M$$&&

mm
\L
^ilt iTi -t]
1

PROFESSOR

J.

S.WILL

THE WORDS OF JESUS

PRINTED BY

MORRISON AND GIBE LIMITED

FOR
T.

&

T.

CLARK, EDINBURGH

LONDON

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCKIBNER S SONS

THE WORDS OF JESUS

CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF
POST-BIBLICAL JEWISH WRITINGS

AND THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE

GUSTAF DALMAN
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN T&E UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION

D.
I

M.

KAY,

B.D.,
IN

B.Sc.
ST.

ROFKSSOR OF HEBREW AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES

THE UNIVERSITY OF

ANDREWS

I.

INTRODUCTION

AND

FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS

T.

&

T.

EDINBURGH CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

1902

AUTHOR S PREFACE TO THE

ENGLISH EDITION.

THE work

here introduced to English readers is the result of studies which have been pursued during a long series of The aim of these studies has been to ascertain the
years.

meaning

of the words of our Lord as they must have pre to the ear and mind of His Jewish hearers. themselves sented The author is well aware that the last word has not been

said
this

on not a few important and difficult questions treated in but his wishes will be fulfilled if his work volume
;

serves

to

direction

is if

strengthen the conviction that labour in this not fruitless, and must be done by many coChristian Theology
is

workers,

to be brought into

more

basis. precise relations with its historical

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

translation to the

the English version A number of the work. edition a second forms practically the author of small errors have been corrected by throughout the whole book, and the introductory part has been partly

rewritten
Texts,"

and

rendered

more complete.
to the

The

"

Messianic

which form an Appendix

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.

NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR.

THE

Translator has endeavoured to furnish a faithful version

not responsible for the various If the Gospel was first the author. positions maintained by announced in the Aramaic language, it is obvious that the
of the

German

original,

but

is

Greek versions

of the Synoptists cannot be finally interpreted

This without taking due account of the Aramaic prototype. will and of s line Dalman Dr. research, factor is introduced by be seen to contribute elements of great value in the minuter
exegesis of the Gospels.

thank the Kev. Professor A. K. S. he has taken Kennedy, of Edinburgh, for the helpful interest for in the process of translation, and correcting the second

The Translator has

to

proofs.

In rendering into English the idea of the malkuth

(Gottesherrschaft,

Yahveh
God"),

usually

called

"the

Kingdom

of

he

occasional
"

caused by the hopes no inconvenience will be use of "theocracy" as a shorter synonym for

In citing the Talmud, b. before the Sovereignty of God." name of the Tractate stands for Babylonian, j. for Jerusalem a Baraitha is a tradition of the elders which did not happen
;

to

be

incorporated

in

the

authoritative collection

of

K.

Yehuda ha-NasL
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

II.

III.

IV.

V.
VI.

VII.
VIII.

The literary use of Hebrew The Semitisms of the Synoptic Gospels Some Hebraisms and Aramaisms Alleged proofs of a primitive Hebrew Gospel Testimonies in favour of a primitive Aramaic Gospel The Problem before us and the previous studies in the same The selection of the dialect
. .
.

......17 .....
.
. .

.....12
1

.43
71

20

57

field

79

FUNDAMENTAL
I.

IDEAS.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (THEOCRACY).

. .

A. Sovereignty of Heaven, sovereignty of God, sovereignty B. The Jewish use of the idea
C.

The application of the idea of the Divine Sovereignty

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
.
. . .
. .

......
.
.

.96
words
.

91

in the

101

102

dis

.106
110 116 128
.

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. Luke IT 20 -.

II.

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE

words of Jesus
.
. .

1.

Its occurrence in the

2.
3.

Origin of the expression The simple 6 aiuv

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

.

....
.
.

.121
.

133 134

l! 12f
.

.139 .143

147

.148 .154

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 ^ fwij The significance of the idea
. .

.
.

.156 .156
.

......
.
. .

158
161

.158

IV.
1.

THE WORLD.
unknown
"

Books in which the term

is still

2.
3.

The idea

of the

"

world

"

in the Synoptists

Instances of the use of the idea

world
.

"

4.

The new world

V.

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

.
.
.

.162
166 169 177

"THE

LORD"

AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD.

1.

Not

name

for

God

to be found in

common

use
.

179

2.

Substitute for the Tetragrammaton (nvr)

.182

VI.
1.

THE FATHER
.

IN HEAVEN.
.
. .

2.

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

VII.

.184 .189

1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

God (6 0e6s) The Highest (V^KTTOS} The Blessed One (6 etfXc^ros) The Power (^ dvva/u.Ls) The Holy One (6 ayios) The Merciful One (6
.
c\ewj>)

VIII. EVASIVE OR
1. 2.

The Voice

3.

4.
5.
6. 7.
8.

Swearing by Heaven Reward, treasures in Heaven Written in Heaven

Before the angels, before

Bound, loosed in Heaven

9.

Heaven . From Heaven Hosanna in the highest

.

10.
11.

From on high

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

OTHER DIVINE NAMES.
.

.
.

194 198 200

200 202 204

PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD.

.

.204
.

God

206 206 209 209

. .

213
217 219 220 224

.223
229
231

Use of the Passive Voice

12.

Amen

....
Word
. .

.226
.

13.
14.

The Shechinah, the The Place

.

Glory, the
.

.
.
.
.

15.

Concluding Statement

233

CONTENTS.

xi

IX.
1.

THE SON OF MAN.

The
"

2.
3. 4.

linguistic "Son of Man

"

Son of Man
of

"

form of the expression was not a current Jewish name is no empty formula
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
"

........
.
"

a self-appellation of Jesus used exclusively by

..... .....
for the

PAGE

Messiah

234 241 249 250 253

256

X.
1.

THE SON OF 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.

2.

3.

The term in Jewish usage (a] Derivation and form (6) Signification and content (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.
1.

"MASTER"

2.

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

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

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS. 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.

H. B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, i.-iii., 1887-94. 0. F. Fritzschc, Libri apocrypM Veteris Testament! Greece, 1871.

DC Lagarde, Libri Veteris Testamenti apocryphi Syriace, 1861. Sirach: Hebrew Text, SQ 15 11 ; edition of A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer, 1897 ed. of R. Smend, 1897. 12 50 49 22, ed. of Schechtcr, Jew. Quart. Rev. x. 197-206.
"*,

(1898)

Tobit: Aram. Hebr.

and Latin Texts,

ed. of

A. Neubauer, 1878.

Hebrew Texts,
Supplements
to

ed. of

M.

Gaster, 1897.

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

B.

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA.
;

Psalms of Solomon:

ed.

of

H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, 1891

ed.

of

Gebhardt, 1895. Book of Jubilees: translation by R. H. Charles, Jew. Quart. Rev. 184 if., 7lOff. vii. (1895) 297 ff.
;

vi.

(1894)

Book of Enoch: translation by G. H. Schodde, 1882 by R. H. Charles, 1893. Greek text, A. Lods, 1892. Assumptio Mosis : ed. of R. H. Charles, 1897. Apocalypse of Baruch: Syriac text of A. M. Ceriani, 1871 translation by It H. Charles, 1896. 2 Esdras: Syriac text of A. M. Ceriani, 1868. Latin text, ed. of R. L. Bensly and M. R. James, 1895. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs : Greek text of 5. Sinker, 1868, 1879. Hebrew version (Naphtali), ed. of M. Gaster, 1894. Oracles: ed. of A. Rzach, 1891. Sibylline Testament of Abraham ed. of 3/. 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, Venice, 1517 Venice, 1525 ; Venice, 1548 Basle, 1618. 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. Jerusalem Talmud ed. Venice, 1524 ; Tractate Berachoth, ed. Mainz (M.
:

Mishna

ed.
:

LeJimann), 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, Eduyyotli, Abhoth, Horayoth, Moed Katon, Yebhamoth, Erakliin, Temura, Kerithuth, Nedarim, Nazir, Teharoth, ed.
:

Venice, 1526-29.

For the whole Talmud ed. Vienna, 1840-47 Varise Lectiones, R. RabbinoviczH. Ehrentreu, 1867-97. Abhoth of Rabbi Nathan ed. Vienna (S. Schechter), 1887.
: ; :

E.

COMMENTARIES
1515
;

(Midrashim).
(J.

Mechilta

Constantinople, (M. Friedmann), 1870.

: ;

ed.

Vienna

Weiss),

1865

Vienna

Siphra: ed. Venice, 1545 Siphre ed. Venice, 1545

:

Vienna (J. Weiss], 1862. Vienna (M. Friedmann}, 1864.

:

Midrash Rabba on the Pentateuch

Salonica, 1593.

ed.

Constantinople, 1512

Venice, 1545

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.

;

Constantinople-Salonica,

1512-15

Venice,

1546

Wilna

(S. Buber), 1891.

:

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

ed. Warsaw, 1865 Maimonides in Mishne Tora, Siddur Hegyon Leb, by L. Landshuth, Konigsberg, 1845 Seder Abodath Yisrael, by S. Baer, Rodelheim, 1868. Machzor, German rite ed. Cremona, 1560; Venice, 1568; Venice, 1714-19. Polish rite ed. Sulzbach, 1699 Amsterdam, 1736. French rite Machzor Vitry, ed. Berlin, 1893-97.
:

Seder Rab

Amram,
;

ed. Venice,

1524

Sephardic

rite
:

ed. Livorno, 1845-46.

Roman
Yemen

rite

Romanian

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

:

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

1 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 that is, the Hebrew late 1 showing that the Hebraists,"
"

"

"-

speaking Jews of Palestine, did not the Hellenists,"

"

who formed
in

a class distinct from

Aramaic,

it

reality speak Hebrew but seems superfluous to raise a fresh discussion on all

the details of this question.

to

Yet, while reference

"

is

made

my
all

"

on

the

Grammatik des jiicL-pal. Aramaisch for information Aramaic expressions that occur in the New
of evi

Testament and Josephus, the most important sources dence now involved must here be shortly summarised.
1.

The custom, represented in

the

second
into

century
the

after
text

Christ as very ancient, of translating

of the

Aramaic

Hebrew Pentateuch in

the synagogues of the Hebraists

of Palestine.

M. Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas (1896), 58

still

ff.,

81

f.,

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 About the year 200 A.D. the practice is so is incontestable.
1

Most recently by

Einleitung in das 2 Acts 6 1

Neue Testament,

G. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (1896), i. (1897) 1-24.

and Th. Zahn,

THE WORDS OF JESUS

firmly established that the

for

Mishna does not make

only with
iv.

it

a matter

prescription, but concerns itself precise determination of details (Meg.

the

more
In the
his

5,

7, 11).

third century

it

was recommended

by Joshua ben Levi to

It

sons

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

Law

without the traditional translation. 1

was not practical

necessity that was the determining factor in this case, but the inviolable custom according to which Bible text and

Targum were

inseparable.

There must, however, have been

a time during which a pressing necessity created this custom,

a time, that

tending to depreciate the significance of the Bible text, is, when the Hebrew text was not understood by those who frequented the synagogues. That even written

Targums existed in the time of Christ may perhaps be concluded from the story 2 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

Aramaic and not

to

in Greek.
of the

Gamaliel

II.

also

would appear
it

have seen a copy

same Targum.

Of course

does

not follow that such Targums were widely distributed, least of all that every one should have had them at home only it
;

is

clear that in public worship the

Holy Scripture was not

read without the translation into Aramaic.

according to
verse
in

Meg.

iv. 4,

This rendering, was required to follow each single

the

Pentateuch, and

every

three

verses

in

the

Prophets.
2.

The Aramaic

titles

for

classes

of the people
Testament.

and for

feasts attested ly Josephus

and

the

New

Of these there may be named

(Hebrew would be D^iQ),

1

"

Phari-

Ber. 8 a ;

cf.

Targum should
Targums,
2
is,

W. Baclier, Agada der palast. Amoraer, i. 141. That the therefore be also "read," thus implying the possession of written
;
; ;

however, not to be inferred from the expression. Tos. Sabb. xiii. 2 j. Sabb. 15 Sophr. v. 15. See same passages except j. Sabb. 15. Zahn, Einl. in d. N. Test. i. 23, maintains that the plural K;tfn
Sabb. 115 a

lies

at

INTRODUCTION

"

= K 3P13 (Heb. dpapdpxw, apafia.^ (ibid.) = fi &na = npa (Heb. itfnan Priest"; jnijn), "High 7raV^a (Heb. aaapQd (Ant. in. x. 6) = = "Pentecost"; $^% (Heb. $povpaia? $povpai Purim ad^/3ara = Knatf (Heb. natf), Sabbath."
sees";

Xaavaiai

(Jos.

Ant. m.

vii.

1)

"Priests";

(Heb.
nps),

"Passover";

N>

"

"

3.

.7%e

^se

o/

Ae

In support of this is heard in the sanctuary a

Aramaic language in the Temple. the old tradition that John Hyrcanus
divine
;

Aramaic language,

j.

Sot.

24 b

cf.

voice speaking Ant. xm. x. 3. 3

in

the

In the

temple, according to Shek.

for the drink-offerings

v. 3, vi. 5,

the legends on the tokens

and on the chests in which the con

were 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 so

But the use

of

Aramaic

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
Fasts,"

These

are, first, the

Eoll concerning

a catalogue of

days on which fasting was forbidden, time of the rising against the Eomans,
the Epistles of Gamaliel
IT.

first

compiled in the
A.D.
;

66-70
Both

secondly,

(about 110

A.D.) to the

Jews

of

South Judsea,

Galilee,

and

Babylon.

of

these were

destined for the Jewish people, and primarily, indeed, for those
of

Palestine.

For the

"

Eoll

concerning

Fasts,"

see

my

Semitic final sound in

the basis of the Greek form Qapiaaloi, because the ending CUOL represents a i or ay ; and that from N^n? there would have been

formed

able as the

not convincing for would have been unsuit and the Greek language forms with equal ease Aa/ucrcrcuos from Adpiacra, and Adrjvcuos from Adyvcii. But, of course, it is probable that the formation of the Greek Qapicralot depended on the
<a/H0-as.

This

is

<apt<7as

name

of a party,

frequently

heard plural definite XJBH^. Besides, the analogy of Sa5ou/ccuoi must have co operated, and that goes back to yns, definite fiN^s, plur. def. Njjny. 1 Wellhausen. Isr. und Jiid. Gesch. 161, holds that ^aya/od^s was the but it is possible that we have here one of the intentional original reading
;

Graecisms of Josephus.
2 3

Qpovpai
Cf.

dpa/3ax7?s was meant to suggest apapdpxrjs. due to a reminiscence of the Greek word plur. Derenbourg, Essai sur 1 histoire de la Palestine, 74; Bitchier,
is
<f>povpd,

<j>povpat.

Die

Priester

und der Cultus

(1895), 62

f.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

1-3, 32-34;
cf. Jiid.
f.

treatise "Aramaische Dialektproben,"

Monatschr.
Epistles
of

xli.

326, and Gramm.

given
in

d. jiid.-pal.

Aram. 7

The
are

Gamaliel

Aram.

Dialektproben
,

attributed
after

d by the Palestinian Talmud Sanh. 18 and

there
4

by Graetz,
first

the

Derenbourg, Neubauer, Gamaliel but this must be an

;

and

Biichler,

to

error, as the four

groups of

to (Upper and Lower Galilee, Darom and Babylon) point to a date after the (South-west Judaea),

Jews alluded

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

The Mishna gives the

decisive formulae

validity,
this

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. 1 2.
documents must be prescribing the language in which such 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

iv.

was, appears from Keth.

12, where an Aramaic form

is

given for dwellers in

Hebrew

is

Jerusalem and Galilee, while one in in Judoea, with no intention, let for dwellers given

us say, of emphasising the distinction of language, but by The reason of the varying contents of the formulae. Gamaliel n. Patriarch of the mentioned Epistles previously
Eoll concerning Fasts should reckoned among the public documents.

and the

properly

be

also

Graetz, Geschichte der Juden,

iii.

373.

2 3 4

D6renlourg, Essai sur 1 histoire, 242. Stadia Biblica (Oxford, 1885), 49. Buckler, Die Priester und der Cultus, 63.
;

5 Only the formula for "conditional betrothals," pee D (fftfjuf>uvo9), is not a d a 21 b mentioned there see, however, j. Kidd. 63 , 64 ; j. Gitt. 49 j. Er.
. ;

INTRODUCTION

The language used in a certain family register found at one time in Jerusalem, is open to question.
cording to
the

Ac
and

statement of Levi, one of the Palestinian

Amoraim
at

(about

300

A.D.

1
),

it

was written

in

Aramaic

any rate one sentence from it is reproduced in this The contents, now distorted by additions, would, language. refer it at the earliest to the end of the first however,
century.

But

in

Yeb.

iv.

13

Simeon ben Azzai (about

110

A.D.) says that he too had found a family register in

Jerusalem, in which there was used concerning some one B*K this formula in Hebrew bastard 1TD, ngfc
of a

wedded

wife."

Whether

this

register

was

the one
;

alluded to by Levi cannot indeed be affirmed with certainty but it is probably the same, and its language therefore
doubtful.
6.

The unquestioned adoption in the time of Jesus of the

characters in place of the old

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.

implying that iwra was the smallest letter, is certainly inconclusive. Vav and yod were both represented at that
period by a long perpendicular stroke.

5 18

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 tcepaia), 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
iota

intended for Greek readers.

1
2

For them

was actually
Cultus, 41
f.

See

j.

Taan. 68 a

Ber. R. 98;

cf.

Buchler, Die Priester

mid der

H. Laible, in Dalman-Laible s Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrasli, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue, 30 f., incorrectly refers it to Jesus. The discussion treats merely of the definition of the term "bastard." In Yeb. 49 b the discovered document is still further embellished with spurious
additions.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Instead of on Matt.
5 18 stress

the smallest letter.

must
of

be laid

much more on the fact that the Judaism

"

the

i.e.

second century possessed the Bible text only in Assyrian," Aramaic handwriting, a point of contrast with the Sam
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 M. Friedmann is right in Jews who thought in Aramaic.
7.

The

chief part saying in his Onkelos und Akylas, p. 88, that the of the Eabbinic 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."
3 occurs to use the participle as a present tense.

8.

The

custom

of

calling

the

Aramaic
x.
i.

"Hebrew"

Joseph us,
"

indeed, showed himself (Ant.

2, xn.

ii.

1) quite

capable of distinguishing the language and written character from those of the Hebrews." And yet of the Syrians
"
"

between Hebrew and Aramaic words he makes no

According
the
a
to

difference.

Ant.

I.

i.

1, 2,

o-d/30ara and

ASdp

belong to
6)
is

Hebrew
term
of

tongue, but daapOd as well (Ant.

in. x.

the

"Hebrews."

The

"Hebrew"

in

which

vi. Josephus addresses the people of Jerusalem (Bell. Jud. v. ix. 2) f) Trarpo? Jud. him called ii. is even (Bell. by 1)

V\(Dacra,

though in the circumstances nothing but Aramaic the can be looked for. Again, in the Johannine Gospel
(
-

Aramaic terms BrjOevSd, Tap/BaOa, To\^o9a, Pa^/3ovvi are 2 19 13 17 20 16 called "Hebrew," 5 Aramaic, too, must be meant by the "Hebrew tongue" in which Paul spoke
.

Samuel
2
i.

See for this, e.g., S. E. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of (1890), Ixv ff. See also A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lcsebuch zur Sprache der Misclmali (1845),
J.

3
3

H. Weiss, Mischpat leschon ha-Misclma

Geiger, loc.
cit.
i.

(1867), 2f.

A.

40.

INTRODUCTION
to the people of

Jesus
(

spoke

Jerusalem (Acts 2 1 40 22 2 ), and in which Paul (Acts 26 14 ). to *E\\rivicrTal and

,

1 Eppaloi were the names, according to Acts 6 of the two parts of the Jewish people as divided by language, although

"Svpiarai

would have

been the
if

more

precise
to

counterpart
characterise

of

EXkyvicnal.
"

But

it
is

was
clear

possible

Aramaic as

Hebrew/
it

it

that

Aramaic was the

everyday speech of the Jewish people at this period, in so

far,

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
In an

at least partially a spoken language in the former.

essay which
tine

much

"

requires revision,
of
1
Christ,"
"

The

dialects of Pales

in

the time

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 Jews

the Galileans and

the Jewish immigrants from

the neighbouring districts understood their own dialect only with a few (of course closely related to Aramaic), together
current

Hebrew

Adequate
awanting.

expressions such as proverbs and prayers." proof for all three parts of this assertion is

Neither the dialect of the Galileans, which was

the Aramaic, nor the purer Aramaic of

merely related to
demonstrated.

the Judasans, nor their

modernised Hebrew, can really be

least a distinct pre with certainty from inferred be dominance may the place-names in Jerusalem and its environs

That Aramaic had at

in

Judcea

(KCT S?n)
S

Br)6e<rSd

(OTDPI IV3)

%
S>

Safetv
1

(!

XafcvaOd

Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885, 39-74.

The discussion of these words will be found in my Grammatik des jiid.-pal. Aram. It may here be added that Ta^padd (Gram. p. 108) is incorrectly ex Nnro?, which properly means the baldness of the forepart of the head, plained. was a fitting name for the open space in front of the Antonia Castle which

THE WORDS OF JESUS

In the same category comes also a Hebrew term, similar

the foregoing, which was applied to the piece of ground on the Mount of Olives where Jesus tarried on the night of
to

the betrayal.

Whether one adopts the reading

Te6ar]jjiavei

= *my (
>mv

n_3

for D^ptf na), as I

have done Gram. 152, or

start

ing from the readings yeo-o-rj/jiavei, ^rfcrajjuavei concludes for N 3, Isa. 28 1 ), the term is all the same K\a ( =

&MV

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 1 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

used in

be quite right in holding that Aramaic was the language the temple and in the sacrificial service. But

because the priests speak descriptions of the temple service given by the Mishna in the tractates Yoma, Sukka, Tamid, Middoth,
obliged
to
infer,
served as a place of execution.

when he feels Hebrew in the

Grammar.
(2

With

4 Kings 25 )

XafavaOd (1 Mace. 12 ) is not noticed in the term may perhaps be compared the biblical D^nbnn pa and Onkelos K0^fi| for n|?s?p (Gen. 23 17 ) while the interchange
this
;

37

of

n and
1

I is

illustrated

by the name
the

PovfiijXos in

Josephus
iVp?.

for the biblical |3 *n,

and S&ios (Ant.

Sot. 49 b
:

xi. v. 4) for

name
I
!"

of the

month

"Wherefore

should

use the Sursi in Palestine?

Either the
d. jiid.-pal.

sacred tongue [Hebrew] or Greek

On

"Sursi"

vid.

Gram.

Aram. 2. 2 A. Biiclilcr, Die Priester und der Cultus, 64

ff.

INTRODUCTION
that
therefore

the Aramaic

had been
A.D.,

expelled
is

from the
sufficient

temple during the revolt,

basis for his conclusion.
for

6370
At

there

no
is

all events,

there

the opinion expressed by A. Kesch, 1

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 During the rising of the Maccabees seriously into question.
the Jewish population in Galilee was so inconsiderable, that

3000 men under Simon, about 163 B.C., had no other means of protecting them from their ill-disposed neighbours than 2 John Hyrcanus (135-105) by transporting them to Judaea.
it

appears later to have conquered Galilee and to have forced into Judaism, so that Aristobulus I. was able to continue

Jewish families must there the same process in Itursea. 3 after have established themselves in these parts again in
intermingled freely with the Judaised inhabitants, so that by the time of Josephus the
considerable
chief element of the population of Galilee as a

numbers

and

whole appears

as

"Jewish."

Under these circumstances the Hebrew lan

;

little

guage was not to be looked for and this applies also to the Nazareth to which there is wrongly attributed an 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
of of

Yapha and Kesaloth, and

commerce that
to Coesarsea.

it

lay on the important highway

led from Sepphoris to the plain of

Megiddo
in

and onward

The actual discourses

of Jesus

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.
A. Resch, gelium, 323.
2
1

This implies, moreover, that from

iv.

Aussercanonisclie Paralleltexte,
23
.

224,
*

Das Kindheitsevan-

Mace. 5 20

Ant.

xm.

xi. 3.

10
this side

THE WORDS OF JESUS

He

did

not come into contact with the

Hebrew

The Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Gali tongue. leans as of the people of Gaulonitis, and natives of Syria,
according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. stand it.
IV.
i.

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.

But the Kaddish

of

prayer in

Aramaic and the

explicit 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^ ^r1 ), 1 are weighty evidence against

determining the usage as it really existed among the people in accordance with the linguistic form of the Eabbinic tradi
tion.
If,

then,

was not
the
it is

to

was conceded that the Hebrew language be insisted on even in reading the Shema, that is,
it

in the symbolic fulfilment of the duty to occupy oneself with

Law which had

this

to be

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

there was

no hindrance, in their case at Hebraists," That least, to the use of their mother tongue in prayer. even in the third century in Palestine Aramaic was still
the

much

be gathered from the deterrent urged against it by Johanan (died 279 A.D.), one of the Palestinian Amoraim. He put forth the statement that the
used in prayer,

may

angels did not understand this language, and were therefore

unable to bring Aramaic prayers before God. 2 There is a b discussion (Ber. 40 ) concerning the Aramaic blessing which
the expression of the Mishna in the common text and in the Baby in the Palestinian Talmud and in the Mishna (ed. Lowe) the
;

This

is

lonian

Talmud

reading is "in their language," osie^? the sense, however, 2 Sabb. 12 b cf. Backer, Agada der pal. Amor. i. 243.
; ;

is

the same.

INTRODUCTION
the shepherd
;

11

to say over his Benjamin, in Babylon, used but because the to used, bread not, however, owing language That synagogue dis it did not contain the name of God.

courses intended for the people should have been pronounced in Hebrew, is an impossible supposition for a period in which the Aramaic version of the Bible text was a necessity.

Otherwise there must have been an interpreter side by side The more the scribes obtained unlimited with the
speaker. control of the Jewish religious system, so

much

the more

did divine worship adopt the form prescribed by the learned, During the calculated only for themselves. and
specially

the popular language was gradu progress of this transition In this connection, also, extruded from public worship.
ally

Jewish popular life before the year 70 A.D. must not be created by the Kabbinic judged from the appearances
literature.

Not even
times
is it

incontestably out was Hebrew, and that, in particular, the legal decisions

in regard to the legal schools of the earlier certain that their language through

were always formulated in that language.

We
1

are told, at
is

any rate (Eduyoth

incorrectly styled

viii. 4),

that a certain Yose,

of

who indeed

Yose ben Yoezer

Zereda,

his decisions as to clean

and unclean in Aramaic.

A.D.

pronounced This Yose

about 100 appears to have lived

that
at
least

One might conclude

in

his

school

Aramaic was the prevalent

language.

must be drawn the con clusion that Jesus grew up speaking the Aramaic tongue, and that He would be obliged to speak Aramaic to His Of the people in order to be understood. disciples and to

From

all

these considerations

Him,
poor,
1

least of all,

who

desired to preach the gospel to the stood aloof from the psedagogic methods of the

who

The appellation is held to be genuine by H. Kluegcr, Genesis und Com 84. See, however, A. Bilcller, position der Halacha-Sammlung Edujot (1895), Die Priester und der Cultus, 63, 84 D. Hoffmann, Misclmajoth, Eduj. viii. 4.
;

12
scribes, is

THE WORDS OF JESUS

it to be expected that He would have furnished His discourse with the superfluous, and to the hearers per plexing, embellishment of the Hebrew form ?

II.

THE LITERARY USE OF HEBREW.

The Jewish people has written in Hebrew in all periods. German, Spanish, Arabic may be the sole language of inter course, 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.

Hebrew

original

must be regarded

as prob

able for the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch?2 Esdras? the Book of Julilees? and for the Jewish ground work of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs* The same

language

may
Elijah,

be assumed for the whole series of writings

the
Isaiah,

composed
Moses,

under

names

of

Baruch,

Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Ezra, and for the

least

Psalms

of Solomon, in so far at were written in any Semitic language.

as

such

works

Who

could without

1 That I have in some respects serious misgivings regarding the considerations urged by E. H. Charles as proving a Hebrew original, see my notice of his edition of the Apocalypse of Baruch, Theol. Litbl. xviii. The (1897) No. 15.

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 3
4

See esp. Wcllhausen, Skizzen und Yorarbeiten, vi. (1899) 234 ff. See E. Littmann in Kautzsch s Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen,

ii.

35.

Gaster, The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Dec. 1893, Feb. 1894, believed he had

M.

discovered the original of the Testament of Naphtali but the conjecture of A. Neulauer, 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
;

el one does not expect from the latter Semitic originals that had disappeared, but selections from Western literature which was inaccessible to Jews. See also F. Schnapp, Apokryphen und Pseud

communications regarding Jerachme

epigraphen,

ii.

458

f.

INTRODUCTION
hesitation have represented
of a

13

Moses or Baruch as the writer

the

book in Aramaic

To Hellenists such a book might be

offered without

scruple, because

Hebrew
"

original could
"

not have been read by them.

be startling
if,

Among

Hebraists

it

would

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 A of Daniel and his comrades at the court of Babylon.
writing, in

which the visions

of the

King

of

Babylon were

interpreted, used aptly enough the language current in the The second part of the book, whole East at the time.

chaps.
visions

712,

gave

not less appropriately in

Hebrew-

which Daniel himself had had, together with their The redactor may first interpretation through an angel.
have ventured to translate chaps.
chap.
I1

2 4 into

Hebrew, and
as

into

Aramaic, and by
into

this

means

as well

by

the corresponding contents of the prophecy he welded the

separate

halves
in
;

one whole.
the
it is

In chap.
of

the worldits

power

is

decay when
in chap. 7
ff.

Kingdom
God
(cf.

God makes
-

appearance
chap. 7

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

ftvP, occurring only in this chapter.

not begin originally with 2 4 is additions to the Aramaic part would naturally be composed in Aramaic, so that in the Aramaic translation of the supple
did

That the Aramaic part self-evident. Further

ments to Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Daniel and the Dragon), which M. Gaster has published, 1 at least the
choice of language
1

is

happily inspired

though

it

must not
to
ff.

the

M. Gaster, The Unknown Aramaic Original of Tlieodotion s Additions Book of Daniel, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xvi. 280 ff., 312 ff., xvii. 75
extracted

Gaster has
Bible.

the

pieces

from the

Chronicle of Jerachme

el,

who

himself declares at the outset that he had translated them from the Greek

14

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

be fancied that this really represents the original from which Theodotion translated.

In regard to the Book of Enoch, the question as to

original language
of
its"

its

is

complicated owing
Semitic original
is

to

the different origin

parts.

A
In

chaps.
fiapa,

136.
28
1
,

this

beyond question for section the terms (frov/ca, 18 8 MavSo,

1 speak in favour of Aramaic by Baftfypa, 29 reason of the ending in -a, though TpiB is only known as a
,

Hebrew word, and imo,

Hebrew.
In 10
"

17

can be equally good ra craft/Sara avrwv stands where "their

"

wilderness,"

grey old age

was

to be expected

but that

is

susceptible

of explanation equally well through

Heb. Brn&? as Aram,

In 10 9 pafypeovs (cf. *\top) may also be Hebrew or Aramaic. Expressions clearly Hebrew are 1 1 1 real eyevero, 6 (from Gen. 6 ) irpo TOVTWV TWV \6yav, 1 2
jinnn^ or pnnnb
.

(jxtivrj

/3owi>

(ef.

Nip
(

^ip),

92

as well

as
;

dirb

TrpoaatTrov,

9 10

22 7

etc

Segiwv

= southwards),
2o 6
for

13 7
.

and

evfypavdrjcrovrat,

evtypaivoiJLevoi,

(asWIDfc^ nift^),

An

original in

Hebrew
of

must be
and
3
for
,

assumed

chaps.

72-82 on account
77
1
.

the
lf>

Hebrew names
the
I can

for the phases of the

of

sun and moon, 78

points

the compass,

As

for
"

chaps.

merely point out the Hebraising phrases and it came to pass," 57 1 68 4 70 1 7 1 1 "and it will come to pass,"
;

77 1

39 1 52 7
chaps.

"before

his

face,"

62 2

10

63 9 65 6 66 3 69 29

In

8390
"

the repeated use (thirty times) of the redun

is

dant

"

begin

striking,

and

is

at least not old

Hebrew

(vid.

As for the remainder and the book IV. 8 below, pp. 26 ff.). I do not venture to make a final pronouncement. a as whole,
There can be no doubt that the First Book of Maccabees
is

derived from a

Hebrew
speaks of

original.

When Jerome

in the

having the book before him in Prologus galeatus Hebrew, one must indeed, in view of the prevailing ambiguity
of his statements

he

has

here,

on such matters, be careful to see whether distinction between too, perhaps made no

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 II 24

the

author

has obviously
evpto-fceiv

imitated of set purpose.

It will suffice to
;

adduce
2 48
,

60 Xapiv IvavTLQv TWOS, 10

(f>d/3ov

SiSovai /cepas,
/jLe<yd\7}v }

<f>oj3elv

fjieyav,

10 s

Trardo-creiv irfojyrjv

53

cf.

5 34 S 4

KOTrreiv KOTTCTOV fteyav, 2 70 9 20

1 6 36
;

13 26

avrjp

TT/JO?

rov

irKrja-iov
88
;

op^L&iv opyyv fjLeyd\7}v, avrov ( = one another), 2 40

;

1 2 23 eyevero ore, 5 7 9

10 6 *-

the frequent use of

<r<j)68pa

efe

<rt,v,

et? aTravTijaiv

J"l&Op7

= lN*p
is

\e<y(0

"ibK? ;

Kara Trpoatmrov

= ^Sp.
of

All this

specifically

Hebrew
is

and not Aramaic.

The

Aramaic

Book

the

ffasmonceans,

which

modelled after the biblical Aramaic, is in no way connected with the First Book of Maccabees, and is, together with its

Hebrew version, 2 of much Tobit we now possess four

one Aramaic
3
;

later

origin.

Of the Book of
recensions and

distinct

Hebrew

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
only translations from the Greek, and that the hypo thetical Semitic original is lost to us. When Jerome says that he had completed the Book of Tobit with the help of a Hebrew translation, which latter he himself had got made from a Chaldaic text, it is possible that this text too
are

may

have been a translation from the Greek, and may itself have been in Syriac. The same possibility will hold of the
Chaldaic text of the
1

Book

of

Judith which Jerome used;

"The

See especially the edition of M. Gaster,

in

Scroll of the

"

Hasmonseans,
jiid -pal

in

Transactions of the Orient.

Congress, Lond.
vi.

1891,
ff.,

ii.;

Neulauer Aram. 6.
2 3

and, further, A.

Jew.

Quart.

Rev.

(1894) 570

also

Gram, d

See, e.g.,

Boer s Seder Abodath

Yisrael, 441

ff.

recensions were printed in Constantinople 1516 and 1519 ; M. Gaster edited in 1897 two more in "Two unknown Hebrew versions of Tobit" (also in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.) A. Neubauer an
;

Two Hebrew

published

Aramaic
Text"

text (together with the

(1877), see also
p.

Hebrew

of 1516),

"The

Book

of Tobit, a Chaldee

Gram. 27 ff., and

Schilrer, Geschichte d. iiid.

Yolkes

iii

(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
language.

"

we have said above Hebrew language, but if

as
"

if

"

Hebraist,"

have

a Hellenist, the Greek

In no case, however, has the abridged Hebrew

reproduction of the story of Judith, which we possess in a twofold form, 1 an immediate connection with the original of
the book.
to the question of the language of a Semitic gospel, it must be said that some of the primitive to composition in Hebrew at that time favourable incentives
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
for

such an
"

address

were

noted

down

the

Aramaic speaking the model of the

able

Hebraists,"

biblical

composition in Hebrew after books was, of course, not incon

ceivable, especially as those

Jews who could read were

also

to understand Hebrew, yet the more probable course with material already formulated by oral delivery was to

write

it

down
if

in

the language in which

it

was spoken,

particularly

the record were designed to afford convenient

and

reliable material for further recital or public exposition.

Even some

centuries later, the gospel of the Jewish Christians,

according to the express testimony of Jerome,

was composed
is

not in Hebrew but in Aramaic.

justify the

Hence there

much

to

unless decisive evidence to the contrary view should be found in Church tradition or in the Gospels them that a collection of the sayings of our Lord designed selves
for
"

Hebraists,"

in other words, a primitive gospel (Urevanin Aramaic.

Beth ha-Midrasch,
i.

gelium), was written

1

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

has been written on the

first

"

Hebraisms

"

of the

New

Testament since the

them by Kaspar Wyss 1 teenth century. But from the outset

grasped

important investigation of and Johann Vorst 2 in the seven

it

has

not
of

been
the

with

sufficient

clearness

that

the

Greek
by

Jewish

Hellenists

must

have

been

affected

Semitic

In the tongues in several distinct ways. be assumed that the Greek spoken from
in

first place, it

must

Syria to

Egypt was

many

particulars influenced, in
of the
;

no small degree, by the

and, further,

Aramaic language
for

in

it holds true country 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 peculiar to the Jews, which had then to be apprehended in a

Greek mould, had already been fashioned in Aramaic and no longer in Hebrew. The spiritual intercourse also which Jewish Hellenists continuously had with Hebraists in Pales
tine implied a constant interchange between Greek and Aramaic (but not Hebrew) modes of Hebrew expression. influence was active only indirectly: first, in so 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 in fluence on the religious dialect.

In the case

of

the Synoptic

Gospels of the Christian

Hellenists, there has further to be

specified relations with

added

to

the previously

Jewish Aramaic, the highly important

consideration that the

groundwork

of the material elaborated

by them had been originally created in Aramaic. And this holds equally true whether their basis itself to the presented
Kaspar Wyss, Dialectologia sacra, Zurich, 1650. Johann Vorst, Philologia sacra, ii., Leyden, 1658, i., Amsterdam, 1665, with general title De Hebraismis Kovi Testament! Commentarius Amster
*
:

dam. ]665.

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

be held responsible for Semitisms. In the latter case a special examination is then required into the
is

Hebrew

to

different possibilities involved.

The material

of the Synoptic

Gospels might have partly or wholly been shaped in a Hebrew mould 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.

this

During

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 in public and in private, the desire to the Christians by give to the gospel a corresponding dress must naturally
model.

have existed

and the conception

of the

Canon among the

devotional lection-

Christian Hellenists was none so sharply defined as to cause

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

new

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
s

Winer
2.

Grammatik
Ic,

complains in his new des Neutestamentlichen

constituents
sufficiently

Sprachidioms,"

that

the Aramaic

of

the

New

Testament diction have not been

re

garded.

But he himself does not succeed

with F. Blass, who

in reaching

any
Still

really tenable separation of

less satisfactory is it

Aramaisms and Hebraisms.

Griechisch"

calls special attention

in his "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen

(1896),

INTRODUCTION
p.

19

on the idiom, but makes no attempt to distinguish Aramaisms from Hebraisms and in the Preface to his edition of the Gospel of Luke l he
4,

to the

Hebrew- Aramaic

influence

characterises as

Aramaisms idioms which

in

some

cases are

equally good Hebraisms, and in others are pure Hebraisms and not Aramaisms at all. And how is it possible that
J.

Bohmer should
im
TO)

still

exclusively consult the Old Testament

in his tractate, otherwise instructive in

many

"

respects,

Das
ex
TO

biblische

Nam en
OVOJJLCLTI,

"

(1898),

in

which he aims at
et?

plaining linguistically

and
in

historically the variations

ovo^a,

eiri

the baptismal

formula

In

this

very instance the key to the explanation of the expression is to be found in the usage of language among the Jews. Bohmer should at least have said why he looked for no
information from that quarter. further deficiency in the current grammatical studies of New Testament Greek consists in the inadequate attention

directed to the

"

Grascisms

"

of the Gospels,

i.e.

to the linguistic

phenomena which have no immediate Semitic equivalent, and

for which, therefore, the Hellenistic writers

must perforce be
the Gospels into
Grsecisms,
either

held responsible.

Previous translators of
to
grief

Hebrew have come

because, like

over these

a minor degree, Salkinson, have refused to abandon the principle of a verbally they 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
to

these
1

latter

separate Grsecisms not less distinctly than the former

F. Blass, Evangelium sec. Lucam (1897), xxif. This is not mentioned as a censure. In this principle, so far as it is applied to a translation for practical purposes, I fully agreed with Franz Delitzsch, and was therefore able to act as editor of the revised llth edition
2

of his

Hebrew New Testament, which appeared

in 1892.

20

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Hellenistic Hebraisms.

Thus may be reached a verbal form

identified with the original

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

it is all

fined to a very limited compass.

Moreover,

the less

probable that He should have spoken the Hebraising Aramaic of the Targums, inasmuch as no such practical use of it is

anywhere

found among the Jews. Even to Aramaic transmitters of His words 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

original.

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

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,

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

more
re

Synoptists.

The discussion

of

further details

must be

served

till

the examination of the special passages.

The

participles
finite

coupled with a

eKOav or e^o^e^o? are redundantly verb by the three Synoptists, lut not

"by

INTRODUCTION
the

21

Johannine Gospel 1 Jesus says, Matt. 5 24 e\6oi)v Matt. 12 44 (Luke II 25 ) ekOov evpiwei, "go, offer"; goes and 23 27 should finds"; Matt. 25 (cf. Luke 19 ) eXflaw cKopurdpi)v,
"it
"I

have gone and came and drew

"he

received";
nigh."

Luke 15 25

ep%6/uievo<s

tfyyicrev,

"he

kindred use
to,"

is

TropevOels
.

Ko\\rj6ij,

also
"he

went and joined himself Luke 15 15 The narrative makes use of such expressions Matt. 2 23 e\6a)v KaTwicrja-ev,
:

went and

dwelt";

Matt. 15
"

25

e\6ovcra Trpoae/cvvet,

(Mark
down."

7 25

elore\6ovcra

TrpocreTreaev),

she

came and

fell
&tfa

This idiom corresponds to the redundant ?pn and

of the

Old Testament;
came";

see,

e.g.,

10 N3J ?fe Judg. 19

"I

"he

went and
return";

Hos.
1

5 15
a

ra?K ^K,
"he

will

go

(and)

Sam. 20

iN

afcjl,

came and

said."

In the Book of

be compared especially the con 4 1 3 15 2 see also junction of TropeveaOat, with eiTrelv, 12 13 11 7 In Tropevov KOL SrjXoHTov, 10 iropevOels e/cdOiaa, 13
text)

Enoch (Greek

may

Jewish Aramaic this idiom

"

is

also

common.
;

Exx.

WniM
let

>W,

he goes and
die,"

becomes,"

Yay. E. 2 5

"

HID^

73^

him go
testify,"

and
j.

j.

Ter.

45 C

Trim ^P,
f>TN,

"let

him go and
rescue," j.

E. h.

S.

58

d
;

arra
came

"I

go and
j.

Ter.

46 b

|3

nago

n,

"he

so to

do,"

Khali. 60

b
;

iw

xm,

"he

came and
marry,"

asked," j.

Shebi.

39 a

l&\
"

w,

"let

him come and

married,"

Ber. E.

65; nnppnsi

npTN,

she went and

Ber. E. 17.

2.

afa

The juxtaposition of KaraXiTrwv and a^et? with a term can in no signifying departure, where the idea of leaving
" "

way be emphasised,
rot*?

occurs in the narrative of

Matthew and

Mark, but not in Luke and John.

Examples

Matt. 1 3 36 afals

22 o^Xov? 97X^61;, "He left the people and went"; 22 12 avrov a^eWev airri\QcLv (this also in Mark 1 2 ), they left
"

Him and went

1

Mark 8 a^ets avrovs away"; 4 (Matt. 16 KaraXiTrcov aurou? airrfkOev), He left

13
"

aTrrjKOev

them and
doubtful.

John II 17 4\d6v

is

indispensable

the reading, however,

is

22
departed";

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Matt. 2 1 17 Ka-rakLTrutv avrovs e%rj\J&cv\ see also In the Old Testament this is not a usual mode of

Mark 4 36
diction.

times by n

Salkinson renders afyikvai by 3W, Delitzsch some 3n. But the former signifies in the Old Testa
s

ment
let

"

to desert, leave in the

lurch,"

the latter
is

"

to leave or

alone,"

and neither the one nor the other

This
fib
is

employed in
"

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

:

the case, however,

iw

iTjMP,

he

left

and went

on";

j.

Taan. 66

tf>

I&K1 n^pl^,
it

"they

left

him him

and went

away."

From

these instances

may

also be seen

how

in similar cases aTrrjKOev standing

by

itself,

which can

not be rendered into

Hebrew merely by

1JJ3,

presupposes the

1 use of the popular Dativus commodi of Jewish Aramaic.

3.

In certain actions of a sedentary kind the evangelists Examples usually make superfluous mention of the posture.
:

KaOlo-avres
gether,"

"

avveKe^av,
;

they

sat

down and
"

collected

to

He sat down and and reckons," down tyrjtyi&t,," taught," Luke 14 28 KaOlaas fiovXevo-erai, he will sit down and 31 down and write," icaQivas consult," Luke 14 7pa^oz/, Luke 16 6 Of the same nature is the instance where it is said of Levi that Jesus saw him (KaO^evov) at the sitting 14 9 Luke 5 27 ). In quite receipt of custom, Matt. 9 (Mark 2
Matt. 13 48
53
;

icaOicras

e &t Safev,

Luke
;

KaOicras

he
"

sits

"sit

"

"

the same

way

it is said,

6 Judg. 19

>3&]

ttpl,
"

"and
"

they sat
is

down and
"

ate,"

for to

the narrator the

"

sitting

an im
"

material concomitant.
sitting

and

ruling,"

or sitting and judging Again, the 12 Zech. 6 13 are to be as to which Joel 4

,

30 28 compared with Matt. 19 (Luke 22 ), In the Jewish Aramaic we find OTf

counted,"

falls into

the same
sat

class.

aw,
"

"

He

and
a
.

re

Est.
;

E. 3

a T? ?; pt?f
1

i^?,

they sat

and

studied,"

Ber. E. 17

^no
1

nw
See

n;n,

He

sat

and

taught," j.

Ber. 6

my Gramm.

d. j.-pal.

Ar. 178.

INTRODUCTION

23

4.

ecrrco?,

Thus it is said, Standing is the posture during prayer. Matt. 6 5 eorwre? 7rpocrev%ea0ai,, to stand and pray Mark II 25 orav artf/cere irpoorev^pfjuevo^, "when ye stand and
"
"

pray";
prayed."

Luke

18 11

araOeis

irpoo-^v^ero,

"he

stood
4
,

and

also implied that standing

it
is

In the Old Testament, 1 Kings S Neh. 9 it is was the usual attitude at prayer;
,

22

not, however, a regular

phrase to say,

"

he stood and
"

prayed."

On
the

praying," j.

the other hand, contrast tyto B^P, 4 D nafe E. h. S. 58 b Kjj, Est. E. 3

;
.

he stood

In

same way

Krnftui
"

is

quite

without

force

in

eia-rrjiceicrav

KarrjyopovvTes,

they stood and

people

accused,"

Luke

23 10

eurrqtcei,
;

Qewp&v,
25
.

"the

stood

beholding,"

Luke 23 35
ing

cf.

eara)? teal Qeppaipopevos,

-

"standing

and warm
the Old

himself,"

John 18 18
ni Bnj

Further,
"and

we have from

Testament:
feed,"
"

HOT,

strangers shall

stand and

5 Isa. 6 1 ;

and from the rabbinical

reaped,"

literature, T$n\ B Kjj njn,

he stood and
say,"

Vay. E. 22

Vip&O

ny,

"they

stand

and

Mechilt., ed. Friedm.

45 b

5.

redundant dvao-rds

is

found in the narrative

It is

of the

Synoptists, but not in John.

found with aicoKovOelv,

Matt. 9 9 (Mark 2 14 ,Luke 5 28 ); airepxe(r0ai,

Mark

7 24

epxe<r6ai,

Mark 10
ayeiv,

1-

50

20 (avamiSfaas), Luke 15 29
;

TropeveaQai,
38
;

Luke

I 39

eKpd\\eiv,

Luke 4
;

sia-epxea-Qai,

Luke 23 1
also is to

Tpe%eiv,

39 Luke 4 Siaicovelv, Luke 4 12 33 Luke 24 inroa-Tpefaiv, Luke 24

;

be reckoned dvea-r^ e/cTreipdfav, Luke 10 25 The synonymous fypQek is seen in Matt. 2 14 (with 19 TrapaXaiJiftdveiv), and in Matt. 9 (with aicokovOelv). In words
.
13>

Here

spoken by Jesus it is found with iropevecrdai, Luke 15 18 20 17 19 A glance at the examples specified by Hebrew Concordances for the terms Di?;i, Dpn^ ^o^pjl, shows that this
-

is

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

secundum
class
it

Lucam"

(1897),

p.

xxiii,

can without more ado

is

as

an Aramaism.
is

Still it

true

that

the same
:

mode
w:irf>

of

speech
"

quite possible in Aramaic.

build,"

1D|5,

they stood up to
pray," j.

Ezra 5 1

Examples are P n^ D|?,

;
"h

"he

stood up to

E. h.

S.

58 b
;

n^
"

kw
D^

Dj3,
"

he stood

up and devoured him," Vay. E. 22 and gave him," Ech. E. i. 4 i^tfl

;

Hv
piD^,

arn

he stood up

they stood

protested,"

j. j.

Keth. 30 d
Yeb. 15 a
.

n\Jlncn_ro|5,

"they

up and stood up and

beat
the
E.

him,"

The Imperative
"
"

Dip is
"

common
!

for

mere
28
;

interjection
Dip,

up
go,"

e.g.
j.

3i3*i

Dip,

up
rnr

ride,"

Vay.
Dip,

^nn

U p!
j.

Bikk. 65

d
;

iuj>

rrpj>

"up!

worship

idols,"

Ab.

z.

39 b

6.

1 d7rorcpi6el$ eltrev.

It is a

well-known peculiarity
is
"

of

Hebrew

narrative style
"

that a
said,"

S introduced not simply by speech or *r\\W, he called," but by prefixing to these

">P^

!!,

and he
"

feM,

and

he
1

answered."

The same mode

of reporting prevails also in

2

Mace.,

Tobit,

Book

of
;

Enoch,
it is

Apocalypse

of

Baruch,

2 Esclras, Assumptio Mosis

in the
in the

conspicuously rare, however,

Book

of Jubilees of

Second Book

and in Judith, and occurs occasionally Maccabees. The Synoptists have the

same mode

and John s Gospel is here no ex In the words ception. spoken by Jesus it is found in Matt. 12 9 26 37 40 44 45 2129.30 25 Luke II 7 13 25 15 29 In (cf. ver. )
of expression,
-

these instances aTroicpiOeis euTrev

in

is

the formula most used

Mark

7 28 occurs also aTre/cplOrj

/col

\ey6i, the two finite verbs

being set side by side, and this latter is the formula nearly a-TTOKpivea-Oai 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

15 1 21 9 22 7

21 6 25 1

27 1

INTRODUCTION
\eytov
is
9 attached, see Matt. 25
-

25
-

37 - 44 45
,

Mark

3 33 5 9 9 38 15 9

Luke
also

16

4
,

John
where

26

10

33

12

23
.

Moreover, the formula

occurs

II 25 17 4 (Mark 9 5 ) 26 63 2S 5 Luke I 60 13 14 14 3 John 5 17 19

Matt.
-

no explicit question has preceded, see Mark 10 51 II 14 12 35

,
.

The Hebrew idiom

and by the Targums he answered and
"

is

naturally copied both by the

LXX
rny,

but even in biblical Aramaic iciO

is

said,"

frequently employed.
is

In the

later

Jewish Aramaic
Scroll of the

this

formula

quite

unknown.
of

The
is

Aramaic

Hasmonseans, the style

is

which

modelled on the Book of Daniel,

eleven times.

singular

in having it

Direct speech

is

introduced by the simple IEN.

"

Even

in conversations
is

further introduction

which are considerably prolonged, no added. The word for answer in

"

Galilean Aramaic 3\3K

is

rarely used.
"1BK,

In Ech. K.

i.

j.

Erub. 1 8

it is

conjoined with
^ritf,

but not so as to constitute

"

a persistent formula.

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 it only from
the

Hebrew
Bible.

either directly or through the

medium

of the

Greek

7.

e\d\7](rev (eiTrev)

\eywv.

"tetf?,

The circumstantially precise Hebrew phrase B and he spoke to ... and is likewise foreign both
"

said,"

to

the

biblical

Aramaic and
it

to

the later Jewish-Aramaic

dialects.

Aramaic,
"is
;

is

true, has the

b!?

word

"

alongside of

but the use of

is

speak essentially narrower

bipo

for

"

than that

of

the

Hebrew
Daniel

"isn.

It is applied, indeed, as
DJ>

the
!n

introduction to a direct discourse, Dan. 6 22 Nsf O

fon

&?,
1

"

then

spake

parallel to this is

the king, saying." found in the later literature. 1

to
:

But no
Similarly

Book

of Enocli 21 5 seems, however, to presuppose it

^N i2Ti

^x

26

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Ezra 5 11 the Hebrew
">b&6

in the single instance

is

imitated
is

by

"i*PP?,

whereas elsewhere for similar cases there

i,

used
the
this

only a finite verb coupled by

or a participle.

When
"!
/>,

Targums habitually render

"^

by fe, and lb&6 by

should be pronounced a Hebraism; nor can it be otherwise regarded when the evangelists sometimes have recourse to
the corresponding Greek expression of the
eXaXrjaev 8 26
;

LXX.
,

Xeyow
3
.

is

found Matt. 23 lf 2 8 18 Luke 24 6f -,Acts

-

elirev

\eycov (elirav

Xeyoz/re?),

Mark

8 28

12 26 (discourse
of

of Jesus),

Luke 14

Other instances are susceptible

different explanation, viz. Matt.

14 27 (Mark

50
),

because

em

phasis

may

be laid on the fact that Jesus, hitherto silent as

over the lake, then addressed His disciples, and

He moved

Matt. 13 s 2 2 1 because \a\elv (\eyeiv) ev 7rapa{3o\al$ forms one The expression accordingly is not a composite expression.

common one
of

further, it is never attested

by more than one

Its

the Synoptists in the same connection.

occurrence

also in

Acts 26 31 and John 8 12

is

a warning against hasty

inferences.

Nevertheless Xeyaw must not in every case be referred without further examination to the Hebrew The latter
*&*>.

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

But Aramaic, minding, teaching, charging, murmuring, etc. similar has he decided and said," too, conjunctions
"

"IP**!

"1)3,

j.

Ab.

z.

44 d

"ip^T"?.?,

"he

blessed and

said,"

j.

Ber.
d
;

ll b

new na
"

TOW,

njn,he announced and said," he testified and said," Vay. E. 34.

8.

j.

Yeb. 12

Tnp

ijpgaro,

The use
of

of rjp^aro, fjpgavro

with an infinitive following,

when nothing
that

at all

is

to be said of
is

any further development

one
of

the action thus introduced,

the

peculiarities

mark the
it

narrative style of all three Synoptists,

5

John

having

influence of

only once (13 ), where it is perhaps due to the In Matthew it the kindred passage Luke 7 38
.

INTRODUCTION
occurs twelve times, in

27

twenty-six times.

twenty-six times, and in Luke In words spoken by Jesus it is found Matt.

Mark

18 2i 24 49 (Luke 12 45 ), Luke 13 25
forms

26

14 9

i8 - 29

15 14

2*

2 1 28

23 30

Further, this phrase occurs outside narrative passages in the

apj;r),

apfyaOe, apgeaQe.
It
is

The expression

is

obviously

quite conventional.

altogether foreign to the

Old Testa
it is
it

ment, but in chaps. 8590 of the Book of Enoch Salkinson has ignored with abnormal frequency.
3
8

found

in

Luke

13

25

14

9 29
-

15

24
,

but elsewhere has used bnn as equivalent.

in Similarly Delitzsch substitutes other turns of expression 9 29 8 has recourse he also other cases while in the Luke 3 14
-

to

^[}.

Eesch

entirely abandons

the region of what

is

^Kin as equivalent even linguistically admissible by inserting in the historical narrative, as if a volition or determination
to do
of the

something were to be expressed.

And

the statement

same

writer, that this

^n
is

"

belongs very specially to

Testament," is

the epic style of narration in the Old

prehensible.

incom

But
"

all

conjecture

rendered needless in this

case

by the

fact that the Palestinian-Jewish literature uses

the

in the same fashion. The began common word for to corresponding Aramaic term is the v in Hebrew ^nnn, de to loosen begin," )^ Pael of N^,

meaningless

he

"

"

"

"

rived from n^nn,

e.g.,].

"

a
;

is its beginning,"
j.

substitute.
for

For *~w
Ber. 7
is

see,

Ber.
j.

13 b

2, 14 a Pes. 33

Shebi.

35
v.

b
;

and

^nnn,

d
,

j.

12 b

Koh. E.

10.

No example

known

to

me which would
speech.

But
"

if

correspond to the use of ap^ofjiai, in direct ^W coupled with a participle had become
is
"

not easy to see why we should to say not have (Luke ye will begin to stand without, 13 25 26 ), and "begin not to say" (Luke 3 8 ). This was, of course,
practically meaningless, it
:
-

very
"

little
not."

different

from the mere

find in

"

ye will stand,
9

say,"

say

When we

Matt. 3
,

py So^re \eyeiv
is

in

place of

firj only a constructio ad sensum variant in better Greek, which could also, however,

ap^rjade \eyeiv in

Luke

3 8 this

Aussercanon. Parallel texte,

iii.

9,

28

THE WORDS OF JESUS

have been expressed in Aramaic.

Cod.

Even

in

Luke 14 9 where
,
"

has omitted

apl-y, there

is

hardly any real difference

in the feeling of the writer

shalt begin to
it

take,"

between apfy /care^en/, and the simple thou shalt take."

"

thou
Still

may
is

7Kin

here be recalled that strangely enough the in most cases rendered in the Targums by

Hebrew

in the

LXX
"

by ap^o^ai,
in,

so that

^ may
to."

^,

as

idea of

acquiescing
,

consenting
I 27
-

thus express the See Onk. Deut. I 5

,

7 Trg. Josh. 7

17 12 Judg.

35

63

This sense

is possible also

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

,

9.

6v0eo>9

evdv?,

The adverb

evOe&s, evOvs

the latter being the undisputed

is

reading in a few passages only

used by

Mark

forty-five

1 times, by Matthew eighteen times, by Luke eight times, and The synonymous Trapa^prj^a is found by John seven times. twice in Matthew and ten times in Luke, Matthew and Luke

with about equal In words frequency though only half as often as Mark. 5 5 is found Mark 4 evOew spoken by Jesus, (evOvs) (Matt. 13 )
"

thus having the adverb for

"

straightway

4 15
21

16

20 (Matt. 13 ) 29

17
15

21 (Matt. 13 )

3
),

Matt. 24

25

Luke 12
"

5*

II 2 (Matt. 2 1 2 ) 3 (Matt. 14 17 7 2 1 9 Salkinson has

-

29

recourse here to terms for

nr
t

suddenly, quickly," such as W"]3, yro, QNna, rnnip iy O r to the verb Delitzsch, too, has various Hebrew to do justice to the sought by expressions
"ino.

awkward eu#eW
ment

Eesch has frequently expelled it from the text, but has occasionally used E^ns. The Old Testa
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 TO,

fp

represents the Aramaic prototype

;

presupposed by the evangelists

see

j.

Ned.

41;

j.

E.

h. S.

58 a

In Vogcl, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas (23), it is incorrectly stated that Luke has evOews only once, elsewhere constantly irapaxprjfJt-a.
2 This appears more appropriate than with n^x or ^, usually stands for "as soon

jvs,

which, especially in conjunction

as.

INTRODUCTION
Vay. E. 22 Ab. z. iv. 4.

29

Jems.
This

I.
1

Gen.

I3

Ex. 19 17

Hebr.

j.

Pes.

33 a
"

(bis)

T?

does not

mean

"

suddenly,"

but

without

delay, forthwith, immediately

thereafter,"

agreeably with the

sense of evOvs and Trapa^pij^a in the Gospels. It can gener 1 be substituted where these occur. That Matthew and ally

Luke
tion

restricted its use is conceivable enough.

Its excessive

frequency in
of

Mark must depend on

is

the particular predilec

the author, and

due probably to Greek rather

than Jewish-Aramaic influence.

10. TTpOCTCDTTOV,

Kara
Acts 3
is also
13
,

"

TrpocrcoTrov rtro?,
cf.

in presence of
s
(wi>).

LXX

Chron. 28

any one," Luke 2 The phrase, however,

,

31

proper to classical Greek, and is therefore no Hebraism. In Hebrew S 2N? might also be used, as in 1 Sam. 25 23 in
;

Aramaic, *&$ ty or SN3, Gram.

"

d. j.-pal.

Aram. 183.
is

irpo TTpoo-MTTov Tii/09,

before any
2
,

one,"

found in an Old
9 52

Testament citation Mark

to

Matt. II
1

10

27 (Luke 7 ), in allusion

an Old Testament phrase Luke

.

7G
,

in narrative

Luke

10 1

It corresponds to

ever,

uses

this

evavTtov).

*3B^. Theodotion, how 31 phrase to reproduce ^?P.ij, Dan. 2 (LXX One must not therefore necessarily predicate a

the

Hebrew

Hebrew

derivation for Trpo irpoaooTrov (which

Luke

also

em
.

13 24 ), although the idiom is a Hebraism. ploys would be the Aramaic equivalent in Luke 9 52 Acts 13 24 The same applies to airo Trpoo-wTrov, used by Luke,
in

Acts

B"|P

Acts 3 19 5 41 7 45
*JBw.

It is

an obvious Hebraism modelled on

it

But Paul

also

employs

2 Thess. I 9 with no

Hebrew
,

s prototype, and Theodotion has airb Trpoo-wTrov in Dan. 7 and the kindred .e/c TrpoacoTrov in Dan. 2 15 6 27 as for
,

rendering

}p,

which would be the term

to

fill

the place of

Luke s

ttTTO

TTpOCTCOTTOV.
eirl

irpoo-wTTov Trewr^?

T?)?

ryfc
11

occurs in an utterance of
irapaxpTJ/jia

Perhaps with exception of Luke 19

where

used by the narrator

himself must

mean

"suddenly, unexpectedly."

30

THE W011DS OF JESUS

"
"

our Lord, reported by Luke (2 1 35 ) for upon the whole earth cf. Acts 17 26 eirl TravTos 7rpoaco7rov T??? 77}?. This corre

sponds to the Hebrew

eTTir

\3B

cf.

Jer.

25 26 nonxn ^a

f>y,

LXX

TrpoactiTTov

r?5?

777?.

phrase literally by ax 7$. this was idiomatic Aramaic

The Targums usually render the But it may be questioned whether

;

w
"

ax ?y does occur Yay. K. 24,

but this

is
"

intended to
"

mere

upon

mean upon the surface of the water." would scarcely have been expressed in this
therefore
in
this

Luke has way. Hebraism.

instance

made use

of a

On
(20 (12
21
)

the other hand,

it

is

no mere Hebraism when Luke

14
)

employs Xapfidveiv irpoa-coTrov TWO?, for which Mark and Matthew (22 16 ) put f$\eireiv et? irpoa-wTTov TWOS.
.

The Hebrew equivalent is a ^3 NPJ, e.g. Lev. 19 15 has 3K 3W, and this occurs also j. Sank 29 a
Thus the expression
substantives
is

Onkelos
pat?
tf>

3DJ.

also Aramaic.

Its

complete absorption

into the Hellenistic idiom appears from the formation of the

7rpo<T(&tro\rjfjty{a)

Rom.
different

2 11

7rpoo-a)7ro\ij/j,7rT7)$ )

Acts 10 34
PEN
")3p 5

substantially

meaning belongs
is

to

pas

")3?K,

which Levy in both

\afjbfBdveiv.
to,"

his dictionaries puts

alongside of

irpoo-toirov

The former
"

not the

term

for

"

to

be partial
to,"

but means
I.

to give

heed

see Targ. Jerus.

"

to regard favourably, Gen. 32 20 b. Taan. 23 a

;

and

Vay. E. 5. arripi^eiv TO irpoawTrov with Infinitive is used by Luke 51 set one s face towards." This is the LXX (9 ) for
"OD,

for the expression patf

glance,"

"to

expression for the

Hebrew D^a

H
b>

e.g.

Jer.

2 1 10

Onkelos
,

in Gen. 3 1 21 has rendered this phrase literally by paN in which passage the LXX has varied the rendering; but this literal rendering is avoided by the Targum in Jer. 2 1 10
,

Ezek. 6 2
literally

the other hand, the synonymous B sa |HJ is translated in the by iovai TO Trpoo-ayjrov,

On
s
,

LXX
a
,

2 Chron.
his eyes

20

Dan. 10
b.

15
.

In view

upon,"

Sabb.

34

n n\ry an*, "he turned 3 pas an cannot, of course,

of
1

be quite impossible.

But

in the metaphorical

sense reprc-

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 Trpoacoirov avrov Very exceptional is Luke 9
TTopevofjuevov
els

f)v

le/aoucraX?^.

The sense
Eesch

"

is,

he was minded
Ex.

to

repair

to
11
,

Jerusalem."

compares
of

33 15 and

2 Sam. 17
phrase.

in

which

latter passage the

LXX

has the same

"

But

in that case the

meaning

Q^n

Tj?B

is,

(if)

thou thyself goest (not)," a sense quite inapplicable in Luke. In 2 Sam. 17 11 the Targum has rendered TB by ns,

"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.
ea-Tiipicrev

Luke

9 53 refers

irpoo-wirov

avrov

TOV 7ropeve(T0ai,

et?

lepovo-aXrjfji,

ought properly to

have been repeated.

abridgment
of

The expression

in ver.
It

53

is

a faulty

the agrees habit of Luke, pointed out by Vogel, 1 to use some expression
that slips from his pen a second time after a short interval,

the complete locution.

with

and then perhaps never

again.

11.
,

used by the

Hellenists
*y$??,

in

imitation

of

such

Hebrew

expressions as

*3W,

is

absent from Matthew

in

and Mark, occurs once

twenty times.

in John,

Its use in

Luke s Gospel about Luke, and likewise in Paul and in

by the

and

the Apocalypse, merely proves the predominant influence of the

Greek
a

dialect represented

in favour of a

Hebrew

LXX, but is no testimony Semitic primary gospel, still less in favour of or an Aramaic form of the latter. The inferences
3

based on this point by Blass

are hasty.

According to Deissf.

mann, indeed, Neue

1

Bibelstudien,

40

= Bible

Studies

Th. Vogel, Zur Charaktcristik des Lukas nacli Spraclie und Stil (1897),
J. Vorstius, op. cit. ii. 214 ; D. Schilling, op. cit. 129. F. Blass, Evangelium secunduni Lukam, xxii.

27

f.

2
3

32
[T.

THE WOUDS OF JESUS

&

T. Clark], p.

213), the word belongs to

"profane"

or

non-ecclesiastical Greek.
1

12.

real

eyevero, fyevero Be.

The expression KOI eyevero

or eyevero 8e

is

used to intro

duce an added definiteness to an action about to be reported. five of these being in the It is found six times in Matthew,
phrase
in
teal

eyevero ore ereXe&ev (o-vvereXecrev),

four

times

John.

Mark, forty-two times in Luke, but is entirely absent from The formula corresponds to the Hebrew ?^, 2 and
l|

occurs
Theod.),

also

in

1 Mace.,

Bel and the

Tobit),

Dragon

(LXX and
of

Judith

(not

in

Apocalypse

Baruch,
;

2 Esdras, and rarely in the Books of

Enoch and Jubilees

but

Even in biblical has decidedly no Aramaic equivalent. 3 Aramaic it is already unfamiliar, and in the post-biblical Jewish
it

The rendering of TVl by has entirely disappeared. mm, which the Targums adopt, is clearly not endorsed by the The Aramaic Scroll of the Hasmonaeans spoken Aramaic.
Aramaic
it

in its

present form begins, indeed, with the words and it came to pass in the days of Antiochus." DDVlpJK,
"

^2 mm
But

when
lated

it
"

proceeds with njn

cpjjrn

:n

Tjta, this
king,"

cannot be trans

there was a great and mighty

is

because Antiochus

himself

^a

mm,

On the contrary, the words the king in question. of Esth. I 1 and not attested, imitation an probably
,

moreover, by

all

the authorities for the text, must be deleted,

so that this instance

has also

to

be eliminated.

Any

one

desiring to collect instances in favour of a

Hebrew

primitive

/cal eyevero. gospel would have to name in the first rank this is that it be observed must it plainly Luke who Moreover,

makes

so frequent use of the phrase,

;

and

that, too, through-

1 Th. Vogel, D. Schilling, op. cit. 163 f. J. Vorstius, op. cit. ii. 168-172 Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 46. 2 See F. E. Konig, Syntax der hebr. Sprache, 341s, 370. 7 3 /ecu eyevero is found, indeed, Dan. 3 in Theod., but not in the Aramaic 91 from the interpolated Song of the Three similarly 3 LXX in the transition
;
;

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

Semitic

original.

Even the
see Acts 2 1 1
-

"

We-sections,"

which,
original,

hitherto at least, critics

are not without
to
it
;

have not assumed a Semitic

5

27 44 28 8

17
.

It is further

be remarked that the discourses of Jesus, which might well have afforded occasion for the use of the phrase, hardly
ever contain
it.

found at

all,

in

As these Mark it

are reported in

Matthew
,

it is

not

occurs only in
,

the parallel passages Matt. 1 3 4

4 4 where, however, 5 Luke S omit it in Luke

;

only in
a

16 22 and 19 15
6
-

while Paul in an address uses

it

twice, Acts 2 2

17
.

Facts like these forbid the assumption of

Hebrew

original as the necessary source of the phrase.

13. ev rat with the Infinitive. 1

and followed by the preceded by ev 4 subject of the clause is used by Matthew only once (13 ), 4 and likewise only once by Mark (4 ) in the parallel passage.

The

infinitive

r<x>

Luke, on the other hand, has

it

twenty-five times, sometimes

with KOI eyevero, sometimes independently, and not confined to any one section of the Gospel; John never has it.

Examples:

ev
ev

TO>

(rirelpeiv

avrov,

Matt.

13 4 (Luke

S5

Mark 4
Blass

TK>

viroo-Tpefaiv rbv

Irjaovv,

Luke 8 40

ev

ra>

yeveadat,

TTJV

Qcovrjv,

Luke
of the
;

9 36

This
2

construction, which

records as an
after the

Aramaism,

has

been

formed by the
the infinitive
avrtfv.
;

LXX,
see,

model

Hebrew 3 with
ev T

e.g.,

Gen. 38 28 Brrfe

LXX
is

rUreiv

The
but in
the

Targums
the
biblical

similarly copy it (Gen.

38 2S Onk.
Once,

ITO*D2),

spoken

Aramaic
(Dan.
3.

it

wanting.

however,

dialect

6 21 ) has the kindred construction of

the infinitive with

or participle
1

The

particle

*]3

(H3) with

finite

verb

is

the substitute employed on the whole most

ii.

/.

Vorstius,
d.

op. cit.

163-166

D. Schilling, op.

cit.

162

F. Blass,

Gramra.
2

neutestamentl. Griechisch, 232.

sec.

Evang.
3

Lucam,

xxii.

34

THE WORDS OF JESUS

-

H frequently; see Dan. 6

15
,

and Gramm.

d. j.-pal.

Aram. 185.
;

Onkelos puts this particle when the Hebrew text has the see Gen. 29 13 \A tfbf a Onk. \A I?&e 13. infinitive with 3
; ;

The construction
as given in
ev TO*

ev TOO occurs in the discourses

of Jesus

Matthew, Mark, and Luke only in the instance common to all three, and elsewhere o-Treipeiv, which is
10 35
it

only in Luke

19 15

There

is

thus

no

ground

for

maintaining Jesus Himself.

that

originally

belonged to the language of

it

Besides,

where

does occur,

it

may

easily be
too, as

traced to the Aramaic construction with

a
narrator,

*]3.

Here,
to

Luke

shows

himself

partial

Hebraising

formulae.

1 4.

The emphasising of

the Verb

"by

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 14

(cf.

Mark 4 18 )

afcofi

d/covo-ere,

fiXerrovTes /SVeirrre; Matt.

;

reXevrdrco

Acts 7 34 IS&v

el&ov.

15 4 (Mark 7 10 ) Oavdrm The only instance that

occurs

discourse of

independently of the Old Testament text in the Jesus is eTriOvpia eTreQvfJHjcra Luke 22 15 cf.
>

Acts

5 28 7rapayye\la Traprjy4 17 E, airei\y d jreiX. rjo-co/JLeQa 14 John 3 29 xapa 23 avaOe/jiaTi, aveOefjuario-afjiev <yei\a/Av
;
;

^atpei.
,

An
;

allied usage is ecfroprjOqarav

(>o/3ov

/jueyav,
.

Mark

4 41 Luke 2 9

e^dprjo-av

^apav
of

fjbeyd\ rjv)

Matt. 2 10

The Hebrew mode

adding
its

emphasising the

finite

verb by
still

infinitive
1

or

cognate

substantive, though
is

frequent in

Maccabees

(see above),

in the Palestinian

apart from the Targums quite un known. The solitary example of its use is the terminus technicus of the Rabbinic schools in the Palestinian Talmud,

Aramaic

of the

Jews

np
42
C
;

itepp,
j.
l

"he

gave

it

as his

opinion," j.

Erub. 18 C
it

j.

Yom.

Keth.

28 b

Apart
cit. ii.

from
;

this,

is

never used. 2
cit.

Joh. Vorstius, op.

177-193

D. Schilling, op.

165

ff.

See

my Gramm.

d. j.-pal.

Aram. 226.

INTRODUCTION

35
in the habit of

rendering hast greatly longed for," Gen. 3 1 30 will have originated with the narrator. As the Synoptists do not use it anywhere else, while John has it only once, it
of

Hence we must not assume that Jesus was In Luke 22 15 the allusion to the using it.
nnaDro rjbM,
"thou

LXX

is

clear that

an original in
its

classical
is it

Hebrew need not be

assume
peyav and

postulated as

source.

Nor

at all necessary to
(f>6j3ov

any such antecedent

in the case of ^ofielv

Xaipew %apav peydXrjv,

pressions for nfcu nan;

since

reference
,

to

the

LXX

ex

KV, j on ah I 10

and

nblij

nnpp np^,

Jonah 4 6

fully suffices for elucidation.

15.
It is

elvat,

with the Participle.

an established principle in regard to the Hebrew n;n with the participle is quite permissible, even where there is no question of the continuance of an action. 1 In post-biblical Hebrew this
of the

Old Testament that the union of

became a very common construction when the reference is This result was brought about by the influence of the Aramaic, as may be seen from the usage prevalent so
to the past. 2

early as the biblical dialect

of

Aramaic. 3

from

j.

Ber. 2

One example

will

demonstrate

how
:

dialect can

make
ny

use of this form

^a npap
la
yj3B>

fcow

3i_

mm

extensively the Galilean 13 njn ^pnj 13 *}xmw

wplna
y>

aipjp

.^nac

mn-n

^5 nrm

nini

a^apnp mn KTOjfc n ru yntf njj njn ^n ttjfatto wzp

When

settle

the leap year, he

Eabbi Samuel bar Nachmani went down to found hospitality with Jacob the

grain merchant; 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."
Konig, Syntax der hebr. Sprache, 2395, c. Geiger, Lehr- imd Lesebuch zur Sprache Mischnah, Weiss, Mischpat leschon ha-Mischna, 88. 3 E. Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram. 141; K. Marti,
2
1

A.

i.

39

f.

J.

H.

der bibl. -aram. Sprache, 104f.

4

Kurzgef.

Gramm.

Text according to Lehmann

edition.

36

THE WORDS OF JESUS

The Synoptists make use

it

of

this

the narrative coupled with fy and

rjcrav,

idiom exclusively in but do not report

of

among
the

the words of Jesus, which contain only once Go-ovrat,

participle,

with
TJV

Luke 17 35

The Gospel
There
is
l

John has

with the participle only once (3 23 ).

for attaching, as Blass
-

consequently

no ground

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

notably rarer than in the

as

first half.

But

it

must be remarked,

very striking circumstance, that the construction is absent from the discourses of Jesus, although the parables
a

might well have furnished occasion for the use of it. The frequent use of the present tense in narrative in the
Gospel of

Mark
of

is

regarded by

W.

C. Allen,
Mark"

"

The Original
(Expos.,

Language
ser., vi.

the

Gospel

ace.

to

St.

6th

436 if.), as an Aramaism, on the ground that it goes back to the Aramaic use of the participle instead of the
finite verb.

But the secular Greek

also allows the use of a

present in historical narrative, and that not only in more extended passages for the sake of vivid presentation, but also
in detached instances

Mark s

throughout the context of the narrative. fondness for the present tense is an individual trait,

like his constant use of

It appears, then,

from the foregoing that we must

a</>et?

class

as distinct
rj/jfaro, as

Aramaisms the redundant

(Karahnrtov) and

well as the adverb ev0vs (Trapa^pyj/uia).

The use

with the participle to represent a historic tense is The redundant use of e\6oov, Aramaic rather than Hebrew.
of

elvai

icaOicras, ecrro)?,

and Hebrew.
nected with
infinitive,

dvao-rds (lyepOek) belongs equally to Aramaic The genuine Hebraisms are the phrases con
the
construction
ev
its
ro>

TTpocrooTrov,

with

the

the emphasising of the verb by

1

cognate sub-

Blass, Evang.

sec.

Lucam,

xxi.

INTRODUCTION
stantive,

37
e XaX^o-ei/

and

the

formulae

KOI

eyevero,

\eywv,

As

regards the distribution of these, the distinct

Arama
all

isms, except a$et9,

which Luke avoids, are represented in

three Synoptists.

Further, the idioms with e\0a)v, KaOiaas,

eo-rw?, dvao-rds (eyepOek),

and dvai with the participle are

common
possible

to

them

all

without exception, and these idioms are

The genuine Hebraisms are almost ex KOI eyevero also clusively peculiarities of Luke s Gospel. is used predominantly by Luke it is only diroKpiOeis, which
;

Aramaisms.

is

of uncertain origin, that is to be

is

found in

all

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
1

at once the in

correctness

of

SchmiedeFs

contention,
is

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 have more Hebrew Synoptists
features than the discourses of Jesus

communicated by them.
it
is

In

the

discourses

of

Jesus,

then,

the

distinct

Aramaisms, except afak that accidentally absent perhaps are found, and also the possible Aramaisms KaQlaas, ec-T?, dvaards. Only in Luke and even there quite
e\Qa>v,

sporadic
specifically

are to be found

elvat,

with the

participle,

the

and the emphasising of the verb by its cognate substantive; and similarly, almost confined to Luke, eV TW with the infinitive. Luke, too, is the
eirl

Hebrew

trpocrtoTrov,

reporter

of
,

Mark 4 4
1

the Hebraism /cal eyevero, which, apart from 22 15 occurs in the words of Jesus only in Luke 16 19
.

Winer

Gramraatik der neutestamentlichen Sprachidiome,

4.

!*>.

38
elirev
\e<ya)v

THE WORDS OF JESUS

stands only in

Mark 12 26

in a saying of our

Lord.

As
Matt.

for aTTOKpiOek,
it is

a Hebraism,

21 28ff -;

which should perhaps be regarded as found in the parables of the Two Sons, the Ten Virgins, Matt. 25 lff -; the Intrusted

25 14ff -; (but not in Luke 19 llff -); the description 31ff of the Last Judgment, Matt. 25 -; in the parable of the in the answer after the Importunate Friend, Luke 1 1
Talents, Matt.
5ff>

door has been shut, Luke 13

Prodigal Son,
nff
-

25
;

and

in

the parable of the

It is wanting, however, where it Luke 15 been have expected, in the parables of the Tares in might the Field, Matt, 13 24ff -; the Unjust Steward, Luke 16 lff -; the and the Vineyard, Luke 20 9ff Eich Man, Luke 16 19ff
-

Again in

this connection it

is

seen that the Hebraisms

proper are special characteristics of Luke.

There

is

reason,

therefore, for a closer scrutiny of the style of this evangelist

with

its

wealth of

Hebraisms.

In the
is

adduced, the fact of their occurrence

examples already not more remarkable

than the fact that each individual Hebraism occurs so seldom.

dependence upon a Hebrew original, then such idioms must have occurred much more frequently
If

Luke had worked

for

in

than they do,

Hebraisms which

of TTpoawTrov

Greek language. have slipped from

in

from using those the foreign feeling of the Can the few cases of the Hebraistic use
he
does

not shrink
to

are

most

while

general
of

he

pen by mere inadvertence, studiously avoided this Hebraism ?

his

Other data
28

a like import

may

be mentioned.

Only once
rot>?

(9

does he use the quite un- Aramaic phrase pera 70 TouTou?, Hebr. n?xn Q^inn ^ns; once, too, (I ) Bia
j,

Hebr. ^3

also peculiarly

Hebrew.
-

In addition

there

fall
t,

from
9 53
,

pen mentioned above

his

such
;

pseudo

Hebraisms as TO
rjfias

eVecr/eei/raTo

avaToh.^

1 Luke s peculiarity in using certain phrases only once or twice is pointed out also by Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lnkas, 27; and by Elass, Philology of the Gospels (1898), 113 f., 118.

INTRODUCTION
e

39

formed entirely after the Greek Bible and and the phrase, quite impossible to reproduce in Hebrew
{/-^rou?,
;

I 78 ,

equally elusive of the translator

rrjv rjfjbepav rfjs TrevrrjKoo-Tfjs,

art, ev
.

TW

o-vv7r\r]pova-9ai,

Acts 2 1
2

The frequency
first

of the

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

At the same time, Hebrew, not Aramaic and not Greek. 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

original,

and Old Testament

lected

although he himself perceives that the Hebraisms Parallels" to Matt. 1. 2, Luke 1. 2, col
"

by him in

Kindheits-evangelium,"

3056

(half of

which by the way should be deleted), demonstrate primarily only the close relation that subsists between those chapters

and the Greek Old Testament. 3

self

"While

Eesch holds Luke him

to be the translator, Blass

is

convinced that Luke was

quite ignorant of

him the

alleged

Hebrew; he supposes that Luke had before Hebrew 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
personal style greater scope as he proceeded. for the beginning special source Vogel also adopts a of Luke s Gospel, but affirms that his investigation had

given his
5

own

"

"

not disclosed

any sharp distinction in point tween the beginning and the rest of the book.
assumption
of a

of

style

be

Hence the

Hebrew document

as the source for

;

Luke

1.

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
"

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

Hebrew

original.
;

Evangelium sec. Lucam, xxiii cf. Philology of the Gospels, 195. Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 32 f.

40

THE WORDS OF JESUS

to

any primary source, but

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 mind of which Deissmann 1 speaks. The correctness
"

of of

our view as to the Hebraisms of Luke

corroborated by the Grsecisms which also flow from his pen. As a Graecism, must be characterised of the form address e.g., avQpwire, Luke
is

520

12 u 22 58

60
.

Delitzsch, Salkinson,

and Eesch
is

avail

them

selves here of &^~}?, though such

an address

rare and in

the

passages concerned quite unsuitable.

of

The same holds

which Luke
-

good

the form of address avbpes

-

aSe\<f>ol

likes

Acts (2 29 7 2 13 15 15 7 one familiar with Jewish literature

to use in the
"

13

22 1 23 1

28 17 ).

Any

knows that ^HN

D^ JK

may, indeed, stand for people, who are brothers," Gen. 13 8 but cannot be used as a form of address. A Jew
,

speaking to Jews regularly addresses them as l^nx, "our d C Taan. 65 ab ; j. Kidd. 64 ; Taan. ii. 1, brethren," j. Yom. 43 j.
;

WiK; while David, 1 Chron. 28 2 says to the people Bjn n, and this is made a precedent my brethren and my people
,
" "

for every Israelitish king, Tos. Sanh. iv. 4.

And,
16

finally,

let

the following points be noticed.

to Blass,

The

betrayer, according

was called 2fcapiw0 by Luke

(6

2 2 3 ), agreeing with Cod.

6 16

Tischendorf, Tregelles,
;
.

3 Westcott-Hort prefer Ia/capia)0, 6 16 In la-Kapitorrjv, 22 any case, Luke was ignorant of the form ninp B^K (see under No. V.). The result of the investigations into the

Hosanna cry
to

detailed later
also.

tends to show that Luke failed

again probably a misinter 36 Bapvdpas, Acts 4 the meaning
is
,

understand this

It

pretation
fto?

when he

assigns to

7rapatc\ijo-6a)$,

have wrestled,3
1

with the explanation of which I too while we seem to have to do with the
2

Bibelstudien, 71 [Eng.

tr., p.

76].

Fundamental

Ideas, VIII. 9.

Gramm.

d. jiid.-pal.

Aram.

142.

INTRODUCTION

41
"

Palmyrenian name n^3,

"

son of

names
nised.

^3133,

"DrQJ,

aopnj), as
s

(cf. the Palmyrenian Deissmann 1 has correctly recog

Nebo

In regard to Luke

tradition of the voice

at

the

Baptism and at the Transfiguration, and for his use of Trat?, Acts 3 4 see Fundamental Ideas, IX. 3. If these observations
,

be

correct, it

follows

that an

immediate use by Luke

of

Semitic sources must be pronounced highly improbable. If he were born a Greek, as must be admitted on other
2

grounds,
If,

such use, moreover, can hardly be imagined.

in

then,

the

case

of

that

Synoptist

who

is

most

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

to
"

the

author
-

himself,

Septuagint Graecisms," should apply to the other Synoptists as well. Let it suffice merely to recall the phrase /cal eyevero QTI ere\eo-ev (avv}

properly be called the probability is that the same

and

should

6Te\crev) used five times by Matthew, who, apart from this, has Kal eyevero only once (9 10 ), in agreement with Mark 2 15
.

The way
question
Gospel.

in

which
it

this

expression

is

used shows beyond

first

that

originated with the author of our

iva (OTTO)?, Tore)

This applies likewise to the circumstantial formula, \eyovros, peculiar to TrX^pwO^ TO pvjOev Std

It sounds very like Matthew, and used ten times by him. Hebrew, and should be compared with the common formula in ancient Jewish exegesis in order to np Djg^ "ipf*?^
"

establish

what was

4
said."

And

yet

its

formation must be

309

f.,

Bibelstudien (1895), 177 187 f.].

f.;

Neue Bibelstudien

(1897), 15

f.

[Eng.

tr.,

pp.

2 3

Th. Vogel, op.

cit. 18.

Of course it is Luke in his character as Christian annalist that is here meant. His manner of speaking and writing on general topics appears in the preface to the Gospel a passage which should not be regarded as evidence of
exceptional literary elaboration.

Die alteste Terminologie der Jiidischen Schriftauslegung (1899), TEN is the formula introductory to Targum exposition nN 33 H; SH 159^, Rom. Machzor (Bologna, 1540), Schebuoth, and the formula in the Kiddush after Seder Rab Amram, i. 10 b n pp in p ^y n.T? ninxn iina
S. Backer,

170.

Similar also

"

?ii?]V,

according to the word which

of

is

spoken in the songs of

Thy might by

the

mouth

David Thy righteous

anointed."

42

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

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

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

ff.,

does not venture to gain

are also in reality

Matthew

due to the influence

of

the Greek Bible (Greek Biblicisms).

JV/captcor?;? or
la-fcapiajO

And what
in

is

to be

thought of the
?

Matthew and Mark

And

of the viol Ppovrf)?,

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 (Mark 14 ) the day on which the Passover lamb was slain 7 is called "the first day of unleavened bread" (Luke 22
of it?

It

12

even
"

has

"

the day of

unleavened bread
specified

Hebraist

"

would have
"

and yet no that day in this manner,

")

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

in later times, at least,

It will suffice

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

"

Hebraisms

of the

Synoptists, though undeniably present,

;

do

not constitute the proof of a Hebrew original that, on the contrary, the thesis is justified that the fewer the Hebraisms,
the greater the originality
3
;

the more numerous the Hebra

isms in any passage, the greater the interference of Hellenistic redactors. It must be noted that the Jewish Aramaic
current

among

the people was considerably freer from

Hebrew
t

influence than the

Greek which the Synoptists write

and

also that in the rabbinical sphere the special religious termin

ology

even in the case of recurring Hebrew formulae

exhibits a striking independence of the Old Testament. 4

1

See

Gramm.

d. jiid.-pal.
"

Aram.
"The

112,

and

p.

49 in this volume.
N".T.

Franz

Delitzsctis verdict,

Shemitic woof of the

31), is

Hellenism

is

Hebrew, not Aramaic (The Hebrew New Testament, tion, but still is not the correct conclusion.
3
4

not without founda

Of. above, p. 19

f.

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

it
?

knew the Hebrew Old Testament, could

Jesus have been less familiar with

INTRODUCTION

43

V.

ALLEGED PROOFS OF A PRIMITIVE HEBREW GOSPEL

(UREVANGELIUM).

As
Eesoh,
1

the most effectual means of ascertaining the limits,

content, and language of alleged Semitic sources of the Gospel,

and sought to apply Semitic term the several the method of tracing back to one variants of a word in the Gospel text, as these may occur
especially, has recently indicated

throughout
Gospels.

the

entire

tradition

within

and without
he

the a

Wherever

in

the

Synoptists

found

such

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 was written in Hebrew, and

it.

This source, in his opinion, may be divided into the two

of

documents
y*W
"nzn,

W.
"The

nn^n,

The Gospel

the

Childhood,"

and

Eecently this allSayings of our Lord." has been the source of published by him Gospels embracing Die Logia the title and under in Greek Hebrew tentatively
"

Jesu"

(1898).

The three Synoptists, according

to this theory,

have merely made a different selection and arrangement of the same Hebrew material to which all alike had access.

They cannot rank as independent authors. This conclusion Even the has nowhere met with approval, and rightly.
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 of. I ), despite the fact that his father was a heathen, it follows that (2 Tim. 3
See S. Kranss,
vi.
"Works

The Jews in the

231
f.

of the

Rev.

(1894)

If

Hellenistic-Jewish

at least as
1

much should

A.

Resell,

Hebraist" family in Palestine. be expected in a Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zuden Evangelien, i.-v., Leipzig,

"

1893-97.
2

has also appeared, containing the

it

Besides the large edition, with notes in support of its readings, a smaller Hebrew narrative without comment.

3 It seems almost superfluous to repeat the condemnation of this method, as 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

may way proves that Hebrew word really lies behind the Greek synonyms. One might almost as well name an Aramaic or an Arabic
synonyms
and then in
the

be discovered, in no

word,

same
a

way proceed
original

to

argue
so
far

an

Aramaic or Arabic
by Eesch in favour
are
of

original.

The numerous proofs

in

offered

of

Hebrew

as

this character are therefore quite they purely devoid of cogency. Only in the case of striking deviations 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
sion.

Even

then,

however,

it

would remain questionable

whether the divergent readings had not arisen through other causes, so that it is only by accident that a Semitic term
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
;

regard 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
;

that in

to a later circulation of

Greek versions

of

and

that, finally, it is

much more

likely that extra-

canonical gospels, gospel harmonies, translations, and popular

expositions in
text

common
in

use influenced the form which the

of
its

assumed

the course

transmission, than that

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

INTRODUCTION
in

45
of

Resch, and

also
to

in

other biblical critics

our time,

appears to
of

me
too

be a

marked depreciation
as
of

of the capacity

the

authors of the historical books of the Bible,

who

are

treated

much

mere redactors and mechanical

source documents, and a not less

copyists or translators of subsequent copyists, exaggerated estimate of the precision

translators,

far

and quotations of such books, which has gone so that sometimes the most extravagant excess of an un

of its extravagance, scrupulous transcriber is, just because or the later correction the original reading, pronounced to be
of the

author himself.
discuss here all that
is

It is not possible to

advanced

by Eesch in favour

of a Hebrew primitive gospel, and yet the inadequacy of his proofs must be demonstrated at this so as to place it beyond doubt that we are well

point,

entitled in our

investigations to leave

the

Hebrew out

of

consideration, even despite the fact that a written source in Hebrew might possibly have been the intermediary between

the

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

words

of

as those of

which Eesch, 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 that the evidence of these passages, to say the least, is invariably susceptible of, and not infrequently demands,

^ ^V

a very different interpretation. In Luke 9 25 Eesch commends Salkinson s rendering of

74
&>(/>eXemu

by

W?

/cepSo?,

ri

6 <eXo?

on the ground that the variants TI are thereby accounted for. Now, this
n?
?,
,

n ^, borrowed by Salkinson from Gen. 37 26 is, phrase VV? 10 admissible in this passage. But the in view of Ps. 30
,

variants given above admit of explanation without the help

of a Semitic original.
1

Aussercanon. Pavalleltexte,

iv.

224.

46

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

In Lnke 10 7 Eesch finds
it

noteworthy that the labourer,

of
"
"

according

to

Luke,

avrov)

according to
r/)o(/>?}9

ance

"

(-7%

(rov fuaOov his mainten Matthew, however, of The former, he holds, originates avrov).
"

is

worthy

his

hire

from Hebrew
mistake for

"V^p,

the latter from

nw,

which was read by

basis.

WO.
"

But
"

">^np

cannot possibly be the

"

"9^,

hire is called in Hebrew The day labourer s invariably Aramaic maintenance would indeed be, in biblical
"

"UK

Hebrew, ^OP, while the later Hebrew, And thus any retracing would use n
pj"!?.

like

the Aramaic,

of the

two expres

sions to one
is

term as their source

is

impossible.

Besides, there

no occasion for such an attempt.

The proverb made use

"

of

by Jesus spoke naturally enough

"

of the

hire,"

because that
"

properly pertains to the

day labourer.
"

In Matthew

main
it

tenance

is

substituted for
"

hire,"
"

because in the context

could not be a question of

hire

which the

disciples of Jesus
"

would think
In
o

of claiming,

but merely of their

E.

maintenance."

regard

to

Luke 10 37

makes the remark that

,

iTOLrjaas TO

eXeo? per

6 avrov, in view of 2 Sam. 2

is

an

"emphatic

and pure

Hebraism."

/zera in this phrase.

His point is the use of But By would in this connection be

a
,

According to b. Tarn. 32 King Alexander gives the advice that he who desires to be loved
possible also in Aramaic.

among men

"

should show kindness to

men

"

(op

WB

nay*

KtWK ^a). Similarly, the Targum has unhesitatingly rendered 2 Sam. 2 6 by WB Jtatpy ^ The fact is that Luke may quite well have simply adapted the LXX expression in

^.

2 Sam. 2 6

In
"

Luke

II 3

E,.

calls

attention

to

the

fact
"

that

of the standard Semitic, more precisely Aramaic, original Lord s Prayer was not transmitted, and maintains that

W|5Pi Dni? is

presumably the prototype

of o

apro?

sinovcrios.
it

If E.
still

has discovered the true sense of eVtouo-io? here,

may

be asked

why Aramaic equivalents, such

as Njnsp &D/5 or

Drp, should not equally suffice.

E. should rather have

INTRODUCTION
affirmed
still

47
Luke and Matthew
his

more

distinctly that both

in

this case clearly rely

upon a Greek source.

In Luke 12 19 the rich

this E.

man

speaks
this

"to

soul."

In

detects a Hebraism.
d.

But

is
;

also

an Aramaic
it

idiom, see Gram.

jiid.-pal.
its

that matter derive

Bible. 1

might for origin equally well from the Greek

of TCLS -^v^as vfiwv,
"

Aram. 84f.

and

The same holds

26

Luke

2 1 19

In Luke 13
to a
"

K. would alter the

streets,"

showing

of the

teaching in the streets because he regards the former

original
rrtin

"

as a misinterpretation of

the

wnhrra.
"

But

these

the meaning expressed in

hast
us"
"

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

would have had

to

be quite differently expressed, and

expressing what

is,

moreover, a strange
the true meaning,
hither."
"

way of Thou Thyself

takes to be

hast charged us to come

is

The

entire situation, besides,

29

In Luke 13
as

Ephrem s

misunderstood by E. reading, which treats Od\aao-a

one of the four points of the compass, is adequately accounted for by its concord with Ps. 107 3 and Isa. 49 12
.

There

is

therefore no need to assume for

Besides, the text as altered
for

it

a special

Hebrew

source. 2

would be no improvement,

by E., following Ephrem, no one could say what BJ

should signify in the passage, since the

specified.

West

is

previously

But even supposing

suggestion
of

it

to

have been uttered by

,

Jesus through

Ps.

107 3

in that case
D!

11

is

equally no designation of the West, and the Aramaic have been quite suitable.

would

For
spread

/3id%6Tai,
out";

Luke

1 6 6 , E. gives

as antecedent p&3,

"

to

and

for jSiaaraL, Matt.

II

12
,

D^B,

"those

that

break

In that case neither evangelist has properly through." understood the former expression. But setting aside this
1 Cf. the passages cited by 0. A. Briggs, The use of vsa in the Old Testament, Journ. Bibl. Lit. xvi. 22 f. 2 Resch s proof rests on the consideration that only in Hebrew can D; stand for one of the directions, the Aramaic for West being

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

E. believes that the difference between the

Synoptic and Johannine dating of the day of the Passion may be explained by tracing rfj Trpcorrj (rjfj,epa) TWV aty^wv
in

Matthew and Mark back to the Hebrew rriaran before the Feast This, according to E., should mean
"

jn
of

Dip.

un

has been incorrectly understood of the first day of the feast. Hebrew would thus give an But the mistake is conceivable easier solution than Aramaic.
leavened
bread,"

whereas

it

only on the part of an

"

thought of
in

Aramaist

"

who

at the

word Dip
"
"

"

first/ an(l besides

E"[P

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 Eesch

of

an anticipatory celebration

of

the

Passover by Jesus and His disciples is just as incredible as the more extravagant hypotheses of Chwolson and
Lichtenstein. 1

On Luke 22 42
Trapeveytcai

E. remarks that the

of

Lucan conception
point

and the 7rape\dera)

"oyn

Matthew

back to

the

Hebrew

= (

"9^

or

"OjJFi).

Aramaic, he holds, would

because HDID
(read

not admit this

twofold

interpretation,

ND3), which would be the subject in the second

case, is in

that language masculine, not as in

in the

Hebrew

feminine.

But

Mishna

also

D13

is

of

the masculine gender, so that source of the ambiguity.

biblical

Hebrew would be the only

The variants, however, need by no means be ascribed to a That the same thought may be difference in translation. in different terms, is an ob different writers expressed by
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 conKommentar zum Neuen Testament
3 18 (Hebr.), Matt. 26 Aussercanon. Paralleltexte, iii. 819.
.

J. Lichtenstein,

Pes. x. 2, 4, 7.

INTEODUCTION
sideration that from the names of the disciples of Jesus

49
it

may be concluded that there were three languages in use in their circle. 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 con

clusion can be

drawn
"

names

of Philip

for any and Andrew,

"

special case.
it

In spite of the

is

there were any

Hellenists

among
the

highly improbable that the Twelve. And even

though
"

all

the

names
still

of

apostles

had

been Hebrew

names, there would

Hebraists
"

be no ground for thinking of special

"

as contrasted with

Aramaists."

For Jews in

all

ages have borne Hebrew names. For Boavrjpyes, Mark 3 17 I had pointed out 2 Bavrjpoyes
,

as possibly the original reading, without, however, suggesting

Hebrew
as

source, as forms like BHp, pfc are possible in

Jewish

Aramaic.

K. regards this reading as settled, and treats the

term

Hebrew.
to

The wholly inapt

the peculiar oa

linguistic

comments
;

which he adds
it is

reading,

enough which

to

assert

that

all

here be passed over depends on a conjectural

may

Aramaic.

Hebrew

is 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
i

as Ipijn in

Talmudic times, and nothing whatever as

use of
that

r6ian IIKD

n the Middle Ages, prove

to

the vernacular of those

who made
it

these appellations.

From

the Old Testament

is

apparent
either
1

ZefieSaios had

been for a long period an

established
of

name among the Jews.

Aramaic
or
of

And

yet

it is

presumably
origin.

North-Palestinian

In
;

this point see Th. Zahn, Einleitung in d. 1ST. Test. i. (1897) 24-51 S. Krauss, Griech. u. latein. Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und
i.

On

Targum,

(1898) xiii-xxii.
2

d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 112. I should prefer now to assume that either a gloss, which subsequently found its way into the text. POVIJ and jSavrj are equally possible. If Mark desired to signify the Galilean indistinctness of the a, then o would quite suffice oa remains If Mark really meaningless. wrote oa, his unfamiliarity with Aramaic was the cause.
o or

Gramm.
is

50

THE WORDS OF JESUS

&TQT,
"Hat,

Palmyra the name occurred in the forms

vfmt,

umr, nnjmr;
names
in s ,
s

in Greek, ZdftSas, Zafi&t@i)\os,

the Jews had

divine
iaj,

nar, nnr, nat,

if,
{>

ZafiSedOw, b^nnr, mar, imar, in which the

nny.

Eesch

correspond to the Palmyrene ha, affirmation 1 of a Hebrew origin of the

name must

therefore be seriously restricted.

In regard to Bap6o\ofjLaios, Eesch makes the comment That is quite even in Hebrew. that I? was usual,"
"

inaccurate.

It occurs in the
,

Old Testament only in Prov. 2 1 2

and

Ps. 2 12

and
is,

in the latter instance it is doubtless a

wrong

reading.

It

Testament

on the other hand, significant that the names which have 12 in composition are
|3.

New
not

accompanied by one single example with Aepfialos, for which E. twice puts
opinion, be connected with the

^
f

(!),
"

should, in his
since the

Hebrew

S>

heart,"

bearer of this
latter

name was

also called

aSao?, Mark
in,

3 18
"

The

name
2

E. would derive

from the Aram,

breast-

nipple,"

which he thinks also denotes the male breast in

Aramaic.

The

latter

contention

is

incorrect,

and proof

of
is

the currency of such

to be taken
of

names

is

wanting.

In any case

^n

Greek

with Dllin (Oev&ds) and DViin, and is therefore extraction, while Ae/3{3alos corresponds to the

Nabatsean *&ak
substantiated.

Any

other derivation would require to be

Semitic formed.

*??,

The same individual was probably called in and in Greek OevSds, from which ^Pi had been
establish a
is

To

more intimate connection between

The surname Kavavalos
a

the two names

unnecessary.
to E., to
is

also points, according

Hebrew

origin.
is

But

his

derivation from N3j?n

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 **p_, Zealot," is reached
"

at least as easily as the

1

Hebrew

NJj5.

LOG.

cit.

822.
in

Holtzmann expresses a similar opinion

Commentary on the two names.

INTRODUCTION

51 similar
to

As

for

MaOOalos, the case

Ze/3eSato?.
It
is

is

that of the

synonymous

the

name
till

irnniD, liTTiniD, iTDD,

which did not appear among the Jews

a late period, and

may
its

be compared with the Palmyrene tano (MaOda/BcoX) and abbreviation NHE (MaOOa^.

The names
ji^p,
1

ijnV,

apjp,

rrw

(rnv),

ftnpp

(Greek

form

but not

fto^

so Kesch),

give

no

information
called, so

as to the language spoken

by those who were so

that I(TKapid)0, lo-fcapiwTr)? alone remains for consideration.

There

is

every probability that

original

IaKapiu>9

without the article

was the

reading, from

which arose

through

mis

understanding
TT;?.

la-KapuoTys as well as ^Kapitod

IaKapi<i)6

and

2/capia)-

With
Sin.

agrees 6

UTTO

Kapvoirov
-

found

in

Cod.

John
the

6 71

Cod.

John 12 4 13 2
the

26

14 22

inas

much

as

former points back to

verified as

Hebrew

rrinp

B*N
fOT.

and the

latter to

the equivalent Aramaic rrinpT or ninjp

Jewish usages. There is mentioned, d NED B*K Sabb. 14 ,a Christian j. 3p, b. Sot. 43 b a toy 123 t?X Ab. iii. 7 an Nnirna t^s ITJ&K, j. Bez. 61 a
"IM

Both may be

Dh ^N, and
nfTJJpd^n
of

"?r,

further with Aramaic designation j. Ab. z. 42 a 2 Ech. E. Peth. The introduction Venn;.

rOT

the

name

of the place

by means
Till.

of ffi is less
pi
,

common,
b.
;

as

ns n jpn ^OTIIK, Midr.

,

31.

6; ^pp |n

Sanh.

108 a
320.

or

N-jiDO,

d nn^n^ by means of ip, as nrnnm |p njno, j. Orl. 60 b. Tarn. 27 a 3 DfBniK pi ^ana, Corp. Inscr. Sem. ii. l But such being the usage, and ninjp B^N being a
;

common enough form of surname, showing that one this name was a Kariothite," it thus becomes very
"

with
sur-

A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 184 [Eng. tr. p. 315], draws attention to is the For Hellenists it was genuinely Greek name Zfytw? an easy step to substitute this name for Lvpe&v in the form pn p it then
G.

the fact that this

found
2

its way into the Hebraists also. language of the The construction with ^ appears to have been the one commonly used
"
"

in

Palestine.

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.

yiian,

Aram,

52
prising

THE WORDS OF JESUS

that
it

should have been

left

untranslated.
o
CLTTO

One

in

would have expected o airo KapiwQ, like Cod. D, 1 and like John 2 1 2 Nadavaw\
vi.

Kapvcorou

6 CLTTO

Kava, just

as Josephus, Bell. Jud. IV.

o
6
a^afjifjiaov^,

2,

supposing

they

speaks of a certain "Avavos did not venture to write

It is

Kap

i,ct)6 10$

or something similar.

a very plausible

conjecture that
evangelist.

lo-xapiwO was already unintelligible to the

late

Some

writer

or

lo-fcdpia,

and therefore formed

thought of a place lo-fcdp lo-fcapicoTijs, while the

originator of the text of the Synoptists in Cod.

preferred a

^Kapico0
exemplar.
2

and

^/ca/nwr?;?,

because

he

followed

Syrian

one who had before him rrinp

Mistakes of this kind are inconceivable on the part of BN in a Hebrew source and
it.

wished to translate
if

we suppose

that ni s

")i?

They explain themselves, however, B^K rrnrv was encountered by a

Hellenist in a Greek or Aramaic environment.

latter is

Even the

quite possible, because such surnames, whether they

or

were

Hebrew

Aramaic

in

form, usually

remained un

altered

time;

without regard to the language being used at the d cf. e.g. ^TjL *?p^ j- Ab. z. 41 in an Aramaic
1

narrative.

As

the

in

still

later periods, it

Hebrew formation with t^K occurs also is clear that Hebrew was not neces

sarily the
1

3 spoken language where such a surname originated.

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.
is already in itself an obstacle, as it suggests the suspicion that the Greek reading IcrKapitirTis lies at the not improbable. See, further, F. H. Chase, The Syro-Latin Text of the

The

peculiar ending, however,

Greek Kapvuros.
basis, is

The

Gospels (1895), 102 ff., Expository Times, a Syriac origin for the reading.
2

ix.

(1897-98), 189, 285

f.,

who

affirms

Syr. Sin.

and Peshita have

is

NBVIDD,

Evangel. Hieros. KBr-nr, Syr. Cur.

NBinDDN and NBVnpDN.

probably different with the later designation of the Jewish Undoubtedly the prevalent opinion is (see recently G. Uhlhorn, Prot. Eeal.-Enc. 3 under "Ebioniten") that the Christians were generally known as D J vrix, "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
case

The

Christians as

E/Stowatoi.

INTRODUCTION

53

Lastly must be mentioned the utterance of Jesus from

the
Cross,

Mark 15 34

46 (Matt. 27 ), to which Eesch

attri

butes decisive finality in regard

the primary Gospel was written.

to the language in

which

He

is

convinced that the

in

Hebrew form
rj\el

of

the utterance
that
date,

represented

^\el

original.

\apa {afyOavel, Not till a later

is,

^W
:

n$ ^K
of our

by ^N, was the

longer

God.

when Hebrew was no

setting
to

understood, did

the Aramaic

present texts
the fact

come
that

into

being.

Eesch attaches importance

Hierosol.

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

followed his Greek exemplar and

could render o 0eo9

/JLOV

only by Tita.

At

all

events every

Jew who spoke Aramaic

was quite familiar with the word ?K, which for that very reason is taken over into the Onkelos Targum without
change from the Hebrew
of the
*^K

text.

If Jesus

uttered the words

it

Psalm

in the

Aramaic language, then

be
in

that

was most naturally to

the people

was precisely Thus the expected.

mistake of

supposing Elijah summoned, de

the original
also

cides nothing as

regards
It
-

Hebrew form
to

of the

whole utterance.
section
of

is

impossible
Christians

see

for

what

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

Greek

the

Hebrew form

Such Christians, indeed, understood comprehension. of both little languages, and therefore required the equally immediate addition of the Greek equivalent. As the Gospel
easier

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 our Lord communi

was

also

from the

first

Gospel

and since the sayings

of

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/3tc6^ is still the best, though do not know any proper name of this form.
is

unfamiliar

The

Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,

ii.

356.

54
case.

THE WORDS OF JESUS Whether, then, Jesus uttered the Aramaic *rpH or the is in itself of minor consequence. The latter

Hebraistic yK,

appears to
as

me

to

have the greater probability in

natural in
the

its

favour,

being the

less

Aramaic context.

Sup

posing that this were so, it is then conceivable that to secure greater uniformity of language, one copyist corrected 1 rfXei into eXtwet, so that the whole clause should be Aramaic,
while another changed \epa o-e^a^Oavei into Xa/^a [a]a<From a Oavei? so as to have the whole in Hebrew.

statement of Epiphanius, cited by Kesch, it is evident that the apparent bilingual character of the saying had, in fact,

been remarked upon.

On

principles similar to those of

Resch,

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

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.
Nestle
s

whether the sources used by Luke were in Hebrew or in A few remarks may now be made on such of
observations as fall within the domain of

Hebrew

(excepting, however,
ol \oi7Tol,

meantime

his explanation of the reading

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

into the text the reading

EXwefyc. instead l, for which Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. x. 8, even puts of 4\aei, 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 a is repre D*tfSfl.

sented, although this cannot be supported

earlier period.
2

by instances in Palestine during the

^n?!^.,

ceding

[3

into

transliterated into Greek required afa<p6avei, for 6 changes a pre cf. the % in aefiaxdavei = *}nj?3V, and Gram. d. j.-pal. Ar. 304.
<

It is credible

enough that those who understood Syriac only should have

again transformed the

Hebrew

da<p6avet

and then translated

dveldurfa pe with Cod.

into Aramaic, read ^atpdavei ;^^}, Mark 15 34 See Chase, The

1

Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 107. 3 Of less consequence are the unmethodical investigations of H. P. Chajes, Markus-Studien (1899), aims at showing that several who, in his treatise
"
"

Hebrew
4

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

Aramaic Login were used by the Synoptists.

INTRODUCTION
of

55

Cod. D, TToXXwz; Se oyXtov orvvrrepie^ovr^v KVK\M ware aXX??Xoi;9 crwrrviyeiv, where the common text has, eTricrvva^-

TOV o^Kov ware KaTaTrarelv aXX?;Xou?. According to Blass, the latter was the older text of Luke, the former being the Eoman edition as revised by him.
Oeicrwv

TWV

/jivpidSwv

Now, Nestle
his

is

of opinion
"myriads,"

that

Luke

first

of all

misread in
that

text

iron,

but afterwards

recognised

Dim was the

said

right word.

But the

critic

should then have

what he supposes to represent 0^X09 in the alleged have been confused with D &y ntarn ? Can D^l source.

QW

is concerned not merely with iro\\&v the with but and fjivpid&wv, complete change in the expression of the thought, which is to be explained in the context.

The

question, moreover,

It remains, after all,

most reasonable
tenour of

to suppose

an unde-

signing

alteration of the

the whole sentence at

in the habit of slavishly

the instance of a scribe

to

who was not

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

on some gospel harmony, Philolog. sacra, 88.

A
PpwOf!

like

conclusion will
16

commend
of the

itself

in the case of the

text,

readings

Luke 22
found
"

7T\Tjp<oOfj

common

and

KO.LVOV

in
to

opinion,

$>?K,

eat,"

and accepted by Blass. In Nestle s to complete," have come and njQ,

"

into collision;

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

("fe^l)

has avvereXeaav
text.
1

in place of the ifafcW of the Massoretic

In

that

passage,
like

however, &?}

may
is

be

the

true

reading, unless
of

"Wton,

elsewhere,

to be understood
this to
"

the offering at the feast.

,

But what has

"

do with

Luke 22 16 where the question is concerned not with eating" and fulfilling ? and eating anew completing," but with What we here find in Cod. D is merely a variant intended
"
" "

"

to explain the

awkward
.

Tr

XrjpwOfj,

and suggested by Matt.

26

29
,

Mark 14

25

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.

observation

on

Matt.

27 51

which makes KaraTreracrLLa depend on a mistranslation, and finds the true reading
the

misreading and
in

the Gospel of

Hebrews, which, by the

the

testimony
of

of

Jerome,
the

made

mention, not of

rending but of the splitting of the lintel, has been read as curtain."
l
"

the veil of
"

temple,

iftaa,

lintel,"

"9

"i?,

But

"ifra?

is

he holds, nowhere
there

found
fore

as

the
stood

name
for

for
it

the

lintel;

it

cannot
the

have

in

the

Gospel

of

Hebrews,

was written in Aramaic. 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.
especially as the latter
its
v. v. 4.

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

one in front of the Holy of Holies. TO Karairerao-fjua rov 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.
of a

primary gospel in the Hebrew language had to be considered antecedently improbable, because no
occasion was discovered for the use of this language.
if

The existence

And
special

we have now succeeded

of

in

showing

that

the

Synoptic Gospels are to all appearance of Greek origin, that the attempts hitherto made to infer
a

Hebraisms

the

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

5*7

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 ac

knowledged
of

fact that

Jerome was mistaken, and that he

believing

himself latterly perceived his error in

original

that
his

the
day.

Matthew
are

in

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 learn incidentally from Eusebius 1 that a Greek gospel.

We

the

first

Palestinian

martyr,

Procopius,

had exercised in

the service of the Christian

threefold office of Scripture-reading,

(epfjLTjveia 7779
TWJ>

community of Scythopolis the Aramaic interpretation

and
exorcism.
also
If

2vpcov

c^o)^?}?),

the

Eeader

of a Palestinian congregation

was

Aramaic Inter

preter, it

follows that there could not have been in Palestine

A.D.

about 300

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

The reading

of

a fourfold testimony in regard to a

"

Hebrew

"

original of

Matthew,
v.

first

in

the

form

of

tradition

to

the

effect

that Pantaenus had found such a

10),

work

in India (Hist. eccl.

and next in the form and by Origen

it is

of statements
iii.

made by
39,

Papias,
25).

by
of

Irenseus,

(Hist. eccl.

v. 8, vi.

Eusebius believes that

throughout the canonical Gospel

to,

Matthew that

is

referred

and could

cite in his

support

the statements of Irenseus and Origen,

opinion.

who were

of the
is

same

open to question, and would have had greater weight with us had
of

The declaration

Papias, however,

B. Violet, Die

paliist.

MiirtjTer des Eusebius von Coesarea,

4, 7,

110.

58

THE WORDS OF JESUS

in

we known

what connection

it

stood in his work.

When

he says of Matthew, ra \6yia o-vveypdtyaTo (avverd^aTo), one must naturally suppose he meant only a collection of
"

Papias own work, from which Origen made this quotation, bore indeed the title Xoyi av /cvpiaicwv efyand contained accordingly expositions of those yrjcrefc?,
sayings."
"
"

sayings
"

of
"

our

Lord

of

which
from
that

Hebrew
it

collection.

Only
clear

might

possibly

become

Matthew had made a the unknown context the work of Matthew

Syriac,
1

contained anything besides

dicta.

The translator into

\6yia, has certainly not given the exact sense of Papias within the limits ex From the statement of Papias, Kesch, it pressed by him. is true, has derived the assumed title of his comprehensive

who straightway put down

}V^:iN for ra

documentary source of our Gospels WJ, ^"n, on the supposi tion that Papias meant by ra \6yia to represent precisely
the above

Hebrew

title,
"

and that the

latter is

in

the last

resort equivalent to History of Jesus/ just as in the Books often refers to the acts and experiences of the Kings B

^^

But Papias gives no hint that ra \6yia was the title of the work of Matthew in question and even if he so considered it, he would still in any case have understood
of a king.
;

it

to

refer

only to the
of

"

sayings,"

not to the
this

"

deeds

"

or

"life

history,"

Jesus.

But

if

work

of

Matthew
JftB>
1

were composed in Aramaic, then a title such as ^jn? or W! *|O for a narrative gospel would be highly improbable. 3
It
is

really

an Aramaic, not a

Hebrew

original

of

1 So Eusebius, Hist. eccl. syr., edited by P. Eedjan, Paris, 1897; by Wright and N. McLean, Cambridge, 1898, without giving variants.

IV.

Cf.

of

Post-biblical Jewish literature recognises s as a title of written works only in the sense that the contents are thereby referred to as the words of the A "History of Jesus" would have been person named in the superscription.
"i.:n

Hierapolis," 3

the anonymous treatise, 1894, 48-91.

"The

Oracles ascribed to

Matthew by Papias

called in

Hebrew jp: nfc^D, in Aramaic &v?} topw, as written by Shemtob Ibn Shaprut in the imprinted Eben Bokhan (MS. of the Jewish theol. Sem. in
f.

Breslau,

180 b ).

INTRODUCTION

59
tradition.

Matthew that

is

attested

by the ancient

This

l is concerned, for, holds incontestably so far as Eusebius in the Syrian according to him, the apostles had been reared to the fifth word of Jesus alludes also Eusebius language."
"

on
"

the

Cross
2

in

its

Aramaic form, speaking

of

it

as

Hebrew."

In saying that Matthew,

3

whom

he elsewhere
"

Hebrews," preached to the and then on departing from them left behind with them his Gospel written Trarpia) 7X^7777, Eusebius means that

calls

"

Syrian,"

first

of

all

Matthew had written

tongue common

down
and

his

Gospel

in

the
is

motherto say,

to himself

his kinsfolk, that

according to Eusebius own view of the linguistic situation of that period, in 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
of

in
4

In the case
of

Irenoeus

he was certainly not mistaken. we know for certain that he spoke

this
"

words which are Aramaic as being

Hebrew."

But

in all

these notices the emphasis that the

is not laid

on the consideration
in

work

of

Matthew had
"

originally been written

Hebrew Matthew had composed

as opposed to

Syriac,"

but only on the fact that

the

"

Hebraists."

Any

work in the language peculiar to one who, like Eusebius, is convinced

his
"

that the mother-tongue of the

Hebraists

think of no other language in this conceded that even if that work had for any reason whatever actually been composed in Hebrew, still the testimonies

was Aramaic, can It must be connection. 5

"

But would scarcely have been expressed otherwise. in virtue of this mere possibility, the testimonies do not
about
it

become actual witnesses

Hebrew.
1

in favour of a primitive gospel in in

treatise
ev.
iii.

by Matthew

the Palestinian Jewish

~

Demonstr.
Qvuest. ev.

7.

10.

Ibid. x. 8.

ad Steph. in Mai, p. 27. 4 Adv. hser. i. 21. 3 cf. Epiph. H ceres, xxxiv. 20. An Aramaic original Matthew is postulated also by Th. Zahn, Einl. das N. Test. ii. 54.
;
r>

in

60
vernacular
1

THE WORDS OF JESUS

is

attested, but not a

conjecture that this treatise of

Hebrew Matthew. The Matthew was a collection of

Matthew
has
least, it

the sayings presupposed by the canonical G-ospels of

and Luke

is

an attractive one, but hitherto, at

not been established by linguistic evidence. Indeed, it must be confessed that even if the sections common to Matthew

at least not the Semitic original, but only a

and Luke did actually originate from that source, still it was Greek translation,
that lay before the evangelists.

The early Church testimonies

in regard to the origin of

Mark s Gospel would have

Peter, were the

considerable importance for our

aim, provided that Mark, in his capacity of interpreter of

same individual who was wont

would go back to an Aramaic

to

translate

the Aramaic discourses of Peter into Greek.

his Gospel, too,
it

In that case
original,

even

2 3 were only orally formulated. Irenseus, Clement, though 4 and Eusebius must, in fact, have so conceived the situation.

in Papias, 5

this point, that of the Presbyter intended to imply that Mark was apparently only the author of a gospel which was founded on the spoken communications of Peter, Mark being thus in a sense his

But the

oldest testimony
is

on

interpreter, even
office

though he had never actually filled such an in relation to Peter. In that case it would be most

likely that

Mark

of Peter, for Peter

should proceed upon the Greek expositions must have appeared (Acts 10 24) from a

very early date as a preacher of the gospel in the Greek And thus a primary form in Greek would have language. F. Blass, 7 who to be assumed for the Mark document. 6
understands the statement of Papias to signify that Mark actually accompanied Peter as interpreter, holds indeed that
1

This case

is

quite similar to that of the original of the iffropLa lovdal Kov

TroA^uou Trpbs Pcopaiovs of Josephus, which preface in ry irarpL^ (understand 7X^0-0-77).

2 4

was composed according

3

to

the

Adv.

hser.

iii.
iii.

1. 3, x. 6.

Hist. eccl.

14.

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

194.

ii.

15, 16.

See also above, p. 42, and p. 49, footnote 2. F. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 196, 210

of.

INTRODUCTION
there existed an Aramaic original of

61

Mark which was un

in

known

to Papias,

and

of of

which traces may be recognised

our manuscripts.

the various

readings

He

holds that

Mark was

also the author of the

Aramaic source which he

entirely

postulates for

Acts

1-12.
of

But such conjectures

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 have original Aramaic terms, so in recent times attempts to of the for made been Gospels go back particular passages
original, in the first instance by J. T. 4 3 and Marshall, subsequently by E. Nestle, J. Wellhausen, Wellhausen and A. Meyer aim A. Meyer, 5 and M. Schultze. 6 word uttered by Jesus; Aramaic at the reaching 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
our
entire

primary gospel.

Zahn,

who

considers

Gospel of Matthew to
seeks support for this

be a translation from the Aramaic, position especially from the style in

here sufficient

which Semitic words are communicated.

In regard to Marshall and Meyer,
1

it

is

J.
;

A.
see

1792
2

Bolten, Der Bericht des Matthaus von Jesu dem Messia, Altona, A. Meyer, Jesu Mutters pr ache, 25, 105 ff.
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
3

373

ff.,

435

vi.

81

176

Philologica sacra, Berlin, 1896.

collection of observations published

in

Christl.
4

Welt,

1895

and 1896

Expositor,

Stud.

u.

Krit.,

and other

periodicals.

1896,
5
6

Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Gott., 1895; Phil. hist. Kl. llf. i. 265 Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. 188-194.
;

Gott. Gel. Anz.

Jesu Muttersprache, Leipzig, 1896. 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
i.

Expositor, Ser. 4,
f.

vi.

81

ff.

See also

Resell,

Aussercanon. Paralleltexte,

157

Here

may

also be

mentioned W. C. Allen
St.
Mark,"

Language of the Gospel ace. to 8 Einl. in das N. Test. ii.

s Essay, "The Original Expositor, Ser. 6, vi. 436-443.

56.

62
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

refer
to
1

the trenchant criticisms

which their work has

provoked.

Some
Of

of their points

will claim attention at a

the pertinent observations of Wellhausen and Nestle, though even in their case we feel the absence of a careful separation of Hebrew
are

later stage.

far greater consequence

and Aramaic
that

possibilities.

Wellhausen,
the

indeed,

considers

primitive gospel has been established by general considerations, and does not require to be vindicated by fresh evidence. 2 He must, however, be
of

the

Aramaic form

reminded that the Jewish literature

in

to

this

day
I

is

still

mainly composed part 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

do not

Further, the points urged by

Zahn prove

truly

enough the
of a

existence of an Aramaic background to the Gospel accounts,

but do not

suffice

to

show convincingly the existence

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

A Hebrew, and still oftener in the style of the Mishna. whole series of comments that could be made on the synoptic
would therefore apply equally to either language. But the previous attempts to adduce such proofs are defective on
text

other grounds.
tions

To

justify this

view in

detail,

some observa

by Wellhausen will first be examined, and then the remarks of Nestle, which are pertinent to the question.
Wellhausen
claims
that

the

striking

variations

8ore

and
1

KaOdpta-ov,

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, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1896, i. 265-268; G. Dalman, Theol. Litzeitg.

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

2

1563

f. ;

A. Merx, Deutsche

Litzeitg. xix.

Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,

vi. p. v.

INTRODUCTION
are derived from ^r,
cleanse."

63
to

which means

"

give 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.

"intp-

W.

in his discussion refers to

my
give

Gram.
alms
"

Aram., in which
<ar.

the

"

meaning

to

authenticated for

He

further pleads the con

sideration that in the Arabic he has found the substantive

"

zakat,"

ing form in Aramaic

literature.

which contains the root-form, while the correspond tot seems to be wanting in the Jewish

But

NntoT,

like

its

Hebrew equivalent

^V,

is

quite

common
NrpiDj

in this literature.

It does not matter

much

does not appear to occur in connection with alms, since even then it would not lose the sense of practice of meritorious action cf. of the com virtue," N^V*?, practice
that
"
"

"

"

mandments

"

for

"alms"

(Vay. E.

34).

The verb
"

-or

can
"

to meritoriously by giving alms," that merit by asking alms procure [for another] (see j. Pes. 31 b ). But why should Luke not have arrived at his

mean

"

to

act

but also

expression by starting from the Greek

purifying of the cup
filled

/caOdpio-ov

The

with plunder could be brought

about only by away.

saying
It

being emptied, the contents being given coincided with the intention of Jesus if His
its

were

applied

to

almsgiving.
in

According
,

to

the

reading TO Se eacoOev

idea implied vpwv would indeed be that what was latent in the heart of the

Luke II 39 the

Pharisees should be distributed like alms.

But

as an idea

so absurd cannot be attributed to the evangelist,

like Blass, read vfuv.

we

should,

In Luke 24 32 Wellhausen
as

is

quite justified in retracing,

Mrs. A.

ftaprj/jLevr}

Lewis does, the readings /caiopevrj and /3eback to Yjy and IVHe has not, however, noted
S.

that the lucid ^e/Saprj^evrj adopted by Blass

solely

through early versions.

It

in the (primitive)
1

Greek

text.

is disclosed to view would never have stood The interchange of Tp and

11

Tp"

on the part of Syrians might very easily happen, because

64
in Syriac i

THE WORDS OF JESUS

and
i are distinguished solely

by the position

of

a diacritic point.

But

this

does not touch the question of

a primitive Aramaic gospel. It is in itself an attractive conjecture that

is

made by
to

W.

in

suggesting that in

Luke 4

26

the

woman
"

whom
to

Elias

was sent should be characterised not as

"

widow,"

NrfeiN, but as

heathen,"

KrVDiN
as

corresponding
o
it.

the

mention in
standing,
I

ver.

27
"

of

JSTaaman

2vpos.

Notwith
"

am
Israel
"

unable to assent to
of
ver.

To
"

the

many
26.

widows
in

in

25

there

stands quite suitably

of
ver.

contrast

the

widow

of

Sidonian Sarepta
is just as

Besides,
fyvvaitcl

TT/JO?

yvvatica
^

as Naipbv o 2vpo<; is by xypfy So that there is the like expression in 2 Kings 5 20 LXX. really no call for emendation of the text.

x^pav Kings 17 LXX,

much

occasioned by

Another phrase, which W. regards as an Aramaism,

avacrTrjcrovTaL

is

ev

rfj

/cpicrei,

fiera

TT}?

<yi>eas

ravrrjs, Matt.

they will measure But this themselves in the Judgment with this generation." form of expression is found in the Old Testament in Isa.
Its
"

12 41 (Luke II 32 ).

meaning must

be,

5417

tDB^?37

Targum

W^ ^ W
"

TjfiK

Cflpfl,

LXX
5

avacTTrjcreTCH,

eirl

ere

et?

KpLcriv,
D^ip;

also in Ps.

94 16 ^JHD oy ^
Trovypevofjievovs.
iJ

^p,

LXX
;

rt?

avao-niG-erai

poi

7rl

For

the

Jewish Aramaic compare also j. Kidd. 64 a DV D a H^rin, some one began a litigation with ijw Further, against] his neighbour on the street."
"

n?

^
up

[rose

/caraKpi,-

vovcriv

avnjv,
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

2*n,

but we have a cor

responding expression also in

"ycnn,

Hebrew
Fi\3a

in IfH^jn; see Isa.

54 17

LXX

ijrnjW?, Targum
little
is
it

nn.

Just as

Aramaism
which may
is

in

necessary to detect with W. an 23 along with avOpwirw /3aai\el, Matt. IS 2 be mentioned Matt. 22 where the same phrase
, ,

repeated,

also

Matt.

13 52

20 1

cf.

2 1 33 with

INTRODUCTION
oTY),

65

and Luke 24 19 with avyp

|H3
8

irpofiqTqs.

The Old
iepia><j)\

Testament says:
fcODj

K,

Lev. 2 1 9

(LXX

avOpa-jrov
;

85^ Judg. 6 (LXX avSpa Trpo^rjTvjv) Aramaic literature the idiom is also found
;

and in Jewish
see,
e.g.,

3D
at

"Q3,

j.

Sanh.

25 d

but I

do not think

it

ever stands

the

opening of a parable, as in Matthew.

is,

But

avrjp

/Sacr^Xeu?

of

course, good Greek, and avOpwiros

/SacrtXeu?

also is

not impossible.

In Mark I 41 Cod.
a-7r\afyxyi<706k

of the

common

has the unmeaning opyt&Oefa for text. Like J. D. Michaelis 1

"

a century ago, Nestle holds that in this case DmriN,

he was

moved with
"

compassion," has been interchanged with Djnntf, ** That might well be correct, yet it would he was angry.

apply only to the Syriac of Edessa.

In this instance we

perceive the impression of Syriac influence on Cod. D, and that all the more surely because Ephrem knew this reading
see

Chase,

The Syro-Latin Text

of the Gospels,
is

88f.

This

author, however, supposes that the confusion

between

omnK
TYJV

and

nDnriN*.
efo>

The readings Mark 5 10 7775 31 are by Nestle traced back afivcraov, Luke S
%a>pa$ t
,

and

et?

to NDinrfc

and

KDinr&,
"

the former meaning

deep."

"

to

the

frontier,"
*

the

latter

into the

As

"

to

the frontier

did

not
"

suit

the

across the Mark, it is thought, changed it to But without imputing an erroneous translation frontier/ of this kind, the variation explains itself from the considera

context,

tion that in

Mark

the idea was the removal of the demons

Tob. 8 3 ), but in

to a distant land

(cf.

Luke

their

banishment
In
as

to

5 11
"

the place of chastisement for the reprobate. 32 (Luke 8 ) a herd of swine is mentioned
"

Mark
being a
"

beside

or

"

good way
that
N"}^,

off
"

upon the mountain from them (paicpav

"

"

in Matt. 8 30 as being
CLVTMV).
distance,"

CLTT
"

Nestle holds
are

mountain,"

and
is

N")1.P,

here

in
;

confusion.
1

But

this

NTO

foreign to the Jewish

Aramaic

Einlcitung in die Schriften des

Ncucn Bundes,

i.

(1788) 585.

66
and the
difference

THE WORDS OF JESUS

admits of another
entire incident

explanation.

Mark
8 27 )

and Luke represent the

as
"

(Mark

52

Luke

proceeding upon the seashore, the herd being in the immediate vicinity upon the mountain." Matthew does

not locate the episode on the seashore, but regards Jesus on the way to in the country of the Gadarenes as being
"

"

Gadara (Matt. 8 28 ), which was situated some six miles inland. The herd of swine is supposed to be at some distance, be
cause, as represented in ver. 32,
seacoast.
it

was necessarily near the

In Matt. 5 48
olicTipfjiayv

reXetot, reXe^o?

correspond to

oi/cTipfjioves,

in

Luke

36
.

From

the Concordance N. finds that

t Xect)?

the
for
"

LXX
the

in certain circumstances puts both

and

</>/Xo?

Hebrew D^, and he

Sacra
"

notes
is

that in de Lagarde

s
TI

Onomastica

oXo/ia>z>

explained as e\erffiwv

elprjviicos.

Therefore

N.

infers

oi/etlpjjutv

presupposes an

original
"

But despite all this D^ does not mean D^. so rendered only by a very slip merciful," and could be The expression in Luke is occasioned by shod translator.
the fact that the divine nature has just before been char
acterised as xpTja-Tos.

Matthew
other

uses

reXeto?
is

because
to

the

conduct

of

men
and

in
it

relations

forthwith

be
the

mentioned,
transition.

was

necessary

to

provide

for

The peculiar phrase

vovdd^
has been derived
KrittD^i

in

Mark
J.

8 10 efc ra pepy
2

AaK^athe

by

Kendel Harris

from

Aramaic

the supposition that the second NrTOE^ was an inadvertent repetition, while the real name
of

Km Job on

Nestle 3 has, independently the place has disappeared. To this, however, the of Harris, hit upon the same idea.
serious

objection
of
"

meaning
being
1

district

literally

has to be urged that ra pepr) with the is a pure Grsecism, quite incapable of Kr^Jp in all the reproduced in Aramaic.
"

See thereon Gram. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 133.

Philologica sacra, 17.

Codex

Bezte, 178.

INTRODUCTION

67
"

Aramaic

dialects

means
thus

"

portions

but

not
to

"

district."

The Syriac

translators
:

were therefore obliged

substitute
"

other expressions

we
22

find in place of it &oriN,

region,"

Mark

10

Pesh., Matt. 2

Cur. Sin. Pesh., Matt.

16 13 Cur.
Sin.

Pesh. Hier.; KDinn,

Hier., Matt.

"district,"

Matt.
"land,"

15 21

Cur.

Pesh.

16

13

Sin.;

jn,

Matt. 2 22 Hier.

Nor

in

Jewish Aramaic would expressions other than these be Therefore Aa\pavovdd cannot be explained by possible.
of
Krvn]Df>.

means

In Mark 10 30 Jesus speaks of a "hundredfold" recom 29 30 pense for His disciples, whereas Matt. 19 (Luke 18 )

mention
"

"

manifold
"

"

recompense.
also,

Now
Luke
the

Cod.
"

has

hundredfold
Nestle
s

in

Matt,
"

and in
"

sevenfold."

In

opinion

sevenfold

was

original,

and

this has

been received into the text of Blass.

be correct, but there
is

This

may

possibly

no necessity for deriving the expression from a Semitic original. Seven stands as a number suggesting completeness without mathematical
precision,
cf.

the seven years of

Anna s wedded
;

life,

Luke

2 36

the seven evil spirits,

;

Luke 8 2 11 2G
"

the seven brothers,

.
"

Luke 20 29
"

way

the sevenfold daily trespass, Luke 17 4 In this manifold and even hundredfold can be used in
"

place of

"

sevenfold."

At
reward

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

cities."
P?"]3,

On
is
"

closer inspection, however,

it

becomes evident that

this
cities

not correct.

P^~]3

is

not

the

common word
25 21
-

for

"

in a general sense, so that

the

confusion was not so natural

23

as

might appear.
are
"

In
the

Matt.

it

is

not

"talents"

that

given

to

servants, but their

Lord will
the
"

set

them over
"

many
"

things."

When Luke

defines

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. 23 13 and Luke II 42 eXeo? and

dyd-rrrj

TOV 0eov

should in N/s opinion be traced back to one form with

as
its

cm

root.
1

and

N? ?^
to

"love,"

His supposition is that PPtn, compassion," were confounded, TOV 6eov being ap
"

pended
that

the latter.

But

it

is

at

least equally credible

ayaTrrj

the

Greek

synonyms

e Xeo?

and

were inter
"

changed, and that aydirij was afterwards explained as

love of
God."

the

In

Mark II 4
the
is it

e-jrl

TOV

d/A<p6Sov

properly

translation
in

of

represented as being 29 This BiyQ^aytf, Luke 19

is
.

accordance with the Syriac Kyjia rw, latter, said, at the parting of the might in fact have been rendered eVl TOV But means ways." d^oSov only on the street
"
"

"

NWa

is
l

not the term for

"

a network of roads

"

or

"

cross

roads,"

either in the Syriac of Edessa or in the Palestinian

;

Aramaic

and rp?
not

is

not used for 2 in Palestinian Aramaic.

the
indeclinable
origin.

Besides, BrjOfayij
therefore,
of

has

ending
the

e,

and

is,

Greek

learn that JKa IVI was really the

From name of
Mark,
If

Talmud we

a place, 2 not of

cross-roads

merely.

So

that

if

he

translated,

would have translated wrongly. derive MKB from JB, unripe

"

one

is

not content to

have done, 3 then it 4 is preferable to pronounce the origin of the word obscure rather than to decide upon Kyja.
figs,"

as I

"vinegar mingled with gall" is put for wine mingled with myrrh of Mark 1 5 23 through the with mi, myrrh." confusion, as Nestle holds, of rra, gall,"

In Matt. 27 34

the

"

"

"

"

The

"cross-roads

fact that the Syrians in one case attempt to assign the meaning to NJS rra would have significance only if Nina could be adduced
"

with this meaning in other instances. 2 But not of two places, as Starch, Palastina und Syrien, 35, represents.

Gram. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 152. be traced in the name ? According to the Can -rrdyos, village," perhaps Talmud, Bethphage was situated just beyond the city boundary of Jerusalem
4
"

proper.

INTRODUCTION

69

But Matthew

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.

has

-rrpo?

o\ov

TOP KOO-^OV for

o.

\dov

the

Textus

Eeceptus.
"

K
and

traces
"

these

variants to the confusion of

ofty,

world,"

Dy,

people,"

and adduces other instances where

does not
expressly say, however,

this

mistake occurs.

He
that

whether he means

Luke had subsequently recognised

be

his original reading Dy to

incorrect, and, accordingly, in the revised edition had substituted KOCT^OV for \dov, or whether a later writer was

the

first

to

alleged
Ber.

source.

bring Luke s document into accord with the In the text of the Palestinian Talmud,
8
d
,

KE^y ^D wrongly For this, however, it is no mere misread put for ing on the part of a copyist that is responsible, but the fact that both are quite equivalent periphrases for "every one," the former being the dominant Babylonian usage, the
also

4 b and Bab. mez.

KE>y
i>3.

we

find

latter
"

Noy,

the Palestinian usage. Admitting, however, that io all the people," and Njofjy b, the whole world," are
"

merely different expressions for "every one," in the same sense as in Acts 2 47 the reading nevertheless allows of
,

Semitic original quite as satisfactorily through an interchange of the Greek terms, as is done by B. Weiss l and there is no occasion to con
;

explanation without reversion to a

sider with

Harris

a Latin, or with Chase

a Syriac text as

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

certainty"
"ye

is

raised

to

"

perfect

in

N.

oppressed,"
"

judgment by the various reading eftapvvare, 14 in place of supplied by Cod. D Acts 3

,

ye

denied,"

of the

common

text.

Blass

appeals

2 3

Der Codex D in der Apostelgescliichte (1897), 58. Codex Bezoe, 103 f. The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezse
Philology of the Gospels, 194.

(1893), 28.

70
to this

THE WORDS OF JESUS

"discovery"

"

most important proof 1 of the Aramaic source used by Luke for Acts 1 12. to molest," are supposed to have been to deny," and 133,
of Nestle as the
"IDS,
"

Both by Nestle and Blass, there interchanged in this case. In the fore, e/Bapvvare will be reckoned a gross error.
first

edition of the Acts,

:

Luke himself had

of his

fallen into this

mistake
after he

only

in

the

second edition had

he

rectified

it,

had made a fresh study

source.

Now

Blass,

at least, according to

whom Luke
all,

Aramaic and no Hebrew at

understood only a little should hardly attribute to

"^an,
"

him any acquaintance with the Hebrew

which occurs

2 If, only in Job, and, moreover, is never used for molest." however, Luke were well versed in Hebrew, this peculiar

freak,

impossible
4

from
ago,

the

Aramaic

side,
3

would

be

un

pardonable.
Chase,

Long

however, Harvey,
satisfactory
it

and

after
of

him
the
"

had found a most

explanation

reading of Cod. D, by referring could be interchanged with 1D3, irritate," which

to

the Edessene 133,

"

to

to
it

deny."

Nestle

finds

this

also

to be
it

plausible,

and, as

seems,

would therefore consider

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.

originates not from Luke, but from a defectively written or And since to be angry falsely read Syriac gospel text.
with"

is

in

Edessene not
that

133 but 133HK, Harris

will

be

right in

^T^cro-re saying of the Latin reading aggravastis, which part again determined the Greek text of Cod. D.

read

as

^rrrjcraTe has been

the

source

on

its

may
2 3 4 5
6

B. Weiss, Der Codex D in dcr Apostelgeschichte, 25, holds that tpapfoare possibly have been an ancient reading, without giving any opinion on its

genesis.

The same would hold

of the Edessene

imx,

"to

make much

ado."

W. Wigan Harvey,

Iren. adv. Haer.

ii.

(1857) 55.

The Old Syriac Element in the Text

Philologica sacra, 40
J.
f.

of

Codex
ff.

Bezse, 38.

Ecndd Harris, Codex

Bezse (1891), 162

INTRODUCTION
If

71

our criticism of the proofs hitherto adduced in sup port 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

The Christian Church, even while nothing improbable. Jerusalem, included in its numbers numerous Hellenists,
.

in
i.e.

1 29 From the very begin Greek-speaking Jews, Acts 6 9 ning it thus used two languages, and in gatherings of the

community the deeds and words of Jesus must have been The "Hebraists" recounted in Greek and in Aramaic. would mostly all have understood some Greek, but the
Hellenists very often no

Aramaic or Hebrew.
in

A
a

gospel

source in Greek need not, by reason of its been any later in origin than one written

language, have

Semitic

It is thus possible that the oldest Christian writing dialect. may have been composed in Greek and its Semitisms, so
;

far as they are not Biblicisms, are in that case clue to the

Aramaic

oral archetype

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

only the

fact that Jesus

spoke in Aramaic to

the Jews, and that the

72
original apostolic

THE WORDS OF JESUS

band at the beginning preached concerning in that language. not For the though exclusively words of Jesus only is an Aramaic original form incontestably

Him

secure;

for

them alone does the

Semitic source.

earliest

Church tradition
arises

assert a written

Hence

for literary

science the right

the

and the duty

of investigating in
"been

what form
original
the

words of Jesus must have

uttered in

their

language, and what meaning

they

had in

this

form for

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

heretofore
specifically

how much

there

is

in

with greater certainty than form and content that is

Greek, and what at least

to the

may

be regarded as

most nearly approaching

one
is

original setting.

The more

convinced that the Gospels contain historically trust worthy communications in regard to the teaching of Jesus, the more important must it appear to get even one step
nearer to the original by a fresh apprehension of His message in the light of the primary language and the contemporary

modes

of thought.

the proper kept in view that they are presented to us in writings whose authors have so recounted them that their individual apprehension of them,
subject of our study,
it

As

the

words of

our Lord must thus be

has, of course, to be

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

words

of

Jesus

must be sought out and

In regard to the Johannine
individuality impressed itself

applied for the end in view.

Gospel,
its

exclusion from the scope of the inquiry seems to

s

us justified, because the author

so strongly

on

the

Greek he wrote, that a reconstruction

little

in

Aramaic would here have too

prospect of success.

INTRODUCTION

73
will not gain

But even those who may think

differently

say that a separate treatment of the synoptic material, at least by way of 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 retrans-

lation will have better prospect of success.

accounts of the evangelists be laid on the unessential details in the

But even in the themselves, emphasis must not

reported
dicta,

which

each

narrator

in

turn

could

represent with some

variation, but

only on the leading thoughts and pervading ideas. It were no small achievement to succeed in appre hending these, in the light of the Aramaic language and the

with increased precision and And such an aim closer approach to the original sense. must be pronounced quite attainable, provided it be pursued

contemporary

circle

of

ideas,

with the proper means.

It is obvious

enough that a mere Aramaic translation

of

the words of our Lord, as given in the Synoptists, would

have

little scientific value.

For

it

is

precisely the untrans

latable

that

has to be

made
falls

intelligible.

Where

several
of

renderings are possible, the reader

this.

must be made aware

When

the choice
its

the reasons in
1

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

The
original

See specimens in Cowlcy and Neulauer,

Hebrew

of a portion

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 there
fore 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
of the investigation.
left

our

inquiry,

without

thereby

anticipating

which may appear as a possible result

Only the various

out of view.

contingencies involved must not be

all

Naturally

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 arche To 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, it will be desirable
begin by submitting the most important of these to a The discussion of the words of Jesus special consideration.
to

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 accord will also be

ing to the same method.

Thus our researches

guarded against a false Judaising of the words of Jesus, such

as easily arises

and often has

their

arisen,

where
been
1

isolated

dicta,

separated

from

context,

have

rabbinic ideas and expressions.

compared with Further, the theory which

has been advanced,

by Schnedermann, that Jesus at first His work with Jewish ideas and then gradually charged began
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

Gospel

accounts. 1

For

there

the

teaching

of

Jesus,

extending only over a short period of time, appears, in regard to the fundamental conceptions, uniform and unvarying.

Each

single idea

must be apprehended

in its coherence with

the whole.

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.

It is regrettable

that there are so few previous studies

to our

from which material directly contributory

derived.

aim can be

Even

after the dictionaries of Levy,

Kohut, Jastrow

have been supplemented by

judisch-palastinischen
raisches
Worterbuch,"

my own works,
and
"

"

Grammatik des

Aramaisch,"

Aramaisch-neuheb-

regard

to

separate

remain large blanks in syntax, phraseology, and vocabulary of the dialects. Compilations begun by me, and to be
there
still

the

rendered more complete by continuous reading, must serve to supply the deficiency.

The absence
Jewish Theology
is

of

preliminary studies
less

in

the

region

of

no

marked.

Even an adequate

treat

ment

of the ideas of

not yet to be had.

iques (1874); J.
V.

the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is M. Vernes, Histoire des Idees MessianDrummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877);

H.
2

Stanton,

The

Jewish
"

and

the

Christian

Messiah

(1886);
padie,
ix.

Ochler

v. Orelli, art.

Messias,"
;

Prot. Eeal-Encyklojiid.

(1881),

641-672
556

E. Schurer, Geschichte des

3
ii.

Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu

Messianic Hope, 496
3

Christi,
;

(1898), Section on the

M. Marti, Geschichte der israelit. Eeligion (1897), 270-310; E. 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. Jfilhn, Die messian-

ischen Weissagungen des israelitischjiidischen Volkes bis zu

Against Schnedermann, see especially E. Haupt, Aussagen Jesu in den synopt. Evangelieu (1895), 63 ff.
1

Die eschatologisclieii

76
den Targumim,
to
i.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

be done.

(1899) after all these a good deal remains The commentaries, however, of Eyle and James
of

Solomon (1891), of E. H. Charles on the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1893), on the Apocalypse of Bamch (1896), on the Assumption of Moses (1897), and especially
the translations and expositions of these books published in 1900 by E. Kautscli, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen
"

on the Psalms

des Alton

Testaments,"

must be regarded

as

a gratifying

advance on their predecessors. Yet nearly all even of the authors here mentioned are lacking in a first-hand ac an indis quaintance with the later Jewish literature
pensable

requirement
writings

where

the

problem
original

is

to

elucidate
to

Jewish

whose

Hebrew

has

first

be

ascertained.

In regard to the special rabbinic literature, it would be particularly desirable to know what it has to say as to the
religious ideas of

the Jews at the beginning of the second the earliest period for which it affords century of our era

intimate

and

reliable

information.

W.

Weber s

"Jiidische

even in the second edition (1897), 1 freed as it has Theologie," been by 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 Pales
quite in
tinian from the non-Palestinian, as well as through the lack

more thorough treatment of details. The EealEncyclopadie fur Bibel und Talmud," with its supplements
of

"

(1884-1900), by
first

J.

Hamburger,
"

is

altogether a mere

accumu

lation of unsifted material, the several items of

to

which require
sterbende
"

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. Castelli, 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
far

theme are the

treatises

of

W. Backer, which are

"

too sparingly used

aiten"
i.

by theologians
ii.
i.

Die Agada der Tannpalastinens2

iii.

(1884),

(1894);
(1892),

"Die

Agada der

ischen

Amoraer"

ii.

(1896),

(1899).
of

After

their completion

by the

anonymous Haggada
means

Palestine,

these works will form a valuable thesaurus of the dicta of the

Palestinian Eabbis, and furnish the
"theology

of attaining a real

of the early Palestinian synagogue."

Specially useful help should have been obtainable from

the collections of rabbinic parallels to

New Testament pas have been which prepared by Christians and Jews in sages early and in recent times. Among Christian works of this
class

may

be
in

named

Joh.

Lightfoot,

Horse

hebraicse

et

talmudicse

quatuor

Evangelistas,

published

by

J.

B.

Carpzov, Leipzig,
talmudicae
Leipzig, in
;

1684;

Christ. Scliottgen,

Horse hebraicas et

universum
Joh. Gerh.

1733

Novum Testamentum, DresdenMeuschen, Novum Testamentum ex

Hebrseorum illustratum, Leipzig, Novum Testamentum

Talmude

et antiquitatibus

1736;

J. Jak.

Wettstein (Wetstenius),

Grsecum, Amsterdam, 1751,

1752; F. Nork, Eabbinische und Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Quellen Schriftstellen,

Leipzig,
dicse in

1839

Franz

Delitzsch,

Horse

hebraicaa et talmu-

Luth. Zeitschrift,

1876-8;

Carl Siegfried, Analecta

Eabbinica,

1875, Eabbinische Analekten, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1876; A. Wiinsche, Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, Gb ttingen, 1878. Of Jewish productions, which, chiefly with an apologetic
aim, institute comparisons between rabbinic and

New

Testa

ment

sayings, there

may

be cited

M. Duschak, Die Moral der

1 In order to call increased attention to Bacher s writings, as well as to set a better example in citing rabbinic sayings than that now prevalent in the commentaries, I shall make frequent reference to these writings, although for my own work they were not^ properly speaking, a source.

Uber die Agada der palastinischen Amoraer nach "Tempus loquendi. der neuesten Darstellung (1897), by M. Aschkenaze, is intended to be a criticism of vol. ii. der Ag. d. pal. 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. Grunebaum, Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums 1877 audern Bekenntnissen gegeniiber, 2nd ed., Strassburg, 1878
;
;

8.

Blumenau,

Gott

uncl

Bibel alten

und neuen
all

der Mensch, in Ausspriichen der Testaments, des Talmud und des

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 diverg Testament 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

reason of quite superficial and inaccurate Beitrage," by assertions and faulty translations, must even be characterised
as directly misleading
further,

Neue

and confusing.
of

It is obvious enough,

purposes
Kabbis.

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

No
this

other course
also

case

open but to supply the deficiency in by independent work on the post-canonical

is

literature of the Jews.

Our

discussion will consequently be

encumbered

by researches which might well have

;

been

conducted elsewhere
if

but I trust

it

will not

appear a blemish

Jewish materials, which

may

ultimately render important

service in various

found collected

ways to and sifted.

Biblical Theology, should here be

INTRODUCTION

79

VIII.

THE SELECTION OF THE DIALECT.

A
sists

serious difficulty in the

dialect

way
of

of our investigations

con
shall

in deciding the

Aramaic, which they

There is no justification indeed for Th. Zahn s l presuppose. 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 defined 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

these

dialects flourished,

and the extent over which

"

they

then

prevailed.

The

Judsean

"

dialect

is

known

to us from literary remains of

Judsean origin

in

the

period from

the

first

to

the third

(Christian) century;

the Galilean dialect from writings of

"

Galilean origin in the period from the fourth to the seventh Galilean That the at the time of its domin century.
"

ance among the Jews of Galilee was accompanied in other

parts of Palestine by sister-dialects closely akin,
is

proved

by the Samaritan Aramaic, and the still more closely related This latter had even ex Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
tended
its

sway

into Egypt, as is 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,
for

in

commenting on
still,

Isa.

19 18 Jerome
,

explicitly

states

that there were

in

as

was well known,

five cities in

Egypt

which
3

"

spoken.

the language of Canaan, namely the Syriac," was On the other hand, the Palmyrene and Nabatsean
of

Aramaic about the time

standing closer
1

Christ
"

must be pronounced
than to the
"

as
"

to

the

"

Judsean

Galilean

Einleitung in das Neue Testament, i. (1897) 19. G. Margoliouth, The Liturgy of the Nile (1896).

3 S. Krauss, Jew. Quart. Rev. vi. (1894), 249, strangely considers, despite the unmistakable statement of Jerome, that the Coptic language is meant. Syriac" being the Semitic language of Canaan in his own day, Jerome finds
"

80
dialect.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

It has,

however, to be taken into account that our

knowledge

of

the

Aramaic

of

Palmyra and Nabatoea

"

is
"

derived exclusively from inscriptions, while the Galilean a popular dialect elevated to a literary language.

is

One
over
all

will

best

do justice to the ascertainable situation

Christ there was prevalent
to

in saying, that in the time of Palestine,

from the extreme north

In

the south, a

single literary language in Aramaic, varying but slightly in

the different parts of the country.

are

this literary

Aramaic

written

the Aramaic
of

sections in

Daniel and in Ezra,

the
to

Onkelos, and the other documents assigned Targum the Judsean dialect, 1 as well as the Palmyrene and
inscriptions.

Nabatsean

Concurrently

(with

this

literary
:

dialect) there existed a whole series of popular dialects

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.

It is highly probable that

after the final overthrow of the Judeean centre of Jewish-

Aramaic

culture,

which was the result

Palestinian
all Palestine.

of the

Bar Kochba
got the

revolution, the

North

popular dialect

upper hand over nearly

to

Matt. 26 73 (Mark 14 70 Luke 22 59 ), Peter According was recognised in Jerusalem as a Galilean on the strength of a few words, and was consequently termed a companion
,

of Jesus.

It

must therefore be inferred that Jesus was

like

wise recognisable by His language.

following the Galilean dialect as incident from the consideration

We
that

must

not,

through
this

known

to us, explain

the

Galileans

were

accustomed at a later period to soften the gutturals. Peter s I do not know," denial contained the expression OVK ol$a,
"

Isaiah s prophecy fulfilled in the "Syriac" speaking inhabitants of Egypt. as occupying a position between the Canaanitic His description of the Hebrew and the Egyptian, and as being closely akin to Hebrew, corresponds
"
"

only with what he

1

calls

"

Syriac,"

but not with the Coptic language.

Enumerated

in

Gram.

d. j.-pal.

Aram. 5-12.

INTRODUCTION
or
"I

81

Matt. 26 70 (Mark 14 68 Luke 22 57 ). In Galilean this would be D?n KJN or D?n n$ but in

do not

understand,"

rri>

Judsean jn; KJK n^.

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 cen turies 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

from written works bears as yet no trace

It is true
of

of

decay or of corruption from outside influence.

signs

only that certain

more advanced development

as

compared with the Judaean dialect may be detected in it. It cannot, however, be regarded as a later phase of the
latter
dialect.

It

is,

of

course,

not

unlikely

that

the

language time of Jesus and the fourth century. The pronunciation, 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 is of principal importance and in that respect there can be no doubt that the number of

of

Galilee

underwent some changes between the

indeed

that

Greek loan-words had increased, while it is highly probable new Aramaic words from the north - east had found

currency by extruding others. Moreover, the possibility must not be excluded that Jesus, when speaking publicly, sought to conform to the Judsean
If the Galilean taxgatherer Matthew really re corded the words of Jesus in Aramaic, it is most probable that he should avail himself of the literary language of To all Judsea, and not of the Galilean popular dialect. dialect.

their

way

in

and obtained

appearance his book was least of

readers.

all

addressed to Galilean

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
;

0. Levias,
f,

A Grammar

of the

82
It

THE WORDS OF JESUS

might seem as if the linguistic basis presupposed work were indeed highly uncertain. To a certain
this
is

in our

extent

true.

Any

investigator

who

will

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 appear that the area of language

coming into question is comprised within very narrow limits, and that most of the competing options that arise are of little or no weight in determining the exegesis. On the
uncertainty as to language in this case is less considerable than that which confronts the translator of
the Gospels into Hebrew, who, finding the biblical
impracticable,
tries

whole, the

Hebrew

to

steer a

middle course between the

language of the son of Sirach and that of the Mishna.

be regretted that
the most
is

It is

to

extensive literary

monument
than

of the

Judoean dialect

a Targum.

Translations

of sacred books attached

now

themselves then even more closely The Greek to the verbal tenour of the original.
of

translation

the
it

LXX
of

is

already

an illustration of

this

tendency, and

was

afterwards surpassed in that direction

Aquila.

by

the

translation

The method
in

of

Aquila

translation

was further repeated

the

probably contem

of the Pentateuch, which, by a curious was adorned in Babylon with the name of Aquila Onkelos." in the form of Only there resulted in that

porary

Targum

accident,

"

kinship of Aramaic and Hebrew, a was not quite so peculiar as in which linguistic product of work the Greek Aquila. By comparison with the other
case,

owing

to

the

literary
1

remains of Jewish
"

Aramaic,

it

may, however, be
"

M.

Schullze, in his

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 senting, as the author intends, the Galilean pronunciation.

INTKODUCTION
determined with
sufficient

83
what should be
Genuine Aramaic
in
cases
re
is,

certitude

garded as Hebraisms in the Targum.

of

course,

most

clearly
its

recognisable
of

where

the

Targum, despite

aim

precisely

copying the original,

finds itself constrained to

The following may be

essentially

adopt divergences in style. 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

(2) the regular use of the separate HJ as

substitute

for

the

Hebrew
to

accusative

particle,

whereas
;

Aramaic consistently dispenses with

the
*3,

such a
of

particle

(3)

reproduction

peculiar

the

Targum

the

biblical

in all its meanings,

the

Hebrew

of
"

1 by ^K, 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

(4) the emphasis

;

(5) the use ing of the verb by apposition of the infinitive of the Aramaic njm for the Hebrew narrative formula W, which is foreign to Aramaic (6) the use of the verb
;
<?&

for the

iO

ri>

in Hebrew for the Hebrew

"^

all
"ibK.!?

cases of
;

its

occurrence, and

of

(7) the

frequent

of the Perfect as historic narrative tense

employment where the Aramaic

would have had recourse

or preceded

to

the Participle, either by itself

by

~ijn

(8) the

common

use of the Infinitive

with

prepositions,

where Aramaic
"n.

would

have

formed

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
1

One
190

instance

may show how

ZDMG
xxii. (1868)

we should
Gramm.

be in putting forward any such assumption.

Aram. 186
f.,

See

d. j.-pal.

f.;

NoldeJce,

489.
2
z

Tli.

Noldeke, Die semit. Sprachen, 32.

Grain, d. j.-pal.

Aram. 225

ff.

84

THE WORDS OF JESUS

says, b.

The Palestinian Abbalm

to

Sukk.

5b

that the

name

the K"J. given boy while the Galilean Onkelos Targum uses &?} for boy," dialect does not employ this word. But since the Mishna
"

"

(NP^) in

Babylon was
"

Now

attests the corresponding

Hebr. nnn and the Samaritan like

wise knows *y]

in Palestine.

it is

clear

Thus, when

enough that Kjin was not unknown it occurs in Onkelos, the word

should not be styled as a Babylonian intrusion. The regrettable defect of the Judsean Aramaic above
referred
to, is

in

some measure compensated by our having

the Galilean dialect

made known
stories
;

to

us

almost exclusively
in

through

the

short

interspersed

the

Palestinian

Talmud and Midrash

and these

stories bear

throughout the

mark

furnished with what

In this case we are popular origin. so much missed in regard to the Samaritan, the Christian-Palestinian, and the earlier Syriac
of their artless
is

of

Edessa, namely the really living speech

this vernacular

of

the people.

By comparing
we have
style

with the biblical Aramaic and

the idiom of the Judsean documents (apart from the Targums),

the only possible means of learning
of

what was the

of

and mode
the
1

expression

of

the

Jewish Aramaic

Palestine.
If

view

put

forward

by Noldeke, Buhl,
correct,

Cornill,

Ginsburger,

and others were

that

the

so-called

Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch include sections from 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.

Eegard

for

this

possibility
jiid.-

caused
pal.

me

to give a
to the

prominent

place in the

Gram, des

grammatical material in these Targums. But from that scrutiny I became convinced that the most

Aramaisch

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.

Monatsschr.

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.
"Bless,

In Deut.

33

11

the words run thus:

Lord, the possession of

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

the Levites,

who

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
less

this

Now as John Hyrcanus was upon." remembered among the Jews at a later date, favourably statement, it is held, must have originated soon after his
time,

own
his

and have been written by those who were among By these, one would presume, are meant the partisans.
itself suspicious.

Sadducees, a fact in

But one who

will
of

is

familiar
of

with the

nature

of

these

Targums

think

first

Midrash which applied

the words

Scripture

to

John

we should have before [Yokhanan]. 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. At the
most, therefore,

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 Koll of the
1

Targum zum Pentateuch

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

86
Hasmonrcans
is

THE WORDS OF JESUS

aware
that for the Jews the high
priest

Yokhanan,
champion
"

the son of Mattathias,

against

the

Greek

was the most conspicuous oppressors, and the proper

Maccabean."

None but he
cited. 1

could be

named

if

a personal

representative of the

Hasmonaean house

in its struggle against

Greece had to be

Since, however, the representations

given in the very late Eoll of the

Hasmonseans are wholly unhistorical, the passage in question becomes in reality an It is evidence for the late date of the Jerusalem Targum I.
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

Targums

of

the

The want of due Pentateuch can yield us any assistance. 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

Gospels, along with the other biblical lessons extant in the same language, 2 would,

Aramaic Gospel The Palestinian Lectionary of

"

a failure.
the

owing to the

close relationship of its dialect with the Galilean,

offer inestimable service

original of the

words

of Jesus,

towards the recovery of the Aramaic if it were not, like all the other
i.e.

ancient translations, merely a Targum,

an imitation

of

the Greek original in the Aramaic dialect of the Christians of

Rabbinic tradition, by the way, elsewhere distinguishes "the high priest (Hyrcanus) from "KingYannai" (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. Raba b. Ber. 29 a declares explicitly: "Yannai was an ungodly man from the begin
Yokhanan"
1

ning, but 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
"

in Antioch
2

(j.

Sot. 24 b ).

parts of the Scripture from the Old and the New Testaments, which had been published up to September 1897, are enumerated by E. Nestle in Studia Sinaitica vi., A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, edited by Agnes Smith

The

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 Durilop Gibson, under the
title
"The

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the

Gospels,"

London, 1899.

INTRODUCTION
Palestine.

87
is

The

slavish nature of the imitation

illustrated,

that the verb, with trifling exceptions, has no e.g., by the fact pronominal suffixes attached, because the Greek language
1 only uses the personal pronouns independently.

For
it

that

very reason, however, diverge from the tenour of the Greek, indicates

this version, in parts

where
all

does

the more

surely such Greek constructions as were repugnant to the

Aramaic language.
the Palestinian
its

Besides,

there

is

some suspicion that

been influenced in
of

Gospel Lectionary has

the

Syriac vocabulary by Idioticon des fortunately the

"

version

Edessa.
-

Un

christlich

paliistinischen

no light on this, (1893), by aimed at col has as on other important points. Schwally lecting the differences in the matter of vocabulary between But one does the Christian Palestinian and the Edessene.

Aramaisch

"

F. Scliwally, gives

not learn what words are

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

service similar

that

of

the Palestinian Lectionary

its

is

rendered also by

the Edessene version in

to us

various recensions

now known

(Cureton., Sinait., Peshita).

of these

But no

assistance derived

from any

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 the

3

basis of our

investigation, as proposed

necessary to

prove that in

by Wellhausen, it would first be it, and not in the Jewish Aramaic,

was the language of Jesus and the earliest apostles preserved. But this supposition cannot be seriously entertained. The
1

NoldeJce,
2

ZDMG

xxii. (1808)

505

f.

See the incomplete

Giitt. Gel.

suggestions of Nbldclce,

ZDMG

xxii.

(1868)

517,

522.
3

Anz. 1896, 265.

88

THE WORDS OF JESUS

is

a clear proof that there was practically no spiritual intercourse between the primitive

Christian Palestinian literature

Aramaic-speaking
people.
is

Jewish-Christian Church and the Jewish

of the of

The Church
spiritual

Greek and Edessene languages

the

the

mother

Palestinian-Aramaic

com

munities.

Hebrew

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

the presence

of the terms merely proves the influence of the language which had been spoken by the very numerous

Jews
such

in Palestine at a prior period. as

A
have

Jewish derivation,
taken
the

Noldeke

supposes,
if

cannot be inferred from this

should
place,

circumstance.

Even

it

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
of the first of these,

the

Hebrew

of the

whose vocabulary can also be tested by Mishna, represents in any case a stage
time of Jesus, we shall attach
failing,

of the language nearer to the

ourselves principally to
of the

it,

not

however, to note the

will divergences be guided by the tradition as to the pronunciation repre sented in the Targum manuscripts from Yemen, with the

Galilean dialect.

The vocalisation

exceptions specified in

my

"

Aramaische
It

Dialektproben," iv.

ff.,

especially as regards the Galilean.

affirmed,

should be explicitly
instance
a
cf.

however,

that

in

many an
f.,

different

pronunciation
d. jiid.-pal.
1

prevailed in the time

;

of
ff.,

Jesus

Gramm.

Aramaic, 46, 48 50
xxii.

59

64

ff.

ZDMG

522

f.,

Die semitischen Sprachen (1887), 33.

FUNDAMENTAL

IDEAS.

I.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

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

THE expression
to the
is

77

ftaa-i\ela

Gospel of

rwv ovpavuv Matthew, of which it

1

is

altogether peculiar
as characteristic as
fjp&v, V/JLUV)
6

is

the cognate appellation 6 irarrjp

(o

(fjiov,

ev

ovpavovi

ovpdvios).

Mark and Luke have

6eov.

uniformly,

Matthew has rarely, 77 Pacikela TOV The Jewish expression 2

ovpav&v In the
S NT

corresponding
i

to

77

jSav.

r.

is

in

Aramaic
it is
3

JipBn

NH^*?, n Hebrew

EW

rrota.

latter

without the

article,

worthy of notice that D]BP is always from which it appears that the Aramaic

is

of this

says

DW

in the definite form only because the indefinite form word does not occur in Jewish Aramaic. The Mishna

TOfe,

e.g.

Ber.

ii.

and similarly without the

God,"

article,
"the

ttotf

ante,

the fear

of

Ab.

i.

name
Sanh.

of
ix.

God,"

Sanh.

vi.

4;

DW
in

D^^

D^,

TB,

"through,

by
|p ?
is

God,"
"

from

heaven,"

on the other hand, invariably D^n Sanh. x. 1 Ned. x. 6. 4 The difference

; ;

to

be attributed to
the
locative
Ideas, VI.
"

the

fact
of

that

the

phrase
1

sense

DW

last-mentioned
consciously

was

still

Fundamental

Uber den Einfluss der Parsismus auf das Judenthum" According to Stave, (1898), 180 flf., the Persian idea of the "Supreme Sovereignty" exerted some influence when the term This is possible, but not originated. necessary. 3 See Franz Delitzsch, Neue Beobachtungen Uber hebr. Sprachei^entiimTlieol. Litbl. 1887, No. 48. lichkeiten, v., 4 See also Fund. Ideas, VIII. E. Schurcr, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 1876 Ch. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 2 p. 171 (F. (1897), 67.
; ;

92

THE WORDS OF JESUS

present, whereas, in the other cases,

stitute
Dwi>

QW
b.

is

for JTUD,
"

"God."

Compare, further,
is

purely a sub Mo. Kat.

one who
is

banished by

God,"

and B^V.
to

own
"

},

mercy
s NT

Although
sovereignty

E>r}

shown to them from heaven." Kmsfe is thus tantamount

it

the
all

of

God,"

does not

thence follow that

trace of the thought, that in the phrase the dwelling-place of God was being named instead of Him who was there

enthroned, must have been obliterated.

Simeon ben Lakish,

"

about 260

A.D.,

contrasted the
"

"

sovereignty of earth (nopo

(D

psn) with the

him, therefore,
of

sovereignty of
"

heaven

nwta).i

For

"

heaven

is

in this case the dwelling-place

2

God.

Similarly, the Babylonian saying,

"

r#? Kjn*O

Krwio

KSPjrn KITOia?,
government,"

the earthly government resembles the heavenly

God.

has regard to the seat of human kings, and of makes Again, Yokhanan ben Zakkai, about 80 A.D.,
of
"the

mention
D?B>

yoke

of
"

the

heavenly
"

sovereignty"
"

(biy

the yoke of flesh and blood (fiy 3 men." with contrast into God Dnj "^s), thereby bringing The difference in the point of view is, however, of small
rvo^E) alongside of
"

"

importance, because in every case the heavenly sovereignty," is nothing else than in contradistinction to the earthly,"
"
"

the

"

sovereignty of

God

"

as opposed to all

human govern
It can

ment.

There

is

no ulterior idea present in regard to the

derivation or the nature of the divine sovereignty.

only be ascribed to unfamiliarity with Jewish phraseology, that it is still commonly the custom to see in f) /3a(n\ela

T&V
of
1

ovpavwv a reference

to
4

the

transcendental character

the object so designated.

Ber. R.
9.
3

It is not the ^aaiXeia that

.

2 b. Ber. 58 a Cf. in the mouth i. 30 f. der Tannaiten, ; Agada j. and DIJ T^2 of Chanina (about 80 A.D.) the antithesis of wn 3113 hj?B Ab. d. R. Nathan, 30. 4 Messiah (1886), 209 ; See, e.g., V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian

Kidd. 59 d

see Backer,

"?iy

"?iy,

W. Baldenspergcr, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 2 (1892), 197 f. L. Paul, Die Vorstelhmgen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern (1895), 21 f. ; K. G. Graw, Das von Jesus geforderte Verbal ten. xum lieiche Gottes,
;

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

is
77

93

indicated as transcendent in this phrase, but the

fSaai\eia TGOV ovpavwv
is

the sovereignty of the transcendent

God.

Least of
exists

form

has the plural D)P^ for which no singular whatever to do with the heavens being anything
all

seven in number.

Hellenist might possibly, indeed, attach

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
to the

some such notion

attached by Jesus to the words ovpavwv is afforded also TOV the substitute which is used exclusively in 6eov, by Mark and Luke. The evangelists have clearly considered
ra>v

the two phrases as synonymous

and as they thus coincide

with
it
is

the

Jewish

safe to

JTirAp, meaning of the expression assume the same interpretation in the case of

&W
3

Jesus.

According to

J.

Weiss

and H.

J.

Holtzmann,

it

was

only Matthew who imputed the expression

original

to Jesus, the

actually spoken

being
of
77

97

f3acri\eia

TOV Oeov.

But
it

modern misunderstandings
only
too credible that

/Sao-.

TWV ovpav&v render

out of regard

Mark and Luke,

to

heathen readers, avoided the specifically Jewish expression, and followed the Greek Bible, which mentions no sove
"

reignty of
Ps.

heaven,"

but only
13
,

103

19

148

11

12

the sovereignty of God." See Tob. 13 1 Wisd. 6 5 10 10 4 Ps. of Sol. 17 14

"

Three Children). This is the usage also RTftOT where the Hebrew text of the Targums, which put as of Jehovah Jesus will speaks being King (see below).
of the
"*!

Dan. 3 54 (Song

Mitt. 11. Nachr. f. d. ev. K. in Russl. 1895, p. 52 ; //. J. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutestamentl. Theologie (1897), i. 189 f. ; A. Meyer, Die moderno Forschung iiber d. Gesch. dcs Urchristentliums (1898), 73.
1

2
3

J.

In opposition to Holtzmann, loc. cit. 191. Weiss, Die Predigt vom Reiche Gottes (1892), Lehrb. d. neutest. Theologie, i. 191 f.
Issel,

9.

E.

Die Lehre

vom Reiche

Gottes im

Neuen Testament

(1895), 20,

thinks that in this passage the "fulfilment of the Messianic promises" is implied by /3cunAea 0eoC ; 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 Testa

in Jewish literature HOT?,
"

ment and
it

when
"

applied to God,
kingdom,"

means always the kingly were meant to suggest the

the

rule,"

never the

as

if

Old Testament, see Ps. 29 29 (ro*?D)j for the Jewish literature, the instances to be cited later on. 1 To-day as in antiquity an Oriental
-

For territory governed by Him. Ps. 103 19 145 11 12 13 cf. Obad. 21

,

is not a body politic in our sense, a people or land under some form of constitution, but merely a sove a which embraces shall reignty particular territory.
"

"

kingdom
"

"

We

be justified, therefore, in starting from this signification of

rpopp as employed by Jesus.
"

un domaine a

la

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

roi,"

the locative as the primary sense of the expression.

too, finds that
"

Bousset,

of

God

"

only now and then does the sense sovereignty take the place of kingdom of God," and he seeks
"

for

special

reasons

for

this

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
"

to the

term
-

"

sovereignty,"

so as never

lose

of

the

starting

point.

The German word

(sovereignty) can also in a secondary sense denote a region, so that German is free from the embarrass

Herrschaf t

ment
"

felt, e.g.,
"

6 by Candlish, who tried

to alternate the

words

reign

and

"

kingdom."
r;

In two cases there occurs the expression

1

ftacriKda TOU
1876, p.

See also Fund. Ideas,

I.

8.

E. Schurer, Jahrb.
the

f.

prot. Theol.

183, defines
i.e.
2

&y JVnta not quite accurately as

rules."

"kingdom

in

which heaven,

the heavenly King,

F. Krop,
3 4
5

le royaume de Dieu (1897), 21 f. ihrem Gegensatz z. Judentum (1892), B. Weiss, Lehrb. d. bibl. Theol. des N.T. 6 (1895) 46. This is advocated also by K. Gf. Grass, loc. cit. 50 f.

La pensee de Jdsus sur

W.

Boussel, Jesu Predigt in

97.

Candlish,

The Kingdom

of

God

(1884), quoted

by Stanton. The Jewish

and the Christian Messiah, 217

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Trarpo? (avrcov,

95
.

/u>oi/),

Matt.

13 43 and 26 29
,

For the

latter

passage the parallels

Mark 14 25 Luke 22 18 have

TOV Oeov.

It

need cause no surprise that Jesus should occasionally avail Himself of this mode of expression, for He loved to charac
terise

God

as

"

Father."

In the same category should also be reckoned Matt. 6 33 31 (Luke 12 ), where TI /3ao-i\ela CLVTOV points back to o Trarrjp
v/ji&v

ovpdvtos, ver.

32
77

(cf.

Luke 12 30
is

VJJLCOV 6

irarrfp):,

and

also Matt.

25

34
,

where

/3aat\6ia

unprovided with a further

its

qualification only because, in view of

"

being prepared for

the

blessed

of

My

Father,"

the

addition

appeared un

necessary.

The question becomes more delicate when 97 /3acrtXe/a, in some cases where the context is not so obvious, appears to be
This happens only in Matthew, without any supplement. and almost exclusively in composite expressions. Here we ol viol TTJS fiaaikelas, 1 8 12 13 38 6 Xo709 TTJS ^ao-tXe/a?, find
:

13 19 (Luke 8 11
va<yye\iov

6 X.

TOV 6eov;

Mark 4 14
22
),

Xo709 only); and TO

rr}? fiacriXeias,

4
6
,

23

(wanting in

35

(wanting in

Mark
cf.

Luke 13
13
,

Mark 24 U

I 39

Luke 4 44 ),

10 TO (Mark 13

evayye\tov only,

Matt. 26
9 35 are
itself

Mark 14
to

9
).

Of these passages,
narrator.

however,

4 23 and
is

due

the

fuller
TCL
TO,

designation

not in

impossible, as appears
11

from
10

fjLVGTTjpia r?;9
fji.

/3aai\ea<;

TWV ovpavwv, Matt. 13

TO

(Luke 8
9.).

T. /8.

TOV 0eov,
nttpBH

Mark 4 11
is

fjiVcrTripiov T. /3. T.

When
definition,

used in Jewish literature without further

is

what

is

meant

always the secular

"

"

government

for the

time being, whether the ruler himself or merely the officials representing him be the object of attention. Com
pare, for example, the expression

nwfsp

"

3l"ij5

connected with
k.

the (Roman)
b.

government," b.
iii.

Sanh. 43 a

2
;

b.

Bab.

83 a

cf.

Sot.

41

with Ab.

8 (JSTekhonya ben
I. 4c.

ha-Kanna about

Cf.

on the expression, Fund. Ideas,

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 ?iy), and from the yoke of providing a livelihood
"

(J"fi2?E>

(H?
46
b
.

"HT!

y).

See also Sot

ix

17

i-

Ber 6a 13
>

J-

Ter

In this case JTDpp by

itself

represent the sovereignty of

God.

cannot be supposed to And as Jesus always

"
"

uses, 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
"

Greek-speaking part of And in it the terms

formed.
B.

it,

this identification is

more

credible.

used

by Matthew

will

have

been

THE JEWISH USE OF THE

IDEA.
is

The
Onkelos
reignty
fcwbj

first

consideration in the Jewish view

of

that the
of

sovereignty
in

God
15
for

is
18

an
puts:

eternal
"God

one.
.
. .

The Targum
11

Ex.

endures

ever

and ever
"M

"

D ?v!?

His kingly sove Q rPrwpo ^

^yS),

for the

Hebrew

oto$ ipO[

njn<,

thus sub

personal terms of the text an equivalent of a more abstract character. This sovereignty began when
stituting
for the

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

In

Siphre

Dt.

father

Abraham

God was, as it were, only the king but when Abraham came, he made Him to be Thereafter at the Eed Sea king over heaven and earth."
into

the world,

heaven

and

at

God. 1
It is

Sinai Israel gave allegiance to this sovereignty of Thenceforward it has its earthly presence in Israel.

the sovereignty of God in this sense that Eleazar ben Azaria (about 100 A.D.) refers in a saying, which also shows the connection of the expressions heavenly Father
to
" "

and
have

"

sovereignty

of

heaven

" "

One should not say

of

I
s

no inclination for garments

1

mixed
.

stuffs,

swine

a Mechilta, ed. Fried in. G7

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

flesh,

97
say
:

forbidden

wedlock
for

but

one

should

have
I
?

indeed inclination

such

things,

but what

shall

do
(n

when my heavenly Father has

7|3
"^

forbidden them to
are

me
1

-iTj

wmv

;TOK)

[for thus

we

taught,

Lev.

and I have separated you from the peoples, that should be mine j here we find him (i.e. man, according ye to the Scripture text) separating himself from transgression and thereby taking upon himself the sovereignty of God
"

20 26 ]:

bpoi rmyn Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260

v$>y

(D^OP rpota

ante
3

NV3).2

According

to

A.D.),

law thereby takes upon heaven." In the statement of Yokhanan ben Zakkai, 4 ad duced on page 92, the Israelite who voluntarily becomes
the
"

the proselyte who adopts himself the sovereignty of

a slave for

life

declares that he renounces the yoke of the

heavenly sovereignty (DJK* nwta i?iy pna), and takes upon himself the yoke of man (DHJ ^y bjp). Here the sove of God is called a yoke, because God is able to reignty

TO

compel Israel, even against his will, to accept His service. In Siphra 112 b He says to Israel: "In spite of you do I
,

set

up

My

sovereignty over you

little of

"

(^afe

Sp^DO

B?!]"

QpvV.).

How
the

realistic

mysticism
of

is

here asscociated

with the sovereignty of

fact

God becomes
the

clear also
"

from the
with the

that

daily
64

recitation

Shema,"

reading of Deut.
divided love
"

- 10

(where the One God requiring un

is

repeated

acknowledged), taking upon one s

God."

is

self

regarded as a continually of the yoke of the

n.
(c.

sovereignty of
A.D.) replied

In this sense Gamaliel

110

that as a bridegroom he was free from the duty of the reading of the Shema on the evening of his marriage I yield not to in that to
"

to

those

who maintained

you

lay aside even for one hour the sovereignty of

rw
1

DW>

rvo^

^).
;

God 5 faJ? Joshua ben Korkha (c. 150

"

This

2 3
4

wanting in Siphra, Venice edition (1545), d see Backer, Ag. d. Tann. Siphra, ed. Weiss, 93 ? & 6 ; cf. Backer, Ag. Tanchuma, ed. Buber,
is

ed. princ.
i.

228.

d. p.

Am.

i.

374.

j.

Kidd. 59b.
7

Ber.

ii.

5.

98
A.D.)

THE WORDS OF JESUS

says that in the
recitation of

the Shema, Deut.

"yoke

64

~8

ought to precede Deut.

"

11 13

~ 21
,

because the

of

the
prior

divine sovereignty
to

(&&

TWS70 ?ty)

must be assumed
"

the

"

yoke

of

the

commandments
b%\?
is

(nto

bty).

And
.

the

found exactly as a desig expression D?^" b a nation for the recitation of the Shema, e.g. j. Ber. 4 7
,

ftwD ^V

Thus the sovereignty of God belongs, in the first instance, 2 and is as yet fully acknowledged only in Israel. The future will, however, bring a fuller develop
to the current age,

ment.

The present reveals

in

two directions an imperfect

ip

realisation of the idea.

Israel

under foreign domination,

and the peoples do not acknowledge the divine sovereignty.

If

Israel

is to appear in all its glory, from the sway of the peoples, and The former is the Gentile world be subjugated to God.

the

sovereignty
set

of

God

must be

free

prayer for synagogues of the dispersion, being introduced in the eleventh petition of the Eighteen
part of the
"

common

"

Prayers

|fr
T

ao iprn n^nroa
: , :

w$tf*\
:
: : :

roi^&aii
"

norm ^pnb Tina 03^011 pivns D^rra nnN T T :::

:

nn T -

BBBtoi

njrra

nrriK

7jb

"restore

our

counsellors

as

in
;

the

our judges as of old and beginning; put away from us

sorrow

and sighing
Thou,

Jehovah, in
Blessed art

mercy and compassion, in grace

Jehovah, a King
over

and be Thou alone King over us, 4 and justice

who
Israel,
"

lovest
of

grace

and

righteousness."

Another prayer,5 speaking

sovereignty

the full
:

realisation

of

God s
e

says

Wffi.

^D3
in

^ayrn

wa^

t&p

n^

npi^ ^m^Da,
one
of

they shall delight

that

Thy
1 2

sovereignty

every

those

keep

the

Sabbath day;
Ber.
ii.

they shall all

by
i.

be satisfied and refreshed in

2.

This

is

rightly affirmed

SchecUer, Jew.
8a

Quart. Rev.

vii.

(1895)

195

ff.

Thus

in Seder

Rab Amram,
of

but Machzor Vitry,

njj-js
ff.

67,

has 09^93
"Die

p^sf],

"and

pronounce us
this

free in the judgment."

On

translation

pi*

and

see

my

treatise,

richterl.

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

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

99
divine
.

Thy

goodness."

To a
99

later period belongs the

word

attached to Zech.
as the future
in Israel thus
strictly

in

Pesikta Babbati, 159 a

Speaking

King
"

of Zion,

God
ones

Ye

pious

there addresses the pious of the world although,

!

waited for

rvoW
bear

I owe you words of praise, since ye law My although not for My sovereignty (Divans? Divan yet I swear to you that I will 56]

speaking,

rnini>),i

witness

for

good
is

to
:

every

one

who

waits

for

My

Wait patiently for Me, saith sovereignty, that Jehovah, against day when I rise up as witness-bearer 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
:

/3ao-L\ela
;

fieyia-TTj
iii.

fWavdrov
KOI

/3a(Ti\r)os

eV
ben

dvOpctiiroiei,
/3ao-{,\r) iov

(fraveiTat,

and

76:

Tore

egeyepei

et?
(c.

al&vas nrdvTas

eV

dv6pa)7roi$.

Joshua

Khananya
of

100

A.D.),

speaking of the time

"

when
Then

all service

God says alone be absolute in all the world, and His sovereignty will -rim cfoyi H iV oipan endure for ever and ever (irnr&p
other gods
shall

be

abolished,

shall

"

D pbly

<c&yh

DT

^).2

The

"Kaddish"

prayer in Aramaic,
:

dating back to a great antiquity, concludes with the wish

and may He (God) set up His sovereignty in your lifetime, and in your days, and in the lifetime of the whole house of
"

Israel, (yea)
1

speedily,

and in a time that

is

near."

What

Cod. de Rossi, 1240, in Parma, lias nrrirn both times ; Lut the citation introduced at the end from Zeph. 3 8 proves that Divan must be meant. 2 a Mechilta, edition by Friedmann, 56 ; see Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 147. 3 On this see Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, 2 385 Landsliulh, Seder bikkur cholim ma bar jabbok we-sepher ha-chajjim (1867), lix.-lxviii. ; Dalman,
;

"Jiid.

Seelenme.sse

uud

Totenanrufung,"

Saat auf Honnung, xxvii. (1890)

64.

169 ff. 4 So in Seder Eab

(in

Amram,

i.

3 b,

and in Machzor Vitry,

Maimonides

Mishne Torah)

after a

onjp

may He

cause His redemption

people."

inserts n ay phs:i a OT? 31131 a JiTJ? n ^], "and to spring up and His anointed to come near and

ransom His

100
is

THE WORDS OF JESUS

is

then destined to happen

1

consistently detailed in the

In it prayer ^JJP, which originated in Babylon c. 240 A.D. the hope is expressed that God will ultimately bring the of His world into order by means kingly sovereignty (JgW
" "

*w

nttfos Dbty), so that then

"

all shall

submit themselves to

the yoke of this sovereignty

Dn^y).

*Ay DK D^3 &3 Ol&prn The same sense appears in the ancient prayer 2 U?pP
"

*jnd>D

*Iipity3 *P;JT

nrn

^to fnote
(lit.

^n!

ID^pa *JP
in
in

irr

"

r6x,

our

King, our God,

Thy world, Thy world, Present absolute the remembrance of Thee in Thy world." 3 &on KK3?0 in the included and future are doxology
sovereignty absolute

make Thy name one

one
)

make Thy and make

"v_

fc^ys, NB^ni Similarly sovereignty in this age and in that to come." 3fTO Kpdros TOV it is said in the Psalter of Solomon, 1 7 6eov rjfjLcov et9 TOV al&va 4 /zer eXeov, KOL 77 f3cttri\ia TOV Oeov
"to
:

"JTK&

Tnjn

jnn

Jehovah

belongs

the

r]/jLwv 6t9

TOV alwva eVl

4

TO, e6wr)

ev Kpbrei,

"

the might of our

God
our

for ever with mercy, and the sovereignty of the upon peoples for ever in judgment." a fact which Since God is in reality Kuler even now,
is

(upon us)
is

God

the establishment only requires to be openly recognised, with power of His sovereignty may after all be termed an
"appearing."
"

Thus the Assumptio Mosis (10 1 ) already says: The Midrash on Parebit regnum illius (soil. Domini)."
2 12 represents the
"
"

Cant.

sovereignty of

God
"

"

as one day

taking the place of the ungodly sovereignty rvote and says of the former rfafttp
:

("W"}?

DW

n^P),
"

^ ajpt ^an,
God
to

the
re

time

has

arrived

for

the

sovereignty

of

be

vealed."

is

The relation of God to Israel during this sovereignty the subject of the petition, Sopher. xiv. 12: nK-jrn rfari
Zunz, loc. cit. 386 and for the text of the prayer, Machzor Vitry, 75 s Seder Abodath Jisrael, 131. Seder Rab Amram, i. 9 a
;
.

Boer
2 3

Machzor Vitry,
e<f>

343.
us,"

fyuas, "upon

has obviously to be supplied,

The Roman

rule is here meant.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

"

101

p,

may His

sovereignty over us be

made open and

manifest
This

"

mode
writers,

of expression is specially

popular with the

1

Targum
"behold
"

who wish

to avoid the

person should

appear on earth.

thought that God in In place of !? nan,

E?"

I^T $H and in place

"1

your God," Isa. 40, the Targum says: sniafo n^ariN ^ ne sovereignty of your God has become manifest
"

of

njrp

7]7D )

"Jehovah

shall

reign,"

Mic.

47

Knw|>p

ann,

the sovereignty of
4

God
24
,

will be

manifest."

Expressions of similar tenour occur in

passages, Isa.

the

Targum
21
,

for the

31

52

7
,

Ezek. 7

7 - 10

II

Obad.

Zech.

14 9

It cannot be ascertained that of

the

divine

rule

in

any heaven was

exists

idea of a pre-existence

connection.

That which

contemplated in this from the first is God as

Kuler or Sovereign.

The new element, which the future

His
is

brings, belongs to the sphere of the earthly realisation of

sovereignty.
"realities"

thought pre-existent 1 But emerging into the course of the world.

There

here

no

of

while for the Jews the TOpD of

God

invariably

means the

governance exercised by
idea that different

Him, terms had

it is

quite compatible with this

to be used

when the

blessings

promised

to Israel in the Messianic age

were to be indicated. 2

C.

THE APPLICATION OF THE IDEA OF THE DIVINE

SOVEREIGNTY IN THE WORDS OF JESUS.

A
of
its
1

preliminary analysis of the Jewish usage of the idea

the divine government had to be premised, in order that

specific application
See also
i.

by Jesus might appear in the proper

Ideas,
I.

Fundamental

6 f

Holtzmann, Lehrb.

d.

neutest.

Theol.
3

189.

La Pensee de Je"sus sur le royaume de Dieu, 22, incorrectly holds reaction against the Messianic hopes after the fall of Jerusalem" has contributed to this result. This reaction is just as little demonstrable as its alleged results. Holtzmann, loc. cit. i. 189, is also inaccurate in speaking of the "kingdom of heaven" as only another name for "the days of the
F. Krop,
"the

that

Messiah."

102
light.

THE WORDS 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

It

cannot, however, be

pronounced certain that Jesus

ever directly coupled any one of these verbs with rj fiaaikela TOV Oeov (TWV ovpavwv). Luke alone has on one occasion (4
43
)

ascribed to Jesus the words evayye\i^eo6ai rrjv B.

parallel passage,

r. 6.

The

Mark

I 38 , has Kypvcro-eiv

The passive r) 0. r. 0. evayyeki&Tai is Luke (16 16 ) with no parallel in Matt. II 12 and, moreover,
,

with no object. likewise found only in

raises
"to

difficulties

to

the Semitic translator, the passive

"

of

meaning always
2

to receive a

message,"

but not

"

to be

announced."

Matt. 24 14

Even the substantive evayyeXiov is only once, connected with ^ (3aai\ela. The parallel passage,
omitted, Matt.
,

Mark
,

1 3 10 , omits /3acrtXeta, just as it is also

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.

(eveKev)

The formula
so

eveicev

epov

ical

TOV evayye\iov

is
25

expressed
24 )

Mark
within

s5

10

29
,

whereas in Matt. 16
is

(Luke 9
TO

only in and Matt.

It

19 29 (Luke IS 29 ) the gospel

the
Christian

not
that
/3.

mentioned.

was
and

community
f]

evayye\iov

6vayy6\icr0ai,, with or without

position of a formula.

T.

0., first

attained the

In
1

the

verb

">&?,

which

must be assumed

to

be the

and GECKOS elvat is not taken into consideration without weight for the idea of the /3. r. 6. 2 In Matt. II 5 (Luke 7 22 ) TTTWXCH evayyeXifovTcu corresponds accurately with the Aramaic f SW }^5PP. Only N2B NTIS?:-! as complement can hardly be
association with O^OLOVV
here, as being

The

dispensed with.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

103

Aramaic expression, the idea inherent as in the Greek

original

of glad tidings is not so

va<y<ye\i%e<j6ai.

Even

in the Old

Testament, 1 Sam. 4

17
,

"to

is

used of mournful tidings.

The

Aramaic Nrniba
of

is

applied, Ber. E. 81, to the

announcement

a
i.

death
31,
1,

E.

and a glad message, Meg. Taan. xii., Ech. expressly adds the adjective Kraa wrn&a ( c f.
;
"

Ber.

ix.

Hebr. nnitt nnibq}).

to be translated
tfzsn

by

announce
"

"

will have Consequently even in such sentences as

"to

z may he receive the announcement D^tyn ^rb "top $n\ a ^n 1 "top promising the life of the age to come," j. Keth. 35
;

Kin
is

N3n

"

Djfojn |3C

may
">,

he receive the announcement that he

Shek. 47
(Meir,
c.

a son of the age to

come," j.
"

180

A.D.)

rn.EW

f??
he
is

^YP?
says,"

the

Scripture) and

b. Sot.
is

Holy Spirit announces ll a 46 a

, .

(in

the

Closely related also

"

Kan,

the phrase: Dptyn |a tttn^ assured that he is a son of the age to

or:

fc^n

ntpnip
b.

come,"

Keth.

(Yokhanan), b 305, edition Friedm. 129

"

1 1 la

Kan D^yn
;

\ r6 HD:ID ron, Siphre Deut.

s

compare also:

Nby

|Dnp$>

^nnpriK

1>

thou hast assured

Targ.

me
"nl

that I shall inherit the age to

KpJ>5J>

come,"

Euth

2 13

^K^

7ji>

Tjntp^,

"he

has

assured thee of
father,"

the age
.

to

come

for thyself
is

and
"

for

thy

b.

Sanh. 98 a

The phraseology
"

important as the

New

Testament
is
77

7ra<yyeX\eo-dai)

promise (e7rayye\ia, conception of the to be derived from it. Compare, further,

is
;

Jas. 2 5 ,
25
,

the object of promise 1 John 2 which makes 77 ?^^ h altovio^ the content of the promise and 1 Tim. 4 8 7rayye\la ^cor)? TTJ? vvv teal T% jLteXXo^cr^?.

where

^aaCkeia

To the same
times,

class belongs the sentence,

which occurs several

"

mn
is

there

Apoc. of
a
"im

nn^nn p, Ber. E. 76, "for the pious D^iyn and in the no assurance (promise) in this age 3 Baruch 53 "the promise of life hereafter" (Syr.
;

p^

ion

WD^ID).

It
1

thus
Targ.
2

appears
Lam.
I
1

that

the

sovereignty of
^ 3

God

is

the

puts the fuller form

NJ?,

"bad news."

j.

Kil. 32 b has the erroneous reading v:np.

104
content of a
qualification
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

"

message
of
"a

or

"

tidings,"

and not without further

tidings."

message of

glad

With
all

this

distinction agrees the fact that its proclamation, according to

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

cf.

Luke 24 47 should above

,

things

The germs
Testament in

of this

development
as

may

be seen in the Old

such

passages

Isa.

40 9 4 1 27

52 7

The

Apocalypse of Baruch mentions the message of salvation, 46, 77 12 Subsequently Elijah ranks as the herald of salvation
.

according

to

Targum
;

Jerus.

I.

on

Num. 25 12
l
;

Pesikta
c.

Eabbati, chap. 35 end

Trypho,

c.

8.

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

is
,

13 assigned in Schir. K. 2 by Eleazar ben Kalir in

Pes. Eabb. chap.

36

22 Trg. Ech. 2

"

Az

milliphne

bereschith."

In Luke 9 2 Krjpvaaew

r. {3. r.

0. is

found as part of a

mandate

14 by Jesus upon His disciples. Mark 3 has Kripvcr9 aetv with no complement, while in Matt. 10 7 (cf. Luke 10 )

laid

the charge

is

thus expressed

/crjpva-ffeTe

Aeyo^re?

un

tfyyifcev

TWV ovpavwv. This last form of the charge 97 Of as most natural on the lips of Jesus. itself commends 10 14 13 this, Krjpvacrew TO euayye\iov, Matt. 24 (Mark 13 ), 26
{3ao-i\eia
9 (Mark 14 ) should be regarded

as

an abbreviation.

The
:

shorter form points back to

Krrtfk>3

*to, with which compare

nn^anK Krn& srn^li, and also E. i. 31

;
"

thou hast received good tidings," Ech. IEOO ruOT Pirnon tnn, in Samaritan
"

this

announcement which

I declare to
eva<yye\i,ov

thee,"

Marka, Death

of Moses, 26.

Even where
for

is

would not be inadmissible

also available the

tt9ipv<T<rew.

not present, "^ Of course there is

more
1

closely to

Aphel form H?* the Greek term, and

5
;

is

which corresponds still a verbal form derived

; ;

A. Jdlinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, i. 54 ; D. Castelli, II Messia secondo gli a b Deb. R. 3 but in these b. Pes. 13 Ebrei, 196, 201, cites also b. Erub. 43 passages the announcement of salvation is not attributed to Elijah.
2
3

Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias der See my treatise, The same passage contains an undefined form mD
"

Synagoge,"

73.

3 (-Tip?),

which would
12.

lead us to expect NJ?-ip3 as the defined form. 4 The Peal also seems to occur Koh. R.

7"

Marka, Death of Moses,

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

from the noun tns
is

105
Dan. 5 29 and
,

K/jpvt;.
C
,

It is already used in

applied,

e.g.

j.

Ber. 7

to

an intimation which was

to

be

proclaimed in the
the influence of
Isa.

K lj? occurs, indeed, synagogue. through the Hebrew, in the Targum in Lev. 25 10
"to

but elsewhere proclaim"; meaning seems to be used only Jewish-Aramaic literature

,
&~\\>

6 11

in
for

the
"

to

summon,

to

name,

to

read."

&ia>yy6\\6iv

TTJV

/3. r. 6.

occurs in
22
.

Luke

9 60 but is wanting
,

in the parallel passage Matt. S

merely a Greek variant for KTjpvo-aeiv, so that a special Aramaic term If such a corresponding to it is not a matter of necessity.
it
is
"

Doubtless

term were wanted, STrtK, to make known," might be proposed, as it can be cited in the sense required from the Book of C 1 Ned. 40 a Daniel, the letters of Gamaliel, and j. Ber. 7 j.
;
;

Vay. E. 25. There still

calls for notice

AaXe^
,

trepl

TT}<?

/3. r.

6.,

occur
offers

ring in the narrative

Luke

9 11

for

which Mark 6 34

phrase established by tradition is obviously not present in this instance. In Aramaic fe Kjpcn grappa would be unusual, all the more as fe, so

merely SMaiceiv 7ro\\d.

common
35 a
"to

in the Targums,

is

elsewhere surprisingly rare.

for
2
.

The
b. Sot.

only instances
;

known
j.

to

me

/?>

are Ber. E. 32 47
it

pass,

fens,
is

Schek. 50 a

In place of
b.
"

relate,"

used in Vay. E. 34;

7Bte, properly Yom. 9 b b. Sot. 35 a

;
.

One might

rather expect to find 2 ^n,

to instruct
njt

in,"

which

likewise occurs in Vay. E.

instruction of every kind

34

3
;

cf.

Hebr.

for religious

(e.g.

Ab.

d.

E. Nathan, 18).

Peculiar

difficulty attaches

to

the

phrase

now

to

be

mentioned
66?

vra? rypafi/uLarevs fjuaO^revBel^ (eV) ry ffaaiXeia (or

rrjv

paoriKeiav)
/jiaOrjTeveiv

rwv ovpavwv, Matt.

in

13 52

verb, to

which
1

the
exist

sense
in

here

represented

would
(or

correspond,
See
"

does not

the

Jewish

Aramaic

in

Aram.
34,

Dialektproben," 3.

Even here the sense

Vay. R.
relate," j.

3
"

to

of KoVya p^onm p D is not properly intelligible. }n, to learn, is found beside ^n, to teach. But 35 also means Maas. Sh. 55 C
.

106

THE WORDS OF JESUS

:

One could only substitute Hebrew). NT f1 Nnte(2i)^ "every scribe who

s

TOpfl
is

Kirn
disciple
of

the

But probably the phrase is due to the In that case no precise equivalent author writing in Greek. in the words of Jesus need be sought for. In regard to 6 \6yos T% fiaaiXelas, see above, p. 95.
ra pvffTqpia
"

sovereignty of God/

r.

0.

r.

o.,

Matt. 13 11

(cf.
<

Mark 4 11 Luke
, ;

8 10 ),
4

would be in Aramaic: KJDf? Krnate P he made known to me the mystery

cf.

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

"

wan xn
R. 74.

^jnitf).

Subsequently the Greek word also came to

"
>

be used by the Jews of Galilee, rVDpEH n^p

mystery,"

Ber.

It is significant that according to Pes. Eabb.

is

14 b the

Mishna

the

"

secret counsel

Jews

to

be the sons of

(PT9? ?) of God proving the God, and has been entrusted for
"
>

guardianship to them and not to the Christians.

2.

TFTE

SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS

REGARDED AS AN APPROACHING

DISPENSATION, BEING THE SUBJECT OF THE VERBS

771)9 elvai, (fiOdveiv,

&W%iv,

ep^eadai, avatyaivecrOcu.
elvai).
17

(a)

To

be at

hand, near (eyyl^ew, eyyvs

rjyyifcev
11
,

In addition to

(ijyyuce),

Matt.

(Mark

I 15 )

10

(Luke 10
2 1 31
,

9
),

Luke 10

there occurs also

77^9 ea-rw,

Luke
13
29
,

in

which
33
,

case, however, the parallels in

ft.

Mark
Both
would

Matt. 24
capable

do not contain
reproduction
in

r.

0.

as subject.
r)/ryitcev

are

of

Aramaic.

be

N?"!i?,

or n:np with or without

"our
"

WBiD ni^
rjy

^^?
1

^\*,

18 rr^; cf. Targ. Ech. 4 end is come near"; and Targ. Isa. 13 22 For 6771^9 ecmv the time is at hand."

reference can be

made

to

Onk. Deut. 32 35

Di*

KEV Kin nnp

Jerus. II.

w w$ ^1P;
is

Targ. Isa.

^IP; Jems. I. 56 1 2^p

^B

and Apoc. of Bar. 23 7 *HW, "my redemption nigh"; For the phrases under (Syriac version) Ti&on apiia in nnp. consideration, therefore, we may perhaps assume the original This form of expresto have been W*? K*pf] Nnote nyij ;.
1

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

sion
is

107

more probable than the Aramaic NtpP, to arrive, to it would be possible to revert. The Targums for the Hebr. this word when the latter is Kin, usually put meant to express that a set time has arrived, e.g. Targ.
which also
Ezek. 7 2
Kiipns) fpt
-

7 - 12
;
"

Amos
the time

82

Jonah 2 1 and Cant. 7 13

,

(in this

NDD,

of

redemption has come

(<f>0dveiv,

").

(b)

To come

To NDD,
the
original

just
of

mentioned under
e^Oaa-ev
e</>

(a),

one must revert for

^a?, Matt.
"

12 28 (Luke II 20 ).
"

4 21 by Ntpp means such a way that he cannot

In

Dan.

to

come upon any one

Theod.
efyBaaev

in
eiri
:

escape,

Tiva.

This, too, can

MVjp

wpi>

be united with W?^, Targ. Ezek. 7 2 nujnte nuip, "the judgment of the end has
upon,"

arrived [that was] to come

etc.

ep^eaOai
the Lord
(the
s

is

predicated
10

of the

divine
2

"

"

sovereignty
20

in

Prayer, Matt. 6

parallels,

Matt.

26

29
,

1S (Luke II ); also Luke 17 22 25 Mark 14 are differently ex

,

pressed),
this

Mark
"

9 1 (differently Matt.

16 28 Luke 9 27 ).
,
"

With
.

may

be compared Bar. Apoc.

(Syr.
Tjb,

44 12
.
.

there cometh
;

the

new age
snttte

Kmn
"

wnw

to

xtby KDK) Targ. thee shall the kingly sovereignty

77

Mic. 4 s

come";

and Mark II 10
AaveiS.

ev^oyq/jLevrj

ep^o/Awr)

pa<ri\da

TOV

(c)

To appear

The term avafaiveaOcu, represented solely by Luke as narrator (Luke 19 11 ), is the expression used by preference in connection with KJTte throughout the Targums

(see above, p.

lOOf.).
of

It also meets
(in

10 1 and Apoc.
,

Baruch 39 7

this

us in Assump. Mos. 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.
manifest."

ire-En

nn tyn K^jnn,

"the

sovereignty of mine anointed will be

made

108
there

THE WORDS OF JESUS

may
vi.

be
1

cited
:
:
"

the

saying

from
of

the

Hagada
and moon

on
is

Canticles

As

the circuit
all,

sun
the

accomplished
the

in

view of
it

so

shall

sovereignty

of

Messiah,
D (

world

when

appears, be n*?*ft
"T??

revealed

openly to the

N;prnsa

niD^p

r6ane>3).

The rare
shows, at

occurrence of the expression on used by Him. least, that it was not commonly

the lips of Jesus

On
of

the term eVro? vfjiwv

I.

ea-riv,

Luke 17 21

see at the

end

No.

3.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

VERBS

IS

LIKEWISE

REGARDED AS AN

APPROACHING DISPENSATION, BEING THE OBJECT OF THE

i&elv

AND
(a)

To

see (ISeiv).
"
"

In Luke 9 27 Jesus
reignty of God.

speaks of a
1

seeing

of the

sove

In

see the sovereignty of

is

Mark 9 it is said that men should God coming with power. The former
"

not a mere
of

sovereignty
cipator in

to see the synonym for the latter for means to survive to be a parti God
;
"
"

it,"

just as

^ Tn$
phrase

nto,

j.

Sanh. 29

(Baraitha),

means
in
"

"to

live

on into the
the

age

to

come
is

as

it."

See
the

also

adduced

below:
not

a partaker nnnzi n&n,

quite the
"they,

to

see

consolation."

The meaning
finn Bfc

same

in

Targ.

Isa.

53

10

ntttaa

ftn\,

the

see the sovereignty of their Mes forgiven Israelites, will nor in the sentence from an ancient Kedushah of siah";
2 the morning prayer on the Sabbath: may our eyes see Thy (God s) royal
"

^^P?

nrtnn

1W,
In

sovereignty."

these cases, then, the thought

in the sovereignty that
is

is not of a special participation

to

appear.

Of a mere vision

of

the future mention

will see the age
1

is

also
is

which

made in Bar. Apoc. 5 1 8 now invisible to them, yea,

"They

see the

Jew. Qu. Review, vii. (1895) 157. b Seder Rab Ann-am, i. 10

.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

time which
is

109
RD^JJ in
*ui
s
;

now hidden from them

prmi N&TI pn

"

(Syr.

(5)

To
to

expect, look

for
narrative,
"

According

the

Gospel
of

Mark

5 43
"

(Luke
(irpoo--

23 51 ), the sovereignty
tion of Jerusalem

God

is

being

looked for

the consolation of Israel or SexecrOcu), just as

the redemp
-

was
Hab.

"

looked

for,"

The Aramaic word

Isa.

for this is

"lap,

25 38 according to Luke 2 Onk. Gen. 49 18 Targ.

;

30 18
its

64 3

23

cf.

the
of

form

iafe>,

which

has

made
Dan.

way
fcnap,

into late

parts
for

the Old Testament,

"no,

LXX
sub
<ap

7 25

Trpoo-Seferat

Aramaic
Ber.

as

also

the

stantive

"expectation,"

E.

53.

The Pael

occurs both in the Jerus. Targums to the Pentateuch and 1 I cannot, to look for, expect." in the Evang. Hieros. for
"

however,

verify either
2

this

or even

lap

in

the

Jewish-

Galilean literature.
Note.
"

The expression
has
its

"

to look

for the

consolation

of

Israel

parallels

in
"

Bar.

Apoc.

44 7

"

Ye
for

will
in

see the consolation of Zion

(Syr. jyntn naoian jltnn),

"they

and

the

Targumic Wjoru
of

TJB^

PI???,
Targ.
to

who
2

long

the

years

the

consolations,"

Sam.

23 4

Jer.

31.

In

these
"

instances,
of

Kfipn?,

the days
"

according Targ. the consolations," are identical with

age."

Sam.

23 1

Nte

f)to,

the end of the

formula of asseveration

mouth of Simeon ben Shetach in b. Shebu. 34 a as early as 100 B.C., which is also used by Eleazar ben Zadok, 3 Keth. 35 (c. 100 A.D.), is thus expressed: npnaa n*OK, I j.
put into the
shall see the consolation
"

and a Baraitha

b.

Taan.

1 l

pro

nounces the following verdict against any one who in time *?$ of distress separates himself from the community
11

n^"}

nssrn
1 2

nomn,

"

let

him not

see

the consolation of the com-

Late Hebr. nss, "to hope for," may be mentioned at the same time. \? ?p, Vay. E. 34, does not mean "hope in me," but from
it is equal to "look upon See Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 52.

in apposition
2

me

"

110
munity!"
"he

THE WORDS OF JESUS

See
see
also

the

Targ.

Isa.

43

oVfVV

norozi

W,
33 20

shall

the

consolation

of

Jerusalem";

and

D.ta i V

nnn:n

jjriT
"

of

Jerusalem."

thine eyes shall see the consolation Consolation is, throughout these instances,
^ry,
"

not the resurrection, but redemption in

its full

extent.

4.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

IS AN ORDER OF THINGS UNDER WHICH MEN ARE PLACED.

(a)

To

sit

at table, to eat bread (dvaK\lvea6ai,,

all

aprov
can be
"

The patriarchs and

as

the

prophets

seen

"

The sovereignty of God, Luke 13 8 11 Matt. context of the passage, as well as the parallel, shows, however, that we have not here to do with a current
subjects
of

the

28

expression.

Currency

may

rather be assumed of the

"

re

of God, clining at table" (avaK\lveaQaC), in the sovereignty Matt. 8 11 (Luke 13 29 ); cf. avdfceiaOai in the parable of the 10 n and the eulogy of one that sat Wedding Feast, Matt. 2 2 15 at meat with Jesus (Luke 1 4 ) patcdpios QCTTLS ^at/era*
-

aprov

drinking in the sovereignty of 25 29 Luke God, it is mentioned by Jesus, Matt. 26 (Mark 14 18 22 ), in connection with the consummation of the passover
Iv
rfj
/3.

r.

6.

As

to

there,

Luke 22 ir

>-

16
.

That there should be feasting in the Messianic age implied rather than asserted by the ancient stories
Leviathan and Behemoth, which creatures were one day The first mention of this serve as food for the pious.
in

is

of to
is
4

an ancient portion
it
.

of

the Apocalypse of Baruch (29 );

afterwards
2 Esd.
6

occurs in the
It is

Book

of

Enoch 60 7

~9 24
,

and in

49 ^ 52

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

Edition by Morjttl and Charles, Oxford, 1896.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

bring in
invites

111
"as

Adam
those

and the patriarchs

to

Paradise,
to

one
the

with

whom
and

one
will

loves

celebrate

festivals,"

and that these

pleasure
of

then

"with

joy await his

in

feast,

in
bliss

untold

abundance
the
of
life

the

rapture
ends."

and

the

light

and

in

that never

About 120
the age to

A.D.

Akiba speaks

"repast"

( "TJWD)

with

which the present age concludes, Ab.

iii.

16

and Jacob likens

into

come

to a banqueting-hall
(">l"JTi"i3)

(|V|?"}tD),

which one

enters from the vestibule

iv.

of

the current age (Ab.

vii.

16), a simile

which

is

repeated in Tosephta Ber.

"

21.

Only from a later period do we find traces of an actual repast which God prepared for the pious the feast of Paradise nnu Then the of 1? fable Behemoth and Leviathan DH).! (rj?
"

is

also

combined therewith.
s

Detailed descriptions of
iii.

this

feast are given m-Jellinek

vi.

Beth ha-Midrasch
the passage in the

76,

v.

45

f.,

150
see

ff.

Noteworthy
67):
2

is

Book

of Elijah

"

MfV D^TOn fen 3pjn pny D.TUK nh :, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the righteous and Targ. Eccl. 9 7 where God says to each of sitting"; the pious $ w^y^n fcon 3D ifei Nnra Diytp ^m Tjipnip
(loc. cit.
iii.

w>

|J?, "come, thy bread with joy, and drink with a merry heart the wine which is reserved for thee in Paradise."

r$

eat

See also Targ. Euth 2 12

"that

thy portion Rachel and Leah."

may
it

isrni ny TjpWi ^npb, njjrni be with Sarah and Eebekah, and

rnfc>

n^

Gospels may be inferred that the concep an actual repast for the pious was already an oldestablished idea. Even for Jesus this repast was no mere
tion of
figure of speech.
for the

From

the

language only purpose of emphasising the fellowship which the right

"
"

But He speaks

of it in plain

eous of

all ages are destined to enjoy. Never did He refer to the repast merely as a repast. Even in the satisfaction
1 Schem. R. 45 (Assi) 1312 ff
.

see also

Hamburger, Real-Encyc.
liebr.

f.

Bibel u

Talm

ii.

See also M. Uuttenwicser, Die

Elias-Apokalypse (1897), 25, 66.

112

THE WORDS OF JESUS

6 through the sovereignty of God spoken of in Matt. 5 (Luke It is rather meant to 6 21 ) there is no idea of a repast.

the complete contentment express figuratively, like Isa. 65 of those who are for the present suffering want. The determination of the Aramaic expressions to be used
13f>

here
"

is

not without difficulty.

at
table."

Late Hebrew has ^pn

corresponds
in

for to

recline

To

this

the

Targums
"and

->npK;

see,

e.g.,

Onk.
to
to

Gen.

37 25

K?r6

fa ob

vinDKi,

they lay down

eat

bread."

Both verbs
round a

in

themselves

mean merely

"

form a

circle

table."

In the
b
;

Galilean dialect of the Palestinian

Talmud

(Ber.

12

Taan.

66 a ), and in the Palestinian-Christian

for this was, at a later date,
"

dialect, the usual

down."

word

to lie

jn"|,

For
dialects.

"

to
"

eat,"

bax

is

a term

common

to all

Aramaic
rendered

To take

food, take a

meal,"

could be

by
W3.

*iyp,

although the Gal. and the Pal.-Chr. dialects use occurs in eat" "To eat bread" for the simple
"to

the Old Testament, and hence 25 Ex. 2 20 frequently, Gen. SV

,

also in the
,

Targums, pretty
in

2 Sam.
2
.

97

the Gospels,

Matt. 15 2

Mark

3 20

72

5
,

Luke 14 1
"

In the later Jewish

literature I find but

to eat is

In b. Ber. 42 b a summons few examples. and b. Bab. expressed: Kon? ?i3V3, let us eat bread
"

mez. 86 b the Palestinian Tankhum bar Khanilay, speaking on Sinai, while eat bread of Moses, says that he did not
,
" "

the angels,

when
"

visiting

Abraham,
for
")
"

"

ate

bread."

It is self-

evident that the Babylonian

(properly
Ber.
to roll bread
of

popular expression
"

Nna n

Tjna

to
(c.

eat

is

unsuitable.

In

82 a saying

Joshua

100

A.D.) is

given to the
"

effect

that the righteous

man

will

be satisfied

with the

bread of the age to come" (Nan Djiy^ tonte). 19 mention of the bread is here due to Prov. 28
not therefore imply a prevalent idiom.
1

But the
,

and does

On

the other hand

2
3

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

ff.

See EacJier, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

190.

THE SOVEEEIGNTY OF GOD

H3
,

ancient phrase bfh *njJ, to prepare a Dr6 nfcw, Eccles. 10 19 which the later Eabbinical literature does not use, in the same sense at least.
meal,"

must be

cited

the

Dan. 5 1 Hebr.
,

The benediction given to him who should eat bread theocracy would be thus rendered in Aramaic ^3M
"

"

in the
rriittD

the 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
Kpn>.
"that"

l?Bn

WTttfea

It

is

striking in

this

case

term

"theocracy"

use.

Some
VINT

expression,
"in

KD&3,

more common among the Jews, perhaps the age to come," might here be substituted.

(&)

To

le greatest, least (o fjUKporepos, e Xa^tcrro?, fie ^tov,

The righteous shine forth

Matt.
13**

as the sun in the

theocracy,

Dan. 12 3
the idea

As, however, in the stars are also introduced into the comparison,
.

conformably with
1

Dan. 12 3

developed by Paul,
the
lustre
is

and
of

by Yehuda
kinds,

i.,*

is

not
that,

excluded, that

different

and

therefore, degrees of

rank are

to be

One may
greatest"

in the theocracy be o
,

7 28), or 6Xa crT09, Matt. 5 19 X

(o pelfyv),

found among the righteous! fiiK P 6repo^ Matt. II 11 (Luke

"

i.e.
1

the

least,"

but also

"

the

Matt. 18

Mark

Luke

(where, however, the parallels speak only of the greatest the

among

disciples of Jesus), or

"great"

19 0*6/09), Matt. 5

(c.

This gradation recalls the statement of Joshua ben Levy 250), that there are men who are
"esteemed"

(D^i?) in

this present
"floating

age, but

who
3

will

on the

surface")

be despised (Dp, properly, in the age to come and another

son Joseph, who on his a "world turned upside down"

his
"highest

of

deathbed had a vision of

?*W m the
1

W: *f$ **&),
own
2
.

(Tji&n obto), in which the found themselves lowest, and the lowest highest"

case of his

which, however, was not to apply

father. 4
gee

Simeon ben Azzay

>

(c.

110)
105.

Cor. 15 41
cit,

eg d. pal.

Loo.

andb. Bab.

b.

10"
;

see backer,

Ag.

Amoraer,

i.

187,

ii.

THE WOllDS OF JESUS

said
l
:

"He

even a simpleton, lines in a later period taught on similar

himself who, for the sake of the Tora, renders 2 Yirmeya also will in the end be exalted."
"

He who humbles

of the law, will himself in this age for the sake of the word According to Yonathan be made great in the future age." 3 in the age to ben Elea/ar (c. 240 A.D.), all are aware that come there will be great and small, only in the present age
it

is

not

known who

is
4

in

reality great,
of

and who

is

small.
afraid

An

Aramaic narrative

tells

a woman who

is

that the acceptance in this age of a heavenly gift prejudices therefore causes the the status in the other world, and she
gift to

be returned.
"

The principle:

&&

P*

each righteous one (after death) has his own world toW_ r?aa, With for himself," ranked as a truth generally recognised. this Yehuda i. 200) is in accord when he explains (Siphre
(c.

a Friedmann, 8 3 ), that the righteous will one another no in the future have different grades, envying

to

21 Deut. II

ed.

more than the

remark

stars in spite of their different brilliance.

of the

third class specially elevated

j.

pious

is

the subject of
(in the

a Chag. 77

The Palestinian Talmud

there
will
6

same

passage) holds

that

be

seven

such classes, an

elsewhere. opinion supported In a similar way Jesus entertained the idea of different

grades

But part in the theocracy. that not is the principle on which these ranks are assigned of the Kabbis. there is at our disposal As Aramaic has no

among

those

who had

superlative,

for

Between only anw, Kan. 19 1 the only difference and peya<:, Matt. 5 6 pelfav, Matt. 18 latter an, should in the would be that in the former case Kan,
"the
least,"

"the

greatest,"

Ber. R. 81
b.

b. Ber.
b
.

63 b

see Backer,
b
;

Ag.
cf.

d.

Tann.

i.

416.

2 3 4

Bab. m. 85

Pesikta Rabb., ed. Friedmann, 198 Ruth R iii. 1 ; cf. Schem. R. 52.
a Siphre, ed. Friedm. 67
i.
;

Backer, Ag. der pal. Am. i. 87. 5 Vay. R. 18 cf. Ruth R. iii. 1.
;

12 Vay. R. 30; Midr. Ps. 16

cf.

Backer, Ag.

d.

Tann.

19, 44.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

115
:

With the expression may be compared be presupposed. a small thing," read KTVin, nnsn, ^riTyr, a great thing,"
" "

j.

Keth.

29, and fl.wa mrn

38.

nfi,

"the

greatest of

them,"

Ber. K.

(c)

The sons of

the theocracy (ol viol

:

rrjs

/3aai\6La$).

The expression peculiar to Matthew ol Matt. 8 12 13 38 still calls for mention here.
,

viol rfjs /3acrtXeta?,

On

the omission

of

TWV ovpav&v see above,

p.

95

f.

The son

as such is he

who

belongs to the father s house by being born of his spouse. But the idea that the son, in contrast to the slaves, is the
father s legitimate successor, in short, the heir,
in antiquity that the thought
of
is

so habitual

involves that of the heir,

cf.
"

Eom. 8 17

Gal.

47

The

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

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.

S 12
38
,

who

are

cast

forth

from

its

sphere.

on the other hand, the viol T^? @ao-i\eia<; are set side by side with the viol rov Trovrjpov. In this case the sons are those who have in themselves the nature of In
"

Matt. 13

"

the father.

The sons

of the theocracy are thus the

it,

men
;

of
cf.

a cognate disposition with

v.
43
.

the

"

"

righteous

(Bifcatoi)
:

ol viol expressions 27 19 12 Matt. vfjiwv (rwv $apicraia)v), (Luke II ); viol TCOV 31 vie $ia/36\ov, Acts fyovevadvrwv rou? TrpocjiiJTas, Matt. 23
;

Of

the same

character are the

13io

njn

njnipn

ja,

"this

son of a
of
j.

K3P -o
"

<K3j3,

"zealot,

son

son of obscure
is

parents,"

Kings 6 E. 33; pris -Q, zealot," Vay. c Sanh. 3 O The first-named

murderer,"
. :

32

idiom
*]

recalled
"a

Koto 12,

by the comparatively frequent expression son of the age to come," b. Taan. 22 a in

; ;

Hebr. Njn ^ij?n ja, b. Pes. 8 a b. Bab. b. 10 b j. Shek. 47 C nn DT ^yn ria, j. Ber. 13 d n;^n "the sons of the upper
; ;

"aa,

room

"

(the

heavenly world),

b.

Sukk. 45 b

Such

is

the

116
designation of one

THE WORDS OF JESUS

who has an assured claim

to the future
,

the other hand, the KTO^D r?a, Targ. Eccl. 5 8 are age. the citizens of a realm already in existence ^?, j. Taan.
;

On

MJ"]!?

66 C the inhabitants
,

of
;

a city; nann
cf.

ran,

j.

Sukk. 53 a

the
9 15
;

guests at a
ol viol

wedding

ol viol
.

TOV vvptji&vos, Matt.

TOV ai&vos 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 (elo-ep^o-Oat,, elairopeveo-Qai,).

"

One can
according
to

attain

to

(elo-ep^eo-Oai
21

efc)

the theocracy
-,

Matt.

5 20
25
),

18 3
;

18 24

ei<nrope6e<r0ai,

23 13
is

19 23f (Mark 10 23ff Luke cf. Luke II 52 Mark 9 47

-

10 15 (Luke
in

18 17 ).
"

It

the same
"

meaning that appears

TTJV

the

attaining
9
43 45
-

unto
,

life

(efc

&tfv),

Matt.

1 88

(Mark
of

9
)

19
(et?

17

and

in

the

parable

"unto

the
also

Lord"
"

and

Matt.

7 13

icvpiov), yapav through the narrow gate (Sm TT}? o-re^? 24 The "attaining to His (Luke 13 ).

rrjv

TOV

the joy Matt. 25 21 23

-

"

TruX???),
glory,"

which Jesus, Luke 24 26

is

cognate.

announces in regard to Himself, One can also be not far (ov fiaKpdv) from
,
"
"

the theocracy,
/3.

Mark 12
16 G
,

34
.

The phrase: /3meo-&u

receive

et?

T^V

r.

6.,

Luke

will

separate

consideration

below.
t?
"

T^V

/3.

r.

6.

has

its

ns,
b.

to attain to the age to

;

Jewish parallel in b come," b. Chag. 15

;

Sanh.

98 a
;

10o a

Hebr.
xiii.
C
;

Kan

D^
b.

Kte,

b.

Sanh.
c.

110 b
120);

(Baraitha)

Tos. Sanh.
j.

1 (Joshua
cf.

ben Khananya,
"riN"!

w
"to

Tnj>

Nla,

Sanh. 29

the causative

Roiyi>

WN,
*o:in

bring into the age to

come,"

Taan. 29 a

Hebr.

D^iy^ (Eleazar ben Azarya, c. 110 1 Quite unusual is the phrase:

See Backer, Ag. d. Tann.
i.

A.D.), Siphre, ed.

Friedm.
enter

Wpp
ii.

fy,

"to

221.

Bab. me/,

11 has N|n oViyn vn^.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

into
"to

117

the

life

eternal/ Targ. Ps.

40 8 1
.

Hence the rendering

to

attain

to"

corresponds more
"

closely

the

original

(Aramaic) than to enter into." There is one instance to which this does not elo-\6are Sia T% crrez/?}? TruA,???, Matt. 7 13
^

apply:

(of.

Luke 13 24 ).

recourse must be had to ^, to enter into." The appeal therefore runs NiJ? N$nna 2 wifch which compare jnn ins ?tyt entering in through one door," j. Sabb. 17 b and
this,
"

For

he slipped through that hole," Koh. E. 5 14 The idea that one attains to the life to come through sufferings and self-sacrifice is not unfamiliar to the Jews. The Second Book of Esdras 13ff of the speaks (7 -)

kS

?K

*???

^R

"

difficulty

of

attaining to the future

the narrow road leading, stored with good things. According to Vay. E. 30 179 b ), King David addresses to God these words:
to

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

life,

(cf.

Pes.

"Show

me what

gate

age to

come"

may be wide open into the life (an D^iyn ni B$BD ffra rms). The
"

of the

divine
life

reply, according to Azarya, is thou art in need of afflictions

"

If

thou art in need of

nriK

(ipny

jn^ -p*
"

nfiK

On attaining to As for attaining to

"

D^n DN)

life,"

see also No. III.

(efc rfr X ap&v has to be observed that the

the joy of the Lord

21

rov Kvpiov),

Matt. 25
"joy,"

-^

it

Hebrew
late

nnos?,

is

also

connected with a

festival."

used specially for "the joy This sense is already present in

,

books of the Old Testament, 2 Chron. 30 23 Neh. 12 27 In Sukk. v. 1 fUKfeFn n^a nn ^ is the title of a spedal ? festivity during the feast of Tabernacles. To come to the
wedding-feast"
is

expressed in Tob. 9 2

HL

by nnoea

1a.

It
c ^is

prescribed, j. To come into," moreover,

Mo.

k.

80

d
,

that one should not intermix

21

Vay
"to

37

less
is

-bven
2

fall

into"

is also generally expressed by frequently ? ^, j. Sanh. 2P ; and fe VH. a p &W, j. Maaser. 52

^y
J.

Pea
66<=.

Taan.

Galil.

pVj{.

GaSter (HL) by him see

M>

S ^^

desi nates

ie

Hebrew

recension of the

gr

Tw

118
one
nnB>

THE WORDS OF JESUS

with another
nnfc>,

no marriage In Deb. should be appointed to take place on a feast day. of my honour in wine lift will I 9 a father says up

and

therefore

R
of

"

son

The Aramaic reproduction wedding (Of ty ^np ^). 2 has instead WJWBtofr, for 3 Koh. the same statement,
"

"

his

banquet."

illustrates of

how

This use of *yr\vn for "wedding-banquet" 2 it happens that in Matt. 22 Jesus can speak
(ya/toi),
"

"wedding-feast"
"

while Luke

14 16

recognises

only a

great supper

(Seiirvov fjueya).

Still in

Luke

1 2 36

14 8 the word yapou implies any form of entertainment. In his own wedding-feast that the any case it was not from 36 Master came home (Luke 12 ), but from that of another
and just wedding," ^nnn is word Aramaic in the same way the corresponding a b See also Pesikt. 193 used for "wedding," b. Gitt. 68
person,

*|nn&P

is

in Vay.

28,

"thy

nnrpt?

"

nK3B>

T^p,

a king to

whom
nvirft

there

came a
"

festival."

Whence

would certainly have appears that ^o been understood by the hearers to signify, enter thou into
it

the festival of thy

Lord."

(b)

To

invite
bidden"

Not without
rov

"being

does one enter to

12

the

banquet in the theocracy.

expression
"

In 1 Thess. 2
KCL\OVVTO<S

Paul has the

et<?

6eov
o%av,

TOV

rjfias

TTJV
"

eavrov
invita

QaviKeiav KOI
tion

which shows

affinity

with the

in the parable of

the Supper, Matt.

similar

22 3f

8f - 14

(Luke

The examples. b b. 75 Bab. Galilean Amora Yokhanan (c. 260 A.D.) affirms, b. that only "those who are invited" (B^p) go up to the Simeon Jerusalem of the age to come (an D>i^f D^l*). 7 that 260 declares, Midr. Tehill. 14 ben Lakish
14i6f. 24^

Jewish

literature affords

"

"

(c.

A.D.)
all

Jacob rejoices above

the period of
banquet"
"joy"

the

patriarchs
"because

in

the coming
is

of

for Israel,

he

called to the
Isa.

(rn*JflS&

|BtD

NW

^), conformably with

is

48 12

The same expression

somewhat

differently

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

applied,
b.

119

I7 a where a heavenly voice says of the destined for the penitent Eleazar ben Durdaya that he is *rb Nan This expression life of the age to come," |?STO. D^n
Ab.
zar.
,
"

is

also attributed to a voice

b.

person,

Taan. 29

a
.

from heaven in regard to another This use agrees, however, with Acts
aiaviov.
of Onkelos, influenced
54
15
, ,

13 48

Teray/jievoi, et?

0)971;
"

For

"

to invite

the

Targum

Ex. 34 Hebrew, has always N^; see Gen. 3 1 the Targum on the prophets, e.g. 1 Sam. 9 24 has iT (JOT), just The invited as in late Hebrew (see above, and Sabb. 153 a ).
; ,

by the Num. 25 2

person Hebr.

is

N^nr, Targ.

Sam. 9 13

1
;

N"Ji?

does

occur

Koh. K.
&Oj5,

41 Still the Kings I and nix, which is the

.

equivalent of the Hebr.

in the Galilean dialect,

is

found

Hence Vay. E. 28, while the Jerus. gospel uses only &Oj?. elauv K\TJTOI, oXiyot, Se erc\KToi Matt. 22 14 7ro\\ol
<ydp

could be expressed in Aramaic by PT n ?

(G)

PT5!?

P?"

*??

P^P.
elvai,

To

be fitted for, to be

worthy of (evOeros

One must, moreover, be worthy In Luke 9 62 Jesus uses theocracy.

is

of

entrance into

the

the

words

"

he who
r.
0.,

not
TT]v

"

fit
(3.

for
T.

the theocracy
0.
;

(evOeros

eanv T$

/3.

or

et?

cf.

Luke

14 35

et?

Kojrpiav

evOerov).

In

Luke alone (20 35 )

f&)i}9,

found the expression: KaTa&wOfjvai, rov aiwvos exeivov Tv^elv cf. Acts 13 46 af/of? T?}? alcoviov
is

also

and 2 Thess.
of

I6

"

/cara^icoOrjvai,

r?}?

(3.

T.

0.

To be

worthy

the age to

come

"

is

common
^s*^T,

expression with
;

the Rabbis; see Aram, run 68 b ^nsn |p ynb i sat,

;

xM
in

N^
"to

b.

Erub. 54 b

b. Gitt.

fied

with
obiy^, b.

the
b.

age

to

come,"

be worthy of being satis Taan. 66; Hebr. rot j.

Nan

Bab.

10 b

D
;

p^y ^f
a
;

Wi

nar,

"to

be worthy of
try) nan

inheriting two
"

worlds,"

b.

Ber. 51

D^ym mn D^n
age,
"

Nan,
is

he

is

worthy
j.

of possessing this

and that which

to

come,"

Ber.

11;
C
.

come

king,"

j.

Ber. 4

he was worthy to be This ^?J corresponds without doubt

rpopEp
naj,

120
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

including within
itself

Kara^LcoOrjvat,

also

the
1
;

idea
cf.

of

Tv^elv.

For evOeros recourse

nferp^
"i^in

may
who
fit
"

be had to
is
fit

"iB>3

Onk.
Ber.

Ex. 4 13
E.
9
:

\v }

"he

to

be

sent";

"Wtoi

DJ31

DTian IVM&0&
himself

"TOrn?

wn^
work
Targ.

a b,
of

every

(worker) who proves

in the
also

the garden
I6
.
"i?>3

has
is

access

to the storehouse

Lam.
Targs.

and

Vn (Galil. preferable to 13 nnWni? *nrn II. Ex. 4

parallel

W)
2

as used in
jo
;

Jerus.

I.

for

this

*m, like its late-

Hebrew

^&n,

is

meant

to

be a passive participle,
it
|3,

and should be pronounced accordingly, though earlier The phrase JTOfB? does have the sense worthy."
"

Bern.

E.
also

9 24

means
Gen.

"a

son

who

is
"m

See

Onk.

49 3
thee) to

3D$
""on

worthy (it beseemed d and j. Bab. b. 16

take";

worthy to be king." mn *, thou wast 1 cf. Jerus. I. Gen. 22

"it

ni?sp

n^

rvb,

did not beseem

him

to drive

out."

Greek by

afto?,

Vn (^n) might, indeed, be expressed in and thus be preferably used in repro

Acts 13 46 though here also he has a see Deb. E. 1 H3H,
?ft)^9,
, :

ducing afyoi TT}? al&vlov

N3T could be proposed
;

w6

"

claim upon the

uses for af to?
sponding."

life (to

come)."

The Christian Palestinian

"

w, which means
The same root
deserving,"
e.g.

literally
is

similar

"

to,"

corre

already
;

used

in

biblical

Hebrew
and,

for

"

Esth. 7 4

also in Neo-Hebraic,

further,
ii.

in

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 where aftos may occur; see the dictum of Yannai
(c.

230

A.D.):

*w ^

FPnnN

QV.?*!,

"he

who

appraises his

way

is

of great
1

worth."

z.

39 b
2

In the Galilean dialect I can verify ng S only in the sense "honest," j. A b. b where where T^3 is the contrary of jy^, "scoffer"; and j. Taau. 65
, ,

KTts>3

is

found by the side of K3

jm,

"insolent."

The

"

Aram.-Neuhebr.
3

superlinear pointing has frequently, Worterbuch" under xm, ^vO.

;

by mistake,

\?n,

pn

see ray

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 (K\LIV,

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

(ic\eleiv)
"

the theo

(/cXetSe?) thereof,
chamber,"

Matt.

16 19

of

"closing

the door of the marriage

forth"

Matt. 25 10 (Luke 13 25 ); of "casting this chamber, Matt. 22 13 Luke 13 28

;

cf.

(eVcaX\e;) from Matt. 13 42 50 25 30 of

-

"

12 being expelled (e^ep^ecrOai) 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^iyn |i mn D^yn |o v;n npyj) 1 and
;

with regard to the godless, he teaches that in the present world God accumulates good fortune upon them, order
"in

afterwards to cast them forth, and to compel them to take z the lowest position See also (rulnnnn run-jab If nirta \r}$).
"

the expressions
world,"

NJD D^iyn
b.

jp

to reject
"intSK,

from the future

"to

b.

Bab.

15 b

wAy
b.

N^nnp
1

be rejected
"

from the other

in the

world,"

Chag.
of

a
.

"

To

close against

Aramaic

of the

Book
;

Onkelos, would be inK

in the dialect of

Daniel, and of the Targ. of the Targ. to the

prophets *pJN (this also in the Hebrew of Nehemiah, and in the Mishna), in Galilean Titp. For casting forth," Titp
"

alone comes into question

"

to be expelled

from

"

is PB3.

On
THE

"

the keys

"

of the theocracy, see

No. VIII.

6.

G.

THEOCRACY

IS

GOOD

WHICH

ADMITS

OF

BEING

STRIVEN FOR, OF BEING BESTOWED, OF BEING POSSESSED, AND OF BEING ACCEPTED.

(a)

To

strive for, seek, ask (fyretv, alrelv).

Instead of being anxious about food and raiment, one to seek earnestly after the theocracy ought (&T6iv Trjv
"

"

b Siphre, ed. Friedm. 84

cf.

Bacher, Ag. d. Tann.

i.

52.

b.

Kidd. 40 b

122
fiacrikelav avrov,
teal

THE WORDS OF JESUS

sell,

rov vrar^o?), Luke 12 31 (Matt. 6 33 where

,

rrjv

LKcu,o<jvwr]v
"

is

added).

also the injunction

to
9f
-)>

seek

"

Matt.
"

7f>

(Luke

In the same category are find," (fyTelv) that one may

"

"

seeking

goodly Pearls,
in

and the parable of the Merchant and one of great price finding
" " "
"

45f (Matt. 13 -).

For &T6LV
the
"

the two meanings, to

to
"

strive for

(some
that
is

thing desirable) and

hidden),

search

"

for

(something

corresponding

Aramaic
eagerly,"

word

is
;

Nyn.

This

means

to

strive for, covet

office
"to

Dan. 6 5
is

Onk. Num.

16 10 (where the desire), and also

10
2
;

of high
seek,"

priest

the object of the

;

Onk. Gen. 37 16

Targ.

Sam.
be

Koh. E. 7
").

11

(where

the passive

^nx

means
"

"to

sought for

The same verb (*W?) is also in use for to ask see But Dan. 6 8 Onk. Deut. 4 29 Vay. E. 32; j. Taan. 66 d 9f where aireiv stands alongside in Matt. 7 7f (Luke -)
"

of

fyjTeiv,

some other word must be found

for

the former.

The only term that admits of being proposed is W&l see Vay. E. 5, which describes what constitutes judicious and
"

injudicious

asking."

Among
there
rr]v
is
ft.

the means used to win entrance to the theocracy,

found, according to Matt.

T.

19 12

self -mutilation, Sta

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

to the

Mosaic law as
1

He

gives no pre

cedent for elsewhere.

Even Josephus affirms that, accord who emasculated themselves should be excommunicated, and that it was forbidden to castrate men
the law, those
or animals.

The application to animals, unexpressed in the been has law, subsequently deduced by the Eabbis, b. Sabb. 110V from Lev. 22 24 metaphorical use of PPffja
.

Antt. iv.

viii.

40.
I.

See also Onk. and Jerus.

on Lev. 22 C4

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

"

123

to castrate one s

self,"

to denote voluntary celibacy, I cannot

literature.

find

in

the

Kabbinic

The saying ascribed

the

to
1

Jesus,
6

though not recorded

succeeds probably

in

Gospels
fjirj

(Agraphon):
^r\^ai

Kara irpoOeaiv evvov%ias

o/xoAo7?7<ja?

aya/j,o<;

Siafievero),

in

giving

the

sense
as

of

the

saying of our Lord, but agrees nevertheless the tendency of Eabbinism as the other.

little

with ben

Simeon

Azzay

(c.

110
in

A.D.),

who

lived unmarried so as not to be

impeded
tion.
2

the study of the law, had to bear reproach for his celibacy, and he ranked ever after as a notable excep

vow

of abstinence

from conjugal relations would

"

necessarily entail the obligation to dissolve the marriage.

The word that commends itself most to replace Sta, for It would also be the most suitable in is DiB&. the sake for the regard to the leaving of one s family and property
of,"
"

sake
evefca

of"

(etvexev)
efjuov

the theocracy,

Luke
29

18 29 (Matt.
C/JLOV

19 29
eveicev

rov

ovo/jLciTos,

Mark 10

eveicev

KOI

rov evayryeKiov). A.D.) says, Similarly, Gamaliel III. (c. all those who exert themselves on behalf of the Ab. ii. 2
"

210

"

community should do this for the sake of God/ and Jose ha-Kohen (c. 100 A.D.): 3 "may all thy works be
D?B>
D$>

performed

for the sake of God,

Dtf

*&."

(1)

To give
"

To him that asketh

7
7

it is

will be given
s

"

(SoOrjcrerai),

Matt.

(Luke II

9
),

and

"it

your Father

good

pleasure to give

you the

kingdom"

(Sovvai vjuv rrjv j3a(n\iav),

Luke 12 32
the

placing sentence in sequence to the invitation to seek the kingdom 31 to bear the of the Father (v. ), has intended kingdom
"

There can

be no doubt that

Luke, in

latter

"

same sense
of the

in both

cases.

Since,

however,

v.

32

in

virtue

emphasis and content must originally have stood in

;

2 3

Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 15. 97 cf. Nestle, Nov. Test. Grac. Supplem. 86. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 410. Ab. ii. 12 cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 72.
;

124

THE WORDS OF JESUS

" "

in the words of Jesus here meant of a special destined to devolve upon authority His disciples, who were for the time being quite powerless. The statement thus belongs to a different series of our Lord s

a different connection, the

kingdom

is

sayings, to
cussion.

which we

shall return at the

close of this

dis

On

the

other

hand, Matt.

2 1 43

belongs to this
"
"

category, in saying that the theocracy will be nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

given

to a

For

"to

give"

imperfect and

Aramaic puts at our disposal infinitive formed from the stem |ru.

^\

with
in

But

Galilean these borrowed forms also are occasionally supplied from a.T.i Alreire teal SoOfaeTcu vjuv ^jrelre KOI evprjo-e-re
is,

therefore, to

be thus restored

3 fin$] tya

jtoi>

parn

&xv 2
is

Pnaefc.

Bar. Apoc.
life to

44

15

may

be compared:

"to

these

given the
(c)

come,"

Syr. TIKI

To

accept, to receive, to take

One has
offered, as

to

"

"

accept
child,

(Se^eo-dat) the theocracy,

when
To

it is

little

Mark 10 15 (Luke IS 17 ).
"

this

18 1 passage Dan. 7 (cf. 6 ) Knofe sovereignty," is not available as a

&2\>],

they will receive the

parallel, for it

means

"

they

shall

become
:

rulers."

the phrase

We
:

might with better reason adduce

baj?,

rvofo vto

to

Dttta *?w bp, to take upon sovereignty of God," or one s self the yoke of the of God" sovereignty (see above, p. 98); for in this case the idea of voluntary submission

DW

take upon oneself the

the divine authority is present, if not also the idea of The same verb (^) is found in appropriating a gift.
to

Dan.

26
is

j.

Ber.
use,

6a

for

the

"

"

acceptance
in
is
"

of

presents,

and

in

with the same meaning,

"

the

Targ.

of

Onkelos.

In the sense of

accepting

it

applicable in

this connection.
"

To be received

"

(Syr.

future age, Bar.

1

Apoc.

bp) is predicated of the promised 14 13 5 1 3 In the Targ. Cant. 7 14

.

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

Galil. ]^.w.

Galil.

pw

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

it

125
2p Dip
for

is
"

proclaimed by

God

to the

Messiah, JVMn KTOpD

"if?,

up

receive

the

sovereignty

which I have kept

to

thee."

From
"
"

" "

accept

(actively)
of

is is

be

distinguished
;

the
V8

taking

(Ka^dveiv)

what

bestowed

see

Matt.

3 24 22 10 (Luke II ) 2 1 (Mark II ); cf. Bar. Apoc. 5 1 may take and receive the immortal life (Syr.
"

"that

they

&6T

tfrf>y).

This

" "

taking

is

in

Aramaic 3

(d)

To take

possession o

Those who have the right thereto acquire the theocracy 34 9f cf. 1 Cor. 6 15 50 as a possession (K\r)povofjLelv), Matt. 25 57 received as Gal. 5 21 just as David according to 1 Mace. 2
-

"

the throne of an eternal sovereignty (e/cXi^joTo possess one s self of the vo^a-ev, Syr. Vers. FIT). future age is a very popular Jewish expression, whose use
"

a possession
"

"

from the end

strated.
"

of the

first

century onwards can be demon

,

Bar.

Apoc.

44 13

cf.

Esd.
"

6 17

speaks

of

taking possession of the

(e.

promised age
b in b. Sot. 7
j.
5

(Syr.

YD&O

NJ2T JTV).
.

Eleazar ben Zadok

100 A.D.)has
found
See, further,

?n D^yn
Ber.

en;, b.

Kidd. 40 b
;

K3n D^iyn
xjn an
D^iyn,
j.

$>m

is
.

a Baraitha

?n en;
en;
"

Pes.

33 a
-

^^C
.

11

!;

Ber 51a D

ll a

^-F
j.

mn n^yn
|3

3 but also H? I ^1,

to
j.

take possession of

Paradise,"

Ber.

d
;

Aram. H^
7 18

nn^,

Pea 15 C
"they

Besides,

we may compare Dan.

sovereignty";
cf.

Kpofe
"

JWDIT,

shall possess the

"

Onk. Gen. 49 24
;

Nrn^p
Cant.

PDPIK,

he took possession of the sovereignty

Noiyi

Targ.

I3

DN-T

p^n

xp^y

^pnn
;

^na,

"that

they

may
"

possess themselves of this age and that which is to come Ruth 2 13 H ntn N^y |pn?p^ Targ. Jerus. on the Ten
;

Targ.

Words (Machz.
children of
come."

Vitry, 341):

^nn

p^y

^Vf.

\33

JUDfT,

"the

Israel will possess themselves of

the world to

Even

in the

Old Testament

and

?na

can hardly be

distinguished in

meaning

the Targ. of Onk. replaces Bhj by

120
rn*

TTTE

WORDS OF JESUS

and !pn, and

for /nj it has usually IpHK, without,

how

following any recognised principle in this mode of This much, however, is assured, that neither of translating. these words originally means to take possession of a paternal
ever,
estate,
is inac and therefore the rendering by inherit The context must determine whether inheritance is
"

"

curate.
really

meant, or whether it is the acquisition of any object which there previously existed a title, or to which the In Matt. title was contemporaneous with its acquisition.
to

25 34
for

it is

the occupation of a possession, antecedently destined

is

the recipients, that

title

in view.

Of course the idea

is

of

the legal
case
in

of the heir

may

also be included, as
TT}?

the

Jas.
of
;

25

where
also

the K\ripovofjLOL

fiao-iXeias are
:

spoken

and

in Eph.

5 5 , in the expression
/cal Oeov.
"

e^euv

K\7)povofJbiav ev TT} ffacriXeia

Xpiarov
"

The
in
"

taking possession of the theocracy has a synonym taking possession of the earth (fc\v)povopeu> rrjv yfjv) on
"

4 the part of the meek, Matt. 5 11 where the meek in Ps. 37

.
,

This phrase has

similarly possess

its

origin

the

land

* (fHN ^Bn
1

D^JJfl,

LXX

ol Be irpaels K:\7jpovoijitjo-ova-iv (jrjv) yrjv).

That the expression is metaphorical in Matt. 5, there can be In the Book of Enoch also 4 no doubt. K\rjpovof*tj<roviTtv
6ff>

Trjv yr)v

appears to be a

name
"

for the

collective blessings
is

of

salvation received by the

elect."

This
Isa.

expressly stated
"to

Sanh.
land,"

x.
is

1,

where the phrase in

60 21

possess the

age.

explained as referring to participation in the future Eeference to the same idea may further be seen in

Kidd.

i.

10:

"

the favour of
herits the

Every one who fulfils one commandment has God, and God gives him long life, and he in

On the other hand, the (fnKrrnK ^nil). 19 the as well as Book of Jubilees (32 ), Targ. of Onk., under stands the promise of possessing the land expressed to Jacob,
earth"

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

,

The statement

is

absent from the Mishna of the Palest. Talmud and from

the edition of Lowe.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

a

127
calls

view with which

Paul agrees when he

TOV
tcocr/jiov.

Abraham
36.
"in

13 (Eom. 4 )

K\r)povo}jLo^

Cf.

Vay. E.

time

to

come they

(the Israelites) will

"

take possession of
*]iD

the world from one end to the other

teio
njn).

(rfton

Bn;b

Tig

Only once does

"

Jesus

use

the

"

expression

to

take

possession of

in this connection,

mentioned
Psalms,

of

Matt. 5 4 which
,

is

apart from the case just based upon a text in the

and

this single instance is also

found in Matthew.
in

Consequently the phrase, though not

literature

uncommon

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/ See Hebr. an words of Jesus.

xiii.

entirely wanting in the

p^n
A.D.)
;

D^
100
xiii.

B*,

Tos.

Sanh.

2 (Eliezer

ben Hyrkanos,
!>)>,

c.

with a negative,
c.

Kan D^y)
Kil^
j.

pn
pbn

Tos. Sanh.
j.

(Gamliel n.

110); 230);

Tn$

i>

pK,

Sanh. 28 b (Joshua ben Levi,

c.

c.

Shebi.

35 C

mn KWi
this
ii.
s
;

270); Aram, wpw (Khamma bar Khanina, H? K^ya Ki^n ;ir6 n\s, the pious liave part in
"

world and in that to come

K;J?^S Dy liy

(cf.

2. 7 ]inS n^ Df] KC&$ no more for them a good portion with the pious in the world 6 13 cf. Targ. Euth 2 In the New to come," Targ. Eccl. 9
at:
;
.

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

Testament, see

6 e^wv yueyoo? ev TTJ avacrrao-eL rfj TrptoTy, Eev. and 20; among the words of Jesus, only TO /xe/ao? avrov

vTroKpiTwv

Oijdci,

Matt. 24 61

(e)

To belong

to.

That which was received, whether

session

it

be an actual pos
thereafter
is

or

merely

the

title

thereto,

becomes

the peculiar property of the receivers. The referred to as such a property in the phrases
<rrw) t

theocracy
:

avrwv

da-rlv,

Matt. 5 3 (Luke 6 20 v/jwpa and T&V TOLOVTWV e&Tiv, Matt. 19 14 (Mark 10 14 Luke 18 16). Aramaic would express
,

128

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the former merely by N n

(fcH)
be

^n

the

latter

bJ

With
"

the

former

may

compared
is

Bar.

Apoc
"

44 13

theirs

is

the earth in the age that

T^n wan
Drfep

nin^
"

vi);

promised (Syr. and Pesikt. 59 b (Meir) vty mn

Nnn Dbtym,
is

to us (the heathen) is this age, to

come."

you (the

Jews)
^nirn,
"yea

the age to

For ftnnw may be

cited By

thou with thy fellow/ Vay. 34; even one such," Ech. K. I 5 flnnj2 rvh
"learn
;

wnnn

in

SIN,

H^E,
Shir.

"they

beget children
1

who
is
.

are not such as they

are,"

E. I 6

jrnrn JV ?,
cf.

"there

none such as

thou,"

Onk. Deut. 33 29

Targ. Eccl.
"of

7 22

A
KOT

fuller expression
them";

would be
Palmyr.

"^"p.

\y?

jinp ?

one who
b.

resembles

cf.

Customs
kind."

Tariff,

ii.

10
^o

pn^

no b,

everything of that
(eroifjid^e

(/)

&g TTia^e ready,

prepared

For the righteous the theocracy has been prepared 34 cr^hrf), Matt. 25 just as eternal fire has been for
"

"

the wicked,

v.

41
.

Of the same nature

that
to
sit

10

40
),

which

says
is

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

is
"

Messianic King

destined for those

"

for

whom
also

it

has been
Trarpos
of

prepared
fjbov).
"

by God
"

(ot? ^ro^ao-rai,

Matt. UTTO

rot)

The parable
of
it

of

the Great

Supper
"

treats
"

preparation
elvai)

(eroi^(i^eiv\

and a
-

being

ready

(erot/zo?

the supper, Matt. 2 2 4

17 (Luke 14 ).

From

Matt.

20 23

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."
"

In the same way Matt. 25 34 according to which the theo or "WHO) for the cracy has been prepared (Aram. not be inter need since the the creation of world, righteous
"

"

"

"

^^
"

preted as signifying
Similarly in
to
come"

its

pre-existence.
it is

2 Esd. 8 52

said

prepared
in

is

the age
I 14

(Syr.

Tnjn ND^y TnyriN); and

"

Assump. Moses

Moses says

of himself

excogitavit et invenit

me

qui ab initio

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

orbis
illius"

129

terrarum

praeparatus

sum

ut sim arbiter testament!

from

which

E.

H.

Charles

wrongly infers

the

personal pre-existeiice of Moses. 1

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
the other hand,
or persons.

On

Siphre,Deut. 37, ed. Friedm. 76 b speaking of the law, the temple, and Palestine, declares that these were created before 2 all other A certain Baraitha, according to Midr. things. Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Bern. 17 b named seven things as having priority to the world the throne of God, the the
, ,
:

law,

temple,

the patriarchs,
It is

Israel,

the

name

of

Messiah/ and

repentance.

name
again
Israel.

also paradise

added in the passage that other authorities and hell (Gehinnom). The two latter are
Ned.

adduced

b.

39 b instead
1,

of

the patriarchs and

first-

According to

Ber. E.

which contains the

it

was, however, only couple that were really created before the world, the others being merely designed; and Midr. Psalms (Ps. 93) with a variant list affirms no more than the planning of all the seven items. The tradition was in this case clearly not fixed. The "light" of Gen. I 3 has been preserved on behalf of

named enumeration with

the
first

Israel omitted,

the pious ever since the 3 Creation, Ber. E. 3. made ready for the righteous in Paradise"
rjjn

Fruits
S

"

were

(K

wim),

Targ.

Cant.
v.

S2

P^
own

VHnyriK

Perek Gan Khayyim

is

(JellmeJc,

Beth ha-Midrash,

47).

Wine

kept in
ip

its

clusters since the six days of creation

Sanh. 99* (Joshua ben Levy) of/Targ^ ^ant 9 7 (HJ? JHtrcOT !?? Nion); Pirke Mashiakh (Jellinek, Bethha-Midrash, iii. 76); Seudath Livyathan, loc. cit. vi.
b.
;

*ra *D,

(fW i^ya

grape-JBKbn
;

151;

idea is somewhat different in Ass. Mos. f beginning Zion was destined to the temple mount. 3
Cf.
"

The

l",

which says that from the

Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

Messias,"

58.

130
Jerus.
I.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Gen. 27 25
.

As

to

the fabulous animals, Leviathan

to supply the
"

and Behemoth, which are destined

Paradise,"

feast of

see above, p.

11

All the above are created

things which merely for a time were withdrawn from use.

pre-existent

Jerusalem?- which

in

the end

descends
-

the subject of remark in Bar. Apoc. 4 8ff upon 36 and in the though only in an interpolation, in 2 Esd. 13
the earth,
is
,

Book
at
(c.

of Elijah (JellineJc,
of

Beth ha-Midrash,
is is

iii.

67).

In the

Testament

Dan.

f)

via lepowraXyp
said
b

referred to as existing
pre-existence.

the end, but nothing

of

Meir 2

speaks of there being in the fourth of the seven heavens, Jerusalem, the temple, and an altar on
A.D.), b.
,

160

Chag. 1 2

which Michael

offers

sacrifice;

but he does not state

that

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

Yokhanan
"

shall

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

come

into

the

Jerusalem on

earth."

That

the

earthly

some future day be replaced by the from this statement nor from the follows neither heavenly, Midrash kindred paraphrase of Ps. 122 3 in the Targum.
Jerusalem should at

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 great love for Jerusalem on earth had fashioned for Himself a heavenly counterpart of it into which His glory (Shekina) was not to enter until the
desolate Jerusalem on earth should again be built up.

Thus

the

belief
is

in a celestial pre-existence of

the Jerusalem to

come

restricted within very

narrow limits in the Jewish

Testament, what
the
"

literature.

And
"

in
is

the

New
or

is

said

of

Jerusalem
1

that

above,"

heavenly
Hor.

Jerusalem,"

Chr. Sckoettgen s treatise,

De Hierosolyma

cselesti in his

liebr. et

talm.

1205-1248, chiefly on account of including misunderstood Cabbalistic material, is more perplexing than instructive. 2 The text of the Talmud Meir, according to Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 65.

names Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260 A.D.). 3 Midr. Psalms 122 3 b. Taan. 5 a
;
.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Gal. 4 26 Heb.
, ,

131

12 22 must not be combined with the statements concerning Jerusalem coming down from heaven, Eev. 3 12
2 12
-

10

The name
the

of the

Messiah

Book
on

of

Enoch 48 3
things

premundane according to (Similitudes), and the Baraitha given

were prior
.

is

above

the

that
,

to

the

world, also

1 7 according to Targ. Mich. 5 Zech. 4 of the Messiah, celestial though not

personal existence
is
,

premundane,

Enoch 39 6f
contention

46 1 62 7
2 Esd.

(Similitudes),
is
-

Enoch 48 6
to
,

taught with its

is

that

the Messiah

prior
52

the world,

an

interpolation,

12

32

13 26

14 9 and

after that not

13

1 Pesikt. Eabb. chap. 33 (ed. Friedm. 152 This ). somewhat from the occult existence of the Messiah before His open manifestation upon the earth or in

again

till

differs

Paradise,

if

in the latter case

from the earth. 2

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

He

is

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

personality.

And
the

this is quite distinct

from the later Jewish

souls
of
all

doctrine

of

pre-existence

of

the

men.

Judaism has never known anything to the Messiah antecedent to His

3

of a pre-existence peculiar
birtJi

as

human

being.

Baldensperger, nevertheless, holds that from the date of the Similitudes of Enoch, "the heavenly pre-existence of the Messiah attained the position of a dogma in apocalyptic circles." But we have seen that after the Similitudes of Enoch the only representatives of the idea of
" "

independent

Enoch

are 2 Esdras in the first Christian century,

to Pesikta Eabbati, independently of

and the

Appendix

both these

sources, in the seventh or eighth century.

1 2 3

The dominance

Of.

"

Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

Messias,"

58.

Loc.

cit. 39,

77

f.

W.

Baldensperger,

Das Selbstbewusstseiu Jesu im Lichte der mcssian2

ischen

In other points, too, the statements (1892), 85. of this book on Jewish matters require careful revision.

Hoffmmgen

seiner Zeit

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. 3,
3

advanced on

p.

based on admittedly meagre data,

d. jiid.
f.,

may
Volkes

be
2
ii.

pared the words of E. Schurer, Gesch.

503], Eng. Tr. Div. various mischief in the
[
ii.

com 423

II. vol.

ii.

p.

133

which have caused

decade,

"

New Testament theology of the last All the blessings of the future world come down
from
all

from
existed
for

above,

heaven,
eternity.

where
There

they

have
are

previously

from

the

pious as an

inheritance

up they which will one day be

treasured

apportioned to them. there the all-glorious

of

new

In particular, there already exists Jerusalem, which in the time

in the

the consummation will descend to the earth to replace

city.

the former
ship of
all

There, too, already exists

fellow

God

the Messiah,

who has been chosen by God from

Every good and

eternity as the perfect king of Israel.

perfect thing, indeed, can come down only from above, while 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

heaven."

state of absolute transfiguration in

as for the rest,

beginning and end are quite inaccurate true that such ideas have occasionally in But themselves sporadic fashion in Judaism. presented the Messianic hope a picture of among the Jews in the

Of

all

this the
it

is

"

"

time of Christ ought never to have been given in these The conception of God and his control of the world terms.

was
at

in that age

an

earlier period.

more transcendental and supernatural than That the future salvation should for
been

that
1

reason

have

apprehended
ii.

more and more

(1890) 297
;

as
Die

See, e.g.,

neutest. Lehre

H. //. IV&ndt, Die Lehre Jesu, von der Seligkeit, i. (1895) 6.

A.

Titius,

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

"purely

133
justifiable

transcendental,"

is

an idea that

is

only

to a

very limited extent.

(g)

To take away
given
"be

(alpeiv).

What
The
,

has

been
will

may
taken

be

"taken

away"

again.

theocracy

away"

(apO/jo-erai),

Matt. claim

2 1 43 from the Jews, as from those

to
its

who have
recalls
"

the
1

first

possession.

The whole verse

"

Sam.

15 18

where, however, in place of

"

to

take away

the verb used

"

To take Aramaic ty or 3D3. For the former, which appears to correspond to an older usage, 1 see Targ. Eccl. 2 15 Kpote .TOO nfejnK, the sovereignty was taken from him
(Hebr. JHP, Targ.

is

to

rend away from

is

"

^N).

away"

in

"

Midr.
of

Abba Gorion men was taken

NKttK

Vm
&y>\

"

N^jriN,

the lordship
to

away."

For the
JD

latter,

which answers

the Galilean usage, see NiTna

anin a
.

wnx,

the excellency

was taken away from

men,"

Est. E. I 1

7.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MESSIAH.

fall

Lastly,

there

to

be

enumerated
Messiah
TTJ

the

passages
of.

in

which the sovereignty

of the

is

spoken

Here

we encounter the
16 28 (Mark 9 1
,

expression cv
9 27

fiacriXela

avrov, Matt.

and Luke

T^V

ftaaikdav

rov

Oeov);

ev rg /3aai\eia aov, Matt.

Luke 23 42
620

eV

rfj

/3aa-L\ela

20 21 (Mark 10 37 eV rfj S6fo trov), 30 Just as in Dan. JJLOV, Luke 22

.

t^n-n

rwfea must be translated

so
is
it

"during

the reign of

Darius,"

with eV

T?/

jSao:

pov, aov, avrou in this

>

and the equivalent Aramaic ^^^?, ^n^fea, n^n^^:i would have to be rendered "when I am etc., and king," Luke 23 42 merely king."
case
;

"as

"

Out

of

angels of
1

His sovereignty the Son of Man

"

(e/c TT}?
"gather

jSaaiXeia^ avrov), the

2

together"

all

causes

See the Neo-Hebraic

^,

"to

take

away,"

Sabb.

i.

1.

The metaphor

is

borrowed from the harvest-field.

134
of

THE WORDS OF JESUS

offence
29

and

evil-doers,
"gives

Matt. 13 41
in

According to Luke
(SiarlOecrOai.

22
")

the Messiah

charge"

Aram.

His own, who thereby themselves obtain the rank of rulers, that sovereignty which was committed by God to Himself and from Luke 1 2 32 the giving (StSoz/at, Aram.
op) to
" "

T)

of

the sovereignty to the

little

flock appears to

have
This

been

so destined

from the
allotted

first

(see above, p. 124).

fiao-iXeia,

which

is

by God through

the Messiah to
is else

His

disciples, is sharply distinguished

77

from that which

In this case
it is

where called

merely T. whereas a ruler s prerogative that is bestowed, 6., as ft. 37 being a gift to men, never contains, and, from its associations, Two distinct is incapable of containing, such a significance.
series of ideas are presented.

Paaikeia TOV Oeov.

The one connects

itself

with

Dan. 7
to the

14 27
-

where the
of

"

sovereignty,"

Nrnrfe, is assigned first

Son

Man, and then

is
"

to the saints of the

Most High.
,

The other

series of ideas

which says that the an imperishable sovereignty

"

founded probably upon Dan. 2 44 God of heaven will at the end set up D P n * ^ h?
"

"

(*6

r$$

|*>

5>annn),

which will annihilate

it

all

other sovereignties.

Here

too,

must be emphasised, that Jesus has given to the thought in the Book of Daniel a new application idea of an originally foreign to it, which excludes the
however,
"

"

establishment
6

of the theocracy, although, indeed, in

2

Acts

the

term in question

is

used to denote the royal sove

reignty of Israel.

8.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION.
i

The use
Jesus.
1

of

RTO^D
of

n certain cases
is
"

to denote the sphere

of the sovereignty of

God

The use
Dan.
7
27

VX&Q

for

rarely found in the mouth of realm," in the secular sense,

Of.

nyn*
t

2 &iroKa.divTaveiv t

in the Christian-Palestinian

version B pN

A. Lewis,

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
,

7 2 , Dan. 9 1 II 9
this

and Aram.
the

Ezra 7 13

Dan. 4 15 5 11
"

But even
"

application of

word
Jewish
once

to

earthly

literature. 1

is rare in kingdoms In this literature

the

EW

RwD

subsequent is never
sovereign

used

to

specify

the

locus

of

the

divine

power present power. and future manifestation, 2 without implying that the idea
was or tended
notion
of
is

It denotes always this

itself

in its

to

become

distinctively eschatological.
of

The
to

any

transference

the

divine

sovereignty
in

another

accordingly

never

entertained

the

Jewish

literature.

And

Jesus, likewise, never says that

God should

hand over His own sovereignty to the Messiah. To the 29 God grants the royal Messiah, according to Luke 22
,

dignity,

i.e.

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
D?B>
"

is

much in the Jewish conception of ma? n as in the idea of the future age (fen D or that ),
"

of the

"

life of

the future age

"

(wan otoyn

n).

This concep

tion is

among

the Jews, in a similar way, a comprehensive

"

term

for the blessings of salvation, just as the

is

sovereignty of

God
is

"

with Jesus

and, further, the

"

sovereignty of
entity, of
"

God

"

for Jesus invariably

an eschatological
"

which a

present can be predicted only because the end is already It is not unlikely that in the time of Jesus approaching.
the idea of
"

the future

age,"

of the scribes,

was not yet familiar

II.

being the product of the schools to those He addressed;

see

under No.
it,
it.
1

It

cannot therefore

be

said that

He

rejected

place of

and intentionally substituted another term in Independently of the schools and of the apocaSee above,
p.

95

f.

Of. p.

96

ff.

136

THE WORDS OF JESUS

lyptic literature of His time,

He

created His

own
"

terminology.

We may
"

sovereignty of God as an eschatological designation from the Book of Daniel, and that He used it by preference for the reason

assume that

He

borrowed the term

that regard for the honour of

God took precedence

in

His

view

of all else,

and also because

He

considered

it

certain

that the chief end of

in the

mankind was
to

to find their salvation

full

most intimate relation

will.

God, and in

obedi

ence to His
of

He was

further convinced that the purpose

God was
men,

on

directed principally to the bestowal of blessing and not to the 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.
ship, especially in so far as Israel
its
is s king also in but concerned,

That Jahve

extension over
of

all
is

peoples, has for

clearly stated,

aim and

result the

happiness
in
Ps.

men, 96-99. 1 Translated into

among

other passages,

the style of the earlier

royal sovereignty of let the earth rejoice
;

1 2 Targums, Ps. 97 would run: the Lord has become manifest

;

"the

let

all

the isles be
as

glad."

The

king, of course,
of

principally

the

judge

there regarded his people, and the judge is

is

ranked

first

and foremost as the vindicator and

deliverer. 3

At the same time

it must be noticed that in the Old Testa ment period from the time of Chronicles the tendency arises or to speak less of the king Yahve, and of His being
" "

On

this point see J. Boelimer,

Das Reich Gottes

819-840
;

in

kirchl. Zeitschr. 1897, pp. 620-651, 746-763,

also

gemeinde und die Gemeinde der Frommen im Psalter (J. Brgem. 1896, 1897), 32. 2 The extant Jewish Targum to the Psalms was composed at a
is

den Psalmen, Neue H. Roy, DieVolksB. des theol. Sem. d.

late date,

and

of little use for our purpose. 3 See my treatise, "Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im A. T.," 1897, 10 f. and T. K. Cheync, The Origin and religious Contents of the Psalter (1891), 344
"The

essential part

of deity as well as of royalty

was

ability to help or

save."

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

"

137
"

"

kingly sovereignty in a the which (note), Targums has led to the tendency abstract insertion of the regular WJwD wherever God is represented in the Old Testament as personally ruling like
king,

becoming

and more

of

His

"

a king.
idea of

This change

is

the result of an advance in

the

God, which went beyond the more childlike concep tions of earlier times, and also an advance in the general

mode

of

thought because the formation of abstract terms

necessity.

became more and more a

"

Thus, then, the

"

kingly-

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
This aspect into further the back thrust still Jesus hope ground, placing the purely religious element decisively in the foreground, and He thereby extended the conception of the
of the future
"

national element in the hope for the future. 1

sovereignty of

God

"

so as to include within

it

the blessings

mediated by this sovereignty.

For

Him

the sovereignty of

the present on wards with continuous progress, effectuates the renovation of the world, but also the renovated world into whose domain

God meant

the divine power which, from

day enter, which is even now being offered, and therefore can be appropriated and received as a blessing.

mankind
It

will one

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
"

political independence of Israel, but were themselves eager to Accord take active measures in setting up this sovereignty. 2 3 of Judah of the statement to Gaulonitis, from Josephus, ing
1

This

is
f.

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

i.

(1895), 243
2

Antt. xvin.

1,

Bell. Jurt. n. viii. 1.

Of.

Acts 5 87

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

"

Israel (rpft/jdva

real SeaTrorrjv).

The sons

of this

man, Jacob,

Simon, and Menahem, and another of his kindred, Eleazar, continued this agitation of Judah till after the destruction of
Jerusalem. 1
kiah,

who

This party also included Judah, son of Hezejust after the death of Herod made himself master
Galilee in the neighbourhood of

of Zeppori, the chief city of

Nazareth, and

who

is

2 ing the sovereign power.

represented as having aimed at usurp This movement, to which one of His

to

own

disciples

had once adhered, must have been well known

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

movement.
,

His verdict

as to the tribute-money, Matt.

shows that

He

22 21 (Mark 12 17 Luke 20 25 ), did not consider the political dominance of the

Eomans
of
all

to

be 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 estab lishes this sovereignty, but God Himself; for this He does
for the

present through the mere word of preaching through miracle in the future, however, through the
;

and

com

plete advent of supramundane power into this present world. 3 Liitgert rightly lays stress on the fact that the kingdom of
1

Antt. xx. v. 2

In contrast with this case, the name Juda, son of Sepperaios (vibs ^eirfapaiov), 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 Sa/>t0aou). really with the Palmyrene proper name max, 2e00epas, de Vogue, x. 11. 3 W. Liitgert, Das Reich Gottes nach den synoptischen Evangelien (1895), 26.
Antt. xvir. x. 5
;
;

Bell. Jud. n. xvii. 8, Bell. Jud. n. iv. 1.

vn.

viii. 1.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

139
"

God

a gift of God." regarded by Jesus principally as 1 in asserting mistaken is the other on hand, Schnedermann,
is

that Jesus

"

sentation of the

adopted from the people of His time the repre kingdom of God with all its peculiar traits,
the
2

including
political

even

very

considerable

tinge

of

national-

Wellhausen has very properly struck elements." out sentences of 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

Judaism,

entirely

misrepresented

statements.

was not merely the content of the conception which forms the kernel of our Lord s teaching that was new and
It
original,

but also His application of the term, despite the fact

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 gratify ing realisation of the hopes entertained regarding it ; it was
a creative force bringing

new

ideas in its train.

APPENDIX A.

Luke
"
>

16 1G

vofjios

/cal

ol

Trpoffirai,

ft^Xpi

(D eW)
4

Ia)dvvov

(D
12f>

add.

eTrpotytjrevcrav)
eva<yye\%6Ta(,

UTTO
Tras

rore
eZ<?

(D

aTrore)

77

fiaaiXeia TOV 6eov

/cal

avrrjv fild&Tai.

Matt.

l!

CLTTO
eo>5

Be

(D om.
f)

Be)

T&V
TCOV

rjfLep&v

Icodvvov TOV
/3 lateral,

fiaTTTiaTov

OJ9TI

ftacTtXzia

ovpavwv

/cal

(D
1

add. 01) piacrTal dptrd&vo-iv avnjv.

^o/Lto? eft)?

Havre? yap

ol

Kal 6

Io)dwov

e7rpo(j)rjTev(Tav.

Jesu Verkiindigung nnd Lehre vom Reiche Gottes, i. 152. See also Schnedermann s sentence, Wissenschaftl. Beilage zur Leipz. Zeitung, 1897, No. 44, "The kingdom preached by Jesus was none other than
2

that so long desired by His people, the kingdom of God for Israel." 3 Cf. Israelitische und jiidische Geschichte, ed. i. (1894) 308, with edition
iii.

(1897) 374.
4

Blass rejects

required by the

Roman

ws and ^Trpo^Tyrei craj/, but adopts recension.

d^>

OTOV (instead of

ccTrore),

as

140
In the

THE WORDS OF JESUS

first place,

we have

to ask

what Aramaic word

may

be the antecedent of

fiid^eiv.

A.

Meyer

recommends
22
,
"

18t IPn, the Aphel form of which, by analogy with Dan. 7

to Still fpriK, which means merely would be preferable. would hardly cause one who was writing take possession A better equivalent is found in in Greek to use /3ideiv.
of,"

^pn,

which means in the Peal

"to

"

to

be

strong,"

and in the

Aphel

hold

fast."

In Deut. 22 25 Onkelos has as

for the Hebr. nj P^nni, while the

LXX

renders by
"

In 2 Sam. 13
one,"

the
,

Ex. I 12
in

to urge upon any 3 has and for H?, Gen. 28 14 *|j3riK, again Targum The Ithpaal * is found Onkelos has the Peal t$n.

25 - 27

for the Hebr.

3 pa,

Gen.

48 2 and Num.
self,"

13 20 for the
in
1

Hebr.
for

Pjnnn,

"to

strengthen one s exert one s self."

and

18 Kings 12

H?^?,

"to

It is also

important to note that *$n has no

2 From this passive any more than Ptn in the older Hebrew. 12 3 II is not it would follow that the passive Pid^erai, Matt. The same derived immediately from an Aramaic prototype.
,

test

applies

to

the

passive
"to

va<yye\i%6Tai

in

Luke,

since

"tonx

can mean only

receive a

message."

The word

e7rpocj)i]T6V(rav in

Matthew,

for

which

o VOJJLOS is

an unsuitable

subject, also raises suspicion.

And

as it

is

not original in

can

Luke, and therefore need not be considered indispensable, it The hardly be attributed to the original utterance.
precise

more
had
to

designation

of

John

as

"

the

"

Baptist

in

If it is similarly to be regarded as secondary. be reproduced in Aramaic, then the Syriac Njnpyo (as in Jerus. Gosp. Matt. II 12 ) would be as inapt as Kjysx (loc.
cit.
1

Matthew

Matt.

II 11 ).

Wellhausen,

indeed, supposes
be

that

"

the

Jesu Muttersprache, 88 f., of. 157 f. Only the Chronicler lias as passive

pjn^in,

meaning

"to

consolidated,"

2 Chron. I 1 .

Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 85 f. [Bible Studies, 258], recalls the fact /Stci^ojuat 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 com
that
"

pulsion
4

J.

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

43.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

141

word

Schmatten
ivy"

derived from

usage has been of this occurrence and thus proves the

in
colloquial

Jewish

But to baptize." verb among the Jews, with the meaning in of the word use from the seen be as may the Jewish
"

"IB^,

the Talmud, has nothing whatever to do with

"

baptizing,"

and
"

7QV.

in this sense

is

quite

unknown among
"

the

Jews,

To make one take a bath by immersion is expressed among d b b. Nidd, Hebr. ^awn, j. Yeb. 8 them by feiBK, b. Yeb. 45 a be would noun Aram, The corresponding 32 KJ<3BD,
;
; .

formed

"

like

NJ"}to,
"

teacher of the law

"

"

N$?,
tutor."

"

teacher of

the Mishna

*?*>,

teacher

"

w;sn.o,
first

We

conclude accordingly that the

:

sentence (in Luke)

might be presented as follows

t&rfa

xan

jp -lanV

The second sentence admits

1

of being retraced to IP ?a
"

pjprV
it,"

na
"

flPnp^r.
it

This can

mean

every one can lay hold of

one."

i.e.

is
"

attainable for every

It

may

also,

how

ever,

imply

He who
it."

does not shun the requisite effort

may

take possession of
also read
:

Further, in case of need one

"

might

na

*)!?!

^nnn
it."

jp fe,

of possesses himself

every one who exerts himself Somewhat thus it may have been

understood
possibility

by Matthew.

And,

finally,

there
the

remains
first

the

of attaching the second half of

clause to
:

the second clause, so that the latter should then read

11

N?n

IP

pjipn

Pia

^IPJ?^ IP ^a

"

onwards the sovereignty of hold upon it lays hold of

supposed in Luke.

N;BH xno^p fc6jfo, God every man who

it."

from that time and

will lay

This perhaps

may

be pre

To
form

all

this it

may, however, be objected that the Greek

all in either case

of our

tally closely

Lord s saying does not after with the Aramaic expression. Such a solution

solution

which
of the

should be in congruity with the tenor of the Greek would

merit the preference.

phrase in
the

for the

wording

Matthew may be

arrived at, provided D3K be

made
"

starting-point, for this

word can mean

"

to use force

142
and
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

to
2
rob."

Nrnops

rpfoKi

In that case the original utterance would be i ijn |arfr The |p Njeh Nmrte. np^Ntnrp jya

text thus refers to that period of the theocracy

which was

by the imprisonment of the Baptist; it is its peculiarity that the theocracy suffers violence, not, of course, from believers, but from those in authority. The words
introduced
apird^ovaiv avTrjv, corresponding to K^D?K, 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

According to him,

is

applied in opposition

the Pharisees,

who

despised the admonition of Jesus in

regard to the right use of

that the proclamation

money.

Jesus declares to them

of the for

John

made

it

possible
it;

any

theocracy since the time of one to intrude himself

it

violently into
estimate, but

but nevertheless

was not

their

own

the judgment of

God, that decided

in

worthy

of entrance.

The context, however,

who was Luke may be

Neither the passive evayye\ipronounced peculiarly Greek. ferai (see above) nor et? avrrjv fttdferai are capable of being
directly rendered into Aramaic, especially not in case D3K
used.
15 ~18

is

If it be supposed that, by using (vv. ) sayings of our Lord which originally had a quite different association, Luke obtains the transition to a new parable, then it may

be surmised
form, so as to

that he himself

has given to

v.

16

its

present

accommodate the saying to the context. The and Luke found in their sources made Matthew which saying mention only of the violent treatment of the theocracy since
the time of John.
into
it,

Luke thought upon attempted entrance

it

and thus found

it

natural to insert

it

in the position

which
reason

occupies in his

Gospel; Matthew

with greater

understood

it

to refer to the violent treatment of

the preachers of the theocracy, and has therefore connected

1

Galil.

ng.

Galil.

PJ

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 the exercise of force. Unless absolutely driven to it, we

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
rrjpijcrea)?,

I / 20
1

21

OVK ep^erac
epoveriv
1

77

f3aGi\e(a TOV 6eov pera Trapa-

ouSe

IBov

wSe

^7

(D

add.

IBov)

Kel

(D

add.
VjjLUV

fir)

TnaTevarrjTe).

l$ov

yap

f)

/3ao-i\eia TOV Oeov eVro9

<TTIV.

For
without
copy.

fjiera TrapaTrjptfa-ecos

Delitzsch puts

B.W

HX"}3

in his

translation of the

New

Testament into Hebrew

not, indeed,

much

misgiving, as
aotea,

may
"in

be seen from his private

The Talmudic

triumphal
;

parade,"

TTO/XTT?;,

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

Salkinson renders

it

by

B^fiPi \?)b

Eesch by
"

D^W3,

the

Syriac version, Sin. Cur. Pesch. has

tion."

Kmitm,

with observa

Meyer
,

proposes
to

"fB??,
"

Job 4 12 he takes

mean

which, according to the Targ. in secret." In that case the

evangelist misunderstood the word.

But
14

"^a,

even in Job
as robbers

4 12 can mean merely

,

"by

lying in wait

for,"

i.e.

lie

cf. Targ. Job 10 It is not amiss adduce as a parallel topic a certain Baraitha given b. Eab Zera there appeals to those who busy Sanh. 97 a themselves speculating about the date of the redemption

in wait for any one;

to

"

By

your leave
;

hinder
it

it

not, I beseech
:

quiries)
anijjn

for

we have

by tradition

you (by your njnn ntpna psa nrf?^

in

ntWttp

IWS

ft

^K,

there are three things which

by Blass in
his so-called

come

Both

insertions in

are omitted

Roman

recension

of the text of Luke.

2

Jesu Muttersprache, 87.

144
unexpectedly
are they
?

THE WORDS OF JESUS

(literally,

while the attention

is

diverted)

what

the Messiah, treasure-trove, and a

"in

scorpion."

The
put

Palestinian
ting y

Talmud generally uses The expression instead of n.

P!?n2i for in ngna^

is

also quite possible in

Aramaic, as
"

may

be seen from

j.

Taan.

67 b

(j.

C Meg. 75 ):

I looked

up

(at the priests

pronouncing the benediction),

""flyi

but

my

attention was not thereby diverted,

b
1

HJJDD &6l

"

and again in j. Taan. 64 ^ya |o ^Jin VDE n^n no, was I to turn away my attention from my work ?
contrary of

w hy
The

"

nwi
to

SN?K
j.

30 b

cf.

simply

I?.?,

properly perhaps fi^ri ft?, b. Ber. d Ber. 5 a or n n$n Sabb. 10 "to j.

is
s ,

pay regard
the Baraitha

anything."

But
s

startling aspect of
;

Messiah

the unexpected and that is emphasised in coming

it
is

whereas Jesus appears to have in view the It is certainly not unostentatious advent of the theocracy. which He wishes to exclude. This being so, the attention
"
"

for irapaT^p^crews require no other term than to observe, watch for this, without doubt, has the force of 15 7 Eccles. II 4 Ber. see Onk. Gen. 3 78, and Targ. Jer. 8

words

//-era

">P?,

"

"

the corresponding Hebr.

"iB>,

Siphre, Deut.

127
"
"

(ed.

Friedm.
"

100 b ).

It

had at the same time the meaning

to wait for

see the phrase of the Mishna, & waits for her husband s brother," Yeb.
in the
it

f^,
iv.

the

widow who
parallels

3,

and the
.

Targum

Jerus.

I.

Num. 27

4
,

Euth
s

is

only the context of our Lord

"

mine the precise sense in which to watch for, context favours

itD3

Consequently, saying that can deter is there used. And the

for."

I 13

to be on the outlook

The

literal translation

of /juera Trapa-r^pr) crews,

V"1

which would
unidiomatic.

have to be by Kn^TD33 or

^??,
lies

sounds to

me

Might not d? riPJI?,

case
1

"

if

one
is

in wait for

it,"

meet the
it

The future epovcnv

it

distinctly unsuitable where

-IS?DD,

So

should be read.

The emendation

proposed in

my

"Aram.

is Dialektproben," 29,

erroneous.

2 The substantive VBJ, "observation," given in the Lexicon of Levy and In Ex. 12 42 Onk. VBJ is in both cases of its use the Jastrow, is doubtful. 12 vt?ip occurs only Job 4 Passive Participle, as may be seen in Jerus. I. II.
.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

stands,

145
its

whereas
v.
21a
23
.

in
is

v.

23

it

is

quite

in

place.

The

whole clause

probably an interpolation introduced

from

v.

The following would be a

aon).

possible retranslation

For eVro?
"among
you,"

fy*a>i;,

the Syriac, Sin.

Cur.

Pesch. has
Baa"]i?a,

Delitzsch and Salkinson have

Eesch

(following

opinion the phrase

festation

j n Meyer s Ephrem) wa?b, Meyer flaiiip i:6. is meant to indicate the sudden mani of the theocracy. But the most important element

fail to be expressed that conjectures fiaua was perhaps miswritten for to the Aramaic term in question it is a here, striking circumstance that the Hebr. an pa, i n the sense of the foa among," is rendered in

in

that view

the suddenness

would

in the phrase, so

Meyer As spam.

"

Targums by

when

it is

when

it

is

followed by a substantive, but generally by ^a attached to a pronominal suffix. Thus in Deut.

"he shall have no inheritance among his brethren Cnin to)/ but Ex. 17 7 "Is, then, the presence of God among us (w: ?) ? is Specially significant Targ. Jud. I 29 the Canaanites dwelt among them, P T^?," and I 33 they dwelt among the Canaanites 0JXH? The same rule faa)."
"

18 2 Onkelos has:

"

"

Thus a^a and ^ina, having suffixes sjina. attached, can be rendered by fi^a, rwa, only when they mean within see for anj?3, Onk. Gen. 1 8 24 for Tjina, Qnk. Gen. 41 48 Lev. 1 1
applies to
"
"

Num. 35 34

cf.

Gen. 23 9 35 2

The reading
or
1

Thus there are only two options possible is either iia O a, and this meant
|iaa, with
of xn?

for

Luke I? 21

2
.

"among

you,"

else

the

sense of

"

within

you."

With
:

the

The double use

SMX
K,?

would also be

possible, as in

Constant, wrongly ^na)j "when he (who flees before the Roman power) is come here (say) Lohe goes there and when he has not come here, say LO; he is come here 3 For the simple ?, which can also mean and "among," we should expect ev in Greek.
"?nN

N-i?

liax

,1-13

^IK

nirt

Vay. R. 34
:

njq

px

pxi rn?

,TJ? (ed.

"

"in"

10

146
latter

THE WORDS OF JESUS

b 7 compare Ezra 5 n3, and n_% j. Ned. 39 j. Keth. where in each case the reference is to the matter con
,
"

31

C
,

tained
j.

in

"

a written

document.

Both words are found

"

Taan. 6 6.

Khanina dwells
"

Mf,

in
i.e.

it,"

i.e.

in a certain

street,

and he

is

fSKp&f

among
;

you,"

the inhabitants of

Zeppori.

Against

Pharisees

who

appears an objection that it is the but this cannot be considered are addressed
JtojJa it

final

criterion,

for
is

the

historical

situation,

where

the

saying of the Lord

introduced, cannot lay claim to the

complete negation of per a Traparijp^a-ew^ required the affirmation of an advent of the theocracy in the secrecy of men s hearts. see Luke 2 46 In other places Luke has ev ^ecra for among
" "

same degree

of certitude as

the saying

itself.

37

10 3 22 27

55

24 36 Acts
,
"

I 15

2 22 27 21

When

he writes

eVro? in this case, he certainly

"

among,"

namely,

within."
;

run

N n jtoua
N

NW f

means something more than Hence the closing phrase would

Nn^p
"

rn.

Ephrem

is

therefore quite

in your heart," although his ex right with his rendering What Jesus had emplar can hardly have been so expressed. in

view in this utterance was the unseen genesis of the theocracy caused by the Word," and its effectual working, as
"

the latter

is

set forth in the parables of the

the Grain of

Sower (Luke 8 4ff -), 18ff Mustard-seed, and the Leaven (Luke 13 -).

in all those to

of the sovereignty of God realised itself Jesus the teaching of Jesus had access. in have in view the word for vfjiwv might, therefore,

Such an inner advent

whom

eVro<?

the general

company

of

His hearers.

Even Luke

felt

no
free

necessity to exclude the Pharisees,

to place

and thus remained

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
disciples.
1

His own

20

28

The proper reading

i

is jtoTS.

In the Venice edition an prrrn should be

read instead of nn

^ra.

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE

refused
to recognise

(,EON)
effectual
"

147
through

the divine
77

power as

Him
is

efyQaaev eft u/za?

1
you."

ftadikeia TOV Oeov,

the theocracy

come upon

against evil

even to
it

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

appears through the power of the

Word

invisibly, but not,

therefore, less effectually.

II.

THE FUTUKE 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 TOVTM

TU>

alwvi,

as well as eV

TU>

peXkovri,
31
,

Matt.
like

12 32

But
12 10
,

v.

Luke
the

merely a repetition of mentions the unpardonable

is

32

v.

which,

sin,

omit nonthe

ting

addition, while
is

Mark
"

3 29

states

that

the
cf.

remission

valid

"for

evermore"

(et?

TOV ai&va);

phrase
for of
et?

n
j.

biy

PIJW
b.

ib ptf ;

there
2

ever,"

Bab.
32

(Josa).

no forgiveness for him The more detailed statement

is

Matt. 12

appears to have grown out of the shorter form,

TOV alwva, in Mark.

Hence no

certain inference can be

drawn

in this instance as to the precise

words used by Jesus

Kaipv TOVTW and ev

Himself.

In Mark 10 30 (Luke IS 30 ) ev r
TO>

al&vi

TO)

epxoftevw are placed in contrast, while in Matt.

is

19 29 neither one or other

found.

In Luke 20 34f

ol viol

TOV al&vos TOVTOV are found alongside of ol KaTafywOevres TOV atwi/o? e/ceivov Tv^elv but Matt. 2 2 30 Mark 12 25 have
;
,

nothing

Elsewhere, again in Luke (16 8 ), corresponding. ol viol rov at oW? TOVTOV occurs as antithesis to the viol

1 0. 8chmoller, Die Lehre vom Rciclie Gottes (1891), 140 ff., successfully draws attention to the inner connection between Luke II 20 and Luke 17 20 2 The shorter form, n^rm iS px, is seen, e.g., Ab. d. R. Nathan (39) (Akiba) cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 287.
.

148
TOV
<O>TO?

THE WORDS OF JESUS

without any parallel in the other Synoptists. TOV alwvos, Matt. r) fj&pipva
fiepipvat,
r. a.),

In addition to these, we have also

13 22 (Mark 4 19 ai
expression
peculiar

but not in Luke, and the

r)

to

Matthew,
"

o-vvreXeia
"

TOV

alwvos.
age,"

Hence

it is

clear that the ideas,

at
all,

this

age,"

the future

if Jesus used them

vocabulary.
"

were not of importance in His As observed above (p. 135), the idea of the

sovereignty of

God

"

filled

the place of that of the

"

future

ago."

Paul also speaks, and that frequently, of this age (6 2 20 6 8 18 2 Cor. 4 4 alw ouro?), see Eom. 12 1 Cor. I 2 3
"

"

Eph.

21
;

"this

present
2 12
,

age"

(o
;

vvv

altov),

1 Tim.

6 17

2 Tim.
(o

4 10

Tit.

cf.

Gal.
"

I4

"the

time
"

that

now
"

is"

vvv Kaipos),
"

Eom. 8 18

this
;

world
7

(o

ACO<T//,O?

OVTOS),

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

2 Eph. 2

but only in Eph.

"

I 21 is

the
")

future age

(6 alcov /jLeX\cov, cf.

Eph. 2

the ages to

come

spoken
77

of.

The place The

"

of the latter is elsewhere occupied

jSaaikeia TOV Qeov.

The same holds good

"

of the

by Johannine
is

Gospel.

correlative of

this

"

world,"
"

this

age,"

"

that eeon," and never that other perly not the sovereignty of God," and the eternal
"

world,"

pro but

life."

2.

ORIGIN OF THE EXPRESSION.

In pre-Christian products of Jewish literature there is as yet no trace of these ideas to be found. Cremer, in the
"Worterbuch

der JSTeutestamentl.

Graecitat,"

gives Tob.

14 5

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

Apocrypha.
TOV
o

alwvos, Alex.

Cod. Vat. has in the verse in question icaipol et9 Tracra? ra? 7e^ea? TOV atcoi/o?, Sin.
"

tempus maledictionum," while xpovo? TCOV icaipwv, Itala The the Hebr. and Aram, texts present no equivalent. in this case is therefore uncertain and, original reading
;

further, 6 aiwv

antithesis of

by itself does not necessarily presuppose an two epochs. Even in Sir. 18 10 Iv rj

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE (.EON)

149
although the

means no more than

"

"

during one

lifetime,"

translator into Syrian here

this
age,"

makes a

distinction
"

between

to^by

and Kpnn xtby, the age of the pious. aon, Moreover, the whole verse is an interpolation foreign to the The same holds of original document of the son of Sirach.
"

sseculum

"

in relation to
25

"

aevum sanctum

"

in the

Latin

version,

17

24

33 2
.

the

"future

age"

The Ethiopic Book of Enoch speaks of 15 and of "this unrighteous only once, 7 1
,

3
age,"

48 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 rotal
"

Jin^))

this age appears there, contrasted with (Syr. 13 the age to come" (Syr. TI&O, TDjn Noby) appears wn), 14
"

"

"

alongside of
rf?

"this

age,"

15 7f 44 15
"

"that

endless
"

age"

(Syr.

ivb PIIDT in
5

xzhy) beside
cf.

this

passing age
"the

(Syr. $cby *on (Syr.

K5>y),

njn),

48 50

40 3

6
;

see also

new

age"

why
31 s
51
.

Krnn),

44
is

12
;

"the

deathless

age"

(Syr. JVNB K$n

"^Eon"

further used as a time-concept in 16 1

,

44 llff

8 7

In 2 Esd. 8 7 50

cf.

81

it

is

said that

God has made, not

one world, but two.

1

In that book are found the expressions

T$
/c6<r/*y

Cf.

Barn. 10 11

ev rotfry

TOV aytov aluiva.

See A. Schlatter, Das neugefundene hebr. Stuck des Sirach. des grieclrisclien Sirach (1897), 145, 147 f.
8

Der Glossator
6 Kdffjws TTJS

Cf. ip?n aSy,

Vay. R. 26

aluv 6

&>eo-r<2s

4 irovypos, Gal. I

5 ASuclas, Jas. 3 .

4 According to the Syriac version published merita sacra et profana, V. 2. 5 Cf. T3JJ chy, (to be read thus, instead of
6

by A. M. Ceriani
y),

in the

Monu-

my

Jerus.

I.

Gen. 38 25

That 40 3 does not belong to the older sections of Bar. Apoc., I have main tained against R. H. Charles in a review of his edition of Baruch, Theol. Litbl. xviii. (1897), No. 15.
7

Cf. also Bar.

of,

13 Apoc. 42

"

was spoken
"to

and whose

is

the earth in the age that

These are they who will inherit the time which is promised," with 42 15

is given the age to come." Edition of the Latin version by E. L. Bensly and M. R. James (1895), of the Syriac version by A. M. Ceriani in Mon. sacr. et prof. v. 1.
8

them

150
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

" "

hoc (prsesens) saeculum (Syr. &n x^v), futurum sseculum 2 27 6 9 7 12 47 112 8 lf "hoc oby), 4 tempus," (Syr. Tnjn
-

"

"futurum

tempus"

(Syr.

Bar. Apoc.

44 n

~ 13
).

113 8 52 (cf. NJO^ wn, Tnjn XD^y), 7 The Slavonic Enoch also mentions the
"

future

1 2 according to Morfill s translation, 56* and 6 1 though the text does not seem to be certain in these passages. The Targum of Onkelos makes no use whatever of the
age,"
,
"

ideas

this

"

age,"

the future

2
age."

Even

in the

Targum

to the prophets they are infrequent.

28 pn, 2 Sam. 22 5 19 23 Jer. 50 39 7 2 Sam. 22 28
, ,

1
;

Kings
Njwto i
s

5 13

There are found Np^jm nta Mai. 3 6 2 Sam.

;

K5>{&,

13 wpfe, 1 Kings 5

Tnjn Nftte

"n"rf>,

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 ac use of the expressions. quires for himself the words of the law, acquires for himself
"

the

life of
is

the age to come

(an

D^tyn

*
ti>

rop)."

A
c.
"

second
A.D.),
"

witness

next found in Yokhanan ben Zakkai

5
(fl.

80
this

who

declared that

God had
"

revealed to
"

Abraham

age

(njn D^yn),

but not

example may
slightly
later,

the age to come (K3n D^tyn). third be taken from Eleazar of Modiim, who lived

who enumerates among

" "

the six

good

gifts
"

received by Israel,
"

the the age to come (Nan BjiJJ), and 6 of Eleazar See also the saying 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

.

(Ber. ix.

Tos.

Ber.
"W

vii.

21) 7 used to be pronounced in the benedictions, until the t^iyn

1

to the effect that in

the temple no more than

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 n^i, which appears in the Venice edition of 1525. 4 The saying is found also without mention of its author, Vay. R. 34. 5 cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 36. Ber. R. 44

W. E. Morfilland

See, however,

6
7

b 25 Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 50 on Ex. 16 ; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 202. So it should be read as in Tosephta. nViyn jp would be meaningless.

THE FUTURE AGE, THE AGE (^EON)

longer formula, Djtyn IV] Dbtyn
ftp,

151
to

was instituted

combat

This the sectaries who acknowledged one single seon only. 5 36 in 9 1 found Neh. Chron. form is 16 Ps. already longer
, ,

4 1 14 106 48

the shorter,

&$,

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.

He who

did not think on

"

the future age

"

when

the shorter form was used, would not do so even with the

longer form.

The currency
is

of the

"

expressions

this

"

age,"

the future

age," by the end of the first This reservation should probably be Christian century. made, that for that period the expressions characterised

at all events established

the language of the learned rather than that of the people. As for the sense imputed to the terms, J. H. Holtzmann 1
"

says

The

earlier representation

simply makes the world to

of the Messiah, or at least

come

to coincide

with the

days

to be inaugurated

Enoch, Ps.

Sol.,

by that period (Dan., the Similitudes of Targum, and Mishna) a later view, on the
;

other hand, reckons those Messianic days as part of the pre sent world, and in this way distinguishes them from the
final

world-renovation (2 Esdras
later
Theology)."

and Apoc.

Bar.,

Midrash
"

and

But
"

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 Kan OTpn, which meantime had come into
use, should be

made

to include

the Messianic age or not.

it is

The Targum
true,

in this regard represents the former view,

sion everywhere definitely

but in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash the expres implies no more than that the
is

time of salvation

set forth

as

one sharply marked

off

from the present.

1

Any

fuller significance
i.

always requires
80.

Lelirb. 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^wfa, which originally was in
Orelli,
1

The

origin of the expression cannot be explained, as

tended merely to enhance the idea, and that thus it came to pass that DJiV was used to designate the now current age.
This explanation
is

too ingenious to be considered probable.

And

the Old Testament

D^n
,

rnnrca has not even indirectly

served as a connecting link, for the Targums reproduce it 1 14 Deut. 3 1 29 Isa. 2 2 by fcTODi *|toa; see Gen. 49 Num. 24
,

Eeference could be made with better reason to the rendering nin Di viz. tnp I? wpi Tnjn oi\ given in the Targum for
1

"

the day destined to come from

I
1

God
:

"

see Isa. 2 12

Amos
"

5 18 ,

Joel

for the comprehensive idea Mai. 3 Zeph. I DV is the real historical precursor of the idea of the future age." The differentiating cause must probably have
, 3

15

7 - 14

23

of njiT

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. circumstances nothing was easier than to set in contrast the
Further, to ex imperfect present with the perfect future. there available the terms were "future," ^D*? !, "that press
5

which
come."

is

coming,"

or

WW

Tnjn,

that which
"

is

destined to
Ber.
;

For
a
;

these, see Hebr.

ed.

M&
;

Tnyn,

the

future,"

ix.
j.

4; Mechilta,
Shebi. 35
of

Friedm. 37 a
j.

also

merely Kan,
2
;

Shebi.
W?f>

Siphre, ed. d

Friedm. 140 b

35

Samaritan, nan,
.

Commentary

Marka

Aram.

Further, as a matter of fact,

Tnjn HD Targ. Eccl. 3 11 the Hebr. Nto? W|J became in

;

Palestine a favourite expression for the Messianic future

for

examples see pp. 108, 116, 127, 153.

Contact with Greek modes of thought, moreover, intro

duced the idea

1

of

the

"

"

aicov,

i.e.

lifetime,"

the
ff.

age,"

and

Die hebr. Synonyma der Zeit und Ewigkeit, 80

Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana,
iii.

69 b

THE FUTUKE AGE, THE AGE (.EON)

"

153

the

temporary,"

into the

circle

of

directly or through the

medium

of

Jewish thought, either the Syrians. And when

it

a term corresponding to aloov was wanted,

would be readily
to

remembered that the Aramaic

Greek
"

D/J&

was equivalent

the

thence easy to attribute to al&va, ever," and D?y this the special meanings of the Greek aiav. Thus /?V became and it cannot excite that Jewish age surprise
els

for

"

"

scholarship adopted
"

it

as a
"

most convenient designation

use of

for

comprising

future

"

and

present."

To

illustrate the

new
alcov,
"

sioned by the Greek

1 7 a Tjrci

(Hebr. Djty) as occa reference can be made to b. Ber.

CT

n&nn
"

thy lifetime
generation";

mayest thou enjoy thine age during Vay. E. 32 tobto N, he departed from his b b. Yeb. 63 (ascribed to Ben Sira) Wyp &w3
*JOT2,
:

found encumbering himself for the sake of an age which does not belong to him"; Koh. E. I 3 rriK&ty nyiw JW n p^y, "seven generations" (of men), and

}W

D^y

*?y t

he

is

"

the seasons of the

year,"

in the Samaritan
of the KOO-JJLOS,

Marka. 1

Beyond question the idea

wards combined with
of the alwv.
B?JJ,

which was

after

in

many

respects displaced the idea

But

this does not

apply so early as the time of

/COV/JLOS

Jesus, though Paul in 1 Cor. uses o

position with
6 alibv ovros. 2
"

ovros in juxta

Thus
"

in the discourses of Jesus

the rendering of alwv by world should be avoided, because 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,
age,"

and Hebr. constantly have

but almost always
an
1
"

H?

Kubya,

mn

D^JD,

in this
^
"Tifcp

for the age to

is

come,"

with

KftW

D^j6, just as it

also

said Ki:A n-nj^,

in the

future."

For "age, "Marka Heideriheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana, iii. p. xxii. further uses readily TJ, properly, "generation" ; see loc. cit. 67 a f. 2 See above, p. 148. Even in Greek alfo sometimes denotes that which con
.

stitutes the contents of transitory

time
25

see

Heb.

I 2 II 3,

having made the aiuves

and

of.

TT\V

olKov[j,cvr]v

TTJV

which represent God as 5 ^XXovaaif, with 6

154
Here
also it
is

THE WORDS OF JESUS

evident that Qpy in these phrases
for the
;
:

is

a time;

concept.

Examples
-

Eccl. I 3 7 llf

15

8 14 9 6
;

j.

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

;

72 b
Ab.
59

b.
vi.

Kidd. 81 a
4,

b.

Ab.

z.

65 a
j.

for the

Hebrew

usage,
;

9; for
.

ti& Tn$,

Sanh.

28;

-Birth E. 3 1

b.

Bab. m. 85 b
-

10
;

j.

For the uncommon VIOT KO^a, see Targ. Eccl. Dem. 22 a

.

Both

6 altov o
"

fjL6\\u>v

and

alow 6

e^o/zez>o9

have their

counterpart in D?*?

"???

And

6 aliav

eieeivos also finds its

.

14 9 equivalent in Ninn wfcft Targ. Eccl. 6 7

the expression tcara];ia)0f)vai TOV ai&vos efcelvov Tv^eiv, see above, p. 119 f. for ol viol TOV al&vos TOVTOV, see p. 115.
;

On

In the phrase ^ pepifiva TOV al&vos, Matt. 13 22 o alwv denotes that which is temporal," without implying that the Even if it were term is a contraction for o OVTOS.
,
"

ala>v

desired to supply TOVTOV as in

some

texts,

then the antithesis

between the current epoch and a future period of a different character would in this passage be needlessly introduced.
Cognate Jewish phrases are
b.
"

NJpl>jn

;?P>

affairs

of this

life,"

Pes.

113

a
;

b.

Sabb. 82*;
;

H?

$?"]
"

PDJ>,

the concerns of
concerns,"

this

age,"

18 Targ. Eccl. 7

i^TI OTi
"the

his

own
a
.

in

contrast with
b.
j.

n K>o^

^o,

things of

God,"

b.

Ber.

7b

Meg.

b
;

DIP?

*5fBn, b.

Sabb.

113
"

a
,

114
"

According to
"

Ber. ll a , food has relation to the

transitory life

(WV
"

^n),

but the study of the law has relation to

"

the ever-enduring

life
is

(nj^a

^ iy

V").

To gain the

"

transitory life
"

(n^

^n)

placed alongside of the gaining of

the

life of

the world to

a 1 b. SaLb. 82 expresses blame that any one should call the "life of men" (Nnnrn \n) the same thing as occupation with ND^n \Vp. Palestinian parallels

to this expression are wanting.

2 3

Cf.

fj,epi/iJLvav

TCI.

TOV

Kocrfjiov

(in apposition

with ra TOV

34 Kvplov), 1 Cor. 7 .

means, Vay. R. 32, in an Aramaic passage "maintenance." "the life of an hour," i.e. b. Yom. 85 a it has the literal meaning of the words a brief interval ; cf. Jems. I. Gen. 49 18 K$ytf J^si, temporary redemption."
n^^
\n
: !

"a

THE FUTUKE AGE, THE AGE (^EON)

come"
"

155

(an cton
"

may

anxiety be left undecided.

Vay. E. 34. See also p. 157. Whether ay should really be rendered by the Targumic
n),

In

Sir.
is

42 anxiety on behalf

of the

daughter (% pepi^va avrijs)

,

expressed in Hebr.

n^Jfcn, gyr.

which tends to support the rendering by KB^.

Still

S^ appears
their
97
life,"

suspicious

l^rn

Knirnp,

the troubles of

might perhaps be the right phrase.

occurs in Matt.

crwTeteia TOV ai&vo?

13 39f

491

28 20

The same phrase in without parallel in Mark and Luke. Matt. 24 3 is replaced in Mark 13 4 by orav /JLe\\rj ravra 7 <7WTe\elcr0ai Trdvra, and in Luke 2 1 by orav fjLe\\y ravra
<yive<r0ai,

(cf. v.

36
).

The theme

in the context

is

the conclu
is

sion of the current world-epoch.

Hence

al&v

here also

no abbreviation
transitory, of

for 6 alcov OVTO?, but a designation of time as

s

the world

course.

in

Matthew,

it

will belong not to

it

As the term occurs only Jesus Himself, but to the

the
Hellenistic
:

evangelist,

who has

in

common with

author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (9 26 ) lirl awreXeta TWV Paul also writes, 1 Cor. 10 11 ra re\7j rwv alcovcov. alcoves.
here a close relationship with TO reXo?, Matt. 24 6 u 22 9 7 2 4 13 (Mark (Mark 13 Luke 2 1 ); cf. cfe TeXo ? Matt. 10 13 nv ny, This rests again upon the Hebr. 13 ).

There

is

Y\>.

LXX

4 Kaipov avvreXeias, Dan. 12

&W?

Ti?.?,

LXX

et

rjfjiepoov,

12 13

Aram.

BlD IV,

LXX

fa?

reXou?, Dan.

7 26

2
.

One might

therefore with

some probability

refer $ o-wreKeia

TOV ai&vos as expressed by Jesus to the simple ^DiD. Never theless the phrase in Matthew has also its Jewish parallels see
;
"

exitus

sseculi,"

Ass. Mosis

1 24

"

the

end
;

of

KD^n nz&eO, Bar. Apoc. 54 21 69 4 83 7 8 loc. cit. 59 temporis hujus ages" (Syr. MD^n [inbh^), 113 2 &om Esd. 7 Kiy ^D, (Syr. no^B^), pfe Targ. 2 Sam.
(Syr.
"the
;

age end of the

"

the

"

"finis

23 1
1

See also Bar. Apoc. 27 15 N3DT1 KD^B^,

Matt. 13 39 without the
Cf. also in
article, v.
49

"completion

of

OT.

D Djn nnqx?, for

according to some MSS. with which the Targuras have NDV

rotrov.
f]iD?
;

see

above, p. 152.

156
the
times,"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

cf.

29 8 30 3

Ass.

Mosis

I 18

"in

consurnmatione

exitus

dierum."

III.

ETERNAL

LIFE, LIFE.

1.

ITS POSITION IN

THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS.

(always

by Jesus as the one day have part,

perdition.
fa)/?

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

while
the
godless

are

subject

to

aidwios

is
30

the

object

of

KKripovo^elv,
30

Matt.

19 29

(where

Mark 10

has \apftaveiv, Luke 18

a-noKa^aveiv),

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

It
is

e^eti/.
is

a. is

regarded as a possession.

a certain status,
to"

when
25 46

mention

made
eh
f.

of
a.).

an

"attaining

it,

Matt.

(a7repxea-0ai
sions

This status
fatf
rj

is

also

on several occa
always with the

referred to as

article).

Again, in
"

merely 77 Matt. 7 14

(this

aTTcoXeta in the previous verse

"

Ways
-

lead in this
"

is anticipated by r) 24 13 contains (Luke neither). and instance to life destruction."

&r)

"

"

"

One can

enter
-

into,"

elaep^ecrOai, life

eh

rrjv
is

^(oijv,

Matt.
away,"

18 8f (Mark 9 43
"

45
).

The
"

antithesis to this
-rrjv

"to

go
,

airepxeaOai,
or
"to

into hell
into
947

(eh

30 yeevvav), Matt. 5

Mark
8f -

9 43

be cast
jn

hell"

(/3d\\6a0ai,),

Matt. 18

(Mark

945. 47^

Mark
is

there stands in place of eh

Trjv

rrjv ZCDTJV

the obvious equivalent, eh

/BaaiXelav TOV Oeov.

elcre\6elv

eh

-rrjv

&r]v

found Matt. 19 17 as a repetition of e%eiv

2.

THE JEWISH USAGE.

The

"eternal

life"

(DP

?D) O f the pious

is

first

men
first

tioned in the

Book

of

Daniel (12 2 ), next during the

ETERNAL

LIFE,

LIFE

157
,

1(5 in the Psalter of Solomon 3 century before Christ take possession of eternal Enoch 1 37 4 40
"to

cf.

13 9

life,"

cf.

58 3

62 54

(see also Slavonic

Enoch 65 10
")

cf.

50 2
s
.

"

to take possession

of the endless life to

?o>9),

come
G>?

2 Mace. 7 9 (alwvio? avafilaxris

1.5

7 26

(aevao?

);

4 Mace.

The idea has

also

found admission into the Targum

"

of

come," not spoken of as Deut. 33 6 (where the Jerus. Targ. incorrectly thinks of the eternal Further, the life of this age), is intended for
,
<>?

the age to

for

Onkelos, though it is 5 *n, Lev. 18

"

life."

association with

N^V
13>

^
"

in the passages adduced

,

and
is

Targ. Ezek. 20

11 -

21
,

Hos. 14

10

makes

it

clear that Wpjj \*n

The Targum to there regarded as equivalent to n*H KO^. 6 1 Sam. 2 also says that God will cause a resurrection from
the realm of the dead
in the
"

eternal

life

(MD$p

na),

and

19 Jerus. Targ. I. on Deut. 13 straightway changes it in this 29 which See also Targ. 1 Sam. 25 connection into TI?! N?^?.
,

tells that the soul of

David
"

is

hidden before God

"in

the

security of

the eternal

life

($?

?D Ta),

i.e.

in the safe

keeping Elsewhere throughout the older Jewish literature the term is found almost only in a case where it stands eternal life
" "

of those

who

are destined to

life eternal.

in

contrast with

"transitory

life."

Eliezer
of

ben

Hyrkanos

such as neglect the 100 A.D.) speaks reproachfully (c. S eternal life (d?M D TO I^) and occupy themselves with the 2 The same terms are after life ^ra flppty).
"

"

transitory

(W

8 wards imputed also to Simeon ben Yokhai (c. 130) and to * The school of Shammai Simeon ben Gamliel n. (c. 160).

(first

Tos. Sanh. xiii. century) makes use, according to 2 D^JJ ^Pi in a passage containing allusions to Dan. 12

3, of
.

An

appendix

to

statement
s

of

contains the words

1

B^J>

\ n,

Yehuda ben Ilai (c. ISO) 5 The Aramaic prayer Tarn. vii. 4.
of a
(cf.
"life

In Enoch 10 10
b. Bez. b.
j.

WT? al&vios is

meant merely
i.

without

death."

2
3

15 b

Backer, Ag. d. Tann.

;
;

108

62).

Sabb. 33 b

JBachcr, op. cit.

ii.

89.

4
5

Mo.

k. 82 b

Backer, op.
i.

cit. ii.

330.

Backer,

loc. cit.

336.

158
s

THE WORDS OF JESUS

1
"

beginning BBi np says, into the eternal life

"

($>?$

he who brings forth out of Sheol ^n?), and a similar formula in the

Kaddish prayer used

"

after

an interment 2 appears in NI??^

life."

to raise them (the dead) up to the eternal P W, In general, however, the life of the world to come," obtyn isn, has taken the place of the shorter eternal
" "

life,"

*n.

Examples

of the former, see pp.

103, 118, 125, 150,

155, 160.
3.

THE VERBS CONNECTED WITH

which
&>?)

IT.

As

for the combinations in

is,

alavios
;

is

found,
these
,

the verb KK^povo^etv

terms, p. 125.
3

in Aram., JTV or fontf

see, for

\afjL/3ai>iv

and

aTroXafjufldveiv,

Mark 10 30

Luke IS

30
,

are both to be referred to 2D3.

,

For

e%ei,v,

on the

16 no equivalent need be sought, since the contrary, Matt. 19

parallels in
K\7]povofjiiv.

Mark and Luke have

The verb

here, as one

would expect,
,

by the adjacent et? is the only word that can be proposed to render to &TS or the same verb \T (Galil. l&TK), go
"

46 is modified aTrepxecrOat,, Matt. 25 /coXaa-w alcoviov, cf. Matt. 5 30 Yet

.

it

and to

ye,"

the Seure,
referred.
"

v.

34
,

addressed to the
it

righteous

must

also

be

they To attain go away (from the judgment) into eternal the eternal life (elaep^ea-6ai) would, on the other unto
j^PfJ,
"

Thus

can also be said concerning them, Nppy *n?

life."

"

hand, be expressed by Np?y

*JTO

HN
;

see above, p.

116

f.

4.

THE SIMPLE

rj

"the

In the Old Testament the scope of expressions like Q^nn, "the Jer. Deut. 30 13 19 D ?nn way of
-

life,"

life,"

2 18
1

D^n
;

m>,

"path

of
21 b .

life,"

Prov.

2 19 does not extend be,

Seder

Rab Amram,

ii.

According to Baer s Seder Abodatli Yisrael, 588. wanting in Seder Rab Amram and in Maimonides.
3

But the formula

Nnn;.

is

The

"heir"(cf.
"

K\t]p6vo/jt.oi fro??*

aluvtov, Tit.

3 7)

would be

On

the

"promise

of the

life,

see above, p. 103.

ETERNAL

LIFE,

LIFE

159
as

yond earthly
used
in
Ps.

life

and well-being. 16 already seems

11

The last-named phrase

to

contain

the idea of a the idea of

itself

happy
to

existence after death.

At

a later date

the life eternal of those risen

from the dead attached

could
of

these

verses,
life."

so

that

"life"

be

put shortly for

of

"eternal

Thus the Psalter

the

pious

K\r)povofJ^(TOwrtv^ Zcojv,

Solomon (14 6 ) says and speaks of ^corj,

16
,

99

the without qualification, meaning thereby, according to 3 14 also found the is there 2 Mace. 7 In "eternal
life."

abbreviated

avdcTaai^
ft>r?9

et?

&>?ji/

alongside
.

of

et9

alcoviov

avapiwcnv
"

9 ^/ua? avao-rrjcrei,, in 7

The

treatise of the

Two

Ways,"

generally supposed
"

to of

be of Jewish origin,
life."

alone contains the expression

way

The Slavonic

Enoch
ways.

(ed. Morfill

and Charles) 30 15

also speaks of these

A
of

detailed description of
2

ment

influence,

Abraham, which shows

"

is given in the Testa marked Christian without not, however,

them

itself in
7

the use of expressions from

" "

the Synoptists.

Bar. Apoc.

and

one day will The later Jewish literature has given the preference to
"

life

42 represents that perdition claim what pertains to each.

"

the clearer appellation,

theless
"

life

of

the age to
as

come."

Never
pn,

there

are

found occasionally
life,"

correlatives:
"

they attain to the (eternal)

"

(pass to eternal punishment),"

"

they are judged b. Sanh. Tos. Sanh. xiii. 2

;
" "

and

p,

103 b 3 It is only when life and death form parts of the same picture that they are always left without quali Thus Yokhanan (c. 260 A.D.) declares that those fication. who are pious to perfection receive 4 the Judge s award
.
"

of
(a7ro<t>aais)

life"

(D^n^

<DBte\K);

and

in

the

prayer

2 See A. Harnack, Die Apostellehre und die jtidisclien beiden Wege (1896), I "Two of the As to the Jewish origin have, however, grave 57. Ways," It could hardly have been intended for the instruction of proselytes. doubts. 1

M.

112
3

ff.;

cf.

R. James, The Testament of 51 ff.

Abraham

(Texts and Studies,

ii.

2),

88

ff.,

Cf. Backer,

Ag. d. Taan. i. 140. So in j. R. h. S. 57 a while b. R. h.

,

S.

16 b speaks of a recording and seal

ing

"unto

life,"

o".o}>.

160

THE WORDS OF JESUS

which begins it is said \?% ^rn &OT, may the 2 award of life be pronounced over us The principle that the medicine which brings life (CW Qp) may also be the
"

WN ^PV

"

"

"

poison which brings

death"

(nrPE
3

Dp), is

observed

first

of

all by Benaya (c. 200 A.D.), and afterwards by others, as Joshua ben Levy (c. 240). 4 In the Samaritan author Marka, 5

God
life,

refers to

Himself as
of
:

nnittl

no^Ni rrn

"

DJIB,

the stay of

and the poison

death."

There should also be added

e/c

the Pauline expression 0074?) 16 o}s cfe &ijv, 2 Cor. 2

.

Oavdrov

el?

Odvarov, 007^7 eV

It is quite conceivable
77

that the detailed Greek phrase

14 &rjv, Matt. 7
0)779
I.
;

080?

t]

aTrdyovcra
77

et? rrjv

may
rnix

be derived
?

from the simple

218.
ispn NrniK,

6809 T?}?

cf.

Aram.
15
-

**n
.

Targ. Jer.

Targ. Jems.

Deut. 30
"

19
"

The Old Testa

ment never contemplates a way as leading to some destina But in post-biblical literature we have Bar. Apoc. 85 13 tion.
"

the

way
wn:6

of

the

fire,

the path which leads to

Gehinnom
:

"

(Syr.

aipiDi

tatn

N3n D^iyn ^n^ D^sn n

the
7
14

fiPK Kims) and Ber. E. 9 nKUp, which way is it that leads to

;
?]"n
"

&nm

life of

the age to come

is

The

Jerus. Gospel in Matt.

to the

uses tautj which

Palestine.

likewise
is

known

Jewish Aramaic
"n^N

of

Eecourse

thus open to the Aramaic

or
"

bte, and if need be to nnp. would in Aramaic be *jb

:

The way that leads

7

to the life

(n^iOT)

n^OT
,

sn>\6

elaepxeaOai,

els
p.

TTJV

gtorfv

8 Mark (Matt. 18
Kp5>V

9 45 )

would

be
late

"$

NHK,

c f.

116, since

Targum

to It

the

Psalms

(40

s
),

^n^ should

being in the not determine

the selection.
1

may
ii.

well be asked, however, whether the

2
.

Seder
b.

Rab Amram,
72 b
;

20 a

Cf. SiKatuffts farjs,

Rom.

5 18 .

3
4

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

cf.

Yoma

cf.

Backer, Ag. d.

p.

Backer, Ag. d. Taan. ii. 540. Am. i. 137 see also ibid. pp. 37, 262.
;

The Aramaic form

5 6

is

.".nn

Np

and

NrnDT NSD, as in b.
.

Yom. 72 b

(Raba).

HeidenJieim, Bibl. Samarit. iii. 7 a mfc in Aramaic is at least generally

fern,

not masc., as Gesenius-Buhl and

also
25
.

the dictionaries of
7

That \o
f

is

3Qi5.

w w here

represent. readily used as the defined form, see above

is

Levy
put

Onk. Deut.

vn

for

the

Hebrew

D
>nrt,

and Targ. Mai.

ETERNAL

LIFE,

LIFE

161

simple TI on? is original in this connection. Judging from Matt. 19 17 where 77 o7 represents far; aicbvios, and Mark 45 9 47 cf. vv. where ; ftao-iXela rov 6eov is used in its
,
43>

not improbable that as used in the words of 18 14 Jesus it might excepting, perhaps, Matt. 7 through K out be represented by Krittta. *.*n or T *?Bn
place,
it
is
-

Np^J>

5.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IDEA.

"

With Jesus
idea
to

"

eternal life

and

"

"

life

form the correlative

perdition.
BSn^ji),

expressions

which denote eternal

The
??

popular Jewish term D3iT3 (Aram, form of yeevva, is the one term whose use by Jesus
all

Greek

is

assured, since

three Synoptists record it among the words of Jesus. Less certain is TO irvp TO ao-fieo-rov, based upon Isa. 66 24 as
,

it

occurs

Peculiar
alcovios

among the words of Jesus only in Mark to Matthew are: TO irvp TO al&viov (IS 8 ),
46
),

9 43

45

).

rco\aat,<;

rou Trvpo? (13 42 ), this being occa sioned by the imagery of the parable, arid f) aTTw\eia (7 13 ). The last-named is required as antithesis to f) fw^ (7 14 and

(25

/cdfjiivos

),

can therefore be reckoned as certain.

Both

"eternal

life"

and

"

Gehenna

"

which awaits
decided.

all

have as necessary presupposition a judgment men, in which the fate of men is for ever
is

There

a judicial process.

thus involved a symbolism derived from The penalty of death threatens him who
;

has been found guilty at the bar of justice the gift of life is bestowed on him who is In the final judgment, acquitted.
it is

not the ending or continuation of earthly existence that but either, on the one hand, the penalty of an eternal death by fire, the scene of which
constitutes the decisive issue
;

is

Gehenna, which involves permanent exclusion from the theocracy or, on the other hand, appointment to the eternal
;

life

which

is

consummated
in

in the theocracy, or, in rabbinical

terms, in the age to come.

Hence
"

"

eternal
"

"

life
it

radically

means participation
ii

the

theocracy

and

is

substan-

162
tially

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the same thing whether
it

be the entrance into the

is

theocracy or into eternal life that

spoken

ness of sins should not be regarded, as negative counterpart of the beatitude (of

The forgive 1 by Holtzmann, as the

of.
"

the

kingdom

of
"

it is

God), the primary rather the indispensable condition for entrance into
life itself.

foretaste of the positive possession of life

"life,"

but not a constituent element of the

Nor

is

there

any call for peculiar speculations in regard to the conception 2 of of the life," as being, according to Haupt s definition
" "

77

a)rj,

the sum-total of all that constitutes

the true
life."

life

in its fullest

sense,

The

difference

between the preaching

of the of

of Jesus
"

and Jewish views consists not in the idea

has to say of the
life

life,"

but in what Jesus

theocracy, and

that righteousness without which

in the theocracy can

never be attained.

IV.

THE WORLD.
IS

1.

BOOKS IN WHICH THE TEUM

STILL

UNKNOWN.

Old Testament Hebrew has no term which would quite The Alexandrian Version correspond to the Greek 6
/coo>to?.

of
6

the biblical books renders the

"

host
21
,

"

of

heaven (KJV) by
.

KOO-^O? 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." 35 KJHK, where a term for world might be expected, Dan. 2
331 43.

24 21 elsewhere they use The Book of Daniel still has

The Book

/co<j/zo?

?3
-

39

43,

(without for the Hebr.

19

6 26

f>?)

of Sirach has tcoo-^os,

,

^,

"

ornament,"
3

rnf*>n,

with the same meaning;

d.

and 50 19 probably for and alwv occurs 43 6 46 19 4

,

Lehrb.

Neutest. Tlieol.

i.

202.

E. Haupt, Die eschatologisclien Aussagen Jesu, 85. 3 So S. SchecMer conjectures, Jew. Quart. Rev. x. 206. The Text published by Schechter has najp ny^, "to serve the altar."
4

MS. Hebrew

Here without equivalent in the Hebrew

text.

THE WORLD
for
"

163

*
eternity."

vfiy,

also appears

38

34

as

N>>jn

In the Syriac version Krrrny, but can scarcely be correct.

o5>ty

The
to

original
"

mean
"

always."

might probably have here used adverbially 2 In 39 2 dvSpwv ovo^aarwv (Syr. N JN

ttt^jn)

time

apparently reproduces D^JJ 1 cf. cfe ntaK, 44 or even DP

,

^N,
"^

the

men

of

olden

also occurring in
is

44 3

And
to

just as

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
original of
of the

Wty in the the Wisdom

sense of world,

absent from the

saying attributed to Simeon the Just (c. the three things on which the world
"

280

B.C.)

concerning

(ojton)

rests. 3

The

substance and
favourable to

the form of the expression are equally

its

un

authenticity.

Nor, again, did the first * section of the Book of Enoch (chaps. 1-36), the original of which, was probably in
5 Hebrew, contain D^ty in the sense of world. the Greek version o 0eo? rov alwvos, I 3
:

The terms
o j3acri\evs

of

TWV

3 alwvwv, 12

/cvpie 6 TT}? Sifcaiocrvvijs tcvpievcav

TOV alcovos, 22 14
-

/cvpios

TWV

altovwv,

94

o ftaa-iXevs

TOV ai&vo?, 25 3
:

27 3
*?$
t

cannot be dissociated from the biblical expressions Gen. 2 1 33 tfrff rfx, Isa. 40 28 i, Isa. 26 4
;
;

Dbiy

Jer.

10 10 (Targ. Venice 1517,

Eeuchl.

r?^

t?

D^ly

&

^ ^p
.

D^y

&y

nwtp,

p s 145 13

Venice 1525, Cod! In any case it

.

original, from which the Greek version was made, everywhere employed the article, i.e. had D T^yn n% D^n ^p. But the article, of

may

be assumed that the

Hebrew

course,

may

In additions to the Book of Sirach there occur 18 18 1 world," 16 16 1 * 24 3 on which see A. Schlatter, Das neugefundene hebr. Stiick des Sirach. Der Glossator des griech. Sirach (1897), 133, 136 140 f
"

KO<TJU,OS,

KTiffis,

Cf. Ps. 618.

it

Charles holds.
5

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.

The

currently used
see

The decisive proof lies in the Hebrew words contained in the Greek version R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 325 A. Lods, Le livre d He"noch, Iviff
;

The divine names 6e6s, j&wXcfe, K j6pios, TOV aluvos, by the author, are scarcely in keeping with so early a

rG>v

alfow,

date.

164
merely be intended
definite.

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

to render

the general conception more

that the article coupled with
"

It is not impossible

ctay

in composite expressions, gives the sense of

eternal."

It occurs

Dan. 12 7
"

Hebr.

D^n

<n

;
"

Dan.
;

31

meaning
11

He

that liveth eternally

"

Onk
"

Aram. Noby Lev. 18 5 x$V

,

"n,

"n,

the eternal

life

Gen. 9 12
rn,

K$>y

tions";

Palmyr.
for

K^

n^,
eternal

for perpetual genera

house"

"the
"

(grave),
;

de

Vogue, 32, 34
"

(Galil. D^y

a,

cemetery,"
;

Vay.
also

R
,

12)

Palmyr.

N?^,
28
28
;

ever,"

de Vogiie, 21, 23
evermore,"

and

N?^
;

ny,

"for

Onk. Gen. 13 15
"

**$$, Targ. Isa. 20 cf. Dan. 2

e.g.

for but elsewhere always undefined c6}&, 10 17 258 Tar Isa 5 ^an. Deut. 15 gPP^K
>

ever,"

Onk.

Still, it is perhaps more probable that cfety when united with the article in the Book of Enoch does not merely re

present
"

the
;

"

adjective

eternal."
D^J>

means

"

eternal

King

D^iyn

^p

"

is

the

King who
world."

as ruler controls the

im

measurable duration of
ala>v

the

The Greek

translator

in preference to KOO-^O?, shows he too by his choice of was conscious of a time-concept. Thus D^iyn in this section of the Book of Enoch has the same sense as it bears in
Eccl. 3 11
,

where the second half

is

of the verse

makes

it

clear

that the idea in view

the incomprehensible range of time the consideration of which God has imposed upon the heart
of

man, despite man s impotence to survey completely the Enoch With o alwv 6 works of God therein comprised. 1 The Greek text for that little indeed can be done. 16
yu,e7a<>,

Perhaps &yn *lto &P ^V passage is doubtless in confusion. mistake was taken and the ^"15? by original, Snjn stood in
with Dbtyn
;

or else the variants

bfran

pin

Di>

*W and *po iy

Since, however, the D^^H, were blended with each other. of the Djty, it is end an context contemplates in any case

evident that the author did not regard

Cfcfo

as signifying an

entirely unlimited range of time. He can thus have in view the world-epoch extending from the creation to the judgment, and Ejiy, in that case, is

THE WORLD
differentiated

165
"

from the idea

of

the
also,

world

"

solely

by
"

its

disregarding the end," to the infiniteness of the C&to and this he give prominence
;

temporal element.

But he may

does intentionally, especially where the plural D^pjiyn is the King of the endless succession of
"

is

used,

^p
but

ages,"

though,

of course,

even D^JJn

Tjta

is

not

"

the

King
is,

of the

world,"

He who
eternal

controls infinite time.

"

There
7

then, no great differ

"

ence between the

God";

God

of

the collective

ages
42
,

and

"

the

cf.

Ass. Mos.
;

10

"

deus

seternus";
35
,

1 Tim. I 17 6

6 /SacrtXeu?

TWV

aloovcov

Susanna

LXX

Theod.

0eo? 6

26 o alavios 6eos. alwvios; Eom. 16 Here may also be named certain expressions which con tain obty in the plural D^iyn -n, the Lord of the ages," b b. Yom. 87 (Yokhanan, c. 260); the liturgical phrase is |1ai
:

)i

Q^iyn, "Lord of all the ages," Seder Eab Amram, 27 a D ctoyn TO, Rock of the ages," ibid. 3 b wnfy
; ;

i.

2a
!?*,

12 a

*]

the

Strong One of the

of the
Ages,"

ages,"

4 Targ. Isa. 26 5

K^y :,
, :

"

the
.

King

Targ. Isa. 6

30

33
,

Ezek. I 24 Zech. 14 16

Of a similar nature are the expressions

<yevea<;

e? Trdaas ra?
atcoi^a?),
cf.

rov atwz/o?, Enoch 9 4 (beside

(ei?

et?

irdvra^ rou?
;

10 3

22

Tracra? ra? rjfjiepas

;

rov atwi/o?), 14 5 15 6
;

Gen.
bj
;

9 12 oSiy nhhf)

Onk.

?^
"

^ji

Targ. Eccl.

7 29 Npij

n^

21 6/9 Tracra? ra? yeveas rov alwvos Eph. 3

T&V

altovtov.

All

the generations of
the generations of

the world

"

are not here meant, but all

"
"

In Enoch 9
aiwvos,

6
,

the current age of the world-period." according to the correct text, ra pvcrTr/pia TOV
" "

"

the preserved in heaven, must signify of time cf. alwviois mysteries primaeval fjiv<rrijptov %povoi,s
;

which are

aeo-iyTjfjLevov,

Rom. 16 25
is

The Greek version

There, however,
sideration,
p.
it

of

Enoch has
will

also used 6 /coo-pos,

is

20 2

4
.

the host of the stars that

KoafjLo^

in con
cf.

so

that

be derived from NJJf;

the
is

162.

The section
chaps.

of

Enoch
of

called

Book

of

Similitudes,

37-71, the date

which

uncertain, mentions the

166
"creation

THE WORDS OF JESUS

of the
world"
6 16 17 18 only in later additions, 48 69 must be considered an interpolation,
-

71

15
.

Further,
it
6

48

6- 7

because (1)
(2) v.

disturbs the connection between vv.

and

8
,

merely repeats with variations the substance of v. and (3) v. 7 contains terms which suggest affinity with those
,

of the late addition in

10S 8
"

10
.

The
contains

section, chaps.

83-90, containing the Book

of Visions,
2
.

84 It world," phrase occurs in a very ornate doxology which belongs to the intro duction to the Visions, and this part may very likely have
the
of

God

the whole

been more recent than the Visions themselves.

For the other sections

of

Enoch,

see, further,

under
&?J>

3.

From
"

this review it appears that the use of

"

or

a?M

world must at least be gravely for It is also obviously improbable that the use of doubted. for world, which even among the Greeks did not /cocr/40?
in pre-Christian times

originate early, should have prematurely modified the phrase

ology of the Syrians and the Jews.

2.

THE IDEA OF THE

:

Jesus says TO 0w? rov KOCT/JLOV, Matt. 5 14 in proximity with TO aXa? TT}? 7779, v. 13 but the cognate passages, Luke II 33 Mark 4 21 (Luke 8 16 ), have no corresponding term.
,

the phrase in the account of the Temptation 5 8 /SacrtXeta? TOU KOCT/JLOV, Matt. 4 (Luke 4 TT.
Still
t#KovfjVi]<}),

Tracra?
T.
/3.

T?
TT}?

and in it brought into comparison cf. the earth KJHK, /cocr/xo? could easily be referred to 1 KJHK have 34 Jer. All the njafe Synoptists Targ.

may

be

"

"

i>3.

Kf-pSaiveiv

rov /coa^ov o\ov, Matt. 16 26

7

(Mark

8 36

Luke

9 25 ).

In Matt. 18

occurs oval
fcoa/jiw.

17 1 omits TW
TO>

fcoo-fjLO),

Matt. 26 13

rw KOC^G), but the parallel in Luke The gospel will be preached ev oXw 9 (Mark 14 6t? oXoz^ rov KOO-JJLOV), ev 6\rj
t?

ry

oiKovfjLevrj,
;

Matt. 24 14 (Mark 13 10

Trdvra ra
fcoa/jiov

eOvr)-,

cf.

Luke 24 47 )

see also rropevOevres et9 rov

arravra

THE WOKLD
dar)
rfj KTicrei,
19
.

167
e0vrj,

Matt. 16 15 and /jLad^revcrare Trdvra ra

,

Matt. 28

The
:

field in

the parable, Matt. 13 38

is

the world

(Epiphanius

6 #007^09 01)709),

given in Mark 4 and Luke 8. TOV KoafMov, but Matt. 6 32 has only ra eOvrj. over which the signs of the end come is called

but the interpretation is not Luke 1 2 80 speaks of ra eOvri

The world
77
-

oltcovjuev?],

Luke
13 24fft
.

2 1 26 but no parallels appear in Matt.

,

24 29ff or Mark

Lastly, there occur also the expressions: UTTO tcara,

34 Luke II 50 (but not in Matt. 23 35 ); Korpov, Matt. 25 air dpxf)s Koafiov, Matt. 24 21 (Mark 13 19 air a/o%^9 KTicrecos),

0X779

CLTTO

(8e)

dpxfe
it is

KTiarecos,

Mark

(Matt.

19 4

only air

In this

surprising that
its

Matthew alone

uses o #007609

with any frequency,

only intermittent.

appearance in

Mark and Luke

being

The only expressions common

to all the

Synoptists are airo KaraftoXrfi (/9%??9) KOCT^OV (fCTiaect)^), and As for the first, the citation KcpSaiveiv TOV KOO-/JLOV o\ov.

from Scripture in Matt. 13 35 refers

it

to Ps.

78 2 where the
,

LXX

puts air apxrjs for the

Hebr.

^. ^.

Thus

it

would be
"

just the favourite term of the Targ. of Onkelos former times"; see Gen. 2 8 3 15 Deut. 2 12 S3 27 1
,
.

r9"!2^?,

in

As

for air

8 it may reproduce dpxns, Matt. 19 Nnwpf or Nn^pn^ |p. For the former, see Onk. Gen. 13 3 for the latter, j. Kidd. 64.
,

Hence there appears to be some degree of certainty that Jesus employed the term D?y in the sense of Koafjios only in
the one instance, KepSalveiv TOV
KOO-^JLOV

c\ov.

In the case
"

of

"

"

losing

one

s soul,

there

gaining the whole world, as in that of is involved a metaphor drawn from

will
"

"

commercial dealings. This consideration Aramaic words to be presupposed. For

the
cf.

determine the
"

gain

and

"

"

loss
v.

Mishna uses
j.

"^

and

"iDari
}

Ab.

ii.
"

1, v.
"

11
is

Bab. m.
j.

Bab. m.
.

1 O

c
.

In Aramaic
profit"

gain
to

"UN,

Bab. m.

10 b
1

To

"make

and

"suffer

loss"

are Hebr.
JD

Cf.

4 Targ. Isa. 41 where B^ID

is

rendered by

pcnj3;>p.

Of course ND^

is

also possible.

1G8
13IM and npap,
-iDnnn,
b.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Pes.

50 b (Baraitha); but
2 to
last
is

also I3fi fn
loss"

an d

In Ber. i. Vay. K. 34. In Aramaic the equivalent of the

while the Peal ^ps, as
it

"suffer

"^pBK, j.

is Tppn. Ned. 3 8 d
"

seems,
gain"

j.

Keth. 30

d
,

means
j.

to

end
,

in
is

ruin."

verb for
to

"

to

other than nnK,

Ned. 39 b

not

known

me

and

this

taking an object with it. Matt. 16 26 iWS3 T pa^ xthy ^3 -UK

of
l

verb does not properly admit Hence there may be put 1 for
rrt rnn
a
,

px

The Palestinian proverb, b. Ned. 41 nu an ledge (run), has some resemblance

rsjj

xwvb 3n2 npi. applied to know

np

&6
"o^

1
N"

ipn np r^ an
:

M np
he in
"

h
it

M nb

ira K*n

he in

whom

it

(know
?
"

ledge) resides has everything

whom

does not reside,

what
if

(after all) has

he

this attained,

what more
"

he has not attained

"

this,

what
"

(after all)
to

is lacking has he attained ?

Here we have
"

the antitheses

possess

and

"

not to

and to fail to acquire," but they do to acquire possess," not admit of being transferred to the saying of our Lord. and to lose may to gain Still the common correlatives For to the sense. inserted well be without injury quite
" "

"

"

these,

Aramaic
:

would be

offers NJp and n*r B3 nni&o No^y

"nitf,

and the saying

of Christ

&jp px
ii.

N^K^
3

-anp npi.

With
"Every

H^

23

nni

may
iB>

be compared Ab.

35

E.

Nathan:

one who keeps a precept of the Law, keeps his own soul and every one who destroys one precept of a3) CTO^D &ttn
;

the Law, destroys his

own
"

soul

("i^p

wn

^2_3)."

The
sion
in

"

whole world

is

similarly referred to as a posses

(c.

the

dictum

of

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
c
"

it

(ftnfo
1

viw

^n

ty)

fe

D^yn
:

5>3).

On
n!?i3

the other hand,

JN

Jems. Gospel has, Mark 8 36 Vat.

(read ion
Cf.
11

n trwi Ncby

nan

ma

:nns iJ ND

nDD

11

).
:
1

^JO^ plv Vay. R. 20 N^no ^IC n/? unqualified, what good is there in merriment ? 3 Ed. Schechter, 39 a 4 Koh. R. 5 14 cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 19.
"

^^

c
^>

"

^ ^ie laughter is not

THE WORLD
B/iy is

169
"

understood

to
(c.

denote

"

age

in

the

statement

of

Simeon ben Shetach

praise of the

80

B.C.),

who maintained 1

that the

God

of

the Jews (on the part of heathen

"

who

esteemed the integrity of Simeon) was dearer to him than the gain of this whole age ($? Hp nawo). Of course the possibility also exists of setting aside even
"

this

solitary instance in the

words

of Jesus

of the use of
Npi?y in

Dpi? == Koa/jios.

That might be done either by taking

"

the sense of

transitory
"

time,"

or else
"

such as Njnx k,
earth."

the whole earth

by substituting terms heaven and Kjn.N] ;op,

3.

INSTANCES OF THE USE OF THE IDEA

"WORLD."

It is not surprising that Hellenistic compositions,

such as

2 Mace. (5 times), 4 Mace. (4 times), Wisdom (19 times), should use the conception and the term 6 KOG-^O^. Among the

New
John
It is

in the Gospel

Testament writers, the extensive use of 6 and Epistles is specially worthy

s

rcoo-fjios

by
a

of note

use which forms an essential part of this writer

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
less frequently
;

much

the Apocalypse. above,

p.

167, has
,

Of the Synoptists, Matthew, as remarked it most frequently (9 times); Mark,

15 apart from 16 only once; and even Luke only 3 times in the Gospel, and once only, 17 24 in the Acts. The cognate
,

term
26
),

oitcovfAevi) is

found in Matthew only once, 24 14

in

Mark
45

not at
21

all

in Luke, however, 3 times in the Gospel (2 1

5

and

once,
times.

times in Acts; and elsewhere only in Komans Epistle to the Hebrews twice, and in Eevelation 3

his desire of writing in biblical style.

of

This choice of terms by Luke must be attributed to Despite the influence

the earliest Christian tradition in regard to the words of

1

j.

Bab. m. 8 C

170

THE WORDS OF JESUS

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

require to use o

/cooy-to?

and thus

his testimony agrees

with

that of

the Synoptists in proving that for Jesus the idea

to

had not attained

If

any importance.

we turn

ture as yet
chaps.
5

Hebrew compositions of Jewish litera unnoticed, we find that in the Book of Enoch,
to the
of the
"created
world,"

72-82, the idea

7
,

72 1 75 3

82 1

is

certainly recognised.
3
"the

It

may
"

be

left

undecided
8 19
of

whether in 8 1
"

King
"

of the glory of

the

world,"

the Lord of the

as in

world,"

really

meant

the eternal

King
"

glory,"

75

3
,

and

the eternal

Lord."

Enoch, chaps.
the

91104,

contains the expression

to all

generations

of the

world,"

103 8 104
In 91
14a
,

5
,

where no time"

limit is admissible,
all
is

and the translation must therefore be

perpetuity."

to

generations in

however, mention

made
the

of the revelation of the

world";

righteous judgment before

"

"all

while the reference to

is

the

world,"

91 ub

as destined to destruction,

probably an interpolation, be

cause this apocalypse

is

not apparently cognisant of any

destruction of the world.

The Assumption of Moses speaks

terrarum)
H8.i6.i7

of

the

"

world
I2
n>1

"

(orbis
13>

only in

its

framework,

namely,

12

14>

17

12^ and not

It is
"

in the proper prophetic part, chaps.

2-10.
position
offers

worthy orbis terrarum

ctay.

of note that
"

and

"

II 16 and 12 4 have in juxta For these, Hebr. sseculum."

ban and

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

56 2

73 1

5
).

In

the more recent sections the world

31.7

the subject of remark,

41 142.13.18.19 214.244315 498 332.8

35^

j n general

Nftby is

be taken to be ofo.

the corresponding Syriac word, so that the Hebr. may 7 Only in 3 where the Syriac version
,

Dominus

ovbis terrarum.

THE WORLD
has sn^vn beside
Nftity,

171

the Greek o KOO-^O^ must have stood

as parallel to o alcov.

In this passage
original.

Djiy

and 7?w might be

proposed as the

Hebrew

In the Book of Jubilees 1 it appears doubtful whether Eeference is in has been used for the idea of the world."
"

17 but also generations of the world," 10 25 12 21 16 8 33 and to nil to "the perpetual generations," 4 10 12 24 19 20 (which has also the generations of the earth," 6

deed made to

"the

"

the

"

reading
f.,

164
but

170.

onmes generationes sseculi God is called Lord of the

")

cf.

above,

pp.

world,"

25 23

25 15
"

"God

of

the
is

ages"

8 (Q^&yn \n%), 13

"eternal

God

(where there version), and with

things"

another reading at least in the Latin the Creator of all special frequency
"

(see

2 32

II 17

17 3

22 4

27
).

"Heaven

and
.

earth,"

not

"

the

world,"

constitute His creative work, 2 25

"

In the

Flood the water

fills

the whole

world,"
"

5 24

In the Second Book of Esdras,

"

speculum

"

(Syr. KE&y) occurs

"

with extraordinary frequency in the sense of the created 137 3 9 18 34 4 24 5 44 49 6 55 59 7 1L 30 31 70 world e.g.
-

74<

132<

These passages cannot in every case 92.5.8.13 ii^ 320. be distinctly separated from those in which sseculum re Greek original would Mon." presents the idea of the
41.
m
"
"

50

"

necessarily have had

alcov throughout,

and Heb.

I2

II 3 con

firms this likelihood.

The Hebrew
It

original

had

D?ty.

The
outset
"

later

Jewish literature abounds in instances

of the

use of ctav

= world.
a
clear
"

must, indeed, be observed from the

of

that

distinction
"

the

"

meanings

age,"

As not everywhere practicable. eternity," soon as the geographical connotation of #007^09 had been transferred to W&, the speaker could at will apprehend it
and
world
is

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

ff.,

Eduy.

i.

13

cf.

fiacher, Ag. d.

Tann.

i.

20.

172
world has been
propagation,
is

THE WORDS OF JESUS

created"

(DT&n

K"]33)

solely with a

view to
first

immaterial.

But from the end

"

of the

century obiy is so commonly used for world," that it cannot be doubted that this name for the idea was then in general
use.

It has found its

22
;

way even

into the older

2
"

Targums

see

in the

cf. Targ. Isa. 5 1 Np^n T T., the only 28 TaimK Deut. 33 nno"pa, "through world"; Kpfe 1 in the Targ. to (God s) word the world was made 4 I, Jehovah, created KJK, prophets, Isa. 4 1 Npby rrna

Onk. Gen. 3

one

His
the
the

"

world."

(c.

Joshua ben Khananya and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus 100 A.D.) dispute concerning the mode of origin and the
of

form

the earth, and the word they use

is

DPiy.

Both

agree that

God has
its

created

"

the world
if

"

(difaWt).
"

pro

clamation finds
of the

widest extension
"

it

goes

from one end

world to the other

4

Joshua ben Khananya.

according to Eliezer ben Hyrcanus uses the same

(telo iy\ D^tyn s)iDD),

5 phrase to indicate the utmost range of vision.

Joshua ben Khananya, 6

"

"

to

"

destroy,"
"

to

According to be ex ruin," may

tftfn).
"

pressed by
"

put out of the world fathers of antiquity (Djiy n are

to
"

(D^iyn jp

The
7
;

^)
"

now become

the fathers

of the

world
"

"

D ?tyJ nta$) according to

Simeon ben Yochai

"

and the
of

primeval mountains
8

the

world."

Compare cto
"
"

(a^V ^n) are the mountains 26 for which nijna, Gen. 49

,
"

Onkelos has
Jerus.
nrj?y
I.
?<>?
"

Kto !^
9?7?^

Targ. ^?7?1, the mighty ones of old in Marka, the great ones of the world
;
"

&OT,
"

the pious of the

of the
"

world,"
world,"

Bibl.
b
.

Sam.
"

iii.

3b

nU3

the prophet ITD^Tf, such expressions as

1

ibid. 9

One encounters

to

come

into the world

b.

6 Kooyios St afirov (TOV \6yov] eyevero. I a 54^; b. Bab. b. 25 f.; cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 136, 139. Midr. Psalms 104* Backer loo. cit. i. 134. See also j. Ab. z. 42 C which

Cf.

John

10

Yoma

says
4 5

God

rules

"the world,"

whose shape

is

a globe.

Mechilt. 56 b
Siphre,

f.;

Baclier, loc. cit. 153.

;

Num. 136
11
;
;

Baclier, loc. cit. 154.

6
7

Aboth
j.

ii.

Baclier, loc. cit. 162.

d Chag. 77
;

Backer,
Backer,

loc. cit. IS.

Shir. R. I 12

loc. cit. 134.

THE WORLD

173
"

U 43 Targ. Eccl. 3
ibid.

l
;

"to

come

into this world

"

(fin

sp
3

5 15
I.

"

to

come upon the world

5
21
;
"

(xri>y
"

^
IP

Nnx),

ibid. I

4
,

Jerus.

Deut
;

to be in the world
world"

(?^?

njn)/ Targ.
5

Eccl. I 8
"to

"to

go out of the
world"

($?
,

^!),

ibid. I 4
.

judge the nfeV^ ru$n i

(!?
day
"

P ^),
T

Targ. 2 Sam.

23 7

B>tfi

s>

according to

j.

Shebi.

35 d the
s

first

day

of

the
"

month
"

Tishri, the

of the

world

creation.
"

Lastly,
people."
"

world

can sink down to the mere meaning,

literally,
"

the

KD^ra
really

&6iJ np,7

what

is

the voice in the world

?

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

models
22
"

KOCT/JLOV,
.

expressions no doubt helping as 9 6 icvpios TOV cf. o TOV KOCT^OV /Baa-iXevs, 2 Mace. 7 14 2 Mace. 13 Seo-Tror^ Trdarjs T^ /mcreo)?, 3 Mace.
; ;
"

Even in Palmyra the

of the
world,"

Lord
fcnp,

of

Heaven

"

(pK^jn)

is

called

Lord

N?y

on an inscription
"

of the year

(de Vogiie, 73); and the Samaritan author Marka Lord of the uses as names for God not only mD, 9 8 no^y ^n mo, "Lord of the whole world," but also world,"

114

A.D.

nri>jn

"

rtt^in rota,

King
11

the

world."

and n^jn nn^N, God These three Samaritan appellations, which

of

the

10

"

world,"

of

re

call biblical

prototypes (see above,

p.

163), were in use also

among

the Jews.
"Lord

For

of

the

world,"

see

besides

Enoch
12

8 1 10

Ass. Mos.
of

11
,

Jubilees

25 23
(c.

(cf.

above, p.

171), a dictum
i

Eliezer

ben

Hyrcanus
Kotr/mov,
Kofffjiov

100) D^ife Wan

5
.

fo G

e pxecr$cu els

rbv

John

!)

2
3

^px

ecr ^ at et s

T v

TOVTOV,

Rom. John 9
,
.

12
.

3i)

4
5
(J

Luke 21 2G John 9 5 28 e/c TOV d^ieVat rbv Koff/j-ov, John 16 47 Rom. 3 G Kplveiv rbv Kdtr^ov, John 12
^pxecrflcu
elvai tv
TT?

oiKov^evr],

T$

/c60>cy,

Ko<rf.iov

e$fpxf<rOai,

1 Cor.

10
f)
.

j.
8

Taan. 66 d
iii.

Heidenhcim, Bibl. Samarit.

Ibid.

iii.

10 b ll-\
,

Ibid. Ibid.

5 ;l
iii.

10

10 b

14*.

12

Mechilta 56 a

Baclier, Ag. d. Tanri.

i.

152.

174
Targums, Np^J
iian

THE WORDS OF JESUS

in place of
;

the simple
Targ.
Eccl.

insn, Onk. Ex.

34 22

Targ.
j.

Isa.

31

Kpto

^ia-i,

4 13

(cf.
.

^i-n
Subse

Kp^fJ,

Taan.

68 d);

W&f

fe

pan, Targ.

Cant.

52

quently the synonymous Kp?V (&OP) *np came into use side 11 by side with *d$ Jian, and appears, e.g. Targ. Eccl. 5
Cant.
text).

2 13

83

Targ.

Jerus.

I.

Gen. 22 1

Tob.

8U

(Aram,

As

"

King

of
),

the world
Targ. Zech.
;

"

God
17
,

is

called

Kpb ^o

(Cod.

Eeuchl. Njoby

14

p^l?

N3>

in the prayer

beginning
Djiyn,
"

ii?"|>

WpJ

in

Hebrew,
i.
"

chiefly in the blessings Ij^D

.

e.^r.

Seder

Eab Amram,
world
;

lb

God
is

of the

appears as

X$y

33 i^K Onk. Gen. 2 1

}

Targ. Isa.
It

40 28 42 5

cf.,

however, above,

p.

163

if.

found an entrance into the

Matt.

remarkable that none of these designations has New Testament. Jesus says,

II 25 (Luke 10 21 ), in an invocation of God, not Kvpie TOV AfocryLtou, but Kvpie TOV ovpavov KOI T^? Elsewhere we find: 6 alwvios 0e6$, Rom. 16 26 6 ^acrtXeu? rwv aiebv&v,
<y?}9.

15 ^aatXeia TOV Kocrpov Only Eev. II speaks of as having become the portion of God and His Anointed. In

Tim. I 17

-rj

2 Cor. 4 4 Satan

is
31

called
):
6

by Paul

0eo? TOV al&vos TOVTOV,

and by John (12

mode

of expressing the
KOO-JJLO? is

ap%a)v TOV KOO-^OV TOVTOV. same idea without the use of

the conception

exemplified in p.?? ^?
14

1
i^"
"

"

^,

Lord

of

the whole

earth,"

Zech. 4

5
;
-

p.?} D?P?
22
;

heaven and
T7J?
7779,

earth,"

Gen. 14 19
;

Tob. 8 20 Vat.
;

Secr7roT?79

possessor TOV ovpavov KOI T&V ovpavwv KOI r^9 7779,

6
icvpios

n.^P,

of

Njnw NT OBn N^p, "Lord of heaven and earth," in the prayer 3D pDT l and in the Prayer for the Dead 2 15 Kjnw Kr Kn^K, "God of heaven and earth," Tob. 8
Judith 9 17
;

>pcn

(Aram.).

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

"

"

1
"

Zunz, Nachtrag ziir Litgesch. d. syn. Poesie (1867), 1 L. M. Landshuth, 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

"

see above Palmyrenians had a Lord of heaven and a Queen of heaven (o rota) was known in Judah 18 It was quite Exile the before even (Jer. 44 ). Babylonian
(JOB>

S>jn),

"

"

Wn

common predicate of Deity which the Jews applied to the God of revelation, when they began after the Exile to style Him God of heaven." This is found notably in Nehemiah
"

(I

4 - 20

);
;

see also 6 0eo? rov ovpavov, Judith

6 19

;f

%
of

Dan. 2 18
heaven,"

KJOBH Krfo?, Tob. S

see

20

Enoch

106

11
;

(Aram.); Ass. Mos. 4 4

;

10

11 - 12

for

"Lord

KW
;

N^D, Dan. 32
;

523.

x*pw ^o, Vay. E.

of
heaven,"

"King

25; see Dan.

;

NW
4 34
,

nnp, Koh. E.
;e>

for

Tjte

Mace.

22

/SacrtXeu?

TWV ovpavwv

Tob. 13 11 Vat. Sin. 16 Sin. {3acri\evs

TOV ovpavov.

A
the

rare parallel form to

"Word

NWl

ftcn?M

appears in
,
.

KJOBH

anM,

of

heaven,"

Targ. Eccl.

4 4 II 3

It is clear that the to denominate God as

"

form

of

Judaism which readily chose

world
"

Lord

of the

cannot fairly be
altogether fallen
for
judgment."

credited with the belief that the world was

into

"

power Holtzmann 2 holds that

the

of

the

demons and
this

ripe

became the average sentiment

among the Jews, whereas

world and
its blessings.

in contrast therewith Jesus pre

ferred to adopt a positive attitude with relation to the created

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
creation.
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 popula 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.

d.

Neutest. Theol.

i.

50.

Neutest. Theol.

i.

179.

176

THE WORDS OF JESUS

whose
:

parallels to those expressions

real use

by Jesus was
Kocrfjiov, is

The phrase found open to question. 12 19 14 cf. 3 5 so freely used by John (8

, ,

rov
</>a>?

Matt.

12

46
),

Hellenistic.

John II 9 speaks of the sun as TO The light of the sun is referred to

where the Law
Similarly Israel
(D^yj>

<w?

rov /coo-pov rovrov.

figuratively,
"

Wisd. IS 4

is is

called

$w?
to

ra>

alwvi,

3 styled (Shir. E. I ) a

"

a Light for the age." light for the world

"

niiK),
"

and according

Tanchuma,
"

ed.

a Buber, Bern. 24

(t^to^ ttfH), ben Hyrcanus that he excelled the sun, which gives its light to this world only, whereas the light of the teacher A similar figure illuminated both this and the other world.
of Eliezer
is

God

is

the Light of the

World

It

was said

employed by the

disciples
"

of

Yokhanan ben Zakkai

"

in

calling their teacher Dpfrn 1^

the lamp of the world

"the

(so in
(so

Ab. E. Nath. 25), or *?m&. ^,

Ber.

lamp

of

Israel"

in

28

b
).

The lamp illuminating the darkness occupies the

world"

place of the light of the sun.

"In

the whole

(Matt.

26 13

cf.

24 14 ) would be

As for 6/9 o\ov KOCT^OV, Mark expressed by Np7j? fe^, 14 9 it may be recalled that Wp?f ?3 is used to denote The Galilean dialect everybody in Babylonian Aramaic.
rbi>

"

"

"

has, however, only Npy bj, properly,

same

sense. 2

Hence
"

in that dialect
earth."

"

every people," in the the whole world will

"

also stand for

the whole
rfj

Again
for
"

for Trdarj

/crtcret,
"

Mark 16 15

it

may

be pointed

out that Knna, literally,

mankind."

was a passable term beings," The corresponding Hebr. rtinsn was used as
created
c.

early

as,

by

Hillel,

10

A.D.

"

Love
in.

mankind

"

is

ex

pressed in his formula

1

by
;

rrinnn srux

Friedm. 73 a Backer, Ag. d. Tann. i. 352. cited under the word D^y by Levy in NeuhelDr. Worterlmeli The tichy from j. Sabb. 10 C is, on the authority of the Venice edition, to be taken as Bab. m. 8 d really contains ND^J; ^ID but as it there points back to NBJ? ^3. j. it should be amended accordingly. the. immediately preceding NDJ; So, too, in j. Ber. 4 b itchy ^n does not seem to be original. 3 Ab. i. 12, see also Ab. iii. 10, iv. 1, iv. 2 and for the Aramaic term
Mechilta, ed.

"?:;,

ria,

Esth. R. I 1

Vay. R.

22.

THE WORLD

177
12 30 ) are termed in

The

"peoples

of the

world

"(Luke

Hebr. DJton nteK, as by Gamaliel n. 1 and Akiba (both c. 110 2 and in Aramaic this would be N A.D.); pb W, though
are awanting. contains no suggestion, as Holtzmann 3 supposes, that the peoples are regarded as alienated from
it

instances to verify

And

here

D>iyn

God.

The

"

peoples of the world

"

is

name
Zech.

for the

sum-

total of the peoples existing

upon the
earth,"

earth, just like rrins^p

r?,
the

"the

families

of

the
of

in

14 17
(see

"Since

beginning

tana rfcnnp, Ber. 167) recalls Aram. K$y nantn wfr jp, Targ. Euth
cf.

Mw
.

(creation)

the

world"

above,

R
H;

p.

3; Vay. E.
Targ. Cant.

25

KD&

ITnai)

N3;jn

Ki

8V

the

world,"

Targ.

the second day in the creation of Cant. S 6 ; "since the beginning of the
,

creation,"

Jubil. I 27

4.

THE NEW WORLD.

(for

The unusual expression eV rfj TraXivyewqtrta, Matt. 19 28 which Luke 22 30 has ev ry ffa<ri\ela pov), is
distinctly

Greek, and cannot be literally translated either into Hebr. or Aram. It must be attributed to the himself.
evangelist

The

Jerus.
jcn

Gospel ventures to replace

"in

it

^i

Km&na,

the

regeneration."

by the peculiar The East Syrian

version (Cur. Sin. Pesh.) despaired of a verbal reproduction, in the new world." KDf>jn, using This, in fact, is what

mn

"

would have
Apoc.
world"

to

be proposed in Jewish Aramaic

uses,

also.
"the

The

of

Baruch already

44 12
"

the

term

new
to be

(Syr.

wrm

N&ty),

and 57 2

the world that

is
(c.

renewed"

(Syr.

mnncn

Ntt^).

Eleazar of
p.

Modiim

100

A.D.), in

the citation given on

150) mentions
also

"the

new

world

"

(rin
1

obly).
.

The Targums
,

know
.

the term, see

Pesikt. 12 b

2 3
4

Mechilta on Ex. 15 2 ed. Friedm. 37 a

Lehrb.
d. neutest. Isa. 41
4
,

Theologie,

i.

179.

The Targ.

Hab.

12

even says

12

178
Onk. Deut. 32 12

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Trig Kirn

Nrnn^>

KC&J,
Mic.

"in

the world which

He

(God)
"

will in

renew";

Targ.

7U

1W

Kirn
"

K$ya
Targ.
is
i.

Nrnnn&6,

the world which

I.

will be

renewed

cf.

Hab. 3 2
a
,

Jerus.

Deut. 32 1

The phrase used by Onkelos

;

also found in the Kaddish prayer

see Seder
of

Eab Amram,
the world
, ,

55

and

Sopher. xix. 12.

The renewal

is

spoken

of in ancient traditions given in b. Sanh.

92 b 97 b the

latter passage being based upon a Hebrew document which is 2 said to have been found in the archives (treasures) of Eome.

This

"

renewal

"

of the

ypovwv

aTro^aracTTttcreft)? Trdvrcdv in

world has nothing to do with a^i This is suit Acts 3 21

.

in keeping with the con ably rendered by the Syriac version until the fulness of the 1 pta prtal wan &ohc6 KiDiy, text
"

"

times, touching all that

(God has

spoken).

The matters
"

estab in their entirety be predicted by the prophets shall Palestinian in all not but i.e. realised, general. things lished,"

Aramaic would say

creation
of

^ RJ^?

I^P^n ^?.

"W.

Unlike the verse just mentioned, the idea

(creature)"

of
1
,

the

"

new
,

is

here in place
"renews

Enoch 72

Jubil. I 29

the

time when

God
32 6
;

His

creation"

(Syr.

mru

Krma), Bar. Apoc.

cf.

2 Esdras 7 75 incipies creaturam

renovare (Syr.
,

yma mnm

nj

Tny).

Just as Paul, Gal. 6 15

2 Cor. 5 17 speaks of a xaivrj KTIO-LS, so, too, Jewish literature that God fashions any one into a new creature is able to

say ed. Friedm. ana), Vay. E. 29. 30; Pes. Eabb., (nenn nna 9 3 b While these instances have in view Midr. Ps. 2 146
. ;

the real renewal of a person, the position of one

who has been to such likened God is merely acquitted after judgment by a renewal by the Amora Yizkhak (c. 280), when he repre
sents
1

God

as

saying to

Israel:

"do

penance in the ten

See Dalman, Messianische Texte (1898), 25 f. A. Wunsche, Neue Beitrage, 233, renders according to the reading substi
"Persian treasures"
;

tuted by the censor,

and M. Buttenwicser, Die hebr.

tradition.
Messias,"

Elias

Apokalypse (1897),
3 4

59,

even speaks of a
leidende
;

"Parsee"

See

my

treatise,

"Der

und der sterbende

Backer, Ag. d. p.

52, 66, 73.

a Pes. Eabb., ed. Friedm. 169

Am.

ii.

261.

"THE

LORD"

AS A DESIGNATION FOR GOD

179

Year and the day of Atonement; then may pronounce you free on the day of Atonement, and transform you into a new creature." The address by God
I
to
Israel,
1
"

days between

New

given

by Yose bar Kezarta,

ye are

is

very

much

alike,

namely,

When

come before me

for

judgment at the

New
it

Year, and have passed out thence in peace, I reckon to you as if ye were formed into a new creature."

V.

"THE

LOED"

AS A DESIGNATION FOE GOD.

USE.

1.

NOT A NAME FOR GOD TO BE FOUND IN ORDINARY

Only
in a
for

as a

name

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

these the evidence

is

uncertain.
,

Mark

5 19 has o

fcvpios,

but

the parallel,

Luke

8 39 has o

has
,

tcvpuxi,

while Matt. 22 31

#609, and conversely Luke 20 37 26 (Mark 12 ) has o deos. Matt.

24 22 by inverting the sentence through the use

of the passive
.

voice, dispenses with the tcvpios used in Mark 13 20 The fact may thus be inferred from the that in His own Gospels discourses Jesus did not apply to God any Aramaic name

The usage in quotations from tcvpios. Scrip ture will be specially considered under 2. In this respect Jesus did not adopt a mode of speech quite peculiar to Him
equivalent to
self.

For an Aramaic name

Kvpios,

for God, directly answering to never did exist among the Jews. When o icvpios
is

or dominus

implies merely that the divine

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, that name mrT was written in the which be in original, Hebrew, and hence that there was might
in
1

met

no scruple in writings of this kind against employing the sacred name. It does not, however, follow that the Lord was a divine appellation really found in The ordinary use.
" "

significant transition

from the divine name

1

"

Jahve

"

to the

j.

R. h. S. 59.

180
divine

THE WORDS OF JESUS

name

"Lord"

did
is

Hebraic Judaism.

It

not take place in the region of rather a peculiarity of Jewish

its

Hellenism, and from that source found

way
for

into

the

of language of the Church, even of the Semitic-speaking part

it.

For ^ip in the Syriac

of Edessa,

and

*;&

in the

Christian Palestinian, there

is

no Jewish

parallel.

Not

till

a very late period was the Greek icvpios in the form D^jp The adopted also among the Jews who spoke Aramaic.
2 Jerusalem Targums on the Pentateuch, and the Targums on Job and the Psalms, do indeed employ Dn-jp; 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 The Targum illustrates this by rendering V?K or persons. 4 19 Father," Jer. 3 by means of ^ian, my Lord." In

The

facts

"

"

my

addition, there

may be given the following examples, which time at the same supply evidence that the suffix of the Old
Testament ^N, in speaking of and to God, was by no means Ber. In prayer, God is addressed in Aram, as otiose.
"")?,

13

in Hebr. as ^an,

j.

Ber. 7

d
;

Siphra, ed. Weiss,

S

112 a

the Similarly in the Aramaic prayer, beginning n^V H V na,s and God God her of Zion calls *nkt, my my daughter

"

Lord."

The phrase NT P^:n

s

"

fto,

our Lord,
in ipns
;

who
D^,

art in
4

heaven,"

is

used when Israel turns to

5

God

as also in the

prayer

prefaced by the same words wnp is seen in the prayer nrisp no.s 2 Nebuchadnezzar, Targ. Sheni Esth. I
the praise of

and the older form

The Levites say

6
:
"

to

How
"

can we sing
"

our Lord
of

(iri?) before thee

after the king

had just spoken

1

God

as

"

your mighty Lord of Jerusalem

und
2 8

seine

This has not been sufficiently emphasised in Geschichte," 80 f.

See also Machzor Vitry, 337, 341.

my

"Der

Gottesname Adonaj

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 G

Roman Machzor,

loc. cit.

See M. David, Das

Targum scheni nach Handschriftenherausgegeben(1898).

"THE

LOKI)"

AS A DESIGNATION FOK GOD

In
"

18.1

Nf}

flanp).

words addressed
the sons of thy
.

to

an

Israelite, the
d Khag. 77
:

Jews are
j.

called T?.?

??,

Lord," j.

Sanh.

23;
God

j.

E.

h. S.

58 a

In relation to the community

,

10 and Pnp in Nrnp, Targ. Cant. 8 s the prayer mentioned above, n In ?. a ? n^y popular way

of Israel,

is

"its

Lord,"

|i

of speaking, b.

Yom. 86 a God
,

is

called

fi

np,

"his

Lord,"

i.e.

of
"a

any one whose

Siphra

sins

He

hunter before the

to

lll b

that

Nimrod s being styled forgives. Gen. Lord," 10, implies, according he knew Lord" and
"his
(i^3"|),

rebelled against

Him

intentionally.

In an address to King
is

Nebuchadnezzar, the temple of "the house of thy Lord," Ech.

the locust
"because

God

called

:p?:n

R
,

iWa,
of

Peth.
it

23; and even

bears the
its

it it

is

said,

j.

Taan. 66 d that

name ^3,
Lord"

executes the punishment decreed by

of

While the designation

God

as

"

Lord

of

any one

"

is

comparatively rare in Jewish literature, the Samaritan

Marka
but

makes a copious use

presence of
also Dp,
calls
"

of

it.

According to him, Moses, in the

Pharaoh, our Lord

calls
;

God not only np,

in

"

my

Lord,"

"

and the sea

Lord."

an address

to

Moses

God ^p, 1
is

"thy

In his narrative the God of

Moses
"

called
Lord,"

nm

That

may

be pointed so as to read
Lord."

his

but also rnp,

the

The

latter

must

In. general, however, it Fnp that is intended, since Marka, when speaking for him 4 self as an author, our Lord," for God. usually writes HP, Even on an Egyptian papyrus written in Aramaic a heathen
is
"

be assumed where

is

vocative. 3

god

is

spoken of as
this use of
"

Wp,
Lord

"my
"

Lord";

see CIS,

ii.

1.

144.
;

the Gospels have no real parallel for the similar expressions in the parables, which treat of the
relation

To

between master and servant, as in Matt. 24 46 (Luke 12 43 ), do not belong to this It is not in itself im category.

possible that the Hellenistic (o) fcvptos should have in

1

some

Heidenheim, Bibl. Sarn.

Ibid
-

iii.

48 a

f.

2
4

Ibid. 9 a .

6a

Ibid. 139 b, 163 a

182

THE WORDS OF JESUS

measure supplanted the Aram,

for

when coupled with suffixes but in any case Jesus did not make an extensive use of KIJD,
N"]

His preference was

to

speak of

God

as

"

Father."

2.

SUBSTITUTE FOR THE TETRAGRAMMATON

arises as
to

(niiT).

Another question

what Jesus actually

said

when
12
30
,

occasion required the expression of the tetragrammaton

in quotations

from the Old Testament, e.g. Matt. 22 37 (Mark Luke 10 27 ); Matt. 22 44 (Mark 12 36 Luke 20 42 ). It
,

may

be accepted as certain that by the time of Jesus the

divine

that in the public reading of

name mif had long disappeared from popular use, and Holy Scripture the word was
by
1
"OIK.

replaced

It

may

be

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

with the symbol commonly used for mif, vowels are given which require the word JIK to be pronounced, and
that, along

same symbol for OIK. must not be inferred that ^IK, apart from the public reading of Scripture, was used in mere quotations 2 from Scripture. Among the Samaritans the custom is to
also

by the

fact that they also put this

From

this it

tetragrammaton and A. Geiger 3 this holds invariably, even in reading the Law. was of opinion that the original Jewish usage was the same,
substitute
"

Np^,

the

Name,"

for the

and that
\ntf

later

on,

in

imitation
of
is

of

the Hellenistic

/cvpios,

was introduced instead

All that

W3W.

This, however, is in
is

capable of proof.

custom
"

of saying in
Name."

citations

merely the Jewish from Scripture not TIK, but

assured

B$n,
1

the

Early examples of the use of 0$? for

Adonajund seine
Geschichte"

See rny treatise, "DerGottesname

(1889), 36

if.

Ling. Samarit. Gramm. (1873) 78. 3 Nacligelassene Schriften, iii. 261. 4 Cf., e.g., the model given by M. Griinwald, Spagnolische mid spanischtiirkische Sclmfttafeln (1894).

See /.

H. Petermann,

"

THE LORD

"

AS A DESIGNATION FOK GOD

11 apart from Lev. 24
"

183
be illus

the tetragrammaton

16

may

B$n &na, trated by the phrases E$n vii. 5 tetragrammaton," Sanh.

: ;

to

pronounce clearly the

"

?,
"

to

read the tetra

grammaton,"

Sanh.

x.

DBfc
;

&i?,

to

curse by (using) the

tetragrammaton,"

greet by to cf. D^O ^N ^a, ix. 5 Ber. the tetragrammaton, (using) a From Yoma iii. 8, iv. 2, vi. 2, 56 a curse God," b. Sanh. 46
vii.
;
"

Sanh.

DBfe

ofe

W,

"

to

the high priest, in the temple on the day of Atonement, even with the words appears to have begun the confession of sins

D$n
vi.

N3tf

representing
iv.

nirr

N3N. 1

DE& means

"

for

God,"

Shek.

Yoma
may

1.

It

accordingly

be

inferred that

in

citations

of

when He quoted in but not tfiN, de Aramaic was when and used, Hebrew, Np^ no trace of this contain spite the fact that the Gospels
Scripture Jesus was wont to use E^n
usage,

which, indeed, would be unintelligible to Hellenists

and Greeks.

The

biblical

style

of

Hellenistic
is
-

authors

but not

the

Jewish-Hebrew type

of language

20 24 such as aV/eXo? wpiov? Matt. I 9 o vabs rov Kvpiov, Luke I (o) vopos
;

marked by expressions 2 13 19 28 2 Luke I 11 2 9

-

/cvpiov,

Luke
I 38

2 23f
;

39
;

BiKaico/aara rov

fcvpiov,
;

Luke Luke

I6

Sov\rj icvpiov,

Luke

^elp

Kvpiov,
5 17
;

Luke

I 66

Sofa

/cvplov,

Luke
.

29

SiW/u?
which

/cvpiov,

Luke

o XptcrTo? Kvpiov,

2 26

Hebraist, indeed, might

are

also

have

written

peculiarities of

language of

mostly he were consciously imitating the the Old Testament; but the popular mode of
expressions

these
if

Luke

speech was quite different.

In such locutions the name

of

God was

either entirely omitted, as in

^D?,

n 7^ i

vypftn JV3,

or else replaced
1

by mere suggestions
DB>U,

of the divine

name.

the other hand, the reading adopted by H. L. StracJc, Yoma iii. 8, on the basis of MSS. collated by Rabbinovicz, and of old prints, is incorrect, and should be replaced by ;?. 2 One must not seek to find in this "the angel of the Lord" of the Old

On

in the citation Lev. 16 30 ,

Testament. ayye\os is defined by Kvpiov as a messenger of God. The reference 30 Luke 12 8f -. See also p. 197. is to one of the tf.yye Xoi (rou) 0eoO, Matt. 22
,

184

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

VI.
1.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN.

THE ISRAELITISH- JEWISH USAGE.
is

That God
time, Ex. 4
22
,

the father of Israel

is

attested for the first

son,

in the

words

"

Israel is

my

my

firstborn."

here receives merely the first rank among the peoples, who all are sons of God, other passages refer to the Israelites as sons of God, in the idea that this can be

But while

Israel

predicated of

Deut. 14
ingly,
Jer. 3 4

1
,

them alone: Deut. 32 5 Isa. I 4 30, Hos. 2 1 1 6 11 Mai. 2 10 Jer. 3 14 31 20 Isa. 43 45 Correspond
,

God
-

is
,

called
Isa.

"father"

of

the Israelites: Deut.

I 6, 1

32 6

19

31 8

63 16 64 7 Mai.
,

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

part recognises the rights and obligations of the head of a household in relation to the members of the house. 2 In Jeremiah (cf. 3 4 with 2 27 ), the
of

His family

God on His

Second Isaiah (43 6 64 7 ), and in Malachi (2 10 ),

affirmed that the
of the son,
"
"

it

is

also

father

and hence God

of

the originator of the existence as the creator of Israel is his father.

is

The son

tional position of his people,

Sirach has obviously maintained the excep whom God has likened to a first

born son, 36 17

At

the same time he

makes an application

of the idea of the

Israelite.

The individual
1 God, 23
-

fatherhood to the position of the individual is a being who has been called into
4
.

existence by

In this passage
is

tcvpie Trdrep
3
*?$}

KOL

SeWoro,

(v.

Gee)

0%

pov

to

be retraced to

^K

mrp

1 In Hos. II 1 V33 should be read for 23. 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
Cf. Ps.

"house"

of

God

(nin; jra),

Hos. 8 1 , Jer. 12 7

42 9 -n

<?x.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN

^n, in

185

which

1 cannot, like Cremer, detect any influence of

.

The same applies to Sir. 5 1 10 In /cvpiov we have to replace icvpiov by Kvpiov. Trarepa icvpiov JJLOV only 3N rw, The original may have had ^ Jehovah my The Book of Wisdom insists Father and my Lord." 2
heathen views.
S
"

"M

strongly on the idea that the riyliteous

father, not only

man

has

God

for his
pious,"

by

calling God, 2

16
,

"

the father of the

e.g.,

but also by
18

its

predilection for irals tcvplov (see,

2 13 )

and

God is vios Oeov (2 ) as designations of the righteous man. This application to the individual addressed as irdrep, 14 3 does not prevent the author from also calling the nation
.

Israel

the
,

"

son of
is

God

"

(Oeov vios,
"

1 S 13).

According to

3 Mace. 5 7

God
it

for Israel a
circles, in

father."

In Palestinian

harmony with the Old Testa

ment

view,

is

generally the Israelites as such

as
"

who have
an idea

God

in relation to themselves

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.
Jubil.
I
24f>

Thus the goal

,

of
"

described,

in

these

terms

Israel s history Their souls (of

the Israelites) will attach themselves to

Me

and

to all
;

My

commands, and My commands will return to them and I will be to them a father, and they shall be My children. And they shall all be called children of the living God and every angel and every spirit shall surely recognise that these
;

are

My

children,

and that
"

am

their father in sincerity

and

In Tob. 13 4 God righteousness, and that I do love them." our Father His sons are the pious Israelites is termed
"

"

"

11 In Ps. Sol. 17 30 it is said of them according to Enoch 62 that they will be recognised by the Messiah as sons of their
.
"

God."

In the Pseudepigrapha the name

Worterbuch, version has
:

of father is

nowhere

Bibl. theol.

752.

The Syriac

being referred to

J^ IDI

niaa rnrr o nap

Kpnsi N-OJJ nno KDVID UN.

JD

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.

The

"

heavenly
"

Father," i.e.

God,

is

con

ceived as the counterpart of the

earthly

father,"

as appears

from a saying
clares

Simeon ben Yokhai, c. 130 A.D. He de his earthly father that a wise son not only makes
of
"

"

(jnsapyaK) glad, but also

The love
Akiba
(c.

of his child

is

"his heavenly Father" (W?&zy va).i here the chief mark of the father.

120

A.D.)

says:

"The

Israelites are beloved (by

is

God), for they are called God s children (Eipfti? 0^3) [it 3 to] the exceptional love [of God that ] it was made
to

due

known
"

them that they are called God s children, as it is said, 14 1 Ye are the children of Jehovah, your God. The same idea is expressed by Gamaliel n. (c. 100 A.D.), who declared concerning Israel: 4 flnttK Dnp Nja an awa ^rrianps
Deut.
NDjn Nsta

$nty D^KG

;f^,

"since

the

beloved children

provoked their heavenly an impious king." The

having recourse to
this

Father to anger,
"

He

set over

them

Israelites are full of

Father."

confidence in

It is said in heavenly 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
of

fact

"

that the Israelites lifted

up

their

eyes and

directed

their heart towards their heavenly

Father"

(lv3flD8 btf$H?
it
:

D^at?

Dn 3^6

Daf>

pjHppl
;

rfe ^P). 7

He
8

is

who

hears

the prayer of Israel

1

hence the Kaddish

says

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

cf.
3

Backer, Ag.

d.

Tann.

ii.

131.

Aboth

iii.

14.
;

Read njnW

for njn u.

4
5

Midr. Abba Gorjon I 1 cf. Eacher, loc. cit. i. 96. Esth. R. I 1 has the Galilean form poy 3Kn jp, and inserts
.

finnaj? in front

Of

DT. Thus in Est. R. I 1 7 So it should be read according to Manuskr. Miinchen,

S.

see JRalbinovicz,
:
]<$

Variai Lectiones zu b. R. h.
"

\H K-II?D
8

QW^ a3^, Seder Rab Amram,

y ji?p Targ. Jerus. I. Num. 21 If he direct his heart to the Name of the Word of Jehovah."

29-\

Cf.

i.

13 b

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN

187
the prayers and

KW:I ^

pn>QN

D"jp>

binfe*.

ba^ iinrnyrn,

"may

tears of all Israel be accepted before their heavenly

Father

"

When
"

there remains for every other refuge and hope fails, l b tfliK Wtiw by |ytf nb by, Israel nothing but the cry whom shall we put our trust ? upon our Father in
:

upon

heaven."

It

was not unknown

"

to the

claimed

God
(c.

for themselves as their

:

Jews that the Christians Thus Juda ben Father.

2 God foresaw that the Gentiles would 300) said translate the Law, and read it in Greek and say, we are Then spake God to him (Moses), See, Moses, the Israel.

Shalom

Gentiles will say, we are Israel, mpE&p von)." See also p. 190 f.

we

are the sons of

God

(tf

The following examples, which might

illustrating

easily be multiplied,

the fatherly vidual Israelite, may here be adduced.

relation of

God towards

the indi

are addressed in the astonished exclamation of an aged

j.

Only two persons man,

"

"To your heavenly Father (NW?! P^tfb) ye it to me not (an offering due to Him) yet ye give give of the 100 Eleazar ben Azarya (c. things which A.D.) speaks

Maas 50
it

"

his Father in

heaven

"

has forbidden to him. 3

Yehuda ben

4 bold as a "be (before 200) gives the exhortation: and a as strong as gazelle, leopard, quick as an eagle, swift

Tema

a lion

to
)."

DW3
(c.

do the will of thy heavenly Father (T? P^ ntfefl Of the same nature are also the words of Nathan
:

of

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

, :

light of the period

"

those

who

love

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

mandments.
cised
art thou slain
?

these are the Israelites

their life for the

com

my

sons.

in the
1

Law.

Why Why art thou burned Why art thou crucified

because I have circum

?

because I have read

because I have eaten

Pes.

Sot. ix. 15 (anonym.).

Rabb. 14 b

cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 556. D Mechilta, ed. Friedni. 68^; Vay. K. 32 ; Midi. Ps. 12 ; cf. Hacher, Ag. d. Tanu. ii. 437.
; ;

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

188
unleavened bread.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Why art
my
is

done the
This
is

will

of

thou scourged ? because 1 have 1 Father heavenly (D?$3P N3K jW).

that which

him, what
inflicted

mean

written (Zech. 13 6 ): And they say to these wounds ? and he answers, they were
in the house
of those

upon me
(^H^P)

who caused me
it

to be

beloved
I

these

wounds have brought

"

about

nnK b). beloved by my Father in heaven (OW?^ Simeon ben Eleazar (c. 200) explained the statement in the Law regarding mixed textures (WBJ;B>), as implying that who
soever
"

am

that

wears
"

such
2

vestment
"

"

"

is

perverted

(tv|)

and
In

alienates

(fta)

from himself

his

heavenly
3

Father."

an Aramaic Haggada for the Feast of Weeks, it is said of the Joseph of the Old Testament story: n^bi n n^N his face was turned the towards wife of his *y?fl *?BS5&,
rni>
"

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
Judaism,"

he says, 4
in

"

up

to

the time of Jesus there had been

no development the conception of God, in the sense that grace and truth were more strenuously insisted on as para mount elements in the divine nature and character, leading in consequence to a greater readiness to apply the name of
Father to
of

Father to God
:

fact

a greater readiness to apply the name on the part of the Jews is a historical and Jesus adopted this term for God from the popular
God."

But
"

"

Judaism, above all, as it existed in the usage of His time. time of Jesus, must not be depicted according to the de
veloped system of subsequent Eabbinism, least of the excrescences in the latter are set up as the
1

all

when norm of

So in Vay. R. 32.
Kil. ix. 8
;

2
:j

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

exhibits are either overlooked or eliminated. 1

cited above also

The instances
set forth until the

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

of his

God s

was only as a member he the claim to and prospect of possessed people that But the Old Testament shows help and patronage.
of the conviction

abundant traces

that

God

providence

is

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 irarr^p 6 ev (rot?) ovpavois (o ovpdvios), which never appears without an accom
2 panying pronoun (pou, j]^v, V/JLWV), occurs among the words of Jesus in Matthew 20 times, in Mark only once, II 25 in
,

Luke not
e

at all

although in

Luke II 13
to

his use of o Trarrjp 6

ovpavov betrays his acquaintance with

the
f)

title.

The

same motive which caused Luke

ovpavwv into
77

ft.

change rov deov has here, too, been at work.

/BaatXela T&V

mode
to
"

of speech distinctively

Jewish and not at the same time

biblical

had to be avoided.
it
"

The Jewish

carefulness always
"

make

clear through the addition of

in

heaven

"

that
to

Father

referred to God, might

seem superfluous

the

Hellenist.

The conception
altogether
1

of

God

as father of the Israelites

was not
15 26

unrecognised

even

by

Jesus.

In

Matt.

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,"

crov is

Leipzig, 1896. accidentally absent, as 6 TraTTjp

<rov

18 precedes in Matt. 6

190

THE WORDS OF JESUS

7 27 )

"

compares in a figurative way the Israelites to the dogs the children (re/cva), the heathen to (/cvvdpioi), which latter, indeed, also belong to the household, but must

(Mark

He

"

"

"

But this maintained at the expense of children. 1 point of view is by no means decisive in His designation of
not be

God

as Father.

Much
of
32
-

rather

is

God regarded
or else

either as the
-

Heavenly Father 25 26 (Mark II ) 6

1 S 10
-

His own
7
11

disciples,
,

Matt. 5 16

45 48
-

61

18 U 23 9

as the
-

Father of Jesus Himself, Matt.

19 35
-

7 2i

10 32f

12 50

Heavenly 15 13 16 17

He

which

subsists

thus indicates the unique personal relation between God and, in the first place, Jesus

Himself, but also between

"

God and

those

who

are His,

who
.

sons of the theocracy," Matt. 13 38 can be spoken of as 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

He

Himself

concerned, and yet prescribing

.

its

use for His disciples,

Matt. 6 9

From

this, too, it

not the veneration of those

to

may be perceived that it was who came after that first assigned
God, incapable of being the Sonship of Jesus see, further,
to

Him

an exceptional relation

transferred to others.

On

Fundamental

Ideas, X.

(6)

My, your Father.

it is

In Jewish parlance

unusual to refer to God in

common
"

discourse informally as Father without adding the

heavenly."

epithet

It is

course
"

is

followed.

The
"

fifth

only in prayers that a different and sixth petitions of the

2 the daily prayer which took Eighteen Supplications entreat the working of penitence and the form c. 110 A.D. forgiveness of sins by God, whom Israel ventures to name,
1

In a somewhat different sense, Matt. 8 12

the Israelites as
;

"sons

of the

kingdom" (viol TTJS fiacriXdas)

2

The

are distinguished from strangers cf. p. 115. "Shemoneh Esreh" (eighteen), for which see Schurer, Hist, of the
;

and Dolman, Messianische Texte aus Jewish People, Div. II. vol. ii. p. 85 f. d. nachkanon. jiid. Litt. (1898), pp. 19-24.

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN

firstly

191
"

U QN,

"

our

Father,"

and then
\3K

ua,
UN
"

our

King."

The

petitions

begin

^rrtrb
"

n^n,

"bring

us

back,

Our

and ttKtpn *a Thy Law Our Father, for we have sinned

Father, to
4
!

nip,

forgive us,

So, too, a prayer in

els

Tob. IS

Vat. has 0eo9 auros Trarrjp fj^wv

Trdvras

TOL<?

ai&vas (absent from Hebr. and Aram.). Akiba (c. 120) once rain in answer to a short brought prayer which began uste ^, "Our Father and our King." 1 The biblical
:

phraseology was obviously the model in prayers, and in them

there was no danger of ambiguity. 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,"

?aK *n

p-n.a

jn

designation

Deut. 32 6,

did not suit the occasion. by where God calls Himself the Father
literally

NW3

that case the narrower

Again, in
of
Israel,
II.

Onkelos renders T??

is

by

7J13K,

while Targ. Jerus.

singular in giving
his Father, the

&nvy\

jtatoK.

But when

Israel calls

Targumist does not venture to give a 3 For 13-3N, Isa. 63 16 64 7 he puts the literal reproduction. 3N3 pK^p whole sentence P?a Tjorm, Thou, whose us towards abounds as that of a father to sons mercy and
:
$>V

God

"

in Jer. 3

4 - 19

he changes
scruple in

?N into

"

Jiisn,

my

Lord."

He

had,

however,

no

rendering the
Father."

*3N

as used

by an

idolater 2 27 by

wK,
in

"

our

God in prayer as but heaven/ My only as My Father." It makes no difference whether the Greek has merely as
it

Jesus never, as

seems, addressed

"

Father

"

Trdrep,

in Matt. II 25
in Matt.

II 26
39 42
-

Matt. 26
1

21 42 or o (Luke 10 ), Luke 22 23^warfa as 21 36 10 Mark 14 or irdrep pov, as in (Luke ), For in each case the word to be presupposed
; ;
;

b.

Jerus.

Taan. 25 b Bather, Ag. d. Tann. i. 330. 28 I. Lev. 22 jpa, which has no meaning

if

uttered by God, should

be changed into ]}$, according to j. Meg. 75. 3 Still in Mai. 2 10 nx without suffix is replaced by

K3><.

192
on the testimony of
(K3K).
strictly

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Mark 14 3G
"

(cf.

Bom.

8 15 Gal. 4 6 )
,

is

/3/3a

This
"

is

just the definite form, and therefore means

;

the Father

but during the obsolescence of

"

the

form with the pronominal suffix ( 3K still to be seen Dan. 5 13 ) 1 it became the regular form for my Father," just as NftS,
"

the

mother,"

was

also said for

its

"

my

mother."

This Aramaic
of the

idiom has even found

There, too,
it

way

into the

Hebrew

Mishna. 3

appears that KJK could be said in the name of several children, thus acquiring the force of our Father." 4 Hence it would not be impossible to derive irdrcp in the
"

Lord s Prayer, Luke II 2 from N2K, although in a prayer the more solemn form wu, Galil. |tt3K, "Our Father," has
,

greater probability in

its favour.

N3X 83138 as a
?

title

of address

to

God meant something

?

different

when used by Jesus

though
it

qualified

what was implied by ^?? P, was by ^38 of the Shemoneh Esreh and
to
of family life is transferred to
its father.

Akiba.

The usage

God

it is

the language of the child to

Jesus also

speaks of

God
26
29 53
-

as o iraTrjp pov, Matt.

.

II 27

(Luke
of

10

22 )

20

23

25

34

The Father
(i.e.

of

the

Son

man, He
8 38 ).

calls o

Trarrjp

avrov
of the

Aram. ^38), Matt. 16 27

o

(Mark

The Father
-

disciples is

irar^p

V/JLMV
;

8 20 29 o irarrip avrmv (i8), Matt. 13 43 (flMK), Matt. 6 10 6 irarrip vov (^38), 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 o Trarrfp pov, aov, vpwv,

not addressed directly to God, ought to contain the addition 6 ev ovpavols. This alone would correspond to the terminology of Eabbinic literature. Nevertheless the existence of a well1

:N also occurs

once Targ. Esth.

jiid. pal.

ii.

1
,

according to MS. Orient 2375 in the

British
2

Museum. See Gramm. des

ii.

E.g. Keth.

6, xiii.

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

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

Shebu.

vii. 7,

THE FATHER IN HEAVEN

193

founded tradition remains quite possible, to the effect that Jesus did not closely adhere to the Jewish phraseology on this point, and that He did, in fact, sometimes speak ex
clusively of the Father, of Himself

and those that were

His.

On

this hypothesis the consequent omission of the supple

ment

in

Luke would appear

to

have some historical

justifi

cation.

(c)

The Father.
is

required for those passages in which, excluding cases of address, the simple o irar^p appears with no pronoun added.
special consideration

Luke
16
27

9 26 should be brought into agreement with Matt.

38 (Mark 8 ).

Son

of

Man

will

Jesus can surely not have said that the come eV rfj 80^77 avrov Kal rov irarpbs Kal

dylcov ayyeXcov,

but eV ry

0^77

aryiwv ayyeXcov.

Moreover, avrov

TOV Trarpbs avrov /-tera is omitted in Luke

it

merely for the sake of euphony, as

before.

has been used just

In the saying of our Lord Acts I 7 o iraTrjp as uttered by Jesus would have to be retraced to N3N, which might just as
,

The saying would thus have well represent o Trartjp JJLOV. know for to times or seasons which My not It is been you
"

Father determined in the exercise of His

Still

own

authority."

we may here have an

the pen of

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

him.

There remain now only the passages in which o Trartfp and 6 uto? mutually condition each other, where no pronoun II 27 (Luke 10 22 ), Matt. 24 36 is admissible, namely, Matt.
19 32 (Mark 13 ), and Matt. 28
.

Of these the

first

vindicates

itself as

an utterance
"

of Jesus.

When
"His
"

Jesus

testifies

that all

things are delivered unto

" "

Him by

Father,"

and adds that

the Son and the Father are mutually known to only each other, the statement may be understood as a reference

194
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

exists

a real relationship which

universally
also

between a

father

an application as son, In that case o Trartfp and between Jesus and His Father. 6 vlos were not used as theological terms, and KSN and fcos
finds
It is

and a

and thus

are not unlikely equivalents.

different with Matt.
"

24 36 (Mark

1 3 32 ),

where the

angels and
"

the Son
"

"

are ignorant of something which only

the Father

knows.

In this case the terms

o vlos

and

Trarijp are not due to comparison with each other, but appear

ready-made formula, and are therefore to be attributed If to the influence of the Church vocabulary on the text.
as a

ovSe

ol

dyye\ot

ovSe

vlos

were taken separately as a

the preceding ouSe/9, then o supplementary alone would remain, could be referred to KJK = Y)p which
illustration of
}

/nov,

as the
It
is,

form used by Jesus, just as in the similar

however, more probable that the original
it,"

case Acts I

7
.

even the angels know and that the ending, nor the Son, but the Father only," should be regarded as an accretion.
was,
"not
"

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

(6

0609).

All three Synoptists record the use by Jesus of 6 0eo?. 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
5 times
;
;

has DW*,

"

Heaven,"

8 times

EipE?,

the

Place,"

Kin *pna tflign,

the
"

Holy

One, blessed
Father,"

be

He,"

times

and

crBW

T?

heavenly

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

"

195
once each.
But,

the

Name,"

nj otfn

"

the

Dwelling-place,"

on the other hand, C*?6H no less than 1} (niir) occurs only in quotations from the Bible, the latter appearing also in a form
of

prayer.
;

The
Dl^n

tractate

Berakhoth has

D?&g>

twice,

Dipfcn

appear only in prayers and quotations. Similarly the tractate Yoma has once each Dipfcn, Tjna nj?n
:

once

and

and

fcn,

DW3KJ

Drp-atf

in prayers

D$n

in Bible quotations ^, but

Frequently the divine name is entirely evaded In a quotation, Gen. by circumlocutions, or simply omitted. I 27 would have been written OY&I D&3, in the image of God but where it does not form part of a quotation, e.g.
" "

never B l%.

Ab.

iii.

15,

cfe

alone

is

expressed, the reader being expected to

know

that the image of

God

is

meant.

"Distinguished
iii.

are the
"dis

Israelites/ ?|Ofe* Tl^n, says Akiba,

God."

Ab.

14, meaning

"

tinguished by livj w, may it be well-pleasing," without, however, expressing the

"

In Ber.

ix.

2 appears the prayer

"

necessary complement

before

God

and in

Yoma
name

i.

5 the

high priest takes an oath for the due

duties in the temple
in this
house."
"

performance of his
to dwell

by

Him who

causes His

That
tion, is

this mode of procedure in the Mishna was no innova evident from the fact that the Book of Esther

entirely

omits the divine

name

not, as is

to the irreligious disposition of

his reverence for divine

sometimes supposed, owing the author, but as a result of

Again, the First Book of

things.

Maccabees, despite frequent mention of religious matters, has used D^, Heaven," as a designation of God, only nine times
"

in

all,

and never speaks

of

"

God."

The Aramaic part

heaven
"

of

Daniel (Dan., chaps. 2-7) avoided the use of mrv,and denoted

the true

God by
Tjjp,

K;B>

has

KJB>

25

NW
or
"

afe,

Most High
Njn,
"the

God,"

34 (for which 4 Nnta and or ;)jy, "the fcnp), by N^y the Most High," more rarely by Kr6

"

God

of

living

God,"

6 27

Koto
<n,

"the

Ever-living,"
.

4"!

The simple *$$ ( = ^r6gn) occurs only in 2 20 5 26 The course followed in other writings is not

in

every

196
case
so consistent.

THE WOEDS OF JESUS

But there was a means

of

guarding
writing

against possible profanation of the divine

it

name by

so as merely to suggest

it.

The manuscripts represent

by writing Yod two, three, or four times, also by modifi and pip and by putting n or i for D$n when pronounced in place of nin* DTibtf appears as D*^N or D^pfet, In view of this expedient, it does as br6tt, Kp^ftt and
cations like TIT
11

iW

Knf>K

not

mean

so

much

that the

should use the biblical

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha names for God. Least of all must it

is

be assumed that the popular usage

reflected in these books.

In regard

to

shown that

tetragrammaton alone can the proof be through the influence probably of Egyptian
the
it

religious customs

had

really vanished

from common use

it

among

the people.

But we may well assume that

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

an oath should have

but teaches that
appears to

does not, however, sanction the opinion that, supposing to be taken, God must be named in it,
it is

better not to swear at

all.

approve the non-pronunciation of the

"

Even He name of God,

and

He

at least conformed to the

custom by avoiding the tetra

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 0eo9,
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,
1

e.g.,

mention

made

of o #609 of o

alongside of avOpw-rros, Matt. 19

-

9 (Mark 10 ), and
- 22
.

#609

Matt. 5 34f 23 1G

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

in contrast with /ua/^wz/a?, Matt.

197
16 13 ), we must
were to
2

6 24 (Luke
"

probably substitute avoided either

supposing
"

**!$[*,
x

God,"
"

be

KBB>,

the

Name,"

or KJBf,

Heaven."

In

some other cases

it

is is

possible to omit the

divine

name.
,

When
that

the accusation
said
"

61 brought against Jesus, Matt. 26

He had
is

am

able to destroy the temple of

God,"

there
"

every probability that His words had really been 58 or the this temple (TOV vabv TOVTOV) as in Mark 1 4
"

"

temple"

(TOV vaov) as in Matt.

27

40

(Mark 15
"

29
).

Again,

Jesus says,

Mark 12 25
"

that

they who

are risen from the

(a<yye\oi

dead will be as
ovpavois).

the angels in
for
this

heaven

ev

The Aramaic
more

would be KJOK

which
(22
30

is

certainly

original than the

T>

): ayyehoi 0eov ev

wording in Matthew and much more so than ovpavw,

lo~d<yye\oi,
"

Luke s
order

amplification
to

(20
-

36

):

teal

viol

Oeov.

In

avoid the
in

expression
9

in the

presence

of

God,"

we have

Luke 12 8
evwTriov

15 10

"

before the angels of

God"

(e/jL7rpoo~Oev

TWV

a^e\wv

TOV

Oeov).
it

In

these

cases TOV 6eov should clearly be erased, as

partially defeats
of e/jLTrpoo-Oev

the intention of the phrase.

The occurrence
32 33
-

TOV TraT/305

fjuov

TOV ev ovpavols in Matt. 10

as parallel to

shows how the same point may be reached in another fashion. See also under 5.
-

Luke 12 8

On
of
6

the other hand, no scruples need attach to the use

0eo? in the prayers

into the

mouth
the

of

the
of

which Jesus, Luke 1 8 11 13 puts Pharisee and the publican even

-

although, in

case

the Pharisee

especially

a more

elaborate form of address to

o

God might be

expected.

But

#605

must

not, as

rendered by
of address.

E^
If

!*,

is done by Delitzsch and Piesch, be which would be a very uncommon form

Pharisee
if

one assumes Hebrew as the language of the mv Gcl prayer, the word used would be *?;**,
"
"

the publican prayed in Aramaic, the word would be ^HTK. That Jesus Himself, though using Aramaic while praying on
1

Of. p. 182f.

Of.

Fundamental

Ideas, VIII. 7.

198
the Cross, said
x

THE WORDS OF JESUS

yH,

was due

to

the fact that His prayer was

"

expressed in the

words of a psalm.

NJK,

Father,"

was the

form

of

address to

God

in

prayer which was peculiar to

Jesus. 2

2.

THE HIGHEST

(inJri(7TO?).

The divine appellations f$ % and }V first appear in the mouth of non-Israelites, being used by Melchizedek, Gen. 14 and by Balaam, Num. 24 16 The author s intention
18ff>

implying that the Deity revered by these men was the true God, is by this means realised. Thereafter, in the
of

Psalms, PyV

is

not infrequently adopted

;
;

by
tty
fe,"

Israelites,
fK,

3
e.g.
;

|%

njn;,

Ps.

i%
in
fc$y

Ps. 9 3 .

47 4 fty tfn% Ps. 57 3 The son of Sirach has fty

.

Ps.
;

78 35

46 5 48 20

while

dependence on a preceding noun, he prefers the simple 4 8 42 2 44 20 49 4 The Aramaic part of Daniel has !%, 41
-

and

K^|>

^,

and also makes use

Vtity
n^i>,

of the
25 27
-

Hebrew fty
Further,
the
1
,

in
"

the

combination
High,"

18

22

Most
of

as a divine

title,

occurs Tob. 4
7
,

11

Judith

38

(6

0eo9 6 v^ia-ros), Ass. Mos. 10

in all the sections of the

3
),

Book
(see

Enoch

(see Charles

on 99

often in the Bar. Apoc.

Charles on 17 1 ), and repeatedly in 2 Esdras.

in Gen.

Onkelos

Num. 24 16 In Eabbinic J% literature, on the contrary, this name for God is extraordin The Palestinian Abbahu (about 300 A.D.) is said, arily rare. b. Sot. 40% on one occasion to have styled God n^y. There
puts fW&y for
,
.

14 20

is

thus good ground for the opinion that did not really tfySJ to the the language but characterised popular speech, belong
of religious poets

and authors following a

detects in
fly?,

biblical style.
title,

Holtzmann
of

as a divine

the

"

abstract colourlessness of the conception of

"

symptom God in

the post-prophetic age

1

(der Epigonen),
f.

inasmuch as he holds
2

On

this verse see above, p. 53

d. neutest. Theologie,

See above,

p.

191

f.

3
4

Cf. T.

K. Cheyne, The Origin and Religious Content of the

i.

Psalter, 83f.

Lehrb.

49.

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

that Judaism in
istic period,
its

199

had already begun

use of D H^g, the divine title of the legal to accentuate the metaphysical

idea of

God
of

to the detriment of the religious contents of the

prophetic conception of God.

But

BNlftK is

in

no way the
legalistic
it

name

God which
God
of Israel

distinguished

the

so-called

[nomistisch] period.

The

Priests
of the
%

Code makes

quite clear

that the
as

and

Law

chooses to be

known

mn\ And how Py^ or & $*j should be more colourless than the Tetragrammaton as understood by the Jews accord 14 it would be hard to tell. Moreover, it does ing to Ex. 3
,

agree with Holtzmann s theory of a retrogression that in the time of Christ should be replaced by designations ffy the Holy One," like our Father in heaven," the first of
riot
"
"

which

is

of prophetic origin, while the second

even implies

an advance beyond the prophetic mode of speech.

Only once, Luke

the expression there
viol Oeov,

G 35 is
,

is viol

V^KTTOS ascribed to Jesus and 9 v^riarov, for which Matt. 5 has

;

and Matt. 5 45
to

viol

According
spirit

Mark

5 7 (Luke

TOV vrarpo? V/JLWV TOV ev ovpavols. S 28 ), a man with an unclean

:

addressed to Jesus the words

29

vie

rov Oeov TOV v^ria-rov.

But Matt. 8

does not give TOV infrlarov.

Luke, however,
says
:

delights in ItyurTO? as a
TOV,
6

name

for God.
35
;

He

vlbs vtyia-;

Gospel

32
;

ovva/ja^ v^la-rov, I
;

76 Trpo^rjrrjs vtyio-rov, I

#\/ri(7T09,

Acts 7 48

SoOAot TOV

6eov

TOV

vtyicrTov,
,

16 17

So, too,

we may suppose

viol V^IO-TOV,

Luke

6 35

is

due to his

personal predilection.

expression viol

The hypothesis is probable that the 6 6 v^riaTov in Ps. 82 LXX (Heb. 8 1 ), which,

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

its

The primitive wording earliest form by Matthew

j

of the expression

TOV

TOV ev oupavois, Aram. NJpK in

200

THE WORDS OF JESUS

3.

THE BLESSED ONE

priest

(6 ev\oyr)Tos).

The high

uses the words 6 vibs TOV evXoyrjrov,

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
,

Mark 14 61

for

able than that in

"

Matthew on the
is,

The

Blessed,"

however,
"

as

lips of the high priest. a rule, in Jewish literature

"

only added to

the

Holy One
the

as

an appendix

in

the
He,"

formula

Kin 7]ra

B>Vij5n,

Aram.
"

Kin

Tpn

KKHJ?, O n
One,"

which see below.

vii.

Holy One, Blessed is The simple ^hon,

the Blessed

Ber.

3,

forms an exception.
:

Even

in

Palmyra, indeed,
"

God can be spoken of as at?f T1?, name whose is to be praised for ever," de Vogue, 7 4, 7 6 He, 1 (111 A.D.), 77 see also Enoch 77 "the Ever-Blessed."

$$

4.

THE POWER

(f)

The Synoptists with one consent relate (Matt. 26 64 Mark 14 Luke 22 69 ) that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrim when He announced that He should sit at the right hand
,

62

"

of the

Power

"

(e /c

Segiwv

r?5? SvvdfjLecos).

In the interest of
explanation,
p.

readers Luke adds TOV 6eov by way of and thereby obscures, as in other cases (see
his

197), the
ii.

nature of the idiom.

Hegesippus

(in

Eusebius,

23), in

an allusion to
K
e%iMv
10
,

this statement, attributes to

fjL<yd\r]<$

James the words

TT)?

Swd/jiecos,

with which

Acts 8
f)
"

where Simon Magus is The sorcerer was KakovjAevr} 1*670X17.

be compared called % Swapis TOV Oeov

may

really

God,"

and TOV Oeov as well

as KaXov^evr] are additions

"

spoken of as due to
"

Luke.

The adjective
just as
is
"

"

great

marks the

"

Power

as super
of
i.e.

human,

the great Holy

One

"

in the

Book

Enoch
God.

(see below)
1

the unique possessor of this attribute,

Paul also has as an appended epithet evXoyrjTos ds TOVS aiuvas, Rom. I 25 9 5 ,

2 Cor. II 31 .

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

201
rj

On

the other hand, the exclamation on the Cross,

rj

Svvais

pk

IJLOV

birvapk pov, as found in the

s

"

Gospel of

Peter,"

probably occasioned by Aquila

to Eusebius,
la-xys
fjiov).

version of Ps.

22 2 (according

Demonstr. Evangel, x. 8, either Icr^vpe pov or The sense is not that the strength which was
is

His own, but the Power which for Jesus

God, had
Ps.

left
;

Him
as

cf.

the address to

God
2
.

"my

strength,"

59 18

see

also Ex.

15

2
,

Ps.

46

81

One need not

therefore assume,

Harnack

does, that the author had taken offence at the

confession of being forsaken by God.

The statement
do work in Jesus
"

in Matt.

14 2 (Mark

6 14 ) that

"the

powers
arise

(a

Svvdfjieis

evepyovaw

ev avrw),

may
:

through a misunderstanding of its Aramaic antecedent Krryaa 21 23 H2 cf. Matt. 1 1 l^jmp, mighty deeds are done by Him To show that rj SiW/u?, in the saying of our Lord pre
"

God and is based viously mentioned, really stands for Nrntoa in cite the we Aramaic, upon may following instances
"
"

from Jewish

literature,

which at the same time

literal

will indicate

meaning 100 A.D.) begins a quota tion of words spoken by God with the formula it was said In mouth of Power Aboth d. the the (nniaan ^p).a by Nathan, 37, appears the expression: it seemed good in his
disappeared from view.

the extent to

which the

of

the term has

Ishmael

(c.

"

"

eyes and
(c.

in the eyes of

the
,

Power

"

(nTiaan

W3).

Meir

160
"

A.D.) says, b. Sot.

37 a

that,

owing

to the situation of
"

the host of the the temple in his territory, Benjamin was Power (ft?3?? !?r?^K). An anonymous saying in Siphre 3 the Power that is above/ *W ini3 God has in place of
"
" "

nigD.

There

may
for
"

also

be compared Targ.

Isa.

33 21 which
,

has

^
s

Nrma

the simple mrr, and Targ. Isa. 48 13 where

appears for
2
,

W], My

right

hand

"

(i.e.

God s).
der Apokalypse des
see

A.

Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und

65.

Petrus
2

Siphre,

Num.

112,

ed.

Friedm. 33

:i

For the same expression,

j.

Sanh. 28 a
3

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

202

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

kindred expression, not, however, to be found in the Gospels, may also be adduced n^vy Wl, the Most High
"

Knowledge"

= God),
I.

Mechilta,
;

ed.
cf.

Friedm.
ftovw
<ro$o>

89 b

Aram.

btfrt

any^
.

Jerus.

Num. 27 5

0e&>,

Eom.

16

27

5.

THE HOLY ONE

(o
is
it

Although a^Los as a name for God Testament only once, 1 Pet. I 15 where
,

found in the
is

New

suggested by a
the Holiness
"

quotation from the Old Testament,

to observe that there

it

does not seem irrelevant

"

was a divine

title Bhfcn,

Bee, e.g., Siplire, Num. 112, ed. Friedm. nature is the much used ^n spa N^np,

SS*. 1

Of the same

"

the Holiness, Blessed

,

be

He";

see
,

j.

Makk. 31
ii.

d
,

j.

Isa.

50 11 Targ. Esth.

5 1,
is

Bab. mez. 12 a Ber. E. 78, Targ. Kaddish. The Hebrew equiva

"

lent,

curiously enough,
He";

Nin

Tjna
iii.

Bnnjjn,

the Holy

One,

Blessed be

see,

e.g.,

Aboth

1, 2, iv.

of the latter appears in

the biblical
,

The prototype 17 ^Fjf[ ^P, &g. Isa. 10

22.
in
;

49 7

and
of

BnnjJ, Isa.

Book

Enoch,

as
is

40 25 and occurs frequently also 2 11 "the Holy One," Enoch I 93

great,"

the

"the

Holy One who 104 9

.

I3

10 1 14 1 25 3 84 1 92 2 97 6 98 6

"

might readily be supposed that in the term Ntfnp rin, the Holy Spirit," the word N5?1P became in reality a name
It

God, so that TO irvevpa rov 6eov would represent it more But in that case terms accurately than TO Trvevpa TO ayiov.
for

like *jfjij

rm,

it

yet Holy Spirit," impossible. must be maintained that the addition of NKHij is expressly meant to specify Divinity as an attribute of the Spirit. As
,

Thy Holy Spirit," Ps. 1 Targ. Isa. 42 would be

"

5 1 13

*&$n

"

rm,

My

And

regards content, therefore, there

Spirit of

is

no difference between

"

the
rrn,

God

"

and
the

"the

Holy

Spirit."

Moreover, NBnp
;

not K J^K nn, Jesus uses ev

1 Cf.

is

common Jewish
Oeov, Matt.

expression
,

and when
3 38 .

Trveu/jLari
"

12 28 the original would

Holiness,"

K^hij Di2D,

from the mouth of the

Targ.

Lam.

OTHER DIVINE NAMES

be the Aram. N^np nna, unless the preference were given to 20 the fuller form suggested by Matt. 10 KjpBfr; KJOT Pinna,
"

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 Pip or nNU3 to make it clear what Spirit was contem
plated
;

see

Wi? nn
2
;

for

mi, Jerus.
for Inn,

I.

Gen. 6 3 Targ.
,
;

Isa.

59 21

Targ. Joel 3
for

n nKttj

mi

Onk. Num. II 29

Kfjj;

nn

In Jewish Onk. Gen. 45 27 (Jerus. I. nxttJ nn). the Spirit literature it is so unheard of to speak of (nnn),
nn,
" "

when

meant, that the single word spirit 1 would much rather be taken to mean a demon or the wind.
the Spirit of

God

"

"

is

In the account of the Baptism, where Luke (3 ) has TO while Matthew (3 16 ) has irvevpa Qeov, and irvev/jLO, TO ayiov,

22

Mark

10

(I

TO

irvevpa, it

is

only the

first

that
Bnj>n

would be

probable in a Hebrew nnn 2 based on Mark, as proposed by Kesch in his

primitive gospel as

nn

while

SHE?,
8
:

Kesch s Hebrew in (2 ) would be quite impossible. and he niia nii^ nnn-nx, could at best only signify nji* saw the wind coming down in the form of a dove." Again, in
"

Matt. 4 1 TO

TTvevjJia

cannot be simply reproduced in Hebrew.

:
"

What

is

have to
ness in
(^rjfjuia,

10 by Kesch (2 ) mia nifran yw Snin TK, would be translated, then was he carried into the wilder

offered

spirit."

Matt. 12

31

In the same way 17 TOU irvevfiaTo^ /3Xao-is unsuitable on the lips of Jesus, and TOU
supplied.

32 ayiov, as in v.

must be

Similarly ev

Matt. 22

43
,

should be supplemented as in

Mark 12 36

ev

1 It may perhaps be mentioned that even in recent times a missionary evoked the scorn of the Jews by using the term nnn without qualification in

his address.

Such translations could not be avoided by Franz Delitzsch, as he had to in a pro copy the idiom of the Synoptic texts with all their variations but
2
;

fessing

Hebrew

original they are intolerable.

204

THE WORDS OF JESUS

6.

THE MERCIFUL ONE.

"

Only

in

Bom.

9 16 o eXeow Oeos does

the Merciful

"

ap
;

pear in the New Testament as a designation of God cf. 3 Mace. 5 7 6 ctejijuov 0eo?. The son of Sirach (50 19 ) already Birn had the simple as a name for God. On the inscriptions
of

Palmyra,

N?pn"!

occurs as an epithet applied to deity (de

it

Vogue, 75, 77, 79); and in Jewish literature

as an independent title,
c.

often appears

e.g. j.

Sabb. 3 b (Simeon ben Yokhai,

See also the prayers, l^g Eoinan Machzor, for the days before
A.D.).

140

wprn and

WN N J?ni,
It

New

Year.

was

thus an obviously natural thought that the children of the accord merciful," to be in Heavenly Father ought to be
"

with the fact that God

Similar

is

"merciful,"

otter tpfuov,

Luke
by
15

6 36

admonitions
see,
"

are,

accordingly, often
flinn
j3
K;B>3

given

the

Eabbis;
N
?"!*?3

e.g.,

j.

Meg. 75

porn

KI Np3

r??D"l,

according as

We
s

are

moved
cf.

to

so should ye be merciful on
T

earth";

Jerus.

mercy in heaven, 18 I. Lev. 22

,

where the protasis runs: K f3 Father is merciful in heaven."

|?ni_

jjux*]

K^n,

"as

our

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 (fxovrj e/c r&v ovpavwv, Matt. 3 (Mark
:

11
,

Luke
in

22

ef
,

ovpavov),

and
<f>wvrj

IK
of

rfj?

z/e^eX?/?,

Matt.
of the

17 5 (Mark 9 7 Luke 9 85 ).
cloud,

The mention

heaven and

these cases,
is

is

before the voice

alluded

due to the fact that, immediately to, the heaven and the cloud are

involved in the
(0fi>i"j),

context.
-

Luke speaks only

-

of a

"

"

voice
biblical

Acts

10 13

15

II 7

and in 7 31

after

the

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

205

manner
in

of a
28

"

voice of the Lord

4>

"

(fywvr] Kvplov).

It is only

John 12
"

and Eev. 10
is
"

14

13

that the source of the voice

not suggested by the context. This voice is heard when God is said to speak audibly It is obviously a means of avoiding to the sense of hearing.
eK TOV ovpavov

the notion that the world.

God should speak without any medium

hence
"

in
"

And
"

it is

not meant that the

"

voice

is

any peculiar

being
is

or mediating hypos tasis.

any idea entertained of an imperfect type of The phrase is merely precautionary. Its divine revelation.

Nor again
is to

aim

indicate that the incident

is

miraculous, and

it

does

not warrant any direct inference as to the nature of the supramundane God.

The expression appears first of a voice fell from heaven {3, voice came from on high" 13 1
" "

all
;

Dan. 4 28
also
KJDVID

K;f
Bar.
}

bp

see
(Syr.

Apoc.
t6p),

"a

KDK

cf.

22 1

Instead of the simple

NJiJ

?ij,

later

Jewish literature

inserts the fuller

rna, Hebr.
x
voice,"

^P

n?i,

which, however, means

it

no more than
omission of
"

"

sound,

though, as a rule,

causes the
:

the

heaven."
"

N^P rro, Hebr. D)o^n |p

of
"

bip,

The ordinary form here is riDJ a voice came forth," the mention

heaven being unusual, as b. Sanh. ll a In a voice was given from heaven."

first
2

EW n
this

Sip

rm

n:ri^

literature also

the voice was not at the

of revelation,

since

we

regarded as an inferior form have here to do with the one and

only mode of Holy Spirit, in

divine intimation.

The endowment with the

more

exalted,

the sense of the old prophecy, was something only because the divine element in it assumed

a permanent relation to the inner life of an individual, and did not make itself heard merely from without and at intervals.
1 See my article "Bath Kol," PKE 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 significance of

a divine intimation.
2

Der Gottesname Incorrectly advanced in my See the Baraitha, b. Sot. 48 b ; j. Sot. 24 b.

"

Adonaj,"

58, note 1.

206

THE WORDS OF JESUS

2.

SWEARING BY HEAVEN.
ev
TU>

Swearing

by heaven,

34 ovpavp, Matt. 5

23 22

is

looked upon by Jesus as equivalent to swearing by God. He thus implies that a real name of God was being inten/tionally 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. 147 a x ttatfn appears
,

once taken, must be kept (23 22 ), better to avoid it in general (5 34 ). Against the

as

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
fact,
;

an asseveration.

As

a matter of

latter s part to give evidence is not regarded as a culpable

offence.
"

On

the position of Judaism in relation to oaths, see

Adonaj,"

Der Gottesname

60

ff.,

68

ff.

3.

REWARD, TREASURES IN HEAVEN.

Jesus speaks of a reward eV rot? ovpavois, Matt. 5 12 23 20 (Luke 6 ev TO) ovpavw), of treasures ev ovpava>, Matt. 6
33 (Luke 12

eV TOIS ovpavols),

19 21 (Mark 10 21
"

Luke 18 22

h
cf.

ovpavols).

Here

"

in heaven

stands for
ovpavols
,

"

with

God

"

Matt. 6 1 Trapa TW irarpl

V/JLWV TOJ ev

means that the recompense of pensation for what is sacrificed

and Jesus merely work or the com completed

in this world,
"

is
"

made ready

by God even now, in so far as the theocracy is assuredly destined to come for the righteous. Any mystical pre-existor ence of reward treasure is in no way contemplated.
"

"

"

"

Cf. above, p.

129f.
with
texts
of

In
1

agreement

Scripture

like

Ps.
fiir

3 1 20
Gott

See also E. Landau, Die

dem Raume entnommenen Synonyma

(1888), 16.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

n
"} "

207

how

?>

great

is

Thy goodness which

Thee,"

Thou hast

laid
jay.,

up
"

for

them that

fear

and Prov. 2 7
L

rwn Dn^b

He

layeth

up 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 ayaOov) He who makes for himself against the day of necessity. for himself with lays up (Qi}<ravplfa) practises righteousness,

(Oejjui

"

the

Lord

life/"

Ps.

Sol.

99

Bar. Apoc.

14 12 says that

the pious forsake this present age without fear, because they a provision of works, kept in treasurehave with God
"

chambers
7
77
"

"

(Syr. iOVlHl

"Van

fcH3jn K^n).

See also 2 Esdr.

"

est tibi thesaurus

operum repositus apud altissimum

i?
inrVK)>

(Syr.

Kn&

nib D DI &naijn tfWiK

cf.

33
.

It is to
"

be observed, in these cases, that the treasure

God,"

is

laid

up
"

with

which also confirms the view that

of Jesus is a

"

in

heaven

in the

words

mere synonym

for this expression.

Later Jewish literature also affords in this connexion the

expression
to lay up the fulfilment of D^jpi nto 3 deeds see Ber. E. 9 commandments and good Vay. E. 4 Deb. E. 1. According to Peah i. 1 (anonym.), there are
:

D 3to

"

5>ap,

"

certain pious services, the interest of which

age, while the capital

(P)
:

enjoyed in this remains over for the future age. 4

is

King Monobazos

(c.

10

A.D.) retorts to his relatives,

5
"

who

find

fault with his beneficence

My

fathers gathered treasures

is

1 See also Targ. Isa. 33 6 Tfljj; rrgra IS IK ;i N^nn^, "to them that fear God the treasure of His goodness appointed." 2 Syr. N*nm NDD D, Aram. 3B pnsm, for which read aa pnsin (virod-fiKt]}, Hebr.

ann
8

f]D3

nnsixi nc iy.
:

"To him who See the definition of n^:p Pes. Eabb. 43 a possesses it, it is if he is forced by need to deduct from it, then he is disagreeable to disturb it is an inalienable Hence ever busy to make up what was taken away."
:

."tap

capital.
4 For the idea of reward in Rabbinic doctrine, see F. Weber, Jiidische 2 That there also exist in it opinions which Theologie (1897), 279 ff., 302 ff. tend to mitigate the insistent attitude in the idea of recompense, will be shown

elsewhere.
6
j.

Peah 15 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

they gathered for others,

All they for this age, I for the age to come." these passages merely have in view some form of book-keeping on the part of God. The good words recorded by Him are

myself

merely so
Isa.

many

claims to future recompense.

Even the

Targ.

24 16

is

not, as

Meyer
:

holds, intended to suggest things

really existent in the other world.

According to the Targumist,

the

prophet says
"

NJ^Bni)

ritisnia

n ^

TnnK

Nji?^

-ux

the mystery of a recompense for the righteous was V revealed to me, the mystery of a chastisement for the wicked

V?W

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.

this,

In contrast with

a celestial

pre-existence

of the

reward

might possibly be presupposed in Shem. E. 45, where God is represented as having shown to Moses all the treasure-chambers of reward ("W IFI nnjix fe) pre and also in Shir. E. 7 U Deb. E. 7, pared for the righteous
"

"

where Abba bar Kahana

ing the Jews thus
"

(c.

300)

represents

God

as address

Preserve ye yourselves by fulfilling the law and by good works, and I will preserve for you treasure3 chambers overflowing with all the blessings of the world
:
"

of the
v>sn

same nature
5

is

also Targ. Jerus.

II.

Num. 23 33 Ji^ti
no K^TO,
"

NpW

NJoKai P313N
!

f\J?

jpnp 3D -ax
is

"Blessed

are ye righteous

what a noble reward

prepared for you

!

with your Father in heaven for the age to come this case, the other sense is possible.
1

Still,

in

2
3

Jesu Muttersprache, 83. Of. Bacher, Agada d. pal. Am. ii. 499 For the term nvDT nsiK, "treasure of
Sabb. 31 b
.

f.

merits,"

Charles in Bar. Apoc. 14 12

cites

He

is

misled, however, perhaps through Weler s Jiid. Theo-

logie, 279,

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

209

4.

WRITTEN IN HEAVEN.
ro? ovpavol?
as
"

The names
(ev T

of the disciples are written eV

,

20 ovpavw), Luke 10 known to God and are kept

i.e.

the

disciples

such are
"

in remembrance.

In heaven
"book

stands

for

"with

God."

The
"

allusion

is

to

the
"

of
28
,

God
in

"

in Ex.
all

32 32f and the

-,

book

of the living
cf.

in Ps.
,

69

which

the righteous are enrolled;

Isa.

4 3 Dan. 12 1
:

1
.

3 Of this the Book of Enoch also 104 1 "your speaks, 47 names stand inscribed before the majesty of the Exalted 108 3 "the book of life and the books of the holy ones." Jubil. 30 20 has: is entered in the heavenly tablets as
"

"he

a friend and an upright

man

"

cf.

30 22

The Targum
in

to the

prophets supplements

Isa.

in the sense

which Jesus

also appears to have interpreted D jnn to be "the eternal life"

the text,

($
;

n).

making the life The school of

Shammai would seem

life

to

and unto death, 2

b.

have spoken of a registration unto E. h. S. 16 b but in Tos. Sanh. xiii. 3

sense are

the requisite terms for this other hand, Yokhanan 3 (c.

wanting.
of three

On
"

the
"

260) takes note

lists

(nVpj3ra)__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.

5.

BEFORE THE ANGELS, BEFORE GOD.

rcov

Over the sinner that repents there is joy tva-mov \wv Tov 0ov, Luke 15 10 or eV rf ovpavv, ibid. v. 7
,
.

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. H. Charles on Enoch 47 3 2 See Backer, Agada d. Tann. i. 18 f.
.

8
j.

R. h.

S.

57 tl

cf.

Backer, Agada d.

p.

Am.

i.

331.

210
The Son
of

THE WORDS OF JESUS

acknowledge His confessors and disown those who have denied Him, efjLTrpoaOev (evwTriov) rwv
will
8f The reproduction in Matt. ayyeXwv rov 0eov, Luke 12 10 ejiiTrpoaOev rov Trarpos (JLOV rov ev ovpavols, shows what
-.
32f>

Man

is

really meant, namely,

an acknowledgment in the presence

In Jewish literature
this

of God, for

whom

the angels are substituted merely to avoid

the use of the divine name.

is

idiom

unfamiliar.

It is exceedingly probable that it should not

be assumed as falling from the lips of Jesus either, and that the angels in place of a term it was Luke who inserted
" "

In his source he which appeared to him less intelligible. before Heaven will have found the expression (Judaean
"

"

KW

Dlpj,

Qalil.

KT

^5), an echo of which occurs

C

Luke 15 7

"in

heaven."

The Palestinian Talmud Kidd. 64 shows that

use.

NJJD^

V2

was in actual

Even the sparrows

God"

are

not forgotten
6
,

"

in

the sight of

(evwTTiov rov Oeov),

Luke 12

i.e.

God

does not forget

them.

To get the words

"

of Jesus here, 6 #eo?

or,

would have

to

be converted into

heaven,"

following the parallel in Matt.

10 29 into
,

mended Matthew s mode

"not
K"J1J,

The former is recom Heavenly Father." the which some affinity with shows by saying
"your

of

expressing the idea

^ NW *31[pP9
Shebi.
l
"

"^V

a bird perishes apart from

Heaven," j.

38 d

cf.

Ber. E. 79.

Luke

form

of the expression is recalled

(c.

by
is

the dictum of Ishmael ben Elisha joy in the presence of

those

110
\JE

A.D.)

there

the Place

(D lpsn

nnob>

B*),

when

who provoke Him

to anger disappear

from the

world."

So, too, it is said, Siphre, ed. Friedm.

139

a
:

"

when
as
it

the Place

(DipEn) judges the peoples, there

ttjfib

is

joy in His presence

it
is,

(nnw?

ton)
(I

but when

He

regret

JE^

Wn &
250

judges Israel,

were, with

^^23)."

There

is

the throne of

Majesty,"
2

according to a saying of

no forgetfulness before Simeon ben

Lakish
1

(c.

A.D.).

In

j.

Maas.

sh.

56 d the question
i.

is

a Siphre, Num. 117, ed. Friedm. 37 ; cf. Backer, Agada d. Tann. b. Ber. 32 b ; cf. Backer, Agada d. pal. Am. i. 397.

256.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

211
12 1 3
on

asked

"

is

there then sleep before

"

God

"

and Midr.

Ps.

positively affirms

there
v.

is

neither sleep
it is

nor sitting

high
in
of

(*&$$)"
"

In Ab.

pointed out
is

how God de
longsufferance

ferred the Flood

in order to
"

show how great

before

His presence/
actions
is

Speaking generally, the accomplishment

or

attested

activities are in question

God, when those which God Himself either does or

denied

does not do.

Even
It is true,

"

"

volition

might not be directly predicated

:

of

God.

Luke

1 2 32 has
CO-TIV
"

evBoKrj&ev 6 Trarr^p vpwv, but Matt.

18 14 gives: OVK
TOV ev ovpavois,
in
heaven."

OeX^^a e^TrpoaOev rov Trarpos v^wv

"it

not the will of (before) your Father Instead of has pleased Thee," Jesus
it

is

says

in addressing God, Matt.

"

eyevero efATrpovOev vov,

II 26 (Luke 10 21 ): oi/rw? evSofcia so it was well-pleasing in Thy sight."

These are not Old Testament usages. The last-named in stance recalls the formula often used in prayer TJ&ta jirj W,
:

"may

it

Aram.

Mn
be

"

T"

?,

d be well-pleasing in Thy sight"; see, e.g., j. Ber. 7 14 cnp |p mjn n^ Targ. Cant. 7 rnin rn KBnj? $? it be may well-pleasing before the Holiness, Blessed
:

He,"

Koh. E. 3 2
|p

1
.

One may
Nnns,

also

compare Onk. Gen.

has
DN,

28

17
"Dng

FT?
"

nijnn
;

a p i ac e, which
Jl

regard
if

from before Jhvh

find favour before

and Numb. 14 8
of Matt.
"

D*JiJ

fcl

wyr\_

we

Jhvh."

To the expression

Targums
.

."

it is the will of ^ KJjn, (before) Jhvh, to This phrase is used to replace the Hebr. nirp ^an,
:

*?

IS 14 there corresponds in the

"Jhvh

was pleased
,

to,"

Targ. Judg.
/>

13 23
nin

Sam. 2 25
|p.

and

Isa.

53 10 which has the form:

^i|1

*\

D"ip_

Though
Ezek. I 25
.

not suggested by the

Its antiquity

Hebrew
its

text, it appears in

appears from

use in 1 Mace. 3 60
NIlDj;

&>?

8 av

/}

may
1

OeXripa eV ovpavy, Syr. be the decision before

KWI

Dip K3UX rVKl TN,

dwells in
heaven."

"as

Him who

According to Midrash Khamesh Megilloth,

ed. Salonica, 1593,

not in ed.

Pesaro. 1519, nor Venice, 1545.

212

THE WORDS OF JESUS

As

divine honours are rendered to a king, so

it

comes

to

pass that in
king,"

Egypt men spoke only

"

"

in
"

the presence of the

"

not

"

to

him. 1

One speaks
I 16
"

before

the king
-

(*&*?,

Aram. tH),
That prayer
in

also in Esth.
is

79

83

Dan. 2 9
stated

10 -

27

36

5 17

offered

"

before

God

is

more frequently

the

earlier

younger books of the Old Testament than in the And consistently with this tendency, the books.
"to,*

but "before" Targums never represent man as speaking to and men anger not provoke blaspheme (nip) God; 2 Hence it is not surprising that it is but in His presence."
"Him,"
"

also said that

man
9
,

sins

not

"against"

God, but

"before"

God.

In Gen. 20
5?

which
1

treats of a matter

between two

men, the Hebr. ^PC * s rendered in the LXX by afiaprdveiv an but in Ex. 32 33 where the sin in Onkelos and ek, by
/>

is

against
23

LXX Alex,
(6
)

God, the same Hebr. ? ^?F is dfjiaprdveiv ev&Triov, and Onkelos

"

rendered in the
D^P. 3H.
"

Daniel
the king.

affirms that he has done no

,

wrong

before

b King Ahab complained to Levi, According to j. Sanh. 28 the Amora, whose teaching was prejudicial to the character

of

that king:

^P.

rvrnp no*

7|b

rVD_n

np,

"what

is

my
"

sin

This thee ? against thee, and what ill have I done before reverent mode of address is here used to an ordinary man. With respect to God, the prayer ^pi *n& 3 has, as a matter of It is course: l^un, "we have sinned before Thee."
^>f^

different

in

W yy
is

<nW3 ;
"

should be
evil in

jnm TiKDn ^nb ^ for here T.^? goes with 5nn, and the rendering that which against Thee alone have I sinned, and
the

statement

of

Ps.

5 16

thine
to
18>21

eyes I have

committed."

Luke, however,

conforms

the

usage

under

consideration,

when

in

his

have the prodigal son says to his father: Gospel 15 and rbv sinned even against heaven (et? before thee ovpavov) The motive here is not that the father in the (ewc-iriov
"I
<rov)."

41

A. Erman, Agypten, 109. M. Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorpliismen in den Targumim, 22 G. Dolman, Der Gottesname Adonaj, 57.
Seder Eab

f.,

32

f.,

Amram,

ii.

21 b

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

213

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

changed the prepositions

et?

and

GVOOTTLOV for

reasons of style.

6.

BOUND, LOOSED IN HEAVEN.

is

What
"

the disciples of Jesus bind upon earth

"

reckoned

in

heaven
loosed

also as

bound

also

"in

heaven,"

what they loose upon earth is Matt. 18 18 The same is said in

;
.

19 (with ev rofc regard to Peter, Matt. 16 antithesis is doubtless here intended to

ovpavols).
lie

The
the

between

disciples, or

Peter, on the one side,

and on the other [not

says that

"

heaven, but] God. on earth (eVi

"

Even when Jesus

is

He

has power
10 (Mark 2
,

TT}<?

6 7*39) to forgive sins, Matt. 9

Luke

does so here on earth just in the same way as is done by God in heaven. With the foregoing use of the phrase in heaven," the
5
),

24

the meaning

that

He

"

Eabbis are not always in agreement when they speak of the court of justice which is on high," i^s^ ?, as, e.g., in
"

n<1

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
principle,
-

1
;

but
the

sometimes, too, the idea entertained

angels forms a real court of justice.

God with
2

The

which

Holtzmann

in his

18f 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;
j^n/7
J

Cf. e.g.

Midr. Ps. 57 2 where

wn

3*13

Bnij?fj

takes the place of

i.

T rr$

j.

Ber. 140.
2 3

j.

See also Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. R. h. S. 57 b Pesikt. 53 b f. cf. j. Ber. 14.
; ;

50,

214
and

THE WORDS OF JESUS

I will consent to all that thou
doest."

That does not

mean

that in all things

God
of

subordinates His resolution to

;

that of the

community

Israel

it is

merely the interpret

has placed in their

ation and application of the

Law

that

He

hands.
1 According to Tanna Eliyyahu rabba 29, a ban pro nounced on earth has even enhanced validity before God.

It is there said,

"

to

any one who

even
if

is

excommunicated
for seven

below

(rnaopp) for one day,

he has been freed from the ban,

there
"

is

on high
"

(rbyK/jD)

no release
"

days."

Here
"

on high

quite corresponds to the expression in Matthew.

"

On

the other hand,

Heaven

stands directly for

Heaven," b.

"

God
113 b
.

in

the epithet DJBB& pup, "banned by This recognition on God s part of earthly decisions
justice, attested

Pes.

of

by the Eabbis,

is

left

far

behind when the

belief is expressed that in

certain circumstances the divine

of the pious person.
,

authority must even give way before that

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 deter mination invalid, if it contradict the determination of a pious
"

63 a ), that
"

person over Me
j.

b.
?

Mo.

b k. 1 6 , 2

"

I,

The pious

for I

God, rule over men who rules and enact and he annuls ?
;
"

"Even if I (God) say thus, and thou sayest word is valid and Mine invalid." then otherwise, thy The terms &eei,v and \veiv used in Matthew can be

Taan. 67 a

referred only to
j.

"^K

and fcW
law
C
),

in Aramaic.

As may be

seen

Ber. 5 b

e.g.,

these are the technical forms for the verdict

of
j.

of
"

doctor
"

the
Ber. 6
i.e.

who
"

pronounces

something
"

as
"

bound
j.

(T pK,

i.e.

forbidden,"

or else as

loosed

C^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.

Cf. Backer,

Ag. d.

pal.

Am.

ii.

127.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTION AEY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

Jesus would
of

215
their

mean

that His

disciples

in

virtue of

be able to give an knowledge authoritative decision in regard to what the adherents of the To this it must, however, theocracy may do and may not do.
will

His oral teaching

be objected, (1) that

the saying of

Matthew can hardly have understood

that
sense,
"

our Lord in

because
"

SeW
"

and
"

\veiv do not in his Greek

mean

forbid

and
,

and (2) that the context, at least in Matt. 18 18 an exclusion from the community. If the supposition be has that Matthew misunderstood the statement and rejected
has set
it

permit has in view

;

in a connection originally foreign to

is

it,

the only
"

were remaining option taken from the aforesaid use of the really legal schools, but that here no emphasis falls on permitting and forbidding
"

that the terms

bind

"

and

"

loose

"

"

"

"

as such, but only on the final significance universally attach

ing to the word of

"

forbid."

him who has authority to permit and The context goes on to say in what direction that
"
"

verdict

is

regarded as being operative.

is

The thought
of the

similar to that associated with the figure

Isa.

keeper of the keys.

22 22 shows how Shebna

[for

the time being] has the key of the house of David upon his shoulder if he opens, none shuts if he shuts, then no one
;

opens.

That does not mean that Shebna

is

is

the palace door

keeper, but that he

the

management
Christ, that

of all

comptroller of the household, to the king s domestic concerns

it
is

whom
is

en
-

trusted. 1
of

In allusion to this passage,

said in Eev. 3 7f

He

has the key of David, and that He, as

;

rightful possessor of this key, has

in virtue of this authority

power to open and to shut can pronounce sentence upon the status and value of any community, while no other power whatever can avail in opposition. In the same way

He

"I2p?sn )

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 con

See Bar. Apoc. 10 18 , sideration, but the general supervision of the sanctuary. the rest of the words of Baruch, 4 3f ; b. Taan. 29 a ; j. Shek. 50 a ; Vay. K. 19.
-

216
"the

THE WORDS OF JESUS

locksmith,"
,

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

him and
i.e.

learn from

him

if

his instruction has indisputable authority.

he has opened no one shuts," In the same

sense, Peter, Matt.

16 19 has the keys

,

as keeper of the keys,

is

of the theocracy, and, the fully authorised steward of the

house of God upon earth. Since, moreover, it is the com munity 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 occu 18 pied in relation to His disciples. Again, in Matt. IS the

same plenary power

case

is

vested in the disciples collectively, in the

is

when the

special application of that authority

of the

made

in respect of the discipline

community.

Accordingly,

the application which

is

given in

John 20 23
"

to this saying is

not unwarranted.

For exclusion from the community on

"

account of some offence includes the

retaining
"

of the sins
"

the readmission of the sinner includes the

his sins.

remission

of

The only remark to be made here is that the term 3P 1W, which Salkin/cparelv in John has no Jewish parallel. son puts for it, means, according to Num. 12 11 impute
"to

something (as a

sin) to

any
if

one."

In Delitzsch,

too,

D^ gn

is

merely a make-shift.
not the companion term, can also be used figuratively in various connections in Jewish Aramaic, may also be demonstrated here.

That &W,

"

to

loose,"

"

(a)

To ban

"

is

in Hebr. rna,

"

to loose
"^,

from the ban

nnn (cnn) and *n Hebr. Tnn, Mo. kat. iii. 1,2; Aram. d In that passage Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260) Mo. kat. 81 j. Let those people be banned calls out to some fruit-stealers
.
"

"

"

They reply

Let that

man

be banned

"

He

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

hastens after them and entreats them
"

217
"

"

Loose

me

(y fnw)

Loose us, and we will loose thee." They reply To render spellbound (b) through sorcery Sabb. 81 b and correspondingly i.e. loose,"
:
"
"

is

^DN,

b.

"to

"to

set the
.

spellbound person

free,"

is

K"^,

ibid,

and

j.

d Sanh. 2 5

F. C.

Conybeare

is of

magic

that

opinion that it was from the phraseology of Jesus selected His terms, and that the power

the disciples was like a magical in But fluence, supposed to confer ability to work miracles.

transmitted by

Him

to

the context in Matthew, like everything else

Jesus,
(c)
is
"

we know about
"

To

opposed to this supposition. loose (N^f) can also be said for

"

to
"

forgive."

the trans According gressions wherein I have trespassed before Thee, I pray Thee, 3 And the answer received was lo (v ^fl) forgive me
said to
:
" "

to Midr. Ps. 1 9 7 , 2

David

God

it is
:

forgiven unto thee

lo

it is

remitted unto thee

is

(^

tfn

putf

Km

$)."

The month

Tishri

called

by

this

name,

according to Vay. E. 29, because at that time

"

God

"forgives,

remits, expiates

("^n

pia^ri **)WR) the sins of His people.

(c.
1

he was,

Those who have beaten Tarphon d call to him, j. Shebi. 35

:

")^,

110), not knowing who Nachforgive us

" "

man
one
!

bar Yizkhak
4
:

(c.

350) quotes
"

b.

Yom. 86 a the Babylonian

Lord
of

phrase
"

W<v&l

n^p
I.

ft?

$*$,

forgive him,
18

such an
"

In Jerus.

Num. 14

God

is

called

p?^

*!#,

One

who

forgives the

guilty."

7.

HEAVEN.

It
"

may

be doubted whether Luke ever consciously used

"

Heaven,"

meaning

God."

The

solitary passage
is

which can
21

be adduced in support of that view

1

Luke 15 18

(c. 140 A.D.), but a Vay. R. 5 to Khoni, in b. Sanh. 107 to Dosithai. 3 This appears only in ed. Buber, not in ed. Const. 1512, Venice, 1546. 4 So it should be read instead of N^Q ? in the text.
1

Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 468 if. The saying is here attributed to Simeon ben Yokhai

in

218
et?

THE WORDS OF JESUS

be

TOV ovpavov KOI evcoinov GOV, assuming the translation to As have sinned against Heaven and before Thee."
"I

has been said above, under

"

5,

we should expect

preferably

before

Heaven

be that this

Still it may have been said by Jesus. was the original, and that ets TOV ovpavov should
"

to

mean

for Luke,

"

even unto

Heaven."

The examples already

ing

given, under 5, of the correspond

the phrase
heaven,"

have rabbinic usage may here be supplemented. nj; aps D* Tpn, to make reproaches towards
1

We

"]^

said, b. Ber.

31 b
(c.

b.

Taan. 25 a to have been used by

,

Eleazar ben Pedat

(c.

290).
2

The Babylonian Nachman

insolence in the face of
cf.

300) made bold to say: heaven (N f ^3) has its

T

"Even

use";

Targ.

Eccl.

79

"i^p

^;o^ sta wrorip

in the face of

"pans,

to

speak words of insubordination

(c.

heaven."
"

The Palestinian Khanina

"

2 1 0)

3
"

distinguishes sins as
(tfDtfa),
i.e.

upon the earth

(H??)>

or

"

in heaven

against

men

or against God.

In all probability Jesus made a more extensive use of WftW as a divine name than the Gospels would lead us to
suppose.

This need not seem surprising.

The antiquity

of

the popular custom to which

He

adhered, which arose prob

ably through the impulse of Greek influence,

,

is proved, so far 23 4 3 18 19 50 60 are Dan. 1 Mace. Hebraists as concerned, by is 11 an d for Hellenists by 2 Mace. 7 8 20 9 4 20 410.24.55 12
-

The
like to

cases are not here distinguished,

"

where

"

heaven

"

must

necessarily stand for the Person of

"

to

"

heaven,"

from
"

heaven,"

and where phrases are due to the desire not

God,"

name

use of E
the
prot.
1

the Person of
for
"

God

in

any way.

Examples

of the

God

in the rabbinic literature, especially

Mishna, have been collected by E. Schurer, Jahrbb. f. Theol. 1876, 166-187, and by E. Landau, Die dem
the expressions
j.

Cf.

w?

99

^9fln,
"to

"to

direct one s prayer on high (to

God),"

Ber. 8 b
8.

nSg.0

f?| ^epn,

direct one s look

upwards

(to

God),"

R. h. S.
2

iii.

b.

Sanh. 105 a Koh. R. 9. 12

cf.

Baclier,

Agada

d. pal.

Am.

i.

10.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

219

Eaume entnommenen Synonyma Here we may name such cases

"

fiir

Gott (1888), 1428. only as have clearly put

heaven
this

"

in place of the divine name.

:

of

kind are
"

&?&

"

Knto,

the fear of
God,"

Composite expressions Ab. i. 3 God,"

Ber.
ii.
"

D)EK>

"

the sovereignty of HO^tpj the name of God," Sanh. vi. 4

b.

D?ot? b&,

D^f W,

the decrees of

God,"

Bab.
19
;

k.

55 b

"

K;BB>

rn,
"the

Num. 26
Eccl.

an NJIO^T
;

the mercy of God," Jerus. I. word of God" (God), Targ.

1

4 4 II 3

and in the prayer KrwDN

npn^ri.

Prepositions
God,"

are conjoined with D Sanh. ix. 6 Di$,

;
JOB>

&^
"

in
for

D?>

^a,
"

"

by the hand of

God
"

(in the
1,
j.
"

name

of God), 2
:

Ab.

ii.
"

2;

"for
D:$>,

God,"

Men.
C
.

xiii.

Ned. 37 a
is

KJDf

^,

before

God," j.

Kidd. 64
"

Heaven

the subject of the

verb in pB3

*nj;

KW, God
8.

does

wonders," j.

Taan. 66 d.

FROM HEAVEN.
4
,

In Matt. 2 1 25 (Mark II 30 Luke 20 ) Jesus requires an answer to the question whether the baptism of John was Of from heaven (e ovpavwv) or of men (ef avOpcoTrcov).
" " "
"

the same
heaven,"

nature
etc

are

John
;

27

"

avto0ev";

37

TOV ovpavov be born "to

1 9

11

"

have been given from from above, to be given

to
";

from above
"

3 31

"to

come

Jas. I 17 3 15 to come from above/ to come from heaven from above/" What is meant throughout is derivation
"

from God, though

in these cases
(cf.

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

"

it

above, p. 92).

Beside these instances

"

may
,

T?]v

ef ovpavwv {3or)6lav,
heaven,"
"

be set the following e^o^ev we have the help which comes

:

from

Mace. 12 15

cf.

3 19

ef ovpavov ravra

/ce/c-

from heaven have I received these as my possession," rrjfjiai,, & f C 19 n n P??, 2 Mace. 7 11 the law is not from heaven," ^
"

Seder
Cf. O.

Rab Ainram,

i.

52 b

A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 143

ff. ;

Neue Bibelstudien, 24

ff.

220
Sanh.
x.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

1
;

NW
these

JP

N2">

Kf
2
:

^
jvnio

may
1
;

there be (come)

peace abounding from heaven/

"

Kaddish
heaven,"

W
|p

|p

jjjna

n^
that

may redemption
with

arise

from

in the

prayer
p$
f

begins
is

words

|n?

DWn

there

"

no forgiveness from heaven for them," Tos. Shebu. iii. 1 (Joshua ben Khananya, c. 130 A.D.); NJPf IP WjroiK 7]^ Wft, there shall come upon thee correction from heaven," Targ.
Eccl.

79

KJPf
15
;

IP

a\!?

an,
K;p>

"it

was given
wife
x.

to

him from
"

heaven,"

ibid. 8
;

iranx

}p,
rnste,

it

was decreed from heaven

"a

ibid.

92

DWn
to

IP

jpn

whom men
6.
;

have
of
:

assigned
"

him from
the
"the
"

3
heaven,"

Ned.

The use

above

"

in

same sense

is

closely
is

related

examples
39 Lev.

s^jfr *&},
f>\yfn

destiny which
is

above,"

Targ. Eccl.
I.

N"io^,
"

the word which

above,"
above,"

Jerus.

24 i2
*

rui s py njn,
,

the knowledge which

I.

is

Mechilta, ed. Friedm.

;

89 b Aram. Vj/h Nn$n, Jerus.

power that
"the

Num. 27 5

n^p

^
;

into,

the

is

above,"

Siphre, ed.

Friedm. 137 a

*fy$$ &$,
;

eye that

is

above,"

b Mechilta, ed. Friedm. 91

"

"there

is

no release

of the

ban from above

(n^j^p), Tanna

El.

Eabb.

thou orderest well thy prayer, disfavour shall not be d See thy portion from on high (nj^p nx), j. Taan. 66 also under ISTos. 5, 6, and 10.

29;

"if

9.

HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST.

of the multitude
9f>

In the mouth
have

we

find the cry

w&avvd,

Matt. 2 1 9 (Mark l!
it

On

this occasion

Matthew and Mark

twice,

in/rwrrot9.

and the second time they couple with it eV rot? At the first occurrence here and also in 20 15
rat
4

Matthew adds

via AaveiS.

G-uillemard
1 3

finds this

Dative surprising, since both

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

What
IV.

liabilities, 4

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

whom
in the

man

has acquired through Levirate

i.

H. Guillemard, Hebraisms

Greek Testament (1879),

44.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

221

and ffwaov are

followed by

and would require the Accusative. His statement does not quite hold of V^n, which may also be
transitive,
^,

Ps.

72 4 116 6

but

it

cannot, after

all,

be sup

posed that a Greek author, to whose mind

crwcrov occurred as

the meaning of wcravvd, would have followed it up with the wcravvd cannot therefore be taken, as by Holtzmann, Dative. 1
in the sense
of the
it

Inasmuch as the Teaching give greeting dew Aafii S, Twelve Apostles, 10 6 substitutes cocravva be a cry to cannot be doubted that wa-avvd was understood
"

to."

ru>

of

homage

David."

hail to the Son of or glory This sense will further hold of Matthew s Gospel

in the sense of

"

"

"

also,

whose author consequently can have been no Hebraist, and

1

cannot have been the apostle,?

And again the connection of wcravvd with ev rot? v-^laro^ in Matthew and Mark creates As regards Matthew, it follows from what has just surprise.
been said that dxravvd will here also signify
"
"

glory

or

"

praise."

The

evangelist takes

<w.

eV rot? vijrio-Tois to

mean

the same thing as Ps.

ev
rot?

148 1

LXX

alvelre avrov (rov icvpiov)

D vtyiGToiSy Hebr.

pnm

VTJ>n,

that

is,

adoration which the angels are to sing to God.

sense attributed to
ovpavfi
elpi]V7]
teal

the song of This is the

,

it

by Luke

also,

38 who, in 19

has: eV
did

Sofa

eV v-fyLtnois.

He
in

too, therefore,

not understand Hebrew.

The way

which Mark appre

to

hended the utterance may remain open

question.

One

might conceivably hold that eV Tot? L^/O-TCH? had been a sub stitute for the name of God, which, from the tenor of Ps.

IIS 25

ought properly
"

deliverance ought, of

But have been expressed here. from the highest," course, to have come
to
"

In the former sense only and not be given to the highest." And hence the could parallel Jewish expressions be found. 3
source of the addition ev injrurrots in Mark also is presumably the mistaken view of waavvd to be found in the early Church.
1

Of. Ps.

20 10

en

njf ijai,

LXX

<rw<rov

rbv

/3a<riAea

aov.

Of course a
Cf. p. 220.

"Matthew"

Lord forming the basis of the Gospel may nevertheless originate from the apostle.
collection of the sayings of our

222
It

THE WORDS OF JESUS

must

also

bo said that, in the

mouth

of those

who

accompanied Jesus in His entry into the city of Jerusalem, D iiB3 KJ is but little probable, inasmuch as Ps. 118

wn

did not directly furnish this expression.

nirp

The mere

N3 V^in

D^Z Kan

TJVQ, as

Mark II 9

records

it,

in the first instance

will

All else in have been the real cry of the multitude. Mark and Matthew is explanatory amplification. In that

case the cry requires discussion here only in so far as the n How the niiT, after divine name has been
^5 dropped which comes at the end, was expressed, we do not know. D$n being impossible, B?BB might preferably be proposed. But probably, in this case, there would be less hesitation in
!

using the TIK of public worship, since the state of feeling which prompts the exclamation is quite devotional in char
acter.

The shout

of

homage rendered

to a

king would have

I 39 , for

to be expressed

by Hebr.
4
,

^n

w,

as in 1

Kings
1

J^ in

l^sn, 2 Sam.

14

is

not homage, as
Thus, too,
it

Nowack

supposes, but

an entreaty for help.

becomes clear why the

entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was not made a ground of Wellhausen 2 rightly accusation against him before Pilate.

supposes that the procession on Palm Sunday did not acquire The its pronounced Messianic colouring till a later period.

Teacher and Miracle-worker from Nazareth was then wel

jubilation, 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
us,"

for

reverting to the Aram.

of

as the prototype help deed, the shorter form, JJ^n, must

NWiN,

"

wa-avvd, because, in

itself
,

be

reckoned
.

the

2 6 More regular form, even in Hebrew, see Jer 3 1 Ps. 86 \n yw in can be verified Jewish over, the abbreviated form, NJ
i

liturgies.

The
1

earliest

witness for

it

is

the

name given

to

W. Nowack, Hebraische

Israelit. u. jiid. Geschichte,

Archaologie, i. 307. 3 381, note 2.

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles,
K. 37, and
festival

223

the

designation

of
.

the

NWirn NeV, Vay. branches used for that

later
JfiPftl,

by

KJJJBto,

Sukk. 30 b

From a

time come the

see Seder

processional songs with the refrain NJ

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 vifrovs Svva/uv).

Acts

I 8 says
e</>

\r)^ea6e ^vva^iv eVeXBoth are an echo

of

OOVTOS TOV aylov

Isa.

Trz/euyLtaTo?
n<

vpas.

32 15

Dl-iBO

nn O^9
;

^>

LXX eW
9 17

aty vtyjjXov
aTTo

cf.

Wisd.

av e\,0y eft vpas eire^^a^ TO wyinv aov

V^ KJTWV.

The phrase

evbvecrOai Svvctfjuv origin

:

ates in

Old Testament passages like Ps. 92 1 LXX eVeSucraro For ef vijrovs, see Lam. I 13 LXX. n|ro5 is Kvpios Svvafjiiv. from on high heaven is the there an equivalent for
" "

"

"

same

as

"

from

God."

kind an intentional evasion of the name of

imputed.

In Old Testament expressions of this God cannot be

springs from

Probably, however, the use of these terms in Luke this motive.

"i

Similarly, Onkelos does not venture to translate ^

"the

n!b,

power

of
"

God,"

Num. 14

17
,

literally,

but replaces

it

by

*!??!?.

^H,
of the

the power in
is

Thy

presence,

Jhvh."

The
,

spirit

of

Jhvh, which
Dnp
;

to rest
"

upon the Messiah,

1
.

Isa.

II 2

is

in the

words
(

Targum
for

a spirit of prophecy from before

Jhvh

"

ip

nN3
I 2 is

mi), c f. Targ. Isa. 6 1

The
(cf.
"

"Spirit

of

God"

in Gen.

Onkelos
I.
".

?.

Fig

Njrn

Targ. Isa.

40 7 ),

and

for Targ. Jerus.

God."

Q"iP

IP Tprjl

^,

a spirit of mercy

from before

Further, in avaroXr)

in/rov? [the
"

Luke

I 78 e| u-v/rou? represents
,

from

God."

dayspring from on high], Delitzsch renders

literally Diisp

HJ3

Delitzsch,

Di"i^p

Kesch, copying but not improving upon PiiSn. But the association with
;

224
(Hebr.
"ipQ),

THE WORDS OF JESUS

which mixes the metaphor based on the light, would be admissible in Hebrew only if DViEtop nri were a title
coined to denote a definite person. this, and therefore speaks only of
"

Salkinson has perceived the rise of the dayspring

from on

high."

Still,

daylight does not arise from on high.

evangelist
starts

As Bleek has already remarked, the

23 5 Zech. 3 8 6 12
,

from
Jer.

the assumption that amroX?;, in accordance with

,

LXX

is

name

for the Messiah.

The version

of

the

LXX
n

sianic

obviously comes very near advent with the appearance of

n
.^., Isa.

to identifying the
light,

Mes

when they render

"

P^ For Luke, therefore, avaro\rj e f vtyovs is simply God s Messiah," *!H KrpBfe, with which the Targum renders njrv HDV, 3 Isa. 4 As the Hebrew nos excludes the allusion to the
n<

4 2 by linXap^e*
,

o 0eo?.

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
i,

as the subject.
;

Thus we have
5
7
;

irapa;

Matt. 5

eherjOrjcrovTai,

9 fcXyOiio-ovrai, 5

:,

7 1 (Luke 6 38

6 37 );

7 2 fcpLTijaeade, ^erpTjO^aeTai,
;

(Mark
II 9

4 2i

Luke
77
-

azm/ieT/oT^crerat)

SoO^o-erai,
-

7 7 (Luke
;

6 38 );

avoLjrjo-erai
10

(Luke
;

l! 9f
(cf.

az/ot^o-erat)
25
,

12 31f
)

(Luke 12
o-erai,,

afaOriaeTai
;

21

43

Mark 4

Luke

18

apOrj-

SoOrjo-erai,

Luke 14 14

avTaTro&oOrjo-erai;
v-^ra>6r)creTai
;

Matt. 23 12

11 14 (Luke 14 18 )

TaTrewGoOrjcreTai,,

see also

Mark

4 24 Luke 6 37
,

In these
to

cases, then, the passive, as a rule, is retraceable

an active whose subject is not specified, as happens in 6 38 (Scticrovo-iv). In the same way in the translation of Dan. 4 28f Kautzsch has rendered the active clauses ^

Luke

p>p^

j?

N^jx

JD,

and

fifcy.W

^? ^Vj in which the subject

EVASIVE OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

"

225

known
"

would have been God, by the use of the it is made passive to thee from among men thou shalt be cast forth
:
"

"

"

herbage will be given thee for food." The LXX also has here at least aol \eyerai, whereas Theodotion renders word
for

word throughout.

Some
ture

may
1

be given
pities

instances of this construction from rabbinic litera &?$ n ftp vby pprnip ninan by arnipn fej
:

"whosoever

men,

heaven/

b.

Sabb.

Wfe

for him there is compassion from 151 b (Gamaliel m. c. 220). by vnysn bs

ba by

b p T?_yp

vrtao, "whosoever
offences,"

is

forbearing,

for"

him

they overlook
(Eaba,
c.

all his

b.

E.

h. S.

17 a

b.

Yoma 23 a
ne who
Sabb.
i?3

340).

ro6
^||

inix p:n

nor
is

*$ nan n
-inpa
D"w

pin,

judges his neighbour charitably,

judged

charitably," b.

127 b
"

(Baraitha).

pjnsp

DP

bjbnipn

"

njp ip^n he who learns in order to teach, to him is given the power to learn and to teach," Ab. iv. 5 (Ishmael ben
160).

whosover secretly profanes the name of God, him do men punish openly," Ab. iv. 4 (Yokhanan ben Baroka, c. 130). inis D^DO -inefc *a ^ fnnia N? ,if one goes to con taminate himself, a way is open to him if one goes to cleanse himself, he is helped," b. Sabb. 104 a (Simeon ben Lakish, * rTjto aa Tito c. 260). 07^^ n ? S3, "with the measure wherewith one measures, therewith is it measured in return," Sota i. 7 (anonym.), ntsbifl nto^ iTa Pip 3pp by

1^

Jesus, may depend on popular ways of speaking, which originally referred solely to relations between man and his fellows, e.g. Hillel s dictum

s sayinghighly favoured are the Israelites because they are called the sons of God." Part of such sentences, as with those of

c.

Yokhanan,

passive construction
-

is

Dip ? b

ma

found in Akiba

n ?? ?

&*# pMn,

"

[on seeing a skull floating in the water] ^srptf "because thou didst immerse others, men have
:

^^N/!

^y

immersed

thee,"

Ab.
Tos.

ii.

and Akiba
iii.

admonition

pnapn nisp
"one

Cf.

Shebu.
"

Is

j,# jfyto D:5fD

from heaven.

PN,

forgives

them not

226
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

3p^
they

->i3p,

do thou, that others

others, that

may weep; bury

others, that they

may do weep, that men may bury thee; accom

;

pany
or

may accompany
(c.

thee

"

j.

Keth. 3 l b
prn;_

*
;

the statement of Bannaa

200):

rtnnritf

D,

"if

But this explanation one knocks, they shall open to him." 2 avoid the con cannot does not apply generally, and we
clusion that hesitation to use the divine
influence

name has had an

tendency
in

on

the

style.

title, far less Egypt, in order not to the name of the king, there was a predilection for phrases one has ordered," one is now residing (at Thebes)," for like
"

Through have to express the

similar

"

"

the king has ordered, the king

is

now

3
residing."

12.

AMEN.

It has already

been frequently pointed out that the mode

in
of

which Jesus uses

Jewish
5
22
,

a^v

is

unfamiliar to the entire range

ii.

literature.

Even Sota

5,

cf.

Jems. I and

II,

Numb.

cannot really be

forced

into comparison.

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 Amen that I will not pollute have not polluted myself
:
!

But a literary explanation of this sort must not myself In the latter, be made an index to the real colloquial usage.
"

IDS never is a corroboration of one s

own word, but always

of

the word, prayer, blessing, oath, or imprecation of some other dictum ascribed to various Palestinian Amoraim person.

"

says
is

Amen

is

confirmation,

Amen

is

protestation,

Amen

assent."

From
what
Ag.
;

seen that
1

is

the accompanying comments it may be meant is confirmation of the word of

i.

Cf. Backer,

d.

Tann.

331.
ii. 540 f. Eng. trans. 58. Midr. Ps. 89 4 ; cf. Backer, Agada

Vay. K. 21
See A.
j.

cf.

Backer, ibid.
92,
;

8
4
i.

Erman, Agypten,
18 b
;

Sot.
f.

b.

Shebu. 36 a

d. pal.

Am.

112

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

says
is

Amen

"

binding also for the speaker.

thereby asserts that the statement of the other On the other hand, ft?K is

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

said

"

own the prayer of her husband, which, indeed, had been made in her name as well as his.
for her
If
it

Amen
,

be thus synonymous with a corroborative

"

yes,"

becomes clear how vai and

a^v

are treated as identical

;

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 aprjv might have been expected, as Matt. II 9 (Luke 51 36 5 7 26 ), Luke II a^v), Luke 12 (Matt. 23 a^v is re
.

Mark 9 1 a by a\i)0fa, Luke 9 (Matt. 16 4i 47 3 Luke 12 (Matt. 24 a/^V), Luke 2 1 (Mark 12 4 25 24 cf. v. and by ir\ijv Luke 22 21 by eV a\7}0eias, Luke 4
placed
27

28

21 (Matt. 26

Mark 14 18

aprjv).

Luke

is
;

here the one

who

uses

whereas in Matthew afjLrjv most sparingly, namely, 6 times in 1 and Mark 3 it appears 3 times. Just as in the times,
phrases
sovereignty of heaven," Father in heaven," so here also Luke has avoided as much as possible what would be unfamiliar to his readers.
"
"

The double a^v, occurring 25 times in John, cannot be used as evidence of the terms used by Jesus. Nor can
it

be accounted
of

say,"

by Delitzsch, through the the Babylonians, a term quite unfamiliar

for, as

"

Nj OK,

in Pales-

Otherwise represented in Cremer, Bibl. theol.

Wb rterbuch, 8 141,
:

who further

makes the mistake that Amen as an ending for prayers in the synagogue is un usual. But the following prayers all end with Amen B?np (Seder Rab Amram, b a a b un i. 13 ), 33 a ), nipy? p (33 b ), vi: (48 ), N^DX nVgpfl (52 ), (ibid. 24
j

|is-i$>

aas

(ii.

21 b ),
jjria

priestly benediction, 2 First expressed

mp: (Machzor Vitry, 172), on which see b. Ber. 55 b

.

-ns^

v?

(ibid.

173), besides the

by F. Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1856, 422 ff., and often repeated since in opposition to the theory of Delitzsch, that Jesus spoke
Hebrew.

228
tine.
1

THE WORDS OF JESUS

It is evident, however,

from the Johannine usage that a statement was regarded as an interjection, d/jLtjv introducing Other instances of is and as such it capable of repetition.
repetition
vai,

may
37
;

be compared
Kvpie Kvpie,

|t?N

22 Neh. 8 G iK, Num. 5

,

val

Luke 6 Mdp0a MdpOa, Luke 7 31 22 Luke 10 paQpl pap/31, Matt. 23 D; Sifuw Zfauv, Koh. E. v. 14 K?D tap, old man KD13 KD13, Vineyard
Matt. 5
;

4G

41

"

"

j.

Sabb. ll a
"

"^

"son
">3,

of a
"

Jew!"
!

j.
"

Ber. 5 a
b.

"

W>|,

Galilee

j.

Sabb. 15

b
;

rsn

"?1,

teacher

Makk. 24 a

With

Jesus, then, there

in His time

is this

peculiarity, that the Hebr.

was usual only in response to bene ION, which dictions or oaths, was employed by Him in the Aramaic 2 of His prefaced language as a corroboration of any statement other that the fact this terms, e.g. despite by this word and 3 for the same available were or IP, pa K^iJ NJj^
;

"verily,"

purpose.

This seemed so strange, that

Matthew and Mark,

The strange

as a rule, left the foreign word untranslated.

ness of the expression

is

not

felt
"

by Germans, merely because

"

Luther

inexact rendering by

wahrlich

(verily) has effaced

its peculiarity.

a mere Clearly an enforcement of what He said by be sufficient to felt not was truthfulness by appeal to its
Jesus.

With
for

that end in view, no other resource remained

open
after

Him

than an averment with the use

say,

of

an oath,

the

manner,
"

in

which Yokhanan ben Zakkai

of his teaching before his A.D.) confirmed a principle (c. 4 But an oath had been with t^n, by your pupils

80

life."

To one approaching

this solution seems very natural

literature,
jiid.-pal.
2

from a study of the Babylonian Talmud, but to one proceeding from the Palestinian See Gramm. d. such an idea would never have suggested itself.
this question
;
"

Kev. ix. significance, etc., Jew. Quart. use of Apty by Jesus (1896) 1-23, unsuccessfully tries to prove that in the there is always a retrospect to what has preceded with a view to its confirmation. 3 See Onk. Gen. 4221 Kppjj? for the Hebr. b 4 Pes. d. Rab Kah. 40 ; cf. for this specially popular mode of protestation,

Aram. 193. H. W. Hogg, Amen," Notes on the

^.

Gramm.

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 had therefore to seek for some other mode of emphasis, and found
, ;

it

in the

solemn

"Amen."
"

This

is

not an oath, yet more

because it gives the hearer to verily," potent than a simple understand that Jesus confirms His own statement in the

same way
fulfil

as

if

it

were an oath or a

blessing.
"

Thus did
"

He

His own injunction to make the simple

yea, yea

take

the place of an oath.

But

as Jesus, in forbidding the oath,

had in view the guarding against a misuse of the divine 1 name, so here, too, one may speak of a conscious avoidance
of the

name

of

God.
cognate
construction
"

The
Ilai

nearest

in
in

Jewish literature
truth."

appears in the Babylonian

(c.

WTO^n,

Juda ben

150),
of

b.

Ned. 49 b says to a
,

hand

this

woman
"

(Nnntf

woman: "Truth into the tonrn NTS Nrwp"n), if I shall

Instead of this, the same story in have any enjoyment a ll Sabb. has the Palestinian imprecation: "May the spirit j.
!

of this
this

woman
we

breathe
are told,

its
b.

last (NHPIK &onrn anvi nari)

"

Of

WVW

Sabb. 10
is

b
,

that

it is

permissible to

utter it in a place

which

the term does not contain the

as a protestation

not ceremonially clean, because name of God. It is also used

fTa NJTO^n

of

by Iddi, the Venice

b.

Sanh, 38 b where, however, the

,

ed.
"

1520

is

represented in
"

the

Munich MS. by

^3 NJTOp

n,

(my) truth into thy hand

13.

THE DWELLING (SHECHINAH), THE GLORY, THE WORD.

In the Synoptic Gospels we find no representatives of these expressions used in the Targum of Onkelos ^1 Nruw,
:

Jhvh *nj, "the glory of Jhvh"; dwelling the word of Jhvh K-j^p, (as to which it may be re marked that ip^ is different from Dans, the latter being the
"

"the

of

"1

"

"H

word
1

in Onkelos for the Hebr.

"ijn).

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
recent

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Targnms
is

offer

^1

K^

(K^),

"

the

word

of

Jhvli,"

which
"7,

and

properly the Aramaicised Hebrew equivalent of found its way into these Targums from rabbinic

K^B

Hebrew.

All

these

ideas

which

do

not

denote

concrete

hypostases of the Deity, but abstractions, originally served the single purpose of guarding, during the reading of Scrip ture in the synagogues, against sensible representations of God, such as the Bible text might have aroused the

among

common
scribes,

people.

They were products

of the reflection of the

and we do not know in regard to them whether they were really general characteristics of the style of Targum
exposition
in

the

Palestinian

synagogues, having

nothing

directly to do with the philosophic speculation of Philo, apart

from the common motive which inspired both movements. 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.

It is thus quite natural that in

ordinary

life

their use should be comparatively limited.

But

in use they actually were, subject only to the usual evasion of the divine name outside of public worship and, as a rule,
;

was Hebrew: n^atf^ ^^, (-imn).2 Aramaic examples, apart from the Targums, are rare still see NJOKH the word of heaven," in the P, prayer begin
;
"

the

form

used

^n

N"3

ning KTfiDK r&wn, Seder Eab

1

Amram,

i.

52 b

cf.

Targ. Eccl.

13T occurs Jer. 5 15 in the biblical text, and Giesebreckt (Comm.) finds the reason for the punctuation there unintelligible. Though neither Gesenius-Buhl

Targumim (1896), 9, Paris MS. of the Fragmentary Targum he should find just the ancient M^, subsequently extruded as a rule by 2

nor Siegfried-Stade adduce it as a noun in the Lexicons, it is a word certainly Jewish diction, from which Levy curiously has made Tin. See, e.g., Hebr. -i:nn, Yay. E. 1, ed. Constant. 1512 ; j. Sabb. 10, ed. Venice, 1524; 24 Aram. N-va n, Targ. Ez. I -, ed. Venice, 1517, 1525 (ed. Buxtorf *qnn) ; 11 MS. Lond. Or. 2375 NTHH, j. Taan. 65 d Targ. Cant. I Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorphisms in den is that in the
verifiable in
-

T<n,

surprised
It

N"m.

is,

however,

K-jn^.

Holtzmann s statements, Lehrb. d. neut. Theol. i. 57 f., on these topics are In contrast to the Memar, quite erroneous. the special intermediary proper, 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 GOD

231

4 4 II 3
Lev.

and
12
.

"

6OB<,

the word that

is

above,"

Jerus. I

24

Here

too, of course, one is far

removed from the

is
"i^nn

idea of divine hypostases.

The name used

"

but

the

reality

meant

is

God."

Jesus
;

may

and S^P P, have been

acquainted with these Targuinic terms

using

but no necessity for

them presented

itself.

In the
of the

New
:

Targums
is

Testament we have suggestions of the phrase 4 *nj, the glory of God," in Bom. 9 where

"

Soa

reckoned among the prerogatives peculiar to

Israel,
,

Heb.

I 3 aTravyaa/jia
it is

T%

5 8of^?, 9 ^epovfteiv Sof???,

:

John 12 41

where

said of Isaiah

elSev rfyv
5 Isa. 6

&6%av avrov (Xpicnov),

"

while the

Targum reproduces

by

mine eyes saw the

glory of the

dwelling (Shechinah)
-!),

of the

King

of

the ages
I 17 ,

(#DJ#

nvw

Jhvh

Sebaoth";

and in 2 Pet.

according to which the voice at the Transfiguration of Jesus In the last-named proceeded VTTO TTJS /jLe^dkoirpeirov^ Sof???.
passage, however,
it

should be remarked that a Targum would

"i^o,

preferably have named the Memar of God. ip and nj rJK appear to be represented in John
,

as well as

14

KOI 6 \6yos

aap%

eyevero

/cal e er K^vwcrev ev rjjuv

co?

KOI edeaadfjieOa Tr]v Sot;av

o Xo^yo? is ^*]P

avrov $6av
eo-tcrfvaxTev

/jLOVoyevovs irapa TraTpos.

;

represents KH^DB*

Sofa- stands

for
;

N")P\

All the
this,

three entities
least,

became incarnate
is

in

Jesus

and
is

in

at

use

made

of

these ideas

which

at

variance

with their primary application.

14.

THE PLACE.

Wholly absent from the

designation
of

New

Testament
Place."

is

the Jewish

God

as

Cripsn,

"the

This term G.

Buchanan Gray 1 mistakenly tries 4 1 19 Ryle and James 2 as early as

,

to

find as early as Sirach

Sol.

Ps.

16 9

to the

Mishna Taan.
1

iii.

8,

Simeon ben Shetakh

(c.

According 80 B.C.)

Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 567 ft. In their edition of the Psalter of Solomon.

232

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 It is certain only that in the Mishna, by 200 A.D., value.
the designation of

God by

DipBH

is

quite current.

It is the

most

colourless appellation for

CripBH
it

In

God which the Mishna contains. 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

it,

when

possible only

of God) (i.e. was mentioned, when the intention was to name Heaven," In the choice of the term the efficient God." meaning

to allude obscurely to

so that only the place

"

"

cause was not the philosophic idea that

the world,

God

is

the locus of

though

this
1

Ammi

(c.

280

A.D.),

had been expressed as early as by but the language used in the Old Testa
"

ment where
while heaven
Targ. NJOKQ1

the
is

"

place

of

God

is

frequently spoken of
""pipp,

meant;
"

see

Hos. 5 15

"My

place";
"

WJ3 inp,
;

26 21

"

toipo,

His place

Isa. holy dwelling in heaven awatf of the His place Targ.

My

dwelling."

The casual

expression,

niKZtt

njrp

DP

tf po,

"

the

place of the

name
itself

of

Jhvh
also

of

was

originally meant,

may

hosts," by which the temple have played its part in creating

the usage.

In

"

Bipp ought to

mean
!

"

the place of

God

"

the dwelling-place," "i^n, the Word," but just as ruwn, in of were said WZW, *\ I2 j, so here also the name place the Dipan is of God is omitted and replaced by the article.
"

"

"

"

place

tear

eo%qv

that

is,

of

God.
for
D^pran

No Aramaic

equivalent

ever presents

itself.

The term thus belonged entirely to the Hebrew language This of the legal schools, and never became popular.
not to be expected that it should be used by Jesus, even supposing it should have already been used in the

being

so, it

is

legal schools of
1

His time.
Backer,

Ber. R. 68

cf.

Agada

d. pal.

Am.

ii.

163

f.

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 OR PRECAUTIONARY MODES OF REFERRING TO GOD

233

15.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT.

Eeligious custom

and avoidance
to

of the

among the Jews, in respect to the use name of God, has been found, according
under VI. VIII.,
;

what has been

said

to

constitute

the

standard followed by Jesus

that, in

but, of course, in such a

manner

conforming His own by His marked preference

it,

to

He

preserved a peculiar position of

for the appellation of

God

as Father.

would certainly be a mistake to regard all the other evasive locutions for God which have the sanction of Jesus
It

as

mere accommodation on His part

to

to

prevalent custom.

Superstitious ideas, foreign regard to the character of the divine name,

the true Eevealed Eeligion, in

may have

con
it

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

with that name, there were strong objections against taking it upon one s lips. But the decisive element in the circum
stances was, of course, the
7 (Ex. 2 O )
"

commandment

of

the Decalogue

Thou

shalt not needlessly pronounce the

"

name
of

of

Jhvh thy God

2
;

and beneath that there lay a genuine

by the thought
of the

religious reverence, inspired

Judge

the worlds, enthroned in heaven.

This reverence Jesus did

not choose to set aside, Matt. 10 28 (Luke 12 5 );

tensified
it.

He

even in

The Heavenly Father, whom He declared, re mained always the Omnipotent Lord. The archaic position
of authority ascribed in
all

the family to the father, who, above an has unlimited paternal control, was firmly main things There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to favour tained.

the idea of a mystical absorption in the Deity, such as obliter

ates the distinctions between Creator
1

and creature.

See on this point F. C. Conybeare, Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 581 ff. On the Jewish interpretation of this commandment see my treatise, Gottesname Adonaj," 51 f., 60 ff., 66 ff.
2

"Der

234
Still,

THE WORDS OF JESUS

matters must not be represented as
Israel after the exile in
if

the deeper

insight gained by

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 is the peculiar significance attached by Jesus to the
Daniel as well as to the writing of the second Isaiah, although Daniel obviously bears the impress of a new epoch
of

Book

in the process of Eevelation, widely separated

from the

earlier

prophecy.

IX.
1.

THE SON OF MAN.

THE LINGUISTIC FORM OF THE EXPRESSION.

to

To understand the designation which Jesus chose

to

apply

Himself

the

way
In

v to? rov avOpamov, it is important to observe in which the corresponding terms in Hebr. D IN |3
:

>

and Aramaic

t?JN

"O

are used.

Hebrew, D1K (as also t^N) i s nearly always used as a collective expression, and can therefore stand beside
biblical

the collectives npna,

to

quadrupeds,"

and

"

155,

2
cattle,"
"

often

be rendered in German by the plural men." having If it be to a of individual necessary sDecify plurality men,

Hebrew can only say

II
5
,

*te

or

D^n

Deut. 32

52 14 (with the Psalms and

Isa.

U 6 (with D^J), 2 Sam. 7 (with D PJK), Mic. 5 In later times, from the evidence of &*$).
of Ecclesiastes, 3 this appears to for
"

for

which see Gen.

,

have become

common term
that
1

mankind,"

poetry.

For the single human

is

not belonging exclusively to being, it is generally B*N or

used.

The writings of the

,

pre-exilic prophets are,

-

on the other hand, of slight

See also Dan. 10 lfi
,

importance for Jesus. 2 See Ex. 9 19 Num. SI 28

47 .

Sir.

40 1

THE SON OF MAN

235

its

the other hand, the singular form CttK |3, apart from frequent use as a nominative of address in Ezekiel, 1 was
rare. 2

On

found only in poetic language where a motive for its use, see Num. 23 19 (with parallelism supplies
always
It
is

12 2 K); Isa. 51 (with Bna), 56 the same; Jer.

49 18

33

50 40

51 43
(with
tf

(all

with B*N); Ps. 8 5 (with

21

Bn:N),

80 18 (with

B*K),
8

146 3

QW3); Job 16
cf.

(with

193),

25

K);

Bn3

|3,

Ps.

144 3 (with

(with BfoK), 3o (with In the Apocrypha onx).

07? i? is found only in allusion to Old Testament phrases. In Judith 8 16 u/o? avBpanrov occurs in a statement which 19 An echo of the same scriptural depends upon Num. 23
.

if via? passage dvOpco-rrov is 3 there a literal rendering of the similar echo is original. unmistakable in the solitary instance of u/o? av6pa>Trov in the
,

will

be found in Sirach 17 30

Testaments of the XII Patriarchs (Joseph

This generic scope of has, as its natural corollary, the fact that ZHK |3 denotes, not the son of a certain man," but the member of the genus man cf. cn^n one of the
"
"

2).

^HN,
.

"

genus

man,"

i.e.

an ordinary

man,"

Judg.

1 67

The UUical Aramaic does not differ from the usage in Hebrew. The simple BOK, not &x 13, is the word for man."
"

In the next place, in Aramaic

generic

t?JK is

also

the term for the

conception
"

"mankind,"

and
^3,
c f.

can
"

stand

where
man,"

we
is
30
,

should say
equivalent

men."

Hence KPJg
K^jx
jp,

the sons of

to

the simple

T-IB

Nns

|o ?

Dan. 4

with TIB

KWK

5 21

4
.

Both mean

from among mankind." When heaven one WN i?3, Dan. 7 13 he is described as resembling one of the human species, or as one who had in himself the
of
,

hJ was driven out there comes with the clouds

nature of a
1

human

25 the fourth in the being; just as in o

"Der Menschensolm (1896) that he has not investigated separately the use of singular and plural. The representation given of the Old Testament usage in H. Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnnng Jesu Der Sohn des Menschen (1896), 28-48, is (|uite erroneous. 3 The Syriac version is considerably different.
"

17 Daniel also is once named in this way (8 ). It is a defect in Lietzmann s researches on

30

ff.,

Similarly cnx

.43

n?D^,

Dan. 10 1G and DIN nx^?, 10 18 are

,
,

identical.

236
fiery

THE WORDS OF JESUS

furnace
is

described

-)
}*"??$

?f

^, as

one who resembles

the gods.

In substance, though not in verbal form, a unit

4 meant, when in V

of the species is also

it is

said of a beast
"

that

it

was made

to stand
is
"i?3

upon two
25
).

feet, ^f*??,

as a

man."

An

individual

man

(2

Mishna, which, being Aramaic in the guise of Hebrew, affords important testimony for our present n the human being," Ab. ii. 1, 11, iii. 10, 14 purpose, CHN is
the
"

In the Hebrew of

nns

D*IK is

"a

man,"

Ab.
i.

vi. 9.

nlna,

creatures,"

Ab.

12,

ii.

not infrequently This last 11, but also ontf ia.

"

Mankind
"

"

is

expression
i.

is
i.

used to denote ordinary

7,

men," "the people,"

Ber.

Taan.

and
"

b.

Mo.

k.

19

(Simeon ben Yokhai,

"the

c.

130).

In Ned.

viii.
"oa

5, 6, D*J
is

TO

means

common
fa is

custom";

and

B*

Jiv
c.

the

common

parlance,"

33 a (Ishmael, common.

110).

The singular

Siphre, ed. Friedm.

altogether

un

The Targum of
text.
,

Orikelos generally
it

conforms to the Hebrew

;

has KPJK r?a for 07? (?) r?a Gen. 6 1 K^Jg rsa for the simple E^n the same again, Num. 26 23 19 both for B*K and for for PfoK. ?a, and in Deut. 32
,

In Gen. II 5 Deut. 32 8

The singular number B^jK Jerus. I Num. 23 19 appears

Onkelos.

"ia,

which

is

twice used in Targ.

to

be intentionally avoided by
being"

Moreover,
"ia.

"a

human

is

always

B>Jf<,

and

not

B>JK

In

this

respect Onkelos

and

the

Mishna
for
"

agree.

In the Samaritan Pentateuch

WM
,

is

also the

word

human

being." Only The plural forms appear 131 Hebrew, do we find GWN in. Marka also, where he KOK, Gen. II 5 Dis na, Deut. 32 8
;
.

in

Num. 23 19 conformably with

the

does
2b
,

not use

D"iK,

has
;

^s

see ffeidenheim, Bibl.

Sam.

iii.

59

a
,

130

a
,

131 b

Mtnfc, Des

Sam. Marqah Erzahlung

liber
p.

d.

Tod Mose s, 44, 48.

is

The form

njwm

in

Munk,

48,

unusual, and, of course, should

be corrected into

rmsna.

The Targum

to the

Prophets, which

is of

minor consequence

THE SON OF MAN

for

237
"13,

Aramaic usage, has in Mic.

"13

Elsewhere
text, Isa.

is
,

B>JK

replacing 07? ^?found in agreement with the Hebrew

5 6 twg

5P 2

56 2

Jer.

49 18

33

50 40 5 1 43 1
.

When

the Tarit is

o-umist uses 07?

"^

to represent
"

The plural Adam." that he takes the meaning to be \J3 is often used. Nor do the Aramaic Inscriptions attest
KE>JK

&7? son of

? n Ezekiel,
^

clear

single

instance
tariff, of

of

PJg

"B

for

Palestine.

The Palmyra
"

customs

date

137

A.D.,
"

puts Djno tWK for

any person
and in

whatever."

nJK
II.
i.

appears for

any one

"

in Nabatsean inscrip
f.;
"

tions,

CIS

197, 209

f.,

212, 214, 220, 223

,

a the inscription from Tema, ibid. 1 1 3 SWK stands for men." The Jewish-Galilean, along with the Christian-Palestinian,

are the earliest dialects to contain PJK

"13

in

the sense of

"

human
simple

being,"

although in both these types of language the

Ber.

WK

remains current for

e.g., j.

dialect see,

13

4
,

j.

any one Sanh. 25 a Ber.

"

"

for the

former
for the
"a

69

twx for latter see Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 32. human being" then made its way also into the Jerusalem 13 19 Even Targums on the Pentateuch, Jerus. I Num. 9 23
">3

the Aramaic recension of

for 12 1 ) put ^J 4 19 ), K??K ria (8 4 ),
"13
"

the Book

of

Tobit

has twice (8 18
uses

any

one,"

while elsewhere
19

it

B^g
it

(3

plur. const. \^J

(I

12

1
).

As a
be

result of the general situation here reviewed,

must
"

concluded that the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the

possessed the term twg for
"

earlier period

human
it

being

while, to

employed tWK 13 was not SB number The ^3. singular JK occasionally its appearance being due to imitation of the Hebrew in use text, where B^ |3 is confined to poetry, and, moreover, un
beings,
;

indicate a

number

of

human

common

in

it.

The
is

case in Dan. 7 13

where the person coming

"

from heaven

described as 8Wg 133, one like unto a son of is just as uncongenial to the style of prose as the man," designation of God in the same verse as N*^ PW, "the
1

Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 31, appears to have overlooked See on this point Gramm. d. jiid. -pal. Aram. 27 if.

this.

238
advanced in
days,"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

"

the

l
aged,"

the ordinary prose for

"
"

old

being, of course, N3p.

posed on
of

p.

Further, according to the theory pro 13, the original of Dan. 7 was Hebrew, in support
to the occurrence of

which we may refer

If this
is

chapter.

in other cases,
It is in

theory be correct, simply the translation of the Hebr.

"is

fty peculiar to this then BO&? in Dan. 7 13 as

,
D"js

fa.

keeping with the peculiar nature felt to be in fcWK herent in that, like the Hebr. intf ja, it never occurs
"o

in the definite form.

KPJK

ia, just

like

D^n

fa,

is

quite
"

unheard

of in
"

the older Jewish Aramaic literature.

is

The

human

being

there

called

Judseans,

Samaritans,

and

If, however, merely Ng fK. also Nabateeans 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

N^ JS
to all

"^>

*?3

"^

^ ne

Jewish-Galilean and Christian-Palestinian literature, which at

a later time was probably

common

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

A final testimony for the terms used by Jesus is afforded His own words as reported in the Gospels. Man," both by in the singular and in the plural, is frequently enough the
"

subject
3 28

of

remark.
"

How
and

is

it

that

v/o?

dv8pa>7rov

never

occurs for
?

rwv avOpanrwv only in Matt. Can the Hellenistic reporters apart from the selfman,"

ol viol

appellation of

Jesus

have designedly avoided

"

it,

although

Jesus had on
"

all

occasions said nothing but

likely.
"

son of

man

"

for

man

"

That cannot be considered

calls
it

Holtzmann 3
1

"

discovery
days"

that

"

son of

man

"

The rendering

"the

Ancient of
9
,

is

inexact,

and would require

NjTrij?

NNDIH.
J

From

pr p

fljz

also, v.

it is

apparent that the ending does not define

its

pV, but the

2

compound

expression.

Lietzmaiin omits

all

proof that the Galilean, with

i.

use of BUN 13,

must be

valid for the time of Jesus.

3

Lehrb.

d.

neutestamentl. Theol.

256.

THE SON OF MAN

would be the only available term for Wellhausen affirms tongue of Jesus.
"

239

man
"

"

in the mother-

l
:

the Aramaeans have

no other term

and Lietzmann, agreeing Jesus with Eerdmans, 2 on this topic constructs the thesis 3 Son of title for Himself the this term to never applied man/
"

for that conception

"

does not exist in Aramaic, and for linguistic reasons

possible
term"

is

an im

Nevertheless

it

is

a grievous error, which

careful observation of the biblical

Aramaic alone would have

"

rendered impossible.

When
had
to

the composite

expression ^JN

"S,

son of

man,"

be

made
D"JK

definite, the

tq PJK, as to

determinative could attach only in the Hebr. D*JK ||. Thus arises N?g
"to,
"

D^sn
being

ja,
"

which must not be rendered simply by

("

the

human

der

Mensch,"
"

as

by de Lagarde, Wellhausen, Lietz

man,"

mann), but only by

"

the son of
is

if

the essential char

acter of the expression

If,

again,
it

the son of

not to be entirely obliterated. had to be expressed in the man

"

Aramaic,
"

ally,

his

would have been necessary to say NK-ON^I pna (liter The Mishna Hebrew would son, that of the man
").

say tfJN?^

foa.

It is therefore in

no way surprising that the

Christian-Palestinian version of the Gospels renders 6 vibs rov

av0p(t)7rov

by K^J ^tt

rna, or
"to,

sometimes, to escape the incon

Fna.

venient repetition of
literal

by X^Fi

The

principle
to

of

faithfulness in

the translation led

naturally

the

production of this expression, which the same dialect further used for CHN |a in Job 16 21 as remarked by Nestle. 5 In a
,

dialect

where

"ia

KB>J

was the common word

for
n

for

"

man,"

this

term would be no equivalent

question.

Certainly
"

Njf J

"n

the peculiar expression in Fna tended to the error, which

"

the

German

der Sohn des Menschen

also suggests, that the

person so entitled
1

was the son

3

of

some

one.

In this sense the

Israelit.

und

jiidische Geschiclite,

381.

2
4 5

3 Der Menschensohn (1896), 85. Theol. Tijdschr. 1894, 165 ff. The italics of the last clause are due to me.

See A. S. Lewis,

Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (1897), xxxi

cf. p.

56,

240

THE WORDS OF JESUS

translator will also have understood the

Greek

uto?

TOV

But the Greek expression

of sore

is

itself

merely the outcome

embarrassment,

via? TOV dvOpwirov can indeed be

regarded as the Greek singular for ol viol TWV dvOpcoircov, which the LXX has coined for D*J? an d which occurs Mark

3 28 and Eph. 3 5

But while the

^?3,

plural substantially corre

"

sponds to the Hebr. E^N

of course

the expression

the sons of

men

"

signifying

men

in general, in the singular form an

No

unnatural stress was laid upon both members of the phrase. assistance could be got from 6 v to? dvOpaTrov, for this
"

would have meant merely

then, av6pwrros
is

the son of a

man."

In Greek,
B7?>

neither a generic conception like 5WK,

for

nor

is

vlo$ the

term

an individual endowed with the

for

nature implied in the generic term. The readiest substitute 6 would still have been K^Jg avOpKiros with no addi
">3

tion.

But then, what disastrous misunderstandings would have been occasioned by the change in the Gospels of the un

common
In view

of this, it

expression of the original into an ordinary expression was therefore preferred to convey the im

pression, suggested in

Aramaic by EJN

")3

when made

definite,

by the utmost possible definiteness in the composite expres

sion.
"

Thus was avoided

the

man

"

at least the error of supposing that 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

some sense had pronounced Himself on the human side of His nature as descended from men," is all too probable. To this point we refer later.
"

In these circumstances

it

can be seen

why

the Christian

Hellenists avoided the term as

much

as possible,

and did not

adopt

it

into

their religious

phraseology.

In Aramaic, in

deed, KBOK 13
definite

was perfectly suitable as the special name of a personality but its reproduction in Greek would be
;

THE SON OF MAN

as defectively inaccurate as it

241
though
for

would

different

reasons
"

be in Syriac and Christian-Palestinian.

"

In German,

is a correct rendering of 6 vios TOV Ni ON but the Aramaic is dv0po)7rov, represented with some degree of success only by der Menschensohn."
">3

des

Menschen Sohn

"

"

2.

SON OF MAN

"

WAS NOT A CURRENT JEWISH NAME FOR

THE MESSIAH.

no need to begin by proving here that for the author of the Book of Daniel, the one resembling a son of
There
is
"

man

"

in chap. 7

13

is

a personification of the
"

"

people of the

saints of the

Most High

27

(v.

cf. v.

22
),

who

are destined one

God.
is

day to receive an imperishable dominion as an award from The vision, in which the one like unto a son of man
seen, is a parallel to
of

Dan. 2 44f
is

-,

where the establishment by

l

God

an eternal sovereignty

the explanation of the stone

which shatters the great statue without any assistance from In contrast with the beasts emerging from the man. 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 (N*K> The ex Dy).
"

"

pression
"

is

surprising
in
days,"

because
in

the judicial

session

of

the

Himself appears, is held in the place where the animals have their being, i.e. upon the earth. 2 Besides, it would be more appropriate if the one
like to a son of
1

Advanced

which

He

man were

to

come

"

upon the clouds

of

heaven/

interpreted as referring to the sovereignty of the Messiah, b Bemidb. R. 13. 2 Esdras connects with the Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Ber. 70 stone its own peculiar representation of the mountain which "that man brings
is
;
"

This stone

with him
2

see 2 Esdr.

13 6f 12 36
-

is suggested in 7 9 The divine chariot furnished with that described by Ezekiel which was to serve God at His 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 Jesu der Sohn des 40 Selbstbezeichnung Menschen, fF., that the scene of the judgment is conceived as being above the earth, and that the one like to a son of man comes thither from the earth.

No

change of scene
is

wheels and a throne

16

242

THE WORDS OF JESUS

reading

WVW
"OJV

Kev.

ve$e\w, 14 14 ~ 16 Teaching
,

LXX

Dan. 7 13

appears to be presupposed by eVt 30 26 64 Mark 13 26 D, cf. Matt. 24

;
,

of

the Apostles

16 8

(eVa^o)), Justin,
ii.

51 Apol. I

(eVai/a)), Hegesippus in Euseb. Hist. Eccl.

23.

the other hand, the reading of the Massoretic text (oy) is 62 Rev. I 7 2 Esdr. 14 3 represented in Theodotion, Mark 14
,

On

The words
It

ez>

z/e^e Xat?,

Mark 13 26
to

ve<j)e\r),

Luke
perd
;

2 1 27

similarly imply accompaniment, and

presuppose
clouds

DP.

belongs
,

to
.

God only

move upon the

see Isa.

19 1

Ps.

104 3

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 oy.

But even

if

one reads

oy, 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 It well fitted to typify the people of the saints of God. God, is noteworthy that nothing more is said of him than that he
resembles man.

He
"

is

distinguished from the four

;

beasts,

not because he alone possesses reason the first 4 a man s heart," the last has ing to 7 receives
,

beast, accord
"

the eyes of
lies

man,"

and can speak

(v.

).

The emphasis rather

winged
lion,

on the

fact that in contrast with the

the four-headed leopard, the fourth beast with

terrible exceedingly

the devouring bear, ten horns

beyond

its

predecessors, he appears un

armed and

inoffensive, incapable

own

of

making himself master of the world

If

through any power of his he is only as a

;

son of man.

ever he

is

to

be master of the world,

God

must make him

so.

From
Jewish

the

first

Christian

writings

known
Book

century there are only two which deal with Dan. 7 13 the
,

Similitudes of the
Esdras.
of

man

Enoch, and the Second Book of The two agree in regarding the one like to a son And as they combine as an individual person.
of
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

character need not be doubted,
that

(chaps. 37-71),
1

whose Jewish

though

it

cannot be proved

46 1 a
to

they originate from a pre-Christian period, introduce being, partaking of the nature of angels and of men,
reference
-

whom
-

is

afterwards
,

made
"

as

"

that son of
"

man,"

46 2
in

48 2 62 5

u 63 11
-

46 3 62 72 69 26
little

27 - 29

while only the son of man is said N. Schmidt, 3 however, says 70 1 71 17

.

that

stress can be laid

on the use or non-use

that

of

the

Ethiopic
avOpcoTrov

demonstrative,

so
is

throughout
the

vibs

rov

may

be what
to

represented.
fact

Similarly no

im

portance

attaches

the

that
for
" "

Ethiopic
man,"

version

vacillates in its choice of a

term

son of

sometimes
*

even putting

"

son of

a
"

man,"

son of a
"

woman."

It is

not taken for granted by the author as an already established title for the Messiah. But it is not to be denied that the author, though in this
clear, at all events, that
is

son of

man

part of the Similitudes he avoids every other Messianic

really imputes to
"

title,

the son of

man

"

a Messianic significance.

This

is

seen most obviously in 46 3

"

The

"son

of

man who
"

is certainly not a periphrasis for has righteousness the 2 6 where the righteous man," but is meant to recall 38 39
,

Messiah bears the name,

or
"

"

the chosen one

who

is righteous,"

the elect of

righteousness."

That again, on
1
p"

its

part,
;

must be considered an
1

allusion to

notf,

Jer.

23 5

nipv

clear in

Christian author or interpolator should above all things have made it son of man" coming to the judgment was Jesus some way that the
"

of Nazareth.

But the
is

"

son of

man

"

in this case appears never to have been

upon
2 3

earth, far less to

This passage
See his essay,

have passed through the state of death. highly uncertain.

"

Was

NE-J

na a Messianic title

?"

Journal of Bibl. Lit. xv.

(1896) 48.
4 That these really refer to and N. Schmidt, op. cit. 46 ff.
"son

of

man,"

see R,

H. Charles on Enoch 46 2

244
Jer.
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

33 15

for

which
1

the

Targum has

npnyn

wo,
son of

Messiah

of righteousness."

Probably the author of the Similitudes, in using

man,"

"

did not intend to introduce any

Still
it
is

new

designation for

the

Messiah.

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 &7?? f? (with the as an exceptional instance in the earlier Jewish
;

literature

and
18
,

it

would

also represent a considerable develop

ment beyond the

uses,
"

10

16

the

stage seen in the Book of Daniel, terms a ^a ripens, D^K n&a3 f

man,"

which

meaning

the one resembling

-

to denote a definite personality.

it is

In an interpolation in the Similitudes

is

Enoch himself

the son of man, brought according to Dan. 7 before 10 the ancient of days. By this name he is addressed 60 and
,

who

in 7 1 14 the

words are used to him

righteousness,"

"

thou art the son of

man

who

art born for

in

which there

is

evident

at least

an allusion

to njri

"

nrpv,

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.
"

up from the sea KGWim niET 7).

"

"

as

it

were the likeness

is

of a

man
v.
3

"

He
2

then referred to in
"

as

ille

homo
"

(Syr.

de mari
(Syr.

(Syr.
in),
"

KGWQ
|D

in),

in v. 5 as

homo, qui ascenderat

12
"

p^DT

in KPJ-Q), in v.
-

as

"

ipse

homo

"

KtJTQ

and in

vv. 25

51
,

cf. v.

33
,

as

vir ascendens de
If the
BfytJ;

corde maris

(Syr. KDn ra^ p p^DI Ninj). was Hebrew, the Syriac KIM would represent

original

the Syriac

N&WQ, Lat.

"

homo,"

3 correspondingly in v.

would, on the other hand, be &7? we should have D^N ^*13, not J3

CHN,

cf.

Dan. 10 18

The author

dependence upon Dan. 7

doubtless not

must be admitted, although he represents

1

Cf.

under
is

XL

1.
"

The Latin version has

lor.t.

convolabat

ille

homo cum

nnbibus,"

but the

beginning

THE SON OF MAN

245

the figure in human form as unintentionally rising from the sea. But for BK he has put CHN, the term proper to prose style, and from that, of course, a Messianic title could
"ia

not well be formed.

Messianic interpretation of Dan. 7 13 appears to have been assumed by Akiba (c. 120 A.D.), when he spoke of the
"

thrones

"

of
.

b.

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 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. 7 13 with the clouds of
the throne
,

heaven

but

if

upon the
3

ass,

were unworthy, he would come riding as said in Zech. 9 9 Samuel ben Nachman
Israel
.

(c. 270) pany the Messiah as far as their precincts allow, while God 21 then conducts him to Himself, Other according to Jer. 30
,
.

says that, according to

Dan. 7 13 the angels accom

late

und

testimonies are referred to in Dalman, der sterbende Messias," 38 note. 4

It is a

"

Der leidende

Jerus. II on Ex. 12 42

mere suggestion of Dan. 7 13 that appears in Targ. which says that the Messiah will lead
,

accompanying the Messiah during His activity. On account of the "cloud" 13 it is said that the (IW) in Dan. 7 person named ^JJJ, who is the last in the Davidic line in 1 Chron. 3 24 will be the
, ,

people like Moses, aJJ( e^na, "on the summit cloud." The cloud is there conceived as

His

of

the

Messiah, Midr. Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Ber. 70 b and in the Targum on the passage. Probably we should also mention
,

here the
1

Messianic
i.

name
13 a
;

^aa *o, though

it

is

otherwise
f.

2
3

150 Sanh. 98* ; cf. 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.
Jellinek,
v. 168, cf. vi. b.
,

Seder

Rab Amram,

Beth ha-Midrasch,

246

THE WORDS OF JESUS

,

b explained by the Babylonian Nachman b. Sanh, 96 1 vided ^33 stands for ve$e\r], which is very doubtful.

pro

of

Along with these indications of a Messianic interpretation Dan. 7 13 we find traces of a different exposition of the
,

passage

in

the

anonymous
2
:

saying,

Midr.

Tanchuma,

ed.
?

b Buber, Vay. 36

"What

mean

the

thrones

9 (Dan. 7 )

One day God

sits

will be seated,

and the angels

the

will give thrones

sit,

to the great ones of Israel that they too

may

while

God
and

among them

as president of

court
world";

of

justice,

thus they judge the peoples of the

30 (Luke 22 ).

cf.

Matt. 19 28

13 Again we have a divergence from Dan. 7 in the state 3 ment of the Palestinian Amora, Abbahu, who lived in

Intending to controvert the divinity b of Christ, he asserted, j. Taan. 65 basing his words on 19 4 teio 10^ DK *?$ ron ajpp Num. 23 }a D-JX yb D*jN
Csesarea about
A.D.
,
:

280

^
;

nap^ &\
to thee,

-IDN ronn

Djo^b

rAiy

"OKE*

to

"

ninnb,

if

any one say

am
is

God,

man/

his

end

to regret it

I am the son of he speaks falsely he who I ascend to heaven

;

has said so will not verify his 5 &7? i? passage be translated.

word."

Only thus can the

"

It nere equivalent to PK. The ascending has no article, because Num. 23 19 has none. into heaven" depends, as it seems, upon Isa. 14 13f -, where the
*s
1

2 3
4

Der leidende und der sterbende Messias," 37 both names see Shem. R. 5, the similar saying of Abin. As to Abbahu, see Backer, Ag. d. p. Am. ii. 88-142.
"

On
Cf.

f.

Allusion

is

made

ha-Kappar, Yalk. Shim.

to this passage in a late addition to a saying of Eleazar 7 (ed. Salonica, 1526) on Num. 23 ; see Dalman-Laible-

Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue (1893), 10* Text, 33* Translation. As doubts have arisen on the there given, subject, it may here be remarked in passing that the translations pp. 21*-47*, were made by me, while Laible s contribution appears only in the
Streane, Jesus Christ in the

rendering of Streane. 5 The dictum forms a crux interpretum only for those who find the obvious sense disagreeable. It is correctly rendered by Laible, Jesus Christ rm Talmud
(1891), 48, and by Bacfar, op. cit. 118 incorrectly, by Levy, Neuhebr. Worterbuch under DIN Wunsdic, Der jerus. Talmud, 141 M. Schwab, Le Talmud de Jerusalem, vi. 156. The explanation of F. Colin 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

"

As
with

Abbahu can be proved

Christians,

have come

into

contact

most natural
refer
to

to suppose that his statement

was meant

to

Jesus,

and was not an admonition,

against

practically useless

in

his

time,

any other persons

The motive which leads him to make claiming to be God. 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

Q"J^

J3

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 Messiah.
.

sense.
"

Of course

it

does not follow from

the statement that

for

son of

man

"

had become a Jewish name

is

Moreover, no reference

made

to

Dan.

7 13

It of

may
is

the Kabbala in the Middle Ages, vol.

be noted that in the Zohar, the principal product iii. 144 a a dis
,

tinction
to

drawn on one
,

K IM, Dan. 7 13
Adam"

occasion, with the help of a reference and D-IK nsnoa, Ezek. I 26 between the
,

"higher

(K^vfn

D-JK)

and the

"lower

Adam"

(tfJK
first

Nnrta).

This, however, has no relation either to the

"

man
"

the Messiah. The is, on the higher Adam form of the of the God the self-revel^ion highest contrary, is a synthesis of all the inferior stages of lower Adam revelation subsumed under the former. This may in some
or
to
"

"

way, no longer demonstrable by us, be historically connected with the doctrine of the Ophites, which gave to the prim
ordial
light

the

name
-

of

U/OWTO?

"AvdpcoTros,

and

to

the

"Evvoia,

which emanated from him, the name

of AevTepos

1 On account of Isa. 14 13f Nebuchadnezzar is 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.

42c

Bern. R. 13.

248

THE WORDS OF JESUS

or uto? avOpwirov. 1
Its genesis is doubtless to

be

found in Ezekiel

vision

of

the

royal
to

chariot, in

which

God appears
and
for

in

human
for

semblance,

which

welcome
,

parallel appeared

Jews
in

13 in the heavenly twg 12 of Dan. 7

Christians

the
"

self-designation
"

of

Jesus.

The

common

2 opinion that Paul simply adopted his designation of Christ as o ecr^aro? ASdfj, or o Seurepo? &v0panro* 9 from

the rabbinic theology

is,

however, erroneous, for their theology

knew nothing
Messiah.
hebr.
et

of

such a comparison between

Adam

and the

The proof-passages adduced by Schottgen, Hor. talm. 670ff., and by J. Khenferdius in Meuschen,
illustr.

Nov. Testam. ex Talmude

idea,

1048ff., to support

this

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 designations but that a regular Jewish name for the Messiah There never was formed from the passage in question. 5
;

an early period which used

was no
should
"

intrinsic hindrance

to

such a development.
to
"

Why
6

the

son

Messianic
for

title

adapted than the Jewish name N Jjn, the

"

of

man

"

be less

become a
leprous,"

the

Messiah, or
"

tDipsn,

the

7
place,"

for

Samaritan ronn,

He who
"

will

come

again,"

for the

God, or the Messiah ?

the Eabbis

But
1

"

son of
i.

man
;

as a Messianic title

among

Irenseus,
2

See, e.g.,

28 cf. Lictzmann, Der Menschensohn, 62 ff. Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. ii. 55; Lietzmann, Der
-

Menschensohn, 64. 3 lCor. 15 45 47 4 This is the subject of remark also by G. F. Moore in

.

"The

last

Adam,"

Joura. Bibl. Lit. xvi. (1897) 158-161. 5 From the intermittent testimonies in Enoch and 2 Esdras, which were soon superseded among the Jews, one must not, of course, manufacture, like

synagogal usage," which Baldcnsperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 170 f., a almost universally in the religious works of the scribes. prevailed
"
"

6 7

See

"

Der

leid. u. d. sterb.
f.

Messias,"

36.

See above, p. 231

THE SON OF MAN

249

was to be expected, solely on the condition that they had formed their conception of the Messiah principally from
Dan.
7.

As they

did not do so,

title.

"

the son of

man

"

did not

become a Messianic

3.

"SON

OF

MAN"

is

NO EMPTY FORMULA.

H. E. G. Paulus, and Fritzsche l had 2 in already put forward the view, which A. Meyer revives, o wo? rov avdpo)7rov, regard to certain cases of the use of
Beza,
Cocceius,

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 Hebneis, 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 But it did happen no means general among the Hebrews.
that a
or a

man should speak of himself as N^s wnn, this man," woman as KrtfiK KVin, this woman." Examples are seen
"

in Vaj.
j.

R
k.
b.

30
81
d

j. j.

Maas. sch. 55 b
Taan. 66
d

j. j.

Sabb. 15

C
;

j. j.

Sukk. 55 b

Mo.

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.

A
.

man, who

is

dying, gives instructions that

"

something should be handed over to the wife of this man," The Emperor Trajan, speaking of himself, Kidd. 64 b j.
j.

Sukk.
:

55
"

b
,

says

to

the Jews

whom
to

he had taken

by

surprise
1

This man,

who proposed

come

after ten days,

:

See the references in Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu

Der Menschen-

sohn, 5 f. 2 Jesu Mutterspraclie, 95. 3 See also Gramm. d. jiid.-pal. Aram. 77

lines 9, 12
4
"

f.,

and Aram. Dialektproben,

p. 18,

p. 29, lines 7, 11,

"

13

f.

Thou" was also readily avoided ; cf. the form of imprecation, "may the b zur this man expire of e.g. j. Bez. 14 , and Goldziher, Abhandlungen spirit arab. Philologie, i. 39.
!

250

THE W011DS OF JESUS

There is, however, no has already arrived in five days." Kinn was used in instance to show that NKON Ninn or XWM
"?

the same fashion.

Still

less

possible for this purpose.

in question

be would the simple KB^K Any connection between the usage

">?

and the self-designation

of Jesus is all the

harder

to establish, in view of the fact that at that time, as con

cluded above, under

1,

EOK and not B0

13 was the

common

term

for

"

man."

The Hebrew t^Nn

do with the
fcroa
tttnn.
"

into,

that

l
man,"

title

son of
2

man
arisen

"

as its

had just as litttle to Aramaic equivalent

"

Cremer
29
,

believes that the term

son of

man,"

Enoch

through opposition to the But this Jewish habit of referring to Jesus as B^n irritf. ancient in the of to Jesus unknown is Eabbinism, alluding way

69

may have

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 censor

ship 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.
In
all

three Synoptists o v to? rov av6pa)7rov as a

title of

Once Jesus appears only in the words of Jesus Himself. 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.
2
8

See Ber. R. 36.

Bibl. Theol.

Worterbuch,

966.

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
,

Jesus named o uto? TOV avOpamov^ not even in Eevelation, although it speaks on two occasions,

26 64

Nowhere

else is

in allusion to

Dan.

7, of

one

who resembles

a son of man.

The

Jesus as opoiov vlov avOpwTrov in a Dan. 7, but Dan. 10 5 6 and hence recalls not which picture the term must be borrowed from Dan. 10 16 18 where the
seer beholds
-

I 13

narrative mysteriously speaks of

man."

In Eev. 1 4
man,"

14

one like the appearance of one like unto the seer again beholds
" "

a son of

this

time on a white cloud with a crown and

the

a sickle about to
Christ
is

"reap"

harvest of the earth.

17
;

That

referred to

is

was an angel.
"

The scene

not clearly stated v. implies that it is not that of Dan. 7, which has

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.

depicts

the

being in the

heavenly aspect of form of a man," one cannot, of course, draw

"

Although the seer Jesus and of an angel as

the conclusion that he was ignorant of the fact that Jesus,

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 inos

TOV

dvOp&TTov as a

In 1 Thess. 4 16

2 Thess. I 7

Paul, having in view the

kindred statements of Jesus in regard to the second coming the Son of of the Messiah, does not even here call Jesus
"

man,"

but o Kvpios.

It

is

true he terms Christ o Bevrepos

Cor.

av6po)7ro<;

e{ ovpavov (o eTTOvpdvios), 1

15

47f>

but this

expression, which Paul probably used here

for the first time,

1 With the same motive, hoAvever, the Liturgy of St. James in the ritual of the Eucharist, having treated 1 Cor. II 26 as an utterance of Jesus, has changed Paul s TOV KvpLov, which could not be supposed to have been said by Jesus, into

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 nature bequeathed by Christ to them that are His. In this 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 a use of the

Kabbala in regard

to

an

ideal primitive

man. 1

The expression has clearly remained restricted to its use by Jesus Himself, and the Synoptists are themselves wit
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
regular Messianic
title.

that Jesus alone called Himself

The main point is the Son of

"

to

understand

man,"

and that

no one

else did so.

It is not a sign

of

a sound historical

method
seize

to give

up the attempt
of

to solve this
2

problem and to

upon the contention

Oort

and Lietzmann, that the

non-use of the term by the New Testament writers is a sign that it did not really belong to Jesus either, and further, that

somewhere or other there had been an early community Christian Hellenists which delighted in this name, and
order to find occasion for
its

of

in

use, represented Jesus in the

evangelic narrative as frequently speaking of Himself in the

But any such assertion should have been pre vented by the mere observation, that although the Gospels have proclaimed Jesus to the Church as the Son of man
third person.
"

"

day become a common title of Christ, and in books and sermons the Son of man is not usually spoken of save when the words
for

1800

years, yet the

name has never

to

this

"

"

of Jesus

probable that sub stantially the same feeling, which to-day deters the Church
It
is
1

Himself are the cause.

That there can be no question of borrowing from the rabbinic theology,

see

above, p. 247 f. 2 H. L. Oort,

(1893).

De uitdrucking

o VLOS TOV avdpuirov 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

for the non-use of o

is

the Greek-speaking Church

1

disclosed

wo? rov avOpcoirov by Lietzmann him

Ireneeus, Origen,

self,

through the instances he has given to illustrate the sense

title.

attached to the

Ignatius,

Justin,

Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, as well as Tertullian,

Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, with one consent, though in variously conceived modes, have seen in this title a reference
to the

human

side in the descent of Jesus.

1, this interpretation of the

the end of
prising,

As observed at name is not sur

o uto?

TOV dvOpcoTTov could not be understood by

than as referring to one who desires to A name of this sort for Jesus be known as son of a man.

Greeks otherwise

might, in

Greek-speaking Church, be regarded from but it was not adapted for prac a dogmatic standpoint
the
;

tical use.

6.

THE MEANING ATTACHED TO THE TITLE BY THE

SYNOPTISTS.

The

first

appearance of
8 20
(cf.

ino<?

rov avdpairov

is

found, for
2 10
(cf.

Matthew
,

in

Luke

9 58 ), for

Mark

as early as

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 Menschensolin, 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 the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. This
;

latter the readers could

not have understood as signifying power belonged of right to Jesus in virtue of His being the Son of man/ but as signifying that one, who was content to call Himself merely a son of man," had received
that this
"
"

such absolute power.

recording this
incident,

Matthew
Matt.

multitude giving praise unto men." The same evangelist, by the modifications to himself which he introduces in his account of peculiar
"

much in when he represents the because God had given such power
explicitly says as
,

98

Peter

confession

(TOP
18
;

viov

TOV

av9p(t>7rov,

16 3

for

fte,

Mark
v.
16
,

27
,

Luke

Xpiaros
8 29
;

6 vlo? TOV

Oeov TOV fwz/ros,

for

o XpicrTos,
it

Mark
Son
of

TOV

Xpicrrbv TOV Oeov,

that

Luke
calls

20
),

makes

clear
"

beyond

doubt
"

He who

Himself
ive,
i.e.

17 that emphasised 16 Peter has acquired this conviction not from men, but from Even Jesus by calling Himself Son of man God. had

merely Son of God. 1

man

is it

in reality the
is

correlat

Hence

"

"

clearly given

him no

aid in coming to this conclusion.

When

Mark and Luke, even

sooner than Matthew, represent Jesus

"

as using the self -appellation

Son

of

man,"

it

is

clear that

they also can have seen in the title no assertion of Messianic The injunction of Jesus not to speak to any one majesty.
of

His Messianic character would,

if

of course,

to them,

Jesus habitually spoke of

seem meaningless 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

concerning the unpardonable blasphemy against the Holy The primary form of the utterance is seen in Mark, Spirit.

who merely
1

contrasts blasphemy in general with blasphemy

.

28L against the Spirit which inspired Jesus, 3

Luke 12 10 speaks

Holtzmann, Lehrb.

d. neutest. Theol.

i.

257

f.

rightly emphasises this.

THE SON OF MAN

of

255
of

blasphemy

of

the

"

Son

of

man

"

and

the

"

"

Spirit
is

Matt.

1 2 32 is similar,

but the statement to this effect

annexed
It

to another,
is

which corresponds to the form found in Mark. impossible that Matthew and Luke should here intend
distinction

to

make a
if

between two Persons

sin

of the
"

Godhead, as

it

were a venial
is,

tinction

The dis blaspheme the Son." on the contrary, between Jesus as man and the
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 the inference, 2

27f>

that the

Son

of

man

"

is

lord even of the Sabbath, on the ground that the

for

Sabbath was instituted

reasoning of

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
o-v

ovv
o

el

(Luke 22 ), Luke alone has the explanatory question o wo? rov 6eov which evidently connects itself
;

70

with

wo$ TOV avOpwTrov in the acknowledgment of Jesus. The addition implies that Jesus, as His declaration really
means,
God."

is

not indeed the

"Son

of

man,"

but the

"Son

of

We
in

will be justified in concluding that for the Synoptists,

of the early
"

harmony with the view

Church,

Son

of

man
;

"

was not a term denoting the majesty of the Messiah but that it was, what any Hellenist must necessarily have taken it to be, an intentional veiling of the Messianic character
under a
it.

title

which affirms the humanity

view,

of

Him who

bore

In

their

the

prospect
"

of

sufferings
"

foretold

by Jesus as the part

but the statements in
a matter of surprise,

was no paradox, to His exaltation were. It was regard not that the Son of man should be
of the

Son

of

man

"

"

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

o vibs

which

Jesus refers to Himself as

of the substance of these sayings leads to

TOV avOpajrov, investigation no result. Jesus

nowhere gives any information defining 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 testi assume 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
o

personality.
vios TOV avOpcoirov, as understood ly Greeks,

The Greek

would necessarily be traced to xvytf} rm in Aramaic (see But objections to the supposition that above, under 1). Jesus really used these Aramaic words, arise from the con
siderations that the phrase
"

is

not Semitic; that the meaning

the son of the

of

man

"

has nowhere any support in the testi

;

mony

literary

source

Jesus in regard to Himself and that, further, no can be discovered for such an expression,

while every probability strongly favours the view that Jesus, 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

dvOpcoirov
is

f/o?

TOV

N^K

"Q.

not properly belong to the

Jews

as a

term for

"

we have said under l,did common language of the Palestinian man it was characteristic rather of
This term,
"

the elevated diction of poetry and prophecy.

it

To the Jews

The have been known purely as a biblical word. Jewish hearer will therefore have had recourse in the first
will

place to Scripture for an explanation of the strange use of And Scripture offered the on the lips of Jesus. N^jx
"in

like

Aramaic expression only in Dan. 7 13

VM

"O3,

where

THE SON OF MAN

257

IWK 13 denotes a definite personality, which, further, Jewish exegesis sometimes identified explicitly with the Messiah.

We

do not mean to say that every one would have been The obliged to put this construction on the expression.
universal.

13 to the Messiah will not have been application of Dan. 7

Moreover, the

"

one like to a son of

man

"

there

mentioned, was to be brought down on the clouds of heaven In the case of Jesus in order to be master of the world.

How nothing resembling these circumstances was apparent. could one, who moved about on earth, come down from
heaven
?

transference thither

must

first

have

occurred
died or

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 person Thus 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. this son of man," this would Kinn, by Jesus had been
"
>

"D

have been regarded as an expression, uncommon indeed, but But if He named Himself the implying modesty in Jesus.
"

Son

of

man,"

NPJ&?

*">?,

reason or other
other men.

He

could only follow that for some regarded Himself as a man distinct from
it

then

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 01 (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 WOKDS OF JESUS

further confirmed by the fact that it was also from Daniel that Jesus adapted the idea of the sovereignty of God.

Nothing requires us
l

to seek the source in the Similitudes of

"

Enoch, especially as the

;

Son

of

man

"

there mentioned

is

while Daniel leaves this point unnoticed. never born as man Though such is the state of the case, we need not suppose
that Jesus attached great importance to the intrinsic sense
of

the
"13,

expression.

His

calling

Himself

"Son

of

man,"

BOK

whom
which
ing
it

that He was that one in really implied no more than to was of Daniel this vision proceed to its realisation.
its

The term acquires

it is
;

positive significance

from the

light in

is said concern placed by Daniel, and from what Nn the Messiah," derives its just as the title

W,

"

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 the words of Jesus did not penetrate
these associations,
of Jesus failed to
if

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 before those to whom the term was an enigma ? To
"

"

such persons also

must, of course, have intended the term Or can it be that He never used to convey some meaning. such all before at term the persons ?
Considerable difficulties stand in the
a true answer to these questions.
of the

He

way

of discovering

In the

first place, it

cannot

of be said of any Gospels that they give us the sayings as they Jesus in exact chronological sequence, especially From the one from another in this respect. differ

widely

first

there will have been an earnest desire to be accurately

;

informed as to the words and deeds of Jesus

the recollection of the disciples

but their suc

cession in point of time appeared unimportant,

to sequence,

and in regard

would not always

In the next place,

be able to furnish precise information.

1

their recollection, particularly in regard to the use of the title

See above, p. 131.

THE SON OF MAN

"

259
It can

Son

of

man,"

cannot have been

definite.

scarcely

be imagined that they should afterwards

cisely

have known pre

this expression.
itself

on what occasions Jesus had and had not made use of The Synoptic tradition on this point is in The term is present in Matt. 16 13 but ambiguous.
,

absent in the parallels,

Mark

8 27,

Luke
;

9 18

it

is

found in

Luke
10
45

12 8 but not in Matt. 5 11 10 33 it occurs in Mark and Matt. 20 28 but not in Luke 22 27 Mark 31 and
,
,

6 22

(8

Luke
all

22

(9

have

it

where Matthew (16 21 ) omits

it.

When
,

Luke

6 three Synoptists agree in using it, e.g. Matt. 9 (Mark 2 10 5 24 ), the only inference that can be drawn is that a

all had contained the title, but not here particularly certain. Such being the state of matters, it cannot be ascertained with absolute

source

common

to

them

that the tradition

is

certainty

when

or to

what

class

of persons Jesus first used

the

title.

for the evangelists themselves, they take the view that Jesus called Himself the Son of man at all times and
" "

As

before any company.

Mark

(2

10

account of

Thus the first case of its use, alike in and Luke (5 24 ), takes place in Before his public. the same occasion, Matt. 9 6 has Matthew,
,

too,

20 only one instance of its use (S ), in an interpolation foreign to the context of the passage and even there the title is used in speaking to one who wishes to become for the first
;

A complete understanding of His Jesus could self-appellation, certainly not, in such cases, have looked for from His hearers. Yet one may hold that in using the title He purposely furnished them with a problem which
time a follower of Jesus.
such a tendency to this reflection that the solution of the problem fully revealed the mystery of the personality of Jesus. But though Jesus obviously showed a predilection for speaking to 1 the multitude in parables and the leaving
themselves, the objection
1

stimulated

reflection

about His person, and gave

may

See Matt.

explanation to perhaps be made to the sup13 34 Mark 4 34

, .

260
position that
man,"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

He had

from the

first

called Himself

"

Son

of

that His disciples

must presumably

in that case

have

asked and received a special explanation of the expression. But any such private explanation is inadmissible for any
time prior to the Messianic acknowledgment made by Peter, Matt. 16 16 (Mark S 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
All the instructions concerning this subject which Matthew places earlier than the confession of Peter,
to the disciples.

must be relegated
thus, above
all,

the period following that confession the exposition of the parable of the Tares in
to
~ 43
,

the Field, Matt. 13 3G

on account

of v. 41t

unless

it

be as

sumed that
"

it
"

was

originally

God

that was

named where
,

Son

of

man

now
23
;

account of vv. 22

and further, Matt. 7 21 ~ 23 on while the Lucan parallel to this, Luke 6 46

stands
;

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
the
future
is v.
23b
("

till

the Son of
of
all

man

be come

"),

and because
i.e.

separation

Jesus from the disciples,

His

death,

presupposed
first

fact, place the

do, in through. intimation of the advent of Jesus in

Mark and Luke

majesty subsequent to

its necessary presupposition, which is the open announcement of His death, and also subsequent to

the confession of Peter; see

Mark

8 38

Luke

9 26

cf.

Matt. 16 27

Thus, for the reasons indicated, one would be obliged to con sider it probable 1 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 is not present. It would be finally convincing for those who take Son of man v to be a distinctively Messianic title.
I
"

Here

THE SON OF MAN

261

This conjecture may be vindicated, if need be, in view of the Synoptic testimonies, which seem to oppose it. Prior to the confession of Peter, Matthew records the use of 6 vib?

rov

avdpa>Trov
-

nine times.

13 37

41
,

are discounted
is

Three of these instances, 10 23 what has just been said; and 8 20 by

,

as just remarked,

out of place in

its

present

position.

Matt. 12 32

is

to

Luke alone has the instance, 6 22 fatca rov viov rov av0pa)7rov, for which, 11 however, Matthew has only eWa Matthew and (5
,
e>o

The "sign Luke (II 30 ) till

be regarded as an explanatory duplicate of of Jonah," Matt. 12 40 is not mentioned by

,

after the

Petrine confession.

).

Luke have each

the comparison between the Baptist and the Son of man, Matt. 11^33f 7 (Luke -). Matthew, Mark, and

Luke have a paragraph Luke

5 17
- 39

a section

mitted to

1 22 (Mark 2 to which is ), directly added in Mark and Luke (Mark 2 23-3 6 Luke 6 1 11 ) which Matthew has re a later position (Matt. 12 1 - 14 In these parts all ).
"

in

common, Matt.

91

"

17

three Synoptists have 6 vlb? TOV avOpuTrov twice, Matt.

,

96

(Mark 2 10 Luke 5 24 ) and Matt. 12 8 (Mark 2 28 Luke 6 5 ). Thus we really have the title placed before the Petrine con
,

fession only three times.

J.

Weiss, A.

Meyer, Lietzmann, and Holtzmann have

the evidence of two of these instances, by that Jesus had there spoken of mankind holding generally, or in such a way that something was applicable to Himself in virtue of His But this mode of interpretation humanity. would hardly have arisen unless there had been reasons inde

tried to set aside

pendent of the passages themselves for desiring to supersede the title Son of man as a title. One of the two cases where Jesus claims for the Son of man the right to forgive C sins, Matt. 9 (Mark 2 10 Luke 5 24 ), has been pronounced 3 meaningless by Weiss, on the ground that no opponent of Jesus had any doubt that the Messiah had full to
"

"

"

"

power

forgive
1

sins."

But, in the
2

first

place, as a Messianic title,

ft e i c i ie

Cf. p. 255.

DJ C p reciig t j esu vom

Qottes, 57.

262
NBOK
"ia

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

present day, has ventured to
Still

Testament times

to the

make
8

any such assertion in regard to the Messiah.

it

less does

signify anything important, that, according to

is

Matthew

(9

),

praise

given to

God because He had given such power

idea
of

unto men, for this language merely brings into view the
evangelist
s

own

the expression

"

Son

of

man."

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,

"

may
,

be said that

man

kind in general is

Sabbath, Matt.

meant by the Son of man," who is Lord 12 8 (Mark 2 28 Luke 6 5 ), because in

that case, according to

Mark

2 27 the Sabbath has just pre

,

viously been pronounced subservient to mankind.

But
at

this
it

preceding sentence appears only in

Mark

2
;

in place of

Matthew has something

If brevior prceferenda, as

different;

Luke has nothing

all.

standing closest to the original, is then the shortest form is to be found in Luke, applicable here, who gives us no occasion for thinking of mankind. Mark
2 27
is

Matt. 12 5

an interpolation whose position is parallel to that of 7 which we have considered valid as indicating the
"

sense attached by the evangelist to 6

it

1/109

TO

avOptoirov

but

by no means implies that on this occasion Mark did not have in view the ordinary self -appellation of Jesus. It is
the saying

also to be noted that

Luke

65

cf.

Mark

2 27 has
,

a fresh

form

of

introduction

/cal

6\eyev auro??, 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

See ahove, p. 254. In opposition to Lieizmann, Der Mcnschensolm, 89. 27 does not appear It is worthy of note that the saying of our Lord, Mark 2 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

but not that He, as Lord had authorised the act of the disciples. A Sabbath, declaration of this nature would have been more in place if
;

Jesus Himself had set aside the Sabbatic regulations.

as regards the theory represented
J.
its

Again,

by
of

Pfleiderer, J. Weiss,

and

H. Holtzmann, in the absence

"

any

historical

warrant in
first

support, one cannot consent to the idea that Jesus at

had merely called Himself

period,

the

Man,"

and then at a
,

later
it

by combining
"

this

with Dan. 7 13 had transformed

into a Messianic

designation.
"

Besides, the objection arises

"

that

"

Man

and

Son

of
it

man

are not traceable to the

same

Aramaic expression, and

Jesus called Himself not
in

would

also have to be explained

why
?

KVM but NfJN 13.

v.
28

Why should

"man"

Mark

2 27 be 6 avOpaiTros, but in
itself

o vtos TOV

avOpwrrov

simpler and in

of explaining these passages satisfactorily,

an admittedly permissible method would be either to

change the embarrassing 6 vlos TOV avOparrov into the per sonal pronoun, or else to suppose that the sayings concerned
should be located after Peter
the latter,
as
it

common

s confession. In support of could be held that the paragraph alluded to to the three Synoptists, includes within it the

allusion

to the

days when the bridegroom shall be taken

away, which
9 15
,

will give his friends occasion for fasting (Matt.

,

Mark

2 20

Luke 5 35 ).
s
it

As Jesus here

anticipates His death,

the time of Peter

ceded.

confession

may

be supposed to have pre

Of course

by no means follows that Jesus Himself

had only at that time acquired the knowledge of His violent death still it does seem that He had not previously informed
;

His disciples of
1

it.

it is also

On

D has not inserted it till the later narrative, Luke 6 10 In this passage placed by Blass in his text of Luke, and by Rcsch in his A6yta the other hand, in Luke 6 5 Cod. D has another Logion peculiar to itself.
Cod.
.

Irj<rov.

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 His future destiny. From that time forward the
significant to
,

in regard to
title

became
7 13 for

them

as the

name derived from Dan.

Him who was

cance of the

ordained to the sovereignty of the world.

To

the mass of the people Jesus did not manifest the full signifi
title,

until in

Sanhedrin, Matt.

26

64

His open confession before the 62 Luke 22 69 ), He set all (Mark 14

,

doubts at

rest,

and thereby supplied the judges with a possible

precise determination of the sense attached
"12

pretext for pronouncing a sentence of death.

The more
Jesus to Nf^N

will

by have to be sought primarily, as in

dicated above, with the help of the

sidering the general
chief motive

Book

of

Daniel.

Con

mode of thought peculiar to Jesus, the which led directly to the selection of the Book of Daniel, and the title it 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
alone. 1

earthly conditions are to be expected from the agency of God As a stone which no hand has unloosed from its

native rock, so comes the sovereignty of God upon the world, 45 in order to shatter every hostile sovereignty, Dan. 2
34>

From heaven comes one that God may bestow as a

Dan. 7 13
,

like
gift

unto a son of

man

in order

universal dominion
it is said,

upon him,
,

cf. v.

27
.

Of the

"violent"

Dan. II 4 that

they up same time destined

are

raised

to establish the vision, but are at the

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
to
all
"

Messiah

"

by the people

as they, in opposition

Old Testament prophecy, 2 were looking for acts of political liberation and a forcible appropriation of the sove1

Cf. above, p.

137

f.

See on tins point Fund. Ideas,

XL

1.

THE SON OF MAN

reign ty by their Messiah.

265
still

But there was

another

reason"

why

the

title

"

Son

of

man

"

was specially appropriate

to

Jesus.

The name Messiah denoted the Lord

;

of the Messianic

age in His capacity as Euler 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
possessor of the Messianic dignity are in fact unimaginable, When Jesus according to the testimony of the prophets.

attached to the Messianic confession of Peter the

timation of His violent death,
clear

first

in
it

He

did so in order to

make

that the entrance

distant,

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.
disposition he

was

possible that he should also be one

who had undergone

is

suffering

no user

of force,
"

but only a
protection

"

son of

man

At any rate, in no conqueror, no demolisher, whom God has taken under His
and death.
be
1

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 is the defencelessness which leads Him
to

endure

all

things which men, by the counsel of God, inflict

upon Him.
"

Jesus called Himself NSWK

13,

not indeed as the

lowly

one,"

but as that member of the

kind), in his

own nature
and
it is

impotent,

human race (Menschenwhom God ivill make Lord

*

of the world

reference
Ps.

to the

Son
is

very probable that Jesus found another of man of Dan. 7 in the verses of

8 5f

"

and a son

of

What man

man

that

Thou

art mindful of him,

that

to be but little less

1

Thou acceptest him, and permittest him than God, and crownest him with glory

Dan. 7 given on p. 138 f. supported by V. Bartlet, Expos., 6th Ser., iv. 435, and ing the reference to Dan. 7 by F. Buhl, Messianske Forjcettelser, 236
Of. the exposition of
is
-

This view

exclud
f.

266

THE WORDS OF JESUS

to
all

and honour, makes t him Thy hands, and hast put

If

have dominion over the works

"

of

this

things under his feet exposition of the term be correct,

it

follows

(1) that the sense attached by Jesus to the title

to

is

peculiar

Him

alone,

and

is
;

Enoch and 2 Esdras

no mere counterpart of the idea in (2) that humility and suffering can be
majesty
;

predicated of KG^JK 13 as well as

(3) that the

meaning

suggested by the title to those who did not suspect its con nection with Dan. 7 was not unwarranted, because in any
case they too

must have concluded that Jesus disclaimed the

by His own
efforts
;

role of usurper

(4) that

it

was

possible

the disciples were content with this conception, and did not ask any further explanation from Jesus (5)
that at
first
;

put upon expression by the and by the primitive Church, though in the narrower sense inexact, was not erroneous in so far as
Hellenistic Synoptists

that

the interpretation

the

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 Son of man had been set upon for in the meantime the
; ;
" "

the throne of God, and was, in fact, no longer merely a man,

but a Ruler over heaven and earth,

"

The

Lord,"

as Paul in

the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Teaching of the

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 of might be a paradoxical term for
"

Son

God."

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
"

God God is
of
"

as

deaf."

in this case

In Tosephta Bab. k. vii. 2, the "eye of expressed by the eye that is above
"

"

Cf.

E.

Landau,

Die

gegensinnigen

Wbrter im

Alt-

mid NeulicLr.

(1896).

THE SON OF MAN

267
*

jin
"

}>J>);

says

but Mechilta Mishp. Nez. 15 the eye that is beneath (nisW

"

and Bab.

k.

79 b

J^).

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

themselves
"

"downward"
"

meaning really upward Even in the Old Testament,

"n^a,

is

(HBD HBB), whereas the (their heads), i.e. towards God.

e.g.

1
"

10 Kings 2 1

"to

bless,"

is

said instead of

"

to

curse

when
"

the malediction
"

is

applied to God.
Name," b.

In the same way B^? nana,

is

blessing of the

Sanh. 5 6 a (Baraitha),
"

really
is

God
ing

"

n^j;^ nana,
"

blessing of

what

blasphemy against curs above," means

"

God

nsK& nrna,

blessing of
of

what

is

below,"

on the

other

hand, means

"cursing

parents,"

b.

Yeb.

101 a
N^P,

(Chanina).
"the

A
seer,"

blind

man was
j.

called in Galilee **yn)

,

clear

Ber. E. 30,

Peah 19 a
eyes are

j.

Keth. 34 b or also
,

KnriDD aoaa,

"the

man whose

opened," j.

Kidcl.

61 a

When

anything discreditable to Israel has to be said, it is the enemies of Israel," see in Hebr. B^wic? predicated of
"

^#$?i
c.

Mechilta,
3

ed.

Fried.

3a

Tos.

Sukk.

ii.

6
;

(Meir,
j.

160

A.D.

);

in

Aram, fon^i
ii.

23;

Targ. Esth.

I1

Chag. 77 In like circumstances a

lirrKJfr, j.

Sanh.
does
,

man

not speak of himself but of "his enemy"; see b. Sukk. 52 a a b. Sanh. 107 where ^ \JCn js, "he, who hates me," is
,

however, scarcely warrants the Sou of man by Jesus imputation of a paradoxical use of and as such a supposition is in no way indispensable in

employed

for

"

I."

All

this,

"

"

explaining the designation,

1

it

must be

set aside.

2
3

Ed. Constantinople, 1515, not in ed. Friedm. (91 b ). Cf. the saying of Cliijja, Schir. R. I 6 ; Baclicr, Ag. d. pal. BacJier, Ag. d. Tann. ii. 28.

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

Messianic age. It will therefore be appropriate to begin by tracing the influence of this psalm on Jewish literature.

In Ps. 2 7 the king of Zion, whom the poet had spoken of in v. 5 as God s Anointed (in^ ip), is called by God His Son (^3), begotten by Him on the coronation day. This
" "

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

it,

the psalm deduces from the

filial

relation of the
originally

king of
proper to

Zion to

God, that universal

dominion

God

is

bequeathed
of

to

the Son as an inheritance,

,

and in

this respect goes

further than Ps. 89 28 according to

is

only the highest of the kings of the earth. To me it seems likely that in both psalms, as in Isa. 55 the king of Zion is meant as an emblem of
4<5

which the firstborn

God

God s

In Jewish literature, however, people collectively. In the there are but few traces of such an interpretation.
Miclrash to Ps. 2 12
1

it is

said at the end

"

Whom

does this

resemble
land,

The king, who is angry with the people of the and the people go and appease the son of the king,
?

And when the people go to that he may appease the king. render a song of praise to the king, he says to them Is it
:

to?

But Son." In this comment, therefore, n3 is actually understood to be The fear that in must apparently be regarded as the original reading. 12 one might think of the anger of the Son, and of refuge with the Son, may v. have led to the change into 13, which in that case, from its first appearance, would have meant "purity."
"

THE SON OF GOD

to
as,

269

me

Go and say it to my son, that ye would sing praise ? but for him, I had long ago exterminated the people of
Even
so

the land.
to

God

says to the Gentiles

of

when they wish

it

render

Him

a song

praise

Go, say

to

the

Israelites,
hour."

them ye could not endure for one The date and source of the saying are unknown.
for without

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
the

in each of the three divisions

Scripture

in

Law Ex

4 22
("

Israel

is
,

my

son,

my

firstborn"),

in the Prophets Isa.

,

52 13 and 42 1 and in the

.

1 27 Dan. 7 13 2 Judging by the Hagiographa Ps. 110 citation from the Pentateuch, it appears as if Israel were

meant throughout. The Messianic interpretation

so frequently as

of the psalm is not found have been The Book of might expected. 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 ), spirits and His Anointed," the second part should be deleted. For if not, the language here, they have disowned the Lord of

picture.

"

spirits,"

So,

would be inapplicable to the Messiah, see 4 1 2 45 2 46 7 too, Enoch 52* is clearly an interpolation, as it breaks
.

the natural connection between vv. 3 and

reference to the

5
.

Accordingly the
Anointed,"

Messiah as

"

His (God s)
is

which

appears there,
this section of

is

also foreign to the original.

Moreover, in

Enoch, the Messiah

elsewhere called con

Chosen,"

sistently, according to Ps.

89

20
,

"the

see

49 4

5 13
2
,

52

6 9
-

To a

later insertion

we must

also ascribe

105

in

Thus

"Wilna,

in ed. Constant. 1512, and ed. Venice, 1546. Buber, in ed. 1891, does not mention this reading, and has in its place "the world."
it
is

According to Yalkut Shim. ii. (ed. Salonica, 1521) 624, would not continue to exist in this world." 2 Dan. 7 13 is not cited in the parallel, Yalk. Shim. ii. 621.

said:

"Ye

270
which case
"

THE WORDS OF JESUS

I

and

My

Son

"

might

also, for

that matter, be

derived from Ps. 89 27f -.

Among
27-29
to

the earlier sections of the Apoc. of Baruch, chap. did not originally mention the Messiah. The name

occurs, indeed, in

29 s and 30 1

but in 29 3

He

only

"begins
again."

become

manifest,"

and 30 says that

out.

"He

comes

Of His actual governance one hears nothing.

Both passages

must therefore be struck

"

On
"

the other hand, the ex

mine (God s) anointed is twice used in the section pression 1 7 36-40 chaps. (39 40 ), also twice in the section chaps. 53-

74 (70 9 72 2 ), but no
Messiah
is

allusion

is

made
the

to Ps. 2.
Anointed"

In 70 9 the
(Syr.

called

"my

Servant,

nay
"

WWD);

but the whole verse

may

E. H. Charles on the passage. 32 (Syr. KIWB) appears in 12 with just as in Apoc. of Bar. out allusion to Ps. 2. In 7 28 29 God calls the Messiah
"

possibly be a gloss; see In 2 Esdras the Messiah

"

(Syr. KITTO 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

Son,"

IS 32

-* 2

14 9

In

this

vision
.

there occur

references to Dan. 2, Dan. 7, and Isa. II 4

The stone cut

out without hands, Dan.

2, which became a mountain, on which the Messiah takes up his position, and against which the peoples assemble, 13 35f must be Zion and this identifi
-,
;

cation implies the influence of Ps. 2 in this passage. this influence is not clearly marked.

Still

There

is,

however, an indubitable reference to Ps. 2 in

, ;

9 the Psalter of Solomon 17 26 perhaps also in 18 18 (cf. Ps. 2 ) and hence arises the possibility, though not the necessity, of 1 1 7 36 tracing also the designations Xpia-rbs

Kvpto?,

XpHrrov
Psalm.
to

6 avrov, 18

Xptcrrov

icvptov,

18 8 back
,

to the second
is

In this book, however, the Messiah

"Son

not referred

as

of

God."

of the

This depends, according to 18 6 upon the Hebr. m,T n^D, s Lord," as does also XptoToO nvpiov, 18
, .

"the

Anointed

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 In this case vv. 7 and 8 are attributed to Messiah, of Ps. 2.

Son
1

of David.
(c.

More
1
i

recent

is

the saying of Yonathan ben

it

Eleazar

240)

"of

three persons
?

is

said in Scripture,

Ask

Who
the

are they

Solomon and Ahaz and the King

reference
27
it is

Messiah."

For the
Midrash

last,

then made to Ps.

2,

From

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

It runs thus
"

main

From

this verse (Ps. 2 7 )

we

find a retort against the

Minim

(Christians),

who

say that

the Holy One, Blessed be He, has a Son; and thou canst

remonstrate that the words are not

a son art thou to

me/

but
safes

thou art

my

son, like a servant to

whom

his lord

vouch
!"

2 encouragement, saying to him, I love thee as my son 8 In an addition to the saying of Huna about (naa 7]p wnano).

the sufferings of Messiah, which appears in the sources

"

tioned, the

"

begetting

is

understood to be the

"

men new creation" 4

undergone by the suffering Messiah, as a necessary prelude to His advent in majesty. The Targum for Ps. 80 16 has identi
fied the
"

Son

"

with the Messiah, having clearly had Ps. 2 in

that as time passed the Christian ex-

view.

One may assume

1

Bcr. B. 44

cf.

Backer, Ag. d. p.

Am.

i.

83.

thou
3

7 So, too, the Targum of the Psalms has in 2 "dear as a son to a father art to me, innocent as if I had this day created thee."

This

is

the reading in Yalk. Shim.

ii.

621, ed. Salonica, 1521

Midr. Ps.,
in ed.

ed. Constantinople, 1512,

and

ed. Venice, 1546.

The Censor Dominico Caresso

(1607) has blackened a part of the beginning in Frankf. a. M. 1687 the whole is omitted. Buber,

my
who

copy of Yalkut

besides the old editions

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.
;

see

my

treatise,

272
position of Ps. 2

THE WORDS OF JESUS

became a deterrent

to its

common
it

the synagogue.

But even

for

the earlier period

use by must be

in the
God"

recognised as certain that Ps. 2 was not of decisive importance Jewish conception of the Messiah, and that Son of
"

was not a common Messianic

}a

title.

A
;

hindrance to

the use of NJTO? in or ^n^.ri

the custom of not uttering the

would have presented itself in name of God and this after

gives the words of the

wards shows

itself

when Mark 14 61

a form ill adapted Jewish high priest as 6 vibs rou ev\oy7jrov When God calls the to become a current Messianic title.

Messiah His Son, this is merely meant as a sign of the ex Even ceptional love with which He above others is regarded.
the idea of the
is

combined with sonship in Ps. 2 never developed by Jewish literature in its bearing on the
"

"

heritage

Messiah.
It
is

a peculiar

mark

of great

importance in

Israel, that

divine descent was never ascribed either to the people or to

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.

If

Ps. 2

and

Ps.

89

refer to the

people Israel, it is still a special relation to God that is thereby asserted, the originator of this relationship being God, and by

no means any sort

word.

of procreation in the literal sense of the

Even

in Messianic expositions,
title
"

an

Israelite will

always

have taken the

Son

of

God

"

in a figurative sense, there

it

being no incentive in this connection to interpret than was usual elsewhere.

otherwise

The language used by

Israel
1

recalls

that

of

Assyria.

When

Asshurbanipal in his Annals, according to the inscrip

himself
"

tions, calls

an offspring

of

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.
to

be real

"

descendants of the god

1

Ba."

Even the
ii.

birth of

Schrader, Keilinschriftl. Bibliothek,

152

f.

THE SON OF GOD

273
;

each king seems to be regarded as a special act of the gods

the royal title might contain the sentence: of his birth there was exultation in heaven
1
"on

the day

the gods said,

we have begotten him

from
"

the goddesses said,

he went forth

us.

The royal style of old Egypt was continued by the Ptolemies. Hence one encounters in connection with them
epithets like
(
"a

diis

genitus," "films

Isidis et

Osiris,"

i/ws rov

also boasted frequently of divine progenitors. Sextus Pompeius called himself the son of Neptune; Domitian, the son of Minerva;

H\lov?

0609 CK 0eov

teal

6eas?

Roman emperors

Caligula and Hadrian

festations
of

deemed themselves
In
in

to be earthly

mani
there

Zeus. 4

the

royal
0ed 9

title,
5
,

however,

appeared only
in

"Divus,"

Greek

Aram. Nnfo,* which,

the East, people applied without scruple to the living whereas it was originally intended to emperor, apply only to the emperor when transferred death to a by place among the gods. Augustus, it is true, called himself Divi filius" 7 06ov mo 9 8 but that has nothing really to do with divine It was a term due to his sonship. modesty, which prompted him to be known 9 as merely the son of one who was trans ferred to a place among the gods," his father by adoption being Caesar, now taken to be a Divus. Hence no assist ance can be derived from this designation in determining the Greek conception of the term 6 vibs rov 06ov used
"

Jesus. 10
1

bv

A. Erman, Agypten, 90

f.

[Eng.

tr. 57].
S

acce r enmt Alexander et successors

Corp. Inscr. Grtec. 4697.

le cultc

*E. Beurlicr, Essai sur

o, e.g.,

rendu aux Empereurs Remains (1890),

10,

Wadd.

2075, 2076, 2380, 2585, 2598; Corp. Inscr. Gnec. 2176,

6
7 8 9 10

See

tie

Vogiie, 15, 16.

a. d.
;

Ag. Urktmden Ibid. 174, 543

kgl.

Mus. Berlin (Greek), 628

1476.

Wadd.

Cf. Beurlier, Essai, 13, 15. In opposition to

Deissrnann, Bibelstudien, 166

f.

[Eng.

tr. p.

166

f.].

274
THE TITLE

THE WORDS OF JESUS

2.

"SON

OF

GOD"

AS APPLIED TO JESUS BY OTHER

PERSONS.

In the Synoptic Gospels,

Messianic
title in

o vlos

TOV Oeov

is

found as a

the confession of Peter, Matt. 16 16 (o Xpia20 T05 o vios TOV Oeov TOV fc^To?). Luke, however, has (9 )

TOV XpiaTov TOV Oeov, and

Mark

As

the

name

6 Xpto-ro? is the

has merely o Xptcrro?. one which we should naturally

(8
)

29

expect in the

mouth
it

of a

Jew

at that period,

we must regard

Matthew s

version as an expansion. 1

In Matt. 14 33

may

certainly be admitted that the con

fession Oeov v to? el is not inappropriately attributed to the

disciples after Jesus

had shown Himself

it is

to be

master

of

wind

and waves.

But

as

straightway asserted,

Mark

6 51f -, that

the disciples did not thus express themselves on that occasion,

a sufficiently sure foundation for the utterance

disappears.

In the mouth
6

of the high priest, Matt.

26 63 the designation
,

XpicrTos o v!b$ rov Oeov (like o Xp. 6

14
61

m o?

TOV ev\oyrjTov,

Mark

is

unsuitable

Luke (22 66 ),

o X/KCTTO?, or

because the words, as given by perhaps 6 XpitrTos TOV evXoyrjTov,

"

have antecedent probability in their favour. In the second of of God 1 the Son art thou the then question 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

chosen Christ of

of

God."

God."

this is the Luke has (22 35 ): The conditional clause does not
"if

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

and

Luke

(see

below).

The centurion

See on the same point, pp. 183, 196, 200, 291. On this point see XI. 2.

THE SON OF GOD

275

makes the confession

the
"Son

after the death of Jesus that

,

He was

God," whereas, 47 according to Luke (23 ), he merely calls Jesus "guiltless" While the synoptic tradition is in itself discordant (8t/ftuo?).
;

of

wo? Beov, Matt. 27 54

Mark 15 39

as regards the instances just

named,
"

it is

ing that the demoniacs

8 29

named Jesus

the Son of
.

uniform in testify God," Matt.

It is evident,

(Mark

57

Luke

8 28 ),
41
,

Mark

3 11

Luke 4 41

that the evangelist here regards o v to? TOV Oeov as simply a synonym for o Xpio-Tos. Even in the country of the Gerasenes Jews would have been numerous

however, from Luke 4

enough, so that an appellation of Jesus as Messiah by the demoniacs settled there is not unnatural. Thus o XpicrTo?

would have
Oeov.

to

be substituted for the

uncommon

6 vlbs TOV

conceivable that in such a case the evangelic narrative should, without reserve, make use of the explanatory
is

It

title

"

Son

of

God."

In relation to these
the
"

spirits,

Jesus was

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
conceived not so

much

Messiah

"

as the

"

"

under

1, this result is
s

quite natural.

I have not here con

"

sidered Satan

designation of Jesus as
3
-

Son

of
-

God

"

in the

3 9 account of the Temptation, Matt. 4 It stands (Luke 4 ). in close connection with the divine voice at the Baptism, to

which the words

ously refer.

of Satan,

"if

thou art the Son of

at the

God,"

obvi

Baptism requires a separate discussion. Except for this association, it would be possible here also to put o Xpio-Tos for vibs TOV 0eov. Unnoticed still remain the words of the angel in Luke I 32

The voice from heaven

and

I 35

In the former verse, u/o? V^TLCTTOV taken along with

falls
Son."
"

^7^9 merely emphasises the exalted distinction which to him whom the Most High deigns to name His
The
natural birth of Jesus.

latter verse expressly connects vios deov with the super

We

are not here called to consider

276

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the historical value of the narrative in

Luke s

first

chapter.

We

have merely to note the fact that the wording of the with the biblical style 1 angelic message is in conformity serves adopted by Luke for this narrative and it therefore
;

all

the more surely as a means of ascertaining the evangelist s own interpretation of the idea fto? rov 6eov. The second

saying of

the

angel

cannot in any case be

notions.

relation with

common
virgin
;

popular born of a people never expected the Messiah to be and no trace is to be found among the Jews of any

Jewish

For the

brought into Jewish

Messianic application of Isaiah

virgin s son,

maintained

words (7 14 ) concerning the as some have from which by any possibility the whole account of the miraculous birth of
s
its origin.

Jesus could have derived

3.

THE DIVINE VOICE AT THE BAPTISM AND THE

TRANSFIGURATION.

by God His Son," The words are at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration. 11 17 I Luke 3 22 ) and 3 6 Matt. o vlos fiov (Mark ayaTrr,?,

On two

occasions Jesus

is

called

"

17 5 (Mark
p.

97

2
2

Pet.
).

I 17

but in
is

Luke

9 35

Sin.

B, 6

v.

eVXeXey^eW?
ev$ofc<r)<ra

There
3 17

added,
ev

Mark

I 11

(Luke

3 22 ),
I 17

eV
et9

o-ol

(Matt.

17 5

evBoKqaa, 2 Pet.

bv

eyo

ev&orcrjo-a).
is

Luke
fjbov

3 22 which
ai>,

el

eyco

is a reading for Alex. wo? Clem. supported by D, Justin, been has form This ere. ai^fjiepov yeyewrjKa

Moreover, there

considered by Blass

to be the parent of both forms of the

Lucan

text and adopted into his text.

Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, Hrer. 4 In the gospel of the Hebrews, side by side.
1
;

The gospel of the 30, had both forms

Jerome
6

See above, p. 39 and on vibs ityiorov, p. 199. Of the Syriac versions, only the Sinaitic has this reading; Cur., Pesh.,

Jerus., like
3

ACD, have

6 dyair^ros.

F. Blass, Evangelitim secundum Nov. Test. Suppl. 75. Ncstle>

Lucam

(1897), xxxvii.
B

f.,

14.
Isa.

See Jerome on

II 4 .

THE SON OF GOD

read
"

277
in sempi-

tu es films

meus primogenitus, qui regnas

ternum."

The two forms represented in the canonical Gospels have both been moulded in the language of the Old Testament. The second, which is 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
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
Isa.

servants, the
this,

In language is natural enough. the terms used by the divine voice recall
it

42 12

in

the form in which

fjiov

is

reproduced

in Matt.

12

18

ISov 6
97

ov ypencra, 6 ayaTryros

JJLOV

ov

rjvoo/crjo-ev

^f%?7

Orjaa)

TO

Trvevjjid

JJLOV

eV
also

avrov KOI

Kpl(7iv rot?

<l6ve<riv

dtrayyeXei.

The Targum
"

shows a readiness to render

"

Hebr. inj,
see Isa.
"

to

choose,"
"IB>K

by

inn**,

to be well-pleased

43

10

wna
.

^ay, Targ.

with

"

W1TW1 KWO
I

""W,

my

servant,
8

the anointed, in

whom
of

am

well-pleased,"

cf.

41

44
,

1- 2

The bestowal
the

the Spirit, mentioned in

for

Isa.

42 1

is

clearly

motive
Isa.

the

allusion

to

this

prophetic statement.

What

42 1 says
In that

of the servant of

God was now being

1

fulfilled.

case

mu?

/JLOV

in

Proposed by Conybeare, Jew. Quart. Rev. ix. 463. Prov. 3 12 sounds similar: "Whom the Lord loveth, He reprovcth ; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth (nrr ja TIN 3x?i). The LXX, how
2
"

ever, renders
3

(cf.

Heb. 12 6 )
gift of
:

/mcurTiyol d

iravTOL vlbv dv Tra/oaSe xerat,

and there

is

no reference to the

the Spirit.
6 TTCUS yuou,
f-

The

LXX

has

Ia/ccb/3
77

dvTi\ri/j,\{/ 0/j.ai

avrov
/JLOV

IcrpaTjX 6 ^/cXe/cros

fjiov,

irpcxred^aTO avrbv

^vX n

-ov

^ 5w/ca

TO Trvev^a.

^TT

avrdv, Kpicriv ro?s

Wve<nv

278
Isa.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

42 1

which stands
to

for
"

the Hebr. ^3^,

child."

"my

servant,"

would be taken
In Acts 4 25
-

mean
is

This

is

not surprising.
"

26

there

a citation of Ps.

2 1 which v. 27 applies

to the opposition of the

Jewish authorities against

TOV ayuov

dov TralSa
to

Irjo-ovv, ov

e^/ncra?."

The word
-

30 Jesus, as also in v.
"

and in 3 13

26
,

is

Trafc here applied rendered in the

Peshita

by

"D,

son."

And
6
,

since

the

Teaching

of

the

Apostles regards Jesus (10 cf. 1 1 David, but as the God of David, conformably with Ps. and Matt. 22 45 it can hardly be imagined that, in the same

Matt. 2 1 9 ) not as the son of

HO

which so speak of Him, Jesus should, with reference to God, be called Thy servant." 2 The word
eucharistic prayers
"

77m?

used concerning

Jesus,

Teaching Ap.

92
2

10 2

will

therefore

mean

"

child,"

despite the fact that 9

(cf.

Acts 4 25 )

contains the same term applied to David.

This meaning is unmistakable in Clement of Eome, whose letter to the Corin

thians,

59 2ft

twice has
(crou)

the

formula:
cf.

Sia

TOV a
I.

TraiSo? avrov

Irjaov XpLarov,
"

59 4

Xp.
"

6
is

aov.

The rendering

His

(Thy) beloved

child

here

obviously necessary, and an allusion to the voice at the See also Baptism and Transfiguration cannot be doubted.
o /jLovoyevr)? Tim?,

Clem. Alex., Strom,

does the

vii.

1.

Not
and

less clearly

Wisdom

of

Solomon

treat irals

The righteous man who names vio? as equivalent. himself irals tcvpiov (2 13 ), prides himself, according to 2 16 that God is his father and the wicked wish to test whether
, ;

he really

is

what he professes

to be, namely, vlbs

Oeov (2 18 ).

Hence the Syriac version

1

rightly enough has rendered both

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 n^?) see
It is

the Palestinian
Ber. 8 C
6 a.
2

j.

and the Palestinian recension of the Prayer,

"

Messianisehe

Texte,"

No.

In

itself

and in another environment there would be no objection to

this

designation; see 52 13 Zech. 3 8

,
.

NH^D

j3j?,

"My

Servant the

Messiah,"

in Targ. Isa. 42 1 43 10

See

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 31.

THE SON OF GOD

2 13 and 2 18 by
"sons"
"

279
The
Israelites are

Son

of

God,"

snn ma
v.
20

(mot) of
case
viol

19 and in God, 12
,

"children"

(natSe?).

In

this

the

Syriac translator
TratSe?
;

notices
25
,

the

difference

between

and

but just
"

after, v.

he

feels obliged

to render

TratSe?

by
is

tota,

children."

The
"

attitude of the

Book
it

of

Wisdom

contains
"

the more important on undoubted references to the

Trafc Kvpiov in this
"

this point, because

Servant of

the

Lord

of Isa. 53.

author must necessarily

of
is

be traced back to the

for

servant

"

(TO)

God

in Isa.
to

40-6 6,1
Trat?.
2

which term the

LXX,

as a rule,

wont

put

The same misinterpretation of the word Trat? in the Greek Old Testament, where it stands for servant," was easily
"

possible to
If this

any one who did not know the Bible in Hebrew. be the author s view of irais in Acts, chaps. 3 and 4,

then these chapters were the work of a Hellenist who wrote

in the style of the

Greek

Bible.

The same confusion

of Trafc

and

vios

cannot be asserted

without further consideration in regard to the divine voice at the Baptism and Transfiguration, because in this case it is
not
Trafr

but vto? that

is

used.

But

it

becomes compre
/JLOV,

hensible

how an

original designation of Jesus as o vlos

which must be considered as constituting the essence

divine utterance, since
(see
it

of the

stands in both forms of the text

TOV Oeov, John I 34 ), was susceptible of an extension on the lines not only of Ps. 2 7 but also of Isa. 42 1
also
o

uto?

tending to

make

the sense of the shorter phrase clearer, and

commensurate with the importance of the occasion. 1 since the bestowal of the Spirit, mentioned in Isa. 42

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
at

Transfiguration.

On

the

contrary,

the

utterance

the

Baptism has exercised an influence on that at the

1

Trans-

For additional proofs of the use of Isa. 40-66, see 20 3 5 19 Exceptionally the LXX has SouXoj, 42 48 49
-

ibid. 32.
.

280
figuration, as

THE WORDS OF JESUS

even the present text of Matthew indicates by
<j>

5 evftoicrjcra. adopting in 17 the supplement Iv In these circumstances there is no occasion for inquiry

as

to

the Aramaic original.

(at the
:

A
*??

translation

of

the divine

words

Baptism) based on the Greek of Mark would

have to be

^^D
at

?.
of the
is

The
divine

first

conclusion to be
the

drawn from the tenor

that
is

declaration

Baptism

He who was
in a special

exceptionally endued with the Divine Spirit

sense the object of the love and good pleasure of God.

The

evangelists give an account of the voice, not on account of any importance which the reception of such a divine voice

might possibly have

the world proclaimed

for Jesus, but in the sense of impressive

testimonies that Jesus really was what His disciples before

Him

to be.

Hence
divine

it is

clear that the voice is intended to signify the

good pleasure, not towards the person of Jesus as such, but towards Him as the agent of a special mission. This view is 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

"

Thus, however, we are directed to that position by God. which Jesus Himself felt conscious of occupying as the Son
of
God."

4.

JESUS*

OWN

TESTIMONY.
title
"

Jesus never applied to Himself the and yet made it indubitably clear that
"

Son

of

God,"

He was

not merely

"

but

"

the

Son

of

God."

The

position

assumed shows

itself

in the preference

He

God

as

"

His

"

Father, in the use of which

manifested for the designation of He never includes

the disciples along with Himself.

In the prayer which

only in

He

gave as an example to the

1

disciples, it is

Matthew

Cf. Jer. 31

19

Tj?: |3,

Targ. 3 aq 13,

LXX

wo? ayain)T6s.

THE SON OF GOD

9

281
But

(6

that the words are

irdrep

fjfjL&v
1

o eV TO?? ovpavols.

not merely Luke, as Holtzmann 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

Father."

between

"

my

Father

"

and

"

your

Jesus understands by the filial relationship peculiar to Himself is perceived with special distinctness from the
33 parable of the Vineyard let out to Husbandmen, Matt. 2 1
1 (Mark 12
"

What

46

12
,

Luke 20
"

9 -19
).

the only
servants.

"

son

as the sole

Here He sharply distinguishes heir from the whole series of

;

Mark

1 2 6 calls this son eva vlov ajaiTrjTov

;

Luke

20 13 TOV
vlov n,ov.

vlov fiov rbv dya7rr)Tov

It should here

be

Matt. 2 1 37 has merely TOP recalled that the puts

LXX
n^

TOV vlov

(Tov

TOV a^aiT^Tov^ Gen. 22 2 for Hebr.

,

IT?"!

"^

n^

Onk. sj-W
difference
of

n;

Tj-jn nj,

thine only
o u/o? o

Son,"

and hence there

is

no

between
.

ayair^To^ and o v to? o

is,

/jiovoyevrjs

John 3 16

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
of the world, and to such a sovereignty as would be exercised not by a Jewish emperor, but by a divine Sovereign. kindred idea appears in Matt. 17 25 where Jesus asks

whether the kings

1

of the earth exact tribute

i.

from their own

Lehrb. d. neutest. Tlieol.

268.

In Holtzmann

opinion, Jesus could not

real dyua/m cu, but only as in Matt. 6 12 of 60eiX?7juara, in the sense of defects such as would have been inevitable in His earthly

have spoken as in Luke II 4 of

existence.

But Aramaic
"guilt,"

meaning
,
"

is

requires nin as the original ; and this term, literally in that language quite a common term for "sins." See
KJ Nb,
"

Ex. 10 17 Hebr.

"nxian

forgive, I

pray thee,

my

sin";

Onk.

\?in

jj??

pirn?,

pardon now
2

my

guilt."

See above,

p. 190.

282
sons
;

THE WOEDS OF JESUS and the thought

is,

that as this

is

quite unusual, even

so the heavenly King, God, will not exact tribute

from His

Son. The question whether the tax was being paid had been asked with reference to Jesus only, and therefore the state

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, as Himself from all Israelites Jesus too, belonging separates not to their number, but to God.

We
cf.

should also include in this connection Matt. 22 2

10>

vv. 8

12
,

so far as the contents themselves are concerned,

for the

where the Messianic supper is regarded as a marriage feast Son of the King. But Luke 14 16 does not contain this
1 detail in describing the supper.

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

different scope is given to

the

filial

relationship
VTTO
o

of

Jesus to

God

in

Matt.

II 27 Trdvra

JJLOL

irape^oOif]
el
JJLTJ

TOV

JJLOV, /ecu

ouSet? eTriyivctiaKei
Ti?
eirifyivtoo-KeL
3

TOV vlbv
el

Trartfp,
u>

rbv

TraTepa

pr)

vlbs

KOI

eav

/3ov\r)Tai, 6 uto? diroKaXv^frac.

1

The
N"?J

parallel in
2

Luke (10 22 )
to
JD"?I,

See above, p. 118.

See above, p. 134.

"and in N PJH Kin Nrurn The Evan. Hierosol. has at the end whom the Son wills to reveal (Him), he reveals (Him). It seems to read d \tyet, and takes the last part of the verse to be an independent clause.

THE SON OF GOD

as given in the

283

common

text has only insignificant deviations.

:

Blass makes
fjiov)

Luke s reading to be eanv 6 u/o? teal yivcticr/cei, T/?

ovSets

ajro TOV Trarpos (without

TI? ecrriv 6 irartfp

(without

repetition of ovbels yivaxrKeL).

In the
eyva>

last part of the verse

el p.rj 6

Justin and Marcion read

KOI TOV vlov
el
/LIT)

TOV irarepa
eav
o
Vlb<;

v to?,

TraTrjp
is

KOI

&>

aTTOKoKv^rr].

The idea here entertained

by God of which an adequate consciousness

"mysteries"
,

not the sovereignty committed whole revelation of Jesus by means the but to Jesus,
of

God

is

attained.
,

The

of the sovereignty of

4 11 Luke 8 10 )
to deal

11 Mark (see Matt. 13 in their utmost extent were entrusted by His

God

Father to Jesus, and indeed to

Him

alone, with the obligation

And with them according to His own discretion. this exclusive committal to Him is also the most natural,
because between Father and Son there exists a perfect mutual understanding so unique, that any other persons could parti
cipate in the complete knowledge of the Father only through

The two clauses referring to the knowledge of the Son by the Father and of the Father by the Son must therefore be taken together, and not independ
the
of the

medium

Son.

ently expounded.

They

really constitute a detailed Oriental

mode
But

of expressing the reciprocity of intimate understanding. 1

in this case of

mutual understanding,
assumed.
is

its

thoroughness
stands in so

and absolute

infallibility are

He who

uniquely close a relation to

of the kind,

God

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 between 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

God

is

one that cannot

be
1

transmitted
Cf.
j. II.

to
58 b
i.e.

others
]"^}

be subject to change.
pjpt^

His

h.

S.

nio

pWi

nio pVx,

"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

to

the

same
their
is

knowledge
knowledge
acquired by

God

He

Himself possessed.
a

But

derived

through

medium, while
it

His

direct intuition.
will be

As
more

regards the Aramaic to be presupposed here,

satisfactory to

change TrapeSoOrj into the active voice.

even in Palestinian Aramaic to connect
ftp,

It is possible, indeed,

the subject in question with the passive voice through

but

examples tionable whether we should use

in support

are

uncommon. 1
SHI

It is further ques

or
"

D?n for
to

"

to

know."

Galilean Aramaic uses the former for

latter for
"

know

fact,"

the

to

know

2
person."

The
.
:

biblical

Aramaic and

the dialect of Onkelos use only

the Aorist
text,
eyi/co

VT

The Present ywaxrice and

would have the same form in an unpointed as the participle JHJ and the perfect VT. would have to

be used.

The transposition

of

Father and Son in Justin

text involves the advantage of an easier transition from the

first

clause of

the verse to the second, but also the disad

is

vantage that the revelation of the Son by the Son

an

improbable

idea.

Both the Lucan

T/? ecniv o vlos (TTCLTIJP)

and

the shorter form in

Matthew

reproduction in Aramaic.
"I

See

TOP viov (irarepa), are capable of *b Ter. 48 b K3&6 D^n 3 j.

t

do not
nrp,

Kin

know my father"; and do not know what he

j.

Ber.

13
"

JTP

fcUK

n\i?
"

is."

For

to

be willing

Aramaic has N?; the Judsean dialect N3NI and NJV; But /SouX^rat airoKokv-^rai can also be a the Galilean NJJ3.
biblical

Greek expansion of a prior airoKoKv^rj. Hence the Aramaic may be thus constructed
1

v ipo

K?3 a

See F. E. Konig, Syntax dor liebr. Sprache (1897), 36 f., and the passages from Genesis lie 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 On the other hand, it is said, Koh. R. 7 n jp J!i???p). government" (pj^ 15 NrwD^ J;?DP njq, "he was pursued by the government." In Targ. Eccl. 8 was bestowed from heaven"; ibid. 9 2 N;a^ jp in:o^ should be rendered: see p. 219 f. was so destined from heaven II 3 NP!? jp ni^rix,
Kpnj>a
"it
"

"it

Cf.

j.

Gitt. 45

jinnnp;? pyn; K^I J^SN?

jinn^n^ j^pDn^

m ns

TVN,

"there

are

men who know

others

by

face yet not

by

name."

THE SON OF GOD

&03 jrta K3^6b jnvq n\h KSK jrta
Since iravra refers back to Tavra (Matt. II 25
"

285

(a)
1O
21

Luke
raOra

), firfej,

all these

things,"

might be better than

"

K;>3.

might perhaps be replaced by KJpp IvH, these words). (6) Variants in Luke
(c)

"

these things (literally tna ron |, K2N ran jo.

Variants in

Matthew and Luke

d?

H*^
to

&n3 ^yi

|Bi.

So

far,

we have encountered nothing

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 begin
It seems to be an innate property ning in this relationship. of His personality, seeing that He, as distinct from all others,

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. 22 41

- 37
,

~ 46
1
,

35 (Mark 12

Luke 20 41 - 44 ), about the meaning

of Ps.

HO

one may, however, derive an explicit testimony on this point. The Synoptic accounts are here in virtual agreement. For it
is of

no real consequence that, according to Mark and Luke, Jesus should Himself propound the question, how the Messiah should be called a son of David, whereas in Matthew Jesus
first

causes

the

Pharisees
is

view, the Messiah

is

to say that, from their point of a son of David. The aim in either case

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

a son should attain to a higher rank than his father, and for the scribes it would not in the least be strange that the

Messiah should be greater than David.

did not, in fact, require any instruction.
1

that point they Justin Martyr J says

On

Dial,

cum Tryph.

33, 83.

286
that the

THE WORDS OF JESUS

time applied Ps. 110 to Hezekiah so it appeared to them possible that David should call this king There is something artificial in recent attempts 2 his Lord. 1

Jews

of his

to
"

reduce the thought of Jesus to a mere suggestion that son of David was altogether unsuitable as a title for him
"

whom David had shown deference by calling him his An unbiassed reading of the statement of Jesus cannot
to

Lord.

avoid

the conclusion that the Messiah

is

in reality the

Son

of

One
in

more exalted than David, that is, the Son of God. that idea there was essentially nothing extravagant.
was conscious
God,
it

And

If Jesus

of

must, of

no beginning in His peculiar relationship to course, have had its genesis with His birth
into

and, further,
position,

God must have so participated in assigning that the human factors concerned fell entirely
The prophet Jeremiah, according

that

the background.

to Jer. I 5 ,
;

and

prided himself in his prenatal election by God to prophecy 5 Isa. 49 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 had a similar consciousness in regard to Himself? Only it 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
1

his

own

efforts

become.

This idea
"

is

the other, that Jesus called Himself

Son

no way opposed For of man."

to
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 on Ps. 110 cannot be observed. In rabbinic literature the earliest dictum verify 36 cf. ing this reference is that of Khamma bar Khanina (c. 260), Midr. Ps. 18
;

Backer, Ag. d. pal.

Am.

i.

457, see also Midr. Ps.

HO

1
.

Later references are

given in "Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 7. And Jesus by no means implies that every one understood Ps. 110 1 of the Messiah ; He knows, however, that His hearers, by naming any one else in place of the Messiah, would only have
increased their difficulty.
2

See, e.g.,

Holtzmann, Lehrb.

d. neutest. Theol.

i.

244.

THE SON OF GOD

the sublimity of which

287

conscious in regard to His past, present, and future, never excludes the idea that for the

He was

by decree of the Divine Providence, He moves about among mankind, defenceless and weak. We do not find ex pressed the idea of God s becoming man, or of a twofold
present,

nature united in a single person

presence of

but there

is

attested the

One who appears in human weakness, who is a of God and the future Euler of the world, Eevealer perfect who has been bestowed upon the world by the supernatural power of God.
Nowhere do we
find that Jesus called

Himself the Son of

God

in

such a sense as to suggest a merely religious and

a relation which others also actually

ethical relation to God,

possessed, or which they were capable of attaining or destined

to acquire.

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 redemption, Matt. 24 (Mark 13 ), on which see p. 194. It may, however, be remarked that Zech. 14 7 and Ps. Sol.

17 23

also represent

that

only

God knows

the time

of the of

redemption. the day when the Anointed King comes (N?fo

KTP&to) is

The Targ.

Eccl. 7 24 affirms that the

mystery
^"l

Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260 kept secret from men. 4 63 Isa. of A.D.) explained day vengeance is in my heart," 1 with the words my heart I have made (it) manifest,
"a
:

"in

but not to the attending angels." The command to evangelise the heathen, Matt. 28 19 is reserved for special discussion.
,

The wording

name
will

both statements, which represents a use of the of the Son unprecedented in the other sayings of Jesus,
of

be determined by the diction prevalent in the early

1

Church.
b.

Sanh. 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."

If the Hellenistic Synoptists took the title

"

Son

of

man

"

to

mean

"

one born of
as
"

man,"

wo? TOV deov

one born of

they will also have regarded o God." The Greek, unlike the
"

Hebrew, does not use the term

circle of relationships.

son

"

to denote

an extensive

stand o

always be inclined to under vibs TOV Oeov in the most exact literal sense, whereas
will

He

the Israelite would only accept this idea through the con

some special reason. As regards Matthew, refer 1G be made to 16 where o vlbs TOV Oeov TOV may 13 points back to TOV vlbv TOV avOptoirovin v. further, to 2
straint of

ence

cf. v.

64
,

where

utos
;

likewise contrasted
of Jesus, which,

TOV avOpwrrov and 6 wo? 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 vios TOV Oeov by ex

Baptism (3

17

).

As

press reference to the unique nature of the birth of Jesus.

Even the human

to
"

lineage of Jesus

is

traced back by

Luke

38

(3

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 TraTpos

,
. -

/JLOV

48 in the language of appears contrasted with o TraTtjp aov, v. 69 70 the mother of Jesus. In Luke 22 Son of God is contrasted

with Son of man.

but in
its

As Mark

gives no history of the birth,

place at the beginning of his Gospel narrates the

Jesus,
"

spiritual

endowment of 2 the represent for him

the

latter
"

will

accordingly

generation

of
61
-

the Son.
62
,

In his

account of the condemnation of Jesus, 14

The ancient reading vtov Oeov appended to be reckoned original. 2 This will not apply to Matthew and Luke.
69,
1

he, too, has

put

I-qcrov

X/noToO,

Mark

1
,

cannot

W. Lutyert, Das Reich Gottes, wrongly says of the Synoptists in general, that in the history of the Baptism 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

altogether unjustified.

of

6 vios rov

Oeov cannot, in

view of the ideas expressed by Jesus Himself, be pronounced

An

essential difference in

apprehend-

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 nature corresponding to this position whereas, on the other
;

hand, the Synoptists make the latter consideration the founda tion of the expression. The mode of in their case is

thought

Greek

that of Jesus

is

Semitic.

XL CHEIST.
1.

THE TERM IN JEWISH USAGE.

(a) Derivation

and Form.
,

If the

anointed of the Lord, mentioned in Ps. 2 2 be taken

as a personification of Israel, 1 there is then

no Old Testament

passage in which the coming Prince of Salvation was called in the Anointed." This, however, should be considered accidental for there was nothing to hinder
a historical sense
"

Isaiah,

e.g.,

from calling the promised King

"

the Anointed of

the

Lord."

The
Ps.

oldest

witness
of
;

for

the Messianic interpretation of

is

the Psalter

There, too,

we

find (v. 3G

cf.
"

Solomon (17); see above, p. 270. 18 6 8 ) the earliest designation of

-

the Prince of Salvation as

will accordingly

the Anointed of the

It
is

Lord,"

which

have

Ps. 2 as its source.

quite likely

that other Scripture

regarded as applying to the of salvation contributed to the formation of the title. King
passages

Mention
1

is

made
H.

of help,
IVeinel,

which
and

is

the allotted portion of

derivatives,

Cf.

p. 268, aiid

nex>

its

ZAW,

xviii. (1898),

Dt7

11.

290
"Jhvh s

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Anointed,"

Ps.
.

18 51
Still

20 7

28 8

1
;

cf.

Sam.

2 10

there are no adequate proofs of any ancient Messianic exposition of these passages. The words of 1 Sam. 2 10 irwb pp DT1 and He shall exalt the
,
;>

2 Sam.

22

51

Hab. 3 13

horn
irti?

of

His
""pEQi,

anointed,"

taken in connection with Ps. 89 25

shall his

Erin

and

in

my name

horn be

exalted,"

are

Babylonian 2 The first half Eighteen Benedictions (or Shemoneh Esreh). of this petition is based on Jer. 33 15 and the other on Ezek.
,

recalled

by the Messianic petition in the

29 21 the words being: Dnn

,

irjTi

n^ri rnnpa
let the

y*\zy

nn
of

nv

nx

nyra* Hi?

n^oxo n nn

Tjna injm^si,

Branch

David

thy servant sprout forth speedily, and let his horn be exalted Lord, who causest to through thy help Blessed art Thou,
:

bud forth an horn

"

of

salvation

In this connection we

*irpB>

have also in the prayer beginning ^3?P raise up the horn of Thine f]P Din,
however, does not appear in Seder Rab
the other hand, Ps.
"

WK

the petition

anointed,"
i.

which,
.

Amram,
Iff?
:

45 b
I

On
Dfc>,

132 17 wvd?

"U

^y

Hi?.

rrpyK

there will I

make

the horn of David to bud

have or

dained a lamp for mine anointed," is made use of in the prayer WJ^n, which is an ancient abridged form of the Eighteen
Benedictions. 4
|nb 13

Its

words are: *H7

1^133;

I!???

rD

11

nni

"?^

njj?

nnp^nni

Midr. Teh.

For Ps. 21, in particular, Messianic exposition can be proved; see for v. 4 b Shem. R. 8 Bern. K. 14 (according to Tanch., ed. Buber, Sliem. ll For Bern. R. Abin, and Midr. Teh. Simon); for v. 5 b. Sukk. 52 a (Baraitha).
1
;

see Shem. B. 19 (Nathan, c. 180 A.D.) ; Midr. Teh. Mess, exposition of Ps. 89 5 1 ; Yalk. Shim. ii. 840 (Shemuel bar Nachmani, c. 260). On Ps. 110, see above, p. 285 f.
,

28

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. b 5% Tos. Ber. iii. 25 with b. Taan. 13 see S. Saer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 97
;

On the other hand, Rothschild, Der L. Landsliuth, Siddur hegyou leb, 65 ff. Synagogal-Cultus in hist. krit. Entwickelung, i. (1870) 62 f., erroneously main tains that in Palestine the Messianic petition had for long ceased to be used.
"

See, however,
3 4

Messianische

Texte,"

No. 6 a
cf.

Baer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 111. See "Messianische Texte," No. 7 ;

Baer, Seder Abodath Yisrael, 108

Seder Rab

Amram,

i.

54 a

CHRIST
"

291

they who trust in Thee rejoice over the building of thy city and the renewal of Thy sanctuary, over the budding forth of an horn for David Thy servant, and the ordaining

may

all

of a

Elsewhere, lamp for the son of Jesse Thine anointed 2 6 (Midi. Ps. 75 11 ); Tanchuma, ed. see on Ps. 132 17 Ech. a a Buber, Shem. 46 (Yalk. Shim. i. 363) 50 (Yalk. Shim. i.
!

"

378); Vay. B. 31 (Yalk. Shim. i. 650); Yelammedenu, Yalk. Shim. i. 47 (Simeon ben Lakish.c. 260) x v. 18 Pirke Eliezer
;

28 (Yalk. Shim. i. 76); Pes. Eabb. 159 b The fact is, that no single passage, on the ground
.
"

of

Messianic interpretation, can be made responsible for the Messiah." When a name was wanted for the King of 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,
"^

divine appointment and recognition formed the vital element

in the case of the expected King.
it
"

would

become usual
Anointed."

Jhvh s rmb, Aram. NlTKip, But as the Tetragrammaton was not pronounced,
to

speak as njiT

and as there was a reluctance

other

to

commonly used titles, the and only rPBton, Aram. KTO p, the
Aramaic form
is
.

name God," so here, as in name of God was omitted,

"

Anointed,"

was

said.

The

the basis of the Greek transliteration which

42 4 25 The peculiar form Meacrias with appears in John I 4 its doubled sibilant, I have formerly sought to explain through

a phonetic variation in Semitic.

It

seems preferable to point

out that in

found in use alongside of //.eo-o?. similar relation will hold between Meacrias and Meo-/a9,
is
is

Greek peao-os

which
1

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 2 Esdras, the passage Isa. II 1 5 is one of the most important bases of their
Of.
2
"

Messianic doctrine.
3 4

See above,

p.

194

IF.

Gramm.

d. jiid.-pal.

Aram.

124,

Note 3

cf.

261,

Note

1.

292
The
full

THE WORDS OF JESUS

name

"Anointed

of
3G

Jhvh,"

or

"

my,

his

anointed,"
1
.

is first

attested, Ps. Sol.

17

IS

8
,

Bar. Apoc.

39 7 40 1 72 2

The abbreviated form

found
first

is apart from the New Testament 28f in 2 Esdr. 7 12 32 This was the form which
.

became nsual

in the

mouth

of the

common

people.

Later Jewish literature has the full

name only
for
it,
;

in the

Targums wherever the text gives occasion

Liturgy.

and in the
^rrro, Targ.

H
,

ro
32

occurs Targ. Isa. 4 2 28 5

40
;

"

4 7 2 JWBto, Targ. Zech. 4 10 Ps. 2 20 7 2 The prayer beginning OTOR ^?^P contains the form *irob ^i?, let Thine anointed draw near." With regard to the shortened

Hab. 3

18

Ps.

18

84

has been pointed out by Franz Delitzsch,3 with a view to explaining the occasional use of XpiaTos 4 without the
form,
it

article, that the

Kabbis also sometimes use

of a

rob

without the
is

article in the

manner

proper name.

This, indeed,

the

usual practice in

the Babylonian

Talmud when n^b

is

not

subordinated by the syntax to any other word. (T^b, with out accompaniment, occurs Sukk. 52 b Sanh. 93 b 96 b 97 a 98 a
;

99 a

even in Aramaic Ab.

":f,

rPKTp,
,

Erub. 43 b
,
,

Yoma 19 b
;

Bab. mez.

8o b

z.

2b

Sanh. 93 b 96 b 98 a 99 a
years
of

so that

we have even
,

rob

"the

Messiah/
b.

b.

Sanh.

98 b and a
.

bn

rr^V
said
:

the sorrow of

Messiah,"

Keth. lll a

It is also
;

ivn |a

rob,
Targ.

"

Messiah son
Cant. 4 5 7 4
;
.

of

David," b.

Sukk. 52 a
NJTtnp

Aram,
is

nn 13 rob,
written,
b.

Again
;

it

is
a
;

w hi c h

Erub. 43 b

Sanh. 51 b
nto,

Chull.

63

and robn, Nidd.

13 b

The phrase
Kil.

n^n

"the

always involves the article; see

i.

b.

the Messiah," days Sanh. 97 a 99 a cf. Ber.

of
,

8
1

j.

32 C

Probably we should also read Ff&Vp i^n/

i.

3
4

2 Cf. above, p. 270. Seder Rab Ami-am, Theol. Litbl. 1889, No. 45. Xpio-ros with no article occurs in the Synoptists in Irjrovs

9 a.

X/>i<rr6s,

Matt.

I 1 18 ,
-

Mark

1
;
-

and arising from this designation in

;
,

I^troOs d \ey6fj.evos XpLtrros,

, .

1 ]6 27 17 22 also in X/otords Ktpios, Luke 2 11 besides Mark 9 41 Luke 23 2 Otherwise uniformly o Xpia-Tos. 5 The plural n ^an ^?n, brought into notice particularly by Wiinsche, is quite unknown in the ancient literature, as I have shown in Der leid. u. der

Matt.

"

:>

sterb. Messias,

42.

CHRIST
"the

293
Sanh. 98 b
;

sorrow of the

Messiah," b.
,

b.

Sabb.

118 a

cf.

b 51 a Mechilta, ed. Fr. 50

b.

Messiah,"

Pes. 5 a

of the

Messiah,"

Ber.

name of the Wb_^ wv\ cf. Ber. E. 1 iWb^ inn, the spirit E. 2 IW?^ iin, the generation of
;

"the

determining on Christian phraseology. The older Targums have always the definite form NTOb 10 see Onk. Gen. 49 10 Num. 24 17 2 Sam. 23 3 Targ. 1 Sam. 2
,

Nevertheless, the Baby lonian custom of using TOE as a proper name is incapable of verified in to Palestine. It being regard cannot, therefore, be regarded as old, or as having had a influence
Messiah,"
.

the

b Mechilta, ed. Fr. 56

43 Isa. 9 6 10 27 II 1 Kings 4 6 12 For H NTOb, see above.

14 29

Jer.

33 13 Mic.
,

5 2 Zech.
,

anointed,"

occurs Targ.

Isa.

KTOip -nay, my servant, the 42 1 4 3 10 5 2 13 Zech. 3 8 KTOE

, ;

^lb^J,
T

"the

anointed of
anointed,"

Israel,"

Targ.
10
,

Isa.

16 1 30

5
,

Mic.

48

finTOb, TO 13 KTOb,

"their

Targ. Isa. 53

Jer.

21
,

Hos. 14 8
35
;

the anointed son of

David,"

Hos.

TOb
(ed.

NPW,
Venice,

"the

anointed of

righteousness,"

Jer.

23

33

15

1517; but ed. Venice, 1525, NjpW TOb).

15
;

For NTOb

alone, see also Sot. ix.

j.

Kil.

32 b

In the younger Tar-

gums,

as

also in

the Palestinian Midrash and Talmud, the

fuller title,

KTOb KS^
is

should not, as

TObn SD,I predominates. This the the case, be translated by generally

Hebr.
"

King

Messiah,"

because

NTOb and TObn

are clearly not

is
"

meant

In later Jewish Aramaic, a title 2 after the We have N3^D placed proper name. KS)io Yannai," Ber. E. 91 DlaW, the king Julian,"
K370

as proper names.

regularly

j.

the king Ned. 37 d

;

HbW,

"the

king

Solomon";

NTOp
;

ni^
J-TP,

"David

the

anointed,"
Judan,"
j.

in

the Litany 3 "i^s Taan. 65 a "King

.

3prn_

&w
.

the Prince
to

Messiah"

would have

be

a -j^an is unusual ; see Seder Rab Amram, i. 53 On the omission of the article with definite substantives, see F. E. Konig, Syntax d. hebr. Sprache,

403

Driver, Hebrew Tenses, 281 ff. Hebrew and Aramaic admit the inverted order 397 f. E. Kautzsch, Gramm. d. bibl. Aram. 149 f. 3 Seder Rab Amram, ii. 19 b f.
f.
;

S.

Biblical
;

see Konig, op. cit.

294

THE WORDS OF JESUS

"

expressed by KSp rmp, whereas KrPBfc Nao means the king, the anointed," or "the anointed king." Examples for the

Aramaic form are found

j.

Ber. 5 a

j.

Taan. 68 d
1.
-

and

for the

Hebrew

form, Ber. E.
I.

1,

98, Shem. E.

For
10 17
-

NTO p
15

Kate, see

also Targ. Jerus.

Gen. 3 15 35 21 49 1
;

Ex. 40 9

2321 2420-

24
?

Deufc 25 19 30 4
26

Targ. Jerus. IT. Gen. 3

Num. 49 n 12
,

10 -

Ex. 12
,

48
,

Num. II

24

7
,

Targ.
8

Cant.
-

14

8
.

1- 2- 4
,

Ruth

I1

3 15 Eccl. I 11 7 2 *, Ps. 21 2

45 3 61 7 9.72 1 80 1G

Kri Bto

stands
,

by Lam. 2 22 4 22
see the

itself in this
;

sense only in Targ. Jerus. I. Num. 24 17 Targ. and for in la nw, as well as S||Wp, JTW p,

two preceding pages.

less

common
a

title,

in

which
is

rpBfo

is
"

similarly inad

missible

as

proper name,
this

^P^V DTP,

our

righteous

anointed."

By

Messiah, Pes.

name the people Israel refer to the Eabb. 162 b 163 a 164 a In a similar manner
,
,
.
"

God
,

calls
,

Him

My

righteous

Anointed,"

W*

iwp,
:

ibid.

161 b 162 a 163*. 1

"

Men

1pi> ,

Thy righteous The same name is given

12 a
,
.

Anointed,"

addressing God in prayer say Seder Rab Aniram,

,

nw
i.

9a

to David, ibid. 1 O b and, apparently,

also to Israel, ibid.

The designation

is

borrowed from
KjJ
"

njm

15 npv, Jer. 3 3

where the Targum has

is

nn

p,

and

perhaps also
Lord,"

from the Messianic name

.

^iP^V njn^

our righteous
the righteous

Jer.

23 6

There

also

found

P^n
4 11
2
.

n^p,

Anointed,"

Agada

to Shir ha-Shirim

(&) Signification

and Content of

the Title

"

Christ!

The name
term selected

KWP

is

one of those for which the particular of minor consequence compared to the general
is

conception entertained in regard to the individual so desig

nated.
It is
its

this general
significance.

conception which really gives the

Still,

word

full

the

literal

sense

of

the

The kings of Israel from the expression cannot be neglected. were called anointed of Jehovah," not merely to beginning
"

Cf.

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb.
vii.

Mess."

58

f.

Jew. Quart. Rev.

153;

of.

Yalk. Machiri

(ed. Spira,

1894) on

Isa.

II 12

CHRIST

295

suggest that at their installation there had been an unction

but to imply that in virtue of this unction they belonged to a special circle of the servants of God, their
oil,

with holy

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
-

2 1 10

13

use the expression even where no actual unction had taken

place.

Thus Cyrus,
"

Isa.

45 1 and the Patriarchs,

,

Ps.

105 15

are spoken of as

God s anointed

ones,"

as being under His

inviolable protection.
is

When

the king of the Messianic age

is

called

KTOp, that implies that he

;

under God

peculiar

protection

and

it

should be noted that at the time the Jews

their head.

coined this expression, they had no God-protected sovereign at To set their hopes upon him meant the expecta

tion 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 a such is by Jesus, predicate possible only when any one,
trusting to flesh as his arm, pledges himself to set in operation own instance processes which originate with God alone.
It

at his

must be

specially observed that the

"

Messiah

"

of

Old

"

prophecy was never at any time regarded as In the Old Testament it is God who is for Kedeemer." Israel taia "redeemer," rns "liberator," "Saviour,"

Testament

"

>1R?

deliverer,"

and never the Messiah

and no similar

agency

is

ever ascribed to the latter.

Failure to observe this

has led to

many

distorted

and the

silence of the prophetic

pronouncements on the statements and apocalyptic writers in

"

So long ago as 1874, D. Castelli had regard to the Messiah. written these weighty sentences l In no part of the Old Testament does the Messiah appear as himself the agent of
:

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. redeemed people." For the earlier Isaiah the Messiah was
a highly important personality, because his righteous govern ment guaranteed the abiding welfare of the redeemed Israel.

As Jeremiah and Ezekiel recognised

a king could seem to

a miraculous transforma

tion in the heart of the people of the future, the activity of

them

of

have therefore

little

to say of

the Messiah.

no great consequence. They 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

it

superfluous to speak of the king, the vital

There
iii.

is
f.,

being first of all the advent of redemption. silence on the subject of the Messianic king in Sibyll.

73

Enoch

i.

Enoch, Ass. Mosis,

(1-36) and v. (91-104), the Slavonic Book of Jubilees, 1 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

apprehension existed as to his nature.

is

It

was

suffi

cient to recognise that there

course, his character

a Messiah.

As

a matter of

age of salvation.
the Messiah in

A
is

and government are appropriate to the passive part of this kind is ascribed to
iv.

Enoch
-

(83-90), in the passage Bar. Apoc.

29

30

1
,

which

and in 2 Esdras 7 28f

probably foreign to its present connection, It is not otherwise, even in the official

prayer of the synagogue, the Eighteen Supplications, which represents God as gathering together the scattered people,

undoing

the

sovereignty

of

arrogance, building Jerusalem,

making His habitation there once more, restoring the temple

W. Singer, Das Buch der Jubilaen oder die Leptogenesis, i. can discover in this book, with its absence of Messianic elements, a polemical document of the Jewish Christians against St. Paul, is incompre
(1898),
1

How

hensible.
2

See

"

Messiariische

Texte,"

No.

8.

CHRIST
service

297

mentioned only at the close, apparently because the divine promise given to David cannot God alone, according to the seventh remain unfulfilled.
;

whereas the Messiah

is

petition, is Israel s

Redeemer (^ ib^
iii.

PNia).
is

On

the other hand, the work of redemption

assigned to

the Messiah in Sibyll.

652ff., which says that the king sent by God destroys the perverse, and unites himself with the obedient, and in the Similitudes of Enoch, where the Son of

man

judges and overthrows the secular rulers and similarly - 11 37 38 in Apoc. Bar. 39 7 40 lf 70 9 T2 2 6 2 Esdr. 12 32ff 1 3 9
;
-

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

the people of God.

overthrow the secular might, and by this means to liberate Thenceforward it became possible to

transfer to the Messiah statements

which the Old Testament

of Israel.
is

applies to

God only
of this

as the

Redeemer

An

interest

ing example 2 21 where the

,

kind in the

New

Testament

seen in Matt.

name

of Jesus is explained

by the words, avro?

fyap
is of
"

craxrei

God

But it rbv \abv avTov airb rwv a/JLapTi&v avrwv. 8 n n n that Ps. 130 says: W?W ? ^.

^P

*>*$?.

and

He

shall

redeem Israel from

still

all his

iniquities."

As
one,

the earlier view

persisted, there

was therefore

at
;

the time in question a twofold conception of the Messiah

closely attached to ancient prophecy, which regarded the Messiah merely as the Prince of the redeemed people the

more

other, recently developed,

which took the Messiah himself

to

be the redeemer.
character.

In neither case was he merely a political

interests

would hardly have concerned themselves, in that age any more than now, But the Israelite who rested his with the Messianic hopes.

Jews with purely secular

1 The Davidic sovereignty alone is mentioned in the Palestinian recension of the Eighteen Benedictions ("Mess. Texte," No. 6 a ), in Habinenu (ibid. No. 7), in the Additional Prayer for New Year (ibid. No. 9), and in the Blessing at

Meals.

298

THE WORDS 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 a purification from godless elements within required itself. This latter point must be emphasised against Ehralso

hardt

writers

"

strange contention, that in the view of the Apocalytic the people would be justified through the observation

of the law,

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

It

cannot be observed in these books.

however, that in this

Jubilees

must be admitted, respect the Books of Tobit, Judith, and

For that considerably lower position. Messiah the does not a person as reason, naturally, appear
occupy a
EhrTiardt, Der Grand charakter der Ethik Jesu (1895), 27. s reference to b. Ber. 34 b is misleading. The passage, true as the opinion of the Babylonian Samuel (c. 250 A.D.): "The enough, gives difference between the present age and the days of the Messiah consists only in
2
1

Ehrhardt

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

asserted that all prophetic promises are valid only for the penitent. And often enough maintained that the redemption is postponed because Israel

not in the right condition required

3

by the law.

The inexact notions entertained about the ethics of late Judaism are illustrated in Ehrhardt, op. cit. 45, who infers from the preference assigned to b onpn rn^pa over n^, 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 with "almsgiving," but has not perceived that

n^

above all things visits to the sick, attendance at funerals, Moral acts involving reward" (frachtbringend) and consolation of mourners. were never thought of in this context. Moral conduct is determined for Judaism by the Law; the "practice of deeds of love" exceeds what is prescribed by
D iDq m^pa. denotes
"

Law.

CHRIST

299
religion.

who

strikes the

dominant note in the

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 the Prince of salvation as

But

this also applies

prophecy.
as

It

was a

later

he appears in Old Testament period that regarded the Messiah

even the inaugurator of

expounder

of the existing law, or

Expiatory sufferings were then attributed to him, which, however, are brought into organic relation with
a
law.

new

the

process of

Kabbati.

On

only by the appendix to Pesikta the other hand, the doctrine, which arose in
salvation

the

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,"

126.

(c)

The Idea of Pre-existence.

the

We may
129

recall

Jewish ideas already reviewed,

l

p.

ff, which are concerned with the pre-existence Harnack entities, and especially of the Messiah.

of various

supposes

it

an ancient Jewish conception that everything of genuine value, which successively appears upon earth, has its existence in heaven, i.e. it exists with God, meaning in But this idea the cognition of God, and therefore really."
to be
"

must be pronounced thoroughly un- Jewish, at all events un - Palestinian, although the medieval Kabbala certainly
harbours notions of this

27
of

8
,

Num.

4
,

9 40 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

By this means supplemented by the exhibition of models. the object was secured that the structure fully conformed to
1

Dogmengeschichte,
;

i.

755

see also Baldensperger,

Das Selbstbewusstsein

Jesu, 89

SchUrer, Gesch. d.

jiid.

Volkes,

ii.

423, 446.

300

THE WORDS OF JESUS

This case
llff>

the divine intention.

that in 1 Chron.

is

substantially the

same as

28

where David, appealing

to a divine
of the

mandate concerning it, hands over to Solomon a model A house of God is not temple that was to be built.
constructed to please
divine prescription.

to be

human

fancies,

but according to exact

heaven,

of

which

sanctuary permanently existent in tabernacle and temple were imperfect

imitations,

When

is never contemplated. one finds occasional statements about constituents

so important in the

scheme

of the

world as the Law, the

Temple, Paradise, Hell, affirming a

premundane existence
"

in
of

their case, these are to be regarded neither as a

warrant

compensation against the damages which the possessions of

religion

elements

might incur in the bitter struggle against the l nor yet as bound up with the thought
"

hostile
of the

divine Omniscience

"which
events."

preordains history and

2

is

never
the

taken unawares by 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

chief

The actual production The Jerusalem

of

end must have been provided from the first. of these things at once would be better

calculated to secure the end than a

mere designing
fitly

of

them.

the

consummation may

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
Gen. 1 3 speaks of a light which thenceforward seems to have no place in the world.
" "

And when,

for instance, Isa. 9 1

60 1

Zech. 14 7 mention the

appearance of a light in the Messianic age, it is said that this must be the light of Gen. I 3 which was being kept in
1

Thus Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein

Harnack,
op.
cit.

Jesu,

89.

CHRIST
store for the

301
;

pious, Ber. E. 3,

11

Pes. Kabb.

118 a 161,

The presupposition implied is that all the primordial excel A case lence of creation must again be restored at the end.
of the

same nature

and the primaeval

found in the grape-juice of Paradise Para monsters Leviathan and Behemoth.

is
it.

dise lost returns, bringing such things with

As
possible.

for

On

the Messiah, two ways of regarding him were the one hand, he might be looked upon as
it

of the world, so that indispensable in the scheme

could be

said that

provision of

only, long ages ago, contemplated the On a Messiah, but had actually created him. from the assume to the other hand, it was also possible

God had not

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
3

2
,

the pre-

the

name only

of

the

Messiah.

Since the

Messiah had to appear as a fully-developed man, the opinion his manifestation he should remain generally was that until 4 his appearance he had then Before earth. unknown upon
to
5 Others supposed undergo some sudden metamorphosis. that he should be translated into Paradise, and should thence make his advent. 6 This was all the more likely if he were

8 The of David 7 or Hezekiah. regarded as a return to earth Sirniliin the stated as of Messiah, celestial pre-existence
1

Of.

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb.

Messias,"

58.

Ibid. 72.
1
,

The Targuins do not go beyond

Holtzmann, Lehrb. d.
Isa.

the

name

see Targ. Mic. 5

Zech. 4 7 Ps.
,

72

17
.

netitest. Theologie,

i.

75, finds personal pre-existence

attested in Targ. Prov. 8 8 Ps. 93

.
,

96

But the

Mic. 5 2 (read 5 1 ), and ideal pre-existence in Targ. last two passages hardly deal with the Messiah at

all

the second cited attributes pre-existence only to the name ; and the first ; an endless duration of the Messianic rule. Holtzmann s passage speaks only of statements probably originate from A. EdersTieim, who in "The Life and Times 2 of Jesus the Messiah," i. 175, gives prominence to assertions that are inaccurate.

More
4

354 ff. is found in Weber, Jiidische Theologie, precise information 8 a Targ. Mic. 4 ; j. Ber. 5 Justin, Dial. c. Trypho, viii. 110 ; also "Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 39 ff., 73.
See John 7 27
;

5
7

See above, p. 178.

6
"

"Der

leid. u. d. sterb. Messias,"

Messias,"

77

ff.

So So

j.

Der leid. u. d. sterb. cf. Ber. 5 a (Baraitha) b. Ber. 28 b (Yokhanan ben Zakkai, c. 80 A.D.).
;

73.

302

THE WORDS OF JESUS

1

tudes of Enoch and in 2 [4] Esdr. 13, 14, excluding

least
it

so at

an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incentive contributed by Dan. 7 13 his miraculous superhuman
seems
,

According to the late addition to Pesikta appearance. Eabbati, the Messiah shares his pre-existence with the souls
of all

men.

The only

difference

is

that he appears to exist

not merely as a soul, but as a complete personality. 2

For

all

these ideas of pre-existence, earthly 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 the only case, of course, the Messiah was already in existence The divine providence comes here question was, where ?
;

into consideration, because

it is

due to

it

that all things have

of the

been so well ordered that the divine scheme

should realise
itself

world

without impediment.

The notion
"

of pre-existence is entirely absent in Ber. K. 2, 3

which says that the Spirit of God, brooding over Chaos in Gen. I 2 was the Spirit of the Messiah." This belongs to
,

an exposition of Simeon ben Lakish (c. 260), which applies Gen. I 2 to the The sovereignties," ntobo, of the world.
"

word inn
"H^n,

is

applied by

him

to
;

Babylon
Qinri
5

ini-i,

to

the

Medes

to

the

Greek dominion
;

the godless sovereignty

4 DVan, repentance, failing which (Kome); DWK nn the Messiah the Messiah does not come. Edersheim 5 holds that the idea
;

of the co-operation of the

1

Messiah in the work of creation

1
,

is

The coming of the Messiah from the sea, 2 Esdr. 13 implies, according to 13 52 only his complete invisibility so far as the inhabitants of the earth are con He seems from 14 9 to have stayed in Paradise. cerned.
,

2 Der leid. u. d. sterb. Messias," 58. In Pes. Rabb. 152 b it is said "At See the beginning of the creation of the world the Anointed King was born (iVu), whose inception in the thought (of God) took place before the world was made."
"

See Ber. R.
i.

8,

Amor.

389

f.

Only

Vay. R. 14, for the same phrase cf. Backer, Ag. d. pal. Pes. Rabb. 152 b has construed from it an assertion of the
;

pre-existence of the Messiah. 4 The "Spirit of the Messiah"

is only referred to, because instrument used for bringing the Messiah into connection with Gen. I 2
.

Isa. II
"

was the
"

the Spirit

of

The

Life

and Times

of Jesus the Messiah,-

i.

178.

CHRIST

303

here indicated, or at least of a function of the Messiah in him beyond the regard to the whole world, such as raised But both inferences appear absurd when it status of men.
is

to

remembered that a corresponding pre-existence would have Ben Lakish be maintained for the four secular kingdoms.
in view, but
of

had nothing of the kind markable that the words

Gen.

I2

simply found it re should contain such

suggestions of the future history of the world.

2.

THE APPLICATION OF THE NAME

In Matt. 27 17
-

"MESSIAH"

TO JESUS.
I^crou?
"

22

Pilate

uses

the

expression

\6y6/*evo<i

XpLGT-os.

That

is

not intended to

mean

Jesus

who

is

of this

Messiah," supposed idiom Jesus surnamed Christ."

"

to be the

but with the usual sense

The same form

4 18 10 2
.

is

seen Matt. I
this case

^i^wv we have presumably the language of the Church, Jesus which named its heavenly head not merely, but
,
"

16

and

in

6 \ey6fjLevos Ilerpo^,

In

"

L either Irjaovs X/HO-TO?, as in Matt. 1

18
,

Mark
2
.

I1

or else

by

the surname

Xpio-ros, as in Matt.

II

It cannot,

how

ever, be supposed that during

His earthly

life

Jesus ever bore

the

title

"Messiah"

as a surname.
21

Luke 9 ), Him, and other persons will hardly have made use speak The more precise form of Pilate s words of such a surname.
(Mark
S
,

30

20 According to Matt. 16 His disciples were not allowed so to

of

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
less

Jews."

be supposed that the form Xpiarbs This Kvpios was anywhere a common title of the Messiah. 20 Ps. Sol. 17 36 but is no mere is found, indeed, LXX Lam. 4
Still

can

it

mistranslation of the Hebr. nirp TOb.

1

For

it

is

incredible

On

"

"

by-names

name,

see

my treatise

(Kinnui) and their frequent displacement of the individual Der Gottesname Adonaj," 53 f.
"

304

THE WORDS 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 Xpicrros

original.

was changed into Xpio-Tos /cvpios. In cannot from arise a Hebrew X/^crro? Kvpios possibly It must be due to Luke himself, who here uses
/cvpiov

the appellation Xpio-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
,

(3a(Ti,\evs.
o?,

In Acts 2

Luke

also puts Kvpios alongside of

and frequently in
6

the Gospel calls Jesus

simply

The expression
(Luke
it

X^O-TO? Kvpiov
but
in
6

is

indeed biblical, and

is

well suited to the revelation given to Simeon by the

Spirit

Holy
where

2 26 )

the

Petrine

confession,
it

Luke uses
be
out
2

in the

form

20 Xpto-ro? rov Oeov (9 ),

would
the

of

conformity with the

common

parlance of

The simple 6 Xpiaros of Mark 8 29 is alone free people. It was this term that Jesus Himself used from objection.
in

speaking of the Messiah, Matt.

22 42 (Mark 12 35 Luke
,

20 41 ).
contemporaries Jesus was frequently called o XJUOTOS. One instance is by Peter, Matt. 16 16 (Mark S 29 Luke 9 20 ).

By

On

this occasion, 6

historically

Xpiaros, Aram. Ntt^ D, given by Mark, is more exact and the additions in Luke (rov Oeov)
;

and in Matthew

(6 ino? rov Oeov rov

fwz^ro?) should be dis

carded, as has already been demonstrated p.

274,

cf.

196.

And
back

if

the words v to? rov deov of the demoniacs, Matt. 8 29

o7
,

(Mark

Luke

S 28 ),

Mark

3 11

Luke 4 41 are
,

to

be traced

to 6

X/HO-TO?, as indicated on

p.

275,

this

would also

According to imply a designation of Jesus by this title. Matt. 27 54 (Mark 15 39 ), the Eoman centurion on guard at
the Cross acknowledged Jesus to be vib? Oeov,
"

i.e.

Messiah,"
.

Jesus is but the words are otherwise given in Luke 23 GS Mark 15 32 (Luke called derisively (6) Xpio-ro?, Matt. 2G
,

47

See above, pp. 38

f.,

224.

See above, p. 291

f.

CHRIST

305
via? 6eov likewise

23 s5 ), Luke 23 39
Jesus

In Matt. 27 40

43

depends

on the derisive use

is

of 6 Xpio-ros.

indirectly referred to as Messiah

where

He

is

20 21 37 42 10 Luke 23 He is mockingly called "King" (Mark ), Matt. 27 11 (Mark 15 2 Luke 23 3 ), Mark 15 9 12 Matt. 27 29
.
-

regarded as the future possessor of the kingdom, Matt.

18 (Mark 15 ), Matt. 2 7 37 (Mark 15 26 Luke 23 38 ), Matt. 27 42 In the last solemn entry into (Mark 15 32 Luke 23 37 ). Jerusalem it is improbable that the multitude should have
,

or possessor of the Davidic kingdom (so Mark II 10 ), or "Son of David" (so Matt. 2 1 9), see p. 222. Under No. XII. it will be shown

greeted

Him

as

"King

"(so

Luke 19 38 ),

that u/o9 AaviS has likewise all the force of a Messianic title, so that invocations of Jesus this name also meant the by
recognition of

Him

as the Messiah.

3.

THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE NAME

JESUS HIMSELF.

"

MESSIAH

"

BY

Meinhold
part

makes the statement that Jesus

"the

for

His own
as

never desired to be
is

Messiah

of

Israel,

the

character

depicted in Old Testament prophecy and con sistently therewith was expected by the contemporaries of
Jesus."

Of

Him

it

should be said
to

2
:

"He

is

not the Messiah,

is

and did not desire

as conceived
in

be

so."

Herein there

only this

element of truth, that the position and work

the Old Testament.

of the Messiah,

ideal of

by Jesus, greatly transcended the type predicted But any rejection of the prophetic 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 ovofiart,
1

pov

on Xpiarov

e ore.

The words on
ff

J.

Meinhold, Jesus und das Alte Testament (1896) 98

Ibid. 101.

20

306
ecrre

THE WORDS OF JESUS

are here an unnecessary explanation of eV ovofjiari
/JLOU

which arises from *&&

"

with reference to
,

"

10 Again, Matt. 23 Messiah as the Ka6rjyr)T^ of the disciples, cannot be made the basis of any inference in this connection, because it is

upon

me."

thinking where Jesus speaks of the

me,"

11 It is probably just a duplicate of v. leading up to v. true in fact that Jesus did not proclaim Himself to be the
.

Messiah, nor did

8 30

He

wish that others should make

Him known
it

in this capacity; see

,

Mark

I 34

41 20 (Luke 4 ), Matt. 16 (Mark

Luke

9 21 ),

cf.

Matt.

17 9 (Mark 9 9 ).

But

is

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
"

man

chosen by Jesus, including

all

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

As
unusual

for the first point,

title

"

Son

of

man

"

was at the time an

it

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.

1

But He had not the

slightest opposi-

41f (10 -) with more precision els 6vofj.a. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 143 ff., Neue Bibelstudien, 24 ff. A. J. H. W. Brandt, Theol. Tijdschrift, [Eng. tr. pp. 146 ff., 196 ff.] and for xxv. (1891) 585-589, whose researches J. Bolimer in "Das biblische im Namen

Matthew with the same meaning says

G.
;

Cf., further,

D5>,

"

(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,
61
1

Isa.
(cf.

II 2 as well as
,

of the

Servant of the Lord,

witness to Himself as

42 1
s

Luke 4 18ff -).

;

He

bore

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 );
,

God

and the one who

is

there indicated as
-,

King

of Sion, is in
-,

His
41ff
-).

view the Messiah (Matt. 22 41ff

Mark 12 35ff

Luke 20
,

He

61 Mark spoke of the building of the temple (cf. Matt. 26 14 58 ) in the same sense in which the Messiah is the builder 12 13 He spoke of His temple according to Zech. 6 l also of and therefore His Messianic rank, for Kingdom,"
-

of the
"

"Anointed" is,

of course, only another

name for

the

"King."

He

described Himself as Judge of the world (Matt. 25 31

~46
),

whose

mere word
Dan.

is

decisive in regard to salvation

of the
5

and
"Son

perdition,
of
man,"

with reference primarily to the

7,

prophecy but in accord also with Isa. ll 1

(cf.

2 Thess. 2 8 ).

In connection with the Messianic confession of Peter, Matthew (16 17L ) alone has added Jesus commendation and

But the injunction not to promised recompense for Peter. Messianic rank of of the Jesus can only signify, even speak in Mark and Luke, that, in view of His now impending suffer
ing and death, a proclamation of this nature would have been

out of place.

As

for the

acknowledgment made by Jesus before His

-

20f 34 ) appears to have had judges, the Evangelist John (see 18 from the evangelic tradition, that both before the impression

the high priest and before Pilate, Jesus had, in the first in stance at least, avoided a direct answer to their question.

Even Luke represents (22 67

1

~ 70
)

that at any rate before the

Sanhedrin Jesus set aside as fruitless their question whether

See above, p. 134
f.

308

TTTE

WORDS OF JESUS
and that only
to

He were
question

the Messiah or not,

second
GL/JLL

He
to

gave the answer, v^els \eyere

on

ejco

the narrator, the judges assumed this to be an According affirmative answer, as the condemnation is made to follow

upon
ing to

this admission

and

it

should not be said that, accord

He
o

Luke, Jesus was unable to reply to the question whether For Luke were 6 Xpio-ros, with a direct affirmative. 1

by no means suggests any distinction between o Xptcrro? and wo? rov Qeov, as if Jesus could more readily assent to the
latter.

former than the

of

Moreover, the amplifying narrative

as particularly faithful to the
"
"

Luke cannot be reckoned

facts.

He

has omitted

blasphemy
is

as the

ground

of con

demnation, and the situation

his

made more

intelligible for

by tracing the condemnation of Jesus to His And the alleged assumption of the dignity of a Son of God.
readers

words

of v. 67f -,

which are peculiar to Luke, will

to

also be

an

explanation due

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, accord 25 ing to his account (26 ), Jesus gave the same answer to And again, Judas when he asked if he were the betrayer.

crv etTra?

7r\r)v

\eyoo

v/juv,

which serves

in

Matthew

as a transition

from GV

etTra?

right hand

of

the declaration about being seated at the 22 24 God, imply no more, according to Matt. II
to
-

than that Jesus emphasises His

of deeper significance.
el/jLi

first

statement with a second

for civ eliras, it

is

has simply eyco 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, Geschiclite der iii. 374 f. ; Bisclioff, Bin jiidisch-deutsches Leben Jesu (1895), 38.
;

CHRIST
It must, however, be

309
etTra?

admitted that av

was not in
Old Testa

any case an ordinary form

of assent, either in

ment Hebrew or in Greek. 1 But in the Jewish literature we are not altogether without corresponding examples. It is
related,
j.

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

this occurrence in figurative language,

*:n
"

TJEH,

Is
"

the

Kabbi
so."

fallen

pirrnEK

jvi^ 9
"

K. 7
J

11

K,

ye say with the Babylonian dialect it is added *b WK I do not say These instances recall b. Pes. 3 b
10
,
:

whereupon they asked and he replied asleep ? In similar circumstances, Koh.

:
"

so."

where Joshua bar Iddi announces with the same evasion the
death of Kahana
"

and when he
:

is

then asked,

"

Is his soul
so."

gone

to rest

he replies

KJ BKiJ *b K3K,

I do not say
Still it is

He
"

dislikes to be the bearer of so sad news.

con
to

fessedly only the context that gives its peculiar

"

meaning

The context for ye say so in the case of Bar Kappara. the utterance of Jesus is not of the same kind no one
;

from the evangelic narrative that Jesus meant to lay stress on the idea that it was merely a mode of speech on the part of the judge to call Him "Messiah,"
will conclude

while

He
2

Himself would not have used the word.

is

Hence
inapplic

has rightly maintained that this instance able as a parallel to the av etTra? of Jesus.

Thayer

But another Jewish

"

illustration

of

the idiom

is

to

be

found in Tosephta, Kelim, Bab. k. i. 6. The narrative there Simeon the modest declared before Eabbi Eliezer proceeds
:

(c.

100 A.D.), I went forward into the temple to the part between the porch and the altar without (previously) washing
1 Guillemard, Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, 56, conjectures a Grsecism without being able to cite one instance in support. 2 H. Thayer, elects, A^yas, in the Answers of Christ, Journ. Bibl.
<ri> <ri>

Bibl. Lit.
"It

xiii.

(1894) 40-46.

is

thy perverseness that

is

eliras is equivalent to, According to Thayer, expressed in thy question, although I cannot
<rfl

resist

it."

310

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

hands and
feet.

my

The other

replied,

Who

is

the more

honourable, thou or the high priest (who, in Eliezer s opinion, dared not have done so) ? As he held his peace, Eliezer con
tinued,

Thou

certainly doest well to be

s

ashamed

to say that

even the high priest

dog

is

more honourable than thou ?

Then Simeon spoke,

rnpx).
(rnnjjn),

2n saying, Eabbi, thou hast said it ( 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

means exactly
not, strictly

you are

right."

Here FH&N The expression obviously is

"

speaking, a form of affirmation, but rather of

concession.
"

Thou

"

art right
It

is

also the

meaning
little

of a-v elira^

from

the lips of Jesus.

was an

assent, but in a

form which

showed that Jesus attached but

statement.
that

importance to this

He

But beyond was, truly enough, the Messiah. signified that even then He was about to receive a

He

which it would no longer be possible to oppose doubt to His Messianic dignity, and in which even the any divine power would be at His disposal for overcoming all His
position in

enemies.

The idea

last expressed in particular is not to be

It is a Jewish habit due to great separated from av eliras. familiarity with the Bible, to give sometimes only partial

citations in the expectation that the reader or hearer will himself supply what remains, which may perhaps contain the

most important point involved. In this case Jesus doubtless wished to suggest to His hearers the whole second half of Ps.
namely, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Thereby Jesus reminded His earthly of the tribunal whose authority should thence judges heavenly
11
"

forward 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

CHRIST

311
xrPK>

by

KTO ip nx f2

^
is

-i&g,i

or simply

nN
;

and as no inter

rogative particle

used, the utterance could the

:

more
.
"

directly

be assented to by the words of Jesus fi"]^ Matthew and Se in Luke imply no more than 1 =

irK^v in
"

and

in the

mouth

of Jesus, because in
"

such cases Aramaic does not use

a special term for

but."

And

\e<ya)

vyJlv,

which appears
5

in
of

Matthew

only,

may
:

be

omitted.

Jesus reply would be

nnn KW |p nn; KPjg

Thus the other part

"oi

Jftnn

jyao

merely a verbal change in this expression that occurs in the vision of Stephen, Acts *7 56 who saw the
Again,
it
is
,

Son

of

man

"
"

standing

at the right
"

hand
"

of

God.

There

is,

of course,

no thought
said of

of a

rising

up

after being seated.

is

Jewish

parallel,

though

less

strongly marked,

afforded in

what
world.

is

the seven classes of the pious in the future

Ps. 1 6

11
,

At the close of the reading, as given by Buber, Midr. we find which (of the seven classes) is the highest
"

and most excellent

It is

that which stands at the right

hand

of

the Holy One, blessed be

He (w

iw ^

rrrotytf

n"apn),

as it is written, Zech.

one upon the right side

of

the bowl/ and Ps. 16 11

at thy right

hand pleasures

for ever

more.

"

To

this

are

Amoraim whose names

names

are not given.

then appended the sayings of two 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
decision need here be sought in regard to the form of adjuration used It was not, at least, a case to Jesus, which Matthew alone gives. in which the law of Moses and of the Rabbis would have empowered a court of The Abbe s Ltmann, who in Valeur de to put the defendant upon oath.
1

No

by the judge

justice
I

3 Assemblee qui pronoi^a la peine de mort centre Jesus-Christ," 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,
ftoflp.

jn,

Targ. DN.
is
:

Galil.

jrcs jw.

Galil. N?J
1

1$.

In the Jerusalem Gospel, Matt. 26 64 p.vjjy hy TINT t^rn wo JD nw

ponn na pi pa ? IDK

jna

moK

TIN

312
protection of the
to

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Holy One, blessed be He

Vay. E. 30,

"those

but according teachers of the Bible and Mishna who

!

"

faithfully instruct children, because they are destined to stand at the right
n"3pn

hand

of

the Holy One, blessed be

He

"

(lij

^ fo^?)Pilate s question
:

To

av

el 6

/3ao-i\vs rwv lovSaiwv

the

three Synoptists give as the reply of Jesus, crv Xeyet? (Matt.

"

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
,
,

27 11 Mark 15 2 Luke 23 3 ).

thyself the mouthpiece of

"

my

enemies
18
34
.

"

or else

"

sayest thou

this of thyself

as in

John

But even

in

John the
el crv;

answer
is (TV

of Jesus to Pilate s question:

OVKOVV /SacrtXeu?

\67et?

on

/SacrtXeu?
;

elfii.
"

Greek would at
"

least

have
crv

put

crv

TOVTO Xe 7et?

for

sayest thou this

but not

XyK.

But the

real sense intended here also

will rather

be that of an admission.
question of His judge
;

To

this

extent Jesus meets the

by being

silent.

any further communication He refuses Clearly enough by His demeanour before

the judges, Jewish and heathen, Jesus wished to give no occa

sion for the opinion that in the last

moments He had any

wavering
that
time,
it

thoughts in Himself,
the Messianic
to be

and therefore

He

did not deny

He was
had

King of Israel. At the same 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 35 39 ), the heathen as "King of the Jews"
,

9 (Mark 15

12

18
,

Matt.

27 29

Luke 23 37 ), although
are

in

the
this

Synoptists

these appellations

not

distributed

on

ground on the Cross,

i.e.

According put to death as King of the 26 in Aramaic, Wirrn safe (Matt. 27 37 Mark 15

to the

two

classes.

to the superscription
Jews,"

He was

"

Luke

CHRIST

313
falsely

23 38 ), and certainly not because He had been

considered.

so

no doubt that Jesus solemnly acknow ledged as His own that position which prophecy ascribes to He affirmed His Jewish kingship the Messiah of Israel.
There
is,

therefore,

before Pilate, and thereby supplied the latter with the legal
basis for

His condemnation

and before the Sanhedrin He

to death according to

gave to
law.
itself

His Messianic confession such a form as offered them

a pretext for delivering

Him up
to

Jewish

The

assertion of a Messianic rank could not, indeed, in

have straightway led

to

death-sentence for Jesus.

The procedure

be

followed in

such a case
"

may

be seen

Bar Koziba held from a legend related in b. Sanh. 9 3 b he said and a half. When to the Rabbis for two sway years
:

1 am Messiah/ they answered him, Messiah that he discerns and judges, 1

It is
let

written of the

us see whether he

can do

they perceived that this was beyond his A verdict such as power, they then put him to death." we are dealing with would therefore not result from any
so.

When

stipulation of law, but

from the duty

to

of a

law court

to take

precautions according of the people, even by inflicting an exceptional sentence of mere claim to the Messianic title would never death.

circumstances for

the well-being

have been construed as

"

blasphemy."

Holtzmann

would

censure certain Protestant exegetes, naming Schanz on Matt. 26, according to whom this did take place in the trial of
Jesus.
of

But he thereby evinces merely

his

own ignorance

Jewish legal processes.

By

condemned
because

as a usurper of royalty

the heathen judge Jesus was by the Jewish tribunal,

;

claimed for Himself an exalted position such as had not been assigned even to the Messiah. 3 His judges
1

He

I.e.

he can determine who

d. neutest.

is
i.

right or

wrong without inquiry.

Lehrb.

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. More over, it was one tiling that any person should merely represent such a theory,

314

THE WORDS OF JESUS

understood and were bound to understand His reference to

the Son of

man

sitting

at the right
1
,

hand

of

God, which

Jesus, according to Ps.

110

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.

priest

pronounced a

case of

he considered any further presenta tion of evidence as superfluous, because the capital offence

blasphemy

arid

had even then been perpetrated in presence of the whole court. There is thus no justification for Bleby s 2 complaint that Jesus was illegally condemned solely on His own ad
mission without the hearing of witnesses. The proceedings were not in fact so informal. The judges considered them
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.

The thoughts He entertained

44
).

of Ps.

110 1
45
"

are indi
,

cated by His question to the scribes, Matt. 22

Luke 20
man.

He whom David

called

"

Lord

37 (Mark 12 was no mere

The

right to judge the world

was assumed by Jesus

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."

H.

Bleby,

The

Trial of Jesus of Nazareth considered as a judicial act

"

(1880), 31.

Der the Jewish conception of the Mosaic law on blasphemy, see I am wrong in saying there, p. 46 f., that accord Adonaj," 44-49. 22 b (ed. Friedm. 114 ) everyone is a "blasphemer" ing to Siphre on Dent. 21 who puts forth his hand against a fundamental article of the law. What is
3

On

Gottesname

stated

is merely that the blasphemer belongs to the class of capital offenders. 30 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 therefore blasphemy. But all this does not prove that Jesus could according to

And

rabbinical law have been

condemned

as a blasphemer.

But

cf. b.

Sanh. 6 P.

CHRIST

315

when He
which was
a

6 forgave sins (Matt. 9

Mark

2 10

Luke

5 24 ),

an act

also regarded as blasphemous.

He

claimed to be

new

lawgiver, Matt.

5 21

~ 48
,

and that in a manner which

of the divine prerog

Jewish feeling regarded as an invasion

ative
;

for,

unlike Moses,

announced in

name of God, He who His own name what should henceforward be

spoke in the

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

,

to be clean (Matt. 8 3

Mark
Luke

I 41

(Mark Luke 5 13 ), the dead

7 34 ), the leprous
to arise

(Mark
8 2(j
,

Luke
,

8 54

7 14 ), the storm to be

still

(Matt.

Mark 4 39 Luke

8 24 ).

To follow

Him

is
,

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

23ff
-).

He

ment

of

the

held Himself to be exempt from the pay temple tax because His was not a subject s

position

(Matt.

17 2G );
-,

He

Master (Matt. 21 12f

divine Majesty,

Mark
27f
-).

entered into the temple as a

15ff
-,

Luke 19 45f -).

Clothed in

He

will in time return again (Matt.

24 80f

-,

Mark 13

26f
-,

Luke 21

And

in full agreement with this

position comes the declaration of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. He was the Messiah and desired to be so, but in a sense

which appeared blasphemous

temporary Judaism.
It is a question of a

to the

narrow horizon of con

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

for kingship

which
the

is

but another name

belonged
not
see

to

future.

The Messianic confession

proleptically,

of Peter will certainly be

meant

as

he

certainly

did

the
;

Messianic

sovereignty of Jesus actually realised at the time

and even

316

TOE 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

future,

it

was not therefore disallowed

to call

Him

"

Messiah

"

in advance.

Even the Rabbis

by

of a later

date have no hesi

before His appear

tation in calling the Messiah

this

name

ance as such.

But a profound
Judaism
is

difference

between the Jewish

doctrine of the Messiah and the position of Jesus requires to

be insisted on.
life of

indifferent as to

how

the prior

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 who, teaching, suffering, and dying, paved the way

His own sovereignty, as for that of God. Thus the picture of Israel s Messiah transforms itself into that of the Eedeemer of mankind.
for the coming, not so
of

much

XII.
1.

THE SON OF DAVID.

S

THE JEWISH IDEA OF MESSIAH

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

had pleased God to

l
;

manifest that king,

55 3

Ps. 2.

89

but this resulted

See above, p. 268.

THE SON OF DAVID

317

sustenance to the Messianic hope, ultimately in supplying fresh 23 we find for the first Sol. 17 In Ps. properly so called. time wo? AavtS as a title of the Messiah, where the designa
tion as
is
,

such scriptural expressions probably dependent upon

"son,

ik

child,"

5 Isa. 9 10

(Targ. na,

W)
na,

* ^,

"the

root of
of

Jesse,"

Isa.

II

(Targ.

ana
<B*|

"son

of the son
;

Jesse");
8

nov,
;

"branch"

Jer. (i.. of David),

"

23 5 33 15
s),"

cf.

Zech. 3

12

7 12 (Targ. ^?,

perhaps also 1p, 2 Thereafter thy son

"

thy seed (David

IV
5

2 Sam.

").

Jewish literature as a
"

title

frequent in of the Messiah, especially in the

}

!?

is

phrase

the son of David comes

"

(a Tn

|a).

The

first re

are Gamaliel n. (c. 110 A.D.), presentatives of the expression a 4 a 3 Kisma ben Yose 120), b. Sanh. 98 (c. b. Sanh. 97
; ;

Yokhanan ben Torta

and Nechemya
are
cf. j.
(c.

(c.

130),
b.

j.

Taan. 68
6
;

d
;

Juda ben

Ilai

150),
a
,

Sanh. 97 a
-

others of later date

;

named

b.

Sanh. 38
b
.

98 a

b
;

b.

Erub. 43 b

b.

Yoma 10 a
is

Sukk. 55

The

"

Branch

of

David

"

(TO no*)

spoken

of in the

in the petition

Benedictions Babylonian recension of the Eighteen the but Palestinian Messiah concerning the
;
"

form

of

beyond
(nyn

7 do not go that prayer and the Blessing at meals house of of the David the sovereignty mentioning
"

rva note).

The short form

also

of the

Eighteen Benedictions,
of

beginning ^rnn,
restoration
of

speaks only in general terms

8

the

Davidic royalty. of which applies the prophecies prophets,

the
a

The Targum
Isa. 9. 11,

to

the
5,

Mic.

The Messianic

interpretation

of Isa.

95

6
,

seem to have been general. Targum, does not

though represented by the The Pseudepigrapha and the

New

Hezekiah, of

Sometimes the passage was connected with it. Justin says the Jews understood the prophecy regarding 14 Dial. c. Trypho, 33, 43, 67, 68, 71, 77, 83. Immanuel, Isa. 7 and Ps. 110 see 12 is attested for the contemporary Jews 2 Messianic application of 2 Sam. 7 That the builder of the temple alluded to in Dial. c. Trypho, 68.
Testament have no trace of

whom

by

12 see Zech. 6 that verse might well be the Messiah, 3 cl. Tann. i. 97. Cf Backer, Agada

Justin,

13
,

5 Targ. Isa. 53

4
7

Ibi(j.

i.

402.
,

Ibid.

ii.

557.
(c.

Ibid. 222, 236.

b See b. Ber. 48 where Eliezer ben Hyrcanus n mention of 113 3 ro^s in the Blessing at meals. 8 to the Babyl. recension This

120) already enjoins the

"Mess.

applies specially

cf.

Texte,"

a b
-

318

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Messiah
in Hos. 3 5

Jer. 23. 33, to the Messiah, calls the

by the

name

IV

^ KJNPB

while the

Targum on

Canticles and also

the Jerusalem Targums have adopted the later distinction between a in ia rrwp and a onSK 13 n^b ( see Targ. Cant. 4 5 7 4 Targ. Jerus. I. Ex. 40- n Targ. Jerus. on Zech. 12 10 ). 1
, ,

In this duplicate form it is noteworthy that the more recent type of Messiah Ben Ephraim or Messiah Ben Joseph pos tulates the descent of the Messiah thus entitled from Ephraim
or Joseph, and that the character in view
2

is

Messianic representative of the ten tribes. were associated also with the person of David himself, as shown above, p. 301. On the whole, it must be considered
the general conviction, that the Messiah had to be a descend ant of David, just as even the author of the Philosophoumena,
ix.

not merely a Messianic hopes

30, represents to have been the Jewish expectation. Though such was the case, it does not follow that, in

speaking of the Messiah, his derivation from David should

have been expressly mentioned or insisted upon. The pro 5 Zechariah the words of Jer. 23 without already quotes phet
In the same way this element including the Davidic descent. 72f is omitted in Enoch 83-90, Bar. Apoc. 40 2 [4] Esdr. 12 32ff 3 -,
.

The omission

most conspicuous in the Similitudes of Enoch (chaps. 37-71) and in 2 [4] Esdr. 13, where the Messiah, re
is

presented as in

God

although
picture sidered
of

Isa.

11, Pss. 72.

of
it

the

keeping, can hardly be a son of David, 89 are used in delineating the Messiah. The authors have therefore con
s

possible that the prophecy in regard to the

fulfilled

Branch

through a person who did not But for this, as for other spring from the lineage of David. their view cannot be reasons, regarded as one which was
widely diffused
1

David should be

among

the Jewish people.

"

See

"

So

still

Aramaische Dialektproben, 12. W. Boussct, Der Antichrist (1895), 65

,

see,

however,

"Der

leid.

u.

dcr sterb. Messias, 6, 16, 20. 3 12 mentions the Davidic descent. Only the Syrian version, 2 Esdr. 2

THE SON OF DAVID

319

2.

THE DAVIDIC DESCENT OF JESUS.

question how the Lord of David can also be his 37 45 Luke 20 44 ), Jesus showed that a 22 Matt. son, (Mark 12

By His

Davidic descent, according to the flesh, was not an essential It follows, consequently, that it attribute of the Messiah.

was
from

in

no sense the question

of derivation

from David that

caused

Him

to

this, it is

turn to the subject of the Messiah. Apart in full accord with His whole conception of
l

Messiah
dignity.

s position

that

God

alone could call any one to that

For

Him

there was no question of vindicating a

For all this it need not be claim to the kingly heritage. inferred that Jesus was not a descendant of David.

The Gospels
with the cry
vie

relate

that Jesus
27

Aaveti, Matt. 9

was sometimes greeted 15 22 20 30f (Mark 10 47f

-

-,

Luke 18
21
9 15
-

38f>

).

According
10

to Matt.

12
6

23
,

the people expressed

the conjecture that

(cf.

He might
)

be

vto$ AaveiS,

and Matt.

Mark II
name.

under

this

The
be

they even rendered homage to Him last instance has been reckoned unp.

historical, as is

shown on

222.

With
that, in

respect to the other

calling

passages,

it

has to

noted

Jesus

vios

Javet S, they virtually appealed to it is certain that this Messianic

ascribed to

Him
title

as

"

Messiah."

Now

would not have been

Him

had

it

been believed that

He

did not satisfy

the genealogical conditions implied by the name. Positive testimonies to the Davidic descent of Jesus are offered in the
1 17 20 cf. v. Luke 3 23 38 cf. in the narrat genealogies, Matt. I 27 32 -69 2 4 Acts 13 23 besides the statements of ive, Luke !
; , ;
-

3 2 Tim. 2 8 and the Apocalypse, 5 5 22 l6 Paul, Eoin. I

,

The

descent from David

by the evangelists with regard and not to Joseph only, Mary, in accordance with the view that descent on the mother s side does not carry with it any
is

attested

right of succession,

and that her husband

1

recognition of
the legal rights

Mary s

supernatural child conferred upon

Sec above, p. 266.

it

320
of his son.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

Liechtenstein
l

recalls the fact in this connection

that all property acquired by a spouse becomes uniformly the possession of the husband according to Keth. vi. 1, and that
in the case of

any question as

to

one

s origin,

common
b.

was, in point of law, the decisive consideration,

opinion Kidd. S0 a
.

Nevertheless, neither of these points touches the right of suc

cession.
viii.

The

criterion

for

this,
is

according

to

Bab.

bathr.

6, is

whether the father

willing to recognise

any one

as his son.

case such as that of Jesus was, of course, not

;

anticipated by the law

but

if

no other human fatherhood

alleged, then the child must have been regarded as be stowed by God upon the house of Joseph, for a betrothed

was

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 as and be be Davidic, course, recognised really descended

from David, even although

genealogies
that the
is

it

did not possess satisfactory

to

prove

this.

The most convincing evidence

really possessed of Davidic descent

Holy Family was

that of Paul.

As

the scribes held to the opinion that the

of

Messiah must be a descendant

David,

it

is

certain that

the opponents of Jesus would 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

with members
of the

of

the Christians, would be

well instructed in regard to this point.

freely

As

he, after mingling

Holy Family

in Jerusalem,
it
f.

shows

that he entertained no sort of doubt on this point,

1

must be

Hebrew commentary on Mark and Luke

a (1896), 13

THE SON OF DAVID

321

in the

assumed that no objection to it was known to him. Nowhere New Testament do we find a single trace of conscious refutation of Jewish attacks, based on the idea that the
derivation of Jesus from David was defective.
conclusion, therefore,
is

to maintain,

The proper with Paul, the Davidic

upon

descent of Jesus, although the continuity of the divine revela tion in the Old and New Testaments does not it. depend

moreover, nothing very improbable in the fact that families known to be Davidic should have existed in the
is,

There

time of Jesus.
pretensions
to

Little

stress, of

course, can

be laid on the

by the Jewish and Yakhya in Spain. 1 Nor can we trust much to the pedigrees which trace the family of the
families of Abarbanel

Davidic

descent

advanced

princes

of

the captivity in Babylon back to David.

Five

discordant genealogies of this sort are known, 2 the most ancient among them being given in Seder Olam Zota, 3 which dates perhaps from the ninth century. But despite the worthlessness of these data, it 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
(c.

200

A.D.),

by

the Baraitha, 4

known even

to

Origen,

which found a

fulfil

Gen. 49 10 in the fact that the chief of the exiles in Babylon had a recognised legal authority, and that the

ment

of

patriarchs of Palestine possessed a faculty of teaching ap From this at most could be inferred proved by the State.
See /. da Costa, Israel en de Volken 2 (1873), 510. These genealogies are reviewed by F. Lazarus, Die Haupter der Yertriebenen. Beitrage zu einer Geschichte der Exilsfursten in Babylonien (1890), 171. 3 For this, see Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Vortrage, 2 142-147 editions of the text
2
;

in F. Lazarus, op. cit. 158-170 ; A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, 68-88 ; Schechter in Jiid. Monatsschr. xxxix. (1894) 23 ff.
4

ii.

b.

Hor.

ll b

b.

Sanh. 5

a
.

The same view of Gen. 49 10 forms the founda

tion of the statement of the sons of Khiyya, who roused the wrath of Juda i. 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 a
;

See Origenes, De princip. iv. 3, where he gives as the Jewish belief: rbv tevapx-riv d7r6 TOV lovda yevovs rvyxdvovra Apxeiv TOV ActoO, OVK K\et$6rrw ruv d-irb TOV o"rr{p/j.aTOs avrov, e ws ^s XPHTTOV e<t>a.VTdoi>Tai

21

322

THE WORDS OF JESUS

of

merely the belief in a descent from the tribe

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

David in the judgment of Eab of Babylon 2 while Juda himself, on a previous occasion, called him (c. 220), self only a descendant on his mother s side of Judah, one might
of

suppose that he really thought of Davidic descent in his own

case, as in that of

the fact chat

The same inference is supported by a kinsman of Khiyya, j. Kil. 3 2 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,
;

Paul,

being also

from the tribe

4

of

Benjamin, was of kindred

ancestor
of

descent with his teacher Gamaliel, the

Juda. a

family register
5

found

in

Jerusalem

derived

Hillel,

progenitor of Juda, from David, and Khiyya from Shephatiah, son of David and Abital; whereas, according to b. Keth. 62 b
,

Juda springs directly from

is

this son of David, while

Khiyya
This

traced to Shimei, a brother of David (2 Sam. 2 1 21 ).

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.

Keth. 35 a
is

3 6

Eutychianum, i., Orthod. Universum Davidis genus extinctum est. Quis enim novit hodie aliquem qui de Davidica radice descenderit ? Eran. Qui ergo dicuntur Judseorum patriarchse non sunt ex cognatione Davidica? Orthod.: Minime. Eran.: Sed undenam derivantur ? Orthod. Ex Herode alienigena qui ex patre quidem erat Ascalonites, ex matre autem Idumaeus. This has rightly been pronounced
exceptional, Dial. adv.
:

Rom. II 1 The view of Theodoret

Ber. R. 33. See above, p.

b.

Sabb. 56 a
b.

5.

See

Hor. ll b

incredible

by

J.

Morinus, Exercit. Eccles. et Bibl.

ii.

2f>9.

THE SON OF DAVID

323

From
Juda
it is

all this it
L,

need not, of course, be concluded that Khiyya, and Huna were certainly descendants of David but
;

obvious that about

of

200

A.D.

there were several families

still
1

to

which the tradition

Davidic descent

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

generations after the Exile, thus proving the existence of sons of David for the period about 300 B.C.

seven

From

a still later period may possibly arise the mention of 10 12 13 It is worthy of the Davidic house in Zech. 1 2 7
8>

note that
the son

Luke
of

traces the descent of Joseph from

Nathan
has been

David, while
of the

Zech.

12

10

mentions a house of
;

Nathan alongside

house of David

whence

it

conjectured that the former is meant to be regarded as a And hence also the Pseudobranch of the family of David.
philonic Breviarium

Temporum

will not

have been

alto

gether without

some historical basis in giving a line of Davidic princes (duces) reaching to the Hasmonseans. There a in to have once been Davidic at the head fact, seems, family
of post-exilic Israel,

although we have no precise information

the

about

it.

At

all

events

Book

of

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,
It is, however, too much to say that "princely descent was attributed to every school president," as stated after Weber by Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neutest. Theol. i. 245.
1

Too much importance

;

is

ascribed to this
;

des Volkes Jisrael (1847), 378-387 5G f. J. Lichtenstein on Luke 3 23

.

document by L. Herzfeld, Gesch. F. Lazarus, Die Haupter der Vertriebenen,

324

THE WOKDS OF JESUS

or the peasant families of

Norway who
results that

are descended from

ancient kings.

Hence

it

no serious doubts need

be opposed to the idea of a trustworthy tradition of Davidic descent in the family of Joseph.

XIII.

"THE

LOED"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS.

1.

THE JEWISH USE OF THE TERM.

of
fti

The application
Old Testament
Adonaj,"

and

tfitf

in the
"

is

discussed in
f.

my

treatise

Hebrew of the Der Gottesname

16ff.,

21

The
16

biblical

Aramaic uses only *np

is

for

"

lord."

In Dan. 4

the king

addressed as

wp

(here

The Targum of Onkelos is also acquainted with this term, but makes use of it only to replace ^JB or B*N, signify 19 ing the owner or possessor of anything; cf. e.g. Gen. 37
""]).

Ex.

2 1 29

!^N, on
fl2H.

the

other

hand,
ruin")

always
l

Onkelos as
Gen. 16 8

The feminine form

"my

is also

appears found see

;

in

^^1,
also

mistress."

Only
,

in the designation of

God
have

as
it

D^?
^2"!

17 TIN, Deut. 10

in

Dan.
it

2 47

do we find p?^& ^p as we The form of address, tfiK, is

;

always

and when

it

one person, e.g. Gen. 23 11 as Gen. 23 6 refers to several, W-^ a For j^K
refers to
"!

when

pointed so as to refer to God, we find only the usual abbre 2 The Targumic mode of viation of the Tetragrammaton.
51 John 20 16 by the term using |te*i is recalled in Mark 10 addressed to Jesus, paftftovveL* (another reading paffftovi, Mark pa/3/3el, John fa/3/Swvei), and also by the strange
, ,

For
See

"

mistress

the

Targum

to the Prophets puts

24.

."nip

see Isa. 24 2

firni?,

"her mistress."

2
3

"Der

Gottesname

Adonaj,"

In the time of Jesus ften had not yet become jiai. The interchange of u and o in pronunciation can also be seen in other cases see Gramra. des j.-pal. Aram. 140 01. KonneTcc, Behandl. d. hebr. Namen in der Septuaginta (Star3 for nffiv, and the Palmyrenian garder Programm), 23 ; Sovadwa, Luke 8
; ;
,

for the

name

a pj

"THE

LOKD"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS
"

325

reading, fOiim for pan,

your

teacher,"

in the fragments of

the 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 early Jewish literature, apart from the Targums, |ta1 is scarcely ever used except as referring to God, often especially d in the title wpjjn FMten Hebr. Wan see, e.g., j. Taan. 68 a 2 Mechilt. 56 The biblical IftK, see,e.#., Taan. iii. 8 D^yk>
; , ; ;
.

referring to a man,
this is

is

due to the influence

"

once rendered by fi2n, Ber. K. 93 ; but of the Targum. In j. Meg. 75,

"

DTft&H are the

the usual
l?1,

masters
for a

of slaves.

With
is

these exceptions,

name
a

human
called

master, conjointly with

or

to be discussed
of

under No. XIV.,

is

only *op, ip.

The

"lord"

phrases,

soul

is

and

"nrnp
"

nnp, j. thou art lord of thy soul (passion)," d thy mistress," we find in j. Ab. z. 44 ^T\ p. But even the owner of a pearl
.

slave

Gitt.

46 a

For the
"if

"if

thy
P

^P
is

JW

7|B>B3

called

its nip, N2in np,

lord,"

j.

Bab. m. 8 C
debt," j.

and the creditor

is

said to be

"lord

of

Taan. 66.
"my
lord,"

the learned
learned
fessional

man

as

ip,

The layman addresses 28 d but the j. Keth.

;

man
man,

also says Ip as a
j.

form

of courtesy to the pro

;

Kil.

32 a

Ab.

d.

K. Nathan, 25

and a maid

servant uses

the
"^p

same term

of

is called by Abigail, j. Simeon ben Shetach, j. Naz. 54 b and the Eoman emperor b The gets the same name from Turnus Kufus, b. Sanh. 65
; ;
.

David

her master, Vay. K. 24. Sanh. 20 b King Yannai by

proper style of address to the King of Israel, according to Tos. Sanh. iv. 4, was ^"H WTJK. Moses is also addressed by Joshua as Ass. Mos. I]>9.i9. The Targum, 2 Kings
"lord,"

5 13 reproduces
,

"ttK

of the text
,

by 1p in the appeal
,
"no

to

Naaman.

According

to b.

Makk. 24 a

b.

greeted every learned

man

Keth. 103 b King Jehoshaphat 8 with the words np ^1 ^l.

:

The
1

title to

be used in speaking to the Messiah, according to

f.

Talraudical Fragments in the Bodleian Library (Cambridge, 1896), 5, 29 8 See also above, p. 173 f. See Rabbinovicz on b. Makk. 24 a

326
b.

THE WORDS OF JESUS

(ed.

Sanh. 98 a
"n?*

Venice, 1520),
"

is

"to

Tl, which should be

"

read as
priest,"

^V my

master and

lord."

My

lord high

NJ! NJi}? ^, is the real form at the root of the peculiar address to the high priest: ^J |nb ^N, Yoma iv. 1, cf. TIK in which the intention probably was to avoid ^K
;

i?*3n,
""IP

"my

lord

priest,"

Ber. K.

71.

Considering also that

can likewise be used in speaking of and to God, as shown on p. ISOf., 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. But, in that case, the pro nominal suffix is as indispensable as in the case of fHN in the

Old Testament. 2

To speak

of

"

the Lord

"

with no

suffix is

contrary to Palestinian usage.

If the

speaker includes others

deference
"

along with

himself,

who owe
of

a similar

to

the
as
.

superior named, then the form

to use is H?,

our

lord,"

King Saul, j. Abigail says Again, in a narrative with a Palestinian colouring,

ll b Esau as the ancestor
,

when speaking
of

Sanh.
b.

20 b
Ab.

z.

Eome

is

called

by the

Eoman
fcOfcOB,

herald Nnp.
"our
lord,"

Similarly

we

find in

Aramaic

inscriptions

lord,"

(Nabatsean); jimo, "their de Vogue, 28 (Palmyr.), said of a king; and W&, "my
ii.

CIS,

1.

201, 205

lord,"

CIS,

ii.

1.

144

(Egyptian).
suffix,

customary

to use

IB without

In Babylon only was it even without the definite

supposed to be well known. Even with regard to the Messiah this form has been used,
ending, of an exalted person
b.

Sanh. 98 a

It is improbable that the

into the language of

Greek Kvpuos had been adopted the people at an early period. 3 Only
"

the most recent

see Jerus.
1

I.

Targums have occasionally D^p for The other Num. II 26 Targ. Ps. 53 1 Job 5 2
lord"
; ,
.

The Munich MS.

"Der

has, however, only

Adonaj,"

rj.

2 3

Gottesname
I

21

f.;

Gramm.

d. jiid.-pal.

Aram.
"Der

78.

Formerly

had considered an

see early date possible;

Gottesname

Adonaj,"

81, 84.

"THE

LORD"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

327
it

Targums
b.

all

ignore
b

it.

As

part of Greek sentences,

d

occurs,

Ab.

z.

ll

and

j.

Shebu. 34

Ber. E. 89,

it

was known that

(j.

Ned. 38
(icvpie)

a
).

According to
" "

meant
It

lord

(filK),

whereas

^3

(%elpie)

meant

"
"

slave

0?^).

considered likely enough, according to b. certain Palestinian doves uttered the sound

was in Babylon Chull. 139 b that

,

Ti?

""Tf?,

Kvpie

b if TH be corrected into n^ Kvpie; and in b. Erub. 53 we hear of a story told in Babylon about a Galilean woman

who

no

"),

contrived to address a heathen judge with the words my lord slave (%e//3te for Kvpte). But the Pales
"

tinian

Talmud and Midrash give no

sign of so intimate a

in

Among blending of the languages. 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.

uneducated Jews living

2.

THE USAGE IN THE SYNOPTISTS.

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is often addressed as Kvpie, 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 o KvpLos VJJLWV, Matt. 24 sometimes have not that noted be further to parallel passages
.

the same word as the

title of

address.

For

25 Kvpie, Matt. 8

we

find in

Luke

24

eV^o-retra,

and

in

Mark 4 38
Luke

SiSda/cdXe.

The Kvpie

by 17 Luke 9 38 by papfai. Mark 9 have Si&daKaXe for Kvpue in Matt. 17 15 pafifiovvu occurs in 41 31 33 51 And Mark 10 for Kvpie in Matt. 20 (Luke 18 ). while Jesus in giving instructions to His disciples about the
eVio-rara, and in

of Matt.

17 4

is

replaced in

9 33 again
,

Mark

3 3 Luke 19 31 ), (Mark II entry into Jerusalem, Matt. 2 1 implies that they were in the habit of speaking about Him as 6 Kvpios, He bids them, in the charge to make ready for
,

328

THE WORDS OF JESUS

&i$da-Ka\o<;,

the Passover, refer to Himself as 6

Matt. 26 18

(Mark 14

14
,

Luke 22

11
).

But despite

this uncertainty in the

1

tradition, impossible, with Eesch in his ^. ^2*1, to trace every instance of xvpie addressed to Jesus back to SiSdcrKaXe
it is
i*

or pa/S@ei.

The Palestinian Jewish

literature also recognises

1
""SH.

the two styles of address,

supposition, therefore,
of Jesus.
is

^p and

The most natural

which
of

that both should be found in the case

of Jesus as o fcvpios r)n&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
i.e.

Twelve Apostles, 10, this title was papava or papav, 2 The disciples must therefore have often fcnp or Hp.
"Hp,

addressed Jesus as

and other contemporaries

1

will

have

done the same.

for /cvpie,

"

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.

When
2 13

the disciples spoke about Jesus,

8
*),

it

posed, despite the occurrence of the simple o

3 81 (Mark II Luke 19
,
-

cannot be sup icvpios, Matt.

Luke 24 34 that they used tno

,

with no

suffix.

also in this

As in the Jewish usage, case we should expect only

s

just exhibited, so

W"]p

or

ftp.

And

thence

it

narrative
175.6 18
e

follows that Luke when speaking about Jesus

frequent use of o icvpios in his

(7
to
13

10 1 II 39 12 42 13 15

19

22 31

61
),

would have

be altered into the

same form, in order

the
appellation
o

to agree

with Aramaic idiom.

And
be

tcvpios

lya-ovs

(Luke

24 3 ) cannot

imagined other than

Christian.

W?
may

Njlp in the

mouth

of a Palestinian

Special mention
1

be

made

of Matt.

22 45 (Mark 12 37

in Palestine
2

A. Wunsche s remark, Neue Beitrage had the same meaning as no

3"]

See

Gramm.

z. Erlaut. de Evangelien, 278, that in Babylon, is incorrect. d. jiid.-pal. Ar. 120, 162, 297. up? is the older, fuller form.

"THE

LORD"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

329
avrov

Luke 20 44 ),
ecrTiv; as

el

ovv AavelS Ka\el avrbv /cvpiov, TTW?

vlo<$

of Jesus the

any one might perhaps hold that in the question word Kvpios was meant as a predicate of Deity.
it

The

Peshita, indeed, appears to have really taken

;

in this

sense, as it renders icvpiov

interpretation

it

by fcOiD and in support of such can be pointed out that for the time in and the secular
for the latter,

question, the distinction between the sacred

by was not yet completely

"OIK,

pointing *ft& for the

former and
1 1

T^

established, so that it

was possible

to

apprehend the unpointed TIN in Ps. 110 as a divine epithet. But such an interpretation of Ps. 110 1 cannot be imputed
to

Jesus.

And

further,
original.

without a
">$?

suffix is

inadmissible

in the
will

Aramaic

therefore have been

ae>

Our Lord s words (as in Mark) ivn a^a Kiwm snap |no pn
njrp
jrp

oiKb
y

DM
n^

\n

Knna

ITH

ION

w&
n^

ana Kin JH^K

^np)

iy-j^
<I

^^
N
J^P>

At
Jesus,

first

the title

1^,

used in speaking to and of

was no more than the respectful designation of the Teacher on the part of the disciples. As soon as Jesus had
entered into His state of kingly majesty,
it

became among
;
"

His followers an acknowledgment of sovereignty and when they addressed Him as the Son of God, then our Lord," as applied to Jesus, was not widely separated from the same
designation for God.
"

But

it

must here be remembered that

" "

nate

the Aramaic-speaking Jews did not, save exceptionally, desig God as Lord 4 so that in the Hebraist section of
"

the Jewish Christians the expression

in reference to

"

our Lord

"

was used
free

Jesus

only,

and would be quite

from

ambiguity.

Among
1

the Hellenists the case was different; for they

2

had, and frequently used, the term /cvpios as a designation

Cf.
"

Der Gottesname

Adonaj,"

16

ff.

Galilean vn.
;

In Onkelos also
1
.

DN.J is

reproduced by

T/?N,

see

Gen. 22 16

cf.

also Targ.

Ps.

HO
4

See above,

p. 179.

330
for

THE WORDS OF JESUS

God.

The reason
to icvpios

for

always

attaching

possessive
to

pronoun

when

applied to Jesus

would

them be
;

they said o fcvpios only and it might thus often be difficult to determine whether Jesus or God were meant.
unapparent.

So in

this case also

With regard
Church
to Kvpios

to

the sense

attached by the primitive

when
also

applied to Jesus,

an influence

of

some

importance was doubtless exercised by the fact that

"dominus,"

6 /cvpws,

was

the

title

of

the

Eoman

emperor.

But Augustus and Tiberius had declined to accept this title. afterwards it became common enough, and was, moreover,
associated

with

the

divine
o

honours

paid

even

to

living

emperors.

The simple

icvpios is

applied to Trajan, A.g.

Urk.

d.
;

Kgl. Mus.

420

to

2211.

z. Berl. 115, 562; to Hadrian, ibid. 121, Antoninus Pius, 111, 472 to Agrippa L, Waddingt. The form o icvpios THAWV also appears afterwards; see
;

Ag. Urk. 12 (Commodus), 266 (Severus), 618 (Marc. AureL),

Waddingt. 2070e
is

(?),

2114

(Severus).

And

still

more recent

Seo-TTor?;?
is

rjfjicov,
"

Severus
Lat.
viii.

styled

ibid. 1916 (Justinian), 2187 (Julian). Dominus noster sanctissimus," Corp. Inscr.

Suetonius (Dom. 13) 1 says that Domitian Dom ordered the procurators to use the written formula

7062.

"

inus et

Deus noster hoc

fieri

jubet."
:

Caesar, xxxix. 4) relates of Diocletian

"

Aurelius Victor (De Se primus omnium,

dici passus
:

Caligulam post Dornitianumque,

et adorari se appellarique uti
"

Dominum palam
;

Deum."

Even the formula

edictum Domini Deique nostri," was possible see Martial, In general, however, it was merely tcvpios or else tfeo? 2 In the that was prefixed to the name of the emperor.
v. 8.

Acts (25 26 ), Festus speaks

of

Nero

as o /cvpio?.

When
"

the

Christians called Jesus o Kvpios, they will have

meant that

He

is
"

the true

"

divine

Lord,"

in opposition to the
of

God and

Lord

on the imperial throne

AureL

Eome.
2

of o icvpios is
1

certainly intended in this

Victor,

Luke s frequent use The phrase sense.

See above,
p. 273.

Of.

De

Csesar. xi. 2.

"

MASTER

"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

331

used in his Gospel, 2 11 (cf. Acts 2 36 ), defines the term XpicrTo? in this sense for the reader.
fcvpios

On

the Jewish

side there

could not be

an altogether

similar development of language in regard to the Messiah, because they did not venture to ascribe to the Messiah a But there was something akin position alongside of God.
in their emphatic affirmation that every Israelite has daily

sovereignty of heaven," while he This formed a conscious protest, acknowledges the one God. continually repeated, against the claims to divinity advanced
to take

upon himself the

"

by the
the
ness
"

"

government,"

which the Jews readily

"

identified with
of
"

sovereignty of arrogance

(fiW fi^P) or

godless-

XIV.

"MASTER"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS.

1.

THE JEWISH USE OF THE TERM.

^"i

It is unnecessary to give proofs that

was the usual

form

of address

the time of Jesus

For with which the learned were greeted. 7 its use is expressly attested in Matt. 23
.

The Hai
(c.

official

deliverance

of

the

Gaonim,

Sherira

and

source

1000 A.D.), concerning rabbinic titles has been the of much confusion. According to Aruch, sub verbo
was as follows
"

^38, their verdict

The

earliest generations,

who were very exalted, required no rabbinic title, neither jsn and there was no difference in respect of this nor ^1 nor For, take Hillel, who usage between Babylon and Palestine.
3"3,

came from Babylon

name.

no rabbinic

title

was coupled with

his

was

said,

These were esteemed like the prophets, of whom it as Haggai the prophet has said/ Ezra came not
;

from Babylon in their case no rabbinic title is given when the name is mentioned. And, so far as we know, this custom of adding a title began with the princes (the presidents of
c

See above, p. 97.

332

THE WORDS OF JESUS

the Sanhedrin) from the time of

of

Eabban Shimeon
all

his son,

the second temple, and of

Eabban Gamliel the elder, and who perished at the destruction of Eabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai, who

were

princes

began

to be used

and in the same period the title Eabbi among those who were duly ordained Eabbi
;

Zadok and Eabbi Eliezer ben Yakob, and the custom extended itself through the scholars of Eabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai.
reckoned to be higher than Eab, and Eabban higher than Eabbi and still find none than Eabban is the and we name higher simple
general consent
is
; ;

And by

Eabbi

called

Eabban except in the number of the princes/ At the close of the Talmud tractate Eduyyoth, in a Tosephta there
given also the following explanation
his
:

is

He who
"

has scholars
"
"

and
if

Eabbi have likewise scholars, is called Eabban his own scholars are forgotten, he is called
scholars
"

if

both the
gotten, he

first
is

and the second generation of scholars are for Nevertheless called merely by his own name/
princes/

we

find that the title |2H is given only to

Eabban

Gamliel,

Eabbenu ha-kadosh (Juda

to

Eabban Shimeon, Eabban Yokhanan ben Zakkai, But this rabbinic attempt 1 I.)/ arrange the various titles in an order of merit is made to

depend upon the estimate formed by successors of the per sonages who receive the titles, and is consequently of no
historical value.

The actual condition

a
different

of

the rabbinical literature

itself
I.,

explanation. only Gamliel requires Yokhanan ben Shimeon ben Gamliel I., Zakkai, Gamliel

Since

IL,

Shimeon ben Gamliel

the
title

n. are called !|n, while after their

time

S
B>3

tion, it

may
for

appears to take the place of the former designa be concluded that |?1 was the earlier Jewish
"

the head of the Jews recognised by the Eonian in Greek In Latin his title was patriarcha," government.

name

In this theory the only strange circumstance

is

1 This representation is still followed by 0. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 2 (1897), 27 ; H. L. Strack, Pirke Aboth, 2 23.

"MASTER"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

333

that Gamliel
of

I.

and

his son,

who

lived before the destruction

title \^],

while apart from their case the magnates of that age not only do not receive this title, but no corresponding epithet at all. To

Jerusalem, should also receive the

meet

however, the conjecture is allowable that in the case of Gamliel L, and of Shimeon ben Gamliel I., the title
this,

was subsequently transferred to them from their successors who did bear the name. This explanation is the more
plausible

always certain whether the

because on other grounds it is impossible to be first or the second of the couples

who

bore the same

name

is

really meant.

The

fact

that after the

destruction

of

Jerusalem the

actual teachers of the law other than those specified always receive the title ^zn, is to be explained from the custom of
referring to one
s

own
first

teacher literally as such, 1 and from

the consideration that in the earliest collection of traditional

materials
authorities

in

the

half
still

of

the second

century, those

an uninterrupted succession of be In actual spoken of as *zn. disciples could not possibly fact, of course, men spoke of and to the learned, using the

who had not

form ^l even before 70

A.D.,

as the Gospels themselves prove.

But

at that time so otiose as

the

suffix in
it

the form

become
"

centuries.

presumably In that period it was possible even to say *sn in, see j. Sot. 24 b a certain Eabbi Examples of ^n addressed
"

had not yet did in the third and fourth

*sn

to a teacher of the
j.

law are seen in E.

;

h. S.
b.

ii.

j.

Peah 21 b
;

Keth. 35 a
;

b.

Ber. 3 a
;

b.

Taan. 20 b

Bab. m. 85 a
5 13

b.

Sanh.

98 a

b.

Makk. 24 a

see also Targ. 2

12 Kings 2

6 21

13 U

(for UK).

From
StSaovoiXe
original, it

the fact that the Gospels so frequently employ as a form of address, presupposing zn as the

must be

inferred that even then an was a current

1 Yokhanan (c. 250), according to b. Sanh. 100 a said that Gehazi was pun ished because, in presence of the king (2 Kings 8 5 ), he had spoken of his teacher Elisha simply by name.
,

334

THE WORDS OF JESUS

designation of a teacher.

Ed.
"

i.

Bab. m.
")

ii.

11

Examples Ab. i. 6, 16
d
(PP31,

to this effect are seen in

;

Aram.

j.

Kil.
")

32 b
;

(?If!,

thy teacher
(fin,

j.

Bab. m. 8

"

his teacher

j.

Sanh.
"your

25 d

"our

teacher/ of Moses);

j.

Erub. 19 b

(Jtoai,

teacher
It

").

must
"

not,

however, be

forgotten

that

31 was also
its
"

capable of other applications in accordance with

literal

meaning, great." In Hebraising style 31 means the slave as distinguished from the (W), Ab. i. 1
"

master,"

"

b.

Taan.
is

25

b
;

Shir. K. I

1
.

Any Aramaic
But
"prince,"

instance of the same sort

not

known
22
27

to me.

in Onkelos

we
2

find 31, plural r3~a*i,

substituted for N^J,

singular Gen.
7
;

3 24 ,

Num.

3 24

^a, taken in the same sense, Lev. 2 1 4 for *&* (plur.), Ex. 15 15 for Dnp, Gen. 37 36 39 1 for 1^, sing. Gen. 39 21 40 2 3 plur. Gen. 12 15
Ex.
;
,

plural Ex.

16

22

Num.

and

for

Num.
is

2 1 19 22 14

for

a, Gen. 4 20
j.

21
.

A
a

"prince

of demons"
is

called

KWTC
is

final,
b.

Shek. 49 b
a
.

"brigand chief"

re

ferred to as ai,
a caravan
of the

Bab. mez. 84

In Palmyra the leader of

7.

called

nw
is

3"i,

de Vogue,
urrtlN,

The proper

style

king

of Israel is

Win]

Tosephta Sanh.

iv. 4,

and

in this title
title.
s

considered the equivalent of the royal 1 The Samaritans addressed God Himself as Hence
"an.

^ai

ai

is

a deeply-deferential form
is
"

of address, the

full

force
"

of

which

nowise expressed by the Greek SiSdo-KaXe. My commander would be no more than sufficient to render the
term.

He who was
"

addressed as an

to be the superior of the speaker.

"

is thereby acknowledged To some extent the Latin

magister
kinds,

corresponds, as
2

it

denotes superiors of various

among
3

others the teacher especially.

fai
is

The form
Geiger
1

a derivative from 31,

it,

and not as A.

has erroneously considered

the plural suffix added

See the rendering of JIN by Ti in the Samaritan Targ. to Genesis, and in a Marka, Heidenheim, Bibl. Sam. iii. 5 2 2 A kindred form is put by Onkelos, Gen. 40 for ono. 3 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischna (1845), ii. 129 ; also Siddur Yemen, MS. Chamizer, i., has pi throughout Ab. i.
.
p"|?"]

"MASTER"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

335

to
is

2"]

our teacher
("

").

sometimes used for the Hebr.

9 1
,

In the Targum of Onkelos this word Gen. 37 6 Ex. IS 21 25 Deut.

-

ifc>,

20

especially for military

"
"

commander.

In Ab.

i.

10, rwsn

means

mastery/

lordship."

As already
Palestine
see
j.

observed, |31 was

the title of the Palestinian patriarchs in the

Later,
d

second century.
a

however,
"a

fsn

became in

very

common
;

designation of

teacher"

generally;
(sage)."
"

Ter.

46 a

j.
3"}

Bab.

m. 8

"

jsn

T?,

a teacher

As
"

the plural of

was

used exclusively for the adjective

great,"

there was no other

"

word available
Sanh. 27
"

r?f!

for

the plural of
"those

teacher

than p?2n
j.

see
a

j.

teachers"
"

(sages);

Ber. 10
3

r1
"

the great teachers of the Sanhedrin doctors

KJ3-J31,

;
"

9 Targ. Cant. 4

PT. ? ^|%
65
.

the

cf.

^f],

ibid.

Pronominal

suffixes are
132"},

not attached to ^_, except in the common form our teachers," contracted from W?sn, in which, literally,
"

however, the suffix has lost

KJ-p
lOT
"

its

force; see,

e.g., j.

Taan. 69 b

pan,

the teachers (sages) of

Tiberias."

The Aramaic
tion for nouns.

of Palestine prefers

on to an as a termina

This explains how it was that P^n (which afterwards became p2H) should be in use as a collateral form This form, which the Targums employ for lord with 151.
"
"

in all its meanings,

God

was afterwards reserved by the Jews for and hence hardly any trace 2 remains in the Jewish literature to show its former application to the teacher.
alone
;

which would correspond to Wlinsche 3 proposes ^to tcaOqryrjTris, Matt. 23 in the sense of my teacher, my guide." But there is no
designation for
"

As a

teacher

"

the Greek

10

"

immediate connection between rnto and

"

guide."

In

b.

Keth.

79

ninln rnio

means one who

j.

is
j.

decisions;
"

and in
Kidd.

Sabb.

ll b

authorised to give legal Shek. 47 C Njnio is the

is

teacher of the
j.

law,"

just as KJ^np
e
.

the

"

teacher of the
nlo,

Mishna,"

66

The form

of

address,
as

which
extant,

appears frequently in the text of the

1

Talmud

now

See also Targ. 2 Kings 8 Eccl. 5 W&nscTte, Neiie Beitrage, 279.

,

21

7
.

See, however, above, p. 325.

336

THE WORDS OF JESUS

In b. Ber. 3 a the ed. Pesaro cannot be regarded as original. In b. Taan. and ed. Venice i. have ni Ui, and not niDi
"ai.

20

there

is

found, even in ed. Pesaro, a doubled

*m and HID

but the Munich MS. has only 131. Similarly, this latter MS. for the formula of ed. Venice i. has in b. Sanh. 98 a
U"i

"niDI

"an

In

b.

Makk. 24

a
,

b.

Keth. 103
n%
?.i

b
,

the true reading

is

m m
which
.

HE
for

"HD.

was in no sense a general name teacher in that period, any more than |B?o, its Aramaic

The Hebrew

equivalent, according

to

Ber.
it,

E.

68, or than

H^?,

might be substituted for

as in Targ. Isa.

43

27
,

Ezek. 3 17

2.

THE SYNOPTIC USE OF THE TERM

transliterated into

"MASTER."

The Aramaic ^l,

Matt. 26 25

Greek

papj3et,

is

explicitly recognised as the

(cf.,

common form

of address to Jesus,

however,

v.

22

9 5 (but Matt.

1*?* rcvpie;

49 45 (Matt. 14 ), Mark mpie), 26 Luke 9 33 eVio-Tara). The Greek

SiSdaicaXe is attested with special frequency

-

by Mark as an

1Q 17 20 35 12 14 19 ), while in his address to Jesus (4 38 9 17 28 Gospel /cvpie is only once used (7 ), by the Syro-Phoenician

woman. 2
5

The form
9 33
-

Girio-raja, occurring

six times in

Luke
to be

(5

8 24

45

49

17 13 ) alongside

of the

commoner

&i&da-Ka\e, is

merely a Greek synonym for the traced back to the Aramaic ^1.

latter,

and both are

Jesus forbade His disciples to allow themselves to be called paftfiel, on the ground that He alone was their
"Master,"

reference to

In so doing He recognised that in Himself the designation was expressive of the The form of address, SiSdcr/cake real relation between them.
Matt.

23 8

dyaOe, He,
1

17f however, refused to allow (Mark 10

-,

Luke

Levy, Neuhebr.-Chald. Worterbuch, has a special entry under ND^D, na^D, But this form, intrinsically improbable as a noun, is an infinitive in the passages cited ; and the whole entry should therefore be struck out. Jastrow in his Dictionary recognises the infinitive, but gives it the incorrect
"teacher."

pointing, KeS?.
2

See, however, 6 Kvpios,

Mark

II 3.

"MASTER"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS

337

This address was at variance with actual usage, and, moreover, in the mouth of the speaker it was mere insolent
flattery.
(c.

It is related, b. Taan.

24 b how Eleazar
,

of

Hagronya
atp

340) dreamt that a voice called out

to

him: 3}?
to

D^

snpyi a^pp

M^OT

atp

jiano atp,

Good

Eabbi from the good Lord, who to His people." Here, of course, the epithet good master bestowed on Eleazar is reckoned a high distinction, especially
"

the good greeting in His goodness does good

"

as it attributes to

him the same

quality as to God.

The

like

designation was declined by Jesus, because

unwilling that any one should thoughtlessly deal with such an epithet and here, as always, the honour due to the Father was the
;

He was

first

consideration with Jesus.

Further, the address NJ?

of

would not lead any one to think

proper translation
that
is
"kind

moral goodness.

The

master."

The

rejection of the

is generally supposed, in but that Him alone is morally perfect, When it is maintained the quality of kindness personified. that God is ato, Ps. 25 8 34 9 135 3 it is His benevolent

epithet, therefore, does not

mean, as

God

alone

is

character
literature
for

that
uses

is
aitt

emphasised. The thanksgiving prescribed of God.

ix.

In this sense also Jewish

use on the receipt of good news, Ber.

aten,

2,

is

^"la

a^tpftni
ness!"

Praised be

He who

is

kind and sends kind

(c.

From Shimeon ben Chalaphta

2

200

A.D.)

we have

the

saying,
\3fah

which
"

recalls

Luke IS 1

8
,

bjl

Kf*?^ nvp NB^PI

"

D^5&85*

f3B>,

the importunate

man

prevails over the

!

wicked,
it is

how much more over

it

the All-merciful

wherefore,
of

argued,

must be considered certain that the people

.

Nineveh must have cried mightily for the mercy of God, as 8 is said in Jonah 3 According to Vay. E. 6, Bar Telamyon
took an oath in the synagogue
1
"

by the compassionate Lord

In Matt. 19 16ff we have no mere error in translation, but an alteration of

inrriB^

the original text, due to doctrinal preconception. 2 Pesikta 161 a, j. Taan. 65 b (here less apt:

J?B>

hs *qn& 5^
;

njfj

Npyn

cViyW, "the importunate man overpowers the honest man, how much more cf. Backer, Ag. d. Tann. ii, 535. the generosity that is in the world")
;

22

338
of this

THE WORDS OF JESUS

house
"

"

(3b

NJVa f^rn nnp).

merciful,"

In Palmyra also K?B

K J?tp1,
of

the kind and

God;

see de Vogue, 75,

77.

If the

was commonly predicated word should be so

is

understood in the case of Jesus, then there

inquire
in

no need to
or to

what sense Jesus disclaims

the
scribe, as
"

sinlessness,

imagine such a connection

expectation
for
1
"good."

between the address and

"

the

of

instruction

regarding

would imply that he looked from Him who was goodness

A
433

number
10
35

of persons address Jesus as SiSdafcaXe,

Mark
,

933

12 u

(Matt. 22

16
,

Luke 20

21
)

12

19

24 (Matt. 22

Luke 20 28 ).
for

such

This would imply the use of Kjai (1*1), though cases it may be called the general rule that an
this

Aramaic author would certainly write

the actual
occasion

form, while on

the speaker representing

^"}.

himself

and

others might, of course, have used the form

The Peshita,

and in general the Jerusalem Gospel also, translates StSao"Ka\e by awaittD, but uses 31 for StSao-tfaXo? only where pro for eTnardra in Luke, nominal suffixes had to be added
;

however,
master,"

it

always
55

Luke

with put 33 our and pn, 9

"

suffix,

master,"

namely on, Luke 8 24

-

"my

45

9 49

17 13

This form

W2n

(jzn)

is

also

to

be assumed for the

simple 6

St8ao-*;aXo?
),

in

discourse
18
,

about Jesus,
11
).

Mark
2
.

5 35

(Luke S
of 6

49

14

14

(Matt.

26

Luke 22

And

the original

St8a<nca\o?

vfi&v would be
:

11 17 24 23 8 jbsn, Matt. 9

In the sentence
Matt.

OVK

e<mv

fjM0ijrfys vnrep

TOV Si&dcncdXov,
to

10 24 (Luke 6 40 ), the term TOV

fla*],

8iBda-/ca\ov is

be

referred to

as in the Peshita.

Jesus forbids His disciples (Matt.

selves called pa/3/3et, irarrfp, or
"

23 8

10
)

to

have them

:a #77777x779.
"

The

first

and third

can refer only to Himself,

that 7raTep and
1

Father

only to God.

It is implied

KaO^^rd were
"

in use as forms of address.

Thus A.
"

Seeberg,

Abhandlungcn Alex.

v.

Oettingen

zum

siebenzigsten

Geburtstag (1898), 159. 2 In this passage the Jerusalem Gospel has pa

iflte,

the Peshita paai.

MASTER"

AS A DESIGNATION OF JESUS
its

339

In regard to Trdrep,
literature
is

equivalent KJK in the Jewish

as

principally

known

an

epithet

of

certain

way that it appears as an element in their Abba Chilkiyya (c. 5 A.D.), Abba Sha ul, Abba Yose ben Dosithai (c. 150), Abba Eleazar ben Gamla (c. 200), Abba Mari (c. 320), were Palestinians with this style of
persons in such a

name. 1

designation.

We

never find N2N as an address to a teacher.

The Targum
address

to the prophets has

even set aside the reverent

?,

2 Kings

2 12

5 13

6 21

13 U used in reference to
,

Elijah and Elisha, and inserted, where Israelites are speaking,

"H"},

and,

when a heathen

speaks,

(this in

2 Kings 5 13).

This strange procedure

may

be due to the fact that the

Targumist had no knowledge of N3N as a form of address. b Perhaps, however, the passage in b. Ber. 16 has some bear
ing on the
case.

The prescription

of a Baraitha is there

understood in accordance with the context to imply that in naming only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fathers (fl^N), it
"
"

is

this

forbidden to call any one else by the name N2N. What Baraitha really implies is that these three alone should
title of

bear the honorary

Patriarchs of Israel

and another

Baraitha, recorded in the

same passage (both found again

N3N,

together in

Semach
receive

i.

12, 13), prescribes that slaves only

title

should

not

the

2 practice in the household of Gamliel n.

although this was the From the second

Baraitha, however,
attribute NJN

it

is

evident that
It

among

the free the

was permissible.

would therefore be com

it

mon enough. It may have been, however, that so much a form of address as an honourable
added to the individual name.

was not

appellation

In Onkelos the word TO**, which the people shouted before Joseph, Gen. 4 1 43 is rendered
,
"

2X,
1

father of the

king."

The wise men

Aram.
142.

of primeval
will

originated from
2
j.

It is not interchangeable with the proper Abiyya ; see Gramm. d. jiid.-pal.

"

name Abba, which

have

addressed as 39 7$,
Tabitha."

Nidd. 49 b also relates that in the household of Gamliel the slaves were father Tabi," and the female slaves as Np :?B KQN, "mother

340

THE WORDS OF JESUS

rrilN,

times are called otyn

i.

the fathers of the

world,"

Eduy.

4;

j.

Shek. 47

b
;

see also Sirach

,

44 1

(Hebr.).

For
rnto,

Kafrijyirnfc,

Matt. 23 10 Delitzsch and Salkinson have

is

which, however,
is

inadmissible, as already indicated.

Neither

the

literal

versions admissible.
of
"

As KaOr^rjr^

rendering by WQIHD of the Syriac occurs here in the sense

teacher,"

it

is

And
there

in that case v. 10
is

simply a Greek variation of StSacr/eaXo?. 8 and is merely another recension of v.

,

no occasion

to look for

an independent Aramaic term

for Ka&ijyrjTfo.

The form

pafifiovvi (see p. 324), used in

16
,

Mark 10 51

also

found in John 20

from the form

therefore

of address,
is

cannot have been materially distinguished and as indicated on p. 335

""sn,

John

right in interpreting it as SiSdo-tcaXe.

In

addition to this, the context in

this

John implies that by using

resume the old attitude
;

form

of address,
"

Mary
"

desires to
is

towards the

Master

which

not permitted by Jesus

whereas the appeal of Thomas, "^gj 1 ^? (20 28 ), is accepted. In this narrative of the Johannine Gospel there may be
seen intimations of the important fact that the primitive community never ventured to call Jesus our Teacher after
"
"

He had

been exalted to the throne of God.

The

title

sn,

N^l, expressing the relation of the disciple to the teacher, vanished from use and there remained only the designation
;

n,

KjiB, the

servant

appropriate acknowledgment

of his

Lord.
1

See Matt. 10

So also Jems. Gospel cf. above, p. 180. 25 where SovXos and Ktipios,
;
24>

/J.a6t]rr]s

aud

5i5d<r/caXos,

appear

as correlatives.

INDEX FOR GREEK TERMS.

341

342
Selirvov, 118.
5ecr7r6r?7S,

INDEX FOR GREEK TERMS

Z
f.,

173

330.

devre, 158.

S^xr0eu, 124 f.
Sid, 123.

53 f. Zefiedaios, 49 f. , 167
,

f.

y,
,
.

diayy\\ei.v, 105. 134. 3taTlOe<r0at,

s,

121f., 124. 156, 158 f.

ai cij ios,

156

ff.

331
f.

ff.

123
36fa, 231.
Sw>a/*w,

H
f.

200

53

f.
,

165.

E
t, i,
,

52.
6ct55cuos, 50. 47. dd\a<r<ra,

7.

e
211.
, .

106. 106.
,

23.

332. j, 166f., 177. efrat, 35 f., 173.

174

f.,

194

ff.

eiVV, 308

f.
->

TOV cu wi os, 163. roO at coj os rotirov, 174. 207.

,

elfftpXfoO* 116f

156 158 160

> >

dr)<ravp6s,

206

f.

elffiropevea dai, 116.

121. , 119. s, 276. 113ff. s,

j,

eti/,

108.
,

62

40, 51

f.

204.

iardvai, 23.
i cora,

5.

46.

A0v,

20

f.

EXXijftcrrai, 7. 54. ,
s,

K
,

197, 210.

TV,

c.

Inf., 33.
/,

62

f.

209.
f.

v,

22.

145

6 pOy, 148ff.

31, 197,
,

209

f.,

212.
,

121, 173. 103. , eiv, 103.

i,

11 8 f. 161.
,

50. 167.
,

173. bridvfdar, 34. 46.

/caraXenreti

21

f.

/faTaftouv, 119f.
,

167

f.

s,

336
f.,

ff.
/,
,

eirovpdvLOS, 251.

102f. 121.
,

tpX^eai, 20

107, 173. ecr%aros Add/A, 248. tz 128. , 128. 102 f., 140. , 95, 102.
t.,

121, 215 f. 125f.

,

156
f.

ff.

K\i)p6vo/j.os,
/CXTJTOS,

115, 126

/c6Xacrts,
/c6cr uos,
;

119. 161.

162

ff. ff.

211, 276. evdoda, 211.

,

6 K. oSros, 147

119 f. eiWws, ed^u s, 28

evderos,
ev\oyrjT6s, 200.

f.

Kptvew, 173. jo-tots, 167, 176. /c. /cat? ??, 178.

Kvvdptov, 176.
s,

122
156.
>

f.

163, 173
f.,

f.,

179

ff.

(God); 270,

303

324

ff.

(Christ).

INDEX FOR GREEK TERMS

-nv,

343

227, 311.

XaXe?>,

Xctjua,

25 f., 105. 53 f.

Tri>ev[j,a,

202
"

f.

jropevcadai, 21.
t,

\afj.pdveiv, 124, 156, 158.

AejSjSatos, 50.

109.
?,

\eyew, 25 f., 38, 312. Xe/id, 53 f. X67os, 229 ff.

X. r??s paffiXctas, 95, 106.
roi)s
TTUp,
!

..

*
,

30. 30.

>,

29
f.

ff.

;,

116

161.

\6yovs roi/rovs,

M
[j.a.6r)Teijeii> t

105

f.

327, 331 ff. 324, 340. 41.

Ma6>0cuos,

51.

fj.apava, 328.
p,
,

113

ff.

iAepi/j,vai>,

154

f.

66

f.

s,
jite

127.
s,

/A&ry, 146. Meo-0-t ay, 291.

tros, ^j/

138,

51.
,

fj.LKp6repos,
,

46,

113 ff. 206 ff.

Ba<n\das,

231.
,

40, 51

f.

TTJS

95.

106,

165.

202.
/,

283.

30.

38.

N
val,
j/a6s,

51
,

155.

226
s,

ff.

183, 197. 183. uV, 116.

T
119. TKVQV, 190. T\OS, 155.
rdcrcreti
,

656s, 160.
i,
,

TOLOVTOS, 127. 46. ,

166, 169. 204.

et s
6i>ofj.a,

?,

120.

8vo/j.a,
"OTrXa,
7,

tv ovd/mari,
7.

305

f.

160.
j,

v/mtrepos, 127.
f.,

174

217 f. yv, 206 ff., 209

f.

was, 115.
f.,

213

f.

e/s roz/

ovpavbv, 212, 218.

$? ovpavuv, 219
,

281.

w. rou dvdpuirov, 234 ff. ui. Aavet5, 316 ff. ui. roO ^eoO, 185, 268 ff. utoi rwi avOp&irwv, 240.
viol TTJS pa<ri\das, 95, viol roO cu cDpos TOVTOV,

y,

7.

115
116.

f.,

190.

n
185, 277
,

Wol TOU 198

,

VV[A(f>(j}l>OS,

116.
ff.

f.

f.

TOiS
,
<?/c

V\I/L<7TOIS,

220
f.

177.

O^ovs, 223

109
28
f.

f.

s,

143ff.

a, 3, 42, 48.
r77p,

?i>,

HOff.
2.
,

193, 339.
ovpavols (6 oupdj/ios),
/ACW, i-yaw^,

184

ff.

107.
f.

TT.

190

f.

e/, 06^0^, 34

344
Qpovpai,
Quvfi,
<$povpaia,

INDEX FOR GREEK TERMS

3.
s,

204

f.

us X.,

270, 289 ff. 292, 303

f.,

f.

0ws, 166, 176.

X. I/HOS, 303

330

f.

X
Xaapcucu,
,

3.
}

vxtj, 47.

34

f.

117.
,

7.

220
,

f.

s,

327.

45.

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

345

346

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

347
PAGES 288, 292, 303

MARK.
CHAP.

23

a
10 12
.

203
204, 276 ff. 102, 106

13 22 23

26 36

24

6
13

14 21

42

46 47
51

306 102 95 65, 315 213, 253, 259, 261, 315 263 255, 262 261 f. 275, 304 104 42, 49 112 238, 240, 254 147 95, 106, 283
.
. . .

95

25 10
16fl

21

Slff.

34

46

26 13
17

18 21

42
49 53 61 63

64
68 70

73

27 11
17

22
29

34 37 40 42
43

46
51

54

28 19
20

148 166 224 327, 336, 338 315 199, 275, 304 65 179 338 315 95 201 274 112 112 190 327 315 66 f. 254, 259 254, 260, 274, 304 254, 303, 306 259 315 102 166, 168 192 f., 260 107, 133, 227 327, 336 204, 276 ff. 306 327, 336 113 336, 338 292, 305 116, 156 116, 156, 160 f. 116, 156, 161 167
.

348
CHAP.

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

MARK

continued.
PAGES

10

9 14

68

f.

15
17f.

305, 312

20
21

304

35 37
40

197 274 f., 312 53 275, 304 109 167, 176

LUKE.
39 183 183 183 319 199, 275, 319 288 199, 275, 183 183 319 199 39, 223 319 183 292, 304, 331 183 109 183, 304 319 109 288 203 f., 276 ff. 288 275 166 275 227 64 275, 304, 306 102 95 336, 338 315 183 213, 253, 259, 261, 315 116 263 261 f. 127 259, 261 206 199 66, 204 224 338 228, 260 328
. .
.

45
47f.

51

11

a 4
9f.

10
15ff.

24 25 30

12

6f.

7
14

17

19

25
20
30 35 ft .

3G 37
43

13

4 7 10
13 19

20

14

12 14 18 25

36 45
58

61

62
68

15

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

349

350
CHAP.

CITATIONS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

LUKE
19 n
17

continued.
PAGES
.

95, 107,

110 227 259 134 f., 282 133, 246 228, 328

45f.

.48,191
81
.
-

20

4
13f.

14
. .

...
.

21
.

25

200, 251, 288, 255, 274, 292, 305,

37
41ft.

42 44

274, 305, 305,

305, 133, 275,

21

3 7 9

19 26 27
31

80 328 274 307 307 288 304 312 191 312 312 312 312 305 191 304 109 328
65

22

7 11 15 16

116 328 104, 166 223

Fuller expositions are given of the following

Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt. Matt.

17

(Mk.

1",

Lk. 3
16

22
)
.

(Lk. 16 ) II (Lk. 10 22 ) 8 12 (Mk. 2 28 Lk. 6 5 )

27
,

12f -

16 19 18 18
,
-

17 5 (Mk. 9 7 Lk. 9 s5 ) 19 16ff (Mk. 10 7f -, Lk. 18 18f -) 9f 21 9 (Mk. -) 22 41ff (Mk. 12 35ff-, Lk. 20 41ff-) 61ff 66ff (Mk. 14 -, Lk. 22 -) 27 n (Mk. 15 2 Lk. 23 3 ) .

....
.
. .

26*
-

Lukel7 20f

276 ff. 139 ff. 282 ff. 261 f. 213 ff. 276 ff. . 337 f. 220 ff. .285ff., 314, 319, 328 308 ff. 312 f. 143 ff.
.
. . .
.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

T.

&

T.

CLARK S PUBLICATIONS.

THE NEW BIBLICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

This Dictionary seems likely to take
of the present generation.
its

place as the standard authority for biblical students

Times.

A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE,

Dealing with
its

Language, Literature, and Contents,

including the Biblical Theology.

Edited by JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D., with the assistance of J. A. SELBIE, D.D., and, chiefly in the Eevision of the Proofs, of A. B. DAVIDSON,
D.D., LL.D., Edinburgh
;

S.

R. DRIVER, D.D., Litt.D., Oxford

and

H. B. SWETE, D.D., Litt.D., Cambridge.

In

Four

Volumes,

imperial 8uo

(of nearly
;

900 pages

each}.

Price per

Volume :

in cloth, 28s.

in half-morocco, 84s.

We offer Dr. Hastings our sincere congratulations on the The Guardian says (Vol. I.) work was urgently needed which publication of the first instalment of this great enterprise. ... should present the student with the approved results of modern inquiry, and which should also acquaint him with the methods by which theological problems are now approached by the most Dr. Hastings has brought out the second learned and devout of our theologians. (Vol. II.) The critical articles seem to us to maintain the volume of his great Dictionary in good time. same high level of excellence which we naturally expect from their distinguished writers. Dr. Sanday s article "Jesus Christ" will take rank as of the first importance for students of
:

theology."

We welcome with the utmost cordiality the first volume of Messrs. Clark s great enterprise, Dictionary of the Bible." That there was room and need for such a book is unquestionable. We have here all that the student can desire, a work of remarkable fulness, well up to date, and yet at the same time conservative in its general tendency, almost faultlessly accurate, and produced by the publishers in a most excellent and convenient style. We can thoroughly recom This new mend it to our readers as a book which should fully satisfy their anticipations. Dictionary is one of the most important aids that have recently been furnished to a true under standing of Scripture, and, properly used, will brighten and enrich the pulpit work of every minister who possesses it. ... We are greatly struck by the excellence of the short articles. They are better done than in any other work of the kind. We have compared several of them with their sources, and this shows at once the unpretentious labour that is behind them. ... Dr. A. B. Davidson is a tower of strength, and he shows at his best in the articles on Angels, on Covenant (a masterpiece, His contributions are the chief full of illumination), and on Eschatology of the Old Testament. We are very conscious of having done most ornaments and treasure-stores of the Dictionary. valuable book. to this very however, Perhaps, enough has been said to show inadequate justice our great sense of its worth. It is a book that one is sure to be turning to again and again with increased confidence and gratitude. It will be an evil omen for the Church if ministers do not come forward to make the best of the opportunity now presented them. EDITOR, British Weekly.
"A
. .

Without question the most important contribution to the second volume is Dr. Sanday s on "Jesus Christ." There is nothing in English so full (it takes up fifty pages in double column), so trustworthy, or so modern, and it makes the volume which contains it indispensable
article

to students.

Journal of Theological Studies.

Will give widespread satisfaction. Every person consulting it may rely upon its trustworthi Far away in advance of any other Bible Dictionary that has ever been published in real ness. Methodist Recorder. usefulness for preachers, Bible students, and teachers.
. . .

Full Prospectus, with

Specimen Pages, from

all Booksellers,

or

from the Publishers

T.

&

T.

CLARK S PUBLICATIONS.

LATEST ISSUES.

The Ancient Catholic Church.

to the

Fourth General Council

EAINY, D.D., Edinburgh.

CONTENTS
:

[A.D. Price 12s.

From the Accession of Trajan By Principal K. 98-451]. (New Volume of The Inter

A.D. 98-180. Chaps. I. The En III. The Church s Life. II. The Early Churches. vironment. IV. Beliefs and Sacraments. V. The Apologists. VI. The Heresies. VII. Montanism. A.D. 180-313. SECOND DIVISION Chaps. VIII. Relation to the State. X. Christian Thought and Literature. IX. The New Philosophy. XI. Christ and God. XII. Christian Life. XIII. Worship. XIV. Clergy. XV. Disci XVI. Manicheism. pline and Schisms.
: :

national Theological Library.) INTRODUCTION. FIRST DIVISION

THIRD DIVISION: A.D. 313-451. Chaps. XVII. The Church in the XVIII. Monasticism. XIX. The Clergy. Christian Empire and Beyond. XX. Nicene Council. XXI. Arian Controversy Post Nicene. XXII. Minor XXIII. Discussions regarding the Person of Christ. XXIV. Controversies. Donatism. XXV. Ecclesiastical Personages in the Fourth Century. XXVI. XXVII. Discipline. XXVIII. Festivals, Church Services, and Sacraments.
Augustine.
Ecclesiastical

XXIX.

XXX. Semi-Pelagianism. XXXI. Pelagian Controversy. XXXII. Processes of Personages [who survived A.D. 400].
etc.

Change.

APPENDIX, INDEX,

Demonic Possession
tions,

in the

New Testament
. . .

Its Kela-

Medical, and Theological. By W. MENZIES ALEXANDER, M.A., B.Sc., B.D., C.M., M.D. Post 8vo, 5s. This work is an original research not a compilation. The conclusions attained are of a novel character. They confirm, in the highest degree, the claim of Christ to be considered the Good Physician and the Revealer of the Father. From Preface.
Historical,
;

The Apostles Creed

Interpretation.

By

Its Origin, Purpose, and its Historical : Professor A. C. McGiFFERT, Union Theological

Seminary,

New

York.

Post 8vo,

4s. 6d. net.

A
St.

critical

study of unusual importance, destined to

command

attention and

provoke discussion.

John s Gospel: An
Value.
Jesus.

Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Professor H. H. WENDT, Author of The Teaching of Authorised Translation. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

By

The Testament

Lord. Translated into English from of the Syriac, with Introduction and Notes, by JAMES COOPER, D.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Glasgow University, and Eev. A. J. MACLEAN, M.A., sometime Dean of Argyll and the Isles.
[In the Press.
in

Our

Just published, Second Edition,

One large 8vo Volume,

:

price 16s.,

The

Being the Literature of the New Testament arranged in the order of its Literary Growth and A New Translation, according to the Dates of the Documents. Edited, with Prolegomena, Historical Tables, Critical Notes, and an Appendix, by JAMES MOFFATT, D.D.

Historical

New Testament

In the preparation of the Translation the Author has had the valuable assistance DENNEY, Dr. H. A. A. KENNEDY, Professor MAKCUS DODS, Rev. Canon GREGORY SMITH, Professor WALTER LOCK, and the Rev. LL. M. J. BEBB. The most important book on the credentials of Christianity that has appeared in It is a work of extraordinary learning, labour, and this country for a long time.
of Professor
ability.

British Weekly.

PUBLICATIONS OF

T.
38

<3c

T.

O L

.A.
CO.

GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.

LIMITED.
(Inter

LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, &

Abbott
(T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)

EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.

national Critical Commentary.}

Adam

( J.,

Adamson

AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 8vo, 9s. D.D.) STUDIES OF THE MIND IN CHRIST. Post (Rev. T., D.D.)
SPIRIT OF POWER.

8vo, 4s. 6d.

THE
Ahlfeld

Second Edition,

fcap. 8vo, Is.

(Dr.), etc.

Alcock (Deborah) Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay) BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Twovols. 8vo 21s. Alexander (W. Menzies, B.Sc., B.D., M.D.,) DEMONIC POSSESSION IN
s

THE VOICE FROM THE CROSS. Cr. 8vo, THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF ASIA. Is.

price 5s.

THE NEW TESTAMENT. Post 8vo, 5s. Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.
Theological Library.}

(International

Post 8vo, 12s.

Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Andrews (S. J.) THE LIFE OF OUR LORD. Large post 8vo, 9s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF
NIOEA.
of

Twenty-four

Four
s

Volumes

containing

MSS.

vols. 8vo, Subscription price, Selection 6, 6s. at Subscription price of 21s. Additional Volume, discovered since the completion of the Series, 12s. 6d. net.

Augustine

Works

Edited by

MARCUS DODS, D.D.

net.

8vo, Subscription price, scription price of 21s.

3, 19s.

Selection of Four

Fifteen vols. Volumes at Sub

Balfour (R.

G.,

D.D.)

CENTRAL TRUTHS AND SIDE

ISSUES.

Crown

Svo, 3s. 6d.

Ball (W. E., LL.D.) ST. PAUL Ballard (Frank, M.A., B.Sc.)
Edition.

AND THE EOMAN LAW. Post

Svo, 4s. 6d.

THE MIRACLES OF UNBELIEF.

Third

Post Svo,

6s.

Bannerman Bannerman

(Prof.)

(D. D., D.D.) Bartlet (Prof. J. Vernon,

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. Two vols. Svo, 21s. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 8vo, 12s. ITS LIFE, M.A.) THE APOSTOLIC AGE
:

DOCTRINE, WORSHIP, AND POLITY. (Eras of Church History .) Crown Svo, 6s. Baumgarten (Professor) APOSTOLIC HISTORY. Three vols. Svo, 27s.

Bayne (P., LL.D.) THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Post Svo, 3s. 6d. Crown Svo, 4s. Beck (Dr.) OUTLINES OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY. PASTORAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Crown Svo, 6s. Bengel GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. With Original Notes,
Five vols. Svo, Subscription Explanatory and Illustrative. Cheaper Edition, the Jive volumes bound in three, 24s.
price,

31s. 6d.

Besser

CHRIST THE LIFE OF THE WORLD.

(W.,
D.D.)

Price

6s.

Beyschlag demy

NEW TESTAMENT

THEOLOGY.

Two

vols.

Svo, Second Edition, 18s. net.

Bible Dictionary.
on application.
binding, 28s.

Now complete, in Four Volumes, price per Vol. in cloth Also to be had in various leather bindings.
Detailed Catalogue free on application.

Edited by JAS. HASTINGS, D.D.

Special Prospectus

%*

T.

and

T.

Clark

Publications.

Bible-Class Handbooks. Edited by 3s. each.

Crown
Prof.

8vo. Forty-live Volumes, Is. 3d. to MARCUS DODS, D.D., and ALEX. WHYTE, D.D.

Detailed List free on application.

Primers. Edited by Forty now issued in the Series. SALMOND, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by post, 7d. free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application. In cloth, Bigg (Prof. C., D.D.) ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE. (International
Bible-Class
Princ. S. D. F.
8<1.

Post Svo, 10s. 6d. Critical Commentary.) Blaikie (Prof. W. G-., D.D.) THE PREACHERS OF 6TH TO THE 19TH CENTURY. Post 8vO, 7s. 6d.

SCOTLAND FROM THE

Part
4s.

Blake (Buchanan, B.D.)

How

TO READ THE PROPHETS.

Joel).

Part II. Second Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III. Jeremiah, 4s. Isaiah (ch. i.-xxxix.). Part V. Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian Part IV. Ezekiel, 4s. The Series being now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five Prophets.

The Pre-Exilian Minor Prophets (with

Second Edition,

Volumes for

15s.

Bleek

INTRODUCTION TO THE

Briggs (Prof. C. A., D.D.)

re-written

NEW TESTAMENT. Two vols. Svo, 21s. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Biblical Study,
entirely

OF HOLY SCRIPTUHE (Replacing the Authors and greatly enlarged}. Svo, 12s. net.

THE MESSIAH OF THE APOSTLES. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. THE MESSIAH OF THE GOSPELS. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE EEASON. Post Svo,
Brockelmann
T.

6s. 6d.

(C.)

LEXICON SYRIACUM.
Crown
4to, 30s. net.

With

a Preface by Professor

NOLDEKE.

Bruce (Prof. A.

TRAINING OF THE B., D.D.) the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. Svo, 10s. 6d.

THE

TWELVE

exhibiting

Fifth Edition,

THE HUMILIATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Synoptical Gospels.

CHRIST.
;

New
OR,

or, Christ s Teaching Edition, post Svo, 7s. 6d.

4th Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d. according to the

APOLOGETICS;

CHRISTIANITY

DEFENSIVELY

STATED.
6d. for

(International Theological Library.}

Third Edition, post Svo,

10s. 6d.

Post Svo, 7s. ST. PAUL S CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS: The First Apology
Christianity.

Second Edition, post Svo,

7s. 6d.

THE ETHICS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Cr. Svo, 4s. S., D.D.) THE FORMATION OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. Crown Svo, 5s. Buchanan (Professor) THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Bruce (W.
-

ON COMFORT IN AFFLICTION. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. ON IMPROVEMENT OF AFFLICTION. Crown Svo, 2s.
Buhl
(Prof. F.)
7s. 6d.

6d.

CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Svo,

TH Bungener (Felix) EOME AND THECOUNCIL IN 19 CENTURY. Cr.8vo,5s. Burton (Prof. E.) SYNTAX OF THE MOODS AND TENSES IN NEW

TESTAMENT GREEK. Post Svo, 5s. 6d. net. Calvin s INSTITUTES OF CHRISTIAN EELIGION. (Translation. ) 2 vols. Svo, 14s. Price on application. COMMENTARIES. Forty -five Vols.
Calvini
Institutio

Christian

Keligionis.

Curavit

A.

THOLUCK.

Two

vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s.

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) THE KINGDOM OF GOD, BIBLICALLY HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED. Svo, 10s. 6d.

AND

71
Candlish (Prof.
on the
J.

and
S.,

T. Clark s Publications.

D.D.)

THE CHRISTIAN SALVATION.

7s. 6d.

Lectures

Work

of Christ.

Caspar!

CHRONOLOGICAL (C. E.) TION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST. 8vo,

8vo, 7s. 6d.

AND GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUC

THE FOOTSTEPS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. COMMENTARY ON ESTHER. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Cave (Principal A., D.D.) THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE
Caspars (A.) Cassel (Prof.)

AND ATONEMENT.

INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY. Second Edition, Svo, 12s. Chapman (Principal C., LL.D.) PRE-ORGANIC EVOLUTION AND THE
BIBLICAL IDEA OF GOD. Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.)
Svo, 10s. 6d.

AN

Second Edition, Svo,

10s. 6d.

Crown

Svo, 6s.

MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN

7s. 6d.

BELIEF.

HOMILETIC: Lectures on Preaching.

Clark (Professor
TION.

W.

R., LL.D., D.C.L.)

6s.

THE ANGLICAN REFORMA

of the

(Eras of Church History. )

Svo, 3s. 6d
.

THE PARACLETE.
Crown
-

The Person and Work

Holy

Spirit.

WITNESSES TO CHRIST.
Crown
Svo, 4s.

Contribution to Christian Apolo

getics.

Clarke (Professor W. THEOLOGY. Twelfth

N., D.D.)

AN OUTLINE
7s.

OF

CHRISTIAN

SHALL WE THINK OF CHRISTIANITY ? Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ? Crown Svo, 3s. Concordance to the Greek Testament MOULTON (W. F., D.D.) and GEDEN (A. S., M.A.). Second Edition, crown 4to, 26s. net. Crawford (J. H., M.A.) THE BROTHERHOOD OF MANKIND. Cr. Svo, 5s. Cremer (Professor) BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL LEXICON OF NEW TESTA MENT GREEK. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. Crippen (Rev. T. G.) A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY

WHAT
CAN
I

Edition, post Svo,

6d.

OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

Svo, 9s.

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS. Crown Svo, 5s. FRANZ DELITZSCH A Memorial Tribute. Portrait Cr. Svo, 3s. Dabney (Prof. R. L., D.D.) THE SENSUALISTIC PHILOSOPHY OF

Cunningham

(Principal)

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY CONSIDERED. Crown Svo, 6s. Dahle (Bishop) LIFE AFTER DEATH. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. Dalman (Prof. G.) THE WORDS OF JESUS. Authorised Translation.
7s. 6d. net.

Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.) AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR. With Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. 17th
Edition, Svo, 7s. 6d.

SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 3rd Ed., Svo, 7s. 6d. Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Autobiography and Diary. Edited by his DAUGHTER. Svo, 7s. 6d. Davies (Principal D. C.) THE ATONEMENT AND INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. Crown Svo, 4s. Deane (Wm., M.A.) PSEUDEPIGRAPHA An Account of Certain
:

Apocryphal Writings Deissmann (Dr. G. A.)

of the

Jews and Early Christians. BIBLE STUDIES. Svo, 9s.

;

Post Svo,

7s. 6d.

Delitzsch

ON GENESIS, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. PSALMS, 3 vols., 31s. 6d. PROVERBS, 2 vols., 21s. SONG OF SOLOMON AND ECCLESIASTES, 10s. 6d. Fourth Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 21s. HEBREWS, 2 vols., 21s. ** ISAIAH, Any Four Volumes may be had at original Subscription price of 21s. net.
; ;

NEW COMMENTARY

(Prof.)

SYSTEM OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY,

Svo,

12s.;
;
;

T.

and

T. Clark s Publications.

Dictionary of the Bible, A.

(See

page

I.}

Dilhnann
Doedes

(Prof. A., D.D.) mentary. Two vols., 21s.

GENESIS:

Critical

and Exegetical

Com

MANUAL OF NEW TESTAMENT HERMENEUTICS.

Crown

Cr. 8vo, 3s.

Dollinger (Dr.)

HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. 8vo, 7s. 6d. DECLARATIONS AND LETTERS ON THE VATICAN DECREES,
Authorised Translation.
8vo, 3s. 6d.

1869-1887.

Dorner (Professor)

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

Five vols.
Subscription price, 26s. 3d. net.

OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Subscription price, 21s. net. SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 8vo, 14s. Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.) AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE
OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

1 2s.
:

(International

Theological

Library.}

8th

Edition, post 8vo,

DEUTERONOMY

Critical

and

Exegetical

Commentary.

(International Critical Commentary.)

Third Edition, post 8vo, 12s.

Drummond

Du

THE RELATION OF THE APOSTOLIC (R. J., D.D.) TEACHING TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.) THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. (Eras
of Church History.
)

6s.

Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)

HENRY VAN DYKE. (Eras Eadie (Professor) COMMENTARIES ON

duction by

Dyke (Paul Van)

THE EARLY CHURCH. 8vo, 12s. THE AGE OF THE RENASCENCE. With an
of Church History.)
6s.

Intro

ST. PAUL S EPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS, PHILIFPIANS, COLOSSIANS. New and Revised Editions, Edited by Rev. WM. YOUNG, M. A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each or set, 18s. net.
;

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) APOLOGETICS.

THE GOSPEL HISTORY.

Three
vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Svo, 10s. 6d.

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. Svo, 10s. 6d. Edgar (R. M C., D.D.) THE GOSPEL OF A RISEN SAVIOUR. Post Svo,
7s. 6d.

Elliott

ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Svo, Eras of the Christian Church Now complete in Ten Volumes Du BOSE (Prof. W. P., D.D.) The Ecumenical Councils. 6s.
WATERMAN (L., D.D.) The Post- Apostolic Age. DYKE (PAUL VAN) The Age of the Renascence.
LOCKE (CLINTON, D.D.)
6s.
6s.

6s.

The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s. The Age of the Crusades. 6s. VINCENT (Prof. M. R., D.D.) The Age of Hildebrand. 6s. CLARK (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.) The Anglican Reformation. 6s. WELLS (Prof. C. L. ) The Age of Charlemagne. 6s. BARTLET (Prof. J. VERNON, M.A.) The Apostolic Age. 6s. WALKER (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.) The Protestant Reformation. 6s. Ernesti BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT. Two vols., 8s.

LUDLOW

(J.

M., D.D.)

Ewald

(Heinrich)

HEBREW SYNTAX.
:

Svo, 8s. 6d.

EEVELATION
Expository Times.
Fairbairn (Prin.)

Its

Nature and Kecord.

Svo, 10s. 6d. Svo, 10s. 6d.

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.

Edited by JAMES HASTINGS, D.D. Monthly, 6d. THE EEVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, Svo, 10s. 6d.
10s. 6d.

EZEKIEL AND THE BOOK OF ms PROPHECY. 4th Ed., Svo,

T.
Fairbairn (Prin.)

and

T. Clark s Publications.
Second Edition, Svo,
10s. 6d.

PROPHECY. PASTORAL THEOLOGY.

(Rev.
3s.

Fairweather
THEOLOGY.

W.,

Crown 8vo, 6s. M.A.) ORIGEN AND

Crown
Svo, 4s. 6d.

GREEK PATRISTIC

Falconer

(J.

W., B.D.)
P., D.D.,

FROM APOSTLE TO
LL.D.)

PRIEST.

Study

of

Early Church Organisation.

Fisher (Prof. G.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

Second Edition, post Svo,
12s.

(International Theological Library.}

Forbes

SYMMETRICAL STRUCTURE OF SCRIPTURE. Svo, 8s. 6d. ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY ON EOMANS. Svo, 10s. 6d. STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS. 8vo, 7s. 6d. THE SERVANT OF THE LORD IN ISAIAH XL.-LXVI. Cr. Svo, 5s. Foreign Theological Library Four Volumes for One Guinea. De
(Prof.)
tailed List on application.

Forrest

THE CHRIST (D. W., D.D.) PERIENCE. Third Edition, post Svo, 6s.
Footsteps of Abraham.

OF

HISTORY AND OF EX

Frank (Prof. F. H.) SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Funcke (Otto) THE WORLD OF FAITH AND THE EVERYDAY WORLD,
2nd Ed., Svo, 9s. Gebhardt (H.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOCALYPSE, AND ITS RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES OF JOHN. Svo, 10s. 6d.
As displayed in the Garvie (Alex., B.D.)
Post Svo,
7s. 6d.

THE EITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY.

COMMENTARY ON THE PENTATEUCH. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Fourvols. Svo, Gieseler(Dr. J. C. L.) Gifford (Canon) VOICES OF THE PROPHETS. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.
Gerlach

2, 2s.

THE WORKING CHURCH. (International Theol. Library.) Post Svo, 10s. 6d. Glasgow (Prof.) APOCALYPSE TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED. Svo, 10/6. Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Svo, 10s. 6d. EXEGETICAL STUDIES. Crown Svo, 5s. INTRODUCTION TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. Svo, 7s. 6d. THE PRIMEVAL WORLD. Crown Svo, 3s. EVENING THOUGHTS. Crown Svo, 4s. Godet (Prof. F.) AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT I. THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. Svo, 12s. 6d. net. II. THE GOSPEL COLLECTION, AND ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. Svo, 6s. net.

Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE IN CONNECTION WITH REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CANON. Svo, 6s. Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. Two vols. Svo, 21s. COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. COMMENTARY ON EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS. Two vols. Svo, 21s. COMMENTARY ON IST EPISTLE TO CORINTHIANS. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
***

Any Four Volumes

at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.

DEFENCE or THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. Crown Svo, 4s. Goebel (Siegfried) THE PARABLES OF JESUS. Svo, 10s. 6d. Gotthold s Emblems or, INVISIBLE THINGS UNDERSTOOD BY THINGS
;

THAT ARE MADE.

Crown

Svo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark
ST. (Prof. E. P., D.D.) Commentary.} Post 8vo, 10s. 6d. Grimm s GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON
lated, Revised,

Publications.
Critical

Gould

MARK.
OF THE

(International

and Enlarged by JOSEPH H. THAYER, D.D.

Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.)

CREATION;
"With

Light of Modern Science.

or, Illustrations.

TESTAMENT. Trans Demy 4to, 36s. The Biblical Cosmogony in the

Crown
8vo, 5s. 6d.

NEW

Hagenbach (Dr. K. K.) HISTORY OF DOCTRINES/ 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. Halcombe (Eev. J. J., M.A.) WHAT THINK YE OF THE GOSPELS?
Handbook
8vo, 4s. 6d.
of Gospel Study.
8vo, 3s. 6d.

6d.

Hall (Newman, D.D.)

THE LORD S PRAYER.

;

Third Edition, crown

GETHSEMANE
.

or,

Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief.

4s.

Second Edition, crown 8vo,

DIVINE BROTHERHOOD. Third Edition, crown Hamilton (T., D.D.) BEYOND THE STARS; or, Heaven,
Occupations, and Life.

its

8vo, 4s. Inhabitants,

6d.

Third Edition, crown 8vo,

3s. 6d.

Harless (Dr. C. A.) Harris (S., D.D.)

SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 8vo, 10s. GOD THE CREATOR AND LORD OF ALL.

Two

vols. post 8vo, 16s.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 8vo, 10s. (Erich) Havernick (H. A. Ch.) INTRODUCTION TO OLD TESTAMENT. Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.) THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN SOUL, AND BODY. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
Haupt
The Hulsean Hefele (Bishop)
Lectures, 1892-93.

6d.

10s. 6d.

SPIRIT,

OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY. A Constructive Critique. Cr.8vo,6s. ALEXANDRIAN AND CARTHAGINIAN THEOLOGY CONTRASTED.
Crown

8vo, 6s.

HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

Vol. I.,toA.D. 325. Vol. II., A.D. 326 to 429. Vol. III., A.D. 431 to the close Vol. V., A.D. of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., A.D. 451 to 680. 626 to 787. 8vo, 12s. each.

Hengstenberg (Professor)

COMMENTARY ON PSALMS,
; ; ;

3 vols. 8vo, 33s.

ECCLESIASTES, ETC., 8vo, 9s. EZEKIEL, 8vo, IDs. 6d. THE GENUINENESS OF DANIEL, ETC., 8vo, 12s. HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.; CHRISTOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 4 vols., 21s. net; ST. JOHN S GOSPEL, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. %* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.

Herkless (Prof.

Herzog
Hill

FRANCIS AND DOMINIC. Crown 8vo, 3s. J., D.D.) ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF LIVING DIVINES, ETC., OF ALL DE NOMINATIONS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA. (Supplement to Herzog s Encyclo
Imp. 8vo,
J.
8s.

paedia.}

(Eev.
Tatian

Hamlyn, D.D.)

THE EARLIEST LIFE OF CHRIST

The Diatessaxon
of

EVER COMPILED FROM THE FOUR GOSPELS: Being

Literally Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the Four Gospels woven into one Story. With an Historical and Critical Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

ST.

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN.

8vo, 7s. 6d.

Hodgson (Principal

THEOLOGIA J. M., M.A., D.Sc., D.D.) Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

PECTORIS

Holborn (Rev. Alfred)

THE PENTATEUCH

IN THE LIGHT OF TO-DAY.

Simple Introduction to the Pentateuch on the Lines of the Higher

2s. net.

Criticism.

Hutchison (John, D.D.)

COMMENTARY ON THESSALONIANS. 8vo, COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS. 8vo, 7s. 6d. OUR LORD S SIGNS IN ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. Demy 8vo, 7s.

9s.

6d.

T.

and

T. Clark s Publications.

Innes (A. D., M.A.)

Crown
Svo, 3s.

CRANMER AND THE ENGLISH KEFORMATION. THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST.

2s. 6d.

Innes (A.
Aspect.

Taylor)
Post 8vo,

In

its

Legal

International Critical Commentary.

DRIVER

MOORE
SMITH

(Prof. S. R., D.D.) (Prof. G. F., D.D.)

Deuteronomy.
Judges.
.

12s.

12s.

(Prof.

H.

P.,

D.D.)

Samuel.
Proverbs.
St.

12s.
12s.
10s. 6d.

TOY (Prof. C. GOULD (Prof.

H., D.D.)
E. P., D.D.)

Mark.

PLTJMMER (ALFRED, D.D.) St. Luke. 12s. SANDAY (Prof. W., D.D.) and HEADLAM (A. C., B D.) Ptomans. 12s. ABBOTT (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.) Ephesians and Colossians. 10s. 6d. VINCENT (Prof. M. R., D.D.) Philippians and Philemon. 8s. 6d. BIGG (Prof. C., D.D.) St. Peter and St. Jude. 10s. 6d. For List offutile Volumes see p. 15.

International Theological Library.

DRIVER

Testament.

(Prof. S. R., D.D.) 12s.

An

Introduction to the Literature of the Old

10s. 6d.

SMYTH (NEWMAN, D.D.) BRUCE (Prof. A. B., D.D.)

FISHER
(Prof. G. P.,

Christian Ethics.
Apologetics.

10s. 6d.

D.D., LL.D.)

History of Christian Doctrine.

12s.

12s.

ALLEN (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) Christian Institutions. MCGIFFERT (Prof. A. C., Ph.D.) The Apostolic Age. GLADDEN (Washington, D.D.) The Christian Pastor.
For List of future Volumes
see p. 14.

12s.
10s. 6d.

STEVENS (Prof. G. B., D.D.) The Theology of the New Testament. RAINY (Prin. R.) The Ancient Catholic Church. 12s.

12s.

FINAL CAUSES. Second Edition, demy Svo, 12s. THE THEORY OF MORALS. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d. Johnstone (P. De Lacy, M.A.) MUHAMMAD AND HIS POWER.
Janet (Paul)

3s.

Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) COMMENTARY ON IST PETER. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Jones (E. E. C.) ELEMENTS OF LOCIIC. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Jouffroy PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Kaftan (Prof. J., D.D.) THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN KELIGION.
Authorised Translation.
2 vols. Svo, 16s. net.

Kant

THE METAPHYSIC OF

Crown Svo, 6s. Trans, by W. HASTIE, D.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS, ETC. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.
ETHICS.

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW.
Keil (Prof.)

%* Keymer (Rev.

3 vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. ; JOSHUA, JUDGES, Svo, 10s. 6d. SAMUEL, Svo, 10s. 6d. KINGS, Svo, 10s. 6d.; CHRONICLES, Svo, 10s. 6d. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, ESTHER, Svo, 10s. 6d. JEREMIAH, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. EZEKIEL, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. ; DANIEL, Svo, MINOR PROPHETS, 2 vols. .Svo, 21s. INTRODUCTION TO THE 10s. 6d. CANONICAL SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. HANDBOOK OF BFBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY, 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.

PENTATEUCH,

AND RUTH,

NOTES ON GENESIS. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. Kidd (James, D.D.) MORALITY AND RELIGION. Svo, 10s. 6d. Killen (Prof.) THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CHURCH. Svo, 9s. THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH. Svo, 9s. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. 2s. Gd. Kilpatrick (Prof. T. B., D.D.)
N., M.A.)

T.

and

T. Clark s Publications.

Konig (Dr. Ed.)

Crown

THE EXILES BOOK or CONSOLATION (Deutero-Isaiah).

8vo, 3s. 6d.

Konig (Dr. F. E.) THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF ISRAEL. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Krause (F. C. F.) THE IDEAL OF HUMANITY. Crown 8vo, 3s. Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR or, Meditations
;

on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ.

DAVID, THE KING OF ISRAEL. AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Crown 8vo, 6s. Kurtz (Prof. ) HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY (from 1517). 8 vo, 7s. 6d. HISTORY OF THE OLD COVENANT. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. A Ladd (Prof. G-. T.) THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
:

Eighth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. Second Edition, cr. 8vo, 6s.

Critical, Historical,

Old and

New

and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the

Testaments.

Two

vols. 8vo,

1600 pp., 24s.

Laidlaw

Lane

THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN; or, The (Prof. J., D.D.) New Edition Revised and Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture. Rearranged, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. (Laura M.) LIFE OF ALEXANDER VINET. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. THE LIFE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Edited (J. P., D.D.) by MARCUS DODS, D.D. 2nd Edition, in 4 vols. 8vo, price 28s. net.
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND
;

Lange

NEW

TESTAMENTS.
;

Edited

by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. OLD TESTAMENT, 14 vols. NEW TESTAMENT, 10 vols. APOCRYPHA, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each. ST. MATTHEW AND ST. MARK, 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.; ST. LUKE, 2 vols. 8vo, 18s. ST. JOHN, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. * * # Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.
;

Le Camus

(E., Fcap. 4to.

Bishop of La Rochelle)
4s.

THE CHILDREN OF NAZARETH.

POST- APOSTOLIC
2 vols.
cr.

Lechler (Prof.
TIMES.

THE APOSTOLIC AND G-. V., D.D.) Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine.

8vo, 16s.

Lehmann

SCENES FROM THE LIFE OF JESUS. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d. Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) THE Six DAYS OF CREATION. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d. THE LORD S SUPPER: Its Origin, Nature, and Lilley (J. P., M.A.)
(Pastor)
Use.

Crown

8vo, 5s.

THE PASTORAL
Lillie

EPISTLES.

2s. 6d.
2s. 6d.

PRINCIPLES OF PROTESTANTISM.
(Arthur)
TION.

BUDDHA AND BUDDHISM.

8vo, 3s.

Lindsay (Prin. T. M., D.D.)

Crown

Crown 8vo, 3s. LUTHER AND THE GERMAN BEFORMA-

Lisco (F. G.)

PARABLES OF JESUS EXPLAINED. Fcap. 8vo, 5s. Locke (Clinton, D.D.) THE AGE OF THE GREAT WESTERN SCHISM.
(Eras of Church History.)
6s.
:

Lotze (Hermann)

MICROCOSMUS
D.D.)
6s.

An

Essay concerning
vols.

Man and
24s.

his

relation to the World.

Cheaper Edition, 2

8vo (1450 pp.),

Ludlow

(J.

M.,

THE AGE OF THE CRUSADES.

(Eras

of

Church History.)

Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner

Luthardt (Prof. )

ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR

COMMENTARY ON

ST.

THE CHURCH. Crown 8vo, 5s. OF THEFOURTH GOSPEL. 7s. 6d. JOHN S GOSPEL. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

(5

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 8vo, 10s. 6d. APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL (7 Ed.}, SAVING Ed.), MORAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY (4 Ed.). 3 vols. cr. 8vo, 6s. each

T.

and

T.

Clark s Publications.

Macdonald

INTRODUCTION TO PENTATEUCH.
FALL.
Svo, 12s.
Jas.,

Two

vols. 8vo, 21s.

THE CREATION AND

Macgregor (Rev.
RELIGION.
Svo, 10s. 6d.

D.D.)

THE APOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN

:

THE REVELATION AND THE KECORD

Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity.

Essays on Matters of
8vo, 7s. 6d.

STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF

8vo, 7s. 6d.

NEW

TESTAMENT APOLOGETICS.

Macgregor (Rev. G. H. C., M.A.) Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.)

THE EPHESIANS.
8vo, 10s. 6d.

So GREAT SALVATION. Cr. 32mo, Is. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO

Post 8vo,
9s.

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS.

McCosh (James),

Life

of.

8vo, 9s.

McGiffert (Prof. A.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE C., Ph. D.) APOSTOLIC AGE. (International Theological Library.} Post Svo, 12s. - THE APOSTLES CREED. Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its
Historical Interpretation.
(G-.,
4s. net.

M Hardy SAVONAROLA. Crown Svo, 3s. D.D.) M Intosh (Rev. Hugh, M.A.) Is CHRIST INFALLIBLE AND THE BIBLE TRUE net. Third Edition, post Svo, M Realsham (E. D.) ROMANS DISSECTED. A Critical Analysis of the
?

6s.

Epistle to the Romans.

Crown

Svo, 2s.

Mair

STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN (A., D.D.) Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown Svo, 6s.

EVIDENCES.

Third

Martensen (Bishop) CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Svo, 10s. 6d. INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN ETHICS. SOCIAL.) (GENERAL
Three
vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each.

Matheson

GROWTH OF THE SPIRIT OF (Geo., D.D.) the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era.
NEW
(Dr.)

CHRISTIANITY, from Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Meyer

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE

TESTAMENT. Twenty vols. Svo. Subscription price, 5, 5s. net ; selection of Four Volumes at Subscription price of 21 s. ; Non- Subscription
price, 10s. 6d. each volume. ST. MATTHEW, 2 vols. ACTS, 2 vols. ROMANS, 2 vols.
; ;

ST. JOHN, 2 vols. ; LUKE, 2 vols. CORINTHIANS, 2 vols. GALATIANS, one vol. EPHESIANS AND PHILEMON, one vol. PHILIPPIANS AND COLOSSIANS, one vol. THESSALONIANS (Dr. Liinemann), one vol. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES (Dr. ST. JAMES AND ST. Huther], one vol. HEBREWS (Dr. Lunemann), one vol. JOHN S EPISTLES (Huther), one vol. PETER AND JUDE (Dr. Huther), one vol.
;
;
;

MARK AND
;

Michie (Charles, M.A.) BIBLE WORDS AND PHRASES. 18mo, Is. Milligan (George, B.D.) THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Post Svo, 6s. Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) THE EESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
Second Edition, crown Svo,
4s. 6d.

COM F., D.D.) MENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Imp. Svo, 9s. Moffatt (James, D.D.) THE HISTORICAL NEW TESTAMENT. Second Edition, demy Svo, 16s. Monrad (Dr. D. G.) THE WORLD OF PRAYER. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d. Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) JUDGES. (International Critical Com
Milligan
(Prof.

W., D.D.) and Moulton (W.

mentary.)

Second Edition, post Svo, 12s.

7s. 6d.

Morgan

SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE HOLY SPIRIT. EXPOSITION OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 8vo, 7s.
(J.,

D.D.)

6d.

io

T.

and

T.

Clark s Publications.

Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.) A CONCORDANCE TO THE GREEK TESTAMENT. Crown 4to, 26s. net, and 31s. 6d. net. Muir (Sir W.) MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY, ETC. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Mttller (Dr. Julius) THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SIN. 2 vols. 8 vo, 21s. Murphy (Professor) COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS. 8vo, 12s. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON EXODUS. 9s. Naville (Ernest) THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. THE CHRIST. Translated by Ptev. T. J. DESPRES. Cr.8vo,4s.6d.

Neander
Nicoll

MODERN PHYSICS. Crown CHURCH HISTORY. (Dr.)

Robertson,
M.A..,
price 3s. 6d.

8vo, 5s.

(W.

Eight vols. 8vo, 2, 2s. net. LL.D.) THE INCARNATE SAVIOUR.

Cheap Edition,

Novalis

HYMNS AND THOUGHTS ON

EELIGION.

Crown

8vo, 4s.

2 vols. 8vo, 21s. Oehler (Prof.) THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Olshausen (Dr. H.) BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS AND ACTS. Four vols., 21s. net. Crown 8vo Edition, four vols., 24s. ROMANS, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. ; CORINTHIANS, one vol. 8vo, 9s. PHILIPPIANS, TITUS, AND FIRST TIMOTHY, one vol. Svo, 10s. 6d. Oosterzee (Dr. Van) THE YEAR OF SALVATION. 2 vols. Svo, 6s. each.
;

MOSES
ISAIAH
;

A Biblical
;

Orelli (Dr. C. von)

price, 21s.

Study. Crown Svo, 6s. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY COMMENTARY ON

;

JEREMIAH

THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.

vols., 10s. 6d. each.

4 vols.

Subscription

net; separate

Owen

(Dr.

John)

by Rev. Dr. GOOLD.

Palestine,

Best and only Complete Edition. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscription price, The Hebrews may be had separately, in seven vols., 2, 2s. net.
of.

WORKS.

Edited
4, 4s.

Map

Edited by

J.

G.

BARTHOLOMEW,
;

F.R.G.S., and

Prof. G. A.

an Inch.

SMITH, M.D., D.D. With complete Index. Scale 4 Miles to Mounted on cloth. In case, 10s. 6d. on rollers, 15s.

Philippi (F. A.)

1 Piper Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. Vol. II. ST. JOHN S GOSPEL, AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Vol. III. ROMANS TO PHILEMON. Vol. IV. HEBREWS TO REVELATION.

COMMENTARY ON THE EOMANS. Two vols. Svo, 21s. LIVES OF LEADERS OF CHURCH UNIVERSAL. Two vols. Svo, 2 s.

Plummer

In four vols. imperial Svo, 12s. 6d. each. ST. LUKE. (Alfred, D.D.) (International mentary.} Fourth Edition, post Svo, 12s.

Critical

Com

Pressense"

(Edward

de)

THE EEDEEMER

Discourses.

Crown

Svo, 6s.

Piinjer

(Bernhard) HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION FROM THE REFORMATION TO KANT. Svo, 16s.

Rabiger (Prof.)
DOCTRINE.

Rainy (Principal)

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGY. Two vols. Svo, 21s. DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN
CATHOLIC

Svo, 10s. 6d.

THE ANCIENT
logical Library}.

CHURCH.

(International

Theo

Post Svo, 12s.

Reusch

NATURE AND THE BIBLE: Lectures on the Mosaic (Prof.) History of Creation in relation to Natural Science. Two vols. Svo, 21s.
HISTORY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE
640 pp. Svo, 15s.

Reuss (Professor)
TESTAMENT.

NEW

7"!

and

T.

Clarks

Publications.

1 1

Biehm

(Dr. E.)

MESSIANIC PROPHECY.

New

Edition.

Post 8vo,

7s. 6d.

Ritchie (Prof. D. G., M. A.) PLATO. Crown 8vo, 3s. Ritschl (Albrecht, D.D.) THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE CATION AND RECONCILIATION. Second Edition, 8vo, 14s. Ritter (Carl) COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE.

OF JUSTIFI
4 vols. 8vo, 2is.

Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) DISCOURSES ON REDEMPTION. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Robinson (E., D.D.) GREEK AND ENG. LEXICON OF THE N.TEST. 8vo,9s. Rooke (T. G., B.A.) INSPIRATION, and other Lectures. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Ross (C.) OUR FATHER S KINGDOM. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.

Rothe

(Prof.)

SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.

Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.

Saisset

MANUAL OF MODERN PANTHEISM. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Salmond (Princ. S. D. F., D.D.) THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF
IMMORTALITY.

New

Edition, post 8vo,

9s.

Sanday

(Prof.

W., D.D.) and Headlam

(International Critical Commentary.}

Sartorius (Dr. E.)

Schaff (Professor)

DOCTRINE OF HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

ROMANS. (A. C., B.D.) Third Edition, post 8vo, 12s. DIVINE LOVE. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

(New

1.

Six Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Divisions/ in 2 vols. each, extra 8vo. APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2. ANTE-NICENE, A.D. 100-325, 2 vols., 21s. 3. NICENE AND POST-NICENE, A.D. 325-600, 2 vols., 21s. 4. MEDIAEVAL, A.D. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. (Completion of this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation). 5. THE Swiss REFORMATION, 2 vols., extra demy 8vo, 21s. 6. THE GERMAN REFORMATION, 2 vols., extra

demy 8vo, 21s. Schleiennacher s CHRISTMAS EVE. Crown 8vo, 2s. Schubert (Prof. H. Von., D.D.) THE GOSPEL OF ST. PETER. Synoptical Tables. With Translation and Critical Apparatus. 8vo, Is. 6d. net. Schultz (Hermann) OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. Two vols. 18s. net.
Schiirer (Prof.)

HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

5 vols.

Subscrip

tion price, 26s. 3d. net.

%*
8vo, 5s.

Index.

In separate Volume.

2s. 6d. net.

Schwartzkopif (Dr. P.)

THE PROPHECIES OF JESUS

CHRIST.

Crown

Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) PRINCIPLES OF NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATION ESTABLISHED AND APPLIED TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit, 4s. THE CHURCH IN THE MIRROR OF HISTORY. Cr. 8vo, 3/6. Sell (K, D.D.)

Shedd

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. SERMONS TO THE SPIRITUAL MAN. 8vo, 7s. 6d. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. Three vols. ex. 8vo, 37s. 6d. Sime (James, M.A.) WILLIAM HERSCHEL AND HIS WORK. Cr. 8vo, 3s. Simon (Prof.) THE BIBLE; An Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. Cr.Svo,4/6. EECONCILIATION BY INCARNATION. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Skene-Bickell THE LORD S SUPPER & THE PASSOVER KITUAL. 8vo, 5s. Smeaton (Oliphant, M.A.) THE MEDICI AND THE ITALIAN RENAIS
SANCE.
3s.

Smeaton (Professor) DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.) I. AND II. SAMUEL.
Commentary.)
Post 8vo, 12s.

SPIRIT.

2nd Ed., 8vo,

9s.

(International Critical

12

T.

and

T.

Clark s Publications.

Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) MEDIEVAL MISSIONS. Or. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Smyth (John, M.A., D.Ph.) TRUTH AND REALITY. Crown 8vo, 4s. Smyth (Newman, D.D.) CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (International Theo
logical Library.}

Third Edition, post 8vo,

10s. 6d.

Snell (F. J., M.A.)

Somerville (Rev. D., Stahlin (Leonh.) KANT, LOTZE,

Stalker (Prof. Jas., D.D.) Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

WESLEY AND METHODISM. Crown 8vo, 3s. ST. PAUL S CONCEPTION or CHRIST. 9s. D.D.)
AND RITSCHL.
8vo, 9s.

LIFE OF CHRIST.

Large Type Edition,

3s. 6d.

LIFE OF ST. PAUL.

Stanton (V. H., D.D.)

Large Type Edition, crown 8vo,

8vo, 10s. 6d.

THE JEWISH AND THE CHRISTIAN MESSIAH.

Study in the Earliest History of Christianity.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Is. 6d. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) THE MIRACLES OF OUR LORD. THE HISTORY OF THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF OUR
Stead (F. H.)
LORD, considered in the Light of Modern
Criticism.

Svo, 10s. 6d.

Stevens (Prof. G.

B.,

D.D.)

THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Post Svo, 12s.

(International Theological Library.)

Stevenson (Mrs.) Steward (Rev. G.)

Stier

Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. MEDIATORIAL SOVEREIGNTY. Two vols. Svo, 21s. THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Svo, 10s.6d. ON THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. Eight (Dr. Rudolph)
2, 2s.

THE SYMBOLIC PARABLES.

vols. Svo, Subscription price of

Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.

THE WORDS OF THE KISEN SAVIOUR, AND COMMENTARY ON

THE EPISTLE OF
ST.

JAMES.

Svo, 10s. 6d.

THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES EXPOUNDED. Svo, 10s. 6d. PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY. Post 8vo, 9s. Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison) DARWINIANISM Workmen and Work. Post Svo, 10s. 6d. WHAT is THOUGHT? Svo, 10s. 6d. Tholuck (Prof.) THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Two vols. fcap. Svo, 8s. Thomson (J. E. H., D.D.) BOOKS WHICH INFLUENCED OUR LORD
:

AND His APOSTLES.

Svo, 10s.

(3d.

Thomson
Toy

(Eev. E. A.)
Gr.)

Tophel (Pastor
(Prof.

C. H., mentary.) Post Svo, 12s.

MEMORIALS OF A MINISTRY. Crown 8vo, 5s. THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d. (International Critical Com D.D.) PROVERBS.
TO On

Troup (Kev.

G. Elmslie, M.A.) WORDS Being Addresses to Young Communicants.

4s. 6d.

YOUNG CHRISTIANS

antique laid paper, chaste

binding, fcap. Svo,

Uhlhorn(G-.)

CHRISTIAN CHARITY IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.

Two
vols. Svo, 21s.

Cr. Svo, 6s.

Ullmann

(Dr. Carl)

REFORMERS BEFORE THE REFORMATION,

princi
5s.

pally in

Germany and the Netherlands. THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS.

13-liii.

New

Reprint, crown Svo,

:

Urwick (W., M.A.)

upon Isaiah Hi.

THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH

Commentary
Svo, 3s.

12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi.

T.

and

T.

Clark

Publications.

13
7s. 6d.

Vinet (Life and Writings of). Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)

Church History.)
mentary. ) Post Svo,
6s.

By L. M. LANK Crown 8vo, THE AGE OF HILDEBRAND.

(International
8s. 6d.

(Eras of

PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON.

Second Edition, post 8vo,
6s.

Critical

Com

Walker (James, of Carnwath)

ESSAYS, PAPERS,

AND SERMONS.

Walker (J., D.D.) THEOLOGY AND THEOLOGIANS OF SCOTLAND. New Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. Walker (Prof. W., D.D.) THE PROTESTANT EEFORMATION. (Eras
of Church History.
)

6s.

Walker (Rev. W.
Edition, 8vo,

L.)

THE

SPIRIT

AND THE INCARNATION.

Second

9s.

Warfield (B. B., D.D.) Crown 8vo, 2s.

THE RIGHT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. THE POST- APOSTOLIC AGE.

(Eras of Church

Waterman
Watt (W.

(L.,
)

D.D.)

History.

6s.

A.,

M.A., D.Ph.)
8vo, 3s.

THE THEORY OF CONTRACT

Post Svo,

IN ITS SOCIAL

LIGHT.

STUDY OF SOCIAL MORALITY.

Third Edition, crown Svo,
:

6s.

Watts (Professor)
THE FAITH.

THE NEWER CRITICISM AND THE ANALOGY OF

5s.

THE REIGN OF CAUSALITY

Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency.

Vindication of the Scientific Crown Svo, 6s.

Weir

(J.F., M.A.) Ex. crown Svo,

THE NEW APOLOGETIC. Crown Svo, 6s. THE WAY THE NATURE AND MEANS OF SALVATION.
:

6s. 6d.

Weiss (Prof. ) BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. LIFE OF CHRIST. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.
.

Welch

(Rev. A. C., B.D.)

6s.

Wells (Prof.

C. L.) Christian Church.)

ANSELM AND HIS WORK. THE AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE.

3s.

(Eras of the

Wendt

THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. (H. H., D.D.) Its Genesis and Historical Value. ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. Svo,
(R. M.)

7s. 6d.

Wenley

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY AND THEISM.

Crown

Svo, 4s. 6d.

White (Rev. M.)

Williams

(E. F., D.D.)

Wilson

(S.

SYMBOLICAL NUMBERS OF SCRIPTURE. Cr. Svo, 4s. CHRISTIAN LIFE IN GERMANY. Crown Svo, 5s. Law, D.D.) THE THEOLOGY OF MODERN LITERATURE.

Post Svo, 7s. 6d. Winer (Dr. G. B.) TREATISE ON THE GRAMMAR OF TESTA MENT GREEK, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third Edition, edited by W. F. MOTJLTON, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s.

NEW

Witherow(Prof.T.,D.D.)

Woods

(F. H., B.D.)

Workman (Prof. G-. C.)

Wright
(C. H.,

THE FORM OF THE CHRISTIAN TEMPLE. 8vo,io/6. THE HOPE OF ISRAEL. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH; or, A Critical Investi
Post Svo,
9s.

gation of the Greek and Hebrew, etc.

D.D.)

BIBLICAL ESSAYS.

Crown

Svo, 5s.

T.

and

T.

Clark s Publications.

THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

THE
An
following

eminent

Scholars

have

contributed,
:

or

are

engaged upon, the

Introduction to the Literature the Old Testament.
of

Volumes named
By
S.

of Hebrew, and

Oxford.

R. DRIVER, D.D., Regius Professor Canon of Christ Church, [Seventh Edition. 125.
Pastor of the

Christian Ethics.

By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D.,

Conn.

First Congregational Church,

New Haven,
IDS. 6d.

[Third Edition.

Apologetics.

By By

BRUCE, D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Third Edition, ics. 6d.

the late A. B.

History of Christian Doctrine.

G. P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Second Edition. 125.

A History of Christianity in the Apostolic

Age.
Christian Institutions.

By ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGiFFERT,

Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Church History, Union [ias. Theological Seminary, New York. By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., Professor of
Ecclesiastical
logical School,

History, Episcopal

Theo
[125.

Cambridge, Mass.
Church,

The Christian Pastor.

By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D.,

of

Pastor

Congregational Ohio.

Columbus,
[IDS. gd.

Theology of the

New

Testament.

By GEORGE

STEVENS, Ph.D., D.D., Pro fessor of Systematic Theology in Yale University, U.S.A. [125.
B.

The Ancient Catholic Church.

By ROBERT RAINY, D.D.,

New

Principal of

The
125.

College, Edinburgh.

[Just published.

Theology of the Old Testament.

By By

the late A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, The New College,

Edinburgh.

The Literature

of the

New

Testament.

S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament Exegesis, United Free Church College, Aberdeen.

Old Testament History.

Canon and Text

of the

New

Testament.

P. SMITH, D.D., late Professor of Biblical and History Interpretation, Amherst College, U.S.A. By CASPAR RENE GREGORY, Ph.D., Pro
fessor in the University of Leipzig.

By H.

The Latin Church.

Encyclopaedia.

By ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, D.D.,

of

Principal

King

College, London.

By
of the

C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

Contemporary History
ment.

Old Testa

By FRANCIS BROWN, D.D.,

Theological Seminary,

Professor

of

Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union

New

York.

Contemporary History of the

ment.
Philosophy of Religion.

New

Testa

By FRANK
versity,

C.

New

PORTER, Ph.D., Yale Uni Haven, Conn.

By ROBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D.,

By

Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.

The Study of the Old Testament.

Rabbinical Literature.

The

Life of Christ.

the Right Rev. H. E. RYLE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter. By S. SCHECHTER, M. A., Reader in Talmudic in the University of Cambridge. By WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

The Christian Preacher.

By JOHN WATSON, D.D.

IAN

MAC-

I.AREN ), Sefton Park Presbyterian Church of England, Liverpool.

T.

and

T.

Clark s Publications.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

TEN VOLUMES NOW READY,
I.

viz.

Samuel, Proverbs, Mark, S. Luke, Romans, Deuteronomy, Judges, Ephesians and Colossians, Philippians and Philemon, S. Peter and S. Jude.
II.

and

S.

The following other Volumes

are in course of preparation

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Genesis.
T.

K. CHEYNE, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy

Scripture, Oxford, and

Canon

of Rochester. of

Exodus.
Leviticus.

A. K.
J. F.

S.

KENNEDY, D.D., Professor

Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.

;

STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College Oxford and the late Rev. H. A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfifld College,
of

Numbers.
Joshua.
Kings.
Isaiah.

G.

BUCHANAN GRAY, M.A.,

Oxford.

GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., Professor

College, Glasgow.

Hebrew, United Free Church

FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages Union Theological Seminary, New York.

The

late

A.

B. DAVIDSON,

D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,

New

College, Edinburgh.

Jeremiah.

A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of

Trinity College, Cambridge.

Minor Prophets.
Psalms.
Job.

W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., President

C. A. BRIOGS, D.D.,

of Chicago University.

Edward Robinson Professor

Union Theological Seminary,

S.

New

of Biblical Theology,

York.

R. DRIVER, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford.

Daniel.

Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael s Church, New

York

City.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Chronicles.

Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.

EDWARD

L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of

Hebrew, Yale University,

New

Haven, Conn.

THE
Synopsis of the Four Gospels.

NEW

TESTAMENT.

W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford; and Rev. W. C. ALLEN, M.A., Exeter College, Oxford.
Rev.

Matthew.
Acts.

WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Chaplain, Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.
s College,
s

FREDERICK H. CHASE, D.D., Christ

Cambridge.

Corinthians.
Galatians.

ARCH. ROBERTSON, D.D., Principal of King

College,

London.
Literature,

Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, A.B., Professor of University of Chicago.

Ireland
s

New Testament

The Pastoral Epistles. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Dean

Hebrews.
James.

Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.

s College,

Rev. A. NAIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King

London.

Rev. JAMES H. ROPES, A.B., Instructor in

New

Testament Criticism in

Harvard University.

The Johannine
.

S.

.j.-ii.

Epistles.

D. F. SALMOND, D.D., Principal, and Professor of Systematic Theology, United Free Church College, Aberdeen.
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University
of Dublin.

Revelation.

ROBERT H. CHARLES, D.D.,

Other engagements will be announced shortly.

i6

T.

and

T.

Clark

Publications.

Cbe World s
Edited by
MESSRS. T.

pocl)=roaker$

OLIPHANT SMEATON.

&

T.

CLARK have much

commenced the publication

pleasure in announcing that they have of an important new Series, under the above title.

The following Volumes have

now

been issued

Buddha and Buddhism.

LlLLIE.

By ARTHUR

Savonarola.

By

G.

M HARDY,

D.D.

Luther and the German Reformation. By Principal T. M. LINDSAY, D.D.

Wesley and Methodism. SNELL, M.A.

By

F.

J.

Anselm and his Work. By Rev. A. C. WELCH, B.D. The Medici and the Italian Renais sance. By OLIPHANT SMEATON,
M.A., Edinburgh.

Cranmer and the English Reforma tion. By A. D. INNES, M.A. William Herschel and his Work.

Origen and Greek Patristic Theology.

By

Rev.

W. FAIRWEATHER, M.A.
his

Muhammad and
Plato.

Power.

By

P.

By JAMES SIME, M.A. Francis and Dominic.

J.

DE LACY JOHNSTONS, M.A.

By
Professor

(Oxon.).

By

Professor D. G. RITCHIE,
St.

HERKLESS, D.D.

M.A., University of

Andrews.

The following have also been arranged for:

Euclid.

By Emeritus

Professor

THOMAS

SMITH, D.D.
Socrates.

[In the Press.

By Rev. J. T. FORBES, M.A., Glasgow. Marcus Aurelius and the Later Stoics.
By
F.

Descartes, Spinoza, and the New Philosophy. By Professor J. IVERACH, D.D., U.F.C. College, Aberdeen.

Hume and
J.

his Influence

on Philo
Professor

sophy and Theology.

ORR, D.D., Glasgow.

By

W. BUSSELL,

D.D.,

Vice-

Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.

Augustine and Latin Patristic Theo

logy. By Professor B. B. D.D., Princeton.

WARFIELD,

Rousseau and Naturalism in Life and Thought. By Professor W. H. HUDSON, M.A., Leland Stanford
Junior University, California.

Scotus Erigena and his Epoch. By Professor R. LATTA,- Ph.D., D.Sc., University of Aberdeen.

Kant and his Philosophical Revolu tion. By Professor R. M. WENLEY,

D.Sc.,

Ph.D., University of Michi

Wyclif and the Lollards. By Rev. J. C. CARRICK, B.D. The Two Bacons and Experimental Science. By Rev. W. J. COUPER, M.A.
Calvin and the Reformed Theology. By Principal SALMOND, D.D., U.F.C.
College, Aberdeen.

gan.

Schleiermacher and the Rejuven escence of Theology. By Professor

A,

MARTIN,

D.D.,

New

College,

Edinburgh.

Hegel
shire

fessor R.

and Hegelianism. By ProMACKINTOSH, D.D., Lanca

Independent
his
College,

Pascal and the Port Royalists. By Professor W. CLARK, LL.D., D.C.L.,

Trinity College, Toronto.

Man
By
Doc.,

chester.

Newman and
C.

Influence.
Litt.

Lessing

and the New Humanism.

Published Price,

SAROLEA,

Ph.D.,

By

Rev. A. P. DAVIDSON, M.A.

University of Edinburgh.

THREE SHILLINGS per Volume.

DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SUPS FROM THIS POCKET

PLEASE
*
-.

UNIVERSITY OF

TORONTO

LIBRARY

Dalraan, Gustaf Hermann

The words of Jesus.