Overview of the Discussion

(1)

Overview of the Discussion

Peter Lampe and Ulrich Luz

The questions that remained unresolved throughout the symposium and that call for further studyare:

1. TheJohannine Problem. How does the relationshipbetween John and the synoptic tradition develop? As compared with the synoptic Gospels, does John’s Gospelrepresent something genuinely different?

DoesJohnpresupposethe stability of the synoptic tradition or is this precisely not thecase?

2. Theproblem of earlyChristian prophecy. The ambivalent character of earlyChristian prophecy began toemerge as a consensus: prophecy andtradition, prophets and teachers appearto be not opposites, buttwo sides of thesame phenomenon.

As thelink betweenthetwoproblem areas stands Kasemann’s old thesis: Did John’s Gospel perhapsrepresent the final stage of an early Christianprophetic strain?

On “Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom” (O. Betz)

1. The term “originality,” put forwardbyBetz, a term that qualifies as “original”

that which is closest to the Old Testament (in this case deutero-Isaiah), was questioned.Atthe very least thisuse ofthe category“original”does not seem well suitedto help in making tradition-historicalstatements: is it not possiblethat in the course ofthelatertradition asecondary assimilationto the OldTestament took place, sothat,methodologically,closeness to the Old Testament permits few conclusions concerning that which is early inthe history of the tradition(for example, concerning the authentic message ofJesus)?

387

(2)

388 PeterLampe and Ulrich Luz

2. Further remaining difficulties for Betz’spresentation are: Why does Luke in his Gospel consistently avoid the term evayyEXiov—in fact, even eliminate it from the Marcan prototype and use it only marginally in Acts? Is the expiatory sufferingof Isaiah53 really representedinLuke? If so, whydoes not Lukeuse the concept EvayyEUov?

The varied use ofEvayyEXiov in the Gospels (Mark uses it most often;

Matthew less so; Luke virtually not at all; and John totally avoids it) rather constitutes anargument against thetieredarrangementof Luke-Matthew-Mark posited byBetz.

On “The Path of the Gospel Tradition” (B. Gerhardsson)

1.How can onedefinetherelationshipof theprocess of gospel transmission to the educationalenterprise of wisdom teachers and rabbis, on the one hand, and to theprocess of transmitting prophetic texts, onthe other?

The circle of disciples around theOld Testament prophets constitutes an importantanalogy to the Jesus-communities. But indistinction fromtheformer, the prophetJesushad a much stronger language-shaping effect. Early Christian prophets consideredthemselvesmuchmore bound, incontent andlanguage, to their teacher Jesus than the Old Testament prophet-disciples were to their teachers (cf. Schurmann: “Christ-language!”). In their utterances the early Christian prophets wereboundtothelanguage and content of Jesus’ message.

By comparison, Gerhardsson emphasizes the analogy between the Gospels,andrabbinical education, thoughhe does not see it as exclusive. As Jesusalready shows,one cannot make a strict distinction between theteacher’s sphere of action and that of the prophet. Nevertheless, for Gerhardsson the conscious process of interpreting thewords ofJesusis at some distance from prophecy. Thefocusis ratheron a further development of existing interpretation of tradition than on thecreative formationof new material.Jesuscertainly did not found a school in which only recitationtook place. The transmission of tradition alwaysmeant:“to workwith atext!” Matt. 13:5If. shows that scribes not only practiceconservation but also innovation. The ruleis: In early Chris

tianity people did not simply make things upbut interpreted. In many cases also the so-called“Spirit-logia” hadatraditional core.

2. Althoughthere is noquarrel with Gerhardsson’s basic intention to take seriously the analogy of the rabbinical attitude toward tradition, but not to understand it in a way which excludes freedom andchange, some questions nevertheless remain:

a) The parable tradition shows avery high degree of change and freedom.

At the sametime,the parables and similitudes nevertheless necessarily remained theparablesand similitudes of Jesus.

(3)

Overview of the Discussion 389

b) The Gospel writersdisplay a high measure of freedom in dealing with the tradition.Theyareteachers with an authority very much their own. What remains unclear istheextent to which the freedomofthe evangelistsvis-a-vis their sources permitsconclusions concerning the freedom of earlierteachers vis-a-vis the oral tradition.

Is it perhapsthe case thatthe degreeoffreedomgrows in themeasurein whichwritten textsalready exist,textswhich in any case insure the continuity ofthe tradition? This would explain why in the Lucan specialmaterial (e.g., Luke 1-2) Luke is moreconservativein his transmission than inthe case of the material he adopted fromMark. In anycase, thispresupposesthatlaterevange

lists wished to supplement,not to replace, their predecessors.

On the one hand, one must remember that in contemporary antiquity verbatimtransmissionof longer texts occurred in only twoinstances: that of the carmen and that of the oral tradition in ethics. On the other hand, onerm^t remember that the Gattung is a great mnemonic help in oral tradition: a story-teller onlyneedsto note the basic facts andparticulars of a givenhistory.

He canthen tellastory as the public expects it ofhim, that is, in accordance with a given narrative framework.

c) Finally, the Johannine traditionconstitutes animportantchallengeto Gerhardsson’s modelof tradition. Is it to be characterized as“parasitic”Li the sense thatJohn can only write because theSynoptics are already there,and he can, soto speak, profit from their existence? Or arewe dealingin John’s Gospel with a verydifferent,possibly prophetic, modelof tradition in whichthe pirit createsthetradition?Did John reallyunderstand his Jesus-discourses in general as words of the earthly Jesus? However, one must also not absolute the differences between John and the Synoptics,becausethere are also syi ptic texts with a “Johannine measure” of freedom. At this point the Joh nine problem already emerges as the crucialopenquestion ofthewhole symp num.

On “The Theological Center of the Sayings Source” (A. Polag)

1. Theessay shows thatmany open questionsexist, even when the exis ence of awritten logia-source is not calledinto question. Not only the question whether thereare perhaps several collectionsbut alsothe question concerningdifferent recensions ofQ(QMatt.,QLuke) is completely open. Also open is the question whether Q was not more extensive than can be documented today. For the determination of the literary character of the logia-source one must proceed fromthe form of the codex: the codex, whichwasalso the notebook ofantiquity, couldbe carried on one’s person, expanded,orchanged.Hence the characterof the sayings source is not comparable with that of the Gospels as complete literary units. The introductionofLuke3-4, whichis tradition-historically late,

(4)

390 Peter Lampe and Ulrich Luz

marks the place,so to speak, where Q developsthetendency to become a literary document. But becauseQ is notyet afinished literary document in the way that the Gospels are, theexistenceof variousforms of thetext, which according to Polag are notconscious recensions, is understandable.

For most of the participants inthisdiscussion it was clearatleastthatthe logia-source had to bealiterary document: thecommonakoluthia which can be reconstructed rightup toLuke 12and possibly inLuke 17 is a strongbarrier against all attempts to regard Q as merely an oral stratum in the tradition. This is all themore true when oneconsidersthatthepreservation of the akoluthia in Jewish tradition isnot a very important principle.

2. Withregard to the literary state of affairs, it is very difficult, ingeneral, to raise the question of thetheological centerof Q. Polag’s formulation, “being struckby Jesus,” asthe center of Qis in fact thecenterof everyNew Testament writing. In any case,the situation isvery different from that of the Gospel of Thomas,where apersistentGnosticinterpretation of theJesus-traditionproves to be the unifyingcenter. If Isaiah 61 is alsofundamentalfor the Q tradition, thereareconsequences for thedetermination of therelationship of Q to evay- yeXtov. Atthis point athoroughstudy of thesignificance of Luke 7:18ff. forthe Q tradition wouldbe necessary.

It becameclear thata general desireto preserve tradition alone doesnot explain the existence of the logia-source; theremusthavebeen aheightened desireto preservetradition which can be explained only by the personandeffect of the preaching of Jesus.Anadditional motivefor the collection istheexistence of theChurch. Inpart Q is anaid tomissionary preaching, butaccording to Polag the greaterproportion of the material points to internal use by the Church, perhapsin catechesis; the material isfocused on issues of discipleship and on reinforcement of theconfessionof faith.It isalso possible that this collection of material gained special significancein Greek-speaking churches of converts inwhich therewere no longer anyeyewitnesses of the earthly Jesus. It must also be remembered that traditions are,as a rule, not collectedforone purpose alone but formultiple use.

From everything that was said great caution evinced itself toward the thesisof a specialkerygma in Qand a special circle of tradition behind Q. The materialsof Qare rathercomplementary—say,to the passiontradition—than exclusive. But even then the question whether there arespecial emphasesin Q has notyetbeen answered:striking, by comparison withMarkfor example,is the heavy eschatological accentuation in the Qmaterials and the stress on the demand for decision. The question of who thebearersof the Q tradition were remained open. Thethesis thatthey were Christian teachersand thethesisthat they were Christian prophets need not be mutuallyexclusive. What kind of freedom toreinterpret is there in theteachers’ relationship to tradition and what

(5)

isthe constitutive relationship of traditionto the early Christian prophets? Are theprophets at thesametime teachers?

On “The Gospel in Jerusalem—Mark 14:12-26 as the Oldest Tradition of the Early Church” (R. Pesch)

1. Mark 14:12-16. There was general agreement that Mark 14:12-16 is a constituent part of a pre-Marcan passion narrative andalso that Pesch’s exegesis represents a possible interpretation that must be taken very seriously.Neverthe

less, questionsremain: Could ISam. 10: Iff. have played a role as model? Why arewe nottold of any arrangements betweenJesus and the ownerof the upper room? Whyis it not explicitly stated that the locationof thePassover meal must remain a secret? In any case, the detective side ofthe narrative is not given prominence. Perhaps a historical occurrence was later furnished with miraculous features (Jesus’ foreknowledge). Pesch would not consider suchan understanding ofthestory plausible in the case of Markbut only later—in the case of Luke and Matthew. Itis important to him that the episode isrecounted fromthe perspective of the disciples, who knew nothingof any arrangements.

Asynchronous analysis of thenarrativeshowsanextraordinary accumulation of circumstances which call attentionto theplace of the meal. It isthe larger context that furnishes the element oftension—it isbetter not to speak of a detective component in the episode. After 14:1 Iff.,the reader asks: Will the Jewish leadership succeed in arresting Jesus?From this point ofviewit makes sensethatapart fromJesus and twodisciplesno one wasallowedtoknow where Jesus would celebrate the Passover.

2.Pesch’s understanding of theMarcan tradition of the Last Supper.

Therewasfar-reaching agreement thatMark 14:22-25 was not a secondary interpolation. It remainedunclear,however, towhat degree the Passover meal mustbe divided, by the Passover haggadah, into apreliminary part (Mark 14:17-21) and amain meal (Mark 14:22-25),that is to say, to whatdegree the entire Passover meal must be understood as a unity, so that the genitive absolute xa'i eaQiovrwv aurwv simply means: “and as they were eating (the following happened).”It also remainedan open question whether it is really possible to contrast the Marcan narrative withaliturgical version of the Last Supper sayings as Paul renders them. The words of I Cor. 11:25 (gerd rd SEiJtvfioai) couldpoint tohistory just aswell as the parallel Marcan version ofthe interpretive sayings (wherethe distribution ofbread and wine imme diatelyfollow each other)couldpoint to a liturgical text. Pesch, finding his supportin Mark,takes Jesus’last meal tobe aPassover meal, but is also able to leave the question of the characterof the Last Supper open.Decisivefor

(6)

392 Peter Lampe andUlrichLuz

him is that the Pauline text ICor. ll:23ff. is a textforliturgical use because (a)it does not mention the original participants of thismeal—the disciples;

and (b) the phrase ev tw epw a'qiari looks back to Jesus’ death while the formulation rd Ex%uvv6|xevov in the cup-saying in Mark looksforward to Jesus’ death.Whether the pre-Marcan passion report isreally as historically reliable as Pesch assumesremains in dispute. Itwould also be conceivable that in a Jewish Christian Church the Passover character of the Last Supper had emerged later. An argument in favor of this position could be that Barabbas couldhardly have been released after thePassover.

Anotherquestion which remained unresolved was the question concerning the relationship of the MarcanLast Supper sayings to theLucan traditionofthe LastSupper. Is Luke 22:15-20 reallya secondarycombination of the Marcanand the Pauline Last Supper paradosisor should we not rather reckon with a pre PauHne (“proto-Lucan”) narrativestrain in Luke?Over against this,Pesch suggests the possibility thatLuke baseshimselfonMarkbut,during the compositionofhis Gospel, already had beforehiseyes thecollection ofmaterials for Acts.

3. Then there is the question of the genre of the pre-Marcan passion narrative. Are there models? Canone really get beyond the very general label of “narrative”? Pesch mentions thatthe Church’s questionconcerning whyJesus wascrucified leads toanew genre, for which thereare only rudimentary models.

Asapossible but speculative hypothesis one may consider whetherthe passion narrativetogether with Jesus’ “anabasis” to Jerusalem which preceded it wasa

“founding legend” ofthe Jerusalem church.

As consensus the debates produced agreement with the postulate that kerygma and history aremutually inclusiveand not exclusive.Critical reflec

tion onpossiblecriteria, especiallyfor the determination of breaks and tensions in literary-critical and tradition-critical analyses, was considered an urgent necessity.

On “The Pauline Gospel” (P. Stuhlmacher)

I. In dispute was the question of the degree towhich Paul’sgospeUeve/ope^

during the roughlyfifteen years between Damascus andthe conflict with the representatives of the Jerusalem church, Peter and James (Gal. 1-2). Whydid the conflict break out so late? Was Paul’s teaching originally quitesimilar to thatof the menof Jerusalem?Overagainst this, however,stands IICorinthians II,where welearn that the Paul of theearlyperiod was persecuted precisely on account ofhis violations of the law (table fellowshipwith Gentiles, etc.) andnot only on account of his preachingoftheMessiah (the flogging and the attempt atstoningas the synagogue’s meansof last resortagainst alawless person), so

(7)

Overviewof theDiscussion 393

that Paul’s basic theological shift,thebreakwithhisPharisaic past, must have occurred in his earlyyears (cf. Phil. 3).

Aconsensus emerged: The disagreement between Paul and the men of Jerusalem waspresenttheoreticallyand m nuce from thebeginning but became practically virulent and manifestonly after and withtheAntiochian incident, when concrete Church-political problems began to crop up and there were practical conclusions to be drawn from Paul’s theology of justification. How shouldGentilesand Jewslivetogether and hold table fellowship in one andthe same Church? Was it tobe on the basis of the fulfillment bythe Gentiles of a legal minimum (Lev. 17-18)—a solution xara vogov—or on the basis of Christianliberty xara vogovXptcrrov, with the “strong”takingresponsibilityfor the “weak”?

Forfifteen years Paul and the men of Jerusalem lived togetherinapparent peace on the basisof closelyrelated theologicalpresuppositions (cf. I Cor. 15) until the demands of the concrete praxis of Church and mission first brought to light thatthroughout thewhole period these presuppositions contained different implications.Therefore, insofar asthepracticalconcretization of the doctrine of justification was accomplished andbecame thematerialof conflict, onecould speak of development.

2. Alsoin dispute wastheconstellation of the word-groupevavyeXiov- EvaYYEki^Ea0ai-d%of|-5e?nz/a-Qf|p.a Xpiorou plus the related but subordinate question whether the call to mission before the walls of Damascus came to Paul onlyas a vision(e.g.I Cor. 9:1) or also asanaudition, asQfj|ia Xpiorou.

Should nota distinction be made, on theone hand, betweenEvaYY^kiov = Qfjpict XptaTou, theword spoken by the Lordhimself,andaxof|=EvaYYEki^EoOai, the apostolic message, on the other? Or is it the case in Paul that evaYYEkiov, in bipolar fashion,precisely embraces both:thepower ofrevelation coming over Paul as wellas the missionary message (= axof|) tobepreached bythe apostles (Rom. 10:16f.).

From the directionof Greekphilology asemanticdifferentiationbetween axof| and evaYYskiov is quite natural, insofar asaxof| describedthe “hearsay”

which came tothe hearer moreor less accidentallywithoutparticularreference to the intentionoftheonebroadcasting it. Onthe otherhand, in Jewishusage semua is almosta technical termforthe prophetic messageoriginating with God andnot that whichhappens to come to a person as “hearsay.” The message which the prophets did not produce themselves, the semua, can then, following the parallelismusmembrorum,be equated with besora = EvaYY^kiov.Forthe rest, Paul himself does not,inad hoc fashion,in Rom.10:16 pick up axof| from Greek usage but ratheruses the terminthe context of Isaiah 53. (The use of axof| in the LXX requiresfurtherstudy.)

3. In dispute, finally, was the extent to which a connection can be

(8)

394 PeterLampeandUlrich Luz

established betweenthe pre-Lucan material ofActs 10 and thegenuinely Petrine message. Similar material lies behindActs 13, which, however, is expressly attributedto Paul. In Luke’s work “Peter” and “Paul” preach basicallythe same gospel. Possibly the comparability of Acts10 with Mark’soutline (insofar as thiscould be saidto go back to Peter) would constitute acompletely hypothetical bridge from Acts10 to Peter.

On “The Gospel Genre” (R. Guelich)

The agreementbetween the papers by Stuhlmacher andGuelich wasnot“by arrangement.”

1. The Marcan prologue was extendedby Guelich up to Mark 1:15;the Isaian tradition serves as“depth-structure”of the text.If thegospel existed in narrative form, as “narrative genre,” already before Mark, as Guelichmaintains, then thequestion arises: Does Markl:lf. (ap/t] ton evayy^biov Tqaofj Xptorov withreference to Isaiah) refer back tothis already existing primitive model, in accordance with which people hadbegun at a veryearly stage to tell the story of theEvayvEXiov Oeou asthe story ofJesusfromthe perspective of Isa.52:7?

Thusfrom thevery beginning notonlythe narrated historyof JesusfromJohn theBaptist to theresurrection but also the characterization of this historyas EuayvEkiov 0eou in line with Old Testament usagewas a feature of this pre- Marcan “genre.”

2. Tobe listed aswitnesses for this primitiveEuayvEXiov-genre or proto

type (from the Baptistto the resurrection—in thelight of the fulfillment ofOld Testament Scriptures) would be a) Mark,b) Acts 10:36ff., andc)—especially controversial—John, so that one has to assumea development withsome very early bifurcations:

EmyyEkiov -genre

Or doesnot John presuppose acertain knowledge ofMark?In dispute also was the question to what extent Acts 10 may be enlisted: does not Luke—incor

porating traditional elements,tobe sure—himselfconsciously formulate mat

ters in archaizing fashion here also to a great extent (cf. e.g. the notion of witnesses, the utilization of Galilee,orfor example theprospect ofjudgment, whichdoes notseemvery wellsuited tofunctionas a basic elementfor Mark’s Gospel)?Hence, the question to what extent Acts 10 actually containsearly

(9)

material (perhaps going back even to Peter) is open and one which must be subjected to even sharper criticism.

3.In the derivation ofthegenre as givenin the essay (see the diagram above) it is striking how little is madeof the formation and developmentof tradition within thesynoptictradition itself. For example: How istherelation shipbetween the“gospel” genre andthe passion narrative to be defined? Did categories of developmentarise within the synoptic traditionby themselves?

Or: the expansion of the Q tradition shows that thegreater the distance in time fromJesus becomes, thegreater also becomes the necessity to fix and thus to ground the teaching tradition in thehistory of the earthlyJesus (cf. e.g. the

“apothegm”genre as anattempt to tie doctrineto the earthly Jesus). Was the Jesus-tradition itselfthus designed from the beginning todevelop, througha continuous process of growing precision,into the genre “gospel”?

4.Contact between the (pre-Marcan) genre “gospel” and thechristologi- cal kerygmain I Cor. 15:3-5 (traditionally described as EuayvEkiov) consists in the fact that the passion narrativealso begins with confession of Christ, andthe materials in the first half of Mark’s Gospel have the express christological function of authenticating thediscourse concerning Christ by his words and deeds. This correspondence could suggestin factthat, already fromthe begin

ning, the Jesus-tradition (both the kerygmatic, in thestyle of I Cor. 15, and the narrative Jesus-tradition) wascalledevavyekiov.Mark himselfemploys theterm euavyeXiov inits bipolarity: it describes notonly the narrative genre ofJesus’ history (Mark 1) but also the kerygmatic (I Cor. 15), the missionary gospel message given to the apostles (Mark 14:9/13:10).

5. Theterminological dilemma. The“gospel” as “genre”? Inthe domain of philologythere is talk of a“genre” only when overlongperiods of timein historically diverse situations a certain literary procedure appears again and againand maintainsitself (e.g., tragedy). In other words, thedanger exists that theword usageof New Testamentscholarship andthat of philology are drifting apart.

There are, in principle, only two ways out of the dilemma: The New Testament scholar either reaches for new terms (but which?) or persists in making aloose, unspecific use ofthe term “genre,” while the philologist reaches back to the ancient term“genus,”where the rootsofhis definition of genre lie.

On “Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark” (M. Hengel)

1.Disputed wasthe extentto which Markactuallyknew of a sayings-tradition (Q!) shaped on the model of wisdom literature, the extent to which he

(10)

396 PeterLampeand UlrichLuz

presupposes knowledgeof Jesus-logiaamong his readers and, in his narrative Gospel, expressly offersthat which is lacking in the logia collection! Does this thesis of Hengel’s remain an inference from silence? Remaining in dispute also was whether, as comparedwithQ, the sayingspresented by Mark always represented the more developed (= adaptedto the Marcan community) forms.

2. In support of the disputed value of the evidence from Papias, which, after all, goes back to the elder-tradition andmay reach backat least as far as the yearAD 100, itmaybeaddedthatearly Churchdata about the Gospel writer Mark as pupil of Peter aremuchmore numerous than the dataabout all theother Gospel authors. One must also bear in mind, however, the observation of E. Schwarz (Der Todder SohneZebedai)that inantiquitythere is hardlyany trustworthy external information aboutdocuments, but that, by contrast, liter

ary-historical legends are numerous indeed.

3.How is the interpretation by the EQp]VEvrrjg in the Papias fragmentto be taken? Did Peternot know enoughGreek (hence: “interpreter” = “translator”) or does Mark’s hermeneutic function according to Papias also embrace the frameworkand the context as we see it inthe Gospel? Or should Mark’sfunction be understoodon the analogy of the rabbis: a rabbi teaches inconjunction with an interpreter,the rabbihimselfcoining only very brief sayings, whichanother explains?

4.Indispute, finally,was the valueof the Elijah-Mosestypologyin Mark.

Furthermore, if Peter’s preaching wasin factbehind Mark andhis Moses typology, the result would be that already in Peter there was the beginningofa contrast between lawand gospel.Then Peterand Paul would not be thatfar apart afterall butonlyseparated in questions of praxis (cf. “The Pauline Gospel” above).

On “Matthew as a Creative Interpreter of the Sayings of Jesus”

(G. N. Stanton)

Stanton’s overall thesisof Matthewas a conservativeinterpreter who accepted the authority of his sources but carefully organized and clearly profiled his materials foundgeneral acceptance.It was considered lesscertain that Matthew made his redactional activities visible especially toward the end of the dis

courses. The discussion was especially concentrated, however, on the two textual analyses—Matt. 11:28-30and 25:31-46.

1. Stanton’s proposal to regard Matt. 11:29b as redactional seemed largely convincing. One could also weigh taking xal gaOere out’ Egon as redactional; that would make the symmetry of the traditional saying even clearer. In agreement with Stanton’s thesis is the redaction of Matt. 11:19:

(11)

Overview of theDiscussion 397

Jesus aswisdom was justified by his deeds. Stanton stressesthat the identifi

cation of Jesus with Wisdom is notthe real interestofMatthean christology but is modified, or interpreted, by Matthew’s additions. The connections between Matt. 11:28-30 and Sirach51aregenerally overvalued intheresearch;

only a smallnumber of words areheld incommon;thematerial thrust of Sirach 51 is very different from that of Matt. ll:28ff. One might rather consider whether Mark 6:31, omitted in Matthew, could not be a parallel tradition or even a sourceof Matt. 11:28-30.

2. Matt. 25:3Iff. remained controversial. The context of Matthew 24-25, which ends with the judgmentover the Church, argues fortheuniver- salist interpretation of Jtdvxa ra eOvt] as referring to all people or to all Christians,who in the final judgmentwill beaskedabout their works of mercy for the poor and suffering. In the context of Matthew Stanton’s proposed identification of theSonofMan with his brothersdoes not signify a climax butan anticlimax. Thereferencein Matt. 18:3-6, 10 isnot to ekaxioTotbut to natSia and gixpoi.It isimportant to consider, however, whether inthe course of tradition-historical developmentthe meaning of the text has not shifted.

Originally paoiXeug was most likely areference to God. Under the circum

stances thedevelopmentmust be understood as follows: Jesus understood the text in auniversalist sense; the Church in mission laterprobably restrictedit to its ownexperiences in mission and identified itselfwith the least of the brethren of the Judge. Matthew, perhaps, thought of it in universal terms and inserted the text with a view to the judgment facing the Church.But there are arguments also forStanton’s position that a6eX.<|>of meant the Christianmis sionaries: “Son ofMan” (in theredaction) suggests theidea ofthe Church (“the saints of the Most High”) just as “king” (in the original version) suggests the idea of all people. Vv. 31 and 46, which frame the text, carry clear reminiscences ofDan. 7:13 and 12:1respectively, wherethe focus is on the salvation of the people of God. Stanton’s thesis does not at all need the unprovableargumentthat the function of the textwastocomfort the Church being attacked in its missionary endeavor: the idea of judgment over those whoreject the Christianmission is dominantinthe contextof Matthew 25.

The serious problems of the context of Matthew24-25 can also be resolved inthe case ofStanton’s morerestricted interpretation, asLambrecht’s attempt shows. Finally, the argument that in Matthew 18 there is no mention of EkaxioToiis doubtfulbecausein themanuscript tradition EkdxicrT01 and P-ixgoi are interchangeable.

(12)

On “Luke and His Gospel” (I. H. Marshall)

1. The differencebetweenGuelich and Marshall1 can be mediated by holding that Luke, afterall, alsowrote from the perspective of being an evayvEXi^ogEvog, since even before Luke the tradition had been shapedin thedirection ofthe perspective embodied intheLucancorpus:

(a)InICorinthians 15 thegospel had already beenextended (byPaulor earlier?) to include the appearances to the apostles,and that means anextension to include aglanceat the missionaryhistory of the earlyChurch! In other words:

ICorinthians 15offers an extended summary of thepassion tradition, one that movestoward the perspective of Acts. Hence, when inhis double workLuke presents not only the message ofChrist but also the historyof the witness to Christ,he seems only tobe utilizing amodeof presenting the£vayyEXiov which was already available to himinthe tradition.

(b) Mark’s concept of the gospel is also not a single-track narrative of the story of Jesus; it is bipolar and fundamentally open toward the missionary message oftheChurch(see the references to Mark 13:10; 14:9 above).

2. Matthew andLuke offer twotypesof story, which differ in emphasis and together correspond to the bipolarity of the term EuayvEXiov: Matthew relates an “inclusive” story, a story in which the present as embodied inthe disciples has been included inthefortunes of the earthly Jesus. Luke’s Gospel, on the other hand, presents an “incomplete” story,one that is open-ended and calls for continuation. TheLucan corpusthusrepresentsnot only “continuity” (soMarshall), but alsodevelopment, change, aprogressivehistory. The Chris

tian’s relationsto law and to possessions change.Even the forms ofthe kerygma change. Such terms as Jtalg0eov, hixaiog,andayiog, forexample, figure as part of the Jerusalem message,in contrast, for example,with Acts 17.

Could itbethat this different accentuation in Luke isbehindhis avoidance of the term EuayYEX.iov? Indistinction from Matthew andMark (theretrospective referenceto the history and message of the earthly Jesus) Lukeemphasizesthe progressivelyunfoldingnatureof redemption history. Tobe sure, the contrast is onlyrelative—a matter of accentuation.

3. Among the terms in Luke’s prologue,dotjtdXEia was particularly dis cussed. Does the interpretation of aotjtdXEia imply a dichotomy between the preachedkerygma andthe narrative of Jesus? Is ittrue that Theophilus has alreadyheard the gospel? Isthenarrative of Jesus,depicted in all detail andin thecorrect sequence,by contrastonlyan added guarantee for the reliability of

1. “There was no fixed ‘gospel’-genre into which he had to fit his work as a whole. He regarded the works of his predecessors as ‘accounts,’ not as Gospels. He was not writing a ‘Gospel’

to which he subsequently added a sequel, but a two-part work” (point 3 of Marshall’s Conclusions, p. 291 above).

(13)

the “gospel”? In other words, does thenarrative itself notreally belong to the

“gospel” as it is necessary to the faith? Is it only a supplement to the“gospel”?

Is Luke, generally speaking, the firsttointroduce Jesus-material inhis diaspora community on a large scale?

There was a clearconsensus that forLuke the Jesus-stories themselves already belonged to the kerygma of thegospelandwere “gospel,” sothat the unityof “gospel,” both in the sense ofthe synoptic aswellas in the Pauline branchof the tradition, remained inview. Thus we hearagain of the frequently mentioned bipolarity of thetermEuayvekiov, which includes both thenarrated story of Jesusand the kerygmatic missionary message ofthe apostles.

On “Let John Be John—A Gospel for Its Time” (J. D. G. Dunn)

The questionconcerningthegenesis of Johannine christology, that concerning its preciseprofile and claim andthe matter ofthe relationship ofthe Johannine tothesynoptictradition, could only be touchedupon.

1.Doubts wereexpressed whether John’s Gospel could be situated in the context of PalestinianJudaism.TheEbionites,or James the brother of Jesus, who belong there, represent an essentially different type of Christianity. In Palestinian Judaismthe statusofJesus as Sonof God isnot known until the third century (Abbahu). The assignment of John’s Gospel to Palestinian Judaism wouldalso beopposedby thefactthatWisdom played no significant role there.

Another argument againstTransjordan as the place of origin for John’s Gospel (Dunn, Wengst)isthat fromthis peripheral areait ishard to conceive how John’s Gospel couldso swiftly spread andbeknown in the Church. It also remains unclearfrom what time persecution for confession of Jesus as Christ is conceiv

able (cf.9:22). Already before ad 70? The few notationsabout thepersecution of ChristiansbyJewsin the earlierperiod (e.g.Gal. 1:13; I Thess.2:14) suggest rather thatin the earlierperiod thelaw was the crucial factorin the confrontation.

2.Itwas evenharder, from a tradition-historical point ofview, to define the profile of Johannine christology against the background of Hellenistic Jewish logos speculation (Philo!), Old Testament sophia speculation, and Palestiniantraditions of the Son of Man. Could itbeperhapsthat the real profile ofJohannine christology does not consist inthedefinitionof a still-open early Christian Son-of-Godchristologyby the Logos/Son christology, but rather in the completion ofthe Son christology? The preexistence and Wisdomchris

tology preceded Johnby two generations,andwaspresent at the latest from the time of Paul(I Cor. 10:4; Phil. 2:6-11;Col. l:15ff.;perhaps the mission formu las). Incontrast, the absolute use of uiogand the idea of Evorrig between Father and Son may bespecifically Johannine.On theotherhand, theplacement of the

(14)

400 Peter Lampe and UlrichLuz

Logoshymninthe preface of the Gospelseems to belongto the last phase of the history of the Johannine tradition. The fundamentalquestion whether John’s Gospel makes at allpossible a redaction-historicalinterpretation (one oriented to thefinal formof the text) orwhethera tradition-historical reconstruction of the developmentof Johannine christology deserves priority wasleft unresolved.

3. The question thatwas decisive for the symposiumwas that concerning therelationship between thesynoptic and the Johannine Jesus-tradition. John had athis disposal reliable traditions that were special but related tothesynoptic traditions.Howare the Johannine “reproclamation” of the message of Jesusand the doctrineof the paraclete related to thesespecial traditions? Thechallenge confrontingthe symposium consisted inthe factthat it doesnot seem possible to understand this Gospel only as anewinterpretation ofthe Jesus-tradition.

John appeals to his own tradition, which he anchored directly in the life of the earthlyJesus (the beloved disciple!)and opposes it to other traditions. But how is thisrelationship to be defined?Dunn’s thesisthataccording to John every christology that does not understand Jesusas Logos/Son misunderstands the Christian faith implies that theJohannine and earlier christologiesdo notall simplyhavethesame standing. Gerhardsson advocates acounterthesis: John’s Gospel presupposesthe synoptic Jesus-tradition and uses it just as Gnosticism presupposes thefaith of the Churchand needsit. Johannine pietyand Gnosti cism would thus be “parasitic” in similar ways.

On “The ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’ in Justin” (L. Abramowski)

1. That Justin insisted onthewritten character of thegospel, arather isolated phenomenon inthe second century, is interesting. The important consideration here isnot that in thesecondcenturythe written Gospels wereofcourse known everywherebutthat Justinusesthewrittencharacter of the Gospelsinaspecific polemical2 contextas an argument—an argument which constitutes evidence for the historicaltruth ofwhat happened. Itisatprecisely that point that Justin distinguishes himself fromIrenaeus.

A side note here: An additional motive for Justin’s insistence on written

ness could be the apologists’ high-literary environment, in which, so to speak,

“only bookscount”and no onecan establish anything with avague, merely oral, tradition.Also, on the assumption of an anti-Gnosticfront inthe treatise, this

2. In dispute was the polemical thrust of the treatise on Psalm 21 (LXX) which was incorporated into the Dialogue. Is it anti-Gnostic/antidocetic (cf. e.g. dG]0wg) or anti-Jewish, insofar as Jews could acknowledge neither that God could assume flesh and blood nor that he could suffer as a human being? Was the treatise perhaps originally anti-Gnostic while in the present context it is anti-Jewish?

(15)

pointer seems helpful if Justin regarded Christian Gnostics, in part, as edu

cated—hence as influenced by thatliterary environment—opponents whomhe soughtto persuade.

2.Justin’sdescription ofthe Gospels as dnopvrpovevpaTa of the apostles seems to beanapt accommodation to theword usage of Greek literary activity.

One aspectin particular isimportant:In Greek literature dnopvTjgovEvgaxa also refers to writing which draws its material secondarilyfrom otherwritings and does not represent the personal memories of the authors (cf. Xenophon’s Socrates memoirs). Justinseems to be familiar with thisGreek literary stateof affairsand thus is possiblyawarethatthe Gospels alsowere not the original notesof theapostles but themselves presupposewritten prototypes and thus a preceding processoftransmission.

3. It needs to be established, however, that by his use of the term djto|xvTniovei4iaraJustin isnotreferring toageneral genre (just asthere are not many booktitles by the same name, there are also no fixedgenresthat have the same name), but appeals to Xenophon’s Socrates, so that in the choice of dnopvTigovevgara Justin’s parallelizing of Jesus andSocrates already comes to expression.

As a moregenerictermthere is unofivrurara: “roughnotes,” sincethey may, for example, serve as basisfor the composition of a historicalwork (cf.

Lat. “commentarii”).

4.Inthe domain of Greek literary production djto|xvr]|xovEU|iaTa are notes without literary form, whereas there is a decided literary aim behindthe word ouYYQamia. That Justin avoids the terms o"UYYQa[4ia/YQa<|)f| to describe the Gospels could therefore have linguistic, in addition to theological, reasons—

reasonssuggestedto him from thedomainofGreekliterary production.

5. “’An:o|ivi]poveT)paTa of the apostles” in an antiheretical context is a phrasewhich fitsthe earlyChristianpracticeof securing thetradition against heretical “distortions” byclaimingapostolicauthorship (e.g. II Peter). There is correspondencehere alsotoJohnwho, alone amongthe evangelists, stresses the writtenformat the closeof hisGospel but, onthe other hand, avoidsthe title

“gospel.”

On “ ‘Unknown Sayings of Jesus’ ” (O. Hofius)

1.Does Hofius’s initial definition ofthe agrapha as sayings attributed to the earthly Jesus lead a priori to too narrow a view, to the extentthat itblocksout an entire realm (especiallyGnostic Christianity, the Gospel of Thomas, but also the Gospel of John) in which theSpirit-sayingsof the exalted Lord and those of the earthlyJesus have becomeindistinguishable? Can no conclusionsbe drawn

(16)

for early Christianity,sayfor the phenomenon ofearly Christian prophecy,in thelight of this realmof the tradition in whichthe revealed sayingsofthe exalted Lordhave started traditions oftheir own?

Hofius believes that this realmof tradition isrelatively unimportant for the question of the transmission of Jesus’ sayings: The authorsofthese sources themselves knew that they “had invented all that material.” (The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is not dependentonaChristian source independentof the four Gospels but is rather loosely dependent on the Synoptics,which were known from the public reading intheworshipservices.) That entirerealm of tradition is only relevant as source material to the degree that it furnishes information about theway Christ wasunderstood in the ancient Church or by theGnostics.

2.The question, “How were the agrapha formed?” remains important.

(“Agrapha” nowin the narrow senseas definedby Hofius, not in the senes of the revealed sayings of the exalted Jesus.) Bywhat formal process did the agrapha come intobeing? Was this differentfromthe way sayingscameinto being intheearly Christiantradition(e.g. byearly Christianprophets)?Was it different also fromhowit was with theJohannine Spirit-sayings, wherethe paraclete is expressly mentioned as coauthor? Hofius expressly rejects the character of IThess. 4:15ff. as a prophetic saying.Hencethe question arises:

Wasthe process by whichthe agrapha originated lessaspontaneous, Spirit- induced process offormulation than a process of interpretation? Thelatter especially because the Jesus-tradition had already come tobe written down?

Apart from ahandful of new formationsfor which no tradition historycan be given, the overwhelmingmajorityof the agrapha aredemonstrablyand more orlessdirectlybased onwrittenmaterial. Most agrapha seem to have evolved as follows: Synoptic sayings that werein oral use (in sermons and catechesis) and familiar in publicworship gave riseto dominical sayings that were new, modified, interpreted(e.g.by the additionof aproverbor other idea)or mixed with othersayingsof Jesus. One can observe a parallelhere with the formation of sayings ofJesus in thegospel tradition to the degreethatin it too expansion, interpretation,combination, etc., took place.

3. How canone explainthe surprisingly small number of agrapha for which there is no tradition-historicalderivation outsidethecanonical Gospel tradition?

Or do the present findings deceive us? Could there perhaps be more? An indication in this direction could be Acts 20:35: adominical saying whichLuke refrains from usingin hisGospel. Also, the Matthean and Lucan redactors simply dropped materials: the gathering process did not takeplace onthe model of the Prussian academy;ratherthere wastraditional materialto the left and to the right, a borderarea in which transmission occurred. Though the likelihood is notgreat, thepossibilityexists that this marginal zone oftransmission wasawideone.

However thismay be, Johnwrites (21:25): “Butthere are also many other

(17)

Overview of theDiscussion 403

things which Jesusdid; wereevery one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that wouldbe written.” DoesJohn perhaps have in mind another kind ofJesus-tradition—one devoid of sayings of Jesus?

4. In Gnostic writings (e.g. the end ofthe Gospel ofThomas) the term

“gospel” has marginal significance inthatthe most diverse literary products (frequently modeled on the available Church Gospels) were called “gospel” (e.g. “the Gospel to the Egyptians”). The word “gospel” simply refers tothe

“good news accordingto theGnostics” and is applicablein a number ofways.

On “The Gospels and Greek Biography” (A. Dihle)

1.1. Dothebiographies of philosophers(Pythagoras, Epicurus—as redeemer figures) and the biographiesofreligious mythic figures (Hercules, Romulus, andothers)represent a special vein next to the biographies ofGreek rulers?

Not in principle. The private dimensionalso standsout in Plutarch’s biogra

phies of rulers. In all threecomplexes thepurpose is to show: this is what human nature is like; this is how it comes to expression in this individual—to this the reader whohasthe selfsame nature must orient himself. Thatwhich has been biographically depicted—a portrayal which lacks genuine unique ness—canbe imitated by the reader because in principle it does not exceed thelimitsof hisexperience.

1.2. Though it hasa stronger focus on the individual’srelationship to the community and state, Roman biography is not distinctive because,when it represents the development in the individualof generalvirtues,itremains bound to the Greekmodel. (Nepos’s Life of Atticus illustrates, inRome,a life that is rich inmoral qualities without involvement in political affairs.)

2.1. The comparable NewTestament conceptof the imitatio Christi (Phil.

2, etc.),which inthepresentation ofthe exampleintends togive parenesis for living andthus a fair measureof repeatability to the life of Jesus, does notstand in contrast with faith in theuniquenessofthe life ofJesus,a uniqueness provided by redemptive historyand not traceable to“nature.” In ancient biography it is recourseto naturewhichdestroys uniqueness.

2.2. The difference between ancient biographyand gospelcan therefore be sketched with notions like “redemptive-historical perspective,” an aspect of Dihle’s essay that accords unusually well with the NewTestament vantage point, whichregards the redemptive-historicalview (fulfillment of the Scrip

tures, the scheme “prophecy and fulfillment”) as the source of the narrative framework of a gospel presentation (cf.e.g. Acts 10).

3.On the relationship between gospel and the ancient universal his

tory/historical monograph:

(18)

404 Peter Lampe andUlrichLuz

Ancientuniversalhistory alwaysoffers perspectivalnotationsora cosmo logical framework with corresponding historiographic conventions, conventions which Luke takes over; hence, for example, themultiple datings, atypical universal-historical convention. Whatis totally lack

ing, however, is the specifically biblical scheme of prophecy and fulfillment.

The historical monograph as a special literary genre does not really develop ahistorical perspective;it tends muchmoreto treat isolated events (e.g. a war) and can atbest furnish a viewof a separateepoch.

Universal history (from the beginningto the endof the world) came as a given to early Christianity in an Old Testament and Jewish framework (e.g. Daniel). Judaism had also learned to take advantage of the historical monograph (e.g. II Maccabees). The latter can hardly, however,be compared with the gospel.

Conclusion

The tendency among members of the symposium was to reckon with greater fidelityin the transmission of tradition thanwas the case inclassical form criticism.

Over against the picture which classical form criticism has produced of the origination,transmission, and fixation of the synoptic tradition,a picture in need of revision, there was awillingness to reckon with tradition that wasvery oldand hadbeentransmitted very carefully. Theelements which accrued in the course of the processoftransmission aroseas a result of further interpretation and combina

tion of existing materials, ratherthan through creativeformationofnew material.

A fineinstanceofthe trustworthiness of tradition cameout of the discussion andishere for thefirst timewritten downfromthe oral stage of tradition.This is an anecdote about F. C. Baur that Martin Hengel receivedasoraltradition from OttoBauemfeind,who received itfrom his teacher, Eduard von der Goltz, the patristic scholarand practicaltheologian, who in turn heard itfrom hisgrandfather, who heard F. C. Baur lecture: “Around the year 1840, when F. C. Baurwas exegeting ch. 13 ofthe Apocalypse and came to the number666, he took off his glasses, looked up from his lectern andsaid: ‘And Hengstenberg in Berlin says that isme!’ ” Thispieceoforaltradition has been carefullypreservedbyachain of tradents which spansmore than140 years. Quite naturally, andhighly illumi nating for the characterofthe transmission process, the story at the same time acquired in Tubingen a (preredactional) additionwithasecond point:“I”—said MartinHengel—“have presented this anecdote toa group of great critics, Gunter Kleinand others. Atfirstthey said: ‘That can’t be! ’ But after theyheard the point of the story they said:‘That is genuine!’...”