New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)
D. R. Catchpole

New Testament Studies / Volume 17 / Issue 02 / January 1971, pp 213 ­ 226
DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500015605, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500015605

How to cite this article:
D. R. Catchpole (1971). The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64). New 
Testament Studies, 17, pp 213­226 doi:10.1017/S0028688500015605

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 147.142.186.54 on 30 May 2013
New Test. Stud. 17, pp. 213-26

THE ANSWER OF JESUS TO CAIAPHAS

(MATT. XXVI. 64)
Research into the trial ofJesus has always experienced a particular attraction
towards the words Eyco E!HI in Mark xiv. 62, and no one more than Professor
Stauffer1 has emphasized their importance.2 Whether these words are inter-
preted as theophanic self-revelation or simply as a positive reply to the
preceding question, Matthew's parallel cv eliras is by contrast overshadowed.
Indeed Stauffer characterizes these words as a 'debasing' and 'misunder-
standing' 3 of the original words of Jesus. Yet av EITTCCS must have its meaning
exposed for several reasons. First, it plays a role within the whole scheme of
Matthaean theology. Secondly, it has a historical bearing because some
scholars take this rather than Mark's as the more probable wording of Jesus'
reply to the high priest's question. Thirdly, if Luke's narrative of the
Sanhedrin hearing is an independent tradition, it is the more imperative to
fix the meaning of the words which bring the proceedings to a climax.
Johannes Irmscher4 has given an extensive review of the interpretation of
Jesus' reply to Pilate. His survey concentrates on patristic and modern
scholars, but he omits to mention those writers whose familiarity with
Semitic idiom might entitle them to special attention, namely Jewish
scholars. It is here that an appropriate starting point for the investigation
of ou ETTTOCS may be found. Unanimity, however, eludes us here just as among
the other writers, and three different views emerge. The view that Jesus
replied affirmatively is held by Samuel Hirsch, J. R. Peynado, J. L.
Saalschiitz, Ludwig Philippson, I.-M. Rabbinowicz, S. Dubnow and A. L.
Sachar.5 With this group may be classed J. Salvador,6 who reproduces
Jesus' reply as 'Je le suis' which could be either drawn from Mark or a
paraphrase of Matthew whom he normally cites; also J. Cohen7 cites
Luke xxii. 70 at this point and renders i t ' Vous le dites, je le suis'. A second
group of Jewish scholars understands cru sliras as equivocal or obscure, and
certainly less than affirmative: I. M.Jost, M. A. Weill, E. Grunebaum,
E. Soloweyczyk, J.Jacobs, M. Fluegel, A. Danziger, N. S.Joseph, I. Abra-
hams, S. Zeitlin, M. Guttmann, E.Jacob, M. Radin, A. I. Polack and
1
An earlier form of this study was originally to be published in the Festschrift to be presented to
Professor Stauffer on his 65th birthday, 5 May 1967.
s
• Jesus and his Story (London, i960), pp. 142-59. Op. cit. pp. 150, 177.
4
't<i XfyEis (Mark xv. 2-Matt. xxvii. 1 r-Luke xxiii. 3)', Studii Classice, 11 (i960), 151-8.
6
Samuel Hirsch in Archives Israilites, xxvi (1865), 388; J. R. Peynado, 'An Examination of
Bishop Pearson's Exposition of the Apostles' Creed', The Occident, v (1847), 548; J . L. Saalschiitz,
Das Mosaische Recht (Berlin, 1853), p. 624; L. Philippson, Haben wirklich die Juden Jesum gekreuzigt?
(Berlin, 1866), p. 39; I.-M. Rabbinowicz, LeR6lede Jisuset des ApStres (Bruxelles, 1866), pp. 134-7;
S. Dubnow, Weltgeschichte des judischen Volkes, n (Berlin, 1925), p. 535; A. L. Sachar, A History of the
6
Jews (New York, 1930), p. 132. Histoire des Institutions de Moise, u (Paris, 1828), p. 87.
' 'Les Juifs Decides', La Vtriti Israelite, m (1861), 11.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 214 D. R. CATCHPOLE
1
P. Winter. Between these two blocks of opinion lies a third, consisting of
scholars who hover between the other two possibilities. Thus, H. Graetz2
usually took the answer as unclear in itself though clarified by the subsequent
Son of Man saying, but he did not maintain this throughout. An ambivalent
position is also adopted by J. Lehmann: the reply of Jesus 'bien qu'ambigue
dans la forme, etant au fond affirmative'.3 The view of C. G. Montefiore is
difficult to ascertain. In several different contexts he takes au eliras as less
than affirmative;4 but the restraint disappears in treating Matt. xxvi. 25,
and later Montefiore decides that' You have said' means that Jesus believed
himself to be the Messiah,5 and that he could not deny the charge. J.
Klausner too mentions Matthew's version in a context where 'there is no
doubt that Jesus returned a positive answer', but he believes ov ernccs to be
derived from the answer to Pilate, and interprets it in terms of the situation
where it is unsafe or unseemly to say the truth.6 Similarly D. Daube7 does
not decide whether Jesus meant 'Yes', ' N o ' or 'Yes and No', but contents
himself with questioning the linguistic procedure of C. C. Torrey8 on TTATIV
and of Strack-Billerbeck9 onCTUEIITCCS.
From this survey ofJewish interpretation there emerges a growing tendency
to understand av el-rras as ambiguous or non-committal. This may be
explained as follows: (i) Some of those who understand Jesus' reply as plainly
affirmative claim that the Sanhedrin trial was fully legal, and that, viewing
Jesus as a simple citizen, the Sanhedrin rightly condemned him. An explicit
claim to be Son of God is thought to have provided justifiable grounds for the
verdict against him.10 (ii) Others, as part of a scheme for dismissing the
Sanhedrin trial as a fiction, heighten the Christology by giving ov eluas this
positive content and, by establishing conformity to the faith of the church,
1
I. M. Jost, Ceschichte des Judenlhums und seiner Sekten (Leipzig, 1857), p. 406; M. A. Weill, Le
Judaisme, ses Dogmes et sa Mission, 11 (1869), p. 472; E. Griinebaum, Die Sitlenlehre des Judenlhums
(Strassburg, 1867), p. 159; E. Soloweyczyk, Kol Kore; La Bible, le Talmud et I'Evangile (Paris, 1875),
p. 357; J. Jacobs, Jesus of Nazareth in Jewish Encyclopaedia, vn (1904), 166; M. Fluegel, The Messiah-
Ideal, 1 (Baltimore, 1896), p. 103; A. Danziger, Jewish Forerunners of Christianity (London, 1904), pp. 47,
279; N. S.Joseph, Why I am not a Christian (London, 1907), p. 5; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism
and the Gospels—Second Series (London, 1924), pp. 1-3; S. Zeitlin, 'Studies in the Beginnings of
Christianity ',JQR xiv (1923), 129; M. Guttmann, Das Judentum und seine Umwelt (Berlin, 1927), p. 11;
E.Jacob, Christentum in Encyclopaedia Judaica, v (1930), 528; M. Radin, The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth
(Chicago, 1931), pp. 80, 111; A. I. Polack and W. W. Simpson, Jesus in the Background of History
(London, 1957), p. 103; P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), p. 148.
2
Geschichte derjuden (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1863), pp. 234, 244; op. cit. (3rd ed. Leipzig, 1878), p. 325;
' Un Mot sur la Dogmatique du Christianisme Primitif', REJ, xx (i8go), 14; but in Sinai et Golgotha
(Paris, 1867), p. 340, he took the reply ' T u l'as dit' to mean Yes.
3
Quelques Dates Importantes de la Chronologic du se Temple, REJ, xxxvn (1898), 16.
4
The Synoptic Gospels, I (London, 1909), p. 352; op. cit. 11, p. 763.
6
Op. cit. 11 (2nd ed. London, 1927), p. 336.
6
Jesus of Nazareth (London, 1929), pp. 342, 346; Jesus von Nazareth in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ix
(1932), 67.
' 'Concerning the Reconstruction of the Aramaic Gospels', BJRL, xxix (1945), 88-91.
8
The Four Gospels (London, 1933).
8
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 1 (Miinchen, 1926), p. 990.
10
So Salvador, Saalschiitz, Peynado and Cohen. These are writers on whom the influence of the
Talmudic passages about Jesus can with particular clarity be detected.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 215
1
reduce its credibility. (iii) Other Jewish writers are attracted towards the
non-affirmative interpretation by a confessional interest in the apparent
reserve of Jesus towards the foundational claim of Christianity that he is
Messiah and Son of God. There is nothing blameworthy here, but only the
contrary tendency to much earlier Christian apologetic which excessively
heightened Christology. (iv) The smallness of the group of Jewish scholars
who say that ov EIITCCS = Yes is due not only to the increasingly frequent
rejection of the Sanhedrin trial as such but, more importantly, to the critical
argumentation of Daniel Chwolson,2 himself a converted Jew. This marks a
turning point in the discussion, and indeed the first occasion of scholarly
investigation of cru ETTTOCS by a Jewish scholar.
In 1892 Chwolson built up the following case against the view that <ru
sluccs is a Rabbinic Bejahungsformel:3 (i) Matt. xxvi. 25 counts against it.4
(ii) John xviii. 37 'spricht entscheidend dagegen: denn sonst stande der
Schlufi des Verses 37, besonders aber Vers 36 in vollem Widerspruche mit
der angeblichen Bejahung Christi auf der Frage des Pilatus ob er Konig sei'.
(iii) In the only Rabbinic parallel known to him, it is certainly not an
affirmation. This passage, Koh. R. vii. 12, runs as follows:
When Rabbi was dying in Sepphoris, the men of that town declared, 'Whosoever
comes and announces that Rabbi is dead will be put to death by us.' Bar Kappara
went, looked through the window, and squeezed himself in, his head being wrapped
up and his garments rent, and exclaimed, 'My brethren, sons of Jedayah, hear
me, hear me! Angels and mortals have taken hold of the tablets of the covenant.
The angels were victorious and have snatched the tablets.' They cried, 'Rabbi is
dead!' He said to them, 'You have said it; I have not said it' (*UN ]UV ")»Nj? Jinx
Nr»Nj? sV). Why did he not say it? Because it is written, He that uttereth a bad
report is a fool (Prov. x. 18). They rent their garments (so violently) that the sound
of the tearing reached Gufta three miles away, and the text was applied to him:
' The excellency of knowledge is that wisdom preserveth the life of him that hath it.'

Chwolson paraphrases Bar Kappara's reply: 'ihr selbst habet diese Trauer-
botschaft verkiindet, ihr konnt mir daher nichts anhaben'. He notes that the
parallel version j . Kel. ix. 4 has only the words ]imnxj? Jinx and he claims
that these do not suggest a direct affirmation but only ' eine Abwalzung der
Schuld von sich die traurige Botschaft iiberbracht zu haben'.
In 1908 Chwolson took the matter up again6 and this time interpreted
OTJ EIITCCS in the following way: 'ob die Sache wahr sei oder nicht lasse ich
dahingestellt sein: ich aber habe es nicht gesagt', i.e. neither affirmation nor
denial, but certainly a denial that the person concerned had said it. He then
1
So Samuel Hirsch and Ludwig Philippson.
2
Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes (1892); Beitrage zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des
Judentums (Leipzig, 1910); Uber die Frage ob Jesus gelebt hat (Leipzig, 1910).
3
Already W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erkldrung des Evangeliums Matthai (1845), p. 278 described
Q<I eliras as a 'Bejahungsformel, ahnlich bei Rabbinen'.
4 6
Passamahl, p. 88. Nachtrage in Passamahl (2nd ed. 1908), p. 189.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

2l6 D. R. CATCHPOLE
adds another reason: (iv) Luke xxiii. 4-5 shows it cannot be an affirmation,
for Pilate would not have declared such an avowed pretender innocent. His
conclusion on Matt. xxvi. 64 is then: ' Wir haben also auf diese Weise in der
Antwort Christi an den Hohen-priester ein direktes Zeugnis aus dem Mund
Jesu, dafi er selbst niemals gesagt hatte, er sei der Messias und der Sohn
Gottes.'
Subsequently in 19101 Chwolson added reason (v), this time polemizing
against Wellhausen, and countering any suggestion that his previously cited
Rabbinic parallel was late in date and therefore did not exclude development
in the meaning of 'You have said'. A new source was now introduced, a
source in which, Chwolson argued, the phrase is unambiguously a denial and
indeed an indignant denial 'daS man dem Gefragten so etwas zumuten
konnte'. The new text is Tos. Kel. i. 6:
The priests were allowed to enter between the porch and the altar without washing
hands and feet. So R. Meir. The sages however said: They were not allowed to.
Simon the Saint said in the presence of R. Eliezer: I went into the area between the
porch and the altar without washing hands and feet. But he (R. Eliezer) said to
him: You would certainly be ashamed to say that the high priest's dog is more
eminent than you? He said: Rabbi, you have said so. He answered him: In the
Temple service even the high priest would have had his brains split with a piece
of wood (if he had not washed his hands and feet beforehand). What do you want
to do? It was only that the overseer did not see you.2
Chwolson's argumentation is as follows. Simon must have been a Pharisee,
for otherwise he would not have been called 'the Saint'. The R. Eliezer
mentioned here is R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, pupil of R. Johanan b. Zakkai,
and therefore an ardent opponent of the Sadducees. Simon left unanswered
the question whether the high priest was more important than himself,
clearly in order to avoid having to say he was not; therefore it is unthinkable
that he should put the dog of the high priest on a higher level than himself,
particularly since the Jews despised dogs.
The work of Chwolson provides a suitable starting point for the detailed
examination of evidence, since most of the points involved occur in his
various treatments of this theme. To this examination of the evidence itself
we now turn.
1. Matt. xxvi. 25. This does not support the view of Chwolson. Certainly
Jesus had not said expressis verbis that Judas would betray him, but this is the
only respect in which ov EIITCCS here is less than a clear affirmative, (i) Matt,
xxvi. 25 is an insertion into Markan material, and there is little point in
introducing such a verse if it merely contained an evasion.3 (ii) In the
1 2
Beitrdge, pp. 55-6. Text in Zuckermandel, p. 569; cf. Strack-Billerbeck, 1, 990.
8
Contra O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (2nd ed. London, 1963), p. 118. Nor
can xxvi. 25 be regarded as one of the pieces of traditional material preserved by Matthew even
though they are discordant with his viewpoint (cf. x. 5-6 and xv. 24). For xxvi. 25 records even
within itself, on that understanding of au cl-iras, a disagreement between Jesus' expectation and the
subsequent course of events.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 217
immediate context Judas is introduced as the betrayer, Matt. xxvi. 14-16,
and is indeed so described in Matt. xxvi. 25 a 6 Trapcc5i8ous ocCrr6v. (iii)
Matthew's Passion narrative presents these events as the fulfilment not only
of the Old Testament prophecies but also of the foreknowledge of Jesus
himself.1 This is achieved, for instance, by the redactional Son of Man
saying in Matt. xxvi. 2 (cf. Mark xiv. 1) as well as by the Passion predictions.2
In the last of these Passion predictions the betrayal is foreseen.3 Matt. xxvi. 25
is part of this scheme, and a less than affirmative interpretation ofCTOEIITCCS
and hence a different attitude attributed to Jesus, would jar hopelessly,
(iv) The phrase cru ETTTCCS cannot be softened by emphasizing the crb as J. H.
Thayer4 claimed, i.e. not simply 'Yes' but 'Yes from the mouth of the
questioner'. For ur)Ti counts against this.5 Hence in Matt. xxvi. 25 aO eliras
contains an affirmation modified only by a preference for not stating the
matter expressis verbis.6
2. John xviii. 37 <J\J "Kiytis OTI (3aaiAEus stpi. In the context of John
xviii. 33—xix. 5 aO AEyEis cannot be understood as evasive. As with oO
EITTOCS in Matt. xxvi. 25 it is best taken as an affirmation, though not one
hundred per cent explicit because further definition of the kingship involved
is necessary. This definition is supplied by John xviii. 36 beforehand and
John xviii. 376 afterwards.7 It is quite true that Pilate can say of Jesus lycb
OUSEUICCV Euploxco kv CCUTW CCITICCV8 but in xviii. 39 he goes on to ask about the
release of 6 (JCCCTIAEUS TCOV 'louSaicov. This description of Jesus requires that
the definition of his kingship offered in answer to the question of xviii. 33
has not been weakened but rather confirmed by oO AtyEis in xviii. 37. Any
other interpretation of oO X^ysis (i) contradicts the whole Johannine Passion
theology, in which Jesus is most emphatically set forth as the King of the
Jews, often with exaggerated irony, and (ii) produces a dislocated narrative,
as Bultmann has pointed out,9 and the problem of why Pilate should call
Jesus the King of the Jews10 at all in xviii. 39 (cf. xix. 3). John xviii. 37 is
therefore a peculiarly good example of the affirmative sense, but expressed
by an indirect formulation.
1
So, rightly, G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigekit (2nd ed. Gottingen, 1966), p. 182.
2
Matt. xvi. 2 1 ; xvii. 22-3; xx. 18-19.
3
' The Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes', Matt. xx. 18 = Mark x. 33.
* '10 Eliras, 20 XSysts in the Answers of Jesus' J.B.L. xin (1894), 40-9.
6
Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1961), p . 221:
'Judas asks with the others UI^TI tycb elpi " I t is not I, is i t ? " and receives the unexpected answer
aO EITTOS.'
6
So, rightly, A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus (1929), p. 740; W. G. Kummel, 'Jesus und die
Anfange der Kirche', St.Th. vn (1953), 13; E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966), p . 477;
M. E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Leiden, 1962), p. 78.
7
Hence C. H. Dodd's paraphrase 'King is your word, not mine' is too negative, and clashes with
the preceding paaiAtla reference. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), p. 88.
8
But the explanation of this is ready to hand. In the words of H. Strathmann, Das Evangelium
nach Johannes (9th ed. Gottingen, 1959), p. 244: 'Solch' einen Konig hat Pilatus noch nicht gesehen.'
Jesus goes on to explain that his kingship involves no political threat.
9
Das Evangelium nach Johannes ( n t h ed. Gottingen, 1950), p. 506.
10
A problem recognized by C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to Stjohn (London, 1958), p. 448.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

2l8 D. R. CATCHPOLE
3. Luke xxiii. 3/Mark xv. 2. The analysis of the accounts of the trial before
Pilate in Mark and Luke is extremely complicated. Whereas in most of
Luke xxiii the verbal agreement between Mark and Luke is extremely small,
Luke xxiii. 3 registers a quite strikingly extensive correspondence with
Mark xv. 2. It may therefore be that the original Lukan tradition did not
contain xxiii. 3 and that Luke has introduced it from Mark into the Sonder-
quelle. If that is the case it is only in the Markan narrative that we need to
search for the clue to the meaning of au AEyeis. And there it cannot be
ambiguous or evasive since an affirmative answer is needed as the pre-
supposition for the statements of Mark xv. 9, 12.
On the other hand, there is reason to think that Luke xxiii. 3 belongs with
the surrounding verses to the Sonderquelle. Without it the transition from
xxiii. 2 to xxiii. 4 is extremely abrupt and could only be tolerated if some
suggestion like that of B. Weiss1 were accepted, namely that the original
narrative ran at xxiii. 3, 4 6 8E TTiAaros dcvEKpivEv ccurov KOCI ETTTEV irpos TOUS
dpXiepsTs- Also, although the verbal agreement with Mark is extensive, this
can in certain cases be insufficient to prove dependence, as close parallels
between Markan and Qmaterial demonstrate.2 Finally, we would expect the
present tense AsyEt Mark xv. 2 to be altered by Luke if he were the redactor
at this point, but we would expect EITTEV to be substituted rather than icpr).
8<pT| is in fact attested in the Passion narrative at xxii. 58, 70 and xxiii. 40.
All other examples belong to L passages (vii. 40, 44 and xv. 17). If then
Luke xxiii. 3 did belong to the Sonderquelle, what is the meaning of CTO
AEyEis in this tradition? Once again it must be affirmative because without
that there is no backing for the kingly mockery in xxiii. 11 (L)3 and the later
superscription (xxiii. 38).
4. Koh. R. vii. 12.4 This has often been regarded as no valid parallel for
au EIITCCS in Matt. xxvi. 64 on the grounds of disparity of context.5 Such an
objection is irrelevant. The story itself is a haggadic illustration of Koh.
vii. 12, but as it stands there is a dual climax using Prov. x. 18 as well. The
versions of b. Keth. 104a and j . Kel. ix. 4, as well as the obvious interruption
explaining why Bar Kappara did not speak explicitly, show that this extra
1
Die Quellen der Synoptischen Oberlieferung (1908), p. 157.
8
E.g. (i) the Beelzebub controversy in Mark iii. 23-30 and Q_: Matt. xii. 35-7 = Luke xi. 17-23;
(ii) the parable of the mustard seed in Mark iv. 30-2 and Q,: Matt. xiii. 31-2 = Luke xiii. 18-19,
cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Oxford, 1946), p. 10 and
E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966), p. 172; (iii) the saying about the two baptisms in
Mark i. 7-8 and Q,: Matt. iii. 11-12 = Luke iii. 16-17.
8
J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London, 1966), p. 79.
4
The version of Koh. R. ix. 10 is exactly the same. The differences in the version of b. Keth. 104a
are: (i) The threat of death issues from the Rabbis, (ii) The story includes the intervention of
R. Judah's maid, (iii) Bar Kappara is sent by the Rabbis to investigate, and 'he went, and finding
that Rabbi was dead, he tore his cloak and turned the tear backwards', (iv) The response to his
return was the question, ' Has he gone to his eternal rest ?' (v) The story ends with Bar Kappara's
reply, 'You have said it: I have not said it.'
6
J. H. Thayer, op. dt. p. 41, followed by G. Dalman, The Words ofJesus (London, 1902), p. 309,
followed in turn by Strack-Billerbeck, 1, 990.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 2ig

climax is secondary. We must therefore consider the story in two forms, both
with and without the additions, (i) With Prov. x. 18 and Koh. vii. 12. Here
the ending corresponds to the beginning, i.e. the threat of death for stating
expressis verbis that R. Judah had died. To this Bar Kappara's reply must
correspond, as well as to the Rabbis' implied question. It is important to note
that the fact of the death is not in doubt: it is only the open declaration of the
fact, which Bar Kappara shrewdly avoided, which is considered. The fact
of Rabbi's death is indeed quite clear not only from the tearing of his garments1
but also because his words ' Angels and men have taken hold... The angels
were victorious' are a euphemism for the announcement of death. So much
for the thought of Bar Kappara lying behind his statement 'You have said'.
This statement follows up the earlier remark confirming Rabbi's death,
confirms it, and conveys the truth so plainly that the others tear their
garments as well! It is clear, therefore, that Chwolson's understanding of
' You have said' is inadequate, and this applies even more when his rendering
of the phrase's meaning in Tos. Kel. i. 6—a rendering which showed
development beyond his earlier interpretations—is substituted. It clashes
with the whole thrust of the story, whereas nothing fits better than an
affirmation, qualified only by reluctance to state the matter openly expressis
verbis. A distinction has therefore to be made between the fact, on the one
hand, and the formulation and open statement of that fact on the other. The
reply must take account of the fact, but it is reluctance to formulate simply
and openly which determines the nuance of'You have said'. It must also be
noted that this source shows that the occurrence of the personal pronoun,
in this case J1X1N, does not affect the affirmative force. Hence the main thrust
of Irmscher's argument is parried, and similarly the qualifications suggested
by Thayer and Daube. (ii) Without the citations. In b. Keth. 104 a it is
explicitly stated that Bar Kappara found Rabbi dead, and therefore the
argumentation above is confirmed. Bar Kappara speaks from the same
consciousness as in the other version. This time, however, the climax is 'You
have said it: I did not say it'. The second part of this remark only makes
explicit what was implicit in the other version. The purpose of the story is
the same, and its meaning unaltered.
5. Tos. Kel. i. 6. As mentioned above, Chwolson's view of'You have said'
in this passage is a development on his earlier version of its meaning. It also
will not fit any of the other instances. For instance, ' an indignant denial of
such a suggestion' is quite out of place in Matt. xxvi. 25. Chwolson has in
fact very plainly failed to sustain his distinction between what the speaker
thought and what he said. The character of the other examples inevitably
causes one to query whether Chwolson's understanding of the present
passage is correct, or whether he has been unduly influenced by the Sadducee-
1
As L. Rabbinowicz notes in Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes (1961), p. 194: 'Signs of mourning:
he knew by now that Rabbi was dead.'
15 NTS xvii

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

220 D. R. CATCHPOLE
Pharisee divergence, an issue which fashioned his whole approach to Jesus.
This does indeed appear to have misled Chwolson here. For the assumption
behind R. Eliezer's question is that Simon cannot possibly be exempt from
the rules binding on the high priest, and this is given force by (i) the reference
to the high priest's head being split for such an offence, and (ii) the im-
possibility of escaping punishment unless the overseer were absent. 'You have
said' therefore turns out to be a shamefaced acquiescence and an em-
barrassed admission that Simon would not wish to grade the high priest's
dog above himself.1 It is because he is being rebuked and is forced into a
reluctant acceptance that Simon's reply is expressed in the form 'You
have said'.
6. Mark xiv. 62 and Matt. xxvi. 64. Here it must be stressed that the
literary relationship in the accounts of the Sanhedrin trial is one of total
dependence by Matthew on Mark.2 Cullmann is therefore methodologically
vulnerable when he prefers Matthew's <ru eliras to Mark's iycb et|o.i.3 The fact
that Luke's version bears some resemblance to uv ETTTOCS does not constitute
an agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark in the Streeterian sense,
any more than dnr' apTi in Matthew and onto TOU VUV in Luke correspond.4
(i) unels AeyeTe is certainly part of the material taken from Luke's Sonder-
quelle, and the muted similarity5 with au ETTTCCS is therefore an accident.
(ii) In spite of the fact that &TT6 TOU VOV is usually a mark of pre-Lukan style6
the Son of Man saying in Luke xxii. 69 is a redaction of Mark xiv. 62.'
(iii) drrr' apTi is quite typical of Matthaean redaction.8 Hence this very
slender 'agreement' of Matthew and Luke must be discarded: Luke xxii. 69
and Matt. xxvi. 64 are independent redactions9 of Mark xiv. 62, the former
being an intrusion of material drawn from Mark into a non-Markan context.
Further, the variant reading au SITTCCS OTI £yco etui in Mark xiv. 62 must be
regarded as an assimilation from Matthew.10 The main considerations argued
by Taylor in favour of this reading are not sufficiently compelling, i.e. (i) It
1
Hence Strack-Billerbeck, i, 990: 'Du hast Recht, so ist es.' Similarly, Dalman, op. cit. p. 309.
• Cf. J. Blinzler, Der Prozefi Jesu (4th ed. Regensburg, 1969), p. 170; N. A. Dahl,' Die Passions-
geschichtebeiMatthaeus', N. T.S. 11 (1955), 17-32. In'the passage Matt. xxvi. 57-64 Dahl wavers only
on the Matthaean version of the Temple saying, where, he thinks, ' Matthaus scheint die altere
Uberlieferung zu bieten', op. cit. p. 24. But here too, if Matthew happens to arrive at a version closer
to the original wording, it is due to redactional activity, and not to better information. Although
allowance has sometimes to be made for parallel oral tradition, there is no trace of such in Matthew's
Sanhedrin trial account.
3
He himself does not favour au el-iras 6TI fyci tlui as the original Markan reading. But if this is
rejected, the only other ground on which av EITTOCS could be taken as primary is an Aramaic Ur-gospel.
Chwolson took this view. The question of the originality or otherwise of the Lukan version is quite
a different matter, since we are not there dealing with a source which is dependent on Mark.
4
Contra J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming (London, 1957), p. 47.
6
Note the difference in number and tense.
' F. Rehkopf, Die lukanische Sonderquelle (Tubingen, 1959), p. 92.
' Contra C. Colpe, 6 u!6s TOU dv6p<inrou, Theologisches Worterbuch zum jV. T. vni (1967), 438.
8 9
Matt, xxiii. 39, xxvi. 29. So, rightly, J. Schmid, Matthaus und Lukas (1930), p. 156.
10
Blinzler, Prozefi, p. 157. Contra B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (10th ed. London, 1961),
p. 322 and V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1952), p. 568.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 221
is attested in 0 fam 13 472 543 565 700 1071 geo arm Or. (ii) It would
account for the text of Matthew and Luke, (iii) It illustrates the note of
reserve concerning messiahship, so frequently found in Mark. But messianic
reserve disappears progressively as the Passion events gather momentum:
Jesus enters Jerusalem as Messiah and is crucified as such. Again it is para-
doxical to find Taylor arguing from the agreement of Matthew and Luke,
when he has been a steady supporter of the independence of Luke j 1 and
arguments about this apparent agreement have been dealt with already.
Finally, the textual attestation is stronger for the shorter Markan reading,
and the explanation in terms of assimilation to Matthew gains powerful
support from parallel phenomena collected by M. E. Thrall.2
It is therefore necessary to insist that literary criticism reveals a situation
where Mark is the only source known to Matthew, and where, in detail,
£yco etui has been changed to ou ETTTOCS. This means two things: (i) A change to
a more Semitic idiom, well in line with the general character of Matthew,
(ii) A lowering of Christology, if cru eliras is understood as ambiguous,
reserved or equivocal.3 Such a change in sense, and particularly stemming from
this evangelist, is almost unbelievable, for in the rest of the gospel Matthew
never lowers Christology, and the Sanhedrin trial is the last place where such
a modification would be expected. This in itself constitutes strong evidence
for the view thatCTUelTrocs means 'Yes', 4 modified only by the implication
that more is needed for a complete understanding of Jesus, which indeed the
kingly Son of Man saying immediately provides.
An additional argument which has been used to buttress an equivocal
sense for ov eluas is the meaning of TTAT|V. Cullmann writes: 'TTATIV means an
emphasized "but", which sets one statement over against another which is
rejected. It suggests that the preceding answer of Jesus was probably nega-
tive.'5 Now the other instances of ov el-rras and parallels make quite plain
that this phrase cannot possibly be a negative, and Cullmann himself does
not render it so elsewhere.6 Further, the following points may be made
about the actual significance of irAriv in Matt. xxvi. 64:
(i) Even if a certain amount of contrast is involved in irAfiv, it must not
be tacitly assumed to be contrast between the concepts of Messiah (rejected)
and glorified Son of Man (accepted). Other contrasts are ready to hand,
e.g. the contrast between the reluctance to state expressis verbis and the very
1
Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford, 1926), p . 51.
• Greek Particles, p. 72.
J
It is interesting to note that neither of the two most recent advocates of Matthaean priority
uses the relationship between Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62 as an argument. B. C. Butler, The
Originality of St Matthew (Cambridge, 1951); W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (London, 1964).
The attempt of Israel Abrahams (Studies, 3), to interpret Sycb etpi as less than affirmative, in line
with the interpretation by some Rabbis and Rashi ofJacob's lying reply in Gen. xxvii. 24, is fanciful.
There would have been nothing to explain away, had £y<£> EIIJI meant less than ' I am'.
4
Blinzler, op. cit. p. 192, correctly writes of Matt. xxvi. 64: 'gewiB nicht als Verneinung oder
6
Ablehnung, sondern als Bejahung, zu verstehen'. Op. cit. p. 119.
6
Op. cit. p. 118: 'Jesus neither clearly affirmed nor clearly denied that he was the Messiah.'
15-2

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

222 D. R. CATCHPOLE
plain statement beginning A£yco Opuv,1 or the contrast written into the
situation itself between Jesus, the helpless accused, and what he will be <5rcr'
fipTi, the glorified judge. 2
(ii) Other instances of TTATIV do not support Cullmann's interpretation.
First, Matt, xviii. 7 = Luke xvii. 1. Here TrAf|v clearly does not set one
statement over against another which is rejected. There is certainly a
contrast in Matt, between 6 K6CTUOS generally and 6 ctvQpcoTros in particular,
or between TOC oxcxvSaAa generally and TO OKOCVSCCAOV in particular. In Luke3
the saying juxtaposes general inevitability and personal responsibility. But
in both cases the TTATIV clause brings into focus, narrows and particularizes
a preceding broad general statement; there is no opposition between the two,
or setting of one statement over against another which is rejected. Secondly,
Matt. xi. 22 ( = Luke x. 14) and xi. 24. This is specially important, because
Matt, has inserted Aeyco \nxlv so that his introduction TTAI^V Aeyco uplv is
exactly as in xxvi. 64. The sayings involve a painful contrast of Tyre and
Sidon with Chorazin and Bethsaida, and of Sodom with Capernaum. But
there is no contrast at all between the two statements as such, which are
linked by TrAf)v. TTA^V Aeyco O|Jiv merely introduces a clinching of the matter,
a sharpening of the point previously made, a further elaboration enforcing
and underlining it. In a similar context Matt. x. 15 makes the same point,
and introduces it with *Anf|V Aeyco v\uv.
(iii) Mark's version eycb elm, KOU 6yEo0e... clearly envisages no clash
between the ideas of Messiah and Son of Man, and therefore such a contrast
is not inherent. On Cullmann's understanding, therefore, the contrast in
Matt. xxvi. 64 must be the work of the evangelist himself. But this is im-
probable because, first, the Son of Man in Matt, is so kingly in his associa-
tions and, secondly, Matthaean redaction in Matt. xvi. 13-23, which is the
other place where Messiah and Son of Man are juxtaposed, points against
such a contrast, (a) In Matt. xvi. 13 the Markan version of the question
T(VO< us Aeyouaiv o! avQpcoTroi elvoci; is altered to "rivet Aeyoucnv ol drvOpco-rroi
elvai TOV ui6v TOU avSpcoirov/; This means not only the presupposition that
Jesus is the Son of Man, but also that the idea of Son of Man controls and
frames the whole pericope which follows.4 (b) In xvi. 16 the messianic con-
1
This is not the same as the contrast in 'The words are yours, but mine are these'. This might
have been the effect had Matthew written oij EITTOS TrMiv Syu Myco \i\iiv. But when Matt, wishes to
achieve this effect heinsertsJycb, e.g. v. 44 (Q,:AEycoOptv Luke vi. 27)inlinewithv. 22,28,32,39;cf.xxi. 27
where Sycb Atyco Oiilv expressessuch a contrast. When Matt, inserts Aeyco Onlv(redaction of Mark in xii. 6,
xix. 9, 23 f., xxi. 43, xxiv. 2 and redaction of Q, in viii. 11 and xvii. 20) it highlights the climax
of a discourse or discussion with a specially authoritative word of Jesus. It is therefore on the saying
and not on the speaker that the emphasis lies. Cullmann's defence of his view in the face of the
omission of 4yci>, on the grounds of a misunderstanding of the Aramaic sense of oO cliras by the Greek-
speaking evangelist, is weak also in view of the indications in the gospel as a whole that the writer
is thoroughly in touch with Palestinian thought.
2
P.Gaechter, Das Matthaus Euangelium (1964), p. 883.
s
For a discussion of the variant reading irAi^v in Luke xvii. 1, see Rehkopf, op. cit. pp. 19 f.
1
Support for this in C. Colpe, art. cit. p. 464, who rightly points to a similar control exerted by
Matt. xxvi. 2.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 223

fession is heightened by the secondary addition of 6 ul6s TOO 0EOO TOO 3<SVTOS
and the subsequent declaration that this is an (5CTTOI«5C?UAJ;I$ TOO Trcrrpds.1 The
explicit acceptance of the confession is underlined by the change in xvi. 20 to
iva HT)8EVI enrcoaiv OTI CCUT6S EOTIV 6 xpioros. M In xvi. 21 6 uiis TOO
&v9pcbirou in Mark viii. 31 is dropped. This means that the sufferings of
xvi. 21, following xvi. 14-20, are the sufferings of the Messiah, not the
sufferings of the Son of Man, and hence any contrast between Son of Man
and Messiah is ruled out. Matthew's editing of Mark has rather achieved
the deepest possible unity between the Messiah and the Son of Man. But, if
this is true, and if Cullmann's interpretation of Matt. xxvi. 64 is true, then
Matthew's careful theological construction at one high-point of his gospel is
carefully demolished at another. This is too much to believe.
Our conclusion on this point is therefore the following. TTAT)V always
introduces an expansion or a qualification of a preceding statement.2 It can
sometimes express a contrast, but it does not do so with unvarying regularity.
Its purpose in Matt, xxvii. 64 is to introduce an explicit defining statement
after an earlier one which declined to state expressis verbis something which
was affirmed but required further definition.
7. The setting in Matthew. The final point which establishes the affirma-
tive sense of ov eliras stems from its context in the total scheme of Matthew.
(i) Matthew skilfully modifies the Markan account of the Sanhedrin trial
as follows.3 Both accounts begin with a general hearing of witnesses, Mark
xiv. 55 f. = Matt. xxvi. 59-60 a. Matt, reproduces Mark's sense fairly exactly
but heightens the alleged falsity of the witnesses, yEuSonccpTupicc xxvi. 59.
When the alleged Temple saying is treated, however, Matt, takes great pains
to divide this part of the proceedings from what went before, and to make this
testimony a genuine and legally valid one. Thus (a) uorepov is inserted into
xxvi. 60b, dividing this testimony from the previous perjury; {b) two
witnesses came, and therefore the law of Deut. xvii. 6-7 and xix. 15 (cf.
Matt, xviii. 16) was satisfied, and their testimony accepted; (c) Mark's
£yeu8opocpTupouv, xiv. 57 in connection with the Temple saying, is omitted,
as is the whole of xiv. 59 Kcci OU5E OUTOOS TOT) fjv f) nocpTupfcc CCUTCOV; (d) the
terms of the introduction f)UEls TIKOUCTCCHEV OCUTOU XEyovTOS OTI are changed to
oCrros £911 There is therefore no doubt that for Matthew this is a genuine
saying of Jesus, and a true and legally valid piece of evidence. All suggestion
that this is to be included in the preceding false accusations is painstakingly
erased. When we examine the saying itself, it becomes clear that the very
hostile and threatening attitude to the Temple, implied in the Markan form,
1
The redaction of Matt, xi has achieved a parallel train of thought, tracing the <hroK<4Xm|/is of
TccOra, xi. 25, to the SUV&UEIS, xi. 20-3 which are T6 Epya TOU xpiorou, xi. 2.
* So, rightly, G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2nd ed. 1930),p. 253: 'Auchbrauchtiritf|v Wycoutitw...
nur zu besagen, da6 Jesus mit Nachdruck seinem ersten Wort ein zweites von groSerer Wichtigkeit
folgen laBt.'
' Support for this, though with a slightly different orientation, in R. Hummel, Die Auseinander-
setzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthdusevangelium (2nd ed. Miinchen, 1966), pp. 92-3.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 D R
224 - - CATCHPOLE
is delicately softened: (a) Eyco KCCTCCAUCTCO becomes SOvancu KaraAOcai.
Therefore it is only a claim to Suvccuis with the Temple as object, and not a
deliberate statement that the Temple will be destroyed and that Jesus will
do it. (b) x6ipo-TToir|Tov is fastened on the Temple (cf. the contempt expressed
in TOUTOV) in Mark xiv. 58, but this is omitted in Matt., and instead the holy
place is called 6 vccos TOO 0EOO. Jesus is therefore reverential, not radical, in his
attitude to the Temple.1 (c) In Matt. xxvi. 61 there is no contrast between
this (TOUTOV) and another (ccAAov) Temple. There is only one Temple, so
that the second half of the saying describes rebuilding but not replacement.
Hence an entirely different attitude to the Temple emerges. It provides the
scene for an exhibition of Jesus' power, and is not subject to inevitable
demolition at his hands. Matthew has not, however, finished there, for he
carefully engineers a connection between the Temple saying (xxvi. 61) and
the messianic question (xxvi. 63): (a) Mark's TrocAiv, xiv. 61, which made
another division within the hearing, is omitted by Matt, (b) The command to
speak plainly e^op^co ere Kcrra TOO 0eoO TOO JWVTOS lva f\\xlv EITTTIS arises out
of Jesus' previous silence, Matt. xxvi. 63, which in turn is closely connected
with Caiaphas' demand for defence against the charge connected with the
Temple saying, (c) The disagreement of the witnesses, Mark xiv. 59, which
broke the sequence from xiv. 58 to xiv. 61-2, disappears, (d) Matt, xxvii. 40
makes plain a connection between the two sayings, achieved by Matthew's
redactional e! uios el TOO QEOU. We are therefore dealing with a consecutive,
legally and theologically connected, narrative in Matt. xxvi. 606-64:
Matthew has succeeded in connecting the Temple and Jesus' messiahship,2 by
removing Mark's disruptive breaks in sequence and by modifying the contents
of the charge against Jesus. Jesus is consequently not opposed to the Temple,
but reveals his Suvccuis in it.
(ii) Matt.'s version of the 'Plucking Corn on the Sabbath' incident
(Matt. xii. 1-8 = Mark ii. 23-8) is told in such a way that the Temple
again becomes the locus of messianic disclosure.
(a) Matt, reproduces Mark's phrase TOV OIKOV TOO 0EOO which presupposes
a reverential attitude to the Temple (Matt. xii. 4). (b) If, as is extremely
possible, Mark ii. 27 was part of the original text of Mark, Matt, has omitted
it completely, and thereby eradicated all hint of the Son of Man's lordship
being derived from a general rule (cf. OOOTE Mark ii. 28). Matt, thus throws all
the weight on the final saying Kupios ydp EOTIV TOO acc(3|3&TOU 6 ut6s TOO
dvQpcoTrou, and the Christological concentration is enforced by the change of
word order which places 6 ui6s TOO dvQpcb-rrou at the emphatic climax (cf. the
different stress in Mark ii. 28). (c) The saying XEyco Se Oniv OTI TOO iEpoO
PEI30V ko-nv <2>SE is the point at which Christological concentration emerges
1
On the significance of x«P OTTO1T)TOS cf. B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the
New Testament (Cambridge, 1965), pp. m - 1 4 .
8
Hummel, op. cit. p. 93.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

 JESUS' ANSWER TO CAIAPHAS (MATT. XXVI. 64) 225
1
most plainly. The contrast between Jesus and the Temple is not one of
acceptance/rejection, for three reasons. First, the associated saying in
Matt. xii. 7 contrasts mercy and sacrifice but only in order to uncover a
primary principle,2 and not to reject the cult as such. Jesus in fact accepts the
cult (Matt. v. 23-4; xxiii. 16-22). Secondly, the similar sayings irAetov
'Icova &>6e and TTAEIOV ZoAopcovos coSe (Matt. xii. 41-2) contain no adverse
reflection on Jonah and Solomon. Thirdly, Rabbinic argumentation a
minor? requires acceptance of the Temple in this debate. Hence the Temple
is again, as in xxvi. 606-64, the sphere for the exertion of messianic authority.
(iii) Matthew redacts the story of the Cleansing of the Temple4 (xxi.
10-17) so that the Temple serves Christological ends: (a) Unfavourable
implications in the Markan narrative are redacted away. Mark, using his
favourite interpretative device,5 had interpolated the Cleansing of the
Temple into the Cursing of the Fig-tree (Mark xi. 12-25). Matthew rejects
this, and makes the withering of the fig-tree a miracle in its own right
(Matt. xxi. 20). The word -TTCtpccxpfiiJia was Matthaean redaction at xxi. 19,
and there made the event more significant as an action in itself than as a
vehicle for the accompanying word (cf. Mark's KCCI f|Kouov ol noc0r|Tca CCVTOO
xi. 14, omitted by Matt.). The redaction in xxi. 21 ou novov T6 TTJS ovKfis
TTOir)aeT6 makes the same point. The severance of the Cleansing and the
Curse is completed by the uniting of the two parts of the latter, and by
Matthew's chronological alteration which makes the incident take place next
day Trpcof, xxi. 18.
(b) The action is positioned with a clear intention to make the Cleansing
answer a Christological question T15 kcrnv ofrros; (Matt. xxi. 11) ,6 The answer
provided by the people of Jerusalem is obviously inadequate in Matthew's
eyes, and therefore the question remains, in the strictest sense, unanswered.
After the Cleansing comes xxi. 14-16, in which Jesus engages in specifically
messianic activity, and Matthew stresses that this is indeed in the Temple:
kv TW ispw occurs twice in xxi. 14 f. and in neither case is it strictly necessary.
The reminiscence of TO 2pycc TOU xpioroO (Matt. xi. 2-6) in the healing of
1
a
Cf. Gartner, op. cit. pp. 115-16.
G. Barth, Matthew's Understanding of the Law, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held,
Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963), pp. 81-3. G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit
(2nd ed. Gottingen, 1966), pp. 32-3, argues that for Matt, the sabbath stands with Ouda as repre-
sentative of an alternative and opposite system to the EAEOS which Jesus proposes. But this recon-
struction involves devaluation of the bearing]ofthe inclusion oft«i6£<jap|3c5cTCj>,xxiv. 20, on the grounds of
indebtedness to a Jewish apocalyptic Vorlage within the community tradition. But wherever those
two words come from, their insertion implies a less hardened attitude than Strecker suggests.
3
Hummel, op. cit. p. 42.
4
W. Trilling, Der Einzug in Jerusalem in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze (Festschrift J. Schmid, 1963),
PP- 3O3-9-
6
E. von Dobschiitz, ' Z u r Erzahlerkunst des Markus', £.JV. W. xxvn (1928), 193-8; W. G.
Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1965), p. 64; E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium
nach Markus (Gottingen, 1967), p. 185.
6
A similar method is adopted by Matthew, and with the same theological objective, in Matt,
xii. 23.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54

226 D. R. CATCHPOLE
the blind and the lame is compelling, and the messianic meaning brought
out by the combination of the wonders that he did... and the children
crying, 'Hosanna to the Son of David', (c) The content of the act avoids all
trace of hostility on the part of Jesus towards the Temple as such. The
change from Tre-TroifiKotTe (Mark xi. 17) to TTOIETTE (Matt. xxi. 13) is important.
The perfect -TrETTOirK
| 0CTE means that the Temple has been reduced to a den
of robbers, and that this is its present state. This was too caustic for Luke, who
moved to a weaker aorist STroiricjocTE, but Matthew goes much further, and
reduces it to the present action TTOIEITE. For him the Temple is in the process
of being made a den of robbers, but the final state of degradation has not
been reached. Therefore the action of Jesus is preventive only, and reflects a
fundamentally different assessment of the Temple, a positive assessment
which permits its use as the place of messianic self-disclosure.
Matthew's redaction of Temple passages is therefore shown to reflect a
deliberate scheme, and the understanding of Matt. xxvi. 606-64 outlined
above is supported by the wider presentation. The exertion of power in the
Temple is the Messiah's prerogative. It is therefore necessary, within the
continuity of the narrative, to understand Jesus' reply to the messianic
question as affirmative. This view is finally established by Matt, xxvii. 40:
'You who would destroy the Temple and build it in three days, save your-
self if you are the Son of God.' The last phrase is, as noted above, redactional,
and presupposes an earlier claim to be the Son of God. This can only stem
from xxvi. 64. Unassailable confirmation is provided by xxvii. 43, where,
again redactionally, the enemies of Jesus maintain EITTEV ydp OTI 0EOO EIUI
uids.1 Here is Matthew's own interpretation of aO EITTCCS.
We can therefore reach a meaningful interpretation of the answers of
Jesus in the Matthaean and Lukan trial narratives. In each case considera-
tions of the literary background of uu EITTOCS or OHEIS AEyETE converge with the
position of the phrases at the turning point of the hearing2 to recommend
the following meaning: affirmative in content, and reluctant or circum-
locutory in formulation.
1
D. R. GATCHPOLE
1
This must be a reference to xxvi. 64 because the allusion to ul6s 6EOO cannot be drawn from the
titulus or the interrogation before Pilate.
a
M. E. Thrall, op. cit. p. 76, cannot be followed when she discounts the position of OIJETS MyETe in
Luke xxii. 70 on the grounds that 'the result of the trial was pretty well a foregone conclusion'.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 May 2013 IP address: 147.142.186.54