No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Jesus-Tradition and Idolatry*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
We do not find the word εἰδωλολατρία (idolatry) in the canonical Gospels. Persons appearing in the latter and representing non-Jewish religion are never denounced by Jesus as idolaters, not even Pontius Pilate, whose religiously provocative actions against the Jews are known through Philo and Josephus. In the word ‘dogs’ which Jesus uses in the dialogue with the woman near Tyre (Mark 7.27, cf. Matt 7.6) there may be an allusion to pagan religion, but this is not certain. The low profile towards non-Jewish religion in our Gospels stands in contrast to the New Testament writings which precede them, i.e. the letters of Paul, or which come after them, e.g. Acts and the Book of Revelation. In his confrontation with non-Jews and in his prophecies about the share of the peoples in the Kingdom of God Jesus seems to be indifferent towards non-Jewish religion, in contradistinction to many New Testament writers and also many Jewish contemporaries, such as the Qumran Essenes (1QS 2.11–12, 17; cf. Deut 29.17–20; CD 11.14, 12.6–11; lQpHab 12.12–14) and Philo. If the Gospels were written by persons with an interest in transmitting the Christian message to the non-Jewish world, it seems odd that explicit anti-pagan utterances in the mouth of Jesus are almost lacking.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
1 Str-B 1.725 (Rev 22.15), Michel, O., ‘κυνάριον’, TWNT 3 (1938) 1103–4.Google Scholar
2 Sandelin, K.-G., ‘The Danger of Idolatry According to Philo of Alexandria’, Temenos 27 (1991) 109–50.Google Scholar
3 Räisänen, H., The Torah and Christ (Helsinki: Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 45, 1986) 209–41Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 2; Göttingen/ Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) 234, 243.Google Scholar
4 I do not discuss the following issues in this paper: Jesus driving out demons (δαιμόνια, pagan gods?); the worship of Mammon (Matt 6.24//Luke 16.13) and related themes: Matt 6.31–3//Luke 12.29–31, cf. Phil 4.6 (anxiety); Luke 12.15 (greed); cf. Col 3.5 (greed = idolatry); Eph 5.5 (a greedy person = an idolater); 1 Cor 6.10 (the greedy will not inherit the Kingdom). For comparable themes in Philo see Sandelin, ‘Danger’, 118–22, 134–8.
5 Stauffer, E., Christus und die Caesaren (Hamburg: Wittig, 1952) 121–49, esp. 143Google Scholar; Gärtner, B., Markus evangelium (Tolkning av Nya testamentet 2; Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen, 1967) 294–5Google Scholar; Lane, W. L., The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT 2; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1974) 425Google Scholar; Klemm, H. G., ‘De Censu Caesaris: Beobachtungen zu J. Duncan Derretts Interpretation der Perikope Mk 12:13–17 Par’, NT 24 (1982) 234–54Google Scholar, esp. 254; Kee, A., ‘The Imperial Cult: the Unmasking of an Ideology’, The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 6 (1985) 112–28Google Scholar esp. 122.
6 That he does not was recently pointed out by P. C. Finney, who also gives a survey of Jewish attitudes towards images on coins: ‘The Rabbi and the Coin Portrait (Mark 12:15b, 16): Rigorism Manqué’, JBL 112 (1993) 629–44Google Scholar, esp. 640, 643.
7 Finney, ‘The Rabbi’, 637. See also Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) 1 (new Eng. version rev. and ed. Vermes, G., Millar, F.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973) 342–3.Google Scholar
8 Daniel, C., ‘Les “Hérodiens” du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Esséniens?’, RevQ 6 (1967) 31–53Google Scholar. Cf. Braun, W., ‘Were the New Testament Herodians Essenes? A Critique of an Hypothesis’, RevQ 14 (1989) 75–88.Google Scholar
9 Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1961) 40, 54.Google Scholar
10 Jeremias, J., Neutestamentliche Theologie 1: Die Verkündigung Jesu (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1979)220.Google Scholar
11 For the dramatic and rhetoric aspects of the passage see Klemm, ‘De censu Caesaris’, 240–7, Finney, ‘The Rabbi’, 631.
12 Derrett, J. D. M., Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) 320Google Scholar, writes: ‘Some scholars … say Jesus's words are inconclusive, impenetrable’. Derrett refers to ‘Klostermann's commentary’, i.e. probably Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr, 1926) 139Google Scholar. But Klostermann uses the word ‘Unangreifbarkeit’ (unassailability, unimpeachability), not ‘Unbegreiflichkeit’, for Jesus' answer. On the other hand the Greek expression τ⋯ ἄληπτον, which Klostermann refers to as an equivalent for ‘Unangreifbarkeit’, has the meaning ‘the incomprehensible’.
13 For different options see Derrett, Law, 320–1.
14 Derrett, Law, 323–8.
15 Klemm, ‘De censu Caesaris’, 248.
16 Tannehill, R. C., ‘Types and Functions of Apophthegms in the Synoptic Gospels’, ANRW 2 25.2, 1792–1829Google Scholar, esp. 1822–3.
17 Grundmann, W., Das Euangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; Berlin: Evangelische, 1989) 358.Google Scholar
18 Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium, 151.
19 See references in Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 358.
20 E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus, 273; Schnackenburg, R., Matthäusevangelium 16, 21–28, 30 (EB 1/2; Würzburg: Echter, 1987) 234.Google Scholar
21 R. Schnackenburg, Matthäusevangelium 1/2, 234. Contra Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische, 1971) 506.Google Scholar
22 Thus E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 94; Schnackenburg, R., Matthäus-evangelium 1, 1–16, 20 (EB 1/1; Würzburg: Echter, 1985) 65.Google Scholar
23 See Willert, N., Pilatusbilledet i den antike Jødedom og kristendom (Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1989) 267–84.Google Scholar
24 Simon, M., ‘Jupiter-Yahvé’: Sur un essai de théologie pagano-juive’, Numen 23 (1976) 40–66Google Scholar, esp. 56–66.
25 Willert, Pilatusbilledet, 313.