Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:15:37.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Helmut H. Koester
Helmut H. Koester
Affiliation:
Harvard Divinity School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To deal with the problem of the “historical” Jesus is to deal with the synoptic Gospels (with occasional appropriations of Johan-nine material).

To use the apocryphal Gospels does not seem to be advisable, since their inclusion is beset with a number of notorious difficulties. First of all, any attempt to recover historical material from the vast sea of noncanonical tradition has proved to be an arduous labor yielding only negligible results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 1968 , pp. 203 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A. Resch, Agrapha (TU 5, 4; Leipzig, 1889); idem 2 (TU, NF 15, 3–4; 1906 [reprint, Darmstadt, 1967]).

2 Die Sprüche Jesu, die in den kanonischen Evangelien nicht überliefert sind (TU 14, 2; Leipzig, 1896).

3 Engl. trans., Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London, 1957)Google Scholar.

4 Theol. Lit. Zeitung 78 (1953), col. 99–101; cf. my article, Die ausserkanonischen Herrenworte als Produkte der christlichen Gemeinde, ZNW 48 (1957), 220–37Google Scholar.

5 Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen, 1909)Google Scholar.

6 Most of the new material is now available in Hennecke, E., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. I (3rd ed. by W. Schneemelcher; Tübingen, 1959)Google Scholar; Engl. trans., 1963.

7 Cf. the formulation of E. Käsemann in his article on “Dead End Streets in the Discussion of the Historical Jesus”: “The central problem … can be summarized plainly in this way: does the Kerygma of the New Testament count the earthly Jesus among the criteria of its own legitimacy?” E. Käsemann, Sackgassen im Streit um den historischen Jesus, in Exegetiscke Versuche und Besinnungen, II (Göttingen, 1964), 53; see also Robinson, James M., Kerygma und historischer Jesus (Stuttgart and Zürich, 1967Google Scholar2), 50ff.

8 In his important review article, Zur Synoptikerexegese, Theol. Rundschau (NF2, 1930), 183.

9 It is, e.g., quoted again as a key-phrase in G. Bornkamm, Evangelien; formgeschichtlich, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, II3 (1958), col. 750.

10 G. Bornkamm, Evangelien; formgeschichtlich, RGG, II3, 750.

11 See especially Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (FRLANT, NF 49; 2nd ed. [Göttingen, 1959]), 77–101Google Scholar.

12 Admittedly the use of this term for such writings dates from a somewhat later period; the earliest attestation is found in the middle of the 2nd century A.D. in 2 Clement (8, 5) and JUSTIN MARTYR (Apol. I 66:3; Dial. 10:2; 100:1).

The term “Gospel” sensu stricto belongs only to such writings as Mk. and Jn. and to those which are dependent upon these earliest “Gospels.” It is only here that the Kerygma of the cross and resurrection — Paul's εὐαγγέλιoν (1 Cor. 15:1ff.) — has shaped and determined, the form of this new literary genre. In speaking of other written documents as “Gospels,” however, we are not merely following longestablished usage; such a use seems legitimate because we are concerned with such other writings as contain traditions that, at least partially, have been incorporated also into Mark and other Gospels of the Kerygma-Gospel type.

13 This does not exclude the possibility that even within the development of the canonical Gospel tradition other elements, related to the earthly Jesus in a different fashion, could become predominant; see below on the Gospel of Luke, p. 234f.

14 Engl. trans. (1963), 71–84. This is probably the best treatment of the question now available; cf. also A. D. Nock's penetrating review in JThSt, N.S. XI (1960), 63–70.

15 Ibid., 80–84.

16 See my article, ΓNΩMAI ΔIAΦOPOI, HTR 58 (1965), 279 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Op. cit. (RGG II3), col. 750.

18 Cf. my book, Synoptische Überlieferung bet den Apostolischen Vätern (TU 65, 1957).

19 Op. cit., 183 (quoted above, p. 206, n. 8). G. Boenkamm, op. tit. (n. 9), 750, does not follow Schniewind at this point.

20 In Zeit und Geschichte (Dankesgabe an R. Bultmann, ed. by E. Dinkier, 1964), 77–96 (enlarged English translation to be published in 1968).

21 For literature on the Gospel of Thomas, see E. Haenchen, Theol. Rundschau 27 (1961), 147ff., 306ff.; further in HENNECKE, NT-Apocrypha, I (Engl. transl., 1963), 278ff. and 307; H. Koester, HTR 58 (1965), 293–96.

22 On this question, see the literature cited in HTR 58 (1965), 294f., notes 45, 47, 48, 50.

23 Quotations are from the edition of A. Gujllaumont, H.-CH. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, and Yassah ‘ABD AL MASĪH, The Gospel according to Thomas (Leiden, 1959)Google Scholar. The numbering of the individual sayings in this edition is the same as in E. Hennecke, NT-Apocrypha 3 I, 511–22.

24 The case is quite different with the closely related “Book of Thomas the Athlete” (unpublished), where Thomas requests Jesus to impart revelations to him before his Ascension; cf. H.-CH. Puech in E. Hennecke, NT-Apocrypha? 3 I, 308.

25 Cf. Mt. 5:11.; Mk. 4:10f., 34; 7:17; 13:3; etc.

26 On the revelation discourse, see below, p. 236ff.

27 In the classification I follow R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Engl. transl., 1963), passim.

28 Thus, J. M. Robinson's assessment of the genre of the Gospel of Thomas is quite correct; but he does not support his evaluation by arguing for the independence of the Gospel of Thomas, and, indeed, the sapiential material would yield only little evidence for such an argument.

29 Grant, R. M., The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City, N.Y., 1960), 113Google Scholar.

30 There are only a few remote contacts with the Synoptic Apocalypse. One of these is the parable of the thief (Mt. 24:43) which occurs in two variants in Ev. Thom. 21 and 103. However, this parable (to be distinguished from the parable of the landlord's return, Mk. 13:34–36) is part of the Synoptic sayings source “Q” = Lk. 12:39; it was only the author of Mt. who introduced this and similar Q-material into the Synoptic Apocalypse (Mt. 24:37–51 = Lk. 17:26f. 34f.; 12:39f. 42–46). A second instance is Ev. Thom. 61a (“Two will rest on a bed …”); the synoptic parallel is found in Lk. 17:34, i.e., again within a Q-context (Lk. 17:22–37) of which parts were incorporated into the synoptic apocalypse only by Mt. (24:26f. 37–39. 40f.).

31 There is no parallel in Mt. Whether it was Lk. or already Q who added this well-known eschatological admonition (cf. 1. Petr. 1:13; Did. 16:1) is difficult to determine.

32 Also two of the prophetic sayings, formulated as “I-sayings,” come from the same context: Ev. Thom. 10 (= Lk. 12:49) and 16 (= Lk. 12:51). Only the latter can be assigned to Q with certainty (cf. Mt. 10: 34), whereas the former has no parallel in Mt. and may come from Lk.'s special source rather than from Q.

33 On the Christology of the coming Son of Man in Q, see Tödt, H. E., Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh, 1958), 44 ffGoogle Scholar.; F. Hahn, Christologiscke Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83, 1963), 32ff.

34 Only once does Thomas speak of Jesus as Son of Man: “The foxes have their holes and the birds have their nest, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head and to rest” (Ev. Thom. 86 = Lk. 9:58; Mt. 8:20). R. Bitltmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (1963), 98 (cf. also Tödt, op. cit., 44f.), has argued that this saying is a proverb in which “Son of Man” is no title of dignity, but simply means “man,” as contrasted with the animals. Even though this explanation has not been widely accepted (cf., against Bultmann, G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth [1960], 229f.; F. Hahn, op. cit., 44f.), the Gospel of Thomas, which does not know a titular usage of the term, seems to confirm Bultmann's suggestion. The decisive question is whether Thomas presupposes a stage of the synoptic tradition in which a titular usage of the term “Son of Man” had not yet developed; see below.

35 Ev. Thom. 106 says: “When you make the two one, you shall become sons of man.” Whatever “sons of man” means here — certainly the suggestion that “man … refers to the first immortal man, the Saviour” (B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas [1961], 246) presupposes too much of a gnostic Savior mythology — it is not used as a title for a specific figure.

36 Ev. Thom. 44 presents a variant to the synoptic saying about “the sin that cannot be forgiven”; but whereas the Q-version of this saying (Lk. 12:10 = Mt. 12:32) contrasts the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with the blasphemy against the Son of Man, Thomas distinguishes between blasphemies against the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whether this “trinitarian version” of the injunction presupposes Q or rather the more original form of Mk. 3:28! (= Mt. 12:31) and Did. 11:7 is difficult to decide. That the “Son of Man” was introduced into this saying by the author of Q is not unlikely. The twofold transmission in the Synoptic Gospels and the reference in Did. proves that this saying circulated freely; cf. H. Koester, Synoptiscke Überlieferung bei den Apostolischen Vätern (TV 65, 1957), 215ff.

37 See above, note 34.

38 Op.cit., 151f.

39 PH. Vielhauer, Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu, Festschrift G. Dehn (1957), 51–79; id., Jesus und der Menschensohn, ZThK 60 (1963), 133–77. Both articles now in id., Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (München, 1965), 55ff. and 92ff. A similar view is found in N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (1967), 164ff.

40 I the parallels to the Synoptic Apocalypse in 1 Thess. 4:15ff. and Did. 16, the title of the savior is not “Son of Man,” but “Lord,” which may be the more original title for this tradition of apocalyptic revelation.

41 Ev. Thom. 3, 22, 27, 46, 49, 82, 107, 109, 113.

42 Ev. Thom. 20, 54, 114.

43 Ev. Thom. 57, 76, 96–99, 113.

44 The translations are usually those of the editio princeps of A. Guiliaumont et al. (Leiden, 1959).

45 Cf. also Ev. Thom. 113: “(The Kingdom …) will not come by expectation; they will not say: ‘See, here,’ or ‘See, there.’ But the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth.”

46 Ev. Thom. 52 perhaps presupposes Lk. 10:231. = Mt. 13:16f., the beatitude of the disciples as eye-witnesses, which is most likely an original saying of Jesus; cf. also Ev. Thom. 38.

47 On Ev. Thom. 22 cf. H. C. Kee, Becoming a Child in the Gospel of Thomas, JBL 82 (1963), 307–14, and the critical discussion of Kee's article by J. M. Robinson, Kerygma und historischer Jesus (19672), 230ff.

48 This saying does not belong to the context of the Synoptic Apocalypse; it does not speak about the divisions which will occur before the coming of the Son of Man, but about those which Jesus causes through his ministry. Thus it represents an eschatological orientation which is probably more primitive than either Q's expectation of the Son of Man or the eschatology of Mk. 13.

49 The solitaries as the possessors of the Kingdom also appear in Ev. Thom. 4. 23, 49, 75; A.F.J. Klijn, The “Single One” in the Gospel of Thomas, JBL 81 (1962), 271–78, has argued that this term describes the primordial “One-ness” which is, thus, regained in the eschatological experience of the believer.

50 Ev. Thom. 4.

51 Ev. Thom. 61c, 83.

52 Ev. Thom. so, 51, 60, 90.

53 The “days in which the disciples will seek Jesus and not find him” (Ev. Thom. 38b) are not the days after Jesus' death, nor the time before his parousia, but the “time” in which men might not be able to understand his words (cf. Ev. Thom. 38a, 39).

54 I have not included here the very numerous metaphorical sayings (Bildworte), since they belong to the Wisdom sayings.

55 Ev. Thom. 8, 9, 20, 57, 63–65, 76, 107; cf. 21b, 103.

56 This is also not improbable for the parables which lack parallels in the Synoptic Gospels (Ev. Thom. 96, 97, 98, 109); cf. C.-H. Hunztnger, Unbekannte Gleich-nisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium, Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Festschr. f. J. Jeremias), = ZNW, Beih. 26 (1960), 209—20.

57 There is no trace in Thomas of the allegorical interpretations which some of the parables he quotes have received in the Synoptic Gospels; cf. Ev. Thom. 9 (“The Sower,” Mk. 4:3ff., 13ff.), 57 (Parable of the Tares, Mt. 13:24ff., 36ff.). Perhaps also Ev. Thom. 65 preserves a version of the parable of the Evil Husbandmen which is more original and less allegorical than Mk. 12:1ff.

58 There are two instances in which the allegorical interpretation makes it difficult to determine whether there was once a more primitive parable and what it meant: Ev. Thom. 21a (The little children in the field who take off their clothes) and 60 (The Samaritan carrying a lamb).

59 For a more detailed treatment, see H. Montefiore, A comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels, in id. and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists (Studies in Bibl. Theology 35 [1962]; first published in NTStud. 7 (1960/61), 220–48.

60 Mt. 13:49–50 is a secondary judgment allegory which was probably not yet a part of the version which Thomas read.

61 One may wonder, however, whether Thomas refers to the Synoptic parable of Mt. 13:47f. at all. There is an almost exact parallel to Ev. Thom. 8 in the poetic version of the Aesopic fables by BABRIUS, who, in the first century A.D., dedicated his work to the son of a king Alexander whose tutor he was. This Alexander seems to have been a petty king in Cilicia, grandson of Herod's son Alexander, mentioned by JOSEPHUS (Ant. XVIII 140). Fable 4 of BABRIUS (Translation by B. E. Perry, Babrius and Phaedrus, Loeb Class. Libr. [1965]) goes as follows:

“A fisherman drew in the net which he had cast a short time before and, as luck would have it, it was full of all kinds of delectable fish. But the little ones fled to the bottom of the net and slipped out through its many meshes, whereas the big ones were caught and lay stretched out in the boat.”

This almost exact parallel from the secular tradition of fables at least opens the possibility that Thomas also in other instances may have drawn upon the wisdom tradition of his time — even if the application is quite different in BABRIUS: “It's one way to be insured and out of trouble, to be small; but you will seldom see a man who enjoys a great reputation and has the luck to evade all risks.”

It is, of course, not unlikely that Mt. 13:47f. used the same fable and turned it into a parable of judgment.

62 Only 4 of the 17 I-sayings have Synoptic parallels (Ev. Thom. 10, 16, 55, and 90 = Lk. 12:49; Lk. 12:sia/Mt. 10:34a; Lk. 14:26.27/Mt. 10:37.38; cf. Mk. 8:34; Mt. 11:28–30).

63 See above, p. 215f.

64 Cf. Mk. 8:31 par.; 9:31 par.; 10:33f. par.; also Mk. 9:9; 14:21, etc. Ever since W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis (1901), 82–92, many critical scholars have maintained that all these sayings are secondary formulations (vaticmia ex eventu).

65 Cf. R. Bultmann, History of the Syn. Trad., 150ff.

66 Equally significant are I-sayings which speak of the revelation of the divine mysteries; cf. Ev. Thom. 62, 108; see also 17: “I shall give you what eye has not seen, etc.,” — this saying is missing in the canonical Gospels, but is quoted, introduced by γέγραπται, in 1 Cor. 2:9.

67 For examples see R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (1959), 167, note 2, where the various forms of the ἐγώ εἰμι formula are analyzed. In the Gospel of Thomas, as elsewhere, the distinction between identification formula and presentation and qualification formulae is not clear-cut.

68 Op. cit., 167f. Bultmann considers Jn. 11:25 and 14:6 possible exceptions.

69 Bultmann, op. cit., 168, suggests that some of the ἐγώ εἰμι sayings of John originally were presentation or identification formulae.

70 On this proverb (= Pap. Oxyrh. 1:6) see H. Koester, ΓNΩMAI ΔIAΦOPOI, HTR 58 (1965), 293.

71 See below, note 78.

72 Ev. Thom, adds, “and they do not put old wine into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it.” This may be a secondary addition in analogy to the first sentence; cf. H.-W. Bartsch, Das Thomas-Evangelium, und die synoptischen Evangelien, NTStud. 6 (1959/60), 251–53. But some of these parallelisms in the Gospel of Thomas are most likely original, as, e.g., in Ev. Thom. 31 (cf. note 70, 83).

73 The reversal of the order “old patch on new garment” instead of “new patch on old garment” (thus the Synoptic Gospels) is most peculiar. G. Quispel reconstructs most ingeniously an old (aramaic) parallelism which, he says, was the basis of both Thomas' and the Synoptic Gospels' version: “They do not sew an old patch on a new garment, because it does not match the new, and they do not sew a new patch on an old garment, because there would be a rent”; cf. G. Quispel, Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas, NTStud. 5 (1958/59), 281; id., The Gospel of Thomas and the NT, Vig. Christ. 11 (1957), 194f. But perhaps the reversal is simply caused by the second half of the preceding saying, Ev. Thom. 47c.

74 Mt. 7:35 = Lk. 6:41f.; Mt. 7:16 = Lk. 6:44.

75 Mt. 5:15; 6:24; 7:7; 7:8.

76 Lk. 11:33; 16:13; 11:9> 11:10.

77 Mt. 5:14b; 7:6.

78 The only exceptions are Ev. Thom. 47b = Lk. 5:39; but this saying belongs together with others which Lk. drew from Mk.: Mk. 2:21f. = Lk. 5:36ff. = Ev. Thom. 47c, d. Furthermore, Ev. Thom. 33a (“What you shall hear in your ear …”) = Mt. 10:27/Lk. 12:3; again this saying is closely connected with the sayings of Mk. 4:21ff.: Mk. 4:21 = Ev. Thom. 33b; Mk. 4:22 = Mt. 10:26/Lk. 12:2! = Ev. Thom. 5.

79 Ev. Thom. 33b occurs in Mk. 4:21 as well as in the Sermon on the Mount: Mt. 5:15. Mk. 4:21 is part of the small collection of Q-sayings in Mk.'s Gospel (Mk. 4:21–25) which has relations also to other sayings in Thomas (cf. Ev. Thom. 5, 41). Mt. 5:15 proves that also this saying was an original part of the tradition which has been expanded into the Sermons “on the Mount” and “on the Field” by Mt. and Lk. It is noteworthy, however, that the form of this saying in Thomas corresponds most closely to Lk. 11:33, rather than to Mk. 4:21 = Lk. 8:16 and Mt. 5:15.

80 On the contrary, some of these sayings, as they occur in the Gospel of Thomas, have a more primitive form than their synoptic parallels; cf., e.g., Ev. Thom. 31, which has preserved the original parallelism, whereas Mk. 6:4.5 transformed the second half of the saying (“no physician heals those who know him”) into narrative (“and he could not perform any miracles there …”). Ev. Thom. 26 only reproduces Mt. 7:3 and 5, but does not have Mt. 7:4 par. “Or how can you say to your brother ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye …’” This saying provides, nola bene, a good example of the irresponsible way in which some scholars try to prove that Thomas introduced secondary alterations into Synoptic Sayings: H.-W. Bartsch, op. cit., 255, calls “and then you will see clearly” a secondary addition; but this phrase (τoτε εβoλ = καὶ τóτε διαβλέψεις in Pap. Oxyrh. 1:1) is the exact equivalent of καὶ τóτε διαβλέψεις which is found both in Mt. 7:5 and Lk. 6:42!

Ev. Thom. 45b = Lk. 6:45 preserves the original emphasis upon “good heart — good words”; cf. the Rabbinic Saying, “What was in the heart, was in the mouth” (Midr. Ps. 28:4, 115b; Str.-Bilierbeck, I, 639; Bultmann, Hist, of the Syn. Trad., 84); cf. also above, notes 70 and 72.

81 In some instances (e.g., Ev. Thom. 45), the proverbs of Thomas reveal that they were transmitted in the same combinations in which they occur in the Synoptic Gospels; cf. H.-W. Bartsch, op. tit., 253. This, however, is no argument for dependence upon the Synoptic Gospels, since some of these sayings were certainly combined and confused already in the earliest stages of the tradition.

82 Cf. such additions according to analogy as Ev. Thom. 47a: “It is impossible for a man to mount two horses and to stretch two bows”; Ev. Thom. 33: “What you shall hear in your ear (and in the other ear), that preach from your housetops” (added to “City on a mountain” and “Light not under a bushel”), but this may be an older Q-tradition; cf. above, note 78.

83 In some instances, scholars have been overly quick to identify Thomas' text as secondary; e.g., Ev. Thom. 93:

Give not what is holy to the dogs, lest they cast it on the dung heap.

Throw not the pearls to the swine, lest they make it [.…]

This is a perfect form of a proverb without any religious or Christian application, whereas Mt. 7:6 shows signs of an application of this proverb to the situation of the church. When BARTSCH (op. tit., 255) remarks that “… Mt.'s interpretation which was determined by the subject-matter (von der Sache), i.e., by the situation of the church, has been replaced by an interpretation which is determined by the metaphorical content (of the Logion),” he turns all form-critical standards upside down.

84 This is most certainly a secondary and gnosticizing version of the exhortation to seek and to find. In the Greek version of Thomas (Pap. Oxyrh. 654:2) as well as in the parallel of this saying which CLEM. Alex, quotes from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Strom. II 9, 45, 5 and V 14, 96, 3), the chain is better preserved and another line is added: καὶ βασιλεύσας ἀναπαήσεται. Thereby, the saying reveals even more clearly its connection with the theological expectation of the wisdom tradition, namely, to find rest; cf. Sir. 6:28; Mt. 11:28–30, which is quoted in Ev. Thom. 90.

85 Literally: “fails the whole (or every) place.” The translation of the editio princeps understands “… but fails (to know) himself, lacks everything.” Following E. Haenchen, Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums (Berlin, 1961), 27, I prefer to repeat the word fail, since also the Coptic text has the same verb in both instances.

86 Cf. also the gnostic sayings on finding, Ev. Thom. 56 and 80. They are certainly secondary extensions of the more primitive synoptic proverbs on seeking and finding.

87 Cf. also Ev. Thom. 84, 87, and 77b.

88 Cf. Mt. 6:1ff.; Did. 8. See further Ev. Thom. 6a, 104.

89 See the Saying about the “outside and inside of the cup,” Ev. Thom. 89 (= Lk. 11:39, 40); Thomas presents this saying in agreement with Lk. 11:40 and with the reversal of “outside” and “inside” found only in P45 C D T a e c which is usually considered to be a secondary variant of Lk.'s text. As long as the meaning of this saying is not quite clear, it is impossible to decide whether Thomas' text represents a more original version of this saying which was the original version of Lk. too, or whether Thomas' version has subsequently influenced the Lukan manuscript tradition, or whether Thomas is dependent upon a variant of Lk.'s text. On the meaning of this saying cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit., 53; G. Quispel, Vig. Christ. 11 (1957). 200.

90 = Mk. 3:32–35 par.

91 = Mt. 10:37; Lk. 14:26.

92 Ev. Thom. 95 forbids the lending of money at profit or with the hope to receive it back (= Lk. 6:34f.); cf. Ev. Thom. 81 and 110; also Thomas' conclusion of the parable of the banquet (Mt. 22:1–10; Lk. 14:15–24): “Tradesmen and merchants shall not enter the places of my father” (Ev. Thom. 64).

93 = Lk. 10:8, 9 (Mt.'s parallel is different and secondary).

94 Cf. J. M. Robinson, op. cit. (note 20), and id., The Problem of History in Mark Reconsidered, Union Theol. Quart. Rev. 20 (1965), 135.

95 See further J. M. Robinson, Kerygma and History in the N.T., The Bible in Modern Scholarship (ed. J. Ph. Hyatt, Nashville, 1965), 128–31.

96 See above, p. 206f.

97 The question of these sources for the miracle stories was most recently reconsidered by J. M. Robinson, Kerygma and History … (op. cit., note 95), 131ff. Instead of rehearsing the whole problem here, I simply refer to this excellent article, where the important literature is also cited.

98 Cf. R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, ad loc.

99 The last phrase of Jn. 20:31, “and that believing you may have life in his name,” was probably added by the author of the Gospel; cf. Bultmann, op. cit., ad loc.

100 More examples, also from Greek literature, in Bultmann, op. cit., ad loc. (p. 540, note 3).

101 J. M. Robinson, op. cit. (note 95), 138, speaks of “the apologetic, missionary scope or Sitz im Leben of the Signs Source.” I would rather not use the term “apologetic” here, since the primary element is certainly that of religious propaganda. Of course, early Christianity borrowed this genre from what is usually known as “Jewish Apologetics”; see further below, on 2 Cor.

102 See the preceding footnote.

103 A variant of this designation occur s in Acts 2:22, ἀνὴρ ἀπoδειγμνoς ἀπὸ τoῦ θεoῦ … δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι καὶ σημείoις. In Lukan theology, ἀπὸ τoῦ θεoῦ emphasizes the subordination of Jesus to God (cf. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, Handb. z. NT, ed. H. Lietzmann, 1963; id., The Theology of Saint Luke [New York, 1960], 173ff.). But this is not necessarily the original intention of the formula which Lk. used in Acts 2:22–24. In the NT the titles “Christ” and “Son of God” are usually connected with the Christology of Jesus as the divine man; cf. Jn. 20:31. The title “Christ” also occurs in 2 Cor. 5:16, a passage which seems to refer specifically to this Christological concept; see below.

104 Cf. R. Bultmann, op. cit., especially ad Jn. 17:1. J. M. Robinson, op. cit. (note 95), 138, says that, against the theological tendency of the Signs Source, John “maintains that the true form of faith is faith in Jesus' word,” and that this seems to bring John close to the heresy of the Gospel of Thomas. But, at the same time, John indeed uses the criterion of the belief in Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection: the word of Jesus, remembered to the disciples by the Paraclete, is always the “word” which became flesh and whose glory is present in his death.

105 W. Wrede, Das Messiasgekeimnis in den Evangelien (19011, 19132), posed this problem of the Marcan “Messianic secret” more than half a century ago. The solution is obvious today: Mark's tradition, the stories of the Divine Man and Messiah Jesus, was subjected to the principle of the cross; thus, the “secret” revelation of Jesus in his miracles. On the history of this problem, cf. G. Strecker, William Wrede, in Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche 57 (1960), 67–91. The first one, to my knowledge, who called attention to the fact that Mk.'s tradition was thoroughly “messianic” and that Mk. criticized his tradition by the theory of the “messianic secret” was H. Conzelmann, Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition, Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche 54 (1957), 293ff.

106 I am somewhat embarrassed to be credited (cf. J. M. Robinson, op. cit. [note 95], 136) with having discovered the connection between the sources of Mk. and Jn. and the opponents of 2 Cor. (viz., my article, Häretiker im Urchristentum, R.G.G., III [19593], 18f.). It was, as a matter-of-fact, Dieter Georgi who first suggested this relationship in his 1958 Heidelberg dissertation which was published only five years later: D. GEORGI, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Wiss. Monogr. z. NT, vol. II, Neukirchen, 1963). For the following see also H. Koester, op. cit. (note 16), 312–15; J. M. Robinson, op. cit. (note 95), 140–43.

107 Cf. G. Bornkamm, Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten Zweiten Korinther-briefes, Sitzungsberichte d. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. (1961), 2; id., The History of the Origin of the so-called Second Letter to the Corinthians, NT Stud. 8 (1961/62), 258–64; D. Georgi, op. cit., 25–30.

108 Op. cit., passim. See also D. Georgi, Formen religiöser Propaganda, Kontexte 3 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1966), 105–10; this brief article gives an excellent and lively picture of this type of religious propaganda.

109 Cf. Georgi, op. cit. (note 106), 241ff.

110 Cf. Paul's formulation in his reference to such letters, 2 Cor. 3:1: … πρòς ὐμᾶς ἣ ἐξ ὑμῶν.

111 Cf. again Georgi, op. cit., 213ff. and 282ff.; also J. M. Robinson, op. cit.(note 95), 141f

112 (Lk. 4:13; 22:3); cf. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (1960), 28 and passim.

113 Lk. 14:25ff.

114 Novelistic, aretalogical, teratologjcal elements are conspicuous. Cf. on this problem W. Schneemelcher and K. Schäfercick, Second and Third Century Acts of Apostles. Introduction, in HENNECKE, NT-Apocrypha, II3 (1965), 167ff.; especially 174ff., and the literature, 167f., 175.

115 Cf. the Historia Lausiaca and the Historia Monachorum, the Acta Martyrum, etc.

116 Cf. O. Cuixmann, Infancy Gospels, in Hennecke, op. cit., I (1963), 363ff. None of these Gospels is an independent continuation of precanonical tradition.

117 More about this in W. Bauer, op. cit. (note 5), 29–100.

118 W. Schneemelcher, In Hennecke, NT Apocrypha, I, 82.

119 W. Schneemelcher, op. cit., 83.

120 The Apocryphon of John was discovered in 1896 (Papyrus Berolinensis 8502), but fully published only in 1955: Till, W., Die gnostischen Schriften des Koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (Texte und Untersuchungen 60 [Berlin, 1955])Google Scholar. Three parallel versions in Cod. II, III, and IV from Nag Hammadi were made available a few years later: M. Krause and Pahor Labib, Die drei Versionen des Apokryphon des Johannes itn Koptischen Museum zw AU-Kairo (Abh. d. Deutschen Arch. Inst., Kairo Koptische Rh., vol. I [1962]). In the following I quote from Cod. II from Nag Hammadi, which contains the most complete text of the passages which are of interest for us here. In the numbering of the Codices I follow KRAUSE and LABIB, op. cit., 5ff. H.-CH. Puech in Hennecke, op. cit., I, 314ff. (his earlier publications are cited ibid., 315) numbers these Codices as III, I, and VIII.

121 The contents of these discourses may also appear independently, without the “Gospel” frame; cf. the “Letter of Eugnostos, The Blessed” (Nag Hammadi, Cod. Ill), which appears in the form of a Gospel in the “Sophia Jesu Christi” in the same Nag Hammadi Codex and in Pap. Berol. 8502; see KRAUSE and LABIB, op. cit., I, 19f. These contents normally are disclosures of the secrets of the universe and of mankind, of the original fall and the return to the divine origin, almost always related to the interpretation of Genesis 1–3. In which way these relate o t the subject matter of more primitive revelation discourse, as described below, must remain an open question.

122 The following paragraphs do not endeavor to explain the form of all socalled gnostic Gospels. The classification of this literature is no easy task. Wholly unsatisfactory is the attempt to classify these Gospels according to their author: “Under the Name of Jesus,” — “Under the Name of the Twelve” — etc. (H.-Ch. Puech, in Hennecke, op. cit., I, 231ff.). A number of Gnostic Gospels clearly belong to the genre of sayings-collections discussed above (Ev. Thom., Book of Thomas the Athlete, Gospel of Philip); probably the Books of Jeu also are a further development of the same genre. Mixing of various genres is not uncommon and to be expected; see also below on the Epistula Apostolorum, p. 244ff.

123 = Pap. Berol. 8502, col. 19ff.; cf. also the second introduction to the Pistis Sophia, ch. 2ff. (ed. W. TILL, 3ff.).

124 = Pap. Berol. 8502, col. 76; Cod. III, col. 391.; Cod. IV, col. 49. A similar curse formula is given in the introduction of the second Book of Jeu (ed. W. Till, 304). See further on these curse formulae H.-Ch. Puech, in Hennecke, op. cit., I, 263.

125 In the sentence following this formula the term “mystery” (μυσγήριoν) occurs explicitly.

126 Such influence is obvious, e.g., in the Sophia Jesu Christi (cf. H.-Ch. Puech, op. cit., I, 246) and in the first introduction of the Pistis Sophia, ch. 1 (ed. W. Till, 1f.).

127 Only Acts 1:12 juxtaposes the Mount of Olives with Jerusalem (but not with the temple!).

128 Baltzer, K., The Meaning of the Temple in the Lukan Writings, HTR 58 (1965), 263 ffGoogle Scholar., especially 274ff., has drawn attention to this extraordinary feature of Lk.'s Gospel and has connected it with the Ezekiel pattern of the divine Kādôd moving out of the temple and standing on the Mount of Olives.

129 Only occasionally do we find theophany elements in the resurrection stories of the canonical Gospels, e.g., Mt. 28:16f.; but see Ev. Petr. 35ff., and the story of the transfiguration, Mk. 9:2ff. par., which may be an original resurrection story. Thus, theophany elements belong to the original features of resurrection stories, but they do not any longer determine the character of these stories as they occur in canonical Gospels.

130 The origin of this form doubtlessly lies in the theophanies of the OT, especially Ez. 1ff. Its further development is apparent in Dan. 10 and other Jewish apocalyptic texts.

131 Compare also the curse formula at the conclusion of the AJ with the curses and warnings of the “canonization formula” of apocalyptic writings (Rev. Jn. 22:18f.; Eth. Enoch 104:10ff.). Its purpose, however, is to protect the integrity of the book rather than to prevent its disclosure to the uninitiated.

132 Cf. Brown, R. E., The Semitic Background of the NT MYSTERION, Biblica 39 (1958), 426–48Google Scholar; 40 (1959), 70–87; id., The pre-Christian Semitic Concept of “Mystery,” Cath. Bibl. Quart. 20 (1958), 417–43. See also G. Bobnkamm, μυσγήριoν, in ThWNT IV (1942; Engl. transl., 1967), especially section B2.

133 Cf., e.g., the casting of the discourses into the pattern of the disciples' questions and Jesus's answers. The corresponding pattern of Apocalypses is well-known: the seer asks and an angelus interpres answers and gives explanations and revelations. In the gnostic Revelations there is a definite shift in content; Genesis interpretations replace revelations about the future. But even the future-oriented revelations do not disappear completely and often reappear as disclosures about the heavenly realms. The relationship of apocalyptic and gnostic revelations is still to be clarified in detail.

134 For an attempt to domesticate this gnostic genre through the orthodox creed, see below on the Epist. Apost. p. 244ff.

135 See above, p. 206f.; cf. also the references, p. 232ff., as well as the literature in notes 8, 9, 11, 14, 95.

136 Phld. s:1f.; 8:2; 9:2; 5m. 5:1; 7:2. It does not seem that Ign. used written Gospels; cf. H. Köster, op. cit. (note 18), 6ff., 24ff.

137 The most inclusive creedal formula is found in IGN., Sm. 1; cf. Eph. 18; Mg. 11; Phld. 9, and various references elsewhere in his writings.

138 Cf., e.g., the grandiose enumeration of the “mythical events” of Jesus' coming in IGN., Epk. 19.

139 ICN., Eph. 17:1; 18:2.

140 Justin, Apol. 1, 14ff.

141 Dial. 35.2ff.

142 Cf., e.g., Apol. I, 48.

143 This pattern occurs throughout Justin's writings; see especially Apol. 12:10; 31:8.

144 It is typical for this view of the Gospels that Justin's references to the “Memoirs of the Apostles” are paralleled by his references to such assumed historical documents as the “Census-records of Cyrenius” (Apol. 34:2) and the “Acts of Pilate” (Apol. 33:9).

145 This is the case, again, in Hennecke, op. cit., I, 188ff. Cf. the title of C. Schmidt's edition of the Epist. Apost.: Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung (TU 43 [1919]).

146 Quotations and references are given to the English translation according to H. Dtiensing, in Hennecke, op. cit., I, 191ff.

147 See above on the Apocryphon of John, p. 237ff.

148 This is one of many instances where Epist. Apost. parallels Justin Martyr's creed; cf. ἀνδρoύμενoν, Apol. 31:7.

149 Mk. 3:1–6; 5:25–43; 5:1–20, as well as a number of other stories.

150 A reference to Jesus' childhood in Epist. Apost. 4 shows that also an Infancy Gospel has been used.

151 Apol. I, 31:7, quoted above.