Christological Rereading of the Shema (Deut 6.4) in Mark's Gospel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161528071, 9783161598197, 3161528077

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

533

John J. R. Lee

Christological Rereading of the Shema (Deut 6.4) in Mark’s Gospel

Mohr Siebeck

John J. R. Lee, born 1973; 2004 MDiv; 2010–2012 Appointed Assistant Professor of New Testament, Midwestern Seminary; 2011 Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament, Edinburgh University; 2012–2018 Assistant Professor of New Testament, Midwestern Seminary; since 2018 Associate Professor of New Testament, Midwestern Seminary.

ISBN 978-3-16-152807-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-159819-7 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159819-7 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book is a revised version of my 2011 Edinburgh thesis. I am exceedingly grateful for my supervisors who guided me throughout the writing of the original thesis. For Professor Paul Foster’s many incisive comments, his availability to meet with students almost anytime, his prompt feedback on drafts, and his constant encouragement during my doctoral study and even beyond, I cannot thank him enough. I am also deeply thankful to the late Professor Larry Hurtado for his many constructive comments on various portions of the original thesis and, of course, his passion for Mark and New Testament Christology, which is the general subject matter of this book. He will be missed greatly. Additionally, I want to express my gratitude to Dr. Robert Stein, my mentor from Southern Seminary, and Professor Hermann Lichtenberger, host and advisor during my two-semester stay at the Institut für antikes Judentum und hellenistische Religionsgeschichte, Tübingen University, for insights on various parts of the original thesis and the encouragement they each provided. My privileged study at Edinburgh and two-semester stay at Tübingen would have been impossible without the financial support of many. I am most grateful to Bundang Central Church; Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst; and the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust for their scholarship support. My warmest thanks also go to various family members and friends who supported my Ph.D. study financially, most especially my parents, S. S. Lee and M. S. Lim; and my in-laws, G. J. Lee and H. W. Shin. I want to thank Professor Jörg Frey for accepting this thesis for publication in the WUNT II series. I also express my appreciation for Doctor Henning Ziebritzki and the team at Mohr Siebeck, most especially Tobias Stäbler and Ilse König for their guidance, expertise, and kindness. The revision of the original thesis was carried out mostly during my sabbatical year in 2018–2019. I am tremendously grateful to President Jason Allen, Provost Jason Duesing, and the Board of Trustees at Midwestern Seminary for allowing me to have a full-year sabbatical leave and for providing an environment where research and scholarship are genuinely promoted and celebrated. During the revision of the original thesis and the preparation of this publication, Daniel Brueske, Jeff Flanagan, and David Dickenson helped me as my research assistants and implemented my requests so effectively. I am highly thankful to

VI

Preface

each of them. Daniel Brueske, in particular, has served as my assistant throughout the revision process. I am truly appreciative of his enduring aid. Many things in my life have changed between the original writing of my doctoral thesis and now. However, the most important things have stayed exactly the same. I am thankful to God for his unchanging love for me in and through his Son, Jesus Christ. I am also thankful to my dear family – my wife, Sunny, and our son, Josh – for their unwavering support, love, and encouragement. It is to them that I dedicate this publication as a small token of my adoration and appreciation. Kansas City, 2020

John J. R. Lee

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................ V Abbreviations, Citations, and Translations .............................................. XIII

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................ 1 1.1 History of Research ................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 J.P. McIlhone, “‘The Lord Your God Is One’: A Redaction Critical Analysis of Mark 12:28–34” (1987) ............................... 3 1.1.2 G. Guttenberger, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (2004) ........................................................... 4 1.1.3 Two Minor Studies: J. Marcus, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth” (1994), and J. Gnilka, “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung” (1994) ............ 6 1.2 Methods and Strategy ............................................................................ 8 1.2.1 Methods ...................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Argumentation Strategy .............................................................. 10 1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel ............................................................... 15

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism ........................... 28 2.1 Justification for Considering Jewish Monotheism as the Primary Background for Mark’s One-God Language ......................................... 31 2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism ...................... 34 2.2.1 General Sketch of Second Temple Jewish Monotheism .............. 34 2.2.2 Three Aspects of Second Temple Jewish Monotheism ............... 43 2.2.2.1 Divine Uniqueness Rhetoric Used for Israel’s God as an Expression of His Incomparability ....................... 43

VIII

Table of Contents

2.2.2.2 The Universal Sovereignty of Israel’s God as an Expression of His Incomparability ................................ 46 2.2.2.3 Reservation of Worship for Israel’s God Alone as an Expression of His Incomparability ........................... 49 2.2.3 Summary of 2.2 .......................................................................... 56 2.3 Interaction with Objections .................................................................. 56 2.3.1 Peter Hayman ............................................................................. 57 2.3.1.1 The Absence of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo prior to the Middle Ages ............................................... 59 2.3.1.2 References to Mystical Unity with God ........................ 60 2.3.1.3 The High Interest in Angelology and Jewish Magical Practice Involving the Invocation of Angels .... 61 2.3.1.4 The Survival of the Worship of YHWH alongside His Consort, Asherah, in Post-exilic References to Wisdom and Logos ....................................................... 69 2.3.2 Paula Fredriksen ......................................................................... 74 2.3.3 Summary of 2.3 .......................................................................... 80 2.4 Jewish Monotheism and Mark’s Jesus .................................................. 80 2.5 Chapter Summary ................................................................................. 83

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 ................................................................................................. 84 3.1 Mark 12.28–34 ..................................................................................... 87 3.2 Mark 12.35–37 ..................................................................................... 91 3.2.1 An Overview of Psalm 110 ......................................................... 92 3.2.2 Refusal of the Messiah’s Davidic Sonship? ................................ 96 3.2.3 The Significance of Jesus’ Self-assertion in Mark 12.35–37 with Attention to the Quotation of Psalm 110.1 (Mark 12.36) .. 100 3.3 The Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 .. 112 3.3.1 Plausibility of the Deliberate Collocation of Deut 6.4–5 (quoted in Mark 12.29–30) and Ps 110.1 (cited in Mark 12.36) Given Their Primacy in First-Century Christian Circles ....................................................................... 112

Table of Contents

IX

3.3.2 The Close Thematic Link between the Uniqueness of God (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4) and the Kingdom of God (Mark 12.36; cf. Ps 110.1) ........................................................ 115 3.3.3 Connection between Mark 12.34b and 12.35–37 via the Notion of “Kingdom”/“Kingship” ............................................ 116 3.3.4 Ἀποκριθείς and Other Narrative Cues for the Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 ..................................... 118 3.3.4.1 οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 12.34b) ............................................................. 119 3.3.4.2 καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλμα αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι (Mark 12.34c) ............................................................. 122 3.3.4.3 Summary of 3.3.4 ....................................................... 124 3.3.5 The Close Relationship between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 in View of the Narrative Sequence in 11.27–12.37 ... 124 3.3.6 Κύριος and Other Verbal Ties between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 .................................................................................. 128 3.3.7 Summary of 3.3 ........................................................................ 129 3.4 The Force of Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole ........ 130 3.4.1 Evaluation of Marcus’ Proposal ............................................... 131 3.4.2 The Case for Jesus’ Divine Significance Based upon Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole ................... 139 3.4.3 Response to Potential Objection ............................................... 145 3.5 Distinction between Jesus and God within Mark 12.28–37 ................. 147 3.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................... 148

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18 ........................................................................ 149 4.1 Mark 2.7 and 10.18 as Allusions to the Shema .................................... 149 4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7 ..................................... 153 4.2.1 Overview of Mark 2.1–12 .......................................................... 153 4.2.2 “The Son of Man” in Mark’s Gospel .......................................... 156 4.2.3 Christological Appropriation of the Shema in Mark 2.7 ............. 162 4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18 ........................ 175 4.3.1 Overview of Mark 10.17–31 ..................................................... 176

X

Table of Contents

4.3.2 The Case for Reading Jesus’ Saying in Mark 10.18 as a Hint at His Divinity .............................................................................. 179 4.3.2.1 Further Support for the Suggested Reading (Mark 10.18 as Jesus’ Hint at His Divinity) ................ 179 4.3.2.2 Evaluation of Alternative Interpretations ...................... 188 4.3.3 Summary of 4.3 ........................................................................ 192 4.4 Distinction between Jesus and God in Mark 2.1–12 and 10.17–31 ..... 193 4.5 The Significance of the Current Chapter in the Case for the Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 ....... 194 4.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................... 195

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God .................................................................................................... 197 5.1 The Integration of Jesus’ Linkage with God and His Distinction from God in Mark ............................................................................... 198 5.1.1 Passages that Link Jesus with God Directly and Inseparably .... 198 5.1.1.1 Appropriation of the Old Testament Κύριος Language for Jesus (Mark 1.2–3; 5.19–20; 12.36–37) ................. 199 5.1.1.2 Mark 4.35–41: Jesus Silences the Sea ......................... 204 5.1.1.3 Mark 6.45–52: Jesus Walks on the Sea ....................... 205 5.1.1.4 Ἐγώ Εἰμι (6.50) and the “Name” of Jesus (9.38–39) ... 207 5.1.1.5 Jesus as the Elector of the Reconstituted, Eschatological Israel (Mark 3.13–19; 13.27) ............... 209 5.1.1.6 Passages on Jesus’ Healing and Exorcism ................... 211 5.1.1.7 Response to J. R. Daniel Kirk’s View of a Markan (and Synoptic) High Human Christology .................... 212 5.1.1.8 Summary of 5.1.1 ....................................................... 220 5.1.2 Passages that Differentiate Jesus from God .............................. 221 5.1.2.1 Mark 10.40: “Not Mine to Grant” ............................... 221 5.1.2.2 Mark 13.32: “No One Knows … Only the Father” ......................................................... 222 5.1.2.3 Mark 14.36: “Not What I Want, but What You Want” .................................................. 223 5.1.2.4 Mark 15.34: “My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?” ............................................................ 223 5.1.2.5 Jesus as One Sent by God (Mark 9.37; 12.6; also 1.24, 38; 2.17; 10.45; cf. 1.12) .................................... 224

Table of Contents

XI

5.1.2.6 Jesus’ Passion Predictions (Mark 8.31; 9.12, 30–31; 10.33–34; cf. 14.49) .................................................... 225 5.1.2.7 Summary of 5.1.2 ....................................................... 226 5.1.3 Summary of 5.1 ........................................................................ 226 5.2 The Integration of Jesus’ Linkage with God and His Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative ..................................................................... 227 5.2.1 The “Son of God” in Mark ....................................................... 227 5.2.1.1 Precursors ................................................................... 228 5.2.1.2 Validity and Insufficiency of the Davidic Terms in Understanding Jesus’ Sonship to God in Mark’s Narrative ............................................. 230 5.2.1.3 The Use of the “Son of God” and Its Equivalent Terms and Images in Mark’s Narrative ....................... 232 5.2.2 The Pervasive Combination of Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God across Mark’s Narrative ......................... 239 5.2.3 The Recurring Combination of the Two Motifs within Various Markan Passages ......................................................... 241 5.2.4 The Capability of Mark as a Competent Narrator ..................... 244 5.2.5 Further Consideration for the Integration of the Two Motifs .... 247 5.2.5.1 The Question of Whether Mark’s High View of Jesus Violates Devotion to Israel’s Unique God .......... 247 5.2.5.2 Paradox and Mark’s Christological Portrayal .............. 249 5.2.6 Summary of 5.2 ........................................................................ 252 5.3 Chapter Summary ............................................................................... 253 5.4 Concluding Remarks: Mark’s Innovative Rereading of the Shema ...... 254 Bibliography ............................................................................................. 259 Index of References .................................................................................. 285 Index of Modern Authors ......................................................................... 311 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................... 316

Abbreviations, Citations, and Translations This book follows the abbreviations in the first edition of The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). However, in citing secondary sources in footnotes, I provided only the author’s surname, a shortened title of the relevant work and the appropriate page number(s), except for the cases where further information is necessary for the reader to locate the pertinent items in the bibliography. For full citation information of secondary sources, please refer to the bibliography at the end of this book. Furthermore, this volume follows the conventions of the WUNT series where they differ from those of The SBL Handbook of Style. Concerning the translation of primary sources, the following editions have been used, unless otherwise noted: Aristotle: Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, (trans. J. H. Freese; Medford, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926). Babylonian Talmud: Jacob Neusner. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2011. Corpus Hermeticum: A.-J. Festugière, and A. D. Nock, trans. Corpus Hermeticum. Vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972. Dead Sea Scrolls: Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997). Josephus: Josephus, Josephus, with English Translation (trans. H. Thackeray; 10 vols.; The Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958–61). JPS1917: JPS Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1917). LXE: Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The English Translation of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, (original ASCII edition; BibleWorks 8; DeFuniak Springs, Fla.: FABS International, 1988). Mishnah: Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988. NRSV: The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989). OT Pseudepigrapha: James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (2 vols.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85). Philo: Philo, Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes), (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 12 vols.; The Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927–62). Quintilian: Quintilian, Quintilian: With an English Translation, (ed. H. E. Butler; Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1922).

XIV

Abbreviations

For the reference to 11QMelch (11Q13), I followed the column and verse divisions reflected in Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperOne, 2005). Concerning the original language text of the Bible, quotations are drawn from the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text of the Greek New Testament (NA27), from the 5th revised edition of Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), and from Ralphs’ edition of Septuaginta. These and other original language primary sources are listed in the bibliography according to alphabetical order.

Chapter 1

Introduction Introduction

In his short yet influential 1975 essay, Nils A. Dahl identified theology proper as a “neglected factor” in New Testament studies.1 He was followed by John Donahue, in a 1982 article, who applied Dahl’s charge to Markan scholarship specifically.2 Nearly four decades after Donahue’s call, this neglected area still requires attention.3 Although a few studies have explored Mark’s4 understanding of God,5 this subject is still neglected compared to other topics within Markan research.6 There is, in fact, one particularly overlooked motif in research on Markan theology proper, namely, the oneness/uniqueness of God. The neglect of this specific motif is common in Synoptic studies, yet Mark’s Gospel appears to be an especially crucial place to explore the issue, not merely because it is the earliest gospel account we possess but also because the Markan Evangelist appears more interested in the “oneness of God” motif than the other 1

Dahl, “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology,” in idem, Jesus the Christ, 153–63. Dahl explains that this neglect originates from the fact that the New Testament at large lacks thematic formulations about God and that most “God” references appear indirectly in the context of addressing other issues – Jesus, the Jews, the Church, salvation, conduct, threats, etc. 2 Donahue, “Neglected Factor,” 563–94. Donahue provides a survey of θεός language in Mark’s Gospel, focusing on the “theological” section of Mark 12.13–34, which he regards as suggestive for Mark’s view of Christology and of discipleship. 3 Cf. Smith, “The Theology of the Gospel of Mark,” 1–5. 4 “Mark” will be used as a designation for the Second Gospel or its author, depending on context. 5 See Smith, “The Theology of the Gospel of Mark”; Danove, The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus’ Disciples in the Gospel of Mark; “The Narrative Function of Mark’s Characterization of God,” 12–30; Neyrey, Render to God, 1–43; Driggers, Following God through Mark; Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung. Refer also to the works mentioned in Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology, 18–20. These studies illustrate the necessity for the present volume; while offering an investigation into Mark’s theology proper, they spend little time considering the question of the function and significance of the one-God language in the gospel and its relation to the portrait of Jesus, as attempted in this book. 6 For a bibliography of Markan studies, see Telford, Writing on the Gospel of Mark. For a recent literature review of Markan studies, see Breytenbach, “Current Research on the Gospel according to Mark.” For a survey of Jesus’ identity in Markan studies, see Johansson, “The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.”

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

Synoptists.7 He alone records the “monotheistic” declaration of the Shema,8 with Mark 12.29 (cf. v. 32) as the only place throughout the entire New Testament that explicitly quotes the “one-God” call of Deut 6.4.9 Although different Markan commentaries have offered some insights on the one-God motif, a coherent, integrated study on the topic is surprisingly lacking. Donahue and his small group of “followers” in Markan scholarship have not probed this topic despite their commitment to studying the “God” of Mark’s Gospel. This phenomenon is rather strange considering the central place that allegiance to the God of Israel maintained within Second Temple Judaism and, particularly for our discussion, within first-century Judaism, which served as a crucial background for Mark’s Gospel.10 A number of studies, including those of Bauckham, Hurtado, and Dunn, have been undertaken on the nature of “monotheism” in the Second Temple era, especially in relation to Christian origins.11 Nevertheless, none of these studies focus on the one-God language in the Synoptic Gospels nor, as regards our particular interest, in Mark’s Gospel.12 There are, however, a few other studies more closely related to the

7 I follow the scholarly near consensus of Markan priority in this study. Additionally, I oppose the idea that the Gospel of Thomas was written earlier than the canonical gospels. On the latter point, see, e.g., the helpful discussion in Evans, Mark, xxx–xliii. 8 Concerning the definition of the term “monotheism” or its adjectival form “monotheistic,” see my discussion in chap. 2. 9 Marcus argues that the Shema is implicit in 2.7 and 10.18 based on the use of εἷς (not μόνος as in Luke 5.21, which is more natural) with ὁ θεός, corresponding to the same combination in Deut 6.4 (LXX). The Matthean parallel (9.3) lacks the explicit one-God language. See Marcus, “Authority,” 196–211 (197–98). Refer also to Gnilka, “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung,” 151; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:138–39; Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 311. 10 For the prominence of monotheistic concerns in Second Temple Judaism, see my discussion in chap. 2. 11 See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, chap. 1; Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Lord Jesus Christ; Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion; Dunn, Christology in the Making; Stuckenbruck and North (eds.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism; Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology; Newman, Davila, and Lewis, eds., The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism; Wright, New Testament and the People of God, esp. 244–79. For more works on the issue, see my discussion in chapter 2. The use of the terms (a) “Christians” (cf. Acts 11.26), (b) “(early) Christianity,” and (c) the adjective “Christian” presents the risk of anachronism. These terms are used in this study simply in reference to (a) the believers of Jesus, (b) their devotion to Jesus, which combines their religious beliefs and acts, and (c) their characteristics – without necessarily assuming that Jews and Christians were already two clearly distinct groups by the time of the composition of Mark’s Gospel. 12 For a treatment of the theme in John’s Gospel, see Appold, The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. For that in Paul, see Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God; Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology”; Waaler, The Shema and the First Com-

1.1 History of Research

3

motif of God’s oneness/uniqueness in Mark’s Gospel, which I will discuss in the following section of literature review.

1.1 History of Research 1.1 History of Research

1.1.1 J. P. McIlhone, “‘The Lord Your God Is One’: A Redaction Critical Analysis of Mark 12:28–34” (1987) McIlhone, in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation from Marquette University, “‘The Lord Your God Is One’” (1987), explores Mark’s emphasis on the oneness of God in 12.28–34 by combining redactional methods and computerbased analysis of “linguistic density plots.”13 He argues that the Evangelist composed 12.28–34 specifically to highlight monotheism. Against Jewish skepticism, the Evangelist defended his community’s understanding of Jesus’ divinity by employing the Shema (12.28–34) and by presenting Jesus on par with the God of the Shema (2.5b–10; 10.17–27). While McIlhone’s dissertation includes fine exegetical comments on some of the arguments presented here (e.g., the importance of the Shema at 2.1–12; 10.17–22; 12.28–34), he leaves untouched significant exegetical breakthroughs that are crucial for more fully appreciating Mark’s Shema. McIlhone does not give serious attention to the connectivity between 12.28–34 and 12.35–37.14 An integrated reading of 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 is fitting due to the way these passages collocate two important texts for early Christian circles (Deut 6.4 [cf. Mark 12.29] and Ps 110 [Mark 12.36]). The deliberate collocation of these texts redefines monotheism. By contrast, McIlhone views 12.35–37 as a separate section from 12.28–34.15 Additionally, McIlhone does not closely examine the relationship between Mark’s “monotheistic” language and his overall christological portrait as is investigated in chapter 5 of this study. Due to McIlhone’s limited treatment in this regard, his discussion of the Markan Shema remains fragmentary and does not integrate other elements contained in the Evangelist’s christologicallyoriented narrative.16 mandment; Bruno, ‘God is One’. Cf. Staudt, Der eine und einzige Gott, which discusses monotheistic rhetoric in the New Testament (chap. 7) and in the apostolic fathers (chap. 8). 13 McIlhone, “‘The Lord Your God Is One’,” 75. For the discussion of linguistic density plots, see 75–78, 96–108. 14 For the inseparable connectivity between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37, see chapter 3 (esp. sections 3.3 and 3.4) below. 15 McIlhone, “The Lord Your God Is One,” 228–29. 16 The christological orientation of Mark’s Gospel is evidenced, for example, in 1.1. Note also the inclusio between 1.10–11 and 15.38–39, which reveals Jesus’ true identity by coupling the apocalyptic σχίζω language with the explicit mention of Jesus’ divine sonship. For

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Moreover, McIlhone’s engagement with other scholarly works is limited and, in general, his treatment of the selected monotheistic passages in Mark does not go beyond the general treatments found in commentaries. Furthermore, his dissertation does not reflect the recent developments in studies of “monotheism” in the Second Temple period in relation to early Christianity and its writings, especially the New Testament.17 Surprisingly, the discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism, which provides a primary background for Mark’s use of the Shema, is largely lacking. McIlhone includes only a short discussion of some rabbinic sources (see 157–62 of McIlhone’s dissertation). From a methodological point of view, McIlhone’s dissertation follows traditional redaction-critical analysis, and is overly confident his ability to discern the Evangelist’s redactional activities from his traditions. Similarly, his work reflects only a very restricted degree of narrative-critical analysis of Mark’s Gospel, an approach that would have helped facilitate a more integrative and holistic reading of Mark’s Shema, in particular, and Mark’s Gospel, in general. In view of all these facts, it is difficult to regard McIlhone’s 1987 study as a sufficient investigation of the one-God language in the Second Gospel. 1.1.2 G. Guttenberger, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (2004) Guttenberger’s monograph, Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium (2004) explores how Mark presents “God” in his narrative while investigating a number of interesting issues under her designated topical headings, including transcendence/immanence, monotheism/Christology, particularism/universalism, function of God as a ruler/rescuer, and monism/dualism. By utilizing both historical and literary methods, Guttenberger’s work on Mark’s Gospel takes a commentary-like approach. This wide coverage, however, results in an incomplete treatment on specific topics. In fact, her monograph assigns only limited space to the discussion of the one-God motif in Mark’s Gospel while attempting to cover virtually every major passage. Only chapter 6 of her monograph, which deals with the relationship between monotheism and Christology in Mark, is relevant for this study. Guttenberger limits her discussion to a couple of select issues. First, addressing the issue of “blasphemy” in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 14.64), Guttenberger argues for tension between the idea of monotheism and Jesus’ claim for his independent exercise of divine-like authority and goes on to claim that this phenomenon is similar to that found in John’s Gospel (5.18; 10.33).

the apocalyptic imagery in 1.10–11 and 15.38–39, see Gurtner, “The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology.” 17 See, e.g., the references to the works of Bauckham, Hurtado, and Dunn among others in chap. 2, passim.

1.1 History of Research

5

Second, discussing the secrecy motif and the corresponding use of the title “Son of God” in Mark’s Gospel, Guttenberger asserts that Jesus’ silencing of the demons who confess his divine sonship indicates Mark’s hesitancy to address Jesus as “Son of God” for the sake of not violating Jewish monotheism and the First Commandment. Only Gentiles are allowed to use such a designation (e.g., Mark 5.7; 15.39) and, for them, calling Jesus “Son of God” signifies a move toward monotheism. Guttenberger’s latter point, in particular, appears problematic for a few reasons. To begin with, it is not obvious from the text that Mark is hesitant to use the title “Son of God” for Jesus. More-than-implicit language of Jesus’ divine sonship as claimed by various figures in the Markan narrative,18 including Jesus himself (8.38; 13.32; cf. 14.61–62) and God (1.11; 9.7) whose perspectives the Evangelist portrays as authoritative, problematizes Guttenberger’s conjecture.19 Moreover, it seems unlikely that the pagan confession of Jesus as God’s Son should be understood in such a “discriminative” sense within Mark’s narrative. It does not seem plausible that the title “Son of God” is designated only for pagans in Mark’s Gospel. Since the epithet was used with various referents both in Jewish and non-Jewish settings, Guttenberger’s suggestion appears to force an artificial contrast between Mark’s use of the expression and that of his contemporaries.20 18

See Mark 1.11, 3.11, 5.7, 8.38, 9.7, 13.32, 14.61, 15.39. Demons in Mark’s Gospel appear to be rather “faithful” witnesses to Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (3.11; 5.7). There is no hint in 3.12 and 5.8 (cf. 1.25) that the preceding demoniac “confession” of Jesus’ divine sonship was technically wrong. Ironically, while Jewish leaders and even Jesus’ own disciples do not comprehend Jesus’ true status and significance, the diabolic spirits appear to recognize the unique identity and authority of Jesus (see also 1.34). Their “confession” serves to accentuate Jesus’ unique status and significance within Mark’s narrative. In light of this, again, Guttenberger’s understanding of Jesus’ silencing the demons, who reveal his divine sonship, as due to the Evangelist’s monotheistically-grounded reservation, seems unfounded. Regarding the opening verse, while a majority number of manuscripts include υἱοῦ θεοῦ, early manuscripts (a* Q 28c) omit the phrase. This phenomenon can be explained either as the copyists’ unintentional omission or as a later expansion of the “title” of the book. Among commentators, Taylor, Gundry, France, Guelich, Schenke and Trocmé regard υἱοῦ θεοῦ as authentic (also Wasserman, “The ‘Son of God’ Was in the Beginning”), while Pesch, Marcus, and Collins (also, Head, “A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1,” 621–29; Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 72–75) do not. Hooker is undecided. While leaving the authenticity of the phrase open, the present writer leans toward its authenticity in light of its strong MSS support (a1 B D L pc latt sy co; cf. A, which reads τοῦ θεοῦ). Its absence in a* Q 28c can probably be accounted for as an unintentional omission in the transmission of the manuscripts. Whether “Son of God” is authentic or not in Mark 1.1, its prominence is clearly attested throughout the gospel (e.g., 1.11, 3.11, 5.7, 8.38, 9.7, 13.32, 14.61, 15.39). For further discussion of the title, “Son of God,” see section 5.2.1 below. 20 Especially for Jewish examples, see Wis 2.16–20 (applied to wise or righteous individuals; cf. Matt 5.9; Rom 8.14); Gen 6.2; Job 1.6 (to an angelic being); Ps 2.7 (to a Judean 19

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Finally, in Guttenberger’s monograph, the Markan Shema quotation (12.29; 12.32) is not an object of serious, focused consideration, nor are other passages which employ the one-God (εἷς + ὁ θεός) language (2.7; 10.18). An exploration of the relevant Second Temple background is largely absent. Although Guttenberger’s Gottesvorstellung is an important contribution to Markan scholarship and the understanding of Mark’s theology proper in general, it is difficult to consider this monograph a detailed study of the topic with respect to its treatment of the one-God language. 1.1.3 Two Minor Studies: J. Marcus, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth” (1994), and J. Gnilka, “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung” (1994) There are two shorter studies on the one-God motif in Mark.21 Marcus, in his, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth” (1994), which develops his passing note in The Way of the Lord (1992),22 argues for the apologetic function of the Shema in Mark’s Gospel (12.29) in an attempt to read it as linked to the portrayal of Jesus’ exaltation in the subsequent passage (v. 36; cf. Ps 110.1). According to Marcus, the Evangelist emphasizes the Shema (Mark 12.29) in order to respond to the Jewish charge of “Two Powers”/ditheism.23 The Second Evangelist replies to the charge by pointing out that Jesus’ authority is derived from YHWH and that his exaltation does not violate monotheistic commitment. Therefore, the charge of ditheism proves to be ungrounded. Although short in length, Marcus’ treatment of the Markan Shema is the most relevant to the current study in that he seriously considers the connection between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 and the need to interpret these passages in light of each other. I will interact with Marcus’ position in detail in chapter 3 (esp. section 3.4.1) and suggest some corrections and refinements. I will argue that the immediate and broader literary context of the Markan Shema (12.29) implies that the Evangelist makes a more accentuated christological claim than what Marcus allows, engaging in an innovative redefinition of the traditional understanding of God’s uniqueness by linking Jesus directly and inseparably with God and presenting Jesus on par with God. While Marcus’ suggestion will be evaluated closely in chapter 3, one observation can be made in advance: whether Marcus’ arguments are persuasive or not, he is limited to king at his coronation); 4Q246 (Aramaic Apocalypse), which Hengel notes, in particular, as evidence that “the title ‘Son of God’ was not completely alien to Palestinian Judaism” (The Son of God, 44–45 [quotation from 45]). For discussion on Jewish and pagan backgrounds of the term “Son of God,” see Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God. 21 Marcus, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth,” 196–211; Gnilka, “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung,” 144–62. 22 Marcus, Way, 145–46; cf. 134–36. 23 Marcus’ suggestion is adopted by Carlson, “The Shema in Mark,” 67–70.

1.1 History of Research

7

addressing God’s oneness in Mark’s Gospel in general terms only, due to the brevity and scope of his article. Gnilka, in his “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung” (1992), writes about the concept of God in the Jesus tradition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Gnilka argues that while the Synoptic concept of God is rooted in biblical-Judaic soil, it obtains its specific features from the message and the person of Jesus. Thus, it is impossible to speak about God without speaking about Jesus. Although Gnilka’s article appears to have a thrust in the right direction in addressing the concept of God in relation to Jesus in the Synoptics, his concise study is focused neither on the one-God language nor on Mark’s Gospel. Regarding the motif of the oneness of God in Mark’s Gospel, in particular, Gnilka’s study provides only a brief introduction. A survey of the history of research on the “oneness of God” in Mark’s Gospel reveals a surprising lack of any substantial analysis and in-depth treatment of the topic. If indeed Mark’s Gospel is serious about God in that Jesus is portrayed as Son of God24 and that the central theme of this gospel, arguably, is the kingdom of God,25 and if the “oneness of God” is an essential element in the theology of this first-century account (see Mark 2.7; 10.18; 12.29; 12.32) and its contemporary Jewish literature,26 then the one-God language in the Second Gospel deserves a more detailed, comprehensive, and systematic treatment. Here, I attempt to engage in a study with a focus, scope, and depth that goes beyond that of the above-reviewed studies. This study on the one-God language in the Second Gospel can benefit Markan scholarship in several ways. It contributes to the study not only of Mark’s theology proper and especially his use of the Shema language in three related passages (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37) but also of his Christology, since the Second Gospel is a narrative about Jesus (1.1) – though its orientation is, nevertheless, consistently theocentric (see chap. 5.1.2 below). As a result, the relationship between Mark’s theology proper and Christology will also be illuminated. Since Christology is a crucial part of Mark’s message (1.1), this book will contribute also to a broader discussion on Mark’s theology. Moreover, given the discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism (chap. 2) as a primary background for appreciating Mark’s Shema language (chaps. 3–4), this study offers valuable insights for the oldest written gospel’s twentyfirst-century readers, whose idea of God’s oneness and uniqueness has often

24

Note also ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ in 1.24. See Mark 1.14–15 and 4.1–34. Note also the phrase, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (1.14), which is the only usage of the expression outside the Pauline Epistles (see Rom 1.1; 15.16; 1 Thess 2.2, 8, 9). See also Ladd’s chapters on the Synoptic Gospels in idem, A Theology of the New Testament, 31–245. 26 Regarding the prominence of monotheistic concern in first-century Judaism, see my discussion in chap. 2 below. 25

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

been formed under the influence of a seventeenth-century definition of “monotheism.”27 The present study aims to provide these noted contributions to Markan scholarship by investigating the function and significance of the Evangelist’s monotheistic language via the following methods and strategies.

1.2 Methods and Strategy 1.2 Methods and Strategy

The present study will engage Mark’s Gospel with one central question – How is the Shema used and understood in Mark’s christologically-shaped narrative (cf. Mark 1.1)? In order to reach a satisfactory answer to the question, I will make use of composition-critical and narrative-critical analyses in interpreting Mark’s Gospel.28 Furthermore, I will carefully examine the nature of Jewish 27 For the problem of imposing a post-seventeenth-century understanding of “monotheism,” see MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism,” 14–21. Even though MacDonald points out the problems in Old Testament scholarship, his insights can be applied to New Testament scholarship as well. For a nuanced definition of “monotheism” used to describe an aspect of Second Temple Judaism, see the discussion at the beginning of chap. 2 below. Only with a nuanced definition of the term as such, this study will employ the noun “monotheism” and the adjective “monotheistic.” 28 Sinclair notably argues that, in spoken and written discourse, “the whole text is present in each sentence” (idem, Trust the Text, 14). What he means by this assertion is not that the reader brings absolutely everything into a sentence, still less the exact wording and nuances from earlier parts of the text. However, while the totality of previous detail may be lacking in the reader’s (or audience’s) mind, “some form of mental representation of the text so far, the state of the text, must be building up in the mind of a competent reader, and must be available for interpreting the text at any particular point” (ibid.). Thus, it is not the whole text with all its intricacies, but “the previous states of the text … in so far as they are needed” (ibid.) that are brought to the meaning of each new sentence by the reader or audience. Mark’s audience, according to such an understanding, would be able to bring a mental representation of the Shema with them from Mark 2.7 to 10.18 and even to 12.29 (cf. v. 32). With this linguistic framework in mind, one should note that the mental representation here discussed is based on multiple (not a single) factors. The mental representation is carried from Mark 2.7 to 10.18 by the common phrase εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός, which is associated with a question about God’s uniqueness in both instances. There is also concern for God’s uniqueness in Mark 12.29 (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν; cf. Deut 6.4) and its paragraph in Mark 12.32 (εἷς ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ). Even though one might argue that the wording of these two respective monotheistic references in Mark 12 differs from that of 2.7 and 10.18, the mental representation requires only a similar phrase and not necessarily the exact wording. There is a further link between the monotheistic language of 2.7 and that of 12.29, as both are part of a collection of controversy stories (2.7 as part of the collection in 2.1–3.6, and 12.29 as part of the collection in 11.27–12.37). The former controversy collection, located in Galilee, and the latter, situated in Jerusalem, appear to balance each other within Mark’s literary structure. Another link may also be established between 10.18 and 12.29 in that both monotheistic references are connected, in their given contexts, to the Decalogue. That is, 10.18 is followed by the social commands of the Decalogue (v. 19) while

1.2 Methods and Strategy

9

“monotheism” in the Second Temple period and the three “monotheistic” references in Mark’s Gospel, which employ εἷς along with ὁ θεός (2.7; 10.18; 12.29 [cf. Deut 6.4 LXX]). 1.2.1 Methods The task of interpreting biblical texts, not least Mark’s Gospel, occurs at the intersection of history, theology, and literature.29 It is, thus, reductionistic to assume a single methodological model is sufficient for such a multidimensional task.30 In order to appreciate Mark’s narrative fully, on its own first-century terms, this study will benefit from the insights of composition criticism31 and narrative criticism.32 The former will facilitate a historical12.29 is followed by the requirements to love God (12.30; cf. Deut 6.5) and to love neighbor (Mark 12.31; cf. Lev 19.18) – the double commandment that probably summarizes the Decalogue. For the view that the citation of Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.29–30 represents the first half of the Decalogue while the quotation of Lev 19.18 in Mark 12.31 points to the second half, see Allison, “Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue,” 270–78. 29 See Telford, “Introduction,” 1–61 in idem, The Interpretation of Mark, for a brief history of interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. For a sample of various contemporary readings, approaches, and methodologies, see idem, Writing on the Gospel of Mark, chap. 2. 30 Cf. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, chap. 4. 31 The composition-critical side of redaction criticism (which is, at times, called “composition criticism”) reflects an adaptation of traditional redactional analysis. This modified approach values not only modifications/additions made by the Evangelists but also traditions preserved by them, thus engaging a reading that deals with the Gospels and Acts in a more integrative manner than classical redaction criticism. Overall, this adaptation is to be welcomed since an author’s emphasis is not determined by the origin of a source he uses in the writing and, relatedly, a change could reflect merely a minor concern on the part of the author. Osborne lists four compositional categories to be considered in addition to traditional redaction analysis: (1) “Structure”; (2) “Intertextual Development”; (3) “Plot”; and (4) “Setting and Style.” See Osborne, “Redaction Criticism,” 666–67. For a more recent echo of these comments, see Goodacre, “Redaction Criticism,” 770. Although C. C. Black is, at times, referred to as one who has terminated the dominance of redaction-critical methods, he, nevertheless, did not deny the benefits from the insights of redaction criticism. What he attacked was its use as the single, dominant method. Black differentiates “a redaction-critical perspective” from “a cluster of redaction-critical methods” (Black, The Disciples according to Mark, 20). On the other hand, it can be pointed out that what Black attacked was a slightly outdated form of redaction criticism since a number of practitioners of the discipline, especially in the United States, were already adopting the insights of composition-critical and literary-critical perspectives, thus engaging a more holistic reading of the text. Cf. Donahue, “Redaction Criticism,” 27–57. 32 The use of narrative-critical methods for interpreting Mark is, at least generally, justified by the fact that the Evangelist wrote a story for his audience. For an overview of the history and methodology, see Brown, “Narrative Criticism,” 619–24. For more substantial treatments of narrative-critical methods, see the programmatic study by Chatman, Story and Discourse, and Markan studies with narrative-critical approaches such as Tannehill, “The

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

critical and theological reading of the selected passages, while the latter enables an integrated understanding of those passages in view of the story of the Second Gospel as a whole – the macro-text.33 The driving force in employing these two methods is to interpret the text as it stands34 and in light of how the original audience would have understood it. The question of the socalled “Historical Jesus,” and the issues related to traditions/sources as well as their transmission are topics for legitimate discussion and cannot and should not be avoided. They are, however, outside the concentration of this study. I limit myself to focus on the issue in the context of one specific early Christian text, Mark’s Gospel, as it stands.35 1.2.2 Argumentation Strategy As the title of the book (Christological Rereading of the Shema [Deut 6.4] in Mark’s Gospel) indicates, the present study explores the question of how the Shema is used and understood in Mark’s Gospel. The main point to be argued is that, in Mark’s Gospel, the Shema language of Deut 6.4 is not simply reiterated in a traditional sense but is interpreted in a remarkable way that links Jesus directly and inseparably with Israel’s unique God. Such an innovative rereading of the Shema must be viewed within the context of (a) Disciples in Mark,” 386–405; Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story; Malbon, “Narrative Criticism,” 29–57; Smith, A Lion with Wings. For the unity of Mark’s narrative, see Petersen, “‘Point of View’ in Mark’s Narrative”; Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology”; Dewey, “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry.” Regarding the superfluity of too “sophisticated” a narrative method, see Rowe, Early Narrative Christology, 9ff. Rowe especially notes that engaging a solid exegesis is more important than following an imposed narrative theory in reading a gospel narratively and in examining critically a term/theme according to the narrative development. 33 Cf. Perrin, “The Evangelist as Author,” 9–10, 15–17, for the validity of combining redaction-critical and literary-critical methods. Perrin argues that, in view of the fact that “the evangelists are genuinely authors,” a development of a “general literary criticism,” which adopts insights of non-biblical literary approaches, will be indispensable for studying the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (9–10). Perrin specifies that “composition and structure” as well as “protagonists and plots” should be concerned in the use of the general literary criticism (15–17). See also Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? 3; Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 1–13. 34 For the benefit of reading Mark as it stands now, see, e.g., Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 379: “Many learned attempts … at unscrambling the various elements have revealed the difficulty of the undertaking and the wisdom of reading the text as it now stands in Mark’s Gospel and as a literary unit.” The comment was made in the context of discussing the historical context of Mark 13 but can be applied to studying Mark’s Gospel in general. 35 By no means do I leave out the textual discussion on Mark’s Gospel – I will integrate the discussion, as needed, in this study. On the other hand, I think that the fluidity of the text seems to have been somewhat overemphasized at times (e.g., Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels) although one should not neglect the factor.

1.2 Methods and Strategy

11

Mark’s complex portrait of Jesus’ relationship to God, which integrates Jesus’ surprisingly close association with God and his differentiation from God, and (b) various dynamics involved in each of the three monotheistic references (2.7; 10.18; 12.29; 12.32) relating to their respective literary context. However, overall, the manner in which the one-God language is employed in the Second Gospel suggests that Jesus is not simply one who, as a Shema-observant Jew, speaks on behalf of God but also one whose identity fundamentally corresponds to that of Israel’s unique God. Each time the one-God language is invoked in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 10.18; 12.29 [cf. v. 32]), it is intimately related to the presentation of Jesus’ status and significance on par with those of the biblical deity. Although each monotheistic reference is located in a different context within the narrative sequence of the Second Gospel, in all three instances, the language that was employed to highlight the uniqueness of Israel’s God in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism is strikingly reinterpreted to portray Jesus – in one way or another – as one directly and inseparably linked to that unique God. Following the current chapter, which discusses the history of research, methodology and strategy, and a brief examination of Mark’s life setting, chapter 2 (“Second Temple Jewish Monotheism”) will argue that Judaism in the Second Temple period should be seen as meaningfully “monotheistic” despite its diversity and the widespread recognition of exalted mediating figures in the era. In addition, it will be noted that the concern for God’s uniqueness was not peripheral but central to the Jewish religion of this time. The latter part of the chapter will attempt to link the preceding discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism in the chapter to the discussion of Mark’s Gospel in the subsequent chapters (chaps. 3–5). This background chapter (chap. 2) sets the tone for the explorations in the next chapters on Mark’s innovative use of the Shema. In chapter 3 (“Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37”), specific Markan texts are explored in an attempt to present a christological reading of the Shema (12.29; cf. v. 32), which is contained in the Love Commandment passage (12.28–34), in conjunction with the passage that immediately follows it (12.35–37) and in relation to the given literary context (esp. 11.27–12.37). Although the Markan Shema appears later in the sequence of Mark’s narrative, the present study discusses the direct quotation of the Shema prior to the other two one-God references (2.7; 10.18) because it most clearly and vividly communicates the motif of God’s uniqueness in the Second Gospel (and the entire New Testament corpus),36 and, accordingly, it has strong 36 The second chapter of this book will discuss monotheistic commitment during the Second Temple era. Among the Synoptists, Mark alone includes the monotheistic call of Deut 6.4 in reciting the Shema (cf. Matt 22.37; par. Luke 10.27), and he is, in fact, the only New Testament author quoting the monotheistic call of the Shema directly. Given the significance

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

significance for examining the use and understanding of the “monotheistic” language in Mark’s Gospel. Chapter 3 argues that the Evangelist deliberately integrates the quotation of the Shema in Mark 12.29 (cf. 12.32) with the portrait of the exalted messiah in 12.36 (cf. Ps 110.1). This deliberate integration is established through the rest of this study by showing: (a) the unity of 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 and the resulting connectivity between Deut 6.4 and Ps 110.1 quoted in the two passages, respectively (chap. 3), (b) the repeated christological appropriation of the oneGod language in earlier parts of Mark’s narrative (i.e., 2.7; 10.18) (chap. 4), and (c) the application of God-language to Jesus across Mark’s narrative (chap. 5, esp. section 5.1.1). The third chapter focuses particularly on the unity of Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37, which suggests an integration of the Shema’s monotheistic confession (12.29; cf. Deut 6.4) and the view of the messiah exalted alongside God (Mark 12.36; cf. Ps 110.1). The unity of Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 is argued in light of several factors, including the following: the unlikelihood of the accidental concurrence of the two passages, each of which contains an Old Testament37 scripture prominent in early christological exegesis; the close relationship between God’s uniqueness and his sovereign rule in early Judaism; the close linkage between 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 through the notion of kingdom or kingship (esp. v. 34 and vv. 36–37); the narrative cues and sequence within 11.27–12.37; and the verbal ties between the two passages. The integrated reading of Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 implies that Mark the Evangelist is not merely reiterating the one-God language of Deuteronomy 6.4 in a traditional sense but reinterpreting it in light of the vindicated, exalted, and enthroned messiah (Mark 12.36–37). Chapter 4 (“Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18”) deals with the two Markan Shema allusions (2.7 and 10.18). As the first oneGod reference in Mark’s narrative, Mark 2.7 sets the tone for the other two Shema references later in the story (10.18; 12.29 [cf. 12.32]). Since the monotheistic reference in 2.7 appears in the course of an interaction between Jesus and a group of hostile scribes, it is necessary to interpret the Shema allusion of Mark 2.7 in the context of that particular interaction. In 2.5, Jesus announces that the paralytic’s sins “are forgiven [ἀφίενται].” The scribes immediately protest at such an announcement and then charge Jesus with “blasphemy” (2.7; cf. 14.64). How one interprets the passive ἀφίενται in 2.5 is of the Shema in Second Temple Judaism, which serves as crucial historical and theological background for Mark’s Gospel, the Shema quotation and especially the explicit citation of the monotheistic call of Deut 6.4 in the Second Gospel (Mark 12.29; cf. 12.32) is likely a conscious choice by the Evangelist. 37 Throughout this book I use the terms “Old Testament” and “Hebrew Bible” interchangeably.

1.2 Methods and Strategy

13

determinative for understanding the pericope, and especially the function of the one-God language (v. 7) within the pericope. Chapter 4 argues that reading ἀφίενται (v. 5) simply as a representative (e.g., priestly or prophetic) term is consistent neither with the scribes’ understanding in v. 7 nor with Jesus’ clarifying statement in v. 10. If one is determined to read the verb ἀφίενται merely in a representative sense, one ends up isolating the verb itself from the contextual factors within the passage of 2.1–12. It is far more viable to read ἀφίενται (v. 5) as manifesting a divine attribute on the part of Jesus in light of 2.1–12, especially vv. 7 and 10. In accusing Jesus of blasphemy, the scribes appear to understand correctly what Jesus was boldly claiming through the verb ἀφίενται (v. 5; cf. v. 9). These and other arguments advanced in chapter 4 demonstrate that the Evangelist’s use of the εἷς ὁ θεός language seen in the scribal accusation (v. 7) has a notable christological thrust, namely, to attribute to Jesus divine authority to forgive sins and, by doing so, to link Jesus directly and inseparably with the unique God of Israel. Following the discussion on the εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in 2.7, the fourth chapter goes on to explore the same phrase in 10.18. While examining competing interpretations of this “ambiguous” verse of Mark 10.18, the second half of the chapter argues that the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in 10.18 needs to be read primarily in light of the identical phraseology of 2.7 and that, if so, Jesus’ “objection” to the epithet “good teacher” in 10.18 seems to hint at the invalidity of the interlocutor’s perspective and, accordingly, invites a more adequate understanding of Jesus’ status and significance on the interlocutor’s part. The fact that Jesus collocates his own commands with the Decalogue in v. 21 seems to support the proposed reading of 10.18 because their collocation implicitly attributes a divine value to Jesus’ own words (cf. 13.31). Moreover, Mark’s description of Jesus’ unique qualities throughout the narrative supports the suggested, non-literal reading of 10.18 (see, e.g., 1.24: “holy one”; 3.4: “good thing” [emphasis mine]). These and other factors discussed in the second half of the chapter are given as evidence that the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in 10.18 has a high-christological thrust, corresponding to the way the same phrase was used in its first and only other occurrence in the narrative (2.7). The argument in the fourth chapter, that Mark repeatedly employs the oneGod language to link Jesus directly and inseparably with God (2.7; 10.18), gives further weight to the argument for the integrated reading of the Shema quotation (12.29; cf. v. 32) and the portrayal of the exalted messiah (v. 36), as put forward in chapter 3. Since the Evangelist repeatedly employs the monotheistic language in earlier parts of his narrative with a notable christological interest (2.7; 10.18), it is not too surprising to find a similar thrust in its last and only other use in the Second Gospel, namely, the Shema quotation (12.29; cf. v. 32) within the context of 12.28–34 and 12.35–37, the two passages deliberately glued to each other in the Evangelist’s presentation.

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

Nevertheless, the christological interpretation of the Shema in Mark 2.7, 10.18, and 12.28–37 does not signify a flat sense of identification between Jesus and Israel’s God, as if one replaced the other. One should not disregard various factors that clearly distinguish Jesus from God in the respective monotheistic passages (2.1–12; 10.17–31; 12.28–37). For instance, the fact that the forgiveness and healing that Jesus performs leads the crowd to glorify God and not (directly) Jesus (2.12) and the fact that Jesus himself promotes the uniqueness and centrality of God (10.27; 12.29) should not be dismissed. Thus, theocentric nuances, which reflect Jesus’ devotion to Israel’s unique God, are integrated with the christological rereading of the Shema in the Second Gospel, which links Jesus inseparably and directly with Israel’s God. Mark’s use of the Shema, then, is not one-dimensional. Mark redefines the Shema with a remarkable christological interest, yet without substituting God with Jesus and creating a flat sense of identification between the two. A nuanced redefinition of the Shema as such brings a clearer and fuller understanding of the unique God of Israel, at least, according to the Evangelist’s presentation. Lastly, chapter 5 (“The Complexity of Mark’s Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God”) places the discussions of the previous chapters (chaps. 3–4) within the macro-text, namely, Mark’s narrative as a whole. It is argued that Mark’s Christology is not monolithic but complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical, facilitating the concurrence of Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage with God and Jesus’ distinction from God. It will also be argued that these two motifs each appear repeatedly across the narrative and that they are integrally bound up with each other in the Gospel of Mark. In other words, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus’ linkage with God is punctuated by the distinction between the two persons, and vice versa. This understanding of Mark’s complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical christological portrayal, combining Jesus’ close association with God and his notable differentiation from God, will be presented as a more plausible understanding of the Markan Jesus than the recent proposal of J. R. Daniel Kirk, who argues that the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus as an idealized human comparable to other such figures in Second Temple Judaism, without a sense of divine Christology.38 Having overviewed my argumentation strategy above, I should also clarify some of the key terms used frequently in this study. In this book, I use the terms “direct linkage,” “inseparable linkage,” “close association,” “fundamental correspondence,” and associated words and images to describe the close relationship with or even the unity between Jesus and Israel’s God as he is portrayed in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature.39 These expres38

Kirk, A Man Attested by God. As one may expect, not all scholars use these terms in the same manner. For instance, Kirk refers to idealized humans who “share in the identity of God,” while claiming that such figures are not presented as one with God in an ontological sense (Kirk, A Man Attested by 39

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

15

sions are interconnected with one another and are, to a substantial degree, interchangeable, as the context where they are employed will clarify. Relatedly, yet from a slightly different angle, I use at times “parity” or “on par with,” “equality,” “equal,” “co-equal,” and similar expressions with particular reference to the portrayals of Jesus as sharing the same status and significance as Israel’s God. On the other hand, I also use the terms “distinction,” “differentiation,” and associated words and images, again, in a generally interchangeable manner in relating Jesus to God. Through these expressions, I intend to point out that Jesus is distinguished from God and vice versa. In this study, these terms are often (though not exclusively) employed in connection to Jesus’ “submission to,” “devotion to,” or “dependence on” God – expressions that imply a notion of functional hierarchy (e.g., Jesus as one serving God and God’s purposes). I would like to distinguish the above exegetical/biblical-theological descriptions from the more technical vocabulary and categories that developed over history. I intend my terminology to reflect what the Markan text says as accurately as possible without employing the terminology developed later (of necessity and legitimate implication but, nevertheless, by implication and not by explicit elements contained in the text itself).40

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel 1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

The last section of this introductory chapter aims to address briefly some important issues concerning the setting of the earliest gospel. The discussion in the present section will clear the ground in preparation for reading Mark holistically, armed with a specific question: How is the one-God language used and understood in Mark’s narrative? One’s knowledge of the linguistic, sociological, cultural, and religious setting of a specific literary work directly influences his or her understanding of its meaning and function. One difficulty in handling Mark’s narrative is that

God, 109 [see 17, 18, and 37 for his use of this wording with reference to Bauckham’s work]). Bauckham has infrequently used wording such as “to share in the identity of God” or “identification with God” to ascribe genuine divinity to Jesus yet normally avoids such phraseology due to what he considers to be its potential vagueness (“Is High Human Christology Sufficient?” 504). Bauckham prefers instead wording such as “inclusion in the unique divine identity” (“Is High Human Christology Sufficient?” 515). 40 For a discussion of later developments, see, e.g., Wellum, God the Son Incarnate. I appreciate Dr. John Wind of Colorado Christian College for his input in drafting this paragraph.

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

it seems to offer relatively little information concerning its life setting.41 Such a limitation implies that many of our conclusions about the Markan Sitz im Leben must remain provisional and general. An expectation of precision and specificity is presumptuous since we lack sufficient data to make firm decisions on several issues concerning Mark’s setting. Moreover, a simple one-to-one correspondence between (a) what is seen in the text and (b) the actual situations of the original audience should be warned against considering the paucity of available data. Nevertheless, using the limited information available from the text, one may generally sketch the setting of the earliest gospel in the following manner. Traditionally, many scholars were inclined to a Roman provenance of this gospel,42 although some considerable arguments have been presented for Galilee43 and southern Syria.44 The claim for a Roman setting is based on the Papias account from around the turn of the second century CE identifying the Evangelist as the “Mark” mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.45 Papias also describes the author’s dependency on Peter in Rome.46 Scholars are divided as to the reliability of this account.47

41 Regarding the difficulties in reconstructing the settings of Mark’s community, see Peterson, The Origins of Mark (cf. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 93). Peterson, however, nearly gives up the quest for reconstruction itself. 42 For the Roman provenance of Mark’s Gospel, see, e.g., Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 1–30, 47–53; Senior, “‘With Swords and Clubs’,” 10–20; Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans; Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 76–91. See also Bacon’s classic treatment, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? 43 For the Galilean provenance of Mark’s Gospel, see, e.g., Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 54–95; Kelber, Kingdom, passim; Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context. 44 For the Syrian provenance of Mark’s Gospel, see, e.g., Kee, Community, 100–105; Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 235–58; Marcus, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” 441–62, who suggests one of the Hellenistic cities on the Palestinian border. 45 Acts 12.12, 25; 13.5, 13; 15.37, 39; Phlm 24; Col 4.10; 2 Tim 4.11. 46 Whether Mark’s community has a relationship with Paul or a Pauline community is an interesting topic but, by nature, hard to prove. For a positive position on the relationship between Mark and Paul, see Marcus, “Mark – Interpreter of Paul,” 473–87. The title of this article itself is quite suggestive of its content. Marcus critically interacts with Martin Werner’s influential 1923 work, Der Einfluß paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium. 47 By way of quick contrast, compare Marxsen’s negative assessment (Introduction, 143) and Hengel’s positive evaluation (Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 3–4). Hengel contends for the entirety of the Papias tradition: (1) Mark’s authorship, (2) Mark’s dependency upon Peter, and (3) a Roman provenance. See his Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 1–30, 47–53. Senior affirms Hengel’s position in “‘With Swords and Clubs’,” 10–20. For a criticism of the reliability of the Papias tradition, see, e.g., Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 12–18.

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

17

In support of the Roman provenance, three internal indications seem to be more reliable than the indirect48 report of Papias – most importantly, (1) the Evangelist’s need for explaining Jewish ritual traditions and Aramaic words; (2) the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (e.g., 13.10; 15.38–39; cf. 7.1–23), and (3) the background of the Roman (and not Jewish) law reflected in Mark 10.11–12 concerning the matter of divorce.49 The main difficulty with a Galilean setting concerns why the Evangelist must explain Jewish traditions (7.3, 4, 11, 19) and translate Aramaic words (5.41; 7.34; 15.22, 34).50 Similar problems exist with the efforts to locate this gospel in Syria. The geographical proximity between Galilee and Syria and a more than close relationship between Aramaic and Syriac make the Syrian position implausible for similar reasons.51 Overall, the Roman setting of this gospel remains a more viable option than its alternatives in light of the cumulative power of the evidence noted above and the Evangelists’ need to explain Jewish traditions and Aramaic expressions. Mark’s Gospel was likely composed during or around the time of the Jewish War (66–70 CE), and the thirteenth chapter seems to provide a key to dating this gospel.52 The prediction of the temple’s destruction (13.1–2), the enigmatic 48

Papias’ report, which dates probably around the turn of the second century CE, is preserved by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (iii.39.15). 49 For further evidence in favor of a Roman setting, see Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 28–30; Stein, Mark, 11–12. Mark’s Gospel uses loan words from Latin and reflects the Latin grammar. See λεγιών (5.9, 15); δηνάριον (6.37, 12.15, 14.5); κεντυρίων (15.39); ὁδὸν ποεῖν (2.23); ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι (15.15). Mark’s Latinisms as such may indicate its Roman provenance. Mark’s mention of Roman currency (12.42: κοδράντης), too, could be a further support for a Roman provenance. However, Latinisms and monetary terms as above could technically be found anywhere in the Roman Empire and are, therefore, not independent pieces of evidence in support of a Roman provenance. On the other hand, see Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 143–46, concerning the prominence of the Greek language among the Roman Christians in the first two centuries. 50 For the use of Aramaic and Hebrew words in Mark’s Gospel, see 3.17–19; 5.41; 7.11; 7.34; 10.46; 11.9–10; 14.1, 32, 36, 45; 15.22, 34. See also the discussion by Rüger, “Die lexikalischen Aramaismen im Markusevangelium,” 73–84. 51 Cf. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 28–29; Senior, “‘With Swords and Clubs’,” 13–14. Syriac scholars appear to use the terms “dialect” (of Aramaic) and “language” rather interchangeably when referring to Syriac (Van Rompay, “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language,” 73). Thus, while Syriac could be referred to as a language of its own, it can also be classified as an Aramaic dialect. 52 See Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 14–28 (esp. 21–28). For examples of much earlier dating, see the works cited in Kloppenborg, “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark,” 419–20, esp. n. 1 and n. 2. Note 2, in particular, contains the works of the commentators whose dating of Mark is heavily dependent upon the Patristic tradition. For a recent proposal for a much earlier date, see Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel. Crossley dates Mark’s Gospel around the Caligula crisis of 40 CE, which Crossley believes as the actual background for Mark 13 – on the ground that Jesus is portrayed as law-observant in Mark. Such

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

saying about “the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not stand [τὸ βδέγλυμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ]” (v. 14a), and the exhortation to flee Judea (v. 14c), in particular, appear to be informative.53 Whether this gospel was written before 70 CE or after is harder to decide, but the former seems more probable since the depiction of the destruction of Jerusalem in Mark 13 appears too vague to be a post-Fall report.54 In

portrayal then reflects a period prior to the emergence of the revisionist view of the Law in the 50s CE. In spite of its interesting and stimulating nature, Crossley’s argument does not seem plausible. Mark 7.1–23, where Jesus is seen to modify the Old Testament understanding of the law, refutes Crossley’s proposal. Crossley conjectures that “all foods” in 7.19 means all Torah-permitted foods and, therefore, that this passage shows an intra-Jewish halakic debate on the issue of handwashing (The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 192). However, it seems implausible to read Mark 7.1–23 according to Crossley’s suggestion. Mark’s intended readers, most of whom are Gentile, would likely have taken “all foods” more literally than Crossley does (cf. Rom 14.20). Mark 7.1–23 appears to begin with the issue of handwashing (vv. 1–13) and stretches to the issue of food regulations of the Torah (vv. 14–23 [esp. v.19]; cf. Matt 15.1–20, where the first Evangelist addresses merely the handwashing issue). See a helpful comparison of the Markan and Matthean accounts by Dunn, who explains the difference between the scopes of the two accounts in light of their readership – Mark with its Gentile-Christian readers and Matthew with its Jewish-Christian readers (“Jesus and Ritual Purity,” in idem, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 37–60 [50–53]). Mark 13 may possibly have originated as a tradition from the context of the Caligula crisis. However, Crossley’s view appears problematic in that the statue of Gaius never came to Jerusalem because of his assassination and, thus, the Temple was not defiled (cf. Mark 13.14). Juel, Mark, 179, aptly notes, “[T]he crisis was averted and could hardly serve Mark’s readers as a credible reference to an event past or future.” It seems better to associate the reference to the desolating sacrilege (13.14) with the destruction of the temple in 70 CE by Titus. More importantly, it seems implausible to date the final composition of Mark’s Gospel around 40 CE in view of its flexibility towards the food regulations of the Torah (7.1–23) which most likely reflects a later dating (cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 16–17). For a further critique of Crossley’s position, see J. Painter’s review published online January 2006: https://www.bookreviews. org/pdf/4577_4907.pdf (accessed 19 May 2020). 53 The enigmatic saying of 13.14a comes with an emphasis attached especially as it is immediately followed by the editorial aside “let the reader understand [ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω]” (13.14b). 54 Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 1–30; Guelich, Mark, xxxi–xxxii; Collins, Mark, 11–14 support the pre-Fall dating (late 60s) whereas Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel, 43–76; Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context; Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans, chap. 3; Marcus, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” 441–62; Kloppenborg, “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark,” 419–50 maintain post-Fall dating (early 70s). For a discussion of a potential link between (a) the religious-political climate in Rome following the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE (as represented by Vespasian and Titus's triumphal procession) and (b) the composition of Mark's Gospel, see Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans, 163–72.

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

19

comparison, the accounts of Matthew 22.7 and Luke 21.20ff. (cf. 19.41ff.) seem to provide a more detailed portrayal of the destruction of Jerusalem.55 Mark’s explanation of Aramaic words and Jewish customs, and his “liberal” attitude concerning food regulations (Mark 7.1–23, esp. v. 19) imply that the audience, or at least a significant part of it, was Gentile.56 They were, however, not wholly ignorant of Jewish customs and religious terms since the author does not give any explanations for some technical words such as Σατανᾶς (1.13; 3.23), γεέννα (9.43ff.), and ὡσαννά (11.10).57 The intended audience probably knew or at least was familiar with Latinized Greek given Mark’s frequent Latinisms (e.g., μόδιος in 4.21, σπεκουλάτωρ in 6.27, κῆνσος in 12.14, φραγελλόω in 15.15). Some of Mark’s audience may have considered forsaking their faith under current or impending persecution, as implied in the warnings of 8.34–38 and 13.9–13 (cf. 10.30–31; 14.27–31).58 Relatively recently, there have been debates on the scope of the readership of the Gospels, including Bauckham and some other scholars who argue for a

55

Of course, further specifics contained in the Matthean and Lukan parallels themselves do not necessarily guarantee their post-Fall dating. 56 While arguing that Mark’s Shema (12.29) was directed to a Hellenistic Jewish audience, Carlson (“The Shema in Mark”) does not wrestle with the fact that Mark had to provide an explanation for Jewish purity regulations (7.3–4). Carlson also overlooks the Markan editorial note in 7.19 (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα), which would have been unnecessary if the audience would have been a Jewish or, as Carlson himself argues, a Hellenistic-Jewish group. On the other hand, a sharp distinction between Palestine Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism in the first century CE no longer stands after Martin Hengel’s work, Judaism and Hellenism (esp. 1:104). Hengel argues convincingly that Palestinian Judaism was part of Hellenistic Judaism from the mid-third century BCE onward. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, Part III (esp. 69–79) includes nuanced discussions on the makeup of Roman Christianity in the first two centuries. Lampe points out that the large portion of the Christians at Rome in the first century (and the second century) CE were Greek-speaking immigrants generally with low socio-economic status, while a relatively small number of high-class males and especially females (with reference to Minucius Felix, 8.4; cf. Tatian, Or. 32f.) were actively involved. In the second century CE, there was a social elevation of Roman Christianity in line with the change in the demographics of Roman society in general – the number of the upper-class citizens increased while the number of slaves decreased. Lampe also notes that in Romans, Paul often presupposes the pagan backgrounds of his readers (Rom 1.5–6, 13–15; 9.3ff.; 11.13, 17–18, 24, 28, 30–31; 15.15–16, 18; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 70n3). This, of course, does not exclude the presence and influence of Jewish Christians in Rome, but they were certainly a minority group among Roman Christians already by the time Paul composed his letter to the Romans in the 50s CE (note Rom 14–15). 57 See, e.g., Acts 17.11, which shows some Greeks were biblically literate through their education at a synagogue. 58 Moreover, Mark’s Gospel highlights Jesus’ suffering (8.27–10.45; 14.1–15.47) and presents it as a prototype for his followers’ suffering (e.g., 8.34; 10.45).

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

universal readership of the New Testament gospels.59 That is, the four canonical gospels were composed not specifically for local Christian communities but for a broad Christian readership in that they were circulated and read by the communities of Jesus’ followers universally – as Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark likely suggests. Bauckham has contributed to the discussion of the gospels’ readership by noting that a particular community does not exist in isolation but belongs to a broader network of communities and that the gospel texts were used in a broader context, not limited within their original destination. It seems evident that Mark did not compose his gospel for a sectarian group since he appears to be aware of a broader readership (see, e.g., 13.10, 37; 14.9).60 Nonetheless, there are particular emphases and tendencies found in each New Testament gospel account that can be explained best by the existence of a specific local community (or a specific network of local communities), which had particular circumstances, needs, and religious outlooks.61 It also seems reasonable that Mark’s Gospel, along with the other canonical gospels, could receive nearly universal approval by the Church because a local community (or local communities) existed behind (and in support of) its composition.62 As noted above, the whole narrative of Mark, except chapter 13 (esp. vv. 1– 2, 14), does not seem to be related explicitly to any recognized historical event with regard to Mark’s Sitz im Leben. At least, the Evangelist does not seem to

59 See Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians. See now the updated discussion in Klink, ed., The Audience of the Gospels. By saying “readership,” I do not exclude the importance of orality/aurality in understanding the gospels in general and Mark in particular. Mark’s Gospel includes both textual/scribal elements (Mark 13.14) and oral/aural aspects (4.23). For a balanced treatment of this point, see Hurtado, “Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark,” 91–106. In his critical response to Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, Hurtado shows plausibly that a sharp dichotomy between orality and textuality is not guaranteed in the first-century Greco-Roman culture. In that sense, the terms “readers” and “audience” are not mutually exclusive but meaningfully overlap with each other. Though not responding to Kelber directly, Boring summarizes the issue helpfully: “Though composed for oral presentation, the Gospel of Mark was from the first a written document, participating in both orality and textuality” (Boring, Mark, 22). 60 Cf. the examples listed in Fowler, “The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark,” 115–34. Fowler, however, appears to be somewhat maximalistic in finding asides. For instance, his reading 2.10, 28; 14.62 as asides does not seem to be sound. 61 For a critique of Bauckham’s position, see Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians?”; Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians’,” 36–79. Of course, the universality of intended readership is not the same as the universal circulation/use of a gospel among Christian circles in the following decades and centuries. These two should be distinguished from each other. 62 Cf. Kümmel, Introduction, 98.

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

21

give any clue as such.63 This phenomenon may be because Mark’s primary concern in his composition was pastoral,64 rather than informational, evangelistic, or polemical.65 As Marshall aptly notes, Mark’s purpose “is to instruct and strengthen the faith of his readers by involving them in the story of Jesus in such a way that those features of his teaching and example which Mark has chosen to narrate are experienced as directly relevant to their present needs.”66 Some scholars, especially reader-oriented critics, maintain that we should not assume Mark’s earliest readers knew any Christian history or traditions.67 63 Cf. Zeichman, who, criticizing the tendency to date Mark on the sole basis of chapter 13, argues for a composition no earlier than August 29, AD 71 on the basis of the taxation episode in Mark 12.13–17 (“The Date of Mark’s Gospel”). However, Zeichman’s argument is presented with an assumption of a provenance in the southern Levant, which has been argued against above. 64 Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 51–54; cf. 45–46; Following Jesus, 11–12. 65 For clarification, this does not mean that these other descriptions do not in any way describe aspects of the Gospel of Mark. Here I simply acknowledge that its main character is pastoral. For a list of scholarly views on the purpose of Mark’s Gospel, see, e.g., Gundry, Mark, 1022–26. That Mark’s Gospel is probably not (at least mainly) an evangelistic account is implied by the substantial level of pre-knowledge (as discussed below) Mark’s story expects from its readers and the high degree of commitment for following Jesus (e.g., 8.34; 10.21, 29). Accordingly, Beavis, Mark’s Audience, 54–67; 170–76, and Gundry, Mark, 1026, passim, appear to be mistaken in maintaining that Mark’s Gospel was written as Christian propaganda for the non-Christian listeners interested in the Christian movement. Aune’s more nuanced suggestion can be considered as a possibility if the evangelistic purpose is qualified as secondary to the pastoral motivation. Aune argues that Mark’s audience was a mixture of believers and unbelievers gathered at house church settings and that the unbelievers were likely individuals belonging to respective “Christian” households. See Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 59–60. Regarding a polemic purpose, Weeden presents the Markan author as intentionally confronting the tradition of theios-aner Christology (allegedly held by the disciples in the Markan narrative) with the suffering Christology or theology of the cross. The failure of the disciples as portrayed in Mark’s Gospel is understood in that negative light. Mark’s Gospel, however, has been read without that type of assumption for most of Christian history. Weeden’s assumption likely reflects not so much why Mark wrote his gospel but rather how modern scholars engage their writing. Since they have a familiarity with writing polemically against one another, they tend to think that is also the primary reason for Mark’s composition (Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 45–46). The failure of the disciples in Mark, opposite to Weeden’s suggestion, is better understood as an illustration for Mark’s pastoral purpose. The Evangelist seems to exhort his audience, some of whom have failed in following Jesus as did the disciples in Mark’s narrative, through the negative examples of the Twelve. For further critique of Weeden’s “corrective Christology” view, see Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 25–45. 66 Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, 6. 67 For example, Fowler, Loaves and Fishes, 41–42. See also Bassler, “The Parable of the Loaves,” 157–72.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

Such a suggestion seems extreme. A precise measurement of the intended readers’ “Christian” knowledge is indeed difficult, even impossible; it is also true that soaking ourselves into Mark’s narrative – without presupposing any pre-knowledge of historical matters – is useful as a partial step in interpreting the text. These points, however, do not justify the denial of the readers’ preknowledge, as the following points indicate. First, Mark’s opening verse itself seems to assume much about the audience’s pre-knowledge: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1.1).” The expressions “the good news,” “Christ,” and “the Son of God” (if this divine sonship phrase is authentic here in 1.1), reveal the audience’s understanding of these key Markan terms. Moreover, the first verse of Mark’s Gospel, utilizing these terms, also seems to reflect the audience’s confession of faith in Jesus. That Mark begins his gospel with an assumption of the audience’s pre-knowledge and religious commitment is telling. Second, Mark seems to assume his audience’s knowledge of a variety of characters.68 Titles of Jesus such as “Christ” or “Son of God” are not described. The followers of Jesus are referred to as “his disciples” without any explanation (e.g., 2.15, 16, 23; 3.7, 9). In addition to Jesus, John the Baptist, too, needs little explanation, and his significance seems to be taken for granted (cf. 1.6; 9.11–13 with 2 Kings 1.8). “Pilate” can be introduced by his name alone (15.1).69 Mark even appears to indicate that a witness of Jesus’ crucifixion, Simon of Cyrene, had two sons who were probably among, or known by, the recipients of this gospel as they are presented without any explanation (15.21; similarly, 14.3 [cf. v. 9]).70 The reference to these two sons of Simon by name stands out when compared to other figures whose names are not identified in the narrative (e.g., 10.17–22; 12.28–34). “James the younger and … Joses,” sons of Mary, who is an important resurrection witness, also seem to be known by the audience (15.40; 16.1).71 Third, the Evangelist appears to assume his audience’s knowledge of key places.72 Some of these places would likely be obscure to those living outside of Judea unless they were familiar with the story/stories about Jesus. These places include Capernaum (1.21; 2.1; 9.33), Tyre (3.8; 7.24, 31), Sidon (3.8; 7.31), Jerusalem (3.8, 22; 7.1; 10.32–33), Bethsaida (6.45; 8.22), Caesarea

68 This and the two subsequent paragraphs closely follow Stein, Mark, 9–10. See also Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 69. 69 Compare the simple “Pilate” in Mark 15.1 with his introduction as “Pilate the governor” in Matt 27.2 and as “governor of Judea” in Luke 3.1. 70 See Hurtado, “The Gospel of Mark,” 25–26. 71 Using Mary’s sons as a method of identifying her and distinguishing her from Mary Magdalene (15.40; 16.1) suggests an awareness of these males on the part of Mark’s readers/audience. 72 As aforementioned, this paragraph follows Stein, Mark, 9–10.

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

23

Philippi (8.27), Jericho (10.46), Bethany (11.1, 11–12; 14.3), and Bethphage (11.1). Fourth, while Mark explains specific oral traditions of the Jews for his audience (e.g., 7.3–4), the author assumes certain shared knowledge that would fit a largely Gentile Christian audience with a decent awareness of Judaism.73 For instance, certain Jewish figures need no explanation, such as Isaiah (1.2; 7.6–7), Moses (1.44; 7.10; 9.4–5; 10.3–4; 12.19, 26), and David (2.25; 10.47– 48; 11.10; 12.35–37). Likewise, the “scriptures” are referenced in a way that would assume some familiarity with their contents (12.10, 24; 14.49; cf. also 1.2; 7.6; 9.12–13; 10.4–5; 11.17; 12.19; 14.21, 27). Fifth, other features of Mark’s narration may be added. Namely, the fact that John the Baptist refers to Jesus as one who “will baptize … with the Holy Spirit” (1.8) suggests that the readers know what this Spirit-baptism is, since the Second Gospel itself does not provide more specificity.74 Moreover, the fact that Mark uses the term τὸν λόγον in an absolute sense – without any explanation – in referring to the content of Jesus’ teaching/proclamation (2.2; 4.33; 8.32; cf. 1.14–15) shows that the Evangelist expects his audience to catch the technical nuance attached to the term without difficulty.75 The employment of “dramatic irony” indicates that Mark expected a moderate level of preunderstanding of “Christian” materials on his readers’ part.76 Moore rightly notes in this regard that “[t]he tradition-attuned hearers/ readers that the gospel texts presuppose surely know more than the readeroriented exegetes … give them credit for.”77 As Moore comments, “the virgin reader is an anachronistic construct for gospel research.”78 Mark’s readers likely knew about a fair amount of “Christian” tradition.79 That the author assumes a substantial amount of pre-knowledge on the part of the audience suggests that one should not judge Mark’s theology strictly based upon what he explicitly mentions or does not mention. Perhaps the author does not address 73

As aforementioned, this paragraph follows Stein, Mark, 10. See also Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 69–70. 74 As also observed by Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 69. 75 See also Stein, Mark, 9. 76 Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 18–20; Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, 6. 77 Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 95. Moore refers to Culpepper, Anatomy, and Staley, First Kiss, as exceptions that are more historically-minded than other readeroriented critics. To clarify, it is not that Moore rejects entirely the value of reader-response approaches, especially their value as the correctives to historical approaches (95). Moore simply points out the problems of purely reader-response approaches. 78 Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 95 (emphasis added). Cf. Rabinowitz, “Truth in Fiction,” 126, 140–41. 79 As Best aptly points out: “Mark is not a book written for outsiders who will approach it from a position of ignorance, but a book written for insiders who already have in their minds the equation ‘Jesus is the son of man’” (Mark: The Gospel as Story, 105).

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

some details because he presumes the audience’s pre-knowledge of them (e.g., that the disciples and others eventually found out about Jesus’ resurrection, despite the women’s silence [16.8]). There have been various suggestions for the genre of Mark’s Gospel, such as Peter’s memoirs, accurate historical reports, theological interpretations of historical events, historical novel, Homeric epic, tragedy, legend, fiction, allegory, Old Testament biography, and others.80 In recent decades, there has been a growing movement to see the New Testament gospels as ancient Hellenistic biographies.81 Notable similarities exist between Mark’s narrative and GrecoRoman biographies. However, their similarities are not comprehensive. There are unique features in Mark’s narrative that are unprecedented in ancient Hellenistic biographies.82 For example, Mark’s Gospel includes material that is characteristic of apocalyptic/eschatological history.83 This gospel also focuses intensely on Jesus’ death. Mark’s narrative foreshows the passion of Jesus in the Galilean section (e.g., 2.7; 3.6), predicts it repeatedly in the middle section (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34; cf. 9.9), and then presents the passion of Jesus in the Jerusalem section (14.1–15.41). In so doing, the pace of the narrative gradually slows down and includes more details accordingly as it comes closer to the crucifixion of the messiah, with the events immediately surrounding his death as the slowest-paced portions within the Second Gospel.84 It is, in that sense, no wonder that Kähler was tempted to exaggerate the Markan account as “a passion narrative with an extended introduction.”85 Mark’s “invention” of a new kerygmatic genre,86 however, does not imply its pure novelty, since no one would understand an utterly original genre of literature. Instead, Mark seems to have devised a “gospel” that shares the traits of many genres, especially Greco-Roman biographies, in narrating Jesus’ life, death, and resur80

For the literary parallels to Mark’s Gospel, see Kee, Community, 14–30. For example, Burridge, What Are the Gospels?; Talbert, What Is A Gospel?; Keener, Christobiography; Bond, The First Biography of Jesus; Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, chap. 2. More recently, Aune has nuanced the position that Mark’s Gospel is a Greco-Roman biography (idem, “Genre Theory,” esp. 167–69). He suggests that, though this gospel is more closely related to Greco-Roman biography than other genres, it is actually an ironic parody of that genre. For arguments against too narrow a focus on biography, see Eve-Marie Becker, Das Markusevangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. 82 See Boring, Mark, 7–8; cf. Gundry, Mark, 1050. 83 See Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, 1–38. Refer also to Marcus, Way, passim. 84 For the quick pace of Mark’s narrative, only slowing down as Jesus comes to Jerusalem, see Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 89–90. 85 Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, 80n11. Kähler actually applied this evaluation to all four canonical gospels (“passion narratives with extended introductions”) yet subsequent studies have directed this statement particularly to the Gospel of Mark. Despite its exaggerative nature, Kähler’s statement effectively points out the centrality of the passion of Jesus in the canonical gospels. 86 Bultmann, History, 368–74; Boring, Mark, 6–9. 81

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

25

rection. On the other hand, regardless of the similarities and dissimilarities between any ancient literary type and Mark’s Gospel, it is mainly the content of this gospel that determines its genre rather than vice versa.87 An artificial imposition of a genre upon the content of the gospels, especially in a totalistic sense, is liable to misinterpretation. While “Mark” is widely known to be the author of the Second Gospel, this gospel itself does not specify its author.88 The traditional view of Markan authorship, which is primarily based upon the Papias tradition and its evolving traditions (e.g., Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1),89 has been evaluated differently by scholars, as mentioned earlier in this section (1.3).90 The authorship issue, no matter how one evaluates the validity of those traditions, does not directly affect one’s reading and interpretation of this gospel.91 Based upon the text, however, there is one thing that can be said about the author with relative confidence: Greek was most likely his second language. There are several grammatico-syntactical features as well as a Semitic flavor in Mark’s Greek (e.g., τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί [Mark 1.24]; τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί [5.7]) that imply that the Greek language was probably not his mother tongue.92 Scholars disagree on the precise role the Markan author took in the composition of his gospel. Some view him as a radically creative theologian93

87 88

Cf. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 140–41. “Mark” was one of the most common names in the Roman Empire (cf. Hooker, Mark,

6.) 89 See Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter, chaps. 3–6, for a thorough discussion of Patristic portrayals of “Mark,” the author of the Second Gospel, including Papias’ account on Mark (82ff.). 90 Again, for examples of positive evaluation, see Hengel (Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 1–30, 47–53) and Senior (“‘With Swords and Clubs’,” 10–20) and, for examples of negative assessment, Marxsen (Introduction, 143) and Crossley (The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 12–18). 91 It seems, however, quite secure to say that the actual name of the author of the Second Gospel was “Mark,” while it requires much further substantiation to identify a specific person called Mark as the writer of this gospel. Since “Mark” is not the name of one of the apostles and is not a significant figure in the New Testament, another name (other than “Mark”) would have been used for the author, if the Second Gospel would have been intended to be a pseudepigraphal writing. 92 For more details, Cranfield, Mark, 20–21. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 46, says, “I do not know any other work in Greek which has as many Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space as does the Second Gospel.” See also Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 102–108, who also cautions that Mark’s Semitic nature should not lead to the conclusion that his Greek is poor, as it exceeds non-literary papyri composed by less-educated writers (ibid., 118–19). Cf. Doudna, The Greek of the Gospel of Mark, passim. 93 For example, Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 190ff. For a critique of Kelber, see Hurtado, “Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark,” 91–106.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

while others see him as creative yet overall conservative with the traditions94 or even committedly conservative.95 The problem in deciding Mark’s conservativeness versus creativity is that, as C. C. Black notes, the effort to separate too sharply Mark’s traditions and his redactional use of them – by assuming substantive tension/contrast between the Markan and the pre-Markan materials – tends to be unsuccessful and unproductive.96 It would not be Mark’s intention, either, for his audience to make excessive efforts at “discerning” what he adds to the traditional materials and then polarizing his gospel into the two distinctive elements. Luke, who likely used Mark in his composition, believed that his gospel would affirm what “Theophilus” had already been taught by the oral (and/or textual) traditions (Luke 1.1–4). Given that the Lukan author referred to multiple traditions (vv. 1–2) and expected his account to affirm what the target audience had already learned (v. 4), one can assume that Luke was in a situation where he could not depart radically or too freely from the traditions passed down from the eyewitnesses (v. 2). A similar point can probably be made concerning the situation of the Markan writer. If so, a dichotomous approach to Mark’s Gospel, by polarizing between tradition and redaction, appears to underestimate the historically-conditioned nature of gospel-writing and the nature of Mark’s composition. Rather, reading Mark’s narrative with the traditional materials incorporated into his narrative in an integrated manner seems, in fact, to be an exercise of a “historical” reading since Mark’s intended audience would have approached this gospel in that manner rather than focusing on the comparison and contrast between preMarkan and Markan materials. In that sense, what the Evangelist preserves from his traditions with little or no modification is not necessarily less important than what he modifies and adds.97 At the very least, one should admit 94 For example, Best, “Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition”; Mark: Τhe Gospel as Story, 109–22. 95 For example, Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:15–16, 22ff. 96 Black, The Disciples according to Mark. The problem of the polarization between tradition and redaction supports further a more holistic approach employed in the present study (see section 1.2 above). It can be noted, too, that, in discussing Mark’s redactional activities, a distinction between merely a stylistic change and a production of new materials has often been blurred (see Stein, Mark, 115–16, who differentiates these two categories in responding to Pryke, Redactional Style, 11, 140, 153). See also Tannehill, “The Disciples in Mark,” 386–405, esp. 386–87, who notes that the addition to or modification of the source materials does not necessarily imply the author’s concern/focus. One should also question with what measure of confidence one can speak of traditional or Markan vocabulary and style, especially as one does not have access to a source used by the Evangelist. Mark’s source or sources are accessible only indirectly, i.e., through the Markan text itself, and provisionally, i.e., by subtracting the Evangelist’s (reconstructed) redactional/compositional activities from the final-form text. 97 A sharp differentiation between tradition and redaction reflects, at least in part, an influence of a modern dichotomy segregating “facts” and “interpretation” especially in under-

1.3 The Setting of Mark’s Gospel

27

that the reality about pre-Markan traditions and Mark’s redactional and compositional activities is much more complicated than something that can be solved by a simplistic “tradition versus redaction” dichotomy. What one can say with relative confidence is that Mark used various traditions98 to compose a story with (at least a sufficient level of) consistency. Mark employed the traditional materials, about many of which his audience already knew in one way or another, and granted them a unique relationship with one another, thus retelling an old, yet “new,” overarching story of Jesus – the crucified and risen Jesus99 – and his unique significance.100 The final section of this initial chapter has discussed several key issues regarding the setting of Mark’s Gospel. The discussion has aimed to provide a general preparation for reading Mark holistically, with attention to how the Shema language is used and understood in this gospel. I will tackle Mark’s use of the one-God language in chapters 3 and 4. However, prior to that central discussion of this study, it is necessary to explore the nature of Second Temple Jewish “monotheism” since it provides a historical and religious background for Mark’s use of the one-God language.

standing “history.” For a succinct description of differences between ancient and modern historiography, see Green, “Historicisms and Historiography,” 383–87. 98 This was clearly the practice of the Third Evangelist in view of his preface (Luke 1.1– 4). 99 For the point that Mark narrates his gospel as the story of the earthly Jesus as the risen one, see Kertelge, “The Epiphany of Jesus in the Gospel (Mark),” 105–123. 100 Cf. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 196–228; Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 121–22.

Chapter 2

Second Temple Jewish Monotheism Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

The term “monotheism” is difficult to define.1 While often equated with “the doctrine or belief that there is but one God,”2 different people impose different ideas on this term when employing it.3 While Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam) claim the authenticity of their “monotheistic” commitment, any explicit philosophical or conceptual definition(s) of the term is lacking in the Old Testament, Second Temple literature, and the New Testament. Though there are many passages in Second Temple literature that employ the “one/only/no other God” formulae,4 “monotheism” as a term was coined by the Cambridge Platonist Henry More in 1660, and the understanding of this term developed in the context of the European philosophical debates of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.5 The relatively recent invention of this word warns us of the potential anachronism in employing it in our casual and academic conversations. The current study, therefore, will not assume that Second Temple Jewish (and early Christian) beliefs about the unity and uniqueness of Israel’s God would be identical to the beliefs often attributed to them by contemporary philosophy through the term “monotheism.” According to the Old Testament in its present literary shape, phrases such as “the Lord (God) of hosts,” a frequent title for Israel’s God, imply that other heavenly beings exist and serve God (see, e.g., Pss 24.10; 46.7, 11; cf. Dan 7.10). At times, scripture depicts Israel’s God as presiding over the heavenly council of his subordinates (see, e.g., Job 1.6; Pss 82.1; 95.3–4; cf. 1

For the various ways the term “monotheism” is defined and applied in the study of religion and a suggestion for a more restricted use of that term, see Herbener, “On the Term ‘Monotheism.’” 2 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed, s.v. “monotheism”; cf. Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement.” 3 Concerning the problem of a priori approaches to the issue of Jewish monotheism, see Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 6 (see also the earlier version of the article: “What Do We Mean”); McGrath, The Only True God, 2. Hurtado (“What Do We Mean”) criticizes the modern and monistic assumption of various scholars that the exaltation of an otherworldly figure alongside God threatens the pure form of “monotheism” or that such exaltation signifies a “ditheistic” theology. 4 See section 2.2.2.1 below; cf. Waaler, Shema, chap. 4; Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 212–67; Rowe, Early Narrative Christology, 98–101. 5 See MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism,” chap. 1.

Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

29

4QShirShabb). 6 Beings other than Israel’s God are sometimes called “god”/“gods” in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 7.1; 15.11; Pss 82.1, 6; 86.8; 97.9; cf. 11QMelch. 2.10; Philo, QG 2.62). Although one often finds “no other god” rhetoric in the Old Testament, such rhetoric (see, e.g., Isa 43.10) does not necessarily imply that no other heavenly beings exist other than Israel’s God – just as the “no one besides me” formula in Isa 47.8, 10 does not signify the non-existence of nations other than Babylon. Israel’s God was not regarded as the only otherworldly being.7 However, he was distinguished from other heavenly beings as the unique deity who is the universal sovereign, transcendent above all others, and the sole legitimate recipient of cultic worship. Heaven is understood as the place where all the “angels” or “gods” worship the Most High, the biblical deity: “O Princes of the praises of all the ‘gods’, praise the God of majestic praises … For he [is the God of gods], of all the Princes on high, and King of king[s] of all the eternal councils” (4Q403 1.32–34; cf. 1.1– 2). The plurality of heavenly beings does not necessarily mean the compromise of the uniqueness of the God of the biblical tradition. The biblical deity is described as the “only true/living God” (e.g., Bel 5; Jer 10.10; 1 Kgs 18.39; Isa 45.5; Dan 6.26; 4Q504 5.9). In employing the terms “monotheism” and “monotheistic,”8 this study simply refers to the concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God held by the time6 Cf. Smith, “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” who demonstrates that the notion of a high god as source (or father) of the other heavenly beings and also as superior to those otherworldly beings, was widespread in antiquity. See also Nilsson, “The High God and the Mediator,” 101–120. Cf. Hurtado, “First Century Jewish Monotheism,” 22. 7 Concerning metaphysical flexibility, see Hurtado, One God, One Lord, esp. chaps. 2–4; Dunn, “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?,” esp. 321–22; Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 52–53, 97ff. For some examples of metaphysical plurality, see Philo, Conf. 173; Spec. 1.15, 20. Refer to Horbury, “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age,” 34–35, for a discussion of these and other related texts. 8 One may question the validity of the term “monotheism” (e.g., Hayman, “Monotheism” 2; Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement”). However, whether the term “monotheism” should be preserved or terminated in the discussion of Second Temple Jewish piety is primarily a matter of definition (see sections 2.3.1–2.3.2 below). One may consider employing another word, but the new term, too, has to be defined prior to being used in discussion. In handling the problem of “monotheism” or the “oneness of God,” one first has to deal with the notion of “God/divinity/deity.” Concerning the “criteria of divinity,” see Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 31–33. Gieschen proposes the criteria of (1) divine position (e.g., co-enthronement with God; standing alongside God); (2) divine appearance; (3) divine function; (4) divine name; and (5) divine veneration. Though one could refine Gieschen’s list in some respects, the list he provides is generally helpful. On the use of the word, “G/god” in the Second Temple period, see a helpful discussion in Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, 17–48. For a general discussion of pagan and Jewish notions of the divine, see Grant, Gods and the One God. For an illustration of the complexity and flexibility of the terms “divine” and “god” in ancient Greek, see, e.g., Price, “Gods and Emperors,” 79– 95.

30

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

and-space-situated people in question, namely, ancient Jews of the Second Temple era; the biblical deity’s uniqueness here does not negate the existence of his heavenly agents or other deities served by non-Jews, but it designates him in a transcendent class of his own.9 “Monotheism” or “exclusive monotheism” used in this nuanced sense differs not only from a modern version of monotheism, which excludes the existence of other heavenly beings, but also from “polytheism” or “inclusive monotheism,”10 which I take as a belief in and worship of plural divine beings (although these gods are often regarded as emanations of a supreme deity11) and from “henotheism” which I regard as the view that, though many “ontologically” comparable gods exist, a cultic commitment has been made to a single deity among those. In this book, I use the expression “monolatry”12 (i.e., the worship of one divine being) primarily as an aspect of monotheism or “exclusive monotheism,” if not a natural pair with it, while acknowledging that this term could also be coupled or even overlapped with henotheism in other contexts. What the provided definition of Second Temple Jewish monotheism actually entails will be clarified further throughout the following discussions.13 The current chapter has a rather modest aim, that is, to argue that Second Temple Judaism14 can be characterized as “monotheistic” (in the sense of the term as just defined above), as exhibited in the Jewish religious rhetoric and cultic practices of that time (section 2.2).15 While considering the Second Tem9

Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, 86), defines Jewish monotheism as “not the denial of the existence of other ‘gods’, but an understanding of the uniqueness of YHWH that puts him in a class of his own.” 10 For a discussion of inclusive monotheism and various other forms of monotheism, see Herbener, “On the Term, ‘Monotheism’,” 623. 11 In contrast, while Wisdom and Logos attracted high interest from many Jewish writers of Second Temple Judaism, not least Philo of Alexandria, they were not regarded as persons distinct from Israel’s God and, accordingly, did not receive cultic worship on their own. For a further discussion, see section 2.3.1.4 below. 12 See Frevel, “Beyond Monotheism,” 3. 13 Heiser (“Monotheism”) and Herbener (“On the Term ‘Monotheism’”) each demonstrate the elusiveness of standardized meaning when appropriating this terminology in general, let alone when applying it to biblical religion. 14 Second Temple Judaism was not a cohesive whole. Thus, calling it Second Temple Judaisms seems justified in a way (e.g., Segal, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity; Neusner, ed., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era). Relatedly, with various groups of the Second Temple era, there existed different understandings of the commitment to the one God (or Jewish monotheisms) – although such understandings seem closely related sharing a common core. In the current discussion, I use the singular form, “Judaism” and “Jewish monotheism,” keeping in mind a variety within each. 15 Unless otherwise specified, I mean by the term “worship” a set of public, corporate, organized, cultic/liturgical activities that are directed toward a deity and are characteristic of an individual’s or a community’s devotional acts, e.g., sacrificial rites, prayers, hymns and doxologies, among others (see Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 4n4; Lord

2.1 Justification for Considering Jewish Monotheism

31

ple period as a whole, this chapter will pay more attention to the latter part of this period (i.e., 2nd cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE)16 given its temporal proximity to the composition of Mark’s Gospel.17 Although the view that Second Temple Judaism was meaningfully monotheistic represents a majority position among scholars, it is not a consensus. I will thus interact with some dissenting voices (section 2.3). Later in the chapter, I will attempt to build a bridge between the discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism and Mark’s Gospel (section 2.4), setting the stage for the study of the Evangelist’s use of one-God language with a particular interest in Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage to Israel’s God – as explored in the subsequent chapters of this book (chaps. 3–4). Before the main discussion of the current chapter, however, justification is needed as to why one must concentrate on Jewish background in discussing Mark’s oneGod language.

2.1 Justification for Considering Jewish Monotheism as the Primary Background for Mark’s One-God Language 2.1 Justification for Considering Jewish Monotheism

One might wonder why it is necessary to focus on a Jewish background in engaging Mark’s one-God language since his gospel was written primarily for a Gentile audience18 and since the “one + God (εἷς + θεός)” language was employed in pagan sources and not only in Jewish sources.19 The answer to this Jesus Christ, 38n36). In this study, I employ the terms “cult” or “cultic” in this particular sense of veneration. For a discussion of organized worship of Jesus in early/earliest Christianity, see Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 93–124, who notes six distinctive features as follows: hymnic practices, prayer offered to Jesus, the use of Christ’s name, Christian sacred meals, confessions of faith concerning Jesus, and prophetic announcements of the resurrected/exalted Christ. McGrath (The Only True God, 19) and North (“Jesus and Worship, God and Sacrifice”) seem to make an understatement when noting that temple sacrifice alone, as opposed to other cultic acts, was reserved for God in the Jewish religion of the Second Temple era. However, prayer, for example, was also an important element of exclusive monotheistic worship in Second Temple Judaism (see Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 51; cf. Dan 6.7–13). See 2.2.2.3 below. Refer also to Lee, “Sacrifice, Monotheism and Christology.” 16 The core part of the designated timeframe is the period between the Hasmonean revolt (167 BCE) and the Fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). For discussions of the religious and political history of this particular period, see, e.g., Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period, 59–115. 17 I will refer to Rabbinic sources for the purpose of comparison and will not use them to support my argument given the difficulties involved in dating their underlying traditions. 18 For the intended audience of Mark’s Gospel, see the discussion in section 1.3 above. 19 The term ΥΨΙΣΤΟΣ (“most high”) was used by pagans and Jews alike. See Mitchell, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.” Regarding usage among Jewish sources, see Peterson, ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ; cf. Waaler, Shema, 9–15, who interacts with

32

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

question is twofold. First, generally, Second Temple Judaism was the “parent” religion of early Christianity and provided a crucial historical and religious matrix for the earliest Christian beliefs and practices.20 The former’s scriptures were accepted and used by the latter – despite differing views on certain fundamental issues (e.g., Jesus’ messiahship, Torah, temple, election).21 The latter is indebted to the former’s religious traditions, symbols, rhetoric, and ideologies. Mark’s frequent reference to the Hebrew Bible throughout his gospel, often in support of his Christology, illustrates a profound Jewish influence on him.22 The Second Gospel, in fact, opens its narrative by explicitly referring to “Isaiah the Prophet” (1.2), and such a beginning implies that the Evangelist’s composition of his gospel was rooted in the Hebrew Bible.23 More relevant to the current discussion on Mark's one-God language, the particular Old Testament verse cited in Mark 1.3 (i.e., Isa 40.3)24 is taken from Isaiah 40–55, which has been called “the parade example of biblical monotheism”25 and was highly influential in the Second Temple period.26 Since the opening of Mark’s narrative begins with the Old Testament, and especially with an emphatically Peterson. Waaler notes that, among the Second Temple literature, one-God references (cf. Deut 6.4) are found mostly in Philo, Josephus, Aristobulus, and the Sibylline Oracles. Waaler observes that even though such a phenomenon may indicate the Hellenistic origin of the oneGod phrase, the thrust of these Jewish texts points to something radically different in that many of their one-God passages refer explicitly to the first commandment (Philo, Decal. 65– 67, 155; Josephus, Ant. 3.91) or link the one-God language with something similar to the first commandment (Aristob. 13.13.5). See Waaler, Shema, 178. 20 Cf. Segal, Rebecca’s Children, who investigates the rise of rabbinic Judaism and Christianity as sister movements that develop from early Roman-era Judaism. 21 Concerning the importance of the Jewish religious matrix for the rise of Christian movements, see Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Dunn, Christology in the Making; cf. Grant, Gods and the One God. 22 See chap. 5 (esp. section 5.1.1) below. 23 For the use of the Old Testament in Mark, see Watts, “Mark”; Marcus, Way. See also the discussion in section 5.1.1 below. For the use of Isaiah, see, e.g., Marcus, Way, chap. 2; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus; Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I–VIII. For the use of Deuteronomy, see Moyise, “Deuteronomy in Mark’s Gospel,” 27–41. 24 While Mal 3.1 is quoted in combination with Isa 40.3 in Mark 1.2–3, the naming of “Isaiah the Prophet” in v. 2 implies that Isaiah provided the Evangelist an overall thrust and frame for the composite citation. For further discussion on Mark 1.2–3, see section 5.1.1.1 below. 25 Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 179. For Smith’s discussion of Isa 40–55, see ibid., chap. 10. 26 Regarding the significance and influence of Isaiah in the Second Temple period, see Hannah, “Isaiah within Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” 7–33. Regarding Isaiah 40– 55, see 27–32. Hannah notes, “That two variant forms of Judaism, i.e., early Christianity and Qumran Essenism, in their different ways, attached [great] importance to the Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah, testifies eloquently to the usefulness and authority of these books within Second Temple Judaism as a whole” (7).

2.1 Justification for Considering Jewish Monotheism

33

monotheistic portion of it, the Jewish background should be a primary consideration in studying Mark's monotheistic language.27 Second and more importantly, the quotation of Deut 6.428 in Mark 12.29, which is the only29 direct quotation of the monotheistic call of the Shema30 throughout the entire New Testament corpus (note, for instance, its absence in Matthean and Lukan parallels [Matt 22.37; Luke 10.27]), indicates the importance of a Jewish background in appreciating the one-God language of the Second Gospel. Mark’s interest in the core Jewish confession of faith, the Shema, is ascertained by the presence of the repeated Shema allusions earlier in his narrative (Mark 2.7; 10.18).31 The fact that Mark draws his one-God 27 For Mark’s Jewish monotheism, see Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark,” 198–204. To clarify, here, the primacy of Jewish background concerns the use of monotheistic terms and expressions in the Second Gospel. For the interpretation of Mark’s Gospel in general, both Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds are, of course, crucial. For the importance of both “Judaism” and “Hellenism” for Mark’s audience and one’s reading of the Markan text, see Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark,” 19–22. 28 Although there have been some interesting discussions on the meaning of the phrase ‫ יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד‬in Deut 6.4, especially in light of its historical, literary, and theological contexts, and also on the possibility of its varying translations, for the purposes of the current discussion which focuses on the Second Temple period, it is not necessary to tackle such issues directly. Around the time of Christian origins, this Deuteronomic verse had clearly secured a creedal status for Jews (see my discussion below) and one knows from the LXX how it was translated for Greek-speaking Jews: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν. Once again, the focus of the present discussion is primarily on the question of what the uniqueness of God meant in the Second Temple era in view of the religious rhetoric and praxis of the Jews during that time (see section 2.2.2 below) rather than appreciating Deut 6.4 in its own original context. See also the discussions in 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.3. 29 Apart from the direct quotation of Deut 6.4 in Mark 12.29 (cf. v. 32), 1 Cor 8.6 and Eph 4.6 (cf. Zech 14.9 LXX; see also Philo, Cher. 119) seem to be the closest extant parallels to Deut 6.4 in Greek literature – up to the close of the first century CE (Waaler, Shema, 432– 34). 30 The term “Shema” has been used by different scholars to refer to slightly different things, namely, (a) Deut 6.4; (b) Deut 6.4–5; (c) Deut 6.4–9; (d) Shema as a liturgy combining three scriptures (Deut 6.4–9, 11.13–21; Num 15.37–41); (e) any kind of confession on the unity and uniqueness of God in Jewish/Christian contexts. I here limit the use of the term mainly to the first two (Deut 6.4 and 6.4–5) with attention to its monotheistic call (v. 4). This selectivity originates from my focus in dealing with the Markan text, i.e., how the one-God language (Deut 6.4) is utilized in the Second Gospel. Gerhardsson (Shema in the New Testament) and Waaler (Shema) take ἀκούω in the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4.1–9) as alluding to Deut 6.4 LXX (ἄκουε Ισραηλ). However, the word “hear” alone seems too fragmental to constitute an allusion to Deut 6.4. Cf. Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 138, who tie the “hear” language to Isa 6, part of which is quoted in Mark 4 – rather than Deut 6. 31 See chap. 4 below. If what one has in Mark’s Gospel is simply εἷς ὁ θεός (in 2.7 and 10.18), whether or not a Jewish background is the primary matrix for Mark’s use of the oneGod language becomes more ambiguous. However, the clearest instance of a Jewish mon-

34

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

phrase from the Old Testament, as shown from his citation of Deut 6.4 (Mark 12.29), suggests that Jewish rather than pagan sources need to be considered as the primary background in understanding the Evangelist’s monotheistic language.32 There is other evidence that can be added to these points.33 However, the discussion above suffices in establishing the primacy of Jewish background in appreciating the monotheistic language in Mark’s Gospel. Since the focused examination of Jewish (rather than Greco-Roman) background in understanding Mark’s one-God language has been justified, this chapter turns now to discuss its main topic – monotheistic characteristics of Second Temple Judaism.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism 2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

This section (2.2) will explore the monotheistic characteristics of Second Temple Jewish religion. I will begin with a general sketch, introducing some key texts as well as surveying major secondary literature (section 2.2.1), and then proceed to a more specific discussion on the uniqueness of Israel’s God (section 2.2.2). 2.2.1 General Sketch of Second Temple Jewish Monotheism The monotheistic concern of Second Temple Judaism appears to be firm and widespread. It seems clear that the Shema, which announces that “the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6.4), was widely used by many Second Temple

otheistic emphasis (i.e., the only direct quotation of the monotheistic call of the Shema in Deut 6.4) throughout the entire New Testament occurs later in Mark’s Gospel (12.29) and it reappears in the same passage in a paraphrased form (v. 32). 32 Concerning the inappropriateness of apotheosis as a background in understanding the early Christian devotion to Jesus, see Hurtado, How on Earth, 24, 54, 95; cf. 30–31, 41, 46, 53. 33 E.g., given the widely attested prominence of the Shema in Second Temple Jewish piety – as will be discussed below – the inclusion of its monotheistic call in Mark 12.29 (cf. Deut 6.4) likely reflects a conscious choice on the part of the Evangelist. On the other hand, it is interesting that the Decalogue (Deut 5.1–21) is located between the Shema (6.4) and the passage to which the friendly scribe in Mark 12.32 seems to refer in his paraphrasing of the Shema (i.e., Deut 4.35). Dale Allison’s suggestion (“Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue,” 270–78) that the love commandment is a reference to the Decalogue, namely, that Deut 6.4– 5 points to the first five words of the Ten Commandments and Lev 19.18 points to the other five, appears to be plausible. Allison’s suggestion reinforces my argument for the Jewish value of the one-God language in Mark since, according to Allison, (the first commandment of) the Decalogue is also in view in Jesus’ Shema quotation.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

35

Jews as a daily devotional recitation (6.7).34 The universal recognition of the first commandment, which highlights monotheistic commitment, is also clear evidence for the concern for God’s uniqueness held in Second Temple Jewish religiosity.35 The collection of four papyrus fragments called the Nash Papyrus (2nd cent. BCE), in fact, combines these two core expressions36 of the uniqueness of Israel’s God – probably for liturgical/instructional purposes. The Qumran tefillin (also called “phylacteries”) and mezuzot (e.g., 4Q129–30, 4Q140, 4Q150, and 4Q151), which contain passages from Exodus (12.43–13.16) and Deuteronomy (5.1–6.9; 10.12–11.21; and, at times Deut 32) and reflect the literal rendering of the practice prescribed in Deut 6.8–9, further indicate the prominent place given to the affirmation of God’s uniqueness in Jewish piety of the time.37 In addition, Isaiah 40–55 appears to be a key source for Second Temple Jewish concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God.38 Indeed, the monotheistic formula, “he is one, and besides him there is no other” which, in Mark 12.32, rephrases the Shema of Deut 6.4 (cf. Mark 12.29), is found quite frequently in various passages of the Old Testament (not least in Isaiah 40–55) and Second Temple literature.39 Flavius Josephus (see, e.g., C. Ap. 2.167, 190–93; Ant. 1.155–56; 3.91; 4.200–201; 5.111–12) and as sophisticated a Diaspora40 Jew as Philo of Alex-

34

For the practice of daily prayer (twice-a-day prayer of thanksgiving), see, e.g., Josephus, Ant., 4.212–13. Such prayer may have included the Shema recitation (Cohon, “Unity of God,” 440). Later, the Mishnah records that, together with the Decalogue, the Shema (consisting of Deut 6.4–9, Deut 11.13–20, and Num 15.37–41) served as the core of Jewish prayer-service (m. Tamid 5.1; m. Ber. 1–3). For the use of the Shema in the Second Temple period, see Foster, “Shema,” esp. 321– 31; Waaler, Shema, chap. 4; cf. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 69ff. For a discussion of the Shema in the Old Testament, see Waaler, Shema, 98–114, who discusses Zech 14.9; Jer 32.38–41 and Mal 2.10–11, in particular. 35 Waaler, Shema, 133–54. 36 Cf. Cohon, “The Unity of God,” 425ff.; Sanders, Judaism, 196. Concerning the socalled Nash Papyrus and its dating, see Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabean Age,” 145–76, who plausibly corrects Cook’s second-century CE dating of the papyrus (“A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus,” 34–56) with a second-century BCE dating. 37 Sanders, Judaism, 196–97. For the origins of the tefillin, see, e.g., Cohn, Tangled Up in Text. 38 For the monotheistic references in Isaiah 40–55 and their influence over post-biblical literature, see Rutherford, “The Use of Monotheism,” 72ff.; cf. Williams, I Am He, esp. 23– 41, 157–78. 39 For other monotheistic passages employing “one”/“only”/“no other” God formulae, see section 2.2.2.1 below. Cf. Waaler, Shema, esp. chap. 4; Rainbow, “Appendix I” in idem, “Monotheism and Christology.” 40 The distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism from the mid-third century BCE onward was forcefully refuted as inappropriate by Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism,

36

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

andria (see, e.g., Decal. 61–65; also, QG 4.8; Mos. 1.75; Spec. 1.12–50) were not exceptional in emphatically affirming the uniqueness of Israel’s God. In addressing the first commandment of the Decalogue, Josephus writes, “The first word teaches us that God is one [εἷς] and that he only [μόνον] must be worshipped” (Ant. 3.91). In interpreting the plural forms in Gen 1.26, etc., Philo notes: “no existing thing [οὐδέν] is of equal honour [ἰσότιμον] to God … there is only one sovereign ruler and king [ἐστιν εἷς ἄρχων καὶ ἡγεμὼν καὶ βασιλεύς], who alone [μόνῳ] may direct and dispose of all things” (Conf. 170). Jewish propaganda literature, too, reinforces the same point.41 God’s uniqueness was a fundamental tenet of Second Temple Judaism,42 and, in fact, it was at times a matter of life and death as some martyrdom stories illustrate (1 Macc 1–2; 2 Macc 6–7).43 Of course, the religious loyalty of individual Jews or different Jewish groups to their ancestral God must have varied. However, Second Temple Judaism as a whole appears to have maintained a commitment to monotheism. Bickerman and Hengel account for the failed efforts under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca. 215–164 BCE) to paganize the Jews and, as part of such efforts, to identify Israel’s God with Zeus and Dionysus.44 It is important to note that there was a 1:104, 252). Hengel argues convincingly that Palestinian Judaism existed as part of Hellenistic Judaism. 41 For the monotheistic references in Jewish propaganda literature and secondary literature discussing those passages, see Rainbow, “Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix,” 82n7. 42 Dunn (Partings of the Ways, 18–35) regards monotheism as one of “the four pillars of Second Temple Judaism.” The other three pillars that Dunn notes are: election, (covenant with a focus on) Torah, and (the land with attention to) temple. Hurtado similarly states that God’s uniqueness is “the most important teaching of the Torah among devout Jews of the Roman period” (Hurtado, How on Earth, 178). See also Waaler, Shema, 164; Tan, “Shema,” 185–86. 43 Of course, one should not take martyrdom stories too naïvely as a literal report of the events that happened. There are theological, sociological, and literary factors influential in the composition and transmission of those stories. However, such stories, at least, reflect the ethos of a number of Jews in the Second Temple era with reference to their firm monotheistic commitment as portrayed in their refusal to eat foods sacrificed to idols and to participate in idolatry. See 4 Macc 5.2–4; cf. Dan 3.1–18; 6.1–28. Fourth Maccabees 5.2–4 is especially interesting since, later in the chapter (vv. 24–25), there is a use of “only God [μόνον τὸν ὄντα θεόν]” language in relation to the refusal to eat foods sacrificed to idols. The centrality of the unity of God is shared by early Christians. See, e.g., Mark 12.29; 1 Cor 8.4–6; 1 Tim 2.5; Jas 2.19. 44 Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 93–111. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:267–303. Cf. Let. Aris. 16, which identifies the Jewish God with Zeus/Dis: “These people worship God the overseer and creator of all, whom all men worship including ourselves, O King, except that we have a different name. Their name for him is Zeus and Jove.” See also the report on Let. Aris. as in Josephus, Ant. 12.22 and Jewish philosopher Aristobulus’ address as preserved in Strom. 1.22, which is cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.6. While showing implicit endorsements of the Greek literature, the main thrust of Let. Aris.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

37

great lack of popular support for such efforts among the Judean Jews, whose piety rather inclined toward the Maccabees and the Hasidim. The attempts of assimilation, on the other hand, led Jews to sharpen further their exclusive commitment to the God of Israel (cf. 1 Macc 1.41–2.26).45 In the Roman period, the Emperor Caligula’s efforts to place his image in the Jerusalem Temple caused furious Jewish resistance, which nearly broke into war. 46 Although some individual or group activities could be unaligned with monotheistic or monolatrous commitment during the Second Temple period, such actions were far from characteristic of the Jewish religion of that period in general, as the above evidence indicates and the further evidence below solidifies. Jewish religion of the Second Temple era is, of course, not a monolithic entity.47 It includes, for example, apocalyptic, wisdom, priestly/Elohim, and Deuteronomistic traditions. Such diverse traditions, however, had a common ground regarding exclusive devotion to Israel’s God. The diversity within Second Temple Judaism, at least to the eyes of outsiders, appeared to be united under the commitment to the God of Israel (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96–106; cf. Origen, Cels. 1.23–26; 5.6).48 Tacitus, Hist. 5.5, for instance, recognizes Jewish monotheistic commitment and their refusal to worship images in contrast to the religiosity of the Egyptians: “the Jews conceive of one God only, and that with the mind alone.”49 According to Origen’s report, Celsus evaluated Judaism to have irrationally departed from polytheism to monotheism (Cels.1.23–24). Celsus is portrayed as asserting, “Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God.”50 The view that Second

and Aristobulus appears to reinforce Jewish distinctives and pride. See Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 138–58. 45 Cf. Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees, esp. chap. 5. 46 Philo ardently protested against such an attempt, affirming Jewish monotheistic scruples (Legat. 203–337). For further discussion, see Noy, “‘A Sight Unfit to See.’” 47 On the diversity within Second Temple Judaism, see, e.g., Neusner, Green, and Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. 48 Cf. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 84. Ancient Jews and earliest Christians were, at times, regarded as atheistic (or irreligious) due to their refusal to accommodate to the polytheistic (or inclusively monotheistic) beliefs and practices of their neighbors (Cohon, “The Unity of God,” 430; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 432). See also Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., chap. 6, who refutes the charge of “atheism” against Christians (cf. Mart. Pol. 3 and 9). The significance of outsiders’ evaluations, of course, is limited given their distance from the people in question and their superficiality in appreciating the beliefs and practices of Second Temple Jewish religion. 49 This is the translation of Clifford H. Moore in Tacitus in Five Volumes, vol. 3 (E. H. Warmington, ed.), 183. 50 Origen, Against Celsus 1.23 (ANF 4.405).

38

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Temple Judaism was firmly monotheistic represents the supposed “dominant construal of Jewish monotheism and its cultic expression.”51 In recent decades, there has been a renewal of interest in the origins and developments of early Christian devotion to Jesus, with several studies produced concerning the nature of Second Temple Judaism in relation to the rise of Christian movements. Continuity and discontinuity between Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity have been investigated in various ways. Scholars such as Harvey, Casey, Dunn, Hurtado, Bauckham, Wright, McGrath, and Fletcher-Louis, among others,52 are known for such endeavors. While these scholars present a variety of viewpoints on issues like (a) the origin and development of Christian devotion to Jesus as a figure in some meaningful sense divine and (b) the “faithfulness” of New Testament Christology and theology proper to the Second Temple Jewish monotheistic commitment, all agree in viewing the Judaism of this era as characterized by a firm monotheistic concern.53 51 The quoted phrase is lifted from Fletcher-Louis, “The Worship of Divine Humanity,” 120. Fletcher-Louis asserts that some human figures were worshipped alongside God during the Second Temple era somehow in a monotheistic framework (“The Worship of Divine Humanity,” 113–28; cf. Barker, “The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus,” 93–111). For a critique of Fletcher-Louis’ position, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 37–42, who observes that Fletcher-Louis uses the term “worship” too loosely, thus confusing (a) the genuine cultic sense of worship reserved only for the biblical God with (b) other venerative acts conveying a non-cultic sense of respect. 52 Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, esp. chap. 7; Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, esp. chap. 6; “Monotheism, Worship and Christological Developments in the Pauline Churches,” 214–233; Dunn, Christology in the Making; “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?,” 303–36; “Foreword to the Second Edition,” in idem, Christology in the Making; The Partings of the Ways, esp. chaps. 9–11; The Theology of Paul the Apostle, esp. 28–38, 244–65; Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Lord Jesus Christ; How on Earth; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 248–59; McGrath, The Only True God; Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism (as of the writing of this monograph, only the first of the anticipated four volumes of Jesus Monotheism has been published). See also various essays contained in Newman, Davila, and Lewis, eds., The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism; Stuckenbruck and North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Refer also to the essays in Hurtado, Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion, esp. chaps. 7–10. For a recent and comprehensive survey of research on divine Christology and its origins, see Loke, The Origin of Divine Christology. 53 Refer, for instance, to a summary and critical evaluation of differing views in Hurtado, “What Do We Mean” and McGrath, The Only True God, chap. 1. For an illustration of disagreement, see Dunn, “The Making of Christology – Evolution or Unfolding?,” 437–52, who criticizes Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, and McGrath, The Only True God, who criticizes Bauckham, “God Crucified” in idem, Jesus and the God of Israel. There are some dissenting voices such as Hayman (“Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”), who suggests a ditheistic nature of Second Temple Judaism, and Fredriksen (“Man-

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

39

Moreover, a number of extensive studies on Second Temple literature have shown the prominence of monotheistic concern during that period. Cohon, for example, surveys references in ancient Jewish texts54 and non-Jewish texts55 and discovers the predominance of monotheistic rhetoric in early Judaism.56 Several other studies reached basically the same conclusion. R. Marcus’ study on the “Hellenistic”-Jewish view of God’s names and attributes,57 Schlatter’s58 and Shutt’s investigation of Josephus’ God-language,59 Wicks’ exploration of theology proper in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal literature,60 Rainbow’s collection61 of 200 monotheistic passages from extra-canonical Jewish materials (dated between ca. 200 BCE and 100 CE) and from Old Testament and New Testament passages,62 and Waaler’s survey of monotheistic references in intertestamental literature63 demonstrate, from different angles, that monotheistic concern was prevalent and fundamental to the religion of Second Temple Jews.64

datory Retirement”), who suggests that the term “monotheism” be abandoned in the research of Christian origins and Second Temple Judaism. I will critically interact with these two scholars in section 2.3 below. 54 Cohon, “The Unity of God,” 425–79. E.g., Sib. Or. 3.11–12, 545–61; cf. 4.27–32; 5.172–76, 493–500, Let. Aris. 132–38, Wis 13–15, Philo, QG 4.8; Decal. 52–81; Spec. 1.1– 52; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.33–198. 55 Cohon cites, for instance, Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; as well as pagan sources referred to in Josephus, C. Ap. 1 and 2. 56 By referring to “rhetoric,” I do not merely mean lip-service or an exaggerative expression but the standard policy – as the context in which this term is used below clarifies. 57 Marcus, “Divine Names and Attributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” 43–120. 58 Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott?; Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus. 59 Shutt, “The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus,” 171–87. Shutt’s article supplements Schlatter’s earlier studies noted above. 60 Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature. 61 Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 213–59, includes only limited examples from Philo and Josephus. He refers instead to Wolfson, Philo (2 vols.); Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott?; Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus. See Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 218. 62 Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 44–103, 228–86. See also idem, “Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix,” 78–91, where he interacts with Hurtado, One God, One Lord. 63 Waaler, Shema, 123–205; cf. 106–114. 64 For other discussions on the prominence of monotheistic concerns in Second Temple Judaism, see Hurtado, One God, One Lord; “First-Century Jewish Monotheism”; “Ancient Jewish Monotheism”; McGrath, The Only True God, 40–41; Dunn, Partings of the Ways, 18–35; Sanders, Judaism, 195–208, 241–51; more recently, Staudt, Der eine und einzige Gott, esp. chaps. 3–6. See also Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, chap. 9, who, in dealing with “Beliefs of Israel,” first addresses the question of monotheism and then relates it to other subjects – creation, providence, and covenant. Refer to a similar approach in Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 59–65; cf. Dunn, Partings of the Ways, 18–35.

40

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

In his analysis of late Second Temple Jewish monotheism, William Horbury presents a nuanced view of Israel’s God. His arguments deserve some attention prior to a more specific discussion of Second Temple Jewish commitment to the uniqueness of Israel’s God below (section 2.2.2). Horbury emphasizes the combination of “transcendent” and “immanent” portraits of Israel’s God in relation to the rest of reality (both heavenly and earthly beings),65 noting: The biblical tradition which [Jews and early Christians] inherited and developed indeed treasures the uniqueness of Israel’s God, but it expresses divine immanence as well as transcendence, and assumes not an isolated divine dictator viewed over against all other reality but a divine king in the midst of a council and court of ‘gods’ or ‘sons of God’.66

Horbury’s research of Christian origins is not directly focused on the issue of Jewish monotheism but rather on the topic of Jewish messianism in relation to Christian origins. However, as he acknowledges, “Jewish messianism as well as the Christian cult of Christ invites consideration of ancient Jewish monotheism.”67 Horbury does not refute the “monotheistic” portrait of Second Temple Judaism (unlike Hayman [section 2.3.1 below]) nor does he require the abandonment of the term “monotheism” in the study of ancient Judaism and Christianity (unlike Fredriksen [section 2.3.2 below]). He, however, aims to nuance the understanding of first-century Judaism, viewing it as a combination of both the transcendence and immanence (or uniqueness and kinship) of Israel’s God in relation to other heavenly beings and humanity.68 While appreciating Horbury’s desire to bring a “balanced” and “nuanced” account in construing Second Temple monotheism and also affirming, in a general manner, his observation that the “category” of God’s uniqueness does not necessitate his isolation from the rest of reality, I intend to qualify his 65 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 12–19 (given as a critical response to Bauckham, “God Crucified,” in idem, Jesus and the God of Israel, although a wider scholarship is in view). Cf. Horbury, “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age,” 16–44, in which he argues for the concurrence of “exclusive monotheism” (i.e., the denial of the existence of other heavenly beings except for Israel’s God), and “inclusive monotheism” (the acknowledgement of existence of other heavenly beings alongside the supreme deity, i.e., Israel’s God) during the Herodian period (40 BCE to 132 CE). It is agreeable that the view of intermediaries was not unitary during the period. On the other hand, there is no extant evidence that the upholders of the “unitary” theology reacted against those of the flexible theology, prior to the rabbinic attack on Christians and Gnostics known as the “Two Powers” controversy. 66 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 15 (with reference to Ps 82.1; Job 1.6; 38.7); cf. 16, which cites 4Q200 2, 5; Add Esth 14.12; Philo, Conf. 173 (“king of gods”), and Num 16.22; 27.16 LXX (“God of the spirits”), among other primary sources. 67 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 13. 68 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 18, concludes that what he has observed from various primary sources “does not take away the transcendence of the supreme deity, but it complements the overtones of manufacture with those of kinship.”

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

41

suggestion as follows. Horbury appears to give excessive weight to the term “god(s)” in trying to balance the “distinction between God and all other reality” with the “likeness, kinship and communion” between the two.69 He highlights that “the one God was imagined together with lesser divine beings as ‘a great king above all gods’ ([Ps] 95.3), governing a world of spirits”70 and that “in the development of Old Testament tradition during the Second Temple period,” the term ‫אלהים‬/θεός was employed in “[describing] demigods or godlike angelic powers.” However, what ultimately matters is not whether the term ‫אלהים‬/θεός is applied to heavenly/exalted beings other than the biblical deity but rather what this relatively flexible term actually entails in a particular context. 71 Regrettably, Horbury’s transcendence and immanence scheme lacks precise definitions. Horbury notes that the emphasis on God’s uniqueness is accompanied by his “likeness, kinship and communion” with the rest of reality.72 Nonetheless, the description of (a) the value and significance attached to other heavenly beings (i.e., “gods”) and (b) the nature and/or the degree of kinship between Israel’s God and those deities is absent or, at least, vague in Horbury’s discussion of ancient Jewish monotheism.73 As a result, it is difficult to measure the integral force of the suggested combination of “transcendence” and “immanence” (or uniqueness and kinship) within or with reference to Jewish monotheism. In addition, Horbury sometimes appears to impose his transcendence and immanence scheme artificially onto his text. Horbury’s reading of Sirach 43 provides an example: Jesus son of Sirach sums up the biblical theme of the works of creation by stressing transcendentally that the Lord is ‘above all his works’ and ‘made them all’ [43.28, 33]; but in the same context he has also stretched out a hand to immanence with the complementary expression ‘he is [the] all’ [v. 27].74

69

Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 12–19 (esp. 16, 17; quotation from

19). 70

Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 13. Cf. 4Q427 frag. 7, 1, which describes Israel’s deity as one standing against the entire heavenly host and worthy of their worship. Concerning the flexibility of the term “god/s” and “divine/divinity,” see, e.g., Price, “Gods and Emperors.” Note also, e.g., Exod 7.1; 15.11; Pss 82.1, 6; 86.8; 97.9; Philo, QG 2.62. 72 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 19. 73 The precise nature and degree of the God of Israel’s immanence (or kinship) to other beings is often vague in Horbury’s discussion. For instance, when Horbury refers to God’s immanent relationship with humans, it is not entirely clear what he means when he says the king is described as “a divinely-begotten godlike being” in passages such as Isa 9.6; Ps 2.7; 45.7; 110.1–3 (Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 16). Also, it is unclear how kinship and transcendence work together and relate to each other conceptually in his scheme and his analysis of actual passages. 74 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 18–19. 71

42

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Although Horbury somehow finds the notion of “immanence” from the phrase “he is the all [τὸ πᾶν ἐστιν αὐτός],” v. 27), it seems more viable to view the alleged “immanence” language of verse 27 as a way of praising God’s transcendence in line with the subsequent verses (vv. 28–33, especially the italicized words in the quotation below), which consistently communicate the greatness of Israel’s God that surpasses any description or expression: We could say more but could never say enough; let the final word be: “He is the all.” Where can we find the strength to praise him? For he is greater than all his works. Awesome is the Lord and very great, and marvelous is his power. Glorify the Lord and exalt him as much as you can, for he surpasses even that. When you exalt him, summon all your strength, and do not grow weary, for you cannot praise him enough. Who has seen him and can describe him? Or who can extol him as he is? Many things greater than these lie hidden, for I have seen but few of his works. For the Lord has made all things, and to the godly he has given wisdom. (Sir 43.27–33; emphasis added)

Horbury seems to impose artificially the scheme of transcendence and immanence onto the quoted passage, which does not give any explicit attention to the immanence of Israel’s God or his kinship with other reality.75 Overall, Horbury presents an interesting scheme of transcendence and immanence (or uniqueness and kinship) and provide a reminder concerning the metaphysical flexibility of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. However, his proposal does not seem to have the force to necessitate any substantial modification of the understanding of Jewish monotheism presented earlier in this chapter, which does not negate the existence of other heavenly beings yet preserves firmly the uniqueness of Israel’s God in both religious rhetoric and cultic matters (see section 2.2.2 below). So far, a general sketch of the monotheistic nature of Second Temple Judaism has been provided. Now the chapter turns to engage a more specific discussion on the centrality of the uniqueness of Israel’s God. Below, I will explore, in particular, three monotheistic characteristics of Second Temple Judaism that distinguish the God of Israel from any other heavenly beings (i.e., his exalted agents and deities served by pagans): (1) divine uniqueness rhetoric used for Israel’s God, (2) God’s universal sovereignty as the sole creator and ruler of all, and (3) the reservation of cultic worship to Israel’s God alone. Although it was believed by Second Temple Jews that, metaphysically, there were plural otherworldly beings, and although principal agent figures – personified divine attributes, exalted patriarchs, and chief angels – were important

75 Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 16, notes that, in some Jewish literature such as Let. Aris. 16 and Aristobulus fragment 4, Israel’s God is identified with the Greek supreme deity (i.e., Zeus) and utilizes these references to support the immanence/kinship aspect. Yet, the main thrust of the Let. Aris. and Aristobulus references is to reinforce Jewish distinctives and pride. See Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 138–58.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

43

in Greco-Roman Judaism,76 in light of these three particular aspects, Israel’s deity is seen to have been placed into an exclusive category of his own above any other entities. 2.2.2 Three Aspects of Second Temple Jewish Monotheism This section will highlight the previously-mentioned monotheistic expressions of Second Temple Jewish religion that distinguished Israel’s God from any other being and designated him in an exclusive category of his own, namely, divine uniqueness rhetoric, universal sovereignty, and the reservation of worship for Israel’s God alone. Since these three aspects are interconnected and substantially overlap with one another, addressing each one individually is somewhat artificial, but this approach will allow for proper attention to be given to each. However, the subsequent discussion of each aspect should be understood in connection with the others. 2.2.2.1 Divine Uniqueness Rhetoric Used for Israel’s God as an Expression of His Incomparability The unique transcendence or “species uniqueness” of Israel’s God as incompparable with any other heavenly beings (i.e., pagan deities and his angelic servants, who are radically subordinated to him as his servants – whether faithful to him or not) was highlighted in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature in various manners.77 Sometimes, the uniqueness of Israel’s God was expressed through words like “one,” “only,” “alone,” or “sole.” The Shema (Deut 6.4) is representative of this case (see also, e.g., 2 Kgs 19.15; Ps 83.18). Other times, the same idea was communicated through negative formulations such as “no other/no one (except).” The first commandment (Deut 5.7/Exod 20.3) and 76 Hurtado, One God, One Lord, chaps. 1–4. The category of “messiah” is a potential addition to the three designated categories of principal agents here. However, only some of the messianic figures of Second Temple Judaism were understood in otherworldly terms and the messianic figures with otherworldly orientation tended to belong to (one of) the three provided categories. Concerning the discussion of supernatural aspects found in some messianic figures during the Second Temple era and in the Old Testament, see an interesting discussion in Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, esp. 86–87, 97–108; Messianism among Jews and Christians. On the other hand, one needs to note that the three mentioned categories are employed, mainly, for convenience in sorting out relevant data. The categories at times overlap with one another (e.g., Philo, Conf. 146, in which Logos is portrayed as a chief angelic being; Wis 10.15–11.1, where Wisdom is identified with the angel of the exodus). These categories seemed to be, at least to a certain degree, fluid (Nicholson, Dynamic Oneness, 11n44; cf. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 17). 77 The phrase “species uniqueness” was borrowed from Heiser, who uses that expression to describe the uniqueness of Israel’s God as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. See idem, “Monotheism,” 29–30, for his nuanced explanation of that phrase.

44

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Isaiah 40–55 (esp. 44.6–8; 45.5–7) are well-known for this “negation” rhetoric (see also, e.g., Deut 4.39; Add Esth 13.11; 2 En. [A] 33.7). The positive and negative forms of divine uniqueness rhetoric above place Israel’s God in an exclusive category of his own above all other entities. In addition to the divine uniqueness rhetoric just noted above, rhetorical questions were employed to convey a similar notion. Deuteronomy 3.24, for instance, claims, “O Lord GOD … what god in heaven or on earth can perform deeds and mighty acts like yours?” (see also, e.g., 1QM 10.8–9). In other texts, the analogous notion was expressed by the affirmation that Yahweh/Lord is “(the true/living) God.” For example, 4Q504 5.9 states, “For Thou alone art a living God and there is none beside Thee” (see also, e.g., Bel 5; Jer 10.10; 1 Kgs 18.39; Isa 45.5; Neh 9.5–6; Dan 6.26). Elsewhere, the uniqueness of the biblical deity is communicated by subordinating the deities served by pagans. Psalm 135.5, for instance, states, “For I know that the LORD is great; our Lord is above all gods” (see also, e.g., Exod 15.11; Pss 77.13; 86.8; 96.4; 97.9; 136.2). The variety of divine uniqueness rhetoric and the alternative expressions noted above, in one way or another, serve to emphasize the uniqueness of Israel’s deity in explicit or implicit comparison to every other being in the universe, including his angelic servants and the pagan deities. Directly relevant to Mark’s use of the one-God (εἷς + ὁ θεός) language (2.7; 10.18; 12.29), εἷς or μόνος was very often employed in conjunction with θεός. Many texts combine εἷς with θεός, including Deut 6.4 (LXX); Sib. Or. 3.11–12; 4.27–32; 5.284–85; frag. 1.7–11, 32–34; frag. 3.3–6; Pseudo-Phocylides 54; Pseudo-Pythagoras, fragment; Pseudo-Sophocles, fragment; Philo, Opif. 170– 72; Leg. 2.1–2; Decal. 64–65; Spec. 1.30; Legat. 115; Conf. 171; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.190–93; Ant. 1.155; 3.91; 4.200–201; 5.111–12.78 The combination of μόνος with θεός, too, appears in various texts, including 2 Kgs 19.15; Ps 85.10 [86.10 MT]; 2 Macc 7.37; Sib. Or. 3.571–72, 628–31, 757–61, 5.284–85; frag. 3.3–6; Let. Aris. 132, 139; Philo, Leg. 2.1–2; Josephus, Ant. 8.335.79 In the Markan Love Commandment passage, Jesus’ interlocutor, an unusually friendly scribe, rephrases Jesus’ Shema quotation by adding the “no other god” (οὐκ + ἄλλος) formula (Mark 12.32). The same or similar formula is found frequently in Jewish literature (e.g., Deut 4.35, 39; 32.39; 1 Sam 2.2; 2 Sam 7.22; Isa 43.11; 44.6; 45.5–7, 14, 18, 21–22; 46.9; Hos 13.4; Joel 2.27; Wis 78 See also Philo, Conf. 171. Cf. Zech 14.9 and Deut 6.4, which combine κύριος and εἷς. I acknowledge that I was helped by Rainbow, Monotheism and Christology, 45–48 and “Appendix 1”; Rowe, Early Narrative Christology, 98ff. for locating a set of various monotheistic constructions emphasizing the uniqueness of the Jewish God. For early Christian uses, see, e.g., Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 2.8.3; Origen, Or. 15.4. 79 See also 2 Macc 1.24–25; 4 Macc 5.24; Philo, Conf. 93; Det. 138; Somn. 2.194; Her. 60; Fug. 47; Josephus, Ant. 3.91; 8.337, 343; J. W. 7.410. Cf. Exod 22.19; Deut 32.12; Neh 9.6; Isa 2.11, 17; 1 Esd 8.25; Sir 18.1–5; Sg Three 20–22; T. Jos. 6.5; Jude 4, which employ κύριος instead of θεός.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

45

12.13; Jdt 8.20; 9.14; Bel 41; Sir 36.5; 4Q504 5.9; Sib. Or. 3.629; 2 En. 33.8; 36.1; 47.3; T. Ab. A8.7; Orphica 16). In the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish sources, divine uniqueness rhetoric (“one/only/no other God” and similar formulae), by definition, was applied to Israel’s God alone. Although some exalted figures were likened to Israel’s God himself and described partially in God-like terms in Second Temple Jewish literature, and although terms such as “god [θεός]” or “divine [θεῖος]” were used in a flexible and complicated manner in Greco-Roman literature,80 the Jewish monotheistic rhetoric that stresses the uniqueness of Israel’s God was reserved for the biblical deity alone. Unlike in pagan sources, where monotheistic-sounding language was utilized in a pluralistic cultic context, 81 in Jewish contexts the “one/only/no other God” language and associated terms and images were not employed to highlight the status and significance of any other being but Israel’s God.82 This Jewish reservation of divine uniqueness rhetoric to the God of Israel alone is telling given how frequently such rhetoric was used in Second Temple Jewish religion, as the above discussion illustrates.83 The “closest” example of divine uniqueness rhetoric attributed to a figure other than Israel’s God in Jewish literature is probably found in the Wisdom of Solomon 7.27, which portrays Wisdom as “one [μία].” However, the text of Wis 7.27 (“Although she is but one, she can do all things [μία δὲ οὖσα πάντα δύναται]”) does not appear to apply monotheistic rhetoric to wisdom in a genuine sense. It simply contrasts “one” and “all things.” Here, the word “one” is not necessarily honorific. Instead, the fact that Wisdom (although she is merely one) can do all things comes under the spotlight. More importantly, the figure of Wisdom appears to be a personification of a divine attribute and not a person distinguishable from Israel’s deity.84 The first aspect of Second Temple Jewish monotheism (namely, divine uniqueness rhetoric) seems to be particularly relevant and important for this 80

See, e.g., Price, “Gods and Emperors.” Note Philo, QG 2.62 for a Jewish example. Delling (“ΜΟΝΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ,” 470) notes, “Es ist selbstverständlich, daß der polytheistische Fromme den Gott, an den er sich im gegebenen Falle wendet, mit möglichst hohen Aussagen zu ehren sucht.” The pagan worshipper sought the favor from a particular deity by praising the “singularity” of that deity’s power and nature in exaggerative tone; nevertheless, this was practiced in a polytheistic matrix in most cases. 82 Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 66–98. 83 This particular point makes Mark’s innovative, christological use of the one-God language with Jesus’ meaningfully divine status and significance in mind all the more striking (see section 2.4 and esp. chaps. 3–4 below). 84 See section 2.3.1.4 below. See also Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 46; Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 1:415–16; cf. Caird, New Testament Theology, 340 (“there is all the difference in the world between a pre-existent personification and a pre-existent person. Wisdom, e.g., was never the latter.”). 81

46

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

study and its concern for a specific type of divine uniqueness rhetoric (i.e., the Shema language) employed in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37). However, to establish more firmly the monotheistic character of Second Temple Jewish religiosity, it is necessary to proceed to the following discussion of two other key aspects – the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God (section 2.2.2.2), and the exclusivity of cultic worship reserved for him alone (section 2.2.2.3). 2.2.2.2 The Universal Sovereignty of Israel’s God as an Expression of His Incomparability Both in the Old Testament and the Second Temple literature, Israel’s God is depicted as possessing universal sovereignty. His sovereignty has two facets that are interlinked with each other, namely, his sole creatorship and his universal sovereignty.85 a) Israel’s God as the Only Creator Israel’s God is described as the sole creator of the universe or the only uncreated being. Isaiah 40–55 is well known for this emphasis: Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these? He who brings out their host and numbers them, calling them all by name; because he is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing. Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, “My way is hidden from the LORD, and my right is disregarded by my God”? Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (Isa 40.26–28) Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it. (42.5; see also 44.24, 45.12, 18; 48.13; 51.16)

The emphasis of God as the sole creator is also found in other books of the Old Testament. In Neh 9.6, Ezra confesses: You are the LORD, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the host of heaven worships you.

85 See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 7–11. One should also note that the concept of Israel’s God as sole creator and ruler of all is inseparably linked to the idea of God as sole creator and ruler of Israel (cf. Isa 40–55, in which God is depicted as ruler of Israel [e.g., 40.1–2, 9, 27; 41.8–10] and all reality [cf., e.g., 40.4–5, 15–17; 21–23, 28; 41.1–4] repeatedly and interconnectedly). The latter is a microcosm of the former. For the close connection of these two relationships, see ibid., 7–8. See also Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology, 61–62, who suggests that God’s uniqueness was maintained in Second Temple Judaism, perhaps most significantly, through God’s relationship to Israel, though not refuting the usefulness of considering God’s relationship to all reality.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

47

Hosea 13.4 LXX, in announcing judgment on Israel, records a divine oracle that portrays its deity as the sole creator: But I am the Lord thy God that establishes the heaven, and creates the earth, whose hands have framed the whole host of heaven: but I shewed them not to thee that thou shouldest go after them: and I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but me; and there is no Saviour beside me. (LXE; emphasis added)86

There are many more examples that present Israel’s God as the creator. Second Maccabees 1.24 contains a prayer as the prelude to a sacrificial rite, “O Lord, Lord God, Creator of all things, you are awe-inspiring and strong and just and merciful, you alone are king and are kind.” Sirach 43.33 states, “the Lord has made all things, and to the godly he has given wisdom.” In Opif. 172, Philo states, He that has begun by learning these things … both that God is and is from eternity, and that He that really is is One, and that He has made the world and has made it one world, unique as himself is unique, and that He ever exercises forethought for His creation, will lead a life of bliss and blessedness.

The same or a similar emphasis is found in several other passages from Second Temple literature, e.g., Bel 5; Jub. 12.3–5; Sib. Or. 3.20–35; 8.375–76; Sib. Or. frag. 1.5–6; 3; 5; 2 En. 47.3–4; 66.4; Apoc. Ab. 7.10; Jos. Asen. 12.1–2; T. Job 2.4.87 b) Israel’s God as the Sole Ruler of All Closely connected to the portrait of Israel’s God as the creator, it is emphasized that the biblical deity is the ruler of all, including those opposing him. In Dan 4.34–35, the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, is seen to praise Israel’s God and his universal sovereignty: [H]is sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does what he wills with the host of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth. There is no one who can stay his hand or say to him, “What are you doing?” (Dan 4.34–35)

Daniel 2.19–21, 47; 4.17; 6.26; 11.36, again, emphasize the universal superintendence of Israel’s deity. Wisdom 12.13 presents similar rhetoric, “For neither is there any god besides you, whose care is for all people, to whom you should prove that you have not judged unjustly.” Sibylline Oracles addresses Israel’s 86

Hosea 13.4 MT simply reads, “Yet I have been the LORD your God ever since the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior [‫ואנכי יהוה אלהיך מארץ‬ ‫]מצרים ואלהים זולתי לא תדע ומושיע אין בלתי‬.” 87 See also Isa 44.24; 2 En. 33.4; 4 Ezra 3.4; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.192, which emphasize that God was the sole agent of creation – without any helper or assistant. For a minor qualification of this position, see Philo, Opif. 72–75; Conf. 179 (exegesis on Gen 1.26).

48

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

deity as “one God, sole ruler, ineffable, who lives in the sky” (3.11) and also as “the great heavenly God who rules the world” (3.19). In 1 En. 9.5, a heavenly host professes to Israel’s God: “with you is the authority for everything.” In 3 Macc 2.2–3, the high priest Simon is seen to pray, “Lord, Lord, king of the heavens, and sovereign of all creation, holy among the holy ones, the only ruler, almighty, give attention to us …. For you the creator of all things and the governor of all are a just ruler.” Letter of Aristeas 132 states, “God is one [μόνος] and … his power is shown in everything, every place being filled with his sovereignty, and … none of the things on earth which men do secretly are hidden from him.” There are numerous other passages that make essentially the same point concerning the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God, for example, Bel 5, Add Esth 13.9–11; 16.18, 21; 3 Macc 6.2; Sir 18.1–3; Sib. Or. Frg. 1.7, 15, 17, 35; 1 En. 84.3; 2 En. 33.7; 2 Bar. 54.13; Josephus, Ant. 1.155–56; 1QS 3.15– 16. Principal angels still appear to be God’s servants since they are subordinated to God’s unique sovereignty (see, e.g., 1QM 17.1–9 [Michael]; 11QMelch [Melchizedek]).88 These exalted figures, no matter how highly elevated and no matter what special authorities and privileges with which they are endowed,89 still remain God’s servants in the operation of his universal sovereignty. God’s rulership extends to humanity, nations, and even spiritual powers that oppose him.90 War Scroll (1QM) XIII, 11–12 succinctly illustrates this point: “But Belial, the Angel of Malevolence, Thou [i.e., God] hast created for the Pit; his [rule] is in Darkness and his purpose is to bring about wickedness and iniquity.” In Judg 9.23; 1 Sam 16.14; 19.9; and 1 Kgs 22.23 (cf. Job 1–2) as well, the otherworldly beings against God somehow mysteriously do his bidding. These verses do not limit the universal rulership of Israel’s deity in order to protect him from the charge of evil or save their theology from some philosophical dilemma concerning the problem of evil. Other passages emphasize the irresistibility of God’s sovereign power. Deuteronomy 32.39 proclaims, “See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god besides me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand.” Judith 16.14, in a song of praise, declares, “Let all your creatures serve you, for you spoke, and they were made. You sent forth your spirit, and it formed them; there is none that can resist your voice.” Similarly, in the opening of Mordecai’s prayer in Add Esth 13.9–11, it is stated, “there is no one

88 For the interpretation of Ps 82, see esp. 11QMelch 2.10–13. See also Dan 7.10; Tob 12.15; 1 En. 14.22; 39.12; 40.1; 47.3; 2 En. 21.1; 2 Bar. 21.6; 48.10; 4 Ezra 8.21; T. Ab. 7.11; 8.1–4; 9.7–8; T. Adam 2.9. 89 For examples where figures other than Israel’s God share his titles, attributes, and functions (e.g., the angel, Yahoel, in Apoc. Ab. 10.3), see Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 66–96. 90 Cf. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 13.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

49

who can oppose you … for you have made heaven and earth and every wonderful thing under heaven. You are Lord of all, and there is no one who can resist you.” In 2 En. (A) 33.7, when revealing the secrets of his work of creation to Enoch, God speaks, “There is no one who opposes me or who is insubordinate; and all submit themselves to my sole rule and work my sole dominion.” Passages like Wisdom of Solomon 11.21; 12.12–14; and Odes Sol. 6.3–5 express a similar idea. The presentations of God as the sole creator and as the only ruler of all are inseparably connected just as some of the examples above clearly illustrate (e.g., Isa 40.26–28, 45.5–7; Neh 9.6; 3 Macc 2.2–3; Add Esth 13.9–11). It seems that God’s universal rulership is understood as a natural corollary to his sole creatorship – since the very existence of the universe originates from Israel’s God, who is the sole creator, everything in it is to be under his superintendence. The universal sovereignty of Israel’s deity as an indicator of his uniqueness is significant in understanding the christological use of Ps 110.1 in Mark’s Gospel. Psalm 110.1 is quoted twice in this gospel. First, in Mark 12.35–37 (esp. v. 36), it is placed in the passage immediately following the pericope that contains the only direct quotation of the monotheistic call of the Shema in the New Testament, that is, a core confession of the biblical God’s uniqueness in Second Temple Judaism (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4). As argued in chapter 3 below, Mark links the “one/no other God” rhetoric (Mark 12.29; cf. v. 32) in the Love Commandment passage (vv. 28–34) with the description of Jesus as one participating in God’s universal sovereignty in the following passage (Mark 12.35–37 [esp. v. 36; cf. Ps 110.1]). Second, in Mark 14.62, Jesus’ selfapplication of Ps 110.1, in combination with Dan 7.13, leads the high priest to call out “blasphemy” against Jesus – the charge that appeared earlier in the narrative, coupled with the initial occurrence of the one-God language in the Second Gospel (Mark 2.7). I will discuss these two Markan passages in detail in the subsequent chapter of this study (chap. 3). 2.2.2.3 Reservation of Worship for Israel’s God Alone as an Expression of His Incomparability It has been noted that the uniqueness of Israel’s God was expressed by divine uniqueness rhetoric and by attributing to him universal sovereignty. Moreover, Israel’s deity was also believed to be the only legitimate recipient of cultic veneration. The monotheistic commitment of Second Temple Jews is exhibited emphatically through their scruples concerning the recipient of worship. 91 It is re91 For this particular point, see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 429–34. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 9, points out the insufficient attention paid to

50

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

garded that, in Greco-Roman society in general, whichever deity/deities an individual/community worshipped and the manner of that worship served as meaningful indicators for the religiosity of the worshipers. Despite such commonality, strong cultic scruples against worshipping any other deities except the biblical God clearly distinguished Second Temple Jewish piety from its larger religious environment in the Greco-Roman world. While Jews emphasized the uniqueness of their God in various ways,92 their clearest expression in that regard was to reserve worship exclusively for the God of their fathers.93 Several passages from the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature demonstrate a concern with reserving worship for Israel’s God alone. Isaiah 40–55 (esp. 40.18–20; 41.21–24; 45.20–21; 46.5–7), in particular, is known for this concern.94 Isaiah 42.8, for example, records a divine oracle, “I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.” In Add Esth 13.14, refusing to prostrate before Haman, Mordecai confesses, “I will not bow down to anyone but you, who are my Lord.”95 Sibylline Oracles 3.762–63 exhorts: “[U]rge on your minds in your breasts and shun unlawful worship. Worship the Living One.” Wisdom of Solomon 14.21, on the other hand, condemns idolatry: “[Idolaters] bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared.” Daniel 3.1–18; 6.1–28; Wis 13– 15; Philo, Decal. 52–81; Legat. 116, for instance, convey basically the same cultic practices, as opposed to conceptual and doctrinal aspects, in studying Jewish monotheism and Christian origins: “[M]odern principles of linguistics persuasively teach us that the particular meaning of a word in any given occurrence is shaped crucially by the sentence in which it is used, and just as it is a basic principle of exegesis to understand the meaning of phrases and statements in the larger context of a passage or even a whole document, so it should be recognized as a basic principle in the analysis of religious traditions that the real meaning of words, phrases and statements is always connected with the practice(s) of the religious tradition.” In addition, the complexity and flexibility of the meaning of terms such as “divine” and “god” in ancient Greek (cf. Price, “Gods and Emperors”) form part of the reason why one should not depend exclusively upon rhetoric in understanding an individual/community’s religiosity, e.g., in the Greco-Roman era. 92 Cf. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 45; “Appendix I.” 93 Cf. Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 49–51, which observes that a number of monotheistic Jewish passages function in creedal/confessional formulae or as prayer language. 94 Again, see Smith’s discussion of Isa 40–55, in idem., The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, chap. 10. 95 It should be clarified that Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman in the original book of Esther was unlikely a concern for monolatrous worship. For the view that the Jews in the book of Esther are presented as “nominal” and, thus, probably not overly concerned with monolatry or related Jewish concerns, see Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 767–68. Nevertheless, the fact that these and other additions to Esther aim to fix various “problems” in the book of Esther by making the Jews more pious, and the fact that such piety is expressed through monolatrous concern, are significant for the profile of Second Temple Judaism.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

51

idea in refusing to offer their worship to pagan gods/images/rulers and in ridiculing them.96 Such strong monolatrous commitment goes beyond a mere communal dedication to a deity. 97 Rather, Second Temple Jews seem to have claimed that their ancestral God is the only being in the universe who deserves the cultic veneration by any individuals/communities. Sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple, the central religious institution for ancient Jewish religion, was offered to YHWH alone, and, accordingly, there was no altar for any figure other than YHWH himself.98 During the Greco-Roman era, Jews readily endured opposition directed against their resolute resistance to the pagan pressure to worship other deities (e.g., 1 Macc 1.51) – sometimes at the cost of their lives (4 Macc 5.2–4; cf. 2 Macc 7.1; 1 Macc 1.62–64; 2.15– 16; Dan 3.1–18; 6.1–28).99 While questioning the legitimacy of the administration of the Jerusalem Temple, Qumranic circles held firm monotheistic worship scruples given that they prayed and hymned to the God of Israel alone (see the thanksgiving hymns of 1QHa and 4Q427–32; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice of 4Q400–407 and of 11Q17).100 For example, while the following excerpt from Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice portrays a scene of heavenly worship, there is no hint of worshipping angels – angelic figures appear not as the recipients of worship alongside God but as his worshippers: 96 At times, the pagan deities were regarded as superstition and their images as mere fabricated items (e.g., Wis 13–15). At other times, these deities were understood as actual, yet diabolic, otherworldly figures (e.g., Deut 32.16–17; Jub. 22.16–17; 1 En. 19.1–2; cf. 1 Cor 10.19–20). However, in any case, they were not portrayed as rightful recipients of cultic worship. 97 The outright syncretistic cultic practices at Elephantine (in Egypt) illustrate an exception to these strong worship scruples. The case of Elephantine, however, is temporally too distant (too early, i.e., fifth century BCE) from the first-century settings, which are the foci of the current discussion. Also, the syncretism at Elephantine hardly represents the characteristics of Second Temple Judaism. Concerning this issue, see Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 144n83, and literature cited therein. 98 Noy, “‘A Sight Unfit to See’,” 77, notes, “The practice of offering daily sacrifices for the emperor at the temple in Jerusalem began in the time of Augustus and continued until the outbreak of the revolt in 66 [CE]. There were also special sacrifices at the accession of a new emperor, and sacrifices could be made for his safety or to celebrate his victories. They were, however, on his behalf and not to him, as Caligula complained (Philo, Legat. 232, 355–57).” 99 For a nuanced understanding of the significance of martyrdom for early Christian witnesses, see Schneiders, The Revelatory Text, 134–36. 100 Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature, 122–29, surveys prayer in non-canonical Second Temple literature and shows that prayer either by humans or by angelic beings is directed to the God of Israel – while angels can serve by bearing prayers and interceding for men (see, e.g., Tobit). See also Johnson, Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. For a helpful introduction to the prayers in the Second Temple period, see, e.g., Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” 551–77.

52

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

The [Cheru]bim fall before Him and bless Him; as they arise, the quiet voice of God [is heard], followed by a tumult of joyous praise. As they unfold their wings, God’s q[uiet] voice is heard again. The Cherubim bless the image of the chariot-throne that appears above the firmament, [then] they joyously acclaim the [splend]or of the luminous firmament that spreads beneath His glorious seat. As the wheel-beings advance, holy angels come and go. … The spirits of the living [go]dlike beings move to and fro perpetually, following the glory of the two [wo]ndrous chariots. A quiet voice of blessing accompanies the tumult of their movement, and they bless the Holy One each time they retrace their steps. When they rise up, they do so wondrously, and when they settle down, they [sta]nd still. The sound of joyous rejoicing falls silent, and the qui[et] blessing of God spreads through all the camps of the divine beings. The sound of prais[es] […] […] coming out of each of their divisions on [both] sides, and each of the mustered troops rejoices, one by one in order of rank […]. (4Q405 Frags. xxi–xxii, 7–14 [Wise, Abegg, and Cook’s translation])

Remarkable interest in angelic activities in this example does not mean a compromise in the worship of the biblical deity.101 4Q427 frag. 7, 1 portrays Israel’s God as one standing against the whole heavenly host and worthy of their worship: For I am made to stand with the “gods,” … Chant, O beloved, sing to the King [of glory. Rejoice, in the cong]regation of God. Exult in the tents of salvation. Give thanks in the dwelling [of holiness], extol together with the eternal host.

In another Qumranic prayer, one finds a confession such as: “For Thou alone art a living God and there is none beside Thee” (4Q504 5.9). More pointed examples are found from the so-called refusal traditions. In Apoc. Zeph. 6.15, for instance, a principal angel called Eremiel is seen to refuse to be worshipped, distinguishing himself from Israel’s God: “Take heed. Don’t worship me. I am not the Lord Almighty, but I am the great angel, Eremiel.” Similar materials are found in a number of other works (Tob 12.16–22; 3 En. 16.1–5; Ascen. Isa. 7.18–23; 8.1–10; cf. 2 En. 1.4–8; 3 En. 1.7; Lad. Jac. 3.3– 5; Jos. Asen. 14.9–12; 15.11–12; cf. Rev 19.10; 22.8–9).102 Whether these materials meant to correct existing devotional activities that gave excessive validity to angelic beings, to prevent such activities, to provide rhetoric emphasizing God’s unique majesty as the sovereign of the universe, or to have some mixture

101 For the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, see Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, esp. 23–38. 102 Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity”; The Climax of Prophecy, 118–49; “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” 43–69. See also Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 75–102; Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 28–35. In refusal traditions, often a human who receives a revelation mistakes an angelic being for God and begins to worship, but the angel prohibits such activity.

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

53

of them, these works clearly reflect the strict monolatrous concerns of Second Temple Jews. As noted earlier in this chapter, monotheistic-sounding rhetoric (e.g., the “one/only God [εἷς/μόνος θεός]” phrase) was employed in pagan contexts of the Greco-Roman era as well as Jewish contexts.103 Monotheistic-sounding language itself, therefore, does not certify the presence of actual monotheistic commitment. The real force of the monotheistic-sounding terms and images has to be discerned in light of a particular religious behavior(s) within which such rhetoric was presented.104 Most of the pagan uses, in fact, indicate that these one-God formulae were compatible with the worship of multiple deities, whether those deities were regarded as manifestations of one common essence of the supreme deity or as second-class deities under a high god.105 The cultic exclusivism of Second Temple Judaism implies that its monotheistic-sounding rhetoric, as surveyed in section 2.2.2.1 above, contains a genuine monotheistic thrust – unlike its pagan “parallels.” The monotheistic-sounding rhetoric was used in pagan texts as well, but the Second Temple Jewish (and the New Testament) uses of such language need to be differentiated from those pagan texts in light of exclusivistic cultic practices that accompanied such monotheistic-sounding language.106 On the other hand, the Jewish scruples regarding the recipient of worship seem to place a limitation on the theological significance of the highly elevated figures described occasionally in God-like terms in early Judaism as well as the rhetoric employed in such 103

See Peterson, Eis Theos; Staudt, Die eine und einzige Gott, esp. chap. 2 (pagan uses) and chaps. 3–6 (Jewish uses); cf. Athanassiadi and Frede, eds., Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity; Delling, “ΜΟΝΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ,” 470–76; Smith, “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” 135–47; Mitchell and van Neffelen, eds., One God. See also the discussion in Grant, Gods and the One God, 78–79, which deals with the doctrine of divinity in the Ps.Aristotelian treatise De Mundo. 104 With such an understanding, Hurtado (“First-Century Jewish Monotheism”) evaluates cultic acts distinguished from religious rhetoric/profession in exploring the monotheistic characteristics of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. 105 Unlike the typical case of the ancient “high god” belief, especially Greek philosophical views where the supreme being was often unknown and inaccessible through cultic activities, ancient Jews maintained that their high god, i.e., Israel’s deity, is revealed and characterized, specifically, in their scriptures (cf. Nilsson, “The High God and the Mediator,” 101–20). 106 See, e.g., 1 Cor 8.4–6, 10.14–22; 1 Thess 1.9, where Paul urges his Gentile converts not to participate in pagan cultic activities (cf. Acts 10.25–26). Note Grant, The Gods and the One God, chap. 3, who discusses the exclusive commitment of early Christianity to its God, as opposed to its contemporary pagan religions. More recently, see Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods, chaps. 2–3.For a pagan text speaking of one god and one created world, cf. Corpus herm., Νοὐς πρὸς Ἑρμῆν, 11. Interestingly, this text, which post-dates the NT, uses the phrase εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός (Festugière and Nock, Corpus herm., 1:147–57; accessed through Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, accessed 9 February 2018, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu).

54

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

descriptions (e.g., Logos in QG 2.62; Yahoel in Apoc. Ab. 10). This distinctive monolatrous stance was, in fact, the litmus test for ancient Jewish concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God. Bauckham succinctly notes: In the exclusive monotheism of the Jewish religious tradition, as distinct from some other kinds of monotheism, it was worship which was the real test of monotheistic faith in religious practice … this insistence on the one God’s exclusive right to religious worship was far more important than metaphysical notions of the unity of the divine nature.107

This cultic exclusivism of Second Temple Judaism makes it truly remarkable that Mark, who quotes the Shema (12.29; cf. v.32) and alludes to it repeatedly (2.7; 10.18), appears to attribute to Jesus a striking degree of validity with reference to the religious practice of his audience. Mark’s Gospel was, of course, not written to describe the devotional practices among the Evangelist’s community, and thus the available data from this gospel is limited and indirect. Nonetheless, there are several noteworthy factors that seem to imply an overwhelming degree of significance allowed for Jesus in the religious life of Mark’s audience in the time around 70 CE. To begin with, Mark 9.38–39 and 13.9, 13 attribute to Jesus’ name value and significance which in some real sense amount to that of God’s name in the Old Testament,108 while 1.2–3 (cf. 5.19–20; 12.36–37) applies the divine κύριος epithet of Isa 40.3 to Jesus. Even if the investiture of God’s principal agent with the divine name is found in a text like Apoc. Ab. 10, such a phenomenon does not match what occurs in Mark 1.3 (which appears at the very beginning of the gospel), in terms of the directness and intensity of the latter in unambiguously extending the divine κύριος language of an Old Testament passage (Isa 40.3) to the person of Jesus.109 The divine κύριος language found in Mark 1.3 is not coded as Yahoel (i.e., YHWH + El) but is a straight appropriation of God’s unique name to Jesus, and such appropriation lays out the blueprint for Mark’s portrait of Jesus in the rest of the narrative. Moreover, Mark 14.22–26 strikingly portrays the reformulation of Israel’s foundational meal (i.e., the Passover meal) around the person of Jesus. In addition, Mark 2.1–12 portrays the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus, and such portrayal can probably be related to the use of Jesus’ name at a liturgical setting for absolving sins among Mark’s audience.110 The cumulative power of these Markan passages demonstrates validity attributed to Jesus in the religious praxis of the earliest Markan audience.111 107 Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity,” 322–41 (quote from 322); similarly, Amir, “Die Begegnung,” 3–4; France, “The Worship of Jesus,” 17–36. 108 Cf. Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 108; Lord Jesus Christ, 203–206. 109 Mark 1.2 names “the prophet Isaiah.” Therefore, one does not need to speculate about the source from which the κύριος language of Mark 1.3 was taken. 110 Cf. Klauck, “Frage,” 243–44. 111 Hengel suggests that major developments in Christology occurred during the two earliest decades of the “Christian” movement, i.e., 30s and 40s CE (Between Jesus and Paul,

2.2 Monotheistic Characteristics of Second Temple Judaism

55

It is helpful to note that the three aspects or emphases of ancient Jewish monotheism mentioned above are interconnected with one another and are employed to make ultimately the same reference, namely, Israel’s God, who transcends all other entities and belongs to an exclusive category of his own. These aspects or emphases are then, in a sense, interchangeable with one another or, at the very least, overlap with one another substantially.112 Nehemiah 9.6, for instance, integrates the emphases on divine uniqueness rhetoric, universal sovereignty, and strict monolatrous commitment in one verse: “You are the LORD, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the host of heaven worships you.” The interconnectivity of these three aspects is testified in many other passages (e.g., Josephus, A. J. 1.155– 56; 2 En. 66.4–5 [J]; Sib. Or. 3.8–45 [esp. 3.20–35]; Deut 5.7ff./Exod 20.3ff.).113

30–47). His chronological discussion seems to give weight to my position that a central place had already been established for Jesus in the religious practices of early Christians such as the intended audience of Mark’s Gospel who likely read/heard it around the time of 70 CE (see section 2.4; cf. chaps. 3–5 below). Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 109–52 (cf. ibid., 1–19), argues that Jewish messianism, especially the idea of a spiritual/angelic messiah, is the most important and immediate context of the cult of Christ and that the homage and praise directed toward royal messianic figures and martyrs in ancient Judaism was the major precedent for the worship of Christ among early Christians. However, Horbury appears to blur the distinction between general venerative expressions toward a messianic figure or a martyr and the corporate cultic acts. The “praise and glory and honor” to be offered to the saints at the eschaton (1 Pet 1.7) does not necessitate a cult, and Mart. Pol. 17 appears to distinguish clearly between Christ as God’s Son and martyrs as his disciples/imitators. It seems necessary for Horbury to define more clearly his terms such as homage, praise, and cult. In any case, the significance placed upon Jesus in the religious activities of early Christians does not find any genuine precedent among the venerative actions directed towards a messianic figure or a martyr in ancient Judaism. As Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 2, notes: “devotion to Jesus [by early Christians] was exhibited in an unparalleled intensity and diversity of expression, for which we have no true analogy in the religious environment of the time.” For further critical interactions with Horbury, see Hurtado, How on Earth, 20–22; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 228–32. 112 Rainbow (“Monotheism and Christology,” 47–48) observes that, in Second Temple literature as well as in the Old Testament and New Testament, the various forms of monotheistic speech are used in combination with one another and so are interlinked and interchangeable with one another, as noted here. Heiser notes on such interconnectivity, “the God of Israel alone was sovereign and deserving of worship because his nature was unique (pre-existence) and his power was unquestionably superior (creator of all that is)” (“Monotheism,” 29–30). 113 Cf. Isa 40–55 (esp. 40.18–20; 41.21–24; 45.20–21; 46.5–7) and Wis 13–15, both of which employ strong monotheistic-sounding language in ridiculing idolatry/illegitimate worship. See also 4 Macc 5.

56

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

2.2.3 Summary of 2.2 The three interconnected, inseparable, and overlapping aspects of Second Temple monotheism explored above, namely, (1) divine uniqueness rhetoric used for Israel’s God as belonging to an exclusive category of his own, (2) the biblical deity’s universal sovereignty as the sole creator and ruler of all, and (3) the reservation of cultic worship to Israel’s God alone, collectively indicate that monotheistic commitment was firmly held by Second Temple Jews. While the discussion above has not covered every detail of Second Temple Jewish monotheism,114 the collective power of the discussion seems to suffice for establishing the point that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by its firm concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God according to both its rhetoric and its religious practice. Nevertheless, there are some scholars who have made vigorous arguments against the dominant view that Second Temple Jewish piety had a meaningfully monotheistic orientation. Peter Hayman argues for distinctive ditheistic tendencies in the religion of Second Temple Jews, while Paula Fredriksen advocates for the retirement of the term “monotheism” for the study of early Judaism and early Christianity. In what follows, I will interact with each of these scholars.

2.3 Interaction with Objections 2.3 Interaction with Objections

While the majority of scholars agree that a firm monotheistic concern characterized Second Temple Judaism, a few scholars have firmly challenged that dominant view. Peter Hayman and Paula Fredriksen, in different ways, are well known as opponents of the monotheistic characterization of the Jewish religiosity of this period. I will introduce and evaluate their views in this section, first interacting with Hayman and then with Fredriksen.115 The interaction with 114

E.g., God as the “eschatological” fulfiller of his promises (cf. Zech 14.9); God’s unique goodness (cf. Mark 10.18) and other elements relating to the character of Israel’s God can be added to the discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. 115 Barker, The Great Angel, is quite similar to Hayman in attempting to describe Second Temple Judaism in ditheistic terms. However, Barker appears to adopt some marginal interpretations of primary sources. Barker’s interpretation of primary sources is often misleading and taken out of the relevant literary and theological contexts. In addition, her interaction with other scholars is very limited. It is, therefore, no wonder that her work has not been considered seriously by others. Since Barker’s conclusion and the kinds of texts she cites in order to reach her conclusion are substantially similar to those of Hayman, my critique of Hayman in the below (section 2.3.1) can generally be applied to Barker. For other critical interactions with Barker, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 33; “What Do We Mean”; Adler, “The Great Angel,” 795–97. Due to the limited space, I do not deal here with the suggestion of Christopher Rowland (The Open Heaven, 94–113) that in Second Temple Judaism

2.3 Interaction with Objections

57

Hayman will require more space than that with Fredriksen because Hayman refers to a much wider variety of primary and secondary sources in presenting his case, and it is necessary to engage with some of these sources in responding to his claims. 2.3.1 Peter Hayman In his oft-cited article, “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Peter Hayman designates “monotheism” as an inappropriate term for describing Jewish religion up to the Middle Ages and argues instead for its ditheistic nature,116 suggesting that “functionally Jews believed in the existence of two gods.”117 Numerous Old Testament studies (and the prophetic literature in the Old Testament itself)118 seem to affirm the monotheistic nature of Jewish piety of the post-exilic era in contrast with the syncretistic character of pre-exilic Israelite religion.119 Yet, Hayman asserts that ditheistic tendencies occur in the majority of post-exilic sources. While Hayman discusses various Jewish literatures up to the Middle Ages, the interaction in the current section will focus primarily on the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish sources, which are directly relevant both for the author of the Second Gospel and for the focus of

speculation developed regarding a bifurcation between God and his glory. See Hurtado’s sensible critique of Rowland’s view (One God, One Lord, 85–90). On the topic of the divine glory, refer to the helpful discussion in Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology. 116 Hayman also uses the term “dualistic” in the same sense. According to Hayman, “The dualistic pattern is nearly always there” (“Monotheism,” 14) where “two divine entities are presupposed: one the supreme creator God, the other his vizier or prime minister, or some other spiritual agency” (ibid., 2). Hayman assumes that the prevalence of the dualism explains how early Christianity, which views Jesus as a deity alongside God, could gain popularity among Jews so quickly in the first-century Jewish settings (ibid., 14–15). 117 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 14. 118 For biblical passages that criticize the pre-exilic pluralistic tendencies, see, e.g., Jer 7.18; Hos 11.2; Judg 10.6. Regardless of the dating of the formation of the final form text(s), these passages – at a literary-theological level – target pre-exilic practices. 119 See Smith, The Early History of God; The Origins of Biblical Monotheism; Rutherford, “The Use of Monotheism,” 63–64, and literature cited therein. Although Morton Smith notes that syncretistic tendencies survived in post-exilic Israelite religion, he seems to think that such a syncretistic inclination became largely removed by the first century CE, the main focus of the current discussion – with the exception of Jewish magical activities. His examples primarily focus on the time prior to the Hasmonean revolt (Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, chap. 4; cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:261– 67). To explore the Israelite religion(s) in the pre-exilic period is a stimulating task. This task, however, goes beyond the scope of the current study. Concerning the subject, see, e.g., Smith, The Early History of God; The Origins of Biblical Monotheism; Hess, Israelite Religions.

58

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

this study. Hayman notes the following factors, in particular, to establish his case for the ditheistic nature of Judaism up to the Middle Ages: (1) the absence of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo prior to the medieval era; (2) references to mystical union with God (e.g., Enoch’s metamorphosis into a celestial being); (3) the prominent place of angels in ancient Jewish texts and the evidence of Jewish invocation of these angelic figures in magical practices; and (4) the presence of Asherah, Yahweh’s consort, in references to Wisdom and Logos even after the exile. Below, I will discuss these factors in the given order. However, prior to dealing with each of them, two methodological issues require attention. First, Hayman imposes a “monistic” or “unitary” connotation onto the term “monotheism,” thus using it to describe a view that there is only one heavenly entity.120 At the outset of his essay, Hayman makes a valuable statement, “I do not intend to proceed here by setting up a model definition of monotheism and then assessing the Jewish tradition against this yardstick.”121 Nevertheless, he goes on to say, “What I propose to do instead is to try and observe the pattern of Jewish beliefs about God from the Exile to the Middle Ages to assess whether or not it is truly monistic.”122 Hayman, thus, implies from the beginning of his essay that he presupposes a monistic or unitary notion regarding the term “monotheism.” What Hayman rejects is a monistic understanding of ancient Jewish theism, as his complaint later in the essay discloses, “[h]ardly any variety of Judaism seems to have been able to manage with just one divine entity.”123 Such a monistic or unitary definition of monotheism would invalidate every other monotheistic religion since all three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) admit the existence of angelic beings who attend and serve their deity even today. Ultimately, the validity or invalidity of the term “monotheism” for descrybing a characteristic of Second Temple Judaism seems to rest on how the term is defined. Similarly, the real issue is not how many heavenly beings exist but in what manner they are related to and distinguished from one another and in what way the value and significance of the heavenly beings in question is understood.124 Although Hayman claims to avoid imposing a specific notion upon the term “monotheism,” his understanding appears to be heavily bound by a deductive approach to “monotheism.”125 120

For Hayman’s use of “monistic” and “unitary,” see idem, “Monotheism,” 2. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 2. 122 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 2 (emphasis added). 123 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 11 (emphasis added). 124 Cf. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 426, who notes: “The designation ‘monotheism’ can be used for describing the theology of [monolatrous] passages as long as the word is not interpreted as relating to ontology.” 125 Hayman thinks such a monistic definition is “generally accepted” (“Monotheism,” 4). That may still be the case at a popular level. However, now, at least in scholarly circles, such 121

2.3 Interaction with Objections

59

Second, Hayman tends to neutralize some substantial differences among the alleged “second G/god” figures. Hayman underestimates the diversity within Second Temple Judaism when imposing on various figures a singular “ditheistic” scheme. Hayman reads basically everything – Jewish angelology, Wisdom traditions, and Philonic Logos – with the single lens of the Canaanite divine council, where YHWH was one of the sons of the supreme deity, El Elyon.126 Nonetheless, apart from the general notion of divine agency – whether the idea was only literary or real – there is not much commonality among these diverse figures. Having pointed out these methodological issues in Hayman’s approach, this study will now turn to discuss the four specific factors that he presents as evidence for his case of ancient Jewish ditheism. 2.3.1.1 The Absence of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo prior to the Middle Ages Hayman asserts the absence of creatio ex nihilo before the medieval era and interprets it as indicating the absence of monotheism. However, it is not entirely clear whether monotheism requires the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Hayman offers no justification or argument for the claim that monotheism depends on creatio ex nihilo. In asserting that “there is no sign of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo” prior to the Middle Ages127 and in assuming the asserted absence as evidence for the non-existence of monotheism, Hayman seems to presume such a doctrine as a necessary condition for “monotheism.”128 But the validity of this claim is not self-evident. Second, and more importantly, Hayman’s suggestion for the absence of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo before the Middle Ages is questionable. Whether some Old Testament passages (e.g., Isa 40–48) implicitly express such a notion demands further exploration, and such an investigation goes beyond the scope of the current discussion. However, the portrayal of YHWH as “the first” and “the last” (Isa 44.6; cf. 48.12; Rev 1.8), at least, appears to come close to implying creatio ex nihilo. There are, however, more explicit examples. Second Maccabees 7.28 unambiguously states the notion of creation out of nothing, “I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed [ἐξ ὄντων].” Second Enoch 25.1ff. and 1QS 11.11, though not as direct in their expression as 2 Macc 7.28, convey a similar idea. The notion of creation out of nothing as expressed in the Maccabean passage also occurs in some New a definition is not a majority view. Note, for example, the studies by Hurtado, Dunn, Stuckenbruck, among others, as cited above. 126 Hayman, “Monotheism,” passim. 127 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 2. 128 See Hayman, “Monotheism,” 2–4, for his discussion on this particular topic.

60

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Testament passages (e.g., Rom 4.17; Col 1.16–17, 20; Heb 11.3; cf. John 1.3; Rom 11.36; 1 Cor 8.6; Eph 3.9). Hebrews 11.3, for instance, seems to imply the idea of creatio ex nihilo through the contrast between the visible matter and the invisible divine word, “[T]he worlds were prepared by the word of God [ῥήματι θεοῦ], so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible [εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι].” In sum, from a philosophical angle, it is not entirely clear whether the theology of creation out of nothing is a necessary condition for monotheism. More importantly, it is not historically true that creatio ex nihilo was absent prior to the Middle Ages in light of the counterevidence from 2 Macc 7.28 and other similar texts mentioned above. 2.3.1.2 References to Mystical Unity with God Hayman also argues that (a) Enoch’s ascension and metamorphosis in Rabbinic literature (e.g., 3 En.) and (b) various descriptions of the angel-like state of God’s people who participate in the heavenly gathering (Dan 12.3; Wis 5.5; 1 En. 104.2; cf. 1QH 11.19–23 [formerly 3.19–23]; 1QSb 4.22–26; 1QS 11.7–9; Luke 20.36)129 are evidence for ditheistic theology. To begin with, one should question whether (a) and (b) should be placed under the same category of “mystical unity with God.”130 More importantly, one must consider whether any of these texts necessarily makes Jewish theology non-monotheistic or ditheistic. Concerning the metamorphosis of Enoch, one should ask whether the portrait of Enoch suggests the case for the ditheistic view. According to 3 Enoch, Enoch is identified with the archangel Metatron. Enoch-Metatron is called “the lesser Yahweh” (3 En. 12.5) very likely in connection with the angelic figure of Exod 23.21 (“my [Yahweh’s] name is in him” – the phraseology also employed in 3 En. 12.5). The exalted Enoch is referred to as “a prince and a ruler” (4.5, 8; 10.3) and is seen to judge the heavenly beings (16.1). Chapter 16, verse 3 describes a well-known scene where Rabbi Elisha ben Avuyah (Acher) sees Metatron sitting on a throne and announces that there are “two powers in heaven.” The description of Enoch-Metatron here may indeed reflect a “dangerous” tendency that deviates from the Jewish commitment to Israel’s unique God. But one must also notice that, in the text as it stands, he is chastised in heaven by another angel “at the command of the Holy One” (v. 5) – because Enoch-Metatron does not stand before God. Additionally, 10.3 indicates that there are “eight great, honored, and terrible princes who are called YHWH by the name of their King,” that is, angelic beings who are not under Enoch-Metatron’s authority but who are still servants of YHWH. Enoch-Metatron is not the single number two, according to this passage. In light of these observations, 129 130

For Hayman’s discussion on this matter, see “Monotheism,” 4–5. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 4.

2.3 Interaction with Objections

61

the metamorphosis and exaltation of Enoch does not necessarily constitute a “two gods” theology in any meaningful sense, though its description may reflect a dangerous position or, more likely, a critical response to and correction of, such a position.131 Concerning various descriptions of God’s people in angelic terms, such descriptions do not mean that they become a second God. There was a sufficiently clear distinction between the creator God and his angelic creatures in Second Temple Judaism (see, e.g., Jub 2.2; 2 En. 29.3; 33.7; 2 Bar. 21.6; 1QS 3.15, 25; 1QH 9.8–11; cf. Ps 148.2–5),132 and the uniqueness of that God of Israel was protected in various manners as discussed above (see section 2.2.2). It seems that Hayman, once again, artificially projects a monistic or unitary view as the essential condition for monotheism – if the faithful are pictured in angelomorphic terms concerning their ultimate status, such a picture signifies multiple heavenly beings, and thus “monotheism” does not stand as a proper term to describe Second Temple Judaism. Hayman’s argument would be valid only for attacking those who view ancient Judaism as a metaphysically monistic or unitary religion. However, he does not seriously consider a more nuanced, metaphysically-flexible version of monotheism – one that does not negate the existence of other heavenly beings yet still maintains a distinction between Israel’s God and those heavenly entities.133 2.3.1.3 The High Interest in Angelology and Jewish Magical Practice Involving the Invocation of Angels Hayman uses most of his space discussing this factor.134 While he touches on a number of areas concerning Jewish angelology and magical practices up to the Middle Ages, the following four, in particular, appear to be more relevant to the discussion of a first-century account (such as Mark’s Gospel): (1) the divine council in the Old Testament in the present literary form[s], (2) Jewish magical practices and rabbinic attacks on them, (3) battles between plural heavenly beings, and (4) a dualistic pattern that includes God and his vizier. I will discuss these in the following according to the given order. 131 On the other hand, 3 Enoch is quite late (probably from the fifth century CE) and should, therefore, not be treated as a significant factor for the discussion of Second Temple Judaism. 132 Cf. Newsom, “Angels,” in ABD 1:252: “Although angels are spirits and may be called ‘gods’ (ʾēlı̂ m, ʾĕlōhı̂ m), they are created beings.” 133 Concerning rabbinic literature, on the other hand, Hayman bases his argument on Moshe Idel’s work on the Kabbalah. However, Idel himself admits that his view, that “mystical union” with God in the Kabbalah signifies deification, is rarely supported by other experts in the field (see Idel, Kabbalah, 59–60). Hayman probably needs to substantiate his argument much further to side with Idel’s idiosyncratic view. 134 Hayman designates pages 5–14 for the discussion of Jewish angelology and magical praxis in his 15-page essay (i.e., “Monotheism”).

62

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

(1) The Divine Council in the Old Testament. Hayman begins by discussing the divine council in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 32.8–9). He suggests that Yahweh was originally “one member of the heavenly host, namely the national god of the Israelite people, who became king of the gods when he was identified with El Elyon, the head of the Canaanite pantheon.”135 Hayman acknowledges, “This identification … is the essential theme of the Hebrew Bible.”136 Shortly after, Hayman notes further, “In post-exilic and later Jewish sources, of course, there is no awareness that El Elyon was ever anything other than Yahweh himself.”137 When one discusses late Second Temple Judaism, the theological perspectives of the final editor(s)/redactor(s) of the Hebrew Bible, which already had an authoritative place in the late Second Temple era, and those of post-exilic extra-biblical authors are much more important than the reconstructed traditions potentially behind the Hebrew Bible in the present shape. Namely, what is more significant in the current discussion is not a restored “historical” religion of ancient Israel or the origin of the term ‫ עליון‬but how such a religious “history” or tradition was utilized in the theologizing efforts of the respective community of faith or a final redactor(s)/editor(s) of the Hebrew Bible. In that sense, Hayman’s acknowledgment of the identification of YHWH and El in the Hebrew Bible itself and later Jewish literature, as cited above, seems to undermine his own argument for the ditheistic nature of Second Temple Judaism. Brevard Childs’ challenge to various reconstruction efforts directed towards Exod 4.24–26 seems applicable to the discussion of Deut 32.8–9 in principle: “the dominant concern with the ‘original’ meaning has obscured the present function of the passage in the … narrative. Failure to understand the redactor’s intention with the text has resulted in the loss of this major witness.”138 In discussing the divine council in the Old Testament, Hayman refers particularly to Deut 32.8–9 LXX (as opposed to Deut 32.8–9 MT) as an echo of the notion that YHWH was regarded as one of the sons of the Most High – the Canaanite supreme deity.139 The difference between MT and LXX mainly concerns the last part of verse 8: When the Most High [‫ ]עליון‬gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men [‫]בני אדם‬, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel [‫]בני ישראל‬. (Deut 32.8, JPS1917)

135

Hayman, “Monotheism,” 5; cf. 13. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 5. Concerning this identification, see Gnuse, No Other Gods, 201–205; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 142–45. 137 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 6. In fact, there is no evidence for the existence of the cult dedicated to El as a deity separate from YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. 138 Childs, Exodus, 98. 139 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 6, citing Lemche, Ancient Israel, 226. 136

2.3 Interaction with Objections

63

When the Most High [ὁ ὕψιστος] divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam [υἱοὺς Αδαμ], he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God [ἀγγέλων θεοῦ]. (Deut 32.8, LXE)

While the MT says that the national boundaries were set “according to the number of the children of Israel” (JPS1917),140 the LXX states that they were divided “according to the number of the angels of God” (LXE). Hayman is possibly right in seeing the LXX as reflecting the original (i.e., “the sons of God”) better than the MT in this particular verse. The alteration from the rendering of the LXX to that of the MT can be explained by the MT redactor’s concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God, while the change in the opposite direction is hard to justify. Moreover, the rendering of the LXX is supported by 4QDtj, which reads ‫בני אלוהים‬.141 Nonetheless, what must be noted in addition to such an observation is that, both in the LXX and in the MT, the Most High (v. 8, MT: ‫עליון‬/LXX: ὁ ὕψιστος) is identified with YHWH (v. 9, MT: ‫יהוה‬/LXX: κύριος).142 The rendering of the LXX may contain a tradition from an ancient Canaanite background, as Hayman suggests. However, in the LXX and the MT alike, YHWH and the Most High have one and the same referent, Israel’s one God.143 While the tradition of the Canaanite divine council is possibly behind Deut 32.9 LXX – although alternative explanations are also possible144 – it is present only as a “domesticated” version.145 It presents a radically different meaning in a new era.146 The continuity of the symbol between the Canaanite myth and the Old Testament does not necessitate the continuity of its significance.147 Deuteronomy 32.8–9, both MT and LXX, does not explain the origin of YHWH as a “subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon,” 148 but instead supports YHWH’s unique 140

The MT rendering likely reflects (a) the idea found in Genesis where Jacob’s seventy descendants (Gen 46.27) match the seventy nations listed in Gen 10, and (b) the notion that nations have their own angels (cf. Dan 10) (See McConville, Deuteronomy, 454; cf. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 6n23). 141 Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God”; cf. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156. Refer also to the textual apparatus on Deut 32.8 in BHS. 142 McConville, Deuteronomy, 454; Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 427. For Israel being YHWH’s inheritance, see, e.g., Deut 4.19–20; Sir 17.17; Jub. 15.31–32. 143 For other passages that identify YHWH and the Most High, see, e.g., Pss 7.17; 9.1–2; 21.7; 46.4–7; 47.2. See also Gen 14.18–22. 144 E.g., Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, chaps. 3–4, who notes the differences between the Ugaritic pantheon and the Hebrew view of God. 145 McConville, Deuteronomy, 454–55, from which the word “domesticated” is borrowed. 146 Rutherford aptly notes, “The symbolic world of myth takes on new significance in light of new sociological settings and new cultic practices [in the post-exilic period]” (“Use of Monotheism,” 63). 147 Cf. Becking, “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile,” which provides an overall sketch of the changes in Israel’s religious life after the exile. 148 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 6, quoting Lemche, Ancient Israel, 226.

64

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

sovereignty as the sole superintendent of the universe from the standpoint of the respective final redactors/editors.149 Although Hayman asserts that “YHWH belongs to [the] class of [the heavenly host]” and “is not different from them in kind,”150 in the scenes of the biblical divine council, YHWH is never identified with any among the heavenly host. Rather, according to the Old Testament in the present shape, the members of the divine council are seen to be completely subordinate to YHWH (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Pss 29.1; 82.1–8; 89.5–8; cf. 1 Kgs 22.19–23).151 Later in his article, Hayman designates the Jewish angelology of the Second Temple era as “a development away from the monotheism that is more nearly attained in the Book of Deuteronomy.”152 Hayman understands the theology of Deuteronomy as a minority position that “stands apart from the mainstream of Israelite and Jewish beliefs and witnesses.”153 Yet, Hayman cites Deut 32.8–9 (LXX) as evidence for the view of YHWH as “a member of the pantheon of gods who are subordinate to the supreme God, El Elyon.”154 Hayman’s treatment of Deuteronomy seems to be problematic in this case. To begin with, Hayman does not explain how his ditheistic reading of Deut 32.8–9 fits (a) the immediate literary context (i.e., Song of Moses [Deut 32]), which states that there is no god comparable with YHWH (see esp. vv. 12, 39), and (b) the overall theology of Deuteronomy, which he evaluates as distant from the ditheistic pattern of the alleged mainstream. Hayman’s dealing with Deut 32.8–9 appears to be far from a holistic exegesis of Deut 32 and the Book of Deuteronomy. Moreover, the prominence of Deuteronomy during the Second Temple period, as implied by its significance for Qumran and early Christianity,155 refutes Hayman’s assertion that Deuteronomy contains a minority theology. Furthermore, although Hayman closes his essay by stating, “The attempt of the compilers of the Hebrew Bible to merge ‫ יהוה‬and ‫ אלהים‬never really succeeded,”156 it seems unclear from his essay what the legitimate standards are by which one can and should determine the final redactor’s success or failure. That a modern scholar may claim to find a trace of reconstructed, older tradition(s) from the text in the present shape does not imply the final redactor’s 149

Cf. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Hayman, “Monotheism,” 5. 151 In some Jewish passages, an angel is given God’s name (e.g., Exod 23.21; Apoc. Ab. 10.3). However, an angelic figure bearing the divine name is different from an angelic figure becoming or being God or vice versa. 152 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 9. 153 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 9; cf. 12. 154 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 6. 155 See, e.g., Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” 6–26. Regarding the importance of Isaiah and Deuteronomy in the Second Temple period, see Hannah, “Isaiah within Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” esp. 7. 156 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 15. 150

2.3 Interaction with Objections

65

failure. Rather, Hayman’s comment that the identification between YHWH and El “is the essential theme of the Hebrew Bible”157 itself seems to imply a substantial degree of success on the part of the final redactor(s) in “blurring” the “original” tradition(s). (2) Jewish magical practices and rabbinic attacks on them. Hayman refers to Jewish and non-Jewish examples that contain a report on Jewish magical practices to criticize the validity of the term “monotheism” in describing ancient Judaism. For a non-Jewish example, he refers to a Christian source, the Kerygma Petrou (dated first half of the second century CE), which, in emphasizing the superiority of Christianity,158 accuses the Jews in language similar to that of Col 2.18: “Neither worship him [i.e., God] in the manner of the Jews; for they also, who think that they alone know God, do not understand, worshipping angels, the months and the moon.”159 For Jewish examples, Hayman quotes reports on Jewish magical practices included in Talmudic and later rabbinic texts. Hayman then asserts that such magical activities were in line with the mainstream, non-monotheistic Jewish view of God.160 In referring to rabbinic criticism of angel veneration, in particular, Hayman notes, “None of [the] rabbinic polemic [against angel veneration] would have been necessary if lots of Jews had not continued the old Israelite pagan practices and simply substituted the angels for the Canaanite gods.”161 Concerning the Christian accusation of Jewish practices in the Kerygma Petrou, although the Christian attack may reflect an actual Jewish practice of angel veneration, one also needs to consider a certain degree of exaggeration involved in the report, especially given that the accusation was offered in the context of highlighting the superiority of Christianity to Jewish and Hellenistic religions.162 Regarding rabbinic reports on Jewish magical practice, Hayman seems to be reasonable in taking such reports as reflecting actual magical praxis among some Jewish circles. However, some issues need to be raised concerning Hayman’s evaluation of Jewish magical practice as evidence for his case for ditheistic theology. First, one should not regard the rabbinic reports too literally and

157

Hayman, “Monotheism,” 5. Cf. Kerygma Petrou, frag. 2, in an apologetic tone, mentions “worshipping God through Christ in a new way” (J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, 22). 159 Quoted from Hayman, “Monotheism,” 7n30. 160 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 10–11. Hayman here refers to Schäfer, “Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,” 75–91; Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls. 161 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 8. 162 See Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 140–44, for a careful discussion on the Kerygma Petrou. 158

66

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

ignore polemical dimensions reflected in such reports and potential exaggerations and distortions involved.163 Second, one must question whether magical practices – no matter how popular or unpopular they could have been – should be regarded as part of mainstream Jewish religiosity rather than a declension from a socially shared ideal. One probably needs to distinguish the public, corporate, and organized cultic acts from what some everyday people believed and practiced.164 Thus, observing that magic, unlike formal religion, does not possess a set of shared beliefs and practices among its adherents, Durkheim notes, “There is no Church of magic.”165 Third, as Stuckenbruck and Arnold have shown in their respective studies on Jewish angel “veneration” and magical praxis, ancient Jewish magic did not necessarily break from monotheistic commitment, nor did it produce a corporate angelic cult.166 While interest in angelology increased and was the most widespread phenomenon among various divine agency traditions of the Second Temple era,167 the traditions reflecting a high interest in principal angels did not seem to threaten the monolatrous practices of the Second Temple Jews. Based upon an extensive survey of references to angel veneration in ancient Jewish texts, inscriptions, and magical materials, Stuckenbruck notes that, despite flexible attitudes and foreign influences, Second Temple Jews preserved monotheistic commitment as a central tenet of their religion and that there was no genuine break from Jewish monotheism.168 Stuckenbruck notes that the veneration of angels – in the forms of honorification, invocation for assistance (at times, alongside God), reverence, and thanksgiving – neither developed into an organized cultic veneration of angels nor impinged on the recognition of God’s 163

Of course, when one focuses on Second Temple Judaism, the complexity involved in dating the underlying traditions incorporated in rabbinic literature is an inherent challenge. 164 Concerning Jewish magical practices, Stuckenbruck’s and Arnold’s extensive studies appear to provide a more nuanced understanding of the phenomena than Hayman’s. See Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, esp. 188–203; Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, esp. 32– 60, for helpful explanations. Both Stuckenbruck and Arnold, out of their respective studies, conclude that Jewish magical invocations of YHWH and the angels did not mean a genuine break with Jewish monotheistic commitment of the given period(s). 165 Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 39–44 (quotation from 44 [emphasis original]), differentiates between magic and religion, observing that, unlike the former, the latter has a set of shared beliefs and practices among its adherents. 166 Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, esp. 188–203; Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, esp. 32–60. 167 See Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit, for an analysis of material from biblical texts through Josephus and other Greco-Roman evidence. See also Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him; Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 71–92. 168 Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, esp. 201–202; cf. Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 23– 35.

2.3 Interaction with Objections

67

unique supremacy and the worship of that unique God169 since the veneration offered to an angel was primarily directed to the biblical deity. Stuckenbruck observes that although both God and his angels are mentioned side-by-side in the praise language in some passages such as Tob 11.14–15 (Codex Sinaiticus), the Rheneia (Delos) inscription, and the Kalecik inscription, the use of singular (not plural) pronouns in these texts implies “a conscious preservation of a monotheistic framework.”170 Accordingly, it is understood that the praise is offered, in effect, to Israel’s unique God. A similar point is presented by Clinton Arnold’s study of epigraphical evidence to find the place given to angelic figures in Jewish devotional practices. Arnold discovers (a) a significant function (e.g., apotropaic role) designated to angelic beings in some Jewish inscriptions as well as (b) the instances of venerating angels.171 He concludes, however, that the epigraphic data that he discussed does not signify the establishment of regular, public, organized worship of those angelic figures.172 Simply speaking, there was no known angel cult during this period. (3) Battles between plural heavenly beings. Hayman then notes the battles between plural heavenly beings.173 Hayman observes that in Jubilees 48, the person attacking Moses is Prince Mastema, not “the LORD” as in Exod 4.24– 26.174 He further notes, “The Egyptians, spurred on by Prince Mastema, pursue Israel, who are saved by the Angel of the Presence and God working together. The Angel of the Presence, who recounts the story to Moses, explicitly uses the plural and says, ‘We saved Israel from his hand’ (Jub. 48.13).”175 Hayman sees Dan 8–12 in a similar manner, in which “war on earth parallels war in heaven and the heavenly … battle on behalf of their earthly protégés (Dan

169

Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 200–203. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 264. Stuckenbruck notes this monotheistic adherence as something quite different from what one finds in a number of magical sources (cf. ibid., 192–200). 171 Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, 32–89, esp. 59–60, 82–83. 172 Arnold thus distinguishes early Christian worship of Jesus from these magical practices associated with high interests in angelic beings (The Colossian Syncretism, 59–60). 173 Hayman thinks “Two Powers in Heaven” goes back to the battles between YHWH and El in the Old Testament (“Monotheism,” 13–14; cf. 11). “Two Powers,” however, is the designation mainly for Gnostic and Christian groups among other communities in the second century CE and after. Thus, one would likely expect a more thorough and careful argument than simply asserting their connection as Hayman has done. 174 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 8, notes, “This is interesting since many commentators on Ex. 4:24–26 think that Yahweh is here identified with some sort of local demon.” See, however, Childs, Exodus, 95–101, concerning limitations with reconstructing the “original” history and the need to first pay attention to the text in the present shape. 175 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 8. 170

68

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

10.13, 20–21).”176 Hayman also quotes a part of the Qumran War Scroll (1QM 15.13–14) along this line.177 Hayman’s cited texts show the plurality of heavenly beings and battles among them. Such a phenomenon would only disqualify Second Temple Jewish religion from being “monotheistic” if the term denotes a metaphysically monistic or unitary theology proper. The issue is dependent upon the definition of the term, as repeatedly noted above. Moreover, a description of heavenly warfare does not seem to reduce the sovereignty of Israel’s God. War Scroll, to which Hayman refers, actually illustrates this point: “Belial, the Angel of Malevolence, Thou [i.e., God] hast created for the Pit; his [rule] is in Darkness and his purpose is to bring about wickedness and iniquity” (1QM 13.11–12 [emphasis added]). In other passages (Judg 9.23; 1 Sam 16.14; 19.9; 1 Kgs 22.23; cf. Job 1–2), the heavenly beings opposing God, again, appear to serve God’s sovereign purposes mysteriously.178 Both the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature are firm on the point that rebellious heavenly beings are still under his control – they cannot oppose God’s will and power (see section 2.2.2.2 above). There is no space for further discussion about the individual texts that Hayman cites, and I will be content to make one further illustrative comment. While noting the divine war described in Jubilees 48, Hayman seems to overlook the fact that the text emphasizes that Israel was saved, despite the evil attempts of Prince Mastema, by God’s sovereign power, and not that God’s sovereignty suffered due to the interruption of Mastema. Although it is true that the pronoun “we” appears in the text when referring to Israel’s God and his angelic agent (e.g., v. 13), the phenomenon is not consistent throughout the text. Verse 13, immediately after using the pronoun “we,” states “the LORD [and not ‘we’] brought them [i.e., Israel] out through the midst of the sea as through dry land.” Moreover, in verse 14, the angelic agent appears to address Israel’s deity as “the LORD our God.” The “we” language in Jubilees 48, contra Hayman’s assertion, then does not seem to communicate anything beyond the status of the angelic figure as an agent appointed by God and implementing his sovereign purposes. (4) A dualistic pattern that includes God and his vizier.179 Hayman views the prominence of the tradition of Michael as God’s vizier and the portrait of 176

Hayman, “Monotheism,” 8–9. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 9; cf. 4Q491, frag. 11. Earlier in his essay, Hayman refers to Judg 11.24; Jer 46.15, 49.1, 3, where YHWH’s “rival” deity is named (“Monotheism,” 6n19). 178 Cf. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism,” 12–14. 179 Due to limited space, it is impossible to discuss intermediary/principal agent figures in the Second Temple era in a more thorough manner here. For such a discussion, see, e.g., Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Bock, Blasphemy, 113–83; Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, chap. 3. 177

2.3 Interaction with Objections

69

the Ancient of Days together with the Son of Man in Dan 7 as indicating “a cooperative dualism” (rather than “monotheism”), which designates the supreme deity and his vice-regent.180 Hayman also notes that in various Jewish traditions (e.g., traditions related to Michael, Yahoel, Metatron, Melchizedek, Logos), the role of the second divine figure as God’s vice-regent remains consistent, though the name of such a second figure changes.181 One must first ask whether the significant role of God’s vizier indeed indicates a ditheistic view. This matter depends, at least in part, on whether or not one views monotheism as a metaphysically monistic or unitary position. One must also ask why the name of the second figure did not become fixed or why their names did not become identified with one another, whereas the supreme divine figure was fixed, and El and YHWH were characteristically identified with each other both in the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish literature. The flexibility of the second figure’s identity seems to hint at the uniqueness of Israel’s God (as compared to, and contrasted with, a second figure), who as the sovereign appoints various entities as his agents and grants them due authority. 2.3.1.4 The Survival of the Worship of YHWH alongside His Consort, Asherah, in Post-exilic References to Wisdom and Logos Hayman refers to Prov 8.22–31 (Wisdom’s part in creation), Wis 9.4 (Wisdom sitting beside the throne of Israel’s God “as his consort”182), Philo, Leg. 2.49 (Wisdom designated as the “mother of all things”), and Philo, QG 2.62 (Logos named as the “second God”) as evidence for the survival of the worship of YHWH’s consort, Asherah. Whether there once existed a Canaanite background behind Wisdom and Logos traditions – and, if so, in what specific manner and to which degree – is a topic beyond the scope of the current discussion. However, it seems clear that in the Second Temple literature, in general, and the four examples that Hayman cites, in particular, Wisdom and Logos are not portrayed as distinct deities. The fact that neither Wisdom nor Logos was worshipped alongside Israel’s God183 is suggestive of their less-than-distinct status. While all four cited passages describe Wisdom or Logos in a lofty manner (yet with varying degrees), none of them attribute worship to Wisdom or Logos. In fact, Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo alike affirm that Israel’s God is the only legitimate recipient of worship, as shown in the following ways.

180

Hayman, “Monotheism,” 11. Hayman, “Monotheism,” 11. 182 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 14. 183 Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 48 (see 42–48 for the fuller discussion on Logos and Wisdom); Dunn, Christology in the Making, 170; Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him, 89–91; Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 1:415–16. 181

70

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

The so-called core maxim of Proverbs declares, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (1.7). This idea reappears in 9.10: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” The notion of fearing the LORD184 is, through parallelism, linked with a cultic matter later in the book at 16.6, a verse referring to a sacrificial system: “By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one avoids evil.”185 Through the use of parallelism, this verse appears to situate “the fear of the LORD” in a sacrificial context, thus implying that fearing God has relevance for the cultic veneration of Israel’s deity. One can say that the core maxim of the book appears to emphasize a worship-sensitive fear as the beginning of knowledge (1.7) and of wisdom (9.10) and, in that manner, the book’s emphasis on fearing the LORD is inseparable from the cultic commitment to Israel’s deity. Wisdom of Solomon, especially chaps. 13–15, contains a strong polemic against idolatry. Wisdom of Solomon 14.11, for example, judges pagan idols by stating, “there will be a visitation also upon the heathen idols, because, though part of what God created, they became an abomination, snares for human souls and a trap for the feet of the foolish.” The portrait of Wisdom as sitting by God’s throne in Wis 9.4 (τὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον σοφίαν) and other lofty depictions of her, especially in chaps. 7–10, should be understood in light of (a) the firm monolatrous stance that the author (or the final redactor) of the book holds, as just noted, and (b) the overall message of the book, which Winston aptly summarizes: “to convince them [i.e., fellow Jews] that their way of life, rooted in the worship of the One true God, is of an incomparably higher order than that of their pagan neighbors, whose idolatrous polytheism has sunk them into the mire of immorality.”186 Likewise, no matter how exalted Wisdom and Logos appear to be in Philo’s writings, this Alexandrian exegete emphasizes that the unique God of Israel alone deserves worship: “Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honor one God Who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and guilelessness” (Decal. 65). As Hayman himself rightly acknowledges, “For most Jews, God [was] the sole object of worship.”187 The absence of the cultic veneration of Wisdom and Logos implies that they were understood as personifications of divine attributes. 184

For this notion, see also Prov 3.7, 22.4; cf. 2.5–8. Emphasis added. Cf. Ps 111.10 which places the same phrase, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,” in combination with the praise of Israel’s God (v. 10) and with the notion of covenant (v. 9). 186 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 63 (emphasis original). 187 Hayman, “Monotheism,” 15. 185

2.3 Interaction with Objections

71

As Dunn notes, Wisdom and Word are “no more distinct beings than the Lord’s ‘arm’, no more intermediary beings than God’s righteousness and God’s glory, but simply vivid personifications, ways of speaking about God in his active involvement with his world and his people.”188 Second Enoch 33.4ff. (where God discloses the secrets of his work of creation to Enoch) illustrates what Dunn has highlighted. Verse 4 reads, “There is no counselor and no successor, only myself, eternal, not made by hands. My unchanging thought is (my) counselor, and my word is (my) deed. And my eyes behold all things.” Here, God’s thought, word, and eyes have a parallel status to one another. As no one would probably take God’s eyes as a distinct divine figure, God’s thought or his word should not be regarded as a separate divine being, either. Shortly after, in v. 8, one finds the statement, “there is no other Creator except myself.” Such a statement implies that God’s “thought,” “word,” and “eyes” in v. 4 was not regarded as a figure distinct from God himself. Despite his acknowledgement of the strict monolatrous concern in early Judaism,189 Hayman does not give due weight to cultic practices in understanding the nature of Second Temple Jewish religion but instead focuses primarily on the conceptual dimensions. That God alone was the sole object of worship is the clearest indicator of the uniqueness of Israel’s God, as noted above (section 2.2.2.3). The fact to which Hayman pays primary attention is that Jews of this period regarded the heavenly realm as occupied by plural beings, and not that, among those plural heavenly beings, only Israel’s God was the unique entity who possessed the right to be worshipped. With cultic issues noted above, some other points can be made concerning the texts to which Hayman refers. Regarding Prov 8.22–31, although some may find a trace of “ditheistic” theology, even here (and in Prov 1.20–33) the presentation of Wisdom should probably be seen in figurative/poetic terms (i.e., as a reference to an attribute of God rather than a distinct divine being/hypostasis) in light of a text like 3.19–20, whose creation motif is, in fact, further developed in 8.22–31. Chapter 3, verses 19–20 state: The LORD by wisdom [τῇ σοφίᾳ] founded the earth; by understanding [ἐν φρονήσει] he established the heavens. by his knowledge [ἐν αἰσθήσει] the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.

188 Dunn, “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?,” 320. Hurtado, along the same line, writes, “It is doubtful that Logos and other divine powers amount to anything more than ways of describing God and his activities” (One God, One Lord, 48). Sirach (ca. 180 BCE) identifies Wisdom with Torah (24.23; 4.6; cf. 15.1), thus indicating that Wisdom is understood as a personification, and not an independent person. 189 Hayman notes, “For most Jews, God is the sole object of worship, but he is not the only divine being” (“Monotheism,” 15).

72

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

“Wisdom” in the first line is replaced by “understanding” in the second line and then by “knowledge” in the third line. The replacement of “wisdom” by the terms that do not appear to contain a potential reference to a distinct divine entity suggests that “wisdom” in Proverbs 1 and 8 should be understood figuratively (i.e., as a personification of a divine attribute) rather than literally (i.e., as a distinct divine being/hypostasis).190 Similarly, regarding Wisdom of Solomon 9.4, it seems suggestive that, in 3.11 (σοφίαν γὰρ καὶ παιδείαν ὁ ἐξουθενῶν ταλαίπωρος), which precedes the exalted description of Wisdom (especially in chaps. 7–10), σοφίαν is placed in parallel to παιδείαν, a word that does not seem to refer to a distinct divine entity in the verse (3.11) itself and the rest of the book (see 1.5; 2.12; 6.17 [2x]; 7.14).191 In understanding Philo, Leg. 2.49 192 (which designates Wisdom as the “Mother of all things” and God as the “Father of the universe”), another Philonic work, De fuga et inventione, seems to provide some guidance. In language similar to Leg. 2.49, Fug. 109 states, “he [i.e., Moses] is the child of parents incorruptible and wholly free from stain, his father being God, who is likewise Father of all, and his mother Wisdom, through whom the universe came into existence” (emphasis added). However, earlier in the same writing (Fug. 51–52), Philo portrays wisdom as the “daughter of God” (52) and both “masculine” and “feminine” (51). This passage has a dual significance for the current discussion. First, the “mother” status attributed to wisdom should not be treated as something of absolute nature since wisdom is also referred to as “daughter.” Second and more importantly, it is too simplistic to say, based upon Leg. 2.49 (and similar passages), that behind Philo’s wisdom there is a trace of an Israelite goddess. In his allegorical interpretation of scripture, Philo appears to use various terms and images in picturing wisdom, including both masculine and feminine terms and images – as Fug. 51–52 testify. It seems problematic to construct the case for Philo’s “wisdom” as carrying a goddess notion, based on some feminine language employed without taking other elements into account. On the other hand, Somn. 1.228–30, which comments on Gen 31.13, seems instructive in understanding Philo’s “second God” language applied to Logos

190

Cf. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 69–71, also 48. Cf. Prov. 25.1 LXX. Wisdom of Solomon 8.2, too, indicates the metaphorical nature of the description of Wisdom, especially when it states, “I loved her [i.e., Wisdom] and sought her from my youth; I desired to take her for my bride, and became enamored of her beauty” (emphasis added). 192 Regarding Philo, Leg. 2.49 and QG 2.62, since this Alexandrian exegete identifies Wisdom and Logos on several occasions (e.g., Leg.1.65), the discussion of one text seems to have some significance for the other and vice versa. For other passages, see Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, 8. 191

2.3 Interaction with Objections

73

in QG 2.62.193 In explicating Gen 31.13 allegorically (“I am the God who appeared to thee in the place of God [ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ],” Somn. 1.227), Philo comments: [D]o not fail to mark the language used, but carefully inquire whether there are two Gods; for we read “I am the God that appeared to thee,” not “in my place,” but “in the place of God,” as though it were another’s. What, then, are we to say? He that is truly God is One, but those that are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated Him Who is truly God by means of the articles saying “I am the God [ὁ θεός],” while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying “Who appeared to thee in the place” not “of the God [τοῦ θεοῦ],” but simply “of God [θεοῦ].” Here it gives the title of “God [θεόν]” to His chief Word.” (Somn. 1.228–30 [emphasis added])

In this particular passage, Philo appears to distinguish the one and only true God (i.e., “the God [ὁ θεός]”) and the Logos as “God [θεός].” Philo admits that the application of the term “God” to Logos is “improper.” De Somniis 1.228– 30 provides a hint for interpreting the “second God” designation applied to Logos in QG 2.62 – the designation should be understood in a qualified sense, as a technically inappropriate term. Philo’s “second God” language in QG 2.62, then, does not seem to support a “two G/gods” theology.194 In any discussion of Philo’s theology proper, one must “carefully inquire whether there are two Gods” (Somn. 1.228) in any genuine sense. As an additional note, Hayman’s reductionism fails to account for the influence of Middle-Platonic thought over Philo, which seems to have led Hayman to interpret every piece of data he cites primarily with the lens of the Canaanite divine council. Emil Schürer’s judgment on Philo, which represents a scholarly consensus, seems more reasonable than Hayman’s assertion linking Philo’s theology with Canaanite mythology: As a Jew, Philo emphasizes monotheism and the worship of God without images. Obviously this view stands in opposition to the polytheism of the pagan religions, but it can be harmonized quite closely with the conception of God found in Greek philosophic thought, without serious modification of the Jewish conception.195

In sum, Hayman’s argument that Second Temple Judaism was not monotheistic but ditheistic does not seem to be persuasive unless one is obligated to use the term “monotheism” in a metaphysically monistic or unitary sense, as Hayman

193

Cf. Philo, Leg. 2.86, which, in Greek philosophical language, describes God as the primary being and the Logos as second to him. 194 Cf. Segal, Two Powers, 161, 164. On the other hand, QG 4.8 unambiguously emphasizes the “one”-ness of Israel’s God. 195 Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3:880–81. For a similar evaluation, see Wolfson, Philo, 1.10; Segal, Two Powers, 161ff.

74

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

does.196 The primary sources to which Hayman refers, of course, do not portray heaven in a metaphysically monistic or unitary manner. However, they hardly establish a “two Gods” theology in any genuine sense. Various principal agents in Second Temple literature (Logos, Wisdom, chief angels, etc.) do not appear to endanger the uniqueness of Israel’s God. 2.3.2 Paula Fredriksen In her article, “Mandatory Retirement,” Paula Fredriksen argues that four oftused terms in the research of Christian origins, (1) “conversion,” (2) “nationalism,” (3) “religio licita (‘legitimate cult’),” and (4) “monotheism,” should not be used any longer since they anachronistically warp “historical descriptions of the cultural context of Christianity and its origins.”197 According to Fredriksen, these terms obscure the historical atmosphere rather than illuminate it.198 She observes that ancient Jews and Christians were aware of the existence of plural deities, thus “monotheism” in the modern sense is inappropriate for describing their pieties. 199 Fredriksen identifies ancient monotheism with high-god pieties in which there is “‘one god on top’, with other gods ranged beneath, lower than and in some sense subordinate to the high god.”200 She thus asserts: “ancient monotheists were polytheists.”201 Fredriksen implies that this high-god piety is common among ancient Mediterranean religions – Jewish, Christian, and pagan alike.202 There are several issues to examine concerning each term that Fredriksen seeks to abandon. Nevertheless, in light of the present chapter’s focus, this section will focus specifically on Fredriksen’s case for the invalidity of “monotheism” as an academic term. In exploring the “problem” of the term “monotheism,” Fredriksen engages with the New Testament, Church Fathers, and Second Temple Judaism,

196

I do not use the terms “monistic” and “unitary” with their technical theological senses here. What I mean by these terms is the presumption that monotheism allows for only one heavenly being in any meaningful sense. In their focus on the plurality of otherworldly entities, Hayman and Fredriksen, respectively, fail to recognize the relative significance of Israel’s deity in contrast to these other beings. For Second Temple Jews, the God of Israel is in a class of his own (see section 2.2 above). Hayman’s and Fredriksen’s approaches are conditioned and influenced by a monistic or unitary understanding of the term “monotheism” in the sense that, according to them, a worldview that recognizes multiple heavenly beings cannot, by definition, be monotheistic. 197 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 231–46 (quotation on 231). 198 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 231–32, 244. 199 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241–42. 200 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241. 201 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 242. 202 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241–42, 243; cf. 232. This point is more explicitly expressed in her earlier article (eadem, “Gods and the One God.”)

2.3 Interaction with Objections

75

respectively. Due to the brevity of her discussion on “monotheism”203 and the broad scope within that brief discussion, Fredriksen’s essay “Mandatory Retirement” provides only a sketch rather than a detailed investigation. On the other hand, my response to Hayman in the previous section seems to answer the issues that Fredriksen raises concerning “monotheism” overall. Nevertheless, since Fredriksen has vocalized rather confidently her objection to the academic use of the term “monotheism” and even called for its retirement, it is probably fitting to designate a separate section interacting with her, despite some repetitions between the previous section (i.e., my response to Hayman) and the current one. I will note three points, in particular, concerning her objection. First, despite Fredriksen’s criticism of the use of the term “monotheism” in academic settings, the validity or invalidity of an academic term depends largely on how it is defined and, accordingly, used in the appropriate discipline(s).204 If the term “monotheism” is understood in a metaphysically monistic or unitary manner, that is, as “a belief in a single god who is the only god,”205 and is then applied in portraying a religiosity of antiquity (e.g., Second Temple Judaism), Fredriksen’s criticism is justified, and the term “monotheism” appears to be a candidate for retirement, as she suggests. However, if the term is used in a more nuanced manner to describe the devotion of Second Temple Jews as discussed earlier in the chapter,206 without necessarily imposing a postenlightenment understanding upon the term, Fredriksen’s criticism and her call to abandon the term “monotheism” seem unwarranted. I have already clarified at the beginning of the current chapter that one has to be warned against an anachronistic attempt to read the modern notion of “monotheism” into Second Temple Jewish piety.207 “Monotheism” as used in this chapter is a term with a particular focus on the first century CE and not a reference to the modern “monotheism” that Fredriksen seeks to abandon. Fredriksen complains that monotheism, as a term, tends to obscure the historical evidence rather than clarify it. Nonetheless, such obscurity seems to originate primarily from a lack of a clear and sufficient definition rather than from inherent problems in the term itself.208

203

Fredriksen devotes three pages to the discussion of monotheism (“Mandatory Retirement,” 241–43) outside of the introductory and concluding paragraphs, which deal with the four terms that she examines (231–32; 244). 204 Cf. Moberly, “How Appropriate Is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?,” 216–34, for conclusion, 233. 205 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241. 206 See the opening portion of this chapter (chap. 2) and section 2.2 above. 207 See the opening portion of this chapter (chap. 2). 208 The use of “monotheism” in this book is defined in the opening portion of this chapter as: the concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God held by the time-and-space-situated people in question, namely, ancient Jews of the Second Temple era; the biblical deity’s uniqueness

76

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Fredriksen’s criticism of the scholarly use of the term “monotheism” is a reminder that one should not anachronistically read a contemporary definition into the study of antiquity and that one must define terms carefully before their use. Nevertheless, I suspect that relatively few biblical scholars today work with the anachronistic understanding of “monotheism” that Fredriksen seeks to invalidate.209 Specific terminology is necessary for conceptualizing a certain phenomenon. A religious pattern with a set of various features attached to it should be designated with a specific name. Fredriksen herself, thus, appears to use the term “[a]ncient ‘monotheism’”210 to denote the system of one supreme heavenly being on top with other deities subordinate to the supreme being.211 Fredriksen also employs the term “biblical monotheism”212 and, on another occasion, even the term “monotheism” without modification. 213 That Fredriksen herself employs a certain designation such as “ancient monotheism,” “biblical monotheism,” or simply “monotheism” reveals that her problem mainly concerns not the word “monotheism” itself but the way it is used. If one is determined to drop the term “monotheism” completely, as Fredriksen passionately requests, then one will still have to bring in another term, which itself needs to be carefully defined prior to being used as academic vocabulary. In fact, in scholarly discussion, most of the terms, new and old, can become a source of confusion unless they are adequately defined. Anachronism, concerning which Fredriksen ardently warns, cannot be prevented simply by replacing the term “monotheism” with a new word. Instead, one must acknowledge and prudently analyze the distance between modern and ancient people and their respective here does not negate the existence of his heavenly agents or other deities served by nonJews, but it designates him in a transcendent class of his own. 209 Fredriksen (“Mandatory Retirement,” 241) points to Bauckham, “God Crucified” (idem, Jesus and the God of Israel, chap. 1) and Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, as examples of using “monotheism” anachronistically. However, whether or not one agrees with Bauckham’s or Hurtado’s proposal for Christian origins, Fredriksen seems exaggerative when she mentions that they adopt a modern definition of monotheism. These two respective scholars acknowledge that their use of the term “Jewish monotheism” does not mean the denial of the existence of other deities. See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 86, who defines Jewish monotheism as “not the denial of the existence of other ‘gods’.” Refer also to a more detailed account in Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Lord Jesus Christ, 29–53; cf. the collection of articles in Stuckenbruck and North, eds., Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. 210 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241. Fredriksen also mentions “ancient monotheism” on 243. 211 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241; cf. eadem, “Gods and the One God.” 212 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 242. 213 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 242: “Some scholars rightly note that … Jews were monotheists.” Cf. eadem, “Gods and the One God,” 49: “Monotheists directed their particular worship to the being they termed the high god, while dealing with the others as they would.”

2.3 Interaction with Objections

77

understandings and practices, regardless of whether one keeps the term “monotheism” as a category to describe a religious phenomenon of antiquity, in particular, first-century Judaism.214 The second criticism concerning Fredriksen’s objection to the term “monotheism” is that she appears to be excessively concerned with a metaphysical understanding of Jewish/Christian “monotheism.” The effect is that she neglects the nature and dynamics of the relationship between the supreme deity and other heavenly beings.215 While focusing on how many otherworldly beings were recognized, she does not sufficiently consider how those heavenly beings are distinguished from one another or how the meaning, value, and significance of each being is understood.216 Fredriksen’s discussion of Paul is an excellent example of her excessively metaphysical orientation. In discussing Galatians 4, Fredriksen notes: The divinities formerly worshipped by his congregations in Galatia are not gods by nature, [Paul] tells them, but mere stoicheia, cosmic light-weights unworthy of fear or of worship (Gal. 4:8–9; note that Paul only demeans the cosmic status of these beings, but does not deny their existence).217

However, according to the definition of “monotheism” earlier in this chapter (namely, the concern for the uniqueness of Israel’s God held by ancient Jews of the Second Temple era, characterized by the recognition of his unique being and his universal sovereignty and by the reservation of cultic worship only for him, yet without a negation of the existence of his heavenly agents or other deities served by pagans), the term does not entail a denial of the existence of other heavenly beings. At the same time, it is noteworthy that Paul actually demeans the status and significance of other heavenly beings in the noted passage. Paul remarks that these beings “are not gods” in any way comparable to the biblical deity whom he serves (v. 8). Fredriksen’s excessively metaphysical orientation seems to have conditioned her interpretation of this passage in a way overlooking the thrust of Paul’s religious rhetoric regarding the uniqueness of Israel’s God, in contrast to “the weak and beggarly elemental spirits [τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα]” that are “by nature … not gods” (vv. 8–9; cf. Deut 32.17, 21). 214 Concerning the validity or invalidity of the term “monotheism,” see also my response to Hayman above (section 2.3.1). 215 The reader of Fredriksen’s article, “Mandatory Retirement,” will quickly recognize that she uses the verb “exist/existed/existence” quite frequently in this short article. Fredriksen also uses the adjective “ontological” (243) and the adverb “ontologically” (241) in a related sense. Cf. eadem, “Gods and the One God,” 12: “Paul and his Gentile readers do not doubt the existence of many gods. They just do not worship them.” 216 Cf. Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, 107–11), in response to Horbury, “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age.” 217 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241.

78

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Another Pauline passage reinforces what I have just mentioned about Galatians 4: “even though there may be so-called gods [λεγόμενοι θεοί] in heaven or on earth … yet for us there is one God [εἷς θεός]” (1 Cor 8.5–6). Paul is aware of the existence of other heavenly beings. However, he discredits them as “socalled gods.” The sharp contrast placed between “so-called gods” and “one God” in this passage implies that, although Paul does not have a metaphysically unitary view, he locates Israel’s deity (“one God”) in a place distinct from other deities (“so-called gods”). Paul describes their value in a highly qualified sense – as “not gods” in Galatians or as “so-called gods” in 1 Corinthians.218 Paul does not negate the existence of those deities but radically downplays their significance. 219 Fredriksen herself quotes 1 Cor 8.5–6 to support her case against the validity of the term “monotheism”: “‘Indeed, there are many gods and many lords’, [Paul] says to his Gentiles in Corinth; but they are to worship only the god of Israel through his son.”220 Nevertheless, it seems that, once again, Fredriksen’s metaphysical orientation has prevented her from observing the overall thrust of Paul’s rhetoric in demeaning other deities and emphasizing the uniqueness of Israel’s God in the context of addressing cultic matters, especially with an allusion to the “monotheistic” call of the Shema (Deut 6.4) in 1 Cor 8.4 and probably also in v. 6.221 Similarly, when dealing with Micah 4.5 (“For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever”), Fredriksen concentrates on the fact that the verse does not negate the existence of deities other than Israel’s God.222 However, she does not seem to give due weight to the fact that, in the preceding and following contexts of the verse, Israel’s God (and not other deities) is depicted as a universal judge over the nations (v. 3) and the “the Lord of the whole earth” (v. 13).

218 Along this line, Fredriksen appears to minimize the flexibility of the terms “god”/ “gods” and “divine”/“divinity” (see, e.g., Price, “Gods and Emperors”; cf. Philo, QG 2.62) and gives them too much weight as independent words. For example, note the way Fredriksen handles Micah 4.5 (“All the peoples walk, each in the name of its god”) and Exodus 22.27 LXX (“[Do not revile] the gods”), which Fredriksen mistakenly cites as Exodus 22.28 LXX (“Mandatory Retirement,” 241). As discussed earlier in this chapter, the words “god”/ “gods” and “divine”/”divinity” have quite a degree of flexibility in Second Temple Judaism and, thus, describing certain beings this way does not necessarily signify that they belong to the same category/class as Israel’s God. An associated problem is that Fredriksen does not provide a definition for the term “god” or “divine,” and, therefore, it is somewhat hard to know what these terms actually entail in various occasions, respectively, in her discussion. 219 Cf. Wis 13–15, which regards pagan deities as superstition and their images as fabricated items. 220 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241–42. 221 Concerning 1 Cor 8.4–6 as Shema-allusive, see Waaler, Shema; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 26–30, and references to various literature in 28n52. 222 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241.

2.3 Interaction with Objections

79

In sum, Fredriksen’s primary focus on the plurality of heavenly beings and her neglect of the respective significance of those entities seems to have heavily influenced her exegesis of these Jewish and Christian passages. These texts place a contrast between Israel’s deity and other heavenly beings by radically exalting God over these beings and clearly distinguishing him from them in an unequivocal manner. Fredriksen identifies ancient monotheism in general as “‘one god on top’, with other gods ranged beneath, lower than and in some sense subordinate to the high god”223 and declares, “ancient monotheists were polytheists.”224 What is lacking in her account is further clarification of her phrase, “in some sense.” 225 Fredriksen does not explain in what particular sense other heavenly beings are subordinate to the supreme deity or in what specific sense the high god figure was distinguished from the rest of the otherworldly beings in the respective ancient religious traditions. The value and significance attached to the supreme deity and the subordinate heavenly beings in the respective religions is not discussed, either. This point naturally leads to the third criticism of Fredriksen’s “retirement” request concerning the term “monotheism” as follows. Turning to the third and last point in response to Fredriksen, when identifying ancient monotheism in general with high-god pieties regardless of the particular contexts in which such pieties existed, Fredriksen tends to overlook some unique and distinctive features of Second Temple Jewish monotheism, differentiated from pagan high-god religions. While having a correct observation on the commonalities between (a) Second Temple Jewish monotheism and (b) other ancient high-god pieties of the neighboring societies concerning the system of one supreme deity with other heavenly beings subordinate to him,226 Fredriksen is curiously silent regarding the differences between the two227 and the uniqueness of the former as noted by Jews’ pagan neighbors. Recalling briefly the discussion of how pagans saw Jews, one must ponder why they thought of Jews as unique and distinctive in terms of their exclusive devotion to YHWH (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal, Sat. 14.96–106; cf. Origen, Cels. 1.23– 26; 5.6)228 and sometimes called them “atheistic.”229 223

Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241 (emphasis added). Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 242. 225 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241 (emphasis added). 226 Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement,” 241. 227 See Nilsson, “The High God and the Mediator,” 101–20. 228 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 12, notes: “The typical Hellenistic view was that worship is a matter of degree because divinity is a matter of degree. Lesser divinities are worthy of appropriate degrees of worship. … Jews understood their practice of monolatry to be justified, indeed required.” See also Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” 66–98; section 2.2.2.3 above. 229 See Cohon, “The Unity of God,” 430; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 432; cf. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., chap. 6; Mart. Pol. 3.2; 9.2. 224

80

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

Overall, while Fredriksen’s criticism of the academic term “monotheism” is a helpful reminder against its anachronistic misuses and for its careful definition, her criticism does not seem to have the force to justify the retirement of this “common-sense academic [term].”230 2.3.3 Summary of 2.3 Hayman and Fredriksen, from different angles and with different emphases, criticize the use of the term “monotheism” as a category to describe the commitment of Second Temple Jews to their deity. However, the discussion in the current section (section 2.3) has shown that there is no substantial reason to replace it or abandon it – as long as one admits the metaphysical flexibility of Second Temple Judaism to accommodate plural heavenly beings, along with its rhetorical and cultic exclusivism (section 2.2). In the last section of the present chapter that follows (2.4), the discussion of Second Temple Jewish monotheism will be linked to the specific focus of the current study, Mark’s use of monotheistic expression (especially the oneGod/Shema language) in relation to Jesus’ unique status and significance. At this point, this matter will be discussed only in preliminary terms. A thorough exploration of the relevant issues will follow in the subsequent chapters (chaps. 3–4).

2.4 Jewish Monotheism and Mark’s Jesus 2.4 Jewish Monotheism and Mark’s Jesus

The present chapter has argued that God’s uniqueness was firmly maintained in Second Temple Judaism. The following two chapters (chaps. 3–4) will investigate the use of the one-God language in Mark’s Gospel. It will be argued that when Mark employs the Shema language, which highlights God’s uniqueness both in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature, it is strikingly linked to an interest in Jesus’ status and significance as being in some genuine sense one with God. Mark interprets devotion to Israel’s unique God in a novel way, that is, with Jesus in view.231 230

This phrase is borrowed from Fredriksen herself (“Mandatory Retirement,” 231). With the affirmation of a firm monotheistic concern on the part of Second-Temple Jews as presented above, it would still be sensible to note that Logos and Wisdom traditions of Second Temple Judaism made some partial contribution for New Testament Christology. Nevertheless, such a contribution would not suggest that the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament is, therefore, not unique in comparison to the portrayals of Logos and Wisdom in early Jewish materials. Nor would such a contribution suggest that Logos and Wisdom were understood by Second-Temple Jews to have actual personal existence distinct from the God of Israel. Rather, the Logos and Wisdom traditions of Second Temple Judaism can be said to contribute to paving the way for New Testament Christology in the sense that these 231

2.4 Jewish Monotheism and Mark’s Jesus

81

As noted above, prior to the “Christian” movement, Jews did not use the Shema (one-God) language or its associated terms and images to speak of anyone else except the God of Israel.232 The rereading of the Shema as found in Mark’s Gospel – with an interest in Jesus’ unique status and significance – is without any precedents or parallels. While exclusive allegiance to the unique God of Israel was compatible with the metaphysical pluralism of the heavenly realm and also with the description of his exalted servants as discussed earlier in this chapter, the language that highlights God’s uniqueness (e.g., the Shema) was never employed to suggest the significance of any of those exalted figures.233 Strikingly, in Mark’s narrative, the one-God language of Deut 6.4 is employed ultimately to portray Jesus’ status and significance as on par with those of Israel’s God (Mark 2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37).234 In the Second Gospel, the view of the unique God is understood in light of the unique person of Jesus. To clarify, the combination of εἷς and θεός or the word θεός alone never refers to Jesus directly in the Markan narrative. In that sense, Jesus does not replace θεός in the flat sense of equation – he is distinguished from θεός in many passages throughout Mark’s story (see section 5.1.2 below). Nevertheless, when the one-God language is invoked in the Second Gospel, it ultimately indicates Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage with God in one way or another (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37) – as will be argued in chapters 3–4. Such a remarkable use of traditions likely offered some partial conceptual prerequisite or justification for certain aspects of the understanding and appreciation of Jesus Christ as seen in the New Testament. John 1.1 and v. 14, for instance, seem to portray Jesus as Logos in a manner perhaps comparable with Philonic writings (e.g., QG 2.62; QE 2.13; Plant. 18–19; Conf. 146; Fug. 5; Abr. 244), while Matt 11.28–30 appears to depict Jesus in a way reminiscent to the portrayal of Wisdom in Sir 51.23–30. Jewish traditions on Wisdom and Logos may also serve as potential background to depictions of Christ in other NT passages (e.g., Phil 2.6–11; Col 1.15–20; Heb 1.2–4). At the same time, though, one must be reminded that Logos and Wisdom are never presented as distinct persons to be venerated alongside God in Second Temple Jewish literature. Hurtado rightly points out that Logos and Wisdom fall into a category of linguistic expression whereby Jewish authors picture God’s attributes as though distinct from God himself; Logos and Wisdom, therefore, do not seem to have personal existence (One God, One Lord, 41–50). By contrast, Jesus is presented as a distinct person throughout the New Testament and is worshipped together with God (see, e.g., in Rev 5.12–14; cf. Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity”). Wisdom and Logos are portrayed as personifying God’s attributes and carrying out his activity in various ways yet are never worshipped together with God as distinct personal entities, and, in that sense, early Jewish speculations and reflections on Logos and Wisdom – no matter how impressive they appear to be – do fall short of the New Testament presentations of the person and work of Jesus. For a detailed account of scholarly proposals for the identity of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, see Johansson, “The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.” 232 See section 2.2.2.1 above. 233 Cf. Waaler, Shema, 172ff., 421, 432–34. 234 Cf. 1 Cor 8.4–6.

82

Chapter 2: Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

the one-God/Shema language in Mark’s Gospel, however, should be appreciated in light of Mark’s complex, nuanced, and paradoxical portrayal of Jesus as a person who is one with and, at the same time, distinguished from Israel’s God, and who is on par with God and yet submits to God’s authority so radically (chap. 5 below). No matter how mysterious or complicated (or even confusing) this may appear to be, the same author penned both Jesus’ parity with God and his submission under God’s authority (or both Jesus’ linkage with and distinction from God) in Mark’s Gospel.235 Therefore, Mark’s innovative use of the Shema/oneGod language (chaps. 3–4) should be appreciated within this complex matrix of Jesus’ linkage with and distinction from Israel’s God, and of Jesus’ parity with God and his submission to that God (chap. 5). Portraying Jesus as on par with the biblical deity, Mark affirms that God is “one” (12.29; cf. 2.7; 10.18), thus placing his depiction of this unique Jesus within the frame of Jewish monotheism rather than presenting Jesus as another or a second deity. The interest in and devotion to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel is directed ultimately to and in relation to Israel’s unique deity. Jesus is called the Son of God (e.g., Mark 1.11; 9.7; 15.39) and preaches the message about the reign of God (e.g., 1.15; 4.1–34). Jesus does not substitute the unique God of Israel in a flat sense of equation but is linked to and bound with him in a uniquely direct and inseparable manner.236 The commitment to Israel’s unique God, according to Mark’s presentation, is not forsaken but is specified in light of this unique person, Jesus.237 The passage of 12.28–34, which contains Jesus’ favorable conversation with the scribe, implies that devotion to Jesus (cf. vv. 35–37), at least according to the Evangelist’s portrayal, is in line with ancient Jewish devotion to the unique God of Israel (vv. 29–30; cf. v. 32).238 Mark’s view of Jesus is located within the Evangelist’s religious commitment to the unique God of Israel. The Second Temple Jewish concern to maintain firmly the uniqueness of Israel’s God serves as a religious, historical, and theological matrix for this innovative 235 Concerning Mark’s capability to provide an integrated account as well as the integration of the two noted aspects within his narrative, see my discussion in section 5.2.4. 236 While admitting that the data available from Mark’s Gospel is limited, one may say that placing Jesus’ identification with God within a monotheistic framework and locating devotion directed toward Jesus with reference to God has at least a certain tendency toward what Hurtado calls a “binitarian” or “dyadic” pattern (see, e.g., “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship”; Lord Jesus Christ, 151–53). 237 The use of Jewish scriptures in an innovative manner (chaps. 3–4; cf. chap. 5.1.1) illustrates the concurrence of continuity and discontinuity between the theology of Mark’s Gospel and its contemporary Judaism. 238 Jesus does not simply quote the Shema of Deut 6.4–5 but highlights it as the most important commandment of the Old Testament (12.29–30); Jesus’ interlocutor affirms Jesus’ response by rephrasing the Shema (vv. 32–33).

2.5 Chapter Summary

83

movement of the first century CE, which can be termed as early “Christian” devotion to Jesus – as found, for example, in Mark’s Gospel.239 That Mark quotes and alludes to the Hebrew Bible throughout his gospel (e.g., 1.2–3, 10, 11, 44–45; 2.7, 10, 23–25; 3.4, 27, 29; 4.12, 32; 6.34; 7.6–7, 10; 8.18, 31, 37, 38; 9.7, 11–13, 31, 48, 49; 10.6–8, 19, 33–34, 45; 11.9–10, 17; 12.10–11, 26, 29–31, 36; 13.14, 24–25, 26–27; 14.24, 27, 62; 15.24, 29, 34) 240 and even opens his gospel with an explicit reference to, and direction quotation of, the Hebrew Bible (1.2–3) reveals the importance of ancient Jewish monotheism as the primary background for Mark’s one-God language. As much as a commitment to the Jewish God is interpreted in light of the devotion to Jesus, the latter is presented within the pattern of the former.

2.5 Chapter Summary 2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has not considered every aspect of Second Temple Jewish monotheism by any means. The current chapter’s purpose has been primarily to show that Jewish religion of the Second Temple era was characterized by its meaningful monotheistic concern, particularly, in regards to the unique being of the Jewish God, his universal sovereignty, and the reservation of worship for that deity alone. The objections raised by Hayman and Fredriksen, both of whom respectively view “monotheism” as an illegitimate term to describe the piety of Second Temple Jews, do not seem justified. The discussion in this chapter has been illustrative rather than exhaustive, but it suffices for establishing the point that a monotheistic commitment, as defined at the beginning of this chapter, was widespread in and foundational to Second Temple Judaism. Toward the end of the chapter, the significance of the Shema language in relation to Mark’s portrait of Jesus was sketched in general terms. Such significance, however, can be established only after a detailed exegesis of relevant Markan passages (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37) and a careful investigation of how the Shema language is used in those passages, to which this study is about to turn. The portion that contains the only direct quotation of the monotheistic call of the Shema in the Second Gospel and throughout the New Testament (Mark 12.28–34 as closely linked to vv. 35–37) will be explored first (chap. 3). The study will look at the other two monotheistic references in the Markan narrative (2.7; 10.18) afterward (chap. 4).

239 Dahl maintains, “The concepts of Christ as the Son and image of God, the mediator of creation, and the Word incarnate represent not only developments of Christology but also affirmations of the oneness of God.” See Dahl, Jesus the Christ, 159. 240 This list follows Watts, “Mark,” passim.

Chapter 3

Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

In this chapter, I will argue that Mark 12.28–34 (the Love Commandment passage) needs to be read and interpreted in light of 12.35–371 (the question concerning David’s Son). I will further argue that such an inseparable connection between these two passages demonstrates an innovative interpretation of Israel’s core confession of faith (the Shema [v. 29; Deut 6.4]) in a way that links Jesus directly and inseparably with Israel’s God and presents Jesus on a level unique to God. It is not uncommon for each of these passages to be interpreted separately from one another – often detached from the narrative context.2 This practice, however, does not reflect the reality that Mark’s Gospel was written as a narrative. The original audience would have naturally understood each passage in the flow and development of the story.3 Some, on the other hand, may wonder why the case even needs to be argued since these two passages (Mark 12.28– 34 and vv. 35–37) occur side by side. Mere collocation does not, however, necessitate an intimate linkage between the two passages, as seen from some consecutive passages that do not show a special relationship with each other. Even when they do, both the nature and the degree of their relationship vary considerably in different instances. For example, the editorial summary for the 1

Here, the discussion on connectivity concentrates on the activity of the Markan author. The issue of the pre-Markan connectivity or dis-connectivity between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 constitutes an interesting study. Yet it would be, by nature, something very hard to determine, and, more importantly, it is beyond the scope of the current study. The current discussion focuses on the final form of Mark’s Gospel and views the Evangelist as responsible for the connectivity of the two passages, either by originating or preserving such connectivity. 2 The interpretation of these two passages as detached from one another is also seen in a number of commentaries. See, e.g., Brooks, Mark, 196–201; Mann, Mark, 477–87. 3 Verse and chapter divisions reflect a later editorial work and not the activity of Mark the Evangelist himself. Without verse and chapter divisions, Mark’s original audience would likely have been more aware of the links between parts of the narrative than many modern readers who are often bound by such devices. When Mark’s narrative is considered as a whole, the context in which a particular passage is located becomes as important as the content contained within the passage with regard to revealing the Evangelist’s concerns and emphases.

Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

85

parables of the kingdom (Mark 4.33–34) and the story of Jesus’ silencing a storm (4.35–41) do not present any intimate relationship with each other. Even if the question about taxes (12.13–17) and the next question about resurrection (12.18–27) relate to each other as meaningful parts of the same section (i.e., a series of questions and answers located in the temple [11.27–12.37]),4 understanding one passage in isolation from the other does not seem to be a significant problem. Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37, on the other hand, display notably different dynamics as compared to the previous examples; if one passage is read without the other, an essential element of the Evangelist’s intended meaning will be lost, as discussed below. Again, two neighboring passages may or may not indicate an intimate relationship in different contexts, and, even when they do, the nature and degree of their relationship may vary. Accordingly, a case must be made to determine the precise nature of the relationship between the neighboring passages. In this chapter, I will argue for the mutual interpretation of Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 based upon the following considerations: (1) the plausibility of Mark’s deliberate juxtaposition of the two Old Testament quotations (Deut 6.4 [cf. Mark 12.29] and Ps 110 [Mark 12.36]) given the respective primacy of each passage in early Christian circles; (2) the close relationship between God’s uniqueness (highlighted in vv. 28–34 and esp. v. 29 [cf. v. 32]) and his sovereign rule (featured in vv. 35–37 and esp. v. 36) in early Judaism, which provides the most significant historical and theological context for Mark’s use of one-God language; (3) the shared notion of God’s “kingdom”/“kingship” that connects Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 topically; (4) several narrative cues within these two passages indicating they should be read in light of each other; (5) the close relationship between these two passages within the narrative sequence of 11.27–12.37; and (6) various verbal ties between the two passages – especially the use of the term κύριος. Once I establish the connection between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 based upon these factors, I will explore the significance of reading and interpreting the two passages in an integrated manner. The monotheistic statement (12.29; cf. v. 32) is to be understood in light of the exaltation of the messiah (12.36), who is clearly Jesus in Mark’s Gospel.5 The understanding of the unique God of Israel, thus, appears to be 4 Mark 12.38–40 and vv. 41–44 seem to be parts attached to the section of 11.27–12.37 and more immediately to 12.35–37 through a catchword connection. Mark 12.38–40 is tied to 12.35–37 by the catchword “scribe,” and 12.41–44 to 12.38–40 by the catchword “widow.” A similar catchword link is found between 9.49 and v. 50 with the term “salt,” and between 11.24 and v. 25 with the term “prayer.” Mark 12.37b (“And the large crowd was listening to him with delight [ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ ἡδέως]”) seems to signal a kind of closure. I reject NA27’s placement of 12.37b (the crowd’s warm response to Jesus) with 12.38–40 as one section. A comparison of 12.37b to 6.20, where ἤκουεν + αὐτοῦ + ἡδέως ends (and not begins) a section, supports my reading here. 5 See Mark 1.1; 8.29; 14.61–62; cf. 15.32.

86

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

redefined or further clarified by the presentation of the messiah who sits at God’s right hand. The two meanings are appropriated concurrently. In one sense, the Shema is understood in a way approximating a traditional firstcentury Jewish monotheistic interpretation of the Shema. However, it is also understood as an innovative rereading that implies Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage with God based upon the integration of the two passages, each of which cites a prominent Old Testament scripture (Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.28–34 [29– 30], and Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.35–37 [36]).6 The discussions in chapters 4 and 5 will support the plausibility of reading Mark 12.28–34 as inseparably connected to vv. 35–37. The innovative reinterpretation of the Shema in the other two monotheistic references in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 10.18) links Jesus directly with God and portrays Jesus on par with God (chap. 4). Such a reinterpretation suggests that the last and only other one-God reference (the Shema quotation of Mark 12.29) may contain a similar force.7 Furthermore, Mark’s frequently and direct application of Old Testament God-language and imagery to his main character, Jesus, throughout his gospel, even from its opening verses (see section 5.1.1 below), indicates the plausibility that the one-God language may also be employed analogously. Mark’s skillful integration of Jesus’ inseparable linkage to God (section 5.1.1) and Jesus’ distinction from him (section 5.1.2) across his narrative (section 5.2) also seems to imply the deliberate combination of (a) Jesus’ commitment to the unique God of Israel as seen in his affirmation of the Shema’s centrality and primacy (12.29–30), and (b) Jesus’ inseparable and direct linkage to that God presented in the christological exegesis of Ps 110.1 in the immediately following passage (Mark 12.36–37). Detailed and focused discussions in chapters 4 and 5 will establish each of the above points. For the current chapter,

6 For the similar view that Jesus is presented as divine in Mark and that this presentation violates neither the Shema nor Jewish monotheism, see Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark,” 204–10, esp. 209–10. Johansson argues, based on the concurrence of Jesus’ divine presentation in Mark as well as Mark’s insistence on God’s oneness in the Shema, that Jesus is included in God’s oneness but does not violate it. Johansson, however, does not advance the case that Mark 12.28–34 should be read in inseparable conjunction with vv. 35– 37. 7 One may tie the christological rereading of the Shema in 1 Cor 8.6 to the current discussion. For an argument for the case and interaction with previous scholarship, see, e.g., Waaler, Shema, esp. chap. 2 and chap. 6. That another New Testament author who precedes the time of Mark’s composition (i.e., Paul) used the Shema (or explicitly monotheistic language) in a similar way that links Jesus directly to Israel’s unique God, adds weight to the case of a christological rereading of the Shema in this chapter (see below). However, this does not necessarily signify that Mark the Evangelist used 1 Corinthians or was directly aware of it in writing the Second Gospel. I am simply suggesting here that reading the Shema christologically was not a phenomenon limited only to the Markan author in first-century Christianity.

3.1 Mark 12.28–34

87

I will concentrate primarily on Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37, and their immediate literary context as appropriate. Before the main discussions of the current chapter in sections 3.3 and 3.4, I will examine Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 individually (in sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively). While appreciating the richness of each of these passages, it seems necessary to leave a number of issues behind and focus on the matters directly relevant for the main thrust of the current chapter.

3.1 Mark 12.28–34 3.1 Mark 12.28–34

Often referred to as “the Great Commandment passage” or “the Love Commandment passage,” Mark 12.28–34 introduces a surprisingly sincere scribe who approaches Jesus and converses with him without any sense of hostility – unlike his colleagues. According to Mark’s portrayal, this scribe’s positive attitude toward Jesus seems to stem from his observation that Jesus wisely answered the Sadducees’ cunning question about the resurrection (12.18–27). The scribe poses a question asking what the primary commandment (ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων) is, and Jesus responds with a combination of Deut 6.4–5 and Lev 19.18.8 The two commandments come with numerical ordering: first, to love the unique deity of Israel without any reservations (Deut 6.4–5), and, second, to love one’s neighbors as self (Lev 19.18); yet, they are presented in an integrated manner.9 Whole-heartedly affirming Jesus’ answer, the friendly scribe repeats what Jesus has just said in a paraphrase. The scribe then empha-

8 See Piper, Love Your Enemies, 92ff., for the discussion on the originality and authenticity of the combination by Jesus, arguing against Burchard, “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frühen christlichen Überlieferung,” 39–62, esp. 61. The only other literature that is seen to combine the Shema with Lev 19.18, outside of Mark 12.28–34 and the Synoptic parallels, is T. Iss. 5.2, which may reflect a Christian influence. T. Iss. 5.2 alludes to Deut 6.5 but not 6.4. T. Benj. 3.3; T. Iss. 7.6; T. Dan 5.3 come relatively close to T. Iss. 5.2 in combining love for God and love for men, yet these verses (which, too, may reflect Christian influence) appear to be distant from the wording of the Shema and Lev 19.18 as compared to T. Iss. 5.2. For further discussion, see Stein, Mark, 562. For other examples of Jesus’ pairing of one’s duties toward God and men, see, e.g., Luke 15.18, 21; 18.2. 9 See esp. the schema atticum in v. 33: καὶ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν αὐτὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς συνέσεως καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος καὶ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν πλησίον ὡς ἑαυτὸν περισσότερόν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων καὶ θυσιῶν (emphasis added). Note also the grouping of the two commands implied in v. 31b: μείζων τούτων ἄλλη ἐντολὴ οὐκ ἔστιν (emphasis added). This grouping could indicate the exclusive class to which only these two commands (Deut 6.4–5 and Lev 19.18) belong or the organic linkage between these two commands. I personally think that it is both and that those two possibilities are not separable from each other, especially within the context of Mark 12.28–34.

88

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

sizes the priority of love over sacrificial rites.10 Approving the scribe’s intelligent response, Jesus pronounces somewhat ambiguously: “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (v. 34). Then, a silence occurs as no one dared to ask Jesus any further questions (v. 34). The word γραμματεύς (scribe) is used 19 times in Mark’s Gospel but appears only once in a positive light – in this pericope (12.28–34).11 Scribes have appeared to be without “authority” (1.22), disputing with Jesus (2.6–7, 16; 3.22; 7.1–5; 9.14; 11.27–28) and even seeking to destroy him (8.31; 10.33–34; 11.18). Following the current passage, their overall attitude does not change as they participate in the coalition of the Jewish religious establishment against Jesus as found in the passion narrative (14.43, 53ff., 15.1, 31; cf. 14.1–2). Williams rightly observes a contrast in the attitudes toward Jesus and his teaching between the unusual figure of Mark 12.28–34 and the group of scribes in general.12 Gundry conjectures that the scribe came to Jesus with the same kind of hostility as the previous interlocutors (11.27–12.27) but that his attitude changes over the course of the conversation.13 Gundry’s reading, however, does not have any supporting evidence from the passage itself. Mark gives no indication of negativity on the part of the scribe – even from the outset of the passage. The Evangelist, instead, introduces this scribe as one who “[saw] that he [Jesus] answered them [some Sadducees] well” (v. 28).14 Such a favorable 10 It is noteworthy that the relativization (yet not abolition) of the temple cult in Mark 12.33 (cf. 1 Sam 15.22; Isa 1.10–20; Jer 7.20–23; Hos 4.13–14; 6.6; 8.13; Amos 5.21–25; Mic 6.6–8; Mal 1.6–14; Pss 50.8–13; 69.31–32; Prov 21.3) is announced from the mouth of the exceptionally favorable scribe in the temple (cf. 11.27). The scribe’s comment as such, in a way, endorses the judgment Jesus announces upon the temple (11.12–23; cf. 13.3–23) (Stein, Mark, 563). 11 Martin Hengel thinks that this favorable scribe is a Pharisee given the scribe’s endorsement of Jesus for repudiating the Sadducean rejection of resurrection (Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 10, 124n61), while Craig Evans, relying on the information from Jeremias, suggests that the scribe is probably a Sadducee (“Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 538; cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 230–32). This unusual figure could technically be either a Pharisee or a Sadducee since the Sadducees also had their own interpreters of the Law, though the majority of the scribes were Pharisees (Lane, Mark, 431n46; France, Mark, 486). It is much more likely, however, for the friendly scribe of Mark 12.28–34 to be a Pharisee because, in the Second Gospel, scribes are related to Pharisees (2.16, “the scribes of the Pharisees”; also 7.1, 5; cf. Acts 23.9) and never to Sadducees (Gundry, Mark, 725). 12 Williams, Other Followers of Jesus, 172–76; cf. Trocmé, Formation, 94–99. Williams also sees a connection between this “one of the scribes,” “one of the synagogue rulers” (the description for Jairus in 5.22), and “one of the crowd” (the description for the man with the possessed boy in 9.17) as a sincere minority who are open to Jesus’ teaching. 13 Gundry, Mark, 710. Using Gundry’s own term, the scribe who had an evil intention in the beginning is later seen “capitulating.” 14 Myers insists that the scribe’s attitude toward Jesus never changes from beginning to end, arguing that Jesus’ response to him in v. 34 (“you are not far from the Kingdom of God”) is nothing but negative (Binding, 317–18). However, there is no evidence from the

3.1 Mark 12.28–34

89

description seems to differ from the Matthean and Lukan parallels which depict Jesus’ interlocutor, νομικός,15 as a tester (Matt 22.35; Luke 10.25).16 The first part of Jesus’ answer to the scribe’s question is a recitation of the Shema (Mark 12.29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5), which had a central place in Second Temple Judaism.17 The Shema appears pivotal to Mark’s Jesus as he confirms its primacy explicitly (Mark 12.28–34//Matt 22.34–40//Luke 10.25–28).18 It is passage for such a one-sided reading. Although it is true that Jesus’ response to the scribe in 12.34 contains some reservation, as I will elaborate later in this chapter, the first part of the same verse (καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἰδὼν [αὐτὸν] ὅτι νουνεχῶς) shows Jesus’ positive evaluation of the scribe and his reply, at least in part. 15 Matthew 22.35 and Luke 10.25 agree in employing this term instead of the Markan γραμμαεύς (νομικός of Matt 22.35 is absent in Family 1 but is strongly supported by wideranging witnesses). Nonetheless, there is no substantial difference between these two terms. 16 The absence of Mark 12.32–33 in the parallels indicates that the other Synoptists did not closely follow Mark’s description of the scribe as a friendly figure – although it is not easy to determine whether their non-conformity is related to a sociological reason (e.g., separation from the Synagogue or a polemic/apologetic against the Synagogue leading to a negative portrayal of Jesus’ interlocutor), use of different traditions/sources, or a combination of both. 17 See chap. 2 above. Additional evidence for a wide use of the Shema in Second Temple Judaism is the triple love commandment passage in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12.28–34; par. Matt 22.34–40; par. Luke 10.25–28). In the conversation between Jesus and his interlocutor, as recorded in these parallel accounts, there is no hint, even slight, that the centrality of the Shema was something unexpected – either from Jesus or from his conversation partner. 18 The Synoptic Shema citations differ from one another in the following details: (1) only Mark includes the monotheistic call of the Shema (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4) and its reiteration (Mark 12.32; cf. Deut 4.35; Isa 45.21); (2) unlike Matthew and Mark, in Luke, it is Jesus’ interlocutor, and not Jesus, who recites the Shema (Luke 10.27); (3) the description of the human faculty with which God’s people are commanded to love him differ among these parallel accounts. As a brief example, in the Markan Shema citation, διάνοια is added as the fourth element (Mark 12.30) (cf. σύνεσις in the reiteration by the scribe who appears to keep the traditional three tones [v. 33]); and (4) the associated prepositions used for the elements of the human faculty differ among these parallels. For comparison of the synoptic Shema quotations, see Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22ff. For the suggestion that early Christians valued the Shema and employed it in debates, see Tan, “Jesus and the Shema,” 2706. The Lukan Love Commandment passage serves as an introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The explicitly different literary context in which the Lukan passage is placed, a different question and answer used, and other discrepancies as mentioned above have led some scholars to think that Luke 10.25ff. is not a parallel to Matt 22.34ff.//Mark 12.28ff. (e.g., Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 259ff.) I, however, regard Luke 10.25ff. as a parallel in spite of those differences because (1) Luke clearly retains the combination of Deut 6.5 and Lev 19.18; (2) the Lukan passage, just as the Matthean and Markan parallels, presents Jesus as the one with the supreme authority, especially in approving the answer of the teacher of the law (Luke 10.28), even if the double commandment is placed in the mouth of the interlocutor and not Jesus; and (3) the Lukan question on how to inherit eternal life does

90

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

notable in this Markan pericope that, when responding to Jesus, the scribe does not give a word-for-word repetition of the Shema (Deut 6.4–5) but rather a paraphrase. The monotheistic call of the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4) is replaced by “He is one, and besides him there is no other” (Mark 12.32; cf. Deut 4.35; Isa 45.21; Exod 20.3).19 This paraphrase likely indicates a degree of flexibility on the wording of the Shema in the Second Temple period and first-century Christianity. It would be odd to insist upon a difference in meaning between Jesus’ direct quotation of Deut 6.4 and the scribe’s paraphrase of it, especially given that Jesus commends the scribe’s response (12.34). The scribe’s paraphrase clarifies the meaning of the Shema quoted by Jesus (Mark 12.29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5). It affirms the “undivided” existence of YHWH and, accordingly, the call for undivided devotion to him.20 Omission of the divine name in the scribe’s paraphrase in 12.32 (εἷς ἐστιν) may reflect the common Semitic practice of expressing reverence for God in that particular manner of silence. Although christological concerns do not seem explicit within 12.28–34 itself, the necessity of reading this passage in light of the subsequent verses (12.35–37) – as argued for in section 3.3 below – ultimately reveals the Evangelist’s christological concern regarding his Shema citation. The arrangement of a passage and in what specific context it occurs is just as critical as its “plain” content in determining the meaning of that pericope.21

not seem too distant from the Markan/Matthean question on what the primary/great[est] commandment is (cf. Donahue, “Neglected Factor,” 578, who tends to identify the Lukan parallel with Mark 12.32–33). For studies on the Love Commandment passages, see Furnish, Love Command; Perkins, Love Commands in the New Testament; Keerankeri, Love Commandment; Bornkamm, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe;” Burchard, “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frühen christlichen Überlieferung,” 39–62. See also Gerhardsson, Shema in the New Testament. He focuses on a Mishnaic understanding of the Shema as a core element in the formation of some New Testament passages. 19 On the flexibility of wording, see my discussion in section 4.1. For the passages employing the “no other” formula, see section 2.2.2.1 above. 20 Berger argues that the association of Deut 4.35 with Deut 6.4–5 originated from the LXX because only it has “the Lord your God” in Deut 4.35, which corresponds with “the Lord our God” in Deut 6.4–5. This specific part of Deut 4.35, however, does not appear in Mark 12.32. The association between the two seems, instead, to depend on their thematic identity in that they express precisely the same idea while using different monotheistic formulae. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 713; with reference to Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu, 192. 21 That christological concerns do not seem explicit does not mean that such concerns are entirely absent from Mark 12.28–34. Instead, christological interests are implicitly present within the pericope and activated by the immediately following verses (12.35–37). See my discussion in sections 3.4 and 3.5 below. In addition, Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 34 is noteworthy. With the declaration, οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, Mark portrays Jesus as a figure with stunning authority, who is able to give a verdict on someone’s spiritual

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

91

The goal of this section (3.2) is to discern what Mark intends to convey through the David’s son passage in 12.35–37 and especially through Jesus’ allusive self-application of Psalm 110.1 (Mark 12.36–37). To achieve such a goal, it seems necessary first to conduct an overview of both (a) Ps 110.1, which is quoted in Mark 12.36, and (b) the issue of the messiah’s Davidic sonship, which appears to be crucial in Jesus’ reasoning (vv. 36–37).

3.2 Mark 12.35–37 3.2 Mark 12.35–37

In the Davidssohnfrage passage of 12.35–37,22 the Markan Jesus appears to challenge the contemporary scribal consensus at the time regarding the Davidic sonship of the messiah. Stating that David wrote Psalm 110 (Ps 109 LXX) “by the Holy Spirit [ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ],”23 Jesus cites its opening verse: “The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet [εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς24 σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου].”25 Jesus then reasons on what ground (πόθεν) the messiah can be David’s son if he is called “Lord” by David himself.26 A positive response to Jesus’ teaching follows from the crowd. condition that has a bearing for the person’s eternal/eschatological fate (cf. 10.21, vv. 29– 30). Such a portrayal of Jesus is not without christological implication. 22 For a survey of modern exegesis on the Davdissohnfrage (Mark 12.35–37), see Botner, “What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son?” Refer also to Schneider, “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12, 35–37),” 65–90, especially 65–81. Schneider’s survey from 1972 is now old yet still useful. 23 The phrase refers to a prophetic inspiration. See 2 Sam 23.2; Acts 1.16; cf. Acts 28.25; 2 Pet 1.21. See also Acts 2.30–31, which introduces David as a prophet. 24 Best (The Temptation and the Passion, 87–88; cf. 67) argues that, in view of Mark 14.62, which implies that Jesus’ human enemies will receive judgment, Jesus’ enemies in 12.36 are also human. Nonetheless, in regard to the overall Markan narrative where Jesus conquers the demonic powers and is depicted as a cosmic ruler, it would be sensible to include both human and demonic powers as Jesus’ enemies in considering 12.36 (Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, 33–42). The fact that both human and demonic powers are to be submissive to Jesus communicates the scope of his reign and authority. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the Evangelist’s main focus in quoting Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36 is on the phrase “my Lord” (rather than “your enemies”) just as the immediately following verse (v. 37) clarifies. 25 The quotation of Ps 110.1 is conflated with Ps 8.6 (LXX 8.7). The word ὑποπόδιον ([as a] footstool) becomes ὑποκάτω (under) as a result of this conflation. For the conflation of Ps 110.1 with Ps 8.6 in the New Testament and its theological significance, see Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 163–72. Bauckham sees this conflation as reflecting an innovative Christian exegesis and as containing a thrust of highlighting Jesus’ divine sovereignty (Jesus and the God of Israel, 21–23). 26 See Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark, 287 and esp. n. 277, for the use of πόθεν which does not mark a negation, but “an unsettling or surprising fact that requires explana-

92

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

3.2.1 An Overview of Psalm 110 Psalm 110.1 is the most frequently quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament.27 Martin Luther labels the Psalm as “the main one [Psalm] to deal with our dear Lord Jesus Christ.”28 The enthronement on the right hand of God as portrayed in the first verse of this psalm communicates a high honor and potency of YHWH’s vice-regent.29 Somewhat unexpectedly, however, there is no reference to the Psalm in the Qumran materials and Second Temple literature, except for a possible allusion in T. Job 33.3.30 This text, nevertheless, concerns Job’s individual reward in heaven and not his unique authority or function. Thus, the text cannot be a true precedent for New Testament exegesis of Ps 110.1, which portrays Jesus as a cosmic ruler together with God.31 Notion.” Even if Jesus’ question in 12.37, πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υἱός, is left unanswered in the story, the answer is not too unclear to the Markan original audience, i.e., that Jesus is not merely the Davidic messiah whom Mark’s contemporary Jews expect, but the one who transcends such expectation and is exalted to sit at God’s right. On the other hand, it is a characteristic of the Markan Evangelist to provoke the audience’s thinking by posing questions about Jesus’ identity (e.g., 2.7; 4.41; 8.29; 11.28). The logic behind this reasoning is clear – that a son is inferior to his father. To make it clear, I do not mean that the first-century Jews, not least the scribes, thought that the messiah (David’s “offspring”) should necessarily be inferior to David himself. I simply indicate that the Markan Jesus tackles the logic behind a general father-son language – with a particular aim to hint at his transcendent status, authority, and significance. 27 See Matt 22.44; 26.64; Mark 12.36; 14.62; 16.19; Luke 20.42–43; 22.69; Acts 2.33– 35; 5.31; 7.55–56; Rom 8.34; 1 Cor 15.25; Eph 1.20; 2.6; Col 3.1; Heb 1.3, 13; 8.1; 10.12– 13; 12.2; 1 Pet 3.22; possibly Rev 3.21 (list of texts as found in Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 21n39). For the conflation of Ps 110.1 with Ps 8.6, see Mark 12.36; par. Matt 22.44; 1 Cor 15.25–28; Eph 1.20–22; 1 Pet 3.22; Heb 1.13–2.9. Only v. 1 and v. 4 from Psalm 110 are quoted in the New Testament. For the quotations of v. 4, see Heb 5.6; 7.17, 21. 28 Cited from Mays, Psalms, 350. 29 Hay explains, “Long before the Christian era pagans spoke of kings and gods exalted to thrones at the right of other gods, and they sometimes described bliss after death in terms of a right-hand location” (Glory, 58; cf. Evans, Mark, 273). In ancient times, the right side of the king’s throne was often prepared for the person elected to rule in the administrative power of the king (Hurtado, Mark, 209; cf. Hay, Glory, 19–20). See also Exod 15.6; 1 Kgs 2.19; Pss 45.9; 80.17. For an overview of Ps 110, refer to Allen, Psalms 101–150, 83–86; Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 346ff.; cf. Loader, “Christ at the right hand,” 199; Hay, Glory, 19ff.; Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 175–84. 30 It is notable that there is no reference to Psalm 110 among the Qumran materials in spite of the community’s apparent hope for a particular salvific time under the reign of the Davidic ruler (cf. Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 120–21). 31 Hay, Glory, 23n21; Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 22; cf. Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 157. Hay, alongside T. Job 33.3, lists Daniel 7.9–14 (according to Rabbi Akiba’s interpretation), 11Q Melchizedek (cf. Marcus, Way, 133ff.), and Enoch literature as possible allusions to Ps 110.1. Nonetheless, as he acknowledges, there is no solid ground to

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

93

where else in the extant literature of Second Temple Judaism is Ps 110.1 applied to an exalted figure, whether human or angelic, or to the messiah(s) of Jewish expectation(s).32 Bauckham notes, “[The] early Christians used the text to say something about Jesus which Second Temple Jewish literature is not interested in saying about anyone.”33 Even in later Judaism, there is no surviving evidence of any messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 until the second half of the third century CE.34 Does this phenomenon signify the absence of messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 prior to the Christian movement? Billerbeck35 suggests that messianic interpretation was the norm for rabbinic exegesis of the first century36 and that the Christian interpretation of Psalm 110 originated within this very background.37 According to Billerbeck, the temporary absence of the messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 in Judaism until the second half of the third century was due to a kind of anti-Christian tendency. A non-messianic reading of the Psalm was launched purposefully in the early second century CE as a reaction to the Christian “mal-treatment” of this particular Psalm and the “embarrassment” that came along with it.38 Billerbeck here refers to the non-messianic take these texts as alluding to Ps 110. There is no complete or partial verbal parallelism as found in T. Job 33.3 (Hay, Glory, 22–27). 32 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 21–23 (22); cf. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 217. 33 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 22. 34 As for non-messianic interpretation of Ps 110 prior to the second half of the third century, some rabbis interpreted Ps 110 as a reference to David “as an illustrious man of the past” (Hay, Glory, 28ff.; with a reference to Str-B, 4:456–58). Justin, in the mid-second century CE reports that the Jews applied Psalm 110 to Hezekiah (Dial 32–33, 83). For an overview of rabbinic interpretation of Ps 110, see Hay, Glory, 21–33; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 163ff. Hay (Glory, 28–31) observes that some rabbis interpreted the figure in Ps 110.1 as the messiah with an honorable position as a favored subject beside God’s throne, on which he sits inactively and waits for the inauguration of his earthly reign. This messianic reading of the verse differs notably from the New Testament interpretation of it, which overlaps Jesus’ status and authority with those of Israel’s God. 35 My interaction with Billerbeck in this paragraph follows Hay, Glory, 28ff. I recognize that Billerbeck’s discussion (Str-B) is quite dated and has frequently been argued to be anachronistic (i.e., later rabbinic texts retrojected onto the New Testament). Given its anachronistic tendencies, Billerbeck should be used primarily for comparison and not as evidence for New Testament studies in general. 36 Hay, Glory, 29, with reference to Str-B 4:452–65, which suggests that the LXX of Ps 109.2 (Ps 110.2 MT) reflects a messianic interpretation (cf. Hay, Glory, 21–22, on Ps 109.3 LXX). Nevertheless, one must ask why no Jewish exegete picked up such an interpretational approach to Ps 110 before and for quite a while after the Christian movement if the LXX translation, indeed, contained a notable kind or degree of conscious and deliberate messianic exegesis as claimed. 37 Hay, Glory, 29; Str-B 4:452–60. 38 Hay, Glory, 29–30; Str-B 4:458–60; also, France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 165.

94

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

interpretation of Psalm 110, offered by R. Ismael (c. 100–35). R. Ismael argued that “God had intended to make Shem (i.e., Melchizedek) the progenitor of the priestly line, but transferred that honor to Abraham when Melchizedek erred by naming a man before God in the blessing of Gen 14.19. God then spoke the words of Ps 110.1 and 4 to Abraham.”39 R. Ismael, Billerbeck notes, also asserted that God condemned Melchizedek, “whom Christians had come to venerate as a type of Christ.”40 Billerbeck’s reconstruction is indeed interesting. Nevertheless, one cannot easily dismiss the absence of any historical or textual evidence for the messianic exegesis of the Psalm in Judaism throughout the Second Temple era and even until the second half of the third century. Billerbeck’s conjecture does not fully explain why there is no extant messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 before the “Christian” movement. The record of R. Ismael’s teaching, which Billerbeck references, could imply the existence of an anti-Christian polemic in the first half of the second century CE. It does not, however, necessarily show that there was once (e.g., in the first century or earlier) a messianic interpretation of the Psalm among Jewish circles. Hay and Loader seem open to the Christian origin of the messianic exegesis of Psalm 110. Still, they prefer a “moderate” conclusion that the messianic exegesis of Psalm 110 was probably current in Judaism in the first century CE and thus provided a background for the Christian interpretation of this Psalm.41 I, however, contend that the lack of historical and textual evidence of the messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 in the Second Temple era as a whole should not be overlooked. It is possible, as Hay and Loader suppose, that the Christian interpretation of this Psalm originated under a certain influence from a Jewish exegetical tradition that is not extant. It seems reasonable, nevertheless, not to give too much weight to that conjectured influence given the absence of any evidence. I suggest that the messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 was not common among the Jewish exegetes and that it is Christian exegetes who propagated and emphasized it as exemplified in the New Testament writings.

39

Hay, Glory, 28ff. (quotation from 28; with reference to b. Nedarim 32b = Leviticus Rabba 25.6); Str-B 4:453. Abraham is the main figure to whom Ps 110.1 is applied in the second century and the first half of the third century. This Abrahamic interpretation of Ps 110 continues even after the emergence of the messianic exegesis of Ps 110 in Judaism in the second half of the third century. Occasionally, Ps 110 was applied to David (France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 164; Str-B 4:458). 40 Hay, Glory, 30; Str-B 4:458–60. 41 Hay, Glory, 30; cf. 22–27; Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand,” 199; also, Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 14–15. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians, 14n20, refers to Hay, Glory, 26–30, but he seems to be more confident about the case than Hay himself who is quite cautious.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

95

In later Judaism, one can find several examples of Psalm 110 being read from a messianic perspective, with the earliest witnesses dated between ca 260 and ca 350.42 A notable inclination in the rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 110 is that sitting on God’s right was understood “as a symbol of passivity.”43 For instance, when the Psalm was appropriated for David, his sitting posture communicated that he had to wait until Saul’s death prior to ruling Israel.44 In the same logic, the messiah has to sit quietly beside God, not showing himself, while God engages a war for him (i.e., the messiah).45 In frequently linking Psalm 110 with battles (particularly Abraham’s combats from Gen 14), rabbis underlined God as the agent of those fights rather than the person sitting next to him.46 The messianic interpretation of Psalm 110 in rabbinical sources pictures a person as enjoying exceptional favor from God. However, there is hardly any incident in which “sitting on the right hand of YHWH” is regarded as a heavenly enthronement or endowment of a special God-like function in heaven – as encountered in the New Testament.47 In the writings of the New Testament, Psalm 110.1 is applied to Jesus as a scriptural basis for his resurrection/ascension/exaltation, divine authority (in the present and coming eras), and/or priestly office.48 In our current passage (esp. Mark 12.36), in particular, it is employed to address Jesus’ transcendent identity and authority in line with its only other use in the Second Gospel (14.62), which will be discussed below. It is helpful to notice that Psalm 110.1 was not merely quoted but “interpreted” by New Testament writers, including one of the earliest authors such as Paul (Rom 8.34), especially in relation to their understanding of Jesus’ unique status, authority, and significance.49 In Mark 12.35–37, the portrayal of Jesus’ exaltation through the application of Psalm 110.1 to him involves an innovative interpretation of that Old Testament verse, which, in its original context, communicated the lordship of an earthly king who represents God’s cosmic rule.50 As Hay concludes, “early Christians used Ps 110 to affirm both 42

Hay, Glory, 28. Hay, Glory, 30 44 Hay, Glory, 30–31, with reference to Targum on Ps 110.1; cf. the sitting language of Hos 3.3; Jer 3.2 (Hay, Glory, 31n55). 45 Hay, Glory, 31. 46 Hay, Glory, 31. 47 Hay, Glory, 30–31, 33. 48 For detailed discussions of the different usage of Ps 110.1 in the New Testament, refer to Hay, Glory, 52–153; Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 119–225; Loader, “Christ at the right hand,” 199–217. 49 Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” 43–69, esp. 61; cf. Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand,” 199. 50 “Reinterpretation” or “rereading” of scripture in the current book does not suggest that the author of the Second Gospel saw himself to be altering the meaning of an Old Testament 43

96

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

their sense of continuity with Jewish scriptures and their belief that Jesus transcended Jewish expectations and all human categories.”51 3.2.2 Refusal of the Messiah’s Davidic Sonship? The tradition of the Davidic messiah has a long history in the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism. Some of the primary references include Pss 2 and 89; 2 Sam 7.12–13; Isa 11.1, 10; Jer 23.5; 33.15; 4QFlor; Psalms of Solomon 17.52 If it is read separately from the rest of the Second Gospel, Mark 12.35–37 may appear to refute the well-accepted Christian position, which is in line with the previously mentioned Old Testament and early Jewish witnesses, that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of David.53 There have been, in fact, a group of scholars

passage. Rather, he likely viewed himself to be expressing the meaning and significance of the text faithfully in light of the unique status and significance of Jesus and bringing out more than could have been discerned prior to Jesus’ revelatory activity. 51 Hay, Glory, 162 (emphasis mine). The Markan Jesus’ interpretation of Ps 110.1 (in Mark 12.35–37; cf. 14.62) may indicate his preexistence, yet it is not clear solely from this passage whether preexistence or post-existence is portrayed. For a stimulating discussion on the issue of preexistence in Mark and the other Synoptic Gospels, see Gathercole, The Preexistent Son. Gathercole presents a probable case for the Christology of preexistence in the Synoptic Gospels based upon the construction, “I have come” + purpose clause, which parallels the angelic sayings in Second Temple literature. For the significance of God’s cosmic throne for Jewish monotheism and in early Christology, see Eskola, Messiah and the Throne. 52 4QFlor contains expositions of 2 Sam and Pss 1 and 2. For an overview of Davidic tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism, see Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 115–21; cf. Dunn, Romans, 1:12. 53 The “embarrassing” nature of this pericope and the allusiveness of the christological idea in this passage have led a number of scholars to support the authenticity of the passage. For example, see Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand,” 214–15; Taylor, Mark, 490–93; Fitzmyer, Semitic Background, 114–15; Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son, 280–81; Gundry, Mark, 723; Cranfield, Mark, 381; France, Mark, 483–84; Bock, Blasphemy, 220–22; cf. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 644–45. If the pericope of Mark 12.35–37 was a creation of the church or if there was a heavy redactional involvement by the church, the presentation of Jesus’ identity in the passage would likely have become more up-front than what is seen in the present form – even though the current presentation was not too subtle for Mark’s audience who were followers of Jesus and had some substantial prior knowledge on the subject matters of the Second Gospel (Stein, Mark, 9–10). Of course, here, “authenticity” does not necessarily exclude the artistic touches on the structure of the pericope (Gundry, Mark, 723). Given that the messianic interpretation of Ps 110.1 in Second Temple Judaism and in early Rabbinic Judaism is not extant and that even a non-messianic interest in this Psalm is quite limited, the authenticity of the pericope may imply that the messianic interpretation of Ps 110.1 originated with the Christian movement. If that is the case, why Ps 110.1 was so popular among the early Christian writers is understandable.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

97

who take Jesus’ “denial” of the Davidic sonship literally.54 They argue that the Markan Jesus is rejecting any linkage between the Davidic descent and his messiahship or any definition of his messiahship in Davidic terms. On the other hand, though noting that Mark does not entirely deny the validity of the Davidic designation, Marcus still suggests that “conflicting perspectives” in the gospel should not be suppressed in favor of harmonization under the overarching scheme of composition-critical and narrative-critical approaches. Therefore, one should not ignore the “plain sense” of the refutation of the Davidic sonship (Mark 12.35–37) to reconcile it with the earlier affirmation of Jesus’ Davidic value as in 10.47 and 11.10.55 Those holding either of these positions, however, have to answer two questions: (1) whether it is likely for the Evangelist to reject or substantially qualify Jesus’ Davidic descent, which had strong support from various early Christian traditions (e.g., Rom 1.3–4; Matt 1.1; Luke 1.27; 2 Tim 2.8) and (2) how the collective weight of several passages throughout Mark’s Gospel that present Jesus’ Davidic orientation as legitimate (10.47; 11.10; also 1.11 and 9.7 [with reference to Ps 2.7]; 2.25–26; 12.10–11; 15.24 [cf. Ps 22.18], 29 [cf. Ps 22.7; 35.25; 40.15; 109.25], 34 [cf. Ps 22.1], 36 [cf. Ps 69.21]) should be understood together with their suggested interpretation of Mark 12.35–37.56 If one examines the Markan narrative as a whole and the Markan passages listed in the preceding paragraph, it seems almost impossible to deny that the Evangelist validates Davidic aspects in Jesus’ messiahship. Furthermore, when Bartimaeus repeatedly refers to Jesus as “Son of David” in 10.47–48, there is no sense of negativity or reservation on the Markan Jesus’ part in accepting what the blind man has announced. Though many around Bartimaeus rebuke him harshly and try to silence him (cf. 4.39), Jesus brings him to himself and heals his sight. Jesus then affirms, “your faith has made you well” (10.52). This affirmation occurs only twice in Mark’s Gospel.57 Jesus’ “questioning” of the Davidic descent in 12.35–37 should, then, probably be understood not as a rejection but as indicating its inadequacy for fully accounting for Jesus’ transcendent status and significance (cf. Rom 1.3–4).58 The designation “Son 54 For example, Rowland, Christian Origins, 181–82; cf. Boring, Mark, 347–49, who sees Davidic descent as a non-issue in the passage of Mark 12.35–37. 55 Marcus, Way, 140n38; with reference to Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels, 34. This point is made in the context of interacting critically with Matera’s (Kingship, 86– 89) and Kingsbury’s (Christology, 102–14) arguments for the royal-messianic Christology of Mark. 56 For discussion of these passages that hint at Jesus’ significance as one bearing David’s kingly legacy, though also transcending it, see section 5.2.1.2 below. 57 See Mark 5.34 for the only other occurrence of this affirmation in the Second Gospel. 58 For this line of interpretation, yet with varying degrees of emphasis and assurance, see Lane, Mark, 438; Hay, Glory, 111–12; Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand,” 215; Taylor, Mark, 492; Anderson, Mark, 285; Hurtado, Mark, 203–204; Hooker, Mark, 292; Matera,

98

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

of David” was not incorrect; it was merely insufficient. The “denial” of the Davidic sonship is not a rejection of the designation itself. Rather, this “denial” indicates that the designation, though itself correct, is not sufficient to exhaust the magnificence of Jesus’ unique status, authority, and significance. Marcus’ understanding of Mark 12.35–37, in particular, is related to his presupposed historical background for Mark’s Gospel, especially the events related to the false messiahs (e.g., Simon and Menachem) who appeared during the time of the Jewish War (66–74 CE) and were regarded as (Davidic) Messiahs but eventually turned out to have failed.59 The Markan Evangelist, according to Marcus, did not want to make any associations between these revolutionary figures and Jesus by insensitively addressing the latter as “Son of David.”60 Marcus’ suggestion is interesting, but its value is limited by the Evangelist’s favorable presentation of Bartimaeus using the designation, “Son of David” (10.47–48) along with other affirmative Davidic references in Mark (11.10; also 1.11 and 9.7 [with reference to Ps 2.7]; 2.25–26; 12.10–11; many Davidic references in chap. 15).61 Chilton argues that “Son of David” is associated with exorcism and healing, an association found in the late first-century document, Testament of Solomon.62 Chilton, however, does not seem to differentiate carefully between the healing ministry in general and exorcism in particular.63 “Son of David” may have some connection, albeit not strong, to Jesus’ healing ministry in Mark’s Gospel (cf. 10.47) but not to his exorcism. In fact, there is no link between “Son of David” and exorcism in any other literature except Testament

Kingship, 86–89; Kingsbury, Christology, 102–14; Kee, Community, 124ff. Cf. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 55–56 (55), who suggests that understanding the messiah based on Davidic lineage alone was both “too triumphant” in light of the fact that Jesus would suffer death, and “not triumphant enough” in light of the exaltation above David in Ps 110. 59 Marcus, Way, 147–50; cf. idem, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” 441–62. 60 Marcus, Way, 147–50. 61 Hay (Glory, 111) similarly suggests that the “refutation” of the Davidic understanding of the messiah is related to the fact that the title carries an emphatically nationalistic tone (cf. Pss. Sol. 17.21ff.). Hay (Glory, 111) speaks particularly of “a deliberate rejection of the mundane interpretation of Ps 110 perhaps favored by Hasmoneans and other postexilic Jews.” Hay’s suggestion is attractive, but one should ask whether the Evangelist was highly committed to or was sufficiently intentional about separating the nationalistic overtones from Jesus especially given his portrait of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, the scene which links Jesus with the national hero, i.e., David (11.9–10; cf. Ps 118.25–26 [see section 5.2.1.2 below]; also, Mark 10.47–48, which repeatedly appropriates the title “Son of David” for Jesus). 62 Chilton, “Jesus ben David,” 88–112; cf. Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism and the Son of David,” 235–52. 63 De Jonge, “Jesus, Son of David and Son of God,” 100–101.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

99

of Solomon.64 Therefore, to extend such a connection to our discussion of Mark seems to be unwarranted. Furthermore, as de Jonge aptly points out, Chilton appears to overlook the core issue of Mark 12.35–37 (and pars.), which is “not whether the healing ‘Son of David’ is the messiah, but whether the messiah is the ‘Son of David.’”65 Different scholars have asked which alternative title Mark had in mind in “refuting” the Davidic designation for Jesus. There have been various suggestions such as “Lord,”66 “the Son of Man,”67 and “Son of God.”68 However, as Rowe helpfully points out, the effort to find a counterpart to “the Son of David” has, in itself, too titular an orientation and does not give due consideration to the narrative itself.69 Rowe’s point appears to be valid, especially given that the phrase υἱὸς Δαυίδ is not used as a title in Mark 12.35– 37 (unlike 10.47–48, which contains the only titular use of “Son of David” in the Second Gospel) when conveying the notion of the Davidic descent of the messiah.70 In addition, as Boring notes, one christological title should not be 64 Possible exceptions include 11QPsa 27.9–10, which speaks of four psalms composed by David that were to be performed over the possessed, and Josephus, A.J. 8.45–49, which describes exorcism methods prescribed by Solomon. Neither example, however, provides an explicit connection between the specific designation “Son of David,” and exorcism. 65 De Jonge, “Jesus, Son of David and Son of God,” 101. 66 For example, Loader, “Christ at the Right Hand,” 215. 67 For example, Bultmann, History, 136–37. 68 For example, Marcus, “Mark 14:61,” 135–37; Hay, Glory, 109, 116; Kingsbury, Christology, 110–12. Marcus, by arguing that ὁ χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ of 14.61 is a restrictive apposition where ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ defines the nature of the messiahship, asserts that Mark intends to contrast the two messianic concepts – messiah who is the Son of David vs. messiah who is the Son of God (“Mark 14:61,” 135–37). The latter, then, is the counter title to “Son of David” (see 12.35–37). For limitations of title-oriented studies of Christology, see Keck, “Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology,” 369–70. 69 Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son, 282. For understanding the use of narrative methods in the discussion of Christology, see Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” 57–95; Kingsbury, Christology; Naluparayil, The Identity of Jesus in Mark. 70 For example, ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, RSV (contra KJV) reflect this non-titular reading of “the son of David” in Mark 12.35. Titular orientation may perhaps be better justified in reading the Matthean parallel, which contains an implied contrast between Jesus’ Davidic sonship and his Divine sonship (Matt 22.41–46). In Matthew, the main thrust of Jesus’ question concerns whose son Jesus is (τίνος υἱός), given that David indeed called Jesus his Lord (22.41ff.). Matthew, nevertheless, does not refuse the Davidic sonship of Jesus; his opening verse (1.1) clearly affirms him as υἱοῦ Δαυίδ. Moreover, a flat, simplistic antithesis between Davidic descent and divine sonship does not seem to make full sense because the Davidic ruler was at times referred to as God’s son in pre-Christian eras (Pss 2.7; 89.26–27; 2 Sam 7.14; cf. 4QFlor. 1.7ff.). If some sort of antithesis has to be present, it must be a nuanced, dialectic one. For the uses of the term “Son of God” prior to the New Testament, see section 5.2.1.1 below.

100

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

so emphasized as to exclude others since these titles exist in a dynamic interaction with one another and appear side by side, for example, in the trial scene (14.61–62), where various christological titles, namely, Messiah, the Son of the Blessed (Semitic euphemism for God), and Son of Man “are equated” in reference to Jesus.71 One must observe Mark’s titular Christology primarily within the narrative itself, in which different christological titles play their roles interactively instead of imposing one specific title to replace υἱὸς Δαυίδ, which, once again, is not employed as a title in the pericope of 12.35–37. I have just shown that the most plausible interpretation of Jesus’ “denial” of the Davidic sonship is found from Mark’s narrative itself. The narrative of Mark’s Gospel validates the Davidic definition (10.47–48; 11.10) even though it is not itself sufficient to express Jesus’ transcendent status and significance (12.35–37).72 3.2.3 The Significance of Jesus’ Self-assertion in Mark 12.35–37 with Attention to the Quotation of Psalm 110.1 (Mark 12.36) A core question one must ask in interpreting Mark 12.35–37 is what the Evangelist intends to convey by applying Ps 110.1 to Jesus, his messiah. In answering such a question, one it is natural to explore Mark 14.62, which is the 71 Boring, “God-Language,” 458. Similarly, Hengel points out that “[t]he multiplicity of christological titles does not mean a multiplicity of exclusive ‘christologies’ but an accumulative glorification of Jesus” (Between Jesus and Paul, 41). Hengel’s point does not directly concern the Gospel of Mark, yet it seems appropriate for the discussion of the Second Gospel here. 72 The Epistle of Barnabas (late-first/early-second century CE [?]), 12.10–11 states that Jesus is “not the Son of man, but the Son of God” (ANF trans.) prior to quoting the first verse of Ps 110 where David addresses the messiah as his lord. Nevertheless, even here, the “not the son of a man, but the Son of God” antithesis does not need to be understood as the negation of the former. It rather serves to highlight the importance of the latter, negating the former only dialectically – just as in Mark 12.35–37. See Whitenton, Hearing Kyriotic Sonship, 226 (see 225–35 for a fuller discussion of Mark 12.35–37), who argues that those who deny the presence of Davidic sonship in Mark’s account overlook “the value of subtle insinuation, which is a staple of ancient rhetorical theory” (cf. 2.7; 10.18). Posing rhetorical questions intended to lead the audience to deeper reflection is part of such rhetorical theory, and that is precisely what Jesus does in 12.35–37 (227). Moreover, Whitenton thinks that 12.35– 37 draws all the earlier references connecting Jesus to both David and YHWH to a “crescendo” (228). For indirect speech in ancient rhetoric, including various methods of subtle insinuation, see, e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 9.2. In Mark 12.35–37, the Evangelist seems to employ the Semitic use of negation (esp. the negation of the messiah’s Davidic descent) for the sake of comparison (esp. the comparison between the messiah’s Davidic descent and his superiority to David as his κύριος). See Hooker, Mark, 292. Look also at the “negation” language of Hos 6.6 along with the comparison language of Mark 12.33, and the “negation” language of Luke 14.26 along with the comparison language of Matt 10.37.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

101

only other place where Ps 110.1 occurs within the Second Gospel.73 In the trial narrative, Jesus once again applies Ps 110.1 to himself, yet this time more directly and explicitly (Mark 14.62). The high priest, after his interaction with Jesus (vv. 61–62), shouts out a charge against him, “You have heard his blasphemy!” (v. 64).74 The conversation between the high priest and Jesus is quite to the point: the former asks, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (v. 61), and the latter responds, “I am (ἐγώ εἰμι); and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’, and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (v. 62). The high priest’s call of “blasphemy” in 14.64 implies that, according to Mark’s depiction, the high priest viewed Jesus’ reply as making some encroachment on the divine prerogative (cf. 2.7).75 This section will explore which particular aspect of Jesus’ answer prompts the charge of such encroachment on God’s privilege. This brief survey of 14.64 will help us better understand Mark’s intention in applying Ps 110 to Jesus. To make it clear, my

73 The longer ending of Mark 16.9–20 (esp. 16.19), which is most likely post-Markan and thus reflects early reception history rather than composition history of the Second Gospel, contains a reference to Ps 110.1. For the text-critical discussion of the Markan endings, see Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 102–108. 74 For the discussion of “blasphemy” in Judaism, see Bock, Blasphemy, 30–112; cf. Hurtado, How on Earth, 162–68, who discusses the grave charge in the context of the Markan and Johannine Gospels with a particular interest in the life settings of the earliest readers. 75 Concerning the charge of “blasphemy” as the scribes’ accusation of Jesus’ self-assertion for his divine status, Davis points out: “The reactions of Jesus’ enemies substantiate this: they recognize the claim for what it is. In 2.7, their very first expression of resistance to him, they accuse him of blasphemy in a way which makes Mark’s conception of blasphemy evident: it is the ascription of divine status to that which is not God (cf. 3.28–29). Significantly, it is from the selfsame charge of blasphemy that Jesus’ condemnation by the Sanhedrin arises (14.64). From beginning to end, the conflict between Jesus and the authorities is centred upon the Markan understanding of what is involved in blasphemy: the claim to transcend the radical distinction between the divine and the human” (Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox,” 8–9). For intimate connection between 2.1–12 and 14.61ff., see Tuckett, “Present Son,” 64–65; Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 289; cf. Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel, 109, 113–14, who describes 2.1–3.6 as a “preliminary hearing,” which orientates Mark’s readers for the later trial where Jesus appears to be silent (109). The authority of Jesus to forgive sins in 2.1–12, then, needs to be understood not only in the context of Jesus’ authority but also in the context of his passion, especially given that the charge of “blasphemy” (2.7) becomes the sentence for Jesus’ death penalty later in the narrative (14.64). That the section of 2.1–3.6, which highlights Jesus’ authority, ends with the Jewish leaders’ conspiracy to kill Jesus (3.6) also supports this very point. The undebated importance of the passion narrative in Mark’s Gospel is a further support. The concurrence of the aspects of Jesus’ authority and passion in 2.1–3.6 indicates that Mark’s narrative is integrated and, thus, contrasting one part of it (e.g., the Galilean section including many authoritative miracles performed by Jesus) sharply with another (e.g., the Jerusalem section containing the passion narrative) is unwarranted.

102

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

focus is mainly on how the Evangelist portrays the conversation between the high priest and Jesus in Mark 14.61–62, and not its historicity or other historical issues (i.e., first-century Jewish judicial procedure that the historical Jesus had to undergo).76 I will reference some historical matters but only for interpreting what Mark depicted in 14.61–62, not for pursuing those historical issues directly. One may consider various possibilities regarding the reason for the charge of blasphemy in Mark 14.64. One option is that Jesus’ pronouncing the divine name in quoting Ps 110.1 provoked the charge of blasphemy.77 Mark does not, however, give even a slight indication that this is the case. Both the high priest and Jesus use euphemisms in referring to God. The high priest uses τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ (v. 61), and the Markan Jesus employs τῆς δυνάμεως (v. 62) instead of τοῦ θεοῦ. Moreover, in the earlier citation of Ps 110.1 (Mark 12.36), we find no indication that Jesus’ pronouncement of the divine name was viewed as dangerous or as crossing a boundary. The crowd’s response to Jesus appeared warm and receptive (12.37b). Here, one should probably not read a later Mishnaic definition of blasphemy (m. Sanh. 7.5: “He who blasphemes is liable only when he will have fully pronounced the divine Name”) into this Markan passage. The second possibility is that Jesus’ challenge of the high priest is the reason for the charge, especially in light of Exodus 22.28 (22.27 [MT/LXX]), which commands, “You shall not revile God, or curse a leader of your people.”78 Jesus, in his response to the high priest, appears to refute the validity of the authority of the high priest and specifically his council by asserting that he will be vindicated and have the authority to preside over the heavenly realm and judge in the eschaton (Mark 14.62).79 Such an assertion could be seen as a challenge to the high priest. Nevertheless, Mark does not seem to portray Jesus’ “ill-treatment” of the high priest as a cause for the charge of blasphemy; at

76 For a substantial treatment of the Markan trial narrative, see the discussion in Brown, The Death of the Messiah, vol. 1, 315–560; for “blasphemy,” in particular, see 520–27; cf. Bock, Blasphemy, 189ff., 209ff. 77 Gundry, Mark, 915–18; Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries, 412–13. Evans notes that this point itself cannot constitute the complete charge of blasphemy. See Bock, Blasphemy, 197–200, for further discussion. 78 Bock, Blasphemy, 206–209. It should be noted that Bock presents this only as a secondary cause – with Jesus’ self-claim to share God’s unique authority on God’s right as the primary cause (202–205). 79 Marcus, following Pesch, sees a connection between the “seeing” language of 14.62 and the martyrdom motif (cf. 1 En. 62.3–5) which communicates the sense of vindication for the martyr and judgment for the persecutors. See Marcus, Way, 166–67; cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:438–39. The connection with the martyrological traditions seems helpful but is not necessary as the vindicatory and judgmental aspects are obvious from the Markan text itself – even without considering that possible connection.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

103

least, there is no hint of reaction against Jesus’ attack as the one found in Acts 23.4 (“Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?”) or anything similar.80 The third possibility is that the charge has to do with Jesus’ claim to identify himself with YHWH by announcing ἐγώ εἰμι in v. 62 (cf. Exod 3.14).81 This possibility, however, does not seem to be a plausible option, either. Williams examines Jewish liturgical and exegetical traditions, definitions of blasphemy, and Jewish and Christian syntactical parallels to the question and answer of Mark 14.61–62 around the time of Mark. He concludes that ἐγώ εἰμι in 14.62 does not carry divine significance but serves as an affirmative answer to the high priest’s question of whether Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” (v. 61; cf. 1.1).82 Juel likewise rejects the reading of ἐγώ εἰμι as containing divine significance, noting that ἐγώ εἰμι in Jesus’ response directly answers the high priest’s question within the dialogue of 14.61–62.83 The two-word answer ἐγώ εἰμι (14.62) affirms the legitimacy of appropriating the epithets “the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One” for Jesus (v. 61) but not necessarily Jesus’ divine significance, at least in any direct sense. If one accepts the scholarly near consensus of Markan priority, it is indeed surprising that Matthew and Luke miss the alleged divine significance from the Markan ἐγώ εἰμι phrase in 14.62. Matthew replaces it with σὺ εἶπας (Matt 26.64), thus neutralizing the suspected divine significance of the bipartite expression. Luke technically preserves the two-word phrase but seems to neutralize its force, or at least weaken its thrust, by inserting an indirect-discourse device “you say that [ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι]” before ἐγώ εἰμι and, thereby, making the alleged divine claim by Jesus through this two-word phrase a bit too subtle: ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (Luke 22.70). The examination of the Matthean and Lukan parallels to Jesus’ simple ἐγώ εἰμι response in Mark 14.62 shows that attaching divine significance to this bipartite expression is more likely part of reception history rather than composition history. Further, if Matthew and Luke were written after Mark and used Mark as a source in their writings, as many assume, the attachment of divine significance to ἐγώ εἰμι does not, then, seem to belong to 80 It is interesting that Mark 15.29 records those mocking Jesus as ἐβλασφήμουν (“[they] were blaspheming”). This may simply mean an act of “slander,” but given that “blasphemy” is used in relation to the Evangelist’s christological assertions earlier in the gospel (2.7; 14.64) and especially shortly before in the passion narrative (14.64), it seems plausible to read 15.29 “blasphemously” along the line of 2.7 and 14.64. This time (15.29), however, the charge of blasphemy is legitimate (unlike the one in 2.7 and 14.64) and it is given to those mocking him and not Jesus. From a slightly different angle, the charge of blasphemy in 15.29 exposes the illegitimacy of the trial of Jesus (14.61–64), thus providing an apologetic for Jesus and his followers such as the Evangelist and his original audience. 81 Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 102, 142–59; Boring, “God-Language,” 469; with some hesitancy, Hooker, Mark, 362. 82 Williams, I Am He, 242–51, 253–54. 83 Juel, Messiah and Temple, 99.

104

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

the earliest years of Mark’s reception history, which include the Matthean and Lukan compositions. The final possibility is that the charge comes from Jesus’ affirmation of his messiahship and his divine sonship as specifically defined in Mark 14.62. Here, our discussion must be nuanced. It is generally agreed in scholarship that a claim to be messiah was not itself a sufficient legal cause for the charge of blasphemy in the first-century context.84 Rather, it is the definition or nature of that messiahship that might have led to a charge of blasphemy.85 Likewise, the expression “divine sonship” could refer to various types and degrees of a person’s relationship to God – from merely symbolic to ontological – and thus, a discussion of divine sonship requires some definition.86 Jesus’ affirmation of his messiahship and his divine sonship in Mark 14.62 is, fortunately, not without further definition. Jesus the Messiah, the divine son (14.61), is defined in the subsequent verse (v. 62) as “‘the Son of Man [τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, cf. Dan 7.13–14] seated at the right hand of the Power [ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως, cf. Ps 110.1]’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven [ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, cf. Dan 7.13]’.”87 In his examination of “sitting at God’s right hand” in Judaism (mainly up to the second century CE), Bock points out that, although there were some figures from the past whom certain Jewish circles regarded as significantly exalted besides YHWH and even endowed with his authority to some degree, the exaltation of those figures was, overall, not seen as a threat to the uniqueness of Israel’s God. Their authority was understood derivatively.88 “To equate anyone else with God,” that is, the unique deity of Israel, on the other hand, was considered blasphemous.89 A rarely high form of exaltation is found in 1 84

Juel, Messiah and Temple, 99–100. According to Collins’ account, there are four distinct messianic paradigms in Second Temple Judaism, i.e., king, priest, prophet, and heavenly messiah. These paradigms could be merged, and their emphasis varied at different instances. Such flexibility tends to warn against too strict a definition of the term “messiah.” See Collins, The Scepter and Star, chap. 1. 85 Cf. Luke’s trial narrative (22.66–71), which shows that the claim to be God’s Son is more problematic than the claim to be the messiah – at least according to the portrayal of the Third Evangelist. The death penalty given to Jesus was related to the former in Luke’s narrative (esp. vv. 70–71). See Marcus, “Mark 14:61,” 125–41, for the discussion of the Markan trial narrative. 86 See section 5.2.1.1 below for a discussion of various uses of the “Son of God” concept in its Jewish context. 87 See section 4.2.2 below, which argues for a Danielic background for Mark’s use of the phrase, “the Son of Man.” 88 Bock, Blasphemy, 113–83, where he describes the honors and authorities of various exalted (human and angelic) figures in Judaism as well as their limitations. For a catalogue of the exalted figures in Second Temple Judaism, see also Hurtado, One God, One Lord; Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, chap. 3. 89 Bock, Blasphemy, 183.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

105

Enoch where Enoch-Son of Man (e.g., 45.3; 46.1–3; 51.3; 61.8; 62.5–6; 71.1– 17) appears to be enthroned in heaven and in charge of the eschatological judgment. The exaltation of Enoch-Son of Man (and later Enoch-Metatron90) as such made some Jews nervous concerning a possible violation of the uniqueness of God.91 It is noteworthy, however, that the exaltation of these and other figures from the past or from the eschatological future, and the heavenly seating of the exceptionally privileged few among those figures, were understood as prestigiously enabled by God’s direction and not by their own self-assertion.92 With that context in mind, a first-century Jew claiming for himself to sit beside God, as portrayed in Mark’s trial narrative (and its Synoptic parallels), was not just bold but utterly unthinkable.93 After weighing Jesus’ claim to sit at the right hand of Israel’s deity (Mark 14.62) in comparison to the exaltation and, more specifically, heavenly seating of some privileged figures in Jewish literature written roughly around the time of the New Testament, Bock concludes: “To sit at God’s right hand on the same throne … is a higher form of exaltation than merely sitting in heaven. This kind of explicit language never appears concerning any of [the exalted] figures [in Judaism].”94 Having considered the significance of Jesus’ heavenly seating “at the right hand of the Power” in Mark 14.62 (cf. Ps 110.1), it will be necessary also to consider the significance of Jesus’ “coming with the clouds of heaven” in the same Markan verse, alluding to Dan 7.13.95 For the purpose of the present section, which focuses on Ps 110.1, it will suffice to show that the authority Jesus claims associated with Dan 7.13 appears to be in line with his enthronement at God’s right hand (Ps 110.1). The two Old Testament texts, indeed, share a focus not only on God and his throne but also on another figure being granted authority, whether symbolized by the act of sitting at God’s right hand (Ps 110.1) or expressed more descriptively as being given authority over

90

See Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. See Segal, Two Powers, passim, for further discussion. For a report against the exaltation of Enoch, see T. Ab. 11.3–8 (B). For reports against the exaltation of Metatron, refer to 3 En. 16; b. Hag. 15a; b. Sanh. 38b. 92 Bock, Blasphemy, 183, who focuses particularly on heavenly seating as the most honorable and a highly exceptional form of exaltation. 93 Cf. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 174. 94 Bock, Blasphemy, 235. Bock notes that only Enoch or “Son of Man” (122–29) could be a potential exception to his point. However, the exalted language in 1 Enoch is granted to the Son of Man; it is not self-appropriated the way Jesus claims in Mark 14.62 to sit “at the right hand of the Power.” 95 For a treatment of the title “Son of Man” in Mark’s Gospel and its relationship to Dan 7.13–14, see 4.2.2 below. 91

106

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

the nations (Dan 7.14).96 As sitting at God’s right hand in heaven would appear to have qualified as blasphemy in the opinion of the high priest (Mark 14.64) in the context of 14.61–64, so too could Jesus’ “coming with the clouds of heaven” (14.62; cf. Dan 7.13). Riding on clouds is often understood as a divine activity in the Old Testament (see Ps 18.9–12; 104.3–4; Isa 19.1; Nah 1.3).97 Some caution, however, may be needed here, as 1 Enoch depicts Enoch as being flown into heaven by “winds” (ἄνεμοι) after having been summoned by “clouds” (νεφέλαι; 1 Enoch 14.8).98 Nevertheless, whether or not Jesus’ divine significance can be established solely based on the imagery of “coming with the clouds” (Dan 7.13), what seems clear from the wedding together of Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13 is that both passages present “an enthronement oracle,” with Jesus receiving “universal and unending dominion.”99 As Hengel comments, Dan 7.13 agrees with Ps 110.1 in that “the dominion of God and of the son of man becomes one in its execution.”100 Jesus’ self-application of Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13 in Mark 14.62 conveys his unique authority and status, and the nature of Jesus’ authority and status should be appreciated in connection to, and not isolation from, the rest of the Second Gospel. The inaugural “Son of Man” reference in the Second Gospel (Mark 2.10; cf. Dan 7.13) finds Jesus forgiving sins, seemingly violating God’s unique prerogative (Mark 2.5, v. 7). Such an inaugural use prepares the way for later “Son of Man” references such as the one found at 14.62. The earlier and only other reference to Ps 110.1 in the Second Gospel (Mark 12.36) comes deliberately after and is linked with an emphatic statement on the uniqueness of God (12.28–34, esp. vv. 29, 32), thus nuancing the nature and thrust of God’s uniqueness in light of the exalted messiah (i.e., Jesus), as will be argued below (sections 3.4 and 3.5). Considering Mark 14.62 in connection to the rest of the narrative, even briefly as above, accentuates the force of the two merged scriptures in this christologically climactic verse.101 Two scriptural references in Mark 14.62 are intimately linked with each other under the epithet “Son of Man” (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; cf. Dan 7.13),

96 See Evans, Mark, 451, who thinks that Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13 are here drawn together due to “the Jewish exegetical principle of gĕzêr̯ šāw̯ , ‘an equivalent category’.” 97 Adams, “Son of Man,” 60, suggests that the picture of Jesus “coming with the clouds” after having been seated at God’s right hand in Mark 14.62 “is not dissimilar to that of T. Mos. 10.3–6 in which God rises from his heavenly throne where he has been seated, and descends to earth ‘in full view’ to work vengeance on the nations. The difference is that in Mark, it is Jesus, rather than God, who comes down from his throne on high” (emphasis original). 98 Cf. 4 Ezra 13.3, in which one like a man “flew with the clouds of heaven.” 99 France, Mark, 613. 100 Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 185. 101 France, Mark, 610.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

107

Jesus’ favorite self-designation.102 The combination of these two scriptures communicates that Jesus participates both in divine authority (Ps 110.1)103 and divine judgment (Dan 7.13).104 In other words, the force of this scriptural combination is that Jesus shares God’s unique cosmic sovereignty in the current age as well as in the eschaton.105 The character and nature of Jesus’ self-claim for his God-like authority and for his excessive proximity to Israel’s God in defining his messiahship and divine sonship would likely constitute a case for blasphemy in first-century Judaism, and such an understanding seems to underlie Mark’s portrayal of the gravest charge against his messiah, Jesus, in 14.64.106 102 Just as in 8.29–31, Jesus is addressed as “Messiah” in 14.61 (where “Son of the Blessed [One]” is combined with the title “Messiah.”). Jesus then replaces the two combined titles with his favorite epithet “the Son of Man,” which has been so far employed largely in the context of rejection and suffering – though with the exceptions from the inaugural uses in 2.10 and v. 28. The epithet is here used of power and glory. The trial narrative, on the other hand, is a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of his suffering and death in 8.31, 9.31 and 10.33–34. 103 Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” 43–69 (64), contends that “[t]he concern of early christology, from its root in the exegesis of Psalm 110.1 and related texts, was to understand the identification of Jesus with God.” 104 Hay, Glory, 26, points out that Ps 110 and Dan 7 are the only Old Testament passages that speak of a figure enthroned beside God. It is interesting that these two scriptures, which are essential to early Christology (see, e.g., Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, chap. 3 [esp. 185–89; cf. 181–84]) are linked to each other in the trial narrative (Mark 14.62; cf. Midr. Ps. 2.9 [on Ps 2.7]). For further discussion, see Evans, Mark, esp. his commentary on 14.62 (450–52). Concerning the scriptural combination of plural images in the development of Jewish messianism, see Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, 2 passim. 105 Cf. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, 185. France and Wright strongly challenge the “classical” reading of the “coming” of the Son of Man (Mark 13.24–27; 14.62; cf. Dan 7.13) as a Parousia scene and argue that the imagery meant the destruction of the temple. Their view is based upon (1) the reading of Dan 7.13 in Mark 13.26 within the bounds of the original literary context of Dan 7.9–14 (vindicated to the heavenly throne) and (2) the interpretation of the cosmic catastrophe language as a symbol of a significant political change within history in light of how Old Testament prophetic literature utilizes such language (e.g., Isa 13.10; 34.4). See France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 139–48; idem, Mark, 341–43; 500–503; 530–37; 610–13; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 339–67 passim; idem, Mark for Everyone, 111–12 passim; Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27,” 43–66. For incisive criticisms of their views, see Adams, “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” 39–61. Examining closely various first-century Christian writings and contemporary Jewish literature, Adams pays particular attention to other Old Testament images combined with Dan 7.13, which grant a Parousia-orientation to the use of that Danielic verse (7.13) within Mark’s Gospel. For additional criticisms, see Stein, Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man, chap. 5. 106 Here, my assumption is that the Evangelist did not portray as blasphemous something that few of his contemporaries would view as infringing God’s unique prerogative. In understanding the nature of the charge against Jesus in Mark 14.64, especially in relation to

108

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

Overall, according to Mark’s portrait, the high priest’s charge of blasphemy against Jesus (Mark 14.64) seems to be primarily due to Jesus’ assertion that he is the Messiah/the Son of God (and the Son of Man) who participates in the divine sovereignty over the universe as implied by Jesus’ self-application of Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13 (Mark 14.62). The Evangelist does not give even a slight hint that the high priest misunderstood the nature and thrust of Jesus’ response to his question. The real problem of the high priest, according to Mark’s depiction, is not that he has misunderstood the nature of Jesus’ self-claim but that he has rejected and reacted against its weighty significance. Returning now to the main focus of the current section (i.e., the David’s son pericope of 12.35–37, which is placed in Jerusalem together with the trial scene in 14.61–64), Mark’s Jesus appears to make a bold claim by applying Ps 110.1 to himself.107 Again, Jesus’ quotation of Ps 110.1 is not just a quotation but also a self-applicative interpretation of the verse (Mark 14.62), which will soon lead him to be executed with the charge of blasphemy (v. 64; cf. 15.15, vv. 16– 41). At the narrative level, this self-assertion is made in a veiled way in 12.36– 37a, so the positive response from the characters in the story (i.e., the crowd) does not indicate a full understanding of its significance. The phrase εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου (12.36; cf. Ps 110.1) links God and Jesus with the common epithet (κύριος) though not flatly identifying the two since one (κύριος) appears to speak to the other (τῷ κυρίῳ μου), just as in the transcendent scene of Mark 1.2–3 in which the κύριος language of Isa 40.3 was appropriated for and extended to Jesus (Mark 1.3). Such a remarkable christological use of Old Testament divine κύριος language at the very beginning of the Second Gospel appears to set the stage for understanding the rest of its narrative, including 12.36.108 Playing with κύριος terminology applied alternatively to God and Jesus in 12.36 supports my understanding above that the Markan Jesus’ selfclaim in the pericope of 12.35–37 is indeed a bold one. Of course, at the

Jesus’ response in v. 62, Luke’s narration of the martyrdom of Stephen seems helpful. Stephen claims that the Son of Man is standing (ἑστῶτα) at God’s right hand (Acts 7.56) and, for that reason, is stoned by the crowd who become mad at his statement on the Son of Man’s exalted status. It is true that Stephen is not technically charged with “blasphemy” – he is not even tried. Nevertheless, the reference to the sudden cessation of the hearing and his immediate stoning implies that his utterance about the Son of Man on God’s right is regarded as blasphemous. Bauckham similarly notes: “[Stephen’s] stoning is not due to the speech at all. It is the penalty for the perceived blasphemy in his claim to see Jesus at God’s right hand” (“James and the Jerusalem Church,” 64). 107 Cf. Hay, Glory, 113–14, concerning the relationship between the two quotations of Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36 and 14.62. 108 Cf. also Mark 5.19–20, where Jesus tells the Gerasene demoniac to tell what ὁ κύριός, namely God, had done for him (5.19). The man who had been freed of demon possession, then, proceeds to tell what ὁ Ἰησοῦς did for him (5.20). For more on the interchange between Mark 5.19 and v. 20 and its christological significance, see section 5.1.1.1 below.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

109

narrative level, Jesus’ self-assertion is made in a veiled way in 12.36–37a, so the positive response from the characters in the story (i.e., the crowd) does not necessarily imply their full understanding of its significance. Marcus emphasizes that, while the messiah appears to be enthroned on God’s right (12.35–37), he is “still subordinate to God,” even in his enthronement. Distance still exists between the two.”109 However, Marcus seems to underestimate the main thrust of the pericope in seeking a “perfect” balance between the notions of exaltation and subordination. In response to Marcus’ reading, it must be noted that the core thrust of 12.35–37, and especially the use of Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36, is not a hierarchy between God and Jesus but rather the striking exaltation of the messiah to God’s right hand – as “properly” understood by the high priest later in the trial narrative who is there seen to call out the charge of blasphemy against Jesus’ self-application of Ps 110.1 coupled with Dan 7.13 (Mark 14.62).110 It must also be noted that the scene portrayed in Mark 12.36 (cf. Ps 110.1) should be appreciated in light of and in connection to Mark 1.2–3, not only because the latter sets the tone for the rest of the gospel as the beginning of the story111 but also because the two scenes correspond to each other with a notable degree of similarity. The similarities between 1.2–3 and 12.35–37 include God speaking to the messiah (Jesus) in an “off-stage”112 setting in both passages, and the application of the epithet κύριος to Jesus – an epithet used of Israel’s God in Isa 40.3 and appropriated to Jesus in Mark 1.3 (cf. 5.19–20) and commonly used for Jesus and God in Mark 12.36 (quoting Ps 110.1). The “hierarchy” between God and Jesus in Mark 12.36 cannot, then, 109

Marcus, Way, 145. See also idem, “Authority,” 201. Similar to my position, Boring, “God-Language,” 458. Boring states that Christ’s location at God’s right, while communicating the distinction from the Father, connotes a sense of “parallel” (or his equality with God) rather than subordination. Marcus’s view presented in Way and “Authority” seems to reflect a change of his position on the “sitting” in Ps 110.1. He asserts that “it is not that Jesus remains in heaven while God conquers his enemies on earth but that Jesus subdues his enemies through God’s power rather than his own” (“Authority,” 204n3; cf. Way, 137). In his earlier monograph (Mystery, 181), Marcus maintained that Jesus’ “sitting” communicates “inactivity”; cf. Crossan, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” 135–52 (referenced by Marcus [Mystery, 181n59]) who views the empty tomb (Mark 16.6) as a sign for Christ’s absence from the Markan community. Crossan’s reading of the verse is bold yet not supported by the text. According to Mark, the empty tomb is the sign of Jesus’ resurrection and not his absence from the community as the words of the young man in the tomb testify (16.6). See also Bolt, “Mark 16:1–8,” 27–37 (33–34). 111 For the importance of narrative beginnings in antiquity, including epic poems and comedy, cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 3.14.6. See also Whitenton, Hearing Kyriotic Sonship, 98–104. On the beginning section in Mark’s Gospel, see Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, chap. 5. See also the literature cited in Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son, 229n1. 112 See also Heb 1.13 (cf. Ps 110.1). The term, “off-stage,” is borrowed from Boring, “God-Language,” 452, 464, 469. 110

110

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

be a flat, one-dimensional hierarchy – especially if the phrase “Lord said to my Lord (εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου)” and the relationship between the two distinct Lords in the verse are appreciated in light of and in connection to the divine κύριος language of Isa 40.3 (cf. chaps. 40–66) applied to Jesus at the very beginning of the Second Gospel (Mark 1.3).113 It should be noticed, of course, that the portrayal of Jesus’ identity in 12.35– 37 is communicated allusively rather than descriptively at the narrative level.114 In a purely literary-critical sense, Mark prepares his audience for its more explicit presentation in later portions of the story (esp. 14.61–62 and 15.39). Hay comments on 12.35–37 that “Mark’s dominant motive for including this saying about David’s son was probably a literary one, that of creating a tension in the gospel not to be resolved before Jesus’ trial.”115 However, Mark’s audience, who are post-resurrection followers of Jesus and were likely already familiar with many of the individual stories incorporated in the Second Gospel, would probably not have felt such tension themselves.116 This means that the “allusiveness” of Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ divine status and significance in 12.35–37 was not all that allusive for Mark’s earliest audience.117 To the original audience of the Second Gospel, Mark 12.35–37 does not simply 113

See further discussion in sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.2. For Mark’s use of Ps 110 and the relationship between YHWH-κύριος and Jesus, see Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism, 1:138–41, who does not think Jesus’ interpretation of Ps 110 necessitates a divine Christology but still suggests Ps 110.1 made a significant contribution in the early identification of Jesus with YHWH-κύριος. Fletcher-Louis’ explanation of Ps 110 and other texts according to a new paradigm awaits his forthcoming publication(s). See Tait, Jesus the Divine Bridegroom, 93–133, who argues that the cluster of pericopes in 11.27–12.37 mirror a similar cluster in 2.1–3.6 with a common christological orientation and notes that 2.1–12 contains a high view of Jesus as the one who forgives sins as only God does (93–98), while 12.35–37 similarly presents a high view of Jesus as David’s Lord (130– 33). 114 For a recent exploration of Mark’s deliberate allusiveness, specifically with reference to his use of scripture, see Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 97–103. 115 Hay, Glory, 114. 116 Even if one cannot precisely measure the Markan readers’ previous knowledge of Jesus, the opening of his account with reference to “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (1.1) implies that Mark’s audience already knew substantially about “Jesus materials” and most likely confessed him as the messiah. That some characters are introduced but not explained in Mark’s Gospel (see, e.g., 15.21), again, seems to indicate the audience’s pre-knowledge of some specific Jesus materials. Refer to Hurtado, “The Gospel of Mark,” 25–26; Stein, Mark, 9–10. 117 McKnight aptly points out: “[O]ccasionally literary (especially reader-oriented) critics forget that the readers of this literature are not learning about Jesus for the first time.” See McKnight, Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels, 132. Hay, Glory, of course, precedes the fullscale emergence of literary-critical methods in modern biblical studies, yet his reading of Mark 12.35–37 contains such a tendency. For a more recent example, see van Iersel, Mark, 381–83.

3.2 Mark 12.35–37

111

present Jesus’ clever scholastic argument against a common scribal understanding of David’s son. Rather, a scriptural reference to Ps 110.1 as in Mark 12.36 was probably a sufficient cue for them to reflect on Jesus’ unique status and significance as the one participating in the cosmic rule of Israel’s God. Moreover, the fact that Ps 110.1 was widely accepted by the New Testament writers and their communities as the main scripture that communicates Jesus’ exaltation and participation in divine cosmic sovereignty seems fundamental to the position here advanced.118 Such a fact reinforces the proposed point, that Mark’s presentation in 12.36 was not too subtle to the Evangelist’s original audience.119 It may be asked why there is no sense of objection or amazement in the response of the crowd in 12.37b if Jesus’ self-claim was so bold and even dangerous. In reply to that potential question, two things can be mentioned. First, Mark seems to make a deliberate contrast between (a) the receptive response of the crowd toward Jesus at Mark 12.37b and (b) the hostile reaction of the high priest (Mark 14.63–64) and of the religious establishment of Jerusalem (11.27–12.27). The attitude of the crowd will change later under the influence of the ἀρχιερεῖς (“the chief priests” [15.11]), yet, at this point of the narrative there is no sense of hostility hinted among them.120 Second, at the narrative level, Jesus’ self-assertion is veiled in 12.36–37a so that the crowd does not seem to fully grasp the implications of Jesus’ words.121 Of course, as clarified above, insufficient understanding on the part of Jesus’ audience as characters in the story does not imply a lack of understanding on the part of Mark’s audience; Mark’s original audience, in fact, had a substantial degree of preunderstanding on the subject matters of the Second Gospel.122 Characters in the story themselves would react in a different way (see 14.63–64) when their understanding becomes fuller than that of this friendly crowd (12.37b). So far, Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 have been examined individually (sections 3.1 and 3.2) in preparation for the main discussions of the current chapter. It is now time to turn to the main discussions – the inseparable connection

118 See, again, Matt 22.44; 26.64; Mark 12.36; 14.62; 16.19; Luke 20.42–43; 22.69; Acts 2.33–35; 5.31; 7.55–56; Rom 8.34; 1 Cor 15.25; Eph 1.20; 2.6; Col 3.1; Heb 1.3, 13; 8.1; 10.12–13; 12.2; 1 Pet 3.22; possibly Rev 3.21 (list of texts as found in Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 21n39). For the conflation of Ps 110.1 with Ps 8.6, see Mark 12.36; par. Matt 22.44; 1 Cor 15.25–28; Eph 1.20–22; 1 Pet 3.22; Heb 1.13–2.9. 119 See the discussion of Mark’s audience and their pre-knowledge in section 1.3 above. Cf. Stein, Mark, 9–10. 120 Marcus, Mystery, 65, suggests a parallel between 12.37b and 6.20. 121 Lane, Mark, 439. 122 Stein, Mark, 9–10.

112

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 and the christological significance of such a connection (sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively).

3.3 The Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

It will be argued in this section that Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 need to be read as an integrative whole in light of six particular factors put forward in the following sections: (1) the importance of Deut 6.4–5 and Ps 110.1 in early Christian circles (3.3.1); (2) thematic unity between the uniqueness of Israel’s God and his kingdom (3.3.2); (3) the connection between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 through the notion of kingdom/kingship (3.3.3); (4) the narrative cues gluing the two passages together (3.3.4); (5) the narrative sequence of 11.27–12.37 where 12.35–37 provides the primary agenda of Mark’s Jesus and represents the overall thrust of the section (3.3.5); and (6) other verbal cues connecting 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 and especially the word κύριος repeatedly used across these two passages (3.3.6). One may assume that the location of these two neighboring passages itself would automatically imply that the most natural way to interpret them is to consider how they relate to and impact each another. However, as pointed out at the beginning of the current chapter (chap. 3), not all passages sitting next to each other have a significantly intimate relationship with one another, and the nature and degree of their relationship vary from one context to another. Thus, discussing the specific manner in which Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 are linked is necessary. 3.3.1 Plausibility of the Deliberate Collocation of Deut 6.4–5 (quoted in Mark 12.29–30) and Ps 110.1 (cited in Mark 12.36) Given Their Primacy in First-Century Christian Circles The plausibility of the deliberate juxtaposition of Deut 6.4–5 (in Mark 12.29– 30) and Ps 110.1 (in Mark 12.36) suggests that Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 need to be interpreted in view of each other due to the respective prominence of these two Old Testament scriptures within first-century Christian circles. The previous chapter (chap. 2) showed the primacy of the monotheistic concern, often represented by the Shema (Deut 6.4), during the Second Temple era and its relevance for and continuity in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 10.18; 12.29, v. 32).123 In fact, Mark is the only New Testament book that directly quotes the 123

Waaler lists a number of New Testament passages which he suggests as references to Deut 6.4: Mark 2.7; 10.18//Luke 18.19//Matt 19.17; Mark 12.28–33; Rom 3.30; 1 Cor 8.6; Gal 3.20; Eph 4.4–6; 1 Tim 2.5; Jas 2.19; cf. John 8.41 (Waaler, Shema, 206–261).

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

113

monotheistic call of the Shema in Deut 6.4. While Deut 6.5 is quoted in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12.30//Matt 22.37//Luke 10.27), Mark not only quotes it but also rephrases it as part of the friendly scribe’s response to Jesus (Mark 12.33).124 This chapter has noted that Ps 110.1 was the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament and that it served early Christians in appreciating the unique status and function of Jesus as one participating in God’s cosmic sovereignty (section 3.2.1 above).125 Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand was central to the early Christian conviction of his divine status and significance,126 and Ps 110.1 was a key scripture for backing up such a conviction. Considering the importance attached to these Old Testament scriptures in first-century Christian circles, it is unlikely that they were just accidentally placed beside each other or that their concurrence was unnoticed by the Evangelist. It seems much more viable to think that the collocation of (a) Israel’s core confession of faith beginning with a statement on the uniqueness of her God (Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.29–30) and (b) a “standard” Old Testament 124

For possible references to Deut 6.5, see Luke 11.42; John 5.42; Rom 8.28; 1 Cor 2.9; 8.3; Jas 1.12; 2.5; 1 John 2.5, 15; 4.20; 5.2–3; Jude 21; Rev 2.4. For the notion of loving Christ, see John 14.15, 24; 21.15–17; 1 Cor 16.22; Eph 6.24; 1 Pet 1.8. Of course, the importance of Deut 6.4 and that of 6.5 are not separate. The significance of one implies the significance of the other as well given the inseparable connection between the two verses in the Shema passage of Deut 6.4–5: God’s uniqueness (v. 4) is the foundation for the following command of total and exclusive devotion to him (v. 5). The inseparable linkage between the two verses is ascertained in the Second Gospel, as its main character, Jesus, is seen to quote Deut 6.4–5 together (Mark 12.29–30) in response to the scribe’s question, “Which commandment is the first of all?” (v. 28). Technically, Deut 6.4 is not a commandment but Mark’s Jesus quotes it explicitly prior to citing the commandment of Deut 6.5 in response to the scribe’s commandment-oriented question, thus implying the inseparable linkage between the two. 125 Related to the use of Ps 110.1 is the frequent New Testament uses of the phrase “all things” as the object of Jesus’ rule, a dominion fitting only for God. Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, 23) states: “The frequent New Testament christological uses of this phase should not be studied atomistically, but their cumulative weight appreciated as testimony to the way the texts habitually define Christ’s exaltation or rule in the terms Jewish monotheism reserved for God’s unique sovereignty.” Bauckham lists the following references as evidence: Matt 11.27; Luke 10.22; John 3.35; 13.3; 16.15; Acts 10.36; 1 Cor 15.27–28; Eph 1.22; Phil 3.21; Heb 1.2; 2.8; cf. Eph 1.10, 23; 4.10; Col 1.20. Although Bauckham focuses on the phrase “all things” in the quoted statement, what he notes can also be applied to the New Testament uses of Ps 110.1 in that both the phrase “all things” and Ps 110.1 are employed in the New Testament with a thrust to emphasize Christ’s universal sovereignty. Although Mark 12.36 (quoting Ps 110.1) does not mention “all things,” it reflects a conflation of Ps 110.1 with 8.6, i.e., the verse that contains that phrase. Bauckham further lists John 1.3; 1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.16–17; Heb 1.3 as evidence for “Christ’s participation in the creation and sustaining of ‘all things’” (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 23). 126 Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, chaps. 5–12.

114

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

scripture utilized by first-century Christians to portray and support the exaltation of Jesus and his divine sovereignty (Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36), reflects a deliberate arrangement by the Evangelist for those scriptures to impact each other in some meaningful sense. The deliberate collocation of Deut 6.4–5 (Mark 12.29–30) and Ps 110.1 (Mark 12.36) is also supported by two further observations. First, both scriptures are placed in the mouth of Jesus. It is unlikely that the Evangelist was careless with the collocation of the two prominent Old Testament scriptures, especially when he placed them on the lips of his main character in these two subsequent passages. Second, each of the scriptures mentioned above is referenced more than once in Mark’s narrative; Deuteronomy 6.4 is alluded to in 2.7 and 10.18 prior to its direct quotation in 12.29 and the subsequent rephrase in v. 32,127 and Psalm 110.1 is used another time in a christologically climactic part of the passion narrative (i.e., the trial scene) at Mark 14.62, as discussed above (section 3.2.3). Mark, as a careful and intentional author (see section 5.2.4 below), would most likely be aware of the collocation of these two prominent scriptures for early Christians, both of which he employs repeatedly in his narrative. I have pointed out that the crucial importance of both Deut 6.4–5 and Ps 110.1 in first-century Christian circles and, relatedly, their easily recognizable nature suggest that their concurrence in Mark 12 is not coincidental but a reflection of the Evangelist’s deliberate choice. The deliberate collocation of the two scriptures suggests that these two neighboring passages containing the respective Old Testament scriptures (Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37) should be interpreted in close linkage to each other.128 The Evangelist’s deliberate collocation of Deut 6.4–5 and Ps 110.1 implies that (a) Mark 12.28–34 (containing a citation of Deut 6.4–5) and (b) Mark 12.35–37 (including a

127

See sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. Noting that I have already argued for the intentional collocation of Deut 6.4 and Ps 110.1 within Mark 12.28–37 in this subsection (section 3.3.1) and that the next section (section 3.4) focuses substantially on how Mark 12.29 (quoting Deut 6.4) relates to Mark 12.36 (citing Ps 110.1), one may question why I am not skipping immediately to section 3.4 at this point instead of arguing further for the connectivity between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37. My response is two-fold. First, further discussion on the connectivity between Mark 12.28– 34 and vv. 35–37 (as put forward in 3.4.2–3.4.6 below) will substantially strengthen the case for the deliberate collocation of Deut 6.4 (in Mark 12.29) and Ps 110.1 (in Mark 12.36) beyond the level of what has been argued in the current subsection (3.4.1), especially by showing that the two scriptures are intimately connected to each other by various links across Mark 12.28–37. Second, it seems necessary to have a discussion of passage-level interconnectivity between 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 (and not just a discussion of 12.29 (citing Deut 6.4) and Mark 12.36 (quoting Ps 110.1) because both Mark 12.29 and 12.36 as well as the respective scriptures they quote exist as organic parts of, not in isolation from, the relevant portion(s) of the text. 128

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

115

quotation of Ps 110.1) should be read in intimate connection with each other and not just as two separate passages. 3.3.2 The Close Thematic Link between the Uniqueness of God (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4) and the Kingdom of God (Mark 12.36; cf. Ps 110.1) In addition to the probability that Deut 6.4 and Ps 110.1 are meant to be considered together based on their respective prominence in early Christian circles, they should also be considered together because of the correlation of their subject matter. In early Judaism, the uniqueness of God, which is the issue highlighted in Mark 12.28–34 (esp. vv. 29, 32; cf. Deut 6.4), is often considered in tandem with the reign of God, which is a meaningful aspect of Mark 12.35– 37 (cf. Ps 110.1). If these two features of Israel’s God are regularly discussed together, then Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 have another reason to be read in conjunction with each other. Texts from both before and after the composition of Mark’s Gospel appear to indicate a connection between God’s uniqueness and his kingdom. Zechariah 14.9 says, “And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one (‫והיה יהוה למלך על־צל־הארץ ביום ההוא‬ ‫[ יהיה יהוה אחד ושמו אחד‬LXX: καὶ ἔσται κύριος εἰς βασιλέα ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἔσται κύριος εἷς καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἕν]).” God’s uniqueness thus moves from being a unifying principle for the nation Israel (cf. Deut 6.4), to a unifying principle for the one worldwide kingdom of the eschaton.129 As McIlhone writes, “An affirmation of Yahweh’s oneness becomes an affirmation of his sovereignty over the one kingdom and a pledge to that one kingdom.”130 The linkage between the Shema and the kingdom of God appears to have made an impression upon the rabbis. The rabbis assert that reciting the Shema meant accepting the “yoke of the kingdom of heaven;”131 after accepting the “yoke of the kingdom of heaven,” one would then “accept the yoke of the commandments” (m. Ber. 2.2; cf. b. Ber. 14b, 61b).132 129

For a discussion of explicit monotheistic rhetoric and the transcending uniqueness of Israel’s God, see section 2.2.2.1 above. 130 McIlhone, “The Lord Your God is One,” 161. 131 In the New Testament, the phrase “kingdom of heaven” occurs only in Matthew’s Gospel, which also uses the phrase “kingdom of God” four times (Matt 12.28; 19.24; 21.31, 43). However, these two phrases almost certainly have the same referent. See Pennington’s discussion on Matthew’s use of “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” in Heaven and Earth, esp. 299–310. See also Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 468–81 (esp. 473–74). There is no good reason to infer that “kingdom of heaven” has a different referent than “kingdom of God.” 132 Tractate b. Ber. 14b states: “That is, ‘First so that one should first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and afterwards accept the yoke of the commandments (emphasis original).” Berakot 61b contains another pertinent example in reporting on the death of R. Aqiba: “The hour at which they brought R. Aqiba out to be put to death was the

116

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

Both of these features associated with God’s uniqueness, namely God’s kingdom and (the keeping of) his commandments, fit nicely with the content and thrust of Mark 12.28–37. That the monotheistic call of the Shema (Deut 6.4) was cited by Jesus at the beginning of his answer (Mark 12.29) to the scribe’s question, “Which commandment is the first of all?” (v. 28) implies the interconnectivity between the uniqueness of God/Shema and (the keeping of) the commandments. Beginning with the portrayal of the scribe’s dialogue with Jesus concerning the greatest commandment, which includes the citation and a paraphrase of the Shema (vv. 28–33), Mark presents Jesus as declaring that the scribe is “not far from the kingdom of God” (v. 34) and subsequently citing Ps 110.1 with reference to God’s/the messiah’s sovereignty (Mark 12.35–37). Thus, the “yoke” of the Shema is shown to be the foundation of the commandments in Jesus’ conversation with the friendly scribe (vv. 28–33), and that favorable conversation leads ultimately to the references to God’s/the messiah’s reign (vv. 34, 35–37). 3.3.3 Connection between Mark 12.34b and 12.35–37 via the Notion of “Kingdom”/“Kingship” It has been noted so far that the prominence of Deut 6.4–5 (quoted in Mark 12.29–30) and Ps 110.1 (cited in Mark 12.36) among early Christian circles (section 3.3.1) as well as the thematic unity between God’s uniqueness (12.29; cf. v. 32) and his sovereignty (12.36) in Jewish literature before and after Mark’s composition (section 3.3.2) suggest a need to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically and not merely as two distinct passages. Moreover, the linkage between Mark 12.28–34 (especially v. 34) and vv. 35–37 through the notion of “kingdom”/“kingship” further supports the need to interpret the two passages in connection to each other. Jesus’ self-portrayal as God’s cosmic co-regent in Mark 12.35–37, by applying Psalm 110.1 to himself (Mark 12.36), resonates with the reference to “the kingdom of God” in verse 34, the verse that concludes the Love Commandment passage (12.28–34). The connection between the image of the “Royal Rule of God” enclosed in the phrase “the kingdom of God” (v. 34)133 and the depiction of Jesus’ co-regency with the divine monarch (i.e., God) as

time for reciting the Shema. They were combing his flesh with iron combs while he was accepting upon himself [in the recitation of the Shema] the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Cf. b. Ber. 13b; b. Roš Haš. 32b. Refer also to the discussions in McIlhone, “The Lord Your God is One,” 160–62; McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom,” 279–82. 133 On the concept of God’s kingdom as God’s royal rule over creation, people, and history, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:237–88. Meier rightly notes that “the kingdom of God means God ruling as king” (240). See also Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 60–61.

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

117

expressed through the quotation of Psalm 110.1 (Mark 12.36),134 interlocks these two neighboring passages (12.28–34 and 12.35–37) through the notion of kingdom/kingship. The interlocking of these two neighboring passages in Mark 12 is further supported by the Davidic/royal orientation of Ps 110.1. The following three elements, in particular, should be taken into account with reference to this orientation: (a) The last mention of “David” prior to 12.35–37 used explicit kingdom language (11.10: “Blessed is the coming kingdom [βασιλεία] of our ancestor David”);135 (b) as mentioned in section 3.2.1, Psalm 110 was likely an oracle regarding the enthronement of the Davidic monarch, who reflects YHWH’s sovereignty over Israel; and (c) “in Old Testament writings the throne [the image implied in 12.36; cf. Ps 110.1] is a special symbol for divine kingship, and earthly power is constantly related to the kingship of God” (see Ps 97.1–2; Isa 6.1, 5; 1 Kgs 22.17–23; Job 1.6–12; 2.1–6; Zech 3.1–5; cf. Pss 2.6–7; 61.6–7; 2 Sam 7.12–14; Pss. Sol. 17).136 When one considers that David’s royal legacy still has validity in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ messiahship137 and particularly in Mark 12.36 (cf. Ps 110.1; see section 3.2.2), the notion of “kingdom” seems naturally evoked by the enthronement imagery of the Markan verse (12.36) and ties that verse with the immediately preceding passage (12.28–34), especially its concluding verse, which includes an explicit reference to “the kingdom of God” (v. 34).138 134

See Matera, Kingship, 67–91. Matera argues that the second κύριος in 12.36 (Ps 110.1 = LXX 109.1) is “a surrogate for king” (cf. Mark 11.3) (88). Therefore, in addressing the messiah as his Lord, David “salutes him as his king” (89). Note his comment on the link between the “Lord” language and the “King” language in the Old Testament and Pss. Sol. (88). I do not endorse the entire argument of Matera, who asserts that the royal theme penetrates chaps. 11–12 and the passion narrative, esp. chap. 15. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that 12.35–37, and more specifically the quotation of Ps 110.1 (Mark 12.36), have strong kingly overtones. An emphasis on the apocalyptic aspects of the gospel should not exclude the royal aspects, at least, in this occasion. For caution against viewing Mark’s Gospel in a singularly apocalyptic manner, see Best, Following Jesus, 9–11. 135 Emphasis added. In addition, the incidents related to 11.10 and to 12.35–37 each are located in Jerusalem. 136 Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 375; for further discussion, ibid., 43–64; cf. Marcus, Way, 132–37. Eskola engages in an extensive study on the enthronement imagery in the Old Testament and Jewish literature in relation to early Christology. 137 For further discussion on the Markan hints at Jesus’ significance as one bearing David’s royal legacy, see section 5.2.1.2. 138 Some may object to the validity of the christological reading of the Shema in Mark 12 and maintain that christological concerns are not present in 12.28–34. However, the fact that Jesus is seen to pronounce the person’s distance or nearness to the kingdom (12.34; cf. 10.29–30) locates a remarkable authority with Jesus (Taylor, Mark, 490, who says: “The speaker is the Lord, and not only the Teacher”). In addition, Mark’s relativizing (though not necessarily denying) of the validity of the temple cult has an implicit christological message (12.33; cf. vv. 10–11; 14.58) especially if it is read along with the very following chapter

118

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

In sum, there is a notable link between Mark 12.28–34 (especially v. 34) and vv. 35–37 through the notion of kingdom/kingship,139 and such linkage further supports the need to read the two passages (Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37) holistically and not merely as two distinct pericopes. 3.3.4 Ἀποκριθείς and Other Narrative Cues for the Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 In addition to the three factors discussed above (3.3.1–3.3.3), the narrative cues connecting 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 further reinforces the need for a holistic reading of 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37. To establish this particular point, I will pay attention to the participle ἀποκριθείς (12.35), the narrative function of Jesus’ statement to the scribe (12.34b), and the Evangelist’s silence report (12.34c), respectively, in relation to the immediately following verses (vv. 35–37). The need to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 in conjunction with each other is, in fact, seen rather plainly from how the Markan author begins the Davidssohnfrage (vv. 35–37). The Evangelist ties the David’s son passage with the preceding portion of the narrative by using the participle ἀποκριθείς (12.35), which naturally implies a continuation from the immediately preceding passage (12.28–34) – and perhaps passages (11.27–12.34) – and signals a follow-up on the Markan Jesus’ part to the interaction with the friendly scribe (12.28–34). The discussion below will attempt to specify and nuance the nature of the narrative tie between 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 by paying special attention to v. 34b and v. 34c. However, the fact that these two passages are closely bound with each other at the narrative level is even more apparent from the use of ἀποκριθείς (v. 35), and, in that sense, the participle ἀποκριθείς provides a foundation for and supports the probability of the subsequent discussion. The reason why I have not assigned a separate subsection to discuss ἀποκριθείς as a narrative cue for linking vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37 is that the case seems selfevident from the plain meaning of the participle itself. A “response” or “answer” naturally indicates some sort of prior prompt. In Mark’s narrative, that prompt seems to obviously be the discussion in 12.28–34. The plausibility

(Mark 13) where the destruction of the temple is prophesied and presented as a necessity and not merely as a possibility. More importantly, once again, the particular context in which an individual pericope (12.28–34) is placed (i.e., immediately followed by 12.35–37) is as crucial as its internal content in understanding the Evangelist’s concerns and emphases. 139 Somewhat similarly, Marcus understands the reference to the “kingdom of God” (in 12.34a) as preparing the audience for 12.36 (cf. Ps 110.1), which introduces the enthronement of the messiah, that is, “the definitive first act in the extension of the βασιλεία from heaven to earth” (Way, 135). Marcus (Way, 135–36) recognizes the connection of the two passages with the notion of kingdom. His understanding of the meaning of v. 34 and the significance of silence is, nevertheless, different from mine, thus leading to a different conclusion as discussed in various places in this chapter. See especially section 3.4 below.

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

119

of the following discussion on v. 34b and v. 34c must be considered in connection to the sufficiently clear narrative cue that ἀποκριθείς provides with reference to the link between vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37. 3.3.4.1 οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (Mark 12.34b) In the Gospel of Mark, scribes (γραμματεῖς) are constantly depicted in a negative light.140 There is only one exception to such consistent characterization, which is found in the Great Commandment pericope (12.28–34), where the audience encounters an exceptionally friendly scribe.141 After a favorable conversation with him, Jesus pronounces to him somewhat enigmatically: “you are not far from the kingdom of God [οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ]” (12.34b). There have been various efforts to decipher this “ambiguous” saying. A number of scholars have suggested that the saying indicates this scribe is basically given a confirmation for his successful entry to the kingdom upon its arrival.142 Along this line, some even try to tie the friendly scribe with Joseph of Arimathea (15.43) who is “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God [προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ].”143 Others propose that the statement has mainly an “invitational” or “missional” nature.144 The Markan Jesus’ main focus in announcing such a statement is not to give a precise account of the scribe’s spiritual condition but to recruit him (who may well represent those attracted to Jesus’ teaching) to the kingdom. Another group of scholars, not denying the generally affirmative nature of Jesus’ statement, notes that Jesus’ words reveal a certain deficiency in the scribe’s position.145 Although Jesus’ response is generally positive, his pronouncement in verse 34b assumes certain insufficiency in the scribe’s current stance.

140

See Mark 1.22; 2.6–7, 16; 3.22; 7.1–5; 8.31; 9.14; 10.33–34; 11.18, 27–28; 14.43, 53ff.; 15.1, 31; cf. 14.1–2. 141 See Williams, Other Followers of Jesus, 172–76; Trocmé, Formation, 94–99. 142 For example, Marcus, Mystery, 55, 196 (however, Marcus shifts his view somewhat in Mark 8–16: 845); Furnish, Love Command, 28–29 and 29n12; similarly, Boring, Mark, who however brings partial qualifications to the current state of this scribe in comparison to that of “disciples” (346); cf. Collins, Mark, 577. 143 Marcus, Way, 182; also, Boring, Mark, 346. 144 Trocmé, Formation, 97. See also Donahue, “Neglected Factor,” 578–81, 594. Donahue relates his “missional” reading of 12.13–34 to his view on the purpose of the composition of the gospel, i.e., the position that Mark was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple with a special emphasis on Gentile missions (594). 145 See also Painter, Mark’s Gospel, 167; Theophylact, The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark, section on Mark 12.28–34: “the Lord’s words of praise bore witness to the fact that the man was not yet perfect” (cited from Marcus, Mark 8–16, 845).

120

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

In deciphering Jesus’ “ambiguous” statement to the scribe (v. 34b), one may consider whether the nature of God’s kingdom here is present or futuristic. If the kingdom is a reality that has already come, the scribe’s current position (“not far” from it) seems lacking in some way despite his favorable attitude toward Jesus’ teaching. If the kingdom is a reality yet to come, the scribe has a good enough standing to be able to enter it upon its arrival. Such a consideration of the future-versus-present aspect of the kingdom, however, seems not directly relevant to our discussion because the adverb μακράν in v. 34b is primarily space-oriented and not time-oriented. The word μακράν is used 12 times in the New Testament and always refers to spatial distance without any exception.146 The term is employed 77 times in the LXX and temporal understanding is extremely rare (only 2 times).147 In addition, Mark 10.17–31 – one of the three one-God passages in the Second Gospel (along with 2.1–12) and the only other pericope in the gospel referring both to the Shema and the Decalogue outside the Love Commandment passage (12.28–34)148 – presents an idea of spatial, not temporal, distance to the kingdom with the imagery of kingdom entry: “Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God [εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελεύσονται]!’” (10.23, emphasis added). These facts collectively point toward the spaced-oriented reading of μακράν in understanding Jesus’ statement to the scribe in 12.34b. Concerning the interpretation that this scribe was guaranteed his entry upon the kingdom’s future arrival, the spatial orientation of the kingdom entry in Mark 12.34b based upon how the adverb μακράν is used as discussed above, opposes that reading. Regarding the specific suggestion that this scribe parallels Joseph of Arimathea who waits for the arrival of the kingdom of God (15.43),149 again, the spatial orientation of μακράν in 12.34b and, more specifically, the difference between the two figures in terms of their association 146

Other than Mark 12.34, see Matt 8.30; Luke 7.6; 15.13, 20; 19.12; John 21.8; Acts 2.39; 17.27; 22.21; Eph 2.13, 17. Note also that “salvation/to be saved” is not an exclusive future reality in Mark’s Gospel (note, e.g., 5.34; 10.52). 147 According to my search with BibleWorks (version 6.0), among 77 occurrences of this adverb in the LXX (Rahlfs’ edition), counting two occurrences in Judges LXX and three occurrences in Judges Aquila separately, spatial understanding of the term is clearly dominant. A metaphorical meaning is found at times, based upon literal spatial imagery (e.g., Prov 4.24; Job 30.10; Sir 15.8). On the other hand, temporal understanding of the term is very rare. The only exceptions are 2 Sam 7.19 and Ezek 12.22. However, in both 2 Sam 7.19 (καὶ ἐλάλησας ὑπὲρ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ δούλου σου εἰς μακράν) and Ezek 12.22 (μακρὰν αἱ ἡμέραι ἀπόλωλεν ὅρασις), μακράν is collocated with words that naturally connote temporality. Such a collocation is absent in Mark 12.34b. 148 Again, see Allison’s suggestion that Deut 6.4–5 points to the first five commandments of the Decalogue and that Lev 19.18 points to the other five (“Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue,” 270–78). 149 Marcus, Way, 182; Boring, Mark, 346.

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

121

with Jesus disproves such a view. Joseph of Arimathea’s association with Jesus appears much stronger than that of the unnamed scribe, especially in regard to Joseph’s courageous request for the corpse of Jesus and his proactive role in Jesus’ burial (15.43ff.).150 As for the interpretation of Jesus’ statement in 12.34b in an invitational or missional sense, it seems that such an interpretation does not necessarily exclude the observation of the deficiency in the scribe’s current standing or his distance from the kingdom. Rather, the scribe’s deficiency offers a ground for an invitation, and an invitation points out some remaining lack in the scribe’s standing. In that sense, the interpretation of Jesus’ statement to the scribe in v. 34b, as advocated above, and the invitational/missionary reading of it complement each other. Based upon the spatial understanding of μακράν (12.34b) as advanced above, it can be concluded that, despite his generally favorable attitude to Jesus’ teaching, the scribe has not reached the kingdom yet. There is a further step required for him to enter the kingdom. An understanding of the statement in v. 34b as advanced above leads to a further discovery of the intimate connection between 12.28–34 and the immediately following pericope (12.35–37). Namely, the lack in the scribe’s current position (v. 34b) can and should be overcome by the rightful acknowledgement and acceptance of Jesus’ unique status and significance as the one participating in the sovereign rule of God (vv. 35–37).151 The friendly scribe’s position is legitimate as far as agreeing with Jesus about the uniqueness of God and the utmost importance of loving him with complete devotion and loving one’s neighbor as oneself (vv. 32–33). However, the scribe falls short of entry to the kingdom as his understanding of the nature of the reign of that unique God is lacking. It is true that God is “one” (v. 32), but it is equally true that Jesus is included in the view of that unique God (v. 36). It is true that God is the sovereign of Israel and the cosmos, but it is equally true that Jesus participates in God’s sovereignty as his co-regent (v. 36). A love for Israel’s unique God and commitment to his rule (12.29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5) must, therefore, include devotion to Jesus’ lordship (Mark 12.35–37; cf. Ps 110.1 [also Mark 10.29–30]). Since the scribe has not yet embraced those crucial aspects with reference to the kingship of Israel’s unique God, he is not

150 See Williams, Other Followers of Jesus, 190–91, who notes a connection between the two figures yet rightly distinguishes Joseph from the friendly scribe in view of the former’s daring action for Jesus’ burial. 151 Cf. Keerankeri, Love Commandment, 174–75. Here, “acknowledgement” and “acceptance” need to be understood not merely as an intellectual recognition or agreement but as a holistic response involving a committed action. In Mark’s Gospel, the issue of Christology (who Jesus is) is inseparably connected to the issue of discipleship (how to follow him) (see, e.g., Mark 8.27–9.1; 10.45).

122

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

welcomed into the kingdom, though he is characterized in a generally favorable manner as “not far” from it.152 In sum, Jesus’ statement to the scribe (12.34b), coupled with the participle ἀποκριθείς (v. 35), seems to imply a meaningful narrative link between Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37; the scribe’s remaining distance from the kingdom provides a cue for how such distance can and should be overcome as revealed in the very following verses (vv. 35–37). In other words, the David’s son passage offers an explanation for the sense in which the favorable scribe was still said to be somewhat distant from the kingdom despite his favorable posture toward Jesus’ teaching. Mark does not tell his audience any more about the scribe after this point – that is certainly not the Evangelist’s main interest.153 While Mark does not provide any clue for his audience to fill in the blanks about what happened to the scribe after this point, he leaves a notable hint that there is still deficiency with the scribe’s current standing through Jesus’ pronouncement in verse 34b. Jesus’ authoritative pronouncement (v. 34b), which reveals the deficiency of the scribe’s position, paves a way for the portrayal of the messiah’s enthronement in the immediately following verses (vv. 35–37), thus linking the two passages (vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37) at the narrative level. Even if there were no narrative cue in Jesus’ announcement to the friendly scribe (v. 34b) linking the two passages, as suggested above, it would at least fit very naturally with the case for the inseparable connectivity between those two pericopes as put forward throughout section 3.3. 3.3.4.2 καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλμα αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι (Mark 12.34c) An indication of the deficiency in the scribe’s current position is provided not only by the authoritative pronouncement of the main character, Jesus (12.34b), as just discussed above, but also by the Evangelist’s emphatic description of silence with a double negative (“After that no one dared to ask him any question [καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλμα αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι]”), which should probably include the silence of this friendly scribe (12.34c). Mark’s report on the silence of Jesus’ opponents with the emphatic, double negation (οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι) makes their reticence especially pronounced. Such a report at the very end of the Love Commandment passage seems odd if Jesus should be understood as completely agreeing with and endorsing the scribe’s current position – although the generally positive nature of Jesus’ response to that friendly scribe is not questionable. The placement of the silence at the end of the Love Commandment passage (12.34c) may seem strange because the scribe in the scene 152 Cf. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 312, and esp. n. 244, which quotes Meier, The Vision of Matthew. 153 Van Iersel notes, “After enacting his part he [the scribe] is not mentioned again, as is the case with other characters who have only a walk-on part in the book.” See van Iersel, Mark, 381.

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

123

is, overall, pictured positively (vv. 28, 34a, 34b), and there was no one else dialoging with Jesus in the pericope (vv.28–34). Mark’s silence report (v. 34c), then, seems to apply to Jesus’ interlocutors in the larger section (11.27–12.34) as a whole rather than only to the scribe in the Love Commandment passage (12.28–34).154 Nevertheless, the current location of Mark’s silence report (v. 34c) has some significance with reference to the narrative link between 12.28–34 and vv. 35– 37. That is, the report of silence in the given location at v. 34c portrays not only the hostile opponents of Jesus (11.27–12.27) but also the exceptionally friendly scribe as silent (12.28–34), and the silence of even this favorable scribe hints at a certain deficiency in his standing – especially when the silence report (v. 34c) is considered together with Jesus’ authoritative statement to the scribe (v. 34b), as discussed above. After concluding the Love Commandment passage with the report of silence on the part of Jesus’ interlocutors, both hostile and friendly (v. 34c), Mark offers a hint as to what even this friendly scribe lacks, namely, an acknowledgement of the nature of God’s kingdom and Jesus’ status and significance in that kingdom (vv. 35–37). This subsection has focused on the silence report in Mark 12.34c as an indication of the deficiency on the scribe’s current standing – in addition to Jesus’ authoritative pronouncement to him in v. 34b and the participle ἀποκριθείς in v. 35. The friendly scribe has a favorable position but still a deficient one. The very next verses (vv. 35–37) imply in what sense this scribe’s friendly stance toward Jesus is still deficient and in what sense the scribe is silenced at the end of his conversation with Jesus (v. 34c). The report on the silence of Jesus’ interlocutors in v. 34c prepares the way for the David’s son passage (vv. 35–37), linking it with the immediately preceding passage (vv. 28–34) at the narrative level – along with Jesus’ authoritative statement (v. 34b) and the participle ἀποκριθείς (v. 35).155 If the silence report in v. 34c 154

Matthew’s placement of the silence after the next pericope is probably understandable in that sense (cf. Matt 22.46). In the Lukan parallel, the silence of Jesus’ opponents appears in a similar position to its location in Mark (Luke 20.40), namely, following the controversy with Sadducees about resurrection (20.27–39) and preceding Jesus’ presentation of his own agenda concerning the messiah’s Davidic sonship (20.41–44). In Luke’s Gospel, however, the Love Commandment pericope appears in a different context than Mark and Matthew, in particular, in combination with the Parable of the Good Samaritan (10.25–37) toward the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem. The silence of the opponents in this Markan passage also shows Jesus’ superior authority to the Jerusalem religious establishment – none of them can match Jesus. 155 The silence of Jesus’ interlocutors mentioned in Mark 12.34 serves, on the one hand, to reveal the deficiency of their views and, on the other hand, provides Mark’s Jesus a platform to present his own christological agenda. The interlocutors’ deficiency and Jesus’ presentation of his agenda are, in fact, not two separate matters. Since their views are deficient (and often antagonistic toward the main character [11.27–12.27]), they need to be silenced, and once they are silenced, Mark’s Jesus is seen to put forth his own agenda.

124

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

does not give a narrative cue to connect vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37, as suggested in this section, it at least fits well with the case for the inseparable linkage between the two passages as put forth across section 3.3. 3.3.4.3 Summary of 3.3.4 In the current section (3.3.4), I have looked at some narrative cues that link Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37: the participle ἀποκριθείς (v. 35), Jesus’ pronouncement to the friendly scribe (v. 34b), and the Evangelist’s report of the silence on the part of Jesus’ interlocutors including even the friendly scribe (v. 34c) serve as notable cues for the intimate connection between vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37. These narrative cues that bind Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 do not exist in isolation from one another but in organic connection with each other and, therefore, must be considered in a holistic and not atomistic manner. When these narrative cues are taken together, they offer a notable indication that the deficiency in the scribe’s current standing (v. 34b, v. 34c) can and should be overcome by the rightful acknowledgement and embracing of Jesus the Messiah as David’s Lord, who is enthroned with God and participates in his cosmic sovereignty (vv. 35–37). For the purpose of my argument in section 3.3 these narrative cues provide further support for the case that Mark 12.28– 34 is meant to be read in conjunction with vv. 35–37. There is another meaningful detail to discuss as to Mark’s silence report (12.34c). However, since the discussion of that detail requires a substantial consideration of the larger section in Mark’s narrative (11.27–12.37), I will incorporate it as part of the subsequent section (3.3.5). 3.3.5 The Close Relationship between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 in View of the Narrative Sequence in 11.27–12.37 From the perspective of form-critical analysis, Mark 11.27–33, 12.13–17 and 12.18–27 are controversy stories, while 12.1–12, 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 are not.156 Mark 12.1–12 contains no question and answer but instead presents a parable functioning as Jesus’ indirect response to the previous question about the origin and validity of his authority (11.28).157 Thus, in the narrative scheme, 12.1–12 is tied inseparably with 11.27–33, forming a necessary pair.158 Jesus 156

Cf. Marcus, Way, 132n12. For a detailed study on the Parable of the Vineyard Tenants, see Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard. Kloppenborg’s study concerns what could be an originating structure of the parable, which provides ground for Thomas, Mark, and the Synoptic parallels. The thrust of his study clearly differs from that of the current book, which focuses on the text as it stands. 158 The tie is clear in view of the editorial comment in 12.12c: “they realized that he had told this parable against them.” Jesus’ attack was a counter-attack against his interlocutors introduced in the preceding pericope (11.27–33). Note also 12.1, “Then he began to speak 157

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

125

answers the hostile question of these religious authorities (11.28) by implicitly presenting himself as God’s beloved Son (υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν) (12.6) and heir (κληρονόμος) (12.7) in parabolic language.159 Jesus’ opponents are seen to grasp accurately what he meant by the parable and thus become reactive (12.12). Mark 12.28–34 is a didactic story that records a favorable discussion between Jesus and an exceptionally friendly scribe.160 Mark 12.35–37, which pictures Jesus as posing his own question on David’s son, is difficult to classify,161 although it is clear that the passage consists of a saying with a brief introduction (v. 35a) and an editorial note on the response of the crowd at the end (v. 37c) according to its present shape.162 The arrangement of these diverse materials within one section (11.27–12.37) seems to reflect Mark’s hand; it seems that the Evangelist has tied together these diverse materials to create a cohesive narrative structure as it stands now. However, even if the current shape is attributed to a pre-Markan tradition(s), the Evangelist is still responsible for having preserved such a shape as part of his narrative. The narrative flow of Mark 11.27–12.37 reflects a shift in the progression of the questions and answers. The first three questions express nothing but hostility towards Jesus (11.27–12.27). There is no hint of positivity in the attitude of Jesus’ interlocutors. The atmosphere, however, changes with the somewhat unexpected arrival of the sincere scribe in 12.28–34. This scribe engages in a favorable conversation with Jesus. As Marcus notes, “Contrary to the pattern in the preceding controversy stories (11:27–12:27), Jesus’ reply to the question [of the interlocutor] does not terminate the conversation.”163 The passage that contains Jesus’ friendly interaction with the scribe ends with a declaration of silence on the part of Jesus’ interlocutors – both hostile and friendly (12.34c). Mark’s silence report is followed by the portrayal of Jesus not answering questions any longer but rather asking a question himself (12.35–37). Let us now return to Mark 12.34c. Mark announces the silence of Jesus’ interlocutors at the very end of his favorable interaction with a friendly scribe (12.34c), and the Evangelist’s arrangement of the silence report in the current location (v. 34c) seems significant for our discussion. The silence on the part of Jesus’ interlocutors provides him with a platform to put forward his own question in the immediately following verses (vv. 35–37) – after he has to them in parables.” Here, the pronoun “them” refers back to Jesus’ opponents in the preceding story (11.27–33). Cf. Fowler, “The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection.” 159 One should be cautious about taking contents of a parable too literally. What/whom the parable of Mark 12.1–12 points out in connection to 11.27–33, however, seems clear enough. 160 Taylor, Mark, 484; cf. Bultmann, History, 54–55. 161 See Stein, Mark, 567 on the difficulty of classifying Mark 12.35–37. 162 Taylor, Mark, 490. 163 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 841.

126

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

responded to a series of questions raised by his hostile and friendly interlocutors (11.27–12.34) and all of them have become silent (v. 34c; cf. 4.39).164 In other words, Mark’s Jesus eventually lays out his own “bias” in 12.35–37 without the presence of any conflict165 since all of his interlocutors – hostile and friendly – have already been put to silence (v. 34c).166 The question of Jesus in vv. 35–37, then, is not simply another question equal in weight to the questions raised to him by an interlocutor in the preceding stories (11.27– 12.12; 12.13–17; 12.18–27; 12.28–34) but the question that represents the primary agenda of the Evangelist/Mark’s Jesus for the entire section of 11.27– 12.37.167 The weightiest portion in the section of 11.27–12.37 is, in that sense, not the quotation of the Shema or the double love commandment (12.28–34), or other impressive details between 11.27 and 12.17, but the portrayal of Jesus’ unique authority as David’s Lord and God’s co-regent in 12.35–37 (cf. Ps 110.1).168

164 France and some other scholars briefly mention the connection between the silence of Jesus’ opponents in v. 34 and Jesus’ own initiative in vv. 35–37. None of them, however, really goes any further than one or two lines of passing comments. See France, Mark, 482; Taylor, Mark, 490; Nineham, Mark, 328. 165 Mark 12.35–37 is not a controversy story as is its Matthean par. (Matt 22.41–46) in which Jesus challenges a Pharisaic group regarding their teaching on the messiah’s Davidic descent while they are in the scene (vv. 41, 46). 166 Marcus relates the silence in Mark 12.34a to the proleptic presence of the eschatological kingdom especially in view of Gen. Rab. 65.21 (on Gen 27.22). The silence described in Mark 12.34b, however, is a forced silence of Jesus’ defeated opponents (11.27–12.27; cf. 12.28–34), and not a reverent silence as in Gen. Rab. 65.21. See Marcus, “Authority,” 210– 11. 167 Even if Jesus technically leaves the answer open in Mark 12.35–37, his answer is already implied in the quotation of Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36–37 in a clear enough manner, at least, to Mark and his original audience. 168 Matera has a somewhat similar observation on the significance of 12.35–37 (Kingship, 68, 87–89; cf. Hay, Glory, 113). Matera sees chaps. 11–12 as bracketed by the royal entry (11.1ff.) and the heavenly enthronement of King Jesus (12.35–37), thus carrying a royal connotation overall. For Matera’s discussion on Mark’s intentional structuring of chaps. 11– 12 and its surrounding passages, see Kingship, 68–69. More precisely, 13.1a needs to be in view together with chaps. 11–12 since, while 11.1ff. portrays Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem leading to his temple cleansing (11.15–17), 13.1a reports on his exit from the most strategic location of the city, i.e., the temple; the section of 11.1–13.1a concentrates on Jesus’ temple activities. Jesus’ departure from the temple, on the other hand, implies that the divine presence is removed from that location. What waits for it is its destruction (13.2ff.). Jesus never returns to the temple in Mark’s narrative. The only things mentioned about the temple after chap. 13 are (1) the temple-related charges against Jesus during his trial and crucifixion (14.57–58; 15.29–30) and (2) the tearing of the temple curtain (15.38). The current discussion focuses particularly on 11.27–12.37, i.e., a series of questions and answers, as part of 11.1–13.1a.

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

127

A further observation regarding Mark 11.27–33, the first passage in the collection of controversies in Jerusalem (11.27–12.37), seems to support the point that 12.35–37 contains the primary agenda of the section (11.27–12.37). The hostile questions posed by Jewish authorities in 11.28 are helpful for our discussion here. The two questions in verse 28 (“By what authority are you doing these things? Or169 who gave you this authority to do them?”), which open the series of controversies between Jesus and religious authorities in the temple and set the tone for that section of controversies across 11.27–12.37, concern the issue of Jesus’ authority directly. The specific manner in which the section of 11.27–12.37 commences, namely, with a set of two specific questions containing a direct concern for Jesus’ authority (11.28), seems to give a hint that the authority of Jesus will be the main issue in the rest of the section.170 In fact, Mark 12.35–37, the pericope suggested above as the weightiest portion of 11.27–12.37 in terms of expressing the Evangelist’s agenda, addresses the very issue of Jesus’ authority – as David’s Lord who is enthroned with God and sharing in God’s unique divine sovereignty. Jesus’ authority was challenged and tested by the religious establishment of Jerusalem at the beginning of the section (11.28) and, again, in the subsequent pericopes (12.14–15; vv. 18–23), but Jesus has silenced all of them (v. 34c) and now advances his primary agenda, his authority as David’s Lord and God’s coregent (12.35–37). Viewing 12.35–37 as the core agenda of the Jerusalem controversies collection (11.27–12.37), and thus the weightiest portion of that section, signifies that the earlier passages in the collection (11.27–33; 12.1–12; 12.13– 169 NRSV omits “or [ἢ]” between the two interrelated questions in Mark 11.28, which is included in RSV, NASB, and ESV. 170 Mark 2.1–3.6 and 11.27–12.37 constitute a pair that portrays the conflicts between Jesus and the religious leaders especially concerning the validity of Jesus’ authority (Lane, Mark, 91; Culpepper, Mark, 73). In these two collections alike, Jesus’ authority is closely linked to his identity. The scribe’s who question in 2.7 is answered by Jesus’ authority claim in v. 10. In Mark 12.6, Jesus implicitly responds to the questions on the validity of his authority (11.28) and answers those questions based upon his unique status as God’s “son” (12.6). Mark 6.2–3, too, reflects the connectivity between Jesus’ identity (v. 3) and authority (v. 2). For the section of 2.1–3.6, in particular, see section 4.2 below. The question of Jesus’ identity is the main question in Mark’s Gospel. It is voiced by Jesus’ opponents in 2.6–7, 11.27–28 and the trial narrative (14.61 and 15.2). It is asked by Jesus himself in 8.27, 29 and 10.18 and is addressed by his disciples in 4.41, by his own countrymen in 6.2–3, and by Herod in 6.14–16. The astonishment of Jesus’ disciples and of the crowd at Jesus’ teaching and deeds is also suggestive of Jesus’ identity (e.g., 1.27; 2.12; 4.41; 5.20, 42; 6.2, 51; 7.37; 9.15; 10.24, 26, 32; cf. Dwyer, “The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark,” 49–59). The answer for the question of Jesus’ identity, however, is clearly given from the prologue (1.1, v. 11). I understand the Markan prologue to extend up to 1.15, following the view of Keck, “The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel,” 352–70, while acknowledging the transitional nature of vv. 14–15.

128

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

17; 12.18–27; 12.28–34) can be properly appreciated when they are read in view of the messiah’s enthronement (12.35–37).171 The Love Commandment passage (12.28–34) that contains the only direct quotation of the Shema’s monotheistic call (v. 29; cf. Deut 6.4) is not an exception in that regard. If Mark 11.27–12.34 as a whole should be read in light of 12.35–37 for those controversy stories to be fully appreciated, it is even more so for 12.28–34, which immediately precedes the David’s son passage (vv. 35–37) and contains a number of notable links to it as shown in the preceding subsections (3.3.1– 3.3.4). A careful consideration of the narrative sequence within 11.27–12.37, as presented in this section (3.3.5), adds weight to the case for reading Mark 12.28–34 in conjunction with vv. 35–37 in that the Love Commandment passage (vv. 28–34) – along with other passages in the section of controversies located in the temple (vv. 11.27–12.17) – should be read in view of and in connection to the pericope containing the core agenda of the section (vv. 35– 37) in order for it to be adequately and fully appreciated.172 3.3.6 Κύριος and Other Verbal Ties between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 In addition to various links that bind Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 as put forward above (sections 3.3.1–3.3.5), several verbal ties strengthen the case that 12.28–34 is meant to be read in conjunction with vv. 35–37. The fact that Jesus is “teaching” (12.35) links back to the scribe’s address of Jesus as “Teacher” (12.32), while the mention of “scribes” (12.35) connects the David’s son passage of vv. 35–37 to Jesus’ interaction with a “scribe” in vv. 28–34 who is introduced at the beginning of that passage (v. 28).173 The most significant 171 In the parable of 12.1–12, Mark’s Jesus indirectly replies to the hostile questions in 11.28 by highlighting his identity as God’s son (12.6; cf. vv. 10–11). The description of Jesus as God’s son in parabolic language (12.6) is another factor that points to the primary focus of 11.27–12.37, i.e., Jesus’ identity and authority. Three stories in 12.13–28 have been noted, correctly in general, as signs of Jesus’ theocentricism by Donahue (“Neglected Factor”). However, given the overall thrust of the larger literary unit (11.27–12.37), these three stories are to be seen, in the first place, as highlighting Jesus’ unmatchable authority – the authority which was questioned and challenged in 11.28 but has been defended through the course of questions and answers in the section of controversies located in the temple (11.27– 12.37). 172 Of course, what Jesus teaches in 12.35–37 is only allusive to his audience inside the narrative, but it is even clearer to Mark’s audience, who knows much more about Jesus than Jesus’ audience as the characters within the narrative. On the pre-knowledge of Mark’s original audience on various matters including the traditions about Jesus’ identity and mission, see Stein, Mark, 9–10. 173 For the verbal ties between 12.28–34 and 12.35–37, see Marcus, Way, 145. For the verbal ties of 12.35–37 to vv. 28–34 and the wider literary context, see Stein, Mark, 567. The mention of scribes in 12.35 links the David’s son passage (vv. 35–37) to 11.27–33, which commences the controversy section located in the temple (11.27–12.37) and begins with a mention of scribes among other religious authorities as Jesus’ opponents (11.27).

3.3 Inseparable Connection between Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37

129

verbal tie, however, is found with the use of κύριος (“Lord,” 12.29 [x2], 30, 36 [x2], 37), which seems to bind the concern over the uniqueness of the κύριος (12.29, 32; cf. Deut 6.4) with the interest in Jesus’ status and authority as David’s κύριος (12.36–37; cf. Ps 110.1). These verbal ties reinforce the need to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically and not just as two distinct passages. The repetition of κύριος (“Lord”) with reference to the uniqueness of God in Deut 6.4 (Mark 12.29 [x2], 30) and, then, with reference to both God and Jesus in Ps 110.1 (12.36 [x2; God and Jesus, respectively], v. 37 [Jesus]) could perhaps represent an interpretive method known as gezerah sheva.174 This method, literally meaning “cut equally,” was one of Hillel’s seven principles of interpretation and asserted that the same wording in one passage may influence the interpretation of another.175 It could be that, by deliberately placing the quotation of Deut 6.4 and a citation of Ps 110.1 together within Mark 12.28–37, the Evangelist identifies the passages and draws comparisons. It is, by nature, difficult to prove whether such a specific interpretative technique was in the mind of Mark the Evangelist, who did not write a midrashic or pesher interpretation of Deut 6.4 or Ps 110.1 but composed a narrative. However, the possibility of gezerah sheva interpretation should perhaps not be dismissed too quickly. Its likelihood seems increased by the other verbal and narrative cues linking 12.28–34 with vv. 35–37, as discussed in the preceding subsections (3.3.1–3.3.5).176 3.3.7 Summary of 3.3 I have argued throughout this section (3.3) that Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 should be interpreted as an integrative whole and not just as two distinct passages. Six factors have been put forward in support of this case: (1) The plausibility of the deliberate collocation of Deut 6.4 and Ps 110.1 given their respective prominence among first-century followers of Jesus;

174 For the possibility of gezerah sheva in this passage, the present writer is indebted to the suggestion made by Craig Keener in his personal correspondence with me in the spring of 2010. 175 For more on gezerah sheva in its Jewish interpretative context, see Young, Meet the Rabbis, 165–71. See also Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine, 109–115. 176 Additionally, one might mention the verbal cue with the use of κύριος applied to Jesus at the beginning of Mark in a citation of Isaiah 40.3 (cited in Mark 1.3). While further removed from 12.28–37, this identification of Jesus with the Isaianic title κύριος seems to set the stage for the subsequent references to Jesus as κύριος in a way that suggests his inseparable linkage to Israel’s God. See also 5.19–20, which contains a direct interchange between what κύριος (i.e., Israel’s God) did (v. 19) and what Ἰησοῦς did (v. 20). For more on the use of κύριος for God and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, see 5.1.1.1.

130

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

(2) The thematic unity between the uniqueness of God and his kingship in Jewish literature both before and after the composition of Mark’s Gospel; (3) The linkage between Mark 12.28–34 (esp. v. 34) and vv. 35–37 with the notion of kingship; (4) Various narrative cues linking Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 and especially the participle ἀποκριθείς (12.35); (5) The narrative scheme in 11.27–12.37, in particular, with attention to the whole section’s primary interest in Jesus’ authority (12.35–37; cf. 11.28) and, relatedly, the need to read the rest of the section (including 12.28–34) in view of, and in connection to, the very pericope that represents that primary interest (i.e., 12.35–37); (6) The verbal cues linking Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37, especially the word κύριος employed repeatedly across both passages. These pieces of evidence each indicate that Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 must be treated as an integrative whole rather than two separate passages. It must be noted, however, that these six factors do not exist in isolation from one other but in organic linkage with each another even with some overlap. One should measure the cumulative weight of the pieces of evidence put forward when considering the validity of my argument for reading Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically. I have argued across this section (3.3) for the case of a holistic reading of Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37. What is the force and significance of such a holistic reading? This study now turns to discuss that important question.

3.4 The Force of Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole 3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

The preceding section (section 3.3) has argued for the necessity to read and appreciate Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically. Reading Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically or in connection to and in light of each other as argued above requires nuancing the meaning and significance of the Shema (12.29, v. 32) with a christological interest (vv. 36–37). Mark’s monotheistic and christological concerns are inseparably intertwined across 12.28–37 in that way. The Evangelist’s view of the unique God of Israel, in a meaningful way, has to do with Jesus, the messiah, sitting at his right hand, and Mark’s devotion to the messiah is also inseparably linked with the commitment to Israel’s unique deity. However, the precise nature, force, and thrust of that christological rereading/reinterpretation of the Shema across Mark 12.28–37 must be further clarified, which I shall do in this section (3.4). The initial part of this section contains an interaction with Joel Marcus. Unlike most scholars, Marcus highlights the connectivity between 12.28–34

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

131

and vv. 35–37. As such, it will be important to interact with his view, both appreciating his insight and disagreeing with his conclusions (section 3.4.1). Marcus rightly sees the connectivity between 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 yet presents an unsatisfactory case for the force of these two passages’ connectivity and, consequently, fails to clarify the nature and thrust of an integrated reading of the two passages. Following my interaction with Marcus, I will present my own conclusions on the holistic reading of Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37, attempting to clarify the nature and thrust of the proposed integrative reading, with particular attention to the divine significance of Jesus (section 3.4.2). 3.4.1 Evaluation of Marcus’ Proposal Some scholars argue that the Shema in Mark 12.29 (cf. v. 32) indicates Jesus’ “orthodoxy” as a pious Second Temple Jew, as reflected in his favorable conversation with a scribe (vv. 28–34).177 Others focus on the “rationalistic” vocabularies used in Mark 12.28–34 (e.g., διάνοια in v. 30) and link the one-God language to the Jewish and Christian apologetic against polytheism in a Hellenistic environment.178 Some others maintain that, by employing the monotheistic call of the Shema (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4), Mark affirms Jesus’ Jewish orthodoxy and warns his non-Jewish readers against any involvement in the pagan cults of their Greco-Roman society, at the same time.179 Regardless of the validity or invalidity of each of these suggestions, a common deficiency among most readers of Mark 12.28–34 is that the intimate connection between the pericope and its subsequent passage (vv. 35–37) is overlooked, something noted and argued for in the previous section (3.4). In this way, most readers deal with 12.28–34 and its monotheistic statement (vv. 29, 32) in isolation from the immediately following pericope (vv. 35–37). An exception to this common failure and an interesting proposal on the function of the Markan Shema (12.29; cf. v. 32) has been put forward by Marcus. In The Way of the Lord and “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth,” Marcus argues that the Evangelist deliberately employs the monotheistic statement of 12.29 in order to counterbalance180 the following pericope that announces

177

See, e.g., Boring, Mark, 346. See, e.g., Bornkamm, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe”; Furnish, Love Command, 29. 179 See, e.g., van Iersel, Mark, 378–79. 180 One may note that Marcus’ argument would be more plausible if the two passages were reversed in order (i.e., if the Shema passage followed the David’s son pericope in Mark’s narrative) so that the author provides the counterbalance after the controversial passage. If the author’s goal is to soften, temper, or counterbalance a controversial statement, it seems more sensible to do so after such a statement rather than before. This is, however, only a minor point; my main criticisms of Marcus’ interpretation are presented below. 178

132

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand.181 Marcus understands the reference to the “kingdom of God” in 12.34 as preparing the readers for v. 36 (cf. Ps 110.1), which introduces the enthronement of messiah, that is, “the definitive first act in the extension of the βασιλεία from heaven to earth.”182 According to Marcus, the employment of the Shema in 12.29 is understood as an action of “warding off any misunderstanding of Psalm 110.1 in the sense of bitheism.”183 Marcus suggests, “In Mark’s eyes, apparently, the picture of the figure enthroned at God’s right hand does not refute the statement that God is one because the enthroned figure is still subordinate to God.”184 Following Segal, Marcus assumes the presence of a (kind of) “Two Powers” controversy (see below) between Jews and Christians in the first-century context, especially surrounding Mark’s community.185 The Evangelist, by quoting the Shema, aims to respond to the Jewish accusation of Jesus-followers as promoting “Two Powers” (i.e., God and Christ) theology.186 To my knowledge, Marcus is the only one who has carefully considered the possibility of reading Mark 12.28– 34 and vv. 35–37, two adjacent passages that are “seemingly contradictory” in light of each other.187 To designate a separate section to interact with Marcus’ brief188 discussion may appear to be overkill. However, such “overkill” is justifiable given that Marcus is the only one who has paid notable attention to the connectivity between vv. 28–34 and vv. 35–37. In addition, interacting with Marcus here 181

Marcus, Way, 145–46; “Authority,” 198–201. Similarly, Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 500–501 argues that the Shema passage in 12.29–30 could very well be an intentional connection to the Shema allusion at 2.7. Both passages have a scribe or scribes, but the latter passage, argues Kirk, shows that Jesus’ understanding of the Shema is, in fact, acceptable to the scribe. For a summary and critique of Kirk’s thesis, that Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels should be understood as an idealized human figure without recourse to divine Christology, see section 5.1.1.7. 182 Marcus, Way, 135. 183 Marcus, Way, 145. In interpreting the use of the one-God language in 2.7, Marcus reconstructs a polemical setting relating to Mark’s original audience. Marcus connects the forgiveness of sins to their baptismal liturgy (cf. Rom 6.3), the setting where Jesus was claimed as a forgiver of sins (similarly, Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:16 f.). Marcus suggests that such a claim by Mark’s community caused much trouble with Jews who are committed to the traditional view of the uniqueness of Israel’s God (Marcus, Mark 1–8, 222). 184 Marcus, Way, 145. 185 Marcus, Way, 145–46. For Segal’s view, see idem, Two Powers, passim. 186 See Segal, Two Powers, passim. Marcus’ suggestion is followed, with a slight adaptation, by Carlson, “The Shema in Mark,” 67–70. 187 Marcus, “Authority,” 201. 188 See Marcus, Way, 145–46 (where he assigns less than two full pages to exploring Mark 12.28–37) and its further development in idem, “Authority,” 196–211 (which, however, pays more attention to Mark 2.1–12 while assigning only several pages to discussing 12.28–37 [ibid., 196–201]). Cf. Carlson, “The Shema in Mark,” which basically follows Marcus’ suggestion.

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

133

(section 3.4.1) prior to presenting my own case in the subsequent section (3.4.2) will help clarify my argument by way of showing what my view does not advocate and then proceeding to put it forward. Marcus’ endeavor to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically is to be appreciated, and his reconstruction is intriguing. His point on the connection between the two passages with respect to the idea of the kingdom seems sound. There are, however, several criticisms to be leveled at his proposed reading of Mark 12.28–37 – criticisms which show that Marcus’ case contains notable flaws, as follows. First, there is a danger of one-dimensional reductionism in Marcus’ reconstruction of the life setting behind Mark 12.28–37. Here, Marshall’s critical response to Lindars probably needs to be heard. Marshall critiques Lindars’ assertion that the earliest use of the Old Testament in the New Testament was apologetic more than anything else, specifically toward Jewish objections. Marshall points out that its earliest use is not as narrow as Lindars’ proposal but covers a much wider range, including internal purposes such as the provision of resources for reflecting the message of the gospel and the language for liturgy.189 Marcus’ argument, with an orientation similar to Lindars’, tends to focus on the polemic/apologetic function with reference to Mark’s use of the Shema.190 A strong inclination toward a polemic/apologetic use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as such may, however, reflect a preference for a dialectic approach rather than the actual life setting of the Markan community, which likely had more complex dynamics and a variety of factors involved.191 As Best aptly notes, a polemical intent often applied to the Evangelist may better reflect the cause of modern academic writings presented usually against other scholarly views rather than the cause for Mark’s composition.192 In addition, it should not be overlooked that the Christian movement(s) has a strong heritage drawn from Jewish beliefs and practices.193 189

See Marshall, “An Assessment of Recent Developments,” 8–9. Marcus’ inclination toward a polemical/apologetic reading is found, e.g., in idem, “Authority,” 199–200. Marcus notes, “If, as many scholars think, the whole discussion of forgiveness of sins in 2.5b–10 is a secondary intrusion into the miracle story, one that reflects not the ministry of the historical Jesus but the concerns of the early church, then the scribes’ Shema-based objection may very well mirror acrimonious first-century debates in which Jewish religious authorities accused Christians of blasphemy because of their claims about Jesus, which in these authorities’ eyes threatened the unity of God” (ibid., 199). 191 If one analyzes Marcus’ reconstruction from a dialectic perspective, the thesis would be the Christology of Mark’s community especially with Jesus enthroned on God’s right in view (12.36–37 [cf. Ps 110.1]); the antithesis would be the supposed Jewish accusation of Mark’s community for compromising God’s uniqueness; and the synthesis would be Mark’s polemic/apologetic use of the Shema (12.29 [cf. Deut 6.4]) within the literary context of Mark 12.28–37. 192 Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 45–46. 193 See the discussion in section 2.1 above. 190

134

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

Thus, the “polemic”/“apologetic” function associated with the use of the Shema in Mark 12.29 could be, in fact, a reflection of such Jewish heritage within a Christian community. Early Christian use of the Shema might, of course, involve a response to accusations by the Synagogue and a polemic associated therein, but it might also involve a development of doctrinal understanding and/or a Christianization of Jewish heritage within a Christian community.194 Mark’s mainly Gentile audience would have had to engage with first-century Judaism but also with neighboring pagan religions as well as its own internal problems – with different matters and to different degrees. Second, there is a danger of anachronism. In projecting the Rabbinic “Two Powers” controversy into the first-century social context of Mark’s narrative, Marcus follows Segal’s view that the “Two Powers” controversy can be traced back to the first century, in light of some christological passages of the New Testament as well as Philo’s writings.195 Marcus does not provide any substantial argument other than referring briefly to Segal’s suggestion – he neglects to discern the dating of the traditions that underlie the relevant Rabbinic materials addressing the “Two Powers” controversy and their associated texts. I suspect that one probably needs to be more cautious and even meticulous if one attempts to appropriate a later historical situation like the anti-Christian polemics reflected in later Rabbinic sources for a first-century text such as Mark’s Gospel.196 The charge of “blasphemy” directed against Jesus in Mark 2.7 and 14.62 might reflect the situations of Mark’s community. However, in any case, identifying the Jewish charge of “blasphemy” with a later Rabbinic polemic against Christians (known as the “Two Powers” controversy) seems to require a substantial argument, which is absent in Marcus’ discussion. These two ideas of blasphemy may appear to be connected to each other in view of 194 The use of the one-God language, in major part, shows that the Evangelist and his community were obligated to understand Jesus’ identity and authority from his relationship to Israel’s God – YHWH of the Old Testament (Mark 12.29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5). Jesus’ status and significance had to be explained on the basis of Jewish scriptures, i.e., the “Bible” for Mark’s community (see Mark 1.2, which opens the Second Gospel with an explicit mention of an Old Testament writing [Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ]). 195 See McGrath’s criticism of Segal’s efforts to read the “Two Powers” controversy back into the first-century CE (Only True God, chap. 6). For Segal’s position, see idem, Two Powers, ix; 205–19; 159–81. Refer to Mark 14.62; Phil 2.6; Gal 3.20; John 5.18; 6.46; 10.33; Rev 19.11–16; Philo, Somn. 1.227–33; QG 2.62; Cher. 27–28; and Fug. 95, 101. Refer also to Paul’s “pre-Christian” reactions to Jesus-believers (e.g., Gal. 1.13–14; 1 Cor 15.9); Trypho’s characterization of devotion to Jesus as blasphemous (Dial. 38.1); cf. Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth,” 164–80; Hurtado, How on Earth, 35n11. 196 It is a mistake to assume that the term “Two Powers” was used for one single group. It was often employed to attack various Jewish groups that were not Jesus-believers (See Segal, Two Powers, 6ff.). Marcus is aware of the danger of anachronism in his approach, at least partially (“Authority,” 208n1). However, such an awareness did not seem to create sufficient caution in his dealing with this particular Markan passage.

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

135

their general theological concerns, but a more nuanced discussion is necessary in defining how similar and dissimilar those two are, especially with regard to the nature of first-century Jewish-“Christian” relations and/or the nature of “partings.”197 Third, if the Markan community was, in fact, under the substantial Jewish charge of rejecting or endangering monotheism, one should probably expect the Evangelist to make a more vigorous and explicit defense, as found in John’s Gospel (5.18; 10.33), 198 but such a defense seems absent within Mark’s account.199 Moreover, the favorable description of the scribe in the Love Commandment passage (12.28–34), which precedes the question of David’s son (vv. 35–37), does not seem to fit well with Marcus’ reading that highlights Jewish-Christian polemic concerning Jesus’ exalted status and significance. If such a polemic were hinted at, portraying the scribe of the Love Commandment passage as a hostile interlocutor or tester (see Matt 22.34–40; Luke 10.25–28) would have been more fitting. This does not necessarily mean that there was no Jewish opposition toward the devotion to Jesus among his first-century followers. Nevertheless, the distance between (a) Jewish opposition directed towards Christians probably accompanied by the charge of “blasphemy” (cf. 2.7; 14.64), and (b) the alleged presence of the “Two Powers” controversy (or a debate around Christian “bitheism”) surrounding Mark’s community must be recognized. Overall, it seems excessive to stretch the issue of “blasphemy” in Mark’s Gospel to something as specific and definitive as the “Two Powers” controversy attested to in later (Rabbinic) sources. As an additional point, one must consider whether the charge of “blasphemy” in Mark’s Gospel, which has just been differentiated from the later “Two Powers” debate above, reflects Mark’s own life setting or those of previous generations/traditions. Bultmann, for example, views the controversy stories (2.1–3.6; see esp. 2.1–12) as reflecting “the apologetic and polemic of

197

On the issue of parting(s), see the essays contained in Dunn, ed. Jews and Christians. Cf. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, especially chap. 3; the Birkhat ha-Minim. 199 I am not necessarily saying that these Johannine texts reflect the “Two Powers” controversy. However, they seem to have, at least, a better possibility than any of the Markan passages. On the other hand, I am not arguing that Mark’s view of Jesus is substantially different from John’s christological understanding. I am simply noting here that the difference between John and Mark seems to imply variance in their life settings. What Marcus describes seems to suit the Johannine setting better than the Markan counterparts – although, again, the question of whether or not the “Two Powers” debate (or something equivalent to it) can be appropriated as a life setting of John’s community is a matter that requires its own investigation (cf. McGrath, Only True God, chap. 6). 198

136

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

the Palestine Church.”200 In other words, the controversy dialogues between Jesus and Jewish leaders echo post-Easter disputes between Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine. Witherington likewise observes that the controversies about Jewish features, namely, the authority to forgive sins, the fellowship with the unclean, the practice of fasting and of healing on the Sabbaths (see 2.1– 3.6), do not reflect the issues that Mark’s primarily Gentile audience faced.201 In commenting on 13.9 in connection with the issue of “blasphemy” (cf. 2.7; 14.64), Hurtado likewise notes, Given that the Jewish-Christian heritage of Mark’s readers seems to lie in their past, and that the intended readership is likely to have been heavily Gentile in make-up, the experiences of being arraigned before synagogue authorities on charges of blasphemy must derive from some time before [the composition of Mark’s Gospel].202

Again, it seems sensible to recognize a certain distance between (a) Jewish opposition to Christian devotion to Jesus with the potential charge of “blasphemy” and (b) the occasions of the later “Two Powers” controversy. More importantly for the current point, the charge of “blasphemy” as reported in Mark 2.7 and 14.64 and other Jewish-“Christian” conflicts portrayed in the Second Gospel seem to reflect pre-Markan settings rather than the situations directly surrounding Mark’s community.203 Considering Marcus’ instinct to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 in light of each other, it is somewhat surprising that he offers a reading that does not seem to fit well with the narrative scheme of 11.27–12.27, where Jesus’ authority is the main issue (12.35–37; cf. 11.28). According to Marcus, in Mark 12.28–37, the claim for God’s one-ness and the claim for Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand are the two extremes that counterbalance each other. However, as I have argued in section 3.3.5 above, the core agenda of Mark 200 Bultmann, History, 40–41. Bultmann does not necessarily deny the connection between these stories and the life of the historical Jesus. He, however, chooses methodologically to focus on the controversy stories, as a literary form, and their life setting (ibid., 40). For the pre-Markan nature of the polemic in the controversy section of 2.1–3.6 (which addresses the issues of Sabbath, purity/food regulations etc.), see Anderson, Mark, 98–99; cf. Taylor, Mark, 192, 201. 201 Witherington, Mark, 113–14. 202 Hurtado, How on Earth, 167–68. Hurtado follows a near-consensus position that Mark’s Gospel was written around 70 CE, i.e., ca. 65–72 CE (167). For the (primarily) Gentile readership of Mark’s Gospel, see the discussion in section 1.3 above. The explanation of Jewish purity regulations in Mark 7.1–23 and of Aramaic terms in, for instance, 5.41 and 7.34 together seem to provide weighty evidence for the mainly Gentile makeup of Mark’s original audience. 203 Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 95, seem to lack a nuanced understanding about this matter in stating: “the charge of blasphemy against Jesus in the narrative world of Mark may well reflect a similar charge made against the christological claims of the Markan community.” For further discussion on “blasphemy” in Mark’s Gospel, see section 4.2 below.

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

137

11.27–12.37 is, at least according to the text as it now stands, not the “weighty” quotation of the Shema’s monotheistic call (12.28–34, esp. vv. 29, 32) or other impressive details in the preceding passages (11.27–12.17) but Jesus’ coregency with God and his remarkable authority as David’s Lord and as one enthroned together with God (12.35–37; cf. 11.28).204 As for Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37, specifically, the adjacent placement of these two passages is not to counterbalance each other from two extremes. Rather, the Evangelist incorporates the two passages with his core interest in Jesus’ authority, which is the primary agenda for the Jerusalem controversy section in 11.27–12.37, by first presenting the Shema (12.29–30) and nuancing it immediately and innovatively in view of Jesus, who participates in God’s sovereign rule (12.35–37; cf. Ps 110.1). The Shema is not just cited for the purpose of endorsing or defending its traditional value but is christologically appropriated in light of the messiah being exalted and seated on God’s right as his cosmic co-regent. What one finds in Mark 12.28–37 is the reinterpretation of God’s uniqueness in such a way that Jesus is in view, with the result that the understanding of the unique God is further defined and specified. This is, indeed, a striking phenomenon considering Jewish scruples on the uniqueness of the biblical deity as previously discussed across chapter 2 of this study. In sum, although Marcus’ suggestion to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically and to link the Shema with Jesus’ exaltation appears to be valuable and thus should be commended, various critical points directed toward Marcus’ proposal as above show that his case contains some serious flaws. The abovenoted criticisms must be understood not just individually but collectively, and their cumulative force seems to necessitate a reading that is notably different from Marcus’, as will be put forward in the next section (3.4.2). Prior to presenting my own holistic reading of Mark 12.28–37 and discussing the christological significance of such a reading, I would like to comment briefly on Mark’s life setting. After pointing out substantial problems in Marcus’ proposal, which are related to his reconstruction of the Markan setting, what should we say regarding Mark’s life situations, especially in relation to 12.28–37? One must begin by acknowledging our limitations. There is a lack of available data for reconstructing Mark’s community and its life setting from Mark’s account itself, outside of some partial hints from the “Little Apocalypse” of Mark 13.205 In addition, our knowledge concerning firstcentury Judaism is also limited, specifically in regard to its interaction with “Christian” movements, apart from some indirect pieces of evidence from the New Testament and Rabbinic literature compiled later. We do not have a first204

Cf. Eskola, Messiah and Throne. See section 1.3. See Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 14–28 (esp. 21–28) for a fine example of dating Mark’s Gospel in relation to the content of Mark 13. 205

138

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

century Jewish document that reports directly what first-century Jews thought of their contemporaries’ devotion to Jesus. One can say with relative confidence that Mark the Evangelist was aware of some afflictions that his predominantly Gentile readers/audience were facing or about to face (see section 1.3 above). However, it seems very hard to designate a single specific setting in relation to 12.28–37 specifically.206 Any discussion on the life setting behind the Markan Shema should be engaged in the context of exploring the Sitz im Leben for Mark’s Gospel as a whole.207 On the other hand, one needs to be aware of the danger of referential fallacy in attempting to reconstruct Mark’s life setting based upon his mainly pastorally-aimed narrative.208 Mark’s Gospel was not written to give an account, for example, of Jewish-Christian relations around Mark’s community. Relatedly, expecting too simple a one-toone correspondence between what is seen in the text and the actual life situations of the community or practicing a mirror reading from a similar angle need to be avoided since there is significant background information omitted from the text itself, much of which was probably part of the shared knowledge between the Markan author and his original audience but is unknown to modern interpreters of the Second Gospel. In the end, one may need to be satisfied with a general reconstruction, aided, in part, by the (nearly) immediate literary context of 12.28–37. Mark 13 is arguably the most informative – though only fragmentally so – portion of Mark for reconstructing its Sitz im Leben. Mark’s primarily Gentile readers/audience facing (present or impending) afflictions for his cause (cf. 13.9–13; also, 8.34, 38; 10.29) were encouraged to recognize their privilege of knowing Jesus’ status and significance – not merely as God’s agent who fulfills a traditional messianic hope but also as the heavenly “Lord”209 who is directly and inseparably linked with Israel’s unique God and participates in his universal sovereignty (Mark 12.36–37). The crowd around Jesus in the scene of the Davidssohnfrage (12.35–37) could not comprehend the true significance of Jesus’ allusive speech, but Mark’s readers/audience could. Mark’s readers/audience who have been privileged to “know” the secret of the unique status and significance of Jesus (cf. 4.11, v. 34) are encouraged to follow him despite their afflictions for the cause of their messiah (cf. 13.9–13). The vindication and the exaltation of their crucified messiah (12.36–37; cf. 12.1– 12; 14.62; 16.1–8) encourage Mark’s intended readers/audience to anticipate

206 Cf. Peterson, The Origins of Mark, whose skepticism, however, seems a bit too extreme, in my estimation. 207 Exemplary caution on excessive specification in reconstructing Mark’s community is found in Best, “The Occasion of the Gospel” in idem, Mark: The Gospel as Story. 208 See section 1.3 above. 209 For an article highlighting Mark’s use of the book of Psalms to present Jesus as both Davidic king and Lord of the temple, see Watts, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord.”

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

139

their own eschatological vindication (10.30; cf. 13.24–27) and follow him faithfully even in the midst of suffering (8.34; 10.29; cf. v. 45) in the meantime. 3.4.2 The Case for Jesus’ Divine Significance Based upon Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole In the preceding section (3.4.1), I have critically evaluated Marcus’ reading of Mark 12.28–37, noting some serious flaws in his argument, but have not had a chance to present my own position. This subsection (3.4.2) is precisely for that purpose. Appreciating Marcus’ attention to an integration of Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 and yet disagreeing with him profoundly regarding their collective force and other related details as discussed above, I intend to argue in the current section that the necessity of reading Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35– 37 holistically and in view of each other (see section 3.3 above) points us toward the understanding that the Evangelist reinterprets the Shema (and, therefore, the uniqueness of God) in an innovative way that links Jesus and God directly and inseparably with each other and presents Jesus on a level with God, based on the following set of evidence. First, we must remember that Mark uses κύριος language for Jesus from the gospel’s very beginning with his divine significance in view, and, in that sense, it is not too surprising that he maintains such interest in 12.35–37. In the beginning of the gospel, “the way of the Lord [τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου]” is presented as the way of Jesus (1.3, cf. Isa 40.3). Mark’s reference here is a quotation from one of the most, if not the most, emphatically monotheistic portions of the Old Testament, namely, Isa 40–55 (with “Isaiah” named in Mark 1.2 and Isa 40.3 quoted in Mark 1.3).210 The Evangelist does not simply quote from this emphatically monotheistic portion of Isaiah but reinterprets it christologically by appropriating the Isaianic divine κύριος language to Jesus. While it is remarkable that Mark extends the divine κύριος language to Jesus, it is even more striking that such language was taken directly from arguably the most emphatically monotheistic portion of the entire Old Testament. The christological appropriation of the divine κύριος language of Isa 40.3 to Jesus at the beginning of Mark's Gospel (1.3), by nature, interfaces Jewish monotheism and meaningfully divine Christology. The application of the Isaianic title of κύριος to Jesus, thus binding the identities of Jesus and Israel’s God inseparably together at the outset of the narrative, appears to set the tone for the remainder of the Second Gospel, in general, and the subsequent uses of the same epithet (κύριος) for Jesus in the narrative, in particular, including Mark 12.36. Mark 1.2–3 and 12.36 are similar to each other not only in light of (a) the application of κύριος to Jesus but also in view of (b) the citation of an Old Testament scripture from which the κύριος language is drawn and (c) the “off210

See, for instance, Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 7–11 (9–10).

140

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

stage” setting where God speaks to Jesus.211 In Mark 1.2, God speaks to Jesus in an off-stage setting, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” and, in the same setting, the divine κύριος language of Isa 40.3 is appropriated to Jesus in the immediately following verse (Mark 1.3).212 In Mark 12.36, Jesus quotes Ps 110.1, which reads, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’,” and here both God and Jesus, the only two persons appearing in this off-stage setting, are referred to as κύριος.213 The three common features between 1.2–3 and 12.36 noted above seem to prod the audience to reflect upon the true significance of Jesus the Messiah in 12.36 in connection to the hint at his meaningfully divine status in 1.2–3.214 Second, and similar to the correspondence between 1.2–3 and 12.36 just noted, is the common way that the κύριος language is utilized in 5.19–20 and 12.28–37. This common utilization of κύριος involves a seemingly non-christological use of the κύριος language (5.19 and 12.28–34 [esp. vv. 28–29], respectively) that is immediately nuanced with a notable christological concern for that epithet (5.20 and 12.35–37 [esp. vv. 36–37], respectively). 211

The word “off-stage” is borrowed from Boring, “God-Language,” 452, 464, 469. The citation in Mark 1.2 is likely a composite, relying on the traditions of both Exodus 23.20 and Malachi 3.1. The initial second-person pronoun in the text, “you” (σου), was originally a reference to Israel in Exodus 23.20, while the second, “your” (σου), is a modification originating either with Mark himself or with the tradition from which he obtained the citation (cf. Matt 11.10; Luke 7.27). As the text stands in its new context, the second person pronouns refer to Jesus, making God address Jesus, according to Mark’s arrangement. 213 One may rather focus on differentiating the two persons in interpreting Mark 12.36 (Ps 110.1 [109.1 LXX]), noting the possessive pronoun μου is used by “David” in referring to the messiah, whereas Israel’s God was referred to as κύριος without an article. As discussed above, however, Mark’s use of the κύριος language in 12.36–37 has an eye on the commonality between Jesus the Messiah and the God of Israel more than on their differentiation. Here, the Evangelist seems to pay attention to Jesus’ being factored into the view of Israel’s unique God, while nevertheless maintaining a distinction between God and Jesus, as God speaks to Jesus as a distinct person in v. 36 (cf. Ps 110.1). As for a tendency of Mark the Evangelist both to identify and distinguish God and Jesus in his gospel, see the discussion in section 5.1 below. 214 As will be explored in sections 5.1 and 5.2 below, the Evangelist collocates the identification of Jesus with God alongside the distinction between the two, and he does that repeatedly (see section 5.2.3). Such repetition would connote that Mark was aware of this nuanced and even paradoxical portrayal of Jesus as he composed his narrative, wanting neither to identify Jesus with God too flatly, on the one hand, nor to maintain too much of a differentiation between the two, on the other hand. Passages where Jesus is linked directly with God and differentiated clearly from him in a side-by-side manner include Mark 13.31– 32, where Jesus speaks as one whose “words will not pass away” (13.31), identifying his speech with that of God (cf. Isa 40.6–8; 51.4–6; Ps 102.25–27), and subsequently admitting that he does not know the time of the eschaton unlike “the Father” (13.32). For further discussion of this passage, see section 5.2.3 below. 212

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

141

Within Mark 5.19–20, “how much the Lord has done” for the former demoniac (v. 19) is directly paralleled by “how much Jesus had done for him” (v. 20). But Jesus refused, and said to him, “Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you [ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν], and what mercy he has shown you.” And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him [ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς]; and everyone was amazed. (Mark 5.19–20)

In other words, Mark binds the identity of the Lord, which refers to Israel’s God in Jesus’ words, with the identity of Jesus, and overlaps what the Lord did directly with what Jesus performed.215 Of course, 5.19 and v. 20 are two consecutive verses whereas 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 are two consecutive passages.216 However, given that the meaning of either a verse (e.g., 5.19) or a passage (e.g., 12.28–34) is determined not only by what is contained within it but also by what surrounds it (in this case, the immediately following literary context, namely, 5.20 for v. 19 and 12.35–37 for vv. 28–34), the relationship between Mark 5.19 and v. 20 seems to serve as an appropriate precedent for that of Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 found later in the narrative. Third, although one might question the necessity for κύριος to carry divine significance as applied to Jesus in view of the term’s wide range of meaning, which includes various human referents with higher socio-political status, it is suggestive that Mark never employs κύριος with reference to anyone except God and Jesus across his gospel.217 While there are, to be clear, two occurrences of κύριος in parables referring to the “owner [κύριος] of the vineyard” (12.9) and the “master [κύριος] of the house” (13.35), the former obviously stands for God in the context, and the latter clearly represents Jesus. Mark appropriates κύριος to Jesus in 1.3; 2.28; 7.28; 11.3; 12.37; and 13.35 and applies the title to God in 11.9; 12.9, 11, 29 (2x), 30; and 13.20. The Evangelist uses the title for both God and Jesus in 12.36.218 The alternation of these referents 215 It may be possible for some to read “Lord” in v. 19 as Jesus referring to himself, though this is certainly not a common interpretation, but the point here is that Mark uses divine κύριος language with respect to Jesus. 216 I acknowledge that verse and passage divisions are later additions and not original with the Evangelist. Here and throughout this study, I am using “verses” and “passages” only to make references to the relevant parts of the text. 217 See Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” 101–24. Johansson examines Mark’s use of κύριος and argues that, while the Second Gospel only has one κύριος, Jesus is also portrayed as sharing in that identity with Israel’s God. 218 Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” 101, 103–105, classifies Mark 1.3 as a reference to both God and Jesus. Mark 1.3 and 12.36 appear to be related in a significant way, in that each verse involves a use of κύριος for the God of Israel and a use of the same epithet for Jesus. However, the two verses are slightly different. The κύριος of Mark 1.3 refers explicitly to Jesus, while the κύριος of the Old Testament text cited in the verse (i.e., Isa 40.3 LXX) refers to the God of Israel in its original context. Thus, Mark takes a text

142

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

exclusively between God and Jesus is telling. The Evangelist binds the identities of Jesus and God by calling them both “Lord” (κύριος) and by reserving the epithet for them alone. What Mark does not do with the word κύριος is just as significant as what he does with it. Thus, when Jesus asks how the messiah can be called the son of David since David calls this messiah κύριος in Mark 12.37, the narrative flow of the Second Gospel and especially the use of the term κύριος leading up to that point seems to suggest that Jesus’ “lord [κύριος]”-ship goes far beyond his contemporary Jews’ messianic expectation, not simply reflecting Jesus’ superiority to David, though that is certainly true (v. 37), but also the sort of superiority that the divine Lord possesses over David. While the fact that Jesus shares the title κύριος with God suggests, at the very least, a remarkably unique relationship between Jesus and Israel’s deity, the repeated appropriation of the divine κύριος language for Jesus – first in the opening of the gospel (1.3; cf. Isa 40.3) and then in 5.19–20 – increases the likelihood that this remarkable relationship between Jesus and ‫יהוה‬-κύριος involves some sort of meaningful binding of the two figures’ identities. Furthermore, for Mark the Evangelist and his original audience, who are not Jesus’ audience in Palestine but his post-resurrection believers who lived some decades later and confessed their faith in Jesus (cf. 1.1), the κύριος language applied to Jesus in 12.36–37 would likely hint at something more serious than merely the notion of Jesus’ superiority to David.219 Fourth, the christological reinterpretation of the Shema as seen in the context of Mark 12.28–37 finds support from the other two references to the Shema earlier in the narrative (2.7; 10.18). As will be unpacked in chapter 4 of this study, these other uses of one-God language in the Second Gospel contain a notable christological concern that links Jesus directly and inseparably with the unique God of Israel and that presents Jesus on par with that God. In 2.7, the scribes express their astonishment that Jesus has claimed to forgive sins, a claim violating a unique prerogative of Israel’s God (“Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός, my translation]?”). Jesus does not retreat but reinforces his divine authority to pardon sins (2.10; cf. v. 5). originally mentioning the divine κύριος (Israel’s God) and makes Jesus join in the position of κύριος. Mark 12.36, on the other hand, does not change the referent of ὁ κύριος in Ps 110.1 (109.1 LXX) from Israel’s God to Jesus. Jesus is identified as the second κύριος mentioned in Ps 110.1 (109.1 LXX), a figure distinct from ὁ κύριος. The two texts seem meaningfully similar in their overall christological thrust but should be distinguished at least in this way. 219 For comparison, see, e.g., Fee, Pauline Christology, 558–85, 631–38. Fee argues that the use of κύριος in Paul’s letters tends to refer to Jesus and contains divine significance, particularly in the instances where Jesus is the intended reference of an Old Testament κύριος text. Refer especially to 1 Cor 8.4–6; Phil 2.6–11. For Jesus as the referent of Old Testament κύριος texts, see Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology.

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

143

In 10.17, a man runs up to Jesus and asks, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” In his response, Jesus seemingly denies his own goodness, stating that “No one is good except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]” (10.18, my translation). The phrase εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός, which was employed with a notable christological concern and especially with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view earlier in the context of 2.1–12, reappears in 10.18. Jesus then proceeds, after a discussion of the second half of the Decalogue (vv. 19–20), to require the young man to give all he has to the poor and to follow him (v. 21), thereby juxtaposing his own commands with those of the Decalogue. In the subsequent conversation with his disciples, Jesus is seen to expect from them the kind of total devotion reserved only for God in the Old Testament (vv. 29–30; cf. v. 21), which includes even the relativization of a command from the Decalogue (i.e., honoring the parents) in light of the supreme importance of Jesus himself. The allusion to the Shema in 10.18 (“no one is good except one, i.e., God”), then, seems not to be coincidental. The total devotion Jesus requires of his disciples (10.29–30; cf. v. 21) is the sort of allegiance that should be given to Israel’s God according to the Shema itself (Deut 6.4–5, quoted later in the narrative [Mark 12.29–30]). As will be further explained in chapter 4 of this study, Mark 2.7 and 10.18 have a dynamic similar to that in 12.28–37, tying a commitment to God’s uniqueness (2.7; 10.18; cf. 12.29, v. 32) together with a remarkable christological concern (2.5, 10; 10.21, 29–30; cf. 12.35–37).220 Both in 2.7 and 10.18, the idea of God’s uniqueness is highlighted but with a significant christological nuance attached to that idea. While the three monotheistic texts in the Second Gospel have their respective features in the given narrative contexts, their concern for God’s uniqueness through allusion to or quotation of the Shema as nuanced by an interest in Jesus’ remarkable status and significance suggests that the Evangelist consistently reworks the Shema with a christological lens and, more specifically, with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view. If Mark is rereading the Shema christologically as such in its first two occurrences (2.7 and 10.18), it is not too surprising that he does something similar with its third and last occurrence in Mark 12. Fifth, Mark applies meaningfully divine terms and images to Jesus repeatedly across his narrative (see especially 5.1.1 of this study), and so it is not too surprising that he does something similar with the one-God language in 12.28– 37. Jesus’ silencing of a storm at sea in Mark 4.35–41, for instance, presents Jesus acting just like the chaos-controlling God of the Hebrew Bible (Pss 89.9; 65.7; 104.5–9; Job 26.10–12; 38.8–11; cf. Ps 46.3).221 Such is the impact of Jesus’ action that his disciples respond in astonishment, “Who then is this, that 220 221

See section 4.1 below. See section 5.1.1.2 below.

144

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

even the wind and the sea obey him?” (4.41, cf. 1.27). Jesus also exerts power reserved for God as he walks across the sea in Mark 6.45–52.222 Arguably, Jesus’ declaration of ἔγω εἴμι in this particular context (6.50) brings with it divine significance, as could a later reference to the use of Jesus’ “name” for casting out demons, which implies Jesus’ unique, God-like status and authority (9.38–39).223 These and other passages to be explored below in section 5.1.1 add notable weight to the plausibility of the case for the christological rereading of the Shema with Jesus’ divine significance in view in Mark 12. Since Mark is seen to portray Jesus as directly and inseparably linked with God repeatedly throughout his narrative, it is not too astonishing for him to do something analogous at this juncture of the narrative in 12.28–37.224 This fifth point 222

See section 5.1.1.3 below. See section 5.1.1.4 below. 224 There are other notable christological elements in Mark 12.28–37 that are not definitive evidence for a divine Christology on their own but seem to add further weight to the case put forward here in conjunction with the preceding pieces of evidence. To be clear, these additional factors themselves do not necessitate divine significance in the one-God language in 12.28–37. However, they fit well with the case for the divine significance of the monotheistic language in the passage and, as such, may be considered as part of the overall plausibility structure of the argument presented in the current section (3.5.2): (1) Mark 12.35–37 puts forth the idea that the typical messianic expectation attached to a phrase such as “son of David” is insufficient for Jesus. Whatever one concludes about Jesus’ precise relationship to David in interpreting 12.35–37 (see section 3.2 above), it seems unavoidable that Jesus is pointing to his own superiority to the Davidic messiah as understood by his contemporary Jews, and such superiority fits with the proposed reading of Mark 12.28–37 with Jesus’ divine significance in view, though it does not directly require that reading. (2) It is somewhat striking that Mark notes redundantly that Jesus was teaching “in the temple” (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ) in 12.35. The prepositional phrase, “in the temple,” is redundant as it was already mentioned in 11.27 without any subsequent mention of a shift in Jesus’ location prior to 12.35. Such redundancy could perhaps be related to Mark’s intention to present Jesus as the Lord of the temple (v. 36). A deliberate presentation on Mark’s part as such seems possible especially in view of the divine κύριος language applied to Jesus at the narrative’s opening in 1.3 as part of a composite citation across vv. 2–3 that includes Mal 3.1 (Mark 1.2). Malachi 3.1 speaks of God’s messenger preparing the way for his return to the temple (“See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple” [emphasis added]). Moreover, the explicit and redundant reference to the temple in Mark 12.35 fits well with the portrayal of God’s throne in v. 36, as the temple and God’s throne are often intertwined in ancient Judaism (Isa 66.1; cf. 1 Chron 28.2; Ps 99.5; 132.7; Lam 2.1; 2 Esd 6.4). The manner in which Jesus is depicted throughout Mark’s Gospel seems to suggest that the Lord has indeed come to his temple as prophesied in Mal 3.1. See Watts, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord,” 307–22, who argues that the Evangelist makes use of key Psalms, each employed multiple times and strategically placed, to present Jesus as both the Davidic messiah (Ps 2 [cf. Mark 1.11; 9.7]; Ps 22 [cf. Mark 15.24, 29, 34]; Ps 118 [cf. Mark 11.9–10; 12.10–11]) and the Lord of the temple (Ps 110 [cf. Mark 12.36; 14.62]). These psalms, Watts argues, must be understood in light 223

3.4 Reading Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 as a Whole

145

will be developed and unpacked further in the last chapter of this study (chap. 5). Sixth and lastly, the cumulative weight of the five pieces of evidence considered above should not be overlooked. It is not just the existence of any one of the factors considered above but their cumulative presence that strongly suggests a christological rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view. The use of various features tying Jesus inseparably to God in consistent and identifiable ways across the gospel’s narration, as noted above, connotes that Mark rereads the Shema christologically, linking Jesus inseparably and directly with Israel’s unique God. For the Markan Evangelist, to love the God of Israel and him alone (Mark 12.30; cf. Deut 6.5) is materialized through the acknowledgment of Jesus’ unique status and significance. Mark does not forsake Jewish monotheistic devotion but promotes a novel way in which such devotion is offered to God with reference to Jesus. One cannot adequately love God without embracing Jesus’ unique status and significance. Recognition of the centrality of the Shema cannot be perfected without the recognition of Jesus as a person corresponding fundamentally to Israel’s God. That seems to be the reason why the friendly scribe is deemed “not far” from the kingdom of God but not yet in that kingdom (Mark 12.34). I have argued above for the need to read Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 holistically (section 3.3) and for the divine significance of Jesus as an outcome of such holistic reading (section 3.4.2). However, one may object that Christology or theology proper does not seem to be a primary concern in Mark 12.28–34, noting that the conversation between Jesus and his friendly interlocutor develops around the issue of which commandment has primacy and, thus, questioning whether the christological rereading of the Shema as put forward above is simply a stretch. The following section (3.4.3) is designated to respond to such a potential objection. 3.4.3 Response to Potential Objection Some may argue that the main concern of Mark 12.28–34 is neither theology proper nor Christology but the issue of which command is foremost (ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων [Mark 12.28]) and, thus, that the christological rereading of the Shema as presented above simply misses what the Evangelist tried to convey. Such an objection, however, overlooks some of the important dynamics involved in and around 12.28–34. Firstly, both in Deut 6 and in Jesus’ quotation of Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.29– 30, the foremost commandment, which is to love God totally without any resof their larger context and contemporary interpretations (308–309). Watts is concerned especially with Jesus’ role as eschatological purifier and restorer of the temple.

146

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

ervations (Mark 12.30; cf. Deut 6.5), is inseparably bound with the commitment to the uniqueness of God (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4). In Deut 6, the uniqueness of God (v. 4) provides the foundation for unreserved love of God (v. 5).225 The relationship between God’s uniqueness and total allegiance to God is maintained in Mark 12.28–34 as Jesus quotes Deut 6.4 explicitly together with v. 5 in his response to the scribe’s question about the commandment of first importance (Mark 12.29–30).226 The monotheistic call of the Shema is, therefore, not external but internal to the discussion of the greatest commandment according to Mark’s presentation. In the scribe’s paraphrase of Jesus’ quotation from Deut 6.4–5 and Lev 19.18, again, the monotheistic declaration (Mark 12.32) is explicitly present before the double love commandment (v. 33). This is especially striking since the monotheistic declaration of 12.29 does not seem to be a commandment and is not obviously relevant to this discussion of the greatest commandment besides the fact that it is adjacent to the commandment in 12.30 (cf. Deut 6.5). One might even say that the monotheistic declaration of 12.29 is “intrusive” to a discussion about commandments, thereby emphasizing its significance. It must not be overlooked that Jesus and the scribe both discuss the foremost commandments only after affirming the uniqueness of Israel’s God. Thus, the objection that the passage opens with the issue of which command is foremost and, therefore, cannot be concerned with theology proper or Christology misses the significant link between the monotheistic declaration and the foremost command in Mark 12.28–34. Secondly, Mark’s deliberate attentiveness to the one-God language must be noted. The Markan Evangelist is, in fact, the only New Testament writer to cite the monotheistic call of the Shema (Mark 12.29; cf. Deut 6.4). Mark also paraphrases that monotheistic language within the Love Commandment passage; the friendly scribe is seen to reword Jesus’ recitation of the Shema both positively and negatively – by stating not only that, “He is one [εἷς ἐστιν],” but also that, “Besides him there is no other [οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ]” (Mark 12.32). Furthermore, the Evangelist alludes to the monotheistic call of the Shema in two other places in his narrative (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός in 2.7 and 10.18). Therefore, the fact that Jesus answers the scribe’s question concerning the foremost command only after reciting the one-God language of the Shema (12.29) should probably be taken seriously. Thirdly and finally, in view of the numerous features that suggest Mark’s deliberateness in placing 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 side by side (see section 3.3 above), the interpretation of the former passage must consider the latter, and vice versa. The meaning and significance of 12.28–34 and of the foremost commandment contained in it (vv. 29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5) should be determined not 225

See Craigie, Deuteronomy, 168–70. For the interconnectivity between the uniqueness of Israel’s God and commandments, see also the pertinent discussion in section 3.3.2 above. 226

3.5 Distinction between Jesus and God within Mark 12.28–37

147

only by what is included in that unit of text alone (Mark 12.28–34) but also by what follows it (vv. 35–37), and especially by the Old Testament scripture quoted and christologically appropriated in it (12.36; cf. Ps 110.1). The need to consider the meaning and significance of Mark 12.28–34 and its scripture reference (vv. 29–30; cf. Deut 6.4–5) in conjunction with Mark 12.35–37 and its scripture reference (v. 36; Ps 110.1) is necessary in light of a strong sense of binding between the two units of text, as advocated above (section 3.3).227 In sum, the objection that the main concern of Mark 12.28–34 is neither theology proper nor Christology but the issue of which command is foremost and, therefore, that the christological rereading of the Shema as put forward above fails to account for the passage’s content appears to overlook these significant elements in and around 12.28–34.

3.5 Distinction between Jesus and God within Mark 12.28–37 3.5 Distinction between Jesus and God within Mark 12.28–37

Prior to drawing a conclusion to the present chapter (chap. 3), it seems helpful to give brief attention to the complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical christological and theological context in which the Shema is employed in the Second Gospel. In chapter 5 below, it will be argued in detail that Mark’s remarkable christological interest needs to be appreciated within the context of the Evangelist’s integration of Jesus’ inseparable linkage with and differentiation from God (or that of Jesus’ parity with God and the hierarchy between the two). Even prior to a focused discussion in chapter 5, however, one naturally begins to see the integration of those two elements by looking at 12.28–37 itself. The Evangelist’s rereading of the Shema by connecting it with Ps 110.1 across Mark 12.28–37 and the direct and inseparable linkage of Jesus with Israel’s unique God does not mean that Jesus replaces God in a flat sense or that the two are indistinguishable from each other. Mark’s Jesus in 12.29–30 is a devout Jewish man who affirms Israel’s traditional confession of faith (i.e., the Shema) and submits himself to the unique God of Israel – even though this commitment to Israel’s deity is redefined in light of Jesus’ unique status and significance (sections 3.4 and 3.5 above). How to resolve or deal with this apparent tension will be discussed in chapter 5 (especially section 5.2.5.2), but, at this point, it seems sufficient simply to note the complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical nature of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus and of his relation to God.

227 One needs to be reminded that verse and pericope divisions in modern Bibles reflect a later editorial work and not the activity of Mark the Evangelist. Without these divisions, Mark’s original readers/audience would likely have been more aware of the links between parts of the narrative than most modern readers who are often bound by such convenient devices.

148

Chapter 3: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37

3.6 Chapter Summary 3.6 Chapter Summary

There are many other fascinating issues concerning Mark 12.28–34 and 12.35– 37. The present chapter (chap. 3), however, has focused on demonstrating two particular points concerning these two passages. First, 12.28–34 and 12.35–37 each need to be interpreted in light of the other for their meaning and significance to be fully appreciated (section 3.3). Second, this integrative reading of the two passages implies that the uniqueness of Israel’s God (Mark 12.29, v. 32) should be understood in light of Jesus’ participation in the unique divine rulership of God – this connotes a rereading of Israel’s confession of faith (i.e., the Shema) with Jesus’ divine significance in view (section 3.4.2). While the exaltation of Jesus is to be viewed within the commitment to the unique God, this exalted Jesus who participates in God’s cosmic rule prompts a necessity to reread the Shema in an innovative way. Jewish monotheistic devotion is not abandoned, but the uniqueness of Israel’s God now has Jesus in view. The mutual interpretation of Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 generates a programmatic reworking of the Shema (Deut 6.4). The fact that monotheistic rhetoric was reserved for Israel’s deity in the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism, while such rhetoric itself was commonly and frequently employed (see chapter 2 above), makes the Evangelist’s christological rereading of the one-God language across Mark 12.28–37 all the more striking. One may, however, doubt that the above-presented argument for an integrated reading of 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 properly estimates the ability of the first audience to grasp the delicate nuances and that it credits the Evangelist with too great an insight into the christological subtleties of his narrative. The discussion in the subsequent chapter (chapter 4) will attempt to eliminate such a doubt by pointing out that, early on in his narrative, Mark employs the oneGod language unambiguously with an interest in Jesus’ unique status and significance in direct linkage to Israel’s God (2.7) and that Mark does so again in the middle of the narrative (10.18). I suspect that the most important parallel text of all in studying Mark’s Shema is the rest of Mark’s narrative itself, in general, and the other two monotheistic references appearing earlier in the Second Gospel (2.7; 10.18), in particular.228 In that specific sense, it seems not only helpful but also necessary to turn now to discuss the other two monotheistic references in the Second Gospel, the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in Mark 2.7 and in 10.18.

228 The importance of Mark 2.7 in understanding the Shema quotation in 12.29 (cf. v. 32), especially as the first monotheistic reference in the Second Gospel, is elevated by the fact that 2.7 belongs to the passage where Jesus’ self-reference through his favorite epithet “the Son of Man” appears for the first time in the narrative (2.1–12 [with the epithet “the Son of Man” used in v. 10]).

Chapter 4

Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18 It is my aim in this chapter to examine the two Shema allusions1 in Mark (2.7; 10.18), which are the only two explicit uses of monotheistic language in the Gospel outside the Shema quotation (12.29) and its subsequent paraphrase in 12.32. I will argue that Mark innovatively rereads the monotheistic language in 2.7 and 10.18 in a way that inseparably links Jesus with Israel’s unique God (sections 4.2–4.3). This rereading is largely in line with the christological reinterpretation of the Shema across 12.28–37 as put forward in chapter 3. Toward the end of this chapter, I will nuance the christological rereading of the Shema in 2.7 and 10.18 by noting that the programmatic use of the one-God language is accompanied by a distinction between Jesus and God in both 2.1–12 and 10.17–31 (section 4.4). I will also relate the findings of this chapter to the previous chapter, discussing in what sense the presented christological rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18 reinforces the case put forward in chapter 3 (section 4.5). A proper examination of the use of the monotheistic language in 2.7 and 10.18 is impossible without discussing the specific respective contexts in which each of these passages is placed. Therefore, Mark 2.1–12 and 10.17–31 and, as needed, the larger literary segments will be taken into consideration. Prior to discussing the two εἷς ὁ θεός occurrences, however, it seems necessary to justify why one should see the εἷς ὁ θεός references in 2.7 and 10.18 as Shema allusions (cf. Deut 6.4).

4.1 Mark 2.7 and 10.18 as Allusions to the Shema 4.1 Mark 2.7 and 10.18 as Allusions to the Shema

Mark shows a special interest in one-God terminology (12.29; cf. v. 32; also 2.7 and 10.18). While Deut 6.5 is cited in all three Synoptic Gospels, Mark alone includes the monotheistic call of the Shema (Mark 12.29; paraphrase in v. 32; cf. 1 For discussions on New Testament allusions to the Old Testament, Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 14–21; idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 10–12; Beale and Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, xxiii– xxviii. For an example of how allusions can impact interpretation, see Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 223–26.

150

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

Deut 6.4 LXX).2 In fact, Mark is the only New Testament writer who directly quotes the Shema’s monotheistic call. In addition to the noteworthy quotation of Deut 6.4, the one-God terminology is employed in two other places earlier in Mark’s narrative – 2.7 and 10.18. In 2.7, in their protest to Jesus’ pronouncement that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven, the scribes question internally: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy [βλασφημεῖ]! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]?”3 In 10.18, prior to his reply to the question on how to “inherit eternal life” (v. 17), Jesus raises an issue with the inquirer’s use of the word, ἀγαθός: “Why do you call me good [ἀγαθόν]? No one is good [ἀγαθός] except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός].” Robert Gundry maintains that Mark 2.7 and 10.18 do not refer to the Shema since (1) other explicitly monotheistic accounts in the New Testament (1 Cor 8.6; Eph 4.6; 1 Tim 2.5) do not employ an article for the word θεός, and (2) the word εἷς in 2.7 and 10.18 is probably “pleonastic,” thus it should not be linked directly to ὁ θεός in each verse.4 Such a conlusion, however, is unsatisfactory for several reasons as follows. First, Deut 6.4 LXX itself contains an article attached to θεός, which is conjoined by the predicative εἷς ἐστιν. Mark 2.7 and 10.18 then appear to conform to the wording of the Shema LXX more strictly than the monotheistic passages in the New Testament that Gundry mentions. Second, Mark seems to use both εἷς and ὁ θεός, each of which could independently refer to YHWH in 2.7, as Gundry rightly recognizes, in order to conform to the language of the Shema (Deut 6.4 LXX). Joel Marcus argues plausibly that the Shema is alluded to in 2.7 and 10.18 based on the use of εἷς (not μόνος as in Luke 5.21, which is syntactically more natural) with ὁ θεός, corresponding to the same combination in Deut 6.4 LXX.5 One may then say that Mark the Evangelist regarded the wording of the Shema more important than the smoothness of his construction.6

2 For the New Testament passages with a generally clear monotheistic force, see, e.g., the last 27 references in Rainbow, “Monotheism and Christology,” “Appendix I.” Interestingly, Rainbow includes Mark 2.7 in his list, but somehow omits 10.18, which has the exact same monotheistic wording (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεὸς). 3 Here, and throughout this study, the translation of εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός (“except one, i.e., God”) departs from NRSV and is mine. 4 Gundry, Mark, 118; for the second reason of objection, see also Beyer, Semitische Syntax 1/1:126–29. 5 See Marcus, “Authority,” 197–98; Mark 1–8, 222. See also Gnilka, Markus, 1:100. 6 Mark, in fact, appears to be keener to the language of Deut 6.4 (LXX) than the other Synoptic authors even outside of the Shema quotation in 12.29 (cf. v. 32). For comparison, Matthew 9.3, which is a parallel to Mark 2.7, does not include the one-God terminology. The Lukan parallel (5.21) preserves the monotheistic concept yet uses a syntactically more natural μόνος, instead of the Markan εἷς (Deut 6.4, LXX; cf. Exod 22.19, LXX, where μόνος [in its dative singular form] is used in reference to the exclusivity of Israelite sacrifice to

4.1 Mark 2.7 and 10.18 as Allusions to the Shema

151

Third, the use of a definite article for θεός in 2.7 and 10.18 can be understood as establishing a specific reference to the God of Israel. According to BDF, the article with θεός is used to “designate beings of which there is only one of a kind,” especially in referring to Israel’s God (and not simply a ‘divine being’).7 Fourth, the presence of the only quotation of Deut 6.4 in the New Testament, as found later in Mark’s narrative (12.29), and its subsequent paraphrase (v. 32) suggest that the one-God phraseology in 2.7 and 10.18 is linked to the Shema (Deut 6.4) in the context of the Second Gospel. Again, one cannot ignore the fact that Mark 12.29 stands out as the explicit quotation of the Shema later in the narrative. It seems far more viable to think that the Evangelist made a connection between the one-God language of 2.7 and 10.18 with the direct quotation of the Shema’s monotheistic call in 12.29 than that he did not.8 Fifth, because (a) the scribes’ charge of “blasphemy” in 2.7 (“Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”) indicates that Mark’s Jesus has announced something that endangers the uniqueness of God,9 and (b) εἰ μή in the same verse communicates the idea of the exclusivity, in particular, of a divine privilege (i.e., power to forgive sins), it seems impossible to separate – at a conceptual level – the one-God language of 2.7/10.18 from the Shema (Deut 6.4). This particular point is further established when one considers that the Shema, alongside the Decalogue, served as the core expression of the monotheistic concerns in the Judaism contemporary to the Evangelist,10 and that Mark directly quotes both the Shema and the Decalogue in his gospel (12.29–30 [the Shema, i.e., Deut 6.4–5]; 10.19 [the second half of the Decalogue]), thus affirming their importance.11 If the Shema was important to YHWH alone). Matthew 19.17, which is a parallel to Mark 10.18, modifies the Markan εἷς ὁ θεός into εἷς ὁ ἀγαθός due to a christological concern, while Luke preserves Mark’s wording. 7 BDF, 133 (see 131–45 for a fuller discussion on the force of the definite article in Greek); cf. Keerankeri, Love Commandment, 98n89; 99; 100n92. 8 Bauckham adds weight to the plausible intentionality of the one-God language at these three points in the Markan narrative. He argues that 2.7, 10.18, and 12.37 are part of a series of six questions (the other three occur at 1.27; 4.41; 14.61) concerned with Jesus’ identity, which, especially when taken together, point to Jesus as one who “shares the unique identity” of God (“Markan Christology according to Richard Hays,” 21–36 (30). If Bauckham is correct about Mark’s identity-oriented questions, the connection between these three passages does not depend exclusively on the one-God language. 9 See the discussion on “blasphemy” in Mark’s Gospel below (esp. in section 4.2.3). 10 See chap. 2 for further discussion. Concerning the importance of Isa 40–55 (which is probably the most emphatically monotheistic section of the entire Old Testament) for Mark’s composition of his gospel, see, e.g., Marcus, Way; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark; cf. Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I–VIII. 11 See Allison, “Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue,” 270–78 for the plausible suggestion that the quotation of Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.29–30 points to the first half of the Decalogue while the citation of Lev 19.18 in the subsequent verse (Mark 12.31) represents the second half. If Allison is correct, Mark 12.29–30, which contains the third monotheistic reference

152

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

the Evangelist, it would be natural for him to link the monotheistic language of 2.7/10.18 to the citation of the Shema in 12.29–30 and especially its monotheistic call in v. 29. Sixth, the interchange between Deut 6.4 LXX (εἷς ἐστιν) and the expression very close to Deut 4.35 LXX (οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ, cf. Isa 45.21), as found in Mark 12.32, supports a link between the wording of Deut 6.4 and other wording variations that express God’s uniqueness as found, for example, in Mark 2.7/10.18. Mark 12.32 illustrates that the Evangelist understands the Shema (Deut 6.4 LXX) in association with another monotheistic expression; the Evangelist is not bound by the literal wording of Deut 6.4 LXX in communicating the Shema. The flexibility of expression in rephrasing the Shema is also attested, for instance, in Josephus’ rewording of the monotheistic call of Deut 6.4 (θεός ἐστιν εἷς, Ant. 3.91).12 Seventh, in light of the prominence of the monotheistic concern and the significant place given to the Shema in the religious life of Second Temple Jews, which provides a matrix for the religious life of early Christians at least to a substantial degree, a “fragmental” word such as “one [εἷς]” itself was probably sufficient to cue Mark’s intended audience to the Shema,13 who likely had a certain level of familiarity with Israel’s scriptures.14 Of course, in Mark 2.7 and 10.18, one finds not just the word “one [εἷς]” alone, but its combination with “God [ὁ θεός],” just as in Deut 6.4 LXX (cf. Mark 12.29).15 The present section has sought to demonstrate a link between the one-God language of Mark 2.7/10.18 and the Shema quotation in 12.29 (cf. v. 32). In view of all the above points, which must be considered collectively and not just individually, it is reasonable, even necessary (contra Gundry’s assertion), to view Mark 2.7 and 10.18 as Shema allusions. Now the study turns to the main discussion of this chapter, namely, the force of the Shema language in each of these two verses and the passages to which they belong.

in the Second Gospel, does not only refer to the Shema of Deut 6.4–5 but ultimately also to the Ten Commandments (Deut 5), just as Mark 10.18–19, which includes the second monotheistic reference in the gospel, does. 12 Cf. Waaler, Shema, 4–15. Philo (Spec. 1.30) and Josephus (e.g., Ant. 1.155–56), in referring explicitly to the First Commandment of the Decalogue, use the phrase (“God is one”) without following the wording of either the MT or the LXX. This shows the flexibility of wording in expressing a monotheistic concern. 13 Cf. Waaler, Shema, 132. 14 Mark, for instance, does not explicate who Elijah and Moses are while explaining Aramaic words and Jewish purity regulations (see section 1.3). 15 Deut 6.4 LXX (and Mark 12.29 which quotes Deut 6.4) contains not only ὁ θεός but also the repeated use of κύριος and, thus, the word εἷς is linked to both ὁ θεός and κύριος in the verse. However, it is clear that these two epithets have the same referent (i.e., Israel’s deity). The monotheistic phraseology of Mark 2.7 and 10.18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός), on the other hand, includes only ὁ θεός and not κύριος.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

153

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7 4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

In the present section, I will argue that the Shema allusion in the scribal protest of 2.7 (“Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]?”) is used to portray Jesus in direct linkage to, and on a level with, Israel’s God.16 This means that Israel’s confession of faith is reread in view of Jesus’ unique identity and authority (2.7; cf. v. 10). I will support this point by identifying several pieces of evidence below (see section 4.2.3). There is a group of scholars who view the protest in 2.7 simply as questioning the validity of Jesus’ claim to be God’s representative (i.e., priest or prophet). In establishing my argument below, I will interact with their suggestions as well. Since the scribes’ protest, which employs the Shema-allusive language, appears within the passage of 2.1–12, it would be helpful to provide a brief overview of the passage prior to turning to the main discussion of the section – how the oneGod language is used in 2.7. In particular, since the one-God reference in 2.7 appears in the course of an interaction between Jesus and a group of scribes, it is important to interpret the Shema allusion of Mark 2.7 in the context of that specific interaction (section 4.2.1). In addition, given the use of the designation, “the Son of Man” in 2.10, and various proposals to solve “the Son of Man” problem which compete with one another, it would be useful to devote at least a brief discussion to this issue with a focus on its usage in Mark’s Gospel (section 4.2.2). 4.2.1 Overview of Mark 2.1–12 The first chapter of Mark’s Gospel portrays Jesus’ conflict with demonic powers. The section of 2.1–3.6, a collection of conflict stories and an issue of scholarly conflict in regards to its structure,17 then portrays Jesus’ conflict with human 16 It is a characteristic of the Markan Evangelist to provoke the readers’ thinking by posing questions about Jesus’ identity (e.g., 1.24; 2.7; 4.41; 6.2; 10.18; 11.28; 12.37). For the function of question in Mark’s Gospel, see Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story, 55– 56; Fowler, Let the Reader Understand, 131–34, where he counts 114 questions used in the Second Gospel, of which 77 are without an answer (132n8). 17 The structure of 2.1–3.6 has been discussed to a great extent. For Dewey’s argument about the concentric structure and content-related, formal, structural and linguistic parallelism of 2.1–3.6 (A, B, C, B', A'), see Dewey, Markan Public Debate, 67–74, 80–85, 89–94, 95–100, 101–104, 168 and esp. 109–116; eadem, “The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2.1–3.6.” According to Dewey, each of the five stories (2.1–3.6) is interlocked with the one that follows or precedes it. Note also Kiilunen’s critique of Dewey, questioning whether her suggested concentric structure was intended by the Evangelist and whether Mark’s audience could recognize such structure (Vollmacht, 73–80). Kiilunen (68ff.) proposes a structure of 2.1–3.6 (i.e., a, a1, b, c, c1) focusing on the growing hostility against Jesus – from an internal thought (2.7) to a conspiracy to kill him (3.6). Marcus

154

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

opponents – Jewish religious leaders.18 The high points of the five conflict stories19 in this section are found, in particular, in the statements of Jesus (2.10, 17, 19–20, 27–28; cf. 3.4), which answer various questions raised by his hostile opponents (2.7, 16, 18, 24).20 It has long been debated whether or not Mark is responsible for this collection of conflict stories,21 and if so, to what extent.22 While such discussion is valuable, it is not our primary focus in this study, which is intent on the interpretation of the final-form text as it stands now (rather than a reconstruction of source-critical history behind the Markan text) and which gives the Markan author credit not only for his redaction of the traditional materials but also for his preservation of those materials. In the first story of the collection (2.1–12), which is a topic of extended formcritical discussion,23 Jesus claims that the sins of the paralytic are forgiven presents a similar view with his criticism of Dewey that “2.13–17 and 2.23–28 do not correspond to each other either structurally or thematically” (Mark 1–8, 214). Additionally, commenting that Mark’s Gospel was to be read to the audience, Gundry, Mark, 1048, criticizes Dewey’s proposal: “The ear can catch small-scale chiasm and concentricity, but hardly those phenomena on a large scale.” Dewey herself recognizes the linear development of plot as shown through the increase of hostility against Jesus in 2.1–3.6 (Markan Public Debate, 116ff., 193) yet mainly concentrates on her proposal of concentric structure. In sum, Dewey’s argument for the concentric structure works for those who read and analyze Mark 2.1–3.6 today, yet it is uncertain whether Mark’s original audience was able to recognize such structure. Mark 2.1–3.6 reaches its climax in 3.6 where the Pharisees and Herodians conspire to kill Jesus. It is, however, unnecessary to see the first story (2.1–12) as the lowest point of the section since the charge of “blasphemy” is named in 2.7 (cf. 14.64) – the gravest charge in 2.1–3.6 (Juel, Mark, 47; Taylor, Mark, 92). For a more recent treatment similar to Dewey’s, see Tait, Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18–22, 63–133. 18 There is a hint in Mark 1.21–28 that the scribes are probably on the side of Satan especially as they are contrasted with Jesus (v. 22). 19 Concerning “conflict stories,” see Bultmann, History, 11–27; Taylor, Mark, 191. 20 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 212–13; Stein, Mark, 112. As Marcus notes (212), the “why” question is missing in 3.1–6, in which the question is implied yet not expressed. 21 A number of scholars (e.g., Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche) see 2.1–3.6 as a pre-Markan collection which the Evangelist inserts (cited from Dewey, Markan Public Debate, 43–45, who provides a critical response to Albertz’s view). 22 Dewey (Markan Public Debate), while admitting that the Evangelist used a pre-Markan collection (2.1–28) (193), attributes the section of 2.1–3.6 as it stands and especially its rhetorical structure to the Evangelist himself (191). Kiilunen, Vollmacht, while seeing a preMarkan collection behind the composition of 2.1–3.6, argues that it is Mark himself who played a key role in the formation of 2.1–3.6 in its current form. Dunn, “Mark 2.1–3.6,” in idem, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 10–36, separates 2.1–12 from the traditional material of 2.15–3.6 and from the insertion of 2.13–14, arguing that 2.1–12 was added at a later stage yet still before Mark the Evangelist (15–16). Guelich, Mark, 82–83 contends for a pre-Markan collection of 2.15–28. For further discussion of different positions, see Dewey, Markan Public Debate, 48–55 and the sources cited there. 23 Many scholars, not least form-critics such as Bultmann and Taylor, see 2.1–12 as a combination of two separate stories (vv. 5b–10a and vv. 1–5a + vv. 10b–12), expressing that

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

155

(ἀφίενται, 2.5; cf. v. 9).24 The scribes react to such a claim: “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God [τί οὗτος25 οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ· τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]?” (v. 7).26 Jesus, instantly aware of those scribes’ internal thoughts (v.8), challenges them with a double-edged question: “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’?” (v. 9).27 Jesus then announces that the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus himself in Mark’s Gospel) possesses “the authority28 to forgive sins on earth” (v. 10a).29 the debate between Jesus and the scribes (vv. 5b–10a) is an insertion to transform a healing story into a conflict story. See Bultmann, History, 14–16; Taylor, Mark, 191; also Marcus, Mark 1–8, 219–20; Kee, Community, 35–39. Other scholars argue for the unity of 2.1–12, for example, Cranfield, Mark, 96; Guelich, Mark, 81–82; Gundry, Mark, 121–23; cf. Lane, Mark, 97. Dibelius views 2.1–12 as a remarkably pure type of paradigm (From Tradition to Gospel, 43). Regardless of the differing opinions on the integrity of 2.1–12, it is common that the middle part (2.5b–10a), which concerns the authority of Jesus to forgive sins, has the central force of the story. 24 Gundry notes that the present-tense verb ἀφίενται connotes that forgiveness is available right at that moment (Mark, 112). If Gundry is right, Mark is highlighting the here-and-now aspect of forgiveness with this present-tense form. Cf. the immediate healing of Aeneas in Acts 9.34, where the present verb ἰᾶται is used in describing Aeneas’s instant healing (see εὐθέως later in the verse). 25 The pronoun οὗτος makes an implicit contrast to “God” later in the same verse. Namely, the scribes in the scene protest how a man dares to speak as if he were God. 26 The scribes’ thoughts are internal (2.6–7), but since Mark writes as an omniscient narrator, their internal thoughts are revealed to his audience. Luke expresses the scribes’ thoughts in a more nuanced manner: “Who is this who is speaking blasphemies?” (Luke 5.21; cf. 7.49; also Mark 4.41 [Stein, Mark, 122]). 27 The double-edged question (2.9) presupposes the close connection between healing and forgiveness. Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness in 2.5 is given as a response to the paralytic and his friends who have carried him to Jesus for healing. This response also assumes the connection between the two (Juel, Mark, 46). Healing and forgiveness are almost interchangeable in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa 38.17; 57.18–19; Jer 3.22; Hos 14.4; cf. Pss 41.4; 103.3; Isa 53.4–6; also, Isa 1.4–6 and 33.24, which explicitly combine the two). Closer to the time of Mark, Sir 38.1–15 implies this connection, and the Qumran text 4QPrNab ar links an exorcism with the forgiveness of sins. In John’s Gospel, the connection is confirmed at one occasion (John 5.14) and denied at another (9.2–3). In the Old Testament, forgiveness is part of the restoration from exile (Isa 43.25; 44.22), and it is linked with YHWH’s return to Zion (Isa 52.7; 61.1–2) (Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 268–71). The restoration of the lame was understood as a sign of divine activity (Isa 35.6; Jer 31.8; Mic 4.6–7; Zeph 3.19). In Mark, both healing and forgiveness signal the arrival of the kingdom of God through Jesus’ ministry (Guelich, Mark, 82, 86). 28 For the use of the term “authority” (ἐξουσία) in Mark, see 1.22, 27; 2.10; 3.15; 6.7; 11.28 (2x), 29, 33; 13.34. 29 Scholars differ on whether to view 2.10a (ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι έξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) as Mark’s parenthetical address to his original audience or Jesus’ address to the characters in the story. A difficulty arises mainly from the fact

156

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

Jesus, however, does not stop there but proceeds to prove his asserted authority by healing the paralytic (vv. 11–12a). The pericope ends with the crowd’s enthusiastic response – they are utterly amazed30 and, on account of what they have witnessed, give glory to God. I have just overviewed the passage of 2.1–12 briefly in which Mark’s first one-God reference appears. This passage contains not only the first monotheistic reference (v. 7) but also the first “Son of Man” saying (v. 10) in the Second Gospel. Understanding the “Son of Man” phrase seems necessary for appreciating the pericope of 2.1–12, in general, and the monotheistic language contained in it (v.7), in particular, and, therefore, I now turn to the discussion of the epithet, the Son of Man, with attention to its use in the Second Gospel. 4.2.2 “The Son of Man” in Mark’s Gospel Although there have been innumerable pages dealing with the background, meaning, and significance of the designation “the Son of Man” it is still a subject of heated debate.31 It is impossible for us to deal properly with different aspects that the sentence is incomplete. Scholars such as Lane, Mark, 97–98; Cranfield, Mark, 100; Fowler, “The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark”; van Iersel, Mark, 149n40 see v. 10a as a parenthetical aside in line with 13.14 since such a position seems to justify why the term “the Son of Man” is employed so early in the narrative, especially in a public address, and why there is no reaction from the crowd against Jesus’ declaration in v. 10a. A quasi-consensus, however, is that it is the pronouncement of the Markan Jesus within the narrative. Those regarding v. 10a as an aside seem to project into the text a preconceived idea that the term “the Son of Man” must not appear early in the gospel. A purely positive response on the crowd’s part (v. 12) is not surprising if one considers a similar response in other parts of the narrative (e.g., 12.37; cf. 1.22, 27; 4.41; 5.42; 6.51; 12.17) and if one sees that the Evangelist intentionally contrasts the warm response of the crowd with the hostility of the scribes (cf. compare the crowd’s positive response in 12.37 with the hostility of Jewish religious leaders in 11.27–12.27). Moreover, if v. 10a is an aside, one should face the following problems: (1) it constitutes the only editorial use of “the Son of Man” – the only use of the designation outside the lips of Jesus in the New Testament gospels; (2) one ends up juxtaposing two unrelated asides in the middle of the story (v. 10a and v. 10b); (3) any proper response to the charge of the scribes (2.7) is absent in the narrative (Dewey, Markan Public Debate, 78–79); and (4) there is no hint in the story that v. 10a is an editorial note (France, Mark, 128n15; Stein, Mark, 120n9). 30 For the use of the “wonder” motif in Mark, see 1.22, 27; 4.41; 5.42; 6.51; 12.17. For amazement that results from Jesus’ miracle, see 7.37. For amazement as a result of Jesus’ teaching, see 9.32; 11.18. For the detailed discussion of the wonder/amazement theme in Mark, see Timothy Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark. Through 2.12c (λέγοντας ὅτι οὕτως οὐδέποτε εἴδομεν), Mark narrates implicitly that no one has ever done something like what Jesus performed in 2.1–12 (Stein, Mark, 122), thus emphasizing again the unique authority of Jesus. Schmithals (Markus, 1:163) accordingly comments: “Hier bricht der neue Äon an, den kein Auge zuvor gesehen hat” (1 Cor 2.9; cf. Isa 64.3). 31 For a substantial overview, see Burkett, The Son of Man Debate. See also Hare, The Son of Man Tradition. For more recent discussions, see Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

157

of the Son of Man problem here as each aspect deserves a detailed treatment. Given that overwhelming reality, I intend to leave other aspects and focus mainly on what the term means, or refers to, in Mark’s Gospel. Such a focus is in line with the orientation of the present study, namely, to appreciate Mark’s Gospel as it stands. Whatever the phrase “(the) Son of Man” meant in pre-Markan periods and the time of the historical Jesus – whether one argues for a Danielic32 or, relatedly, Enochic33 background, or for the influence of an Aramaic Vorlage,34 or some other possible background(s)35 – the term cannot mean simply “any human 1:101–127; Hurtado and Owen, eds., Who is this Son of Man?; Moloney, “Constructing Jesus and the Son of Man,” 719–38; Vermès, “The Son of Man Debate Revisited (1960–2010),” 193–206. See also Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem. For an anthology of leading essays between 1950 and 2016, see Reynolds, ed., The Son of Man Problem. For discussions on “the Son of Man” in Mark’s Gospel, see Leim, “In the Glory of his Father,” 213–32; Boyarin, “The Sovereignty of the Son of Man,” 353–62; Gathercole, “The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” 366–72; Kirchhevel, “The ‘Son of Man’ Passages in Mark,” 181–87; Chronis, “To Reveal and to Conceal,” 459–81. 32 See Dan 7.13; 1 En. 37–71 (the Similitudes); 4 Ezra 13. Concerning the identity of “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7, see, e.g., Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 81–85, and accompanying footnotes. For a more recent treatment, see Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism, 1:112–23. The main alternatives are to see the figure as (1) a corporate entity of Israel, (2) an Archangel, e.g., Michael, or (3) the messianic figure. 33 See 1 En. 37–71, esp. 46.3–5, 62.7–9; cf. 62.14; 69.27–70.1; 71.17. Collins (“The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” 452–53, 457–58) views the description of the enthroned figure in 1 En. 62.5 and 69.29 as originating from the plural thrones in Dan 7.9. Chapters 37–71 of 1 Enoch were not present among the Qumran fragments of the book, thus causing some to question its authenticity. For discussions of the Enochic background of the Son of Man, see Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, esp. Part Three. The “man from the sea” in 4 Ezra, which is discussed in association with Dan 7, most likely postdates Mark’s Gospel (100 CE?), yet reflects the currency of the Son of Man concept in a roughly contemporary time to the period of Mark’s composition. I wish to clarify, however, that both Danielic and Enochic views have a number of variations within each. In the literary context of Dan 7, the coming of the man-like figure to the Ancient of Days communicates the vindication of Israel (7.18, 22, 27). This corporate identity of the man-like figure is largely absent or at least not explicit in Similitudes and 4 Ezra 13. For a summary of the interpretative traditions of the Son of Man in Jewish literature, see Collins, Daniel, 79–89; and Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, esp. chap. 4. 34 See Lindars, Jesus Son of Man; Vermes, Jesus the Jew; Casey, Son of Man; Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel; The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem; cf. Bauckham, “The Son of Man,” 23–33. For a critique of Vermes, Lindars, and Casey, in particular, see Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 156–66; Owen and Shepherd, “Speaking Up for Qumran,” 81–122. 35 The term, the Son of Man, may have reminded the scripture-educated readers not only of Dan 7.13, but also of the phrases in Pss 8.5 (‫ ;בן־אדם‬LXX υἱὸς ἀνθφώπου); 144.3 (‫;בן־אנוש‬ LXX 143.3 υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου); 145.12 (‫ ;לבני האדם‬LXX 144.12 τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων) and Ezek 2.1, 3, 6, 8 (‫ ;בן־אדם‬LXX υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου). For understanding the Son of Man in light of

158

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

being” in the Gospel of Mark as it stands.36 Different from the plural form “the sons of men” (3.28 [my own translation]), the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου makes a particularizing reference to the Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, as used by and for Jesus himself alone. In the current passage of Mark 2.1–12, for example, Jesus does not state that a human being in generic terms or someone in indefinite terms has the power to forgive sins but instead a particular person, Jesus himself,37 possesses a unique and unparalleled God-like authority to pardon sins (v. 10; cf. v. 7).38 The Son of Man is a particular person who is able to do what only God can do (2.10). Does this observation suppose an established use of the Son of Man as a title in the pre-Christian era?39 The answer should probably be negative. There is no pre-Christian example in which the term is used as an established title.40 Daniel 7.13 LXX mentions “one like a son of man [ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου]”41 and not the title “the Son of Man [ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου].”42 The Similitudes of Enoch (46.3), after introducing the Danielic “one like a son of man” in v. 1, refers to the indefinite figure as that/the s/Son of m/Man. This is seemingly analogous to the use of the Son of Man in the gospels.43 However, as Collins notes, this phenomenon does not signify that “the Son of Man” was used as a title in the passage. It is mainly a way to refer to a man-like figure as introduced earlier.44 The Danielic and Enochic traditions imply the emergence of an expectation for an apocalyptic its use in Ezek (esp. 1.26, 2.1), see Wink, The Human Being. Wink argues that the term means the human archetype, based upon his historical research and the influence of Jungian depth psychology. For understanding the Son of Man in light of Ps 8, see Goulder, “Psalm 8 and the Son of Man,” 18–29. For a catalogue of differing interpretations of the phrase, see Taylor, Mark, 198–200, which is old and brief yet still useful. 36 Casey sees the definiteness of the Son of Man as reflecting the Aramaic emphatic state used indefinitely. See Casey, “General, Generic and Indefinite,” 27–36 (cf. Chilton, Profiles, 91–92). See also the criticism of the view by Owen and Shepherd (“Speaking Up for Qumran,” esp. 96–104). 37 For another use of Jesus’ third person reference for himself, see Mark 6.4 (note the word “prophets” in the verse). 38 Best aptly points out: “Mark is not a book written for outsiders who will approach it from a position of ignorance, but a book written for insiders who already have in their minds the equation ‘Jesus is the son of man’” (Mark: The Gospel as Story, 105). 39 For the “classical” view that the Son of Man was a recognized pre-Christian title for an apocalyptic figure, see, e.g., Mowinckel, He That Cometh. For further discussion of this position and associated views, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 295–97. 40 For this point, see, e.g., Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, esp. 9–21. Hare (21) notes: “No scholar can fairly claim on the basis of the extant evidence that ‘the Son of man’ had become a widespread, universally recognized title for a supernatural figure who was expected to function as God’s deputy in the last judgment.” 41 The translation of the Greek phrase (ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) here is mine. 42 For this particular point, Casey, “Method in our Madness,” 33ff. 43 Gathercole, “The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” 368. 44 See Collins, The Scepter and Star, 177.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

159

figure; such expectation, however, does not necessitate that the Son of Man was a recognized title in the pre-Christian era.45 The currency of a man-like figure in some Jewish circles is not the same as the alleged currency of “the Son of Man” as an established title. In spite of the lack of any established “Son of Man” notion in the pre-Christian era and the diversity within late Second Temple Jewish piety,46 there were some common and general features with a certain level of consistency in understanding Dan 7 around the first century CE.47 Both in the Similitudes and 4 Ezra 13, the portrayal of the man-like figure draws from the imagery of Dan 7.13, and this figure is understood as messianic. This commonality is meaningful especially since these two works seem literarily independent from each other.48 The recognition of a certain common understanding of the Danielic man-like figure in first-century Judaism does not mean that it exhausts the presentation of the Son of Man in the New Testament.49 It seems to be Jesus50 and/or some circles of his disciples,51 who began to see a connection between “one like a son of man” (Dan 7.13) and the particular person of Jesus and use the designation “the Son of Man” as a title or a semi-title.52 While the designation is never employed as a predicate nominative (e.g., I am/you are/he is the Son of Man),53 the Markan 45

See Dunn, “The Son of Man in Mark,” 34, who suggests that the Similitudes of Enoch could very well have been written after Mark’s Gospel, and that Dan. 7.9–14 is fully capable of explaining Mark’s motif by itself. If Dunn’s conjecture is correct, Mark might have served as background for the son of man expression in the Similitudes, not vice versa. 46 Accordingly, it makes good sense to call the Jewish piety of this period the plural “Second Temple Judaisms.” 47 See, e.g., Collins, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism.” 48 Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 168; cf. chap. 4. 49 The phrase, the Son of Man, is nearly absent outside the New Testament gospels. The only exception is its confessional use in Acts 7.56, where Stephen refers to the exalted Jesus, “the Son of Man,” standing on God’s right. (Luke 24.7 has two angels mention “the Son of Man” yet only in the context of reminding the women what Jesus himself said previously.) See also, however, Rev 1.13, which follows the wording of Daniel 7.13 LXX (“one like a son of man”) instead of using the phrase “the Son of Man.” The book of Revelation, in fact, borrows many other images from Daniel (see Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John). 50 See Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, 277–80; Moule, “‘The Son of Man’,” 277–79. Burkett asserts, “the third-person speech [in the Son of Man sayings of the Gospels] represents the voice of the church rather than that of Jesus” (The Son of Man Debate, 123; see also chap. 4). Nevertheless, the paucity of the term among early Christian authors, not least Paul, shows that it cannot be a product of the Church nor its favorite term. The favorite term for Jesus from Acts to Revelation is “Lord” and “Christ.” See Stein, Mark, 121; Gundry, Mark, 119; cf. Taylor, Mark, 200. 51 Perrin, “Mark 14.62,” 150–55. 52 The confessional uses of the designation “the Son of Man” as in John 9.35 (cf. v. 37) and Acts 7.56 are probably clear illustrations of its titular aspect. 53 For this particular point, see Juel, Mark, 48–49; Gundry, Mark, 118–19.

160

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

Jesus’ self-designation, the Son of Man, is often juxtaposed with christological titles that are appropriated for Jesus,54 and, thus, it seems artificial to exclude the titular aspect from the designation. Mark’s audience was familiar with the Christian usage of the term, the Son of Man, as one can see from the fact that the Evangelist introduces it without any explanation. The potential semantic neutrality or vagueness of the term does not mean that its referent was neutral or vague for Mark’s audience. While noting that certain Son of Man sayings (e.g., 8.38; 13.26–27; 14.62) allude to Dan 7.13–14, Casey questions whether this allusion is due to the term, the Son of Man, or other “contextual indicators” (e.g., “coming in clouds with great power and glory” [13.26]).55 There might not be any direct association between the two as Casey suggests. However, as the term “Son of Man” and other images have been repeatedly combined with each other, one must question whether they, in fact, existed in clear isolation from each other. It is not clear whether, during the transmission of the material, the designation, Son of Man, could remain totally separate from these contextual indicators. It seems more viable to think that, no matter how old the associations would be, certain links were present between the title and the “contextual indicators” – at least in the process of transmission. Given the likelihood of such links, it seems artificial to separate the designation, the Son of Man, from the “contextual indicators” in interpreting the Second Gospel.56 It seems that Jesus’ reference to Dan 7.13 with his self-designation the “Son of Man” in Mark 14.62 (also 8.38; 13.26) presupposes the author’s connection/identification of “the one like a son of man” in Dan 7.13 with “the Son of Man.” Casey, on the other hand, notes that, in 2.10, the Son of Man is portrayed to have authority to forgive sins whereas Dan 7.13 does not attribute such authority

54

In Mark 8.38, the Son of Man is described to come in “the glory of his Father.” Jesus’ divine sonship is unequivocally expressed in the phrase, “the glory of his Father.” The Son of Man is not just another man, but the “Son of God.” In 8.27–9.10 and 14.61ff., too, different christological titles are juxtaposed with the designation, the Son of Man, which together refer to one another and ultimately to Jesus. Cf. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God, 1–3 (following Jeremias). 55 I have taken this phrase “contextual indicators” from Casey, “Method in Our Madness,” 42. 56 Collins, in discussing Mark 9.9–13, notes (rightly, in my estimation) that although the title, the Son of Man, originates from Dan 7, “the link between that epithet and suffering does not derive from Daniel 7” (Mark, 431). Collins considers Ps 22, Isa 53, etc., as a potential source for the notion of messianic suffering. In Mark’s Gospel, the Son of Man notion of Dan 7 is combined with other Old Testament scriptures. The Son of Man saying in Mark 14.62, for example, integrates Dan 7.13–14 with Ps 110.1; the Son of Man logion in Mark 13.26 seems to combine Dan 7.13–14 with the YHWH texts of Zech 2.6 (LXX 2.10) and Deut 30.4.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

161

to “one like a son of man.”57 Similarly, one may point out that, in Mark 10.45, the Son of Man is said to serve while Dan 7.13–14 describes the “one like a son of man” figure as being served by all entities.58 These noted differences between Dan 7 and the Markan Son of Man sayings, however, can be explained as reflecting a Christian “twist”59 as a result of reinterpreting the scriptures in light of Jesus’ unique status and significance and, therefore, do not need to be seen to dismiss the Danielic background for the epithet, the Son of Man. The three categories60 that are often employed to classify the 14 appearances of the term in Mark’s Gospel, namely, (a) eschatological glory61 (8.38; 13.26– 27; 14.62), (b) passion and resurrection (8.31; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33–34, 45, 14.21 [2x], 41), (c) present ministry/authority (2.10, 28), seem helpful, but they must be qualified in view of the strong overlap between these categories – at least according to Mark’s Gospel as it stands. The Son of Man logia in 2.10 and 2.28, the only two uses of the term prior to Jesus’ first passion prediction (8.31), are concerned with Jesus’ authority in his early Galilean ministry.62 These sayings, however, anticipate Jesus’ passion in the narrative context especially when “blasphemy” is charged against him (2.7; cf. 14.64) and the conspiracy to kill Jesus begins (3.6) in their respective neighboring verses. Also, it is doubtful whether one can distinguish sharply a suffering-resurrection category and a category for the Parousia, in particular, when one views the Parousia, alongside resurrection, in the context of Jesus’ vindication.63 Besides, it should be noted 57

Casey, “Method in our Madness,” 29n1; Tuckett, “The Present Son of God,” 62–64; Grindheim, God’s Equal, 68–69. 58 Along with Dan 7, see also 1 En. 45.3; 46.4–6, etc. 59 For the view that the difference between Mark 10.45 and Dan 7.13–14 is a result of the creative twist of early Christian exegesis, see, e.g., Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 814–15. Cf. Hooker, who suggests a link between the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2.10) and the special role of “one like a son of man” for overcoming evil (Dan 7) (The Son of Man in Mark, 93). 60 For example, Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament, 1:30. Many commentators follow Bultmann’s categories. 61 Casey notes that no early Christian up to Cyprian understood the “coming” of the Son of Man as reference to the first advent. See Casey, “Method in Our Madness,” 29–30. 62 For additional support of this conclusion, see Elledge, Use of the Third Person, who presents the case that Jesus’ use of “illeism” (third person self-reference) suggests that Jesus views himself as in some way royal and/or divine. 63 Suffering and vindication are inseparable in Mark’s Gospel. Accordingly, the Markan Jesus appears to understand his destiny within the scriptural paradigm of suffering-vindication. One can probably recognize in the paradigm a Jewish hermeneutical tradition from the Second Temple period (e.g., Wis 2; 2 Macc 6–7; 4 Macc 6, 17). Old Testament passages such as Gen 22 (Isaac), Job, Jonah, Isa 53 (the righteous servant), Dan 7 (the vindicated Son of Man), Zech 12.10–13.1 (the firstborn of the house of David), Pss 22, 69, 118 have probably been influential over the formation of such Jewish tradition. There is no reason to think that Mark rejects this interpretive heritage. Rather, the Evangelist seems to be well rooted in this tradition when narrating Jesus’ destiny especially since Ps 22 (which begins with an appeal but ends with praise of YHWH’s vindicating act [vv. 22–31]) and Isa 53 (which

162

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

that the eschatological use of the term in 14.62 is located within the passion narrative. As just noted, the narrative of Mark’s Gospel naturally intertwines the three categories with reference to the uses of the epithet “the Son of Man” with one another.64 The three designated categories are generally helpful but should be employed in a qualified way given their intimate links and overlaps.65 In summary, although there are various suggestions regarding the background of the Son of Man, in Mark’s Gospel, this phrase makes a consistent and particular reference to the person of Jesus. It is unlikely that this epithet was an established title before the Christian era, and its use in the New Testament seems indebted to Dan 7.13–14, though transcending what those verses address. The distinction between the three categories with reference to Mark’s use of the Son of Man (eschatological glory; passion and resurrection; present ministry/authority) is overall helpful, but the interconnectivity between those categories should also be recognized. Having presented the preparatory discussion of Mark 2.1–12 as well as the use of “the Son of Man” in Mark’s Gospel, this chapter now turns to explore how the Shema language is used in 2.7. 4.2.3 Christological Appropriation of the Shema in Mark 2.7 Section 4.2.1 above provided an overview of Mark 2.1–12, which is the immediate literary context for the use of the first one-God language in the Second Gospel at 2.7. In the present section, I will argue that Mark rereads the monotheistic reference in 2.7 christologically and, in so doing, links Jesus directly and inseparably with Israel’s unique God. Relatedly, I will also argue that Jesus’ claim that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven (v. 5) should be understood in light of Jesus’ divine status and significance rather than his merely representative role as God’s priestly/prophetic agent. portrays both the suffering and vindication of the righteous servant) are referenced in Mark’s passion narrative (See Marcus, “The Role of Scripture in the Gospel Passion Narratives,” 205–233, esp. 207–209, 214–15; Way, chap. 8). 64 Similarly, Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 269–339 (and see summary conclusions, 356– 58), sees “son of man” in Mark’s narrative presentation to include both Jesus’ suffering/ death and authority to rule. 65 Cf. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, esp. 179–81. Hooker sees a pattern: the authority of the Son of Man is claimed, rejected, and finally vindicated; also, Tuckett, “The Present Son of Man,” 58–81, who qualifies Hooker’s position by emphasizing the passion allusions in 2.1–3.6 and thus locating the Son of Man sayings in 2.10, 28 tightly under the suffering motif of the gospel. Davis helpfully notes “it must be significant that both charges of blasphemy are coupled with sayings of Jesus about the authority of the Son of Man (2.10; 14.62). These are, in fact, the first and the last of Mark’s Son of Man sayings; we should probably let them govern our understanding of the others” (“Mark’s Christological Paradox,” 9). Jesus’ present authority, suffering, and future glory also represent key themes of Mark’s Gospel itself and, of course, it is quite natural to see Jesus’ favorite title (the Son of Man) connected with those key themes.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

163

One’s interpretation of the monotheistic language in 2.7 and its force within 2.1–12 is inseparably connected to how one interprets the nature and thrust of Jesus’ claim in 2.5: τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. The verb ἀφίενται here can be interpreted mainly in two different ways: (1) in representative (priestly66/ prophetic67) terms,68 which are often closely linked with the view that the verb ἀφίενται in 2.5 is a divine passive,69 or (2) in meaningfully divine terms that Jesus

66

Lev 4.20, 26, 31, etc.; Num 15.25–26; cf. Exod 32.32; Num 14.19; Job 42.10 LXX. However, Hofius,“Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage,“ in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien, 57–69, notes: “Wir wissen weder etwas von einem priesterlichen Absolutionsakt gegenüber dem einzelnen noch auch von einem priesterlichen Vergebungszuspruch an die im Tempel versammelte Gemeinde” (67). In any case, priests delivered YHWH’s forgiveness as “vollmächtiger Mittler” (61). That is, the efficacy of the forgiveness was in the sacrifice, not in the priest’s words. 67 See 2 Sam 12.13. However, it needs to be noted that this passage identifies the Lord and not the prophet Nathan as the forgiver. In addition, Jesus’ forgiveness of sins should be understood differently from John’s baptism of repentance leading to the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1.4) since a charge of blasphemy is never levelled against John unlike what one sees from 2.7. 68 There are strong similarities between the prophetic and priestly understandings of Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness (Mark 2.5; cf. v.10) in the sense that both views regard Jesus as representing God without possessing a divine prerogative himself. They are, thus, put together in my discussion here. Some scholars argue for an angelomorphic understanding of Jesus’ role in forgiving sins in this passage (e.g., Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 167–76). After providing a backdrop of angelic forgiveness typology in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature, Hägerland argues for an angel-like authority of Jesus in Mark 2.1–12, based largely around its Danielic background and, more specifically, the phrase “authority on earth” in 2.10. He writes, “[a]n antecedent for such a relocation of authority is the early Jewish notion of God delegating his authority, especially over earthly matters, to angels” (172). For a critique of the argument that angels possess the authority to forgive sins, refer to Pascut (Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social-Science Theory, 129–34), who sees an integrated identity between God and his angelic messengers, and, therefore, no evidence of autonomous authority on the part of the angels. In what follows, I attempt to argue that Jesus’ forgiveness of sins, as portrayed and situated in Mark 2.1–12, implies Jesus’ divine status and significance (and not merely a representation or delegation of divine authority). 69 Therefore, it is argued that God is the forgiver, and not Jesus, in Mark 2.5. For divine passive, see Jeremias, New Testament Theology (1971), 9–14 (11). For examples of divine passive in Mark’s Gospel, see 3.28 (Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα); 4.12, 25. In 4.12, divine passive is used for the case where God does not forgive sins. I do not agree with the position that ἀφίενταί of Mark 2.5 is a divine passive (e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium 1:156), as will be clarified in what follows. For the view that 2.5b is a divine passive employed for encouragement/assurance as often found in healing stories, see Theissen, Miracle Stories, 58ff., 164–65. Gundry criticizes such a view: “Nowhere else in the NT or other Hellenistic materials does pronouncing the forgiveness of sins act as an encouragement to the seeking of help” (Mark, 122).

164

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

is portrayed to do what only the God of Israel can, namely, forgive sins.70 Although there are different variants within each category, the main thrust of those variants can be summarized into the two primary categories noted above. The interpretation of Mark 2.5 in divine terms seems to be the majority position among commentators. It is clear, however, that there is no consensus among scholars. For instance, Sanders reads the verb as a prophetic declaration: “[Jesus] was presumably speaking for God (note the passive), not claiming to be God. … The saying attributed to him … does not mean that he forgives sins. He merely announces that they are forgiven.”71 Hägerland advances a similar position72 but qualifies that Jesus’ words do, in fact, have “performative force” (i.e., ἀφίενται is not a divine passive), at least according to Mark’s narration.73 Nevertheless, Hägerland takes Jesus’ pronouncement as something appropriate to prophets, arguing that Jesus’ forgiveness functions “as an expression of his identity as the Anointed One of the Spirit, the prophetic messiah who was thought to have been prefigured in the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah.”74 O’Neill understands the verb in basically the same manner: [The] claim to forgive sins was a claim to pronounce validly that God had forgiven the sinner. Even if the scribes held that the sickness was God’s direct punishment of sin, they could not have denied God’s right to reverse his verdict, and to announce that reversal through a prophet.75

Dunn sees ἀφίενται as a divine passive and considers Jesus’ proclamation of forgiveness as a pronouncement with a priestly orientation. He concludes, “In neither case [referring to the cases of Jesus in Mark 2.5 and of John the Baptist in 1.4] is there any thought of the individual in question usurping a divine prerogative, only of human mediation of divine forgiveness.”76 That some 70 For recent arguments in support of interpreting Jesus’ forgiveness described in Mark 2.1–12 in meaningfully divine terms, see, e.g., Grindheim, God’s Equal, 60–76; idem, “Divine and Human Forgiveness”; Johansson, “Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?”; Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social Science Theory. 71 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 273. Here, Sanders appears to be more interested in the reconstruction of what happened in the first Sitz im Leben rather than the exegesis of the text in the present shape. O’Neill, who is mentioned below, seems to have a similar tendency. 72 Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, passim. 73 Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 83. 74 Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 250–51, which provides a conclusion to his study that understands Jesus’ forgiveness as part of his prophetic activity with primary, though not exclusive, attention to the first Sitz im Leben. For his discussion of forgiveness in the prophetic sense, see ibid., 142–166. 75 O’Neill, “The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin,” 73. 76 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 787 (emphasis original). Dunn thinks that the scribes’ objection here is not because Jesus violated God’s unique prerogative, but because he encroached upon the role that God had delegated to the priesthood, since the incident happened apart from (and without reference to) the established cult system (787–88).

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

165

learned scholars like those above interpret the nature of Jesus’ claim (2.5, v. 10) and of the scribes’ reaction (v. 7) in a way notably different from the assumed majority position necessitates that the proposed reading of 2.5 in divine terms be argued for and not simply presumed. In what follows, I will support my proposed interpretation in light of several points based upon the observation of the interaction between Jesus and the scribes (vv. 5, 7, 10) and of its context within the Second Gospel. First, reading the use of the one-God language (v. 7) in line with Jesus’ claim that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven (v. 5) requires a christological interpretation of the monotheistic language with Jesus’ divine significance in view. Jesus’ claim for the absolution of the paralytic’s sins (v. 5) is understood by the scribes as a violation of God’s unique power and majesty and, thus, as a case of “blasphemy” (v. 7). Jesus’ announcement of the paralytic’s sins being forgiven (v. 5) might be seen in representative terms on its own, but such a view is not possible in the specific context of Mark 2.1–12 and especially v. 7. The power to forgive sins is attributed exclusively to Israel’s God in the Old Testament (Pss 32.1–5; 51.1–4, 9–10; 85.2; 103.3; 130.4; 2 Sam 12.13; Isa 44.22; Dan 9.9; Zech 3.4).77 In Exod 34.6–7, for example, God encounters Moses at Mount Sinai and gives the second set of Law tablets, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (emphasis added). Here, the forgiveness of sins is stated as part of God’s character.78 Similarly, Isa 43.25 addresses YHWH as the agent forgiving the sins of Israel: “I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” In Micah 7.18, the act of forgiving sins is notably related to God’s uniqueness, “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession?” Literature from the Second Temple period is in line with the Old Testament witnesses in this respect (e.g., 77

See, e.g., Johansson, “Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?,” 351–74, who argues that mediators and intercessors all fall short of pardoning sin directly, as only God does. The only possible exception, in Johansson’s view, is the Angel of YHWH (Exod 23.21; Zech 3.4), but, as Johansson explains, the “close association” of YHWH and the Angel of YHWH makes it doubtful that the Angel of YHWH represents an exception to the rule that God is the sole agent of forgiveness (369). 78 Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social Science Theory, uses the “communication theory of identity,” which takes into account four layers in understanding one’s identity, namely, the “personal” layer, the “enactment” layer, the “relational” layer, and the “communal” layer (11–15). Pascut argues that the “personal layer” of YHWH’s identity includes his characteristics of loving and forgiving Israel (24–28). Also included in the personal layer is the divine name of YHWH (22–24). Pascut discusses this layer along with the “enactment” (29–34) and “relational” (35–48) layers of identity, suggesting that these layers, taken together, best identify the uniqueness of Israel’s God (22–48, 52).

166

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

1QS 2.8–9; 11.14; CD 2.4–5; 3.18; 4.6–10).79 Mark’s Gospel itself, in another place, narrates Jesus’ teaching that corresponds to such an understanding: “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses” (11.25 [emphasis added]; cf. 3.28; 4.12).80 G. Moore in his study of the Tannaim period, notes, “Forgiveness is a prerogative of God which he shares with no other and deputes to none.”81 Abrahams, in his study of Pharisaism, also observes that God’s forgiveness, “not through man’s intermediation but through man’s exemplification of the divine mercy” is “unfamiliar if not unknown to Jewish

79

There is a potential exception in a fragmentary Qumran text, the Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab ar 242.4) – a document with some textual issues (see Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217). It is debated whether, in a passage that follows a huge lacuna, Nabonidus announces the Jewish diviner as the forgiver of his sins (see Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, 322–25) or God as the forgiver (Tuckett, “Present Son,” 74–75n29). While noting the textual problems with this passage, Fitzmyer (Luke, 1:585) evaluates this Qumranic text as “evidence showing that some Palestinian Jews thought that a human being on earth could remit sins for God.” Fitzmyer may be right, but it would be unwise to override many witnesses in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature that portray the power to forgive sins as an exclusive, divine prerogative with the idea possibly reflected in a textually unstable, singular fragmentary text. Tuckett’s comment seems thus reasonable: “It is … precarious to base too much on such fragmentary a text, where the translation must inevitably be uncertain” (“Present Son,” 74–75, esp. n. 29). For discussion on rabbinic materials, see Str-B 1:495. 80 It is important to note that the issue of who has the authority to forgive sins does not surface at all in 11.25 (unlike in 2.1–12), and that the forgiveness the disciples must practice concerns removal of bitterness and reconciliation in human relationship, which has to do with the efficacy of prayer to God (11.25), and not the ultimate forgiveness of sins (i.e., offenses against God), which is God’s unique prerogative (cf. 2.7). In that sense, the disciples’ “forgiveness” and God’s “forgiveness” in 11.25 should be differentiated from each other. The distinction between the two is clear from 11.25 itself as human forgiveness and divine forgiveness are described as two different, though related, dimensions in that, while the disciples are to practice “forgiveness” toward others, they themselves are in need of the heavenly Father’s forgiveness. If my exegesis of Mark 2.1–12 below with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view is correct, then Jesus’ authority to pardon sins (esp. vv. 5, 7, 10) together with the reference to divine forgiveness in 11.25 (also 3.28; 4.12) should be seen as implying that the Evangelist presents Jesus on par with God by overlapping the former’s and the latter’s forgiveness of sins. 81 Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 1:535. Cf. a similar sentiment about God’s exclusive role as forgiver in Midr. Ps. 17.3 and a discussion of this text in Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sundenvergebung.” See also Taylor, Mark, 201, who argues for the historicity of the story on the basis that there is no genuine parallel to Jesus’ declaration of the forgiveness of sins (v. 5).

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

167

theology.”82 Although Jews anticipated the messiah to judge the sinful,83 they usually did not expect him to forgive sins.84 The manner in which the Evangelist narrates Jesus’ claim to forgive sins (2.5, 10), especially in relation to the scribes’ reaction (v. 7), is in line with the abovesurveyed Old Testament and early Jewish background. The understanding that God alone can absolve sins underlies the scribes’ reaction (“Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?” [v. 7]). The scribes’ concern is not whether Jesus can speak for God in a priestly or prophetic function but whether Jesus can forgive sins as Israel’s God does. If the verb ἀφίενται is merely a divine passive with a representative (i.e., priestly or prophetic) connotation, then Jesus has not stated anything substantially problematic that would require a charge of blasphemy (v. 7). However, the scribes’ harsh reaction in the scene testifies that they saw Jesus’ claim for himself as something genuinely dangerous, and Jesus does not correct their understanding of his initial claim (v. 5) but rather reinforces the validity of the claim by asserting that he indeed possesses the authority to pardon sins (v. 10).85 Second, the scribes’ charge of “blasphemy [βλασφημεῖ]” (v. 7), the gravest accusation, in response to Jesus’ claim (v. 5) reveals that ἀφίενται cannot be understood simply as a prophetic or priestly announcement in the present story.86 82

Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, 2:98. Lane, Mark, 95. For example, see Dan 7.14 and 1 En., e.g., 45.3; 46.4–6; 50.1–5. 84 The figure in Tg. Isa. 53 only intercedes for sinners – God himself remains as the actual agent of forgiveness (vv. 6, 7, 10, 12) (Guelich, Mark, 87; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217). The role of the eschatological high priest in T. Levi 18 seems slightly ambiguous, yet his role appears to be mainly a messenger of God who enables forgiveness (Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217). 85 Kirk’s suggestion in A Man Attested by God, 273–81, that Jesus’ forgiveness in Mark 2.1–12 is compatible with authority given to human figures elsewhere in the gospel, such as John the Baptist (1.4) or Jesus’ own disciples (3.14–15; 11.23–25), is unconvincing in view of the scribes’ remarkably harsh reaction (2.7). Cf. Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social-Science Theory, 155–99. Pascut employs Austin’s Speech Act theory to show how a passive verb (i.e., ἀφίενται in Mark 2.5) can function in a “performative” manner (163–65). He notes that the entire situation related to the speech in question must be considered, paying attention to the scribes’ reaction in Mark 2.6–7 (167–79) and Jesus’ response in 2.8–12a (181–91). Pascut concludes that Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness fits him within YHWH’s identity at the “personal layer” as one possessing the unique characteristic of forgiving sins committed against YHWH, the “relational layer” as he brings reconciliation through such forgiveness, and the “enactment layer” as one who performs what only YHWH is able to accomplish (190–91). For definition of these layers, see ibid., 11–15 (esp. 11–12). 86 Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 164–66, argues that the scribal accusation of blasphemy in Mark 2.6–7 is implausible in the historical context of early Judaism, based on the precedents of forgiveness announced by prophets (142–64). For a response to Hägerland dealing with matters of historical plausibility, see Grindheim, “Divine and Human Forgiveness: A Response to Tobias Hägerland.” Grindheim argues that the scribal reaction in Mark 2.6–7 should be seen as authentic due to several factors, among them the fact that “blasphemy,” in the first century, could include claiming for oneself a prerogative of God 83

168

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

The term “blasphemy” has a certain range of meaning. For example, it could be understood simply as “slander” in other contexts (e.g., Mark 7.22). While the range of meaning as such needs to be acknowledged, what must not be overlooked for our understanding of the term “blasphemy” at 2.7 is that, along with his reference to “blasphemy,” Mark relates the scribes’ harsh reaction to the perceived violation of God’s uniqueness on Jesus’ part (“Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”).87 The manner in which the term “blasphemy” is used in 14.64 sheds additional light on the nature of the same charge in 2.7.88 In 14.64, the high priest reacts against Jesus’ claim to participate in God’s sovereign authority, as expressed through the combined quotation of Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13–14, by calling out the charge of blasphemy (ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας).89 There is no ground to think that the charge of “blasphemy” in 2.7 should be understood in a substantially different manner than the same charge in the trial narrative (14.64).90 Neither 2.7 nor 14.64 gives any hint that the scribes or the high priest misheard or misinterpreted Jesus’ claim. The problem is not with misunderstanding Jesus’ claim but and early Christians customarily ascribed forgiveness to God, not Jesus (see 132–35). Of course, the main interest of my study is on Mark’s Gospel in the present shape and not the historicity of the events the Evangelist portrays. 87 Jesus is accused of blasphemy in the scene of 2.1–12 (esp. v. 7) because he appears to claim for himself what belongs exclusively to God – the authority to forgive sins. The scribal charge of blasphemy in 2.7 does not fit any known Hebraic legal code, such as Lev 24.10– 23, esp. vv. 15–16 (cursing/blaspheming God’s name) or m. Sanh. 7.5 (“fully pronounc[ing] the divine name” as confirmed by witnesses [Neusner, The Mishnah, 597]). It seems, however, that by the time of the New Testament, the term does not only refer to the act of cursing God but also to the “violation of the power and majesty of God” (H. Beyer, “βλασφημέω, βλασφημία, βλάσφημος” in TDNT 1:622). 88 For intimate connection between 2.1–12 and the trial narrative (esp. 14.61ff.), see Tuckett, “Present Son,” 64–65; Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 289; cf. Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel, 109, 113–14, who describes 2.1–3.6 as a “preliminary hearing” which orients Mark’s audience for the later trial where Jesus appears to be silent (109). See also Hurtado, How on Earth, 162–68. On the Synoptic trial narratives and the “blasphemy” charge therein, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:520–27; cf. the literature cited in Hurtado, How on Earth, 154n5. For “blasphemy” in Mark, see Bock, Blasphemy; Hurtado, How on Earth, 152–78 (esp. 162– 68); Cranfield, Mark, 98–99 (on Mark 2.7), 445 (on Mark 14.64). 89 See section 3.3.3 for further discussion. Mark 2.7, in particular, and 2.1–3.6 as a whole (esp. 2.20, 3.6), in general, foreshadow Jesus’ trial and death (cf. Tuckett “Present Son,” 64– 65). Concerning the connection between Mark 3.6 with the Evangelist’s passion theme, see Kiilunen, Vollmacht, 35–49. Concerning the combined quotation of Ps 110.1 and Dan 7.13– 14, refer to section 3.3.3. 90 One notable commonality between Mark 2.7 and 14.64 is that both verses are connected directly and immediately with the epithet “the Son of Man.” Mark 2.7 is followed, within the same passage, by Mark’s first use of that epithet (v. 10) while 14.64 follows the Evangelist’s last use of the title (v. 62).

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

169

with their response to it.91 Both “blasphemy” incidents are indeed ironic since the reaction from the scribes (2.7) and the high priest (14.61) alike affirm the Christology of the Evangelist and his intended audience.92 In terms of our focus on the use of the Shema in Mark’s Gospel, 2.7 is more important since it employs an explicitly “monotheistic” formula (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός). In accusing Mark’s Jesus, the scribes make a significant christological statement, employing the Shema language. The scribes’ rhetorical question ultimately presents Mark’s Jesus as someone on par with God regarding his authority to absolve sins.93 As Gundry notes, “the charge and its basis set the stage for an implied claim to deity on Jesus’ part.”94 The charge of “blasphemy,” as used in the particular context of 2.1–12, clarifies the nature of the interaction between Jesus and the scribes. Reading the scribes’ reaction simply as directed to Jesus’ attempt to function in or usurp a priestly/prophetic role does not make full sense in this particular context. Third, reading the use of the one-God language alongside Jesus’ reply (v. 10) to the scribes’ charge (v. 7) requires a christological interpretation of the monotheistic language with Jesus’ divine significance in view.95 In response to

91

Mark uses “blasphemy”/“blaspheme” in five passages of his narrative. In 2.7 and 14.64, both of which are linked directly with the epithet “the Son of Man” (see 2.10 and 14.62, respectively), Jesus is charged with blasphemy, which deserves death according to the Sanhedrin (v. 64). Mark 7.22 mentions “blasphemy” as one of the evil things originating within human hearts. In 3.28–29, “blasphemy” concerns the rejection of the gospel message and ultimately Jesus – the rejection of Jesus and his message is understood as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that is, an act of cutting oneself off eternally from the possibility of forgiveness. Mark 15.29 describes people mocking the crucified Jesus as blaspheming. Between 2.7 and 14.64, on the one hand, and 3.28–29 and 15.29, on the other hand, Mark’s audience should decide whether it is Jesus or his accusers who have committed blasphemy (Hurtado, Mark, 41). If it is Jesus’ accusers who are blasphemous, then that seems to have a strong implication for Jesus’ identity since “blasphemy” is essentially a violation against God. How Mark uses “blasphemy”/“blaspheme” throughout his narrative suggests that the Evangelist portrays Jesus in direct linkage to Israel’s unique deity (2.7). 92 For the use of irony in Mark’s narrative, see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel. For the discussion of Mark 2.1–12, see esp. 107–114. Concerning the commonalities of beliefs and experiences between Mark and his audience, see Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 116– 17. 93 The scribes’ question (“Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”) is rhetorical in two different dimensions. From the scribes’ perspective as characters in the story, the answer is “no one,” and secondly, from the perspective of Mark’s intended audience, who were followers of Jesus, the answer is “the Son of Man,” i.e., Jesus. 94 Gundry, Mark, 112. 95 Hofius points out the correspondence between 2.7 (the accusation of the scribes) and v. 10 (the assertion for the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins), especially that “can”/“is able to” (v. 7) and “has authority/power to” (v. 10) are synonymous to each other. See Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung,” in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien, 41.

170

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

the scribes’ protest, Jesus clarifies, in the climactic point of the passage, that the Son of Man, Jesus himself, owns the authority to pardon sins (2.10a). It is to be noted that 2.10a is presented in response to the scribes’ reaction, “Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?” (v. 7). Tan rightly notes that the scribes’ “charge did not result in a retraction or clarifying of Jesus’ claim. Nor did Mark add an explanatory note to refute it.”96 This phenomenon implies the Markan Jesus’ agreement with the scribes’ understanding concerning the nature of his claim in v. 5.97 Jesus does not make an excuse by saying that it is not he himself but God who has forgiven the paralytic’s sins. Rather, he claims for himself a unique divine prerogative, namely, authority to forgive sins (v. 10), and proceeds to perform the healing for the paralytic (vv. 11–12a), thus proving the validity of his own claim.98 The authority of Jesus mentioned in v. 10 cannot merely be seen as the authority of a representative figure – unless one tries to read v. 10a in separation from its immediate literary context. Marcus and Pesch suggest that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins (2.10) should be seen as a delegated authority – Jesus exercises the delegated authority on earth while God remains as the ultimate forgiver in heaven.99 This suggestion for Jesus’ delegated authority is not the same as the simplistic priestly/prophetic reading of ἀφίενταί refuted in the current section. However, a number of Old Testament passages that describe God as acting directly on earth without any means of mediation (e.g., Pss 58.11; 74.12; Sirach 50.22; cf. Deut 5.15), as Hofius notes, seems to imply no necessity for the suggested dualism between what God does in heaven and what the Son of Man does on earth.100 Rather, the phrase “on earth” in Mark 2.10 seems to connote that Jesus is able to do what God alone can do, here and now – on earth. This understanding fits better with the scribes’ protest in v. 7 (“Who can … except one, i.e., God?). Along this line, Nineham notes, “The scribes … were fully persuaded of God’s ability and willingness to forgive, but for them forgiveness must await the future judgment.

Hofius’ point clarifies that the Son of Man saying in 2.10a replies directly to the scribes’ accusation in v. 7. 96 Tan, “Shema,” 202. 97 Mark 2.1–12 does not fit the scheme of messianic secret especially in view of 2.5, 7, and 8, and esp. v. 10. France rightly notes: “Mark does not here allow us to see Jesus as one anxious to hide his light under a bushel” (Mark, 127). 98 Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social Science Theory, 83, argues from both psychological research and the nature of ancient Judaism that forgiveness consists in “the offended party’s decision [i.e., not a third party’s decision] to forswear anger and overlook offense.” 99 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 223; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:160–61. 100 Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung,” in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien, 42.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

171

It was distinctive of Christianity that it proclaimed the possibility of forgiveness as a present reality here ‘on earth.’”101 Fourth, the scribes’ accusation “Who can forgive …?” (emphasis added), which is juxtaposed with the charge of blasphemy and the one-God language (v.7), draws particular attention to the identity of Jesus;102 this identity-sensitive question seems to support the proposed reading, interpreting the Shema language with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view.103 The scribes’ reaction does not concern how Jesus can forgive sins (e.g., without going through a priestly system in the temple) or whether Jesus is validated to forgive sins on God’s behalf but rather who or which person can forgive sins except the unique deity of Israel (v. 7). To put the matter another way, the question cannot merely concern Jesus’ function, since the scribes make the issue one of identity, inseparably tying the function of forgiving sins to the identity of the one who exercises that function. Here, the act of pardoning sins is placed in the dualism of God vs. non-God/human,104 and Mark places Jesus alongside Israel’s God in this dualistic divide. Fifth, the description of Jesus’ supernatural perception of human hearts (v. 8; cf. v. 6) adds some further support for the justification of the presented reading.105 In the Old Testament, God is described as the one who knows men’s hearts (1 Sam 16.7; 1 Kgs 8.39; 1 Chr 28.9; Pss 7.10; 139.1–2, 6, 23; Prov 24.12; Jer 11.20; 17.9–10; cf. Sir 42.18, 20; Pss. Sol. 14.8), and the New Testament confirms that idea (Acts 1.24; 15.8; Rom 8.27; 1 Thess 2.4). The Evangelist Mark attributes 101

Nineham, Mark, 94; cf. Kee, Community, 138. In 2.10 (cf. v. 7), the concern for Jesus’ identity is linked to his unique authority to forgive sins. In that sense, Jesus’ identity and authority are inseparably linked like two sides of the same coin in the passage of 2.1–12. 103 Others have noted the likely significance of identity-focused questions in Mark. Bauckham, “Markan Christology according to Richard Hays,” thinks six questions lead to the acknowledgement of Jesus’ divine identity (Mark 1.27; 2.7; 4.41; 10.18; 12.37; 14.61). Whitenton, Hearing Kyriotic Sonship, 226–27, notes “the value of subtle insinuation” (226) through rhetorical questions common to ancient rhetoric, pointing to Mark 12.35–37 and 10.17–23. 104 For God versus non-God/human dualism in Mark, see 8.33; 10.9, 27; 11.30–32; cf. 7.7–8; 12.17. This dualistic divide, however, is overcome by Jesus in Mark’s narrative – most clearly in 15.39 (“Truly this man was God’s Son!”). See also Marcus, Mystery, 177n48. 105 The translation of NRSV at v. 8a avoids a supernatural interpretation, rendering διαλογίζονται ἐν αὐτοῖς as “they were discussing these questions among themselves.” This is a legitimate translation of the Greek phrase; however, the context provided by the phrase διαλογιζόμενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (v. 6) favors a more supernatural interpretation such as offered by ESV: “they thus questioned within themselves.” The beginning portion of v. 8 (καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ) also indicates that Mark the Evangelist was portraying Jesus’ supernatural perception rather than his close observation or overhearing of the scribes. The last part of v. 8, which contains the phrase “in your hearts [ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν],” supports a supernatural interpretation as well. 102

172

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

such a supernatural quality to Jesus in 2.8a as well as later passages (5.30; 11.2– 6; 14.13–16 and possibly 9.33–35).106 Van Iersel views 2.8 as an indirect reply to the scribes’ charge of blasphemy in 2.7.107 Scribes accused Jesus of claiming something that only God deserves (v. 7), but Jesus is immediately seen to own a divine quality – supernatural perception of the human heart (v. 8). If 2.10a is an explicit answer to the charge of blasphemy (v. 7), v. 8 is an implicit one. Thus, both v. 8 and v. 10 affirm the scribes’ understanding of the nature of Jesus’ claim (v. 7; cf. v. 5). I need to clarify that, technically, the ability to know men’s hearts is not itself an exclusively divine possession. It could be a prophet’s God-given ability (see 2 Kings 5.26; 6.12; Luke 7.39; John 4.19). I, however, am sympathetic toward van Iersel’s suggestion given that the description of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge (v. 8a) is placed within the story of 2.1–12. When the portrayal of Jesus’ supernatural perception is considered in connection to Jesus’ authority to absolve sins (v. 10; cf. v. 5), Mark seems to use Jesus’ supernatural knowledge as a reference to his divine quality and not just to his prophetic capability. The Evangelist, in that way, appears to respond implicitly to the scribes’ accusation (v. 7) or, at least, hints at the explicit response that Jesus will soon provide (v. 10).108 Sixth, the nature of the Son of Man saying in Mark 2.28 supports the proposed reading of the one-God language in 2.7. The Son of Man logion in 2.28 (ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) contains a divine claim just as the only other Son of Man saying in the collection of controversies in 2.1–3.6, namely, 2.10. Mark 2.28, in highlighting Jesus’ unique authority, presents Jesus once again as claiming for himself an attribute that is reserved for God alone, namely, lordship over the Sabbath109 – the day constituted and consecrated by the God of Israel (see Exod 20.11//Deut 5.12; Lev 23.3). The fact that the only other Son of Man saying in the collection of 2.1–3.6 and prior to the passion predictions (chaps. 8– 10) also has a similar force to overlap Jesus with Israel’s God reinforces the validity of the proposed reading of 2.7 as presenting Jesus on par with Israel’s God. This particular point seems to be valid given that 2.1–3.6 is “carefully composed by Mark in order to exhibit the authority of Jesus.”110

106 For another Markan usage of ἐπιγινώσκω for a supernatural knowledge, see esp. 5.30 (ἐπιγνοὺς). 107 Van Iersel, Mark, 148n39; Trakatellis, Authority and Passion, 15, 165; cf. Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung,” in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien, 43n19. 108 For treatment of Mark’s implicit divine Christology, see Geddert, “The Implied YHWH Christology of Mark’s Gospel.” 109 Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 129, 313. 110 Perrin, “Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark,” 357–365 (361); cf. Doughty, “The Authority of the Son of Man (Mark 2:1–3:6),” 181; Dewey, Markan Public Debate.

4.2 Christological Rereading of the Shema in 2.7

173

When the collective force of the several points put forward above is considered, reading the scribes’ reaction that employs Shema language simply as directed to the invalidity of Jesus’ claimed role as God’s representative (i.e., priest or prophet) proves to be inconsistent with the Evangelist’s portrayal of Jesus’ interaction with the scribes in 2.1–12 (esp. vv. 5, 7, 10).111 How Jesus’ claim for the absolution of the paralytic’s sins (v. 5) is understood by the scribes (i.e., as a violation of God’s unique and exclusive identity and power, and, thus, as a case of “blasphemy”) and how Jesus responds to the scribes’ charge (i.e., by reinforcing their understanding [v. 10; cf. v. 5] rather than correcting or qualifying it) support the christological reading of the Shema language with divine status and significance of Jesus in view. Moreover, the description of Jesus’ supernatural perception of human hearts (v. 8) and the other Son of Man saying in the collection 2.1–3.6 (i.e., 2.28) add weight to the divine christological reading of the εἷς ὁ θεός language in 2.7 presented above.112 If one is determined to view the 111

Some may point to the fact that the crowd glorifies God (2.12) rather than Jesus and, based upon such an observation, argue that in this Markan passage Jesus is portrayed as someone less than divine. However, Jesus is never flatly identified with God in Mark’s Gospel such that the former supplants the latter or vice versa. Instead, Jesus is distinguished from God while Jesus’ status and significance overlap with God’s in the Second Gospel (see section 5.1). Moreover, it should be noted that Mark never attributes a meaningful Christological understanding to crowds in his narrative. Given that reality, it would be strange to expect Mark to portray the crowd with a full christological understanding, especially at this early point of the narrative at 2.12. It is perhaps better to pay attention to the fact that Mark contrasts the crowd’s friendly (though not fully informed) response to Jesus (v. 12) with the scribes’ hostile reaction (v. 7). 112 Additionally, there are certain features of Mark 2.1–12 that might be considered alongside the points just presented. While not necessarily suggesting the divine-christological significance of the Shema allusion in 2.7, the following features make sense as part of such an understanding. One such feature is the fact that the “faith” of the people carrying the paralytic (and perhaps the paralytic himself as well) is directed to Jesus (2.5: καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν). While the object of this group’s faith is not explicitly stated, the focus of the pericope has been on Jesus (2.1–4) and it would thus be natural to assume that Jesus is the object of their faith. Given that God is the one to whom the faith of his people should be directed according to the Old Testament (Gen 15.6; Deut 1.32; 9.23; 2 Kings 17.14; Isa 43.10) and especially Mark’s Gospel itself (11.22), the presumable direction of the people’s faith toward Jesus could imply that Mark presents his messiah as a divine figure on par with Israel’s God. The emphatic fronting of “authority” in 2.10 constitutes another feature. While the fronting of “authority” in 2.10 could be seen merely as a reference to Dan 7.14, where the Son of Man figure (literally, “one like a son of man” [NIV]) is given “authority” from the Ancient of Days, it would appear that Mark’s Son of Man, namely Jesus, fulfills and exceeds the identity and authority of the Danielic Son of Man figure, as one who not only reigns but also forgives sins and is himself lord of the Sabbath (2.28). The fronting of “authority” in 2.10 is in line with the overall thrust of the controversy stories of 2.1–3.6, which highlights Jesus’ unique authority and is counterbalanced by another series of controversies focusing on his authority in 11.27–12.37 (see esp. the use of ἐξουσία in the opening story of the series [11.28, 29, 33]). An additional feature that fits well with understanding 2.7 as

174

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

tension-filled interaction between Jesus and the scribes as merely focused on the validity of Jesus’ representative function as a priest or prophet, one ends up overlooking and dismissing the immediate literary context of such an interaction.113 In accusing Mark’s Jesus, the scribes appear to understand correctly what he claimed with the verb ἀφίενται (v. 5; cf. v. 9). A uniform activity common to God and Jesus, as pictured in Mark 2.1–12, implies a meaningful overlap between Jesus and Israel’s God (2.7). The Evangelist’s use of the εἷς ὁ θεός language as seen in the scribes’ gravest accusation (v. 7), therefore, has a remarkable christological thrust, namely to attribute to Jesus authority to forgive sins and, in so doing, to link Jesus directly and inseparably with the unique God of Israel. Reading the one-God language in this way would not eliminate the possibility that Jesus functions as an agent of God in Mark’s Gospel.114 However, interpreting Mark 2.1–12 as simply dealing with Jesus’ validity as God’s representative (i.e., prophet or priest) fails to do justice to what the passage of 2.1–12 portrays. That the Evangelist does not simply affirm the core confession of Jewish faith but rereads it in light of the unique status and significance of Jesus (as argued in chap. 3) is reinforced by the interpretation of the first Shema reference of the gospel (2.7) as put forward above. The difference between the two monotheistic references, if any, is that, whereas the Evangelist establishes a christological nuance to the Shema by binding the monotheistic call of the Shema (Deut 6.4) with the Old Testament scripture most frequently used in the New and employed primarily to ascribe Jesus divine sovereignty (Ps 110.1) in Mark 12.28–37, he facilitates a christological interpretation of the monotheistic language by connecting Jesus’ claim that the paralytic’s sins are forgiven, the scribes’ protest with the one-God language, and Jesus’ clarifying response in 2.1–12. There is, however, one more monotheistic reference in Mark’s Gospel, which has not been examined yet, namely, 10.18, to which this study now turns.

containing divine-christological significance is the uniqueness of Jesus’ healing as mentioned in the crowd’s response in 2.12: “We have never seen anything like this!” (οὕτως οὐδέποτε εἴδομεν). By itself, such a response need not suggest the divine significance of Jesus but could merely indicate that Jesus is a great prophet like Elijah or Elisha, the likes of whom none had seen in their lifetime. However, the crowd’s amazement at the uniqueness of what they are seeing fits the Evangelist’s attention to Jesus’ unique authority to forgive (vv. 5, 7, 10) and lordship over the sabbath (2.28). While these three features do not by themselves imply the divine-christological significance of the Shema reference in v. 7, they fit well with the proposed interpretation of the verse and, when coupled with the above-provided evidence, seem to add weight to the proposed reading of the monotheistic language in 2.7 with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view. 113 Similarly, Keerankeri, Love Commandment, 98n86; cf. Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 294–295. 114 Cf. section 5.1.2.

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

175

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18 4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

The previous section (4.2) argued that the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in Mark 2.7 contains a christological force. The Shema-alluding phrase in the scribes’ protest serves to portray Jesus in direct linkage to Israel’s unique God. This section aims to investigate how the same phrase functions in 10.18 (“Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, i.e., God [εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]). I tentatively suggest that the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in 10.18, too, could have a christological force – in a manner corresponding to the way the same phraseology appears in its earlier and only other occurrence in the narrative (2.7). Since the phrase bears a force presenting Jesus on par with Israel’s God in 2.7, it seems reasonable to assume that its revisited phraseology in 10.18 could contain a similar thrust. However, the ambiguous nature of Mark 10.18 is widely recognized, and there are several competing interpretations. Nineham describes 10.18 as “[u]ndeniably a very puzzling verse which has never been wholly satisfactorily explained.”115 Taylor lists six alternative interpretations to the short saying in Mark 10.18, revealing the difficulty that this text has caused.116 Taylor’s list, which is now several decades old, still seems relevant and the most extensive and, therefore, will be used here: (1) Jesus’ objection is mainly to this interlocutor’s flattery, which needs to be corrected. (2) The saying in Mark 10.18 implies Jesus’ acknowledgment of his imperfection and sin. (3) The saying mainly concerns Jesus’ piety and devotion rather than his christological identity. (4) The adjective, ἀγαθὸς, used in 10.18 means “gracious” rather than “good.” (5) Jesus acknowledges through the saying that his own goodness is subject to growth and trial, especially with his incarnation in view, and thus it is contrasted with God’s absolute goodness. (6) By questioning the epithet “good teacher,” Jesus ultimately hints at his divine significance as one who is directly and inseparably linked with the unique God of Israel. (To make it clear, this is the position that I tentatively suggested above and intend to establish further below.) The difficulty in understanding 10.18, indicated by the multiple interpretations above, necessitates some further support for the tentatively suggested position (option 6 above) as well as critical interaction with competing views (options 1– 5 above).

115 116

Nineham, Mark, 274. Taylor, Mark, 426–27. Taylor’s list is not in the same order as what I have here.

176

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

Jesus’ logion in 10.18 does not exist in isolation but as an organic part of the story of 10.17–31, at least in Mark’s Gospel as it now stands. Therefore, it seems useful to overview Mark 10.17–31 before the main discussion of 10.18. 4.3.1 Overview of Mark 10.17–31 Mark 10.17–31, often entitled, “The Rich Young Ruler,”117 presents an interesting passage from a form-critical point of view. Form critics have made painstaking efforts into discerning the origin of various traditions that Mark the Evangelist might have employed for constructing the passage.118 Whatever the origin of the fragments of the tradition, the Evangelist has placed these materials together to address the issue of eternal life, entrance into God’s kingdom, and salvation and to confront his audience with a radical demand for discipleship, requiring the renunciation of one’s own family and property. Taylor is perhaps right in noting that the details of various sources used in 10.17–31 “are too deeply woven into the story to be regarded as amplifications.”119 For this study, the finalform text is much more important for understanding the Evangelist’s purpose than determining the traditions or fragments behind the passage, which may or may not be ascertainable. The first portion of the story, 10.17–22, introduces Jesus’ encounter with a man (indefinite εἷς in Greek).120 This unknown man stops Jesus by breathlessly running to him and kneeling before him.121 He asks Jesus what he has to do to inherit eternal life.122 In making such an inquiry, the man addresses Jesus as “good teacher” (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ [v. 17]). Jesus “reacts” to him by drawing particular attention to the adjective, “good” (ἀγαθός): “Why do you call me good?

117

In Mark’s Gospel, there is no information about this man’s age (cf. “young man” in Matt 19.20, 22) or his socio-political status (cf. “ruler” in Luke 18.18), but only about his wealth. 118 See Taylor, Mark, 424–25. 119 Taylor, Mark, 425. 120 The indefinite εἷς is used to refer to this person (10.17). Unspecified designations such as this are typical of Mark. Cf. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus, 172–76. 121 For the kneeling posture, see 1.40 (a leper), 5.22 (Jairus) and 7.25 (Syrophoenician woman). The posture, which is an unusual way to greet a rabbi (Lohmeyer, Markus, 207), communicates one’s extreme respect for Jesus. Berger views the act of kneeling in 10.17 as conforming to the style of a conversion narrative in Judaism. See Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu, 429. 122 Interestingly, there is a close similarity between the question in Mark 10.17 and the question of the lawyer in Luke 10.25–28 (i.e., the Lukan Love Commandment passage). In Mark 10.17–31, inheriting eternal life (vv. 17, 30) is a synonym for entering God’s kingdom (vv. 23–25); to be saved (v. 26) is another synonym. The phrase “eternal life” appears only twice in Mark (10.17, v. 30), framing the passage of 10.17–31. Concerning the expression, “inheriting eternal life” in Second Temple Judaism, see Collins, Mark, 476; Lane, Mark, 365n42.

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

177

[τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν]. No one is good except one, i.e., God [οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός]” (v. 18).123 Jesus then orders him to keep the (social) commandments of the Decalogue124 and adds a prohibition against fraud (v.19; cf. Exod 20.17; Deut 24.14; Sir 4.1).125 This man responds that he has kept all of them from his youth (v. 20). Out of his genuine love for this man (note ἠγάπησεν [v. 21]), Jesus points out one thing deficient of him: he must sell all his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and become Jesus’ disciple (v. 21; cf. 6.8–9). This radical requirement is, in fact, Jesus’ answer to the man’s inquiry on how to inherit eternal life (v. 17). The man is deeply troubled by such a request (v. 22 [note the combination of the two participles στυγνάσας and λυπούμενος]). Regretfully, he leaves Jesus, to whom he has run breathlessly and before whom he has reverently knelt and no longer appears in the story. At the very end of Jesus’ encounter with him, the Evangelist dramatically discloses that the man is rich – his wealth was the obstacle for accepting Jesus’ call (v. 22).126 Jesus appears to connect the incident to his teaching on the peril of wealth (vv. 23–27)127 and, ultimately, to the reward of discipleship (vv. 28–31).128 At the end of his dialogue with the disciples on the danger of riches, Jesus announces that salvation is possible only 123 There is almost universal agreement on the authenticity of this saying mainly due to its seeming difficulty. The early church would not have placed in Jesus’ mouth words that seemed to cast doubt on his goodness. 124 Jesus mentions only the social commandments. It is, however, artificial to think that Mark devalues the first half of the Decalogue. It can be said that the mentioned social commandments are understood by the Evangelist as the measure of one’s faithfulness to the other half of the Decalogue (cf. Rom 13.8–10) (Lane, Mark, 366n44). Moreover, as Allison, “Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue,” suggests, the quotation of Deut 6.4–5 in Mark 12.29–30 probably represents the first half of the Decalogue while the citation of Lev 19.18 in the following verse (Mark 12.31) likely points to the second half. 125 This addition makes good sense especially given that this man will be shortly reported as wealthy (v. 22). Lane sees the addition as “an application of the eighth and ninth commandments” of the Decalogue (Lane, Mark, 366). Lists of the Ten Commandments often seem to be selective and/or include additional content. For example, see, e.g., Rom 13.9; Did. 2.1–3. 126 In Jewish society, wealth was usually understood as a symbol of divine blessing (cf. Ps 1). However, such understanding was not universal. Some of the Old Testament prophetic traditions, e.g., Amos, reflect hostility toward wealth. 127 The Western text (D ita, b, d, ff2) moves v. 25 prior to v. 24 so that it reads vv. 23, 25, 24, 26 (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 89–90). Taylor prefers this order (Mark, 430–32). Metzger, however, seems to be right in noting, “it is precisely … the too-logical order of the Western text that renders it suspect as a secondary modification of the more primitive text” (90). 128 Jesus’ command for his interlocutor to give away the property (Mark 10.21) and the interlocutor’s subsequent refusal to do so (v. 22) prepares the following verses which contain Jesus’ words on the difficulty of the wealthy to enter God’s kingdom (vv. 23–27) and on the radical discipleship that requires renunciation of one’s property for Jesus’ and the gospel’s sake (vv. 28–31).

178

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

with God (v. 27), thus addressing the supremacy of God. Jesus then claims that forsaking one’s property and family members for his sake and the gospel’s sake and following him will guarantee one’s eternal life (vv. 29–30; cf. 8.38). Concerning Jesus’ response to the inquirer, it is not immediately clear whether Jesus places a limit on his own goodness or why Mark includes this “hard” saying in the pericope. The Old Testament attests on a number of occasions to both divine goodness and human goodness.129 Although goodness (MT, ‫ ;טוב‬LXX, ἀγαθός) is a prominant quality of God in the Old Testament, it is not commonplace in the Old Testament that God alone is good.130 The use of ἀγαθός by Matthew and Luke provides a case for the compatibility of divine goodness and human goodness. Both Evangelists apply ἀγαθός to humans (Matt 5.45; 12.35; 22.10; 25.21, 23 [par.]; Luke 6.45; 23.50) while preserving the Markan pronouncement of the uniqueness of God’s goodness (Mark 10.18) either word for word (Luke 18.19) or with modified wording (Matt 19.17).131 If goodness applies to humans, why does Mark describe Jesus as protesting the rich man’s use of the epithet “good teacher”? How should one interpret the hard saying in

129 For God’s goodness, see Ps 118.1–4 (LXX Ps 117.1–4); Ps 136.1 (LXX Ps 135.1); 1 Chron 16.34; 2 Chron 5.13; cf. Philo, Leg. 1.47. See Collins, Mark, 476–77, who includes a discussion on Philo and Rabbinic literature in this regard. For human goodness, see (a) Prov 14.19, 22 (plural); (b) 1 Sam 15.28; 29.6, 9, 10; 2 Chron 19.11; Prov 13.2 (singular); (c) Exod 2.2; 1 Sam 9.2; 25.15; 1 Kgs 2.32; 2 Kgs 10.3; Prov 13.22; 14.14; Sir 29.14 (with “man” or “men”); (d) Prov 18.22; Sir 26.1, 3 (“woman”). I am borrowing these categories from van Iersel. See van Iersel, Mark, 324n70–71. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Simeon 4.7; Dan 1.4; etc.) also mentions the good man/husband and the good heart (cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 209n2). Antiquities 18.117 describes John the Baptist as ἀγαθὸν ἄνδρα. 130 Similarly, Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 311n109. 131 Matthew’s modified version (19.17: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.”) does not seem to be too dissimilar from Mark 10.18. It can still be understood as placing a limitation on Jesus’ goodness because when Jesus mentions “one … who is good,” it is not a self-reference but clearly a reference to God. While trying to avoid the possible inference in Mark (see Allison and Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3:42), Matthew appears to deliver a message that, overall, has a similar thrust to Mark’s – God’s goodness is unique and unmatchable (cf. Grundmann, “ἀγαθός, et al” in TDNT, 1:16; France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 285; Taylor, Mark, 427). Unlike Matthew, Luke did not seem to be concerned about the possible inference from Mark 10.18 at all. He, therefore, preserves the Markan phraseology. A majority of later manuscripts interpolate ἀγαθέ (the adjective in Mark 10.17) into Matthew 19.16 and also substitute the wording of Matthew 19.17 with the wording of Mark 10.18//Luke 18.19, which could be theologically more challenging (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 39–40). In view of the general tendency that the Synoptic assimilation occurs in favor of Matthew, this exceptional case indicates that the Matthean copyists in the following generations did not have a substantial problem with Mark 10.18. If the theology of Jesus’ words in the Markan verse had been perceived as seriously difficult, Matthew’s modified form, rather than the Markan (and Lukan) form, would have prevailed among the copyists.

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

179

10.18? This study will now examine competing interpretations of this Markan verse. 4.3.2 The Case for Reading Jesus’ Saying in Mark 10.18 as a Hint at His Divinity In this section, I will first provide further support for the reading tentatively proposed above, which is in line with option 6, and then interact with the other interpretive options (options 1–5). 4.3.2.1 Further Support for the Suggested Reading (Mark 10.18 as Jesus’ Hint at His Divinity) At the outset of the discussion of Mark 10.18 (section 4.3), it was noted that the common phraseology between 2.7 and 10.18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) and the precedence of 2.7 to 10.18 in the narrative sequence could be suggestive of the function of the one-God language (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) in 10.18. In light of Mark’s skillful and reliable storytelling capability (see section 5.2.4), a certain governing authority can be allowed to the first one-God reference over the other two Shema references and particularly 10.18, which employs the exact same five Greek words in a row (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός). When Mark’s original audience was confronted with the “hard” saying of 10.18, the christological idea shaped by 2.7 and especially by its one-God language (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) would likely be influential for their understanding of the same language reused in 10.18. It seems reasonable to think that Mark’s original audience was probably able to recognize the Shema allusions in 2.7 and 10.18 (see section 4.1 above) in light of (1) the importance of the Old Testament to Mark for forming his gospel (cf. 1.2, which opens the Second Gospel with a reference to an Old Testament book, “Isaiah”), (2) the importance of the one-God language in the Old Testament writings and the Second Temple literature (see my discussion in chap. 2), which provide meaningful backgrounds for Mark, (3) the importance of the one-God terminology in Mark’s Gospel itself (see the only direct quotation of the monotheistic call of the Shema [Deut 6.4] in Mark 12.29 along with its paraphrase (v. 32) and two monotheistic references in 2.7 and 10.18), and (4) Mark’s interest in the issue of “blasphemy” (see, e.g., 2.7; 14.64). Mark’s assumption of a substantial degree of pre-knowledge on the part of his audience, as discussed in chapter 1 (especially section 1.3), further supports this point in that their foreknowledge would have increased their ability to identify specific details contained in the narrative.132 It 132 See section 1.3, where I note that Mark assumes at least some level of pre-understanding on the part of his audience concerning Jesus’ identity as the messiah and the content of his message; literary features such as dramatic irony and the introduction of characters without explanation also support this conclusion. See also Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 58, who suggests that the use of the term “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον), apart from Mark’s seemingly

180

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

seems equally plausible, on the very same ground, to think that they were able to connect the monotheistic language in 10.18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός) with the same language earlier in the narrative (2.7).133 It seems that Mark intended for his original audience to recall the earlier introduced Shema language in 2.7 (βλασφημεῖ· τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός [emphasis added]) when encountering Jesus’ “surprising” response to his inquirer with the same monotheistic language (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός [emphasis added]) (10.18).134 Mark’s intended audience is, in that sense, facing135 the story of 10.17–31 and especially the monotheistic reference in v. 18 with a christological presupposition constructed by 2.1–12. The statement on the uniqueness of God in 2.7, which is the first monotheistic/ Shema reference in Mark, does not require the audience to accept the statement made by the scribes. Instead, the audience is allowed to ponder the statement and appreciate its rhetorical and ironic effect, thus ultimately acknowledging the divine significance of Jesus’ identity (“who,” v. 7) and his authority (“to forgive sins,” v. 10). Now, in 10.18, when the audience faces another statement on the uniqueness of God (the second monotheistic/Shema reference in Mark), the most natural explanation would be similar to the first monotheistic/Shema reference at 2.7. The audience is not required to conclude that Jesus is not good but is led to ponder the statement and its rhetorical and ironic effect, thus acknowledging the divine significance of Jesus. The common phrasing between 2.7 and 10.18 seems to provide a substantial enough reason on its own for understanding the one-God language of 10.18 with a christological concern similar to that of 2.7. Jesus’ objection to the ascription “good teacher” (10.18), then, seems to hint at the invalidity of the perspective of his interlocutor, and, accordingly, to offer a subtle, veiled claim for the unique significance of Jesus himself by way of shifting the interlocutor’s attention from redactional use of the term at 1.1; 13.10; and 14.9, reflects earlier tradition and would, thus, be known to many communities before Mark was written. 133 Surprisingly, most commentators miss this significant point. Gundry is an exception (Mark, 552–53). Van Iersel, Mark, 324–25, also recognizes the verbal correspondence between 2.7 and 10.18. He, however, goes on to claim that the logion in Mark 10.18 “confronts readers with questions about Jesus’ identity, which continue to engage their interest precisely because they cannot answer them.” His point, however, seems to reflect the tendency of his reader-response scheme rather than what Mark’s intended audience – believers in Jesus who had a decent degree of prior knowledge on some key subject matters of Mark’s Gospel (Stein, Mark, 9–10) – would have thought. 134 The possibility of remembering the one-God phraseology is heightened by the fact that when it was used for the first time in 2.7, it was placed in the context of the scribal charge of blasphemy – which later became the charge of Jesus’ death sentence in 14.64 and with which Mark’s audience would likely have been familiar based upon their prior knowledge of Jesus’ trial story (cf. Stein, Mark, 9–10). 135 On the relationship between textuality and orality in a first-century Greco-Roman setting, see Hurtado, “The Gospel of Mark,” 15–32.

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

181

how to inherit the eternal life to who this Jesus is and by nuancing his question in view of the person of Jesus. There are, however, other notable factors in the passage of 10.17–31 that support the proposed reading further. First, the side-by-side placement of Jesus’ additional commands (10.21) and the Decalogue (v. 19) tends to support the proposed reading of v. 18. Such an arrangement implies that Jesus’ own words have an authority parallel to God’s words, the Torah (cf. 13.31).136 Jesus does not merely recite the Decalogue but requires his interlocutor to sell his properties, give the proceeds to the poor, and ultimately become his disciple. By collocating his commands with the Decalogue, Jesus allows himself a God-like authority.137 It is especially noteworthy that, in the series of Jesus’ commands placed alongside the Decalogue, the requirement to follow him constitutes the climax: ὕπαγε, ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ δὸς [τοῖς] πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι (v. 21; cf. vv. 29–30). Following Jesus without any reservations (i.e., leaving all his wealth behind) was the essence of what his interlocutor lacked (ἕν σε ὑστερει [v. 21]), and that is, on the other hand, what Jesus’ disciples had done (ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήκαμέν σοι [v. 28; cf. 1.16–20]). Second, the other use of the adjective ἀγαθός and other indicators of Jesus’ unique qualities in Mark’s Gospel seem to be in favor of the suggested reading. At the very least, these factors seem to show that Jesus’ denial of his goodness in 10.18 should not be taken too literally. Rather, one should endeavor to find why or with what intent Mark’s Jesus refutes his own goodness. The Gospel of Mark uses ἀγαθός in two passages. One is our current pericope (10.17, 18) and the other is 3.4, where Jesus uses that adjective in the context of challenging his opponents, “Is it lawful to do good [ἀγαθόν] or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” Jesus implies that what he is about to do, healing a man with a withered hand, is a good thing (ἀγαθόν) (3.4; cf. 1.40–45, etc.). To begin with, one should view 3.4 as referring to the goodness in Jesus’ work of healing or his act of saving a life rather than Jesus’ character. In addition, it is hard to construct Mark’s view of Jesus’ “goodness” solely based upon the use of the term ἀγαθός since the word is used only in two passages (3.4 and 10.17–18). Nevertheless, a 136 Similarly, Gathercole, Preexistent Son, 74. Lane’s somewhat (though not entirely) different reading may be taken as an alternative: the shift from v. 19 (the mention of the Decalogue) to v. 21 (the call of discipleship) shows that “true obedience to the Law is rendered ultimately in discipleship” (Mark, 367). While affirming the Decalogue in v. 19 (cf. 12.29– 30), Jesus connects the demands of the Decalogue with the call of discipleship. That a genuine observance of the Law must be linked and directed to following Jesus, in fact, contains a strong christological implication. 137 Berger, Gesetzauslegung, 398–402, views Jesus as refusing to offer anything new other than what is already prescribed in the Old Testament (Mark 10.19). Berger, thus, sees the logion in 10.18 as an authentic saying of the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, the cumulative power of the pieces of evidence put forward in the current section tends to reject such a position.

182

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

certain inference for Jesus’ goodness may be found, especially if 3.4 is considered in connection with other descriptions of Jesus’ unique personal qualities in the Second Gospel as discussed in the following.138 Mark’s Gospel includes several terms and images for Jesus’ unique personal qualities. None of them makes a direct statement that Jesus is “good,” but they tend to imply something meaningful for the Evangelist’s understanding of Jesus’ goodness. In the present story, Jesus “loves” the man who asks him about eternal life (10.21);139 in its preceding story, Jesus, unlike his disciples, values children (i.e., “nobodies” of his society) thus drawing them to himself and blessing them (10.13–16). More importantly, Jesus is presented as someone greater than John the Baptist (1.7) who was later reported as a “holy140 and righteous” man (6.20). Jesus is, in fact, the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1.7).141 He is the Son of God (1.11, 9.7; 12.6; cf. 3.11), and the Holy142 One of God (1.24).143 Jesus possesses a divine authority to absolve sins (2.1–12). He lords over the Sabbath – the day consecrated to YHWH (2.28; cf. Exod 20.11; Deut 5.12). In the eschaton, he will come with holy angels in the glory of the “Father” (8.38). Given these descriptions of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, it is difficult to say that Mark portrays Jesus as one who is not good or whose goodness is deficient. It would probably be artificial to think that Mark describes Jesus as holy (e.g., 1.24) but somehow not good. If so, one should probably not take 10.18 too literally as Jesus’ qualification of his own goodness but rather as a rhetorical strategy with a veiled assertion.144 138

Similarly, Marcus, “Authority,” 209. Among the Synoptic Evangelists, Mark alone includes a note on Jesus’ affection (v. 21, esp. the verb ἠγάπησεν) for this interlocutor. 140 John the Baptist is called “holy” in Mark 6.20. The adjective “holy” is used here as a pair with “righteous.” The combination seems to indicate John’s piety or his prophetic vocation (cf. 2 Pet 1.21). 141 Mark later places a grave word about sinning against the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ mouth: “Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (3.28–29). It is then christologically significant that Jesus is the one who baptizes with this reverence-deserving Holy Spirit. 142 Here, “holy,” as applied to Jesus, is probably synonymous to “good” in its radicalized sense as in 10.18. Compare to 6.20, where “holy” probably means John’s ministerial and personal devotion to God. 143 The title, “the Holy One of God” was spoken out by a demoniac. In Mark, demoniacs are, ironically, reliable witnesses to Jesus’ true identity (cf. 3.11; 5.7). 144 Jesus’ question, seemingly an objection to the ascription “good teacher,” appears to be a rhetorical device that was quite common in the first century, as attested by Quintilian (Inst. 9.2). Questions were understood to function in a plethora of rhetorically significant ways (see, e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.6–16). Here, Jesus does not appear to contradict the “plain meaning” of his statement, which would be the case if he were employing ironic speech. Instead, Jesus seems to leave his inquirer with “a hidden meaning which is left to 139

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

183

The third factor that supports the proposed reading of 10.18 is the portrayal of Jesus with remarkable authority to guarantee the eternal destiny of his disciples based solely upon their commitment to him (10.28–30; cf. v. 21; also, 13.9– 13).145 After giving a warning about the danger of riches (vv. 23–26), Jesus announces: “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible” (v. 27). Jesus clarifies that God is the exclusive source for salvation, thus affirming the supremacy of the deity of Israel. There is an explicit Godmortals dualism in Jesus’ statement in the verse. Not any human but God alone is the source of salvific events. In light of the exclusivist statement in v. 27, what follows is striking. Having just announced that salvation is possible only with God (v. 27), Jesus himself, in the reply to the disciple Peter, guarantees the eternal life of his followers146 – upon the condition that they renounce their family and property for Jesus and his147 gospel (v. 29; cf. 8.35).148 What was said earlier to be possible only with God (v. 27) is now guaranteed by this unique Jesus based upon their response and devotion to him (vv. 28–30; cf. v. 21). Here, Jesus’ authority to guarantee eternal life for his followers should not just be seen as a representative authority of God’s delegated agent, for example, a prophet, since the eternal life (i.e., the leitmotif of Mark 10.17–31) is portrayed as directly related to one’s response to and commitment to this Jesus – who is obviously God’s agent sent by him and working for him but not merely that.149 Because Jesus has authority to guarantee the eternal destiny of his followers, he can claim confidently (note ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν [v. 29]) that he himself is to be prioritized above

the hearer to discover” (Quintilian Inst. 9.2.65 [Butler LCL]). According to Quintilian, such a rhetorical figure would be useful when it would be too striking to state a matter openly, or when one desires greater elegance in the way the matter is stated (Inst. 9.2.66). 145 Eternal life appears to be the main motif of 10.17–31, as ζωὴν αἰώνιον provides frames at 10.17 and v. 30. 146 Note that ζωὴν αἰώνιον is a synonym to the “inheritance of the kingdom of God.” “Eternal life” (vv. 17, 30), the wording that frames Mark 10.17–31, is replaced by entrance to the kingdom (vv. 23, 24, 25) and by salvation (v. 26) within the pericope. The immediately preceding passage (10.13–16) has addressed the kingdom of God and thus, in a way, has prepared for the further address on the kingdom in vv. 17–31, esp. vv. 23–25. 147 Here, I translated the Greek definite article into a possessive pronoun (“his”) on the basis of 1.1, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. For a discussion of possession and the definite article, see Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 769–70; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 215–16. 148 Mark 8.35 has specifically in view the persecutions of Jesus’ followers and their preaching of the gospel message. 149 The references to “eternal life” in Mark 10.17 and v. 30 form an inclusio for the passages of 10.17–31. What is placed between these two references to “eternal life,” namely, vv. 18–30, has a notable christological concern, as discussed in the current section, and nuances the interlocutor’s initial question on how to inherit eternal life (v. 17) in view of Jesus’ unique status and significance.

184

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

one’s family and property (10.29; cf. Luke 14.26).150 Such a portrayal of Jesus has a strong christological implication. If v. 27 addresses God as the unique source of salvation, the subsequent verses (vv. 28–30) present Jesus as the guarantor of that salvation, which only God can enable. The overlap between the unique God of Israel and Jesus as such is in line with and, thus, supports the proposed christological rereading of the monotheistic language in 10.18, the verse belonging to the same pericope (10.17–31). Relatedly, when Jesus explains that eternal life belongs to those who abandon all things “for my sake and for the sake of the good news” (ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου [Mark 10.29]), it is implied that Jesus is the central and core subject matter of the gospel.151 The phrase ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου is most likely a hendiadys.152 In the verse, the twin prepositional phrases “for my sake” and “for the sake of the good news” are two sides of the same coin, leading to the conclusion that Jesus is the core subject matter of the “gospel” (cf. Mark 1.1). That Jesus is the central subject matter of the “gospel” has great christological significance.153 Jesus is not only an agent who preaches the gospel from God, an impression that one might receive from a verse like 1.14, especially when it is taken in an isolated manner. Rather, Jesus is essentially the one about whom the good news of God’s sovereign saving act is concerned (cf. 1.1), and for whom a response of total devotion is required – a type of devotion reserved only for God. In the Old Testament, no one other than YHWH was given such a place, as seen in the Shema (see Deut 6.4–5 with vv. 10–15 where YHWH’s deliverance is presented as the basis for such totalistic devotion; cf. Ex 20.1–17; Deut 6.20–25; 7.7–11; 8.6–10). The monotheistic call of the Shema (Deut 6.4) was alluded to at the beginning of Mark 10.17–31 (v. 18), and now the totalistic commitment to YHWH (Deut 6.5 [quoted later in Mark 12.30]) required based upon his uniqueness (Deut 6.4 [quoted later in Mark 12.29]) is applied to the disciples’ commitment to Jesus (10.29–30). Fourth, even (part of) the Decalogue is relativized or redefined in view of Jesus’ unique status and significance.154 At the beginning of his response to the 150 Stein, Mark, 475, suggests that a response similar to 4.41 (“Who then is this …?”) can be expected from 10.29 although the Evangelist does not state such a response explicitly. 151 Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 54. See also Mark 8.35 where ἐμοῦ and τοῦ εὐαγγελίου follow the single ἕνεκεν: ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. 152 Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 54. 153 For the seven uses of the term, “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον), in Mark’s Gospel, see 1.1, 14, 15; 8.35; 10.29; 13.10; and 14.9. The importance of this term in Mark is seen from the fact that it is mentioned explicitly even from the very beginning (1.1). 154 Part of the Decalogue does not seem to be the only thing redefined in the passage of Mark 10.17–31. The meaning and significance of wealth (vv. 23–25) is also redefined by Jesus in the pericope; it is regarded not as the sign of God’s favor but rather as a hindrance against entering his kingdom – against the usual way it was perceived in Judaism. Such redefinition makes the disciples be shocked and wonder, “Then who can be saved?” (v. 26).

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

185

interlocutor, Jesus quotes the social commands of the Decalogue: “You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother [τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα]’” (Mark 10.19). After the interlocutor’s departure, Jesus guarantees to his disciples the rewards for those who paid the cost of following him. There is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father [μητέρα ἢ πατέρα] or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions – and in the age to come, eternal life. (Mark 10.29–30)

Earlier in v. 19, Jesus affirmed the importance of the Decalogue, notably including the command to honor one’s father and mother (see also 7.6–13, where Jesus repeatedly presents honoring the parents as a divine command).155 However, even that weighty command is relativized given the central and ultimate importance of Jesus and of one’s response to him, as 10.29–30 reveal. This relativization of the command to honor one’s parents in light of the supremacy of Jesus and of the gospel is overall in line with the suggested reading of Mark 10.18 above, which finds a divine christological significance from the use of the monotheistic language in the verse. Fifth, the position of μέ in Jesus’ question from 10.18 (τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν) appears to be emphatic (“Why do you call me good?”).156 While Mark’s syntax does not always represent a neat style, and μέ may not be as emphatic as ἐμέ, which appears in other parts of the gospel, this point still seems relevant.157 While word order is fluid in Greek, the choice of a pronoun as the point of departure for a clause tends to suggest some sort of emphasis, such as comparison or contrast.158 Normally, such a point of departure would simply continue the flow of Mark’s Jesus demands a paradigm shift (cf. v. 31). See also the recent discussion in Loke, The Origin of Divine Christology, 153–54, who notes the significance of Jesus’ instruction that is not found in the Torah and, yet, is essential for eternal life. 155 Unlike the preceding commands of the Decalogue quoted in Mark 10.19, the command to honor one’s parents is in the present tense, which is also the only command in v. 19 that is not a prohibition but a required, proactive action. 156 Gundry, Mark, 552; also Evans, Mark, 96. 157 For the use of ἐμέ in the Second Gospel, see Mark 9.37 [3x]; and 14.7. For an example of ἐμέ fronted in a question with the interrogative pronoun τί, just as μέ in Mark 10.18, see Acts 13.25. For the use of ἐμέ and other accented pronouns for emphasis, see BDF, 146 §279. It is by no means certain, however, that the pronoun must be accented in order to be emphasized. In any case, BDF notes that certain “rules” for oblique pronouns in the Classical period, such as the expected μέ after πρός, can be broken in the Hellenistic period (cf. John 6.37). There are multiple ways to emphasize words in Hellenistic Greek, and for various reasons. 158 See, for instance, Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, 625n3. From a linguistic standpoint, Greek is one of many “flexible word-order” languages where information

186

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

thought from the preceding material. In this case, however, there is no reason for the preceding context to indicate that μέ would be the preferred point of departure. While it may be unwise to overemphasize word order as a primary factor in interpreting Jesus’ pronouncement in Mark 10.18,159 the word order probably can be taken as an additional factor for the present argument that is contingent upon more substantial evidence as put forward above. At the very least, one can say that the suggested emphasis on μέ based upon the word order is in line with the overall thrust of vv. 17–31 (see esp. vv. 21, 29–30), which gives remarkable attention to the unique status and significance of Jesus. The emphatic use of μέ may also have prompted deeper christological reflection on the part of the audience. It hints at the purpose of the Markan Jesus’ rejection of “his goodness,” which is to draw attention to his true identity in a subtle way.160 deemed “newsworthy” tends to be placed in first position to indicate a new or significant item, a change in topic, or “a contrast” (Song, Word Order, 15). In this case, Jesus is seemingly con-trasting μέ with “God” (10.18). The emphatic placement does not change the meaning but serves as a pragmatic highlight, leading the reader to deeper reflection. 159 See, e.g., Taylor, Mark, 426. 160 The ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν formula in Mark 10.29 further supports the points provided above in favor of the christological reading of the monotheistic language with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view. This formula, which occurs repeatedly in the Markan narrative and only on the lips of Jesus (3.28; 8.12; 9.1, 41; 10.15, 29; 11.23; 12.43; 13.30; 14.9, 18, 25, 30; cf. 2.11; 5.41; 9.13; 11.24; 13.37), appears to go beyond the prophetic use of “thus says the LORD” (‫)כה אמר יהוה‬, a phrase occurring hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible and indicating a divine utterance (see, e.g., Exod 4.22; 5.1; Josh 24.2; Judg 6.8; 1 Sam 2.27; Isa 8.11; 29.22; Jer 2.2). Similar is the phrase “utterance of the LORD” (my translation of ‫נאם‬ ‫)יהוה‬, which also occurs very frequently in the Old Testament (see, e.g., Gen 22.16; Num 14.28; 1 Sam 2.30; 2 Kings 9.26; Isa 1.24; 3.15; 14.22). Loke posits that, in the New Testament, Jesus’ non-use of such prophetic proclamation to support the veracity of his words is “surely significant” (The Origin of Divine Christology, 167). A possible instance where Jesus might indicate a divine pronouncement in a manner similar to the Old Testament prophetic formulae is found in Luke 11.49, where Jesus says, ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν. However, this phraseology is unlikely a true equivalent to the above prophetic formulae, lacking substantial enough similarity to such devices used in the LXX (cf. Dodd, “Jesus as Teacher and Prophet,” 57n2, who, while overall suggesting that Jesus’ “I say to you” declaration transcends the above-noted prophetic formulae, proposes that, in Luke 11.49, he has probably used a revised version of such formulae “in a slightly ‘Rabbinized’ paraphrase,” given that the rabbis frequently employed circumlocutions for God). In any case, only one possible use of a prophetic formula as compared to so many “I say to you” statements throughout the New Testament gospels is undoubtedly striking. Loke affirms Dodd’s long-standing suggestion that Jesus’ “I say to you” statements appear to “transcend the typically prophetic ‘Thus says the Lord’” (Loke, The Origin of Divine Christology, 167, citing Dodd, “Jesus as Teacher and Prophet,” 63; cf. ibid., 57–58). Additionally, it should be noted that the above-mentioned prophetic formulae are not entirely lacking in the New Testament. The author of Revelation has the resurrected Jesus use τάδε λέγει (“thus says,” i.e., the frequent LXX phrase used in the translation of ‫)כה אמר יהוה‬, but with Jesus himself as the subject of the verb (Rev 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14). The phrase τάδε λέγει is employed also with “the Holy Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

187

In light of the cumulative weight of the evidence presented above and the uniform monotheistic wording between 2.7 and 10.18 (εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός), Jesus’ rejection of the term ἀγαθὸς for himself in 10.18 is probably a rhetorical device that draws the attention on the interlocutor’s (and the audience’s) understanding of Jesus’ “goodness.” It should not be read as a literal repudiation or qualification of Jesus’ goodness. By strategically contrasting his own goodness with that of God’s, Mark’s Jesus radicalizes the concept of “goodness” (10.18) and hints at his unique status and significance as one who is on par with and inseparably linked to Israel’s unique God. While Hooker criticizes this reading as anachronistic (e.g., reading the Patristic161 understanding into the first-century gospel account),162 the proposed interpretation seems viable in light of the common wording between 2.7 and 10.18 and several other factors found in 10.17–31 and the rest of Mark’s narrative.163 When these factors are considered cumulatively, the proposed reading of Mark 10.18 seems to reflect not merely the concern of Mark’s Patristic interpreters but that of the Evangelist himself. I have argued for the viability of reading Mark 10.18 as a tactical rhetorical device indicating Jesus’ divine status and significance by challenging the interlocutor’s basis for calling Jesus “good” and, thus, shifting his attention to the person of Jesus himself or, at least, nuancing the interlocutor’s question on eternal life (v. 17; cf. v. 30) with a remarkable christological intent (vv. 18, 21, 28– 30). Such a reading signifies that the Shema-allusive language of 10.18 carries a connotation for Jesus’ unique and inseparable linkage to, and parity with, Israel’s unique God. The discussion turns now to examine the other five interpretive options (options 1–5), following the order given above.

τὸ ἅγιον) as the subject in Acts 21.11. Given that the subject of this prophetic formula was YHWH in the LXX, the uses of the same formula with the risen Jesus or the Holy Spirit as the subject in these New Testament passages probably points to a view of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as meaningfully divine figures. 161 There were, of course, varieties of interpretations of Mark 10.18 among the Church Fathers (see Oden and Hall, Mark, 139–41; Lagrange, Saint Marc, 248–49). For instance, Origen’s view is somewhat different: “the original goodness must be believed to reside in God the Father, and from him both the Son and Holy Spirit undoubtedly draw into themselves the nature of that goodness existing in the font from which the one is born and the other proceeds” (On First Principles 1.2.13; cited from Oden and Hall, Mark, 140). Origen discusses this matter in the context of the Trinitarian doctrine. Nonetheless, the dominant Patristic way of reading this verse was that Jesus’ objection to the epithet, “good teacher,” was not due to the invalidity of the man’s address itself but due to the invalidity of his christological perspective (see, e.g., Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 9.2 [cited from Oden and Hall, Mark, 140]; cf. Ambrose, De Fide, 2.1 [cited from Taylor, Mark, 426]). 162 Hooker, Mark, 241. 163 See section 5.1.1 of this volume for my discussion of the select Markan passages that present Jesus on par with God.

188

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

4.3.2.2 Evaluation of Alternative Interpretations Option 1: Mark 10.18 as Jesus’ Objection to Flattery While human goodness was not denied in the Old Testament and Jewish literature, the combination of “good” and “teacher,” which the inquirer applies to Jesus in Mark 10.17, has no parallel in extant Jewish literature.164 The only exception is from the fourth-century Talmudic source, b. Ta‘an. 24b, which reports a rabbi hearing the following in his dream: “Good greeting to the good teacher from the good Lord, who of his goodness doeth good to his people [‫שלם טב לרב‬ ‫]טב מריבון טב דמטוביה מטיב לעמיה‬.”165 Guttenberger may be right in noting that “good teacher” should be regarded as a puzzle or word play rather than a form of address.166 In any case, no matter how the word “good” functions in this Talmudic source, its dating (fourth century CE at the earliest)167 disqualifies it from serious consideration in the current discussion of Mark’s Gospel, a first-century text. Given that there is no parallel to the designation, “good teacher,” in Jewish sources until the fourth century CE, the epithet “good teacher,” which the inquirer ascribes to Jesus, seems to be an unusual one. It likely conveys a sense of exaggeration and flattery, and this flowery nature gives the cue to Jesus’ “rejection” of the epithet (10.18).168 Dewey rightly comments on the dynamics between the question of the rich man and the response of Jesus: [T]he intermediate steps of the dialogue are either necessary to the final answer or in themselves constitute at least implicitly the answer. Therefore, the questioner is not simply a foil to elicit Jesus’ pronouncement, but a significant contributor to the discussion. The emphasis is not solely on Jesus’ answer.169

The interplay between the question and answer in 10.17–18 and the flattering nature of the interlocutor’s direct address, “good teacher,” as just noted illuminates our interpretation of the current passage and v. 18, in particular. The flattering nature of the question (v. 17), however, is not a primary cause for Jesus’

164 Cf. Lane, Mark, 364–65; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:137–38, who thinks that the address, “good teacher,” likely attributes a divine character to Jesus; Lohmeyer, Markus, 208–209, who similarly notes that the problem of the address was to combine the adjective ἀγαθός with the noun διδάσκαλος. According to Lohmeyer, the combined phrase means “Gottbegnadeter oder auch göttlicher oder heiliger Meister” (Lohmeyer, Markus, 208). 165 Translation was taken from Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, 2:186, who follows Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1902), 337. 166 Guttenberger, Gottesvorstellung, 311n108. 167 Marshall, Luke, 684. 168 France, Mark, 401; Nineham, Mark, 270. 169 Dewey, Markan Public Debate, 28. Dewey acknowledges her partial indebtedness to Dodd, “The Dialogue Form in the Gospels.”

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

189

“abrupt” reply in v. 18.170 Attention to the flattering nature of the inquiry in v. 17 can be easily combined with the proposed reading in the sense that the man’s use of the epithet “good teacher” is to be seen as an exaggeration because he lacks an adequate understanding of Jesus’ true identity. If he had a proper appreciation of Jesus’ identity, this address would rather have been regarded as a proper acknowledgement or confession. This explanation, which gives attention to the exaggerative nature of the address “good teacher,” can technically be combined with other options below (particularly, options 3 and 5 below) and create quite different christological and theological dynamics than what I have put forward above. In that sense, again, one should call this flattery-based explanation only a secondary or partial reason for Jesus’ “rejection” of the ascription διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ. It is, of course, unnecessary to think that the inquirer’s attitude was insincere, deceitful, or hostile, even if flattery is in view. Mark’s comment on Jesus’ love toward this man in response to his inquiry (10.21), which is absent in the Matthean and Lukan parallels, shows that the interlocutor’s motivation is genuine.171 What must be noted, however, is that the exaggerative epithet, “good teacher,” used without an adequate understanding of Jesus’ unique status and significance, anticipates his “protest.”172 Option 2: Mark 10.18 as Jesus’ Denial of His Goodness A few scholars read Mark 10.18 in a literalistic manner, understanding 10.18 as indicating the lack of Jesus’ goodness. Jesus appears to admit his mere humanity and sinfulness.173 I argued above for the viability of reading the logion in Mark 10.18 as radicalizing the concept of “goodness” rather than questioning Jesus’ goodness and, thus, as making a veiled claim for Jesus’ true identity. The argumentation for my proposed reading above has indirectly revealed the problem of this option. However, it would still be helpful to reiterate several points in the context of evaluating this particular interpretation. First of all, the connection between 2.7 and 10.18 with the same phrase εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός weakens the assertion that Jesus is denying or substantially qualifying his goodness. Since the monotheistic phrase was used with a notable divine170 Taylor, Mark, 427, similarly notes that this view, which pays attention to the interlocutor’s flattery, “needs to be combined with other views.” 171 Hurtado, Mark, 164; Nineham, Mark, 270; Taylor, Mark, 425. 172 See Rawlinson, Mark, 138–39. 173 Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1:246; cf. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, 195, 201, who notes the fact that there is no claim for Jesus’ sinlessness in Mark (cf. 10.18) and gives attention to 1.4, 9, which may together infer that Jesus himself had sins to be forgiven. Telford, however, does not go so far as to use the absence of the claim for Jesus’ sinlessness for constituting the case for Jesus’ imperfection and sin – unlike Montefiore, 1:246.

190

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

christological concern in 2.7, it is natural to expect it to be appropriated similarly in its later and only other occurrence in Mark’s Gospel. Secondly, those reading 10.18 too literally, thus as placing a qualification on Jesus’ goodness, appear to presuppose Mark’s serious incompetency as a storyteller – as if he was unaware of the seeming contradiction between the only two uses of the εἷς ὁ θεός language in his gospel (2.7 and 10.18).174 Thirdly, the fact that Mark’s Gospel is full of examples indicating Jesus’ goodness refutes the literal reading of 10.18. Fourthly and lastly, the literalistic interpretation overlooks the fact that Mark the Evangelist was a committed follower of Jesus (cf. v. 21, vv. 29–30) who composed his gospel for a community of fellow believers in Jesus, after his divinity was publicly acknowledged or assumed in Christian writings such as the Pauline letters (see, e.g., Rom 9.4–5; 1 Cor 8.4–6; Phil 2.6–11).175 The proponents of a literalistic interpretation should answer for themselves why Mark includes 10.18 if he thought that the verse was indeed a hint to Jesus’ sin or his lack of goodness. In light of the several problems noted above, the view that Mark 10.18 expresses a lack of goodness on Jesus’ part appears to be untenable. Option 3: Jesus’ Objection as an Expression of His God-centered Devotion Another view is that Mark 10.18 is “devotional” in orientation. Namely, the verse portrays Jesus as a devout Jew committed to God.176 Boring, along this line, comments: “The issue here is not the christological identity of Jesus – how ‘high on the scale’ between humanity and deity – but the sovereignty of God.”177 This “devotional” reading is somewhat attractive as it seems to fit well with the Evangelist’s specific concern in Mark 8.27–10.45, in which Jesus’ “denial” of his goodness (10.18) is located. The Evangelist could perhaps be implying in v. 18 that Jesus’ disciples should follow the example of their teacher, and particularly, the example of his radically God-centered devotion (cf. v. 27), even to forsake all of their possessions and embrace persecution (cf. 10.23–30).178 Despite such attraction to the devotional reading of Mark 10.18, this interpretation contains no small problem. It oversimplifies the antithesis placed between 174

On Mark’s competency as a storyteller, see section 5.2.4. See section 1.3 of this book for the setting of Mark’s Gospel, where mid to late 60s CE was suggested as the most probable date for Mark’s composition. For a commonplace dating of 1 Corinthians (around the mid-50s CE), Romans (late-50s CE), and Philippians (early 60s CE or earlier, depending upon the suggested place of writing), see the pertinent discussions in, e.g., Hagner, The New Testament, chaps. 27, 29, 30; Powell, Introducing the New Testament, chaps. 12, 13, 17. For the arguments for Paul’s divine Christology, see, e.g., Tilling, Paul’s Divine Christology; Capes, The Divine Christ. 176 Lane, Mark, 365; Grundmann, “ἀγαθός, et al,” in TDNT, 1:16; Hooker, Mark, 241; Cranfield, Mark, 327–28; Warfield, Christology and Criticism (1929 edition), 139; Fitzmeyer, Luke, 2:1199; Bock, Luke, 2:1477. 177 Boring, Mark, 294; “God-Language” 451–59; similarly, Lane, Mark, 365. 178 Cf. Hurtado, Mark, 163–64. 175

4.3 Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 10.18

191

the qualities of God and Jesus within the verse, as Taylor points out.179 In other words, if what Mark aimed to communicate was primarily Jesus’ devotion to the God of Israel without necessarily qualifying Jesus’ own goodness, why would he employ a notable contrast between God and Jesus with reference to their goodness?180 The “devotional” interpretation of 10.18 does not answer that important question. It appears to evade “the problem” that this verse might cause rather than answering it. Option 4: Adjective, ἀγαθός, Meaning “Gracious” rather than “Good.” This option requires only a brief mention. The view that ἀγαθός means “gracious” or “kind” rather than “good”181 does not itself provide a solution to the problem, since if the adjective should actually be translated as “gracious” or “kind,” one still must ask in what sense Jesus is not gracious or kind. That this alternative meaning for ἀγαθός does not remove the interpretive dilemma may be seen upon considering Dalman’s viewpoint, as he argues that Jesus’ “rejection of the epithet, therefore, does not mean, as is generally supposed, that God alone is morally perfect, but that in Him alone is the quality of kindness personified.”182 Whatever the meaning of the adjective – good, gracious, or kind – the seeming conflict between Jesus’ character and that of God remains if one follows this particular interpretation. Whether the quality in view is moral goodness or graciousness/kindness, one is still left to deal with a quality seemingly belonging to God that may or may not be applied to Jesus. To answer the interpretive difficulty, one must choose a different way to read and appreciate Mark 10.18. This option does not offer a solution for the interpretive dilemma in view here but simply substitutes one problem with another. Thus it does not seem to deserve any further comment.183 Option 5: Jesus’ Objection as Indicating that His Own Goodness Is Subject to Growth Taylor himself believes this theologically attractive option is the rightful interpretation of the verse.184 Adopting Mackintosh’s reading of Mark 10.18, which uses the lens of Hebrews, Taylor suggests that this Markan verse implicitly contrasts God’s goodness, which is absolute, with Jesus’ goodness, which is subject to growth: “the words [of Jesus in Mark 10.18] are … a disclaimer of God’s 179

Taylor, Mark, 427. The way the contrast is posed between Jesus and God leads Timothy Geddert to conclude that this passage and others are part of Mark’s intentionally implicit, rather than explicit, high Christology. See Geddert, “The Implied YHWH Christology of Mark’s Gospel.” 181 E.g., Wellhausen, Evangelium Marci, 80; Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 337. 182 Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 337. 183 Cf. Schmiedel’s view cited in Taylor, Mark, 427. 184 Taylor, Mark, 427. See also Stein, Mark, 469. 180

192

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

perfect goodness on the part of One who learned obedience by the things which He suffered, being tempted in all points like as we are (Heb. iv. 15, v. 8).”185 Taylor is correct that the saying of 10.18 poses an antithesis between the goodness of God and that of Jesus. Nevertheless, the way he understands the nature of such antithesis reflects an effort to read Mark 10.18 from the perspective of the Epistle to the Hebrews rather than the Second Gospel itself. The idea that Jesus’ goodness is subject to growth through trial is, indeed, found in Heb 5.8 (“Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered”). Mark’s Gospel, however, does not seem to present such a notion. At least, the notion of growth through trial as applied to Jesus’ personal quality is not something to which the Evangelist devotes his attention in the passage of 10.17–31. Taylor’s position may obtain some credit if a literary relationship between Mark and Hebrews can be proven or if the notion of the growth of Jesus’ character through trial can be established based upon the Second Gospel itself. Each of those arguments, however, seems to require a substantial stretch. Relatedly, it should be noted that Taylor’s view does not seem to consider the interplay between Jesus’ “rejection” of the ascription “good teacher” and what immediately follows that rejection. Instead, his reading appears to isolate Mark 10.18 from the subsequent verses, trying to determine its meaning in light of Hebrews rather than its vital contextual factors including: (a) a series of Jesus’ commands (Mark 10.21) collocated with the very commands of God (i.e., the Decalogue [v. 19]), (b) the relativization of the fifth command of the Decalogue (i.e., honoring father and mother) as compared to the greater and ultimate command to follow Jesus (10.29; cf. v. 21), and (c) Jesus’ own ability to guarantee eternal life for his followers (v. 30).186 The contextual factors imply that the Markan Jesus’ “rejection” of the epithet “good teacher” should be viewed as a rhetorical device intended to cause Mark’s audience to reflect on the identity of Jesus as one who does possess a quality intrinsic to God alone. A reading of Mark 10.18 in its own literary context seems to preclude the position that Jesus’ objection to the ascription διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ indicates his own goodness as subject to growth, no matter how attractive it sounds theologically. 4.3.3 Summary of 4.3 Through the examination of various interpretations (options 1–5), I have sought to demonstrate that, in the literary context of 10.17–31, it seems more viable than any other view to read the εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός phrase in 10.18 as implying Jesus’ 185

Taylor, Mark, 427 (emphasis original), with reference to Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 37. 186 Cf. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 726, who observes, “If, then, the Markan Jesus asks, ‘Why do you call me good?’ and ascribes goodness to the One God alone, in the next breath he demonstrates a godlike power and mercy by supernaturally divining the secret obstacle that is troubling his interlocutor and lovingly holding out the solution to him (10:21).”

4.4 Distinction between Jesus and God in Mark 2.1–12 and 10.17–31

193

divine status and significance in line with those of Israel’s unique God (cf. Deut 6.4) – in a manner corresponding to how the same phrase functions in its earlier and only other occurrence in the Second Gospel (Mark 2.7). The proposed reading of 10.18 (option 6) has more substantial support from the text itself than any other available interpretive options. Additionally, the interlocutor’s flattering address “good teacher” anticipates Jesus’ “abrupt” response or “objection.” However, such attention to the exaggerative nature of the rich man’s ascription (option 1) alone cannot sufficiently account for the dynamics involved in Jesus’ seeming repudiation (v. 18) and, therefore, needs to be combined with a more comprehensive explanation as the proposed interpretation (option 6).

4.4 Distinction between Jesus and God in Mark 2.1–12 and 10.17–31 4.4 Distinction between Jesus and God in Mark 2.1–12 and 10.17–31

It has been argued that the Shema allusions in 2.7 and 10.18 function christologically, ultimately shedding light on the unique status and significance of Jesus as one on par with and inseparably linked to Israel’s unique God (sections 4.2 and 4.3). That Mark rereads the Shema to present Jesus in that striking way, however, does not mean a flat equation between Jesus and God or a replacement of one by the other. Mark’s description of Jesus’ relationship to God is a complicated, nuanced, and paradoxical one, as will be elaborated in chapter 5.187 Toward the end of chapter 3, it was pointed out that Mark’s Jesus, who is inseparably linked with and presented on par with Israel’s God (12.35–37), is also differentiated from that God in that sense that Jesus, as a devout Jew, is seen to recite the Shema and confesses his unreserved commitment to the unique deity of Israel (12.29–30). A similar way of differentiation between Jesus and God is also found in 2.1–12 and 10.17–31. In 2.1–12, the Evangelist reports that, upon witnessing the healing of the paralytic, the crowd glorified God and not Jesus, who performed the healing (2.12), thereby implying a distinction between the two persons.188 Similarly, in 10.17–31, Mark’s Jesus appears to differentiate 187 On the complicated nature of Jesus’ relationship to God, see also Hays, Reading Backwards, 26–28; cf. Whitenton, Hearing Kyriotic Sonship, 233, who sees Jesus’ divine and human (Davidic) natures as a “riddle … left unanswered.” 188 Note the resultative clause (v. 12): ὥστε ἐξίστασθαι πάντας καὶ δοξάζειν τὸν θεόν. Boring (“God-Language,” 466) remarks, “Jesus forgives, heals, knows people’s hearts as only God can, yet at the end his actions do not detract from praise to God (2.12).” Mark does not forsake the monotheistic devotion but promotes a novel way in which it is offered to Israel’s God with reference to Jesus. Cf. Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 96, who write: “[t]his subtly counters the charge of blasphemy, for the result of Jesus’ forgiveness and healing is that people acknowledge the power and presence of the God of Israel.” Of course, the crowd’s act of glorifying God on account of what Jesus has performed (v. 12b) falls short of genuine recognition of Jesus’ true identity. Nevertheless, such shortage does not necessarily mean

194

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

himself from God in acknowledging soteriological theocentricism by announcing that salvation is enabled only by God and, thus, promoting the supremacy and centrality of God as the originator, motivator, and enabler of salvation (v. 27).189 The christological rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18 does not replace God with Jesus. Mark maintains the distinction between the two persons while linking them directly and inseparably and presenting Jesus on par with God. Accordingly, neglecting either the inseparable linkage or the notable distinction between the two persons will likely result in a failure to appreciate each of these one-God passages fully. The main concern of the Evangelist in his use of the monotheistic language is christological, that is, to link Jesus with God, but that linkage is balanced and nuanced by the distinction between the two persons in the immediate literary context of the monotheistic language as just pointed out above.

4.5 The Significance of the Current Chapter in the Case for the Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 12.28–37 4.5 The Significance of the Current Chapter

In chapter 3, I argued that Mark 12.28–34 and vv. 35–37 should be read in intimate connection with each other and that such a connection enables a christological interpretation of the monotheistic language of Deut 6.4 (quoted in Mark 12.29 and rephrased in v. 32), reading it in light of Ps 110.1 (cited in Mark 12.36). I argued further that the christological reading of the monotheistic language in the context of Mark 12.28–37, in particular, has a thrust toward presenting Jesus on par with God and linking the two inseparably. The discussion in this chapter (chap. 4) – which concerns the christological interpretation of the monotheistic language in 2.7 and 10.18 with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view – seems to reinforce my argumentation in chapter 3. Since Mark nuances monotheistic language christologically in its first two occurrences (2.7; 10.18), it is not surprising that he does the same with its third and last use (12.29; cf. v. 32). Likewise, since the Evangelist attributes meaningfully divine status and significance to Jesus in the first two occurrences of the Shema language (2.7; 10.18), it is not unexpected that he takes a similar approach in the third and final use of that language (12.29; cf. v. 32). In the particular context of that the Evangelist disagrees with the crowd’s worshipful response. Though not a sufficiently informed response with reference to Jesus’ unique status and significance, the crowd’s response by glorifying God is portrayed in a positive light, probably in contrast to the scribes’ hostile reaction to Jesus, the Son of God. 189 Mark never uses the designation θεός for Jesus, unlike John (1.1; 20.28). The term θεός is always a reference to his “father” in the Second Gospel.

4.5 The Significance of the Current Chapter

195

12.28–37, he does this by binding the monotheistic confession with the portrayal of Jesus the exalted messiah sitting on the divine throne and participating in the cosmic reign of Israel’s unique deity (v. 36) and, thus, by letting the two notions shape each other. While the three monotheistic passages in Mark’s Gospel have their respective narrative contexts, and they each contain somewhat different dynamics from one another, in the big picture, all three uses of the Shema language in the Second Gospel appear to contain a divine-christological thrust, that is, to portray Jesus on par with God and link the two persons directly and inseparably with each other. It is indeed striking that the language traditionally expressing the incomparable uniqueness of the God of Israel is reread by the Evangelist to speak something about the significance of Jesus. When the one-God language is invoked in the Second Gospel, it is intimately associated with the presentation of Jesus’ divine status and significance.

4.6 Chapter Summary 4.6 Chapter Summary

In summary, the current chapter has argued that in both of the Shema-allusive references in Mark’s Gospel (2.7; 10.18), the one-God language is reread christologically, connecting Jesus with God inseparably and presenting the two as resonating with, and fundamentally corresponding to, each other. While these two monotheistic references each have different narrative contexts and different dynamics involved in those contexts, they both appear to contain essentially the same divine-christological thrust. It is indeed remarkable that the language that traditionally called for the devotion to the unique God of Israel is now employed to disclose the unique identity and authority of Jesus. That this divine uniqueness rhetoric – while being commonly and frequently employed in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature – was reserved only for Israel’s deity makes the Evangelist’s christological rereading of the one-God language with reference to Jesus’ divine status and significance all the more striking. However, as noted in section 4.4 above, the divine-christological rereading of the Shema, which links Jesus inseparably with God, is balanced by the distinction made between the two persons. Mark interprets the Shema christologically yet without flatly equating Jesus with God or replacing one by the other. The last two chapters (chaps. 3 and 4) have been devoted to the discussion of Mark’s divine-christological rereading of the Shema with Jesus’ divine status and significance in view, beginning with 12.29 (cf. v. 32) as part of the unit of vv. 28–37 in the preceding chapter (chap. 3) and then moving on to 2.7 and 10.18 in this chapter (chap. 4). However, such a remarkable phenomenon does not exist in isolation from the rest of Mark’s narrative but as an organic component of that

196

Chapter 4: Christological Rereading of the Shema in Mark 2.7 and 10.18

narrative, and the recognition of such reality implies that the findings concerning the Markan one-God language in chapters 3 and 4 have to be appreciated in light of the macro-text, the Second Gospel as a whole. The final chapter of this study, chapter 5, is assigned with that particular task.

Chapter 5

Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God The previous two chapters (chaps. 3–4) have demonstrated that Mark rereads one-God language christologically and, in so doing, links Jesus inseparably with God and presents Jesus on par with God. Through a remarkable reinterpretation of the Shema, Mark binds the identities of Jesus and God as tightly as possible without nullifying the distinction between the two in the immediate literary context of the one-God references. The present chapter will attempt to place Mark’s use of this one-God language in the context of the overall narrative. This procedure is necessary for understanding the Markan Shema references (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37) more fully; those references do not exist in isolation from the narrative but as organic parts of it.1 This chapter will examine Mark’s Gospel by focusing on the integration of Jesus’ inseparable linkage with God – usually related to the parity between the two persons – and Jesus’ distinction from God, often in connection with the hierarchy between the two (regarding my terminology here, see the explanation provided at the end of section 1.2.2).2 The first section (5.1) will examine individual passages that portray Jesus as directly linked with God as well as passages that distinguish Jesus from God. Section 5.2 will then argue that the juxtaposition of the linkage and distinction motifs is not accidental but deliberate on the part of the Evangelist. Several arguments will support this position: (1) Mark’s primary christological label, the “Son of God,” inherently integrates the linkage and distinction motifs (section 5.2.1); (2) the linkage and distinction between Jesus and God appear across Mark’s narrative and are not limited to specific portions of the story (section 5.2.2); (3) the linkage and distinction motifs appear in a side-by-side manner in several Markan passages (section 5.2.3); and (4) since Mark is a reasonably competent storyteller who is capable 1 Best aptly notes in this regard, “What [Mark] wrote is a ‘whole’ and the once separate pericopae must now be understood and interpreted as part of that ‘whole’” (Following Jesus, 10). Concerning problems in dealing with a theme without giving an adequate consideration for the entire narrative, see Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, 30ff. 2 The terms “parity” (used in this book in relation to Jesus’ inseparable linkage with God) and “hierarchy” (employed here in relation to Jesus’ distinction from God) may be anachronistic to the time of Mark, but they are still useful categories for explaining the nuanced, complicated, and even paradoxical Christology of the Second Gospel. Later in the current chapter, I will argue that these motifs of linkage and distinction are organically integrated with each other in Mark’s narrative (section 5.2).

198

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

of controlling what he narrates, it is unlikely that he is unaware of the concurrence of these two motifs as noted in (1), (2) and (3) (section 5.2.4).3 Mark was most likely deliberate in his integration of these motifs within his narrative. I will then argue that, rather than endangering devotion to Israel’s unique God, the remarkably high view of Jesus found in Mark’s Gospel materializes and specifies such devotion for the Evangelist (section 5.2.5.1) and also that Mark appears to hold these two seemingly contradictory motifs of linkage and distinction in paradoxical tension within his narrative (section 5.2.5.2). The chapter conclusion (section 5.3) and the concluding remarks for this study (section 5.4) will follow.

5.1 The Integration of Jesus’ Linkage with God and His Distinction from God in Mark 5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

The present section will examine various individual passages in Mark’s Gospel that highlight Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage with God, as well as other passages that differentiate Jesus from God. Each passage contains numerous features that deserve detailed treatments. Nevertheless, this section will focus its discussion on the motifs of Jesus’ linkage with God, often correlated to the parity between the two (section 5.1.1), and Jesus’ distinction from God, which is frequently associated with Jesus’ submission to God (section 5.1.2). 5.1.1 Passages that Link Jesus with God Directly and Inseparably This subsection will discuss the passages where Mark directly and inseparably links Jesus with God.4 Generally speaking, Mark’s Gospel is a story about Jesus, and so the entire gospel is christological in its orientation, as indicated by the opening: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (υἱοῦ θεοῦ).5 Nevertheless,

3

In discussing Mark’s Christology, one should not overlook the use of various titles applied to Jesus in the gospel, e.g., Christ/Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God. This study integrates the titular discussions into the investigation of specific passages where those titles actually appear and obtain their meaning and significance rather than designating a separate section that examines various christological titles. Boring aptly points out: “Mark tends to identify the christological titles with each other, which in any case became less specific and more interchangeable in the course of their development in early Christianity. The titles do not have a univocal meaning, but take on their meaning from their function in the narrative” (idem, “God-Language,” 461). 4 For discussions of Jesus’ close linkage to God in Mark’s Gospel, see also Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 263–312; Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark,” esp. chaps. 2–10. 5 Emphasis added. The question concerning the identity of Jesus is a primary question in Mark’s Gospel, put forward by crowds (1.27; 6.2–3), political leaders (6.14–16; 15.2), reli-

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

199

given the purpose of the present subsection (section 5.1.1), which is to provide a focused discussion on the passages that inseparably link Jesus with God, many of the more subtle christologically relevant passages will be left out. In contrast, the following analysis concentrates on relatively clear examples. This section (5.1.1), in particular, will mention several Old Testament passages that are referenced or alluded to in Mark’s narrative.6 Determining whether certain phrases or imagery refer to a specific Old Testament passage is tricky,7 and too much should not be read into one fragmentary phrase. Nevertheless, how the gospel begins (i.e., by invoking an Old Testament text [Mark 1.2–3 quoting a combination of Isa 40.3 and Mal 3.1]) suggests that Mark presents his Jesus-story, in some sense, as a fulfillment of Old Testament scripture. This conclusion implies that the resonances with Old Testament texts found across the gospel, as will be discussed below, are deliberate on the part of the author. 5.1.1.1 Appropriation of the Old Testament Κύριος Language for Jesus (Mark 1.2–3; 5.19–20; 12.36–37) Chapter 3 contained a discussion of the use of κύριος language applied to Jesus with particular attention to Mark 12.36–37. The current section reviews and advances that discussion. Mark 1.2–3 is crucial for understanding Mark’s Gospel as a whole because these verses form the beginning of the gospel and set the tone for the rest of the narrative.8 Verse 3, in particular, applies the κύριος language of Isaiah 40.39 to Jesus, the central figure of the story.10 Isaiah 40.3 gious authorities (2.6–7; 11.27–28; 14.61), Jesus’ own disciples (4.41), and the narrative’s main character himself, i.e., Jesus (8.27, 29; 10.18). 6 I recognize that Mark’s reference to the Old Testament follows the LXX, the MT and some mixed/free forms each in different incidents (cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew`s Gospel, 9–66, who notes that Mark’s Old Testament quotations are overall Septuagintal while his Old Testament allusions are diverse). Acknowledging such diversity, in this chapter, I quote mainly the LXX when discussing verbal correspondence between Mark’s Gospel and the Old Testament in view of their common language, i.e., Greek. 7 This necessitates that, at times, our decision needs to be tentative. 8 On the importance of the beginning of Mark’s Gospel for understanding the whole, cf. Whitenton, Hearing Kyriotic Sonship, 98–108; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, chap. 5. On the importance of ancient narrative beginnings for orienting the audience, specifically with reference to epics and comedies, see Aristotle, Rhet., 3.14.6. 9 For the Qumranic use of Isa 40.3, see 1QS 8.13–14, which, in its context, understands the Qumran community as existing to prepare the Lord’s way in the wilderness. 10 For Mark’s use of κύριος, see Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark.” At least some Markan passages contain a notable degree of titular orientation with the use of κύριος. See, e.g., Mark 1.3, 2.28, 5.19–20; 11.3, 12.36–37 (cf. Marcus, Way, 37–41). For the use of κύριος for God in Mark’s Gospel, refer to 11.9; 12.11, 36; 13.20. For the discussion on Mark 12.35– 37, which applies the κύριος language both to Jesus and God, see chap. 3. Isaiah 40.3 is referenced in all the other canonical gospels. See Matt 3.3; Luke 3.4–6; John 1.23.

200

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

reads, “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God [‫( לאלהנו‬MT); τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν (LXX)].” Interestingly, “for our God” of Isaiah 40.3 is replaced by “his [αὐτοῦ]” in Mark 1.3, the genitive pronoun that refers to Jesus. The “highway [‫( מסלה‬MT); τὰς τρίβους (LXX)]” belonging to God in Isa 40.3 now belongs to Jesus in Mark 1.3.11 Accordingly, there is an extension in the use of the title κύριος.12 The beginning of Mark’s Gospel quotes Isa 40.3 together with a conflation of Mal 3.1 and Exod 23.20 (Mark 1.2).13 Malachi 3.1 reads, “See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me [ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου, LXX].” Mark 1.2 presents a modified version: “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way [ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὅς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου].” Although there are some structural differences between Mal 3.1 (LXX) and Mark 1.2, the key changes in Mark are christological in nature in the sense that “the/a way [ὁδὸν]” becomes “your way [τὴν ὁδόν σου]” and “before/ahead of me [πρὸ προσώπου μου]” becomes “be-

11 While the words εὐαγγέλιον (1.1) and κύριος (v. 3) may have some political overtones for Mark’s Greco-Roman readers, the mentioning of ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ (v. 2) suggests that the main horizon in the Markan use of those terms is the Old Testament and, in particular, Isaiah (see, e.g., 52.7; 61.1 [εὐαγγέλιον] and 40.3 [κύριος]). For the importance of Isaiah 40–55 in Mark, see Marcus, Way, 12–47, and Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. 12 It is likely that Mark’s intended audience had a certain level of biblical literacy (Marcus, Way, 202; Stein, Mark, 9–10). While Mark kindly explains the Aramaic terms (e.g., 5.41; 7.34) and Jewish customs (7.3–4) for his audience, he does not explain a number of terms and figures taken from the Old Testament (e.g., Moses and Elijah in 9.2–8). This phenomenon implies that the intended audience of Mark’s Gospel were likely acquainted with the Old Testament to some degree to be able to pick up on the terms and images employed. For further discussion of this matter, see section 1.3 above. On the three different constructs of implied audience, especially authorial audience, see Rabinowitz, “Truth in Fiction,” 121–41 (esp. 126–27), who categorizes the constructs of implied audience as (a) authorial audience, (b) narrative audience, and (c) ideal narrative audience. If Mark was writing his gospel for a Christian audience, as many (including the present writer) suspect, the distance among these categories would have been only minimal. 13 Exodus 23.20 (LXX) reads: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελὸν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ὅπως εἰσαγάγῃ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ἡτοίμασά σοι. The first part of Exod 23.20 (LXX) (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου) is almost the same as Mark 1.2 – except that the Markan account drops καὶ and ἐγώ. Malachi 3.1 itself is possibly a reworking of Exod 23.20 (Watts, “Mark,” 118). Although the wording of Exod 23.20 is closer to Mark 1.2 than that of Mal 3.1, theologically speaking, Mal 3.1 is far more significant than Exod 23.20 in light of (1) its eschatological orientation and (2) its emphasis on the preparation of the way, both of which correspond to the key elements of Mark 1.2–3 (note also 9.11–13; 1.6 in comparison to Mal 4.5 [Elijah]). These two points are found in Isa 40.3 as well (which is quoted in Mark 1.3) and in that manner Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3 appear to be linked with each other thematically (Watts, “Mark,” 113–14; 119–20).

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

201

fore/ahead of you [πρὸ προσώπου σου].”14 These changes together reflect a christological interest. For Mark the Evangelist, the messenger (v. 2) is John the Baptist in light of the following verses (see esp. vv. 4, 7); “I” is God; and “you,” the addressee, is Jesus, Mark’s messiah (cf. 1.1). Therefore, “your way” indicates the way of Jesus and “before/ahead of you” means before/ahead of Jesus. The “way” that belongs to God in Mal 3.1 now belongs to Jesus, and the preparatory task in anticipation of God in Mal 3.1 becomes one awaiting Jesus in Mark 1.2.15 The adjustments made to the quotation of Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3, as found in Mark 1.2–3, aim to appropriate for Jesus the expressions applied to God in these Old Testament texts. Through such adjustments, Jesus is linked directly and inseparably with the God of Isa 40.3 and Mal 3.1. In light of the application of the God-language to Jesus, Jesus the Messiah (Mark 1.1) is presented as someone whose identity fundamentally corresponds to that of Israel’s God – even from the outset of the Second Gospel.16 Although Mark’s Gospel, which employs a narrative genre, does not make a propositional statement about the correspondence between their identities, the appropriation of Old Testament God-language and images for Jesus from the opening of the book implies such 14

The latter change can be explained by the conflation of Mal 3.1 with Exod 23.20 (πρὸ προσώπου σου). The conflation of Mal 3.1 and Exod 23.20 is attested in Exod. Rab. 32.9 and Deut. Rab. 11.9 (Marcus, Way, 12–17 [13n4]). Precisely speaking, Deut. Rab. 11.9 combines Exod 23.20 with Mal 4.5 rather than Mal 3.1. However, Mal 3.1 and 4.5 are proximate enough to each other, thus providing a literary context for each other. More importantly, both verses address God’s commission of a messenger figure. Marcus argues plausibly that it is the Evangelist himself who reorganized the combination of the Old Testament scriptures as they stand in Mark 1.2–3. See Marcus, Way, 12–17. If, however, the organization of the combined Old Testament verses in Mark 1.2–3 is preMarkan, the Evangelist is still responsible for following the already established combination. Among the three combined scriptures, Mark names only “Isaiah” (1.2) although Malachi 3.1 is referred to prior to Isa 40.3. This phenomenon probably indicates the theological importance of Isaiah (esp. Isa 40–55) in Mark’s Gospel, as Watts (Isaiah’s New Exodus) and Marcus (Way, chap. 2) have argued. 15 Mark 1.2–3 portrays a scene where God speaks to Jesus who is called κύριος just as the God of Israel is in Isa 40.3 in some transcendent setting (cf. Mark 12.36), at least at the narrative level. That God speaks to “the Lord” indicates that for Mark these two are not flatly identified and that one does not replace the other. Despite the extension of the κύριος language from one to the other, these two are distinguished from each other (see also section 5.1.2 below). 16 Given that the appropriation of the God-language from Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3 for Jesus (Mark 1.2–3) precedes his baptism (v. 11) in the narrative of the Second Gospel, the widely accepted view of Mark’s adoption Christology (e.g., Wrede, Messianic Secret, 73; cf. Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 84) needs to be re-examined. See also the discussion in Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 295–321. For a recent criticism of adoptionist Christology employed in the description of the New Testament (and especially Markan) portrayals of Jesus, see Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son, in which chaps. 3–4, in particular, focus on Mark’s Gospel.

202

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

a notion (Mal 3.1; Isa 40.3 [quoted in Mark 1.2–3]).17 Various terms and images employed in the rest of Mark’s Gospel, including those that link Jesus with God (section 5.1.1) and those that differentiate Jesus from God (section 5.1.2), should be understood in light of these opening verses since they establish a horizon for the rest of Mark’s story about Jesus.18 This overlap between Jesus and God through the κύριος language in 1.3 (cf. Isa 40.3) is found again in 5.19–20 but in a more narrative manner. Jesus says to the man who was formerly possessed by thousands of demons to tell his friends “how much the Lord [ὁ κύριος, which refers to God in its literary context] has done” for him (v.19). This man, however, goes out and proclaims, “how much Jesus [ὁ Ἰησοῦς] ha[s] done for him” (v. 20). The interchange between 5.19 and v. 20 and, in particular, the interchange between “the Lord [ὁ κύριος]” and “Jesus [ὁ Ἰησοῦς]” has basically the same force as the utilization of the Old Testament God-language for Jesus in 1.3, which is to link Jesus (5.20) with God (v. 19) directly and inseparably by extending the κύριος language to Jesus. Jesus refers to God, and not himself, as ὁ κύριος in v.19. Yet, the Evangelist situates Jesus in the place of that ὁ κύριος immediately in v. 20, thus binding the identity of Jesus with that of God and presenting Jesus to be one with Israel’s God.19 In Mark 12.36–37, the κύριος language is used analogously to 1.3 and 5.19– 20. The phrase εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου (12.36; Ps 110.1) links God and Jesus with the same κύριος epithet. At the same time, the two are distinguished when one (κύριος) appears to speak to the other (τῷ κυρίῳ μου) just as in the

17

Of course, Mark’s choice of a narrative genre to communicate “the good news of Jesus Christ (1.1)” precludes, to some degree, a place for a propositional statement. Collins (Mark, 134–37) sees Mark 1.2–3 mainly as an introduction to John the Baptist. However, more attention should be given to the christological significance of Mark 1.2–3 in light of the following: (1) the heading (1.1: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God”), which implies the christological nature of the entire gospel account; (2) the overall function of 1.2–8, that is, to lead the audience to the introduction of the main character of the narrative, i.e., Jesus, in 1.9–11 (and the following verses); (3) the limited role of John Baptist as the herald and not as the one heralded (note the double use of “preparation” language in 1.2–3); and (4) John the Baptist’s radical subordination to Jesus (vv. 7–8). See also Watts, “Mark,” 119. 18 If Marcus (Way, 12–47) and Watts (Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark) are right that Mark’s Old Testament citations consider their original literary context, phrases such as “here is your God” and “see the Lord GOD comes with might” in Isa 40.9–10 reinforce the high-christological nature of the quotation of Isa 40.3 in Mark 1.3, which appropriates Isaiah’s divine κύριος language for Jesus. For the application of the Old Testament divine epithet κύριος to Jesus, see also, e.g., Rom 10.13 and Acts 2.21, both of which quote Joel 2.32 (= 3.5 MT/LXX). 19 See also Stein, Mark, 259, 261.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

203

transcendent scene of 1.2–3.20 The two Old Testament scriptures quoted in these Markan passages, Isa 40.3 (in Mark 1.3) and Ps 110.1 (in Mark 12.36), both employ the κύριος epithet for God and let Jesus share that epithet (1.3; 12.36). Mark 12.36 must be read in light of 1.2–3, not only because 1.2–3 sets the context for the gospel as a whole but also because the two scenes are similar to each other in meaningful ways.21 Both feature God speaking to Jesus in an “off-stage”22 setting, and both apply the κύριος epithet, used of God in the Old Testament, to Jesus.23 As discussed earlier in chapter 3, the Christianized use of Ps 110.1 in Mark 12.36 and 14.62 portrays Jesus as a heavenly co-regent who participates in God’s cosmic sovereignty. The emphasis in employing Ps 110.1 in Mark is, primarily, to bind Jesus with God rather than to differentiate the two by presenting Jesus as one participating in God’s unique sovereignty.24 It is especially the case when the phrase “the Lord said to my Lord [εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου]” (12.36; cf. Ps 110.1) is read in light of (1) the common κύριος language that binds Jesus and God (Mark 12.36–37) and (2) how the term κύριος was appropriated for Jesus at the beginning of the gospel (1.3), which, just as in 12.36, quotes the Old Testament and portrays a transcendent scene where God speaks to Jesus. It is all the more remarkable that Mark 1.3, which cites “the way of the Lord” (Isa 40.3), quotes from one of the most distinctly monotheistic portions of the Old Testament, namely Isa 40–55. By extending the κύριος epithet to Jesus at the beginning of his narrative (Mark 1.3), the Evangelist interfaces exclusive monotheism and divine Christology. It seems fitting for Mark to ascribe to Jesus the κύριος epithet taken directly from a section of Isaiah known for its monotheistic emphasis in the opening passage that pictures God speaking to Jesus (1.2–3) since he will similarly present a monotheistic passage (Deut 6.4– 5 in Mark 12.28–34 [esp. vv. 29–30, 32–33]) immediately before attributing the κύριος epithet to Jesus, once again, with God speaking to Jesus (12.36). The current section has examined 1.2–3; 5.19–20; and 12.36–37. Although these passages have unique features that differentiate them from one another, 20 Psalm 110.1 MT uses two different words: ‫ יהוה‬and ‫אדון‬. The current discussion focuses on the Greek of Mark 12.36, where Jesus and God share the term κύριος (cf. Ps 109.1 LXX). Hengel makes an interesting suggestion that the same phenomenon may be found in the Hebrew text, according to the Qere reading of Ps 110.1 (Studies in Early Christology, 223). 21 For the importance of these two texts’ use of κύριος as well as others’ in the Markan narrative, see Johansson, “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark.” 22 The term, “off-stage,” is borrowed from Boring, “God-Language,” 452, 464, 469. See also Heb 1.13, which employs Ps 110.1 for an off-stage scene where God speaks to Jesus. 23 Thanks to the late Professor Martin Hengel for drawing my attention further to the significance of Mark 1.3 in interpreting 12.35–37 in a personal discussion at his home in Tübingen, Germany in the spring of 2009, which was shortly before his death as I look back now. 24 See the discussion in sections 3.3.3 and 3.4.1–3.

204

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

it is clear that Mark’s emphasis in employing the Old Testament God-language in these passages (esp. the κύριος language) is primarily to present Jesus as inseparably linked with and as one with Israel’s God. 5.1.1.2 Mark 4.35–41: Jesus Silences the Sea Mark 4.35–41 narrates Jesus’ silencing of a windstorm, in which Jesus rebukes the wind and the sea, and it becomes completely calm. The disciples are astounded, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (v. 41). This miracle evokes the Old Testament image of the sea as the rebellious waters of chaos that God rebukes (Pss 89.9; 65.7; 104.5–9; Job 26.10–12; 38.8– 11; cf. Ps 46.3).25 Psalm 65.7 reads, “[God] silence[s] the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, the tumult of the peoples. Job 26.12 similarly claims: “By his power [God] stilled the Sea.” Among these Old Testament scriptures highlighting God’s control over the rebellious sea, Ps 89 (Ps 88 [LXX]) appears to be a particularly interesting passage for the current discussion, especially in light of its immediately surrounding verses that correspond to the Markan passage (4.35–41). Psalm 88.9 (LXX) reads, “O LORD God of hosts, who is as mighty as you, O LORD [LXX: τίς ὅμοιός σοι δυνατὸς εἶ κύριε]? Your faithfulness surrounds you.” The disciples’ question in Mark 4.41 (τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν …?) is similar to the question in Ps 88.9 (LXX), which is imbued with monotheistic rhetoric. Both questions (Mark 4.41; Ps 88.9 [LXX]) are identity-sensitive (note “who [τίς]” in both questions), and these “who” questions are related to a specific kind of authority – the authority over the rebellious sea (Ps 88.9 [LXX]; Mark 4.41). Further, the motif of awe appears in both passages. Mark 4.41 begins, “And they were filled with great awe [καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν].” A description of awe also occurs in Ps 89.6b–7 (88.7b–8 [LXX]), “Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD, a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him?” The difference is that God is seen to be feared among the heavenly council according to the Psalmist while Jesus is feared among his council – his disciples – according to the Evangelist. To be sure, these observations do not necessarily establish the case that Mark used Ps 89 (Ps 88 [LXX]) consciously in composing 4.35–41, though it is not entirely improbable. The points made above, however, provide a foundation for maintaining that Mark portrays Jesus in a way similar to how the Psalmist

25 Cf. Enuma Elish (Mesopotamian Creation Myth), especially the scene of Marduk’s defeat of Tiamat. For the comparative discussion of Enuma Elish alongside some Psalms and the book of Job with respect to the divinity’s cosmic rule, see Janzen, “On the Moral Nature of God’s Power,” 458–78 (esp. 458–69). On God’s victory over the powers of sea, Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and Sea; cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

205

describes God in Ps 89 (Ps 88 [LXX]), namely, as one who has authority over the rebellious sea and brings reverent fear as Israel’s God does.26 When Mark 4.35–41 is read against the background of Ps 89 (Ps 88 [LXX]) and related passages that portray the power to silence the rebellious sea as God’s unique authority (Pss 65.7; 104.5–9; Job 26.10–12; 38.8–11), the disciples’ response, “Who then is this …?” which follows Jesus’ silencing of the windstorm, seems to point to Jesus’ identity in direct and inseparable linkage to God. In other words, Mark 4.35–41 links Jesus with God by utilizing for Jesus an Old Testament image of God as the one controlling the rebellious waters of chaos. 5.1.1.3 Mark 6.45–52: Jesus Walks on the Sea In Mark 6.48, Jesus walks on the sea. Mark 6.45–52 displays several commonalities with 4.35–41 in the sense that Jesus exercises authority over the sea (note esp. 4.39; 6.51) and rescues his troubled disciples (4.37–38; 6.48) in both passages.27 It is unnecessary to explore these common elements between the two passages in light of the discussion in the preceding section (5.1.1.2).28 In addition to the element of a miraculous sea rescue by the uniquely authoritative Jesus, Mark 6.45–52 contains another significant feature. While the focus of 4.35–41 is primarily on Jesus’ authority to still the rebellious sea, 6.45–52 blends29 this portrayal of Jesus’ authority with the scene of his “epiphanic” walking on the sea (περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης [v. 48]).30 That said,

26 For the view that Jesus’ silencing of the storm can be explained by Jesus’ identity as an eschatological Davidic figure, see Kirk and Young, “‘I Will Set His Hand to the Sea’,” 333–40. While Kirk and Young’s interpretation is not entirely impossible, it seems that the parallels between the response to Jesus in Mark (4.41) and the response to God in the psalm cannot be easily dismissed. See also section 5.1.1.7 below for my criticism of the idealized humanity paradigm which Kirk proposes for understanding Synoptic Christology. 27 For the discussion of Jesus’ sea crossing in Mark 6.45–52, see Madden, Jesus’ Walking on the Sea, which focuses substantially on the history of research, and Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, which concentrates considerably on exegetical matters. 28 Concerning the similarities between 4.35–41 and 6.45–52, see Marcus, Mark 1–8, 428. Cf. Collins, Mark, 335–36, who sees the wind in the story of 6.45–52 as generated for the revelation of Jesus’ identity in the epiphanic story of Jesus’ walking on the sea. Nevertheless, the description of the disciples’ trouble with sea wind and Jesus’ walking as a direct response to it (6.48) indicate that 6.45–52, too, has the nature of a rescue story. The scene of rescue (v. 51), in light of v. 48, seems to imply Jesus’ authority over the windstorm just as in 4.35– 41. The combination of epiphany and miraculous rescue through the epiphany is found also in Acts 5.17–25; 12.3–19. 29 Cf. Bultmann, History, 216. 30 Heil defines the genre of epiphany as “a sudden and unexpected manifestation of a divine or heavenly being experienced by certain selected persons, in which the divine being reveals a divine attribute, action or message” (Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 8).

206

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

the disciples’ trouble with the windstorm is described in a brief and general manner relative to their struggle vividly portrayed in the former passage (esp. 4.37–38). What stands out in the story of 6.45–52 is Jesus’ epiphanic crossing of the sea on foot and the disciples’ terror-filled response (ἐταράχθησαν [v. 50]), a response that is not unusual in epiphanic scenes (cf. Luke 24.38–41).31 While there are various suggestions for potential backgrounds of the scene of Jesus’ walking on the sea,32 the doxological section of Job 9.4–11 seems especially noteworthy. Job 9.8 says, “[God] alone stretched out the heavens and trampled [περιπατῶν (LXX)] the waves of the Sea.” Here, the divine uniqueness rhetoric (note the word “alone” [LXX: μόνος]) connects with God’s action of walking upon the waves – something Jesus himself performed according to Mark 6.48. Isaiah 43.16 describes God as one “who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters”33 and Ps 77.19 proclaims, “[God’s] way was through the sea, [God’s] path, through the mighty waters,” both in recalling Exod 14–15. Nevertheless, these passages portray God as parting the water so that his people may walk on the dry land rather than he himself walking on the sea, as portrayed in Job 9.8.34 The possibility of the allusion to Job 9.4–11 seems to increase when one considers the phrases in Mark 6.48–49 alongside Job 9.11. In particular, the “enigmatic”35 scene of Mark 6.48–49 (“He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost”) seems notably similar to Job 9.11 (“Look, [God] passes by me, and I do not see him; he moves on, but I do not perceive him”).36 What is especially noteworthy in the comparison of Mark 6.48–49 to Job 9.11 is that, in both passages, the action of “passing-by [παρέρχομαι]” (Job 9.11: παρέλθῃ; Mark 6.48: παρελθεῖν) is related to the lack of perception (on the disciples’/Job’s part). Overall, there are three notable commonalities between Marcus notes that in the LXX παρελθεῖν, the verb used in Mark 6.48, has become nearly a technical expression for divine epiphany. Note Dan 12.1 and Gen 32.31–32, both of which add this verb that is absent in MT (Marcus, Mark 1–8, 426). For further discussion on the epiphanic aspects of Mark 6.45–52, see Collins, Mark, 327, 333–36. 31 The verb ταράσσω is used in the epiphanic scenes of Gen 19.16 LXX; Dan 2.1; 7.15 LXX. See also the discussion in Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark, 128– 34 (131). 32 Suggestions include both Old Testament and Greco-Roman examples (see Collins, Mark, 328ff.). The former appears to be more important than the latter in understanding Mark 6.45–52 since the motif of revelation tends to be absent in the latter – the very motif that is crucial in this Markan passage (cf. Gnilka, Markus, 1:269). 33 See also Isa 51.10. 34 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 71. 35 Matthew and John omit the comment that Jesus was going to pass by his disciples probably due to the enigmatic nature of the verse (see Matt 14.22–33; John 6.16–21). Luke does not contain a parallel account to Mark 6.45–52. 36 Lane, Mark, 236; Guelich, Mark, 351: “Job 9.8, 11 LXX offers the closest verbal parallel.”

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

207

Mark 6 and Job 9 as follows: (1) the vivid picture of Jesus/God walking on the sea (Mark 6.48; Job 9.8), and (2) the portrayal of Jesus/God passing by, in relation to (3) the description of the lack of perception on the part of the disciples/Job (Mark 6.48–49; Job 9.11). Jesus walks on the sea as God does; however, when he passes by, the disciples do not recognize him just as Job is unable to perceive when God passes by him. Although these similarities do not necessarily guarantee that the Evangelist deliberately used Job 9 in composing Mark 6.45–52 or that his audience was able to connect the two passages directly, these commonalities imply that the Markan Evangelist presents Jesus in a manner corresponding to Israel’s God as portrayed in Job 9. Again, it should also be noted that Mark’s presentation of Jesus in 6.45–52 includes the description of Jesus’ unique authority over the sea (cf. section 5.1.1.2), as implied in 6.51: “Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded.” Furthermore, in the comment on Jesus’ “passing by” (Mark 6.48), Exod 33.17–23 and 34.6 is likely in view, where God “passes by” Moses (note Exod 33.19 [παρελεύσομαι]; v. 22 [παρέλθῃ and παρέλθω]; 34.6 [παρῆλθεν]; cf. 1 Kgs 19.11 [παρελεύσεται]) to spare Moses’ life as God reveals his divine glory.37 If these passages were also in view in the description of Jesus’ “passing by” (Mark 6.48), it would imply that Jesus’ appearance to the disciples in this passage is analogous to the theophany that Moses experienced as portrayed in the relevant Old Testament scriptures. Further, the use of ἐγώ εἰμι in 6.50 seems to have some significance in understanding the story of Mark 6.45–52, as there is likely a christological double entendre with the use of the bipartite phrase in v. 50, to which the discussion will now turn. 5.1.1.4 Ἐγώ Εἰμι (6.50) and the “Name” of Jesus (9.38–39) Ἐγώ εἰμι is used for God in the LXX (Deut 32.39; cf. Exod 3.14; 14.4, 18) and appears to be a set reference to God in Isa 40–55 (41.4; 43.10–11, 13; 46.4; 48.12; 51.12). God reveals himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM [ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν]” in Exod 3.14. God interprets his identity in Isa 41.4: “I, God, the first and to all futurity, I AM [LXE; ἐγὼ θεὸς πρῶτος καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ἐγώ εἰμι].” God declares to Israel in Isa 43.10: “You are my witnesses, says the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he [γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες κἀγὼ μάρτυς λέγει κύριος ὁ

37 See Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:361; Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 69–72; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 426.

208

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

θεός καὶ ὁ παῖς ὃν ἐξελεξάμην ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι] (NRSV).”38 To be sure, the use of ἐγώ εἰμι itself does not guarantee a divine significance of the referent. The two-part expression must be situated in certain contexts for such a significance to be validated. There are incidents in the LXX where the phrase is used simply for human beings referring to themselves (see Judg 5.3 [2x]; 11.35, 37; Ruth 4.4).39 Accordingly, the Markan use of the ἐγώ εἰμι phrase for Jesus (6.50; 13.6; 14.62) does not itself certify his divine significance.40 Within Mark 6.45–52, however, the expression does not seem to function only as Jesus’ self-reference that assures his terrified disciples. Though the use of this expression as a double entendre is far less likely in 13.6 and 14.62, the divine significance does seem present in 6.50.41 While noting that the bipartite phrase, ἐγώ εἰμι, functions as a necessary part of 6.45–52 – as Jesus’ assuring words for the troubled disciples (v. 50) – one should not preclude too quickly a possibility of high christological significance that comes with the phrase.42 Given (a) the application to Jesus of divine authority to still the sea wind (something reserved for God alone in the OT) and (b) Jesus’ epiphanic walking and passing by on the sea within the pericope, the expression ἐγώ εἰμι most likely communicates to Mark’s audience Jesus’ unique identity, which is bound with that of Israel’s God, to whom Isaiah (LXX) refers repeatedly as ἐγώ εἰμι.43 Moreover, (c) the use of ἐγώ εἰμι as the majestic “name” or self-declaration of God in Isa 40–55 (LXX), which plays a vital role in Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ identity and ministry as signaled in Mark’s opening (with 1.2 naming 38 It is interesting that μὴ φοβεῖσθε, the phrase immediately following ἐγώ εἰμι in Mark 6.50, appears in Isa 40–55 as well. See esp. Isa 40.9 LXX; cf. the similar expression in 44.2; 54.4 LXX (μὴ φοβοῦ). 39 Collins, Mark, 335n111. 40 Mark employs the ἐγώ εἰμι phrase in three places in his narrative (6.50; 13.6; 14.62). In all of the three occasions, ἐγώ εἰμι serves Jesus to make a self-reference. In 6.50 Jesus comforts his fear-filled disciples by informing that what they see is not a ghost, but Jesus himself: “it is I [ἐγώ εἰμι].” In 13.6, Jesus predicts the appearance of false messiahs, “Many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he [ἐγώ εἰμι]!’” (cf. vv. 21–22). Finally, in 14.62, Jesus gives an affirmative answer to the question of the high priest, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (v. 61): “I am [ἐγώ εἰμι]” (v. 62). Within each of these three passages, ἐγώ εἰμι fits perfectly as a natural component of the story. 41 Regarding the use of ἐγώ εἰμι in Mark 13.6, it is clear that imposters appear to claim to be the messiah and not God. As for the ἐγώ εἰμι phrase in 14.62, see my discussion in section 3.3.3 above, where I questioned the possibility of finding a divine significance from the bipartite phrase. 42 For the use of double entendre with ἐγώ εἰμι in John’s Gospel, see John 4.26; 8.24, 28, 58; 13.19; 18.5, 8. For the discussion on the use of ἐγώ εἰμι with a divine significance in these Johannine passages, see C. Williams, I Am He, 255–303. 43 See Gundry, Mark, 337; Lohmeyer, Markus, 134; Gnilka, Marcus, 1:270; Schenke, Markusevangelium, 177–78; Blackburn, Theios Anēr, 148ff.; cf. Collins, Mark, 334–35.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

209

“Isaiah” and 1.3 quoting part of Isa 40–55, i.e., 40.3),44 and (d) the application of several Old Testament instances of God-language to Jesus up to this point in the narrative (see, e.g., 1.2–3; 2.7; 4.35–41), seem to add further weight to the possibility of double entendre with the use of ἐγώ εἰμι in 6.50. The unique value of Jesus’ name is noteworthy alongside the discussion of ἐγώ εἰμι, that is, the “name” of God in the LXX appropriated for Jesus in Mark 6.50. Mark 9.38–39 introduces the use of Jesus’ name, in particular, in an exorcism: John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name [ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου], and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name [ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου] will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.”45

The use of Jesus’ name in an exorcism in Mark 9.38–39 seems to imply “a view of Jesus as possessing transcendent authority that can be mediated through his name, which thus functioned in a way similar to a divine name.”46 Alongside the ἐγώ εἰμι phrase in 6.50, the “name” of Jesus appears to possess certain divine value in Mark’s narrative (9.38–39; see also 3.15; 6.7, v. 13a).47 5.1.1.5 Jesus as the Elector of the Reconstituted, Eschatological Israel (Mark 3.13–19; 13.27) The portrayal of Jesus as the elector of the Twelve in Mark 3.13–19 resonates with the portrayal of God as the sovereign elector of Israel.48 Mark 3.13 reads, “He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted [προσκαλεῖται οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός], and they came to him.” Two words, “called” and “wanted,” together intensify Jesus’ unique role in election.49 Here, it is

44

Cf. Marcus, Way, 12–47; Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. The use of Jesus’ name in an exorcism is also found in the longer ending of Mark (16.17: “by using my name they will cast out demons [ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐκβαλοῦσιν]”). 46 Hurtado, How on Earth, 157. For a detailed discussion on the name of Jesus in the New Testament, see Ruck-Schröder, Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesus. Cf. Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 108–111. 47 Cf. Mark 9.41 and 13.13. 48 See, e.g., Deut 7.7–8. Note also the discussion in Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology, 81ff. and the Old Testament passages cited there; cf. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob. 49 Gathercole, Preexistent Son, 55. The verb προσκαλέομαι is used nine times in Mark’s Gospel. Eight out of nine occasions concern Jesus’ invitation (of disciples, crowd, or centurion) (3.23; 6.7; 7.14; 8.1, 34; 10.42; 12.43; 15.44). In 3.13, in particular, however, the verb appears to imply a choice or elective call (cf. Acts 2.39; 13.2; 16.10). Such implication is detected from the description in 3.13 itself that Jesus “called to him those whom he wanted” (emphasis added). 45

210

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

Jesus himself who is the subject of the election as the emphatic αὐτός indicates.50 Mark 3.14 reports that Jesus “appointed twelve.” The number “twelve [δώδεκα]” appears frequently in Mark’s Gospel (3.14, 16; 4.10; 6.7; 9.35; 10.32; 11.11; 14.10, 17, 20, 43).51 In the pericope of Jesus’ installation of the Twelve (3.14), the number symbolically communicates the eschatological reconstitution of Israel.52 The symbolism here is in line with the prophetic and apocalyptic expectation for the reestablishment of the entire nation of Israel (Isa 11.11, 16; 27.12–13; 35.8–10; 49.6, 22; 60.4, 9; 66.20; Ezek 39.27–28; 45.8; Mic 7.12; Sir 36.10ff.; 48.10; Pss. Sol. 11), the eschatological people of God. Jesus then appears to be the one who elects the twelve “tribes” of the eschatological Israel to himself, acting in a manner analogous to the biblical God who, as a sovereign, elected Israel, especially given that Jesus chooses the symbolic Twelve beside himself. Jesus himself is not a part of the Twelve but the one who stands over against the numeric symbol of the reconstituted, eschatological Israel. The action of choosing and installing the Twelve (3.13ff.) then contains an implicit self-assertion for Jesus’ divine status and authority.53 Mark 13.27 is related to 3.13 thematically. Mark 13.27 reads, “Then [the Son of Man] will send out the angels, and gather his elect [τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς] from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” Here, the task of electing the scattered people of God belongs to the Son of Man, who was just mentioned (v. 26).54 Namely, the Son of Man, Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, is

50 Guelich, Mark, 157. That Jesus elects the Twelve to be with him according to his own initiative while rejecting the request of the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5.18–19), again, highlights the choice on Jesus’ part in installing the Twelve. 51 On the number “12,” see the discussion in Guelich, Mark, 158 and the literature cited in ibid., 153–54. The number “12” appears to have been important in earliest Christianity in light of Acts 1.15–26, where the apostles decide to choose someone to replace Judas, one of the original “12” (cf. 1.6). 52 Guelich, Mark, 158; Hooker, Mark, 111; Cranfield, Mark, 127. In Mark’s Gospel, the ingathering of “Israel” includes the Gentiles (13.10; 15.39), crossing the Jewish boundaries (cf. 7.1–23, esp. v. 19). In the first century CE, the Jewish nation of Israel consisted of only two or two and a half tribes. 53 Cf. Hooker, Mark, 111. 54 This position is reinforced if αὐτοῦ in v. 27 is Mark’s original. Nevertheless, even when αὐτοῦ is regarded inauthentic, it seems natural to take the elect as belonging to the Son of Man; the article τούς attached to ἐκλεκτούς functions as possessive pronoun in that case (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 215–216). The majority of MSS (‫ א‬A B C Θ Φ f13 et al.; cf. Matt 24.31; also 13.40–41, 49) have αὐτοῦ while still quite a few MSS such as D L W lack the pronoun. It is not easy to decide which reading is original. If αὐτοῦ is not original, the post-Markan addition of the pronoun reflects how τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς was understood by many scribes and the Evangelist Matthew (24.31). Luke does not contain a parallel in 21.25–28.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

211

seen to be the elector of the eschatological Israel.55 Additionally, one should note that, while it is God who lords over the angels in the Old Testament, it is Jesus who has that lordship in Mark’s Gospel – Jesus himself sends out the angels with a special mission to gather the elect (13.27; cf. 8.38). Based upon the noted points, the overall portrait of Jesus in 13.27 tends to overlap him with the God of the Old Testament. In both 3.13–19 and 13.27, Jesus is seen to be linked inseparably with God as the elector of Israel – the reconstituted, eschatological Israel. 5.1.1.6 Passages on Jesus’ Healing and Exorcism In addition to the passages discussed above, one must note Jesus’ unique authority in healing the sick and in casting out demons. Jesus’ healing in Mark 7.37 is of particular importance. The Markan verse (“They were astounded beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.’”) resonates with Isa 35.5–6 (“Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.”), which is introduced in the context of God’s redemptive coming to save his people (v. 4). The therapeutic power of Jesus manifested for the blind and the deaf in Mark 7.37, especially in light of Isa 35, appears to pair Jesus with God himself.56 In exorcism, Jesus appears to speak and act with his own unique authority without adopting any special technique and without invoking God’s name (see, e.g., Mark 1.23–27).57 In installing the Twelve, Jesus is even seen to be able to give the Twelve the authority to cast out demons (3.15; cf. 6.7), and Jesus’ name is portrayed as containing an exorcising power (9.38–39; cf. 6.13a). These remarkable healing and exorcising incidents tend to imply, again, Jesus’ unique status and authority.58 55

Cf. Evans, Mark, 329–30. In addition, the word μογιλάλον in Mark 7.32 appears only here in the New Testament and it is seen only in Isa 35.6 in the LXX (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 308n127). Blackburn, Theios Anēr, 133–82, argues plausibly that Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ miracles has tendencies to assimilate Jesus with the God of Israel. 57 Cf. Gundry, Mark, 9, 77. 58 There are other noteworthy passages in Mark with reference to Jesus’ unique status and significance. For example, both Mark 5.6 and 15.19 use the word προσκυνέω to describe an action offered to Jesus. In 5.6, a demoniac falls down before Jesus, pleading with Jesus not to torment him. In 15.19, soldiers prostrate themselves before Jesus (to mock the “pseudoking” of the Jews, thus with a dramatic irony). In addition, Mark 1.40; 5.22; 10.17 portray the scenes of people kneeling before Jesus. One cannot preclude a possibility that some early readers of Mark’s Gospel might have read these passages as expressing the worship of Jesus, in connection to their own devotion to Jesus. However, the unique value attached to Jesus in religious practices of Mark’s audience seems to be reflected more vividly in the manner his name is used (9.38–39, 41; 13.13), the institution of the Lord’s Supper (14.22–25), and in 56

212

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

The above discussion in sections 5.1.1.1–5.1.1.6 has concluded that many passages in Mark’s Gospel link Jesus directly and inseparably with God, presenting him on par with Israel’s unique deity. Nevertheless, not all scholars are ready to accept such a conclusion. Significantly and recently, J. R. Daniel Kirk has taken these passages and other pericopes in the Synoptic Gospels to construct something less than divine Christology.59 Since Kirk’s proposal does not just deal with some passages but provides a paradigm for understanding the Synoptic Jesus in specific and less-than-divine terms, his work demands consideration. 5.1.1.7 Response to J. R. Daniel Kirk’s View of a Markan (and Synoptic) High Human Christology In his 2016 book, A Man Attested by God, Kirk presents a stimulating case against many scholars who find a divine Christology in the Synoptic Gospels.60 Kirk argues for the prevalence of “idealized human figures” in early Judaism who, as “non-angelic, non-preexistent human beings,” take on roles typically belonging to Israel’s God alone, thereby representing him to the created world.61 Kirk finds such examples in numerous biblical and Second-Temple Jewish depictions of figures such as Adam, Moses, kings, priests, the Son of Man, and the community of the elect. Kirk spends over 130 pages considering these figures and their exalted or “idealized” portrayals.62 He then examines the Synoptic Jesus from various angles, arguing all along that Synoptic Christology fits entirely within the category of an “idealized human figure,” thereby not requiring a divine Christology to explain the presentation of Jesus in the first three New Testament gospels. Kirk’s examinations include a variety of ways in which he sees Jesus as God’s exalted, human representative, for example, in the use of the designation “Son of God.” 63 According to Kirk, “Son of God” designates an idealized human king fitting within the tradition of Adam and David, set apart to rule the created order on behalf of God.64 Kirk the issues relating to the forgiveness of sins, which is centered on Jesus’ identity and mission (2.1–12; 10.45; 14.24). 59 Kirk, A Man Attested by God. 60 See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 16–38. Among the scholars and their works against which Kirk argues are Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel; Rowe, Early Narrative Christology; Hays, Reading Backwards; Hurtado, One God, One Lord; idem, Lord Jesus Christ; Gathercole, The Preexistent Son; Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels; Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts; idem, All the Glory of Adam. 61 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 3–4 (3). 62 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 1. 63 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 2. Kirk does not capitalize the word, “son,” thus writing “son of God.” I capitalize it here in discussing Kirk’s proposal for the sake of consistency across this monograph. 64 See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 177–79, 258–60.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

213

then turns to consider the epithet “Son of Man,” arguing that it may most profitably be translated as “Human One,” indicating suffering and vindicated humanity (just as in Dan 7), without a sense of divine quality.65 Kirk sees Jesus’ unique birth described by Matthew and Luke as signs confirming Jesus’ royal identification and regards his resurrection as the messianic return to the rule that belonged to humanity in the beginning.66 Jesus’ miracles are appreciated, not as expressions of inherent deity but as the activity of an idealized human exercising divine power as God’s representative.67 Lastly, Kirk examines the Synoptic authors’ intertextual use of scripture, arguing that the ways the first three Evangelists employ scriptures show that Jesus plays the part of God, without necessitating that he is presented as divine himself.68 Kirk argues throughout that Jesus, as portrayed in the first three gospels, need not be understood in divine terms in any essential sense but should be seen as an idealized human being. Kirk contends for what he calls a “high, human Christology” – a middle option between (a) a “low” Christology where Jesus is merely a human with no special transcendent characteristics, and (b) a “divine Christology” where Jesus possesses the status and significance of God.69 It must be noted that Kirk’s proposal provides a rich window through which to view the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus is, indeed, comparable in numerous ways to idealized or exalted human representatives of God who enact his rule on earth. However, Kirk’s overall case, namely that Jesus should be understood as an idealized human and only as such in the Synoptic Gospels, must be rejected for several reasons. While Kirk’s case concerns the Synoptic accounts together, the discussion below will focus primarily on Mark’s Gospel, which is the focus of this monograph. First, Kirk’s parameters for what constitutes an idealized human figure are not fixed.70 As a result, he is able to fit even the most striking material about Jesus within his proposed category together with other alleged “antecedents.”71

65

Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 3. Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 4. 67 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 5. 68 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 6. 69 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 3–4. 70 See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 175–76, 568–69. 71 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 174. According to Kirk, Matthew’s Gospel “might appear to have broken through the bounds of humanness” (ibid., 258), but the framework of Jesus as idealized human holds in Kirk’s estimation. Two passages in Matthew, namely the so-called Johannine thunderbolt in Matt 11.27 and Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in Matthew 16.17, indicate that God alone knows Jesus’ true identity and reveals it to whom he will. However, this identity, according to Kirk, involves Jesus’ messianic role in salvation, not ontological preexistence (A Man Attested by God, 242–46). For 66

214

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

To use Kirk’s own words, his category is “sufficiently broad.”72 One is, however, led to wonder whether Kirk’s case is conditioned by his own paradigm rather than a careful exegetical work on the Synoptic passages. In Mark’s Gospel, for instance, the figures that can be called idealized human beings, such as Moses and Elijah (Mark 9.2–8; pars. Matt 17.1–9//Luke 9.28– 36) and David (Mark 12.35–37; pars. Matt 22.41–46//Luke 20.41–44) seem to be depicted in different and lesser categories as compared to Jesus. In the transfiguration pericope, only Jesus – not Moses or Elijah – shines with heavenly glory (Mark 9.3) and is called by God, “my Son, the Beloved,” to whom alone Peter, James, and John are commanded to listen (9.7).73 Likewise, in the David’s son passage (12.35–37), Jesus, and not David, is depicted to be exalted at God’s right in heaven.74 The broadness of Kirk’s idealized humanity category, though convenient for his purposes, seems misleading as it blurs these distinctions between Jesus and other exalted figures of Second Temple Judaism (Moses, Elijah, and David), all of whom Kirk includes within the single category of idealized humanity. Kirk overlooks the radical relativization of such figures as compared to Jesus in these Synoptic passages.75

a noteworthy argument that the Synoptics, too, understand Jesus as preexistent, see Gathercole, The Preexistent Son. Significantly, Kirk considers that Mark 2.1–12 might be taken as irony from the reader’s perspective who knows Jesus’ divinity, but Kirk still suggests that it is not the point of the given passage (A Man Attested by God, 275). Here, Kirk seems to underestimate the importance of irony in the composition and interpretation of the Second Gospel, thus dismissing its importance too quickly with reference to understanding Mark 2.1–12. For a helpful discussion on the use of irony in the Second Gospel, see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark's Gospel. 72 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 568, 69. 73 Hurtado, “Jesus in the Gospels.” See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 77–87 for Moses as an idealized human figure, and 87–91, 93–96 for Elijah as an idealized human figure. 74 Hurtado, “Jesus in the Gospels.” For David (and Solomon) as idealized human figures, see Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 96–110. For idealized kings, see ibid., 96–120. 75 Related to the looseness of Kirk’s idealized human figure category, a sufficiently clear definition of key terms such as “divine/divinity,” “worship,” “identification/identified,” “identity,” and “divine identity” is lacking in Kirk’s account. In what sense these terms apply ontological or functional divinity and the extent to which they may be applied to “idealized humans” is at times unclear. For example, Kirk differentiates “sharing in the divine identity” from the “inherent identity of God” (Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 174). Such terminological confusion or at least the lack of clarity in the use of key terms weakens the explanatory capability of Kirk’s idealized humanity proposal. Such lack of clarity also seems to have led Kirk to misunderstand other scholars at times. See, e.g., Bauckham’s complaints about Kirk’s (mis)understanding of his divine identity scheme in Bauckham, “Is High Human Christology Sufficient?”; idem, “A Case for High Human Christology;” cf. Capes, “Review of A Man Attested by God,” 444, which complains of Kirk’s misrepresentation of other scholars who find a divine Christology from the Synoptic Gospels.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

215

To make the same critique from a slightly different angle, one may note that Kirk’s thesis is reductionistic. While the Synoptic Jesus fits in a number of ways what Kirk describes as an “idealized human figure,” his desire to confine Jesus to this category causes him to downplay the significance of passages that point to Jesus’ divine status and significance.76 Kirk himself acknowledges that, at times, Matthew’s depiction of Jesus could be seen to go beyond his category of idealized humanity (e.g., Matt 1.23 [“‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us.’”]; cf. 28.20).77 From the outset of his book, Kirk admits that Matthew’s Christology “takes turns that might step beyond the category of idealized human figure.”78 Nevertheless, Kirk persistently holds to his proposed system of idealized human figures and somehow hopes that Matthew’s Christology still does not damage his case. Such persistence may indicate that Kirk’s concern to assign the label of idealized human figure to cover all Synoptic texts outweighs his commitment to careful exegesis. Kirk does not seem to give adequate attention to the possibility that Synoptic Christology could be more complicated and even paradoxical than he allows (namely, presenting Jesus as human – even an idealized human – and, at the same time, transcending that status).79 Thus, Kirk appears to end up with a onesided, monolithic account for Synoptic Christology.80 Second, the intensity of divine attributes and functions applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament) in a highly focused manner (see section 5.1.1 for the case with reference to Mark’s Gospel) is unprecedented in Second Temple Jewish literature and differentiates Jesus from Kirk’s other idealized human figures.81 The passages that Kirk references to support his case of idealized humanity describe various exalted humans and their exercise of divine function(s) based upon a verse, passage, or section.82 By contrast, in each of the Synoptic Gospels, one finds a singular, fixed figure (i.e., Jesus) who is the focus of the entire book (i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 76

Here, my use of the term “divine” indicates the notion of being one with Israel’s God, not only in roles but also, in some meaningful sense, in status. 77 See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 573–74. 78 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 7. 79 For paradox as a feature of Mark’s Gospel, see Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox.” Refer also to my discussion of Mark’s paradoxical Christology in section 5.2.5.2 below. 80 Similarly, Derek Tovey suggests that Kirk could be setting up a false dichotomy between divine and human Christology (Tovey, “Review of J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God,” 4). 81 For this argument about the unprecedented intensity of divine attributes and functions applied to Jesus in Mark, see also Johansson, “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark,” 207. 82 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, chap. 1 (cf. p. 490 for Kirk’s mention of the alleged Qumran precedents for Old Testament God-language applied to Jesus in the New).

216

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

respectively). From that angle alone, it seems clear that interests in idealized human figures in the Second Temple period, to which Kirk pays attention in his study, cannot be true precedents to the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus. Third, Kirk does not seem to demonstrate that his loosely defined “idealized human beings” constituted a set category sufficiently recognized within firstcentury Judaism; still less does Kirk demonstrate that such a category was utilized by the Synoptic Evangelists. For instance, Mark 2.7 (“Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?” [pars. Matt 9.3//Luke 5.21]) shows that the scribes’ reaction to Jesus’ utterance of forgiveness (Mark 2.5 [pars. Matt 9.2//Luke 5.20]) rests on the fact that God, and no other figure, can forgive. One would think that the scribes (i.e., Mark’s employed characters) would not have jumped to such a drastic conclusion for Jesus’ actions, accusing him as a blasphemer, had the Markan Evangelist recognized the set category of idealized human figure and utilized it for his Jesus, as Kirk does. The category of idealized human figure was not something with which these scribes were familiar, at least according to Mark’s narration. Kirk’s solution to this text, namely that Jesus is simply enacting God’s reign on earth and that it is this very element that the scribes have failed to grasp, seems to complicate matters unnecessarily and avoid the plain meaning of the passage and especially the thrust of the scribes’ question in Mark 2.7, “Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”83 Fourth, if indeed the Synoptists were emphasizing Jesus’ (idealized) humanity exclusively unlike other New Testament writers (e.g., John and the author of Hebrews) and especially an earlier writer like Paul, just as Kirk suggests, there must then be a reason for such exclusivity.84 While Kirk admits that other New Testament writers stress Jesus’ divinity unlike the Synoptic authors, it is never substantiated in Kirk’s account why the Synoptists were then obligated to focus exclusively on Jesus’ humanity, isolating themselves from the norm of other New Testament authors. Overall, it seems artificial that 83

Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 273–81 for his treatment of Mark 2.1–12, and 281–83 for the Matthean and Lukan parallels. Kirk further suggests that Jesus’ authority to forgive, in fact, extends to Jesus’ own followers in order to demonstrate that God’s forgiveness is to be enacted within the community of believers. Kirk points to Mark 11.25, where Jesus tells his disciples to forgive, in order that their “father” might forgive them (214–15, 279). The filial relationship shows first Jesus’ role as king and then the community’s role by extension, and is seen in idealized figures such as Adam, David, and Israel as a whole (ibid., 214–17). Kirk’s view that the community extends Jesus’ forgiveness, however, ignores some key details. For instance, the issue of who has the authority to forgive sins, so critical for Mark 2.1– 12, is a non-issue in 11.25. Instead, 11.25 concerns the disciples’ need to reconcile and restore their own relationships with others through forgiveness so that God, too, might forgive them. Whereas 2.1–12 presents Jesus as possessing an ultimate authority to forgive sins, which overlaps with that of Israel’s unique God (v. 7), 11.25 portrays the disciples as standing in need of divine forgiveness; the disciples’ forgiving others is presented as a means/condition of their receiving God’s ultimate pardoning. 84 See Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 15–16.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

217

the Synoptic Gospels, unlike other writings in the New Testament, are entirely void of any meaningful sense of divine Christology. Along these lines, Elizabeth Shively notes that Kirk’s decision to exclude what other early (i.e., first-century) Christian witnesses concluded about Jesus is strange and produces an incomplete and artificial background in engaging the first three gospels.85 In other words, Kirk’s case seems to be historically implausible no matter how interesting and stimulating it may sound. Kirk is seen to ignore the knowledge and insights about Jesus most likely shared between the Synoptic authors and their respective original audiences, along with the followers of Jesus surrounding their own generation in the first century. Fifth, Kirk’s understanding of Old Testament God-language appropriated for Jesus is inadequate. In other words, Kirk does not have a reasonable case for refuting the Synoptists’ attribution of divine status and significance to Jesus through christological appropriation of Old Testament God-language. Kirk argues that Old Testament God-language applied to Jesus does not have to signify his divinity because such application had “precedents” with idealized human figures as found in a few texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.86 The texts that Kirk cites as precedents are (1) 1QpHab (= Habakkuk Pesher) VIII, 1–3, where loyalty is expressed to the “Teacher of Righteousness” in a manner seemingly consistent with that offered toward YHWH in Hab 2.4; (2) 4QpHosb (= a fragmentary reference to Hosea 5.14 from 4Q167) II, 2–3, where God’s judgment is interpreted as the judgment carried out by “the last priest”; and (3) 11QMelchizedek, where “the year of the Lord’s favor” (cf. Isa 61.2) likely serves as the original referent for what is seen by the author as “the year of Melchizedek’s favor.”87 These Qumran passages are certainly interesting. Nevertheless, they do not seem to carry sufficient weight to serve as a precedent for the type of Godlanguage applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The first text Kirk mentions, 1QpHab, offers an interpretation of Hab 2.4. Kirk suggests that the recipient of loyalty has been changed from YHWH to the Teacher of Righteousness in this Qumran passage, but Kirk’s assertion seems to involve a leap in logic. The interpretation of Hab 2.4 in 1QpHab makes sense as a defense of the scroll’s particular expression of Judaism. That is, true loyalty is expressed to the Teacher of Righteousness. However, it should be noted that there is no direct or immediate transfer from God/YHWH to the Teacher of Righteousness or a clear linkage between the two persons in this pesher text, which itself 85

Shively, Review of A Man Attested by God, 638. Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 490, 568–69. 87 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 490. Kirk writes, “in 11QMelchizedek ‘the year of the Lord’s favor’ (Isa 61.1) is rendered ‘the Lord of Melchizedek’s favor’” (ibid.). Kirk makes two typographical errors here: (1) the scriptural reference should be Isa 61.2, and not 61.1; (2) “the Lord of Melchizedek’s favor” should be “the year of Melchizedek’s favor.” 86

218

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

designates God, and not the Teacher of Righteousness, as the deliverer: “… all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness” (1QpHab col. VIII, 1–3). If there is somehow a meaningful transfer from God/YHWH to the Teacher of Righteousness figure, that transfer is presented only vaguely in this text. It is doubtful that the text would ever have been read the way Kirk suggests if not for the modern search for precedents to the God-language used for Jesus. If one finds a precedent to the Synoptic utilization of the God-language to Jesus from this text, it is perhaps because one retrospectively reads such christological utilization back into 1QpHab and not because the Qumran text itself contains a clear enough case. The second text Kirk cites, 4QpHosb, contains a reference to the last priest, seemingly as a means for the Qumran sect to vindicate their particular theology. The text of 4QpHosb II, 2–3 cites Hosea 5.14 (“For I will be like a lion [to E]ph[ra]im [and like a young lion to the house of Judah]”) and then comments, “[Its interpretation con]cerns the last Priest who shall stretch out his hand to strike Ephraim.” The logic of the text can be explained through the theology of the sect. God’s judgment concerns the actions that will take place through the last priest. The point in 4QpHosb is to indicate the agent through whom God acts, not necessarily to apply God-language to that agent.88 Moreover, the highly fragmentary nature of this text makes it difficult to substantiate any solid claim based on it. The text of 11QMelchizedek, which is relatively fragmentary and thus comes with some interpretive challenges, appears to link “the year of the Lord’s favor” (cf. Isa 61.2) with “the year of Melchizedek’s favor” and is, without question, closer to the God-language one finds applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, in comparison to the two Qumran passages just discussed above. Nevertheless, the scriptural allusion as seen in this relatively impressive text (and the other two Qumran texts Kirk cites, as discussed above) is not as compelling as a direct quotation of an Old Testament passage (Mark 1.3 citing Isa 40.3; cf. Synoptic pars.) that is followed by a repeated appropriation of God-language to Jesus in the following passages across the book (see section 5.1.1). Additionally, it must be noted that the 11QMelchizedek text employs language that is incredibly rare among the corpus of Second Temple literature and can hardly be a representative sample for Second Temple Judaism as a 88

When Mark applies God-language to Jesus, he often does so in a way that cannot be fully explained by considering Jesus merely an agent of God on earth. For example, the question of the scribes in Mark 2.7 is not whether Jesus is the agent of God; it is whether this authority or function that Jesus claims to exercise, viz., forgiving sins, is even transferable to anyone other than God himself. The scribes portrayed in this passage do not wonder whether Jesus is God’s agent but whether anyone other than God is able to forgive sins.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

219

whole or even for Qumran. Given the lack of potentially comparable material as such, the frequency and intensity of Old Testament God-language applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, and especially Mark for our focus, is truly remarkable and reflects a notably different phenomenon.89 In these ways, it is hard to see not only the above-mentioned two Qumran passages but also the more impressive text (11QMelchizedek) on the same level as the appropriation of Old Testament God-language for Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and, in particular, Mark, which is the focus of this study. What Kirk does not explain is why, compared to the few potential cases of such a “daring move” (Kirk’s own term) in Second Temple Judaism – all of which are isolated to Qumran – one finds a large amount of such daring (and likely even more remarkable) moves in the Synoptic Gospels, centered on the person of Jesus.90 The substantial volume and intensity of YHWH/κύριος language applied to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark alone – even beginning from the outset of the Second Gospel (Mark 1.2–3) and across its narrative as discussed above in this section (5.1.1) – makes for a remarkably bold claim about Jesus’ unique status and significance, which is more than the “daring move” that Kirk allows.91 It is questionable to what extent Kirk compares like with like. Overall, Kirk’s argument by analogy concerning the appropriation of Old Testament God-language to a figure other than Israel’s deity, especially based upon the few Qumran passages he cites, does not seem to be convincing and does not lessen the unprecedented nature of the attention given to Jesus’ unique status and significance as found in Mark and other Synoptic Gospels (as well as other New Testament writings). Sixth and last, the force of the criticisms put forward above must be considered collectively and not just individually. One may not fully agree with some of the above criticisms, but it is difficult to deny their cumulative weight. The cumulative weight of these critiques invalidates Kirk’s thesis that the Synoptic Jesus is presented only as an idealized human being. Kirk’s argument is detailed and often rich, showing some meaningful and important overlaps between Jesus and idealized human figures from the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature. Of course, Jesus’ exalted humanity is not in question; the Synoptic Evangelists portray Jesus as a human and, in fact, an idealized human in various ways. Nonetheless, such a portrayal does not fully exhaust the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus. Kirk’s proposal offers a useful reminder that

89 See the similar critique, arrived at independently, by Capes, Review of A Man Attested by God, 443 (“Likewise, the examples he cites of YHWH texts associated with the Teacher of Righteousness and an eschatological priest are hazy at best and fail to rise to the same level and intensity of the application of YHWH texts to Jesus”). 90 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 490. As for the phrase “daring move,” Kirk refers by it to what he sees from the three Qumran texts discussed above and the Synoptic Gospels alike. 91 Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 490.

220

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

one needs to pay attention to Jesus’ (idealized/exalted) humanity in appreciating the Synoptic accounts and may serve as a corrective for those who have neglected Jesus’ (idealized/exalted) humanity in reading the Synoptic Gospels in one fashion or another. Kirk, however, seems to have overcorrected the problem by eliminating Jesus’ divine status and significance entirely from the first three gospels.92 5.1.1.8 Summary of 5.1.1 The passages discussed above (sections 5.1.1.1–5.1.1.6) describe Jesus, in one way or another, as linked directly and inseparably with God himself. In these passages, the terms and images used in the description of Israel’s God in the Old Testament are appropriated to Jesus. The focus in utilizing the Old Testament God-language in these Markan passages is, unambiguously, to solidify 92

Kirk’s reading of early Jewish and New Testament has also been criticized for not giving due consideration to matters relating to corporate worship practices. A literary depiction of the veneration of a figure is one thing (e.g., the Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37– 71]) – whether merely in the context of expressing honor or in the context of a more serious sense of veneration – but it is another to offer a cultic sense of worship to a historical figure in corporate settings as in first-century Christianity. Hurtado criticizes Kirk in this regard. Hurtado notes that there is no clear hint of cultic worship that has actually taken place for any of Kirk’s idealized human figures – other than Jesus (Hurtado, “‘A Man Attested by God’: A Review”). Kirk sees 1 Chr 29.20 as a precedent to the worship of Jesus in the New Testament, which says: “Then David said to the whole assembly, ‘Bless the LORD your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their ancestors, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king.” Here, Kirk perceives the king as meaningfully “incorporated into Israel’s worship” in a manner that, “according to Bauckham,” should be “the strict purview of God alone …” (104–105; cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 7–13, 127–81). Admittedly, it is noteworthy that 1 Chr 29.20 depicts the people bowing down “before the LORD and before the king,” with one verb (“prostrated themselves” [‫ )]וישׁתחוו‬and two juxtaposed recipients of prostration (“before the LORD and before the king” [‫)]ליהוה ולמלך‬. It is also noteworthy that Solomon is portrayed to sit “on the throne of the Lord” (‫ )על־כסא יהוה‬in 1 Chr 29.23. This passage from 1 Chr 29, in fact, reveals an “idealized” king whose rule is intimately tied to God’s own rule. However, neither of these features in 1 Chr 29 suggests that the king receives a cultic sense of worship. The same passage has YHWH as the recipient of prayer (29.20) and sacrifice (29.21–22), while the king receives neither (Hurtado, “‘A Man Attested by God’: A Review). The king is offered obeisance as an expression of respect to a ruler that is common to the ancient world, whereas a cultic sense of veneration is offered to God alone. Kirk also references Ps 45 as evidence of an instance where “the king is praised in worship for the ways in which he and his reign are upheld by and reflect Israel’s God” (Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 99–100 [100]). However, an argument based on Ps 45 seems capable of cutting both ways. For instance, Hurtado appeals to this psalm as a probable example of “traditional imagery,” where the king is seen as God’s highest representative, and uses the text as evidence suggesting that Enoch’s enthronement in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 45.3; 51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 62.2, 3, 5–6) should not be viewed too highly, i.e., as divine (Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 53–54).

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

221

the divine status and significance of Jesus. The appropriation of the Old Testament God-language to describe Jesus in these passages is overall in line with the christological rereading of the Shema (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37), that is, the redescription of the one-God notion in such a way that Jesus is in view, with the result that God’s uniqueness is interpreted in a novel way. Kirk’s idealized humanity paradigm, which goes against a divine Christology in the Synoptic Gospels (section 5.1.1.7 above), is certainly intriguing. However, it appears to contain a number of flaws as noted above and fails to justify any substantial revision of the divine-christological reading of the selected Markan passages as presented in sections 5.1.1.1–5.1.1.6. Those highly remarkable passages that apply Old Testament God-language to Jesus, however, are joined by other texts that differentiate Jesus from God.93 The study now turns to such texts. 5.1.2 Passages that Differentiate Jesus from God The portrayal of this remarkable Jesus (see section 5.1.1 above) as a Jewish, Galilean man and his recitation of the core confession about Israel’s unique deity (Mark 12.29–30) clearly indicate a distinction between Jesus and God. Whether Jesus’ inseparable linkage to God and the clear-enough distinction of the two persons can coexist is an important issue and will be explored later in the chapter (section 5.2 below). In the current section (5.1.2), attention will be given to several specific passages in Mark’s Gospel that clearly illustrate this distinction between Jesus and God. 5.1.2.1 Mark 10.40: “Not Mine to Grant” In the context of correcting James and John, who seek to be seated beside him, Jesus clarifies that God, and not Jesus himself, has the authority to decide who will sit next to Jesus in his “glory” (10.38): “but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared [ἡτοίμασται]” (v. 40). The verb ἡτοίμασται is a divine passive94 whose implied subject is God.95 By acknowledging that the decision about who will sit next to him in the eschatological kingdom (or, perhaps, who will be executed next

93 For Jesus’ distinction from God, see also Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 313– 16. Outside of passages considered here, Garland includes, e.g., Jesus’ tiredness in Mark 4.38, his presumably human emotions in passages such as 14.33, and his astonishment in 6.6a. This section in Garland’s work immediately follows the sections largely focusing on Jesus’ close linkage to God (263–312). 94 For the use of the verb ἑτοιμάζω in connection with God’s providence in advance of time, see Exod 23.20 LXX; Matt 25.34, 41; Luke 2.31; Heb 11.16. 95 Cf. Matt 20.23: “… to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (emphasis added).

222

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

to him on the cross!) belongs to God and not himself, Jesus places himself under God’s authority, thus distinguishing himself from God.96 5.1.2.2 Mark 13.32: “No One Knows … Only the Father” This next text also involves Jesus’ submission under God’s authority concerning the eschatological future. While explaining to the disciples the timing of the eschaton, Jesus declares in Mark 13.32, “But concerning that day or hour no one knows – neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father [Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ].” Once again, there appears to be a clear distinction between God and Jesus in this text. Early church history provides a number of interesting solutions to this “problem” of Christ’s ignorance, in part, in order to combat the Arian argument that Christ was not omniscient and, thus, not fully divine.97 Theological problems aside, however, Jesus’ limitation in this respect fits well with other descriptions of Jesus in the Markan Gospel. The Evangelist seems to insist that there are ways in which Jesus is distinct from, and submissive to, the Father. At the same time, however, the immediately preceding verse (13.31) depicts Jesus in God-like terms, as he says that his

96 When James and John ask Jesus for the honor of sitting “one” at Jesus’ right and “one” at his left, the Markan narrator uses the words ἐκ δεξιῶν and ἐξ ἀριστερῶν for the positions of right and left, respectively (10.37). Jesus, on the other hand, is recorded as using the same wording for the position on his right (ἐκ δεξιῶν) but different wording for the position on his left (ἐξ εὐωνύμων) when he responds to James and John (10.40). Intriguingly, when Jesus is crucified with “one” at his right (ἐκ δεξιῶν) and “one” at his left (ἐξ εὐωνύμων) in 15.27, Mark’s choice of the word for “left” seen earlier in 10.40 is reused. The repetition of “one” on each side from both passages (10.37 and 15.27) seems suggestive of the two passages’ connection and probably of the ironic redefinition of “enthronement,” at least temporarily, by or in view of the cross. It is likely that, while Mark’s Jesus is referring to the eschatological future, he is, at the same time, foreshadowing the upcoming crucifixion (for this view, see also Hooker, Mark, 247). Whether or not one accepts this interpretation, however, should not affect the point that God decides who will take Jesus’ right and left sides, and Mark’s Jesus admits God’s authority over that decision. 97 See Gumerlock, “Mark 13.32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions.” Gumerlock discusses various Patristic explanations of Mark 13.32. Basil of Caesarea suggests that εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ (13.32) should be taken to mean that Jesus would not know, if not for his unity with the Father (206–207). Augustine proposes that “knowing” is a figure of speech for “revealing,” thus the text speaks of Jesus’ role rather than his knowledge (207– 208). Gregory of Tours argues that “son” is a figure for the church and “father” is a figure for Jesus (208–209). Athanasius maintains that Jesus’ limitation is a willing limitation of his flesh, à la Luke 2.52, without reference to his knowledge as God (209–13).

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

223

words “will never pass away.”98 As will be demonstrated below, Mark deliberately collocates Jesus’ submission to God and his divine status.99 5.1.2.3 Mark 14.36: “Not What I Want, but What You Want” In his prayer at Gethsemane (Mark 14.36), Jesus submits himself to the will of the Father: “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want [ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλὰ τί συ].” Here, what Jesus wants and what God wants appear to be two distinct and contrasting things. To Mark’s Jesus, God’s will is something to be prioritized over his own.100 Jesus, through his prayer, an activity that implies the hierarchy between God and Jesus himself, at least in rhetoric (vv. 35–36; see also 1.35; cf. 9.29), submits himself to God’s will even in the midst of a deadly grief (14.34).101 Jesus, then, becomes determined to take the “cup” (cf. v. 36). These three factors, namely, the distinction between Jesus’ will and God’s will, Jesus’ prioritization of the latter over the former, and the rhetoric reflected in Jesus’ prayer to God, together distinguish Jesus from God and present him as one who is obedient to God’s providential will. Additionally, one might further comment upon the conceptual similarity between this text and the previous two (10.40 and 13.32) in that God’s overarching plan for history is preeminent, and Jesus is seen to submit himself to that plan of God. 5.1.2.4 Mark 15.34: “My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?” In the midst of extreme anguish on the cross102 and at the point of his death, Jesus cries out: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? [ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;]” (15.34; cf. Ps 22.1). The scene portrays a stark distinction between Jesus and God as Jesus cries out that he has been abandoned by God. Even though Jesus calls out “my God [ὁ θεός μου]” repeatedly, the Father seems absent in, if not distant from, the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion. The portrayal of Jesus as forsaken by God depicts a distance between Jesus and 98 For the observation that only God’s words are described as eternal in the Old Testament, see Evans, Mark, 335. 99 Mark’s deliberateness in this collocation will be discussed in section 5.2. For further discussion on Mark 13.31–32 in this regard, see section 5.2.3. 100 The primacy of God’s will in Jesus’ ministry is well testified in his redefinition of family: “Whoever does the will of God [τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ] is my brother and sister and mother” (3.35). 101 Earlier in the narrative, Jesus appeared to attribute total sovereignty to God (10.27). In his Gethsemane prayer (14.36), Jesus appears to submit himself to the will of that totally sovereign God who is determined not to use his total sovereignty to remove the “cup” from Jesus but rather to let him take it (cf. 14.22–24). 102 Concerning how Mark pictures the crucifixion as a sort of enthronement for Jesus yet without eliminating the anguish that he had, see Hooker, Mark, 371–72, 375.

224

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

God. On the other hand, Jesus’ repeated address, “My God, my God,” indicates that, in calling out to the God of Israel (15.34; cf. Ps 22.1) as ὁ θεός μου, Jesus confesses his devotion to God and recognizes God’s lordship and sovereignty over his own death and vindication.103 5.1.2.5 Jesus as One Sent by God (Mark 9.37; 12.6; also 1.24, 38; 2.17; 10.45; cf. 1.12) Mark 9.37 portrays God as the one who sent Jesus: “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me [ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με].” Mark 12.6 also presents God as the sender of Jesus in the form of an allegorized parable: “He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him [ἀπέστειλεν αὐτόν] to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’” While Jesus is seen with a unique status in these passages, given that the welcoming of Jesus signifies the welcoming of God himself (9.37), and Jesus is portrayed as the “beloved son” differentiated from “servants” (12.6), Jesus appears to submit to God, at least in rhetoric, since the act of sending presumes the authority of the sender over the one sent.104 The centurion’s words to Jesus in Luke 7.8 (cf. Matt 8.9) gives an example in this respect: “For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”105 Jesus as one sent by God appears to be under his authority (Mark 9.37; 12.6) and such portrayal distinguishes Jesus from God. In addition, the “coming” language in the Second Gospel (Mark 1.24, 38; 2.17; 10.45) has a similar hierarchical

103

For the use of “my God” in the Old Testament expressing devotion to Israel’s God, see, e.g., Gen 28.21; Exod 15.2; Num 22.18; Deut 4.5; 18.16; 26.3, 14; Josh 9.23; 14.8, 9; Ruth 1.16; etc. The phrase is especially frequent in the Psalms (3.7; 5.2; 7.1, 3; 13.3; 18.2, 6, 21, 28, 29; etc.). One may object to my position that 15.34 anticipates a vindication on the basis of the seemingly despair-filled words of Jesus in the verse, “ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι” (cf. Ps 22.1 [Ps 21.2 LXX]). However, other references to Ps 22 in Mark’s passion narrative (e.g., Ps 22.18 [cf. Mark 15.24]; Ps 22.7–8 [cf. Mark 15.29–32]) imply that the Evangelist was likely aware of the entire psalm in quoting its first part, and, thus, that the motif of vindication appearing toward the end of the psalm was probably in view in Mark 15.34. Concerning the use of Ps 22 in Mark’s passion story, see Marcus, “The Role of Scripture in the Gospel Passion Narratives,” 207–209; Way, 180–86. For an intertextual reading of Mark 15.34 and Ps 22, see Carey, Jesus’ Cry from the Cross; cf. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2:1455–65; Ahearne-Kroll, The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion. More recently, see Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 83–86. 104 Cf. Donahue, “Neglected Factor,” 589. 105 What I intend to point out from Luke 7.8 is the simple logic that the sender is superior to the one sent in a hierarchical structure. To clarify, I do not suggest that Luke’s theology had influence over Mark’s. I rather concur with the near-consensus position of Markan priority.

5.1 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark

225

connotation when it is understood in conjunction with the “sending” language (9.37; 12.6) and in light of Luke 7.8, a verse that relates the acts of sending and coming to the notion of hierarchy. In an analogous manner, the portrayal of Jesus as impelled into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit (1.12: Καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον), who descended from heaven to Jesus upon his baptism (v. 10), seems to place Jesus under God’s authority, as an indirect reference to God is provided by the phrase “the Spirit [τὸ πνεῦμα].” 5.1.2.6 Jesus’ Passion Predictions (Mark 8.31; 9.12, 30–31; 10.33–34; cf. 14.49) Jesus’ three passion predictions (8.31; 9.12, 30–31; 10.33–34), which are strategically placed in the journey section of the gospel (8.22–10.52, with three passion prediction cycles in 8.27–9.29, 9.30–10.31, 10.32–45, respectively), imply Jesus’ submission to God’s will in regards to his suffering and death. His submission is in line with his prayer at Gethsemane (14.36), which describes Jesus as obedient to God’s will even at the cost of his own life.106 Jesus’ acknowledgement of the necessity of fulfilling the scriptures in regards to his passion, as in 14.49 (“Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled [ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί].”), has a similar force (cf. v. 21). The portrayal of Jesus as one revering and honoring God’s providential will (or the scriptures)107 concerning the inevitability of his passion presents him as one who submits to God’s authority. Jesus is, in that way, distinguished from God. This passage, as with others considered earlier in the current section (5.1.2), shows that Jesus must submit himself to God’s plan for history and does so willingly.108 106

Marcus, Mystery, 183n67. God acts only indirectly in Mark’s narrative, and the scriptures are the primary means by which God’s will is communicated in the Second Gospel. 108 Two other passages in Mark are worth mentioning in relation to the discussion of this section (5.1.2), which focuses on the pericopes that differentiate Jesus and God. In the story of healing the woman with the hemorrhage, which is sandwiched by the two-part story of raising the daughter of Jairus (5.21–43), Jesus appears to know that “power had gone forth from him,” yet he did not know “who touched [his] clothes” (5.30) and, therefore, “looked all around to see who had done it” (v. 32). Jesus is able to recognize instantly the transference of certain supernatural healing power from him to someone else yet unable to locate that person immediately. In the following scene, Jesus is seen to be “amazed [ἐθαύμαζεν] at [the] unbelief” of his hometown people (6.6a) – Mark 6.6a is the only place in the Second Gospel where Jesus appears to be amazed (ἐθαύμαζεν), whereas he frequently amazes people in other places of the narrative (e.g., 2.12; 5.20; 10.24, 26, 32; 12.17; 15.5, 44). The description of his amazement in 6.6a assumes that he was not expecting such a skeptical response from his home towners (vv. 3–4). These two passages may be seen to differentiate Jesus from God by placing certain limitations on Jesus with reference to his perspective (cf. 13.32). Nonetheless, in these passages, the limitations ascribed to Jesus serve not primarily to describe the 107

226

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

5.1.2.7 Summary of 5.1.2 The passages that have been discussed in this section (5.1.2) demonstrate that, while Mark’s Jesus is seen on a level with God and is linked with him on many occasions (section 5.1.1), he also submits himself radically under God’s authority, distinguishing himself from God on a number of other occasions.109 Although Jesus is seen to be and act in God’s place (section 5.1.1), there is a distinction and hierarchy between him and God (section 5.1.2). Such distinction and hierarchy are parts of Mark’s Christology that also link Jesus inseparably with God and present Jesus on a level with God. 5.1.3 Summary of 5.1 Several passages have been discussed that portray Jesus as one inseparably linked with God and meaningfully on par with God, in line with the christological rereading of the Shema seen in 2.7, 10.18 and 12.28–37. Similarly, other passages that distinguish Jesus from God, often highlighting Jesus’ radical submission to God, have also been explored. There are probably more passages that can be brought into the discussion, yet what has been presented above seems to suffice in showing that Mark’s narrative contains both the portrayal of Jesus as linked with God and also as distinguished from God.110 These differentiation or hierarchy between God and Jesus but rather to introduce the conversation between Jesus and the woman (in the case of 5.30) or to highlight the disbelief on the part of Jesus’ home towners (in the case of 6.6a). Along this line, 6.5 (“And he could do no [οὐκ ἐδύνατο] deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.”), too, highlights mainly the lack of faith on the part of the people in Jesus’ hometown, rather than portraying Jesus’ limited healing power. Although Matt 13.58 modifies the Markan statement as “And he did not do [οὐκ ἐποίησεν] many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief” probably due to the potential doubt that the Markan parallel may promote concerning Jesus’ power, Matthew’s modification does not, however, necessarily mean that Mark himself intends to foster such a doubt; the mention of Jesus’ healing a few people in Mark 6.5 seems to portray Jesus as able to perform miracles despite the unbelieving atmosphere of his hometown. 109 Noting the dynamics of submission in Jesus’ relation to God (section 5.1.2), some may ask whether Mark’s Jesus differs in any meaningful manner from the highly exalted agents of God in Second Temple literature. Such a question can be answered positively by pointing out the unprecedented intensity and frequency of the God-language applied to Jesus throughout Mark’s Gospel (section 5.1.1) as well as the programmatic use of the one-God/Shema language in illuminating the unique status and significance of Jesus as one linked with and on par with Israel’s God (chaps. 3–4). See also the discussion below on the complex, nuanced, and paradoxical integration of Jesus’ inseparable linkage with God and his distinction from God (section 5.2), which itself refutes a one-dimensional understanding of Jesus’ identity and his relation to God, whether it focuses only on the linkage or distinction between the two persons. 110 See Watts, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord,” who argues that Psalms 2, 118, 110, and 22, each referred to multiple times in the Second Gospel, are especially important

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

227

two portrayals, alike, occur repeatedly in Mark’s Gospel as the above discussion has proven (see 5.2.2 below for further discussion). The coexistence of these two portrayals across the narrative seems to suggest that Mark integrates the two pictures of Jesus’ relationship to God. Nevertheless, one must ask whether these two pictures are accidentally attached or placed together with only loose intentionality. One also must ask whether these two seemingly dissonant pictures reflect multiple traditions that the Markan author could not tame in a stable enough manner. These questions essentially concern the issue of whether or not the pictures of linkage and distinction (or of parity and hierarchy) have an organic relationship with each other in Mark’s narrative. It is this issue that the next section (5.2) will navigate.

5.2 The Integration of Jesus’ Linkage with God and His Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative 5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

The current section will explore the issue of whether the two seemingly dissonant portraits of Jesus, namely, Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God, are meaningfully integrated with each other in Mark’s narrative.111 In order to draw a plausible conclusion on the issue, the following matters will be considered: (1) the use of “Son of God,” a major christological title in the narrative, which seems to facilitate the integration of the two portraits, (2) the notable pervasiveness of the combination of the two portraits across the narrative, (3) several passages that collocate the two pictures side by side or in a similar fashion, and (4) the capability of Mark as a narrator in producing a reasonably consistent and reliable account. 5.2.1 The “Son of God”112 in Mark The current section (5.2.1) will examine the key christological title, the “Son of God,” which is employed from the beginning of the gospel (arguably 1.1 for the Markan narrator in presenting Jesus as both the Davidic messiah and the Lord of the temple. 111 Church Fathers, at times, underestimate the “hierarchy” aspect whereas modern scholarship on the gospels is often inclined to take lightly the “parity” aspect, influenced, in part, by the widely accepted notion of adoption Christology (see, e.g., Wrede, Messianic Secret, 73; cf. Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, 353; Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians, 66). For an illustration of Church Fathers’ pre-critical reading of the Second Gospel, see, e.g., Oden and Hall, Mark. 112 The term, the “Son of God,” clearly covers a wide spectrum of meanings and connotations in the Greco-Roman world. Some signify “divinity” (a term that may itself refer to various entities) while others do not. The Liddell-Scott lexicon includes a rather lengthy entry for the adjective θεῖος, which covers “divine”/“of or from the gods” through “in honour

228

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

and clearly in v. 11) to the climactic points in the passion narrative near the end of the gospel (14.61; 15.39). Furthermore, it will be argued that this christological title organically combines Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God as well as the presentation of Jesus as God’s equal and that as one radically submitting to him. This section will begin with the precursors to the title, the “Son of God,” showing that, among those precursors, the Davidic terms have particular significance, though not fully exhausting the Markan use of the “Son of God.” This section then will proceed to look at how the title, the “Son of God,” is used in the Second Gospel. Through that process, it will be argued that the title itself integrates Jesus’ parity with God and his submission to God’s authority as well as Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God. 5.2.1.1 Precursors There are several precursors to the title, the “Son of God.” The Old Testament uses the metaphor of sonship to portray Israel’s relationship to her God (Exod 4.22; Hos 11.1; Deut 32.6; Isa 63.16; 64.8 [64.7 MT/LXX]; Jer 31.9; Mal 1.6; Ps 68.5 [68.6 MT//67.6 LXX]; also Tob 13.4).113 God is also called the “father” of a god” to “excellent.” On the contrary, the New Testament in general, and Mark’s Gospel in particular, avoids such a wide-ranging usage of “divinity/divine” language. In Mark, the noun θεός is used exclusively to refer to the God of Israel. While Jesus is linked inseparably with God and presented on the same level as God in the Second Gospel, he is not directly referred to as θεός (cf. John 1.1; 1.18; 20.28; Rom 9.5; also the syntactically more debatable examples of Acts 20.28; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1, where the term θεός can refer technically to either God or Jesus). Moreover, that the Second Gospel begins by quoting Jewish scriptures (see Mark 1.2–3; cf. Mal 3.1; Isa 40.3) and by making an explicit mention of “the prophet Isaiah” (v. 2) implies that the primary framework, on which the Evangelist builds the rest of his story, is the Old Testament. Besides, the Markan passages noted below (section 5.2.1.2) seem to demonstrate that one should appreciate the term, the “Son of God,” in the Second Gospel primarily in light of its Jewish (esp. Davidic) background, although its meaning in Mark/the New Testament is not limited by its preceding Jewish uses. For the discussion on the use of divine sonship terminology in Greco-Roman traditions, see Collins, “Mark and His Readers” 85–100; cf. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Note also Acts 12.21– 22 (cf. Josephus, Ant. 19.345–47) and Acts 28.6, where Agrippa and Paul were respectively regarded as in some way divine; the author of Acts, however, does not endorse the divinization of those figures. 113 Cf. Mark 11.25 (“Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”), which implies corporate sonship of Jesus’ followers to God (see the explicit mention of sonship to God as used for Jesus’ followers/believers in Rom 8.14, 19; Matt 5.9, 45; Luke 6.35; Heb 2.10; 12.5–8; cf. John 1.12 [“children of God”]). The corporate sonship idea as seen in Mark 11.25 does not conflict with Jesus’ unique and definitive filial and familial relation to God but is compatible with it. Importantly enough, in the Second Gospel, no one other than Jesus is called [ὁ] υἱὸς [τοῦ] θεοῦ.

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

229

to the righteous in Wis 2.16 (cf. v. 13). Sonship with God is applied to an individual as well, in particular, to the Davidic ruler (Pss 2.7; 89.26–27; 2 Sam 7.14; cf. 4QFlor 1.7ff.). Psalm 89.26–27, for example, says, “He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!’ I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (emphasis added). There are further examples for the individual use of the title, the “Son of God.” Yeshua ben Sira addresses God as his “Father” in seeking his help against sinning: “O Lord, Father and Master of my life, do not abandon me to their designs, and do not let me fall because of them!” (Sir 23.1; also v. 4; cf. 4.10 [ὡς υἱὸς ὑψίστου] LXX).114 A Qumran text, 4Q246 (the so-called Aramaic Apocalypse) introduces a figure who is hailed as the “Son of God” and the “Son of the Most High,” both of which are, interestingly, used of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (1.1; 3.11; 5.7; 15.39).115 The meaning of the title, the “Son of God,” in Mark, however, should be decided foremost in the context of Mark’s narrative itself.116 Although Mark’s use of the term, the “Son of God,” is not something of novelty (as several examples above have testified), the sonship to God appears to obtain some new connotations in Mark’s Gospel in and through the person of Jesus, who is seen to have a unique and absolute filial relationship to the God of Israel, as will be discussed below.117

114

See also 4Q372 16. For the different scholarly views on the identity of the “Son of God” in 4Q246, see the discussion in Hengel, The Son of God, 44–45. Hengel lists various scholarly opinions from “the Seleucid usurper Alexander Balas” (Milik), to “a Jewish ruler” (Fitzmyer), to the Jewish people collectively (cf. Dan 7.13) (45). A number of scholars see the figure as a messianic redeemer who will destroy God’s opponents and build the kingdom of God’s people (e.g., Cross, “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse [4Q246],” 1–13). Nonetheless, since the riddle of this text remains unsolved, it seems unwise to draw too much from it. For further discussion on the use of the “Son of God” in Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, see Hengel, The Son of God. Refer also to the succinct treatment in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:601–602 and literature cited therein. 116 Kingsbury, Christology, 158, notes rightly: “The reader can, to be sure, anticipate that Mark will utilize the flow of his story to elaborate the meaning of the title Son of God.” In focusing on the title, the “Son of God,” in Mark’s Gospel, the present writer acknowledges that the title appears in conjunction with other epithets in the course of the narrative development (see, e.g., 14.61–62) and thus becomes, to some degree, interchangeable with them. Such an observation does not necessarily mean that the distinction among them is collapsed but rather that different titles should not be understood in an isolated or sharply separated way. 117 For the New Testament address to God as “Father,” see Thompson, The Promise of the Father. 115

230

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

5.2.1.2 Validity and Insufficiency of the Davidic Terms in Understanding Jesus’ Sonship to God in Mark’s Narrative There is little doubt that the title, the “Son of God,” arouses some Davidic or royal connotations (Pss 2.7; 89.26–27; 2 Sam 7.14) in its occurrences in the Second Gospel.118 There are a couple of notable factors in Mark’s Gospel that show that Davidic terms are particularly relevant for the Evangelist’s use of the “Son of God.” First, the allusion to Psalm 2.7 (“You are my son [MT: ‫בני‬ ‫אתה‬/LXX: υἱός μου εἶ σύ]”) in the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 1.11; 9.7), as well as in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.6), indicates that the Davidic kingship is in the background of Mark’s use of the title, the “Son of God.” Second, other passages that do not employ the sonship language in describing Jesus’ relation to God yet understand Jesus’ identity and ministry in light of the Davidic backgrounds, support the validity of understanding the “Son of God” in Mark with a Davidic orientation. Several examples are especially noteworthy in this regard: (a) Bartimaeus’ call of Jesus as “Son of David” (10.47);119 (b) the use of a Royal Psalm in the crowd’s hailing for Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem, with the anticipation for the coming “kingdom of our ancestor David” (11.9–10; cf. Ps 118.25–26);120 (c) the use of the same Royal Psalm in Jesus’ answer to his opponents through parabolic language (Mark 12.10–11; cf. Ps 118.22–23, which in its original literary context describes the vindication of the king by God);121 (d) the use of a lament psalm attributed to David (Ps 118 See Matera, Kingship, 121–46; Kingsbury, Christology; Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son. 119 Bartimaeus’ call to Jesus as “Son of David” (10.47, 48) is seen in a positive light in Mark’s portrayal. There is no hint that the narrator condemns what Bartimaeus did. While the people around Jesus rebuke Bartimaeus and urge him to be silent (v. 48), Jesus calls the blind man to himself and heals him (vv. 49–52), affirming his faith (v. 52; cf. 5.34). Similarly, Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son, 275–76; contra, Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, 94–95. 120 Mark does not negate or qualify the crowds’ hailing of Jesus; Mark 11.9–10, which appropriates Ps 118.25–26 christologically, appears to be a climactic point in Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem rather than an account of the crowd’s mistaken action (Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son, 276–77). 121 Cf. Dahood, Psalms III (101–150), 155–56. Jesus appears to understand his destiny within the scriptural paradigm of suffering and vindication. A growing number of scholars recognize in the paradigm of suffering-vindication a Jewish hermeneutical tradition from the Second Temple period (e.g., Wis 2; 2 Macc 6–7; 4 Macc 6, 17). Old Testament passages such as Gen 22 (Isaac), Job, Jonah, Isa 53 (the righteous servant), Dan 7 (the vindicated “Son of Man”), Zech 12.10–13.1 (the firstborn of the house of David), Pss 22, 69, 118 have been likely influential over the formation of such tradition. There is no reason to think that Mark was ignorant of this interpretive tradition. The Evangelist at least understands Jesus’ destiny in light of the psalm of the righteous sufferer, i.e., Ps 22, as well as Isa 53 – two Old Testament passages that are used heavily in the passion narrative. In Mark’s narrative context, the

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

231

22) in portraying Jesus’ suffering on the cross (Mark 15.34); (e) the (ironic) use of the epithets “King of the Jews” (15.2, 12, 18, 26) and “King of Israel” (v. 32) for Jesus in the passion narrative;122 and (f) introduction of David in Mark’s Gospel and portrayal of him as a figure who possesses an exemplary authority that can establish an exception to the observance of the Law (2.25– 26; cf. 1 Sam 21.6).123 Nevertheless, Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ sonship to God is not limited by the Davidic terms but transforms and surpasses them. Mark 12.35–37, in particular, is crucial in this regard as Jesus’ question on the identity of the messiah shows that the Davidic terms provide background for Jesus’ identity but not its bounds. Jesus allusively claims that the identity of the messiah, who is clearly Jesus in Mark’s narrative, exceeds the Davidic category (v. 36; cf. Ps 110.1). According to Mark’s Jesus, the messiah cannot be simply the “son of David” (υἱὸς Δαυίδ) because David subordinated himself to the messiah in calling him “my Lord” (Mark 12.35–37). As discussed in chapter 3, Mark narrates Jesus’ unique relationship to the God of Israel as one sitting next to him on the heavenly throne and sharing his cosmic rule (Ps 110.1 [Mark 12.36]) and transcending the expectations that Jesus’ contemporaries (e.g., “scribes” [v. 35]) had for the Davidic messiah, “son of David” (v. 35; cf. v. 37).124 The portrayal of Jesus as enthroned alongside God in the heavenly realm and participating in his cosmic sovereignty directs Mark’s audience to see the limitation of the Davidic terms in understanding the unique status and significance of their messiah. Jesus does not simply represent God’s authority as a kingly figure on earth but participates alongside God in his cosmic rule. In conclusion, the Markan title, the “Son of God” appears to have both continuity and discontinuity with the Davidic category. The Davidic terms are valid backgrounds against which Jesus’ filial relationship to God is to be understood, but they do not exhaust his unique sonship to the God of Israel. With this conclusion in mind, the chapter now turns to discuss the use of the “Son of God” and its equivalent terms and images within Mark’s narrative. The core part of God’s vindication for and exaltation of Jesus is his resurrection (cf. Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 384ff.). For the motif of resurrection, which especially serves to communicate God’s vindication in Second Temple literature, see Kirk, Unlocking Romans, chap. 2: “Functions of Resurrection in Early Judaism.” For Mark’s use of Psalm 118, see Watts, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord,” 313–17. 122 These epithets appear in a mocking context. They, however, would have been seen as affirmative, in an ironic sense, to the eyes/ears of Mark’s readers/audience who were followers of Jesus. 123 This exemplary authority is typologically applied to Jesus in 2.25–26 (Guelich, Mark, 123; cf. Nineham, Mark, 105). 124 Quoting David Hay again, “early Christians used Ps 110 to affirm both their sense of continuity with Jewish scriptures and their belief that Jesus transcended Jewish expectations and all human categories” (Glory, 162).

232

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

following discussion will focus, in particular, on how the “Son of God” and associated terms and images are utilized in the Second Gospel, with attention to Jesus’ linkage to and distinction from God. 5.2.1.3 The Use of the “Son of God” and Its Equivalent Terms and Images in Mark’s Narrative The manner in which Mark portrays Jesus’ filial relationship to God shows that his sonship inseparably links him with God yet maintains distinction between the two persons. Given that the title, the “Son of God,” does not exist in isolation from the narrative and, thus, one can find the meaning of this christological title primarily by observing its function within the narrative, the current section will endeavor to examine its uses in Mark according to the narrative sequence.125 Scholars are almost equally divided concerning whether or not υἱοῦ θεοῦ should be read in Mark 1.1.126 Whether the phrase is authentic or not, divine sonship language and imagery are applied to Jesus repeatedly in the rest of the story in describing his relationship to God. Shortly after the beginning verses (vv. 2–3), where the Old Testament God-language from Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3 is appropriated for Jesus, he is called by God127 ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα at his Baptism (1.11; cf. Ps 2.7; Isa 42.1 LXX). The adjective ἀγαπητός, which is probably synonymous to μονογενής, a word that does not appear in Mark (cf. John 3.16),128 modifies υἱός (see also 9.7; 12.6; cf. Gen 22.2, 12, 16 LXX),129 thus hinting at Jesus’ unique filial relationship to God. 125 According to the primary orientation of the present study, which approaches Mark’s Gospel as it stands, the present writer attempts to examine mainly how the title, the “Son of God,” is presented and clarified in Mark’s narrative. Whether the application of the title to Jesus originates from Jesus himself or later from some of his followers, or whether it is traditional or redactional deserves a focused, in-depth discussion. That issue is, however, beyond the scope of the discussion here and is, therefore, not pursued. 126 While a majority of manuscripts include υἱοῦ θεοῦ, some early manuscripts (‫ *א‬Θ 28) omit the phrase. This phenomenon can be explained either as the copyists’ unintentional omission or as a later expansion of the “title” of the book. For further text-critical discussion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1.1, see section 1.1.2 above. 127 The mention of the heavenly voice (1.11) reflects a Semitic circumlocution, referring to God without naming him directly (see also 9.7; 14.61). 128 Guelich, Mark, 34. 129 In some Jewish traditions, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (see Gen 22) was regarded as underlying the sacrificial rites at the Jerusalem Temple (Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 204–11). If Mark the Evangelist was aware of this, then Jesus’ sonship to God in the Second Gospel – even from the outset (1.11) – contains a sacrificial connotation and is, thus, closely tied to his crucifixion (Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 81–82). For the influence of the Aqedah narrative (Gen 22) in the Old Testament and New Testament as well as in Jewish thought contemporary to New Testament writers, see, e.g., Daly, “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” 45–75.

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

233

Mark 1.34 reports that “[Jesus] would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.” The content of the demons’ knowledge is clarified shortly after. In 3.11, unclean spirits appear to recognize Jesus as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and similarly, a demoniac calls Jesus υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου in 5.7.130 Interestingly, in 3.11 and 5.7, the earthly Jesus is recognized by unclean spirits as one having a transcendent identity and superior authority to theirs, even prior to his death and resurrection.131 Here, the unclean spirits’ “confession” of Jesus as the “Son of God/the Most High” comes with the implication of Jesus’ unique power and lordship over these evil supernatural forces.132 The unclean spirits fall down before Jesus when they see him (3.11; cf. 5.6) and beg Jesus not to torment them (v. 7) and “not to send them out of the country” (v. 10). The transcendent aspects of Jesus as such occur alongside the epithet, the “Son of God,” in these Markan passages.133 Following the first passion-resurrection prediction (8.31), v. 38 provides an important piece of information in understanding Jesus’ sonship to God, though the verse does not explicitly use the sonship language in describing Jesus’ relationship to God. The verse reads, “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Here, Jesus replaces “me” with “the Son of Man” and then relates the pronoun “me” with God by calling God “his Father.” Through such relation, Jesus’ filial status to God is seen despite the lack of the phrase “Son of God.” What is probably more crucial than the literal familial association itself is that Jesus’ 130 Cf. 1.24, where a demoniac calls Jesus “the Holy One of God [ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ].” Concerning the transcendent nature of the epithet ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, see Gathercole, Preexistent Son, 152. 131 Also, Jesus’ transcendent identity is seen in his radiant glory at the transfiguration scene (9.2–8 [esp. vv. 2–3]). Of course, Mark’s Gospel is a post-resurrection account, in which Jesus’ life and death are understood with new significance in light of his resurrectionexaltation. Nonetheless, it is true, at least at the narrative level, that the pre-resurrection Jesus is portrayed as a transcendent being in passages such as 3.11, 5.7 and 9.2–8. 132 It is striking that there was no sense of conflict between Jesus and the demoniac in these passages and in 1.24: “[the demoniac] cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’” The unclean spirits appear to be afraid of Jesus and completely submissive to his authority. Jesus’ authority in these exorcism passages is indeed unique in that he does not invoke God’s name or use any special techniques but simply commands the evil supernatural beings based upon his authority (cf. Gundry, Mark, 77). 133 In addition, 6.1–3 seems to hint at Jesus’ unique sonship to God, when read in its literary context. In an ironic manner, the astonishment of Jesus’ hometown neighbors in 6.2– 3 (“Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James …?”) points to the transcendent origin of Jesus’ wisdom and power, suggesting that Jesus cannot be simply “the son of Mary” (cf. 11.28–29).

234

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

sonship is related to his participation in God’s glory; it is said that Jesus will come “in the glory of his Father.” On the other hand, the verse designates the glory associated with Jesus in the eschaton as originating from God; it is thus called “the glory of his Father,” and not his own. In 8.38, therefore, Jesus’ sonship is portrayed in the intersection of his inseparable linkage with God and his distinction from God. Jesus is seen as God’s equal and sharing his glory, yet it is not a flat, uniform sense of equality between the two since Jesus’ glory originates from God. In the following story, the theophanic scene of the transfiguration, God addresses Jesus as ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός (9.7), the phrase that was used earlier in another theophanic scene in the baptismal narrative (1.11), denoting Jesus’ unique sonship to God in a manner analogous to the baptism passage.134 After Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem (11.1–11) and his cleansing of the temple (vv. 12–21), there appears a series of Jesus’ debates with the leaders of the Jerusalem establishment (11.27–12.37). In narrating the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (12.1–12) as a part of Jesus’ answer to his hostile questioners (see 11.27–28), Jesus designates himself allusively as υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν and τὸν υἱόν μου (12.6),135 which are again reminiscent of the transcendent voice at Jesus’ baptism (1.11) and transfiguration (9.7). In the parable, the “beloved son” is seen as a unique figure differentiated from the “servants” who were sent by God prior to the “son.” This “son” is unique in that he is God’s beloved, commissioned as God’s ultimate messenger (note ἔσχατον v. 6) and recognized by his opponents as the heir (ὁ κληρονόμος [v. 7]). At the same time, the beloved son is distinguished from the man who planted a vineyard (v.1), which unambiguously refers to God (cf. Isa 5.1–7, the so-called “Parable of the Vineyard,” which provides a background for the parable in Mark 12.1–12), who is the sender of his son. In the “apocalyptic” discourse of Mark 13, Jesus designates himself as “the Son,” and God as “the Father” without any qualification or explanation, thus correlating the two in a direct and absolute sense (v. 32).136 It is significant that

134 The voice from the cloud (Mark 9.7) is God’s voice given that the image of “cloud” was used to represent the presence of God’s glory in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 19.19; 40.35). The difference between 1.11 and 9.7 is that, in the former, Jesus is addressed as a second person (“you”) while, in the latter, he is mentioned as a third person (“this [one]”). 135 While 12.6 is a part of the parable and there is a danger in drawing too much from its allegorized language, the reference that the “son” language makes seems clear enough, so the verse is considered as valid data for the discussion on the “Son of God” here. The common terms employed in 12.6 as well as 1.11/9.7 constitute another reason to include the former in the discussion. 136 I differentiate between the term “apocalyptic” (as a characteristic) and apocalypse (as a genre). Mark 13 has certain apocalyptic (as well as non-apocalyptic) characteristics, but it is not an apocalypse. For a helpful discussion of this matter, see Hatina, “The Focus of Mark

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

235

who “the Son” is (and whose son he is) does not require any explanation or clarification in v. 32.137 One is simply understood in light of the other and vice versa. Such an unqualified use of the titles, “the Son” and “the Father,” presupposes a correlation and a familial correspondence between Jesus and God (note also 8.38; 14.36). Here, Jesus openly calls himself “the Son,” instead of using his favorite self-designation, “the Son of Man.”138 The absolute “Father”“Son” language, which is found frequently in John’s Gospel139 and associates Jesus directly with God in that account,140 is not completely alien to Mark.141 On the other hand, Jesus still distinguishes himself from “the Father” through the term “the Son” in the given relation. Moreover, despite his unique and definite kinship to God as reflected in the absolute use of the correlational titles, Jesus, as “the Son,” confesses his limited knowledge and submits himself under the authority of “the Father” who preserves the secret of the eschatological time only within himself (13.32). The originality of the saying in v. 32 has been debated by scholars. Although the issue of historicity is not directly relevant to my discussion here, that debate itself is, in a way, suggestive of the integration of Jesus’ linkage to and distinction from God.142 Some think that the verse is from the historical Jesus based upon his confession of ignorance on the eschatological time, arguing that it would have been most unlikely for someone in primitive Christianity to create such a saying at the cost of its Christology given the “embarrassing” nature of 13:24–27,” 45ff. I, however, do not agree with Hatina on his point that Mark 13 as a whole refers exclusively to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. 137 France, Mark, 543. 138 Some commentators (e.g., Lane, Mark, 482; Pesch, Marcusevangelium, 2:310) argue that “the Son” is an abbreviation of “the Son of Man” in light of the eschatological context of chap. 13 and the use of the designation in 13.26. However, the absolute use of “the Son” and “the Father” side by side indicates that these terms are employed as correlatives. Namely, “the Son” is the Son of the “Father,” i.e., God. 139 See John 3.17, 35, 36 [2x]; 5.19 [2x], 20, 21, 22, 23 [2x], 26; 6.40; 8.35, 36; 14.13; 17.1; cf. Matt 11.27//Luke 10.22. 140 See John 5.18–19 and 10.29–33, where Jesus’ use of the “Father” language is understood as an attempt to view Jesus himself as God’s equal. For the interpretation of these passages, see the pertinent portions in Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John. 141 Mark 13.32, particularly the phrase “nor the Son,” is textually secure. Although a few manuscripts (such as Codex Monacensis) omit the phrase “nor the Son [οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός]” from Mark 13.32, the overall textual witnesses are sufficiently strong that one can conclude, with confidence, that copyists in general did not have a problem with the phrase “nor the Son” in this verse. Also, there is no clue of embarrassment on the Evangelist’s part in mentioning Jesus’ confession of his ignorance with reference to the timing of the history-consummating event (13.32). Following v. 32, the Evangelist makes a quick move to promote the eschatological vigilance (vv. 33–37), that is, the focus of the entire discourse of Mark 13. The confession of ignorance occurs almost in passing and without an apology. 142 See the list of differing opinions in Taylor, Mark, 522–23, which is old yet still helpful. For a more recent discussion, see Marcus, Mark 8–16, 913–14.

236

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

this saying especially in attributing ignorance to Jesus (“… no one knows … nor the Son”).143 Others hold that it is unlikely original in light of the use of the absolute title, “the Son,” applied to Jesus by Jesus himself.144 The divided opinions seem to reflect the organic combination of the two christological aspects within Mark 13.32, namely, Jesus’ distinction from God and his familial linkage to God. In his Gethsemane prayer, Jesus calls God “Abba, Father” (14.36). Although the use of “abba” was not new, contra Jeremias’ famous suggestion,145 the simple form of address to God and the degree of intimacy presumed in the usage, as combined with other sonship factors in the narrative, implies Jesus’ unique sonship to God – despite the absence of the term “Son” within the passage. Here, Jesus’ submission to God as his son is particularly highlighted in the sense that Mark’s Jesus is determined to prioritize the will of the “Abba” Father over his own, even to die and be forsaken by his Father. In this passage, Jesus’ unique familial relationship to God is combined with his radical submission to God and his will. At Jesus’ trial scene, the high priest skeptically asks Jesus whether he is ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ (14.61).146 Jesus answers affirmatively (ἐγώ εἰμι) and claims for himself participation in God’s cosmic rule (v. 62; cf. Ps 110.1; Dan 7.13).147 The high priest immediately expresses the charge of “blasphemy” against such a response (14.64). In light of the use of the term “blasphemy” in 2.7, where Jesus is understood to present himself on an equal footing with God in announcing the forgiveness of the paralytic’s sins (v. 5; cf. v. 10), the high priest who is in charge of Jesus’ trial appears to understand the precise nature and thrust of Jesus’ reply (14.62) as something similar to that dangerous claim (2.5; cf. v. 10). That is, Jesus is ultimately equating himself with the unique God of Israel. Through the interaction between the high priest and Jesus (14.61–62), the nature of Jesus’ messiahship and of his sonship to God is 143

Taylor, Mark, 522; Evans, Mark, 336; Edwards, Mark, 407n56; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 376; Cranfield, Mark, 410–11; Stein, Mark, 623; Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.378–79; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 6. 144 For example, Bultmann, History, 123; Hooker, Mark, 323. It is noted along this line that the absolute form, “the Son,” is overall absent outside John’s Gospel – with Mark 13.32 and Matt 11.27//Luke 10.22 as the only exceptions. 145 Jeremias (Prayers of Jesus, 29ff., 57ff.; New Testament Theology 1:61–68) argues that Jesus’ use of “abba” is unique and unprecedented. However, scholars have challenged forcefully such a view (see, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew 1:601–602 and literature cited therein). While being critical of Jeremias’ view, Davies and Allison state that “abba” was used in Jesus’ prayer as well as Paul’s letters (Rom 8.15–16; Gal 4.6–7; cf. 1 Pet 1.17) in a “characteristic” and “distinctive” manner in light of its simplicity (unlike its Jewish parallels) and the unique relationship with God presupposed in that simplicity (602). 146 Τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ is a Semitic circumlocution for God. See Bock, Blasphemy, 214–17, for a discussion of this term. 147 See the discussion of this matter in chap. 2 above.

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

237

publicly revealed for the first time in the narrative: Jesus is ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ in the sense that he shares God’s cosmic reign. In 14.61–64, Jesus’ sonship to God appears intimately linked directly and inseparably with God. In 15.39, a Roman centurion confesses Jesus as υἱὸς θεοῦ at the foot of the Roman cross where he is crucified. It is dramatic that this Gentile official is the only human figure throughout Mark’s story who explicitly and appropriately recognizes Jesus’ unique filial relationship to God.148 Following the ironic “revelation” of Jesus’ relationship to God through the high priest’s skeptical interaction with Jesus in 14.61–64, the Gentile centurion’s confession (“Truly this man was God’s Son!”) consummates, in a meaningful way, Mark’s christological portrayals that have employed various terms and images.149 The Roman centurion recognizes that the crucified human figure, the criminal Jesus, was not just another man but God’s Son.150 The great irony for Mark’s audience is that this Jesus, who has been described as having a unique and absolute sonship to God in the story, must die on a Roman cross so shamefully in radical submission to God’s will. In light of Mark’s use of the designation the “Son of God” as surveyed above, one can conclude that the title organically combines two aspects of Jesus’ relationship to the God of Israel: Jesus is on a level with the God of Israel yet he submits himself radically to that God, his “Father.”151 Jesus shares in the glory and authority of God, yet distinctions are maintained between the two persons. In this way, Mark portrays Jesus in as close a relation to God as imaginable without making Jesus a second god or flatly equating the two. The christological label, the “Son of God,” used in Mark’s Gospel tends to integrate christological and theocentric commitments. Divine sonship language as appropriated for Jesus in Mark’s narrative links his familial likeness to God and his unreserved submission to God, thus binding Jesus with God in the closest 148

Among the characters of Mark’s narrative, it is only God/the divine voice, Jesus himself, and unclean spirits/the demoniac that explicitly recognize Jesus’ unique sonship to God, except the Roman centurion in 15.39. Other human figures, including Jesus’ own disciples, appear to fail to do so (cf. 8.29 where Peter confesses Jesus as the messiah yet without understanding the nature of his messiahship). 149 For a helpful discussion on the relation between the “apocalyptic” tearing of the temple curtain and the realization/confession of the centurion in Mark’s Gospel, see, e.g., Gurtner, “The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology,” 292–306. 150 It is noteworthy that the confession of the Roman centurion is announced upon the death of Jesus at the cross (15.39). Crucifixion in Mark’s Gospel is, thus deemed a revelatory event, which opens the eyes of a human being to the true identity of Jesus (cf. 1.11; 9.7). 151 For the submission/obedience aspect of Jesus’ sonship to God, see Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 82. Best notes that obedience or faithfulness to God is an important factor in an individual’s sonship to God (e.g., an individual as “son” of God or the individuals as “sons” of God) in Jewish literature. Best refers to 2 Sam 7.14; Wis 2.13, 16–18; 5.1–6; Sir 4.10 (Hebrew text); Jub. 1.24–25; Philo, Spec. 1.318.

238

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

manner without confusing the two.152 It is this unique filial status of Jesus to God that sustains the paradox of Jesus’ identity – as one who is inseparably linked with God and on a level with God and yet is distinguished from that God and obeys him radically under his authority. Mark’s Gospel provides a complex, nuanced, and paradoxical picture of Jesus’ relationship to the unique God of Israel, and the title, the “Son of God,” stands at the very center of such a picture. To be able to use the title, “Son of God,” as evidence for the integration of Jesus’ linkage and equality with God and his distinction from and submission to God, however, it is necessary to be sure that the Evangelist employs the title in support of his overall portrait of Jesus. Some scholars such as Weeden and Perrin assert that the title, “Son of God,” shows rather an influence of TheiosAner Christology or a “theology of glory” that the Markan Evangelist intends to correct.153 Despite these scholars’ interesting reconstruction of the alleged polemics that were possibly present in the Markan community/communities, the frequent and widespread use of the title, “Son of God,” and its equivalent terms and images across the narrative, especially at strategic points (e.g., at the beginning of Jesus’ God-given mission and the climactic fulfillment of that mission [1.11; 15.39]),154 imply that it is, indeed, a key christological epithet that Mark cherishes in his narrative.155 It is voiced by God, the filially-sensitive 152 The familial terms and images, in a way, serve to reconcile (a) Jesus’ linkage, and parity, with God and (b) his distinction from, and submission to, God. Jesus’ agency and his radical obedience to God should be understood in this familial context. 153 Weeden, Mark – Tradition in Conflict. For the critique of using Theios-Aner as a (uniform) category in studying New Testament Christology, see, e.g., Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism; Kingsbury, “The ‘Divine Man’ as the Key to Markan Christology – The End of an Era?,” 243–57; ibid., Christology, 25–46; Blackburn, Theios Anēr. 154 Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 82; cf. Marcus, Way, 201: “The three architechtonic appearances of the royal title ‘Son of God’ at the Gospel’s beginning, middle, and end (1.11; 9.7; 15.39) are redactionally placed in proximity to references to the kingdom of God.” Mark 1.11 and 15.39, in particular, provide an inclusio for the Second Gospel, especially with the explicit mention of Jesus’ divine sonship (1.11; 15.39) coupled with the apocalyptic tearing (σχίζω) of heaven/the temple veil (1.10; 15.38). Notably, 1.10 and 15.38 are the only two Markan passages that employ the verb σχίζω. The apocalyptic revelation of Jesus’ divine sonship (1.11; cf. 9.7) is finally adopted by a human being in 15.39, who is a Roman centurion standing at the foot of the cross. For further discussion of Mark 15.38–39 in connection to Jesus’ baptism in 1.9–11, see, e.g., Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 501–503. 155 Concerning the “Son of God” as the main christological title and also as the confessional title for Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, see Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 81ff. The present writer agrees with the majority, though not universal, position that 15.39 is the christological key (and culmination) in Mark’s Gospel. See e.g., Kingsbury, Christology, 128–33; Gnilka, Markus, 2:324–25; Taylor, Mark, 597–98. For an objection to the majority view, see, e.g., Johnson, “Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark’s Christology?,” 3–22. Johnson tries to justify the provided objection, in part, based upon the absence of the definite article for υἱὸς in 15.39. Υἱὸς θεοῦ (s/Son of g/God) in the centurion’s confession is grammatically ambigu-

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

239

Jesus himself, the perceptive Roman centurion, and unclean spirits who are reliable witnesses in Mark’s Gospel and whose “christological perceptivity” is ironically contrasted with the spiritual blindness of the Jewish religious leaders and even Jesus’ own disciples.156 5.2.2 The Pervasive Combination of Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God across Mark’s Narrative The portrayal of Jesus’ inseparable linkage with and distinction from Israel’s God throughout Mark’s narrative (as discussed in section 5.1 above) seems to indicate an intentional combination of these two emphases. Since both emphases repeatedly appear across Mark’s narrative, it is doubtful that their combination by the Evangelist was accidental. Trakatellis, in his Authority and Passion, notes that in the first major section of Mark’s Gospel (1.1–8.26), Jesus’ God-like authority is emphasized while, in the last section (chaps. 11–16), his human passion is highlighted; the middle section tends to balance the two aspects.157 Although the focus of Trakatellis’ study is different from that of this chapter, it is nevertheless related. Jesus’ unique authority is associated with his inseparable linkage and parity with God (e.g., 2.7; 4.35–41; 12.36; 13.31; 14.62), and Jesus’ radically submissive and ous itself, but it is unlikely that Mark’s original audience would have thought about anything else other than Jesus’ unique and definitive filial relationship to God in facing this phrase in 15.39 – especially in light of repeated testimony for Jesus’ divine sonship throughout Mark’s narrative as noted above (section 5.2.1). For further discussion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 15.39, see Decker, Mark 9–16, 263, who suggests that Mark deliberately follows the wording of 1.1 (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) here in 15.39 and “thus 1:1 and 15:39 form the ‘theological bookends’ of the Gospel.” See Decker, Mark 1–8, 1–3, for his discussion of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in 1.1. 156 Since God, as a character in Mark’s story, appears only in the form of the divine voice (see 1.11; 9.7), it may be said that God is behind the stage in Mark’s narrative. The act of God is, however, seen through Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, who is called κύριος just like the God of Isaiah 40.3 (Mark 1.3), forgives sins just like God (2.5, 7, 10), controls the rebellious sea just like God (4.35–41; cf. 6.45–52) and is directly and inseparably linked with God in many different ways (see section 5.1.1 above). Also, Lohmeyer, Markus, 4–5. Note especially the disciples’ repeated failure in Mark 8.22–10.52 and their forsaking of Jesus in the passion narrative (14.50, 66–72). 157 Trakatellis, Authority and Passion, includes 16.9–20 in his discussion probably due to his Greek Orthodox tradition. The tripartite understanding of Mark’s literary structure (public ministry in Galilee; journey from Galilee to Jerusalem; ministry in Jerusalem including Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection) has a certain artificiality. It, however, provides a useful frame in discussing various elements contained in the narrative of Mark and so is adopted in my discussion – yet with a caution that these three parts are organically connected within the flow of the narrative and are, thus, to be understood as parts of an integrated whole. Additionally, I see 8.22–10.52 as the middle section of Mark’s Gospel, with the only two healings of the blind in the narrative (8.22–26 and 10.46–52) providing an inclusio to that central section (Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 136–37, 146–47).

240

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

obedient approach to his passion implies the distinction and hierarchy between the two persons (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34; 12.6; 14.36). Trakatellis rightly contends that, while there are differing emphases and foci in different units of Mark’s Gospel, the themes of authority and passion coexist throughout the gospel.158 A similar point can be made concerning the “linkage” and “distinction” pictures and “parity” and “hierarchy” portraits, on which the present chapter focuses. As noted in section 5.1 above, a number of passages in Mark’s narrative come with “linkage” and “parity” emphases, and others present “distinction” and “hierarchy” emphases. While Jesus’ linkage and parity with God is emphasized more in the earlier parts of the narrative and the distinction and hierarchy between the two is highlighted more in the later, both themes appear throughout the narrative, together producing an intertwined and nuanced picture of Jesus’ relation to God. Jesus’ linkage, and parity, with God is strongly presented in his Galilee ministry (e.g., 1.2–3; 2.7; 4.35–41; 5.19–20; 6.45–52) – it is indeed trumpeted from the beginning of the gospel (1.2–3 with a composite citation of Mal 3.1 and Isa 40.3) and is implied in the first Shema reference (Mark 2.7). The motif is also maintained in the journey to Jerusalem (10.18) and after the entry to Jerusalem (e.g., 12.36–37; 13.27, 31). In a similar fashion, while the distinction and hierarchy between Jesus and God stands out in the journey section (10.40) and especially after his entry to Jerusalem (e.g., 13.32; 14.36; 15.34), the theme is not absent in the ministry at Galilee. Jesus’ devotion to prayer (1.35) provides an example of his utter dependence upon the God of Israel. The “coming” language that appears in the early portions of the narrative (1.24, 38; 2.17) has a hierarchical implication and distinguishes Jesus from God, especially if read in light of the “sending” language (9.37; 12.6) and the understanding that the one sent is under the authority of the sender (cf. Luke 7.8). Although the primary emphases of the first and the last units of Mark’s Gospel differ from each other, the differing emphases can probably be explained by the position of the passion narrative (Mark 14–16) toward the end of the narrative. That Jesus, who possesses divine status and significance and is repeatedly seen across the story as linked and on par with Israel’s God, had to die on the cross in radical submission to that God creates an irony, and such an irony is a vital part of Mark’s story of Jesus. A close look at Mark’s Gospel, however, does not allow a dualistic separation within the narrative between Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God or between Jesus’ parity with God and the hierarchy between the two. Jesus is linked directly and inseparably with God and is presented on a level with God across Mark’s Gospel, but the same Jesus is simultaneously distinguished from God and is seen to 158 Trakatellis, Authority and Passion. For a brief example, it is in the passion narrative that Jesus claims, in public, his divine authority (14.62; cf. Ps 110.1; Dan 7.13).

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

241

recognize and submit to God’s authority over him. Neither motif is bound to one part or a specific passage of Mark’s narrative but appear intertwined throughout the narrative. In light of the repeated and relatively pervasive concurrence of the two portraits throughout Mark’s Gospel, it seems likely that their combination was intentional on the part of the Evangelist. Indeed, they are organically connected with each other and together form the Evangelist’s complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical portrait of Jesus’ relation to God. 5.2.3 The Recurring Combination of the Two Motifs within Various Markan Passages Several passages in Mark facilitate the combination of Jesus’ linkage and parity with God and Jesus’ distinction from and submission to God in a side-by-side manner. It is unlikely that Mark was unaware of the collocation of these two motifs, especially when such collocation recurs in different points of the narrative. Mark 13.31–32 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”) presents an intriguing incident in this regard. Jesus’ confession of his ignorance regarding the time of the eschaton, in comparison to God’s unlimited knowledge (v. 32),159 is connected with the eternal validity of Jesus’ words (v. 31), which match that of God’s words in the Old Testament (Isa 40.6–8;160 cf. 51.4–6; Ps 102.25–27).161 These two 159 In a larger literary context, Jesus’ confession of his ignorance on the time of the Parousia should be balanced by his supernatural perceptions (e.g., 2.8) and definitive foreknowledge (11.1–4; chap. 13 as a whole; 14.13–16). 160 The appropriation of the God-language of Isa 40.6–8 to Jesus in Mark 13.31 does not seem to be accidental since the divine κύριος language of Isa 40.3 LXX was used for Jesus at the beginning of the gospel (Mark 1.3). 161 Note also the claim for the permanence of Torah in Psalm 119.160 (“The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever.”) and in other Jewish literature (e.g., Bar 4.1 [“She is the book of the commandments of God, the law that endures forever”]; Wis 18.4; 4 Ezra 9.36–37). In Mark 13.31 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”), Jesus then appears to place his own words at the same level as God’s words, i.e., the Torah. For the importance of Jesus’ words in Mark’s Gospel, see also 8.38 (cf. 10.28–30); 9.7; 10.21 (in juxtaposition to the Decalogue in v. 19). Cf. Matt 5.18. Mark 13.31 concerns, in particular, Jesus’ words in v. 30. “All these things” (v. 30) refer back to its closest antecedent, “these things” (v. 29), which denote the destruction of the temple and associated troubles as portrayed in vv. 5–23. “These things” (v. 29), clearly, do not include the Parousia. It will be awkward for Jesus to say: when you see these things (the Parousia) taking place, you know that he (the Son of Man) or it (the Parousia) is imminent. If the Parousia has already taken place, the reference to its nearness does not make any sense (Cranfield, Mark, 407). The correspondence between “these things” (v. 29) and “all these things” (v. 30) is supported by the correspondence between exactly the same words in the disciples’ initial question (v. 4a–b), where the two phrases (“these things” and “all these

242

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

verses (Mark 13.31 and v. 32) show an intimate connection between Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God. The combination of 13.31 and v. 32 serves as a clear example of the compatibility and integrability of the two ideas in Mark’s narrative.162 This combination requires the readers to understand the “ignorance” saying of v. 32 not in isolation from the language in v. 31 that links Jesus with God. In 13.32, the focus is clearly on distinguishing Jesus from God, but such a focus needs to be understood in combination with the God-language applied to Jesus in the immediately preceding verse with the striking mention of the eternal duration of Jesus’ words in a manner comparable to YHWH’s own words (v. 31).163 There is another verse worth noting in this regard, 8.38: “Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” The phrase, “in the glory of his Father,” is particularly important, as it explicitly states that Jesus, “the Son of Man,” will come in God’s glory. He shares the glory of the God of Israel. The accompaniment of angels (“with the holy angels”) reinforces the glory of God appropriated to Jesus in the scene since the angelic entourage described in 8.38 (cf. 13.27) is a feature of the coming of YHWH in the Old Testament (Zech 14.5; Deut 33.2; Ps 68.17; Zech 9.14–15; cf. 1 En. 1.9). On the other hand, the glory things”) refer to precisely the same matter, i.e., the destruction of the temple. Verses 28–31 relate the temple destruction (vv. 5–23) intimately with the Parousia (vv. 24–27); the destruction of the temple and the associated troubles solidify the hope for the impending arrival of the Parousia. In this sense, it is understandable that the Evangelist places vv. 24–27 (a Parousia scene) before vv. 28–31. Without doing so, he cannot inseparably relate the Parousia to the destruction of the temple (vv. 5–23) as appearing in the final-form text. Jesus’ confessed ignorance on the eschatological time (v. 32) then provides a ground for its unknowability on the part of Mark’s original audience and even beyond (note “all” in v. 37). They, therefore, have to be constantly vigilant in awaiting the arrival of the Parousia (vv. 33–37). 162 One may attempt to explain the alleged addition of “nor the Son” in light of the problem with the delayed Parousia (cf. Kelber, Kingdom in Mark, 111ff.). Namely, that Jesus’ prediction for the arrival of the Parousia within the generation of his contemporaries (cf. 13.30; also, 9.1) did not occur created a crisis in Mark’s community; 13.32 is thus added as an answer to the crisis, indicating that even Jesus himself did not know the timing of the Parousia. That view, however, seems to overestimate, at least to some degree, the influence of the delayed Parousia over Mark’s community while underestimating the increase of highchristological claims of the New Testament Church (see, e.g., Infancy Gospel of Thomas) (Stein, Mark, 623). Also, when Mark’s Gospel was composed, that is, a few decades after the historical Jesus, it seems that it would not yet be necessary to add the “nor the Son” phrase to the supposed original saying since the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries (mentioned in 13.30) have not all died out (see Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 34–35). 163 The side-by-side placement of v. 31 and v. 32 may be pre-Markan or Markan. Even when one regards it as pre-Markan, the Evangelist is still responsible for preserving the preexisting juxtaposition in composing his account.

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

243

portrayed in the scene clearly originates from God. It is specified as “the glory of his Father [τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ]” (Mark 8.38). The saying in 8.38, in this way, inseparably combines divine Christology and theocentricism. In a similar fashion, 9.37 (“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”) appears to integrate the two motifs, especially when it is interpreted in connection to the immediately following verses. It has been noted in section 5.1.1.4 above that the use of Jesus’ name in the subsequent exorcism (vv. 38– 39) tends to present his name in a way paralleling God’s name, implying Jesus’ divine status and significance. When v. 37 is read in connection to vv. 38–39, the unique value that Jesus’ name contains can be applied to the “name” of Jesus that is mentioned in the immediately preceding verse about welcoming a child (v. 37).164 The welcoming of a child in Jesus’ name (v. 37), then, means to receive the little one with the recognition of, and commitment to, the unique status and authority of Jesus, and such informed welcoming is regarded as welcoming Jesus himself. On the other hand, the uniqueness of Jesus’ name (v. 37; cf. vv. 38–39) as such should be understood together with the fact that Jesus understands himself in light of “the one who sent [him],” implying the sender’s authority over himself at least in rhetoric (cf. Luke 7.8). Given the combination of the unique value and God-like authority present in the “name” of Jesus (9.37; cf. 38–39) and his recognition of himself as one sent by God (v. 37), one can say that Jesus’ linkage and parity with God and his distinction and submission to God appear to be compatible and organically integrated with each other in Mark’s narrative. The passages that have been discussed above facilitate the combination of Jesus’ linkage and parity with God and his distinction and submission to God in a side-by-side manner within the given pericopes themselves. It seems unlikely that the recurring concurrence of the two motifs were not intended by the Evangelist. It would be far more viable to think that the two motifs are compatible with each other in the Evangelist’s understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God. Mark was very likely aware of the complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical dynamics that the collocation of the two emphases created in the noted passages. The discussed pericopes demonstrate that Mark’s portrayal of the relation between Jesus and God is not a one-dimensional reality but rather that it is a delicate one that can be equated neither with undifferentiated identity and parity nor with a flat sense of distinction and hierarchy.

164

There is a lexical linkage between 9.37 and vv. 38–39, 41 with the “name” of Jesus. Verse 37 and v. 41 are also connected thematically as both verses concern the act of serving others for the cause of Jesus.

244

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

5.2.4 The Capability of Mark as a Competent Narrator In addition to the arguments put forward above (sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3), it is also unlikely that Mark was unaware of the combination of these two emphases because he appears to be a storyteller capable of controlling what he narrates. Since the seminal work by Willi Marxsen,165 scholars began to see the crucial role that Mark played as a theologian in producing the Second Gospel. With the emergence of literary criticism in gospels studies, scholars have shared further insights that appreciate the gospel narrative as an integrative whole.166 It is impossible to treat these issues thoroughly here, given the limited space. The current section (5.2.4) will, therefore, make only a few observations on Mark’s ability as a narrator capable of controlling what he communicates and providing a stable account. First, Mark’s capability as a narrator is evident in the gospel’s middle section (8.22–10.52), which bridges the Galilean and Jerusalem sections with Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, the place of his crucifixion. The middle section is punctuated by three passion predictions, each of which is then followed by an error by one or more disciples and Jesus’ subsequent teaching on discipleship in response to their error (8.31–38; 9.30–37; 10.32–45). This middle section includes seven occurrences of ὁδός, all of which are arguably tied to the nature of discipleship, specifically, following Jesus on his journey to the cross. The central section is framed by Jesus healing blind men, one at 8.22–26 and the other at 10.46–52. These two passages are the only two accounts in Mark where Jesus restores a person’s sight, and the latter is, in fact, the last healing narrative in the Second Gospel. This collection of features indicates a highly polished and deliberate arrangement on the part of the author. Second, the use of dramatic irony reflects a skillful storyteller. In 2.7 (“Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”), for example, Mark employs the characters of scribes who are opponents of Jesus within the story and lets them “affirm” the Christology of the Evangelist and his audience. In the verse, the charge of “blasphemy” (as coupled with the rhetorical question “Who can forgive sins except one, i.e., God?”) ultimately functions to “approve” Jesus’ inseparable linkage, and parity, with the unique God of Israel rather than negating the notion. The scribes end up “exalting” Jesus for Mark’s audience without acknowledging 165

Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist. The use of narrative-critical methods for interpreting Mark’s Gospel is justified by the simple fact that the Evangelist wrote a story for his audience. Concerning narrative-critical methods, see the programmatic study by Chatman, Story and Discourse and its applications in Markan studies such as Tannehill, “The Disciples in Mark,” 386–405; Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story; Malbon, “Narrative Criticism”; Smith, A Lion with Wings. See also Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy. 166

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

245

his unique status and significance within the story. Similar situations are found in the passion narrative. The mocking of Jesus as “King of the Jews” (15.18; cf. v. 26) and as “the Messiah, the King of Israel” (v. 32) reflect “faithfully” the confession of the Evangelist and his audience.167 The use of dramatic irony in Mark as such shows an important facet of the narrator’s skills in the sense that he is capable of controlling what he tries to communicate while utilizing various materials available to him.168 Third, the pervasiveness of the passion motif not only in the passion narrative but also throughout Mark’s narrative shows that Mark’s Gospel as a whole was intended to be a structured, integrated story (see, e.g., 2.7, 19–20; 3.6, 19; and the three-fold cycle of passion prediction, followed by the disciples’ error, followed by teaching on discipleship [8.31ff.; 9.31ff.; 10.33ff.] across 8.27– 10.45).169 That the charge of “blasphemy” introduced in 2.7 becomes the actual sentence for Jesus’ death penalty later in the trial scene (14.64) also reflects the careful construction of the narrative development.170 In relation to such careful construction, it does not seem too much of an exaggeration to say that, from the outset of the narrative to its closing, the conflict between the Jewish authorities and Jesus (see esp. 2.1–3.6; 11.27–12.44) concentrates on the issue of “blasphemy,” which becomes the cause for Jesus’ crucifixion (14.64).171 As Martin Kähler famously asserted, all four canonical gospel accounts may be viewed as “passion narratives with extended introductions.”172 167

For further discussion, see Best, Mark: Gospel as Story, 18–20; Edwards, Mark, 12. For a detailed study of irony in Mark, see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark's Gospel. See also the relevant discussion in Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story; Juel, Master of Surprise. 168 As Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel, ix, notes: “the wide distribution of irony suggests that it was born of the author’s conscious intent.” 169 For the pervasiveness of the passion theme (as coupled with the authority theme) in Mark’s Gospel, see Trakatellis, Authority and Passion. For the unity of Mark’s narrative, see Petersen, “‘Point of View’ in Mark’s Narrative;” Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology;” Dewey, “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry.” Boring notes, “Although the author Mark struggles with a variety of traditional christological material that he wishes to adopt and adapt in a variety of ways, the lack of homogeneity in Mark’s christological data cannot be reduced to the difference between tradition and redaction. Mark himself wants to hold more than one view in tension, and has devised a narrative means of doing so” (Boring, “God-Language,” 471). For the potential of narrative in making a christological affirmation, see Cook, Christology as Narrative Quest, 67–108. Concerning Mark’s potency in combining dissonant elements and presenting them in irony, see Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark`s Gospel, 180. 170 Van Iersel, Mark, 148. 171 Along this line, Trakatellis, Authority and Passion, 149, states, “Passion is not the terrible reality which is suddenly thrust at the end of a long course, but a reality which marks this course at every step, at every stage.” 172 Kähler, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans. Braaten, 80n11.

246

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

Additionally, the view that attempts to read Mark’s Gospel primarily in light of the conflicts between tradition and redaction seems dubious. This matter is of course dependent on how one sees the role of Mark the Evangelist – whether he was a radically creative theologian,173 a moderately creative author who was generally consistent with the traditions he inherited,174 or a committedly conservative redactor.175 No matter which position one prefers, the efforts to separate too sharply the Markan from the pre-Markan materials tend to be unsuccessful and unproductive, as already discussed in the introductory chapter of this study (see section 1.3).176 It would not be Mark’s intention, either, for his audience to put excessive effort into “discerning” what he adds to the traditional materials and then polarizing his gospel into those two opposing categories of tradition and redaction. Mark is responsible not only for what he adds and alters but also for what he decides to preserve. The Evangelist employed the traditional sources,177 but by adopting and adapting those sources he appears to have composed a story with (at least a reasonable level of) consistency, as the prevalence of the passion theme across the gospel shows. There are certainly other pertinent matters that can be explored, not least Mark’s use of sandwich constructions (e.g., 3.20–35; 5.21–43; 6.7–32; 11.12– 25)178 and his recurrent uses of three-fold repetition (e.g., three-fold passion prediction in 8.31, 9.31, 10.33–34; three-fold warning to be vigilant in 13.33, 35, 37; Peter’s three-fold denial in 14.68, 70, 71; Pilate’s three questions to the crowd about Jesus in 15.9, 12, 14; three mentions of the hours during Jesus’ crucifixion in 15.25, 33, 34),179 both of which further suggest Mark’s narrative competency. However, what has been noted above seems sufficient for illustrating Mark’s capability as a consistent storyteller who is able to control what he narrates and is able to produce a stable, integrated story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection/exaltation.180 Accordingly, it does not seem reasonable to 173

For example, Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel, 190ff. For example, Best, “Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition,” 21–34. 175 For example, Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:15–16, 22ff. 176 See Black, The Disciples according to Mark. 177 Scholars are in agreement about Mark’s dependence upon the pre-Markan passion narrative while there are various views on the degree of his redactional activities involved in the formation of the passion narrative as it now stands. Mark 4.1–34 and 7.1–23 are other parts of the gospel that are usually regarded as based upon pre-Markan collections. For a brief discussion on the pre-Markan material, see Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story, 3–6. See also “The History of the Tradition” section in Collins, Mark. 178 Concerning Markan Sandwich, see Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches,” 193–216. 179 For further discussion on Mark’s three-fold repetition, see Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 92, who notes: “The repetitions serve to draw attention to things in the story, emphasize their importance, create expectations, encourage reflection of what has happened previously, and build associations” (ibid.). 180 Concerning the reliability of Mark as a narrator, see Tannehill, “Disciples in Mark,” 386–405; Petersen, “‘Point of View’ in Mark’s Narrative,” 97–121; Fowler, Loaves and 174

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

247

assume that the phenomena considered above, indicating certain patterns, were just coincidental and not intended by the Evangelist in light of the level of his competency as a storyteller.181 5.2.5 Further Consideration for the Integration of the Two Motifs So far, the current section (section 5.2) has argued for the organic integration of the two motifs in Mark’s narrative, namely, Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from God, and, relatedly, Jesus’ parity with God and the hierarchy between the two persons. In discussing the integration of the two motifs in Mark’s Gospel, one issue seems to deserve further consideration, namely, whether Mark’s high view of Jesus endangers devotion to the unique God of Israel. The following discussion in section 5.2.5.1 is devoted to this issue. 5.2.5.1 The Question of Whether Mark’s High View of Jesus Violates Devotion to Israel’s Unique God One may wonder whether Mark’s presentation of Jesus as one linked inseparably with God and on par with God threatens devotion to the unique God of Israel. It seems, however, that, to the Evangelist Mark himself, such a high view of Jesus does not impinge upon devotion to Israel’s deity but instead further specifies such devotion by innovatively clarifying the view of God in light of Jesus’ unique status and significance in relationship to God. It appears to be the assumption of Mark that the followers of Jesus are devoted to the God of Israel in a more adequate manner than the (unbelieving) Jews since Jesus’ followers embraced the filial agent of the unique God, that is, the agent who himself is directly and inseparably linked with that God, and followed his Godcentered devotion (3.35; 12.29–30). According to 9.37, those who accept Jesus are accepting God himself, the one who sent him.182 The negative implication of this is that those rejecting Jesus are rejecting God himself. Those rejecting Jesus are, thus, the object of God’s judgment as symbolized by Jesus’ cleansing of the temple sandwiched with his cursing of the fig tree (11.12–21) and as stated in other parts of the narrative (e.g., 3.28–30; 13.1–23 [esp. v. 2]). Fishes, 229n23; Edwards, Mark, 2–3, 10–12; cf. Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story. More recently, see Deppe, The Theological Intentions of Mark’s Literary Devices, where he examines intercalations (commonly referred to as “sandwiches”), frames, allusionary repetitions, narrative surprises, and how each of these devices is used to mirror the situation of the Christian community. 181 Although Mark’s Greek constructions appear to be somewhat clumsy at times (cf. Meagher, Clumsy Construction in Mark’s Gospel) or a bit simple, the structural clumsiness or simplicity does not necessarily signify unsophisticated literary and rhetorical skills. See, again, the works cited in the immediately preceding footnote in support of Mark’s literary and rhetorical capabilities and competency. 182 See section 5.2.3 above.

248

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ unreserved submission to God is an essential component of the reign of the unique God of Israel in the sense that the Evangelist does not present two gods in his gospel nor does he make Jesus a second deity.183 Jesus’ radical submission to God indicates that the reign of God is indeed unified (cf. 1 Cor 15.28). Jesus is God’s definitive eschatological agent for his kingdom, who uniquely participates in God’s sovereignty, and whose identity is directly and inseparably linked to that God, yet Jesus is utterly submissive to God, revering and honoring him even at the cost of his life. Jesus is portrayed as the “Son of God,” and the central theme of the Second Gospel and of Jesus’ message from the beginning of his public ministry is the kingdom of God (1.15; also 4.1–34; 14.25; 15.43). Jesus proclaims the gospel of God (1.14). Jesus describes the supreme glory that he will possess at the eschaton with the angelic entourage as his Father’s (8.38). Jesus is seen to submit himself to God’s authority (e.g., 10.40; 13.32; 14.36; 15.34) and appears to be theocentric enough to call the God of Israel repeatedly “my God [ὁ θεός μου/‫( ”]אלי‬Mark 15.34; cf. Ps 22.2 [21.2 LXX]).184 Jesus’ identity and ministry cannot stand apart from the God of Israel. To the Evangelist, the direct and inseparable linkage between Jesus and God does not endanger devotion to the unique deity of Israel, and the latter does not limit or exclude the former – although this point does not mean that (unbelieving) Jews contemporary to Mark agreed with the Evangelist’s version of the devotion to Israel’s God.185 Mark’s contemporary (unbelieving) Jews would not have accepted Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand and other remarkable portraits of Jesus as the Evangelist (and his audience) would (cf. section 5.1.1). However, according to Mark, the meaning and significance of the Shema is redefined in view of Jesus’ uniqueness. The Evangelist’s view of the unique God includes this Jesus. According to Mark, a true devotion to Israel’s God is neither threatened nor compromised but rather materialized and specified through the view of Jesus who is inseparably linked with God and is on par with that God yet, at the same time, is distinguished from him and radically devoted to him. It has been noted that, at least to Mark’s understanding as presented in his gospel, this high view of Jesus does not endanger devotion to the unique God of Israel but rather realizes and specifies it. A potential follow-up question relating to the combination of Jesus’ inseparable linkage with God and his differentiation from God in Mark’s Gospel will concern what paradigm the 183

One also needs to note the presence of the explicit one-God language in Mark (2.7; 10.18; 12.29, v. 32). Philo applies the designation “second God” to Logos (QG 2.62), but he clarifies that the use of the “God” language to Logos is improper (Somn. 1.228–29). See section 2.3.1.4 above for further discussion of Philo’s “God” language. 184 Emphasis added. 185 Mark 2.7; 14.64; also John 5.18; 10.29–33; cf. Segal, Two Powers, passim.

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

249

Evangelist used in integrating the two emphases or what forces encouraged the Evangelist to make such a combination. Mark and the traditions that he incorporated into his account, however, do not provide any concrete information in that regard beyond letting this pioneering gospel narrative hold the two aspects together. These two aspects do not seem to be easily reconciled with each other in the eyes of contemporary readers whose understanding of Jesus’ submission to God is often shaped by a post-Arian or modern understanding of “equality” and “subordination.”186 Nevertheless, it seems, at least to Mark (and his original audience), that those two aspects are not merely compatible but also organically integrated as discussed above. In light of the integration of the two aspects, it can be said that Jesus’ distinction from and submission to God stay within the bounds of his linkage and parity with God, and vice versa. Accordingly, one should guard against oversimplifying the nuanced and complex dynamics existing in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ relationship to God. Furthering the above discussion, it may be suggested that the integration of Jesus’ linkage with God and the differentiation between the two persons as seen in Mark’s narrative can be accounted for from an angle of “paradox,” which the following section (5.2.5.2) will explore with particular attention to the Evangelist’s christological portrayal. 5.2.5.2 Paradox and Mark’s Christological Portrayal The Markan author appears to embrace paradox in his narrative. “Paradox” is here understood according to the sense adopted in Laura Sweat’s study, The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark, namely, the phenomenon that occurs “when claims are held together even when they are ‘individually probable, but jointly inconsistent.’”187 Paradox is a commonly recognized fea186 Concerning the Arian Controversy in the fourth century, see Madigan, “Christus Nesciens?,” 255–78, and primary and secondary literature cited therein. Madigan tries to explain the dissimilar interpretations of Mark 13.32 between Nicene Orthodoxy and Arian Heresy in light of their differing soteriological understandings. Concerning the Arian Controversy, see also the classical work of Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 318– 381; Williams, Arius; Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325–345. 187 Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox, 17. For this basic definition, see also Simpson and Weiner, “paradox,” Oxford English Dictionary 11:185. This modern definition of paradox derives from the Greek word παράδοξος. The basic meaning of παράδοξος is “contrary to expectation, marvelous” (for this basic meaning along with the sub-categories mentioned below, see Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, παράδοξος, 1547; LSJ, παράδοξος, 1309; BDAG, παράδοξος, 763). The word could be used a number of ways in different contexts, including the description of an occurrence that defies expectation, miraculous activity, two conflicting ideas that prove mutually exclusive or, relatedly, two conflicting ideas that are, nevertheless, both true. This last sense is in line with the meaning here employed by the English word “paradox”; by “paradox,” I do not mean a logical contradiction. The following

250

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

ture of the Second Gospel that has been given fuller attention elsewhere by scholars such as Philip Davis, Narry Santos, Geert van Oyen, and Sweat herself.188 These scholars demonstrate the important role that paradox plays within the Second Gospel as well as the significant attention it deserves. For the purposes of this study, however, it will be necessary only to show the plausibility that paradox is a feature of the Markan text generally and of Mark’s christological portrayal specifically. The plausibility that Mark intended a paradoxical christological portrait is in line with the contention that the Second Evangelist deliberately collocates (section 5.1) and integrates (section 5.2) Jesus’ inseparable linkage with and distinction from God as well as Jesus’ parity with and radical submission to God. Concerning Mark’s Gospel, in general, a representative sampling of texts reveals the widespread use of paradox in the narrative.189 For instance, Jesus’ parables are hidden “in order to” (ἵνα) be revealed (4.22).190 The one who saves his life is the one who loses it and vice versa (8.35). The first is last while the last is first (9.35; 10.31). Greatness is realized by becoming a slave of all (10.43–44).191 The stone rejected by the builders becomes the chief cornerstone (12.10–11). The one forsaken by God is, in fact, God’s beloved Son (15.34, 39; cf. 1.11; 9.7; 12.6). These paradoxical elements would appear to have spoken vividly to Mark’s suffering community/communities. Such followers would need to know that to be last is, in reality, to be first, that rejection can mean vindication, and that rewards for following Jesus are to be mentioned fittingly in the same breath “with persecutions [μετὰ διωγμῶν]” (10.30). Such an audience would need to recognize their own lives as a paradoxical reality, in some way, to make sense of their suffering. Mark’s audience would undoubtedly also take heart in following Jesus, who is himself presented paradoxically in the Second Gospel, as

example from Philo reflects the word used in this sense and shows the plausibility that paradox, as here considered, was a meaningful concept in the first-century world and was a concept Mark could have employed: ὥσθ’ ὁ Ἄβελ, τὸ παραδοξότατον, ἀνῄρηταί τε καὶ ζῇ (“So that Abel, paradoxically, is killed but also lives” – my translation) (Worse, 48; for other possible examples of the word used in this sense, see, e.g., Philo, Her. 81; Plato, Republic 471). 188 Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox”; Santos, Slave of All; van Oyen, “The Vulnerable Authority;” Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox. 189 For Mark’s pervasive use of paradox, see Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox. 190 The use of ἵνα denoting purpose in this passage is unique to Mark’s Gospel and is not found in the Lukan parallel (see Luke 8.17 – οὐ γαρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν δ ̀ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται). Matthew does not contain this pericope. For more on Mark’s paradox of revelation together with concealment, see Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox, 28–62. 191 For paradox in relation to discipleship, see Santos, Slave of All; van Oyen, “The Vulnerable Authority.”

5.2 Jesus’ Linkage with and Distinction from God in Mark’s Narrative

251

further clarified below.192 In any case, since paradox is a notable part of Mark’s narrative, one might expect it to be found also from the Evangelist’s portrait of Jesus, the key character of the narrative and the agent of the key events in the gospel. As for Mark’s christological portrayal, Davis argues that the Second Gospel is characterized by a God-versus-man dualism that requires a paradoxical figure to transcend it.193 The dualism is seen in terms of, for instance, human tradition being at odds with the divine commandment (7.8) and aligning with man’s interests being opposed to God’s (8.33; cf. also 7.1–23; 10.27).194 It makes sense that this dualism should be overcome by one who is paradoxically both man and the κύριος of the Old Testament (1.2–3 [cf. Isa 40.3]; 5.19–20; 12.35–37).195 The problem of a divide between God and man requires someone who is both divine and human to transcend that split. Since one cannot, seemingly, be both divine and human, a resolution is provided through the use of paradox, where “the opposite of one profound truth is not falsehood: it is another profound truth.”196 Mark does not offer his audience an explanation for these seemingly conflicting realities about Jesus. Instead, he simply presents them side by side in his narrative, leaving his audience to appreciate the profound truth created or, conversely, to find themselves as those without eyes to see and ears to hear (4.9–12, 23; 8.18).197 It is probably no accident that Jesus’ exhortation, “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” (4.23), comes immediately after his declaration that “There is nothing hidden, except to [ἵνα] be disclosed; nor is anything secret except to [ἵνα] come to light” (4.22). 192 Those who have been privileged to “know” the secret of the kingdom (Mark 4.11, v. 34) and the true significance of Jesus (cf. 15.39) should not seek their own glory (cf. 10.35– 41), but become “the slave of all” (v. 44) – following Jesus who “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (v. 45). Even in the midst of severe afflictions, Mark’s audience must remember the example of this paradoxical Jesus – a divine figure, crucified. Cf. Santos, Slave of All. 193 Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox,” 6–7. 194 Cf. Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox,” 6. 195 See Davis, “Mark’s Christological Paradox,” 14–15. 196 Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox, 27. Sweat attributes this thought to Niels Bohr, pointing to Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, xxix. She also clarifies that paradox is justified, in part, due to “the assumption of human finitude [in understanding God]” (17). See also Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 334. 197 See Boring, “The Christology of Mark,” 125–54, esp. 136–45, for Mark’s choice of a narrative genre to facilitate the paradoxical truths that cannot be easily formulated in a propositional statement. Boring summarizes his idea in a later article: “The narrative genre chosen/devised by Mark must be given full due in discussions of his Christology. The differences between narrative and discursive language, the capacity of narrative to hold together contrary perspectives in tension, and the limitation of narrative in necessarily delineating its content in a diachronic mode must be taken into account in assessing Mark’s Christology” (Boring “God-Language,” 471).

252

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

Not only does a paradoxical presentation of Jesus fit with the need to transcend the apparent divine-versus-human dichotomy of the Second Gospel, it also fits with what has been argued earlier in this chapter. Namely, the concept of paradox helps explain how Jesus can be presented in Mark’s Gospel both as inseparably bound together with God (5.1.1) and as distinguished from, and even contrasted with, him (5.1.2). One would suppose that two figures cannot be bound inseparably and distinguished at the same time. However, such is Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ relation to God. The fact that Jesus’ inseparable linkage to and distinction from God are presented across the narrative (5.2.2) and even side by side (5.2.3), adds to the plausibility that Mark, as a skillful storyteller (5.2.4), was aware of, and intended, the christological paradox observed above.198 5.2.6 Summary of 5.2 The current section (5.2) has discussed the reasons why the combination of Jesus’ linkage with God and his differentiation from God cannot simply be an accident. Several factors indicate that the combination of the two elements is something inherent in Mark’s view of Jesus’ relationship to God and intended by the Evangelist. First, the use of the title, the “Son of God,” and the related filial and familial terms and images across the gospel indicates that the two elements are integrated in Mark’s portrait of Jesus. Second, the appearance of both elements across the narrative implies the integration of the two emphases – it is unlikely for Mark to be unaware of the repetition of both elements across the gospel. Third, the recurring collocation of the two elements, even within individual passages, further points out that the two components are integrated in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus. Fourth, Mark’s competency in controlling what he narrates stands in favor of the integration of the two factors. Overall, the combination of the two seemingly conflicting components appears to be far 198 In addition to considering Mark’s overall narrative and his christological portrayal, it is worth noting two additional factors that make Mark’s intentional use of paradox likely. First, paradox is a concept that is not limited to Mark’s Gospel in the New Testament. For instance, scholars have advocated the deliberate use of paradox in Paul’s letters (see, e.g., Hanson, The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St. Paul; Waters, “Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles”). One is reminded of Paul’s insistence that “the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1.18). Paradoxical elements also surface in 2 Cor 4.7–12, as expressed by statements such as, “So death is at work in us, but life in you” (4.12). Second, paradox is a key concept in many areas of Christian theology (Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, 25, 130, 213, 297, 302), such as the co-presentation of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (see Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, 159 for the mention of paradox, specifically), or God’s immanence and transcendence (see, e.g., Isa 57.15). In light of these additional factors coupled with main points presented above, it appears that Mark, as a New Testament writer, would not be out of place by using paradox to depict Jesus in his gospel.

5.3 Chapter Summary

253

from coincidental. Although Mark’s contemporary (unbelieving) Jews would not necessarily agree, the Evangelist seems to suggest that the high view of Jesus does not endanger the devotion to Israel’s unique God but rather realizes and specifies it. What one finds in Mark’s Gospel are two aspects of a paradoxically integrated Christology, both of which are emphasized in an alternating or concurrent manner at different points across the narrative.

5.3 Chapter Summary 5.3 Chapter Summary

It has been argued in this chapter (chap. 5) that the aspects of (a) Jesus’ linkage and, relatedly, parity with God and (b) the differentiation and, relatedly, hierarchy between the two persons appear repeatedly across Mark’s Gospel (section 5.1) and that these two aspects are integrally and organically bound up with each other within Mark’s narrative (section 5.2). Jesus’ linkage (and parity) with God is punctuated by the portrayal of the distinction (and hierarchy) between the two persons, and vice versa. The terms and images emphasizing Jesus’ distinction from God and the hierarchy between the two in the gospel do not present a single-faceted subordination but rather nuance and specify Jesus’ relation to God within the view of Jesus as one inseparably linked with and on par with that God. The terms and images that highlight Jesus’ inseparable linkage and parity with God do not present an undifferentiated identity between God and Jesus as if the latter replaces the former or vice versa but rather bind Jesus’ identity in the closest manner imaginable with the unique God of Israel without nullifying distinctions between the two. The portrayal of Jesus’ identity and his relation to God in Mark’s narrative is not monolithic but, rather, complex, nuanced, and even paradoxical. A merely theocentric or christological reading does not account adequately for the complexity, nuance, and paradox of Mark’s narrative portrayal of Jesus. A couple of points should be made as Mark’s christological interpretation of the one-God language (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37)199 is brought into discussion with how the Evangelist integrates Jesus’ linkage with God and the distinction between the two in his narrative. First, the case for the christological rereading of the Shema in Mark’s Gospel is further supported by the group of many passages that link Jesus directly and inseparably with God (section 5.1.1) across Mark’s narrative, beginning with the opening verses in Mark 1.2–3. Since Mark binds Jesus’ identity with that of Israel’s God across his narrative (and not just in some parts of it) by repeatedly applying Old Testament God-language to Jesus, it is not too surprising that he did something similar with the one-God language.

199

See chaps. 3–4 above.

254

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

Second, Mark’s divine Christology reflected in many passages that bind Jesus’ identity with God’s (section 5.1.1), in general, and his christological rereading of the one-God language (chaps. 3–4), in particular, must be understood not in a simplistic manner but in a nuanced, complex, and even paradoxical sense which facilitates the integration of Jesus’ inseparable linkage to God and his differentiation from God (section 5.2). Mark portrays the remarkable Jesus (cf. section 5.1.1 above) – in light of whom he rereads the Shema and whose identity and authority he links inseparably with those of Israel’s God – as a Jewish Galilean man who recites the core confession about Israel’s unique deity (Mark 12.29–30) and submits himself radically to that biblical deity (cf. section 5.1.2 above). Such a portrayal illustrates a nuanced, complex, and even paradoxical integration of the linkage and distinction between the two figures, Jesus and God. The nuance, complexity, and paradox of Mark’s portrayal of Jesus was not absent in the one-God passages themselves (2.1–12; 10.17–31; 12.28–37). While remarkably rereading the one-God language in light of Jesus who is – inseparably linked with and meaningfully on par with Israel’s deity – Mark still creates a vivid portrayal of Jesus’ relationship to God within those monotheistic passages by nuancing the direct linkage between the two figures with the depiction of their distinction in the immediately surrounding verses (2.12; 10.27; 12.29–30). The closing section below (5.4) is designated for the concluding comments of this study. Since I have already tied up various discussions of the current study in each chapter, and since the current chapter (chap. 5) in general and this section (5.3) in particular have a thrust of integrating various arguments presented in the earlier parts of the study, a brief conclusion as follows will suffice.

5.4 Concluding Remarks: Mark’s Innovative Rereading of the Shema 5.4 Concluding Remarks: Mark’s Innovative Rereading of the Shema

My aim in this study has been to investigate how Shema language (Deut 6.4) is used in Mark’s Gospel. While Mark’s rereading of the Shema is rooted firmly in the uniqueness of God as emphatically affirmed in the Second Temple era (chap. 2), it also has a distinctive and programmatic nature in that the language formerly highlighting God’s uniqueness is now utilized with a particular interest in the status and significance of Jesus as one inseparably linked with and on par with that God. Mark’s explicitly monotheistic phrases (2.7; 10.18; 12.29 [cf. v. 32]) contain remarkable christological implications in that the oneGod language is not simply reiterated in a traditional sense (cf. chap. 2) but is innovatively interpreted to link Jesus with Israel’s God and present Jesus on par with that God (chaps. 3–4). That the divine uniqueness rhetoric was

5.4 Concluding Remarks: Mark’s Innovative Rereading of the Shema

255

reserved for Israel’s God alone in the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature, especially since that rhetoric was employed commonly and frequently, makes Mark’s christological rereading of the one-God language with Jesus in view all the more striking. Such an innovative rereading of the core confession of Jewish faith, however, needs to be appreciated in the context of Mark’s nuanced, complex, and even paradoxical portrayal of Jesus’ relationship to God, which bind the ideas of Jesus’ linkage with God and his distinction from that God inseparably with each other (chap. 5). The nuance, complexity, and paradox involved in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ relationship to God across the gospel, including the passages employing the Shema (2.1–12 [v. 12]; 10.17–31 [v. 27]; 12.28–37 [vv. 29–30]), should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, it is telling that the traditional and essential Jewish language expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s God in the Shema (Deut 6.4) is interpreted in an unprecedented manner to portray, in one way or another, Jesus’ direct and inseparable linkage with that unique God. Such a rereading seems to have no small significance for understanding the nature of Mark’s view of Jesus, God, and the relation between the two persons as well as other facets of Mark’s Gospel, since it is primarily a story about Jesus as its opening verse indicates – “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1.1).” The passages containing the three monotheistic references (2.7; 10.18; 12.29; cf. v. 32) appear in different junctures of the narrative, and there are different dynamics involved in and surrounding each of those pericopes. Yet in each of those passages, monotheistic language, which traditionally emphasized the uniqueness of Israel’s God, is utilized with a remarkable christological interest, especially that of linking Jesus with God and presenting Jesus on a level with that God. In each occasion, a monotheistic reference is presented – in 2.7 by reactive scribes, in 10.18 by Jesus’ veiled question about his goodness, and then in 12.29 (cf. v. 32) by the dialogue of Jesus and an unusually friendly scribe. In each monotheistic presentation, a christological interest is immediately attached – by Jesus’ authority to forgive sins in 2.10, by Jesus’ authority to ensure eternal life to his followers in 10.21 and, more vividly, vv. 29–30, and by Jesus’ authority as David’s Lord in 12.35–37 (cf. Ps 110.1). Of course, Mark’s portrait of Jesus is far from monolithic (section 5.2 above), but the way the Evangelist rereads the Shema language implies that Mark’s Jesus cannot adequately be appreciated as a merely human figure. Instead, Mark’s striking christological use of monotheistic language signifies that, at least according to the portrayal of the Second Gospel in the final form text, the human Jesus is, in some mysterious way, also the one who is inseparably linked to and is on par with Israel’s unique God. Mark’s narrative presentation, after all, does not consist of isolated themes patched together but of fully-integrated themes that are better appreciated as parts of a whole. Therefore, Mark’s presentation of Jesus specifically according to his rereading of the Shema and his general portrayal of Jesus must be

256

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

understood in connection to the Evangelist’s description of other key themes in his narrative, not least Jesus’ passion. Throughout Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ death is presented as inseparable from his divine sonship. Jesus’ identity as divine Son of God is not adequate unless seen in relation to his suffering. While demons who proclaim Jesus’ divine sonship are silenced (e.g., 1.34; 3.11–12), the first human being to recognize Jesus’ divine sonship appropriately does so right after the temple curtain is torn and Jesus dies on the cross (15.39).200 His recognition as such stands in stark contrast to Peter’s rebuke of Jesus after the latter pronounces the necessity of his death, at which point Jesus rebukes Peter back as “Satan” (8.32–33). Jesus’ divine sonship is inextricably woven into the presentation of his death in Mark’s narrative. This point about Jesus’ death may also help explain Mark’s secrecy motif.201 That is, Jesus’ insistence that his divine sonship not be made public has to do with the shocking nature of his divine sonship and its connections to his death on a Roman cross. Only as the disciples are on the way to Jerusalem does Jesus begin to speak openly with them about his impending death at his destination (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34), yet the disciples fail to connect Jesus’ messiahship and his death. The secret of Jesus’ identity was something to be revealed in its own time, which is tied to a mystery about God’s kingdom for those with eyes to see and ears to hear (4.11–12).202 Given the mysterious nature of Jesus’ self-revelation, it should, in a way, not be surprising that the disciples are seen to be slow to comprehend. So ironic is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem to establish his kingdom through his crucifixion 200 The centurion’s recognition of Jesus as God’s Son (15.39) coupled with the tearing of the temple veil (v. 38) comes as something of an apocalyptic revelation, forming an inclusio with God’s declaration of Jesus as his son (1.11) combined with the tearing of the heavens (v. 10). The inclusio may be seen from at least two elements: (1) the explicit divine sonship language (1.11 and 15.39) and (2) the verb σκίζω (to tear apart), a word with revelatory/apocalyptic connection which is used only in 1.10 and 15.38 in Mark’s Gospel. Regarding 15.39, one can say that the revelation of Jesus’ identity as his son is finally accepted, embraced and confessed by (1) a Gentile (this ethnic detail is significant for the missionary theme and the interest in Gentiles in Mark’s Gospel – see, e.g., 7.1–23 [esp. v. 19]) and (2) under the cross (this specific location is significant for Mark’s presentation of Christology and discipleship in that the followers of Jesus must follow him in his way to his passion). For further discussion, see Daniel M. Gurtner, “The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology,” 292–306. 201 Here, “secrecy motif” is preferred over the expression “messianic secret,” since the latter calls to mind William Wrede’s thesis and the baggage that comes with it. See Wrede, The Messianic Secret. For a succinct and balanced discussion of Mark’s secrecy motif, see Garland, 368–87, which includes criticisms of Wrede. 202 So Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, 387. Richard Hays gives attention to the pervasive secret-yet-visible elements in Mark, pointing to the author’s allusive use of scripture and parables, the latter of which can be used to conceal one moment (4.11–12) and reveal the next (4.33–34). See Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, 99 (refer to 97–103 regarding Mark’s scriptural hermeneutics).

5.4 Concluding Remarks: Mark’s Innovative Rereading of the Shema

257

that the disciples fail to understand Jesus’ straightforward predictions of his death on three distinct occasions on the way203 there (8.31; 9.31; 10.33–34).204 Inextricably bound to Jesus’ counterintuitive death on the cross is Mark’s counterintuitive focus on cross-bearing discipleship. That is, not merely must Jesus’ identity be understood in light of his death on the cross, but also the identity of a disciple is realized only through the imitation of Jesus’ self-sacrificial service. This point is made most clearly in Mark 10.45, where Jesus links the expectations he has for his disciples to his own ultimate sacrifice: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” While God’s kingdom is announced as having arrived early on in the narrative (1.14–15) and is seen to be the central focus of the Markan Jesus across the gospel (4.11, 26, 30; 9.1, 47; 10.14–15, 23–25; 12.34; 14.25; 15.43), it is understood as having arrived in relation to and through the person and ministry of Jesus. That is, God’s kingdom can only be understood in connection to Jesus. Mark 12.28–37, a key text in this study, provides a noteworthy example in this regard. The Great Commandment passage containing the Shema quotation (12.28–34 with the Shema quoted in v. 29 and rephrased in v. 32) ends with Jesus’ declaration that the scribe is “not far from the kingdom of God” (12.34). Jesus subsequently focuses attention on his own identity and its importance for entering the kingdom, pointing out that David calls the messiah “Lord” (12.37). By drawing the crowd’s attention on the unique identity of the messiah, Mark’s Jesus hints at his inseparable linkage to God within God’s kingdom purposes. According to Mark’s Gospel, the adequate appreciation of the nature of Jesus’ relation to God, as discussed in part in this study (see chaps. 3–5), is indispensable for a proper understanding of God’s kingdom. Mark’s innovative interpretation of the Shema, which rereads the language of Israel’s core confession to her unique God (Deut 6.4) with a striking christological concern, signifies that the Jewish man from Galilee – whom religious authorities condemned as a blasphemer (2.1–12 [esp. v. 7]; cf. 14.64), whose invitation into eternal life was rejected by an exemplary fellow Jew (10.17– 203 Jesus’ “way” to Jerusalem should be seen in connection with the “way of the Lord” which begins the Gospel in 1.2–3. The way of the divine Lord (1.2–3) is the way of suffering and death in Mark’s narrative (8.22–10.52; chaps. 14–15). 204 Peter’s failure in Mark 8.32 appears to function in a representative way for all of the disciples following Jesus with him, especially since, unique to Mark, Jesus rebukes Peter while “seeing the disciples” (8.33). Mark 9.33–34 describes a universal failure on the part of all of the Twelve (v. 35) who “had argued with one another who was the greatest (v. 34).” It is also noteworthy that James and John’s failure (10.35–40) is followed by a description of the error on the part of the other ten who became indignant toward the sons of Zebedee (v. 41). All of the disciples are, then, depicted at fault in each of the three occasions. As for James and John’s failure, see also my discussion in section 5.1.2.1, which focuses particularly on Mark 10.40.

258

Chapter 5: Mark’s Complex Portrait of Jesus’ Relationship to God

22), and whose love for the unique God of Israel (cf. 12.29) led him to die the most shameful and horrific death possible205 [15.24]) – that Jew is, in some mysterious manner, also the one who forgives sins as only God can, whose goodness is as ultimate as that of the God of Israel, and who participates in God’s unique cosmic sovereignty and whose identity and authority are, in those striking ways, directly and inseparably linked to those of Israel’s unique God (2.7; 10.18; 12.28–37).206

205

See Hengel, Crucifixion. The last section of the study (5.4), in part, attempted to sketch briefly the relation between the key topic of this study (i.e., Mark’s christological use of the monotheistic language) and some of the main themes in the Second Gospel. For a helpful discussion of main themes in Mark’s Gospel, see Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel, esp. chaps. 3–14. 206

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., Jr. Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2003. Abrahams, Israel. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. Adams, Edward. “The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel.” Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005): 39–61. Adler, William. “The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 795–97. Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Albertz, Martin. Die synoptischen Streitgespräche: Ein Beitrag zur Formengeschichte des Urchristentums. Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1921. Albright, William Foxwell. “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 56 (1937): 145–76. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150. Word Biblical Commentary 21. Rev. ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Allison, Dale C. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1998. –. “Mark 12:28–31 and the Decalogue.” Pages 270–78 in Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William Richard Stegner. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Ambrozic, Aloysius M. The Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 2. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972. Amir, Y. “Die Begegnung des biblischen und des philosophischen Monotheismus als Grundthema des jüdischen Hellenismus.” Evangelische Theologie 38 (1978): 2–19. Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1976. Anderson, Janice Capel, and Stephen D. Moore. Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2d ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2008. Appold, Mark L. The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegetical Probe into the Theology of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976. Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Athanassiadi, Polymnia, and Michael Frede. Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Aune, David Edward. “Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew.” Pages 145–75 in Matthew and Mark: Comparative Readings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and

260

Bibliography

Anders Runesson. 2 vols. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. Is Mark a Roman Gospel? Harvard Theological Studies 7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Berkely, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996. Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. 1st American ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992. –. “The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 93–111 in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Bassler, Jouette M. “The Parable of the Loaves.” Journal of Religion 66 (1986): 157–72. Bauckham, Richard. “A Case for High Human Christology.” Expository Times 129 (2017): 121–24. –. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. –. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audience. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –. Review of C. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû`’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Biblical Interpretation 12 (2004): 218–21. –. “Is ‘High Human Christology’ Sufficient?: A Critical Response to J.R. Daniel Kirk’s A Man Attested by God.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 27 (2017): 503–25 –. “James and the Jerusalem Community.” Pages 55–95 in Jewish Believers in Jesus. Edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. –. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “Markan Christology according to Richard Hays: Some Addenda.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 11 (2017): 21–36. –. “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ Or ‘Someone’.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7 (1985): 23–33. –. “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 43–69 in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalytic Christianity.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 322–41. Baum, Armin Daniel. “Review of A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, by J.R. Daniel Kirk.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 142 (2017): 1038–1041. Beale, G. K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984. Beavis, Mary Ann. Mark’s Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11–12. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 33. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. Becker, Eve-Marie. Das Markusevangelium im Rahmen anitker Historiographie. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Bibliography

261

Becking, Bob. “Continuity and Discontinuity after the Exile: Some Introductory Remarks.” Pages 1–8 in Crisis of Israelite Religion. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Berger, Klaus. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972. Best, Ernest. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. –. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985. –. “Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition.” Pages 21–34 in L’évangile selon Marc. Edited by M. Sabbe. Louvain Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1974. –. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Beyer, Klaus. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Bickerman, E. J. From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism. Schocken Paperbacks 36. New York: Schocken, 1962. –. The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 32. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Bird, Michael F. Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2017. Black, C. Clifton. The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 27. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. –. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Blackburn, Barry. “Theios Anēr” and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the “Theios Anēr” Concept as an Interpretative Backround of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Boccaccini, Gabriele, ed. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61–64. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.106 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. –. Luke. 2 vols. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994. Bolt, Peter. “Mark 16:1–8: The Empty Tomb of a Hero?” Tyndale Bulletin 47 (1996): 27– 37. Bond, Helen. The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2020. Borgen, Peder, Kåre Fuglseth, and Roald Skarsten. The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology. Electronic ed. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2005. Boring, M. Eugene. “The Christology of Mark: Hermeneutical Issues for Systematic Theology.” Semeia 30 (1984): 125–54.

262

Bibliography

–. Mark: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. –. “Markan Christology: God-Language for Jesus?” New Testament Studies 45, no. 4 (1999): 451–71. Bornkamm, Günter. “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe.” Pages 85–93 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21. Edited by Walther Eltester. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1954. Botner, Max. “What Has Mark’s Christ to Do with David’s Son? A History of Interpretation.” Currents in Biblical Research 16 (2017): 50–70. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press, 2012. –. “The Sovereignty of the Son of Man: Reading Mark 2.” Pages 353–62 in The Interface of Orality and Writing. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 260. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The English Translation of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. London: Bagster & Sons, 1851. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Current Research on the Gospel according to Mark: A Report on Monographs Published from 2000–2009.” Pages 13–32 in Mark and Matthew I: Contemporary Readings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.271. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. Nachfolge und Zukunftserwartung nach Markus: Eine methodenkritische Studie. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Zürich: Theologischer, 1984. Brown, Jeannine K. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 619–24 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2d ed. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013. Brown, Raymond Edward. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Brueggemann, Walter. Old Testament Theology: An Introduction. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008. Bruno, Chris. ‘God is One’: The Function of Eis ho Theos as a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul’s Letters. Library of New Testament Studies 497. London: T&T Clark, 2013. Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. –. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1952. Burchard, Christoph. “Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der frühen christlichen Überlieferung.” Pages 39–62 in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde. Edited by Joachim Jeremias, Eduard Lohse, Christoph Burchard and Berndt Schaller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Burkett, Delbert Royce. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. –. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. –. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2018.

Bibliography

263

Butler, Harold Edgeworth, trans. Institutio Oratoria. 4 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1922. Caird, G. B., and L. D. Hurst. New Testament Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Calvert-Koyzis, Nancy. Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 273. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry. Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Capes, David B. The Divine Christ. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Ill.: Baker Academic, 2018. –. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –. “Review of A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, by J.R. Daniel Kirk.” Interpretation 72 (2018): 442–44. Carey, Holly J. Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Carlson, James W. “The Shema in Mark: For a Gentile or a Jewish Audience?” Pages 52– 70 in Take This Word to Heart. Edited by P. B. Yoder. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 2005. Casey, Maurice. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991. –. “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ In Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 21– 56. –. Review of I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, by Catrin H. Williams. Journal of Theological Studies 53 (2002): 207–10. –. “Method in Our Madness, and Madness in Their Methods: Some Approaches to the Son of Man Problem in Recent Scholarship.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 42 (1991): 17–43. –. “Monotheism, Worship and Christological Developments in the Pauline Churches.” Pages 214–33 in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –. The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. Charles, Robert Henry, ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85. Chatman, Seymour Benjamin. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1980. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.

264

Bibliography

Chilton, Bruce D. “Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982): 88–112. –. Profiles of a Rabbi: Synoptic Opportunities in Reading About Jesus. Brown Judaic Studies 177. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Chronis, Harry L. “To Reveal and to Conceal: A Literary-Critical Perspective on ‘the Son of Man’ in Mark.” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 459–81. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Library of Early Christianity 7. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Cohn, Yehudah. Tangled up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008. Cohon, Samuel S. “The Unity of God: A Study in Hellenistic and Rabbinic Theology.” Hebrew Union College Annual 26 (1955): 425–79. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1992. –. “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans.” Harvard Theological Review 93 (2000): 85–100. –. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2007. Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John Joseph Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Collins, John Joseph. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1984. –. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995. –. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 448–66. –. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993. Colson, F. H., and G. H. Whitaker, trans. Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes). 12 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927–62. Cook, Michael L. Christology as Narrative Quest. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997. Cook, Stanley A. “A Pre-Masoretic Biblical Papyrus.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 25 (1903): 34–56. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. –. “Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246).” Pages 1–13 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Crossan, John D. “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8).” Pages 135–52 in Passion in Mark. Edited by Werner H. Kelber and John R. Donahue. Toronto: Macmillan, 1976.

Bibliography

265

Crossley, James G. The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 266. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Culpepper, R. Alan. Mark, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2007. Dahl, Nils Alstrup, and Donald Juel. Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology.” Pages 153–63 in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Edited by Nils A. Dahl and Donald Juel. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991. Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms. 3 vols. Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Dalman, Gustaf Hermann. The Words of Jesus, Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Daly, Robert J. “Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977): 45–75. Danove, Paul. “The Narrative Function of Mark’s Characterization of God.” Novum Testamentum 43 (2001): 12–30. –. The Rhetoric of the Characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus’ Disciples in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 290. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. New York: Arno Press, 1973. Davies, William David, and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Davis, Philip G. “Mark’s Christological Paradox.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 3–18. Day, John. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Decker, Rodney J. Mark 1–8: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2014. –. Mark 9–16: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2014. Delling, Gerhard. “MΟΝΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 8 (1952): 470–76. Deppe, Dean B. The Theological Intentions of Mark’s Literary Devices: Markan Intercalations, Frames, Allusionary Repetitions, Narrative Surprises, and Three Types of Mirroring. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Dewey, Joanna. “Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2:1–3:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 394–401. –. “Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 221–36. –. Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1975. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. London: Nicholson & Watson, 1934. Dodd, C. H. “The Dialogue Form in the Gospels.” Bulletin of John Rylands Library 37 (1954): 54–67. –. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. –. “Jesus as Teacher and Prophet.” Pages 51–66 in Mysterium Christi, edited by George Kennedy, Allen Bell, and Adolf Deissmann. London: Longmans, Green, 1930.

266

Bibliography

Donahue, John R. “A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 563–94. –. “Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a Sackgasse?” Pages 27–57 in New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Elizabeth S. Malbon. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Donahue, John R., and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Doudna, John Charles. The Greek of the Gospel of Mark. Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series 12. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1961. Doughty, Darrell J. “The Authority of the Son of Man (Mk 2:1–3:6).” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 74, no. 3–4 (1983): 161–81. Driggers, Ira Brent. Following God through Mark: Theological Tension in the Second Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Duling, Dennis C. “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David.” Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975): 235–52. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 1989. –. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. –. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. 1st American ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990. –. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. –. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. –. “The Making of Christology – Evolution or Unfolding?” Pages 437–52 in Jesus of Nazareth. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994. –. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1991. –. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1988. –. “The Son of Man in Mark.” Pages 18–34 in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts 11. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning?” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 303–36. Dupont-Sommer, André. The Essene Writings from Qumran. Oxford: Blackwell, 1961. Durkheim, Emile, and Karen E. Fields. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press, 1995. Dwyer, Timothy. “The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 17 (1995): 49–59. –. The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 128. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. First Midland Book ed. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979. Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Mark. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.

Bibliography

267

–. “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 193–216. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Elledge, Roderick. Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology. Library of New Testament Studies 575. New York: T&T Clark, 2017. Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Eshel, Esther. “4Q471 B: A Self-Glorification Hymn.” Revue de Qumran 17 (1996): 175– 203 Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the FirstCentury Temple.” Pages 522–39 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28. Edited by David J. Lull. Anaheim, Calif.: Scholar’s Press, 1989. –. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. Mark 8:27–16:20. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. Festugière, A.-J. and A. D. Nock, trans. Corpus Hermeticum. Vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Chapman, 1971. –. The Gospel according to Luke. 2 vols. Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. Jesus Monotheism Volume 1: Christological Origins. Eugene, Ore.: Cascade, 2015. –. “The Worship of Divine Humanity as God’s Image and the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 112– 28 in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Flusser, David. “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers.” Pages 551–77 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael E. Stone. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. Foster, Paul. “Review of A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, by J.R. Daniel Kirk.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (2017): 27–28. –. “Why Did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22:37.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 309–33. Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991. –. “The Rhetoric of Direction and Indirection in the Gospel of Mark.” Semeia 48 (1989): 115–34. –. Loaves and Fishes: The Function of the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 54. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. France, R. T. The Gospel according to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985.

268

Bibliography

–. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. –. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1971. –. “The Worship of Jesus: A Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?” Pages 17–36 in Christ the Lord. Edited by Donald Guthrie and Harold H. Rowdon. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1982. Fredriksen, Paula. “Gods and the One God.” Bible Review (Feb 2003): 12, 49. –. “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to Go.” Studies in Religion 35 (2006): 231–46. Freedman, Harry, and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary, and Indices. 10 vols. 3d ed. New York: Soncino, 1983. Frevel, Christian. “Beyond Monotheism? Some Remarks and Questions on Conceptualising ‘Monotheism’ in Biblical Studies.” Verbum et Ecclesia 34, no. 2 (2013): 1–7. Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1972. Gager, John G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. García Martína, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. 2d ed. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Garland, David E. A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2015. Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. –. “The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel.” Expository Times 115 (2004): 366–72. Geddert, Timothy J. “The Implied YHWH Christology of Mark’s Gospel: Mark’s Challenge to the Reader to ‘Connect the Dots.’” Bulletin for Biblical Research 25 (2015): 325–40. Gerhardsson, Birger. The Shema in the New Testament: Deut 6:4–5 in Significant Passages. Lund, Sweden: Novapress, 1996. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978–79. –. “Zum Gottesgedanken in der Jesusüberlieferung.” Pages 144–62 in Monotheismus und Christologie. Edited by Joachim Gnilka and Hans-Josef Klauck. Freiburg: Herder, 1992. Gnuse, Robert Karl. No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 241. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Goodacre, Mark. “Redaction Criticism.” Pages 767–71 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2d ed. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013. Goulder, M. D. “Psalm 8 and the Son of Man.” New Testament Studies 48, no. 1 (2002): 18– 29. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. Grant, Robert McQueen. Gods and the One God. Library of Early Christianity 1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.

Bibliography

269

Green, Joel B. “Historicisms and Historiography.” Pages 383–87 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2d ed. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2013. Grindheim, Sigurd. “Divine and Human Forgiveness: A Response to Tobias Hägerland.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 80 (2015): 125–41. –. God’s Equal: What Can We Know about Jesus’ Self-Understanding? Library of New Testament Studies 446. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Grundmann, Walter, and Friedrich Hauck. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1989. Gumerlock, Francis X. “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions.” Trinity Journal 28 (2007): 205–213. Gundry, Robert Horton. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. –. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 18. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Gurtner, Daniel M. “The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology: “Unveiling” The ΥΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ (Mark 15:38–39).” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 292–306. Guttenberger, Gudrun. Die Gottesvorstellung im Markusevangelium. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 123. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Hadas, Moses, ed. The Complete Works of Tacitus. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. The Modern Library of the World’s Best Books. New York: Random House, 1942. Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of his Prophetic Mission. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 150. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. –. “Prophetic Forgiveness in Josephus and Mark.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 79 (2014): 125– 39. Hagner, Donald A. The New Testament: A Theological and Historical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Ill.: Baker, 2012. Hannah, Darrell D. “Isaiah within Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 7–33 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Hare, Douglas R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. London: Duckworth, 1982. Hatina, Thomas R. “The Focus of Mark 13:24–27: The Parousia, or the Destruction of the Temple?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43–66. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hayman, Peter. “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1–15. Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2016.

270

Bibliography

–. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2016. Head, Peter M. “A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1:1: ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.’” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 621–29. Heil, John Paul. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt 14:22– 23, Mark 6:45–52 and John 6:15b–21. Analecta Biblica 87. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001): 52–74. Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. 1st Fortress Press ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. –. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. London: SCM Press, 1974. –. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. –. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. –. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Herbener, Jens-André P. “On the Term ‘Monotheism’.” Numen 60 (2013): 616–48. Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. Hofius, Otfried. Neutestamentliche Studien. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Jesu Zuspruch Der Sündenvergebung : Exegetische Erwägungen Zu Mk 2,5b.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie (1994): 125–43. Holladay, Carl R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Hooker, Morna Dorothy. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. –. The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” And Its Use in St. Mark’s Gospel. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967. Horbury, William. “Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age.” Pages 16–44 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press, 1998. –. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Hurtado, Larry W. “‘A Man Attested by God’: A Review.” Larry Hurtado’s Blog. March 11, 2017. Cited 23 March 2020. Online: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/aman-approved-by-god-a-review/. –. Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2017. –. “‘Ancient Jewish Monotheism’ in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 4 (2013): 379–400. –. “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship.” Pages 187–213 in Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Bibliography

271

–. Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2017. –. “First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998): 3–26. –. God in New Testament Theology. Library of Biblical Theology. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2010. –. “The Gospel of Mark: Evolutionary or Revolutionary Document?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40 (1990): 15–32. –. “Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark: A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelber’s The Oral and the Written Gospel.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 91– 106. –. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions About Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. –. “Jesus in the Gospels.” Larry Hurtado’s Blog. Cited 23 March 2020. Online: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/jesus-in-the-gospels/. –. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. –. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989. –. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 3d ed. New York: T&T Clark, 2015. –. “What Do We Mean By ‘First-Century Jewish Monotheism.’” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32 (1993): 348–68. Hurtado, Larry W., and Paul L. Owen, eds. “Who Is This Son of Man?”: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Library of New Testament Studies 390. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988. Iersel, Bastiaan Martinus Franciscus van. Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 164. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series 65. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Janzen, J. Gerald. “On the Moral Nature of God’s Power: Yahweh and the Sea in Job and Deutero-Isaiah.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 458–78. Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. –. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner, 1971. –. The Prayers of Jesus. Studies in Biblical Theology 2.6. London: SCM Press, 1967. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisès Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2015. Johansson, Daniel. “The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals.” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2011): 364–93. –. “Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark.” Ph.D. diss., The University of Edinburgh, 2011. –. “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (2010): 101–24. –. “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (2011): 351–74. Johnson, Earl S., Jr. “Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark’s Christology.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 3–22.

272

Bibliography

Johnson, Norman Burrows. Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study of the Jewish Concept of God. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1948. Jonge, Marinus de. “Jesus, Son of David and Son of God.” Pages 95–104 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Edited by Bastiaan M. F. Iersel and Sipke Draisma. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok, 1989. Juel, Donald. Mark. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1990. –. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1994. –. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Kähler, Martin. The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Translated by Carl E. Braaten. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Kaminsky, Joel S. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Keck, Leander E. “Introduction to Mark’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 352– 70. –. “Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology.” Pages 321–40 in From Jesus to John. Edited by Marinus de Jonge and Martinus C. Boer. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Kee, Howard Clark. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Keener, Craig. Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2019. Keerankeri, George. The Love Commandment in Mark: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Mk 12,28–34. Analecta Biblica 150. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003. Kelber, Werner H. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. –. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Kermode, Frank. The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. Charles Eliot Norton Lectures 1977–78. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Kertelge, Karl. “The Epiphany of Jesus in the Gospel (Mark).” Pages 105–123 in The Interpretation of Mark. 2d ed. Edited by William Telford. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Kiilunen, Jarmo. Die Vollmacht im Widerstreit: Untersuchungen zum Werdegang von Mk 2,1–3,6. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 40. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985. Kim, Seyoon. The “Son of Man” as the Son of God. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. “The ‘Divine Man’ as the Key to Mark’s Christology – The End of an Era?” Interpretation 35 (1981): 243–57. Kirchhevel, Gordon D. “The ‘Son of Man’ Passages in Mark.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 181–87. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016. –. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Kirk, J. R. Daniel, and Stephen L. Young. “‘I Will Set His Hand to the Sea’: Psalm 88:26, LXX and Christology in Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133 (2014): 333–40.

Bibliography

273

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr).” Biblische Zeitschrift 25 (1981): 223–48. Klink, Edward W. The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Kloppenborg, John S. “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 419–50. –. The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1989. Kraut, Judah. “Deciphering the Shema: Staircase Parallelism and the Syntax of Deuteronomy 6:4” Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011), 582–602. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Translated by Howard Clark Kee. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1975. Laansma, Jon C. ‘I Will Give You Rest’: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Marc. Etudes Bibliques. Paris: Lecoffre, 1911. Lake, Kirsopp, trans. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. New York: Putnam, 1917. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. 1st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2003. Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974. Lee, John J. R. “The Divinity of Jesus and the Uniqueness of God: Are they Compatible? A Reflection on High Christology and Monotheism in Mark’s Gospel.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 15 (2016): 84–100. –. “Sacrifice, Monotheism and Christology.” Midwestern Journal of Theology 15 (2016): 131–47. Leim, Joshua E. “In the Glory of His Father: Intertextuality and the Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7 (2013): 213–232. Lemche, Niels Peter. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Short Introductions and English Translations. Edited and completed by J. R. Harmer. London: Macmillan, 1912. Lim, Timothy. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 6–26 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by M. J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research. American ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984. Loader, William R. G. “Christ at the Right Hand: Ps 110:1 in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 199–217.

274

Bibliography

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937. Loke, Andrew Ter Ern. The Origin of Divine Christology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 169. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Lührmann, Dieter. Das Markusevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning Of “Monotheism.” Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Mach, Michael. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Mackintosh, H. R. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. The International Theological Library. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913. Madden, Patrick J. Jesus’ Walking on the Sea: An Investigation of the Origin of the Narrative Account. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 81. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Madigan, Kevin. “Christus Nesciens? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the Ancient Latin West.” Harvard Theological Review 96 (2003): 255–78. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean?” Pages 29– 57 in Mark & Method. Edited by Janice C. Anderson and Stephen Moore. 2d ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2008. Mann, C. S. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1986. Manson, Thomas Walter. The Sayings of Jesus, as Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke. London: SCM Press, 1949. Marcus, Joel. “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth: The Shema in the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 196–211 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William R. Stegner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. –. “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 441–62. –. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. –. “Mark 14:61: ‘Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?’.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 125–41. –. “Mark – Interpreter of Paul.” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 473–87. –. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 90. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. “The Old Testament and the Death of Jesus: The Role of Scripture in the Gospel Passion Narratives.” Pages 205–34 in The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. –. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Marcus, Ralph. “Divine Names and Attributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 3 (1931–1932): 43–120. Marshall, Christopher D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Bibliography

275

Marshall, I. Howard. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” Pages 1–21 in It Is Written. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. –. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English. 2d ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. Martínez, Florentino García and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Boston: Brill, 2000. Martyn, J. Louis. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 3rd ed, New Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. –. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. Matera, Frank J. The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. Mays, James Luther. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. McBride, Samuel Dean. “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5.” Interpretation 27 (1973): 273–306. McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002. McGrath, James F. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2009. McIlhone, J. P. “‘The Lord Your God Is One’: A Redaction Critical Analysis of Mark 12:28– 34.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1987. McKnight, Scot. Interpreting the Synoptic Gospels. Guides to New Testament Exegesis 2. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1988. Meagher, John C. Clumsy Construction in Mark’s Gospel: A Critique of Form- and Redaktionsgeschichte. Toronto Studies in Theology 3. New York: Mellen, 1979. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991–2016. –. The Vision of Matthew. New York: Paulist, 1978. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. 2d ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Miller, Robert J. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1992. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians’.” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 36–79. Mitchell, Stephen. “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.” Pages 81–148 in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity. Edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Mitchell, Stephen, and Peter van Neffelen. One God: Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Moberly, R. W. L. “How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?” Pages 216–234 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy North. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 263. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

276

Bibliography

Moloney, Francis J. “Constructing Jesus and the Son of Man.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013): 719–738. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Edited by Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder. Bilingual edition. Boston: Brill Academic, 2015. Montefiore, Claude Goldsmid. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1909. Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927. Moore, Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989. Moule, C. F. D. “‘The Son of Man’: Some of the Facts.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 277–79. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. New York: Abingdon, 1956. Moyise, Steve. “Deuteronomy in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 27–41 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by M. J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Bristol, Conn.: Peeters, 2016. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1988. Naluparayil, Jacob Chacko. The Identity of Jesus in Mark: An Essay on Narrative Christology. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2000. Naveh, Joseph, and Shaul Shaked. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988. Neusner, Jacob, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Newman, Carey C. Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 69. New York: Brill, 1992. Newman, Carey C., James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, eds. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Newsom, Carol. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985. –. “Angels.” Pages 248–53 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, and Astrid B. Beck. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Neyrey, Jerome H. Render to God: New Testament Understandings of the Divine. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2004. Nicholson, Suzanne. Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul’s One-God Language. Cambridge: James Clark, 2011. Niese, Benedictus, ed. Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1885–95. Nilsson, Martin Persson. “The High God and the Mediator.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 101–20. Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St. Mark. The Pelican Gospel Commentaries. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964. North, J. L. “Jesus and Worship, God and Sacrifice.” Pages 186–202 in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Bibliography

277

Noy, David. “‘A Sight Unfit to See’: Jewish Reactions to the Roman Imperial Cult.” Classics Ireland 8 (2001): 68–83. Oden, Thomas C., and Christopher A. Hall. Mark. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Rev. ed. New Testament 2. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005. Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity. 2d ed. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2016. Olyan, Saul M. A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. O’Neill, John Cochrane. “The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus’ Trial before the Sanhedrin.” Pages 72–77 in Trial of Jesus. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. London: SCMP, 1970. Origen. Against Celsus. In vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Translated by Frederick Crombie. Buffalo, New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Orlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Osborne, Grant R. “Redaction Criticism.” Pages 666–67 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992. Owen, Paul, and David Shepherd. “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23 (2001): 81–122. Oyen, Geert van. “The Vulnerable Authority of the Author of the Gospel of Mark: ReReading the Paradoxes.” Biblica 91 (2010): 161–186. Painter, John. Mark’s Gospel: Worlds in Conflict. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1997. –. Review of James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. Cited 23 March 2020. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4577_4907 .pdf. Palmer, Parker J. The Promise of Paradox: A Celebration of Contradictions in the Christian Life. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Parker, D. C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Parvis, Sara. Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, 325–345. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pascut, Beniamin. Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity through a Social Science Theory: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Forgiveness and Divine Identity in Ancient Judaism and Mark 2:1–12. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.438. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Penner, Ken, and Michael Heiser. Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham, 2008. Pennington, Jonathan T. Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 126. Boston: Brill, 2007. Perkins, Pheme. Love Commands in the New Testament. New York: Paulist Press, 1982. Perrin, Norman. “Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions by Mark.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 23 (1968): 357–65. –. “Evangelist as Author: Reflections on Method in the Study and Interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.” Biblical Research 17 (1972): 5–18.

278

Bibliography

–. “Mark 14:62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?” New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 150–55. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 2 vols. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1976. Petersen, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. –. “Point of View in Mark’s Narrative.” Semeia 12 (1978): 97–121. Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Biblical Interpretation Series 48. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Peterson, Erik. ΕΙΣ θΕΟΣ: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 41. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. Piper, John. “Love Your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906. Powell, Mark Allan. Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. –. What Is Narrative Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship: New Testament Series. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990. Price, Simon R. F. “Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 104 (1984): 79–95. Pryke, E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Rabinowitz, Peter J. “Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences.” Critical Inquiry 4 (1977): 121–41. Rainbow, Paul A. “Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology: A Review Article” (review of Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism). Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 78–91. –. “Monotheism and Christology in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6.” D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1987. Räisänen, Heikki. The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2010. Rawlinson, Alfred Edward John. St. Mark: With Introduction, Commentary and Additional Notes. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen, 1925. Reynolds, Benjamin E. The Son of Man Problem: Critical Readings. New York: T&T Clark, 2018. Rhoads, David M., Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1999. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, New York: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Logos Bible Software, 2006. Robinson, James McConkey. The Problem of History in Mark. Studies in Biblical Theology 21. London: SCM Press, 1957. Rompay, Lucas Van. “Some Preliminary Remarks on the Origins of Classical Syriac as a Standard Language: The Syriac Version of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History.”

Bibliography

279

Pages 70–89 in Semitic and Cushitic Studies. Edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1994. Ronning, John L., The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology. Peabody: Mass. Hendrickson, 2010. Roskam, Hendrika Nicoline. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 114. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Rowe, Christopher Kavin. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Rowe, Robert D. God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background to Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Rowland, Christopher. Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian Religion. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1985. –. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid. Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu: Eine Neutestamentliche Studie. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 80. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999. Rüger, Hans Peter. “Die lexikalischen Aramaismen im Markusevangelium.” Pages 73–84 in Markus-Philolgie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium. Edited by Hubert Cancik. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Rutherford, William C. “The use of Monotheism in the Shaping of Christian Identities visà-vis Judaism in the Second Century.” Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University, 2008. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. 1st Fortress Press ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. –. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. Oudtestamentische Studiën 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Santos, Narry F. Slave of All: The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 237. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First and second series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1886–89. Schenke, Ludger. Das Markusevangelium: Literarische Eigenart – Text und Kommentierung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus. Beiträge zur Förderung Christlicher Theologie 2.26. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann, 1932. –. Wie Sprach Josephus von Gott? Beiträge zur Förderung Christlicher Theologie 14.1. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann, 1910. Schmithals, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols, Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Gütersloh, Germany: Echter, 1979. –. The Theology of the First Christians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Schneck, Richard. Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I–VIII. BIBAL Dissertation Series 1. Vallejo, Calif.: BIBAL Press, 1994. Schneider, Gerhard. “Die Davidssohnfrage (Mk 12,35–37).” Biblica 53 (1972): 65–90. Schneiders, Sandra Marie. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. 2nd ed. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999.

280

Bibliography

Schnelle, Udo. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1998. Schürer, Emil, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135). 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News according to Mark. Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1970. Schäfer, Peter. “Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 75–91. Scott, R. B. Y. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965. Segal, Alan F. The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Brown Judaic Studies 127. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. –. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986. –. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Senior, Donald. “‘With Swords and Clubs …’ – The Setting of Mark’s Community and His Critique of Abusive Power.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987): 10–20. Shively, Elizabeth. “Review of A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels, by J. R. Daniel Kirk.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60 (2017): 637–39. Shutt, R. J. H. “The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 171–89. Sim, David C. “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 3–27. Simpson, John Andrew, and Eva S. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Sinclair, John with Ronald Carter, ed. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. New York: Routledge, 2004. Smith, C. Drew. “The Theology of the Gospel of Mark: A Literary-Theological Investigation into the Presentation of God in the Second Gospel.” Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University, 2004. Smith, Morton. “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 135–47. –. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. Lectures on the History of Religions. New series 9. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. –. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Smith, Stephen H. A Lion with Wings: A Narrative-Critical Approach to Mark’s Gospel. The Biblical Seminar 38. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Song, Jae Jung. Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Staley, Jeffrey Lloyd. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988. Stanton, Graham N. “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” Pages 164–80 in Jesus of Nazareth. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Staudt, Darina. Der eine und einzige Gott: Monotheistische Formeln im Urchristentum und ihre Vorgeschichte bei Griechen und Juden. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquum 80. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.

Bibliography

281

Stauffer, Ethelbert. Jesus and His Story. 1st American ed. New York: Knopf, 1960. Stein, Robert H. Mark. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition. Edited by Israel V. Berman. 22 vols. New York: Random House, 1989–99. Strack, Hermann Leberecht, and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 7th unchanged ed. Munich: Beck, 1978. Strecker, Georg, and Friedrich Wilhelm Horn. Theology of the New Testament. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., and Wendy E. Sproston North, eds. Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 263. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Swanson, Dwight D. “Qumran and The Psalms.” Pages 247–61 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006. Sweat, Laura C. The Theological Role of Paradox in the Gospel of Mark. Library of New Testament Studies 492. New York: T&T Clark, 2013. Tait, Michael. Jesus the Divine Bridegroom in Mark 2:18–22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical, 2010. Talbert, Charles H. What Is a Gospel?: The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Tan, Kim Huat. “Jesus and the Shema.” Pages 2677–2707 in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanely E. Porter. Boston: Brill, 2011. –. “The Shema and Early Christianity.” Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008): 181–206. Tannehill, Robert C. “Disciples in Mark: The Function of a Narrative Role.” Journal of Religion 57 (1977): 386–405. –. “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology.” Semeia 16 (1979): 57–95. Taylor, Lily Ross. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Roman History. New York: Arno Press, 1975. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1966. Telford, William R. The Interpretation of Mark. 2nd ed. Studies in New Testament Interpretation. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995. –. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. –. Writing on the Gospel of Mark. Guides to Advanced Biblical Research. Dorchester, U.K.: Deo, 2009. Thackeray, Henry, trans. Josephus, with English Translation. 10 vols. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958–61. Theissen, Gerd. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. 1st English-language ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991. –. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. 1st Fortress Press ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001.

282

Bibliography

–. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Tilling, Chris. Paul’s Divine Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.323. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Tovey, Derek. “Review of J. R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.” Review of Biblical Literature. Cited 23 March 2020. Online: https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/11357_13542.pdf. Trakatellis, Demetrios. Authority and Passion: Christological Aspects of the Gospel According to Mark. Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987. Trocmé, Étienne. L’evangile selon Saint Marc. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament. Second series. Geneva: Labor & Fides, 2000. –. The Formation of the Gospel according to Mark. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Present Son of Man.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 14 (1982): 58–81. Vermès, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin, 1997. –. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. London: Collins, 1973. –. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia Post-Biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. –. “The Son of Man Debate Revisited (1960–2010).” Journal of Jewish Studies 61 (2010): 193–206. Waaler, Erik. The Shema and the First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul’s Re-Reading of Deuteronomy. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, and Ethelbert D. Warfield. Christology and Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1929. Warmington, E. H., ed. Tacitus in Five Volumes. Translated by Clifford H. Moore. The Loeb Classical Library 249. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969. Wasserman, Tommy. "The 'Son of God' Was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1)." The Journal of Theological Studies, 62 (2011): 20–50. Waters, Larry J. “Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles.” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 668 (2010): 423–41. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. –. Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids, Ill.: Baker Books, 2000 –. “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’s Perspective on Jesus and the Temple.” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 307–22. –. “Mark.” Pages 111–249 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007. Weeden, Theodore J. Mark-Traditions in Conflict. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Wellhausen, Julius. Das Evangelium Marci. 2d ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1909. Wellum, Stephen J. God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2016. Werner, Martin. Der Einfluss Paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium: Eine Studie zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Giessen, Germany: Töpelmann, 1923. Whiston, William, trans. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987.

Bibliography

283

Whitenton, Michael. Hearing Kyriotic Sonship: A Cognitive and Rhetorical Approach to the Characterization of Mark’s Jesus. Biblical Interpretation Series 148. Boston: Brill Academic, 2017. Wicks, Henry J. The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature. London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915. Williams, Catrin H. I Am He: The Interpretation of ͗Anî Hû͗ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Williams, Joel F. Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Wink, Walter. The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of the Man. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2002. Winn, Adam. The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.245. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperOne, 2005. Witherington, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Cambridge: Clarke, 1971. –. Vorträge und Studien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1907. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. London: SPCK, 1996. –. Mark for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2001. –. New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 1. London: SPCK, 1992. Yonge, Charles Duke, trans. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. Young, Brad H. Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teachings of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007. Zeichman, Christopher B. “The Date of Mark’s Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79 (2017): 422–37.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 1.26 6.2 10 14 14.18–22 14.19 15.6 19.16 22 22.2 2.12 22.16 27.22 28.21 31.13 32.31–32 46.27

36, 47 5 63 95 63 94 173 206 161, 230, 232 232 232 186, 232 126 224 72–73 206 63

Exodus 2.2 3.14 4.22 4.24–26 5.1 7.1 12.43–13.16 14–15 14.4 14.18 15.2 15.6 15.11 19.19 20.1–17 20.3 20.11

178 103, 207 186, 228 62, 67 186 29, 41 35 206 207 207 224 92 29, 41, 44 234 184 44, 55, 90 172, 182

20.17 22.19 22.27 22.28 23.20 23.21 32.32 33.17–23 33.19 33.22 34.6–7 34.6 40.35 Leviticus 4.20 4.26 4.31 19.18

177 44, 150 78 102 140, 200–201, 221 60, 64, 165 163 207 207 207 165 207 234

23.3 24.10–23 24.15–16

163 163 163 9, 34, 87, 89, 146, 151, 177 172 168 168

Numbers 14.19 14.28 15.25–26 15.37–41 16.22 22.18 27.16

163 186 163 33, 35 40 224 40

Deuteronomy 1.32 3.24 4.5

173 44 224

286 4.19–20 4.35 4.39 5.1–6.9 5.1–21 5.7 5.12 5.15 6 6.4–9 6.4–5

6.4

6.5 6.7 6.8–9 6.10–15 6.20–25 7.7–11 7.7–8 8.6–10 9.23 10.12–11.21 11.13–21 11.13–20 18.16 24.14 26.3 26.14 30.4 32 32.6 32.8–9 32.8 32.9 32.12 32.16–17 32.17

Index of References 63 34, 44, 89–90, 152 44 35 34 43–44, 55 172, 182 170 33, 145–46 33, 35 9, 33–34, 82, 86– 87, 89–90, 112–16, 121, 134, 143, 145– 47, 151–52, 177, 184, 203 2–3, 8–12, 32–35, 43–44, 49, 78, 84– 85, 87, 89–90, 112– 15, 128–29, 131, 133, 146, 148, 150– 52, 174, 179, 184, 193–94, 254–55, 257 9, 87, 89, 113, 145– 46, 149, 184 35 35 184 184 184 209 184 173 35 33 35 224 177 224 224 160 35, 64 228 62–64 62–63 63 44, 64 51 77

32.31 32.39 33.2

77 44, 48, 64, 207 242

Joshua 9.23 14.8 14.9 24.2

224 224 224 186

Judges 5.3 6.8 9.23 10.6 11.24 11.35 11.37

208 186 48, 68 57 68 208 208

Ruth 4.4

208

1 Samuel 2.2 2.27 2.30 9.2 15.22 15.28 16.7 16.14 19.9 21.6 25.15 29.6 29.9 29.10

44 186 186 178 88 178 171 48, 68 48, 68 231 178 178 178 178

2 Samuel 7.12–14 7.12–13 7.14 7.19 7.22 12.13 23.2

117 96 99, 229–30, 237 120 44 163, 165 91

287

Index of References 1 Kings 2.19 2.32 8.39 18.39 19.11 22.17–23 22.19–23 22.23

92 178 171 29, 44 207 117 64 48, 68

2 Kings 1.8 5.26 6.12 9.26 10.3 17.14 19.15

22 172 172 186 178 173 43–44

1 Chronicles 16.34 28.2 28.9 29.20 29.21–22 29.23

178 144 171 220 220 220

2 Chronicles 5.13 19.11

178 178

Nehemiah 9.5–6 9.6

44 44, 46, 49, 55

Job 1–2 1.6–12 1.6 2.1–6 2.1 9 9.4–11 9.8 9.11 26.10–12 26.12 30.10

48, 68 117 5, 28, 40, 64 117 64 207 206 206–207 206–207 143, 204–205 204 120

38.7 38.8–11 42.10 Psalms 1 2 2.6–7 2.7 3.7 5.2 7.1 7.3 7.10 7.17 8.5 8.6 9.1–2 13.3 18.2 18.6 18.9–12 18.21 18.28 18.29 21.7 22 22.1 22.2 22.7–8 22.7 22.18 22.22–31 24.10 29.1 32.1–5 35.25 40.15 41.4 45 45.7 45.9 46.3 46.4–7 46.7 46.11 47.2

40, 64 143, 204–205 163

96, 177 96, 144, 226 117 5, 41, 97–99, 107, 229–30, 232 224 224 224 224 171 63 157 91–92, 111, 113 63 224 224 224 106 224 224 224 63 144, 160–61, 224, 226, 230–31 97, 223–24 248 224 97 97 161 28 64 165 97 97 155 220 41 92 143, 204 63 28 28 63

288 50.8–13 51.1–4 51.9–10 58.11 61.6–7 65.7 68.5 68.17 69 69.21 69.31–32 74.12 77.13 77.19 80.17 82 82.1 82.6 83.18 85.2 85.10 86.8 89 89.5–8 89.6–7 89.9 89.26–27 95.3–4 95.3 96.4 97.1–2 97.9 99.5 102.25–27 103.3 104.3–4 104.5–9 109.25 110 110.1–3 110.1

Index of References 88 165 165 170 117 143, 204–205 228 242 161, 230 97 88 170 44 206 92 48, 64 28–29, 40–41 29, 41 43 165 44 29, 41, 44 96, 204–205 64 204 143, 204 99, 229–30 28 41 44 117 29, 41, 44 144 140, 241 155, 165 106 143, 204–205 97 3, 92–95, 100–101, 110, 117, 144, 226 41 6, 12, 49, 85–86, 91–96, 100–102, 104–109, 112–18, 121, 126, 129, 132– 33, 137, 140, 142, 147, 160, 168, 174, 194, 202–203, 231, 236, 240, 255

110.2 110.3 110.4 110.9 111.10 118 118.1–4 118.22–23 118.25–26 119.160 130.4 132.7 135.5 136.1 136.2 139.1–2 139.6 139.23 144.3 144.12 145.12 148.2–5

93 93 92, 94 70 70 144, 161, 226, 230 178 230 98, 230 241 165 144 44 178 44 171 171 171 157 157 157 61

Proverbs 1 1.7 1.20–33 2.5–8 3.7 3.19–20 4.24 8 8.22–31 9.10 13.2 13.22 14.14 14.19 14.22 16.6 18.22 21.3 22.4 24.12 25.1

72 70 71 70 70 71 120 72 69, 71 70 178 178 178 178 178 70 178 88 70 171 72

Isaiah 1.4–6 1.10–20

155 88

Index of References 1.24 2.11 2.17 3.15 5.1–7 6 6.1 6.5 8.11 9.6 11.1 11.10 11.11 11.16 13.10 14.22 19.1 27.12–13 29.22 33.24 34.4 35 35.4 35.5–6 35.6 35.8–10 38.17 40–66 40–55

40–48 40.1–2 40.3

40.4–5 40.6–8 40.9–10 40.9 40.15–17 40.18–20 40.21–23 40.26–28 40.27 40.28

186 44 44 186 234 33 117 117 186 41 96 96 210 210 107 186 106 210 186 155 107 211 211 211 155, 211 210 155 110 32, 35, 44, 46, 50, 55, 139, 151, 200, 203, 207–209 59 46 32, 54, 108–110, 129, 139, 141–42, 199–203, 209, 218, 228, 232, 239–41, 251 46 140, 241 202 46, 208 46 50, 55 46 46, 49 46 46

41.1–4 41.4 41.8–10 41.21–24 42.1 42.5 42.8 43.10–11 43.10 43.11 43.13 43.16 43.25 44.2 44.6–8 44.6 44.22 44.24 45.5–7 45.5 45.12 45.14 45.18 45.20–21 45.21–22 45.21 46.4 46.5–7 46.9 47.8 47.10 48.12 48.13 49.6 49.22 51.4–6 51.10 51.12 51.16 52.7 53 53.4–6 54.4 57.15 57.18–19 60.4 60.9 61.1–2 61.1

289 46 207 46 50, 55 232 46 50 207 29, 173, 207–208 44 207 206 155, 165 208 44 44, 59 155, 165 46–47 44, 49 29, 44 46 44 44, 46 50, 55 44 89–90, 152 207 50, 55 44 29 29 59, 207 46 210 210 140, 241 206 207 46 155, 200 160–61, 230 155 208 252 155 210 210 155 200, 217

290

Index of References

61.2 63.16 64.3 64.8 66.1 66.20

217–18 228 156 228 144 210

Jeremiah 2.2 3.2 3.22 7.18 7.20–23 10.10 11.20 17.9–10 23.5 31.8 31.9 32.38–41 33.15 46.15 49.1 49.3

186 95 155 57 88 29, 44 171 171 96 155 228 35 96 68 68 68

7

7.14 7.15 7.18 7.22 7.27 8–12 9.9 10 10.13 10.20–21 11.36 12.1 12.3

69, 107, 157, 159– 61, 230 92, 107, 159 157 28, 48 104–105, 160–62, 168 49, 104–109, 157– 60, 229, 236, 240 106, 167, 173 206 157 157 157 67 165 63 68 68 47 206 60

Hosea 3.3 4.13–14 5.4 6.6 8.13 11.1 11.2 13.4 14.4

95 88 217–18 88, 100 88 228 57 44, 47 155

Joel 2.27 2.32

44 202

Amos 5.21–25

88

Micah 4.3 4.5 4.6–7 4.13 6.6–8

78 78 155 78 88

7.9–14 7.9 7.10 7.13–14 7.13

Lamentations 2.1

144

Ezekiel 1.26 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 12.22 39.27–28 45.8

158 157–58 157 157 157 120 210 210

Daniel 2.1 2.19–21 2.47 3.1–18 4.17 4.34–35 6.1–28 6.7–13 6.26

206 47 47 36, 50–51 47 47 36, 50–51 31 29, 44, 47

291

Index of References 7.12 7.18

210 165

Nahum 1.3

106

Habakkuk 2.4

217

Zephaniah 3.19

155

Zechariah 2.6

160

3.1–5 3.4 9.14–15 12.10–13.1 14.5 14.9 Malachi 1.6–14 1.6 2.10–11 3.1 4.5

117 165 242 161, 230 242 33, 35, 44, 56, 115

88 228 35 32, 140, 144, 199– 202, 228, 232, 240 200–201

Old Testament Apocrypha 1 Esdras 8.25

44

2 Esdras 6.4

144

1 Maccabees 1–2 1.41–2.26 1.51 1.62–64 2.15–16 2 Maccabees 1.24–25 1.24 6–7 7.1 7.28 7.37 3 Maccabees 2.2–3 6.2 4 Maccabees 5 5.2–4 5.24–25

36 37 51 51 51

44 47 36, 161, 230 51 59–60 44

48–49 48

55 36, 51 36

5.24 6 17

44 161, 230 161, 230

Additions to Esther 13.9–11 13.11 13.14 14.12 16.18 16.21

48–49 44 50 40 48 48

Baruch 4.1

241

Bel and the Dragon 5 29, 44, 47–48 41 45 Judith 8.20 9.14 16.14

45 45 48

Song of the Three Young Men 20–22 44 Tobit 11.14–15

67

292

Index of References

12.15 12.16–22 13.4

48 52 228

Wisdom of Sirach 4.1 4.6 4.10 15.1 15.8 17.17 18.1–5 18.1–3 23.1 23.4 24.23 26.1 26.3 29.14 36.5 36.10 38.1–15 42.18 42.20 43 43.27 43.27–33 43.28–33 43.33 48.10 50.22

177 71 229, 237 71 120 63 44 48 229 229 71 178 178 178 45 210 155 171 171 41 41–42 42 42 47 210 170

51.23–30

81

Wisdom of Solomon 1.5 72 2 161 2.2 230 2.12 72 2.13 229, 237 2.16–20 5 2.16–18 237 2.16 229 3.11 72 5.1–6 237 5.5 60 6.17 72 7–10 70, 72 7.14 72 7.27 45 8.2 72 9.4 69–70, 72 10.15–11.1 43 11.21 49 12.12–14 49 12.13 45, 47 13–15 39, 50–51, 55, 70, 78 14.11 70 14.21 50 18.4 241

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1.9 9.5 14.8 14.22 19.1–2 37–71 39.12 40.1 45.3 46.1–3 46.1 46.3–5

242 48 106 48 51 157, 220 48 48 105, 161, 167, 220 105 158 157

46.3 46.4–6 47.3 50.1–5 51.3 55.4 61.8 62.2 62.3–5 62.3 62.5–6 62.5 62.7–9

158 161, 167 48 167 105, 220 220 105, 220 220 102 220 105, 220 157 157

293

Index of References 62.14 69.27–70.1 69.29 71.1–17 71.17 84.3 104.2

157 157 157 105 157 48 60

2 Enoch 1.4–8 21.1 25.1 29.3 33.4 33.7 33.8 36.1 47.3–4 47.3 66.4–5 66.4

52 48 59 61 47, 71 44, 48–49, 61 45, 71 45 47 45 55 47

3 Enoch 1.7 4.5 4.8 10.3 12.5 16 16.1–5 16.1 16.3 16.5

52 60 60 60 60 105 52 60 60 60

4 Ezra 3.4 8.21 9.36–37 13 13.3

47 48 241 157, 159 106

Apocalypse of Abraham 7.10 47 10 54 10.3 48, 64 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6.15 52

Aristobulus fragment 4 13.13.5

37, 42 42 32

2 Baruch 21.6 48.10 54.13

48, 61 48 48

Joseph and Aseneth 12.1–2 47 14.9–12 52 15.11–12 52 Jubilees 1.24–25 2.2 12.3–5 15.31–32 22.16–17 48 48.13 48.14

237 61 47 63 51 67–68 67–68 68

Ladder of Jacob 3.3–5

52

Letter of Aristeas 16 132–38 132 139

36, 42 36, 42 39 44, 48 44

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 7.18–23 52 8.1–10 52 Odes of Solomon 6.3–5

49

Orphica 16

45

Psalms of Solomon 11 210 14.8 171

294 17 17.21

Index of References 96, 117 98

Pseudo-Phocylides 54 44 Sibylline Oracles frag. 1.5–6 frag. 1.7–11 frag. 1.7 frag. 1.15 frag. 1.17 frag. 1.32–34 frag. 1.35 frag. 3 frag. 3.3–6 frag. 5 3.8–45 3.11–12 3.11 3.19 3.20–35 3.545–61 3.571–72 3.628–31 3.629 3.757–61 3.762–63 4.27–32 5.172–76 5.284–85 5.493–500 8.375–76

47 44 48 48 48 44 48 47 44 47 55 39, 44 47–48 48 47, 55 39 44 44 45 44 50 39, 44 39 44 39 47

Testament of Abraham 48

7.11 8.1–4 8.7 9.7–8 11.3–8

48 48 45 48 105

Testament of Adam 2.9 48 Testament of Benjamin 3.3 87 Testament of Dan 1.4 5.3

178 87

Testament of Issachar 5.2 87 Testament of Job 2.4 33.3

47 92–93

Testament of Joseph 6.5 44 Testament of Levi 18

167

Testament of Moses 10.36 106 Testament of Simeon 4.7 178

New Testament Matthew 1.1 1.23 3.3 5.9 5.18 5.45 8.9

97 215 199 5, 228 241 178, 228 224

8.30 9.2 9.3 10.27 10.37 11.10 11.27 11.28–30

120 216 2, 150, 216 113 100 140 113, 212, 235–36 81

Index of References 12.28 12.35 13.40–41 13.49 13.58 14.22–33 15.1–20 16.17 17.1–9 19.16 19.17 19.20 19.22 19.24 20.23 21.31 21.43 22.7 22.10 22.34–40 22.35 22.37 22.41–46 22.41 22.44 22.46 24.31 25.21 25.23 25.34 25.41 26.64 27.2 28.20 Mark 1.1–8.26 1.1

1.2–3

1.2–8

115 178 210 210 226 206 18 212 214 178 112, 151, 178 176 176 115 221 115 115 19 178 89, 135 89 11, 33, 113 99, 126, 214 126 92, 111 123, 126 210 178 178 221 221 92, 103, 111 22 215

1.2

1.3

1.4 1.6 1.7–8 1.7 1.8 1.9–11 1.9 1.10–11 1.10 1.11

1.12 1.13 1.14–15 1.14 1.15 1.16–20 1.21–28 1.21 1.22 1.23–27 1.24 1.25 1.27

239 3, 5, 7–8, 22, 85, 99, 103, 110, 127, 142, 180, 183–84, 198, 200–202, 227, 229, 232, 239, 255 32, 54, 83, 108– 109, 139–40, 144, 199–203, 209, 219, 228, 232, 240, 251, 253, 257 202

1.34 1.35 1.38 1.40–45 1.40 1.44–45 1.44 2.1–3.6

2.1–28

295 23, 32, 54, 134, 139–40, 200–201, 208, 228 25, 32, 54, 108, 110, 129, 139–42, 144, 199–200, 202– 203, 209, 217, 239, 241 163–64, 167, 189, 201 22, 200 202 182, 201 23 202, 238 189 3–4 83, 238, 256 5, 82–83, 97–98, 127, 144, 182, 201, 228, 230, 232, 234, 237–39, 250, 256 224–25 19 7, 23, 127, 257 184, 248 82, 127, 184, 247 181 154 22 88, 119, 154–56 211 7, 13, 25, 153, 182, 224, 233, 240 5 127, 144, 151, 155– 56, 171, 198 5, 233, 256 223, 240 224, 240 181 176, 211 83 23 8, 101, 110, 127, 135, 153–54, 162, 168, 172–73, 245 154

296 2.1–12

2.1–5 2.1–4 2.1 2.2 2.5–10 2.5

2.6–7 2.6 2.7

2.8–12 2.8 2.9 2.10–12 2.10

2.11–12 2.11 2.12

2.13–17

Index of References 3, 12–14, 54, 101, 110, 120, 132, 135– 36, 143, 148, 149, 153–56, 158, 162– 69, 171–74, 180, 182, 193, 212, 214, 216, 254–55, 257 154 173 22 23 3, 12–13, 133, 154– 55 12–13, 106, 142– 43, 155, 162–67, 170, 172–74, 236, 239 88, 119, 127, 155, 167, 199 171 2, 4, 6–14, 24, 33, 44, 46, 49, 54, 81– 83, 86, 92, 100– 101, 103, 106, 112, 114, 127, 132, 134– 36, 142–43, 148, 149–56, 158, 161– 63, 165–75, 179– 80, 187, 189–90, 193–95, 197, 209, 216, 218, 221, 226, 236, 239–40, 244– 45, 248, 253, 257– 58 167 170–73, 241 13, 155, 174 154 13, 20, 83, 106– 107, 127, 142–43, 148, 153–56, 158, 160–63, 165–74, 180, 236, 239 156, 170 186 14, 127, 156, 173– 74, 193, 225, 254– 55 154

2.13–14 2.15–3.6 2.15–28 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19–20 2.20 2.23–28 2.23–25 2.23 2.24 2.25–26 2.27–28 2.25 2.28

3.1–6 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.11–12 3.11 3.12 3.13–19 3.13 3.14–15 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17–19 3.19 3.20–35 3.22 3.23 3.27 3.28–30 3.28–29 3.28 3.29 3.35 4 4.1–34 4.1–9

154 154 154 22 22, 88, 119, 154 154, 224, 240 154 154, 245 168 154 83 17, 22 154 97–98, 231 154 23 20, 107, 141, 161– 62, 172–74, 182, 199 154 13, 83, 154, 181–82 24, 101, 153–54, 161, 168, 245 22 22 22 256 5, 182, 229, 233 5 209 209–210 167 210 155, 209, 211 210 17 245 246 22, 88, 119 19, 209 83 247 101, 169, 182 158, 163, 166, 186 83 223, 247 33 7, 82, 246, 248 33

Index of References 4.9–12 4.10 4.11–12 4.11 4.12 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.25 4.26 4.30 4.32 4.33–34 4.33 4.34 4.35–41 4.37–38 4.38 4.39 4.41

5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.15 5.18–19 5.19–20

5.19 5.20 5.21–43 5.22 5.30 5.32 5.34 5.41 5.42 6 6.1–3 6.2–3 6.2 6.3–4

251 210 256 138, 251, 257 83, 163, 166 19 250–51 20, 251 163 257 257 83 85, 256 23 138, 251 85, 143, 204–205, 209, 239–40 205–206 221 97, 126, 205 92, 127, 144, 151, 153, 155–56, 171, 184, 199, 204–205 211, 233 5, 25, 182, 229, 233 5 17 233 17 210 54, 108–109, 129, 140–42, 199, 202– 203, 240, 251 108, 129, 140–41, 202 108, 127, 129, 140, 202, 225 225, 246 88, 176, 211 172, 225–26 225 120, 230 17, 136, 186, 200 127, 156 207 233 127, 198, 233 127, 153 225

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7–32 6.7 6.8–9 6.13 6.14–16 6.20 6.27 6.34 6.37 6.45–52 6.45 6.48–49 6.48 6.50 6.51 7.1–23 7.1–13 7.1–5 7.1 7.3–4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6–13 7.6–7 7.6 7.7–8 7.8 7.10 7.11 7.14–23 7.14 7.19 7.22 7.25 7.28 7.31 7.32 7.34 7.37 8–10 8.1 8.12

297 127 158 226 221, 225–26 246 155, 209–211 177 209, 211 127, 198 85, 111, 182 19 83 17 144, 205–208, 239– 40 22 206–207 205–207 144, 206–209 127, 156, 205, 207 17–19, 136, 210, 246, 251, 256 18 88, 119 22, 88 19, 23, 200 17 17 88 185 23, 83 23 171 251 23, 83 17 18 209 17–19, 210, 256 168–69 22, 176 141 22 211 17, 136, 200 127, 156, 211 172 209 186

298 8.18 8.22–10.52 8.22–26 8.22 8.27–10.45 8.27–9.29 8.27–9.10 8.27–9.1 8.27 8.29–31 8.29 8.31–38 8.31

8.32–33 8.32 8.33 8.34–38 8.34 8.35 8.37 8.38

9.1 9.2–8 9.2–3 9.3 9.4–5 9.7

9.9–13 9.9 9.11–13 9.12–13 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.17 9.29 9.30–10.31 9.30–37 9.30–31

Index of References 83, 251 225, 239, 244, 257 239, 244 22 19, 190, 245 225 160 121 23, 127, 199 107 85, 92, 127, 199 244 24, 83, 88, 107, 119, 161, 225, 233, 240, 245–46, 256– 57 256 23, 257 171, 251, 257 19 19, 21, 138–39, 209 183–84, 250 83 5, 83, 138, 160–61, 178, 182, 211, 233– 35, 241–43, 248 186, 242, 257 200, 214, 233 233 214 23 5, 82–83, 97–98, 144, 214, 224, 230, 232, 234, 238–39, 241, 247, 250 160 24, 161 22, 83, 200 23 161, 225 186 88, 119 127 88 223 225 244 225

9.31

9.32 9.33–35 9.33–34 9.33 9.34 9.35 9.37 9.38–39 9.41 9.43 9.47 9.48 9.49 9.50 10.3–4 10.4–5 10.6–8 10.9 10.11–12 10.13–16 10.14–15 10.15 10.17–31

10.17–27 10.17–23 10.17–22 10.17–18 10.17

10.18–30 10.18–19 10.18

10.19–20 10.19

24, 83, 107, 161, 240, 245–46, 256– 57 156 172 257 22 257 210, 250, 257 185, 225, 240, 243 54, 144, 207, 209, 211, 243 186, 209, 211, 243 19 257 83 83, 85 85 23 23 83 171 17 182–83 257 186 14, 120, 149, 176, 180–81, 183–84, 186–87, 192–93, 254–55, 257–58 3 171 3, 22, 176 188 143, 150, 176–77, 181, 183, 187–88, 211 183 152 2, 6–14, 33, 44, 46, 54, 56, 81–83, 86, 100, 112, 114, 127, 142–43, 148, 149– 53, 171, 174–95, 197, 199, 221, 226, 240, 248, 253, 258 143 8, 83, 151, 177, 181, 185, 192, 241

Index of References 10.20 10.21

10.22 10.23–30 10.23–27 10.23–26 10.23–25 10.23 10.24 10.25–28 10.25 10.26 10.27

10.28–31 10.28–30 10.28 10.29–30 10.29 10.30–31 10.30 10.31 10.32–45 10.32–33 10.32 10.33–34

10.33 10.35–41 10.35–40 10.37 10.38 10.40 10.41 10.42 10.43–44 10.45

10.46–52

177 13, 21, 91, 143, 177, 181–83, 186– 87, 189–90, 192, 241, 255 177 190 177 183 176, 183–84, 257 120, 177, 183 127, 177, 183, 225 176 177, 183 127, 176–77, 183– 84, 225 14, 171, 178, 183– 84, 190, 194, 223, 251, 254–55 177 183–84, 187, 241 181 91, 117, 143, 178, 181, 184–86, 190 21, 86, 138–39, 183–84, 186, 192 19 139, 176, 183, 187, 192, 250 185, 250 225, 244 22 33, 127, 210, 225 24, 83, 88, 107, 119, 161, 225, 240, 246, 256–57 245 251 257 222 221 221–23, 248, 257 257 209 250 19, 83, 121, 139, 161, 212, 224, 251, 257 239, 244

10.46 10.47–48 10.47 10.48 10.49–52 10.52 11–16 11.1–13.1 11–12 11.1–13 11.1–11 11.1–4 11.1 11.2–6 11.3 11.9–10 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.11–12 11.12–25 11.12–23 11.12–21 11.15–17 11.17 11.18 11.22 11.23 11.23–25 11.24 11.25 11.27–12.44 11.27–12.37

11.27–12.12 11.27–33 11.27–28 11.27 11.28–29 11.28

11.29 11.30–32 11.33

299 17, 23 23, 97–100 97–98, 230 230 230 97, 120, 230 239 126 117, 126 126 234 241 23 172 117, 141, 199 17, 83, 98, 144, 230 141, 199 19, 23, 97–98, 100, 117 126, 210 23 246 88 234, 247 126 23, 83 88, 119, 156 173 186 167 85, 186 85, 166, 216, 228 245 8, 10, 85, 88, 110– 112, 117, 123–28, 136–37, 156, 173, 234 126, 137 124–25, 127 88, 119, 127, 199, 234 88, 126, 128 233 88, 92, 124–25, 127–28, 130, 136– 37, 153, 155, 173 155, 173 171 155, 173

300 12 12.1–12 12.1 12.6

12.7 12.9 12.10–11 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13–34 12.13–17 12.14–15 12.14 12.15 12.17 12.18–27 12.18–23 12.19 12.24 12.26 12.28–34

12.28–33 12.28–29 12.28 12.29–31 12.29–30

12.29

Index of References 114, 117, 143–44 124–25, 127–28, 138, 234 124, 234 125, 127–28, 182, 224–25, 230, 232, 234, 240, 250 125, 234 141 83, 97–98, 117, 128, 144, 230, 250 23 141, 199 124–25 119 21, 85, 124, 126– 128 126 19 17 126, 156, 171, 225 85, 87, 124, 126, 128 126 23 23 23, 83 3–4, 6–7, 11–14, 22, 46, 49, 81–83, 84–90, 106, 111– 12, 114–22, 124– 25, 128–133, 135– 37, 139–48, 149, 174, 194–95, 197, 203, 221, 226, 253– 55, 257–58 112, 116 140 113, 116, 123, 128, 145 83 9, 82, 86, 89–90, 112–14, 121, 132, 134, 137, 145–47, 151–52, 177, 181, 193, 203, 221, 247, 254–55 2–3, 6–14, 19, 33– 36, 44, 49, 54, 82,

12.30

12.31 12.32–33 12.32

12.33 12.34

12.35–37

12.35 12.36–37

12.36

84–86, 89–90, 106, 112, 114–16, 128– 34, 137, 141, 143, 146, 148, 149–52, 179, 184, 194–95, 248, 257–58 9, 89, 113, 129, 131, 141, 145–46, 184 9, 87, 177 82, 89–90, 121, 203 2, 6–8, 11–13, 34– 35, 44, 49, 54, 82, 85, 89–90, 106, 112, 114–16, 121, 128–31, 137, 143, 146, 148, 149–52, 194–95, 248, 254, 257 87–89, 100, 113, 117, 146 12, 88–90, 116– 127, 130, 132, 145, 257 3–4, 6–7, 11–14, 23, 46, 49, 81–83, 84–87, 90–91, 95– 99, 100, 108–112, 114–19, 121–33, 135–37, 139–48, 149, 171, 174, 193, 195, 197, 199, 203, 214, 221, 226, 231, 251, 253–55, 257– 58 99, 118, 123–25, 128, 130, 144, 231 12, 54, 86, 91, 108– 109, 111, 126, 129, 133, 138, 140, 142, 199, 202–203, 240 3, 6, 12–13, 49, 83, 85–86, 91–92, 95, 100, 102, 106, 108– 109, 111–18, 121, 129, 132, 139–42, 144, 147, 194–95, 199, 201, 203, 231, 239

Index of References 12.37

12.38–40 12.41–44 12.42 12.43 13

13.1–23 13.1–2 13.1 13.2 13.3–23 13.4 13.5–23 13.6 13.9–13 13.9 13.10 13.13–19 13.13 13.14 13.20 13.21–22 13.24–27 13.24–25 13.26–27 13.26 13.27 13.28–31 13.29 13.30 13.31–32 13.31 13.32

13.33–37 13.33 13.34 13.35 13.37 14–16 14–15

85, 91–92, 102, 111, 125, 129, 141– 42, 151, 153, 156, 171, 231, 257d 85 85 17 186, 209 10, 18, 20–21, 118, 126, 137–38, 234– 35, 241 247 17, 20 126 126, 247 88 241 241–42 208 19, 138, 183 54, 136 17, 20, 180, 184, 210 211 54, 209, 211 18, 20, 83 141, 199 208 107, 138, 242 83 83, 160–61 107, 160, 210, 235 209–211, 240–41 242 241 186, 241–42 140, 223, 241 13, 140, 181, 222, 239–42 5, 140, 222–23, 225, 234–36, 240– 42, 248–49 235, 242 246 155 141, 246 20, 186, 242, 246 240 257

14.1–15.47 14.1–15.41 14.1–2 14.1 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9 14.10 14.13–16 14.17 14.18 14.20 14.21 14.22–26 14.22–25 14.22–24 14.24 14.25 14.27–31 14.27 14.30 14.32 14.33 14.34 14.35–36 14.36 14.41 14.43 14.45 14.49 14.50 14.53 14.57–58 14.58 14.61–64 14.61–62 14.61

14.62

301 19 24 88, 119 17 22–23 17 185 20, 22, 180, 184, 186 210 171, 241 210 186 210 23, 161, 225 54 211 223 83, 212 186, 248, 257 19 23, 83 186 17 221 223 223 17, 223, 225, 235– 36, 240, 248 161 88, 119, 210 17 23, 225 239 88, 119 126 117 106, 108, 237 5, 85, 100–103, 110, 229, 236 5, 99, 101–104, 107, 127, 151, 160, 168–69, 171, 199, 208, 228, 232, 236 20, 49, 83, 91–92, 95–96, 100–109, 111, 114, 134, 138, 144, 160–62, 168–

302

14.63–64 14.64

14.66–72 14.68 14.70 14.71 15 15.1 15.2 15.5 15.9 15.11 15.12 15.14 15.15 15.15–41 15.18 15.19 15.21 15.22 15.24 15.25 15.26 15.27 15.29–32 15.29–30 15.29 15.31 15.32 15.33 15.34

15.36 15.38–39 15.38 15.39

15.40 15.43 15.44

Index of References 69, 203, 208, 236, 239–40 111 4, 12, 101–103, 106–108, 135–36, 154, 161, 168–69, 179–80, 236, 245, 248, 257 239 246 246 246 98, 117 22, 88, 119 127, 198, 231 225 246 111 231, 246 246 17, 19, 108 108 231, 245 211 22, 110 17 83, 97, 144, 258 246 231, 245 222 224 126 83, 97, 103, 144, 169 88, 119 85, 231, 245 246 17, 83, 97, 144, 223–24, 231, 240, 246, 248, 250 97 3–4, 17 126, 238, 256 5, 17, 82, 110, 171, 210, 228–29, 237– 39, 250, 256 22 119–121, 248, 257 209, 225

16.1–8 16.1 16.6 16.8 16.9–20 16.17 16.19

138 22 109 24 101, 239 209 92, 101, 111

Luke 1.1–4 1.1–2 1.2 1.4 1.27 2.31 2.52 3.1 3.4–6 5.20 5.21 6.35 6.45 7.6 7.8 7.27 7.39 7.49 8.17 9.28–36 10.22 10.25–37 10.25–28 10.25 10.27 10.28 11.42 11.49 14.26 15.13 15.18 15.20 15.21 18.2 18.18 18.19 19.12 19.41 20.27–39 20.36

26–27 26 26 26 97 221 222 22 199 216 2, 150, 155, 216 228 178 120 224–25, 240, 243 140 172 155 250 214 113, 235–36 123 89, 135 89 11, 33, 89 89 113 186 100, 184 120 87 120 87 87 176 112, 178 120 19 123 60

303

Index of References 20.40 20.41–44 20.42–43 21.20 21.25–28 22.66–71 22.69 22.70–71 22.70 23.50 24.7 24.38–41

123 123, 214 92, 111 19 210 104 92, 111 104 103 178 159 206

John 1.1 1.3 1.12 1.14 1.18 1.23 3.16 3.17 3.35 3.36 4.19 4.26 5.14 5.18–19 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.26 5.42 6.16–21 6.37 6.40 6.46 8.24 8.28 8.35 8.36 8.41 8.58 9.2–3 9.35 9.37

81, 194, 228 60, 113 228 81 228 199 232 235 113, 235 235 172 208 155 235 4, 134–35, 248 235 235 235 235 235 235 113 206 185 235 134 208 208 235 235 112 208 155 159 159

10.29–33 10.33 13.3 13.19 14.13 14.15 14.24 16.15 17.1 18.5 18.8 20.28 21.8 21.15–17

235, 248 4, 134–35 113 208 235 113 113 113 235 208 208 194, 228 120 113

Acts 1.6 1.15–26 1.16 1.24 2.21 2.30–31 2.33–35 2.39 5.17–25 5.31 7.55–56 7.56 9.34 10.25–26 10.36 11.26 12.3–19 12.12 12.21–22 12.25 13.2 13.5 13.13 13.25 15.8 15.37 15.39 16.10 17.11 17.27 20.28 21.11 22.21

210 210 91 171 202 91 92, 111 120, 209 205 92, 111 92, 111 108, 159 155 53 113 2–3 205 16 228 16 209 16 16 185 171 16 16 209 19 120 228 187 120

304

Index of References

23.4 23.9 28.6 28.25

103 88 228 91

Romans 1.1 1.3–4 1.5–6 1.13–15 3.30 4.17 6.3 8.14 8.15–16 8.19 8.27 8.28 8.34 9.3 9.4–5 9.5 10.13 11.13 11.17–18 11.24 11.28 11.30–31 11.36 13.8–10 13.9 14–15 14.20 15.15–16 15.16 15.18

7 97 19 19 112 60 132 5, 228 236 228 171 113 92, 95, 111 19 190 228 202 19 19 19 19 19 60 177 177 19 18 19 7 19

1 Corinthians 1.18 2.9 8.3 8.4–6 8.4 8.5–6 8.6 10.14–22 10.19–20

252 113, 156 113 36, 53, 78, 81, 142, 190 78 78 33, 60, 78, 86, 112– 13, 150 53 51

15.9 15.25–28 15.25 15.27–28 15.28 16.22

134 92, 111 92, 111 113 247 113

2 Corinthians 4.7–12 4.12

252 252

1 Thessalonians 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.9

53 7 171 7 7

Galatians 1.13–14 3.20 4 4.6–7 4.8–9

134 112, 134 77–78 236 77

Ephesians 1.10 1.20–22 1.20 1.22 1.23 2.6 2.13 2.17 3.9 4.4–6 4.6 4.10 6.4

113 92, 111 92, 111 113 113 92, 111 120 120 60 112 33, 150 113 113

Philippians 2.6–11 2.6 3.21

81, 142, 190 134 113

Colossians 1.15–20 1.16–17

81 60, 113

305

Index of References 1.20 2.18 3.1 4.10

60, 113 65 92, 111 16

Philemon 24

16

1 Timothy 2.5

James 1.12 2.5 2.19

113 113 36, 112

36, 112, 150

1 Peter 1.7 1.8 1.17 3.22

55 113 236 92, 111

2 Timothy 2.8 4.11

97 16

2 Peter 1.1 1.21

228 91, 182

Titus 2.13

228

Hebrews 1.2–4 1.2 1.3 1.13–2.9 1.13 2.8 2.10 4.8 4.15 5.6 5.8 7.17 7.21 8.1 10.12–13 11.3 11.16 12.2 12.5–8

81 113 92, 111, 113 92, 111 92, 109, 111 113 228 191 191 92 192 92 92 92, 111 92, 111 60, 203 221 92, 111 228

1 John 2.5 2.15 4.20 5.2–3

113 113 113 113

Jude 4 21

44 113

Revelation 1.8 1.13 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.12 3.1 3.7 3.14 3.21 5.12–14 19.10 19.11–16 22.8–9

59 159 186 113 186 186 186 186 186 92, 111 81 52 134 52

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH (Thanksgiving Hymns) 51 9.8–11 61

11.19–23

60

306

Index of References

1QM (War Scroll) 10.8–9 13.11–12 15.13–14 17.1–9

44 48, 68 68 48

4Q200 2 40 5 40 4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus) 155 242.4 166

1QpHabakkuk 8.1–3

217–18

4Q246 (Aramaic Apocalypse) 6, 229

1QS (Rule of the Community) 2.8–9 166 3.15–16 48 3.15 61 3.25 61 8.13–14 199 11.7–9 60 11.11 59 11.14 166 CD (Damascus Document) 2.4–5 166 3.18 166 4.6–10 166 1Q28b (Rule of the Blessings) 4.22–26 60 4Q37 (Deuteronomyj) 63 4Q129–130

35

4Q140

35

4Q150

35

4Q151

35

4Q167 (Hoseab) 2.2–3

218 217–18

4Q372 16

229

4Q400–407 (Shirot ʿOlat Hashabbat) 29, 51 4Q403 1.1–2 1.32–34

29 29

4Q405 frags. xxi–xxii, 7–14 52 4Q427–32

51

4Q427 frag. 7, 1

41, 52

4Q491 frag. 11

68

4Q504 (Words of the Luminaries) 5.9 29, 44–45, 52 11Q5 (Psalms Scrolla) 27.9–10 99 11Q13 (Melchizedek) 48, 92, 217–19 2.10–13 48 2.10 29 11Q17

4Q174 (Florilegium) 96 1.7 99, 229

51

307

Index of References

Targums Targum Isaiah 53 53.6

167 167

53.7 53.10 53.12

167 167 167

m. Sanhedrin 7.5

102, 168

b. Roš Haššanah 32b

116

b. Sanhedrin 38b

105

b. Taʿanit 24b

188

Mishnah m. Berakot 1–3 2.2

35 115

m. Tamid 5.1

35

Talmud b. Berakot 13b 14b 61b b. Ḥagigah 15a b. Nedarim 32b

116 115 115

105

94

Other Rabbinical Works Midrash Psalms 2.9 17.3 Rabbah Genesis 65.21

107 166

Rabbah Exodus 32.9

201

Rabbah Deuteronomy 11.9 201 126

308

Index of References

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 12.10–11

100

Didache 2.1–3

177

Martyrdom of Polycarp 3 37 3.2 79 9 37 9.2 79 17 55

Ancient Authors Aristotle Rhetorica 3.14.6

Josephus

199

Ambrose De Fide 2.1

187

Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.22

36

Eusebius De ecclesiastica theologia 2.8.3 44 Praeparatio evangelica 9.6 36 Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate 9.2

187

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1.1 25

Antiquitates judaicae 1.155–56 35, 48, 55, 152 1.155 44 3.91 32, 35–36, 44, 152 4.200–201 35, 44 4.212–13 35 5.111–12 35, 44 8.45–49 99 8.335 44 8.337 44 8.343 44 12.22 36 18.117 178 19.345–47 228 Bellum judaicum 7.410

44

Contra Apionem 1 2 2.33–198 2.167 2.190–93 2.192

39 39 39 35 35, 44 47

Justin Martyr Apologia i 6

37, 79

Dialogus cum Tryphone 32–33 93 38.1 134 83 93

309

Index of References Juvenal Satirae 14.96–106

37, 79

De opificio mundi 72–75 47 170–72 44 172 47

Origen

De plantation 18–19

81

Contra Celsum 1.23–24 1.23–26 1.23 5.6

37 37, 79 37 37, 79

De Principiis 1.2.13

De somniis 1.227–33 1.227 1.228–30 1.228 2.194

134 73 72–73 73 44

187

De oratione 15.4

44

Philo De Abrahamo 244

81

De cherubim 27–28 119

134 33

De confusione linguarum 93 44 146 43, 81 170 36 171 44 173 29, 40 179 47 De decalogo 52–81 61–65 64–65 65–67 65 155

39, 50 36 44 32 70 32

De fuga et inventione 5 81 47 44 51–52 72 95 134 101 134 109 72

De specialibus legibus 1.1–52 39 1.12–50 36 1.15 29 1.20 29 1.30 44, 152 1.318 237 De vita Mosis 1.75

36

Legatio ad Gaium 1.47 1.65 2.1–2 2.49 2.86 115 116 203–337 232 355–57

178 72 44 69, 72 73 44 50 37 51 51

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2.13 81 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 2.62 29, 41, 45, 54, 69, 72–73, 78, 81, 134, 248 4.8 36, 39, 73 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 60 44 81 250 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 48 250 138 44

310

Index of References

Plato Respublica 471

Quintilian

250

Pseudo-Pythagoras fragment 44 Pseudo-Sophocles fragment 44

Institutio oratoria 9.2 9.2.6–16 9.2.65 9.2.66

100, 182 182 183 183

Tacitus Historiae 5.5

37, 39, 79

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 52 Abrahams, Israel 166, 167, 188 Adams, Edward 106, 107 Adler, William 56 Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. 224 Albertz, Marin 154 Albright, William F. 35 Allen, Leslie C. 92 Allison, Dale C. 9, 34, 120, 151, 177, 178, 229, 236 Amir, Yehoshua 54 Anderson, Hugh 97, 136 Appold, Mark L. 2 Arnold, Clinton E. 66, 67 Athanassiadi, Polymnia 53 Aune, David E. 21, 24 Bacon, Benjamin Wisner 16 Barclay, John M. G. 37, 42, 49, 79 Barker, Margaret 38, 56 Barrett, Charles K. 235 Bassler, Jouette M. 21 Bauckham, Richard 2, 4, 15, 19, 20, 30, 32, 38, 40, 46, 52, 54, 55, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 91, 92, 93, 95, 107, 108, 111, 113, 139, 151, 157, 171, 212, 214, 220 Beale, Gregory K.149, 159 Beavis, Mary Ann 21 Becker, Eve-Marie 24 Becking, Bob 63 Berger, Klaus 90, 176, 181 Best, Ernest 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 91, 117, 133, 138, 158, 169, 197, 232, 237, 238, 245, 246 Beyer, Klaus 150, 168 Bickerman, Elias J., 36, 37 Bird, Michael F. 201 Black, C. Clifton 9, 25, 26, 246

Blackburn, Barry 208, 211, 238 Boccaccini, Gabriele 157 Bock, Darrell L. 68, 96, 101, 102, 104, 105, 168, 190, 236 Bolt, Peter 109 Bond, Helen 24 Boring, Eugene 20, 24, 97, 99, 100, 103, 109, 119, 120, 131, 140, 190, 198, 203, 245, 251 Bornkamm, Günter 90, 131 Botner, Max 91 Boyarin, Daniel 157, 212 Breytenbach, Cilliers 1 Brown, Jeannine K. 9 Brown, Raymond E. 102, 168, 224 Brueggemann, Walter 209 Bruno, Chris 3 Bultmann, Rudolf K. 24, 99, 125, 135, 136, 154, 155, 161, 205, 236 Burchard, Christoph 87, 90 Burkett, Delbert R. 156, 159 Burridge, Richard A. 24 Caird, George B., 45 Calvert-Koyzis, Nancy 2 Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry 101, 168, 169, 214, 245 Capes, David B. 142, 190, 214, 219 Carey, Holly J. 224 Carlson, James W. 6, 19, 132 Carson, Donald A. 149, 252 Casey, Maurice 38, 157, 158, 160, 161 Chatman, Seymour Benjamin 9, 244 Childs, Brevard S. 62, 67 Chilton, Bruce D. 98, 99, 158 Chronis, Harry L. 157 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 35 Cohn, Yehudah 35 Cohon, Samuel S. 35, 37, 39, 79

312

Index of Modern Authors

Collins, Adela Yarbro 5, 6, 18, 24, 119, 157, 159, 160, 176, 178, 202, 205, 206, 208, 228, 246 Collins, John J. 6, 104, 157, 158, 159 Cook, Michael L. 245 Cook, Stanley A. 35 Craigie, Peter C. 88, 129, 146 Cranfield, Charles E. B. 25, 96, 155, 156, 168, 190, 210, 236, 241 Cross, Frank Moore 204, 224, 229, 252 Crossan, John Dominic 109 Crossley, James G. 16, 17, 18, 25 Culpepper, R. Alan 23, 127 Dahl, Nils Alstrup 1, 83 Dahood, Mitchell J. 230 Dalman, Gustaf Hermann 188, 191 Daly, Robert J. 232 Danove, Paul 1 Davies, William D. 178, 229, 236 Davila, James R. 2, 38 Davis, Philip 101, 162, 215, 250, 251 Day, John 204, 225 Decker, Rodney J. 239 Delling, Gerhard 45, 53 Deppe, Dean B. 247 Dewey, Joanna 10, 153, 154, 156, 172, 188, 244, 245, 247 Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar 72 Dibelius, Martin 155 Dodd, Charles H. 186, 188 Donahue, John R. 1, 2, 9, 10, 33, 90, 119, 128, 136, 193, 224, 236 Doudna, John C. 25 Doughty, Darrell J. 172 Driggers, Ira Brent 1 Duling, Dennis C. 98 Dunn, James D. G. 2, 4, 18, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 59, 68, 69, 71, 96, 104, 135, 154, 159, 161, 164, 242 Dupont-Sommer, André 166 Durkheim, Emile 66 Dwyer, Timothy 127, 156, 206 Edwards, James R. 236, 245, 246, 247 Ehrman, Bart D. 5 Elledge, Roderick 161 Elliott, James K. 65

Eskola, Timo 92, 96, 113, 117, 137, 201, 231 Evans, Craig A. 2, 88, 92, 102, 106, 107, 185, 211, 223, 236 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 92, 96, 166, 229 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin 38, 110, 156, 157, 212 Flusser, David 51 Foster, Paul 35 Fowler, Robert M. 20, 21, 125, 153, 156, 246 France, Richard T. 5, 54, 88, 93, 94, 96, 106, 107, 126, 156, 170, 178, 188, 235 Fredriksen, Paula 28, 29, 38, 40, 56, 57, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83 Frevel, Christian 30 Furnish, Victor Paul 90, 119, 131 Gager, John G. 37 Garland, David E. 22, 23, 24, 122, 198, 221, 238, 239, 246, 251, 256, 258 Gathercole, Simon J. 96, 157, 158, 181, 212, 233 Geddert, Timothy J. 172, 191 Gerhardsson, Birger 33, 90 Gieschen, Charles A. 29 Gnilka, Joachim 2, 6, 7, 150, 206, 208, 238 Gnuse, Robert Karl 62 Goodacre, Mark 9 Goulder, Michael D. 158 Grabbe, Lester L. 31 Grant, Robert McQueen 29, 32, 53, 221 Green, Joel B. 27, 37, 115 Grindheim, Sigurd 161, 164, 167 Grundmann, Walter 178, 190 Guelich, Robert A. 5, 18, 154, 155, 167, 206, 210, 231, 232 Gumerlock, Francis X. 222 Gundry, Robert 5, 21, 24, 88, 89, 90, 96, 102, 150, 152, 154, 155, 159, 163, 169, 180, 185, 199, 208, 211, 233 Gurtner, Daniel M. 4, 256 Guttenberger, Gundrun 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 101, 168, 172, 174, 178, 188

Index of Modern Authors Hägerland, Tobias 163, 164, 167 Hagner, Donald A. 190 Hall, Christopher A. 187, 227 Hannah, Darrell D. 32, 64 Hanson, Richard P. C. 249, 252 Hare, Douglas R. A. 156, 158, 159 Harrington, Daniel J. 10, 33, 136, 193, 236 Harvey, Anthony E. 38 Hatina, Thomas R. 107, 234, 235 Hay, David, 59, 63, 65, 68, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 107, 108, 110, 126, 231 Hayman, Peter 29, 38, 40, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 83 Hays, Richard 98, 110, 149, 151, 171, 193, 206, 212, 224, 256 Head, Peter M. 5 Heil, John Paul 205, 207 Heiser, Michael S. 30, 43, 55, 63, 64 Hengel, Martin 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 31, 35, 36, 54, 57, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 100, 105, 106, 107, 137, 179, 184, 203, 229, 258 Herbener, Jens-André P. 28, 30 Hofius, Otfried 163, 166, 169, 170, 172 Holladay, Carl R. 238 Hooker, Morna D. 5, 25, 97, 100, 103, 161, 162, 187, 190, 210, 222, 223, 236 Horbury, William 29, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 77, 94, 107 Hurtado, Larry 1, 2, 4, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 69, 71, 76, 81, 82, 92, 97, 104, 110, 134, 136, 157, 158, 168, 169, 180, 189, 190, 209, 211, 212, 214, 220 Idel, Moshe 61 Iersel, Bastiaan van 110, 122, 131, 156, 172, 178, 180, 245 Incigneri, Brian J. 16, 18 Janzen, J. Gerald 204 Jeremias, Joachim 88, 160, 163, 236 Jobes, Karen H. 149

313

Johansson, Daniel 1, 33, 81, 86, 141, 164, 165, 198, 199, 203, 215 Johnson, Earl S., Jr. 238 Johnson, Norman Burrows 51, Jonge, Marinus de 98, 99 Juel, Donald 18, 103, 104, 154, 155, 159, 245 Kaminsky, Joel S. 209 Keck, Leander E. 99, 127 Kee, Howard Clark 16, 24, 98, 155, 171 Keener, Craig S. 24, 129 Keerankeri, George 90, 121, 151, 174 Kelber, Werner H. 16, 20, 25, 230, 242, 246 Kermode, Frank 244 Kertelge, Karl 27 Kiilunen, Jarmo 153, 154, 168 Kim, Seyoon 160 Kingsbury, Jack Dean 21, 97, 98, 99, 229, 230, 238 Kirchhevel, Gordon D. 157 Kirk, J. R. Daniel 14, 132, 162, 167, 205, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 231 Klauck, Hans-Josef 54 Klink, Edward W. 20 Kloppenborg, John S. 17, 18, 124 Korpel, Marjo 63 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 92 Ladd, George Eldon 7, 116 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 187 Lampe, Peter 17, 19 Lane, William L. 88, 97, 111, 127, 155, 156, 167, 176, 177, 181, 188, 190, 206, 235 Lee, John J. R. 31 Leim, Joshua E. 157 Lemche, Niels Peter 62, 63 Lewis, Gladys S. 2, 38 Lim, Timothy 64 Lindars, Barnabas 133, 157 Loader, William R. G. 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99 Lohmeyer, Ernst 176, 178, 188, 208, 239 Loke, Andrew 38, 185, 186 MacDonald, Nathan 8, 28

314

Index of Modern Authors

Mackintosh, H. R. 191, 192 Madden, Patrick J. 205 Madigan, Kevin 249 Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers 10, 244 Mann, C. S. 84 Manson, Thomas Walter 89 Marcus, Joel 2, 6, 16, 18, 24, 32, 92, 97, 98, 99, 102, 104, 109, 111, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 162, 166, 167, 170, 171, 182, 192, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 224, 225, 235, 238 Marcus, Ralph 39 Marshall, Christopher D. 21, 23, 197 Marshall, I. Howard 133, 188 Martyn, J. Louis 135 Marxsen, Willi 16, 25, 244 Matera, Frank J. 97, 117, 126, 230 Mays, James Luther 92 McBride, Samuel Dean 116 McConville, J. Gordon 63 McGrath, James F. 28, 31, 38, 39, 134, 135 McIlhone, James P. 3, 4, 115, 116 McKnight, Scot 110 Meagher, John C. 247 Metzger, Bruce M. 101, 177, 178 Michie, Donald 10, 153, 244, 245, 247 Mitchell, Margaret M. 20 Mitchell, Stephen 31, 53 Moberly, R. Walter L. 75 Moloney, Francis J. 157 Montefiore, Claude Goldsmid 189 Moore, George Foot 45, 69, 166 Moore, Stephen D. 10, 23, 37, 97 Moule, Charles F. D. 159 Mowinckel, Sigmund 158 Moyise, Steve 32 Muraoka, Takamitsu 185 Myers, Ched 88 Naluparayil, Jacob Chacko 99 Naveh, Joseph 65 Neffelen, Peter van 53 Neusner, Jacob 37, 168 Newman, Carey C. 2, 38, 57 Newsom, Carol 52, 61

Neyrey, Jerome H. 1 Nilsson, Martin Persson 29, 53, 79 Nineham, Dennis E. 126, 170, 171, 175, 188, 189, 231 North, J. Lionel 31 North, Wendy E. Sproston 2, 38, 76 Noy, David 37, 51 O’Neill, John Cochrane 164 Oden, Thomas C. 187, 227 Olyan, Saul M. 66, 69 Orlov, Andrei A. 105 Osborne, Grant R. 9 Owen, Paul L. 157, 158 Oyen, Geert van 250 Painter, John 18, 119 Palmer, Parker J. 251 Parker, David C. 10 Parvis, Sara 249 Pascut, Beniamin 163, 164, 165, 167, 170 Patte, Daniel 129 Pennington, Jonathan T. 115 Perkins, Pheme 90 Perrin, Norman 10, 159, 172, 238 Pesch, Rudolf 2, 5, 26, 102, 132, 163, 170, 188, 207, 235, 246 Petersen, Norman R. 10, 245, 246 Peterson, Dwight N. 16, 138 Peterson, Erik 31–32, 53, Piper, John 87 Powell, Mark Allan 10, 190 Price, Simon R. F. 29, 41, 45, 50, 78 Pryke, E. J. 26 Rabinowitz, Peter J. 23, 200 Rainbow, Paul A. 2, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50, 55, 79, 150 Rawlinson, Alfred Edward John 189 Reynolds, Benjamin E. 157 Rhoads, David M. 10, 153, 244, 245, 247 Robertson, A. T. 25, 183 Robinson, James McConkey 91 Rompay, Lucas Van 17 Roskam, Hendrika Nicoline 16, 18 Rowe, Christopher 10, 28, 44, 212 Rowe, Robert D. 96, 99, 109, 230

Index of Modern Authors Rowland, Christopher 56, 57, 97 Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid 209 Rüger, Hans Peter 17 Rutherford, William C. 35, 63 Sanders, Ed P. 35, 39, 164 Sanders, Paul 58, 63 Santos, Narry F. 250, 251 Schenke, Ludger 5, 208 Schlatter, Adolf 39 Schmithals, Walter 156, 227 Schneck, Richard 32, 151 Schneider, Gerhard 91 Schneiders, Sandra Marie 9, 51 Segal, Alan F. 30, 32, 73, 105, 132, 134, 248 Shepherd, David 157, 158 Shively, Elizabeth 217 Shutt, R. J. H. 39 Silva, Moisès 149 Smith, C. Drew 1 Smith, Mark S. 32, 50, 57, 62 Smith, Morton 29, 53, 57 Smith, Stephen H. 10, 244 Staley, Jeffrey Lloyd 23 Stanton, Graham N. 134 Staudt, Darina 3, 39, 53 Stauffer, Ethelbert 103 Stein, Robert 17, 22, 23, 26, 87, 88, 96, 107, 110, 111, 125, 128, 154, 155, 156, 159, 180, 184, 191, 200, 202, 236, 242 Strecker, Georg 227 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 2, 38, 52, 59, 65, 66, 67, 76 Sweat, Laura C. 249, 250, 251 Tait, Michael 110, 154 Talbert, Charles H. 24 Tan, Kim Huat 36, 89, 170 Tannehill, Robert C. 9, 10, 26, 99, 244, 245, 246 Taylor, Lily 228 Taylor, Vincent 5, 96, 97, 117, 125, 126, 136, 154, 155, 158, 159, 166,

315

175, 176, 177, 178, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 235, 236, 238 Telford, William R. 1, 9, 189 Theissen, Gerd 16, 18, 27, 163 Thompson, Marianne Meye 29, 229 Tilling, Chris 46, 190 Tovey, Derek 215 Trakatellis, Demetrios 172, 239, 240, 245 Tuckett, Christopher M. 101, 161, 162, 166, 168 Vermès Géza 157, 232 Waaler, Erik 2, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 78, 81, 86, 112, 152 Wallace, Daniel B. 183, 210 Waltke, Bruce K. 50 Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge 190 Warmington, Eric H. 37 Wasserman, Tommy 5 Waters, Larry J. 252 Weeden, Theodore J. 21, 238 Wellhausen, Julius 191 Wellum, Stephen J. 15 Werner, Martin 16 Whitenton, Michael 100, 109, 171, 193, 199 Wicks, Henry J. 39, 51 Williams, Catrin H. 35, 103, 208 Williams, Joel F. 88, 119, 121, 176 Williams, Rowan 249 Wink, Walter 158 Winn, Adam 16, 18 Winston, David 70 Witherington, Ben 136 Wolfson, Harry Austryn 39, 73 Wrede, William (Wilhelm) 201, 227, 256 Wright, Nicholas Thomas 2, 38, 39, 96, 107, 155 Young, Brad H. 129, 176 Young, Stephen L. 205 Zeichman, Christopher B. 21

Index of Subjects absolve, see forgiveness agent 165, 167, 183–184, 218, 247, 248 – heavenly 30, 42, 68, 76–77 angel 29, 41–44, 48, 51–52, 58–61, 63– 68, 104, 163, 165, 182, 210–11, 241–42 apocalyptic 3–4, 24, 37, 117, 158, 210, 234, 237–238, 256 attribute 45, 69, 72, 81, 125, 154, 160, 173, 223, 230 – divine 13, 39, 42, 45, 48–49, 70–72, 81, 165, 172, 205, 215 – of/to Jesus 13, 54, 164, 171–72, 174, 188, 194, 203, 217, 236 authority 5–6, 13, 48, 69, 82, 88–93, 95, 101–102, 104–107, 122–130, 136– 137, 160–63, 166–74, 179–83, 204– 205, 207–211, 221–22, 224–26, 231, 233, 237–41, 243, 245, 254–55 baptism 23, 163, 182, 225, 234 being 5, 29–30, 40–46, 51–53, 61, 67– 68, 71–80, 151, 158 – see also human blasphemy 12–13, 49, 101–109, 134– 36, 142, 150–55, 161–73, 179–82, 236, 244–45, 257

– ten 8–9, 34–36, 120, 143, 151–52, 177, 181, 184–85, 192 commitment – see also devotion – cultic – 30, 37, 51, 55, 70, 82–83, 121, 146–48, 183, 184, 193 – of Jesus 86, 190, 193, – to Jesus 183–184, 190, 243, – monotheistic – 28, 30, 35–40, 49–56, 60, 66, 80–83, 121, 130–32, 143, 146, 184, 193 confession – by demon 5, 233 – by pagan 5, 237–38, 256 – monotheistic 12, 33, 46, 49–52, 113, 147–48, 153, 174, 193, 195, 221, 224, 254–57 – of faith in Jesus 22, 142, 159, 213, 237–38, 245 co-regent 116, 121, 126–27, 137, 203 – see also vice-regent – see also vizier – see also sovereign – see also ruler creatio ex nihilo 58–60 creator 42, 46–49, 55–57, 61, 71 cult, see worship

Canaanite, see divine council commandment 70, 82, 87, 90, 113, 115– 16, 126, 145–46, 177, 185, 251 – double 9, 87, 89, 126, 146 – first 32–36, 43, 152 – great(est) 82, 87, 90, 119, 145–46, 257 – love 11, 34, 44, 49, 84, 87, 89–90, 116, 120–23, 126, 128, 135, 146, 176

David 91–100, 108–111, 117–18, 122– 31, 135–44, 212–16, 226–31, 255– 57 death 24, 223–25, 233, 245–46, 252, 256–58 Decalogue, see commandment, ten deity 29–30, 40–53, 56–59, 62, 67–70, 74–83, 87, 104–105, 169–71, 193– 95, 212–13, 247–48, 254 – see also god

Index of Subjects demon 5, 91, 108, 141, 144, 153, 182, 202, 209–211, 233, 237, 256 devotion – see also commitment – of Jesus 147, 182–84, 190–93, 224, 240 – to Jesus 38, 80–83, 121, 130, 134– 38, 143–45, 198, 211, 247–48 – Jewish 37, 67, 79, 121, 247–48 disciple 143, 177, 181–85, 204–208, 244–46, 256–57 ditheism 6, 56–65, 69, 71, 73 – see also two powers – see also co-regent – see also vice-regent – see also equal divine 3–5, 13–15, 29–30, 40–73, 78, 99–117, 139–45, 151, 155, 160–75, 178–82, 185–90, 193–95, 202–223, 227–28, 232, 237–43, 251–57 – authority 13, 95, 107, 142, 182, 208, – Christology 38, 139, 173–74, 185, 195, 203, 212–14, 217, 221, 243, 254 – council 59–64, 73 – name 54, 90, 102, 168, 209 – significance 103, 106, 131, 139–48, 165, 169, 174, 180, 208 – sonship 3, 5, 104, 107, 232, 237– 239, 256 – uniqueness rhetoric 42–46, 49, 55– 56, 195, 206, 254 divinity, see divine El 54, 59, 62–65, 67, 69 election 32, 36, 209–212 Elijah 152, 174, 200, 214 Elyon 59, 62–64 Enoch 49, 58–61, 71, 105–106, 157–59, 220 enthronement 12, 92, 95, 105–109, 117, 122, 124, 126–28, 132–33, 137, 231 entity 58, 61, 69, 71–72, 79, 161 – see also being equal 15, 36, 126, 228, 234, 235, 236 exaltation 6, 11–13, 28, 41–42, 61, 81, 92–95, 104–114, 135–38, 148, 212– 15, 219–20

317

exclusive 37, 43, 44–56, 79–81, 165– 68, 172–73, 183, 216, 249 – see also unique(ness) existence 28–30, 40–45, 57–62, 74–81, 96, 195, 197, 212–14, 232 exorcism 98–99, 209, 211–12, 233, 243 father 72, 92, 160, 185, 192, 194, 216, 221–23, 228–29, 233–37, 241–43 forgiveness 12–14, 142, 150–74, 180, 182, 216–18, 228, 244 glory 50–57, 193–94, 207, 214, 221, 233–34, 237–38, 242–43, 248 God, god, see divine God-language 86, 201, 202, 204–212, 217–21, 226, 232, 241, 242 God-like 45, 53, 95, 107, 144, 158, 181, 222, 239, 243 – see also divine healing 98–99, 136, 155–56, 181, 193, 211–12, 225–26, 244 heaven 29–30, 40–52, 55, 58–64, 67– 68, 71–81, 92, 95, 101–106, 109, 115, 166, 170, 203–206, 214, 231– 32, 241 hierarchy 15, 109–110, 147, 197, 223– 27, 240, 253 Holy Spirit 23, 91, 182, 186–87, 225 honor 66, 92–94, 185, 225, 248 hostility 87–88, 111, 123–28, 135, 153– 56, 189, 234 human 40, 91, 93, 153, 157–58, 164–73, 178, 188–90, 212–22, 237–39, 251– 52, 255–56 – idealized 14, 132, 212–20 irony 23, 169, 179–80, 182, 211, 214, 231, 237, 239–40, 244, 245, 256 John the Baptist 22–23, 163–64, 167, 178, 182, 201–202 judgment 60, 78, 88, 91, 102, 105, 107, 167, 170, 217–18, 247 king 6, 47–48, 104, 115–17, 212, 216, 220, 229, 230–31, 245 – see also kingdom

318

Index of Subjects

– see also kingship kingdom 85, 88, 115–23, 132–33, 145, 176–77, 221, 229–30, 248, 256–57 – see also king – see also kingship kingship 12, 85, 112, 116–18, 121, 130, 230 Logos 30, 43, 54, 58–59, 69–74, 80–81, 248 Lord, lord 34, 41–52, 54, 55, 67–71, 78, 81, 90–92, 95, 99, 110, 115–17, 121, 124–30, 137–45, 165, 186, 200–204, 211, 217–20, 224, 231, 255, 257 lordship 95, 121, 172, 174, 211, 224, 233 magic 57–58, 61, 65–67 Melchizedek 48, 69, 94, 217, 218 messenger 140, 144, 167, 200, 201, 234 messiah 12, 13, 40–43, 55, 85–86, 91– 110, 116–18, 122–32, 137, 138, 140–44, 164, 201, 231, 236–37, 256–57 metaphysical 29, 42, 54, 61, 68–69, 73– 81 monism 58, 61, 68–69, 73–75 monolatry 30, 37, 50–55, 66, 70–71 monotheism 2–14, 28–33, 36–46, 53– 61, 66, 69, 73–80, 83, 86, 130–31, 139, 146, 149–52, 174, 180, 203, 255 Moses 23, 37, 67, 165, 207, 212, 214 Most High 29, 31, 62–63, 229, 233 name 50, 54, 60, 64, 69, 78, 102, 144, 207–211, 243 one-God 1–7, 11–13, 15, 27, 31–34, 44, 80–86, 120, 146–56, 179–80, 194– 96, 221, 226, 248, 253–55 – see also monotheism otherworldly 28–29, 42–43, 48, 51, 74, 77, 79 pagan 5, 19, 31, 39, 42–45, 51, 53, 70, 79, 131, 134 parable 14, 21, 85, 123–25, 141, 224, 230, 234, 250

paradox 14, 82, 147, 198, 215, 238, 249–55 paralytic 12, 150, 154–56, 162, 165, 170, 173–74, 193, 236 pardon 142, 158, 165–67, 170–71, 216 – see also forgiveness parity 15, 82, 147, 187, 197–98, 227– 28, 238–44, 247, 249–50, 253 Parousia 107, 161, 241–42 participation 49, 60, 88, 107–108, 111, 113, 121, 124, 137–38, 148, 168, 195, 203, 231, 234, 236, 248, 258 passion 24, 88, 101, 114, 161–62, 172, 224–25, 231, 233, 239–40, 244–46, 256 passive 12, 163–64, 167, 221 Paul 16, 77–78, 190 persecution 19, 190, 250 person 7, 14, 30, 42, 45, 54, 70–72, 80– 82, 95, 140, 145, 162, 193–95, 197, 221, 229, 232, 237, 240, 247, 249, 253 Peter 16, 24, 183, 214, 246, 256–57 piety 29, 74, 75, 79, 83, 159, 175 plurality 29–30, 36, 42, 45, 61, 67–68, 71, 74, 79–81 polytheism 30, 37, 70, 73–74, 79, 131 power 6, 41, 48, 60, 67–68, 101, 104– 105, 117, 132–36, 144, 153, 158, 160, 165, 173, 181, 192, 204–205, 211, 213, 225–26, 233 prayer 31, 35, 47–52, 223, 225, 236, 240 priest 13, 48–49, 95, 101–111, 153, 162–64, 167–74, 212, 217–18, 236– 37 prophet 13, 153, 162–64, 167–74, 183, 186, 210 rebuke 97, 204, 230, 256–57 recipient 22, 29, 49, 51, 53, 69, 217, 220 relation 11–17, 40, 46, 77, 85, 104, 110, 142, 146–47, 167, 193, 227–43, 247, 249, 252–58 resurrection 85, 87, 95, 161, 213, 233 rhetoric 29–30, 32–33, 39–56, 77–80, 100, 148, 180, 182, 187, 192, 204, 206, 223–24, 243–44, 254–55

Index of Subjects rich 176–78, 183, 188, 193 right 71, 86, 91–96, 101–109, 113, 130, 132, 133, 136–37, 140, 155, 164, 214, 221–22, 248 righteous 71, 182, 217–19, 229, 230 Roman 16–19, 24, 37, 43, 45, 50–53, 131, 237, 238–39, 256 royal 116–17, 230 rule 12, 48–49, 68, 70, 85, 95, 111, 116, 121, 137, 148, 212–13, 231, 236 – see also kingdom – see also reign ruler 36, 42, 46–51, 56, 60, 92, 148, 176, 229 Sabbath 136, 172–74, 181–82 sacrifice 30–31, 36, 47, 51, 70, 88, 232, 257 Sadducees 87, 88, 123 salvation 176–77, 183–84, 194, 229 scribe 12–13, 44, 82, 87–92, 111, 113, 116–28, 131–35, 142–46, 150–56, 165–75, 180, 216–18, 244, 255, 257 – sincere 87, 125 sea 46, 55, 68, 143–44, 204–208 secret 4, 48–49, 71, 235, 251, 256 self-assertion 100–111, 210 Semitic 25, 100, 232, 236 serve 15, 28, 30, 43–44, 48, 60, 68, 77, 81, 161, 207, 224, 234, 257 Shema 2–14, 33–35, 39, 43–44, 49, 54, 78, 80–83, 84, 86, 89–90, 112–16, 120, 126, 128, 130–34, 137–39, 142–48, 149–53, 162, 169, 171–75, 179–80, 184, 187, 193–95, 197, 221, 226, 240, 248, 253–55, 257 silence 5, 24, 85, 88, 90, 97, 118, 122– 27, 143, 204–205, 256 sin 12–13, 54, 106, 136, 142, 150–75, 180, 182, 216–218, 236, 244, 255, 258 son 214, 229–37, 241, 256 – of God, 5–7, 22, 82, 99–100, 104, 108, 125, 182, 197, 212, 214, 227– 38, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256 – of Man, 69, 99, 100–101, 104–108, 153–62, 170, 172–73, 198, 210, 212–13, 230, 233, 235, 242, 257

319

– of David 84, 91, 96–99, 108, 110– 11, 118, 122–23, 125, 128, 135, 142, 230–31 – of the Blessed 100–101, 103, 107 sonship, 5, 91, 96–100, 104, 107, 228– 38, 256 sovereignty 12, 29, 36, 42–43, 46–49, 52, 55–56, 64, 68–69, 77, 83, 85, 107–108, 111, 113–117, 121, 124, 127, 137–38, 168, 174, 184, 190, 203, 209–10, 223–24, 231, 248, 258 – see also kingdom – see also reign – see also rule spirit 23, 48, 91, 119, 164, 182, 187, 225, 233, 239, 242 status 11, 13, 15, 45, 61, 68–72, 77, 80– 81, 95–101, 106, 110–13, 121, 123, 129, 135, 138–48, 161–62, 171–74, 184–89, 193–95, 210, 211–24, 231, 233, 238, 240, 243, 245, 247, 254 submission 15, 49, 82, 147, 198, 222– 28, 235–43, 248–50, 254 subordinate 28, 43–44, 48–49, 63–64, 74, 76, 79, 109, 132, 231, 249, 253 suffering 19, 21, 68, 139, 160–62, 192, 213, 218, 225, 230–31, 250, 256 supremacy 30, 53, 59, 62–64, 67, 69, 76–79, 143, 178, 183, 185, 194, 248 teacher 13, 128, 143, 175, 176, 178, 180, 188–93, 209, 217, 218 temple 17–18, 85, 88, 107, 126–28, 138, 144–45, 171, 234, 242, 247, 256 theism 30, 50, 58, 75, 76, 77, 83, 135 theocentric 7, 14, 194, 237, 243, 248, 253 theology 1, 6–10, 23–25, 38–39, 48, 53, 60–65, 68, 71, 73, 74, 82, 85, 132, 135, 145–47, 167, 189, 191–92, 218, 238, 244, 246 throne 12, 60, 69–70, 95, 105–109, 122, 124, 127–28, 132, 137, 195, 231 transcendence 29, 30, 40–43, 95, 97, 100, 108, 203, 209, 213, 233–34 trial 100–101, 105, 108–110, 168, 175, 192, 236, 245

320

Index of Subjects

unity 12, 28, 58, 60–61, 68–69, 73–75, 78, 112, 116, 130 veneration 49, 65–67, 70, 94, 220 vindication 12, 102, 138–39, 161, 213, 218, 224, 230, 250 violation 5–6, 105–106, 142, 165, 168, 169, 173, 247–49 vizier 57, 61, 68, 69

wisdom 37, 45, 47, 49–50, 58–59, 69– 74, 80–81, 233 worship 29–31, 36–38, 40–46, 49–56, 65–71, 74, 77–78, 80–81, 131, 164, 220 Yahweh 44, 58, 60, 62, 115 YHWH 6, 51, 54, 59–69, 79, 90, 92, 95, 103, 104, 117, 150, 165, 167, 182, 184, 217–20, 242