Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T01:35:15.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Silence of Jesus1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

J. C. O'neill
J. C. O'neill
Affiliation:
Cambridge, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Did Jesus think he was the Messiah? To answer this question we have to go back to the seminal work of the great German New Testament scholar, Wilhelm Wrede (1859–1906).

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , January 1969 , pp. 153 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Page 153 note 2 (Göttingen, 1901; repr, 1963), pp. 6 fGoogle Scholar.

Page 153 note 3 Ibid. pp. 207–35, esp. pp. 224–9.

Page 153 note 4 Die Geschichte der synoplischen Tradition (Göttingen, 2nd ed. 1931, repr. 1957 etc.), p. 371Google ScholarPubMed; Z.N.W. XIX (1919–1920), 165–74Google Scholar, repr. in Exegetica, ed. Dinkler, E. (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 1–9Google Scholar.

Page 154 note 1 Op. cit. p. 229Google Scholar.

Page 154 note 2 Theology of the New Testament, I (E. T., London, 1952), 33Google Scholar.

Page 154 note 3 Ibid. I, 9.

Page 156 note 1 The Beginnings of Christianity Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, I (London, 1920), 356Google Scholar. cf. Sevenster, G., R.G.G. (3rd ed., Tübingen, 1957–1962), l, col. 1751Google Scholar; Jonge, M. de, ‘The Use of the Word “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus’, Nov. Test. VIII (1966), 13248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Page 157 note 1 Campbell, J. Y., ‘Christ’ in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Richardson, Alan (London, 1950), pp. 44–6 at p. 45Google Scholar.

Page 157 note 2 Vermes, Geza, ‘The Use of ωℷ ℸℶ/ℵωℷ ℸℶ in Jewish Aramaic’, in Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed., Oxford, 1967), pp. 310–28Google Scholar. See below.

Page 158 note 1 Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: a Study of Origins (London, 1924; 4th impression, revised, 1930), p. 322Google Scholar; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1937; 2nd ed. 1951), p. 328 n. 2.Google Scholar

Page 158 note 2 Most recently, Betz, Otto, ‘Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu’, Nov. Test. VI (1963), 20–48 at pp. 27 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. The words now standing in Mark ix. 41, έν ⊙νóματι δτι Χριστοũ έστε, are probably, in whole or in part, a gloss.

Page 159 note 1 The two exceptions are Mark, ix. 12Google Scholar (?) and Matt, . xiii. 37Google Scholar. The rest are Mark, viii. 38Google Scholar (Luke, ix. 26)Google Scholar; Mark, xiii. 26Google Scholar (Matt, . xxiv. 30Google Scholar; Luke, xxi. 27)Google Scholar; Mark, xiv. 62Google Scholar(Matt, . xxvi. 64Google Scholar; Luke, xxii. 69)Google Scholar; Matt, . xix. 28Google Scholar (cf. Luke, xxii. 30)Google Scholar; Matt, . xxiv. 37Google Scholar and Luke, xvii. 26Google Scholar (may be a saying referring to the earthly work of Jesus); Matt, . xxiv. 44Google Scholar and Luke, xii. 40Google Scholar (om. f1); Matt, . x. 23Google Scholar; xiii. 41; xxiv. 30; xxv. 31; xvi. 27, 28 (cf. Mark and Luke); Luke, xvii. 22Google Scholar; xvii. 30; xviii. 8; xxi. 36.

Page 159 note 2 Mark, ii. 10Google Scholar (Matt, . ix. 6Google Scholar; Luke, v. 24)Google Scholar; Mark, ii. 28Google Scholar (Matt, . xii. 8Google Scholar; Luke, vi. 5)Google Scholar; Matt, . viii. 20Google Scholar and Luke, ix. 58Google Scholar; Matt, . xi. 19Google Scholar and Luke, vii. 34Google Scholar; Matt, . xii. 32Google Scholar and Luke, xii. 10Google Scholar; Luke, xi. 30Google Scholar (cf. Matt, . xii. 40)Google Scholar; Luke, xii. 8Google Scholar; (cf. Matt, . x. 32Google Scholar); Matt, . xvi. 13Google Scholar; Matt, . xviii. 11Google Scholar (textually doubtful); Luke, vi. 22Google Scholar; ix. 56 (textually doubtful); xix. 10; xxii. 48. Mark, viii. 31Google Scholar (Luke, ix. 22Google Scholar; cf. Matt, . xvi. 21)Google Scholar; Mark, ix. 9Google Scholar (Matt, . xvii. 9)Google Scholar; Mark, ix. 12Google Scholar (but see note1, above); Luke, ix. 44Google Scholar (Mark, ix. 31Google Scholar; Matt, . xvii. 22)Google Scholar; Mark, x. 33Google Scholar (Matt, . xx. 18Google Scholar; Luke, xviii. 31)Google Scholar; Mark, x. 45Google Scholar (Matt, . xx. 28Google Scholar; cf. Luke, xxii. 27)Google Scholar; Mark, xiv. 21Google Scholar (Matt, . xxvi. 24Google Scholar; Luke, xxii. 22)Google Scholar; Mark, xiv. 41Google Scholar (Mark, . xxiv. 45)Google Scholar; Matt, . xxvi. 2Google Scholar; Luke, xxiv. 7Google Scholar.

Page 160 note 1 Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (2nd ed., Göttingen, 1900), pp. 167 ffGoogle Scholar.

Page 160 note 2 Luke, xii. 9Google Scholar in the negative form is omitted by Ν45 245 e sys bopt, and may have come into the tradition under the influence of Luke, ix. 26Google Scholar.

Page 160 note 3 Nestle, E., Z.N.W. VII (1906), 279 fGoogle Scholar.; viii ( 1907), 241Google Scholar; ix (1908), 253Google Scholar.

Page 161 note 1 Berakhoth, Y.3b (lines 15 ff.) cited byGoogle ScholarVermes, G., op. cit. pp. 342 fGoogle Scholar. See his discussion andrefutation of Sjöberg’s interpretation of the expression in a generic sense. C. Colpe in the article δ υΙό;ς τοũ άνθρώπου in Kittel–Friedrich, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum N. T. VIII (Stuttgart, 1967), 403–81, at pp.405–8Google Scholar denies that ℵψℷ ℵ ┐ℶ can be used as a circumlocution for ‘I’, although he holds that a speaker can include himself in the group Man, without the generic sense being lost: he can use the expression to refer to himself in the group Man, without the generic sense being lost: he can use the expression to refer to himself and at the same time to generalize. Vermes' discussion goes far towards refuting Colpe's argument, but two further specific points may be added. First, Colpe accepts as genuine three sayings of Jesus where ‘the son of man’ represented unequivocal references to Jesus himself (Mark, ii. 10Google Scholar; Matt, . xi. 18fGoogle Scholar. and par.; Matt, . viii. 20 and par.)Google Scholar. Note Particularly his Comment on Matt, . xi 18Google Scholarf.: ‘ℵψℷ ┐ℶ here naturally does not mean the common man…, for not any man who eats and drinks is opposed to John the ascetic, but Jesus’ (p. 434 n. 241). Secondly, Colpe brings forward no clear example in Aramaic where ‘Son of Man’ is used as a title. Not only that; because he rightly denies that Daniel, the Similitudes of Enoch, and the sixth vision in iv Esra provide the background for Jesus’ sayings, he is obliged to ingent a tradition, for which there is no evidence in Jewish writings at all, which will provide the necessary Jewish background for a titular use of ‘Son of Man’ in what he holds to be the genuine sayings of Jesus.

Page 162 note 1 Campbell, J. Y., ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of Man’, J.T.S. XLVIII (1947), 145–55Google Scholar, repr. in Three New Testament Studies (Leiden, 1965), pp. 29–40Google Scholar.

Page 163 note 1 Betz, Otto, op. cit. pp. 37 ffGoogle Scholar., lists as messianic deeds (i) Jesus' call to repentance and preaching of the Kingdom of God in power; (ii) Jesus' exorcisms; (iii) Jesus' wandering in the land and final coming up to Jerusalem.

Page 164 note 1 See Volz, Paul, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (2nd ed.Tübingen, 1934), pp. 367 fGoogle Scholar.: Die Seligkeit als Mahl.

Page 164 note 2 Mark, x. 32–4Google Scholar (Matt, . xx. 17–19Google Scholar; Luke, xviii. 31–3)Google Scholar; Luke, ix. 53; xiiiGoogle Scholar. 22, 33; xvii. 11; xix. 11, 28; John, xi. 7–10, 16Google Scholar is an independent synoptic-type tradition which has been worked into the Lazarus story; and I think Jesus' rebuke to Peter near Caesarea Philippi was originally a rebuke to him when he tried to stop Jesus going to Jerusalem, Mark, viii. 32–3Google Scholar.

Page 165 note 1 Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte in frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1963), espec. pp. 179–89Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Most Primitive Christology of All?’, J.T.S. N.S. VII (1956), 177–88Google Scholar, repr. in Twelve N. T. Studies (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

Page 165 note 2 See Ernst von Dobschütz, The Eschatology of the Gospels (London, 1910), pp. 98–101Google Scholar.

Page 165 note 3 Betz, O., op. cit. p. 43Google Scholar, states this in one sentence, but does not go on to develop the idea.

Page 166 note 1 Beth ha-Midrash, iii. 73. 17Google Scholar, cited in Billerbeck, iii. 10Google Scholar. Earlier in Pirqe Maschiach it is said that the Israelites have not recognized the Messiah when Elijah presents him to them; Beth ha–Midrash, iii. 72. 1ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Justin, , Dialogue, viii. 4Google Scholar; cx. 1.