No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Is Luke 16,16–18 of Baptist's Provenience?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
Extract
In 1928 Maurice Goguel declared that Luke 16,16–18 was ʻsans relation organique sensible, and thereby repeated the result of older German research. Now David Daube has been able to show a continuous chain of ideas in this passage and has thus confronted the exegesis with a new situation. Therefore the question of the historical place of the passage becomes urgent once more.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1958
References
1 Jean Baptist, p. 62.
2 Cf. E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium 2 S. 166.
3 The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 292 ff. E. Hirsch, Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums II (1941) S. 65 f. had assumed that the passage formed one unit in the Lucan source, but held that it was composed of heterogeneous material.
4 As for v. 17 E. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (1954) S. 14 does indeed maintain this. But how this extreme wording came about he does not explain. Concerning v. 18 he remains silent.
5 These passages are modifications introduced by the Christian society (see also F. C. Burkitt, J. Th. St. 1904, p. 628 and cf. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 136 f.) and also the Syrian version syrsin and pesch mark an alleviation (see A. Merx Lucasevangelium S. 332). 1 Corinthians 7,10 f. (v. 11a interpolated? thus G. Holsten) seems to go even further. Manson has shown that Luke 16,18 is the oldest version of the marriage-logion. He could not prove that it belonged to Jesus. And apart from this he did not consider the context.
6 Namely the formulae of Peter (for which see E. Stauffer, Theology, p. 245) Acts 1,22; 10,37; 13,23 ff.
7 Discussion in H. Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt 2 (1937, American transl., 1942) chapt. 3; see also H. Braun, Th. L. Z. 1954, Sp. 347.
8 See 5.10. The parallel passage shows that it is not necessary to consult the eschatology for the interpretation of Luke 16,18 as M. Dibelius (Formgeschichte S. 249) does.
9 Urgemeinde und Spätjudentum (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps Akademi i Oslo, 1928) S. 18 footnote 2.
10 See Matthew 21,32. This statement concerning the Baptist was certainly made by Christ.
11 See especially Mark 2,18; Luke 11,1; most probably the baptism itself has to be understood in this way.
12 The tradition in Luke 3,19 is surely historical. The attack against the marriage of the tetrarch would most probably have been one reason, if not the cause itself, for the arrest. Herodias had deserted her husband; but apparently a divorce took place later (cf. R. Eisler, Ἰησοῦς βασιλεύς II,15 footnote 1). In this instance it was easily granted. Just as the Herodians quite generally adopted the Hellenistic regal laws (see H. Zucker, Studien zur jüdischen Selbstverwaltung im Altertum [1936] S. 70 ff.), the female members claimed the independent right of divorce (cf. Jos. Ant. 15 § 259), which was conceded by the Greek-Roman law (See W. Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland [1934] S. 388 ff.; C. F. Herrmann, Griech. Privataltertümer IV 2 S. 264; E. Levy, Der Hergang der röm. Ehescheidung [1925] S. 76) but not by the Jewish system (See Jeb. 14,1 and cf. Z. Frankel, Grundlinien d. mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts [1860] S. XLII; Duschak, M., Das mosaisch-talmud. Eherecht [1864] S. 89 ff.Google Scholar; Billauer, A., Grundzüge d. bab.-talmud. Eherechts [1910] S. 67 ff.Google Scholar; Billerbeck I, 318; II, 23 f.; Neufeld, E., Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws [1944] S. 176 ff.Google Scholar There are indeed exceptions. In the Jewish community at Elephantine a woman could bring about a divorce by uttering the formula שנאת ‥ בעלי [see Cowley No. 9, 14, 15 and Kraeling No. 7]. The same formula occurs in jKeth 5,11 [cf. J. N. Epstein, Jahrb. d. jüd.-literar. Gesellschaft 1909 S. 368 f.], but there it seems to have forced the husband to issue a bill of divorce. For divorce regulations in Islamic law see G. Bergsträsser, Grundzüge d. islam. Rechts [1935] S. 85. However, we do not expect that we should take this sideproduct of Jewish law into consideration.) But since Jewish jurisprudence acknowledged legally granted marriage acts (Gitt. 9,2), it would seem impossible to speak of an illegitimate relationship in this case. Moreover, as D. Daube remarks, criticism was directed against her marrying her husband's brother rather than against her remarrying as such (p. 365). She married a man who was a) her half-uncle and b) the half-brother of her former husband. Niece-marriages were widely customary at this time and were considered praiseworthy in Rabbinic theory (see Bar Jeb 62b; Tos Jeb 2; Tos Kidd 1,4). Marriage with the ex-husband's half-brother is not evaluated in the sources; Gitt. 9,2 and Leviticus 18,16 do not supply direct information. If the Baptist opposed this marriage with such vehemence it was rather an expression of Torah intensification than that of mere loyalty to the law.
13 See V. Aptowitzer, Heb. Un. Coll. Ann. IV (1927), p. 232 ff.
14 True, Conzelmann S. 13 gives ἀπὸ τότε a meaning which excludes John the Baptist. As this, however, does not correspond to the parallel passage in Matthew (which according to Conzelmann was the pattern of Luke) Luke should have indicated his opinion more clearly. Moreover, ἀπὸ τότε is more easily taken in an inclusive sense. (See D. Daube p. 285 f.). Conzelmann's observations on the Lucan scheme of Heilsgeschichte and the place of John the Baptist within it are indeed correct to a large extent; yet Luke does not base his theory on chapt. 16,16 as is shown by the unframed form of the pericope.
15 βιάζομαι probably used in the sense of the middle voice (cf. especially Ad. Merx S. 331).
16 See J. Wellhausen, Lucasevangelium S. 89.
17 A. v. Harnack, Lucas der Arzt S. 16; W. Bussmann, Synopt. Studien II, 62; E. Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer S. 20; F. Hauck, Lukasevangelium S. 206.
18 The problem of the Jewish law becomes of secondary importance for him; cf. most recently Conzelmann S. 126.
19 Cf. E. Lohse, Evangel. Theologie 1954 S. 256 ff.
20 Luke 7,22 forms an exception, a passage in which there is extremely little editorial work. Consequently Luke 16,16 must either also be derived from the Q-source and so be superior to Matthew 11, 12, or have a different origin.
21 W. Michaelis, Einleitung i.d. Neue Testament 1 S. 65.
22 Schlatters argumentation (Das Evangelium d. Lukas S. 548 ff.) is artificial.
23 1,5–25.57–80;3,2.10–14.15;11,1.
24 11,62.
25 Cf. Goguel p. 68.
26 ἁρπάζουσιν for interpretation see W. Elert, Th. L. Z., 1947, Sp. 265 ff.
27 R. Bultmann, Geschichte d. synopt. Tradition S. 179 favors the rise of the Elijah-motive in the Hellenistic community. It seems more likely that John saw himself in this rôle and only the correlation with Christology was the contribution of the community. Precisely this correlation, however, is not implied in our passage.
28 These are the ἡμέραι Ἰωἀννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ, which are soon to be followed by days of isolation (John 4,1) and persecution (John 3,23).
29 The βιάζοπαι of Matthew 11,12 is to be understood most likely in this way. For the earlier history of this idea cf. W. Bousset, Die Religion d. Judentums im späthellenist. Zeitalter S. 217 and for the later cf. D. Daube, p. 289 f.
30 The conjecture of A. Pallis, Notes on St. Luke and the Acts, p. 35 is unnecessary.
31 There is nothing to contradict the supposition that he was known by this name. In Rabbinical and priestly circles epithets were frequently used.
32 Ant. 18 § 116 ff.; βαπτισμῷ συνιέναι. For an interpretation cf. Goguel, p. 16 (S'unir par une baptême); it is made even more probable by the DSS, especially if L. Rost is right in his thesis about the מודה היחיד (Th. L. Z., 1952, Sp. 723 ff.).
33 This is underlined, if the Hebrew equivalents of ἁρπάζω and βιάζομαι have the same root (cf. D. Daube, p. 289). In that case ἁρπάζουσιν would be a gloss on the baptistical word.
34 We are assuming no more than that the main outline of Matthew 11, 12–14 goes back to Jesus' teaching. Particularly the origin of v. 13 is uncertain (cf. footnote 35).
35 Is this the Christian counter-formulation to the baptistical theology of history? The context (11,12–12,14) is concerned with Christ's opponents (see Dibelius, Formgeschichte S. 259). Might this have its origin in an apologetic collectaneum?
36 Luke 16,29 is a recapitulation of the Jewish formula, as demanded by the context.
37 Goguel p. 82 ff. presumes a well-informed source for this chapter.
38 This is a linguistic usage which survived in some Hebraeo-Christian traditions. Justin, Dial. 51 (cf. W. Bousset, Die Evangelienzitate Justins des Märtyrers S. 99 f.) otherwise following the Matthean text has the introductory sentence: ὁ νόμος καὶ ἡ προγῆται μέχρι Ἰωάννου. And Aphraates quoted it similarly (see Ad. Merx, Matthäusevangelium S. 191). The continuousness of the Baptist's influence in this area is likely at first sight, but it has hardly been examined in detail so far.
39 Important expositions in Merx, Johannesevangelium S. 67.