Wellhausen’s dictum ‘jesus was not a christian, but a jew’ in light of present scholarship

Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 1991, Pages 83-110

  Betz, Hans Dieter ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951013876     PISSN: 0039338X     EISSN: 15027791     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00393389108600105     Document Type: Article

References (156)

1. Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel, ed. by Douglas A. Knight, Semeia 25 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Important for our purposes are the articles by Lou H. Silberman, ‘Wellhausen and Judaism,’ pp. 75-82, and Nils A. Dahl, ‘Wellhausen on the New Testament’ pp. 89-110. furthermore Fausto Parente, ‘La genesi degli interessi di Julius Wellhausen per il Nuovo Testamento,’ in: Tria Corda. Scritti in omore di Arnaldo Momigliano, a cura di E. Gabba (Como: Edirione New Press, 1983), pp. 272-293.
2. Fausto Parente, ‘La genesi degli interessi di Julius Wellhausen per il Nuovo Testamento,’ in: Tria Corda. Scritti in omore di Arnaldo Momigliano, a cura di E. Gabba (Como: Edirione New Press, 1983), pp. 272-293.
3. John Timmer, Julius Wellhausen and the Synoptic Gospels, a Study in Tradition Growth. Academisch Proefschrift, Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam 1970 (Rotterdam: Bronder-Offset, 1970).
4. Rudolf Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in drei Jahrhunderten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1989), pp. 99-113, especially 112-113. It should be noted that the older reviews and studies on Wellhausen’s work are still unsurpassed.
5. Adolf Hilgenfeld, ‘Der Evangelist Marcus und Julius Wellhausen,’ ZWT, 289-332, 462-524
6. Rudolf Smend, ‘J. Wellhausen und die synoptischen Evangelien,’ ZNW 49 (1906), pp. 193-238.
7. Friedrich Schultheß, ‘Zur Sprache der Evangelien,’ ZNW 21 (1922), pp. 216-236, 241-258.
8. 21911). The second edition, which is considerably different from the first and reflects the debate with the critics, has been reprinted in Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare, ed. by Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987).
9. 91958), especially pp. 358-371 (‘Das Evangelium’). Cf. Ernst Bammel, ‘Judentum, Christentum und Heidentum: Julius Wellhausen’s Briefe an Theodor Mommsen 1881-1902,’ ZKG 80 (1969), pp. 221-254, especially 232-233.
10. 21911, p. 102.
11. 21911, pp. 102-103.
12. The term euaggelion occurs in Mark 1:1, 14; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15. Hubert Frankemölle, Evangelium: Begriff und Gattung ein Forschungsbericht, SBB 15 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988)
13. Hubert Frankemölle, ‘Jesus als deuterojesajanischer Friedensbote? Zur Rezeption von Jes 52,7 und 61,1 im Neuen Testament durch Jesus und in den Targumim,’ in: Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Festschrift für Joachim Gnilka, ed. by Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), pp. 34-67.
14. Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 1-48.
15. Wellhausen’s views on Judaism are discussed by Lou H. Silberman in his essay, mentioned above, note 1. also Karl Hoheisel, Das antike Judentum in christlicher Sicht, Studies in Oriental Religions 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978), pp. 13-20.
16. Rudolf Smend, ‘Wellhausen und das Judentum’, ZTK 79 (1982), pp. 249-282.
17. Christhard Hoffmann, Juden und Judentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Studies in Judaism in Modem Times 9 (Leiden, New York, København, Köln: Brill, 1988), esp. pp. 31, 113-114, 159-165.
18. The emergence of Jewish Christianity in the history of scholarship deserves a fresh investigation. It is interesting to see that even modem studies of Christianity and its relationships to Judaism as viewed in the history of scholarship frequently pass over this topic. See Georg Strecker, ‘Judenchristentum,’ TRE 17 (1988), pp. 310-325.
19. Hans Joachim Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: J. C B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949), starts with Ferdinand Christian Baur Wellhausen’s failure to take Jewish Christianity into account results, at least to a degree, in the situation of isolation in which Jesus appears in Wellhausen’s description. Detached from Judaism as well as from Christianity, Jesus appears to have existed in a world all of his own. This picture cannot claim historical veracity, but it does, paradoxically, reflect some sort of secular christology.
20. Carsten Colpe, ‘Das deutsche Wort ‘Judenchristen’ und ihm entsprechende historische Sachverhalte’, in Gilgul. Essays on Transformation, Revelation and Permanence in the History of Religions Dedicated to R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, eds. S. Shaked et al., SuppL to Numen 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), pp. 50-68.
21. Carsten Colpe, Das Siegel des Propheten. Historische Beziehungen zwischen Judentum, Judenchristentum, Heidentum und frühem Islam, Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte 3 (Berlin: Institut für Kirche und Judentum, 1990), chapters 2 and 3.
22. Some scholars, therefore, prefer the plural ‘Judaisms.’ See Jonathan Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 18.
23. Jacob Neusner, The Religious Study of Judaism: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation, Studies in Judaism 1 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 35, 59, 79-89.
24. 21911, p. 101. There is a problem here at least with the title, in Geza Vermes, The Gospel of Jesus the Jew (Riddell Memorial Lecture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1981).
25. Geza Vermes, ‘Jesus the Jew: Christian and Jewish Reactions,’ Toronto Theological Journal 4 (1988), pp. 114-116.
26. also my articles, ‘Häresie I. Neues Testament,’ TRE 14 (1985), pp. 313-318; ‘Hellenismus,’ TRE 15 (1986), pp. 19-35.
27. For the following see Dahl, ‘Wellhausen,’ pp. 92-93.
28. Charles C. Torrey, ‘Julius Welihausen’s Approach to the Aramaic Gospels,’ ZDMG 101 (1951), pp. 125-137.
29. For the present state of the question see Gerard Mussies, ‘Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora,’ in Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vols. 1-2: The Jewish People in the First Century (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974-76), pp. 1040-64.
30. Chaim Rabin, ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century,’ The Jewish People in the First Century., pp. 1007-39, with a bibliography on the language of Jesus, pp. 1037-39.
31. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.135), revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), pp. 74-80, cf. on Aramaic pp. 2028 and the index voL 3/2 (1987), s.v. ‘Aramaic’ and ‘Greek’. See furthermore Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit, ed. by Wolfgang Haase, ANRW II, 20/1-2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), passim; G. H. R. Horsley, ‘The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’,’ in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic Essays (North Ryde, N. S. W.: Macquarie University, 1989), pp. 5-40, esp. 19-22.
32. James Barr, ‘Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age,’ in The Cambridge History of Judaism vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 79-114.
33. Hannah M. Cotton and Joseph Geiger, eds., Masada II; The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-65. Final Reports. The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), pp. 9-10.
34. Martin Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), pp. 7-18: ‘The Linguistic Question and Its Cultural Background’.
35. Martin Hengel, ‘Der alte und der neue Schürer,’ JSS 35(1990), pp. 19-72.
36. The Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Robert L. Bensley, J. Rendel Harris, and F. Crawford Burkitt, with an introduction by Agnes Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894).
37. 21911. For Wellhausen’s changing opinions see the article by Schultheß mentioned above, note 1.
38. 21911, p. 103.
39. 21911, p. 103.
40. 21911, p. 103.
41. This view resulted in the famous ‘Daß’ of Bultmann.
42. 21961), pp. 7-9; also Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler, p. 112.
43. Einleitung (1905), p. 115: ‘Für das was mit dem Evangelium verloren geht, ist der historische Jesus, als Grundlage der Religion, ein sehr zweifelhafter und ungenügender Ersatz. Ohne seinen Tod wäre er überhaupt nicht historisch geworden. Der Eindruck seiner Laufbahn beruht darauf, daß sie nicht abgeschlossen, sondern jäh unterbrochen wurde, nachdem sie kaum begonnen hatte.’ The second edition of 1911 adds (p. 104): ‘Seine Niederlage wurde sein Sieg.’
44. 21911, p. 103.
45. Einleitung p. 114 (see above, note 5).
46. 21911, p. 103.
47. Einleitung p. 114 (see above, note 5). For the background of this problem see Friedemann Regner, ‘Paulus und Jesus’ im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Themas ‘Paulus und Jesus’ in der neutestamentlichen Theologie, Studien zur Theologie- und Geistesgeschichte des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 30 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).
48. 21911, p. 103.
49. 21911, p. 104.
50. 21911, p. 104.
51. on this point E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 5-13. He distinguishes between historical facts, even ‘almost indisputable facts’ (p. 11), and the seemingly insoluble problem of the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings. Actually, this distinction needs more study. Also, it has been the subject of the debate between Wellhausen and Hamack, the former insisting on Mark’s Gospel as containing the best information, while latter based his views on the sayings of Jesus in Q. See Adolf Hamack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907).
52. 21911), pp. 153-170. Neither Wellhausen nor Hamack convinced their colleagues.
53. The recent debate concerning the books by G. A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians. A Study in Christian Origins [London: Pemberton, 1971].
54. G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? [London: Pemberton, 1975].
55. G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus [Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1982]) has shown that the issue of Jesus’ historicity is still a problem for some. Historically, however, the case of Jesus should be seen in analogy to figures like Moses, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, and even Socrates. The doubts about Jesus’ historicity are the result of narrowness of scope historically, and a misunderstanding of the concept of ‘myth’.
56. Hans Peter Rüger, ‘Zum Problem der Sprache Jesu,’ ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 113-122.
57. James Barr, ‘Which Language Did Jesus Speak? - Some Remarks of a Semitist,’ BJRL 53 (1970), pp. 9-29. For a survey see also Horsley, New Documents 5, pp. 19-22.
58. Barr, p. 9.
59. New Documents 5., pp. 9-10. Barr refers to Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua. Die drei Sprachen Jesu in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge, beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922). Dalman’s chapter on ‘Jesus und das Griechische’ (pp. 1-6) is worth reading again: ‘Die Mehrsprachigkeit Jesu und seiner Umgebung, die sich in seiner ersten Gemeinde fortsetzt (Apg. 6,1), ist keine belanglose geschichtliche Tatsache. Denn sie bedeutet, daß die hinter unseren Evangelien liegende erste christliche Formung der Worte Jesu einem Kreise angehört, der in seiner Kenntnis der Weltsprache jener Zeit mit Jesus und seinen Jüngern zusammenhing. Das bietet Gewähr dafür, daß die Evangelien eine im wesentlichen treue Wiedergabe der ursprünglichen Gedanken Jesu sein werden. Wir brauchen ihr Original nicht zu erraten, sondern besitzen im griechischen Text eine tragkräftige Brücke, die zu ihm hinführt. Aber das erspart nicht die Aufgabe, über diese Brücke zu gehen, eine Brücke, die, trotz aller beiderseitigen Annäherungen, zwischen zwei weit voneinander abliegenden Welten liegt, der Welt Platos und des Phidias und der Welt Moses und der jüdischen Schriftgelehrten.’ (p. 6).
60. Besides Dalman’s Jesus-Jeschua the more recent discussions by Rüger and Barr (see above, note 30), who also review older contributions; see furthermore Hans Peter Rüger, ‘Aramäisch II. Im Neuen Testament’, TRE 3 (1978), pp. 602-610.
61. Barr, p. 29.
62. How complicated the situation is can be seen by the example of Jesus’ words on the cross, Mark 15:34 //Matt 27:46. It is a citation of Ps 22:2, given in Hebrew, Aramaic, or a mixture of the two, but in Greek transcription. The manuscripts also vacillate which language they should choose. Since Ps 22 played such an important role in the christological interpretation of Jesus’ Passion, the historical factuality of the utterance on the cross is doubtful. For the textual evidence see Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua, pp. 184-187.
63. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London & New York- United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 70, 119-120.
64. For a collection of the evidence see Rüger, TRE 3, pp. 602-610.
65. Moisés Silva, ‘Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek’, Biblica 61 (1980), pp. 198-219.
66. Gerhard Friedrich, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Theologischen Wörterbuchs’, ThWNT 10/1 (1978), pp. 1-51.
67. Nigel Turner, in James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, voL 4: Style (Edinburgh: Clark, 1976), pp. 5-10: ‘Sources behind the Gospels’. For a survey see also Friedrich Rehkopf, ‘Griechisch (des Neuen Testaments),’ TRE 14 (1985), pp. 228-235.
68. Turner, p. 10: ‘The Aramaisms are not all primitive survivals of the original teaching of Jesus, but they may rather be a part of the evangelists’ Greek style.’ Cf. Rüger, TRE 3, p. 609: ‘Auch dort wo keine lexikalischen Aramaismen vorliegen, läßt das Griechische des Neuen Testaments oft einen aramäischen Hintergrund vermuten. Allerdings ist es außerordentlich schwierig, derartige Aramaismen von Hebraismen und Septuagintismen zu unterscheiden.’
69. 21954), pp. 206-212, who is more cautious, although the presuppositions are similar (see also pp. 270-274).
70. Hengel, The ‘Hellenization’, pp. 7-8.
71. The ‘Hellenization’, p. 17.
72. The ‘Hellenization’.
73. The ‘Hellenization’, p. 18.
74. The ‘Hellenization’.
75. The ‘Hellenization’.
76. The ‘Hellenization’.
77. The ‘Hellenization’.
78. my article ‘Gottmensch II (Griechisch-römische Antike und Urchristentum),’ RAC 12 (1982), cols. 234-312.
79. Wolfgang Speyer, Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld. Ausgewählte Aufsätze. WUNT 50 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), index, s.v. ‘Mensch, göttlicher’. Several studies, mostly in the interest of conservative Christian apologetics, have chosen this concept to express their authors’ resentment against Greek culture in general. This type of apologetics is based on the outdated view that the world of Jesus was somehow ‘pure’ and ‘uncontaminated’ from anything Hellenistic. The latest work of this kind is the University of Aberdeen dissertation by Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markon Traditions. A Critique of the Theios Anlr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark, WUNT, 2. Reihe 40 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1991).
80. on the whole Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, trans. by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
81. Gerd Theissen, ‘Jesusbewegung eds charismatische Wertrevolution’, NTS 35 (1989), pp. 343-360. For the sayings of Jesus in light of Greek philosophy see Hildebrecht Hommel’s Sebasmata. Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum, vol. 2, WUNT 32 (Tübingen: J. C B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1984), pp. 32-50, 51-74.
82. 21983).
83. John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 306-316. Recent works associating Jesus with Cynic philosophy are in need of critical evaluation by experts on ancient Cynicism. F. Gerald Downing, Jesus and the Threat of Freedom (London: SCM Press, 1987).
84. John S. Kloppenborg, ‘The Social Context of Jesus the Teacher Construction or Reconstruction,’ NTS 33 (1987), pp. 439-451.
85. John S. Kloppenborg, The Christ and the Cynics, Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988).
86. Leif Vaage, Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence, Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1987.
87. Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 67-74.
88. Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘A Cynic Q?’ Biblica 70 (1989), pp. 349-376.
89. Prior to this comparison, the relationship between Judaism and Cynicism should be investigated. In such investigations the diversity within both Judaism and Cynicism as well as the rhetoric of polemic must be considered. Cf. caricature descriptions of Cynics in the Talmudic tradition, pointed out by M. Luz, ‘A Description of the Greek Cynic in the Jerusalem Talmud’, JSJ 20 (1989), pp. 49-60.
90. A precise analysis of the rhetoric of polemic in the Gospels remains a desideratum. A merely moralizing approach, now in vogue, does not lead to a deeper understanding of the phenomena.
91. the recent studies by Ulrich Luz, ‘Jesus und die Pharisäer’, Judaica 38 (1982), pp. 229-246.
92. Klaus Berger, ‘Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer,’ NT 30 (1988), pp. 231-262.
93. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, passim; Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Delaware: Glazier, 1988).
94. Louis Finkelstein, ‘Pharisaic Leadership after the Great Synagogue (170 B.C.E.-135 C.E.).’ in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 245-277.
95. Shaye J. D. Cohen, ‘Patriarchs and Scholarchs’, Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 48 (1981), pp. 57-85.
96. Shaye J. D. Cohen, ‘The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,’ HUCA 55 (1984), pp. 27-53.
97. Albert I. Baumgarten, ‘The Name of the Pharisees’, JBL 102 (1983), pp. 411-429.
98. Albert I. Baumgarten, ‘Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees,’ HUCA 55 (1984), pp. 1-25.
99. Albert I. Baumgarten, ‘The Pharisaic Paradosis’, HTR 80 (1987), pp. 63-77.
100. Saldarini, Pharisees, passim; Hengel, ‘Der alte und der neue Schürer’, pp. 58-59.
101. Otto Böcher, ‘Johannes der Täufer’, TRE 17 (1988), pp. 172-181, esp. 177-178.
102. Josef Emst, ‘War Jesus ein Schüler Johannes des Täufers?’ in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus. Für Joachim Gnilka, ed. by Hubert Frankemölle and Karl Kertelge (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder), pp. 13-33. The fact that the Gospels do not give a clear answer to the question reveals their christological interests; that they admit as much as they do points to historical realities no longer accessible to us.
103. Careful investigation, however, may yet uncover some facts.
104. Gerd Theissen, ‘Das ‘schwankende Rohr’ (Mt 11,7) und die Gründungsmünzen von Tiberias,’ ZDPV 101 (1985), pp. 43-55, reprinted in his Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, NTOA 8 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Presses universitaires.
105. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 34-44.
106. Josef Emst, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte, BZNW 53 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).
107. Hermann Lichtenberger, ‘Täufergemeinden und frühchristliche Täuferpolemik im letzten Drittel des 1. Jahrhunderts’, ZTK 84 (1987), pp. 36
108. For further discussion of this point see my article, ‘Christianity as Religion: Paul’s Attempt at Definition in Romans,’ Journal of Religion 71 (1991), pp. 315-344.
109. my Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).
110. on this my article, ‘The Problem of Christology in the Sermon on the Mount,’ in Text and Logos. The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament, ed. by Theodore Jennings Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 191-210.
111. on this my essay, ‘The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Interpretation’ (forthcoming).
112. 51987), pp. 387-389.
113. Geza Vermes, ‘The Jesus-Notice of Josephus Reconsidered,’ JJS 38 (1987), pp. 1-10.
114. John P. Meier, ‘Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,’ CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 76-103.
115. Vermes’s and Meier’s studies, in particular, raise the question whether the Testimonium Flavianum even requires a stance of Christian faith on the part of the author, whether Josephus or someone else. Most of the passages are given as factual descriptions, not unlike those in Lucian of Samosata, on which see my Hellenismus und Urchristentum, Gesammelte Aufsätze 1 (Tübingen: J. C B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990), pp. 10-21.
116. 51989), pp. 439-488.
117. Robert E. Van Voorst, The Ascents of James, History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community, SBL Dissertation Series 112 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989).
118. 21981), pp. 145-153: ‘Der wahre Prophet.’ The most extensive study of the background of the concept is by.
119. Wilhelm Staerk, Die Erlösererwartung in den östlichen Religionen. Untersuchungen zu den Ausdrucksformen der biblischen Christologie (Soter II) (Stuttgart and Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1938), pp. 98-112.
120. A summary is found also in Franz Schnider, Jesus der Prophet, OBO 2 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Presses universitaires.
121. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), pp. 241-255.
122. Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, pp. 46-72, according to the edition by Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia Römer, Der Kölner Mani Kodex. Über das Werden seines Leibes, Abhandlun gen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyro- logica Coloniensia, Band XIV (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). See also Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai. Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judaeo-Christian Propagandists, Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 8 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [paul Siebeck], 1985), pp. 131-133.
123. the informative surveys by Johann Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung, Erträge der Forschung 82 (Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell’ Schaft, 1978).
124. Johann Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike, Erträge der Forschung 177 (Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982).
125. For the sources and commentary see Hermann L. Strack, Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben (Berlin: Hinrichs, 1910); the two works by Maier noted above, note 68.
126. Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen: J. C B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1909; reprinted Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967), pp. 453-486: ‘Das Leben Jesu bei den jüdischen und heidnischen Gegnern des Christentums’.
127. 31983).
128. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1983).
129. Craig A. Evans, ‘Jewish Literature and. New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology’, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 361-384, and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (see above, note 28).
130. The problem of how to avoid the issue of ‘apologetics,’ be it Christian or Jewish, in dealing with the historical Jesus has so far not been solved. Assurances by authors to be ‘historically-minded’ and disinterested in any kind of ‘faith’ are usually taken by readers as signs of disguised apologetics of one sort or another. It seems that the personal stance towards Jesus in the present situation must be separated from the obligation to apply the historical-critical methods as unbiased as possible. In addition, modem New Testament scholarship must critically assess its own history with regard to Judaism. This reevaluation has at least begun; see the works by Vermes and Sanders, also Geza Vermes, ‘Jesus the Jew: Christian and Jewish Reactions,’ Toronto Theological Journal 4 (1988), pp. 112-123.
131. Franz Mußner, Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for the Christian Faith. Trans, by Leonard Swidler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1984), pp. 109-132 For the general historical material see Karl Hoheisel, Das antike Judentum in christlicher Sicht, Studies in Oriental Religions 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978).
132. Karlheinz Müller, Das Judentum in der religionsgeschichtlichen Arbeit am Neuen Testament. Eine kritische Rückschau auf die Entwicklung einer Methodik bis zu den Qumran- funden, Judentum und Umwelt 6 (Frankfurt & Bern: Lang, 1983).
133. Christhard Hoffmann, Juden und Judentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Studies in Judaism in Modem Times 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1988).
134. Amaldo Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews and Christians (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987).
135. An impressive example of this is, in my view, the book by David Novak, Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Justification (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), who also has a section on ‘The Quest for the Jewish Jesus’ (pp. 73-92).
136. 91984), p. 1: ‘Die Verkündigung Jesu gehört zu den Voraussetzungen der Theologie des NT und ist nicht ein Teil dieser selbst’ The English translation is cited according to the American edition. Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel (New York: Scribners’, 1951, 1955), vol. 1, p. 3. For the origins of Bultmann’s views on Jesus, and his connections with Wellhausen, see Martin Evang, Rudolf Bultmann in seiner Frühzeit, BHTh 73 (Tübingen, J. C B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988), pp. 296-305. Bultmann’s position was confirmed by Hans Conzelmann, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (München: Kaiser, 1967), p. 25: ‘Die folgende Darstellung setzt nicht bei der rekonstruierten Lehre Jesu ein, sondern da, wo uns die Motive der neutestamentlichen Theologie zuerst greifbar werden; beim Kerygma der frühen Gemeinde.’
137. Wellhausen’s dictum became the demarcation line between two camps of scholars: those who followed him, and those who did not Not following Wellhausen was especially Joachim Jeremias, Neutestamentlidre Theologie. Erster Teil: Die Verkündigung Jesu (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1971). Jeremias’ debate with Wellhausen and Bultmann, however, remained implicit; the fact that the second volume never appeared, should not be overlooked. A way out of the dilemma is tried by Wemer Georg Kümmel, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugnissen, NTD-Ergänzungsreihe 3 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). Part I includes the ‘proclamation’ of Jesus, but Kümmel avoids calling it ‘ theology’. He mentions ‘The Problem of the Historical Jesus’ (pp. 20-24), but the discussion remains unclear, except that in fact he does not endorse Wellhausen or Bultmann.
138. 91958), chapter 24: ‘Das Evangelium’. See pp. 365-366: ‘Jesus wollte nicht auflösen, sondern erfüllen, d.h. den Intentionen zum vollen Ausdruck verhelfen. In Wahrheit hat er damit sowohl das Gesetz als auch die Hoffnung der Juden aufgehoben und die Theokratie selber innerlich überwunden.’
139. Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte p. 366: ‘Jesus organisierte nicht, sondern nachdem er seine eigene Seele gewonnen hatte, gewann er andere. Auf diese Weise geschah es, daß er das erste Glied einer neuen Geisterreihe wurde.’ The post-mortem power of Jesus’ soul became the origin of Christianity: ‘Er ist das größte Beispiel von der zeugenden Kraft der Seele… In kürzester Frist überzeugten sie sich, daß ihr gekreuzigter Messias als himmlischer Messias bei Gott lebe; so außerordentlich war der Eindruck, den er auf sie gemacht hatte, so innig die Gemeinschaft, in der sie mit ihm standen… Er ließ die Seinen nicht los, er war bei ihnen alle Tage, sein Geist wirkte in ihnen fort’ This psychological explanation was not taken over by Bultmann who is stricly a Paulinist ‘Jesus war tot; Christus lebte, der Auferstandene, der Herr’ (p. 369) became Bultmann’s line of interpretation.
140. In the origin of the Christian church the ‘image of Jesus’ (‘das Jesusbild’) plays a major role (Wellhausen, p. 367; cf. other references pp. 366-368 to the ‘Eindruck seiner Person’). For the history of this notion of the image of Jesus see my article, mentioned above, note 60.
141. Wellhausen here depends on the older concept that Israelite religion developed from good origins (the prophets) to later decadence in theocracy and legalism.
142. Wellhausen likes (pp. 358, 366) the image of the sower: ‘Da ging ein Sämann aus, zu säen seinen Samen; sein Same war das Wort, sein Acker die Zeit.’
143. Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte pp. 358-359: ‘Er verkündete nicht, daß das Reich mit ihm gekommen sei, sondern daß es bald kommen werde. Er trat damit nicht als Messias auf, als Erfüller der Weissagung, sondern als Prophet; seine Botschaft war selber Weissagung.’
144. 71969), p. 386: ‘Jesus selbst mit seinem Wort und Werk gehörte nicht mehr zur Geschichte Israels. An ihm fand die Geschichte Israels vielmehr ihr eigentliches Ende.’ The word ‘eigentlich’ indicates that the statement is borne out not by history, but by Christian theology; in fact, behind it is Rom 10:4.
145. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926). Cf. also his Das Urchristentum im Rahmen der antiken Religionen (Zürich: Artemis-Verlag, 1949), in which he treats Jesus as part of Judaism.
146. 21979); the work appeared first in 1940. Recently, the idea has been revived.
147. Sean Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
148. Udo Schnelle, 7esus, ein Jude aus Galiläa,’ BZ 32 (1988), pp. 107-113.
149. Bernard J. Lee, The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus. Retrieving the Jewish Origins cf Christianity (Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist Press, 1988). These studies point out that we now know a great deal more than before about Galilee because of archaeological findings, but the evidence for earliest Christianity, not to speak of Jesus himself, has not been increased, so that conclusions remain as speculative as ever. It does not help either that the authors are barely aware of the history of research, in which making Jesus a Galilean Jew often served to deny his Judaism altogether. Indeed the question still is. How Jewish was Galilee? Was Galilean Judaism a kind of bridge between conservative Judaea and the Hellenistic diaspora? For recent studies on Galilee see the informative article by Ruth Vale, ‘Literary Sources in Archaeological Description: The Case of Galilee, Galilees and Galileans,’ JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 206-225.
150. E. M. Meyers, ‘The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism,’ ANRW II, 19/1 (1979), pp. 686-702.
151. above, notes 70 and 71. As Geza Vermes admits in his recent review article, ‘Jesus the Jew: Christian and Jewish Reactions,’ Toronto Theological Journal 4 (1988), p. 114, his concept of Jesus as a charismatic hasid was anticipated by Rudolf Otto. The current popularity, therefore, may be indebted more to sociology of the 20th century than the evidence in the sources. The phenomena in antiquity can and should of course be recognized, but the question of Jesus fitting into this pattern needs special justification in view of the sources that do not make this association with the charismatic. See furthermore J. B. Segal, ‘Popular Religion in Ancient Israel,’ JJS 27 (1976), pp. 1-22, Shmuel Safrai, ‘Hassidim and the Men of Deeds,’ Zion 50 (1985), pp. 133-154, esp. 137.
152. Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Trans, by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
153. Gerd Theissen., Lokalkolorit (see above, note 56), p. 61, note 84: ‘An meiner Wanderradikalismus these halte ich nach wie vor fest, auch wenn sie heute differenzierter formuliert werden müßte.’
154. above, note 50.
155. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978).
156. Even self-descriptions as ‘Jew’ imply variety within Jewishness, so that self-identification as Jew in fact means identification with one kind of Judaism as over against others. See Ross. S. Kraemer, ‘On the Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions,’ HTR 82 (1989), pp. 35-53. Similarly, becoming a Jew was not the same for every proselyte, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, ‘Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew’, HTR 82 (1989), pp. 13-33.