J. Duncan M. Derrett

Two ‘Harsh’ Sayings of Christ Explained

No amount of time spent upon Christs witty sayings can be superfluous, especially if previous attempts to unwind or decode them have proved inadequate. Many have tried to explain the saying about the Millstone, and that about the Dead Burying the Dead. 2 Here both will be explained de novo. Admittedly what will not be explained will be the question whether Jesus understood the biblical texts (to which he alluded) to be predicting his own time not merely as the prelude to the Roman War and the Fall of Jerusalem, but also as the messianic age. The material given in this present article cannot settle that tremendous question. Jesuss handling of scripture is autonomous, and he must not be squeezed into other peoples shoes.

Crumbs in Mark

THERE is still resistance in some quarters to the recovery of the Christian midrashic and haggadic research which took place in the first century itself on the subject of the life of Jesus. But recently a Japanese scholar, Dr Sanae Masuda, has combined the conventional, redaction-critical methods of our day with what appears to be an instinctive understanding of midrash, with some happy results. This paper intends to take matters rather further. Midrash, after all, has a logic of its own, as has been displayed before in these pages. It is the logic of the artist; verbalization seems to have taken place in stages much as a colour printer passes the design through the machine time after time until the composite effect is attained. Like good jokes the effect is weakened if such material is broken down; the impression must be immediate or it fails. When some statements about Jesuss adventures were presented to those ancient midrashists it is now clear that they must have investigated them under the influence of at least one powerful theological presupposition. It seems to have proceeded along these lines: God was in the man, Jesus of Nazareth, and those tales of his doings which have most consistently appealed to his disciples are, not by coincidence, those which demonstrate the deity of the Hebrews, the God of all flesh, in his consistent love of mankind. God has spoken ever so many times at critical moments in the history of Salvation. He has always spoken with the same voice (if we are alert to hear him correctly) and with the same motive (if we may attribute motive to him). Therefore it follows that the adventures of his former emissaries, Moses, Joshua and relatively minor prophets, as handed down to us by inspired scribes and even translators of the strange Hebrew documents, when properly interpreted in the light of living tradition, illuminate and verify our records of Jesus. He, on the other hand, authenticates, corrects, supplements and effectuates the picture painted in Scripture of the plans God had, plans which were professedly continually frustrated and delayed. The deposit of inspired communication found in scripture must thus be used, recognizing that it projects Gods plan in sometimes distorted, provisional, and esoteric guises. An obvious example would be the dealings of Judah with Tamar.

Bankruptcy and the New Testament

THE New Testament is not accessible unless all its ideas can be verified in its own terms. Some legal concepts give trouble. Sonship, adoption, slavery, the status of the proselyte, the freedom of the widow, agency and partnership have all received attention. I Redemption is used freely as if it were the same amongst Jews and Gentiles. Partnership law and bankruptcy law differed substantially as between Romans and Jews; and both resemble modern counterparts rather distantly. Yet we can profit from consulting all. Paul deals in abstract concepts; the Gospels rejoice in narratives and sayings with concrete contents: references to money, moneys worth, commercial considerations abound. They need to be verified. As in Jewish parables at large, Jesuss parables weave human relations with commercial realities, the Friend at Midnight serving as an example. Shakespeare warns us against losing both loan and friend; yet religion seeks to compensate us for taking such risks. In the Lords Prayer (Matthew 6, 12; Luke 11,4) we encounter debt in the context of wrongdoing. A closer acquaintance with debt and the dilemmas of the debtor might be propitious. The Hebrew root l:IWB (pronounced chov) encompasses wrongdoing and debt. The Aramaic boba (like the German Schuld) means both debt and guilt. The Greek opheilein covers obligation and indebtedness. A wrongdoer can be called a debtor. 9 Aphienai (corresponding to the Hebrew salab, Aram. Sebaq) is to forgive (forgo) injuries or debts.! For we all owe the debt of sin (Polycarp ad Philip. 6, 1). Alas, everywhere a debtor is inferior to his creditor, and the prestige of the wronged is above that of his wrongdoer. II To be obliged can be a humiliation (Romans 13,7-8). The Jews fancifully saw God as a banker (Mishnah, Abot III. 17), lending, and collecting payment. One might not be out of debt to him. Fortunately some Jews were able to see propitiatory sacrifices as graded by Yahweh to cater for every pocket (Babylonian Talmud, Pes. 118a). Few, like Job or the Psalmist, could have such confidence (cf. Proverbs 19, 17) that the Judgement did not alarm them. But some parables have complicated pictures of indebtedness, and we must go into detail.

Peter and the Tabernacles (Mark 9, 5-7)

THE question why Peter proposed to build tabernacles when Elijah and Moses appeared on the Mount of the Transfiguration has never been solved. It is a very good example how people can be satisfied with half-answers and conjectures. Mark 9, 5-6 turns out to be the centre of a passage which is itself the heart of that gospel. If we write out (in column) the clauses from v. 2 to v. 9 of the chapter we find Peters proposal in the middle, the centre of attention. The Transfiguration itself is sometimes said not to be an event in the life of Jesus (as it is asserted to be in 2 Peter 1, 16-18), but a recourse to the supernatural in order to assist us to understand the strategy of Christianity at its source. There is no agreement as to which is the predominant theme of the Transfiguration,s but it follows the Confession of Peter while the little band leaves for its crisis in Jerusalem. On their way there will occur the incident at Mark 9, 14-29, containing Jesuss attack on the faithless generation. The question of Jesuss impatience with his contemporaries hovers in the air. Meanwhile Peter has not accepted the strange definition of discipleship at Mark 8, 34, Jesuss sequel to his own acceptance of Peters recognition of his teacher as the Messiah (8, 29), itself requiring further definition. Since the heavenly voice of v. 7 is attached to the centre of the story, we must understand the latter if the whole is to make any sense. According to J. A. McGuckin (1986), the episode is Marks invention to exalt Jesus; but Peters proposal is as quaint as it is specific. Buchlers interesting suggestion! was never followed up by knowers of the Jewish background, until in 1961 Otto Betz supplied a hint, which, however, has been overlooked by all except Rudolf Pesch.s The implications have never been worked out. So specific a proposal must have had a clear meaning for the intended hearer. It is usually assumed that since Elijah and Moses had only a short leave it would be superfluous to build them shelters. But does not this suggest that the only point of the proposal was that they would not stay? This seems odd. Or that they could suffer from sunstroke, and need shelter? True, Mark implies Peter was wrong to

‘Thou Art the Stone, and upon This Stone …’

THE abundant literature! on the surnaming of Peter, the consignment of the keys, the root of the primacy (Matthew 16, 16-20) is inconclusive. A mass of detail still lacks the spark to fuse the whole. Reinvestigation might be timely, and some not-altogetherrecondite material may yield a fresh answer. Linguistic studies, especially the intensive investigation by Lampe and the innovative and rich ideas of Ford, have moved no less an authority than Professor R. Pesch to abandon the traditional term for Peter, Rock, and to find that Jesus gave Simon the nickname Precious Stone, being an important person. He is right, but he does not explain why, and it is possible he is none too sure. The Aramaist, G. Schwarz, for his part, ignores the Ford-Pesch novelty. But was it so strange? Peter, that rough diamond, might well be called Gem if people were called after specific gem-stones (the Bible alone knows Yaspeh, Sappira, Peninna, Soham, and Tarsis). Yet Peschs allegation of a punning movement from stone to bedrock is hardly adequate the flexibility searched for by Moule remains too vague, and somehow flaccid, out of keeping with the sharp bite we have often recognized in Jesuss wit. Novelties, ideas or none, basic problems have remained: we admit that Simeon (though it means Hearing, i.e. Obeying) is a very inauspicious name since the affair of Dinah at Shechem.? After Luke 2, 29-32 the position changed, and that is why (scholars have often been puzzled) James suddenly calls Peter Syme6n at Acts 15, 14. Simons must, in these the Last Days, be interested in the recruiting of the Gentiles (previously frustrated by the shameful proceedings at Shechem). But, granted all that, why (i) should Jesus build his church (both unexpected words) on one man, however singular; (ii) (Wilcox aired this question well)? why should he build taute te petrii on Peter not on himself? when early Christians believed that Christ was the Rock (l Corinthians 10, 4) and the Foundation (ibid., 3, 11), not to speak of the Corner Stone; and why (iii) should Sim(e)on son of Jona, or the Brigand (cf. the Dinah story again)! have (cf. Acts 10, 5. 18; 11, 13) the Greek name Petros (like lithos, petros means stone), when the building

Birds of the Air and Lilies of the Field

A la lumiere du Psaume 104, et en reference a Genese 28, 20-22 et I Rois 3, 5-15, la parabole des lys des champs et des oiseaux du ciel prend sa vraie dimension eschatologique : elle enseigne que les priorites de cette vie sont determinees par le Royaume a venir dont les disciples sont deja membres

Positive Perspectives on Two Lucan Miracles

Introduction ONE should approach gospel pericopae with deference, encouraging them to tell their own stories in their own way. A truly disciplined study does not squeeze the Evangelists work into systematic moulds of the students devising; nor give greater credence to his contemporaries, however eminent, than to the sources themselves. The latter can have had multiple purposes, some of which would not always attract every student. Now the two passages 1 have chosen for study here seem to be monuments of insinuation. The author preferred not to expose his meanings in direct statement. Luke alone tells of a pair of Christs cures. One wonders whether (as has been claimed) these were really legitimation-miracles, performed primarily to prove his right to heal on the Sabbath. I Luke 13, 10-17 (the miracle of the Bent Woman) and 14, 1-6 (that of the Dropsical Man) are in a mutual relation, arranged as a diptych.? Though the second is thinner, it apparently sought to complete the former. The two literally show Jesus asserting thatfQr him the Sabbath was appropriate for healing. Such a claim could not have agitated the Church if it were not still in conflict with Torah-observant Jews. We shall now attempt something new. If we consult Jewish legend, and certain quaint readings of biblical passages, these miracles together will have a much fuller message. 1 must ask my reader (to be fair) to look up the texts and not to rely on his memory. Not least Psalm 23: it will repay scrutiny. A rustic friend read the miracles with me: time was not lost. He noticed that the animal which was taken to water had gone down into it and was taken up out. There was a movement from dry to wet, and from wet to dry! No scholar has recorded this observation, though (as we shall see) it fits with 1 Corinthians 10,4; 12, 13. Meanwhile some may protest: the cures arrest us; are not the details fortuitous? The reverse is likely. English paintings of the midnineteenth century tend to tell a story with a crowded canvas. The figures conduct is not self-explanatory. Things on the walls, on the furniture or floor, visible through the window, or in the mirror, reveal what is really going on. Similarly the Evangelist litters his stories with clues, which we must cherish if we are to follow him.

The Samaritan Woman's Pitcher

ONE may enjoy marginal notes and nothing in St John is merely marginal. Here I aim to enlarge appreciation of John 4, 4-42. I have complained in these pages that gospel texts are insufficiently often investigated with the aid of midrash. Scriptural allusions are not fully recognized and decoded, and our intermittent search for the historical Jesus is prejudiced thereby. But though it is admitted that gospel is a genre and that John is a gospel. his work is handled quite differently from the Synoptics in this respect. For substantial midrashic interpretations of the so-called Well (it was really a cistern) and associated questions are already taken quite for granted by all the great commentators, in a way which would astound scholars specializing in the Synoptics. They cannot complain in their turn, since commentators on John rank at least equal to themselves! And they must tolerate more. Naturally I need my reader to go through the episode itself in the text. We do not have space for that long dialogue here. But it is worthwhile to rehearse Johns overall intention, and the Samaritan Woman can hardly be better summarized than in the words of an important commentator, J. Bligh (1962):

St Thomas More as a Martyr

JASPER RIDLEYS recent book, The Statesman and the Fanatic will have been welcomed as a fine piece of historical writing, with a style attractive to 18-year-olds, thoroughly researched and competently designed: a contribution worthy of an experienced serious historian. It offers a comparison of Cardinal Wolsey rt 1530)and Sir Thomas More ( t 1535), presenting the former in a much more sympathetic light than is usual, and exposing the latter in an astonishingly unpleasant one. Visualizing both as human types, Ridley sees Wolsey as a possible chairman of a nationalized industry or a member of the Politburo worth every penny that was paid to him. The picture of More is more frightening.

Daniel and Salvation-History

SOME readers of Haggadah and the Account of the Passion. will have asked: are we expected to take seriously evangelists who interlard their narratives with imitations of tales fit for people with a mental age of, say, ten to fourteen? If Jesus himself gave indications which were successively followed up with piety and imagination, we could be authorized to say yes. If evidence is found of the evangelists use of Jewish material, biblical, halakhic (legal), and haggadic (legendary), one might indeed suppose that the episode itself was a fabrication. This was the inclination of Dibelius, Bultmann; and Guignebert. 4 Or one might try to put the researcher in a dilemma, asking him to count the number of close, and, if possible, verbal parallels. The correspondences being close, the dilemma-propounder is forced to pursue the question. If, as is often the case, there are discrepancies, he asks how large a proportion they amount to? If this is large, he may apply the technique of Nelsons eye the alleged correspondence is an illusion, and the evangelists dependence on Jewish material can safely be ignored (at any rate by him). If decrepancies are few, the finder is asked if he can account for them, and if he cannot, the result is obvious. The finder then may shift his ground, and show that the correspondences were seen centuries ago by persons who inherited the Christian faith from very near its source, and also by scholars of generations prior to our own who certainly took their bible seriously. When he is told, with some exasperation, that those persons were ignorant and are now out of date, he may be permitted a quiet smile. The idea will not (admittedly) be accepted in all quarters that, for example, Luke himself saw Christ before Pilate and Herod as a parallel to Daniel before Darius and Cyrus. This is not merely because no modern scholar has been aware of it, but especially because this kind of history (in reality a creative typology) is a department of poetry, and is incompatible with the educational background of learned contemporaries. Alas, men who can readily see Joseph, Daniel and Jesus in a single line are unlikely to obtain a first class result in examinations. So it is with such rueful reflections that wetake another look at material, at once familiar and surprising.