!"#$"%&'()*+$+,"-.

/)+012345&'67'819,"
!"#$"%"-'%12:345&
;0"'8"<+0'1='>"4)4'$*'?<2,@'A02$4+$<*$+@'9@'>10*';7'A<221,,'B'>1",'C7'D2""*
E1)2F"&'G1#)H';"4+<H"*+)HI'J1,7'KLI'M<4F7'N'3/O27I'PLLQ5I'OO7'PLRSPLT
6)9,$40"-'9@&'C!UVV
E+<9,"'W!V&'http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561252
/FF"44"-&'XKYXKYNXXL'XT&ZL
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

194

BOOK REVIEWS

On other matters however Fleddermann is less satisfactory.In a discussion of

this kind it is crucial to argue fairly. It is easy to see the evidence as going one
way, and "explain" it all: what is needed is arguments which are not reversible,
or worse, special pleading. Fleddermann offers four arguments (which turn out to
be proofs, 30) that Mark knew Q: (i) the Q introduction fits the Q context, while
the Marcan introduction "does not work so well, for it contains a factual error"
rpooo) cou/eutpoo/ev
(29, attributionto Isaiah);(ii) Q has a balanced parallel, ip rpo
0o), the second of which Mark lacks, appearing truncated;(iii) Mark continues the
Malachi-Exod. 23 quotation with a third text from Isa. 40, which is more likely
to be an expansion; (iv) in Q, "I send... thy face" is dearly spoken by God to
Jesus, whereas in Mark it seems that the narrator is addressing the reader. All
these arguments are nugatory. Q might well think fit to drop Mark's "erroneous"
reference to Isaiah, add a balancing phrase FcRpooOev
oov for the parallel (Q has
much poetic parallelism),and clarify the address as by God to Jesus. Matthew and
Luke have already taken the Isa. 40 citation in the Marcan context, so they would
have a reason for cutting it in the later context. This type of one-eyed argument
is endemic in the book, and renders its conclusions valueless.
But what about Neirynck's "pre-redactional"possibility?Mark shows a steady
tendency to devalueJohn the Baptist to a mere forerunner,whereas Q often treats
John and Jesus as almost parallel prophetic figures. The redaction of Malachi is
in line with the former tendency:John is sent before
Jesus'face, to preparehis waywhether Exod. 23 was in mind or not, the changes to Malachi are in line with
Mark's thinking. Hence an open reading would suggest that the redaction is done
in Mark's community, and is taken over by Q, not vice versa!This is often the
case. A cear example is Fleddermann'ssecond text. Here Q's consistent interest
is to portrayJohn as a prophet of judgement, here baptizing with fire, while Mark
lacks this theme: his John baptizes with water while Jesus baptizes with Holy Spirit.
This fits his forerunner/Son of God contrast, whereas Q has Jesus baptize with
bothHoly Spirit andfire, a cumsy combination. Fleddermann does not even mention the possibility that Q included the uncomfortable "Holy Spirit and" from
Mark.
In his introductorychapter, Fleddermann mentions Wellhausen'sarguments for
Q's knowledge of Mark, including the apparent reference to the siege of Jerusalem
in Lk. 11:49-51 par., which is taken up by modem critics, including Hoffmann.
Wellhausen was one of the most intelligent minds ever to comment on scripture,
and it is unwise to dismiss him without any counter-argument,but merely with
the plea that "he did not convince many" (9). Fleddermann is also unaware that
in the decade since he did the study an axe has been laid to the root of many of
his criteria:for instance, since Q's language in the wording common to Matthew
and Luke is so often close to Matthew's, how can it make sense to argue that
when they differ,Matthaean-typewordingcan notbe ascribedto Q? So Fleddermann's
central thesis fails: he has not shown that Mark knew Q. But (against Neirynck)
he does offer some reason for thinking that the independence of the two traditions
is a mistake. Perhaps when he next has a sabbaticalyear, in 2003-4, he will write
a second revision showing that Q knew Mark.
MICHAEL
GotLDER
CARROLL,
John T. & GREEN,Joel B., et al. The Deathof Jess in EarvlChristianiy
(Peabody:HendricksonPublishers,1995),pages xviii + 318. ISBN 1 56563 151X.
Multi-authoredcollectionsof essaysemergingfrom a conferenceor a groupare notoriouslydifficultto review. It is not so with this book. Here is a readableand authoriC KoninklijkeBrill, Leiden, 1997

Novum TestamentumXXXIX, 2

BOOK REVIEWS

195

tative accountof where scholarshipcurrentlystandsin relationto the New Testament's

treatmentsof Jesus' death. Its text will enable thoughtfulnon-specialiststo read with
profit and to grasp currentscholarlyissues and trends;its notes and bibliographyare
full and helpful, offering specialistreaders access to the range of scholarlyliterature
available.This book is, consequently,suitablefor use by undergraduates,researchstudents and more establishedworkersin this field.
Reasons for this remarkablesituationare found in the work'sprovenanceand joint
authorship.In 1988 the Society of Biblical Literatureestablisheda researchseminar,
the PassionNarrativeand Traditionin EarlyChristianityGroup;after seven years, two
of its members,with the encouragementof their colleagues,undertook"to harvest...
the fruits of recent study of the death of Jesus." Wisely deciding against a loose collection of essays, and sharinga perspectiveon how to work on the passion material,
Carrolland Greenjointly wrote this book, invitingthree colleaguesto contributechapters. The authors'right to undertakethis task is validatedas much by this presentvolume as by their alreadyestablishedreputationin the field. They draw attentionto the
importantwork of James Denney and of Vincent Taylor earlier in this century,who
sought to secure both in scholarlystudy and in the church'sproclamationthe same
place for the passionmaterialthat it occupiesin the New Testament.Carrolland Green
have producedcomparablework.Their volume fallsinto three parts:the firstdeals with
the death of Jesus and the gospels;the second examinesother early Christianviews of
the death of Jesus; the third takes up historicaland theologicalissues.
Part One opens with a magisterialsurvey:the Gospels and the Death of Jesus in
Recent Study. Given its provenance,it is small wonder that this is a tightly written,
authoritativeaccount of where study has come from and where it now is; this chapter
gives a common perspectiveto the rest of the volume and leads naturallyinto four
chaptersdevoted to the "place"of the death of Jesus in each of the canonicalgospels,
not only in its passion narrative,but within the evangelists'whokgospels.
Part Two comprisesthree chapters:one examinesPaul'sexplorationof Jesus' death;
a second, the work of the authorsof 1 Peter, Hebrewsand Revelation.The third chapter, contributedby Robert Van Voorst, examines narrativesof the passion of Jesus
found in religiousliteratureoutsidethe New Testamentsurvivingfrom the second and
third centuriesC.E. This extra-canonicalliteratureincludeswritingsemergingfrom the
materialand Mishnaic-Talmudic
traditions.
great Church,the Gnostics,Jewish-Christian
Part Three takes up a range of issues:Joel Marcuscontributesone chapteron the
role of scripturein the passion narrativesand Donald Senior anotheron the death of
Jesus and the meaning of discipleship.The three other chaptersin this Part examine
Why Crucifixion?Who was Responsible?and, finally, The Death of Jesus and the
Meaning of Atonement.
One of the great virtuesof this work is its signallingissuesfor furtherdiscussion.For
example,Van Voorst has noted in measuredwordsthat discussionof the non-canonical
passion materialcontinues,drawingattentionto Koester'sAncientChristian
Gospelsand
to Crossan'sThe CrossthatSpoke.At issue is the relationof the source of the passion
narrativein the Gospel of Peter to the sourcesof the passion narrativesin the canonical gospels. Referenceto the Gospel of Peter takes one naturallyinto the chapter on
responsibilityfor the death of Jesus. Its writerfranklyfaces the profoundlyanti-Jewish
sentimentsof Melito and John Chrysostomet al. before moving to explore the complexitiesof what the New Testament,particularlythe Gospelsand Acts, discloseabout
their perceptionsof responsibility.This cannot fail to be an issue, as much for Christian
proclamationas for scholarship;from the Gospel of Peter through Browning'sHoly
Cross Day to the Holocaustruns a threadof responsibility.A Jewish colleaguerecently
spokeof the cloud over Pesachgeneratedby the closenessof Good Friday,but this chapter ends with a proposaland a reflection:"The historicalreality-however elusive its
details-possessed a complexitythat belies the sweepingindictmentsthat throughmuch
of Christianhistoryhave sprungup from such soil in sacredscripture."This is an issue

196

BOOK REVIEWS

which must command continuingexploration.Similarly,the final chapter takes up a

range of questionsconcerningthe relationof the New Testament'stalk of atonement
to a reader'spresentworld; "... how might we engage in a reflective,criticalappropriationof NT atonementtheology?"This is a balanced,dear and, occasionally,hardhitting chapterwhich would offer as much to thoughtfulpreachersas to students.The
picture of "earlytheologianssearch[mg]the conceptualencylopedias[sic] of their day
in order to communicatein ever wideningcirclesthe natureof God's news in Christ"
puts a sharp focus on the nature of models chosen to effect this communicationand
on the languagesin which they were framed.In the end, the earlier chaptersof this
book all contributeto this final presentationof the SBL'sinitial task.What is especially
importantis that the varietyof New Testamentmodels moves readersaway from an
alleged Pauline"norm"fixed in the firstcenturyand invitescontinuingreflectionin the
present on ways of modellingthe significanceof Jesus' death.
There are, naturally,many points where specialistreaderswill argue with the text,
but will recognisethat they are arguingwith reasonable,fair partners.For example,
while Joel Marcus'chapteron the "place"of scripturein the passion narrativescontinues his impressivework exemplifiedin TheWayof theLord,at least one readerwould
want him to rethinkhis assessmentof Luke'susage; there is, however, no doubt that
Marcushas opened the way to furtherreflectionon what New Testamentauthorswere
doing. Readerswill find their own points of dialogue.It is this book'scapacityfor stimulating a reader'sdialoguewith it that gives it its special flavour.
The bibliographyis helpful, although many readerswill be surprisedto note that
Grayston'sname appearsin neitherthe bibliographynor the index of authorscited;his
Dying We ive was publishedin 1990 and not only stands within the Vincent Taylor
tradition,but proposesto do largelywhat Carrolland Green now offer. On the other
hand, the authorshad access,beforeits publicationin 1994, to RaymondBrown'stwovolume TheDeathof theMessiah,so their perspectivealready accommodateshis large
contributionto their programme.Interestingly,Carrolland Green were as surprisedas
at least one other readerby Brown'sdecision to examine the gospel materialhorizontally;reflectionon approachesand methodsis basic to their work, whose footnotesare
a testimonyto their own broad-basedapproach.
This book is a worthysuccessorto the work of Denney and Taylor; one hopes that
it will be widely appreciatedand stimulatefurtherreflection.The publishershave produced a volume worthyof its authorsand their theme.
P. DOBLE

WnILLAM
KLAssEN, Judas. Betrayeror Friendof Jesus? (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996), 238 pp. ISBN 0-8006-2968-X.
Traditionally,theologians and biblical scholars have consideredJudas Iscariot to
be a traitor-the disciple who, in exchange for a small sum of money, betrayed
Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. William Klassen's monograph, however, challenges this longstanding opinion about Judas, arguing that the traditional portrait
of Judas does not correspond to the earliest sources available to us. The purpose
of his book is to investigate these sources once again, and to reconsider what we
can and cannot say about the historicalJudas and his role in the life and death
of Jesus.
After examining all the relevantpassagesaboutJudas in the four Gospels, Klassen
concludes that the role of Judas in each gospel differs.Accordingly,Mark portrays
Judas as one who, when compared to the other disciples, comes across as a faithful servant and follower of Jesus. There was no "alienation between Judas and
C KoninklijkeBrill, Leiden, 1997

Novum TestamentumXXXIX, 2