[1] Fol. 205b/206a; cp. Kipling, Th., Codex Theodori Bezae Cantabrigiensis Evangeliorum et Apostolorum Acta I (Cambridge 1793) 370Google Scholar; Scrivener, F. H., Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge 1864) 183.Google Scholar

[2] The two letters are reproduced by Kipling p. XXI–XXIV and Scrivener p. VI. – Beza is said to have complained that he had not even received an acknowledgement of his presentation (Uffenbach, Z. G. v., Merkwürdige Reisen durch Niedersachsen, Holland and Engelland III (Ulm 1754) 21Google Scholar). Did he do so before the letter arrived or did it never reach him?

[3] Semler, J. S., Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum (Halle 1964)Google Scholar; Spicilegium observationum (Halle 1966)Google Scholar; Paraphrasis Evangelii Joannis (Halle 1771)Google Scholar; Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutik III (Halle 1760)esp. 88–137.Google Scholar – Griesbach, J. J., Symbolae Criticae (Halle1785–93)Google Scholar; Novum Testamentum Graece I/II (Halle1775–7).Google Scholar

[4] Quando tandem istud αιγμα, quod ille codex nobis adeo pertinaciter opposuit, explicabitur a quodam Oedipo.

[5] Mr A. J. Brown kindly supplied this information for me. Beza's copy is on deposit in the Institut d'histoire de la Réformation in Geneva.

[6] Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen² 1933) 40 f., 163.Google Scholar – Bultmann, R. speaks of a ‘Gesprächsform ganz selbständiger (did he mean: eigenartiger?) Bildung’ (Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen² 1931, 58Google Scholar) and admits thereby that the form is not that of a typical apophthegma. He considers it an indication for ‘sekundäre Bildung’ – secondary in comparison with the ideal setting of an apophthegm – that Jesus comes out with a statement without having been asked (p. 70). This is not necessarily the correct interpretation of this feature. It may equally be the result of an abbreviation which took place at a secondary stage while the story was handed down independently. The reduction of a story to a saying is not uncommon (Ev. Thomae 3 etc.). Is the Cambridge pericope, as we possess it, a half-way house in such a development rather than the unsuccessful attempt to give body to a saying by the addition of an introductory story? Dibelius, who labels the pericope a χρεία, ponders the possibility that it was due to ‘wilde Ueberlieferung’ that the story, which, he suggests, had been more detailed at an earlier stage, arrived at this form (p. 163). This is an important point. The statement of Jesus is not, however, as clear and neat as, according to Dibelius (p. 160) a χρεία is expected to be.

[7] Mees, M., Lukas 1–9 in der Textgestalt des Codex Bezae. Literarische Formen im Dienste der Schrift (Vetera Christianorum V 1968, 108 f.).Google Scholar

[8] 1.16.16: σκ άπτοντας και άροūντας και ἅx03C3;θίοντας.

[9] Henss, W., Das Verhältnis zwischen Diatessaron, christlicher Gnosis and ‘Western Text’ (Berlin 1967) 52.Google Scholar

[10] Cp. Daube, D., Sin, Ignorance and Crime (London 1959)Google Scholar; Ancient Jewish Law (Leiden 1981) 49 ff.Google Scholar

[11] Cp. Jirku, A., Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament (Gütersloh 1927) 42, 76 f.Google Scholar He comes out strongly in favour of the antiquity of the regulation (‘deutliche Spur der Urform der alttestamentlichen Gesetze’, 77). Daube (Ancient Jewish Law, 72 f.) draws attention to a form in Old Nordic law (how …’, ‘now if …’) where in contrast to the whoever-formulation, the story is not yet replaced by a category. Might it be that the formulations are to be viewed in a similar light?

[12] It had been observed that the majority of the formulations refer to crimes whose punishment is left to Divine vengeance. Is it for this reason that a ‘regularization’ of the terminology has not taken place? – For Lev 24. 10 ff. cp. Noth, M., Studien zum Alten Testament (München 1957) 325 f.Google Scholar: what is expected is an ordeal followed by stoning.

[13] Thus very different from the rhetorical ἅ ἅνθρωπε κενέ (James 2. 20).

[14] It is true, this consideration is only made use of vis-à-vis heaven, not in order to invalidate human judgement (Daube, Ancient Jewish Law, 69). Ignorantia is a topic in scholastic theology, while Tumbheit is of cardinal importance in Wolfram von Eschenbachs Parzival. – At the same time it is possible to characterize this lack of insight as the very crime which makes the person liable to accusation before God (Jn 5. 39, 45; Pap. Egerton 1 1. 2).

[15] Corresponding to the blessing, which works ipso facto, even if, as in the case of Jacob, it had been acquired by sinister means.

[16] Aboth Rabbi Nathan 38.

[17] Unbekannte Jesusworte (Gütersloh 1963) 61 ff.Google Scholar

[18] The impression that the Sabbath law became less strict in the Rabbinic period (cp. Lohse, E., Th.W. VII.10. 14Google Scholar) is one-sided. The penalties, it is true, are less severe than those known to us from the codes of sectarian Judaism; the regulations themselves are by no means less pointed, in details they are much more sophisticated.

[19] The passage became the basis for Hebel's, J. P. famous poem ‘Der Mann im Mond’ (Gesammelte Werke I Berlin 1958, 116 ff.).Google Scholar

[20] The formal warning had become a necessary part of the proceedings in the time of the Mishnah (Makk I. 9; implied Mek in Ex.20.7 (Lauterbach II. 254). The form in which this admonition used to be given can be deduced from the answer which makes a suspected person guilty: I know ) and nevertheless I will do it (Tos. Sanh. XI. 3). He was, it must be inferred, warned in the words ‘don't you know ….’

[21] De Cherub. 87. – A similar view is probably presupposed in the dissenting statement of Berekiah in Ber, r. 10 (ad 2.2).

[22] His argumentation is typical for the Christian approach to the Sabbath question. often used as a cover term for a ‘Christian’.

[23] A different view is taken by Daube, D., ‘Princeps legibus solutus’ (Gedächtnisschrift P. Koschacker II Milano 1954, 463 ff.).Google Scholar

[24] Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften I (Halle 1832) 497 ff.Google Scholar

[25] The theory had been rejected by Jeremias, (Jesusworte, 62Google Scholar) but, under the aegis of Lohse, Bishop (Festschrift Jeremias Berlin 1960, 83Google Scholar), was resurrected amongst his pupils (e.g. Rordorf, W., Der Sonntag 86Google Scholar; E.T. 87 f.), although a historical justification for the theory is lacking. – Much more in keeping with Jeremias' exegesis is the approach of Käser, (Z.Th.K. 1968, 414 ff.Google Scholar), who assumes that the saying is directed against libertines, formulated in confrontation with the ‘Nihilist im Namen Gottes’ (425). While he follows Jeremias in placing all the weight on the second half of the saying and denies that it intends to abolish the Torah (426: ‘nicht entfernt …’), he is, however, not able to explain the relevance of the concluding phrase ‘transgressor of the law’.

[26] For an analysis cp. NTS 18 (1971/1972) 109 ff.Google Scholar

[27] NTS 19 (1972/1973) 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bultmann's argument (Tradition, 14 f.) is thereby invalidated.

[28] The construction of the sentence is awkward. Άμήν-formulations are normally simple statements either independent or bringing home a point that has been made before. They are not the starting point for further deliberations. It is therefore advisable to take the formulation άμή… οùδέ as a separate unit which happened to be appended at a secondary stage. The remaining part consists of three lines, an arrangement which gives a perfect progression of thoughts, if the second word (μή) is omitted. Might it be that it came in when the two statements were forged together? It seems to be the most reasonable explanation for what is otherwise a crux interpretum. The υóός predication is normally used in the Fourth Gospel together with the appellation of the father. This is an additional reason for linking the óάν κτ λ. line with the following words.

[29] The Western reading is to be preferred.

[30] It is interesting that the German lawyer Nolle, P. (Jesus und das Gesetz, Tübingen 1968Google Scholar) comes to the conclusion that Jesus' statements contain maxims, the juridical relevance of which has not been grasped even today. For the problem cp. Stauffer, E., Die Botschaft Jesu (Bern 1959) 17 ff.Google Scholar

[31] In Jo. Ev. tr. 7, 8. – The same Augustine, however, thought that the pre-existent Christ had endorsed Numb 15. 30 (Contra adv. leg. et proph. 11.11.37).

[32] Deutsche Werke ed. Quint, J. III (Stuttgart 1976) 145.Google Scholar

[33] The reading óμέ is to be preferred; but even ⋯μóς has no collective meaning (cp. Bauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium 1933, 133Google Scholar) and Harnack, A. v., ‘Das “Wir” in den johanneischen Schriften’, S.B.A. 1923, 107 f.).Google Scholar

[34] For a challenging interpretation of the parable cp. Stauffer, E., ‘Jesus. Geschichte and Verkündigung’ in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt XXV.1 1982, 66 f.Google Scholar

[35] Deutsche Predigten ed. Vetter, F. (Berlin 1910) 179.Google Scholar

[36] ‘Die Tätigkeit ist das Glück’ in ‘Gespräche deutscher Ausgewanderten’ (Sophien-Ausgabe 18 1895, 165).Google Scholar