Although much of the material contained in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and related literature is of late or uncertain date, it is valuable for the light which it throws on the background of the Old and New Testaments. This is nowhere more true than in the study of the legal background of the New Testament concept of witness. For this reason an Appendix has been added on the use of witnesses and evidence in the Talmud and related rabbinic literature.

CRIMINAL CASES

The Jews were particularly strict in their treatment of evidence; this is clear from a study of Jewish law as developed in the Bible and the Talmud. In criminal cases of the type described in the Mishnah 'every precaution is taken to exclude the possibility that by condemning an innocent man the witnesses and the judges should themselves incur the guilt of judicial murder. While these rules undoubtedly prevented the conviction of criminals in many cases, they certainly provided the innocent person with almost complete protection. It was felt better to leave the guilty party in the hands of the divine Judge than to risk the possibility of the court shedding innocent blood.

WITNESSES IN RABBINICAL LITERATURE

According to biblical law conviction for a capital crime (e.g., apostasy, Deut. 13) required the eye-witness evidence of at least two witnesses (Num. 35: 30; Deut. 17: 6; cf. 19: 15). So seriously was the principle of multiple witness taken that the Talmud in a case involving immorality declared it to be sinful for a single witness to come forward to testify alone (Pesahim 113b). This strict insistence on eye-witness evidence also completely ruled out all circumstantial evidence (Tosefta, Sanhedrin vm.3).

The Fourth Gospel, like Isaiah 40–55, is of particular importance for it presents a sustained use of juridical metaphor. Here we must ask what is the issue being debated, who are the participants in the debate and what is the outcome.

The issue under debate is plainly the Messiahship and divine Sonship of Jesus. It is mainly to convince his readers of this proposition that the Evangelist has written his Gospel: ‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name’ (Jn 20: 31). Now it is possible, as Professor Moule has noted,

Similarly, Professor van Unnik has remarked that ‘John did not write for Christians in the first place, except perhaps in chs. 13–17 which show a somewhat different character… His book was…a mission-book which sought to win.’ As Renan said a hundred years ago, the Fourth Gospel evinces ‘the desire to prove a thesis, and to convince adversaries’. It has a definite case to present: ‘briefly, the purpose of John's Gospel is to prove to his readers who Jesus is, and that faith in him means salvation’.

I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the Beaverbrook Foundation, the American Philosophical Society and the Canada Council for their financial support of this research; to Principal G. H. Davies and Dr G. Pearce of Regent's Park College for their guidance during the early stages of the investigation; to Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, the Rev. D. E. Whiteley and Professor A. R. C. Leaney for their comments on an earlier draft (my thesis); to Professor C. F. D. Moule and Dr Colin Hemer for their helpful advice in preparing the manuscript for publication; to Dr M. R. Cherry and Dr A. J. Langley of Acadia Divinity College for their encouragement and to the college itself for granting me a sabbatical to complete my revision and prepare the manuscript for publication; and to St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden and Tyndale House, Cambridge for the use of their research facilities. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Dr G. B. Caird, Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford, whose acute and constructive criticism of my work was invaluable; I am also grateful for the editorial suggestions of Professors Matthew Black and Robert Wilson of St Andrews University, Scotland. Above all I owe a debt of gratitude to my family, both English and Canadian, for their interest and concern and to Eugenie my wife, whose love and patience have sustained me throughout the preparation of this book.

The idea of witness is most fully developed in the Johannine and Lukan writings, but it is also present in other parts of the New Testament. It is, therefore, important to examine both the Synoptic Gospels and the New Testament Epistles to see where the idea of witness is used, for what reasons, and against what background.

THE IDEA OF WITNESS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

In a general sense, of course, the Gospels themselves are witnesses to Christ, and whole books have been devoted to treating them from that perspective. Redaction criticism in particular has given renewed impetus to the study of the unique witness which each of the Evangelists gives to Jesus. Our purpose here is not to repeat this procedure, but to look specifically at the places where witness themes and courtroom terminology are raised in the Synoptic Gospels.

The idea of witness is present in Mark's Gospel, but nothing like as prominent as it is in the Fourth Gospel. Many of the questions of the scribes and Pharisees look as if they may introduce controversies similar to those in the Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel, but instead they turn out to introduce various sayings of Jesus and the debate is cut short (e.g., Mk 2: 18–22 pars.; 11: 27–33 pars.; 12: 13–17 pars.; 12: 18–27 pars.; 12: 28–34 pars.). Debating is by no means an uncommon feature in the Synoptics (witness the use of OVJTITSTV in Mk 8: 11; 9: 14, 16; 12: 28 and quAoveuda in Lk. 22: 24).

The idea of witness appears to be very much a live metaphor in the Book of Revelation. Since this point is most fully treated in the Black commentary, it will be necessary from time to time to refer to its treatment of that subject.

THE RELATION TO THE OTHER JOHANNINE WRITINGS

At first sight, the importance of the idea of witness in the Apocalypse is not surprising in view of the striking similarities between this book and the other Johannine writings. Dr Caird has made this point very clear:

The repeated use of the words 'witness and ‘testimony’ is one of the many points of resemblance between the Revelation and the Fourth Gospel. In Greek as in English these words could be treated as dead metaphors, without any conscious reference to the lawcourt, which was their primary setting. But both these books use the words in their primary, forensic sense. The author of the Fourth Gospel, perhaps inspired by the example of Second Isaiah, presents his argument in the form of a lawcourt debate, in which one witness after another is summoned, until God's advocate, the Paraclete, has all the evidence he needs to convince the world that Jesus is the Son of God, and so win his case. In the Revelation the courtroom setting is even more realistic; for Jesus had borne his testimony before Pilate's tribunal, and the martyrs must face a Roman judge. What they have to remember as they give their evidence is that the evidence is being heard in a court of more ultimate authority, where judgments which are just and true issue from the great white throne.

The New Testament, like the LXX and secular Greek, makes considerable use of words relating to the idea of witness. In fact |idpTUS and its fourteen cognates appear over two hundred times in the New Testament. The most frequent use is in the Johannine writings, where witness terms are found about eighty-three times. Witness terms are also used some thirty-nine times in Acts and about thirty-five times in the Pauline literature, counting twelve references in the Pastorals. It is appropriate to begin the specifically New Testament part of our study with a philological consideration of pApTUs and its cognates. Other words pertaining to the New Testament concept of witness will be dealt with at the relevant places in the succeeding chapters.

THE USE OF McipTUS

The noun n&pnrus appears thirty-five times in the New Testament. It is most prominent in the Book of Acts, where it is found thirteen times, but it also appears six times in the Pauline Epistles, five times in the Apocalypse, three times in the Pastorals, twice in Matthew, Luke and Hebrews and once in Mark and I Peter.

The Acts passages raise no special philological problems. The only exception is Acts 22: 20, where n&pTVS is used, as in Rev. 2: 13 and 17: 6, cas a designation of those who have suffered death in consequence of confessing Christ… This, however, must not be misunderstood (as in ecclesiastical Greek) to denote that their witness consisted in their suffering death, - cf. Constit. Apos. v.9.923… -it refers rather to the witnessing of Jesus, which was the cause of their death.'

THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

The idea of witness is not absent in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, a fact attested by the use of a considerable number of words drawn from the vocabulary of witness. Since a study of these words contributes to an understanding of the New Testament concept of witness, it is imperative that such a study be undertaken.

There are several parallels between the Wisdom of Solomon and the Fourth Gospel, and these may be cited to begin with. Thus eAeyxeiv is ‘used in Wisdom as it is in John (Wisd. 1:3; 4: 20; Jn 16: 8). The same applies to the notion of God bearing witness (Wisd. 1: 6; Jn 5: 32)… [Similarly,] Wisdom ordains man to “executejudgment”; so Christ has authority to “make judgment” “because he is son of man” (Wisd. 9: 3; Jn 5: 27)…And there are other echoes.’ For example, the reference to ‘signs and wonders’ (Wisd. 8: 8; 10: 16; Jn 4: 48; cf. Acts 4: 30; 15: 12).

God is described as a jjidpTUs in Wisd. 1: 6 – a use which is later to be reflected in the writings of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 1: 9; II Cor. 1: 23; I Thess. 2:5, 10; Phil. 1: 8). In Pirke Aboth iv.29 God is not only ‘the judge’ and ‘the witness’, but also ‘the adversary’ in the lawsuit (the bcfal din), suggesting that here the idea of witness is very much a live metaphor. As in the Old Testament, heaven and earth sometimes serve as witnesses (II Esdras 2: 14).

In bringing this study to a close it is proper to return to the point at which we began. At the outset it was noted that μαρτν and its cognates greatly outnumber KrjpuyiJicc and κηρσσιν. This observation prompted no less a New Testament scholar than E. G. Selwyn to ask ‘whether the word nccpTvpfoc and its cognates would not better describe the primitive and indispensable core of the Christian message’. Without wishing in any way to disparage the importance of the kerygma, this investigation has attempted to show that Selwyn was right in suggesting that ‘there is room for another monograph on the apostolic testimony’. His contention proves to be abundantly borne out by the evidence. Indeed, the tenor of the present study indicates, as Théo Preiss once intimated, that the juridical terminology of the Bible is a fruitful field deserving more attention from contemporary scholarship.

It is possible, of course, to overstate or to misinterpret the forensic aspect, and this temptation we have striven to avoid. Certainly one must not imply that litigation and quarrelling are to be treated simply on one level, without consideration of a metaphorical use of witness as ‘testimony to’. We have had occasion to note (in the Psalms, for instance) the juxtaposition of juridical and non-juridical metaphors. In fact, our study has uncovered four classes of material where the witness imagery operates: (a) actual trials, where the legal terminology is genuinely forensic; (b) controversy, where there is an extension of the forensic; (c) metaphors where the forensic aspect may be in the background but is not necessarily present; (d) the idea of witness as testimony to, in a religious context (or in terms of reputation, etc.).

In Isaiah 40–55 there are two controversies (one between Yahweh and the world and the other between Yahweh and Israel), and it is important not to confuse the one with the other. Still it is useful to list the legal ideas of Isaiah 40–55, without suggesting that they all belong to a single pattern. Then the results will be applied to understand the use of controversy in Isaiah 40–55. Finally, a few characteristics of the prophet's use of controversy will be brought forward for brief discussion.

THE CONTROVERSY PASSAGES

It may be helpful to list the main passages of Isaiah 40–55 which make use of the language of the lawsuit. They include:

(a) 41: 1–29. The trial of the nations is here dramatically presented. The literary character of the poem reflects its setting in the lawcourt. The formal characteristics of law-court speech are particularly evident in 41: 1–5, 21–4, 26.

(b) 43: 8–13. This poem depicts another trial scene like that of chapter 41, where all nations and Israel are summoned into the divine presence. Witnesses are very prominent in this passage.

(c) 43: 22–8. This passage has the markings of a controversy speech.

(d) 44: 7–8. Hebrew legal terms are used in this passage, and Israel is mentioned as Yahweh's witness.

(e) 45: 20–1. The imagery of the lawcourt is apparent here.

(f) 48: 14–16. The prophet returns to his favourite judgment scene, but the formal characteristics of a controversy are weak.

(g) 50: i–2a. This appears to be a controversy speech; observe the barrage of pointed questions.

(h) 50: 7–9. Legal terminology is notable throughout this passage.

In 1936 C. H. Dodd wrote his famous book on the preaching of the apostolic church. In it he argued that there was a definite pattern to the preaching of the apostles, which he sought to explain in terms of the kerygma. Dodd's book was widely acclaimed and exercised an immense influence on New Testament scholarship. However, it had the unfortunate effect of magnifying the term kerygma at the expense of other equally important words which the New Testament uses to describe the Christian message. It is this danger to which E. G. Selwyn points in the Festschrift for C. H. Dodd:

I sometimes wonder whether the term Kfipuyjjioc has not been worked too hard, and whether the word nocpTUpfcc and its cognates would not better describe the primitive and indispensable core of the Christian message. At any rate, if we examine the comparative occurrences in the New Testament of the two sets of terms, we find that the occurrences of the verbs alone which speak of ‘witness considerably outnumber the occurrences of Knpuaasiv, while the occurrences of the noun nccpTvpioc outnumber those of the noun Kripuyjia by more than six to one. There is nothing here which will make C. H. Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching andIts Developments less important than it was when it first appeared. But there is room for another monograph on the Apostolic testimony.

In fact, F. L. Fisher thinks that ca thorough study of witnessing would necessitate a study of the whole Bible'. The present work is an attempt to fill this need.

To begin this study, however, is to confront a fundamental difference in scholarly opinion about the development and use of the idea of witness in the New Testament.

THE LEGAL ASSEMBLY IN ISRAELITE LIFE

We turn now to the witness in his setting in the Old Testament controversy. Fortunately, considerable work has been done on this subject in recent years, so it will be sufficient to indicate the main lines of development, and to refer the reader to the works of Gemser, Köhler, and McKenzie.

In early Israel legal disputes were settled by justice in the gate (Deut. 25: 7–10; Josh. 20: 4; Job 5: 4; Psa. 127: 5). The legal proceedings were held in an open place, generally in the square by the town gate (Deut. 21:19; Job 29: 7; Prov. 22:22; Isa. 29: 21; Amos 5: 10, 12, 15; Zech. 8: 16). There the accuser summoned his witnesses and the accused with his witnesses, together with the elders of the place who would consider the case. There was no public prosecutor; as in Greek courts, the injured party must bring the action. When the people gathered at the gate, the accuser or his go*ēl (Ruth 3: 12; 4: 1–11; cf. Job 19: 25; Jer. 50: 34) began the legal dispute; he charged the accused with a certain matter, and sought to prove the truth of his charge. For this purpose he summoned his witnesses. Then the accused would be challenged to bring forward counter witnesses on the other side. Before the proceedings were finished, both litigants and their respective witnesses probably spoke several times. Then, as in Homer's judgment scene on the Shield of Achilles (Iliad xvm. 497–508), the elders discussed the matter among themselves, paying most attention to those who had a reputation for making wise and just decisions (cf. Job 29: 7–10, 2if.).