Hans W. Frei and the History of (German) Biblical Scholarship

During my recent trip to England and Norway, I had the pleasure of reading Hans W. Frei‘s 1974 book The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. I had of course often heard of this book, but actually reading it was quite an experience. What learning!!! And what a lively and stimulating presentation of so many elements of the history of (German) New Testament scholarship! For anyone who just wants to dip into the book, it might be best to start with the introduction on pp. 1-16, the summary of some key lines of his argument on pp. 217-224, and his final words on pp. 323-324. Alternatively, one may simply wish to use the index to consult his learned treatments of key topics such as prophecy and fulfillment or miracles or the quest for the historical Jesus and especially his sympathetic and sparkling discussions of key figures such as Calvin, Herder, Strauss, and Schleiermacher. Indeed, after reading this book, I may well end up chasing down some of his other works, such as his chapter on David Strauss in Nineteenth Century Religious Thought in the West (see here) or some of his other essays (e.g. here; cf. here). But enough of my pointers for further reading!

Today’s post will consist of a short quotation from Frei regarding an interesting difference between developments in England and Germany in the eighteenth century.

Frei (Eclipse p. 113; cf. also 118-119): “When it came to the meaningfulness of the Bible there were few pure skeptics or scoffers in the German Enlightenment, no matter what these same men did in historical or other explicative exegesis. One of the great differences between the English Deists and the German scholars of the later eighteenth century was that the Germans almost to a man took the Bible, especially the New Testament, to be a rich embodiment of religious truth. It did not matter that they had grave reservations over large parts of it or even that some of them (Semler, for instance) thought that all of it was subject to explanation as a product of its time. The meaning of the biblical texts was accessible and clear, and it was easy enough in principle to know the parts of the Bible that were still meaningful or worthy of application from those that were not. And the results of the harmony between explication and application were customarily favorable to the Bible.”

What I found interesting in this quotation is the extent to which far-reaching criticism and a continued appreciation for the religious value of the Bible were held together in Germany in a different way than how things were being argued out in England in the same general time period (with Reimarus being somewhat of an outlier in Germany; see Frei 114-116, 119 ). What I find to be potentially illuminating about this observation is not that it settles the important question of whether or not (a given form of) biblical criticism, consistently worked out, is, in fact, compatible with the conviction that the Bible is a rich embodiment of religious truth, but merely that it signals a difference in the history of biblical interpretation in England and Germany that might be relevant for understanding the subsequent ways in which these two traditions have grappled and continue to grapple with issues involving the relationship between criticism and religious truth or criticism and faith.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne



Bockmuehl, Baur, and the Presence of Paul in the Pseudo-Clementines

Alongside my BMSEC translations, I am currently co-translating—with Christoph Heilig, Luke Ogden, and David Lincicum—F. C. Baur’s classic work “The Christ-Party in the Corinthian Community, the Opposition of Pauline and Petrine Christianity in the Most Ancient Church, the Apostle Peter in Rome.” This is proving to be a rewarding project, even if I must admit that I was soundly shellacked yesterday by a rather brutal sentence that extended to more than 20 lines! Today, however, I do not want to expose you to that horrible Leviathan but rather to juxtapose several passages from Baur with a passage from Markus Bockmuehl‘s book Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, which I am reading with great profit alongside my translation of Baur. And with both of these works in mind, I am obviously also excited about Michael J. Kok’s New Series on Peter in Rome.

What I found interesting about today’s key quotations is the extent to which Baur already attempts to respond to the line of criticism that Bockmuehl advances. Therefore, I will first quote Bockmuehl’s criticism of Baur’s paradigm and then provide two quotes from Baur that provide at least a partial response to Bockmuehl’s argument.

Bockmuehl (Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, pp. 56-57; cf. further The Remembered Peter, pp. 94-113): However, while an anti-Pauline bias is possible, there are a number of impediments to the Simon–Paul equation. First, the texts themselves nowhere make this connection. The one place where there is a clear reference to Paul (Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.70-71) presents him as the pre-Christian Saul, who primarily opposes James, and Peter only secondarily. Indeed, in this scene, which to be sure does not portray Saul in a positive light (he is introduced as “a certain hostile man”), Simon Magus and Saul are explicitly differentiated; Saul himself condemns Simon as a sorcerer (Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.70.2). This explicit differentiation between Saul and Simon has implications for attempts to find Paul behind the phrase “the man who is the enemy” in Ps.-Clem. EP 2.3, especially if one takes seriously the integrity of the epistle’s placement alongside the Pseudo-Clementine romances that feature Simon Magus as the clear antagonist. Second, Simon’s preaching, opposed by Peter, contains little that could be construed as Pauline. Most of it seems generally Gnostic rather than Pauline and lacks any Jewish apocalyptic framework, so important for Paul, or consistent references to Scripture. Simon rejects basic Pauline positions such as the resurrection from the dead (e.g. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.54), the goodness of the creator (e.g., Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.37,53), and the divine sonship of Christ (Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.49), and he even sets himself up as the Messiah (e.g. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.72; cf. 2.49; 3.47). These positions are difficult to square with any known picture of Paul, “orthodox” or “heretical.”

Baur (126-128): Specifically, it can be demonstrated that [127] in the teachings that he attributes to the magician Simon the author of the Clementines has especially the Marcionite system in mind and that he regarded this system as the outermost point of the path that the magician Simon had set out upon and that had then been traversed by the heretics that followed.

Namentlich läßt sich nachweisen, daß der Verfasser der Clementinen in den Lehren, die er dem Magier Simon beilegte, vorzüglich das Marcionitische System vor Augen hatte, und dieses als den äußersten Punkt des schon von dem Magier Simon eingeschlagenen und sodann von den folgenden häretikern betretenen Wegs betrachtete.

In view of the exact relationship that the Clementines have to the teaching of the Ebionites and the well-known hate for the apostle Paul with which this sect was filled, no other conclusion is possible except that the teaching of the Clementines is especially meant to oppose the principles that Paul had put forth about the relationship of the Mosaic law to Christianity.

Bei dem genauen Zusammenhange, in welchem die Clementinen mit der Lehre der Ebioniten stehen, und bei dem bekannten Hasse, mit welchem diese Secte gegen den Apostel Paulus erfüllt war, läßt sich nichts anders annehmen, als daß die Lehre der Clementinen insbesondere auch den Grundsätze entgegengesetzt werden sollte, welche Paulus über das Verhältnis des Mosaischen Gesetzes zum Christentum aufgestellt hatte.

Just as in the presentation of the Clementines, Marcion collapses with Simon the magician into a single person, so the magician, through the mediation of Marcion, could also be thought together with the apostle Paul. After all, the Gnosis of Marcion did indeed have a Pauline–anti-Jewish foundation, and for Marcion Paul was regarded especially as Ἀπόστολος.

Wie nun Marcion in der Darstellung der Clementinen mit dem Magier Simon in eine Person zusammenfällt, so konnte durch Marcions Vermittlung der Magier auch mit dem Apostel Paulus zusammengedacht werden, da ja die Gnosis Marcions durchaus eine paulinische-antijudaische Grundlage hatte und Paulus dem Marcion vorzugsweise als Ἀπόστολος galt.

Therefore, I do not shy away at all from claiming that the ἄνθρωπος ἐχθρός who appears with the διδαχη ἄνομος και φλυαρώδης διδασκαλία is nominally the magician Simon in the first instance, but is really Paul as well as Marcion who follows the Pauline direction to the [128] extreme.

Deßwegen nehme ich nun keinen Anstand zu behaupten, jener ἄνθρωπος ἐχθρός, der mit der κδιδαχη ἄνομος και φλυαρώδης διδασκαλία auftritt, ist zwar nominell zunächst der Magier Simon, reel aber ebenso gut Paulus als der die paulinische Richtung bis zum Extrem verfolgende Marcion.

It is the same with the πλάνος in Hom. 2:17. While this false teacher is the magician for the author of the Clementines according to the most natural sense of his words, here the magician nevertheless also represents especially the apostle Paul, whose destructive principles concerning the defunct validity of the Mosaic law or whose false gospel is to be counteracted by the true gospel proclaimed by Peter.

Ebenso verhält es sich mit dem πλάνος Hom II.17. Dieser Irrlehrer ist dem Verfasser der Clementinen allerdings nach dem nächsten Sinn seiner Worte der Magier, aber der Magier repräsentiert hier zugleich ganz besonders der Apostel Paulus, dessen verderblichen Grundsätzen über die erloschene Gültigkeit des mosaischen Gesetzes oder dessen falschem Evangelium durch das von Petrus verkündigte wahre Evangelium entgegengewirkt werden sollte.

Baur (129-130): An objection against accepting a polemical tendency in the Clementines against the apostle Paul cannot be derived from Hom. 3:59, the passage cited on p. 123. In this passage (which can be compared with 3:3) the teaching of the magician is referred to as paganism that has been revived in Gnosticism and also further refined. How, one could say, can the magician Simon, as an apostle of paganism, simultaneously represent the apostle to the pagans/Gentiles, Paul? However, as soon as we see the magician as the bearer of a whole series of phenomena, then the one antithesis does not exclude the other one.

Baur (129-130): Gegen die Annahme einer polemischen Tendenz der Clementinen gegen den Apostel Paulus kann man nicht wohl eine Einwendung aus der S. 123 angeführten Stelle Hom. III. 59. entnehmen, sofern nämlich in dieser Stelle (mit welcher III. 3. zu vergleichen ist) die Lehre des Magiers als das im Gnosticismus wieder auflebende und zugleich verfeinerte Heidentum bezeichnet wird. Wie sollte, könnte man sagen, der Magier Simon als ein Apostel des Heidentums zugleich den Heidenapostel Paulus in sich repräsentieren können? Allein sobald wir in dem Magier den Träger einen ganzen Reihe von Erscheinungen sehen, schließt die eine Antithese die andere nicht aus.

For other posts on F.C. Baur, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

Marilynne Robinson, Jörg Frey, and the resurrection of the troubled one

Not long ago I was struck by an unexpected intersection between my current translation of Jörg Frey’s essays on John and my nightly reading of Marilynne Robinson’s novel Lila. Indeed, I think it is quite possible that Robinson is consciously alluding to the Johannine passage that Frey discusses. Whether or not this is the case, however, I at least found the juxtaposition meaningful and am thus passing it along as something of an Easter meditation. I’ll start with the Robinson quotation so that I can include the German of the Frey quotation after the English translation. Finally, I’ve added a bonus resurrection allusion at the end of the post for all lovers of Sherlock Holmes.

Marilynne Robinson (Lila, p. 92): She meant to ask the old man sometime what would happen when they were all resurrected and he had two wives. He had preached about that, which probably meant he had been wondering, too—they won’t be male or female, they won’t marry or be given in marriage. Jesus said that. So the old man wouldn’t have a wife at all, not even one. This girl and her child, after so many years, would be like anyone else to him. He might be as young as he was when she left him. Lila could see sometimes what he’d been like when he was young. The girl would still be holding that baby he had hardly even had a chance to hold. And there would be no change in her, and no change in him, as if dying had never happened. It would be a strange kind of heaven, after all they’d been through, and all the waiting, if he did not feel a different peace when he stood beside them. Lily could watch them, and love them, because old Doll would be there to say, “It don’t matter.” Don’t want what you don’t need and you’ll be fine. Don’t want what you can’t have. Doll would be there, ugly with all the trouble of her life. Lila might not know her otherwise.

* For a recent discussion of Robinson on theology, see see Kathryn Heidelberger’s post at DET.

Jörg Frey (“Bodiliness and Resurrection in the Gospel of John”; trans. W. Coppins and C. Heilig): As in the preceding scene with Mary it is recorded that the disciples saw “the Lord,” i.e. that they recognized the one who appeared to them as their familiar Lord. This is effected not through a demonstrative eating but through a personal experience of encounter that mediates the new assurance and Easter joy. This experience is also ignited here through the address by Jesus (in this case with the greeting of peace) and through the bodily form of the crucified one, which is characterized as unmistakable not through a reference to his hands and feet but—in correspondence with John 19.34—through the reference to the hands and the ‘side.’ The risen one is thus the one who is familiar to the disciples from the time of his activity and—decidedly—the crucified one, with his identity after Easter also being enduringly characterized by the signa crucifixi. The stigmata of the crucified one, the marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side, confirm the identity of the appearing one with the crucified one. In them it becomes clear whom the disciples see—namely, the previously crucified “Lord.” His appearance drives away fear, mediates Easter joy, and enables the disciples, in the power of the Spirit, to continue the work of this Lord in the post-Easter period (cf. 14.12).

* N.B. The ET contains a few additions/modifications in relation to the German version

“Leiblichkeit und Auferstehung im Johannesevangelium” (pp. 732-733 in Die Herrlichkeit des Gekreuzigten): Wie in der vorausgehenden Szene mit Maria wird festgestellt, daß die Jünger ‘den Herrn’ sahen, d.h. daß sie den ihnen Erscheinenden als den ihnen vertrauten Herrn wiedererkannten. Bewirkt wird dies nicht durch demonstratives Essen, sondern durch eine persönliche Erfahrung der Begegnung, die neue Gewißheit und österliche Freude vermittelt. Diese Erfahrung entzündet sich auch hier an der Anrede durch Jesus (hier mit dem Friedensgruß) und an der leiblichen Gestalt des Gekreuzigten, die nun nicht durch Hände und Füße, sondern in Entsprechung zu Joh 19,34 durch der Hinweis auf die ‘Seite’ als unverwechselbar gekennzeichnet ist. Der Auferstandene ist somit der den Jüngern aus der Zeit seines Wirkens Vertraute und – dezidiert – der Gekreuzigte, und auch seine Identität nach Ostern ist bleibend durch die signa crucifixi gekennzeichnet. Die stigmata des Gekreuzigten, die Hände und die Seitenwunde, lassen die Identität des Erscheinenden mit dem Gekreuzigten zur Gewißheit werden. An ihnen wird deutlich, wen die Jünger sehen, nämlich den zuvor gekreuzigten “Herrn”. Seine Erscheinung vertreibt die Furcht, vermittelt die österliche Freude und befähigt die Jünger, also Zeugen in der Kraft des Geistes das Werk dieses Herrn in der nachösterlichen Zeit fortzusetzen (cf. Joh 14,12).

Rather than concluding this email with an analysis, let me end it with another apparent allusion to the resurrection that I stumbled upon this year, which I found to be less profound but perhaps even more delightful. This time the connections to Luke 24:36-42 are especially evident, at least to my eye:

Sherlock Holmes (The Adventure of the Empty House, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, p. 485-486):

I moved my head to look at the cabinet behind me. When I turned again, Sherlock Holmes was standing smiling at me across my study table. I rose to my feet, stared at him for some seconds in utter amazement, and then it appears that I must have fainted for the first and the last time in my life. Certainly a gray mist swirled before my eyes, and when it cleared I found my collar-ends undone and the tingling after-taste of brandy upon my lips. Holmes was bending over my chair, his flask in his hand.

“My dear Watson,” said the well-remembered voice, “I owe you a thousand apologies. I had no idea that you would be so affected.”

I gripped him by the arms. “Holmes!” I cried. “Is it really you? Can it indeed be that you are alive? Is it possible that you succeeded in climbing out of that awful abyss?”

“Wait a moment,” said he. “Are you sure that you are really fit to discuss things? I have given you a serious shock by my unnecessarily dramatic reappearance.”

“I am all right, but indeed, Holmes, I can hardly believe my eyes. Good heavens! to think that you – you of all men – should be standing in my study.” Again I gripped him by the sleeve, and felt the thin, sinewy arm beneath it. “Well, you’re not a spirit, anyhow,” said I. “My dear chap, I’m overjoyed to see you. Sit down, and tell me how you came alive out of that dreadful chasm.”

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne


This is the Dream, This is my Body: Theodotion-Daniel 2.36 and the interpretation of Luke 22.19

In celebration of International Septuagint Day, today’s post will look at the way in which Michael Wolter (Eng) appeals to Theodotion-Daniel 2.36 in his interpretation of Luke 22.19.

Before turning to Wolter, however, let me first take a moment to congratulate my co-translator Christoph Heilig on the publication of his new book Paul’s Triumph, which he has recently discussed on the Zürich New Testament Blog (here and here)!

English Translation and German Text

English (2017, ad loc.): Daniel 2.36Theodotion may help us to understand how τοῦτό ἐστιν could be meant. Daniel recounts Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (vv. 31-35) and concludes with the words τοῦτό ἐστιν το ἐνύπνιον (“this is the dream”; LXX: τοῦτο το ὅραμα).

German (p. 706): Damit man sich vorstellen kann, wie τοῦτό ἐστιν gemeint sein kann, hilft vielleicht Dan 2,36Theod. weiter: Daniel erzählt Nebukadnezars Traum (V. 31-35) und schließt mit den Worten: τοῦτό ἐστιν το ἐνύπνιον “das ist der Traum” (LXX: τοῦτο το ὅραμα).

English: Daniel’s narrative is not, of course, the dream itself, but it is, in fact, the authentic making present of its content.Entirely analogously, the bread is not the body of Jesus given for the disciples itself; it is, however, the authentic making present of its salvific effect.

German: Natürlich ist Daniels Erzählung nicht der Traum selbst, aber sie ist doch die authentische Vergegenwärtigung von dessen Inhalt. Ganz analog ist auch das Brot nicht der für die Jünger gegebene Leib Jesu selbst; es ist aber die authentische Vergegenwärtigung von dessen Heilswirkung.

English: In other words, as the narrative is a possibility to actualize the content of the dream ever anew, so the “breaking of bread” that takes place with reference to Jesus (according to 19c εἰς την ἐμην ἀνάμνησιν) is also a possibility to stage ever anew the remembrance of Jesus for the participants in the meal.

German: Anders gesagt: wie die Erzählung eine Möglichkeit ist, den Inhalt des Traumes immer wieder neu zu aktualisieren, so ist auch das mit Bezug auf Jesus (nach 19c εἰς την ἐμην ἀνάμνησιν) erfolgende “Brotbrechen” eine Möglichkeit, die Erinnerung an Jesus für die Mahlteilnehmer immer wieder neu zu inszenieren.

English: As the dream is present in Daniel’s narrative, without being identical with it, so too the body of Jesus that is “given for you” is present in the bread which is also “given for you” (and only as such!), without being identical with it.

German: Wie der Traum in Daniels Erzählung präsent ist, ohne mit ihr identisch zu sein, so ist auch der Leib Jesu als “für euch gegebener” (und nur als solcher!) in dem Brot präsent, ohne mit ihm identisch zu sein.

English: The explanation of σῶμα as a designation for the person (see above) must not level out the semantic tension that the τοῦτό ἐστιν establishes. Something analogous also applies to the interpretation of the cup in v. 20b.

German: Die Erklärung von σῶμα als Bezeichnung  für die Person (s.o.) darf die semantische Spannung, die das herstellt, nicht einebnen. Analoges gilt dann auch für die Deutung des Bechers in V. 20b.

Linguistic and substantive analysis: In terms of translation, the term Vergegenwärtigung, which I have rendered with “making present” is difficult. In terms of substance, I find it significant that Wolter has developed an interpretation that differentiates between Jesus’s body and the bread and yet has the body of Jesus be present in the bread which is “given for you.”

For my other Septuagint posts, see here.

For my other Wolterposts, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

Wolfgang Grünstäudl, David C. Parker, and the Unity of Acts and the Catholic Epistles

One of the interesting aspects of spending much of one’s time in the work of translation is that one can unexpectedly become somewhat knowledgeable about areas of research about which one had previously been rather poorly informed. For me this has been the case with regard to the topic of “canon,” which I dealt with in great detail when translating the BMSEC volumes of Jens Schröter and Christoph Markschies.

Against this background, I very much enjoyed reading Wolfgang Grünstäudl’s recent article Was Lange währt…: Die Katholischen Briefe und die Formung des neutestamentlichen Kanons, which was published in Early Christianity 7 (2016): 71-94In addition to giving me a much better understanding of the larger topic of the Catholic Epistles and the Formation of the New Testament canon (see esp. the helpful summary on pages 93-94), I found his critical interaction with David C. Parker regarding the grouping of Acts and the Catholic Epistles to be of particular interest, not least because Schröter had discussed this topic at some length in chapter 13 of From Jesus to the New Testament. Accordingly, this post will consist of a series of excerpts from this section of Grünsträudl’s article, beginning with a quotation from David C. Parker’s book An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts, which Grünstäudl quotes on page 87 of his study. Reversing my usual order, I will alternate between the German original and the English translation of Grünstäudl’s article.

* For more information about Wolfgang Grünstäudl, see his webpage, academia page, and English publications.

Parker 2008, 285-286 (Quoted by Grünstäudl on p. 87): The evidence overall suggests a lack of a fixed practice before the seventh century at the earliest. On the other hand, the order of the seven Catholic letters is very uniform, especially among Greek manuscripts. The stage at which the eight writings were first counted together is, so far as the manuscripts attest, the fourth century. The fact that both 01 and 03, the two great Bible codices, treat them as a unity (manifest by the fact that they they disagree as to the order of the larger blocks) is our earliest example.

Grünstäudl 2016,  88: Während die ersten beiden Punkte gerade aufgrund der von Parker präsentierten Daten evident sind, bedarf der dritte eine Präzisierung. Zuerst ist zu beachten, dass rein rechnerisch sechs Möglichkeiten bestehen, Apostelgeschichte, Corpus Paulinum und Katholische Briefe zwischen dem Tetraevangelium und der Johannesevangelium anzuordnen, wovon nicht weniger als vier Apostelgesichte und Katholische Briefe in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft sehen. Zwei dieser vier Varianten finden sich in den zwei erhaltenen Unzialhandschriften des 4. Jahrhunderts wieder, was abgesehen vom geringen Umfang des Befundes noch nicht als eine signifikant auffällige Verteilung anzusprechen ist.

Translation (wmc): While the first two points are evident precisely on the basis of the data presented by Parker, the third is in need of clarification. First, one must pay attention to the fact that from a purely statistical perspective there are six possibilities of arranging Acts, Corpus Paulinum, and Catholic Epistles between the tetra-gospel and Revelation, of which not less than four place Acts and Catholic Epistles directly next to each other. Two of these four variants are found in the two uncial manuscripts of the fourth century, which, apart from the small extent of the findings, cannot yet be spoken of as a significantly conspicuous distribution.

Grünstäudl 2016,  87: Im Zusammenhang damit wird man sich auch nicht der Agumentation Parkers anschließen können, die bei unterschiedlicher Anordnung der neutestamentlichen Corpora unterschiedlicher Anordnung der neutestamentlichen Corpora übereinstimmende Abfolge Apostelgeschichte – Katholische Briefe in Sinaiticus und Vaticanus belege “that both 01 and 03 […] treat them as a unity”, da hier zwei methologisch zu trennende Ebenen, die Rekonstruktion redaktioneller Strategien hinter jeweils einem Manuskript und der Vergleich der Manuskripte miteinander, vermengt sind.

Translation (wmc): In connection with this one probably also cannot adopt Parker’s argumentation that the coinciding sequence Acts – Catholic Epistles in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus alongside a different arrangement of the New Testament corpora shows/attests “that both 01 and 03 […] treat them as a unity,” since two levels that must be separated, the reconstruction of redactional strategies behind a manuscript in each case and the comparison of the manuscripts with each other, are mixed together here. [* it is very difficult to translate “bei” in this sentence (as is often the case): “alongside” is not good but it is the best solution I could come up with.]

Grünstäudl 2016, 89: Fragt man auf der ersten dieser beiden Ebenen weiter, so sticht vor allem im Sinaiticus ein interesantes Detail des Layouts ins Auge. Setzen gründsätzlich alle in diesem Codex enthaltenen Texte dergestalt mit einer neuen Spalte ein, dass am Ende des vorangehenden Textes auch nach der zum Teil großzügig gesetzten subscriptio ein mehr oder weniger großer Spaltenabschnitt freibleibt, so fällt an vier Stellen der neutestamentlichen Schriften der nicht beschriebene Raum zwischen dem abgeschlossenen und dem nachfolgenden Text größer als nur der Teil einer Spalte aus. …

Translation (wmc): If one inquires further on the first of these two levels, espeically in Sinaiticus an interesting detail of the layout catches one’s eye. While basically all the texts in this codex begin with a new column in such a way that at the end of the preceding text, also after the sometimes generously placed subscriptio, a more or less large column section remains empty, in four places of the New Testament it is conspicuous that the space that is not written on between the text that is concluded and the following text is larger than only a portion of a column. …

Grünstäudl 2016, 90: … In neutestamentlichen Bereich heben sie das Johannesevangelium besonders hervor, während der Block von Römer- bis Barnabasbrief (Corpus Paulinum, Apg, Katholische Briefe, Offb, Barn) auf den ersten Blick als “ein weitgehend amorphes Gemenge” erscheint.

Translation (wmc): … In the New Testament sphere they especially set off the Gospel of John, while the block from Romans to the Barnabas (Corpus Paulinum, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Revelation, Barnabas), at first glance appears to be “a largely amorphous mixture.”

Grünstäudl 2016, 90: Nichtdestotrotz ist eine Schrift innerhalb dieses Blockes noch einmal durch freigelassenen Raum agbehoben: die Apostelgeschichte. Nach vorne ist dies dadurch realisiert, dass nach dem Ende des Philipperbriefes auf L 85/B 6r (zweite Spalte) sowohl der Reste der Seite als auch L 85/B 6v freigelassen wurde, die Apostelgeschichte somit erst nach zwei freien Spalten und einer freien Seite auf L 85/B 7r (erste Spalte) einsetzt. … Am Ende der Apostelgeschichte (L 88/B 1r [dritte Spalte]) wiederum ist eine ganze Spalte freigelassen, sodass der Jakobusbrief auf L 88/B 1v (erste Spalte) beginnt und die Lücke zwischen Apostelgeschichte und Jakobusbrief somit den Umfang einer ganzen Spalte – wie zwischen Barnabasbrief und Hirt des Hermas – umfasst.

Translation (wmc): Nevertheless, one writing within this block is set off again by space that is left empty: Acts. In the front this is realized by the fact that after the end of Philippians on L 85/b 6r (second column) both the rest of the page and L 85/B 6v was left empty; thus, Acts only begins after two empty columns and an empty page on L 85/B 7r. … At the end of Acts (L 88/B 1r [third column]) a whole column is again left empty, so that James begins on L 88/B 1v (first column) and the gap between Acts and James thus encompasses the scope of a whole column – as between Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

Grünstäudl 2016, 90-91: Ist diese durch Leerräume markierte Stellung der Apostelgeschichte im Sinaiticus als solche bereits bemerkenswert, so sind dadurch überdies die Katholische Briefe von ihr optisch in einer Art und Weise abgehoben, die dem Eindruck einer festgefügten Einheit doch entgegensteht.

Translation (wmc): If this position of Acts in Sinaiticus marked by empty spaces is already noteworthy as such, then, beyond this, the Catholic Epistles are thereby set off from it optically in a way that militates against the impression of a firmly entrenched unity.

Grünstäudl 2016, 91: Kann der Blick auf die Textverteilung im Sinaiticus die These, beide großen Unzialhandschriften des 4. Jahrhunderts behandelten Apostelgeschichte und Katholische Briefe als eine Einheit, gerade nicht stützen, so enthält der wahrscheinlich bereits dem 5. Jahrhundert zuzurechnenden Codex Alexandrinus ein sehr klares Indiz für eine solche Zusammenordnung. Nach dem Judas brief (f. 84v) findet sich als Kolophon nicht nur das zu erwartende ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ, sondern überdies die Ergänzung ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΑΙ, was nun tatsächlich ein deutlicher Hinweis darauf ist, dass die Redaktion dieses Codex Apostelgeschichte und Katholische Briefe als eine Einheit verstanden wissen wollte.

Translation (wmc): If the examination of the text-division in Sinaiticus precisely does not support the thesis that the two great uncial manuscripts of the fourth century treated Acts and Catholic Epistles as a unity, then Codex Alexandrinus, which should probably be assigned already to the fifth century, contains a very clear indication of such a grouping together. After the Letter of Jude (f. 84v) there appears as colophon not only the expected ΙΟΥΔΑ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ but, beyond this, the addition ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΑΙ, which is indeed a clear indication that the redaction of this codex wanted Acts and Catholic Epistles to be understood as a unity.

In view of the subject matter of this post, let me conclude by congratulating Darian Locket on the recent publication of his new book Letters from the Pillar Apostles: The Formation of the Catholic Epistles as a Canonical Collection!

For my other Luke-Acts posts, see here.

For my other “canon” posts, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne

Michael Wolter on the Meaning of κατάλυμα in Luke 2:7

Yesterday my facebook feed was abuzz with posts about where Jesus was born. In particular, Margaret Mowczko asked if Jesus was born in a barn, and Brice C. Jones (for me via Anthony Le Donne) summarized Stephen Carlson’s article on this topic. And these posts, of course, stand alongside older discussions on this topic by scholars such as John Byron, Ian Paul, and Mark Goodacre (NT Pod). And so, having followed all things semi-carefully from the beginning, this week’s post will look at what Michael Wolter has to say about this longstanding question.

As usual I will alternate between the English translation and the German text.

The Gospel According to Luke (p. 123): The meaning of κατάλυμα is unclear only if one merely asks about the reference (cf. the overview in R. E. Brown 1993, 400). If, by contrast, one asks about the functional meaning of this term in the present context in light of its usual contextual usage, then a clear answer emerges.

Das Lukasevangelium (p. 126): Die Bedeutung von κατάλυμα ist nur dann unklar, wenn mann lediglich nach der Referenz fragt (vgl. den Überblick bei Brown* 400). Fragt man hingegen von den literarischen Verwendungszusammenhängen her nach der funktionalen Bedeutung dieses Begriffs im vorliegenden Kontext, gibt es eine eindeutige Antwort:

The Gospel According to Luke (p. 123): Time and again κατάλυμα designates a place where one stays temporarily, i.e., when one is on a journey and not at home (cf. e.g., Exodus 4.24; 1 Samuel 1.18LXX; 2 Samuel 7.6 = 1 Chronicles 17.5; 1 Chronicles 28.18LXX; Jeremiah 14.8; 40.12LXX; Letter of Aristeas 181; Diodorus Siculus 36.13.2; Polybius 2.36.1; the denotation is different in every case, but the function is identical; see also LaVerdiere 1985, 552ff).

Das Lukasevangelium (p. 126): Mit κατάλυμα wird immer wieder ein Ort bezeichnet, an dem man sich vorübergehend aufhält, d.h. wenn man unterwegs und nicht zuhause ist (vgl. Ex 4,24; 1 Sam 1,18LXX; 2. Sam 7,6 = 1.Chr 17,5; 1Chr 28,13LXX; Jer 14,8; 40,12LXX; EpArist 181; Diodorus Siculus 36,13,2; Polybius 2,36,1; das Denotat ist in allen Fällen unterschiedlich, die Funktion jedoch identisch; s. auch LaVerdiere* 552ff).

For Wolter’s discussion of Luke’s placement of the Quirinius Census, see here.

For my other Luke-Acts posts, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne


Differing Doubts About the Authorship of Luke-Acts: Schröter and Wolter

Building on my post from two weeks ago, today’s post will begin a short series of posts on Luke-Acts, most of which will juxtapose the positions of Jens Schröter (Eng) in From Jesus to the New Testament and Michael Wolter (Eng) in The Gospel According to Luke. Today we look at the question of authorship.

While Schröter and Wolter both express themselves with caution regarding the question of the authorship of Luke-Acts, it is notable that their respective uncertainties are located at quite different points. Let me illustrate this with a quotation from each scholar, alternating between the English and the German text.

1. Jens Schröter (FJNT 287-288; VJNT 312-313)

Thus, the Muratorianum is of interest for our line of questioning first because it confirms the association of Luke/Paul, which is also found in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. This, however, is … not derived from Acts. Rather, it is clear that the name Luke was already attached to the Gospel and was transferred from there to Acts.

Das Muratorianum ist somit für unsere Fragestellung zum einen deshalb von Interesse, weil es die auch bei Irenäus, Tertullian und Origines begegnende Verbindung Lukas/Paulus bestätigt. Diese wird … jedoch nicht aus der Apg abgeleitet. Deutlich ist vielmehr, dass der Name Lukas bereits am Evangelium haftete und von dort auch auf die Apg übertragen wurde.

This finding is supported by the fact that in light of the observations on the four-gospel collection (cf. § 3 below) it can be regarded as completely improbable that the Gospel of Luke circulated anonymously for quite a long time and was first ascribed to the Paul-companion Luke in the course of the acceptance of Acts. Rather, the ascription of the third Gospel to Luke is an old tradition that arose at the latest in connection with the superscriptions of the Gospels.

Dieser Befund wird dadurch unterstützt, dass es angesichts der Beobachtungen zur Vier-Evangelien-Sammlung (vgl. unten unter 3.) als gänzlich unwahrscheinlich gelten kann, dass das LkEv längere Zeit anonym umlief und erst im Zuge der Aufnahme der Apg dem Paulusbegleiter Lukas zugeschrieben wurde. Die Zuschreibung des dritten Evangeliums an Lukas ist vielmehr eine alte, spätestens im Zusammenhang der Evangelienüberschriften entstandene Tradition.

To what this is to be traced remains mysterious to a certain extent. It is conspicuous at any rate that the subsequent invention of a tradition about the Gospel-writer Luke first produced the problem of legitimating this gospel, since one could not appeal for this to an eyewitness—unlike with Matthew and John and also unlike with Mark, which was at least supported by the authority of Peter.

Worauf diese zurückzuführen ist, bleibt einigermaßen rätselfhaft. Auffällig ist jedenfalls, dass die nachträgliche Erfindung einer Tradition über den Evangelienschreiber Lukas erst das Problem produziert hätte, dieses Evangelium zu legitimieren, da man sich hierfür – anders als bei Mt und Joh, anders auch als bei Mk, das wenigstens durch die Autorität des Petrus gestützt wurde – nicht auf einen Augenzeugen berufen konnte.

For my other Schröter posts, see here.

2. Michael Wolter (GAL 7-8; DLE 6-7).

Above all 2 Timothy 4.11 could have played an important role in this connection. When it states there that “only Luke is with me” and this letter also acts as if it were written by Paul when he was imprisoned in Rome with death before his eyes (1.17; 4.16ff), then it could only—so the conclusion had to run 2 Timothy was still regarded as authentic—have been this Luke from whom the report of the Pauline imprisonment in Rome comes, which one can read in Acts 27.17-31. …

Vor allem 2.Tim 4,11 könnte in diesem Zusammenhang eine wichtige Rolle gespielt haben: Wenn es hier heißt “nur Lukas ist bei mir”, und dieser Brief außerdem so tut als wäre er von dem in Rom gefangenen Paulus geschrieben worden, der den Tod vor Augen hat (1,17; 4,16ff), konnte es – so musste die Schlussfolgerung lauten, als man den 2. Timotheusbrief noch für authentisch hielt – eben nur dieser Lukas gewesen sein, von dem der Bericht von der paulinischen Gefangenschaft in Rom stammt, der in Apg 28,17–31 zu lesen ist. …

And because one had recognized already in the second century that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author, it is not to be ruled out that the name Luke was first inferred for the author of Acts from 2 Timothy 4.11 and then transferred to the Gospel. …

Und weil man auch schon im 2. Jahrhundert erkannt hatte, das LkEv und Apg von ein und demselben Autor geschrieben worden waren, ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, dass der Name Lukas von 2. Tim 4,11 aus erst für den Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte erschlossen und dann auf das Evangelium übertragen wurde. …

Thus, it would have been only the above-cited information from 2 Timothy 4.11 with whose help one was able to give a name to the anonymous author of Luke–Acts. It is, however, also conceivable that the name Luke adhered to the Gospel already independently of Acts (in this vein, cf. now especially again Thornton 1991, 78; Jervell 1988, 80f; Schröter 2007, 312–13; 2013, 287–88).

Denkbar ist aber auch, dass der Name Lukas auch schon unabhängig von der Apostelgeschichte am Evangelium haftete (in diesem Sinne vg. jetzt vor allem wieder Thornton* 78; Jervell, Apg, 80f.; Schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, 312f).

The consequences would be very far-reaching in this case, for this connection between the name Luke and the Gospel could only be traced back to historical recollection. How could one otherwise and without the detour via Acts explain that the composition of the Gospel of Luke was ascribed to Luke, of all people?

Die Konsequenzen wären in diesem Fall sehr weitgehend, denn auf anderes als auf historische Erinnerung ließe sich diese Verknüpfung nicht zurückführen. Wie wollte man sonst und ohne den Umweg über die Apostelgeschichte erklären, dass die Abfassung des LkEv ausgerechnet dem Paulusbegleiter Lukas zugeschrieben wurde?

Taking all things into consideration, however, we cannot get around the diagnosis that, with respect to the person of the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, there are more questions than answers and earlier certainties have gone lost in the meantime, namely on both sides of the argument.

Aufs Ganze gesehen kommen wir aber nicht um die Feststellung herum, dass es in Bezug auf die Person des Verfassers von LkEv und Apg mehr Fragen als Antworten gibt und dass frühere Gewissheiten inzwischen verloren gegangen sind, und zwar auf beiden Seiten.

For my other Wolter posts, see here.


To me what is noteworthy about these two quotations is the very different location of the uncertainty. Schröter is quite certain that the name Luke was first attached to the Gospel and then to Acts, but apparently uncertain about how the name Luke became attached to the Gospel. By contrast, it seems that Wolter is uncertain about whether the name Luke was attached to the Gospel by way of Acts but quite certain that if it was not attached to the Gospel via Acts, then the only explanation for it being attached to the Gospel must be historical recollection.

For my other Luke-Acts posts, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For interviews with me on my work, see here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! I hope to be able to write at least one Monday blog post each month. Best, Wayne