Auss19690101-V07-01 B

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
SEMINARY STUDIES
VOLUME VII JANUARY 1969 NUMBER i
CONTENTS
Branson, Roy, Fritz Guy, and Earle Hilgert, Toward an American
Theology: A Symposium on an Important Book . ...... i
Horn, Siegfried H., and Lenel G. Moulds, Pottery From Shechem;
Excavated 1913 and 1914 ................ 17
Kubo, Sakae, i John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual? ....... 47

Slater, Herbert T., Does the Kiddush Precede Christianity ?. . . 57
Correction ........................ 68
Book Reviews ...................... 69
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN 49104, USA
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
SEMINARY STUDIES
The Journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
of Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
SIEGFRIED H. HORN
Editor
EARLE HILGERT KENNETH A STRAND
Associate Editors
Leona G. Running Editorial Assistant
Sakae Kubo Booh Review Editor
ROY E. BRANSON Circulation Manager
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES publishes papers

and short notes in English, French and German on the follow-
ing subjects: Biblical linguistics and its cognates, textual
criticism, exegesis, Biblical archaeology and geography, an-
cient history, church history, theology, philosophy of religion,
ethics and comparative religions.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors

and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES is published in

January and July of each year. The annual subscription rate
is $4.00. Payments are to be made to Andrews University
Seminary Studies, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104, USA.
Subscribers should give full name and postal address when

paying their subscriptions and should send notice of change
of address at least five weeks before it is to take effect; the
old as well as the new address must be given.
The Journal is indexed in the

Index to Religious Periodical Literature.
TOWARD AN AMERICAN THEOLOGY
A SYMPOSIUM ON AN IMPORTANT BOOK
Editorial Note: Herbert W. Richardson's book Toward an

American Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1967; xiv +
170 pp.; $ 3-95) blazes new trails in the field of theology.
The last chapter, which emphasizes the sanctifying influence of
Sabbath observance in the realm of the theological experience
of the modern Christian, is a refreshing and uniquely thought-
provoking essay on the subject. Believing that the book for
this reason deserves more than an ordinary notice in the Book
Review section of A USS, the editor requested an ethicist, who
is also a close friend of the author of the book under review, a
theologian, and a NT scholar, to discuss the implications and
merits of Richardson's thesis as presented in his final chapter.
The three contributions of this symposium appear in the
alphabetical order of the reviewers' names.
This symposium of reviews concentrates on the final chapter

of Herbert Richardson's Toward an American Theology
because it is in his final, longest chapter (almost one-third
of the book) that the author presents his ideas on the Sabbath.
It seems appropriate, however, before discussing the last
chapter to give a brief description of the rest of the book so
that readers can put the reviews in perspective.
It is a paradox that Richardson makes unity the funda-
mental principle of his metaphysics, only to write one of the
most varied books for its size to appear in recent theological
literature. Although he repeatedly tries to argue the unity of
his book, he admits that "I have developed my arguments in
relative independence of one another" (p. 161).
Richardson has been severely criticized for writing a book
2 BRANSON - GUY - HILGERT
that pursues several ideas at once. But why is it not appro-

priate for a young theologian in his first constructive work to
invite the general Christian community to consider how he is
making up his mind ? If Richardson's protestations that the
book has an intrinsic consistency can be brushed aside, the
reader should be delighted by the opportunity to pursue one
of the most original minds on the American theological scene.
System and organization can begin later when Richardson is
on the other side of middle age. Now is the time for him to
experiment, and for Richardson's readers to delight in his
courage.
The author uses different styles and levels of discourse in
his book. His first two chapters are written in the form of
Christian apologetics. He attacks both the death-of-God theo-
logians and Christian secularists, such as his Harvard colleague
Harvey Cox. In these chapters his method is history of ideas.
He outlines the periods of intellectual history assumed by the
death-of-God theologians and Cox, and shows how their
arrangement can lead to a sense that the future does not lie
with relativism and secularity but with unity and religious
presuppositions.
Richardson's third chapter, "The Myth is the Message,"
is a venture in philosophy of language. It is perhaps his least
original essay, and therefore some would say his most sound.
Even so, his relating of Jerome Bruner's theory of language
to Christology puts traditional Christian statements in an
arresting context. Christ becomes the necessary word, making
the story of the Scriptures intelligible.
In Richardson's fourth essay, he makes no compromises
with his reader. Up to this point, Richardson seems to be
wishing to talk to those church members or secular fellow-
travelers who have been excited by Cox's Secular City. Now
he launches into the most rigorous sort of metaphysical
discussion. He outlines what he clearly thinks could be devel-
oped into a major philosophical alternative.
Richardson argues that unity is the most basic metaphysical
SYMPOSIUM ON "AMERICAN THEOLOGY" 3
principle, more fundamental even than being. The principle

of unity is distinguished by the categories of individuals,
relations and wholes, each with its appropriate language.
At the end of the chapter, Richardson points out that his
philosophical analysis coincides with such orthodox Christian
doctrines as the Trinity. In its original form, as an essay in
the HThR, Richardson promised a second article developing
further the implications of his philosophical analysis for
theology. He should be held to his promise. Of all the directions
in which Richardson's originality might take him, surely an
explication of his "henology" would be the most important.
Although in his final chapter Richardson leaves the dis-
course of apologetics or philosophy of religion to write theology,
he cannot get away from certain polemical concerns. One
that he picks up again from his first two chapters is secularism.
He reacts to those who say that American technological
society, and therefore eventually world civilization, is moving
towards greater individual freedom from both nature and
God's immediate sovereignty (for example, Cox and the
death-of-God theologians). On the contrary, he says, "God's
activity is as omnipresent as ever. We simply are not aware
of His personal presence with us."
Richardson considers the preoccupation of the theologians
of secularity, with "what God is doing" to be a typically
American concern. He puts it in the form of a question, cur
creatio ? Richardson's answer, a Sabbath perspective on
creation, Christ and the Spirit, is consistently teleological.
Every act of God leads to another, until once again we reach
God, our true end.
The institution of the Sabbath at the end of creation week
emphasizes that the creation culminated, not in man's
appearance, but in God's presence. The Sabbath shows that
the creation has been made to be a receptacle for God's
holiness.
Not only creation but Christology is understood teleo-
logically. "Since, therefore, God created the world for Sabbath
holiness, He must personally enter the world and dwell

therein" (p. 126). The purpose of the Sabbath is a microcosm
of the purpose for creation. Both must be filled with God,
who is most present when He is personally present. Eventu-
ally, according to Richardson, there had to be an incarnation.
Until the incarnation the Sabbath served as the formal
bearer of God's presence. "The Sabbath is, so to say, the
world's aptitude for the incarnation" (p. 126).
Even the incarnation is not an end in itself. "Sending the
Holy Spirit is the chief thing that Jesus seeks by His ministry
of obedience to God... the aim of His ministry is to send the
Holy Spirit to dwell in our hearts... the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit effects what the incarnation requires" (p. 146).
So, creation is for the Sabbath, where God dwells. The
Sabbath continues as the opening in time and space for the
personal coming of God. Christ, that coming, that God with
us, is for the Spirit.
But the Spirit, too, is for something else. It is for taking us
to God Himself. Richardson believes the Holy Spirit is "the
very perichoresis that unites the persons of God with each
other. Hence, when the Holy Spirit indwells us, we are lifted
into the very life of God Himself" (p. 146).
In retrospect we can see that creation, the Sabbath, Christ
and the Spirit have all gained their significance by their end,
God Himself. "We may say that God's purpose in creation
is to manifest His triune holiness to Himself by making a
world and bringing it into His own holy life" (p. 153).
Richardson looks at this entire process as sanctification.
Creation, Christ's incarnation, and the outpouring of the
Spirit are all part of God's bringing the world to Himself,
which is sanctification. But sanctification is not simply a
sequence of events. It is not just history. Sanctification is a
present possibility for every Christian. It is an ontological
reality.
But how can we know the world is not secular, but sanctified ?
How can we feel even more than human freedom, divine
holiness ? How can we realize that sanctifying is what God is

doing ? Richardson anticipates such questions from his fellow
theologians, and in response points to the Sabbath. It is in
experiencing the unseen, but real, presence of God in this
sacrament, that we can know and feel the holiness and glory
of God. In the fellowship, the oneness among believers and
their God, sensed on Sabbath, there is a microcosm of the
oneness and fellowship of all creation with and in God, which
is true sanctification.
Richardson's discussion of sanctification is a helpful anti-
dote to the death-of-God and secular theologians. But he
tries to kill two polemical adversaries with one doctrinal stone.
He tries to show the shortcomings of not only American
secular theologies, but European theology as well. He says
Europeans distort Christian theology by emphasizing the
sinfulness of man so strongly they are forced to overstress the
doctrine of redemption. Christology overwhelms the doctrine
of creation and pneumatology. Within Christology the cruci-
fixion supersedes the incarnation. What is Richardson's
corrective ? His omnibus doctrine of sanctification, high-
lighted by creation, the incarnation, and the Spirit.
The question arises, of course, Does the Sabbath, Richard-
son's sacrament of sanctification, need to get caught in a
transoceanic crossfire among theologians ? To be a symbol of
sanctification, does the Sabbath have to be excluded from
being a symbol of redemption ? To be a time when we realize
our ontological relationship to God, does the Sabbath have to
cease being a period when we remember God's mighty acts in
the history of redemption? Why do we need to limit our-
selves to Exodus 20 (Sabbath as a symbol of creation) and
exclude Deuteronomy 5 (Sabbath as a symbol of God's
redemption in the Exodus) ?
Richardon's reply is arbitrary, to put it mildly. "According
to the canon of Scripture, the 'creation interpretation' of the
Sabbath is affirmed to be theologically prior to the 'redemp-
tion interpretation.' " Since when does an account become
theologically prior because it appears a few passages before

another ? Does this mean that the gospels are less important
than Is 53, or the flood narrative ? This theological method
seems especially strange for a theologian who stresses plu-
ralism within unity as much as does Richardson. Would not
our view of the Sabbath, and by extension our understanding
of sanctification, be richer and more complete if we considered
creation and redemption as equally important ? In fact,
Richardson's discussion does assume a history of salvation
within his doctrine of sanctification. Richardson's instinct to
be inclusive in theological method has been betrayed by his
polemic against European theology.
The opposition of redemption and sanctification seems un-
necessary, even alien, to Richardson's discussion of Christo-
logy. In some of his most effective passages, Richardson talks
of Christ's mission in terms of friendship. "To know Christ is
to enjoy the presence of His person, to take delight in His
nearness, to love Him as a friend 'being with' whom is its own
sufficient reason" (p. 131). Richardson says this is sancti-
fication. Is this kind of friendship all that different from the
overcoming of estrangement, which European theologians
wish to describe as redemption ?
Because Richardson's writings are so original and creative,
questions concerning his inconsistencies are far less important
than requests for further elaborations. These could all be
gathered under the single question, How is the last chapter
related to the rest of the book ?
For instance, is the Sabbath a sacrament that is equally
relevant for all kinds of intellectus ? If not, is it most appropri-
ate for a faith of reconciliation responding to the intellectus of
relativism ? Furthermore, is the Sabbath the message ? If it
is an image according to Richardson's particular definition,
does the Sabbath have the same status as a symbol as does
the crucifixion ?
In terms of the chapter on "A Philosophy of Unity," is the
Sabbath more a word specifying an individual, a sentence
SYMPOSIUM ON AMERICAN THEOLOGY 7
appropriate for describing relations, or a capsule story

conveying the unity of the whole ? If it partakes of all three
levels, for which is it most appropriate ? Or does the Sabbath
symbolize unity itself, the unity of particulars, relations, and
wholes, and the unity of their unities ?
As we have seen, Richardson employs different modes of
discourse in his book. In the future, when he comes to expand
his essays into "a comprehensive theology, integrated by a
sustained single argument" (p. 161), he will have to decide
whether his language will be ordinary, philosophical, or theo-
logical. If, as I suspect, it will be more philosophical language
than any other, it will be interesting to see how Richardson
relates Sabbath to unity and freedom, to history and time.
That enterprise may lead other thoughtful Christians to agree
with what is now Richardson's testament of faith. "The
Sabbath is no minor article of religion, but a key to the whole
of life—its very sacrament" (p. 117).
Andrews University ROY BRANSON
II
"Toward an American Theology," the final chapter in
Herbert W. Richardson's book of essays, is a wide-ranging
constructive statement whose most obvious features are its
bold creativity, tangled organization, and sometimes-careless
formulations. Fortunately the first of these characteristics
need not be obscured by the other two, especially if they are
recognized for what they are. The organizational confusion
arises from the complexity of the author's intention, which is to
outline a theology that will integrate many of the distinctive
elements of American religious experience and at the same
time be a "full and comprehensive" statement of the Christian
faith. These goals are legitimate enough; the problem is that
Richardson tries to do everything at once. Probably it would
have been better to do first the historical task of identifying
the distinctive characteristics of American religion, then the
constructive task of interpretation and integration, and

finally the apologetic task of demonstrating its adequacy as a
Christian theology. In any event, once it is discovered that in
spite of its continual references to American religious history,
the primary intention of the essay is constructive rather than
descriptive, its glib generalizations (such as the judgment that
in American religion the Sabbath has replaced the sacraments
of baptism and the Lord's Supper) are less distracting. Then
can begin the more edifying reflection on questions concerning
the essay's success and significance.
Richardson wants to formulate a theology that is systemat-
ically coherent, distinctively American, and authentically
Christian. Therefore the first question is: How well does
his construction succeed in exhibiting each of these qualities ?
About systematic coherence there is no doubt. Richardson
has a single, central motif—namely, the question cur creatio
and its answer, the idea of sanctification within the world—to
which he relates the disparate religious expressions which are
the materials for his theological structure: the Puritan
Sabbath, the glory of God, incarnation, Mary as theotokos, etc.
The creativity with which these relationships are developed
is the chief source of interest in the essay. Moreover, the main
themes form a progressive elaboration of the central idea:
(a) as a symbol of sanctification by the presence of God within
the world, the Sabbath is the first answer to the question
cur creatio ; (b) in fulfillment of the divine purpose in creation,
the work of Christ is grounded in the incarnation (as "God
with us") rather than the crucifixion ("God for us"), and
Jesus must be understood to be God Himself; (c) the coming
of the Holy Spirit is implied both by the incarnation, through
which God obligates Himself to permanent, personal union
with man, and by the Sabbath, which expresses the divine
intention to bring the created world into God's own life.
"Cur creatio ? For the sake of the indwelling Spirit, for the
sake of the sanctification of all things, for the sake of holiness
—the glory of God" (p. 155).
In the process of being incorporated into the theological

structure, however, some of the original materials are trans-
formed. For example, the Puritan Sabbath with which
Richardson begins is useful systematically only as it points to
creation and the dignity of man. Although to the Puritans it
may have been a chronologically discrete segment of experienc-
ed time, a separate day of "holiness" in opposition to the
inevitable "worldliness" of the rest of the week, to Richardson
it is instead the experience of the personal presence of God to
man, which makes 'holy worldliness' possible. A similar
transformation occurs in regard to the key idea of intra-
mundane sanctification, which at the beginning of the essay
is synonymous with the creation of the Kingdom of God in a
righteous society, but which at the end is the becoming-holy
of the creature through the mystical indwelling of the Holy
Spirit. Such shifts in meaning leave the reader wondering just
what Richardson has in mind when he talks about keeping
the Sabbath holy, and how "the sanctification of all things"
might be recognized, objectively or subjectively, as actually
taking place.
Richardson's claim that his theology is "American" means
that "its primary themes are unique to, or persistently
characteristic of, American religious history," and that "the
unique perspective [i.e., cur creatio] which governs their
systematic arrangements is suggested by American religious
experience" (p. 157). Now it might be objected that the
Sabbath is neither "unique to" nor "persistently character-
istic of" American religion; but that would be a quibble
about Richardson's terminology. A case could be made to
support the judgment that Sabbatarianism has been relatively
more important in America than elsewhere, so that it would
qualify as a "distinguishing characteristic" of American
religion. In the long run it is difficult to dispute Richardson's
general claim that what he has outlined is a distinctively
American theology, for it reflects both the typically American
concern to make the world better, and the typically American
feeling that the dignity of man is more fundamental than his

sinfulness.
Although Richardson has evidently been successful in
offering a distinctively American theology, it is not so evident
that he has succeeded in providing "a full and balanced inter-
pretation" of Christian faith. His difficulty here is a direct
consequence of his theological ground rules. By choosing as
his materials only those religious expressions which reflect the
difference between "American" and "western European"
religion, Richardson has ipso facto abstracted them from the
total American religious experience, as well as from the total
Christian history. What is distinctive may not, after all, be
most important: maleness distinguishes a man from a
woman; but even though he never exists apart from this
distinctive sexuality, what is truly fundamental in the exist-
ence of any man is not his masculinitas but his humanitas.
A distinctively American theology can be considered a "full
and balanced interpretation" of the Christian faith only if the
religion of western Europe is such a distortion of Christianity
that any "European" elements in American religion can be
disregarded as not authentically Christian. Richardson is
willing to make this judgment; he is sure that the Christianity
of western Europe has overemphasized the NT and the
doctrine of sin, underemphasized the OT and the work of the
Spirit, and distorted Christology. To be convincing, this
evaluation needs to be supported by an appeal to some
broader criterion such as Scripture or the whole Christian
tradition. While such an appeal would certainly show up
deficiencies in the distinctive religious tradition of western
Europe, it would also disclose a one-sidedness in the distinc-
tively American tradition. A theology founded on the unique-
ness of American religion is very likely to be blind to some of
the richness of the Christian faith.
The most glaring weakness in Richardson's proposed theolo-
gy is, in fact, one of its distinctively American elements: an
overly optimistic view of man and a correspondingly super-
SYMPOSIUM ON "AMERICAN THEOLOGY" n
ficial view of sin, an outlook which is no more shared by the

OT than by the NT. In a generation that has witnessed exter-
mination camps and nuclear incineration, and that even now
watches the world's mightiest military establishment justi-
fying the devastation of a small and faraway land in the
interest of "national honor," and at home sees white adults
screaming their hatred at black children on their way to a
formerly all-white school, Richardson's confidence that
"secular therapies" are on the way to "the vanquishing of sin
within history" seems very dubious. His frankly Pelagian
view of human nature seems out of touch with the blunt
actuality of human experience as it is abstracted from the
total Christian tradition. A theology fundamentally concerned
with redemption may not be guilty of having a "vested
interest" in man's sin and weakness, as Richardson charges;
such a theology may simply be understanding the human
situation as it is.
But if Richardson's offering is something less than an
adequate expression of the Christian faith, and even of its
American actualization, his constructive effort is by no means
wasted. For he has helpfully illuminated the various elements
in his structure by bringing them into a new set of relationships.
In particular, the essay is valuable for the contribution it
makes to an understanding of the Sabbath.
Only rarely is the idea of the Sabbath in any form taken
seriously in modern theology; nowhere else does it have the
systematic importance it is given in Richardson's essay, which
is therefore an important addition to the previous interpre-
tations of the Sabbath by Karl Barth and A. J. Heschel.
Richardson makes the following points: (a) as the answer to
the question cur creatio, the meaning of the Sabbath is prima-
rily ontological rather than soteriological, more a matter of
sanctification than of redemption; (b) it directs man to a
higher goal than the fulfillment of man, that is, to the holiness
which is the glory of God; (c) it is the ground of "holy world-
liness," as the means of sanctifying ordinary life by the personal
presence of God; (d) it is not repudiated but affirmed by the

Christian observance of Sunday, which is an indication of the
establishment of the eschatological Kingdom of God.
The distinction between the ontological and soteriological
meanings of the Sabbath is valid, and Richardson is right in
emphasizing this dual orientation in the OT. It may be ques-
tioned, however, whether it is either necessary or helpful to
subordinate one meaning to the other; it is quite possible to
maintain both in a polar tension. According to the Genesis
narrative, in which the divine designation of the Sabbath is
the climax of Creation, distinct from and prior to the Fall, the
fact of the Sabbath is not dependent on the fact of sin; but
this does not imply that the fact of sin is irrelevant to the
meaning of the Sabbath. On the contrary, the existential
predicament of man makes the ontological symbolism of the
Sabbath all the more significant.
The relation of the Sabbath to the currently fashionable
idea of "holy worldliness" is also an important suggestion.
The experience of the Sabbath enables the Christian's parti-
cipation in the ongoing life of the world to be a "holy"
participation. And it is just here that the "negative," separa-
tive function of the Sabbath is significant: only on the basis
of a distinction from the world is a "holy worldliness"
possible; otherwise there is nothing but secularity (although
perhaps at a high humanitarian level). Richardson tacitly
acknowledges this kind of "separation" when he affirms a
goal for human existence higher than man's own good. It is
more than coincidental that in the OT the Sabbath is closely
related to the vocation of Israel, whose separateness from the
world was a necessary condition for blessing the world. On the
other hand, those for whom the Sabbath is religiously im-
portant are often inclined to forget that Sabbath holiness is
empty apart from an appropriate involvement in the world;
they should be benefited by, and hence grateful for, Richard-
son's connection of the Sabbath to "holy worldliness."
In all of his talk about Sabbath holiness, including his
affirmation of Sunday as a holy day, Richardson does not take

into account a crucial characteristic of contemporary Ameri-
can religion: its decreasing sensitivity to the transcendent.
Without such a sensitivity, the whole idea of holiness collapses.
Does a culture that has so much trouble making sense out of
the idea of God have any way of comprehending a Sabbath
made holy by His "personal presence" ? Richardson is not
alone in needing an answer to this question.
Loma Linda University FRITZ GUY
III
Herbert W. Richardson is to be thanked for his penetrating
study of the meaning of the Sabbath and for his originality in
discerning it as a central feature on the contour of his futur-
istic view of American theology. Not only does much of what
he says represent a conscious reaction against both Reforma-
tion and neo-Reformation presuppositions, but his pages are
filled with a succession of new insights. And this makes exciting
reading.
As this reviewer read Richardson's chapter on the Sabbath,
however, he repeatedly found himself saying "yes" and "no"
at the same time: "yes" to a provocative idea, "no" to its
being set over in an altogether exclusive way against that
which Richardson sees as its opposite. In setting up an
"American," creation-oriented theology as an alternative to
the Reformed, cross-centered theology, he seems to err at
least as badly as he feels the Reformers did, in that he also
provides too narrow a basis for his structure.
Richardson rightly claims that Reformed theology has
neglected the Old Testament. He proposes therefore to turn
from "the western theological concern with the question
cur deus homo" to the question cur creatio which he sees to
"contrast sharply" with the former (p. 118). The question of
creation is a frequently needed counterbalance to an exclu-
sively cross-centered theology; however, to consider creation
and cross as sharply contrasting alternatives is to fragmentize

biblical theology and overemphasize the OT at the expense
of the NT. Although too often neglected, nevertheless the
OT assumes its full meaning for the Christian only when
it is understood in the light of the NT. We can adequately
understand cur deus homo only when we also ask cur creatio.
Yet for the Christian, creation can only be looked at in the
light of the incarnation. To do otherwise is to ignore Jn i :i-3,
14, 15 which asserts the incarnation of the Creator.
Richardson proposes to "allow our answers to the question
cur creatio to guide our reflection on Jesus Christ. This means,
of course, that Christology will be the second rather than the
first topic in the doctrinal system" (pp. 126,127). He goes on to
demonstrate that "the theology of the cross can actually be
shown to be a western accommodation to Arianism and natu-
ralism," because it makes "the chief end of Christ's work less
than the chief end of God's work in creating the world"
(pp. 127, 129). This reviewer agrees that the historia salutis
does indeed have a deeper and broader purpose than just the
salvation of man, the restoration of the imago dei. There is a
cosmic dimension involved which cannot be divorced from
the question cur creatio. Richardson is right when he declares,
"The incarnation is, therefore, not a rescue operation, decid-
ed upon only after sin had entered into the world. Rather,
the coming of Christ fulfills the purpose of God in creating
the world" (p. 130). But this can, and must, all be said while
maintaining the centrality of Christology and incarnation
precisely because it is Christ who is the Creator, "slain from
the foundation of the world." The fact that incarnation cannot
be limited to the single purpose of the redemption of man,
but must be understood in the light of creation, raises it to a
cosmic level that makes it the overarching theme of the whole
historia salutis. From a biblical standpoint the question cur
creatio cannot be asked or answered apart from cur deus homo.
Much the same is to be said of the "conflict between the
creation and the redemption interpretations of the Sabbath"
(p. 115), with reference to Ex 20:11 and Dt 5:15. Ostensibly

in conflict, the basing of the Sabbath in creation and in the
redemption of Israel from Egypt may be seen as complemen-
tary when cast in the perspective of the whole biblical history
of salvation: the biblical creation story is told for the sake of
the historia to follow and can only be understood in the light
of it; from the biblical point of view, to ask cur creatio is
also to ask cur testamentum salutis—and that is cur deus homo \
And the liberation from Egypt is a moment in the historia
which captures within itself the significance of the whole.
That the Sabbath can be connected with both, far from in-
volving a contradiction, means that it stands as a symbol of
salvation in its fullest dimension.
Another point at which this reviewer believes Richardson
has provided a valuable insight, but has made too sharp a
dichotomy, is in the characterization of the Sabbath, and
particularly of it as having eschatological implications, as
American. While Sabbatarian observance was clearly a hall-
mark of American Puritanism, and carried over into other areas
of Protestantism in this country, such as nineteenth-century
Methodism, yet it is by no means distinctively American. In
this regard the Puritan tradition derives from the very Re-
formed theology and practice against which Richardson sets
up his "American theology." To assert the distinctive Ameri-
canism of the Sabbath, while in a sense correct, is nevertheless
to oversimplify its history.
Furthermore, the connection of the Sabbath with eschato-
logy, with "the sanctification of ah1 things" (p. 113), is a
theme that may be traced through rabbinical literature to the
Jewish apocalyptic notion of the "world-week," in which the
Sabbath stands as a symbol of the Messianic Age.1 This theme
carries over into the early patristic literature. 2 Later the
1 Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, IV: 2, 989-991; W. Rordorf, Der
Sonntag (Zurich, 1962), pp. 49-51.
2 Barnabas 15: 7, 8 ("Then only [i.e., on the eschatological Sabbath]
will we truly rest and sanctify it ... because we ourselves have
first been sanctified"); Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 30, 4; 5, 33, 20.
l6 BRANSON - GUY - HILGERT
notion of the hereafter as an eternal Sabbath is a familiar

theme. 3 Here again "American theology" draws on a rich and
ancient heritage.
Although Richardson sometimes draws his lines too sharply
and narrowly, at the same time he has said many things to
broaden our understanding of the Sabbath. The notion of the
Sabbath as a sacrament (but not to replace "the Christological
sacraments characteristic of European Christianity! "p. 118),
the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Sabbath, and the holiness
of the Sabbath as the glory of God (p. 119) are emphases that
give the Sabbath its rightful position in Christian theology.
Andrews University EARLE HILGERT
3 Origen, Horn, on Num. 23, 4; Eusebius, Commentary on Ps 91
(92); cf. H. Dumaine, "Dimanche," Diet, d'arch. chr&t., IV: i, 921-924.
POTTERY FROM SHECHEM
EXCAVATED 1913 AND 1914
SIEGFRIED H. HORN LENEL G. MOULDS 1
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, Michigan Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
In a previous article dealing with the objects of bone,

stone and metal discovered in the 1913 and 1914 expeditions
at Biblical Shechem the history of the rediscovery of this mate-
1 The first-mentioned author contributed the historical section,
made all drawings, and was responsible for writing the article, while
the second author worked on the identification of all vessels for an
unpublished M. Th. thesis, "The Whole and the Restored Pottery of
the 1913, 1914 Shechem Campaigns," deposited in the James White
Library of Andrews University. It is a pleasure to express gratitude
to Dr. Egon Komorzynski, director of the Egyptian collection of the
Kunsthistorisch.es Museum at Vienna, for permitting us to study
and publish the material presented in this article. Thanks are also
offered to the Archaeological Research Foundation, New York, N. Y.,
for a grant which enabled the first-mentioned author to study the
material presented in this article in Vienna and have it photographed
in November, 1965.
Gratitude is especially due to four readers of this article, each an
expert in Palestinian ancient ceramics in general and in the pottery
of Shechem in particular. Daniel P. Cole and Joe D. Seger have con-
tributed notes with regard to comparative MB II B and MB II C
material from Shechem which has been obtained from stratified ex-
cavations carried out by the Drew-McCormick expedition in recent
years. This material provided the basis for the following two doctoral
dissertations: Cole, "Middle Bronze II B Pottery at Shechem" (Drew
University, 1965), and Seger, "The Pottery of Palestine at the Close
of the Middle Bronze Age" (Harvard University, 1965). These disser-
tations are cited in the text as "Cole" and "Seger" respectively.
Roger S. Boraas, whose dissertation "Judges IX and Tell Balatah"
(Drew University, 1965) deals mainly with the Iron I Age, and John
S. Holladay, Jr., who wrote a dissertation, "The Pottery of Northern
Palestine, in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries B.C." (Harvard Univer-
sity, 1966), have both contributed critical comments on the Iron age
vessels, and made helpful suggestions. Their intimate acquaintance
with the pottery excavated during the recent American expeditions
at Shechem make these notes and observations especially valuable.
However, it should be pointed out that the authors remain responsible
l8 S. H. HORN AND L. G. MOULDS
rial in Vienna is told. 2 When that article was written there

was still some doubt whether all material identified as coming
from Shechem had really been discovered there, because no
records of it were found in the Vienna Museum. All identifica-
tions had been made on the basis of the type of material
revealing its Palestinian provenance, and on the basis of the
for any imperfections, errors and faults which, this article may still
contain.
The following abbreviations are used in addition to those listed on
the back cover of this Journal:
AAA = Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (Liverpool, 1908-
1948).
AG I-V = F. Petrie, Ancient Gaza I-V (London, 1931-1952).
Ain Shems, IV-V = Elihu Grant and G. Ernest Wright, Ain Shems
Excavations, Vols. IV and V (Haverford, Pa., 1938, 1939), 2 vols.
Beth-shan, II = G. M. Fitzgerald, The Four Canaanite Temples of
Beth-shan, Vol. II, Part II, The Pottery (Philadelphia, 1930).
Bethzur = O. R. Sellers, The Citadel of Beth-zur (Philadelphia, 1933).
Corpus = J. Garrow Duncan, Corpus of Dated Palestinian Pottery
(London, 1930).
Gibeon = J. B. Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon (Phila-
delphia, 1963).
Hazov I-IV = Yigael Yadin et al., Razor I-IV (Jerusalem, 1958,
1960, 1961).
JEOL = Jaarbericht, Ex Oriente Lux (Leiden, 1933—).
Jer., I-II = Kathleen M. Kenyon et al., Excavations at Jericho, I-II
(London, 1960, 1965), 2 vols.
Lack. II-IV = Olga Tufnell et al., Lachish II-IV (Oxford, 1940,
1953, 1958), 5 vols.
Meg. I = R. S. Lamon and G. M. Shipton, Megiddo I (Chicago,
1939).
Meg. II = Gordon Loud, Megiddo II (Chicago, 1948), 2 vols.
Meg. Tombs = P. L. O. Guy, Megiddo Tombs (Chicago, 1938).
PCC — Paul W. Lapp, Palestinian Ceramic Chronology 200 B.C.-
A.D. 70 (New Haven, Conn., 1961).
Sam., Ill = J. W. Crowfoot et al., Samaria-Sebaste, III (London,
1957).
TAH, I-II = R. W. Hamilton, "Excavations at Tell Abu Hawam,"
QDAP, III (1934)- 74-8o; IV (1935), 1-69-
TBM, I-III = W. F. Albright, The Excavations of Tell BeitMirsim,
I-III (New Haven, Conn., 1932, 1933, 1938, 1943).
TN, II = Joseph C. Wampler, Tell en-Nasbeh, II (Berkeley, 1947).
2 Siegfried H. Horn, "Objects from Shechem Excavated 1913 and
1914," JEOL, No. 20 (1968), pp. 71-90, Figs. 1-5, Pis. XV-XIX.
POTTERY FROM SHECHEM IQ
hand-written numbers found on the objects. Yet the first-

mentioned author continued to be haunted by the fear that
mixed with this material there might be obj ects from Ta 'anach,
a site which Ernst Sellin, the first excavator of Shechem, had
excavated from 1902-04 during the time when he was profes-
sor at Vienna. Since it was not known and still remains un-
known what had become of Sellin's share of the Ta'anach
material, the suspicion seemed justified that it might be among
the so-called Shechem material.
Fortunately this fear proved to be groundless. After the
first article, mentioned above, had been completed, the Fund-
buck of the 1913 and 1914 expeditions was found by Prof.
A. Kuschke in the library of the "German Evangelical Insti^
tute of the Archaeology of the Holy Land" in Jerusalem.
This little notebook was kindly turned over to the Drew-
McCormick Archaeological Expedition to Shechem. It was
written by Prof. C. Praschniker, Sellin's associate-architect
of the expedition. In a footnote 3 some information about
this Fundbuch was added to the first article.
This book showed that the objects identified as coming
from Shechem had not been mislabeled. It is true that a
few of the identified objects had lost their original number or
label, for which reason absolute certainty with regard to
their origin cannot be ascertained. However, there is reason to
believe that even these pieces come from Shechem, because of
certain weaknesses found in the records. Some of the objects
recorded in the Fundbuch carry sketches from Praschniker's
hand and can easily be recognized, but many do not, and even
the description of many objects is so brief that no definite
identification is possible where an object has no number.
Plate I presents a photographic reproduction of the last two
pages of the Fundbuch containing most of the entries for
May 5, 1914. It shows that No. 489 is the last recorded object,
although further down on the same page a remark is made
about No. 505 (which is our No. 157). From Sellin's published
3 Ibid., p. 75, n. ii.
20 S. H. HORN AND L. G. MOULDS
reports it is known that actual excavations were carried out

during the 1914 expedition until May 7, which means that
the objects found during the last two days remained unre-
corded. A bronze needle, published in JEOL, 20 (1968), p.
82, No. 57, bears the date of May 6 on a slip attached to it.
Our numbers 146, 147, 156 and 187 probably also come
from these last two days of the 1914 campaign.
It is obvious that the material now in the Vienna Museum
does not constitute all the objects found during the 1913 and
1914 excavations. It was the custom in the Turkish empire,
to which Palestine belonged before World War I, to give
a representative portion of all excavated objects and of the
pottery to the excavator's sponsors, and transfer the objects
retained in the division of finds to the Archaeological Museum
in Constantinople (now Istanbul). The Fundbuch has some
clear indication that a division of finds took place after the
1913 expedition, because behind most entries there are found
such notes as W or N, standing for Wien (i.e., Vienna) or
Nablus respectively. In a few cases the names of the cities
"Wien" and "Nablus" are actually written out. * The division
of finds in 1914 is not indicated in the Fundbuch, although it
contains a few notes that some objects were turned over to
the Turkish representative of the Department of Antiquities. 5
In order to find the Shechem material of the 1913 and 1914
expedition which was retained by the Turkish authorities,
4 In the Fundbuch, Nos. n and 31 have the notes "Nablus," and
No. 32 "Wien." No. 3, which is the record of a large jar that contained
850 arrow-heads, has an "N" placed after the sketch of the jar indica-
ting that it went to Nablus, while underneath the sketch of an arrow-
head a note is found, "50 Wien," meaning that 50 of the arrowheads
went to Vienna; 49 of these were identified. There is at least one faulty
annotation, because No. g in the Fundbuch, claimed to have gone to
"Nfablus]" is actually in Vienna, and is our No. 182.
5 For example, under No. 263 the finding of 19 juglets is reported
and the note is added "bis auf 4 dem Kommissar iibergeben." This
note, that all but four had been surrendered to the commissioner,
again contains an error, because seven of the juglets in Vienna bear
the number 263. No. 310 records and depicts the fragments of a goblet
with the remark: "Kommissar iibergeben."
POTTERY FROM SHECHEM 21
the first-listed author of this article spent several days in

Istanbul in June, 1967. Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Nezih
Firath, curator of Classical Antiquities of the Archaeological
Museum, he was enabled to make a thorough investigation of
the holdings of the museum's storerooms with regard to obj ects
originating in Palestine. This search was unsuccessful. The
museum has items from the excavations of Sellin in Ta'anach,
of Schuhmacher in Megiddo, of Macalister in Gezer, and of
expeditions in Jerusalem, but not a piece could be found from
Shechem either in the drawers or on the shelves of the store-
rooms. Also the museum records are completely silent concern-
ing any of its holdings as originating from Shechem. The only
explanation for this lack of Shechem material in Istanbul is that
it remained in Nablus or Jerusalem, because the outbreak of
World War I prevented its transfer to the Turkish capital.
During the war years or after the war these objects may have
come into the hands of dealers and were thus dispersed. It
seems that there is little hope that this material will ever be
rediscovered.
The present article deals with 53 vessels of pottery which
are either complete or restored. 6 Except for five, all vessels
discussed here bear the excavator's numbers, but the prove-
nance of one other is somewhat uncertain because of am-
biguities in the records. ' However, the probability is great
that all 53 vessels come from Shechem.
A word must be said with regard to the amount of restora-
tion: of the 53 vessels published here for the first time,
nine are complete and unbroken; four are broken and mended,
6 No records exist with regard to the restorations performed on the
vessels, or under whose supervision they were made. It is most likely
that this work was carried out shortly after the expeditions were
completed, and most probably in the workshop of the Kunsthistorisches
Museum at Vienna.
7 While the Fundbuch contains good sketches and measurements for
some vessels which facilitate identification, in many cases the entries
are very insufficient, as for example the one for No. 486: "Versch.
Gefassfgte," meaning either "Different fragments of a vessel," or "Dif-
ferent fragments of vessels."
without any parts missing; 16 contain minor restorations;

and 24 contain major restorations.
Unfortunately almost nothing is known of the provenience
of any of the vessels published here. Sellin's published pre-
liminary reports—the only records of the two pre-World War
I campaigns still existing—are so brief that nothing can be
learned with regard to the objects found during the exca-
vations. 8 Praschnicker's Fundbuch contains a few brief notes
with regard to the origin of some objects, but even these are
not very helpful. For example, Praschnicker provides the in-
formation under No. 3 that on Sept. 5, 1913 a jar containing
850 arrowheads was found "Im Grossen NS Graben." This
north-south trench dug in 1913 was 52 meters long, 5 meters
wide, and had a depth of 6.50 meters. In the course of this
massive earth-moving operation Sellin's workmen must have
cut through several occupational layers reaching from the
Middle Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Period, as the extant
pottery shows. A statement that a certain jar was found in
this tremendous trench is therefore of no help, for which rea-
son the dating of all objects from the excavation must be
based on typological criteria only.
Under the date of Sept. 8, 1913 the remark is made that
the objects Nos. 19 and following had come "Aus dem Lehm-
hause in der Mitte des Grabens 1.80 [Meter] unter der Ober-
flache." Again this information is of little help. From three
vessels found there (his Nos. 20, 24, and 26b, which are our
Nos. 176, 179, and 180) it is clear that the so-called "clay-
house," probably the remains of a building of sun-dried bricks,
must have belonged to the Iron I Age, because the three
vessels in question belong to that period.
The foregoing remarks make it clear that the preserved
8 Ernst Sellin, Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Vol. 51, No. VII (March 4, 1914), pp.
35-40, 2 pis.; No. XVIII (July 8, 1914), pp. 204-207. See for a summary
of the work carried out in 1913 and 1914 according to the published
reports, G. Ernest Wright, Shechem (New York, 1965), pp. 7, 8; Horn,
"Shechem," JEOL. No. 18 (1965), pp. 289-291.
pottery of the 1913 and 1914 Shechem expeditions must be

dated by comparing it with vessels coming from stratigraph-
ically controlled excavations of Palestinian sites. Its value
for the reconstruction of the history of ancient Shechem con-
sists in its correlation with the pottery found by the Drew-
McCormick Archaeological Expedition to Shechem. This pot-
tery is also of interest because of the fact that Sellin in his
massive earth-moving activities at Shechem obtained a pro-
portionately large number of whole, near-whole, and restorable
vessels. This was also true of Sellin's post-World War I ex-
cavations, as proved by the numerous well preserved vessels,
now in the Leiden Museum, which still await study and publi-
cation. For these reasons the publication of the pottery of these
earlier excavations is necessary, and the present study tries
to make a contribution in this respect.
Description 9
(Plates II-IX) 10
Goblets. The carinated vessels on a high trumpet foot, listed
as goblets in Nos. 136-139, are given various names in the
9 In order to date the vessels described on the following pages,
pottery obtained from stratified excavations must serve as comparative
material. In the process of dating, profile similarity has been upper-
most in consideration, with stance, diameter, finish and texture fol-
lowing in that order. If a vessel is decorated, the decoration plays
a great role in the determination of age.
The dating of strata of various published excavation sites follows
the conclusions reached by Wright, "The Archaeology of Palestine,"
in Wright, ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Garden City, N.
Y., 1961), pp. 73-112. In accordance with Wright's study the follow-
ing table indicates the archaeological designations used in this article
and their approximate time periods in the B.C. scheme:
(Note 9 is continued on p. 24.)
10 The scale of all line drawings on Plates II, IV, VI and VIII is i -.4.
Broken lines indicate either that the restored part is conjecturally
restored or that it is missing and has not been restored. Parts of
vessels of which enough sherds are preserved to make their restoration
certain are drawn as if they were perfectly preserved. In such cases
the amount of restoration is not indicated in the drawings.
publications of MB pottery. Albright does not name them

but merely says that they belong to the categories of the
classical crater, stamnus and cylix. 11 Y. Yadin simply calls
them "bowls." 12 K. Kenyon, 13 foUowed by J. Pritchard, 14
distinguishes between "Pedestal Vases" and "Goblets," the
pedestal vases consisting of a trumpet foot, a wide body and
narrower neck, 15 while the goblets have instead of a neck an
open bowl of which the rim has a larger diameter than the
lower body. 16
136. A major part of a goblet of which the sherds were
found in the Northwest City Gate April 4, 1914. It is made
of buff clay, has neither core nor grits, and shows a buff
slip. The lower part of the body has a diameter of 126 mm.
Middle Bronze Age:
MB II A 1900-1750/1700
MB II B 1750/1700-1650/1600
MB II C 1650/1600-1550/1500
Late Bronze Age:
LB I 1500-1400
LB II A 1400-1300
LB II B 1300-1200
Iron Age:
Iron I A 1200-1150
Iron I B 1150-1000
Iron I C 1000-900
Iron II A 900-700
Iron II B 700-586
Persian Period: 539-331
Hellenistic Period: 331-63
Roman Period: 63-
11 TBM, I, pp. 22, 23. He refers to the unpublished Shechem goblets
of the 1913 and 1914 excavations as being "in the Berlin Museum."
Actually they are in the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Vienna.
™HazorII, Pl.Ciyi; Hazor III-IV, Pis. CXCVIII: i; CCXXXIX:
2,15-
13 Jer., I, pp. 428-430, Nos. 14-20.
li Gibeon, pp. 144, Nos. 10-15.
16 In TBM, IA, pp. 76, 77 these vessels are called "carinated bowls"
by Albright.
16 Garstang reversed the names. He called the pedestal vases
"goblets" and the goblets "cups" (AAA, XXI [1934], PI. XXI: 1-4,
but is inconsistent on PI. XXII: 14).
It was in its complete state a much larger vessel than the three
following goblets.
137. A goblet found September 15, 1913 together with Nos.
138 and 139, in addition to three others of the same type
which must have been retained in Nablus (Excavator's Nos.
141-144, of which No. 143 lists three vessels). The profile of
its rim differs from its two fellows, and also the lower part of
the body, which is round, while those of the others have sharp
edges. It is restored from many fragments. Its thickness is
only 2.5 mm. It is of orange clay, has a buff slip and is wheel-
made. Its rim has a diameter of 155 mm, the trumpet foot
has a diameter of 62 mm, while the height of the vessel is 137
mm.
138. A goblet found together with Nos. 137 and 139. It
shows many similarities with No. 139; the clay, however, is
of a gray-brown color and shows white grits. The rim has a
diameter of 160 mm, the trumpet foot of 56 mm, and the total
height is 142 mm.
139. A goblet found together with Nos. 137 and 138. It
is restored. The egg-shell-thin vessel (2 mm thick) is of dark
brown, finely levigated clay with no grits visible. The rim
has a diameter of 150 mm, the trumpet foot of 56 mm, and the
height of the vessel is 165 mm.
Both the pedestal vases and the goblets belong to the MB
II period. Praschniker's Fundbuch indicates that many more
sherds of goblets were found than were saved for restoration.
The four goblets described in the preceding paragraphs differ
in detail but find parallels at other MB II sites:
For No. 136 cf. the MB II B goblet of Stratum XII from
Megiddo (Meg. II, PI. 29: 5), and the MB II goblet from Hazor
(Razor III-IV, PI. CCXXXIX: 15). According to Cole and
Seger, direct parallels to MB II materials from the recent
Shechem excavations are lacking. Typologically it may be a
transitional form between our Shechem 138-139 and 137,
although an early LB date cannot be ruled out. The lack of
a sharp inner edge, absence of burnish and the height of the
shoulder argue against a date earlier than MB II C. 17

For No. 137 no close parallel could be found with regard to the
combination of body shape and rim indenture. The lower body
is represented in a MB II goblet from Hazor (Razor III-IV,
PI. CXCVIII: i); in an example from Tell Beit Mirsim from
a Level D substratum (TBM IA, PI. 8: 13); further from Me-
giddo Tomb 3048 of MB II C Stratum X (Meg. II, PL 44: 27)
and Tombs 3096 and 3085 of the slightly earlier Stratum
XI (ibid., PI. 37: 7). On the basis of the stratified Shechem
material this vessel lacking burnish but having an elabo-
rated high pedestal base must be placed in the MB II C
horizon.
For Nos. 138 and 139 cf. the MB II C goblet from Tell Beit
Mirsim (TBM, I, PI. 43: 6), and those from Jericho (Jer.,
I, Fig. 179: 20), and el-Jib (Gibeon, Figs. 61: 15; 97: 7).
On the basis of the stratified Shechem material Shechem 138
and 139 also cannot be dated earlier than the MB II B or
MB II C. Cole in his remarks on these goblets suggests that
the typological progression was probably from 139 to 138 to
136 to 137, although it is quite possible that they could all
occur in the same context.
140. The body of a cylindrical juglet or oil flask found April
18, 1914. The neck, mouth and most of the handle are lost.
It is made of orange-buff clay, has whitish grits, and is well
fired so that no core is visible. It has neither slip nor burnish
and was probably made on a slow wheel. Its greatest diameter
is 63 mm, its preserved height 54 mm.
This type of flask occurs in MB II B-C strata, though not
in great numbers. From Hazor comes one of similar size from
the MB II Locus 8210 of Area F (Hazor III-IV, PI. CCXXXIX:
18; CCCV: 9) and a larger one from the MB II Stratum 3 of
Area D (Hazor I, PL XCIV: 15, CLXVIII: 13). In Tell Beit
17 A detailed discussion of the stratified goblet specimens from

Shechem's recent excavations is presented in the dissertations of
Cole, Pis. XXIX: a-c, and XXVIII: d-g, and Seger, PL XXV, and
related analysis sections.
Mirsim flasks of this type were found in MB II C Stratum D

(TBM.IA, PI. 15: 1-3,6).
Cole suggests that this type of cyclindrical juglet cannot be
dated closer than MB II from the stratified Shechem material.
There are four stratified sherds in the MB II B material; three
of them, thick unburnished ware, came from good Temenos
3 loci (= ca. 1725-1700 B. c.; see for the date Wright, Shechem,
p. 122). Seger would allow for Shechem 140 even a LB I
horizon.
141. A jug found April 15, 1914. It is made of orange clay
and has been restored. Wheel-made, well fired and burnished,
it shows no grits on the outside. Its greatest height is 142 mm,
and the greatest diameter 118 mm.
This type of jug does not frequently occur, and its produc-
tion seems to have been restricted to the MB II period. The
closest parallel comes from Hazor, Area D, Stratum I (Razor
I, PI. CIII: 15), but similar jugs were also found at Megiddo
in MB II B Strata XI-XII (Meg. II, Pis. 24: 36; 25: 4; 33:
31; 41: 31; 50: 24). From TellBeit Mirsim comes a jug with
a similar general shape, although handle and rim differ (TBM,
I, Pis. 9: 4; 42: 10). It represents a transition from the MB
II C forms.
Cole says that the stratified Shechem material lacks clear
specimens of this vessel except for several handle and rim
fragments (Cole, PI. LXXXII: e-g), but Seger had MB II C
examples with higher shoulder and more articulated rim-
neck transitions (Seger, PI. LV).
142. A bowl, restored in its upper part, found, according to
the Fundbuch, Sept. 15, 1913, in "dem Hause am Nordende
des Hauptgrabens." It is wheel-made of buff clay, shows no
grits on the outside, and is well fired. The diameter of its
rim is 180 mm, its height 50 mm.
Similar bowls have been found in the MB II B-C Strata
D-E of Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, IA, PL 10: 7-9) and in MB
II B-C Strata IX-XII of Megiddo (Meg. II, PI. 38:2, 7,
8). Another parallel is a bowl from an MB II context of Hazor
(Razor II, PL CIX: 8). The stratified Shechem material sug-

gests that the combination of features on this specimen are
not likely to be found before the latter half of MB II B. The
slightly thickened and inward rounded rim, the high, flat
ring base and the lack of slip and burnish all point to a date
after ca. 1700 B. c. (Shechem Temenos 4 and following).
143. A carinated bowl. It carries the excavator's number 39,
but this must be considered a mistake, because the Fundbuch
lists under the date of Sept. 9, 1913 as No. 39 a "Beinmesser"
of 80 mm length. The bowl is restored from numerous sherds.
It is of orange-colored clay with white grits, wheel-made and
well fired, but has neither a slip nor a burnish. Height is
86 mm and greatest diameter 154 mm.
The closest parallels to this vessel are some bowls found in
several tombs of the southern Tell el-Far 1ah, and dated by
Duncan to the Hyksos period (Corpus, 18: J 4) 18 and to the
19 Dynasty (ibid., i8:P5). 19 This type of carinated bowls
with a flaring rim is common in MB II C Stratum D at Tell
Beit Mirsim, and at other sites for which Albright has given
references (TBM, I, p. 22, PL 42: 4-6). Similar bowls come
from the following MB II tombs at Jericho: No. 9 (A A A, XIX,
PL 36:9), Ji (Jer., I, Fig. 179:12), Hi3 (Jer., I, Fig. 209:2),
Jao (Jer., II, Fig. 212:13), and 145 (Jer., II, Fig. 230:8).
The stratified Shechem material shows that this bowl
reflects the last stage in the deterioration of the MB II
carinated bowl shape. Accordingly it should be dated to the
end of MB II C or early LB. The parallel vessels of stratified
Shechem MB II B specimens are lower in proportion to their
18 Tombs Nos. 371, 550, 565 and 704, but there is a question about
the accuracy of the drawings of Duncan's work, because the additional
reference made to a bowl drawn by Macalister in Excavations in Pales
tine (London, 1902), PI. 34: 13, has an entirely different shape in its
upper part including the rim.
19 The dates of Duncan cannot be trusted. His 18: J4 is dated as
coming from the isth and i6th Dynasties, which according to p. 5
would range from 2400-1600 B.C., while in reality the two dynasties
cover only the last two centuries of this period. On the other hand
the vessel 18: PS is probably dated too late.
diameter, have more carefully articulated flat or low disc-

bases, and rims that curve more gently outward and upward.
Even though the sharp edge of the earlier MB carina is often
reduced to a gentle curve, there is still a noticeable turning-in
of the upper vessel walls. (See Cole, Pis XXV: c-e; XXVI:
a-g.) MB II C examples show decline in all these features
approaching the form of Shechem 143, but not quite duplicat-
ing it (see Seger, Pis. XVII: a-h; XIX: a-d).
144. An unusual bowl with a trumpet-foot found Sept. 12,
1913. The bowl, restored from several fragments, is of buff
well-levigated clay which shows no grits. It was wheel-made
and well fired, but not burnished. The diameter of its rim is
180 mm, and its overall height 50 mm.
The combination of a wide flat bowl with a trumpet foot
is unusual. It is obvious that it is influenced by the pedestal
vases and goblets of the MB II period. It is therefore not
strange that the only close parallels to this vessel have been
found in MB II contexts. In Tomb Hi3 at Jericho containing
MB II material, a large bowl (320 mm in diameter) with a
trumpet foot was found (Jer., I, Fig. 209:1), although its
foot is much squatter than that of the Shechem bowl. A
smaller bowl (150 mm in diameter) on a high trumpet foot
comes from the MB II B Stratum E at Tell Belt Mirsim (TBM,
IA,P1.8:i6)..
The Shechem bowl 144 should be dated in the second half
of MB II B (Shechem Temenos 4) according to the stratified
Shechem evidence. The simple rim and the graceful concave
bowl run through MB II (see Cole, PL I: a-f; Seger, PI. I: a-f),
but the high pedestal base on platter bowl ware is not evidenc-
ed earlier than Temenos 4 (see Cole, PI. XXXVIII: a, g).
The base of Shechem 144 is more closely related to specimens
from Temenoi 4-5 than to those of the Shechem MB II C strata,
where the bases tend to be more elaborately profiled (see
Seger, PI. XIV).
The following four long-pointed, one-handled jugs or
juglets (for the smaller specimens) belong to a very common
type of MB vessel. Albright says that this jug originally

"had a flat base instead of a sharp point" (TBM, I A, p. 86),
and that "it died out rapidly in the LB I" period, being later
replaced ' 'by a type superficially much the same in appearance,
but showing marks of vertical paring with a knife all around
the body" (TBM, I, p. 21).
145. This jug and No. 146 must have been found during
the last two days of digging in 1914, after May 5, the last
day on which the entries were made in the Fundbuch, because
the excavator's numbers are 500 and 502, while the Fundbuch
ends with No. 489, although a reference is made on the same
page to a photograph of an object numbered 505 (see our
No. 157). The jug is wheel-made, of light gray clay showing
white grits, and has a buff slip; it is restored from several
fragments. Its greatest diameter is 85 mm and height 240 mm.
146. For the date of discovery of this jug, also restored,
see No. 145. It is of orange clay and shows white grits, but
has no slip. Its greatest diameter is 73 mm and height 180 mm.
147. This jug does not bear the excavator's number, but
an attached slip contains the information "Abfallgrube F IV."
It is of buff clay, shows whitish grits, and has a buff-gray
slip. Its greatest diameter is 71 mm and height 200 mm.
148. The excavator's number of this jug is lost. It is also
restored. Made of orange clay with white grits, it has a
greatest diameter of 71 mm and a height of 172 mm.
Parallels to the jugs 145-148 are found in MB II strata at
Hazor, Megiddo, Beth-shemesh, Lachish, Jericho and else-
where (Razor I, PL CXX: 9-11 ; XLVII: 2; Meg., II, PL 33 :22,
23, 25, 26; Ain Shems, IV, PL XXXV: n; Lack. IV, PL 51:
16, 17; Jer., I, Fig. 123:1-4 [Tomb 037]; Fig. 210:1-3 [Tomb
The stratified specimens from Shechem indicate that these

unburnished vessels should be dated in the later MB II B or
MB II C periods, for the early MB II B examples are usually
burnished. The carelessly fashioned handles on Shechem 147
and 148 are more expected in MB II C. Otherwise the shape
of these jugs can occur any time from the beginning of MB II

B to the end of MB II C (cf. Cole, PL LXXXIV with Seger,
PI. XLVII).
149. The upper part of a goblet of which the excavator's
number has been lost. In its present condition it consists of
six sherds, but the pre-war photo of the Vienna Museum
reproduced on PI. V shows more than is now preserved. It
is of red finely levigated clay which has no grits. The vessel
was wheel-made and is well fired, having neither a slip nor
burnish. The diameter of the rim is 140 mm. Underneath the
rim and again at the lower part of the cup are two horizontal
lines. The lower two are connected by triangles. A stylized
tree (upside down) and vertical lines connect the upper and
lower double horizontal lines. The decoration seems to put
the vessel in the LB period, but close parallels cannot be
found either to its shape or decoration in the published
Palestinian pottery. Somewhat parallel vessels without its
decoration have come to light at Hazor (Razor II, PI. CIX:
19, 20) and Megiddo (Meg. II, PL 29:4). For the tree-motif
standing between horizontal lines see the sherd from Tell
el-'Ajjul (AG II, PL XL: 36).
The stratified Shechem MB II B material contains nothing
approaching the shape or decoration of Shechem 149. One
example of MB II C painted ware on a rim fragment from a
flaring carinated bowl or goblet might be compared with our
vessel (Seger, PL LXXXV: m). However, the latter's thick
section and decorative motif suggest a date in LB I or even
LB II. Seger knows of a good LB parallel for our fragment
found in Shechem Field III in 1964.
150. A Cypriote milk bowl restored from several fragments.
It was found on May 5, 1914. It is of gray-reddish, well
levigated clay, is well fired, burnished on the outside, and
has a slip on the inside. Its exterior bears the common decora-
tion of the Cypriote milk bowls, consisting of ladders suspended
perpendicularly at regular intervals from the rim. The ladders
with rungs are alternated with ladders having diamonds
instead of the rungs, a feature often observed on this type

of vessels. Its greatest diameter is 160 mm, its height 100 mm.
The sherd collection in the Vienna Museum originating
from the 1913 and 1914 excavations at Shechem contains
also numerous sherds and a wishbone handle coming from
similar vessels. For parallels to Shechem 150 see Razor I,
PI. XCII: 16; AGII, PI. XXVIII: igQi; Lack. II, PI. XLIII:
155. All vessels in question come from LB contexts and it is
safe to date Shechem 150 in the LB period. A more specific
date cannot be given, because attempts to date these vessels
according to the variety of designs of the decorations found
on them have no validity, as Albright has shown (TBM, I,
pp. 45, 46).
151. A decorated vase, restored from several fragments
which were found May 2, 1914. The vessel was made of
yellow clay and decorated with a lattice design (= criss-
cross lines) of brown and red paint. It shows white grits, is
wheel-made, has a buff slip, and was well fired. The diameter
of its rim is 140 mm, of its body 138 mm, and the height of
the vase is 140 mm.
Similar vases have been found in the LB I Stratum 3 of
Area D at Hazor (Hazor I, PL CXXIV: 3-5), called "goblets"
by Yadin. One of them—which unlike the Shechem vase
has a handle—has also a criss-cross decoration. The rim and
shape of the body find a close parallel in a fragment from a
Megiddo tomb (Meg. Tombs, PL 38:11), also dated to the LB
period. The decoration has been discussed by Albright (TBM,
I, p. 48) in connection with some similarly decorated sherds
found in the LB II Stratum C at Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, I,
PL 20:5, 6). Examples of this decoration occurred frequently
on vessels in the LB temples at Beth-shan (Beth-shan, II,
Pis. XLIII: 19; XLV: 18, 20; XLVI: 5, n; XLVIII: 22, 23;
XLIX: 27), but also at various other sites.
152. A pointed juglet found March 28, 1914. It is of
reddish clay. Only the body and handle are preserved, but
all restored parts are certain. It was probably wheel-made,
.f--"' : -
(i£^ ^<Mfti~
.• p4*i"W • f,» H
W
Last two pages of C. Praschniker's Fltndbuch. Objects Nos. 473-489,

listed on these two pages, comprise most of the finds recorded May 5, 1914
PLATE II
\<tS
MB Pottery from Shechem

PLATE III
MB Pottery from Shechem. For size see Plate II.

(Copyright: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien)
PLATE IV
MB and LB Pottery from Shechem

PLATE V
MB and LB Pottery from Shechem. For size see Plate IV.

(Copyright: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien)
PLATE VI
172 175
LB and Iron Age Pottery from Shechem

PLATE VII
171
172.
LB and Iron Age Pottery from Shechem.

For Size see Plate VI. (Copyright: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien)
PLATE VIII
Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Sbechem

PLATE IX
188
186
Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman Potterv from Shechem.

For size see Plate VIII. (Copyright: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien)
is well fired, but has neither slip nor burnishing. Its greatest
diameter is 90 mm and height 150 mm.
Similar vessels have been found in LB I Stratum IVa at
Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PL XXVIII:n), in the LB
Tomb 532 at Lachish (Lack. IV, PL 79:822), in the LB II
Strata E and D at Hazor (Razor I, Pis. CXLVI: 3; CVIII:
10, n), at Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, I, PL 44:1), where this
type of vessel may be as late as Iron I (TBM, I, p. 41), and
elsewhere. Although none of the samples referred to is an
exact replica of the Shechem juglet under discussion, there
can hardly be any doubt that it belongs to the earlier phase
of the LB age.
153 and 154. Two LB juglets, both lacking necks, mouths
and handles (the necks having been restored). No. 154 was
found between March 26 and 28, 1914 (Fundbuch: "Bis
28.Marz"), while No. 153 came to light April 5, 1914.
The two vessels are very similar except that No. 154 has
a somewhat more pointed base while that of No. 153 is
round.
153. A juglet of orange clay but with no visible grits. It
was probably wheel-made and is well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 78 mm, and the height of the preserved part
125 mm.
154. This juglet also is of orange clay and shows white grits;
it was probably wheel-made, and is well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 73 mm, the height of the preserved part 113 mm.
Similar juglets have been found in Razor's LB II Stratum I
of Area D (Hazor I, PL XCVI: 15-17), in Strata VIII-V
(LB II A to Iron 1C) at Megiddo (Meg. II, Pis. 58:6; 63:5),
and in different LB tombs at Megiddo (Meg. Tombs, PL 41:25,
32; 45:29).
Shechem juglets 152-154 are difficult to date more closely
than to say that they come from LB, because the rims,
handle-rim attachments, and in two cases the handles are
lacking.
155. A large, deep bowl with the base missing. The preserved
part, consisting of 18 fragments, was found Sept. 12, 1913.

It is made of gray clay which contains white grits, has an
orange-buff slip, and is well fired. The diameter of its rim is
410 mm. On the inside, shown in the photo on Plate V, it is
decorated with dark brown straight and wavy lines and
triangles. On the outside it is decorated only underneath the
rim by means of triangles in brown paint standing with their
point downwards on a horizontal line. Red dots hang on the
sides of the triangles.
Carinated bowls showing this type of rim have come to
light in MB II levels, such as a bowl from Tell Beit Mirsim's
MB II B Stratum E (TBM, la, PI. 8:2). Cf. also the large
bowl of the MB II tomb Ji at Jericho (Jer., I, Fig. 179:11),
and a bowl from Lachish (Lack. IV, PL 51:24). However, the
decoration indicates that Shechem 155 must be dated in the
LB period. Decorations of straight and wavy lines appear
most frequently in LB, though they begin already sparingly
in MB and reach down into Iron I. For triangles with dots see
a LB bowl from Tell d- lAjjul (AG II, PI. XL: 26) and the
fragments of a LB II platter from Hazor (Razor III-IV,
Pl.CCLXXVII:i4).
156. A juglet, found May 5, 1914. Its upper portion is
well preserved but its base is missing. It is of buff clay, has a
dark gray core and white grits, is wheel-made, well fired, but
has neither slip nor burnishing. Its preserved height is 115 mm
and greatest diameter 64 mm.
There can be no doubt that this juglet belongs to the group
of elongated dipper juglets which have a pointed base and a
handle that reaches above the rim. All close parallels—as
far as one can be sure, due to the lack of the base in the
Shechem juglet—come from the LB period. For example,
similar juglets were found in several LB Lachish tombs:
Pit 555 (Lack. IV, PI. 78: 784, 785) which is dated to ca. 1500-
1300 B.C. ; Tomb 536 (Lack. IV, PL 79: 821), dated to ca. 1375-
13258.0.; and Tomb 216 (Lack. IV, PL 52: 9), dated to
ca. 1450-1300. Other similar juglets come from LB II and
Iron I Strata V and IV of Tell Abu Hawam (TAH, I, PL XXII:

I, 7), and other sites.
157. A vessel which could be called a jug, pitcher or mug.
The excavator's number (505) shows that it must have been
found during the last two days of the 1914 season, for which
no records exist in the Fundbuch. 20 This restored vessel is of
buff clay with white grits. It is hand-made, somewhat crudely
formed, and shows neither slip nor burnish. Its greatest
diameter is 137 mm and height 144 mm.
The decoration, especially on the handle, but also its shape,
place it without doubt in the LB period. A comparatively
close parallel comes from a Hazor LB II B context (Razor II,
PI. CXXXIV: 11). A decorated crater from the LB Fosse-
temple at Lachish has a similar-shaped body, but neither
its rim nor base come close to the Shechem jug (Lack. II,
PI. XLIX: 260). Vessels in general resembling the Shechem
jug, or belonging more or less to the same category, have come
from Tell el-<Ajjul (AG II, PL XXXI: 1137; AG III,
PL XXXV: 1056), Beth-shan (Beth-shan, II, PL XLII: 19),
Lachish (Lack. IV, PL 84:959-969), and Megiddo (Meg.
Tombs, PL 12:21).
158. A black burnished juglet. The excavator's number is
lost. Its greatest diameter is 68 mm and height 92 mm.
A similar juglet, though slightly bigger in size and of pink
clay, was found in the LB II Stratum IA of Area C at Hazor
(Hazor I, PL XCII: 6). Other parallels are a juglet from Tell
Abu Hawam's LB II B Stratum V (TAH, IV, p. 41, No. 247),
and a vessel from Megiddo (Meg. Tombs, PL 62:12).
159. A two-handled jar or miniature pithos, perfectly
preserved except for one missing handle, found Sept. 9, 1913.
It is of orange clay, shows no grits, is wheel-made and burnish
ed, and well fired. Its greatest diameter is 125 mm, its height
255 mm.
This type of pointed jar with two handles beneath the
20 See p. 19 for a discussion, on the Fundbuch's weaknesses in general
and on the case of Shechem 157 in particular.
shoulder is common in the early Iron Age after originating

in the latest phase of the LB period, but exact parallels to
the Shechem jar, especially with regard to the profile of the
rim, have not been found in the published corpora of Palestin
ian pottery. A similar jar of this general type came from the
LB II Tomb 216 at Lachish (Lack. IV, PI. 53: 24) and other
LB tombs and loci (Lack. IV, PI. 85: 970-985; pp. 218, 219).
Iron Age examples have been found in Iron I C Stratum V
at Megiddo (Meg. I, PL 22: 130, 131), also in Megiddo's Iron
I B Stratum VI (Meg. II, PL 83: 2). For its rim see the parallels
from Megiddo (Meg. Tombs, PL 72: i), and those from Stratum
III B of Afula C-Atiqot, I [1955], Fig. 16:5-9, 14-17)- The
stratified Shechem material of this type of jar shows much
simpler lines, both interior and exterior. Holladay suggests an
nth/ioth century date for Shechem 159.
160. A deep bowl, restored, found April 4, 1914, evidently
in the Northwest Gate. It is of yellow clay which contains
large white grits. The vessel is wheel-made and well fired,
but is not burnished. Its greatest diameter is 150 mm and
height 75 mm.
Parallel bowls have come to light at the Iron I B Strata VI
at Megiddo (Meg. II, Pis. 78:5; 84:19) and Iron I Stratum IX
at Hazor (Razor III-IV, PL CLXXVIII: 17), although the
Hazor bowl lacks a base, for which reason it is unknown
whether it is really a close parallel. The rim finds parallels in
Stratum III rims from Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PL LX:
9, n, 12), and there is also a similar vessel from Tell Beit
Mirsim, probably coming from Stratum B (TBM, I, PL 47: 7,
cf. § 50). Holladay would assign an nth/ioth century date
to Shechem 160.
161. A one-handled dipper juglet with pinched lip. It was
found April 4, 1914, and has been restored. It is of orange
clay and has white grits. It seems to have been wheel-made
and is well fired, but is not burnished. Its greatest diameter
is 79 mm and its height 130 mm.
Parallels to this Iron I Age vessel have been found at
many sites. Examples are vessels found in Stratum B at

Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, I, PL 51:11, 12), Stratum V at
Megiddo (Meg. I, PI. 5:138-140), and in the Iron Age Tomb
A 85 at Jericho (Jer., II, Fig. 253:18). Shechem 161 with
its body form, pinched rim and lack of burnish is more typical
of the last phase of Iron I, and, according to Holladay, must
probably be dated in the latter part of the loth century.
Six pyxides (singular pyxis), squat vessels with vertically
pierced loop handles or lug handles, come from the 1913 and
1914 Shechem excavations. Four of them belong to LB II
and two to the late phase of Iron I. In the literature these
vessels are called by a multitude of names and designations
such as miniature amphorae, squat pots, squat vases, squat
juglets, squat jars, squat pyxes, pyxides, and pyxoid pots.
The origin of the pyxis seems to be Mycenae or Crete (see
for references TN, II, p. 47, notes 46, 47). Imitations of the
Mycenaean or Cretan pyxides first appear in Palestine in the
i4th century. By the nth century they had become more
numerous, but they quickly decreased in number in the loth
century, and hardly occur after that time.
162. This pyxis was found Sept. 10, 1913, "slightly below
the surface" according to theFundbuch. It is almost completely
preserved, is made of orange clay, shows white and brown
grits, was wheel-made and well fired. Its greatest diameter
is 96 mm, its height 63 mm.
163. This pyxis was found May 5, 1914. Its rim which
was missing has been restored. It is of orange clay with white
grits, seems to have been wheel-made, and is well fired. Its
greatest diameter is 99 mm and the preserved height 68 mm.
164. This pyxis was found together with No. 165. The
pyxis is of brown clay and completely preserved, but has
some small cracks. It seems to have been wheel-made and is
well fired. Its greatest diameter is 80 mm and the height
68mm.
165. This pyxis was found together with No. 164 in the
E-W Trench March 30, 1914. According to the Fundbuch
either one or both of these vessels contained a "Kornerfrucht,"

of which nothing more specific is said. It is of orange clay
and is completely preserved except for one handle. It was
probably wheel-made and is well fired. Its greatest diameter
is 80 mm and the height is 64 mm.
Parallels to these four pyxides show that they must be
dated either to the latest phase of LB II or early Iron I.
Similar vessels have come to light in the LB II Stratum IVB
at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PL LVI: 9), and in an
LB tomb at Megiddo (Meg. Tombs, PL 35:21), while other
parallel vessels have been found in Iron I B Stratum III at
Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PL LIX: 21), and at other
LB or Iron I sites.
Seven juglets with flat or ring bases. Six of them were
found together on April 9, igi4, 21 while No. 172 was found
Sept. 5, 1913 in the great N-S Trench.
166. A juglet of brown clay with white grits with its neck
missing (now restored). It was wheel-made and well fired,
and has a gray slip. Its greatest diameter is 56 mm, the height
of its preserved part 98 mm.
167. A juglet of black-gray clay, burnished, and completely
preserved. No grits are visible and no marks of a wheel. It is
well fired. Its greatest diameter is 67 mm, its height 106 mm.
168. A juglet of orange clay, burnished, with white grits,
completely preserved. It is probably wheel-made and well
fired. Its greatest diameter is 64 mm, its height no mm.
169. A juglet of orange clay, burnished, with its broken-off
handle replaced. It is wheel-made and well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 61 mm, its height 102 mm.
170. A juglet of red clay, burnished with its broken-off
handle replaced. It is wheel-made and well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 63 mm, its height in mm.
21 Two of the juglets (Nos. 166, 168) contain paper slips with the
penciled note: "263 Wenig unter Oberflache II," while two others
(Nos. 167, 171) have slips with the following note: "263 Unter der
Oberflache."
171. A juglet of red clay, burnished, and completely

preserved. It is possibly wheel-made and well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 65 mm, its height no mm.
172. A juglet of gray clay, not burnished, with its handle
and rim missing. It has a dark gray core, large white grits,
is hand-formed and well fired. Its greatest diameter is 80 mm
and the height of the preserved part 116 mm.
For a description of these juglets see Wampler in TN, II,
p. 24. Parallel juglets have been found at Tell en-Nasbeh
(TN, II, PI. 41:798-802), in Iron I C Stratum VB at Megiddo
(Meg. II, PL 146:2-4), Iron I B Stratum III at Beth-shemesh
(Ain Shems, IV, PI. XXXVII: 22, 23, 27), at Iron I tombs
109 and 218 at Lachish (Lack. Ill, Pis. 76:19; 88:318, 326),
in the Iron I Tomb A85 at Jericho (Jer., II, Fig. 253:15),
and elsewhere. The Shechem juglets must be dated to the
nth and loth centuries.
173. A black burnished juglet with a round base, restored.
It was found together with Nos. 166-171 and 12 others on
April 9, 1914. It shows no grits and was wheel-made. Its
greatest diameter is 70 mm and its height 108 mm.
Albright, who discusses the characteristics of these juglets,
says these "black burnished juglets of El I" have "more
graceful bodies and longer necks than the ubiquitous black
burnished juglets of El II," having "handles which join the
neck some distance below the rim," this being "the most
striking distinction between the juglets of the two periods"
(TBM, I, p. 71). Although the Shechem juglet No. 173 has
no exact parallels among the published Palestinian pottery, it
clearly belongs to the type of juglets found in Stratum IIB
(= Iron I C-II A) at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PI.
XLIV: 32) and in Iron I B-C Stratum B at Tell Beit Mirsim
(TBM, I, PL 51:2, 3).
174. A button-based juglet, almost perfectly preserved,
found Sept. 9, 1913. It is of gray-black clay, shows no grits,
is probably wheel-made, well fired, and burnished. Its
greatest diameter is 60 mm, its height 98 mm.
For parallels see juglets found at Tell en-Nasbeh (TN, II,

p. 24, Pis. 41: 802-807; 42:842-845), in Iron I C Stratum VA
at Megiddo (Meg. II, PI. 146:22, 23), and from the Iron
Age tomb A85 at Jericho (Jer., II, Fig. 253:14, 15), also
from Locus 418 of the northern Tell el-Far lah (RB, LXII
[1955], p. 577, Fig. 16:5) which must be dated in Iron I C.
175. A dipper juglet with pinched lip found Sept. n, 1913.
It is almost completely preserved, is of buff gray clay, shows
white grits, was probably wheel-made, is well fired, but has
neither slip nor burnish. Its greatest diameter is 68 mm, its
height 116 mm.
This type of dipper juglet is common in Iron I and goes
into Iron II, although the earliest samples come from LB II
(TN, II, p. 23). Parallels have been found at numerous sites
as listed by Wampler (TN II, 86, 87). Other parallels (not
listed by him) have come to light at Samaria from the 8th-
century Period VI (Sam., Ill, Fig. 10:22), in the Iron I C
Stratum II A at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PI. XLII:
16, 17), and in Iron II A Niveau II of the northern Tell el-
Far fah (RB, LVIII [1951], 415, Fig. 11:18).
Two pyxides, coming from a somewhat later time than the
four vessels described under Nos. 162-165.
176. This pyxis, completely preserved, was found Sept. 8,
1913, according to the Fundbuch in "the clay house, in the
middle of the trench, 1.80 m below the surface." It is of
yellow-brown clay, was wheel-made and well fired. Its
greatest diameter is 62 mm, its height 60 mm.
177. This unusually shaped pyxis, well preserved except
for minor cracks, was found April 28,1914. It is of brown clay
with white grits, was wheel-made and well fired. Its greatest
diameter is 100 mm and its height 95 mm.
Parallels to No. 176 come from the Iron I B Stratum III
of Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PI. LX : 17), and Lachish
(Lack. Ill, PI. 91:415), which is dated in the early Iron Age.
Shechem 177 has an unusual form. For the upper part
parallels have come to light in Megiddo's Iron I A-B Strata
VIIB-VI (Meg. II, Pis. 84:11; 144:9), but this vessel has a
flat base while Shechem 177 has a convex base; a closer
parallel comes from Iron I A-B Samaria (Sam., Ill, p. 178,
Fig, 26:1). Holladay is inclined to date both Shechem pyxides
176 and 177 in the loth century B.C.
178. A bowl, in part restored, found Sept. 9, 1913. It is
of red clay, shows no grits, was wheel-made, well fired, and
burnished. Its greatest diameter is 215 mm, its height 74 mm.
Parallels for this flat-rimmed, ring-based bowl were found
in Iron II Stratum A at TellBeit Mirsim (IBM, I, PI. 65:2ob),
in Tell en-Nasbeh (TN, II, PL 56:1282), and in Iron II A-B
Samaria (Sam., Ill, p. 140, Fig. 13:18). After tracing the
history of this particular bowl form from the loth century,
the date of its first emergence, to the 7th century, when it
bowed out, Holladay would assign to Shechem 178 a date in
the middle of the 8th century. 22
179. A spouted, two-handled jar, restored from many
fragments. Enough of the rim, body and base, including one
handle and the spout, is preserved to make the restoration
certain. It was found Sept. 8, 1913. The Fundbuch states that
"Reste zweier ineinander stehender Amphoren" were found,
of which our vessel is apparently one. It is of yellow-brown
clay, shows some gray grits, was wheel-made, well fired, and
is burnished. Its greatest diameter is 162 mm, its height
206 mm, and the diameter of its rim 92 mm.
Parallels to this jar come from the Iron I B and C Strata
VIA and V at Megiddo (Meg. I, PL 19:io6; Meg. II, PL 77:i2),
and from Tell en-Nasbeh (TN, II, PL 13:226, p. 8). The vessel
form is last witnessed in stratified contexts by one from
Samaria (Sam., Ill, p. 103, Fig. 2:1), dated to about 900 B.C.
Shechem 179 lies between the vessels referred to above and
probably should be dated in the loth century.
180. A bowl found Sept. 8, 1913. The Fundbuch says that
22 Holladay's analytic history of bowls with an everted, slightly
thickened rim, plus a high ring-base, fills two typewritten pages of
notes with references to published examples.
there were found "Reste von 5-6 Tellern, darunter ein ganzer."
The "whole" vessel is drawn and its dimensions are given
as having a diameter of 180 mm and a height of 65 mm. Since
these dimensions are exactly those of our restored vessel it
seems that Praschniker used the word "ganzer," whole, in
the meaning of "nothing missing," but not as "unbroken,"
because our vessel is restored from many fragments. It is of
orange-buff clay, shows white grits, was probably wheel-made
and well fired. It has neither a slip nor burnish.
A similar bowl was found in the Iron II Stratum A at
Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, I, PI. 65:9), while other parallel
bowls come from Iron II Strata II-IV at Megiddo (Meg. I,
PI. 24:45), from 8th century Niveau II of the northern Tell
el-Far (ah (RB, LVIII [1951], 415, Fig. 11:17; LIX [1952],
569, Fig. 8:10), and many other Iron II sites.
181. A large one-handled wide-mouthed jug, found in the
east-west trench April 4, 1914. It has a long cylindrical neck
with the handle attached to it just below the rim. This restored
jug is of orange clay, shows white grits, was wheel-made,
well fired, and burnished. Its greatest diameter is 165 mm,
its height 250 mm.
Parallels are fairly numerous and come from widely
separated sites. As examples may be cited vessels which come
from Iron II Stratum A at Tell Beit Mirsim (TBM, III,
PL 14:6), from Tell en-Nasbeh (TN, II, PL 36), from Megiddo's
Iron II Strata IV-II (Meg. I, PL 3), and from Iron I C Stratum
II at Beth-shemesh (Ain Shems, IV, PL LXVII: 10). A date
somewhere in the loth or gth centuries for Shechem 181
seems to fit the evidence.
182. A globular jar, restored, was found Sept. 6, 1913 in
the "grossen Quergraben." It contained numerous pieces of
metal, in part unworked, also some ear rings. The Fundbuch
says that the vessel went to Nablus, while it actually is in
Vienna. It is of brown clay and shows no grits, was wheel-
made, well fired and burnished. Its greatest diameter is
98 mm, and the height 106 mm.
The nearest parallel is from an Iron II B context of Hazor

(Razor III-IV, PI. CCXXI: 6); other similar vessels come
from Iron II Strata II-IV at Megiddo (Meg. I, PI. 9:13-15),
and from Iron II Stratum A of Tell Belt Mirsim (TBM, I, PI.
67:2O-3o). It seems that Shechem 182 should be put in Iron II.
183. A plain delphiniform lamp, restored, found April 5,
1914. It is of buff gray clay, shows no grits, and is well fired.
It has a length of 86 mm, and a diameter of 60 mm.
It belongs to the Hellenistic period and according to Lapp's
PCC, p. 194, is to be dated in the first half of the 2d cent.
184. A delphiniform lamp which has lost its excavator's
number. It is probably No. 469, found May 5, 1914, because
Praschniker's sketch fits it well, and his given length "0.09"
approximates the actual length of 94 mm of our No. 184.
It is perfectly preserved, was made of orange clay, shows
white grits, and is well made. Its diameter is 62 mm, and
height 30 mm.
It belongs to the type of Hellenistic lamps described by
McCown (TN, II, p. 56, No. 1647), of which examples have
also been found at Beth-zur (Beth-zur, Fig. 42), Samaria
(Sam., Ill, p. 366, Fig. 85:4), and elsewhere.
185. A restored, small deep bowl found April 28, 1914. It
is of buff gray clay, shows no grits, may be wheel-made and
is well fired, although it lost its original shape before firing.
It is neither burnished nor does it have a slip. Its greatest
diameter is no mm, its height 45 mm.
It seems to belong to the Hellenistic bowls classified in
Lapp's Corpus under his type 51.1: G, H (PCC, p. 172, where
references are given; see also Sam., Ill, p. 224, Fig. 38:6).
186. A small, restored bowl found April 17, 1914. It is of
brown clay, shows white grits, was wheel-made and well
fired. It has neither slip nor burnish. Its greatest diameter is
120 mm, its height 50 mm.
Close parallels to this type of bowl come from Hellenistic con
texts at Samaria (Sam., Ill, p. 265, Fig. 56:10, u), and other
sites referred to in Lapp's PCC (Type 51.1: G, H, K, p. 172).
187. A cooking pot, restored from numerous fragments,

found evidently during the last two days of digging in 1914,
because the excavator's number 510 goes beyond the records
of the Fundbuch, which ends with No. 489 on May 5, 1914.
It is of dark red clay, shows white grits, is wheel-made and
well fired. Its greatest diameter is 150 mm, its height 118 mm.
This globular cooking pot without a lid device seems to
come from the Roman Period and belongs to the Type 71:1
of Lapp's PCC (pp. 187-188, where other parallels are referred
to). The closest parallel to Shechem 187 is a cooking pot from
Samaria (Sam., Ill, p. 299, Fig. 69:9) dated to the turn of
the ist cent. B.C.-A.D. The question naturally arises whether
this vessel actually comes from Shechem, whose history
ends about 100 B.C. It must be considered possible that it
comes from a Roman site and was given to Sellin by his
workmen as coming from the excavation though they had
brought it in from elsewhere to obtain the usual bakshish.
It is known that the supervision of his workmen in his pre
war excavations with only three European staff members
was extremely poor.
188. A miniature jar found April 29, 1914 on a refuse dump
("Abfallhaufen F"), according to a note on a slip of paper
found in the jar. It is of orange clay, slightly restored at the
pointed base. It shows white grits, was wheel-made, well
fired, but not burnished. Its greatest diameter is 40 mm, its
height 87 mm.
The earliest dated examples in Palestine for this type of
jar come from the 7th-century Adoni Nur tomb (PEF Annual,
VI [1953], Fig. 22:94-99), fr°m 7th-6th cent. Niveau I of
the northern Tell el-Far fah (RB, LVIII [1951], 419, Fig. 12:10,
13), and from the Sahab and Meqabelein tombs of the same
period (QDAP, XIII [1948], 98, 99, Figs. 4:31-37; 5:42, 43)-
Fragments of this jar type were found in the recent Shechem
excavations in 7th-century contexts. 23
23 We owe all references in this paragraph to the kindness of Holladay.
LIST OF POTTERY IN THE

KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM, VIENNA
Publication Museum Museum Excavator's Negative

Number* Inventory Zettel- Number Number
Number Katalog
Number
136 30 265 195 11.13995

137 29 151 143 11.13990
138 27 149 141 I. 2274
139 28 15° 142 II. 3990
140 40 134 309 II -13995
141. 4 128 284 11.13994
142 43 146 140 I. 2274
143 32 1 66 II -13995
144 41 147 112 I. 2274
145 7 129 5OO 11.13991
146 12 161 502 11.13992
147 8 118 II. 560
148 9 119 I. 2260
149 58 171 III. 246
150 48 133 485 II. 14001
151 3i 1 60 452 II. 13990
152 13 143 179 11.13991
153 10 138 2I 4 11.13992
154 16 142 178 11.13992
155 59 261 "5 n. 559
156 ii 132 488 II -13993
157 5 130 5°5 11.13994
158 25 1 20 11-13993
159 3 167 28 I. 2261,
II. 250
1 60 45 139 205 II -13995
161 18 141 208 11.13992
162 34 164 44 I. 2274
163 33 162 484 11.13994
164 37 !53 i88a II-I3994
i65 38 152 i88b 11.13994
166 17 144 263 II -13993
167 23 158 263 11-13993
1 68 19 I 57 263 II -13993
169 22 156 263 II -13993
170 2O 154 263 11.13993
* Numbers 1-135 are used for the objects of stone, bone and metal
from the 1913 and 1914 Shechem expeditions. See Footnote. 2.
Publication Museum Museum Excavator's Negative

Number Inventory Zettel- Number Number
Number Katalog
Number
171 21 155 263 11.13993
172 15 123 5 I. 2261
173 24 H5 263 11.13993
174 26 165 43 I. 2260
175 14 148 84 I. 2261
176 35 163 20 I. 2261
177 36 159 39i 11.13994
178 42 126 30 I. 2274
179 2 124 24 II. 561
1 80 44 "5 26b I. 2274
181 i 140 197 11.13991
182 39 122 9 I . 2260
183 70 I2 7 223 11.13995
184 7* 121 469 ( ?) II -i 3995
185 46 135 38i II -13995
186 47 I 36 3°3 II -13995
187 6 131 5io 11.13994
188 49 137 411 II -13993
i JOHN 3:9: ABSOLUTE OR HABITUAL?
SAKAE KUBO
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
If we place i Jn 3:9, "No one born of God commits sin;

for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he
is born of God," alongside 2:1, "My little children, I am
writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one
does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the righteous," we would have either to admit a contradiction
or to understand the former in the habitual sense, deriving it
from the present tense in contrast to the aorist of the latter.
Thus, "He cannot sin" is not understood absolutely but in
the sense, "He cannot continue in a habitual life of sin."
However, some have questioned whether such an explanation
is entirely satisfactory. Brooke, although following the above
interpretation, admits that "the writer speaks, here as
elsewhere, in the absolute language of the prophet rather
than with the circumspection of the casuist." 1 Dodd doubts
"whether the reader could be expected to grasp so subtle a
doctrine simply upon the basis of a precise distinction of
tenses without further guidance." 2 Further, he concludes that
"the apparent contradiction is probably not to be eliminated
(though it may be qualified) by grammatical subtlety." 3
Some find support for the absolute view by referring to
parallel ideas in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature.
Hans Windisch 4 refers to Enoch 5:8, 9: "And then shall
1 A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johan-
nine Epistles, "The International Critical Commentary" (Edinburgh,
1912), p. 90.
2 C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, "The Moffatt New Testament
Commentary" (London, 1946), p. 79.
3 Ibid., p. 80.
4 Hans Windisch, Die hatholischen Briefe, "Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament," Band IV, 2. Teil (Tubingen, 1911), p. 118.
48 SAKAE KUBO
be bestowed upon the elect wisdom, and they shall all live
and never again sin, either through ungodliness or through
pride: But they who are wise shall be humble. And they shall
not again transgress, nor shall they sin all the days of their
life." 5 Similar ideas are found in Jubilees 5:12 6 arid in
Ignatius, Eph. 8:2. Dodd countenances this view although,
it seems to me, with some hesitation. While this Jewish
apocalyptic background must be kept in mind, it is not
adequate to explain Christian eschatology, since there is a
basic difference between them, as Cullmann has shown. 7
Described in Christian terms, eschatological fulfillment in
Jewish apocalyptic is still in the future and coincides with the
parousia. It is at once complete and final. In Christianity,
eschatology begins with the coming of Christ but finds its
complete fulfillment at the parousia. In Judaism then, one
can speak of sinlessness in the eschatological era, but in
Christianity sinlessness cannot yet be considered in that final
sense. For the Christian the decisive event has taken place
on the cross and in the resurrection, but he lives in a tension
between the "already" and the "not yet." The victory is
assured; the enemy has been dealt a mortal blow, but the
battle still rages. The author of i Jn describes this condition
when he designates the Christian as a child of God (3:1, 2;
5:1), as the possessor of eternal life (5:12), as one who abides
in God and in whom God abides (4:16), as one in whom God's
seed abides and who cannot sin because he has been born of
God (3:9). But he needs to be warned against following
unchristian practices (disobeying God's commandments,
2:4; hating his brother, 2:9; loving the world, 2:15-17;
etc.); furthermore, he can sin (2:1; 5:16), and needs to
purify himself (3:3). Throughout this Epistle the indicatives
5 R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

Testament in English (Oxford, 1913), II, 190.
6 Ibid., p. 80.
7 Oscar Cullman, Christ and Time, trans. Floyd Filson (London,
), PP- Si-93-
I JOHN 3:9: ABSOLUTE OR HABITUAL ? 49
stand beside the imperatives, the "already" beside the "not

yet." The eschatological background of the late Jewish
writings does not fully explain the situation in i Jn since no
absolute perfection is envisaged as in those writings. This
means that the absolute view cannot be supported by parallels
from Jewish apocalyptic literature because there are no
genuine parallels and, therefore, the comparison is misleading
and inadequate.
However, support for the absolute view can be found in
the context of the verse. In this particular passage the author
has in mind those who are morally indifferent. Their con
ception of sin is not based on its relationship to morality.
Sin is ignorance, not lawlessness. Perfection consists in
being enlightened. The author, therefore, gives the Christian
definition of sin over against theirs. Sin is lawlessness. Sin
has to do with moral relationships. This has to be made
clear because righteousness, to the heretics, is connected
merely with a religious experience; in Dodd's words, "as
though a man might be righteous in a religious sense even
though his actual conduct showed no marked conformity
with recognized moral standards." 8
This kind of sin Jesus Christ came to take away, and there
was none of it in Him. Therefore, sin is the complete antithesis
of what a Christian should do. If we abide in Him we will
not sin. Jesus is the chief representative for righteousness
and His counterpart is the devil, who sinned from the
beginning. Two antithetical forces, righteousness and sin, are
at war against each other. How one lives indicates on which
side he stands. The one who sins shows thereby that he
stands with the devil, for the one who is born of God does not
sin. The children of God are shown to be such when they do
what is right and practice love, and the children of the devil
when they do wrong and hate their brother.
The kingdoms of light and darkness are distinguished by
sharp contrast. The Gnostic and the Christian likewise are
8 Dodd, op. cit., p. 72.
50 SAKAE KUBO
sharply distinguished. The Gnostic is morally indifferent;

he does not call sin what the Christian calls sin and, therefore,
brazenly sins. The Christian, on the other hand, knows what
sin is and that it stands directly opposed to what Christ
stands for. If he is a Christian, therefore, he does not and
cannot sin. Sin is what the heretic does; righteousness is
what the Christian does. The verse needs to be understood in
this sharp contrast. There are only two sides, and for the
moment there are no gradations or intermediate stages
between or within them. Either you sin and are a heretic,
a member of the forces of darkness and of the devil, or you
do not sin and are a Christian and a member of the forces
of right and of God. To say in this context that the author
means only that the Christian does not habitually sin is
appreciably to weaken his point. He cannot and he does not
sin because he is a child of God. As Dodd has said, "Of the
personal problem raised for one who acknowledges all this, and
yet is conscious of sin, he is not at this moment thinking." 9
The author has isolated in his thinking this one situation
and is speaking forcefully to it. The heretic who defines sin
as ignorance and not as lawlessness can sin, but the Christian
who recognizes sin as lawlessness and that Jesus came to
destroy sin and its instigator, the devil, cannot sin. The
sharp antithesis is intentional and any qualifications or
reservations at this point would undermine the argument.
The sharp antithesis must stand. The absoluteness of the
statement must remain.
This does not mean, however, that in actual fact the Chris
tian never sins. For he has already been said to do so, in
2:1. We must therefore, when speaking comprehensively,
say both things: In the idealistic context of I Jn 3:9, the
Christian cannot sin, but in the realistic context of 2:1,
he may. It is possible for a Christian to sin; but this possibility
must not qualify 3:9, and thus weaken and even destroy
the author's argument.
9 Ibid., p. 81.
I JOHN 3:9: ABSOLUTE OR HABITUAL? $1
While the supporters of the absolute view must take into

consideration 2:1, the supporters of the habitual view must
note 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us." If the tense is pressed and one
concludes that 3:9 is habitual, then i: 8 must likewise be
habitual where a present tense stands. But as Dodd reminds
us, "Logically it is not clear why a person of whom the former
statement [3:9] is true should not make the latter statement
[i: 8] about himself. Yet the former is affirmed, the latter is
denied." 10
However, not all commentators agree with Dodd's inter
pretation of this verse in making aâpTtav oux eôpiev identical
in meaning with ajzocpTiocv ou TTOISL and ou SUVOCTOU aôcpTaveiv.
Many commentators u follow Westcott 12 in interpreting
«[j.apTia in i: 8 as sinful principle instead of sinful acts. These
commentators make the distinction between these two
meanings on the basis of verses 8 and 10, the former referring
to a sinful principle and the latter to sinful acts. "Thus 'to
have sin' is distinguished from 'to sin' as the sinful principle
is distinguished from the sinful act itself." 13
This meaning goes against the usage of the expression in
the Fourth Gospel (9:41; 15:22, 24; 19:11), where Law
maintains that it "specifically denotes the guiltiness of
sin." 14 According to this interpretation, the heretics are
denying their guilt, which would imply that they have not
sinned. Brooke feels that even if it means "guiltiness" in the
Fourth Gospel, that does not exhaust its meaning, and further-
10 Ibid., p. 79.
11 Among these are David Smith, "The Epistles of John," The
Expositor's Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1956), V, 172;
George Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal: An Exposition
of the Epistles of St. John (London, 1909), p. 106; Brooke, op, cit.,
p. 18.
12 B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (Cambridge, 1892), p. 22.
13 Ibid.
14 Robert Law, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of
St. John (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 130.
52 SAKAE KUBO
more, it would not necessarily bear exactly the same meaning

in the Epistle. 15 Westcott connects the meaning of sinful
principle with that of the Fourth Gospel by including the
idea of personal guilt within the principle. It seems difficult
to get around the meaning of personal guilt for the expression
in the Fourth Gospel. However, Brooke is right in contending
that such a meaning cannot automatically be transferred to
the Epistle even if the author is the same. In the Gospel
itself the meaning of the expression is determined by its use
and so must it be here.
Of course, if these commentators are correct, the contra
diction is resolved, since 1:8 would mean that the heretics
were claiming that they had no sinful principle and therefore
could not sin. Such a claim no Christian would make (cf. 2:1).
Alfred Plummer does not think that it is necessary to
inquire into the specific meaning of 1:8—"The expression
is quite general, covering sin of every kind." 16 Friedrich
Hauck 17 asserts that it refers to an act of sin and that verse
10 is a repetition of verse 9 but with a more severe consequence.
While in verse 8 "we deceive ourselves" by this claim, in
verse 10 "we make him a liar."
This distinction which Brooke 18 and Westcott 19 make
between verses 8 and 10, though convenient to explain the
differences in expression, is difficult to maintain. While we
are not bound by the meaning that the Fourth Gospel places
on this expression, there is no reason to depart from it. While
16 Ibid., p. 18.
16 Alfred Plummer, The Epistles of St. John, "The Cambridge Bible
for Schools and Colleges" (Cambridge, Engl., 1938), p. 83.
17 Friedrich Hauck, Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johan
nes, "Das Neue Testament Deutsch" (Gottingen, 1957), X, 122. Rudolf
Schnackenburg (Die Johannesbriefe, "Herders Theologischer Kom-
mentar zum Neuen Testament" [Freiburg, 1953], P- 73) cannot see
the distinction made by Brooke on the basis of the Greek expressions
found in verses 8 and 10.
18 Brooke, op. cit., p. 17.
19 Westcott, op. cit., p. 22.
I JOHN 3:9: ABSOLUTE OR HABITUAL ? 53
Hauck's "act of sin" does not mean the same as "guiltiness

of sin," the former is certainly implied in the latter. Verse 9,
"If we confess our sins," follows very well if this meaning of
"guiltiness" is maintained. The heretics are not saying that
they are not guilty although they sinned, but that they are
not guilty because they have not sinned (verse 10). The tense
here (1:8) is an aoristic present as in Jn 19:11, where Jesus
describes Judas as the one who "has the greater sin." The
Christians are encouraged to confess their sins and not deny
them because God is true to His word and will forgive. The
whole point of verse 8 is again emphasized in verse 10 by
means of a more serious consequence of such a claim. There
fore, "not to have sin" virtually means the same as "not to
have sinned." They are not guilty, because they have not sinned.
If such is the case, to say that this (i: 8) is an aoristic
present does not immediately solve the problem of the tenses,
because even though it is aoristic the basic meaning remains
unchanged. For cannot the Christian affirm that he does not
sin and at the same time say that he does not have sin because
he has not sinned ? 20 Yet he must affirm the former and deny
the latter.
Dodd admits the similarity of these statements which are
denied, in 1:8 and 10, to what is affirmed in 3:9. What he
objects to is the forthright assertion of moral innocence—"to
assert roundly, we are not guilty, is self-deception." 21 But
he confuses the situation when he states that the Christian
does sin, and therefore, must acknowledge it, since he had
compared this verse with 3:9 where it is asserted roundly
that the Christian does not sin. And it is Dodd himself who
states, "Logically, it is not clear why a person of whom the
former statement [3:9] is true should not make the latter
20 This must have reference to his Christian period and not his
pre-Christian period, for no one, including the heretic, would make
such a claim for the pre-Christian period. It would obviate the neces
sity for his becoming a Christian.
21 Dodd, op. cit., p. 22.
54 SAKAE KUBO
statement [1:8] about himself." 22 Is it only because it is

asserted roundly, i.e., because of pride in one's accomplish
ments even assuming that he really does not sin, or is it
because it is not so, i.e., that the Christian does sin? Dodd
says the latter, although one would have expected the former.
However, is it not more precisely the case that, as Dodd him
self implies, 23 the author is not speaking to the situation of a
genuine Christian and his occasional failings but to the
claim of the heretic who believed that he had a new nature
superior to that of other men and consequently was already
sinless? The author is not dealing with orthodox Christians
but with Gnostic heretics who were making such claims
because they considered themselves to be sinless.
The previous verses indicate that the author is trying to
show that one who has fellowship with God walks in the light
and not in darkness, i.e., that one who has fellowship with
God lives a righteous life. The heretic was claiming this fellow
ship and also the righteous life by insisting that he had no
sin because he had not sinned, while all the time living a life
of sin. That is why he deceives himself and makes God a liar.
The heretics were making claims which were not supported
by tangible moral results. It is not merely the claim that is
being criticized but the claim without support. They could
make the claim because their definition of sin allowed them
to do so; according to them, because sin is ignorance, the
possession of gnosis by means of a mystical communion with
God brought them to a state of perfection. Therefore, they
could make such claims; and yet from the Christian's stand
point these were empty claims because according to his con
ception of sin these persons were far from sinless. The claim
placed beside 3:9 is not any more inappropriate, as Dodd
indicates, 21 than the claim that they had fellowship with
Him or that they were walking in the light.
22 Ibid., p. 79.
23 Ibid., pp. 21, 22.
24 Ibid., p. 79.
I JOHN 3:9: ABSOLUTE OR HABITUAL? 55
It is the very delicate task of the author throughout the

Epistle to deal with heretics who had taken over certain
Christian expressions for their own use. They were legitimate
expressions such as, "We have fellowship with God," "We
walk in the light," "We have no sin," "We know him," and
so forth. But the mere verbalizing of these formulae did not
guarantee orthodoxy. He, therefore, sets up criteria to test
their validity, but this he does not need to do for an expression
that in itself is clearly unorthodox, such as, "Jesus has not
come in the flesh" (i Jn 4:2-3). In such a case a categorical
judgment can be made merely on the basis of the statement
apart from any moral demands. And superficially this may
seem to be the case with 1:8. But this verse along with
verse 10 is part of the discussion beginning with verse 5.
Verses 8 and 10, furthermore, are in parallel construction
with verse 6. Both of these verses, then, ought to be qualified
with the phrase "and walk in darkness," as in that verse.
Thus, "if we say that we have no sin [and walk in darkness],
we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," and verse 10
should be read in the same manner. His purpose in i: 8 is not
to indicate that Christians cannot make these assertions.
Rather it is to point out the falsity of such statements made
by those who were walking in darkness, who were living in sin,
but who could make these claims because their conception
of sin was altogether different from that of the Christian.
Dodd's solution to the problem posed above, given in a
different context from his previous statement,25 is that the
heretical teaching had different effects. "Some of them were
25 His previous statement was made in the context of i: 8 and this
in the context of 3: 9. Dodd, I think, is misleading and confusing in
saying first that he can see no reason why the Christian cannot say
what is denied in i: 8 if 3: g is true, and then saying that he cannot
roundly assert it even though he is not expected to sin. By this state
ment he has shifted the argument, directing it against the Christian
rather than against the heretic, whom he seems to have in mind in
his previous statement as well as in this one. The confusion would
have been avoided if he would throughout see the claim made in i :8 as
that of the heretic.
56 SAKAE KUBO
led to assume that, being 'enlightened,' they were already

perfect in virtue. Others thought it did not matter whether
they were virtuous or not, provided they were 'enlightened.' "
The former he applies to i: 8 and the latter to 3:9. Actually
as we have seen it is very difficult to make this kind of subtle
division among the heretics. In fact, even Dodd's description
does not make a clear-cut distinction. The heretics described
in i Jn are quite homogeneous and it is not necessary for our
interpretation of these verses to require distinctions among
them. On the contrary our interpretation requires just the
opposite. They are the same people making the same claims
on the same basis. In i: 8 they claim to be sinless; in 3:9 they
claim to be born of God. Both claims arise from a common
ineffable experience and one implies the other. In 1:8 the
reason their claims are denied is that they continue to walk in
darkness; in 3:9 because they sin. Both claims are denied on
the same grounds, their sinfulness. In 1:8 they make the
claims because their understanding of sin is different from
that of the orthodox Christians (this is implicit rather than
explicit); in 3:9 for exactly the same reason (3:4). There is
no difference between those dealt with in 1:8 and those in
3:9. They are the very same people. The author in his circular
method is approaching the same subject again and again
but from different angles. 26 This is an illustration of it.
We conclude, then, first of all that the absolute view is
more in line with the author's context in 3:9; that the
habitual view actually plays havoc with the author's intention
and argument. Secondly, 2:1 is not really in contradiction
with this view; it is realistic while the other is idealistic.
Third, i: 8 is dealing with the very same people as 3:9, and
the expression "to have sin" must be taken to mean "guilti
ness." Furthermore, it is not in contradiction with 3:9 but in
complete harmony with it, more so than is apparent on the
surface.
26 See Brooke, op. cit., pp. xxxiv-xxxviii, but especially Dodd, op.
cit., pp. xxi-xxvi, for evidence of the use of this method in i Jn.
DOES THE KIDDUSH PRECEDE CHRISTIANITY?
HERBERT TARR SLATER, JR.
Walloston, Mass.
Possibly one of the oldest prayers of the Jewish Liturgy is

the Sabbath Kiddush. According to the Babylonian Talmud,
the scholars of the schools of Shammai and Hillel (ca. 35 B.C.) 1
discussed this prayer and witnessed to its age by assigning its
origin to the men of the Great Synagogue. 2 The translation of
the prayer as found in Singer's edition of the prayer book reads:
Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who
Greatest the fruit of the vine.
Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast
sanctified us by thy commandments and hast taken pleasure in us,
and in love and favor hast given us thy holy Sabbath as an inherit
ance, a memorial of the creation—that day being also the first of
the holy convocations, in remembrance of the departure from
Egypt. For thou hast chosen us and sanctified us above all nations,
and in love and favor hast given us thy holy Sabbath as an inheritance.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hallowest the Sabbath. Blessed art
thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth
bread from the earth. 3
1 Walter Ducat, "Hillel I," The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, V
(New York, 1941), 362.
2 "R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Johanan [a contemporary and
disciple of Hillel (ca. 35 B.C.)] : Let us see: It was the Men of the Great
Synagogue who instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifica-
tions [Kiddush] and habdalahs," Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 33a
(Soncino ed., p. 205; references from the Talmud herein will be from
the Soncino ed. unless otherwise indicated). Cf. Lewis N. Dembitz,
"Kiddush," The Jewish Encyclopedia, VII (New York, 1904), 483.
What, perhaps, should be implied is that these prayers predate the
sources with which the schools of Shammai and Hillel were acquainted.
Cf. William O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian
Liturgy (Oxford, 1925), pp. 79!
3 S[imeon] Singer, ed., The Standard Prayer Book: Authorized English
Translation (New York, 1924), p. 181. Cf. Philip Birnbaum, ed., The
Daily Prayer Book: Ha-Siddur Ha-Shalem (New York, 1949), p. 278;
David de Sola Pool, ed., The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and
Festivals (New York, 1960), pp. 83-86; Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The
Authorized Daily Prayer Booh (rev. ed.; New York, 1957), ?• 4°9-
58 H. T. SLATER
According to Mihaly, a textual criticism of Kiddush has never

been published. *
If Kiddush is as old as or older than the birth of Christianity,

it may have significantly influenced both Christian theology
and worship. It should be remembered that it was the custom
of Christ to worship in the synagogue; and after His death,
His followers continued to be found worshipping in the
synagogue. 5 The Jewish customs and prayers which were
familiar to the "many thousands of Jews ... all zealous of
the law" 6 who believed in Jesus, continued to live on in the
daily lives of the people and therefore could be expected to
influence to a great degree the embryonic development of
Christianity. Even though Paul was accused of teaching Jews
not to "walk after the customs," 7 he denied the charge
completely: "Men and brethren, though I have committed
nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet
was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of
the Romans." 8
As is the case with all the major prayers of the Jewish
liturgy found in the Talmud, the complete text of Kiddush is
not preserved in full. 9 In Talmudic times there was an
injunction against writing down the text of prayers. 10 How
ever, there is no confusion in the minds of the Talmudists as
to what the text of the prayer was, for we read:
R. Zera said: [The formula] in kiddush is "who did sanctify us
with His commandments and did command us"; that of prayer is
4 Eugene Mihaly, personal letter received March 5, 1967, from

Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6 Lk 4:16; Jas 2:2.
6 Acts 21:20.
7 Acts 21:21.
8 Acts 28:17.
9 Louis Ginzberg, "Saadia's Siddur," JQR, XXXIII (1942-1943),
315. Cf. David Hedegard, Seder R. Amram Gaon, Part I: Hebrew Text
with Critical Apparatus (Lund, 1951), p. xvi.
10 Shabbath II, n$b, p. 565; cf. Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 318.
DOES KIDDUSH PRECEDE CHRISTIANITY ? 59
"sanctify us with Thy commandments."... R. Aha b. Jacob said:

And he must refer to the Egyptian exodus in the hiddush of the day.
[For] here it is written, that thou mayest remember the day [when
thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt], while there it is written,
Remember the Sabbath day, to hallow it [by reciting kiddusK]. "
The main concepts of the Kiddush are based on Scripture. 12

Lev 23:2, 3 lists the Sabbath first among the "feasts of the
Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations." The
connection of the Sabbath with the deliverance is based on
Dt 5:15: "And remember that thou wast a servant in the
land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out
thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm:
therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the
sabbath day."
An indication of the antiquity of the Sabbath Kiddush is
the stability of the text .in the various ancient liturgies.
According to Elbogen, "The text of Kiddush is, but for mi
nor details, identical in all the copies, a proof that it rests on
sound tradition." 13
The oldest known Jewish prayer book was written by Rab
Amram ben Sheshna (diedca. A.D. 875), 14 Gaon (or principal)
of the academy at Sura in Babylon. 15 It is called Seder Rab
Amram. Four complete MSS of this work are known, and are
described by Marx in German and Hedegard in English. 16
11 Pesahim nyb, p. 603.

12 Israel Abrahams, A Companion to the Authorized Daily Prayer
Book (rev. ed.; London, 1922), p. cxl; cf. Gfeorge] H. Box, "The Jewish
Prayerbook: A Study in the Worship of the Synagogue," ET, XV
(1904), 364; and Hedegard, op. cit., pp. xxxii f.
13 Isrnar Elbogen, Der judische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen
Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1913), p. 112 (cited by Oesterley, op. cit., p. 80).
14 Judah D. Eisenstein, "Prayer-Books," The Jewish Encyclopedia,
X (New York, 1905), 171; cf. Hedegard, op. cit., p. xx.
15 Joseph Marcus, "Amram ben Sheshna," The Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia, I (New York, 1939), 282.
16 Alexander Marx, Untersuchungenzum Siddur desGaon R. Amram'.
Die handschriftliche Ueberlieferung (Berlin, 1908), pp. 15 ff.; Hedegard,
op. cit., pp. xxi ff. The MSS are the Codex British Museum 613 (ca.
60 H. T. SLATER
The oldest of these MSS probably dates from the I4th-i5th

century. 17 The text of Kiddush is nearly identical in the edi
tions of Frumkin 18 and Coronel 19 to that of our text in Singer:
Frumkin and Coronel give natf [} where Singer gives riaaft.
The best MS is the Sulzberger Manuscript of Seder Amram
Gaon of the Jewish Theological Seminary. 20 The text of
Kiddush from this MS is given below with an addition to
our present text underlined.
•uVmn nanxa ianp roan in nsii ap~x nbns 'ib • • • jsmn ns KTO
njrjr1? IDT enp nnpa nVnn ni nr "o rrrcxia iwsaV piat
psiai nanto imp men o'asn Vna ncnp imwi mna in -o
narcn snpa "Sa
In the translation of this text, given below, abbreviations
of words and phrases are written in full and put in parenthesis,
omitted words are in brackets and the added word is under
lined.
Who creates the fruit of the vine. . . .
Blessed (art thou, O Lord our God, [King] of the universe, who
hast sanctified us by thy commandments) and hast taken pleasure
in us, and in love [and favor] hast given us thy holy Sabbath as an
inheritance, a memorial of [the] creation, because this day is first
of the holy convocations, in remembrance of the departure from
14-15th century) discussed by George Margoliouth, Catalogue of

Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum (London,
1905), II, 206; the Codex logs of the Bodleian Library, Oxford (1426),
discussed by A[dolf] Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in
the Bodleian Library... (Oxford, 1886), I, 299; the Codex Sulzberger
of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1506) discussed by
Marx who (in his work cited above) collected and discussed the variants
of this MS from the Bodleian MS; and the Codex British Museum 614
which is a copy of the Codex logs of the Bodleian Library.
17 Hedegard, op. cit., p. xxi.
18 A[ryeh] L. Frumkin, ed., Siddur Tefilla Keminhag Ashkenaz in
Seder Rob Amram ha-shalem... (Jerusalem, 1912), II, 41 f. This
edition is, according to Hedegard (op. cit., p. xxi), based on the Codex
1095 of the Bodleian Library.
19 N[ahman] N. Coronel, Seder Rab Amram Gaon (Warszawa, 1865),
II, 41 f. This edition is based on the Codex British Museum 613. Cf.
Hedegard, op. cit., p. xxi.
20 Hedegard, op. cit., p. xxi.
DOES KIDDUSH PRECEDE CHRISTIANITY ? 6l
Egypt. For thou hast chosen us and sanctified us above all nations,
and in love and favor hast given us thy holy Sabbath as an inherit
ance. (Blessed art thou, O Lord,) who hallowest the Sabbath.
Seder Rab Amram was written at the request of Spanish

Jews who had asked for the prayers "which they have taught
from heaven," 21 implying a belief that they were of divine
origin. Amram is recorded to have declared: "We must not
deviate in anything from what the sages had said in the
Talmud [about either holiday or Sabbath prayers].... When
we come to a place where the reader recites a prayer at
variance with the mold formed by the sages, we depose him." 22
The introduction to his Seder says the work was "in accord
ance with the tradition which is in our possession, in con
formity with the institution of the Tannaim and the Amor-
aim." 2S It is therefore clear that the prayers Amram sent
were quite old, going back to the Talmud. We have already
noted that the Talmud traces the prayers back to the men of
the Great Synagogue. 24
The text of Kiddush given in Seder Amram Gaon cannot be
proved to be original, as the book suffered from many addi
tions and omissions. Ginzberg has remarked, "We shall
probably never know its—referring to the Siddur—true
original form; it was used until it was used up." ^ "There is
in the Siddur very little liturgical. .. material which could be
described with certainty as having reached us in the form
given it by R. Amram.... [however] there is still enough of
the original material in it which clearly shows that the Gaon
sent to the Spanish congregations a complete order of
prayers." 26
21 Ibid., p. xxviii.
22 Amram's response cited by Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious
History of the Jews, Vol. VII: Hebrew Language and Letters (ad ed.;
New York, 1958), p. 65.
23 Seder Rab Amram cited in ibid., p. 70; cf. Hedegard, op. cit.,
p. 4.
24 See above, n. 2.
26 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 320.
26 Ibid., pp. 320 f.
62 H. T. SLATER
The next oldest prayer book is by Saadia B. Joseph (born

A.D. 882, died 942) who became Gaon at Sura in 928. 27 El-
bogen considers this work the oldest prayer book, arguing
that all of the prayers in Amram were later additions. 28
Ginzberg and Hedegard reject Elbogen's position. 29 Ginzberg
argues that Saadia's Siddur has suffered less in transmission
and that "one is safe in stating that on the whole the Siddur
reached us in a fairly good state." 30 Only one nearly com
plete MS is known and was edited in 1941. 31 This MS is
described by Steinschneider, and according to Ginzberg has
"high antiquity." 32 In the text of Kiddush below, omissions
are starred and additions are underlined :
*nanxa imp mtr? *ua nsii *ut2np *WN aisn ia irns wi nnx a
not anp *xipa* nanxa *r\\
•jimp rvmaff *D'ias?n Vna ranp imis »mna ua "o nnsa
a
The changes are minor and the basic concept of the text
is retained. We read, for instance, "It is first in love of holy
convocations which recall the exodus from Egypt." The
expression mnN3 (in love), is the only addition compared to
Singer. The omissions include all internal punctuation, vrrisaa
(with Thy commandments), ]iS"iai (and favor), the pre
position V and final "> from •'tnp.a'?, the conjunction 1 from
27 Wilhelm Bacher, "Saadia B. Joseph (Sa'id al-Fayyumi)," The

Jewish Encyclopedia, X (New York, 1905), 579; Robert Gordis,
"Saadia ben Joseph," The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, IX (New
York, 1943), 289; Jacob Mann, "A Fihrist of Sa'adya's Works," JQR,
XI (1920-1921), 423 f.
28 Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Ent-
•uaicklung (2d ed.; Frankfurt a.M., 1931), p. 265.
29 Ginzberg, op. cit., pp. 321, 328; Hedegird, op. cit., p. xxvi.
30 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 328.
31 Hedegard, op. cit., p. xxvii, n. 9.
32 Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum Hebraeorum in Biblio-
thecaBodleiana, jussu curatorum digessitet notis instruxit (Leipzig, 1894),
cols. 2203-2211; Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 328.
33 I[srael] Davidson, S[imcha] Assaf, and B. I. Joel, eds., Siddur R.
SaadjaGaon (Jerusalem, 1941), pp. H4f.
and rOB^ (comp. Amram above), and 3 from

(at the end).
The Yemen rite from Southern Arabia omits erf Nin '3 but
otherwise is the same as Singer's text. 34 This rite was in
fluenced by Saadia Gaon and Maimonides and approaches
closely the Spanish rite although it borrows also from the
German rite. 35 According to Neubauer, the copies of the
Yemen prayer book are from about the I5th century A.D. 36
The Chinese liturgy from Kai-fung-fu has been studied by
Williams, who gives the variations. 37 The blessing over wine
is substituted for that of bread. The White- Williams trans
lation reads :
Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast
sanctified us by thy commandments, and hast taken pleasure in us,
and in love and favour hast given us thy holy Sabbath as an inherit
ance, even the Sabbath of the remembrance of good; a memorial
of the creation, the first of the holy convocations, in remembrance
of the Exodus from Egypt, to make known that it is us whom thou
hast chosen (BWRT!) and us thou hast sanctified above all the
peoples ; and thy holy Sabbaths hast thou given us as an inheritance
in love and favour. [Blessed be thou, O L]ord, from the midst of
(sic! vd. who hallowest) the Sabbath. "Who giveth food to all flesh,
[for] his mercy endureth for ever." (Psalm 136:25). Blessed be thou,
O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bringeth forth bread
from the earth. Amen. 3S
34 vniD TON ntr IBN ivo-ian VD DS; nawi nV?sn VD VVo IITO
BTI ys? IBO DSJ 'pT trrpn nrVnp *?D JHIDD VxVDrt irrmp 'Va Nipin
•••• TO»1 "?J?D "IPX (Jerusalem, 1894-1898), II, 112. Cf. "Liturgies.
- Yemen. - Daily Prayers [1894-1898]," Hebrew Union College, Dic
tionary Catalog of the Klau Library (Boston, 1964), XVI, 261.
35 Baron, op. cit., p. 120 and p. 278, n. 77; A[dolf] Neubauer, "The
Literature of the Jews of Yemen," JQR, III (1891), 617.
36 Ibid.
37 Ronald J. Williams, "Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Codex,"
Chinese Jews, ed. William White (2d. ed.; New York, 1966), Part III,
P. 83.
38 William C. White, and Ronald J. Williams, trans., "Codex in
Hebrew and Chinese from the K'ai-ffing Synagogue," Chinese Jews,
Part III, p. 29.
64 H. T. SLATER
The MS containing the Chinese liturgy was written ca. A.D.

1642. 39 According to E. N. Adler, the Chinese liturgy is
based on the Siddur of Saadia Gaon. 40 Neubauer says,
The Persian which is found in their Prayer-book is not the old
language, but that spoken now and since Firdusi. If they had
emigrated in the third century we ought to find a trace of the old
Persian language. .. . There is no quotation in their book from the
Gemara, but parts of the Mishnah are to be found in their Prayer-
book. Of course, if they had emigrated to China in the eighth century,
they could scarcely have had the Gemara with them. 41
The Jews of China believed their colony dates from the Han
Dynasty (202 B.C. to A.D. 220), 42 and Baron accepts this as
possibly true. 43 The earliest date Baron cites with certainty
is the ninth century, when Ibn Zaid al Hasan reported Jews
massacred during riots at Khanfu. 44 Thus the Chinese version
of Kiddush may be as old as Saadia.
Rashi (Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac, born A.D. 1040, died
1105) of Troyes, France, in commenting on Kiddush gives
only a part of our text: 45 amp ^"ipa1? nVnn DV Nin "O
The Mahzor Vitry, written about A.D. noo by Simha b.
Samuel of Vitry, France, a disciple of Rashi, contains the
complete text of Kiddush except for one variation from our
present text, i.e., the omission of the conjunction 1 from nam. 46
The texts of Kiddush found in the following rites are
identical, except for differences in phrasing and pronunciation,
to the text as found in Singer: the German (Ashkenazic) rite, 47
39 White, "A Chinese-Hebrew Manuscript," Chinese Jews, Part III,
p. 2.
40 E[lkan] N. Adler, "The Persian Jews: II. Their Ritual," JQR,
X (1898), 601.
41 A[dolf] Neubauer, "Jews in China," JQR, VIII (1896), 129.
42 Ibid., pp. 126, 128.
43 Baron, op. cit., Vol. Ill: Heirs of Rome and Persia, p. 115.
44 Ibid., pp. 285 f., n. 51.
46 Rashi, Tractate Berachoth 463., Babylonian Talmud (Jerusalem,
1962), p. 91.
46 S. Hurwitz, ed., Mahzor Vitry (Berlin, 1890), p. 146.
47 Seligman Baer, ed., Seder 'Abhodath Yisrael . . . (Rodelheim,
1868), p. 198.
the Spanish and Portuguese (Sephardic) rite, 48 and the rite of

Southern France. 49 The differences in phrasing are discussed
by Mishcon. 50
Our study tends to support Elbogen's position who, after
having studied the text of Kiddush in the European rituals as
well as the older liturgies outside of Europe, said: "Der
Text des Kiddusch ist in alien Vorlagen bis auf geringfiigige
Abweichungen gleich, ein Beweis, dass er auf guter alter
liberlieferung beruht." 51
This brief survey through time and from China to Europe
reveals a basic stability of the text.
II
Another line of evidence as to the high antiquity of our
prayer is its relationship to Justin Martyr's Dialogue with
Trypho xli (cat. A.D. 135), which reads:
And the offering of fine flour . . . was a type of the bread of the
Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed,
in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of
those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may
at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all
things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the
evil in which we were. . . . 6a
Justin connects this giving of thanks with the "bread of the

Eucharist." 63 Oesterley, who pointed out this relationship,
said:
This conjunction of the two thoughts of Creation and Redemption
are just those which figure prominently in Kiddush. And if ...
48 David de Sola Pool, ed., Book of Prayer According to the Custom

of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (New York, 1936), p. 155.
49 Michael Milhaud, ed., Rituel des prieres en Hebreu a I'usage des
Israelites de I'ancien comtat . . . contenant ... les prieres des jours
ouvrables . . . des jours de Sabbat . . . des jours de fetes (n. p., 1855),
pp. 16, 17.
50 A. Mishcon, "Disputed Phrasings in the Siddur," JQR, VII
(1916-1917), 536.
61 Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst, p. 112.
62 ANF, I, 215.
63 Ibid.
66 H. T. SLATER
Kiddush formed the background, as far as the form was concerned,

of the words of consecration, it would explain where Justin got the
idea that it was Christ's desire that thanksgiving for the Creation
should be uttered during the eucharistic prayer. Thanksgiving for
redemption from sin would naturally enough correspond to that
for deliverance from the Egyptian bondage which occurs in Kid
dush. 6*
This eucharistic prayer indicates that a prayer dealing with

creation and redemption was an accepted prayer during
Justin's time, and such early acceptance may indicate that
the prayer had been known for some time. Another eucharistic
prayer is found in Didache 9:2-4. Although it seems completely
different from Justin's, both may have common roots,
for this prayer is recited over wine and bread in the same
order as Kiddush, and has, as Box has pointed out, many
similarities with Kiddush. 55 The Goodspeed translation for
it is:
First about the cup, "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine
of your servant David, which you have made known to us through
your servant Jesus. Glory to you forever.'-' And about the piece of
bread, "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge you
have made known to us through Jesus your servant. Glory be yours
forever. Just as this piece of bread was scattered over the moun
tains, and then was gathered together and became one, so let your
church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your
kingdom. For the glory and the power are yours through Jesus
Christ forever." 56
This prayer can hardly be more than an expansion of the

blessing of wine and bread in Kiddush. Both have similar
introductions, both speak of the vine and bread from the
earth, although Didache elaborates the expression "who
bringest forth bread from the earth" into a symbol of the
church gathered from the ends of the earth.
54 Oesterley, op. cit., p. 134.

66 Box, "The Jewish Antecedents of the Eucharist," JTS, III
(1902), 363.
66 Edgar J. Goodspeed, trans., The Apostolic Fathers: An American
Translation (London, 1950), p. 15.
If we combine the eucharistic prayers of Justin Martyr and

the Didache we have a prayer blessing the vine, a prayer
dealing with creation and redemption, and a prayer blessing
bread only slightly modifying the thought of "from the earth"
into a symbolic expression. Both Justin's prayer of thanks
giving and the Didache prayer (which the text says is "in
regard to the eucharist" 57) are blessings for bread and there
fore have similar or even identical functions. The similarity
of these blessings over bread with Kiddush, the intimate
union of the ideas of creation and redemption in Justin's
prayer in the same style as Kiddush, and the whole similarity
in thought can most easily be explained by the continuation
of usage of Jewish prayers in the early Christian community
and can least likely be due to random chance. Therefore we
may safely conclude that in the early Christian community
a prayer closely identical to or at least based on the Kiddush
prayer was known and used. This prayer can be reconstructed
to contain three parts: a blessing over (the fruit of) the vine,
a prayer dealing with creation and redemption, and a blessing
over bread which the Lord brought from the earth.
We can conclude from the similarity of this reconstructed
eucharistic prayer and Kiddush that Kiddush was well
known, well accepted, and therefore old at the time Christianity
was born. We can also conclude that at first either the two
prayers were identical (that is, Kiddush was in fact the
early eucharistic prayer) or Kiddush was the model from
which a slightly altered eucharistic prayer was fashioned.
Our evidence also indicates that Jewish customs and prayers
were not rejected by the early Jewish Christian community,
but were retained, and influenced the development of Christian
prayers and worship as well as thought and theology.
67 Early Christian Prayers, ed. by G. A. Hamman, and trans. by

Walter Mitchell (Chicago, 1961), p. 91; cf. The Apostolic Fathers, ed.
by J. B. Lightfoot, and completed by J. R. Harmer (London, 1891),
p. 126.
68 H. T. SLATER
III
We may now summarize: The Talmud assigns the origin

of the Kiddush to the men of the Great Synagogue. Although
only fragments of the text occur or are alluded to in the
Talmud, there is enough to establish that the prayer in its
present form is essentially the original text. Kiddush, as
found in the earliest books of prayer, is nearly identical to our
present text; and, although Jewish communities were widely
scattered from China to Europe, our present text has been
retained throughout the world and shows very little variation,
thus indicating its wide acceptance at a very early date.
Evidence as to the age of our text is found also in the fact that
it is possible to reconstruct from the early Christian eucha-
ristic prayer (s) a prayer nearly identical both in style and
content to our present text of Kiddush. All of these lines of
evidence come together to indicate that our present text of
Kiddush is essentially the original text.
CORRECTION
The editors sincerely regret that in the last stage of compo

sition, after the page proofs had been read, a. serious error
came into the article "Albigenses and Waldenses" by Daniel
Walther in the July, 1968, number of AUSS (Vol. VI, No. 2),
p. 180. Please note that lines 1-3 under heading "I" should
precede lines 1-3 at the top of the page, in reverse order: 3, 2, i.
BOOK REVIEWS
Aharoni, Yohanan, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography.

Translated from the Hebrew by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1967. xiv -f 409 pp. 34 maps. $ 7.95.
There is no dearth of books dealing with the geography of Palestine.

Some of them confine their scope of study to a pure geography of
the country and all its features, such as the works of George Adam
Smith, F.-M. Abel and Denis Baly, while others treat the geography
of Palestine in the light of its political history. To these works belong
the Bible Atlases of Emil G. Kraeling and Charles F. Pfeiffer. Aharoni's
new book belongs more or less to this last-mentioned category, although
it blazes new trails and is intended to be a textbook (p. xiv).
The book under review has certain advantages over others, because
its author through interest and training is extremely well versed in
Palestine's ancient history and geography. He writes about his own
country, in which he was born and reared, and in which he has worked
as a scholar and archaeologist for many years. As an Israeli, Aharoni
also uses a great number of Hebrew sources which usually are ignored
by other scholars, and as a student of Benjamin Mazar, the great
Israeli archaeologist, to whom the book is dedicated, Aharoni reflects
his teacher's views throughout his work without divergence or dis
agreements. Another strong point of this book is the thorough and
abundant use of Egyptian source material, and to a lesser degree of
thoroughness the use of Hittite, Assyrian and Babylonian sources.
The Christian reader of Aharoni's book will be disappointed that
the Bible ends for the author with the last book of the OT, with the
result that NT Palestine remains undiscussed. Aharoni also fails to
use the NT, Josephus, later Jewish writings, or the reports of the
pilgrims as source material, and does not deal at all with the country's
historical geography after Nehemiah. Christian students who are not
satisfied in being limited by the author to the historical geography of
Palestine during the OT period will thus be forced to supplement
Aharoni's book by turning to other works. This is a regrettable
shortcoming of the book.
Another weakness is the brevity or lack of discussion of certain
geographical problem, especially with regard to sites of which the
identification is still questionable. For example, J. Naveh's identifica
tion (made in 1958) of Ekron with Khirbet el-Muqanna 1- is accepted
without question, and the archaeological remains of that site are used
to elucidate the history of Ekron (pp. 198, 248, 251). While Naveh's
identification is plausible, it is far from certain, and a discussion of
the problems connected with the identification of Ekron with various
70 SEMINARY STUDIES
possible sites as well as the views of other scholars in this respect

should have been given. The same criticism can be made with regard
to another Philistine city, Gath, of which the problems of identification
are even graver than those of Ekron. Aharoni suggests (p. 250) its
location as Tell es-Safi, where scholars of an earlier day had placed it
before others identified it with several other sites. In a few places he
attaches a question mark to his proposed identification (pp. 23, 339),
but in other passages his identification of Gath is made as if no prob
lem existed (pp. 45, 149, 376 and elsewhere), and the student of the
Bible, who may be neither an expert in geography nor acquainted
with the intricate problems connected with the identification of this
site, is not sufficiently warned that the proposed identification is
rather uncertain. Many other examples of a similar nature could be
cited. But the two samples used show that the serious student of
Palestinian geography will still need Abel's discussion of, and biblio
graphical references to, the various Biblical sites which are presented
in Volume II of his monumental work, although that work, published
more than 30 years ago, is now badly out of date.
The translator deserves a special word of commendation. He has
done a superb job. Hardly anywhere is the reader aware of the fact that
the book is a translation. A. F. Rainey, a scholar in his own right, could
hardly have found better expressions to transfer Hebrew idioms into
English ones, than he does throughout the book. The maps are no
masterpieces, being all in black-and-white. However, they show
what the author wants them to present and are clear enough to be
useful. The book is well produced and remarkably free from disturb
ing typographical errors. It certainly is a pleasure to recommend it
highly to students of the Bible who want to have a good and quite
authoritative historical geography of OT Palestine.
Andrews University SIEGFRIED H. HORN
Braaten, Carl E., History and Hermeneutics. "New Directions in

Theology Today," Vol. II. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1966. 205 pp. $ 3.95.
Occasionally books appear which enable the serious reader to start
with almost the rudiments of a particular discipline, by providing inter
esting and relatively brief but fair and summary treatment of the
situation. With economy of words, involving economy also of the
overall size of the book, the issues are focused and the main figures
presented, so that one may thereafter move to further study. Such,
essentially, is the book here under review. In it we are invited to con
sider the theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg as addressed to the chief
problems of contemporary theologians (mostly German), and are
provided the most suggestive approach to a contemporary construc
tive systematic theology.
The method of the book is to give an historical survey of the treat-
BOOK REVIEWS 71
ment of the chief themes of current theological interest, and then to

indicate Pannenberg's suggestions apropos to that theme. This method
is consistently carried through each chapter (except the last, the
sketchiest of them all, where Pannenberg's "proleptic eschatology" is
only hinted at). A contrast is thus drawn in each chapter, the essence
of which will become clear from the following summary.
Pannenberg insists upon the universal scope of history against
views of revelation which play off kerygma against history, that is,
against non-historical views of revelation, which result in an over
emphasis on the category of revelation as the answer to a modern
epistemological skepticism.
Pannenberg insists on reason's knowledge of history and the co-
essentiality of reason and faith in the "total act of a person" (p. 49).
But reason must be brought to its natural condition in order to make
it capable of historical knowledge. Here the aid of the Spirit and of
the kerygma is necessary. So an integration of dogmatic and histor
ical disciplines is recommended against the rejection of the historical-
critical method, and against a "bi-focal" view (p. 37) which sets the
two in co-existence but not in integrated relationship.
Pannenberg insists on the historicity of the resurrection, and refuses
to by-pass it in his theological program. The resurrection resists all
hypotheses which fail to reckon with its simplicity.
Pannenberg insists that the main features of the apocalyptic escha
tology can be true for us today, that a theology of the resurrection
must establish itself squarely upon the historical Jesus, that the
historian's ideas (based on an alien epistemology) must be made as
vulnerable as the documents he investigates, and the history be defined
in the light of the reality of Jesus' resurrection. All this is held in
opposition to a position which acknowledges that the NT writers be
lieved in the historicity of the resurrection but which refuses that
historicity dogmatically, and to a positivistic historicism which refuses
to begin with the resurrection.
In opposition to that interpretation which finds radical disconti
nuity between the historical Jesus and the resurrection, Pannenberg
insists on the existence of hope and also of an adequate language of
hope in the pre-Easter situation (thus showing the continuity of pre-
Easter with post-Easter), and appeals to the findings of a phenomeno
logy of human existence to show that the idea of resurrection expresses
meaningful truth for us.
Pannenberg insists on the importance of the OT and its relevance
for dogmatic theology, and on the importance of the development of
tradition within the context of historical reality, in opposition to a
neglect of the OT by dogmatic theologians. Since Israel's history
occurred both in the interpretation of historical episodes in new situa
tions as well as in the historical episodes themselves, we find a rela
tionship between the OT and the NT in the "historical" relationship
between them (Braaten's fourth rubric). The NT enters into a history
of promises and fulfilments, which characterizes the OT.
72 SEMINARY STUDIES
In the brief survey of the history of hermeneutics, Braaten presents

Pannenberg as avoiding problems which others have not. If one insists
on the likeness between the one who writes history and the one who
makes it (as did Schleiermacher, Dilthey and Bultmann) the uncommon
cannot be accounted for. If one insists on narrow concerns (as do
Fuchs, Ebeling and Bultmann), essential elements in the tradition
will be overlooked. Pannenberg insists on the enlargement of the
horizon of the present-day interpreter so that the concern of the
text may be encompassed. An over-arching perspective, that of
historical process, is necessary to bring together the two different per
spectives of interpreter and interpreted. The totality of history is
incorporated within a Christian theology of history. This will mean that
attention must be given to the particular structures within the con
temporary church through which the hermeneutical process takes
place, and will involve re-opening the whole question of the relation
ship between Scripture and tradition.
In the final chapter Braaten welcomes Moltmann's Theology of
Hope as employing the Biblical category of promise rather than that
of the Greek logos, and states criteria for adequate eschatological
discussion: it must be existentially relevant, controlled by the kerygma
derived from Scripture, Christological, and futuristic. Pannenberg's
proleptic eschatology fills the bill.
When much is said in little space, there is always the risk of over
simplification. With this we need not tarry, for one who is concerned
with the problem of over-simplification can always go to the texts
indicated if he is serious enough. There are, however, certain one-sided
observations which cannot be accounted for on the basis of lack of
space, as for example the criticism that Barth overlooks the category
of reconciliation for that of revelation. The twofold assertion "that
Jesus Christ is not the sole medium of revelation and . . . that
much more than revelation was accomplished by him" (p. 14) is
intended as a criticism of Earth's theology!
But since the purpose of the book is to present an apologia for the
theology of Pannenberg, a few questions relative to that presentation
seem in order. In what sense is the basic notion of "universal history"
to be taken ? Does the concept of revelation through universal history
mean that revelation is universally available to all men, or that, in
some way or other, all men participate in the revelation of God by
participating in universal history, which is by definition all-inclusive ?
This is not simply a theoretical question, since the term "revelation"
has soteriological connotation as well as epistemological. As Braaten
himself observes, it is absolutely essential that the significance of a
slogan such as that of "revelation through history" be most carefully
defined if it is to convey anything specific. In the summary which
expounds this term (pp. 28, 29) a distinction is drawn between God's
direct acts of revelation and his historical acts, which are indirect
revelations, available for everyone to see! We need further specification
in order to make this far-reaching contention intelligible. This is
BOOK REVIEWS 73
especially the case in the light of the quite fundamental assertion

that revelation occurs at the end of history. Theology has always
found terminological ambiguity convenient. It appears to be playing
with words to talk of an "end" having occurred proleptically, since
"end" in normal parlance means finis in a temporal sense. How can
history go on if its end has occurred ? We have great sympathy with
the idea being expressed and would want to endorse it, but consider
the terminology unfortunate, even if the meaning of "end" as "goal"
or "fulfilment" or "purpose" makes it plausibly ambiguous. The
adjective "final" (p. 95) is a more obvious pun than the noun "end."
We also welcome the insistence that an epistemology which will be
at all adequate to the NT kerygma will have to start with the resur
rection, from "the substantive, historical nucleus of the apostles'
resurrection affirmations" (p. 84), although we are not told what that
is. The argument from phenomenology, that man is constituted by
hope, is a most effective way of indicating the meaningfulness of
eschatological assertions. Here we have one of the more useful employ
ments of the notion of the universal. But, it must be pointed out, the
status of the phenomenological account of man as hopeful does not
prove anything about the truth of that which he anticipates, namely
the resurrection, but only that the hope is meaningful. Nevertheless,
it provides a useful argument against those who will confine discussion
(at least at the outset) to the problem of meaning.
The following errata were noted: "betwen" for "between" (p. 68);
"clean" for "clear" (p. 70); "hinderances" for "hindrances" (p. 101);
"difference" for "different" (p. 133); "pre-supposses" for "pre-sup-
poses" (p. 135); "escatology" for "eschatology" (p. 164).
Andrews University EDWARD W. H. VICK
Breen, Quirinus, Christianity and Humanism'. Studies in the History

of Ideas, ed. by Nelson Peter Ross. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1968. xviii + 283 pp. f 6.95.
In his editor's note, Nelson Peter Ross indicates the purpose and
occasion which have brought forth this volume: "When Quirinus
Breen retired from his professorship of history in the University of
Oregon in 1964 some of his colleagues, students, and friends sought to
mark the occasion with a permanent tribute. The result is this col
lection of some of his essays, now published in his honor" (p. ix).
In the Preface, Heiko A. Oberman characterizes an aspect of
Breen's work which manifests itself well in the present publication:
"comprehensiveness and comprehension" which "may entail a risky
trek into a 'no man's land' between fields." He also points out that
Breen, with "his humanistic respect for rhetoric as a method cum
fundamento in ve . . . would not wince when this trek is compared
with the ongoing search to expose and combat that veritas duplex
which Breen has described as an eminent problem in the symbiosis
of Christianity and 'humanism' " (p. vii).
74 SEMINARY STUDIES
In the Foreword, Paul Oskar Kristeller calls to attention the fact

that the present volume omits Breen's "books and some of his more
detailed scholarly papers, but . . . illustrates very well the unity
and range that characterize Breen's work as a whole, and also the
twofold orientation that has evidently inspired him throughout his
life as a person and as a scholar"—his "persistent concern to combine
and to reconcile his faith as a liberal modern Protestant and his
work as a free and objective secular scholar" (p. v).
The foregoing quotations have been presented because they state
so well what is the intent, nature, and scope of the volume here under
review. In brief, the selections from Breen's published articles ap
pearing in this volume are collected in chapters bearing the following
titles: "Three Renaissance Humanists on the Relation of Philosophy
and Rhetoric" (the three humanists are Pico, Ermolao Barbaro, and
Melanchthon), "The Twofold Truth Theory in Melanchthon," "The
Terms 'Loci Communes' and 'Loci' in Melanchthon," "John Calvin
and the Rhetorical Tradition," "The Twelfth-Century Revival of the
Roman Law," "Renaissance Humanism and the Roman Law," and
"The Church as Mother of Learning."
The briefest glance at the above array of titles indicates the breadth
of Breen's scholarship, and a look into any chapter in the book will
at once reveal the depth of that learning. The fact that the articles here
represented have appeared in a wide array of journals such as CH, the
Journal of the History of Ideas, Review of Religion, Encounter, and the
Oregon Law Review, bespeaks the degree to which he has achieved
success in the "comprehensiveness and comprehension" spoken of by
Oberman.
The volume is enhanced by the inclusion of a "Curriculum Vitae"
(pp. xi-xvi) and a "Bibliography of the Writings of Cjuirinus Breen"
(pp. 269-274). The latter contains well over 100 titles of books, articles
and book reviews, beginning with Breen's first major work, John
Calvin: A Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1931).
This bibliography expresses even better than the book itself can do,
the true breadth of Breen's scholarly interests and competence, as
we find listed therein studies reaching out to touch even such areas
as law-school curriculum, Italian libraries, the history of education,
and international relations.
The selection made for the present volume could hardly encompass
all the areas represented in the Bibliography, but has rather been
directed toward one major thrust of Breen's scholarly work as indi
cated in the title Christianity and Humanism. It seems to the present
reviewer that the choice of essays has been good. The fact that they
center about one theme lends unity to the presentation, and the fact
that they treat a variety of topics—such as philosophy, rhetoric, law,
and learning—gives the book a special richness of detail and perspective.
Moreover, they are timely, for although they speak about the past,
they also speak from that past to concerns which are relevant and
alive today. In addition, the book is eminently interesting and read-
BOOK REVIEWS 75
able. Indeed, this volume furnishes an excellent representation of the

work of one of the truly great scholars of our time, and provides a
fitting tribute to him.
Andrews University KENNETH A. STRAND
Cullmann, Oscar, Salvation in History. Translated by Sidney G. Sowers

et al. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. 352 pp. $ 6.50.
Cullmann has for several years persistently engaged in a running
debate with Rudolph Bultmann. His earlier book Christ and Time has
met with heavy criticisms not only for the obscurity in which certain
cardinal points have been left, but also from its general orientation,
from which conclusions have been drawn that are distasteful to its
author. This new book is an attempt to answer explicit criticisms and to
clarify Cullmann's positions against implications which have been drawn
from former obscurities.
If the tension between the "already" and the "not yet" in the NT
and in the Christian message is maintained, we are not led to an anta
gonism between "salvation-history" and Christian existentialism.
Indeed the two positions are complementary. To raise the essential
question of continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of
faith is to press beyond the position of Bultmann. The question is
whether a sequence of events can be an object of faith as well as of
assent. Cullmann answers with an emphatic affirmative. In faith the
believer is overwhelmed by that hi which he did not participate (p.
115). The events of salvation are pro nobis, but first they are extra
nos.
In contending for the priority of salvation-history over revelation,
the polemic is directed against Pannenberg, who according to Cull
mann, subordinates salvation to revelation. We must press back
behind the process of interpretation to get at the events. The historical
must be separated from the interpretative and the mythological if
we want to see how revelation occurs in history. The interpretation
must come from the events themselves, "out of the naked events"
(p. 96). This is repeatedly emphasized by Cullmann.
There is, however, a relationship to the facts that is independent of
faith, a preliminary hearing (p. 71). There is a sequence of events which
can be unfolded as history quite independent of whether the faith-
encounter ensues or not. But when faith is present there is to the
believer a coincidence of the historical and the theological (p. 71).
Before this coincidence there must be the Vorverstandnis of the ac
ceptance of the objective reality of "a series of divine events." The
discernment of this crucial sequence of events, selected out of history
as such, is what constitutes faith. To the historian the sequence
upon which faith depends is quite meaningless. Proper interpretation
of the events is disclosed in and with the events themselves. The
76 SEMINARY STUDIES
supreme example of this is the resurrection of Jesus (pp. 102-123),

where we are given the paradigmatic case of the coincidence and
simultaneity of event and interpretation. Here the divine event is
known through a proper interpretation of historically accessible facts,
open to alternative interpretations. The essential ingredient of salva
tion-history, that which constitutes an event a "divine event," is
beyond the range of historical knowledge. Thus there is a funda
mental, a priori distinction between historical knowledge and sal
vation-historical knowledge of a divine event (p. 151).
Eschatological considerations are worked out from this viewpoint.
The decisive events, extra nos, at the basis of the Christian faith
constitute the mid-point of time. What is essential at the mid-point
must come to its expression at the end. The eschatological consum
mation expresses the meaning of all history. "Light from theeschaton
falls back upon the central portion of history" (p. 147). Thus the
eschaton is anticipated in the central happenings of the Christ-event.
A note concerning the relationship between history and myth will
clarify the position regarding faith. A distinction is made between
what is historically controllable and what is not. The historically
controllable is open to investigation by the historian. The historically
uncontrollable does not admit of verification or of falsification. Cull-
mann is at pains to contend that the process of demythologization
has already taken place in the NT, where myth is presented in narra
tive form, and historicized. A divine event is set in the midst of a
cluster of historically controllable events and is pointed to by them,
although itself is beyond historical control. The distinction between the
two types of the historically uncontrollable is essential. We must
distinguish between (i) what is presented as if it were identical with
the historically controllable, namely the myths of the Urzeit which
have been historicized, but which are beyond the range of the historian's
control and, (2) the divine event which is, so to speak, hidden in a
nest of historically controllable events but which is not reducible to
any of them. However, those events indicate the divine event when
viewed from the proper perspective. What is here defended is a real
istic view of history and an epistemological dividing up of the field
of such objective events between history and faith, with such a speci
fication of the overlap or coincidence, as to make a claim for a relation
ship between faith and history which is historically defensible and
theologically acceptable (= based upon faith).
It is with this paradox of the convergence of the historical and the
theological that we may begin our questions concerning the book. It
would seem that if the distinctively theological categories have been
excluded from historiography (e.g., transcendence, providence, mira
cle, God), it would be impossible, without revising the whole idea of
an historical science, to speak of a convergence, indeed of a coincidence
between them, except by giving up either the theological interest, or
the naturalism of science for some other philosophy of historical meth
odology (Harvey, in The Historian and the Believer, has made this
BOOK REVIEWS 77
quite clear). Bultmann's efforts have developed a view of "history"

which will provide this point of coincidence. This has meant the ap
plication of a particular conception of history to the matters of interest
to faith. What Cullmann requires is neither capitulation to the secular
historian, nor a re-appraisal of the historian's science, but general
independence of both theologian and historian with convergence at
one central point, the point at which faith seeks for its ground in the
world of what happened once upon a time.
This is reflected in Cullmann's terminology. "Divine event" is ac
tually a contradiction of terms, if the view of history makes such a
co-ordination impossible. It is to be understood that the term "event"
is being given a most unusual meaning. It is similar with the term "sal
vation-history." Cullmann is indeed quite aware of this (p. 77). The
problem then would be to give a clear definition of what is meant
by "history." Unfortunately Cullmann does not do this. What happens
is that in different forms the paradox of the terms mentioned earlier
in the paragraph is asserted in several different places throughout
the book. So, it is claimed, scientific exegesis is a means of furthering
faith, while faith cannot be dependent upon the probabilities of scholar
ship. No historical research can establish faith, but once faith has been
established, it may be assisted and strengthened by historical research.
By what means does what was irrelevant at one stage now become
relevant ? What is it that makes the difference ? Since no reconstruc
tion of historical methodology is contemplated, the answer would
seem to be in terms of the analogy between salvation-history and his
tory, as now one aspect of the ambiguous term is called into play,
safoaôw-history for the initiation of faith, salvation-history for the
relevance of the work of the historian. The thesis of the book could
be expounded in terms of the capacity of a hyphen to do what a hyphen
normally does, that is, to bind separable ideas together so that they
can be used together as a unified conception.
Cullmann insists upon the objectivity of salvation-history. Thus two
realities are distinguished: the reality of events extra me, and the reality
of my relation to a series of events. If indeed one can only speak of
events extra me when one has stood within the context which they
make possible, in what sense are they extra me ? That the objective
events of salvation-history are objectively real is known only to faith.
Divine events are beyond the range, of the objective historian. Here Cull
mann agrees with Bultmann. He then goes on to assert what to Bult-
mann is unnecessary, that we must be able to assert the objective
factuality of such events. For Cullmann this is to be done on the basis
of faith, which makes available facts of interest to the historian. Sal
vation is history and it is not history. In one sense, history is what is
known by the historian to have happened. In another sense it is
what happened but is not known to him. Cullmann's theology is depend
ent upon a dialectic between the two. It is a possibility that is
seriously open to question.
A view of time that may be symbolized by a line is related to this
78 SEMINARY STUDIES
view of history. The figure is an unfortunate one, since it suggests

that the future of time is to be seen in relation to quantitative similar
ity rather than qualitative difference to the present. The nature of
the event which occurs at the "mid-point" of history requires a more
dynamic conception of the reality of time than is possible by the quan
titative notion of a time-line, especially as this is made a paradigm
for the nature of eternity. Moreover it still remains to be shown that
such a view of time is the one single principle for approaching the
Biblical evidence. The Biblical attitudes are much more complex than
such a simplistic approach recognizes.
Eichrodt, Walter, Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A.

Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Vol. n, 573 pp. $ 7.50.
Since 1913 when H. Wheeler Robinson published The Religious
Ideas of the Old Testament, the English-speaking world has been awaken
ing to the theological content of the OT to such a degree that today
there is avid expectation for significant works in this field. The OT
theologies of Jacob, Vriezen, and von Rad were hardly off the presses
in their French, Dutch, and German garbs when they were already
being transferred into English. It was only right, therefore, that the
work of Eichrodt, which had stood in a class by itself for 25 years, and
.had provided the seed-bed for the "rebirth of Old Testament theology,"
should also be given an English dress. It is interesting to note that
while Vol. I, which appeared in 1961, is a translation of the sixth edition
of Theologie des Alien Testaments, Teil I (1959), Vol. II is a translation
of the fifth edition of Theologie des Alien Testaments, Teil 2/3 (1964).
That Vol. I had already gone through an extra edition is indicative
of the fact that it is there that Eichrodt develops his major thesis and
has been forced to maintain the validity of his structure in the face of
further research.
In his attempt at OT Theology, well described in Vol. I, Eichrodt is
concerned to liberate the study of the OT from a superimposed system-
atization whose major categories are derived from philosophy or dog
matic theology, and from the hegemony of Religionsgeschichte. In order
to do this Eichrodt dedicates Vol. I to the establishment of a concept
native to the OT which may serve as a key for the unlocking of the
OT treasure house. Instead of organizing his work under the traditional
headings: God, Man, Judgment, Salvation, etc., Eichrodt conceives
of the OT as dealing with a relationship and therefore uses the concept
of the covenant as his key. It would have seemed more logical to organ
ize this relationship under the headings God and the world, God and
the nation, God and the individual. This would have been a consist
ently diminishing scale. But Eichrodt wishes to do justice to the OT.
The Covenant is primarily between God and Israel as a people;
therefore Vol. I explores the character of the Israelite religion.
BOOK REVIEWS 79
Eichrodt is also to be admired for the manner in which he maintains

theology in its relation with Religionsgeschichte. In order to establish
the former he does not cavalierly dismiss the latter. He is concerned
with maintaining a controlled and purposeful dialogue between the
two. If one has reservations as to the validity of some of Eichrodt's
attempts to connect organically everything in Israelite religion to the
covenant concept, one cannot deny that in the process he has learned
from Eichrodt.
The volume under review in these pages elaborates on the extensions
of the basic relationship in the direction of the world at large, and in
the opposite direction to the individual Israelite. In extending the
concern of theology in these two directions, Eichrodt continues to
maintain the more traditional conception of the task against von Rad's
more limited delineations. First Eichrodt deals with the ways in which
God is understood to be present in the world; then he deals with Crea
tion and Providence, Heaven and Sheol. Again theological considera
tions determine organization. It is only after the awareness of the pres
ence of God in the world has been formulated that God can be under
stood as Creator. What has traditionally been described as Hebrew
psychology is dealt with under Creation. In his summary statement
Eichrodt says that "Hebrew thought . . . was dominated by the
effort to describe as vividly as possible the qualitative difference be
tween the various psychic processes" (p. 147), and that "it is precisely
the distinctive characteristic of Hebrew thought that it constantly
sees the whole in the individual part, and even when apparently de
scribing isolated expressions of vitality with a law of their own still
has in mind the personal life as a totality" (p. 148). In a footnote he
approves the emphasis in this direction given by J. Pedersen and A.
R. Johnson and disagrees with H. Wheeler Robinson's view of the
"diffusion of consciousness." All this comes as reassurance against
one's surprise with the subheading "Die Bestandteile des menschlichen
Wesens" which in English is even less clear when it reads "The Com
ponents of Human Nature" (p. 131).
The second part assumes at times a tone too pompous for a discus
sion whose sources deal with individualism and ethics in very human
terms. Most helpful in this section is Eichrodt's lucid analysis of the
"fear of God," "faith in God," "love for God" as they are related to
each other in the OT, as well as the inward nature of OT law in its
most lofty conceptions.
Reviewing a work of this nature is like trespassing on a monument.
One can only join the chorus of those who have sung its praises for
being the work of genius that it is. Sincere thanks can also be expressed
to the translator, the chaplain of Corpus Christi College at Oxford.
When Eichrodt himself considers the English edition "almost an ad
vance on the German original in clarity and comprehensibility"
(p. 9), there is no room left for criticism of the translator. Indeed he
has devoted years of his life to this work of love. If one questions the
propriety of certain expressions, this may be due to the perspective
80 SEMINARY STUDIES
these acquire on this side of the Atlantic. Some sentences, however,

have retained some degree of complexity not called for by the original.
For example, "According as the effective influence is that of the age-
old primitive conceptions of impersonal numinous power or that of
a clear theistic faith, so . . ." (p. 443), and "By concentrating as
regards the concept of sin. on the Law, . . ." (p. 400). Others have
in them expressions which seem out of place in a work that maintains
scholarly discourse at a very high level. Expressions like "all along
the line "(p. 282), "not for nothing" (2 x p. 282), "tuned to a different
wave length" (p. 398) sound a bit colloquial, and "in the teeth of"
(pp. 178, 440, 456) is used in contexts which would have been served
better by "in spite of." The sentence, "Through thick and thin it
is tribe-centered thinking which exerts the decisive influence upon
him" (pp. 236-237), just does not sound right. Finally, this reader
must confess that he had never seen before "once in a way" (pp. 164,
176) for "once in a while." But in view of the massive accomplishment
of this translation, carping at this minutia is trespassing on another
monument.
Andrews University HEROLD WEISS
Filson, Floyd V., 'yesterday': A Study of Hebrews in the Light of

Chapter 13. "Studies in Biblical Theology," Second Series, 4.
Naperville, 111.: Alec R. Allenson, 1967. 88 pp. $ 2.35.
In this monograph, Professor Filson seeks to demonstrate that the
contents of Heb 13 are not alien to the rest of the book of Heb., and
that therefore, it is an integral part of the epistle. But in showing
this, Filson has also presented a helpful summation of the theology
of Heb.
Filson first points out the form and function of ch. 13. It is clearly
different from the previous twelve chapters, and for this reason various
scholars have challenged its authenticity. But Heb is an epistle intend
ed for a group and the author in his pastoral concern concludes his
letter in a similar way as other NT epistles. The fourfold structure of
the chapter (varied teaching, formal benediction, personal greetings,
closing brief benediction) is also found in i Th, 2 Th, Gal, Php, i Pe,
and Rom. But if ch. 13 is an integral part of the book, similarity in
content should also be expected. Filson's thesis is that there is such
similarity, and the rest of the monograph is devoted to this.
The following key themes of ch. 13 are discussed: (i) "my word of
exhortation"; (2) "yesterday"; (3) "Jesus Christ"; (4) "a sacrifice for
sin"; (5) "we have an altar"; (6) "the eternal covenant"; (7) "outside
the camp"; (8) "we have no lasting city"; (9) "remember your leaders
. . . pray for us"; (10) "to do good and to share."
Filson seeks to show the relationship of each theme to the theology
of the rest of Heb, thus demonstrating the basic unity of the chapter
with the epistle. The most significant discussions are found in the theme
BOOK REVIEWS 8l
"yesterday" and "we have an altar." He places great emphasis on the

idea expressed by "yesterday," as evident also from the title of the
monograph. "Perhaps no word expresses the thought framework of
Hebrews so well as does 'yesterday' (I^QI,;), no word serves better to
prevent a false understanding of the author's viewpoint" (p. 30).
He seeks first to relate the verse very closely to its context. The author
has just mentioned the leaders of the group to whom he is writing and
their faithfulness unto death. They should imitate such faithfulness
in their lives. But their greatest inspiration should be Jesus "the same
yesterday and today and forever" who exemplified faithfulness and
unswerving loyalty in his obedience unto death. So too they must
be loyal and "not be led away by diverse and strange teachings"
(v. 9). While there is a semblance of connection with its surrounding
verses, the cryptic and enigmatic quality of the verse still remains
and one continues to wonder just what the author had in mind.
Filson relates the conception, however, more fully to the earlier
part of the book. "Yesterday," "in these last days," Jesus learned
obedience and became our qualified high priest. At a particular time
Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. And these events are decisive.
They are "once and for all."
That Heb deals with this theme is undeniable, but whether the
cryptic verse contains all theses conceptions is a serious question.
Whether we can say therefore that this verse on this basis alone is
theologically related to the first twelve chapters of Heb is debatable.
It seems somewhat condescending for the author to write, "This
may seem to us a shocking statement" (p. 33), and," To many Christians
this entire discussion may seem theologically disturbing" (p. 34) in a
work of this nature. He is referring to his interpretation of "yesterday"
which is contrary to the usual one which interprets the verse as em
phasizing the unchanging nature of Jesus Christ.
The author's discussion on the theme "we have an altar" begins
with a caveat that we should not force the author's thought into the
mold of other N'T writers but let him be himself. This warning is
understandable, for Filson has the author saying in this verse that
we who serve the tent (the heavenly sanctuary) have no right to
eat continually from the heavenly altar since the sacrifice of Christ
is a once-for-all offering. This surprising interpretation is in line
with the theology of Heb, but this in itself is no assurance that it is
correct. The objection to this view is the wording of the text itself.
"We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right
to eat" is a, strange way of putting the matter, if the statement means
what Filson says it means. Two distinct groups are clearly in mind,
as indicated by the change of persons from the first to the third. It
can only mean that the adherents of the old-covenant sanctuary, the
Jews who have become Christians, do not have the right to partake
of the Christian altar. It seems that Filson makes too much of the earth
ly-heavenly polarity in a "spatial" sense, when he conceives of the
altar as in heaven. The book of Heb with its many types pointing to
82 SEMINARY STUDIES
the coining of Jesus Christ, deals not so much, with an eternal Pla
tonic vertical antinomy as a Hebraic horizontal antinomy. The heaven
ly must be understood in terms of the realities of salvation fulfilled
by Jesus Christ here on earth. If this is so, the Christian altar need
not be an altar in heaven any more than the offering of Christ need be
a sacrifice in heaven. Again to eat from the altar need not be equated
with a continual sacrifice.
There is very little, however, in the rest of the monograph that
one can argue with. Filson has done his work carefully, judiciously,
and well, and any who challenge the authenticity of the chapter will
have to reckon more seriously with the relationship between the con
tents of the two parts because of Filson's work.
Andrews University SAKAE KUBO
Grant, Robert M., After the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1967. xxiii -f 228 pp. $ 6.00.
After the New Testament is a compilation of fifteen of Grant's essays

which have appeared in various scholarly publications (mainly journals)
since 1947. Some of these have been revised "for the sake of either
accuracy or clarity" (p. xi). In the author's words, "They are primarily
concerned with historical continuities, between the New Testament and
the early church, 'orthodox' and 'heretical' alike, and between early
Christianity and the Greco-Roman culture into which it was moving.
This is to say that they reflect an effort to relate both the New Testa
ment and, especially, early Christianity to their historical contexts"
(ibid.}. This publication could well carry the sub-title "Studies in
Early Christian Literature and Theology" (found on the dust jacket,
although not on the title-page).
According to Grant, the principal element lacking "is an emphasis
upon the close relations between early Christianity and Judaism, but
to some extent this relation is indicated in the essays on Ignatius
(ch. 3 below), on the book of Wisdom (ch. 6), and on Theo-
philus of Antioch (ch. 10)" (p. xi). Is this, however, really a lack?
Indeed, when we consider the nature of this book as a compilation
of previously published essays, we find its coverage to be amazingly
comprehensive. It has two chapters on "The Study of the Early Fathers,"
four chapters on "Early Christian Tradition," five chapters on "Early
Christianity and Greco-Roman Culture," and four chapters on "As
pects of Christian Gnosis."
If After the New Testament does have a lack, I would suggest that it
is to be found in the fact that various pieces of early Christian litera
ture dealt with are at times treated without sufficient attention to their
immediate historical context—the problems and concerns which gave
occasion for their being written. On the other hand, the effort to relate
such literature to the wider historical and literary context of the day
BOOK REVIEWS 83
is superb. This, evidently, is the author's chief purpose, and he has

accomplished it well.
Nevertheless, now that the author's essays have been cast into book
form, would it not have been useful to add at least a small amount of
further treatment along the line indicated above ? In their original
form, these essays hardly needed such treatment, for the scholars
reading them would undoubtedly have kept the necessary background
in mind. But the present book will likely reach many laymen in the
field (at least, it is sincerely hoped by this reviewer that such may be
the case!), and for them further detail on the historical situations
presupposed in the various pieces of literature would certainly have
been helpful and appropriate. This I suggest even though at the same
time I would share the author's caution regarding "the evidence intend
ed to show that the history of early Christianity consists of nothing
but one crisis after another" (see p. xv).
The contributions made by Grant in these essays, both in their
original form and now again here, are well known to scholars in the
field and do not need elaboration. Suffice it to say that in many points
Grant's work has offered valuable correctives. As just one example,
we cannot but be impressed by the rather extensive list of illustrations
from Irenaeus (pp. 165-168), giving evidence of this church father's
rhetorical training. Grant's conclusion is most apropos: "Too often we
are content with a picture of Irenaeus as orthodox but rather stupid.
The camera needs to be refocused and the picture taken over again"
(p. 169). This is, of course, by no means the only place where Grant
has helped us realize the need for a new picture.
It is not always that essays produced over a number of years and
published in a wide array of scholarly publications can be drawn suc
cessfully together into a useful and cohesive compilation. Particularly
would this be the case when fully two decades and as many as fifteen
essays are involved. And yet, this is precisely what has been accom
plished here. After the New Testament is a well-balanced and well-
integrated compilation of excellent studies, and provides a much-
deserved monument to Grant's outstanding scholarship in the field.
But perhaps most important is its very real value as a tool for all who
are interested in early Christian literature (including the New Testa
ment) and in the history of the ancient Christian church.
Andrews University KENNETH A. STRAND
Jenkins, David E., The Glory of Man. London: S. C. M. Press, 1967.

x + 117 pp. i8s.
The author starts with the "self-evident, universal and inescapable
fact" of his hearers' concern for persons (these are the Bampton
Lectures preached at Oxford in 1966). In view of this he has no hesi
tation (when the long preliminaries are over) in plunging into a dis
cussion concerning Jesus, which can be assumed to make immediate
84 SEMINARY STUDIES
connection since it will prove to have "defining and validating rele

vance" (p. 12) apropos to what it means to be a person. We are invited
to an exercise in experimental thinking, akin to that of other theoreti
cal enterprises (as well as theology). So with due effort to cover his
flanks in two chapters of methodological pussy-footing, we move into
tactical maneuvers. The aim is to juxtapose two claims to universal
ity—that of our concern for persons and the historical claim for the
universal significance of Jesus (p. 21, repeated on p. 24).
The latter claim was made within the context of the Messianic
expectations of the Jews, based as these were on the belief that history
supplied the key to the cosmos. History ultimately determines reality,
so there must be an attempt at uniting the realm of persons and the
realm of things, and at showing that the explanation of the world
lies here. This was indeed intended by the application of the logos
concept to Jesus Christ. Likewise the homoousios of Athanasius points
to the involvement of God in history, by bringing transcendence and
immanence together and showing that "change and process are no
necessary bar to absoluteness and fulfilment" (p. 48). In view of Chal-
cedon, we are invited to consider anthropology as theology.
In the fifth chapter we move sharply from the fifth century to the
problems of modernity. Man, who can be considered non-personally in
continuity with other beings, is defined by being personal. Since God
manifest in Jesus Christ has desacralized the cosmos, "all other divine
elements in the universe have lost their rank and power" (p. 60).
The possibility for the desacralization of the universe has occurred.
As secularized the universe was freed for scientific investigation.
Since the Christian attempted to confine God to the sacred, and philos
ophy maintained a dichotomy between mind and matter, theologians
accepted the Kantian ban on speaking of the existence of God. So
the way was opened for the discovery that God was dead, and that
Jesus was the glory of man. With the exclusion of God from purposeful
participation in materiality and history he was in fact dying. Since
man participates in the dichotomy also, he became an insoluble prob
lem to himself, and without purpose in the universe had to face the
problem of fragmentation. In the happening of Jesus Christ we are
offered an alternative to the optimism of the scientist on too narrow a
front, and the "nausea" or the "courage" of the existentialist, namely
a means of giving an account for both the personal and the impersonal
in the world and relationship beween them.
The final chapters are a contemporary appraisal of the Chalcedonian
symbol in the light of these concerns. It is on the grounds of the resur
rection in spite of the presence of evil in the world that the Christian
maintains hope in the future of persons within the universe. This
symbol means that since Jesus Christ "endured evil and emerged from
evil" (p. 89) we may hope for the fulfillment of human personalness in
materiality and history. In Jesus is provided the historical example
of achievement which constitutes the distinctive human existence of
every man. Here is also provided the lesson that transcendence and
BOOK REVIEWS 85
immanence are not contradictory. Jenkins is concerned to indicate

that he is not breaking with the traditional emphasis here. Man may
find fulfilment insofar as God's existence in love is independent of
man's, insofar as God has "no necessary relations with anything or
person other than himself" (p. 109). Such impassibility also means that
nothing can make any difference to his being God, not even the suffering
of God.
In order to get his enterprise started, Jenkins appeals to what he
claims to be a universal datum. We are not told the range of the appeal
he intends for his lectures. Without doubt it is a universal one. There is
hardly any other way of reading his appeal to the universal. But is the
appeal to knowledge of persons universal ? It may be universal to the
congregations gathered in St Mary's to hear the lectures, but that
may well be because of the direct or indirect influence of a Christian
tradition. We are referred to the self-authenticating value judgment of
the intrinsic value of being a person. The essential issue is that of the
correctness of the observation that such an awareness is universal, or
that "reflection [whose reflection ?] will intuitively show the strength
of this claim" (p. 5). We have shifted here from the universally acknowl
edged to the universally acknowledgeable. If the proposed datum is
not universal, then the argument becomes provincial right from the
outset. For the significance of Jesus Christ for persons is dependent upon
the universality of the concern with persons. Is it really possible, as is
claimed, to avoid anything theoretical and do without any presup
posed theory? Why should we start with this fact? A whole set of presup
positions obviously lies behind this selection. Indeed, concern for persons
is a Christian concern. Thus we might say that the method amounts
to the making clear of their presuppositions for those who have them,
but a university audience can hardly be taken as representative of
the mass of mankind. We seriously question the validity of the notions
of universal and of the starting point which are so important in this
work.
The book raises the problem of the function of natural theology in
an acute way, and by the unclear method employed leaves it unresolved.
Has the author escaped the Aristotelian conception of reason which he
wanted to avoid ? The arche or archai from which one starts, then
by a process of reason establishing that which is less certain from the
outset, are given and unquestioned. It is a sign of weakness to question
the given than which nothing could be more certain. However, whether
one takes the book as a reappraisal of ancient creeds, and so a piece
of Christology proper, or as an argument against the death of God, or
an unduly restricted scientism, or a piece of apologetic, or as a confes
sion of faith, there will be found here much to stimulate.
The following erratum was noted: "depair" for "despair" (p. 88).

86 SEMINARY STUDIES
Lys, Daniel, The Meaning of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1967. 192 pp. $ 3.75.
Unfortunately this book has suffered the Madison Avenue treatment
in its dust jacket. The title in itself is somewhat over-pretentious. But
to go on and describe the book as an attempt at understanding and
appropriating the OT message in today's culture is misleading. What
really describes what the book is all about is the subtitle, "An Essay on
Hermeneutics." Throughout the book (pp. 53, 70, 80, 83, 96, 114, 132,
I 34. I 39. etc.) the author insists that he is looking for a method of
exegesis, one that will allow him to hold on to the idea of inspiration
(p. 76), that is to say, his idea of inspiration. His concern is with a
question being asked often these days, namely: "How can we discover
the unity of revelation which is eternal in the unity of historical devel
opment ?" (p. 81). But in order to be able to put the question this way,
he has to concern himself with pointing out the unity of historical
development as well as the unity of revelation. The unity of revelation
he cavalierly establishes by saying that "the biblical writers claim that
there is a unity in revelation, which the word 'canon' sums up" (p. 140).
This claim of Lys's should be supported by some evidence. As a general
statement it becomes useless as soon as it is made, and is not elaborated
further. With the unity of historical development he spends more words.
Lys tries to explicate the unity of revelation and history by pointing
out its analogy to the flight of an arrow. Unlike Zeno's arrow, whose
trajectory consisted of the sum of successive immobile positions, Lys's
arrow does not stand still. Its flight is looked at in order to establish
the dynamic tension which exists among all the points in its trajectory.
The point of impact is what gives meaning to the parabolic trajectory.
It "ends" the arrow's course, and gives meaning to every previous
moment in it. But Lys wishes to say more about the relationship be
tween the course and the point of impact. He sees "a dynamism"
between the two, which needs to be explained. "The target is not pres
ent at each point of the trajectory and must not be considered as if
it were. Nonetheless, at every moment the movement of the arrow is
pregnant with the possibility of hitting the target and has no meaning
aside from this" (p. no). But then one learns that this possibility is
not a contingency. "We must see Jesus Christ not as the chronologi
cal result of the Old Testament, after the Old Testament, but as its
axiological meaning, in the Old Testament, where the same God of
grace was revealing himself" (pp. 163, 164, italics his). Put in terms
of the analogy of the arrow, this reads: "When an Old Testament
text is 'ended' by its fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth, it has something
to tell us about Jesus because it represents the dynamism rightly
aimed at the target" (p. 150, italics his).
Lys's answer to the question of the relationship of the OT to reve
lation and to the NT suffers from a simplistic explication of the nature
of the Bible. The analogy of the arrow is overworked to the point that
it becomes wearisome. It is, therefore, interesting to see that in an
BOOK REVIEWS 87
unguarded moment he has to concede that there is more than one

arrow in the OT and that some missed the target (pp. 154, 155).
If some missed the target then not all were rightly aimed, and the
fact that one, or some, were found to have hit the mark may be due,
formally, to circumstances. Lys's efforts again point out the inability
of one analogy to clarify every point in a matter as complicated as the
relationship between the OT and the NT. He may be commended, how
ever, for his efforts to trace a path between the dangers of "ethical
left-wing liberalism" and "a pietist right-wing fundamentalism" (p.
156).
But the path in which one is led by him offers difficulties. Is there
still room for fruitful discussion on the basis of "wrong" and "good"
typology (p. 113) ? James Barr (Old and New in Interpretation) has
made clear that one's inability to do what the NT writers did, due to
the desire to have methodological controls, is precisely what consti
tutes the problem. Lys seems to indicate, however, that in doing what
the authors of the Gospel of Mt and the Epistle to the Heb did, one is
fulfilling the task of "scientific exegesis" (p. 114). One also reads, "if
the 'typological meaning' which is rediscovered retrospectively is
'willed by God,' it cannot differ from the results of prospective scientif
ic research" (pp. 114-115). And what is one to make of the following
statement, "Every apologetic which is founded on the comparison of
biblical themes with those of the history of religions, in order to be
valid, ought to be an apologetic of opposition and not of similarities"
(p. 132) ? Valid for whom ? But what is most strange is that this state
ment is made in order to move to this other one: "Only in the perspective
just sketched can it be said that there is inspiration of the biblical
texts (so that scientifically the biblical message will appear to be dif
ferent from the message of religions)" (p. 133). That scienctific research
by establishing similarities or differences is able to establish the will
of God or inspiration is a claim that conscientious users of the scien
tific method do not make. Lys recognizes that the Bible does not give
scientific information. He warns against a Christian cosmology or a
Christian zoology. But then he wishes to confirm a dogmatic position
on the unity of the Bible by means of the scientific method. This is
to play loose with the word "scientific."
Pointing out his objections to the common understandings of pro
gressive revelation, Lys makes clear (p. 94) that "God's revelation does
not mean that he reveals something (science, or ethics, which could be
cumulative) but that he reveals himself." To this one cannot but agree.
But is the task of the Holy Spirit to reveal to faith the new meaning of
a common idea (p. 141) ? Are the writers of scripture making an effort
to convey certain ideas as revealed and others as not revealed (p. 135) ?
This again emphasizes that the book's failure is due to the lack of the
proper definition of some concepts basic to the discussion being pro
posed.
I will register my gratitude, however, for one thing Lys does. His
appeal to the 20th-century preacher to demythologize his own culture
88 SEMINARY STUDIES
and to use it for the proclamation of God's word is most certainly timely
and valid. He recognizes that in doing this "the risk of confusion or
ambiguity is great. But this risk cannot be avoided, lest one shut him
self up in the past in regard to the biblical message, the individual
believer becomes a split personality and the church a ghetto" (p. 162).
To save the Christian Gospel from this fate is undoubtedly the task of
Christians today.
This is not a large book, but it could have been smaller and still
have said what it says. At times it becomes repetitious. Wilbur Ben-
ware is credited with having revised the English version. On the whole
the book is readable, though at times it does not read quite smoothly.
Andrews University HEROLD WEISS
Moltmann, Jiirgen, Theology of Hope. Translated by James W.

Leitch. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. 342 pp. $ 8.50.
In reviewing this most suggestive book, one can only point to some
of the major emphases and leave it to the reader to study the book for
himself. For this is without doubt one of the more important publi
cations during a decade in which books on theology have appeared in
both volume and variety.
"The decisively important question is obviously that of the context
in which the talk of revelation arises" (p. 43). What is at stake is an
adequate conception of the kind of knowing process in which the
word "God" is meaningfully employed. Knowledge of God is not mas
tery of a certain subject matter nor indeed a deduction from an ethical
awareness, but rather it is an openness in the midst of life, openness
to the future, a future that is shaped by and towards the very knowledge
which revelation makes possible. Revelation is not a kind of mastery of
the object by the subject. Rather it is an openness to the precarious-
ness which the future enables and demands. The book assumes the
viewpoint created by the context of revelation in order to examine
that context. This context is not that of the isolated individual hoping
for a lonely salvation. Moltmann wishes to avoid a subjectivistic
individualism where the transcendental ego or the essential self is
the subject of analysis. Thus, rather than identifying him tout court
with the existentialist theologians, one must ask further concerning
his realism of hope.
Man's possibilities are seen as patent of fulfillment only within
a social context. The eschaton, which is not yet, will be realized only
with the hopeful engagement of the Christian in the affairs of the world
in a constructive, imaginative, indeed daring, fashion. The hopeful
believer moves out into the unknown, confident that the promise of
God embraces that unknown. It is in that futurum absconditum that
God is hidden. For God is Yahweh, who is known by those who move
ahead with Him not knowing where they go, but having heard His
promise. Here is to be found the context of revelation. Over against the
BOOK REVIEWS 89
secularism of much contemporary theology, Moltmann insists that

God is to be known in the midst of life. The context of revelation is
not secular society, any more than the norm for theology can be the
secularism of such society, that is to say, purely in some kind of present.
Nor must we look for revelation purely at the end of history, in some
kind of utopianism or other, whether that of the fundamentalist or
of the Marxist.
The future orientation of this theology is to be seen against the
background of the past. That we may say anything about God at all
(for example, that he is the God of promise and fulfillment) is a result
of how he has come to be known as a result of this dealing in past
history. If God were entirely an "eschatological" concept, we would
have a blank. If eschatology were an eschatological concept, we would
have nothing to say about the end time, about fulfillment. Eschatolog
ical truth is filled out with a content made available within the realm
of human history, man's historical experience, the past of human
history. So the nature of historical reality will have to be considered.
An adequate eschatology can be produced only when the crucial
questions of historical reality are appropriately addressed and answered.
This leads to a discussion of the resurrection. Indeed one's view of
reality is in question as the problem of the resurrection is in question.
"It is not only the nature of the reality of the resurrection that stands
in question, but also the reality on the basis of which the question
of the reality of the resurrection is shaped, motivated and formulated"
(p. 167). Moltmann urges the shaping of a perspective which begins
with the reality of resurrection and thereafter moves to a consideration
of the nature of reality as such. The question of the reality of the resur
rection should be asked on the basis of a view of reality which makes it
possible, and not be tied down to the question of the "historical prob
ability of the fact of Jesus' resurrection." Rather than to bring
analogies to the resurrection and have our judgment determined by
common human experience, a new concept of historical method must
be developed that does not have such a "one-sided interest in the
similar," but which seeks the unique in the similar. Analogies are to
begin with the resurrection. If this is done, we shall speak of a new
possibility for the world, indeed, of the "eschatologically new"
(p. 179).
Moltmann's theology is developed in contrast to Bultmann's exis
tentialism, which has its own way of interpreting the resurrection—as
the rise of Easter faith on the part of the disciples. For Moltmann,
what actually happened between the cross and burial and the Easter
appearance is hidden in the hiddenness of God, the NT writers not
professing to know the secret. For the resurrection is an eschatological
reality. It is known as its promise finds continual fulfillment in each
future. It is the beginning and foreshadowing (the perspectives ever
kept in tension) of God's eternal Lordship, of God's eternal future. Here
is both promise and beginning of the universality of the new creation.
The resurrection is promise in fulfillment and fulfillment in promise,
90 SEMINARY STUDIES
and thus recapitulation and consummation of the OT's vision of Yah-

weh, as the God who when he fulfilled his promise left an "overspill"
which could be the basis of future anticipation. Resurrection becomes
a heuristic analogy of a new future.
Thus an attitude of expectation is seconded by that of mission. The
openness of God's future is shared by the church, as it helps to shape
that future, living in the midst of history and anticipating the unknown
which has been revealed in the resurrection. To give a theological
account of such revelation, dynamic categories must be employed:
thus all theories of reason which depend upon an Aristotelian concept
of the universal cannot be made adequate to the reality of Christian
faith, for they cannot allow for the unexpected, the new, the ever-
moving and ever-widening horizon which faith makes possible.
Certain questions come to mind in the examination of the theses of
this book: we may put them under two classifications. The first
concerns the eschatologizing of theological conceptions. Is it to be
assumed that all theological conceptions are amenable to being given
an eschatological reference ? If the theologian's principle of economy
often leads him to conservation even when transformation is necessary,
do not certain theological concepts resist such an approval? Moltmann's
treatment of the idea of natural theology is a case in point. If natural
theology is an eschatological conception, this is rather a rejection of
its traditional role than an adjustment of it. It is becoming clear
that a theology that insists upon a view of history shaped by the resur
rection has to rethink quite fundamentally the whole basis of theolog
ical reason, and the "root metaphors" and the analogies which shall
guide it. An assumption which guided the "natural" theologians was
that there was some form of universal knowledge available as a point
of departure for a deductive process of apologetic. But the universal
also becomes an eschatological concept and not a logical one; that is,
one derived from universal logos.
The second kind of question concerns the meaning of the resultant
concepts. What degree of specificity can be given to the "future"
which is made the clue to all the concepts of theology ? This is another
way of posing the question concerning revelation. Where does revelation
take place ? In history ? In my history ? In the history of ideas ? In the
history of the church ? of the world ? or in all of these ? Futuristic
categories can be existentialist, or idealist or radically empirical. The
talk of future may be nothing more than a manner of speaking about
the present, and a stance that is taken in that present. What is involved
is a philosophy of time. There hangs over the discussion a certain
ambiguity in the conceiving of the future. One's expectation of the
future may be based upon a priori considerations which turn to
history for their confirmation, or for their illustration. In certain cases
talk of the future may be a device for speaking about the present,
a modified form of existentialism, whose interest is still in the present
manner of existence, even if that existence is shaped by God's future.
The futurization of the present is a matter of emphasis. But is it the
BOOK REVIEWS gi
present which is then spoken of ? Speech about God cannot be wholly

future, for in that case there would be no speech at all. Indeed, it
becomes a contradiction of terms to speak of revelation as future, if
the futurity of revelation is made exclusive. The alternative left is
to claim that the future is revealed in the present, but that it is not
exhausted in the present. This is what Moltmann does, but the future
is left open-ended. The essential clue to that future is given in the
present, so the claim may be made that the future is presented there.
We may learn from Moltmann, if we have the courage, that what is
more important than the shape of the future is that God is Lord of
it, whatever it will be. That, after all, is really what it means to be an
"adventist."
Just how much Moltmann is indebted to Wolfhart Pannenberg will
become clearer to the English reader as more of the latter's works
are translated into English. It will no doubt be found that the impli
cations of questions treated by Moltmann will find their fuller treat
ment in the system of Pannenberg.
The following errata were noted: "miad" for "mind" (p. 91, n.);
"reult" for "result" (p. 203); "totaleterian" for "totalitarian" (p. 233,
n. i); "of of" for "of" (p. 272).
Moore, A. L., The Parousia in the New Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1966. 218 pp. fl. 42.—.
In this doctoral thesis by the Anglican rector of Clevedon, Somerset,
the question "What was the expectation of the early church concern
ing the time of the Second Advent ?" is discussed. In seeking the answer
to this debated question modern scholarship is first subjected to a
critical analysis and then each relevant NT passage is laid under full
tribute and tersely discussed.
Against the background of Hebrew prophecy and apocalyptic, Moore
discusses the "consistent" eschatology of Schweitzer and Werner, and
shows that their thesis, that Jesus erred in expecting a Parousia and so
brought about a total and fatal crisis in the life of the early church,
breaks down, in part, on the patent fact that the church instead of
dying out from disillusionment continued to live and suffer, work and
witness. On the other hand, the "realized" eschatology of Dodd,
Glasson, and J. A. T. Robinson, which teaches that it was the early
church rather than Jesus that erred in expecting an apocalyptic end,
is also unsatisfactory, for although Jesus indeed taught that the king
dom had already come in his own person and work, there is no justi
fication for excising from the gospels the clear teaching of Jesus con
cerning a literal resurrection, a final judgment, an actual Parousia, and
a future establishment of the kingdom in a glorious manner. Further,
the "demythologized" eschatology of Bultmann and Conzelmann,
which builds on both Schweitzer's concept of a mistaken Jesus and
Q2 SEMINARY STUDIES
Dodd's concept of a mistaken church, is to be criticized in addition

because of its radical skepticism concerning the data of the NT and
because its re-interpretation of the NT in the terminology of existen
tialism does not do justice to the NT understanding of time.
In place of such concepts Moore stands firmly with those scholars
who find the concept of salvation-history as set forth by Cullmann
and his school to be fundamental to an understanding of both OT and
NT, and therefore an essential factor in NT eschatology. "From the
centre, Jesus Christ, the line of salvation-history runs backwards
through the covenant to creation and beyond, and forwards through
the church and its mission to the Parousia and beyond.... Although
the End event is to be a different texture from the events prior
to it, it will be a real presence of Christ in the context of history "
(pp. 90, 91).
The introduction to the second and even more valuable part of this
extremely compact study first dismisses as inadequate certain common
explanations of the NT hope of a speedy Parousia. For instance, the
idea that Jesus on account of his fallible humanity mistakenly thought
and taught that his return would occur after only a short interval, is
emptied of force by the fact that the synoptic passages in which the
statements of our Lord pose the problem of an imminent expectation
most acutely are introduced by the most solemn and emphatic affir
mations of certainty. Nor can it be thought that Jesus encouraged faith
in a speedy fulfilment simply as a pastoral expedient, for this would
certainly lead to a false optimism and only create difficulties in the
second generation.
What follows is the productively positive part of this volume. Two
questions are examined with respect to both Jesus and the church:
(i) "Did they in fact regard the Parousia as 'near' " ? (2) "Did they
in fact expect that it would occur within a fixed, short number of
years?" For the answer to each of these questions every significant
passage in the Gospels and Epistles is thoroughly examined in both
context and content. Moore's deep respect for the biblical text is
revealed by his painstakingly thorough and resolutely honest handling
of each passage. Here is scholarly research at its best. Here is an
example of the reverent use of critical methods. This is not to say that
the reviewer would agree with every conclusion drawn in the detailed
examination of the passages. But he has no hesitation in expressing his
hearty concurrence with the main results of this investigation. What
are those results ? In summary these:
That the early church unanimously thought of the Parousia of their
Lord not as something which would not occur for centuries, but as
an open possibility for all future time. That the end had in a hidden
manner already arrived in the person and work of Jesus, and was
already present in the working of the Holy Spirit, who continued in
a hidden manner the presence and work of Jesus among them. That
therefore the open and manifest and glorious and universal presence
of Jesus could not be far off, but must be "near," yet no one could say
BOOK REVIEWS 93
that it would certainly come within a definite short number of years.

(This glorious Parousia was in fact held back only in the grace of God
to allow the church to complete its mission and call all men everywhere
to repentance and faith.) That the church is thus the eschatological
community, already living in "the last days" and partaking of the
blessings of the Eschaton through its commitment to Christ and its
reception of the Spirit, and especially called to hasten that glorious
appearing by its believing witness "till He come." All this leads to the
declared conviction of the author that any weakening or abandonment
of the Parousia hope can only result in "a real and extensive impover
ishment" of the church's life.
It seems unfortunate that such a thorough study, supported by a
bibliography of over 1000 titles, should end with a superficial criticism
of the British Advent Awakening of the last century and of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church of today, a criticism based upon the negative
evaluation of a single secondary source in each, case. This is the more
to be regretted because Moore's criticism of these two movements
does not lie in the area of his main thesis. Moore's criticism is based
upon his present view of the nature and interpretation of apocalyptic,
and its patent misapplication in the course of church history. Even in
this area he is to be commended for his recognition that "apocalyptic
properly begins with Daniel," and that apocalyptic shares its basic
presuppositions with OT prophecy (p. 18). But he appears not to have
sufficiently recognized that there is a properly biblical apocalyptic
and also an extra-biblical apocalyptic, and that though the second is
based upon the first, the first deserves to be examined and evaluated
separately, both in its relationships to OT prophecy and in its bearing
on the teachings of Christ and the early church concerning the Parousia.
Newbold College, Bracknell, Berkshire, England E. W. MARTER
Ogden, Schubert M., The Reality of God and Other Essays. New York:
Harper and Row, 1966. xii + 237 pp. $ 6.00.
In this book there is presented to us a theology which claims to be

secular, metaphysical and empirical. The problem with which this
theology is occupied and which assumes a normative role is that of
the relationship between the transcendence and the immanence of God,
or that of his passivity and his relatedness to the world. The related-
ness of God to the world is taken as a point of departure. So certain
canons of theological importance emerge: in speaking of God one must
begin with human experience; within human experience man's related-
ness to his fellow is a given fact, hence God must be spoken of in terms
of relationship. Indeed God is the eminently related one.
Theology begins with the subject and generalizes the experience of
subjects. This Ogden calls the "reformed subjectivist principle" (p. 57).
By defining the self as relational we are led to a consideration of the
94 SEMINARY STUDIES
nature of relationship and so to process philosophy. By starting with the

self we have available the existentialist analyses of selfhood, and so
there opens up the possibility of a synthesis between existentialist
and process philosophy.
One may in this manner reappraise the starting point and the em
ployment of analogy in theology. By starting with the experience of
being a self in relationship with other selves (since selfhood is experienced
only in relationship), we may, by the analogia entis, speak of the concept
of God's absoluteness as having ingredient within it the notion of
relatedness. This is a "way of conceiving God's reality which is able
to do justice to modern secularity" (p. 63).
A further theological concern is that of showing the cognitive status
of theological statements. This requires nothing less than the adoption
of a total metaphysic, within the terms of which particular assertions
are shown to have significant meaning. What is required is a meta
physic that represents the common structure of existence. In this way
the theologian can claim objectivity for his statements.
Such a theological program, it is claimed, can more adequately justi
fy the meaning of faith than that which retains mythological elements
while ostensibly seeking to demythologize. For human existence may
be represented both in philosophical as well as mythological terms.
The truth which myth represents can be known only as a process of
translation into philosophical terms. It is Ogden's claim that process
philosophy serves as the vehicle for such a translation which permits
a cognitive evaluation of original content. The task of the appropriate
translation of myth is to provide the "right" philosophy for the process
of translation.
The implications of this methodology for the doctrine of God are
worked out in further essays in the book, where the author makes
quite clear that it is not for the traditional understanding of God that
he is an apologist. Ogden embraces the argument of Sartre that exis
tentialism is a humanism, and not antihumanistic (with its implication
that there is no human nature since there is no God to have a conception
of it), as an expression of his own brand of theism, that of the eminently
related God, that of pan-en-theism. While Sartre's argument is to be
judged atheistic from the point of view of supernaturalism, it is
to be seen as theistic from the viewpoint of God as eminently relative,
to whom each of man's choices makes an enduring difference.
That God acts in history means that he participates fully and com
pletely, directly and immediately, in the world of creatures. God's
history is eminent history. Each creature is God's act. So the statement
"God acts in history" is taken by Ogden as analogy rather than myth.
Analogy represents God in non-objectifying existentials. So he can
write that in his self-understanding man "represents not only his under
standing of God's action, but, through it, the reality of God's action
itself . . . man's action actually is God's action" (p. 181). To say
that God acts in history is to say that the transcendant action of God
is represented in human deeds and words. In Jesus we are given a
BOOK REVIEWS 95
transparent means of representing "a certain possibility for under

standing human existence" (p. 186).
The closing essay of the book attempts to demythologize some of the
traditional imagery employed in the service of eschatology. The
mythological expressions concerning the end refer both to God and
to man. Their meaning is to be found in terms both of "human pos
sibility" and also of "divine actuality" (p. 216). Man's end is in God,
the eminently related one. Man's end is to be loved by the pure un
bounded love of God, and his prerogative is to accept God's love. The
promise of faith is that God is man's end. "Our final destiny . . .
is . . . to be loved by the pure unbounded love of God, for whom each
of us makes a difference exactly commensurate to what he is and of
everlasting significance" (p. 226). God is the all-encompassing one.
Even hell is God's hell.
Here we are presented with a radical existentializing of theology.
All theological concepts have reference to man's present existence, in
relationship with his fellows within the world. Man as an individual
is set within the nexus of complex relationships, the totality of which
is due for consideration by the theologian in the employment of the
conception of "God." In Ogden's theology we have a juxtaposition of
individual self-understanding, and the fortunes of the whole, the divine.
This leads to a restriction of the concern with the individual to the
present moment. Thus eschatological doctrine is concerned with the
future of God, not that of the individual. Subjective survival is not
an appropriate theme of such eschatology. The present is all-important.
We reject this claim, and with it the suggestion for a theological di
rection which is based upon it. History is important, the resurrection
is important as history, as having happenedness, as that which stands
over against us from the past. A theory of knowledge or a theology
which makes no room for the uniqueness of historical reality in the
past, and allows of hope for the future is ipso facto disqualified by its
failure to account for man's individuality, and for the uniqueness of
historic occasions. Jesus' history is more than "simply" a means of rep
resenting a way of understanding human existence (p. 186). If not,
we have gone the length of identifying theology with philosophy: the
purported differentia of theological data become "simply" means for
illustrating philosophical convictions.
On such a reading one can cast one's theological net extremely wide.
Having rejected traditional atheism as atheism by redefining theism,
one can find theists among philosophers who in fact think themselves
atheists. So Sartre becomes an apologist for a theistic understanding
of existence, by having pointed out what he has in fact overlooked—
a stage in the argument which renders him, on Ogden's definition,
theistic. If God is actualized in the choices of men (cf. p. 176: that
God is is necessary, but what God is is dependent in part upon the decision
of the creatures in his world), and if the fact that there is moral truth
implies the unconditioned meaningfulness of life, such confidence is
made fully intelligible only in the idea of an eminently relative God,
96 SEMINARY STUDIES
intrinsically affected by those choices of man's freedom. Thus Sartre is

brought under the wing of Christian theism. It must indeed be a
permissive kind of theism that can make this move.
While agreeing that too often attempts have been made to penetrate
beyond the limitations of human f initude in dealing with the future, and
that the task of theology is to speak of faith, and read theological sym
bols in the light of faith, we dissent from the exclusive confining
of theological symbol to the present existence. Indeed all eschatolog-
ical symbol does represent an understanding of human existence.
That existence is not in principle to be confined to the present. To
do so would mean the removal of hope from Christian existence. Not
enough attention has been given to this aspect of the question. It is
only when exclusive attention is given to the present existence that
it can be said that the question of survival is left "completely open"
(p. 229). But the specificity with which one asks quite concrete
questions about the meaning and expression of present existence,
coupled with the fact that hope is endemic to man qua man, as is
indicated by phenomenological studies, drives one to seek for quite
specific answers to the problem of the future. The alternative would
be to see in the resurrection of Jesus (to be taken seriously as a histor
ical datum) a clue to theological reason that embraces within it
the concern for answering questions regarding the future of the individ
ual man. For such the statement that the question of the future
individual is completely open is only one side of what needs to be said.
Ogden appeals to the cognitive status of statements made within
the context of a process philosophy which attempts to offer an explana
tion of the world on the grand scale. Naturally the Christian theologian
is concerned that the statements he makes be both meaningful and
true. All such statements are made within contexts, the exploration
of which is necessary for the understanding of the statements. But
there is no single context which is determinative of meaningfulness for
theological statements. Statements about faith, necessarily symbolic,
are to be understood within the context which faith itself creates,
either directly or more distantly, as in the process of translation of
"mythical" statements into metaphysical statements. If we differen
tiate between primary and secondary contexts, we would indicate
a philosophical expression of faith, in the grand scale of a metaphysic
such as that of Whitehead as a secondary context. The exhibition of
the cognitive status of theological statements can take place from within
primary contexts, as well as from within secondary contexts. Ogden
plumps for one such secondary context as the locus from which argu
ments for the cognitive status of theological statements can be made.
We should not be led to think that this is the only possibility.

TRANSLITERATION OF HEBREW
CONSONANTS
= Y
a b = /
a b 3 = I
a g T
"7 a = = t
s g'd n s = = t
D P =
MASORETIC VOWEL POINTINGS
« , > (vocal shewa) = e
T! = O
1 = 6
\ = u
1 = u
ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS

Annales archtol. de Bulletin, Jewish Pal. Expl. Soc.
AASOR Annual, Amer. Sch. of Or. Res. Bulletin, John Rylands Library
ADA] Annual, Dep. of Ant. of Jordan BMB Bulletin du Muse'e de Beyrouth
AER American Ecclesiastical Review BQR Baptist Quarterly Review
AfO Archiv fiir Orientforschung BR Biblical Research (Chicago)
AfP Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung BRG Biblioth. Rerum Germanicarum
A]A Amer. Journal of Archaeology BS Bibliotheca Sacra
AJSL Amer. Journ. of Sem. Long, and BSHPF Bulletin de la Soci6te de 1'his-
Literature toire du protestantisme franfais
ALBO Analecta Lovan. Bibl. et Orient. BT Bible Translator
A NET Ancient Near Eastern Texts, BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
J. B. Pritchard, ed., ad ed., 1955 CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers CC Christian Century
AO Acta Orientalia CdE Chronique d'figypte
ARG Archiv fiir Reformationsgesch. CH Church History
ARW Archiv fiir Religions wissenschaft CIG Corpus Inscript. Graecarum
ASAE Annales, Serv. des Ant. de 1'Eg. CIL Corpus Inscript. Latinarum
A SB Acta Sanctorum (ed. Bolland) CIS Corpus Inscript. Semiticarum
AThR Anglican Theological Review CJTh Canadian Journal of Theology
A USS Andrews Univ. Sem. Studies CSEL Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat.
BA Biblical Archaeologist CT Christianity Today
BASOR Bulletin, Amer. Sch. of Or. Res. ER Ecumenical Review
Bib Biblica EThL Ephemer. Theol. Lovanienses
BIES Bulletin, Israel Expl. Soc. ET Expository Times
BIFAO Bulletin, Inst. Franf. d'Arch. Or, H] Hibbert Journal
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis HThR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual RB Revue Biblique
IE] Israel Exploration Journal RE Review and Expositor
Int Interpretation RdE Revue d'Egyptologie
JACh Jahrb. fur Ant. und Christentum RHE Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique
JAOS Journ. of the Amer. Or. Soc. RHPR Revue d'Hist. et de Philos. Rel.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature RHR Revue de 1'Histoire des Religions
JBR Journal of Bible and Religion RL Religion in Life
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie
JEA Journal of Egyptian Arch. RQ Revue de Qumran
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies RSV Revised Standard Version
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review SJTh Scottish Journal of Theology
JR Journal of Religion STh Studia Theologica
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies ThEH Theologische Existenz heute
JThS Journal of Theol. Studies ThQ Theologische Quartalschrift
KJV King James Version ThT Theology Today
LQ Lutheran Quarterly ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung
MGH Monumenta Germaniae ThR Theologische Rundschau
Historica Trad Traditio
MPG Migne, Patrologia Graeca ThS Theological Studies
MPL Migne, Patrologia Latina ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift
MQR Mennonite Quarterly Review VC Verbum Caro
NKZ Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift VD Verbum Domini
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers VCh Vigiliae Christianae
NRTh Nouvelle Revue Theologique VT Vetus Testamentum
NT Novum Testamentum WTHJ Westminster Theol. Journal
NTA New Testament Abstracts WZKM Wiener Zeitschr. f. d. Kunde d.
NTS New Testament Studies Morgenlandes
Num Numen ZA Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie
OCh Oriens Christianus ZAS Zeitsch. fur agyptische Sprache
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung ZA W Zeitsch. fiir die allttes. Wiss.
Or Orientalia ZDMG Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl.
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien Gesellschaft
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly ZDPV Zeitsch. des Deutsch. Pal. Ver.
PJB Palastina-Jahrbuch ZKG Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte
PRE Realencyklopadie fiir protes- ZHTh Zeitsch. fiir hist. Theologie
tantische Theologie und Kirche ZKTh Zeitsch. fiir kath. Theologie
QDAP Quarterly, Dep. of Ant. in Pal. ZNW Zeitsch. fiir die neutest. Wiss.
RA Revue d'Assyr. et d'Arch. Or. ZDTh Zeitschrift fiir syst. Theologie
RAC Rivista di Archaeologia Cristiana ZThK Zeitsch. fiir Theol. und Kirche
Printed by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands

Auss19690101-V07-01 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auss19690101-V07-01 B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auss19690101-V07-01 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY

Kubo, Sakae, i John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual? ....... 47

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES publishes papers

The opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors

ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SEMINARY STUDIES is published in

Subscribers should give full name and postal address when

The Journal is indexed in the

Editorial Note: Herbert W. Richardson's book Toward an

This symposium of reviews concentrates on the final chapter

that pursues several ideas at once. But why is it not appro-

principle, more fundamental even than being. The principle

holiness, He must personally enter the world and dwell

holiness ? How can we realize that sanctifying is what God is

theologically prior because it appears a few passages before

appropriate for describing relations, or a capsule story

constructive task of interpretation and integration, and

In the process of being incorporated into the theological

feeling that the dignity of man is more fundamental than his

ficial view of sin, an outlook which is no more shared by the

presence of God; (d) it is not repudiated but affirmed by the

affirmation of Sunday as a holy day, Richardson does not take

and cross as sharply contrasting alternatives is to fragmentize

(p. 115), with reference to Ex 20:11 and Dt 5:15. Ostensibly

notion of the hereafter as an eternal Sabbath is a familiar

In a previous article dealing with the objects of bone,

rial in Vienna is told. 2 When that article was written there

hand-written numbers found on the objects. Yet the first-

reports it is known that actual excavations were carried out

the first-listed author of this article spent several days in

without any parts missing; 16 contain minor restorations;

pottery of the 1913 and 1914 Shechem expeditions must be

publications of MB pottery. Albright does not name them

shoulder argue against a date earlier than MB II C. 17

17 A detailed discussion of the stratified goblet specimens from

Mirsim flasks of this type were found in MB II C Stratum D

(Razor II, PL CIX: 8). The stratified Shechem material sug-

diameter, have more carefully articulated flat or low disc-

type of MB vessel. Albright says that this jug originally

The stratified specimens from Shechem indicate that these

of these jugs can occur any time from the beginning of MB II

instead of the rungs, a feature often observed on this type

Last two pages of C. Praschniker's Fltndbuch. Objects Nos. 473-489,

MB Pottery from Shechem

MB Pottery from Shechem. For size see Plate II.

MB and LB Pottery from Shechem

MB and LB Pottery from Shechem. For size see Plate IV.

LB and Iron Age Pottery from Shechem

LB and Iron Age Pottery from Shechem.

Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman Pottery from Sbechem

Iron Age, Hellenistic and Roman Potterv from Shechem.

part, consisting of 18 fragments, was found Sept. 12, 1913.

Iron I Strata V and IV of Tell Abu Hawam (TAH, I, PL XXII:

shoulder is common in the early Iron Age after originating

many sites. Examples are vessels found in Stratum B at

either one or both of these vessels contained a "Kornerfrucht,"

171. A juglet of red clay, burnished, and completely

For parallels see juglets found at Tell en-Nasbeh (TN, II,

The nearest parallel is from an Iron II B context of Hazor

187. A cooking pot, restored from numerous fragments,

The editors sincerely regret that in the last stage of compo

connection since it will prove to have "defining and validating rele