UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The wilderness theme in the Gospels Przybylski, Benno 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 P79.pdf [ 6.63MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093300.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093300-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093300-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093300-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093300-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093300-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093300-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093300-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093300.ris

Full Text

THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPELS by BENNO PPvZYBYLSKI B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965 M.Div., North American B a p t i s t Seminary, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of RELIGIOUS STUDIES We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f R e l i g i o u s S t u d i e s The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Date A p r i l 30, 1971 i ABSTRACT The main purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s t o examine the w i l d e r n e s s terminology o f the f o u r c a n o n i c a l Gospels as a means toward understanding the p e c u l i a r views of the v a r i o u s e v a n g e l i s t s toward the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s . For the purpose o f t h i s study, the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i s r e -s t r i c t e d t o the v a r i o u s forms of epmxoc, and epriuua. The r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c a l approach i s u t i l i z e d t o i d e n t i f y the e v a n g e l i s t s ' views on the concept o f the w i l -derness. S i n c e r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m attempts t o see how i n h e r i t e d t r a d i t i o n s have been m o d i f i e d , the use o f sources u n d e r l y i n g the Gospels i s s t r e s s e d . An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Gospel of Mark shows t h a t Mark draws a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between the meanings o f the v a r i o u s terms o f the w i l d e r n e s s terminology. S u b s t a n t i v e epnuos occurs o n l y i n the Markan prologue (Mk 1 : 1 - 1 3 ) , where i t i s used e x c l u s i v e l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the prophecy o f I s 4 0 : 3 - S u b s t a n t i v e epTnioc, thus i s p r i -m a r i l y a t h e o l o g i c a l j r a t h e r than a g e o g r a p h i c a l concept. Outside the prologue Jesus i s no l o n g e r i n the epttuoc, but i n the epnuog xonoq and i n the e p r p t a . The use of eptiuoc TOTIOC; i s a s i g n o f Mark's redac-t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . T h i s term i s used t o p o i n t out the c o n t r a s t between populated and unpopulated areas. "Eprjaua i s used o n l y i n Mk 8 : 4 , where i t has the c o n n o t a t i o n o f warfare and i i s u f f e r i n g . Both epT]u,oc, TOTCOC; and epnuia should be viewed i n the l i g h t of Mark's polemic a g a i n s t the h e l l e n i s t i c $eioc; avfjp c h r i s t o l o g y . Although he uses Mark's three ways of r e f e r r i n g t o the w i l d e r n e s s , Matthew i s not concerned w i t h b r i n g i n g out the d i f f e r e n t shades o f meaning i n these terms. For Matthew a l l w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i s p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous. I n 24 : 2 6 Matthew warns a g a i n s t the danger of f a l l i n g prey t o a f a l s e m essianic e x p e c t a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic i s the key to Matthew's r e -d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y i n s o f a r as the w i l d e r n e s s pericopae are concerned. For example, the a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic pro-v i d e s a c l u e to Matthew's motive f o r r e d u c i n g the powerful t h e o l o g i c a l concept a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Mark's use of T) eprpoc, (1:4) to an e x p l i c i t l y g e o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e (Mt 3:l)» I t a l s o e x p l a i n s why Matthew r e p o r t s t h a t the n i n e t y - n i n e sheep were l e f t "on the h i l l s " (Mt 1 8 : 1 2 ) r a t h e r than " i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (Lk 15:4). I n the Gospel of Luke, no c o n s i s t e n t concept of the w i l d e r n e s s can be found. The meaning Luke a t t a c h e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s i s so ambiguous t h a t even a c i t y such as B e t h s a i d a (Lk 9 : 1 ° ) can be r e f e r r e d t o as a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e (Lk 9 : 1 2 ) . However, the use of the p l u r a l form of epTpoc;, p e c u l i a r to Luke, i s v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t . The three occurrences o f t h i s term d e f i n i t e l y i n d i c a t e Luke's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Consequently, the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s ( p l u r a l ) i n i i i Lk 1:80 cannot be used to e s t a b l i s h a h i s t o r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n between John the B a p t i s t and the Qumran community. In the Gospel of John, Jesus i s never placed i n a w i l d e r n e s s s e t t i n g . The w i l d e r n e s s i s mentioned i n the course of the Johannine church-synagogue d i a l o g u e which con-cerns the r e l e v a n c e of the Mosaic messianic typology. How-ever, John s t a t e s v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t Jesus, as the Son of Man, r i s e s above any m e s s i a n i c t y p o l o g y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . Compared t o Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic which i s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l events t a k i n g p l a c e i n the w i l d e r n e s s , John's polemic i s on a much more i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l . John i s i n v o l v e d i n a d i s -c u s s i o n o f the value of the r a b b i n i c messianic typology. i v ABBREVIATIONS AnglThR A n g l i c a n T h e o l o g i c a l Review ExposT E x p o s i t o r y Times IB I n t e r p r e t e r ' s B i b l e ICC I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i t i c a l Commentary JBL J o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l S t u d i e s LXX Septuagint MSS Manuscripts MT Ma s o r e t i c Text NovTest Novum Testamentum NTSt New Testament S t u d i e s RQu Revue de Qumran ThDNT T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f the New Testament ZNeutW Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d i e Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Purpose and Scope of t h i s Thesis 1 The Method of Investigation 2 The Wilderness: A D e f i n i t i o n 3 I I . THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK . . . . 6 The Baptist and Jesus i n the "Epr)p,oc; 6 Jesus i n the "Eprpoc; T O T C O C , 22 Jesus i n the ' E p r ) L u a 29 The Wilderness and Mark's Christology 33 I I I . THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW . . 37 The Key to Matthew's Wilderness Theme 37 Matthew's Redaction of the Markan Wilderness Pericopae 44 Matthew's Redaction of Q 53 The Role of Matthew's Anti-Wilderness Polemic . 6 l IV. THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE . . . . 62 The Baptist and the Wilderness 62 The Relationship between the Baptist and Jesus . 67 Jesus and the Wilderness 69 An Indicator of Luke's Redactional A c t i v i t y . . 76 The Wilderness and Luke's Christology 79 v i CHAPTER PAGE V. THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OP JOHN . . . . 8 l The Wilderness Theme i n the Signs Source . . . . 8 l A Johannine Note o f I t i n e r a r y 87 The Wilderness and the Mosaic Typology 89 The Wilderness and the Son of Man 95 V I . A COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL WRITER'S CONCEPTS OF THE WILDERNESS 98 NOTES 104 LITERATURE CITED 120 APPENDIX 126 I would l i k e t o thank Dr. C h a r l e s P. Anderson f o r the many h e l p f u l suggestions g i v e n d u r i n g the r e s e a r c h and w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s . 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS THESIS The main purpose of t h i s thesis i s to examine the wilderness terminology of the Gospels as a means toward understanding the peculiar views of the various evangelists toward the concept of the wilderness. Both the geographi-c a l and theological aspects of the wilderness w i l l be taken into account. Special attention w i l l be given to the evangelists' reactions to contemporary or recent events and b e l i e f s associated with the wilderness. Although t h i s study i s concerned primarily with the wilderness theme i n the four canonical Gospels, relevant references from other writings w i l l also be considered. The rest of the New Testament writings, the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran l i t e r a t u r e and the writings of Josephus w i l l be used to c l a r i f y references to the wilderness i n the Gospels. This thesis w i l l deal only with the most basic terms of the wilderness terminology. In the Gospels these are epnu-oc, and epnuaa. Other terms such as opoq, f o r example, may also r e f e r to the wilderness."*" However, such terms have only a secondary or connotative meaning of wilderness; t h e i r primary or denotative meaning l i e s elsewhere. 2 I n the Gospels, eprjuoc occurs i n both i t s substan-t i v e and a d j e c t i v a l forms w h i l e eprjuta i s used o n l y as a s u b s t a n t i v e . These terms a r e found t h i r t y - f o u r times i n 2 the Gospels: Mk 1:3,4,12,13,35,45; 6:31,32,35; 8:4 Mt 3:1,3; 4:1; 11:7j 14:13,15; 15:33; 23:38; 24:26 Lk 1:80; 3:2.4; 4:2,42; 5:l6; 7:24; 8:29; 9:12; 15:4 J n 1:23; 3:14; 6:31,49; 11:54 Except Mt 23:38, a l l the above r e f e r e n c e s to the •a w i l d e r n e s s are found i n Nestle's-* t e x t . The r e f e r e n c e i n Mt 23:38 i s found i n the apparatus as a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g . I I . THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c a l approach w i l l be u t i l i z e d t o i d e n t i f y the e v a n g e l i s t s ' views o f the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s . The term r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m i s used here i n accordance w i t h Dan 0. V i a ' s d e f i n i t i o n : "Redaction c r i t -i c i s m i s concerned w i t h the i n t e r a c t i o n between i n h e r i t e d 114 t r a d i t i o n and a l a t e r i n t e r p r e t i v e p o i n t o f view. The t h r e e g o a l s o f r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m which V i a s e t s f o r t h w i l l be pursued i n s o f a r as they can be r e l a t e d t o the w i l -derness theme. I t s g o a l s a r e t o understand why the items from the t r a d i t i o n were m o d i f i e d and connected as they were, to i d e n t i f y the t h e o l o g i c a l m o t i f s t h a t were a t work i n composing a f i n i s h e d Gospel, and t o e l u c i d a t e the t h e o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f view which i s expressed i n and through the composition.5 S i n c e r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m attempts t o see how i n -h e r i t e d t r a d i t i o n s have been m o d i f i e d , the use o f sources 3 u n d e r l y i n g the Gospels w i l l be s t r e s s e d . However, although v a r i o u s r e f e r e n c e s to the w i l d e r n e s s w i l l be a s s i g n e d t o d e f i n i t e sources, t h i s c e r t a i n l y does not imply t h a t the e v a n g e l i s t s were merely c o l l e c t o r s of t r a d i t i o n a l p e r i c o p a e . I t has been shown by such s c h o l a r s as Marxsen and Conzelmann t h a t the e v a n g e l i s t s were authors i n the t r u e sense of the word. They not o n l y c o l l e c t e d but a l s o e d i t e d the m a t e r i a l s i n accordance w i t h t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s . Each Gospel w i l l be t r e a t e d i n a separate chapter. The r a t i o n a l e behind the s t r u c t u r e of each chapter i s as f o l l o w s . In Mark the v a r i a t i o n i n the form of the w i l d e r -ness t e r m i n o l o g y i s extremely important. Consequently, the chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o s e c t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h these v a r i o u s forms. I n the Gospels of Matthew and John no s t r e s s , i s p l a c e d on such v a r i a t i o n s . However, the use o f sources i s s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e these two c h a p t e r s are s t r u c t u r e d a c c o r d i n g t o the use o f sources. F i n a l l y , i n the Gospel of Luke, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the B a p t i s t and Jesus i s important f o r the w i l d e r n e s s theme and the o u t l i n e r e f l e c t s t h i s f a c t . However, any emphasis on the v a r i a t i o n i n the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y o r the use o f sources i s s t i l l s u b ordinate to the o v e r a l l s t r e s s on the use of r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m . I I I . THE WILDERNESS: A DEFINITION In t h i s t h e s i s the word w i l d e r n e s s i s not used merely 4 i n i t s g e o g r a p h i c a l sense o r i n i t s Old Testament context o f I s r a e l ' s w i l d e r n e s s sojourn. I t i s used i n a much broader sense. I t i n c l u d e s a l l the meanings o f epTpoc. and e p r i L i i a . These Greek terms can be t r a n s l a t e d i n a v a r i e t y of ways depending on the context i n which they occur. The Greek-E n g l i s h L e x i c o n by W. F. Arndt and F. ¥. G i n g r i c h , f o r example, g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g meanings: a d j e c t i v a l eprpos can mean abandoned, empty, d e s o l a t e , l o n e l y , d e s e r t e d ; s u b s t a n t i v e epimoc, can mean d e s e r t , g r a s s l a n d , w i l d e r n e s s , steppe; s u b s t a n t i v e epTinict can mean u n i n h a b i t e d r e g i o n , d e s e r t . The word w i l d e r n e s s was chosen as the g e n e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n f o r the epnu,o?-epr)u,ta t e r m i n o l o g y because i t seemed t o be the most n e u t r a l term. The word d e s e r t , f o r example, was r e j e c t e d because i t b r i n g s t o mind expansive sandy wastes. Wilderness, on the o t h e r hand, does not have such a s p e c i f i c meaning. I t can r e f e r t o a v a r i e t y of areas of a p h y s i c a l l y h o s t i l e nature t o man, o r t o p l a c e s which a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an absence o f human e x i s t e n c e o r a c t i v i t y . I t can be used both as a g e o g r a p h i c a l and theo-l o g i c a l concept. Because of t h i s g r e a t f l e x i b i l i t y , the use o f t h i s term should not prejudge the r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n r e f e r r i n g t o the w i l d e r n e s s theme o f the Gospels, the term w i l d e r n e s s i s used i n t h i s v e r y i n c l u s i v e way. The w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i n c l u d e s the v a r i o u s forms o f eprjuoc; 5 and epTjutcc. Any p e r i c o p e i n which the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y occurs w i l l he r e f e r r e d t o as a w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e . The Greek terms epriuos and eprmta w i l l be t r a n s l a t e d as w i l d e r n e s s i n a l l q u o t a t i o n s from the Gospels. The t e x t of the Revised Standard V e r s i o n , which i s g e n e r a l l y used i n t h i s t h e s i s , w i l l t h e r e f o r e be m o d i f i e d i n p l a c e s where i t does not f o l l o w such a t r a n s l a t i o n . 6 CHAPTER I I THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK Ac c o r d i n g t o the Greek t e x t o f N e s t l e 1 t h e r e a re t e n r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n Mark: 1:3,4,12,13,35,45; 6:31,32,35; 8:4. They occur i n the f o l l o w i n g s i x pericopae: John the B a p t i s t 2 Mk 1:1-6 The Temptation Mk 1:12-13 Jesus Departs From Capernaum Mk 1:35-38 The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Mk 1:40-45 The Feeding o f the; F i v e Thousand Mk 6:30-44 The Feeding o f the Four Thousand Mk 8:1-10 An examination o f these pericopae shows t h a t Mark uses t h r e e d i f f e r e n t terms f o r the w i l d e r n e s s . I n John the B a p t i s t and the Temptation the s i n g u l a r , s u b s t a n t i v e form of epr)\xoq i s used. I n Jesus Departs From Capernaum, the H e a l i n g o f a Leper, and the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand, the a d j e c t i v a l form o f epriu.oc; occurs. F i n a l l y , i n the Feeding o f the Four Thousand, the s i n g u l a r , s u b s t a n t i v e form o f kpri\xCa i s found. As the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l show, t h i s v a r i a -t i o n i n the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i s q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t . In o r d e r t o g a i n a comprehensive understanding o f the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n Mark, i t i s nece s s a r y t o d e a l separ-a t e l y w i t h Mark's use o f eprjuoc; , eprju-o? TOIXOC. and epT)(ita . I. THE BAPTIST AND JESUS IN THE "EPHMOZ John the B a p t i s t (Mk 1:1-6) and the Temptation 7 (Mk 1:12-13) are the two Markan wilderness pericopae i n which the singular, substantive use of epr)u.oc; occurs. Both are found i n what i s commonly referred to as the Markan Prologue (Mk 1:1-13)3. Mauser has put forth a suggestive thesis with respect to the relationship between the prologue and the theme of the wilderness. Although there are many weak-nesses i n his argument, i t s t i l l provides a good starting point for further discussion. Mauser's View of the Unity of the Markan Prologue The concept of the wilderness provides the basis for Mauser's main argument for the unity of Mk 1:1-13. He claims that this passage i s "marked out as a unit by the lo c a l i t y which i s the scene for everything contained i n these verses, the l o c a l i t y being the wilderness."^ Mauser claims that both verses of the prophecy i n Mk 1:2-3 refer to the wilderness theme. Mk 1:2 combines c Ex 23:20: "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face" with Mai 3:1: "who shall prepare thy way."^ The wilderness motif of Mk 1:2 i s suggested by the fact that i n Ex 23:20 God promises that an angel w i l l guide the people through o the desert. The relationship of Mk 1:3 to the wilderness i s clear. This verse i s taken from the LXX version of Is 40:3, and repeats the word eprinoc. found there. The "one crying in the wilderness" introduces the wilderness theme which i s 8 then picked up i n Mk 1:4. As Mauser points out, Mk 1:3 does not reproduce the LXX version of Is 40:3 exactly. At the end of the verse, the LXX rendering "the paths of God" i s altered i n Mk 1:3 to "his p a t h s . T h u s , a phrase,,which i n the LXX referred to God, i s changed to r e f e r to Christ i n the source which Mark followed. Mauser therefore concludes that both the messenger and the Lord are introduced i n t h i s prophecy. 1 0 Mauser goes on to show that " i n the wilderness" (Mk 1:4) l i n k s the ministry of John the Baptist with the prophetic promises. However, according to Mauser, t h i s i s not simply a mechanical l i n k . This cross reference gives the clue to the background f o r the understanding of both baptism and repentance i n Mk 1:4. Mauser claims that the concept of repentance i s rooted i n the wilderness t r a d i t i o n of the Old Testament. Thus the act of going out i n t o the wilderness i s an act of repentance. Baptism, as a re-enact-ment of I s r a e l ' s exodus int o the wilderness, i s also related to the wilderness t r a d i t i o n . 1 1 With respect to the wilderness reference i n Mk 1:4, i t should be pointed out that Mauser does not consider that Mark i s primarily concerned with geographical i n t e r e s t s . I t i s clear, then, that the wilderness mentioned i n the succeeding verses i s not introduced i n order to give geographical f i x t u r e to the record. Not the l o c a l i t y as such matters, but i t i s related because i t i s i n accordance with the prophecy. L d 9 Mauser i s quick to add: This does not preclude that the Baptist actually-appeared in the wilderness. ^3 Although Mauser claims that Mark i s not concerned with geographical interests, i t i s s t i l l of concern to Mark that the Jordan f a l l s within the range of the wilderness. 1^ Mauser reasons that "Mark wants us to regard the Jordan baptisms as incidents in the wilderness. Mk 1:6 again alludes to the theme of the wilderness. Mauser shows that this description of John the Baptist stresses that he i s a man of the wilderness. The clothing of camel's hair and the food of locusts and wild honey were peculiar to the wilderness nomad. Although i t does not mention the wilderness directly, the account of the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:9-11), does not breach the unity of the prologue, as Mauser views i t . The Jordan i s seen by Mark as part of the wilderness i n general. The last two verses of the prologue deal with the temptation of Jesus. After the baptism of Jesus, "The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness" (Mk 1:12). Mauser interprets this verse as meaning that the Spirit "forces him to penetrate into the wilderness even more deeply.""^ Jesus remains i n the wilderness after the baptism to signify that he i s the true penitent. At his baptism Jesus was "proclaimed to be the Son of God who 18 represents the new Israel." The fact that Jesus stays i n 10 the w i l d e r n e s s shows t h a t h i s penitence was not completed a t h i s baptism. Mauser s t r e s s e s t h a t Mk 1:13 r e p o r t s t h a t Satan, the w i l d b e asts and the angels were i n the w i l d e r n e s s a t the same time. The dominant aspect of Jesus' s t a y i n the w i l d e r n e s s i s h i s temptation by the a d v e r s a r y o f God and a t the same time h i s sustenance by the s e r v a n t s o f God.^9 F i n a l l y , Mauser draws a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t t h a t Mk 1:12-13 does not r e p o r t Jesus* v i c t o r y over Satan. With r e s p e c t t o the f o r t y days o f v e r s e 13, Mauser s t a t e s t h a t they should not be regarded "as a p e r i o d passed f o r e v e r once C h r i s t s t a r t s h i s p u b l i c m i n i s t r y , but, as w i t h Moses and E l i j a h , as the sounding o f the keynote of h i s whole m i s s i o n . " T h i s l e a v e s the way open f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t J e s u s ' whole m i n i s t r y can be seen as a c o n f l i c t w i t h Satan. Thus Jesus' way from the b e g i n n i n g of h i s m i n i s t r y t o Gethsemane i s d e p i c t e d i n the Second Gospel as an u n i n t e r r u p t e d c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h the d e v i l ' s might. H i s way i s , indeed, a way o f temptation and the statement of the prologue i s v e r i f i e d — h e i s d r i v e n by the s p i r i t i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s , tempted by S a t a n . 2 1 Mauser concludes t h a t the prologue p r o v i d e s the key t o the whole Gospel. I t s e t s the stage f o r the whole m i n i s t r y of J e s u s . I n accordance w i t h the Old Testament prophecy and determined by the c a l l o f John the B a p t i s t , i t w i l l be a s t o r y of Jesus' temptation i n h i s c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h Satan and o f h e l p from God. To l i v e i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s to l i v e i n the w i l d e r n e s s . 2 2 11 What are the major claims which Mauser has made with respect to the theme of the wilderness i n the prologue? There seem to be three. F i r s t of a l l , Mauser claims that the concept of the wilderness provides the s t r i n g on which the beads of the prologue are assembled. Secondly, he claims that the concept of the wilderness i n the prologue i s rooted i n the Old Testament wilderness t r a d i t i o n . The prologue thus looks backward to the Old Testament. However, Mauser also claims that the prologue has a forward orien-t a t i o n . Therefore, h i s t h i r d claim i s that the concept of the wilderness i n the prologue plays a major part i n se t t i n g the stage f o r the ministry of Jesus i n general, and f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the wilderness terminology i n the rest of the Gospel i n p a r t i c u l a r . These three claims must now be tested. Let us begin with a closer look at the wilderness pericopae of John the Baptist and the Temptation. The Baptist i n the- "Epnuog What does Mark mean by "the wilderness" when he uses i t i n the context of John the Baptist i n Mk 1:3 and 4? As Mauser has pointed out, " i n the wilderness" of Mk 1:3 i s taken verbatim from Is 40:3 (LXX). What i s the meaning of eprjLioc; i n the LXX? Funk 2^ shows that singular eprjuoc; i s reserved f o r midbar i n a l l s t r a t a of the LXX. In the Pentateuch epnuoc, 12 r e p r e s e n t s midbar 97 times, and u s u a l l y r e f e r s t o the w i l -derness o f the sojourn. I n the former prophets midbar w i t h the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e , i s o f t e n a p p l i e d to areas a d j a c e n t t o , or i n , P a l e s t i n e proper, although i t i s a l s o used to r e f e r t o the a r e a of the s o j o u r n . Funk goes on t o show t h a t i n the l a t t e r Prophets and i n the Hagiographa midbar w i t h the d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e appears i n m y t h o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t s . I n such passages, Funk e x p l a i n s , i t i s n e i t h e r p o s s i b l e nor n e c e s s a r y t o determine l o c a t i o n . Which o f these uses, i f any, does Mark have i n mind when he l i n k s v e r s e 1:4 w i t h 1:3 by u s i n g the i d e n t i c a l phrase ev xf) epiuuj)? What does he mean when he w r i t e s t h a t "John the b a p t i z e r appeared i n the w i l d e r n e s s " ? Funk l i s t s twelve New Testament passages i n which « » 24 r) epnuo? r e f e r s t o the w i l d e r n e s s of the s o j o u r n . None of these i s found i n the Gospel of Mark. Funk does say, however, t h a t the l o c a l i z a t i o n of nominal eprmoc, as the w i l d e r n e s s o f Judea, i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o the m a j o r i t y of New 25 Testament passages. He e x p l a i n s t h a t t h i s use of the w i l d e r n e s s o f Judea i n c l u d e s the lower Jordan v a l l e y and p o s s i b l y even i t s e a s t e r n s l o p e s . He f i n d s the precedent f o r t h i s usage i n the LXX and i n the Qumran l i t e r a t u r e . Funk concludes t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s of Judea, as d e f i n e d above, had become the f o c a l p o i n t f o r messianic and a p o c a l y p t i c hopes. Jesus, John, the Qumran s e c t and o t h e r groups were a l l connected w i t h t h i s g e o g r a p h i c a l area. 13 McCown suggests that "the wilderness" i n the Gospel of Mark should be defined i n a more limited way. He con-cludes that TJ epriuoc, both i n Mark and i n the Sayings Source, i s the Greek equivalent f o r the Hebrew ha- farabhah or 'arebhSth, which refers to the region at the head of the 26 Dead Sea. McCown adds that John therefore had established himself on the same s i t e which Joshua and I s r a e l had occupied before entering the Promised Land. 2^ Was Mark r e a l l y concerned with the precise l o c a l -i z a t i o n of the wilderness? Mauser claims that t h i s was not Mark's primary concern. Marxsen also states that the w i l -derness i s not a geographical place i n Mk 1:4. However, whereas Mauser f e e l s that the Jordan i s part of the wilderness, Marxsen wants to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two areas. Marxsen makes the important observation that i n Mk 1 : 5 , " a l l " the country of Judea and people of Jerusalem come to John i n order to be baptized, despite the f a c t that a move by John to the Jordan has not been mentioned. 2^ Marxsen therefore asks, what can " i n the wilderness" mean i n 1:4? In h i s explanation Marxsen follows the suggestion of K. L. Schmidt, that Mark has combined the t r a d i t i o n of a wilderness-preacher (e s p e c i a l l y 1:6) with the t r a d i t i o n of a Jordan-baptizer. ^ ° Mark finds ev xfi epriuci) i n Is 40:3 (LXX) and therefore reworks h i s t r a d i t i o n by repeating t h i s phrase i n 1:4. Marxsen concludes that ev TT3 epiutuj q u a l i f i e s the 14 ^ l b a p t i z e r as the f u l f i l l e r o f Old Testament prophecy. By the above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Marxsen i s not t r y i n g 32 t o say "wie es war" J , but simply how Mark saw i t . Marxsen admits t h a t the a c t u a l w i l d e r n e s s o f t e n extends r i g h t t o the banks o f the Jordan, so t h a t i t a c t u a l l y would have been 3^ p o s s i b l e to b a p t i z e i n the w i l d e r n e s s . He doubts, however, t h a t Mark was aware of t h i s g e o g r a p h i c a l f a c t . Although the p r o p h e t i c emphasis on the w i l d e r n e s s i n Mk 1:3,4 does not pr e c l u d e any g e o g r a p h i c a l meaning, i t does i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s i s not Mark's primary concern. Mauser's c l a i m t h a t Mark d e f i n i t e l y sees the Jordan baptisms as i n c i d e n t s i n the w i l d e r n e s s , must t h e r e f o r e be questioned. Consequently, the view t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s i s the u n i f y i n g element of the prologue i s a l s o d o u b t f u l . With r e f e r e n c e to Mk 1:3, Wink s t a t e s t h a t "because John was 1 i n the w i l d e r n e s s ' the I s a i a h c i t a t i o n becomes r e l e v a n t . " ^ R. E. Brown^^ shares t h a t o p i n i o n . He s t a t e s t h a t i n the LXX v e r s i o n o f I s 40:3 " i n the d e s e r t " m o d i f i e s " v o i c e " w h i l e i n the MT v e r s i o n " i n the d e s e r t " i s a p a r t of what i s s a i d . Brown concludes t h a t the c h o i c e of the LXX r e n d e r i n g by the g o s p e l w r i t e r s p o i n t s to the f a c t t h a t John the B a p t i s t was i n the w i l d e r n e s s r e g i o n . As w i l l be shown i n the course of the d i s c u s s i o n o f the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, a l l the N.T. Gospels l i n k the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . However, the pos-s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t a l l o f the Gospels base t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p 15 on t h e o l o g i c a l , r a t h e r than h i s t o r i c a l reasons. Are t h e r e any e x t r a - b i b l i c a l sources which l i n k the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s ? From S c o b i e ' s ^ d i s c u s s i o n of such sources the f o l l o w i n g p i c t u r e emerges. Josephus has a r e f e r e n c e to John i n h i s A n t i q u i t i e s (XVTII, 5, 2). I n t h i s passage John the B a p t i s t i s not d i r e c t l y connected w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s ; i t i s o n l y mentioned t h a t "John was sent as a p r i s o n e r to M a c h a e r u s . " ^ On the b a s i s o f t h i s evidence McCown^ c o n j e c t u r e s t h a t John must have been a c t i v e i n the v i c i n i t y of Machaerus. Machaerus i s s i t u a t e d on top of a mountain f i f t e e n m i l e s S.E. o f the mouth o f the Jordan. McCown c l a i m s t h a t t h i s l o c a t i o n f a l l s w i t h i n the a r e a known as T) epnuos . I n t h i s way he wants t o prove t h a t John was i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Such c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence, however, i s not v e r y c o n v i n c i n g . S c o b i e ^ 0 mentions t h a t t h e r e are two more r e f e r e n c e s to John the B a p t i s t i n the S l a v o n i c v e r s i o n of Josephus. The v a l u e o f these passages, however, i s v e r y d o u b t f u l , s i n c e i t seems q u i t e c e r t a i n t h a t t h e y were composed by a C h r i s t i a n author and not by Josephus. The w r i t i n g s o f Josephus can t h e r e f o r e be used n e i t h e r t o prove nor to d i s -prove t h a t the B a p t i s t was connected w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . Scobie goes on t o show t h a t the w r i t i n g s o f the e a r l y C h r i s t i a n authors and the Mandean l i t e r a t u r e p r o v i d e us w i t h no independent and/or genuine h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n about the l i f e o f John the B a p t i s t . We are t h e r e f o r e f a c e d 16 w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no e x t r a - b i b l i c a l evidence f o r , t h e c l a i m t h a t John the B a p t i s t was connected w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . However, the Qumran L i t e r a t u r e seems t o p r o v i d e an analogy f o r c o n n e c t i n g John the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . I n the Manual o f D i s c i p l i n e (IQS 8:13-l6) i t i s s t a t e d : When these t h i n g s come t o pass f o r the community i n I s r a e l , by these r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l they be separated from the midst o f the men o f e r r o r t o go t o the w i l d e r n e s s t o prepare t h e r e the way o f the Lord; as i t i s w r i t t e n , 'In the w i l d e r n e s s prepare the way of the Lord; make s t r a i g h t i n the d e s e r t a highway f o r our God.' T h i s i s the study o f the law as he commanded through Moses, t o do a c c o r d -i n g t o a l l t h a t has been r e v e a l e d from time t o time, and as the prophets r e v e a l e d by h i s Holy S p i r i t . McCasland, i n commenting on the above passage which r e f e r s t o I s 40:3, p o i n t s out t h a t both the e a r l y C h r i s t i a n s and the Qumran community t r a c e d themselves back t o the same l i p p r o p h e t i c source. The Qumran community took I s 40:3 v e r y l i t e r a l l y . They a c t u a l l y went t o l i v e i n the w i l d e r n e s s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t John the B a p t i s t a c t e d s i m i l a r l y . Although i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t the B a p t i s t was a c t i v e i n the w i l d e r n e s s , i t i s hard t o say whether Mark had any g e o g r a p h i c a l i n t e r e s t s i n h i s use of epriLtoc, . He was concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h showing the c o n n e c t i o n between the Old Testament prophecy o f I s 40:3 and John the B a p t i s t . I n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p Mark even seemed t o be uncon-cerned about the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s c r e a t e d by such a treatment. F o r example, as Marxsen has p o i n t e d out, Mark l e a v e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the w i l d e r n e s s and the Jordan r a t h e r u n c l e a r . Although i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o prove t h a t Mark was t o t a l l y unconcerned w i t h g e o g r a p h i c a l accuracy, any use o f Mk 1:1-6 f o r the purpose of p i n p o i n t i n g the l o c a t i o n o f the 43 w i l d e r n e s s should be questioned. Jesus i n the "EpT)uogs I n Mk 1:9 i t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t "Jesus came from Nazareth o f G a l i l e e and was b a p t i z e d by John i n the Jordan." The w i l d e r n e s s i s not mentioned w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o Jesus' baptism. However, w i t h the account of the Temptation (Mk 1:12-13), the use of epnu-oc. i s taken up again. Verse 12 s t a t e s t h a t "The S p i r i t immediately drove him out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s . " On the b a s i s of Mk 1:9 and 12 i t i s c l e a r t h a t Jesus went from a non-wilderness area, the Jordan, t o the w i l d e r n e s s . Mark t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h e s the Jordan from the w i l d e r n e s s . Mauser, i n an attempt to safeguard the u n i t y o f the prologue, i n t e r p r e t s Mk 1:12 t o mean t h a t the S p i r i t " f o r c e s 44 him t o penetrate i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s even more deeply." Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n cannot be d e r i v e d from the a c t u a l t e x t , which s t a t e s t h a t Jesus was not j u s t d r i v e n i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s more deeply, but t h a t he was d r i v e n i n t o the w i l -derness. Thus, t h i s passage p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r support f o r the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s does not pr o v i d e the u n i f y i n g element f o r the e n t i r e prologue. The baptism of Jesus takes 18 p l a c e i n the Jordan, not i n the w i l d e r n e s s . The t e m p t a t i o n o f Je s u s , on the o t h e r hand, does occur i n the w i l d e r n e s s . J u s t as a v o i c e c r i e d " ev T T3 epfiucp" (1:3) and John the B a p t i s t appeared "ev i\\ eprinv " (1:4), so Jesus i s p o r t r a y e d t o be "ev/xfi epr)u.(p " (1:13) d u r i n g h i s temptation. As was p o i n t e d out p r e v i o u s l y , the prophecy o f I s 40:3 i s presented i n Mk 1:3 i n an a l t e r e d form. I t r e f e r s both t o the messenger, John the B a p t i s t , and t o the Lord, J e s u s . The phrase " i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (1:13) thus l i n k s Jesus w i t h the Old Testament prophecy. There are many more p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t between the Old Testament and the temptation account. Leaney has sug-gested t h a t "the e x p u l s i o n o f Jesus i n t o the d e s e r t was i n f l u e n c e d by the s t o r y o f the scapegoat i n Lev-16:7-10, 20-22." 3 The f o r t y days (1:13) i s probably an a l l u s i o n t o 46 Moses o r perhaps t o I s r a e l ' s f o r t y y e ars i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Mauser f e e l s t h a t the " w i l d b e a s t s " o f Mk 1:13 should be e x p l a i n e d i n terms o f the a s s o c i a t i o n o f demons and w i l -derness animals i n I s 13:21, 34:14 ( L X X ) . ^ He a l s o sees a c o n n e c t i o n between the f u n c t i o n o f the angels i n Mk 1:13 and the a n g e l i n I Kings 19:5,7. He e x p l a i n s t h a t "the ange l s have the same f u n c t i o n o f p r o v i d i n g Jesus w i t h nour-48 ishment i n the bar r e n waste." Schweitzer even suggests t h a t the e n t i r e t e m p t a t i o n s t o r y i s a l i t e r a r y product based on the Old Testament. 19 The whole w i l d e r n e s s episode i s t o be e v a l u a t e d on the whole as a l i t e r a r y product t h a t grew out o f r e a s o n i n g based on the Old Testament. As Moses had spent f o r t y days i n s o l i t u d e b e f o r e the g i v i n g o f the Law (Ex 24:18), so Jesus a l s o must have done t h i s b e f o r e he took up h i s o f f i c e . And as the w i l d e r n e s s i s thought t o be the r e s i d e n c e o f the e v i l s p i r i t s , he must have been tempted by them.49 Although a l l o f the above a l l u s i o n s t o the Old Testament need f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o draw the g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the account o f the temp-t a t i o n o f Jesus r e f e r s back t o the w i l d e r n e s s t r a d i t i o n o f the Old Testament. Does the account o f the temptation a l s o have a forward o r i e n t a t i o n ? Mauser c l a i m s t h a t i t has. He argues t h a t the f o r t y days (1:13) should not be regarded "as a p e r i o d passed f o r ever once C h r i s t s t a r t s h i s p u b l i c m i n i s t r y . " 5 ° Such an argument i s unconvincing. The most obvious i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Mk 1:13 seems to be t h a t i t r e f e r s t o a c l o s e d p e r i o d , even though the number f o r t y may be symbolic. I t should a l s o be p o i n t e d out t h a t a f t e r the temp-t a t i o n , J e s u s i s r e p o r t e d as coming into~ G a l i l e e (1:14), thus r e t u r n i n g t o h i s e a r l i e r l o c a t i o n (1:9). The verb, T)\$ev , i n both v e r s e s 9 and 14, thus marks o f f the baptism and temptation of Jesus as an enclosed and completed u n i t . Mauser's argument t h a t the c o n f l i c t between Jesus and Satan must be regarded as open-ended, i s a l s o i n c o n c l u s i v e . An argument must not r e s t on s i l e n c e alone. Mauser's attempt 20 t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the temptation i s c a r r i e d on i n the r e s t o f the Gospel, e s p e c i a l l y i n Jesus* s t r u g g l e w i t h demons, 51 i s u n convincing. I f Mark r e a l l y wanted t o show the con-t i n u i t y o f the c o n f l i c t , why d i d he change Jesus' a d v e r s a r y from Satan t o the demons? The Role of the Prologue i n Mark's Gospel L e t us now e v a l u a t e Mauser's three c l a i m s . The f i r s t c l a i m t h a t the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s p r o v i d e s the s t r i n g on which the beads o f the prologue a r e assembled, has to be r e j e c t e d i n p a r t , s i n c e Mark d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the Jordan and the w i l d e r n e s s . Jesus' baptism d i d not take p l a c e i n the w i l d e r n e s s . How then i s the u n i t y of the prologue created? For Mark, the prophecy i n 1:3 l i n k s John the B a p t i s t (the v o i c e ) w i t h Jesus (the L o r d ) . The c l o s e h i s t o r i c a l l i n k between the B a p t i s t and Jesus i s beyond q u e s t i o n . Bornkamm has s t a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t to Jesus: "His own baptism by John i s one o f the most c e r t a i n l y v e r i f i e d occurrences o f h i s l i f e . " ^ 2 Wink a l s o emphasizes t h i s h i s t o r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n when he w r i t e s : The c o n v i c t i o n t h a t John i s 'the b e g i n n i n g o f the g o s p e l of Jesus C h r i s t ' , and a l l o f the C h r i s t i a n e l a b o r a t i o n s o f i t , are but the t h e o l o g i c a l e x p r e s s i o n of a h i s t o r i c a l f a c t , t h a t through John's m e d i a t i o n Jesus p e r c e i v e d the nearness of the kingdom and h i s own r e -l a t i o n t o i t s coming.53 Although the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s p r o v i d e s a 21 l i n k between John's a c t i v i t y i n the w i l d e r n e s s (Mk 1:4) and J e s u s ' temptation i n the w i l d e r n e s s (Mk 1:12-13), the u n i t y o f the prologue i s p r i m a r i l y c r e a t e d by the unique r e l a t i o n -s h i p between John the B a p t i s t and Jesus i n t h e i r r o l e s o f messenger and Lord r e s p e c t i v e l y . Mauser's c l a i m t h a t the concept of the w i l d e r n e s s i n the prologue p l a y s a v i t a l r o l e i n s e t t i n g the stage f o r the m i n i s t r y of Jesus, must a l s o be r e j e c t e d . I t has a l r e a d y been shown t h a t Mauser's two main arguments f o r the open-endedness o f the prologue, t h a t i s , the f o r t y days and the l a c k o f a r e p o r t of Jesus' v i c t o r y over Satan, are not c o n c l u s i v e . To t h i s can be added t h a t t h e r e i s a c l e a r - c u t change i n the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y between the prologue and the r e s t of the Gospel. I n the prologue, Mark uses o n l y the s u b s t a n t i v e form o f epr)ao?, w h i l e i n the r e s t of the Gospel he uses o n l y the a d j e c t i v a l form of epnuo? and the s u b s t a n t i v e form of epnuCa. I t must be concluded t h a t the prologue does not emphasize a forward look. I t i s not l i k e an o v e r t u r e which pr e s e n t s a l l the themes which are t o f o l l o w . T h i s i s q u i t e obvious s i n c e the r e f e r e n c e s to the past, such as the proph-ecy o f I s 40:3, are much c l e a r e r than the a l l e g e d r e f e r e n c e s t o the f u t u r e . T h i s b r i n g s us t o Mauser's c l a i m t h a t the prologue has many p o i n t s o f c o n t a c t w i t h the Old Testament. T h i s c l a i m has been s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the exegesis o f the w i l d e r -ness pericopae o f John the B a p t i s t and the Temptation. 22 What i s the r o l e o f the prologue? With i t s e x p l i c i t c o n n e c t i o n t o I s 40:3, the prologue i n d i c a t e s t h a t the g o s p e l o f Jesus C h r i s t , the Son o f God, i s the f u l f i l l m e n t o f Old Testament prophecy; w i t h i t s i m p l i c i t c o n n e c t i o n t o the r e s t o f the Gospel, i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the f u t u r e i s not simply an e x t e n s i o n o f the past. There i s something new. With r e s p e c t t o the w i l d e r n e s s theme, t h i s change i s i n d i -c ated by a new terminology. I n the r e s t o f the Gospel, J e s u s i s no l o n g e r i n the eprjjioc, but i n the epTnaoc; xonoq o r the e p r j L u a . T h e r e f o r e , we can conclude t h a t Mark uses eprnaoc, as a noun e x c l u s i v e l y i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the prophecy o f I s 40:3. T h i s passage i t s e l f s e t s the precedent f o r Mark as he shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f John the B a p t i s t and Jesus t o t h i s prophecy i n 1:4 and 12f. I n showing t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , Mark s t r e s s e s the t h e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r than the g e o g r a p h i c a l aspect o f ept)u,og. What i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o him i s the c o n t i n u i t y between the Old T e s t a -ment prophecy and the g o s p e l o f Jes u s C h r i s t , the Son of God. I I . JESUS IN THE "EPHMOL TOriOZ I n the f o l l o w i n g p e r icopae Mark uses the a d j e c t i v a l form o f epriuog m o d i f y i n g TOTCO?: J e s u s Departs Prom Capernaum 1:35-38 The H e a l i n g o f a Leper 1:40-45 The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand 6:30-44 23 I n these t h r e e w i l d e r n e s s pericopae the term epnuoc, xonoq occurs f i v e times: 1:35,45; 6:31,32,35- What i s the source and meaning o f t h i s term? Jesus Departs From Capernaum I n the pe r i c o p e , Jesus Departs From Capernaum (Mk 1:35-38), the phrase e i s epnu-ov TOTIOV occurs i n ver s e 35' I n the pr e v i o u s p e r i c o p e (Mk 1:32-34) the r e appears t o be an emphasis on the g r e a t m u l t i t u d e o f people i n the urban s e t t i n g . F o r example, "they brought t o him a l l who were s i c k " (1:32); "the whole c i t y was gathered" (1:33); "he hea l e d many" (1:34). I n v e r s e 35, i n which the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i s men-t i o n e d , t h e r e i s a s t a r k c o n t r a s t . Jesus r e t i r e s by h i m s e l f t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e t o pray. However, t h i s s o l i t u d e does not l a s t l ong. I n the next v e r s e we read t h a t h i s d i s c i p l e s searched f o r him and found him. They now t e l l him t h a t "every one i s s e a r c h i n g f o r you" (1:37). As a r e s u l t o f t h i s message, Jesus d e c i d e s t o "go on t o the next towns" (1:38). Thus both b e f o r e and a f t e r v e r s e 1:35, t h e r e i s an emphasis on the m u l t i t u d e s o f the urban s e t t i n g , w h i l e i n the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e Jesus i s a l l alone. The c o n t r a s t , t h e r e f o r e , seems t o be between a populated and an unpopulated a r e a , r a t h e r than between a f e r t i l e and u n f e r t i l e area. I t should a l s o be p o i n t e d out t h a t i n Mk 1:13 Jesus i s tempted by Satan i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Now, o n l y twenty 24 v e r s e s l a t e r , Jesus uses a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e f o r prayer. T h i s seems t o suggest t h a t w h i l e the epnuoc; i s a p l a c e o f temptation, the eprinoc, TOTCOC i s a p l a c e where one can t a l k t o God. Is Mark f o l l o w i n g a source i n h i s use of "wilde r n e s s p l a c e " , o r can the o r i g i n o f t h i s term be a t t r i b u t e d t o Mark h i m s e l f ? There seems t o be a d i v i s i o n o f o p i n i o n among s c h o l a r s as t o whether 1:35 i s t r a d i t i o n a l o r r e d a c t i o n a l . T a y l o r and Marxsen h o l d the view t h a t Mk 1:35 i s b a s i c a l l y t r a d i t i o n a l . T a y l o r ^ c l a s s i f i e s Mk 1:35-39 as a s t o r y 55 about Jesus. Marxsen says t h a t Mk 1:35-38 i s a t r a d i t i o n a l p e r i c o p e . B u l t m a n n ^ and M a u s e r ^ , on the ot h e r hand, c l a i m t h a t Mk 1:35 i s an e d i t o r i a l s e c t i o n . The l a t t e r view i s more c o n v i n c i n g . The H e a l i n g o f a Leper The second use of "wi l d e r n e s s p l a c e " i n Mark i s found i n the f i n a l v e r s e o f the per i c o p e o f the H e a l i n g o f a Leper (Mk 1:40-45)- Here the c o n t r a s t between the urban and r u r a l s e t t i n g i s v e r y obvious. Mark w r i t e s t h a t the consequence o f the h e a l i n g o f the l e p e r was t h a t "Jesus c o u l d no l o n g e r openly e n t e r a town (i.6\ic;)} but was out i n the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e s " (1:45). I n t h i s case the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i s p o r t r a y e d as a p l a c e o f refuge. T a y l o r and Bultmann agree t h a t Mk 1:45 i s the r e s u l t o f r e d a c t i o n a l work. T a y l o r - ^ i n c l u d e s Mk 1:45 among the 25 summary statements of Mark. Bultmann c l a s s i f i e s t h i s v e r s e among the "end f o r m u l a t i o n s " - ^ which r e f l e c t Mark's e d i -t o r i a l work. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i n h i s f o r m u l a t i o n o f 1:45, fin Mark was i n f l u e n c e d by an Old Testament theme. K i t t e l suggests, on the b a s i s o f I Kings 19:3f., t h a t the w i l d e r -ness was thought o f as a p l a c e of refuge f o r the persecuted. I Mace 2:31 a l s o p o r t r a y s the w i l d e r n e s s as a p l a c e of refuge. And i t was r e p o r t e d to the k i n g ' s o f f i c e r s and t o the t r o o p s t h a t were i n Jerusalem, the c i t y o f David, t h a t men who had s e t a t nought the k i n g ' s command had^-gone down i n t o h i d i n g - p l a c e s i n the w i l d e r n e s s . The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand I n the s t o r y of the Feeding of the F i v e Thousand (Mk 6:30-44) the term " w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e " occurs t h r e e times (Mk 6:31,32,35). I n v e r s e 31 the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i s des-c r i b e d as a p l a c e o f r e s t , away from the m u l t i t u d e s . When the twelve d i s c i p l e s r e t u r n e d from t h e i r m i s s i o n o f preach-i n g , Jesus t o l d them, "Come away by y o u r s e l v e s t o a w i l d e r -ness p l a c e , and r e s t a w h i l e " (Mk 6:31). The account goes on t o say t h a t the d i s c i p l e s and Jesus went " t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e by themselves" (Mk 6:32). Again i t i s emphasized t h a t they were alone. However, the crowds l e a r n e d o f t h e i r p l a n and "a g r e a t throng" (6:34) met them from " a l l the towns" (6:33). Thus the c o n t r a s t 26 between the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e where th e r e i s t o be p r i v a c y and the towns w i t h t h e i r g r e a t crowds i s evi d e n t once ag a i n . I n Mk 6:35 the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i s d e p i c t e d as a pl a c e where there a re no s t o r e s . The d i s c i p l e s t e l l J esus t h a t the people should l e a v e the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e and go to the towns t o buy food. 6? Mk 6:31-32 i s c o n s i d e r e d by T a y l o r as a "Markan c o n s t r u c t i o n . " Bultmann c a l l s Mk 6:30-33 an " e d i t o r i a l s e c t i o n . " ^ With r e s p e c t t o Mk 6:31 Bultmann says, "the d i s c i p l e s ' need f o r r e s t i s used as the motive f o r f i n d i n g an epTino? TOTCOS" ^ and w i t h r e s p e c t t o 6:32 he says, "the naming of the epnuoc, TOUOS does not n e c e s s a r i l y make i t a pa r t o f the o r i g i n a l t r a d i t i o n . " ^ T a y l o r i n c l u d e s Mk 6:35 as p a r t o f a M i r a c l e Story. 67 Mauser, 1 however, makes the v a l i d s u g g e s t i o n t h a t w h i l e Mark found epriuo? o r eprinCoc i n h i s t r a d i t i o n f o r Mk 6 : 3 5 , he changed t h i s t o eprmoc, To-rtoc. i n or d e r t o conform t o the ter m i n o l o g y o f 6:31 and 32 . I t i s t h e r e f o r e probable t h a t the t h r e e occurrences o f epriuoc, xouoc, i n the p e r i c o p e o f the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand are due t o the r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y o f Mark. The Use o f "EPTIM-OC TOTIOC, i n the LXX I t was po i n t e d out t h a t Mark used the LXX v e r s i o n o f I s 40:3 i n Mk 1:3. Consequently, h i s use o f epriuoc, c o u l d be t r a c e d back t o the LXX. Does Mark's use o f epiutos 27 xouoc, also depend on the LXX? In the Codex Alexandrinus, the expression X O T C O V CO epnuov occurs i n II Mace 8:35* Most of the manuscripts, , u 6Q however, favor xponov eprjLiov. Moffatt * also prefers the l a t t e r reading i n h i s t r a n s l a t i o n . From the context of the passage, i t does seem that xponov (way) i s a much better reading than X O T I O V (place). In the Codex Alexandrinus the phrase etc. epruiov r 70 xoixov i s found i n Jer 13:24. Codex Vaticanus and Codex S i n a i t i c u s , on the other hand, omit X O T C O V . Brenton^ 1 trans-lates Jer 13:24 as: "So I scattered them as s t i c k s c a r r i e d by the wind into the wilderness." Here the wilderness i s a place of punishment. Consequently, both from the point of view of meaning and vocabulary, t h i s passage does not present a precedent f o r Mark's use of epTjLioc, X O T C O C ; . There i s one passage i n the LXX version of Jeremiah which, while not using the expression epT)u.oc. xouoc. as such, 72 may s t i l l throw l i g h t on the Markan usage. Brenton translates Jer 40:12^3 a s follows: Thus s a i t h the Lord of hosts; There s h a l l yet be i n t h i s place, that i s desert ( ev x£ xorcy X O U X O J xt+j eprjuop) f o r want of man and beast, i n a l l the c i t i e s thereof, resting-places f o r shepherds causing t h e i r f l o c k s to l i e down. This passage defines the wilderness place i n terms of the absence of man and beast. The wilderness place i s an unpopulated area. This passage also l i n k s the wilderness place with the idea of rest. Both of these ideas are related 28 to the Markan concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e . J e r 40:12 (LXX) c o u l d t h e r e f o r e have been an i n f l u e n c e on Mark's use. The s t y l i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e between e p r i u o c ; T O U O C ; and ev -rep TOTtcp T O U T V eprjiicp i s not r e a l l y v e r y g r e a t . These two e x p r e s s i o n s d i f f e r o n l y i n t h e i r use of the a t t r i b u t i v e p o s i t i o n f o r a d j e c t i v e s . The l a t t e r e x p r e s s i o n c o u l d be changed t o ev Ttp epilog xoixti) T O U T I ^ w ithout a change i n meaning. T h e r e f o r e , we must conclude t h a t although the e x p r e s s i o n epriuoc. T O - H O C ; does not r e f e r as c l e a r l y t o the LXX as epriuoc; does, the p o s s i b i l i t y s t i l l e x i s t s t h a t i t too, has i t s o r i g i n i n the LXX. C o n c l u s i o n s Can the phrase epTjuoc. xoitog be a t t r i b u t e d t o Mark's r e d a c t i o n a l work? I t has been shown t h a t the occurrences o f epriuoc; T O U O C ; i n Mk 1:45; 6:31,32,35 should d e f i n i t e l y be viewed i n t h i s way. The occurrence i n 1:35? on the o t h e r hand, may p o s s i b l y go back t o a pre-Markan t r a d i t i o n . However, the e x p r e s s i o n epTjuoc; T O T C O C ; i s not found i n Q, M, L, the Gospel o f John o r i n any of the New Testament w r i t i n g s o t h e r than the Gospels. The Gospels o f Matthew and Luke use t h i s e x p r e s s i o n o n l y when they p a r a l l e l the Markan source. A l l t h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the term epnuoc; xonoc should be a t t r i b u t e d t o Mark's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . The theme which u n i t e s these passages s e t s f o r t h 29 the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e as an unpopulated area, i n c o n t r a s t t o the crowded towns and c i t i e s . I t i s t r u e t h a t the m u l t i -tudes from the c i t i e s and towns manage to d i s t u r b the peace o f the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e s . T h i s , however, i s seen as an i n t r u s i o n . I t i s not seen as an i n t r i n s i c c o n d i t i o n of the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e . Mark t h i n k s o f the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e as a p l a c e where s o l i t u d e i s p o s s i b l e . As a r e s u l t i t can be used as a p l a c e of p r a y e r (1:35), as a p l a c e o f refuge (1:45) and as a p l a c e of r e s t (6:31). Whereas the epnu-oc; was a p l a c e o f temptation, the epT)Lios T O T C O C , i d e a l l y p r o v i d e s the p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e s t f o r J e s u s. Satan i s not connected w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e . The q u e s t i o n which now f o l l o w s i s ; why d i d Mark decide t o use epTinoc. T O T C O C ; i n a d d i t i o n t o epimoc;? The con-c e p t s o f prayer, refuge and r e s t c o u l d a l s o have been con-nected w i t h epTinog . Mark's c h r i s t o l o g y w i l l c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t . However, be f o r e i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e a l w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n i t s e n t i r e t y and Markan c h r i s t o l o g y , we must i n v e s t i g a t e epTjuta, the t h i r d term i n Mark's w i l d e r n e s s terminology. I I I . JESUS IN THE 'Epnu-ta Mark uses the noun e.pr}u,ia o n l y i n the p e r i c o p e of the Feeding o f the Four Thousand (8:1-10). Since i t . i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine the meaning of a word from a s i n g l e use (Mk 8:4), l e t us f i r s t o f a l l see how epnu.ua i s used i n 30 w r i t i n g s o t h e r than the Gospel o f Mark. Non-Markan Usage of ' EpTju.ua F u n k ^ p o i n t s out t h a t epT)uia i s never used i n the LXX t o t r a n s l a t e midbar, which i s the most common term f o r the w i l d e r n e s s o f the sojourn. As a matter o f f a c t t h e r e i s not a s i n g l e occurrence o f epTjuia i n the Pentateuch. 'Epnuta does occur i n Ez 35:4,9; I s 60:12 and Baruch 4:33- I n a l l o f these passages i t i s used i n the cont e x t o f God's judgment upon v a r i o u s peoples, which r e s u l t s i n t h e i r h a b i t a t i o n becoming a d e s o l a t i o n (epnuia). I n IV Maccabees 18:8 the epnuta i s the home of the seducer: "No seducer o f the d e s e r t , no d e c e i v e r s i n the f i e l d c o r r u p t e d me."^ In the New Testament epnuta occurs o n l y t h r e e times i n a d d i t i o n t o Mk 8:4. I n Mt 15:33 i t occurs i n the p a r a l l e l passage t o Mk 8:4, but no a d d i t i o n a l l i g h t i s thrown on i t s meaning. I n I I Cor 11:26 epriuia o ccurs i n the context o f an account o f Paul's s u f f e r i n g s as an a p o s t l e : ...on f r e q u e n t j o u r n e y s , i n danger from r i v e r s , danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from G e n t i l e s , danger i n the c i t y , danger i n the w i l d e r n e s s (eprjuta), danger a t sea, danger from f a l s e b r e t h r e n . I n Heb 11:38 i t occurs i n the context o f the s u f f e r i n g endured by the g r e a t Old Testament men o f f a i t h . Both i n C o r i n t h i a n s and Hebrews the epriuta i s a p l a c e where h a r d s h i p and s u f f e r i n g a r e expected. 31 F i n a l l y l e t us t u r n t o the use of epnuua i n the w r i t i n g s of Josephus. Funk7^ has shown t h a t Josephus r e s e r v e s s u b s t a n t i v i z e d eprinua f o r the S i n a i w i l d e r n e s s and o t h e r g r e a t d e s e r t s , and uses epilog f o r the w i l d e r n e s s of the J o rdan v a l l e y and Judea. Josephus o f t e n uses epriiiia i n c o n t e x t s o f war. For example, i n Jewish War I I , 259 ( A n t i q u i t i e s XX, 168) F e l i x d e s t r o y s the d e c e i v e r s and im-p o s t o r s i n the epriuia. I n Jewish War I I , 262 F e l i x a t t a c k s the E g y p t i a n f a l s e prophet. T h i s b r i e f survey of the use o f e p T j L i i a i n the LXX, the I n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l l i t e r a t u r e , the New Testament and the w r i t i n g s of Josephus i n d i c a t e s t h a t the dominant c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c o f e p r i L u a i s t h a t i t i s a p l a c e o f d e s o l a t i o n , s u f f e r i n g and warfare. I t i s a p l a c e conducive t o the p e r p e t r a t i o n of v i o l e n c e . The Feeding of the Four Thousand I s the meaning o f eprjuta as d e f i n e d above a p p l i c a b l e t o Mk 8:4? Mk 8:2 i m p l i e s t h a t the crowd has undergone gr e a t h a r d s h i p i n h a v i n g gone without food f o r t h r e e days. The next v e r s e p o i n t s out t h a t some o f the people would f a i n t i n an attempt to r e t u r n t o t h e i r homes. Thus th e r e i s a d e f i n i t e s t r e s s on the h a r d s h i p s encountered i n the s e t t i n g of the eprjLua i n c o n t r a s t t o the p e r i c o p e o f the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand (Mk 6:30-44), where the p h y s i c a l hunger of the crowd i s not an i s s u e . 32 Many s c h o l a r s c l a i m t h a t the Feeding o f the Four Thousand and the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand r e f e r t o a s i n g l e event. F o r example, C a r r i n g t o n s t a t e s t h a t the nar-r a t i v e o f the Four Thousand " i s commonly regarded as a secondary form o f the Feeding o f the F i v e T h o u s a n d . " ^ Lohmeyer'^ maintains t h a t the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the two nar-r a t i v e s i n d i c a t e t h a t we are not d e a l i n g w i t h two d i s t i n c t events, but w i t h one event a c c o r d i n g t o two sources. The problem now i s t o d e l i n e a t e two sources which w i l l account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the two n a r r a t i v e s . I e r s e l ^ p o i n t s out t h a t many s c h o l a r s h o l d the view t h a t Mk 6:35-44 r e f e r s t o a Feeding o f Jews and Mk 8:1-10 to a Feeding o f G e n t i l e s . Danker l i k e w i s e i s a s t r o n g advocate o f the view t h a t Mk 8:1-10 c a r r i e s a s t r o n g G e n t i l e accent. However, such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n sheds no l i g h t on the f a c t t h a t Mark uses ep-nuoc. TO-HOC. i n the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand and eprjuca i n the Feeding o f the Four Thousand. A t h e o r y which does i l l u m i n a t e t h i s v a r i a t i o n i n the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i s presented by H. Mo n t e f i o r e i n O n h i s a r t i c l e "Revolt i n the Desert." He c l a i m s t h a t the b a s i c t r a d i t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the two f e e d i n g n a r r a t i v e s i s a thwarted m e s s i a n i c u p r i s i n g i n the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s e x p l a i n s the use of eprjuta which has the c o n n o t a t i o n o f v i o l e n c e and d e s o l a t i o n . However, by s u p p o r t i n g the view t h a t "Mark prob a b l y i n c l u d e s two accounts o f the same f e e d i n g m i r a c l e t o show how Jesus g i v e s s p i r i t u a l food t o both Jew and 33 82 G e n t i l e " , M o n t e f i o r e f a i l s t o grasp Mark's reas o n i n g behind the use of eptiuoc, T O T C O C ; i n the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand. For a complete e x p l a n a t i o n we must i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f e e d i n g n a r r a t i v e s and the euchar-i s t i c t r a d i t i o n . In Mk 8:1-10 two d i s t i n c t meals are i n d i c a t e d : a meal o f bread (8:6) and a meal of f i s h (8:7). I n Mk 6:30-44, on the othe r hand, these two meals are combined (Mk 6:4l). Matthew must have reco g n i z e d t h i s seeming i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n Mark, f o r as I e r s e l p o i n t s out, Matthew attempts t o b r i n g the Feeding o f the Four Thousand i n t o harmony w i t h the F i v e Thousand by combining the bread and f i s h meal i n t o one. I e r s e l a l s o shows t h a t t h e r e i s a ge n e r a l r e d a c t i o n o f the f i s h m o t i f as Matthew and Luke b r i n g out the e u c h a r i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . On t h i s b a s i s I suggest t h a t on the one hand, th e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between the p e a c e f u l s e t t i n g o f the epTiiioc; Toitoc, and the e u c h a r i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand and on the othe r hand, there i s a c o r -r e l a t i o n between the v i o l e n t s e t t i n g suggested by the use of epr)Lua and the t r a d i t i o n o f an a b o r t i v e messianic u p r i s i n g u n d e r l y i n g the Feeding o f the Four Thousand. IV. THE WILDERNESS AND MARK'S CHRISTOLOGY 84 Weeden has demonstrated q u i t e c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t t h e r e are two opposing c h r i s t o l o g i e s i n the Gospel o f Mark; 34 a h e l l e n i s t i c &euoc; <ivrjp c h r i s t o l o g y which views the Messiah as a m i r a c l e worker who i s the embodiment of God and Mark's own s u f f e r i n g c h r i s t o l o g y . The S i t z im Leben f o r t h i s c o n f l i c t i s found i n Mark's own community. Weeden suggests t h a t i n o r d e r to combat the $eiog avrip c h r i s t o l o g y , Mark pres e n t s Jesus as the advocate o f h i s ( i . e . Mark's) own p o s i t i o n . Jesus thus becomes the propo-nent o f the view t h a t " a u t h e n t i c messiahship i s s u f f e r i n g messiahship which culminates i n the c r u c i f i x i o n . " ^ The d i s c i p l e s , on the o t h e r hand, become "advocates o f a $eCoc; ocvrjp c h r i s t o l o g y which i s p i t t e d a g a i n s t the s u f f e r i n g 86 messiahship of J e s u s . " Since the h e r e t i c s i n the Markan community probably claimed t h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n o r i g i n a t e d w i t h the d i s c i p l e s themselves, Mark was f o r c e d t o d e a l w i t h t h e i r t r a d i t i o n which p o r t r a y e d Jesus as a g r e a t $eZo<; avr\p . "He does t h i s by p l a c i n g most o f t h e i r m a t e r i a l i n the f i r s t h a l f o f the 8 7 Gospel p r i o r t o the P e t r i n e c o n f e s s i o n . " Thus the f i r s t h a l f of the Gospel i s s a t u r a t e d w i t h the wonder-working a c t i v i t i e s o f Jesus i n the r o l e of a $eios ocvrip. Mark even i n t e r s p e r s e s h i s own summaries of the $eios avT)p a c t i v i t y (l:32ff.; 3:7fr\; 6:53ff.)-Mark's c h r i s t o l o g i c a l polemic i s i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d t o h i s use of the w i l d e r n e s s terminology. I t i s not merely a c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t the Markan w i l d e r n e s s pericopae are a l l found i n the f i r s t h a l f o f the Gospel, p r i o r t o the P e t r i n e 35 c o n f e s s i o n . I n the second h a l f of the Gospel, Mark's own s u f f e r i n g c h r i s t o l o g y predominates, and i t has no t r a d i t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . I t i s o n l y the $eioc, txvrjp c h r i s t o l o g y w i t h i t s emphasis on s i g n s and wonders which 88 was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . The r e f e r e n c e s t o eprinoc. T O T C O C ; and epT)u.ia must be seen i n t h i s l i g h t . I t i s d o u b t f u l , however, t h a t the •fretoc, avT)p t r a d i -t i o n i n f l u e n c e d the prologue. The "Son o f God" i n Mk 1:1 Pq i s not the $eCoc; a v i p , f o r P e r r i n has shown t h a t Mark i n t e r p r e t s the Son of God i n terms of the Son of Man who must s u f f e r . I t i s s a f e t o conclude t h a t Mark uses epT)u.oc, i n o r d e r to show the r e l a t i o n s h i p of John and Jesus to the prophecy o f I s 40:3. "EpT)u,o$ i s used o n l y to l a y s t r e s s on the c o n t i n u i t y between the prophecy and the g o s p e l ; i t i s not n e c e s s a r y f o r the development of Mark's s u f f e r i n g c h r i s t o l o g y . Weeden i n d i c a t e s t h a t Mark may not have been t o t a l l y opposed to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of Jesus as a m i r a c l e worker. "The v e r y f a c t t h a t he p r e s e n t s t h i s p i c t u r e a t a l l i n h i s Gospel, though i t i s f o r p o l e m i c a l reasons, i n d i c a t e s t h a t 90 such a p r e s e n t a t i o n was not completely o f f e n s i v e to him. However, "...he d i d not c o n s i d e r t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n t o be 91 t h a t a t t r i b u t e of Jesus which made him the messiah." A c c o r d i n g l y , w h i l e u s i n g the $eioc, avrjp t r a d i t i o n , Mark r e - i n t e r p r e t s i t . I suggest t h a t the use of epT)u,oc, T O T C O S i s a r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a t r a d i t i o n which used 36 epniioc; o r even e p r p i a . Mark f e l t o b l i g a t e d t o d e a l w i t h the epT)u,05~epr)u,La t r a d i t i o n . However, i n order to a v o i d g i v i n g i t the same importance which he a t t a c h e d to the use of epTiiioc, i n the prologue, and a l s o i n o r d e r to guard a g a i n s t the s t r o n g messianic and a p o c a l y p t i c c o n n o t a t i o n o f TJ epriuoc;, Mark turned t o the use of epnu.oq TOTEOC; . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the use o f e p r p i a i n the Feeding o f the Four Thousand remains somewhat o f a mystery. However, I would l i k e t o present one p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n . As was suggested e a r l i e r , t h i s p e r i c o p e was o r i g i n a l l y concerned w i t h a thwarted messianic r e v o l t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . The use of epnLua was a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h i s p e r i c o p e s i n c e epnuatt i m p l i e s s u f f e r i n g and warfare. By p l a c i n g t h i s p e r i c o p e almost immediately b e f o r e the P e t r i n e c o n f e s s i o n , thereby a t the end o f the $eioc, avrjp c h r i s t o l o g y , Mark may be show-i n g v e r y s u b t l y t h a t the detoc. avrjp c h r i s t o l o g y i s doomed t o f a i l u r e , f o r Jesus h i m s e l f r e f u s e d to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a m e s s i a n i c u p r i s i n g . Mark's use of the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y can be summed up as f o l l o w s . He uses eprjLioc, e x c l u s i v e l y t o t i e t o g e t h e r Old Testament prophecy and the g o s p e l of Jesus C h r i s t , the Son o f God. He uses eprpoc, TOUOC; and epr)u.ta i n the course o f h i s polemic a g a i n s t the §eioc, avrjp c h r i s t o l o g y . 37 CHAPTER I I I THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW There are nine r e f e r e n c e s to the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Gospel of Matthew: 3:1,3; 4:1; 11:7; 14:13,15; 15:33; 23:38; 24:26. S i x (3:1,3; 4:1; 14:13,15; 15:33) ar e d e r i v e d from Mark. They occur i n the f o l l o w i n g pericopae: John the B a p t i s t Mt 3:1-6 The Temptation Mt 4:1-11 The Feeding of the F i v e Thousand Mt 14:13-21 The Feeding o f the Four Thousand Mt 15:32-39 The remaining three r e f e r e n c e s (11:7; 23:38; 24:26) occur i n the context of the f o l l o w i n g Q w i l d e r n e s s pericopae: Jesus' Words About John Mt 11:7-19 The Lament Over Jerusalem Mt 23:37-39 The Day o f the Son o f Man Mt 24:26-28 I . THE KEY TO MATTHEW'S WILDERNESS THEME The key to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Matthew's w i l d e r -ness theme i s found i n Mt 24:26. T h i s v e r s e must be seen i n the context o f Mt 24:23-28. 23 Then i f any one says t o you, 'Lo here i s the C h r i s t ! ' o r 'There he i s ! ' do not b e l i e v e i t . 24 F o r f a l s e C h r i s t s and f a l s e prophets w i l l a r i s e and show g r e a t s i g n s and wonders, so as to l e a d a s t r a y , i f p o s s i b l e , even the e l e c t . 25 Lo, I have t o l d you beforehand. 26 So, i f they say to you, 'Lo, he i s i n the w i l d e r n e s s , ' do not go out; i f they say, 'Lo, he i s i n the i n n e r rooms,' do not b e l i e v e i t . 27 For as the l i g h t n i n g comes from the e a s t and shines as f a r as the west, so w i l l be the coming o f the Son of man. 28 Wherever the body i s , t h e r e the eagles w i l l be gathered t o g e t h e r. 38 Before t u r n i n g t o an exegesis o f t h i s passage, l e t us determine whether the sentence "Lo, he i s i n the w i l d e r -ness" i n Mt 24:26 i s dependent upon a d e f i n i t e source o r can be a t t r i b u t e d t o Matthew's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Harnack c l a i m s t h a t Mt 24:26-28,37-41 i s p a r a l l e l t o Lk 17:23,24,37,26,27,34,35, and t h a t a l l o f these v e r s e s belong t o Q. 1 R e f e r r i n g t o Mt 24:26, Harnack contends t h a t a l t h o u g h i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether Luke has ab-b r e v i a t e d o r Matthew a m p l i f i e d , the former a l t e r n a t i v e i s p more probable. I n any case, Harnack a s s i g n s the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n Mt 24:26 t o Q. T a y l o r appears t o agree. I n d i s c u s s i n g Mk 13:21 he w r i t e s , "21 i s a genuine s a y i n g o f Jesus a t t e s t e d by a p a r a l l e l v e r s i o n i n Q (Lk 17:23 = Mt 24:26)." 3 S t r e e t e r w r i t e s , "the A p o c a l y p t i c chapter, Mt 24, i s s imply Mk 13 i n g e n i o u s l y expanded w i t h m a t e r i a l from Q."^ He p o i n t s t o the f a c t t h a t Mark and Q o v e r l a p i n Mt 24. S t r e e t e r a l s o s t a t e s t h a t Mt 24:26-28 and 37-39 a r e fragments o f Lk 17:22-37.5 While a l l t h r e e s c h o l a r s agree t h a t Mt 24:26 belongs t o Q, they do not present any c o n v i n c i n g arguments t h a t the s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n Mt 24:26 belongs t o Q. Since Lk 17:23, the p a r a l l e l passage t o Mt 24:26, does not have the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s , i t cannot be taken f o r granted t h a t i t belongs t o Q merely because i t occurs i n the g e n e r a l context o f Q. H. K. McArthur makes a good p o i n t 39 when he questions the assertion "that i t i s possible to dis t i n g u i s h L or M material from Q material reported only by Luke or Matthew."^ Any decision about assigning the reference to the wilderness i n Mt 24:26 to Q, M, or Matthew's redactional a c t i v i t y must therefore be based on very sound evidence. Although K i l p a t r i c k also claims that Mt 24:26 i s derived from Q,^ he proposes a method of in v e s t i g a t i o n which f a c i l i t a t e s showing that the reference to the wilderness o does not belong to Q. He shows that the doublet, Mt 24:23 and 26, i s one among many doublets which arose out of over-lapping sources. Mt 24:23 i s taken from Mk 13:21 and Mt 24:26 from Q. He then contends: While overlapping provides part of the reason f o r the appearance of these doublets, i t does not always provide a complete explanation. I t would be easy f o r an author l i k e the evangelist, s k i l l e d i n s e l e c t i o n and conflation, to remove r e p e t i t i o n , unless there were good grounds f o r t h e i r retention. These grounds may be found either i n the evange-l i s t ' s purpose or i n previous handling of the material such as we would expect to f i n d i n homi-l e t i c and l i t u r g i c a l custom.9 However, K i l p a t r i c k does not apply t h i s l i n e of reasoning to Mt 24:23 and 26. Therefore, l e t us see how Matthew's o v e r a l l purpose or homiletic factors are involved i n the use of t h i s doublet. Bultmann has suggested that Mt 24:23 and 26 are variants of a single saying, the only r e a l difference being that the l a t t e r speaks of the Son of Man and not the king-dom. 1 0 This difference i n emphasis could have been reason 40 enough f o r the retention of the doublet. However, there also seem to be other factors involved. As w i l l be seen l a t e r , 1 1 Matthew never adds wilderness terminology to a non-wilderness pericope of Mark. In h i s use of Q material, on the other hand, Matthew i s not as p a r t i c u l a r . This helps to suggest why Matthew did not add h i s anti-wilderness polemic to Mt 24:23, a verse which p a r a l l e l s Mk 13:21, but to Mt 24:26, a verse which comes from Q. By placing the elements of the doublet side by side, Matthew succeeds i n projecting the wilderness theme of 24:26 12 back to the previous two verses. Weeden maintains that the use of the terms signs and wonders (orpeCa and -zepaxa ), i n combination i n the New Testament, s i g n i f i e s a reference to $eioc; avrjp a c t i v i t y . The synoptic occurrences of these terms are Mk 13:22 and i t s Matthean p a r a l l e l (24:24). Weeden has suggested that the "pretenders" i n Mk 13 may a c t u a l l y be Mark's opponents who propogate a ^etoc. avrjp christology. I t i s doubtful that Matthew i s carrying on a s p e c i f i c polemic against such a christology. However, he does want to insure that the " f a l s e prophets" who "show great signs and wonders" (Mt 24:24) are seen i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to events i n the wilder-ness (Mt 24:26). I t was noted previously that i n Lk 17:23-24, the p a r a l l e l passage to Mt 24:26-28, the reference to the w i l -derness i s lacking. Did Luke delete t h i s from an o r i g i n a l Q version which contained t h i s reference? No convincing 41 reasons f o r such an omission can be found. An expansion of Q by Matthew, on the other hand, i s quite probable. As w i l l be shown, the anti-wilderness polemic so c l e a r l y stated i n Mt 24:26, i s implied i n many other parts of the gospel. I t i s therefore reasonable to conclude that Matthew expanded Q, rather than that Luke abbreviated i t . In that case, the anti-wilderness polemic of Mt 24:26 i s to be attr i b u t e d to the redactional a c t i v i t y of Matthew. However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say whether the actual wording of t h i s expansion, "Lo, he i s i n the wilderness" belongs to a written or o r a l source M or was composed by Matthew him-s e l f . We must take McArthur's warning serio u s l y when he questions the assertion "that i t i s possible to d i s t i n g u i s h L and M material from the e d i t o r i a l a c t i v i t y of Luke or Matthew." 1^ I t i s l i k e l y , however, that the warning "Lo, he i s i n the wilderness" found i t s way into the Q pericope through the redactional a c t i v i t y of Matthew, and that i t points to an anti-wilderness polemic. Let us now investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y of determining the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s anti-wilderness polemic. Prom the context of Mt 24:23-28, i t i s c l e a r that Matthew i s warning against a f a l s e messianic expectation connected with the wilderness. What i s the h i s t o r i c a l background which prompted such a polemic? The writings of Josephus give part of the answer. He writes i n h i s Jewish War I I , 258-260, that at the time of F e l i x some f a l s e prophets were g u i l t y 42 of i n s u r r e c t i o n i n the wilderness. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine i n s p i r a t i o n f o s t e r i n g revolutionary-changes, they persuaded the multitude to act l i k e madmen, and led them out into the desert ( els Ttjv epr)LiCav ) under the b e l i e f that God would there give them tokens of deliverance. 15 Josephus also relates how F e l i x had to deal with the Egyptian f a l s e prophet who "c o l l e c t e d a following of about t h i r t y thousand dupes, and led them by a c i r c u i t o u s route from the desert ( en %r\<; epriutag ) to the mount c a l l e d the mount of Olives" (Jewish War I I , 261-263). In Jewish War VI, 351-355, Josephus reports that a f t e r Titus had captured Jerusalem, the rebels asked "to r e t i r e to the desert (etc, T T ) V eprju-ov) and to leave the c i t y to him." Josephus also reports that the S i c a r i i were involved with the messianic hopes i n the wilderness. Jonathan, an arrant scoundrel, by trade a weaver, having taken refuge i n that town (Cyrene), won the ear of not a few of the indignant %cl4,ss, and led them f o r t h i n t o the desert ( e«.g T T ) V eprpov ) } promising them a display of signs and apparitions. Jewish War VII, 437-438. Passages such as these c l e a r l y indicate that the wilderness ( epruioc. and epr)Lua ) was the place where f a l s e prophets promised to "show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, i f possible, even the e l e c t " (Mt 24:24). Matthew i s quite j u s t i f i e d i n h i s warning. Funk shows that the warning i n Mt 24:26 i s " c e r t a i n l y anti-Zealot and possibly a n t i - E s s e n e . H e claims that "the a l l u s i o n s i n the opening l i n e s of the War S c r o l l (IQM i.2-3) 43 t o the e x i l e s o f the d e s e r t who w i l l open the f i n a l war, when the e x i l e s o f the d e s e r t o f the peoples r e t u r n t o the de s e r t o f Jerusalem, a re v e r y s u g g e s t i v e i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n . " 1 W. D. Davies suggests t h a t the warning a g a i n s t f a l s e C h r i s t s i s c e r t a i n l y not a n t i - G n o s t i c hut may be d i -r e c t e d a g a i n s t the e x p e c t a t i o n o f M e s s i a n i c f i g u r e s i n Qumran. He supports the view t h a t the use of xauueta ( i n n e r rooms) i n Mt 24:26 may be a r e f e r e n c e t o the caves i n the are a sur-rounding Qumran. However, although i t may not be p o s s i b l e t o p i n p o i n t the exact group o f people whom Matthew had i n mind when he i s s u e d h i s warning, i t i s reasonable t o suppose t h a t the problem o f f a l s e m essianic w i l d e r n e s s e x p e c t a t i o n s was an urgent one i n Matthew's community. The c o n c l u s i o n which Mauser draws w i t h r e s p e c t t o Mt 24:26 i s c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t . The Messiah was expected t o be g i n h i s work i n the w i l d e r n e s s and the sa y i n g warns the C h r i s t i a n c o n g r e g a t i o n a g a i n s t the danger o f f a l l i n g a prey t o any Me s s i a n i c hopes a p a r t from the e x p e c t a t i o n o f the f i n a l and co m p l e t e l y unmistakable r e v e l a -t i o n o f the Son of man (24:27). Apparently, Matthew had reasons t o i n c l u d e t h i s s a y i n g i n the a p o c a l y p t i c d i s c o u r s e . The P a l e s t i n i a n congre-g a t i o n s t o which h i s Gospel i s addressed were surrounded by a Judaism i n which the f e r v e n c y o f Me s s i a n i c hopes was undiminished. T h i s hope and the w i l d e r n e s s were, however, so much t i e d t o -geth e r t h a t Matthew i n r e j e c t i n g the former a l s o was c o n s t r a i n e d t o speak out a g a i n s t s p e c u l a t i o n s a r i s i n g from the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s . 9 Even though Mauser r e c o g n i z e s the importance o f Mt 24:26 f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n the Gospel o f Matthew, he does not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a p p l y t h i s 44 i n s i g h t t o a l l of the w i l d e r n e s s passages i n t h i s Gospel. T h e r e f o r e , l e t us see i n d e t a i l how the polemic expressed i n Mt 24:26 has i n f l u e n c e d Matthew's use o f Mark and Q. I I . MATTHEW'S REDACTION OP THE MARKAN WILDERNESS PERICOPAE S i x o f Matthew's n i n e r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s are dependent on Mark: Mt 3:3 = Mk 1:3, Mt 3:1 = Mk 1:4, Mt 4:1 = Mk 1:12, Mt 14:13 = Mk 6:32, Mt 14:15 = Mk 6:35, Mt 15:33 = Mk 8:4. Three times Matthew reduces the number o f r e f e r e n c e s i n a Markan w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e which he p a r a l -l e l s . I n the p e r i c o p e o f the Temptation, Matthew has one r e f e r e n c e t o Mark's two; i n the Feeding o f the F i v e Thou-sand, Matthew p a r a l l e l s two out o f Mark's t h r e e r e f e r e n c e s ; i n the H e a l i n g o f a Leper, Matthew omits Mark's only-r e f e r e n c e . The Markan w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e , Jesus Departs From Capernaum, i s omitted a l t o g e t h e r by Matthew. L e t us now i n v e s t i g a t e Matthew's r e d a c t i o n of Mark i n more d e t a i l . John the B a p t i s t Matthew p a r a l l e l s both o f the r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l -derness c o n t a i n e d i n Mark's p e r i c o p e o f John the B a p t i s t , but he r e v e r s e s the or d e r . F u r t h e r , whereas Mark w r i t e s t h a t John appeared " i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (Mk 1:4), Matthew says t h a t he preached " i n the w i l d e r n e s s of Judea" (3:1). Why does Matthew add "Judea"? McCown c l a i m s t h a t the a d d i t i o n of "Judea" shows Matthew's l a c k of g e o g r a p h i c a l f e e l i n g . I t i s a f a l s i f i c a t i o n o f Mark's " i n the w i l d e r n e s s . " He a l s o 45 claims that i t can be ruled out that John the Baptist l i v e d 21 i n the wilderness of Judea. According to McCown i t appears that Matthew was mistaken about the scene of John's ministry. Funk 2 2, on the other hand, has shown that the wilderness of Judea may very well have included the area i n which John the Baptist was active. However, t h i s type of d i s -cussion r e a l l y bypasses the s a l i e n t point of Mt 3*1» The expansion of the Markan source here must be regarded i n view of Matthew's polemic against the wilderness. From a study of Josephus and the Qumran l i t e r a t u r e 23 i t i s c l e a r that "the wilderness" i s a powerful theological concept connected with various messianic expectations and even r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l uprisings. Matthew, as shown e a r l i e r , wanted to warn against such f a l s e expectations concerning the wilderness. When Matthew came to the t h e o l o g i c a l l y loaded phrase " i n the wilderness" of Mk 1:3 and 4, he changed t h i s to the more neutral and e x p l i c i t l y geograph-i c a l term " i n the wilderness of Judea." John the Baptist was not a r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l fanatic " i n the wilderness", but a preacher of repentance who happened to be " i n the wilderness of Judea." This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n also explains Matthew's reversal oh of Mark's two references to the wilderness. Stendahl points out that Mt 3:3 i s unique in s o f a r as i t i s the only formula quotation with synoptic p a r a l l e l s , and that the text i s exactly the same i n a l l Synoptic Gospels (Mk 1:3 = 46 Mt 3:3 = Lk 3:4). He a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t t h i s q u o t a t i o n from I s 40:3 r e c e i v e d i t s form through a new c h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , whereby the LXX's xou $£ou rjuuiv was r e p l a c e d by avxov } r e f e r r i n g t o C h r i s t . Because of the f i x e d form of t h i s q u o t a t i o n , Matthew would be v e r y r e l u c t a n t t o make changes. T h e r e f o r e , i n s t e a d of changing the p r o p h e t i c quo-t a t i o n , Matthew simply r e v e r s e d Mark's o r d e r and thereby d e f i n e d the meaning o f " w i l d e r n e s s " b e f o r e g i v i n g the quo-t a t i o n . Matthew thus e x p l a i n s t h a t because John was i n the w i l d e r n e s s o f Judea, the prophecy of I s 40:3 was f u l f i l l e d . Mark, on the o t h e r hand, showed t h a t because of I s 40:3, John had t o be i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Mark thus sees the w i l d e r -ness as a t h e o l o g i c a l concept, w h i l e Matthew loo k s a t the w i l d e r n e s s o f Judea as a g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n . T h i s change i n emphasis i s due t o Matthew's polemic a g a i n s t the n e g a t i v e meaning which i s i m p l i c i t f o r him i n the w i l d e r n e s s . The Temptation I n h i s account o f the temptation o f Jesus, Matthew f o l l o w s the Markan source i n s a y i n g t h a t the S p i r i t caused Jesus t o go " i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s " (Mt 4:1 = Mk 1:12). Matthew sees no need t o q u a l i f y t h i s r e f e r e n c e to the w i l -derness s i n c e i t i s seen as a p l a c e o f temptation i n t h i s Markan w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e . Matthew's g e n e r a l polemic a g a i n s t the w i l d e r n e s s i s served v e r y w e l l by a passage which sees the w i l d e r n e s s as a p l a c e where Jesus must en-c o u n t e r the d e v i l and win. 47 As was p o i n t e d out i n the l a s t chapter, the r e f e r -ences t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n Mk 1:12 arid 13 have l o s t a l l g e o g r a p h i c a l emphasis. Matthew, however, wants t o show t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s i s an a c t u a l p l a c e . He accomplishes t h i s purpose i n two ways. F i r s t l y , whereas Mk 1:12 s t a t e s t h a t J e s u s was d r i v e n "out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s " , the p a r a l l e l passage, Mt 4:1, s t a t e s t h a t J e s u s "was l e d u p . . . i n t o the 25 w i l d e r n e s s . " Mauser p o i n t s out t h a t the e x p r e s s i o n " l e d up" r e f l e c t s the knowledge o f the mountainous p l a t e a u o f the Judean d e s e r t . Thus Mt 4:1 i s more g e o g r a p h i c a l l y o r i e n t e d than Mk 1:13. 2 6 Secondly, Matthew g i v e s a g e o g r a p h i c a l c o n n o t a t i o n t o the w i l d e r n e s s by c r e a t i n g a p a r a l l e l between the w i l d e r -ness on the one hand, and "the h o l y c i t y " (4:5) and "a v e r y h i g h mountain" (4:8) on the o t h e r . Marxsen 2^ shows t h a t etc; T T I V cxytav uoXtv (4:5) and etc; opo? u(|/n\bv Xiav (4:8) a r e p a r a l l e l t o elq T T I V eprpov (4:1). S i n c e the c i t y and mountain a r e g e o g r a p h i c a l p l a c e s , the w i l d e r n e s s must a l s o be g e o g r a p h i c a l by v i r t u e o f a s s o c i a t i o n . Matthew's v e r s i o n o f the temptation o f Jesus serves h i s a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic remarkably w e l l . The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand I n the p e r i c o p e o f the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand Mark has t h r e e r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s (Mk 6:31,32,35). Matthew p a r a l l e l s Mark o n l y i n the use of the l a s t two. Matthew keeps o n l y those r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s which 48 are a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l t o the s e t t i n g . The s t o r y r e q u i r e s a s e t t i n g away from human h a b i t a t i o n i n o r d e r to emphasize the f a c t t h a t no food was a v a i l a b l e f o r the crowds. I n t h i s way the m i r a c u l o u s nature o f the f e e d i n g i s accentuated. Matthew omits the s a y i n g o f J e s u s : "Come away by y o u r s e l v e s t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e , and r e s t a w h i l e " (Mk 6:31). By d e l e t i n g t h i s s a y i n g , Matthew safeguards a g a i n s t any type o f s p e c u l a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to e s c h a t o l o g i c a l r e s t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s o m i s s i o n o f the Markan t e x t can be e x p l a i n e d once a g a i n i n terms o f Matthew 1s a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic. Although Matthew i s unable t o omit Mark 1s next two r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s because o f t h e i r importance to the s e t t i n g , he succeeds i n o m i t t i n g a number o f d e t a i l s which may have p o i n t e d t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h i s s t o r y o r i g i n a l l y d e a l t w i t h an attempted r e v o l t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . M o n t e f i o r e has argued t h a t the Return o f the Twelve and the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand should be regarded as a u n i f i e d n a r r a t i v e " i n as much as both i n t r o d u c t i o n and f e e d i n g s t o r y c o n t a i n p o i n t e r s t o an attempted r e v o l t i n the d e s e r t , the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f which Mark does not seem to have f u l l y r e a l i z e d . " 2 9 Although, Mark may not have r e a l i z e d the o r i g i n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s s t o r y , i t seems t h a t Matthew had grasped i t . T h i s i s e v i d e n t by the f a c t t h a t Matthew omits seven o f the d e t a i l s which p o i n t t o the o r i g i n a l s e t t i n g o f 49 t h i s s t o r y and a l s o makes one v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n . M o n t e f i o r e w r i t e s t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o know whether these omi s s i ons and a l t e r a t i o n a r e due t o Matthew's " m i s -unde r s t and ing o f Mark o r t o d e l i b e r a t e o b f u s c a t i o n . " ^ ° Prom the p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t Matthew engages i n an a n t i - w i l d e r -ness p o l e m i c , i t appears t h a t Matthew d e l i b e r a t e l y changed Ma rk ' s account i n o r d e r t h a t Je su s c o u l d not be i m p l i c a t e d w i t h a r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l r e v o l t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . To c l a r i f y t h i s p o i n t , l e t us see how Matthew d e a l s w i t h seven o f the c l u e s i n Mark which suggest a r e v o l t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . 1. M o n t e f i o r e c l a i m s t h a t the phrase "many were coming and go ing (Mk 6:31)" suggests t h a t the peop le "were engaged i n p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r a M e s s i a n i c u p r i s i n g . " 3 1 Matthew omits t h i s v e r s e . 2. M o n t e f i o r e suggests t h a t ouve6pauov i n Mk 6:33 " i s a v i v i d word which suggests something more than a mere c o n c o u r s e ."3 2 I t suggests a w idespread and c o n c e r t e d move-ment. Matthew, on the o t h e r hand, s t a t e s s imp l y t h a t " t h e y f o l l o w e d h im" (Mt 14:13). 3. I n Mk 6:34a " t h e phrase ' sheep w i thou t a shepherd 1 means a c c o r d i n g to O ld Testament usage, not a c o n g r e g a t i o n w i thou t a l e a d e r , but ' a n army w i thou t a g e n e r a l , a n a t i o n w i thou t a n a t i o n a l l e a d e r ' . i n o t h e r words, the crowd wanted a l e a d e r f o r a M e s s i a n i c movement. Matthew omits t h i s phrase i n h i s account o f the Feed ing o f the F i v e Thou-sand and p l a c e s i t i n ano ther c o n t e x t (Mt 9:36). 4. M o n t e f i o r e e x p l a i n s t h a t Mk 6:34b, "he began to teach them many t h i n g s " , means t h a t "Jesus had t o e x p l a i n I I Ik t o the mob why he c o u l d not accede t o t h e i r wish. ^ Since Matthew had l e f t out the phrase "sheep without a shepherd", J e s u s d i d not have t o e x p l a i n a n ything. Matthew a t t r i b u t e s a d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t y t o Jesus. Mt 14:14 s t a t e s t h a t he "healed t h e i r s i c k . " 5. Mt 14:19 omits the r e f e r e n c e t o the "green" g r a s s o f Mk 6:39* T h i s o m i s s i o n can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic. M o n t e f i o r e w r i t e s : I n the d e s e r t the gras s would have been green o n l y a t Passover time. I t was a t t h i s time of the year t h a t the Messiah was expected t o man i f e s t h i m s e l f . T h i s then would have been the season o f the year f o r a M e s s i a n i c up-r i s i n g . "35 6. M o n t e f i o r e shows t h a t the r e f e r e n c e s t o "companies" and "groups by hundreds and by f i f t i e s " i n Mk 6:39-40 suggest a m i l i t a r y o p e r a t i o n . Matthew omits these phrases i n h i s account. 7. M o n t e f i o r e p o i n t s out t h a t Mk 6:44 emphasizes t h a t the m u l t i t u d e c o n s i s t e d o f men. He concludes t h a t i t i s hard t o imagine t h a t f i v e thousand men would f o l l o w t h e i r l e a d e r u n l e s s they wished t o i n i t i a t e a r e v o l t . Matthew has obscured Mark's emphasis. He r e p o r t s t h a t t h e r e were " f i v e thousand men, be s i d e s women and c h i l d r e n " (Mt 14:21). By mentioning the women and c h i l d r e n , Matthew denies t h a t t h i s c o u l d have been an attempted messianic u p r i s i n g . However, the women and c h i l d r e n f i t i n v e r y w e l l w i t h Matthew's c l a i m t h a t Jesus was i n v o l v e d i n h e a l i n g on t h i s 51 o c c a s i o n (Mt 14:14). Could i t be merely a c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t Matthew omits o r a l t e r s these seven c l u e s ? No; these changes a re too compatible w i t h Matthew's polemic a g a i n s t the w i l d e r n e s s which i s s t a t e d so unequivocably i n Mt 24:26. Matthew's attempt t o obscure these c l u e s , confirms t h a t he saw t h i s account as a "thwarted attempt a t a M e s s i a n i c u p r i s i n g . " ^ The Feeding o f the Four Thousand I n the Feeding o f the Four Thousand (Mk 8:1-10 = Mt 15:32-39) Matthew p a r a l l e l s Mark's use o f eprjuua . I e r s e 137 has noted t h a t Matthew attempts t o b r i n g the Feeding of the Four Thousand i n t o harmony w i t h the F i v e Thousand by combining the bread and f i s h meal i n t o one. By emphasizing the e u c h a r i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the f e e d -i n g , Matthew may have endeavored t o reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y o f any p o l i t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s p e r i c o p e . The s e t t i n g o f t h i s n a r r a t i v e demands a p l a c e i n which food i s n o r m a l l y u n a v a i l a b l e , thereby enhancing the mirac u l o u s nature o f the f e e d i n g . The w i l d e r n e s s p r o v i d e s a s u i t a b l e s e t t i n g , and so Matthew r e t a i n s the r e f e r e n c e t o i t i n h i s account. However, s i n c e Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic i s not f u r t h e r e d by t h i s p e r i c o p e i t i s strange t h a t he does not omit t h i s account. A f t e r a l l , he would not r e a l l y be d e l e t i n g v a l u a b l e t r a d i t i o n , s i n c e h i s account o f the Feeding of the F i v e Thousand i s so v e r y s i m i l a r . We must t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t the Feeding o f the Four Thousand 52 p r e s e n t s us w i t h an e x e g e t i c a l problem. Omissions of Markan Wilderness Pericopae Do Matthew's omissions o f Markan w i l d e r n e s s pericopae serve h i s purpose o f warning a g a i n s t f a l s e m e s s i a n i c w i l d e r -ness hopes? Mk 1:35 r e p o r t s t h a t Jesus "went out t o a w i l d e r -ness p l a c e , and t h e r e he prayed." Mk 1:45 r e p o r t s t h a t Jesus " c o u l d no l o n g e r openly e n t e r a town" and t h e r e f o r e withdrew t o " w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e s . " Matthew omits both o f these r e f e r -ences to the w i l d e r n e s s . As was noted i n the l a s t chapter, both Markan passages, e s p e c i a l l y the l a t t e r , r e v e a l a g r e a t amount o f r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y on the p a r t o f Mark. But to argue t h a t Matthew d e l e t e d these v e r s e s because he f e l t t h a t they were p a r t of the Markan framework r a t h e r than an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the t r a d i t i o n about Jesus, would be to assume an awareness on Matthew's p a r t f o r which we have no evidence. A more reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r these omissions can be formulated i n terms o f Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic. From Mt 24:26 we know t h a t Matthew warns a g a i n s t going out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s . The f a c t t h a t Mark p o r t r a y s Jesus as withdrawing to w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e s , c o u l d t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e a dangerous precedent. S i n c e these two v e r s e s do not p r o v i d e v e r y important t r a d i t i o n s about Jesus, Matthew f e e l s j u s t i f i e d i n d e l e t i n g them from h i s Gospel. 53 I I I . MATTHEW'S REDACTION OF Q We have a l r e a d y seen how Matthew e d i t e d the Q p e r i c -ope o f the Day o f the Son of Man (Mt 24:26-28) i n o r d e r t o b r i n g out h i s own a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic. L e t us now see how he used o t h e r pericopae from Q a l s o r e l e v a n t t o the w i l d e r n e s s theme. Jesus' Words About John Jesus' Words About John (Mt 11:7-19 = Lk 7:24-35) i s d e f i n i t e l y a Q w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e . I t i s not found i n Mark and the accounts i n Matthew and Luke agree q u i t e c l o s e l y , not o n l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y but a l s o w i t h r e s p e c t t o o t h e r d e t a i l s . J esus i s r e p o r t e d as s a y i n g "What d i d you go out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s t o behold? A reed shaken by the wind?" "(Mt 11:7). Why d i d Matthew take over t h i s s a y i n g o f Jesus without t o n i n g down the r e f e r e n c e t o "the w i l d e r n e s s " ? The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n i s q u i t e simple. Matthew d i d not have t o b l u n t t h i s s a y i n g because i t supports h i s a n t i - w i l -derness polemic. The q u e s t i o n s are r h e t o r i c a l . The i m p l i e d answer i s no! The people went out not to see a reed shaken by the wind but t o see "more than a prophet" (Mt 11:9). Jesus now e x p l a i n s t h a t John the B a p t i s t i s t h i s ' prophet. I n e f f e c t , Jesus i s saying, "Don't go out i n t o the w i l d e r -ness t o search f o r the prophet f o r he has come!" T h i s f i t s i n w e l l w i t h Matthew's i d e a s . As a r e s u l t , he can r e t a i n t h i s 54 passage as i t stands i n Q. The Lament Over J e r u s a l e m The l a s t occurrence of the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y to be c o n s i d e r e d i s found i n the p e r i c o p e o f the Lament Over J e r u s a l e m (Mt 23:37-39 = Lk 13:34-35). Lk 13:35 reads "Behold, your house i s f o r s a k e n ! " Some MSS o f Matthew c o n t a i n the same t e x t as Luke, w h i l e o t h e r s add epT)uoc; . "Behold, your house i s f o r s a k e n and d e s o l a t e ( epnuoc;)." N e s t l e ^ i n c l u d e s the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s as a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g i n the apparatus. However, on the b a s i s of the manuscript evidence presented by The Greek New  T e s t a m e n t ^ , a good case i s made f o r i n c l u d i n g the r e f -erence i n the t e x t , r a t h e r than the apparatus. While i t i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h i s p e r i c o p e stems from Q^°, the source o f the word epriuoc; i s not c l e a r . A. B. B r u c e ^ 1 h o l d s t h a t epnu-os i s not n e c e s s a r y t o the meaning o f Mt 23:38. T h i s v e r s e says t h a t the house i s f o r s a k e n and what w i l l happen t o i t i s l e f t t o the i m a g i n a t i o n . Bruce t h e r e f o r e does not b e l i e v e t h a t the o m i s s i o n o f epTiu.0? i n some o f the MSS i s an a s s i m i l a t i o n t o Lk 13:35. He f a v o r s the view t h a t epTjuoc. i s simply an e x p l a n a t o r y ' g l o s s . I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t Q d i d not c o n t a i n the word eptiuos and t h a t Luke preserves the more o r i g i n a l t e x t . More-over, the i n s e r t i o n o f eprpos i n t o Mt 23:38 c o u l d e a s i l y have been the work of Matthew h i m s e l f . A. B. B r u c e ^ 2 c l a i m s t h a t the "house" i n Mt 23:38 55 r e f e r s t o the c i t y . Schlatter**" 3 i n t e r p r e t s i t as r e f e r r i n g t o the temple. W. C. A l l e n e x p l a i n s t h a t "o ounog may mean 44 e i t h e r the c i t y o r the temple." He says t h a t the two meanings are combined i n Mt 23:38. I t should be p o i n t e d out t h a t the context o f t h i s v e r s e suggests t h a t the temple i s r e f e r r e d t o , f o r i n Mt 24:1 we read t h a t "Jesus l e f t the temple." A good case can thus be made f o r the i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n t h a t Matthew i s r e f e r r i n g t o the temple i n t h i s v e r s e . Matthew i s sayi n g , "Behold, your temple i s f o r s a k e n and w i l d e r n e s s - l i k e . " Mt 23:38 may a l s o be an i r o n i c comment on the f a l s e m e s s i a n i c hopes connected w i t h the temple. Matthew, l o o k i n g back a t the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the c i t y and temple i n A. D. 70, may be i m p l y i n g t h a t j u s t as the many mess i a n i c hopes con-nected w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s have come t o naught, so the temple has now become w i l d e r n e s s - l i k e . Here i s your d e s t r o y e d temple; here i s your w i l d e r n e s s hope. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n becomes q u i t e p l a u s i b l e i n the l i g h t o f Mt 24:26. I n t h i s v e r s e Matthew not o n l y warns a g a i n s t going out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s but a l s o a g a i n s t the " i n n e r rooms ( TOLC; TauiEuoic; )." The term xoZq t a u i e t o K ; occurs o n l y i n t h i s one v e r s e i n the e n t i r e New Testament. Arndt and G i n g r i c h ^ t r a n s l a t e x a u L e t o v as "hidden, s e c r e t room." I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the i n n e r rooms c o u l d r e f e r t o the temple. However, as D a v i e s ^ has pointed.out, they c o u l d a l s o r e f e r t o the caves i n the a r e a surrounding Qumran. We may conclude t h a t t h e r e 56 i s a good p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t Matthew h i m s e l f added epr)u.oc; t o the Q s a y i n g r e p o r t e d i n Mt 23:38 i n or d e r t o g i v e a warning a g a i n s t the mes s i a n i c hopes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the temple and/or the Qumran community. The L o s t Sheep We have now d i s c u s s e d a l l o f the r e f e r e n c e s t o the wi l d e r n e s s which Matthew has used i n the context o f Q. However, although i t does not c o n t a i n a d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s , the pa r a b l e o f the Lo s t Sheep i s a l s o r e l e -vant t o the study o f Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic. The p a r a b l e o f the L o s t Sheep i s found i n Mt 18:10-14 and Lk 15:3-7. F o r the purpose o f t h i s d i s c u s s i o n we a r e mainly i n t e r e s t e d i n Mt 18:12 and Lk 15:4. I n Lk 15:4 i t i s r e p o r t e d t h a t the n i n e t y - n i n e sheep are l e f t " i n the w i l d e r n e s s ( ev TT3 epiiuop )" w h i l e i n Mt 18:12 t h e y are l e f t "on the h i l l s ( enl %h opr\ )." What i s the b a s i s f o r t h i s v a r i a t i o n ? Why does Matthew not use the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i -n o logy i n t h i s parable? 47 » Moult on and M i l l i g a n c l a i m t h a t opoc; does not o n l y r e f e r t o mountain but a l s o has the meaning o f d e s e r t i n the p a p y r i . I f t h i s were t r u e f o r Matthew, then Matthew would a c t u a l l y be u s i n g the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i n Mt 18:12. 48 However, Mauser has demonstrated t h a t no p a r a l l e l between w i l d e r n e s s and mountain can be e s t a b l i s h e d i n the Gospel o f Matthew. We must t h e r e f o r e look elsewhere f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h i s v a r i a t i o n between Matthew and Luke. S t r e e t e r h o l d s t h a t the accounts of the parable o f the L o s t Sheep i n Matthew and Luke are not d e r i v e d from the same source. He c l a i m s " t h a t the s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t they were d e r i v e d from Q p o s t u l a t e s too l a r g e an amount of 49 e d i t o r i a l m a n i p u l a t i o n of t h a t source." He t h e r e f o r e 50 concludes t h a t Mt 18:12-14 can be a s s i g n e d to M. B. T. D. 51 Smith^ shares t h i s o p i n i o n . Other s c h o l a r s , however, f e e l t h a t both Matthew's 52 and Luke's accounts are based on Q. Luhrmann ho l d s t h a t Mt 18:10-14 and Lk 15:3-7 o r i g i n a t e w i t h Q. He e x p l a i n s the d i f f e r e n c e s i n terms of the f a c t t h a t Matthew i n t e r p r e t s 53 54 t h i s p a r a b l e i n the sense of a " c h u r c h - r u l e . K i l p a t r i c k agrees t h a t Mt 18:10-14 can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of the use of a s i n g l e source, Q. H a r n a c k 5 5 h o l d s t h a t Mt 18:12-13 and Lk 15:4-7 o r i g i -nate w i t h Q. He c l a i m s t h a t Luke has r e p l a c e d the s p e c i a l (opoc) by the more g e n e r a l (epnuog) term i n Lk 15:4. However, Harnack a l s o l e a v e s open the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t "en! xct opt) and ev xf\ ep^u^ might be r e g a r d e d as t r a n s l a t i o n - v a r i a n t s , i f i t were probable from o t h e r passages t h a t St. Luke had 56 knowledge of the Aramaic o r i g i n a l of Q. An e x p l a n a t i o n i n terms of t r a n s l a t i o n - v a r i a n t s i s 57 not suggested by Harnack alone. Antoine Guillaumont c l a i m s t h a t Mt 18:12-13, Lk 15:3-6 and Logion 107 of the Gospel o f Thomas are a l l independent t r a n s l a t i o n s of the 58 e g same Aramaic source. Matthew B l a c k J c l a i m s t h a t an Aramaic source i n a d d i t i o n t o Q may l i e behind the p a r a b l e o f the L o s t Sheep. Jeremias mentions t h a t , " v e r b a l comparison between Luke 15:4-7 and Mt 18:12-14 r e v e a l s a number of t r a n s l a t i o n a l v a r i a n t s (e.g. ev -cf) e p i ^ i n Lk 15:4 c o r -responds t o inl xot opt) i n Mt 18:12 as the t r a n s l a t i o n o f b ' t u r a , ' i n the h i l l - c o u n t r y ' ) . " - ^ T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n based on t r a n s l a t i o n - v a r i a n t s i s q u i t e c o n v i n c i n g s i n c e t u r a has the t w o f o l d meaning o f mountain and open country, i n c o n t r a s t t o i n h a b i t e d p l a c e s , i n P a l e s t i n i a n S y r i a c . With r e s p e c t t o the word t u r a , Bussby's h y p o t h e s i s should be mentioned. Bussby c l a i m s t h a t no shepherd would leave h i s n i n e t y - n i n e sheep unattended i n the d e s e r t or on the mountains i n o r d e r t o search f o r one s t r a y sheep. He suggests t h a t the shepherd l e f t most o f h i s sheep i n the s a f e t y o f a w a l l e d compound and then went o f f t o look f o r the m i s s i n g one. Bussby bases t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t Jesus d i d not mean t o say t u r a but dura. He says t h a t dura i s the Aramaic r o o t which i s used t o d e s c r i b e the form-i n g o f a c i r c l e i n which c a t t l e are p l a c e d . The misunder-s t a n d i n g between t u r a and dura was c r e a t e d by the f a c t t h a t G a l i l e a n s found i t d i f f i c u l t t o pronounce an i n i t i a l 'd' and t h e r e f o r e o f t e n changed i t t o a ' t ' . Consequently, Jesus' f o l l o w e r s understood t u r a i n s t e a d of dura and the l a t t e r found i t s way i n t o the t r a d i t i o n o f the p a r a b l e o f 59 the L o s t Sheep. The Gospel o f Thomas may g i v e support f o r Bussby's h y p o t h e s i s . Logion 107 reads: Jesus s a i d : The Kingdom i s l i k e a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One o f them went a s t r a y , which was the l a r g e s t . He l e f t behind the n i n e t y -n i n e , he sought f o r the one u n t i l he found i t . Having t i r e d h i m s e l f out, he s a i d t o the sheep: I l o v e thee more than n i n e t y - n i n e . " 2 T h i s t e x t i s s i l e n t on the q u e s t i o n of where the n i n e t y - n i n e sheep were l e f t . The e d i t o r o f t h i s l o g i o n may have n o t i c e d the problem i n v o l v e d i n l e a v i n g the sheep on the mountain o r i n the w i l d e r n e s s and a c c o r d i n g l y omitted any r e f e r e n c e to l o c a t i o n . However, a l l of these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s do not come to g r i p s w i t h the a c t u a l problem. Even i f Bussby i s r i g h t , the f a c t s t i l l remains t h a t Matthew and Luke o r those who t r a n s l a t e d the p a r a b l e i n t o Greek, found t u r a i n t h e i r t r a -d i t i o n . I f v a r i o u s t r a d i t i o n s o f the p a r a b l e o f the L o s t Sheep e x i s t e d , then i t must s t i l l be e x p l a i n e d why Matthew chose the one he d i d . I f the e x p l a n a t i o n i n terms o f t r a n s l a t i o n - v a r i a n t s i s c o r r e c t , then the q u e s t i o n o f why Matthew decided upon a d i f f e r e n t t r a n s l a t i o n than Luke s t i l l remains. Funk p o i n t s out t h a t the p a r a b l e of the L o s t Sheep c o u l d be read "as a commentary on the m i n i s t r y of Jesus which attempts t o j u s t i f y h i s r e j e c t i o n o f m e s s i a n i c groups d w e l l i n g i n the w i l d e r n e s s and h i s movement i n t o the v i l -l a g e s and towns."^ 3 Funk r e a l i z e s , however, t h a t t h i s 60 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a p p l i e s to Luke b e t t e r than to Matthew, f o r i n Matthew t h i s p a r a b l e i s addressed t o the d i s c i p l e s i n c o n t r a s t t o Luke where i t i s addressed t o J e s u s ' opponents who a r e c r i t i c i z i n g him f o r a s s o c i a t i n g w i t h s i n n e r s . Punk i s c o r r e c t when he suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s must be g i v e n to the accounts of the p a r a b l e i n Matthew and Luke. As was p o i n t e d out p r e v i o u s l y , Luhrmann c l a i m s t h a t Mt 18:10-14 must be i n t e r p r e t e d as a c h u r c h - r u l e . Jeremias comes t o a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n . He s t a t e s t h a t the p a r a b l e o f the L o s t Sheep i n Matthew i s "an e c c l e s i o l o g i c a l a l l e g o r y . " ^ The shepherd i s the l e a d e r o f the C h r i s t i a n community and the l o s t sheep i s an e r r i n g member. On the b a s i s o f Mt 18:13 i t must be concluded t h a t the n i n e t y - n i n e " t h a t never went a s t r a y " are the r i g h t e o u s . I f Mt 18:12 would have read " l e a v e the n i n e t y - n i n e i n the w i l d e r n e s s " then t h i s v e r s e would have been open to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t the r i g h t e o u s ones i n the w i l d e r n e s s are the t r u e C h r i s t i a n s . Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would have been i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t w i t h Mt 24:26 which c o n t a i n s a warn-i n g a g a i n s t g o i n g out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s . The ones who go out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s are not the r i g h t e o u s but the m i s i n -formed. Consequently, i t i s on the b a s i s of Matthew's a n t i -w i l d e r n e s s polemic t h a t the sheep are l e f t "on the h i l l s " r a t h e r than " i n the w i l d e r n e s s . " 61 IV. THE ROLE OF MATTHEW'S ANTI-WILDERNESS POLEMIC The foregoing discussion shows that with respect to the wilderness theme, Matthew probably edits Q to a greater extent than he edits Mark. The clearest statement of Matthew's anti-wilderness polemic i s found i n the context of Q. Matthew does not r e f r a i n from i n s e r t i n g references to the wilderness into Q pericopae. In using the Markan source, on the other hand, Matthew never i n s e r t s but merely deletes references to the wilderness. However, with the possible exception of the Markan pericope of the Feeding of the Four Thousand, Matthew modi-f i e s a l l of the references to the wilderness i n h i s sources which are incompatible with h i s anti-wilderness polemic. He does not seem to be interested i n the d i f f e r e n t shades of meaning which Mark attaches to eprjuog and epriuoc. TOTIOC. . To Matthew any word r e l a t i n g to the wilderness i s p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous. The f a c t that Matthew i s so consistent i n the ap-p l i c a t i o n of h i s anti-wilderness polemic must indicate that the expectation of a wonder-working Messiah i n the wilderness posed a r e a l threat to orthodox teaching i n Matthew's com-munity. Any theory dealing with the place of authorship of the Gospel of Matthew must come to terms with t h i s conclusion. 62 CHAPTER IV THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OP LUKE There a re t e n r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Gospel o f Luke: 1:80; 3 : 2 , 4 ; 4 : 2 , 4 2 ; 5 : l 6 ; 7:24; 8 : 2 9 ; 9:12; 15:4. They occur i n the f o l l o w i n g n i n e p e r i c o p a e : The B i r t h o f the B a p t i s t Lk 1:57-80 John the B a p t i s t Lk 3 :1-6 The Temptation Lk 4:1-13 Jesus Departs From Capernaum Lk 4:42-43 The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Lk 5:12-16 Jesus' Words About John Lk 7:24-35 The Gerasene Demoniac Lk 8:26-39 The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand Lk 9:10-17 The L o s t Sheep Lk 15:3-7 I n h i s use of the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y Luke d i f -f e r s from the o t h e r g o s p e l w r i t e r s i n one major r e s p e c t . He i s the o n l y one t o use the p l u r a l of s u b s t a n t i v e epTiuoc; (1 :80; 5:16; 8 : 2 9 ) . I . THE BAPTIST AND THE WILDERNESS The Gospel o f Luke c o n t a i n s the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e nar-r a t i v e s about John the B a p t i s t which i n c l u d e the w i l d e r n e s s terminology: The B i r t h o f the B a p t i s t ( 1 :57-80); John the B a p t i s t ( 3 : 1 - 6 ) ; Jesus' Words About John ( 7 : 2 4 - 3 5 ) . What i s the r o l e o f the w i l d e r n e s s i n these passages? The B i r t h o f the B a p t i s t The f i r s t reference; t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Gospel of Luke i s i n the l a s t v e r s e o f the account o f the B i r t h o f 6 3 the Baptist ( l : 5 7 - 8 0 ) . This verse occurs i n the context of and should be regarded as a "summary statement on John's 2 h i s t o r y from childhood to manhood." And the c h i l d grew and became strong i n s p i r i t , and he was i n the wilderness t i l l the day of his manifestation to I s r a e l . Lk 1 : 8 0 o In t h i s verse epriuoc; occurs i n the p l u r a l . Scobie J suggests that the use of the p l u r a l implies free movement on the part of John the Baptist. Plummer makes a s i m i l a r observation. He suggests that the name of the wilderness i s not given i n Lk 1 : 8 0 "because the point i s , not that he (John the Baptist) l i v e d i n any p a r t i c u l a r desert, but that ti 4 he l i v e d i n desert places and not i n towns and v i l l a g e s . By the use of the p l u r a l of epriuoc; Luke seems to indicate that John the Baptist did not spend h i s formative years i n any one place and that a l l of the places were i n the wilderness. I t i s also s i g n i f i c a n t that Lk 1 : 8 0 states that "he was i n the wilderness t i l l ( ewe; ) the day of h i s manifesta-t i o n . " This indicates that John did not spend h i s entire l i f e i n the wilderness. From the day of h i s manifestation he was active elsewhere. John the" Baptist What i s Luke's i n t e n t i o n i n 1 : 8 0 when he points to 5 the day of John the Baptist's manifestation? As Mauser and Gilmour claim, 1 : 8 0 probably anticipates 3 * 1 - 6 : 64 . . . t h e word o f God came to John the son o f Z e c h a r i a h i n the w i l d e r n e s s ; and he went i n t o a l l the r e g i o n about the J o r d a n , p r e a c h i n g a bapt i sm o f repentance f o r the f o r g i v e n e s s o f s i n s . Lk 3:2b-3 A c c o r d i n g t o the above passage i t seems t h a t John the B a p t i s t ' s day o f m a n i f e s t a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the w i l d e r -ness when the word o f God came t o h im, and t h a t he then l e f t the w i l d e r n e s s and went i n t o the r e g i o n about the J o r d a n . Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a l s o f a v o r e d by Marxsen* 7, who says t h a t Luke sepa ra te s the c a l l o f J o h n , which o c c u r r e d i n the w i l d e r n e s s (3:2), f rom the a c t i v i t y o f John which takes p l a c e i n the r e g i o n about the J o r d a n (3*3)-The above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, seems to be i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Lk 3 : 4b, where the prophecy f rom Is 40:3 i s quoted. A c c o r d i n g to t h i s passage, John wants t o be " t h e o v o i c e o f one c r y i n g i n the w i l d e r n e s s . " Funk suggests a way around t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y . He c l a i m s t h a t the lower J o r d a n v a l l e y was a p a r t o f the w i l d e r n e s s . Thus " t h e w i l d e r n e s s " (3:2) and " t h e r e g i o n about the J o r d a n " c o u l d r e f e r t o the same a r e a . A l though t h i s may be c o r r e c t , i t appears t h a t Luke i s not aware o f such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . McCown has suggested t h a t the e x p r e s s i o n " a l l the r e g i o n about the J o r d a n " i n Lk 3:3 and Mt 3:5 stems f rom " naaa r) Tcepi'xwpoc; xou ' Iop6dvou "9 wh ich r e f e r s t o " t h e c i r c u m s c r i b e d and l i m i t e d r e g i o n a t the head o f the Dead S e a . " 1 0 However, McCown admits t h a t t h i s phrase has been mi sunders tood by both Luke and Matthew. He conc ludes t h a t 6 5 Luke i s c o n s i s t e n t i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between the w i l d e r n e s s where John was reared and r e c e i v e d h i s c a l l , and the r e g i o n about the Jordan where he preached. McCown suggests t h a t i n t h i s way Luke managed t o l i n k John w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s t r a -d i t i o n and a l s o t o answer the q u e s t i o n , "How d i d John get an audience i n the w i l d e r n e s s ? " 1 1 On the b a s i s o f these arguments, i t seems q u i t e probable t h a t Luke drew a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between John's p r e p a r a t i o n i n the w i l d e r n e s s and h i s a c t i v i t y i n the r e g i o n about the Jordan, even i f t h i s meant b e i n g s l i g h t l y i n c o n s i s t e n t i n the l i g h t o f I s 40:3* I t was noted t h a t the use o f the p l u r a l o f epriuoc; i n Lk 1 : 8 0 gave r i s e t o the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t John was v e r y e l u s i v e as he roamed about the w i l d e r n e s s e s . T h i s impres-s i o n i s r e i n f o r c e d by Lk 3:3« I t should be noted t h a t Mt 3s5, the p a r a l l e l passage t o Lk 3=3, uses the phrase " a l l the r e g i o n about the Jordan" as a "source o f John's m u l t i t u d i n o u s a u d i e n c e . " 1 2 W i n k 1 3 p o i n t s out t h a t Matthew i m p l i e s i n t h i s v e r s e t h a t John was a c t i v e i n a f i x e d spot and t h a t a l l the people came to him. Lk 3*3 prese n t s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e . I n s t e a d o f h a v i n g a l l the people from the r e g i o n about the Jordan come t o him, John the B a p t i s t goes t h e r e h i m s e l f . As McCown has p o i n t e d out, t h i s may r e f l e c t an attempt by Luke t o e x p l a i n the quandary o f John's f i n d i n g h e a r e r s i n the 14 w i l d e r n e s s . However, the f a c t remains, t h a t through t h i s change John i s p o r t r a y e d as moving around f r e e l y . Conzelmann" 1 66 suggests t h a t Lk 3:3 supports the i d e a t h a t John engaged i n i t i n e r a n t preaching. Jesus' Words About John Whereas the f o r e g o i n g r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s o c c u r r e d i n the context o f L ( i . e . Lk 1:80) and i n the Markan source ( i . e . Lk 3:2,4), the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r -ness i n Lk 7:24 i s dependent upon Q. I n the Q p e r i c o p e , J e s u s ' Words About John (Lk 7:24-35 = Mt 11:7-19), Jesus i s r e p o r t e d as ha v i n g s a i d : What d i d you go out i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s t o behold? A reed shaken by the wind? Lk 7:24 Wink 1^ uses the above passage t o argue t h a t John i s a s s o c i a t e d more w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s than w i t h the Jordan s i n c e Jesus h i m s e l f i d e n t i f i e s John w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . McCown 1 7, on the o t h e r hand, says t h a t Lk 7:24ff. makes i t c l e a r t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s was i n the Jordan V a l l e y . He p o i n t s out t h a t reeds would not be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the water-l e s s w i l d e r n e s s o f Judea. He concludes; " C l e a r l y Jesus' mental p i c t u r e o f John p l a c e s him by the r i v e r . " Depending on one's p o i n t o f view, Lk 7:24 can e a s i l y be used t o argue f o r or a g a i n s t John the B a p t i s t ' s a s s o c i a -t i o n w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s r a t h e r than the Jordan. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s Q r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s should not be used as a d e c i d i n g f a c t o r i n de t e r m i n i n g the p l a c e o f John's a c t i v i t y . 67 I I . THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BAPTIST AND JESUS 19 Marxsen p o i n t s out t h a t the m i n i s t r y o f John i s c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from t h a t o f Jesus, s i n c e Luke i n -s e r t s a r e p o r t o f the imprisonment o f John (3:19-20) between the p r e a c h i n g o f John and the baptism of Jesus. Jesus 1' baptism thus occurs a f t e r John's imprisonment. While Mk 1:9 and Mt 3:13 r e p o r t t h a t Jesus was b a p t i z e d by John, Luke f a i l s t o i n d i c a t e by whom Jesus was b a p t i z e d . T h i s shows t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o Luke, John's r o l e i n the baptism o f Jesus was i n s i g n i f i c a n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , Marxsen concludes t h a t a t the time o f Jesus' baptism, the s t o r y o f John had r e a l l y come t o an end. A c c o r d i n g t o Luke, John had no p l a c e i n the kingdom. The imprisonment o f John i s not the o n l y passage i n d i c a t i n g the s e p a r a t i o n between John and Jesus. Between the account o f the baptism (3:21-22) and the tempt a t i o n o f Jesu s (4:1-13), Luke i n s e r t s the genealogy of Jesus. A l -though Luke d i d not mention John i n the baptism of Je s u s , he may s t i l l have f e a r e d t h a t by i m p l i c a t i o n , John would become a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s t o r y . I n o r d e r t o make a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r t h a t John and Jesus should be viewed s e p a r a t e l y , Luke i n s e r t e d the genealogy between the accounts o f the m i n i s t r i e s o f John and Jesus. Conzelmann a l s o contends s t r o n g l y t h a t Luke draws a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between J e s u s and John. He w r i t e s : "In the pre-Lucan t r a d i t i o n John i s understood from the standpoint o f the dawn o f the new e s c h a t o l o g i c a l age."^ u However, i n the Gospel o f Luke: John no l o n g e r marks the a r r i v a l of the new aeon, but the d i v i s i o n between two epochs i n the one continuous s t o r y , such as i s d e s c r i b e d i n Lk 16:16. The e s c h a t o l o g i c a l events do not break out a f t e r John, but a new stage i n the process o f s a l v a t i o n i s reached, John h i m s e l f s t i l l b e l o n g i n g t o the e a r l i e r o f the two epochs which meet a t t h i s p o i n t . 2 1 Conzelmann then proceeds t o demonstrate t h a t Luke uses g e o g r a p h i c a l f a c t o r s t o make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between Jesus and John c l e a r . He p o i n t s out, "According t o Luke, a f t e r h i s Baptism Jesus has no more c o n t a c t w i t h the Jordan or even w i t h i t s s u r r o u n d i n g s . 1 , 2 2 Conzelmann concludes t h a t "the Jordan i s the r e g i o n o f the B a p t i s t , the r e g i o n o f the o l d e r a , whereas the m i n i s t r y o f Jesus l i e s e l s e w h e r e . " 2 3 Conzelmann adds, "Thus the l o c a l i t y o f the B a p t i s t becomes remarkably vague. Luke can a s s o c i a t e him n e i t h e r w i t h Judea nor w i t h G a l i l e e , f o r these are both areas o f Jes u s ' a c t i v -i t y . " 24 Although t h e r e i s some t r u t h t o t h i s g e o g r a p h i c a l a n a l y s i s , Conzelmann does tend t o minimize some d i s c r e p -a n c i e s . He f a i l s t o note t h a t Luke not o n l y uses geograph-i c a l f a c t o r s t o d i s t i n g u i s h between Jesus and John, but a l s o t o e s t a b l i s h a s i m i l a r i t y . F o r example, i t w i l l be shown t h a t i n the p e r i c o p e o f the Temptation (4:1-13), Luke uses the w i l d e r n e s s f o r the l a t t e r purpose. I I I . JESUS AND THE WILDERNESS 69 I n the f o l l o w i n g s i x pericopae the w i l d e r n e s s i s mentioned i n the course o f the t r a v e l s o r t e a c h i n g o f Je s u s : The Temptation : ,Lk 4:1-13 Jesus Departs From Capernaum Lk 4:42-43 The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Lk 5:12-16 The Gerasene Demoniac Lk 8:26-39 The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand Lk 9:10-17 The L o s t Sheep Lk 15:3-7 The Temptation Conzelmann c l a i m s t h a t an attempt t o l o c a t e the w i l d e r n e s s i n the per i c o p e o f the Temptation (4:1-13) i s p o i n t l e s s , s i n c e i t "forms an episode between the Jordan 25 and G a l i l e e , s y m b o l i z i n g the s e p a r a t i o n . " He a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t Lk 4:13 i m p l i e s t h a t the temptation i s f i n i s h e d . From t h i s f a c t he concludes t h a t Luke b e l i e v e s t h a t "a p e r i o d f r e e from Satan i s now beginning, an epoch o f a s p e c i a l k i n d i n the c e n t r e o f the whole course o f redemptive h i s t o r y . " 2 6 Although Conzelmann makes a s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t i n showing t h a t Luke uses the w i l d e r n e s s episode t o separate two p e r i o d s i n an ongoing H e i l s g e s c h i c h t e , i t must a l s o be s t r e s s e d t h a t Jesus' s t a y i n the w i l d e r n e s s p r o v i d e s a p o i n t o f c o n t a c t w i t h the s t o r y o f John the B a p t i s t . Luke i s the o n l y e v a n g e l i s t who makes q u i t e c l e a r t h a t John was r a i s e d and c a l l e d i n the w i l d e r n e s s and subse-q u e n t l y began h i s a c t i v e m i n i s t r y i n the r e g i o n about the 70 Jordan. Jesus' c a r e e r i s p o r t r a y e d i n a s i m i l a r way. He spends some time i n the w i l d e r n e s s (Lk 4:2) and immediately t h e r e a f t e r launches upon an a c t i v e c a r e e r i n G a l i l e e (Lk 4:14). I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t both Jesus and John are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s , s i n c e the prophecy o f Is 40:3 i s g i v e n i n i t s c h r i s t o l o g i c a l form i n Lk 3:4. Jesus Departs From Capernaum The p e r i c o p e , Jesus Departs From Capernaum (4:42-43) i s based on the Markan source. However, whereas Mk 1:35 s t a t e s t h a t Jesus went t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e t o pray, Lk 4:42 simply s t a t e s t h a t Jesus went t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e . T h i s o m i s s i o n i s v e r y p e c u l i a r s i n c e Luke tends t o s t r e s s prayer. F o r example, the Widow and the Judge (Lk 18:1-8) and the Pha r i s e e and T a x - C o l l e c t o r (Lk 18:10-14) are two p a r a b l e s i n L which s t r e s s prayer. I n the pe r i c o p e o f the Baptism o f J e s u s , Luke i s the o n l y s y n o p t i c e v a n g e l i s t who mentions t h a t the S p i r i t came upon Jesus w h i l e he was p r a y i n g (Lk 3:21-22). However, even though the omis s i o n o f the r e f e r e n c e to p r a y e r i s d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n , the f a c t remains t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i n Lk 4:42 i s a p o i n t between Capernaum and "the oth e r c i t i e s " (4:43), not a p l a c e o f r e t r e a t as i n Mark. The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Let us now see how Luke u t i l i z e s the w i l d e r n e s s 71 t e r m i n o l o g y i n the Markan summary statement a t the end of the pe r i c o p e o f the H e a l i n g o f a Leper (Mk 1:40-45 = Lk 5:12-16). Whereas i n the pe r i c o p e , Jesus Departs From Capernaum, Luke omits Mark's r e f e r e n c e t o prayer, here i n the p e r i c o p e o f the H e a l i n g o f a Leper, Luke adds such a r e f e r e n c e t o Mark's account. Although the reason f o r t h i s change i s not c l e a r , Luke has simply t r a n s f e r r e d the p r a y i n g from Mk 1:35 t o Mk 1:45. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the p l u r a l o f epnuos occurs i n Lk 5:16. Plummer grasps the r e a l meaning o f t h i s v e r s e when he paraphrases i t as f o l l o w s : "But He, on H i s p a r t , i n c o n t r a s t t o the m u l t i t u d e s who came t o see Him, was i n ret i r e m e n t i n the d e s e r t s , and i n p r a y e r . " 2 ^ By u s i n g the p l u r a l o f epr)u.og , Luke circumvents the problem o f geograph-i c a l l o c a l i t y , but s t i l l i n d i c a t e s t h a t Jesus sought the s o l i t u d e o f the w i l d e r n e s s f o r prayer. The Gerasene Demoniac The source f o r Lk 8:26-39 i s the Markan p e r i c o p e o f the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1-20). I n f o l l o w i n g t h i s source Luke makes o n l y one major a d d i t i o n . Between Mk 5:8 and 9, Luke i n s e r t s the f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t o r y note: F o r many a time i t had s e i z e d him; he was kept under guard, and bound w i t h c h a i n s and f e t t e r s , but he broke the bonds and was d r i v e n by the demon i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s ( elq xaq eprju^ous). Lk 8:29 S i n c e t h i s v e r s e has no p a r a l l e l i n Mark o r Matthew 72 and appears t o be an e x p l a n a t o r y note, i t can be a s s i g n e d t o the r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y o f Luke. I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t i t belongs t o a w r i t t e n o r o r a l source L. What i s the f u n c t i o n o f the w i l d e r n e s s i n t h i s v e r s e ? Luke says t h a t the demon drove the man i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s . oft Plummer u p o i n t s out t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s was regarded t o be the home o f e v i l s p i r i t s . Perhaps Lk 8:29 r e f l e c t s such a view. S i n c e the demon's home was the w i l d e r n e s s , he would n a t u r a l l y want t o d r i v e the man t h e r e . The use of the p l u r a l o f epriuoc; i n d i c a t e s t h a t Luke i s not t h i n k i n g o f a p a r t i c -u l a r w i l d e r n e s s . Luke merely i n t e n d s t o show t h a t the w i l -derness i n g e n e r a l i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h demons. Matthew, on the o t h e r hand, goes a step f u r t h e r . He i m p l i e s t h a t the messi a n i c groups i n the w i l d e r n e s s a re e v i l i n s o f a r as they m i s l e a d the people by p r o c l a i m i n g a f a l s e m e s s i a n i c hope. Although Luke makes i t q u i t e c l e a r i n 8:29 t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h demons, t o i n t e r p r e t a l l the w i l d e r n e s s pericopae i n the Gospel o f Luke i n terms of t h i s s o l e c r i t e r i o n i s not j u s t i f i a b l e . F or example, i n Lk 5*16 where Jesus prays i n the w i l d e r n e s s , o r i n Lk 7:24 where Jesus i s p o r t r a y e d as l i n k i n g John the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s , t h e r e a r e no s i g n s t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s i s an e v i l p l a c e . T h i s f a c t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Gospel o f Luke does not present a u n i f i e d w i l d e r n e s s concept. 73 The Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand While g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w i n g the Markan source i n the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand (Mk 6:30-44 = Lk 9:10-17), Luke p a r a l l e l s o n l y one o f i t s t h r e e uses o f the w i l d e r n e s s terminology. Luke omits Mk 6:31 and 32, t h a t i s , the two r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e which occur i n Mark's i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the f e e d i n g . Luke thus e l i m i n a t e s Mark's emphasis on the w i l d e r n e s s s e t t i n g o f the f e e d i n g . Jesus and h i s d i s c i p l e s a re not p o r t r a y e d as withdrawing t o a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e , hut "apart t o a c i t y c a l l e d B e t h s a i d a " (Lk 9^10). However, i n the a c t u a l n a r r a t i v e of the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand, Luke p a r a l l e l s Mark i n s o f a r as the d i s c i p l e s a d v i s e Jesus t o send the crowd away, as t h e r e i s no food a v a i l a b l e t o them i n the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e (Lk 9:12). How c o u l d Luke c l a i m i n the same context t h a t Jesus and the d i s c i p l e s "withdrew a p a r t t o a c i t y c a l l e d Bethsaida" (9:10) and "we are here i n a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e " (9:12)? How c o u l d he p o r t r a y Bethsaida as a w i l d e r n e s s place? The o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t Luke " o b v i o u s l y has no a c c u r a t e c o n c e p t i o n o f the geography of P a l e s t i n e " 2 ^ o f f e r s no s o l u t i o n i n t h i s case. I t would be d i f f i c u l t t o confuse any c i t y w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was problematic t o l a t e r copy-i s t s . Some of the MSS r e f l e c t attempts t o improve Lk 9:10, i n o r d e r t o b r i n g i t i n l i n e w i t h the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e i n Lk 9:12. Conzelmann p o i n t s out t h a t 74 "D a t l e a s t improves t h i s i n t o a v i l l a g e , e v i d e n t l y f o l -lowing v. 12, a c c o r d i n g t o which t h e r e i s no ' c i t y ' i n the v i c i n i t y . The o r i g i n a l t e x t o f Codex S i n a i t i c u s goes f u r t h e r : toicov epnuov ."3° Did Luke have t h e o l o g i c a l reasons which prompted him t o s u b s t i t u t e B e t h s a i d a f o r Mark's w i l d e r n e s s place? T h i s does not seem l i k e l y s i n c e Luke does not h e s i t a t e t o p a r a l l e l Mark's account o f Jesus' r e t r e a t i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n 5:16 (Mk 1:45). As was p o i n t e d out p r e v i o u s l y , Matthew d e l e t e d the seven r e f e r e n c e s i n Mark's account o f the Feeding of the F i v e Thousand which p o i n t e d t o a p o s s i b l e r e v o l t i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Does Luke do the same? No; a l t h o u g h Luke omits f i v e out o f the seven r e f e r e n c e s , the two which he r e t a i n s are q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t . He f o l l o w s Mark i n s a y i n g t h a t t h e r e were f i v e thousand men (Lk 9:14, Mk 6:44) and t h a t they s a t down " i n companies, about f i f t y each" (Lk 9:14). T h e r e f o r e i t cannot be demonstrated t h a t Luke i s i n v o l v e d i n an a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic i n t h i s passage. The s o l u t i o n t o the problem o f the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f " c i t y " and " w i l d e r n e s s " i s t o be found i n Luke's departure from Mark's o u t l i n e . Between 9:17 and 18, Luke omits Mk 6:45-8:26. T h i s Markan s e c t i o n both begins (6:45) and ends (8:22) w i t h n a r r a t i v e s l o c a l i z e d i n B e t h s a i d a . Although Luke omits Mk 6:45-8:26 he s t i l l wants t o keep the r e f e r e n c e to Bethsaida. He accomplishes t h i s by t a k i n g Jesus and h i s d i s c i p l e s t o B e t h s a i d a b e f o r e the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand i n s t e a d of a f t e r as i s the case i n Mk 6:45. Gilmour p o i n t s out t h a t although t h i s change " i n v o l v e s the crowds t h a t f o l l o w e d Jesus i n a j o u r n e y o f t e n m i l e s and more, and o v e r l o o k s the f a c t t h a t the succeeding n a r r a t i v e was o r i g i n a l l y l o c a l i z e d 1 i n a l o n e l y p l a c e ' (Lk 9:12)" J i t does provide a good t r a n s i -t i o n , thus masking the omission o f Mk 6:45-8:26 between Lk 9:17 and 18. The L o s t Sheep Luke's v e r s i o n o f the parable o f the L o s t Sheep s t a t e s : What man o f you, having a hundred sheep, i f he has l o s t one of them, does not leave the n i n e t y -nine i n the w i l d e r n e s s (ev xp kpr\ix<4>), and go a f t e r the one which i s l o s t , u n t i l he f i n d s i t ? (Lk 15:4) I n the pre v i o u s chapter i t was poi n t e d out t h a t t h e r e i s some disagreement among s c h o l a r s as t o whether the parable of the Los t Sheep which i s found i n both Luke and Matthew stems from a s i n g l e source Q, o r from a double t r a d i -t i o n . I f the l a t t e r i s t r u e , then i t c o u l d be argued t h a t the p a r a b l e o f the Los t Sheep i n Luke i s merely one o f the many pa r a b l e s o f L. However, f o r the purpose of t h i s study, i t i s not necessary t o pursue the problem of the source o f t h i s p arable any f u r t h e r , s i n c e Luke does not seem t o p l a c e g r e a t importance on the use of the w i l d e r n e s s terminology i n t h i s passage. In c o n t r a s t t o Matthew, Luke does not seem t o view t h i s p arable a l l e g o r i c a l l y . Jeremias shows t h a t Luke r a t h e r than Matthew has preserved the o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n f o r t h i s p a r a b l e . For Luke, the meaning of t h i s p arable seems to be, "the r e i s j o y i n the h e a r t o f God when one of the v e r y l e a s t i s s a v e d . " J J Funk's-' sug g e s t i o n t h a t t h i s p a r a b l e was seen as a commentary on Jesus' r e j e c t i o n o f messianic groups d w e l l i n g i n the w i l d e r n e s s , may have been t r u e f o r some C h r i s t i a n s i n the f i r s t century. I t i s v e r y q u e s t i o n a b l e , however, whether Luke viewed i t i n t h i s way, s i n c e no a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic o f t h i s k i n d i s e v i d e n t i n the remainder o f h i s G o s p e l . 3 5 IV. AN INDICATOR OF LUKE'S REDACTIONAL ACTIVITY I n the f o u r Gospels, the p l u r a l , s u b s t a n t i v e form o f epriuoc. occurs o n l y i n Lk 1:80, 5:l6 and 8:29. Let us now take a c l o s e r look a t these t h r e e v e r s e s . Although the f i r s t two chapters o f Luke are gen-e r a l l y a s s i g n e d t o L, Lk 1:80 should not be ass i g n e d t o t h i s source. Lk 1:80 i s a t r a n s i t i o n a l statement which l i n k s the t r a d i t i o n o f John's b i r t h (Lk 1:1-79) w i t h the day o f h i s m a n i f e s t a t i o n t o I s r a e l , t o l d i n 3:2ff. Lk 1:80 thus b r i d g e s L t r a d i t i o n ( i . e . Lk 1:1-79) wit h Markan t r a -d i t i o n ( i . e . Lk 3: 2 f f . ) . T h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l v e r s e should be ass i g n e d t o Luke's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Although Lk 5:l6 i s dependent on Mk 1:45, i t does b e t r a y Luke's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Luke not o n l y adds t h a t Jesus prayed but even changes the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y from e n ' e p r j i i o i s TOTXOIC; (Mk 1:45) t o EV xaic; E p r i n o i g . Since Lk 8:29 i s an e x p l a n a t o r y note which should be as s i g n e d t o the r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y o f Luke, then a l l the ver s e s i n which the p l u r a l , s u b s t a n t i v e form o f Eprjuoc; occurs are h i g h l y r e d a c t i o n a l i n c h a r a c t e r . T h i s p o i n t s t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Luke h i m s e l f n a t u r a l l y uses the p l u r a l . Why does Luke p r e f e r the p l u r a l i n h i s r e d a c t i o n a l passages? I t was noted p r e v i o u s l y t h a t the p l u r a l makes the w i l d e r n e s s a v e r y i n d e f i n i t e l o c a l i t y . In t h i s way Luke i s not bound by g e o g r a p h i c a l f a c t o r s . For example, i n 1:80 Luke may be u s i n g the p l u r a l i n o r d e r to i n d i c a t e t h a t John d i d not spend h i s c h i l d h o o d i n any one p l a c e . With r e f e r e n c e t o Lk 1:80, Pryke s t a t e s t h a t " t h i s c h i l d h o o d r e f e r e n c e t o the d e s e r t as h i s s c h o o l i n g has g i v e n scope t o a l l k i n d s o f s p e c u l a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o h i s c o n j e c t u r a l a d o p t i o n by the Essenes, i d e s t £ s i c J the Qumran s e c t a r i a n s . " For example, Leaney s t a t e s t h a t the phrase "was i n the d e s e r t s " (Lk 1:80), "may h a l f i n d i c a t e , 37 h a l f c o n c e a l t h a t John was adopted by Essenes." Brownlee a l s o f a v o r s such a view when he s t a t e s , "He may even have been r e a r e d by Essenes, f o r Luke r e p r e s e n t s John as having gone out i n t o the d e s e r t as a mere boy (Lk l ^ O ) . " - 5 However, s i n c e i t has been shown t h a t Lk 1:80 i s r e d a c t i o n a l i n c h a r a c t e r , a l l s p e c u l a t i o n about John being 78 a t Qumran i s f u t i l e . Lk 1:80 i s used as p r e p a r a t i o n f o r 3 : 2 f f . Gilmour may t h e r e f o r e be r i g h t when he comments upon Lk 1:80: That John's youth was spent i n the w i l d e r n e s s — i . e . , i n s p a r s e l y s e t t l e d d i s t r i c t s r a t h e r than i n d e s e r t s — m a y be Luke's d e d u c t i o n from the t r a d i -t i o n a l scene o f the B a p t i s t ' s m i n i s t r y . 3 9 With r e s p e c t t o John's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Qumran, McCasland's study of "The Way"^° i s s i g n i f i c a n t . By a comparison o f passages such as I s 40 : 3 , Lk 1:76, A c t s 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22 t o passages from the Manual o f D i s -c i p l i n e (IQS) McCasland comes t o the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n . We conclude t h e r e f o r e t h a t the Way ( h odoq , "]f")7i7) as a d e s i g n a t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y was d e r i v e d from I s a 40:3 and t h a t i t i s an a b b r e v i a t e d form of "the way o f the Lord"; t h a t the i d i o m 7 ^ w a s used i n a s i m i l a r sense by Qumran as a d e s i g n a t i o n o f i t s l i f e ; t h a t the C h r i s t i a n s p r o b a b l y d e r i v e d the i d i o m u l t i m a t e l y from Qumran; and t h a t the agent of the t r a n s m i s s i o n was John the B a p t i s t . 4 1 McCasland's f i r s t two c o n c l u s i o n s seem t o r e s t upon good evidence. On the o t h e r hand, the l a s t two c o n c l u s i o n s — i . e . , t h a t the C h r i s t i a n s d e r i v e d the i d i o m from Qumran and t h a t John the B a p t i s t was the agent o f the t r a n s m i s s i o n — seem to be founded upon pure s p e c u l a t i o n . However, even i f they were t r u e , i t would s t i l l be n e c e s s a r y to show t h a t Luke was aware o f these f a c t s . We must t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t the r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s ( p l u r a l ) i n Lk 1:80 does not e s t a b l i s h a c o n n e c t i o n between John the B a p t i s t and the Essenes. 79 V. THE WILDERNESS AND LUKE'S CHRISTOLOGY In the t h r e e i n s t a n c e s where Luke uses the p l u r a l form o f s u b s t a n t i v e eprjuos t h e r e seems to be a c o n s i s t e n t use o f the w i l d e r n e s s as a d e s i g n a t i o n f o r a v e r y e l u s i v e l o c a l i t y . However, i n g e n e r a l , Luke's treatment o f the w i l d e r n e s s pericopae from Mark and Q does not i n d i c a t e t h a t he has a s t r o n g , c o n s i s t e n t concept of the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s has been demonstrated by an exegesis of the w i l d e r n e s s pas-sages which Luke i n c l u d e s i n h i s Gospel. Luke's om i s s i o n of r e f e r e n c e s to the w i l d e r n e s s from h i s sources a l s o does not p r o v i d e a c l u e f o r a g e n e r a l view. Luke omits the Markan w i l d e r n e s s p e r i c o p e o f the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mk 8:1-10). However, t h i s o m i s s i o n i s simply a consequence o f the f a c t t h a t Mk 6:45-8:26 has no p a r a l l e l i n the Gospel of Luke. Likew i s e , the l a c k o f s t r e s s on the w i l d e r n e s s s e t t i n g i n the Feeding of the F i v e Thousand must be seen i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Luke's 42 g r e a t omission. Although the reason f o r the g r e a t omis-s i o n i s hard to grasp, i t i s c e r t a i n l y not based on an attempt to d e l e t e a few r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s . What c o u l d be the reason f o r Luke's r a t h e r n e u t r a l o r even p o s i t i v e view toward the concept of the w i l d e r n e s s ? Perhaps Luke's c h r i s t o l o g i c a l view can g i v e an answer t o 43 t h i s q u e s t i o n . Weeden ^ maintains t h a t Luke was f a v o r a b l y 8o i n c l i n e d t o the $eCoc, ayrjp t ype o f c h r i s t o l o g y . Conse-q u e n t l y , he p re sen ted Je su s and a l s o the a p o s t l e s as $etoi av6pe$. A mess iah who worked s i gn s and wonders i n the w i l -d e r n e s s , w h i l e o f f e n s i v e t o Matthew, would t h e r e f o r e "be t h e o l o g i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e to Luke. We must conc lude t h a t Luke e i t h e r suppor ted the type o f r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i c hopes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s a g a i n s t which Matthew r e a c t e d o r , more l i k e l y , t h a t he was not aware o f them. For Luke the w i l d e r n e s s was not a t h e o l o g i c a l l y dangerous concept as i t was f o r Matthew. 81 CHAPTER V THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN There are only f i v e references to the wilderness i n the Gospel of John. In contrast to the synoptic gospel w r i t e r s 1 , John i s very consistent i n h i s use of wilderness terminology. He uses only the singular, substantive form of epnu-oc; . In Jn 1:23, h eprpoc, occurs i n the general context of the Testimony of John (1:19-37). 2 This s p e c i f i c usage i s based on the text of the prophecy of Is 40:3-In Jn 3:14; 6:31 and 49, h epnu.oc; refers to the wilderness of the sojourn. These three references occur i n the following two narratives: ii Nicodemus and the New B i r t h Jn 3:1-21 Jesus as the Bread of Life- 5 Jn 6:1-71 The f i n a l reference to the wilderness occurs i n Jn 11:54. Here Jesus i s represented as going to a town near the wilderness i n order to escape from h i s enemies who were p l o t t i n g to k i l l him as a reaction to the popularity he gained through the r a i s i n g of Lazarus. I. THE WILDERNESS THEME IN THE SIGNS SOURCE We have seen that the use of sources plays an im-portant role i n the wilderness theme of the Synoptic Gospels. Let us now see i f t h i s i s also an important fa c t o r i n the 82 Gospel o f John. Judging on the b a s i s of a comparison between the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n John and the s y n o p t i c s , i t must be con-eluded t h a t Gardner-Smith i s r i g h t i n suggesting t h a t the author of the Gospel o f John d i d not use the Synoptic Gospels as sources. John's use of a s i g n s source, on the o t h e r hand, i s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study. L e t us t u r n to R. T. F o r t n a ' s book, The Gospel o f S i g n s , to see how t h i s source may have i n f l u e n c e d John's view o f the w i l d e r n e s s . The B a p t i s t T r a d i t i o n Of the f i v e r e f e r e n c e s to the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Gospel o f John, F o r t n a i n c l u d e s o n l y J n 1:23 i n h i s recon-s t r u c t e d t e x t o f the Gospel of Signs. However, even t h i s one r e f e r e n c e i s not one o f the passages b e l o n g i n g beyond a l l doubt t o the s i g n s source. I n h i s r e c o n s t r u c t e d t e x t , F o r t n a p l a c e s J n 1:23 i n parentheses. The parentheses draw a t t e n t i o n t o "words o r phrases which are not c e r t a i n l y t o be a s s i g n e d t o the source." F o r t n a l e a v e s open the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t J n 1:23 c o u l d d e r i v e from the s i g n s source o r from an independent 8 B a p t i s t t r a d i t i o n . He p o i n t s out t h a t a l l the o t h e r Old Testament c i t a t i o n s i n the s i g n s source are found i n the p a s s i o n n a r r a t i v e . ^ He a l s o shows t h a t J n 1:23, i n c o n t r a s t to the Synoptic Gospels, puts the prophecy from Is 40:3 on the l i p s o f the B a p t i s t . 1 0 F o r t n a e x p l a i n s t h a t t h i s i s 83 not n e c e s s a r i l y t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o John's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . The p o r t r a y a l o f the B a p t i s t as c l a i m i n g the r o l e o f "the v o i c e of one c r y i n g i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (Jn 1:23), i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the B a p t i s t ' s r o l e as a witness i n the s i g n s source. Although F o r t n a i s unable to decide whether J n 1:23 d e r i v e s from the s i g n s source or from an independent B a p t i s t t r a d i t i o n , he does conclude t h a t t h i s v e r s e should not be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of dependence upon the S y n o p t i c G o s p e l s 1 1 o r i n terms o f John's work. The r o l e o f the B a p t i s t as a witness i s not o n l y 12 s t r e s s e d by F o r t n a but a l s o by o t h e r s c h o l a r s . Dodd c l a i m s t h a t John i s concerned w i t h p r e s e n t i n g the B a p t i s t i n the c h a r a c t e r o f a w i t n e s s . He goes on to say t h a t i n view o f the Manual o f D i s c i p l i n e " i t i s by no means u n l i k e l y t h a t the B a p t i s t should have d e l i b e r a t e l y set h i m s e l f t o f i l l the r o l e o f the V o i c e . ""^ Dodd concludes t h a t the B a p t i s t may have used Is 40:3 t o d e f i n e h i s own m i s s i o n . Consequently, the Gospel o f John may be c l o s e r t o the a c t u a l f a c t s about the m i s s i o n of the B a p t i s t than the Synoptic Gospels which do not put I s 40:3 on the l i p s o f the B a p t i s t . 14 Wink a l s o sees the B a p t i s t i n the r o l e o f a witness i n the f o u r t h Gospel. I t i s the B a p t i s t ' s f u n c t i o n " t o w i t -ness t h a t J e s u s i s the C h r i s t . " 1 ^ Wink concludes t h a t "the F o u r t h E v a n g e l i s t h o l d s up b e f o r e the church the r e p resen-t a t i o n o f John as a 'type' o f the i d e a l C h r i s t i a n evange-l i s t . " 1 6 84 A c c o r d i n g l y , i t seems reasonable to conclude t h a t the emphasis of J n 1:23 i s on the r o l e o f the B a p t i s t as a 17 w i t n e s s , not on the w i l d e r n e s s . Marxsen 1 even goes so f a r as t o c l a i m t h a t the f o u r t h e v a n g e l i s t i s not aware o f the w i l d e r n e s s t r a d i t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the B a p t i s t , even though he r e f e r s t o I s 40:3 i n J n 1:23. He bases t h i s view on the f a c t t h a t J n 3:23 r e p o r t s t h a t the B a p t i s t a l s o b a p t i z e d i n populated p l a c e s such as Aenon near Salim. A d d i t i o n a l l y , J n 1:28 r e p o r t s t h a t the B a p t i s t b a p t i z e d i n "Bethany beyond the Jordan." The image o f John's l o c a l e i s o f c i t i e s and not o f the w i l d e r n e s s . T h i s view i s supported by the absence of a d e s c r i p t i o n of John's d r e s s and food which would asso-c i a t e him w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . Such a d e s c r i p t i o n i s g i v e n by Mark (1:6) and Matthew (3:4). We must conclude t h a t the s i g n s source, and t h e r e f o r e the Gospel of John, does not s t r e s s the w i l d e r n e s s l o c a l e i n the t r a d i t i o n of John the B a p t i s t . T h i s i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o the Synoptic Gospels where the concept of the w i l d e r n e s s i s of paramount impor-tance t o the B a p t i s t t r a d i t i o n . Signs and the Wilderness The account o f the B a p t i s t i s not the s o l e t r a d i t i o n i n which the theme of the w i l d e r n e s s i s l e s s prominent i n the s i g n s source than i n the Synoptic Gospels. I n the ac-ount of the Feeding o f the F i v e Thousand a l l the Synoptic Gospels i n c l u d e r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r n e s s . The account 8 5 of the feeding of the multitude i n the signs source 18 (Jn 6:1-14) , on the other hand, makes no reference to the wilderness. How can t h i s de-emphasis of the wilderness termin-ology i n the signs source be explained? Does the signs source r e f l e c t a t r a d i t i o n which i s not aware of the w i l -derness theme, or does i t delete the wilderness terminology f o r polemic reasons? The l a t t e r view i s more probable. Fortna writes; "as a textbook f o r pot e n t i a l Jewish converts the Gospel of Signs sought to prove one thing, and one thing only: that Jesus was the Messiah i n whom men should b e l i e v e . " 1 ^ However, from other sources we know that various types of messianic expectations were prevalent i n the f i r s t century. Since we are concerned with the signs source l e t us examine the messianic view which combined the concept of messianic signs with the wilderness. The Gospel of Matthew speaks out against such a view. In Mt 2 4:24 - 2 6 we read: 2 4 For f a l s e Christs and f a l s e prophets w i l l a r i s e and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, i f possible, even the e l e c t . 25 Lo, I have t o l d you beforehand. 2 6 So, i f they say to you, * Lo, he i s i n the wilderness,' do not go out; This passage c l e a r l y speaks out against a messianic hope which sought messianic signs i n the wilderness. From the writings of Josephus we see that some of the messianic pre-tenders who promised that God would perform signs i n the wilderness, did not act s o l e l y out of r e l i g i o u s motives but 86 a l s o out of p o l i t i c a l ones. D e c e i v e r s and impostors, under the pretence o f d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n f o s t e r i n g r e v o l u t i o n a r y changes, they persuaded the m u l t i t u d e t o a c t l i k e madmen, and l e d them out i n t o the d e s e r t under the b e l i e f t h a t God would t h e r e g i v e them t o k e n s 2 0 ( anueta = s i g n s ) o f d e l i v e r a n c e . Jewish War I I , 2 5 9 Jonathan, an a r r a n t s c o u n d r e l , by t r a d e a weaver, h a v i n g taken refuge i n t h a t town, won the ear o f not a few o f the i n d i g n a n t c l a s s , and l e d them f o r t h i n t o the d e s e r t , promising them a d i s p l a y o f signs_jf arineta ) and a p p a r i t i o n s . Jewish War V I I , 438 2 2 From Matthew's warning a g a i n s t , and Josephus 1 de-s c r i p t i o n o f the m e s s i a n i c w i l d e r n e s s hope, i t i s e v i d e n t why the author of the s i g n s source would have been per-suaded t o minimize the theme o f the w i l d e r n e s s . The com-b i n a t i o n o f s i g n s and the w i l d e r n e s s l o c a t i o n suggested a v e r y p o l i t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d type o f m e s s i a n i c movement. The author of the s i g n s source c o u l d h a r d l y minimize the concept o f the s i g n s s i n c e h i s main aim was t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the s i g n s proved Jesus to be the t r u e Messiah. However, he c o u l d minimize the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s , as i t played no v i t a l p a r t i n h i s argument. Thus by d i v o r c i n g the s i g n s from the w i l d e r n e s s , the Gospel o f Signs c o u l d a v o i d the danger of a p p e a r i n g t o advocate a p o l i t i c a l messianlsm. A f t e r a l l , the Gospel o f Signs was designed to promote f a i t h , not p o l i t i c a l r e v o l u t i o n . Such an e x p l a n a t i o n i s much more reasonable than the view t h a t the author o f the Gospel o f Signs was not aware o f the w i l d e r n e s s t r a d i t i o n . The Gospel o f Matthew and Josephus c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t a r e l i g i o -87 p o l i t i c a l messianism a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s was no s e c r e t . We can t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t t h e r e i s probably an i n t e n t i o n a l m i n i m i z i n g of the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n t h i s source, and t h a t o n l y one out o f the f i v e r e f e r e n c e s t o the w i l d e r -ness o r i g i n a t e i n the s i g n s source. I I . A JOHANNINE NOTE OF ITINERARY Let us now i n v e s t i g a t e f o r what purposes the w i l d e r -ness t e r m i n o l o g y i s i n t r o d u c e d i n the r e s t o f the Gospel o f 23 John. Before t u r n i n g t o the th r e e passages i n which the w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y occurs i n the context o f the Mosaic t y p o l o g y which shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Moses and the Messiah, l e t us c o n s i d e r J n 11:54. Jesus t h e r e f o r e no l o n g e r went about openly among the Jews, but went from t h e r e t o the cou n t r y near the w i l d e r n e s s , t o a town c a l l e d Ephraim; and the r e he stayed w i t h the d i s c i p l e s . At a f i r s t glance, t h i s Johannine note of i t i n e r a r y bears a s t r o n g resemblance t o the summary statement i n Mk 1:45. Both J n 11:54 and Mk 1:45 imply t h a t Jesus c o u l d no lo n g e r openly work i n a c e r t a i n l o c a l e and t h e r e f o r e was f o r c e d t o seek refuge elsewhere. However, any s i m i l a r i t y ends when we c o n s i d e r the p l a c e of refuge. I n Mark, Jesus seeks refuge i n the w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e s , w h i l e i n the Gospel o f John he seeks refuge near the w i l d e r n e s s . I n the case of Mk 1:45 i t has been shown t h a t t h i s r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r -ness r e f l e c t s Mark's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . F o r t n a i s o f the 88 opinion that Jn 11:54 can also be seen as a redactional statement. He claims that i n various passages including 24 Jn 11:54 John "provides his own quite a r t i f i c i a l itinerary." If this were true, what could have been John's logic behind including this reference to the wilderness? R. E. Brown25 points out that the town of Ephraim cannot be located with any degree of certainty. W. P. Albright 2^, however, argues that the Ephraim of John was Ain Sfimieh, a town l i t e r a l l y on the edge of the wilderness. Since the Gospel of John never places Jesus i n the wilder-ness, i t could be argued that John wanted to make quite clear that Jesus was not i n the wilderness when he was i n Ephraim. He therefore points out that although Ephraim i s near the wilderness, i t should not be thought of as being i n the wilderness. However tempting such an interpretation may be, i t must be rejected for i t presupposes too great a geographical knowledge on the part of John. Also the mere mentioning of the wilderness i s a problem. Let us therefore investigate the view that Jn 11:54 rests on traditional material. 27 Karl Kundsin ' has suggested that the geographical notes i n the Gospel of John rest on specific traditions of the Palestinian Christian communities. In the case of Jn 11:54 p O this thesis seems to be verified. Dodd points out that the town of Ephraim i s mentioned only once in the entire New Testament. He rules out the possibility that Ephraim 8 9 has any mysterious or symbolic meaning. He then shows t h a t "an author w r i t i n g a t Ephesus l a t e i n the f i r s t c e n t u r y would s c a r c e l y be aware, or i n t e r e s t e d i n , an obscure P a l e s -t i n i a n t o w n . D o d d t h e r e f o r e concludes t h a t J n 11:54 r e s t s on t r a d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Kundsin's and Dodd's views are v e r y c o n v i n c i n g . The r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n J n 11:54 may be a t r a -d i t i o n a l e x p l a n a t o r y note f o r the purpose of p i n p o i n t i n g the g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n of an obscure P a l e s t i n i a n town. Con-se q u e n t l y i t i s unwarranted t o search f o r e x p l i c i t c l u e s to John's view of the w i l d e r n e s s i n t h i s passage. We can say o n l y t h a t t h i s passage does not v i o l a t e John's p o r t r a y a l o f J e s u s , namely t h a t Jesus i s never a c t i v e i n the w i l d e r n e s s . Ephraim i s near the w i l d e r n e s s ; not i n the w i l d e r n e s s . I I I . THE WILDERNESS AND THE MOSAIC TYPOLOGY Let us now see how John uses the w i l d e r n e s s i n the context of the Mosaic typology. F o r t n a ^ 0 p o i n t s out t h a t the p a r a l l e l s between Jesus and Moses i n the s i g n s source a r e not c l e a r . However, i n the Gospel of John as a whole, the Mosaic t y p o l o g y p l a y s a major r o l e . The Johannine Church-Synagogue Dialogue Meeks shows v e r y c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t "the Johannine t r a d i t i o n s were shaped, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , by i n t e r a c t i o n between a C h r i s t i a n community and a h o s t i l e Jewish com-munity whose p i e t y accorded v e r y g r e a t importance t o Moses 90 and the S i n a i theophany" and " t h a t the Johannine church had 31 drawn members from t h a t Jewish group." J . L. Martyn comes even c l o s e r t o the b a s i c i s s u e s c o n f r o n t i n g the Johannine church when he w r i t e s : We have seen t h a t the Johannine church-synagogue c o n v e r s a t i o n has a t l e a s t t hree f o c i : the t e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n of Jesus' messiahship; the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h i s s i g n s ; the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between him and the towering f i g u r e of Judaism, M o s e s . 3 2 Since i t seems to be w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the Mosaic t y p o l o g y p l a y s an important p o l e m i c a l r o l e i n the Gospel of John, and s i n c e the w i l d e r n e s s i s a p a r t of t h i s t r a d i t i o n , i t would be h e l p f u l t o e s t a b l i s h how the Jews g e n e r a l l y viewed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Moses and the Messiah. Martyn f e e l s t h a t "the e a r l i e s t Rabbinic passage e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r r i n g t o the Mosaic t y p o l o g y i s a t t r i b u t e d r e l i a b l y t o Rabbi Akiba ( a c t i v e A.D. 90-135)." 3 3 How l o n g do the days of the Messiah l a s t ? Rabbi Akiba s a i d : F o r t y y e a r s . J u s t as the I s r a e l i t e s spent f o r t y years i n the w i l d e r n e s s , so w i l l he (the Messiah) draw them f o r t h and cause them t o go i n the w i l d e r n e s s and w i l l make them eat l e a v e s and straw (Tanchuma 'Ekeb 7 ) . 3 ^ Martyn quotes a second passage which, although stem-ming from a l a t e r time, a l s o r e f l e c t s the Rabbinic view concerning the Mosaic typology. Rabbi Berekiah s a i d i n the name o f Rabbi Isaac: As the f i r s t redeemer was, so s h a l l the l a t t e r Redeemer be. What i s s t a t e d of the former redeemer? And Moses took h i s w i f e and h i s sons, and s e t them upon an ass (Ex 4:20). S i m i l a r l y w i l l i t be w i t h the l a t t e r Redeemer, as i t i s s t a t e d , Lowly and r i d i n g upon an ass (Zech 9:9). 91 As the former redeemer caused manna t o descend, as i t i s s t a t e d , Behold, I w i l l cause t o r a i n bread from heaven f o r you (Ex 26:4), so w i l l the l a t t e r Redeemer cause manna t o descend, as i t i s s t a t e d . May he be as a r i c h c o r n f i e l d i n the l a n d (Ps 72:l o ) . As the former redeemer made a w e l l t o r i s e , so w i l l the l a t t e r Redeemer b r i n g up water, as i t i s s t a t e d , And a f o u n t a i n s h a l l come f o r t h o f the house o f the Lord, and s h a l l water the v a l l e y o f S h i t t i m ( J o e l 4:18) (Qoheleth Rabba 1,8). 3 i J These two passages i n d i c a t e t h a t the Rab b i n i c view of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Moses and the Messiah had two f o c i . Both Moses and the Messiah were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s and the Messiah was t o repeat Moses' t h r e e g r e a t s i g n s . He was t o r i d e upon an ass, cause manna t o descend and b r i n g up water. As we t u r n t o the th r e e remaining w i l -derness passages i n the Gospel o f John, l e t us keep i n mind the R a b b i n i c view o f the Mosaic t y p o l o g y and a l s o the r e l i g i o -p o l i t i c a l m e s s i a n i c view c e n t e r i n g around the g i v i n g o f s i g n s i n the w i l d e r n e s s , a l l u d e d t o i n Mt 24:26 and i n the w r i t i n g s o f Josephus. The L i f t i n g Up i n the Wilderness J n 3:14 s t a t e s : And as Moses l i f t e d up the serpent i n the w i l d e r n e s s , so must the Son o f man be l i f t e d up, Meeks36 p o i n t s out t h a t t h i s v e r s e p r e s e n t s a c l e a r case o f the use o f typology. T h i s i s i n d i c a t e d by the form " Ha$w<; . . . ouTwg .... " The comparison i s between an a c t i o n i n which Moses was i n v o l v e d and an a c t i o n i n which Jesus was t o be i n v o l v e d . T h i s a c t i o n i s concerned w i t h a " l i f t i n g up." B e r n a r d ^ 7 e x p l a i n s t h a t the " l i f t i n g up" i n the Gospel 92 o f John i s always a p p l i e d t o the l i f t i n g up o f Jesus on the c r o s s . R. E. Brown c l a i m s t h a t the " l i f t i n g up" r e f e r s t o more than j u s t the c r o s s . The f i r s t s tep i n the ascent i s when Jesus i s l i f t e d up on the c r o s s ; the second s t e p i s when he i s r a i s e d up from death; the f i n a l step i s when he i s l i f t e d up t o h e a v e n . 3 0 Although i t i s undetermined whether the " l i f t i n g up" r e f e r s o n l y t o the c r o s s o r a l s o t o the r e s u r r e c t i o n and as c e n s i o n , i t i s c e r t a i n t h a t i t i s "the a c t o f ' l i f t i n g up' t h a t i s the t e r t i u m c o m p a r a t i o n i s " 3 ^ i n J n 3:14. Conversely, i t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t " i n the w i l d e r n e s s " i s not the t e r t i u m comparationis. T h e r e f o r e , Mauser i s r i g h t when he shows t h a t f o r John the s a l i e n t p o i n t i n J n 3:l4 i s the " l i f t i n g up"; t h a t t h i s happened " i n the w i l d e r n e s s " i s i n c i d e n t a l . On the b a s i s o f J n 3*14 we must conclude t h a t John i n t r o d u c e s a t l e a s t one major change i n t o the Rabbinic scheme of the Mosaic typology; he minimizes the r o l e o f the w i l d e r -ness. The S i g n o f the Manna and the Wilderness Le t us now c o n s i d e r the l a s t two w i l d e r n e s s passages which d e a l w i t h the Mosaic typology. They should be s t u d i e d t o g e t h e r because they both d e a l w i t h the s i g n o f the manna. The statement "our f a t h e r s a t e the manna i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (Jn 6:31) i s once put on the l i p s o f the people, and the s a y i n g "Your f a t h e r s a t e the manna i n the w i l d e r n e s s " (Jn 6:49) i s once a t t r i b u t e d t o Je s u s . Both these v e r s e s occur i n the 93 discourse following the Feeding of the Five Thousand. As was noted previously, Fortna assigns Jn 6:1-14, (that i s , the narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand), to the signs source. Significantly, the Feeding of the Five Thou-sand has a different setting i n the Gospel of Mark than i n the Gospel of John. Mk 6:31,32,35 indicates that the feeding occurred i n a wilderness place, while Jn 6:3 provides a set-ting i n the h i l l s . Which i s the actual setting? Montefiore^ 1 has shown that behind the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand there l i e s the tradition of a thwarted messianic revolt i n the wilderness. This tradition has been greatly reduced i n the accounts of Matthew and Luke. However, Montefiore points out that especially i n Mark's account, but also i n John's, this tradition can s t i l l be 4? detected. The wilderness setting i s indispensable to this underlying tradition and therefore we must conclude that the Markan account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand has re-tained the original setting. Who changed the setting from the wilderness to the h i l l s , the author of the signs source or John? It was noted previously that the author of the signs source may have min-imized the role of the wilderness as a reaction to the po-l i t i c a l , messianic pretenders who promised signs i n the wilderness. Accordingly i t i s quite probable that the omis-sion of the wilderness theme i n the Feeding of the Five Thousand i s due to such a polemic. Let us now take a closer look at the sign of the manna. Prom J n 6:30 we see t h a t the Jews (Jn 6:52) wanted t o see a s i g n which would prove t h a t Jesus was the Messiah. They suggested the s i g n o f the manna. As was p o i n t e d out p r e v i o u s l y , a R a b b i n i c t h e o r y e x i s t e d which claimed t h a t j u s t as the former redeemer caused manna t o descend, so the 43 l a t t e r redeemer would cause manna t o descend. R. E. Brown suggests t h a t the p r o v i d i n g o f the manna was commonly r e -garded as the g r e a t e s t o f Moses' m i r a c l e s . The Jews thus wanted t o see the g r e a t e s t s i g n . Jesus was t o e s t a b l i s h h i s m e s s i a n i c c l a i m i n accordance w i t h Mosaic typology. John p o r t r a y s Jesus as r e f u s i n g t o be judged s t r i c t l y a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s typology. He weakens the r o l e o f Moses by p o i n t i n g out t h a t i t was not Moses but the F a t h e r who gave the bread from heaven (6:32). He a l s o s t a t e s t h a t " I am the bread o f l i f e " (6:35). T h i s l a s t statement i m p l i e s t h a t Moses was not the bread o f l i f e . The s u p e r i o r i t y o f Jesus over Moses i s s t a t e d even more c l e a r l y i n J n 6:49-50. 49 Your f a t h e r s a t e the manna i n the w i l d e r n e s s and they d i e d . 50 T h i s i s the bread which comes down from heaven, t h a t a man may eat o f i t and not d i e . The above passage shows q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t the manna a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Moses was i n f e r i o r t o Jesus who was the bread o f l i f e . The people who a t e the manna d i e d . The people who t a s t e o f the bread of l i f e w i l l l i v e . The p o i n t o f compa-r i s o n c e n t e r s around the manna and the bread, not around the w i l d e r n e s s . John i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n an exact t y p o l o g i c a l 95 r e l a t i o n s h i p between the former redeemer, Moses, and the l a t t e r redeemer, the Messiah. T h i s i s c l e a r l y p o i n t e d out by the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no g e o g r a p h i c a l s t r e s s on the w i l d e r n e s s as the s e t t i n g f o r the performance o f the s i g n s by Jesus. As a matter of f a c t , John never p l a c e s Jesus i n a w i l d e r n e s s s e t t i n g . What f u n c t i o n does the Mosaic t y p o l o g y perform i n the Gospel o f John? Meeks answers t h i s q u e s t i o n when he w r i t e s t h a t i n the Gospel of John the Mosaic t r a d i t i o n s are presented i n such a way (1) t h a t J e s u s f u l f i l l s f o r the b e l i e v e r those f u n c t i o n s elsewhere a t t r i b u t e d t o Moses and (2) t h a t the C h r i s t i a n c l a i m s t h a t he does t h i s i n a s u p e r i o r and e x c l u s i v e way, so t h a t Moses i s now s t r i p p e d o f those f u n c t i o n s and made merely a 'witness' t o Jesus ( l i k e John the B a p t i s t ) . T h e r e f o r e one who had f o r m e r l y ac-counted h i m s e l f a ' d i s c i p l e o f Moses' would now have t o decide whether he would become i n -stead a ' d i s c i p l e o f J e s u s . ' I f he d i d not, then from the viewpoint o f t h i s g o s p e l he had i n f a c t d e s e r t e d the r e a l Moses, f o r Moses o n l y wrote o f J e s u s and t r u e b e l i e f i n Moses l e d t o b e l i e f i n J e s u s . ^ The above c o n c l u s i o n s a r e supported remarkably w e l l by J n 3:14; 6:31 and 49. IV. THE WILDERNESS AND THE SON OF MAN I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n d i s c u s s i n g the l i f t i n g up o f the serpent i n the w i l d e r n e s s (Jn;3:l4) and the s i g n o f the manna i n the w i l d e r n e s s (Jn 6:31,49) John does not com-pare Moses w i t h the Messiah but w i t h the Son of Man. B e r n a r d ^ shows t h a t the e x p r e s s i o n " l i f t e d up" i s 96 always found w i t h the t i t l e Son o f Man. T h e r e f o r e John not o n l y minimizes the a l l u s i o n s t o the w i l d e r n e s s hut a l s o de-v i a t e s from the R a b b i n i c t y p o l o g y which compared Moses w i t h the Messiah. I n o r d e r t o c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f l e c t R abbinic thought, J n 3*14 would have t o read: And as Moses l i f t e d up the serpent i n the w i l d e r n e s s , so must the Messiah be l i f t e d up i n the w i l d e r n e s s . However, by s u b s t i t u t i n g Son o f Man f o r Messiah and d e l e t i n g the comparison to the w i l d e r n e s s , John c l e a r l y shows t h a t he i s not i n agreement w i t h R a b b i n i c t e a c h i n g . A f t e r a l l , he c o u l d not be, knowing t h a t Jesus was not c r u c i f i e d i n the w i l d e r n e s s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the preceed-i n g v e r s e , J n 3=13, the s u p e r i o r i t y o f the Son of Man over Moses i s i m p l i e d . Meeks i s t h e r e f o r e c o r r e c t i n h i s obser-v a t i o n t h a t "the main t h r u s t o f the passage i s t h a t what takes p l a c e through Jesus i s p a r a l l e l t o , but f a r s u p e r i o r t o t h a t which was enacted by Moses." I n the passage which d i s c u s s e s the s i g n o f the manna i n the w i l d e r n e s s , the Messiah i s not mentioned. However, a t the end o f the account t h e r e are two r e f e r e n c e s t o the Son o f Man (Jn 6:53,62). Martyn contends t h a t t h i s movement from Jesus as the Mosaic Prophet-Messiah t o Jesus as the Son o f Man i s v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t . I t not o n l y occurs i n the two passages d i s c u s s e d above, but a l s o i n "the drama of the man born b l i n d (Jn 9 ) " and i n "the n e a r - a r r e s t o f Jesus as he teaches i n 97 the temple (Jn 7-8)." ' Martyn concludes t h a t : ...John never a l l o w s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Jesus as the Mosaic Prophet-Messiah t o oc-cupy c e n t e r stage without c a u s i n g i t s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r t o be r e p l a c e d by another m o t i f . Furthermore, t h i s o t h e r m o t i f always has t o do w i t h the Son o f Man. Beyond the n e g a t i v e p o i n t of John's c a t e g o r i c a l d e n i a l t h a t the m e s s i a n i c i s s u e i s m i d r a s h i c l i e s h i s p o s i -t i v e concern to l e a d h i s reader t o a d i r e c t . _ c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h J e s u s as the Son o f Man.^o We t h e r e f o r e conclude t h a t John d e a l s o n l y w i t h Mosaic t y p o l o g y f o r p o l e m i c a l reasons. I n the course o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i t h the Jews whose messianism expresses i t s e l f i n terms o f Mosaic typology, John makes a few i n c i -d e n t a l r e f e r e n c e s t o the f a c t t h a t the Mosaic s i g n s occur-red i n the w i l d e r n e s s . However, he makes i t c l e a r t h a t a t y p o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n terms o f the w i l d e r n e s s should not be made between Moses and Jesus. Jesus e s s e n t i a l l y f u l f i l l s the f u n c t i o n s expected of the Mosaic l a t t e r redeemer but as the Son o f Man, J e s u s r i s e s above the p o l i t -i c a l and r e l i g i o u s m e s s i a n i c hopes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . 98 CHAPTER VI A COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL WRITERS' CONCEPTS OF THE WILDERNESS Now t h a t we have i n v e s t i g a t e d the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n each o f the Gospels, l e t us draw some c o n c l u s i o n s regard-i n g the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e concepts o f the w i l d e r n e s s . The most obvious s i m i l a r i t y l i e s i n the t r a d i t i o n c o n c e r n i n g John the B a p t i s t . Mark, Q, and the Gospel o f Signs a s s o c i a t e the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . The Gospels o f Matthew and Luke r e f l e c t the accounts o f Mark and Q w h i l e the Gospel o f John uses the account o f the Gospel o f Si g n s . Thus a l l f o u r Gospels r e p o r t a t r a d i t i o n l i n k i n g John the B a p t i s t w i t h the w i l -derness. However, the concept o f the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Bap-t i s t t r a d i t i o n i s not s t r e s s e d e q u a l l y i n a l l the Gospels. I n the Gospel o f Mark i t i s p r i m a r i l y a t h e o l o g i c a l concept which emphasizes the f u l f i l l m e n t o f the prophecy o f I s 40:3. Matthew, i n accordance w i t h h i s a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic, reduces t h i s powerful t h e o l o g i c a l concept t o an e x p l i c i t l y g e o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e . Luke a l s o tones down the t h e o l o g -i c a l emphasis i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between John the B a p t i s t and the w i l d e r n e s s . I n o r d e r t o c l a r i f y a p o s s i b l e ambi-g u i t y i n Mark as to how John the B a p t i s t c o u l d f i n d an audience i n the w i l d e r n e s s , Luke r e p o r t s t h a t the B a p t i s t 99 was i n the wilderness u n t i l the day of h i s manifestation to I s r a e l (Lk 1:80) and that afterwards he was active i n the region about the Jordan (Lk 3'.3)- In the Gospel of John we f i n d a s i m i l a r emphasis. Although the Baptist i s linked with the wilderness through the prophecy of Is 40:3, the author of the Gospel of John then places him i n c i t i e s (Jn 1:28; 3:23). The emphasis i s on the Baptist's role as a witness, not on the wilderness. I t i s quite s i g n i f i c a n t that although the gospel writers d i f f e r i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Baptist's r e l a t i o n s h i p with the wilderness, they a l l report such an association on the basis of the prophecy of Is 40:3* This indicates that a very strong exegetical t r a d i t i o n existed which interpreted Is 40:3 as pointing to John the Baptist. Is 40:3 also i s given a c h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The "Lord" whose way i s being prepared i n Mk 1:3, Mt 3:3, Lk 3:4 and Jn 1:23, i s Jesus. Mark shows that j u s t as the voice (1:3) was i n the wilderness (ev xfl eprjuv) so John the Baptist (1:4) and Jesus (1:13) were i n i t . Mark f e e l s so strongly about the theological significance of Is 40:3 that he uses substantive epnuog exclusively i n connection with the f u l f i l l m e n t of t h i s prophecy. The precedent f o r the use of substantive eprjuoc; i n Mk 1:3,4,12,13 i s set i n Is 40:3 (LXX). In the rest of the Gospel of Mark, neither Jesus nor anyone else i s i n xp eprjuqj. Only eprjuoc, XOTXOC; and 100 £pT)u.L<x occur o u t s i d e of the Markan prologue (1:1-13). The use o f c p T i u o ? TOTTOC; i s a s i g n o f Mark's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . T h i s term i s used t o p o i n t out the c o n t r a s t between populated and unpopulated areas. The w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e ( e p r p o s x o n o ? ) , i n c o n t r a s t t o the i n h a b i t e d areas, i s a p l a c e of p r a y e r (Mk 1:35), refuge (1:4-5), and r e s t (Mk 6:31). I n c o n t r a s t t o s u b s t a n t i v e epnu-os, e p r j u o ? xono«g i s not r e l a t e d t o Old Testament prophecy. ' E p r j L u a i s used o n l y i n Mark 8:4, where i t has the c o n n o t a t i o n of warfare and s u f f e r i n g . The use of both epnu-oc, TOTioq and e p r i n i a must be seen i n the l i g h t o f Mark's polemic a g a i n s t the h e l l e n i s t i c $ e t o q avnp c h r i s t o l o g y . I t seems t h a t Mark f e l t o b l i g a t e d t o d e a l w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s theme i n the course of t h i s polemic. However, i n o r d e r t o a v o i d a t t a c h i n g the same importance t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n t h i s case as i n h i s prologue, Mark uses e p r p o s TOTIOC; and e p i n i t a i n s t e a d o f epi1P.oc,. The v a r i a t i o n i n Mark's w i l d e r n e s s t e r -minology i s t h e r e f o r e q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t . Although he uses Mark's th r e e d i f f e r e n t ways o f r e f e r r i n g t o the w i l d e r n e s s , Matthew i s not concerned w i t h b r i n g i n g out the d i f f e r e n t shades o f meaning i n these terms. Fo r Matthew a l l w i l d e r n e s s t e r m i n o l o g y i s p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous. With the p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n o f 15:33 a l l r e f -erences t o the w i l d e r n e s s i n the Gospel o f Matthew must be viewed i n the l i g h t o f Matthew's a n t i - w i l d e r n e s s polemic, s t a t e d most c l e a r l y i n 24:26. Here Matthew warns a g a i n s t the danger of f a l l i n g prey to a f a l s e m essianic e x p e c t a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine whether t h i s polemic i s d i r e c t e d toward the Z e a l o t s , the Essenes or a s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l u p r i s i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s , the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a f a l s e m e ssianic w i l d e r n e s s e x p e c t a t i o n posed a r e a l t h r e a t t o the church i n Matthew's community i s i n e s c a p a b l e . whereas Mark c a r r i e s on a polemic a g a i n s t a $eioc; avrip c h r i s t o l o g y , Luke seems to be i n sympathy w i t h such a view. At l e a s t t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t Luke attempts to d i s c r e d i t any messianic hopes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the w i l d e r n e s s . Of a l l the Gospels, Luke emphasizes the p a r a l l e l between the B a p t i s t ' s and Jesus' p r e p a r a t i o n i n the w i l d e r n e s s the most s t r o n g l y . Luke does not seem t o grasp Mark's i n t e n t i o n i n the use of epriuoc; xono<;. Mark uses t h i s term t o p o i n t out the c o n t r a s t between populated and unpopulated p l a c e s . Luke, on the o t h e r hand, i m p l i e s t h a t a c i t y such as B e t h s a i d a (9:10) can be a w i l d e r n e s s p l a c e (9:12). However, Luke does i n t r o d u c e a new term i n t o the w i l d e r n e s s terminology. He i s the o n l y g o s p e l w r i t e r t o use the p l u r a l of s u b s t a n t i v e epriuoc;. Through the use of t h i s term Luke g i v e s the im-p r e s s i o n t h a t the w i l d e r n e s s i s a v e r y i n d e f i n i t e l o c a l i t y . I t may be t h a t Luke i s simply masking h i s l a c k o f geograph-i c a l knowledge i n t h i s way. Even i f we cannot be c e r t a i n as t o Luke's i n t e n t i o n i n the use o f t h i s term, we can be 102 c e r t a i n that the occurrences of the p l u r a l of substantive epnuo? i n Lk 1:80, 5:l6 and 8:29 betray Luke's redactional a c t i v i t y . In contrast to the Gospel of Luke, i n which no consistent concept of the wilderness can be found, the Gospel of John presents a d e f i n i t e polemic against the wilderness. In t h i s Gospel, Jesus i s never placed i n a wilderness setting. The wilderness i s mentioned i n the course of the Johannine church-synagogue dialogue concerning the relevance of the Mosaic typology which shows the re-l a t i o n s h i p between the former and l a t t e r redeemer. How-ever, i t i s made very c l e a r that Jesus, as the Son of Man, r i s e s above any messianic typology associated with the wilderness. The Gospel of Signs, which John uses as a source, also seems to divorce the performing of signs from the con-cept of the wilderness. The Gospels of Matthew and John thus carry on d e f i n i t e polemics against the wilderness. However, these polemics are of d i f f e r e n t orders. Matthew seems to be re-acting against s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o - p o l i t i c a l events which are taking place i n the wilderness. There i s the implication of a very r e a l , imminent threat. The polemic i n the Gospel of John, on the other hand, seems to be on a much more i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l . John i s involved i n a discussion of the value of rabbinic messianic typology. This study shows that the role of the wilderness i n the messianic expectations of the gospel writers' contemporaries should not be underestimated. As f a r as Mark, Matthew and John are concerned, there existed f a l s e expectations and b e l i e f s associated with the wilderness which posed a r e a l threat to t h e i r teaching. In the view of Mark, Matthew and John, Luke may even have been the proponent of a f a l s e wilderness concept. 104 Chapter I Introduction Moulton and M i l l i g a n (The Vocabulary of the Greek New  Testament, 1930, p. 459) state that opo? i s used i n the papyri to ref e r to the desert. 2 See Appendix f o r the Greek text of these references to the wilderness. 3 E. Nestle, et a l . , Novum Testamentum Graece, 19&3-^N. Perrin, What i s Redaction Cri t i c i s m ? 1969, p. v i . -\Ebid. , pp. v i f. 6 W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, 1959. 7 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 1961. 105 Chapter II The Wilderness Theme i n the Gospel of Mark 1 E . Nestle, et a l . , Novum Testamentum Graece, 1963. p The t i t l e s and textual d i v i s i o n s f o r the pericopae of the Synoptic Gospels w i l l be taken from B. H. Throckmorton, ed., Gospel P a r a l l e l s , 1967. 3 P o r example, Vincent Taylor has shown that "The f i r s t t h i r t e e n verses of the Gospel form a c l o s e l y connected section which serves as an introduction to the whole." The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1952, p. 151. ^U. Mauser, Christ i n the Wilderness, 1963. See pp. 77-102 f o r a discussion of the prologue. 5 I b i d . , p. 77. Ibid., p. 80. Mauser shows that t h i s i s taken verbatim from Exodus i n the LXX rendering. •7 Ibid., p. 8 l . Mauser shows that t h i s originates i n the Hebrew version of Malachi. Q Although the wilderness i s not e x p l i c i t l y mentioned i n Ex 23:20, a good case can be made that i t i s assumed. ^Mauser, p. 80. 1 Q I b i d . 1 1 P o r Mauser's discussion of the meaning of John's baptism and repentance see pp. 87-89. 1 2 I b i d . , P- 81. 1 3 I b i d . , pp. 81-82. l 4 I b i d . , P- 82. 1 5 I b i d . , P. 77-l 6 I b i d . , P- 83. 1 7 I b i d . , P. 98. l 8 I b i d . 1 9 I b i d . , P. 101. 106 2 0 I b i d . , p. 99. 2 1 I b i d . , p. 132. 2 2 I b i d . , p. 102. 2 3R. W. Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL, 78(1959), PP- 206-208. 2 ^ I b i d . , p. 210. 2 5 I b i d . , p. 214. C. C. McCown, "The Scene of John's Ministry and i t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission," JBL, 59(1940), p. 122. 2 7 I b i d . , p. 127. 2 W^. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, 1959, P« 22. 2 9lbid., p. 20. 3°Ibid. 3 1 I b i d . , p. 22. 3 2IbjLd., p. 25. Marxsen i s not passing judgement on the actual h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s . 33i Did., p. 28. 3 \ . Wink, John the Baptist i n the Gospel Tradition, 1968, p. 5-3^R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, 1966, p. 43-3 6Mk 1:3,4; Mt 3:1,3; Lk 3:2,4; Jn 1:23. 37c H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist, 1964, pp. 13-31. 3 8 I b i d . , p. 18. 39C. C. McCown, "The Scene of John's Ministry and i t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission^" p. 115. ^°C. H. H. Scobie, p. 22. ^ S . V. McCasland, "The Way," JBL, 77(1958), p. 224. 107 ^ 2 I b i d . , p. 228. ^ 30ne 0 f the conclusions presented by C.C. McCown i n h i s a r t i c l e "The Scene of John's Ministry and i t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission," JBL, 59(1940), p. 115, must therefore be rejected. McCown has argued that since Mk 1:5 reports that a l l the country of Judea and a l l the people of Jerusalem went out to see John, the natural inference i s that h i s a c t i v i t i e s must have centered around that part of the Jordan which i s nearest Judea and Jerusalem. This would pinpoint John's a c t i v i t y on the lower reaches of the Jordan near the Dead Sea. ^U. Mauser, p. 98. Personal suggestion made to Mauser by Leaney. 46EX 24:18: 34:28; Deut 9:9,18. 47 U. Mauser, p. 101. * W ^A. Schweitzer, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, 1948, p. 66. 5°U. Mauser, p. 99. 5 1 I b i d . , p. 131. 5 2G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, i960, p. 54. 53W. Wink, p. 113. 5 \ . Taylor, p. 8 l . 55 W. Marxsen, p. 37. 5 6R. Bultmann, The History of Synoptic Tradition, 1968, p. 155-57TJ. Mauser, p. 104. 59, 58 V. Taylor, p. 85. R. Bultmann, p. 34l. ^°G. K i t t e l , "epT)aoc;, e p r p i a , e p r j u o c o , e p r j u w o a c ; , " ThDNT, I I I , pp. 657 f. R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the 0. T., 1913-108 6 2 V . T a y l o r , p. 8 3 . ^ 3R. Bultmann, p. 244. 6 i | I b i d . , p. 340. 6 5 I b i d . . 66 V. T a y l o r , p. 8 0 . 67 U. Mauser, p. 105. 68j }R. H. C h a r l e s . A. R a h l f s , Septuaginta, 1965. 5Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance t o the Septuagint, 1897-69, 70, 71, L. L. Brenton, The Septuagint V e r s i o n o f the Old Testament. 72 I b i d . 73 Hebrew Old Testament, J e r 33:12. 74 R. W. Funk, p. 213. 75 R. H. C h a r l e s . 76 R. W. Funk, p. 213. 77 P. C a r r i n g t o n , A c c o r d i n g t o Mark, i 9 6 0 , p. l 6 l . 78 E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1959, P- 153* ^ v a n B. I e r s e l , "Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl i n der s y n o p t i s c h e n T r a d i t i o n , " NovTest, 7 (1964-65) , p. 183. 80 F. W. Danker, "Mark 8 : 3 , " JBL, 82(1963) , pp. 215 f. H. M o n t e f i o r e , "Revolt i n the Desert," NTSt, 8(1961-62) , pp. 135-141. 82 I b i d . , p. 139-8 3 V a n B. I e r s e l , p. 193-84 T. Weeden, "The Heresy t h a t N e c e s s i t a t e d Mark's Gospel," ZNeutW, 5(1968) , pp. 145-158. 8 5 I b i d . , p. 147. 109 86 I b i d . , p. 150. 8 ? I b i d . , p. 155. 88 For a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the w i l d e r -ness and s i g n s and wonders, see the d i s c u s s i o n of the s i g n s source i n Chapter V. 89 N. P e r r i n , "The L i t e r a r y Gattung ' G o s p e l 1 - Some Observa-t i o n s , " ExposT, 82(1971), p. 5. 90 * T. Weeden, p. 156. 9 1 I b i d . 110 Chapter I I I The Wilderness Theme i n the Gospel of Matthew 1A. Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, 1908, p. 145. 2 Ibid., p. 106. 3 V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1952, p. 515. ^B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, p. 264. 5 I b i d . , p. 265. H. K. McArthur, "The Burden of Proof i n H i s t o r i c a l Jesus Research," ExposT, 82(1971), p. 118. 7G. D." K i l p a t r i c k , The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1946, p. 91. o Ibid., p. 92. 9 I b i d . 1 0R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1968, p. 122. ^ R e f e r to the section i n t h i s chapter dealing with Matthew's redaction of the Markan wilderness pericopae. 12 T. Weeden, "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel," ZNeutW, 5(1968), p. 152. 1 3 I b i d . l 4H. K. McArthur, p. 118. I K -^Unless indicated otherwise, a l l quotations from the writings of Josephus w i l l be taken from the c o l l e c t i o n of h i s works i n the Loeb C l a s s i c a l Library, 1965. l 6R. W. Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL, 78(1959), P- 211. 1 7 I b i d . l8 W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, p. 202. 1 9U. Mauser, Christ i n the Wilderness, 1963, p. 146. I l l 20 C. C. McCown, "Gospel Geography, F i c t i o n , Fact, and Truth," JBL, 60(1941), p. 10. 2 1 C . C. McCown, "The Scene of John's Ministry and i t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission," JBL, 59(1940), p. 114. 22 R. W. Funk, p. 214. 2 3Josephus uses both epnuoc, and e p i n j . u a f o r h i s wilderness terminology i n the passages which were referred to e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. Matthew, however, does not draw a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n i n h i s use of the wilderness terminology. Therefore i t i s possible to r e f e r simply to "the wilderness." 2 \ . Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 1968, pp. 47 f. 2 5U. Mauser, p. 28. 26 Funk, p. 212, makes the suggestion that "led up" ( avrjx&T)), may r e f e r to Jesus' passage from the r i v e r up unto the v a l l e y f l o o r . However, I f e e l that Mauser's suggestion i s more r e a l i s t i c . 27 W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, 1959, P- 28. 28 This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has been suggested by H. Montefiore, "Revolt i n the Desert," NTSt, 8(1961-62), pp. 135-141. 2 9 I b i d . , p. 135. 3°Ibid., p. 138. 3 1 I b i d . , p. 135. 3 2 I b i d . , p. 136. 33 Ibid. 3 ^ I b i d . 3 5 I b i d . 3 6 I b i d . , p. 139. 37 Van B. I e r s e l , "Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl i n der synoptischen T r a d i t i o n , " NoyTest, 7(1964-65), p. 193. 3^E. Nestle, et a l . , Novum Testamentum Graece, 1963. 3 9 A l a n d , et a l . , The Greek New Testament, 1966. 112 ^°Both A. Harnack (p. 143) and B. H. Streeter (p. 197) agree that Mt 23:37-39 = Lk 13:34-35 belongs to Q. 4 l A. B. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," Expositor's Greek  Testament, 1967, I, p. 286. 42 Ibid. ho JD. A. Schlatter, Per Evangelist Matthaus, 1959, p. 690. 44 W. C. A l l e n , The Gospel According to S. Mark, 1912, p. 251. 45 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1957 46 Pavies, p. 202. 47 'Moulton and M i l l i g a n , The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1930. 4 8 U . Mauser, p. 145. 40 yB. H. Streeter, pp. 243 f. 5°Ibid., p. 265. 5 1 J B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, 1937, PP. 187-191. C O P. Luhrmann, Pie Redaktion der Logienquelle, 1969, p. 114. 5 3"Gemeinderegel" Ibid., p. 115. 5 4 G. P. K i l p a t r i c k , p. 29. 5 5A. Harnack, pp. 143, 315-316. 56 ^ Ibid., p. 92. 57 Antoine Guillaumont. "Semitismes dans les Logia de Jesus retrouves a Nag~Ham$di, Journal Asiatique, 246(1958), p. 120, c i t e d by E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic  Tradition, 1969, p. 4 l . 58 M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967, p. 184. 5 9 J . Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 1963, p. 133. 60 M. Black, p. 133. 113 ^ F . Bussby, "Did a Shepherd Leave h i s Sheep upon the Mountains o r i n the Desert?" AnglThR, 45(1963), pp. 93-94. ^ 2A. Guillaumont, et a l . , The Gospel A c c o r d i n g to Thomas, 1959-6 3R. W. Funk, p. 213. 64 J . Jeremias, p. 90. 114 Chapter IV The Wilderness Theme i n the Gospel of Luke 1B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, p. 199. Streeter shows that the f i r s t two chapters of the Gospel of Luke are peculiar to Luke. 2A. B. Bruce, "The Synoptic Gospels," Expositor's Greek  Testament, 1967, I, p. 470. 3C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist, 1964, p. 43. 4 5 A. Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke, 1922, p. 44. U. Mauser, Christ i n the Wilderness, 1963, p. 147. ^S. M. Gilmour, "The Gospel According to St. Luke," IB, VIII, p. 48. 7 W. Marxsen, Per Evangelist Markus, 1959, P« 28. 8R. W. Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL, 78(1959), P- 208. 9C. C. McCown, "The Scene of John's Mi n i s t r y and I t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission," JBL, 59(1940), p. 116. 10 Ibid., p. 120. 1 : L I b i d . , p. 114. 1 2 I b i d . , p. 119. 13W. Wink, John the Baptist i n the Gospel Tr a d i t i o n , 1968, p. 49. ^ C . C. McCown, p. 117. 1 5H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 1961, p. 19. l6W. Wink, p. 49. 1 7 C C. McCown, p. 115. l 8 I b i d . 19 W^. Marxsen, p. 31. 20 H. Conzelmann, p. 22. 115 2 1 I b i d . , pp. 22 f. 2 2 I b i d . , p. 19. 2 3 I b i d . , p. 20 24 ^ I b i d . 2 5 I b i d . , p. 27. Ibid., p. 28. 2?A. Plummer, p. 151. 28 Ibid., p. 230. 29W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, 1966, p. 99. 30 H. Conzelmann, p. 51. 3 1 S . M. Gilmour, VIII, p. 166. 32 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 1963, P« 40. 3 3 I b i d . 3 \ . W. Punk, p. 213. 35 I t i s true that i n Acts 21:38, Luke does connect a revolt by four thousand men of the Assassins with the wilderness. However, t h i s revolt i s not portrayed as a messianic revolt, and even i f i t were, i t would s t i l l be questionable i f t h i s concept could be read back into the Gospel of Luke. J. Pryke, "John the Baptist and the Qumran Community," RQu, 4(1964), p. 483. 3?A. R. C. Leaney, A Commentary on the Gospel According,to St. Luke, 1958, p. 91. D K. Stendahl, ed., The S c r o l l s and the New Testament, 1957, p. 35. 39 S. M. Gilmour, VIII, p. 48. 4°S. V. McCasland, "The Way," JBL, 77(1958), pp. 222-230. 4 l I b i d . , p. 230. 116 42 Mk 6:45- 8:26 i s commonly known as Luke's great omission. 43 JT. Weeden, "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel," ZNeutW, 5(1968), p. 152. 117 Chapter V The Wilderness Theme i n the Gospel of John "Slark and Matthew use the, singular, substantive and adjec-t i v a l forms of epTiM-oq plus eprjuta . Luke uses the singular and p l u r a l substantive forms of eprpos and the a d j e c t i v a l form of eprpog. 2C. H. Dodd has suggested t h i s general heading f o r Jn 1:19-37. See H i s t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n i n the Fourth Gospel, 1963, p. 251. . 3R. W. Funk, "The Wilderness," JBL, 78(1959), p. 210. Funk points out that there are only twelve instances i n the N.T. where TJ epnu-oc; refers to the wilderness of the sojourn: Acts 7:30,36,38,42,44; 13:18; ICor 10:5; Heb 3:8,17; Jn 3:14; 6:31,49. 4 W. F. Howard presents a good argument f o r the unity of Jn 3:1-21. See "The Gospel According to St. John," IB, VIII, p. 503. 5 I b i d . , VIII, p. 552. For a discussion of the re l a t i o n s h i p between the synoptics and John, see P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic  Gospels, 1938. 7 R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs, 1970, p. 235-8 I b i d , , p. 172. 9 I b i d . , p. 229. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 172. 11 J. H. Bernard points out that while the synoptic authors quote Is 40:3 from the LXX, John seems to reproduce i t from memory from the Hebrew. See The Gospel According to St. John, ICC, 1928, p. 38. 1 2 C . H. Dodd, pp. 252 f. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 253. ^W. Wink, John the Baptist i n the Gospel Tradition , 1968, p. 111. 1 5 I b i d . l 6 l b i d . 118 17 W. Marxsen, Per E v a n g e l i s t Markus, 1959, P« 20. 18 R. T. F o r t n a , pp. 237 f . 1 9 I b i d . , p. 234. 20 T h i s passage i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n A n t i q u i t i e s XX, 168, where the r e f e r e n c e to the s i g n s i s s t i l l c l e a r e r but the r e f e r e n c e t o the r e v o l u t i o n a r y motives i s m i s s i n g : Moreover, impostors and d e c e i v e r s c a l l e d upon the mob t o f o l l o w them i n t o the d e s e r t . For they s a i d t h a t they would show them unmistak-a b l e marvels and s i g n s (anueLct) t h a t would be wrought i n harmony w i t h God's desi g n . 21 Josephus, The Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y , 1965. 2 2 I b i d . 2 3 J n 3:14; 6:31,49. 24 R. T. F o r t n a , p. 152. 25 See R. E. Brown, The Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o John, Anchor B i b l e , 1966, p. 44l, f o r the v a r i o u s vxews concerning the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Ephraim. 26 W. F. A l b r i g h t , Annual of the American Schools of  O r i e n t a l Research. 4(1922-2^7, pp. 124-133, c i t e d by R. E. Brown, p. 441. 27 " K. Kundsin, T o p o l o g i s c h e U b e r l i e f e r u n g s s t o f f e im Johannes-Evangelium, 1925, pp. 49-50. ?8 C. H. Podd, pp. 242 f . 2 9 I b i d . , p. 243. 30 R. T. F o r t n a , p. 232, p o i n t s o n l y to a p o s s i b l e p a r a l l e l o f J n 6:5 w i t h Num 11:13. 3 1 ¥ . A. Meeks, p. 318. 32 J . L. Martyn, H i s t o r y and Theology i n the Fourth Gospel, 1968, p. 91. 1 3 3 I b i d . , p. 98. 34 J . L. Martyn, p. 98, c i t i n g T h e o l o g i s c h e s Worterbuch zum  Neuen Testament, IV, p. 865. 119 35 J «J. L. Martyn, pp. 98 f . , c i t i n g H. Freedman and M. Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah, 1939, V I I I , p. 33. 3 6 ¥ . A. Meeks, pp. 291 f . 3 7 J . H. Bernard, p. 113. 38 R. E. Brown, p. 146. 3 9 ¥ . A. Meeks, p. 292. 40 U. Mauser, C h r i s t i n the Wilderness, 1963, p. 76. 4 l H. M o n t e f i o r e , "Revolt i n the Desert," NTSt, 8(1961-62), pp. 135-1^1. 42 I b i d . , p. 139. M o n t e f i o r e p o i n t s out t h a t J n 6:15 confirms Mark i n the important p o i n t t h a t "Jesus a c t u a l l y p e r c e i v e s t h a t the m u l t i t u d e were about t o come and take him by f o r c e t o make him Messiah." 43 JR. E. Brown, p. 262. 44W. A. Meeks, p. 319. 45 The e x p r e s s i o n " l i f t e d up" a l s o occurs i n J n 8:28 and 12:32-34 and i n each case i t i s connected t o the Son of Man. J . H. Bernard, p. 113. ^6W. A. Meeks, p. 292. 47 F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f these f o u r passages see J . L. Martyn, pp. 120-135. 48 I b i d . , p. 125. 120 LITERATURE CITED A. TEXTS AND TOOLS OP RESEARCH Aland, K u r t , e t a l . , eds. The Greek New Testament. S t u t t g a r t , "Germany: Wurttemberg B i b l e S o c i e t y , 1966. Amdt, W. P., and F. ¥. G i n g r i c h . A G r e e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n  of the New Testament and Other E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t - " erature. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1957. Brenton, L a u n c e l o t Lee. The Septuagint V e r s i o n o f the Old  Testament with an E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n . London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, n. d. C h a r l e s , R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of  the Old Testament i n E n g l i s h . 2 vols. 1913; r p t . Oxford: Clarendon P r e s s J 1964. Guillaumont, A., et a l . The Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o Thomas. New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1959. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance t o the  Septuagint and the other Greek V e r s i o n s o f the Old  Testament I n c l u d i n g the Apocryphal Books. 2 vols. 1897; r p t . Graz, A u s t r i a : Akademische Druck-u. V e r l a g s a n s t a l t , 1954. Josephus. The Loeb C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y . 9 v o l s . London: W i l l i a m Heinemann L t d . , 1965. K i t t e l , Gerhard. "epnuoc;, epnuca, e p T i t i o w , epr)\xu)oi<; ." T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y of the New Testament. Eds. Gerhard K i t t e l and -Gerhard F r i e d r i c h . Trans. G e o f f r e y W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964. I I , 657-660. Moulton, James Hope, and George M i l l i g a n . The V o c a b u l a r y  of the Greek Testament: I l l u s t r a t e d from the P a p y r i  and other N o n - L i t e r a r y Sources. 1930; r p t . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957. N e s t l e , Eberhard, Erwin N e s t l e , and Kurt Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 25th ed. S t u t t g a r t , Germany: Wurttembergische B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1963. R a h l f s . A l f r e d . Septuaginta . 8th ed. S t u t t g a r t : Wurttembergische B i b e l a n s t a l t , 1965. 121 Throckmorton, Burton H., J r . , ed. Gospel P a r a l l e l s : A Synopsis of the F i r s t Three Gospels. 3rd ed., rev. Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1967. B. BOOKS BY MODERN AUTHORS Allen, Willoughby C. A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary  on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. The Inter-national C r i t i c a l Commentary. Eds. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs. 3rd ed., 1912; rpt. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957. Bernard, J . H. A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on  the Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. The International C r i t i c a l Commentary. Ed. A. H. McNeile. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3 r d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Bornkamm, Gunther. Jesus of Nazareth. Trans, from 3rd ed. by Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson. New York: Harper and Brothers, i 9 6 0 . Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John ( i - x i i ) . The Anchor Bible, 29. Eds. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tra d i t i o n . Trans, from 2nd German ed. by John Marsh. 2nd ed., rev. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Carrington, P h i l i p . According to Mark. Cambridge: University Press, i 9 6 0 . Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans, from 2nd German ed. by Geoffrey Buswell. London: Faber and Faber, 1961. Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: University T r e s s , 19b4. Dodd, C. H. H i s t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n i n the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1963. Fortna, Robert Tomson. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruc-t i o n of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth  Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1970. 122 Gardner-Smith, P. S a i n t John and the Syn o p t i c Gospels. Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1938. Harnack, A d o l f . The Sayings o f Jesus: The Second Source o f  St. Matthew and S t . Luke. New Testament S t u d i e s I I . Trans. J . R. Wilkenson. London: W i l l i a m s & Norgate, 1908. Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables o f Jesus. Revised ed. Trans, from 6th German ed. by S. H. Hooke. New York: C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s Sons, 1963. K i l p a t r i c k , G. D. The O r i g i n s o f the Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o St. Matthew. 1946: r p t . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966^ Kundsin, K a r l . T o p o l o g i s c h e U b e r l i e f e r u n g s s t o f f e im Johannes-Evangelium. Forschungen zur R e l i g i o n und L i t e r a t u r des A l t e n und Neuen Testaments, new s e r i e s , 22. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925. Leaney, A. R. C. A Commentary on the Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o  St. Luke. London: Adam & C h a r l e s Black, 1958. Lohmeyer, E r n s t . Das Evangelium des Markus. Go t t i n g e n : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Liihrmann, D i e t e r . Die Redaktion der L o g i e n q u e l l e . Wissen-s c h a f t l i c h e Monographien zum A l t e n und Neuen Testament, 33* Eds. G. Bornkamm and G. von Rad. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner V e r l a g , 1969. Martyn, J . L o u i s . H i s t o r y and Theology i n the Fo u r t h Gospel. New York: Harper & Row, 19W. Marxsen, W i l l i . Der E v a n g e l i s t Markus: S t u d i e n zur Redaktions-g e s c h i c h t e des Evangeliums. 2nd ed., rev. Forschungen zur R e l i g i o n und L i t e r a t u r des A l t e n und Neuen T e s t a -ments, 49. H e f t . Ed. R. Bultmann. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Mauser, U l r i c h . C h r i s t i n the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme i n the Sec6n"d~G"ospel and I t s B a s i s i n the B i b l i c a l  T r a d i t i o n . S t u d i e s i n B i b l i c a l Theology l o . 39. London: SCM P r e s s , 1963. Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses T r a d i t i o n s and  the Johannine C h r i s t o l o g y . Supplements t o Novum Testamentum, liW. Ed. W. C. van Unnik B i l t h o v e n . Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1967. 1 2 3 P e r r i n , Norman. What i s Redaction C r i t i c i s m ? Guides t o B i b l i c a l S c h o l a r s h i p : New Testament S e r i e s . Ed. Dan 0 . V i a , J r . P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s Press, 1 9 6 9 . Plummer, A l f r e d . A C r i t i c a l and E x e g e t i c a l Commentary on  the Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o S. Luke. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i t i c a l Commentary. Eds. A. Plummer, S. R. D r i v e r , and C. A. B r i g g s . 5 t h ed., 1 9 2 2 ; r p t . Edinburgh: T. & T. C l a r k , i 960. Sanders, E. P. The Tendencies o f the Synoptic T r a d i t o n . S o c i e t y f o r New Testament S t u d i e s Monograph S e r i e s , 9. Ed. Matthew Blac k . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 9 . S c h l a t t e r , D. A. Der E v a n g e l i s t Matthaus: Seine Sprache, s e i n Z i e l , s e i n e S e l b s t a n d i g k e i t . 5 t h ed. S t u t t g a r t , Germany: Calwer V e r l a g , 1 9 5 9 . Schweitzer, A l b e r t . The P s y c h i a t r i c Study o f J e s u s . Trans. C h a r l e s R. Roy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1 9 4 8 . Scobie, C h a r l e s H. H. John the B a p t i s t . London: SCM Press, 1 9 6 4 . Smith, B. T. D. The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels: A C r i t i c a l Study. Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 3 7 . Stendahl, K r i s t e r . The School of St. Matthew: And I t s Use of the Old Testament. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s Press, 1 9 6 ^ , ed. The S c r o l l s and the New Testament. New York: Harper & B r o t h e r s , 1 9 5 7 . S t r e e t e r , B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study o f O r i g i n s . London: M a c M i l l a n and Co., 192^F. T a y l o r , V i n c e n t . The Gospel A c c o r d i n g t o St. Mark. London: MacM i l l a n and Co., 1 9 5 2 . Wink, Walter. John the B a p t i s t i n the Gospel T r a d i t i o n . S o c i e t y f o r New Testament S t u d i e s Monograph S e r i e s , 7 . Ed. Matthew Black. Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 8 . 124 C. PERIODICALS AND ARTICLES FROM COMMENTARIES Bruce, Alexander Balman. "The Synoptic Gospels." The  Expositor's Greek Testament. Ed. ¥. R. N i c o l l . rpt. Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1 9 6 7 , I, 3-651. Bussby, F. "Did a Shepherd Leave His Sheep upon the Mountains or i n the Desert?" Anglican Theological  Review, 4 5 (January 1 9 6 3 ) , 93 -9 7H"^ Danker, Frederick W. "Mark 8 : 3 . " Journal of B i b l i c a l  L i t e r a t u r e , 8 2 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . Funk, Robert W. "The Wilderness." Journal of B i b l i c a l  Literature , 7 8 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 205-214. Gilmour, S. MacLean. "The Gospel According to St. Luke." The Interpreter's Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1 9 5 2 , VIII, 2 - 4 3 4 . Howard, W. F. "The Gospel According to St. John." The  Interpreter's Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1 9 5 2 , VIII, 4 3 5 - 8 1 1 . I e r s e l , Van B. "Die wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl i n der synoptischen T r a d i t i o n . " Novum Testamentum, 7 ( 1 9 6 4 - 6 5 ) , 1 6 7 - 1 9 4 . Johnson, Sherman E. "The Gospel According to St. Matthew." The Interpreter's Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1 9 5 1 , VII, 2 3 0 - 6 2 5 . McArthur, Harvey K. "The Burden of Proof i n H i s t o r i c a l Jesus Research." The Expository Times, 8 2(January 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 1 6 - 1 1 9 . McCasland, S. Vernon. "The Way." Journal of B i b l i c a l  Literature, 7 7 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 2 2 2 - 2 3 0 . McCown, C. C. "Gospel Geography, F i c t i o n , Fact, and Truth." Journal of B i b l i c a l L i t erature , 6 0 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , I - 2 5 . . "The Scene of John's Ministry and I t s Relation to the Purpose and Outcome of His Mission." Journal of B i b l i c a l L i t erature, 5 9 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 3 - 1 3 1 . Montefiore, Hugh. "Revolt i n the Desert." New Testament  Studies, 8 ( 1 9 6 1 - 6 2 ) , 135-141. 125 Perrin, Norman. "The L i t e r a r y Gattung 'Gospel 1- Some Observations." The Expository Times, 82(October 1971), 4-7. Pryke, John. "John the Baptist and the Qumran Community." Revue de Qumran, 4 ( A p r i l 1964), 483-496. Weeden, Theodore J . "The Heresy That Necessitated Mark's Gospel." Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r die Neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft, 59(1968), 145-15F: 126 APPENDIX THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS I . THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK AND ITS MATTHEAN AND LUKAN PARALLELS John the B a p t i s t Mk 1:3 ev TP eprju^ Mt 3:3 ev xfi eprjucp Lk 3:4 Mk 1:4 ev xfi eprjutp Mt 3:1 ev xfi epriuv Lk 3:2 xrjc; 'lou6ouac; ev xfi eprjutiJ ev xfi eprjaqj The Temptation Mk 1:12 E L S xr)v Epriuov Mk 1:13 ev xfi epriucp Mt 4:1 et? X T J V epriuov Lk 4:2 ev xfi £pr)U¥ Jesus Departs From Capernaum f „ Mk 1:35 eU eprjuov Lk 4:42 etc eprmov X O T C O V X O T C O V The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Mk 1:45 em'eprjuoic; Lk 5: l6* XOTIOLC; The Feeding of the F i v e Thousand Mk 6:31 et? eprjuov X O T C O V Mk 6:32 etc; Epriuov Mt 14:13 etc; epriuov X O T C O V X O T C O V Mk 6:35 eprjuoc; ^  ^ Mt 14:15 epriuoc^ ^ Lk 9:12 ev epr)uv eaxtv 6 X O T C O S eaxiv 6 X O T C O C ; X O T K P The Feeding o f the Four Thousand Mk 8:4 E T C eprjuuac; Mt 15:33 ev epTiuta •Although Lk 5 : l6 p a r a l l e l s Mk 1:45 I n r e f e r r i n g t o the theme of the w i l d e r n e s s , the s p e c i f i c form o f the w i l d e r -ness t e r m i n o l o g y i n Lk 5: l6 must be a t t r i b u t e d t o Luke's r e d a c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . 127 I I . THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY OF Q Jesus' Words About John Mt 11:7 etc. T T I V epnuov Lk 7:24 et? T T ) V epnu-ov The L o s t Sheep (Mt 18:12 e n ! TOC o p n ) Lk 15:4* ev t f ) e p w * I t i s not a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n whether t h i s r e f e r e n c e can be a s s i g n e d t o Q. I I I . THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MATTHEW'S REDACTIONAL ACTIVITY The Lament Over Jerusalem Mt 23:38 c- otxo? U U . O J V epnu.os The Day o f the Son o f Man Mt 24:26 ev Tfl eprjmp IV. THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY ATTRIBUTABLE TO LUKE'S REDACTIONAL ACTIVITY The B i r t h o f the B a p t i s t Lk 1:80 ev xalq ep^uiot? The H e a l i n g o f a Leper Lk 5:l6 ev TCUC; epr)u,oi.c; The Gerasene Demoniac Lk 8:29 etg TOC? kpr\ixovq V. THE WILDERNESS TERMINOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN The Testimony o f John The L i f t i n g Up The S i g n o f the Manna A Note of I t i n e r a r y J n 1:23* J n 3:14 J n 6:31 J n 6:49 J n 11:54 ev %T\ eprju-V ev xp epfjim ev TJI kpriixty ev x f i egrJLiy eyyvc; xr\<; eprjuou * T h i s r e f e r e n c e t o the w i l d e r n e s s probably o r i g i n a t e s from the Gospel o f Signs. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093300/manifest

Comment

Related Items