Table of Contents
List of Figures
Dr Richard K. Moore is a scholar and Christian of rare quality. Jesus Christ said, "You will know a tree by its fruit." Richard's tree has produced much good fruit, and it continues to flourish. He has served and taught hundreds of students at the Baptist Theological College of Western Australia. Some have gone on to write theses, dissertations and books. This is no coincidence. Dr Moore takes ignorant people and produces scholars. Not only that, but he has an uncanny ability to instill a love of the subject in his students. A few of them have taken the time to write for this volume in his honour.
While working under a heavy load as lecturer and supervisor, Dr Moore somehow found time to work on his own academic pursuits. Some of these are mentioned in the following articles: a colour-coding scheme that facilitates study of the Synoptics, an interest in Baptist Church History, and an ongoing study of the meaning of Paul's phrase, δικαιοσύνη θεου̂. It is good to see that his three volume work on the subject is now being published.
Another of Richard's interests is textual criticism of the New Testament. At one point, he took his family to Münster, Germany, to do independent study at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) founded by Prof. Kurt Aland. This gave the members of his family a chance to polish their German. His children liked to go into a shop and talk to the locals, seeing how long they could get by before they were discovered as foreigners.
Dr Moore is also proficient in the use of computers. A number of the theses and dissertations he has supervised focus on computer-assisted study of the biblical text. He has a particular desire to make manuscripts of the New Testament more widely available. Dr Moore's spiral-bound folder containing images and transcriptions of New Testament papyri was an inspiration. It is wonderful to see his hope for wider accessibility being realised through efforts such as the INTF's Virtual Manuscript Room and the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscript's catalogue of manuscript images.
Dr Moore is not only a hearer of the New Testament text, but a doer as well. While he would never accept a comparison with his Master, Jesus Christ, those who know him well would agree that he is a man in whom grace and truth abound. His gracious attitude is evident in the sacrifices he endured to produce scholars from some very rough characters indeed. He has suffered for his love of the truth, being the subject of many barbs in an episode concerning inerrancy. While not able to accept that the texts are inerrant — something that is plain to anyone who has studied the manuscripts — he is fully convinced of the authority of the message they preserve. This is clear because he lives by that message.
I am very pleased to present this work of love. I have long had it in mind to produce a Festschrift for Dr Moore, mainly because he is a self-effacing man and has received far too little recognition for his contributions to the study of the New Testament. The idea took a step towards realisation when I met Dr John Olley at a conference in Berlin. We conspired together to produce this work, with John supplying the list of former students from whom the articles derive. John also compiled the appended curriculum vitae. The title is due to Evelyn Ashley, who suggested that we use this characteristic comment of Dr Moore. The contributors themselves are the principal cause of the idea becoming reality. The scope and quality of the articles attest to Dr Moore's wide-ranging knowledge and ability. The fact that they have been written at all prove that Dr Moore is held in very high regard by his former students and his colleagues.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted three times in the New Testament (Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:38). In Galatians and Romans the quotations appear to be used in similar ways, although there is a slight change in the wording. In both passages the NRSV translates the quotation as "The one who is righteous will live by faith." However, the older RSV translates it "He who through faith is righteous shall live." The difference in translation highlights the difficulty in determining what Paul's intention was in using this quotation. Did he mean that those who are right with God should live a life characterised by faith? Or did he mean that those who are right as a result of faith have life? Or was he being deliberately vague so as to include both possibilities? After all, both concepts are found not only elsewhere in the New Testament, but also elsewhere in Paul's writings.
The usage in Hebrews appears to be quite different. Firstly, not only is the last part of the verse quoted, but also the first part of the verse, although the order of the two phrases is reversed. Additionally, part of Habakkuk 2:3 is also quoted. Faith is placed alongside endurance, and the one who has faith and gains life is contrasted with the one who draws back and is destroyed.
In Galatians and Romans the emphasis appears to be on faith, but in Hebrews it is not so clear whether the emphasis is on faith or faithfulness. Galatians and Romans appear to be talking about how a person comes to be in a right relationship with God, while Hebrews appears to be talking more about how a person lives in a right relationship with God.
It is the purpose of this article to briefly consider Paul's use of Habakkuk in Galatians and Romans, to explore in more detail the way the writer of Hebrews uses it, and then to draw some conclusions as to how the Habakkuk quotation should be understood in the NT contexts. This will begin by considering the text of Habakkuk.
Habakkuk is unique in that rather than speaking to the people on behalf of God, the prophet speaks to God about the people. The statement, "The righteous by his faith/faithfulness will live," forms part of God's response to Habakkuk's questioning.
This word can be translated as faith, trust or dependence, but can also be translated as faithfulness, trustworthiness, steadfastness, reliability or fidelity. The answer as to which is intended here is not clear-cut. Commentators tend to be positioned along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are those who argue that the word can only mean faithfulness. For example, Hiebert (1996, 642) maintains that "the concern for fidelity is paramount here." Others, while asserting a basic meaning of "faithfulness" recognise that it includes an element of "faith." Still others, such as Szeles (1987, 32), who states that this word "brings together both the passive and the active aspects of human behaviour towards God," want to hold the concepts of "faith" and "faithfulness" together as two sides of the one coin. It would seem that while the basic meaning of the word is "faithfulness," it does include or at least infers the presence of faith.
Is it the faith or faithfulness of the righteous, of God, or of the vision that is referred to in the previous verse? The traditional interpretation, and the interpretation that has been reinforced by the common understanding of the use of the verse in the New Testament, is that it is the "righteous" who exercise faith or faithfulness.
Some commentators are strong in asserting that the subject must be the "righteous." Armerding (1985, 513) describes it as the "only plausible antecedent of 'his'." Others are a little more cautious and note that the antecedent of "his" could be the righteous, but could also be the vision that is introduced in the previous verse (e.g. Hiebert, 1996, 642). While most commonly it is the righteous who are regarded as the subject, a number of commentators, such as Janzen (1980, 61) and Roberts (1991, 111), argue that the subject is the vision.
If it is the "righteous" who are to exercise faith and display faithfulness, it raises the question of who these "righteous" are and what makes them "righteous." These two issues cannot be separated. Again there is a range of views.
Kelley (1984, 76-77) argues that in the Old Testament context, righteousness had a social orientation. Achtemeier (1986, 46) highlights the related aspect of righteousness being to do with covenant relationship with God. Other commentators opt for a more general interpretation. For example, Bruce (1993, 860) observes that "'the righteous' is generic: no one person in particular is referred to, but those who, like Habakkuk, trust in God are included." In Habakkuk's specific situation it is those in Israel who trust in God, but the way it is applied in the New Testament opens it up for a wider application.
As with the two previous words, this word can have a range of meanings. For those who see righteousness as having a social orientation, truly living is the result of living justly. In Habakkuk's immediate situation, the link with the land is strong, but when used in the New Testament, the "life" referred to is "eternal life" in an eschatological sense.
For Habakkuk, and for later readers of his prophecy, "to live" has an aspect that looks to the future when God's promises will be fulfilled, but also has something to say regarding how to conduct oneself in the meantime. The life of the righteous person will be characterised by trust in God and by justice. Additionally, the person who trusts in God and lives justly will have life in its fullness.
The debate surrounding the exact meaning of the words in Habakkuk 2:4b cannot be easily resolved. With the possible variations in the meaning and nuances of each word in this phrase, any conclusion regarding the overall meaning must be held tentatively. However, from the context of Habakkuk as a whole, two broad statements can be made. Firstly, God is faithful. He will do what he says he will do, and any vision that he gives will prove to be true. Secondly, the appropriate human response is one of faith in God, and faithfulness to God, particularly in the intervening time between the giving of God's promises and the fulfilment of them.
Paul's letter is addressed ται̂ς ἐκκλησίαις τη̂ς Γαλατίας, "to the churches of Galatia," and he wrote with the specific purpose of dealing with issues that had been raised by those who taught something other than the Gospel that the people initially believed in. These teachers insisted that Gentile Christians, in addition to believing in the Gospel, needed to keep the Jewish Law. They appear to have placed an emphasis on being a true child of Abraham (Longenecker 1990, lxxxix-c). It is particularly this aspect that Paul addresses in chapter 3.
In Galatians 3 Paul addresses the following questions: What makes a person a true child of Abraham? On what basis does one participate in the blessing? On what basis does one receive the promise given to Abraham? On what basis is one in right standing with God?
In chapters 1 and 2, Paul argues for right standing before God on the basis of faith not on the basis of law, "for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing" (Gal. 2:21). He uses his own experience as a way of demonstrating the reality of what he is saying.
He begins chapter 3 by appealing to the Galatians' own experience. He asks them if their salvation, their receiving of the Spirit was the result of works or the result of faith. The assumed answer is that it was the result of faith. He then turns to the example of Abraham and proceeds to develop a Scriptural argument to support what the Galatian Christians already knew experientially.
Paul sets up his premise that right standing with God is on the basis of faith by quoting Genesis 15:6 that Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." The experience of the Galatians conforms to the experience of Abraham, making them true descendants of Abraham.
He then goes on to quote Genesis 12:3, with echoes of Genesis 18:18; 22:18; 26:4 and 28:14, "all nations will be blessed through you." This quotation, linked with the previous one, provides the conclusion of verse 9, "those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed."
In verses 10-14, Paul continues his argument by contrasting ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, "from works of law" with ἐκ πίστεως, "from faith." Again he quotes Scripture to support his argument, this time including Habakkuk 2:4. Verse 14 forms another conclusion that ties back to the experience of the Galatian Christians. It is "in Christ" and "through faith" that the blessing of Abraham comes to the Gentiles and that the promise of the Spirit is received.
Paul uses an everyday example in verses 15-18 to illustrate the priority of promise over law, concluding that the blessing of Abraham comes through promise, not through law. Verse 29 sums his argument up this way: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise."
A literal translation of the quotation from Habakkuk 2:4 would be "the righteous by faith will live." The two main ways of understanding this in the context of Galatians 3:11 are:
The person who is righteous, right with God, should live a life characterised by faith.
The person who is put right with God as a result of faith, will have life.
The overall thrust of Galatians 3, and in fact of Galatians as a whole, is that being right with God is based on faith not on works of law. In keeping with the context, the best translation is probably along the lines of "the person who is right with God as a result of faith, will have life."
This does not mean that the concept of living a live characterised by faith is alien to the context. At the beginning of the chapter Paul encourages the Galatians to continue in the way they began, that is by faith. Faith, then is to characterise the lives of those who are right with God. However, in this context, the primary concern is how a person is "counted righteous," what constitutes being right with God and how that comes into effect, not how a righteous person should conduct themselves.
Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans to the believers in Rome, a church Paul had neither founded nor visited. The letter forms an introduction to Paul and his teachings and is the most clear and detailed explanation of Paul's understanding of the gospel. There is an almost universal consensus that Romans 1:16-17 are key verses to understanding the letter, and that they form a summary of its main themes as well as a summary of the gospel.
This gospel, of which Paul is not ashamed and will preach at all costs, is God's power that results in salvation for all who believe. In God's plan it was first made available to the Jews, but is now available to all without regard to nationality. The reason why this gospel is so powerful is that it reveals the way to be right with God, and this way is completely by faith.
Paul follows his summary statement of the gospel with a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4. It would seem to be a logical conclusion that Paul is using this Scripture quotation to in some way confirm the statement he has just made, particularly as the words in the quotation echo words he has already used. The two most common ways to understand this quotation are:
the person who is righteous will live a life characterised by faith
the person who is righteous as through faith, will live.
The word order of the Greek is sufficiently ambiguous as to allow either or both of these two alternatives. Which is more likely has to be decided primarily on context.
The way the quotation has traditionally been translated, and the way a number of modern translations render it, suggest that it is referring to the way a righteous person should conduct their life. Grammatically, this appears to have the stronger support, and in the context of Habakkuk, it is more likely to refer to living faithfully. However, as the context that the quotation is being used to support is about the gospel and the salvation that comes through faith, this understanding does not fit very well with this context. Counter to this is the possibility that ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, "from faith for faith," is to be understood as meaning that both the beginning and the continuation of the Christian life are to be by faith. This dual meaning cannot be ruled out as a possibility of the way Paul intended the quotation to be understood, but it seems unlikely that he was simply referring to the way life should be lived.
It is the second possibility, that "the person who is righteous through faith will live," which fits best with the context of Romans 1:16-17, and thus would seem to be the most likely meaning that Paul intended. The gospel is the power of God that leads to salvation. The end result of being put right by faith is having life. "Life" and "salvation" can easily be understood as synonymous.
Although the issue is hotly debated, the most plausible explanation for δικαιοσύνη θεου̂, "righteousness of God" seems to be that it refers to a righteousness, a right standing, that comes from God through faith. This fits very well with the concept of ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως, "the righteous from/by/through faith," indicating a person who is righteous or put right as a result of faith. The emphasis in the quotation appears to be on ἐκ πίστεως, "from/by/through faith." This is also the case in the rest of the two verses where words from this same root are used no less than three additional times.
It would seem that the best way to translate this quotation would be something like, "the person who is put right as a result of faith, will live." A secondary meaning, that such a person will continue to live their life through faith, is a possibility, but it would seem unlikely that this was intended to be the primary meaning. The primary meaning seems to be that the way a person is put right with God, the way a person gains life, is through faith in God, in Christ, in the gospel. This understanding is reflected in the way the quotation is translated in a number of modern translations.
The author of Hebrews is unknown and the dating of the letter, if in fact it is a letter, is at best tentative, but it is most likely the latest of the uses of the quotation of Habakkuk in the NT. However, the text of Hebrews shows no indication that the author was familiar with the way Paul had used the quotation. It appears to be an independent usage.
These verses provide the immediate context for the use of the quotation from Habakkuk. The writer has previously warned them of the consequences of turning aside from their faith in God. Now he reminds them of what they have already endured as a way of setting the scene for encouraging them to continue to endure and not to turn back.
These two verses introduce the encouragement that the author wants his readers to take to heart. He urges them not to throw away their confidence for it carries a great reward. Instead, they will need endurance if they are to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.
There are three pairs of key words in these verses: "confidence" or "boldness" (παρρησία) and "endurance" (ὑπομονή); "throw away" (ἀποβάλλω) and "receive" (κομίζω); and "reward" (μισθαποδοσία) and "promise" (ἐπαγγελία).
The word παρρησία (confidence/boldness) has been previously used three times in this letter. Twice it is used with an objective nuance of the confidence Christians have in entering God's presence (4:16; 10:19). In 10:35 it is used in a subjective sense, as it is in 3:6, to refer to the confidence or boldness with which the Christian confession may be held. Lane (1991b, 301) concludes that παρρησία "expresses the confident attitude of the person of faith before God and the world."
Endurance (ὑπομονή) includes perseverance, steadfastness, faithfulness and persistence, particularly in the face of opposition. The cognate verb (ὑπομένω) is used in 10:32 of the endurance that these people have already displayed. In chapter 12, they are encouraged to model the endurance that Jesus displayed in going to the cross.
These two words form a balance between the positive and the negative. The people are urged to not "throw away" their confidence, but as a result of perseverance, to "receive."
The verb ἀποβάλλω is not common. It can have a passive meaning of "don't lose courage." It is more likely, though, to have the stronger meaning of a deliberate casting aside (c.f. Mark 10:50), "do not throw away." The aorist subjunctive with the negative implies that they have not yet done this and that they should not (Attridge 1989, 300; Ellingworth 1993, 550-551; Lane 1991b, 278).
Receiving (κομίζω) is the positive counter-balance to throwing away. It is one of a number of words used in Hebrews of receiving what God has promised: ἀναδέξομαι (11:17; receive, accept, take up), κληρονομέω (6:12; c.f. 6:17; 11:9; inherit, obtain, receive), λαμβάνω (11:13; take hold of, receive, accept) and ἐπιτυγχάνω (6:15; 11:33; obtain, get, experience) (Ellingworth 1993, 553).
Reward (μισθαποδοσία) is another rare word that in the NT occurs only in Hebrews. In 2:2 it is used negatively of a "penalty," while here and in 11:26 it is used positively of a "reward." Additionally, God is described (11:6) as being the "rewarder" of those who seek him (Ellingworth 1993, 551; Lane 1991b, 302; Wilson 1987, 199).
While the words "promise" and "reward" have different meanings, in this case they are referring to the same thing. It is eternal life; it is salvation in its fullest form. Such promise, such reward, comes to those who do not throw away their confidence, but rather show endurance.
The author reinforces the encouragement with a quotation from Scripture. Most of the quotation comes from Habakkuk 2:3b-4. However the introductory words μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον (in a very little while; lit. little, how much, how much), probably come from Isaiah 26:20, with the ἔτι (still) possibly derived from the beginning of Habakkuk 2:3. The Isaiah passage advises concealment and withdrawal, while the Habakkuk passage, at least in the LXX, contrasts withdrawal with faithfulness. The author uses the tension of these two passages as a basis for calling his readers to continued faithfulness (Lane 1991b, 278).
The remainder of the quotation basically follows the LXX of Habakkuk 2:3b-4, but the author makes a number of changes.
The addition of ὁ before ἐρχόμενος strengthens the messianic allusion that is already inherent in the LXX. The Hebrew text means "it (i.e. the vision) will surely come." In the previous phrase the LXX has "if he tarries, wait for him (αὐτόν)." The masculine pronoun cannot refer to the "vision" which is a feminine noun in Greek, thus setting up the subsequent phrase as "coming, he will come." Hebrews goes one step further with "the coming one will come," the "Coming One" being taken as a messianic title.
The μή is omitted from "and not delay" (LXX: καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ) in line with koine usage, making no significant change to meaning.
The change from the aorist subjunctive (χρονίσῃ) to the future indicative (χρονίσει) increases the emphasis on the nearness and the sureness of the coming.
The most extensive change is the inversion of the clauses from Habakkuk 2:4. The phrase ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (but my righteous one by faith will live) is placed before ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκει̂ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῳ̂ (if he draws back, my soul takes no pleasure in him). This change has no support in the manuscript tradition of the LXX, so must be the work of the writer of Hebrews. It has the effect of referring the phrase ἐὰν ὑποστείληται (if he draws back) not to the "coming one," but to the "righteous one." In the LXX, if the coming one drew back, that was indication that he was not the one who was promised. Now it is clearly the "righteous one," that is the Christian, who is urged not to draw back.
A καί is added between the two phrases. This is not part of the quotation, but serves to highlight the two alternative courses of action.
The wording in Hebrews ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (but my righteous one by faith will live) follows the best attested reading of the LXX. However, some manuscripts have μου placed after πίστεως, meaning "the righteous one will live by faith in me" or "the righteous one will live by my faithfulness." This is closer to the MT, but the MT has "his faith/faithfulness." The change from associating the pronoun with "faith" to associating it with the "righteous one," may have been original in Hebrews, but is more likely to have already been present in the manuscript tradition. A few manuscripts omit μου, but this is probably assimilation to Galatians and Romans.
(Attridge, 1989 302-304; Ellingworth 1993, 553-555; Fitzmyer 21998, 242-244; Lane 1991b, 304-306; Morris 1981, 111)
While in Habakkuk there is some ambiguity as to who or what displays faith or faithfulness, there is no such ambiguity in Hebrews. It is clearly the righteous person. However, whether in Hebrews it is "faith" or "faithfulness" is not so clear. Given the emphasis on endurance in the preceding section and the contrast with "drawing back" in this verse, it could be concluded that the statement regarding "faith," follows in the same vein, thus making this a reference to faithfulness. Alternatively, endurance and faith can be understood as two different, but complementary aspects of Christian life. This would give a meaning of "faith" that is closer to what is generally understood by the English term.
The writer now summarises his encouragement by using words that are in, or that allude to, his previous statements in such a way as to affirm that both he and his readers will in fact do what he has encouraged.
The noun "shrinking back" (ὑποστολη̂ς) plays on the verb (ὑποστείληται) in the quotation. It contrasts in meaning both with the πίστεως (faith/faithfulness) of the previous verse and the ὑπομονη̂ς (endurance) of v. 36. The alliteration between ὑποστολη̂ς and ὑπομονη̂ς provides a strong link between those two words, while the repetition of πίστεως in this verse provides a strong link with that word (Attridge 1989, 304; Ellingworth 1993, 557).
There is also a contrast between the outcomes of the two courses of action. The result of drawing back is ἀπώλειαν (destruction). This is the only time the word is used in Hebrews, but it is used elsewhere in the NT (Acts 8:20; 1 Tim. 6:9; Rev. 17:8) to refer to eschatological destruction or judgement. In contrast the result of faith is περιποίησιν ψυχη̂ς. This phrase could be translated "keeping safe the soul," "the preservation of the soul" or "the acquisition of life." It is clearly a parallel to ζήσεται (he will live) in the quotation (Attridge 1989, 304; Ellingworth 1993, 557; Lane 1991b, 307).
This verse provides a summary of and a conclusion to the preceding section, but also provides an introduction to the following chapter via the "hook word," "faith" (Vanhoye 1989, 30, 99-100).
The chapter begins with a definition, although not an exhaustive one, of faith. It follows the form of definitions in Greek philosophical literature, including the use of ἔστιν (it is) at the beginning (Attridge 1989, 307).
The opening statement is, "Faith is the ὑπόστασις of things hoped for." If the word ὑπόστασις has an objective use (cf. 1:3), it has the sense of faith giving reality to things hoped for, and can be translated as "guarantee," "certainty" or "title-deed." But if it has a subjective use (c.f. 3:14), it has the sense of faith consisting of the conviction that what is hoped for will happen, and can be translated as "confidence" or "assurance." The word ἔλεγχος in the following phrase is seen as a parallel and can be translated subjectively as "conviction," or objectively as "proof," "evidence" or "demonstration" (Attridge 1989, 308-310; Bruce 21990, 277; Guthrie 1983, 225; Lane 1991b, 325-326).
However these two difficult words are understood, it is clear that faith relates to those things that are "hoped for" but are "not seen." This is demonstrated by the examples that are given in the rest of the chapter. It was by faith that Noah acted on a warning from God, even though the events were "yet unseen" (11:7). It was by faith that Abraham set out "not knowing where he was going" (11:8). Many descendants of Abraham died "in faith without having received the promise" (11:13). The concluding statement summarises all the examples, "Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised" (11:39). These examples suggest that faith is the confidence to hold on to the promises of God even when the fulfilment of those promises is not evident.
The experience of Enoch as one who "pleased God" (11:5), gives rise to an extension of the definition of what faith is (11:6). A faith that pleases God entails belief in certain facts. Two such facts are noted here, firstly that God exists, and secondly, that he rewards those who seek him.
Particularly during the latter part of chapter 11, the demonstration of faith has been linked with the endurance of persecution. In chapter 12, the writer returns to the topic of endurance already raised in chapter 10. The image of a sporting stadium is used to encourage the readers to follow Jesus' example. Endurance is described in terms of enduring both persecution and discipline.
From the definition of "faith" in 11:1 and the examples that follow, a number of conclusions can be drawn as to the nature of faith. Attridge (1989, 311-314) sees a continuity both with traditional Jewish understanding and with Hellenistic understanding. The Jewish tradition brings an understanding of faith in behavioural terms. Faith is demonstrated by actions and is equivalent to "fidelity," "trust" and "obedience." In Hebrews 11 this aspect is evident in the list of what people did "by faith." Greek understanding gave it a meaning of "dependence" or "trust." In the writings of Philo, as in Hebrews, faith is closely associated with hope. It is a response to God's promise. Through faith the believer is associated with what is not seen; the believer is associated with God. This, along with the belief that God rewards those who seek him highlights the relational aspect of faith. The aspect of belief in certain facts is also evident in Hebrews. In "faith," there is a merging of the cognitive, the behavioural and the relational. It is through such faith that a person is pleasing to God.
This raises the question of whether πίστις is used in the same way in both chapter 10 and chapter 11. Lane (1991b, 313) argues that it is used differently, seeing it as "faith" in chapter 11, but "faithfulness" in chapter 10. His reasoning appears to be that the meaning in the original context of Habakkuk is more determinative of its use in Hebrews 10:38-39, than is the definition that is given in the immediately following verses. However, given the other changes that the author of Hebrews has made in the Habakkuk quotation, it is possible that he also uses πίστις differently. It seems a reasonable assumption that the way he defines it in the following verses is the way he has understood it in the quotation.
The primary function of the quotation from Habakkuk is to encourage the readers to hold firm to their faith in God and to endure whatever hardship comes their way, and not to turn away or lose confidence. The writer significantly rearranges the phrases of the quotation to reinforce the point. The person who faces the possibility of drawing back is not the proud person of the MT, or the coming one of the LXX, but rather the righteous person, the Christian.
With regard to the section of the quotation that is quoted with slightly different wording in Galatians and Romans, there are two ways of understanding it:
My righteous one will live as a result of being faithful.
My righteous one will live as a result of faith.
Interpreting it as referring to faithfulness results in the meaning here being perhaps closer to the original meaning in Habakkuk. It also reinforces, and in fact becomes another way of saying what has already been stated, that a Christian should display endurance. Interpreting it as referring to faith, while not as close to the original meaning in Habakkuk, is still consistent with the spirit of Habakkuk. It also sees faith as parallel and complementary to endurance. Given the previous mention of both faith (4:2-3; 6:1; 6:12; 10:22) and endurance (10:12), and the way these concepts are picked up in the following two chapters respectively, this seems the more likely interpretation.
This whole section is addressed to Christians. Unlike Galatians and Romans, where the primary focus is on how a person becomes right with God, here the primary focus is on the way a Christian should live, that is, by faith and with endurance.
While there is no consensus as to how Habakkuk 2:3-4 should be understood, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn. If one must choose between "faith" and "faithfulness" as a translation of the word אֱמוּנָה, in Habakkuk 2:4 "faithfulness" is probably the better choice, although the word does include the concept of faith. The use of πίστις in the LXX results is a stronger emphasis on faith without losing the concept of faithfulness, and opens the way for the quotation to be used in the NT to refer to faith.
Paul's primary concern in Galatians 3 is with how one becomes a true child of Abraham, how a person becomes right with God. His basic argument is that a person is put right with God through faith, not through works of the law. The concept of living a life characterised by faith is not alien to the context, as Paul encourages the Galatians to continue as they began, that is, by faith. However, as the argument is focused primarily on how a person is put right with God, how they become a true child of Abraham, the most logical conclusion is that the quotation is used with reference to being put right rather than with how to live. The emphasis is on faith rather than faithfulness, and it is the righteous person who demonstrates this faith.
The content of Romans 1:16-17 is also primarily concerned with the way a person comes to be right with God, thus it is reasonable to conclude that the quotation from Habakkuk is also used to refer to the way a person becomes right with God, that is, by faith. Given the difficulty in determining exactly what "from faith to faith" means, there is the possibility that this includes the secondary meaning that a person who is right with God should live a life characterised by faith. However, given the context, it is unlikely that this is the primary meaning.
In both Galatians and Romans faith and works of law are contrasted. In each case, the overwhelming argument is that the way to be put right with God is through faith, not through works of law. While there is an allusion in Galatians to living a life characterised by faith (3:3), the primary focus is clearly to the way a person is put right with God. This is also the case in Romans, but the possibility of a secondary reference to living a life characterised by faith is slightly stronger with the phrase "from faith for faith" being in the immediate context and possibly being a reference to the way life is to be lived. However, the overall focus of the introductory statement of Romans 1:16-17 is on the salvation that is offered in the gospel.
In contrast, the use of Habakkuk in Hebrews is in the context of encouraging Christians to hold on to their faith, to not draw back but to have endurance. The quotation is more extensive than it is in either of the other two occurrences, with the first part of verse 4 as well as part of verse 3 also being quoted. The quotation is basically from the LXX, but the messianic allusion inherent in the LXX is heightened by the addition of the definite article before "coming" making it "the coming one." The order of the phrases is reversed making the phrase "if he draws back" refer not to "the coming one," but to "my righteous one."
The ambiguity of Habakkuk as to who or what displays faith or faithfulness does not occur in Hebrews. The restructuring of the quotation means that in this context it can only refer to the "righteous one," that is, the Christian. However, there is still some ambiguity as to whether it is faith or faithfulness. The association with endurance suggests that it could be referring to faithfulness. But in the context, particularly in the light of the definition of faith given in the following few verses and the sustained use of πίστις in Hebrews 11, it seems more likely that it is referring to faith, although such faith will result in faithfulness. As the whole section is written to Christians encouraging them to persevere, the faith described here is the ongoing faith demonstrated in the way a Christian lives.
In Habakkuk the righteous person is urged to trust God and to live faithfully in the period between the giving of the vision, the giving of the promises of God, and their fulfilment. The situation is similar in Hebrews, where the righteous person is urged to have faith and to endure. This is in contrast to Paul's application of Habakkuk to the question of how one is put right with God. While the concept of living faithfully is present in Pauline thought, this is not the primary focus in the passages where Paul quoted Habakkuk.
The differences in Hebrews as compared with Galatians and Romans are summed up in Robertson's statement (1990, 183):
So two diverse authors in the NT quote the same OT Scripture with a different emphasis to make significantly different points. Yet each author remains true to the essence of the OT Scripture as recorded by Habakkuk. Paul stressed that by faith a person is justified, and the writer to the Hebrews stresses that by faith a person who has been justified shall live.
The primary question addressed in this article has been how the phrase traditionally translated "the just shall live by faith" should be understood. In particular, does it refer to the way a person is put right with God or does it refer to the way a person who is right with God should live? The results suggest that the phrase is ambiguous enough to carry both meanings, so has been used differently in different places.
On the one hand, in Habakkuk and Hebrews the primary focus is on how a person lives in the time between the giving of the promises and their fulfilment. It is about living a life that is characterised by both faith and faithfulness.
On the other hand, in Galatians and Romans Paul's primary focus is on how a person is put right with God. Being put right by faith is contrasted with the endeavour to be put right by works, with the overwhelming conclusion that it is only possible to be put right with God by faith. This is not, however, divorced from the rest of life. A life that is begun by faith must be continued by faith.
The cumulative evidence of all uses of this phrase is that the only life that is acceptable to God is the life of faith. It is only through faith that a person can be brought into a right relationship with God, and it is only through faith that a person can live a life acceptable to God. Such a life of faith will result in a life characterised by faithfulness. Faith and faithfulness go together. Neither is possible without the other. To live a life of faith is to live a life that is faithful to God. Being faithful to God is possible only on the basis of faith.
Armerding, C. E. 1985. "Habakkuk." Pages 493-534 in vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Attridge, H. W. 1989. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Bruce, F. F. 1990. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 2d ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ellingworth, P. 1993. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hiebert, T. 1996. "The Book of Habakkuk." Pages 622-55 in vol. 7 of The New Interpreter's Bible. Nashville: Abingdon.
Janzen, J. G. 1980. "Habakkuk 2:2-4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances." Harvard Theological Review 73: 53-78.
Kelley, P. H. 1984. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephanaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Vol. 14 of the Layman's Bible Book Commentary. Nashville: Broadman.
McComskey, T. E. ed. 1993. "Habakkuk." In An Exegetical and Expository Commentary Vol. 12: The Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Morris, L. 1981. "Hebrews." Pages 1-158 in vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Roberts, J. J. M. 1991. Nahum, Habakkuk ad Zephaniah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster / John Knox.
Robertson, O. P. 1990. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Szeles, M. E. 1987. Wrath and Mercy: Habakkuk and Zephaniah. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Table of Contents
These papers are not strictly academic, nor are they strictly popular. They float somewhere in between. I find that's where much of my thinking for preaching happens. As preachers we have to be in touch with the world of the academic, and yet in touch with the world of the everyday. They are presented in honour of Richard Moore, whose guidance in study is gratefully acknowledged. They are meant to provoke both thought and devotion, and hopefully, will be enjoyed without the temptation to stone the author for heresy.
In recent years there has been renewed interest in "tracing your family tree." This has been facilitated by the ease of access to computer programs and databases that enable a person to find their genetic history. The motives behind this might be curiosity, reuniting with lost family, or seeking famous ancestors.
When a person accesses their family records from the State Registrar, they expect to find the exact details of who their biological parents, grandparents and other relatives were. They expect exact dates of birth, death, marriage etc. That's what they generally find; though for some there are surprises such as adoptions, previous marriages of parents or other anomalies.
The genealogies are the parts of the Bible that are most often skipped, overlooked, or not considered relevant. Yet the genealogies were important parts of the Old Testament and Matthew and Luke at least thought them important enough to include in their gospels. They had relevance to their First Century audience.
To understand why genealogies were of such significance we should examine our own ways of constructing social meaning. In a Western society such as Australia there is a high priority placed upon your work as a social identifier. A person who is a "lawyer" or "doctor" or "nurse" or "shop-assistant" or "long-term unemployed" is generally seen to have a certain level of education, a certain amount of disposable income, and perhaps even to drive a certain type of car or eat at a certain restaurant. The common question we ask one another, after our name, is "What do you do?" The answer reveals a lot more than what we do for a living.
Though this was true in the First Century also, the Jewish social environment of the time was much more family-based. Rather than asking, "What do you do?" it seems more likely that they would ask, "Who's your father?" In that society, it was your father's status that would determine your status. Social mobility through education and opportunity was not as great. Most people stayed in the same social stratum they were born into. So if you knew who their father was, you had a good idea of who they were.
Matthew has used the genealogy to ground Jesus firmly in the Covenant revelation of God. It proves him to be a descendant of Abraham and thus a legitimate member of the Covenant people. It proves him to be a descendant of David and thus a potential King. These are essential qualifications for anyone who would be taken seriously as a possible Messiah.
The organisation of the genealogy into groups of 14 generations is punctuated by crucial events in redemptive history (Abraham, David, and Exile). The first two represent moments when God made significant covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic). The third represents the failure of the people to abide by God's covenant and their subsequent Exile. A pattern is emerging (Covenant - 14 generations - Covenant - 14 Generations - Broken Covenant - 14 Generations - ?).
The post-exilic prophetic expectations concerning the future glory of Jerusalem and Zion had not materialised. It could be argued that the Exile has not ended. The Kingship and the Priesthood had been open to wide-scale corruption and distrust through bribery and corruption. In Matthew's divisions of 14 generations, one would expect another great intervention of God in history at the 14th generation. Messianic expectations were widespread at the time of Jesus. The person who occupies the 13th generation is Joseph, to whose wife Mary is born Jesus called Messiah, the awaited 14th generation.
Matthew thus introduces Jesus as the person who is qualified and indeed destined to be the Messiah, the King of the Jews. The rest of the gospel makes clear that Jesus is this Messiah, the King of Israel. The shepherds seek "the King of the Jews," John the Baptist sees what "the Messiah is doing," Peter confesses "You are the Messiah" at the pivotal point of the narrative, Matthew quotes Zech 9:9 as Jesus comes into Jerusalem (as King), the Roman guards mock him as "the Messiah" and "King of the Jews," Jesus acknowledges he is King before Pilate, and the charge written upon his cross is "King of the Jews." The genealogy introduces this dominant theme to the gospel in a very Jewish way. This also gives us an indication of who the intended readers are. While a genealogy may seem a strange introduction to Western readers in the 21st Century, it is full of meaning and significance for First Century Jewish people, and prepares the way for the message of Matthew's gospel, that this Jesus is in fact the Messiah, God's chosen King.
A word or a phrase can bring to mind an event from the past. For example, the Australian River known as the "Snowy River" will cause many Australians to think of the poem "Man from Snowy River." Along with the poem, images of courage and toughness will be evoked. By associating a contemporary person with the Snowy River, it is possible to link them with the Australian legends associated with the River, and readers will probably infer that such a person has similar characteristics.
In the same way, New Testament writers often allude to Old Testament texts. If the reader is aware of the OT text, then the NT text is seen in the light of the Old Testament text. To explore this, this paper will examine the pericope On Paying Tribute to Caesar (SQE 280; Mark 12:13-17 & Pars.). Mark's Gospel will be the basis for the examination, although all the Gospels will be examined as they complement or vary from Mark. An exegesis will be performed on the text with particular focus on whether Jesus is deliberately alluding to an Old Testament text and how this affects the meaning.
The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, The Greeks, The Romans, and others in history have sought to control the land known as Palestine. The promise to Abram in Genesis was that God himself would "give this land to your offspring" (Gen 12:7). As Abram's physical descendants, the Jewish people have claimed that promise. They see themselves having a God-given right to the land. During the times they have been in control of the land, they have sought to govern the land by God's laws. During the times they have not been in control of the land, the question of how they should relate to whoever was governing the land has arisen.
At the time of Jesus the Romans occupied the land. Some Jewish people made a good living by working for the Romans in various capacities. Given that the Romans were pagans, and the land should be in the hands of Jews, were these co-operating Jews denouncing their religion and their nation by doing this? Should a Jew co-operate at all with the Romans? These questions were relevant social and political questions of the day.
The prophetic hope for the "Day of the Lord" was strong among many pious Jews. Surely God could not stand by idle while these pagans ruled his people. Eventually, he would "rend the heavens and come down" and the pagan would be judged and destroyed, the land would be ruled by God's people, and he would re-establish his King, his Messiah, on David's throne in Jerusalem.
So the background to the text gives presents us with a potentially volatile situation. Those who co-operated with the Romans, such as tax collectors, could be seen as abandoning their hope in Israel's God. Essentially, they were traitors. Those who didn't co-operate opened themselves up to retribution from the Romans. This could mean arrest, fines, and in severe cases of revolt even crucifixion.
The pericope appears in the three Synoptic Gospels at a similar place in the order of the text. It is the Passion Week. Jesus has in the past few days come to Jerusalem and been given a greeting fit for a King returning to his city. Images of the Maccabean rulers Simon Thassi and Judas Maccabeus would be in the minds of at least some of the participants and any readers with a sense of Jewish intertestamental history.[1] David's initial entrance to Jerusalem would also be in the minds of Matthew's readers.[2] Jesus has entered the city on a donkey recalling Zechariah's prophecy "Behold your king comes to you, humble and riding on a donkey."[3] The crowds shout "Hosanna" (Matt, Luke, John), "to the Son of David" (Matt), "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Matt, Mark, Luke, John), "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David" (Mark), "the King" (Luke), "the King of Israel" (John), "Hosanna in the highest" (Matt, Mark), "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest" (Luke). Matthew also records the children in the Temple shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David." All of these images combine to suggest that Jesus is to be identified as the awaited Messianic Son of David, and that he has come to his city as King.
This is religiously and politically provocative behaviour. The Q material (Matt & Luke) in the Triumphant entry describes the Jewish rulers objecting to it (Matt 21:16, Luke 19:39). John records the Pharisees saying, "the whole world has gone after him" (12:19). It is understandable that the Jewish rulers will soon conspire against him and seek to find on what basis he is doing these things (SQE 274, 276; Mark 11:18-19 & Pars., Mark 11:27-33 & Pars.).
The pericope under examination begins by describing the motivation of the Jewish leaders as they come to Jesus. They want to "catch him out by his words" and so have prepared a difficult question for him to answer. Luke mentions specifically that they are seeking to hand him over to the Governor, i.e., that his answer to this question will see him arrested.
They begin with flattering words, perhaps to get him off guard. They seem like they are genuinely asking his opinion on an issue because he speaks truly and does not show favouritism. Their question is a clever one; "Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" The question is generally recognised as one that puts Jesus in a difficult situation. If he says, "You should pay the tax," then he could be seen as aligning himself with the Romans and being unfaithful to the Jewish hope. Ultimately he could be seen as a supporter of the Roman system that in many cases resulted in oppression and suffering for the Jewish people. He could be seen by some as a traitor.
On the other hand, if he said "No, it is not right to pay taxes to Caesar," then he could be charged with sedition and inciting rebellion. The Jewish leaders would have good grounds to charge him before the Governor. It seemed, at least to the Jewish leaders, that they had caught Jesus. Whichever answer he gives, he cannot escape their trap.
The answer Jesus does give stuns his hearers. He sees through their trap and asks for a coin, a denarius (Mark & Luke). It has commonly been recognised that in possessing the coin, the Jewish leaders actually condemn themselves. They too are co-operating with the Romans, at least to the degree that they are using their currency. But that is not the focus here. Jesus asks them whose image and inscription the coin bears. Of course, they answer, "Caesar's." The coins bear his image, and his inscription, and where Caesar rules, the coin is valid currency. Jesus tells them to "Give to Caesar what the things that belong to him, and to God the things that belong to him."
Various interpretations have emerged from this statement. At the most basic level, Jesus is avoiding the trap set for him. He endorses payment of the tax without neglecting duty to God. In a sense he is advocating a certain position in regard to the State. Paul's later elaboration on this issue in Romans 13:7 is usually seen as a similar situation. Faithfulness as the people of God does not entail rebellion against a State, even an occupying State. Jesus is not advocating a rebellious Zealot or Macabbean position.
Sermons on this text will usually talk about the possibility that we can serve Caesar and God, and in a democratic society that is probably true. Christianity need not be seditious. Some will even take the text to suggest that one can both pay taxes and tithe on their income and use the text to emphasise that giving to the Church should be from your gross salary rather than your net salary.
There is, however, an element in this pericope that is seldom recognised. It is found in the use of the word "image." The Greek word εἰκών (eikon) is the word used in all the Synoptics. The same word appears in the Septuagint of Genesis 1:26, "Let us make human beings in our image and likeness," and 1:27, "and God made human beings in the image of God." Is Jesus deliberately alluding to Genesis? If so, the meaning of his statement reveals that he is speaking another message alongside the message about paying taxes to Caesar.
The "things of Caesar" must be given to Caesar. Likewise, the "things of God" must be given to God. The "things of Caesar" are recognised by the fact that they bear Caesar's image. The question arises as to what are the "things of God?" The inescapable answer is, "the things that bear God's image." The allusion to Genesis 1 reveals that it is human beings that bear God's image.
If Jesus is alluding to Genesis 1:26-7 here, then the implication of his reply to the Jewish leaders goes beyond merely paying taxes or tithing. He cleverly gets himself out of a difficult political and religious trap, while at the same time pointing out a severe deficiency in the theology and the practice of his antagonists. Jesus is reminding them that they bear God's image, and therefore belong to God. They must give God what belongs to him. It's not primarily money or political obedience. They must give their entire selves to him.
It is not possible to absolutely determine if Jesus was alluding to Genesis 1:26-7 when he used the word "image" to refer to the stamp of the coin and indirectly to human beings. It is, however, likely. It adds another dimension to our understanding of Jesus' teaching in this pericope. It also alerts us to the depth that Jesus and many of his day had in understanding and familiarity with the Old Testament and points us to the need to be familiar with the Old Testament and to be on the lookout for allusions that can help us see the full meaning of a text.
In the Twentieth Century the "Prosperity Message" became firmly established in many churches. It may be summed up as the belief that God wants to bless every believer with spiritual, emotional, and financial prosperity. Many Christians from many denominations subscribe to the theology of prosperity in various ways.
The prosperity message is somewhat of a divergence from the historical view of the Christian Church towards material goods, particularly money. Martin Hengel in Property and Riches in the Early Church sums up the traditional view in saying that though "we cannot extract a well-defined Christian doctrine of property either from the New Testament or the early Church ..." yet "... primitive Christianity contains a radical criticism of riches, a demand for detachment from the goods of this world, and a conquest of the barriers between rich and poor through the fellowship of agape" (Hengel 1974, 84). This raises the issue of continuity. Is the prosperity message continuous with the traditional faith of the church and its view towards property and riches? Or is it an aberration that needs correcting? Of course the truth may lie somewhere between these two positions.
What did Jesus think about money? This is a question that demands serious attention. If we accept Hengel's view as accurate, Jesus held money in suspicion. It was a potentially corrupting influence on the spirituality of people. His teaching about the "evil eye" in Matthew 6 bears this out well.
In this teaching, Matthew presents us with Jesus preaching the Sermon on the Mount. He is instructing his disciples how to live in ways that are pleasing to God. After dealing with the law, anger, adultery, divorce, vows, revenge, charity, prayer, and fasting, he then turns to money in 6:19. Here Matthew presents three teachings in sequence that Luke presents in a different sequence. The first teaching (v. 19-21) concerns "riches in heaven" and clearly refers to money. The third teaching (v. 24) concerns the serving of God or Mammon (money) and also refers to money. The second teaching (v. 22-23) is often interpreted to be referring to how a person sees the world (with a good eye) yet when examined in the light of the meaning of the phrase "the evil eye" is clearly speaking about money.
Jesus states that the "eye is the lamp for the body." Here he establishes the obvious principle that if the body is to see, then it must do so through the eye. The condition of the eye, therefore, determines the ability of the body to see — whether or not it will be in light or darkness. The phrase he uses to refer to the eye not being able to see, "the eye being evil," is a common Jewish way of saying "stingy" or "greedy" or "eager for gain" and refers to the way a person views and treats money.
This is brought out in other places in the New Testament. In Matt 20:15, the phrase is used by the owner of the vineyard in referring to himself when the workers who had worked for the whole day were paid the same as those who had only worked one hour. He says "Can't I do what I want with my own money? Or is your eye evil because I am generous?" The attitude that arises as a result of comparing what others have received and wanting more is called "the evil eye." We might use the word "jealous" or "covetous."
In Mark 7:14-23 Jesus is responding to the issue of the Pharisees questioning his disciples for eating without washing their hands according to the tradition of the elders. He claims that it is "not the things that go into a person that cause defilement, but the things that come out of a person that cause defilement." Later his disciples ask him the meaning of the saying and Jesus responds by listing the types of things that come from within and cause defilement. After "licentiousness" (RSV) is literally "an evil eye" and this is translated in the RSV as "envy." It is referring in some way to the attitude of coveting or greed.
The New Testament usages of the phrase thus support the idea that the "evil eye" refers to a wrong attitude towards money and that the semantic domain of the expression would include English words such as covetous, jealous and envious.
The phrase is also used in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 15 the text refers to the year of cancelling debts. The Israelites were meant to forgive any debts that their fellow-Israelites had incurred to them. They are also instructed to be generous to their neighbour in need and not to be "hard-hearted" or "tight-fisted" but lend the neighbour whatever they need. In Verse 9 they are warned not to refrain from lending to their neighbour because the year of cancelling debts is near. This would mean that they are not to consider whether or not they will receive the money back since in the year of cancelling debts the debt is cancelled. The attitude of not lending because they may not receive it back is referred to as "letting your eye become evil towards your brother." Hence, here the phrase has a similar meaning to the New Testament usages, and refers to the attitude a person has towards money. Its closest English equivalent here might be "stingy."
The phrase has another use in the OT Apocrypha, Sirach 14:10 "A miser begrudges bread, and it is lacking at his table" (RSV). The idea is that a miser (lit. "evil eye") finds it hard even to part with the money to buy daily bread. Again, its meaning indicates a similar usage to those in the New Testament.
In summary, the phrase "evil eye" has been seen to refer to a person's attitude towards money. It has the range of meanings of stingy, covetous, greedy, envious, miserly.
When we now consider Jesus' words, "If your eye is evil your whole body will be filled with darkness," we find that he is making a strong statement about the effect that our attitude towards money has upon our entire life. In fact, Jesus in this instance makes it the key issue. Our attitude towards money determines our spiritual life. If our attitude is covetous, or greedy, or stingy, or envious, or miserly, then our life will be lived in darkness.
When this is understood, Matthew's arrangement of Jesus' teaching becomes much more comprehensible. He warns about laying up treasures on earth and instructs his followers to lay up treasures in heaven. The rationale behind this is that where our treasure is, our heart then also goes. Notice the order. It is not "wherever you put your heart, there you will surely build your treasure." Instead, Jesus tells his followers that wherever they put their treasurer (their worldly wealth), their hearts will also be there. If they lay up treasure on earth, then their hearts will be firmly established on earth. If they lay up treasures in heaven, their hearts will be firmly established in heaven. In effect, he is saying, "Where your money goes, there goes also your heart." To claim that our hearts are focused on "heavenly things" while our treasures are laid up on earth is contradicting Jesus' teaching. As a practical consequence, a person who wishes to locate their heart in heaven should begin by first placing their treasure there. Jesus' reply to the rich man (Matt 19:21) indicates that to place one's treasures in heaven is to "sell what you possess and give to the poor."
After the teaching about the Evil Eye, Matthew then presents Jesus' teaching about God and Mammon. In it, Jesus presents the impossibility of serving two masters. Eventually there will be a conflict where one master will require allegiance over the other. Then a choice must be made. The master chosen is ultimately the real master. Mammon is the Semitic personification of riches and wealth as an evil spirit. Here Jesus reveals that it is not possible to have both. One must choose a master to serve, and in doing so, cannot serve the other. It is not that it is inadvisable to serve both, or that it is difficult to serve both, it is that it is impossible to serve both. Hence, a person who chooses to obey Mammon and its influence cannot serve God.
The three teachings of Jesus presented in Matthew 6:19-24 all concern money and wealth. They each present a different aspect of teaching on the issue, but they present a united aspect. The teaching is in agreement with Martin Hengel's conclusion quoted above. In summary, a disciple of Jesus places his or her heart in heaven by generously giving of their wealth to the poor, maintains an attitude of generosity and avoids any sense of stinginess, covetousness or greed, and in doing this maintains worship of the true God and not the false god Mammon.
Following on from this, Matthew presents Jesus' teaching on freedom from anxiety. The focus of the disciple's life is not to be on food or clothing but the disciple is to trust in their Father who made them and knows that they need them. That is what the "pagans" are concerned about since they don't have the same confidence in a caring Father. The disciple is to focus primarily on seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and God will take care of the other things. The scope of "seeking the kingdom and his righteousness" is beyond this paper, but suffice to say it doesn't involve hours of worrying about wealth or money. Let's leave that to the pagans.
We live in a time when there is a profound awareness of the damage that humanity has done and continues to do to the planet we live on and the eco-systems we depend on for our life. Though the issues may seem unrelated to some Christians, the prosperity message and the evil eye are intimately related. One says, "God wants to give you more." The other says, "I want more." While both may be right in some contexts, their combination in a context of economic affluence can be disastrous.
To equate the blessings of material wealth such as sheep and cattle given to Abraham with blessings of homes, cars and other consumer goods to contemporary Christians is misguided. Firstly, Abraham was supporting a few hundred people with his wealth. It wasn't an individualised stockpile used for investment and creating wealth or multiplying houses as it might be today. Abraham himself lived in tents. Secondly, Abraham was one of few people of the time who knew this God. There wasn't a "Christian culture" of many millions of people seeking prosperity beside him. Thirdly, the promises in the Old Testament of material blessing are usually given to the nation as a whole, not to individuals. It is simply not appropriate to apply these promises to an individual today without considering this. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly for us today, the earth was not as populated in those times as it is today. Prosperity for all would not have resulted in a global environmental disaster as it undoubtedly would if every person, or even every Christian, were to begin to experience high levels of personal wealth and consumption.
The prosperity message is an anachronism. It is simply unsustainable in our day. It demands wealth and resources to fulfil the needs of its advocates. This wealth and these resources usually flow from poorer countries who are insufficiently paid for their labour and materials. Hence the prosperity message perpetuates injustice. The only possible outcomes of its successful implementation are a prosperous few being served by a poor majority, or a global environmental disaster, or both.
In the light of these issues, and the teachings of Jesus, it is vital that Christians reconsider their stance towards wealth and possessions. I suggest that his call to his followers has not changed and that in our day of high population and global inequality, his call is a prophetic challenge us in Australia and may be a breathe of fresh air for the majority of those who live on the Earth today. Many of us will not advocate "prosperity theology" yet we will live "as the world does" with no awareness of the suffering of the world nor of the devastation that our Western lifestyles exert on the Earth. This is not an issue for the "greenies" to wrestle with. It is an issue for every disciple of Jesus.
[1] See 1 Macc 13:51 "the Jews entered [Jerusalem] with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel." Simon Thassi was the ruler of the land at the time, and the passage refers to him. The imagery has striking parallels with the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus after the event. A King comes to cleanse the cult of defilement.
See also 2 Macc 10:7 "It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Chislev ... therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place." Here, Judas Maccabeus has just recovered the Temple and the city of Jerusalem from Antiochus Ephiphanes.
The images would be fresh in the minds of pious Jews who looked to these men as heroes. The palm branch imagery also appears in Revelation 7:9. The point is not that these images have a definite or fixed meaning but they bring to mind associations with others events so the readers who are aware of those other events make a subtle connection between them. Here, the Kingship of Jesus is emphasised, and it is all the more striking given that the cleansing of the Temple happens soon afterwards. The tendency to associate particular images with people exists today also. An image of cigar smoking leader would remind many of Winston Churchill, particularly in England. An image of a small man commanding his army might remind people of Napolean Bonaparte.
[2] Matthew mentions (21:14) "the blind and the lame came to him at the Temple, and he healed them." This recalls, or more accurately, reverses the imagery in 2 Sam 5:8 "the blind and the lame shall not come into this house" which is associated with David entering the city of Jerusalem and beginning his reign over Israel there. It also brings up the Old Testament prohibition of the "blind and the lame ... shall not draw near" (Lev 21:18). Exploring this further goes beyond the scope of this paper.
[3] Matthew (21:2) emphasises the disciples finding a "donkey, with her colt by her." He also, characteristically, mentions the event as happening "in order to fulfil the word spoken by the prophet." Mark and Luke mention just the "colt." John mentions a "young donkey."
Table of Contents
It is with great pleasure that I contribute this article in honour of Dr Richard Moore. Before I started to study at the Baptist Theological College, I was more interested in the Old Testament since it appeared to be more factual. However, as I progressed through the degree programme at BTC, I learned to love the New Testament. This was due to the way in which Dr Richard Moore guided us to appreciate the text and message of the New Testament. I have gained enormously through the examples that he has set for us — one of which is to make sure what the text is actually saying before deciding what the truth is. I have also treasured his advice and guidance throughout the Honours year and now with my PhD research work on the Passion narrative. He has not only been my supervisor but a friend, as he demonstrated by constantly showing an interest in other members of my family as well. I have been greatly blessed to have been taught and guided by him. I thank you Lord for the enormous contribution of Dr Richard Moore to so many of our lives.
Studies of the synoptic question over the last two centuries have produced a multitude of theories and hypotheses to explain the similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels. However, these differing claims have been made through the use of the same set of data, namely, that collected from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke[5]. Two source hypotheses have come to command the greater support among the scholarly community, the Griesbach Hypothesis and the Two Source Hypothesis. The Two Source Hypothesis remains dominant today, notwithstanding challenges from advocates of a revived Griesbach Hypothesis (from the 1960s). Those who favour Markan priority argue that there is overwhelming evidence that the Gospel of Mark was written first. On the other hand, those who oppose Markan priority maintain that such is not the case and, using the same set of data, support the opposing hypotheses. One can ask the question as to how this is at all possible. How can the same set of data be used to support hypotheses that are, in many cases, completely on opposite sides?
While many scholars have backed their claims through elaborate arguments, others have simply made statements according to their own convictions. For example, in the preface to their book, Sanders and Davies (1989: vii) make the following statement:
... there are many episodes and sayings which two or three of the gospels have in common, and these often share the same Greek vocabulary, suggesting literary dependence... Too many introductions, in our opinion, give many conclusions and very little evidence, and they hide uncertainties or pass over them too quickly.
Their book is intended to be an introduction to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. But this cannot be taken as an excuse for making some of the same mistakes that they accuse other authors of making. For example, in summarising synoptic relationships, they point out:
With regard to substance, about 90% of Mark is also found in Matthew and more than 50% also in Luke... In pericopes which are in common, verbatim agreement varies, but on average is about 50%. (Sanders and Davies 1989: 54)
While they do subsequently show how they have derived the percentage of Mark in Matthew and Luke, they do not give any indication how they have arrived at the fifty percent verbatim agreement in the Triple Tradition. They do encourage their readers to colour the texts that they provide as parallels. Nevertheless, there is not much evidence to support their conclusion. Furthermore, the texts that they print in their book may represent the main pericopae in support of their arguments but they form only a small fraction of all the pericopae in the Synoptic Gospels.
In exploring various possibilities, Stein (1987: 33) provides this as one of the options:
The degree to which these Gospels agree in wording naturally gives rise to the question of why they agree so closely. How are we to explain the obvious similarities in wording that we find in these passages? One possible explanation is that they all deal with the same incidents or sayings of Jesus.
Stein also provides his readers with a simple colour-coding scheme and encourages them to proceed with the exercise. In his case as well, the pericopae that are studied are only those which illustrate and also support his arguments. It is possible to deduce what his conclusions are through looking at the examples he has given. Can it be argued that these are cases where a conclusion has been reached beforehand and that the evidence given is that which supports such a conclusion?
However, claims like those given above are generally not substantiated by the authors. They tend to support the statement made by Sanders and Davies, quoted above, that many authors tend to come to these conclusions with "very little evidence". It is reasonable to argue that there is not enough space for them to cover all the evidence, especially in a book that introduces the subject. A lot has to be explained in a relatively short amount of space. But would it not be better to demonstrate the evidence clearly through using overall statistics?
This is more apparent when the sayings of Jesus are looked at; they are generally not differentiated from the narratives surrounding them. The authors of statements like those quoted from Sanders and Davies and from Stein, consider the complete pericopae containing some words attributed to Jesus as being Jesus' sayings. However, there are several instances where the same words of Jesus are not spoken in the same setting in all three Synoptic Gospels. For example, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on the Plain share considerable material in common. Another example is the withering of the fig tree which occurs instantly in Matthew but, is only noticed twenty-four hours later in Mark. Since this is the case, it makes sense to separate the sayings from the surrounding narratives and determine whether the Gospel writers have used the same liberty in both cases. However, the participants of the Karawara Gospels project gained the impression that the sayings of Jesus have a higher correlation than the surrounding narratives in the Triple Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. The question that has to be asked is whether Jesus' actual sayings have been reproduced in a more consistent way than the narratives surrounding them. Did the authors of the Gospels construct the narratives in such a way as to convey their messages but reproduce Jesus' sayings more consistently among themselves?
As discussed above, in most studies on the synoptic question it seems that the authors have already made up their mind about the most likely solution and then proceed to support it in their articles or books. However, this is not a very scientific way to approach the subject and then come up with a conclusion. There is a need to approach the subject with as much impartiality as possible, collect all the necessary data and then consider the possibilities. While it is beyond the scope of this article to tackle all the various facets of the synoptic question, it is the intention of this project to provide a test of one aspect of the subject, namely, compare the correlation of the sayings with that of the surrounding narratives. This requires an analysis of those pericopae which are in the Triple Tradition in order to determine whether the impression is founded or not.
To achieve this, there is a need to compile statistics that are as accurate as possible without being influenced by any particular theory or hypothesis. Such an exercise will enable conclusions to be made out of the evidence derived from those statistics. Thus it will no longer be a subjective impression that such is or is not the case and neither will it be based on some approximate data; but it will be based on a methodology that can provide accurate data from which relevant averages can be calculated. However, it should be pointed out that the scope of this article allows only the analysis of those pericopae in the triple tradition. The various forms of double tradition which contain Jesus' sayings in a narrative matrix (i.e. Matthew / Mark and Mark / Luke; Matthew / Luke ["Q"] is generally sayings only) are beyond the scope of this article. The process involves the following steps:
The methodology used in the collection of the data. At this stage, this is basically a manual exercise that is followed by the entry of the data into a computer-based system. The personal computer uses a database and also produces the colour-coded text that can be displayed on the screen or printed out.
The compilation of relevant statistics. The database produced in the above step is used to produce tables for each of the Aland sections selected for the project.
An analysis of the statistics. The above tables are added up in order to generate one table which contains the totals for the sections. From this, it will be possible to summarise the data and come up with averages. These averages will show the overall trend of the Triple Tradition sections included in the statistics.
Therefore, this article is intended to show that it is possible to produce quite accurate data from the text of the synoptic Gospels in order to test assumptions. While it is not argued that this will lead to a solution to the synoptic question, it can nevertheless provide good evidence to back some of the arguments being put forward. In this day and age when technology is available to perform these types of analysis, it is not good enough to simply state something without being able to support it.
In his preface to Synopticon, Farmer (1969: vii) writes about the beginning of the visual presentation to demonstrate the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels. He states:
In 1880 W. G. Rushbrooke published his Synopticon, An Exposition of the Common Matter of the Synoptic Gospels. Rushbrooke sought to exhibit this common matter in accordance with the two-source hypothesis by using different founts of type and different colours of ink to distinguish the various categories of verbatim agreements between two or more of the Gospels, and by a special arrangement given to the Gospel texts. He began by placing the full text of Mark in the centre and arranging those portions of the other three which had parallels to Marcan material in columns on either side. In the second part of his work Rushbrooke printed passages common to Matthew and Luke which did not have Marcan parallels. In the third and fourth parts he set forth the material unique to Matthew and Luke respectively.
Since Rushbrooke, others have suggested alternate ways of achieving the aim of displaying these agreements. The idea is to use a colour scheme in such a way that the agreements of words among the three Synoptic Gospels are clearly visible. Thus, the most popular schemes in use do not do anything to words unique to each Gospel. The words are usually coloured if they agree completely with corresponding words in at least one other Gospel. Words which have common roots but different morphological forms, are indicated by such means as underlining. Some colour schemes are simple and others are complex but they generally make use of texts from the three Synoptics or all four Gospels shown in adjoining columns. Some, like Farmer's Synopticon, simply colour the text printed sequentially like any Greek New Testament in an endeavour to be impartial and not favour any particular hypothesis or theory.
Out of the several colour schemes considered, the colour-coding system used by the Karawara Gospels Project was selected. This scheme displays the agreements in a clear and straightforward way. It distinguishes between instances of exact morphology and use of the same word with a different morphological form. It also allows for an easier way to collect statistics since the agreements and the unique words are each represented by a colour according to a pre-set scheme.
This colour-coding scheme was designed by Dr Richard K. Moore and applied to all four Gospels by a small team between May 1987 and October 1988. According to a paper describing the methodology involved:
The colour-coding systems offer a simple method for colour coding each vocable in the Greek text of the four canonical Gospels... While there is a variety of media available for adding colour to a printed text today, the use of colour pencils is the medium advocated here as that offering the greatest advantages... Since the purpose of the present paper is to explain a simple and practical method for studying the Gospels objectively, the constraints of time and space have limited applications of the method to a few illustrations at the macro level. In closing, however, it needs to be emphasised that the system advocated has enormous benefits at the micro level, the level of the individual section or pericope. Indeed, at both levels it is a method which will enhance a student's familiarity with the Gospels themselves, an approach which can help in assessing theories about the literary relationships among the Gospels without the need for a prior commitment to any one of them.[6]
The group used Aland's Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, which is based on the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. The synopsis displays parallel pericopae from each of the four Gospels in adjacent columns and common words are, as far as possible, placed on the same line and in the same position on the line.
Each of the Synoptic Gospels is allocated a primary colour and words unique to a particular Gospel are shaded in the appropriate colour. This allows a visual identification of words falling into this category. The colours allocated to the Synoptic Gospels are:
Matthew | Blue |
Mark | Red |
Luke | Yellow |
Words shared between any two Gospels are shaded in the colour resulting from mixing the two primary colours representing those two Gospels. Thus, there are three possible combinations of the three Synoptic Gospels:
Matthew and Mark | Purple (Blue + Red) |
Mark and Luke | Orange (Red + Yellow) |
Matthew and Luke | Green (Blue + Yellow) |
Words in the exact form in all three Gospels are coloured brown (which results from mixing the three primary colours).
The same colour scheme is used for underlining to show words that have the same roots but appear in different morphological forms in two or more of the Gospels. In such instances, in addition to shading the word with its appropriate colour, it is underlined in the colour that shows its links to the same word though in a different morphological form.
Once the colour-coding has been completed, the agreements or otherwise are clearly visible to the reader. It is also possible to collect the relevant statistics by physically counting the number of words shaded and also underlined words represented by each colour. While this method has proved to be very useful, it has a major drawback. Each of the participants in the project manually colour-coded a copy of the Aland Synopsis. As a result, there are only three copies of the colour-coded texts in the whole world.
A closer look at the method used for colour-coding shows that, with some modifications, the colour scheme can be implemented on a personal computer.[7] This has the advantage of being easily reproducible and also allows for an easy way to change or correct the colouring of the words. It has the additional benefit of having the colour-coding applied to a different layout of the Greek text, like a different synopsis; for example, the Boismard-Lamouille (1986) Synopsis Graeca Quattuor Evangeliorum. This can be achieved with some changes to the programming on the personal computer.
However, the colour-coding of the Karawara Gospels Project has to be modified in order to make it suitable for the personal computer environment. For example, in the manual system, the words in the Aland synopsis are printed in black and coloured pencils are used to shade them. This is changed in the computerised version where the words are actually displayed or printed in the appropriate colour. For the purposes of the present project, this further allows the Sayings of Jesus to be highlighted in yellow, providing a visual contrast between these sayings and the narratives surrounding them. Furthermore, the limitations of the tools used on the personal computer have made it necessary to change the underlining of words in a different morphological form to "boxing" of those words. The reason is that in order to provide flexibility, the files are produced so that they can be read by most available word processors. So, the files generated are in the Rich Text Format (commonly known as RTF). The underlining feature in word processors, as it currently exists, is carried out using the same colour as the word being underlined. This can be modified through fairly intensive programming in Microsoft Word but it cannot be implemented in the RTF file generated. Therefore, in order to achieve the required result and keep the flexibility of the RTF file, the "boxing" of words is preferred. It has proved to be simpler to program and implement in RTF than to underline words in different colours.
So, the computerised version of the Karawara Gospels Project uses a slightly modified colour scheme. For words that are unique to each of the Synoptic Gospels,
Matthew | Blue |
Mark | Red |
Luke | Grey (since yellow is barely visible when printed) |
For words that are common to two or more Gospels,
Matthew and Mark | Cyan |
Matthew and Luke | Green |
Mark and Luke | Brown |
Matthew, Mark and Luke | Black |
Cyan is used for words common to Matthew and Mark because, when printed, purple can hardly be distinguished from red. There is a similar problem with red and orange. So, for words common to Mark and Luke, brown is used and for words common to all three Synoptic Gospels, black is used. This achieves a result that is close to the manual process.
Thus, the colour scheme used by the Karawara Gospels Project has been adapted for implementation on a personal computer system. It has the merit of displaying visually agreements and disagreements among the Gospels. It is now possible to reproduce the colour-coded text and, with some modifications to the system, to colour-code a synopsis with a different layout from that of Aland. While it has necessitated some modifications of the original colour scheme, a further advantage is that the sayings of Jesus can be clearly displayed within the narrative material in which they are embedded.
The first task is to select the appropriate sections from the Aland Synopsis for colour-coding and data entry. This is achieved through the use of the index found at the back of the Aland Synopsis and the sections in which the three Synoptic Gospels are shown in parallel are selected for colour-coding. However, there is the possibility that the same pericope may be included twice. Such a situation happens when one of the Gospels is not in order. Later on, when it becomes in order for that particular Gospel it has the potential of being included again in the statistics. For example, Aland 37 — The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-law — is in order for Mark and Luke but not for Matthew. It is in order for Matthew in Aland 87 and both sections consist of the same pericopae from the three Synoptic Gospels. If both Aland 37 and Aland 87 are considered for colour-coding, the pericopae will be included twice in the statistics. In order to avoid this situation, only those pericopae that are in order in Matthew and are shown in parallel with the other two Synoptic Gospels are selected. This procedure is taken as a guide and is not based on the preference of any particular hypothesis or theory. This has been chosen because Matthew is printed as the first Gospel in the New Testament. However, before the colour-coding exercise is carried out, the text is analysed to see whether it fits into the category earmarked for this project. The pericopae that are selected are those that contain both narrative and speech attributed to Jesus. Some of the sections, like Aland 278, are borderline cases since they do not have much narrative. Others, like Aland 104, consist only of direct speech of Jesus. When such is the case, the section is not included in the statistics.
After each section from Aland has been colour-coded, the data can be entered into the database. This is done by assigning a code for each of the colours used and also for each of the underlining (or boxed in this case) colours. The codes used in this exercise are:
1 | Blue | Words unique to Matthew |
2 | Red | Words unique to Mark |
3 | Grey | Words unique to Luke |
4 | Cyan | Words common to Matthew and Mark |
5 | Green | Words common to Matthew and Luke |
6 | Brown | Words common to Mark and Luke |
7 | Black | Words common to Matthew, Mark and Luke |
8 | Boxed Cyan | Words with same roots in Matthew and Mark |
9 | Boxed Green | Words with same roots in Matthew and Luke |
10 | Boxed Brown | Words with same roots in Mark and Luke |
11 | Boxed Black | Words with same roots in Matthew, Mark and Luke |
These codes are used internally in the database in order to generate the RTF files required for displaying and printing the colour-coded Greek text.
Within the Microsoft Access Database system, a query has been developed to generate a table that provides a summary of the colour-coded text. It gives the number of words for each of the code combinations in the section being analysed. This table is exported to a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and it is subsequently used to generate the tables and bar charts that follow. For example, the section of Aland 254 — The Rich Young Man — gives the following table:
Book Name |
cc_word |
cc_underline |
Count |
254 |
|||
Luk |
0 |
0 |
14 |
||||
Luk |
0 |
9 |
2 |
61 |
0 |
Matt |
|
Luk |
0 |
10 |
2 |
27 |
0 |
Mark |
|
Luk |
0 |
11 |
1 |
19 |
0 |
Luke |
|
Luk |
5 |
0 |
1 |
||||
Luk |
5 |
11 |
2 |
12 |
4 |
||
Luk |
6 |
0 |
24 |
3 |
5 |
||
Luk |
6 |
11 |
7 |
31 |
6 |
||
Luk |
7 |
0 |
40 |
||||
Mar |
0 |
0 |
22 |
40 |
7 |
||
Mar |
0 |
8 |
2 |
||||
Mar |
0 |
10 |
2 |
2 |
8 |
||
Mar |
0 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
||
Mar |
4 |
0 |
11 |
2 |
10 |
||
Mar |
4 |
11 |
1 |
||||
Mar |
6 |
0 |
23 |
10 |
11 |
||
Mar |
6 |
11 |
8 |
||||
Mar |
7 |
0 |
40 |
||||
Mat |
0 |
0 |
50 |
||||
Mat |
0 |
8 |
2 |
||||
Mat |
0 |
9 |
2 |
||||
Mat |
0 |
11 |
7 |
||||
Mat |
4 |
0 |
11 |
||||
Mat |
4 |
11 |
1 |
||||
Mat |
5 |
0 |
1 |
||||
Mat |
5 |
11 |
2 |
||||
Mat |
7 |
0 |
40 |
The table from the previous step only gives the total number of words for each category for the section as a whole. The figures are those that will appear in the TOTAL column. These figures have to be distributed among the sayings and the narratives. To achieve this, the sayings in the colour-coded Greek text are highlighted. Then the number of words for each of the categories is manually counted to generate this table:
Aland 254 |
||||||||||||
Number of Words |
S |
N |
T |
Exact |
Same Root |
|||||||
Matthew |
63 |
52 |
116 |
S |
Sayings |
1X S |
30% |
0% |
||||
Mark |
50 |
60 |
110 |
N |
Narratives |
1X N |
38% |
0% |
||||
Luke |
48 |
44 |
93 |
T |
Total |
|||||||
2X S |
29% |
0% |
||||||||||
Unique |
Exact form |
Same root |
2X N |
29% |
8% |
|||||||
S |
N |
T |
S |
N |
T |
S |
N |
T |
||||
Matthew |
37 |
24 |
61 |
3X S |
43% |
13% |
||||||
Mark |
5 |
22 |
27 |
3X N |
33% |
6% |
||||||
Luke |
6 |
13 |
19 |
|||||||||
Matthew & Mark |
3 |
9 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
||||||
Matthew & Luke |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
||||||
Mark & Luke |
19 |
12 |
31 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
||||||
Matthew, Mark & Luke |
23 |
17 |
40 |
7 |
3 |
10 |
This table simply separates the figures for the sayings and those for the narratives. The way in which the statistics are presented has been simplified. There are three sets of data for each of the Synoptic Gospels. One shows the number of words that are unique to the particular Gospel, the second set shows the number of words that are in the exact same form in two or more of the Gospels, and the third set shows that number of words that have common roots but have different morphological forms in two or more of the Gospels. For each of these sets, the number of words in the sayings and those in the narratives are given separately. Thus, there is a need to show twenty four columns of figures for each of the Gospels. The width of a sheet of paper limits the way in which the data can be presented. So, a simplified format is necessary for easier-to-read statistics.
It should be pointed out that the underlying assumption is that if in a particular Gospel there is a certain number of words common with another Gospel, then in the other Gospel there is the same number of common words. For example, if in Matthew, there are five words common with Mark, then it is assumed that there are also five common words in Mark. This also applies to the number of words having the same root. However, this assumption does not apply in every section. This is mainly due to the way in which the sections have been arranged in the Aland Synopsis; that is, it involves decisions as to what constitutes a parallel. For example, sometimes part of a pericope in a particular Gospel may have a parallel with a pericope of another Gospel in a different section. Such is the case for the Aland Section 272 (The Cursing of the Fig Tree) where the parallel of Matthew 21:19b has its parallel in Mark 11:20, found in Section 275 (The Fig Tree is Withered).
The above table also provides the appropriate percentage that enables the statistics to be charted. The three columns on the right of the tables are generated from the figures of the other columns. The data are divided into three groups, namely, the number of words unique to each Gospel, the number of words common to any two Gospels and the number of words common to all three Gospels. Each of these groups is further separated into the sayings and the narratives. The labels used are:
1X |
Unique words |
2X |
Words common to two Gospels |
3X |
Words common to all three Gospels |
When the label is followed by an S it is applicable to the sayings, and when followed by an N it is for the surrounding narrative. The percentage is calculated by combining the number of words for each group for all three Gospels and then dividing it by the total number of words in the Gospels. For example, to calculate the percentage for 3X S, the total number of words that are common in the sayings in all three Gospels are taken and divided by the total number of words for the sayings in all three Gospels.
Once the percentage has been obtained, it is possible to produce a bar chart. This gives a visual picture of what the set of figures represents. Each of the bars represents a range. The range shows the percentage of exact words (the unshaded component) with the percentage of words with the same roots (the shaded component) added on top.
This represents the fact that, for example, the sayings in the Triple Tradition in this section range from 43% to 56% of the total number of words in the Sayings; 43% being the percentage of exact words and the additional 13% being the percentage of words with the same roots. Thus, by adding the two percentages, this gives the range of percentages for the sayings in the section.
Since many of the steps involved in the statistics are manual, there are bound to be problems and / or inaccuracies in the final figures. However, it is estimated that this will not dramatically change the end result. There may be a variance of about one percent involved and this will only affect the result if the percentages are very close to each other.
The Aland Synopsis uses the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland text. The text entered into the database is the 27th edition Nestle-Aland as published by the Personal Computer Software BibleWorks Version 4.0. While the publishers of the software are confident of the accuracy of the text, it can and does have a few words that are not the same as the printed version. The authors are updating their database as and when they find such a problem. But, this should not represent a big problem since very few words have so far been found to be inaccurate and they consist mainly of problems with accents.
The Nestle-Aland edition is an eclectic text and certain readings are based on decisions made by the editorial committee. In some places, decisions were taken to publish a text which may not be from one of the most "reliable" manuscripts but from what the committee thinks as being the most likely reading. While in the majority of cases the decision may be correct, there are places where the published readings are disputed. This indicates that a problem exists here in the use of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text. Though it is believed that this will affect only a very small proportion of the Greek words involved, it will nevertheless introduce a certain number of inaccuracies into the statistics.
As indicated above, this process is still carried out manually. Therefore, as with any manual project, it is still subject to inaccuracies. Agreements can be missed, especially if the Aland Synopsis is unable to print words considered to be parallel on the same line in adjacent columns. The only way that this can be decreased is to automate this process as well. Nevertheless, it is estimated that for the purpose of this exercise, the results are close and accurate enough.
While the figures compiled are close to those generated by the Karawara Gospels Project, there are some differences. This may be due to the "fine-tuning" aspect of the process and also of the advantage of having more than one person participating in colour-coding. For example, in Aland 92, Mark 2:12 has the word ἐχίστασθαι whereas the parallel in Luke is ἔκστασις. Mark is using the verb and Luke the noun. How can this be handled? Do they constitute words with a common root? While this can be considered to be the case, it is not always apparent and can easily be missed. However, it can be argued that these differences are not substantial and do not greatly affect the statistics. As argued in the introduction, the differences between this project and the Karawara Gospels Project account for less than one percent.
There is always the question of what constitutes a parallel. In several sections, there is a clear case that at least part of the pericope is taken from a source unique to the writer of that Gospel. For example, in Aland 158 — Peter's Confession — the verses of Matthew 16:17-19 do not have any equivalent in the other two Synoptic Gospels. How can this be considered? As will be argued in Chapter 5, in situations like this, the verses can be ignored but there is a need for consistency. This moves the discussion into the area of Synopsis construction. Is the result going to be different if another Synopsis is used? If so, what is the extent of these differences? However, the scope of this thesis does not allow these questions to be addressed but it is worth bearing such factors in mind.
While the above questions are valid, they are not thought to have a substantial impact on the final result. There may be some variations in the data but they will not be significant. Furthermore, the results are charted to the closest one percent in order to eliminate the effects of such variations and also to reduce the impact that this can have on the general trend shown by the data. However, it is important that when reading the statistics, these factors are not neglected. Though they do not represent a major problem, they should be considered as part of the overall result. If they are separated, there is the danger that someone may use these statistics in a mechanical way and ignore the underlying assumptions.
During the compilation of the statistics, data were collected for each individual section. As expected, the results vary considerably from section to section. But, they do show that in a greater number of cases, the correlation in the sayings among the Synoptics is higher than that in the surrounding narratives. They do give an overall idea of what the trend is. However, in order to confirm this overall trend, there is a need to find an average for all the sections involved. This will give an exact representation of what the trend is for the Triple Tradition.
The following table shows the total for all of the sections involved in the statistics.
Total |
|||||||||
Number of Words |
S |
N |
T |
||||||
Matthew |
1600 |
1891 |
3491 |
S |
Sayings |
||||
Mark |
1652 |
2869 |
4521 |
N |
Narratives |
||||
Luke |
1453 |
2328 |
3781 |
T |
Total |
||||
Unique |
Exact form |
Same root |
|||||||
S |
N |
T |
S |
N |
T |
S |
N |
T |
|
Matthew |
611 |
928 |
1539 |
||||||
Mark |
495 |
1634 |
2129 |
||||||
Luke |
525 |
1402 |
1927 |
||||||
Matthew & Mark |
302 |
424 |
726 |
56 |
39 |
95 |
|||
Matthew & Luke |
73 |
115 |
188 |
6 |
17 |
23 |
|||
Mark & Luke |
241 |
387 |
628 |
21 |
77 |
98 |
|||
Matthew, Mark & Luke |
614 |
424 |
1038 |
132 |
214 |
346 |
From the above table, several observations can be made.
In spite of the fact that Mark is the shortest of the three Gospels, it has the highest number of words that are in the Triple Tradition passages. The table shows that the number of words from Matthew is only around seventy eight percent of those in Mark. Nevertheless, if Markan priority is taken into consideration here, it is possible to argue that this is the case because Matthew generally has shorter accounts than Mark.
Though Matthew has only seventy eight percent of the number of words of Mark in the Triple Tradition sections, the number of words in the sayings attributed to Jesus is more or less the same. Luke has about two hundred fewer words in the sayings in spite of having about four hundred words more than Matthew in the Triple Tradition sections. This probably indicates that in Jesus' sayings there is a closer relationship between Matthew and Mark.
The number of words that are in the exact form in all three Synoptics are either equal to (as in Matthew) or more than the number of words unique to the Gospel in the sayings. Such is not the case in the narratives where the proportion of the exact words varies from half to a quarter of those unique to each Gospel.
The colour-coding gives the impression that Luke, in general, uses words and expressions that are unique to his Gospel even though he may be telling a similar incident to Matthew and Mark. For example, in Aland 33, Luke 4:16-30 is parallel with Mark 6:1-6 and Matthew 13:53-58. However, Luke seems to have more details than the other two. But when the figures are considered for the sections in the Triple Tradition, the proportion of unique words in Luke is not completely out of line from the other two Gospels. Luke has fifty one percent of unique words whereas Matthew has forty four and Mark forty seven percent. While these show that Luke does indeed have the tendency to use his own words, it is not as overwhelming as it has been made out to be.
When the above percentage is broken down, the result is not very different. For the sayings, Matthew has thirty eight percent of unique words, Mark has thirty and Luke has thirty six percent. Thus, in the sayings in the Triple Tradition, Luke has not been as different as he has usually been said to be. This is also the case in the narratives where Matthew has forty nine percent of unique words, Mark has fifty-seven and Luke has sixty percent. This again does not demonstrate the fact that Luke has the habit of changing or modifying his sources more than the other two.
The minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Triple Tradition have often been commented upon. The trend in the statistics confirms the observation that though they are not extensive, they are nevertheless significant. However, the statistics only show the agreements but not the omissions of Markan material common to both Matthew and Luke.
The above observations are made simply by looking at the figures in the table. These are based on what can be classified as raw data. However, some conclusions cannot be based on that sort of data. There is a need to summarise the table in order to find out what the trend is. In this project, the goal is to compare the correlation of the sayings with that of the surrounding narratives in the Triple Tradition. This is possible only through averaging the figures and comparing those averages. The summarising table follows:
Exact |
Same Root |
|
1X S |
35% |
0% |
1X N |
56% |
0% |
2X S |
26% |
4% |
2X N |
26% |
4% |
3X S |
39% |
8% |
3X N |
18% |
9% |
The averages in the table reveal the trend in the Triple Tradition sections taken into consideration. The most important observation is that the common words in the Triple Tradition represent thirty nine to forty seven percent of the sayings whereas those in the narratives represent only eighteen to twenty seven percent. This shows that, proportionately, there are twice as many common words in the sayings as there are in the narratives. It can also be noticed in the chart above that the proportion of unique words in the sayings is thirty five percent whereas the twofold traditions only represent twenty six to thirty percent.
The way in which the figures have been compiled for the twofold traditions is to add up the number of words for each of the categories and then divide it by the total number of words in the two Gospels considered. First the number of words unique to each of the two Gospels is calculated. Since the twofold traditions are being looked at, figures in the overall table that involve only one of the two Gospels considered are included. For example, when the degree of agreement between Matthew and Mark is being analysed, the figures used to calculate the total number of unique words are:
the number of words unique to Matthew and Mark;
the number of words common to Matthew and Luke;
the number of words common to Mark and Luke.
Items 2 and 3 are included because Luke is not being considered and thus, common words with Luke are considered as unique to the other Gospels. Then, the words that are common to both Gospels being considered are calculated. This will include those words that are common to all three Synoptics. The following table and chart give the result of the above calculations:
|
Exact |
Same Root |
||
1 Mt/Mk S |
44% |
0% |
||
1 Mt/Mk N |
64% |
0% |
||
2 Mt/Mk S |
56% |
12% |
||
2 Mt/Mk N |
36% |
11% |
||
1 Mt/Lk S |
55% |
0% |
||
1 Mt/Lk N |
74% |
0% |
||
2 Mt/Lk S |
45% |
9% |
||
2 Mt/Lk N |
26% |
11% |
||
1 Mk/Lk S |
45% |
0% |
1 Mt/Mk S |
Unique Words to Matthew and Mark in the Sayings |
1 Mk/Lk N |
69% |
0% |
1 Mt/Mk N |
Unique Words to Matthew and Mark in the Narratives |
2 Mk/Lk S |
55% |
10% |
2 Mt/Mk S |
Words Common to Matthew and Mark in the Sayings |
2 Mk/Lk N |
31% |
11% |
2 Mt/Mk N |
Words Common to Matthew and Mark in the Narratives |
The result shows that for all three combinations, the proportion of unique words in the narratives is above sixty percent. This is to be expected since the common words of both Matthew and Mark with Luke are included in the statistics. However, while the colour-coding gives the impression that the proportion of common words between Matthew and Mark in the sayings would be higher if Luke is excluded, this does not seem to be the case. While Matthew and Mark have fifty six percent of common words, Mark and Luke have more or less the same level of agreement. Matthew and Luke have forty five percent.
While only sections from the Triple Tradition are involved, it nevertheless shows trends for the Synoptics. When the influence of one of the Gospels is removed, it is possible to deduce the following trend:
There are more words in the sayings between Matthew and Mark than unique ones. The margin is about ten percent.
The same trend is found in the combination of Mark and Luke.
This trend is reversed in the Matthew and Luke combination by about the same margin.
For the narratives, the result is not as consistent. The difference between the proportion of unique words and those common to two Gospels, varies from twenty eight percent for the Matthew-Mark combination to forty eight percent for the Mark-Luke combination.
Sanders and Davies (1989: 54) claim that in the Triple Tradition, the "verbatim agreement" is on average 50%. Taking into consideration what they said earlier in that paragraph of their book, it is understood that they are making the statement that the proportion of exact words common to all three Synoptics would be around the 50% mark. In order to calculate this, the sayings and narratives should both be included. Thus, if the figures are taken from the summary table given above,
the total number of exact words in all three Synoptics is 1038;
the total number of words in all three Synoptics is (3491 + 4521 + 3781) = 11793;
the average would then be (1038 x 3) / 11793 = 26.4%.
This is about half of the 50% that Sanders and Davies claim that average to be. It is true that not all of the sections in the Triple Tradition have been included. However, those that have been excluded are mainly those that have been judged to be functionally parallel and those that do not have speech attributed to Jesus. However, it can confidently be said that such a claim cannot be sustained even if all the Triple Tradition sections are taken into account. The trend, as represented in the summary table, has shown little variation during the last half of the exercise in compiling the statistics. While Sanders and Davies are not using these figures to support their arguments, this exercise in compiling accurate statistics has revealed the danger of using rough estimation and impression.
Therefore, we may conclude that the exercise has been a useful one. It has revealed quite positively the fact that the correlation of Jesus' sayings in the Triple Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels is twice as high as the correlation for the surrounding narratives. This indicates that the words of Jesus were treated with very high respect and thus transmitted and reproduced with care. However, the proportion of unique words in the sayings is also relatively high. It is suggested that this is due to the way in which the tradition has been transmitted and developed in the different regions. However, there is no agreement on the way in which the Gospel tradition has been transmitted from region to region. After arguing that the oral tradition continued on even after the writing of the Gospels, Hagner (1993: l) concludes:
Early in the second century, Papias valued the oral tradition even above the available written material. This shows the confidence in the reliability of oral tradition in that culture... The significant degree of agreement between the written account of Jesus' words and the oral tradition later than the Gospels provides evidence both that the words of Jesus were treasured from the beginning and that they were handed down with the utmost care. We may accordingly have a high degree of confidence that the sayings of Jesus in our synoptic Gospels are true representations of what Jesus himself spoke.
There are still problems that have not been solved but the overall trend in this article points towards the fact that indeed the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels do represent what Jesus actually spoke during his ministry on earth.
Beare, Frank W. 1962. The Earliest Records of Jesus: A Companion to the Synopsis of the First Three Gospels by Albert Huck. New York: Abingdon.
Bellinzoni, Arthur J. ed. 1985. The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Macon: Mercer University.
Bock, Darrell L. 1994. Luke: Volume 1: 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
———. 1996. Luke: Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Brown, Raymond E. 1997. An Introduction to the New Testament. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
Cranfield, C. E. B. 1959. The Gospel According to Mark: An Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D. 1997. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D. and Michael W. Holmes eds. 1995. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Studies and Documents 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Epp, Eldon J. and George W. MacRae eds. 1989. The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Farmer, William R. 1969. Synopticon: The Verbal Agreement between the Greek Texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke Contextually Exhibited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleddermann, Harry T. 1995. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Gerhardsson, Birger. 1998. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
———. 1994. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Johnson, Sherman E. 1991. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Mann, Christopher S. 1986. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 27. Garden City: Doubleday.
Marshall, I. Howard. 1978. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society.
Neirynck, Frans, ed. 1974. The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark. BETL. Gembloux: Duculot.
Neville, David J. 1994. Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique. New Gospel Studies 7. Macon: Mercer University.
Orchard, Bernard and Harold Riley. 1987. The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?Macon: Mercer University.
Piper, Ronald A., ed. 1995. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
———. 1990. Difficult Passages in the New Testament: Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the Gospels and Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
———. 1991. Gospels and Tradition: Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
[4] This article is a modified version of the dissertation that was initially presented as part of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Divinity with Honours at Murdoch University, Western Australia.
[5] For convenience, the Synoptic Gospels are referred to as Matthew, Mark and Luke according to their names in the New Testament throughout this dissertation. This practice is not to be interpreted as implying conclusions as to the actual authorship of these Gospels.
[6] The information concerning the Karawara Gospels Project is taken from a paper entitled "Exploring the Gospels in Theological Education" delivered by Dr Moore at the annual ANZATS/ANZSTS Conference, Morling College, Sydney on July 10th, 1991.
[7] I attempted such a project in 1999. A basic system was implemented but needs further development in order to incorporate more useful and necessary features.
Table of Contents
I am very glad to be able to contribute to this volume in honour of our mentor, Dr Richard K. Moore. Richard, you probably thought that you would not have to suffer any more technical tedium from me. If so, you were wrong. Fortunately for all of the readers, it is only a small piece. Even though you deserve far better, I hope that you will be pleased with this token of my esteem.
MSS vary from each other in every way, even when they are supposed to carry the same text. This is as true for biblical MSS as it is for any other kind. Nevertheless, given so great a cloud of witnesses, we can lay aside the secondary ones to distill a very primitive text. An important step in this process is to discern families of MSS.
A popular method for determining affiliation between MS texts is to count agreements in a series of textual variation units. The number of agreements is divided by the number of units to obtain a ratio that indicates the similarity of a pair of MSS. This method works well with large numbers of variation units; however, it is not reliable for small numbers. This article aims to throw light on the topic of what is, and what is not, a significant level of agreement between MSS.
Perhaps the simplest case is the comparison of two MSS over a set of binary variation units; that is, each variation unit has only two states. One example of such a “binary” variation unit is a place where the article is present in some MSS but absent in others, and where those are the only two possibilities in that place. Rather than confuse the situation further with mathematical idiom, I will switch to a well known example that is analogous from a statistical perspective: a series of coin tosses.
Take two sets of coins of the same denomination, flip each coin in a non-prejudiced manner, then lay them out in parallel lines so that each coin has a corresponding partner. What level of agreement do we expect to see? Here is an example that uses ten pairs, corresponding to the situation where agreement is measured at ten points of variation, and each variation unit has two equally probable states:
2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
(I used the program “binary.txt” from the programs and data section, below, to generate these sets. The numeral “1” represents a tail, and “2” represents a head.)
Here, the agreement of the two “MSS” happens to be 5/10, or 0.5. This figure represents the number of times that the same state occurs in both rows of a column, divided by the number of columns; that is, the ratio is the number of agreements divided by the number of variation units.
Let us pause to consider what has happened. One set of randomly chosen states agrees with the other set of randomly chosen states in fifty percent of cases, even though there is no relationship whatsoever between the two sets. In fact, it is possible for any level of agreement from 0/10 to 10/10 to occur when comparing two randomly chosen sets of states. We understand intuitively that it is more common to get an agreement of, say, 5/10 than to obtain an agreement of 0/10 or 10/10 when the sets are unrelated. Just how often can we expect high levels of agreement between unrelated entities?
Given the following conditions, the binomial distribution provides the answer we seek:
There is a fixed number of trials or observations.
The observations are all independent.
Each observation can have one of only two outcomes (i.e. states).
The probability of the first outcome is the same for each observation.
Applying these abstractions to our situation, the number of observations is the number of variation units. The independence condition is satisfied if no variation unit influences the state of any other variation unit in the set. Real variation units can have more than two states, but in our purposely restricted case there are only two. (In fact, about half of the variation units recorded in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament apparatus satisfy this condition.)
The fourth condition is essential to the validity of results obtained using the binomial distribution; however, it is certainly not satisfied by real variation units. One variation unit might concern presence or absence of an article, while the next might record the tense of a verb that is active in some MSS and subjunctive in the rest. I can choose the first state of the first variation unit to represent “presence of the article”, and the first state of the second unit to represent “active”: I am free to assign states as I please. Even so, the probability that the article is present and the probability that the verb is active cannot be expected to be the same. Nevertheless, let us continue with our artificial example if only to get a better sense of what agreement is not.
A series of coin tosses fits the four conditions well. I will now try to convince you that the frequency distribution of agreements between two sets of equally probable binary variation units is the same as the frequency distribution of heads that occur in a series of coin tosses. After that, I will examine the frequency distribution of heads, confident that the same distribution applies to agreements between unrelated MSS, subject to the four conditions above.
Take a scribe and give him or her a bag with a huge number of scraps of papyrus inside. (Didn't Origen have a team of female tachygraphers working for him?) Each scrap has written on it either “ναί” or “οὔ,” and there are as many “ναίs” as “οὔs.” Now, ask the scribe to take ten scraps out of the bag and to write the words down one-by-one in ten boxes drawn on a first piece of parchment. Then, ask the scribe to take out another set of ten, writing the words in ten boxes on a second piece of parchment:
οὔ | ναί | οὔ | οὔ | ναί | οὔ | ναί | ναί | οὔ | οὔ |
οὔ | ναί | ναί | οὔ | οὔ | ναί | οὔ | ναί | οὔ | οὔ |
(Once again, I used the program “binary.txt” to generate the two sets, substituting “ναί” for “1” and “οὔ” for “2.” The experiment must have taken place about the time when parchment was displacing papyrus as the preferred writing material.)
Finally, ask the scribe to take a third piece of parchment and to write in a series of ten boxes “ναί” if corresponding boxes have the same word, and “οὔ” if they don't:
ναί | ναί | οὔ | ναί | οὔ | οὔ | οὔ | ναί | ναί | ναί |
Given that the scribe is equally likely to draw “ναί” or “οὔ” each time, and that one draw doesn't affect the outcome of the next, corresponding boxes on the first two pieces of parchment are as likely to contain the same word (ναί+ναί or οὔ+οὔ) as to have different words (ναί+οὔ or οὔ+ναί). Therefore, you might just as well ask the scribe to draw out ten pieces of papyrus and to write the results straight onto the third piece of parchment. If you are only interested in how often you get, say, five “ναίs” out of ten over a large number of trials, the last method is as good as the first. Quod erat demonstrandum.
The number of heads thrown in a series of coin tosses conforms to the binomial distribution:
Here, n is the number of trials (e.g. how many times the coin is tossed), k is the number of successful outcomes (e.g. the number of heads thrown), p is the probability of a successful outcome, and P(k) is the probability that there will be k successes in n trials. This equation employs factorial notation, where n! = n x (n - 1) x (n - 2) x ... x 3 x 2 x 1.
The formula may be applied to our example of ten trials, each of which has two equally probable outcomes (i.e. p = 0.5), to obtain a probability for each outcome from zero to ten out of ten heads:
P(0) | 0.0009765625 |
P(1) | 0.009765625 |
P(2) | 0.0439453125 |
P(3) | 0.1171875 |
P(4) | 0.205078125 |
P(5) | 0.24609375 |
P(6) | 0.205078125 |
P(7) | 0.1171875 |
P(8) | 0.0439453125 |
P(9) | 0.009765625 |
P(10) | 0.0009765625 |
(These probabilities were calculated using the program “binomial.txt”, with the number of trials set to 10 and the probability of a successful outcome set to 0.5.)
The nature of the distribution becomes more clear when these numbers are plotted:
As suspected, five out of ten heads is far more probable than zero or ten out of ten.
Weighting the coin so that it is more likely to favour a head than a tail will skew the distribution:
In the idealised case of equally probable outcomes in each binary variation unit, the first plot gives the expected probability of each level of agreement between a pair of unrelated MSS. The chance of an agreement of, say, seven or more out of ten is P(7) + P(8) + P(9) + P(10), which is 0.172. In other words, there is a 17.2% chance that two completely unrelated MSS will have an agreement level of at least 70%, given that the comparison is performed with ten variation units of this special kind. This is somewhat surprising, especially since agreement of 70% or more is commonly taken to indicate affiliation between a pair of MSS.
How can relationship be established in the face of random agreements? One approach is to construct two hypotheses:
The null hypothesis (H0), which states that the effect we hope to demonstrate is altogether absent.
The alternative hypothesis (Ha), which states that the effect is, in fact, real.
In the case of a pair of MSS, our two hypotheses would be:
H0: There is no relationship, so observed agreement should not exceed a reference level consistent with this hypothesis.
Ha: There is a positive relationship.
The reference level is set so that for a pair of MSS taken from a population of unrelated MSS, it would only be exceeded through random agreements in a small proportion of cases. If a level of agreement exceeds the reference level then the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis accepted. So we see the devious nature of the statistician's mind. The method of choosing the reference level will be discussed below.
This approach is not infallible, having two kinds of inherent error. A “type I” error occurs when the null hypothesis is true but is nevertheless rejected. This would occur if a pair of MSS that were actually unrelated had an agreement level exceeding the reference level. A “type II” error occurs when the null hypothesis is accepted even though the alternative hypothesis is true. This would happen if the agreement level of two related MSS was below the reference level.
Purely random processes will generate apparent agreements. The frequency of random agreements will conform to some distribution, but for real MSS it will not be the binomial distribution. Although not binomial, the distribution will be comparable to those shown above. In order to establish that there is a relationship between two MSS, a reference level is chosen towards the right side of the distribution such that an agreement level in excess of the reference level will only happen through random processes in a small proportion of cases.
Say that a reference level is chosen so that random processes will produce a greater level of agreement in only 5% of cases. We are then 95% confident that any level of agreement in excess of the reference level is a significant or real effect, as opposed to a mere coincidence. This “confidence level” (not to be confused with “level of agreement”) does not have to be 95%. One could choose a higher level of, say, 99%, in which case the reference level would need to be set so that random agreements would only exceed it in 1% of cases. The higher the confidence level, the more stringent the test; type I errors become less frequent while type II errors occur more often. In practice, a confidence level of 95% is quite common for work where the consequences of type I errors are not too severe.
To illustrate, consider again the first binomial distribution plotted above (n = 10, p = 0.5). Given a set of binary variation units with equally probable states, the probability of eight or more agreements is P(8) + P(9) + P(10), which is 0.055 or 5.5%. Therefore, we can be 94.5% confident that an agreement of eight or more out of ten is significant. If we increase the confidence level to 95% then our null hypothesis can only be rejected for agreement levels of nine or ten out of ten.
Once a confidence level is chosen, the binomial distribution can be used to find the minimum level of agreement that is significant for the simplified case of binary variation units with equally probable readings. Given a number of variation units N, the procedure is to sum the binomial probabilities for each level of agreement from zero out of N up to whatever level first causes the sum to exceed the confidence level. The next level in the series is then the required one. Using the previous example, adding P(8) to the sum causes it to exceed 0.95, so the minimum significant level of agreement is nine out of ten. This table provides a few more examples for a confidence level of 95%:
Number of variation units | Minimum significant level |
---|---|
Four or less | None exists |
Five | 5/5 (100%) |
Ten | 9/10 (90%) |
Fifteen | 12/15 (80%) |
Twenty | 15/20 (75%) |
Twenty-five | 18/25 (72%) |
Thirty | 20/30 (67%) |
(These numbers were calculated by the program “binomial.txt”.)
Real variation units such as those reported in the apparatus of a critical text may consist of more than two states. What is more, the states are not equally probable. Consequently, the frequency distribution of agreements does not conform to the binomial distribution. The distribution does exist, but deriving its mathematical formula is difficult because each variation unit has its own set of readings and each reading has its own probability of occurrence.
Fortunately, the advent of computers makes it possible to create a distribution that approximates the real distribution for the specific set of variation units under investigation. Firstly, the number of states and the probability of each state is estimated for each variation unit. This information is fed into a Monte Carlo program that, in effect, rolls dice representing the variation units to create a large number of “virtual” MSS. The frequency distribution of agreements expected through purely random agreement is then calculated by comparing the virtual MSS pair-by-pair. Finally, the minimum significant level of agreement is calculated based on a given confidence level.
The estimation step makes use of the information found in a critical apparatus. Hopefully, the recorded number of states and the relative number of witnesses in each state for a particular variation unit are representative of all MSS that cover the relevant section of text.
I will now illustrate the process using the apparatus of the Epistle to the Hebrews found in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (fourth edition). For simplicity, I count every witness provided in the apparatus. I include versions and Church Fathers, and count group categories such as “vg” (i.e. Vulgate) as single witnesses. I count individual scribes and correctors such as H* and Hc as separate witnesses, and count minor variations from the main readings as witnesses in support of those readings. Finally, I include separately listed group members such as K and L. This is not the most accurate approach. However, the aim is merely to estimate the respective probabilities of the states in a variation unit. In such an exercise, a stray witness here or there is not of great consequence.
Three states are listed for the variation unit at Heb 1:3. The first (τη̂ς δυνάμεως αὐτου̂, καθαρισμόν) is supported by 23 witnesses. The second state (τη̂ς δυνάμεως, δι' ἑαυτου̂ καθαρισμόν) has six witnesses listed, and the third (τη̂ς δυνάμεως αὐτου̂, δι' ἑαυτου̂ καθαρισμόν) has 37. This tedious counting exercise must now be repeated for each variation unit concerned. The results, for anyone who might be interested, can be found in the programs and data section.
A Monte Carlo calculation based on the 44 variation units of Hebrews arrives at a value of 32/44 (72.7%) for the minimum significant level of agreement at the 95% confidence level. Using the same number of variation units and the same confidence level, the binomial distribution gives a minimum significant level of 28/44 (63.6%). Thus it seems that real variation units have a greater tendency to random agreement than the artificial ones examined above. (These calculations were performed by the programs “Monte_Carlo.txt” and “binomial.txt”.)
Here ends this excursion into the murky world of statistical inference. Armed with a knowledge of what agreement is not, we are better able to recognise genuine affiliation when we see it.
Links to the three programs employed in this article are presented below, along with a variants file derived from the apparatus of Hebrews in the Greek New Testament (UBS, 4th ed.) for use by the Monte Carlo program. In order to use one of the programs, you must first cut, paste, and save it using a simple text editor. I have suggested names such as “binary.txt”, but you are free to name the programs whatever you like. Once saved, a program can be run from a command prompt provided that a Perl interpreter is present on your computer. This is almost certain to be so if you are using a Unix-like system such as Linux or Mac OSX. A program is run by typing “perl <name>” at the command prompt, where <name> is the program name and the quotation marks are not included. A command prompt can be obtained under Mac OSX by double-clicking the “Terminal” icon located under Applications/Utilities. If the program is not located in the present working directory then you need to specify the full path in the command line.
Program 1 | binary.txt |
Program 2 | binomial.txt |
Program 3 | Monte_Carlo.txt |
Variants | variants.txt |
The variants file is used by the Monte Carlo program to calculate the minimum significant level of agreement based on the 44 variation units provided by the apparatus of the UBS 4th ed. of the [Greek New Testament] in Hebrews. The required format for each row is:
<label> <TAB> <number> <TAB> <number> ... <TAB> <number>.
When using “Monte_Carlo.txt”, the program and the “variants.txt” file need to be in the same directory.
Table of Contents
Late on a Friday afternoon, I asked a young lady at a supermarket checkout counter, "How's the weekend shaping up?"
"Great," she replied. "I'm going to five parties."
"How do you attend five parties in one night?" I asked in a surprised tone.
"You don't," she explained. "You say 'Yes' to each one. Then you go to the ones you feel like on the night."
You can be sure that the parties chosen will be the ones at which the "in crowd" are present.
The issue that was behind the teenager's response appears to be the same as that in an incident in Jesus' life, as related in Luke 14:1-24. Explaining the dynamics behind the issue, social psychologist Henri Tajfel (1978, 62ff.) proposed that the group to which we belong defines our social identity. Our position in that group defines our personal identity (Brown, 1988, 6).
Influenced by Tajfel, Turner (1982) suggested that:
social identity + personality identity = complete identity, who we are.
In his Social Identity Theory (SIT), Tajfel did not accept that a group was an aggregation of individuals. To him there was self-categorisation by which individuals accepted group norms (Tajfel, 1978, 61-63). Brown (1988, 7) described the resultant "uniformity of their behaviour" because they interacted "in terms of their group memberships rather than their distinctive personal characteristics." Hogg (1990, 17) considered that such behaviour of the group could not be considered by studying the individual in the group but the group in the individual.
Based on SIT, a social scientific approach to the story from Jesus' life in which he attended a feast is very revealing. Writing on the subject of a feast appears particularly appropriate in a Festschrift for Dr Richard Moore.
The setting of the incident was first century Palestine, which was under Roman rule. Turner and Brown (1978, 207) describe the problems that can occur in colonial situations when a subordinate group (such as the Pharisees) was "previously dominant and still possesses an ideological and cultural sense of its own superiority." Such a group is insecure, especially when a lower status group (such as that of Jesus and the disciples) threatens their superiority within the native population (Turner and Brown, 1978, 208). Where there is a significant defining characteristic of a dominant group (such as the Pharisees within Palestinian Judaism) under threat by a rival group (such as one's own interpretation of how the Sabbath is to be observed), there will be intense antagonism by the dominant group of the rival group (Turner, 1978, 236).
Jesus was invited to a banquet by a ruler of the Pharisees. An invitation to a meal meant:
You felt very safe because it was a severe breach of social etiquette to do anything that would hurt another person while feasting together.
The host of the feast was the benefactor. There was an obligation to repay the privilege, often after the event (v. 12). The parallel in Western culture is that guests at a wedding breakfast are expected to bring gifts for the bride and groom.
Pharisees were rich and prestigious. Being invited to a banquet in a house of a ruler of the Pharisees (ἁρχόντων τω̂ν Φαρισαίων) was a very high honour. The other guests were either relatives or rich friends (v. 12). Here was one of the dominant groups in Judea.
Present at the banquet was a man afflicted with dropsy (v. 2). How did the unfortunate man get there? Jewish leaders considered that such physical problems were the result of personal sin (as reflected in John 9:2, 34), so he deserved to be in that condition. Bock[8] (p. 1256), commenting on rabbinic tradition, judged: "The tradition is late, but it does show that dropsy was often viewed as God's judgment, either for sin or uncleanness." The man was a victim of a form of stereotyping, by which a dominant group categorises people in other groups in homogeneous terms that do not always equate with reality (Hogg, 1990, 65ff). What was such a man doing in that auspicious company?
As the guests at the feast, lawyers (τοὺς νομικοὺς) and Pharisees, were vying with each other to obtain an honoured seat at the feast (v. 7), it is most probably that the man with dropsy (ὑδρωπικός) was placed directly in front of Jesus by others. This was the Sabbath day (v. 1), and "[Jesus] was being carefully (παρατηρούμενοι, maliciously, BAGD, in loc.) watched" (v. 1). No individual was described as watching. The group was watching as if they were a single individual. This is the force of group pressures at work that Tajfel described in SIT.
The Pharisees wanted to see if Jesus would heal on the Sabbath day, which, according to their interpretation, would have desecrated the day. This was a set-up! It was a serious breach of social etiquette for a guest to be treated in this way at a meal.
The presence of the man with dropsy put Jesus in a "Catch 22" position: whatever he did, there was a serious problem.
If Jesus healed the man on the Sabbath, He would incur the wrath of the Pharisees! The text of Luke indicates that, after this incident, there was greater opposition to his ministry (20:1-2), and this culminated in the cross (22:1ff).
There was a positive side, however. If Jesus did not heal the man on the Sabbath, it may have been anticipated, whether rightly or wrongly, that his popularity within the nation would have propelled him into one of the dominant groups such as that of this ruler of the Pharisees. What social mobility would be achieved if this were the case! Carpenters were second from the bottom rung of Hellenistic society in Jesus' day, and here was an opportunity for a carpenter-turned-rabbi to enter this elite group. But such inaction would also negate the whole thrust of his life, which was concern for God and others — at his own personal cost.[9]
Jesus didn't hesitate to heal the paralysed man (v. 4). He immediately sent away (ἀπέλυσεν) the man (v. 4), apparently because he planned to confront the Pharisees. This man would not be permitted to suffer the fate of the man born blind in being rejected by the religious leaders (John 9:34).
Jesus then continued to take the initiative. He asked the Jews if they would rescue their son[10] or ox from a pit (φρέαρ: well, pit or shaft: BAGD, in loc.) on the Sabbath. The son would have inherited the farm. The ox was the equivalent of our tractor. Without an ox, how could a farmer plant his crop? The Jews knew that they would have rescued the son or the ox, and therefore they remained silent.
Jesus first challenged the distinguished guests (τοὺς κεκλημένους) about their striving to gain the most honourable (πρωτοκλισία) seat, that beside the host. In the concepts of SIT, the lawyers and Pharisees were part of a distinguished group, and they wanted to claim as high a place as they could within that group. Their personal identity was at stake. Jesus urged them to take the lowest seat (τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον), for the honour of being seated higher by the host. Otherwise the host may remove them from the highest place to a more lowly position, to their public shame (αἰσχύνη, v. 9). Imagine their red faces at the impertinence of this carpenter! However the lawyers and Pharisees would certainly grasp this form of communication. Shame and losing face remain crucial issues in most cultures.
The faces then became even redder. Jesus urged the honoured host not to invite the rich to his banquet, and later receive the privileges of a benefactor. Jesus advised the host to invite the poor (πτωχούς), the disabled (ἀναπείρους), the lame (χωλούς) and the blind (τυφλούς) to his banquets, rather than his rich relatives and friends. In the continuum of relative deprivation (Tajfel, 1978, 69), these four groups would appear on the lower end. (Disadvantaged groups have also been the concern of Richard Moore.) One can only imagine what would happen if the ruler of the Pharisees actually carried out Jesus' advice! Polite society would certainly not consider that he threw prestigious banquets any more! This would affect his social identity. And social identity was vital to one's life as a Pharisee!
How can even a carpenter not know that he should not offend the host? What a breach of social etiquette!
Not in reality! Jesus was responding to repay His benefactor. He was communicating in the context of being rewarded by works, a concept deeply ingrained into the soul of the Pharisee (Acts 15:5). And Jesus was about to communicate with imagery derived from the context as to how the host may receive the greatest gift possible — eternal life! Throughout Luke's text, there are indications of the ability of Jesus to communicate in the language and thought forms of his audience. This commitment to simple and understandable communication has been evident in Richard Moore, who constantly worked to make the Bible approachable by the average person, as is witnessed by his personal translation of the New Testament.
Jesus added a positive side to His urgings. He appealed to their self-interest. The guests were told that taking the lower seats would lead to their promotion by the host. That meant an advancement in their personal identity. The host was promised that he would be rewarded by God. What higher social identity can one have than being in God's social group? The reward would occur at the "resurrection of the righteous" (v. 14). To the Pharisees, this doctrine of the physical resurrection appeared to be not only part of their belief system, but an emphasis within that system. Again Jesus communicated with excellence to his audience.
By this stage, faces at the table revealed their deep embarrassment. One of the guests sought to clear the air with a pious statement: "Blessed (μακάριος) is anyone who will eat bread (φάγεται ἄρτον, as in v. 1) in the kingdom of God" (v. 15)! He "knew" that he would be at that Messianic banquet!
With the kingdom of God being in focus, the "already" and the "not yet" elements of this concept will be evident in the parable that Jesus told.
Jesus responded with a story of a banquet, paralleling many of the features of the banquet that he was attending. There are also many contrasts between the two banquets.
A "certain (τις) man" had a great banquet (δει̂πνον), and, he called (ἐκάλεσεν) many. Israel is the elect of God (Rom 9:2-5), and was the group who were called to the banquet. It will be evident from verses 18-19, that the "certain man" invited rich acquaintances (v. 16). Within the culture of the time, an early invitation was given, followed by a second invitation when the feast was about to begin.[11]
The early invitation to the banquet was presented by the OT prophets (e.g. Isa 15:6-9; 55:1-7; Ps 22:26-29). The Pharisees and lawyers considered themselves to be responsive to the demands of Scripture, and therefore this implied invitation would have been effective (had it been understood).[12] The reminder was given by Jesus (11:20; 12:32; 16:16; etc) and His disciples (9:2; 10:9-11).
But, unlike the banquet that Jesus attended, not one of those invited attended. Three excuses were given in the text. They are used as representative of the various excuses given for lack of attendance.
Geldenhuys (1951, 393) argued that the first two invitees would have purchased the field and the yoke of oxen. However, it appears that the invitees' stewards must have made the purchases. This was one of the many tasks of the steward:
He oversees the livestock, directs the brewery, processes the oil, controls the textile revenues, the brick-making labor, the dykes and irrigation works, constructs buildings, hires staff, makes decisions about the farming land, ... manages the workforce. He buys and sells, is responsible for transfers of funds, has an account at the bank. On occasion, he settles disputes and acts as police chief. Such freedom of action, extensive authority and power cannot have been free of abuses, but these are rarely attested. (Spicq, 1994, 2.570-71. Spicq's original sources are omitted from the quotation.)
Thus the steward of one man purchased a field, and the new owner could not even wait one day, despite the early notice about the banquet. Another man had his steward purchase five yoke of oxen, that is, ten oxen, and he could not wait another day before testing them. These men, by their purchases demonstrated their riches. The third had married recently.[13] As the setting appears to be rural at this stage, it appears that the two would see each other constantly each day. Absence for the space of the banquet would not have been a major imposition.
The three excuses are representative: the new paddock — my possessions; the new oxen — my work; the new wife — my family.
It must be obvious to students of group dynamics: whoever the "certain man" was, he was not very popular, as no one wanted to attend his banquet.
The host was angry at the negative responses from all of those invited. It was "a grievous breach of etiquette" (Geldenhuys, 1951, 395). He made up a new guest list. The list consisted of the four groups that Jesus urged his host to invite (v. 13): the poor, the disabled, the blind, and the lame, that is, the marginalised. These groups were those who suffered from relative deprivation. These guests were to be invited from the city's roads (πλατείας) and alleys (ῥύμας). Those from the city represented marginalised Jews.
The steward returned. "Sir, there is still room in your banquet."
The host replied: "Go outside the city. Invite those in the country roads (ὁδούς) and hedges (φραγμούς, fences, walls, hedges, BAGD, in loc.)" (v. 23). BAGD (in loc.) commented: "Vagabonds and beggars frequent the hedges and fences around houses." The group from outside the city represented the Gentiles.[14] These were also invited to the feast.[15]Bock (1996, 1273) explained, "The meal at the table pictures entry into salvation's ultimate benefits."
Therefore, with the religious leaders of the Jews rejecting the invitation to this salvation, those who would respond to the banquet were the marginalised Jews and the Gentiles.
Who was the "certain man," the very prestigious host who was rejected by the rich people who were invited to the banquet? Jesus informs us when at the conclusion of his parable. This, he described as "my (μου) feast" (v. 24).[16] The "certain man" was the Messiah Himself! This was the Messiah's banquet! — and the Jewish religious leaders didn't want to attend! Jesus concluded: "For I tell you, none of those who were invited (κεκλημένων) will taste my dinner" (v. 24). This included the lawyers and Pharisees who were Jesus' audience. Of particular concern was that the guest who had called out, anticipating the Messiah's banquet, would miss out — unless he began to acknowledge the Messiah.
But there is an enigma. The host of Jesus' story didn't follow Jesus' advice to the ruler of the Pharisees? The first people whom the Messiah in the parable invited to the banquet were the rich, representing the Jewish religious leaders, as typified by Jesus' present audience at the house of the ruler of the Pharisees.
By this enigma, Luke highlighted a major theme of Luke/Acts., that of portraying the transfer of the term "people of God" from Israel to the largely Gentile church. Luke 1-2 is arguably the most Palestinian Jewish section of the NT. Jesus is portrayed as a Jew who came to bring salvation to the Jews. In Luke 3, continuing to Acts 9, the traditional Jews are seen to reject their Messiah. But the poor and marginalised Jews accepted Jesus' salvation. In Acts 10-28, the Gentiles are seen to accept salvation in large numbers. Acts concludes with Paul's words to the Jews, "Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen" (Acts 28:28).
In the bracket of two parallel banquet stories, Luke was urging Christians that they did not need to derive their identity from any particular group. They were counter-cultural. It did not matter who they were: it mattered whose they were! There was a call by Jesus from an obsession on their own social advantage to a commitment to the socially disadvantaged.
Bock, Darrell L. 1996. Luke: Volume 2: 9:51-24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Hogg, Michael A. and Dominic Abrams. 1990. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
Liefeld, Walter L. 1984. "Luke." In vol. 8 of The Expositors Bible Commentary, Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. "Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison." In Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Edited by Henri Tajfel. European Monographs in Social Psychology 14. London: Academic Press.
[8] Bock's ECNT commentary on Luke is Dr Richard Moore's favourite commentary.
[9] The approach of this article considers Jesus' dilemma. Bock (1996, 1256) viewed the encounter from the Pharisees' perspective, and considered their "unenviable position" in response to Jesus' initial question as to whether healing on the Sabbath day was lawful (v. 3). The question that he posed to them put them in a "Catch 22" position!
[10] "Son" (υἱός) is the textual preference of Nestle Aland, 26th edition, rather than ass (ὄνος). For an argument in favour of this choice, see Bock (1996), 1259.
[11] In Chinese culture, a host issues three invitations. Failure to do so indicates that a host is not serious in his/her invitation.
[12] One of the most dominant characteristics of Richard Moore is his commitment to Scripture, whatever the cost. Richard is a scholar, a scholar of the Bible.
[13] Liefeld (1984, 978) uses Deut 24:5 as an excuse. This text forbids a man to go to war during his first year of marriage. This provision is in the law to permit the man to have an heir if the man is killed at war. Not too many men are killed at a banquet with friends!
[14] Manson, 1930, 174.
[15] Jews were forbidden to eat with Gentiles (Acts 11:3).
[16] Geldenhuys (1951, 396) quoted Zahn: "Jesus wishes this feast to be regarded as His feast, the table at which the guests are to recline as His table, and the coming kingdom of God as His kingdom."
Table of Contents
It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge your life and work in this Festschrift in your honor. We have known each other for a long time and I remember quite well the time you spent here studying in the Institute. I have always admired your passionate devotion for and discipline in the field of New Testament scholarship.
You are endowed not only with erudite scholarship and organizational abilities, but also with a pious heart — qualities which are necessary to educate our younger generations, which you have always accomplished so well in your different professions. "All Western Australia is your parish" indeed and more than that. You have taught us about Pauline rectification and have enlisted yourself in the scholarly history of our field. We are all in your debt for what we have learned from you.
Table of Contents
Dr Richard Moore was my lecturer in New Testament studies and for Greek during my journey through the Baptist Theological College of Western Australia. This produced some interesting times. Studying under Dr Moore was never boring. With my fellow students, we soon learnt that if the subject was becoming a little heavy, we could easily sidetrack this enthusiast into tales of his bicycle rides around the sites of Paul's missionary journeys! RKM probably stands for the "revolutions per kilometre" of his bicycle wheels.
And an enthusiast he has always been! I remember his saying on one occasion, "What a privilege it is to be paid to teach the subjects I love the most!"
Apart from the New Testament and putting us all to shame by reading his New Testament directly from the Greek, his other love is history. Having enjoyed the various history units that I studied, it was rather a delight to have Richard as my supervisor for an Honours dissertation in Church History.
Following discussion of the various options with him, I wanted to do some primary research. One person who had intrigued him for some years was the Victorian gentleman who had come over to Western Australia to commence a Baptist work here in 1895. Little was known about him, except that he seemed to have been a rather fiery person, a layman who worked as an accountant and who returned east to Queensland after a few years in Western Australia. Richard had even written to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Brisbane to try to find out when James Cole died, as his last known work was in Queensland. The Registrar had never replied!
I had the opportunity to go to Melbourne and Brisbane, helped by prize money from the NSW Historical Society's essay competition. With Richard's assistance, I had written ahead to both the Victorian and Queensland Baptist archivists, telling them about the information we were seeking. Imagine the glee I had when, on my arrival, the Victorian Baptist Union Archivist, Mr Lindsay Newnham, produced a cutting he had found (by chance?) giving a death notice for James Cole. I was able to ring Richard and tell him I had found Cole's grave in the Brighton cemetery. No wonder he had never received a reply from Brisbane!
I probably spent one of the most interesting years of my life when working on this detective work. With Richard as guide, enthusiast, critic and academic standard-setter, we were able to bring the story of James Cole, who commenced work in Western Australia in 1895, "Out of the Shadows" (Harding, 1994).
I was also part of the team assisting Richard with the Baptist centenary history book, "All Western Australia Is My Parish" (Moore, 1996). James Cole used these words upon his arrival at Fremantle in 1895. The book surveyed the history of the Baptists in Western Australia from 1895 to 1995. Once again, without Richard's enthusiasm and determination for keeping his team to a deadline, I doubt if the book would have ever been published.
I have continued to work with Richard in the Baptist Historical Society. It has been an interesting journey. He has never wavered in his enthusiasm or in his strict adherence to academic excellence. We are hoping that during his retirement, he will be able to put more time into researching and gathering together the history of Western Australian Baptists, although I am sure he will continue his New Testament studies in Greek!
Χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη.
Table of Contents
Richard, you have already received from me some of the fruits of my research undertaken and completed under your supervision. When you invited me to join the Karawara Gospels Project, whose purpose was to analyse the four canonical gospels in Greek using the combined colour-coding and underlining method that you had devised, you could not have known how significant my involvement in this project would turn out to be for me. It was largely as a result of working with you on this project that I decided to focus on an aspect of the synoptic problem in my doctoral studies. Indeed, your innovative method of analysing the gospels proved to be foundational for my own research. I have yet to come across a method of analysing the gospel texts that enables one to display not merely shared wording and expression but exact morphological agreement and difference in inflection, as well as transpositions of words, phrases, sentences and even subsections within pericopes.
Those weekly three-hour meetings on Friday evenings (when everyone else in Perth was eating out or at the pictures!) not only introduced me to the intricacies of the literary data that comprise the synoptic problem but also instilled in me a fuller appreciation of the contents of the gospels themselves. You once wrote that "to hear each evangelist individually, to appreciate each gospel in its own right and for its own contribution, probably remains for most of us an aspiration still unfulfilled at life's end". Agreed! But thank you for the inspiration and the direction to undertake that quest.
You may not recall that my original research proposal was to explore the christological implications of the apostle Paul's understanding of "rectification". In this connection, let me congratulate you on the publication of your three volume magnum opus (Moore, 2002). In the same way that your methodological study on analysing the gospels provided the foundation for my research in synoptic source criticism, your work on Paul will be the point of departure for my own teaching and future research in the area of Pauline studies. As a student of the New Testament, I am deeply in your debt.
Here I take the opportunity to express my gratitude for the exemplary quality of your own work, for the meticulous care with which you supervised my research, for your encouragement to persevere when other commitments jeopardised the completion of my dissertation and for your willingness to defend my work when its merits were questioned. But most importantly, Richard, thank you for your friendship over many years.
I first met Richard as my lecturer in Greek at the Baptist Theological College back in the late seventies or early eighties. Subsequent to that initial course, which launched me into years of study and research, Richard became not only my lecturer and tutor, but also my supervisor during postgraduate studies. This, on top of his many other commitments, must have added a heavy burden to an already busy schedule. From the first, there was a rapport between us that grew into a friendship that continues to this day. My only regret is that the many demands on our lives has denied us the opportunity to see more of each other.
Our friendship extended to our families, and in those early years we united for two annual holidays: one around the South-West, the other to Esperance and Cape Le Grand. In 1990 Richard, Kath, and myself spent time together in Greece and Turkey, following primarily the footsteps of the Apostle Paul. It was during our time in Athens that an incident took place that I have never forgotten.
At the time, I was on a rock that gave a good aspect of the hill Pnyx. (It was on the hill Pnyx that in the early days of their democracy, the Athenians gathered to vote on the running of their nation.) Having set up my tripod and camera with zoom lens, I was about to take a photograph - always a precarious business in Greece, for one was constantly plagued with officials telling one either that photos could not be taken per se, or if photography was allowed it was only after a prescribed amount of money had been paid. So there I was, poised to take a photo of the hill Pnyx, when this deep and foreboding voice said "What are you doing? Don't you know you are not allowed to take photos around here?" I was quite startled, for I had assessed the situation earlier and had come to the conclusion that I would not breach any law by taking a photo from that particular location.
As it turned out my concern was unfounded. Much to my relief, but somewhat to my annoyance, the person challenging me was none other than Richard! This is only one of the many memories I have of Richard, and for that matter Kath and their family. I consider myself privileged to have shared part of my life with such lovely people. May God bless you all in the coming years as you continue to serve our God and Saviour.
Richard K. Moore introduced himself as a fellow Christian from the Antipodes when he came from "down under" to start his research on the New Testament citations in the Symposion of Methodios of Olympos at our Institute — and he was our fellow Christian in Münster for six months during the eighties.
Among the many guests at Georgskommende 7, I cherished him especially for his open-mindedness and sincerity which concerned not only our academic work. Furthermore, there were and there are contacts between his and our families.
When he left Münster and the Institute at the end of March 1984, he wrote into the visitors' book: "May God continue to prosper your work." May God also continue to prosper all his days after his retirement.
"A forty-thousand word thesis on just one verse?" And I'd reply, "Well part of a verse really."
Forty-thousand words — you'd hope it's a pretty important verse. And it is. But for me the test of any thesis is not how much of it you write, or remember, but how much of it you live.
Ten years on, and Dr Moore still hints that I should publish my thesis[17], but, ironically, now I can't even find it! It was never copied over from those old floppy disks (now positively limp); and my hard copy is lost in a pile of boxes that have been packed for moving house. So it seems there'll be no academic masterpiece from me for this Festschrift, though later I will offer a summary of my conclusions — ones I live by.
However, whilst the academic tome is currently unavailable to draw upon, the legacy of it lives on — and not only in me. The thesis has been a cornerstone of my pastoral and itinerant ministry these past ten years.
I remember that eleven years ago, I resolved never to do post-graduate work for the sake of it, but only if there was something I really wanted to learn for myself. And that's what happened as we studied 400-level Romans. What was this “principle of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus”[18] that had set Paul free? Could it set me free too? And could it set others free? How free? And how did this freeing principle work?
I soon realized that no mere essay would cover this — there were too many other questions to answer first, too many ways to interpret the words. What did Paul mean by "free"? "Law"? "Spirit"? And once the terms were clear, how did this principle work out in his life in practice? I knew I had to examine the whole book, and chapters 4 to 11 in particular.
The thesis became a discovery journey — a long walk with Paul, Dr Moore, and God. I remember thinking through the arguments for and against every conceivable interpretation of Romans 8:2, in the light of the book of Romans and what we know about it and its author. Also, I recall the struggle of trying to articulate each of my findings. And as we walked, I began to trust God's Spirit more. This word journey was changing my life.
This is what I found, and not just in the text. First, there is a simple law at work in me: sin leads to death. I see it in so many ways in me and around me. I struggle to resist sin and its consequence of death, but lose so often that I think I'm "wretched". But secondly, I observe also another principle at work in me. It's not a law like the other, "do this and that happens." But more of an internal nudging. A new inner guiding principle. This principle is now also at work in me, even though I still struggle with sin and death's law. Both are at work in me.
This new principle is activated in me by Christ's living Spirit. It is enabled by the life-giving work of Christ's death and resurrection, with its resulting forgiveness and nullification of sin. This Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Life. And with that Spirit, my life is now in the sphere of, under the influence of, Christ Jesus.
The principle now activated is that, in the face of death, I can live. And in the face of sin, I can live rightly, in life-giving ways. I can defy the law of sin and death in at least two ways:
by living — put right with God, even though I'm a sinner and I should die by the Old Law.
by sometimes even doing right — when I might otherwise sin were it not for that inner prompting.
Without this principle of the Spirit, I'm too weak to oppose the law of sin and death for long, even though I might want to. But with the "principle of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," my weak human nature is bolstered. So I find I do right more often than I otherwise would.
And even if I do sin, I'm still freed from the condemnation of the old "law of sin and death."
I no longer live in fear, but in freedom. And that encourages me to keep going and growing.
So many people live their Christian lives in fear of failure, or resignation. Or, in a kind of triumphal denial, they just wait for the time-bomb of disillusionment to explode. But Paul has articulated a living reality in his life that I have also discovered in mine: I don't have to fear condemnation, even when I sin, because this principle has set me free.
Yes, that law of sin and death is still at work in me just as surely as the law of gravity is still at work on a plane in flight. That's why I'll bodily die (maybe in 50 years or so). But the flying plane simultaneously has other laws (of physics) at work on it, and so need not be grounded by gravity. And nor need I be defeated by sin's law. The new principle in me gives me a freedom to defy the gravity of the Old Law. Not only a new inclination to live more rightly, but also a right-standing with God that gives me freedom even to fail. That's life "in Christ Jesus."
So this is what I've since passed on to others. And not only is it biblically sound, but it makes realistic sense of the struggles most believers have. So many people have been internally freed by the insights I struggled to articulate in my walk with the text that began ten years ago. Not because they are new insights, but just because "nobody put it to me that way before," as they say.
It seems that when we can articulate our scriptural journeys, and reframe them in ways that give hope as they resonate with reality, freedom often results. That's the legacy of a life-giving word. Christ Jesus. Freedom. Life.
Isn't that why Paul tried to articulate his discovery? Isn't that process of articulation something Dr Moore has devoted his working life to? You could say that this new-found freedom is not just Paul's, but Dr Moore's legacy to me, and through me, and maybe even further on.
All that, from just one part of one little Bible verse.
[17] Westlake, Geoff. “Realising Righteousness: ὁ νόμος του̂ πνεύματος τη̂ς ζωη̂ς ἐν Χριστῳ̂ Ἰησου̂: An Investigation of Paul's Meaning.” Honours thesis, Murdoch University, 1992. (A copy of this thesis is housed in the library of the Baptist Theological College of WA.)
[18] Ibid., author's translation.
Table of Contents
b. 16 April 1937, Subiaco, Western Australia
m. Kathleen Mack, 24 Aug 1965
BA (UWA, 1965), MA (UWA, 1969), DipEd (UWA, 1971), BD (MCD, 1975), PhD (UQueensland, 1978)
Primary and Secondary School Teacher (1958-1974)
Pastor (part-time) Leederville Baptist Church (Mar 1968-Jan 1969)
Pastor (part-time) North Beach Baptist Church (Jan 1970- Jan 1972)
Pastor (part-time) Dalkeith Baptist Church (4 Feb 1979-Jun 1983)
Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Baptist Theological College of Queensland (Jun 1974-Dec 1978)
Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western Australia (1979-2002)
Concurrently Lecturer in New Testament Studies, Murdoch University (1986-2002)
Churches Commission on Education: Chairperson (1985-1987); Member (1981-1987)
Baptist Historical Society: Founder; Member (1985-)
Archivist, Baptist Churches (1991-)
"Romans 4.5 in TEV: A Plea for Consistency." Bible Translator 39/1 (1988): 126-9.
New Testament Greek. Part One: Morphology. Part Two: Syntax. Perth: Murdoch University, 1989.
The Text of the New Testament: Its Witnesses and Reconstruction. 3rd ed. Perth: Murdoch University, 1990.
"Issues Involved in the Interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεου̂ in the Pauline Corpus." Colloquium 23/2 (1991): 59-70.
"Society in vacuo? The Necessity of Historical Geography for an Understanding of the New Testament." In Radical? Conservative? Social Issues in the New Testament: Papers from the Conference at Murdoch University with Professor Edwin Judge, 11 August 1990. Ed. R. J. S. Barrett-Lennard. Perth: Murdoch University, 1991.
"Exploring the Gospels: A Practical and Objective Method for Examining the Literary Relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics." Faith and Freedom 2/2 (1993): 3-8.
"The Doctrine of 'Justification' in the English Bible at the Close of the Twentieth Century." Bible Translator 45/1 (1994): 101-16.
"2 Cor 5,21: The Interpretative Key to Paul's Use of δικαιοσύνη θεου̂?" In The Corinthian Correspondence, 707-15. Ed. R. Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University / Peeters, 1996.
"δικαιοσύνη and Cognates in Paul: The Semantic Gulf between Two Major Lexicons (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker and Louw-Nida)." Colloquium 30/1 (1998): 27-43.
Ed. Introduction to New Testament Studies. 3rd ed. Perth: Murdoch University, 1999.
Rectification ('Justification') in Paul, in Historical Perspective and in the English Bible: God's Gift of Right Relationship. Part One: Paul's Doctrine of Rectification. (Published 2002.) Part Two: The Doctrine of Rectification in Its Historical Development. (In print.) Part Three: Paul's Doctrine of Rectification in English Versions of the New Testament. (Published 2002.) Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 50. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
The Real Bible and Claims of Inerrancy. Privately published, 2002.
"Baptists and the English Bible." Westralian Baptist 2/1 (1987).
"Rev. Silas Mead, M.A., LL.B.: The Eventide of a Giant in the First Light of our Churches." Westralian Baptist 3/1 (1988)
Baptists of Western Australia: An Overview. Perth: Baptist Historical Society of WA, 1989.
"A Schism Healed: Reconstruction and Documentation of the Division among Western Australian Baptists over 'Open' and 'Closed' Membership (1900-1902)." Westralian Baptist 6/3 (1991).
Ed. Baptists of Western Australia: The First Ninety Years (1895-1985). Perth: Baptist Historical Society of WA, 1991.
"William Carey and the Modern Missionary Movement." Westralian Baptist 7/1 (1992).
"Baptist Views of 'Justification' in Historical Perspective." Westralian Baptist 8/2 (1993).
Entries for J. H. Cole, E. Hogg, Harry Reeve, Carment Urquhart, Les Watson and A. S. Wilson in The Australian Dictionary of Evangelical Biography. Ed. Brian Dickey. Sydney: Evangelical History Association, 1994.
"All Western Australia Is My Parish": A Centenary History of the Baptist Denomination in Western Australia 1895-1995. Perth: Baptist Historical Society of WA, 1996.
"Fremantle Baptist Church (1895-1961)." Westralian Baptist 10/3 (1997).
"William Dalgety Moore (1835-1910): The Making of a Merchant Prince as Reflected in His Journal 1853-1858." Fremantle Studies. Vol. 2, 85-105. 2002.
Chris Newhouse. "The Citations of the Old Testament in Paul's Letter to the Romans: An Analysis of Their Function and Character." UWA, 1981.
Kenneth E. Panten. "The Text of Acts in Codex D." Murdoch University, 1995.
David Neville. "Marcan Priority or Marcan Posteriority? A Study Based on the Phenomenon of Order." Murdoch University, 1998.
Tim Finney. "The Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of the Papyrus and Uncial Manuscripts of ΠΡΟΣ ἙΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ." Murdoch University, 1999.
Alan Gordon. "James: Diatribe, Paraenesis or Protreptic Discourse? An Analysis of the Subgenre of the Letter of James." Australian College of Theology, 2002.
Alex Friend. "New Testament Soteriology: The Divine Strategy and the Human Response." Murdoch University, 1998.
Hans Van Asselt. "The Speech of James in Acts 15 and the Old Testament Citation from Amos 9.11-12." Murdoch University, 2001.
Colin Meadows. "The Congregational Church in the West, 1919-1929." Murdoch University, 2001.
Michael Bullard. "Theology before Scripture? Apostasy in Hebrews and in the Calvinistic tradition." Murdoch University, 1998.
David Neville. "The Significance of the Phenomenon of Order for a Solution to the Synoptic Problem: An Historical-Critical Survey." Murdoch University, 1988.
Terry Crain. "The Linguistic Background to the Metaphoric Use of κεφαλή in the Greek New Testament." Murdoch University, 1990.
Kenneth E. Panten. "Sir William Ramsay's Estimate of Luke as a Historian in the Light of Subsequent Research, with Particular Reference to Southern Galatia." Murdoch University, 1990.
Tim Finney. "Establishing the Text of ΠΡΟΣ ἙΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ: A Collation of Three Manuscripts against the Text of Nestle-Aland26." Murdoch University, 1991.
Geoff Westlake. "Realising Righteousness: ὁ νόμος του̂ πνεύματος τη̂ς ζωη̂ς ἐν Χριστῳ̂ Ἰησου̂: An Investigation of Paul's Meaning." Murdoch University, 1992.
Marc Chan. "Jesus' Sayings in the Triple Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels." Murdoch University, 1999.
Chris Johnstone. "The Concept of Perfection in Hebrews." Murdoch University, 1997.
Evelyn Ashley. "The Use of Habakkuk 2.4 in the New Testament." Murdoch University, 2001.