
wot
ny.
"
new
,
here in place
Enoch 72 1
"
Jubil. I 29
the
(Syr.
mm
,
Nma),
32 6
cf.
mnm
Jewish literature
is
God
29
3
.
new
creature
tna), Vay.
Ps.
29. 30; Pes. Eabb., ed. Friedm. While these instances have in view
acquitted after judgment by God is merely likened to such a renewal by the Amora Yizkhak (c. 280), when he represents
1
God
as saying to
Israel
4
:
"do penance
in
the ten
See Dolman, Messianische Texte (1898), 25 f. A. Wiinsche, Neue Beitrage, 233, renders according to the reading substi" Persian treasures " and M. tuted by the censor, Buttenwieser, Die hebr. Elias
2
;
Apokalypse (1897),
3 4
59,
See
my
treatise,
"Der
Am.
ii.
179
Year and the day of Atonement; then may I pronounce you free on the day of Atonement, and The address by God transform you into a new creature."
given by Yose bar Kezarta, is very much alike, namely, ye are come before me for judgment at the New Year, and have passed out thence in peace, I reckon
to
Israel, 1 "
New
When
if
it
to
you as
V.
1.
as a
name
few passages do the Synoptists put 6 /cvpios God into the mouth of Jesus and even in
;
is
uncertain.
,
Mark
the parallel,
has KU/HO?,
,
Luke 8 39 has o 0eo9, and conversely Luke 20 37 while Matt. 22 31 (Mark 12 26 ) has o 0eo9. Matt.
of the passive
.
20 The voice, dispenses with the xvpios used in Mark 13 fact may thus be inferred from the Gospels that in His own
equivalent to
Kvpios.
The usage
In
this respect
Him-
God, directly answering to never did exist among the Jews. When 6 Kvpios or dominus is met in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, that
6
for
Kvpuos,
name
nw
was written
in the
which might be in Hebrew, and hence that there was no scruple in writings of this kind against employing the " It does not, however, follow that " the Lord sacred name.
was a divine appellation really found in ordinary use. " " Jahve significant transition from the divine name
ij. R. h. S.
The
to the
59.
180
divine
name
"
Lord
1
"
Hebraic Judaism.
source found
its
way
into
the
of
it. For N;"|!? in the Syriac of Edessa, and for &o Christian Palestinian, there is no Jewish parallel.
in the
Not
till
a very late period was the Greek icvpios in the form on/jp The adopted also among the Jews who spoke Aramaic.
Jerusalem Targums on the Pentateuch,2 and the Targums on Job and the Psalms, do indeed employ D'n/jJ; still it never was
a term popularly used.
above stated do not exclude the possibility of designating God upon occasion as Lord of a particular person
facts
The
or
persons.
The Targum
-
illustrates
this
by rendering
^N
In
"my
4 Father," Jer. 3
19
,
by means
of ^fen,
"my
Lord."
addition, there
may
at the
same time supply evidence that the suffix of the Old Testament 'riK, in speaking of and to God, was by no means
otiose.
In prayer, God
;
is
j.
addressed in Aram, as
Ber. 7
d
;
*"?&,
Ber.
.
13
in Hebr. as ^31,
Siphra, ed.
"
a Weiss, 112
s
|i
re,
the
daughter
Lord."
is
of
Zion
calls
s
her
God
"
*"]p*
*rp$,
The phrase NT Pf
5
D?,
our Lord,
liJ"]S>
D^ip^
as also in the
prayer
N^B
is
to
"
How
"
?
can we sing
the praise of
'
our Lord
of
'
(J^"]*?)
before thee
God
as
"
Jerusalem
"
my
' '
mid
Roman Machzor
New
Year
cf.
Zunz, Litteraturgeschich. d. synagog. Poesie, 18, 74. 4 Boer's Seder Abodath Yisrael, 229.
5 6
Roman Machzor,
loc. cit.
181
In words addressed to an
"
'.??,
Jews are
j.
called T?.P
C
;
Israelite, the d
j.
Khag. 77
Sanh. 23
j.
K. h.
S.
58
of Israel,
God
is
"its Lord,"
K>
and
Prop in
In a popular way the prayer mentioned above, fiV9 ft s n ? a God is called fi^p, " his Lord," i.e. of speaking, b. Yom. 8 6
,
any one whose sins He forgives. "a hunter before the Lord," Gen.
of
10 9
implies, according
to
Siphra
lll b
that
he
(Wan),
and
rebelled against
Him
intentionally.
In an address to King
Nebuchadnezzar, the temple of God is called :fiOT FPJV3, "the house of thy Lord," Ech. E. Peth. 23; and even of
the locust
ifc
is
said,
j.
Taan. 66 d that
,
it
bears the
name
its
*?13,
"because
it
Lord"
"
is
of
God
as
"
Lord
of
any one
comparatively rare in Jewish literature, the Samaritan Marka makes a copious use of it. According to him, Moses, in the
" presence of Pharaoh, calls God not only '"ip, my Lord," but " " our Lord and the sea in an address to Moses also Dp,
;
calls
God
is
Moses
"
"
may
be pointed so as to read
Fnp,
rnp,
the Lord."
The
latter
must
In general, however, it is !T)p that is intended, since Marka, when speaking for him4 " our Lord," for God. self as an author, usually writes Hp,
is
be assumed where
mo
vocative. 3
spoken of as
this use of
"
wp, my
Lord
"
"
Lord
"
;
see CIS,
ii.
1.
144.
;
the Gospels have no real parallel for the similar expressions in the parables, which treat of the
relation
1 2 43 ),
To
some
iii.
48 a f.
Ibid. 9 a .
182
measure supplanted the Aram. K^p when coupled with suffixes but in any case Jesus did not make an extensive use of
for
to
speak of
God
as
"
Father."
2.
arises as to what Jesus actually said occasion required the expression of the tetragrammaton in quotations from the Old Testament, e.g. Matt. 22 37 (Mark
Another question
when
12 30
It
may
divine
be accepted as certain that by the time of Jesus the name mrv had long disappeared from popular use, and
replaced
by ^IK.
It
may
added
that
this
practice,
strangely enough, was followed in rendering the Scriptures a custom into Aramaic in the worship of the synagogue,
which the vocalised Targum texts indicate by the expedient that, along with the symbol commonly used for rrrp, vowels
are given which require the
also
word
"OIK to
be pronounced, and
by the fact that they also put this same symbol for iriK. From this it must not be inferred that TIN, apart from
from Scripture.
substitute
the public reading of Scripture, was used in mere quotations 2 Among the Samaritans the custom is to the Name," for the tetragrammaton and A. Geiger 3 this holds invariably, even in reading the Law.
N>f
"
was
and
'J1K
that later
on,
in
imitation
capable of proof.
custom
B#n,
1
of saying in
4
citations
"
the Name."
2 3 4
See my treatise, "DerGottesname Adonaj und seine Geschiehte" (1889), 36 ff. See /. H. Petermann, Ling. Samarit. Gramm. (1873) 78.
Nachgelassene Scliriften, iii. 261. Cf., e.g., the model given by M. Griinwald, Spagnolische und spauisch-
183
be illus-
16
may
B^n Ens,
vii.
tetragrammaton," 'Sanh.
grammaton," Sanh.
x.
pronounce clearly the 5; D^n run, "to read the tetraB$3 '?!?, " to curse by (using) the
to
;
B$3 ttfe tetragrammaton," Sanh. vii. 8 Ber. ix. 5 (using) the tetragrammaton,
curse God,"
b.
W,
cf.
iii.
"
to greet
by
"
BBta'flK
^3,
to
Sanh. 46
a
,
56
a
.
From Yoma
8, iv. 2, vi. 2,
the high priest, in the temple on the day of Atonement, even appears to have begun the confession of sins with the words
Dtfn
vi.
D$
means
"
Yoma
may
iv.
1.
It
accordingly
be
inferred that
in
citations
of
when He quoted in when Aramaic was used, but not ^N, dethe
the
fact
that
usage,
and Greeks.
The
biblical
style
of
Hellenistic
authors
but not
the
Jewish-Hebrew type
of language is marked by expressions such as aVyeXo? xvpiov? Matt. I 20 24 2 13 19 28 2 Luke I 11 2 9 23f 39 o vaos rov /cvptov, Luke I 9 (o) z/o/^o? fcvplov, Luke 2
-
Luke
I6
&ov\rj rcvptov,
;
Luke
I 38
%etp
Kuptov,
5 17
;
Luke
I 66
3u2/a/u? icvpiov,
Luke
also
A Hebraist, indeed, might Xptaro? icvpiov, Luke 2 which are mostly have written these expressions
26
.
peculiarities of
language of
he were consciously imitating the the Old Testament but the popular mode of
if
;
l|
Luke
In such locutions the name of speech was quite different. God was either entirely omitted, as in ^JT'L fjtoD, ^JiP^D ^ ?,
1
or else replaced
1
by mere suggestions
of the divine
name.
the other hand, the reading DB>n, adopted by H. L. StracJc, Yoma iii. 8, on the basis of MSS. collated by Eabbinovicz, and of old prints, is incorrect, and should be replaced by ;:.
On
One must not seek to find in this "the angel of the Lord" of the Old Testament. &yye\os is defined by nvplov as a messenger of God. The reference 30 is to one of the ayye\oi (TOV) 6eov, Matt. 22 Luke 12 8f -. See also p. 197.
,
184
VI.
1.
That God
time, Ex. 4
22
,
is
is
in the words
Israel is
my
my
firstborn."
But while
merely the
first
rank among
the peoples,
who
all
Isa.
30 9 Hos. 2 1 1
, ,
Deut. 14
ingly,
4 Jer. 3
1
,
Jer. 3
is
,
God
-
31
20
Isa.
43
45
11
Mai. 2
19
31 8
Isa.
63 16 64 7 Mai.
,
I 6,
Chron. 29 10
The
which
obedience which
The
assumption
is
members
of
His family
of the
God on His
of a
and obligations
head
members
of the house. 2
In Jeremiah
"
is
also
father
The son
whom God
born son, 36 17
At
The individual
1 God, 23
-
is
a being
called into
existence by
4
4
.
In
is
this passage
(v.
Bee) JWT}?
pov
to
be retraced to
^]
'?
mrr
1 In Hos. II 1 v$ should be read for '3. Further, the term in Hosea and Isaiah appears to have been one already current, not first introduced by these
prophets.
2
3
Israel as the
9 Cf. Ps. 42
"house"
o ^N.
of
God
(nin;
Or
which
heathen views.
The same
applies to Sir.
5 1 10
In
rcvpiov
we have only
:
to replace Kvpiov
The
original
tfiw "OK
JW,
of
"
by Kvpiov. Jehovah my
insists
Father
and
my
Lord."
The
Book
Wisdom
strongly on the idea that the righteous man has God for his 16 " the father of the pious," father, not only by calling God, 2 but also by its predilection for Trat? /cvpiov (see, e.g., 2 13 ) and
,
man.
God
is
This application to the individual addressed as Trdrep, 14 does not prevent the author from also calling the nation
.
Israel
the "son of
7
,
God"
(Oeov vios,
"
18 13).
According to
3 Mace. 5
God
it
is for
Israel a
father."
In Palestinian
circles, in
ment
view,
is
who have
an idea
God
in relation
their
father,"
His own people in distinction from other peoples, a love which has to be requited with obedience and trust on the
part
is
of
its
members.
I 24f -,
of
"
:
described, Jubil.
terms
the Israelites) will attach themselves to Me and to commands, and My commands will return to them
will
My
I
and
And
be to them a father, and they shall be My children. they shall all be called children of the living God and
;
am
and
In Tob. 13
God
termed
"
our Father
"
;
.
"
His sons
"
11 In Ps. Sol. 17 80 it is said of them according to Enoch 62 " that they will be recognised by the Messiah as sons of their
God."
1
is
nowhere
The Syriac version has Npnai Nimj Kno NDITD being referred to y^'iDi 1122 nin; amp
:
186
The
source of instances.
heavenly Father," i.e. God, is conceived as the counterpart of the " earthly father," as appears from a saying of Simeon ben Yokhai, c. 130 A.D. He declares that a wise son not only
The
"
makes
chief
"
"
(H??5^?)
The love
Akiba
(c.
"
his heavenly
"
mark
of the father.
120
A.D.)
says
The
(Dip^ D^a)
it
[it
is
due
God
that
to
them
Deut.
1 41
of
said, "
expressed by Gamaliel n.
100
A.D.),
who
declared concerning Israel: 4 pnwK D^ fcW'an KJJ3 irrjano 6 KBjn *zbo fnfy ttj3K ;*", "since the beloved children
provoked their heavenly Father to anger, He set over them an impious king." The Israelites are full of confidence in
" It is said in heavenly Father." having recourse to this Eosh ha-Shana iii. 8, no author being named, that during the battle with Amalek it was not the uplifting of the hands
Moses that procured the victory for Israel, nor yet the serpent set up by Moses that brought them healing, but the fact "that the Israelites lifted up their eyes and directed
of
D)BfoB>
Dn'3*6
Daj>
pJttiM
;
is
:
who
hears
cf.
3
ii.
131.
2
4 5
Aboth
iii.
14.
;
Read
Midr. Abba Gorjon I 1 cf. Backer, loc. cit. i. 96. Esth. R. I 1 has the Galilean form po^Nn jp, and inserts flnn^ in front
of
D-IJJI.
6
7
Thus
So
it
in Est. R. I 1 .
Variae Lectiones zu b. R. h. S. 29 a
1
;i
should be read according to Manuskr. Munchen, see Rabbinovicz, 9 Cf. Tari?. Jertis. I. Num. 21 }i:p px " If he direct his heart to the Name of the Word of Jehovah." Nnp'D ci^^ iT? ?, 8 Seder Rab Amram, i. 13 b
.
187
the prayers and
may
Father
"
!
every other refuge and hope fails, there remains for l '3K by feftfr^ w *o fcp, tnotfaP Israel nothing but the cry
:
When
"
upon whom
It
heaven."
we put our trust ? upon our Father in was not unknown to the Jews that the Christians
shall
for themselves as their Father.
claimed
God
(c.
Shalom
translate the
Israel/
300) Law, and read it in Greek and say, we are Then spake God to him (Moses), See, Moses, the
:
said
"
God foresaw
'
we
are Israel,
p.
we
God
'
(tis
DipE&B-
W3)."
See also
190
f.
easily be multiplied,
the
fatherly
relation of
God towards
the indi-
may Only two persons are addressed in the astonished exclamation of an aged man,
vidual
Israelite,
here be adduced.
j.
"To your heavenly Father (N^'in 1^^) y e " not (an offering due to Him) yet ye give it to me give Eleazar ben Azarya (c. 100 A.D.) speaks of the things which
Maas 50
it
;
!
"
his Father in
heaven
"
Yehuda ben
as a
Tema
a lion
"be bold
'
and strong as
to
do the will
D?#3B>)."
(c.
frj thy heavenly Father (T?N $*} Of the same nature are also the words of Nathan 5
of
of
those
who
love
com-
mandments.
cised
my
sons.
in the Law.
1
Pes.
Rabb. 14 b.
4
5
Vay. R. 32
Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 556. Midr. Ps. 12 8 ; cf. Backer, Ag. j
d.
188
unleavened bread.
'
thou scourged ? because I have done the will of my heavenly Father (D?$3B> N3K p^n).i This is that which is written (Zech. 1 3 6 ) And they say to
' :
Why art
?
'
upon me
'
in the house
of those
who caused me
it
to be
'
beloved
I
C?iB)
these
about
beloved by my Father in heaven (wntizw an^i?). Simeon ben Eleazar (c. 200) explained the statement in the Law regarding mixed textures (UBJJB>), as implying that whosoever
"
am
"
that
wears
"
such
2
vestment
"
"
"
is
perverted
(fta)
and
In
alienates
(rf>)
from himself
an Aramaic Haggada for the Feast of Weeks,3 it is said of the Joseph of the Old Testament story: &$} n^ppf) n^N Nnptjn 'TO3K7, "his face was turned towards the wife of his
master,
Father."
but
his
heart
was
directed
to
his
heavenly
of the divine
name
"
our Father in
grammaton, is a clear proof that the view represented by H. H. Wendt requires considerable restriction. "In later
4 Judaism," he says,
"
up
had been
no development in the conception of God, in the sense that grace and truth were more strenuously insisted on as para-
mount elements
Father to God."
of
But
"
"
a greater readiness to
Father to God
;
fact
on the part of the Jews is a historical and Jesus adopted this term for God from the popular
Judaism, above all, as it existed in the usage of His time. time of Jesus, must not be depicted according to the developed system of subsequent Rabbinisrn, least of all when the excrescences in the latter are set up as the norm of
1
So in Vay. R.
Kil. ix. 8
;
32.
2
3
cf.
ii.
433.
ii.
144.
189
traces
of
which
it
The instances
set forth until the
of
God
was not
New
Testament revelation.
it
Of course the
was only as a member of his people that he possessed the claim to and prospect of But the Old Testament shows God's help and patronage.
of the conviction that God's providence is
abundant traces
directed not only to the people as a whole, but also to every It was therefore nothing novel single member of the nation.
when the
fatherly relation of
God was
2.
The current designation of God, 6 Trarrjp 6 ev (rot?) ovpavols (6 ovpdvios), which never appears without an accompanying pronoun (pou? TI^V,
of Jesus in
U/AWV),
occurs
Matthew 20
times, in
Mark
13
Luke not
at all
although in Luke II
The acquaintance with the title. caused Luke to change f) /SaaiXela rwv same motive which A ovpavwv into t] /3. TOV Beov has here, too, been at work. mode of speech distinctively Jewish and not at the same time
biblical
to
had to be avoided.
it
The Jewish
carefulness always
"
make
clear
in heaven
"
that
"Father" referred
Hellenist.
to
the
The conception
altogether
1
of
God
was not
unrecognised
even
by
Jesus.
In
Matt.
15 26
I have sought to urge a juster estimate of the religious condition of the Jewish community in the time of the second temple, in "Das Alte Testament
ein
Wort
2
<rov is
190
(Mark
"
He
"
the children
compares in a figurative way the Israelites to " " the dogs (icvvdpioi), (reicva), the heathen to
which
not be
belong to the household, but must maintained at the expense of children. 1 But this of view is by no means decisive in His designation of point
latter, indeed, also
God
as Father.
Much
of
32
-
rather
is
God regarded
else
32f -
either as the
-
His own
7 11
disciples,
,
Matt. 5 16
45> 48
61
9 14
-
IS 14 23 9 or
21
as the
Heavenly
Father of Jesus Himself, Matt. 7 1012 50 15 13 16 17 10 19> 35 18 He thus indicates the unique personal relation which subsists between God and, in the first place, Jesus
.
God and
those
who
are His,
who
.
can be spoken of as "sons of the theocracy," Matt. 13 38 At the same time, Jesus draws a sharp line of distinction between Himself and the disciples in purposely setting aside
the usual Jewish
is
"
He
Himself
Matt. 6 9
From
this, too, it
Him an
be perceived that
was
transferred to others.
On
see, further,
Fundamental
Ideas, X.
(b)
In Jewish parlance
common
"
epithet
heavenly."
is
course
"
followed.
only in prayers that a different The fifth and sixth petitions of the
It is
"
2 the daily prayer which took Eighteen Supplications form c. 110 A.D. entreat the working of penitence and the of sins by God, whom Israel ventures to name, forgiveness
1
kingdom" (viol rijs fiaaiXelas) are distinguished from strangers cf. p. 115. 2 The "Shemoneh Esreh" (eighteen), for which see Schiirer, Hist, of the
Jewish People, Div. II. vol. ii. p. 85 f. and Dalman, Messianische Texte aus d. nachkanon. jiid. Litt. (1898), pp. 19-24.
;
19]
"
petitions
"
os,
<3K
The
Our
i ^ Thy Law rp, forgive us, " Our Father, for we have sinned So, too, a prayer in 4 Tob. 13 Vat. has #eo? avrbv Trarrjp rjfiwv et<? iravras rov? Akiba (c. 120) once al&vas (absent from Hebr. and Aram.).
Father, to
and WKon
brought rain
2)5>p
in
answer
to
short
prayer which
1
began
Wltf,
The
biblical
in prayers,
and in them
Apart from prayers, the Targums show that great care " was exercised against the use of the single word " father for God. The Targ. Jerus. II. Exod. 15 2 it is true, makes young
,
He
is
our Father,"
|j*2K Kin
J'n.
designation
Deut. 32 6
by NjEfc?:n did not suit the occasion. where God calls Himself the Father
literally
5
by
^N,
But when
Israel calls
God
literal reproduction.
whole sentence
Thou, whose r?? ?h( " towards us abounds as that of a father to sons and mercy " into ^an, in Jer. 3 4 19 he changes <? my Lord." He had,
:
^ a?
NW
*Ir,
"
however, no
idolater 2 27 by
"
scruple in
W,
"
'?
as used
by an
God in prayer as but only as " My Father." It heaven," My the Greek has merely Trdrep, as makes no difference whether
Jesus never, as
it
Father
in
21 in Matt. II 25 (Luke 10 ),
in Matt. II 26
Matt. 26 39
1
42
.
Luke 22 42 23 34 46 or 6 TOT^/O, as 36 or Trdrep pov, as in (Luke 10 ), Mark 14 For in each case the word to be presupposed
-
21
b.
Taan. 25 b
I.
if uttered by God, should be changed into }j, according to j. Meg. 75. 10 3 nx without suffix is replaced by K3. Still in Mai. 2
Jerus.
192
Eom. 8 15
Gal. 4 6 )
is
afi
This
"
is
but during the obsolescence of the strictly form with the pronominal suffix ('3N still to be seen Dan. o 13 ) 1
it
the Father
"
became the regular form for "my Father," just as NBN, the mother," was also said for " my mother." 2 This Aramaic
its
way
into the
Hebrew
of the
Mishna. 8
appears that NJK could be said in the name of " our Father." 4
Hence
it
Lord's Prayer,
would not be impossible to derive irdrep in the Luke II 2 from N2N, although in a prayer the
,
WttN, Galil.
|3, "Our
Father,"
has
God meant something used by Jesus to what was implied by ^3?p, when qualified though it was by ti^K of the Shemoneh Esreh and Akiba. The usage of family life is transferred to God it is
N3K, Njus as a title of address to
different
:
its father.
God
-
II 27
(Luke
of
10 22 )
20 23
25 34 26 29
irarrjp
53
The Father
(i.e.
of
the
Son
man,
He
38
).
calls o
avrov
(Mark 8
),
The Father
8
of the disciples is
Matt. 6
10
20 - 29
;
Matt. 13 43
crov (H^N),
Matt. 6 4
6>
18
.
It
must be conceded
that,
here Jesus used the appellation of Father without addition. It might be that every instance of 6 irarrfp yu,ov, a-ov, V/JLWV,
not addressed directly to God, ought to contain the addition 6 ev ovpavois. This alone would correspond to the terminology
of
Eabbinic literature.
1
I 1 , according to
in the
British
2 3
pal.
E.g. Keth.
6, xiii.
vii. 7.
193
that
point,
and that
He
did, in
On
this
ment
in
to
cation.
(c)
The Father.
is
required for those passages in which, excluding cases of address, the simple o Trarijp appears with no pronoun added.
special consideration
Luke
16
27
38 (Mark 8 ).
Son
&V
of
Man
will
Jesus can surely not have said that the come eV T 80^77 avrov KOI TOV irarpo^ /cat
aylcov
a<y<ye\<i)v,
but ev
dyicov ayyeX&v.
it
In the saying of our Lord Acts I 7 o iraTrfp as uttered by Jesus would have to be retraced to NJN, which might just as
,
The saying would thus have well represent o TraTyp JJLOV. " It is not for you to know times or seasons which My been
:
own
authority."
expression which just slipped from the pen of the author, because it was otherwise familiar to
him.
and
is
There remain now only the passages in which o TraTrjp 6 uto? mutually condition each other, where no pronoun 27 22 36 admissible, namely, Matt. II (Luke 10 ), Matt. 24
.
Of these the
first
vindicates
itself as
an utterance
"
of Jesus.
When
Jesus
"
by "His Father," and adds that " the Father are mutually known to
Him
may
be understood as a reference
194
to
father
a real relationship which exists universally between a and a son, and thus finds also an application as
In that case
o irarrfp
and
as theological terms,
24 36 (Mark 13 32 ), where
6 ino?
angels and
"
the Son
"
"
the Father
knows.
and
irarijp are
as a
not due to comparison with each other, but appear ready-made formula, and are therefore to be attributed
text.
If
were taken separately as a dyye\oi illustration of the preceding ouSe/5, then 6 supplementary = traTijp, which alone would remain, could be referred to NJK
ov$e
ol
ovSe
o Trarrjp
fj,ov,
as the
It
is,
case Acts
I7
know
it,"
an accretion.
19 presents itself also in the baptismal commission, Matt. 28 of which it is intended to treat specially in a later volume.
VII.
GOD
(o
#60?).
All three Synoptists record the use by Jesus of o This must appear somewhat surprising, if the language of the
Mishna be brought into comparison. The tractate which most frequently afforded occasion for the use of divine
names
"
Pirke Aboth
;
has
Kin
DW,
Heaven," 8 times
the
"
Dips-?,
sjvia
efiijpn,
Holy One,
blessed
Dtfn
be He," 3 times
and tfDBfep T?
heavenly Father,"
195
But,
the Name,"
ru^n
"
S|
" on the other hand, Q ?% no less than (mrp) occurs only in from the Bible, the latter appearing also in a form quotations
of
prayer.
;
once
The tractate Berakhofch has &^J> twice, Dipftn and B^D and " appear only in prayers and quotations.
:
Similarly the tractate Yoma has once each BipBn, 7JD2 K'Vijan Nin D)$att> DDUH ; in prayers D#n ; i n Bible quotations but *\,
}
never D*Pg.
Frequently the divine name is entirely evaded by circumlocutions, or simply omitted. In a quotation, Gen. " in the image of I 27 would have been written VfyK D???>
;
God "
Ab.
but where
15,
it
e.g.
iii.
D?3
alone
know
God
is
meant.
"
tinguished by God."
"
Akiba, Ab. 14, meaning "disIn Ber. ix. 2 appears the prayer Jte"} NT,
iii.
may
it
and in Yoma i. 5 the before God necessary complement takes an oath for the due performance of his high priest
duties in the temple
in this house."
"
by
Him who
causes His
name
to dwell
That
tion, is
this
mode
of procedure in the
Esther entirely
sometimes supposed, owing to the irreligious disposition of the author, but as a result of
omits the divine
not, as is
his reverence for divine
name
things.
Maccabees, despite frequent mention of religious matters, has " used &???&?, Heaven," as a designation of God, only nine times
in
all,
God by
KW i^g,
or
"
27)
God." The Aramaic part of avoided the use of miT, and denoted
of
"
God
of
heaven
"
(for
which 4 34
the
has KJPf
?,
25
O r N;b,
rarely by Nnbg 31 "the living God," 6 27 ri>y "n, "the Ever-living," 4 = B'n%n) occurs only in 2 20 5 26 The simple Knis (
;
. .
every
196
case
of guarding
name by
writing
so as merely to suggest
it.
niiT
by writing Yod two, three, or four times, also by modifiand pip\ and by putting 'n or 'i for D$n when
;
pronounced in place of mrp DTibtf appears as D^K or D^N, and Knta as Kita, Npta. In view of this expedient, it does
not
mean
so
much
that the
be assumed that the popular usage is reflected in these books. In regard to the tetragrammaton alone can the proof be
shown that
through the influence probably of Egyptian customs it had really vanished from common use religious
among
the people.
it
was
not very different with regard to the other special names for God, and that apart from prayers and benedictions they were Jesus Himself indicates 1 that the ordinary little used.
it is
all.
and
He
at least
" grammaton, and preferring the substitute Heavenly Father." In these circumstances it must be questioned whether
form
of
what was
to
said
by Jesus.
and the
such terms
as
the Greek
Hellenist.
Father in heaven
"
inserted for
"
God."
When,
>
e.g.,
mention
made
of o
9 (Mark 10 ), and
- 22 .
of o
197
16 13), we must
were
to
2
6 24 (Luke
"
NJJf*,
l
supposing
"
God,"
"
be
the Name/'
or Kjp
Heaven."
divine
In
is
is
name.
When
that
the accusation
said
"
:
26 61
He had
am
there is every probability that His words had really been "this temple" (rov vaov TOVTOV) as in Mark 14 58 or "the
,
temple" (TOV
Jesus says,
vaov) as in
,
Matt. 27 40 (Mark 15 29 ).
Again,
Mark 12 25
"
that they
who
dead will be as
ovpavols).
the angels in
for
this
heaven
(ayyeXoi ev rot?
The Aramaic
more
which
(22 Luke's
order
30
is
certainly
amplification
to
(20
-
36
):
lad<yye\oi
viol
6eov.
In
of
of
God,"
we have
Luke 12 8
evcoTnov
God"
these
(efjuTTpoaOev
TWV
TOV
deov).
In
the intention of the phrase. The occurrence of e^irpoa-Oev TOV Trar/oo? JJLOV TOV ev ovpavols in Matt. 1 32> 33 as parallel to
shows how the same point may be reached in another fashion. See also under 5.
-
Luke 12 8
the other hand, no scruples need attach to the use 060? in the prayers which Jesus, Luke 1 8 11 13 puts into the mouth of the Pharisee and the publican even
of
6
-
On
although, in the
case
of
the Pharisee
especially
a more
God might be expected. But done by Delitzsch and Eesch, be rendered by Q ^^, which would be a very uncommon form of address. If one assumes Hebrew as the language of the
060?
must
not, as
is
11
word used would be ^N, " my God if the publican prayed in Aramaic, the word would be ""i?^. That Jesus Himself, though using Aramaic while praying on
Pharisee's prayer, the
1
"
Cf. p.
182
f.
Of.
Fundamental
Ideas, VIII. 7.
198
the Cross, said
1
was due
to
expressed in
Jesus. 2
NJN,
2.
THE HIGHEST
fi
The divine appellations fl^i? tf and first appear in the mouth of non-Israelites, being used by Melchizedek, Gen. 14 18ff and by Balaam, Num. 24 16 The author's intention
-,
.
of
men was
Israelites,
3
the the
e.g.
true
by
is
this
means
realised.
Thereafter, in
Psalms,
flyjJ
i%
i%,
H
-
by
Ps.
.
47 4
ft^y
D'n% p s
573; $ty
^
5
p s>
20
;
7335;
while fty fo, 46 48 in dependence on a preceding noun, he prefers the simple 41 4 8 42 2 44 20 49 4 The Aramaic part of Daniel has lV6jf,
Ps. 9 3
The son
of Sirach has
and
also
makes use
of the
Hebrew
Further,
frty
the
combination
Q^i^y
^5,
title,
7
,
718.22.25.27.
the
1
Most High,"
of
as a divine
occurs Tob. 4
11
,
Judith
38
(o
3 Book (see Charles on 99 ), often in the Bar. Apoc. 1 Onkelos (see Charles on 17 ), and repeatedly in 2 Esdras.
Enoch
|%
in Gen.
14 20 Num. 24 16
,
In Eabbinic
is
on the contrary,
this
name
for
God God
extraordinA.D.) is said,
arily rare.
b. Sot. is
40% on one
nxpy.
There
thus good ground for the opinion that ftyJJ did not really belong to the popular speech, but characterised the language of religious poets and authors following a biblical style.
Holtzmann 4
of the
"
detects in
"
ft
symptom God in
inasmuch as he holds
2
On
See above,
p.
191
f. f.
3
4
Of. T.
Psalter, 83
49.
199
use of
Q^&
idea of
God
of
But
BW*
the
is
in
no way the
legalistic
it
name
distinguished
so-called
[nomistisch] period.
The
flv# or
Priests'
of the
Code makes
quite clear
that the
as
and
Law
chooses to be
known
mn\
And how
BWg
than the Tetragrammaton as understood by the Jews accord14 it would be hard to tell. Moreover, it does ing to Ex. 3
,
not agree with Holtzmann's theory of a retrogression that ftvV in the time of Christ should be replaced by designations " " the Holy One," our Father in heaven," the first of like
which
is
of speech.
;
Only once,
viol 0eov,
Luke
6 s5 ,
is {tyto-To?
ascribed to Jesus
and
9
is viol
has
and Matt. 5 45
7 According to Mark 5
spirit
vie
vtylcrrov.
Luke, however,
says
:
name
for God.
;
He
v 409 v^lcr;
Gospel
I 32
35 ^vvafjus vtyicrrov, I
;
76 Trpotytfrr)? vyfrio-rov, I
#\Jacrro<?,
Acts 7 48
SoOXot rov
6eov
rov
vtyio-Tov,
,
16 17
So, too,
we may suppose
viol vtyio-Tov,
Luke
G 35
is
due
to his
The hypothesis is probable that the personal predilection. viol V-^LO-TOV in Ps. 82 6 LXX (Heb. 8 1 6 ), which, expression
indeed, in its context has quite another sense, indicating the
mind when he
viol
preserved in
TOV
fcV
its earliest
of the expression
rov
oupavols,
\33.
200
3.
(o ev\oyr)To<;).
The high
Mark 14 61
which Matt. 26 63 gives 6 vlos TOV Oeov. The construction in Mark, assuming the intention was to refer to the Messiah as the Son of God, would, in fact, be more prob,
for
Matthew on the
is,
lips
The
Blessed," however,
as
" the Holy One as an appendix l in the only added to formula: KVi *jra tPhjjn, "the Holy One, Blessed is He," Aram. *ttn !pa NKH|5, on which see below. The simple Tj^pOi
"
vii.
3,
forms an exception.
:
Even
in
Palmyra, indeed, God can be spoken of as **/?? fi^ T"!3, " He, whose name is to be praised for ever," de Vogue, 7 4, 7 6
(111
A.D.),
77
see also
4.
THE POWER
(f)
The Synoptists with one consent relate (Matt. 26 64 Mark 69 1 4 62 Luke 2 2 ) that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrim when He announced that He should sit " at the right hand
, ,
of the
Power
"
(etc
Segi&v
TJ)$ SiW/*eo>9).
In the interest of
of
his
readers
explanation,
p.
(see
197), the
ii.
23), in
an allusion to
etc Sej;i(t)v
,
may
called
rj
fjLeydXrj.
really spoken of as
Luke.
God," and TOV Oeov as well as tcaXovpevr) are additions due to " The adjective " great " marks the " Power as superas
"
human, just
(see below)
1
the great
Holy One
"
in the
Book
of
i.e.
Enoch
God.
I
25
is
TOVS al&vas,
Rom.
5
,
2 Cor. II 31
201
17
On
/LU5
Svva-
pou
8tW/u?
"
Gospel
of Peter," is
2 probably occasioned by Aquila's version of Ps. 22 (according to Eusebius, Demonstr. Evangel, x. 8, either Icr^vpe JJLOV or The sense is not that the strength which was laxys JLIOV).
is
Him
as
cf.
the address to
God
.
"
my
strength ,"
left
;
see
also Ex.
15 2
Ps.
46 2 8 1 2
therefore assume,
Harnack
The statement
do work in Jesus
FB JTO'np,
"
in Matt.
14 2 (Mark
may
:
arise
Nrrnsji
.
21 23 mighty deeds are done by Him "; cf. Matt. II To show that f) StW//,t9, in the saying of our Lord pre-
for
"
God
"
and
is
based
upon KJTjttji in Aramaic, we may cite the following instances from Jewish literature, which at the same time will indicate
the extent to
which the
literal
meaning
of
Ishmael (c. 100 A.D.) begins a quotadisappeared from view. it was said tion of words spoken by God with the formula " " by the mouth of the Power (n"VDjin "3p).2 j n Aboth d. E.
:
Nathan, 37, appears the expression: it seemed good in his " " Meir in the eyes of the Power (nTaan W2). eyes and
(c.
160
"
37 a
that,
owing
Power
(^3}?
There
n"|in3
jaPBt^K).
"
An anonymous
tlie
saying in Siphre
is
has in place of
rhyp.
God
" "
Power that
above,"
Isa.
bt?
,
into
may
for
"
has
^
a
also be
33 21 which
48 13 where
appears for
Hamaclc,
65.
My
right
hand
"
(i.e.
God's).
A.
~>
Petrus
2
Siphre, Sanh. 28 a
.
Num.
112,
Friedm.
a 33< .
202
kindred expression, not, however, to be found in the the Most High Gospels, may also be adduced nffby njn,
:
Knowledge"
= God), (
I.
Mechilta,
5
;
ed.
cf.
Friedm.
/uoi/p
89 b
Aram.
Jf!, Jerus.
Num. 27
5.
(o
is
it
suggested by a from the Old Testament, it does not seem irrelevant quotation " " to observe that there was a divine title B^^D, the Holiness
,
Although 7io? as a name for God Testament only once, 1 Pet. I 15 where
found in the
is
New
see,
e.g.,
Siphre,
nature
is
the
see
,
3 3s
1
.
Of the same
be
He";
50
11
d
,j.
j.
Isa.
Targ. Esth.
5
is
1
,
Bab. mez. 12 a Ber. E. 78, Targ. Kaddish. The Hebrew equivasjna B^jjn,
iii.
lent,
curiously enough,
e.g.,
wn
"
the Holy
One,
Aboth
1, 2, iv.
22.
49 7 and
,
'i"fp,
Isa.
40
25
the
2 11 "the Enoch, as "the Holy One," Enoch I 93 One who is great," I 3 10 1 14 1 25 3 84 1 92 2 97 6 98 6 Holy
Book
of
104 9
"
It
the
might readily be supposed that in the term N^P D^, Holy Spirit," the word Ntinp became in reality a name
God, so that TO Trvevpa rov 6eov would represent it more But in that case terms accurately than TO Trvevpa TO ayiov.
for
like *jf]|5
mi,
"Thy Holy
,
13 Spirit," Ps. 5 1
^^
nn,
"
My
1 Holy Spirit," Targ. Isa. 42 would be impossible. And yet it must be maintained that the addition of N^iJ is expressly
meant
to specify Divinity as
"
is
an attribute
is
of the Spirit.
As
God
nn,
and
the
"
not Nr6
common Jewish
expression
,
and when
Cf. N?hj5
D'ISSD,
203
be the Aram. NB^p D ?, unless the preference were given to the fuller form suggested by Matt. 10 20 Kjp^ Kj*n nnna,
"
by the Spirit of My Father in heaven." The Targums have conjoined nn, wherever in the Old Testament it is not expressly called the Spirit of God, either
with E"p or nKtoJ to make
plated; see '?nj?
;
it
clear
what
I.
Spirit
,
was contem,
Gen. 6 3 Targ. Isa. 59 21 2 29 nn KgniJ Targ. Joel 3 ^napa nn for inn, Onk. Num. II 27 n&rau In Jewish for mi, Onk. Gen. 45 (Jerus. I. rrn).
f or
;
nn
W, Jerus.
of to
literature it
is
so
unheard
speak of
"
the Spirit
"
(C),
"
when
the Spirit of
would much
" meant, that the single word spirit rather be taken to mean a demon or the wind. 1
God
is
In the account of the Baptism, where Luke (3 22 ) has TO 16 irvevfjia TO ayiov, while Matthew (3 ) has irvevpa 6eov, and
Mark
D'nn
2
10
(I
TO
Trvevpa, it
is
only the
first
that
would be
;
probable in a
Hebrew
primitive gospel as
KHp? nn
while
based on Mark, as proposed by Eesch in his JfiB?. would be quite impossible. Eesch's Hebrew in (2 8 )
:
"
:
and he
saw the wind coming down in the form of a dove." Again, in Matt. 4 1 TO TrvevfjLa cannot be simply reproduced in Hebrew. What is offered by Eesch (2 10) rim rnfran wfi bin m, would
:
" have to be translated, then was he carried into the wilderIn the same way f) TOV irvev^aTo^ jB\aa-ness in spirit." 31 12 is unsuitable on the lips of Jesus, and TOI) $r)ij,ia, Matt.
,
32 ayiov, as in v. ,
must be
supplied.
Similarly ev Trvev^aTi,
Matt. 22
43
,
should be supplemented as in
Mark 12 36
ev TO>
TO> aytw.
1 It may perhaps be mentioned that even in recent times a missionary evoked the scorn of the Jews by using the term onn without qualification in
his address.
2 Such translations could not be avoided by Franz Delitzsch, as he had to copy the idiom of the Synoptic texts with all their variations but in a pro;
fessing
Hebrew
204
6.
Only
in
Eom.
pear in the New Testament as a designation of God cf. 3 Mace. 5 7 o e\eri^wv 6eo<$. The son of Sirach (50 19 ) already had the simple Binn as a name for God. On the inscriptions
Palmyra, Njprj! occurs as an epithet applied to deity (de Vogue", 75, 77, 79); and in Jewish literature it often appears
of
as an independent
c.
title, e.g.
j.
140
A.D.).
Eoman Machzor,
See also the prayers, f^jj tupn-i an d for the days before New Year.
WN
K ;?H1,
It
was
thus an obviously natural thought that the children of the " merciful," to be in accord Heavenly Father ought to be
is
"
merciful,"
oltcTipfjuov,
Luke
6 36
admonitions
are,
accordingly, often
jhnn
}3
given
by the
\y&\
Eabbis; see, e.g., j. wp3 " x *n^? '^?^> according as We are moved to mercy in heaven, so should ye be merciful on earth"; cf. Jerus. I. Lev. 22 18
,
C Meg. 75
NWS
porno
where the protasis runs KjOB^a iptn I^fcO K ??*l?> Father is merciful in heaven."
:
"
as
ur
VIII.
THE VOICE.
To the evangelic narrative and not to the words of Jesus 17 belong the expressions ifr&vrj etc TWV ovpavwv, Matt. 3 (Mark
:
I 11 ,
5
Luke
in
3 22
7
,
'
ovpavov), and
9
35
).
tjxovrf
e/c
rij^
re^eX???,
Matt.
of the
17 (Mark 9
cloud,
Luke
is
The mention
of
heaven and
that,
these cases,
is
immediately
"
alluded
voice
"
Acts
10
13
16
II
and
in
31
,
after
the
biblical
205
only
manner
in
etc
of a
"
"
(fywvr) /cvplov).
It
is
of the voice
rov ovpavov is not suggested by the context. " " This voice is heard when God is said to speak audibly to the sense of hearing. It is obviously a means of avoiding the notion that
the world.
in
"
is
And
"
is
any peculiar
being
or mediating hypostasis.
Nor again
aim
is to
divine revelation.
any idea entertained of an imperfect type of The phrase is merely precautionary. Its
is
miraculous, and it does not warrant any direct inference as to the nature of the supramundane God.
The expression appears first of all Dan. 4 28 wvv |p bp "a voice fell from heaven"; see also Bar. Apoc. 13 1 "a voice came from on high" (Syr. KEVIB |D NDK &6p),
,
cf.
22 1
5>jJ,
later
?
Jewish literature
means
no more than
it causes the sound, voice," omission of " the heaven." The ordinary form here is rifcaj " *&\> nia, Hebr. ttotfn jo blp, a voice came forth," the mention
:
though, as a rule,
heaven being unusual, as b. Sanh. ll a DW'n jp bip na n:w, a voice was given from heaven." In this literature also the voice was not at the first regarded as an inferior form
of
"
of revelation,2 since
we have here
to do
divine intimation.
more
exalted,
the sense of the old prophecy, was something only because the divine element in it assumed
a permanent relation to the inner life of an individual, and did not make itself heard merely from without and at intervals.
See my article "Bath Kol," PRE ii. 3 443 f., where details are given to show that two species of the voice must be distinguished, (1) one which was really and miraculously caused by God directly, (2) one which was a human utterance, heard by some chance, to which was attributed the of
1
significance
a divine intimation.
2 3
58, note 1.
j.
Sot. 24 b.
206
2.
SWEARING BY HEAVEN.
ev
rut
34 ovpavw, Matt. 5
Swearing by heaven,
23 22
is
looked upon by Jesus as equivalent to swearing by God. He thus implies that a real name of God was being intentionally avoided, whenever the throne of God was named
instead of
God
"
heaven
"
itself is
meant
as a divine
is
name.
still
an oath, which,
though it is form of the expression as such, Jesus urges no objection. In Siphre, Deut. 304, ed. Friedm. 147V D !^i? appears
swearing in the name of "heaven and earth," according to Shebu. iv. 13, is not regarded as the oath of a witness hence refusal on the
as
of
fact,
;
once taken, must be kept (23 22 ), better to avoid it in general (5 34 ). Against the
an asseveration.
As a matter
latter's
is
offence.
"
On
68
ff.
3.
Jesus speaks of a reward iv TO?? ovpavols, Matt. 5 12 23 20 (Luke 6 ev rcS ovpavp), of treasures ev ovpavqj, Matt. 6
33 (Luke 12
ovpavols).
Here
2i Luke 18 22 (Mark 10
,
cv
cf.
in heaven
stands for
"
with
God
"
;
Matt. 6 1 irapa TO> irarpl VJAWV TW ev ovpavol<$\ and Jesus merely means that the recompense of completed work or the compensation for what
is
in so far as the
made ready
is
theocracy
assuredly
come
for the righteous. Any mystical pre-exist" " " or is in no way contemplated. treasure
above, p. 129f.
In
1
agreement
with
texts
of
Scripture
like
Ps.
3 1 20
fur Gott
(1888), 16.
207
n,
"
how
up
great
is
Thou hast
laid
?sy.,
nw Dnp
(Oefjua
up
"
for
them that
fear Thee,"
He
layeth
Tobit (4 14) speaks of divine remuneration for him who pays " 9 wages when they are due, and (4 ) of a goodly provision
'
2 which man by the exercise of benevolence dyaOov) makes for himself against the day of necessity. " He who
up
99
.
the
Lord
'life,'"
Ps.
Sol.
Bar. Apoc.
14 12 says that
the pious forsake this present age without fear, because they have with God "a provision of works, kept in treasure" chambers See also 2 Esdr. (Syr. &OIK:J wri anajn N^TI).
7 77
"
"
(Syr.
Kon
n6
inn ^),
11
cf.
S 33
It is to
is laid
up
"
"
with
"
in
heaven
in the
words
of Jesus is a
mere synonym
D'fe^ nto 5>jp, to lay up the fulfilment of " 3 and good deeds commandments see Ber. E. 9 Vay. E. 4 Deb. E. 1. According to Peah i. 1 (anonym.), there are
:
Ml
King Monobazos
(c.
10
who
find
My
is
1 See also Targ. Isa. 33 6 Trj n3j itf the treasure of His goodness appointed."
i K^rrh,
fear
God
a Nnc'D, Aram, na pnsm, for which read ao pnsin (L/TTO^^/CT?), Hebr. Syr. ann qoD rvmiio ~\my. " To him 3 See the definition of n^p Pes. Rabb. 43 a who possesses it, it is disagreeable to disturb it if he is forced by need to deduct from it, then he is ever busy to make up what was taken away." Hence n^Jip is an inalienable
: :
im
capital.
For the idea of reward in Rabbinic doctrine, see F. Weber, Jiidische 2 Theologie (1897), 279 ff., 302 ff. That there also exist in it opinions which tend to mitigate the insistent attitude in the idea of recompense, will be shown
elsewhere.
5
j.
Peahl5 b
b.
Bab.
b.
ll a
208
;
upon earth I, in heaven my fathers gathered treasures which yield no interest I, such as yield interest my fathers
;
:
gathered them into a place over which the hand of man has power I, into a place over which man's hand has no power
;
on the part
merely so
Isa.
of
God.
many
24 16
is
not, as
Meyer
the
*b
prophet says:
"
wvi?
nttsnte
wp^
^anK,
to
me."
That
is,
what the things are which the righteous and the wicked have to expect as reward and punishment.
In contrast with
reward
this,
a celestial
might possibly be presupposed in Shem. E. 45, where God is represented as having shown to Moses " all " the treasure-chambers of reward ("Of fl?o ty nhjte i>3) preU Deb. E. 7, pared for the righteous and also in Shir. E. 7
;
,
(c.
300)
represents
God
as address-
Preserve ye yourselves by fulfilling the law and by good works, and I will preserve for you treasure" 3 chambers overflowing with all the blessings of the world
;
of the
s
same nature
KjDBfrn
!
is
also Targ.
Jems.
II.
Num. 23 33 fi^B
nx"i
Nfe6
are ye righteous
jiMK |to!> Jgno 29 iis; no KJiW, "Blessed what a noble reward is prepared for you
"
!
with your Father in heaven for the age to come this case, the other sense is possible.
1
Still, in
2
3
cites
Agada d. pal. Am. ii. 499 f. For the term nrat TOK, "treasure of merits," Charles in Bar. Apoo. 14 12 He is misled, however, perhaps through Weber's Jud. TheoSabb. 31 b
Of. Backer,
.
logie, 279.
209
4.
WRITTEN IN HEAVEN.
ovpavok such are
" "
The names
(ev ro3
ovpavw),
to
for
"
Luke 10 20
i.e.
the
disciples
as
"
known
stands
God and
32
32f
-,
In heaven
with God."
The
allusion
is
to
the
book
of
28
,
God"
in
in Ex.
all
69
which
this
cf. Isa.
4 3 Dan.
,
:
1 21
1
.
"your " names stand inscribed before the majesty of the Exalted " 1 83 the book of life and the books of the holy ones."
speaks,
;
Of
the
Book
of
Enoch
also
47 3 104 1
Jubil.
30 20 has: "he
is
man
";
3
cf.
prophets supplements
also appears to
Q'?nn
Isa.
in
30 22
text,
n).
R
(c.
h. S.
16 b
xiii.
the requisite
for this
sense
other hand,
(nVpjjyft)
Yokhanan 3
one for the righteous, one for the wicked, and the other for an intermediate class into which, as it seems, names are from year to year entered afresh at the beginning
of the year.
6.
Over the sinner that repents there is joy WMTTIOV rwv 10 or ev ra> ovpava>, ibid. v. 7 ayyeXcov rov Qeov, Luke 15 By
,
.
that
is
or, strictly
1
God
will rejoice.
earth,
This book resembles the list of citizens among the nations and cities on and must be kept distinct from the book of good and evil deeds ; see R. II. Charles on Enoch 47 3 2 See Bacher, Agada d. Tann. i. 18 f. 3 a j. R. h. S. 57 ; cf. Bacher, Agada d. p. Am. i. 331.
.
210
The Son of Man will acknowledge His confessors and disown those who have denied Him, efjitrpoaQev (eW>7uoz/) TWV
ayye\,<ov
10
is
The reproduction in Matt. rov rrarpo? (MOV rov lv ovpavols, shows what e/jLTrpoaOev really meant, namely, an acknowledgment in the presence
rov
Oeov,
32f -
Luke 12 8f \
of
God, for whom the angels are substituted merely to avoid In Jewish literature this idiom the use of the divine name.
It is exceedingly probable that it should not unfamiliar. be assumed as falling from the lips of Jesus either, and that " " the angels in place of a term it was Luke who inserted
is
In his source he which appeared to him less intelligible. " " will have found the expression before Heaven (Judrean 7 Kjop Dnp Galil. KJDP <BJ3), an echo of which occurs Luke 15
:
"
in heaven."
not forgotten
6
,
"
in
the sight of
God
i.e. God does not (evwTriov rov deov), Luke 1 2 forget them. To get the words of Jesus here, o Beos would have to
"
be converted into
"
heaven,"
or,
10
29
,
into
"your
the
Heavenly Father."
saying
of
The former
some
:
is
recomwith
"rtay
mended
by Matthew's mode
which
shows
^ NW n?p2O
j.
affinity
&O, "not a bird perishes apart from Heaven," Luke's form of the expression cf. Ber. E. 79.
the dictum of Ishmael ben Elisha joy in the presence of
'
Shebi.
38 d
is
:
recalled
l
by
is
(c.
110
"
A.D.)
there
<nb nnofc when ), (trtp?n those who provoke Him to anger disappear from the world." " a when the Place So, too, it is said, Siphre, ed. Friedm. 139
the Place
' '
:
'
judges the peoples, there is joy in His presence (nnipfe' but when He judges Israel, it is, as it were, with VJS& son) runn v* ^?3)." " There is no forgetfulness before regret
(Qipftn)
;
(^
the throne of Majesty," according to a saying of Simeon ben d In j. Maas. sh. 56 the question is Lakish (c. 250 A.D.). 2
1 2
a Siphre, Num. 117, ed. Friedm. 37 ; cf. Bacher, Agada d. Tann. cf. Backer, Agada d. pal. Am. i. 397. b. Ber. 32 b
;
i.
256.
211
12 1 3
'
"
:
is
God
"
?
and Midr.
Ps.
positively affirms
there
v.
is
neither sleep
it is
high
'
(tyd?)"
"
In Ab.
"
in order to
longsufferance
in His presence/
of
actions
is
attested
denied
before
God,
when
those
either does or
Even
It is true,
"
volition
12
"
32
Luke
ovtc
might not be directly predicated of God. has evBo/crjo-ev 6 irarr^p vfiwv, but Matt.
:
18 14 gives:
ea-iiv
Oe\r}fjia
efJb'jrpoaOev
rov Trarpbs
VJJLWV
rov ev ovpavols, "it is not the will of (before) your Father in heaven." Instead of " it has pleased Thee," Jesus says
in addressing God, Matt.
"
These are not Old Testament usages. The last-named instance recalls the formula often used in prayer TJE&p ftvn 9
:
W
d
"may
Aram.
Nin
it
nnn
^
.
see,
e.g., j.
Ber. 7
Targ. Cant.
7U
n>
Tp:^
be He,"
be well-pleasing before the Holiness, Blessed Koh. E. 3 2 1 One may also compare Onk. Gen.
may
it
njinn
;
^ns,
place,
*\
which
has
regard
if
and Numb. 14 8
D^j
wi
Nj^n
D,
we
To the expression
Targums
. :
of
D-JJJ.
jjn,
."
This
phrase
is
used to replace
the Hebr.
,
nirp
,
F?!?,
"Jhvh was
,
23 1 Sam. 2 25 and pleased to," Targ. Judg. 13 10 Isa. 53 which has the form: Wgl njn \\ Dig p. Though not suggested by the Hebrew text, it appears in Ezek. I 25 Its antiquity appears from its use in 1 Mace. 3 60 ct>? 8* &v y
i>
.
deXrjfjia
ev ovpavqt, Syr.
NWf
"J*N,
"as
may
1
Him who
dwells in heaven."
ed. Salonica, 1593,
not in ed.
212
divine honours are rendered to a king, so it comes to " pass that in Egypt men spoke only in the presence of the
king," not
"
As
to
"
him. 1
"
One speaks
I 16 7 9 "
"
before
"
-
Aram.
in
np ),
:
also in Esth.
83
Dan. 2 9
27 - 36
5 17
That prayer
earlier
is offered before God is stated more frequently the younger books of the Old Testament than in the
books.
And
consistently
with
Targums never represent man as speaking Q men blaspheme and provoke to anger not " Him," ( 1P ) but " in His presence." 2 Hence it is not surprising that it is
:
this "
^d
God.
man sins not "against" God, but "before" In Gen. 20 9 which treats of a matter between two
,
men, the Hebr. ? Ntpn is rendered in the LXX by apapTavew ^n but in Ex. 3 2 33 where the sin 6*9, and in Onkelos by ?
;
,
is
against
Hebr.
Ntpn is
rendered in the
LXX Alex,
Daniel apaprdveiv ev&Triov, and Onkelos tnp. 2H. " " 23 affirms that he has done no wrong the king. before (6 ) b According to j. Sanh. 28 King Ahab complained to Levi,
,
the Amora, whose teaching was prejudicial to the character rvrnD nta T of that king: JVt?n n, "what is my sin
^P
ill
"
?
This
reverent
mode
With
course:
different
t^on,
"we have
of
in
;
the statement
5 16
i?
WfeW T.^y?
with inn, and the rendering should be against Thee alone have I sinned, and that which is evil in thine Luke, however, eyes I have committed."
for here T-Tya goes
"
:
conforms
to
18 21
-
the
Gospel 15 sinned even against heaven (et9 TOV ovpavov) and "before, thee The motive here is not that the father in the (evtoiriov <rov)."
1 2
under consideration, when in his the prodigal son says to his father: "I have
usage
41
A. Erman, Xgypten, 109. M. Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorphismen G. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj, 57. Seder Rab Amram, ii. 21 b
.
in den
Targumim, 22
f.,
32
f.,
213
parable stands for God, but that the son speaks with befitting Luke will thus have interreverence towards his father.
et9
and evtoinov
6.
What
" in
reckoned
what they loose upon earth is also loosed "in heaven," Matt. 18 18 The same is said in to Peter, Matt. 16 19 (with eV rot? ovpavols). The regard
heaven
also as
;
.
bound
antithesis
is
doubtless
here
intended to
side,
lie
between the
disciples, or Peter,
on the one
Even when Jesus says that He has power heaven, but] G-od. " " on earth (eirl TT}? 7^79) to forgive sins, Matt. 9 6 (Mark 2 10
Luke
does so here on earth just meaning in the same way as is done by God in heaven. With the foregoing use of the phrase " in heaven," the
is
5 24), the
that
He
Eabbis are not always in agreement when they speak of " the court of justice which is on high," I^*?/^ ^3, as, e.g., in
j.
Ber.
14;
j.
E. h.
S.
58 b
j.
Bikk.
64.
is
also a
to avoid
is,
naming God
that
x
;
but
the
God with
*
The
principle, which
2
Holtzmann
in his
refers to as
generally acknowledged, that the heavenly Sanhedrim will confirm the conclusions of the earthly, does not, however,
hold so extensively. Certain specified matters, such as the regulation of the Calendar, have been entrusted by God to
the supreme council in Israel, and by this agreement He too 3 In the Targum Cant. 8 13 God says appears to be bound.
to the
of
community
of Israel
"
:
let
me
thy words,
1
when thou
sittest to acquit
and
to
condemn
Cf. e.g.
wn ^19
hj?rr
j.
Ber.
2
14.
50.
See also Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. b Pesikt. 53 b f. ; cf. j. Ber. 14. j. R. h. S. 57 ;
214
and I will consent
mean
God
that of the
community
of Israel
it is
Law
that
He
hands.
1 According to Tanna Eliyyahu rabba 29, a ban pronounced on earth has even enhanced validity before God.
It is there said,
"
to
is
excommunicated
'
below
'
there
"
is
'
on high
"
'
(n?Jttppp)
he has been freed from the ban, no release for seven days." Here
"
on high
On
Heaven
"
the epithet
Pes.
God 113 b
"
in
This recognition on God's part of earthly decisions of justice, attested by the Eabbis, is left far behind when the
belief is expressed that in certain
way
In dependence upon such biblical passages as 2 Sam. 23 3 Job 22 28 Eccles. 8 4 5 it is made out, j. Taan. 67 a (cf. b. Sabb.
-
the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes His determination invalid, if it contradict the determination of a pious
"
63 a ), that
"
person over Me
;
b.
?
"
I,
men
who
rules
for I enact
j.
Taan. 67 a
"Even
if
word
valid
and Mine
The terms
Ber. 5 b
be
As may be
seen
e.g.,
of
"
doctor
"
the
Ber. 6
i.e.
who
"
pronounces
something
"
as
"
bound
j.
('T'pK,
i.e.
forbidden/' or else as
loosed
0?.f,
Sanh. 28 a ),
"permitted"
of his
own
absolute
knowledge
Cf.
Yalk. Shimeoni.
745.
Cf. Backer,
Ag. d.
pal.
Am.
ii.
127.
215
their
mean
that His
disciples
in
virtue of
be able to give an knowledge in regard to what the adherents of the authoritative decision To this it must, however, theocracy may do and may not do.
will
saying of
our Lord in
mean
forbid
and
,
"
"
;
and (2) that the context, at least in Matt. 18 18 If the supposition be an exclusion from the community. that Matthew has misunderstood the statement and rejected
has set
it
it,
the only
"
remaining option
"
bind
"
and
"
loose
were
really taken from the aforesaid use of the legal schools, but " " " that here no emphasis falls on permitting and " forbidding as such, but only on the final significance universally attach-
ing to the
"
word
forbid."
is
him who has authority to " permit " and The context goes on to say in what direction that
of
is
verdict
The thought
of the
Isa. 22 shows how Shebna [for keeper of the keys. the time being] has the key of the house of David upon his
;
shoulder
opens.
if
if
whom
is
the
management
en-
trusted. 1
In allusion to
passage,
it
is
said in Eev. 3 7f
of Christ, that
He
power
to
open and
to shut
can pronounce sentence upon status and value of any community, while no other power the whatever can avail in opposition. In the same way "tfpran,
1 So, too, in the old story, according to which the priests of the temple then doomed to destruction threw the keys towards the heavens, because they had been unworthy keepers, it is not the opening and shutting that are in conSee Bar. Apoc. 1 18 sideration, but the general supervision of the sanctuary.
,
He
b.
Taan. 29 a
j.
Shek. 50 a
Vay. R.
19.
216
"the locksmith," 2 Kings 24 14 suggests in Siphre, Deut. 311, ed. Friedm. 138 a the teacher of the law: "all sit before
,
if
house of God upon earth. Since, moreover, it is the community of Jesus that is here concerned, in which Peter is to
exercise this office,
and as no
it
sphere
is
indicated,
teaching and of discipline are regarded as entrusted to him. Peter had just shown that he understood his Master better
than the others. He, therefore, shall it be, who will one day assume in the fellowship that position which Jesus then occu18 Again, in Matt. 18 the pied in relation to His disciples.
is
when the
made
not unwarranted.
Accordingly, community. 23 given in John 20 to this saying is For exclusion from the community on
is
"
"
retaining
of the sins
The only remark to be made here is that the term John has no Jewish parallel. ?J? JW, which Salkinit,
11 " to impute means, according to Num. 1 2 In Delitzsch, too, DTD is a sin) to any one." something (as
if
Jewish Aramaic,
"
may
also be
"
demonstrated here.
"
is
(a)
To ban
in Hebr. rni,
"
to loose
Hebr. wn, Mo. kat. iii. 1,2; Aram. w, nnn (Dnns) and *Of, In that passage Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260) Mo. kat. 81 d j.
.
some
fruit-stealers
"
:
"
:
They reply
Let that
217
"
:
Loose
me
"JDN,
b.
us, They reply " " To render spellbound (b) through sorcery is b Sabb. 81 and correspondingly "to loose," i.e. "to
,
Loose
and we
set the
.
is N"JB', ibid, it
and
j.
Sanh. 25
F. C.
was from the phraseology of Conybeare that Jesus selected His terms, and that the power magic transmitted by Him to the disciples was like a magical inis of
opinion that
fluence,
But
we know about
"
"
opposed to this supposition. " To loose (*OP) can also be said for
7 2
,
to forgive."
David said to God " the transAccording to Midr. Ps. 1 9 gressions wherein I have trespassed before Thee, I pray Thee, " 3 And the answer received was " lo forgive me ^pn)
:
it is
lo
it is
$ pW m
according to
(^ Nn
name,
$)."
"
The month
Tishri
called
by
this
God
"forgives,
remits, expiates
p^n
platan
"n^ri)
(c.
n
b.
man
!
bar Yizkhak
:
(c. 350) quotes 4 Lord of such an K^fin anp rk jntf, forgive him, 18 In Jerus. I. Num. 14 God is called p3ir n " One
who
7.
HEAVEN.
"
be doubted whether Luke ever consciously used " The solitary passage which can Heaven," meaning God."
It
may
is
Luke 15 18
21
Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 468 ff. The saying is here attributed to Simeon ben Yokhai a Vay. R. 5 to Khoni, in b. Sanh. 107 to Dosithai.
2 3
(c.
This appears only in ed. Buber, not in ed. Const. 1512, Venice, 1546. So it should be read instead of tr^a ? in the text.
1
218
et?
TOV ovpavov /cal evatTuov <rov, assuming the translation to "I have sinned against Heaven and before Thee." As be
:
before
Heaven
"
to
be that this was the original, and that efo TOV ovpavov should
mean for Luke, " even unto Heaven." The examples already given, under
ing
rabbinic usage
:
5, of
the correspond-
may
Q"
1
here be supplemented.
"
n^tpn,
We
have
the phrase
TOD
b.
'apa
"]^
,
to
heaven," said,
Ber.
31 b
(c.
b.
Eleazar
(c.
ben Pedat
a
290).
2 300) made bold to say: "Even insolence in the face of 9 heaven ( f 'aba) has its use"; cf. Targ. Eccl. 7 WQV "-sta KrwriD "pans, to speak words of insubordination
T
W$
distinguishes sins as
i.e.
"
(P.^3), or
"
men
or against God.
made a more
extensive use of
ND&? as a divine name than the Gospels would lead us to This need not seem surprising. The antiquity of suppose.
the popular custom to which
He
proved, so far
-
by Dan. 4
23
,
Mace. 3 18
11
19 60
-
60
12
i6
;
The
like to
20
4 - 20
to
heaven,"
"
name
use of E
the
the Person of
for
"
God
in
any way.
Examples
God
"
Mishna, have been collected by E. Schurer, Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. 1876, 166-187, and by E. Landau, Die dem
1 Cf. the expressions y? *?^? V^rr, "to direct one's prayer on high (to b God)," j. Ber. 8 ; njjy? $7f ^s^n, "to direct one's look upwards (to God)," R. h. S. iii. 8. a a b. Sanh. 105 8 Koh. R. 9. 12 cf. Backer, Agada d. pal. Am. i. 10.
. ;
219
Ivaume entnommenen Synonyma fiir Gott (1888), 1428. Here we may name such cases only as have clearly put " " heaven in place of the divine name. Composite expressions
of
this
kind are
"
D)EE> "
nufcs,
the
name
b.
19
;
the fear of God," Ab. i. 3 D*B> b&, the sovereignty of God," Ber. ii. 2 " of God," Sanh. vi. 4 the decrees of
:
D'W
"
into,
DW
W,
God,"
Bab.
Num. 26
Eccl.
4 4 11 s
wn, the mercy of God," Jerus. I. "the word of God" (God), Targ. NJf] anm?, and in the prayer NrflDK npn^n. 1 Prepositions
k.
;
55 b
K;OB>
T3
"
}
by the hand
of God,"
Sanh.
ii.
ix.
"
;
D'JDP
D$,
for
God
"
"
(in the
1,
j.
name
of God),2
a
:
Ab.
'!?,
2;
D^X
xiii.
Ned. 37
is
NW
"
before God,"
C Kidd. 64
Heaven
"
"
KJBB>,
God
does wonders,"
Taan. 66 d.
8.
FROM HEAVEN.
,
In Matt. 2 1 25 (Mark II 30 Luke 20 4 ) Jesus requires an answer to the question whether the baptism of John was " " " from heaven (e ovpavwv) or " of men (ef avQ^irwv). Of
the same nature
heaven,"
etc
to have been given from TOV ovpavov 19 to be given from above/ 3 7 "to be born from above'"; 3 31 "to come
are
John 3 27
11
;
'
"
"
'
to
come
'
from heaven
is
'
"
;
Jas. I 17 3 16
is
"
to
come
'from above/"
What
it
meant throughout
derivation
"
must be granted that " heaven did not stand pure and simply for the divine name
may
,
ovpav&v from heaven," 1 Mace. 12 15 cf. 3 19 ef ovpavov ravra KCK" from heaven have I received these as my possession," rrj/jLai,,
rrjv
/SorjOtav,
we have
2 Mace. 7 11
1
D']#n
|p
i.
rnin px,
52 b
.
the law
is
Seder
Cf. G.
Rab Ainram,
ff. ;
Neue Bibelstudien, 24
ff.
220
Sanh.
x.
Kn<, may there be (come) from heaven/' Kaddish x wvw IP Ii?"]S Dip^ peace abounding "may redemption arise from heaven," in the prayer that 2 j^niD DWn pN, "there begins with these words:
|p
;
;0
KJ1 K
is
no forgiveness from heaven for them," Tos. Shebu. iii. 1 KnnrriK (Joshua ben Khananya, c. 130 A.D.); ;f 1^ Wft,
1
"
there shall
79
;
Eccl.
come upon thee correction from heaven," Targ. ;# 19 PP!? an, "it was given to him from
8 15
;
heaven,"
ibid.
ibid.
;
"fifnN
ti
N>BK>
"
|p,
it
tf#n
|p
pn^
nete,
"
The use
;
of
:
related
examples
fe, "the destiny which is above," Targ. Eccl. 3 9 th e word which is above," Jerus. I. Lev. 24 i2
"
ntf^y njn,
is
the Irta, nj^o that is above," Siphre, ed. Friedm. 137 a '^jjo^ la^y, power " " the eye that is above," Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 9 l b ; there is
,
89 b Aram.
^7
Kpy5, Jerus.
I.
Num. 27 5
no
29;
"
(n^flpfe),
Tanna
El.
Eabb.
thou orderest well thy prayer, disfavour shall not be d See ^), j. Taan. 66
(n^p W
9.
In the mouth
have
we
Matt. 2 1 9 (Mark l! 9f -)
it
On
this occasion
twice,
in/acrTot?.
and the second time they couple with it ev TOW At the first occurrence here and also in 20 15
rc5 inc3
4
Matthew adds
Aaveib.
Guillemard
1
finds this
What
liabilities,
4
whom
man
W. H.
44.
221
and
His statement does not quite hold of Win, which followed by ^ Ps. 72 4 116 6 but it cannot, after
;
may
all,
also be
be supas
the meaning of mo-awd, would have followed it up with the axravvd cannot therefore be taken, as by Holtzmann, Dative. 1
in the sense
of the
it
"
:
Twelve Apostles, 10 substitutes oxravva ra> 6ew AajBi, cannot be doubted that &cravvd was understood to be a cry
of
homage
in the sense of
"
"
glory
or
"
hail to the
Son
of
David."
also,
whose author consequently can have been no Hebraist, and cannot have been the apostle. 2 And again the connection of
Mark
"
creates
just "
As
regards Matthew,
it
follows from
what has
glory
or
The
evangelist takes
00.
eV rot? v^icnoLs to
mean
148 1
1|
LXX
vtyiaTow,
Hebr.
D pi"i3
tfftbgn,
that
is,
the song of
adoration which the angels are to sing to God. This is the sense attributed to it by Luke also, who, in 19 38 has: ev
,
He too, therefore, did ovpavw elprjvr) teal $6%a eV u^t<rrot9. The way in which Mark apprenot understand Hebrew.
hended the utterance may remain open to question. One might conceivably hold that eV rofc vtyia-Tois had been a substitute for the
name
of
118
25
,
ought properly
"
to
God, which, from the tenor of Ps. have been expressed here. But
come
"
and not be given to the highest." In the former sense only could parallel Jewish expressions be found. 8 And hence the
source of the addition ev
vtyla-Toi,? in
Mark
also is
presumably
^sn
njf pin,
LXX crwcrov
rbv
/3curiX<?a crou.
Of course a
Cf. p. 220.
"Matthew"
3
Gospel
may
222
It
must
also
who
118
wn
is
but
little
The mere
NJ V^'in
mrp
will
DK>21
Kan
Tjria,
as
Mark
is
1 1 9 records
it,
All else in
In that explanatory amplification. case the cry requires discussion here only in so far as the n divine name has been dropped after KJ How the mrr,
which comes at the end, was expressed, we do not know. D$n being impossible, &?&K might preferably be proposed.
;
But probably,
using the
would be
less hesitation in
OIK
which prompts the exclamation is quite devotional in charThe shout of homage rendered to a king would have acter.
to be expressed
"njpftn,
by Hebr. ^?sn
4
,
TJ^ as in 1
Kings
1
I 39 , for V^in
2 Sam.
14
is
not homage, as
Thus, too,
it
Nowack
supposes, but
him
before Pilate.
supposes that the procession on Palm Sunday did not acquire The its pronounced Messianic colouring till a later period.
Teacher and Miracle-worker from Nazareth was then weljubilation, and accompanied with invocation of Of the entry of the King, as depicted in Zech. 9 9 blessings. few will have thought, and this thought will have occurred to them probably at a later date, rather than on the day itself.
comed with
There
is
no occasion whatever
Aram.
the
XWiN,
deed,
"
must
itself
,
be reckoned
.
More-
yvftn,
The
1
name given
to
W. Nowack, Hebraische
Israclit. u. jiid.
307.
Geschichte,
381, note 2.
223
E. 37, and
festival
the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles, KWl.Ti KDi\ Vay. the designation of the branches used for that
b by NWin, Sukk. 30
.
From
see Seder
Kab
Amram,
i.
51 b
Machzor
Vitry,
447-456.
10.
FROM ON HIGH.
is
In Luke 24 49 the reception of the Spirit by the disciples " " referred to as an endowment with power from on high
Acts
I 8 says
e(f>
XrjfjiTfreaOe
Svvafjuv eVeXof
vpas.
32 15
entrap
nn wfy
;
rny;. lj>,
LXX
9 17
dp
ates in
v^rr)\ov
cf.
Wisd.
airb V^'ICTTM.
Old Testament passages like Ps. 92 1 LXX eveSvcraro For e'f v'fyovs, see Lam. I 13 LXX. kvpio? Svva/jLiv. ttyo? is " " " " there an equivalent for heaven from on high is the
:
same
as
"
from God."
Probably, however, the use of these terms in Luke springs from this motive. Similarly, Onkelos does not venture to translate ^'"W nb,
"the power
T:
of
"
God,"
Num. 14 17
Thy
^P??:
*^>
of the
tne power in
is
literally,
of
Jhvh, which
ID riNtta
is
to rest
"
Isa.
II 2
is
in the
words
(
Targum
for
Jhvh
"
cnp
The "Spirit
(cf.
of
God"
40 7 ),
in
Gen. I 2
Onkelos
I.
^.
nnp> ip
:
Nnn
^
t
Targ.
Isa.
and
"
Q"JP IP
rPHI
"
a spirit of mercy
Luke
I 78 ,
vtyovs represents
nri
;
from God."
Delitzsch renders
literally
Eesch, copying but not improving upon Fttlin. But the association with Delitzsch, Di"i^p
cn^p
224
(Hebr.
Tgft), which mixes the metaphor based on the light, would be admissible in Hebrew only if cViBD nti we re a title
coined to denote a definite person. Salkinson has perceived and therefore speaks only of " the rise of the dayspring this, from on high." Still, daylight does not arise from on high.
As Bleek has already remarked, the evangelist starts from the assumption that avaro\^, in accordance with Jer. 5 s 12 23 Zech. 3 6 is a name for the Messiah. The version of
LXX
the
LXX
npv rrn^ isa. 4 2 by eV^a/m^et 6 6e6<$. For Luke, therefore, avaTo\rj ef vtyovs is simply " God's Messiah," NWb, with which the Targum renders njr^ nDV, Isa. 4 3 As the Hebrew HBV excludes the allusion to the
light,
which follows in
v. 79 , it
is
an original in Greek
lies
before us.
11.
Sometimes the passive voice of the verb is preferred, on the ground that, if an active voice were used, it would be
necessary to
name God
Matt. 5 5
as the subject.
;
Thus we have
;
irapa;
K\i]0ij(rovT(u )
KpL0iJT6,
7 \er)0tf(rovTai, 5
9 K\7j0ijo-ovrai, 5
7 1 (Luke 6 37 )
6 38
8
7 2 KpiTr)<recr06, fierp^Orjo-eTai,
;
(Mark
II 9
4 24
Luke
77
'
avTi^eTp^O^a-eTai)
So07jo-eraL,
7 7 (Luke
;
6 s8 );
avoisyrjo-erai,
10 ) a<t>e0ri<T6Tai',
;
(Luke
21
43
11 9L
avoi^Orja-eTai)
25
,
12 31f
(Luke 12
aerat,,
(cf.
Mark 4
Luke 8
So^'crerat
11 14
Luke 14 14
avra-rro^o9r]crerai;
v-*jra)0r](reTat,
;
) ap0jMatt. 23 12
18
(Luke 14 1 8 4 24 Luke 6 37
,
.
Ta7Ti^Q)^7jo-Tat,
see also
Mark
In these
to
an active whose subject is not specified, as happens in Luke G 38 (Scocrova-Lv). In the same way in the translation of Dan. 4 28f Kautzsch has rendered the active clauses P"]pK $
:
IP,
in
225
" it is made would have been God, by the use of the passive " " " from among men thou shalt be cast forth known to thee
;
"
The LXX also has herbage will be given thee for food." here at least <rol \eyercu, whereas Theodotion renders word
word throughout.
for
Some
ture
"
may
1
be given
pities
awn
for
fl?
*?y
crron
^
fe
whosoever
b.
men,
him
is
compassion from
heaven,"
Sabb.
151 b (Gamaliel m.
vnvi?,
"
220).
^ Tapn
;
IW'B
b
c.
ity
b pTayo
whosoever
E. h.
is
forbearing, for
him
they overlook
(Eaba,
340).
S.
I7 a
n
b.
Yoma 23 a
"he who
fvofc
iniK p:n
nor
t$ nan
j-nn,
127 b
"
(Baraitha).
^aa
DW
whosover secretly profanes the name of God, him do men punish openly," Ab. iv. 4 (Yokhanan ben Bar oka, c. 130). a ^ fnnia NEE& initf DTJPpip nntsb a, "if one goes to contaminate himself, a
way
is
open to him
a
if
himself, he is helped," b. Sabb. 104 (Simeon ben Lakish, an Tito Q-ix^ n-jen, "with the measure c. 260). rTjto
wherewith one measures, therewith is it measured in return," isM* Ito^ iTa ri?'BDp Sota i. 7 (anonym.). l^n,
"
is
to learn
c.
and
to
teach,"
Ak
iv.
5
is
160).
passive construction
highly favoured are the Israelites because they are called the sons of God." Part of such sentences, as with those of Jesus, may depend
Dlpefc D*an
on popular ways of speaking, which originally referred solely to relations between man and his fellows, e.g. Hillel's dictum
[on seeing a skull floating in the water]
"
:
^IS^N
??'
??^ ^,
thee,"
1
Ab.
ii.
{Viajn nay
Cf.
Tos. Sliebu.
1:
jn^>
p^io
nfflyp
jp
px,
"one
forgives
them not
from heaven."
15
226
OT
they
may
pany
may accompany
Bannaa
(c.
thee!"
ii>
j.
11
Keth. 3 1
prn;
15
;
or the statement of
200):
2
Vina
DN, "if
But this explanation one knocks, they shall open to him." does not apply generally, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that hesitation to use the divine
influence
name
has had an
on the
style.
Egypt, in
the
like
"
order not
to
name
"
one
is
for
12.
AMEN.
It has already
in
of
a^v
is
Even
unfamiliar to the entire range Sota ii. 5, cf. Jerus. I and II,
forced
into comparison.
Numb.
cannot really be
In
Amen
:
pronounced by the
woman
suspected of adultery is explained as a protestation of her " Amen [ = I protest] that I innocence, as if she were to say
Amen
But a literary explanation of this sort must not myself In the latter, be made an index to the real colloquial usage.
iK
never
is
a corroboration of one's
of
says
is
Amen
confirmation,
Amen
is
protestation,
Amen
assent."
From
is
2 3 4
i.
Cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tanu. i. 331. Vay. R. 21 cf. Backer, ibid. ii. 540 f. See A. Erman, Agypten, 92, Eng. trans. 58. b a 4 b. Shebu. 36 ; Midr. Ps. 89 ; cf. Backer, Agada j. Sot. 18
;
d. pal.
Am.
112f.
227
He who
thereby asserts that the statement of the other Bays On the other hand, }K is is binding also for the speaker. not an assertion of assured conviction that what has been
1 by the other will be accomplished, not even in the " instance Tob. 8 8 where Sarah, by pronouncing Amen," takes
Amen "
said
for her
own the prayer of her husband, been made in her name as well as his.
If
it
be thus synonymous with a corroborative " yes," becomes clear how vai and a^v are treated as identical
Amen
,
where
7 26 ),
9 might have been expected, as Matt. II (Luke Luke II 51 (Matt. 23 36 a^v\ Luke 12 5 arfv is re-
a^v
placed
Mark 9 1 a (Matt. 16 by aX^w?, Luke 9 44 3 47 Luke 12 (Matt. 24 a^v), Luke 2 1 (Mark 12 25 24 and by irXijv, Luke 22 21 cf. v. by eV aXyQelas, Luke 4
27
28
21 Mark 14 18 ap,rjv). Luke is here the one who uses (Matt. 26 whereas in Matthew CL^JIV most sparingly, namely, 6 times
,
;
it
Mark 13
"
times.
Just as in the
phrases
also
sovereignty of heaven,"
as
much
as possible
what would be
occurring
25 times
2
in John, cannot
Nor can
"
be accounted
say," of
1
as
NJ'OK,
in Pales -
who further
makes the mistake that Amen as an ending for prayers in the synagogue is unBut the following prayers all end with Amen B>^jp (Seder Rab Amram, usual.
i.
13 b ),
B
(ii.
jixn b
priestly 2 First expressed by F. Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1856, 422 fF., and often repeated since in opposition to the theory of Delitzsch, that Jesus spoke
.
24% 33 ), nj?j# 'p (33 ), ji^ 21 ), mp: (Machzor Vitry, 172), Tp.at? p-is b benediction, on which see b. Ber. 55
(ibid.
'n;
(48
a
),
N^DX nWf n
173),
v?
(ibid.
Hebrew.
228
tine.
1
from the Johannine usage that ajjDjv introducing a statement was regarded as an interjection, Other instances of and as such it is capable of repetition.
repetition
vat,
may
37
;
be compared
icvpie
ION JDK,
46
;
Num.
5 22 ,
Neh. 8 6
val
Kvpie, Luke 6 MdpOa MdpOa, Luke Luke 22 31 pa/3j3l pappi, Matt. 23 7 D; Sifjuov Sliwv, WTO Ncna, Vineyard " Koh. E. v. 14 N?D sap, old man "
Matt. 5
;
10 41
j.
Sabb. ll
"
a
;
W>},
Galilee
13,
;
"son
of a
Jew!"
!
j.
Ber. 5
b.
a
;
Wa
.
j.
Sabb. 15 b
<sn ^T,
is this
teacher
Makk. 24 a
With
IP?, which in His time was usual only in response to benedictions or oaths, was employed by Him in the Aramaic
2 language as a corroboration of any statement of His prefaced by this word ; and this despite the fact that other terms, e.g.
tftp^jjas
or
Ktpfc'iJ
IP,
"verily," were
same
purpose.
word untranslated.
felt
is
not
"
wahrlich
Clearly an enforcement of
what He
said
by a mere
appeal
Jesus.
to
its
With
truthfulness was not felt to be sufficient by that end in view, no other resource remained
open for
after
(c.
Him
of
an oath,
the
A.D.)
manner,
in
which
confirmed a principle of his teaching before his " 4 But an oath had been pupils with Ba^rij by your life."
1
80
To one approaching
this question from a study of the Babylonian Talmud, but to one proceeding from the Palestinian ;
d.
such an idea would never have suggested itself. See Gramm. Aram. 193. H. W. Hogg, " Amen," Notes on the significance, etc., Jew. Quart. Rev.
ix.
(1896) 1-23, unsuccessfully tries to prove that in the use of a^v by Jesus there is always a retrospect to what has preceded with a view to its confirmation.
3
See Onk. Gen. 42 21 ttxyip for the Hebr. ^t?. Pes. d. Rab Kah. 40 b ; cf. for this specially popular
.
mode
of protestation,
d. jiid.-pal.
Aram.
193.
229
37 pronounced by Jesus, Matt. 5 as displeasing to God He bad therefore to seek for some other mode of emphasis, and found
, ;
it
not an oath, yet more verily," because it gives the hearer to potent than a simple understand that Jesus confirms His own statement in the
in the solemn
"Amen."
"
This
is
same way
fulfil
as
if
it
were an oath or a
blessing. "
Thus did
"
He
yea, yea
take
But
had in view the guarding against a misuse of the divine too, one may speak of a conscious avoidance
of the
name
of
God.
in
in
Jewish literature
truth."
Kn^^n,
Juda ben
150),
of
b.
Ned. 49
hand
this
woman
"
!
says to a woman: "Truth into the N'nrn ami Knup'n), if I shall (NnriK
,
have any enjoyment Instead of this, the same story in a Sabb. ll has the Palestinian imprecation: "May the spirit j.
of this
this
woman Nrwp'n we
it
breathe
are told,
its
b.
last (wjijiK
,
"
i
Of
Sabb. 10 b that
is
permissible to
utter
in a place
which
|T3
b.
ed.
"
1520
is
represented in the
"
!
W!?,
13.
"the dwelling of Jhvh"; "1 &nj, "the glory of Jhvh"; " " "1 K*j'p, the word of Jhvh (as to which it may be remarked that l^ is different from Bans, the latter being the
word
1
"O"!).
Besides
these,
see
more
treatise,
For the Jewish view of the commandment of Ex. 20 7 Der Gottesname Adonaj, 51 f., 60 ff., 66 ff.
my
230
"
(K^ai.),
the
word
of
Jhvh,"
1
which
"1,
is
and found
All
way
into
these
Hebrew.
hypostases
these ideas
which
denote
concrete
served
the single purpose of guarding, during the reading of Scripture in the synagogues, against sensible representations of God, such as the Bible text might have aroused among the
common
scribes,
people.
to
Targum
exposition
nothing do with the philosophic speculation of Philo, apart from the common motive which inspired both movements.
directly to
the
Palestinian
synagogues, having
Apart from the biblical text, which they were intended to preserve from misconception, there was no great occasion for
their use.
was rich
in cautious
But ordinary in use they actually were, subject only to the usual evasion of the divine name outside of public worship and, as a rule, the form used was Hebrew: nj'atfn, nfcan, iyjn (-rann).* Aramaic examples, apart from the Targums, are rare still
their use should be comparatively limited.
; ;
see KJOBH
N^P,
"
ning
TfiD
n^Rrip, Seder
Eab Amram,
i.
52 b
cf.
Targ. Eccl.
1 15 in the biblical text, and Giesebrecht (Comm.) finds the "\^ occurs Jer. 5 reason for the punctuation there unintelligible. Though neither Gesenius-Buhl nor Siegfried-Stade adduce it as a noun in the Lexicons, it is a word certainly
verifiable in
Jewish diction, from which Levy curiously has made v:n. See, e.g., 1, ed. Constant. 1512 ; j. Sabb. 10, ed. Venice, 1524 Aram. *?} n, Targ. Ez. I 24 25 ed. Venice, 1517, 1525 (ed. Buxtorf KTU^) ; d 11 Ginsburger, *T<n Targ. Cant. I MS. Lond. Or. 2375 KTm, j. Taan. 65
Hebr. linn, Vay. R.
;
-
Die Anthropomorphismen in den Targumim (1896), 9, is surprised that in the It is, however, Paris MS. of the Fragmentary Targum he should find mm. just the ancient KI^I, subsequently extruded as a rule by iryzn. 2 Holtzmann's statements, Lehrb. d. neut. Theol. i. 57 f., on these topics are In contrast to the Memar, the special intermediary proper, quite, erroneous. Shechinah, according to H., is an impersonal representation of God, which, in
the Talmud, has taken the place of the Memar.
231
I
4 4 II 3
Lev.
and
.
^J?71
N^E,
"
is
above," Jerus.
24 12
the
Here
too, of course,
one
is
far
and
^"J^ P,
but
reality
meant
"
God."
Jesus
;
them presented
itself.
In the
of the
77
New
:
Targums
is
Testament we have suggestions of the phrase " 4 ^1 fcO|, the glory of God," in Eom. 9 where
,
<Boa
Israel,
,
Heb.
John 12 41
where
is
said of Isaiah
elSev rrjv
Isa. 6
5
while the
Targum reproduces
n
by
"
King
in
of the ages
(*%/$
^9
^f
T:)'
2 Pet.
I 17
which the voice at the Transfiguration of Jesus In the last-named proceeded vrro rfjs fjLeya\o7rperrov$ 80^779. it should be remarked that a Targum would passage, however,
according to
preferably have
"ip*.
named
the
Memar
of
God.
"^B, as well as
teal 6
and
nypK',
^0709
avrov $6t;av
eo~/cr)va)o-6v
&>9
\6yos
t|
is
represents
three entities
least,
N"}P
.
:
All the
a use
is
made
of
14.
THE PLACE.
New
"
Testament
is
the Jewish
God
as
Dip^n,
the Place."
This term G.
Ps.
Sol.
16 9
According
(c.
to the
Mishna Taan.
1
iii.
8,
80
B.C.)
Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 567 ft. In their edition of the Psalter of Solomon.
value.
the Mishna, by
quite current.
200
A.D.,
the designation of
God by
Dipsn
is
It is the
most colourless appellation for God which the Mishna contains. In cripran it appears that men were not content to name
instead of God, His dwelling-place heaven
;
but as this
itself
(i.e.
of
God)
name
"
Heaven,"
" In the choice of the term the efficient God." meaning cause was not the philosophic idea that God is the locus of
the world,
Ammi
(c.
280
though this had been expressed as early as by 1 but the language used in the Old TestaA.D.),
of
God
is
frequently spoken of
meant;
"too, "
;
see
Hos. 5 15
^PP,
"My
place";
"
;
Wp
name
"
My
Isa.
26
21
His place
Targ.
JWUW' in,
dwelling."
The casual
of
expression, ntenv
njir
ap
Dipo,
the
place of the
Jhvh
also
of hosts,"
was
originally meant,
may
:
have played
part in creating
the usage.
In
itself
^ BipD ought to
mean
"
the place of
God "
but just as nratfn, the dwelling-place," win, the Word," were said in place of " row, tai, so here also the name
of
God
"
place
article.
DipBn
is
"
the
No Aramaic
ever presents
itself.
The term thus belonged entirely to the Hebrew language of the legal schools, and never became popular. This
so, it is not to be expected that it should be used by even supposing it should have already been used in the Jesus, legal schools of His time.
being
Ber. R. 68
cf.
Backer,
Agada
d. pal.
Am.
ii.
163
f.
Jiid.
Zeitschr.
ff.,
ii.
228.
Landau, Die
fur Gott. 41
errs in
supposing Parsee
EVASIVE
Oil
233
15.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT.
Keligious custom
and avoidance
to
of the
among the Jews, in respect to the use name of God, has been found, according
VI.- VIII.,
to
said under
;
constitute
the
but, of course, in
such a manner
conforming to it, He preserved a peculiar position of His own by His marked preference for the appellation of God
as Father.
It
would certainly be a mistake to regard all the other God which have the sanction of Jesus
to
prevalent custom.
may have
conit
When
was supposed that the enunciation of God's name would bring down into this world the divine Person magically associated 1
it
with that name, there were strong objections against taking upon one's lips. But the decisive element in the circum-
commandment
of the
Decalogue
20 7 ): "Thou shalt not needlessly pronounce the name Jhvh thy God " 2 and beneath that there lay a genuine
;
by the thought
of the
Judge
of
He
even in-
tensified it. The Heavenly Father, whom He declared, remained always the Omnipotent Lord. The archaic position
of authority ascribed in the family to the father,
all
who, above
things has an unlimited paternal control, was firmly maintained. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to favour
the idea of a mystical absorption in the Deity, such as obliterates the distinctions
1
See on this point F. C. Conybeare, Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 581 ff. the Jewish interpretation of this commandment see my treatise, Gottesname Adonaj," 51 f., 60 ff., 66 ff.
2
On
' '
Der
234
Still,
the deeper
insight gained
by
transcendent majesty of God, were nothing but a relapse in comparison with the knowledge of God in the older prophecy,
so
that Jesus
of reverting to the
Directly opposed
to
such
view
peculiar significance attached by Jesus to the Book of Daniel as well as to the writing of the second Isaiah,
is
the
although Daniel obviously bears the impress of a new epoch in the process of Eevelation, widely separated from the earlier
1
prophecy.
IX.
1.
apply
Himself
the
way
and Aramaic PJK "ia are used. In biblical Hebrew, D*J? (as
also BnJK) is nearly always used as a collective expression, and can therefore stand beside " 2 the collectives npna, often cattle," quadrupeds," and ijja,
" If having to be rendered in German by the plural men." it be to SDecify a plurality of individual men, necessary
*.-?
3 or D 7??
"^
Dcut. 32 8 (with
B^N).
14 6 Djll), 2 Sam. 7 (with Q'??), Mic. 5 In later times, from the evidence of
common term
that
1
of Ecclesiastes, 3 this appears to have become " for mankind," not belonging exclusively to
it is
poetry.
generally B*N or
used.
47
.
1
.
235
t?
On
its
apart from
2 always rare.
found only in poetic language where a motive for its use, see Num. 23 19 (with parallelism supplies 2 12 18 33 50 40 ?'); Isa. 5 1 (with SPWK), 56 the same; Jer. 49
It
is
-
51
43
(all
(with Bfcg), 80
133),
3
18
(with P'K),
146 3
(with
;
21 DWJ); Job 16
(with
cf.
13,
Ps.
144
(with
In the Apocrypha
found only in allusion to Old Testament phrases. In Judith 8 16 vibs avOpwirov occurs in a statement which
}a
is
19 An echo of the same scriptural depends upon Num. 23 will be found in Sirach 17 30 if u/o? avOpvirov is passage
.
there a literal rendering of the original. 3 similar echo is unmistakable in the solitary instance of vibs av0pa>7rov in the
2).
This generic scope of ^7? nas as its natural corollary, the " fact that 07? a denotes, not the son of a certain man," but
i
the
member
The
of the
"
i.e.
genus
man
cf.
Q^??
differ
^%
16
7
.
"
one
^ ne
genus man,"
biblical
The simple WK, not tfjg "O, is In the next place, in Aramaic tWK is also the term for the " mankind," and can stand where we generic conception
Hebrew.
should say " men." Hence KPJg ^a, " the sons of man," is 30 equivalent to the simple NBO ; cf. T")tp KPJK jrp, Dan. 4 " 21 with T-Hp M^K \33 ip, 5 .* Both mean he was driven out
of
from among mankind." When there comes with the clouds heaven one t^ 123, Dan. 7 13 he is described as resembling
,
one of the
nature of
1
or as one
who had
in himself the
just as in
Daniel also
is
once
named
in this
Lietzmamis researches on "Der Menschensohn " (1896) 30 ff., that he has not investigated separately the use of singular and plural. The representation given of the Old Testament usage in ff. Appel, Die Selbstbozeichnung Jesu Der Sohn des Menschen (1896), 28-48, is quite erroneous. 3 The Syriac version is considerably different. 4 16 and D-JX nifjo?, 10 18 are identical. Similarly onx '.43 n?OT, Dan. 10
2
way
(8
17
).
It is a defect in
23 C
the gods. In substance, though not in verbal form, a unit of the species is also meant, when in 7 4 it is said of a beast
that
it
was made
to stand
is ">?a
upon two
25
).
"
feet, tw$3,
as a man."
An
individual
man
(2
Mishna, which, being Aramaic in the guise of Hebrew, affords important testimony for our present " the human being," Ab. ii. 1, 11, iii. 10, 14 purpose, 07?? i s
the
;
In the Hebrew of
TnK
D*iN is
vi. 9.
nina,
"
creatures," Ab.
is
i.
12,
ii.
"
Mankind
"
expression
i.
Taan.
and
In Ned.
viii.
5, 6,
65
19 a (Simeon ben Yokhai, c. 130). 07? ^a Tp"} means "the common custom";
b.
Mo.
k.
" and 07? ? is the common parlance," Siphre, ed. Friedm. 33 a (Ishmael, c. 110). The singular 07? $ is altogether uncommon.
fi
text.
The Targum of Onkelos generally conforms to the Hebrew In Gen. II 5 Deut. 32 8 it has ^a for D-IK (?) r?a; 1 Gen. 6 N^s ^a for the simple &7?? the same again, Num.
,
>
23 19 both
,
for B^K
and
for D-JK
|a,
and in Deut. 32 26
for Bfog.
The singular number SWK "ia, which is twice used in Targ. Jerus. I Num. 23 19 appears to be intentionally avoided by
Onkelos.
Moreover, "a
ia.
human being"
is
always
^,
and
not
twg
In
this
respect Onkelos
and
the
Mishna
for
"
agree.
is
,
also the
word
human
being." Only Hebrew, do we find B>JK -a. 5 DIX na, Deut. 32 8 KK>:x, Gen. II
;
in
Num. 23
19
Marka
also,
where he
Sam.
iii.
fc^N
59
a
,
130
a
,
131 b
Murik, Des
liber
p.
d.
Munk,
48,
nnwia.
The Targum
to the
Prophets, which
is of
minor consequence
237
Elsewhere BOK 13
text, Isa.
5 1 12
56 2
Jer.
49 18
33
50 40
5 1 43
i
1
.
When
Ezekiel,
the Tarit is
"is to represent &7? t? gumist uses D^K " son of that he takes the meaning to be
S
clear
Adam."
The plural
NBOJS
33 is often used.
Inscriptions attest
single
instance
of
for
Palestine.
The Palmyra
customs
tariff, of
date
137
A.D.,
puts DJTO
>:K for
"any person
f.;
whatever."
tions,
s^o K
II.
i.
appears for
"
any one
"
in Nabatsean inscrip-
CIS
197, 209
f.,
and in
113
a
,
>:N
in the sense of
human
" for the former any one simple BOK remains current for 4 a Sanh. 25 Ber. E. 69 for the dialect see, e.g., j. Ber. 13 j.
, ,
latter
see Lietzmann,
"
human
being
then made
way
Num.
9 13
2
23 19
Even
B^N
it
8
of Tobit
has twice (8 18
uses
(3
12 1 ) put $} 13 for "any one," while elsewhere 4 19 ), K$K \33 (8 4 ), plur. const. ^JK (I 19 12 1 ).
it
As
be
must
"
term
of
BK
for
"
human
it
being
while, to indicate a
number
human
beings,
^'js
its
of the
Hebrew
where 07?
in
it.
^s
common
man,"
is
The case
is
from heaven
Dan. 7 13 where the person coming " described as twg i?3, one like unto a son of
to
just
of
as uncongenial
the
style of prose as
the the
designation
1
God
in
the
same verse
as
Njoi*
PW,
"
Lietzmann, Der Menscliensolin, 31, appears to have overlooked See on this point Gramm. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 27 ff,
this.
238
advanced in days,"
posed on
of
the aged,"
"
chapter.
in other cases,
It is in
13 as theory be correct, then PJ&? ">? in Dan. 7 simply the translation of the Hebr. CHK J3.
herent in $3
keeping with the peculiar nature felt to be in"i? that, like the Hebr. en? '?> it never occurs
KjPJK
">3,
just like
D"j&?n
|3,
is
quite
"
unheard
of in the older
is
Jewish Aramaic
called
literature.
The
human being"
Judseans,
there
Samaritans,
and
Palmyrenians, had this expression in use, it may be supposed that in this respect the Galileans in the time of Jesus formed
no exception
of
NEON
"12,
N^J -o in the
common
to all
Aramaic-speaking
Palestinians, was an innovation introduced into Palestine from the north-east along with many other influences affecting
testimony for the terms used by Jesus is afforded " Man," both by His own words as reported in the Gospels.
final
in the singular
and in the
plural, is frequently
enough the
How is it that wo? av0po)7rov never of remark. " occurs for man," and ol viol rwv av6 PWTTWV only in Mark
subject
apart from the selfhave designedly avoided it, although appellation of Jesus " " Jesus had on all occasions said nothing but son of man for
?
3 28
Can the
Hellenistic reporters
"
man "
likely.
"
Holtzmann 3
1
son of
man
"
The rendering "the Ancient of days" is inexact, and would require From J'n'v p'pjj also, v. 9 it is apparent that the ending does not define
,
pp'v,
but the compound expression. Lietzmann omits all proof that the Galilean, with valid for the time of Jesus.
2
its
use of
JK 13,
must be
Lehrb.
d.
neutestamentl. Theol.
i.
256.
239
"
l
:
man "
"
in the mother-
and Lietzmann, agreeing no other term for that conception " with Eerdmans, 2 on this topic constructs the thesis 3 Jesus
:
never applied to Himself the title Son of man/ for this term does not exist in Aramaic, and for linguistic reasons is an im*
possible
'
term"*
Nevertheless
it
is
rendered impossible.
When
had
DHNPI
the composite
expression ^J
"^
son
nian,"
to be
made
ffJK
definite, the
to BOK, as to
J2 5
determinative could attach only in the Hebr. Q^K }a. Thus arises ? "ia,
"
the
human
"
being
der Mensch,"
"
as
the son of
Aramaic,
"
ally,
his
would have been necessary to say NfJf^. iro (literThe Mishna Hebrew would son, that of the man ").
It is therefore in no way surprising that the say ffiK^BJ foa. Christian-Palestinian version of the Gospels renders 6 v to<? TOV
avOpw-TTov
by N^J
"i?
the incon-
venient repetition of "B, by ^?^ 'Til The principle of literal faithfulness in the translation led naturally to the production of this expression, which the same dialect further
.
used for nn
|a
in
"12
Job 16 21 as remarked by Nestle. 5 In a was the common word for " man," this
,
term would be no equivalent for the peculiar expression in Certainly NBO "i:n Fna tended to the error, which question.
the
German
"
Menschen
of
"
person so entitled
1
some
one.
2 4
5
3 Israelit. und judische Geschichte, 381. 3 Theol. Tijdschr. 1894, 165 ff. Der Menschensohn (1896), 85. The italics of the last clause are due to me.
See A. S. Lewis,
cf. p. 56,
240
translator
will
vios
rou
is
embarrassment,
v Ibs
regarded as the
Greek singular
for 07?
for ol viol
TWV
dv0pco7rcov,
which the
^>
an(^
3 28 and Eph. 3 5
men
"
men
form an
No
unnatural stress was laid upon both members of the phrase. assistance could be got from o v to? avOpanrov, for this
"
In Greek,
D"JK,
nor
is
v/o? the
term
The
readiest substitute
would
still
have been
o avdpawros
with no addi-
But then, what disastrous misunderstandings would have been occasioned by the change in the Gospels of the uncommon expression of the original into an ordinary expression
In view
of this, it
was therefore preferred to convey the im"13 when made definite, pression, suggested in Aramaic by EJjS the utmost possible definiteness in the composite expresby
sion.
"
the
man "
merely as such
the
human
side
of
His nature as
this point
it
all too
probable.
To
we
refer later.
In these circumstances
can be seen
why
the Christian
much
as possible,
adopt
it
into
their
religious
phraseology.
In Aramaic,
deed, KBOK 13 was perfectly suitable as the special name of a definite personality but its reproduction in Greek would be
;
241
as defectively inaccurate as it would though for different be in Syriac and Christian-Palestinian. In German, reasons
Menschen Sohn is a correct rendering of 6 v to? rov "Q is represented with some dvQpwTTov, but the Aramaic N^Jg
des
"
"
"
der Menschensohn."
"
2.
SON OF MAN
There is no need to begin by proving here that for the " author of the Book of Daniel, the one resembling a son of
man "
"
people of the
saints of the
Most High
"
(v.
27
,
cf. v.
22
),
who
day to receive an imperishable dominion as an award from The vision, in which the one like unto a son of man God.
is
seen, is a parallel to
of
God
man.
an eternal sovereignty
is
which shatters the great statue without any assistance from In contrast with the beasts emerging from the sea,
types of preceding secular powers, the one like unto a son of man, type of the future possessor of universal dominion,
comes
"
"
pression
"
Himself appears, is held in the place where the animals have their being, i.e. upon
in days," in
Advanced
He
the earth. 2
Besides,
it
like to a son of
1
man were
would be more appropriate if the one " to come upon the clouds of heaven."
;
interpreted as referring to the sovereignty of the Messiah, Beniidb. K. 13. 2 Esdras connects with the stone its own peculiar representation of the mountain which "that man " brings with him see 2 Esdr. 13 6f 12 36
is
This stone
ed.
Tanchuma,
;
b Buber, Ber. 70
No
change of scene
is
9 The divine chariot furnished with suggested in 7 that described by Ezekiel which was to serve God at His
is
appearance upon earth. There is therefore no occasion for the view brought forward by Holsten, Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1891, 62, and by Appel, Die
judgment
Selbstbezeichnung Jesu der Sohn des Menschen, 40 ff., that the scene of the is conceived as being above the earth, and that the one like to a son of man comes thither from the earth.
:
16
242
reading
NW'
,
ve$e\8>v,
LXX
Dan. 7 13
Bev.
14 14 ~ 16 Teaching
of
the Apostles
16 8
(eVai/o>), Justin,
51 Apol. I (eVai/o)), Hegesippus in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. On the other hand, the reading of the Massoretic text (DP) is 62 Bev. I 7 2 Esdr. 14 3 represented in Theodotion, Mark 14
, ,
The words
It
ev
z/e^eXat?,
Mark 13
to
26
,
ve<j>e\y,
Luke 2 1
27
,
= DP.
belongs
1
,
to
3
.
God only
clouds
see Isa.
19
Ps.
104
But even
if
one reads
dominion comes, not from the earth, far less from the sea, but from heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation to
God, well
is
resembles man.
He
is
not because he alone possesses reason the first beast, accord" " 4 a man's heart," the last has the eyes of ing to 7 receives 8 a man," and can speak (v. ). The emphasis rather lies on the
,
winged
lion,
horns
beyond
its
armed and
through any power of his own of making himself master of the world he is only as a If ever he is to be master of the world, God son of man.
inoffensive, incapable
;
so.
From
the
first
Christian
Jewish writings
Similitudes of the
Esdras.
of
known which
Book
of
man
Enoch, and the Second Book of The two agree in regarding the one like to a son as an individual person. And as they combine
i.
40,
243
(chaps.
46 1 a
to
and
of
men,
whom
-
afterwards
,
made
as
"
" while only the son of man is said 3 72 69 26 27 29 70 1 71 17 N. Schmidt, 3 however, says in 46 62 that little stress can be laid on the use or non-use of the
46 2
48 2 62 5
u 63 11
-
Ethiopic
demonstrative,
so
is
that
throughout
the
vios
TOV
dvdpMTTov
portance
may
be what
to
represented.
fact
Similarly no im-
attaches
"
the
that
"
term for
"
even putting
son of
a man,"
"
son of a woman."
"
It is
son of man is not taken for granted the author as an already established title for the Messiah. by But it is not to be denied that the author, though in this
clear, at all events, that
title,
the son of
man "
.
seen most obviously in 46 3 " " has righteousness is certainly not a periphrasis for the This
is
righteous
"
man," but
is
meant
"
to recall
38 2 39 6 where the
,
who
is
righteous,"
part,
;
clear in
Christian author or interpolator should above all things have made it some Avay that the " son of man" coming to the judgment was Jesus
of Nazareth.
of
man "
upon
2 3
This passage
See his essay,
title
(1896) 48.
4 That these really refer to "son of man," and N. Schmidt, op. cit. 46 ff.
see
ft.
H. Charles on Enoch 46 2
244
Jer.
"
33 15
for
which
*
the
Targum has
Messiah
of righteousness."
" Probably the author of the Similitudes, in using son of man," did not intend to introduce any new designation for
the
Messiah.
Still
it
is
significant
that
he
consistently
applies this
name
and yet
is
not God.
If
the
was Hebrew, we should here have tn^n 13 (with the as an exceptional instance in the earlier Jewish
;
literature
and
18
it
would
Book
of
Daniel, which
terms cnx ^f ni&na, CTJN nanoa, meaning uses, " the one resembling man," to denote a definite personality.
,
the
who
In an interpolation in the Similitudes it is Enoch himself is the son of man, brought according to Dan. 7 before
By
this
name he is addressed 60 10 and him " thou art the son of man
,
:
who
which there
is
evident
at least
an allusion
to
"
fijxjy
nrp,
Turning now to the Second Book of Esdras, we find in Here a wind causes chap. 13 a different style of language.
to rise
(Syr.
"
ille
"
man "
v.
3
He
2
is
then referred to in
5
as
homo
in v.
as
"
de mari
(Syr.
ipse
homo
"
KBTO
in),
and in
vv. 25
51
,
cf. v.
33
,
as
"
vir ascendens de
If the original corde maris" (Syr. NEH nJ? p^DT KIM). was Hebrew, the Syriac anaa would represent B^n; the Syriac
j
homo," would, on the other hand, be D^n, and 3 correspondingly in v. we should have B'JK l"^"!?, not 1? JTID13
XJW-n, Lat.
0*3?,
cf.
"
Dan. 10 18
doubtless not
Cf.
under
XL
1.
ille
homo cum
beginning
245
as rising
the
for twg
figure in
">?
human form
from
the sea.
But
he has put tn, the term proper to and from that, of course, a Messianic title could
Messianic interpretation of Dan. 7 13 appears to have been assumed by Akiba (c. 120 A.D.), when he spoke of the
"
b.
thrones
"
of
.
Sanh. 38 b
description of
Dan. 7 9 as prepared for God and for David, This statement of Akiba then gave rise to the the Sepher Hechaloth, 1 which says that David,
adorned with a crown in which are embedded the sun, the moon, and the twelve signs of the zodiac, takes his seat in
heaven upon a throne which is erected for him in front of the throne of God. Joshua ben Levy (c. 250) 2 brought forward the alternative that, if Israel were worthy, then the
Messiah would
come, as in Dan.
99
7 13
heaven
but
if
upon the
3
(c.
ass,
as said in Zech.
270) pany the Messiah as far as their precincts allow, while God then conducts him to Himself, according to Jer. 30 21 Other
.
late
Der leidende
in Targ.
und der sterbende Messias," 38 note. 4 It is a mere suggestion of Dan. 7 13 that appears
Jerus. II on Ex.
,
His
people like
12 42 which says that the Messiah will lead " on the summit of the Moses, KJJJJ ^-^
is
there conceived as accompanying the Messiah during His activity. On account of the "cloud"
cloud."
(IJJJ)
The cloud
in
Dan. 7 13
it is
is
in
Chron. 3 24
will
,
be the
in the
and
Targum on the passage. Probably we should also mention here the Messianic name ^BJ 13, though it is otherwise
1
2
3
a i. 13 ; Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, v. 168, cf. vi. 150 Backer, Ag. d. p. Am. i. 152. Midr. Psalms, 21 7 cf. Backer, Ag. d. p. Am. i. 548. The citation of Dan. 7 13 in the Midrash on Ps. 2 7 is probably spurious.
Seder
Rab Amram,
;
f.
b.
Sanh. 98 a
cf.
246
b explained by the Babylonian Nachman b. Sanh. 96 1 vided ^B3 stands for ve$e\t), which is very doubtful.
pro-
of a
Messianic interpretation
of
the
ed.
9
passage
the
b
anonymous
2
:
saying,
Midr.
Tanchuma,
Buber, Vay. 36
"What mean
) ?
will be seated,
may
while
God
among them as president of the court of justice, and thus they judge the peoples of the world"; cf. Matt. 19 28
30 (Luke 22 ).
13 Again we have a divergence from Dan. 7 in the statement of the Palestinian Amora, Abbahu,3 who lived in
Csesarea about
of
280
tete
A.D.
Christ,
he asserted,
4
:
Num. 23 19
nap^jp* *6i:
"ox
Intending to controvert the divinity Taan. 65 b basing his words on j. DIK |2 Kin njaip ^K ta a DN "iptf
,
^
'
to thee,
ION ronn Q;og6 rbty *)$& te rrinnb, " if any one say I am the son of I am God,' he speaks falsely
'
man/
his
end
is
to regret it
'
I ascend to
heaven
he who
has said so will not verify his word." Only thus can the HK i? * s nere equivalent to ?N. It be translated. 5 passage has no article, because Num. 23 19 has none. The "ascending
into
heaven" depends,
On
Cf.
as
it
2 3
4
both names see " Der leidende und der sterbende Messias," 37 Shem. R. 5, the similar saying of Abin.
to
As
Abbahu,
is
see Backer,
Ag.
d. p.
Am.
ii.
88-142.
to this passage in a late addition to a saying of Eleazar 7 ha-Kappar, Yalk. Shim. (ed. Salonica, 1526) on Num. 23 ; see Dalman-LaibleStreane, Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the
Allusion
made
Synagogue (1893), 10* Text, 33* Translation. As doubts have arisen on the may here be remarked in passing that the translations there given, pp. 21*--47*, were made by me, while Laible's contribution appears only in the
subject, it
rendering of Streane. 5 The dictum forms a crux interpretum only for those who find the obvious It is correctly rendered by Laible, Jesus Christ im Talmud sense disagreeable.
(1891), 48, and by Backer, op. cit. 118 incorrectly, by Levy, Neuhebr. Worterbuch under DIN Wunsche, Der jerus. Talmud, 141 M. Schwab, Le Talmud de Jerusalem, vi. 156. The explanation of F. Cohn given by Lietzmann, Der
;
; ;
Menschensohn,
247
.
.
I will ascend into heaven I king of Babylon says will ascend above the cloudy heights, like to the Most High." b "Said Nebuchadnezzar: Compare Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 39
.
I will
make me a
it is
little
"
As
with
contact
most natural
to
was meant
to refer
Jesus,
practically useless
in
claiming to be God.
time, against any other persons The motive which leads him to make
his
Num. 23 19
the basis of his assertion, despite the change of what he must have known to be the natural sense, can only
and
ffJK
}3
seemed
to
him
In that case he will produce an allusion to Jesus. have been aware that Jesus had called Himself " Son of man "
in
some exclusive
the
.
sense.
"
Of course
it
son of
a Jewish
name
Dan.
Messiah.
Moreover, no reference
made
to
7 13
It
of
may
be noted that in the Zohar, the principal product iii. 144 a a dis,
tinction is
to iwg
drawn on one
,
"133,
Dan. 7 13 and Dn
"higher D^K) and the "lower Adam" (D-js has no relation either to the first This, however, WjriTn). man or to the Messiah. The "higher Adam" is, on the
contrary, the highest form of the self -revelation of
"
Adam" (N^h
God
the
lower
Adam
"
is
a synthesis of
all
revelation
way, no longer demonstrable by us, be historically connected with the doctrine of the Ophites, which gave to the primordial
light
the
name
of
the
supposed to stand for those who have given themselves out to be God, Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Schem. 12 a f. Schem. R. 8 cf. Ber. R. 9. An ascension of King Alexander is related by Jonu (c. 330), j. Ab. z. 42; Bern. R. 13.
Isa.
is
; ;
On
account of
14 13f> Nebuchadnezzar
248
or
wo?
in
av0p(t>irov.
be
of
the
royal
to
chariot, in
which
God appears
and
for
human
Jews
in
semblance,
which
welcome
Christians
the
"
self-designation
"
of
2
Jesus.
The
3
common
of
simply
adopted
his designation
from
however, erroneous, for their theology knew nothing of such a comparison between Adam and the The proof-passages adduced by Schottgen, Hor. Messiah.
hebr. et talm.
670
ff.,
and by
J.
Ehenferdius in Meuschen,
1048ff., to support
this
illustr.
may
13
;
be set
down
man
in
Dan. 7
Messiah
of
was certainly understood sometimes to denote the that, further, there were two apocalyptic fragments
this name, excluding all other but that a regular Jewish name for the Messiah designations There never was formed from the passage in question. 5
;
was no
should
"
Why
G
the son
title
Messianic
for
of
man "
be less
to
become a
the
"
Messiah, or Dipan
" nrinn,
the
place,"
for
Samaritan
He who
"
will
come
But
1
son of
i.
man
;
as a Messianic title
among
Irenseus,
2
See, e.g.,
28 cf. Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 62 ff. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. ii. 55; Lietzmann, Der
64.
-
Menschensohn,
3 4
1 Cor.
15 45
47
.
the subject of remark also by G. F. Moore in Journ. Bibl. Lit. xvi. (1897) 158-161.
This
is
"The
last
Adam,"
Enoch and 2 Esdras, which were Jews, one must not, of course, manufacture, like " aldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 170 f., a synagogal usage," which prevailed "almost universally in the religious works of the scribes."
intermittent testimonies in
From the
soon superseded
among the
6 7
leid. u. d. sterb.
Messias," 36.
See above,
p.
231
f.
249
was to be expected,
formed Dan.
7.
solely
their
conception
of
the son of
man "
did not
become a Messianic
IS
NO EMPTY FORMULA.
H. E. G. Paulus, and Fritzsche 1 had 2 already put forward the view, which A. Meyer revives, in
Beza,
Cocceius,
regard to certain cases of the use of 6 m'o9 TOV avOpwirov, namely, that among the Jews it was simply a common
substitute for the pronoun of the first person.
,
:
Commenting
on Matt. 8 20 Beza says " (addo,) propterea quod familiare est Hebrseis, ut de se loquantur in tertia persona, ideo accipi
loco pronominis primse personse in evangelica historia."
Still
the custom of speaking of oneself in the third person was by no means general among the Hebrews. But it did happen
that a
or a
man should speak of himself as tO33 Kinn, " this man," woman as NnnK fcOnn, " this woman." Examples are seen
30
81
d
; ;
in Vaj. E.
j.
j.
Maas. sch. 55 b
Taan. 66
d
.
j.
j.
Sabb. 15
C
;
j.
j.
Sukk. 55 b
Mo.
k.
b.
j.
69 a
Kidd. 64 b
Keth. 29 b
b.
Bab.
4a
b.
Sanh. 46 b 3
The incentive
to this
mode
of
speech will have arisen in cases where something disagreeable had to be said, 4 although its use did not remain confined to such cases. man, who is dying, gives instructions that
" something should be handed over to the wife of this man," The Emperor Trajan, speaking of himself, Kidd. 64 b j.
.
j.
Sukk.
:
55 b
"
surprise
1
says to the Jews whom he had taken by This man, who proposed to come after ten days,
,
:
Der Menschen-
sohn, 5f. 2 Jesu Muttersprache, 95. 3 See also Gramra. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 77
lines 9, 12
4
;
f.,
p. 18,
13
f.
spirit of this
man
i.
cf.
"may
the
expire
39.
e.g. j.
Bez. 14 b ,
arab. Philologie,
250
has already arrived in five days." There is, however, no NtWK fcttnn or NKttN ">? Ninn was used in instance to show that
the same fashion.
Still less
to establish, in
and the self-designation of Jesus is all the harder view of the fact that at that time, as con1,
'JK
">?
term
for
"
man."
"
IrrtK,
"
son of
2
man
as its
Cremer
,
son of man,"
may have arisen through opposition to the Jewish habit of referring to Jesus as B*KH initf. But this
way
of alluding to Jesus is
Enoch
69 29
unknown
and cannot be
verified
till
name
the speaker does not wish, or in view of the Christian censorship does not dare, to mention.
has been said tends only to prove that it should not seem specially remarkable, if Jesus showed a preference But the term for speaking of Himself in the third person.
What
He employed
it
for that
purpose was an
uncommon one
and
4.
"SON OF MAN"
is
EXCLUSIVELY BY HIMSELF.
Synoptists o mo? rov avOpwTrou as a Jesus appears only in the words of Jesus Himself.
all three
,
In
title of
Once
indeed the fourth evangelist, 12 34 represents the people as " speaking of the Son of man," but only so as intentionally
to
attribute to
to
them a
,
repetition
of
the
words
of
Jesus.
Bibl. Theol.
251
Both 23), James also used the title in like circumstances. these instances, however, contain an unmistakable allusion to
the language used by Jesus before the Sanhedrim, that of 69 that of James with Matt. Stephen agreeing with Luke 2 2
,
26 64
Nowhere
else is
Dan.
7, of
one who
as
The
seer beholds
I 13 Jesus
ofMOiov
avdpooirov in
5- 6
,
and hence
where the
the term
18
,
a man."
In Eev. 14 14
one like the appearance of the seer again beholds "one like unto
harvest of the earth.
;
a son of man," this time on a white cloud with a crown and a sickle about to "reap" the
That
Christ
is
referred to
was an
angel.
not clearly stated v. 17 implies that it The scene is not that of Dan. 7, which has
is
Nevertheless the thought of the only the cloud in common. " " of Dan. 7 13 may here have one like to a son of man
floated before the
mind
of the writer.
heavenly aspect of Jesus and of an angel as depicts " in the form of a man," one cannot, of course, draw being the conclusion that he was ignorant of the fact that Jesus,
the
" during His life on earth, had called Himself the Son of man." One can only see a corroboration of the fact that even he,
New
name
o v 409
TOV
avQpu>7rov as a
Paul, having in view the kindred statements of Jesus in regard to the second coming " of the Messiah, does not even here call Jesus the Son of
,
In 1 Thess. 4 16
2 Thess. I 7
man," but
dvOpcoTTOs
o Kvpios.
e'f
It is true he terms
Christ 6 Seure/Qo?
;
ovpavov (6 eirovpdvios), 1
Cor. 1 5 47ft
but this
1 With the same motive, however, the Liturgy of St. James in the ritual of the Eucharist, having treated 1 Cor. 1 1 26 as an utterance of Jesus, has changed Paul's TOU Kvptov, which could not be supposed to have been said by Jesus, into TOV viov TOV avdpuirov.
252
is
occasioned by the contrast, which substantially determines the entire passage, instituted between the earthly nature
represented in Adam and his posterity, and the heavenly In this nature bequeathed by Christ to them that are His. connection there is no more need to detect a reference to the
self-designation of Jesus, than there
ideas of Philo or the
is
to see to
a use of the
Kabbala in regard
an
ideal primitive
man. 1
The expression has clearly remained restricted to its use Jesus Himself, and the Synoptists are themselves witby nesses confirming this usage as a historical fact, as they never
by any chance allow the term to glide into their own language. Even to the evangelists themselves it did not seem to be a
The main point is to understand regular Messianic title. " the Son of man," and that that Jesus alone called Himself
no one
It is not a sign of a sound historical the attempt to solve this problem and to up 2 seize upon the contention of Oort and Lietzmann, that the non-use of the term by the New Testament writers is a sign
else did so.
method
to give
that
it
somewhere or other there had been an early community Christian Hellenists which delighted in this name, and
order to find occasion for
its
in
use, represented Jesus in the evangelic narrative as frequently speaking of Himself in the But any such assertion should have been prethird person.
vented by the mere observation, that although the Gospels " " have proclaimed Jesus to the Church as the Son of man
1800 years, yet the name has never to this day become common title of Christ, and in books and sermons the " Son " save when the words is not usually spoken of of man
for
of Jesus
It
is
stantially
1
De uitdrucking
253
the Son of man," will
disclosed
attached to the
Justin,
Chrysostom, as well as Tertullian, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, with one consent, though in variously conceived modes, have seen in this title a reference
Cyril
of
Alexandria,
to the
human
the end of
interpretation of the
TOV avOpMTTov could not be understood by prising, Greeks otherwise than as referring to one who desires to
o uto?
be
known
in
as son of a
man.
name
might,
Greek-speaking Church, be regarded from a dogmatic standpoint but it was not adapted for practhe
;
tical use.
5.
The first appearance of o vlos TOV avOpvirov is found, for Matthew in 8 20 (cf. Luke 9 58 ), for Mark as early as 2 10 (cf. Matt. 9 6 Luke 5 24 ), and for Luke in the passage just cited None of the evangelists takes the trouble to explain 5 24
, .
the designation
Had they wished the understand what was meant by it. reader to think of the Messiah who was to come in the
clouds of heaven, one would suppose that they would at the
outset have inserted an explanation declaring the Messianic
majesty of the Son of man. In the case of Matthew, however, the introductory statement about the Son of man is, that He
1
Die Selbstbezeich
nung
254
lacks
in
that
has authority on earth to forgive sins. This latter the readers could not have understood as signifying
that this power belonged of right to Jesus in virtue of His
the Son of
man
being the Son of man," but as signifying that one, who was content to call Himself merely " a son of man," had received
"
Matthew
explicitly says as
8
,
much
in
when he represents the recording this incident, Matt. 9 multitude giving praise because God had given such power "unto men." The same evangelist, by the modifications
peculiar to himself which he introduces in his account of
Peter's
confession
(TOV
18
;
vlbv
TOV
avOpairov,
16 3
for
/*e,
Mark
v.
16
,
27
,
Luke
it
XpLaros
8 29
;
for
o X/3KJTO?,
"
Mark
of
TOV
"
is it
Luke
calls
9 20),
makes
clear
beyond
doubt
He who
Himself
ive,
i.e.
man
in reality the
is
correlat-
Hence
"
Son
of
him no
aid in
coming
"
to this conclusion.
When
Son
title
of man," it no assertion
is
clear that
of Messianic
The injunction of Jesus not to speak to any one His Messianic character would, of course, seem meaningless to them, if Jesus habitually spoke of Himself in public as the
Messiah, and that at the summit of the Messianic power, as
.
Again, there
is
also present
an
in-
dication that
"
Son
of
man
"
refers to
blasphemy against
is
Holy
of the utterance
seen in Mark,
who merely
1
Holtzmann, Lehrb.
257
f.,
255
of
blasphemy
of
the
"
Son
of
the
"
"
Spirit
Matt. 1 2 32
to another,
is
is similar,
effect is
annexed
which corresponds to the form found in Mark. It impossible that Matthew and Luke should here intend to
a distinction between two Persons of the Godhead, as
it
make
if
were a venial
is,
tinction
" The disblaspheme the Son." on the contrary, between Jesus as man and the
sin
to
man
Jesus
may
be forgiven
Him.
power inherent in
against God.
Him
is
unpardonable, because
blasphemy
"
the inference, 2
that the
Son
of
Hence, in the
Mark, what applies to mankind in general, applies " Son of man." In describing the trial pre-eminently to the
of Jesus
<rv
70 (Luke 22 ), Luke alone has the explanatory question ovv el 6 v to? rov Qeov which evidently connects itself
; :
with
I/to?
The addition implies that Jesus, as His declaration really " Son of man," but the " Son of means, is not indeed the
God."
will be justified in concluding that for the Synoptists, " " in harmony with the view of the early Church, Son of man
We
was not a term denoting the majesty of the Messiah but that it was, what any Hellenist must necessarily have taken
;
it
to be,
under a
it.
title
an intentional veiling of the Messianic character which affirms the humanity of Him who bore
their
prospect of sufferings foretold " " by Jesus as the part of the Son of man was no paradox, but the statements in regard to His exaltation were. It was
view,
In
the
man "
should be
He
256
6.
SON
Owing to the diversified character of the sayings in which Jesus refers to Himself as o vlbs TOV av6pa>7rov, investigation of the substance of these sayings leads to no result. Jesus
nowhere gives any information denning the scope of the title. Such information He seems, therefore, to have regarded as
uncalled
for.
One
thing, however,
is
made
clear
mony
the
title consistently
Thus we
which we
have to bring into comparison with the testimony borne by Jesus to His own personality.
The Greek
Aramaic
(see
Jesus really used these Aramaic words, arise from the considerations that the phrase is not Semitic; that the meaning
has nowhere any support in the testiJesus in regard to Himself and that, further, no mony literary source can be discovered for such an expression, while every probability strongly favours the view that Jesus,
the son of the
of
;
"
man "
f/o?
rov
KWM
term
"13.
This term,
"
we have
said under
l,did
Jews
as a
for
To the Jews
will
biblical word.
The
first
place to Scripture for an explanation of the strange use of 13 on the lips of Jesus. And Scripture offered the KKJJK
like
^K
"Q3,
where
257
exegesis sometimes identified explicitly with the Messiah. do not mean to say that every one would have been
We
The put this construction on the expression. of Dan. 7 13 to the Messiah will not have been application " " one like to a son of man there universal. Moreover, the
obliged
to
down on
How nothing resembling these circumstances was apparent. could one, who moved about on earth, come down from
heaven
?
transference thither
must
first
have
occurred
died or
again introduced into the world in this fashion, or a personThus ality which never had been on earth might so descend.
it
seemed impossible to apply Dan. 7 13 to Jesus. Any one who remained fixed in this idea, provided he did not know
that Jesus had in fact foretold for Himself death, resurrection,
will probably
have discarded
have been regarded as an expression, uncommon indeed, but But if He named Himself " the implying modesty in Jesus.
Son
of
man,"
Nt?JK
~\3
reason or other
other men.
He
could only follow that for some regarded Himself as a man distinct from
}
then
it
On
He was
far
was
any sense the ideal man removed from Jewish thought, and
in
;
"
"
was not brought nearer in the slightest by the teaching of Jesus. In view of the obvious reference by Jesus to Dan. 7 13 in
His apocalyptic discourse, Matt. 24 30 (Mark 13 26 Luke 2 1 27 ), and in His testimony before the Sanhedrin, Matt. 26 64 (Mark 14 62 ), it can scarcely be doubted that Dan. 7 13 was the source
,
from which
17
He
This origin
is
258
was
also
from Daniel
God.
that
Jesus
adapted
the
idea
of
the
sovereignty of
Nothing requires us
never born as
to seek the source in the Similitudes of " " Son of man there mentioned is
man
is
Though such
of
while Daniel leaves this point unnoticed. the state of the case, we need not suppose
;
the
expression.
WX
13, really
whom
which
ing
it
this
Son of man," no more than that He was that one in implied vision of Daniel was to proceed to its realisation.
calling
His
Himself
"
its
positive significance
"
from the
is
light in
said concernits
just as the
Niwto,
the
Messiah," derives
meaning not so much from the literal sense of the word, as from the scriptural testimony to the person thus entitled.
But
if
all
who heard
if
these associations,
of Jesus failed to
when even
the disciples
understand them, the question arises, what aim Jesus had in view when He called Himself the " Son of
man "
such
to
before those to
whom
To
persons also
He
must, of course,
Or can
it
?
He
never used
Considerable difficulties stand in the way of discovering In the first place, it cannot a true answer to these questions. be said of any of the Gospels that they give us the sayings of
Jesus in exact chronological sequence, especially as they From the differ widely one from another in this respect.
first
and in regard the recollection of the disciples would not always to sequence, In the next place, be able to furnish precise information.
cession in point of time appeared unimportant,
their recollection, particularly in regard to the use of the title
1
See above,
p. 131.
259
It can scarcely
"Son
of
definite.
be imagined that they should afterwards have had and had not cisely on what occasions Jesus
this expression.
The Synoptic tradition on this point is in The term is present in Matt. 16 13 but itself ambiguous. absent in the parallels, Mark 8 27 Luke 9 18 it is found in
,
Luke
10
45
6 22
it
27
;
occurs in
Mark
)
and Matt. 20
22
28
,
but
not in
Luke 22
Mark
it.
(8
31
and
Luke
all
(9
have
it
When
,
Matt. 9 6 (Mark 2 10 Luke 5 ), the only inference that can be drawn is that a source common to them all had contained the title, but not
three Synoptists agree in using
24
here particularly certain. Such being the state of matters, it cannot be ascertained with absolute
that the tradition
is
certainty
when
or to
what
class
of
persons Jesus
first
used
the
title.
themselves, they take the view " " Son of man at all times and that Jesus called Himself the
for the
As
evangelists
Thus the
first
Mark
10
(2
account of
Before his
too,
Matthew,
has
20 only one instance of its use (8 ), in an interpolation foreign and even there the title is to the context of the passage
;
who wishes
to
become
complete understanding of His Jesus could certainly not, in such cases, have self-appellation, Yet one may hold that in using looked for from His hearers.
the
purposely furnished them with a problem which stimulated reflection about His person, and gave such a
title
He
But mystery of the personality of Jesus. though Jesus obviously showed a predilection for speaking to the multitude in parables and leaving 1 the explanation to
themselves, the objection
1
may
260
position that
He had
from the
first
called Himself
"
Son
of
have man,* that His disciples asked and received a special explanation of the expression. But any such private explanation is inadmissible for any
in that case
must presumably
time prior to the Messianic acknowledgment made by Peter, Matt. 16 16 (Mark 8 29 Luke 9 20 ), especially considering the 17 to the saying of our Lord, which Matthew records 16
,
,
effect
that
Messianic dignity of Jesus, and also the injunction given in Mark and Luke against speaking to the people on the subject.
which Matthew places earlier than the confession of Peter, must be relegated to the period following that confession
;
thus, above
all,
on account
of v. 41f -, unless it be
as-
sumed that it was originally God that was named where " now stands and further, Matt. 7 21 ~ 23 on Son of man account of vv. 22> 23 while the Lucan parallel to this, Luke 6 46
; , ;
by not naming Jesus as the Judge of the world, is unobjection~ able from this point of view; as well as Matt. 10 17 25 on
account of
v.
23b
(" till
the Son of
of
all
man
be come
"),
and because
i.e.
His
presupposed
first
do, in
place the
which
is
Mark
8 38
Luke
9 26
cf.
Matt. 1G 27
Thus, for the reasons indicated, one would be obliged to consider it probable x that Jesus had not previously referred to
Himself as the
1
"
Son
of
man."
speak advisedly of probability only, because in the construction I proceed to put on the sense of the title, an absolute necessity for this supposition " It would be finally convincing for those who take "Son of man is not present.
I
Here
261
if
may
be vindicated,
need
be, in
it.
view
of
seem
to oppose
Prior to
i//o?
Matthew
TOV avdpcoTrov nine times. Three of these instances, 10 23 37 41 13 are discounted by what has just been said; and 8 20
-
as just remarked,
is
out of place in
its
present position.
Matt. 12 32
v.
31 1
.
is
The
"
Luke (II 30 )
an explanatory duplicate of of Jonah," Matt. 1 2 40 is not mentioned by sign Luke alone till after the Pe trine confession.
to be regarded as
, ,
has the instance, 6 22 eveita TOV viov TOV av0pa)7rov, for which, 11 Matthew and however, Matthew has only eVe/ea e/mov (5 ).
Luke have each the comparison between the Baptist and the Son of man, Matt. l! 18f (Luke 7 33f -). Matthew, Mark, and Luke have a paragraph in common, Matt. 9 1 " 17 (Mark 2 1 " 22 " Luke 5 17 39 ), to which is directly added in Mark and Luke
-
a section (Mark 2 23 3 6
Luke
61
"11
)
re-
mitted to a later position (Matt. 12 1 14 ). In these parts all three Synoptists have 6 uto? TOV avdpu>Trov twice, Matt. 9 6
(Mark 2 Thus we
J.
10
,
Luke
5 24 )
6 5 ).
Weiss, A.
tried to set
Meyer, Lietzmann, and Holtzmann have aside the evidence of two of these instances, by
holding that Jesus had there spoken of mankind generally, or in such a way that something was applicable to Himself
in virtue of His humanity.
But
this
mode
of interpretation
would hardly have arisen unless there had been reasons independent of the passages themselves for desiring to supersede " " the title Son of man as a title. One of the two cases
for the
"
Son
of
man
24
),
Matt. 9
(Mark
10
,
Luke
"
" 3 meaningless by Weiss on the ground that no opponent of Jesus had any doubt that the Messiah had full power to
forgive sins."
1
But, in the
2
first
Cf. p. 255.
vom Reiche
Gottes, 57.
262
**??8 "?
opponents
on
this occasion
and, besides,
J.
it is
been familiar to
Testament times
ventured to make
Still
less
does
8
Matthew
(9
),
praise
given to
unto men, for this language merely brings into view the " Son of man." l evangelist's own idea of the expression
Moreover, an implicit reference to the power of remitting sins given to the disciples, John 20 23 is, in spite of Matt. 16 19
,
18 18 inadmissible
,
here.
it
With
of the
may
of
,
kind in general
meant by the
"
Son
man," who
Lord
Luke
6 5 ), because in
Mark
But
this
2 in place of it preceding sentence appears only in Mark Matthew has something different; Luke has nothing at all. If brevior prceferenda, as standing closest to the original, is
is
to be
found in Luke,
who
2 27
Mark
an interpolation whose position is parallel to that of ~ Matt. 12 5 7 which we have considered valid as indicating the
is
,
sense attached by the evangelist to 6 vibs rov avOpwirov but it by no means implies that on this occasion Mark did not
;
self -appellation
,
of Jesus.
cf.
It is
Mark
2 27 has
,
that
Matthew, by omitting it, brings the saying to notice very To all appearance the saying about the disconnectedly.
Lord
1
of the
In opposition to Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 89. See above, p. 254. It is worthy of note that the saying of our Lord, Mark 2 s7 does not appear at all in Cod. D.
2
,
263
been added here only through affinity in sense. 1 Originally Jesus will only have said that necessity justified the breach of Sabbatic law by the disciples, as in the case of David's
irregular eating of the shewbread
of the Sabbath,
;
A
if
more
in place
Jesus Himself had set aside the Sabbatic regulations. Again, as regards the theory represented by Pfleiderer, J. Weiss, and
J.
its
H. Holtzmann, in the absence of any historical warrant in support, one cannot consent to the idea that Jesus at first
"
by combining and
"
this
it
into a Messianic
designation.
that
Man "
Son
of
it
man "
would
same
have to be explained
why
Jesus called Himself not NJON but ?>JK 12. Why should "man" in Mark 2 27 be 6 avOpwrros, but in v. 28 o vlos rov avOpwirov ?
rov avOpcoTrov into the personal pronoun, or else to suppose that the sayings concerned In support of should be located after Peter's confession.
6 vios
the latter,
as
it
common
to
the
allusion
to the
days when
away, which will give his friends occasion for fasting (Matt. 9 15 Mark 2 20 Luke 5 35 ). As Jesus here anticipates His death,
,
,
be supposed to have preOf course it by no means follows that Jesus Himself ceded. had only at that time acquired the knowledge of His violent death still it does seem that He had not previously informed
the time of Peter's confession
may
His
1
disciples of
Cod.
it.
it is also
On
D has not inserted it till the later narrative, Luke 6 . In this passage placed by Blass in his text of Luke, and by Resch in his A6yia the other hand, in Lnlce 6 5 Cod. D has another Logion peculiar to itself.
10
'
264
Thus, then,
"
it is
cannot be
re-
Son
of
man "
and the instruction then given to His disciples in regard to His future destiny. From that time forward the title became
significant to
them
as the
name
To ordained to the sovereignty of the world. the mass of the people Jesus did not manifest the full signifititle,
Sanhedrin, Matt.
until in His open confession before the 26 64 (Mark 14 62 Luke 22 69 ), He set all
,
doubts at
rest,
The more
Jesus to
by
be sought primarily, as indicated above, with the help of the Book of Daniel. Conthe general mode of thought peculiar to Jesus, the sidering
N^N
I? will
have
to
chief motive
of Daniel,
to
and the
world,
is
to
be found in
is
it
earthly conditions are to be expected from the agency of God alone. 1 As a stone which no hand has unloosed from its native rock, so comes the sovereignty of
in order
to
God upon
the world,
2 34>
45
.
shatter
hostile
sovereignty, Dan.
man
in order
upon him,
,
cf. v.
27
.
Of the "violent"
Dan. II 4 that
they are raised up to establish the vision, but are at the same time destined to ruin. In His own immediate neigh-
bourhood Jesus had been an eye-witness of the fruitlessness of individual aggrandisement, and thus preferred not to be
" " regarded as Messiah by the people
;
as they, in opposition
for
to
all
political liberation
1
acts
of
of the sove1.
Of. above, p.
265
still
another reason
to
why
the
title
"
Son
of
specially appropriate
Jesus.
age in
The name Messiah denoted the Lord of the Messianic in reality it was applicable to
;
taken place, not before it. Suffering and death for the actual of the Messianic dignity are in fact unimaginable, possessor When Jesus according to the testimony of the prophets.
attached to the Messianic confession of Peter the
timation of His violent death,
clear that
distant,
first
init
He
did so in order to
make
the entrance upon His sovereignty was still far and that the Messianic function of Jesus did not
But the
to receive
man
"
of
Dan. 7 13 has
still
the sovereignty.
was
possible that
suffering
force,
At any rate, in no conqueror, no demolisher, whom God has taken under His
and death.
be
1
protection
and ordained
to
great.
We
find
an
idea
somewhat akin
which delights to speak of Christ as TO apviov, " the Lamb," which offered itself to be slain without gainsaying. There,
too,
is
Him
to
endure
upon Him.
Jesus called Himself KPJK 12, not indeed as the " but as that member of the human race (Menschenlowly one," Jcind), in his own nature impotent, whom God will make Lord
of the world
2
reference
Ps.
very probable that Jesus found another to the Son of man of Dan. 7 in the verses of
;
and
it is
8 5f
"
:
and a son
of
What man
is
man
that
Thou
that
Thou acceptest him, and permittest him than God, and crownest him with glory
the exposition of Dan. 7 given on p. 138 f. is supported by V. Bartlet, Expos., 6th Ser., iv. 435, and ing the reference to Dan. 7 by F. Buhl, Messianske Forjrettelser, 236
Cf.
2
This view
excludf.
266
of
this
exposition of
it
follows
Him
alone,
and
is
;
by Jesus to the title is peculiar no mere counterpart of the idea in (2) that humility and suffering can be
;
KjWK
"ia
as well as majesty
meaning
its
suggested by the
title to
those
who
con-
role of usurper
that at
first
by His own efforts (4) that it was possible the disciples were content with this conception,
;
(5)
the interpretation
put
Hellenistic Synoptists
they found in it a testimony of Jesus to the reality of His human nature and, further, (6) that the Church was quite
;
justified in refusing,
on
its part, to
title
for in the
upon the throne of God, and was, in fact, no longer merely a man, " but a Euler over heaven and earth, The Lord," as Paul in
the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Teaching of the
meantime the
"
Son
of
man
"
had been
set
Apostles in
its
Him
man "
For a long time I considered it possible that " Son " Son of God." might be a paradoxical term for
Various Jewish phrases might have been adduced as parallels. 1 According to Yokhanan ben Zakkai (c. 80 A.D.), the thief is
" more severely punished by the law than the robber, because he, as it were, treats the eye of God as unseeing and the ear
of
as deaf."
In Tosephta Bab.
k.
vii.
2,
the "eye of
is
by
"
above
"
Of.
gegensinnigen
Worter im
und Neuhebr.
(1896).
267
l
W)
says
but Mechilta Mishp. Nez. 15 " the eye that is beneath (m9E?SP
;
and Bab.
k.
79 b
l^y).
tradition,
,
not included in the Mishna (Baraitha), 2 given b. Yom. 77 a b 16 b. Sukk. 53 by saying that the men explains Ezek. 8
,
unveiled
(HBO ^3), whereas the meaning really is upward (their heads), i.e. towards God. Even in the Old Testament, e.g. 1 Kings 2 1 10 "to bless,"
themselves
"
"
downward
"
"
^3,
is
said instead of
"
to curse
"
when
"
the malediction
"
is
applied to God.
n3"]3,
blessing of the
Name,"
;
b.
Sanh. 5 6 a (Baraitha),
really
blasphemy against
God " rbyEf? ro^s, " blessing of what is above," means " curs" nt3D7 rona, " ing God blessing of what is below," on the
;
other
hand,
(Chanina).
of
parents,"
b.
Yeb.
101 a
toap,
"the clear
Nnriap
Peah 19 a
j.
Keth. 34 b or also
,
fcoaa,
"the
man whose
j.
Kidd. 61 a
When
anything discreditable to Israel has to be said, it is " the enemies of Israel," see in Hebr. Drrwitp predicated of
Mechilta,
8
^Hf>
c.
ed.
Fried.
3a
Tos.
j.
Sukk.
ii.
6
;
(Meir,
j.
160
;
A.D.
); in
Aram.
ii.
V)fH
"
$&,
Chag. 77
"
;
Sanh.
does
,
23 C
Targ. Esth.
I1
In like circumstances a
man
not speak of himself but of his enemy a b. Sanh. 107 where ^ ^p-n |NO, "he,
,
see b. Sukk. 5 2 a
who
hates me,"
is
this, however, scarcely warrants the " " Son of man by Jesus imputation of a paradoxical use of and as such a supposition is in no way indispensable in explaining the designation, it must be set aside.
employed
for
"
I."
All
2
3
Ed. Constantinople, 1515, not in ed. Friedm. (91 b ). Of. the saying of Cldjja, Schir. K. I 6 ; Backer, Ag. d. Eacher, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 28.
pal.
Am.
ii.
195.
268
X.
1.
generally reckoned
"
the
of
principal
"
source
"
of
the
designations,
as
Son
the
God
and
the
Anointed
(Messiah),
applied
to
King
of
It will therefore be appropriate to begin Messianic age. by tracing the influence of this psalm on Jewish literature.
Son
(*?a),
whom the poet had spoken God's "Anointed" (In^p), is called by God His This begotten by Him on the coronation day.
,
language should probably be taken in connection with the 14 which says that God will stand to the promise in 2 Sam. 7
Davidic dynasty in the relation of father to son. But while in 2 Sam. 7 14 the inference from this promise is merely that God will keep the dynasty under discipline without over-
throwing
king
of
it,
filial
relation of the
originally
Zion to
God, that
universal
dominion
bequeathed to the Son as an inheritance, and in this respect goes further than Ps. 89 28 according to
proper to
is
,
God
only the highest of the kings of the earth. To me it seems likely that in both psalms, as in Isa. 5 5 4 5 the king of Zion is meant as an emblem of
of
is
-
God
God's
In Jewish literature, however, people collectively. In the there are but few traces of such an interpretation.
to Ps. 2 12
1
Midrash
resemble
land,
it is
"
:
Whom
does this
The king, who is angry with the people of the ? and the people go and appease the son of the king,
that he
may
And when
the people go to
:
Is it
In this comment, therefore, 13 is actually understood to be "Son." But The fear that in must apparently be regarded as the original reading. v. 12 one might think of the anger of the Son, and of refuge with the Son, may have led to the change into n?, which in that case, from its first appearance, would have meant "
iJ?
purity."
269
say
it
me
Go aud
to
my
son,
the land.
to
but for him, I had long ago exterminated the people of Even so God says to the Gentiles when they wish
render
Go, say it to the Israelites, for without them ye could not endure for one The date and source of the saying are unknown. hour." 1
a song of praise
. .
Him
.:
The meaning
ambiguous.
verse
of
is
another saying, given in Midr. Ps. 2 7 is It represents that the divine statement in this
of
,
qualified
;
by statements
Scripture
in the
Law
Ex.
4 22
(" Israel
is
,
my
son,
my
1 2 7 Dan. 7 13 2 Judging by the Hagiographa Ps. citation from the Pentateuch, it appears as if Israel were
,
HO
of the psalm is not found The Book of have been expected. might Enoch originally contained no allusion whatever to Ps. 2, which justifies an inference that a non-Messianic view of
make
The Similitudes of Enoch enough. use of Ps. 72, but not Ps. 2, in delineating the Messianic
In
the
common
" 10 the Lord of unique expression (48 ), and His Anointed," the second part should be deleted. spirits " For if not, the language here, they have disowned the Lord of
picture.
would be inapplicable to the Messiah, see 41 2 45 2 46 7 4 So, too, Enoch 52 is clearly an interpolation, as it breaks the natural connection between vv.8 and 5 Accordingly the
spirits,"
.
"
appears there,
this section of
sistently,
also foreign to the original. Moreover, in Enoch, the Messiah is elsewhere called con4 20 "the Chosen," see 49 4 5 1 3 5 according to Ps. 89
is
-
52
6 9
-
To a
later insertion
we must
also ascribe
105
2
,
in
Thus in ed. Constant. 1512, and ed. Venice, 3546. Buber, in ed. Wilna, 1891, does not mention this reading, and has in its place "the world." According to Yalkut Shim. ii. (ed. Salonica, 1521) 624, it is said: "Ye would not continue to exist in this world." 2 Dan. 7 13 is not cited in the parallel, Yalk. Shim. ii. 621.
a
270
which case
"
and
My
Son
"
might
also, for
that matter, be
Among
2729
to
The name
3 occurs, indeed, in 29
and 30 1
but in 29
Of His actual governance one hears nothing. Both passages must therefore be struck out. On the other hand, the ex-
mine (God's) anointed is twice used in the section 3640 (39 7 40 1 ), also twice in the section chaps. 53 chaps. 74 (70 72 2 ), but no allusion is made to Ps. 2. In 70 9 the
pression
"
"
Messiah
is
called
"my
Servant,
the
Anointed"
(Syr.
;
"niiy
KTO&)
may
with-
out
"
aUusion to Ps.
2.
In 7
28
29
God
calls
the
Messiah
(Syr. NrTTO na), but no indication is as to the source of this language. In the vision of the given " " man from the sea God further speaks of the Messiah as
"
na,
"My
32 Son," 13
37 52
-
14 9
7,
In
this vision
there occur
references to
Dan.
2,
Dan.
and
Isa.
II 4
which became a mountain, on which the Messiah takes up his position, and against which and this identifithe peoples assemble, 13 35f> must be Zion
2,
,
Still
marked.
There
is,
the Psalter of Solomon 17 26 perhaps also in IS 18 (cf. Ps. 2 9) and hence arises the possibility, though not the necessity, of 1 36 tracing also the designations Xpiaros tcvptos, 17 Xpiarov
;
6 avrov, 18
Xpiarov
icvpiov,
18 8 back
,
to the second
is
Psalm.
not referred to as
This depends, according to 18 6 upon the Hebr. m?v n^p, "the Anointed
.
271
Later Jewish literature affords in a Baraitha given in b. Sukk. 52 a an earlier witness for the Messianic interpretation
of Ps. 2.
Son
'
of David.
(c.
More
1
recent
is
Eleazar
240):
is
said in Scripture,
Ask
'
!
Who
are they
Messiah."
For the
last,
is
2.
From
the Midrash
Ps.
appears that
Judan
(c.
350)
From a very late period, applied this verse to the Messiah. doubtless, arises the anonymous assertion contained in the
same passage, which
tained by the Church.
is
From
Minim (Christians), who say that Blessed be He, has a Son; and thou canst Holy One, remonstrate that the words are not a son art thou to me/
we
find a retort against the
the
'
but
'
thou art
my
whom
safes
(n32J
I love thee as
my
son'!" 2
Huna
about
begetting
is
understood to be the
"
new creation" 4
undergone by the suffering Messiah, as a necessary prelude to His advent in majesty. The Targum for Ps. 80 16 has identified the
"
Son
"
view.
Backer, Ag. d. p. Am. i. 83. of the Psalms has in 2 7 " dear as a son to a father art thou to me, innocent as if I had this day created thee." 3 This is the reading in Yalk. Shim. ii. 621, ed. Salonica, 1521 ; Midr. Ps.,
Ber. B. 44
;
cf.
Targum
and ed. Venice, 1546. The Censor Dominico Caresso (1607) has blackened a part of the beginning in copy of Yalkut ; in ed. Frankf. a. M. 1687 the whole is omitted. Buber, who besides the old editions
my
made
use of 8
MSS.
1891), suppresses all the first part of the statement, without mentioning even its existence
!
See above, p. 178 f. The text of the Midrash on the Psalms would have us It suppose that the creation of the hitherto non-existent Messiah is meant.
should, however, be emended in accordance with Yalk. Shim. "Der leidende u. d. sterb. Messias," 52.
;
see
my treatise,
272
position of Ps. 2
became a deterrent
to its
common
use by
the synagogue.
But even
must be
importance Jewish conception of the Messiah, and that " Son of God" was not a common Messianic title. A hindrance to
the use of K
was not
of decisive
would have presented itself in the custom of not uttering the name of God and this afterwards shows itself when Mark 14 61 gives the words of the
-13
or D^nfrgn
|a
a form ill adapted Jewish high priest as 6 vibs rov evXoyrjrov When God calls the to become a current Messianic title.
Messiah His Son, this is merely meant as a sign of the exEven ceptional love with which He above others is regarded.
" " combined with sonship in Ps. 2 the idea of the heritage
is
its
bearing on the
mark of great importance in Israel, that never ascribed either to the people or to divine descent was
their kings.
In naming God
its
Father,
it
may
occasionally
contemplate a genesis through the agency of divine power But divine nature in the Son is never deduced (see p. 184).
If
Ps. 2
and
Ps.
89
refer to
is
the
a special relation to
God
that
thereby
and by no means any sort of procreation in the literal sense of the Even in Messianic expositions, an Israelite will always word.
have taken the
title
"
Son
of
God
"
Israel
1
recalls
that of Assyria.
When
Asshurbanipal
himself
"
in his
tions, calls
an offspring
Asshur and
Bilit," this
means no more than a being destined from birth to the royal The kings of Egypt, on the contrary, were reckoned power. " Even the birth of descendants of the god Ka." to be real
1
ii.
152
f.
273
;
each king seems to be regarded as a special act of the gods l " on the day the royal title might contain the sentence
:
of
'
his
birth there
"
;
'
from
Ptolemies.
The royal style of old Egypt was continued by the Hence one encounters in connection with them
"
epithets like
a
/c
diis genitus,"
"
3
rov
'HXiov,
0eo<?
6eov
/cal 0ea?.
Eoman emperors
Sextus
also boasted
frequently of divine
Pompeius called himself the son of Neptune Domitian, the son of Minerva Caligula and Hadrian deemed themselves to be earthly maniprogenitors.
; ;
festations
of
Zeus. 4
"
In
the
royal
title,
5
however,
6
there
Divus," in Greek 0eo?, Aram. NnjK, which, appeared only in the East, people applied without scruple to the living emperor, whereas it was originally intended to apply only to
the emperor
the gods.
when
transferred by death
it is
to a place
among
" Divi filius," 7 Augustus, 8 deov vto?; but that has nothing really to do with divine It was a term due to his modesty, which prompted sonship. him to be known 9 as merely the " son of one who was trans-
ferred
to
a place
Hence no assistbeing Csesar, ance can be derived from this designation in determining the Greek conception of the term 6 vib? TOV 6eov used by
Jesus. 10
1
father
by adoption
A. Erman, Agypten, 90
E. Beurlier,
f.
[Eng.
tr.
'<].
De
E. Beurlier, Essai sur le culte rendu aux Emperenrs Remains (1890), 10,
See, e.g.,
37
f.
Wadd.
2177.
6
7
8 9
10
a. d.
;
kgl.
Wadd.
f.
[Eng.
tr. p.
166
f.].
18
274
2.
Messianic
To? 6
In the Synoptic Gospels, o vlo? TOV 6eov is found as a title in the confession of Peter, Matt. 16 16 (o Xpicr-
ZWVTOS).
Mark
As
the
name
Xpurros
is
Jew
at that period,
Matthew's version as an expansion. 1 In Matt. 14 33 it may certainly be admitted that the confession Oeov uto9 e* is not inappropriately attributed to the
disciples after Jesus
to be
master of wind
,
51f> that straightway asserted, Mark 6 the disciples did not thus express themselves on that occasion, a sufficiently sure foundation for the utterance disappears.
and waves.
But as
In the mouth
of the
6 Xpfc<7T09 6 v to?
63 the designation high priest, Matt. 26 TOV 6eov (like o Xp. o wo? TOV ev\oyr)Tov,
,
Mark
1 4 61 ) is unsuitable
o
Luke (22 66 ),
have antecedent probability in their favour. In the second " " art thou then the Son of God ? question of the judges,
Luke 22 70 the
,
evangelist has made the decisive element in the acknowledgment of Jesus patent to his readers, but in so doing has really obscured rather than elucidated the actual
circumstances. 2
in
The railing addressed to Christ on the Cross is represented Matthew (27 40 cf. v. 43 ) by the words, "save thyself if
,
of
God."
Luke has (22 35 ): "if this is the The conditional clause does not
30 This clause appears to be an appear at all in Mark (15 ). echo of the account of the Temptation, which also is related
only by Matthew
1 2
and Luke
(see
below).
The centurion
On
XL
2.
275
He was
whereas,
"Son
of God,"
vws
Matt. 27 54
Mark 15 39
47 according to Luke (23 ), he merely calls Jesus "guiltless" While the synoptic tradition is in itself discordant (St/cato?).
it is
uniform in
testify-
"
(Mark
57
It is evident, o 1^09
ToO 0eov as simply a synonym for 6 X/MCTTO?. Even in the of the Gerasenes Jews would have been numerous country
enough, so that an appellation of Jesus as Messiah by the demoniacs settled there is not unnatural. Thus o X/KO-TO?
would have
6eov.
to
uncommon
o vlbs rov
It
is
conceivable that in such a case the evangelic make use of the explanatory
"
Son
of God."
In relation to these
" "
spirits,
Jesus was
conceived not so
much the Messiah as the One in whom God appears upon earth. From the foregoing, it appears that Jesus was not called " " the Son of God by any contemporary. Seeing that this was not in common use as a Messianic title, as demonstrated
under
I have not here con1, this result is quite natural. " sidered Satan's designation of Jesus as " Son of God in the
-
account of the Temptation, Matt. 4 3 6 (Luke 4 3 9). It stands in close connection with the divine voice at the Baptism, to
-
of Satan,
"
if
at the Baptism requires a separate discussion. for this association, it would Except be possible here also to put o X/HOTO? for vlbs TOV Oeov.
Unnoticed
and
35
.
remain the words of the angel in Luke I 32 In the former verse, t>/o? v^riarov taken along with
still
yu-eya?
merely emphasises the exalted distinction which falls him whom the Most High deigns to name His " Son." The latter verse expressly connects vibs Oeov with the superto
We
276
chapter.
have merely to note the fact that the wording of the l angelic message is in conformity with the biblical style adopted by Luke for this narrative and it therefore serves
;
We
all
own
The second
saying
relation
the
angel
with
common
virgin
;
Jewish
and no trace
to be
Messianic application of Isaiah's words (7 14) concerning the as some have virgin's son, from which by any possibility
maintained
3.
" by God His Son," at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration. The words are o vios /JLOV o ayaTryTos, Matt. 3 17 (Mark I 11 Luke 3 22 ) and
On two
occasions Jesus
is
called
17 5 (Mark
/*.
97
2 Pet.
2
).
I 17
but in
is
Luke
9 35 Sin. I 11
B, o
v.
K\e\evfjL6vos
There
3 17
added,
ev
Mark
22 (Luke 3 ),
17 5
&
evSotcrjaa,
2 Pet.
I 17
ov
eyco
evSo/cTjcra,).
Luke 3 22 which
fji,ov
0V, eya)
is a reading for Clem. Alex. v to? supported by D, Justin, (re. This form has been crrfjjiepov fyeyevvrjKa
Moreover, there
is
considered by Blass
by
side.
In
the
gospel of
the
See above, p. 39 ; and on vt&s v\j/lffTov, p. 199. Of the Syriac versions, only the Sinaitic has this reading
Cur.
Pesh
Jerus., like
3
4
ACD, have
6 &y<nr'rjT6s.
F. Blass,
Nestle,
(1897), xxxvii.
8
f.,
14.
Isa.
See Jerome ou
II 4
277
in sempi-
tu es
filius
ternum."
The two forms represented in the canonical Gospels have both been moulded in the language of the Old Testament.
based from beginning to end on Ps. 2 7 might be disallowed as originating in the interests of the idea that Jesus had only then become the Son of God when He was
is
baptized.
But
this reading
arisen as an
afterthought, because, apart from the doctrinal preconception, it was all too probable that the divine words which recalled
Ps. 2 7 should
be made to agree with the terms of the psalm. In the former expression it is surprising that the divine
good pleasure should be expressly declared towards the " beloved Son." Such a declaration seems superfluous, as
this
Son
of
is
case
a servant
not to be compared with other sons. In the who is to be marked out from fellowaddition to 42 12 in
6
servants, the
this,
In language is natural enough. the terms used by the divine voice recall
it
Isa.
is
reproduced
in Matt. ov
12 18 ISov
rj
ov ypeTio-a, 6 ayairijTos
/JLOV
rjvooicrjo-ev
6^(70)
TO
a,7ray<y\ei.
avrov KOL /cpiaiv rot? The Targum also shows a readiness to render
Trvevjjud
IJLOV
eV
Hebr. ina,
see Isa.
"
to choose,"
10
by jnn,
*ray,
"
to be well-pleased
43
wna
.
I^'K
Targ.
with
"
;
winn^n NTOb
I
*ay,
my
cf.
am
well-pleased,"
Spirit,
mentioned in
to
this
Isa.
42 1
is
clearly
the
motive
Isa.
for
the
allusion
prophetic statement.
What
42 1 says
In that
of the servant of
fulfilled.
case
iral^ IJLOV in
Proposed by Conybeare, Jew. Quart. Eev. ix. 463. Prov. 3 12 sounds similar: the Lord loveth,
"Whom
d
He
whom
:
he delighteth
"
reproveth
even
is
(n^T
j?
nx
di>
2x51).
8 ever, renders (cf. Heb. 12 ) /naa-nyol no reference to the gift of the Spirit.
Trdvra vlbv
The
LXX
has
'Ia/ccb/3
i]
6 TTCUS
[JLOV,
ai>Ti\ri[Ji,\{/o/j.ai
fiov, Trpocredtt-aro
avrbv
tir
ai>T6i>,
Kplcriv rots
278
Isa.
42 1
which stands
to
26
for
"my
servant,"
would be taken
In Acts 4 25
-
mean "a
is
This
is
not surprising.
v. 27
there
a citation of Pe.
2 1 which
applies
"
TOV a^iov
aov iroLoa
to
word
-
Trat?
here applied
26
,
is
rendered in the
Teaching of the Jesus (10 6 cf. Matt. 2 1 9 ) not as the son of Apostles regards 1 1 David, but as the God of David, conformably with Ps.
son."
Peshita
And
,
since
the
HO
and Matt. 22 45
can hardly be imagined that, in the same eucharistic prayers which so speak of Him, Jesus should,
,
it
with reference to God, be called " Thy servant." 2 2 7rat9 used concerning Jesus, Teaching Ap. 9
-
The word
3
10 2
will
therefore
mean
"
(cf.
Acts 4 25 )
is
contains the
This meaning
59 2f
',
the
formula:
Xpi<TTOv,
cf.
Sia
TOV wyoTnjfjtAvev
'I.
avrov (GOV)
Irj<rov
"
59 4
Xp.
"
6
is
vraZ?
The rendering
His
(Thy) beloved
to
child
here
an allusion
the
voice
at the
See also
Trat?,
vii.
1.
Not
and
u/09
less clearly
Wisdom
of
Solomon 3
treat Trafc
as
equivalent.
himself TTYU? /cvplov (2 13 ), prides himself, according to 2 16 that God is his father; and the wicked wish to test whether
he really
namely, VLOS Oeov (2 ). Hence the Syriac version rightly enough has rendered both
is
what he professes
to
be,
18
remarkable that the closing formula in the petition for redemption in Shemoneh Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions) should speak of Him who was to send the Branch of David as the "God of David" (in VjSf) see
It is
the Palestinian
Ber. 8 C
6*.
2
j.
of the Prayer,
" Messianische
Textc,"
to this
No.
In
itself
Nnvp
^ny,
"My
Isa.
42 1 43 10
See
"Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
Messias," 31.
279
The
Israelites are
(iraftei).
by
"
Son
of God," xrtf]
19
,
ma.
v.
20
"sons"
In
this
(viot)
of
God, 12
Syriac
TratSe?
;
and in
"children"
the
case
viot
the
translator
notices
difference
between
and
but just
"
25 after, v. ,
he
feels obliged
to render TralSe?
by
is
sota,
children."
The
attitude of the
Book
it
of
Wisdom
contains
"
the more important on this point, because undoubted references to the " Servant of the
Trat? Kvpi'ov in this
Lord
of Isa. 53.
be traced back to the "servant" pJV) of God in Isa. 40-6 6, 1 for which term the LXX, as a rule, is wont to put Trat?. 2
The same misinterpretation of the word Trafr in the Greek Old Testament, where it stands for " servant," was easily
possible to
If this be the author's
any one who did not know the Bible in Hebrew. view of irals in Acts, chaps. 3 and 4,
who wrote
Greek
Bible.
of Tra*?
without further consideration in regard to the divine voice at the Baptism and Transfiguration, because in this case it is
not ?rat9 but ind? that
hensible
is
used.
But
it
becomes compre-
how an
which must be considered as constituting the essence of the divine utterance, since it stands in both forms of the text
(see also
6
vlbs rov
Oeov,
John
I 34 ),
was susceptible
7
of
an
,
but also of
Isa.
42 1
tending to
make the
commensurate with the importance of the occasion. since the bestowal of the Spirit, mentioned in Isa. 42 1
And
,
will
have been the reason for citing this particular passage of Scripture, it need not be assumed that the conventional form
of
Transfiguration.
On
the
contrary,
the
utterance
at
the
For additional proofs of the use of Isa. 40-66, see 19 20 s 5 Exceptionally the LXX has SoOXos, 42 4S 49
-
ibid. 32.
.
280
figuration, as
adopting in
as
to
17 5 the supplement
evSotcrjaa.
is
words
the Aramaic original. translation of the divine the Baptism) based on the Greek of Mark would (at
:
have to be
"=1J
'^WiK U^n
at
na m.
The
divine
first
Baptism is that He who was exceptionally endued with the Divine Spirit is in a special sense the object of the love and good pleasure of God. The
declaration
evangelists give an account of the voice, not on account of
any importance which the reception of such a divine voice might possibly have for Jesus, but in the sense of impressive
testimonies that Jesus really was what His disciples before
Him
to be.
Hence
divine
such, but
it is
good pleasure, not towards the person of Jesus as towards Him as the agent of a special mission.
is
This view
ye Him," appended to the account of the Transfiguration. This recalls the divine mandate of Deut. 1 8 15 to " hearken
,
unto," that
is,
to obey, the
by God. Thus, however, we are directed to that position which Jesus Himself felt conscious of occupying as " the Son
of
God."
4.
JESUS'
OWN
TESTIMONY.
title
"
Son
of God,"
and yet made it indubitably " " a but "'the Son of God."
itself
clear that
He was
not merely
The
position
assumed shows
in the preference
He
God
as
"
His
"
In the prayer which He the disciples along with Himself. gave as an example to the disciples, it is only in Matthew
1
Cf. Jer. 31 19
TR
ja,
Targ. 3'$q
ng,
LXX
vlbs a.yaTrr]T6s.
281
But
(6
irdrep
IJ/JL&V
6 ev TO?? ovpavois.
uot merely Luke, as Holtzmann l affirms, but also Matthew, places it beyond doubt that Jesus in this case merely puts
this expression in the
mouth
of
His
disciples
He
does not
This distinction is made pray with them in these terms. obvious by the explanation added about forgiveness by
" Matthew, in which the form your heavenly Father is at But the unique position assumed by Jesus once resumed.
"
between
my
Father
and
your Father."
What
to
Himself
Jesus understands by the filial relationship peculiar is perceived with special distinctness from the
- 19
).
the only
servants.
"
son
"
Mark
va vlov ayaTrrjrov
Luke
20
13
vlov fiov.
Matt. 2 1 87 has merely rov It should here be recalled that the LXX puts
,
rov vlov crov rov ayairrjrov^ Gen. 22 2 for Hebr. *ITT. n ^ *!?? J Onk. TTT. n i ^"J? n ^ " thine only Son," and hence there is no
difference
of
between
16
.
o vibs 6 t^ya-Tr^To?
and
6 v/o? 6 /j,ovo<yevijs
is,
John
The position
in these cases
which confers a
In the case
of
the Son of
God
of the world,
and
would be exercised
not by a Jewish emperor, but by a divine Sovereign. kindred idea appears in Matt. 17 25 where Jesus asks
In Holtzmann's opinion, Jesus could not but only as in Matt. 6 13 of 6<pei\iriin the sense of defects such as would have been inevitable in His earthly
268.
real aftapriai,
existence.
But Aramaic
is
meaning "guilt,"
Ex. 10 17 Hebr.
,
requires am as the original ; and this term, literally in that language quite a common term for "sins." See
"
'nNt*n xi xy,
"
forgive, I
pray thee,
my
pardon now
-
my guilt."
282
;
that as this
is
from His
The question whether the tax was being paid had been asked with reference to Jesus only, and therefore the stateSon.
to
the extent that he might, as an adherent of the Son, be reckoned as exempted like his Master from the tax. Here, Jesus separates Himself from all Israelites as belonging too, not to their number, but to God.
We
cf.
vv. 8
where the Messianic supper is regarded as a marriage feast for the Son of the King. But Luke 14 16 does not contain this
detail in describing the supper. 1
As even
in
Matthew the
may
be con-
possession,
of
may
28 Luke 22 29f -),2 but they do not government (Matt. 19 Their dignity remains ever thereby become what He is.
They have
in a derivative sense
what
Him
alone.
He
because
the Son.
He
is
A
Trar/309
the
filial
relationship
VTTO
6
of
Jesus to
God
in
Matt. II 27 Travia
poi,
TrapeSoOrj
firj
rov
fJiov, /cat
irartfp,
ovSe
rov rrarepa
mo?
/cal
eav
The
parallel in
2
Luke (10 22 )
1
The Evan. Hierosol. has at the end K^J in N^JH son xrun p ?!, "and whom the Son wills to reveal (Him), he reveals (Him). It seems to read \t\f/ei, and takes the last part of the verse to be an independent clause.
283
common
arro TOV Trarpos (without Blass makes Luke's reading to be KCU Tt? CCTTLV 6 TTClTrjp (without T*9 <7Tl,V 6 V 10$ ryi,Va)(TKet, ^Ol/)
In the
last part of
the verse
el prj 6
TOV vlov
el
fir;
Trarrjp
eav 6
WO$
airo
The idea here entertained is not the sovereignty committed by God to Jesus, but the whole revelation of Jesus by means
of
"
of
God
is
attained.
11
,
The
mysteries
,
of the sovereignty of
God
(see Matt. 1 3
Mark
4 11 Luke 8 10 ) in their utmost extent were entrusted by His Father to Jesus, and indeed to Him alone, with the obligation
to
deal with
them according
to
His own
is
discretion.
And
this
exclusive committal to
Him
also
because between Father and Son there exists a perfect mutual understanding so unique, that any other persons could participate in the complete knowledge of the Father only through
the
medium
of the
Son.
to the
knowledge the Son must therefore be taken together, and not independently expounded.
of the
Father by
They
mode
But
in this case of
mutual understanding,
its
thoroughness
stands in so
and absolute
He who
God
is
and
also at the
The phraseology
in a figurative sense.
will thus
and son in general is straightway applied in reference to Jesus and His heavenly Father. So that in this instance,
too, the peculiar relation of
Jesus to
or
J'!?NI
God
is
be
1
transmitted
Cf.
j.
to
others
be subject to change.
\h*b nio
His
E. h. S. 5S b
i.e.
pW)
nto
284
disciples,
through
that
to
the
same
1
knowledge
knowledge
God
He
Himself possessed.
But then
His
derived
through
medium, while
it
is
will be
more
It is possible, indeed,
but
It is further quesexamples in support are uncommon. " tionable whether we should use VT. or D3H for to know."
" Galilean Aramaic uses the former for to
know a
fact," the
latter for
"
to
know
a person."
The
.
biblical
Aramaic and
The Present ryivacrice and the dialect of Onkelos use only VT the Aorist eyva would have the same form in an unpointed
:
JttJ
be used.
The transposition
and the perfect JJT. would have to of Father and Son in Justin's
clause of
vantage that the revelation of the Son by the Son is an improbable idea. Both the Lucan rt9 ea-nv 6 vlos (iraTrjp) and
the shorter form in
Matthew
reproduction in Aramaic.
TOV vlov (irarepa), are capable of See j. Ter. 48 b Na^ D'an K3N ^,
j.
my
father"; and
Ber.
13 C
"
i>T T
WK
"
I do not
know what he
is."
For
to be willing
n\i "
the Galilean
Aramaic has NJV; the Judsean dialect NJN and N2; NJJ3. But ^ovKri^ai, airoKoCkv^ai can also be a
Greek expansion of a prior a7roKa\v^rrj. Hence the Aramaic may be thus constructed
1
y npo N?b a
See F. E. Konig, Syntax der hebr. Sprache (1897), 36 f., and the passages from Genesis he cites in Onkelos. The only other example known to me is Vay. R. 34 he regarded 'them "as those from whom denarii are exacted by the 11 government" (pn Kflo^a jp py?np). On the other hand, it is said, Koh. R. 7 15 NnnVpV 'y?rip nirr, "he was pursued by the government." In Targ. Eccl. 8 2 should be rendered: "it was bestowed from heaven"; ibid. 9 ji? nvrjpx II 3 NJO^ jp "i]3N, "it was so destined from heaven" see p. 219 f. 2 C TS n'N, "there are Of. j. Gitt. 45 \\rupyttf pyn; K^ p?8? Jinn?o5> P^^
:
N^
by name."
285
ana n?
(a) 1
21
),
Luke
raura
jinb,
(&)
Variants in Luke
:
"
am
Variants in
HK^ji
*m Wi
|i.
So
far,
we have
encountered nothing to
Jesus entertained in regard to the genesis of His divine SonIt can only be said that the passages just cited appear ship. to imply that Jesus had shown no cognisance of any beginIt seems to be an innate property ning in this relationship. His personality, seeing that He, as distinct from all others, of
own
and the immediate knowledge of God, just as a son by right of birth becomes an heir, and by upbringing from childhood in
undivided fellowship with the father enters into that spiritual relationship with the father which is natural for the child.
From
22 41"46
(Mark 12
Luke 20
41 ~ 44
),
HO
1
,
one may, however, derive an explicit testimony on this point. The Synoptic accounts are here in virtual agreement. For it
no real consequence that, according to Mark and Luke, Jesus should Himself propound the question, how the Messiah
is
of
causes
the
is
the same
to
awaken
of the
Messiah rather than to His dignity or exalted rank. There would indeed be nothing remarkable in the fact that
the scribes
it
a son should attain to a higher rank than his father, and for
would not
Dial,
cum Tryph.
33, 83.
286
that the
Jews
110
to
Hezeldah
so it
appeared to
his Lord. 1
them
There
"
something artificial in recent attempts to reduce the thought of Jesus to a mere suggestion that
"
son of David
as a title for
him
to whom An unbiassed
calling
him
his Lord.
reading of the statement of Jesus cannot avoid the conclusion that the Messiah is in reality the Son of One
is,
And
in
If Jesus
no beginning in His peculiar relationship to God, it must, of course, have had its genesis with His birth and, further, God must have so participated in assigning that
;
human
the background.
prided himself in his prenatal election by God to prophecy and Isa. 49 5 says that the servant of the Lord was formed
;
from the
womb
for
his
appointed function.
Why
whom
should
Isaiah
Himself?
Only
it
had a similar consciousness in regard to would be natural that He, being "the
not merely selection and predestination, but also a creative act on the part of God, rendering Him what no one, who stands in a merely natural connection with mankind, can ever
by
his own efforts become. This idea is no way opposed to the other, that Jesus called Himself " Son of man." For all
The Pseudepigrapha have traces of a Messianic interpretation of Ps. 110 only in the Similitudes of Enoch, in so far as it is there said that the Messiah sits upon the throne of God ; see 45 3 51 3 55 4 61 8 62 2 Still, a direct dependence
1
.
In rabbinic literature the earliest dictum verify3f> cf. ing this reference is that of Khamma bar Khanina (c. 260), Midr. Ps. 18 1 Later references are Baclier, Ag. d. pal. Am. i. 457, see also Midr. Ps. 110 " Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 7. And Jesus by no means implies given in that every one understood Ps. 110 1 of the Messiah ; He knows, however, that
;
.
His hearers, by naming any one else in place of the Messiah, would only have increased their difficulty.
2
See, e.g.,
Holtzmann, Lehrb.
d. neutest. Theol.
i.
244.
287
present, and
conscious in regard to His never excludes the idea that for the future,
He was
by decree of the Divine Providence, He moves about We do not find exmankind, defenceless and weak. among the idea of God's becoming man, or of a twofold pressed nature united in a single person; but there is attested the
present,
presence of One who appears in human weakness, who is a perfect Eevealer of God and the future Euler of the world,
God.
find that Jesus called Himself the
Nowhere do we
Son
of
God
in
possessed, or
to acquire.
We
in this connection
17 23
also represent
that
only
God knows
24
redemption.
the day
The Targ.
Eccl. 7
when
the Anointed
NHTO)
A.D.)
is
(c.
260
"a day
vengeance
is
in
my
heart,"
my
,
heart I have
but not to the attending angels." to evangelise the heathen, Matt. 28 19 is reserved for special discussion. The wording of both statements, which represents a use of the
(it)
manifest,
name
will
of the Son unprecedented in the other sayings of Jesus, be determined by the diction prevalent in the early Church.
1
b. Sanli.
99 a
cf.
Backer, Ag.
d. pal.
Am.
i.
414.
288
5.
"SON OF GOD."
" " Son of man If the Hellenistic Synoptists took the title " one born of man," they will also have regarded 6 to mean " The Greek, unlike the one born of God." ui'o? TOV Oeov as " " son to denote an extensive Hebrew, does not use the term
circle of relationships.
He
stand 6
uf'o?
the Israelite would only accept this idea through the constraint of
some
special reason.
,
As
ence
may
64
,
be made to 16 16 where
o vibs
JaWo?
26 63
,
v. 13
further, to
where
vlbs
;
likewise contrasted
of Jesus, which,
TOV avOpcoTrov and 6 vlbs TOV Oeov are but specially to the narrative of the birth
Baptism (3
17
).
As
Even
the
human
lineage of Jesus
is
traced back by
Luke
38
(S
to God, so that from any point of view Jesus comes to the " Son of God." Even before the Baptism Jesus position of
calls
God His
"
Father,"
Trarpo? pov
48 in the language of appears contrasted with o rraTijp aov, v. 69 70 the mother of Jesus. In Luke 22 Son of God is contrasted
As Mark
of
but in
its
spiritual
endowment
for
represent
him 2 the
the
put
vlov 0eoO appended to 'lyaov Xpivrov, Mark cannot , be reckoned original. 2 This will not apply to Matthew and Luke. W. Lutgert, Das Keich Gottes, 69, wrongly says of the Synoptists in general, that in the history of the Baptism
He
adopted Jesus,"
CHRIST
in
289
"
antithesis
the
"
Son
of
the
Blessed
and the
"
Son
of
man."
of
apprehendaltogether unjustified. ing the idea appears, however, in so far as Jesus uses the
expression with respect primarily to His present relation to God, and only gives a glimpse that His origin was also of a
An
nature corresponding to this position; whereas, on the other hand, the Synoptists make the latter consideration the foundation of the expression.
The mode
is
of
is
Greek
that of Jesus
Semitic.
XL
1.
CHEIST.
and Form.
mentioned in
is
Ps. 2 2 be taken
,
as a personification of Israel,
there
passage in which the coming Prince of Salvation was called in " the Anointed." a historical sense This, however, should be
considered accidental
e.g.,
;
for there
was nothing
to hinder Isaiah,
from
King
"
Lord."
The
Ps.
oldest
is
witness for the Messianic interpretation of the Psalter of Solomon (17); see above, p. 270.
There, too,
we
find (v. 36
cf.
"
1 86
have
It is quite likely
applying to the King of salvation contributed to the formation of the title. Mention is made of help, which is the allotted portion of
passages
1
regarded as
Cf.
p. 268,
and H. Weinel,
ns?o
and
its
derivatives,
ZAW,
xviii. (1898),
69
ff.
19
290
"Jhvh's
2 Sam.
18 51
Still
20 7
28 8
1
;
cf.
Sam.
2 10
there are no adequate proofs The of any ancient Messianic exposition of these passages. 2 10 ta'Bto p.P DTJl, and He shall exalt the words of 1 Sam.
,
22
51
Hab. 3
horn
irij5
His anointed," taken in connection with Ps. 89 25 Dnn "wai, " and in my name shall his horn be exalted,"
of
are
recalled
2 The first half Eighteen Benedictions (or Shemoneh Esreh). 15 is based on Jer. 33 and the other on Ezek. of this petition
,
W'
bud
29 21 the words being: DVin topi n'Dvn rnnoa ^ay in noy DN* 'n nn let the Branch of David sjra in^a, Di? D^B
,
:
thy servant sprout forth speedily, and through thy help Blessed art Thou,
:
let his
horn be exalted
Lord,
who
3
causest to
forth an horn of
salvation
"
!
In
this
connection
we
:
have also in the prayer beginning w?pP WUK the petition " raise up the horn of Thine anointed," which, [veto Hi? D ^?>
*1
.
1
b On however, does not appear in Seder Eab Amram, i. 45 17 WPC& T3 nr6 rjjj rppXK DP, the other hand, Ps. 132 V??
"
there will I
make
have
or-
tip/an,
dained a lamp for mine anointed," is made use of in the prayer which is an ancient abridged form of the Eighteen
Benedictions.
lab -':
4
"13
Its
:
words are:
...
^7
-:
'v
T':
Midr. Teh.
For Ps. 21, in particular, Messianic exposition can be proved ; see for v. 4 b Tanch., ed. Buber, Sliem. ll ; Shem. R. 8 Bern. R. 14 (according to 6 For Bern. R. Abin, and Midr. Teh. Simon) ; for v. b. Sukk. 52 a (Baraitha). Mess, exposition of Ps. S9 28 see Shem. R. 19 (Nathan, e. 180 AD.); Midr. Teh.
1
; ;
,
51
p.
Yalk. Shim.
f.
ii.
c.
260).
On Ps.
285
2 In Palestine, as it seems, this petition formed part of that concerning the building of Jerusalem, which, in Babylon, had a separate position ; cf. j. Ber. 5 a, Tos. Ber. iii. 25 with b. Taan. 13 b see S. Boer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 97 ;
;
ff. On the other hand, Rothschild, Der Synagogal-Cultus in hist. krit. Entwickelung, i. (1870) 62 f., erroneously maintains that in Palestine the Messianic petition had for long ceased to be used. Messianische Texte," No. 6 a See, however,
'
'
cf.
Seder Rab
Amram,
i.
54*.
CHRIST
"
291
they who trust in Thee rejoice over the building of thy city and the renewal of Thy sanctuary, over the budding
may
all
David Thy
servant,
lamp
on
Ps.
Thine anointed
Elsewhere,
see
132 17 Ech. R 2 6 (Midr. Ps. 75 11 ); Tanchuma, ed. a a Buber, Shem. 46 (Yalk. Shim. i. 363) 50 (Yalk. Shim. i. 378); Vay. R 31 (Yalk. Shim. i. 650); Yelammedenu, Yalk. 1 18 Pirke Eliezer Shim. i. 47 (Simeon ben Lakish,c. 260); v. b 28 (Yalk. Shim. i. 76); Pes. Eabb. 159
,
.
The
fact
is,
that no single
Messianic interpretation, can be made responsible for the " When a name was wanted for the King of Messiah." title
salvation, as depicted especially in Isa.
title
II 1
-5 2
,
there was a
itself
the solemn
synonym
God; and
it
was
all
and indicating the King's relation the more convenient because the
Of him, therefore, Aram. "^ NH^'p,
it
would
Jhvh's
become usual
Anointed."
"
and
as
But as the Tetragrammaton was not pronounced, " there was a reluctance 3 to name God," so here, as in
other
commonly used titles, the name of God was omitted, and only T^bn, Aram. Nn^D, " the Anointed," was said. The
Aramaic form
appears in
its
is
John
4 25
It seems preferable to a phonetic variation in Semitic. point in Greek fte'crcro? is found in use alongside of ^eVo?. out that similar relation will hold between MeoWav and Mecr/a?,
which
1
is
intrinsically
Backer, Ag. d. pal. Am. i. 403. In the Book of Enoch, Psalter of Solomon, Apocalypse of Baruch, and 1'5 is one of the most 2 Esdras, the passage Isa. II important bases of their
Cf.
2
Messianic doctrine.
3
4
See above,
p.
194
ff.
Gramm.
d. jiid.-pal.
cf.
261,
Note
1.
292
The
full
name
is first
attested,
Anointed of Jhvh," or " my, his anointed," Ps. Sol. 17 36 18 6 8 Bar. Apoc. 39 7 40 1 72 2 1
-
"
New
Testament
is
in
2 Esdr. 7 28f 12 32
became
usual in the
mouth
of the
common
people.
name only
;
in the
Targums wherever the text gives occasion for it, and in the "1 WPBto occurs Targ. Isa. 4 2 28 5 ?]!Wp, Targ. Liturgy.
Hab. 3 18 Ps. 18 32 84 40
,
With regard to the shortened has been pointed out by Franz Delitzsch,3 with a view to explaining the occasional use of Xpia-ros 4 without the
form,
it
4 7 2 iWBfc, Targ. Zech. 4 10 Ps. 2 20 7 2 contains the form *lTO'b 335, 'r6g 3^
;
,
.
nw
without the
article in the
manner
name.
usual practice in
the Babylonian Talmud when rvtyp is not subordinated by the syntax to any other word, n^b, with;
Sanh. 93 b 96 b 97 a 98 a
, , ,
;
99
a
;
8o b
Yoma 19 b
;
Bab. mez.
so that
we have even
,
TOb
said
:
\j
"the years
of
Messiah,"
b.
b.
n'Btoi,
Keth. lll a
It is also
;
in
Messiah son
Cant. 4 5 7 4
b
;
.
of David," b.
Sukk. 52 a
KfTOfc
Aram,
is
m -a n'pb, Targ.
written,
b.
Again
b
;
it
is
a
;
which
Erub. 43
Sanh. 5 l
Chull.
63
and
n^n, Nidd.
;
13 b
The phrase
.
n'Bten
nto^,
"the days
of
,
the Messiah,"
a a cf. Ber. always involves the article; see b. Sanh. 97 99 C 5 Kil. 32 i. 8 j. Probably we should also read n'Btefe ftan,
;
1 3
4
2 Cf. above, p. 270. Seder Rab Amram, i. 9 a. Theol. Litbl. 1889, No. 45. Xpio-r6s with no article occurs in the Synoptists in 'I-rjcrovs Xptoris, Matt.
I 1 18 ,
-
Mark
I 16
I1
-
'Ir)<rov$ 6
Matt.
5
27 17
22
also in Xpto-ris
6 X/>rr6s.
jetfptoj,
Luke 2 11
besides
Mark
Otherwise uniformly
The plural OT$J '^?n, brought into notice particularly by W-iinsche, unknown in the ancient literature, as I have shown in " Der leid.
sterb. Messias," 42.
is
u.
quite der
CHRIST
293
Sanh. 98 b
;
b.
b.
Sabb.
118 a
n'Bfefctf
of the
Messiah,"
of
b.
Pes. 5 a
cf.
Ber. E. 1
;
n^
iin,
1mi,
the spirit
n'Bfe&tf
.
name
is
incapable of
to
Palestine.
It cannot, therefore,
The older Targums have always the definite form KlWb Onk. Gen. 49 10 Num. 24 17 Targ. 1 Sam. 2 10 2 Sam.^S 3 see
,
43
Isa. 9 6
10 27 II 1
14 29
1
Jer.
33 13 Mic.
,
5 2 , Zech.
KIVB'O
v^
52
1S
,
my
42
43
10
Zech. 3 8
1-
KlWb
;
^tfV'the
TO
-)2
anointed of Israel," Targ. Isa. 16 "their anointed," Targ. Isa. 53 10 Jer. 30 21 jinrmb,
,
5
,
Mic. 4 8
Hos. 14 8
35
;
(V?fc
righteousness," Jer.
23 5 33 15
For
(ed.
;pw Wb).
.
KWb
j.
Kil.
32 b
gums,
as
also in
should not, as
is
iw>n *jte,i predominates. This the case, be translated by " the generally
Hebr.
Knw
In later
and iWbn are clearly not meant Jewish Aramaic, a title is regularly
name. 2
We
have N?te ^,
"
the king
;
Yannai," Ber. E.
Kate
nbX
j.
91 Njte ttohb, the king Julian," j. Ned. 37 d "the king Solomon"; KPPPD TO, "David the
3
"p
Kapnn
K^3
"
|nv,
the Prince
to
Judan,"
Taan. 65
a
.
be
an is unusual ; see Seder Rab Amram, i. 53 a On the omission of the article with definite substantives, see F. E. Konig, Syntax d. hebr. Sprache, 403 f. ; S. R. Driver, Hebrew Tenses, 3 281 ff.
2
397
f.
Hebrew and Aramaic admit the inverted order E. Kautzsch, Gramm. d. bibl. Aram. 149 f. Seder Rab Amram, ii. 19 b f.
Biblical
;
294
expressed by K2P TO'p, whereas NTO? Nso means the king, " the anointed/' or the anointed king." Examples for the Aramaic form are found j. Ber. 5 a j. Taan. 68 d and for the
,
Hebrew
2321
form, Ber. K.
I.
1,
98, Shem. E.
1.
-
Gen. 3 15 35 21 49 1
;
Ex.
15
40, Num.
49 10 n
-
24 20
42
,
24
,
Deut. 25 19 30 4
26
12
,
Ex. 12
,
Num. II
,
24
7
,
Targ.
8
Cant.
-
14
8
.
1- *
*,
Euth
17
I1
3 15 Eccl. I 11 7 24 Ps. 21 2
45 3 61 7
72 1 80 16
NTOD
stands
,
by itself in this sense only in Targ. Jerus. I. Num. 24 Targ. Lam. 2 22 4 22 and for TO ia TOO, as well as *ITO'p, aw'p, see the two preceding pages.
;
less
common
title,
in
which TOO
is
similarly inad-
missible
as
anointed."
a proper name, is ^piv C^T?, " our righteous By this name the people Israel refer to the
, ,
164 a
In a similar manner
God
Him "My righteous Anointed," 'JTO TOO, ibid. b 162 a 161 163* 1 Men addressing God in prayer say: TOO
calls
,
,
IP]?*
9a "Thy righteous Anointed," Seder Bab Amram, The same name is given to David, ibid. 1 O b and, apparently,
i.
.
12 a
,
The designation
is
borrowed from
J er 33 15 where the Targum has KjJW n^Bte, and " perhaps also from the Messianic name W|3*iv nin^ our righteous " 6 There is also found p^'n n^p, the righteous Lord," Jer. 23 11 2 Anointed," Agada to Shir ha-Shirim 4
npv,
.
.
njm
(b) Signification
and Content of
the Title
"
Christ"
one of those for which the particular of minor consequence compared to the general
is
conception entertained in regard to the individual so designated. It is this general conception which really gives the
word
its
full
significance.
Still,
the
literal
sense
of
the
The kings of Israel from the expression cannot be neglected. were called " anointed of Jehovah," not merely to beginning
1
Of.
"Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
vii.
Mess." 58
cf.
f.
153;
Isa.
II 12
CHRIST
295
with holy
suggest that at their installation there had been an unction oil, but to imply that in virtue of this unction they
Whoever offers violence persons being sacred and inviolable. to this anointed character, commits an outrage against God. Hence cursing of God and of the king stand together, 1 Kings
The character acquired through this unction is so prominently present in the thought of a Hebrew, that he can use the expression even where no actual unction had taken
-
2 1 10
13
place.
Thus Cyrus,
"
Isa.
Ps.
105 15
God's anointed ones," as being under His inviolable protection. When the king of the Messianic age is called Nn^'b, that implies that he is under God's peculiar
are spoken of as
protection
and
it
coined this expression, they had no God-protected sovereign at their head. To set their hopes upon him meant the expectation of an independent kingdom protected by God. This is the Jewish Messianic idea, which one should beware of pronouncing " " carnal because, thus apprehended, the idea corresponds, on
;
the whole, with Old Testament prophecy. In the sense meant Jesus, such a predicate is possible only when any one, by
trusting to flesh as his arm, pledges himself to set in operation at his own instance processes which originate with God alone.
It
must be
"
Messiah
"
of
Old
Testament
"
Ptedeemer."
txia
Israel
^Jfo
prophecy was never at any time regarded as In the Old Testament it is God who is for "redeemer," rna "liberator," WiD "Saviour,"
"deliverer,"
is
agency
has led to
many
and the
So long ago as 1874, D. Castelli had written these weighty sentences * " In no part of the Old Testament does the Messiah appear as himself the agent of
:
II
Messia secondo
296
The real redemption in virtue of his own proper power. The Messiah is the new king of the redeemer is God. For the earlier Isaiah the Messiah was redeemed people."
a highly important personality, because his righteous government guaranteed the abiding welfare of the redeemed Israel.
As Jeremiah and Ezekiel recognised a miraculous transformation in the heart of the people of the future, the activity of a king could seem to them of no great consequence. They have therefore little to say of the Messiah. It need not be
supposed that such prophets and apocalyptic writers as never mention the Messiah at all, should therefore have believed
that Israel should be kingless in the age of salvation.
But
they considered
consideration
There
iii.
is
f.,
speak being first of all the advent of redemption. silence on the subject of the Messianic king in Sibyll.
it
superfluous to
73
Enoch
i.
(1-36) and
v.
Enoch, Ass.
Mosis, Book
of Jubilees,
Apocalypse of Baruch and of 2 Esdras, also in Judith, Tobit, 2 Other Sirach, and even in the primary form of the Kaddish. books mention the Messiah, but give the impression that no
definite
to the
age of salvation.
the Messiah in
A
is
kind
is
ascribed to
Enoch
29
30
1
,
which
probably foreign to its present connection, It is not otherwise, even in the official
prayer of the synagogue, the Eighteen Supplications, which represents G-od as gathering together the scattered people,
sovereignty of arrogance, building Jerusalem, making His habitation there once more, restoring the temple
undoing
the
der Jubilaen oder die Leptogenesis, i. discover in this book, with its absence of Messianic elements, a polemical document of the Jewish Christians against St. Paul, is incompre(1898), can
How
hensible.
-
8.
CHKIST
service
297
is mentioned only at the close, because the divine promise given to David cannot apparently remain unfulfilled. God alone, according to the seventh
;
petition, is Israel's
Eedeemer
('N^b* ^ia).
of
On
work
the Messiah in Sibyll. iii. 652 ff., sent by God destroys the perverse, and unites himself with the
obedient, and in the Similitudes of Enoch, where the
Son
-
of
man
in Apoc. Bar.
judges and overthrows the secular rulers and similarly 39 7 40 lf 70 9 T2 2 6 2 Esdr. 12 32ff 1 3 9 11 37 38
;
-
Thus there had arisen among the Jewish people in the time of Jesus a tendency, diverging from the older prophecy based
on the Messianic picture of Isa. II 1 5 which concerned itself with a Messiah endowed with miraculous power, who was
,
"
to overthrow the secular might, and by this means to liberate the people of God. Thenceforward it became possible to transfer to the Messiah statements which the Old Testament
applies to
God only
as the
Eedeemer
of Israel.
An
interest-
ing example of this kind in the New Testament is seen in Matt. 2 21 where the name of Jesus is explained by the words, au-ro?
,
\aov avrov
CLTTO
:
rwv a^apTLMV
avrcov.
But
n
it
.
God
that Ps.
shall
130
says
Israel
still
W. wn
"
and
He
redeem
from
As
persisted, there
was therefore at
;
closely attached to ancient prophecy, which regarded the Messiah merely as the Prince of the redeemed people the
;
to
be the redeemer.
character.
In neither case was he merely a political Jews with purely secular interests would hardly
But the
Israelite
who
rested his
The Davidic sovereignty alone is mentioned in the Palestinian recension of the Eighteen Benedictions ("Mess. Texte," No. 6 a ), in Habinemi (ibid. No. 7), in the Additional Prayer for New Year (ibid. No. 9), and in the Blessing at
Meals.
298
hopes upon the divine promise to Israel felt it to be a religious necessity that God should vindicate His power against the
tyrannous empires of the world, and so give to His people the position befitting them as His. And beyond this Israel
also
itself.
required
*
a purification from godless elements within This latter point must be emphasised against Ehrstrange contention, that in the view of the Apocalytic
hardt's
writers
"
of the law,
the people would be justified through the observation and they looked for no other justification all they
;
wanted was the possession of power, outward triumph." 2 But the idea of a separation between the righteous and the
wicked, which had to be carried out in Israel, does pervade the apocalyptic writings. The moral admonitions in the son
of
Sirach, in the
94105,
cannot be pro-
nounced lacking in deep earnestness and holy zeal. 3 Any excessive insistence on the ceremonial precepts of the law
cannot be observed in these books.
It
must be admitted,
however, that in this respect the Books of Tobit, Judith, and For that Jubilees occupy a considerably lower position.
reason, naturally, the Messiah does not appear as a person 1 E. Uhrhardt, Der Grand charakter der Ethik Jesu (1895), 27. 2 Ehrhardt's reference to b. Ber. 34 b is misleading. The passage, true enough, gives as the opinion of the Babylonian Samuel (c. 250 A.D.): "The difference between the present age and the days of the Messiah consists only in the oppression through the secular powers." But this means merely that in the time of Messiah no transformation of nature will as yet have taken place, because
such transformation does not occur
it is
it is
is
till
In this connection
And asserted that all prophetic promises are valid only for the penitent. often enough maintained that the redemption is postponed because Israel
by the law.
The inexact notions entertained about the ethics of late Judaism are illustrated in JEhrhardt, op. cit. 45, who infers from the preference assigned to b nnoq ni'rpa over rtjyi?, b. Sukk. 49 that a distinction was made between "a
,
more formal
He
exercise of virtue, and one directed rather to practical results." has rightly identified nfjnis with "almsgiving," but has not perceived that
rw^pa denotes above all things visits to the sick, attendance at funerals, of mourners. "Moral acts involving reward" (frachtbringend) were never thought of in this context. Moral conduct is determined for Judaism
D'-jpn
and consolation
is
prescribed
by
f;
{
CHRIST
\
299
who
strikes the
religion.
His function
But
prophecy.
as
was a
of
expounder
later period that regarded the Messiah the existing law, or even the inaugurator of
law. Expiatory sufferings were then attributed to him, which, however, are brought into organic relation with the process of salvation only by the appendix to Pesikta
new
Babbati.
the
On
second century, of a Messiah ben Joseph who should suffer death, has no connection with the remission of sin. See
"Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
Messias," 1-26.
Pre-existence.
(c)
The Idea of
We may
129
recall
ff, which are concerned with the pre-existence Harnack entities, and especially of the Messiah.
supposes
it
an ancient Jewish conception that everything of genuine value, which successively appears upon earth, has its existence in heaven, i.e. it exists with God, meaning in But this idea the cognition of God, and therefore really."
to be
"
must be pronounced thoroughly un-Jewish, at all events un - Palestinian, although the medieval Kabbala certainly
harbours notions of this
27
of
8
,
Num.
4
,
sort.
the
tabernacle
and
its
furniture.
No
ulterior
idea
is
implied beyond the thought that the oral instruction given to Moses, being insufficient to guide him with precision, was
of models.
By
this
means
Jesu, 89
3 DogmengescMchte, i. 755 see also Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein ScMrer, Gesch. d. jud. Yolkes, ii. 423, 446.
; ;
300
is
substantially the
same as
of the
mandate concerning it, hands over to Solomon a model A house of God is not temple that was to be built.
constructed to please
divine prescription.
to be
human
heaven,
and temple were imperfect never contemplated. imitations, When one finds occasional statements about constituents
of
which
tabernacle
is
so important in the
scheme
of the
Temple, Paradise, Hell, affirming a premundane existence in " warrant of their case, these are to be regarded neither as a
of
elements
might incur in the bitter struggle against the " l nor yet as bound up with the thought
;
hostile
of the
divine Omniscience
is
never
the
Any
lies
aware that
notion that the most important elements for realising the world's chief end must have been provided from the first.
of these things at
mere designing
The Jerusalem
of
the consummation
may
fitly
be said to
human
effort.
The
city
of
On have been made by God. some occasions we have to do merely with a rabbinical com" light speaks of a which thenceforward seems to have no place in the world.
Gen.
13
"
And when,
this
must be the
1
3 light of Gen. I
in
Thus
Saldensj/crger,
op.
cit.
Das Selbstbewusstsein
Jesu,
89.
Harnack,
CHRIST
store for the
pious, Ber. E. 3,
301
;
11
Pes. Eabb.
118 a 161 a
,
.i
The presupposition implied is that all the primordial excelA case lence of creation must again be restored at the end.
of the
same nature
is
it.
As
possible.
On
Messiah, two ways of regarding him were the one hand, he might be looked upon as
it
could be
provision of
only, long ages ago, contemplated the a Messiah, but had actually created him. On
the
other hand,
was
also
possible
to
wonderful manner of his advent, that he was not an ordinary As a matter of fact, the earlier rabbinism child of earth.
basis of Ps.
72 17 2 the pre,
the
name only
of
the
Messiah. 3
Since the
Messiah had to appear as a fully-developed man, the opinion generally was that until his manifestation he should remain
unknown upon
Before his appearance he had then to undergo some sudden metamorphosis. 5 Others supposed that he should be translated into Paradise, and should thence
his advent. 6
earth. 4
make
This was
all
if
he were
or Hezekiah. 8
The
pre-existence
of Messiah, as stated in
Messias," 58. the name
2
the
Sirnili-
Cf.
"Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
Ibid. 72.
see Targ. Mic. 5 1 , Zech. 4 7, Ps. 72 17 . Eoltzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie, i. 75, finds personal pre-existence attested in Targ. Isa. 9 6 , Mic. 5 2 (read 5 1 ), and ideal pre-existence in Targ. But the last two passages hardly deal with the Messiah at Ps. 93 1 , Prov. 8 8
;
.
and the first Holtzmann's statements probably originate from A. Edersheim, who in "The Life and Times
all
;
the second cited attributes pre-existence only to the name passage speaks only of an endless duration of the Messianic rule.
of Jesus the Messiah,"
2
More
4
i. 175, gives prominence to assertions that are inaccurate. 2 354ff. precise information is found in Weber, Jiidische Theologie, See John 7 27 ; Justin, Dial. c. Trypho, viii. 110 ; Targ. Mic. 4 8 ; j. Ber. 5* ;
also
5
7
"Der
So So
j.
leid. u. d. sterb.
Messias," 39
6
ff.,
73.
"Der
leid. u. d. sterb.
" Der leid. u. d. Ber. 5* (Baraitha) cf. sterb. Messias," 73. b. Ber. 28 b (Yokhanan ben Zakkai, c. 80 A.D.).
Messias," 77
if.
302
so at
an earthly origin, implies, apart from the 13 his miraculous superhuman incentive contributed by Dan. 7
seems
,
According to the late addition to Pesikta appearance. the Messiah shares his pre-existence with the souls Kabbati, The only difference is that he appears to exist of all men.
not merely as a soul, but as a complete personality. 2
these ideas of pre-existence, earthly
For
all
and heavenly, a potent stimulus lay in the cherished hope that the redemption was imminent, or might, at any rate, come at any moment. In that
Messiah was already in existence the only The divine providence comes here question was, where ? into consideration, because it is due to it that all things have
case, of course, the
;
of the
world
without impediment.
The notion
which says that the Spirit of God, brooding over Chaos in " This belongs to Gen. I 2 was the Spirit of the Messiah."
,
an exposition
of "
(c.
Gen. I 2 to the
sovereignties," HtofO, of
to
;
word inn
"n^'n,
is
applied by him
Babylon
Crinj^
^rfc,
The Medes
;
to
of creation is
1 The coining of the Messiah from the sea, 2 Esdr. 13 1 implies, according to 13 52, only his complete invisibility so far as the inhabitants of the earth are conHe seems from 14 9 to have stayed in Paradise. cerned.
2 Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 58. In Pes. Rabb. 152^ it is said "At See the beginning of the creation of the world the Anointed King was born (i^J), whose inception in the thought (of God) took place before the world was made."
:
"
'
'
See Ber. R.
i.
8,
Amor.
389
f.
Only
Vay. R. 14, for the same phrase cf. Backer, Ag. d. pal. Pes. Rabb. 152 b has construed from it an assertion of the
;
is only referred to, because Isa. II was the instrument used for bringing the Messiah into connection with "the Spirit" of 2 Gen. I
.
The
Life
i.
178.
CHRIST
303
regard to the whole world, such as raised him beyond the But both inferences appear absurd when it status of men. is remembered that a corresponding pre-existence would have
to be
had nothing
Ben Lakish maintained for the four secular kingdoms. of the kind in view, but simply found it reof
Gen.
I2
2.
"
MESSIAH
"
TO JESUS.
22
Pilate
uses
X/OKTTO?.
That
is
who
supposed to be the Messiah," but with the usual sense " Jesus surnamed Christ." of this idiom The same form is
is
seen Matt. I 16 and in ^L^wv o Xe7o/ze^09 Ilerpo^, 4 18 10 2 In this case we have presumably the language of the Church,
, .
which named
1
"
18
,
Jesus
"
merely, but
I 1 or else
,
Mark
.
the surname
"
30
,
X/KO-TO?, as in Matt.
"
II 2
It cannot,
by how-
His earthly
life
the
title
Messiah
as a surname.
21
),
(Mark S
of
Luke
Him, and other persons will hardly have made use speak The more precise form of Pilate's words of such a surname.
will be as in
Mark 15 9
12
,
is
represented
calling
King
of the Jews."
less
be supposed that the form Xpiarbs This KvpLos was anywhere a common title of the Messiah. 20 is found, indeed, LXX Lam. 4 Ps. Sol. 17 36 but is no mere
Still
it
, ,
can
Wb.
For
it
is
incredible
On "by-names"
see
name,
my treatise
(Kinnui) and their frequent displacement of the individual " Der Gottesname Adoriaj," 53 f.
304
name by
Luke 2 11
1
mistake.
It is
more reasonable
to hold that
the
Greek Xpio-rbs
It
In icvpiov was changed into Xpto~Tos Kvpios. cannot possibly arise from a Hebrew Xpio-Tos Kvpios
original.
must be due
to
Luke
himself,
who
here uses
the appellation X/oto-To? for the first time in his writings, and required to explain the new term for his reader, in the same
way
as
the
Jews do
36
for
Pilate
2 by saying, 23 Xpia-ros
,
fta<Ti\evs.
In Acts 2
Luke
X/9K7TO?,
Jesus simply
The expression
2 26 );
is
Holy
confession, where Spirit (Luke in the form 6 Xpterro? TOV Oeov (9 20 ), it would Luke uses it be out of conformity with the common parlance of the
but in the
Petrine
X/MO-TO'? of
Mark
8 29
is
alone free
this
speaking
41
).
of the
Messiah, Matt.
22 42 (Mark 12 35 Luke
,
20
By
One instance
contemporaries Jesus was frequently called o XpLo-ros. 29 16 Luke 9 20 ). is by Peter, Matt. 16 (Mark 8
,
On
and
this occasion, o
X^CTTO?, Aram.
;
N^E,
given by Mark,
in
is
historically
more exact
(o
Luke
(rov Oeov)
dis-
in
Matthew
274,
cf.
196.
And
if
(Mark
Luke
8 28 ),
Mark
3 11
Luke 4 41
are to be traced
back to
would also
According to imply a designation of Jesus by this title. 54 15 39 ), the Koman centurion on guard at Matt. 27 (Mark
the Cross acknowledged Jesus to be wo? Oeov
"
}
i.e.
Messiah,"
Jesus is but the words are otherwise given in Luke 23 Matt. 26 68 Mark 15 32 (Luke called derisively (6) Xpto-To?,
.
47
f.,
224.
f.
CHRIST
305
23 35 ), Luke 23 39
Jesus
is
In Matt. 27 40
of 6
43
wo 9
0eo
likewise depends
Xp LOTTOS.
He
is
21 regarded as the future possessor of the kingdom, Matt. 20 42 37 He is mockingly called "King" (Mark 10 ), Luke 23 11 15 2 Luke 23 3 ), Mark 15 9 12 Matt. 27 29 Matt. 27 (Mark 26 37 18 Luke 23 s8 ), Matt. 27 42 (Mark 15 ), Matt. 2 7 (Mark 15
.
-
32 (Mark 15
Luke 23 37 ).
Jerusalem
greeted
it
Him
solemn entry into is improbable that the multitude should have as "King "(so Luke 19 38 ), or possessor of the
last
In the
Davidic kingdom (so Mark II 10 ), or "Son of David" (so Under No. XII. it will be shown Matt. 21), see p. 222.
that wo? Aav'1'8 has likewise all the force of a Messianic
so that invocations of Jesus
title,
by
this
name
also
meant the
recognition of
Him
as the Messiah.
3.
"
MESSIAH
"
BY
Meinhold
part
for
His own
never desired to be
is
character
and con-
sistently therewith was expected by the contemporaries of " He is not the Messiah, Jesus." Of Him it should be said 2
:
to
be
so."
Herein there
is
only this
element of truth, that the position and work of the Messiah, as conceived by Jesus, greatly transcended the type predicted
in the
Old Testament.
But any
ideal of the
serious consideration.
No
Mark
9 41 ,
where
IJLOV
on, Xpicrrov
e'c7Te.
The words
OTI Xpicrrov
ff.
J. Meinhold, Jesus
(1896), 98
Ibid. 101.
20
306
which
thinking Matt. 23 where Jesus speaks of the me." Again, upon Messiah as the fca07]yr)Ttfs of the disciples, cannot be made the basis of any inference in this connection, because it is
*?f5V
10
,
arises
from
t|
"
"
11 It is probably just a duplicate of v. leading up to v. to be the true in fact that Jesus did not proclaim Himself
.
He
Him known
is
Mark
I 34
Luke
9 21 ),
cf.
Matt. 17 9 (Mark 9 9 ).
But
it
equally
Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the prophets, not merely in the opinion of the authors, but in the belief that Jesus
also shared this conviction.
belief will
for this
in
the Gospels,
have been none other than those presented to us " Son of namely, (1) the self -designation
all
man "
He had
declared of his
;
advent in majesty and especially of his kinghood (2) His assent to the Messianic confession of Peter (3) His own
;
trial
As
"
Son
of
unusual
for
was
chosen by Jesus that the people might not transfer to Him But that choice simply meant their own Messianic ideas. a protest against the supposition that He on His own impulse
should seize the sovereignty before God should invest Him with it 2 and against the Messianic theory 3 that had recently
;
arisen,
which required the Messiah to become through combat the liberator of Israel. But He had not the slightest opposi1
Matthew with the same meaning says (10 41f< ) with more precision eh 8vofj.a. G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstndien, 143 ff., Neue Bibelstudien, 24 ff. [Eng. tr. pp. 146 ff., 196 ff.] and for Dj>, A. J. H. W. Brandt, Theol. Tijdschrift, " xxv. (1891) 585-589, whose researches J. Bohmer in "Das biblische im Nam en
Cf., further,
; '
'
(1898) has overlooked to the detriment of his subject. 2 Cf. above, p. 137 f.
CHRIST
307
-5
,
reign in righteousness over the redeemed people. conscious of being endowed with the Spirit of God
He was
;
and
this
was a mark
of the Messianic
Isa.
King,
Isa.
(cf.
II 2 as well as
,
of the
42 1 6 1 1
He
bore
such an one
was the Messiah according to Ps. 2. He was assured that Ps. 110 spoke of Him (Matt. 26 64 Mark 14 62 Luke 22 69);
, ,
is
there indicated as
-,
King
of Sion, is in
-,
His
Mark 12 35ff
He
61 Mark spoke of the building of the temple (cf. Matt. 2 6 58 14 ) in the same sense in which the Messiah is the builder
of the
"
12 13 He spoke of His temple according to Zech. 6 1 and therefore also of His Messianic rank, for Kingdom,"
-
"Anointed"
is,
name for
the "King."
31 ~46
He
described Himself as Judge of the world (Matt. 25 ), whose mere word is decisive in regard to salvation and perdition, with reference primarily to the prophecy of the "Son of man,"
Dan.
7,
Isa.
ll 1
'5
(cf.
2 Thess. 2 8 ).
Jesus'
commendation and
But the injunction not to promised recompense for Peter. of the Messianic rank of Jesus can only signify, even speak in Mark and Luke, that, in view of His now impending suffering and death, a proclamation of this nature would have been out of place.
As
for the
20f 34 judges, the Evangelist John (see 18 ) appears to have had the impression from the evangelic tradition, that both before
the high priest and before Pilate, Jesus had, in the first instance at least, avoided a direct answer to their question.
Even Luke
represents (22
67 ~ 70
f.
308
He
second
question gave et/u. According to the narrator, the judges assumed this to be an affirmative answer, as the condemnation is made to follow
v/j,eis
He
the answer,
upon
this admission
and
it
was unable
whether
He
were
6 X/^O-TO?,
For Luke
by no means suggests any distinction between o XpLaros and 6 wo? TOV Qeov, as if Jesus could more readily assent to the
former than the
of
latter.
facts.
He
has omitted
blasphemy
is
made more
by tracing the condemnation of Jesus to His And the alleged assumption of the dignity of a Son of God.
readers
which are peculiar to Luke, will also be an explanation due to the evangelist himself, the reason for their insertion being that he postponed the claim to divine
Sonship to the end as being the decisive item in the trial, and was thus obliged to furnish a new introduction for the
statement in regard to sitting at the right hand of God. Matthew, too, can only have meant the words used by him,
64 (26 ), to be taken as a form of assent since, accord25 ing to his account (2G ), Jesus gave the same answer to Judas when he asked if he were the betrayer. And again,
words of
v. 67f> ,
o-v etTra?
nrKrjv
\6j(o
ait
vfuv,
from
the declaration about being seated at the 22 24 right hand of God, imply no more, according to Matt. II than that Jesus emphasises His first statement with a second
etTra? to
-
of
deeper significance.
for
lfiL
av
etTnz?, it is
Mark (14 62 )
Juden,
So Meinhold, Jesus und das Alte Testament, 98 f. Gratz, Geschichte der iii. 374 f. ; Bischoff, Bin jiidisch-deutsches Leben Jesu (1895), 38.
;
CHRIST
It must, however, be
309
etTra?
admitted that av
was not
in
of assent, either in
Old Testa-
ment Hebrew
or in Greek. 1
But
we
related,
death to
32 b that the people of Zeppori had threatened him who should bring news of the decease of the
Kil.
,
patriarch Juda.
whereupon they asked T! Wl, "Is the Kabbi fallen asleep?" and he replied " In similar circumstances, Koh. pin'HEK jintf, ye say so."
this occurrence in figurative language,
K. 7 11
it
is
added
*b
KM
,
These instances recall b. Pes. 3 b do not say so." where Joshua bar Iddi announces with the same evasion the
W^tf,
I
"
death of
Kahana
"
?
and when he
:
is
then asked,
"
Is his soul
gone to rest
he replies
KJ'BKiJ
*b
M$,
"
He
"
con-
ye say so
"
in
the utterance
will conclude
to
Jesus
is
not of
no one
lay
stress
from the evangelic narrative that Jesus meant on the idea that it was merely a mode of
"
Messiah," speech on the part of the judge to call Him while He Himself would not have used the word. Hence
has rightly maintained that this instance able as a parallel to the o-y eZ-jra? of Jesus.
Thayer
is
inapplic-
illustration
of
the idiom
is
to be
The narrative there found in Tosephta, Kelim, Bab. k. i. 6. " Simeon the modest declared before Eabbi Eliezer proceeds
:
(c.
went forward into the temple to the part between the porch and the altar without (previously) washing
A.D.),
I
1 Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, 56, conjectures a Grsecism without being able to cite one instance in support. 2 H. Thayer, ci> el-jras, ai) A^ets, in the Answers of Christ, Journ. Bibl.
100
'
"It
is
is
According to Thayer, <ri> eliras is equivalent to, expressed in thy question, although I cannot
resist it."
310
my
The other
'
replied,
'
Who
is
the
more
honourable, thou or the high priest (who, in Eliezer's opinion, As he held his peace, Eliezer condared not have done so) ?
'
tinued,
Thou
ashamed
to say that
'
dog
'
is
'
saying,
it
(^l
Eliezer answered,
even a high priest (had he dared to do such a thing) his head split with clubs whatever did you
;
' '
Here
"}P^
is
means exactly
concession.
"
"
you are
right."
form
of
Thou
art right
also the
meaning
little
of a~v etTra?
from
It
was an
assent, but in a
form which
importance to this
He
But beyond
signified that even then He was about to receive a position in which it would no longer be possible to oppose
that
He
any doubt to His Messianic dignity, and in which even the divine power would be at His disposal for overcoming all His enemies. The idea last expressed in particular is not to be
separated from
cri>
etTra?.
It is a
the expectation that the reader or hearer will may perhaps contain the
In this case Jesus doubtless most important point involved. wished to suggest to His hearers the whole second half of Ps.
110 1 namely,
,
"
Sit
thou at
my right
hand
until I
make
thine
enemies thy footstool." Thereby Jesus reminded His earthly judges of the heavenly tribunal whose authority should thenceforward maintain His cause against every opposition, and assuredly bring Him once more into the world to assume His
Messianic throne.
The high
priest's question
CHEIST
311
by
KTO'B
JK
$:
is
-IB^I or
simply
KW'
:
n
;
and as no
inter-
rogative particle
directly
ir\riv in "
i?K.
Matthew and Se in Luke imply no more than = " and in the mouth of Jesus, because in such cases Aramaic does not use
a special term for
"
but."
And
\eyco
u/ui;,
which appears in
of
B "n!>
Matthew
only,
may
:
be omitted.
Jesus' reply
would be
Nrrvan w<t
nn; KB>JK
limn
Again,
it
is
this expression
,
who saw
the
is,
Son
of
man
no
"
of course,
There at the right hand of God. standing " " thought of a rising up after being seated.
Jewish
parallel,
though
less
strongly marked,
is
afforded in
what
world.
Ps.
is
said of
At
,
16 11 we
the close of the reading, as given by Buber, Midr. " find which (of the seven classes) is the highest
:
It is that
hand
of
>
mpW
n"apn) as
written, Zech.
43
'
the bowl,' and Ps. 1 6 11 'at thy right hand pleasures for everTo this are then appended the sayings of two more.'"
The second
of
them
according to Midrash on the Psalms (ed. Constantinople, 1512), "the teachers of the Bible, and those who faithfully
instruct children, because they are destined to sit under the
1 No decision need here be sought in regard to the form of adjuration used It was not, at least, a case the judge to Jesus, which Matthew alone gives. by in which the law of Moses and of the Rabbis would have empowered a court of
justice to
The
Abbe's
Lemann, who
in
" Valeur de
1'Assemblee qui pronoii9a la peine de mort contre Jesus-Christ," 3 1881, enumerate the points in which the trial of Jesus was at variance with rabbinic law, have
Bibl.
Galil.
Aram,
jiD[ifl.
jn,
Targ. DN.
8 6
:
Galil.
pig
1
JOT.
Galil. xyi
JDT
~\^?.
In the Jerusalem Gospel, Matt. 26 64 is ponn 1 pmjy hy TWI ttS'm xro jn TIV Ntman mob,
,
no
pn ?
no** 'i
pa
niDN nx
312
protection of the
to
"
!
but according
Mishna who
faithfully instruct children, because they are destined to stand " at the right hand of the Holy One, blessed be He (ito_j
!
n"3pn b$ fro's).
To
Pilate's question
crv el 6 /SacrtXezW
T&V 'lovSaicov
the
27 11 Mark 15 2 Luke 23 3). According to Thayer (loc. cit. 43), these words were meant by Jesus as a question, implying " sayest thou this, whose duty it is to do better than to make
,
,
my
enemies
18
34
.
"
?
or else
"
sayest thou
as in
John
But even
:
in
John the
least
answer
is ait
OVKOVV
/SacrtXei)? el crv ;
Xeyet?
on
put
ffv
TOVTO Xeyet?
would at
this
"
?
have
crv
but not
Xe'ryet?.
But the
will rather
be that of an admission.
question of
To
meets the
His judge
He
refuses
by being Clearly enough by His demeanour before the judges, Jewish and heathen, Jesus wished to give no occasion for the opinion that in the last moments He had any
silent.
wavering thoughts in Himself, and therefore He did not deny that He was the Messianic King of Israel. At the same
time,
it
had
to be
made known
that
He was
not minded in
presence of such a tribunal to offer any sort of justification. Consequently it was as the Messiah of Israel, though not in
the sense in which
went
to death. By reason of the acknowledgment made by 68 Mark Him, the Jews mocked Him as "Messiah" (Matt. 26 15 32 Luke 23 s5 39 ), the heathen as "King of the Jews"
,
-
9 (Mark 15
12 18
-
Matt.
27 29
Luke 23 37 ), although
not
distributed
in
the
this
Synoptists
on
ground to the two classes. According to the superscription on the Cross, He was put to death as " King of the Jews,"
i.e.
in Aramaic,
^^
Ksfe (Matt. 27 37
Mark 15 26 Luke
,
CHRIST
313
falsely
so
There
ledged as
is,
therefore,
His own that position which prophecy ascribes to He affirmed His Jewish kingship the Messiah of Israel.
before Pilate, and thereby supplied the latter with the legal
basis for
His condemnation
He
gave to His Messianic confession such a form as offered them a pretext for delivering Him up to death according to Jewish
law.
itself
The
The procedure to be followed in such a case may be seen " Bar Koziba held from a legend related in b. Sanh. 9 3 b
: '
two years and a half. When he said to the Eabbis Messiah/ they answered him, It is written of the Messiah that he discerns and judges, 1 let us see whether he
sway
I
for
am
'
can do so/
they perceived that this was beyond his A verdict such as then put him to death." power, they we are dealing with would therefore not result from any
stipulation of law, but
When
of a
law court
to take
the well-being precautions according of the people, even by inflicting an exceptional sentence of death. mere claim to the Messianic title would never
circumstances for
"
blasphemy."
Holtzmann
would
censure certain Protestant exegetes, naming Schanz on Matt. 26, according to whom this did take place in the trial of
Jesus.
of
But he thereby evinces merely his own ignorance Jewish legal processes. By the heathen judge Jesus was condemned as a usurper of royalty by the Jewish tribunal,
;
claimed for Himself an exalted position such as had not been assigned even to the Messiah. 3 His judges
because
1
He
I.e.
is
i.
right or
265
f.
3 The Similitudes of Enoch, which speak of the Son of man as Jesus does, although of Jewish origin, do not represent a view in any sense general. Moreover, it was one thing that any person should merely represent such a theory,
314
man
sitting at
God, which
110
had applied
to Himself, in the
might have been used of every king of 28 5 29 23 1 It was this that the high
.
Israel, as in 1
Chron.
case of
blasphemy
tion of evidence as
capital offence
had even then been perpetrated in presence of the whole There is thus no justification for Bleby's 2 complaint court.
that Jesus was illegally
condemned
solely
mission without the hearing of witnesses. The proceedings in fact so informal. The judges considered themwere not selves in this case to be sufficient witnesses of the criminal
offence.
But
it
is
clear that
their
interpretation
30
of the
Mosaic law on blasphemy (Num. 15 ) was less formally developed than the later rabbinic law (Sanh. vii. 5), which made a death-sentence for blasphemy almost impossible. 3
of
It was not in consequence of a mere misunderstanding an expression used by Him that Jesus was condemned to
death.
110 1 are indicated by His question to the scribes, Matt. 22 45 (Mark 12 37 Luke 20 44). He whom David called "Lord" was no mere man. The right to judge the world was assumed by Jesus
of Ps.
realised in himself.
And W.
different if there really was one who said that the theory was " " treatise Cf. (1901), 63. Christianity and Judaism Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his
my
father."
2
H.
Bleby,
The
3 On the Jewish conception of the Mosaic law on blasphemy, see " Der Gottesname Adonaj," 44-49. I am wrong in saying there, p. 46 f., that accord22 b (ed. Friedm. 114 ) everyone is a "blasphemer" ing to Siphre on Deut. 21 who puts forth his hand against a fundamental article of the law. What is
(1880), 31.
stated
is merely that the blasphemer belongs to the class of capital offenders. 3C in Siphre, ed. Friedm. 33 a , j. Sanh. 25 b, b. Kerit. 7 b the verse Num. 15 is explained as meaning that every wilful sin deprives God of something, and is
And
therefore blasphemy. But all this does not prove that Jesus could according cv But cf. b. Sanh. 61 a . rabbinical law have been condemned as a blasphemer.
CHRIST
6 Mark 2 10 forgave sins (Matt. 9 which was also regarded as blasphemous.
315
,
when He
a
Luke
5 24 ),
an act
He
claimed to be
new
lawgiver, Matt.
5 21
~ 48
,
and that
in a
manner which
for, unlike Moses, who spoke in the name of God, He announced in His own name what should henceforward be
regarded as law.
His miracles were done not through prayer, still less by muttering spells with the names of God, angels, and demons, but by bidding the lame to walk (Matt. 9 6 Mark
,
10
,
Luke
5 41
24
),
3 to be clean (Matt. 8
Mark
Luke
I 41
34
the leprous
to arise
(Mark
8 26
,
Luke
,
8 54
7 14 ), the storm to be
still
(Matt.
Mark 4 39 Luke
8 24 ).
To follow Him
of
more conse-
22 Luke 9 6( Matt. quence than even parental duties (Matt. 8 10 37 Luke 14 26 ); on one's relation to Him depends eternal Matt. 16 24ff Mark 8 34ff weal and woe (Matt. 10 32 Luke 12 8f
,
-
-,
-,
Luke ment
9 23ff -).
of
He
the
held Himself to be exempt from the paytemple tax because His was not a subject's
position
(Matt.
17 26 );
-,
He
Mark
27f
-).
Clothed in
He
24 30f
-,
Mark 13
26f
-,
Luke 21
And
the Sanhedrin. position comes the declaration of Jesus before He was the Messiah and desired to be so, but in a sense
to the
narrow horizon
of con-
It is a question of a more formal nature to what extent Jesus reckoned His earthly work, including His sufferings and death, as forming part of the Messianic vocation. That
the time of His royal sovereignty was then anticipated by Him, implies also that the real Messianic status which is
but another
name
as
for kingship
belonged to
not
see
the
future.
meant
he
certainly
did
the
;
Messianic
and even
316
Despite the
fact that the proper Messianic position of Jesus belonged to the " " Messiah future, it was not therefore disallowed to call Him
in advance.
have no hesi-
ance as such.
doctrine of
be insisted
life of
by But a profound difference between the Jewish the Messiah and the position of Jesus requires to on. Judaism is indifferent as to how the prior
name
the Messiah
may
and
passive, during
role.
this
be passed, because his conduct, active time has nothing to do with the
of Jesus, the
Messianic
In the case
entrance upon the sovereignty is organically bound up with the period of Kingship. The future ruler is at the same
time
He
who, teaching, suffering, and dying, paved the way much of His own sovereignty, as for
that of God.
itself into
of Israel's
Messiah transforms
XII.
Every
(see 2
an
eternal sovereignty
to
Sam. 7 16 ).
Messianic prophecy of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. Even on occasions when no necessity was felt to
speak of a Messiah, the recollection of that promise was 11 1 Mace. 2 57 ). It is true warmly cherished (see Sir. 47
,
that
to
it
was found possible to apprehend it as in reality given the people whose head was the Davidic king, and to apply
it
when
it
j
to
55 3
Ps. 2.
89
317
ultimately in supplying fresh sustenance to the Messianic hope, In Ps. Sol. 17 23 we find for the first properly so called.
title of
upon such
(Targ.
(i.e.
as
13, *6;,
II
10
P?>
"branch"
Zech. 3 8 6 12
7 12 (Targ.
"
frequent in
Jewish literature as a
phrase
Sanh.
title
110
A.D.),
97
a
;
(c.
120),
d
;
b.
6
Sanh.
98 a
4
;
130),
j.
Taan. 68
a
6
;
Juda ben
Ilai
named
b.
spoken Babylonian recension of the Eighteen Benedictions but the Palestinian in the petition concerning the Messiah
.
Sukk. 55 b
The
"
Branch
of
David
"
(W
HDV)
is
of in the
form of that prayer and the Blessing at meals 7 do not go " " beyond mentioning the sovereignty of the house of David
Eighteen Benedictions, beginning ^P.^D, also speaks only in general terms of the 8 The Targum to the restoration of the Davidic royalty.
of Isa. prophets, which applies the prophecies
5- 6
of the
9.
11, Mic. 5,
irrhe Messianic though represented by the interpretation of Isa. 9 Targum, does not seem to have been general. The Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament have no trace of it. Sometimes the passage was connected with Hezekiah, of whom Justin says the Jews understood the prophecy regarding 14 Immanuel, Isa. 7 and Ps. 110 see Dial. c. Trypho, 33, 43, 67, 68, 71, 77, 83. 12 2 is attested for the Messianic application of 2 Sam. 7 contemporary Jews That the builder of the temple alluded to in Justin, Dial. c. Trypho, 68. by
, ;
ls
,
5 Targ. Isa. 53 .
3
4
Cf. Backer,
Agada
d.
Tann.
i.
97.
ii.
Ibid.
i.
402.
Ibid.
557.
(c.
See b. Ber. 48 b, where Eliezer ben Hyrcanus mention of tn n'3 nnfy? in the Blessing at meals.
7
8
cf.
"Mess. Texte," 7 a
b
.
318
name
1VJ
"is
KTOJp
Targums have adopted the later distinction between a in ia TOO and a D^BK ia (VBfc (see Targ. Cant. 4 5 7 4 Targ. Jems. I. Ex. 40 9 11 Targ. Jerus. on Zech. 12 10 ). 1 In this duplicate form it is noteworthy that the more recent
the Jerusalem
,
type of Messiah Ben Ephraim or Messiah Ben Joseph postulates the descent of the Messiah thus entitled from Ephraim
and that the character in view is not merely a Messianic representative of the ten tribes. 2 Messianic hopes were associated also with the person of David himself, as shown above, p. 301. On the whole, it must be considered
or Joseph,
the general conviction, that the Messiah had to be a descendant of David, just as even the author of the Philosophoumena,
ix.
case, it does
The prohave been expressly mentioned or insisted upon. 5 phet Zechariah already quotes the words of Jer. 23 without
In the same way this element including the Davidic descent. in Enoch 83-90, Bar. Apoc. 40 72f -, 2 [4] Esdr. 12 32ff 3 is omitted
.
The omission
most conspicuous in the Similitudes of Enoch (chaps. 37-71) and in 2 [4] Esdr. 13, where the Messiah, reis
presented as in God's keeping, can hardly be a son of David, although Isa. 11, Pss. 72. 89 are used in delineating the The authors have therefore conpicture of the Messiah.
sidered
of
it
Branch
through a person who did not from the lineage of David. But for this, as for other spring reasons, their view cannot be regarded as one which was
David should be
leid.
u.
'
319
2.
question how the Lord of David can also be his 44 Matt. 22 45 (Mark 12 37 Luke 20 ), Jesus showed that a son, Davidic descent, according to the flesh, was not an essential
By His
was
from
caused
Him
Apart
this, it is in full
l
Messiah's position
accord with His whole conception of that God alone could call any one to that
For Him there was no question of vindicating a dignity. For all this it need not be claim to the kingly heritage. inferred that Jesus was not a descendant of David.
The Gospels relate that Jesus was sometimes greeted with the cry vie Aave, Matt. 9 27 15 22 20 30f (Mark 10 47f Luke 18 38f> ). According to Matt. 12 23 the people expressed
-
-,
21
9 - 15
(cf.
under
this
He might be 6 vlbs AaveiS, and Matt. II 10 ) they even rendered homage to Him Mark The last instance has been reckoned unname.
shown on
be
p.
historical, as is
222.
With
that, in
passages,
it
has to
noted
Jesus
wo?
Him
as
"
Messiah."
Now
is
ascribed to
Him
had
it
He
the genealogical conditions implied by the name. Positive to the Davidic descent of Jesus are offered in the testimonies
1 genealogies, Matt. I ive, Luke 127.32.69 2
" 17
;
cf. v.
20
,
Luke
23
,
3 23
~ 38
;
cf.
in the narrat-
Acts 13
,
Paul,
Kom.
I3
22 l6
The
by the evangelists with regard and not Mary, in accordance with the view Joseph only,
attested
that descent on the mother's side does not carry with it any right of succession, and that her husband's recognition of
it
320
of his son.
and that
any opinion a was, in point of law, the decisive consideration, b. Kidd. 80 Nevertheless, neither of these points touches the right of suc.
common
cession.
viii. 6, is
The
criterion
for
this,
is
according
to
Bab.
bathr.
willing to recognise
any one
as his son.
anticipated
by the law
but
if
was
alleged, then the child must have been regarded as bestowed by God upon the house of Joseph, for a betrothed
woman, according
status as a wife.
same
The divine
its
it,
own
The
for
names
contained in
them
family might, of be recognised as Davidic, and be really descended course, from David, even although it did not possess satisfactory The most convincing evidence genealogies to prove this.
that the
is
that of Paul.
As
David,
it
is
certain that
make
ledge they could procure, showing that Jesus certainly or And there can be no probably did not fulfil this condition.
of the Christians,
would be
As he, after mingling with members of the Holy Family in Jerusalem, shows freely that he entertained no sort of doubt on this point, it must be
well instructed in regard to this point.
1
a (1896), 13
f.
321
in the
Nowhere assumed that no objection to it was known to him. New Testament do we find a single trace of conscious
refutation
Jewish attacks, based on the idea that the The proper derivation of Jesus from David was defective.
of
conclusion, therefore,
is
descent of Jesus, although the continuity of the divine revelation in the Old and New Testaments does not depend upon it.
moreover, nothing very improbable in the fact that families known to be Davidic should have existed in the
There
is,
time of Jesus.
pretensions
families of
Little
stress, of
on the
Jewish
to by Abarbanel and Yakhya in Spain. 1 Nor can we trust much to the pedigrees which trace the family of the
Davidic
descent
advanced
the
princes
of the captivity in Babylon back to David. discordant genealogies of this sort are known, 2 the
Five
most
which
the
ancient
dates
in Seder
century.
Olam But
Zota,
despite
may
Huna
the chief of the exiles, was really reckoned to be a descendant of David. This, indeed, is not proved by
(c.
200
A.D.),
the Baraitha,4
known even
10
to Origen, 5
which found a
fulfil-
ment
in
of
Gen. 49
From
this at
See
/.
These
2 Costa, Israel en de Volken (1873), 510. genealogies are reviewed by F. Lazarus, Die Haupter der Vertriebenen.
da
Beitrage zu einer Geschichte der Exilsfursten in Babylonien (1890), 171. 3 For this, see Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Vortrage, 2 142-147 ; editions of the text in F. Lazarus, op. cit. 158-170 ; A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, ii.
Schechter in Jud. Monatsschr. xxxix. (1894) 23 ff. Hor. ll b b. Sanh. 5*. The same view of Gen. 49 10 forms the foundation of the statement of the sons of Khiyya, who roused the wrath of Juda i.
68-88
4
b.
by declaring to him in their intoxication that the chieftainship of the exile in Babylon and of the patriarchate in Palestine would have to cease before the son of David could come see b. Sanh. 38*.
;
See Origenes, De princip. iv. 3, where he gives as the Jewish belief: rbv edv6.p"xi) v * 7r ^ T v 'loiJSa yevovs Tvyx^ VOVTa &PX lv T v Xaou, otf/c eK\eKf)6vTuv TU>V airb TOV (nrtpfj-aros avrov, e'ws fy ^avrd^ovrat Xpicrrov tin5ri/jt.ias.
(
21
322
And
Juda
i.
Juda
i.
father's side he
But
if
was reckoned a son of David in the judgment of Eab of Babylon 2 while Juda himself, on a previous occasion, called him(c. 220),
only a descendant on his mother's side of Judah, one might suppose that he really thought of Davidic descent in his own
self
case, as in that of
The same inference is supported by a kinsman of Khiyya, j. Kil. 32 b who was likewise considered to be a descendant of David.
Huna.
Huna was
In regard
Juda
I.,
he declared
himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin and thus, therefore, 3 Paul, being also from the tribe of Benjamin, was of kindred
ancestor
of
Juda. a
family register
Hillel,
5 progenitor of Juda,
b whereas, according to b. Keth. 6 2 Juda springs directly from this son of David, while Khiyya 21 is traced to Shimei, a brother of David (2 Sam. 2 1 ). This
representation admits of being reconciled with the statement of Juda himself in this fashion, that either Hillel himself
the patriarchs were only maternal descendants from Hillel the latter being quite possible, because the connection be-
I.
Khiyya belonged by
to family traditions.
2
j.
Kil. 32 b
.
j.
Keth. 35a
Ber. R. 33.
b.
Sabb. 56*.
4 5 Rom. II 1 See above, p. 5. See b. Hor. lib. 6 The view of Theodoret is exceptional, Dial. adv. Eutychianum, i., Orthod. Universum Davidis genus extinctum est. Quis enim novit hodie aliquem qui
:
de Davidica radice descenderit ? Eran. Qui ergo dicuntur Judseorum patriarchse non sunt ex cognatione Davidica ? Minime. Eran.: Sed Orthod. undenam derivantur ? Orthod. Ex Herode alienigena qui ex patre quidem erat Ascalonites, ex matre autem Idumams. This has rightly been pronounced
: : :
incredible
by
J.
ii.
259.
323
From
Juda
it is
all this it
need not,
of course,
but L, and Huna were certainly descendants of David that about 200 A.D. there were several families obvious
of
to
Davidic descent
still
clung.
is
The
in
to
1
seen
Chron. 3
300
B.C.),
the Exile, thus proving the generations existence of sons of David for the period about 300 B.C.
seven
after
From
a still later period may possibly arise the mention of 7 8 10 12 13 It is worthy of the Davidic house in Zech. 12
-
Nathan
of
David, while
of the
Zech.
12
10
mentions a house
;
Nathan alongside
house of David
whence
it
has been
conjectured that the former is meant to be regarded as a And hence also the Pseudobranch of the family of David.
philonic Breviarium
Temporum
will not
have been
alto-
gether without some historical basis in giving a line of There Davidic princes (duces) reaching to the Hasmonseans. have once been a Davidic family at the head seems, in fact, to
of post-exilic Israel,
although
the
we have no
of
precise information
about
it.
At
all
events
Book
Chronicles,
which
gives
(1 Chron. 17) the promise of 2 Sam. 7, revived afresh the idea of the royal destiny of the family of David, and thereby contributed to the preservation of the household traditions
of
descendants
of
David.
Where,
of
in
addition
to
proud
recollections, national
hopes
the greatest
moment were
bound up with a particular lineage, those belonging to it would be as unlikely to forget their origin as in our own days, for instance, the numerous descendants of Muhammed,
is, however, too much to say that princely descent was attributed to every school president," as stated after "Weber by HoUzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. i. 245.
1
It
"
is
ascribed to this
;
324
Norway who
ancient kings. Hence it results that no serious doubts need be opposed to the idea of a trustworthy tradition of Davidic descent in the family of Joseph.
XIII.
The application
Old Testament
is
and
^'*1N
discussed in
my
treatise
The biblical Adonaj," 16ff., 2 If. " In Dan. 4 16 the king is addressed as ^"ip (Icere lord." for The Targum of Onkelos is also acquainted with this "nip).
only to replace ?3B or &$, signify19 ing the owner or possessor of anything; cf. e.g. Gen. 37 Ex. 2 1 29 ; ji^N, on the other hand, always appears in
it
Onkelos as
Gen. 16
8
P3">.
naian
is
also found
see
^iten,
"my
in
mistress."
Only
,
in the designation of
God
have
10 17
47
.
do we find r?fe
of
*#
as
"tfiN,
we
is
;
also
Dan.
it
The form
address,
always
^isn
it
and when
when
refers to
pointed so as to refer to God, we find only the usual abbre2 The Targumic mode of viation of the Tetragrammaton.
51 John 20 16 by the term using ite"! is recalled in Mark 10 3 addressed to Jesus, paftpovvei (another reading paftftovii Mark fraffftel, John pafificovei), and also by the strange
, ,
"her
2 3
"Der Gottesname Adonaj," 24. In the time of Jesus Jiai had not yet become pai. The interchange of u and o in pronunciation can also be seen in other cases see Gramm. des j.-pal. Aram. 140 01. Konneke, Behandl. d. hebr. Namen in der Septuaginta (Star3 for nj^i, and the Palmyrenian garder Programm), 23 ; 2ov(rdj>v a, Luke 8 for the name
See
;
; ,
325
p:m
for
p^m,
"
Tractate Keritot (better Karetot) of the Babylonian 1 Talmud, which have recently been published by S. Schechter and S. Singer. Otherwise it is a remarkable fact that in
the the early Jewish literature, apart from the Targums, )to"! is scarcely ever used except as referring to God, often especially
in the title
Np^
e.g.,
PNisn; see,
iii.
e.g.,
j.
Taan.
.
68 d Hebr. Wan
,
D^f
this is
DnvriB")
see,
Taan.
is
Mechilt. 56 a 2
The
biblical filK,
referring to a
once rendered by fta"}, Ber. E. 9 3 ; but man, In j. Meg. 75, due to the influence of the Targum.
are the
"
masters
for a
"
of slaves.
With
is
these exceptions,
3*]
the usual
If],
name
a
human
called
or
to be discussed
of
The
anp, j. thou art lord of thy soul (passion)," "if thy d soul is thy mistress," we find in j. Ab. z. 44 !JBten anp p and sjrnp Tjjy'aa pK. But even the owner of a pearl is called
phrases, "if
,
"lord"
slave
Gitt.
46^)
For the
" p,
<
its lord,"
j.
Bab. m. 8 C
j.
is
said to be
n,
"lord of debt,"
Taan. 66.
the learned
learned
fessional
man
as '"?,
"my
Ab.
lord,"
man
man,
form
Kil. 3 2 a
d.
E. Nathan, 2 5
and a maid-
servant uses
the
same term
of
is called ^p by Abigail, j. Simeon ben Shetach, j. Naz. 54 b and the Eoman emperor b The gets the same name from Turnus Eufus, b. Sanh. 65
; ; .
David
proper style of address to the King of Israel, according to Moses is also addressed by Tos. Sanh. iv. 4, was ^^1} *Wfajl as "lord," Ass. Mos. 1 Joshua The Targum, 2 Kings
]>.
by ^p in the appeal to Naaman. Keth. 103 b King Jehoshaphat According 8 greeted every learned man with the words "^p ^p *&} *2n. The title to be used in speaking to the Messiah, according to
5 13, reproduces
^N
of the text
,
to b.
Makk. 24 a
b.
Talmudical Fragments in the Bodleian Library (Cambridge, 1896), 5, 29 f. 3 See also above, p. 173 f. See Rabbinovicz on b. Makk. 24 a.
326
b.
Sanh. 98 a
Venice, 1520),
"
is
nto
my
is
My
^x, Yoma
1
iv.
<I
1,
P"
1
to avoid V" ^
cf.
friary
"my
71.
no can
on
p.
shown
180f.,
we conclude
that this
is
a term of deferential
homage, the scope of which can vary widely, according to the position of the person addressed. When a person so esteemed is spoken about, the same
form
of
nominal
Old Testament. 2
But, in that case, the proas indispensable as in the case of fHN in the " To speak of " the Lord with no suffix is
along with
himself,
who
If the
"
np,
our lord," as
.
b Abigail says when speaking of King Saul, j. Sanh. 20 Again, in a narrative with a Palestinian colouring, b. Ab. z.
of
Eome
is
called
by the Eoman
herald K?]p.
Similarly
we
find in
Aramaic
inscriptions KJ&no,
(Nabatsean) ; pmo, "their de Vogue, 28 (Palmyr.), said of a king; and *N"io, "my lord," In Babylon only was it lord," CIS, ii. 1. 144 (Egyptian).
lord,"
"our
CIS,
ii.
1.
201, 205
customary to use
ending, of
"ip
without
suffix,
an exalted person supposed to be well known. Even with regard to the Messiah this form has been used,
b.
Sanh. 98 a
Greek Kvpios had been adopted the people at an early period. 3 Only
;
.
I.
" Targums have occasionally on'p for lord" Num. II 26 Targ. Ps. 53 1 Job 5 2 The other
;
2 3
21
f.;
Gramm.
327
Targums
b.
all
ignore
j.
it.
Ab.
z.
ll b and
it
Ber. K. 89,
whereas
^3
was known that ^i? (mpte) meant " lord" (IftK), " " slave It was in Babylon pj?). (%elpie) meant
considered likely enough, according to b. Chull. certain Palestinian doves uttered the sound ''Ti?
Kvpie
;
139 b that
,
''Ti?,
tcupie
and in
b.
Erub. 5 3 b
if vvtt
we hear of a story told in Babylon about a Galilean woman who contrived to address a heathen judge with the words
n^p no, tinian
"
my
lord slave
"
sign of so intimate a
Among
Greek surroundings such a thing might possibly occur. But in the absence of proof such a condition must not be
relegated to the time of Jesus.
2.
often addressed as
/cvpie,
not only by the disciples but also by others, especially such Mark has this form of address as appealed for His help.
28 only once (7 ) but in general this evangelist shows reticence in recording such forms of address. Speaking to the disciples,
;
42 It is Jesus refers to Himself as 6 Kvpios vpwv, Matt. 24 further to be noted that parallel passages sometimes have not
.
title of
address.
For
tcvpie,
Matt. 8 25
we
find in
Luke 8 24
eVto-Tara,
and in Mark 4 s8
8iSd<rica\e.
The
Kvpue of Matt.
17 4
is
5
replaced in
Luke
9 33 again 9 17
,
by
9 38
Mark
.
Luke
pafiftowl occurs in
41 And (Luke 18 ). while Jesus in giving instructions to His disciples about the 3 3 Luke 19 31), entry into Jerusalem, Matt. 2 1 (Mark II implies that they were in the habit of speaking about Him
Mark 10 51
for
icvpie
in
Matt.
20 31
33
as 6 Kvpio?,
He
make ready
for
328
26 18
tradition, it is
But despite this uncertainty in the impossible, with Kesch in his W1 V???, to trace
literature also recognises
'sn.
1
The designation
In Aramaic, according to 1 Cor. 16 22 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 10, this title was papaya or ftapav,
,
i.e.
fcO"]p
or D?. 2
"
The
'"ip,
disciples
addressed Jesus as
have
Our Lord,"
NJ ]?,
is,
however, to be
assumed
where several persons are represented as speaking in common, as, e.g., Matt. 8 25 20 33 In these cases the
.
writes po.
the disciples spoke about Jesus, it cannot be supposed, despite the occurrence of the simple o /cvpios, Matt. 2 1 3 (Mark II 3 Luke 19 31 34 ), Luke 24 34 that they used fcno
-
When
with no
suffix.
also in this
As in the Jewish usage, just exhibited, so And case we should expect only NJ-P or H?.
(7
to
13
thence
it
narrative
10 1 II 39 12 42 13 15
17 5
the
18 6 19 8 22 31
61
),
would have
NJ^p in the
mouth
of a Palestinian
Special mention
1
may
be
made
z.
of Matt.
22 45 (Mark 12 37
in Palestine 31
2
Gramm.
in Babylon, is incorrect. d. jtid.-pal. Ar. 120, 162, 297. up? is the older, fuller form.
AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS
329
Luke 20 4
eo-Tiv; as
"
),
el
of Jesus the
any one might perhaps hold that in the question word Kvpios was meant as a predicate of Deity.
to
by
&0"iE
interpretation
it
by pointing
^s
for the
former and
1
^'"JN
was not yet completely established, so that it was possible to 1 apprehend the unpointed ^1K in Ps. HO as a divine epithet.
of Ps.
And
further,
original.
">>
without a
in the
will
Aramaic
Our Lord's words (as in Mark) irn PPna KITTO * ^?? Tip? r?f 2
1
nil
^n
At
jna'N
first
(n) I^K
^-ijj
1
in
the title
''IJ,
^J ]?,
Jesus,
was no more than the respectful designation of the As soon as Jesus had Teacher on the part of the disciples.
entered into His state of kingly majesty,
it
acknowledgment " our Lord," as as the Son of God, then to Jesus, was not widely separated from the same applied But it must here be remembered that designation for God.
;
His followers an
they addressed
of sovereignty
Him
nate
God
as
"
Lord
"
;
so that in the
"
Hebraist
"
"
section of
was used the Jewish Christians the expression our Lord in reference to Jesus only, and would be quite free from
ambiguity.
"
Among
1
for they
" Der Gottesname Adonaj," 16 ff. In Onkelos also Dhq is reproduced l>y
.
2
I-PN,
Galilean
;
spg.
see Gen.
22 16
cf.
also Targ.
Ps. 110 1
4
See above,
p. 179.
330
for
The reason
to icvpios
for
pronoun
when
unapparent.
So in
and
difficult
With regard
Church
to icvpios
to
when
also
applied to Jesus,
"dominus,"
was
the
title
of
the
Eoman
emperor.
But Augustus and Tiberius had declined to accept this title. afterwards it became common enough, and was, moreover
associated
with
the
divine
o
honours
is
paid
even
to
living
emperors.
The simple
/evpios
Urk.
d.
;
Kgl. Mus.
420
to
2211.
z. Berl. 115, 562; to Hadrian, ibid. 121, Antoninus Pius, 111, 472 to Agrippa I., Waddingt. The form o /cvpios rjfjiwv also appears afterwards; see
;
Ag. Urk. 12 (Commodus), 266 (Severus), 618 (Marc. Aurel.), Waddingt. 20 70s (?), 2114 (Severus). And still more recent
is
Sea-TTOTTjs
is
rifjL&v,
Severus
Lat.
viii.
"
styled
ibid. 1916 (Justinian), 2187 (Julian). Dominus noster sanctissimus," Corp. Inscr.
Suetonius (Dom. 13) 1 says that Domitian " Domordered the procurators to use the written formula
7062.
inus et
fieri
jubet."
:
Dominum palam
Even the formula: et adorari se appellarique uti Deum." " edictum Domini Deique nostri," was possible ; see Martial,
v. 8.
In general, however,
prefixed
),
it
else #eo? 2
that was
to the
name
emperor.
In the
the
Acts (25
26
as o Kvpios.
When
"
meant that
He
is
the true
God and
Lord
"
Home.
2
of o Kvpios is
1
The phrase
p. 273.
De
Caesar, xi. 2.
See above,
331
(cf.
Acts 2 36 ), defines
the term Xpia-ros in this sense for the reader. On the Jewish side there could not be
an altogether
because they did not venture to ascribe to the Messiah a But there was something akin position alongside of God.
in their emphatic affirmation that every Israelite has daily
sovereignty of heaven," while he This formed a conscious protest, acknowledges the one God. continually repeated, against the claims to divinity advanced
to take
"
1
identified with
(PW
ntt^p) or of "godless-
XIV.
"MASTEE" AS A DESIGNATION OF
1.
JESUS.
form
of address
with which the learned were greeted. For its use is expressly attested in Matt. 23 7
.
The
official
deliverance
of
the
Gaonim,
Sherira
and
Hai
(c.
1000
A.D.),
source of
much
confusion.
was as follows
The
earliest generations,
who were very exalted, required no rabbinic title, neither |2n nor ^l nor 3*3, and there was no difference in respect of this For, take Hillel, who usage between Babylon and Palestine.
came from Babylon
name.
no rabbinic title was coupled with his These were esteemed like the prophets, of whom it was said, 'as Haggai the prophet has said/ 'Ezra came not
: '
from Babylon
the
of
in their case
no rabbinic
' '
title is
given
when
name
is
mentioned.
title
adding a
And, so far as we know, this custom began with the princes (the presidents of
1
332
the Sanhedrin) from the time of Rabban Gamliel the elder, and of Eabban Shimeon his son, who perished at the destruction of
the second temple, and of
were
all
'
began to Zadok and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yakob, and the custom extended itself through the scholars of Rabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai.
and in the same period the title Rabbi princes Rabbi be used among those who were duly ordained
;
'
And by
than
'
general consent
'
'
Rabbi
'
'
is
reckoned to be higher
'
and still Rab/ and Rabban higher than Rabbi higher than Rabban is the simple name and we find none At called Rabban except in the number of the princes.'
; '
' ; ' ' '
'
Talmud
He who
has scholars
and
if
have likewise scholars, is called "Rabbi"; " " if Rabban his own scholars are forgotten, he is called
scholars
;
both the
gotten, he
first
is
called
Nevertheless
we
princes/
Rabban
Rabban Shimeon, Rabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai. Rabbenu ha-kadosh (Juda I.)." But this rabbinic attempt 1 to arrange the various titles in an order of merit is made tt>
Gamliel,
depend upon the estimate formed by successors of the personages who receive the titles, and is consequently of no
historical value.
of
itself
I.,
different explanation. Since only Gamliel requires Shimeon ben Gamliel I., Yokhanan ben Zakkai, Gamliel
IL,
time
the title N'BO appears to take the place of the former designation, it
may
for
be concluded that
J2"i
was the
earlier
Jewish
the head of the Jews recognised by the Roman In Latin his title was " patriarcha," in Greek government.
name
is
This representation
;
is still
followed
by
C. Taylor,
Fathers 2 (1897), 27
23.
333
and
his son,
who
while apart
from their case the magnates of that age not only do not To receive this title, but no corresponding epithet at all.
meet
this,
is
case of Gamliel
and
of
the
title
who
was subsequently transferred to them from their successors This explanation is the more did bear the name.
because on other grounds it is impossible to be always certain whether the first or the second of the couples who bore the same name is really meant.
plausible
The
fact
destruction
of
Jerusalem the
to be explained
of
own
first
and from
the
half
of
the
second
century,
those
who had not still an uninterrupted succession of In actual could not possibly be spoken of as ^1. disciples men spoke of and to the learned, using the fact, of course,
form ^l even before 70
A.D., as
But
at that time
so otiose as
the
suffix in
become
"
centuries.
presumably it did in the third and fourth In that period it was possible even to say 'sn "in,
"
;
a certain Eabbi
a
;
see
j.
Sot.
24 b
20 b
Examples
h. S.
b.
ii.
of
^n addressed
j.
to a teacher of
j.
Peah 21 b
a
;
Keth. 35
;
b.
a
;
b.
Taan.
Bab. m. 85
b.
Sanh.
98 a
b.
Makk. 24 a
12 Kings 2
5 13
6 21
13 U
(for '3K).
From
&t$d(rica\
original, it
the fact that the Gospels so frequently employ as a form of address, presupposing *2H as the
must be
3"}
was a current
1 Yokhanan (c. 250), according to b. Sanh. 100% said that Gehazi was punished because, in presence of the king (2 Kings 8 5 ), he had spoken of his teacher Elisha simply by name.
334
Ab.
Examples i. 6, 16
d
Aram.
j.
Kil.
;
32 b
(sjai,
"
thy teacher ") j. Bab. m. 8 (^3*1, his teacher ") j. Sanh. 25 d (m, "our teacher," of Moses); j. Erub. 19 b (|b3T, "your
;
"
teacher
It
").
must
"
not,
however, be
forgotten
that
3"i
was
also
capable of
meaning,
great."
other applications in accordance with its literal In Hebraising style 3n means the " master,"
"
slave
"
OJV), Ab.
i.
b.
Taan.
25
b
;
Shir. K. I
1
.
not
known
to me.
Any Aramaic instance of the same sort is But in Onkelos we find ^1, plural P?~!?!,
"
prince," singular
22
,
Gen. 3 2 *,
for
Num.
3 24
Ex. 22 27
plural Ex. 16
Num.
*|iS
2
;
and
^3, taken in
;
for
(plur.),
21
Ex. 15 15
2 3
-
Gen. 37
s6
39
1
;
for
;
*>, sing.
Gen. 39
40
Num.
is
2 1 19
22 14
4 20
21
.
"prince
demons"
is
called
KWH
'3*1,
Shek. 49 b
.
a "brigand chief"
re-
ferred to as
b.
Bab. mez. 84 a
of
a caravan
is
called
KDW
is
3"),
de Vogue*,
rrii_K,
'ani
in this title
title.
considered the equivalent of the royal The Samaritans addressed God Himself as Hence
W?l
^V
*?n is
a deeply-deferential form of address, the full force of which is nowise expressed by the Greek StSaoveaXe. " My
commander
term.
"
sufficient to
is
render the
He who was
thereby acknowledged
To some extent the Latin to be the superior of the speaker. " " corresponds, as it denotes superiors of various magister
kinds,
among others the teacher especially. The form If] 2 is a derivative from
3
3n,
and not as A.
Geiger
1
it,
See the rendering of :IN by 'm in the Samaritan Targ. to Genesis, and in a Marka, Heidenheim, Bibl. Sam. iii. 5 2 A kindred form is p-jan put by Onkelos, Gen. 40 2 for onp. 3 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischna (1845), ii. 129 also Siddur Yemen, MS. Chamizer, i. has f31 throughout Ab. i.
. , ;
,
335
In the Targum of Onkelos this word 6 Ex. IS 21 25 Deut. is sometimes used for the Hebr. ifc, Gen. 37 9 1 In Ab. i. 10, ri:n 20 especially for military commander.
-
means
the
"
"
mastery,"
lordship."
As already
the Palestinian patriarchs in the second century. Later, however, Jfl became in Palestine a very common
title of
designation of
m. 8
|ai
"
in,
j.
Bab.
an was
" used exclusively for the adjective great," there was no other " " word available for the plural of teacher than r??1 see j.
"those teachers" (sages); j. Ber. 10 a pjl r??l " " 9 the Kwai, the great teachers Targ. Cant. 4 PTjnjp r?an, " 5 cf. TpJan, ibid. 6 Pronominal doctors of the Sanhedrin
Sanh. 27
;
suffixes are
not attached to
"
}2"},
except in the
common form
linn, literally,
our teachers," contracted from KJ?fl, in which, its force; see, e.g., j. Taan. 69 b
,
Knaw
??3i_,
The Aramaic
tion for nouns.
on to an as a termina-
This explains how it was that |i2n (which afterwards became 1^1) should be in use as a collateral form
with
|?1.
in all its
This form, which the Targums employ for " lord meanings, was afterwards reserved by the Jews for
;
"
God
and hence hardly any trace 2 remains in the Jewish literature to show its former application to the teacher.
alone
" " designation for teacher which would correspond to the Greek KaQrjyrjTfa, Matt. 23 10 Wiinsche 3 proposes s "}iD
As a
in the sense of
"
my
teacher,
my
guide."
"
But there
In
b.
is
no
guide."
Keth.
is
j.
and in
Kidd.
j.
Sabb.
ll b
Mishna,"
66
e
.
the
"
teacher of the
nto,
of
address,
which
extant,
Talmud
as
now
21
7
.
336
In b. Ber. 3 a the ed. Pesaro cannot be regarded as original. In b. Taan. and ed. Venice i. have 'noi an, and not 'nitti an.
2 O b there
is
an and
*nio
but the Munich MS. has only an. Similarly, this latter MS. a in b. Sanh. 98 an for the formula nioi an of ed. Venice L has
In
b.
Makk. 24 a
no
"no.
Keth. 103 b the true reading is an an The Hebrew nnio was in no sense a general name
,
b.
its
Aramaic
1
equivalent, according
to
Ber.
it,
fgD,
which
.
43
27
,
Ezek. 3 17
2.
The Aramaic
Matt.
transliterated
into
Greek
pafijSei,
is
common form
icvpie),
of address to Jesus,
26^
(of.,
however,
v.
22
9 5 (but Matt.
17 4
/cu/3te;
Luke
-
9 33
SiSdaicaXe
is
address to Jesus (4 s8 9 17 38 10 17 20 35 12 14 19 ), while in his 28 Gospel Kvpie is only once used (7 ), by the Syro-Phoenician
woman. 2
5
(5
S 24
45
9 33
The form eV^o-raja, occurring six times in Luke 49 17 13) alongside of the commoner SiBd<nea\e, is
-
merely a Greek synonym for the traced back to the Aramaic 'an.
latter,
to be
Jesus forbade His disciples to allow themselves to be called pafifiei, on the ground that He alone was their
8 "Master," Matt. 23
.
In so doing
He
recognised that in
between them.
The form
of address, 8i8da-ica\e
-,
Luke
Levy, Neuhebr.-Chald. "Worterbuch, has a special entry under ND^D, nta, "teacher." But this form, intrinsically improbable as a noun, is an infinitive in the passages cited ; and the whole entry should therefore be struck out. Jastrow in his Dictionary recognises the infinitive, but gives it the incorrect
pointing,
2
N^9.
KI;/HOS,
See, however, 6
Mark
II 3.
337
This address was at variance with actual usage, and, moreover, in the mouth of the speaker it was mere insolent
flattery.
S 18 *-). 1
It is related, b. Taan.
24 b how Eleazar
,
of
Hagronya
tbw
good Eabbi from the good Lord, who in His goodness does good " " to His people." Here, of course, the epithet good master
bestowed on Eleazar
as
it
that a voice called out to him: 3*$ 1 (c. 340) dreamt FPBJ6 a'pp a'araOT as Jia-jp aa, Good greeting to the
is
attributes to
was declined by Jesus, because He was unwilling that any one should thoughtlessly deal with such an epithet and here, as always, the honour due to the Father was the
designation
;
first consideration with Jesus. Further, the address NJB isn would not lead any one to think of moral goodness. The " kind master." The rejection of the proper translation is
is generally supposed, but that in Him alone is morally perfect, "When it is maintained the quality of kindness personified. that God is ate, Ps. 25 8 34 9 135 3 it is His benevolent
mean, as
that
God
alone
is
character
literature
for use
that
uses
is
In this sense also Jewish emphasised. The thanksgiving prescribed ate of God.
:
on the receipt of good news, Ber. ix. 2, is ^"la Praised be He who is kind and sends kinda^ftrn aten, From Shimeon ben Chalaphta (c. 200 A.D.) we have ness !"
the saying. 2 which recalls Luke 18 1 O'
*/
"8
, '
bai
T:
K^' s ab
T
:
nv: ;
NS^n T
.
ufiyfy
iatep
"
|3t
the importunate
man
wicked,
it is
the All-merciful
wherefore,
must be considered certain that the people of Nineveh must have cried mightily for the mercy of God, as 8 is said in Jonah 3 According to Vay. E. 6, Bar Telamyon
argued,
.
"
1 In Matt. 19 16ff we have no mere error in translation, but an alteration of the original text, due to doctrinal preconception. 2 Pesikta 161% j. Taan. 65 b (here less apt: irQito^ ]3$ *?$ n S3 Kg'D
cViyW, "the importunate man overpowers the honest man, how much more the generosity that is in the world") ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 535.
*7?3^
22
338
of this
NJfprni,
(JB
Kn'a jnrn
FTy_:).
commonly predicated
word should be
is
of
God;
77.
If the
so
no need to
or to
sinlessness,
the
of
instruction
regarding
would imply that he looked " from Him who was goodness
"good."
A
438
number
28
).
Mark
,
933
10 35 12 u
24 (Matt. 22
Luke 20
for
such cases
This would imply the use of Kjsn (fan), though it may be called the general rule that an
this
form, while on
himself
and
The Peshita,
and in general the Jerusalem Gospel also, translates StSatrKaXe by K3B^B, but uses for StSacr/eaXo? only where pro-
nominal
however,
master,"
suffixes
it
had
to
be added;
for
eVtcrraTa in Luke,
17
13
.
an with suffix, namely 'an, "my and pi, "our master," Luke 8 24 45 9 49 This form wai_ (">) is also to be assumed for the
always
put
Luke
5 5 9 33
simple 6
StSacr/caXo?
),
in
discourse
18
,
about Jesus,
11
).
Mark
2
.
5 s5
(Luke 8
49
14
14
(Matt.
2G
Luke 22
fiasn,
And
the original
of o SiSdo-Ka\os
vp&v would be
:
Matt. 9 11 17 24 23 8
In the sentence
Matt.
ovtc
&rnv
$i$do-/ca\ov is
to
be
~10
)
to
have them-
Trarrjp, or Kadrjyrjrr)^.
"
The
first
and third
can refer only to Himself, " Father only to God. It is implied that Trdrep and Kadrjjrjrd were in use as forms of address.
1
Thus A.
' '
Abhandlungen Alex.
v.
Oettingen
zum
siebenzigsten
In this passage the Jerusalem Gospel has palate, the Peshita paai.
AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS
In regard to Trdrep,
literature
is
339
its
principally
known
an
epithet
of
certain
way that it appears as an element in their Abba Chilkiyya (c. 50 A.D.), Abba Sha'ul, Abba Yose ben Dosithai (c. 150), Abba Eleazar ben Gamla (c. 200), Abba Mari (c. 320), were Palestinians with this style of
persons in such a
name. 1
designation.
We
The Targum
address
r?N,
2 Kings 2 12 5 18 6 21
13 U used in reference to
,
Elijah and Elisha, and inserted, where ^l, and, when a heathen speaks, ^o
procedure may Targumist had no knowledge of N3K as a form of address. b Perhaps, however, the passage in b. Ber. 16 has some bearing on the
case.
This strange
The prescription
of a Baraitha is there
understood in accordance with the context to imply that in " " naming only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fathers ( r>^?), it
forbidden to call any one else by the name N3N. What this Baraitha really implies is that these three alone should
is
bear the honorary title of Patriarchs of Israel ; and another Baraitha, recorded in the same passage (both found again together in Semach i. 12, 13), prescribes that slaves only should not receive the title K3K, although this was the
2 practice in the household of Gamliel n.
From
the second
Baraitha, however,
attribute N3K
it
is
evident
that
among
was permissible. It would therefore be common enough. It may have been, however, that it was not so much a form of address as an honourable appellation
added to the individual name.
In Onkelos the word
,
^K,
is
rendered
KaW
1
K3K,
"
of primeval
It is
not interchangeable with the proper name Abba, which will have
;
see
Gramm.
d. jtid.-pal.
Nidd. 49 b also relates that in the household of Gamliel the slaves were " father Tabi." and the addressed as
'39 '?*,
Tabitha."
340
times are called
i.
0n
b
;
4;
j.
Shek. 47
For
rnto,
Ka67)yr)Tr)s )
which, however,
is
is
Neither
"
the
literal
versions admissible.
of
As
teacher,"
it
is
And
there
and
no occasion to look
for
for Ka6r)yr)Tijs.
The form
found in
Mark 10 51
also
John 20 16 cannot have been materially distinguished from the form of address, ^"i, as indicated on p. 335 and
;
therefore
John
is
In
form
towards the
of address, "
Mary
"
desires to
is
Master
which
whereas the appeal of Thomas, 'CyJJJ 1 "H? (20 28 ), is accepted. In this narrative of the Johannine Gospel there may be
seen intimations of the important fact that the primitive
to call Jesus
"
our Teacher
"
after
He had
The
title
^1,
KJ2H, expressing the relation of the disciple to the teacher, vanished from use and there remained only the designation
;
of his
So also Jems. Gospel ; cf. above, p. 180. See Matt. 10 24> m where SoGXos and KI//HOJ, /uaffyr^s and
,
5t5ci(r/caXos,
appear
as correlatives.
26
f.
277
dy/eXos, 183, 197, 209 0710?, 149, 202 f. 'A5d,u (6 ecrxaros), 248.
dSucfa, 149.
B
,
121
f.
aldw, 147, 154, 163 f., 171. atones, 155, 163, 165. 6 a.l&v oSros, o PUP al<bv, 147 f. 6 alijiv 6 freffrus irovypos, 149.
6 al&v diceivos, 6 plXXw, 6 fy 6 epe<mbs 6 017105, 149.
40 f. 95 f.
ff.
/Sao",
ai^tos, 156
,
f.,
165.
f.
7.
7.
\i}8ela*, 227.
ws, 227.
v, 212. apaprla, 281.
,7.
f,
68.
/Stacr-nfc,
r,
p,
226
if.
110.
dvaTo\-ri,
284.
107.
40.
65.
, ,
7.
118. 161.
,
247
f.,
251.
8.
23.
f.
avu6ev, 219.
tfttos,
8.
119
8.
,
,
f.
dpviov, 265.
dpTrd^eif, 142.
&prov
(fraye'iv,
213
ff.
342
deiirvov, 118.
5e<rir(>Ti)s,
173
124
v,
i,
f.,
330.
SeOre, 158.
5<?Xeo-0ctt,
f.
did, 123.
105.
134.
s,
,
331
f.
53 f. 49 f. 167 f. eZv, 121 f., 124. 156, 158 f. aWnos, 156 flf.
,
, .
11".
123
S6a, 231.
Aira/us, 200
H
53
f.
TOV aiuvos,
52,
1 6f>.
tot,
i,
,
7.
,
e
50. 47.
if.
211.
cu'wj'os,
6s,
efcat,
,
166 f., 177. 35 f., 173. 308 f. 160. i, 116 f., 156, 158,
t?, 121. 119. s, s, 276.
s,
^.
163.
174.
etv,
,
207.
f.
206
el<riropev<r6ai, 116.
I
i'$e/,
\eij[j.offv}>r] )
113 fF. 62 f.
108.
bd, 'I<r/captcir7?s, 40,
,
51
f.
23.
5.
e>, 20
54.
f.
7.
',
ry,
s,
c. Inf.,
,
335, 338.
f.
209.
f.
Ka0apieii>, 62 22.
,
145
',
6 j'w,
148
ff.
31, 197,
209
f.,
212.
ii/,
,
11 8 f. 161.
167. 21
,
uos, 50.
,
i,
103. 173.
tav, 34.
f.
s,
46.
<?7ricrT<iT?7s,
336
ff.
tirovpdvios, 251.
121.
20 f., 107, 173. 'A5d^, 248. 128. s, 128. 102 f., 140. , evayyt\iov, 95, 102.
i,
,
121, 215 f. tp, 125f., 156(1". K\ijp6vo/ji.os, 115, 126 f. 119. K\rjT6s, /c6Xao-ts, 161.
,
K6a-fj.os,
162
173.
ff.
/c.
oSros,
147
ff.
tcpiveiv,
KT/<rts,
/c.
eu^u's,
s,
28
f.
200.
ty,
,
122
f.
163, 173
f.,
f.,
179
ff.
(God); 270,
156.
303
324
ff.
(Christ).
343
227, 311.
202
XctXeij/,
f.
Xciyua,
25 f., 105. 53 f.
iropetieaOai, 21.
\appdveiv, 124, 156, 158. Ae$8cuos, 50. \tyctv, 25 f., 38, 312.
\efj.d, 53 f. X67os, 229
, ,
109. 30.
,
30.
29
f.
ff.
116
ff.
161.
pa/3/3e/,
faiy,
105
f.
Ma00cuos, 51.
,
328.
j/,
113
ff.
Lfj.va.v,
/*<?p?7,
154f.
66
f.
f,
138.
51.
,
,
231.
40, 51
f.
r^s
283.
/Sao-iXetas,
95,
106,
165,
202.
etv,
30.
38.
N
*al,
j/a6s,
226
fif.
rdcrffeiv,
119.
120.
305
f.
vZ6s,
209
f.,
213
f.
ui.
ff.
rbv
ovpcu>6i>,
212, 218.
f.
oi5pavwy,
7.
219
281.
s,
AaueiS, 316 ff. i/Z. TOU 0eoO, 185, 268 ff. viol TWJ/ dvdpuiruv, 240.
ui.
uioi
fiot
n
irats,
uiol
r^s /Saa-tXeias, 95, 115 f., 190. roO ai'wi'os TOI?TOU, 116. TOU VV/JL^UVOS, 116.
f.
WKTTOS, 198
185, 277
s, s,
,
f.
^ rois
<fr
u^ta-rots,
220
f.
ff.
iraXivyevrjcria, 177.
(Ji//os,
fi^ous,
223
a, 3, 42, 48.
HOff.
,
2.
107.
6/Soy,
7T. ^40U,
190f.
34
f.
344
vpat, $>povpala, 3.
<t>w/i,
289
ff.
204
f.
f.
Xaaj/cucu, 3.
47.
117.
,
7,
tocrawd,
220
,,
f.
327.
45.
346
CHAP.
11
347
CHAP.
23
9
10
12
13
22
348
CHAP.
10
349
CHAP.
22
26 28
33f.
glO
11 16
18
24
20
31f.
39 45
49
54
2
11
18 20 21
22
23ff.
24 25 26 27
33
35
38
46
49 58
60 62
10
7 9
11
20
21
22 25 27 37
41
II
2
3
4
9f.
10 13 19 20
30
32 33 39
41
350
Lu KE
CHAP.
19 n
107
17 29 SI
34
38
45f.
20
4
13f.
14
21
84f.
36
36
37
41ft.
42 44
21
7
9
27 31
22
7
11
15 16
RETURN
TO
YC 40696'
U.C.
BERKELEY LIBRARIES
106511
S
3)5