| by David Flusser[*] |
The first outbreak of brutal hostility to strike the Jews of Germany came with the First Crusade. The fanatical crusaders attacked Germany’s flourishing Jewish communities and many Jews died on account of their faith. Why did this atrocity happen? Rabbi Shlomo ben Shimshon, the most ancient witness to the pogroms, put the following words into the mouths of the Crusaders:
אתם בני אותם שהגרו את יראתינו ותלוהו על עץ; וגם הוא אמר: עוד יהיה יום שיבואו בני וינקמו דמי, ואנו בניו ועלינו לנקום נקמתו מכם, כי אתם המורדים והפושעים בו. ומעולם לא נתקררה דעת אלהיכם עליכם כאשר אמר להיטיב לכם, כי אתם הרעותם לפניו. ועל זאת שכח אתכם ולא חפץ עוד בכם, כי עם קשה עורף הייתם, וחלק עצמו מכם והאיר עלינו ולקח אותנו לחלקו.
You are the children of those who killed our Lord and crucified him. And even he said, “There shall be a day when my sons will come and avenge my blood.” We are his sons, and it is our duty to avenge him, because you are rebellious and sinful against him. Your God never received thanks when he did you good, because you acted evilly against him. Therefore he has forgotten you and takes no more pleasure in you, because you are a stiff-necked people. He has separated himself from you but shined his light on us and taken us as his portion.[1]
This Jewish chronicler accurately represented the ideological motivation of those who butchered the Jews at that time. These anti-Jewish motifs have a long history and have been lovingly cultivated, constantly repeated, and embellished over many centuries. As we have just seen, the propagation of these anti-Jewish ideas was not a purely academic pursuit: such an understanding of the essence of Judaism was intended as a threat to Judaism. The threat was realized and human blood was shed because of it.
But all this is well known and we need not dwell upon it. My interest lies in the false saying of Jesus which the Jewish chronicler placed in the mouths of the murderers. Jesus supposedly said: “There shall be a day when my sons will come and avenge my blood.” The historical Jesus certainly never said this. But is it so far-fetched to imagine that in medieval times a vulgar and illiterate Christian might have believed a malicious preacher who claimed that Jesus Christ himself had called upon the Christians to take revenge for his blood upon the Jews? In any case, we can hardly blame the Jewish author for believing that the murderers of his loved ones invoked Christ’s authority to justify their atrocities.
The Historical Background of Jesus’ Prayer from the Cross
The medieval anti-Jewish saying falsely attributed to Jesus sheds light on the embarrassing history of an authentic dominical saying: “But Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’” (Luke 23:34). Franz Mussner, to whom this essay is lovingly dedicated, rightly asked, in view of Jesus’ prayer for his enemies, “Did God not hear the plea of his Son?”[2]
But who were the enemies for whom Jesus prayed?[3] If the saying has been handed down in its original context, then it is not very likely that the enemies Jesus prayed for were the Sadducean aristocrats who handed Jesus over to the Romans. According to the Lukan context Jesus uttered this prayer of forgiveness after the soldiers had nailed Jesus and the two criminals on either side of him to the cross (Luke 23:33). Jesus could hardly have made this intercession for these two Zealots who were crucified with him, if only because at that point the crucified men could not “do” anything bad for which they might need to be pardoned. At most they “had done” something previously, which does not fit with the wording of Jesus’ prayer. After the prayer we read that the Roman soldiers “cast lots to distribute his clothes among themselves” (Luke 23:34b). Therefore the simplest and most straightforward way to understand Jesus’ prayer is to assume that, according to Luke, Jesus prayed for those who crucified him and who were present at his prayer and cast lots for his clothing: the Roman soldiers. For why would Jesus have needed to ask his heavenly Father to forgive the Jewish people, or even just the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
Nevertheless, there is a certain possibility—although such an understanding would be historically improbable as well as untenable from a literary point of view due to the context of Jesus’ prayer in Luke’s Gospel—that the author of Luke himself believed Jesus actually did pray on the cross for the Jews. This is because the Acts of the Apostles portrays Peter making a speech to the people of Jerusalem in which Peter claims:
You handed [Jesus] over and disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to release him. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and desired that a murderer should be released to you instead. You killed the author of life…. But now, brethren, I know that you acted out of ignorance, as did your leaders…. So repent and be converted so that your sins may be wiped out…. (Acts 3:11-19)
Thus according to Peter’s speech in Acts, the Jewish people and their leaders caused the crucifixion of Jesus out of ignorance, while according to Luke 23:34 Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of those who “know not what they do.” But although it is possible that the author of Luke understood Jesus’ prayer in light of the view he expressed in Acts regarding the Jewish participation in the death of Jesus—and although it cannot be entirely ruled out that Peter’s speech in Acts 3 was influenced by Luke’s (mis)understanding of Jesus’ prayer—it does not seem to me that, historically speaking, Jesus’ intercession on the cross could have involved any Jews who themselves contributed to the catastrophe. As I said, my interpretation is valid if Jesus spoke his prayer from the cross, as Luke’s Gospel claims, and not before.
My task in this essay is to describe the struggle over Jesus’ prayer from the cross, the echoes of which can be heard through many centuries. For this task—paradoxical though it may seem—the question of whether Luke 23:34 is an authentic dominical saying (and, if so, when it was spoken) is not of crucial importance. But in its own right the question of the prayer’s authenticity is exceedingly important, especially for how this prayer is to be understood in relation to the teaching and person of Jesus.
The prayer from the cross has rightly been associated with Isaiah 53:12:
Therefore I shall divide him a portion among the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore the sin of many and intercedes for the transgressors.
The prayer from the cross demonstrates how the crucified Christ was understood to have interceded for transgressors. If Jesus really made this intercession, was he also aware that he was thereby fulfilling the task of God’s suffering servant? This is not an idle question, because on two other occasions, both of them in Luke, Jesus alluded to the prophet’s famous words. In Luke 22:37 Jesus justifies his instruction that his disciples should buy a sword with the words: “For I say to you, this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: He was numbered among the transgressors.” Unfortunately, I cannot explain here why I consider this saying to be genuine. The most important allusion to Isaiah 53 is the remaining instance in Luke (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus uses a metaphor to explain why he disarms Satan by casting out demons:
ὅταν ὁ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν, ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστὶν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ· ἐπὰν δὲ ἰσχυρότερος αὐτοῦ ἐπελθὼν νικήσῃ αὐτόν, τὴν πανοπλίαν αὐτοῦ αἴρει ἐφ’ ᾗ ἐπεποίθει καὶ τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ διαδίδωσιν
When the armed strong man [ὁ ἰσχυρὸς] guards his court, his possessions remain in peace. But when someone stronger than he comes upon him and conquers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil [σκῦλα].
This is how Jesus’ saying reads in Luke. The author of Mark did not understand the depth of the metaphor and reworked it (Mark 3:27), and Matthew follows Mark (Matt. 12:25). Here Jesus made a subtle allusion to the prophet’s words about the Servant of God, about whom it is said that he will “divide spoils with the mighty.” This is how one usually understands the linguistically difficult phrase in Isaiah today. But the Septuagint understood the Hebrew phrase as: καὶ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μερεῖ σκῦλα (“and he will distribute the spoils of the strong ones”; Isa. 53:12). This is also how the ancient Aramaic targum understood the verse. So it is certain that Jesus’ listeners also interpreted Isa. 53:12 in this manner. Those who heard Jesus’ hint at the verse would have understood his meaning. Does this imply that Jesus wished secretly to indicate that he considered himself to be the one Isaiah prophesied would distribute the spoils of the strong? And if so, does this mean Jesus believed himself to be the servant of God, the expected anointed of God? Be that as it may, it is certainly significant that, according to Luke, Jesus likely alluded to Isa. 53:12 three times. I refer to the third allusion as a likelihood because there is no verbal echo of Isa. 53:12 in Luke 23:34. It is merely the circumstance (Jesus’ intercession for the transgressors) that is reminiscent of the prophetic prediction. But the whole problem of Isaiah 53 and Jesus is fraught in other ways, and here is not the place to pursue this issue any further.
Even more important than whether Isa. 53:12 lies in its background, is the content of Jesus’ intercession, a prayer for his persecutors. For the early Christians, this deeply humane attitude became a hallmark of their unique mentality. Justin Martyr said: “We pray for our enemies and try to convince those who hate us unjustly.”[4] Luke tells us in his Gospel that at his execution Jesus prayed for his persecutors (Luke 23:34), and in Acts he reports that the proto-martyr Stephen, when he was being stoned, bowed down and cried out with a loud voice: “Lord, do not impute this sin to them!” (Acts 7:60). But as we know, Christians were not only to behave this way at their martyrdoms, they were to pray for their enemies throughout their lives. In doing so, Christians followed the instruction of their master, who said: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27-28). When from the cross Jesus prayed for his executioners, he did so in accordance with his own teaching.
Paul gave Christians similar advice: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse!” (Rom. 12:14). A certain similarity between Paul’s instruction and Jesus’ words in the Synoptic Gospels is undeniable. But would Paul have quoted Jesus in Rom. 12:14 without citing it as such?[5] Experience shows that, apart from cases in which Paul cites Jesus explicitly, it is very doubtful that even if a Pauline passage has a parallel in the teachings of Jesus, Paul’s words come either directly or indirectly from Jesus. If the words of Paul and Jesus are similar, then the relationship is best understood as their stemming from a common Jewish tradition. Anyone who has studied Second Temple Judaism has had this experience.[6]
In that period a new Jewish sensitivity was developing from the simplistic assumptions of ancient Israelite religion. This new Jewish humanism is one of the foundations of the proclamation of Jesus, and is at the root of Christian morality. Having love for all people without distinction was characteristic of the Hillelite school’s interpretation of Scripture, in which the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself was understood as the essence of Judaism. According to this approach one should pray for sinners because if they repent, then they will no longer be sinners.[7] It is a small step from love for all humanity to love for the enemy who hates you, and so the way to praying for one’s persecutors was being opened. Psychologically, however, this step is exceedingly difficult to take and must overcome certain obstacles. But taking this step was made easier in certain Jewish circles due the influence of Essenism.
If one examines Rom. 12:8b-13:7 after reading the Dead Sea Scrolls, and especially the sect’s rule book (1QS), one becomes aware that Paul’s instruction is indirectly dependent on a pre-Christian Essene parenetic composition.[8] I have already dealt exhaustively with this paraenesis elsewhere. Among other things, Paul’s demand that everyone be subject to the ruling authorities, because there is no authority except from God (Rom. 13:1), is Essene inspired. Among the Essenes the ideological background of this attitude is the view that God has precisely ordained the time of the ultimate destruction of the wicked. Only then will the rulers of this world finally fall. From this premise it follows that it is sinful to act against the “men of perdition” before the divinely appointed time of vengeance. For the present one was obliged to “leave them one’s possessions and the acquisition of one’s hands, like a slave to him who commands him and one who shows humility to him who rules over him” (1QS 9:21-26). From this conditionally humble state of mind, an Essene could say: “When trouble comes I will praise Him and rejoice in His salvation. I will not repay evil to anyone, but I will pursue people with good, for with God is the judgment of every living thing, and He will repay them with retribution… I will not take up strife with the men of destruction until that day of vengeance, and yet I will not turn away my wrath from men of wickedness, nor will I be satisfied until He determines judgment” (1QS 10:17-20).
One notices that these and other Essene motifs are embedded in Paul’s parenesis in Rom 12:8b-13:7. But could a true Essene, out of his inhumane humanity and hubristic humility, go so far as to call upon his brethren to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse!” (Rom. 12:14)? It is not beyond the realm of possibility that such strange humility might manifest in this way, especially if such advice were given with the ulterior motive that, in doing so, the Essene would heap burning coals on the head of his wicked persecutor (cf. Rom. 12:20-21). For by not repaying the wrongdoer evil for evil, one does nothing to diminish the persecutor’s sinfulness, but leaves room for God’s wrath.[9] Thus it is not impossible that Rom. 12:14 was already present in Paul’s Essene source. Nevertheless, I doubt whether Paul himself understood his source in this way. Be that as it may, we have seen that it is hardly possible that Rom. 12:14 depends on Jesus’ words in Matt. 5:44.
Within those Jewish circles that coalesced around periphery of Essenism, the Essene doctrine of love-cloaked hatred facilitated the breakthrough from love for sinners to love for one’s enemy and praying for one’s persecutor. These semi-Essene circles had liberated themselves from the Essene theology of hate because they accepted the Hillelite ethic of unlimited and undivided love for all people without distinction. We know of these semi-Essene circles from the Jewish source behind the Didache and from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Jesus was apparently acquainted with this semi-Essene group, approved of their way of thinking, and adopted much of it. The Testament of Benjamin is particularly important for our knowledge of this group’s attitude towards sinners. There we read, among other things:
ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔχει σκοτεινὸν ὀφθαλμόν· ἐλεᾷ γὰρ πάντας, κἂν ὦσιν ἁμαρτωλοί· κἂν βουλεύωνται περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς κακά, οὗτος ἀγαθοποιῶν νικᾷ τὸ κακόν, σκεπαζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ· …ἐὰν γὰρ ὑβρίσῃ τις ἄνδρα ὅσιον, μετανοεῖ· ἐλεεῖ γὰρ ὁ ὅσιος τὸν λοίδορον καὶ σιωπᾷ. …τὸ ἀγαθὸν διαβούλιον οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται δόξης καὶ ἀτιμίας ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πάντα δόλον ἢ ψεῦδος, μάχην καὶ λοιδορίαν οὐκ οἶδεν· ἡ ἀγαθὴ διάνοια οὐκ ἔχει δύο γλώσσας, εὐλογίας καὶ κατάρας…, ἀλλὰ μίαν ἔχει περὶ πάντας εἰλικρινῆ καὶ καθαρὰν διάθεσιν.
The good person does not have a darkened eye, for he has mercy on all, even if they are sinners. And if they give counsel against him for evil, this one by doing good triumphs over evil… For if someone abuses a pious man he [i.e., the abuser] repents, for the pious man has mercy on the abuser and is silent… The good mindset does not receive glory or dishonor from human beings, and it does not know any cunning or deceit or strife or abuse. The good frame of mind does not have two tongues, one for blessing and one of cursing…, but has one sincere and pure disposition for all. (T. Ben. 4:2-3; 5:4; 6:4-5)
This is the same ethical atmosphere in which Jesus said: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27-28; Matt. 5:44). And according to Luke 23:34, Jesus acted in accordance with his own words in the hour of his passion.
The Textual Tug of War Over Jesus’ Prayer from the Cross
We have seen that there is no historical objection to the authenticity of Luke 23:34, but this is where a new problem arises, for this verse is missing in many important New Testament manuscripts.[11] The verse is already missing in Papyrus 75, which dates from the third century C.E. On the other hand Luke 23:34 is already attested by Marcion (mid second century C.E.) and in the Diatessaron (160-175 C.E.).[12] Most researchers today are convinced by the weight of the manuscripts in which Luke 23:34 is missing and believe the verse is not Lukan, but was originally an agraphon that has an authentic ring which was later inserted into the text of Luke. But if the verse had not been omitted from these manuscripts, would anyone ever have suspected that it was out of place in Luke? Those who “knew not what they were doing,” the executioners, are present and carrying out their gruesome task.
One might be tempted to explain the absence of Luke 23:34 in the manuscripts by supposing that someone inserted Jesus’ intercession into the text of Luke on the model of Stephen’s similar intercession in Acts 7:60, even though its wording is completely different. As far as I can see, only one fact speaks in favor of this supposition: the false witnesses in the trial of Jesus (Matt. 26:59-62; Mark 14:55-6la) are missing from Luke, even though Luke refers to the gathering of testimony (Luke 22:71, cf. Mark 14:63 and Matt. 26:65). On the other hand, in the Acts of the Apostles Luke describes a similar incident before the Sanhedrin with regard to Stephen (Acts 6:11-15), which does include false witnesses and an accusation (Acts 6:14) which is actually identical to the accusation in Matt. 26:61 and Mark 14:58 that Jesus claimed he would destroy the Temple. So there is a possibility that Luke omitted the gathering of false witnesses and the Temple accusation in his Gospel only to report them in Acts with regard to Stephen in order not to repeat himself unnecessarily. Could the same apply to Jesus’ intercession in Luke and Stephen’s intercession in Acts? In this case, however, one would have to assume that the reason Jesus’ intercession was not originally in Luke is that Jesus never actually spoke it; someone inserted it into the Gospel based on the model of Stephen’s intercession.[13]
But the similarity between the crucifixion of Jesus in Luke and the martyrdom of Stephen is not limited to Jesus’ intercession in Luke 23:34. It has been noted that in Acts the last three statements of Stephen correspond to final three statements of Jesus from his capture to his death: Acts 7:56 ∥ Luke 22:69; Acts 7:59 ∥ Luke 23:46; and Acts 7:60 ∥ Luke 23:34.[14] One cannot, therefore, claim that Luke intended to eliminate the similarity between Jesus’ death and the martyrdom of Stephen by radically dividing his material between the two events. On the contrary: he emphasized the similarity by evoking the same motifs. This correspondence, which Luke intended, includes the similar motif of the intercession of Jesus and the intercession of Stephen. So one cannot eliminate Luke 23:34 because of Acts 7:60. There must be a different reason why there are important manuscripts in which Luke 23:34 is missing.
It is unfortunate that sometimes, when wishing to clarify a problem, indulging in a certain amount of casuistry becomes unavoidable. Perhaps we have gained something by briefly comparing the martyrdom of Jesus with the martyrdom of Stephen. But our investigation must now take us a bit further afield. Here we have to touch upon a complex of questions with which research has been grappling recently. So far we have noted the Jesus/Stephen parallel. Now, however, we must examine the parallel between the death of Stephen and the death of the Lord’s brother, James.[15]
It is a historical fact that both Stephen and James were stoned, but otherwise there is no particular similarity between what Josephus reports about the death of the Lord’s brother and what we read in Acts about Stephen’s martyrdom. However, in the eyes of the anti-Pauline Jewish Christians, and especially in the eyes of the Ebionites, James came to be regarded—although certainly not quite accurately—as their ideological founder as well as their main patron and authority. The Ebionite historian Hegesippus[16] reported the martyrdom of James in this spirit. His account can be read in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. This account has been successfully compared with an account about James in the Ebionite source of the Pseudo-Clementines, and in recent years a parallel text to Hegesippus has been discovered in the Gnostic library of Nag Hammadi, in view of which the value of the martyrdom of James in Hegesippus has greatly increased. The parallel between the martyrdom of James in Hegesippus and the martyrdom of Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles, which goes down to small details, is indubitable, and Stephen’s speech in Acts has a strong Ebionite coloring. It therefore has been suggested that in the book of Acts Stephen is a replacement figure for the Ebionite James. However it seems more likely to me that the reverse is actually the case: Stephen appears to have been one of the co-founders of the Ebionite sect. The fact that both Stephen and the Lord’s brother James were stoned made it easier for the Ebionites to fashion the Ebionite James on the model of Stephen, since Stephen was far less able than the Lord’s brother James, who was head of the early Christian community, to give legitimacy to the orthodoxy of the Ebionites. So James became a substitute figure for Stephen.[17]
The foregoing observations were necessary to point out in order to understand why Hegesippus, writing about the death of James, stated: “And they began to stone him… but he turned and knelt down, and said, ‘I beseech thee, O Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’” Here we find another example of the interchangeability between Stephen and James: kneeling down and interceding for one’s persecutors are what James and Stephen have in common, but the words of intercession Hegesippus attributes to James are not the words of Stephen (“Lord, do not impute this sin to them!”; Acts 7:60), they are the words of Jesus in Luke 23:34. This is understandable because there are reciprocal relationships between the crucifixion of Jesus, the martyrdom of Stephen, and the Ebionite account of the martyrdom of James.
We have seen that Jesus’ intercession on the cross (Luke 23:34) was a prayer for his executioners. This is how the basic text of the Pseudo-Clementines already understood it (Hom. XI 20, 3-4; Rec. VI, 5): Jesus prayed for his executioners who had nailed him to the cross. But even in ancient times the view became increasingly widespread that it was the Jews who were guilty of Jesus’ death. Based on this premise, the author of the Syriac Didascalia invented an agraphon, according to which Jesus had previously prayed for the Jews. “And our Lord said, ‘Let them be forgiven.’ And again our Lord said to them: ‘My Father, they know not what they have done, nor what they say. If it is possible, forgive them!’”[19] The second quote is an extra-canonical variant of Luke 23:34. The purported prayer of Jesus quoted first refers to the events before the crucifixion, when the people laid hands on Jesus and reviled him. In this way the perceived difficulty was resolved and a prayer for the guilty Jews was placed in Jesus’ mouth.
The agraphon in the Syriac Didascalia is proof that Luke 23:34 was understood at that time as a prayer for the guilty Jews. How could it have been otherwise? The temptation to relate Jesus’ intercession to Judaism was too great. We have even seen that Luke himself may have done this in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 3:13-19), and undoubtedly a careless reading of the Gospels could lead a reader to assume that the Jews as such were guilty of the death of Jesus. The “broad path that leads to destruction” lay before them, and there were many who went down it; the gateway to the horrible accusation that the Jewish people were guilty of deicide stood open:
τἰ ἐποίησας, ὦ Ἰσραήλ, τὸ καινὸν ἀδίκημα; ἠτίμησας τὸν τιμήσαντά σε⋅…ἀπηρνήσω τὸν ὁμολογήσαντά σε⋅…ἀπέκτεινας τὸν ζωοποιήσαντά σε. …ὃν γὰρ τὰ ἔθνη προσεκύνουν καὶ ἀκρόβυστοι ἐθαύμαζον καὶ ἀλλόφυλοι ἐδόξαζον, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ Πιλᾶτος ἐνίψατο τὰς χεῖρας, σὺ τοῦτον ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἑορτῇ.
What strange crime, Israel, have you committed? You dishonoured him that honoured you;…you denied him that acknowledged you;…you killed him that made you live. …For him whom the gentiles worshipped, and uncircumcised men admired and foreigners glorified, over whom even Pilate washed his hands, you killed him at the great feast. (Peri Pascha §73, 92[**])
We hear this and much more in the oldest Christian Easter sermon by Melito of Sardis, from the middle of the second century C.E.[20] The hatred was there, and hardly anyone questioned the guilt of the bitterly evil, murderous Jews. So when people read Luke 23:34, they must have asked themselves why Jesus prayed to his heavenly Father for these people. Many believed that the murder was intentional. So how could Jesus possibly have said that the Jews knew not what they were doing? Rather, as they supposed, a spurious statement must have crept into the holy writ! And that, it seems, is why some scribes omitted this supposedly spurious prayer of Jesus from many New Testament manuscripts.
But on the other hand, there was an objection to this deletion, not so much due to humane or historical considerations, but mainly because Luke 23:34 was viewed as an effective means of mission to the Jews.[21] The oldest witness to this view is Jerome, who wrote in a letter:
In tantum autem amavit Hierusalem dominus, ut fieret eam et plangeret et pendens in cruce loqueretur: “pater, ignosce eis, quod enim faciunt, nesciunt.” itaque impetravit, quod petierat, multaque statim de Iudaeis milia crediderunt et usque ad quadragesimum annum datum est tempus paenitentiae.
But the Lord loved Jerusalem to such an extent that he wept and mourned over it, and while hanging on the cross he said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” And he obtained that which he had asked, and many thousands of Jews immediately believed, and a period of repentance was given to them up to the fortieth year.[22]
The context in which Jerome relates these words, which is not exactly flattering to the Jews, does not do him much credit, but it seems that he was quoting from his Hebrew Gospel, which he also made use of elsewhere.[23] This assumption is confirmed by two parallels to Jerome’s quotation. In Haimo of Auxerre’s commentary on Isaiah (53:12) we read:
“Et pro transgressoribus” Judaeis sive persecutoribus “rogavit,” dicens, dum penderet in cruce: “Pater, ignosce illis.” Sicut enim in Evangelio Nazaraeorum habetur, ad hanc vocem multa milia Judaeorum astantium circa crucern crediderunt.
“And for the transgressors”—the Jews or persecutors—“he interceded,” saying as he hung on the cross: “Father, forgive them.” As it is recorded in the Gospel of the Nazareans: At this word of the Lord many thousands of the Jews who were standing under the cross became believers. (Haimo of Auxerre, Comm. on Is. on Isa. 53:2)[24]
The writings of Haimo (who died ca. 865 C.E.) do not make for very pleasant reading when it comes to the theological understanding of the essence of Judaism in the Middle Ages. What is crucial for our purpose is that Haimo repeats the same information as Jerome (i.e., that many thousands of Jews who were present at the crucifixion became believers because of Jesus’ intercession), but he explicitly cites the Gospel of the Nazareans as his source. Thus, Haimo’s report is not derived from Jerome, who did not indicate the source of his information.
The second parallel to the quotation from Jerome, which also cites the Gospel of the Nazareans as its source, is the unpublished Historia passionis Domini, the manuscript of which dates from the first half of the 14th century. The parallel text I mentioned is one of the seven citations from the Gospel of the Nazareans that the Historia passionis Domini has preserved. Regarding Luke 23:34 it states:
Pater ignosce eis. Non enim sciunt quid faciunt. Et nota quod in evangelio Nazaraeorum legitur quod ad virtuosam istam Christi oracionem VIII milia conversi sunt postea ad fidem, scilicet tria milia in die pentecostes, sicut habetur Actuum II et postea quinque milia de quibus dicitur Actuum X.
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” And note that in the Gospel of the Nazareans we read that at this virtuous speech of Christ eight thousand were subsequently converted to the faith; namely three thousand on the day of Pentecost, as it is stated in Acts 2, and afterwards five thousand, about whom it is reported in Acts 10 [?].[25]
The number three thousand is derived from Acts 2:41; the number five thousand is based, not on Acts 10, as the Historia passionis Domini erroneously claims, but on Acts 4:4. In any case, according to the Gospel of the Nazareans Jesus’ prayer had quantifiable success.[26]
According to Jerome and Haimo, many thousands of Jews who stood beneath the cross became believers as a result of Jesus’ prayer. According to the parallel text in the medieval Historia passionis Domini, the prayer took effect later: on the day of Pentecost and after Peter’s missionary speech in Solomon’s Portico. It seems much more likely that the latter version is more original and that this is what was written in the Gospel of the Nazareans. This assumption is also supported by the fact that we read something similar in another text, which we will shortly examine in detail. The text to which I refer is the Chronicon Salernitanum,[27] a highly detailed chronicle of the Lombard principalities in southern Italy, which was written by a monk of the monastery of St. Benedict in Salerno around the year 978 C.E. In the passage that concerns us it says:
…nam et pro crucifigentibus se oravit, addens hoc: » Pater ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt. » Et nisi ipse misericors non orasset, nequaquam ad Petri verbum una die tria milia aliaque die quinque milia, postea multa milia ex Iudeis, qui Dominum comprehenderant, crediderant.
…for he [Jesus] also prayed for those who crucified him, adding: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And if the merciful one had not prayed, it could not have been that on one day three thousand of the Jews who took the Lord captive become believers at the word of Peter, and on another day five thousand, and later many thousands of Jews.[28]
The information given in the Chronicon Salernitanum is very similar to what we found in the Historia passionis Domini. The three thousand Jews mentioned in Acts 2:41 and the five thousand Jews mentioned in Acts 4:4 are joined here by the “many thousands of believers” among the Jews mentioned in Acts 21:20.
Of the four passages we have examined, two—namely, the quotations in Haimo and the Historia passionis Domini—name the Gospel of the Nazareans as their source. We also know that the Historia passionis Domini contains additional passages from this apocryphal Gospel. As far as Jerome is concerned, we do not have an explicit identification of his source, but on the other hand it is well known that he frequently quoted a Gospel that was written “in Hebrew letters” (Against Pelagius 3:2).[29] The fourth passage, that from the Chronicon Salernitanum, is so closely related to the passage in the Historia passionis Domini that we cannot but assume that the indirect source of the Chronicon was likewise the Gospel of the Nazareans. So the tradition regarding the effects of Jesus’ prayer from the cross belongs to the realm of Judeo-Christianity. But this does not mean that through this tradition the original disciples of Jesus are speaking to us either directly or indirectly. If I may hazard a guess, then I would say that the Gospel of the Nazareans was written quite late, in Hebrew letters, in either the Hebrew or Aramaic language (the Hebrew and Aramaic of that period shared the same alphabet). Its author was of Jewish origin and knew the canonical Gospels and embellished the material in a novelistic fashion. He wrote his Gospel with the intent of carrying out missionary work among the Jews. This intention is clear from our passage: the author defended Jesus’ intercession in Luke 23:34. He believed that it was a prayer for the Jews and that this prayer achieved its purpose: because of this gentle plea, many thousands of Jews were converted to Christianity. On the other hand, we have already seen that Luke 23:34 was erased from early Gospel manuscripts by Christian writers who knew very well what they were doing. I believe there is a causal connection between this deletion and between the defense of Luke 23:34 in the Nazarene Gospel: the author of the Gospel of the Nazareans knew that there were Christians who questioned the authenticity of Jesus’ prayer from the cross. He, on the other hand, was determined that the verse should remain in the Gospel text because its usefulness for the Jewish mission had already been proven many times in the past.[30]
What a strange battle over this stirring prayer of the crucified Jesus! Although originally it had nothing to do with the Jews, it was drawn into the Christian Jewish problem and tugged back and forth until in the end unsuspecting, naïve scholars opened an academic debate about its authenticity due to its absence in some important Gospel manuscripts.
The Plight of the Jews in Medieval Christian Theology
But to learn a little more about the relationships between Christians and Jews in the Middle Ages, let us return to the Chronicon Salernitanum, which, as I previously stated, was written in southern Italy around the year 978 C.E. Although there were thriving Jewish communities there at the time, these Jews are not mentioned at all in this work. The chapters containing the quotation from the Gospel of the Nazareans tell of the struggles of the southern Italian Christians against the Arab invaders. In this description the medieval author included three excerpts from an older source. The editor of the Chronicon already recognized the first two excerpts (of our edition, pp. 123.23-124.1 and pp. 128.7-17).[31] She took them to be quotations from a theological text, perhaps from a sermon or a biblical commentary, and rightly supposed that the second quotation was a direct continuation of the first. We have identified a third quotation from the same source, namely pp. 129.26-35. It cannot be decided whether this third excerpt is a direct continuation from the second quote. This third excerpt includes the quotation from the Gospel of the Nazareans, and this excerpt may allow us to determine the nature of the source more precisely. I shall translate this source to the best of my ability:
(123, 23 – 124, 1) Altithronus Deus, qui proprium suum cruorem pro suis ovibus fudit, quatenus protoplausti contagione deleret, nolens suos periret…quemammodum olim Iudayco populo alophilis subiciebat, eo quod ab ipso se alienaret…ut variis cruciatibus quippe eos attereret, ut, corpora diu castigata, animas celorum gaudia concederet.
(128, 7-17) Iam Redemptor a suo populo iram et indignaccionem abiciebat et gratiam condonabat. O incomplehensibilia Dei iudicia! Castigat et salvat; castigat, quatenus unusquisque cognoscat, quia omnis virtus et gratia necnon et sapiencia ab ipso Domino est, et cum ipso fuit semper, et est ante evum. Nam ipse dixit: » Ego ocidam et vivere faciam; » protinus addidit: »Et ego vivere faciam.» Delinquente suo populo, castigat, quia propter scelera tradidit suos iniustis et indisciplinatos, quatenus eos variis cruciatibus atterat, ut recogitent et intelligant, quia a se nichil sunt; et ut talia recogitaverint, statim iram suam ab eis ammovet et profanos conteret.
(129, 26-35) Rex omnium rerum propter nos in hunc per uterum Virginis venit mundum, ut qui erabamus sub nodo peccati absolvere; nam et pro crucifigentibus se oravit, addens hoc: » Pater ignosce illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt. » Et nisi ipse misericors non orasset, nequaquam ad Petri verbum una die tria milia aliaque die quinque milia, postea multa milia ex Iudeis, qui Dominum comprehenderant, crediderant. Ipse etenim dixit: » Nemo venit ad patrem nisi per me » et paulo post adiecit: »Ego sum via. » Nemo potest gaudia patrie celestis anelare, nisi si Christum, qui est via, imitat….
(123,23 – 124,1) The high enthroned God, who shed his blood for his sheep to wipe out the plague of the first Adam, not wanting his own to perish…, in ancient times subjugated the Jewish people to the Philistines, when they… were estranged from him… so he afflicted them with many plagues, so that after their bodies had been chastened for a long time, he might give their souls the joys of heaven…
(128,7-17) Now the Redeemer has already turned away the anger and indignation from his people and given grace. How inscrutable are his decisions (Rom. 22:33)! He chastens and heals; he chastens so that everyone may recognize that all virtue and grace and also wisdom come from God himself and are with him always and from eternity! For he said: “I am the one who kills and the one who gives life” (Deut. 32:29). He added: “I give life.” When his people become guilty, he chastises them, and he punishes them for their crimes delivering them to the wicked and unbelievers and afflicting them with various plagues, so that they may know and understand that they are nothing in themselves. And as soon as they have recognized this, he turns away his wrath from them and destroys the wicked…
(129,26-35) The King of all things came into this world for our sake through the womb of a virgin, to save those of us who had erred under the snare of sin. For he prayed for those who crucified him, adding: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And if the merciful one had not prayed, it could not have been that on one day would three thousand of the Jews who took the Lord captive become believers at the word of Peter, and on another day five thousand, and later many thousands of Jews. For he himself said: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). And a little later he added: “I am the way.” No one can enjoy the delights of the heavenly home unless he imitates Christ, who is the way.[32]
One thing is clear, the source of the Chronicon Salernitanum is a penitential sermon addressed to a particular community. Who is this community? And what is required of it? The central theme of the source is the history of Jewish people. Because they turned away from God, the chastening God delivered them to the Philistines, but this divine chastisement brought heavenly joy to their souls. Their sufferings lead to knowledge of God, and when this goal is achieved, God ceases His wrath, for God is gracious. So Christ in his gentleness prayed for those who crucified him, and in response to this prayer many thousands of Jews became believers. And the joys of the heavenly home can only be attained by professing Christ.
It seems to me almost certain that the Chronicon Salernitanum has preserved fragments of a missionary sermon to the Jews. The quotation from the Gospel of the Nazareans was certainly incorporated into this sermon in order to call on the Jews to recognize their guilt and convert. Christ’s prayer on the cross had a merciful effect on the Jews at that time, and nothing was lost for them today: the path remained open to them. If they choose the right path, they, too, could partake of the divine grace, as they had once done in the time of the Philistine chastisement. When they repented, God turned back to them again. If I my conclusion regarding the sermon’s audience is correct, then a further question arises: When the sermon speaks so emphatically about the educational chastisement of the Jews that gives them true knowledge and leads to their salvation, did it only meant this historically and theologically? Or did the orator want to make it clear to the Jews that their present suffering, too, was only for their good and could become a means to their conversion? In any case, the source does not absolve the Jews of their guilt in the death of Jesus, which would be a tall order to ask that of a medieval Christian.
When and where was the missionary sermon written? It was certainly before the year 978 C.E., when the Chronicon Salernitanum was written. Anyone who reads the fragments can easily notice that the language of the source was barbarized by the chronicler. Nevertheless, one can easily recognize the nature of the sermon’s language even now. It is certainly not the old patristic Latin—the sermon comes from a later period, but does not appear to have been written until close to the tenth century. Where was it written? The chronicler’s classical education was very limited, and he read very little of the medieval sources, except those written in his native Italy. These included the writings of Gregory the Great. The sermon’s relatively mild approach to the Jewish problem is reminiscent of the great Pope’s thoughts on the issue,[33] but in my opinion the Latin is different. I surmise that the Jewish missionary sermon was written around the time of Gregory the Great. I doubt whether today’s Christian theology needs to be informed by this source. Should theologians assume that the Jews are moderately guilty of the death of Christ and recommend that today’s Jews make up for this guilt by converting to Christianity? This remains an unsolved problem for Christian theology.
Conclusion
We have come a long way through the centuries. In our endeavor to better understand Luke 23:34 we have seen that it came to be understood as an intercession for the Jews. But the problem arose: how could Jesus have interceded for the Jews on the grounds that they did not know what they were doing? The guilt of the Jews for the crucifixion was self-evident for most Christians. That is why, at a very early stage, by the third century C.E. at the latest, Luke 23:34 was omitted from many Gospel manuscripts. But then the author of the Jewish Christian Gospel of the Nazareans came and found that the Acts of the Apostles itself proves that Jesus’ intercession supposedly on behalf of the Jews was not ineffective: because of his prayer, many thousands of Jews accepted the faith. So there arose an impetus not to delete this word of Jesus, since it could still be useful for the mission to the Jews. And, as we discovered, Luke 23:34 actually was used for this purpose in a medieval missionary sermon.
What a long, and all so human a story! May God help us, the ancient people of God and the Church, to cooperate in his work!
Click here to return to the Whole Stones blog.
Notes
[*] This article originally appeared as David Flusser, “„Sie wissen nicht, was sie tun“ Geschichte eines Herrnwortes,” in Kontinuität und Einheit: Für Franz Mußner (ed. Paul-Gerhard Müller and Werner Stenger; Frieburg: Herder, 1981), 393-410.
[1] Abraham Habermann, ספר גזירות אשכנז וצרפת [The Book of Persecutions in Germany and France] (Jerusalem, 1945; repr. Jerusalem, 1971), 27 (Hebrew).
[2] Franz Mussner, Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for Christian Faith (trans. Leonard Swidler [Traktat über die Juden, 1979]; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 196.
[3] It should be mentioned here that what we read in Luke 23:34 reflects an important motif in Christian hagiography: the martyr prays for his executioners as his execution is carried out. The earliest instance of this motif I have discovered is in the description of a martyrdom in Lyons in 177 C.E., in an account of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:2 §6. Stephen’s intercession (Acts 7:60) is mentioned there.
[4] Justin, 1 Apol. §14.
[5] Such was the view of O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (Göttingen, 1963), 305.
[6] I have discussed this problem in various papers. See especially David Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 107-127; idem, “The Social Message from Qumran,” Journal of World History (New Series) 11 (1968): 107-115; Jesus (Reinbek b. Hamburg, 1968), 76-79. I have dealt with Romans 12:8b-13:7 in David Flusser, “The Jewish Origins of the Early Church’s Attitude toward the State,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism (trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 299-304. I wrote about the Essene influence on the second stratum of early Christianity, the “kerygma of the Hellenistic communities,” which forms the prerequisite for Paulinism, in the article, “The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity,” Scripta Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem, 1958): 215-266.
[7] See Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922-1928), 1:370-371 (on Matt. 5:44).
[8] The background of Rom. 12:15 (“Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep”) is complex. On the parallels see O, Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1963), 306 and Strack and Billerbeck, 3:296. The sentence goes back to Hillel (see t. Ber. 2:21). One should note that this is a creative midrash on Eccl. 3:4 (“There is a time to cry and a time to laugh”).
[9] This is how K. Stendahl (“Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love,” Harvard Theological Review 55 [1962]: 543-355), not only understood the Essene vorlage of this passage in Romans, but also Paul’s own intention.
[10] Cf. Rom. 12:21, 1QS 10:18.
[11] See J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie 1 (Gütersloh, 1971) 185, 283; E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen, 1975) 226; G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 483; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament (London, 1971), 180: “The absence of these words from such early and diverse witnesses…is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered.” But Metzger, like most scholars today, regards Luke 23:34 as an authentic logion that found its way into Luke.
[12] On the witness of the word see W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu (Darmstadt, 1967), 223 f. He brings up the crude argument we know from Metzger, that the main reason for the deletion was “that the readers of the Gospel, looking back on the year 70 and its catastrophe, found that Jesus had made a vain request—which was impossible for them to accept.” See the interesting passage in the Syriac Didascalia VI:14.4, 342 and II:16.1, 60, Latin translation chap. 46; Didascaliae Apostolorum (Berlin, 1963), 76. See A. Resch, Agrapha (Darmstadt, 1967), 26 I f.
[13] But one could also argue like this: Luke’s Gospel is original in this regard; Mark invented the false witnesses and the Temple word based on the story of Stephen’s speech in Acts (6:11-15; 7:41-50), and Matthew followed Mark. Such is the opinion of my friend Robert Lindsey, who considers Luke 23:34 to be original. On this question see also M. Simon (see below, note 15), 20-26.
[14] F. Dornseiff, in ZNW 35 (1936): 136. See E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen 1956), 251 n. 6.
[15] Hegesippus’ Ebionite account of the martyrdom of the Lord’s brother James is given by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:23 §4-18. The Gnostic parallel in Coptic translation was found in Nag Himmidi in Egypt, of which the English translation is in: The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 249-255. On which, see A. Böhlig, Mysterium und Wahrheit (Leiden, 1968), 107-109, 112-118. H. J. Schoeps had already assumed a connection between the report about Stephen in Acts and a section about James in the Ebionite source of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones (166-71). See ibid., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen, 1949), 440-445. Later, based on Schoeps, Marcel Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London, 1956) counted Stephen among the Ebionites. See also F. Mußner, Der Jakobusbrief (Freiburg, 1975), 3-7.
Following the report from Hegesippus, Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History III 23,20) quotes from Josephus, according to which the fall of Jerusalem was God’s retribution for James the Just, the brother of Jesus, because the Jews killed this righteous man. These words are not, of course, found in Josephus, whose real words are given by Eusebius immediately afterwards. The statement falsely attributed to Josephus seems to me to actually be a genuine quote from Hegesippus. So Eusebius was mistaken because he quoted Josephus later. It should also be noted that, according to the Coptic text, James himself prophesies the destruction of the Temple (Nag Hammadi, 254, Böhlig, 109)!
[16] The fact that Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian emerges not only from the quotations in Eusebius, but also from what Eusebius writes about him (Ecclesiastical History 4:22 §8). I would characterize Hegesippus as a catholic Ebionite, somewhat analogous to the later Donatist Ticonius.
[17] By way of proof for this view, we note that Acts 6:9-10 cites Stephen’s successful disputes with the Hellenistic Jews of Jerusalem as the reason for his accusation and death: “Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen” (RSV). No one, I believe, will doubt the fact of these disputes between Stephen and the Hellenistic Jews who resided in Jerusalem. The Ebionites transferred these debates to their James, but he no longer debated with a limited group, but with all the schools of Judaism at the time! This, according to Hegesippus’ account of the martyrdom of James (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:23 §8-10; see also the Coptic text). In the Ebionite source of the Pseudo-Clementines we read about the disputations of the twelve apostles with the Jewish sects (Rec. 1:54-65) and, closely related, about the disputations between the high priest Caiaphas and James (Rec. 1:66-71). Scholars have already noticed the relationship between their disputations and Hegesippus’ report on the death of James (see Schoeps, 413-417). The path can therefore only lead from the actual debate of Stephen to the fundamental disputes of the Ebionite James with all Jewish schools of thought. The development will therefore have been like this: the story of Stephen in Acts edited and perhaps shortened→the Ebionite martyrdom of James in Hegesippus (and in the Coptic text)→the pseudo-Clementine religious discourses (Recognitiones 1:33-71). It is mentioned in chpt. 70 that James fell from the highest step in the Temple by Paul (!), but remains alive there because the progression of history needs him. The Jewish Christian James has therefore taken on the role of the historical Stephen.
[18] The surviving part of the Coptic version does not contain the intercession of James.
[19] A. Resch, 261-262 (see above, note 12), and Didascalia 76.
** Text and translation according to Stuart George Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979).
[20] Did Gottfried, the Superior of St. Victor (d. 1194 C.E.), somehow know Melito of Sardis? It has been established (F. J. E. Raby, A History of Christian-Latin Poetry from the Beginnings to the Close of the Middle Ages [Oxford, 1953], 297 n. 3) that he was familiar with Macrobius. His famous lamentation of the Virgin Mary (“Planctus ante nescia”) is printed, among others, in Carmina Burana (Munich, 1974) 14, 736-743. The similarity to the accusation of the Jewish people in Melito is clear. However, the path to baptism is open to the blind, miserable, guilty Jewish people, which washes away all guilt. The legend is one of the highlights of medieval hymns. It was widespread, and according to medieval legend, Mary herself dictated it to a monk because only she could adequately express her complaints. Whether a fine art can unintentionally stir up hatred against fellow human beings is another question.
[21] The texts are printed in Latin in Synopsis quattuor Evangeliorum, K. Aland (Stuttgart, 1976), 484 and in German translation in E. Hennecke-W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamendiche Apocrypha (2 vols.), 1:98-100 [the English translation appears as Edgar Hennecke-Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha ⟨2 vols.⟩, 1:146-153]. The quotations are from the following works: Jerome, cf. 120.8.9; Haimo Halbersutensis, Comm. in Isa. 53:12, PL 116, 994 (finis libri XII); Historia passionis Domini p. 55 (recto). The quotations from the Nazarene Gospel in the latter work can be found in Hennecke-Schneemekher, 99f., and in Aland, 433, 457, 466, 478, 484, 489. We read about the unpublished manuscript of the Historia passionis Domini in Hennecke-Schneemekher, 89 [New Testament Apocrypha, 138]. I received additional information about this work in a letter from Prof. Bernhard Bischoff, who has this manuscript in his possession. It is a theological miscellany manuscript (saec. XIV-XV) of German origin in which the Historia passionis Domini is located (saec. XIV, first half). The latest authority it cites is Nicolas de Lyra. Prof. Bischoff writes to me: “This text, which is incomplete at the beginning and end, fills 158 pages. It is a broadly developed introduction to the events and meaning of the Passion using the arsenal of patristic and medieval theology (not just exegesis). The Nazarene fragments came into the text via a Florilegim tradition.” Prof. Bischoff kindly provided me with xeroxed copies of fol. 54 verso/55 recto with the quotation from the Gospel of the Nazarenes.
[22] In the original article Flusser placed the Latin text in a footnote.
[23] In the same letter (Epist. 120 to Hedibia, 8:2) and in his commentary on Matt. 27:51, for example, Jerome relates that in the Gospel written in Hebrew letters, we read that it was not the veil of the Temple that was torn, rather it was the Temple’s lintel, which was of immense size (superliminare templi mirae [or: infinitae] magnitudinis), that collapsed (see Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 97 and 100 [New Testament Apocrypha, 150], and Aland, 489). We also read the same thing in the Historia passionis Domini, where the claim is attributed to the Gospel of the Nazareans. There it even uses the phrase “superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis.” This indicates that the quotations from the Gospel of the Nazareans in the Historia passionis Domini really do come from this source. Quotes 33 and 34 (Schneemelcher, 99 f. [New Testament Apocrypha, 152-153]) are a product of the same popular spirit as quotes 10, 16 and 18 of the quotations from Jerome.
Quote number 34 from the Historia passionis Domini (“We read in the Gospel of the Nazarean that the Jews bribed four soldiers to scourge the Lord so severely that the blood might flow from every part of his body. They also bribed the same soldiers to the end that they crucified him…”; Schneemelcher, 100 [New Testament Apocrypha, 152-153]) is certainly not very friendly to Jews, but that does not exclude the possibility that it was adapted from this Jewish Christian Gospel.
[24] In the original article Flusser placed the Latin text in a footnote.
[25] In the original article Flusser placed the Latin text in a footnote.
[26] In the Historia passionis Domini we read: The Lord Jesus did not dwell on the injustice done to him but prayed mercifully for his enemies. He did not pray for those who acted against him out of malice—not for the traitor Judas, nor for the high priest Caiaphas, nor for Pilate—but he prayed for all the common people of Jews and Gentiles who were seduced by them and did not know what they were doing.
[27] See Ulla Westerbergh, Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis; Studia Latina Stockholtniensia III; Stockholm, 1956). On the Chronicon see M. Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters II (München, 1923), 197-203.
[28] U. Westerbergh, chpt. 117, p. 129.
[29] On the Jewish Christian Gospels of Jerome, see Ph. Vielhauer in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 1:81-87.
[30] I would like to cite two passages from modern commentaries as a comparison. We turn first to John Calvin (Johannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum Commentarii, Vol. II [Berlin, 1833] 365 f.). What we read there is not theologically edifying. At the end Calvin writes:
Caeterum verisimile est, Christum non promiscue pro omnibus orasse, sed tantum pro misera plebe, quam zelus inconsideratus, non autem deliberata impietas rapiebat. Nam ut de scribis et sacerdotibus nulla spes fuit residua, pro illis frustra orasset. Nec vero dubium est, quia a Patre coelesti exaudita fuit haec precatio. hinc factum esse ut multi ex populo, quem fuderat sanguinem, fide postea biberent
Moreover, it is probable that Christ did not pray indiscriminately for all, but only for the poor people, whom reckless zeal, but not deliberate impiety, carried away. For as there was no hope left for the scribes and priests, he had prayed for them in vain. And there is no doubt that this prayer was heard by the heavenly Father. Hence it happened that many of the people, who had shed his blood, later drank it by faith.
Calvin is reminiscent of what the author of the Historia passionis Domini adds to the quotation from the Gospel of the Nazareans. What the great Hugo Grotius said about Luke 23:34 (Hugonis Grotii Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (Groningen, 1827), 3:479) is much to be preferred. He wrote:
Itaque videre est multos eorum hac Christi deprecatione sublevatos, cum intellexissent postea Christi causam Deo probatam, adductos ad seriam facinoris sui detestationem
Therefore it is to be seen that many of them were relieved by this supplication of Christ, when they afterwards understood that Christ’s cause had been approved by God, and were brought to a serious detestation of their crime.
[31] U. Westerbergh (see above, n. 27), 197.
[32] In the original article Flusser placed the Latin text in a footnote.
[33] One would not only have to examine Gregory the Great’s Jewish policy, but also the prevailing attitude towards Jews and Judaism. It was certainly ambivalent in the middle ages, but I don’t think it can be reduced to the influence of Augustine. The problem of Jews and Judaism seems to have preoccupied this last church father. He knew and affirmed the Jewish root of Christianity, he saw the Jews as persecutors of Christ, he joyfully welcomed Jews who became Christians and, based on the Epistle to the Romans, believed that in the end the Jews will accept Christianity. To what extent he is typical of the Christian Middle Ages and to what extent he was atypical in details remains to be seen.
Would you like to offer a correction
|
Whole Stones 
You must be logged in to post a comment.