University of Groningen

The Apocryphal Acts Of JohnBremmer, Jan N.

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:1995

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Bremmer, J. N. (1995). The Apocryphal Acts Of John. s.n.

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 23-01-2020

IV. Old Testament quotations in the Acts of Andrew and John

ISTVAN KARASSZON

In an ancient Hungarian proverb we are informed about the sig- nificance of the quotations in one's literary activity: 'Show me your library, and I will tell you who you are!' Quotations in ancient religious documents are testimonies to the theological standpoint of the respective authors, and their research is in- structive with regard to their position in the development of the tradition. The task of reviewing Old Testament quotations in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (AAA) is overdue; we try to fill this gap and, by way of comparison, we quote the LXX and Vulgate alongside with the text of Acts of John (AJ), the Acts of Andrew (AA), and Gregory of Tours' reworking of the Acts of Andrew in his Liber de miraculis (VA).'

Old Testament quotations in the AAA are conspicuous by their paucity. This is true, not only in comparison with the New Testa- ment, but also in the light of the commentaries of the Church Fathers. The ways and methods of quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament is a subject in itself which, in its turn, has been treated a couple of times; so it is no use dealing with it again.2 Thus much, however, must be said that the New Testa-

1 All quotations of VA and AA are according to the edition of J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae (Turnhout, 1989). 2 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are, of course, far from being uniform. I think that the description of The Interpreter's Dictionav of the Bible I11 (Nashville, 1962) 977 is still valid and worth quoting: 'In general, the purpose of quoting the OT is to secure confir- mation of some NT statements by an authority respected by Jews, Chris-

58 ISWAN KARASSZON

ment writings needed Old Testament quotations for purposes of legitimacy, in order to guarantee continuity within both Testa- ments. That is why the New Testament authors often used the scheme of promise and fulfilment: Old Testament promises are fulfilled in New Testament events, first of all in the historical event of the earthly activity of Jesus C h r i ~ t . ~ This is depicted with lucidity in Lk 4.22, in the account of the first sermon of Jesus Christ in Nazareth. After having read the text of Isaiah, the anointed one spoke: 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing'.

The issue is quite different in the commentaries of the Church Fathers. Most recently, F. Bovon published an investigation into the missionary speeches of Jesus in the AAA and drew our attent- ion to the basic difference between the Acts and the Fathers' homi- lies: 'Un exkgbte de 17AntiquitC ... recherche et souligne I'harmonie entre les ordonnances de JCsus et I'Ancien Testament'. By way of example he quotes Cyril of Alexandria who explains the commis- sion of Jesus' disciples by citing Jeremiah: the difference between the true and false prophets is actualised in his homily, so that both Testaments form a unity in his sermon. Bovon asserts that nothing of this can be found in the apocryphal Acts: 'lorsque I'envoi des disciples ou des ap8tres n'est pas placC a la lumibre de I'Ancien Testament, il n'est pas rattache non plus a une autre rkalisation historique dans la vie des a p h e s , mais A d'autres sentences de JCsus I~i-mEme'.~

tians, and God-fearing Gentiles ... What is thereby confirmed may be a matter of conduct ..., a general principle ..., or a theological insight ...' 3 I am fully aware that this overall picture of the New Testament must be specified. However, it was not by chance that the former generation of theologians took the scheme promise-fulfilment as a model, even if this model is criticised and does not take hold any more without reser- vations. A brief sketch of the research is to be found in G.F. Hasel, New Testament Theology: basic issues in the current debate (Grand Rapids, 1978) especially 193-5. 4 F. Bovon: 'Le discours missionnaire de J6sus: r6ctption patristique et narration apocryphe', ~ t . Thkol. Rel. 68 (1993) 481-97, esp. 483, 484.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 5 9

The present paper aims at answering the question put by this remarkable fact: why this disregard for the Old Testament in the AAA? Did the authors forget one part of the Bible or do we have to look for special theological reasons behind their attitude? Without anticipating our final results, the second answer seems to be more realistic than the first one; in that case, however, we have to make clear-cut differences between the theology of the Church Fathers and the AAA. Is this endeavour legitimate? If not, the differences consist only in the methods of demonstration, not so much in their contents. Whatever the definite answer will be, we firmly hope that our investigations will provide colleagues with a solid basis for further research.

1. VA 1 1.25-27 Non nos nuptias aut avertirnus aut vitamus, cum ab initio Deus masculum iungi praecipisset et ferninam, sed potius incesta damnamus (Gen 2.24)5 'I-kn y i b - jri 't- ' b y w 't- 'mw wdbk b 'Stw

EVEKEV Z O ~ T O U ~ a z a h ~ i ~ ~ t &vOpaxo< T ~ V xa~gpa ~ a i rfiv pqztpa a6zo0 ~ a i npoo~ohhqe?fo&zat xpbq T ~ V yuvai~a ah00 quam ob rem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adherebit uxori suae.. .

Fortunately enough, there is not much to explain in this text: The apostle is confronted with pagan wedding customs and alerts his followers to the Christian way of celebrating a wedding. He does not hesitate to make sure that Christianity is not against marriage; for this purpose he quotes the above passage of the Old Testament. When looking at the Masoretic text (Mi"), LXX and the Vulgate (V), we can state that the original version and the translations are unanimous (there is only one minor difference: V does not trans- late the suffix -6 of MT which would yield matrem suam). At first sight, however, one can see the great difference in the wording of

5 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 591. (Turnhout, 1989) 591.

60 ISTV AN KARASSZON

V and of the Latin text of VA, so that it is by no means sure that we have to do with a direct quotation. Our text is rather a loose allusion to Gen 2.24 which inserts Deus ... praecipisset ('God ordered') and interrupts the text of the Bible. For the climax of this passage is surely what is omitted here: 'and they will become one flesh.'

As to the theological interpretation of this passage, we want to make two remarks. First, it is true that VA quotes the Genesis correctly if it wishes to stress the power of the affection of married couples. No question that the text intended to express this emotion which is inherent to the 'nuclear family', and our text is right in looking for a justification of love and family in this text; as we read in the celebrated commentary of C. Westermann on Genesis: 'Die Liebe von Mann und Frau erhalt hier eine einzigar- tige Wiirdig~ng'.~

However, there is also a remarkable difference: VA under- stands this text as a justification of the institution of the family and tries to deduce from it the Christian principles of family-life. This is not true of the original text; once again, we quote Westermann: 'V. 24 wie V. 23 eben gerade nicht von der Ehe als Institution zur Erzeugung von Nachkommenschaft spricht, sondern von der Gemeinschaft von Mann und Frau als solcher'.' Gen 2.24 is an assertion, not an imperative.

The New Testament quotes Gen 2.24, e.g. in Mc 10.7 (par Mt 14.5); the quotation is put into the mouth of Jesus Christ. The wording is according to the text of LXX (with a minor alteration). However, the context is quite different: Jesus wished to refute the social institution of divorce, and the basis of His assertion was to be found in the Tora. Of course, he cited Gen 2.24 at full length.8

6 C. Westermann, Genesis I, (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 19762) 3 18. 7 Westermann, Ibidem. 8 D. Liihrmann's commentary on Mark (Tiibingen, 1987) states: 'Da- durch aber wird klar, d& es nicht nur um Monogamie, sondern auch um ein Scheidungsverbot geht.' We need not enter into the details of text critical problems; according to Liihrmann, the influence of Gen 2.24 and the use of LXX is beyond doubt.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 6 1

We can state then that VA moves in the opposite direction, if it wishes to justify the social institution of marriage with the same quotation.

Gen 2.24 is quoted in Eph 5.31 as well. This passage tackles the issue of the marriage, just like VA - but what a difference! The christological concentration in founding Christian marriage is totally absent from VA while it is crucial to Eph. The rather con- servative commentary of E.K. Simpson speaks of a 'marvellous analogy' between the nuptial bond and Christ's relation to the Church, in which 'the earthly and heavenly bridal are inextricably blended'.9 Why is this analogy put into parenthesis in VA? Not by chance, I think, but certainly on purpose: the environment of VA is not Christian and the christological analogy would not be a con- venient tool to persuade people.

We may then conclude that VA knows and acknowledges the Biblical text, but it is not the intention of the author to comment on the Bible, rather to justify his own position on a special topos, namely on Christian marriage. For this purpose he makes use of the text of the Bible; he does not wish to distort it, but it puts it into light of his special situation. The way of quoting is charac- teristic of his intention: that is why he does not quote Gen 2.24 word by word, only roughly.

2. VA 12.33 Ut quid, o viri, casso vos labore consumitis? Deus enim pugnat pro viris istis, et vos non cognoscitis? (Ex 14.25)" fi nlBm Ihm (viz. bmgvm)

6 y&p ~dp toq noh&p&i' X E P ~ CI\ST&V TO~)C, AiyU7tTfoU~ Deus enim pugnat pro eis contra nos

The understanding of this passage is once again rather easy: the author refers to a great miracle which is a sign of God's activity; the exclamation is a rhetorical way of demonstrating the direct

9 E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians (Grand Rapids, 1957) 13. 10 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 595.

intervention of God in history and putting a question means here certainly a strong affirmation. The original text and the translations are in harmony; especially, we can praise the translation of I in the Hebrew text: peri in Greek and p ro in Latin, i.e. 'for' and not 'with'.'' VA replaces this preposition with pro viris istis, which is an explication, not only an expansion, and refers to the representa- tives of Christian message present in our narrative, not to the people of God. Consequently, we have to do here with an adap- tation of the Biblical text, rather than with a direct quotation or a brief comment. This is also true of the further expansion of the text, et vos non cognoseitis?, which is not part of the Biblical text, but a reaffirmation of the assertion of the first part of the sentence. The question is now at hand: was VA justified in expanding the Biblical text in this way?

As we have done before, also this time we turn to a modem commentary. B.S. Childs writes: 'In the repetition of the descript- ion of Israel's crossing ... the miraculous delivery is contrasted with the destruction of the Egyptians ...'I2 The rhetoric device of the Biblical author is the contrast between Egyptians and Israelites; the defeat on the first side, and the victory on the other side display the mighty acts of Israel's God, and this narrative tech- nique gives tension and energy to the text. In comparison with VA we have to state that precisely this narrative technique and rhetoric device were picked up by the author: we see the pagans on one side, and the Christian messengers on the other; the contrast, here too, demonstrates the power of God and the truth of the Gospel. To be sure, the Biblical quotation is not exact; we observe once again that VA does not comment on the Bible, it only cites the Bible and uses it for its own purposes. But we have to state that the expansion is done on purpose (not by chance), and the author testifies to a profound knowledge of the goal of the Biblical

11 Cf. (L. Koehler) and W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches und aramaisches Lexikon zum AIten Testament I1 (Leiden, 1977) 500. Most recently, P. Reymond, Dictionnaire d'htbreu et dTaramCen bibliques (Paris, 1991) 192. 12 B.S. Childs, Exodus (London, 1974) 227.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

narrative: he reproduces the point exactly.

Andreas, ego semper tecum sum et non te derelinquo (Josh 1 .5)13 'hyh 'mk I ' 'rpk wl' ' i b k ( o b ~ o q ) Eoopat ~ a i PET$ 006 ~ a i O ~ K &yca.cah&lym o~ 01362 ~ X E P ~ W O ~ C I ~ OE

ero et tecum, nun dimittam ne derelinquam te

One has to understand this oracle against the background of the historical setting into which VA puts the quotation: Andrew takes the decision to start and he determines that the direction should be ordered by God. Impressive is the choice of this quotation: it really comes from a new beginning, since the Biblical author depicts the outset of the conquest of Canaan by these words. Of course, the difference must not be neglected, too. This beginning in the Book of Joshua follows the former narratives of Moses; that is why the text of VA and that of MT and the translations are slightly different: the word semper must be inserted, replacing the reference to Moses (represented by ~ a i in LXX and et in V). But this minor alteration is done on purpose and fulfils the same function. On the other side, LXX and V are surely right if they translate hyha with a future (Eoopat and ero); we may ask why VA used present tense here - perhaps it wished to express God's steadfast presence with Andrew. Whatever the case might be, the ancient translations are right. Much more conspicuous is, however, that the two last verbs of the Biblical text are rendered word by word in the ancient translation, whilst VA uses only one verb: de- relinquo. Modem linguistics say that the use of the two verbs in Hebrew is a pleonasm; the correct translation is, accordingly, that of VA, operating with one corresponding verb only. Here VA retains its right against the ancient translations.

As to the literal and theological problems of this Biblical

13 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 619.

64 ISTV AN KARASSZON

passage, we have to do with a compound unity. First of all, the widespread notion of the divine promise to accompany a hero is referred to;I4 presumably VA wishes to pick up this notion and so it intends to join the Biblical tradition. In Josh 1.5, however, this theme is interwoven with the idea of the Holy War, and VA does not seem to realise this combination. As one of the modem com- mentaries states: 'The motif of divine presence frames the second half of our section ... The formula is taken up into the holy war ideology of Israel'.ls

In my judgement, it is totally impossible that VA would not have known the idea of the Holy War in the theology of the Old Testament: there is such a vast Biblical material on this theme that this solution should be discarded. Rather I find that the author of VA led himself by the aims and goals of his own narrative and so he neglected one of the aspects of the quoted Biblical passage. Once again, we can state that the author picked up one of the topoi of the Old Testament which he thought to share with the Bible and used it for his special intention. This intention, however, was by no way to comment on the Biblical narrative: VA writes its own history.

Let us add to all this that Josh 1.5 is quoted in Heb 13.5, too. The context is a series of virtues which should prevail when the new people of God goes its way, i.e. it will introduce a new period in history, just like in the life of Andrew. The wording is, how- ever, different; Josh 1.5 is rendered here as follows: 06 pfi os &vQ 066' 06 pfi (JE k'y~arahtno. According to H.F. WeiR, this translation has much in common with Philo's rendering,16 so we have to do here with a further branch of the development of the textual tradition. The purpose is slightly different: Heb wishes to provide the members of the people of God with a solid basis for their behaviour. This is superfluous in Andrew's case, so it remains with the divine promise in VA.

14 Cf. H.D. PreuB, '... ich will mit dir sein!', Zs. Alttest. Wiss. 80 (1968) 139ff. 15 T.C. Butler, Joshua (Waco, 1983) 12. 16 H.F. Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebraer (Gottingen, 1991) 706.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS

4. VA 24.51-52 Non est similis tibi, Domine (Ps 86 8; LXX: 85 8)17 Yn-kmk b 'Ihym 'dny O I ~ K Eonv bpot6q oot kv ecofq, ~ d p t € non est similis tui in diis, Domine

This exclamation is the climax of a narrative about the miracle of resurrecting of dead person. Eye-witnesses to the miracle ac- knowledge the power and so the existence of Andrew's God; it seems that the whole story was told just to this end. VA had, of course, a great number of Biblical passages at hand expressing the same contents: the incomparability of God in the Old Testament. And it seems that he made a good choice: the context of this verse reports great tribulations (genre: individual lament)," and the comparison is strengthened by the presence of foreign nations in the subsequent verses. All this fits well into the situation of the miracle in VA, and we have good reasons to suggest that all these circumstances were considered by the author of VA before decid- ing in favour of our verse.

In the wording there is only one important change: VA drops the word b'lhym; remarkably enough, this word is not rendered correctly in the ancient translations: 'in the gods' is clearly a Hebraism, since the right translation should be 'among the gods'. However, this is a way of translating which is common to ancient translations. About the reasons for omitting this word in VA we are reduced to speculation: perhaps the author wished to avoid the alternative of the existence of other gods in order to underline the exclusiveness of the God of Christians.Ig

In the theology of Psalm 86 and that of VA, however, there are basic differences. The Psalmist does not need any miracle in his poem: the quoted exclamation is a motif of confidence ('Vertrau-

17 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 63 1. 18 H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen (Gottingen, 1926) 376: 'Das Klagelied des Einzelnen in Todesnot und Feindesbedr angnis.' 19 Gunkel, Ibidem, 377: 'Das Wort setzt eigentlich das Dasein rnehre- rer Gotter voraus, die sich mit Jahwe nicht vergleichen konnen.'

66 ISTVAN KARASSZON

ensmotif), even in face of the enemies and tribulations, in the structure of the psalm. The Psalmist does not intend to convert people to his God; rather he is in search of peace and rest. In this respect, VA moves far from the Old Testament. For him this exclamation is a manifesto which finds public acceptance; by the same stroke, it is the result of his Christian mission and a prelude to further missionary acts. Certainly that is the very essence of what the author intends to say: that is why VA puts this exclamat- ion to the end of his narrative whilst the quoted verse is rather in the centre of the Psalm.

5 . VA 13.18-20 Populi autem stupebant, videntes eum post viginti tres annos ambulantem, et gIoriJicabant Deum, dicentes, quia: Non est similis deo Andreae (Is 46.9)20 ky 'nky 'I w 'yn 'wd 'Ihym ps kmwny k y 6 ~ t p t 6 8s6c,, at O I ~ K E o r t v E r t nhqv k p o O non est ultra Deus nec est similis mei

All what we have said in the above paragraph is also true of this passage: after a miracle has taken place, the eye-witnesses express their acceptance of the true God; the exclamation is the climax of the narrative, indeed it is the very point of the author. However, this time we are not sure that there is a real quotation here: the ancient translations are really translations, i.e., they render the text of the Hebrew Bible in Greek and Latin. In opposition to them, VA is rather a paraphrase; the speaker in the Biblical text is God himself, but in VA the incomparability of God is confirmed by people who were present at the miracle of the healing of the young man. Perhaps the author did not wish to quote the Bible explicitly; instead he simply used Biblical terms and phraseology.

Our question is here as it was above whether the author understands and interprets the Bible correctly. The first part of our

20 Prieur, Acta Andreae, 599.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 67

answer can be an affirmation: Yes, he was in line with the purpose of Deutero-Isaiah who referred to the mighty acts of God in order to convince his compatriots about the power of God in history. That is why he often used the example of the former deeds of Yahweh, e.g., the creation. This kind of proving God's power is the purpose of VA: it tells us about miracles which display God's activity in the course of the mission and this is a proof of his power for other people. No question: the author knew the Bible profoundly and he who cites here used the Old Testament regular- ly.

Modem criticism, however, goes even farther. As we read in the commentary of C. Westermann on Deutero-Isaiah, the feature of the present text was that of a trial speech:2' God was accused within the framework of collective lament of forgetting His people and of being defeated by foreign gods. It is the 'Sitz im Leben' of a trial that God claims incomparability for Himself, and His former deeds will testify to His divinity. VA, in turn, does not wish to enter into trial in the name of God, and so it neglects this important aspect of the Biblical text. His goal and intention are to demonstrate the power of God which is beyond any doubt and question; finally, even outsiders accept the incomparability of God. The possibility of the existence of other gods is suppressed here, just as it was in the former passage. For this reason VA omits the word 'lhym in the second part of the sentence. Here again the goal of the narrative prevails over the Biblical narrative, but this is by no means due to a lack of the knowledge of the Bible.

6. AJ 113.20 6 zQv iipyov k ~ & o r q zbv &7c&Ctov &7co6t6ob~ p t o 0 6 ~ ~ ~ Mt 1 6 . 2 7 ~ ~ a i z6ze &7co66oet & ~ & o r q ~ a z h zfiv xp&Ctv a6zoO Rom 2.6 65 &no66ost k ~ & o z q ~ a z h z h Epya aCzoO Prov 24.12d 65 &xo6i6ootv k ~ & o z q ~ a z h z h CSpya aCzo0

21 C . Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (London, 1969) 184: 'But these opening words, too, correspond to one of the parts of the trial speeches, namely, the summons to Israel to be God's witnesses.' 22 Junod & Kaestli, AI, 313.

68 ISTV AN KARASSZON

Ps 61.13b 6Tt 06 & x 0 6 6 0 ~ t ~ k K & o t ~ KaT& r& Epya a13~00

This time we have not quoted MT and V; the quotations are clearly taken from LXX. This fact is quite remarkable because we did not see much affinity toward the text of LXX (in contrast to the Church Fathers). The only explanation of this might be given by the circumstance that the New Testament quotations go back to the LXX text. We can assume that the text of A J is not a quotation taken directly from LXX, but only by the mediation of the New Testament.

In comparison with the New Testament, however, there are some differences in the respective theologies. The Gospel ac- cording to Matthew makes use of the Old Testament quotation in order to stress the parousia; the eschatological aspect of this text is beyond discussion. Readers of the Gospel are summoned to direct their acts in view of the last judgement, for, as Schweizer writes: 'Die Frage nach dem Menschensohn (V. 13) ist erst mit dem Hinweis auf das auch den Jungem bevorstehende Gericht und den Lohn fur rechte Jiingertreue bean t~o r t e t ' . ~~ It is immediately obvious, though, that nothing of this has been retained in AJ.

The eschatological dimension is not absent in Romans, but it is clear that this quotation stands firm within the context of the justification by faith alone. This entitles the Apostle to change the overall ambience of the Old Testament quotation - a fact which is stressed in the commentary of U. Wilckens: 'Das Zitat Ps 61.13 (vgl. Spr 24.12), im dortigen Kontext positiv gemeint als Hof iung des von Feinden bedrangten Gerechten auf Gottes rettenden Ein- griff, gewinnt so bei Paulus eine drohende Note. Gerecht ist Gottes Gericht gegeniiber dem siindigen Juden einzig darin, daB er ihm "zuruckgibt", was er sich durch seine Taten selbst envirkt hat'.24

23 E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus (Gottingen, 19864) 226, who assumes that Matthew's redaction even increased the eschato- logical dimension of the material of the tradition: 'Jesus riickt also immer starker von der Rolle des das Gericht entscheidenden Zeugen ... in die des Richters und des H e m des Gottesgerichtes; Ibidem (quote). 24 U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer (Ziirich, 1987*) 126.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 69

This very endeavour of the Apostle is not recorded in A$ even if we presuppose that it is a new dimension, we have to state that it suppressed this aspect of the Epistle to the Romans in its quo- tation.

What was to be quoted from the New Testament? Prov 24.12 is a locus classicus of the Jewish doctrine of retribution ('Vergel- tungslehre'); according to this, God warrants the good order of life by giving everybody what they deserve. To be sure, this doctrine was not without doubts and debates in the theology of the Old Testament. But all this does not alter the explanation of this verse. T. Romer writes with good reasons: 'Ainsi, selon les Proverbes, le Seigneur est celui qui institue et garantit le lien entre le compor- tement d'un individu et sa destinke. Pour que I'ordre du monde soi maintenu, les actes de I'homme doivent ktre dGment rktribuks ... L'importance de ce lien entre la cause et son effet va d'ailleurs provoquer une evolution dangereuse de la sagesse, a I'origine d'une crise grave dont Job sera le tkmoin r k ~ o l t C . ~ ~ ' AS to Psalm 61.13 (MT: 62), H. Gunkel mentions its relation to wisdom li- terature. However, the function of this last verse is that of comfort and consolation: 'Das Wort aber, das ihm (i.e. the Psalmist) zuteil geworden ist, und das ihn in seinen Schmerzen getrostet hat, ist dieses, daR Jahve allein Schutz und Gnade in seiner Hand halt. Die Lehre, mit der er schlieRt, dal3 Gott jedem nach seinem Tun vergilt, ist das standige Thema der Weisheitsdichtung in ihrer P e r i ~ d e ' . ~ ~

As we see, the history of the theology of this verse is impres- sive. The question emerges: what remained from all of this in AS! But unfortunately we have no chance of attempting any answer: the quotation in A J stands within the context of a series of the praise of God, so we can not say with certainty how much the author understood the fascinating history of this Biblical text. It seems to me certain that he was aware of the character of this verse as a quotation from the Old Testament in the New Testa- ment. But the doctrine of retribution (here a positive term) became

25 T. Romer, La Sagesse duns 1 'Ancien Testament (Aubonne, 1991) 9. 26 Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 263.

a topos for AJ, so he did not need to enter into details about it.

7. A J 90.8-9 ... at Iorapat & + O P ~ V [afirbv] EIS r& 6~1oOta afir06~' This time I refrain from quoting the parallel text, i.e., Ex 33.23, because it is clear that this is not a translation, rather a loose allusion to the Biblical text. AJ describes here the transfiguration of the Lord and in doing so it uses Old Testament phraseology: the glory of the Lord was to be looked upon from behind, it could not be seen face to face. In order to illustrate this, the author makes a quick hint to the Old Testament theophany which is regarded here as the counterpart of the New Testament revelation. In view of this less precise allusion we are entitled to assume that not only knew the author the text of the Old Testament, but he supposed his au- dience to be well acquainted with this story: He must have been sure that listeners or readers understood what he was about to quote.

Conclusion

It is now time to briefly summarise the results of our sketch of the Old Testament quotations in the AAA. Even though the authors rarely quote the Old Testament, they testify to their profound knowledge of the Bible. Consequently, the paucity of Old Testa- ment quotations should be explained by their special purpose and theology. The first answer to this finding is at hand: they did not feel the necessity of proving the continuity within the Old and New Testament any more; rather they accepted that this was granted by the New Testament itself. That is why they did not hesitate to quote from the Old Testament as an authoritative source; in those cases where quotations from the Old Testament are used both by the New Testament and the AAA, we can state that the latter did not need the authority of the New Testament any more: it was their free choice whether they followed the New

27 Junod & Kaestli, AI, 195.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS 71

Testament way of quoting or not. The authority of the Old Testa- ment was not damaged or diminished, only its relevance bore not so heavy as that of the New Testament (a comparison with quo- tations from the New Testament reveals this quite clearly).

Much more important is, however, our second remark: it seems that in the time of the AAA several topoi of Christian doctrines developed, and the authors' purpose was rather to com- ment on these topoi and not on the Old Testament. This will be definitely different in the homilies of the Church Fathers! In the above investigation we witnessed the following topoi: Christian marriage, the power of God in miracles, the presence of God with the missionaries, the praise of the Almighty God by Christians and pagans alike, God's incomparability and the negation of foreign gods - all these must have been fervently debated issues during the missionary activities of the early Christians.