CONTRIBUTIONS OF JESUS TO A MODERN DISCUSSION OF INSPIRATION

by

Robert Alan Kraft, A.B.

Wheaton College, 1955

[[Electronic form created by Ellen Shevitz, 1996]]

A THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE
at Wheaton College

Wheaton, Illinois
June, 1957

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[[1]]

INTRODUCTION

[[2]]

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Advance in Biblical Studies. -- Biblical studies have been undergoing a major transformation in recent years.\1/ Whereas the New Testament and the Old Testament alike were once lone representatives of their alleged historico-cultural contexts, we now have extra-scriptural evidence from Ugarit and Qumran (to mention only the major sources) which both confirms and stimulates our developing understanding of the Bible. Whereas the New Testament was once considered an essentially Greek document with minor Hebrew elements, the Dead Sea finds have helped to establish modern speculation that Hebrew-Aramaic thought-frames are the early Christian heritage and not Platonic-Aristotelian classical concepts. Jesus, especially, is seen to be a figure who accords with his Aramaic world and Hebrew prophetic precedent.\2/

-----

\1/Current interest and literature are a patent witness to this fact. Within the last century, extreme rationalistic liberalism has all but lost its hearing. Archaeology has reinstated much of the historical data of the Bible. Experience shows that the basic Biblical scheme of salvation from sin cannot be ignored. Semantics, linguistics, and sociology have tended to point up the essential unity between a man, his speech, and his culture. Thus the tendency seems to be toward a more conservative critical scholarship.

\2/Any good treatment of the Qumran material shows the similarity of Qumran and the New Testament. <au>J. M. Allegro</> has gone so far with this relationship that he finds early Christianity to be built upon much of the Dead Sea doctrine. See his <tm>The Dead Sea Scrolls</> (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1956), especially chap. 8 -- "The Qumran Sect and Jesus." <au>T. H. Gaster</>, in his "Introduction" to <tm>The Dead Sea Scriptures</> (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1956), gives a much more conservative estimate of the relation of this material to Christianity (see especially pp. 12-17), as do the majority of scholarly works on the subject. Previous work in the field of the Aramaic background of the Gospels (and New Testament) was done as early as the time of Wellhausen, and more recently by C. C. Torrey, M. Black, C. F. Burney, G. Dalman, T. W. Manson, etc. See below: Chapter I, pp. 22-26.

=====

[[3]]

Influence on Theological Studies. -- As the Bible is seen more accurately in its life-setting, its meanings and concepts take on fresh significance. This fact has given great impetus to Biblical theology in recent years, and to a resulting re-evaluation of the judgments of classical systematic theology. Since the latter had failed too often to take into account even the material available to it (relevance of the synoptic problem, advance of textual and historical criticism, new exegetical insights, etc.), it has become even more imperative that scriptural doctrine be re-examined.

Resultant Need in the Doctrine of Inspiration. -- Perhaps one of the most neglected areas of doctrine from the standpoint of exegetical re-evaluation has been that of inspiration. Philosophically, recent years have found much done in this area -- questions of semantics, of fallibility of language, of cultural and social thought forms, of myth and history. But there have been few recent attempts to apply this modern knowledge and approach to the Biblical data bearing on inspiration.\3/

-----

\3/It is true that a great volume of modern literature has been written on this topic, but little of this exhibits an up-to-date exegetical approach. The usual method is to accept a position on inspiration from primarily philosophical-theological considerations, and then to compare this position with the views traditionally ascribed to Jesus and the New Testament authors. If it is found that Jesus seems to disagree, it is relatively simple to find a loophole such as accommodation of "kenosis" of an exegetical ambiguity of some sort which preserves both Jesus' religious authority and the modern philosophical theory. Even when the exegetical approach is attempted, as in <au>J. W. Wenham's</> booklet, <tm>Our Lord's View of the Old Testament</> (London: Tyndale, 1953), too often the exegesis builds on a study of Greek words rather than on an examination of basic intent and meaning (see especially pp. 15-27). In most of what Wenham says, he has not advanced beyond the methods of Warfield (whose methods may have been good in his day, but are certainly not up-to-date today! See <au>T. F. Torrance</>, review of <au>Warfield's</> <tm>Inspiration and Authority of the Bible</>, <tp>Scottish Journal of Theology</>, VII, 104-108, for a similar evaluation). Nor has Wenham given any indication of textual and synoptic problem areas (he acknowledges this on pp. 7-8). In general, either this uncritical approach or a hyper-critical approach which denies to Christ the words which present problems, have tended to be the modern "exegetical" method on the doctrine of inspiration. The latter attitude is exhibited by <au>A. M. Hunter</>, <tm>Design for Life</> (London: SCM, 1953), p. 43.

=====

[[4]]

Since the Christian church claims to be found upon the historical person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ, Christians should certainly reexamine his message first, and attempt to determine what light he sheds upon the abundance of modern discussion concerning inspiration.\4/ Should his teaching (or, for that matter, the teachings of his apostles) be considered as secondary to philosophical-theological speculation, or should they not rather guide modern speculation? Can the Christian arrive at the view he "must hold" without recognizing the view which Jesus exhibited? Christianity is obligated to ask, "In the light of our new Biblical knowledge, what contributions does Jesus make to a modern discussion of inspiration?"

-----

\4/<au>G. F. Tittmann's</> article, "How Can We Say that Jesus is Perfect?" (<tp>Anglican Theological Review</>, XXXVI, 201-204), does an excellent job of emphasizing the fact that Christians accept Jesus as the standard, and thus have no objective way to judge his perfection. By analogy, and apart from theology, whatever Jesus taught and did should be examined (insofar as is possible) first by Christianity before doctrinal conclusions are formed. If after such an examination it is decided that Jesus' knowledge is not normative for modern views (such as inspiration), at least the approach has been correct -- that he is the basic standard for Christianity.

=====

Assumptions

Historical. -- Major assumptions must be made in such a study, yet it is hoped that they might be kept at a minimum. The inspiration of the Gospel records is not assumed, but their essential historicity -- based on the honesty of their authors -- must be presupposed just as should be done with any serious literary work.\5/

-----

\5/This is the expressed approach of almost every writer in the field. See <au>Wenham</>, <tm>Lord's View</>, p. 7; <au>J. Angus</>, <tm>Bible Hand-book</> (New ed. revised by <ed>S. G. Green</>; London: Religious Tract Society, n.d. [ca. 1905]), p. 85; <au>E. N. Kirk's</> "Introduction" to the first American ed. of <au>S. R. L. Gaussen's</> <tm>Theopneusty</> (4\th/ American ed. from the 2\nd/ French ed.; New York: J. S. Taylor, 1852), p. xvii; <au>R. F. Horton</>, <tm>Revelation and the Bible</> (2\nd/ ed. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893), p. 6; <au>W. Lee</>, <tm>The Inspiration of Holy Scripture</> (New York: Carter, 1857), p. 98; <au>P. Schaff</>, <tm>History of the Christian Church</> (New York: Scribner's, 1884), p. 584; <au>W. Sanday</>, <tm>Inspiration</> (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908), p.298. To deny their historicity <lt>a priori</> would be to form one's conclusions before he starts. On the other hand, to assume theirinfallibility <lt>a priori</> would likewise preclude the possibility of any other conclusion. The will is perhaps the biggest factor in "proofs" of Biblical error -- if one does not wish to see errors, he cannot be made to see them and <lt>vice-versa</>. If the Apostolic Gospel cannot be trusted for its historical picture of Christ, there is no other source toward which to turn; see <au>F. V. Filson</>, "The Unity of the Old and the New Testaments," <tp>Interpretation</>, V, 151.

=====

[[5]]
Theological -- This treatment also assumes the central factor of Christianity -- that Jesus Christ is the apex of Divine revelation and is, in the fullest possible sense, the Son of God. His teachings, insofar as they have been preserved, demand the attention of his followers in a special way.\6/ With such an attitude toward Christ comes the more basic assumption that God exists and is not only able but eager to communicate with humanity.

-----

\6/See above: Introduction, p.4, note 4.

=====

Philosophical. -- The validity of human reasoning powers to discover aspects of relative truth is necessarily presupposed. That interpretation demands reasoning is obvious, yet it is also recognized that true interpretation demands Divine guidance, especially when one deals with the Bible.\7/

-----

\7/See <au>H. L. Ellison</>, "Some Thought on Inspiration," <tp>Evangelical Quarterly</>, XXVI, 212, where II Pet. 1:20-21 is exegeted in this connection. The need for Divine guidance is, however, more clearly seen in Jesus' use of the Old Testament as it will be treated below (chapter 2).

=====

Definitions

\8/A. B. Mickelsen's address, p. 3, in Kantzer, Mickelsen, and Tenney, "Inspiration" (Unpublished addresses given at Wheaton College Chapel, 1954).

\9/<lt>Ibid</>.

=====

Authority. -- The word "authority" is also used in two distinct ways as it relates to the Old Testament. It is often used to indicate the documentation which Jesus gives for his teachings. Thus he points his listeners to the Old Testament authority to document his message or meaning. In a second sense, the authority of the Old Testament may mean the normative value of God's revelation in the Old Testament -- the "bindingness" of the Old Testament. The context should make clear in which sense "authority" is being used.

God's Message or Purpose. -- Often a phrase similar to "the Divine purpose underlying the Old Testament" will be found in the thesis. The author's intent is to separate the Old Testament as physical (or semantical) symbols -- the Old Testament as a written document -- from the basic intended message of the Old Testament as viewed in its entirety and as viewed according to God's purpose. Each word and sentence of the Old Testament may arise from and contribute to God's purpose, but not every part of the Old Testament reflects equally God's overall intention. God's purpose or message is more than the sum of the parts of scripture.

Modern Scholarship. -- By "modern scholarship" is meant that critical, careful, judicious, up-to-date type of thinking which attempts to be as objective as possible, and attempts to consider all pertinent data in its [[7]] treatment of any area of study -- exegetical, historical, theological, or any other area. Modern scholarship, no matter what its theological camp (orthodox, liberal, Roman Catholic, etc.) is not afraid to re-evaluate the past conclusions in the light of new evidence.

Previous Work in the Field

\10/<au>E. E. Tilden</>, "The Study of Jesus' Interpretive Methods," <tp>Interpretation</>, VII, 45. Tilden has himself contributed two unpublished these to the study of Jesus' use of the Old Testament. In other areas which are also treated by this thesis, countless literature has been produced -- books on inspiration, revelation, interpretation, the teachings of Jesus, the language of Jesus, etc.

=====
In certain aspects of the subject, however, there are pertinent previous studies which will be assumed. For a general survey of the various groups of modern inspiration theories, chapter 1 of R. Gorbold's thesis helps supply the need.\11/ An excellent summary treatment of the principles and problems of quotations from the Old Testament is found in E. Ellis' thesis.\12/ T. W. Manson gives a very fine basic survey of the characteristics [[8]] of Christ's teaching upon which this examination also will build.\13/ The bibliography and footnotes should amply indicate other pertinent data, especially that published in the most recent periodical literature.

-----

\11/R. S. Gorbold, <um>"The Nature of Scripture in the Thinking of Paul"</> (Unpublished Master's thesis, The Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1956).

\12/E. E. Ellis, <um>"The Nature and Significance of Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of Mark</>" (Unpublished Master's thesis, The Graduate School, Wheaton College, 1953), chapter 1.

\13/T. W. Manson, <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</> (Cambridge: University Press, 1951), chap. 3 See also chap. 1, below.

=====

Goals and Limitations

\14/A. G. Hebert, <tm>The Authority of the Old Testament</> (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), p. 243, correctly emphasizes the fact that the writers are as much a part of the Biblical narratives as the facts which they narrate. See also the Roman Catholic <tm>Preface to the Bible</> by G. Rooney (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1949), p. 73, which emphasizes the meaning of the author. Ellison, p. 216, and H. M'intosh, <tm>Is Christ Infallible and the Bible True</>? (3\rd/ ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902), pp. 252ff., do not expect the Bible to answer questions which it had not intention of treating.

\15/J. W. Bowman, "The Rabbinic Writings," <tp>Interpretation</>, III, 444, forcefully reminds scholarship of the necessity of knowing the Hebrew-Aramaic literature in order to correctly understand the Gospel narratives. See also chap. 1, below.

\16/This same point is well taken with reference to modern attempts at a definition of inspiration. See Ellison, pp. 212-214, for his excellent article cited above in this connection (Introduction, p. 5, note 2).

\17/B. F. Westcott, <tm>Introduction to the Study of the Gospels</> (New York" Macmillan, 1887), pp. 45-46, rightly point out in another connection that ultimately one's idea of inspiration is his own personal possession and cannot be handed down to others. For him, inspiration is the presence of life, and thus dies to some extent when it is "formulated" and systematically communicated. Thus Christ's view, in the way in which Christ possessed it, can never be as fully discovered as theology would like.

=====

The doctrinal goal of this study is to find the minimum attitude of Jesus which does justice to the data, and to evaluate briefly the doctrinal inferences which could possibly be drawn from this data. Many diverse views have claimed Jesus for support, and perhaps justly. But the question is not: "Will Jesus' teachings fit into my doctrine?" It is, rather, "Does my view do justice to the expressed explicit requirements of Jesus' view?" There are many areas where the modern view will go far beyond Jesus' recorded view, since problems have multiplied since his day -- problems such as canon, authorship, literary sources, etc. Indeed, the teaching on the subject which is preserved for us has itself many problems on which judgment must, at least for the present, be suspended. Thus this thesis inquires: "Of what, at least, may we be reasonably sure in Jesus' view of the Bible?" When this minimum is found, the lower limit for "orthodoxy" in inspiration must be nearby.\18/

-----

\18/Sanday's attitude, pp. XVI-XVII, is certainly worthwhile (although all parts of his work are not equally valuable): "In regard to the New Testament he has tried to state the case as objectively as possible. He has thus been led rather to understate than to overstate the results which seem to him to have been attained so far.... He hopes most from the spirit which is not impatient for 'results,' which does not suppress or slur over difficulties in the critical view any more than in the traditional, which lays its plans broadly, and is determined to make good the lesser steps before it attempts the greater."

=====

[[10]]
The philosophical goal of this thesis is not "drawing absolute conclusions at all costs." The author is not ashamed of scepticism as opposed to dogmatism. He recognizes the fact that impartiality is unattainable in such matters as exegesis and doctrine, and would thus attempt to suggest rather than prove where "proof" is not entirely demonstrable.

The study aims at tentativeness -- it hopes to raise sign-posts which point out the direction for further investigation and warn against dead end paths. Its greatest significance should lie in the appendices and other marshalling of New Testament data which approach the area of unprejudiced objectivity.\19/ Many of the conclusions will necessarily by only "probable." They will be most important as working hypotheses of ever changing interpretation rather than as timeless facts. Truth and finality are elusive; yet they are well worth the chase.

-----

\19/The admonition of Tilden, p. 50, is well taken in this study: "Let the interpreter avoid general statements with unremitting concern." The method of approach to Jesus' use of the Old Testament outlined in Tilden's article is very helpful, although it is not used as such in the present discussion. Manson, p. 11, also presents a general method of approach which is valuable: (1) to find the true Gospel text, (2) the sources of the text, (3) the words of Christ from the text, and (4) the meaning of Christ from the words he spoke. See also below: Chapter 1, p. 20, note 35.

=====

Biases

\20/See Wenham, p. 6.

\21/This is, in a sense, the type of "wishful thinking" which Wenham criticizes on p. 7. In his words, "Wishful thinking must submit to the logic of sheer evidence." This author's bias is even more basic -- he feels that wishful thinking, wherever the evidence is not found to be sufficiently "sheer," must submit to a temporary suspension of judgment while awaiting further evidence; it must as least be ruled by sympathy (Christian love). The old rhyme, sadly enough, is too often too true:

<qu>Men ope this book, their favorite creed in mind;
Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find</>.

=====

Method of Treatment

\22/Gaussen's type of argument, p. xviii, is a good example of the "theological" approach.

\23/The current need for concentrated, scholarly investigations in so-called "conservative" circles has recently been emphasized by A. W. Tozer, "We Need Sanctified Thinkers," <tp>Alliance Weekly</>, XC (November 2 and 9, 1955), and B. Ramm, "Are we Obscurantists?" <tp>Christianity Today</>, I (February 18, 1957), 14-15.

=====

[[13]]

CHAPTER 1


JESUS AS A TEACHER

[[14]]

CHAPTER 1


JESUS AS A TEACHER

\24/There is little question about the general reliability of the Synoptics, although Mark is generally given a primary place along with the "Q" sections (common to Matthew and Luke). The remainder of Matthew seems too rabbinical to some commentators. John has often been questioned as a historical source. Recent scholarship tends to uphold its validity; see below: appendix 9.

=====

It may be suggested that other parts of the canonical New Testament also contain some teachings of Jesus. Certainly Acts 1:1-8 and 20:35 fall readily into this category. Some writers would also contend for the Book of Revelation as containing such teachings of Jesus.\25/ It is true that the writer of Revelation records words of his Lord which he received through a vision, but the very nature and purpose of that material exhibits its difference from the Gospel records. The content of Christ's words in Revelation is not intended to be historical in the same sense as that of his words in the Gospels. This is also true of Paul's Damascus Road vision.\26/ The Gospels, then, command primary attention.

-----

\25/M'intosh, pp. 173, 188.

\26/The "quoted" words of Christ in Rev. 1-3, 21-22, and Acts 9, 22, and 26, seem to be in a similar category as many Old Testament prophetic "Words of the Lord" which present a divine message rather than a divine proposition. They are more psychological (or spiritual) than historical.

=====

Limits

Although it will be necessary to treat some aspects of Introduction [[16]] in a superficial manner (especially the literary and linguistic origins of the Gospels), areas such as date, authorship, and destination, will necessarily be neglected.

Insofar as it is possible, problems will be pointed out and evaluated; it there appears to be no presently acceptable road to their solution, the chapter will rest in stating the problem. Whenever possible, the appendices will be used as illustrations of the subject; if they provide no obvious example, space limitations may preclude additional illustrative material.


Method

The goal of this treatment is to relate modern critical investigations to modern interpretation of Jesus -- to determine if, in fact, the "doctrine' and the "phenomena" of the narratives of Jesus may be justly divorced by Biblical theology.\27/ The Synoptic Problem must be considered with its related areas. The hermeneutical and semantic problem of Jesus' language and Jesus' meaning is also primary. Once the basis of a knowledge of Jesus' teaching is discovered, his teaching on inspiration may be examined.

-----

\27/The claim of B.B. Warfield, <tm>The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible</>, ed. by S. G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948), pp. 201-208 and 225, that it is incorrect to redefine or modify the Biblical doctrine in the light of the Biblical phenomena has both its merits and its shortcomings. Dr. Warfield feels that he has exegetically established the doctrine of "Christ and his Apostles" apart from any detailed consideration of the phenomena, and therefore, although his evidence is really "probable" rather than "demonstrable" (p. 218) and although its conclusions may be re-evaluated as doctrine (p. 207), it cannot be attacked rightly on the basis of phenomena alone. The present study attempts two things relevant to Dr. Warfield's claims" (1) to show that his exegesis must be brought up to date, and (2) to show that in bringing the exegesis up to date, at least where Christ is concerned, the doctrine cannot possibly be obtained apart from the phenomena of Christ's language and method, and the Synoptic Problem itself. See below: Chapter 1, pp. 34-36.

=====

[[17]]

The Gospel Documents

\28/H. C. Thiessen, <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), pp. 175-176, gives a brief partial listing of some of the peculiarities of John and of John's presentation of Jesus. M. C. Tenney, <tm>The Genius of the Gospels</> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), p. 38, implies that John presents Jesus as speaking both in the style of the Synoptics and in a somewhat different style.

\29/A brief examination of the Nestle text of the Greek New Testament will reveal this. The absence of heavy type denoting
Old Testament verbal similarity is conspicuous in John apart from "formal quotations."

=====

<h3>Immediate Significance</>

Without examining further, and without even attempting to survey the proposed solutions to the problem,\30/ it appears that Jesus' exact words are not always (if ever) recorded in the Gospels. Thus to build a doctrine of inspiration attributed to Jesus without even considering this evidence is illegitimate exegesis. Can the formulas which the evangelists attribute to him be taken so literally that they are made to teach doctrinal minutiae? Only if he (1) really said them as recorded and (2) really meant them as interpreted can this be legitimately done. In at least some instances it has been seen that the former may not be true, a fact which <lt>a priori</> casts doubt on the latter.

-----

\30/Thiessen, pp. 103-129, lists the proposed solutions along with his ideas on the subject. See also Tenney, pp. 33-37. T. Zahn, <tm>Introduction to the New Testament</>, trans. from 3rd German ed. by J. M. Trout, <lt>et al</>. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), II, 400-427, has a detailed study. Streeter's "four document hypothesis" is "widely accepted" although sometimes "vigorously challenged" in contemporary literature which deals with such critical problems. See F. V. Filson, "Gospels," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, ed. by L. A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), I, 470.

=====

But there is a more basic significance of the "Gospel Problem" for [[19]] this study. It could be claimed that "where no parallels exist, we undoubtedly have the very words of Christ." This seems to be fallacious reasoning. By analogy, if God through His church had not preserved Mark's and Luke's Gospels, would the words of Jesus found only in Matthew be any more exact than they now appear? Certainly not, although many would claim that they were. How does the modern exegete know that there are not other accurate (but different in the sense that some Synoptic parallels differ) parallel accounts which have been lost by history? Each Gospel, as written by an honest author, gives one facet of the truth, one perspective of the total picture. And even where no existent parallel obviates the problem, there is always the possibility (even probability) that some of truth's facets are hidden, that the Gospel teachings of Jesus are not always in the very words of Jesus.


Gospel Editing

The message of the Gospels is the message which Jesus Christ had written upon the life of his church and his disciples. "If, and so far as, they [the Evangelists] were mistaken or defective in their conceptions or representations, so far necessarily and precisely we are as to His teaching and Himself.... We must accept their representation of Christ's teaching or nothing."\31/

-----

\31/M'intosh, pp. 70-71.

=====

This is, in a sense, true. Just as all historical treatments includes interpretation to some degree, so do the Gospels. The Evangelists admittedly do not attempt an objective, impartial treatment of Christ. They all present him through the eyes of faith.\32/ Just as Jesus' entire personality [[20]] is bound up in his teachings, so the personality of each Evangelist is embedded in and intertwined with his work. Each author betrays his wording and style in his Gospel.\33/ The exegete must take the "leap of faith" that the Gospel authors are at least honest, and therefore trustworthy, voices from the earliest era of the church -- that the Gospels adequately present the Jesus whom this early church believed it was to follow. If the early church, or the Evangelists, were wrong, there is no other gospel to follow.\34/

-----

\32/Filson, "Gospels," pp. 469-470.

\33/<lt>Ibid</>., p. 470. See also Tenney, p. 10 and the entire treatment.

\34/See above: Introduction, p.4, note 5.

=====

But that is not the total story. Somewhere between the Synoptic-Johannine Problem and the fact of Gospel editing lies the relative validity of the sources allegedly used by the editors. It lies between the two areas because of the fact that even in the sources, an author's interpretation is inescapable (unless it be claimed that Christ wrote or dictated a source document). But it may be that some sources involve less interpretation than others, and come closer in time and meaning to the exact words of Christ.\35/ If this be true, these sources (when found) should allow a more confident type of exegesis than is now possible.

-----
\35/Herein lies the allure of the Q hypothesis as that document is re-constructed by modern criticism. It appears to contain the sayings of Christ with a minimum of editing (assumed). It thus appears more probably to approach a first-hand view of Christ. Indeed, evidence for its written Aramaic origin -- in the "mother-tongue" of Jesus -- is advanced by such men as Bussby and Manson. See the article by F. Bussby, "Is Q an Aramaic Document?" <tp>Expository Times</>, LXV, 273. See also the articles by A. W. Argyle and B. M. Metzger in <tp>Expository Times</>, LXIV, 382, and LXV, 125 and 285f., where the same question is indirectly discussed. Manson, p. 11, feels that criticism must find (1) the true Gospel text, (2) its sources, (3) Jesus' words, and (4) Jesus' meaning. See above: Introduction, p. 10, note 19.

=====

At present, the various hypotheses seem too inconclusive for the [[21]] exegete to use with confidence.\36/ The Gospels as we have them must be examined -- always recognizing the elements of selectivity and personal editorship. The picture of Christ which the Gospels present must be assumed to be meaningful and relatively accurate, even though it may not allow the exegete always to separate the reporter from his Lord.

-----
\36/Manson and Tilden attempt to do so, as does modern exegesis in general, but no one hypothesis is universally applied by all critics.

=====

Fragmentary Nature

Lastly, in this discussion of the Gospel documents in general as they relate to Jesus' teaching, the fragmentary nature of the material must be noted. This characteristic both helps to solve problems and presents others. As has been seen,\37/ the incomplete treatment of the Gospels makes one ask whether any single complete picture is given therein. Everything that Jesus said pertinent to inspiration, for example, is not necessarily recorded in the Gospels. Perhaps he said other things which would supplement the Gospel teachings to such an extent as to modify many of the speculative dogmatic conclusions of the past. It is dangerous for a study of Biblical theology to read a more complete story into the fragmentary accounts than is really there and to call this story "truth."\38/

-----
\37/See above: Chapter 1, p. 19.

\38/Manson, p. 5, speaks of people who write lives of Jesus by finding "in the Gospels just what they were looking for."

=====

On the other hand, the critic must also beware of attributing error to the Gospels, since the fragmentary nature of the accounts precludes the accuracy demanded by modern historical investigation. He must certainly give the Bible, as he gives other literature, the "benefit of the doubt" when necessary. The Bible, like the American court defendant, should be [[22]] viewed as "innocent until proven guilty." In this light, M'intosh's attitude is well-founded: "Is it not reasonable to infer that if we only had more, if we only knew the whole, that all would probably be made plain and harmonious, or at least as far as could be reasonably expected in such a record of such a life?"\39/

-----
\39/M'intosh, p. 534; see also pp. 24 and 342.

=====

The Gospel Culture Background

=====

[[25]]

Jesus' Words

\45/<tp>Expository Times</>, LVI. Taylor's article is found on pp. 95-97, Abbott's reply on p. 305, Bruce's reply on p. 328, and Griffiths' reply on pp. 327-328. Abbot concludes that the Gospels exhibit Jesus' use of Aramaic and show "underlying Semitic thoughts of people speaking Greek as a second language." Bruce gives excellent bibliographical data to emphasize the weight of evidence against Taylor. Griffiths says little that is direct refutation, but points out that Galilee was no means in the same situation as Egypt when the latter used Greek commonly (as illustrated by the non-literary papyri of Egypt).

=====

{@@RAK note on facing page;
see now B. N. Thompson "To What Extent did Jesus Use Greek?"
<tp>Rel. Life</> 32 (1963), 103-115 [NTA 7 (1963), #769] -
- regularly! }

So much else has been written relevant to the discussion that enumeration is impossible. No eminent contemporary authority known to this author claims that Jesus habitually spoke Greek. There may be no consensus as to the Gospel sources, the Gospel destinations, the extent of the use of Greek in Galilee, or other such problems, but that Jesus did not converse with the Jewish religious authorities (at least), nor with the crowds or hid disciples (probably) in Greek, appears to be strongly supported.\46/ Jesus' [[26]] mother-language was almost certainly Aramaic.

-----

\46/Manson, pp. 45-49, discussed the problem (see also p. 10). He doubts that any part of Christ's teaching was delivered in Greek with the possible exception of the interview with Pilate. See also the articles by Abbott and Bruce cited above. Filson, "Gospels," p. 470, and Albright, p. 199, also speak of Aramaic as the "mother-tongue" of Galilee. Stendahl, p. 65-66 and note 6 on p. 78, also commits himself to this position and gives bibliographical data for recent non-Aramaic hypotheses. For arguments used to support the position that Jesus taught in Greek as well as in Aramaic, see A. T. Robertson's article on "language of New Testament," <tm>International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia</> (henceforth to be designated as ISBE), ed. by J. Orr (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), III, 1832. Robertson gives major bibliographical data as of fifty years ago. Sanday, p. 417, does not commit himself to either view, saying that Jesus spoke in human terms in either Greek or Aramaic. Even in the late nineteenth century such writers as P. Schaff, p. 592, claimed that "our Lord spoke usually in Aramaic."

=====

His Mode of Thought

An even more important, and perhaps a more easily answered question is: "In what cultural-linguistic patterns did Jesus think?" It makes a tremendous difference when one interprets Jesus' language whether the Lord were thinking as Americans do today, or as the Greek philosophers did in the fourth century B.C., or as the seventy century B.C. Hebrew prophets thought, or some other way. Did Jesus speak with "scientific precision" -- did every word convey one and only one exact meaning each time it was used? Was Jesus' language free from cultural idioms which had in the process of time lost their originally intended meanings? The answer comes with almost one voice -- "Jesus thought as a Jew, with the merits and shortcomings of the psychology of that people." His idiom was Semitic. His logic was Semitic. Even if he used Greek, he was at heart Semitic.\47/

-----

\47/The above treatment of Jesus' language certainly points to this conclusion which has been summed up well by Bowman's quotation cited on p. 24 above. What applies to the Evangelists in regard to their cultural patterns certainly applies to Jesus. Both the external data of his life (parentage, customs, mission, etc.) and his manner of teaching recorded for us (see below) clearly attest this fact. Another pertinent quotation which applies to the Gospels, and though them to Christ, is found in F. W. Dillistone's article, "Wisdom, Word, and Spirit," <tp>Interpretation</>, II, 277: "There can be little doubt that the place from which most help [for finding the meaning of "<gk>logos</>" in John and "wisdom and power of God" in I Corinthians and Colossians] is likely to be derived is not contemporary Greek philosophy but rather the wisdom literature of Israel.... The immediate background of the witness of the literature of the New Testament is the Old Testament and the writings of later Judaism, and to a small degree [Hellenistic Judaism]." See also J. Macleod, "The Mind of Christ; What He found in Scripture," <tp>Expository Times</>, LXII, 175; W. F. Lofthouse, "The Old Testament and Christianity" in <tm>Record and Revelation</>, ed. by H. W. Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938), p. 461: "Jesus ... was as much a Jew as Socrates was a Greek"; Westcott, pp. 60-61. Stendahl, p. 66, correctly points out that "already in the translation of the Aramaic words of Jesus into Greek, certain retranslations in terms of thought pattern must be presupposed."

=====

[[27]]

Interpreting His Teachings


<h3>Jesus and the Gospels</>

Before a general examination of Jesus as teacher may be advanced, a basic question must be asked: "In how far and in what sense do the Gospels present Jesus' actual words?" Some of the more radical scholars question whether any really valid knowledge of him is attainable.\48/ Between extreme scepticism and a naive acceptance of every English word attributed to Jesus lie a multitude of variations. This study has assumed (necessarily) the honesty of the Evangelists,\49/ and thus can claim the right to study their Jesus as the valid object of faith. They were nearest to the sources; if their presentation of Jesus is wrong, it is not likely that any other presentation is correct. Other approaches may attempt to get behind the extant Gospels to their sources, which are in turn evaluated for comparative [[28]] validity.\50/ Although this critical source approach does not seem entirely feasible (or necessary) at present due to the disagreement among scholars as to the sources, it shows signs of promise for future studies if prudently and circumspectly used.

-----
\48/Allegro, p. 155, who is, of course, notorious for his theories against the uniqueness of the crucifiction of Christ and
Christianity in general, feels that the "records of the New Testament ... cannot be claimed to represent with certainty the standpoint of the first Jewish Christians of Jerusalem." This is apparently an unfortunate "hangover" from the years of destructive radical criticism of the @@(umlatt) Tubingen type, plus the added impetus of "myth" exegesis (Dibelius, Bultmann). O. A. Piper, "Jesus Christ," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 599, lists men who have recently attempted to hold to the "non-historicity of Jesus," as does ISBE's article on "Jesus Christ" by J. Orr (3, 1626). The attitude of Albert Schweitzer (<tm>Quest of the Historical Jesus</>, 1910) approaches this type of scepticism which divorces the "Jesus of history" from the "Christ of faith."

\49/See above: Introduction, p. 4.

\50/See above: chapter 1, p. 20. Streeter's hypothesis is assumed in many cases (Mark, Q -- that which is unique to Matthew and Luke together, M -- that which is unique to Matthew alone, and L -- that which is unique to Luke alone). Manson, pp. 28-44, approaches Jesus through these materials, as does Tilden (<um>"Jesus' Methods," "The Old Testament in the Sayings of Jesus with Special Reference to Mark"</> [Unpublished Master's Thesis, Princeton, 1940], <um>"The Function of the Old Testament in the Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Synoptic Gospels"</> [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton, 1945]) in the study of Jesus' relation to the Old Testament. The older treatment of Wendt, <tm>The Teaching of Jesus</>, trans. by J. Wilson (New York: Scribner's, 1899), Vol. I, appeals to Mark, John, and the "<gk>Logia</>" as sources.

=====

At present, however, the "Christ of faith" and the "Jesus of history" must be considered together.\51/ It must be recognized that his teachings are transmitted through the understanding of the Evangelists and the early church. That "the peculiarities of the individual writer become part of the Divine message"\52/ is a factor which must be applied not only to a theological definition of inspiration, but also to any teaching attributed to Christ. But [[29]] to say that nothing is really known of Christ because of this limitation would be to deny the validity of any historical interpretation of any kind. Granted that the Gospels give only a fragmentary account of Jesus Christ, they do give selected glimpses of his life and person through the eyes of his students.\53/ He can be seen in his historical perspective, and examined from the record given of him in the Gospels. But the individual words of Jesus cannot be confidently equated with the words of the Gospels and analyzed accordingly. The Christ of the Gospels is a meaningful presentation of the Jesus of history, but not a verbatim source for the very words of the Jesus of history. From the Gospels the meaning of Jesus' teaching may be seen, and some of his sayings may be reconstructed, but not every word from the Christ of the Gospels is a literal word from the Jesus of history.

-----

\51/C. H. Dodd, <tm>The Authority of the Bible</> (London: Nisbet, 1928), pp. 224-225, calls the Gospels "documents of the religious experience of the early Church" in which the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith" are inseparable. He admits that the historical Jesus cannot be found except through the "Christ of faith." Manson, in his article on the "Life of Jesus" for <tm>The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology</>, ed. by Davies and Daube (Cambridge: University Press, 1956), p. 221, says: "There is no escape from the historical inquiry [as Schweitzer attempted], and there is no need to be despondent about its prospects. We may venture to hope that as it progresses, we shall find that the ministry of Jesus is a piece of real history in the sense that it is fully relevant to the historical situation of its own time,... and just because it was so relevant to their life, we shall find it relevant to our own." W. D. Davies, "The Jewish Background of the Teaching of Jesus: Apocalyptic and Pharisaism," <tp>Expository Times</>, LIX, 233, criticizes Schweitzer for divorcing Jesus too greatly from the Synoptic tradition. Filson, "Unity of the Testaments," p. 135, accuses Schweitzer of really rejecting the New Testament by reverting to the Apocalyptic. Stendahl, p. 67: "The time has come when the 'historical Jesus' seems to be interesting scholars again."

\52/M'intosh, p. 659; compare Westcott, p. 24.

\53/M'intosh, pp. 24 and 343; Westcott, p. 365.

=====

<h3>Jesus' Methods</>

With such qualifications in mind, Jesus' way of teaching may be examined. But in so doing, it must always be remembered that an understanding of a man's language is only as accurate as the understanding of his total personality. Language is a vehicle of communication from personality to personality. Language is not objective in any absolute sense because it is an expression of personality. To understand Jesus' language, one must attempt to understand his person; insofar as his person cannot be understood, to that degree will his language and meanings escape the interpreter.\54/ What he meant is necessarily a personal question which must be answered in the context of a life, a mission, and a culture.

-----

\54/Unfortunately, this caution has at least a double reference. To understand fully the Christ of the Gospels is to understand fully the personality of each Evangelist as well as that of Jesus.

=====

[[30]]
<h4>Prophetic</>. -- Jesus the Palestinian Jew of the first century was of the Hebrew prophetic tradition.\55/ The people looked upon him as a prophet.\56/ His disciples seemed to share this view.\57/ He apparently classed himself as a prophet in some sense, or at least accepted the people's classification.\58/ His actions, teaching, and methods were in accord with Hebrew prophetism.\59/ He used the books of the prophets and the law which they also accepted to illustrate and to add authority to his teachings.\60/ He did extraordinary works like those of some of the prophets. He was even treated like many of the prophets of old who were rejected by the leaders of their day but later became recognized as holy men.\61/ He was a "madman," a "Samaritan" who was also a "man of God" and the "Son of man."\62/

-----

\55/See the quotation from Bowman cited above, p. 24. See also Lofthouse, p. 468ff.

\56/Matt. 14:5 {@@RAK note: Jn Baptist}, 16:4, 21:11, 21:46; Mark 8:28; Luke 7:16, 9:8, 9:19; John 4:19, 6:14, 7:40 (contrast 8:52-53), 9:17. That some people questioned whether he was a prophet is seen from Luke 7:39. John 8:52-53 seems to use the term "prophets" in a technical sense.

\57/See especially Luke 24:19.

\58/See Matt. 13:57, Luke 4:24, John 4:14, and Luke 13:35, which are proverbial in nature. Compare Luke 7:28. It is doubtful that Jesus excludes himself from the prophetic office by this hyperbolic saying.

\59/See below.

\60/See chap. 2 and appendices 1-4.

\61/Amos, Jeremiah, and Elijah are notable examples.

\62/These are idioms from the Old Testament and New Testament which apply to the prophets and Christ. See II Kings 9:11, John 8:48, II Kings 4:25, Ezek. 2:3, Matt. 16:13. These examples could be multiplied.

=====

Jesus gave a "prophetic" message -- not necessarily in the sense of prediction, but in the preaching tradition of the prophets. He was a voice for God, declaring "the word of the Lord" to the needy and corrupt people [[31]] of his day. The ethic of Jesus is prophetic -- it is a reorganization and a reiteration of the messages given throughout Israel's history. Jesus applies Isa. 60:1-2 to himself;\63/ he exhorts the religious leaders to apply the attitude of Hos. 6:6 to themselves;\64/ again and again he quotes or refers to the prophet-preachers of Israel.\65/ The people had grown legalistic, literalistic, and cold, just as had been true in the past. Jesus' message was aimed at the same purpose as that of the prophets -- to bring God's people into a meaningful and vital relationship to their God.\66/ Jesus' death gave a power that the law and prophets lacked, thus in one sense fulfilling them.

-----

\63/Luke 4:17-19. It is assumed that Luke's honest report is based upon correct evidence that Jesus really applied the passage to himself.

\64/Matt. 9:13, 12:7.

\65/See appendices 1, 3, 5, 6.

\66/See Macleod, pp. 176-177.

=====

In giving this prophetic message, Jesus used the prophetic method. He was a preacher, speaking to the first century "people of the land" as well as to the theologically educated religious leaders. Thus his speech was intended to communicate and activate the hearer rather than to give scientific or philosophical treatments of the problems of that day. He spoke with pictures, with emphasis, with hyperbole (exaggeration is quite accurate as a description of his method). His is the poetry of symbolism, the photography of parable, the punctuation of extremes. Did Jerusalem kill every prophet who had come to her?\67/ Is it a live possibility that the disciples could have dumped the mountain into the sea by faith, and could have done anything else they requested?\68/ Should the Christian really decapitate himself if his thoughts are sometimes evil?\69/ This is preaching [[32]] language; this is for motivation and lasting impression. Always to demand literalism of the prophet is to destroy the prophetic message.

-----

\67/Luke 13:33-34.

\68/Matt. 17:20, 21:21-22.

\69/Mark 9:43-47.

=====

<h4>Poetic</>. -- Jesus often used Hebrew poetic device.\70/ In some places it appears that the Evangelists have broken
through the obstacles of tradition and translation to adequately preserve the poetic statements of Jesus with very little change. Parallelism is exhibited in some of his teaching: synonymous in Mark 4:22 and Luke 6:27 (Matt. 5:44); antithetic in Mark 8:35 and Luke 6:43 (Matt. 7:17); synthetic in Luke 12:49 and perhaps, in a sense, in Mark 9:37.\71/ It is possible (even probable) that Jesus' actual words used rhyme, word plays, alliteration, and other devices also. These, of course, are lost in translation from Aramaic to Greek; but a caution is presented to the interpreter thereby -- some "difficult saying" of Jesus may really be a play on words (like the "almond tree" of Jer. 1:11ff.), or some other similar device, in his original speech, and thus is not meaningful in the Greek Gospel form.

-----

\70/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 50-56, gives an excellent summary treatment of this fact. Burney wrote an entire book on <tm>The Poetry of our Lord</>. Hunter, pp. 15-17, brings out the same emphases in his exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Bussby, p. 272, gives a fairly complete list of the poetic devices as illustrated from the Q document.

\71/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 52, gives these examples. The example of synthetic parallelism seems to be weak, and Burney is said to put Mark 9:37 in a fourth category called "step-parallelism." Notice that the examples come from three of the four Gospel sources accepted by Manson (in accord with Streeter's hypothesis). On pp. 54-56, Manson gives longer examples of the phenomena; see Luke 17:26-30, 11:31-32, 12:24-28 (Matt. 6:26-30).

=====

<h4>Parabolic</>. -- Jesus is both prophetic and rabbinic in his use of proverb and parable.\72/ He puts his message into a form which appeals to the [[33]] actual situation of the people. To the farmers, the Kingdom is like a seed;\73/ to businessmen it is as a pearl or a treasure;\74/ to the theologically trained it is Isaiah's vineyard.\75/ There is meaning behind these parables -- meaning which lies only secondarily in the words used -- meaning which is more existential than propositional. The parable is a stimulus to the hearer which aims at making each listener appropriate the lessons of God for himself -- the message gleaned from the parable depends on the attention given by the hearer, and his consequent action.\76/

-----

\72/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 57-81, gives a summary treatment of Jesus' use of parables. Manson defines "parable" as including proverbial wisdom (the Hebrew word is <hb>mashal</>) such as Luke 4:23, which he feels to be in accord with the Old Testament definition of parable. Lofthouse, p. 466, points out the similarity of Jesus' usages along this line with those of the Rabbis, but also carefully emphasizes that Jesus was in many other ways non-rabbinic.

\73/Mark 4:3-9, 4:26-32 and parallels.

\74/Matt. 13:44-45.

\75/Mark 12:1-11 and parallels.

\76/See Mark 4:24-25, 4:11-12, and parallels. The fact that to the modern exegete these are hard sayings rests in the fact that Jesus is even in such explanations speaking as a prophet and in a parabolic method. He must therefore be interpreted in that way.

=====

<h4>Idiomatic</>. -- In closing, it must be noted that Jesus' language is idiomatic. All language contains idiom, and all vernacular uses idiom. As a popular prophet-preacher who spoke to the common people, Jesus must have used much idiom. Unfortunately, the modern scholar does not fully know the extent or significance of idiom in first century Palestine. Such sayings as "an eye for an eye"\77/ were undoubtedly idiomatic for legal principles, both in Jesus' and in Moses' day. The formula "law and prophets"\78/ undoubtedly referred to the Jewish religious authority in totality. How can the modern reader know whether he should interpret a phrase literally or idiomatically? Is "jot and title" intended to mean anything literally?\79/ Does "Moses said" refer to an historical event or to a literary source?\80/ Are "Sodom and Gomorrah" intended to be historical references, or are they bywords like the modern idioms "He met his Waterloo" or "They found his Achilles' heel"?\81/ Probably they are historical, but ignorance of idiom should be a caution to the exegete. Words do not always mean what they seem to say!\82/

-----

\77/Matt. 5:38, see appendix 1. R. L. Harris, "The Sermon on the Mount and Verbal Inspiration," <tp>The Reformation Review</>, I (July 1954), 27, expresses the view that this phrase is an idiom of law.

\78/See appendix 5.

\79/See appendix 8, Matt. 5:17.

\80/See appendix 5. Moderns often say, "webster says that this word mans ..." Is the Biblical phrase parallel to the modern idiom which is not meant to be literal?

\81/See appendix 3.

\82/An excellent illustration may be found in the above mentioned book by Warfield, p. 187: "The portraiture of Jesus which has glorified the world's literature as well as blessed all ages and races with the revelation of a God-man come down from heaven to save the world, is limned by his follower's pencils alone. The record ... is a record by his follower's pens alone." In the Gospels, the critic would call this an error, and the literalist would say that the disciples used both pens and pencils. Warfield, however, probably did not mean to infer that pencils existed in the first century; his point is that Jesus' followers recorded Jesus' message. The writing instrument used, or even the mention of a writing instrument is idiomatic and superfluous to Warfield's meaning.

=====

Summary and Conclusion

\83/See Hunter, p. 43. Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, pp. 35-38, makes similar claims as do many modern scholars who forget that their principles of interpretation and semantics work both ways. They are overly hasty in finding difficulties which can only be found on a literalistic method of interpretation!

=====

[[37]]

CHAPTER 2


JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

[[38]]

CHAPTER 2


JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

-----

\84/Other pertinent subjects of a less theological nature could be listed also -- geography (flat earth centering in the Mediterranean), cosmology (geocentric), biology, etc. If it is objected that Jesus' purpose was not to deal with these peripheral matters, but to establish the true way to God and the source of true knowledge of God and of true life (John 14:6), the answer must remain that an argument from silence is equally worthless in either instance.

=====

The analysis will be from various aspects (Jesus' listeners, Jesus' application, formulas used, etc.), and will be based upon the material found in the appendices. First the Gospel data will be examined, then Jesus' use of the data. Such a method should help to clarify the problems and conclusions involved in Jesus' overall use of scripture.

The Data

\85/This fact was mentioned above (p. 17) as an illustration of the Synoptic Problem. The most glaring examples are Matt. 4:7 <lt>vs</>. Luke 4:12; Matt. 15:7 <lt>vs</>. Mark 7:6; Matt. 15:4 <lt>vs</>. Mark 7:10; Matt. 19:4 <lt>vs</>. Mark 10:3-7; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:17; Matt. 22:31 <lt>vs</>. Mark 12:26 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:37; Matt. 22:43 <lt>vs</>. Mark 12:36 <lt>vs</>. Luke 20:42; Matt. 24:15 <lt>vs</>. Mark 13:14. It will be noticed that the differences are from every combination of Synoptic parallels, and thus support the attitude of scepticism outlined above (p. 10). There seems to be no consistent way of evaluation one "document" against another concerning these formulas.

=====

Another caution must also be recognized. Even if the Synopticists agree on Jesus' formula for any given passage, or if the exegete uses formulas from passages which are not paralleled in the other Gospels, he must be careful to recognize the probability that these formulas are idiomatic, and should therefore not be taken literally. It is often noted that Jesus' formulas are the same as those in rabbinical literature, early church literature, Qumran literature, and first century Jewish writers. Such universal usage over such a long period of time clearly implies that the original, and literal, meaning may have been lost in the subsequent years of use.\86/ Thus the traditional arguments used by Wenham and Warfield (and many others) from the evidence of formulas are very questionable even if they had taken the Synoptic Problem into account.\87/

-----

\86/The Bible afford many examples of such idiom evolution. Ellis, p. 76, speaks of the cry "Hosanna" and notices that although "originally a prayer meaning 'save we pray,' it has gradually become just an expression of praise." Whereas "Christ" meant the "Messiah" to early Jewish Christians, it became a designation for Jesus of Nazareth in later Christendom @@ (no longer true) (and so it is used in the present study). Theological terms such as "adoption," "salvation," and "justification" have become by metaphorical use idiomatic. Today in Biblical studies one may easily find formulas analogous to those of the Gospels -- "Nestle reads," "this is Gospel Truth," "The RSV says."

\87/Wenham, pp. 22-26. Warfield, pp. 229-241 and 299-348. Some of their conclusions may be valid, but the arguments certainly must be re-evaluated.

=====

What is learned from Jesus' alleged formulas of quotation? This is, as indicated, a difficult question. Certainly they show Jesus' consciousness of the authority which the scriptures had for the people to whom he spoke.\88/ They also show that perhaps the major, if not the only, literature known to Jesus was the Old Testament.\89/ He was certainly well versed in the ancient writings! The formulas clearly reveal an intention by Jesus to quote the Old Testament passages, even mentioning specific books or authors, and show that the disciples understood Jesus to attribute direct Divine authority to many of the message quoted (if not all).\90/ The further question is, "How can we be sure that the disciples correctly understood Jesus?" In part, one must assume that they did understand him; in part, a more complete answer is suggested in the next chapter. Even more basic is the question, "How else could Jesus have introduced Old Testament references and still have maintained a unity with the past revelation while avoiding rabbinical implications?" [[42]] At present there seems to be no answer to this question, a fact which leaves much room for conjecture concerning Jesus' complete and personal attitude to scripture. The formulas are of minor significance in discovering Jesus' exact view of the Old Testament, although they indicate that he must have left the impression (no matter what his exact words) that the law had Divine sanction and authority.\91/

-----

\88/Tilden, "Jesus' Methods," p. 48, says: "In the case of the various formulas of quotation, although it is true that at least some are rabbinic in form, Jesus seems uniformly to use them in practical (<lt>ad hominem</>) ways rather than with subtle technical meanings, so that he rests his argument rather on the force of the Old Testament than on the literary form of the introductory words." This conclusion appears to be consistent with the facts of the case.

\89/Klausner, <tm>From Jesus to Paul</> (cited in Bussby, p. 272), p. 583, feels that Jesus "had no acquaintance beyond the Hebrew and Aramaic literature created in Palestine." Macleod, p. 175, admits that "the religious literature of Israel saturated His thought ... as a pervasive, directing source" even though Jesus undoubtedly did not own his own copy of the Old Testament. He refers the reader to the chapter entitled "Christ as a Student of Scripture" in Stalker's <tmlt>Imago Christ</> (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1895).

\90/At least, the formulas such as "God said" and "inspired by the Holy Spirit" give this impression. It is highly improbable that every formula of this type is intended to be merely an idiomatic use, although many may be merely that. It is significant that the Synoptic Problem mentioned above applied to these specific formula types in almost every instance. Matthew has a tendency to attribute, for example, Pentateuchal words to God while Mark gives credit to Moses or to God through Moses. This is certainly a strong indication that the Evangelists (or tradition), rather than Jesus, chose some of the formulas used in the "Quotations of Jesus."

\91/More explicitly, the problem is that however Jesus might express his attitude to the Old Testament, his listeners would tend to understand him in terms of their accepted theology. Had Jesus really said "God speaks through the legal principles originating in Moses," he would most probably have been cited as saying, "God said" or something similar.

=====

<h4>Hypothetical Sources</> -- These formal quotations are found in each of the Gospel sections assigned to the sources Mark, Q, M, and L.\92/ A fifth source, J (for John), is also included in this study. It is of note that Q has perhaps the least number of formula quotations.\93/ This is somewhat unexpected since Q is supposedly made up almost exclusively of Jesus' words with virtually no intervening narrative.\94/ Mark, however, makes up for this scarcity by an abundance [[43]] of formula references, thus supporting the confidence that Jesus really did use such formulas.\95/ Whatever source or sources the theorists may finally approve as "most reliable," it is obvious that Jesus is depicted as using the Old Testament by direct reference in each presently propounded source (with the possible exception noted above). The next question to be asked it: "What was the nature of the scripture which Jesus quoted?"

-----

\92/This is Streeter's hypothesis which was explained above, p. 28.

\93/L has almost as few such quotations at first glance, with some "questionable" references adding to its total (see appendix 1). Both of the Q contexts of quotation -- the temptation account and the significance of John Baptist (secs. 1 and 6 of appendix 1) -- have been questioned concerning their claim to be true Q material. Argyle and Metzger exchanged thoughts on the subject in <tp>Expository Times</>, LXIV and LXV. Argyle first wrote on "The Accounts of the Temptations of Jesus in Relation to the Q Hypothesis" (LXIV, 382), answered by Metzger's "Scriptural Quotations in Q Material" (LXV, 125), answered by another comment of Argyle under the latter title (LXV, 285). Argyle felt that the temptation account was not Q material. In addition, his listing of quotations (called "indirect quotations" below) from Q does not include the John Baptist passage -- this may be an oversight, or a denial of its Q origin. Nor does F. H. Woods, "Quotations," <tm>A Dictionary of the Bible</>, ed. by J. Hastings (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902), IV, 186-87, include the Baptist quotation as from Q. On the other hand, the lists of Q given by both Bussby, p. 272, and V. Taylor, "The Order of Q," <tp>Journal of Theological Studies</>, New Series IV (1953), 29-30, include both contexts.

\94/Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 30.

\95/Mark and Q are usually considered the most reliable sources. See Wendt, the "Introduction," and Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, chap. 2.

=====

<h4>Canon</>. -- The exact limits of Jesus' canon are unknown, although it generally coincided with the Old Testament which is presently accepted among protestants.\96/ His "minimum canon," however, may be discovered through his Old Testament references. Since the informal (not introduced by a formula) quotations are somewhat subjectively discovered, the canon of the formal quotations alone will be discussed now, hand the other canon indications (indirect, historical, etc.) will be treated later.

-----

\96/Jesus' exact canon remains a question despite the multitude of commentators who argue from the terms "scripture" and "law, prophets, and psalms" to the exact Hebrew Canon accepted at Jamnia and later. Too often the fact is neglected that even in the middle of the first century, popular discussions arose over such "fringe" books as Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. Nor did the early church appear to be bound to any rigid Old Testament canon. Hasty generalization has tended to obscure the real facts of a study of canon. See Westcott's excellent study, <tm>The Bible in the Church</> (London: Macmillan, 1901); B. J. Roberts, "The DSS and the Old Testament Scriptures," <tp>Bulletin of the John Rylands Library</>, XXXVI, 84-85; Davies, "Jewish Background," p. 236; Sanday, p. 4; Orr, <tm>Revelation and Inspiration</> (New York" Scribner's, 1910), p. 182; J. A. Beet, <tm>The Old Testament</> (London: C. H. Kelly, 1912), p. 8; and Angus, p. 88.

=====

In the formula references, Jesus is recorded as using the names of Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel. He definitely refers to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms (8, 41, 82, 110, 118), Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, and Zechariah; he probably refers to Malachi also. He may allude to Jeremiah, Proverbs, Psalm 35 or 69, and I Kings, but the wording is not definite enough to be sure. Some of the formula quotations seem to have no exact Old [[44] Testament source (especially John 6:45, 7:38, 15:25 and Luke 11:49)!\97/ It is significant to note that apparently no purely historical books are definitely cited by formula, nor any "fringe" books of the Jewish writings, either canonical or apocryphal (books about which questions were sometimes raised, for example, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon).

-----

\97/The Luke 11:49 passage is unique. Whether its introduction is intended as a formula or not is a matter of conjecture. Westcott, <tm>Bible in Church</>, pp. 46-48, traces its origin to II Chron. 24:19, which he feels became the basis for a proverbial saying in Jesus' day. This seems possible, but does not sufficiently explain the formula. Westcott also traces John 7:38 back to Isa. 44:3 and Zech. 13:1 in a similar way.

<h4>Text</>. -- What text did Jesus use? This is at present impossible to answer. The quotations are generally close to LXX text type, but they vary enough upon occasion so that the MT text type may sometimes be identified. Other texts, which are neither MT nor LXX, are occasionally used.\98/ As has already been
noted,\99/ there is little consensus of opinion as to the extent of Jesus' use of Greek. He probably knew the trade language, but did he use the LXX? Scholarship of the last century confidently answered "Yes!"\17/ Contrast this [[45]] with the more recent attitudes cited above in connection with Jesus' "mother-tongue."\100/

-----

\97/See the comments in appendix 1 and the note attached to it.

\98/See above: Chapter 1, p. 25.

\99/Gaussen, p. 82" "The universal custom of the hellenistic Jews in all the East, was, to read in the Synagogues, and to quote in their discussions, the Septuagint version." Lee, p. 317: "Our Lord Himself adopted and sanctioned the interpretation which the Seventy Interpreters had given [of Genesis 2:24 in Matt. 19:5].... In all such cases the Greek translation is followed, as exhibiting a true and clear perception of the meaning intended by the language of the Old Testament." H. Osgood, "Jesus the Supreme Witness and Example of Inspiration," in <tm>The Inspired Word</>, ed. by A. Pierson (London" Hodder and Stoughton, 1888), p. 247: "[Jesus] knew it [the Old Testament] in both the original Hebrew, and in its accepted translation, the Greek [which he always used in speaking to the people]." Note also this more popular recent writer; Ericson, <tm>Inspiration: History, Theories and Facts</> (New York: American Tract Society, 1928), p. 123: "Undoubtedly the Lord and His Apostles sometimes quote the Septuagint as the authority to which we must bow without question."

\100/See above: Chapter 1, p. 25. Manson, <tm>Teaching</>, p. 10, faultily assumes that Christ could not have spoken Greek. Both Argyle and Metzger, in the dispute mentioned above (Chapter 2, p. 42, note 10), imply that the questions of Christ were originally Aramaic.

=====

If Jesus did not use the LXX, what text did he refer to? The Aramaic targums were apparently not yet in existence in written form.\101/ Toy thought that the Hebrew text was read in the synagogues and then was rephrased into Aramaic, the latter of which was used by Christ.\102/ Manson feels that Jesus may have been conversant in a "scholastic Hebrew" which he used when speaking with the religious leaders, while using Aramaic with the common people.\103/ It is generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew was even then a "dead language" outside of the technical fields of religious and national endeavor.\104/

-----

\101/See Black, <tm>Aramaic Approach</>, pp. 8-12; Toy, <tm>Quotations in the New Testament</> (New York: Scribner's, 1884), pp. xiv. 79. Metzger, "Bible Versions" Ancient," <te>Twentieth Century Encyclopedia</>, I, 140, hints that the recent Cairo genizah targum find may give evidence that a written targum existed in the early first century (Kahle's theory), but the dating is not yet positive.

\102/Thus an oral rather than a written targum took general shape; Toy, pp. xiv, 79. Toy doubts that Jesus even read the Hebrew text in Luke 4:17f. at all -- probably Jesus s