תמונות בעמוד

of the Song of Deborah; see note in the writer's Commentary on Judges, pp. 169 f. The following examples may be noted in the poem of the Prologue:

4. Because in Him was life

And the life | was the light of mankind. 5. And the light in darkness was shining, And the darkness

obscured it not. 7. Unto His own He came, And His own

| received Him not. 9. And we beheld His glory,

Glory | as of the only begotten of the

Father. 10. He was full of grace and truth, Of Whose fullness

| we all have received. Of the remaining couplets, I, 2, and 8 may be reckoned as synonymous, while 3, 6, and I are antithetical.

It should be noted that the couplets, besides being parallel, appear also to be rhythmical, each line containing three stresses. In v. ", in place of dià Inooû Xplotoll the translation offers through the Messiah’simply, metri gratiâ. 'Ingoû may very naturally have come in as a later addition.

Additional Note on the interpretation of Jn. 1" as referring to

the Virgin-Birth (cf. p. 34). There is an essential unity in the teaching of St. Luke, St. Paul, and St. John as to the mode and meaning of the Incarnation which ought not to be overlooked. All go back in thought to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth as a new Creation, to be compared and contrasted with the first Creation of the world and of mankind; and all therefore draw upon Gen. 1, 2 in working out their theme. Just as God's first creative act was the formation of light, breaking in upon the physical darkness which had previously covered primeval chaos, so was the birth of Christ the dawn of Light in the midst of the spiritual darkness of the world. That this idea was in St. Paul's mind is definitely stated by him in 2 Cor. 4.6, ου γαρ εαυτούς κηρύσσομεν αλλά Χριστόν Ιησούν

κύριον, ... ότι ο Θεός και είπών 'Εκ σκότους φώς λάμψει, ος έλαμψεν εν ταις καρδίαις ημών προς φωτισμός της γνώσεως της δόξης του Θεού εν προσώπω XplotOù. Cf. also i Cor. 4", 2 Cor. 694, Eph. 5o, Col. 1'3. Allusion to Gen. I, which is clearly seen in the opening words of Jn. 1, 'In the beginning', seems also to be behind vv.4.5, where it is stated that the Logos, as the Agent in Creation, represented the introduction of Light into the world, and, by an almost imperceptible transition, the writer's thought passes from the introduction of life and light at Creation to its spiritual introduction at the Incarnation. Moreover, just as the introduction of light into the world at Creation did not immediately abolish physical darkness, but led to the setting by God of a division (??), Gen. 1") between light and darkness, so (Jn. 1") in the Incarnation the Light was shining in darkness and the darkness did not obscure it ; its introduction into the world producing a kpíois whereby Light and darkness were sharply distinguished and men had to range themselves under the one or the other (Jn. 319–21; cf. 9", 12"36.45).* Turning to the Birth-narrative of St. Luke, it is surely not fanciful to find in the words of the angel in I5, Πνεύμα άγιον επελεύσεται επί σε, και δύναμις 'Yuíotov ÉLOKLÁOEL rol, an implied reference to Gen. 1', where the Spirit of God is pictured as brooding or hovering (neno) over the face of the waters in the initial process of Creation which issues in the production of light. So for St. Luke the Divine Birth means the dawning of ανατολή εξ ύψους, επιφάναι τοις εν σκότει και σκιά θανάτου καθημένοις (178. 79), and φως εις αποκάλυψιν εθνών (2*).

Again, the connexion in thought between the Old Creation and

* A similar mystical interpretation of the Genesis passage is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. iii. 10; “Rabbi Yannai said, When He began to create the world, the Holy One blessed be He) observed the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. " And the earth was a waste”, i.e. the works of the wicked. And God said, Let there be light”, i.e. the works of the righteous. "And God divided between the light and between the darkness”, between the works of the righteous and the works of the wicked. “And God called the light, day”, i.e. the works of the righteous. 6. And the darkness he called, night”, i.e. the works of the wicked. “And there was morning", i.e. the works of the righteous. “And there was evening”, i.e. the works of the wicked. 6. One day”, inasmuch as the Holy One blessed be He) gave them one day. And what is this? The Day of Atonement.'

+ This Genesis passage is applied in Midrash Bereshith Rabba to the endowment of the Messiah with the Divine Spirit; “This is the Spirit of the King-Messiah, as it is said, “ And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him”.!

the New is explicit in St. Paul's teaching as to the first Adam and the second Adam in 1 Cor. 155; ούτως και γέγραπται Έγένετο ο πρώτος άνθρωπος 'Αδάμ εις ψυχήν ζώσαν: ο έσχατος 'Αδάμ εις πνεύμα ζωοποιούν. This is worked out in the frequent antithesis between cáps and Tveõua, and in the representation of baptism as a burial with Christ in which ó Talaiòs ňuw ăv@pwnos is put off, and the baptized rises with Christ to newness of life (Rom. 63 ff.). We find the same antithesis between oápě and trequa in Jn. 3*, 663, the whole of the discussion with Nicodemus in ch. 3 turning on the new birth which is ek toû aveúuatos. In 663 it is stated, in contrast to oápě, that το πνεύμα εστιν το ζωοποιούν, a thought of which the connexion with St. Paul's εγένετο... ο έσχατος 'Αδάμ εις πνεύμα ζωοποιούν can hardly be accidental. This connexion would, it may be presumed, be generally explained by the theory of the influence of Pauline Theology upon the writer of the Fourth Gospel; and this may be so. A fact, however, which is surely beyond question is that St. Paul's oŰrws kai yéypantai refers not simply to the quotation from Gen. 2", ‘He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul', but to the whole passage relating to the first Adam and the second Adam, from εγένετο down to ζωοποιούν. ο έσχατος 'Αδάμ εις πνεύμα ζωοποιούν depends upon εγένετο introducing the quotation equally with what goes before, from which it should be divided by a comma merely, and not by a colon (WH.) or full stop (R.V.). Had it been St. Paul's own addition, could he possibly have phrased the sentence thus, and not have written at least ο δε έσχατος 'Αδάμ εγένετο εις πνεύμα ζωοποιούν ?

If, however, the whole passage is a quotation, whence was it derived ? There can be no doubt that the form in which St. Paul's argument is cast is influenced by Rabbinic speculation, and that the Rabbinism of Palestine.* Though born at Tarsus, he claims to be ‘EBpalos éć EBpatwv (Phil. 3), i. e, not a 'Elinvlotús (cf. Acts 6'), and he obtained his education at Jerusalem under Gamaliel, who was one of the most prominent Rabbinic teachers of the time (Acts 22). But prior to St. Paul's conversion the earliest circle of Christian believers at Jerusalem was drawn not merely from the peasant-class, but embraced (according to Acts 6)'a great company of the priests', who would scarcely have been unversed in Rabbinic teaching, but may be supposed to have applied such learning as they had acquired to the service of the new Faith.

* The expression ;i2877 078 the first Adam’ is well known in early Midrashic literature. nn87 D7 the second Adam', i.e. the Messiah, is not known to us in Midrash before the Newê shālóm, the work of a Spanish Jew in the 15th century A.D (cf. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, pp. 40 ff.); but the Midrash Bereshith Rabba (ascribed by tradition to R. Hoshaiah, 3rd century A. D.) brings the Messiah into contrast with the first Adam' when, in commenting on Gen. 24, “These are the generations of the heaven and the earth', it quotes earlier Rabbinical speculation as to the reason why the word for 'generations' is written plene with 1 only in this passage and in Ruth 418, * ' (, ), cites the inference that 1, which numerically = 6, implies that the six things which Adam lost through the Fall shall be restored at the coming of 'the son of Perez', i.e. the Davidic Messiah. The Messiah appears as a life-giver (cf. TveŪua (womoloûv) in the Midrash hag-gadol to Genesis (compiled by a Yemenite Jew of the 14th century) which, commenting on Gen. 161", states that there are six persons whose names were given to them before their birth, viz. Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and the King-Messiah. On the last it says, “The King-Messiah, because it is written, “Before the sun his name shall be Yinnôn". And why is his name called Yinnôn ? because he is destined to quicken those who sleep in the dust.' Here the Scriptural passage quoted is Ps. 7217 jopa jih! WIP 2 Before the sun shall his name propagate' (or 'produże life'), and the verbal form, only here in 0.T., is treated as a Messianic title—' He who quickens'. This Midrash is quoted by Raymund Martin in his Pugio Fidei, chap. ii, 11, who refers it to Moses had-Darshan, born at Narbonne about the middle of the with century A. D. Late as this is, we have the evidence of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, 98b) that Yinnôn was early regarded as a Messianic title, for in the passage in question the pupils of R. Yannai (an Amora of the first generation—and to 3rd century A. D.) maintain, as a compliment to their teacher, that the Messiah's name is to be Yinnôn. The Psalm-passage is quoted in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. i. 5, as evidence that the name of the Messiah existed prior to the creation of the world, though it is not there stated that Yinnon is to be taken as his name.

It is by no means improbable, therefore, that the passage as a whole may have been drawn from a collection of O. T. Testimonia, composed with the object of meeting Rabbinic Judaism upon its own ground.* If it be objected to this suggestion that elsewhere throughout the N. T. yéypantai introduces a definite citation from the 0. T., and that this is also the case with allusions to ń ypaoń

and ,(תולדת but elsewhere always , תולדות) 'These are the generations of Perez

Though no part of this Midrashic speculation can be traced back to the ist century A. D., it serves to illustrate the kind of Rabbinic teaching which may well have formed part of St. Paul's early training.

* Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 272; “We know that types and prophecies were eagerly sought out by the early Christians, and were soon collected in a kind of common stock from which every one drew at his pleasure.'

(with the possible exception of 1 Tim. 5', where our Lord's words *Αξιος ο εργάτης του μισθού αυτού seem to be included under the term), it may be replied that St. Paul's quotation does consist of such a citation from the O. T. plus a deduction therefrom, and would ex hypothesi be derived from a collection of proofs based on the 0. T. and therefore drawn ék TÔV ypapôv. We may further draw attention to the use of this formula of citation in the Epistle of Barnabas 4", where our Lord's words in Mt. 2244 are quoted: προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ως γέγραπται, πολλοί κλητοί, ολίγοι δε εκλεκτοι ευρέθωμεν. Similarly, the formula λέγει γαρ η γραφή is used in Barnabas 165 to introduce a quotation from Enoch 8956.66.

If, then, this interpretation of 1 Cor. 154 as wholly a quotation be correct, the implication is that some time before St. Paul wrote his Epistle in A.D. 55-6, the antithesis between the first Adam and Christ as the second Adam had been worked out in Christian Rabbinic circles and was used in argument. This conclusion surely modifies the question of the dependence of the Fourth Gospel upon St. Paul in regard to the teaching here involved, suggesting as it does the alternative theory that both may have been dependent upon a common earlier method of theological expression of the truths of the Incarnation.

St. Luke supplies us with further food for thought in this connexion. His Birth-narrative is certainly from a Jewish-Christian source, and is generally acknowledged to be early. If any portions of it are earlier than the rest, these are the poems which it contains; and the angel's words at the Annunciation are no less a poem cast in rhythmical parallelism than are the Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc dimittis. We have had occasion to cite passages from all these, except the Magnificat, in arguing the unity of their thought with that of St. Paul and St. John. We may now note the fact that St. Luke carries back our Lord's genealogy to Adam, 'who was the son of God’ (339). What is the reason for this ? Doubtless one reason is to be found in the fact that his Gospel is pre-eminently a universal Gospel-not for the Jews only but for the whole Gentile world also. May not, however, another (and perhaps the prime) reason be that the fact that the first Adamı was born not by natural generation but by an act of God, in itself suggests the reasonableness that the second Adam should likewise

« הקודםהמשך »