MOFP1TT FUND.

-CA-UKUKMA.

JAMES KENNEDY MOFFITT
OF THE CLASS OF
'.8*6.

Accession

THE WORDS OF JESUS

PRINTED BY

MORRISON AND OIBB LIMITED
FOR
T.

&

T.

CLARK, EDINBURGH
co.

LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND

LIMITED

NEW YORK

:

CHARLES SCRIBNKR'S SONS

THE WORDS OF JESUS
CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF
POST-BIBLICAL JEWISH WRITINGS

AND THE AEAMAIC LANGUAGE

BY

GUSTAF DALMAN
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION

D.

M.

KAY,

B.D.,
IN

B.Sc.
THE UNIVERSITY OF
ST.

PROFESSOR OP HEBREW AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES

ANDREWS

I.

INTRODUCTION

AND

FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS

^mr^;
"wffiJL

T.

&

T.

EDINBURGH CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1902

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.

THE work here introduced
of studies

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

well aware that the last word has not been

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

brought into more
translation to the

precise relations with its historical basis.

As to the relation of the English German original, I have only to add that
of small errors

the English version

practically forms a second edition of the work.

A

number

have been corrected by the author throughout

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.

German volume, have As they may be German edition

C.

Hinrichs, Leipzig),
here.

it

seemed superfluous to reprint

them

GUSTAF
LEIPZIG,
1st

H.

DALMAN.

April 1902.

106511

NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR

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.

The Translator has
Kennedy,
in

to

thank the Eev. Professor A. E.

S.

of Edinburgh, for the helpful interest he has taken

the process of translation, and for correcting the second

proofs.

In rendering into English the idea of the malkuth
(Gottesherrschaft y

Yahveh

usually called
"

"

the

Kingdom

of

God

"),

he

hopes no inconvenience will be caused by the
use
of
"

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.

Aramaic as the language of the Jews
.

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

selection of the dialect

..... .....
.

.....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.

The application of the idea
of Jesus
1.

2,

The sovereignty of God is the subject of an announcement 3. The sovereignty of God is regarded as an approaching
pensation
.
.
. .

...... ......'.
.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (THEOCRACY).

.

91

96
101

of the Divine Sovereignty in the words

.

102

dis-

.

.

.106
110 116
128 133 134
.

4.

5.
6.

The theocracy The theocracy The theocracy

is is

an order of things under which men are placed an order of things to which men attain
a good
.

is

7.

Jewish statements concerning pre-existence The sovereignty of Messiah

8.

Concluding discussion

Appendix A. Appendix B.

Luke 16 16 Matt.
,

II 12 '-

..... ..... ......
.

Lukel7 20f>
II.

.

....
.

.

143

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE
words of Jesus

(JEoN).

1.

Its occurrence in the

2.
3.

Origin of the expression The simple 6 al&v

....

147

X
III.

CONTENTS
ETERNAL
LIFE, LIFE.
PAGE
.

1.

Its position in the discourses of Jesus

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
. .
.
.

Books in which the term

2.
3.

The idea

of the

" world " Instances of the use of the idea

4.

The new world
V.

.... ........
" world "
in the Synoptists
.
.

is still

.162 .166
169
177

"THE LORD"
God

AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD.

1.

Not a name

for

to be found in

common

use

2.

Substitute for the Tetragrammaton (mrr)

....
. .

.

179 182

VI.
1.

THE FATHER
.

IN HEAVEN.
.
. .

2.

The Israelitish- Jewish usage The usage in the language of Jesus
VII.

. .

.

.

.

.184 .189

OTHER DIVINE NAMES.
194 198 200

1.

2.
3.

4.
5. 6.

The The The The The

God(60e6s) Highest (Ofurros)
Blessed

One (6 615X0717x6?) Power (^ Stvaiu*) Holy One (6 &yios) Merciful One (6 Ae^)

VIII. EVASIVE OR
1. 2.

The Voice Swearing by Heaven

3. 4.

Reward, treasures in Heaven Written in Heaven
Before the angels, before Bound, loosed in Heaven

5.
6.

7.
8. 9.

Heaven From Heaven Hosanna in the highest

... ....... ........ ....... ...... ....... ........ ....
.
.
.

.

200

.

.

.

.

.

.202
204

PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD.
204 206 206 209

God

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.209 .213
217

10. 11.

From on high

Use of the Passive Voice

.....'....
. .
. .

.

.219 .220 .223
224 226

12. 13. 14. 15.

Amen

The Shechinah, the The Place

Concluding Statement

.... ......
Glory, the

Word

.

.

.229 .231
233

CONTENTS.
IX.
1.

xi

THE SON OF MAN.

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

a self-appellation of Jesus used exclusively by
.

..... .....
name
for the

PAGE

Messiah

.

234 241 249 250 253
256

.

.

X.
1.

THE SON OP GOD.

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

.......
.

....
. .

268 274 276 280 288

to the title

"Son

of

God

"

.

XI. CHRIST.
1.

The term
(a)

in Jewish usage

Derivation and form

(&) 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
.

...... ..... .....
.

289 294 299 303
305

.

XII.
1.
2.

THE SON OF DAVID.
origin
.

The Jewish idea of Messiah's Davidic The Davidic descent of Jesus
.

....
.
.
.

316

.319

XIII.
1. 2.

"THE LORD"

The Jewish use of the term The usage in the Synoptists

XIV. "MASTER" AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS.
1.

2.

The Jewish use of the term The Synoptic use of the term

...... ...... ......
AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS.
. .
. . . .

324

-327

331

336

INDEX FOR GREEK TERMS

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

PASSAGES DISCUSSED IN DETAIL

... ...

.....
.

.

.

.

.341
345

350

EDITIONS OF TEXTS USED.

A.

APOCRYPHA.
in Greek,
i.-iii.,

H. B.

Swete,

The Old Testament

1887-94.

0. F. Fritzsche, Libri apocryphi Veteris
"

Testamenti Greece, 1871.

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.

Daniel: Aram. Text, ed. of M. Gaster, 1895.

B.

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA.
H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, 1891
by R. H.
;

Psalms of Solomon:

ed.

of

ed. of 0. v.

Gebhardt, 1895. Book of Jubilees : translation

Charles, Jew. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894)

(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.

EDITIONS OF TEXTS USED

LITERATURE ON THE LAW.
;

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

Constantinople, (M. Friedmann), 1870.
: :

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.

Midrash Chamesh Megilloth Midrash on Canticles ed.
:

:

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.

Midrash Tanchuma: Midrash on Psalms

ed. Venice,
:

1545

Mantua, 1563

;

Wilna (. Buber), 1885.
;

Wilna

Constantinople-Salonica, (S. Buber}, 1891.
:

1512-15

Venice, 1546

;

Midrash on Samuel
Buber), 1893.

ed.

Constantinople, 1517

;

Venice, 1546

;

Krakau

(S.

Midrash on Proverbs
Pesikta
:

:

ed.

Lyck
:

(S.

ed. Venice, 1546 Buber}, 1868.

;

Wilna

(S. Buber}, 1893.

Pesikta Rabbati

ed.
:

Vienna (M. Friedmann), 1880.
ed. Venice, 1544.
:

Pirke Rabbi Eliezer

Tanna de-be Eliyyahu
:

ed. Venice, 1598.

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,
:

Cremona, 1560; Venice, 1568; Venice, 1714-19. 1699 Amsterdam, 1736.
;

French

rite

Machzor Vitry,
:

ed. Berlin, 1893-97.

Sephardic

rite
:

ed. Livorno, 1845-46.

Roman
Yemen

rite

Romanian

ed. Bologna, 1541. rite : ed. Constantinople, 1520.
1

rite : two manuscripts in possession of Dr. Chamizer, Leipzig, No. the year 1659, No. 2, 16-17 century.

of

THE WORDS OF JESUS.

INTRODUCTION.
I.

ARAMAIC AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWS.

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 custom, represented in

the

second
into

century

after

Christ as very ancient, of translating

Aramaic

the text

of the

Hebrew Pentateuch in

the synagogues of the Hebraists

of Palestine.

M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas (1896),
still

58ff., 8 If.,

holds fast to the traditional opinion that even Ezra had
of

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
'

1

2

THE WORDS OF JESUS

firmly established that the
for

Mishna does not make
itself

it

a matter

prescription,

but

concerns

only with
iv.

the

more
In the
to his

precise determination of details (Meg.

5,

7,

11).

third century

it

was recommended

by Joshua ben Levi
It

sons

that one should not even in private read the text of the

Law
the

without the traditional translation. 1

was not practical

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.

a time during which a pressing necessity created this custom,

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.

That even written

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

2

Aramaic and not in Greek.
to

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

one should have had them at home

;

only

it

clear that in public worship the

Holy Scripture was not
This rendering,

read without the translation into Aramaic.
according to
verse
in
iv. 4,

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

feasts attested by Josephus

and

the

New

Of these there may be named

(Hebrew would be D^Via),
1

"

Phari-

Ber. 8 a ;

cf.

W. Backer, Agada

der palast. Amoraer,

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

See same passages except

j.

Sabb. 15 C
i.

.

Zahn, Einl. in d.

N.

Test.

23,

maintains that the plural R 'tfn$
t

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
;

temple, according to Shek. v. 3,
for the drink-offerings

vi. 5,

the legends on the tokens

and on the chests in which the conwere deposited were in Aramaic.
text, some,

tributions of the faithful

As now given
are Hebrew.

in the

Mishna

however, of the names
in the other cases
is

But the use

of

Aramaic

so

striking in matters of the temple service, that one
it

must regard
language.

as the sole language originally used in this connection.
4.

Old

official

documents
"

in

the

Aramaic

These

are, first,

the

Koll concerning Fasts," a catalogue of

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.

For the "Koll concerning Fasts," see

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

and that goes back
Isr.

to 'pns, definite ni*jjtt, plur. def. 'Xjjny.
Jiid.

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

3

Cf.

Priester

D&renbourg, Essai sur 1'histoire de la Palestine, 74 und der Cultus (1895), 62 f.

;

Euchler,

Die

4
treatise

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"
cf.
f.

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
,

attributed by the Palestinian
after

Talmud Sanh. 18 d and
2
3

there4

by Graetz,

the

first

Derenbourg, Neubauer, and Biichler, to Gamaliel but this must be an error, as the four
;

1

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

The Mishna gives the

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

not surprising that the Mishna should also

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

unimportant the choice of language

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

reckoned among the public documents.
1

2

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

The language used
cording
to

in a certain family register (Ppn
is

found at one time in Jerusalem,

open to question.

Ac-

the statement of Levi, one of the Palestinian

Amoraim
at

(about
rate

300

A.D.

1 ),

it

was written in Aramaic; and
it

any

one sentence

from

is

reproduced in this

language.

The contents, now
it

distorted

however, refer
century.

at

the

earliest

to the

by additions, would, end of the first

But

in

Yeb.

iv.

13

Simeon ben Azzai (about

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."

2

Whether
the

this

register

was

the one
;

alluded to by Levi cannot indeed be affirmed with certainty

but

it

is

probably

same,

and

its

language therefore

doubtful.
6.

The unquestioned adoption in
characters in place of the old

the time of Jesus of the

Aramaic

Hebrew in

copies of the

Bible Text.

The change
its

of character has the

natural presupposition.
,

change of language as The usual citation from Matt.

5 18

inconclusive.

implying that Iwra was the smallest letter, is certainly Vav and yod were both represented at that

period by a long perpendicular stroke.

The yod was

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

intended for Greek readers.
1

For them iota was actually

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
;

2

additions.

6

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Instead of on Matt.
5 18 stress

the smallest letter.

must

be laid

much more on

the fact that the Judaism of the

second century possessed the Bible text only in " Assyrian," i.e. Aramaic a point of contrast with the Samhandwriting,
aritans,

and further on the
is

fact that

even the Alexandrian
in
this

translation
character. 1

already

based

upon Hebrew texts

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.

2

The

custom

of

calling

the

Aramaic
X.
i.

"Hebrew."
ii.

Josephus, indeed,
of the
"

showed himself (Ant.
from those
of the
"

2, xii.

1) quite

capable of distinguishing the language and written character
"

Syrians

Hebrews."

And

yet

between Hebrew and Aramaic words he makes no
According
the
to

difference.

Ant.

I.

i.

1, 2,

o-d/3/3ara

and

'ASdfj,

belong to
6)
is

Hebrew
term
of

a

tongue, but daapOd as well (Ant. the "Hebrews." The "Hebrew"

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

7

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

Aramaic was the

of
it

the Jewish people at this period, in so

at least, as

was not Greek.

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,"
"
:

1

A. Neubauer has advanced

the following assertion

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 Jews; the Galileans and

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

Neither the dialect of the Galileans, which was

merely related to the Aramaic, nor the purer Aramaic of the Judseans, nor their modernised Hebrew, can really be
demonstrated.

That Aramaic had at

least a distinct pre-

may be inferred with certainty from the place-names in Jerusalem and its environs 'A/ceXBafid^
dominance in Judcea
:

(KOT

^n)

;

Bvj0eaBd (fcnpn rV3)

;

B^aOd, E^eOd
'

(KfW JV3)

;

(nnaa)
;

;

r

\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

8

THE WORDS OF JESUS
In the same category comes also a Hebrew term, similar

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

ing from the readings
K\J

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

and Christian periods as often speaking

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

colloquial language of the

produce a demonstration that the Jews in Galilee had always been

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

on that account are
times
that remain
of

the Aramaic testimonies from earlier
this

despite

opposition.

The Hebrew

form

of the oral use of

any tradition thus proves nothing at all in favour Hebrew at an earlier date. Biichler 2 may
the

be quite right in holding that Aramaic was the language

used in

temple

and in the
to

sacrificial

service.

But

when he feels Hebrew in the

infer, because the priests speak obliged descriptions of the temple service given by

the Mishna in the tractates
served as a place of execution.

Yoma, Sukka, Tamid, Middoth,
(1

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

:

sacred tongue [Hebrew] or Greek !"

On "Sursi" Aram. 2. 3 A. Buckler, Die Priester und der Cultus, 64 ff.

vid.

Gram.

d. jlid.-pal.

INTRODUCTION
that

9

therefore

the Aramaic

had been
A.D.,

expelled from
is

the

temple during the revolt,
basis for his conclusion.
for

6370
At

there

no
is

sufficient

all events,

there
1

the opinion expressed by A. Eesch,

no ground that Hebrew was

the language of the mother of Jesus, inasmuch as she be-

longed to South Palestine.

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

Jewish families must there-

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

these circumstances the
;

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

This implies, moreover, that from
iv.

A.
1

Resell,

Aussercanonische Paralleltexte,
'

224,
8

Das Kindheitsevanxi. 3.

gelium, 323.
2

Mace. 5 20

23
.

Ant. xin.

10
this

THE WORDS OF JESUS
side

He

did

not come into contact with the

Hebrew

tongue.
leans as

The Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galiof the people of Gaulonitis, and natives of Syria,
IV.
i.

according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. stand it.

5),

were able to under-

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

But the Kaddish
of

prayer in

Aramaic and the

avowal

the Mishna

Sot. vii. 1, that, inter alia, the daily repetition of the

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

in the symbolic fulfilment of the duty to occupy oneself with

Law which had
this

clear that a very pressing necessity

performed daily by every Israelite, must have existed
Hellenists,

for

concession.

The

who understood no

Hebrew
this.

at

all,

may

well have been the chief occasion for
quite unintelligible to

But
"

as

Hebrew could not be

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

be gathered from the deterrent

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.

40 b ) concerning the Aramaic

blessing which

1

This

is

Talmud reading is "in
lonian
2

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

did not contain the

name

of

God.

That synagogue

dis-

courses intended for the people should have been pronounced
in

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

in regard to the legal schools of the earlier

incontestably certain that their language throughthat, in particular, the legal decisions

out was Hebrew, and

were always formulated in that language.

We
1

are told, at
is

any

rate (Eduyoth

viii. 4),

that a certain Yose,
of

who indeed

incorrectly styled Yose ben Yoezer
his decisions as to clean

Zereda,

and unclean in Aramaic.
A.D.

pronounced This Yose

appears to have lived about 100
that
at
least

One might conclude

in

his

school

Aramaic was the prevalent

language.

From
clusion

all

these considerations

must be drawn the con-

that Jesus grew up speaking the Aramaic tongue,

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

position der Die Priester

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
to be

expected that He would have furnished His discourse with the superfluous, and to the hearers perplexing, embellishment of the Hebrew form.

II.

THE LITERARY USE OF HEBREW.
in

The Jewish people has written

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

may have been

also in the period

when Aramaic was

dominant.
possess, in fact, some examples of Hebrew from the centuries before and after the birth authorship
of

And we

Christ.

A

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

of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

4

"

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

were written in any Semitic language.

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
;

A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles,

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

which was inaccessible to Jews. epigraphen, ii. 458 f.

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

?

Moses or Baruch as the writer To Hellenists such a book might be
the

offered without

scruple, because

Hebrew
"

not have been read by them.

Among

Hebraists

original could "
it

would

be startling if, in place of the presumed Hebrew original, a mere Aramaic translation had come to light.

The Book of Daniel forms here no
groundwork, comprising the
contents

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

of Babylon, used aptly

Kings enough the language current in the
interpreted

were

to

the

whole East at
chaps.
visions

the

time.

The second part

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.

the corresponding contents of the prophecy he welded the
separate

halves
in
;

into

one whole.
the
it
is

In chap.
of

2

the worldits

power

is

decay when
in chap. 7
ff.

Kingdom
God
(cf.

God makes
-

appearance
chap. 7
tf^y,

in reality full of the greatest
2 42f

menace against the people
is

of

with 7 24f -).

In

also to be noted the peculiar use of the

Hebrew
Further

did not begin originally
additions to the
in Aramaic, so

occurring only in this chapter. with 2 4

That the Aramaic part
is

self-evident.

Aramaic part would naturally be composed that in the Aramaic translation of the supple-

ments

to

Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Daniel and

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

In regard to the Book

A

,

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

for the phases of the

sun and moon, 78 lf
.

the points of

the compass,

As

for

chaps.

3771,
came

I can merely point out the Hebraising phrases "

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.

"before his face," 62 2
"

63 9 65 6 66 3 69 29

In

8390
begin

the repeated use (thirty times) of the redunis

dant

"

striking,
ff.).

and

is

at least not old

Hebrew

(vid.

IV. 8 below, pp. 2 6

As

for the

remainder and the book

as a whole, I do not venture to

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

imitated of set purpose.
'Xdpvv

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
;

the frequent use of

cfe avvdvrrj-

Kara

irpocrwjrov

^ap.

All this

is

specifically

Hebrew
is

and not Aramaic.

The

Aramaic

Book

of

the

Hasmonceans,
is

1

which

modelled after the biblical Aramaic,

in no
is,

way

connected
its

with the First Book of Maccabees, and

together with

Hebrew version, 2 of much Tobit we now possess four
one Aramaic;
3

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

a

Hebrew

translation, which
text, it is

with the help of he himself had got made

from a Chaldaic

possible that this text too

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

Judith which Jerome used;

See especially the edition of M. Gaster,

"The

Scroll of the Hasmonseans,"

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.

See, e.g., Boer's Seder

Abodath

Yisrael, 441

ff.

3

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"

text (together with the
(1877), see also
p.

Soc. Bibl. Arch.); Hebrew of 1516), "

A. Neubauer published an Aramaic The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text "
iii.

Gram. 27 ff., and

3 Schilrer, Geschichte d. jiid. Volkes,

(1898)

180

f.

16

THE WORDS OF JESUS

although in this case a Hebrew original is the most probable. Whoever wrote after the model of the biblical books would
naturally
"

used the

we have said above if Hebrew " language, but if a
as

a

"

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

do not in this case come into action.

Jesus had taught in
Hebraists
"

Aramaic

;

and in that language the

"

must have
if

been taught concerning the address were to be
substance of

Him

in Christian public worship,
to
all.

intelligible

If,

further, the

such an
"

address were

Aramaic speaking the model of the
able
to

Hebraists,"

down for the composition in Hebrew after
noted
also

biblical

books was, of course, not incon-

ceivable, especially as those

Jews who could read were

understand Hebrew, yet the more probable course

with material already formulated by oral delivery was to
write
it

down
if

particularly

the language in which it was spoken, the record were designed to afford convenient
in

and

reliable material for further recital or public exposition.

Even some
not in

centuries later, the gospel of the Jewish Christians,

according to the express testimony of Jerome,

Hebrew but

in Aramaic.

was composed Hence there is much to

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
"

Hebraists," in other words, a primitive gospel (Urevan-

gelium),
1

was written

in Aramaic.
Beth ha-Midrasch,
i.

Jellinek edited one recension in
ff.

130

f.,

Gaster another

in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xvi. 156

INTRODUCTION

17

III.

THE SEMITISMS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
little

Not a

has been written on the
first

"

Hebraisms

"

of the

New

Testament since the
1

them by Kaspar Wyss But from the outset teenth century.
grasped

important investigation of and Johann Vorst 2 in the sevenit

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

a

Hebrew
people
;

past underlay the Aramaic present of the Jewish secondly and in particular, because the Greek trans-

lation of the

Old Testament had necessarily a powerful
of

in-

fluence on the religious dialect.

the Synoptic Gospels of the Christian Hellenists, there has further to be added to the previously
specified relations

In the case

with Jewish Aramaic, the highly important

consideration that the groundwork of the material elaborated

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
:

1

dam, 1665.

18
authors directly in

THE WORDS OF JESUS
its

Aramaic form or already through the

medium

of

Greek

tradition, oral or written.

In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the
Semitisms of the Gospels ought first to be looked for in the sphere of the Jewish Aramaic, and that only where this
does not suffice for explanation, need
it

be asked

how

far

Hebrew

is

to be held

responsible
is

for

Semitisms.

In the

latter case a special

examination

then required into the
of the Synoptic

different possibilities involved.

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

have reached the evangelists.

A

Hebraising

influence,

on the other hand, might also come into play after the material had already been moulded in Greek. During
this

phase such an influence

is

the less improbable, because
"

in the oral presentation of the

"

gospel

at gatherings of the

Christian community, as well as in any literary treatment

applied to

it,

the Greek Old Testament furnished the readiest

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
;

scruples in assimilating the form of
aries to the older Scriptures.

new

devotional lection-

It is a serious defect in previous studies of the Semitisms in

the Gospels, that too
P.

little

account

is

taken of these

circumstances.
edition
of

W. Schmiedel
Grammatik

"Winer's
2.

complains in his new des Neutestamentlichen

Ic, that the Aramaic constituents of Sprachidioms," the New Testament diction have not been sufficiently re-

garded.

But he himself does not succeed
with F. Blass,

in reaching

any
Still

really tenable separation of
less satisfactory is it

Aramaisms and Hebraisms.

who

calls special attention

in his

"Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch" (1896),

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

exclusively consult the Old Testament

in his tractate, otherwise instructive in
biblische

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

A

directed to the

"

Grsecisms

"

of the Gospels,

i.e.

to the linguistic

for which, therefore, the Hellenistic writers

phenomena which have no immediate Semitic equivalent, and must perforce be
Previous translators of
to
grief

held responsible.

the Gospels into
Grsecisms, either

Hebrew have come
because, like

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

Grsecisms not less distinctly than the former

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

Delitzsch, and of his Hebrew

New

was therefore able to act as editor of the revised llth edition Testament, which appeared in 1892.

20

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Thus may be reached a verbal form
identified with the original

Hellenistic Hebraisms.

which

is

at least not unthinkable in the utterance of Jesus,
is

and which

most closely

Aramaic

tradition of the apostles.

Even such Aramaic Hebraisms
in great

as the

Targums present

number, are not

to be regarded as specially probable

in the

mouth

of

Jesus.

Jesus Himself with the
in the

Whoever compares the words of hymns and discourses of other persons

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,

and that references

to the letter of Scripture are con-

fined to a very limited compass.

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

transmitters of His words

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

part a purposeless, yet intentional, imitation of a Targum.

The words

of Jesus,

kind, will accordingly

purged of special Hebraisms of every have the highest probability of being

original

IV.

SOME HEBRAISMS AND ARAMAISMS.

In order to inaugurate an investigation of the Synoptic Semitisms which will better satisfy the demands that must
be made upon
it,

a number of these will

now

be discussed.

Such phrases

will be selected as either

substantially define

or are sufficient to define the general style of one or
Synoptists.

more
re-

The discussion

of

further details

must be

served

till

the examination of the special passages.

The

participles
finite

coupled with a

redundantly verb by the three Synoptists, but not by
ep^oyLtez/o?

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."

This idiom corresponds to the redundant

^n and
(and)

Nin of the

Old Testament;

see,
15

e.g.,
;

10 K1J ?fe, "he went and Judg. 19
,

came";
1

Hos.

5

na^

I

wm

go

Sam. 20 1 10^1 tiM, "he came and
text)

said."

return"; In the Book of

Enoch (Greek

may

junction of TTopevecrdat, 11 Tropevov Kal SrfXwa-ov, 10

be compared especially the conwith etVetz/, 12 4 13 1 3 15 2 ; see also
-

;

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,

came and asked,"
Ber. K. 17.

Shebi.
;

39 a

;

2^1
"

KHK, "he "let him come and
;

b

^

j.

Ter.

46 b

;

marry," Ber. K. 65

napjnw nin,

she went and married,"

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

22 people and went"; 22

avrbv airr)\6av

(this

also in
13

Mark

1 2 12 ),

"

they

left

Him and went away
1

Mark 8 afals avrovs 4 (Matt. 16 KaraXiTTtov avrovs airrjkOev), " He left
John II 17 t\duv
is

a7rf)\0ev

them and
doubtful.

indispensable

;

the reading, however,

is

22

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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.

But the former

signifies in

the Old Testa"

ment

"

to desert, leave in the lurch," the latter

to leave or

let alone,"

and neither the one nor the other
This
tfb
!wp_
is

is

employed in
"

idioms like those above quoted. C in Jewish Aramaic j. Sabb. 8
:

the case, however,

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

C

him him

how

in similar cases aTrr)\6ev standing

by

itself,

which can-

not be rendered into

presupposes the use of the popular Dativus commodi of Jewish Aramaic. 1
^*1,
3.

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

Of the same nature

the instance where
"

said of Levi that Jesus

saw him

"

sitting

(Ka0rfjj,evov) at the

9 receipt of custom, Matt. 9

(Mark
6

2 14

,

Luke
^&?.l,

5 27 ).
"

In quite
sat

the same

way

it is said,

Judg. 19 v?K
"

s

l

"and they
is

down and

ate," for

to

the narrator the

" 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.

,

In the Jewish Aramaic we find TOKto TJV,
4 counted," Est. K. 3
;

"

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.

d. j.-pal. Ar. 178.

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

also implied that standing
it

Neh. 9 it is In the Old Testament, 1 Kings 8 was the usual attitude at prayer;
" he stood and phrase to say,

is

not, however, a regular

prayed."
praying,"
j.

On
E.

the other hand, contrast
h. S.

^p

B^P,
4
.

"

he stood

58

b
;

n^
"

D'Kjj,

Est. E. 3

In

the

same way unripi
Karyyopovvre?,

is

quite

without

force

in:

ela-TrjKGKrav

they stood and accused,"
people
stood

Luke

23 10

;

elo-TiJKet,
35
;

Qewpwv,
ecr-rax?

"the

beholding,"

Luke 23

cf.

KOI Oeppawopevos, "standing and
-

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 ;

and from the rabbinical
;

literature, "ran] D'Kjj

mn,

he stood and reaped," Vay. E. 22 b say," Mechilt., ed. Friedm. 45
.

TOW

TOjf, "they stand

5.

A

redundant avacrrds

is

found in the narrative
It is

of the

Synoptists, but not in John.

found with dKo\ov0eiv,

Matt. 9 9 (Mark 2 u ,Luke 5 28 ); airepxerOai,

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

.

A

glance

at

the

examples
QIJ5,

specified
l^pjl,

Concordances for the terms
is

Dj^,

by Hebrew shows that this

a well-established Old Testament idiom.

See also 1 Mace.

24
9 44
,

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Book

of

Enoch 54 3 89 47
,

-

48
.

In view of this
"

fact, it

is

hard to see how Blass in the Preface to his

Evangelium
the same

secundum Lucam" (1897), class it as an Aramaism.

p.

xxiii,

can without more ado
true

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
"

he stood up to pray," j. II. h. S. 58 up and devoured him," Vay. E. 22
;

b
;

n^ b&q

D|3,

he stood

and gave him," Ech. E. i. 4 pnN) d FPtfnw protested," j. Keth. 30
;
;

Piv 3ni Dj3 } "
)*BiJ,

"he stood up they stood up and

beat him,"

j.

Yeb. 15 a
"
Dip,

.

DJJ, "they stood up and The Imperative Dip is common for

the mere interjection
E.

"

"

up

!

e.g.
j.

2\y\ Dip, "
d
;

up

!

ride,"

Vay.

28; ^nn

U p!
j.

go,"

Bikk. 65

rnr rntag itag Dip,

"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

introduced not simply by "iN*5, he called," but by prefixing to these

and he
"

few,

and

he answered."
1

The same mode

of reporting prevails also in
2

Mace.,

Tobit,

Book

of
;

Enoch,
it is

Apocalypse

of

Baruch,

2 Esdras, Assumptio Mosis
in the

conspicuously rare, however,

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-

In the words spoken by Jesus

found in Matt.
.

25 12

9 (cf. ver. )

26 37 - 40 ** 45
-

,

Luke II 7 13 25 15 29

In
;

these instances aTroicpiOels elirev
in

is

the formula most used

Mark

7 28 occurs also aireKpiOr] KOI \eyei, the two finite verbs

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

De Hebraismis Novi Testament!, De Hebraismis Nov. Test. (1886) 165.
Enoch
I
2

ii.

(1658) 173-176

;

D.

See especially

6 4 15 1 21 9

227

-

9

246 25 1

-

3

27 1

.

INTRODUCTION

25
-

\eyuv

is

9 attached, see Matt. 25

-

37 44 45
-

,

Mark

3 s3 5 9 9 38 15 9

,

Luke
also

3 16

4

4
,

John

I

26

10

33

12

23

Moreover, the formula
has preceded, see
,

occurs

where no

explicit question
,

II 25 17 4 (Mark 9 5 ) 26 63 28 5 Luke I 60 13 14 14 3 John 5 17 19
Matt.
-

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

The Hebrew idiom
;

later

Jewish Aramaic
Scroll of the

this

formula

is

quite unknown.

The
is

Aramaic

Hasmonseans, the style of which
is

modelled on the Book of Daniel,
eleven times.

singular

in having it

Direct speech

is

introduced by the simple IDK.

Even

which are considerably prolonged, no " further introduction is added. The word for " answer in
in conversations

Galilean Aramaic a^K

is

rarely used.

In Ech. K.
" "

i.

4

;

j.

Erub. 1 8

d

it is

conjoined with "iK, but not so as to constitute

a persistent formula,

^HK, the word for

answer

used by

Onkelos, appears to be as yet a learned

term for

"

making

good an objection." Probability supports the view that the formula in question was unknown in genuine Aramaic. In
that case

the evangelists can have borrowed
either directly or through the

it

the

Hebrew
Bible.

medium

only from of the

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

the later Jewish-Aramaic
"

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

"

!.

introduction to a direct discourse, Dan. 6 22 K3^> D ^

-

H H?

fe
1

"

then

spake

Daniel

to

the king, saying."

But no
Similarly

1 parallel to this is found in the later literature.

Book

of

Enoch 21 5 seems, however,

to presuppose it

:

'^j 1313

26

THE WORDS OF JESUS

in the single instance Ezra 5 11 the

Hebrew

"ib&6 is

imitated
is

by

">PPp,

whereas elsewhere for similar cases there
finite

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

found Matt. 23 lf 28 18 ,Luke 24 6f -,Acts
-

8

26
;

eiTrev

\eycov (elirav

\eyovre<i),

Mark
(Mark

8 28 1 2 26 (discourse
of

of Jesus),

Luke 14 3

.

Other instances are susceptible

a

different explanation, viz. Matt.

14

27

6

50
),

because em-

phasis may He moved

be laid on the fact that Jesus, hitherto silent as
over the lake, then addressed His disciples, and

Matt. 13 3 22 1 because \a\eiv (\eyeiv) ev irapajSoKals forms one The expression accordingly is not a composite expression.

common one
of

;

further, it is never attested

by more than one

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.

can be coupled with numerous verbs of calling, asking, re-

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

;

new Tnaonjn, "he announced and
-iDNi,

said,"

Yeb. 12

he

testified

and
8.

said,"

Vay. E. 34.

Tjp^aro, r)p%avro.

The use

of ijp^aro, jjpgavro

with an infinitive following,

when nothing
of

at all is to be said of
is

any further development
one
of

the action thus introduced,

the

peculiarities

that

mark the
it

narrative style of all three Synoptists,

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

.

Further, this phrase occurs outside narrative passages in the

The expression

is

obviously

It is altogether foreign to the

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

!524 b ut elsewhere has used bnn as equivalent.
?

Similarly Delitzsch substitutes other turns of expression

Luke
to

3

8

9 29
-

,

while in the other cases he also has recourse
1

entirely abandons the region of what is admissible by inserting VVhn as equivalent even linguistically
/[JO.

Eesch

in the historical narrative, as
to

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

rendered needless in this

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
, ;

;

common word for in Hebrew innn,
For
"nt?

"

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

3

8
,

this is only a constructio

ad sensum variant in better Greek, which could
1

however,

Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,

iii.

9,

28

THE WORDS OF JESUS

have been expressed in Aramaic.
Cod.

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

D

and the simple

"

thou shalt take."

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."
,

thus express the See Onk. Deut. I 5
,

;

7 Trg. Josh. 7

17 12 Judg.
is possible

63

.

This sense

also

19 6 2 Sam. 7 29 2 Kings 5 23 in Luke 14 9
.

9.

evOews evOvs,

irapa^pTJfjLa.

The adverb

evOeax;, evOvs

the latter being the undisputed
is

reading in a few passages only
times,

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

yna, Dxns, rnno

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

has, in fact, nothing

corresponding.

It

is

true

also

that the rabbinic literature does not exhibit any such usage

with the same frequency

;

but there can be no doubt that
2

its

common
1

use of

^**p,

T

IP

presupposed by the evangelists

represents the Aramaic prototype a seej. Ned. 41; j. K. h. S. 58 ;
;

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.

R

22

;

Jerus.

I.

Gen. I 3 Ex. 19 17
,

;

Hebr.

j.

Pes.

33 a
"

(bis)

;

iv. 4.

This T*P does not

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

restricted its use is conceivable enough.

Its excessive

frequency in Mark must depend on the particular predilection of the author, and is due probably to Greek rather

than Jewish-Aramaic influence.
10.

Kara
Acts 3 13
is
,

"

TrpoacoTrov rti/o?,
cf.

in presence of
8

LXX
""BK?

1 Chron.

also proper to classical

28 (*?$). Greek, and is therefore no Hebraism.
;

any one," Luke 2 The phrase, however,
,

31

In Hebrew
Aramaic,

^^

23 might also be used, as in 1 Sam. 25 or 'BN3, Gram. d. j.-pal. Aram. 183.

in

"

Trpo trpoa-wTTov Tti>o9,

before any one,"
,

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).

One must not
Acts

therefore necessarily predicate

Hebrew
ploys
D'Jp

derivation for Trpb irpoo-o)7rov (which

Luke

also

em-

13 24 ), although the idiom is a Hebraism. would be the Aramaic equivalent in Luke 9 52 Acts 13 24
in
, .

The same applies
Acts 3 19 5 41 7 45
\3Q;Jp.
.

to

It is
also

irpoa^irov, by Luke, an obvious Hebraism modelled on
it

airb

used

employs and Theodotion has prototype,
the kindred D1
e/c

But Paul

2 Thess. I 9 with no

Hebrew
,

CLTTO

8 Trpoo-caTrov in Dan. 7
15

and

TT/OOO-CWTTOU

in Dan. 2

6

27

^' which would be the term to

fill

as rendering for the place of Luke's
,

airo Trpoo-toTTOV.

eVt TrpoacoTTov Travis rfjs 7^9 occurs in an utterance of
1

himself must

n Perhaps with exception of Luke 19 where irapaxPW a use d by the narrator mean "suddenly, unexpectedly."

30

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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-

;

sponds to the Hebrew
eVl TrpoawTTov
XT)?
s

'

^;

cf.

Jer.

25 26 nffjKn

rsa iy,

LXX

7779.

phrase literally this was idiomatic Aramaic

by sx

y$.

The Targums usually render the But it may be questioned whether
;

NJB
"

but this

is

intended to
"

mean

does occur Vay. E. 24, upon the surface of the water."
""BK ity

A

mere

way. Hebraism.

upon Luke has therefore in
the other hand,

"

would scarcely have been expressed
this instance

in this

made

use of a

On
(20
21 )

it

is

no mere Hebraism when Luke

(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

.

A

substantially

meaning belongs

to

pBK "Op, pBK

"lapK,

which Levy in both his dictionaries puts

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

for the expression PBN "QD,

to," see Targ. Jerus. I. "

Gen. 32 20

;

b.

Taan. 23 a
5.

;

a glance," Vay.
is

R
is
.

Gmjpl^etv TO TrpocrwTrov with Infinitive
(9
)

used by Luke
the

for

"to set one's face towards."

This
Jer.

LXX
,

expression for the

Hebrew

E p2 &
s

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

!W# a^, "he turned a TS^ an^ cannot, of course,
:

be quite impossible.

But

in the metaphorical sense repre-

INTRODUCTION
sented in

31

Luke

9 51 such an expression cannot be authenticated.
to

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
"

2 Sam. 17 11 in which latter passage the
phrase.

LXX

has the same
is,

But

in that case the

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

f

els

J.6povo-a\rjfJi,

have been repeated.

The expression
1

in ver.

ought properly to 53 is a faulty
with
the

abridgment of the complete locution.
habit of Luke, pointed out by Vogel,

It agrees
to use

some expression

that slips from his pen a second time after a short interval,

and then perhaps never

again.

11. evtoTTLOv*
evwTTiov,

used by the

Hellenists

in

imitation

of

such

Hebrew

expressions as

^&?,

W?,

is

absent from Matthew

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

by the LXX, but

is

no testimony
favour of

in favour of a Semitic

primary gospel, still a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the latter.
based on this point by Blass
3

less in

The inferences

are hasty.

According to Deissf.

mann, indeed, Neue
1

Bibelstudien,

40

(

= Bible

Studies
Stil (1897),

TU. Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Spraclie nnd
J. Vorstius, op. cit.
ii.

27

f.

2
3

214

;

D. Schilling, op.
xxii.

cit.

129.

F. Blass.,

Evangelium secundum Lukam,

32
[T.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

&

T. Clark], p. 213), the

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.

2 Esdras, and rarely in the Books of

Aramaic

W

in its present
"

form begins, indeed, with the words

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

the authorities for the text, must be deleted,
to

so that this instance has also

be eliminated.

Any

one

desiring to collect instances in favour of a

Hebrew

primitive
eyevero.

gospel would have to

name

in the first rank this
it is

/cal

Moreover,

it

must be observed that

plainly

Luke who

makes

so frequent use of the phrase,

and

that, too, through-

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
;

;

Children to the Canonical Text.

INTRODUCTION

33

out both his writings, not, as might be expected, exclusively
or chiefly in his initial chapters, for

which many postulate
for

a

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

be remarked that the discourses of Jesus, which might

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

a

Hebrew

Eacts like these forbid the assumption of original as the necessary source of the phrase.
-

17

.

13. ev ro5 with the Infinitive. 1

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,

;

virocrTpefaiv TOV 'lycrovv,

Luke 8 40

ev TO>

rr)v

(frcovtfv,

Luke
of the
;

9

36
.

This
2

construction, which

Blass

records as an
after the

Aramaism,

has

been

formed by the
;

LXX,
see,

model

Hebrew
ev

3 with the infinitive

e.g.,

Gen. 38 28 iwrfa

LXX
is

Targums
the
biblical

similarly copy it

T$ riicreiv avrfv. The 38 28 Onk. Fn^oa), but in (Gen.
wanting.

spoken

Aramaic

it

Once,

however,

the

dialect (Dan.
3.

6 21 ) has the kindred construction of

the infinitive with.
or participle
1

The

particle

"]3

(H?) with

finite

verb

is

the substitute employed on the whole most
cit.
ii.

J.

Vorstius, op.
sec.

163-166

;

D. Schilling, op.

cit.

162

j

F. Blass,

Gramm.
2

d. neutestamentl. Griechisch, 232.

Evang.

Lucam,

xxii.

34

THE WORDS OF JESUS
-

11 frequently; see Dan. 6

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

occurs in the discourses of Jesus

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

a

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,

of the text of the

LXX

which

is

written

in the

Matt.
;

13 U

(cf.

Mark 4 12 )

a/coy

aKovcrere, /SXettwrc? /^XeVere

Matt. 15 4 (Mark 7 10 ) davdrw

TeXeuraTO);

Acts 7 34

I8a>v

el&ov.

The only instance that
Testament
28

occurs

independently discourse of Jesus is eTnOv^ia

of

the

Old

text

in
;

the
cf.

&jre9vf&Tj<ra,
;

Luke 22 15

Acts

5 4 E, a7Tt\y aTreiXycrcofjieOa 7rapayy\ta 23 14 avadefiaTi aveOefiaTiaa/jLev John 3 29
;

17

;

An
4 41 Luke 2 9
,
;

allied usage is

tyoPqfapfav

(f>6/3ov

peyav,
.

Mark

2 10 tydprja-av ^apav fMffa^v, Matt.
of

The Hebrew mode
adding
its

emphasising the

finite

verb by
still

infinitive

or

cognate

substantive, though
is

frequent in

1

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.

"he gave Keth. 28 b
.

it

as his opinion,"

j.

C Erub. 18

;

j.

Yom.

Apart

from
;

this,

it

is

never used. 2
cit.

2

*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,

"thou hast greatly longed

rendering Gen. 3 1 30
,

will

have originated with the narrator.
it

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

at all necessary to assume

any such antecedent
%aipLV xapav

in the case of fofteiv $6/3 ov

peyav and

fjL6yd\rjv,

since

reference
I 10 ,

to

the

LXX
nn?pb>

ex-

pressions for n^T| riN^

&TP,

Jonah

and r6nj

np^,

Jonah 4 6

,

fully suffices for elucidation.

15.
It is of the
is

elvai,

with the Participle.

Old Testament that the union
permissible, even

an established principle in regard to the Hebrew of iTjn with the participle

quite

where there

is

no

question

of

the continuance of an action. 1

In post-biblical Hebrew this

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

d

will

demonstrate

how
:

dialect can

make

use of this form

extensively the Galilean na 13 ran njn 'oiprw

^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
;

found hospitality with Jacob

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
.

1

H

4

Text according to Lehmann's edition.

36

THE WORDS OF JESUS

The Synoptists make use
the narrative coupled with
it
fjv

of

idiom exclusively in and rjcrav, but do not report
this

among
the

the words of Jesus, which contain only once ea-ovrcu
participle,

with

Luke 17 35

.

The Gospel
23
).

of

John has

fy with the participle only once (3

There

is

consequently

no ground

for attaching, as Blass

*

does, special significance to
20
)

the fact that in the Acts (22 19

-

the construction occurs

twice in a discourse of Paul which was delivered in Aramaic,

while in the second half of the Acts the construction

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.

The frequent use
Gospel of

of the present tense in narrative in the

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,

from the foregoing that we must
(KaraXiTTtov)

class

as distinct

Aramaisms the redundant a<e/?

and

TjpgaTO, as well as the adverb evOvs (Trapa^pij/jia).
of

The use

elvai

Aramaic rather than Hebrew.
and Hebrew.
nected with

with the participle to represent a historic tense is The redundant use of e\6u>v,

/caOlaas, ecrTa)?, avacrra^ (eyep0efa) belongs equally to

Aramaic
con-

The genuine Hebraisms are the phrases
Trpocrwrrov,

the

construction

ev
its

rat

with

the

infinitive, the emphasising of the verb by
1

cognate sub-

Blass, Evang. sec.

Lucam,

xxi.

INTRODUCTION
stantive,

37
eKaXycrev
Xeycov,

and the
elirev.

formulae

ical

eyeveTo,

diroKpiOels

As regards the
isms, except a^et?,

distribution of these, the distinct

Arama-

three Synoptists.
eo-rcw?,

which Luke avoids, are represented in all Further, the idioms with ekBwv, Kadia-as,
elvat,

dvaa-rds (fyep&ek), and
to

with the participle are

common
possible

them

all

Aramaisms.

without exception, and these idioms are The genuine Hebraisms are almost exof

clusively
is

peculiarities

Luke's
;

Gospel.

KOI eyevero also
aTrorcpiOeis,
all

is

used predominantly by Luke it is only of uncertain origin, that is to be found in
is

which

the Synoptists,

and
the

even employed by John, who almost entirely avoids other Hebraisms and Aramaisms. The Acts of the

Apostles agrees in linguistic peculiarities with the Gospel of Luke.

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

1

that

the

narrative

style of the Gospels

and the Acts

the best witness of the

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

accidentally absent perhaps

be found eivai with
eVt

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

occurs in the words of Jesus only in

Luke 16 22 19 15

Winer's Gramraatik der neutestamentlichen Sprachidiome,

38
etirev

THE WORDS OF JESUS
\eycuv stands only in

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

this connection it is seen

that the Hebraisms

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

not more remarkable

than the fact that each individual Hebraism occurs so seldom.
If Luke had worked in dependence upon a Hebrew original, then such idioms must have occurred much more frequently

than they do,

for

he

does

not shrink
foreign
to

from using those
the feeling of the

Hebraisms which are most

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

1

also peculiarly

Hebrew.
-

In addition

there

fall
,

from
9 53 ,

his pen such mentioned above

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 ,

1

equally elusive of the translator's art, eV
rrjv rjfjiepav rfjs TrevTijKoo-Tr)?,

Acts 2 1
2

.

TW crvvtrK^ovcrQai The frequency of the
first

Hebraisms used by Luke, especially in the
the Gospel, has led de Lagarde
to

chapters of

the very just conclusion

that these chapters have throughout a colouring distinctly

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

that they have

arisen because the chapters were translated from a
"

Hebrew

Hebraisms original, although he himself perceives that the and Old Testament Parallels" to Matt. 1. 2, Luke 1. 2, collected

by him in

which by the way

Kindheits-evangelium," 3056 (half of should be deleted), demonstrate primarily
"

only the close relation that subsists between those chapters and the Greek Old Testament. 3 While Eesch holds Luke himself

to be the translator, Blass

4

is

convinced that Luke was

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

personal style greater scope as he proceeded.

Vogel
of

5

also

adopts

a

"

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
;

1

3

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
source, but to

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

1

speaks.

The correctness
is

of

our view as to the Hebraisms of Luke

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-

selves here of D 1?"l?, though such

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

-

6

28 17 ).

Any

one familiar with Jewish literature

knows that t^nx D'^JN

" 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
,

;

for every Israelitish king, Tos. Sanh.

iv. 4.

And,
16

finally,

let

the following points be noticed.

The

betrayer, according

to Blass,

was

called 2fcapia)0
;

by Luke

(6

2 2 3 ), agreeing with Cod.

D

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

2

tends to show that Luke failed
is

to understand this also.

It

when he

assigns to BapvdjBas, Acts

again probably a misinter4 36 the meaning
,

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
"

Palmyrenian name nJ"O,

"

son of Nebo

names
nised.

ittUJ, "DTUJ, Klpuj), as

(cf. the Palmyrenian Deissmann 1 has correctly recog-

In regard to Luke's tradition of the voice at the

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

that an immediate use

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

guilty of Hebraisms, these are due, in most cases, at least,
to
"

the

author
-

Septuagint should apply to the other Synoptists as well. merely to recall the phrase /cal eyeveTo OTL
ereheaev), used five times

properly be called Grsecisms," the probability is that the same
himself,

3

and

should

Let

it suffice

eVe'Xeo-ez/

(crvvthis,
.

by Matthew, who, apart from

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."

4

And

yet

its

formation must be

1

309

f.,

Bibelstudien (1895), 177 187 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

2

exceptional literary elaboration.
4

S. Backer,

Die alteste Tenninologie der Jiidischen Schriftauslegung (1899),
:

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

T

*?# "iDJ-ito,

:

42

THE WORDS OF JESUS

ascribed to the Greek-writing author, a position which even

Resch, Kindheits-evangelium, 19 Thus these Hebraisms of say.

ff.,

does not venture to gainare also in reality
Biblicisms).

Matthew

due to the influence

of the

Greek Bible (Greek

And what
in

is

to be

thought of the 'IcrKapiwrr]? or ^IcncapitoO
?

Matthew and Mark

And

of the viol ppovrfjs,

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

day of unleavened bread ") would have specified that day in

;

and yet no
this

manner,

" Feast of apart from the fact that the designation " unleavened bread was uniformly replaced among the Jews

quite

in later times, at least, It will suffice

" by the name Passover." here to have shown meanwhile that the
2

Hebraisms

of the

Synoptists, though undeniably present,

do

not constitute the proof of a
contrary, the thesis
is

Hebrew

original

;

that,

on the

justified that the fewer the Hebraisms,
3
;

the greater the originality

the more numerous the Hebra-

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

also that in the rabbinical sphere the special religious termin-

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

2

tion,
3
4

but

still is

not the correct conclusion.
f.

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.

ALLEGED PROOFS OF A PRIMITIVE HEBREW GOSPEL
(UREVANGELIUM).

As

the most effectual means of ascertaining the limits,

content, and language of alleged Semitic sources of the Gospel,
1 Eesch, especially, has recently indicated and sought to apply the method of tracing back to one Semitic term the several

variants of a

word in the Gospel
entire in

text, as these

may

occur
the

throughout
Gospels.

the

tradition

within

and without
he
found

Wherever

the

Synoptists

such

a

retracing of the variants to a Semitic expression practicable

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-

embracing source of the Gospels has been published by
tentatively in

him

Die Logia Jesu" (1898). The three Synoptists, according to this theory, have merely made a different selection and arrangement of
title
2

Hebrew and Greek under

the same

Hebrew

material to which all alike had access.

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.

in the -Works of the

Rev.

(1894) 231

If

a

Hellenistic-Jewish

,

1

A.

Resell,

expected family Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zuden Evangelicn,

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.

Jiilicher, Gb'tt. Gel.

Anz. 1896,

i.

1-9.

44
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS
one

Hebrew word, though sometimes
also

several

Hebrew

synonyms
a

Hebrew One might almost

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

there was found a Semitic term which perchance so solved

the problem of the divergent readings, that the one appears,

with good reason, to be a misunderstanding easily possible,
the other the correct interpretation of the Semitic expres-

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

regard to a later circulation of

Greek versions

of

a

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

likely that extra-

canonical gospels, gospel harmonies, translations, and popular expositions in common use influenced the form which the
text

assumed in the course

of

its

transmission, than that

such an influence was exerted by the after-effects of the fundamental error alleged Semitic original document.

A

INTRODUCTION
in

45
our time,

Eesch, and

also

in

other biblical critics of

appears to
of

me
too

to be a
of the

marked depreciation
historical

of the capacity

the authors
treated

books of the Bible, who

are

much

as

mere redactors and mechanical
and a not
less

copyists or translators of source documents,

exaggerated estimate of the precision of subsequent copyists, translators, and quotations of such books, which has gone so
far that

sometimes the most extravagant excess of an un-

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

possible to discuss here all that
of a

is

advanced

by Eesch in favour

Hebrew

primitive gospel, and yet

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

consideration, even despite the fact that a written source in

Hebrew might
the words
of

possibly have been the intermediary between

Jesus spoken in Aramaic and the Gospels I therefore adduce chiefly such instances written in Greek.

as those of

which Kesch, in opposition
"

to

Arnold Meyer, 1

has asserted that

Aramaic,
original

and

as

they supply evidence distinctly against distinctly in favour of Hebrew as the

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,

borrowed by Salkinson from Gen. 3
,

/

is,

view of Ps. 30 10

admissible in this passage.

But the

variants given above admit of explanation without the help
of a Semitic original.
1

Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,

iv. 224,

46

THE WOKDS OF JESUS
In Luke 10 7 Eesch finds
it

noteworthy that the labourer,
of
"

according

to

Luke,

is

worthy

his

hire

"

(rov fiiaOov
"

avrov)

;

according to Matthew, however, of
rpoffis avrov).
"fnip,

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-

term as their source

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
"

"

could not be a question of

hire

hire," "

because in the context
disciples of
"

it

which the

Jesus

would think
In
o

of claiming,

but merely of their
37

maintenance."

TrotTycra?

regard TO eXeo? per

to

Luke 10

E.

makes the remark that
,

6 avrov, in view of 2 Sam. 2

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
,

a

among men
KgfjK ^a).

"

should show kindness to

men

"
(QSJ

tt'p

13^

Similarly, the

2 Sam. 2 6 by
quite

w

Targum has unhesitatingly rendered
The
fact is that

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

equivalents, such as NjnD

&?? or

Dr6, should not equally suffice.

E. should rather have

INTRODUCTION
affirmed
still

47

more

distinctly that both

Luke and Matthew

in

this case clearly rely

upon a Greek

source.

In Luke 12 19 the rich
this

man

speaks "to his soul."
this
f.

In

K. detects a Hebraism.
d.

But

is
;

also

an Aramaic
it

idiom, see Gram.

jiid.-pal.
its

Aram. 84

and

might

for

that matter derive
Bible. 1

origin equally well from the Greek
.

The same holds
26

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

he regards the former the original ttnin wnhrna*. But

these

the meaning expressed in hast

Hebrew words would have been correctly rendered by Luke 13 26 namely, "In our streets " Our streets or lanes hast Thou shown Thou taught."
,

us" would have had

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
.

v

There

is

therefore no need to assume for

it

a special Hebrew

source. 2

Besides, the text as altered by E., following
for

would be no improvement,

Ephrem, no one could say what &

should signify in the passage, since the
specified.

West

is

previously

But even supposing

it

to

have been uttered by
s
,

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.

ment, Journ. Bibl.
2

the passages cited by 0. A. Briggs, Lit. xvi. 22 f.

The use

of wsn in the Old Testa-

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

assumption, the passage can be fully explained with the help " Fundamental Ideas," I. end. see of the Aramaic
;

In Luke 22 7 K. believes that the difference between the
Synoptic and Johannine dating of the day of the Passion may be explained by tracing ry Trpcorr) (rffiepa) rwv dfy^wv in Matthew and Mark back to the Hebrew nton in Dip.
This, according to K., should

mean

"

before the Feast of un-

leavened bread," whereas
of the first

it

day

of the feast.

has been incorrectly understood Hebrew would thus give an

easier solution than

Aramaic.

But the mistake
"

is

conceivable

only on the part

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

K. remarks that the Lucan
of

conception
to

and the 7rape\6eTO)

Matthew point back
because KD13

the

Hebrew "ayn

= "ttJN? (
twofold

or n -^)-

Aramaic, he holds, would
(read

not admit this

interpretation,

Kp3), which would be the subject in the second

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

Hebrew would be the only

source of the ambiguity.

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

must always be the most natural

supposition in any temperate treatment of textual questions. In another place 3 Eesch lays some stress on the con1

J. Lichtenstein,

Kommentar zum Nenen Testament
3

9

Pes, x. 2, 4, 7.

18 (Hebr. ), Matt. 26 . Aussercanon. Paralleltexte, iii. 819.

INTRODUCTION
sideration that from the

49

names

of the disciples of Jesus it

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

there were any

among
the

highly improbable that And even the Twelve.

though
"

all

the
"

names
still

of

apostles

had

been Hebrew

names, there would
Hebraists
ages have borne

as contrasted with

be no ground for thinking of special " For Jews in Aramaists."

all

Hebrew names.
,

For Boawy/xye?, Mark 3 17 I had pointed out 2 Bavrjpoyes
as possibly the original reading, without, however, suggesting

a

Hebrew
as

source, as forms like trip,

UN

are possible in Jewish

Aramaic.

E. regards this reading as settled, and treats the

term

Hebrew.

The wholly inapt
that
all

linguistic

comments
;

which he adds
it

to the peculiar oa

is

reading,

enough which

to

assert
is

may here be passed over depends on a conjectural

Aramaic.

Hebrew

equally capable of explanation through Further, Jesus could quite well have given a surname to the sons of Zebedee, though He never

spoke in the Hebrew language.

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

been for a long period an

established
of

name among the Jews.
Aramaic
or
of

And yet it is presumably North-Palestinian origin. In
1ST.

On

this point see Th. Zahn, Einleitung in d.

Test.

i.

(1897) 24-51

;

S. Krauss, Griech. u. latein.
i.

Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum,

(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

a

the

a,

then
oa, his

o

wrote

oa remains meaningless. would quite suffice unfamiliarity with Aramaic was the cause.
;

If

Mark

really

4

50

THE WORDS OF JESUS
fcTQT,

Palmyra the name occurred in the forms
tfin3T, 13313?,

nnjmr; in Greek, ZdfJSas, Za/SS^fyXo
13T, nut, "n3T, bfcOi3T,
in*
1

the Jews had
divine
133,

nnar, im3T, in
to

which the
713,

names

,

iT,

7K correspond
1

the

Palmyrene
origin
of

nny.

Eesch's affirmation

of

a

Hebrew

the

name must

therefore be seriously restricted.

In regard to Bap0o\ofjia2os, Resch makes the comment that "13 was "usual," even in Hebrew. That is quite
inaccurate.
,

It occurs in the

Old Testament only in Prov. 2 1 2
it is

and Ps. 2 12 and in the latter instance
reading.
It
is,

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,

R

^

bearer of this
latter

name was

also called QaSSalos,

Mark
in,

3 18
"

.

The
in
of

name E. would
2

derive

from the Aram.

breast-

nipple,"

which he thinks

also denotes
is

the male breast

Aramaic.

The

latter

contention

incorrect,

and proof

the currency of such
to be taken
of

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

other derivation would require to be

Semitic
formed.

*!?,

The same individual was probably called in and in Greek 0euSa9, from which ^ri had been
establish a
is

To

more intimate connection between

the two names

unnecessary.
to
is

also points, according

R,

to a

Hebrew

The surname Kavavalos But his origin.
is

derivation from ^3|5n

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

at least as easily as the
1

Hebrew

NJp.

LOG.

cit.

822.

2

Holtzmann expresses a

similar opinion in

Commentary on the two names.

INTRODUCTION

51
similar
to

As

for

MaOdalos, the case
ZejBeSalos.
It is

is

that of the

synonymous

the

name

irnno, irpnniD, ITDD,

which did not appear among the Jews till a late period, and may be compared with the Palmyrene hariD (Maddafiak) and
its

abbreviation NDD (MaOOas).

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

as to the language spoken

by those who were so

that 'laKaptwO,

'Io-/capi,a>Tijs

alone remains for consideration.

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.

D

euro Kapvwrov found in John 12* 13 2 26 14 22 inas-

,

much

as the

former points back to the Hebrew
equivalent Aramaic
rrinp'n

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,

and further with Aramaic designation
^T, Ech.

j.

Ab.

z.

42 a

j^n
of the

R

Peth. r^P"

name
or

of the place

V^in^ The introduction means of \^\ is less common, by
7

!

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
;

jpn ^D1^ b. d Qrl. 60 ;

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.

the fact that this

;

2

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.

Otherwise we should expect

titles like

Hebr.

'yj'ian,

Aram,

52
prising

THE WORDS OF JESUS
that
it

should have been

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

speaks of did not venture

Kava, just a certain "Avavos
to

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,

and therefore formed
because

'Icr/capiwrris,

while

the

originator of the text of

the Synoptists in Cod.

D

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

Hellenist in a Greek or Aramaic environment.
latter is quite possible, because such surnames,

Even the

were

Hebrew
cf,

whether they or Aramaic in form, usually remained un-

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

3 sarily the spoken language where such a surname originated.
1

holds that Cod.

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

Evangel. Hieros. KBVIST, Syr. Cur.

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

Lastly must be mentioned the utterance of Jesus from
the
Cross,

Mark 15 34

(Matt.

27 46 ),

to

which Eesch

l

attri-

butes decisive finality in regard
the primary Gospel was written.

to the language in

which

He

is

convinced that the
in Cod.

Hebrew form
)Xet 77X66

of

the utterance

represented

D

by

original.

\afM Not till

ta^Oavet, that
a later date,

is, '3FQJ3J np ^K ^K, was the when Hebrew was no longer

understood, did the Aramaic

setting

of

our present texts
to

come into
that

being.

Eesch attaches importance

the fact

the Evangel. Hierosol. expressly explains ^s by Tita. This last consideration means very little. The translator

followed his Greek exemplar and
Tita.

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

change from the Hebrew
of the
"btf

text.

If

Jesus uttered the words
it

Psalm

in the

Aramaic language, then
to

that

was most naturally
the people

be

expected.

was precisely Thus the

mistake of

in supposing Elijah

cides nothing as

regards the original
It
-

summoned, deHebrew form of the
to

whole utterance.
section
of

is

also

impossible
Christians

see

for

what

speaking should have been replaced by the Aramaic with a view to
easier

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

in other cases is peculiar in giving the
it

words of

Jesus as originally pronounced,
saying in question
of this

may

be inferred that the
a constituent part

was

also

from the

first

Gospel

;

and since the sayings

of

our Lord communi-

cated by

Him

in other cases (5 41 7 34 ) are given in Aramaic,

then anything different should not be looked for in this
Christians
correct.

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

}

1

Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,

ii.

356.

54
case.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

so that the whole clause should be Aramaic,
Xe/zo,

while another changed
Qavei?
so as
to

o-e^a^Oavei into

Xa/m

[a]a(/>-

have

the

whole

in

Hebrew.
it

From

a

statement of Epiphanius, cited

by Eesch,

is

evident that
fact,

the apparent bilingual character of the saying had, in

been remarked upon.

On

principles similar to those of

Eesch,

3

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

has, however, expressly declared

4

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

Nestle's observations as fall within the

domain

of

Hebrew

(excepting, however, meantime his explanation of the reading
ot XotTTOfc',

Luke II 2 Cod. D). In Luke 12 1 Blass has adopted

into the text the reading

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.

sented, although this cannot be supported
earlier period.
2

by instances

in Palestine during the

'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

enough that those who understood Syriac only should have

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
.

again transformed the

Hebrew a^davei

into Aramaic, read fa00ewef = ^5B2T,

who,
4

Hebrew

editions of the (assumed) Philologica sacra (1896), 55.

(1899), showing Aramaic Logia were used by the Synoptists.

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

was the right word. what he supposes

"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

be explained in the context.
to suppose

It remains, after

most reasonable

an unde-

signing

alteration of the

tenour of the whole sentence at
in the habit of slavishly

the instance of a scribe

who was not

N. binding himself to his exemplar in non-essentials. himself mentions the possible dependence of the manuscript

on some gospel harmony, Philolog.

sacra, 88.
itself in

A
ftpcoOf)

like conclusion will

commend

the case of the
text,

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,
,

D

into collision;

and he notes that the LXX, 2 Chron. 30 22

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
,

here find in Cod.

to explain the

awkward
.

merely a variant intended 7rX9;/oa)^, and suggested by Matt.
is

D

26 29 Mark 14 25
1

According to Philol.

sacra, 38,

N. no longer lays
still

stress

on the derivation

of

the reading from a

Hebrew

text,

though

regarding

it possible.

56

THE WORDS OF JESUS

We

cannot

accept

N.'s

observation

on

Matt.

27 51

,

which makes
mistranslation,

/caraTrerao-jjia

depend

on a

misreading and

and

finds the true reading in the

Gospel of

the

Hebrews, which, by the
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,

especially as the latter
its

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.

was written in Aramaic.

The

New

Testament expositors also usually neglect

this

consideration, so that the question has arisen
to observe the rending of the curtain,

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

have to be otherwise designated.

primary gospel in the Hebrew language had to be considered antecedently improbable, because no

The existence

of a

occasion was discovered for the use of this language.
if

And
special

we have now succeeded
of

in

showing
are

that
to
all

the

Hebraisms
of

the

Synoptic Gospels

appearance

Greek

origin, that the

attempts hitherto made to infer

a

Hebrew

original

from the variants in the Gospel texts

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

alleged proofs of a primitive

Hebrew

gospel."

INTRODUCTION

57

VI. TESTIMONIES IN FAVOUR OF A PRIMITIVE

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

Jerome was mistaken,
in

that

he
the
day.

himself latterly perceived his error in
original

believing

that
his

Matthew
are

Hebrew

still

existed

in

The various forms
language, which

of the texts of the Gospels in the

Aramaic

now known

to

us,

are

derived from

Greek

originals.

Even the Aramaic Gospel

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

threefold office of Scripture-reading,
(epprjyela
rrj?

rwv

2vpwv

(frwvrjs),

Aramaic interpretation and exorcism. If the

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

in India (Hist. eccl.

10), and next in the form of statements made by Papias, by Irenseus, and by Origen (Hist. eccl. iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 25).

Eusebius believes that
of

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

had greater weight with us had
4, 7,

B.

Violet,

Die

paliist.

Martyrer des Eusebius von Crcsarea,

110.

58

THE WORDS OF JESUS
in

we known

what connection

it

stood in his work.

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'

own work, from which Origen made
e^rj-

quotation, bore indeed the title \oyicov Kvpiatcwv

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

true, has derived

the assumed

title

of his
1

documentary source of our Gospels
tion that Papias

W"

.

comprehensive ^yj, on the supposi-

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

case have understood

to refer only to the
history,"
of

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

an Aramaic, not a Hebrew original

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

A

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

1

is

concerned,
"

according to him, the apostles

had been reared

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
"

2

In saying that Matthew,
3

whom
to

he elsewhere
"

calls

Syrian,"

first

of all

preached
left

the

Hebrews,"

and then on departing from them
his

behind with them

Gospel

written

iravpitp

7X0^x77, Eusebius
his

means that
the

Matthew had written
tongue

down
and

Gospel

in

mother-

common

to himself

his kinsfolk, that is to say,
of the linguistic situation

according to Eusebius'
of that period, in

own view

Aramaic.

Eusebius, therefore, must have

understood

all

the earlier statements communicated by

him

in regard to the language of the original

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

not laid on the consideration
originally been written
in

that the work

of

Matthew had
"

Hebrew as opposed to Matthew had composed
the
"

Syriac," but only

on the fact that

his

work

in the language peculiar to

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

become actual witnesses
Hebrew.
1

in favour of a primitive gospel in

A

treatise
ev.
iii.

by Matthew in the Palestinian Jewish
2

Demonstr.
Qucest. ev.

7. 10.

Ibid. x. 8.

8 4

Adv. hser. An Aramaic original Matthew das N. Test. ii. 54.
;

ad Steph. in Mai, p. 27. i. 21. 3 cf. Epiph. Hreres. xxxiv. 20.
is

6

postulated also

by Th. Zahn,

Einl. in

60
vernacular
1

THE WORDS OF JESUS
is

attested, but not a

conjecture that this treatise of the sayings presupposed by the

Hebrew Mattbew. The Matthew was a collection of canonical Gospels of Matthew
least, it

and Luke

is

an attractive one, but hitherto, at

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.

The early Church testimonies

in regard to the origin of

Mark's Gospel would have considerable importance for our
aim, provided that Mark, in his capacity of interpreter of Peter, were the same individual who was wont to translate

the Aramaic discourses of Peter into Greek.
his Gospel, too,
it

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

oldest testimony on this point, that of the Presbyter

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)).

preface in ry iraTpiq (understand
2 4 6

Adv.

haer.

iii.
iii.

1. 3, x. 6.

s
5

Hist. eccl.

14.

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. Loc. cit. iii. 39.
194.

ii.

15, 16.

7

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

6

1

Mark which was unin

known
the

to

Papias, and

of

which traces may be recognised

various

Mark was

also

He holds that readings of our manuscripts. the author of the Aramaic source which he
112.
of

postulates for Acts

But such conjectures

entirely

abandon the region
Just as
J.

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

Marshall and Nestle strive to demonstrate the existence of

an Aramaic documentary source.
his

Marshall has even believed

himself in a position to furnish provisionally, as the result of
investigations,
7

the
Th.

content and limits of an Aramaic

primary gospel.
Gospel
of

Zahn,

8

who

considers

our

entire

Matthew

to be a

translation from the Aramaic,

seeks support for this position especially from the style in which Semitic words are communicated.

In regard to Marshall and Meyer,
1

it

is

here sufficient

J.
;

A.
see

Bolten,

Der Bericht des Matthaus von Jesu dem Messia, Altona,
25, 105
ff.

1792
2

A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache,
4,
ii.
ff.
;

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

3 Philologica sacra, Berlin, 1896. in Christl. Welt, 1895 and 1896 ;

A

collection of observations published

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,
;

4

62
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS
refer
to
1

the trenchant criticisms

which their work has

provoked.

Some

of their points

will claim attention at a

Of far greater consequence are the pertinent observations of Wellhausen and Nestle, though even in their
later stage.

case

we

feel the

absence of a careful separation of

Hebrew
considers

and Aramaic

possibilities.

Wellhausen,
the
primitive

indeed,

that the Aramaic form of
established
to

gospel has

been

by general considerations, and does not require

be vindicated by fresh evidence. 2 reminded that the Jewish literature
in

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

Further, the points urged by
existence of an

Zahn prove

truly

enough the

but do not

suffice to

Aramaic background to the Gospel accounts, show convincingly the existence of a

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

same idioms and the same

construction

of

clauses as are found in

Aramaic are possible even in

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.
;

1

1896, 477 ff., Lit. Centralbl. 1896, 1563 (1898) 985-991.
2

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.

in his discussion refers to

my
give

Gram.
alms
"
"

Aram., in

which the meaning

"

to

authenticated for

He

further pleads the con-

sideration that in the Arabic he has found the substantive

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

n

in?>

is

quite

common

in this literature.

It does not matter

much

that Nrpoj does not appear to occur in connection with alms,
since even then it
"

would not
"
;

lose the sense of
cf.

"

practice of

virtue,"

meritorious action

"

NnNfO,

practice of the com-

mandments" for "alms" (Vay. mean " to act meritoriously by
procure [for another]
Pes.

K.

34).

The verb
"

>3t

can
"

giving alms," but also

to

31 b ).

But why
cup

merit by asking alms (see j. should Luke not have arrived at his
that
icaOdptcrov
?

expression by starting from the Greek
purifying of the
filled

The

with plunder could be brought

about only by away.
saying
It

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

Pharisees should be distributed like alms.

But as an idea

so absurd cannot be attributed to the evangelist,
like Blass, read vjilv.

we

should,

In Luke 24 32 Wellhausen
as

is

quite justified in retracing,
/8e-

Mrs. A.

S.

Lewis does, the readings Kaiopevrj and

ftaprHJLevT]

back to Tp* and Tp\
peftapijfjLevij

He
It

has not, however, noted
is

that the lucid

adopted by Blass
text.

disclosed to view

solely through early versions.

would never have stood
of Tp'

in the (primitive)

Greek

The interchange

and

Tp* on the part of Syrians might very easily happen, because

64
in Syriac 1

THE WORDS OF JESUS
and
i are distinguished solely

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

"a heathen," MV-)N corresponding
27
"

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

stands quite suitably

contrast "the
777)09

Besides,

Sidonian Sarepta" of ver. 26. yvvai/ca x^pav is just as much occasioned by
of 1

widow

<yvvaiK\ xrfpa,

Kings 17

LXX,

as Nai/jiav o

the like expression in 2 Kings 5 20
really

LXX.
text.

Svpos is by So that there is

no

call for

emendation of the

Another phrase, which W. regards as an Aramaism,
avaa-Trjo-ovrai,

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,

Targum *?*$ T\W

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."

m

VOVCTLV

"
CLVTTJV,
it,"

overcome

they will show it to be in the wrong, will W. connects it need not be an Aramaism.

rightly enough with the

Aramaic
s

3'n,

but

we have a

cor-

responding expression also in

Hebrew
a\3? nn.

in JTBTJ*?; see Isa.

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
,

,

repeated, also Matt.

13 52

,

20 1

;

cf.

2 1 33 with

a

INTRODUCTION

65

,

and Luke 24 19 with
flb

avrjp

TT/JO^^TT;?.

The Old
iepeax:);

Testament says:
N^aj

&*

t

Lev. 21

(LXX

av0pdnrov
;

avSpa irpo^ijrrjv) Aramaic literature the idiom is also found
K^K,
;

8 Judg. 6

(LXX

and in Jewish
see,
e.g.,

3D
at

"oa,

j.

Sanh.

25

d
,

but I do not think

it

ever stands

the

opening of a parable, as in Matthew.
is,

But

avrjp

/3ao-tXeu?

of

course, good Greek, and

avOpcoTros

fiaa-iXevs

also is

not impossible.

In

Mark

I 41

Cod.

D

a-TrXayxyio-defc of the

common

has the unmeaning opyia-Oets for text. Like J. D. Michaelis 1
"

a century ago, Nestle holds that in this case omriK,
"

he was
DjnriN,

moved with compassion," has been interchanged with
he was angry."

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,

more surely because Ephrem knew
of the Gospels,
is

this reading

;

The Syro-Latin Text

88f.

This

author, however, supposes that the confusion

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^,

the former meaning

"

to

the

frontier,"
1

the

latter

"into the deep."
context,
1

As "to

the frontier*

did not suit the

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

the idea was the removal of the demons

to a distant land (cf. Tob. 8 3 ), to

but in Luke their banishment

the place of chastisement for the reprobate.

In
as

Mark
being

5 11
"

(Luke
"

8 32 )
"

a

herd

of

swine
"
;

is

mentioned

beside

or

good way
that

off
"

upon the mountain " from them (paicpav

in Matt. 8 30 as being " a

air

avr&v).

Nestle holds

NT^>
1

confusion.

" mountain," and K7J9, distance," are here in But this fcO^ is foreign to the Jewish Aramaic

;

Einleitung in die Schriften des

Neuen Bundes,

i.

(1788) 585.

5

66
and
the
difference

THE WORDS OF JESUS
admits of another
entire incident

explanation.

Mark

and Luke represent the
as

(Mark

5

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

was necessarily near the

In Matt. S 48
olKTipfjLwv in

reXeioi, reXeto?

correspond to

olfcripjjLove^,

Luke

6 36

.

From

the Concordance N. finds that

the
for

LXX
the

in certain circumstances puts both tXeco? and <t\o9

Hebrew D^, and he
Sacra"
oXo/za>z/

notes
is

that in

de Lagarde's
e^etjfjuov
rj

"Onomastica
eiptfviKos.

explained as

Therefore

N.

infers
all

olKrip^wv
this

original th&. " merciful," and

But despite

D^

presupposes an does not mean

shod translator.

could be so rendered only by a very slipThe expression in Luke is occasioned by

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

See thereon Gram. d. jud.-pal. Aram. 133.
Philologica sacra, 17.

2

Codex

Bezse, 178.

3

INTRODUCTION

67
"

Aramaic

dialects

means
thus

"

portions

but

not

"

district."

The Syriac translators were therefore obliged to substitute
other expressions
:

we
22

find in place of it

"
fcoriK,

region,"

Mark

8 10 Pesh., Matt. 2
13

Cur. Sin. Pesh., Matt.

16 13 Cur.
Sin.

Pesh. Hier.; KIDinn, "district," Matt.
Hier., Matt.

15 21

Cur.

Pesh.

in

22 wnK, "land," Matt. 2 Hier. Nor Jewish Aramaic would expressions other than these be

16

Sin.;

possible.

Therefore

Aakpavovda cannot be explained by
"

means
In

of xnurf'.

Mark

1

mention
"

pense for His " a manifold

" Jesus speaks of a hundredfold recomwhereas Matt. 19 29 (Luke 18 30 ) disciples,
30

"

recompense.
also,

Now
Luke
the

Cod.
"

D

has

hundredfold
JSTestle's

"

in

Matt,
"

and in
"

sevenfold."

In

opinion

sevenfold
into

was

original,

and

this has

been received

the text of Blass.

This

may

possibly be correct, but there is no necessity for deriving the expression from a Semitic original. Seven stands as

a

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

;

the sevenfold daily trespass,
"

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
,

of the faithful servants in contrast

with the

"

talents

"

25
"

16ff -

is

to be
"

explained by interchange of PI??,

talents

and

r?"]?,

cities."

On
is

closer inspection, however,

becomes evident that

this
cities

not correct.

r?"l?

is

not

the

common word
25 21
-

for

"

"

in a general sense, so that as

the

confusion was not so natural
23

might appear.
are

In
the

Matt.

it

is

not "talents" that

given

to

servants, but their

Lord
the

will set
"

When Luke

defines

them over "many things." " " many things by cities," the

addition depends on the fact that in his representation the

68

THE WORDS OF JESUS

situation treats of a king

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

least equally credible

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,

represented as being Luke 19 29 This
.

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

learn that VIKS rvn

was

really the

From name of
is

Talmud we

a place, 2 not of

a

So that Mark, merely. would have translated wrongly. If one
cross-roads
derive 'OKD from
"
JQ,

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
,

confusion, as Nestle holds, of rro,
1

"
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

8

proper.

INTRODUCTION

69

But Matthew's representation

is

satisfactorily accounted for

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.

D

has

Trpbs

0X01^

rbv

/coo-fjiov

for

o.

\aov

the

Textus

variants to the confusion of D^y,

Eeceptus. "
this

N.

traces
"

these

world/' and Dy,

people,"

and adduces other instances where
does not expressly say, however,

mistake occurs.

He
that

whether he means

Luke had subsequently recognised
be
incorrect,

his original reading Dy to

and, accordingly,

in

the

revised edition had
later writer

substituted Koapov for \dov, or

whether a

was

the

first

to

alleged
Ber.

source.

bring Luke's document into accord with the In the text of the Palestinian Talmud,
,

4 b and Bab. mez. 8 d we
for

also

find
it is

put

Ny

bs.

For

this,

however,
that

sc^y ^a wrongly no mere misread-

ing on the

part of a copyist

is

responsible, but the

fact that both

are quite equivalent periphrases for "every the former being the dominant Babylonian usage, the one,"

latter the Palestinian usage. "

NDy,

all

the people," and XE^y ^,

Admitting, however, that fo " the whole world," are

" 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
;

responsible for the various reading. The theory of a Semitic source

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

"

D

,

"
rjpvrjcrao-Oe,
1

ye denied," of the

common

text.

Blass

4

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
most important proof

to this "discovery" of Nestle as the
of the

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

edition of the Acts,

Luke himself had

fallen into this

mistake:
after

only

in

the

second edition had

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

him any acquaintance with the Hebrew ^r ?'?, which occurs
1

only in Job, and, moreover,

is

never used for

"

molest."

2

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

3

and

after

him

Chase,

4

had found a most

explanation of the

reading of Cod. D,
irritate,"

Nestle

5

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

would therefore consider

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

Harvey and Chase, that the reading

of Cod.

D

originates not

from Luke, but from a defectively written or

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

part again determined the Greek text of Cod. D.
1

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.

The same would hold

3
4

W. Wigan

5
6

J.

Rendel Harris, Codex Bezae (1891), 162ff.

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

Matthew must be pronounced

as still

lacking confirmation by convincing proofs. Since, however, the proofs of a Hebrew written source

proved equally inconclusive, one
considerations

is

obliged to resort to the

urged long ago by B. Weiss and others, to

the effect that the occasional agreement of the Synoptists in Greek expressions implies that the documentary sources

used by them were written in Greek.

In this there

is

nothing improbable. Jerusalem, included in

The Christian Church, even while its numbers numerous Hellenists,
.

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

Greek, but the

very often no
later

Aramaic or Hebrew.
its

A
a

gospel-

source in Greek need not, by reason of

language, have
in

been

any

in

origin

than one written

Semitic

dialect.

It is thus possible that

the oldest Christian writing
;

may have been composed
Aramaic
oral archetype
(

in

Greek

and

its

Semitisms, so

far as they are not Biblicisms, are in that case

due to the

Urgestalt) of the Christian tradition.

VII.

THE PROBLEM BEFORE us AND THE PREVIOUS STUDIES
IN THE

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

definite theory of a Semitic written source

elaborated in our

Synoptic

Gospels.

What

is

firmly established
to the Jews,

only the

fact that Jesus spoke in

Aramaic

and that the

72
original apostolic

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

them alone does the
source.

earliest

Church tradition
arises

assert a written Semitic

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.

Of course absolute certainty in regard

to

minutiae cannot possibly be expected concerning the precise

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

form and content that

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

in the light of the primary language

nearer to the original by a fresh apprehension of His message and the contemporary

modes

of thought.

As

the words of

our Lord must thus be

the

proper

subject of

our study,

it has, of course, to be kept in

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

applied for the
Gospel,
its

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

Aramaic would here have too

little

prospect of success.

INTRODUCTION

73

But even those who
of

may

think differently will not gain-

say that a separate treatment of the synoptic material, at
least

by way

introduction,

is

not

only justifiable but

requisite.

The remark which was made

after the discovery of the

Hebrew fragments

of

Ben

Sira,
1

that all

the attempts to

reconstruct the original had failed, cannot be indiscriminately

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
;

assertion can be hazarded.
case are clear

Thought and expression in this and unmistakable, free from useless ornament
In this
case, therefore,

and

artificial

elaboration.

a retransin the

lation will have better prospect of success.

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

represent with some

variation, but only
ideas.

on the leading thoughts and pervading

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

little scientific value.

precisely the untrans-

latable

that

has to be

made
falls

intelligible.

renderings are possible, the reader must be
this.

Where several made aware of

When

the choice
its

the reasons in
1

upon a particular rendering, And the support must not be omitted.
Hebrew
of a portion

See specimens in Cowley and Neubauer, The original

of Ecclesiasticus (1897), xviii.

74
work would be but

THE WORDS OF JESUS
half completed,
if

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

definite hypothesis in regard to the origin

and mutual

relations of the Synoptic Gospels can be

assumed as the basis
conclusions

our

inquiry,

without

thereby

anticipating

which may appear as a possible result

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

rather to offer materials and indicate points of view

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

own problems, and

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

rabbinic ideas and expressions.

Further, the theory which
1

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

content, cannot justify itself in presence of

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

of our investigation, is not the superficial notion of a casual

hearer of Jesus, but the intimate understanding of a constant
disciple

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

have been supplemented by

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

supply the deficiency. The absence of preliminary studies

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.

"

Messias," Prot. Eeal-Encyklo-

(1881), 641-672

E. ScMrer, Geschichte des
3
ii.

jiid.

Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Messianic Hope,
Eeligion
3

Christi,
;

496-556

(1898), Section on the M. Marti, Geschichte der israelit.

(1897),

270-310;

R

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-

ischen Weissagungen des israelitischjlidischen Volkes bis zu
1 Against Schnedermann, see especially E. Haupt, Aussagen Jesu in den synopt. Evangelien (1895), 63 if.

Die eschatologischen

76
den Targumim,
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS*
i. (1899) after all these a good deal remains The commentaries, however, of Eyk and James

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

Solomon (1891), of R. H. Charles on the Enoch (1893), on the Apocalypse of Baruch

1900 by

E. Kautsch,

"

Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen
as
all

des Alten Testaments,"

advance on their
authors

must be regarded Yet nearly predecessors.
lacking
in

a gratifying even of the
ac-

here

mentioned are
the
later

a

first-hand

quaintance
pensable

with

Jewish

literature
is

an
to

indis-

requirement

where the problem

elucidate
to

Jewish

writings whose

Hebrew

original

has

first

be

ascertained.

In regard to the special rabbinic literature,
particularly desirable to

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

1 Theologie," even in the second edition (1897), freed as

has

been by
quite in

I. I.

Kahan from not a few

defects, here leaves

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

a

lation of unsifted material, the several items of
first

which require
sterbende

to

be

verified.

"

Der Leidende und der

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

review in Theol. Litbl. 1897,

col.

382

f.

INTRODUCTION
of the

77
are far

theme are the

treatises

l

of

W. Backer, which
"

too sparingly used

by theologians
ii.
i.

Die Agada der Tanniii.

aiten"
ischen

i.

(1884),

(1894); "Die Agada der palastinens(1892),
ii.

Amoraer"

(1896),

(1899).

2

After

by the anonymous Haggada of Palestine, these works will form a valuable thesaurus of the dicta of the
their completion

Palestinian Kabbis, and furnish the

means

of attaining a real

"theology

of the early Palestinian synagogue."

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

Joh. Gerh. Meuschen,

Novum Testamentum

ex

Talmude

et antiquitatibus

Hebraeorum illustratum, Leipzig,

1736;

J. Jak. Wettstein (Wetstenius),

Novum Testamentum
F.
NorJc,

Grcecum, Amsterdam, 1751,

1752;

Eabbinische
Schriftstellen,

Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen
Leipzig,
dicae in

1839

;

Franz

Delitzsch,

Horae

hebraicae et talmu-

Luth. Zeitschrift,

18768;

Carl Siegfried, Analecta
Jahrb.
f.

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

1

my own
2

work they were

"Tenipus loquendi.

not, properly speaking, a source. Uber die Agada der palastinischen

Amoraer nach

der neuesten Darstellung" (1897), criticism of vol. ii. der Ag. d. pal.

by M. Aschkenaze,

is

intended to be a

Am.

The

author, however, demonstrates

only his

own amazing

ignorance.

78

THE WORDS OF JESUS
;

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

und neuen Testaments, des Talmud und des
all

Koran, Bielefeld, 1885.

Nearly

these works, however, are found to contribute

only occasional observations.

The

relation of
of

case to the whole data in the

domain

any particular Eabbinism is not

systematically set forth.

ence between

New

Moreover, agreement and divergTestament and rabbinic statements are

not determined with sufficient care.
thus caused in
to scientific

These comparisons have

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

the material for polemic

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

by researches which might well have
;

been

conducted elsewhere
if

but I trust

it

will not appear a blemish

ultimately render important service in various ways to Biblical Theology, should here be

Jewish materials, which

may

found collected and

sifted.

INTRODUCTION

79

VIII.

THE SELECTION OF THE DIALECT.

A
sists

serious difficulty in the
dialect

way
of

of our investigations con-

in deciding the

presuppose.
"

There
"

is

Aramaic, which they shall no justification indeed for Th. Zahn's l

misgiving that the distinction, adopted in

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

in applying these designations, nothing is

fixed in regard to the time

when
to us

these dialects flourished,

and the
"

extent
"

over
is

which

they

then

prevailed.

The
of

Judsean

dialect

known

from literary remains
first

Judsean origin

in

the

period from 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

was accompanied in other
proved
exstill

parts of Palestine

sister-dialects closely akin, is

by the Samaritan Aramaic, and the
Christian
Palestinian

more

closely related

Aramaic.
is

This latter had even

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.

3

On

Aramaic about the time

the other hand, the Palmyrene and Nabatsean of Christ must be pronounced as
"

" Judsean standing closer to the
1

than to the

"

Galilean

"

2

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.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
It has, however, to be taken into account that our
of

knowledge

the

Aramaic

of

Palmyra and Nabatsea
"
"

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

single literary language in Aramaic, varying but slightly in

the different parts of the country.
are

In

this literary

Aramaic

written

the Aramaic sections in Daniel and in Ezra,
of

the
to

Targum
the

Judsean

Onkelos, and the other documents assigned 1 as well as the Palmyrene and dialect,

Nabatsean

inscriptions.

dialect) there existed a

Concurrently (with this literary whole series of popular dialects a
:

Middle Palestinian, which we can recognise in a later phase as Samaritan Aramaic, and a North Palestinian, which is

known

to us in a

Jewish and a Christian form

both be-

longing to a subsequent period.
after the final

It is highly probable that

overthrow of the Judsean centre of Jewish-

Aramaic

culture,

which was the result

of the

Bar Kochba
got the

revolution,

the

North Palestinian popular
all Palestine.
,

dialect

upper hand over nearly

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
,

Judsean jnj KJK

flv.

In their use of the Galilean dialect

there was nothing in any

way

inviting disparagement towards

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

only that certain

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

purposes the scope of terms
in that respect there can be

is of

and principal importance no doubt that the number 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
;

1

C. Levias,
f.

A Grammar

of the

82
It in our

THE WORDS OF JESUS
might seem
this
is

as

if

the

linguistic

basis

presupposed

work were indeed highly
true.

uncertain.

To a certain
will

extent

Any

investigator

who

be con-

scientious

and sure
and the

of his steps,

must take
of

into considera-

tion the whole field of linguistic possibilities lying between

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

the Gospels into Hebrew, who, finding the biblical
impracticable,
tries

Hebrew

to

steer a

middle course between the

language of the son of Sirach and that of the Mishna.
It
to be regretted that

is

monument

the most extensive literary of the Judcean dialect is a Targum. Translations

of sacred books attached themselves

then even more closely
original.

than now to the verbal tenour of the
translation
of

The Greek

the

LXX

is

already an illustration of this

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,

was adorned in Babylon with the name
"

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-

M

.

Schultze, in his

Galilean pronunciation. senting, as the author intends, the

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,

finds itself constrained to

The following may
essentially

adopt divergences in style. be specified as Hebraisms
style
of

which
the

determine
of

the

the

Targum

:

(1)

frequent
original

use

the construct state, whereas an Aramaic

would have employed more commonly the circum;

locution with 1 substitute
for

(2) the regular use of the separate nj as

the

Hebrew
to

accusative

particle,

whereas
;

Aramaic consistently dispenses with such a
the
"a,

particle

(3)

reproduction

peculiar

the

Targum
s

of

the

biblical

in all its meanings,

the

Hebrew

of
"

1 by "^N, which latter is known in the Mishna in the form ^n, restricted to

the meaning

see,"

and which in the remaining Aramaic
this sense
;

literature is wholly

wanting in
the

(4) the emphasis;

ing of the verb
of the

by

apposition of the infinitive

(5) the use

Aramaic
is

njni for

Hebrew
cases of
;

narrative formula

W,

which
for the
"ip'&i

foreign to

Aramaic; (6) the use
its

of the verb i&o

Hebrew "^l in all for the Hebrew "foK?

occurrence, and of

(7) the

frequent

of the Perfect as historic narrative tense

employment where the Aramaic
by
itself

would have had recourse
or preceded

to the Participle, either

by

njn

;

(8) the

common

use of the Infinitive

with

prepositions,

where Aramaic
"n.

would

have

formed a

subordinate clause with

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

may show how

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
says, b.

The Palestinian Abbahu

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

Hebr. nnh and the Samaritan

like-

wise knows

^"J, it is

clear

enough that Kj:n was not

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

some measure compensated by our having

almost exclusively through the short stories interspersed in the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash and these stories bear throughout the
to us
;

the G-alilean dialect

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

with the biblical Aramaic and

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

the Jewish Aramaic of

Palestine.
If

put

forward

by Noldeke, Buhl,
correct,

Cornill,

Ginsburger, Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch include sections from

and others were

that

the

so-called

a very ancient and possibly pre-Christian period, then these,
after deduction of the Hebraisms, would, of course, represent

the best model for our work.

Begard

for

this

possibility
jiid.-

caused
pal.

me

to give a
to the

prominent place in the Gram, des

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

has been relied

passage from the Jerusalem Targum I. upon as a decisive evidence of its preit

Christian elements,

requires to be mentioned.

In Deut.

33 11 the words run thus: "Bless,
the Levites,

Lord, the possession of

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

But one who
will
of

is

familiar
of a

with the

Targums Midrash which applied the words
[Yokhanan].

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

Ps. 67, in speaking of the verse in question,

says the Greek domination
;

was destined to fall by means of and in the Midrash on Genesis (Bereshith

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

Targum zum Pentateuch

See Gram. d. j.-pal. Aram. 21-26 and J. Eassfreund, Das Fragmenten(1896), 65 if., 98.
;

86
Hasmonaeans
Yokhanan,
is

THE WORDS OF JESUS
aware
that for the Jews the high
priest

the son of Mattathias,

champion against the " Maccabean." None but he could be named
representative of the Hasmonaean house in
its

was the most conspicuous Greek oppressors, and the proper
if

a personal

struggle against

Greece had to be

cited. 1

Since, however, the representations

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

Pentateuch can yield us any assistance.

Targums The want

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

reproduce the "Aramaic Gospel" a

failure.

The Palestinian Lectionary of

the

Gospels,

along with the

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

the Greek original in the Aramaic dialect of the Christians of
Rabbinic tradition, by the way, elsewhere distinguishes "the high priest " (Hyrcanus) from "King Yannai" (Alexander Jannseus). To the former a series of praiseworthy acts are ascribed, the only complaint being that he finally became a Sadducee ; the latter ranked as really impious. Kaba b. Ber. 29 a declares explicitly: "Yannai was an ungodly man from the begin1

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

had been published up to September 1897,

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

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels," London, 1899.

INTRODUCTION
Palestine.
e.g.,

87
is illustrated,

The

slavish nature of the imitation

by the

fact that the verb,
suffixes

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

diverge from the tenour of the Greek, indicates

all

the

more
the

surely such Greek constructions as were repugnant

to

Aramaic language.
the Palestinian
its

Besides, there

is

some suspicion that

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

as on other important points.

common

to

the two dialects, or

which

of

such words in their turn are not found in the

Palestinian Aramaic

known from
the

other sources. 2

It is not

the ecclesiastical Aramaic of Palestine that can
assistance,

give

but

only

idiom thence

ascertained

any which

was actually spoken by the Palestinians.
to that
of the Palestinian
its

A

service similar

Lectionary

is

rendered also by

the Edessene version in

various recensions

now known

to us (Cureton., Sinait., Peshita).

But no

assistance derived

from any

of these

Aramaic versions can be used towards the

attainment of a genuine Aramaic diction, unless the same mode of expression can be attested in the Jewish Aramaic.
If

we were

to

make the Jerusalem Lectionary
3

the basis of our

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

cannot be seriously entertained.
505
f.

The

NoldeJce,
2

ZDMG

xxii. (1868)

See the incomplete

suggestions of Noldeke,

ZDMG

xxii.

(1868) 517,

522.
3

Gott. Gel. Anz. 1896, 265.

88

THE WORDS OF JESUS
is

Christian Palestinian literature

a clear proof that there

was practically no
Aramaic-speaking
people.
is

spiritual intercourse

between the primitive

Jewish- Christian Church and the Jewish
of the
of

The Church
spiritual

the

mother

Greek and Edessene languages the Palestinian- Aramaic com-

munities.

Hebrew
the

Their language contained, indeed, a number of words which occur also in Jewish Aramaic. But

presence of the terms merely proves the influence of

the language which had been spoken by the very numerous Jews in Palestine at a prior period. Jewish derivation,

A

such

as

Noldeke

1

supposes,
if

cannot be inferred from this
should

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

whether the Jewish Galilean

of

the year

400 was

altogether similar to the language of Jesus, then by abandon-

ing the field of the Jewish Aramaic every valid foundation would be wholly lost.

We

shall therefore

have every reason to guard against
to the Syriac versions of the Gospels.

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

divergences of the Galilean dialect.

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.,

especially as regards the Galilean.
affirmed,

however,

that

in

many
f.,

It should be explicitly an instance a different
of
ff.,

pronunciation
d. jud.-pal.
1

prevailed in the time
;

Jesus

;

cf.

Gramm.

Aramaic, 46, 48 50
xsii.

59

64

ff.

ZDMG

522

f.,

Die semitischen Sprachen (1887), 33.

FUNDAMENTAL

IDEAS.

I.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

A. SOVEREIGNTY OF HEAVEN, SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD,
SOVEREIGNTY.

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

the cognate appellation o irarijp

(fiov, rjfjiwv, VJJLWV)

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

in the definite form only because the indefinite form
in Jewish Aramaic.
ii.

of this

word does not occur

The Mishna
3

says D^p^ HttJD,
article,

DW

e.g.

Ber.

2

;

and similarly without the
God," Ab.
i.
;

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

2

Ideas, VI. " tiber According to Stave,

(1898), 180 ff., the Persian idea of the "Supreme Sovereignty" exerted influence when the term originated. This is possible, but not necessary.
3

den Einfluss der Parsismus auf das Judenthum" some

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.

Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers
91

2

(1897), 67.

92

THE WORDS OF JESUS
is

present, whereas, in the other cases, D?B*
stitute

for

" "

God."

Compare, further,

b.

purely a subMo. Kat. 1 5 a

t

EWp
D

n

wn

1^>
"

one

wh k
is

ftp,

mercy
of

banished by God," and DJvS| *HT. shown to them from heaven."

Although KJ?p7

^nopo
it

is

thus

tantamount

to

the

God," "sovereignty trace of the thought, that in the phrase the dwelling-place
of

does not thence follow that all

God was being named

instead of

Him who was

there

Simeon ben Lakish, enthroned, must have been obliterated. " about 260 A.D., contrasted the sovereignty of earth (no^o

H?V9 with the
him, therefore,
of

"
"

sovereignty of heaven
"

"

(Q

W

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

ulterior idea present in regard

to

the

derivation or the nature of the divine sovereignty.

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

the object so designated. 4
Ber. K.
9.
8

ovpavwv a reference to the transcendental character It is not the fiaa-iXeia that
2

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),

4

W.

21

f. ;

K. G. Grass, Das von Jesus geforderte Verhalten zum Reiche Gottes,

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
is
f]

93

indicated as transcendent in this phrase, but the
ftaaikela TGOV ovpav&v
is

the sovereignty of the transcendent
for

God.

Least of
exists

all

has the plural Q?P^

which no singular

form

anything whatever to do with the heavens being A Hellenist might possibly, indeed, attach seven in number.
to the

some such notion

Greek

01

ovpavol, but that is not

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.

the two phrases as synonymous the

The evangelists have clearly considered and as they thus coincide
;

Jewish

safe to

the expression 0*B> flwp, meaning assume the same interpretation in the case of
of

Jesus.

According to

J.

Weiss

2

and H.

J.

Holtzmann,

3

it

was

only Matthew who imputed the expression
original

to Jesus, the

actually spoken

being
of
f)

r)

fBaaikeia TOV 6eov.
TCOV

But
it

modern misunderstandings
only
too credible that

ftacr.

ovpavwv render

Mark and Luke,

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

be justified, therefore, in starting from this signification of
rpDpp as employed by Jesus.
"

un domaine a

la

2 Krop, indeed, in his definition tete duquel se trouve un roi," has regarded

the locative as the primary sense of the expression.
too, finds that " "

Bousset,

3

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

correct to regard, with B. Weiss, 4 as fundamental, the meaning,
"

the full realisation of the sovereignty of God," and then to

adhere
to
"

uniformly
sight
"

5

to the

term
-

"

sovereignty," so as never

lose

of

the

starting

point.

The German word

Herrschaf t

(sovereignty)

denote a region, so that

ment
"

felt, e.g.,

German 6 by Candlish, who

can also in a secondary sense is free from the embarrasstried to alternate the

words

"

reign

kingdom." In two cases there occurs the expression

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

1

6

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

and the Christian Messiah, 217

THE SOVEKEIGNTY OF GOD
(avrvv, pov), Matt.

95
.

13 43 and 26 29
,

For the

latter

passage the parallels

Mark 14 25 Luke 22 18 have

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

o

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.

The question becomes more
some cases where the context
is

delicate

when

f)

not so obvious, appears to be

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?,

1

8 12

13 38

;

o

Xo709 T^?

/3aa-tXe/a?,
;

(Luke 8

o X. TOV 6eov

;

Mark 4

14

o Xoryo? only)
,

and TO

eva<yye\iov TTJS /SacrtXeta?,

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
,

,

23 and 9 s5 are due however, 4

to

the

narrator.

A

fuller

designation

is

not in itself impossible, as appears from ra
/3aai\6tas

fjivo-Trjpia TT)?

p. T.

(3.

TOV deov,

rwv ovpavwv, Matt. 13 11 (Luke 8 10 ra Mark 4 11 TO fivcnr^pLov r. 0. T. 6.).
used in Jewish literature without further
is

When
definition,

ritt^sn is

what

is

meant

always the secular

"

"

government

for the time being,
officials

whether the ruler himself or merely the

representing

him be the

pare, for example, the expression rvotap

object of attention. "
nlij?
;

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.

on the expression, Fund.

Ideas,

I. 4c.

2

It is incorrect to

make

family of the Jews, and

this passage apply to a relationship with the royal to turn it into a proof of the Davidic descent of Jesus.

96 70
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS
A.D.)
:

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>).

See also Sot.
case rtwD by

ix.

17;

j.

Ber. 6 a

,

13 C

;

j.

Ter.

In this

itself

represent the sovereignty of
uses,

God.

cannot be supposed to And as Jesus always

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

Greek-speaking part of in it the terms

it,

this identification is

more

credible.

used

by Matthew

will

have

been

formed.
B.

THE JEWISH USE OF THE

IDEA.
is

The
Onkelos
reignty

first

consideration in the Jewish view
of

that the
of

sovereignty
in

God
15
for

is
18

an
puts:

eternal

one.
. . .

The Targum
&x\)
njrp,

Ex.

"God
1VJ

His kingly sove"
Pi'TW^o

endures

ever

and ever

"

(&W
Tpft

W$$
of a

'rf>yfe),

for the

Hebrew

D&6

thus sub-

stituting

for the

personal terms of the text an equivalent
character.

more abstract

Abraham made God known upon earth. 113 (Fr. 134 b ) it is said: "Before our
came
into

This sovereignty began when In Siphre Dt.
father

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

Israel gave allegiance
it

to

this

sovereignty of

Thenceforward

has

its

earthly presence in Israel.
in this sense that Eleazar

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
: :

have no inclination for garments of
1

mixed

stuffs, swine's

a Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 67 .

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
flesh,

97
say
:

forbidden

wedlock
for

;

but

one

should

I

have
I
?

indeed inclination

such

things,

but what

shall

do
(no
Lev.

when my heavenly Father has
7|3

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

;

to the Scripture text) separating himself

from transgression
of

and thereby taking upon himself the sovereignty
(D;D^ rvota \hy bapoi

God"
adopts

rniyn

|p

ante
3

Mm).

2

According to

Simeon ben Lakish
the

(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

declares that he renounces the yoke of the

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,

even against his
,

will,

to accept
spite of
"*?*?

His

service.

In Siphra 112 b

He

says to Israel:
"

"In
3

you
D

do I
?1T??

up

My

sovereignty over you
little of

(TO- ?*?

TPP9

^

D?^y).

How

realistic

with the sovereignty of
fact

mysticism is here asscociated God becomes clear also from the
of

that the

daily

recitation

the

"

Shema," with 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."

In this sense Gamaliel

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
:

lay aside even for one hour the sovereignty of

nnx
1

nyg>

DW

rvo^p ^ttp).

God " 5 (^?^ Joshua ben Korkha (c. 150
ed. princ.
i.

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*>.

6

Ber.

ii.

5.

98
A.D.)

THE WORDS OF JESUS
says that in the
"

recitation of

the Shema, Deut.

ought to precede Deut.
divine sovereignty
to the
"

II 13

21
,

because the "yoke of
pty)

the
prior

(&}?& JTDpE

must be assumed
"
1

yoke

of

the

commandments
*fiy

(n^vo

bty).

And
.

the

expression B?E^ rvobo

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,

however, bring a fuller developin

ment.

The present reveals

two directions an imperfect

realisation of the idea.

Israel is under foreign domination,

and the peoples do not acknowledge the divine sovereignty.
If

sovereignty of God is to appear in all its glory, Israel must be set free from the sway of the peoples, and

the

the Gentile world be subjugated to

God.

The former

is

part of the

common

prayer for

being introduced in

synagogues of the dispersion, " the eleventh petition of the Eighteen

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

^

"

restore our judges as of

old

and

counsellors

sorrow

us beginning; and sighing; and be Thou alone King over us,
as

in

the

put away from

4 and justice Jehovah, in mercy and compassion, in grace Blessed art Thou, Jehovah, a King who lovest grace
!

and righteousness."
realisation
of

Another prayer,5 speaking
sovereignty
rrn^ noit?"

of

the full
:

God's
D^s

over

Israel,

says

*nB*

la^a uayrn
in

tyafc^

^nwfea,
of

they shall delight
that

Thy
1

sovereignty
;

every

one

those

keep

the

Sabbath day
Ber.
ii.

they shall all
by
i.

be satisfied and refreshed in

2.

2

This

is

rightly affirmed

S.

SchecJiter,

Jew.

Quart. Rev.

vii.

(1895)

195

ff.

8 Thus " and
4

in Seder

Rab Amrarn,
free in

8a

;

but Machzor Vitry,
njjns
ff.

67,

has

iss^J?3 wp^Jfi,

pronounce us
this

the judgment."
of
pix

On

translation

and

see

my

treatise,

"Die

richterl.

Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament," 5 5 Seder Rab Amram, i. 29 b.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

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

there addresses the pious of the world although,
!

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
'

one who waits

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

ruined house and

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

A.D.), speaking of the time
:

" 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

in Aramaic, back to a great antiquity, concludes with the wish dating

D^bty

'ctosfa

D

r

^).2

The "Kaddish" 3 prayer

:

"and may He (God)

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,

"Jud. Seelenmesse und Totenanrufung,
169
fF.

"

Saat auf Hoffnung, xxvii. (1890)

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
is

then destined to happen
1

consistently detailed in the
c.

prayer WJf, which originated in Babylon
the hope
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
'

w

:

fotoya

TJBBJ

nrp

s

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

^

said in the Psalter of Solomon,
et?

1 7 3L
rj

:

TO /cpdros rov

Oeov yfjiwv
rj/jL&v els

rov al&va
lirl

4

per' e\eov, KOL
Kpicrei,

{3a<ri,\ela

rov Oeov

rov al&va
4

ra Wvi) ev

God
our

is

(upon us)
is

for ever with mercy,

the might of our and the sovereignty of
a fact which

"

God

upon the peoples

for ever in judgment."

Since

God

is

in reality Kuler even now,

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 "
"

taking the place of the

and says
time

of the

former
for

ungodly sovereignty ("W"?? ^^)^ naw rxhg te ajpt ran, the

as one day T

DW

has

arrived

the

sovereignty of

God

to

be

re-

vealed."
is

The

relation of

God

to Israel during this sovereignty
:

the subject of the petition, Sopher. xiv. 1 2
1

Zunz,

loc.

cit.

386

;

and

for the text of the prayer,

Machzor Vitry, 75

;

Baer's Seder Abodath Jisrael, 131. 2 Seder Rab Amram, i. 9 a .
3

Machzor Vitry, 343.
ty JHMS, "upon us," has obviously to be supplied, The Roman rule is here meant.

4
5

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
"
p, "
!

101

may His

sovereignty over us be

made open and

manifest

This

mode
writers,

of expression

is

specially popular with the

Targum

who wish
Isa.

to avoid the

thought that God in
D -?
<l

person should
"
Jton^fifj,

appear on earth.
,

In place of
says:

5

??'

J

T? ?,

!

"behold your God,"

40 9 the Targum
"
7|7D,

Knofe

the sovereignty of your
of

God has become manifest
shall

n^n"
;

and

n

nj!T place Wfldpg ^ann, "the sovereignty of

in

Jehovah

God

7 reign," Mic. 4 will be manifest."

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
-

,

,

,

.

It cannot be ascertained that any idea of a pre-existence
of

the

divine

rule

in

heaven was
exists

connection.

That which

contemplated in this from the first is God as

Euler or Sovereign.

The new element, which the future
His
is

brings, belongs to the sphere of the earthly realisation of

sovereignty.

There

here
the

no

thought
of

of

pre-existent

"realities"

emerging

into

course

the world. 1

But

while for the Jews the nopp of

God

invariably means the

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.

THE APPLICATION OF THE IDEA OF THE DIVINE
SOVEREIGNTY IN THE

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

A

specific application
See also
i.

by Jesus might appear in the proper
Ideas,
I.

Fundamental

6

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.

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

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.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS

THE SUBJECT OF AN ANNOUNCE-

MENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE VERBS

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
)

ascribed to Jesus the words
parallel passage,

The

Mark

I

38
,

va^e\i^eadai rrjv B. r. 6. has /cijpvcro-eiv with no object.
is

The passive 17 ,8. r. 6. Luke (16 16 ) with no
raises
difficulties

eva<yye\lerai,

likewise found only in

12 parallel in Matt. II , and, moreover,

to

the Semitic translator, the passive

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

(3ao-i\eia, just as it is also omitted, Matt.
,

26 13 in connection with evayyeXiov. In Mark I 15 but not " in the parallel, Matt. 4 17 Jesus speaks of believing in the
,

gospel," without further qualification.
efjbov

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

community that TO evayjeXiov and
rj

vayye\i%(T0a{,, with or without position of a formula.

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
.

not taken into consideration

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

here, as being without

dispensed with.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
original

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

used of mournful tidings.

The

Aramaic
of

Krnit^a is applied, Ber. E. 81, to the
l
;

announcement

R

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

"

even in such sentences as

:

Nan D^iyn

r

2

i^p
}

Krp,

may

he receive the announcement
;

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

a son of the age to come,"
rnfeap Knpn nn,

j.

Shek. 47

(Meir,

c.

180

A.D.)

;

nifciNi

the

Scripture) and says,"

b. Sot.
is

Holy Spirit announces ll a 46 a
,

(in

the

.

Closely related also
Nan,

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
;

s

"
D^"!j

thou hast assured

me
'ntn

that I shall inherit the age to

come," Targ.

Euth 2 13

;

KoJ^ ^3K^

s

^

?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

the object of promise

1

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
,

2

25

which makes
1

and

times,

mn D^ya p^^
is

nnprin pK, Ber. E. 76, "for the pious
this age
"
;

there

p

Apoc. inn
It

of
ion

no assurance (promise) in Baruch 53 3 "the promise

and

in

the

of life hereafter" (Syr.

m

wafo).

thus
1

appears

that

the

sovereignty of
1

God

is

the

2

j.

1 Targ. Lam. I puts the fuller form x^ ? Nrriib'3, Kil. 32 b has the erroneous reading V.np.

"bad news."

104

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

" content of a " message or

tidings,"

and not without further

qualification

of

"a message
cf.

of

glad tidings."

With
all

this

distinction agrees the fact that its proclamation, according to

Matt. 4 17 (Mark I 15 ),
lead to repentance.

Luke 24 47 should above
,

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

Baruch mentions the message

of salvation,

46 6

,

Subsequently Elijah ranks as the herald of salvation 12 Pesikta according to Targum Jerus. I. on Num. 25
.

77

12

;

Eabbati, chap. 3 5 end

Trypho,

c.

8.

Midrash Vayyosha 1 cf Justin, Dial. To the Messiah Himself the same function
;
;
.

c.

is

13 assigned in Schir. E. 2

;

Pes. Eabb. chap.

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,

Kypvvffeiv TO evayyeXiov, Matt.

9 (Mark 14 ) should be regarded as shorter form points back to Krn^a "i^3 with which compare
}

24 14 (Mark 13 10 ), 26 13 The an abbreviation.
:

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.

Even where evayyeKwv
for /typvcro-ew.

is

would not be inadmissible
also available the

not present, "ifra Of course there is

more
1

A.

closely to Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch,

4 Aphel form f?.?N, which corresponds still the Greek term, and is a verbal form derived
i.

54
;

;

D.

Castelli,

II

Messia secondo gli

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.

Messias der Synagoge," 73.
(-Tip?),

The same passage contains an undefined form mo'a
;

which would

lead us to expect NrnD3 as the defined form. 4 The Peal also seems to o'ccur Koh. R. 7"

Marka, Death of Moses, 12.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
from the noun Tn3
is

105
,

= Ki'ipv%.
C
,

It is already

used in Dan. 5 29 and

applied,

e.g.

j.

Ber. 7

to

an intimation which was to be

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

in the parallel passage Matt. 8

Doubtless

it

is

Greek variant

for Kypvcrcretv, so that a special
it is

Aramaic term
If

corresponding to

not a matter of necessity.

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

for notice \a\eii> Trepl T???

/?. r.

6.,

occuroffers

ring in the narrative

Luke

9 11

,

for

which Mark 6 34

merely
is

SiSdo-icew 7ro\\d.

A

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

elsewhere surprisingly rare. The for fe are Ber. E. 32 47 b. Sot.
;

pass,

fenx, j.

Schek. 50 a

2
.

In place of
b.

it

relate," is

used in Vay. E. 34;

Yom.

9b

7n#K, properly a b. Sot. 35
; .

One might

rather expect to find 3

"
'an,
cf.

to instruct in,"

which

likewise occurs in Vay. E.
instruction of every kind

34

3
;

Hebr. iW, for religious
the

(e.g.

Ab.

d.

E. Nathan, 18).

Peculiar

difficulty attaches

to

phrase
rfj
.

now

to

be

mentioned
66?
rrjv

:

Tra? ypafjLfjMTevs fjLaOrjrevOels (ev)

ftaaikeiq (or

f$a<TL\eiav)
fjiaO^reveiv

TWV ovpavwv, Matt.
in

13 52

A

verb, to

which
1

the

sense
the

here

represented

would
(or

correspond,

does not exist in

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).

THE WORDS OF JESUS
:

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

/3a<Ae/a9, see above,
(cf.
; ,

p.

95.
8 10 ),
4

fjLvvTijpia

T.

0.

T.

o. }

Matt. 13 11

Mark 4 11 Luke
cf.

would be in Aramaic: Kjofi note T) " he made known to me the mystery

Apoc. of Bar. 8 1 " of the times (Syr.

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

"

"

guardianship to them and not to the Christians.

2.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS

REGARDED AS AN APPROACHING

DISPENSATION, BEING THE SUBJECT OF THE VERBS
771)9 elvai,
(

(a)

To

be at

hand, near (fyyityw, 6771*9
tfyyitcev
11
,

elvai).

In addition to

(tfyyiKe),

Matt.

4 17 (Mark

I 15 )

10 13
be

7

(Luke 10
,

9
),

Luke 10

there occurs also

eyyvs ea-rw,

Luke 2 1 31
29
,

in

which
,

case, however, the
/3.

parallels in

Mark
Both

Matt. 24 33 do not contain
capable
of

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

come near"; and
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.

^ wd? ^'IP; Targ.
is

Isa.

56

1

^^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^.

This form of expres-

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
sion
is

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

;

Jonah 2 1 and Cant. 7 13
,

(in

"
|OT Ktpip,

the time of redemption has come

").

(b)

To come

((f)6dviv,
(a),

To
the

Ktpp,

just
of

mentioned under

one must revert for

original

tyGaaev efi vpas, Matt.
KL>p

In

Dan.

4

21

by

means

"

to

12 28 (Luke II 20 ). " come upon any one in

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
:

arrived [that was] to come upon,"
ep%ecr0ai, is
10

etc.

predicated of the divine

"

"

sovereignty

in

the Lord's Prayer, Matt. 6
(the
parallels,

(Luke II

2

); 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

be compared Bar. Apoc.

44 12
.
.
.

there cometh
;

.

.

new age (Syr. WDJJ Kpote KTny -jb,
the

mn

xzby

NHK)

Targ.

Mic. 4

8
,

to thee shall the kingly sovereignty
i]

come"; and Mark II 10 evKo^^evr]

ep^evr)

/3aa-i\eia TOV

(c)

To appear (ava$alv<r0ai).

The term
in

ava^aLveo-Oat,, represented solely
is

by Luke as

narrator (Luke 19 11 ),

the expression used by preference

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

case applied to the

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.

"the sovereignty of mine anointed

will be

made

108
there

THE WORDS OF JESUS

may
vi.

be
1

cited
l
:

the

Canticles

"

As
of

saying from the Hagada on the circuit of sun and moon is
all,

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

the term eWo? vp&v
I.

ecrriv,

Luke 17 21

,

see at the end

No.

3.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS

LIKEWISE

REGARDED AS AN

APPROACHING DISPENSATION, BEING THE OBJECT OF THE VERBS l&elv AND
(a)

To

see (ISelv).

In Luke 9 27 Jesus
reignty of God.

speaks of a "seeing" of the soveIn Mark 9 1 it is said that men should

see the sovereignty of
is

God coming with power.
the latter
"
;

The former
"

not a mere synonym for
of

for
to

to

see

the

sovereignty
cipator in

God

"

it,"

just as

Ntof>

means Tns&

to

survive
j.

be

a

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

The meaning Jinnw rwAoa

not

quite the

forgiven

Israelites,

will see

ftn\, "they, the the sovereignty of their Mes-

nor in the sentence from an ancient Kedushah of

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

not of a special participation Of a mere vision of to appear.
is

the future mention
will see the age
1

is

also
is

which

made in Bar. Apoc. 5 1 8 "They now invisible to them, yea, see the

2

Jew. Qu. Review, vii. (1895) 157. Seder Rab Amram, i. 10 b
.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
time which
pruo HOD
is

109

" now hidden from them

(Syr.

why

in

ti

pm

B>m awnA prmi
(6)

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

),

-

^

The Aramaic word
Isa.

for this is

^&, Onk. Gen. 49
the

18
;

Targ.

30 18
its

64 3

;

Hab.

23

;

cf.

form

13B>,

which

has

made
Dan.

way
K^ap,

into late

parts of the Old Testament,
for

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
"

to look for, expect."

*

I cannot,

however,

verify either

this

or even

"3p

in

the

Jewish-

Galilean literature. 2
Note.

The expression "to look
has
its

for

the consolation of

Israel"

parallels

in
"

Bar.
(Syr.

Apoc.

44 7 "Ye
}irnn),

will in

see the consolation of Zion

the

Targumic Mjom
of

^

jvnn naonn

and

pBnip,

years In these
"
Nnrpn.3,

the

consolations,"

"they who long for the 4 Jer. 3 1 6 Targ. 2 Sam. 23
,
.

instances,
of
"

the days

according Targ. the consolations," are identical with

to

2

Sam.

23 1

^

svby

fpD,

the end of the age."

A

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.

shall see the consolation

"
!

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

the consolation of the com' '

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 WORDS OF JESUS
See
see
also

munity!" "he shall
1

the

Targ.

Isa.

43

Q.Wvv

nrpmri

w
33 20

the
"

consolation
"

of

Jerusalem"; and

D^pn

!

nonaa

JW

*\yy t

thine eyes shall see the consolation

of Jerusalem."

is, throughout these instances, not the resurrection, but redemption in its full extent.

Consolation

4.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS AN ORDER OF THINGS UNDER WHICH MEN ARE PLACED.

(a)

To

sit

at table, to eat bread (avatc\ivea6ai,
all

aprov
can be
"
28
.

The patriarchs and
as
subjects
of

the

prophets
as the

seen

"

the

sovereignty of God,
well

Luke
parallel,

13

The
8 11 ,

context of the

passage, as

Matt.

shows, however, that
expression.

we have not here

Currency

may

to do with a current rather be assumed of the " re-

clining at table" (avaK\ivea6aC), in the sovereignty of God,

Matt. 8 11 (Luke 13 29 ); cf. 10 Wedding Feast, Matt. 22
at
ev
is

avdicet,(r6ai in
-

the parable of the
of

11
,

and the eulogy
15

one that sat

meat with Jesus (Luke 14
rfj
/3.

):

pa/capias ocrrt? ^ayerai

aprov

r.

6.

As

to

drinking in the sovereignty of
,

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
.

That there should be
than

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

the Messianic age is ancient stories of

an ancient portion
it
.

of the

Apocalypse
of

afterwards
2 Esd.
6

occurs in the
It is

Book

Baruch (29 4 ); ~ Enoch 60 7 9 24 and in
of
-

,

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

Edition by Morfill and Charles, Oxford, 1896.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
bring in
invites

111
"as
one
the

Adam
those

and the patriarchs

to

Paradise,
to

with

whom

one
will

loves

celebrate

festivals/'
feast,

and that these

then

"

with joy await his

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

which the present age concludes, Ab.

16

;

and Jacob likens
into

the age to come to a banque ting-hall

(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

Behemoth and Leviathan
this

is

also

combined therewith.

Detailed descriptions of
iii.

feast are given in Jellinek's
vi.

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

npjn pmr DrraK nan ^N,

"

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

merry heart the wine which
"

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

be inferred that the concep-

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

for the purpose of emphasising the fellowship

which the

right-

eous of

all

ages are destined to enjoy.

Never did He

the repast merely as a repast.
;

Even

refer to " in the " satisfaction

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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.

Late Hebrew has 2pn

for to

"recline at table."

To

this

the Targums

inpN;

see,

e.g.,

Onk.
to
to

they lay down mean merely "

37 25 N?n^ *?y*Kb vinp&o, a nd eat bread." Both verbs in themselves
Gen.
circle

form a

round a

table."
b (Ber. 1 2

In the
;

Galilean dialect of the Palestinian

Talmud

Taan.

66 a ), and in the Palestinian-Christian

dialect, the usual word

" 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

take food, take a meal," could be rendered
Gal.
for

by
DM.

lyp, although the " " To eat bread

and the Pal.-Chr.
the simple
"

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
.

In the later Jewish
b.

literature I find but

few examples.

In

Ber.

42 b a summons
"
;

to eat is expressed: NJprp
,

^?,

"

let

us eat bread

and

b.

Bab.

mez. 86 b the Palestinian

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-

evident that the Babylonian popular expression
(properly Ber. K. 8 2 a saying of Joshua
effect

Nna^

^3
In

to roll bread ") for

to eat

unsuitable.

100

A.D.) is

given to the
"

that the righteous

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

the other hand

2
3

12 3pp, "dinner-party." Similarly, as early as Cant. I Of. Joh. Vorstius, De Hebraismis Novi Testament!, ii. 255

ff.

See Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

190.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

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
:
,

Eabbinical literature does not use, in the same sense at

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

term "theocracy" should here be used by another in the
sense regularly given to it by Jesus, although the discourse of Jesus did not furnish a direct occasion for this use.

Some

expression,
"
Jp^itt,

more common among the Jews, perhaps
might here be substituted.

in the age to come,"

(b)

To

be greatest, least (6 piKporepos, eXa^tcrro?,

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.

the least," but also " the

greatest

(6 /juelfav),
34
,

Mark

9

Luke

9

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

this present age, but
"

who
3

will be despised (Q^Bjp, properly,
;

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&

cninnrri nispf> fi^by), which,

however, was not to apply

in the case of his
1

own
2

father. 4

Simeon ben Azzay
3

(c.

110)
105.

1 Cor.

15

41
.

See farther on.
;

b. Pes. 50*.
i.

4

Loc.

cit.

andb. Bab.

b. 10 b

see Backer, Ag. d. pal.

Amoraer,

187,

ii.

8

114
said
l
:

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

He

who, for the sake of the Tora, renders himself

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

great in the future age."
(c.

According to Yonathan

ben Eleazar

240

3

A.D.),

all

are aware that in the age to

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

a

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

5

:

D^y

b

&

toy rm,

a Friedmann, 83 ), that the righteous will in the future have different grades, envying one another no

to Deut.

II 21

,

ed.

more than the
remark

stars in spite of their different brilliance.
is

A

specially elevated third class of the pious
j.
.

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
,

,

would be that in the former case
1

N^n, in the latter 21, should
i.

Ber. R. 81
b.

;

b. Ber.
.

63 b

;

see Backer, Ag. d. Tann.
cf.

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.

THE SOVE11EIGNTY OF GOD

115
be compared a sma11 thing,"
:

With the be presupposed. " a Km-i, read nnsn, OT^
j.

expression
reafc

may
"

tnin g>"

Keth.

29 C and fi.W?
,

njrn

nan,

"the greatest

of

them,"

Ber. E.

38.

(c)

I%e sows o/ ^e theocracy
to

(ol viol
:

-nj?

fia

The expression peculiar
Matt. 8
of
12

Matthew

ol viol

rfc

/3<zcrtXe/a?,

13

38
,

still calls

for

mention here.
p. 9 5 f .

On

the omission

TWV ovpavwv see above,

The son

as such is he

who

But the idea that the
father's legitimate

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

in antiquity that the thought of the son almost immediately

involves that of the heir,

Eom.

8 17

,

Gal.

47

.

Matt. 2 1 38 (Mark 12 7 Luke 20 14 ), The "sons of the theocracy" are thus
cf.
,

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.

12 27 (Luke II 19 ); viol rwv vie Sta/3oXou, Acts rovs Trpo^ra?, Matt. 23 31
;

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

who has an assured claim

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
,

;

TOV ai&v&i TOVTOV, Luke 16 8

.

5.

THE THEOCRACY
ATTAIN,

IS

AN ORDER OF THINGS TO WHICH MEN
WHICH
ALSO
IT
IS

FROM

POSSIBLE

TO

BE

EXCLUDED.
(a)

To attain
"

to,

enter into (elaep^eo'Oai, elairopeveo'dai).
to
"

One can
according
to

attain

(elaep^eo-dai
21

els)

the theocracy
-,

Matt.

5 20
25
),

7

18
13
;

3

19
cf.

23f -

18

24

elo-iropeveaOai,

23

23ff Luke (Mark 10 52 Luke II Mark 9 47
,

10 15 (Luke 18 17 ).
in

It
"

is

the same
"
life

meaning that appears
TTJV

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

"unto the joy 21 23 Kvpiov), Matt. 25
-

,

TruA?;?),

glory,"

which Jesus, Luke 24 26
is

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;

the causative 'ntn
;

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^.

See Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

221.

Bab. mez.

11 has K?n oViyn

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.
into
"

117

the

life

eternal," Targ. Ps.
"

40 8 1
.

Hence the rendering

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

appeal therefore runs
f

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

;

.

The idea that one
sufferings

attains to the life to
is

and

self-sacrifice

come through not unfamiliar to the Jews.

The Second Book

of

Esdras speaks (7 13ff -) of the difficulty

of attaining to the future

the narrow road leading,
stored with good things.
b
),

and compares it (in v. 7 ) to between fire and water, to a city
life,

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

reply, according to Azarya,

is

If

thou art in need of
nriK pyitf

thou art in need of

afflictions
life,"

"

OP?

spy nm D*n
"
(et<?

DK).

On
As
rov

"

attaining to

see also No. III.
Trjv

for attaining to
"

"
-

the joy of the Lord
23
,

^apav

tcvplov),

Matt. 25 21
joy,"

it

has to be observed that the

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.

1

rnKltfn

wz nnnv

is

the

title

of

a

special

festivity during

the feast of Tabernacles.
is
j.

"
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
,

2

HL

"To come

into," moreover,
;

is

also generally expressed
;

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

Galil. pty. By these letters

of Tobit, published of Tobit, London, 1897.

Book

(HL) M. Gaster designates the Hebrew recension of the by him see M. Gaster, Two unknown Hebrew versions
;

118
one

THE WORDS OF JESUS

R

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

wedding-banquet that in Matt. 22 2 Jesus can speak happens
KJVflBJJp

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,

implies any form of entertainment.

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.
. :

R

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

been understood by the hearers to
the festival of thy Lord."
(b)

"

signify,

enter thou into

To

invite (icakeiv).

Not without
banquet
in
:

"

being
theocracy.

bidden

"

does

one enter to

the

the

In 1 Thess. 2 12 Paul has the
KaXovvTos
r)/jia<>

expression 8acri\eiav
tion
"

TOV

Oeov

TOV

et<?

/cal

Sogav,

which shows

affinity

with the

TTJV "
8f - 14

eavTov
invita-

in the parable of
).

the Supper, Matt.

22 3f

-

(Luke

14

16f - 24

Jewish literature affords similar examples.

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

Jacob rejoices above
the period 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

The same expression

somewhat

differently

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
applied, b. Ab. zar.
,

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

also attributed to a voice
b.

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
, , ,

rerayfjiwoi, et9 farjv alwviov. " "

;

as in late
is

Hebrew

(see above,
1

and Sabb. 153 a ).
,

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

1

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.
:

Luke alone (20 35 )
fwr}?,

is also

rov alwvos etcelvov

found the expression: icaTagtwOrjvai, 46 af/ou? T^ alwviov Tv%eiv cf. Acts 13
',

" 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

inheriting two worlds,"

Ber. 51 a

D^yni njn lAtyn
age,
"

en^

nalr

N3n,
is

he

is

worthy
j. j.

of possessing this

and that which

to

come,"
king,"

Ber. Ber.

11; nwBp
4C
.

come

he was worthy to beThis NJJ corresponds without doubt
nrit,

120
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS
including within itself also the
x
;

Kara^uoOrivai,

idea
cf.

of

TV)(eiv.

For evQeros recourse
ip,

may

be had
is
fit

to "B>3

Onk.
Ber.

Ex. 4 13 rbvvh n^rn
E.
9
:

"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

used in Targs. Jerus.
for

I.

and

Ex. 4 13
parallel

nnWpi?
^&n,
"
is

'prn ip

;

this nn, like its late-

Hebrew

meant
2

to

be a passive participle,
it
|3,

and should be pronounced
does have the sense
Bern.

accordingly, though earlier The phrase HttTB? ^to worthy."
:

E.
also

9 24,

means "a son who
Gen.

is
\tn

worthy

to
"
,

See

Onk.

49

3

3Dpi>

mq

be king." thou wast
,

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

s

(

pn) might, indeed, be expressed in

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."

The same root
"

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.

But the sense

equal,"

equivalent,"

too conspicuous to permit its being substituted in every

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
;

1

,

,

:

3

Vay. R. 9

;

cf.

Backer, Ag.

d. p.

Am.

i.

38.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

121

(d)

To

close against, to cast

forth from,

to

go out

(ickeieiv,

Jesus speaks of the Pharisees "closing" " 13 of the cracy against men, Matt. 23 keys
;

(icXeieLv) the theo" (/cXeiSe?) thereof,

Matt. 16 19

;

of

"

closing the door of the marriage chamber,"

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

declares that the

life

of

him who has

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

alone comes into question

"
;

to be expelled

from

"
is pB3.

On
THE

"

the keys

"

of the theocracy, see

No, VIII.

6.

G.

THEOCRACY

IS

A

GOOD

WHICH

ADMITS

OF

BEING

STRIVEN FOR, OF BEING BESTOWED, OF BEING POSSESSED,

AND OF BEING ACCEPTED.
(a)

To

strive for, seek, ask (fyreiv, alretv).

Instead of being anxious about food and raiment, one " " to seek earnestly after the theocracy ought (fyreiv rrjv
1

b Siphre, ed. Friedm. 84

;

cf.

Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

52.

2

b.

Kidd. 40 b.

122
avrov,
KOI
rrjv

THE WORDS OF JESUS
soil,

rov

7rar/3o?),

Luke

1 2 31 (Matt. 6 s3,

where

also the injunction

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
-),

H

9f

45f (Matt. 13 -).

For

tyirelv

in the

two meanings,
to
"

to
"

"

strive for

"

(someis

thing desirable) and
hidden),

search

for

(something that
is

the

means

to

corresponding Aramaic word "strive for, covet eagerly," Dan.

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

;

Koh. E. 7 11 (where the passive 7?
").

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 ),
; ;

;

.

H

of

fyreiv,

some other word must be found

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-

cedent for elsewhere.

Even Josephus l affirms that, accordthose who emasculated themselves should be
it

excommunicated, and that
or animals.

was forbidden

to castrate

men

The application
.

to animals, unexpressed in the

law, has been subsequently deduced

by the Eabbis,

b.

Sabb.

110 b 2 from Lev. 22 24
,

A
40.

metaphorical use of

Mia

1

Antt. iv.

viii.

a

See also Onk. and Jerus.

I.

on Lev. 22 24.

THE SOVEKEIGNTY OF GOD
"

123

to castrate one's self," to denote voluntary celibacy, I cannot

find in

the

Eabbinic

literature.

The saying ascribed
the

to
l
:

Jesus
6

though not recorded in
TrpoOecriv

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

lived unmarried so as not to be

impeded
tion. 2

in the study of the law,

had

to

bear reproach for

his celibacy,

and he ranked ever
of abstinence

after as a notable excep-

A

vow

from conjugal relations would
itself

necessarily entail the obligation to dissolve the marriage.

The word that commends
the sake
of," is ttfBy.

most

to replace Bid,

"

for

It

would

also be the

most suitable in

regard to the leaving of one's family

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

for the sake of God,'

Dtf

DB$.

M

(b)

To give
"
it

(SiSovai).
"

To him that asketh
7

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

"

your Father's good pleasure to give

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

emphasis and content must originally have stood in
iii.

1

Clem. Alex. Strom,

15. 97

;

cf.

Nestle,

Nov. Test. Grac. Snpplem.

86.

2 3

Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 410. Ab. ii. 12 ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

72.

124

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

a different connection, the "
is

kingdom

in

the words of Jesus

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

the other hand, Matt.

2 1 43 belongs

to

this

" " category, in saying that the theocracy will be given to a

nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

For

"

to give

"

imperfect and

infinitive

Aramaic puts at our disposal formed from the stem jflJ.

SIT,

with
in

But

Galilean these borrowed forms also are occasionally supplied Alretre KOI tio&yaeTCU vjuv fyrelre KOI evprjaere from 2JT. 1
is,

therefore, to be thus restored

:

fenw fta

B

$J?
"
:

T^\ i^Kf
to

2

pn2B>.

Bar. Apoc.
life to

44 15 may be compared

these

is

given the
(c)

come," Syr. Ti&n xtby 3!Tno

firb.

To

accept, to receive, to take (&e%ea-6ai, \afjLJ3dv6iv).

One has

to

"

"

accept
18
1

(Se^eo-flat) the theocracy,

when
To

it is

offered, as a little child,

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

upon oneself the
"

sovereignty of
one's self the
p.

God," or

&?DB*

nttpo ^y

73J5,

to

take upon

yoke of the sovereignty of God" (see above,

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.

98); for in this

to

Dan.

26
is

,

j.

Ber.
use,

and

in

for the "acceptance" of with the same meaning, in the
,

6a

presents,

Targ.

of

Onkelos.

In the sense of "accepting"
"

it

is

applicable in

this connection. "

To be received

(Syr. ^2p) is predicated of the

future age, Bar.
1

Apoc.

14 13 5 1 3

.

promised In the Targ. Cant. V 14

See Gram. d. j.-pal. Aram. 253.

2

Galil.

p^.

3

Galil. ftysr

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
it is

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

a very popular Jewish expression, whose use
of the
first

from the end
strated.
"

Bar.

Apoc.

44

18

century onwards can be demon2 Esd. 6 17 speaks of cf.
, ,

taking possession of the
(c.

"

Eleazar ben Zadok
n 5>m
n, j.

promised age (Syr. 100 A.D.) has Kan D^j?n enj, found
b. Sot.

T&n
b.

W3T m*). Kidd. 40 b
. ;

is
.

7 b in a Baraitha
j.

V

&?
"

r

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

children of Israel will possess themselves of the world to

Even

in the

distinguished in

meaning; the Targ.

Old Testament Bhj and can hardly be of Onk. replaces P'lJ by

^

126
J"P)

THE WOKDS OF JESUS
IpHtf,

and

and

for /ru it has usually ipntf, without,

howof

ever,

following

any recognised principle
is

in

this

mode

translating.

This much, however,

assured, that neither of
"

these words originally
estate,

means

to take possession of a paternal

curate.

and therefore the rendering by " inherit is inacThe context must determine whether inheritance is
whether
it is

really meant, or

the acquisition of any object
title,

to

title

which there previously existed a was contemporaneous with its
it is

or to which

the

acquisition.

In Matt.

25 34

the occupation of a possession, antecedently destined

for the recipients, that is in view.

Of course the idea

of

the legal
case
in

title

of the heir

may

also be included, as is the
TT)?

Jas. of;

25

,

where the
also

K\Tjp6vofjLoi,

ySacrtXeta? are

spoken

and

in Eph.

5 5 , in the expression:
teal 6eov.

e^etv

K\rjpovofjbLav ev rfj "

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
.

"

the part of the meek, Matt. 5 4
in
0*!)

This phrase has

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,

where the phrase in

Isa.

60 21 "to possess the

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-

herits the earth"

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

Gen. 28 14 as applying to the possession of the whole earth
,

1

The statement

is

absent from the Mishna of the Palest. Talmud and from

the edition of Lowe.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
a

12*7
calls

view with which
13

Paul agrees when he

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).

Only once does
possession of
"

Jesus

use

the

"

expression

to

take

in this connection,

mentioned
Psalms,

of Matt.

54

,

which

is

apart from the case just based upon a text in the

and

this single instance is also

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

common Jewish formula
is

"
:

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.

&

9

Tos.

Sanh.

2 (Eliezer ben Hyrkanos,

c.

with a negative,
c.
c.

jn--5>
j

pK, Tos.

Sanh.

1

(Gamliel n.

110);

pn

p,

j.

Sanh. 28 b (Joshua ben Levi,
c.

j.

Shebi.

35 C (Khamma bar Khanina,

yi*n
this
ii.

KW*
7
;

H?

Kp^?? Nf^C

1

i^
niy

n<l

"

^>
(cf.

230); 270); Aram. Ky>*W the pious have part in
1

world and in that to come
'n*n

"
n\b

2.

KO^

K^-TO Dy

|1n^)

Tim. 4 8), Targ. Esth. 3D p^n, there remains

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

;

tyav and among the words
0ij<rei,,

eV TTJ avaardo-ei, yu-epo?

Ty

TrpwTrj,

Eev.

of Jesus, only TO pepo?
.

avTov

Matt. 24 51

(e)

To belong

to.

That which was received, whether
session

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the former merely by K'n (fr*!)
fcon jinrnrn.

pni, the

latter

by

!P

With
"

the

former

may

be

compared

Bar.

Apoc
"

44 13

theirs is the earth in the age that

wan
Kan

wron*
"

vi);

is promised (Syr. pr6n and Pesikt. 59 b (Meir) vfw njn D^iyn

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

R

;

"yea even one such/\ Ech. E.
beget children
jrnrn
cf.
tfnp,

I 6 ;'|inn;2

rvh p^B, "they
;

who
is
.

are not such as they are," Shir. E. I 6

n$, "there

Targ. Eccl.

7 22

none such as thou," Onk. Deut. 33 29 A fuller expression would be 'OT] 1^
resembles them";
cf.

;

"of
ii.

one who
b.

Palmyr.

Customs

Tariff,

10
To

:

frb NOT

np b,

"

everything of that kind."
(e

(/)

&e mac^e ready,

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
.

Of the same nature
to
sit

10

40
),

which says that
is

Matt. 20 23 (Mark at the right hand of the
is

Messianic King

destined for those
"

"

for

whom

it

has been

prepared
fiov).

by God The parable
"

(ofr ^Toi^da-rai

of

the Great

Matt. VTTO TOV Trarpds Supper also treats of a
"
"

"

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

O r ^nynfi) for the

righteous since the creation of the world, need not be inter-

preted as signifying its pre-existence. 52 it is said Similarly in 2 Esd. 8
to

"
:

prepared
in

is

the age
I 14

come"

(Syr.

Tnjn NE&y nnynx); and
"
:

Assump. Moses

Moses says

of himself

excogitavit et invenit

me

qui ab initio

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
orbis
"

129

terrarum

prseparatus

sum
1

ut sim arbiter testament!

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.

Siphre, Deut. 37, ed. Friedm.

temple, and Palestine,
all

76 b speaking of the law, the declares that these were created before
,

other things. 2
ed.

A

certain
Bern.
:

Baraitha, according

to Midr.

Tanchuma,

Buber, having priority to the world
temple,
the
patriarchs,
It is

things as the throne of God, the law, the
,

17 b

named seven

Israel,

the

name

of

Messiah, and

repentance.

added in the passage that other authorities

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

Gen. I 3 has been preserved on behalf of
Fruits
"

the pious ever since the Creation, Ber. E.

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;

^

clusters since the six days of creation

(flf'Bto

vajya "iBBton
cf.

p;j

rvfjoa <*),
97
(rjj?

b.

13?

$

(Joshua ben Levy); yaonn tfvpn) Pirke Mashiakh
;

Sanh. 99

a

Targ. Cant.

(Jellinek,
cit.

Beth-

ha-Midrash,
1

iii.

76); Se'udath Livyathan,

loc.
6.

vi.

151;
treatise,

R. H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses (1897),
u. d. sterb. Messias," 72.

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.

9

130
Jerus.
I.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Gen. 27 25
.

As

to the fabulous animals, Leviathan

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.

A

pre-existent Jerusalem* which
is

in

the end descends
-

upon the earth,

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.

the end, but nothing

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;

but he does not state

that

these things are ever destined to be removed to the earth.

Yokhanan
"

I shall

8 260) represents God as affirming by an oath: not enter into the Jerusalem on high until I be
(c.

come into the Jerusalem on
Jerusalem should at

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

God through His
for

great love for Jerusalem

on earth had fashioned

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

restricted within very

narrow limits in the Jewish
Testament, what
the
"
is

literature.

And
"

in
is

the

New
or

said

of

Jerusalem
1

that

above,"

heavenly Jerusalem,"
Hor. hebr. et talm.

Chr. Schoettgeris treatise,

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

names Simeon ben Lakish
3

(c.

260 A.D.).

b.

Taan. 5 a

;

Midr. Psalms 122 3.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
Gal. 4 26 Heb. 1 2 22
,

131

,

must not be combined with the statements
from heaven, Eev. 3 12

concerning 2 1 2 10
-

Jerusalem coming down
of the

.

The name
the Book of

Messiah

Enoch 48 s
things

premundane according to (Similitudes), and the Baraitha given
prior
.

is

above

on

the

that were
,

to

the

world, also

according to Targ.

Mich. 5 1 Zech. 4 7

A

personal existence
is
,

of the Messiah, celestial

though not premundane,

Enoch 39 6

-

46 1 62 7
2 Esd.

(Similitudes),
is
-

Enoch 48 6
to
,

taught with its
is

contention that the Messiah
interpolation,

prior
52

the world,

an

12 32 13 26

14 9 and

after that not

again
differs

till

Pesikt. Eabb. chap.

33

(ed.

Friedm. 152 b). 1
of

This

somewhat from the occult existence

the

Messiah

before His open manifestation
if

upon the earth or in Paradise,

in the latter case
earth.
2

from the

temporarily transferred thither The statements as to pre-existence in the
is

He

Similitudes of Enoch, of 2 Esdras, and in Pesikta Eabbati,

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.

Judaism has never known anything to the Messiah antecedent to His
3

of a pre-existence peculiar

birth

as

a human

being.

Baldensperger, nevertheless, holds that from the date of the
Similitudes
of

Enoch, "the heavenly pre-existence
"

of

the

Messiah
circles."

"

attained the position of a

dogma

in

apocalyptic

But we have seen that

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

sources, in the seventh or eighth century.
1

The dominance

Of.

"Derleid.
cit. 39,

u. d. sterb.
f.

Messias," 58.

3

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS any Jewish
is

circle

whatever cannot seriously be
128f., as well as under

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

apportioned to them. there the all-glorious
of

In particular, there already exists new Jerusalem, which in the time
fellow-

the consummation will descend to the earth to replace

the former city.
ship of
all

There, too, already exists in the

God

the Messiah,

who has been chosen by God from

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

Glory upon the

renovated earth

the final salvation to be found, but in a

state of absolute transfiguration in heaven."

Of

all

this

the beginning and end are quite inaccurate
it
is

;

as for the rest,

true that such ideas have occasionally

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

his control of the

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

H. H. Wendt, Die Lclire Jesu, von der Seligkeit, i. (1895) G.

ii.

(1890) 297

;

A.

Titius,

Die

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
"

133
justifiable

purely transcendental," to a very limited extent.

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.

The whole verse
"

where, however, in place of
is

to take

recalls "

1

Sam.

15 18

,

away

the verb used

"

to "

rend away from
is

"

away

in

Aramaic

^

(Hebr. JHP, Targ.
or 2D3.

^K).

To take

For the former, which

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

the Galilean usage, see XT\^3,

aoin ^DjriK, " the excellency
.

was taken away from men," Est. E. I 1

7.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MESSIAH.
fall

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

which the sovereignty

of the

,

;

.

Darius,"
case
;

so

is

it

with ev ry
"

/3ao: pov,

aov, avrov in this
Tjn^ppB, FPrwppa,

and the equivalent Aramaic
to

'riotea,

would have

be rendered

when

I

am

king,"

etc.,

and

Luke 23
"

42

Out
of
1

of

merely "as king." His sovereignty
the Son of

"

(ex
"

TT}?

/3do-t,\ei,a<i

avrov), the
all

angels

Man
is

gather together

" 2

causes

See the ETeo-Hebraic

2

The metaphor

*?^, "to take away," Sabb. i. borrowed from the harvest-field.

1.

134
of

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

and from Luke

which was committed by God to " " 1 2 32 the (SiSovai, Aram. giving
have
This
first

^l) been
His

1

of the sovereignty to the little flock appears to so

destined from the

(see above, p. 124).

(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

Man, and then

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

"

of the theocracy, although, indeed, in
2

Acts

I

the term in question

is

used to denote the royal sove-

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?.

3

dTTOKaeiffTdveiv, in

the Christian-Palestinian version D'pK

;

A. Lewis,

A

Palestinian Syrian Lectionary, 132.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
is

135
e.g.

found, indeed, in the late books of the Old Testament,
-

2 Chron. 20 30 36 22 Esth. 3 6 5 1
,

3

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

subsequent CM?^ rnDT'D is never the divine sovereign

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

sovereignty to in the Jewish

literature.

And

Jesus, likewise, never says that
to
,

God should
To the
the
royal

hand over His own sovereignty 29 Messiah, according to Luke 22
dignity,
i.e.

the Messiah.

God

grants

that which

is

peculiar to the Messiah,

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

D

W

much

in the
"

Jewish
"

conception of rpO7

as in the idea of the
"
life of

future age
"

of the

the future age

(wan

Dfcjjn

(Kan D^n), or that This concepn).

tion

is

among the Jews,

in a similar way, a comprehensive

term

God
is

"

" for the blessings of salvation, just as the sovereignty of " " is with Jesus ; and, further, the sovereignty of God

for Jesus invariably

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.

2

Of. p.

96

ff.

136

THE WORDS OF JESUS

lyptic literature of His time,

He

created His

own

terminology.
of of

We

" may assume that He borrowed the term sovereignty " God as an eschatological designation from the Book

Daniel, and that

He
and

used

it

by preference

for the reason

that regard for the honour of

God took precedence

in His
certain

view of

all

else,

also because

He

considered

it

that the chief end of
in the

mankind was
to

to find their salvation

most intimate relation
will.

ence to His
of

He

God, and in full obediwas further convinced that the purpose
the

God was

directed principally to the bestowal of blessing
to

on

men, and not

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

That Jahve's king-

ship, especially in so far as Israel is concerned, but also in
its

all

peoples, has for

aim and result the

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 isles be glad."
as

The king,
of

of course, is there

regarded

principally

the

judge

his people,

ranked

first

and foremost
it

as

and the judge is the vindicator and deliverer. 3
in the

At the same time ment period from
to

must be noticed that

Old Testa"

the time of Chronicles the tendency arises

speak
1

less

of

the king Yahve, and of His

"

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."

essential part of deity

as

well as of royalty

Avas ability to help or

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

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.

as the decisive element in the

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

"

so as to include within it the blessings

mediated by this sovereignty.

For

Him

the sovereignty of

the divine power which, from the present onwards with continuous progress, effectuates the renovation

God meant

of the world,

but also the renovated world into whose domain

mankind

will one

day

enter,

which

is

even now being

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.

the subject of remark in 0. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte
i.

(1895), 243
2

Antt. xviii.

1,

6

;

Bell. Jud. n. viii. 1.

Of.

Acts 5 s7 .

138

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the city of Gamala, in the time of Jesus called the
of the
"

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

of Zeppori, the chief city of Galilee in the

Nazareth, and who

is

represented as having

neighbourhood of aimed at usurp-

2 ing the sovereign power.

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

ideas in regard to the sovereignty of

God

in conscious opposition to the Zealot as to the tribute-money, Matt.

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

ungodly powers in the inner sovereignty of God aims at removing

life
;

of

and

it

men, that the is no human

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.
;

3

Liitgert
1

rightly lays stress on the fact that the
;

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.
;

2

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

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

edition of his Israelitish

and Jewish History. 3
of

nature of
doctrine

the
of

preaching
is

Jesus, not

less

The genuine than of the
by such
which

Judaism,

entirely

misrepresented

statements.
It

was not merely the content

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

ideas in its train.

APPENDIX A.

Luke
*Iwdvvov

16 16

6

vofjios

KOI

ol

Trpoffirai
CLTTO

pe^pi

(D

eco?)
4
17

(D
12f<

add.

7rpo<ptjrvcrav)'

rore

(D

aTrore)

fiaaiXeia rov 6eov

va<y<y6\i%6Tat, Kal 7ra9 et9 avrrjv /Bid^erai,.

Matt.

H

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

add. 01) ffiacrTal dpTrd&vcrLV avTijv.
'Icodvvov e

yap

/cal 6 ^ou-09 eo)9

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

Blass rejects ?ws and ^Trpo^reva-av, but adopts

&<j>

6'rou

(instead of aTrore), as

required by the

Roman

recension.

140
In the
first

THE WORDS OF JESUS
place,

we have

to

ask what Aramaic word

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

be the antecedent of fBid&iv.

*

,

take possession
in

of,"

would hardly cause one who was writing

Greek
"

to use fBid&w.

A

better equivalent
"

is

found in

^i?^,

which means in the Peal
to hold fast."

to

be strong," and in the

Aphel

In Deut. 22 25 Onkelos has na

for the Hebr. H3 P^nni, while the

LXX
*li?nN,

In 2 Sam. 13 25
one," the
,

-

27

for the Hebr.

renders a P?, " to urge

Targum has again

a

and

for

upon any 14 p?, Gen. 28

,

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

1

18 Kings 12

for

FEKnn, "to
*li?n

It is also important to note that

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

"tonK can mean only
7rpo(f>i]Tev<7av in

to receive a message."
for

The word

Matthew,

which

o 1/0/40? is

an unsuitable

subject, also raises suspicion.

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.

more precise designation

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,

4

indeed, supposes

that "the

2

Jesu Muttersprache, 88 f., cf. 157 f. Only the Chronicler has as passive
.

pinnrr,

meaning "to be consolidated,"

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.

in the theocracy. Wellhausen, Der arabische Josippon (1897),

43.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
word
'

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

'

the Jewish ^ftW, as

may

be seen from the use of the word in

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

.

The corresponding Aram, noun
like
"
;

would
"
;

be

Njtatpp,

formed

JT

^,

"

teacher of the law
"

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

sentence (in Luke)

^

iy

w&m
It

^nyjiK

The second sentence admits
cjprv

of being retraced to IP 73
"

n3
"

flPnp'n. it

This can

mean

every one can lay hold of

it/' i.e.

is

attainable for every one."

may

also,

how-

"

ever,

imply

:

He who
it."

does not shun the requisite effort

may

take possession of also read aa *!!?!
:

^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

possibility of attaching the second half of
"

clause to
:

the second clause, so that the latter should then read
flprp

N3H

fp

na sigron

ID

bs KJDBH

KHO^D
of

bnS,

from that time and

onwards the sovereignty
hold upon
it

God
it."

lays hold of

every man This perhaps

who

will lay

may

be pre-

supposed in Luke.

To
form

all

this it

may, however, be objected that the Greek

of our Lord's saying does not after all in either case

with the Aramaic expression. A solution which should be in congruity with the tenor of the Greek would
tally closely

merit the preference.

Such a solution

for the

wording of the

phrase in

Matthew may be

arrived at, provided DJK be

made
"

the starting-point, for this word can

mean

"

to

use force

142

THE WORDS OF JESUS
:

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

peculiarity that the theocracy suffers violence, not, of course,

from

believers,

from those in authority.

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

found in Luke in an entirely different
it is applied in opposition the admonition of Jesus in despised

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

was not their own

the judgment of God, that decided

worthy

of entrance.

The

context, however, in

who was Luke may be

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

mention only of the violent treatment
the time of John.
into
it,

of the theocracy since

Luke thought upon attempted entrance
it

and thus found
it

natural to insert

it

in the position

which
reason

occupies

in his
it

Gospel; Matthew

with greater

understood

to refer to the violent treatment of

the preachers of the theocracy, and has therefore connected
1

Galil.

tt3.

-

Galil.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
it

143
Neither by Jesus

with the answer sent by Jesus to John.

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)

ftacriXeia rov Oeov ftera rrapa-

ov$e

IBov

wSe

rj

(D

add.

ISov)

e/ce?

(D

add.
vjjL&v

/Jbrj

TTKrrevo'rjre).

IBov

yap

f]

paaiXeia rov Oeov svros

e<rriv.
f

For
without
copy.

fjiera

7raparr)p7Jo-o)^ Delitzsch

puts

EW

ntFifcz in his

translation of the

New
S

Testament into Hebrew

not, indeed,

much

misgiving, as

may

be seen from his private
TTO/ATTT/,

The Talmudic

5&te3, "i n triumphal parade,"
;

had appeared to him not impossible but in publishing the llth edition the present writer did not venture to adopt
it.

Salkinson renders

Syriac version, Sin.
tion."

it by ttaen W^>, Eesch by Dnie^a, the Cur. Pesch. has wriltMa, " with observa-

Meyer
12
,

2

proposes

^?,
"

Job 4

he takes to mean
"

in secret."

which, according to the Targ. In that case the

evangelist misunderstood the word.

4 12 can mean merely
,

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
:

you (by your

in-

quiries)

we have
iwto
}n

by tradition

njnn riDns psa n^fe

^H,

there are three things which
by Blass in
his so-called

come

1

Both

insertions in

D

are omitted

Roman

recension

of the text of Luke.
2

Jesu Muttersprache, 87.

144
unexpectedly
?

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

d

"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
,

;

see Onk. Gen.

Eccles.

II 4 Ber. E. 78, and
,

the corresponding Hebr. TOP, Siphre, Deut.

127
" "

(ed.

Friedm.
"
;

100 b ).

It

had at the same time the meaning

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

of yu-era TraparTjpij cre&>9,
1

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

?

The future epovaiv
it

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.
.

THE SOVEEEIGNTY OF GOD
stands,

145
its

whereas
v.
21a

in
is

v.

23

it

is

quite

in

place.

The

whole clause

probably an interpolation introduced
possible retranslation

from

v.

23
.

The following would be a

:

For eVro? vpwv, the Syriac, Sin. Cur. Pesch. has "among you," Delitzsch and Salkinson have Dasnjpa, Resch
(following

Ephrem)

Baaapa,
is

opinion the phrase

In Meyer's meant to indicate the sudden mani-

Meyer

ftosp

fap.

festation of the theocracy.

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

conjectures that fo^a was perhaps to the Aramaic term in question
^"ipa,
i

a striking circumstance that the Hebr.

n

the sense of "among,"

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.

18 2 Onkelos has: "he
brethren
29 "

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
"

the Canaanites dwelt

among them,
O^JJttp
sjlna,

fi'Wa,"

and

they

dwelt among the Canaanites
applies to ^na.

^?)"

The same rule
"

Thus snga and
?

having suffixes attached,
;

" 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

The double use
*?nx

*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
!

Constant, wrongly 'HIS), come here (say) Lo, he goes
(ed.

expect tv in Greek.

10

146
latter

THE WORDS OF JESUS
,

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
.

Khanina dwells n^a, "in
is

it," i.e.

in a certain

street,

and he

P^" ?,

1

1

"

among
;

you,"

i.e.

the inhabitants of
it is

Zeppori.

Against

ftawa it

appears an objection that
historical

the

Pharisees
a
final

who

are addressed
for
is

but this cannot be considered
situation,

criterion,

the

where

the

saying

of

the Lord

introduced, cannot lay claim to the

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

of certitude as the saying itself.

A

8r

10 3 22 27

-

55

24 36 Acts
,

I 15

2 22 27 21

.

When

he writes

eWo?
"

in this case, he certainly
"

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.
:

means something more than Hence the closing phrase would

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,

Such an inner advent

in all those to

whom

the

general

company

of

His hearers.

Even Luke

felt

no

necessity to
to place

exclude the Pharisees, and thus remained free

this paradox, tending rather to veil

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.

1

The proper reading

is

|b^"3.

In the Venice edition

nn'

prra should be

read instead of

am3J3.

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE
refused
to recognise the divine

(JEOX)
effectual "

147
through

power as

Him
is

u/m? rj come upon you." l In that case
:

e$6ao-ev

(/>'

pavi\eia TOV Oeov,

the theocracy

against evil spirits

even to
it

it is the power of Jesus which makes the theocracy recognisable outward vision in the passage under consideration,
;

appears through the power of the

Word

invisibly,

but not,

therefore, less effectually.

II.

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE

(^EON).

1.

ITS

OCCURRENCE IN THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS.

To him who speaks against the Holy Ghost forgiveness
is

denied, both ev TOVTW TO> al&vi as well as ev

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

(eh TOV al&va)

cf.

phrase

:

JVpbiJJ
j.

^rup ^ P,
b.

for ever," of Matt.
et9

Bab.

6

C

(Josa).

no forgiveness for him The more detailed statement

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

words used by Jesus

Himself.

In Mark 10 30 (Luke 18 30 ) ev

TO)

icaip$

TOVTM and

ev

TW alwvL

TCO

ep^ofjbevw are placed in contrast, while in Matt.
is

19 29 neither one or other

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

to the inner connection

cf.

shorter form, n^np p, Baclier, Ag. d. Tann. i. 287.

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

<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

clear that the ideas,

this age,"

the future 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

the place of that of the " future
"

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.

I

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.
"
;

"the time that now is"
world
7

vvv Kaipos), Eom.
,

8 18

(o

/coo^o?

OUTO?),

1 Cor. (I 20 ) 3 19 5 10 7 31 Eph. 2

but only in Eph.
"

I 21 is

"the
")

future age

"

(6 ala>v /xeAAa>z>, cf.

Eph. 2

the ages to

come

spoken
77

of.

The place
TOV Oeov.
"

of the latter is elsewhere occupied

ffacriJXeia,

The same holds good
"

of the

by Johannine

Gospel.

The

correlative of

perly not
"

that seon," and

never

this world," "
"

"

this age," is pro-

that other world,"
life."

but

the sovereignty of God," and the

eternal

2.

ORIGIN OF THE EXPRESSION.

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.

"Worterbuch der Neutestamentl.

14 5

as the solitary instance of this conception to be found in the

Apocrypha.
TOV
o xpovos

Cod. Vat. has in the verse in question iccupol
els

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

therefore uncertain in this

case;

and,

further, o

antithesis of

by two epochs.

itself

does not necessarily presuppose an

Even

in Sir.

18 10

ev

ypepa

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE (^ON)

149

means no more than
"this

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

"

1

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
,

3

age,"

4 S 7 both late additions.
,

the

Book

of Jubilees

never mention either

The Assumptio Mosis and idea. The Apoca-

lypse of Baruch, in
ideas.

its

older sections, takes no notice of these

They are

first

mentioned in the more recent elements,

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)
;
-

"

;

nb rvb fpDl in KD^J?) beside
5

"

this passing age

"

(Syr. Knity aon

-ujn),

48 50

,

cf.
;

40 3

6
;

see also

"the new age" (Syr. xtby
(Syr.

12 mn), 44

"the deathless age"
cf.

nw h
1

rf>y),

3 13 5 18
.

.

"^Eon"

is

further used as a time-concept in 16
,

44

llff -

7

In 2 Esd. 8 7 50

81

one world, but two.
1
'

it is said that God has made, not In that book are found the expressions
,

Cf.

Barn. 10 11 eV rotary

TOJ

nba^y

TOV ayiov al&va,.

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

8

Cf. iiT-n chy,
.

Vay. R. 26

;

6

al&v 6 ^eo-rws

irovrjpos,

Gal. I 4

;

5 adidas, Jas. 3

4

According to the Syriac version published by A.
sacra et profana, V.
2.

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.
.

6

150
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

hoc (praesens) saeculum
i"nyn

(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

aon, -pnjn KD^y),

44 n

~13
).

The Slavonic Enoch

also

mentions

the
,

future age," according to Morfill's translation, 1

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,"

"

the future age."
13 Kings 5

2

Even

in the

Targum

to the prophets

they are infrequent.
,

28 pn, 2 Sam. 22 6 19 23 Jer. 50 39 7 Wt, 2 Sam. 22 28
,

1
;

,

There are found Kp^ya 6 <nfcn Mai. 3 KDJ>$, 2 Sam.
;

Kjwpn

s

KJ&B,

1

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

the age to come (N?n Dtoyn *n

ft

*

rnp)."
5
(fl.
c.

A
"

second
A.D.), "

witness

next found in Yokhanan ben Zakkai

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

A

who enumerates among
" "

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-

"

Kanna, j. Ber. 7 There is no value in the notice
.

d

(Ber. ix.

5

;

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

2

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.

THE FUTUKK AGE, THE AGE (iROX)
longer formula,
the sectaries

151
to

Dyn

IJtt

Diyn

jp,

was instituted

combat
This
,

who acknowledged one
is

single aeon only.
,

longer form

5 already found in Neh. 9

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

did not think on

"

"

longer form.

The currency
age,"
is

of the

"

expressions

this age,"

"

the future

at all events established

by the end
should

of

the

first

Christian

century.

This

reservation

probably

be

made, that for that

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

simply makes the world to
'
'

come

to coincide

with the

'

days of the Messiah,' or at least

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

them from the
Bar.,

world -renovation (2 Esdras
later Theology)."

and Apoc.

Midrash

and

state of the case.

Both

this hardly represents the true " " " the days of the Messiah and the

future age

"

are terms unfamiliar in the earlier period.

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

one sharply marked

off

from the present.
1

Any

fuller significance
i.

always requires
80.

Lehrb. der Neutestamentl. Theologie,

152
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

be ascertained with special reference to each statement

and document. von

by on the supposition that the idea of different ages was derived from the plural D^iy, which originally was inOrelli,
1

The

origin of the expression cannot be explained, as

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

too ingenious to be considered probable.

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

.

Eeference could be made with better reason to the rendering

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
:

s

m

;

,

,

Joel I 15 Zeph. I 7
,

-

14
,

Mai.

3 23

:

for the

comprehensive idea
"

of njiT

DV

is

the real historical precursor of the idea of

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

these, see Hebr.

;

w

;

.

Further, as a matter of fact, the Hebr. Nirp ^flfe

became
;

in
for

Palestine a favourite expression for the Messianic future

examples see pp. 108, 116, 127, 153.
Contact with Greek modes of thought, moreover, intro-

duced the idea
1

of

the aiwv,

"
i.e.

"
lifetime,"

the age," and
tf.

2

Die hebr. Synonyma der Zeit mid Ewigkeit, 80 b Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana, iii. 69 -

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE (;EON)
"

153

the temporary," into the

circle

of

Jewish thought, either

directly or through the

medium

of the Syrians.
it

And when
to

a term corresponding to aia>v was wanted,

would be readily
the

remembered that the Aramaic
Greek
et9

D?V?

was equivalent

ai&va,
"

this Sty the special

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
"

most convenient designation

for

comprising

future

"

and

present."

To
a
b

illustrate the

new
aia>v,

use of Bpy (Hebr. DTiy) as occareference can be

sioned by the Greek

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

pNK> D7,y 7V,

"

he

is

of

an age which does
njnt^

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,

Beyond question the idea
wards combined with
of the alcbv.
D^y, in

of the /cooyto?,

which was

after-

many

respects displaced the idea

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

this does not

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

A

""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
;

1

"

see

Heb.

I 2 II 3 ,

having made the

cu'cDz/es

;

and

cf.

2 5 rty

olKov,u,ei>r]v

which represent God as 5 r^v ^\\ov<ra.v, with 6

154
Here
also
it

THE WORDS OF JESUS
is

evident that a?V in these phrases
for the
;
:

is

a time;

concept.

Examples
-

Eccl. 1 s 7 llf

15

8 14 9 6
;

j.

Aramaic usage Targ. Lam. 3 28 C C Schebi. 35 Taan. 66 j. j. Meg.
;

;

72 b
Ab.
59

;

b.
vi.

Kidd. 81 a
4,

b.

Ab.

z.

65 a
j.

:

for the

9; for
.

slab

Tnjfc,

Sanh.

Hebrew Euth E. 28;

usage,

31

;

b.

Bab. m. 85 b
-

10
;

j.

For the uncommon ff! N P^p, see Targ. Dem. 22 a
.

Eccl.

Both

o al<bv 6 fjbeXkwv

and

o ala)v 6 ep-^o^evo^ 6 alobv

have their

counterpart in equivalent in Kinn

^1

^p??.
oi?y,

And

eicdvos also finds its
.

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

6

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)

,

desired to supply TOVTOV as in

some

texts,

then the antithesis
of a different

between the current epoch and a future period
character would in
this

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,

this age," Targ. Eccl.

contrast with
b.
j.

K'JOf]

^,

n'T"? "

^,

"

his

own
a

concerns," in
b.

the

things of God,"
a
,
.

Ber.

7b

;

Meg.

6

b

Ber. ll a ,
"

114 DJO^' ^Bn, b. Sabb. 113 food has relation to the " transitory
;

2

life

According to " 3

(WV

^n),

but the study of the law has relation to
life
is

"

the ever-enduring
"

(nygb

fc6

IV V").

To gain the

"
"

transitory life

(Wy

^n)

placed alongside of the gaining of
1

the

life of

the world to

b.

(Nnnrn \n) the same thing as occupation with W^lf]
to this expression are wanting.
2 3

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

"maintenance." of an hour," i.e.
redemption."

a brief interval

cf.

Jerus.

I.

Gen. 49 18 Nn^rn

fjj-iB,

"a temporary

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE (^EON)

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

in the context is the conclu-

sion of the current world- epoch.

Hence

6

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

author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (9
alwvwv.

eVt <rvvre\eia T&V

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).

This rests again upon the Hebr.
4
;

Pi?.

W

ny,

LXX

ew?

&&(} Kaipov avvT6\eia<s, Dan. 12 12 13 Aram. NBlD ny, rjnep&v,
;

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
"

(Syr. KcAjn nohsy), Bar. Apoc.

54 21 69 4 83 7
59 8
;
;

"the end

ages" (Syr.
(Syr.
Kbfcp

Nt&n

nnofew), loc. cit.

"finis temporis hujus

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

113 n^h^), 2 Esd. 7

1

Matt. 13 39 without the
Cf. also in

TOI/TOV.
f]io?
;

2

OT.

ov?;ri

see

above, p. 152.

156
the times,"
cf.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

29 8 30 3

;

Ass. Mosis

I 18

"in consummatione

exitus dierum."

III.

ETEKNAL

LIFE, LIFE.

1.

ITS POSITION IN

THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS.

r}

aicovio?

(always

one

by Jesus as the day have part, while
aloovios
is
30

without the article) is spoken of possession in which the righteous will
the
godless

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),

as also in the question addressed to Jesus,

Mark 10 17 (Luke
In these cases

18 18
f.

,

cf.

10 25 ), where Matt. 19 16 has
is

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

merely T) far) (this always with the Matt. 7 14 $ farj is anticipated by tf

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

in place of et? TTJV farjv

the obvious equivalent,
et? TTJV farjv is

/3aat,\iav rov 6eov.

elaekOelv

found Matt. 19 17 as a repetition of e%iv farjv

2.

THE JEWISH USAGE.

The "eternal
tioned in the

life"
of

(CW

^n) of the pious

is

first

meDfirst

Book

Daniel (12 2 ), next during the

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

(see also Slavonic

Enoch 65 10
")
;

,

cf.

50 2 "to take possession

of the endless life to
ft>j}?),

come
oj)
;

2 Mace. 7 9 (alvvios avaftlwcns
.

7 26

(aevaos

4 Mace. 15 3

The idea has

also
it

found admission into the Targum of Onkelos, though

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

this age), is intended for

"

association with N>p?y ^na
11 Targ. Ezek. 20
-

W

eternal

life."

Further, the

in the passages adduced
,

13 21
-

,

Hos. 14 10 makes

it

clear that Koto

and *n is
to

there regarded as equivalent to
1

^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

that the soul of David

is

hidden before God

"

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

2

Pi?DW).

The same terms are

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

a

statement
D^DjfeJ

of

contains the words
1

^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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

np says, 1 he who brings forth out of Sheol beginning " into the eternal life (NC? *T$), and a similar formula in the
s

^

"

Kaddish prayer used
"

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

2

them

dtiy

*n

m

Examples

of the former, see pp.

103, 118, 125, 150,

155, 160.
3.

THE VERBS CONNECTED WITH
which
ayrj

IT.

As
terms,

for the combinations in
is,

ai&vios
;

is

found,
these
,

the verb K\7]povo/jLiv
p.

in Aram., rvv or |pn

see,

for

125. 3
,

\afA0dveiv and anoKapftaveiv,

Mark 10 30

Luke 18 30

are both to be referred to 3DJ.
,

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

the same verb
v.

addressed to the
it

righteous

must

go ye," the Sevre, also be referred.

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

j

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

2

"promise" of the

life,

see above, p. 103.

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

existence after death.
"

At
"

a later date

the idea of

eternal of those risen from the dead attached itself
verses,
life."
:

these

so

that

life

could
of

be

put shortly for

"eternal
the

Thus the Psalter

pious

KXypovofjutfo-ovo-iv

&*?#)

Solomon (14 6) says of and speaks of 0)77, 9 9
>

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,

alone contains the expression

way

of life."

The Slavonic

Enoch
ways.

(ed. Morfill

and Charles) 30 15

also speaks of these
is

A
of

detailed description of

them

given in the Testa-

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

"

"

42 7 represents that " perdition claim what pertains to each.

"

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?,
;
.

they attain to the (eternal)

and

the same picture that they are always left without
fication.

quali-

Thus Yokhanan
pious
of

(c.

260

A.D.) declares that those
4

who

are

to

perfection receive
s

the "Judge's award

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

See A. Harnack, Die Apostellehre As to the Jewish origin of the

die jiidisclien beiden
I

Wege

(1896),

"Two Ways,"

cf.

51

ff.

Ag. d. Taan. i. 140. So in j. R. h. S. 57 a while b. R. " unto life," D'D?. ing
Cf. Backer,
4
,

h. S. 16 b speaks of a recording

and

seal-

160
which begins "O^K

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

"

poison which brings
all

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

and the poison

of death."
:

There should also be added
e/c

the Pauline expression 007477 2 16 0)779 ek JOM/I/, 2 Cor.
.

Qavdrov

et?

Odvarov,

607x77 e/c

It is quite conceivable that the detailed
77

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

,

from the simple

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

Jerus. Gospel in Matt.
to the

7 14 uses
of

^aitf,

which

is

likewise
is

known

Jewish Aramaic
"
life

Palestine.

Eecourse

thus open to the Aramaic "JVK or
"

bitf,

and

if

need be to
:

:njj.
7

The way that
18
8
,

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 being not determine

the selection.
1

may
ii.

well be asked, however, whether the
2

Seder Rab
b.

Amram,
;

20 a .
;

Cf. diKatutris farjs,

Rom.

5 18

.

3
4

b Siphre, Deut. 45, ed. Friedm. 82

cf.

The Aramaic form
6
6

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
-

out be represented by wpto

n or

5.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
"

IDEA.

With Jesus
idea
to

eternal life

"

and

"

"
life

form the correlative

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

thus involved a symbolism derived from

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,
;

bestowed on him who

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

on the other hand, appointment

to

the eternal
"

which

consummated
in the

in the theocracy, or, in rabbinical

terms, in the age to come.

Hence
"

"

eternal
"
;

life
it

radically

means participation
ii

theocracy

and

is

substan-

162
tially the

THE WORDS OF JESUS
same thing whether
life
it

be the entrance into the
is

theocracy or into eternal

that

spoken

of.

The

forgive"

ness of sins should not be regarded, as by Holtzmann,1 as
of

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 beatitude (of

the

but not a constituent element of the

life itself.

Nor

is

there

any
of
97

call for peculiar speculations in

regard to the conception
2

"

the
"

life,"

as being, according to Haupt's definition
life

of

fwr;,

the sum-total of all that constitutes
the true
life."

in its fullest

sense,

The

difference

between the preaching
of the

of Jesus
"

and Jewish views consists not in the idea

life," but in

what Jesus has

to say of the theocracy,
life

and

of

that righteousness without which

in the theocracy can

never be attained.

IV.

THE WOELD.
IS

1.

BOOKS IN WHICH THE TERM

STILL

UNKNOWN.

Old Testament Hebrew has no term which would quite The Alexandrian Version correspond to the Greek 6 /cooyto?.
of the biblical o

books renders the

"

host
21
,

"

of

heaven (N2) by
.

Koapos

in the Pentateuch, Gen.
to
,

Deut. 4 19 17 3
period,

This
is

Greek usage, which belongs
adopted by the

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
,
.

24 21 elsewhere they use KOCT/JLOS The Book of Daniel still has ?3
-

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;
,

,

1

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

9

Here without equivalent in the Hebrew

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.

l

The
to

original
"

mean

might probably have here used D^ly adverbially 2 In 39 2 avSpwv ovofjbavrwv (Syr. KEOK always."

time

Koi'jn) "
;

apparently reproduces afiy
cf.

^N,

"

the

men

of

olden

ofe

^inx,

44 1

,

or even

D>

*BOK, also occurring in

44 3

.

And
to

just as pMtf, in the sense of world, is absent

from the

original of the

Wisdom

of the

Son

of Sirach,

so it is not

be found in 1 Mace., Ps. of Solomon, nor in the Books of

Tobit and Judith.

No

importance need be attached to the
(c.

saying attributed to Simeon the Just
the three things on which
"

280
(

B.C.)

concerning

the world

"

D

^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

14 Kvpievwv TOV alwvos, 22 3 5 7 o ffao-iXevs TOV ai&v&f, 25 27 3
-

,

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

be assumed that the

Hebrew

original,

from which the

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

Der Glossator des

griech. Sirach (1897), 133, 136, 140
3

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

merely be intended to render the general conception more It is not impossible that the article coupled with definite.
Djty

in composite expressions, gives the sense of

"

eternal."
'n,

It occurs

Dan. 12
"

7
,

Hebr. Dbiyn

*n
;

Dan. 4
"
;

meaning
"

:

He

that liveth eternally
"
;

Aram. Koby Onk. Lev. 18 5 pby
,

31

n,

the eternal
"
;

life

Gen. 9 12 Nobv
"

^,

"

for perpetual genera-

tions

Palmyr. Koby na,
(Galil. d?V n'a,

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)

;

but elsewhere always undefined &byb,
Deut. 15 17
;

"

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

present the adjective
"

"

eternal."

Bjiy ?]b&

means

"

eternal

King

;

abtyn 7jb&

is

"

the

King who

as ruler controls the im-

measurable duration of

the world."

The Greek

translator

by was conscious
of

his choice of alcov in preference to #007x09,
of a time-concept. of

shows he too
section
in

Thus

Dt>tyn in this

the

Book
,

Enoch has the same sense
is

as

it

bears
it

Eccl. 3 11 where the second half of the verse makes

clear

that the idea in view

the consideration of which
of

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

indeed can be done.

The Greek text
Dbiyn

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,

;

or else the variants

:

^I3n pin

Di>

"W and

*)iD

ny

were blended with each other.

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
"

from the idea

of

the

world

"

solely

by
"

its

temporal element.

But he may

also, disregarding the
;

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

of the endless succession of ages," though,
is

of course, even Dpiyn TJTO

no t

the

King
is,

of the world," but
"

He who
eternal

controls infinite time.
"

There

then, no great differ-

ence between the

God

of

the collective ages

and

"

the

God";

cf.

Ass. Mos. 10 7 "deus reternus"; 1 Tim. I 17
;

6 /3ao-tXeu?

TMV alwcov
26

Susanna

LXX 35

,

Theod.

42
,

6

0eo? 6

cuomo?

;

Rom. 16

o alwvios 6eo<$.

Here may
b.

also be

named
:

certain expressions which conflan,

tain Dbty in the plural

D'&fcyn

the Lord of the ages,"

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.
,
,

;

;

;

,

,

.

Of a similar nature are the expressions
ryeveas

:

els iraa-as

ra?
j

rov atwvo?, Enoch 9
(ei? Tracra?
;

4

(beside et? Trdvras TOU? atwi/a?)

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
,

mysteries of primaeval time
c-eo-L^rj^vov,

"
;

cf.

/jLvorrrfpiov

^POVOLS aiwvlow

Rom. 16 25
it

.

The Greek version
There, however,
sideration,
p. is

of

Enoch has
will

also used 6 Koa-pos,
is

20 2>

4
.

the host of the stars that
/coo-pas

in conc ^-

so that

be derived from KJ^;
the
is

162.

The
chaps.

section

of

Enoch

called

Book

of

Similitudes,

3771,

the date of which

uncertain, mentions the

166

THE WORDS OF JESUS
-

"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

,

of the late addition in

108 8
"

-

9 10
-

.

The
contains

section, chaps.

83-90, containing the Book

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

been more recent than the Visions themselves.

For the other sections

of

Enoch,

see, further,

under

3.

From
for
"

this review it appears that the use of &?V or B7iy
"

world

in pre-Christian times

must

at least be gravely

doubted.

It is also

obviously improbable

that the use of

#007109 for world,

originate early,

which even among the Greeks did not should have prematurely modified the phrase-

ology of the Syrians and the Jews.

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

the phrase in the account of the Temptation TOU
,

:

Trdcras Ta?
T.
/3.

KOCT^OV,

Matt.

4

8

(Luke 4

5

TT.

Trjs
it
cf.

comparison brought " the earth could easily be referred to NJn,
;

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 );

see also TropevOevres et9 rbv KOCT^OV airavra

THE WORLD
rfj

167
ra
eOvrj,

KTiaei,
19
.

Mark 16 15 and
,

/jLadrjTeva-are Trdvra
,

Matt. 28

The
:

field in

the parable, Matt. 13 38

is

the world

(Epiphanius

o

007*09 0^709), but the interpretation is not

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>
.

Lastly, there occur also the expressions: airo /cara,
;

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)

t

dpxfc
it is

JCTMTCOS,

Mark

1

6

(Matt.

19 4

-

8

only

a-ii

In this

surprising that
its

Matthew alone

uses o #007409

with any frequency,
only intermittent.
Synoptists are

appearance in

Mark and Luke

being

The only expressions common
(dpxfjs) KOGT^OV

to all the

CLTTO /caTa/3o\f)<;

(/crt'treeo?),

and

KepSaivew rov KOO-^OV o\ov.

As

for the
it

first,

the
,

citation

from Scripture in Matt. 13 35 refers

to Ps.

78 2 where the
it

LXX puts

CLTT

dpxfis for the Hebr.

0*1 j?

^p.

Thus

would be
"

just the favourite

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.
.

and ^pan Ab. ii. 1, v. 11 Bab. m. v. 4 In Aramaic "gain" is *UN, j. Bab. m.
; ;

;

8

10 b
1

To "make profit" and
Isa.

to "suffer loss" are Hebr.

Cf. Targ.

41 4 where

))?

is

rendered by pcnpj>$.

Of course

is

also possible.

168
"lafeo

THE WORDS OF JESUS

and

1pB3, b.

Pes.

50 b (Baraitha); but
i.

also "isn&n
is

and

isnnn, Vay.

R

34.

In Ber.

2 to "suffer loss"
j.

TD&n.
,

In Aramaic the equivalent
while the Peal ipa, as
in ruin."
is
it

of the last is "PpBK,
j.

Ned. 38 d
"

seems,

Keth. 30

d
,

means

to

end
,

A

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-

ledge) resides has everything

he in

whom

it

does not reside,
lacking
?
?

what
if

(after all) has

he

?

this attained,

what more

he has not attained
" "

this,

what
to
"

Here we have the antitheses
possess,"
to acquire

(after all) has " " to possess
fail

he attained

"

and

"

not to

and

to acquire," but they do

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&gto
;

the Law, destroys his

own
" of

soul (13NO

wn

i^M)."
4

The
sion
in

"

whole world

is

similarly referred to as a posses(c.

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

the other hand,
ND
not

Jems. Gospel has, Mark S 36 Vat.
Cf.
:
1

,TBJI ND"?y ntoa
D!^J

n:n^ |N ty:nn ':nno n:

nD3 1 (read non').
2

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

Ed. Schechter, 39*.

Koh. R.

cf.

Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

ii.

19.

THE WORLD
is

169
"

understood

to
(c.

denote

"

age

in

the

statement
1

of

Simeon ben Shetach
praise of the
"

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

the words of Jesus of the use of

D^y

= #007,109.
"

That might be done either by taking
transitory time," or else
"
^2,

NOT

in

the sense of

such as KJHN
earth."

the whole earth

"
;

by substituting terms " Ns heaven and Mn.N] T 9f
,

3.

INSTANCES OF THE USE OF THE IDEA "WORLD."

It is not surprising that Hellenistic compositions, such as

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

use which forms an essential part of this writer's nomenclature.

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

Despite the influence

the earliest Christian tradition in regard to the words of

170

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Jesus, Paul in the Epistles to the Thessalonians did not yet

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

ture as yet unnoticed,
chaps.
1- 5- 7
,

Hebrew compositions of Jewish literawe find that in the Book of Enoch,
of the "created world,"

72-82, the idea
is

72 1 75 3

-

8

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
,

"

the eternal Lord."
contains the expression
"

Enoch, chaps.
the
limit is admissible,
all
is

91104,

to all

generations of the world,"

103

8

104
14a
,

5
,

where no time"

and the translation must therefore be
In 91

to

generations in perpetuity."

however, mention

made

of the revelation of the righteous

judgment before
,

"all the world"; while the reference to "the world," 91 14b

as destined to destruction,

is

probably an interpolation, be-

cause this apocalypse

is

not apparently cognisant of any
the
"

destruction of the world.

The Assumption of Moses speaks
terrarum)

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.

^?n and l&y.

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."

It occurs, however, in the third of the older

sections (chaps.

53-74)

several times (54
is

1

56 2

-

3

73 1

-

5
).

In

the more recent sections the world
31.7

the subject of remark,
j n general

41 142.13.18.19 214.244315 493 332.8 3510^
is

the corresponding Syriac word, so that the Hebr. may why 7 be taken to be &^5>. Only in 3 where the Syriac version
,

1

Dominus

orbis terrarum.

THE WORLD
has NTOvn beside
as parallel to o
xtD^j;,

171
must have stood
and ??n might be

the Greek o Koalas

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-

deed made to "the generations of the world," 10
to
-

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
"

the ages" (D'r&yn
is

'nV),

13 8 "eternal

(where there version), and with
32

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
.

Flood the water

fills

"

the whole world," 5

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

30> 31< 70 ' 74 ' 132 ' 137

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

a

clear

distinction
"
is

eternity," and

"

world

as a

magnitude either of space or

of time.

Whether the
2

school of
1

Shammai

really originated the statement

that

"

the

710

ff., vii.

See the translation by R. (1895) 297 ff.

H. Charles

in Jew. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894) 184
20.

ff.,

2

Eduy.

i.

13

;

cf.

Bacher, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

172

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"
(

world has been created
propagation,
is

D

y?

N")??)

solely with a view to
of the first
"

immaterial.

But from the end

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
!>?

into the older
2

Targums
"

;

see

Onk.
in the

3

cf.

Targ. Isa.

51

Kp^jn
"
;

'W,

the only one

28 world"; Deut. 33

TayriK nno-oa, "through His
1

(God's)

word the world was made
4

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

the earth, and the word they use

is
(

2

Djiy.

Both

agree that

God has
its

created
"

3

"

the world
if

"

D

?W?).
"

A

pro-

clamation finds
of the

widest extension

it

goes

from one end
according to

world to the other
4

(tote njn rinyn *|tep),

Joshua ben Khananya.
phrase to indicate the
"

Eliezer ben

Hyrcanus uses the same
"

utmost range
"

of vision. 5

Joshua ben Khananya, 6
pressed by
"

to destroy,"
"

to ruin,"

According to may be ex-

to

put out of the world
"

fathers of antiquity

(C&y

J"ii2K)

are

The (t&yn ptreta). now become " the fathers
Simeon ben Yochai
"
7
;

of the

world
"

"

(cAiyn nins) according to
"

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,

the pious of the world," Bibl. Sam.
9b
.

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

I 10 6 /c6oyios dt afirov (TOV \6yov) dytvero.
54*>; b.

Yoma

Bab. b. 25*
;

f.;

cf.

Midr. Psalms 104 1

Backer,

loc. cit.

Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 136, 139. See also j. Ab. z. 42, which i. 134.
is

says
4

God

rules

"the world," whose shape
f.
;

a globe.

Mechilt. 56 b
Siphre,

JBacher, loc. cit. 153.

5 6
7

Num.
;

Aboth
j.

11 Chaor. 77 d
ii.
;

136 ; Backer, loc. cit. 154. Backer, loc. cit. 162.
Backer,
Backer,
loc. cit. 18.

;

8

Shir. R. I 12

loc. cit. 134.

THE WORLD
2 14 Targ. Eccl. 3 4
l
;

173
"

"

to

come

into this world
"

ibid.

5 15
I.

"
;

to

come upon the world
5 21
"
;

Jerus.

Deut
"
;

to be in the world
of the

(K^ "

(H? KW> n) 8 ibid. I 4 *?y N ?^.),
njq),*

a

,

($??

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
"

Tishri, the day of the world's creation.

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 do people say
its

?

what

is

being talked

about

Of the world in

fullest sense,

God

is

readily referred

to as the Euler, Hellenistic expressions

no doubt helping as
;

models
22
"

;

cf.

o

TOV

/cocrfjiov {3a<ri\evs,
;

2 Mace. 7 9

o

/cvpio?

TOV

14 Koa/jLov, 2 Mace. 13
.

Even in Palmyra the
of the world,"
A.D.

Sea-TroTys irdarj^ TT)? /crt'crew?, " " Lord of Heaven (fiDB^jn) is called

3 Mace.

Lord

Np/W

}, on an

inscription of the year

114

(de Vogue, 73); and the Samaritan author

Marka
of

uses as

names
8

for
i>an

God not only
"Lord
of

nobjn mo,

"

Lord

the

world,"

n^y
"
11

HID,

of the
10

no^jn n^fe,

King

the world,"

whole world," 9 but also and noijn nn^K, " God of

the world."

call biblical

These three Samaritan appellations, which reprototypes (see above, p. 163), were in use also
of

among the Jews.
For "Lord
Ass. Mos.
of
I 11
,

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
. .

4

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,

1

Cor. 5 10

.

,

.

7

j.

8
10
12

Taan. 66 d Heidenheim, Bibl. Samarit.
.

iii.

10 b 11^.
,

Ibid. 5 a
Ibid.
iii.

.

Ibid.

iii.

10 b

.

14".

Mechilta 56 a

;

Backer, Ag. d. Tanu.

i.

152.

1*74
<# flan
Isa.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
in place of
;

Targums,

the simple
Targ.
Eccl.

fiin, Onk. Ex.

34 22

,

Targ.
j.

31

Jp s

ty

rnan,
^2

4 13

(cf.
.

PMiai.

Kjbjrn,

Taan.

68

d

);

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.

Eeuchl. Kjoby '), Targ. Zech. 14

Koto

KaJ

in the prayer

beginning
D^vn,
"

|IJ"1B

i^p*

;

in

Hebrew,
i.

chiefly in the blessings sfe?
.

.. 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

:

and by John (12

31

)

:

6

A

mode

of expressing the
is

ap^wv TOV KOCT^OV TOVTOV. same idea without the use
exemplified in p.? ? ?3
1

of of

the conception #007^09

"
|i"iK,

Lord

the whole earth," Zech. 4
20 Vat. 7^9, Tob. 8
;

14

6

5
;

n?)
22
;

v

"
P,

possessor of

heaven and earth," Gen. 14 1 9T/)9
;

6 icvpios TOV ovpavov KOL
TTJ^
7779,

60-770^9 TWV ovpav&v KCU

Judith 9 17
in the

NJHNi KJOBH sip,

"Lord
heaven

of

heaven and

earth,"

Ky-jw

prayer KT DBn

^

1

tff^

and
of

in the Prayer for the

Dead;
Tob. 8

2

Kn^, "God

and earth,"

15

(Aram.).

Of similar nature are the common designations " God of " Lord of heaven," " King of heaven," which have heaven,"
:

1

2

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

the motive of sharply separating
of

between God and the world, as Controller of the whole earth.

emphasising His power as Even the Phoenicians and
"
;

" 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,
"
-

when they began
This
is

after the Exile to style

Him
4

God
20

of heaven."

(I

24

);
18
;

see also o

found notably in Nehemiah 0eo9 TOV ovpavov, Judith 6 19 K;f nta,
;
-

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;

3

Mace.

22

fiaaiXevs TWV ovpav&v

Tob. 1 3

Vat. Sin. 1 6 Sin. /3aa-i\evs

TOV ovpavov.

A
the

rare parallel form to KJDKH Nnta appears in

KJ&BH

&WE,

"Word
as
"

of heaven," Targ. Eccl.

4 4 11 s
,

.

It is clear that the

form

of

Judaism which readily chose
world
" "

to denominate

God
of

Lord

of the

cannot fairly be
altogether fallen
for

credited with the belief that the world was
into

power Holtzmann 2 holds that

the

the

demons and
this

ripe

judgment."

became the average sentiment

among the Jews, whereas
world and

in contrast therewith Jesus pre-

ferred to adopt a positive attitude with relation to the created
its blessings. But the pessimism of later Judaism, which expelled the joy of life, is connected with the thought of exile and not with a gloomier view of the condition of

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

was dominated by a conception

of life

which

was peculiarly

rabbinic.

In the later Jewish literature there are likewise found
1

Maintained by Holtzmann, Lehrb.
Lehrb. d. Neutest. Theol.
i.

d.

Neutest. Theol.

i.

50.

a

179.

176

THE WORDS OF JESUS

parallels to those expressions

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

sun as TO <w9 rov

/coafjiov

rovrov.

light

of the
is

sun

is

referred to figuratively, Wisd.

18 4

,

where the Law
Similarly Israel

called

<9
to

rw

"

ainvi,

a Light for the age."
light for the world
ed.

is

3 styled (Shir. E. I ) a

"

"

(D^vb

iTiiN),

and according

Tanchuma,
"

a Buber, Bern. 24

,

God

is

"

the Light of the

World

(^vW

niK).

It

was said

*

of Eliezer

its light to this

ben Hyrcanus that he excelled the sun, which gives world only, whereas the light of the teacher

illuminated both this and the other world.
is

A

similar figure

employed by the disciples of Yokhanan ben Zakkai in " 13 the lamp of the world (so in calling their teacher Djtyn
f

Ab. E. Nath. 25), or
Ber.

28 b).

"the lamp of Israel" (so in The lamp illuminating the darkness occupies the
*?*ry&\
"i3,

place of the light of the sun.

"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.
,
,

has, however, only

Key

"
fe,

properly,
"

same

sense.

2

Hence
"

in that dialect

every people," in the " the whole world will

also stand for

the whole earth."
rrj

Again
out that
for "

for irdo-rf

Kriaet,
"

Mark 16 15

,

it

may

be pointed

NJP")?, literally,

created beings," was a passable term

mankind."
as,

early

The corresponding Hebr. rrtnan was used as by Hillel, c. 10 A.D. "Love mankind" is ex3
''.in..

ninzin 2HK pressed in his formula by
1 2

a Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 73

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,"

earth, just like rrinaBto

nn,
the

"the families
beginning
recalls

of

the
of

in

Zech.

14 17
(see

.

"Since
above,
p.
;

(creation)

the

world"
Ber. E.
I1

ttyihv 167) Aram. N?by nantn
cf.

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

3; Vay. E. 25 2 4 Targ. Cant. 8 ;

NJJjn Nfti\

27 creation," Jubil. I .

4.

THE NEW WORLD.

(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,

Gospel ventures to replace "in the regeneration."

it

by the peculiar The East Syrian

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

the world that

renewed"
world
"

mnnDl

ND^y).

Eleazar of

Modiim
"

100

A.D.), in the citation given on p.

150) mentions
also

the

new

("jn
1

^V).

The Targums

know
.

the term, see

Pesikt. 12 b .

2 3 4

Mechilta on Ex. 15 2, ed. Friedm. 37 a
Lehrb.
d. neutest. Theologie,
4 Isa. 41 ,
i.

179.
n<

The Targ.

Hab.

I 12

even says

12

178
Onk. Deut. 32 12

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Nrnn^>

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

which will be renewed
1
.

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

1 Sopher. xix. 12.

The renewal

of

the world
,

is

spoken
said to

of in ancient traditions given in b. Sanh.

92 b 97 b the
,

latter passage being based

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"

Aramaic would say

:

*!

S NT >?

i>3

H$ni

wot

ny.

Unlike the verse just mentioned, the idea of the
creation (creature)"
of
is

"

new
,

here in place

Enoch 72 1
"

,

Jubil. I 29

the

time when God " renews His creation
Bar. Apoc.

(Syr.

mm
,

Nma),

32 6

;

cf.

2 Esdras 7 75 incipies creaturam

renovare (Syr. jn'na D3K Tny). 2 Cor. 5 17 speaks of a KCUVTJ KTLO-W,
,

mnm

Just as Paul, Gal. 6 15
so, too,

Jewish literature

is

able to say that

God
29
3
.

fashions any one into a

new

creature

(ngnn nna 146 b Midr.
;

tna), Vay.
Ps.

29. 30; Pes. Eabb., ed. Friedm. While these instances have in view

R

the real renewal of a person, the position of one

who has been

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,

even speaks of a "Parsee" tradition.
leidende
;

See

my

treatise,

"Der

und der sterbende Messias,"
Basher, Ag. d. p.

PCS. Eabb., cd. Friedm. ]69 a

Am.

ii.

52, 66, 73. 261.

"THE LORD" AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD
days between

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

ye were formed into a new creature."

V.
1.

"THE LOED" AS A DESIGNATION FOE GOD.
USE.

NOT A NAME FOR GOD TO BE FOUND IN ORDINARY
Only
in a
for

as a

name

few passages do the Synoptists put 6 /cvpios God into the mouth of Jesus and even in
;

these the evidence

is

uncertain.
,

Mark

5 19 has o Kvpws, but

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
.

24 22 by inverting the sentence through the use

20 The voice, dispenses with the xvpios used in Mark 13 fact may thus be inferred from the Gospels that in His own

discourses Jesus did not apply to

God any Aramaic name
in quotations from Scrip2.

equivalent to

Kvpios.

The usage

ture will be specially considered under

In

this respect

Jesus did not adopt a mode of speech quite peculiar to
self.

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 an Aramaic name

for

Kvpuos,

implies merely that the divine
original,

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

name

"

Lord
1

"

Hebraic Judaism.

did not take place in the region of It is rather a peculiarity of Jewish
that

Hellenism, and from

source found

its

way

into

the
of

language of the Church,

even of the Semitic-speaking part

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

be given the following examples, which

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.
.

R

13

in Hebr. as ^31,

Siphra, ed.
"

a Weiss, 112
s
|i

Similarly in the Aramaic prayer, beginning nry

re,

3

the

daughter
Lord."
is

of

Zion

calls
s

her

God
"

*"]p*

*rp$,

The phrase NT Pf
5

^

D?,

our Lord,
liJ"]S>

my God and my who art in heaven,"
4

used when Israel turns to God in

D^ip^

as also in the

prayer

prefaced by the same words

;

and the older form

seen in the prayer nnap riD.e 2 Nebuchadnezzar, Targ. Sheni Esth. I

N^B

is

The Levites say
6
:

to

"

How
"
?

can we sing

the praise of

'

our Lord
of

'

(J^"]*?)

before thee

after the king
of

had just spoken
1

God

as

"

your mighty Lord

Jerusalem

"

This has not been sufficiently emphasised in

my

' '

Der Gottesname Adonaj

mid

seine Geschichte," 80 f. 2 See also Machzor Vitry, 337, 341.
3

Roman Machzor

(Bologna, 1540), Selikhoth for the days before

New

Year

;

cf.

Zunz, Litteraturgeschich. d. synagog. Poesie, 18, 74. 4 Boer's Seder Abodath Yisrael, 229.
5 6

Roman Machzor,

loc. cit.

See M. David, Das

Targum scheni nach Handschriften herausgegeben (1898).

"THE LORD" AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD
Ksn jto^p).

181

In words addressed to an
"
'.??,

Jews are
j.

called T?.P
C
;

the sons of thy Lord,"
a
.

Israelite, the d
j.

Khag. 77

;

Sanh. 23

j.

K. h.

S.

58

of Israel,

God

is

"its Lord,"

K>

In relation to the community
10 Targ. Cant. 8
,

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

Nimrod's being styled

10 9

,

implies, according

to

Siphra

lll b

,

that

he

knew "his Lord"

(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

executes the punishment decreed by

Lord"
"
is

While the designation

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
"

thy Lord." called mo. 2 That
srjp,

1

"

In his narrative the God of

may

be pointed so as to read

Fnp,

his Lord," but also

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

Even on an Egyptian papyrus written in Aramaic a heathen
god
is

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

between master and servant, as in Matt. 24 46 (Luke
It is not in itself im-

do not belong to this category.

possible that the Hellenistic (o) /cvpios should have in
1

some

Heidenheim, Bibl. Sam.
Ibid. 6 a.

iii.

48 a f.

2

Ibid. 9 a .

3

Ibid. 139 b , 163 a.

182

THE WORDS OF JESUS

measure supplanted the Aram. K^p when coupled with suffixes but in any case Jesus did not make an extensive use of
for

;

His preference was

to

speak of

God

as

"

Father."

2.

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE TETRAGRAMMATON

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

,

Luke 10 27 ); Matt. 22 44 (Mark 12 36 Luke 20 42 ).
,

It

may

divine

be accepted as certain that by the time of Jesus the name mrv had long disappeared from popular use, and

that in the public reading of

Holy Scripture the word was
be

replaced

by ^IK.

1

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

of opinion that the original

Jewish usage was the same,
of
Mp6P.

and
'J1K

that later

on,

in

imitation

the Hellenistic Kvpios,
This, however, is inis

was introduced instead of
All that
is

capable of proof.

custom
B#n,
1

of saying in
4

citations

merely the Jewish from Scripture not OIK, but
assured

"

the Name."

Early examples of the use of D$n for

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-

tiirkische Schrifttafeln (1894).

"THE LORD" AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD
the tetragrammaton
trated by the phrases
11 apart from Lev. 24
:
-

183
be illus-

16

may

B^n Ens,
vii.

tetragrammaton," 'Sanh.

grammaton," Sanh.

x.

1

;

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.

N3N representing mrr KJK.I
;

D$

means

"

for God," Shek.

6

Yoma
may

iv.

1.

It

accordingly

be

inferred that

in

citations

of

Scripture Jesus was wont to use &$?

Hebrew, and K*p^
spite

when He quoted in when Aramaic was used, but not ^N, dethe

the

fact

that

Gospels contain no trace of this
to Hellenists

usage,

which, indeed, would be unintelligible

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
-

-

,

;

-

;

;

BiKaico/nara TOV /cvpiov,

Luke

I6

;

&ov\rj rcvptov,
;

Luke

I 38

;

%etp

Kuptov,
5 17
;

Luke

I 66

;

9 Sofa Kvpiov, Luke 2

3u2/a/u? icvpiov,

Luke

6

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.

in the citation Lev. 16 30
2

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

VI.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN.
THE ISRAELITISH-JEWISH USAGE.
the father of Israel
"
:

1.

That God
time, Ex. 4
22
,

is

is

attested for the first
son,

in the words

Israel is

my

my

firstborn."

But while

Israel here receives

merely the

first

rank among

the peoples,

who

all

are sons of God, other passages refer to
I4
10
.

the Israelites as sons of God, in the idea that this can be
predicated of

them alone: Deut. 32 5
14

,

Isa.

30 9 Hos. 2 1 1
, ,

Deut. 14
ingly,
4 Jer. 3

1
,

Jer. 3
is
,

God
-

Correspondcalled "father" of the Israelites: Deut. 32 6
, ,

31

20

Isa.

43

6

45

11

Mai. 2

,

19

31 8

Isa.

63 16 64 7 Mai.
,

I 6,

1

Chron. 29 10

.

The
which

significance of this relation lay chiefly in the solicitude

the Israelites might expect on the part of God, and in the

obedience which

they were bound to yield to Him.

The

assumption

is

that the Israelites are the servants of God, and
;

members

of

His family
of the

God on His
of a

part recognises the rights
3 4 with 2 27 ), the
it
is

and obligations

head

household in relation to the
(cf.

members

of the house. 2

In Jeremiah
"
is

Second Isaiah (43 6 64 7 ), and in Malachi (2 10 ),
affirmed that the
of the son,
"

also

father

the originator of the existence
of Israel is his father.

and hence God as the creator

The son

of Sirach has obviously maintained

tional position of his people,

whom God

the excephas likened to a first-

born son, 36 17

.

At

the same time he makes an application

of the idea of the fatherhood to the position of the individual
Israelite.

The individual
1 God, 23
-

is

a being

who has been

called into

existence by
4

4
.

In
is

this passage

Kvpie Trdrep KOI

(v.

Bee) JWT}?

pov

to

be retraced to

^]

3

'?

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;

1 7 n3), Hos. 8 , Jer. 12 .

Or

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
^H, in

which

I

1 cannot, like Cremer, detect any influence of

heathen views.

The same

applies to Sir.

5 1 10

.

In

rcvpiov

Trarepa Kvpiov (MOV

we have only
:

to replace Kvpiov

The

original

may have had

tfiw "OK

JW,
of

"

by Kvpiov. Jehovah my
insists

Father

and

my

Lord."

2

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
,

18 vios Oeov (2 ) as designations of the righteous

man.

God

is

This application to the individual addressed as Trdrep, 14 does not prevent the author from also calling the nation
.

3

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

harmony with the Old Testa-

ment

view,

is

generally the Israelites as such
to themselves as
"

who have
an idea

God

in relation

their

father,"

which implies the love that God

bears, in a special sense, to

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 -,

Thus the goal
in these

of
"
:

described, Jubil.

terms

Israel's history Their souls (of
all
;

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
;

every angel and every spirit are My children, and that I

shall surely recognise that these

am

their father in sincerity

and

righteousness, and that I do love them."
is

In Tob. 13

4

God

termed

"

our Father

"
;
.

"

His sons

"

are the pious Israelites

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

In the Pseudepigrapha the name of father

is

nowhere

Bibl. theol. Worterbuch, 8 752.
:

The Syriac version has Npnai Nimj Kno NDITD being referred to y^'iDi 1122 nin; amp
:

2

p

UN, which admits of

186

THE WORDS OF JESUS

used as a designation of God.
the end of the
first

The

dicta of the Eabbis from

Christian century onwards, are the earliest

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

"

his earthly father

"

(H??5^?)
The love
Akiba
(c.

lad but also
>

"

his heavenly
"

Father" (D)'BW V3).i

of his child is here the

mark

of the father.

120

2

A.D.)

says

:

The

Israelites are beloved (by

God), for they are called God's children
to] the exceptional love [of

(Dip^ D^a)
it

[it

is

due

God

that

3

]

was made known
it is

to

them

that they are called God's children, as

Deut.

1 41

'Ye are the children
is

of

Jehovah, your God.'
(c.

said, "

The same idea

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

their heart towards their heavenly

Father" ($f*DO bsocw
7

D)BfoB>

Dn'3*6

Daj>

pJttiM
;

the prayer of Israel
1

He it ^l). hence the Kaddish 8 says
rbyo
;

is
:

who

hears

b Siphre, Deut. 48, ed. Friedm. 84

cf.
3

Backer, Ag. d. Tann.
nin'uy for njtfu.

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
.

:

,

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
ni,

187
the prayers and

may

tears of all Israel be accepted before their heavenly

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.

Thus Juda ben
'

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

2

"

God foresaw

that the Gentiles would

'

Gentiles will say,
5

we

are Israel,
p.

we

are the sons of

God

'

(tis

DipE&B-

W3)."

See also

190

f.

The following examples, which might
illustrating

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

"

has forbidden to him. 3
exhortation:
4

Yehuda ben
as a

Tema
a lion

(before 200) gives the

"be bold
'

leopard, quick as an eagle, swift as a gazelle,
'

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

160) commenting upon Ex. 20 in the religious persecution under Hadrian
,
:

6

light of the period
"
'

those

who

love

me and keep my commandments who dwell in Palestine and give up
'

these are the Israelites
their life for the

com-

mandments.
cised

my

sons.

in the Law.
1

Why Why art thou burned Why art thou crucified
art thou slain
?
cf.

because I have circum?

because I have read

?

because I have eaten
2

Sot. ix. 15 (anonym.).

Pes.

Rabb. 14 b.

3

4
5

See above, p. 96 f. Aboth v. 20 b. Pes. 112*
;

;

Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 68 b Tann. ii. 437.

;

Vay. R. 32

Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 556. Midr. Ps. 12 8 ; cf. Backer, Ag. j

d.

188
unleavened bread.
'

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

him, what mean these wounds
inflicted

?
'

and he answers, they were

upon me
'

in the house

of those

who caused me
it

to be
'

beloved
I

C?iB)

these

wounds have brought
'

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

a

vestment
"

"

"
is

perverted

(fta)

and
In

alienates

(rf>)

from himself

his heavenly Father."

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

The gradual adoption
heaven
"

of the divine

name

"

our Father in

as a popular substitute for the then obsolete tetra-

grammaton, is a clear proof that the view represented by H. H. Wendt requires considerable restriction. "In later
4 Judaism," he says,

"

up

to the time of Jesus there

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

in the divine nature

and character, leading

in consequence to a greater readiness to apply the

But
"

"

a greater readiness to

name of apply the name

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.

Backer, Ag. d. Tann.
4

ii.

433.
ii.

Machzor Vitry, 342.

Die Lehre Jesu,

144.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
Judaism, and when
all

189

traces

of

genuine religious feeling

which

it

1 exhibits are either overlooked or eliminated.

The instances
set forth until the

cited above also

show the incorrectness
to the individual

of

the idea that the relation of

God

was not

New

Testament revelation.
it

Of course the

individual Israelite was aware that

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

also applied within the

Jewish community to the individual.

2.

THE USAGE IN THE LANGUAGE OF JESUS.
(a)

My, your heavenly Father.

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

among the words
25
,

Matthew 20

times, in

Mark
13

Luke not

at all

although in Luke II

in only once, II his use of o TTCLTTJP 6

ef ovpavov betrays his

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

through the addition of
to

in heaven

"

that

"Father" referred
Hellenist.

God, might seem superfluous

to

the

The conception
altogether
1

of

God

as father of the Israelites

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

Gottes," Leipzig, 1896.
accidentally absent, as 6
iraT-ijp <rov
18 precedes in Matt. 6 .

<rov is

190
(Mark
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS
7 27 )

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
-

Heavenly Father 25 26 (Mark II ) 6
-

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
.

Himself, but also between

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

"

our Father in heaven," where
its

He

Himself

concerned, and yet prescribing
.

use for His disciples,
it

Matt. 6 9

From

this, too, it

not the veneration of those
to

Him an

after that first assigned exceptional relation to God, incapable of being

may who came

be perceived that

was

transferred to others.

On

the Sonship of Jesus

see, further,

Fundamental

Ideas, X.

(b)

My, your Father.
it is

In Jewish parlance

unusual to refer to God in

common
"

discourse informally as Father without adding the

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

In a somewhat different sense, Matt. 8 12

,

the Israelites as "sons of the
;

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.
;

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
firstly l^aK,

19]
"

petitions

our Father," and then U'aK U^n, begin ^Jf$$
"
!

"

os,
<3K

our King." "bring us back,
"

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

a

short

prayer which
1

began

:

Wltf,

"Our Father and our King."

The

biblical

phraseology was obviously the model there was no danger of ambiguity.

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
,

children in presence of their fathers say, in reference to God,
"

He

is

our Father,"

|j*2K Kin

J'n.

2

In that case the narrower
Again, in
of
Israel,
II.

designation

Deut. 32 6

,

by NjEfc?:n did not suit the occasion. where God calls Himself the Father
literally
5

Onkelos renders T?K
is

by

^N,

while Targ. Jerus.

singular in giving NJ?^? ] jiMK.
his Father, the
3

But when

Israel calls

God

literal reproduction.

Targumist does not venture to give a For *, Isa. 63 16 64 7 he puts the
,

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,

"

rendering the our Father."
seems, addressed

'?

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

2

Jerus.

; Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 330. Lev. 22 28 jjnjj, which has no meaning

192

THE WORDS OF JESUS
(cf.

on the testimony of Mark 14 36
(NSN).

Eom. 8 15

,

Gal. 4 6 )

is

afi

This
"

is

just the definite form,
"
;

and therefore means

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

idiom has even found
There, too,
it

way

into the

Hebrew

of the

Mishna. 8

several children, thus acquiring the force of

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
,

more solemn form

WttN, Galil.

|3, "Our

Father,"

has

greater probability in its favour.

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
:

the language of the child to

its father.

Jesus also speaks of

God
-

as o irarrjp pov, Matt.
.

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

Aram, ^l^), Matt. 16 27
6
Trarrjp
V/JLWV
;

(Mark 8
),

The Father
8

of the disciples is

Matt. 6

10

20 - 29
;

o irarrjp airr&v (fiTOK),
-

Matt. 13 43

crov (H^N),

Matt. 6 4

6>

18
.

It

must be conceded

that,

for each particular instance, there is

no certitude that even

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

Nevertheless the existence of a wellii.

UN also occurs onceTarg. Esth.

I 1 , according to

MS. Orient 2375

in the

British
2 3

Museum. See Gramm. des jiid.
ii.

pal.

E.g. Keth.

6, xiii.

5

;

Aram. 157 f. Ned. ii. 1. See A. Geiger, Lehvbuch zur Sprache

des Mischnah, 50. 4 Bab. b. ix. 3 ; Shebu.

vii. 7.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN
founded tradition remains quite possible, to the
effect

193
that

Jesus did not closely adhere to the Jewish phraseology on
this

point,

and that

He

did, in

clusively of the Father, of

fact, sometimes speak exHimself and those that were His.

On

this

hypothesis the consistent

omission of the supplejustifi-

ment

in

Luke would appear

to

have some historical

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

A

Luke
16
27

9 26 should be brought into agreement with Matt.

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.

Bogy TOV TraTpbs avTov fieTa Moreover, O,VTOV is omitted in Luke
TV)

merely for the sake of euphony, as
before.

it

has been used just

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
:

Father determined in the exercise of His
Still

own

authority."

expression which just slipped from the pen of the author, because it was otherwise familiar to

we may here have an

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
.

19 32 (Mark 13 ), and Matt. 28

Of these the

first

vindicates

itself as

an utterance
"

of Jesus.

When

Jesus

testifies that all

things are delivered unto
"

and the Son only each other, the statement

"

by "His Father," and adds that " the Father are mutually known to

Him

may

be understood as a reference

194
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

father

a real relationship which exists universally between a and a son, and thus finds also an application as

between Jesus and His Father.
6

In that case

o irarrfp

and

wo5 were not used
It is

as theological terms,

and NJN and an?
the

are not unlikely equivalents.
different with Matt.
"

24 36 (Mark 13 32 ), where
6 ino?

angels and
"

the Son
"

"

are ignorant of something which only

the Father

knows.

In this case the terms

and

6

irarijp are

as a

not due to comparison with each other, but appear ready-made formula, and are therefore to be attributed

to the influence of the

Church vocabulary on the
6
vlo<?

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,

form used by Jesus, just as in the similar
however, more probable that the original

case Acts

I7

.

was, "not even the angels
"

know

it,"

and that the ending,

nor the Son, but the Father only," should be regarded as

an accretion.

A

similar amplification of an originally shorter expression
,

19 presents itself also in the baptismal commission, Matt. 28 of which it is intended to treat specially in a later volume.

VII.

OTHER DIVINE NAMES.
1.

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-?,

the Place," o times
;

sjvia

efiijpn,

Holy One,

blessed
Dtfn

be He," 3 times

and tfDBfep T?

heavenly Father,"

OTHER DIVINE NAMES
"

195
But,

the Name,"

ru^n

"
S|

the Dwelling-place," once each.

" 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

does not form part of a quotation,
is

e.g.

iii.

D?3

alone

expressed, the reader being expected to

know

that the image of

God

is

meant.

"

Distinguished are the

Israelites," '$"&] P?*?!?, says

tinguished by God."
"

Akiba, Ab. 14, meaning "disIn Ber. ix. 2 appears the prayer Jte"} NT,
iii.

may

it

be well-pleasing," without, however, expressing the
"
"
;

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

Mishna was no innovaof

evident from the fact that the Book

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.

Again, the First Book of

Maccabees, despite frequent mention of religious matters, has " used &???&?, Heaven," as a designation of God, only nine times
in
all,

and never speaks

Daniel (Dan., chaps.
the true

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

?,

5

25

Kjof N?o), and by N^y Kr6
the

O r N;b,

Most High God,"
Kjn,

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 (
;
. .

Most High," more

The course followed

in other writings is not in

every

196
case

THE WORDS OF JESUS
so consistent.

But there was a means

of guarding

against possible profanation of the divine
it

name by

writing

so as merely to suggest

it.

The manuscripts represent

niiT

cations like -JIT

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

should use the biblical names for God.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Least of all must it

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.

But we may well assume that

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.

custom in taking an oath was not to name God, but heaven,
Jerusalem, the temple, the altar, the offering, one's own head. He does not, however, sanction the opinion that, supposing an oath should have to be taken, God must be named in it,

but teaches that
appears to

it is

better not to swear at

all.

approve the non-pronunciation of the

Even He name of God,
tetra-

and

He

at least

conformed to the custom by avoiding the

" grammaton, and preferring the substitute Heavenly Father." In these circumstances it must be questioned whether

the Gospels, in ascribing to Jesus a frequent use of o 0eo?,
really reproduce the original

form

of

what was
to

said

by Jesus.
and the

It is not unlikely that the evangelists set aside

such terms

as

would have been unintelligible
Of course,
"

the Greek

Hellenist.

Father in heaven

"

cannot in every case be
is

inserted for

"

God."

When,
>

e.g.,

mention

made

of o

alongside of avQpayjros, Matt. 19

6

9 (Mark 10 ), and
- 22 .

of o

Matt. 5 34 <- 23 1(i

OTHER DIVINE NAMES
in contrast with /jLapcovas, Matt.

197
16 13), we must
were
to
2

6 24 (Luke
"
NJJf*,
l

probably substitute avoided either Wp some other cases it

supposing
"

God,"
"

be

the Name/'

or Kjp

Heaven."
divine

In

is
is

possible to omit the

name.

When
that

the accusation
said
"
:

brought against Jesus, Matt.

26 61

,

He had

I

am

able to destroy the temple of God,"

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

are risen from the
"

dead will be as
ovpavols).

the angels in
for
this

heaven

(ayyeXoi ev rot?

The Aramaic
more

would be WKWi K J5$P,
wording in Matthew much more so than
/cal

which
(22 Luke's
order
30

is

certainly

original than the

): a<yyeKoi Oeov ev TO> ovpavw, and

amplification
to

(20
-

36

):

lad<yye\oi

viol

6eov.

In

avoid the expression "in the presence
in

of
of

God,"

we have

Luke 12 8
evcoTnov

9

15 10 "before the angels
ayye\a)v

God"
these

(efjuTTpoaOev

TWV

TOV

deov).

In

cases TOV Oeov should clearly be erased, as it partially defeats

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

9

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

elaborate form of address to
o

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.

2

Of.

Fundamental

Ideas, VIII. 7.

198
the Cross, said
1

THE WORDS OF JESUS
ytf,

was due

to

the fact that His prayer was
"

expressed in
Jesus. 2

the words of a psalm.
in

NJN,

Father," was the

form of address to God

prayer which was peculiar to

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

implying that the Deity revered by these God,
n
is

men was
Israelites,
3

the the
e.g.

true

by
is

this

means

realised.

Thereafter, in

Psalms,

flyjJ

not infrequently adopted
;

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

.

K^y and K^V NH T
in
"

%

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

0eo9 6 ItyHTTw:), Ass. Mos. 10

in all the sections of the

3 Book (see Charles on 99 ), often in the Bar. Apoc. 1 Onkelos (see Charles on 17 ), and repeatedly in 2 Esdras.

Enoch

puts fW&y for
literature,

|%

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

The Palestinian Abbahu (about 300
occasion to have styled

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

v#, as a divine title, a

abstract colourlessness of the conception of
(der Epigonen),
f.

symptom God in

the post-prophetic age
1

inasmuch as he holds
2

On

this verse see above, p. 53

See above,

p.

191

f. f.

3
4

Of. T.

K. Oheyne, The Origin and Religious Content of the
i.

Psalter, 83

Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie,

49.

OTHER DIVINE NAMES
that Judaism in
istic period,
its

199

use of

Q^&

the divine title of the legal-

had already begun

to accentuate the metaphysical

idea of

God
of

to the detriment of the religious contents of the

prophetic conception of God.

But

BW*
the

is

in

no way the
legalistic
it

name

God which God
of Israel

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

should be more colourless

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 prophetic origin, while the

second even implies

an advance beyond the prophetic mode

of speech.
;

Only once,
viol 0eov,

Luke

6 s5 ,

is {tyto-To?

ascribed to Jesus

and
9

the expression there

is viol

v^lo-rov, for which Matt. 5

has

and Matt. 5 45

7 According to Mark 5

rov Trarpbs vfjicov rov eV ovpavols. 28 (Luke S ), a man with an unclean
viol
:

spirit

addressed to Jesus the words

vie

rov 6eov rov V^LO-TOV.

But Matt. S 29 does not give rov
delights in {njricn-o? as a
TOV,
6

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

exalted rank of those so entitled, was in his

mind when he
viol

chose this epithet.
is

preserved in
TOV
fcV

its earliest

The primitive wording form by Matthew
Aram. NJPf^J jtoUN

of the expression

rov

oupavols,

\33.

200

THE WORDS OF JESUS

3.

THE BLESSED ONE
priest

(o ev\oyr)To<;).

The high

uses the words 6 vlbs TOV evXoyrjTov,

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

able than that in
"

Matthew on the
is,

lips

of the high priest.

The

Blessed," however,

as

a rule, in Jewish literature
"

" 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
"

the Blessed One," Ber.

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

Enoch 77 1 "the Ever-Blessed."

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

Luke adds TOV Oeov by way

explanation,
p.

and thereby obscures, as in other cases
nature of the idiom.

(see

197), the
ii.

Hegesippus (in Eusebius,
with which
is

23), in

an allusion to
etc Sej;i(t)v
,

this statement, attributes to

James the words
be compared StW/u? TOV Oeov

r?5? fjt,eyd\7]s Swa/i6ft>9,

may

Acts 8 10 where Simon Magus
r Ko\ovfj,evr) t
"

called

rj

fjLeydXrj.

The sorcerer was

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

the unique possessor of this attribute,
cts

Paul also has as an appended epithet evhoyujTos
.

TOVS al&vas,

Rom.

9

5
,

2 Cor. II 31

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

201
17

On
/LU5

the other hand, the exclamation on the Cross,
77

Svva-

pou

8tW/u?

pay, as found in the

"

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).

His own, but the Power which for Jesus

is

Him
as

;

cf.

the address to

God
.

"

my

strength ,"

%

God, had Ps. 59 18

left
;

see

also Ex.

15 2

,

Ps.

46 2 8 1 2

One need not

therefore assume,

Harnack

l

does, that the author

had taken offence at the
6 14 ) that "the powers

confession of being forsaken by God.

The statement
do work in Jesus
FB JTO'np,
"

in Matt.

14 2 (Mark

(at Swa/teis evepyovorw ev avro)),

may
:

arise

through a misunderstanding of its Aramaic antecedent

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-

viously mentioned, really stands

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

the term has

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
"

A.D.) says, b. Sot.

37 a

,

that,

owing

the temple in his territory, Benjamin was

to the situation of " the host of the

Power

(^3}?
There
n"|in3

jaPBt^K).
"

An anonymous
tlie

saying in Siphre
is

3

has in place of
rhyp.

God

" "

Power that

above,"
Isa.

bt?
,

into

may
for
"

has

^
a

compared Targ. the simple nins and Targ. Isa.
*?&,

also be

33 21 which

48 13 where

appears for
Hamaclc,
65.

My

right

hand

"
(i.e.

God's).

1

A.
~>

Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums
ed.

und der Apokalypse des
see
j.

Petrus
2

Siphre, Sanh. 28 a
.

Num.

112,

Friedm.

a 33< .

For the same expression,

3

b Siphre, Deut. 319. ed. Friedm. 136

.

202

THE WORDS OF JESUS

kindred expression, not, however, to be found in the the Most High Gospels, may also be adduced nffby njn,
:

A

Knowledge"

= God), (
I.

Mechilta,
5
;

ed.
cf.

Friedm.
/uoi/p

89 b

,

Aram.

Jf!, Jerus.

Num. 27

aofyy 6e$, Eom.

5.

THE HOLY ONE

(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
,

Num. 112, ed. Friedm. much used wn *pa NKHiJ,
Makk. 31
ii.

3 3s

1
.

Of the same

the Holiness, Blessed
,

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,

Blessed be He"; see,

Aboth

1, 2, iv.

22.

of the latter appears in

the biblical ^"jV*.
,

The prototype ^P* e-9- ^ sa< l^ 17
also in
;

49 7 and
,

'i"fp,

Isa.

40

25

and occurs frequently

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

regards content, therefore, there
Spirit of

no difference between " the
Moreover, KfjiJ nn,
;

God
nn,

and
the

"

the Holy Spirit."

not Nr6

common Jewish

expression
,

and when

Jesus uses ev irvev^aTt, Oeov, Matt. 12 28
1

the original would
S 38 .

Cf. N?hj5

D'ISSD,

" from the mouth of the Holiness," Targ. Laiu.

OTHER DIVINE NAMES
"
51
1

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 )
:

nft nii.a rrnv nnrrn&j, could at best only signify

"
:

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

original they are intolerable.

204

THE WORDS OF JESUS

6.

THE MERCIFUL ONE.

Only

in

Eom.

" " 9 16 o e\eu>v 0eo? does the Merciful ap;

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.

Sabb. 3 b (Simeon ben Yokhai,

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

with the fact that God
Similar

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.

EVASIVE OE PEECAUTIONAEY MODES OF EEFEEEING TO GOD.
1.

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
,

'

e

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

due to the fact
to,

immediately
"

before the voice

alluded

the heaven and the cloud are
of a

involved in the context.

Luke speaks only
7- 9

voice

"

Acts

10

13

-

16

II

and

in

7

31
,

after

the

biblical

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

205
only

manner
in
etc

of a

"

voice of the Lord
-

"
(fywvr) /cvplov).

It

is

John 12 28 and Eev. 10 4

8

14 13 that the source

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.

God should speak without any medium
hence
"
it is

in
"
is

And
"
is

not meant that the " voice

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.

indicate that the incident

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

.

Instead of the simple
fcOiJ

5>jJ,

later
?

Jewish literature

inserts the fuller "

rna, Hebr. 5$p ns which, however,
x

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

with the one and

only mode of Holy Spirit, in

divine intimation.

The endowment with the

more

exalted,

3

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

Incorrectly advanced in my See the Baraitha, b. Sot. 48 b

" Der Gottesname Adonaj,"
;

58, note 1.

j.

Sot. 24 b.

206

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

Himself, but not that

"

heaven

"

itself is

meant

as a divine
is

name.

Jesus affirms that an oath of such a kind
if

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

part to give evidence

is

not regarded as a culpable

offence.
"

On

the position of Judaism in relation to oaths, see
ff.,

Der Gottesname Adonaj," 60

68

ff.

3.

REWARD, TREASURES IN HEAVEN.

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

ev rot? ovpavols), 19 21 " "

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

by God even now,
destined to

in so far as the

sacrificed in this world, is " "

made ready
is

theocracy

assuredly

come

" ence of reward
Cf.

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

See also E. Landau, Die

dem Raume entnommenen Synonyma

fur Gott

(1888), 16.

EVASIVE OB PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD
1

207

n,

"

how
up

great

is

Thy goodness which
and Prov. 2 y
l

Thou hast

laid
?sy.,

nw Dnp
(Oefjua

up
"

for

them that

fear Thee,"

He

layeth

salvation for the upright,"

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

practises righteousness, lays

up
99
.

(6i}<r&vptei) for himself with

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
"

est tibi thesaurus

operum repositus apud altissimum
*f?

"

(Syr.

Kon

n6

D'Di anaijn NIVIN

inn ^),
11

cf.

S 33

.

It is to

be observed, in these cases, that the treasure

is laid

up
"

"

with

God," which also confirms the view that

"

in

heaven

in the

words

of Jesus is a

mere synonym

for this expression.

Later Jewish literature also affords in this connexion the
expression

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

;

;

;

certain pious services, the interest of which
age, while the capital (Hi?)

enjoyed in this remains over for the future age. 4
is

King Monobazos

(c.

10

fault with his beneficence

A.D.) retorts to his relatives, 5 "
:

who

find

My

fathers gathered treasures

is

1 See also Targ. Isa. 33 6 Trj n3j itf the treasure of His goodness appointed."

i K^rrh,

"to them that

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

4

j.

Peahl5 b

;

b.

Bab.

b.

ll a

.

208
;

THE WORDS OF JESUS
:

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
;

:

they gathered gold, I gather souls
I for myself
;

;

they for this age, I for the age to come."

they gathered for others, All

these passages merely have in view some form of book-keeping

on the part
merely so
Isa.

of

God.

many

claims to future recompense.

The good words recorded by Him are Even the Targ.
l

24 16

is

not, as

Meyer

holds, intended to suggest things

really existent in the other world.

the
*b

prophet says:
"

wvi?

nttsnte

According to the Targumist, "UN n n *b nnnx

wp^

^anK,

the mystery of a recompense for the righteous was

revealed to me, the mystery of a chastisement for the wicked

was made manifest

to

me."

That

is,

the prophet learned

what the things are which the righteous and the wicked have to expect as reward and punishment.
In contrast with
reward
this,

a celestial

pre -existence of the

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
;
,

where Abba bar Kahana
ing the Jews thus
"
:

(c.

300)

2

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

Jesu Muttersprache, 83.

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.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

209

4.

WRITTEN IN HEAVEN.
ovpavok such are
" "

The names
(ev ro3

of the disciples are written ev rofr

ovpavw),
to
for
"

Luke 10 20

,

i.e.

the

disciples

as
"

known
stands

God and
32
32f
-,

are kept in remembrance.

In heaven

with God."

The

allusion

is

to

the

book

of
28
,

God"
in

in Ex.
all

and the "book

of the living" in Ps.
;

69

which
this

the righteous are enrolled

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

entered in the heavenly tablets as

a friend and an upright

man

";
3

cf.

prophets supplements
also appears to
Q'?nn

Isa.

4

in

The Targum to the the sense in which Jesus
.

30 22

have interpreted the to be "the eternal life" (K$y
b.

text,
n).

making the life The school of
3

Shammai would seem
life

to have spoken of a registration unto

and unto death, 2
terms

R
(c.

h. S.

16 b

;

but in Tos. Sanh.
are

xiii.

the requisite

for this

sense

other hand,
(nVpjjyft)

Yokhanan 3

260) takes note

On the wanting. " " of three lists

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.

BEFORE THE ANGELS, BEFORE GOD.

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

meant that there
:

will be joy in the presence of God,

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 WORDS OF JESUS

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."

The Palestinian Talmud Kidd. 64 C shows that
are

WftW iQp was i n actual use.

Even the sparrows

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,

following the parallel in Matt.

10

29
,

into

"your
the

Heavenly Father."
saying
of

The former
some
:

is

recomwith
"rtay

mended

by Matthew's mode

which

shows

expressing the idea

^ 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.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD
asked
'

211
12 1 3
'

"
:

is

there then sleep before
"
:

God

"
?

and Midr.

Ps.

positively affirms

there
v.

is

neither sleep
it is

high
'

(tyd?)"
"

In Ab.
"

2

nor sitting on out how God depointed
is

ferred the Flood

in order to

show how great

longsufferance

in His presence/

Speaking generally, the accomplishment
or

of

actions

is

attested

denied

before

God,

when

those

activities are in question

which God Himself

either does or

does not do.

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.
"

eyevero efjuTrpoaOev aov,

II 26 (Luke 10 21 ): OVTCDS evSorcLa so it was well-pleasing in Thy sight."

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

be well-pleasing in Thy sight";
tnp. IP "

nnn

^
.

see,

e.g., j.

Ber. 7

;

Targ. Cant.

7U

;

KBnjJ tego rnin

n>

Tp:^

be He,"

be well-pleasing before the Holiness, Blessed Koh. E. 3 2 1 One may also compare Onk. Gen.

may

it

28 17 "Fig |p nu " from before Jhvh

njinn
;

^ns,

a

place,
*\

which

has

regard
if

and Numb. 14 8

D^j

wi

Nj^n

D,

we

find favour before Jhvh."

To the expression
Targums
. :

of

^

D-JJJ.

jjn,

Matt. 18 14 there corresponds in the it is the will of (before) Jhvh, to

.

."

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

N11oy Dip ttnx JV&n

"J*N,

"as

may
1

be the decision before

Him who

dwells in heaven."
ed. Salonica, 1593,

According to Midrash Khamesh Megilloth,

not in ed.

Pesaro. 1519, nor Venice, 1545.

212

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

"
-

the king Qtb,
10 -

Aram.
in

np ),
:

also in Esth.

83

,

Dan. 2 9

n

-

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 "

tendency, the " " before to," but

^d

;

also said that

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

God, the same

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

:

against thee, and what

ill

have I done before thee
3 ''Bpl ""HD

"
?

This

reverent

mode

of address is here used to

With

respect to God, the prayer
'tf&ib

an ordinary man. has, as a matter of
It
is

course:
different

t^on,

"we have
of

sinned before Thee."
Ps.

in
;

the statement

5 16

snm 'nson yvb

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

;

8

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.,

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

213

parable stands for God, but that the son speaks with befitting Luke will thus have interreverence towards his father.

changed the prepositions

et9

and evtoinov

for reasons of style.

6.

BOUND, LOOSED IN HEAVEN.
is

What
" in

the disciples of Jesus bind upon earth
"

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

and on the other [not

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

H

j.

Ber.

14;

j.

E. h.

S.

58 b

;

j.

Bikk.

64.

Often, indeed, that

is

also a

mere phrase intended

to avoid
is,

naming God
that

x
;

but
the

sometimes, too, the idea entertained
angels forms a real court of justice.

God with
*

The

principle, which
2

Holtzmann

in his

181 Commentary on Matt. 16

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

hear the Law, the sound

thy words,
1

when thou

sittest to acquit

and

to

condemn

;

Cf. e.g.

Midr. Ps. 57 2 where

wn ^19

hj?rr

takes the place of
i.

j.

Ber.
2

14.
50.

8

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
to all that thou
cloest."

That does not

mean

that in all things

God

subordinates His resolution to
;

that of the

community

of Israel

it is

merely the interprethas placed in their

ation and application of the

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

any one who
even
if

is

excommunicated

'

below

'

(nBTppp) for one day,

there
"

is

'

on high
"

'

(n?Jttppp)

he has been freed from the ban, no release for seven days." Here
"

on high

quite corresponds to the expression in Matthew.
"

On

the other hand,

Heaven

stands directly for
b.

"

the epithet

D?B$ T, "banned by Heaven,"

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

circumstances the divine

authority must even give

way

before that of the pious person.
,

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.
?

Mo. k. 1 6 b 2 The pious
,

"
I,

God, rule over

men

;

who

rules

for I enact

and he annuls," and
invalid."

j.

Taan. 67 a

"Even

if

I

(God) say thus, and thou sayest
is

otherwise, then thy

word

valid

and Mine

The terms
Ber. 5 b

eew and \veiv used in Matthew can

be

referred only to ID*?
j.
,

and wy? in Aramaic.
law
C
),

As may be

seen

e.g.,

these are the technical forms for the verdict
of
j.

of
"

a

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"

not, of course, in virtue

of his

own

absolute

authority, but in conformity with his

knowledge

of the oral law.
1

Consequently the statement of
i.

Cf.

Yalk. Shimeoni.

745.

2

Cf. Backer,

Ag. d.

pal.

Am.

ii.

127.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD
Jesus would
of

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

His oral teaching

be objected, (1) that
the

Matthew can hardly have understood
that
sense,
"

saying of

our Lord in

because Seetv and
"

\VGLV do not in his Greek

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

permit has in view

in a connection originally foreign to
is

it,

the only
"

remaining option

that the terms

"

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

regarded as being operative.
similar to that associated with the figure
22

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

he opens, none shuts

;

if

he shuts, then no one
is

That does not mean that Shebna
is

the palace door-

keeper, but that he

comptroller of the household, to

whom
is

the

management

of all the king's domestic concerns
this

en-

trusted. 1

In allusion to

passage,

it

is

said in Eev. 3 7f

of Christ, that

He

has the key of David, and that He, as

rightful possessor of this key, has

power

to

open and

to shut

;

in virtue of this authority

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

the rest of the words of Baruch, 4 3f

-

;

b.

Taan. 29 a

;

j.

Shek. 50 a

;

Vay. R.

19.

216

THE WORDS OF JESUS
,

"the locksmith," 2 Kings 24 14 suggests in Siphre, Deut. 311, ed. Friedm. 138 a the teacher of the law: "all sit before
,

him and learn from him
i.e.

;

if

his instruction has indisputable authority.

he has opened no one shuts,"In the same
of the theocracy, and,

sense, Peter, Matt.

16 19 has the keys
,

as keeper of the keys, is the fully authorised steward of the

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

sort of limitation to a defined

sphere

is

indicated,

follows necessarily that the control of

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.

same plenary power
case

is

vested in the disciples collectively, in the

when the

special application of that authority is

made

in respect of the discipline of the

the application which

not unwarranted.

Accordingly, community. 23 given in John 20 to this saying is For exclusion from the community on
is

account of some offence includes the

"

"

retaining

of the sins

;

the readmission of the sinner includes the "remission" of
his sins.
Kpa-relv in

The only remark to be made here is that the term John has no Jewish parallel. ?J? JW, which Salkinit,

son puts for

11 " to impute means, according to Num. 1 2 In Delitzsch, too, DTD is a sin) to any one." something (as

merely a make-shift. That N }^, " to loose,"
1

if

not the companion term, can also

be used figuratively in various connections in

Jewish Aramaic,
"

may

also be
"

demonstrated here.
"
is

(a)

To ban

in Hebr. rni,

"

to loose

from the ban

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.
.

calls out to "
!

some

fruit-stealers
"
:

"
:

They reply

Let that

Let those people be banned man be banned " He
!

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD
hastens after them and entreats them
"
:

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

will loose thee."

set the
.

spellbound person free,"
*

is N"JB', ibid, it

and

j.

Sanh. 25

d

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,

supposed to confer ability to work miracles.

But

the context in Matthew, like everything else
Jesus,
(c)
is

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

forgiven unto thee

;

lo

!

it is

remitted unto thee
is

$ pW m
according to

(^ Nn
name,

$)."
"

The month

Tishri

called

by

this

Vay. E. 29, because at that time

God

"forgives,

remits, expiates

p^n

platan

"n^ri)
(c.

the sins of His people.

Those who have beaten Tarphon he was, call to him, j. Shebi. 3 5 d
:

n
b.

110), not knowing who " " Nachforgive us
!

man
!

bar Yizkhak
:

phrase " one

(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

Yom. 86 a the Babylonian

who

forgives the guilty."

7.

HEAVEN.

"

be doubted whether Luke ever consciously used " The solitary passage which can Heaven," meaning God."
It

may

be adduced in support of that view
1

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.

140 A.D.), but in

4

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?

THE WORDS OF JESUS

TOV ovpavov /cal evatTuov <rov, assuming the translation to "I have sinned against Heaven and before Thee." As be
:

has been said above, under
"

before

Heaven

"

to

we should expect preferably have been said by Jesus. Still it may
5,

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

make reproaches towards
,

heaven," said,

Ber.

31 b
(c.

b.

Taan. 25 a to have been used by
1

Eleazar
(c.

ben Pedat
a

290).

The Babylonian Nachman

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$

in the face of heaven."

The Palestinian Khanina
"

distinguishes sins as
i.e.

"

upon the earth

(P.^3), or

"

210) " in heaven
(c.

3

against (DWii), In all probability Jesus

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

adhered, which arose probis

ably through the impulse of Greek influence,
as Hebraists are concerned,
410.24.55

proved, so far
-

by Dan. 4

23
,

1

Mace. 3 18
11

19 60
-

-

60

12

i6
;

The
like to

cases are not here distinguished, where
"

an d for Hellenists by 2 Mace. 7 8 9 " " heaven must
.

20

4 - 20

necessarily stand for the Person of
"

God," and where phrases
of the

to

heaven,"

"

from heaven," are due to the desire not

name

use of E
the

W

the Person of
for
"

God

in

any way.

Examples

God

"

in the rabbinic literature, especially

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.
. ;

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

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>

are conjoined with DlPf* in D]Bj?

V

T3

"
}

by the hand

of God,"

Sanh.
ii.

ix.

6

"
;

D'JDP

D$,

for

God
"

"

(in the
1,
j.

name

of God),2
a
:

Ab.
'!?,

2;

D^X

"for God," Men.
j.

xiii.

Ned. 37
is

NW

"

before God,"

C Kidd. 64

.

Heaven

"

the subject of the
j.

verb in pBJ "Uj|B

"
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

avvOev"\ from above/
'

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
"

from God, though
in these cases
(cf.

must be granted that " heaven did not stand pure and simply for the divine name

above, p. 92). Beside these instances
"
e'f

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

be set the following e^of^ev the help which conies
: ;

2 Mace. 7 11
1

;

D']#n

|p
i.

rnin px,
52 b
.

the law

is

not from heaven,"

Seder
Cf. G.

Rab Ainram,

2

A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 143

ff. ;

Neue Bibelstudien, 24

ff.

220
Sanh.
x.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
1
;

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

9

2

tf#n

|p

pn^

nete,

was decreed from heaven," a wife whom men have
x.
6.

"

assigned to " in above

him from heaven," 3 Ned. the same sense is closely

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,

the knowledge which

is

above," Mechilta, ed. Friedm.
;

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;

release of the "
if

ban from above

"
(n^flpfe),

Tanna

El.

Eabb.

thy portion from on high also under Nos. 5, 6, and 10.

thou orderest well thy prayer, disfavour shall not be d See ^), j. Taan. 66

(n^p W

.

9.

HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST.
of the multitude

In the mouth
have

we

find the cry

Matt. 2 1 9 (Mark l! 9f -)
it

On

this occasion

a Matthew and Mark

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

Dative surprising, since both nw'in

2

Boer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 153. Ibid. 229.

3

What

liabilities,
4

is alluded to is a consort not by his own choice.

whom

a

man

has acquired through Levirate
i.

W. H.

Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879),

44.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

221

and

<rw(rov are transitive,

and would require the Accusative.

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

posed that a Greek author, to whose

mind <rwaov occurred

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

"
:

give greeting to."
6
,

Inasmuch as the Teaching

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,

This sense will further hold of Matthew's Gospel

whose author consequently can have been no Hebraist, and cannot have been the apostle. 2 And again the connection of

axravvd with eV rot? vtyicrTow in Matthew and
surprise.
"

Mark
"

creates
just "

As

regards Matthew,

it

follows from

what has
glory

been said that wcravvd will here also signify
praise."

or

The

evangelist takes

00.

eV rot? v^icnoLs to

mean

the same thing as Ps.
eV
rofc

148 1
1|

LXX

aiveire avTov (rbv icvpiov)

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

deliverance ought, of course, to have

come

"

from the highest,"

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

the mistaken view of wa-avvd to be found in the early Church.
1
10 Of. Ps. 20

^sn

njf pin,

LXX crwcrov

rbv

/3curiX<?a crou.

2

Of course a
Cf. p. 220.

collection of the sayings of our

Lord forming the basis of the

"Matthew"
3

Gospel

may

nevertheless originate from the apostle.

222
It

THE WORDS OF JESUS

must

also

be said that, in the mouth of those

who
118

accompanied Jesus in His entry into the city of Jerusalem,
D'nhsa
KJ

wn

is

but

little

probable, inasmuch as Ps.

did not directly furnish this expression.

The mere

NJ V^'in

mrp
will

DK>21

Kan

Tjria,

as

Mark
is

1 1 9 records

it,

in the first instance

have been the real cry of the multitude.

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,

Mark and Matthew

^

-

which comes at the end, was expressed, we do not know. D$n being impossible, &?&K might preferably be proposed.
;

But probably,
using the

in this case, there

would be

less hesitation in

OIK

of public worship, since the state of feeling

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

an entreaty for help.
accusation against

becomes clear why the

entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not

him

before Pilate.

made a ground of Wellhausen 2 rightly

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

for reverting to the

Aram.
the

XWiN,
deed,

"

help us," as the prototype of wcravvd, because, inJP^in,

the shorter form,

must

itself
,

be reckoned
.

6 2 regular form, even in Hebrew, see Jer 3 1 Ps. 86

More-

over, the abbreviated form,
liturgies.

W

yvftn,

can be verified in Jewish
the
i.

The
1

earliest witness for it is
Archiiologie,
3

name given

to

W. Nowack, Hebraische
Israclit. u. jiid.

307.

1

Geschichte,

381, note 2.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

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

a later time come the
JJE^n,

processional songs with the refrain NJ

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

(ef ityov? SvvafJLiv).

Acts

I 8 says
e(f>

:

XrjfjiTfreaOe

Svvafjuv eVeXof

Oovros rov ayiov Trvev/jiaTos
Isa.

vpas.

Both are an echo
eo>?

32 15

entrap

nn wfy
;

rny;. lj>,

LXX
9 17

dp
ates in

v^rr)\ov

cf.

Wisd.

av fr.0y eft v^a? eVe/u^a? TO ayiov vov
origin-

airb V^'ICTTM.

The phrase ev&veaOcu ^vvapw
:

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."

kind an intentional evasion of the
imputed.

In Old Testament expressions of this name of God cannot be

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

but replaces it by The spirit presence, Jhvh."
,

literally,

of

Jhvh, which
ID riNtta
is

to rest
"

upon the Messiah,
1
.

Isa.

II 2

,

is

in the

words
(

Targum
for

a spirit of prophecy from before

Jhvh

"

cnp

=

mn), c f. Targ. Isa. 6 1

The "Spirit
(cf.

of

God"
40 7 ),

in

Gen. I 2

Onkelos
I.

^.

nnp> ip
:

Nnn
^
t

Targ.

Isa.

and

for Targ. Jerus.

"
Q"JP IP

rPHI

"

a spirit of mercy

from before God."
Further, in avaro\rj
e'f

v-^ov^ [the dayspring from on high],
"

Luke

I 78 ,

e

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.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

sianic advent with the appearance of light,
nirv
,

obviously comes very near to identifying the Meswhen they render

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

clear that in Luke, chap. 1,

an original in Greek

lies

before us.

11.

USE OF THE PASSIVE VOICE.

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

cases, then, the passive, as a rule, is re traceable

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,

and iW^. "& N?^y,

in

which the subject

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD
:

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
"

instances of this construction from rabbinic litera-

may
1

be given
pities

:

awn
for

fl?

\hy p&rnp nlnan
there
c.

*?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).

all his offences," b.

S.

I7 a
n

b.

Yoma 23 a
"he who

fvofc

iniK p:n

nor

t$ nan

j-nn,

judges his neighbour charitably,

127 b
"

(Baraitha).

^aa

is judged charitably," b. Sabb. o pjnai "insa D> ^nrpn fe,

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

one goes to cleanse

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,
"

^

he who learns in order to teach, to him

is

njp given the power

^

to learn
c.

and

to

teach,"

Ak

iv.

5
is

160).

A

passive construction

(Ishmael ben Yokhanan, found in Akiba's saying:

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

W}v bvnw pyan,

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

1

i

??'

??^ ^,

because thou didst immerse others,

men have immersed
:

thee,"
1

Ab.

ii.

6

;

and Akiba's admonition pfiapn liBD
iii.

{Viajn nay

Cf.

Tos. Sliebu.

1:

jn^>

p^io

nfflyp

jp

px,

"one

forgives

them not

from heaven."

15

226

THE WORDS OF JESUS
HJ jnap*| -tap,

OT
they

do thou, that others

may

weep; bury others, that

may do weep, that men may bury thee; accom;

pany

others, that they

may accompany
Bannaa
(c.

thee!"
ii>

j.
11

Keth. 3 1
prn;

15
;

1

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

Through a similar tendency in have to express the title, far less
was a predilection
for phrases

name
"

one has ordered,"

of the king, there "

one

is

the king has ordered, the king

now residing (at Thebes)," 3 is now residing."

for

12.

AMEN.

It has already

been frequently pointed out that the mode

in
of

which Jesus uses
Jewish
5 22
literature.
,

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

that passage the repeated

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

have not polluted myself
"
!

!

Amen

that I will not pollute

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

own word, but always

of

the word, prayer, blessing, oath, or imprecation of some other
person.
4 "

A

dictum ascribed to various Palestinian Amoraim
is

says
is

:

Amen

confirmation,

Amen

is

protestation,

Amen

assent."

From
is

seen that what
1

the accompanying comments it may be meant is confirmation of the word of

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.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

227

another, affirmation to the oath prescribed by another, sub-

mission of oneself to the declaration of another.
"

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

which, indeed, had

it

be thus synonymous with a corroborative " yes," becomes clear how vai and a^v are treated as identical

Amen
,

2 Cor. I 20 and are coupled together Eev. I 7

;

and how, even

in the words of Jesus, vai appears several times in passages

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

appears 30 times, and in
"

Mark 13
"

times.

Just as in the

phrases
also

sovereignty of heaven,"
as

Father in heaven," so here

Luke has avoided
The double

much

as possible

what would be

unfamiliar to his readers.
aprjv,

occurring

25 times
2

in John, cannot

be used as evidence of the terms used by Jesus.
it

Nor can
"

be accounted

say," of
1

by Delitzsch, through the a term quite unfamiliar the Babylonians,
for,

as

NJ'OK,

I

in Pales -

Otherwise represented in Cremer, Bibl. theol. Worterbuch, 8 141,
:

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.

w

a

b

'n;

(48

a
),

N^DX nWf n
173),

v?

(ibid.

(52 )' besides the

b

Hebrew.

228
tine.
1

THE WORDS OF JESUS
It is evident, however,

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

V?V "13 "
!

^

13,
;

"son

of a

Jew!"
!

j.

Ber. 5
b.

a
;

Wa
.

j.

Sabb. 15 b

<sn ^T,
is this

teacher

M

Makk. 24 a

With

Jesus, then, there

peculiarity, that the Hebr.

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

available for the

same

purpose.

This seemed so strange, that

Matthew and Mark,
The strange-

as a rule, left the foreign

word untranslated.
felt

ness of the expression

is

not

by Germans, merely because
"

Luther's inexact rendering by
its peculiarity.

"

wahrlich

(verily) has effaced

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

than an averment with the use
say,

of

an oath,

the
A.D.)

manner,

in

which

Yokhanan ben Zakkai

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 solution seems very natural
literature,
jiid.-pal.
2

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

4

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.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

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

His own injunction to make the simple

blessing. "

Thus did
"

He

yea, yea

take

the place of an oath.
1 name, so here,

But

as Jesus, in forbidding the oath,

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

The nearest cognate construction
appears in the Babylonian
Ilai
(c.

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
,

b

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
,

^nrn nnn nan)
it is

"
i

Of

Sabb. 10 b that
is

permissible to

utter

in a place

which

the term does not contain the
as a protestation

not ceremonially clean, because name of God. It is also used
Sanh. 38 b where, however, the
,

|T3

KHUBM of Munich MS. by

by Iddi, the Venice
TJ'n

b.

ed.
"

1520

is

represented in the
"
!

W!?,

(my) truth into thy hand

13.

THE DWELLING (SHECHINAH), THE GLORY, THE WORD.

these expressions used in the

In the Synoptic Gospels we find no representatives of Targum of Onkelos "1 NpyaK^
:

"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

in Onkelos for the Hebr.

"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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
l

recent Targums offer ^! fcOfi

"

(K^ai.),

the

word

of

Jhvh,"
1

which
"1,

is

properly the Aramaicised Hebrew equivalent of N^P" ?
its

and found
All

way

into

these

Targums from rabbinic
do
not

Hebrew.
hypostases

these ideas

which

denote

concrete

of the Deity, but abstractions, originally

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.

They were products

of the reflection of the

and we do not know in regard
in

to

them whether they

really were general characteristics of the style of

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.

Besides, the spoken language

was rich

in cautious

circumlocutions for God.
life

It is thus quite natural that in

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,

"

the word of heaven," in the prayer begin-

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.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOP

231
I

4 4 II 3
Lev.

;

and
.

^J?71

N^E,

"

the word that

is

above," Jerus.

24 12
the

Here

too, of course,

one

is

far

removed from the
is "'S'nn

idea of divine hypostases.

The name used
is

and

S

^"J^ P,

but

reality

meant

"

God."

Jesus
;

may have been

acquainted with these Targumic terms
using

but no necessity for

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

reckoned among the prerogatives peculiar to
Sof?i9,

Israel,
,

Heb.

I 3 aTravyao-fjba rrjs 80^779, 9 5 %epov(36Lv
it

John 12 41

where

is

said of Isaiah

:

elSev rrjv
Isa. 6
5

Sogav avrov (Xpicrrov),

while the

Targum reproduces
n

by

"

mine eyes saw the

glory of the dwelling (Shechinah) of the

King
in

of the ages

(*%/$

^9

^f

T:)'

Jhvh Sebaoth"; and

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',

14 appear to be represented in John I

^0709

<rapj; e<yevero /cal eaKrjvcoo-ev

ev rj/MV Kal eOeacrdjjieOa rrjv
6

avrov $6t;av
eo~/cr)va)o-6v

&>9

fiovoyevovs rrapa Trarpos.
s ;

\6yos
t|

is

represents

three entities
least,

Kn|i 3^ became incarnate

86^a stands for
in

N"}P

.
:

All the

a use

is

made

of

Jesus; and in this, at these ideas which is at variance

with their primary application.

14.

THE PLACE.

Wholly absent from the
designation
of

New
"

Testament

is

the Jewish

God

as

Dip^n,

the Place."

This term G.

Buchanan Gray 1 mistakenly tries 4 1 19 Eyle and James 2 as early as
,

to find as early as Sirach

Ps.

Sol.

16 9

.

According
(c.

to the

Mishna Taan.
1

iii.

8,

Simeon ben Shetakh

80

B.C.)

2

Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 567 ft. In their edition of the Psalter of Solomon.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
had already used it but its evidence in reference to the linguistic form of sayings from so remote a period is of little
,

value.

It is certain only that in

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

had become a divine name, they desired when possible only
to allude obscurely to
it,

so that only the place to

(i.e.

of

God)

was mentioned, when the intention was

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

ment where the "place"
while heaven
Targ. KJOPy\
"
toipo,
is

God

is

frequently spoken of

meant;
"too, "
;

2

see

Hos. 5 15

^PP,

"My

place";
"
;

Wp
name

"

My

holy dwelling in heaven

Isa.

26

21

His place

Targ.

JWUW' in,

the place of His

dwelling."

The casual
of

expression, ntenv

njir

ap

Dipo,

the

place of the

Jhvh
also

of hosts,"

by which the temple
its

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

omitted and replaced by the /car efo^i/, that is, of God.
is

article.

DipBn

is

"

the

No Aramaic

equivalent for DipftH

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

1

Ber. R. 68

;

cf.

Backer,

Agada

d. pal.

Am.

ii.

163

f.

2

Already maintained by A. Geiger,

Jiid.

Zeitschr.
ff.,

ii.

228.

Landau, Die

dem Raume entnommenen Synonyma
influences as contributory.

fur Gott. 41

errs in

supposing Parsee

EVASIVE

Oil

PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

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

what has been

said under
;

constitute

the

standard followed by Jesus
that, in

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

evasive locutions for
as

would certainly be a mistake to regard all the other God which have the sanction of Jesus
to

mere accommodation on His part

prevalent custom.

Superstitious ideas, foreign to the true Revealed Religion, in

regard to the character of the divine name,

may have

conit

tributed to the formation of the current custom.

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-

stances was, of course, the
(Ex.
of

commandment

of the

Decalogue

20 7 ): "Thou shalt not needlessly pronounce the name Jhvh thy God " 2 and beneath that there lay a genuine
;

religious reverence, inspired

by the thought

of the

Judge

of

the worlds, enthroned in heaven.

This reverence Jesus did

not choose to set aside, Matt. 10 28 (Luke 12 5 );

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

between Creator and creature.

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 WORDS OF JESUS
matters must not be represented as
if

the deeper

insight gained

by

Israel after the exile in

Babylon into the

transcendent majesty of God, were nothing but a relapse in comparison with the knowledge of God in the older prophecy,
so

that Jesus

was under the necessity

of reverting to the

earlier prophetic standpoint.

Directly opposed

to

such

a

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.

THE SON OF MAN.

THE LINGUISTIC FORM OF THE EXPRESSION.
to

To understand the designation which Jesus chose
to

apply

Himself

:

o

ino? rov avOpwTrov, it is important to observe
|3,

the

way

in which the corresponding terms in Hebr. E^?

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

Hebrew can only say 07?
II 5
Isa.
,

*.-?

3 or D 7??

"^

f

r

which see Gen.
,

Dcut. 32 8 (with
B^N).

52 14 (with the Psalms and
a

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.

For the single human being,
is

generally B*N or

used.

The writings of the
,

pre-exilic prophets are,
-

on the other hand, of slight
See also Dan. 10 16 Sir. 40
,

importance for Jesus. 3 See Ex. 9 19 Num. 31 28

47
.

3

1
.

THE SON OF MAN

235
t?

On
its

the other hand, the singular form Cff?

apart from

1 frequent use as a nominative of address in Ezekiel, was

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 B*); Ps. 8
5na

5

(with Bfcg), 80
133),
3

18

(with P'K),

146 3

(with
;

21 DWJ); Job 16

(with

25 6 (with PUN), 35 8 (with
onw).

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

A

Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (Joseph
>

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

f

^ ne

genus man,"

an ordinary man," Judg.

biblical

Aramaic does not

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 the usage in " the word for man."

,

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

human species, a human being
;

or as one

who had

in himself the

just as in

S 25 the fourth in the

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 WORDS OF JESUS
one who resembles

fiery furnace is described T"?^ ">?? n??^, as

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

"a man," Ab.
i.

vi. 9.

nina,

"

creatures," Ab.
is
i.

12,

ii.

not infrequently This last 11, but also ffJK '.
is

"

Mankind

"

expression
i.

used to denote ordinary " men," "the people," Ber.
7,

3

;

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.

In the Samaritan Pentateuch t^x

is
,

also the

word

a

human

being." Only Hebrew, do we find B>JK -a. 5 DIX na, Deut. 32 8 KK>:x, Gen. II
;

in

Num. 23

conformably with the The plural forms appear ^a
.

19

Marka

also,

where he
Sam.
iii.

does not use DIK, has
2
b
,

fc^N

;

see Heidenheim, Bibl.

59

a
,

130

a
,

131 b

;

Murik, Des

Sam. Marqah Erzahlung
in

liber
p.

d.

Tod Mose's, 44, 48.
is

The form nrPBTia

Munk,

48,

unusual, and, of course, should be corrected into

nnwia.

The Targum

to the

Prophets, which

is of

minor consequence

THE SON OF MAN
for

237

Aramaic usage, has in Mic. 5 6 Bog
is
,

Elsewhere BOK 13
text, Isa.

"is, replacing 07? ^found in agreement with the Hebrew

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

n

clear

Adam."

The plural

NBOJS

33 is often used.

Nor do the Aramaic
tw$?
"13

Inscriptions attest

a

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.,

212, 214, 220, 223

and in

the inscription from Tema, ibid.

113

a
,

>:N

stands for "men."
"

The Jewish-Galilean, along with the Christian- Palestinian,
are the earliest dialects to contain tws
"13

in the sense of

a

human

being," although in both these types of language the
"
:

" 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,
"

Der Menschensohn, 32.
its

human

being

then made

way

twg 13 for "a also into the Jerusalem

Targums on the Pentateuch, Jerus. the Aramaic recension of the Book

I

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

a result of the general situation here reviewed,

must
"

concluded that the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the

earlier period possessed the

term
of

BK

for

"

a

human
it

being

;

while, to indicate a

number

human

beings,

occasionally N^JK ^2.
in use
text,
;

The singular number

^'js

employed -12 was not

its

appearance being due to imitation

of the

Hebrew

where 07?
in
it.

^

^s

confined to poetry, and, moreover, unin
,

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,

"

2

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 WORDS OF JESUS
"

the aged,"

l

the ordinary prose for " old

"

being, of course, KJD.
p.

Further, according to the theory pro-

13, the original of Dan. 7 was Hebrew, in support
to the occurrence of tfvV peculiar to this
,

which we may refer
If this
is

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,

in the definite form.

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

If, however, merely KjWK. also Nabataeans and probably

Palmyrenians, had this expression in use, it may be supposed that in this respect the Galileans in the time of Jesus formed

no exception

;

and that the use

of

NEON

"12,

N^J -o in the

Jewish-Galilean and Christian-Palestinian literature, which at
a later time was probably

common

to all

Aramaic-speaking

Palestinians, was an innovation introduced into Palestine from the north-east along with many other influences affecting

the use of terms and the vocabulary. 2

testimony for the terms used by Jesus is afforded " Man," both by His own words as reported in the Gospels.
final

A

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 "

?

That cannot be considered
calls it

likely.
"

Holtzmann 3
1

" a " discovery that

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

3

Lehrb.

d.

neutestamentl. Theol.

i.

256.

THE SON OF MAN
would be the only available term for Wellhausen affirms tongue of Jesus.
"
;

239

"
l
:

man "
"

in the mother-

the Aramaeans have

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

a grievous error, which

careful observation of the biblical

Aramaic alone would have
"

rendered impossible.

When
had
DHNPI

the composite

expression ^J

"^

son

f

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,
"

which must not be rendered simply by
("

the

human

"

being

der Mensch,"
"

as

by de Lagarde, Wellhausen, Lietzif

mann), but only by
"
If,

the son of man,"
is

the essential char-

acter of the expression
again,
it

the son of

not to be entirely obliterated. " the man had to be expressed in

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?

5

}

Fna, or sometimes, to escape
1

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

dialect where NKO

"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

"

der Sohn des

Menschen
of

"

also suggests, that the

person so entitled
1

was the son

some

one.

In this sense the

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,

A

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (1897), xxxi

;

cf. p. 56,

240
translator
will

THE WORDS OF JESUS
also

have understood the Greek

o

vios

rou

But the Greek expression
of sore

is

embarrassment,

o

v Ibs

merely the outcome rov avOpcoTrov can indeed be
itself

regarded as the

Greek singular
for 07?

for ol viol

TWV

dv0pco7rcov,

which the

LXX has coined
.

^>

an(^

which occurs Mark
corre"

3 28 and Eph. 3 5

But while the plural substantially
the sons of

sponds to the Hebr. D'JK ^3, the expression
of course signifying

men

"

men

in general, in the singular

form an

No

unnatural stress was laid upon both members of the phrase. assistance could be got from o v to? avOpanrov, for this

would have meant merely
then, avOpwiros
is

"

the son of a man."

In Greek,
D"JK,

neither a generic conception like tWK,
for

nor

is

v/o? the

term

an individual endowed with the

nature implied in the generic term.
for NKfjN
tion.
"IS

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.

Thus was avoided

at least the error of supposing that

"

the

man "

merely as such

was meant, and there was acquired

the possibility of using this expression as a self-appellation of
Jesus.

That the Hellenists from the beginning apprehended

the term, not in a Semitic, but in a Greek sense, with the
feeling that Jesus in

the

human

side

of

His nature as
this point
it

some sense had pronounced Himself on " descended from men," is

all too

probable.

To

we

refer later.

In these circumstances

can be seen

why

the Christian

Hellenists avoided the term as

much

as possible,

and did not
in-

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
;

THE SON OF MAN

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

"

"

degree of success only by

"

der Menschensohn."

"
2.

SON OF MAN

WAS NOT A CURRENT JEWISH NAME FOR
THE MESSIAH.

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 "

in chap. 7 13 is a personification of the

"

people of the

saints of the

Most High

"
(v.

27
,

cf. v.

22
),

who

are destined one

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

Dan. 2 44L where the establishment by
,

God
man.

an eternal sovereignty

is

the explanation of the stone

*

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
"

"

with the clouds of heaven
is

pression

The exW). (NJ?f because the judicial session of the surprising
which

"

W

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

-

.

2

No

change of scene
is

wheels and a throne

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

A

reading

NW'
,

W

l

ve$e\8>v,

LXX

Dan. 7 13

appears to be presupposed by eVt 30 cf. Matt. 24 26 64 Mark 13 26 D,
; ,

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
,

h

ve<j>e\y,

Luke 2 1

27
,

similarly imply accompaniment, and presuppose perd

= DP.

belongs
1
,

to
3
.

God only

move upon the

clouds

;

see Isa.

19

Ps.

104

In the endeavour to minimise the divine

manifestation in the one like to a son of man, a subsequent
writer will have changed ?y into By.
Dy,

But even

if

one reads

the fact remains that the destined possessor of the universal

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

fitted to typify the

noteworthy that nothing more

It people of the saints of God. is said of him than that he
beasts,

resembles man.

He

is

distinguished from the four
;

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
,

fact that in contrast with the

winged

lion,

the devouring bear, ten

the four-headed leopard, the fourth beast with
terrible exceedingly

horns

beyond

its

predecessors, he appears un-

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
;

must make him

so.

From

the

first

Christian

Jewish writings
Similitudes of the
Esdras.
of

known which
Book
of

century there are only two deal with Dan. 7 13 the
,

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.

1 E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 1893, importance of this reading.

40,

remarked upon the

THE SON OF MAN

243

Dan. 7 with Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament,
they clearly show that they regard this individual as the Messiah. Special attention must be given to the name they use in this connection for Messiah.

The Similitudes of Enoch
that

(chaps.

3771), whose Jewish
it

character need not be doubted, 1 though

they originate from a pre-Christian
reference
-

cannot be proved period, introduce

46 1 a
to

being, partaking of the nature of angels
is

and

of

men,

whom
-

afterwards
,

made

as

"

that son of man,"
"

" 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

4

48 2 62 5

9

-

u 63 11
-

-

.

Ethiopic

demonstrative,

so
is

that

throughout
the

6

vios

TOV

dvdpMTTov
portance

may

be what
to

represented.
fact

Similarly no im-

attaches
"

the

that
"

vacillates in its choice of a

term for
"

Ethiopic version son of man," sometimes
4

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

part of the Similitudes he avoids every other Messianic
really imputes
to
"

title,

the son of

man "
.

seen most obviously in 46 3 " " has righteousness is certainly not a periphrasis for the This
is

a Messianic significance. The " son of man who

righteous
"

man," but

is

meant
"

to recall

38 2 39 6 where the
,

Messiah bears the name,
or

the chosen one

who

is

righteous,"
part,
;

That again, on its must be considered an allusion to P^v nD, Jer. 23 5
the elect of righteousness."
1

A

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.

But the " son
is

of

man "

upon
2 3

earth, far less to

have passed through the

in this case appears never to have been state of death.
"
?

This passage
See his essay,

" Was KVI

highly uncertain. *n a Messianic

title

Journal of Bibl. Lit. xv.

(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.
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

exclusively to the mysterious personality
earth,

who never was upon
original
article)

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

also represent a considerable develop-

ment beyond the
10 16
-

stage seen in the

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

the ancient of days.
in 7 1
14

By

this

the words are used to

name he is addressed 60 10 and him " thou art the son of man
,
:

who

art born for righteousness," in

which there

is

evident

at least

an allusion

to

"
fijxjy

nrp,

the righteous Branch/'

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

up from the sea KGwan Dion TK).
"
"
1

"

as it were the likeness of a

man "
v.
3

He
2

is

then referred to in
5

as

homo

(Syr. Kt?ru in),

in v.

as

"

homo, qui ascenderat
"

de mari
(Syr.

12 as (Syr. KD" jo p^DT in KBO"a), in v.

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

.

The author's dependence upon Dan.

7

must be admitted, although he represents
1

doubtless not

Cf.

under

XL

1.

2

The Latin version has "convolabat
is lost.

ille

homo cum

nubibus," but the

beginning

THE SON OF MAN
unintentionally

245
as rising

the
for twg

figure in
">?

human form

from

the sea.

But

prose style, not well be formed.

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.

A

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

,

with the clouds of

heaven

;

but

if

Israel were unworthy,

upon the
3
(c.

ass,

as said in Zech.

.

he would come riding Samuel ben Nachman
,

270) pany the Messiah as far as their precincts allow, while God then conducts him to Himself, according to Jer. 30 21 Other
.

says that, according to

Dan. 7 13 the angels accom-

late

testimonies are referred to in Dalman, "

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

said that the person

named "W, who
,

is

the last in the Davidic line

in

1

Chron. 3 24

will
,

be the
in the

b Messiah, Midr. Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Ber. 70

and

Targum on the passage. Probably we should also mention here the Messianic name ^BJ 13, though it is otherwise
1

2
3

4

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
,

b explained by the Babylonian Nachman b. Sanh. 96 1 vided ^B3 stands for ve$e\t), which is very doubtful.

pro-

Along with thes. indications
of
,

of a

Messianic interpretation
of

Dan. 7 13 we find traces of a different exposition
in

the
ed.
9

passage

the
b

anonymous
2
:

saying,

Midr.

Tanchuma,

Buber, Vay. 36

"What mean

the 'thrones' (Dan. 7

) ?

One day God
sits

will be seated,

and the angels

will give thrones
sit,

to the great ones of Israel that they too

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
,

^
'

1

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

seems, upon Isa.

14 13f where the
-, f.

1

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,

50, is quite impracticable.

THE SON OF MAN
"
:

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

cloud and dwell therein.'
to

"

l

As
with

Abbahu can be proved
Christians,

have come into

contact

most natural
to

to suppose that his statement

was meant

to refer

Jesus,

and was not an admonition,

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

be that the association of
fitted to

?

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

does not follow from

the statement that
for

son of

man " had become
is

a Jewish

name
Dan.

Messiah.

Moreover, no reference

made

to

7 13

It
of

may

the Kabbala in the Middle Ages, vol.

be noted that in the Zohar, the principal product iii. 144 a a dis,

tinction is
to iwg

drawn on one
,

occasion, with the help of a reference
nfioos,

"133,

Dan. 7 13 and Dn

Ezek. I 26 between the
,

"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

subsumed under the former.

the inferior stages of This may in some

way, no longer demonstrable by us, be historically connected with the doctrine of the Ophites, which gave to the primordial
light

the

name

of

ITpwro? "'AvOpwiros, and to
of

the

"Ewoia, which emanated from him, the name
1

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

wo?
in

1

av0p(t>irov.

Its genesis is doubtless to

be

found in Ezekiel's vision

of

the

royal
to

chariot, in

which

God appears
and
for

human
Jews
in

semblance,

which

a

welcome

parallel appeared for

in the heavenly BON 13 of Dan. 7 13 ,

Christians

the
"

self-designation
"

of
2

Jesus.

The
3

common
of

opinion that Paul

simply

adopted

his designation

Christ as o eV^aro? 'ASdfj, or o Sevrepos avOpwrros
is,

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.

the rabbinic theology

670

ff.,

and by

J.

Ehenferdius in Meuschen,
1048ff., to support
this

Nov. Testam. ex Talmude
idea,

illustr.

belong to the Middle Ages, and are influenced by the Kabbala. 4
It

may
13
;

be set

down

as our result, that the son of

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
;

an early period which used

was no
should
"

intrinsic hindrance to such a development.

Why
G

the son
title

Messianic
for

adapted than the Jewish name fcOjn, " the leprous,"
j

of

man "

be less

to

become a

the
"

Messiah, or Dipan
" nrinn,

the

7

place,"

for

Samaritan

He who
"

will

come

again," for the

God, or the Messiah 1
the Eabbis

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

5

From the

soon superseded

among the

6 7

See " Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

Messias," 36.

See above,

p.

231

f.

THE SON OF MAN

249

was to be expected,
formed Dan.
7.

solely

their

conception

of

on the condition that they had the Messiah principally from
"
so,

As they did not do
title.

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

A

" 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,
,
:

See the references in Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu

Der Menschen-

sohn, 5f. 2 Jesu Muttersprache, 95. 3 See also Gramra. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 77
lines 9, 12
4
;

f.,

and Aram. Dialektproben,

p. 18,

" Thou" was

p. 29, lines 7, 11,

13

f.

spirit of this

man
i.

also readily avoided "

;

cf.

the form of imprecation,

"may

the

expire
39.

!

e.g. j.

Bez. 14 b ,

and Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur

arab. Philologie,

250

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

possible for this purpose.
in question

would the simple K^:x ia be Any connection between the usage

to establish, in

and the self-designation of Jesus is all the harder view of the fact that at that time, as con1,
'JK

cluded above, under

and not PJK
that man,"
"
l

">?

was the common

term

for

"

man."
"
IrrtK,

The Hebrew BKn
do with the
&O33 sinn.
title

"

son of
2

man

as its

had just as litttle to Aramaic equivalent
"

Cremer
,

believes that the term

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

in the ancient Eabbinism,

and cannot be

verified

till

the Middle Ages.

This term im-

plies only that the discussion treats of the person whose

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

requires a special explanation.

4.

"SON OF MAN"

is

A SELF-APPELLATION OF JESUS USED

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.

According words and according to Hegesippus
;

Acts 7 66 Stephen at his martyrdom used the
(in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.
8 Worterbuch, 9G6.

1

See Ber. R. 36.

2

Bibl. Theol.

THE SON OF MAN
ii.

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

Jesus named o vibs TOV avOpwirov^
it

not even in Revelation, although
in allusion to

Dan.

7, of

one who
as

speaks on two occasions, resembles a son of man.
vlov

The

seer beholds

I 13 Jesus

ofMOiov

avdpooirov in
5- 6
,

a

picture which recalls not Dan. 7, but Dan. 10

and hence
where the

the term

must be borrowed from Dan. 10 16
"

-

18
,

narrative mysteriously speaks of

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.

Although the seer

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,

like the other

New
name

Testament writers, never uses
for Jesus.
,

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

expression, which Paul probably used here

for the first time,

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

did not really belong to Jesus either, and further, that
of

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

a

of Jesus

Himself are the cause.
the same
feeling,

It

is

probable that sub-

stantially
1

which to-day deters the Church
see

That there can be no question of borrowing from the rabbinic theology,

above, p. 247 f. 2 H. L. Oort,
(1893).

De uitdrucking

o

wos rov avOpuirov in het nieuwe Testament

THE SON OF MAN
from naming and invoking Jesus as have been active from the beginning.
"

253
the Son of man," will

The true reason
in the
self,

for the non-use of o vlos rov avOpcoTrov
is

Greek -speaking Church
title.
1

disclosed

by Lietzmann himIrenaeus, Origen,

through the instances he has given to illustrate the sense
Ignatius,

attached to the

Justin,

Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus,

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

side in the descent of Jesus.
1, this

the end of

interpretation of the

As observed at name is not sur-

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.

A

name

of this sort for Jesus

might,

Greek-speaking Church, be regarded from a dogmatic standpoint but it was not adapted for practhe
;

tical use.

5.

THE MEANING ATTACHED TO THE TITLE BY THE
SYNOPTISTS.

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

;

they seem to assume that the reader would

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

Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 69-80
Jesu, 1-3.

;

see also Appel,

Die Selbstbezeich

-

nung

254
lacks

THE WORDS OF JESUS

what even wild beasts possess

;

in

Mark and Luke,

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

"

such absolute power.

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
,

8

27
,

Luke
it

9

6

XpLaros
8 29
;

6 f/o? TOV 6eov TOV fwz^ro?,

for

o X/3KJTO?,
"

Mark
of

TOV
"
is it

XpicrTov TOV Oeov,
that

Luke
calls

9 20),

makes

clear

beyond

doubt

He who

Himself
ive,
i.e.

Son merely Son of God. 1

man

in reality the
is

correlat-

Peter has acquired this Even Jesus by calling Himself God.
clearly given

17 that emphasised 16 conviction not from men, but from

Hence

"

Son

of

man " had

him no

aid in

coming
"

to this conclusion.

When

Mark and Luke, even
they also can
majesty.
of

sooner than Matthew, represent Jesus

as using the self-appellation

Son
title

have seen in the

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
.

inferred from Dan. 7 13

Again, there

is

also present

an

in-

dication that

"

Son

of

man

"

refers to

the Messiah in His

estate of humiliation, in the account of

Matthew and Mark
the

concerning the unpardonable
Spirit.

blasphemy against
is

Holy

The primary form

of the utterance

seen in Mark,

who merely
1

28 against the Spirit which inspired Jesus, S '-.

contrasts blasphemy in general with blasphemy Luke 1 2 10 speaks
d. ueutest. Theol.
i.

Holtzmann, Lehrb.

257

f.,

rightly emphasises this.

THE SON OF MAN
of

255
of

blasphemy

of

the

"

Son

of

man " and

the

"

"

Spirit

;

Matt. 1 2 32
to another,
is

is similar,

but the statement to this

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

divine Spirit working through

man

Jesus

may

be forgiven

;

Invective against the blasphemy against the divine
it is

Him.

power inherent in
against God.

Him

is

unpardonable, because

blasphemy
"

Mark alone draws man " is lord even of
reasoning of

the inference, 2

m

,

that the

Son

of

the Sabbath, on the ground that the

Sabbath was instituted for the sake of men.

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

6

I/to?

TOV dvOpwirov in the acknowledgment of Jesus.

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

a matter of surprise, not that the " Son of

man "

should be

put to death, but that
heaven.

He

should come again on the clouds of

256

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

6.

THE SENSE ATTACHED BY JESUS TO THE TERM
OF MAN."

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

of the Synoptists, that, for their part, they

by the testiassume that

title consistently

bore one and the same sense.
itself,

Thus we
which we

are directed in the next place to the term

have to bring into comparison with the testimony borne by Jesus to His own personality.

The Greek

o

uto? rov avOpcowov, as understood by Greeks,
I<:1

would necessarily be traced to ^^5 But objections above, under 1).

?

^

n

Aramaic

(see

to the supposition that

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 "

in virtue of the scriptural expression of God's will concern-

ing Himself, adopted the expression from the Old Testament.

The only genuine Aramaic term which suggests
avOpcoTrov
is

o

f/o?

rov

KWM
term

"13.

This term,
"

we have

said under

l,did

not properly belong to the

Jews

as a

for

common language of the Palestinian man " it was characteristic rather of
;

the elevated diction of poetry and prophecy.
it

To the Jews

will

have been known purely as a

biblical word.

The
first

Jewish hearer will therefore have had recourse in the

place to Scripture for an explanation of the strange use of 13 on the lips of Jesus. And Scripture offered the KKJJK
like

Aramaic expression only in Dan. 7 13

^K

"Q3,

where

THE SON OF MAN
EJK
"13

257

denotes a definite personality, which, further, Jewish

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

mentioned, was to be brought

down on

the clouds of heaven

in order to be master of the world.

In the case of Jesus

How nothing resembling these circumstances was apparent. could one, who moved about on earth, come down from
heaven
?

A

transference thither

must

first

have

occurred
died or

before that could be accomplished.

One who had

who had been

translated from the earth, might perchance be

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,

and a second advent in majesty,

will probably

have discarded

the reference to Daniel as impossible, and henceforward have
If the words used regarded the designation as an enigma. " Jesus had been K$K *n ronn, this son of man," this would by

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

the other hand, no one would have enter-

tained the notion that
for this conception

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

took the self-designation.

This origin

is

258

THE WORDS OF JESUS
it

further confirmed by the fact that

was

also

from Daniel
God.

that

Jesus

adapted

the

idea

of

the

sovereignty of

Nothing requires us
never born as

Enoch, especially as the

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
;

J

that Jesus attached great importance to the intrinsic sense

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

"

The term acquires
it is
;

its

positive significance
"

from the
is

light in

placed by Daniel, and from what
title

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

the words of Jesus did not penetrate

these associations,
of Jesus failed to

there was a period

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

the term was an enigma

?

To

persons also

He

must, of course,

have intended the term
be that

convey some meaning.

Or can

it
?

He

never used

the term at all before such persons

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

there will have been an earnest desire to be accurately
;

informed as to the words and deeds of Jesus

but their suc-

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.

THE SON OF MAN

259
It can scarcely

"Son

of

man," cannot have been

definite.

be imagined that they should afterwards have had and had not cisely on what occasions Jesus
this expression.

known premade use of

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

12 8 but not in Matt. 5 11 10 33
,

;

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

where Matthew (16 21 ) omits
it, e.g.

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

before any company.

Thus the

first

case of its use, alike in
public.
,

Mark

10

(2

)

account of

and Luke (5 24 ), takes place in the same occasion, Mabt. 9 6

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
;

used in speaking to one time a follower of Jesus.

who wishes

to

become

for the first

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

A

purposely furnished them with a problem which stimulated reflection about His person, and gave such a
title

He

tendency to this reflection that the solution of the problem
fully revealed the

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

See Matt. 13 34,

perhaps be made to the supMark 4 s4
.

260
position that

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

God, and not man, had revealed to Peter the

Messianic dignity of Jesus, and also the injunction given in Mark and Luke against speaking to the people on the subject.

Thus Jesus cannot possibly have made Himself known as the
Messiah at a previous period in any fashion fully transparent
to the disciples.

All the instructions concerning this subject

which Matthew places earlier than the confession of Peter, must be relegated to the period following that confession
;

thus, above

all,

the exposition of the parable of the Tares in
~ 43
,

the Field, Matt. 13 36
"

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.

the future separation
death,
fact,
is

Jesus from the disciples,
through.

His

presupposed
first

Mark and Luke

do, in

place the

intimation of the advent of Jesus in

majesty subsequent to its necessary presupposition,
the confession of Peter
see

which

is

the open announcement of His death, and also subsequent to
;

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

to be a distinctively Messianic title.

THE SON OF MAN
This conjecture

261
if

may

be vindicated,

need

be, in
it.

view

of

the Synoptic testimonies, which

seem

to oppose

Prior to
i//o?

the confession of Peter,

Matthew

records the use of o

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
)

which Matthew has
'

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 )

and Matt. 12 8 (Mark 2 28 Luke
,

6 5 ).

really have the title placed before the Petrine con-

fession only three times.

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

where Jesus claims
sins,

for the

"

Son

of

man
24
),

Matt. 9

6

(Mark

2

10
,

Luke

5

the right to forgive has been pronounced

"

" 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

place, as a Messianic title,

Cf. p. 255.

Die Prcdigt Jesu

vom Reiche

Gottes, 57.

262
**??8 "?

THE WORDS OF JESUS
would hardly have been
;

intelligible for such

opponents

on

this occasion

and, besides,
J.

it is

a fact which ought to have

been familiar to

Weiss, that Judaism never, from Old

Testament times

to the present day, has

ventured to make
Still

any such assertion in regard to the Messiah.
it

less

does
8

signify anything important, that, according to
is

Matthew

(9

),

praise

given to

God because He had given such power

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

better reason, apparently,
is

may
of
,

be said that manis

kind in general

meant by the

"

Son

man," who

Lord

s 28 Sabbath, Matt. 12 (Mark 2

Luke

6 5 ), because in

that case, according to

Mark

2 27 the Sabbath has just pre,

viously been pronounced subservient to mankind.
;

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

applicable here, then the shortest form

is

to be

found in Luke,

who
2 27

gives us no occasion for thinking of mankind.

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
;

have in view the ordinary
also to be noted that

self -appellation
,

of Jesus.
cf.

It is

the saying Luke 6 5
ical

Mark

2 27 has
,

a fresh form of introduction

\ejev avrois, and

that

Matthew, by omitting it, brings the saying to notice very To all appearance the saying about the disconnectedly.
Lord
1

of the

Sabbath was an independent Logion which has

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
,

THE SON OF MAN

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,
;

but not that He, as Lord
of the
disciples.

had authorised the act

A
if

declaration of this nature would have been

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
"

had merely called Himself
period,
"

the Man," and then at a later
,

by combining and
"

this

with Dan. 7 13 had transformed

it

into a Messianic

designation.

Besides, the objection arises

that

Man "

Son

of
it

man "
would

are not traceable to the
also

same

Aramaic expression, and

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 ?

an admittedly permissible method of explaining these passages satisfactorily, would be either to
simpler and in
itself

A

change the embarrassing

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

could be held that the paragraph alluded to
the three Synoptists, includes within
it

common

to

the

allusion

to the

days when

the bridegroom shall be taken

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
not impossible, though
it

cannot be

re-

garded as absolutely certain, that Jesus never called Himself
the

Son

of

man "

prior to the Messianic confession of Peter,

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

derived from Dan. 7 13 for

Him who was
cance of the

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,

and thereby supplied the judges with a possible
precise determination of the sense attached

pretext for pronouncing a sentence of death.

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,

which led directly
title it

to

the selection of the Book

and the

contains for the future lord of the

world,

is

to

be found in

the fact that nowhere else

is

it

asserted so unreservedly that the inevitable mutations of all

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
.

From that God may bestow
Dan. 7 13
,

every heaven comes one like unto a son of

shatter

hostile

sovereignty, Dan.

man

in order

as a gift universal dominion
it is said,

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

Old Testament prophecy, were looking and a forcible appropriation
137
f.

2

acts

of

of the sove1.

Of. above, p.

2

See on this point Fund. Ideas, XI.

THE SON OF MAN
reign ty by their Messiah.

265
still

But there was

another reason
to

why

the

title

"

Son

of

man " was

specially appropriate

Jesus.

age in

His capacity as Kuler

The name Messiah denoted the Lord of the Messianic in reality it was applicable to
;

the person so predestinated only

when His enthronement had

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

include, but distinctly excluded self -aggrandisement.
"

But the
to receive

one like unto a son of
It

man

"

of

Dan. 7 13 has

still

the sovereignty.

was

possible that

he should also be one

who had undergone

suffering

disposition he is no user of " " but only a son of man

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

to this conception in the Eevelation of John,

which delights to speak of Christ as TO apviov, " the Lamb," which offered itself to be slain without gainsaying. There,
too,

the prominent idea
all

is

the defencelessness which leads

Him

to

endure

things which men, by the counsel of God, inflict

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

a

man

that

Thou

art mindful of him,

that

to be but little less

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

1

This view

excludf.

266

THE WORDS OF JESUS
to
all

and honour, makes b him Thy hands, and hast put
If

have dominion over the works
things under his feet the term be correct,
"
?

of

this

exposition of

it

follows

:

(1) that the sense attached
to

Him

alone,

and

is
;

Enoch and 2 Esdras
predicated of

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

(3) that the

meaning
its

suggested by the

title to

those

who

did not suspect

con-

nection with Dan. 7 was not unwarranted, because in any
case they too

must have concluded that Jesus disclaimed the
;

role of usurper

that at

first

by His own efforts (4) that it was possible the disciples were content with this conception,
;

and did not ask any further explanation from Jesus
that

(5)

the interpretation

put

upon the expression by the

Hellenistic Synoptists

in the narrower sense inexact,

and by the primitive Church, though was not erroneous in so far as

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

give currency to the

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

apocalyptic statement, rightly designate

Him

who comes with
Note.
of

the clouds of heaven.

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

God God " is
1

as deaf."

In Tosephta Bab.

k.

vii.

2,

the "eye of
is

in this case expressed
Landau,
Din

by

"

the eye that
Alt-

above

"

Of.

R

gegensinnigen

Worter im

und Neuhebr.

(1896).

THE SON OF MAN
(nai-^n
"

267
l

W)

says

:

but Mechilta Mishp. Nez. 15 " the eye that is beneath (m9E?SP
;

and Bab.

k.

79 b

l^y).

A

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.

In the same way Q^?
is

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).

means "cursing A blind man was
j.

of

parents,"

b.

Yeb.

101 a
toap,

called in Galilee &rnn:i
,

"the clear
Nnriap

seer," Ber. E. 30,

Peah 19 a

j.

Keth. 34 b or also
,

fcoaa,

"the

man whose

eyes are opened,"

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
"
;

d

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

;

1

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

X.
1.

THE SON OF GOD.

THE SECOND PSALM IN JEWISH LITERATURE.
is

The second Psalm
biblical
"

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.

In Ps. 2 7 the king of Zion,
of in v. 5 as

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,

the psalm deduces from the

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
-

which the firstborn

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

said at the end

"
:

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

appease the king.

And when

the people go to
:

render a song of praise to the king, he says to them
1

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."

THE SON OF GOD
to
as,

269
say
it

me

that ye would sing praise

?

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

in each of the three divisions

Scripture

in the

Law

Ex.

4 22

(" Israel

is
,

my

son,

my

13 firstborn"), in the Prophets Isa. 5 2

and 42 1 and in the
.

1 2 7 Dan. 7 13 2 Judging by the Hagiographa Ps. citation from the Pentateuch, it appears as if Israel were
,

HO

meant throughout. The Messianic interpretation
so frequently as

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

the psalm was

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,"
.

.

reference to the Messiah as

"

His (God's) Anointed," which

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
"

THE WOKDS OF JESUS
I

and

My

derived from Ps. 89

m

Son

"

might

also, for

that matter, be

.

Among

the earlier sections of the Apoc. of Baruch, chap.

2729
to

did not originally mention the Messiah.

The name

3 occurs, indeed, in 29

and 30 1

;

but in 29

become manifest," and 30 1 says that

He only "begins "He comes again."
3

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&)

;

but the whole verse

may

E. H. Charles on the passage. 32 just as in Apoc. of Bar. (Syr. KIWD) appears in 12

possibly be a gloss see In 2 Esdras " the Messiah "

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

Mine anointed Son

"

na,

"My

32 Son," 13

-

37 52
-

14 9
7,

.

In

this vision

there occur

references to

Dan.

2,

Dan.

and

Isa.

II 4

.

The stone cut

out without hands, Dan.

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,
,

;

cation implies the influence of Ps. 2 in this passage.
this influence is not clearly

Still

marked.

There

is,

however, an indubitable reference to Ps. 2 in
, ;

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.

In this book, however, the Messiah "Son of God."
1
,

not referred to as

This depends, according to 18 6 upon the Hebr. m?v n^p, "the Anointed
.

of the Lord," as does also XptaToO Kvplov, 18 8

THE SON OF GOD

271

Later Jewish literature affords in a Baraitha given in b. Sukk. 52 a an earlier witness for the Messianic interpretation
of Ps. 2.

In this case vv. 7 and

8

are attributed to Messiah,

Son
'

of David.
(c.

More
1

recent

is

the saying of Yonathan ben
it

Eleazar

240):

"of three persons
?

is

said in Scripture,

Ask

'
!

Who

are they

Solomon and Ahaz and the King
reference
27
it

Messiah."

For the

last,

is

then made to Ps.

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

directed against the exposition mainIt runs thus
"
:

From

this verse (Ps. 2 7 )

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

son/ like a servant to
'

whom

his lord vouch-

safes
(n32J

encouragement, saying to him, 8 In an addition to the saying of TJ fc32no).
"

I love thee as

my

son'!" 2

Huna

about

the sufferings of Messiah, which appears in the sources mentioned, the
"

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

"

with the Messiah, having clearly had Ps. 2 in
that as time passed the Christian ex-

view.

One may assume
1

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.

2

So, too, the

Targum

ed. Constantinople, 1512,

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.

in preparing his edition of the

Midrash Tehillim (Wilna,

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.
;

4

see

my treatise,

272
position of Ps. 2

THE WORDS OF JESUS

became a deterrent

to its

common

use by

the synagogue.

But even

for the earlier period it

must be

recognised as certain that Ps. 2
in the

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

never developed by Jewish literature in Messiah.
It is a peculiar

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).

from such expressions.
people
Israel, it is still

If

Ps. 2

and

Ps.

89

refer to
is

the

a special relation to

God

that

thereby

asserted, the originator of this relationship being God,

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

"

in a figurative sense, there
to interpret it otherwise

being no incentive in this connection than was usual elsewhere.

The language used by

Israel
1

recalls

that of Assyria.

When

Asshurbanipal
himself
"

in his

Annals, according to the inscripof

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

Schrader, Keilinschriftl. Bibliothek,

ii.

152

f.

THE SON OF GOD

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
"

was exultation in heaven
'

;
'

we have begotten him
us.'

;

the goddesses said,

the gods said, he went forth

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

filius Isidis et Osiris," vib?

rov

'HXiov,

2

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-

true, called himself

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

among the gods," his now taken to be a Divus.

father

by adoption

A. Erman, Agypten, 90
E. Beurlier,

f.

[Eng.

tr.

'<].

2

De

divinis honoribus qiros acceperunt Alexander et successores

ejus (1890), 47, 59. 3 Corp. Inscr. Grsec. 4697.
4

E. Beurlier, Essai sur le culte rendu aux Emperenrs Remains (1890), 10,
See, e.g.,

37

f.

5

Wadd.

2075, 2076, 2380, 2585, 2598; Corp. Inscr. Gra>c. 2176,

2177.
6
7

See de Vogiie, 15, 16.

8 9
10

Ag. Urkunden Ibid. 174, 543

a. d.
;

kgl.

Mns. Berlin (Greek), 628.
1476.

Wadd.

Cf. Beurlier, Essai, 13, 15.

In opposition to Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 166

f.

[Eng.

tr. p.

166

f.].

18

274

THE WORDS OF JESUS

2.

THE TITLE "SON OF GOD" AS APPLIED TO JESUS BY OTHER
PERSONS.

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-

Wo? TOV Beov TOV

ZWVTOS).

rbv XpiaTov TOV 6eov, and

Mark

20 Luke, however, has (9 ) 29 (8 ) has merely 6 Xpio-ros.

As

the

name

o

Xpurros

is

the one which

expect in the mouth of a

Jew

at that period,

we should naturally we must regard

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

had shown Himself
it is

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

;

because the words, as given by

Luke (22 66 ),

XpiaTos, or perhaps 6 Xpio-Tos TOV ev\oyr)Tov,

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
,

thou art the Son

of

God."

chosen Christ 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

See on the same point, pp. 183, 196, 200, 291.

On

this point see

XL

2.

THE SON OF GOD

275

makes the confession
the

after the death of Jesus that
<9eoO,

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?).

as regards the instances just named,

it is

uniform in

testify-

ing that the demoniacs named Jesus 8 29

"

the Son of God," Matt.
.

(Mark

57

,

Luke 8 28 ), Mark 3 n Luke 4 41
, ,

It is evident, o 1^09

41 however, from Luke 4 that the evangelist here regards

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

be substituted for the

uncommon

o vlbs rov

It

is

narrative should, without reserve,
title

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
-

which the words
ously refer.

of Satan,

"

if

thou art the Son of God," obvi-

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.

The voice from heaven

Unnoticed

and

I

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

natural birth of Jesus.

We

are not here called to consider

276

THE WORDS OF JESUS
first

the historical value of the narrative in Luke's

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

the more surely as a means of ascertaining the evangelist's
interpretation of the idea vibs TOV 6eov.
of

own

The second

saying
relation

the

angel

cannot in any case be
notions.

with

common
virgin
;

popular people never expected the Messiah to be born of a
is

Jewish

brought into For the Jewish

and no trace

to be

found among the Jews of any

Messianic application of Isaiah's words (7 14) concerning the as some have virgin's son, from which by any possibility

maintained

the whole account of the miraculous birth of
its origin.

Jesus could have derived

3.

THE DIVINE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM AND THE
TRANSFIGURATION.

" 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.

o

K\e\evfjL6vos

There
3 17

added,
ev

Mark

22 (Luke 3 ),

ev o-ol evSofcrja-a (Matt.
et9

17 5

&

evSotcrjaa,

2 Pet.

I 17

ov

eyco

evSo/cTjcra,).

Luke 3 22 which
fji,ov

i

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

8

to be the parent of both forms of the

Lucan text and adopted
side
1

into his text.

Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, Hser.

The gospel of the 30, had both forms
6 Hebrews, Jerome

by

side.

4

In

the

gospel of

the

2

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,

Evangelium secundum Lucam Nov. Test. Suppl. 75.

(1897), xxxvii.
8

f.,

14.
Isa.

See Jerome ou

II 4

.

THE SON OF GOD
read
"
:

277
in sempi-

tu es

filius

meus primogenitus, qui regnas

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

The second, which

is

,

1

baptized.

But

this reading

may equally well have

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.

the form in which
IJLOV

is

reproduced

3

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.

M

with

"
;

winn^n NTOb
I

*ay,

my

cf.

servant, the anointed, in whom The bestowal of the 4 1 8 44 L 2

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

God was now being
1

fulfilled.

case

iral^ IJLOV in

2

Proposed by Conybeare, Jew. Quart. Eev. ix. 463. Prov. 3 12 sounds similar: the Lord loveth,

"Whom
d

He

as a father the son in

whom
:

he delighteth

"

reproveth

;

even
is

(n^T

j?

nx
di>

2x51).

The LXX, how-

8 ever, renders (cf. Heb. 12 ) /naa-nyol no reference to the gift of the Spirit.

Trdvra vlbv

Trapad^x^ai, and there

3

The

LXX

has

:

'Ia/ccb/3
i]

6 TTCUS

[JLOV,

ai>Ti\ri[Ji,\{/o/j.ai

atirov' 'I<rpaT)\ 6 ^/:Xe/cr6s
IJ.QV

fiov, Trpocredtt-aro

avrbv

faxf] V-oV ^Sw/ca rb irvevpa.

tir

ai>T6i>,

Kplcriv rots

278
Isa.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

42 1

,

which stands
to
26

for

the Hebr. 'TO,
child."

"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

to the opposition of the

Jewish authorities against

"

TOV a^iov

aov iroLoa
to

The 'Irjaovv, ov e%picras" as also in v. 30 and in 3 13 Jesus,
by
"
*a,

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

"

child," despite the fact that 9
to David.

2

(cf.

Acts 4 25 )
is

contains the

same term applied
twice has
9

This meaning

unmistakable in Clement of Kome, whose letter to the Corinthians,
7rat8o9
<rov.

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

obviously necessary, and

an allusion

the

voice

at the

Baptism and Transfiguration cannot be doubted.
o
[Ji,ovo<yevr)<$

See also

Trat?,

Clem. Alex., Strom,
does the

vii.

1.

Not
and
u/09

less clearly

Wisdom

of

Solomon 3

treat Trafc

as

equivalent.

The righteous man who names
,

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

1

the Palestinian
Ber. 8 C
6*.
2

;

j.

,

and the Palestinian recension

of the Prayer,

" Messianische

Textc,"
to this

No.

In

itself

and in another environment there would be no objection

designation; see 52 13 Zech. 3 8
,
.

Nnvp

^ny,

"My

Servant the Messiah," in Targ.

Isa.

42 1 43 10

3

See

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

Messias," 31.

THE SON OF GOD
2 13 and 2 18

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.

author must necessarily

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,

then these chapters were the work of a Hellenist
in the style of the

who wrote

Greek

Bible.

The same confusion

of Tra*?

and v to? cannot be asserted

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

original designation of Jesus as d vlos pov,

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
,

extension on the lines not only of Ps. 2

but also of

Isa.

42 1

tending to

make the

sense of the shorter phrase clearer, and

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

the text was originally present in the account of the

Transfiguration.

On

the

contrary,

the

utterance

at

the

Baptism has exercised an influence on that at the Trans1

2

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS
even the present text of Matthew indicates by
ev
aj

adopting in
as
to

17 5 the supplement

evSotcrjaa.

In these circumstances there

is

no occasion for inquiry

words

the Aramaic original. translation of the divine the Baptism) based on the Greek of Mark would (at
:

A

have to be

"=1J

'^WiK U^n
at

i

na m.

The
divine

first

conclusion to be drawn from the tenor of the
the

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

the world proclaimed

Him

to be.

Hence
divine
such, but

it is

clear that the voice is intended to signify the

good pleasure, not towards the person of Jesus as towards Him as the agent of a special mission.
is

This view

" obviously presupposed by the injunction, hear

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

Prophet who was to be raised up

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

Jesus never applied to Himself the

"

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

"

Father, in the use of which

manifested for the designation of He never includes

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.

THE SON OF GOD
9

281
But

(6

)

that the words are

:

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.
"

also follows in other passages " " "

from the invariable separation
2

between

my

Father

and

your Father."

What
to

Himself

Jesus understands by the filial relationship peculiar is perceived with special distinctness from the
- 19
).

parable of the Vineyard let out to
1 - 12 Luke 20 9 (Mark 12
,

46 Husbandmen, Matt. 21 33 Here He sharply distinguishes

~

the only
servants.

"

son

"

as the sole heir from the whole series of
1 2 6 calls this son
;

Mark

va vlov ayaTrrjrov

;

Luke

20

13

rov vlov fiov rov aya7rrjrov

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

3

The position

of the only son

in these cases

as in Ps. 2, regarded as a lawful standing

which confers a
In the case
of

right to claim the entire household property.

the Son of

God

the reference can only be to the sovereignty
to such a sovereignty as

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

A

,

whether the kings
1

of the earth exact tribute
i.

from their own

Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol.

have spoken as in Luke II 4 of
jj.a.Ta,

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

sin"; Onk. ^in jy^ pny,

pardon now
-

my guilt."

See above, p. 190.

282
;

THE WOKDS OF JESUS and the thought
is,

that as this

is

quite unusual, even

so the heavenly King, God, will not exact tribute

from His

The question whether the tax was being paid had been asked with reference to Jesus only, and therefore the stateSon.

ment which followed cannot further include Peter than

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.

should also include in this connection Matt. 22 2
10 12
-

;

vv. 8

-

,

so far as the contents themselves are concerned,

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

Son does not enter
account.

into the supper, this feature

may

be con-

sidered as a later addition, and need not here be taken into
" According to the foregoing, the Son means for Jesus the heir to the throne of God, who as such occupies a unique Of course the heir to the throne after coming into position.
"

possession,
of

may

well enough entrust to others the authority
,

28 Luke 22 29f -),2 but they do not government (Matt. 19 Their dignity remains ever thereby become what He is.

dependent upon His.
primarily pertains to

They have

in a derivative sense

what

Him

alone.

He

receives the sovereignty

because
the Son.

He

is

the Son, they because they are followers of

A
Trar/309

different scope is given to

the

filial

relationship
VTTO
6

of

Jesus to

God

in

Matt. II 27 Travia

poi,

TrapeSoOrj
firj

rov

fJiov, /cat

ouSet? im<yivu>(JK,i rov vlov el
rt?
eiriyivtoo-Kei
el
/Jbrj

irartfp,

ovSe

rov rrarepa

6

mo?

/cal

w

eav

3 pov\7]rai 6 vlos aTrofcaXvtycu.
1

The

parallel in
2

Luke (10 22 )
1

See above, p. 118.

See above, p. 134.
to

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.

3

THE SON OF GOD
as given in the

283

common

text has only insignificant deviations.

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/)

-

-

:

repetition of ovSels yivcaaKeL).

In the

last part of

the verse

Justin and Marcion read
/cal

:

ov&els eyvw TOV iraTepa
teal &>

el prj 6

TOV vlov

el

fir;

6

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
"

which an adequate consciousness
"

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

the most natural,

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.

The two clauses referring
of the

to the

knowledge the Son must therefore be taken together, and not independently expounded.

of the

Son by the Father and

Father by

They

really constitute a detailed Oriental

mode
But

of expressing the reciprocity of intimate understanding. 1

in this case of

mutual understanding,

its

thoroughness
stands in so

and absolute

infallibility are assumed.

He who

uniquely close a relation to
of the kind,

God

is

the only possible mediator
reliable

and

also at the

same time the absolutely

revealer of the whole wealth of the divine mysteries.

The phraseology
in a figurative sense.

will thus

have been originally intended

But that which holds botween father

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

one that cannot

be
1

transmitted
Cf.
j.

to

others

be subject to change.
\h*b nio

His

E. h. S. 5S b
i.e.

pW)

nto

pW, "these agree with those

and those with these,"

they mutually agree.

284
disciples,

THE WORDS OF JESUS
indeed,
of
is

through
that

His means attain
a

to

the

same
1

knowledge
knowledge

God

He

Himself possessed.

But then
His

derived

through

medium, while
it

is

acquired by direct intuition. As regards the Aramaic to be presupposed here,

will be

more

satisfactory to change irapeBoOrj into the active voice.

It is possible, indeed,

even in Palestinian Aramaic to connect
jp,

the subject in question with the passive voice through
1

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."

2

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
:

text, as the participle

JttJ

be used.

The transposition

and the perfect JJT. would have to of Father and Son in Justin's

text involves the advantage of an easier transition from the
first

clause of

the verse to the second, but also the disad-

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.

"I do not know
Kin no,
biblical

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^

;

m

men who know

others by face yet not

by name."

THE SON OF GOD

285

ana n?
(a) 1
21
),

Since irdvra refers back to ravro, (Matt. II 25
"
all these things,"

,

Luke
raura

jinb,

might be better than t6b.
"
pSJ,
:

might perhaps be replaced by K^p
these words).
(c)

(&)

Variants in Luke
:

these things (literally Kin |, K2K sin jp.

"

am

Variants in

Matthew and Luke

a

HK^ji

*m Wi

|i.

So

far,

we have

encountered nothing to

show what idea

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

holds for His

own

the claim to the sovereignty of the world,

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

the question which Jesus asked the scribes, Matt.
35 - 37
,

22 41"46

(Mark 12

Luke 20

41 ~ 44
),

about the meaning of Ps.

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

should be called a son of David, whereas in Matthew Jesus
Pharisees to say that, from their point of The aim in either case view, the Messiah is a son of David.
first

causes

the

is

the same

to

awaken

reflection in regard to the descent

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

in the least be strange that the

Messiah should be greater than David.
did not, in fact, require any instruction.
1

On that point they Justin Martyr 1 says

Dial,

cum Tryph.

33, 83.

286
that the

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Jews

of his time applied Ps.

110

to

Hezeldah

;

so it

appeared to
his Lord. 1

them
There
"

possible that David should call this king
is
2

something artificial in recent attempts to reduce the thought of Jesus to a mere suggestion that
"

son of David

was altogether unsuitable

as a title for

him

to whom An unbiassed

David had shown deference by

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,

more exalted than David, that
was conscious
of

the Son of God.

And

in

that idea there was essentially nothing extravagant.

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
;

position, that the

human

factors concerned fell entirely into
to Jer. I 5
,

the background.

The prophet Jeremiah, according

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

Jesus, conscious of being the servant of the Lord
predicted, not have

Himself?

Only

it

had a similar consciousness in regard to would be natural that He, being "the

Son," as distinguished from all servants, should presuppose,

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
;
.

on Ps. 110 cannot be observed.

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.

THE SON OF GOD
the sublimity of which
past,

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,

who has been bestowed upon
power
of

the world by the supernatural

God.
find that Jesus called Himself the

Nowhere do we

Son

of

God

in

such a sense as to suggest a merely religious and

ethical relation to God,

possessed, or
to acquire.

which they were capable

a relation which others also actually of attaining or destined

We

have not taken into consideration

in this connection

the saying in regard to the Son's ignorance of the date of the
36 32 (Mark 13 ), on which see p. 194. redemption, Matt. 24 It may, however, be remarked that Zech. 14 7 and Ps. Sol.

17 23

also represent

that

only

God knows
24

the time of the

redemption.
the day

The Targ.

Eccl. 7

when

the Anointed

affirms that the mystery of King comes (Nf?P ^"1 D ^

H

NHTO)
A.D.)

is

kept secret from men.
4

Simeon ben Lakish
of

(c.

260

explained Isa. 63 with the words l "in
:

"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

made The command

(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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

5.

THE SENSE ATTACHED BY THE SYNOPTISTS TO THE TITLE

"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

will always be inclined to under-

stand 6

uf'o?

TOV Oeov in the most exact literal sense, whereas

the Israelite would only accept this idea through the constraint of

some

special reason.
,

As

regards Matthew, refer-

ence

may
64
,

be made to 16 16 where

o vibs

TOV Oeov TOV
;

JaWo?
26 63
,

points back to TOV vlov TOV avOpcoirov in
cf. v.

v. 13

further, to

where

o

vlbs
;

likewise contrasted
of Jesus, which,

TOV avOpcoTrov and 6 vlbs TOV Oeov are but specially to the narrative of the birth

even without explicit reference thereto, forms

the commentary to the testimony of the divine voice at the
35 regards Luke, the words of the angel, I explain for the readers the meaning of o v 09 TOV Oeov by ex-

Baptism (3

17

).

As

,

press reference to the unique nature of the birth of Jesus.

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,"

Luke 2 49 where TOV
,
,
-

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

with Son of man.

As Mark
of

1

gives no history of the birth,

but in

its

place at the beginning of his Gospel narrates the
Jesus,
"

spiritual

endowment
for

represent

him 2 the

latter will accordingly " In his of the Son. generation
62
,

the

account of the condemnation of Jesus, 1 4 61>
1

he, too, has
I
1

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

The ancient reading

they "narrate the act of God, through which

He

adopted Jesus,"

CHRIST
in

289
"

antithesis

the

"

Son

of

the

Blessed

and the

"

Son

of

man."

The Hellenistic explanation
view
of the ideas expressed

of

o vlbs rov Oeov cannot, in

by Jesus Himself, be pronounced
essential difference in

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

thought in their case

is

Greek

;

that of Jesus

Semitic.

XL
1.

CHEIST.

THE TERM IN JEWISH USAGE.
(a) Derivation

and Form.
mentioned in
is

If the anointed of the Lord,

Ps. 2 2 be taken
,

as a personification of Israel,

1

there

then no Old Testament

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

calling the promised

King

"

the Anointed of the

Lord."

The
Ps.

oldest

2

is

witness for the Messianic interpretation of the Psalter of Solomon (17); see above, p. 270.

There, too,

we

find (v. 36

;

cf.

the Prince of Salvation as
will accordingly

"

) the earliest designation of the Anointed of the Lord," which
-

1 86

8

have

Ps. 2 as its source.

It is quite likely

that other Scripture

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.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Anointed,"
Ps.
13
.

18 51
Still

20 7

28 8

1
;

cf.

1

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

by the Messianic petition in the Babylonian

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

the horn of David to bud

:

I

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

wiya* ^nay -mb np - .- 'v'v -T:
:

-

SB Cjaa sja >pin nniovnai ^^PD n^a T
:

-:

'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.

840 (Shemuel bar Nachmani,

c.

260).

On Ps.

110, see above,

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 ;
;

L. Landshuth, Siddur hegyon leb, 65

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,
'
'

.

8

4

Baer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 111. See "Messianische Texte," No. 7;

cf.

Baer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 108;

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

forth of an horn for
of a

David Thy

servant,

and the ordaining
"
!

lamp
on
Ps.

for the son of Jesse
,

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

passage, on the ground of

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

which at once recommended
title,

itself

the solemn

synonym

often used for the royal
to

God; and

it

was

all

and indicating the King's relation the more convenient because the
Of him, therefore, Aram. "^ NH^'p,

divine appointment and recognition formed the vital element

in the case of the expected King.

it

would
Jhvh's

become usual
Anointed."

to speak as njiT n'^p,
1

"

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

the basis of the Greek transliteration which
I 42

John

4 25

.

The peculiar form Mecrvtas with
4

doubled sibilant, I have formerly

sought to explain through

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?,

A

which
1

is

intrinsically

more accurate, though rarely found.

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.

Aram. 124, Note 3

;

cf.

261,

Note

1.

292
The
full

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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
-

"

,

.

The abbreviated form
found
first

apart from the
-

New

Testament

is

in

2 Esdr. 7 28f 12 32

.

This was the form which

became

usual in the

mouth

of the

common

people.

Later Jewish literature has the full

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

The prayer beginning " let Thine anointed draw near."

4 7 2 iWBfc, Targ. Zech. 4 10 Ps. 2 20 7 2 contains the form *lTO'b 335, 'r6g 3^
;
,
.

article, that the

Eabbis also sometimes use
of a proper

nw

without the

article in the

manner

name.

This, indeed, is the

usual practice in

the Babylonian Talmud when rvtyp is not subordinated by the syntax to any other word, n^b, with;

out accompaniment, occurs Sukk. 52 b

Sanh. 93 b 96 b 97 a 98 a
, , ,
;

99

a
;

8o b

;

even in Aramaic n^b,Erub. 43 Ab. z. 2 b Sanh. 93 b 96 b 98 a 99 a
;

b

Yoma 19 b
;

;

Bab. mez.

,

,

,

so that

we have even
,

TOb
said
:

\j

"the years

of

Messiah,"
b.

b.

Sanh. 9 8 b and a^an
.

n'Btoi,

the sorrow of Messiah,"
rPBto,

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
-

;

and arising from this designation in
;

'Ir)<rov$ 6

Matt.
5

27 17

22

also in Xpto-ris
6 X/>rr6s.

jetfptoj,

Luke 2 11

,

besides

Mark

\y6jj.evos X/ucrros, 9 41 , Luke 23 2 .

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
;

"the sorrow of the Messiah," b 51 a cf. Mechilta, ed. Fr. 50
,

b.

b.

Sabb.

118 a

;

;

n'Bfefctf

tof, "the name

of the

Messiah,"
of

b.

Pes. 5 a

;

cf.

Ber. E. 1
;

;

n^
iin,

1mi,

the spirit

the Messiah," Ber. E. 2

n'Bfe&tf
.

the Messiah," Mechilta, ed. Fr. 56 b

the generation of Nevertheless, the Baby-

lonian custom of using ^T^r as a proper

name

is

incapable of

being verified in regard

to

Palestine.

It cannot, therefore,

be regarded as old, or as having had a determining influence on Christian phraseology.

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
,

;

;

,

,

Kings 4 6 For "1
1
12
.

43

,

Isa. 9 6

10 27 II 1

-

6

14 29
1

,

Jer.

33 13 Mic.
,

5 2 , Zech.

KiVBto, see above.
Isa.

KIVB'O

v^
52
1S
,

my

ser vant, the
;

anointed," occurs Targ.

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
;

;

Krppb, "the anointed son of David," Hos.
of

(V?fc

KiWi, "the anointed
Venice,
alone, see also Sot. ix.

righteousness," Jer.

23 5 33 15
For

(ed.

1517; but ed. Venice, 1525,
15
;

;pw Wb).
.

KWb

j.

Kil.

32 b

In the younger Tar-

gums,

as

also in

the Palestinian Midrash and Talmud, the

fuller title, KjTBfc Kate,

should not, as

is

iw>n *jte,i predominates. This the case, be translated by " the generally

Hebr.

King Messiah," because
as proper names.

Knw

In later

and iWbn are clearly not meant Jewish Aramaic, a title is regularly

placed after the proper

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

anointed," in the Litany

"p

Kapnn

;

K^3

"
|nv,

the Prince
to

Judan,"

Taan. 65

a
.

"King Messiah" would have
.

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.

3

Hebrew and Aramaic admit the inverted order E. Kautzsch, Gramm. d. bibl. Aram. 149 f. Seder Rab Amram, ii. 19 b f.
Biblical
;

;

see Konig, op. cit.

294

THE WORDS OF JESUS
"

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.
-

For NTO? */>, see
10 17
-

also Targ. Jerus.

Gen. 3 15 35 21 49 1
;

,

Ex.
15

40, Num.
49 10 n
-

24 20
42
,

-

24
,

Deut. 25 19 30 4
26

Targ. Jerus. II. Gen. 3

12
,

Ex. 12
,

Num. II
,

24

7
,

Targ.
8

Cant.
-

I

8

7

14

8
.

1- *
*,

Euth
17

I1

3 15 Eccl. I 11 7 24 Ps. 21 2

-

45 3 61 7

9

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.
;

A

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
, ,

b 163 a Messiah, Pes. Eabb. 162

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.
.

,

also to Israel, ibid.

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"

The name KTOO
term selected
is

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.

2

Jew. Quart. Rev.

153;

Yalk. Machiri (ed. Spira, 1894) on

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

belonged to a special circle of the servants of God, their

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.

45 1 and the Patriarchs,
,

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

should be noted that at the time the Jews

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

specially observed that the

"

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

and never the Messiah; and no similar
Failure to observe this
distorted pronouncements on the statements

agency

ever ascribed to the latter.

has led to

many

and the

silence of the prophetic

and apocalyptic writers in

regard to the Messiah.

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
:

1

II

Messia secondo

gli Ebrei, 164.

296

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

of the king, the vital

73

Enoch

i.

(1-36) and

v.

(91-104), the Slavonic
1

Enoch, Ass.

Mosis, Book

of Jubilees,

certain sections of the

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

cient to recognise that there
course, his character

It was suffiapprehension existed as to his nature. As a matter of is a Messiah.

and government are appropriate
passive part of this
iv.

to the

age of salvation.
the Messiah in

A
is

kind

is

ascribed to

Enoch

(83-90), in the passage Bar. Apoc.

29

3

30

1
,

which

and in 2 Esdras 7 2sf>

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

1

How

W. Singer, Das Bucli

hensible.
-

See "Messianische Texte," No.

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
;

whereas the Messiah

x

petition, is Israel's

Eedeemer

('N^b* ^ia).
of

On

the other hand, the

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

redemption is assigned to which says that the king

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?
,

ryap o-waei TOV
is of

\aov avrov

CLTTO
:

rwv a^apTLMV

avrcov.

But
n

it
.

God

that Ps.
shall

130

8

says
Israel
still

Wfoty ifcp fcnb*

^

W. wn

"

and

He

redeem

from

all his iniquities."

As

the earlier view

persisted, there

was therefore at
;

the time in question a twofold conception of the Messiah
one, more

closely attached to ancient prophecy, which regarded the Messiah merely as the Prince of the redeemed people the
;

other, recently developed,

which took the Messiah himself

to

be the redeemer.
character.

In neither case was he merely a political Jews with purely secular interests would hardly

have concerned themselves, in that age any more than now,
with the Messianic hopes.
1

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

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

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

Psalter of Solomon, the Testament of the

Twelve Patriarchs, and in Enoch

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

the end of the world.

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.

not in the right condition required
3

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

by the Law; the "practice of deeds of love" exceeds what
Law.

is

prescribed

by

f;

{
CHRIST

\
299

who

strikes the

dominant note in the

religion.

His function

does not consist in being a moral example, in teaching right
conduct, or in being mediator of atonement, far less in being the giver of the divine Spirit but just in ruling over Israel
;

as a king according to the will of God.
to

But

this also applies

the Prince of salvation as he appears in Old Testament
It

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

a

new

Babbati.
the

On

the other hand, the doctrine, which arose in

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.

the Jewish ideas already reviewed, p. of various
l

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.

8

4
,

9>4 26 30 According to Ex. 25 there was shown to Moses on Sinai a model

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

supplemented by the exhibition

of models.

By

this

means

the object was secured that the structure fully conformed to
1

Jesu, 89

3 DogmengescMchte, i. 755 see also Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein ScMrer, Gesch. d. jud. Yolkes, ii. 423, 446.
; ;

300

THE WORDS OF JESUS
This case
,

the divine intention.

is

substantially the

same as
of the

that in 1 Chron. 28 llff> where David, appealing to a divine

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

fancies, but according to exact

A

sanctuary permanently existent in

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

world as the Law, the

Temple, Paradise, Hell, affirming a premundane existence in " warrant of their case, these are to be regarded neither as a

compensation against the damages which the possessions
religion

of

elements

might incur in the bitter struggle against the " l nor yet as bound up with the thought
;

hostile
of the

divine Omniscience

"which preordains history and
2

is

never
the

taken unawares by events."
discussions on these

Any
lies

one familiar with
is

topics in the Midrash

aware that

behind these utterances there

no more than a vague

notion that the most important elements for realising the world's chief end must have been provided from the first.

The actual production

of these things at

once would be better
of them.

calculated to secure the end than a

mere designing

The Jerusalem

of

the consummation

may

fitly

be said to

come from heaven, being

so majestically conceived that it

can never be the product of
golden streets must, of course,
bination of scriptural texts.

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

for instance, Isa. 9 1

GO 1 Zech. 14 7 mention the
,

appearance of a light in the Messianic age, it is said that

must be the
1

3 light of Gen. I

which was being kept
2

in

Thus

Saldensj/crger,
op.
cit.

Das Selbstbewusstsein

Jesu,

89.

2

Harnack,

CHRIST
store for the
pious, Ber. E. 3,

301
;

11

Pes. Eabb.

118 a 161 a
,

-

b

.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

found in the grape-juice of Paradise
Para-

and the primaeval monsters Leviathan and Behemoth.
dise lost

returns, bringing such things with
for the

it.

As
possible.

On

Messiah, two ways of regarding him were the one hand, he might be looked upon as
it

indispensable in the scheme of the world, so that
said that

could be

God had not
it

provision of

only, long ages ago, contemplated the a Messiah, but had actually created him. On

the

other hand,

was

also

possible

to

assume from the

wonderful manner of his advent, that he was not an ordinary As a matter of fact, the earlier rabbinism child of earth.

was content with holding, on the
existence
of

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

the more likely
7

if

he were

regarded as a return to earth of David
celestial
1

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
;
.

3

The Targuins do not go beyond

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.

See above, p. 178.
;

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

8

" 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

THE WORDS 0? JESUS
1

tudes of Enoch and in 2 [4] Esdr. 13, 14, excluding
least
it

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
;

been so well ordered that the divine scheme
should realise
itself

of the

world

without impediment.

The notion

of pre-existence is entirely absent in Ber. E. 2,3

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 "

Simeon ben Lakish

(c.

260), which applies
the world.
to the

Gen. I 2 to the

sovereignties," HtofO, of
to
;

word inn
"n^'n,

is

applied by him

Babylon
Crinj^

;

^rfc,

The Medes
;

to

the Greek dominion

the godless sovereignty

(Borne); ^rfbtf nn, the Messiah

the Messiah does not come.
of the co-operation of the

DVsn, repentance, failing which Edersheini 5 holds that the idea
;

4

Messiah in the work
,

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."
:

"

'

'

8

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
;

pre-existence of the Messiah. 4 The "Spirit of the Messiah"

is only referred to, because Isa. II was the instrument used for bringing the Messiah into connection with "the Spirit" of 2 Gen. I
.

2

5

The

Life

and Times of Jesus the Messiah,"

i.

178.

CHRIST

303

here indicated, or at least of a function of the Messiah in

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

markable that the words

Gen.

I2

should contain such

suggestions of the future history of the world.

2.

THE APPLICATION OF THE NAME
In Matt. 27 17
-

"

MESSIAH

"

TO JESUS.

22

Pilate

uses

X/OKTTO?.

That

is

the expression 'I^o-oi)? 6 not intended to mean " Jesus

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,
, .

heavenly head not either 'I^croO? Xpio-ros, as in Matt. I 1
its

which named
1

"
18
,

Jesus

"

merely, but
I 1 or else
,

-

Mark
.

the surname
"
30
,

o

X/KO-TO?, as in Matt.
"

II 2

It cannot,

by how-

ever, be supposed that during

His earthly

life

Jesus ever bore

the

title

Messiah

as a surname.
21
),

(Mark S
of

Luke

9

20 According to Matt. 1 6 His disciples were not allowed so to

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
,

where the judge
as

is

represented

obviously in reference to the indictment brought against Jesus

and His own averment
"

calling

Jesus ironically the

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

mistranslation of the Hebr. njrp
1

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

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

that a translator should have taken m.T to be a Messianic

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

also puts rcvpios alongside of
calls

X/9K7TO?,

and frequently in the Gospel
o X/OKTTO? /cvplov is

Jesus simply

The expression
2 26 );

indeed biblical, and

is

well suited to the revelation given to Simeon by the

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

The simple o It was from objection.
people.
in

2

X/MO-TO'? of

Mark

8 29

is

alone free

this

term that Jesus Himself used

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

and the additions

Luke

(rov Oeov)
dis-

in

Matthew

wo? TOV Oeov TOV fw^ro?) should be
p.

carded, as has already been demonstrated

274,

cf.

196.

And

if

the words w'o? TOV Oeov of the demoniacs, Matt. 8 29
57
o
,

(Mark

Luke

8 28 ),

Mark

3 11

,

Luke 4 41

,

are to be traced

back to

X/HO-TO?, as indicated on p. 275, this

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

,

1

See above, pp. 38

f.,

224.

2

See above, p. 291

f.

CHRIST

305

23 35 ), Luke 23 39
Jesus
is

.

In Matt. 27 40
of 6

-

43

wo 9

0eo

likewise depends

on the derisive use

Xp LOTTOS.
He
is

indirectly referred to as Messiah where

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.

THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE NAME
JESUS HIMSELF.

"

MESSIAH

"

BY

Meinhold
part

l

makes the statement that Jesus
"

for

His own

never desired to be
is

the Messiah of Israel, as the

character

depicted in Old Testament prophecy

and con-

sistently therewith was expected by the contemporaries of " He is not the Messiah, Jesus." Of Him it should be said 2
:

and did not desire

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

rejection of the prophetic

ideal of the

Messiah as understood by Jesus cannot come into

serious consideration.

No

weight, indeed, can be attached to

Mark

9 41 ,

where

Jesus speaks to His disciples of benevolence shown to them
eV QVQ^aTi
1

IJLOV

on, Xpicrrov

e'c7Te.

The words

OTI Xpicrrov
ff.

J. Meinhold, Jesus

und das Alte Testament

(1896), 98

2

Ibid. 101.

20

306

THE WORDS OF JESUS

eVre are here an unnecessary explanation of ev ovo

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|

L

"

with reference to me,"

"

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
.

8

Messiah, nor did
8 30

He

wish that others should make

Him known
is

in this capacity; see
,

Mark

I 34

20 41 (Luke 4 ), Matt. 16 (Mark

Luke

9 21 ),

cf.

Matt. 17 9 (Mark 9 9 ).

But

it

equally

certain that the Synoptic Gospels unanimously maintain that

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

The grounds they had

for this

in

the Gospels,

have been none other than those presented to us " Son of namely, (1) the self -designation
all

man "

chosen by Jesus, including

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
;

acknowledgment during the capital high priest and before Pilate.

trial

repeated before the
at the time an
it

As

for the first point,
title

"

Son

of

man " was

unusual

for

the Messiah, and for that reason

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.

See also above, p. 123. 3 See above, p. 297.

CHRIST

307

tion to offer to the scriptural teaching about the King, who,
1 according to Isa. II

-5
,

Mic. 5 2 Jer. 23 5 33 15 Zech. 9 9 should
, , ,

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

Servant of the Lord,

42 1 6 1 1

Luke 4 18ff -).
;

He

bore

witness to Himself as God's only Son and Heir

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);
, ,

and the one who

is

there indicated as
-,

King

of Sion, is in
-,

His

view the Messiah (Matt. 22 41ff

Mark 12 35ff

Luke 20 41ff -).
,

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,

of course, only another

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,

but in accord also with

Isa.

ll 1

'5
(cf.

2 Thess. 2 8 ).

In connection with the Messianic confession of Peter,

Matthew (16 17f< ) alone has added

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

acknowledgment made by Jesus before His
-

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

)

that at any rate before the

Sanhedrin Jesus set aside as fruitless their question whether
1

See above, p. 134

f.

308

THE WORDS OF JESUS
were the Messiah or not, and that only
to

He

a

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,

Xe^ere OTL lyco

upon

this admission

;

and

it

should not be said that, accordto reply to the question
1

ing to Luke, Jesus

was unable

whether

He

were

6 X/^O-TO?,

with a direct affirmative.

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.

Moreover, the amplifying narrative
as particularly faithful to the
" "

Luke cannot be reckoned

facts.

He

has omitted

blasphemy
is

as the ground of conintelligible for

demnation, and the situation
his

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,

which serves in Matthew as a transition

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

has simply jco obvious that there existed a tradition to
Since

Mark (14 62 )

the effect that the answer of Jesus was understood to be a
real affirmative.
1

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

any case an ordinary form

of assent, either in

Old Testa-

ment Hebrew

or in Greek. 1

But

in the Jewish literature
It
is

we

are not altogether without corresponding examples.
j.

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.

Bar Kappara had consequently insinuated
:

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

9 10 with the Babylonian dialect
,

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$,

"

I do not say so."
Still it is

He
"

dislikes to be the bearer of so sad news.

con-

fessedly only the context that gives its peculiar

ye say so

"

in

the case of Bar Kappara.
of

meaning to The context for
;

the utterance
will conclude
to

Jesus

is

not of

the same kind

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

2

is

inapplic-

But another Jewish

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

'

Bibl. Lit. xiii. (1894) 40-46.

"It

is

thy perverseness that

is

According to Thayer, <ri> eliras is equivalent to, expressed in thy question, although I cannot

resist it."

310

THE WORDS OF JESUS
hands and
feet.'

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

certainly doest well to be
priest's

ashamed

to say that
'

even the high

dog
'

is
'

more honourable than thou ?
'

Then Simeon spoke,
rnDN).
(iTrtajHJ),

saying,

Eabbi, thou hast said

it

(^l

Eliezer answered,

(I swear) by the temple service

would have had

even a high priest (had he dared to do such a thing) his head split with clubs whatever did you
;

do that the doorkeeper did not catch you

' '

?

Here

"}P^
is

means exactly
concession.
"

"

you are

right."

The expression obviously
of affirmation, but rather

not, strictly speaking, a
"
is

form

of

Thou

art right

also the

meaning
little

of a~v etTra?

from

the lips of Jesus.

It

was an

assent, but in a

form which

showed that Jesus attached but
statement.

importance to this

He

was, truly enough, the Messiah.

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

Jewish habit due to great

familiarity with the Bible, to give sometimes only partial
citations in

himself supply what remains, which

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

can be represented in Aramaic

CHEIST

311

by

:

KTO'B

m

JK

2

$:
is

-IB^I or

simply

KW'
:

n
;

and as no

inter-

rogative particle

used, the utterance could the more
fi"}&K
1

directly
ir\riv in "

be assented to by the words of Jesus

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.

Thus the other part
J)p

Jesus' reply

would be

Nrrvan w<t

nn; KB>JK

limn

Again,

it

is

merely a verbal change in
"

this expression
,

that occurs in the vision of Stephen, Acts 7 56

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.

A

Jewish

parallel,

though

less

strongly marked,

is

afforded in

what
world.
Ps.

is

said of

the seven classes of the pious in the future

At
,

16 11 we

the close of the reading, as given by Buber, Midr. " find which (of the seven classes) is the highest
:

and most excellent

?

It is that

hand

of
>

the Holy One, blessed be
it is

which stands at the right He (fe> few ^

mpW

n"apn) as

written, Zech.

43

'

one upon the right side of

the bowl,' and Ps. 1 6 11 'at thy right hand pleasures for everTo this are then appended the sayings of two more.'"

Amoraim whose names
names

are not given.

The second

of

them

as the highest class of the righteous in blessedness,

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

put the defendant upon oath.

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

overlooked this instance.
2 4 6

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

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Holy One, blessed be He

"
!

but according

Vay. E. 30, "those teachers of the Bible and

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

three Synoptists give as the reply of Jesus, crv Xeyew (Matt.

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
,
,

thyself the mouthpiece of
this of thyself
"
?

my

enemies
18
34
.

"
?

or else

"

sayest thou

as in

John

But even
:

in

John the
least

answer
is ait

of Jesus to Pilate's question

OVKOVV

/SacrtXei)? el crv ;

Xeyet?

on

put

ffv

TOVTO Xeyet?

Greek /3a<7tXeu? et/u. " ; for sayest thou

A

would at
this
"
?

have
crv

but not

Xe'ryet?.

But the

real sense intended here also

will rather

be that of an admission.
question of

To

this extent Jesus

meets the

His judge

;

any further communication

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

many Jews imagined

him, that Jesus

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

these appellations are

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

23 38 ), and certainly not because He had been
considered.

so

There
ledged as

is,

therefore,

no doubt that Jesus solemnly acknow-

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

;

and before the Sanhedrin

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

assertion of a Messianic rank could not, indeed, in

have straightway led to a death-sentence for Jesus.

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

from the duty
to

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

A

have been construed as

"

blasphemy."

Holtzmann

2

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.

he can determine who

is
i.

right or

wrong without inquiry.

2

Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol.

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

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

understood and were bound to understand His reference to
the Son of

man

sitting at

the right hand of
,

God, which

Jesus, according to Ps.

110

1

had applied

to Himself, in the

proper sense of the words, and not as a mere simile such as

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

;

priest pronounced a and he considered any further presenta-

tion of evidence as

superfluous, because the

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

on His own ad-

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.

The thoughts He entertained

,

and another very
1
' '

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

Trial of Jesus of Nazareth considered as a judicial act

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

Jewish feeling regarded as an invasion
ative
;

of the divine prerog-

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
,

2

10
,

Luke
5 41

5

24
),

the deaf ear to hear
,

3 to be clean (Matt. 8

Mark
Luke

I 41

,

(Mark V ), Luke 5 13 ), the dead
is
,

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

Master (Matt. 21 12f
divine Majesty,

Mark
27f
-).

H

entered into the temple as a
15ff
-,

Luke 19 45f -).

Clothed in

He

will in time return again (Matt.

24 30f

-,

Mark 13

26f
-,

Luke 21

And

in full agreement with this

the Sanhedrin. position comes the declaration of Jesus before He was the Messiah and desired to be so, but in a sense

which appeared blasphemous
temporary Judaism.

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.

The Messianic confession
proleptically,

of Peter will certainly be

meant

he

certainly

did

the
;

Messianic

sovereignty of Jesus actually realised at the time

and even

316

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the question of the high priest really inquired whether Jesus
believed Himself destined to

become the Messiah.

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.

Even the Eabbis

of a later date this

have no hesi-

tation in calling the Messiah

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

before His appear-

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

time before the

entrance upon the sovereignty is organically bound up with the period of Kingship. The future ruler is at the same

time

He

for the coming, not so

who, teaching, suffering, and dying, paved the way much of His own sovereignty, as for

that of God.
itself into

Thus the picture

of Israel's

Messiah transforms

that of the Eedeerner of mankind.

XII.

THE SON OF DAVID.

L THE JEWISH IDEA OF MESSIAH'S DAVIDIC ORIGIN.

Every
(see 2

Israelite held it for certain that the promise of

an

eternal sovereignty

had been given

to

the house of David

Sam. 7 16 ).

This promise forms the background of the

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

to the future of the people
Isa.
1

when

it
j

had pleased God
1

to

manifest that king,

55 3

,

Ps. 2.

89

but this resulted

See above, p. 268.

THE SON OF DAVID

317

ultimately in supplying fresh sustenance to the Messianic hope, In Ps. Sol. 17 23 we find for the first properly so called.

time wo? AaviS as a

title of

the Messiah, where the designascriptural expressions
*

tion is probably dependent

upon such
(Targ.
(i.e.

as

13, *6;,

5 "son, child/' Isa. 9

(Targ. 13, >:n)
P^)?
n
?,

root of Jesse," Isa.
of Jesse");
ni

II

10

W

*& nP, "the "son of the son
;

P?>

"branch"

Zech. 3 8 6 12
7 12 (Targ.
"

perhaps also ^O, " 2 Thereafter Tn TJ-JS, thy son ").
;

of David), Jer. 23 5 33 15 ; cf. " thy seed (David's)," 2 Sam.
J3 is

frequent in

Jewish literature as a
phrase
Sanh.

title

the son of David comes

of the Messiah, especially in the " The first re(K3 Tn |2).
(c.

presentatives of the expression are Gamaliel n.
b.

110

A.D.),

97

a
;

3

Yose ben Kisma
(c.

(c.

120),
d
;

b.
6

Sanh.

98 a

4
;

Yokhanan ben Torta
and Nechemya
are
cf. j.

130),

j.

Taan. 68
a
6
;

Juda ben

Ilai

named

b.

b. Sanh. 97 others of later date (c. 150), Sanh. 38 a 98 a b b. Erub. 43 b b. Yoma 10 a ;
-

,

;

;

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

(in rP3 n^fe).

The short form

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
, ;

12 that verse might well be the Messiah, see Zech. 6

-

ls
,

5 Targ. Isa. 53 .

3
4

Cf. Backer,

Agada

d.

Tann.

i.

97.
ii.

Ibid.

i.

402.

5

Ibid.

557.
(c.

6

Ibid. 222, 236.

See b. Ber. 48 b, where Eliezer ben Hyrcanus mention of tn n'3 nnfy? in the Blessing at meals.
7
8

120) already enjoins the

This applies specially to the Babyl. recension

;

cf.

"Mess. Texte," 7 a

-

b
.

318

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Messiah in Hos. 3 5 by the while the Targum on Canticles and also

Jer. 23. 33, to the Messiah, calls the

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.

30, represents to have been the Jewish expectation.

Though such was the
speaking of the

case, it does

not follow that, in

Messiah, his derivation from David should

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

possible that the prophecy in regard to the
fulfilled

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

widely diffused among the Jewish people.
" See " Aramaische Dialektproben, 12. Der Antichrist (1895), 65; see, however, "Der So still W. Bousset, der sterb. Messias, 6, 16, 20. ? 12 Only the Syriac version, 2 Esdr. 2 , mentions the Davidic descent.
1

2

leid.

u.

'

THE SON OF DAVID

319

2.

THE DAVIDIC DESCENT OF JESUS.

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

,

attribute of the Messiah.

It follows, consequently, that it

was
from

in no sense the question of derivation

from David that

caused

Him

to turn to the subject of the Messiah.

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
-

-,

,

the conjecture that

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

respect to the other
calling

passages,

it

has to

noted

Jesus

wo?

AaveiS, they virtually appealed to
it

Him

as

"

Messiah."

Now

is

certain that this Messianic title

would not have been

ascribed to

Him

had

it

been believed that

He

did not satisfy

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
,

besides the statements of

Paul,

Kom.

I3

,

2 Tim. 2 8 and the Apocalypse, 5 5
is

22 l6

.

The

descent from David
to

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

Mary's supernatural child conferred upon
1

it

the legal rights

See above, p. 266.

320
of his son.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
Lichtenstein
1

recalls the fact in this connection

that all property acquired by a spouse becomes uniformly the
possession of the husband according to Keth.
in the case of
vi. 1,

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.

question as to one's origin,

common

cession.
viii. 6, is

The

criterion

for

this,
is

according

to

Bab.

bathr.

whether the father

willing to recognise

any one

as his son.

A

case such as that of Jesus was, of course, not
;

anticipated

by the law

but

if

no other human fatherhood

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.

to Israelitish law, already occupied the

same

The divine
its
it,

will, in the case of this birth,

conferred upon the child

own

right of succession, which,

once Joseph recognised even by a Jewish judge.

would not have been disputed
by Matthew and Luke

The
for

fact that the genealogies given

Joseph are discordant, shows, indeed, that not all the

names

contained in

them

are reliable, but proves nothing against

the genuine Davidic descent of Joseph.

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

A

Holy Family was

really possessed of Davidic descent

that of Paul.

As

the scribes held to the opinion that the
of

Messiah must be a descendant
the opponents of Jesus would

David,

it

is

certain that

make

the most of any know-

ledge they could procure, showing that Jesus certainly or And there can be no probably did not fulfil this condition.

doubt that Paul, as a persecutor

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

Hebrew commentary on Mark and Luke

a (1896), 13

f.

THE SON OF DAVID

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

to maintain, with Paul, the Davidic

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

course, can be laid

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

among them being given
it

in Seder

perhaps from the ninth

century.

Olam But

Zota,

3

despite

worthlessness of these data,

may

be concluded that at least

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

in the fact that the chief of the exiles
legal authority,

Babylon had a recognised

and that the

patriarchs of Palestine possessed a faculty of teaching ap-

proved by the State.
1

From

this at

most could be inferred

See

/.

2

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.
(

5

21

322

THE WORDS OF JESUS

merely the belief in a descent from the tribe of Judah.

And
Juda
i.

Juda

i.

says of his contemporary Huna, merely that on the

father's side he

was descended from Judah. 1

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 fact that

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

to the paternal descent of
;

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

descent with his teacher Gamaliel, the

ancestor

of

Juda. a

A

4

family register

found in Jerusalem derived

Hillel,

5 progenitor of Juda,

from David, and Khiyya from Shephatiah,
;

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

son of David and Abital

,

representation admits of being reconciled with the statement of Juda himself in this fashion, that either Hillel himself

was descended from David on the mother's

side, or else that
;

the patriarchs were only maternal descendants from Hillel the latter being quite possible, because the connection be-

tween Hillel and Gamaliel
Further, Hillel and

I.

cannot be definitely exhibited. 6
birth to Babylon, so

Khiyya belonged by

that all these traditions of Davidic origin point to a region

where particular certainty was attributed
1

to family traditions.
2

j.

Kil. 32 b
.

j

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
:

3

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.

Morinus, Exercit. Eccles. et Bibl.

ii.

259.

THE SON OF DAVID

323

From
Juda
it is

all this it

need not,

of course,

be concluded that Khiyya,
;

but L, and Huna were certainly descendants of David that about 200 A.D. there were several families obvious
of

to

which the tradition

Davidic descent

still

1

clung.
is

The
in
to
1

last sure notice of
(c.

the descendants of David

seen

Chron. 3

300

B.C.),

which traces the descent down

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
-

-

-

-

.

note that Luke
the son
of

traces the descent of Joseph from

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

2

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

"

2

Too much importance
;

is

ascribed to this
;

des Volkes Jisrael (1847), 378-387 23 /. LicUenstein on Luke 3 56 f.
.

document by L. Herzfeld, Gesch. F. Lazarus, Die Haupter der Vertriebenen,

324

THE WORDS OF JESUS

or the peasant families of

Norway who

are descended from

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 LOBD" AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS.
1.

THE JEWISH USE OF THE TERM.
of |VfN

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

Hebrew of the Der Gottesname Aramaic uses only tn*?
in the
"

term, but makes use of

,

Onkelos as
Gen. 16
8

P3">.

The feminine form

naian

1

is

also found

;

see

^iten,

"my
in

mistress."

Only
,

in the designation of

God
have

as Dtfran tfw, Deut.
it

10 17
47
.

do we find r?fe
of

*#

as
"tfiN,

we
is
;

also

Dan.
it

2

The form

address,

always

^isn
it

and when

one person, e.g. Gen. 23 11 refers to several, W3ia-i, as Gen. 23 6 For

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
, ,

D

1

For "mistress" the Targum to the Prophets puts nnn
mistress."

;

see Isa. 24 2 ncnD,

"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
;
; ,

"THE LOUD" AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS
reading,

325

p:m

for

p^m,

"

your teacher," in the fragments of

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

8

;

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

master, conjointly with

or

to be discussed
of

under No. XIV.,
is

only N^p, "p.

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

m

" p,
<

its lord,"

j.

Bab. m. 8 C
j.

;

and the creditor

is

said to be

n,

"lord of debt,"

Taan. 66.

the learned
learned
fessional

man

as '"?,

"my
Ab.

lord,"

The layman addresses Keth. 28 d but the j.
;

man
man,

also says "Hp as a
j.

form

of courtesy to the pro;

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

her master, Vay. E. 24. Sanh. 20 b King Yannai by

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.

,

:

1

2

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.

THE WORDS OF JESUS
(ed.

Sanh. 98 a

Venice, 1520),
"

is

nto

^1, which should be
"

read as no* *?V
priest,"

my
is

master and lord."

Kf} Kjna no,

lord high the real form at the root of the
?ftj |nb

My

peculiar address to the high priest:
in

^x, Yoma
1

iv.
<I

1,
P"
1

which the intention probably was

to avoid V" ^

5

cf.

^

friary

"my

lord priest," Ber. K.

71.

Considering also that

no can
on
p.

likewise be used in speaking of and to God, as

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

language can be used.
suffix is

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

contrary to Palestinian usage.

along with

himself,

who

speaker includes others owe a similar deference to the
is

If the

superior named, then the form to use

"

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.

ll b Esau as the ancestor
,

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,

even without the definite

an exalted person supposed to be well known. Even with regard to the Messiah this form has been used,
b.

Sanh. 98 a

.

It is improbable that the

into the language of

Greek Kvpios had been adopted the people at an early period. 3 Only
;
.

the most recent
see Jerus.
1

I.

" Targums have occasionally on'p for lord" Num. II 26 Targ. Ps. 53 1 Job 5 2 The other
;

,

The Munich MS.

has, however, only \-n.

2 3

"Der Gottesname Adonaj,"

21

f.;

Gramm.

Formerly I had considered an early date possible; Adonaj," 81, 84.

d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 78. see "Der Gottesname

327
Targums
b.

all

ignore
j.

it.

Ab.

z.

ll b and
it

As part of Greek sentences, it occurs, Shebu. 34 d (j. Ned. 38 a). According to

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

be corrected into *V3

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

"

(%e/pte for /cvpie).

But the Pales-

Talmud and Midrash give no

sign of so intimate a

blending of the languages.
in

Among

uneducated Jews living

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.

THE USAGE IN THE SYNOPTISTS.
is

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus

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
.

the same word as the

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

eV^o-Tara, and in Mark 9 by pa/3/3et. have StSao-tfaAe for Kvpie in Matt. 1 7 15

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

bids them, in the charge to

make ready

for

328

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the Passover, refer to Himself as 6 SiSda-KaXos, Matt.
11 14 (Mark 14 Luke 22 ).
,

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

every instance of Kvpie addressed to Jesus back to StSaoveaXe
or paftfieC.

The Palestinian Jewish

the two styles of address, *np and
supposition, therefore,
of Jesus.
is

The most natural
which
of

that both should be found in the case
of Jesus as o icvpios
r)fj,a>v,

The designation

was afterwards current in the Christian community, must,

course, be explained as a continuation of the language of the
disciples.

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

must therefore have often
will

addressed Jesus as

and other contemporaries
1

have

done the same.
for icvpie,

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
.

Peshita, true to the instinct of the Syriac language, correctly

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

follows that Luke's frequent use of o /cvpios in his

narrative

when speaking about Jesus
-

10 1 II 39 12 42 13 15

17 5
the

-

6

18 6 19 8 22 31

61
),

would have

be altered into the

same form, in order
appellation
o

And agree with Aramaic idiom. 24 3 ) cannot be fcvpios 'Irjcrovs (Luke
to

imagined other than
Christian.

W

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

A. Wunsclie's remark, Nene Beitriige had the same meaning as "O
See

Erlaut. de Evangelien, 278, that

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

"

1

),

el

ovv AavelS Kakel CLVTOV /cvpiov, TTW? fto? avrov

of Jesus the

any one might perhaps hold that in the question word Kvpios was meant as a predicate of Deity.
to

The Peshita, indeed, appears
sense, as it renders Kvpiov

by

&0"iE

have really taken it in this and in support of such ;

interpretation

it

can be pointed out that for the time in

question, the distinction between the sacred
"OIK,

and the secular
for the latter,

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.

But such an interpretation
to Jesus.

of Ps.

110 1 cannot be imputed
suffix is inadmissible

And

further,
original.

">>

without a

in the
will

Aramaic

therefore have been

:

Our Lord's words (as in Mark) irn PPna KITTO * ^?? Tip? r?f 2
1

nil

^n
At

jna'N
first

2

(n) I^K

n

^-ijj
1

in

f

the title

''IJ,

^J ]?,

used in speaking to and of

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

became among and when

Him

the Aramaic-speaking Jews did not, save exceptionally, desig-

nate

God

as

"

Lord

"
;

4

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

the Hellenists the case was different

;

for they

had, and frequently used, the term /cvpios as a designation
Of.
3

" 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 WORDS OF JESUS
God.

The reason
to icvpios

for

pronoun

when

always attaching a possessive applied to Jesus would to them be
they said o /cvpws only ; to determine whether

unapparent.

So in

this case also

and

might thus often be Jesus or God were meant.
it

difficult

With regard
Church
to icvpios

to

the sense attached