Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood in the Gospel of Mark 9780567685759, 9780567685773, 9780567685766

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

607 Formerly Journal of the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Juan Hernandez, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

ROYAL MESSIANISM AND THE JERUSALEM PRIESTHOOD IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Bernardo Cho

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2019 This paperback edition published by Bloomsbury Academic in 2020

Copyright © Bernardo Cho, 2019 Bernardo Cho has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN:

HB: PB: ePDF: ePUB:

978-0-5676-8575-9 978-0-5676-9639-7 978-0-5676-8576-6 978-0-5676-8578-0

Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 607 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Acknowledgements ix Introduction: Justification for the Study Research Context Method and Argument

1 3 16

Chapter 1 The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in the Late Second Temple Period: The Dead Sea Scrolls 25 The ‘Davidic Branch’ and the ‘Prince of the Congregation’ 25 The ‘Messiahs (or Messiah) of Aaron and Israel’ 40 Conclusion 50 Chapter 2 The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in the Late Second Temple Period: The Pseudepigrapha 52 Psalm of Solomon 17 52 The Apocalyptic Literature 62 Conclusion 75 Chapter 3 The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology 78 Divine Sonship as Royal Messianism in Mark 78 The Son of David and the Kingship of Jesus in Mark 88 Conclusion 104 Chapter 4 The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10 106 Jesus and the Chief Priests in Mark: Preliminary Discussion 106 The Baptism of John 109 The Healing of the Leper and the Witness to the Priests 122 The Example of King David and Abiathar the High Priest 127 Conclusion 134

vi Contents

Chapter 5 The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16 136 The Silence of the Priests at the Temple 136 The Royal Messiah at the Temple 139 The Vollmachtfrage, the Wicked Tenants and the Rejected Stone 159 The Royal Messiah and the High Priest 177 The Crucified King and the Rending of the Temple Curtain 191 Conclusion 203 Conclusion: The Markan Jesus among the Royal Messiahs

204

Bibliography 208 Index of References 238 Index of Authors 251

A ck n owl ed g em e nts

The present study is a slightly revised version of my doctoral thesis, which I could finish only by sitting on the shoulders of many who have contributed to its realization. I am grateful to Matthew Novenson for his superb work as my supervisor. In addition to his soaring knowledge of the field, Matt is gifted with the rare combination of a sharp mind, diligent hands and a generous spirit. Next, I am grateful to Helen Bond for reading the entire document and offering some invaluable feedback on it. Some of my colleagues have also offered their critique on portions of my writing or suggestions on points relating to my research: Jay Thomas Hewitt, συνεργός in the study of the intersection between Jewish messianism and New Testament Christology, Benj Petroelje, Brian Bunnell, Sydney Tooth, Patrick McMurray, Daniel Jackson, Andrew Kelley, Zachary Cole, Joshua Coutts and Seth Ehorn. Matt’s cohort would regularly gather at his house in order to discuss selected readings, and I am thankful to Michelle Novenson for her hospitality. Many thanks to John Jeacocke for proofreading the manuscript and to Duncan Burns for polishing its final form and producing the indexes. Needless to say, whatever weaknesses one may find in the following pages are my own responsibility. I thank Langham Partnership for the award of a full scholarship plus annual stipend in conjunction with the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, without which this project would have been impossible. Ian and Christine Shaw, Liz and Malcolm McGregor, Riad Kassis, Christopher Wright, Monty (who now rests in the arms of the Lord) and Rosemary Barker, Gaynor Harvey and Stefanii Ferenczi, representing the Langham community at large, have modelled what faithful service to God and his church should look like. Liz, in particular, with her outstanding pastoral heart, has been the one responsible for keeping my family sane. I sincerely thank the leaders of Igreja Missionária Oriental de São Paulo, in particular Moisés Hwang, Daniel Yang, Gonçalo Lopes and Carlos Oh for the generous sponsorship we received since the day we left Brazil in 2009 up to the completion of my doctorate in Scotland in 2016. I am grateful also to the directors of Seminário Teológico Servo de Cristo, particularly Ricardo Chen, Ziel Machado, Eliane Ho and Estevan Kirschner, for the

x Acknowledgements

financial support and privilege to be part of their exceptional faculty. It was Estevan’s industriousness as an exegete that first inspired me to become a student of the New Testament, and it was his wife Rachael who equipped me for the daunting task of pursuing postgraduate degrees in the Anglophone world. I am additionally thankful to two groups of donors based in Brazil who have preferred to keep their identities undisclosed. There are also friends who have helped us a great deal thus far. I thank Jon and Miki Roberts for their generosity throughout, Mateus and Renata Campos for their hospitality during our annual visits to Cambridge for the Langham consultations, and the members of Grace Church Leith, especially the Court Community Group, for assisting us in transitioning back into Edinburgh from a semester of studies in Paris and Tübingen. My gratitude goes to other individuals as well, who are otherwise too numerous to be named here. Many thanks to my mentors from Regent College, Rikk Watts, Iain Provan, David Clemens and Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn. Rikk taught me how to interpret the New Testament in its historical context, and it was in his classes that my interest in the topic of this research emerged. Iain instilled me with the awareness of the multidimensional scope of hermeneutics. David gave me proper exposure to the biblical languages. And Mariam introduced me to the world of publishing, also guiding me through the overwhelming process of application for PhD programmes. Finally, the encouragement of my extended family has been pivotal in sustaining us until the end. I am grateful to my parents-in-law, Seong Soo and Hye Ryon Kim, for praying for us ἀδιαλείπτως, and to my siblingsin-law, Lidia and Alberto, for their promptitude to help us even with most mundane affairs. I am especially thankful to my parents, Michael and Regina Cho, models of integrity, hard work and selflessness. Even today, though not boasting the same physical strength of days past, Appa and Omma refuse to put their priorities above our wellbeing, and the completion of this book has been possible because of their constant support. My brother Alex and his family have also been keen on assisting us both in words and deeds. Most importantly, I thank my wife Roberta, whose company has made this journey all the more meaningful. In the last decade, as I devoted much of my time to completing my postgraduate studies, she has agreed to leave aside her pursuit of a long-term career, to relocate six times from one country to another, and to move into more than fifteen different addresses. All this, not to mention her being an incredible partner to me over the years and amazing mother to our two sweet children, Isabella and Rafael. This book is therefore to her credit just as much as it is to mine.

I n t rod uct i on :

J u s t i f i c at i on f or the S t udy

‘So Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon. Then they blew the trumpet. And all the people said, “May King Solomon live forever!” ’ (1 Kgs 1:39).1

In the story of the rise of Solomon as king, David sends his son to the Kidron valley, east of Jerusalem, where Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet would anoint him as the rightful successor to the throne (1 Kgs 1:32-37). Following these instructions, Solomon rides on his father’s mule, and, once at the assigned place, Zadok the priest pours out the anointing oil on David’s son, declaring him the new king over Israel (1 Kgs 1:38-39). As is well known, the remaining chapters of 1 Kings tell us that Solomon initiates a period of peace within Israel (cf. 1 Kgs 3:13; 10:23-25); and absolutely crucial to those decades of prosperity was the fulfilment of Yahweh’s promise to David: Solomon builds the First Temple in Jerusalem, where Zadok officiates as high priest (cf. 2 Samuel 7). Writing around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, the author of the Gospel of Mark speaks of another royal figure: as with the depiction of Solomon in 1 Kgs 1:32-40, Mark describes Jesus by using the language of anointing – he is ‘the messiah [ὁ χριστός]’ (cf. Mark 1:1; 8:29; 14:61; 15:32).2 At a climactic point in his public career, the Markan Jesus also rides a domesticated animal towards the Holy City, where he is acclaimed by the crowds as the one bringing ‘the coming kingdom of our father David [ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ]’ (Mark 11:10). In contrast to the first successor of David, however, nowhere does a priest officiate the anointing of Jesus in the earliest Gospel. On the contrary, instead of building a glorious shrine and inaugurating an era of 1.  Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the ancient sources are my own. 2.  Here and subsequently, all citations of the Greek New Testament follow K. Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013).

2

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

prosperity in the land, the Markan Jesus engages in polemics against the Jerusalem rulers, pronounces judgement upon the temple and ends up sentenced to death on a Roman cross (cf. Mark 11:15-17; 12:1-12; 13:1-2; 14:55-64; 15:6-15). All this happens, furthermore, even though John the Baptist had called attention to the significance of the coming of Jesus (cf. Mark 1:1-8), and despite the fact that Mark assumes the sacrosanctity of the temple worship (cf. Mark 1:44; 14:12-16). These differences would have been incidental were the expectation for a priest to acknowledge the Israelite king in the Holy City nonexistent in the post-exilic period. But there is a key piece of evidence for such a hope. According to Zechariah, the eschatological heir to the throne would follow the pattern of Solomon: he would come to Jerusalem sitting on an animal and effect peace among the nations (Zech 9:9-10).3 In resemblance to Solomon’s greatest achievement, moreover, ‘the Branch [‫ ’]צמח‬would lead the completion of the Second Temple (Zech 6:12-13; cf. 3:8; 1 Kings 6–10).4 More importantly, just as 1 Kings assumes a pristine relationship between Solomon and Zadok (cf. 1 Kgs 1:8; 2:35; 4:2), Zechariah envisages the perfection of the dual rule between king and priest: alongside the Branch, ‘there shall be a priest by his throne, and there shall be peaceful counsel between the two of them [‫והיה כהן על־כסאו ועצת‬ ‫( ’]שׁלום תהיה בין שׁניהם‬Zech 6:13; cf. 4:14). To state that Zechariah’s vision is comparable to what is said of Solomon in 1 Kings is not, of course, to assume that this is the only way post-exilic Jews idealized Israel’s national affairs. It is to say, however, that the proper relation between king and priest had come to the fore in Jewish imagination about the future already by the first century CE. This raises a series of important questions. If the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as a royal figure, what does it have to say about his relation to the Jerusalem priests? Considering that Jesus is accused of being a claimant to the throne by the temple rulers in the Holy City, how does Mark grapple with questions surrounding Jewish polity? How can it be that Jesus participates in the Israelite worship, enters the Holy City on a donkey while being hailed as king, and yet foresees the doom of the Jerusalem establishment? 3.  On the connection between 1 Kings and Zechariah, see A. Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 200–204. 4.  Here and subsequently, all citations of the Masoretic text follow K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983).

 Introduction

3

Research Context The messiahship of Jesus in Mark has been repeatedly addressed since the publishing of Hermann Samuel Reimarus’s influential work, Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, in the late eighteenth century.5 Whether discussed to inform reconstructions of the historical Jesus,6 or subsumed under the concern with the origins and functions of the christological titles,7 the messianic identity of the Markan Jesus has not lacked the interest of modern studies on Jesus and the Gospels. 5.  H.S. Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger: Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbüttelschen Ungenannten (Berlin: Wever, 1788). 6.  One thinks of the classic work by Wilhelm Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), which, by assuming that the historical Jesus did not think of himself in messianic terms, set the agenda for many subsequent discussions. Scholars who have taken a similar position to Wrede’s include: R. Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926); M. Dibelius, Jesus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1939); G. Bornkamm, Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956); J.H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988); P. Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Knopf, 1999); and J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Those who have argued otherwise include: W. Bousset, Jesus (Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904); A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1906); T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931); V. Taylor, The Life and Ministry of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1955); E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985); N.A. Dahl, ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus’, in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 382–403; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996). Das Messiasgeheimnis, of course, is primarily focused on the motif of the messianic secret in Mark. For references interacting with Wrede, see Chapter 3 below. 7.  E.g., O. Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957); J. Schreiber, ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums: Beobachtungen zur Theologie und Komposition des zweiten Evangeliums’, ZTK 58 (1961): 154–83; F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963); T.J. Weeden, ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel’, ZNW 59 (1968): 145–58; C. Burger, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine tradionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 98 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); G. Vermès, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973); C.F.D. Moule, The Origins of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); S.Y. Kim, The “Son of Man” as the Son of God (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); D.H. Juel, ‘The Origin of Mark’s Christology’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah,

4

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Within these multifarious conversations, some have also examined the Markan portrayal of Jesus on its own literary terms. In addition to virtually all commentaries on Mark, Marinus de Jonge, Paula Fredriksen, Frank Matera, Christopher Tuckett and Morna Hooker,8 for example, have offered succinct examinations on the messiahship of Jesus against the overarching tenor of Mark, even if at most times still focusing on the titles. But pride of place belongs to the comprehensive accounts by Jack Dean Kingsbury, Joel Marcus, Jacob Naluparayil and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, who have deployed narrative criticism – and, particularly in the case of Marcus, also the study of Mark’s christological interpretation of Scriptures – as the methodological key to deciphering the total picture of Jesus in the earliest Gospel.9 Relatedly, as a result of the increasing awareness of the Jewish context from which the gospel traditions emerged, E.P. Sanders, Richard Bauckham, Craig Evans, Bruce Chilton, Jostein Ådna, Alexander 449–60; E.K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 175 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); S. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 231–83. 8.  M. de Jonge, Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 53–70; P. Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 44–52; F.J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 5–25; C.M. Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers (Louisville: John Knox, 2001), 109–18; M.D. Hooker, ‘ “Who Can This Be?” The Christology of Mark’s Gospel’, in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. R.N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 79–99. See also G. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 37–121, 240–54; and M.F. Bird, Jesus Is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 2013), 32–56. 9.  J.D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992); J.C. Naluparayil, The Identity of Jesus in Mark: An Essay on Narrative Christology (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 2000); E.S. Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009). Kingsbury argues that God’s point of view in Mark highlights Jesus’s identity as Son of God (Christology, 142). Naluparayil contends that it is Son of man which takes precedence over whatever other designations (Jesus, 540). Malbon proposes a multilayered reading, in which ‘enacted’, ‘projected’, ‘deflected’, ‘refracted’ and ‘reflected’ Christologies tell a ‘colorful story’ of Jesus (Jesus, 16–19, 199–210). Marcus (Way, 201–2) makes the case that the kingship of Jesus is intimately bound to the kingdom of God.

 Introduction

5

Wedderburn and Simon Joseph, to name just a few, have likewise given lengthy treatments to Jesus’s stance towards the temple.10 Though many of these discussions are aimed at addressing the history behind the Gospels, some important studies have also addressed the topic as it is portrayed in Mark proper. Notable examples include the works of John Donahue, Werner Kelber, Donald Juel, William Telford, Emilio Chávez, Timothy Gray and Robert Stein.11 Despite the abundance of references to the messiahship of the Markan Jesus and his view on the temple, however, there is not a single full-length monograph addressing the question how the earliest Gospel presents Jesus the messiah in relation to the priestly establishment throughout its narrative. In fact, as shall become clear in the following discussion, when anything is said about this topic, it is usually by way of a passing comment. It is beyond the scope of this introductory section to parse all the methodological points or exegetical nuances made by the aforementioned 10.  Sanders, Jesus, 61–76; R. Bauckham, ‘Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple’, in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. B. Lindars (London: James Clark, 1988), 72–89; C.A. Evans, ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction’, CBQ 51 (1989): 237–70; B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); J. Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung, WUNT 2/119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); A.J.M. Wedderburn, ‘Jesus’ Action at the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?’, ZNW 97 (2006): 1–22; S.J. Joseph, Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in Its Jewish Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). See also L. Gaston, No Stone upon Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, NovTSup 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Fredriksen, Jesus, 94–106; D. Seeley, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act’, CBQ 55 (1993): 263–83; P.M. Casey, ‘Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple’, CBQ 59 (1997): 306–32; and N. Perrin, Jesus the Temple (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). 11.  J.R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 10 (Missoula: SBL, 1973); W.H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); D.H. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 31 (Missoula: Scholars, 1977); W.R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree in Mark’s Gospel and Its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition, JSOTSup 1 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980); E. Chávez, The Theological Significance of Jesus’ Temple Action in Mark’s Gospel, TST 87 (Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 2002); T.C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role, WUNT 2/242 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). R.H. Stein, Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014). See further Chapter 5 below.

6

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

studies, but a brief discussion of the main players should suffice to illustrate the critical questions involved in the present project and why a book such as this is needed. Let us begin with Sanders, who argues that the historical Jesus intended to symbolize the destruction of the temple in the event narrated in Mark 11:15-17 (cf. Matt 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-46). He states: If Jesus was a religious reformer, however, bent on correcting ‘abuse’ and ‘present practice’, we should hear charges of immorality, dishonesty and corruption directed against the priests. But such charges are absent from the gospels (except for Mark 11:17), and that is not the thrust of the action in the temple. On the contrary, the attack was against the trade which is necessary for sacrifices no matter who are the priests and without mention of the halakot which they follow.12

Sanders’s suggestion that the historical Jesus did not unconditionally place himself against the sacrificial system coheres with my reading of the Markan Jesus’s view on the matter.13 Yet, it is surprising that Sanders mentions the charge against the priests in Mark 11:17 but does not grapple with it any further, except briefly to note later on that the chief priests play ‘the prime role’ in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s death.14 Nor does Sanders discuss the well-attested motif of Jesus’s confrontation as a royal figure with the Jerusalem priests in the Markan passion narrative (cf. Mark 11:18; 11:27–12:12; 14:55-64; 15:1-32), though he believes that the event behind the triumphal entry did evoke the sense of a royal procession.15 If the reference to OG Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17 is directed to the temple priests, as Sanders rightly notes, then the conflict between Jesus – he as a king at that – and the priestly rulers in the subsequent chapters of the Gospel are vital for understanding the temple action itself. On this stroke, Evans, who advocates the traditional understanding of the temple incident as purporting a cleansing action, rightly counters Sanders’s claim that the historical Jesus attacked only the traders – not the priests – as dubious, for whatever happened at the temple was under priestly jurisdiction.16 Granted that there are redactional elements in Mark 11:15-17, in other words, the incident at the temple precincts would still 12.  Sanders, Jesus, 66 (emphasis original). See also H.D. Betz, ‘Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18): A Comparative Religion Approach’, JBL 116 (1997): 461–2. 13.  See Chapter 4. 14.  Sanders, Jesus, 310. 15.  Ibid., 306–8. 16.  Evans, ‘Action’, 264.

 Introduction

7

have been actually interpreted at least as a threat to the authority of the high priest. More to the point, having surveyed several extra-biblical passages depicting the high priesthood in the first century CE in negative terms, Evans points out that, some tannaitic and early amoraic rabbis, the zealots, Qumran sectarians, and Josephus viewed various priests, High Priests, or priestly families as wealthy, corrupt, often greedy, and sometimes violent. What can we make of their sentiments? At first blush we might conclude that corruption within the high priesthood of Jesus’ time has been proven.17

In due course, I assess Evans’s case for the corruption of the priesthood in the period near the fall of Jerusalem and, most importantly, whether Mark capitalizes on such a perspective. I shall argue, moreover, that the Markan Jesus’s actions at the temple do convey the sense of impending destruction.18 Suffice it to say here, however, that, though Evans is to the point in noting the intrinsic relation between temple and priesthood, he does not fully address the question precisely how Mark 11:15-17 fits the broader context of the priests’ opposition to the messiah in the earliest Gospel. Ådna, for his part, reconstructs the temple incident as essentially relaying the clash between Jesus’s announcement of the kingdom of God and the traditional sacrificial cult performed in Jerusalem.19 Though acknowledging that the Gospels deploy the theme of Jesus’s confrontation against the priests as conveying eschatological significance,20 Ådna suggests that the motivation behind it is to point out that the Levitical institution is ultimately incompatible with Jesus’s atoning death – the latter stands as a ‘definitive Ablösung’ of the former, as supposedly announced at the last supper (cf. Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20).21 Ådna concludes: [D]ie Tempelaktion Jesu [ist] eine messianische Zeichenhandlung, die besagt, daß der Sühnopferkult im Jerusalem Temple nun zum Erliegen gebracht wird (und gebracht werden muß!), weil der bevorstehende gewalt­ same Tod Jesu diesen Opferkult im Tempel ein für allemal als den Vielen zugutekommenden Sühnetod ersetzt und ablöst.22 17.  Ibid., 263. 18.  See Chapter 5. 19.  Ådna, Jesu, 381–7. 20.  Ibid., 382. 21.  Ibid., 427 (emphasis original). On this point, Ådna is indebted to P. Stuhl� macher, Jesus von Nazareth – Christus des Glaubens (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1988), 47–64. 22.  Ådna, Jesu, 429 (emphases original).

8

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

So far as Mark is concerned, Ådna is correct to interpret the fate of the Jerusalem shrine in relation to Jesus’s death. Indeed, Mark 15:37-38 depicts Jesus’s breathing his last alongside the tearing of the temple curtain, which, as I discuss at length in Chapter 5 below, is deeply connected with the theme of the divine judgement upon the adversaries of the messiah. Nevertheless, it shall also become clear that the earliest Gospel significantly problematises Jesus’s alleged supersession of the sacrificial system: for one thing, in a passage that Ådna does not discuss in detail, the Markan Jesus affirms the importance of the Levitical system by sending a healed leper to offer sacrifices at the temple (cf. Mark 1:44); for another, it is by no means obvious that Mark portrays the last supper in utter opposition to the atoning function of the temple worship (cf. Mark 14:22-24).23 Ådna’s interpretation of the clash between Jesus and the priests as connoting the supersession of the temple, therefore, must be revised in the light of the evidence in Mark suggesting otherwise. The view that Mark portrays Jesus as replacing the temple and its cultus had been articulated by Donahue almost three decades prior to the publishing of Ådna’s Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Thus, Donahue claims that, the Marcan addition to the acclamation formula, ‘Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming’ (11:10), points to a substitution of the coming kingdom for the city.… The framing of the temple cleansing by the two fig tree references suggests an eschatological visitation on the temple, and the prohibition against carrying ‘anything’ through the temple abrogates the cultic role of the temple. The eschatological ‘house of prayer for all nations’ will replace the temple.24

According to Donahue, moreover, Mark 11:1–12:44 and 14:55-64 underscore the identity of Jesus as the Son of man, not as the eschatological king.25 But, in addition to the aforesaid difficulties in taking the kingdom of God as necessarily exclusive of the Jerusalem temple in Mark, Donahue’s downplaying of the royal imagery in Mark 11–12 and 14:55-64 prevents him from realizing its direct bearing on the opposition that Jesus faces from the priestly elite in the Holy City.26 Donahue thus fails to see 23.  For a more plausible alternative, see J. Klawans, ‘Interpreting the Last Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualization, and Anti-Sacrifice’, NTS 48 (2002): 3–9. 24.  Donahue, Christ, 114. 25.  Ibid., 120, 178–84. 26.  Only in a later work (‘Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology [Mark 14:5365]’, in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16, ed. W.H. Kelber [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 61–79) does Donahue articulate more forcefully the royal overtones

 Introduction

9

that the allusions to OG Psalm 117 both at the triumphal entry (cf. OG Ps 117:25-26 in Mark 11:9-10) and at the end of the parable of the wicked tenants (cf. OG Ps 117:22-23 in Mark 12:10-11) place the rejection of the end-time king by the priests at the core of Mark’s criticism of the temple authorities.27 Indeed, in a study on Mark 11:27–12:12, Marius Lee rightly points out that Jesus’s reference to the baptism of John at the Vollmachtfrage (cf. Mark 11:29-30) denounces the Jerusalem leaders’ unbelief that the messiah announced by John had already come: Es wird also im Sinne von ‘an Johannes den Täufer glauben’, der als ein wahrer Prophet mit der Umkehrtaufe göttlich beauftragt wurde, um zugleich die Botschaft von der Nähe des Messias (Mk 1,7f) zu verkündigen, sachlich verstanden. Das hatte aber die jüdische Autorität nicht geglaubt.28

I shall develop this point more fully in Chapters 3 and 4 below. Another example of note is Juel, who contends that the words of the false witnesses at the trial scene provide testimony to the messiahship of Jesus and further defines his identity as the one who would ‘build up the eschatological temple “not made with hands” ’, namely, the Christian community (cf. Mark 14:58).29 Accordingly, in Juel’s estimation, Jesus’s actions in Mark 11:15-17 convey strong implications for the Jerusalem priesthood. He writes: The cleansing of the temple must in some sense imply the rejection of the official representatives of Israel, the leaders of the temple establishment. Some care is necessary at this point. It is perhaps inaccurate to suggest that the events point to the rejection of Israel. Jesus’ opponents in the last chapters of the Gospel are clearly the leaders of the temple establishment, the scribes, the high priests [sic.], and the elders.30

Juel thus recognizes the emphasis on the conflict between the royal messiah and the priestly rulers in the final chapters of the Gospel. In contrast to Donahue, Juel rightly notes the significance of Jewish messianism in the passion narratives, making a persuasive case that the of Jesus’s identity in Mark. Discussions on how the priests figure in relation to such a motif, however, are, again, slim. 27.  Instead, Donahue (Christ, 126) takes the view that Mark 11:9-10 and 12:10-11 connote ‘the substitution of kingdom for temple’. 28.  M.Y.-H. Lee, Jesus und die jüdische Autorität: eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mark 11,27–12,12, FB 56 (Würzburg: Echter, 1986), 142. 29.  Juel, Messiah, 56–7. 30.  Ibid., 131.

10

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

titles ‘messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ are essentially royal categories in Mark.31 Intriguingly, however, Juel falls short of explaining the rationale behind what he assumes to be an ‘implicit rejection’ of the temple establishment. How does Mark relay the temple incident in connection to the Jerusalem rulers’ handing over of Jesus to be crucified as ‘the messiah the King of Israel [ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ]’ by the Romans (Mark 15:26)? If the Jerusalem shrine was overseen by the priests, and Mark 11:15-17 connotes a critique of them, then the tension between Jesus, who is to Mark the royal messiah, and the priests throughout the narrative certainly deserves further attention. A brief observation should also be made on the redaction-critical study by Telford on the intercalation of the temple incident between the two fig-tree passages in Mark 11:11-26. The thrust of Telford’s thesis is to argue that the cursing of the fig tree illustrates the fate of the temple institution: as with the former, the latter will be destroyed.32 Telford does not address the question why Jesus takes such a stance towards the Jerusalem shrine, but in the conclusion of his survey of the fig-tree symbolism in the Jewish Scriptures, he connects Mark 11:12-26 with the warning from Mal 3:1 alluded to in Mark 1:2: Who could doubt that a solemn judgement upon the nation was here being proclaimed; and in this context a judgement directed against a corrupt Temple cultus?… The Lord whom they sought had suddenly come to his Temple (cf. Mal.3.1 and Mk.1.2) but had condemned rather than restored it! Elijah the prophet had been sent before the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mal.4.5; cf. Mk.9.12) but they had done to him whatever they pleased (Mk.9.13)! Therefore the Lord would come and smite the land with a curse (Mal.4.6) and the blow had been struck against the barren fig-tree!33

Though Telford gives no further substantiation to such a claim, the allusion to Mal 3:1 in Mark 1:2 may be significant to Mark’s depiction of Jesus vis-à-vis the priesthood.34 The prophetic warning in Mal 3:1, after all, is primarily aimed at the Levitical priests, not the temple as such, as Telford seems to imply. Indeed, I argue in Chapter 4 that Jesus’s criticism of the Jerusalem shrine, when read in the light of the Markan prologue, 31.  Ibid., 77–116. 32.  Telford, Temple, 58–9. 33.  Ibid., 163. See also Donahue, Christ, 121, who suggests the same link. 34.  See Chapter 4 below. See also R.E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, WUNT 2/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 67–76 and 311–7, who more substan�tially treats the connection suggested by Telford between Malachi’s warning and the cursing of the fig tree.

 Introduction

11

presupposes a deeper problem: the temple rulers rejected John, the eschatological prophet in the pattern of Malachi’s Elijah, and Jesus, the royal messiah and divine son. Kingsbury, in turn, in his elaborate treatment of the royal-divine sonship of the Markan Jesus, examines the parable of the wicked tenants, wherein Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of God rejected by the Jewish authorities (Mark 12:1-12), and its thematic connection with the high priest’s naming Jesus ‘the messiah the Son of the Blessed [ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ]’ at the trial scene (Mark 14:61). Kingsbury emphasizes several layers of irony underlying the high priest’s condemnation of Jesus as the Son of God: The one irony concerns the question of the high priest in 14:61. In asking Jesus whether he is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, the high priest unwittingly calls upon Jesus to acknowledge in public who he really is. The second irony concerns Jesus. Although he is made to die for committing blasphemy against God (14:64), his one deed has been to dare to ‘think’ about himself as God has revealed, at his baptism and transfiguration, that he does indeed ‘think’ about him (1:11; 9:7; 8:33d). And the third irony concerns the high priest and the Sanhedrin. In charging Jesus with blaspheming God, they are alleging, in effect, that they know the ‘thinking’ of God. But even while alleging knowledge of God’s ‘thinking’, they are, in fact, repudiating his ‘thinking’.35

Kingsbury is probably correct to note the contrast in perceptions regarding the identity of Jesus at the trial scene and Mark overall (cf. Mark 8:27-38). Nevertheless, surprisingly absent in The Christology of Mark’s Gospel are in-depth discussions both on the temple incident and on the crucial fact that it is the high priest who, appearing for the first time in the narrative, charges the royal messianic son as a blasphemer.36 Given the prominence of priesthood and kingship in the history of Israel’s polity (cf. 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 7:13-16), the clash between the royal messiah and the high 35.  Kingsbury, Christology, 121. 36.  In the 1970s, several monographs on the trial scene were published in the Anglophone world (aside from the doctoral theses by Donahue and Juel, see, e.g., E. Bammel [ed.], The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule, SBT 13 [London: SCM, 1970]; D. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day [Leiden: Brill, 1971]; P. Winter, The Trial of Jesus [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974]; cf. J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ [Westminster: Newman, 1959]), but none of them addresses the significance of the Markan messiah’s conflict with the high priest.

12

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

priest before the crucifixion is by no means inconsequential. It is only in his later book, Conflict in Mark, that Kingsbury considers Mark 11:15-17 alongside Mark 12:1-12 and 14:53-64, but, there, to our puzzlement, the messianic overtones of Jesus’s temple actions, clearly foregrounded at his royal procession into Jerusalem in Mark 11:1-11, are significantly deemphasized.37 Marcus follows Juel in suggesting that the saying about ‘the temple not made with hands’ in Mark 14:58 points to the Church, and maintains that both the ‘others’ who inherit the vineyard in Mark 12:9 and the son who becomes the ‘cornerstone’ in Mark 12:10 bolster the reference.38 But, to Marcus, while the citation from OG Isa 56:7 at the temple incident betrays Mark’s awareness of the ‘motif of an end-time pilgrimage of the gentiles to the new Temple’,39 the correspondence of such a new temple with Gentile Christians represents a reinterpretation of the Jewish traditions regarding the eschatological temple: Mark, in other words, views Christ’s resurrection, the exaltation of the rejected stone to the head of the corner, as the creation of a new Temple composed of the resurrected Lord in union with his eschatological community of ‘others’. This Markan reinterpretation of the Temple and association of it with the eschatological community of ‘others’ probably reflects his community’s encounter with the Jewish revolutionaries; his implicit denial of the ultimate significance of the Jerusalem Temple and linkage of the Temple theme with Gentiles is in part at least a polemic against the revolutionaries’ pro-Temple, anti-Gentile zeal. As we have seen, these Markan themes are foreshadowed by the citation of Isa. 56:7 in 11:17, a citation that is probably Markan redaction. Here Jesus claims the Temple as his own house (ὁ οἶκός μου, ‘my house’) and states that its purpose was to become a house of prayer for all nations.40

The long ‘way’ of Yahweh’s return to Zion, announced in the opening citation from OG Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3, thus finds its culmination in the resurrection of Jesus. The argument put forward in The Way of the Lord as a whole is a tour de force, and it shall become clear in my footnotes that I am indebted to it on significant points. But, as with the aforementioned 37.  J.D. Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 77–88. Thus, though Kingsbury speaks of the temple action as a challenge to ‘the authorities in the place that serves as the seat of their rule’ (78), he reduces the incident as pertaining to the priests’ supposed corruption and the lack of inclusion of Gentiles into the sanctuary. 38.  Marcus, Way, 123. 39.  Ibid., 121. 40.  Ibid., 123 (emphases original).

 Introduction

13

treatments, Marcus offers no sustained discussion on how Jesus’s interaction with the priests informs our reading of Mark’s use of OG Isa 56:7 with regards to the Jerusalem temple. Granted that Mark 12:1-11 betrays an anti-temple Sitz im Leben, it is transparent that Jesus evokes the Isaianic vision of the end-time shrine as something that should have been, even if it ended up not being, fulfilled.41 Hence, how exactly does the occurrence of OG Isa 56:7 alongside OG Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17 foreshadow what is expressed in Mark 12:9-10? In this regard, Mark’s linking of the temple incident with the allusion to Mal 3:1 in the prologue, which calls the Levitical priests to repentance before the day of Yahweh’s visitation to the temple, shall prove fruitful. The last work of note is the one by Gray, who offers one of the most comprehensive examinations on the temple motif in Mark 11–15.42 Gray echoes Telford in affirming that Mark 11:12-26 forms a unity speaking of the doom of the temple, but takes a step further in emphasizing that the priests stand at the centre of Jesus’s criticism in Mark 11:15-17.43 Gray, that is, recognizes that the warning conveyed in Mark 1:2 is focused on the priests and that the phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν in Mark 11:17 (cf. OG Jer 7:11) indicts the temple rulers.44 Yet, Gray also takes the view that the Jerusalem shrine becomes obsolete in Mark – the last supper ‘points to Jesus as the new cultic sacrifice for sins’.45 But more striking still is Gray’s claim that the Markan Jesus takes upon himself the prerogatives of the high priest: By citing Psalm 110, there can be little doubt as to Mark’s point in alluding to it, especially given the temple context. The Markan Jesus is employing the psalm to explain his authority over the temple and the priestly leaders. This priestly authority relates not only to the judging of the old temple but also to the founding of the new temple.… Could it be fortuitous that Jesus alludes to the Solomonic priestly role (which historically concerns temple dedication) established in Psalm 110, shortly after speaking of the rejected stone that will become the cornerstone of the new eschatological temple?46 41.  See Chapter 5. 42.  See also Chávez, Temple, who comes to similar conclusions to Gray’s. 43.  Gray, Temple, 34–8. 44.  Ibid, 34–6. Though, in my view, Gray overstates the similarities between OG Jeremiah 7 and Mark 11. See my discussion on Mark 11:15-18 in Chapter 5. 45.  Ibid., 162. See also Chávez, Temple, 183–6. For a critique of this view, see Klawans, ‘Last Supper’, 3–9. 46.  Gray, Temple, 88. The most detailed defence of such a view is by Crispin Fletcher-Louis (‘Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1’, JSHJ 4 [2006]: 155–75; and idem, ‘Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2’, JSHJ 5 [2007]: 57–79; see

14

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Gray has made a remarkable contribution in parsing how the temple features in the latter chapters of Mark. Nevertheless, Gray does not wrestle with Jesus’s affirmation of the Levitical priests in Mark 1:44 – a passage which is never mentioned in his book – nor does he consider its bearing on Mark 11:15-17. Furthermore, Gray’s reading of Mark 12:35-37 is unconvincing. For one thing, the reference to Melchizedek in OG Ps 109:4 does not occur on the lips of Jesus. For another, the Davidssohnfrage is intended to challenge the scribal understanding of the bloodline of the messiah, not the authority of the high priest. In the light of the foregoing, it becomes clear that a detailed treatment of Jesus’s kingship in relation to the Jerusalem priests in Mark remains a desideratum. This is all the more surprising, considering the now widely held view that the messianic hopes in the late Second Temple period were variegated,47 and that the priesthood occupied a prominent seat within also E.K. Broadhead, ‘Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark’, JSNT 47 [1992]: 21–34), who argues that the historical Jesus thought of himself as the high priestly messiah. Despite the paucity of evidence in Jewish tradition for a king legitimately claiming high priestly prerogatives, Fletcher-Louis claims that Jewish messianic ideology gave priority to the older – hence supposedly more authoritative – priestly tradition, and envisaged Israel’s ideal eschatological ruler primarily in priestly terms (cf. M. Barker, ‘The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus’, in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. C.C. Newman et al. [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 93–111). However, the assertion that the prophets by and large saw the future in priestly terms is, of course, an overstatement. Whereas ‫ משׁיח‬could refer in the Hebrew Bible both to priests (Exod 29:7; Lev 7:35) and to prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), it was most often attributed to the king from the house of David both in and outside Scriptures (e.g., 2 Sam 2:4-7; 1 Kgs 19:15-16; 1 Sam 12:3-5; Pss 2; 18; 20; 21; 45; 72; 89; 101; 110; 132; 144; Isa 9; 11; Mic 5:1-3; Jer 23:1-6; Ezek 17; 34; Zech 9:9-10; Pss. Sol. 17–18; 1QSa 2.14, 20; CD 7.18-19; 12‒14; 19.10-11; 4Q174; 1QSa 2.11-12, 20-21; 4Q252; 2 Bar. 29:2‒30:1; 4 Ezra 7:30-44). The possibility that the historical Jesus had a high-priestly self-understanding, in turn, is severely weakened by the unambiguous association of Jesus with the line of David not only in Matthew, but also in Luke: Jesus is the Son of David, not the Son of Aaron (cf. Matt 1:1-17; Luke 1:69; 2:21; 3:31). And, as already pointed out, the Markan passion narrative quite explicitly presents Jesus as king. In short, as Vermès noted some four decades ago, ‘by the absence from the main Synoptic tradition of any allusion to himself as the Priest Messiah, this cannot have been Jesus’ conception of his role’ (Jesus, 153). 47.  The Qumran manuscripts have opened up ways into a more comprehensive understanding of post-Maccabean Judaism and provided grounds for historians to reassess the formerly prevailing view that Jewish messianism was both ubiquitous and monolithic (as per, e.g., E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of

 Introduction

15

Israel’s national affairs around the first century CE.48 While scholars have indeed paid close attention to the Christology of Mark as well as how the Jerusalem shrine figures in the final section of the Gospel, nevertheless, the fascination for the temple qua temple, combined with the downplaying of Jesus’s interaction with the priests, has left a blindspot in our reading of the earliest Gospel. Not only have we tended to assume Mark to be fundamentally supersessionist, we have also overlooked the way Jesus grapples with issues of Jewish polity, with special reference to the proper intersection between the royal and the priestly offices. This cries out for a full-length study. One essay has paved the way for my approach. In an article published in 2000, Evans suggests that, just as the Dead Sea Scrolls express the hope for the coming of the ‘messiahs of Aaron and Israel [‫משיחי אהרון‬ ‫( ’]וישראל‬as per 1QS 9.9-11; cf. CD 12.22–13:1; 14.18-19; 19.10-11; 19.33–20.1), it is quite possible that the historical Jesus envisaged a diarchic polity with the high priest.49 On the one hand, Evans argues that Jesus Christ, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901]; E.F. Scott, ‘What Did the Idea of Messiah Mean to the Early Christians?’, JR 1 (1921): 418-420; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh [Nashville: Abingdon, 1954]; J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah [New York: Macmillan, 1955]; and G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality [New York: Schocken, 1971]). To be sure, the existence of a messianic idea in ancient Judaism had been questioned from very early on by B. Bauer (Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker [Leipzig: Wigland, 1841–42]), but until the period following the Second World War, his claims remained fairly marginal. For a recent history of research on Second Temple Jewish messianism, see M.V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 35–47. See also W. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 1–22; and the essays in M. Bockmuehl and J. Carleton-Paget, eds., Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London: T&T Clark International, 2007). 48.  In addition to the comprehensive discussions on the high priesthood in the Second Temple Period in D.W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), and J.C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), see H.K. Bond, Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004); and A. Reinhartz, Caiaphas the High Priest (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013). 49.  C.A. Evans, ‘Diarchic Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. L.H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: IESIAA, 2000), 558–67.

16

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the messiah of Aaron does not necessarily refer to a future agent of deliverance, but rather to a contemporaneous figure, likely already present in Qumran.50 This is important, because it betrays the belief that the Dead Sea sectarians would be officially established as Israel’s new priesthood in Jerusalem when the messiah of Israel would come. On the other hand, Evans claims, in the light of a few allusions to Zechariah in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Zech 9:9 in Matt 21:4-5; Zech 14:20-21 in Mark 11:16; and Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27), that ‘the theology of the prophet Zechariah may have informed Jesus’ understanding of his mission to Jerusalem’.51 This may be significant, given that Zechariah speaks of the ‘two sons of oil [‫( ’]שׁני בני־היצהר‬Zech 4:14) and quite possibly served as a scriptural source to the diarchic aspirations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.52 In due course, I shall address whether or not the revisions Evans proposes are defensible on exegetical grounds. In any case, Evans raises some important questions and invites a fresh investigation into how the motifs of Jesus’s royal messiahship and his conflict with the temple priests are connected to one another in Mark. Is there any evidence at any point in the narrative that Jesus considers the possibility of a diarchic polity with the high priest? Can the earliest Gospel hold up that Jesus’s confrontations with the temple rulers were actually the outcome of the high priest’s rejection of the rightful king, instead of an unconditionally supersessionist attitude towards the Jerusalem institution? Method and Argument In order to address the issues raised above, I take an eclectic method that uses literary criticism as a subset of historical criticism. I thus focus my attention on the final form of Mark’s narrative, while also placing it against its historical context. This reading strategy may or may not be 50.  Evans proposes a revision of two widely held views: that an anointed priestly figure was expected to appear at the end of days, and that the priestly figure would be superior to the nation’s king. On this larger discussion, see K.G. Kuhn, ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’, NTS 1 (1954–55): 168–80; J. Liver, ‘The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth’, HTR 52 (1959): 149–85; R.B. Laurin, ‘The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls’, RevQ 4 (1963–64): 39–52; J.B. Higgins, ‘The Priestly Messiah’, NTS 13 (1966–67): 211–39; G.J. Brooke, ‘The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document’, RevQ 15 (1991): 215–30; and S. Talmon, ‘The Concept of Mašiah and Messianism in Early Judaism’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 79–115. See further references in Chapter 1 below. 51.  Evans, ‘Diarchic’, 565. See also Le Donne, Jesus, 200–4. 52.  See Chapter 1 below.

 Introduction

17

regarded as rather conventional, but, in any case, the sage advice by Hans Frei justifies it: there should be ‘just enough theory to describe the rules and principles used in an actual exegesis, and no more, even if it means that we have only fragments of one or several theories rather than a single all-inclusive theory of interpretation’.53 So the approach of the present inquiry is based on three fundamental assumptions. First, paying attention to the narrative plot of a Gospel, with its movement forward from the beginning to the end of its storyline, is, to quote Stephen Moore, ‘essential to its adequate interpretation’.54 And, when it comes to how Mark characterizes Jesus, the works of Kingsbury and Malbon, for example, have demonstrated, even if with differing results, that the identity of Jesus is narratively construed.55 This in turn means that we become wiser readers of Mark when we allow the cumulative force of its narrative as a whole to inform our reading of each individual passage.56 To put it differently, the Markan Jesus can be properly grasped only insofar as the reader understands what the protagonist of the Gospel says and does in relation to the other characters in the story, as the narrative progresses from the Jordan to Galilee to Jerusalem and finally to Golgotha.57 53.  H. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997), 63, cited in C.K. Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke, BZNW 139 (Berlin: de Gruyter; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 10 n. 36. See also R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), x. 54.  S.D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 59 (see also 25–55). 55.  See also P. Ricoeur, ‘Interpretative Narrative’, in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory, ed. R.M. Schwartz (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990), 237–43: ‘the most striking feature of the gospel narratives lies in the indissociable union of the kerygmatic and the narrative aspects’ (239); ‘[i]t is in narrating that he [Mark] interprets the identity of Jesus’ (241). Moreover, L.E. Keck (‘Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology’, NTS 32 [1986]: 370) criticizes the reduction of Christology to the conceptual origins of the christological titles: the former should ‘not be confused with historical reconstruction of the history of ideas’. For a theoretical discussion on meaning and narrative, see H. Frei, ‘Theology and the Interpretation of Narrative: Some Hermeneutical Considerations’, in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, ed. G. Hunsinger and W.C. Placher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 94–116. 56.  So also Rowe, Christology, 14, with regards to the Gospel of Luke. 57.  Cf. Matera, Christology, 26; Hooker, ‘Christology’, 80–1; and L.E. Keck, ‘New Testament Christology: What, Then, Is New Testament Christology?’, in Who Do You Say that I Am? Essays on Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury, ed. M.A. Powell and D.R. Bauer (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 193.

18

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

My second, related presupposition is that pivotal for Mark’s Christology is the way the evangelist engages with what Juel calls ‘messianic exegesis’ of the Jewish Scriptures.58 It has long been established that Mark makes heavy use of some scriptural passages in telling his story about Jesus.59 Whether or not Mark is methodologically consistent throughout his account, and the precise theological payoff of each instance where the Scriptures are adduced, to be sure, are issues still widely disputed.60 In 58.  D.H. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 8–57. 59.  E.g., C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952); B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM, 1961); S. Schultz, ‘Markus und das Alte Testament’, ZThK 58 (1961): 184–97; A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Mohr, 1965); H.C. Kee, ‘The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16’, in Jesus und Paulus, ed. E.E. Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 165–88; M.D. Hooker, ‘Mark’, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 220–30; Watts, New Exodus, especially 9–28; Marcus, Way, passim; T.R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, JSNTSup 232 (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002); and R.B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 17–34. 60.  The major points of controversy concern: (i) the set of criteria used to identify an allusion; (ii) whether the New Testament authors had the entire context of a given scriptural passage in mind when citing or alluding to it; and (iii) the extent to which said context informs the meaning of the passage in the Gospel. Very recently, Paul Foster (‘Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament’, JSNT 38 [2015]: 96–111) has offered an incisive critique of the lack of methodological precision in some recent treatments on the intertextuality of the New Testament. Foster concludes: ‘if the focus remains more firmly fixed on broader historico-critical questions, with the key concern that of assessing the intertextual links created by the author (to the extent that authorial intent can be established), then a more controlled methodology needs to be employed’ (109). I do not propose to solve all the problems in the sub-field of the New Testament’s use of the Old, but Foster’s point is well taken. Foster insists, ‘It is important to look for shared verbal affinities between the source text and the newer text. Also one must be attentive not just to the similarities, but also to the differences between the proposed source text and the context in which is redeployed’ (109). Yet, as shall become clear in my argument, I also agree with Marcus (Way, 21) that ‘there are instances where one is forced by the evidence of the text itself to assume [Mark’s awareness of] such a [scriptural] context’. See further C.A. Evans, ‘Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament?’, JSNT 38 (2015): 36–48.

 Introduction

19

any case, no serious reader of Mark would disagree with Juel that, ‘Basic to all speech about Jesus…is the language and imagery of the OT’.61 In this regard, it is unsurprising that almost every passage analysed in the following pages demands discussion on scriptural metaphors, citations or allusions deployed therein. Accordingly, I start from the premise that, in order to perceive who the Markan Jesus is, it is crucial to note also the way Mark appropriates the Jewish Scriptures for his overall christological purposes. And, thirdly, I take it for granted that the Gospels use the vocabulary common to their particular contexts.62 Hence, it is imperative to read Mark not only as a self-contained literary unit, but also in the light of the thought world with which it originally interacted. Admittedly, as Paul Ricoeur taught us over half a century ago, historical analysis – and the analysis of the thought world of a text that is two millennia distant from us, for that matter – is both selective and imaginative.63 But the fact that objective certainty is unachievable should not preclude the historian to strive for an accurate frame of reference. To use Wayne Meeks’s eloquent words, ‘History is fiction about the past that is corrigible. One may very well say that there are no facts without interpretation, but nevertheless there are facts.’64 So, if one may state the obvious, the Markan Jesus would be unintelligible, if, say, the terms χριστός and υἱός Δαυίδ were not regarded as instances of appropriation of Jewish categories current around 70 CE, approximately the time the earliest Gospel was composed.65 61.  Juel, Exegesis, 23. 62.  Which is not necessarily to assume that Mark addresses only one specific community. See R. Bauckham, ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written’, in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. idem (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 9–48; and D.N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden: Brill: 2000), 200–201; But compare P.F. Esler, ‘Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians’, SJT 51 (1998): 235–48. 63.  P. Ricoeur, History and Truth (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965; French edition: Histoire et vérité [Paris: Seuil, 1955]), 21–40. 64.  W.A. Meeks, ‘Why Study the New Testament?’, NTS 51 (2005): 166 (emphasis original). 65.  My argument does not depend on knowing precisely when and where Mark was written, and so I am not at all dogmatic about these issues. For convenience, I assume that the evangelist who wrote the Gospel of Mark: (i) was possibly associated with the apostle Peter (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15); (ii) was based in Rome (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1); (iii) knew traditions both in Hebrew and in Aramaic previously circulating in Palestine (cf. Mark 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:32; 15:22, 34); and (iv) wrote around the period of the first Jewish revolt, whether just before

20

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Bearing these hermeneutical caveats in mind, the ultimate goal of the present inquiry is to examine how the earliest Gospel addresses the proper relation between kingship and priesthood in portraying the royal messiah­ ship of Jesus on the one hand and his interactions with the Jerusalem priesthood on the other.66 It is my contention that, by the turn of the Christian era, royal messianic discourse was characterized by the anticipation that Jerusalem and its priestly institution would attain its idealized fruition. While the actualization of such hopes is described in different ways – a new body of priests, a purified sacrificial system or a heavenly order – the temple priesthood is always assumed to have a fundamental role in the reign of the end-time king. More importantly, though some sources ascribe much prominence to the eschatological high priest, the evidence gives us good reasons to conclude that it is ultimately under the auspices of the king that the Israelite worship would be perfected. Mark, for his part, in using royal messianic discourse with reference to Jesus, is in general agreement with his contemporaries. Contrary to what many have suggested, the Markan Jesus does not outright reject the Jerusalem institution, nor does he see any incompatibility between the kingdom of God and the Levitical sacrificial system. Instead, Mark assumes that the Jerusalem institution should occupy a prominent place in the time of eschatological restoration. As Jesus quickly realizes, however, the temple rulers would reject him in the Holy City. It is in the light of this aggregate picture that I propose Jesus’s polemics against the temple in Jerusalem are best read. In short, Mark suggests a twist: by repudiating Jesus as the royal messiah, it is the Jerusalem establishment, with the temple as their seat, who have their status rebuffed by God. Jesus, by contrast, though rejected the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE or within the decade immediately following such a traumatic event (cf. Mark 13). See further discussion in M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 1–30; J.R. Donahue, ‘The Quest for the Community of Mark’s Gospel’, in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2:817–32; J. Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ABC 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 33–7; A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 1–14; and especially, J.G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity, JSNTSup 266 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 6–81, for extensive discussions of the problems. 66.  Therefore, it should go without saying that, whenever ‘Jesus’ is not preceded by ‘historical’ in the following pages, it refers to the Markan Jesus. Moreover, by ‘Mark’ I mean either the Gospel of Mark in its final form or its author whose intentions are unrecoverable apart from what is expressed in the narrative itself. Context shall suffice to indicate the referent.

 Introduction

21

by those who were supposed to rule the people alongside him, is still the messiah, vindicated by God and enthroned above his enemies. My argument comprises of two major sections. The first one is a synchronic analysis of how the Israelite king was expected to interact with the high priest in the ideal future. Mark makes it very clear from the outset that his account is about the messiah (Mark 1:1), and it is beyond question that ‘messiah’ in the Gospels, though uniquely associated with Jesus, belongs to the Jewish thought world roughly contemporaneous to it.67 It therefore stands to reason to take the sources from the late Second Temple period explicitly speaking of messianic figures as our contextual starting points.68 In narrowing down the scope of the data to said point in history, of course, I am not ignorant of the meta-level debate over what makes a text a messiah text,69 nor am I making claims on precisely when Jewish 67.  L. Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism’, in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 113 n. 44. 68.  By ‘late Second Temple period’, I mean from the Maccabean rule (ca. 160 BCE) to the years immediately following the fall of Jerusalem (ca. 100 CE). 69.  One scholarly view is that references to anointed figures were extremely diverse and lacked coherence, a phenomenon which is taken to problematize synthetic definitions of messiah texts. So William Scott Green states: ‘In early Jewish literature, “messiah” is all signifier with no signified; the term is notable primarily for its indeterminacy’ (‘Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question’, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner et al. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], 4). See also F. Hesse, ‘κρίω’, TDNT 9:493–580; M. Smith, ‘What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?’, JBL 78 (1959): 66–72; M. de Jonge, ‘The Use of the Term “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus’, NovT 8 (1966): 132–48; J. Neusner, ‘Preface’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs, ix–xiv; Talmon, ‘Concepts’, 79–115; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 3–35; and J. Maier, ‘Messias oder Gesalbter? Zu einem übersetzungs- und Deutungsproblem in den Qumrantexten’, RQ 17 (1996): 585–612. Others, however, have argued that Jewish messianic hopes showed a considerable degree of conceptual consistency. Andrew Chester, for instance, concludes: ‘There is certainly real variety both between and among [messiahs]; but essentially what we find throughout are limited variations on the theme of the agent of final divine deliverance’ (Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament ☺The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba, JSPSup 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 28; and J. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 4. Thus, J.J. Collins represents this position well when he suggests that a messiah text needs not contain the corresponding lexical sign: ‘a messiah is an eschatological figure who sometimes, but not necessarily always, is designated as a ‫ מׁשיח‬in the ancient sources’ (The Scepter

22

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

messianic hopes began to emerge.70 I am simply tightening the focus of my investigation so as to serve my heuristic interests. On this stroke, however, it is important to note, first, that the scriptural ideology of kingship played a significant role in shaping the messianic expectations attested in the late Second Temple period (e.g. 4Q174; 4Q252; 4Q285; 1QSb; Ps. Sol. 17:22-24; cf. Isa 11:1-5; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Amos 9:11), and, secondly, that, during that time, messianic discourse, albeit admittedly variegated, was essentially eschatological.71 So, Chapter 1 discusses the evidence from and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 18). Matthew Novenson, for his part, by taking methodological cues from Nils Dahl’s interest in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s theory of human language as a ‘Sprachspiel’ (N.A. Dahl, ‘Sources of Christological Language’, in Jesus the Christ: Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine, ed. D.H. Juel [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 132–3; cf. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations [Oxford: Blackwell, 1953]), proposes a way forward: without denying the importance of taxonomic discussions on Jewish messianism, one should nevertheless pay attention to the rules of such a language game, ‘the discursive possibilities that it opened up as well as the discursive constraints that it entailed’ (‘After the Messianic Idea’, in The Grammar of Messianism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017]). Compare also Novenson, Christ, 34–63, where he points out that messianism, rather than being engaged in some kind of conceptual speculation, is first and foremost characterized by exegetical discourse; Oegema, Anointed, 305; and Collins, Scepter, 51. 70.  Charlesworth, for example, claims that Jewish messianism ‘exploded’ in the early first century BCE (‘Messianology’, 35), whereas Fitzmyer speaks of a gradual development from the Old Testament Davidic ideology to ‘the concept of a Messiah as an awaited or future anointed agent of God’ (One Who Is, 7). Collins, for his part, distinguishes messianism as eschatological expectation from its scriptural sources (‘Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, ed. M.O. Wise et al., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722 [New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994], 222) and suggests that ‘messianism was virtually dormant from the early fifth to the late second century BCE’ (Scepter, 50–1). 71.  The extent to which the Davidic tradition in the Hebrew Bible itself was uniform, and hence in any sense messianic, has been disputed. Compare, for instance, the works of Antii Laato (A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations [Atlanta: Scholars, 1997] and William Horbury (Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ [London: SCM, 1998]), who contend that Davidic messianism was already present in pre-exilic traditions, and therefore was also highly consistent with later messianic conceptions, with those by J.L. Sicre (De David al Mesías: Textos Básicos de la Esperanza Mesiánica [Estrella: Editora Verbo Divino, 1995]) and K. Pomykala (The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for

 Introduction

23

the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Chapter 2 looks at the Pseudepigrapha. Where the evidence permits, I explain what kind of polity between king and high priest these texts envision, and how they respond to the circumstances which occasioned the hopes expressed therein. In the second part of this book, I offer a close reading of the passages in Mark which are relevant for my purposes. I start by arguing in Chapter 3 that Mark portrays the messiahship of Jesus in royal terms. While the kingship of Jesus in Mark is no doubt a well-trodden path,72 it has nevertheless faced some powerful detractors.73 Given my interpretive angle, it is therefore indispensable to establish the importance of such a theme for Mark. Chapter 4, in turn, examines how the earliest Gospel presents Jesus’s view on the Jerusalem priests in Mark 1–10, prior to his arrival into the Holy City. And Chapter 5 analyses the climactic clash between the Markan messiah and the temple rulers in Mark 11–16. Being careful not to commit what Samuel Sandmel has famously denounced as the sin Messianism [Atlanta: Scholars, 1996]), who argue for a diversity of royal ideologies within the Jewish scripture and thus attribute much more innovation to later post-exilic messianic hopes. Despite this debate, virtually all scholars agree that the influence of the Davidic tradition(s) on later messianic expectations was strong. For extensive and compelling assessments of scholarship on this particular issue, see Chester, Messiah, 205–30; and Collins, Scepter, 52–78. Further, to say that messianism was eschatologically oriented is not to say that Jewish eschatology in the late Second Temple period depended on messianism. The degree of importance of one to the other and vice-versa is disputed. Sigmund Mowinckel claims that ‘eschatology without a Messiah is conceivable, but not a Messiah apart from a future hope’ (He That Cometh, 8), whereas Morton Smith suggests that ‘there are Ends without messiahs, and there are messiahs without Ends’ (‘What Is Implied?’, 68). See also the discussion in E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63BCE–66CE (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992), 295–303; and J.D.G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 2006), 18–36. 72.  In addition to the references already given above, see F.J. Matera, The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15, SBLDS 66 (Chico: Scholars, 1982); A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews’, HTR 92 (1999): 393–408; and the recent studies on Mark’s use of the Psalms: R.D. Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background to Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms, AGJU 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2002); R.E. Watts, ‘The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel’, in The Psalms in the New Testament, ed. S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 25–46; and S.P. Ahearne-Kroll, The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 73.  See references in n. 40 in Chapter 3.

24

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

of ‘parallelomania’,74 Chapters 4 and 5 consider Jesus’s interaction as the royal messiah with the temple rulers in comparison to my findings in Chapters 1 and 2, bearing the same heuristic questions in mind. Mark, after all, is one among many messiah texts dating from the late Second Temple period.75 In the concluding chapter, I draw some implications for the study of Jewish messianism in Mark and suggest the reasons why Mark depicts Jesus vis-à-vis the Jerusalem priesthood the way he does.

74.  S. Sandmel, ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Hence, unless the evidence gives us good reason to do so, I avoid assuming that Mark is straightforwardly dependent on this or that source. 75.  As John Gager rightly points out, ‘The presence of the term christos in a first-century text, even attached to one put to death by his enemies, does not place that figure outside or even at the periphery of messianic Judaism’ (‘Messiahs and Their Followers’, in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, ed. P. Schäfer and M.R. Cohen, SHR 77 [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 38, cited in Novenson, Christ, 10).

Chapter 1 T he R oya l M es s i a h a n d t h e J e r usale m P r i e sts i n t h e L ate S ec on d T emple P e r i od : T h e D ea d S ea S c r olls

The present chapter addresses how the Qumran literature speaking of a royal messiah grapples with the power dynamics between kingship and priesthood in the ideal future. It is widely recognized that both offices occupy a central place within the messianic speculations attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Against the view that the Qumran messiah texts downplay the authority of the eschatological king in favour of a priestly ruler, however, I argue that the former was envisaged to take precedence on issues other than cultic and ceremonial matters. The evidence from Qumran suggests that the royal messiah would preside over the nation, even if his influence would be qualified by the role of the high priest as the officiator of the sacrificial system. The ‘Davidic Branch’ and the ‘Prince of the Congregation’ The messianism of the Scrolls has been extensively discussed in the last half-century and need not be rehearsed here.1 In short, the evidence precludes the assumption that ‘messiah’ corresponded to one single, rigid

1.  Especially, A.S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân, SSN 3 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966), 2:75–84; G. Vermès, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 182–8, 194–7; L.H. Schiffmann, ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 116–29; F. García Martínez, ‘Nuevos Textos Messiánicos de Qumran y el Messias del Nuevo Testamento’, Comm 26 (1993): 3–31; J. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran, WUNT 2/104 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Collins, Scepter.

26

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

category for the Qumran community. As Hermann Lichtenberger points out, ‘schon für eine so eng begrenzte Gruppe, wie der Gemeinde von Qumran, die Rede von der Messiaserwartung dem Befund nicht gerecht wird’.2 Yet, it is also altogether evident from the sources that, within a variety of hopes, the scriptural ideology of kingship played a significant role in Qumran.3 While the documents do not associate ‫ משיח‬exclusively with the king, several manuscripts show the hope for the restoration of the Israelite throne.4 Let us begin with 4Q252 (4QCommGen A) V, 1-4, a text belonging to a commentary on Genesis and probably dating from the first century BCE.5 The question how all the fragments constituting 4Q252 cohere

2.  H. Lichtenberger, ‘Messianische Erwartungen und messianische Gestalten in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels’, in Messiasvorstellungen bei Juden und Christen, ed. E. Stegemann (Cologne: Kohlhammer, 1993), 12 (emphasis original). See also, e.g., R.E. Brown, ‘The Messianism of Qumrân’, CBQ 19 (1957): 53–82; M. de Jonge, ‘The Role of Intermediaries in God’s Final Intervention in the Future according to the Qumran Scrolls’, in Studies on the Jewish Background of the New Testament, ed. O. Michael et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969), 44–63; F. García Martínez, ‘Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings’, in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. F. García Martínez and J.T. Barrera (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 159–89; J. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library, STDJ 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 3.  Cf. J.C. VanderKam, ‘Messianism in the Scrolls’, in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. Ulrich and J.C. VanderKam (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1994), 211–34; J.J. Collins, ‘Jesus, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, H. Linchtenberger, and G. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 100–119; C.A. Evans, ‘Messiahs’, in Encyclopaedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L.H. Schiffman and J.C VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:537–42. 4.  It is difficult to determine the extent to which these hopes were shared in the entire history of the community. See G. Oegema, ‘Messianic Expectations in the Qumran Writings: Theses on Their Development’, in Charlesworth et al., eds., Qumran-Messianism, 53–82. I do not deal with sources that express no clear eschatological interest (e.g., 4Q369; 4Q381 15; 4Q504), even if they speak of the themes of kingship or the Davidic covenant. 5.  On the date of 4Q252, see G. Oegema, ‘Tradition-Historical Studies on 4Q252’, in Charlesworth et al., eds., Qumran-Messianism, 168, and the references cited therein.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

27

structurally is disputed,6 but lines 1-4 unequivocally speak of the coming of an eschatological Davidic ruler:7 line 1: line 2: line 3: line 4:

‫] לו]א יסור שליט משבט יהודה בהיות לישראל ממשל‬ ‫]לוא י]כרת יושב כסא לדויד כי המחקק היא ברית המלכות‬ ‫]ואל]פי ישראל המה הדגלים [ ] עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח‬ … ‫דויד כי לו ולזרעו נתנה ברית מלכות עמו עד דורות עולם‬

line 1:

[‘It shall no]t depart a ruler from the tribe of Judah’ (Gen 49:10), when Israel has dominion. One sitting on the throne of David [shall not be] cut off, for the staff is the covenant of kingship. As for the clans of Israel, they are the feet. [ ] until the coming of the righteous messiah, the Branch of David, for to him and to his seed was given the covenant of kingship for eternal generations8 …

line 2: line 3: line 4:

6.  Compare G.J. Brooke, ‘The Thematic Content of 4Q252’, JQR 85 (1994): 33–59; and M.J. Bernstein, ‘4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary’, JJS 45 (1994): 1–17. See also Oegema, ‘Tradition-Historical’, 165–8. While the document shows similarities with other biblical commentaries from Qumran, the term ‫ פשר‬occurs only once in 4Q252 (2 II). See T. Lim, ‘The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252)’, JJS 43 (1992): 288–98, especially, 295. See also D. Dimant, ‘Qumran Sectarian Literature’, in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M.E. Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 505; eadem, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, FAT 90 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 315–32. 7.  The text follows J.C. VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4: XVII, DJD 22 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 205. 8.  Vermès (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed. [London: Penguin, 1995], 302) translates lines 3-4 as follows: ‘until the Messiah of Righteousness, the Branch of David comes. For to him and to his seed was granted the covenant of kingship over his people for everlasting generations.’ The difficulty lies on how one should render ‫ עד‬from line 3 – translated by Vermès and myself as ‘until’ – especially in the light of ‫ בהיות לישראל ממשל‬in the second half of line 1. In this respect, Zimmermann’s remark (Messianische, 117) is very illuminating: ‘Das einleitende ‫ עד‬kann als Konjunktion “während / solange” oder “bis” bedeuten; ersteres scheidet aus, da “Kommen” hier als einmalige Handlung verstanden wird und deshalb mit einer durativen Konjunktion keinen Sinn ergibt. Die damit verbundene Frage, ob durch den mit ‫ עד‬eingeleiteten Satz das zuvor Genannte notwendigerweise ein Ende findet, läßt sich auch von Gen 49,10 her beantworten, wo ‫“ כי עד‬nicht exklusiv, sondern inklusiv” zu verstehen ist. Das heißt hier, daß das Kommen des “Gesalbter der Gerechtigkeit” das Fortbestehen der Herrschaft Israels nicht ausschließt.’ Simply put, the coming of the royal messiah would represent the culmination of God’s promise about Israel’s dominion.

28

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The first line cites the opening sentence from Gen 49:10 – ‘a scepter shall not depart from Judah [‫ – ’]לא יסור שׁבט מיהודה‬with what Johannes Zimmermann calls a Wortspiel: it substitutes the word ‘ruler [‫ ’]שׁליט‬for ‘scepter [‫ ’]שבט‬and uses the latter with reference to the ‘tribe [‫’]שבט‬ of Judah.9 The second line in turn interprets the citation by linking the ruler with a royal figure, in language reminiscent of 2 Sam 7:16. The commentary adds that the ‘staff [‫ ’]מחקק‬from the subsequent sentence in Gen 49:10 – ‘nor a staff from between his feet [‫– ’]ומחקק מבין רגליו‬ represents the ‘covenant of kingship’, thus emphasizing God’s perennial commitment to maintaining the Davidic throne (cf. 2 Sam 23:5; Jer 33:19-26).10 All this is expanded in lines 3-4, where Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the ‘righteous branch, a descendant of David’ (Jer 23:5; cf. 33:15) is associated with Gen 49:10. In short, 4Q252 affirms that the coming ruler would be none other than a Davidic king.11 The fragment makes no mention of the messiah’s stance towards the Jerusalem priesthood, but this is because 4Q252 is probably not preoccupied with the question what in particular the messiah was supposed to achieve. Apart from column 5, the content of 4Q252 lacks any messianic interest, which suggests that the text is intended to preserve an existing tradition. The main thrust of 4Q252 V, 1-4 is thus simply to speak of the royal messiah as one who would fulfil Jacob’s blessing by ruling over the nations.12 An even more significant piece of evidence is found in 4Q174 (Florilegium) 1–2 I, 10-13. The first column of fragments 1–2 comments on the narrative of 2 Samuel 7 by linking it with another scriptural passage anticipating the restoration of the royal dynasty (Amos 9:11).13 Lines 10-13 read as follows:14 9.  Zimmermann, Messianische, 115; cf. García Martínez, ‘Nuevos Textos’, 9–11. 10.  Van der Woude, Die messianischen, 170. 11.  On the tradition history of God’s covenant with David, see D.C. Duling, ‘The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’, NTS 20 (1973): 64–5. 12.  Indeed, as Collins (Scepter, 70) observes, later rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 98:8) indicates that Gen 49:10 was taken as a reference to the royal messiah also outside Qumran. 13.  See G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Jewish Context (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1985), 129–58; and C.A. Evans, ‘Biblical Interpretation at Qumran’, in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. Chilton (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:109–20. 14.  The primary text is from J.M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186), DJD 5 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 53.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

29

line 10: ‫] וה]גיד לכה יהוה כיא בית יבנה לכה והקימותי את זרעכה אחריכה‬ ‫והכינותי את כסא ממלכתו‬ line 11: ‫]לעו]לם אני אהיה לוא לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן הואה צמח דויד העומד‬ ‫עם דורש התורה אשר‬ line 12: ‫] [בצי[ון בא]חרית הימים כאשר כתוב והקימותי את סוכת דויד הנופלת‬ ‫היאה סוכת‬ line 13: ‫דויד הנופל[ת א]שר יעמוד להושיע את ישראל‬ line 10: line 11: line 12: line 13:

[‘And de]clares Yahweh to you that he will build you a house’, and ‘I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom [fore]ver. I myself will be to him as a father, and he will be to me as a son’ (2 Sam 7:11-14). He is the Branch of David, who will arise with the Interpreter of the Law, who [ ] in Zi[on in the L]ast Days, just as it is written: ‘I will raise up the booth of David which is fallen’ (Amos 9:11). This booth of David which is falle[n is the one who] will take his stand in order to save Israel.

In 2 Sam 7:10-14, God promises to build the temple, to give David victory over his enemies, and to establish the royal dynasty forever. What is peculiar of 4Q174 is that line 11 explicitly attributes the fulfilment of the divine words in 2 Sam 7:14a – ‘I will be to him as a father, and he will be to me as a son [‫ – ’]אני אהיה לוא לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן‬to the epithet ‘Branch of David’ (cf. Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12). Lines 12-13, in turn, further substantiate his status as the eschatological king: he is the ‘fallen booth of David’ spoken of in Amos 9:11, who is expected to be ‘raised up to deliver Israel in the Last Days’.15 Lines 18-19 make a reference to Ps 2:1-2, wherein the rulers of the nations are said to plot ‘against the Lord and against [his anointed]’ ([‫)על יהוה ועל [משיחו‬. Since God speaks of the king as ‘my son [‫ ’]בני‬in Ps 2:7, the allusion in lines 18-19 reinforces the belief that the royal messiah would be regarded as the king of the nation par excellence.16 In line 11, the document says that the royal messiah would also arise with the Interpreter of the Law. George Brooke has argued that 4Q174 links the function of the Interpreter of the Law with the office of priesthood.17 Indeed, priestly ideology is prominent in 4Q174, as the text 15.  On the eschatological significance of the phrase ‘Last Days [‫’]אחרית הימים‬, see the important treatment by A. Steudel, ‘ “‫ ”אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran’, RevQ 16 (1994): 225–47. 16.  Cf. Collins, Scepter, 69. 17.  Brooke, Exegesis, 204.

30

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

immediately anteceding lines 10-13 contains explicit temple imagery (4Q174 1–2 I, 2-6; cf. Exod 15:17-18),18 and line 17 speaks highly of the sons of Zadok. Moreover, 4Q174 6–7 mentions Levi’s use of the Urim and Thummim, thus echoing the portrait of the high priest in 4Q376 and 11QT 58. The association between the role of the Interpreter of the Law and the high priesthood is in fact suggested elsewhere in the Scrolls as well. The Damascus Document portrays the Interpreter of the Law alongside a figure called ‘the Prince of the Congregation’ (CD 7.18-20), a duality which seems to stand in parallel with the two most prominent figures designated as ‘messiah’ in the same document – namely, the priestly ‘messiah of Aaron’ and the layperson ‘messiah of Israel’ (CD 12.22–13.1; 14.18-19; 19.10-11; 19.33–20.1).19 That a priest would stand alongside the eschatological king coheres with the broader content of 2 Samuel, the scriptural book alluded to in 4Q174. In 2 Sam 2:35, Yahweh promises to raise up a faithful priest to minister before the anointed king. Interestingly enough, the Davidic Branch in Jer 33:17-18 and Zech 3:8 also appears alongside a priest.20 The absence of any explicit references to the Interpreter of the Law as a priestly figure in 4Q174, however, should prevent us from asserting too forcefully that here he represents a Levite – or a Zadokite, for that matter. It is in any case intriguing that 4Q174 conflates a series of biblical texts to speak of the end-time king, but does not provide any detailed explanation on the tasks of the Interpreter of the Law. While this betrays familiarity with regards to the function of the Interpreter of the Law, modern readers are left wondering how he was expected to interact with the Branch of David in matters pertaining to national polity ‘in the Last Days’.21 The next relevant document is 4Q285 (Sefer Hamilhamah) 7.1-6, also dating from the first century BCE.22 In resemblance to 4Q252, 4Q285 is 18.  The passage 4Q174 1–2 I, 3-6 speaks of ‘the sanctuary of the Lord’, ‘the sanc� tuary of Israel’ and ‘the sanctuary of humanity’. For discussion, compare D. Schwartz, ‘The Three Temples of 4QFlorilegium’, RevQ 10 (1979): 83; Brooke, Exegesis, 176; D. Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple’, in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikprowetzky, ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 165–89; M. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 258–62; M. O. Wise, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam’, RevQ 15 (1991): 103–32; Collins, Scepter, 115–17. 19.  Cf. Collins, Scepter, 127. I discuss this more fully in the next section of this chapter. 20.  Evans, ‘Diarchic’, 559. 21.  Cf. Duling, ‘Promises’, 66. 22.  See M. Abegg, ‘Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment’, JBL 113 [1994]: 81.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

31

in keeping with the Qumran practice of biblical commentary.23 Instead of elaborating on the Pentateuch, however, the latter presents the Davidic Branch as the figure in Isa 11:1:24 line 1: line 2: line 3: line 4: line 5: line 6:

[‫] כאשר כתוב בספר ]ישעיהו הנביא ונוקפ[ו‬ ‫]סבכי היער בברזל ולבנון באדיר י]פול ויצא חוטר מגזע ישי‬ ‫] צמח דויד ונשפטו את‬ ‫]ונצר משורשיו יפרה‬ [‫[ והמיתו נשיא העדה צמ[ח‬ ] ‫בנגעי]ם ובמחוללות וצוה כוהן‬ ‫]דויד‬ ‫ח]לל[י] כתיים[ ]ל‬ ‫]השם‬

line 1:

[ As it is written in the book of ]Isaiah the prophet: ‘it shall be cu[t] [the thickets of the forest with an iron ax, and Lebanon with its majestic sh]all fall. And a shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse [and a sprout shall grow out of his roots’ (Isa 10:34–11:1) ] the Branch of David. And they shall be judged [ ] and he shall kill him, the Prince of the Congregation, the Branc[h of] [David by stroke]s and wounds.25 And he shall command, a priest of [renown s]lai[n] of the Kittim [ ]

line 2: line 3: line 4: line 5: line 6:

In other words, lines 2-3 equate the Branch of David with the Isaianic ‘shoot from the stump of Jesse’,26 and line 4 identifies him with the Prince of the Congregation, who in the appointed time would defeat the king of the Kittim (cf. 4Q285 4.5)27 and participate in a ritual procedure lead by the priest mentioned in line 5. 23.  G. Vermès, ‘Qumran Corner: The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285)’, JJS 43 (1992): 88. 24.  The primary text follows P.S. Alexander and G. Vermès, ‘4QSefer haMilhamah’, in Qumran Cave 4: XXVI, ed. S.J. Pfann and P.S. Alexander, DJD 36 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 238. 25.  It is unclear whether the expression ‫ ]בנגעי]ם ובמחוללות‬should be translated as ‘strokes and wounds’ or ‘timbrels and dancers’, in which case the Hebrew should be reconstructed as ‫]בתפי]ם ובמחוללות‬. See the discussion in ibid, 240–1, and all the references cited therein. 26.  Vermès, ‘Qumran Corner’, 88. 27.  The view that the Prince of the Congregation would be killed, originally held by R. Eisenman and M.O. Wise (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years [Rockport: Element, 1992], 24–9), has been forcefully refuted on the basis of

32

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The title ‘Prince of the Congregation’ most likely derives from the use of ‫ נׂשיא‬with reference to the eschatological ruler in Ezekiel 34–48 (cf. Ezek 39:3-4 in 4Q285 4.2-5). Walther Eichrodt has suggested that Ezekiel reflects attempts at distancing the Israelite king from pejorative connotations carried by the term ‫מלך‬, used for pagan oppressors.28 Ezekiel in fact uses ‫ נׂשיא‬more frequently than ‫ מלך‬in association with the figure of David (e.g. Ezek 34:23, 24; 37:22, 25; cf. 37:24). Deborah Rooke, however, has made a strong case that ‫ נׂשיא‬does not suggest the downplaying of royal ideology, but simply relays the theological motif of Yahweh himself as the ultimate king (cf. Ezek 20:33).29 What is crucial is that the anticipation of the restored, temple-centred society in Ezekiel 40–48 envisages an individual who, albeit referred to as ‫נׂשיא‬, would still possess the authority to rule over the nation.30 The royal messiah portrayed in 4Q285 is therefore the liberator of the faithful community of Qumran who would also govern over them as the Prince of the Congregation, in agreement with a priestly figure whose precise identity here is elusive. The linking of the royal Branch with the designation ‘Prince of the Congregation’ by means of the interpretation of Isa 11:1 also occurs in 4Q161 (4QpIsaª). The difficulties involved in reconstructing 4Q161 notwithstanding,31 fragments 8–10, likely dating from the first century BCE,32 testify that the sectarians understood the shoot from the stump of the broader contexts both of 4Q285 and of Isa 10:34–11:1, which portray triumphant figures. See, e.g., Vermès, ‘Qumran Corner’, 88; M. Bockmuehl, ‘A “Slain Messiah” in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?’, TynBul 43 (1992): 155–69; and Pomykala, Dynasty, 207–10. Given the dating of the fragment, the Kittim in 4Q285 are safely assumed to be the Romans. See Yigael Yadin, The Scrolls of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 23–6. On the ceremony led by a ‘priest of renown’, see C.A. Evans, ‘Appendix: The Recently Published Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus’, in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 131; and Alexander and Vermès, ‘4QSefer’, 241. 28.  W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel (London: SCM, 1970), 476–7. See also W. Lemke, ‘Life in the Present and Hope for the Future’, in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. J.L. Mays and P.J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 208. 29.  Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 110–13. Compare with J.D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula: Scholars, 1976), 64 and 75–107. 30.  Cf. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 113–19. 31.  See Allegro, Cave 4, plate V. 32.  Vermès, Scrolls, 320. For discussion, see T. Lim, Pesharim, CQS 3 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 20–2; cf. J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’, RevQ 7 (1969–71): 183–86. Pace Oegema, ‘Messianic Expectations’, 55.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

33

Jesse as referring to the royal messiah. Following a quotation from Isa 11:1-5 in lines 11-16, lines 17-24 read:33 line 17: line 18: line 19: line 20: line 21: line 22: line 23: line 24: line 17: line 18: line 19: line 20: line 21: line 22: line 23: line 24:

‫פשרו על צמח] דויד העומד באח[רית הימים‬ ‫או]יבו ואל יסומכנו ב[… ה]תורה‬ [‫כ]סא כבוד נזר ק[ודש] ובגדי ריקמו[ת‬ ‫[ן בידו ובכול הג[ואי]ם ימשול ומגוג‬ ‫כו]ל העמים תשפוט חרבו ואשר אמר לוא‬ ‫[ולוא למשמע אוזניו יוכיח פשרו אשר‬ ‫[וכאשר יורוהו כן ישפוט ועל פיהם‬ ‫[עמו יצא אחד מכוהני השם ובידו בגדי‬

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

[ its interpretation is about the Branch of] David who shall arise in the Las[t Days [ en]emy of his. And God will support him with [… the] law [ thr]one of glory, a h[oly] crown, and garments of eleganc[e] [ ] in his hand and over all na[tion]s he will rule, even Magog [ al]l the peoples his sword will judge. And when it says, ‘Not [ ] and not with the hearing of his ears shall he decide’ (Isa 11:3), its interpretation is that [ ] and as they instruct him, thus he will judge, and at their command [ ] with him, one of the priests of renown shall go out, and in his hand the garment

Though quite fragmentary, the passage makes it clear that the Isaianic shoot is expected to act with divine strength to defeat the enemies of the faithful and to rule as the judge of the nations.34 In the light of how the aforementioned 4Q285 interprets Isa 11:1, John Allegro is correct to supply ‫ צמח‬before ‫ דויד‬in 4Q161 8–10.17, thus regarding it as a reference to the Davidic Branch.35 What is more, fragments 5–6 of 4Q161, while not perfectly preserved, portray the Prince of the Congregation as a 33.  The primary text follows Allegro, Cave 4, 14. 34.  In the preceding passage, the fall of Lebanon prophesied in Isa 10:34 is associated with the destruction of the Kittim (cf. 4Q161 8–10, 1-9). Since 4Q161 likely dates from the first century BCE, the Kittim here probably refers to the Romans (cf. 1QpHab 2.12-15). See M.P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, CBQMS 8 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979), 8. 35.  See Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4, 14. So also Zimmermann, Messianische, 65: ‘Die Ergänzung ist Konsens, vgl. u. a. 4Q285 5,3, wo ebenfalls Jes 11 ausgelegt wird’.

34

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

triumphant leader, an image which resembles the depiction of the Branch of David in fragments 8–10 displayed above.36 Hence, it is very likely that, like 4Q258, 4Q161 regards the epithets ‘Branch of David’ and ‘Prince of the Congregation’ as referring to the same figure. Also in keeping with 4Q285, priests seem to be envisaged to play their part after the messianic victory. If one is to supply ‘the Zadokite priests’ in the lost lacuna in line 23 as the subject of the verb ‘they will teach him [‫’]יורוהו‬, as Vermès assumes to be the case,37 what we have in 4Q161 is a strong piece of evidence supporting the significance of the priests as those who would instruct the royal messiah. In the light of 4Q161, one is forced to concur with A.S. van der Woude that within the messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls the ruling power of the royal messiah ‘ist nicht uneingeschränkt’.38 Nevertheless, van der Woude’s conclusion that the eschatological king of 4Q161, being the ‘bras séculier’ of the Jewish nation, is necessarily ‘den Priestern untergeben’ should strike us as a slight overstatement.39 There is nothing in 4Q161 indicating that the royal messiah would be completely subordinate to the priest. Even if the priests were expected to teach the Prince of the Congregation, the preposition ‫עמ‬ in the beginning of line 24 simply suggests that the ‘one of the priests of renown’ would accompany the royal messiah.40 It is possible, as Collins notes, that the pattern attested in Deut 17:18, which qualifies the authority of the king in relation to the priests, may have shaped the expectations in Qumran regarding the royal messiah (cf. 11QT 56.12–59.21).41 But it is by no means obvious in Deuteronomy 17, never mind in 4Q161, that the Israelite king should defer to the priests in all matters, even assuming that both texts share a post-exilic negative view of Israelite kingship. However the power dynamics between the royal messiah and the priest of renown were expected to play out in practice, to postulate that the authority of the former was to some extent limited by the function of the latter does not imply a relation of total subordination between them. After all, according to line 19 the Davidic Branch is still fully expected to sit on a ‘glorious throne’ and to wear a ‘holy crown’ as well as ‘fine garments’ (cf. 4Q174). 36.  Ibid., 71. 37.  See Vermès, Scrolls, 321. 38.  Van der Woude, Die messianischen, 181. 39.  Ibid. 40.  As Martin Abegg (‘The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?’, DSD 2 [1995]: 125–44) points out, it is far from obvious that the priest in line 24 will exercise authority over the royal messiah. 41.  J.J. Collins, ‘ “He Shall Not Judge by What His Eyes See”: Messianic Authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, DSD 2 (1995): 152–6.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

35

What is all the more interesting is that the Prince of the Congregation, as portrayed in 4Q285 and 4Q161 at least, is not the priestly figure who, according to how both documents are commonly reconstructed, would lead the eschatological ceremony after the slaughtering of the Kittim (4Q285 7.5-6; 4Q161 8–10.24; cf. 1QM 14.3).42 Rather, the Leader of the Nation, as the epithet ‫ נשיא העדה‬could also be rendered, is evidently the kingly ruler himself. This seems significantly to undermine claims that Qumran deliberately aimed at subverting or took a polemical stance towards Jewish royal ideology.43 There is no doubt that the priesthood seems always to have a decisive role in the eschatological turning point in the Scrolls, especially on legal and ceremonial matters (cf. 1QS; CD). The prime rank of the priests in 4Q285 and 4Q161 should be therefore simply taken for granted (so also in 4Q174). But while it is indisputable that Qumran messianism gives much emphasis to Levitical ideology,44 it simply does not follow that the Scrolls diminish hopes for a royal messiah. Despite the priestly tenets of the community, the hope for a Davidic liberator presiding over the community seems to have been quite alive in Qumran. The Prince of the Congregation appears also in 1QM (War Scroll) and 1QSb 5.20-21 (Rule of the Blessings).45 In 1QM 5.1, the ‘Prince of the Whole Congregation [‫ ’]נשיא כול העדה‬carries a shield in the eschatological 42.  See Abegg, ‘Messianic Hope’, 91. 43.  As recently suggested by S. Ruzer, Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 101–13. I certainly agree with Ruzer that 4Q161 likely preserves interpretive traditions relating to Isaiah that were common to other groups outside Qumran (cf. the Aramaic Targum), and that the pesher uses Isa 11:1-5, among other things, as a proof text for the role of the high priest alongside the messiah. But I remain unconvinced, especially in the light of 4Q161 itself, that one can simply assume a ‘polemical anti-Davidic nature’ of Qumran messianism (102), and that the interpretation of Isa 11:1-5 in the pesher unambiguously shows that the priest was superior to the king (106). 44.  This is also unsurprising, considering that the ideals of a holy priesthood constitute the core of Qumran’s self-understanding (cf. 1QS; CD; cf. 1QpHab; 4Q320–30). See Vermès, Scrolls, 18, 28–9; cf. J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998), 113–16, who accounts for how much the calendrical disputes with the Jerusalem cult reflected the sect’s priestly self-understanding. In this sense, Qumran very much resonated with the prevailing high view of the Jewish priesthood in that period. Cf. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, especially 219ff. 45.  The title occurs in CD 7.18-20 as well. See the discussion in the following section below.

36

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

war, with the names of Israel, Levi and Aaron written on it.46 Passages constituting the broader context of 1QM 5.1 – namely, 1QM 1.4-9 and 15.2 – also anticipate the presence of the Prince of the Congregation in the final battle against the Kittim, as envisaged in 4Q285 and 4Q161. The fragmentary nature of the sources, to be sure, makes it difficult to establish the extent to which these documents relate to one another,47 and there is no clear reference in 1QM that the Prince of the Whole Congregation would fulfil the role of the Davidic Branch. It is still quite likely that the Prince of the Congregation, more blatantly the royal messiah in 4Q285 and 4Q161, is assumed to play the role of a royal figure in 1QM as well, who would lead the community alongside priests and Levites in the final battle (cf. 1QM 7.9-18).48 In 1QSb 5.20-22 the Prince of the Congregation is also an end-time agent:49 line 20: line 21: line 22:

[ ] ‫[ למשכיל לברך את נשיא העדה אשר‬ ] ‫] גבור]תו וברית ה[י]חד יחדש לו להקים מלכות עמו לעול[ם ולשפוט‬ [‫בצדק אביונים‬ [ ] ‫]ו]להוכיח במישור ל[ע]נוי ארץ ולהתהלך לפניו תמים בכול דרכי‬

line 20:

[ ] to the Instructor so as to bless the Prince of the Congregation, who [ ] his [mighty deed], and he shall renew for him the Covenant of the [Y]ahad so as to establish the kingdom of his people foreve[r, ‘so as to judge with righteousness the needy] [and] to judge with equity for the [m]eek of the land’ (Isa 11:4), and to walk before him blameless in all ways [ ]

line 21: line 22:

46.  Collins, Scepter, 66–9. 47.  In the early 1970s, J.T. Milik claimed that, ‘les fragments conserves de ce rouleau appartenaient à la partie finale do Manuel, entièrement perdue dans 1QM’ (‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resa‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’, JJS 23 [1972]: 142, cited in Abegg, ‘Messianic Hope’, 82). Whether or not one can state with any degree of certainty that 4Q285 originally belonged to 1QM (for a different view, see, e.g., B. Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered, STDJ 76 [Leiden: Brill, 2009], 309), some have taken for granted the close relationship between the traditions underlying the two documents. See the discussion in Collins, Scepter, 62, 65–6; cf. Horgan, Pesharim, 86; Pomykala, Dynasty, 204. 48.  David’s victory over the Philistines is mentioned alongside the oracle from Num 24:17 in 1QM 11.1-7, which may suggest Davidic connotations in 1QM 5.1 (contra Sanders, Judaism, 296). 49.  The primary text follows D. Barthélemy and J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1, DJD 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 127.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

37

Here again the Prince of the Congregation is said to act in accordance with the Isaianic shoot, by ‘judging with equity the meek of the land’ (cf. Isa 11:4). This statement, along with the reference to the ‘establishment of the kingdom’ in line 21, indicates that the passage describes what is ‘intended for the messianic age’.50 The Prince of the Congregation is therefore more overtly Davidic in 1QSb than he is in 1QM. What is also of interest is that the larger context of 1QSb 5.2-21 recalls the Aaronic blessings in Numbers – one is addressed to the faithful of God (1QSb 1.1), another to the Zadokites (1QSb 3.22), and the last one to the Prince of the Congregation (1QSb 5.20)51 – which betrays the belief that the high priest would exercise a leading function in the eschatological kingdom. The point of dispute concerns the recipients of the benedictions in 1QSb 3.1-6 and 4.22-28. The former prays in terms of Num 6:23-26 that God would ‘lift his face upon’ someone with priestly status,52 whereas the latter anticipates God’s establishing of someone with Zadokite pedigree as ‘the head of the Holy Ones’. It is commonly assumed that the addressees in question simply represent the eschatological high priest, who stands in tandem to the Prince of the Congregation in 1QSb 5.20.53 Nevertheless, not only is any mention of the high priest conspicuously absent in these passages,54 the second person singular object of all the verbs used in 1QSb 3.1-6 and 4.22-28 could very well entail a priestly group, not just an individual. The blessings in Num 6:23-26, though always accompanied by a second person singular object, are clearly directed to the ‘sons of Israel [‫( ’]בני ישׂראל‬Num 6:23), and the same collective sense is implied 50.  Vermès, Scrolls, 268. See also Barthélemy and Milik, Cave 1, 121; and Chester, Messiah, 68. This is true, despite the fact that the expression ‘at the end of days’ does not occur anywhere in the document (cf. Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 108). 51.  It is often assumed that 1QSb 1.21 would have introduced a second blessing directed to the high priest (cf. ibid., 107; Collins, Scepter, 68). J.H. Charlesworth (The Dead Sea Scrolls [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 1:119) suggests that there were yet four other blessings in addition. 52.  Given the fragmentary state of the evidence, and the ambiguity that ‫ישא‬ ‫ ברושכה‬bears in 1QSb 3.3, I am reluctant to take the usual way of reconstructing its object – namely, as ‘a crown’ or ‘a diadem’ – at face value (note that the use of ‫עטרת‬ in 1QSb 4.3 is metaphorical and should not be imposed on 1QSb 3.3; cf. Vermès, Scrolls, 269). At any rate, the addressee in 3.1 probably has priestly pedigree. 53.  See Zimmermann, Messianische, 282 and the references cited therein; cf. M. Abegg, ‘1QSb and the Elusive High Priest’, in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S.M. Paul et al., VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3–16. 54.  Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 108.

38

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

in 1QSb 3.3: ‘[may he lift up] his face over all your congregation [‫פניו אל‬ ‫( ’]כול עדתכה‬cf. 1QSb 5.25-26).55 Consequently, it is most likely that the high priest himself says the benedictions in 1QSb 3.1-6 and 4.22-28, in accordance with Num 6:23: ‘speak to Aaron and to his sons: “Thus shall you bless the sons of Israel” [‫דבר אל־אהרן ואל־בניו לאמר כה תברכו את־‬ ‫’]בני ישׂראל‬. If this is correct, then the one who blesses the Prince of the Congregation in 1QSb 5.20-29 is none other than the high priest.56 It should be pointed out, in any case, that even if the high priest pronounces the blessings, one is not too hastily to conclude from this conjecture that the Prince of the Congregation would be thoroughly subordinate to him.57 The liturgical tone of the document obviates any justification for the high priest’s pronouncing the benedictions, and to receive the priestly blessing in such a context would not require that the king was altogether inferior to him in status, particularly in military and administrative affairs. If 4Q285 and 4Q161 present the priest more as ceremonial leader than a national deliverer,58 1QSb depicts the hierarchical relation between the Prince of the Congregation and the high priest 55.  Cf. Zimmermann, Messianische, 279. Moreover, if the high priest is the one receiving the blessing, then who pronounces it? In Numbers 6, which is clearly alluded to in 1QSb 3.1-6, it is undoubtedly Aaron. Granted, 1QSb 4.22-28 may not depend so much on Num 6:26, and perhaps was to be recited by the entire community in a liturgical setting, but the question still remains, given 1QSb 3.1-6. On the liturgical function of 1QSb, see Vermès, Scrolls, 268. 56.  One would have to infer from this suggestion that the high priest is the one behind all the other blessings in 1QSb, and that he is the ‫ משכיל‬mentioned in 1QSb 1.1 as well – an identification which is not clear in the Scrolls in general (cf. CD 13.22; 1QS 3.13; 9.12, 21; 1QHa 20.7, 14; 25.34; 4Q257 1.1; 4Q259 3.7; 4.2; 4Q298 1–2 I, 1; 4Q401 1–2, 1; 4Q403 1 I, 30; II, 18; 4Q405 8–9, 1; 4Q433a 2.2; 4Q510 1.4; 4Q511 2 I, 1; VIII, 4; 4Q569 1–2, 1). 57.  In fact, pace Collins (Scepter, 82), who interprets the high priest as the object of the blessing in 1QSb 4 and assumes, on the basis of its happening before the blessing of the Prince of the Congregation, that the former took precedence over the latter. The ‘faithful ones’ are the first group to receive the blessings in the Rule of the Blessings (cf. 1QSb 1.1-20), but one can hardly conclude from that that they were superior in rank to the Prince of the Congregation, let alone the high priest. 58.  This is true also for 4Q375, 4Q376 and 4Q541, which are often regarded as referring to a high-priestly messiah, but show no indication that he himself would bring deliverance. Instead, the high priest is to adjudicate over matters of prophecy (4Q375), to offer sacrifices (4Q376) and to atone for the sins of the people (4Q541). The Prince of the Congregation is mentioned in 4Q376 1 III, 1 as well, but unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the document impedes any certainty on what he was expected to do. For detailed discussion, see Zimmermann, Messianische, 233–77.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

39

in a liturgical setting. So the question of how both figures were to work together in the broader scenario of the Jewish nation still remains wide open. One additional point regarding 1QSb deserves attention. Following the textual analysis by Martin Abegg, Craig Evans notes that the reference to the Prince of the Congregation in 1QSb 5.21 is in the third person and thus stands in contrast to the second person pronoun used with regards to the high priest (or priestly group) in 1QSb 3–5.59 The implication to be drawn is that ‘the Zadokite priests and the High Priest are present (and so may be directly addressed), but the royal Messiah is not (and so can only be talked about)’.60 Sure enough, such a reading is corroborated by 4Q285 and 4Q161, wherein, on the one hand, the Davidic Branch is a figure still to be revealed – and perhaps to appear from elsewhere – but, on the other hand, the current presence of the rightful priest is presupposed among the sect. It is of course a commonplace to see the dual leadership attested in the Scrolls in general as reflecting a critical stance towards the merging of the royal and priestly offices by the Hasmoneans (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.300-301). More specifically relating to the interaction between both figures, however, the shift in pronoun in 1QSb 5.21 sheds some significant light into how the Qumran community understood the role of the royal messiah in relation to the sect’s priestly self-understanding. While the documents examined above elaborate the function of the royal messiah as the end-time national liberator, the precise identity of the individual who would arise as the Davidic Branch, simply called the Prince of the Congregation in 1QSb, would remain unknown until his coming.61 By contrast, 4Q174, 4Q252, 4Q161 and 1QSb expect the advent of the eschatological high priest from within the sect itself, since this person would be whoever occupies the leading position among them when the royal messiah arises. The point of the portrayal of the Davidic Branch or Prince of the Congregation alongside a high priestly figure, therefore, is not so much to understate the authority of the royal office, but rather to underscore the belief that the eschatological king would bring about end-time deliverance and thus affirm the legitimacy the Dead Sea community against the Jerusalem establishment.62 59.  See Abegg, ‘Messiah at Qumran’, 143; Evans, ‘Diarchic’, 562. 60.  Ibid. 61.  See Steudel, ‘Qumran’, 225–47. 62.  So Evans (‘Diarchic’, 503–4): ‘When the royal Messiah appears, the great battle of light and darkness will take place (1QM), which will result in the defeat of the Kittim and the purification of the land of Israel (4Q285). It will be at the time that the Zadokite priesthood will be restored and, along with it, justice and purity

40

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The ‘Messiahs (or Messiah) of Aaron and Israel’ If the royal messiah usually appears in the context where the prominence of the priestly office is clearly assumed, the idea that the eschatological king would share his authority with a priestly figure occurs even more explicitly in texts that use ‘messiah’ with direct reference to both individuals (1QS [Community Rule] 9.9-11; CD [Damascus Document] 12.22–13.1; 14.18-19; 19.10-11; 19.33–20.1). To be sure, unlike 1QS 9.9-11, where ‘messiahs [‫ ]משיחי‬of Aaron and Israel’ clearly connotes two figures, in CD the term is in the singular, ‘messiah [‫ ]משיח‬of Aaron and Israel’.63 Though the messianic hopes in the Scrolls may have changed during the course of the sect’s history, it is still plausible, as I argue below, that the Damascus Document envisages a dual leadership just like the Community Rule.64 Following some regulations on how the Aaronides were to exercise their authority on judicial and financial matters, 1QS 9.7-10 exhorts the sons of Aaron not to depart from the Law and to follow the ancient precepts of the community. This, as 1QS 9.11 further explains, should throughout Israel.’ One must also bear in mind that, at least at one point in their history, the Dead Sea sect regarded the Jerusalem establishment as utterly corrupt, as evident from the enmity between the Teacher of Righteousness and the wicked priest in Pesher Habakkuk. For discussion on the identity of the wicked priest, see Lim, ‘Wicked Priests’, passim. 63.  Much of this conversation has gravitated around the theory first elaborated by Jean Starcky that at an earlier stage the Qumran community aspired for two messiahs, whereas later on they hoped for a single messiah of Aaron and Israel. See J. Starcky, ‘Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân’, RB 70 (1963): 481–505; cf. A. Caquot, ‘Le Messianisme Qumrânien’, in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor (Gembloux: Leuven, 1978), 231–47. 64.  Cf. Lichtenberger, ‘Messianische’, 12. For different views on how the messianic picture of 1QS relates to CD, but nonetheless based on the same presupposition that Qumran messianism developed over the course of time, see P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus Document’, JSOTSup 25 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983); and Brooke, ‘Messiah’, 215–30; cf. Oegema, Anointed, 86–102; Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 94ff. Such proposals received prompt criticism both on textual and exegetical bases. See R.E. Brown, ‘J. Starcky’s Theory of Qumran Messianic Development’, CBQ 28 (1966): 51–7; F.M. Cross, ‘Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies’, in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:13–14; cf. L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976), 209–56. For further references, see Chester, Anointed, 333 n. 15; and the extensive list in Collins, Scepter, 80 n. 3.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

41

happen ‘until the coming of the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel [‫’]עד בוא נביא ומשיחי אהרון וישראל‬.65 The precise identity and role of the end-time prophet in the Scrolls more broadly deserves a treatment of its own, but it is in any case clear from the plural construct ‫ משיחי‬that two messiahs are envisaged in the passage.66 A problem relating to this passage is that the corresponding text is absent in an older version (cf. 4QS).67 Because the portion lacking is fairly large, it seems unlikely that the difference was caused by mere haplography.68 This testifies that the idea of two messiahs expressed in 1QS may have originated only by the first century BCE, when the more recent manuscript seems to have been written.69 Most importantly, it indicates that, at least in terms of the textual transmission of 1QS, the expression ‫ משיחי אהרון וישראל‬did not derive from an earlier expectation for a single messiah.70 What one finds here is an impressive correspondence with the notion attested in 4Q174, 4Q252, 4Q161 and 1QSb that the Davidic Branch or the Prince of the Congregation would rule alongside a priest – except that 1QS amplifies the idea that the Aaronic ruler should be likewise called messiah.71

65.  Translation by Vermès, Scrolls, 82. Oegema (Anointed, 91) entertains the possibility that ‫ משיחי‬here does not have any eschatological force, but given ‫עד בוא‬ with reference to an eschatological ruler in 4Q252, it is quite reasonable that the phrase has a similar connotation in the Community Rule. 66.  For discussion on prophetic messianism in Qumran, see Zimmermann, Messianische, 312–417. 67.  See J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, SBT 26 (London: SCM, 1959), 123–4; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaisms and their Messiahs, 231–2; and S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 72–4. Compare with P. Alexander, ‘The Redaction History of Serek ha Yahad: A Proposal’, RevQ 17 (1996): 437–53. 68.  In 4QS, the text goes from what is 1QS 8.16 to 1QS 9.12. See Chester, Messiah, 333 n. 15. 69.  Ibid., 333. See also S. Talmon, The World of Qumran from Within (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 273–300; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘Challenging the Consensus Regarding Qumran Messianism’, in Lichtenberger and Oegema, eds., Qumran-Messianism, 120–34. 70.  Collins, Scepter, 91 71.  Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 63, points out that the phrase ‫ עד משׁיח‬comes from Dan 9:25, and in the same context the very term ‫ מׁשיח‬is also used with reference to the high priest Onias III (Dan 9:26).

42

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Now, Lawrence Schiffman and Kenneth Pomykala are hesitant to see the messiah of Israel in 1QS as a Davidic ruler, since the document never states that the messiah of Israel would be a Davidide.72 Indeed, there is at least one instance in Josephus where a non-Davidic ruler – namely, Aristobulus I – is said to have occupied the Israelite throne (cf. Ant. 13.300-301).73 Yet, it remains debatable whether at any point the sect endorsed the hope for a national ruler who would not come from the house of David. I will point out in Chapter 2 that it was precisely the seizing of the Israelite throne by non-Davidides that occasioned the expectation for the coming of the Son of David in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon. So the genuine bloodline of Israel’s ruler was an issue of concern among at least some Jews by the first century BCE. In any case, the lack of explicit associations between the messiah of Israel and scriptural texts relating to David in 1QS, albeit intriguing, does not necessitate discontinuity with the dynastic claims the texts discussed in the previous section make with reference to the end-time king.74 The most economical explanation for the identity of the messiah of Israel in 1QS is that he stands for a royal figure. I have already shown that some Scrolls provide ample evidence for the use of Davidic ideology in speculations concerning the messiah. Given that the Prince of the Congregation is the Branch of David in 4Q285 and 4Q161, and in 1QSb he fulfils the role of the Isaianic shoot, it is quite likely that the same kind of function is taken for granted with regards to the messiah of Israel in 1QS. The aspiration for two anointed figures, one kingly and the other priestly, moreover, is not unprecedented in the Jewish Scriptures. Zechariah speaks of ‘two anointed rulers [‫( ’]שׁני בני היצהר‬Zech 4:14) and relays the hope for a dual polity shared by a king and a priest (Zech 3:8; 6:12-13; cf. Hag 2:4-23; Jer 33:17-26).75 It is true that 1QS does not 72.  Schiffman, ‘Messianic’, 120; Pomykala, Dynasty, 231–46. See also Caquot, ‘Le Messianisme’, 235; and Smith, ‘What Is Implied?’, 71 n. 28. 73.  Other examples from the pre-70 CE period include non-Davidic would-be kings, such as Judas the Galilean (Josephus, Ant. 17.271-272), Athronges (Josephus, Ant. 17.278), Menahem (Josephus, War 2.433-434), and Simon bar Giora (Josephus, War 4.509-510). Granted that Josephus has his own (negative) bias regarding such revolutionary figures, it is in any case striking that they never appear in the sources claiming to be Davidides, nor are they associated with the Qumran sect. 74.  Pace Smith, ‘What Is Implied?’, 71, who describes the messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls in terms of ‘an unreconciled diversity’. 75.  Hopes for the diarchy between king and priest are also attested in the post-100 CE body of texts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (e.g., T. Jud. 21:1-4; T. Iss. 5:7-8; T. Naph. 8:2; T. Sim. 7:1-2; T. Gad 8:1). The precise origin and composition of

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

43

adduce Zech 4:14 to justify its views, but the appearance of the end-time king alongside a priestly figure in 4Q174, 4Q285 and 4Q161 indicates that the sect favoured such a diarchic model of leadership, which in turn strengthens our case for the messiah of Israel being a king.76 In fact, Pomykala himself admits that the generic picture of the messiah of Israel in the Scrolls is similar to that of the Davidic Branch: both would appear in the eschaton alongside a priest, and ‘although the Messiah of Israel is not explicitly described as a military figure, as is the Branch of David, his appearance is connected with some people being given over to the sword’.77 This suggests that, though the thrust of 1QS rests much more on the sect’s concern with defending a dual form of national polity than highlighting the necessity of the Davidic bloodline of the eschatological king, the messiah of Israel is no less than a royal figure.78 Interestingly, though the Damascus Document uses the singular ‘messiah’ to speak of the ‘messiah of Aaron and Israel [‫משיח אהרן‬ ‫’]וישראל‬, it also makes reference to the diarchic rule between the Prince of the Congregation and the Interpreter of the Law, much in line with what we have seen in 4Q174. In CD 7.18b-21a, that is, one finds an interpre­ tation of Num 24:17, wherein the star and the scepter from Balaam’s oracle – ‘a star shall walk forth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from

the Testaments – that is, whether they are outright Christian documents or Jewish texts containing later Christian interpolations – are still widely disputed. For discussion and further references, see H.D Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research, SBLMS 21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); J.J. Collins, ‘Testaments II: The Testamentary Literature in Recent Scholarship’, in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and R.A. Kraft (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 268–76; and M. de Jonge, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, NovTSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 147–63, and 191–203. In any case, it is worth mentioning the Testaments at this point, as they provide further evidence for the figures of king and priest being envisaged side by side in post-biblical Judaism. 76.  Collins (Scepter, 79–80) notes in the light of 4Q175 that Num 24:15-17 seems to stand as the scriptural basis for the messianic expectation in 1QS. Cf. J. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Missoula: Scholars, 1974), 82–4. 77.  Pomykala, Dynasty, 238–9. 78.  The extent to which questions of ancestry shaped the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls in general is of course a problem of its own. See discussion in M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006), 85–142. See also A.I. Baumgarten, ‘The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration’, DSD 4 (1997): 137–56.

44

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Israel [‫ – ’]דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שׁבט מישׂראל‬refer respectively to the Interpreter of the Law and the Prince of the Congregation:79 line 18b: line 19: line 20: line 21a:

‫והכוכב הוא דורש התורה‬ ‫הבא [אל] דמשק כאשר כתוב דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שבט‬ ‫מישראל השבט הוא נשיא כל העדה ובעמדו וקרקר‬ ‫את כ[ו]ל בני שת‬

line 18b: line 19:

The star is the Interpreter of the Law who came [to or within]80 Damascus, as it is written, ‘A star has left Jacob, and a scepter has risen from Israel’ (Num 24:17b). The staff is the Prince of the Entire Congregation; and when he takes his stand, ‘he will shatter al[l] the sons of Seth’ (Num 24:17c).

line 20: line 21a:

It is significant here that the use of Num 24:17 appears in the same context of what is likely a citation from Amos 9:11 in CD 7.16 – ‘as it is written, I will raise up the fallen booth of David [‫כאשר אמר והקימותי‬ ‫’]את סוכת דוד הנופלת‬81 – which recalls the royal messiah in 4Q174 and parallels the messiahs of Aaron and Israel in 1QS 9.9-11 (cf. 4Q175).82 It is also interesting that the ‘scepter [‫ ’]שבט‬from Balaam’s oracle is linked with the Prince of the Congregation not the Interpreter of the Law, which resembles the interpretation of Gen 49:10 attested in 4Q252 as referring to the Branch of David.83 While these parallels should not be pushed as far as 79.  The primary text follows B.Z. Wacholder, The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary, STDJ 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 42. The word ‫ אל‬and the letter ‫ ו‬between the brackets are additions by Wacholder. 80.  On possible ways of translating ‫הבא‬, see the following discussion. 81.  See ibid. for the reconstruction of CD 7:16; cf. J.M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4: XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), DJD 18 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 44. 82.  Cf. Zimmermann, Messianische, 43–4. 83.  For further discussion, see Wacholder, Damascus, 238. Also, Collins points out that, ‘[t]he messianic interpretation of Num 24:17 was also current in Greekspeaking Judaism’, which bespeaks that ‘the prince who is identified with the scepter’ is plausibly ‘also a messianic figure’ (Scepter, 72). The admittedly later text T. Jud. 24:1-6, for that matter, unequivocally presents the scepter from Num 24:17 as the eschatological king. See further discussion in A. Hultgård, ‘The Ideal “Levite”, the Davidic Messiah, and the Savior Priest in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs’, in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins, SBLSCS 12 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 95–9. See also Horgan, Pesharim, 79; Pomykala, Dynasty, 210–11; and most recently, S. Beyerle, ‘ “A Star Shall Come out of Jacob”: A

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

45

to suggest that the Damascus Document, Florilegium, and the Community Rule depend on one another, the commonality of messianic motifs and scriptural references between these documents is quite remarkable indeed. One major issue concerns the fact that the reference to Num 24:17 occurs only in Manuscript A of CD, whereas Manuscript B speaks of the messiah of Aaron and Israel by elaborating on Zech 13:7 and Ezek 9:4.84 There is no consensus on which variant is the more ancient.85 It is important in any case that the reading of Manuscript A alone is attested in Qumran (cf. 4Q266).86 With regards to the Dead Sea sect, this poses some serious obstacles for the theory that only one ruling figure was originally in view in CD.87 In addition, both Manuscripts A and B evince the bifurcation of ‘Aaron’ and ‘Israel’ (CD 1.7; 6.2; cf. 4Q174 5.2), further indicating that, in CD as well, priesthood and laity represent two distinct spheres of authority and should therefore be accordingly maintained.88 Hence, a duality of messianic figures in CD is still quite plausible, even if ‫ משיח‬occurs in the singular in the relevant passages (cf. CD 12.22–13.1; 14.18-19; 19.10-11; 19.35–20.1).89 Critical Evaluation of the Balaam Oracle in the Context of Jewish Revolts in Roman Times’, in The Prestige of a Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam, ed. G.H. van Kooten and J.T. van Ruiten (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 163–88. 84.  According to the translation by Vermès (Scrolls, 135 n. 6), to CD 7.11 in Manuscript A, Manuscript B adds: ‘by the hand of the prophet Zechariah: Awake, O Sword, against the shepherd, against my companion, says God. Strike the shepherd that the flock may be scattered and I will stretch my hand over the little ones (Zech. xiii, 7). The humble of the flock are those who watch for Him. They shall be saved at the time of visitation, whereas the others shall be delivered up to the sword when the messiah of Aaron and Israel shall come, as it came to pass at the time of the former visitation concerning which God said by the hand of Ezekiel: They shall put a mark on the foreheads of those who sigh and groan (Ezek. ix, 4). But the others were delivered up to the avenging sword of the covenant.’ 85.  See the discussion in J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘The Original Text of CD 7:9–8:2 = 19:5-14’, HTR 64 (1971): 379–86; S.A. White, ‘A Comparison of the “A” and “B” Manuscripts of the Damascus Document’, RevQ 48 (1987): 537–53; Brooke, ‘Messiah of Aaron’, 215–30; M. Knibb, ‘The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII, 9b– VIII, 2a and XIX, 5b-14’, RevQ 15 (1991): 243–51; M. Kister, ‘The Development of the Early Recensions of the Damascus Document’, DSD 14 (2007): 61–76. 86.  See Baumgarten, Cave 4, 43–5. 87.  Pace Brooke, ‘Messiah of Aaron’, 215–25. 88.  Cf. Collins, Scepter, 87. 89.  Cf. Zimmermann, Messianische, 45; and Chester, Messiah, 335. This applies to the Geniza document as well, since Manuscript A is also attested there. Depending on how one decides to translate ‫ יכפר‬in CD 14.19 – that is, either as an active piel

46

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Noteworthy about the Damascus Document is that, in resemblance to 1QS 9.9-11, it does not fully develop the specific achievements of the royal and priestly messiahs, nor does it describe how the balance of power between them was to take place. The relevant lines read as follows:90 CD 12.22b–13.1a: ‫וזה סרך מושב המח[נו]ת המתהלכים באלה בקץ הרשעה עד‬ ‫עמוד משיח אהרן וישראל‬

this is the rule of those dwelling in the ca[mp]s, who walk by these in the time of wickedness until the rising of the messiah of Aaron and Israel

CD 14.18b-19a:

and this is the explanation of the ordinances that [by them they shall be judged until the rising of the messi]ah of Aaron and Israel, and atonement will be made for their iniquity

CD 19.10-11a:

‫וזה פרוש המשפטים אשר [ישפטו בם עד עמוד משי]ח אהרן‬ ‫וישראל ויכפ עונם‬

‫אלה ימלטו בקץ הפקודה הרישון והנשארים ימסרו לחרב בבוא‬ ‫משיח אהרן וישראל‬

these will escape the first time of punishment, but the ones remaining will be delivered up to the sword, at the coming of the messiah of Aaron and Israel

CD 19.35–20.1a: ‫לא יחשבו בסוד עם ובכתבם לא יכתבו מיום האסף מורה היחיד‬ ‫עד עמוד משיח מאהרן ומישראל‬ they will not be counted in the assembly of the people, nor be recorded in their records from the day of their being gathered by the Unique Teacher, until the rising of the messiah from Aaron and from Israel

In these instances, when the messiah of Aaron and Israel should arise (CD 12.23; 20.1) or come (CD 19.10), they would both bring about what seems to be the culmination of the community’s obedience to God as well as punish the unfaithful ones. (‘he will atone’) or a passive pual (‘atonement will be made’) – it could bear on the translation of ‫ משיח‬as well. Compare Caquot, ‘Le Messianisme’, 241; Cross, ‘Notes’, 14; and van der Woude, Die messianischen, 29–32. 90.  The primary texts follow the reconstructions provided in Wacholder, Damascus, 92–4 (for CD 12.22b–13.1a), 98 (for CD 14.18b–19a), 42 (for CD 19.1011a), 46 (for CD 19.35–20.1a).

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

47

Evans interprets the verb ‫ עמד‬in CD 12.23 and 20.1 (and possibly in 14.19) as conveying the idea of ‘being established’, which means that the phrase ‫ עד עמוד משיח אהרן וישראל‬speaks of the hope that the priestly messiah ‘will be established when God establishes the anointed of Israel, that is, the royal Messiah’.91 In this reading, a similar kind of expectation reflected in 1QSb (cf. 4Q285 and 4Q161) underlies the diarchic messianism in CD – namely, the messiah of Aaron is already present among the sect as their leader, while the messiah of Israel was still to appear so as to vindicate the high priest of Qumran at the appointed time. The belief that God would be the prime subject of the establishing of the eschatological king alongside the high priest is indeed implicit in 4Q174 1–2 I, 11-13, which connects the sentence ‘he is the Branch of David, who will arise with the Interpreter of the Law’ with the hiphil in the divine promise from Amos 9:11, ‘I will raise up [‫ ]הקימותי‬the booth of David’. But the difficulty in imputing the sense of ‘being established’ to the verb ‫ עמד‬is that it is never used with causal force, either in the hiphil or in the hophal, with reference to end-time rulers in the sources examined above. Apart from 4Q174, the verb ‫עמד‬, when referring to messianic figures, always exclusively describes the action of rulers ‘taking a stand’ in the eschatological scene. This forces a more straightforward meaning of the ‘arising’ of the messiahs in CD 12.23 and 20.1 (cf. 4Q161 8–10, 17), though Yahweh is certainly ultimately responsible for such an act. Aside from these grammatical considerations, however, one point drawn from Evans’s reading of 1QSb 5.21 still stands: the Scrolls suggest that the eschatological high priest would be someone appointed from within the sect (as per also 4Q285 and 4Q161), whereas the same is not necessarily the case with regards to the royal messiah. In one instance, to be sure, it could be said that the eschatological high priest, unlike what is assumed of him in 1QSb, 4Q161 and 4Q285 (perhaps also 4Q174), is not yet present among the sect. The aforementioned reference in CD 7.18-19 to the Interpreter of the Law as one ‘who came to [‫ ]הבא‬Damascus’, is ambiguous as to whether the Interpreter of the Law has already established himself in Qumran or is still to come from elsewhere in the future. In rendering the articular participle ‫ הבא‬as ‘who shall come to’, Vermès suggests the latter sense.92 If the Interpreter of the Law is the messiah of Aaron, then, according to Vermès’s translation, he is believed in the Damascus Document to appear from elsewhere. But there is another, equality plausible way of interpreting ‫ – הבא‬namely, as ‘who came to’ or 91.  Evans, ‘Diarchy’, 563. The verb in CD 14.19 is uncertain, as the evidence is fragmentary. 92.  Vermès, Scrolls, 135 (my emphasis).

48

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

‘who entered’ Damascus, thus recalling an event in the past. Nothing in the immediate context of the verses in question impedes such a rendering, and, in fact, the preceding passage interprets Isa 7:17 and Amos 5:27 as having already been fulfilled (CD 7.10-15). Accordingly, it is likely that CD 7.18-19 speaks of the Interpreter of the Law as having entered the Damascus covenant, which may in turn imply that he is currently present among the sect. The advantage of this reading is that it coheres with the other messiah texts from the Scrolls discussed in the previous section. But even if a future sense of ‫ הבא‬is to be preferred, it does not need to connote the physical motion of someone from one place to another. It could simply convey the idea of ‘entering on official duty’.93 The Interpreter of the Law, that is, would come within Damascus, meaning that he would assume his office among the community at the appointed time, when the Prince of the Congregation takes his stand (CD 7.20). This reading is bolstered by the use of ‫ בוא‬in CD 19.10-11, which anticipates the coming of the messiah of Aaron and Israel in the very same way as CD 12.23–13.1 and 20.1 speak of their arising (cf. 4Q252 5.3). Since the verbs ‫ בוא‬and ‫ עמד‬are used interchangeably in the Damascus Document to refer to the hope that the messiah of Aaron and Israel would arise and take their stand on behalf of the faithful, we may conclude that the idioms ‘until the messiah of Aaron and Israel arises’ and ‘when the messiah of Aaron and Israel comes’, albeit terse, convey the same kind of aspiration attested in 4Q174, 4Q252, 4Q161 and 1QSb. In other words, the coming or arising of the messiah of Aaron and Israel would initiate the eschatological deliverance of God’s people and the affirmation of the legitimacy of the Qumran high priest. The last relevant text is 1QSa 2.11-21, also known as the Rule of the Congregation, which, like all the previously discussed documents, dates roughly from the first century BCE.94 The term ‫ משיח‬refers only to the messiah of Israel in the extant fragments of 1QSa, but an Aaronic figure (or group) is also prominent here:95 line 11: line 12: line 13: line 14: line 15: line 16:

‫]זה מו]שב אנשי השם [קריאי ]מועד לעצת היחד אם יוליד‬ ‫]אל ]א[ת ]המשיח אתם יבוא[ הכוהן ]רואש כול עדת ישראל וכול‬ ‫א[בות בני] אהרון הכוהנים [קריאי ]מועד אנושי השם וישבו‬ ‫ל[פניו איש] לפי כבודו ואחר י[שב מש]יח ישראל וישבו לפניו ראשי‬ ‫א[לפי ישראל אי]ש לפי כבודו כמ[עמדו] במחניהם וכמסעיהם וכול‬ ‫ראשי א[בות הע]דה עם חכמ[י עדת הקודש ]ישבו לפניהם איש לפי‬

93.  Cf. ‘‫’בוא‬, in BDB, 97. 94.  See Vermès, Scrolls, 119. 95.  The primary text follows Barthélemy and Milik, Cave 1, 110–11.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls line 17: line 18: line 19: line 20: line 21:

‫כבודו ו[אם לשול]חן יחד יועד[ו או לשתות הת]ירוש וערוך השולחן‬ ‫היחד [ומסוך ה]תירוש לשתות[ אל ישלח ]איש את ידו ברשת‬ ‫הלחם ו[התירוש] לפני הכוהן כיא[ הוא מ]ברך את רשית הלחם‬ ‫והתירו[ש ושלח ]ידו בלחם לפנים ואח[ר יש]לח משיח ישראל ידיו‬ [‫בלחם [ואחר יבר]כו כול עדת היחד א[יש לפי] כבודו וכחוק הזה יעש[ו‬

line 11:

[This is the ass]embly of the men of renown [called ] to the banquet of the council of the community, when he begets, [God], t[he ] messiah among them. He shall come, [the priest ], the head of the entire congregation of Israel, and all the [fathers,96 the sons] of Aaron, the priests, [ called ] to the banquet of the men of renown. They shall sit b[efore him, each] by rank. And then he shall [sit, the messi]ah of Israel; and they shall sit before him, the heads of c[lans of Israel, eac]h by rank according to [their position] in their camps and campaigns. And all the heads of f[athers of the con]gregation together with the wis[e of the holy congregation ] shall sit before them each by rank. And [when to the table] of the community they shall be gather[ed or to drink the n]ew wine, and it is set, the table of the community, [and it is poured, the] new wine for drinking[ no] man [should stretch ] his hand over the first portion of the bread and [the new wine] before the Priest. For [ he shall b]less the first portion of the bread and the new win[e, and he shall stretch ] his hand over the bread before them. Thereaft[er he shall s]tretch his hand, the messiah of Israel, over the bread. [Then they shall bl]ess, everyone of the congregation of the community, e[ach by] rank. And according to this statute, they shall do

line 12: line 13: line 14: line 15: line 16: line 17: line 18: line 19: line 20: line 21:

49

Given that the passage speaks of the banquet that will take place ‘when [God] begets the messiah’ (1QSa 2.11-12),97 it is plausible to regard it as prescribing regulations for the sacred feast in the messianic age. It is additionally most probable that the messiah of Israel is a royal figure, in accordance with 1QS 9.11. If I am correct to follow R.B. Laurin’s 96.  Barthélemy and Milik (ibid., 117) render ‫ אבות‬in both lines 13 and 16 as ‘anciens’. 97.  The exact reconstruction and meaning of ‫ יוליד‬have occasioned a long-standing dispute. See, e.g., F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (London: Tyndale, 1960), 44; Laurin, ‘Problem’, 49; and E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), 151. I follow Vermès (Scrolls, 161) and take ‫ יוליד‬as connoting something along the lines of ‘engender’.

50

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

translation of ‫ יוליד‬in line 11 as ‘[God] begets’, then it is quite possible that what one finds here is an allusion to Ps 2:7, where the Davidic king is said to be begotten by God: ‘The Lord said to me: “You are my son, today I have begotten you” [‫( ’]יהוה אמר אלי בני אתה אני היום ילדתיך‬cf. 4Q174).98 And even though the priest in 1QSa 2.19 is not overtly called messiah, it is reasonable to presuppose his status as the eschatological high priest, not least in the light of the broader literary context of the passage.99 What is relevant for my purposes is that the messianic picture in 1QSa 2.11-21 presents some very close similarities with other messiah texts from Qumran discussed so far. Like the Davidic Branch in 4Q252, 4Q174, 4Q285, 4Q161, and more indirectly 1QSb, the messiah of Israel has not yet come, as the verb ‫ יוליד‬indicates (1QSa 2.11). But when he does appear among the community, he will follow the lead of the priests in ceremonial proceedings, with much similarity to what is envisioned in 1QSb and perhaps in 4Q285 as well. The anticipation that someone of Aaronic rank would be ‘the head’ of the Israelite people in 1QSa 2.12, moreover, echoes 1QSb 4.23, wherein the priestly recipient(s) of the blessing is expected to become ‘the head of the Holy Ones’. All this makes it evident that, while the priests always precede the royal messiah in the liturgy of the ‫מועד‬,100 this may be so, again in resemblance to 1QSb, due to the cultic setting of 1QSa. The messiah of Israel still must come and liberate the nation in order for the eschatological banquet to happen. Conclusion The messiah texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls do not say exactly how the Qumran community expected Jerusalem to look in the final times, but some of them are quite explicit regarding the relation between the eschatological king and the rightful priests. This is particularly true of the passages envisaging the end-time royal ruler – called the Branch of David (4Q174; 4Q285; 4Q161), the Prince of the Congregation (4Q285; 4Q161; 1QSb) or simply the messiah of Israel (1QS; CD; 1QSa) – as one who would share his authority with the high priest. The only exception is 4Q252, which does not provide an extensive treatment of the messianic deeds and is silent about the place of a priestly figure in the eschaton.

98.  Laurin, ‘Two Messiahs’, 49. See also Chester, Messiah, 336. 99.  Pace H. Stegemann, ‘Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb and to Qumran Messianism’, RevQ 17 (1996): 479–505. 100.  Cf. Collins, Scepter, 82.

1. Dead Sea Scrolls

51

What is significant is that the Scrolls do not suggest a reactionary stance towards the ancient Jewish ideology of kingship, but, on the contrary, reflect a negative view of what they understood to be the corruption of the Jerusalem priestly establishment. To this problem the coming of the royal messiah would be the solution: he would install the Qumran high priest as the legitimate officiator of the Israelite worship system. From the perspective of Dead Sea sect, of course, the sphere of authority exercised by the royal messiah would be limited in terms of the preeminence of the messiah of Aaron in ceremonial procedures. Yet, it was still the task of the eschatological king to judge the wicked and to vindicate the community as the true sons of Zadok. This means that, so far as the idealized portrayal of the last days in the Scrolls is concerned, the view advocating an alleged rivalry between the royal and the priestly offices should be put to rest, not least since both king and high priest would exercise complementary functions in the eschaton. In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to agree with Shemaryahu Talmon that the Scrolls do not portray the priestly messiah as being thoroughly superior to the end-time royal ruler.101 That the high priest takes precedence over the king in ceremonial occasions is clear enough in 1QSb and 1QSa, but this is exactly the kind of scenario a priestly group such as Qumran would expect in those contexts anyway. As for the motivation underlying the emphasis on the ‘twin messiahs’, however, Talmon’s claim that it represented the impulse ‘to achieve a balance’ in contrast to the prevalence of royal messianism outside the sect leaves something to be desired.102 What one finds in the Scrolls is still the picture of a national liberator who would destroy the wicked and establish justice in the land. Attempts at downplaying the authority of the eschatological king should wrestle with the evidence demonstrating otherwise. In sum, far from opposing the prominence of the Davidic hopes within common Judaism, the primary thrust of the messianism of the Scrolls is to affirm the sect as the true Zadokites, whom the king would finally legitimise. Having reached this conclusion, we must now turn to asking how these issues are addressed in the relevant sources from the Pseudepigrapha.

101.  Talmon, ‘Concept’, 101–13. 102.  Ibid., 112.

Chapter 2 T he R oya l M es s i a h a n d t h e J e r usale m P r i e st s i n t h e L ate S ec on d T emple P e r i od:

T h e P s eu d ep i g r apha

Having discussed how the Qumran documents portray the proper interaction between the king and the high priest in the future, I now examine the classic messiah texts from the late Second Temple period outside the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first part of this chapter analyses Psalm of Solomon 17, and the latter half discusses some passages from the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. It will become clear in what follows that the literature outside the Qumran documents also takes it for granted that the Jerusalem priesthood would occupy a prominent place in the messianic kingdom, as the end-time royal ruler would bring about the purification of Zion. Psalm of Solomon 17 The Psalms of Solomon were likely composed in the late first century BCE, but the exact date of the seventeenth Psalm is disputed. G.L. Davenport takes vv. 7 and 13 as alluding to Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BCE (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:2, 26; 8:15-20), and dates the document to the mid-first century BCE.1 The authorship of the Psalms is likewise debated, but it possibly comes from Pharisaic circles located in Jerusalem or surroundings areas.2 1.  Verse 7 makes reference to ‘a man foreign to our race [ἄνθρωπον ἀλλότριον γένους ἡμῶν]’, and v. 13 speaks of ‘the lawless one [ὁ ἄνομος]’. G.L. Davenport, ‘The “Anointed of the Lord” in the Psalm of Solomon 17’, in Nickelsburg and Collins, eds., Ideal Figures, 71. 2.  E.g., H.E. Ryle and M.R. James, Psalmoi Salomontos: Psalms of the Pharisees Commonly Called The Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), xliv–lii; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 204–12. But some are hesitant to associate the Psalms with the Pharisees, including: Charlesworth, ‘Jewish Messianology’, 234; K. Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting, JSJSup 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 220–1; and Collins,

2. Pseudepigrapha

53

Kenneth Atkinson, however, has recently questioned some of these commonly accepted views and argued that the contrast between the future verbs καταβαλεῖς, ἀρεῖς and ἀποδώσεις in Ps. Sol. 17:7-8 and the aorists ἠλέησεν and ἐξηρεύνησεν in Ps. Sol. 17:9 suggests an historical scenario wherein the psalmist still awaits the complete destruction of his enemies – most likely the Hasmoneans – though also believing that God has already started ‘hunting down’ the survivors among them.3 According to this reconstruction, the seventeenth Psalm reflects a post-37 BCE, Herodian setting, since it ‘cannot refer to Pompey, who, although he exiled Aristobulus, reinstated the Hyrcanus II as high priest’.4 Atkinson’s accurate observations regarding the verbal tenses in Ps. Sol. 17:7-9 notwithstanding, the implications he draws from the use of the future tense alongside the aorist in vv. 7-9, in and of themselves, do not preclude a pre-Herodian context. In fact, the appointment of Hyrcanus II as high priest by Pompey may very well fit the hypothesis that the psalmist sees an element of ‘already but not yet’ in God’s judgement, since the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BCE decisively represented the beginning of the Hasmonean decline. The description of ‘the lawless one who laid waste the land [ἠρήμωσεν ὁ ἄνομος τὴν γῆν ἡμῶν]’ in Ps. Sol. 17:11 (cf. 17:12-13) reflects the events following Pompey’s siege of the Holy City just as well (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.69-72).5 Further, the lack of Scepter, 54. Theories of Essene composition are unconvincing, since the Psalms are unattested in the Scrolls. See D. Dimant, ‘The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance’, in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, ed. D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 23–57; contra J. O’Dell, ‘The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon (Re-evaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts)’, RevQ 3 (1961), 241–57; and R.B. Wright, ‘The Psalms, the Pharisees, and the Essenes’, in 1972 Proceedings from the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar, ed. R.A. Kraft (Missoula: Scholars, 1972), 136–54. On the Jerusalem provenance, see M. de Jonge, ‘Psalms of Solomon’, in Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 161. 3.  K. Atkinson, ‘On the Herodean Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17’, JBL 118 (1999): 442 (see 438–40 on the relation the Greek text and the Hebrew Vorlage). See also R.B. Wright, ‘The Psalms of Solomon’, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 2:640. 4.  See also O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 612, for an earlier version of Atkinson’s view. 5.  Pace Atkinson, ‘Herodean Origin’, 443. Atkinson surmises that the calamitous events narrated in the Psalm must reflect Herod’s assault of Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.468–491).

54

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

any mention of Alexander’s revolt around 57 BCE indicates that Psalm of Solomon 17 may have been written by the end of 58 BCE, during the rule of Hyrcanus II.6 According to Josephus, some Jews who had a negative stance towards the Hasmoneans’ claim to kingship pleaded with Pompey to restore the hierocratic regime of old, while Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus II, themselves ‘descendants of priests [ἀπογόνους τῶν ἱερέων]’, attempted to secure Roman support over against one another (Ant. 14.37-45).7 After killing twelve thousand Jews on the temple mount and exiling Aristobulus II, so Josephus tells us, Pompey re-established Hyrcanus II as the high priest and made Jerusalem tributary to the Roman province of Syria (Ant. 14.69-79). By the time Psalm of Solomon 17 was finished, therefore, the cultic system functioned without too much of a disruption.8 But Pompey’s appointment of Hyrcanus II as the high priest marked both the definitive end of the Hasmonean rule and thus also the termination of Jewish independence, initiated by the Maccabean revolt. The seventeenth Psalm of Solomon quintessentially articulates hopes for a Davidic messiah. It prays that God would raise up the υἱος Δαυιδ, the χριστὸς κυρίου, to reign over Israel. The first half of Psalm of Solomon 17 explains the Roman invasion of Judea in Deuteronomistic terms by blaming Jerusalem’s unfortunate state of affairs on Israel’s own transgressions (Ps. Sol. 17:4-20).9 Following the acknowledgement that God is the people’s ultimate king and deliverer (Ps. Sol. 17:1-3; cf. 17:44-46),10 the psalmist recalls the everlasting covenant with David (Ps. Sol. 17:4; cf. 2 Sam 7:11-16; Ps 89:3-4; Jer 33:17),11 and laments over the fact that ‘sinners [ἁμαρτωλοί]’ had illegitimately taken over the Israelite throne, causing it to become desolate (Ps. Sol. 17:5-6): ‘they desolated the throne 6.  Davenport, ‘Anointed’, 71. 7.  Here and subsequently, all citations of the Greek text of Josephus follow B. Niese, ed., Flavii Josephi Opera (Berlin: Weidmann, 1885–95). 8.  Cf. Oegema, Anointed, 107. Josephus says that Pompey entered the sanctuary, but did not touch the things in it (Ant. 14.71-72). Because nothing suggests that the sacrificial system was severely affected by this event, Oegema is probably correct to assume that the temple institution as a whole ‘remained relatively untouched’. Compare with Atkinson, I Cried, 138, 143. 9.  Collins, Scepter, 55; cf. Laato, Star, 281. 10.  Davenport, ‘Anointed’, 71–2. 11.  On the use of scripture in the Psalm, see K. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon Pseudepigrapha (Lewiston: Mellen, 2001), 336–41; cf. Pomykala, Dynasty, 160 n. 157. On the Davidic overtones of the seventeenth Psalm, see van der Woude, Die messianischen, 114.

2. Pseudepigrapha

55

of David [ἠρήμωσαν τὸν θρόνον Δαυιδ]’ (Ps. Sol. 17:6b). There is little doubt that the sinners are to be identified with the Hasmoneans.12 The psalmist continues and blames the iniquity of the Hasmoneans for the impending devastation of the people: ‘according to their sins, O God, you shall pay them back [κατὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν ἀποδώσεις αὐτοῖς ὁ θεός]’ (Ps. Sol. 17:8). Accordingly, both the destruction caused by the pagans (Ps. Sol. 17:11-15) and the dispersing of the pious from the land (Ps. Sol. 17:16-20) are seen as divine retributions for the Hasmoneans’ usurpation of the royal office.13 In contrast to such a gloomy picture, the portrait of the Davidic messiah in the second part of the Psalm is that of an ideal king, who would cleanse Jerusalem both from the Gentile oppressors and their Jewish compromisers, establish the pious back into the land, and inaugurate an age of peace and justice among the nations: 17:21 17:22 17:23 17:24 17:25

Ἰδέ κύριε καὶ ἀνάστησον αὐτοῖς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν υἱὸν Δαυιδ εἰς τὸν καιρόν ὃν ἴδες σύ ὁ θεός τοῦ βασιλεῦσαι ἐπὶ Ισραηλ παῖδά σου καὶ ὑπόζωσον αὐτὸν ἰσχὺν τοῦ θραῦσαι ἄρχοντας ἀδίκους καθαρίσον Ιερουσαλημ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν καταπατούντων ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἐξῶσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ κληρονομίας ἐκτρῖψαι ὑπερηφανίαν ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὡς σκεύη κεραμέως ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ συντρῖψαι πᾶσαν ὑπόστασιν αὐτῶν ὀλοθρεῦσαι ἔθνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀπειλῇ αὐτοῦ φυγεῖν ἔθνη ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλέγξαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἐν λόγῳ καρδίας αὐτῶν

12.  Atkinson, I Cried, 135. 13.  See J. Tromp, ‘The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17’, NovT 35 (1993): 347–51. While Simon Maccabee and John Hyrcanus had already merged political and religious power in one ruling position (1 Macc. 14:41-47; Josephus, Ant. 13.288-300; War 1.50-69), it was more precisely with Alexander Jannaeus that the Hasmoneans overtly assumed the royal title for themselves, although, according to Josephus, Aristobulus I was the first ‘to put a diadem on his head’ (Ant. 13.301). Cf. Pomykala (Dynasty, 165–6): ‘the stunning rise of the Maccabean house and their appropriation of the royal title to themselves brought a changed situation: a royal model for understanding Jewish politics and society was not only possible but actual’. Compare with E. Lohse, ‘Die König aus Davids Geschlect—Bemerkungen zur messianischen Erwartung der Synagoge’, in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel and P. Schmidt (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 338. Such a negative view of the Hasmoneans is evident also in T. Jud. 21:4, which says that ‘the priesthood of God is more excellent than the kingship on the earth [οὕτως ὑπερέχει θεοῦ ἱερατεία τῆς ἐπὶ γῆς βασιλείας]’ (see Collins, Scepter, 102).

56

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood 17:26 17:27 17:28 17:29 17:30 17:31

17:21 17:22 17:23 17:24 17:25 17:26 17:27 17:28 17:29 17:30

Καὶ συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον οὗ ἀφηγήσεται ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ κρινεῖ φυλὰς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου ὑπὸ κυρίου θεοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει ἀδικίαν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν αὐλισθῆναι ἔτι καὶ οὐ κατοικήσει πᾶς ἄνθρωπος μετ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰδὼς κακίαν γνώσεται γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὅτι πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν αὐτῶν καὶ καταμερίσει αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ πάροικος καὶ ἀλλογενὴς οὐ παροικήσει αὐτοῖς ἔτι κρινεῖ λαοὺς καὶ ἔθνη ἐν σοφίᾳ δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διάψαλμα Καὶ ἕξει λαοὺς ἐθνῶν δουλεύειν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν κύριον δοξάσει ἐν ἐπισήμῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ καθαριεῖ Ιερουσαλημ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ὡς καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔρχεσθαι ἔθνη ἀπ᾿ ἄκρου τῆς γῆς ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ φέροντες δῶρα τοὺς ἐξησθενηκότας υἱοὺς αὐτῆς καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου ἣν ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν ὁ θεός14 Behold, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, the Son of David, at the time that you know, O God, for him to reign over Israel your servant; gird him with strength to shatter unrighteous rulers, to cleanse Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction, in wisdom, in righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance, to smash the arrogance of the sinners like a potter’s jar, with an iron rod to shatter all their substance, to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth, at his warning for the nations to flee from his presence, and to condemn the sinners for the thought of their hearts. And he will gather a holy people, whom he will lead in righteousness, and he will judge the tribes of the people sanctified by the Lord his God; and he will not permit unrighteousness to lodge any longer in their midst, nor will anyone knowing wickedness live with them, for he will know them, that they are all children of God; he will distribute them upon the land according to their tribes, and neither sojourner nor foreigner will any longer live with them; he will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness; And he will have Gentile nations to serve him under his yoke and he will glorify the Lord in a prominent (place above) all the earth, and he will cleanse Jerusalem in holiness as even from the beginning,

14.  The text follows R.B. Wright, ed., The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 186–93.

2. Pseudepigrapha 17:31

57

for nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as gifts her fainting children, and to see the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified her.

Moreover, the psalmist strongly emphasizes the God-fearing character of the eschatological king. In brief, the Davidic king would be completely obedient to God (Ps. Sol. 17:32), blameless in his conduct (Ps. Sol. 17:36), filled with God’s spirit and wisdom (Ps. Sol. 17:37; cf. 17:23, 35), and powerful in the fear of God, shepherding his people with faithfulness and righteousness (Ps. Sol. 17:40).15 Such a pristine portrayal of the messiah has generated the view of a non-violent, spiritualized character with regards to the eschatological king.16 Kenneth Pomykala, for instance, claims that ‘characteristics suitable for a warrior’ are ‘notably absent’ in the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon.17 Marinus de Jonge goes as far as to assert that it is inappropriate to speak of ‘a national, political, earthly messiah’ here.18 These suggestions, however, fall short of fully accounting for the warlike activities of the messiah in the broader context of Psalm of Solomon 17. The deeds of the Son of David are very much in keeping with the nationalistic aspirations of Psalm 2, as he is still expected ‘to smash the arrogance of the sinners like a potter’s jar, with an iron rod to shatter all their substance’ (Ps. Sol. 17:23-24; cf. Ps 2:9).19 In addition, the image employed in

15.  S. Schreiber, Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften, BZAW 105 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 171–5; Davenport, ‘Anointed’, 78–83. 16.  See, e.g., Klausner, Messianic, 323–4; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘The Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha’, in ANRW, 2.19.1:199; A. Chester, ‘Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures’, in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 29; Pomykala, Dynasty, 165; B.J. Capper, ‘The New Covenant in Southern Palestine and the Arrest of Jesus’, in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from the International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, ed. J.R. Davila, STDJ 46 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 113–14. 17.  Pomykala, Dynasty, 165. 18.  De Jonge, ‘χρίω’, 514. 19.  The similarity in wording between Ps. Sol. 17:23-24 and OG Ps 2:9 is remarkable, as the latter reads, ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς. Here and subsequently, all citations of the Septuagint or the Old Greek Bible follow the text of A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979). See the discussion in Schreiber, Gesalbter, 171–2; Collins, Scepter, 58–9; and Atkinson,

58

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

v. 35, of the messiah ‘smiting the earth with the word of his mouth’, draws almost verbatim from OG Isa 11:4, which speaks of the shoot from the stump of Jesse as the one who would ‘strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and kill the ungodly with the breath of his lips [πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι διὰ χειλέων ἀνελεῖ ἀσεβῆ]’.20 This is important, for it shows coherence with the Qumran texts that use Isa 11:1-5 so as to buttress the hope that the eschatological king would violently defeat his enemies (cf. 4Q285 7.4; 4Q161 8–10, 21). The moral excellence of the Son of David is, to be sure, quite significantly augmented in Psalm of Solomon 17, especially in comparison to 4Q285 and 4Q161, and such an emphasis is clearly repeated in Ps. Sol. 18:5-8. Yet, as Atkinson notes, this simply indicates that, ‘the messiah’s victories are not dependent upon military might but upon the authority of his word and his position as the legitimate Davidic king…who has been anointed with God’s spirit’, according to Isa 11:1-5.21 Indeed, Ps. Sol. 17:33 says that the Son of David will not trust in horses, nor will he accumulate for himself silver and gold, which, like 11QT 56.12–59.21, evokes the limits imposed on the Israelite king in Deuteronomy 17. But both 11QT and Psalm of Solomon 17 add the phrase ‘for war’ – absent in Deuteronomy 17 – and further stresses the military nature of the messiah’s mission.22 So the seeming paradoxical character of the Lord’s anointed in Psalm of Solomon 17 should not tantalize the reader. On the one hand, the Psalm builds on Ps 2:9 and Isa 11:1-4 so as to express the aspiration for a military liberator. On the other, it also makes the point, particularly in vv. 32-43, that the eschatological king, unlike the Hasmonean rulers and the fallen monarchs of old, would be innocent with regards to the Law: the legitimate Son of David (17:21) will be also ‘pure from sin’ (17:36; I Cried, 141; cf. S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1978), 133–4. I therefore remain unconvinced that the messiah’s power ‘is implemented not with military force’ (Pomykala, Dynasty, 162). The king will still ‘smite the earth’ and ‘remove the sinners’ from the land (Ps. Sol. 17:35-36). 20.  Atkinson, Intertextual, 345–50; cf. Davenport, ‘Anointed’, 72; Laato, Star, 281–4. 21.  Atkinson, I Cried, 143. 22.  Ibid. See also M.O. Wise, ‘The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll’, JNES 49 (1990): 167–78, though the parallels between the War Scroll and the Psalms of Solomon should not be pushed too far. Pace Le Donne, Jesus, 125, who believes that ‘the nonviolent significance of Isaiah’s metaphor trumps that of Psalm 2:9’ in the Psalm. The importance of Isaiah 11 to the Psalm does not diminish the presence of the militaristic imageries borrowed from elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

2. Pseudepigrapha

59

cf. Isa 53:9; Ezek 36:25).23 In this respect, the allusion to Deuteronomy 17 without any references to the priests as the ones who would teach the king reinforces the notion that the messiah would be an ideal figure. From the perspective of the psalmist, therefore, there is a stark contradistinction between the idealized picture of the messiah and the current situation in Jerusalem. Not only have the lawless enemies laid waste the land (Ps. Sol. 17:11), but also the children of the covenant themselves are said to have surpassed the Gentiles in evil, so much so that there was ‘no one among them who practiced in Jerusalem mercy and truth [οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς ὁποιῶν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἔλεος καἀ ὶλήθειαν]’ (Ps. Sol. 17:15).24 Such a pessimistic view may have been motivated by the events narrated in Ps. Sol. 17:16 – namely, the flight of ‘those who loved the assemblies of the pious [ἐφύγοσαν ἀπ ᾿αὐτῶν οἀ ἱγαπῶντες συναγωγὰς ὁσίων]’ – which is a possible reference to the precise community behind the Psalms of Solomon.25 If this is indeed the case, Pomykala is correct to suggest that, ‘the author’s community is utterly disenfranchised from the current form of “Israel” ’, represented by the ‘Second Temple social and cultic institutions’.26 In any case, although the psalmist’s description of Jerusalem reflects his own value judgement, it is particularly relevant for my purposes that the polemical stance of Psalm of Solomon 17 towards the status quo would have been far from novel, as the Dead Sea Scrolls provide clear evidence that the Qumran sectarians also regarded the Jerusalem establishment under the Hasmoneans as being corrupt (e.g. the Damascus Document; cf. Pesher Habakkuk).27 More to the point, the similarity between the Qumran literature and Psalm of Solomon 17 should not be overlooked: both respond to the alleged miserable state of affairs in Jerusalem by reviving the scriptural promise of national restoration which would take place with the coming of the end-time king. The question that follows concerns how Psalm of Solomon 17 envisages the role of the priestly office within the reign of the royal messiah. The main difficulty in addressing this issue is the lack of any explicit 23.  Contra Atkinson (I Cried, 140), the messiah in Ps. Sol. 17 does not have priestly characteristics. In fact, as Davenport (‘Anointed’, 80) notes, the righteousness of the messiah is a key element of the messianic age. 24.  Cf. Atkinson, I Cried, 134–5. Therefore, in the light of how Ps. Sol. 17:11-15 depicts the sons of the covenant’s following of the iniquity of the Gentiles, the ‘sinners’ in Ps. Sol. 17:23 must refer both to pagans and to the Jewish unfaithful. See Davenport, ‘Anointed’, 73. 25.  Pomykala, Dynasty, 161. 26.  Ibid. 27.  Collins, Scepter, 56.

60

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

references to the priests in the text. Pomykala infers from this silence that the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon hints at the idea that the assemblies of the pious were expected somehow to supersede the temple: Holiness, which is an important characteristic of the new order, is achieved apart from priests and temple. I suspect this construal of Jewish life is born out of continual frustration with the failure of the high priesthood in the Second Temple period to deliver the kind of results envisioned in Ben Sira’s hymn to Simon (Sir 50:1-24). The new situation is based on a royal model of governance, which in the end is understood as representative of God’s kingly rule. Moreover, a reference to the ‘assemblies of the pious’ (v. 16) may represent an attempt to locate Jewish life in an institution other than the temple, i.e., the synagogue.28

It is crystal clear that, unlike Sirach for instance, the seventeenth Psalm envisions a ‘royal model of governance’. Yet, to conclude that the temple institution would have no part in the reign of the Son of David is to overlook the thoroughgoing emphasis that the Psalm gives to the messiah’s concern with the sacrosanct character of Jerusalem. In Ps. Sol. 17:43, the psalmist does say that the messiah ‘will judge the peoples in the assemblies [ἐν συναγωγαῖς διακρινεῖ λαοῦ φυλὰς ἡγιασμένου]’, but the main thrust of the Psalm lies precisely on the purging and restoration of the city of David (Ps. Sol. 17:22-30).29 Such a concern, in fact, is a prominent theme also in Psalm of Solomon 2, which sees the desolation of Jerusalem as the divine punishment for the ‘defilement [ἐμιαίωσαν]’ of the people (Ps. Sol. 2:13), as well as in Psalm of Solomon 18, which looks forward to the messianic rule when God ‘cleanses [καθαρίσαι]’ Israel (Ps. Sol. 18:5). The image of the nations coming from the ends of the earth to the Holy City in order to see the glory of the Davidic king in Ps. Sol. 17:31, moreover, is not unprecedented in the Jewish Scriptures. In 1 Kgs 10:1-10 and 2 Chr 9:1-9, the queen of Sheba, having heard of the fame of the God who was worshipped in Jerusalem, is said not only to be impressed with the divinely inspired wisdom of the Israelite monarch, but also to bear extravagant gifts to King Solomon. Interestingly enough, both OG 28.  Pomykala, Dynasty, 168; cf. B.L. Mack, ‘Wisdom Makes a Difference: Alternatives to “Messianic” Configurations’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaism and Their Messiahs, 37–40. 29.  See B. Embry, ‘The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation’, JSP 13 (2002): 99–136, who argues that the Psalms of Solomon as a whole are concerned with the purity of Jerusalem. See also J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 29.

2. Pseudepigrapha

61

1 Kgs 10:24-25 and OG 2 Chr 9:23-24 further tell that ‘all the kings of the earth [πάντες βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς]’, following the example of the queen of Sheba, also ‘brought, each one, his gifts [αὐτοὶ ἔφερον ἕκαστος τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῦ]’ to Jerusalem. It is by no means irrelevant that the recipient of such a lavish bestowal was King Solomon, son of David, after whom the eighteen Psalms were not accidentally named, and who happened to have built the First Temple. The wording of Ps. Sol. 17:31, of course, does not replicate exactly any part of 1 Kings 10 or 2 Chronicles 9. Nevertheless, the imagery associated with Solomon in Israel’s ancient history is quite impressively reminiscent in Psalm of Solomon 17: the end-time Son of David would be filled with divine wisdom and thoroughly concerned with the sacredness of the Jerusalem worship. Consequently, just like Solomon the first Davidic son, the eschatological king would also receive the gifts that the nations would ‘bring [φέροντες]’ to him (Ps. Sol. 17:31; as per ἔφερον in OG 1 Kgs 10:25 and OG 2 Chr 9:24).30 All this, I suggest, offers a far more sensible way of understanding the relation between the Son of David and the temple institution than postulating that the Psalm envisages a temple-less society. That is, although the eschatological king of Psalm of Solomon 17 stands in contrast to the first Davidic son, in that the former would actually follow the rules of Deuteronomy 17, the royal messiah is yet expected to purge Jerusalem precisely in order to reinstall a genuine, purified priesthood under his wisdom-filled rule, in resemblance to his predecessor King Solomon – namely, ‘in holiness as even from the beginning’ (Ps. Sol. 17:30b). While the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly depict the king as ruling alongside a priestly figure, the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon does not mention the priests because here it is the Davidic king who is the representative of God. As a matter of fact, in Psalm of Solomon 17, God himself is the ultimate king forever (Ps. Sol. 17:1; cf. 18:1), and the Son of David is the chosen instrument to manifest such a reality in the eschatological turning point.31 Within this picture, one can only speculate how the Jerusalem priests would function under the king’s authority, as the silence of the text precludes any certainty on this issue. In any case, it is most likely that the Jerusalem priesthood would still exist in the messianic age. Furthermore, because the author’s community did not identify themselves as a priestly group, the psalmist, 30.  For discussion on the Solomonic tradition underlying the Psalms, see Le Donne, Jesus, 114–32 (cf. 97–114). On the relation between Solomon and the cultus of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, see W. Brueggemann, Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human Achievement (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2005), 161–5. 31.  Cf. Laato, Star, 281.

62

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

unlike the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has no interest in elaborating on matters relating to ceremonial purity or Aaronic descent. Bearing in mind that the issue at stake was the Hasmonean usurpation of the Davidic throne and the subsequent termination of the Israelite independence, questions surrounding the priestly code would have been quite marginal for the psalmist. The Apocalyptic Literature In the Apocalyptic texts from the late Second Temple period speaking of a messiah, another biblical motif figures prominently, namely, the Danielic ‘one like a son of man’. As Stefan Schreiber summarises, ‘Menschensohnund Gesalbtervorstellung gehen eine Verbindung ein’.32 The precise character of the Son of man figure in the post-biblical literature is far from clear,33 but it is widely agreed that the sources borrow the Danielic motif of God’s everlasting dominion and develop the hope for a heavenly individual who would stand as God’s eschatological agent of deliverance.34 32.  Schreiber, Gesalbter, 323–4. 33.  The ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 itself has caused a long-standing puzzle. I take the dominant view that such a figure does not stand for an end-time deliverer, but rather for a heavenly representative – whether human-symbolic or angelic – of the people of God, not least given his close association with the ‘holy ones of the Most High’ in Dan 7:18. See, e.g., Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 350; T.W. Manson, ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, BJRL 32 (1950): 171–93; C.W. Brekelmans, ‘The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdoms’, OTS 14 (1965): 305–29; M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris: Gabalda, 1971), 155–6; J.J. Collins, ‘The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel’, JBL (1974): 50–66; idem, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–10; and G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Son of Man’, in ABD, 6:138. 34.  On the influence of Daniel in post-biblical Apocalyptic, see U.B. Müller, Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Gütersloh: Mohr, 1972), 36–51; J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bildenderen des Äthiopischen Henoch, SUNT 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 14–23; and G.K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 97–100. Arguments for the heavenly character of such a figure include: C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 94–113; J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 177–93; D. Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012); and G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters

2. Pseudepigrapha

63

I now turn to looking at how the theme of Davidic kingship relates to the Jerusalem priesthood in these documents. The Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch The view, first proposed by J.T. Milik, that the book of Similitudes represents a Christian document dating from the late third century CE has been consistently refuted in subsequent scholarship.35 Despite the fact that the Aramaic version of chs. 37–71 of 1 Enoch is not among the extant Enochic texts from Qumran, Similitudes does not relate the Son of man with Jesus, and thus betrays its Jewish composition in a period most likely anteceding the early second century CE.36 Throughout the three parables constituting the bulk of 1 Enoch 37–71,37 the Ethiopic phrases translated as ‘Son of man’ (46:2-4; 48:2; 62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29; 71:1, 14, 17) refer to an end-time figure who is elsewhere in the document also called ‘the Righteous One’ (53:6; cf. 38:2; 37–82 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 44–5, 113–22. But in the post-biblical literature, the identity of the Son of man is unclear. In particular, his relation with Enoch in 1 En. 71:14 has generated some dispute. Compare J.C. VanderKam, ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 182–5; S. Schreiber, ‘Henoch als Menschensohn. Zur problematischen Schlussidentifikation in den Bilderreden des äthiopischen Henochbuches (äthHen 71,14)’, ZNW 91 (2000): 1–17; and D.D. Hannah, ‘The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch’, in ‘Who Is This Son of Man?’ The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, ed. L.W. Hurtado and P.L. Owen, LNTS 390 (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 130–58. 35.  J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 94–8. Against Milik, see: J.C. Greenfield and M.E. Stone, ‘The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes’, HTR 70 (1977), 51–65; M. Knibb, ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 (1979): 344–57; and D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch, SBLDS 47 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 32. 36.  Similitudes as a whole is extant only in Ethiopic. See the discussion in Nickelsburg, Literature, 221–3. See also J.R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseud­ epigrapha, JSJSup 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 132–37; Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 97–8; and A. Yarbro Collins and J.J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 87. On the date of Similitudes, see D.L. Bock, ‘Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht’, in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. D.L. Bock and J.H. Charlesworth (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 58–113. 37.  On the literary structure of 1 Enoch 37–71, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables’, in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 23–47.

64

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

47:1, 4), ‘the Anointed One’ (48:10; 52:4) and ‘the Chosen One’ (39:6; 40:5; 45:3-4; 48:6; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1).38 In brief, the Son of man is said to possess lofty attributes – the appearance of the holy angels (46:1) and a name existing before the creation of the universe (48:3, 6).39 Most importantly, he plays an important role as the representative of the Head of Days in resemblance to the agent of God in Daniel 7 (46:1; cf. 49:4),40 and sits on a glorious throne in order to exercise judgement upon the nations (51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2; 69:29).41 One important passage attesting the indebtedness of Similitudes to some scriptural traditions that coincidentally shaped the hopes for a Davidic messiah in other documents in Second Temple Judaism is 1 En. 48:8–49:4: 48:8 In those days, downcast will be the faces of the kings of the earth, and the strong who possess the earth, because of the deeds of their hands. For on the day of their tribulation and distress they will not save themselves; 48:9 and into the hands of my chosen ones I shall throw them. As straw in the fire and as lead in the water, thus they will burn before the face of the holy, and they will sink before the face of the righteous; and no trace of them will be found.

38.  See J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 31–49; and VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, 169–86. On the different Ethiopic phrases translated as Son of man, see Collins, Scepter, 197 n. 29. 39.  For further discussion see H.S. Kvanvig, ‘The Son of Man in the Parables’, in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 179–215. Also, contra Manson (‘Son of Man’, 183–5), who suggests that the naming of the Son of man before the creation of the world simply means that he existed ‘in the mind of God’, Gottfried Schimanowski (Weisheit und Messias. Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der christlichen Präexistenzchristologie [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985], 152–94) argues that the Son of man is actually preexistent. See also Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 89. 40.  On the relation between Similitudes and Daniel 7, see S. Chialà, ‘The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression’, in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah, 156–63. 41.  Cf. Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 100–101; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 88–9. On the complex issues relating to question of whether the ‘glorious throne’ belongs to the Son of man or to the Lord of Spirits, see Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 68–98; and compare with E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 61–82.

2. Pseudepigrapha

65

48:10 And on the day of their distress there will be rest on the earth, and before them they will fall and not rise, and there will be no one to take them with his hand and raise them. For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and his Anointed One. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits. 49:1 For wisdom has been poured out like water, and glory will not fail in his presence forever and ever. 49:2 For he is mighty in all the secrets of righteousness; and unrighteousness will vanish like a shadow, and will have no place to stand. For the Chosen One has taken his stand in the presence of the Lord of Spirits; and his glory is forever and ever, and his might, to all generations. 49:3 And in him dwell the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of insight, and the spirit of instruction and might, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness. 49:4 And he will judge the things that are secret, and a lying word none will be able to speak in his presence; For he is the Chosen One in the presence of the Lord of Spirits according to his good pleasure.42

The sentence, ‘For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and his Anointed One’, in 1 En. 48:10, occurs in the context where ‘the kings and the strong of the earth’ (1 En. 48:8) are portrayed as what Schreiber understands to be ‘Gegenfiguren’, which recalls ‘die Darstellung der Könige und Mächtigen als Gegner des Herrn und seines Gesalbter in Ps 2,2’ (cf. 1 En. 52:4).43 What one finds in 1 En. 49:1-4 in turn is the motif of the spiritinspired wisdom of the shoot from the stump of Jesse in Isa 11:1-4 (cf. Prov 8:12-14),44 a passage used both in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in Psalm of Solomon 17 so as to articulate expectations for the eschatological Davidic king.45 Moreover, although it is not explicit in 1 En. 48:8–49:4 42.  All citations from Similitudes in this section follow the translation provided by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 43.  Schreiber, Gesalbter, 331. 44.  On the use of Proverbs 8 and Isaiah 11 in 1 Enoch 49, see Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 137–9; cf. J. Coppens, ‘Le messianism sapiential et les origines littéraires du Fils de l’homme daniélique’, in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D.W. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 33–41. 45.  Cf. Schreiber, Gesalbter, 335–7; pace M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 111.

66

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

that the messiah engages in violence, two other passages indicate that he acts as a militant king: 1 En. 52:4 speaks of the Anointed One as having authority ‘so that he may be powerful and mighty on the earth’,46 and 1 En. 62:2 says that, as a result of the Chosen One’s possessing the spirit of righteousness, ‘the word of his mouth will slay all the sinners, and all the unrighteous will perish from his presence’ (cf. 1 En. 62:8-9).47 These allusions, however, should not prompt the reader to regard the Son of man as a Davidic figure in the traditional sense.48 Schreiber notes that the messianic picture of Similitudes presents ‘kein Hinweis auf eine davidische Abstammung’.49 It is additionally striking that 1 Enoch 37–71 never explicitly expresses hopes for the restoration of the Davidic throne. To be sure, Johannes Theisohn has made the case that the theme of the messiah’s sitting on a glorious throne and judging of his wicked enemies (cf. 1 En. 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2; 69:29) derived from the ‘Denkmodell’ of the royal Psalm 110.50 Matthew Black, Helge Kvanvig, George Nickelsburg and James VanderKam, in turn, have agreed on the plausibility of Theisohn’s argument, given that Psalm 110 is traditionally associated with the eschatological enthronement of Israel’s king over against his opponents.51 Yet, unlike the Branch of David in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Son of David in Psalm of Solomon 17, the Son of man in 1 Enoch 37–71 possesses other-worldly status and thus, albeit embodying some Davidic characteristics, represents a mash-up of eschatological motifs.52 As Nickelsburg puts it, the author of Similitudes ‘believed that the biblical promises about the future king and the traditional messianic 46.  Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 100. 47.  Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 90. 48.  Collins, Scepter, 205. 49.  Schreiber, Gesalbter, 338. This is the case even if one grants the suggestion that the messiah’s being named before creation (1 En. 48:3, 6) comes from the Greek translation of Ps 110:3b – namely, ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε. See discussion in Kvanvig, ‘Son of Man’, 191; and Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 90; cf. Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 94–6. The lack of any explicit references to the human lineage of the Son of man still begs the question. 50.  Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 96–8. 51.  See M. Black, ‘The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 150–6; Kvanvig, ‘Son of Man’, 189–93; and, especially, Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 262. On the enthronement of the Davidic king in Psalm 110, see H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972), 754–6; and J. Goldingay, Psalms, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 3:294. 52.  Cf. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 44.

2. Pseudepigrapha

67

function of the judgement had to be fulfilled by a transcendent saviour – one he found described in other traditions’.53 In Similitudes, therefore, the end-time ruler is endowed with supra-mundane attributes and assumes the role of the Davidic king, despite the fact that nothing is said about his bloodline. If Similitudes reflects the idea that the Son of man would fulfil the function of the Isaianic shoot from the stump of Jesse, the question is whether the Jerusalem priesthood would play any role in the eschaton. Crispin Fletcher-Louis argues that Similitudes portrays the Son of man as a priestly figure, despite the royal imagery attributed to him.54 There is nothing in the portrayal of the messiah in Similitudes, however, that is distinctively priestly. The close association between the Son of man and the name of the Lord of Spirits in 1 Enoch 46 and 48, which FletcherLouis interprets as representing the high priest’s carrying of the divine name (cf. Ep. Arist. 98; Josephus, Ant. 3.178; War 5.235; Philo, Moses 2.114-115),55 is better explained by the messiah’s heavenly status as the regent of God than his performing of any cultic tasks.56 Moreover, while Fletcher-Louis is correct to observe that the language of wisdom and glory attributed to the Son of man is also applied to high priests in Sirach (cf. Sir 45:7-8; 50:7, 11, 27), it likewise describes the character of kings and other notable leaders in Israel’s history as well (cf. Sir 44:19; 45:2-3; 46:1-2; 47:6-11; 1 Kgs 3:4-10). Most importantly, priestly motifs, not least the 53.  G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Salvation without and with a Messiah: Developing Beliefs in Writings Ascribed to Enoch’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs, 63. The use of royal mythology in the Son of man tradition is attested in the book of Daniel itself. See discussion in Collins, Scepter, 42–6. On the different layers of traditions that possibly shaped the content of Similitudes, see G. Boccaccini, ‘Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Jewish Literature’, in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah, 263–89. 54.  C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71): The Son of Man, Apocalyptic Messianism and Political Theology’, in The Open Mind: Essays in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. J. Knight and K. Sullivan, LNTS 522 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 58–79. 55.  Ibid., 73–4. See also M. Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 65–6; and C.A. Gieschen, ‘The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch’, in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah, 238–49. 56.  One recalls Exod 23:20-21, wherein an angel is said to carry the divine name so as to accomplish God’s plans on earth and guide the Israelites through the wilderness. See C.A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 51–69; idem, ‘Son of Man’, 243.

68

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Levitical code, are not prominent in Similitudes,57 whereas the influence of scriptural texts speaking of a royal figure is much more easily identified (cf. Isa 11:1-4; Pss 2; 110). The book of Similitudes does not contain any references, whether negative or positive, to the Jerusalem institution. The use of Daniel 7 as a thematic source for Similitudes may indicate that the author was more concerned with portraying God’s cosmic dominion over the nations than with describing the role of the priestly office in the eschaton.58 Because nothing in the text suggests that the Son of man would act as a high priest or do anything about the temple institution, questions relating to the Jerusalem priesthood ultimately belong to the realm of speculation. The Messiah in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch The most important manuscripts of 4 Ezra are extant only in Latin and Syriac, and the document dates from the period following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE.59 The set of characteristics of the 57.  Pace Fletcher-Louis, ‘Similitudes’, 75–9: ‘[1 En. 55:4] extends (or interprets?) the high priest’s role in assigning a scapegoat’ to Azazel in Lev 16:8-16. 58.  Cf. L.L. Grabbe, ‘The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Society’, in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah, 401. On the idea of God’s cosmic and universal dominion in Similitudes (and Daniel), see M.E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 210. Likewise, the Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) says nothing about the Jerusalem priesthood, and apart from the use of the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ in 4Q246 2.1, the quantity of images evoking classic Davidic themes is not impressive. On the character of the Son of God in 4Q246, compare J. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25 (Chico: Scholars, 1979), 90–4; C.A. Evans, ‘Are the “Son” Texts at Qumran Messianic?’, in Charlesworth et al., eds., Qumran-Messianism, 135–53; F.M. Cross, ‘The Structure of the Apocalypse of “Son of God” (4Q246)’, in Paul et al., eds., Emanuel, 151–8. On the use of Daniel 7 in the Aramaic Apocalypse, see E. Puech, ‘Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le “Royaume de Dieu” ’, RB 99 (1992): 129; G. Vermès, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’, JJS 43 (1992): 301–3; J.T. Milik, ‘Les modeles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân’, RevQ 15 (1992): 383; J.D.G. Dunn, ‘ “Son of God” as “Son of Man” in the Dead Sea Scrolls? A Response to John Collins on 4Q246’, in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, ed. S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans, JSPSup 26 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 198–210; T.S. Ferda, ‘Naming the Messiah: A Contribution to the 4Q246 “Son of God” Debate’, DSD 21 (2014): 150–75. 59.  On textual issues and the possible original language, see discussion in B.M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’, in OTP, 1:518–20, and the references cited therein; cf. H.S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988), 521. Stone (Fourth Ezra, 9–10) dates the document specifically between 81

2. Pseudepigrapha

69

end-time figure in 4 Ezra is distinct from the Son of man in 1 Enoch 37–71,60 but the former also makes use of Daniel 7 thus speaking of a ‘man flying with the clouds of heaven’ (4 Ezra 13:3).61 That the ‘man flying with the clouds of heaven’ echoes the Danielic ‘one like a son of man’ is strongly supported by the angelic reinterpretation of Daniel 7 found in 4 Ezra 12:10-12, where the divine messenger explains a vision to Ezra: ‘And he said to me, “This is the interpretation of this vision which you have seen: the eagle which you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain it to you.” ’62 Most importantly, not only does 4 Ezra 13 depict such a mysterious man as a victorious ruler – he has ‘a stream of fire’ coming out of his mouth (4 Ezra 13:10) and is expected to ‘reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness’ (4 Ezra 13:37) – but the text consistently associates him with the epithet ‘my son’ (4 Ezra 13:32, 37, 52), thus recalling the close relationship between the Davidic king and the God of Israel attested in Ps 2:7 (cf. 2 Sam 7:14).63 and 96 CE, when Rome was under the rule of Domitian. Most scholars, however, prefer a broader, late-first-century CE date. See Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 101; and Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 119. Cf. F. Zimmerman, ‘The Language, the Date, and the Portrayal of the Messiah in IV Ezra’, HS 26 (1985): 203–18. 60.  See discussion in Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 145. 61.  See further A. Lacocque, ‘The Vision of the Eagle in 4 Esdras, a Rereading of Daniel 7 in the First Century CE’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers, ed. K.H. Richards, SBLSP 20 (Chico: Scholars, 1981), 237–58; J.J. Collins, ‘The Son of Man in First Century Judaism’, NTS 38 (1992): 448–66; and Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 120–1. Pace Kvanvig, Roots, 522–3. The first part of 4 Ezra 13:3 presents a few textual problems: the expression translated as ‘this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea’ is not attested in the Latin manuscripts. Most interpreters, however, base their translation on the Syriac version here. See the discussion in Stone, Fourth Ezra, 381; and Collins, Scepter, 206; cf. C.C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 127–8. 62.  For the text of 4 Ezra, I am following the translation provided by Stone, Fourth Ezra, passim (358 here). Elsewhere, Stone suggests that 4 Ezra 13:1-13 reflects the author’s writing of his ‘own interpretation to a previously existent allegory’ (‘The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaisms and their Messiahs, 213; idem, ‘The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra’, in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Edwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 305–6; idem, Features of the Eschatology of 4 Ezra, HSS 35 [Atlanta: Scholars, 1989], 123–5; cf. G.H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse [London: Pitman, 1912], 285–6). In any case, Daniel 7 stands as the conceptual source of the ‘man’. 63.  Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 106–7. It is possible that the word ‘son’ derived from the Greek παῖς, which in turn translates the Hebrew ‫עבד‬. Either way, it must be

70

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The divine sonship of the messiah is more conspicuous in 4 Ezra 7:28-29: ‘For my Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and he shall make rejoice those who remain for four hundred years, and after these years my son (or: servant)64 the Messiah will die, and all who draw human breath’. The death of the messiah in 4 Ezra is puzzling, and differs significantly from what one finds in the Christian sources with regards to the fate of Jesus of Nazareth. Loren Stuckenbruck points out that ‘unlike Christian conviction with regard to Jesus’ death, this event is not apparently the result of any persecution or suffering and carries with it no salvific or atoning significance’.65 This indicates that, apart from judgement over the wicked and deliverance for the righteous (cf. 4 Ezra 7:27), the author of 4 Ezra does not ascribe to the messiah any ultimate role in God’s final dominion over the nations.66 So, in the end, while the deeds of the messiah are believed to be consequential in bringing the long-awaited restoration to Israel, the theodicy of 4 Ezra seems to depend completely on the sovereign plan of God to act over against evil.67 stressed that is is the imagery relating to David that is in view (cf. Ps 89:20, 26-27). See Müller, Messias, 90. On the use of the word as a title, see R.J. Coggins and M. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 168–9. 64.  There is a textual issue surrounding the expression translated as ‘my son the Messiah’, but the Syrian version is to be followed at this point (as per also the Ethiopic, Armenian and Georgian witnesses), as opposed to the secondary Latin reading filius meus Iesus. See the notes and discussion in Stone, Fourth Ezra, 202, 207–8. 65.  Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 103. This seems also to undermine suggestions that the death of the messiah in 4 Ezra 7:29 reflects Christian redaction. For further discussion, see Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn, 133–4; and G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 370–1. On the composition of this passage, see Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 120 n. 160. 66.  See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 209. There seems to be a partial similarity between the messiah’s not playing an ultimate role in God’s cosmic dominion in 4 Ezra and the view in 1 Corinthians 15 that in the end Christ would ‘hand over the kingdom to God the Father [εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί]’ (1 Cor 15:24-25). In 1 Cor 15:27-28, it is said that God would ‘subject everything’ under the messiah’s feet [πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ] (1 Cor 15:27; cf. Pss 8:7; 110:1), so that the ‘Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all [τότε (καὶ) αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς (τὰ) πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν]’ (1 Cor 15:28). See Novenson, Christ, 143–6. 67.  Cf. M.E. Stone, ‘Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion’, JSJ 12 (1981): 200–4.

2. Pseudepigrapha

71

That said, the figure referred to as messiah in 4 Ezra 7 is also called God’s son, which anticipates the function attributed to the man from the sea in 4 Ezra 13 and leaves no doubt that the same person is in view in both chapters.68 The second instance where the messiah appears is in 4 Ezra 12. Following the vision in 4 Ezra 11, wherein ‘a creature like a lion’ (4 Ezra 11:37) pronounces judgement against ‘an eagle’ that ‘gained control over the whole earth, and with much oppression dominated its inhabitants’ (4 Ezra 11:32), 4 Ezra 12:31-34 explains that the lion is the messiah: 12:31 12:32

12:33 12:34

And as for the lion whom you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking to the eagle and reproving him for his unrighteousness, and as for all his words that you have heard, this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For he will set them living in judgement, and when he has reproved them, then he will destroy them. But he will deliver in mercy the remnant of my people, those who have been saved throughout my borders, and he will make them joyful until the end comes, the day of judgement, of which I spoke to you at the beginning.

By judging and destroying the wicked69 the messiah would liberate God’s people so that they live ‘joyful until the end comes’. The text of 4 Ezra 12 therefore presents a hope that is in keeping with some aspects of classic Davidic messianism, though its messiah is overall distinct from the one attested in Psalm of Solomon 17.70 It is true that the expression ‘the Most High has kept [the messiah] until the end of days’ probably refers to the preexistence of the messiah.71 But the evidence precludes the conclusion 68.  Cf. K.M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra, JSJSup 130 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 195–8. 69.  The messiah’s enemies are the Romans. See Stone, ‘Messiah in 4 Ezra’, 216. 70.  Cf. Stone, ‘Concept of the Messiah’, 302. Stuckenbruck (‘Messianic’, 105) notes that, unlike Psalms of Solomon 17, the eschatology of 4 Ezra sees ‘a clear break between the past, which belongs to this age, and the future, which belongs to a different order of things’. 71.  Stone, ‘Messiah in 4 Ezra’, 217–20; idem, Features of Eschatology, 97; idem, Fourth Ezra, 210. See also Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic Ideas’, 107; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 97; Collins, Scepter, 210.

72

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

that the motif of Davidic kingship is downplayed in the eschatological thought of 4 Ezra: in keeping with Ps 2:9, the one ‘from the posterity of David’ would still destroy his enemies in Mount Zion (cf. 4 Ezra 12:33-35).72 In contrast to the Enochic Son of man, therefore, the messiah in 4 Ezra is more explicitly a Davidide, even if he is also believed to be preexistent.73 Like the Similitudes of Enoch, however, 4 Ezra qualifies the scriptural traditions speaking of the Davidic king in terms of the Danielic ‘one like a son of man’.74 As Stuckenbruck concludes, in 4 Ezra 13 the reader is expected to realize that ‘ “Messiah” was in itself no longer sufficient; he [that is, the author of 4 Ezra] found it necessary to use more comprehensive, far-reaching, though still related, designations’.75 Before addressing whether and how 4 Ezra envisions the place of the temple institution in the messianic kingdom, it is worth mentioning the way the messiah is portrayed in a subsequent, related Apocalypse – namely, 2 Baruch.76 In resemblance to 4 Ezra, this book is thoroughly concerned with questions surrounding theodicy.77 It says that the messiah would ‘begin to be revealed’ after the time of tribulation initiated with the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Bar. 29:3; cf. 1:1-5) and ‘return in glory’ when the time of his appearance is fulfilled so as to inaugurate the age of resurrection (2 Bar. 30:1).78 The language in these passages suggests the idea of preexistence.79 With regards to the specific function of such a figure, 72.  Thus, I find Stone’s assertion (‘Messiah in 4 Ezra’, 219) an overstatement: ‘He [that is, the author of 4 Ezra] very much downplayed the Messiah’s role as king’. Granted that the messiah’s role as judge is more strongly emphasized, the evidence supporting his functioning as the eschatological king is quite compelling. 73.  As Stone (Fourth Ezra, 210) notes, the idea of preexistence and the Davidic lineage of the messiah are not mutually exclusive in Jewish Apocalyptic thought. 74.  Cf. Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 97. 75.  Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 108. So also Collins, Scepter, 213–14: ‘Danielic imagery could be applied to the royal messiah to give him a more heavenly, transcendent character than is apparent in other sources. In short, “royal messiah” and “Son of Man” were not mutually exclusive concepts.’ 76.  For discussion on the original language and date of 2 Baruch, see A.F.J. Klijn, ‘2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch’, in OTP, 615–17. For the text of 2 Baruch, I follow the translation by Klijn, passim. 77.  Stone, ‘Reactions’, 195–200. 78.  See further discussion in Klausner, Messianic, 332–9. 79.  Pace Müller, Messias, 142–4. Despite claims that the messiah’s ‘return’ recalls Ps. Sol. 18:5, the wider context of 2 Baruch associates such an event with the idea of preexistence of the eschatological ruler, a theme completely absent from the Psalms of Solomon. See Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 109 n. 38.

2. Pseudepigrapha

73

2 Bar. 39:1–40:4 borrows imagery from Daniel 7,80 and expresses the hope that the messiah would both convict the ruler of the ‘fourth kingdom’ and kill him in Mount Zion (2 Bar. 40:1-2; cf. 4 Ezra 13:35). The main theme in 2 Baruch is that of God’s final revenge and dominion over against his enemies, but the fact that the messiah is expected to condemn and destroy the pagan oppressors in Jerusalem also recalls the picture of the Davidic king in Psalm 2. Indeed, the theme of the messiah’s kingship is repeated in 2 Bar. 70:9–73:1, where he is not only called ‘my Servant’ (2 Bar. 70:9; cf. Ps 89:20, 26-27), but is further envisaged to engage in war-like activity against the nations (2 Bar. 72:1-6), just before he sits ‘in eternal peace on the throne of the kingdom’ (2 Bar. 73:1).81 Accordingly, it is said that the messiah ‘will call all nations, and some of them he will spare, and others he will kill’ (2 Bar. 72:2), and that the nations that ruled over Israel ‘will be delivered up to the sword’ (2 Bar. 72:6). The messianic picture of 2 Baruch resembles that of 4 Ezra, but perhaps even more similar is the common belief underlying their references to the restoration of Jerusalem (cf. 4 Ezra 7:26; 10:25-59; 2 Bar. 4:2-6; 6:3-9; cf. 2 Bar. 59:4; 80:2). The fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE is explained in the two books by means of an analogy with the fate of the First Temple (cf. 4 Ezra 3:1-2; 2 Bar. 1:1-5; 4:1),82 and as a response to this calamity, both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch aspire for the rebuilding of the Holy City. Thus, following Ezra’s lament over the devastation of Jerusalem, an event symbolized in the vision of 4 Ezra 10:1-28 by a woman who had lost her only child, 4 Ezra 10:50 speaks of the transfiguration of Mount Zion into a glorious place. The text is silent as to how exactly this would be achieved, but Michael Stone infers from the image of the rebuilt Zion as a ‘mountain carved out without hands’ in 4 Ezra 13:36 that a heavenly Jerusalem is in view in 4 Ezra 10:50 (also 4 Ezra 8:52).83 In fact, 4 Ezra 7:26 strongly supports this idea, as it says: ‘For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come, that the city which now is not seen shall appear, and the land which now is hidden shall be disclosed’.84 This passage is relevant, given that it occurs just before the text speaks of the revelation and death of the messiah (cf. 4 Ezra 7:28-29).

80.  Stuckenbruck, ‘Messianic’, 110. 81.  Klijn, ‘2 Baruch’, 618. 82.  Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 166–7. 83.  Stone, Fourth Ezra, 403. See also H. Najman, Losing the Temple and Recov­ er­ing the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 16–17, 109–10. 84.  Stone, Fourth Ezra, 213–14.

74

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

What one finds in 4 Ezra, therefore, is the notion that a new, heavenly Jerusalem would be establishment at the time of the messianic revelation. That the new Jerusalem is from heaven is even more blatant in 2 Bar. 4:1-3: 4:1 And the Lord said to me: This city will be delivered up for a time, And the people will be chastened for a time, And the world will not be forgotten. 4:2 Or do you think that this is the city of which I said: On the palm of my hands I have carved you? 4:3 It is not this building that is in your midst now; it is that which will be revealed, with me, that was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned. But when he transgressed the commandment, it was taken away from him – as also Paradise.

Especially pertinent for my purposes is that this kind of expectation allows the author of 2 Baruch to claim that the holy utensils of the First Temple are hidden until the complete restoration of Jerusalem in order to replace what was lost in the fall of the Second Temple. Hence, 2 Bar. 6:7-9 says: 6:7

And I saw that he [that is, the angel] descended in the Holy of Holies and that he took from there the veil, the holy ephod, the mercy seat, the two tables, the holy raiment of the priests, the altar of incense, the forty-eight precious stones with which the priests were clothed, and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle. 6:8 And he said to the earth with a loud voice: Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, and receive the things which I commit to you, and guard them until the last times, so that you may restore them when you are ordered, so that strangers may not get possession of them. 6:9 For the time has arrived when Jerusalem will also be delivered up for a time, until the moment that it will be said that it will be restored forever.

Neither the oracle in 2 Baruch 4 nor the vision of 2 Baruch 6 appears in the immediate context where the messiah is depicted, which may again indicate that no one was expected to be directly responsible for the rebuilding of the Holy City apart from God himself. Yet, these passages provide clear evidence that 2 Baruch was thoroughly concerned with the restoration both of Mount Zion and its sacred temple.

2. Pseudepigrapha

75

In sum, the thrust of the texts speaking of a new Zion in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch is to mitigate the utter distress experienced by the Jews in the late first century CE.85 Both documents develop a kind of theodicy that grapples with the fact that the Jerusalem institution, so central an element for the self-understanding of many Jews from the Second Temple period,86 was no longer a present reality. Against the backdrop of the gloomy events of 70 CE, neither of the two books completely abandon the ancient hopes for the coming of an eschatological ruler, and 2 Baruch in particular clearly envisages the restoration of the temple as well. If Stone is correct to posit that the communities behind 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were ‘socially coherent enough to cultivate a common tradition…that was clearly at home in the Judaism of the period following the destruction’,87 then one may additionally suggest that what is conspicuous regarding the temple in the latter is likely also implicit in the former. Be that as it may, 2 Baruch very explicitly attests to a post-70 CE tradition that was not willing to let go of the notion that the temple would be absolutely central in the eschaton. Both documents unequivocally envision a new Jerusalem; and a new temple – with a new priesthood and all its paraphernalia (cf. 2 Bar. 6:7) – was very much looked forward to at least in 2 Baruch. It would be a heavenly temple, to be sure, but a temple built in Mount Zion nonetheless. As it turns out, the eschatological deliverer of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch would be a perfect fit for this picture – not only would he come ‘from the posterity of David’, but also be a heavenly, preexistent figure. Conclusion The picture that emerges from the above discussion confirms the wellestablished scholarly understanding that the royal messiah was expected to be an agent of deliverance, who would liberate Israel from the yoke of the Gentile nations. But it is especially relevant that Psalm of Solomon 17 not only emphasizes the ideal character of the king – he would act in accordance with Isaiah 11, Psalm 2 and Deuteronomy 17 – it also hints at his stance towards the Jerusalem priesthood. While the Psalm is silent regarding the precise interaction between the Son of David and the priests, 85.  Stone, ‘Reactions’, 198–204. See also B. Nitzan, ‘Apocalyptic Ideas in 4 Ezra in Comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: International Studies, ed. G. Boccaccini and J.M. Zurawski, LSTS 87 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 30–1. 86.  See Schürer, History, 1:193ff.; VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 43ff. 87.  Stone, ‘Messiah in 4 Ezra’, 219.

76

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the imagery paralleled in 1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicles 9 looks forward to the cleansing of the Holy City and its temple institution. How such a purification would be enacted and how exactly the priesthood would function under the messianic rule, we are not told. Likewise, the books of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch associate the future restoration of Jerusalem with the rule of the end-time king, and particularly the latter envisages the temple apparatus to be kept safe until the restoration of the Holy City in the eschatological age (2 Bar. 6:7-9). It is not exactly discernible what role the messiah would play at that time, as God himself is believed to be responsible for the rebuilding of Mount Zion. Yet, the new Jerusalem would be a heavenly city when the messiah comes, with the temple institution firmly established in its centre. By way of synthesizing my argument both here and in the previous chapter, it must be stressed that none of the sources reflects the belief that the royal messiah would act as the high priest, even less that the priestly office itself would be deemed redundant in the messianic kingdom. In fact, the only messiah texts from the late Second Temple period which borrow from the scriptural ideology of kingship and yet make no suggestion of a renewed priestly class are 4Q252 and Similitudes. But nothing can be safely inferred from the absolute silence on these issues in 4Q252 and Similitudes anyway. It is also true that the relevant sources see the current Jerusalem establishment with a high degree of ambivalence – the Qumran community, for that matter, likely understood themselves to have momentarily superseded the official temple cult. Nevertheless, such a negative stance towards those occupying the Jerusalem office does not imply the downplaying of the importance of the priests in the eschaton, but rather the very affirmation of the sacredness of the Jewish priesthood. Even in the case of Psalm of Solomon 17, which is the most classic example of the aspiration for a kingly monarchy, the installation of a purified worship system was still very fervently looked forward to at the time Mount Zion would be delivered from the hands of the Gentile oppressors and their Jewish compromisers. The consistent pattern discovered in the foregoing analysis is that, whenever awaiting the coming of the eschatological king, the literature also anticipates the restoration of the Israelite worship system. Kingship and priesthood are complementary offices not only in the Scriptures but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. As it turns out, it is not only Qumran’s Rule of the Community and Damascus Document – wherein the messiah of Aaron obviously occupies a prominent place – which ascribe supreme importance to the priesthood in the end times. The Dead Sea Scrolls speak transparently of

2. Pseudepigrapha

77

eschatological Zadokite figures simply because this is what reflects the community’s priestly self-understanding. Yet, it is also true that the restoration of the temple institution is presupposed, even when the spotlights are solely on the end-time king. To speak of the royal messiah is therefore to envisage the defeat of Israel’s enemies, the purging of Jerusalem and the establishment of a pristine priestly class. Bearing these points in mind, we must now address whether Mark portrays Jesus as the royal messiah, and how the Jerusalem priests figure in relation to the main character of the Gospel.

Chapter 3 T h e M es s i a h s h i p of J e sus i n M a rk a n C h r i s tology

Having concluded that the Jewish sources from the late Second Temple period envisage the priestly institution to occupy a central place in the rule of the eschatological king, I must now establish the importance of royal messianism to Mark. Against the recurrent claim in modern scholarship that the earliest Gospel rejects royal ideology in describing Jesus, the burden of this chapter is to defend the long-standing case for messiahship being essentially a kingly category in Mark. This is not to say that Jesus plays the classic role of a militant king against the Gentile nations, as portrayed in the texts discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 above. It is my contention, however, that the motif of Jesus’s divine sonship derives from Psalm 2 and provides an instance of royal messianism. I also argue that, despite the apparent ambivalence about the designation ‘Son of David’, Jesus fulfils the role of Israel’s eschatological king in the patterns of OG Psalms 117 and 109. Divine Sonship as Royal Messianism in Mark Ever since the publication of the classic work by Wilhelm Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, in 1901,1 proponents of the religions­geschichtliche Schule have surmised that the theme of Jesus’s divine sonship in Mark derives from the Hellenistic conception of ‘divine man [θεῖος ἀνήρ]’.2 While Wrede himself never explicitly associates divine sonship with Hellenistic ideas, he argues that the declaration of Jesus as the divine son in Mark 1:9-11 conveys no political overtones, but rather

1.  ET: The Messianic Secret (Cambridge: Clarke, 1971). 2.  For references, see J.C. Naluparayil, ‘Jesus of the Gospel of Mark: Present State of Research’, CBR 8 (2000): 191–226; and D. Johansson, ‘The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals’, CBR 9 (2010): 364–93.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

79

his supernatural character.3 Picking up on such a claim, Rudolf Bultmann, Ferdinand Hahn and others have maintained that the title ‘Son of God [υἱός θεοῦ]’ betrays an allegedly widespread belief in heroes ‘engendrés par la divinité’.4 Bultmann, for instance, postulates a range of divine men in Hellenistic thought: some of them claimed to be descendants of the gods, others were regarded as saviours worthy of worship, and still others corresponded to Gnostic redeemers expected to ‘suffer a human fate’.5 Indeed, such a variety of conceptions has been the common assumption among those who advocate this view and, by the same token, the interpretative key to the language of divine sonship in the New Testament in general – so much so that even Hahn, though proposing a slight modification to Bultmann’s reconstruction, assumes these divine men to be found across the board in the Greco-Roman literature.6 In contrast to those who contend for a syncretistic interaction between Mark and the so-called divine men, others have claimed that the influence of pagan conceptions upon the Gospel had a reactionary outcome. This view, put forward most notably by Johannes Schreiber and Theodore Weeden, is the flip side of what Bultmann and Hahn propose: the 3.  Wrede, Messianic, 72–9. 4.  As A.-L. Descamps describes it (‘Pour une histoire du titre “Fils de Dieu” ’, in L’Évangile selon Marc: Tradition et rédaction, ed. M. Sabbe, BETL 34 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1971], 542). See also R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 121–33; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (London: Lutterworth, 1969), 287–319. Other representatives, though not agreeing on the extent to which a divine men conception influenced Mark, include: M. Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Marc (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1910), cxxxiv–cxl; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 37; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (London: Nicholson & Watson, 1934), 230; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937), 4; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952), 121; D.E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963), 47–9; W. Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 137. 5.  Bultmann, Theology, 130. For an earlier discussion on the concept of divine men in Hellenistic culture, see the two-volume work by L. Bieler, ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ. Das Bild des ‘göttlichen Menschen’ in Spätantike und Frühchristentum (Vienna: Höfels, 1935–36), especially, 1:2–5, 73–97, 129–41. 6.  Unlike Bultmann, Hahn (Titles, 288–306) attributes the origin of the confession of Jesus’s divine sonship to Hellenistic Judaism, which, albeit influenced by Hellenistic thought itself, was adapted according to a Jewish matrix. But Hahn follows the work of Bieler (see especially 288 n. 54).

80

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Christology of Mark counterbalances the impact of Hellenistic thought upon traditions believed to have circulated at the time the Gospel was composed.7 According to Schreiber, therefore, Mark integrates traditions speaking of the Son of God with a messianic secret so as to merge a putative divine man Christology with a theologia crucis.8 Weeden, for his part, suggests that Mark regards the idea of Jesus’s being a divine man as a heresy in need of correction in the light of the crucifixion.9 So both Schreiber and Weeden surmise that the cross-bearing nature of the messiah­ship of Jesus either qualifies or debunks the view that Jesus is portrayed as a divine man.

7.  Schreiber, ‘Christologie’, 154–83; and Weeden, ‘Heresy’, 45–58. See also H.D. Betz, ‘Jesus as Divine Man’, in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. F.T. Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 114–33; and P. Achtemeier, ‘Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae’, JBL 91 (1972): 198–221. 8.  Schreiber, ‘Christologie’, 158–9. I cannot delve into the problems surrounding the messianic secret in Mark. In addition to Wrede’s Das Messiasgeheimnis, see G.M. de Tillesse, Le secret messianique dans L’Evangile de Marc (Paris: Cerf, 1969); C.M. Tuckett, ed., The Messianic Secret (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); H. Räisänen, The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990); and D.F. Watson, Honor among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010). 9.  Weeden, ‘Heresy’, 145–8. See also N. Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 104–21, who proposes that Son of man corrects the notion that Jesus was Son of God; J.B. Tyson (‘The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark’, JBL 80 [1961]: 261–8), who claims that Mark was influenced by Paul and sought to attack the (alleged) hegemony of the biological family of Jesus within the ‘Jerusalemite Christianity’, by correcting ideas associated with Jesus’s Davidic kingship. Tyson follows the lead of E. Lohmeyer (Galiläa und Jerusalem [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936]) and S.G.F. Brandon (The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church [London: SPCK, 1951]) in some of his assumptions, particularly regarding the putative conflicting forms of Christianity. Contrary to this, Martin Hengel has shown that the evidence precludes anyone from sharply distinguishing different types of Christianity (Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity [Eugene: Wipe & Stock; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013], 30–47; and, idem, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. [London: SCM, 1974], passim), a point which may challenge the reconstruction proposed by Hahn as well – that the idea of divine sonship is indebted to a Hellenistic, over against a Palestinian, branch of Judaism. It is, further, implausible that an anti-Davidic idea could have derived from Paul, given that he took Jesus’s Davidic descent for granted (cf. Rom 1:3).

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

81

A number of scholars, however, have forcefully refuted the cogency of θεῖος ἀνήρ as a conceptual background to Mark.10 Already in 1972, for example, classical philologist Wülfing von Martitz demonstrated that the alleged ubiquity of various types of divine men, let alone the consistent use of the expression θεῖος ἀνήρ as a technicus terminus in pre-Christian Hellenistic thought, is untenable.11 The sweeping assertion by Bultmann – namely, the ‘Hellenistic period knows a whole series’ of divine men – lacks terminological precision and hence is guilty of oversimplifying the evidence.12 To problematize things further, the concept of divine man does not unquestionably predate Mark, and so the postulation of the decisive influence of the former upon the latter is likely anachronistic.13 Martin Hengel’s scolding comment on the assumption that a Gnostic redeemer myth significantly influenced the Christology of the New Testament is not entirely unjustified: ‘Here we have a typical example of a modern… development of a myth which either leaves the foundation of historical research, the chronology of sources, out of account, or manipulates it in an arbitrary fashion’.14 As for the theory put forward by Schreiber and Weeden, Jack Dean Kingsbury rightly notes that the instances wherein Jesus corrects his interlocutors’ understanding of his identity have nothing to do with abstractions regarding Hellenistic divine men, but rather, with the possibility of Jesus’s being John the Baptist redivivus or one of the Hebrew prophets (cf. Mark 6:14-16; 8:26-29).15 Besides, not only does 10.  For an incisive review of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule in general, see L.W. Hurtado, ‘Fashion, Fallacies and Future Prospects in New Testament Studies’, JSNT 36 (2014): 299–324. 11.  W. von Martitz, υἱός, TDNT 8 (1972): 334–40. See also O. Betz, ‘The Concept of the So-Called “Divine Man” in Mark’s Christology’, in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. D. Aune (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 229–40, who makes a similar point. 12.  Von Martitz, υἱός, 337–39. 13.  See H.C. Kee, ‘Aretalogy and Gospel’, JBL 92 (1973): 402–22; M. Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (London: SCM, 1976), 25–42; and B. Blackburn, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions, WUNT 2/40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 92–6. Cf. C. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism, SBLDS 40 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 236–41; J.R. Brady, Jesus Christ: Divine Man or Son of God? (Lanham: University Press of America, 1992). 14.  Hengel, Son of God, 33. 15.  Kingsbury, Christology, 42. Contra E. Trocmé, ‘Is There a Markan Christ­ ology?’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of C.F.D. Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 3–13, who believes that there is no christological unity in Mark; and G.

82

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Mark give a positive emphasis to Jesus’s divine sonship, it would be quite surprising that the evangelist painstakingly shaped his narrative just to respond to ideas which, as just noted, were not even widely attested by the time Mark was composed. These objections, of course, should not be taken so as to deny that the original audience of Mark may have understood Jesus’s divine sonship in terms of pagan categories familiar in a first-century Greco-Roman context. As Adela Yarbro Collins and more recently Michael Peppard have pointed out, Gentile readers of Mark could have interpreted Jesus’s divine sonship within plausibility structures that were not specifically Jewish.16 A notable example is the title ‘divi filius’, most prominent following the deification of Augustus in 42 BCE, which provides a non-Jewish linguistic antecedent for Son of God in Mark.17 In this regard, even if one follows Hengel’s conclusion that the ‘official, secular state religion was at best a negative stimulus, not a model’ for the Christian confession of the MacRae, ‘Messiah and Gospel’, in Neusner et al., eds., Judaisms and their Messiahs, 176, who claims that Mark reflects an ‘inner-Christian’ debate over the meaning of messiahship and intends to revise a ‘triumphalist Christology’ by portraying Jesus as Son of man. Mark’s Christology is indeed non-triumphalist, as the disciples are called to follow Jesus to the cross, but it is untenable to read Son of man as being in tension with other messianic categories in the Gospel, not least given that, on the cross, Jesus is declared Son of God (Mark 15:39). Pace also Donahue, Christ, 182–4, who believes that Mark prefers Son of man to Son of God. 16.  A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans’, HTR 93 (2000): 85–100; M. Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), especially 86–131. See also C.R. Moss, ‘The Transfiguration: An Exercise in Markan Accommodation’, BibInt 12 (2004): 69–89, who affirms the presence of Jewish motifs in the transfiguration story, but also sees elements of ‘Hellenistic epiphany stories’. Compare with H.C. Kee, ‘The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?’, in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings, ed. J. Reumann (Valley Forge: Judson, 1972), 135–52; O. Betz and W. Grimm, Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1977), 87; B. Chilton, ‘The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision’, NTS 27 (1980): 122ff.; and Blackburn, Theios Anēr, 117–24. 17.  Yarbro Collins (‘Greeks’, 94–7) cites Franz Josef Dölger (ΙΧΘΥΣ. Das Fischsymbol in frühchristlicher Zeit [Rome: Spithover, 1910], 1:391) and Simon Price (‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult’, JHS 104 [1984]: 79) on a bilingual inscription from the first century CE, and follows their contention that θεοῦ υἱός could stand for, among other things, the Latin title divi filius in the Greco-Roman world roughly contemporary to the New Testament.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

83

identity of Jesus,18 it is by no means far-fetched to assume that a Gentile audience may have associated υἱός θεοῦ in Mark with divi filius in the Roman imperial cult.19 Whether non-Jewish Christians read the Gospel through the lenses of their own mythical worldview, however, raises an altogether different set of questions than the ones I propose to address here. In any case, the evidence for divine sonship as a discourse for royal messianism is quite strong in late Second Temple Judaism. As pointed out in Chapter 1, 4Q174 1–2 I, 10-12 speaks of a royal messiah who would also possess the status of divine son: ‘ “I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom [fore]ver. I myself will be to him as a father, and he will be to me as a son (2 Sam 7:10-14)”. He is the Branch of David (Jer 23:5), who will arise with the Interpreter of the Law.’ The same document cites Ps 2:1-2 just a few lines later and thus seems to expect the Davidic Branch to overthrow the pagan nations (4Q174 1–2 I, 18-19). If the language of ‘begetting [‫ ’]יוליד‬in the otherwise fragmentary piece in 1QSa 2:11-12 refers to God’s relation to the messiah, then we have an additional instance where the Davidic king is also regarded as the divine son in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference is that the wording in 1QSa 2.11-12 does not derive directly from 2 Sam 7:10-14, but more clearly from Ps 2:7: ‘today I have begotten you [‫( ’]אני היום ילדתיך‬Ps 2:7; cf. OG Ps 109:3: ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε).20 Similarly, as discussed in Chapter 2, 4 Ezra (7 and 13), while thoroughly indebted to conceptions deriving from the book of Daniel, also evokes some of the biblical promises pertaining to the Davidic king and likewise portrays the messiah as the divine son.21 Furthermore, though the Son of David in Psalm of Solomon 17 is never called Son of God, the theme of divine sonship is still present as the eschatological king not only represents those who are called ‘children of God [υἱοὶ θεοῦ]’ (Ps. Sol. 17:27), but also follows the pattern of Ps 2:9 by crushing Israel’s enemies (Ps. Sol. 17:23-24). 18.  Hengel, Son of God, 30. 19.  Horbury (Messianism, 68–77) sees similarities between Jewish perspectives on kingship and Gentile royal ideologies in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that it betrays the influence of Hellenistic concepts (see also J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, WUNT 2/76 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995]). But Yarbro Collins and Collins (King and Messiah, 54–62) are critical of such a line of interpretation. See further J.J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, JSJSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 58–81. 20.  Cf. Yarbro Collins, ‘Jews’, 404. 21.  In the later passage T. Levi 18:6-13, one also finds a reference to the fatherly voice of God so as to describe the coming of the messiah.

84

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Given the examples above, Yarbro Collins herself settles with the fact that, regardless of what an early Gentile reader may have thought of when encountering the term ‘Son of God’, the origin of the epithet in Mark is undoubtedly to be found in the Jewish messianic idiom.22 And Peppard, though primarily placing the motif of divine sonship in the Roman context, likewise recognizes the sonship of Israelite monarchs in the backdrop to Mark.23 That the earliest Gospel presents Jesus in messianic terms is clear from its very first verse, which states that the good news the narrative bears is about the messiah: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.24 The term ‘messiah [χριστός]’ occurs six other times in Mark (cf. Mark 8:29; 9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:31), five of which speak of the identity of Jesus (except for Mark 13:21). What is more, Mark conspicuously portrays the juxtaposition of messianic hope with divine sonship in one of the highest points in the narrative – namely, the trial scene (Mark 14:61-63).25 There the high priest asks Jesus, ‘are you the messiah, the Son of the Blessed [σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ]?’, to which the latter responds affirmatively. This proves that in the story world of Mark ‘messiah’ and ‘Son of God’ belong to the same lexical pool, in resemblance to 4Q174, 1QSa and 4 Ezra.26 The pairing of divine sonship and the term ‘messiah’ is strongly attested in the Jewish Scriptures also, not least in Psalm 2 (see also Psalm 89). This is vital because it is widely agreed that Psalm 2 is the text alluded to when 22.  Yarbro Collins, ‘Greeks’, 100. 23.  Peppard, Son of God, 106: ‘many scholars are correct to see the adoptive sonship of Israelite kings as a background to understand the narrative characterization of Jesus’ divine sonship’. Peppard’s argument for the motif of adoption in Mark is a tour de force (see 124–31), but it remains debatable whether Jesus’s baptism in Mark assumes such an idea. As R.T. France observes, the expression ‘today I have begotten you’ from Ps 2:7 is absent in Mark 1:11 (The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 82). Yarbro Collins (Mark, 150) herself states that the idea of adoption is completely absent in the scriptural text alluded to in Mark 1:11. 24.  On the secondary character of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1, see Chapter 4 below. 25.  N. Perrin, ‘The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology’, in The Interpretation of Mark, ed. W.R. Telford (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 128. 26.  Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 704–5. Pace Kingsbury, Christology, 14–15; and W.R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38, who seem to downplay the messianic overtones of divine sonship in Mark. Cf. I.H. Marshall, ‘The Divine Sonship of Jesus’, Int 21 (1967): 99–100; N. Perrin, ‘The Creative Use of Son of Man Traditions in Mark’, USQR 23 (1967–68): 358; de Jonge, Christology, 57–63; and J.R. Edwards, ‘The Baptism of Jesus according to the Gospel of Mark’, JETS 34 (1991): 57.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

85

God himself calls Jesus ‘my son’ in Mark 1:11 (as per also Mark 9:7).27 The baptism of Jesus happens just a few lines after the opening verse of the Gospel and tells us that Jesus, having been baptised by John, sees the tearing of the heavens and the descending of the spirit upon him (Mark 1:9-10). Then, ‘a voice came from the heavens: “You are my beloved son, in you I am well-pleased” [φωνὴ ἐγένετο28 ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα]’ (Mark 1:11). While the first half of the divine utterance does not repeat Ps 2:7 ipsis litteris, it attributes to Jesus what is said of the Davidic king in the Old Testament passage.29 Indeed, Ps 2:7 is the only place in the Scriptures where God himself says to an individual, ‘my son you are [‫( ’]בני אתה‬cf. υἱός μου εἶ σύ in the OG), which strongly suggests the intertextual connection.30 The identification of Jesus with the divine sonship of the Davidic king in Ps 2:7 is further bolstered by its close association with the motif of the kingdom of God in Mark. The thrust of the psalm is to speak of Yahweh’s 27.  Taylor, Mark, 162; Lindars, Apologetic, 140 n. 2; P. Vielhauer, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 205; Matera, Kingship, 77; Rowe, God’s Son, 248–9; France, Mark, 80; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 150. 28.  B. Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [London: UBS, 1971], 63) concludes that the omission of the verb ἐγένετο in ‫*א‬, D, Θ, 28 and 565, for example, was ‘either accidental or in partial imitation’ of Matt 3:17, and the addition of ἠκούσθη in Θ, 28 and 565 is ‘clearly a scribal improvement’. 29.  I.H. Marshall (‘Son of God or Servant of Yahweh? – A Reconsideration of Mark 1:11’, NTS 15 [1969]: 333) suggests that σὺ εἶ in the beginning of the utterance indicates emphasis. Though this is possible, H.-J. Steichele (Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums, Biblische Untersuchungen 14 [Regensburg: Pustet, 1980], 136–7 n. 104) notes that Mark 8:29 has a similar wording, but there the emphasis lies on the messiah. See Marcus, Way, 51 n. 11. 30.  See Steichele, Sohn, 147; and Edwards, ‘Baptism’, 52–3. Pace P.G. Bretcher, ‘Exodus 4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven’, JBL 87 (1968): 301–11, who believes that ‘my son’ stands for Israel. While Bretcher is correct that Israel is called ‘my son’ in Exod 4:22, ‫ בני אתה‬is only attested in Ps 2:7. Psalm 2 is not the only text evoked by the heavenly voice, since the second half of the saying – ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα – likely derives from Isa 42:1 (as per προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου in the OG; and ‫בחירי‬ ‫ רצתה נפשׁי‬in the MT), as observed more than a century ago by G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 276–80, but it is the allusion to Ps 2:7 that is particularly consequential for my purposes. See also Marcus, Way, 49–58; and Watts, New Exodus, 102–18. Noting the allusion to Isaiah in Mark 1:11, Wilhelm Bousset (Kyrios, 57 n. 2), Oscar Cullmann (The Christology of the New Testament [London: SCM, 1959], 66), Barnabas Lindars (Apologetic, 139–40) and Joachim Jeremias (New Testament Theology, 2 vols., [London: SCM, 1971], 1:53–5) have

86

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

victory over those who take their stand ‘against the Lord and against his messiah [κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ; ‫’]על־יהוה ועל־משׁיחו‬ (Ps 2:2).31 Yahweh himself is the one sitting ‘in the heavens’, scorning his enemies from his throne (Ps 2:4).32 Within this context, the Davidic king is declared the divine son, the primary agent of Yahweh’s dominion in Zion (Ps 2:6-7). Mark, in turn, describes ‘the gospel [τό εὐαγγέλιον]’ announced by Jesus as pertaining to ‘the kingdom of God [ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ]’ (Mark 1:15). The reference to τό εὐαγγέλιον in Mark 1:15 picks up on ‘the beginning of the gospel of Jesus the messiah [Αρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] in Mark 1:1, and the theme of the kingdom of God coheres with the imagery of Yahweh’s heavenly enthronement in Ps 2:4.33 Such interrelated themes from Psalm 2 possibly informed Mark’s telling of the transfiguration scene as well, where Jesus, having been recognized as the messiah by Peter (cf. Mark 8:29), speaks once more of the kingdom of God (Mark 9:1) right before he is declared the beloved son by God himself the second time in the narrative (Mark 9:7).34 claimed that υἱός substitutes for παῖς, allegedly original in pre-Markan tradition (as per ὁ παῖς μου in OG Isa 42:1; and ‫ עבדי‬in the MT). Yet, Howard Marshall (‘Son of God’, 326–36) has offered a sustained critique of this view, by pointing out that, first, the combination of different scriptural texts, as terse as it may seem in Mark 1:11, is characteristic of Mark (cf. Mark 1:2-3; 14:62; see also Chapter 4 below), and, second, a straightforward correspondence between the Hebrew ‫ עבד‬and the Greek word υἱός encounters no attestation in the literature that might have informed the evangelist. Recently, Robert Rowe (God’s Son, 249) has also shown that the putative substitution of a υἱός-Christology for a παῖς-Christology, the occurrence of which could have bolstered an original-παῖς-Christology theory, cannot be established as a plausible redactional tendency in the New Testament as a whole (cf. Acts 3:13-26; 4:27-30). See further Juel, Exegesis, 119–33. On Mark’s conflation of scriptural texts, see Kee, ‘Function’, 181. 31.  Cf. T. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 262; L. Klein, ‘Zur Auslegung von Psalm 2: Ein Beitrag zum Thema: Gewalt und Gewaltlosgkeit’, TBei 10 (1979): 63–71; P.C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Waco: Word, 1983), 66. 32.  Cf. H.-J. Kraus, Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1951), 69. 33.  Cf. Steichele, Sohn, 147–53; Marcus, Way, 66–9, 202; J.J.M. Roberts, ‘The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms’, CBQ 64 (2002): 679–80. 34.  See further A.M. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel, CBQMS 2 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972), 23; J. Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, SBLDS 90 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986), 54.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

87

In contrast to 4Q174 1–2 I, 18-19 and Ps. Sol. 17:23-24, to be sure, Mark does not ascribe a bellicose character to the messiah.35 On the contrary, when the narrative alludes to Ps 2:7 in Mark 9:7, the disciples are exhorted to interpret the testimony of the heavenly voice in the light of the sufferings of the Son of man (Mark 9:12; cf. 8:31).36 The crucifixion of Jesus is thus the hermeneutical linchpin of his identity vis-à-vis classic royal messianism. As the climactic confession of the Roman centurion at Golgotha suggests, only in the light of the cross can a human being fully recognize that Jesus ‘truly [ἀληθῶς]’ is ‘Son of God [υἱὸς θεοῦ]’ (Mark 15:39).37 Moreover, if Jesus’s divine sonship evokes Psalm 2, this is not to say that ‘messiahship’ is a category that exhausts the nature of his deeds throughout the narrative. In fact, many have come to agree that Jesus exercises a kind of authority which, to a typical first-century Jew, surpassed that of any human figure.38 Be that as it may, Mark relays his narrative as, among other things, the inauguration of the kingdom of God,

35.  Howard Clark Kee (‘Function’, 181) sees in 4Q174 a precedent for the conflict of the Markan Son of God against the Satanic entities. Yet, though 4Q174 connotes events of superhuman magnitude, the hope for the messiah’s performing of individual exorcisms on common people, both in the Synagogue (e.g., Mark 1:23-26) and elsewhere among the Gentiles (e.g., Mark 5:1-13), is missing in the Scrolls. D.C. Duling (‘Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David’, HTR 68 [1975]: 235–52) and Bruce Chilton (‘Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage’, JSNT 14 [1982]: 88–112), for their part, have claimed that many understood Jesus’s casting out of demons as proof that he was to be regarded as the Son of David, according to traditions speaking of the healing activities of Solomon. But such a theory falls to the ground with respect to Mark, given that nowhere in the Gospel does the epithet Son of David, let alone Solomon, appear in the context of Jesus’s activity as an exorcist. On the motif of exorcism in Mark, see E.F. Kirschner, ‘The Place of the Exorcism Motif in Mark’s Christology, with Special Reference to Mark 3:22-30’ (PhD diss., London Bible College, 1988). 36.  So also Watts, ‘Psalms’, 29. 37.  See further discussion in Chapter 5 below. Cf. R. Tannehill, ‘The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology’, Semeia 16 (1979): 88; Juel, ‘Origin’, 449–60; M.A. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 122–3; and Marcus, Way, 69. 38.  Compare Marcus, Way, 37–41, 70, 141–5; Blackburn, Theios Anēr, 133–52; E. Boring, ‘Markan Christology: God-Language for Jesus?’, NTS 45 (1999): 451–71; L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 283–315; Gathercole, Preexistent, 273–6; D. Johansson, ‘Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark: Unity and Distinction’ (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011), 211–12; and Hays, Backwards, 17–34.

88

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

brought about by the divine son in the pattern of Psalm 2.39 To speak of the Son of God in the story world of Mark is irreducibly, therefore, to speak of Israel’s eschatological king. The Son of David and the Kingship of Jesus in Mark In addition to the thoroughgoing emphasis on the divine sonship of Jesus, the term ‘Son of David [υἱὸς Δαυίδ]’ appears twice in Mark. The problem is that these passages have often been taken as displaying Jesus’s negative stance towards royal ideology. In Mark 10:46-52, Bartimaeus addresses Jesus as υἱὲ Δαυίδ, but the latter demonstrates no clear reaction to the use of the Davidic title. In Mark 12:35-37, the passage known as the Davidssohnfrage, Jesus openly questions the epithet υἱὸς Δαυίδ as an adequate designation for the messiah, thus giving the impression that Jesus should be distanced from the figure of David. Accordingly, Bultmann and others, most notably Paul Achtemeier, Ernest Best and recently Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, have suggested that Jesus understates, if not completely rejects, the title Son of David.40 Achtemeier, for example, who provides the most detailed argument for this view, contends that, while the Davidic epithet shows very little redactional influence in Mark 10:46-52, v. 51 equates the expression with the somewhat mundane term ‘master [ῥαββουνί]’, which implies the diminishing of the Davidic title: ‘because it [Son of David] was already in the [pre-Markan] story, which Mark for other reasons wanted to use here, Mark included it, but thereafter arranged his material in such a way that its negative valence becomes clear’.41 As for Mark 12:35-37, wherein Jesus questions the adequacy of the scribal description of the messiah as Son of David – according to OG Ps 109:1, 39.  Juel, Messiah, 77–116; F. Matera, What Are they Saying about Mark? (Mahwah: Paulist, 1987), 37; Marcus, Way, 61; Hurtado, Lord, 101–8; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 123–48. 40.  R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 149 (and 213, wherein Bultmann downplays the significance of the title Son of David in Mark 10:46-52); P. Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed him”: Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10:46-52’, Semeia 11 (1978): 115–45; E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), 140; E.S. Malbon, ‘The Jesus of Mark and “Son of David” ’, in Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation, ed. E.S. Malbon (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 162–85; eadem, Jesus, 118–21. 41.  Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed” ’, 131. See also E. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 305–7, who believes that Son of David reflects the blindness of Bartimaeus.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

89

David calls him ‘lord’ – Achtemeier asserts that ‘Mark does not think the Messiah, and for him that means Jesus, is of Davidic descent’.42 Malbon takes a step further and proposes that Jesus altogether rejects ‘king’ as an appropriate description of himself: ‘Perhaps the Markan Gospel is as antikingship in its orientation as the anti-monarchical strand of tradition in the David stories in the Hebrew Bible’.43 Even though Jesus never speaks of himself as the Son of David, however, there is abundant evidence indicating that Mark presents him in royal terms. The story in Mark 10:46-52 reads as follows: 10:46 10:47 10:48 10:49 10:50 10:51 10:52 10:46

Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ. Καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν· υἱὲ Δαυὶδ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλέησόν με. καὶ ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ· ὁ δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν με. καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· φωνήσατε αὐτόν. καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε. ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω; ὁ δὲ τυφλὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββουνί, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. Now, he [Jesus] came to Jericho. And when he was leaving Jericho, and also his disciples and a large crowd, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting beside the way.

42.  Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed” ’, 130. 43.  Malbon, ‘Jesus’, 179 (my italics); eadem, Jesus, 121. See also Tyson, ‘Blindness’, 266; Kelber, Kingdom, 95. An altogether different proposal has been put forward by Chilton (‘ben David’, 88–112), who follows the work of Duling (‘Solomon’, 235–52) and contends that the Davidssohnfrage is an attempt at deflecting suspicions that Jesus was a messianic figure. As one performing therapeutic miracles, that is, Jesus would have been associated with Son of David via Solomonic traditions. In this sense, Jesus fully accepted the use of the Davidic designation for himself, but tried to separate it from messianic overtones while teaching in Jerusalem. He wanted to delay the accusations from his opponents that he claimed messianic status. The problem, however, is that there is no indication in the text of Mark that Jesus is trying to separate Son of David from messianic connotations (see the cogent critique in Marcus, Way, 151–2). For the most recent treatment of the relation between the epithet ‘Son of David’ and Jesus’s healing activities, see Le Donne, Jesus, 137–83.

90

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood 10:47 10:48 10:49 10:50 10:51 10:52

And, having heard, ‘It is Jesus the Nazarene’, he began to cry out and to say: ‘Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me!’ But many were rebuking him so that he should be silent. But he began to cry out even more: ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Then Jesus stood and said: ‘Call him’. So they called the blind man, saying to him: ‘Take heart; stand up; he calls you’. So he threw off his garment, jumped up and came to Jesus. Then Jesus answered and said: ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ And the blind man said to him: ‘Master, that I should receive sight’. Then Jesus told him: ‘Go; your faith has saved you’. And immediately he received sight. And he followed him on the way.

Though this is the first occurrence of Son of David in the entire narrative,44 its location in the pericope closing Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem is strategic (cf. Mark 10:32). It is transparent that, when read in the context of Jesus’s imminent arrival into the city of David, the repetition of the epithet in vv. 47 and 48 makes a positive messianic point.45 The story of the healing of Bartimaeus also suggests that an utterly mistaken confession of Jesus could not have produced the faith that resulted in restoration.46 The blind man’s insistence that the one whom the crowd understands to be Jesus the Nazarene is actually Jesus the Son of David accentuates the fact that Bartimaeus’s trust rests on Jesus’s messianic status. Christoph Burger is hence correct to follow the interpretation proposed by Hahn and to note: ‘Die Anrede “Sohn Davids” hat in Mark 10,47 und 48 also nicht 44.  On the original form and the authenticity of the passage, see C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 129, and the further references cited therein. 45.  This is true even granting Achtemeier’s point that the main thrust of the story lies on the faith of Bartimaeus rather than on the identity of Jesus. It is, after all, in the Son of David that Bartimaeus believes. See Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed” ’, 118–9. Cf. Taylor, Mark, 449; E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 128; K. Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Munich: Kösel, 1970), 180. 46.  See C.D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 123–32. So Chilton: ‘Jesus is portrayed as countermanding the attempt of the crowd to repress his being addressed with the cry “David’s son” (Matt 20.31-32; Mark 10.48-49; Luke 18.39-40) and as confirming the identification by healing the man’ (‘ben David’, 101). The passage thus poses some serious difficulties to the claim that the epithet is rejected (cf. B. van Iersel, ‘Fils de David et Fils de Dieu’, in La Venue du Messie: Messianisme et Eschatologie, ed. E. Massaux et al., RechBib 6 [Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962], 116–17).

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

91

nur messianologischen, sondern bereits christologischen Klang’.47 The silence of Jesus is no doubt puzzling, but one should not overstate the pejorative force of ῥαββουνί, as Achtemeier does, since it is not obvious that the term – or its Greek equivalent διδάσκαλος – always implies a negative christological sense in Mark (cf. Mark 12:14, 19; 14:45; but see 4:38; 9:5, 17, 38; 10:17, 20, 35; 11:21; 12:32; 13:1).48 If the blindman’s confession stands in contrast to anything in the passage, it is not Jesus’s alleged non-royal identity, but rather the ‘many’ who rebuke the man in v. 48. Further, Mark 10:46-52 forms an inclusio with the two-stage healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26,49 and thus illustrates what discipleship, a theme so prominent in ‘the way’ section in Mark 8–10, is all about: in resemblance to Peter and the apostles in Caesarea Philippi, Bartimaeus recognizes the messianic character of Jesus and, having been healed by the Son of David, the healed man immediately follows Jesus ‘on the way’ of his climactic entry into the Holy City (Mark 10:52).50 It is precisely because nowhere in the narrative prior to Mark 10:46-52 does Son of David appear with reference to Jesus, therefore, that the designation plays a crucial role, by anticipating Jesus’s arrival into Jerusalem 47.  Burger, Jesus, 46. See also Hahn, Titles, 252; V.K. Robbins, ‘The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the Marcan Theology’, JBL 92 (1973): 225–42; L.W. Hurtado, Mark: Based on the New International Version, NIBC 2 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983), 175; M.D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark, BNTC (London: Black, 1991), 252; S.H. Smith, ‘The Function of the Son of David Tradition in Mark’s Gospel’, NTS 42 (1996): 527; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 506. 48.  See Kingsbury, Christology, 106. See also E. Lohse, ‘Rabbi’, TDNT 6 (1968): 964. As Hooker also remarks: ‘ῥαββουνί, lit., “my rabbi”, [is] a more reverential form of address than the more common word “rabbi” used by Peter in 9.5 and 11.21’ (Mark, 253). 49.  As Achtemeier (‘ “And he followed” ’, 132) himself recognizes. See Yarbro Collins, Mark, 506. 50.  Cf. M. de Jonge, ‘Jesus, Son of David and Son of God’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, ed. S. Draisma (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 98; and Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms, 143. On ‘the way’ motif, see Marcus, Way, 29–45; and Watts, New Exodus, 221–94. See also Gray, Temple, 13–20. Contrary to Boring (Mark, 305), therefore, I do not see in the healing of Bartimaeus a contrast between Son of David and Jesus’s alleged non-Davidic character, but rather the embodiment of what true discipleship means – namely, to follow Jesus ‘on the way’ of his messianic suffering. Malbon’s suggestion that the allusion to the kingdom of David in the triumphant entry scene (Mark 10:12) carries negative connotations is likewise unconvincing (‘ “Son of David” ’, 174–5). It seems really odd indeed that the author of Mark would have been at pains to speak of Jesus as the messiah and yet used language associated with David just in order to reject it.

92

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

as king (cf. Mark 11:10). Such an emphasis is confirmed in the following passage, where Jesus is said to have been hailed as the one fulfilling the scriptural pattern of Psalm 118 (OG Psalm 117): 11:9 καὶ οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἔκραζον· ὡσαννά· εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου 11:10 εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ· ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. 11:9 And those going ahead and those following were crying out: ‘Hosanna (Ps 118:25)!51 Blessed be the one coming in the name of the Lord’ (OG Ps 117:26).52 11:10 Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna (Ps 118:25) in the highest!

Achtemeier takes the absence of Son of David in the triumphal entry to confirm the theory that Mark attributes no positive significance to the expression in the previous pericope.53 Similarly, to Malbon, Mark problematizes the hope for the kingdom of David, for it supposedly contradicts the more supreme motif of the kingdom of God.54 This would explain Jesus’s apparent indifference to the crowds’ acclamation. Such conclusions, however, are quite beside the point. For one thing, it can hardly be the case that Mark downplays the importance of υἱὸς Δαυίδ simply because the epithet does not occur in Mark 11:1-11. The people surrounding Jesus in Mark 11:9-10 cite a scriptural passage which is conspicuously royal and attribute the fulfilment of ‘the coming kingdom of our father David’ to Jesus’s visit to the Holy City. Moreover, as Achtemeier himself recognizes, the Gospel of Matthew amplifies the significance of the triumphal entry by spelling out the Davidic title: ‘Hosanna to the Son of David [ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ]’ (Matt 21:9). Granted that Matthew gives much more explicit emphasis to the Davidic epithet than does Mark (cf. Matt 1:1), the expression ‘kingdom of our father David’ in Mark 11:10 closely parallels ‘Son of David’ in Matt 21:9.55 For another thing, I have already pointed out that the kingdom of God cannot be sharply distinguished from 51.  The expression ὡσαννά is a transliteration from the Hebrew ‫ הושׁיעה נא‬in Ps 118:25, connoting a petition for help. Cf. Burger, Jesus, 47. 52.  Mark 11:9c replicates OG Ps 117:26 verbatim. 53.  Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed” ’, 119. 54.  Malbon, ‘Jesus’, 168. 55.  Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 520: although in Mark 12:10 ‘Jesus is not hailed explicitly as king or as son of David, the context suggests that he is both’.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

93

the royal ideology in Mark, since the Son of God is, in resemblance to the Davidic king in Psalm 2 and the Son of David in Psalm of Solomon 17, the representative of God’s own reign. In OG Psalm 117 itself, the royal monarch is the primary agent of Yahweh. While the phrase ‘save please [‫ ’]הושׁיעה נא‬from MT Ps 118:25, which Mark transliterates into Greek, is attested elsewhere in the Jewish Scriptures with reference to the king (cf. 2 Sam 14:4; 2 Kgs 6:26), its equivalent in OG Ps 117:25 – ‘save now [σῶσον δή]’ – is directed to Yahweh. But, in OG Ps 117:26, the king is to be blessed as the divine medium of deliverance, as ‘the one who comes in the name of the Lord’. So ‘the kingdom of our father David’ is in keeping with the theme of God’s dominion both in OG Psalm 117 and in Mark.56 The silence of Jesus is again remarkable, but should not be taken to imply the rejection of royal ideology. As Nils Dahl and, subsequently, Donald Juel have noted, when it comes to the messiahship of Jesus, the motif of silence points to his self-disclosure on the cross.57 In this sense, Jesus’s giving no clear response either to Bartimaeus or to the crowds coheres with the command to silence after Peter’s confession in Mark 8:29-30, followed by the announcement that the Son of man would ‘be rejected [ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι]’ in Jerusalem (cf. Mark 8:31). Jesus himself cites OG Psalm 117 elsewhere in the narrative, namely, in the parable of the wicked tenants in Mark 12:10-11. There, the verb ἀποδοκιμάζω, occurring in Mark 8:31, is repeated in Jesus’s citation of OG Ps 117:22-23 at the end of the parable (Mark 12:10b). The passage Mark 12:1-12 is extremely important for my purposes, as it capitalizes on the final confrontation of Jesus with the temple establishment in terms of the ‘beloved son [υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν]’ (cf. Ps 2:7) who is murdered by ‘the tenants [οἱ γεωργοί]’ of a vineyard, so I discuss it more fully in Chapter 5 below. Here it is worth asking whether Jesus would have deployed OG Ps 117:22-23 to affirm his role as the royal ‘cornerstone [κεφαλὴν γωνίας]’ (Mark 12:10) had he 56.  J.A. Sanders (‘A New Testament Hermeneutic Fabric: Psalm 118 in the Entrance Narrative’, in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, ed. C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring [Atlanta: Scholars, 1987], 177–90) may be correct that ‘Hosanna’ was antiphonal to the utterance in Mark 11:10a, but vv. 9 and 10 of Mark 11 should not be taken as contradicting one another. See also Le Donne, Jesus, 199. 57.  N.A. Dahl, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), 52–65; and Juel, ‘Origin’, 458. Pace E.S. Malbon, ‘ “Reflected Christology”: An Aspect of Narrative “Christology” in the Gospel of Mark’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 26 (1999): 127–36. She claims that Jesus’s silence in Mark is intended to direct the attention from Jesus to God. I do not see how the passion predictions could instantiate this view, however, given that their emphases rest on the Son of man himself not God.

94

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

wished to problematize the allusion to the same psalm at his arrival into Jerusalem. The answer is certainly negative. As Mark speaks of Jesus as the divine son according to the Israelite king in Psalm 2, he also elaborates on Jesus’s Davidic identity along the lines of OG Psalm 117.58 In its earliest setting, OG Psalm 117 functioned as a liturgical text celebrating the triumph of Israel’s king over his enemies.59 Verses 1-21 constitute a series of public declarations of thanksgiving, including in vv. 10-18 the remembrance of God’s giving victory to the Israelite monarch over ‘all the nations [πάντα τὰ ἔθνη]’. Verses 19-20 recall Ps 24:7-10 and convey the image of the procession of the king to the gates of the temple. Within this context, v. 25 appeals to God for salvation, and v. 26 envisages, in language reminiscent of Ps 24:5, the pronouncement of a special benediction on the victorious king ‘from the house of the Lord [ἐξ οἴκου κυρίου]’, presumably by the priests.60 In deploying OG Ps 117:26, Mark 11:9 picks up on the image of the king’s procession into the temple and places the hope for eschatological liberation on the lips of the crowds.61 At the narrative level, the people’s 58.  On Mark’s use of the Psalms, see Juel, Exegesis, 89–118, 135–50; Matera, Kingship, 121–46; Kingsbury, Christology, 66–7; A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Appropri�ation of the Individual Psalms of Lament by Mark’, in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C.M. Tuckett, BETL 131 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 223–41; Rowe, God’s Son, 229–314; Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms, passim; Watts, ‘Psalms’, 25–46; and idem, ‘The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’s Perspective on Jesus and the Temple’, BibInt 15 (2007): 307–22. See also A. Lee, From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms, WUNT 2/192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 202–83, who examines the early Christian use of the Psalms. 59.  Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry’, JBL 80 (1961): 59; L.C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 124–5; D.R. Catchpole, ‘The Triumphal Entry’, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319–34; See also Watts, ‘Psalms’, 36–7; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 520. 60.  The object of the blessings in the second half of OG Ps 117:26, not cited in Mark 11, is in the second person plural (εὐλογήκαμεν ὑμᾶς), which suggests that whatever is implied in what is spoken of regarding the king in the first part of the verse, namely, ‘blessed be the one coming in the name of the Lord’, to some degree ‘belongs also to the people’ (Rowe, God’s Son, 277). See also J.H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 61–3; Allen, Psalms, 125; and Kraus, Psalms, 400. 61.  See E. Lohse, ‘Hosianna’, NovT 6 (1963): 113–19. The Midrash of Psalm 118 associates the figure of the monarch with David and takes the Psalm to imply the hope for messianic deliverance. So the reference to the ‘kingdom of David’ might also encompass the possible reference to the whole people in OG Ps 117:26b. Catchpole

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

95

reaction is actually unsurprising. Not only have those accompanying Jesus witnessed Bartimaeus’s declaration of Jesus as the Son of David, the manner in which Jesus arrives in Jerusalem cries out for such a response. The passage tells us that Jesus, having sent two of his disciples to bring him a ‘foal [πῶλον]’ from a village standing near the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:1-6),62 entered Jerusalem ‘sitting on the animal [ἐκάθισεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν]’ (Mark 11:7). It is not entirely clear if the evangelist intends πῶλος to represent a donkey or a horse,63 but the unlikelihood of someone’s having a horse in a small village near the Mount of Olives suggests that a donkey is in view.64 This is significant because the image of an Israelite ruler riding on a donkey foal is not unprecedented in the Jewish literature.65 The blessings of Jacob in Gen 49:10-11, the first part of which was, as I have mentioned in Chapter 1, interpreted with reference to the Davidic messiah in Qumran (4Q252 5.1-4), speaks of the ruler from the line of Judah as one who would possess a ‘foal of a donkey [τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου αὐτοῦ]’ (LXX Gen 49:11). Likewise, Zechariah announces the coming of an Israelite king, who would enter Zion ‘sitting on a young donkey [ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον]’ (OG Zech 9:9) so as to put an end to oppression and announce peace to the nations (cf. OG Zech 9:10).66 Mark does not introduce the triumphal entry by means of any (‘Triumphal’, 325) mentions an interesting passage from Josephus (War 1.673) in which some people are said ‘to have gone ahead [προάγειν]’ and others are told ‘to have followed [ἀκολουθεῖν]’ the funeral procession of King Herod. It is difficult to draw any decisive parallels between this passage in Josephus and Mark, but the similarity in the wording of Mark 11:1-11 and War 1.673 is intriguing and seems to buttress the reading of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem as conveying a solemn tone. 62.  The precise name of the village is uncertain but is a likely reference to Bethphage. See J. Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 154–62. 63.  See the relevant bibliographical references and lexical discussion in BDAG, 900. 64.  As noted by Yarbro Collins, Mark, 517. For what it is worth, Matthew substitutes πῶλος for the more specific term ‘donkey [ὄνος]’ (Matt 21:2-7). 65.  Apparently, the use of donkeys by kings was a well-known practice in the first-century Mediterranean context. See Catchpole, ‘Triumphal’, 319–21. 66.  On the connections between LXX Gen 49:10-11, OG Zech 9:9 and OG Ps 117:26 in Mark 11:1-11, see D. Krause, ‘The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Jacob: Mark 11.1-10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah 9.9, and Psalm 118.25-26’, in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 141–53. See also M.C. Black, ‘The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who Is Coming with His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives’

96

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

formal scriptural quotation, but the fact that Jesus emphasizes the πῶλος as an indispensable element to his arrival into the Holy City67 highlights the event as symbolizing the coming of the eschatological king to Zion.68 Hence, Jesus’s riding on a πῶλος into the Holy City connotes his royal status for those surrounding him. As David Catchpole puts it, the ‘actions of Jesus’s associates demonstrate that they have understood and accepted the implications’ of the triumphal entry as a royal procession.69 Or, to quote Collins, Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem ‘appears to be an enactment of the coming of the Davidic messiah’.70 The acclamation of the crowds is therefore an accurate reflection of what Jesus himself insinuates: he enters Jerusalem as king. It is, after all, as ‘the king of the Jews [ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων]’ (Mark 15:18, 26, 31) that Jesus will end up being sentenced to crucifixion (cf. Mark 15).71 In keeping with his appropriation of Psalm 2, Mark also omits the subjugation of the pagan nations implied in OG Ps 117:10-13.72 Jesus is the eschatological king on his own terms, and the real victory he achieves is through his sufferings. But there is one additional point which is even (PhD diss., Emory University, 1990), 163–8. And compare P.B. Duff, ‘The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem’, JBL 111 (1992): 55–71; with H.J. de Jonge, ‘The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21’, in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. C.M. Tuckett (London: Ashgate, 2003), 87–8. 67.  The word occurs four times in Mark 11:2-6. 68.  Cf. Kuhn, ‘Das Reittier Jesu in der Einzugsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums’, ZNW 50 (1959): 86–7; and J. Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 27a (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 779. 69.  See Catchpole, ‘Triumphal’, 319–25 (325 here), who also gives several other examples of ‘triumphal entries’ similar to Mark 11:1-11 in the Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period. The sentence ‘and many spread their garments on the way [καὶ πολλοὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν ἔστρωσαν εἰς τὴν ὁδόν]’ in Mark 11:8 finds an interesting parallel in OG 2 Kgdms 9:13, with reference to Jehu: ‘and they, each one, took his garment and placed it under him [καὶ ἔλαβον ἕκαστος τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔθηκαν ὑποκάτω αὐτοῦ]’. See also C.L. Meyers and E.M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 25c (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 129–30. 70.  Collins, Scepter, 233. 71.  France, Mark, 435. 72.  Cf. R.G. Hamerton-Kelly, ‘Sacred Violence and the Messiah: The Markan Passion Narrative as a Redefinition of Messianology’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 491. In this sense, it is not irrelevant that OG Psalm 117, for instance, celebrates the military victory of the Israelite king, but Mark 12:9-10 uses the passage to make a point about Jesus’s rejection and vindication.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

97

more consequential for our inquiry. If Mark 11:9-10 cites OG Psalm 117 to underscore not to undermine Jesus’s kingship, it also presents a profound irony. Whereas in the psalm it is most likely the priests who lead the liturgical blessing on the triumphant king, the recognition of Jesus as the royal ruler comes from the people who follow him on ‘the way’, rather than from the Jerusalem rulers at the temple.73 In fact, from the uneventful ending of the passage in v. 11, in which no priestly authority is said to have welcomed Jesus when he entered the temple, until the point OG Psalm 117 is cited again in the end of the parable of the wicked tenants in Mark 12:10-11, one sees every prospect of Jesus’s favourable interaction with the Jerusalem rulers quickly moving into a downward spiral. Thus, when Jesus refers a second time to OG Psalm 117 in the narrative (Mark 12:10-11), it underscores his rejection by the leaders of his own people. I return to this point in more detail in Chapter 5 below. Now, the words of Jesus in Mark 12:35-37 are more tantalizing than his silence in Mark 10:46–11:10. In the Davidssohnfrage, Jesus takes the initiative to engage in debate with the scribes while teaching at the temple in Jerusalem: 12:35 Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ· πῶς λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς ὅτι ὁ χριστὸς υἱὸς Δαυίδ ἐστιν; 12:36 αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ· εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω74 τῶν ποδῶν σου. 12:37 αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν κύριον, καὶ πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υἱός; Καὶ [ὁ] πολὺς ὄχλος ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ ἡδέως. 73.  Cf. Evans, ‘Diarchic’, 564–6; idem, Mark, 139; Watts, ‘Psalms’, 42; idem, ‘David’s Lord’, 314–15. 74.  Manuscripts ‫א‬, A, L, Δ, Θ, Ψ and 087, among others, replace ὑποκάτω with ὑποπόδιον, in accordance with OG Ps 109:1. The reading of ὑποκάτω – attested in, e.g., B, D, W, 0233 and 28 – agrees with the text of Matt 22:44, which presents no further variants for the term. In the parallel passage of Luke 20:43, however, which, like the Matthean pericope, has no other extant readings, the word ὑποπόδιον follows the text of OG 109:1. At this point, it is very difficult to establish conclusively which reading of Mark 12:36 is more likely to be the earliest. See Metzger, Commentary, 93. On the other hand, the occurrence of ὑποκάτω in Mark 12:36 may represent a conflation of OG Ps 109:1 with OG Ps 8:7b: πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ (cf. Heb 1:13; 2:6-7). See the discussion in M.C. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, SNT 96 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 236 n. 11.

98

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

12:35 And, having answered, Jesus spoke, while teaching at the temple: ‘How do the scribes say that the messiah is son of David? 12:36 David himself spoke by the holy spirit: “The Lord said to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until whenever I should put your enemies under your feet’ ” (OG Ps 109:1).75 12:37 David himself calls him [the messiah] “lord”, so how is he his son?’ And [the] great crowd was gladly listening to him.

At first sight, the logic of the Davidssohnfrage seems straightforward. The scribes believe the messiah to be a descendant of David, but, in OG Ps 109:1, David himself calls the messiah ‘lord’.76 Hence, how is the messiah David’s son? Given Jesus’s giving no response to the query he himself poses, however, the Davidssohnfrage has proven elusive to modern exegetes. A key issue is the precise meaning which the interrogative πόθεν conveys in Mark 12:37. What exactly does Jesus connote by πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υἱός? A common way of rendering πόθεν is ‘from where’, as implying a question of origin.77 If this translation is to be preferred, then it is possible that Jesus takes the origin of the messiah to be unknown.78 But the pronoun αὐτοῦ, which follows πόθεν and refers back to Δαυίδ, makes such a reading unlikely, for the sentence ‘from which lineage is the messiah David’s son’ would have struck the audience as a redundant, somewhat meaningless question. ‘You just answered it: from David’s own lineage’, one would have replied. Alternatively, πόθεν could connote source, as in ‘where does this idea come from’. The question, then, could be ‘from which scriptural passage do the scribes assume the messiah to be David’s son?’79 In this case, Jesus either assumes Davidic sonship to be unsupported by the Jewish sacred

75.  The passage OG Ps 109:1 closely follows MT Ps 110:1, but since it is the Old Greek version that preserves the doublet κύριος and κυρίῳ μου, cited in Mark 12:36, I refer to OG Psalm 109. 76.  On the assumption that David is the author of Psalm 110, see the discussion in France, Mark, 486–7. See also idem, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale, 1971), 163–9. 77.  Compare ‘πόθεν’, in LSJ, 1428; and ‘πόθεν’, in BDAG, 839. 78.  Cf. D. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Atlanta: SBL, 1989), 116. 79.  See R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 718–9.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

99

texts, or uses OG Ps 109:1 to trump whatever biblical passages the scribes deployed to support their view. The problem is that neither of these is tenable. As I have shown in Chapters 1 and 2, there is a significant mass of biblical passages adduced to express the hope for the coming of a Davidic messiah in the late Second Temple period (e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-14; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; Ps 2:2-7). Since the Davidssohnfrage takes the currency of such expectations for granted, the scribes – or any informed Jew listening to Jesus, for that matter – could have easily pulled a handful of scriptural verses to provide a counterargument. Relatedly, if the point of the Davidssohnfrage is simply to show that OG Ps 109:1 somehow trumps the messianic interpretation of, say, 2 Sam 7:16 or Isa 11:1, the interrogative πόθεν would have terribly failed to communicate that. Given that the Davidic sonship of the messiah is well-supported by the Scriptures, ‘from where’ cannot imply its outshining by OG Ps 109:1. If, however, αὐτοῦ υἱός is interpreted as the subject, not the predicate, of ἐστιν, then it would seem that πόθεν relates to the messiah precisely as son of David. To wit: ‘where is David’s son from?’ In this reading, Jesus accepts the Davidic sonship of the messiah as true, and the Davidssohnfrage concerns the source of – or basis for – the status of the messiah. The scribes say, in part correctly, that the messiah is son of David, but OG Ps 109:1 also says that David himself yields to the authority of the messiah as his lord. If David calls the messiah, who happens to be his son, ‘my lord’, where is the status of his son, the messiah, really deriving from? The answer would be not only from the messiah’s Davidic bloodline, but primarily from Yahweh’s exalting the messiah to his right hand. Indeed, Mark uses πόθεν in only two other instances, one of which is in a question regarding the source of Jesus’s wisdom and power: ‘from where were these things given to this one [πόθεν τούτῳ ταῦτα]?’ (Mark 6:2).80 The question of the source of Jesus’s authority, moreover, surfaces again in Mark 11:27-33, where the temple rulers debate among themselves whether John’s baptism – and, by implication, Jesus’s action at the temple – is ‘from heaven or from humans [ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων]’.81 Though πόθεν does not occur in Mark 11:27-33, its proximity to Mark 12:35-37 places the motif of Jesus’s unique authority in the foreground of the Davidssohnfrage. Yet, there is one aspect in Mark 12:37 that militates against this translation. The placing of αὐτοῦ before the verb ἐστιν 80.  The other instance is Mark 8:4: ‘from where will someone be able to feed these people here in the desert [πόθεν τούτους δυνήσεταί τις ὧδε χορτάσαι ἄρτων ἐπ᾿ ἐρημίας]’. 81.  See the fuller discussion in Chapter 5.

100

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

indicates emphasis: ‘from where is the messiah his – that is, David’s – son?’82 This forces us to admit that αὐτοῦ υἱός is most plausibly read as the predicate of ἐστιν, which in turn problematizes the interpretation of πόθεν as strictly connoting the source of the messiah’s status. Given these difficulties, is there a different way of rendering πόθεν? Achtemeier rightly points out that πόθεν in Mark 12:37 is used in juxtaposition with πῶς in Mark 12:35.83 Significantly, both Matthew and Luke, perhaps due to the ambiguity of the question in Mark 12:37, replace πόθεν with πῶς (cf. Matt 22:45: πῶς υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν; and Luke 20:44: πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν). It is quite reasonable, therefore, to take the former as being used synonymously to the latter, roughly meaning ‘how’ or ‘in what sense’, already in Mark. The query in Mark 12:37 would, then, simply mean, ‘how, or in what sense, is the messiah David’s son?’84 From this hypothesis, our task is to determine whether the reading of πόθεν in parallel to πῶς necessarily implies Jesus’s denial of royal ideology. A common way of explaining the Davidssohnfrage has been to regard it as concerning Jesus’s preference for a christological title that is different from Son of David. Kingsbury, for example, states: ‘if scripture tells the authorities that the Messiah is the Son of David, the fact that it likewise tells them that the Messiah is more than the Son of David (and is indeed the Son of God) escapes them’.85 In other words, by asking the crowd how the messiah could be David’s son, Jesus does not deny his royal descent, but rather simply calls attention to the insufficiency of such a belief to exhaust who he really is. Against this view, however, it is the lordship of 82.  Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Mark 14:61: “Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God”?’, NovT 31 (1989): 135; and Gundry, Mark, 719. See also W. Wrede, Vorträge und Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907), 174. 83.  Achtemeier, ‘ “And he followed” ’, 129; cf. Watts, New Exodus, 287 n. 277. 84.  See ‘πῶς’, in BDAG, 902; and ‘πόθεν’, in BDAG, 839. Compare Watts, New Exodus, 287 n. 277; de Jonge, ‘Son of David’, 99; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 579. Achtemeier’s claim that is it ‘over-subtle’ to give any force to πῶς and πόθεν that is not a hostile one (‘ “And he followed” ’, 129–30) misses the point. See also ‘πόθεν’, in LSJ, 1428. 85.  Kingsbury, Conflict, 16. Such a concern is attested in the Epistle of Barnabas. According to Barn. 12:10, it is because David knows that the sinners will erroneously regard the messiah as being merely a son of David that the king in OG Ps 109:1 ‘prophesies, fearing and understanding the error of the sinners: “The Lord said to my lord: ‘Sit on my right hand, until whenever I should put your enemies under your feet’ ” [αὐτὸς προφητεύει Δαυίδ, φοβούμενος καὶ συνίων τὴν πλάνην τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν· Εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου]’ (the citation follows the text in J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer (trans.), The Apostolic Fathers, ed. M.W. Holmes [Leicester: Apollos, 1990]).

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

101

the messiah that figures prominently in Mark 12:35-37, not the title ‘Son of God’.86 Moreover, it is not obvious at all that the expressions κύριος μου in Mark 12:36 and υἱὸς Δαυίδ in Mark 12:35 carry titular force.87 Taken within the context of the Gospel as a whole, the Davidssohnfrage is surely connected to Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’s divine sonship – the reader knows that the messiah is God’s beloved son.88 But one should be careful not to assume that Mark 12:35-37 concerns the debate over christological titles, as though it contrasts Son of David with a more exalted designation.89 Conversely, it is not at all impossible that the scribes envisaged the Davidic messiah as a national liberator, along the lines of the sources analysed in Chapters 1 and 2 above. The fact that the messiah was expected to be descendant of David meant, in other words, not only that both figures would possess the same genetic material, but that one would follow the footsteps of the other in, inter alia, militaristic prowess. From this assumption, it has often been inferred that the reference to OG Ps 109:1 is designed to contradict the hope for the messiah to be a warrior in the like of David,90 and to cast the implications of Davidic sonship as ‘true but liable to misunderstanding’.91 The messiah is not only David’s son but also David’s lord and therefore is not bound to follow the footsteps of his predecessor who subdued his enemies by violence (cf. 2 Samuel 8). In this case, then, the Davidssohnfrage would turn out not to be about the genealogy of the messiah at all. The riddle instead invites the crowd to question the appropriateness of the view that the Davidic designation went hand in glove with militaristic zeal.92 86.  Cf. W.R. Loader, ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. cx. 1 in the New Testament’, NTS 24 (1978): 199–217; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols., EKKNT (Zurich: Neukirchener, 1978–79), 2:171. 87.  On possible christological implications of the word κύριος in Mark 12:35-37, compare Kingsbury, Christology, 110–14; with Marcus, Way, 130–52. Cf. Hay, Glory, 114. 88.  Cf. Burger, Jesus, 64–6; Hay, Glory, 109–11; Gnilka, Markus, 2:171; Marcus, ‘Mark 14:61’, 137; Telford, Theology, 30–54. 89.  Rowe, God’s Son, 282–3. 90.  Cf. Jeremias, Theology, 259; Hay, Glory, 111; Marcus, Way, 146–9. 91.  France, Mark, 484. Marcus (‘Mark 14:61’, 136–7) suggests that Jesus distances himself from ‘restorative’ messianism associated with the Son of David. See also L.H. Schiffman, ‘The Concept of the Messiah in Second Temple and Rabbinic Literature’, Review and Exposition 84 (1987): 235–46. 92.  Cf. Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms, 161–6. Thus, Chilton (‘ben David’, 105) is partially correct: ‘The Davidssohnfrage represents Jesus’ attempt to clarify his own

102

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

There is, to be sure, nothing in Mark 12:35-37 explicitly countering Jewish zealotry. But the advantage of the lattermost reading is its coherence with the prominent motif of Jesus’s cross-bearing character in Mark. As with Psalm 2 and OG Psalm 117, to be sure, OG Psalm 109 is not without warlike overtones. For instance, OG Ps 109:5 says that ‘the Lord from his right hand shattered the kings on the day of his wrath [κύριος ἐκ δεξιῶν σου συνέθλασεν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς]’, and OG Ps 109:6 portrays the king as one who ‘will fill up the corpses, and will shatter the heads of many on the earth [πληρώσει πτώματα, συνθλάσει κεφαλὰς ἐπὶ γῆς πολλῶν]’. On this stroke, it is relevant that Jesus appropriates the image of the royal enthronement,93 but omits the violent defeat of the nations by the hand of the Israelite monarch in OG Ps 109:5-6. We have seen that Mark is able to speak of Jesus as king, while underscoring a theologia crucis. Such an emphasis on the cross as the culmination of the messiah’s mission thus bolsters the argument that the Davidssohnfrage undermines the nationalistic overtones of Davidic sonship, without necessarily suggesting the rejection of royal ideology.94 What is all the more striking is that Jesus still cites the latter sentence of OG Ps 109:1, which speaks of the vindication of the king over against his adversaries by Yahweh himself. Were Mark 12:35-37 only to reject the Davidic descent of Jesus, or to emphasise the lordship of the end-time king over David, or to subvert revolutionary zeal, the first part of OG Ps 109:1 would have sufficed.95 So what does the sentence ‘until whenever I should put your enemies under your feet’ imply in Mark? Earlier in the narrative, those who witnessed the deeds of Jesus in Galilee are said to be amazed, for he was teaching them ‘as one having authority not as the scribes [ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς]’ (Mark 1:22). The view of the meaning of the address and to ward off prosecution on the basis of the scribal expectation of a ben David’. It is much more fitting with the text, however, to take Jesus’s intention as making a christological point instead of attempting ‘to ward off prosecution’. 93.  On the universal dominion of God in OG Psalm 109, see Fitzmyer, Semitic, 224–5. 94.  The fact that the word ‘king [βασιλεύς]’ does not describe Jesus prior to his passion (Mark 15:2-32), moreover, suggests that the derision of Jesus by the Roman soldiers in Mark 15 is indeed ironic, for Jesus, the crucified messianic son, really is the king of Israel par excellence (pace Malbon, ‘Jesus’, 179; cf. Matera, Kingship, 136; and Kingsbury, Christology, 103, 108). See further Chapter 5 below. 95.  Marcus, Way, 134: ‘If Mark’s only purpose in quoting Ps. 110:1 had been to establish that David called the Messiah “Lord”, he could have contented himself with citing the first words of the verse’.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

103

scribes, for their part, figure as outspoken opponents of Jesus throughout the Gospel (Mark 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 12:28-40; cf. 1:22; 9:14). Perhaps the only exception to this pattern is the ‘one from among the scribes [εἷς τῶν γραμματέων]’, praised by Jesus for his wise response regarding the greatest commandment in the pericope immediately preceding the Davidssohnfrage (Mark 12:28-34). Yet, even this scribe seems to fall short of recognising the unique authority of Jesus, since he refers to him as a ‘teacher [διδάσκαλε]’ (Mark 12:32).96 In the light of this narrative context, Mark 12:35-37 reinforces the breach between Jesus and the scribes, as it highlights the authority of the former in contrast to the obduracy of his opponents (cf. Mark 12:38-40). In this way, not only does the Davidssohnfrage present Jesus as one greater than the Old Testament king, it also implies a charge against those who refuse to follow him. The interpretative spin is that the enemies in OG Ps 109:1 are equated with the Jewish leaders antagonizing Jesus the messiah, the one referred to, even by David, as lord.97 In response, Jesus declares that God himself will exalt the messiah to the highest place possible – namely, his right hand – and subjugate his adversaries for him. The motif of Jesus’s vindication in connection to OG Ps 109:1 will occur again – and directly with reference to the Jerusalem priests – at the trial scene in Mark 14:55-64, which I discuss more fully in Chapter 5 below. But one crucial conclusion to be drawn from the Davidssohnfrage is that, to Mark, Jesus’s authority as the messiah does not depend on the scribes’ recognition of him. While the latter expected a particular kind of Son of David, presumably along the lines of the monarch envisaged in Psalm of Solomon 17, the former fits a different job description. Nevertheless, Jesus is the true messiah appointed by God, and it is those who reject him that have their status before God undermined.98 96.  Cf. France, Mark, 485. The reference to Jesus as teacher in Mark 12:32 carries a different tone than in Mark 10:51. Thus, while I agree with Marcus (Way, 135) that the reference to the ‘kingdom of God’ in Mark 12:34 is connected to the allusion to OG Psalm 109 in the Davidssohnfrage, I also see irony in Jesus’s words to the scribe in Mark 12:34: ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God [οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ]’. 97.  Mark does not use the word κύριος lightly, as it refers to Yahweh himself in the preceding pericope (Mark 12:29-30; cf. LXX Deut 6:4-5). Cf. Rowe, God’s Son, 283. 98.  Cf. Juel, ‘Origin’, 455: ‘Jesus, the Son of David, rejected by the temple authorities, will be raised from the dead and enthroned at God’s right hand.… It is appropriate for David to call his messianic son “Lord” in view of Jesus’ installation at God’s right hand.’ Additionally, Marcus (Way, 133–4) notes a very similar belief in the Midrash of Ps 110:1, where the king is said to sit on the right hand of God,

104

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

According to OG Ps 109:1, after all, it is Yahweh himself who would enthrone the end-time king to the position of David’s own lord and finally put the messiah’s opponents under his feet. Mark is admittedly uninterested in questions surrounding the genealogy of the messiah. If anything other than Son of God, Jesus is ‘the son of Mary [ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας]’ (Mark 6:3). But this alone does not necessitate a negative view of kingship. Here it is interesting to note that, in both the Matthean and the Lukan versions of the Davidssohnfrage, Jesus also asks ‘how is the messiah son of David’ without contradicting his Davidic origin, attested in Matt 1:6 and Luke 3:31. As Bas van Iersel notes, ‘Et beaucoup d’auteurs estiment impossible que cette tradition [selon laquelle Jésus naît de la race de David] ait pu s’implanter solidement, si Jésus avait nié qu’il était le Fils de David’.99 Matthew and Luke, of course, may have wanted to correct the ambiguity present in Mark. In any case, granted that Mark 12:35-37 deemphasizes the epithet ‘Son of David’, this does not suggest that the evangelist altogether rejects royal ideology in describing Jesus.100 As Dennis Duling correctly observes, the influence of Davidic motifs upon Christology does not necessitate the use of Son of David, let alone the proof that Jesus comes from the right lineage.101 As pointed out above, Mark in fact portrays Jesus in the patterns of Psalm 2 and OG Psalm 117, which indicates that the Davidssohnfrage upholds the significance of royal discourse.102 And the allusion to David as one who ‘spoke by the holy spirit’ (Mark 12:36) confirms the significance of the Old Testament king in relation to Jesus. Conclusion The close identification of the messiahship of Jesus with his fate on the cross is highly significant, considering that nowhere in the late Second Temple period can one find the idea of violent suffering as a necessity while Yahweh himself will rage war against his foes. Moreover, if Mark’s substitution of ὑποκάτω for ὑποπόδιον really alludes to OG Ps 8:7b, then it augments God’s own agency in giving victory to the Davidic king over his enemies, given that in OG Psalm 8 God is the sole agent of putting creation ‘under’ the dominion of humanity. 99.  Van Iersel, ‘Fils de David’, 121. On the authenticity of this passage, see discussion in Hay, Glory, 110. 100.  Malbon, ‘Jesus’, 169–70. 101.  Duling, ‘Promises’, 68–77. Duling argues that Son of David, which is more widely attested in the latter half of the first century BCE, may have been ‘the result of a Greek translation of an original metaphor such as Shoot of David’ (69). 102.  Cf. M. Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1981), 41.

3. The Messiahship of Jesus in Markan Christology

105

for the career of the messiah. The cross-bearing character of Jesus thus implies that Jewish messianic categories are qualified by his death and resurrection.103 This is not to say that what one finds in Mark is a deep concern with debunking competing christological beliefs, nor is it to affirm the deeply anachronistic understanding that Mark is concerned with spiritual truths over against the political implications of Jesus’s deeds. Jesus does not achieve his goal by means of military force, but he is nonetheless the royal messiah, the one who brings about the kingdom of God. Hence, Yarbro Collins is correct that the messianism attested in Mark is ‘part of a complex and nuanced narrative portrayal of Jesus as messiah. He is son of David, but not in the way that many in his time would expect.’104 Though on his own terms, the Markan messiah is also the Son of God in the pattern of Psalm 2, ‘the one coming in the name of the Lord’ in the pattern of OG Psalm 117 and the royal lord in the pattern of OG Psalm 109. Interestingly, the name of David always appears in connection to Jesus’s imminent arrival and climactic activities in Jerusalem, where the temple priests exercised their authority.105 The only exception to this norm is Mark 2:23-28, wherein Jesus justifies his disciples’ plucking of grain on the Sabbath by means of an intriguing allusion to the relation between David and high priest Abiathar (cf. Mark 2:25-26). It is to the examination of these and some other important passages which have some bearing on Mark’s presentation of the Jerusalem priests in relation to Jesus that we now turn.

103.  Cf. Juel, ‘Origin’, 449–60; Tolbert, Sowing, 122–3; and Hurtado, Lord, 289. 104.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 582. See also Kingsbury, Christology, 108. 105.  As already noted by Burger, Jesus, 42–71.

Chapter 4 T he R oya l M es s i a h a n d t h e J e r usale m P r i e st s i n M a rk 1–1 0

As we have seen in Chapters 1 and 2, the sources from the late Second Temple period provide ample evidence that the royal messiah was expected to restore the temple worship. This could be achieved by the vindication of the Qumran sectarians as the true Zadokites, by the cleansing of the current Jerusalem institution, or even by the building of a heavenly Zion. In Chapter 3, I argued that Jesus fulfils the role of a royal messiah – he is the Son of God in the pattern of Psalm 2 and the Israelite king in the patterns of OG Psalms 117 and 109. We must now ask what view the Markan Jesus takes regarding the priests throughout the narrative prior to Jerusalem. My contention is that, while direct references to the Jerusalem rulers in Mark 1–10 are scarce, Jesus does not suggest the principled repudiation of the temple establishment. Such a point is important because it indicates that Mark’s portrait of the eschatological king presupposes the sanctity of Zion, a trope strongly attested in the aforementioned messiah texts. This in turn may cast fresh light into what motivates the clash between Jesus and the temple rulers in Mark 11–16. Whatever one makes of Jesus’s confrontation with the temple leaders in the Jerusalem section of Mark, in other words, it is not the culmination of an alleged anti-temple, supersessionist program. Instead, the passages examined below – namely, Mark 1:1-8; 1:40-44; and 2:23-28 – seem to betray an expectation that the priests would acknowledge Jesus and thus avoid divine judgement. Jesus and the Chief Priests in Mark: Preliminary Discussion In addition to Jesus’s messiahship, his conflict with the Jewish authorities plays a major thematic role in Mark. The Gospel portrays the ‘scribes [γραμματεῖς]’ and the ‘Pharisees [Φαρισαῖοι]’ as the main adversaries of Jesus in Galilee (Mark 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:11-13; 10:33; cf.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

107

1:22; 12:28-40), whereas the ‘chief priests [ἀρχιερεῖς]’ and the ‘elders [πρεσβύτεροι]’ are said to join forces in Jerusalem in order to arrest Jesus (Mark 11:18, 27; 14:1, 43, 53-55; 15:1, 31; cf. 8:31; 10:33).1 The conspicuous presence of the chief priests in Jerusalem is unsurprising, as it reflects what was likely the case at the historical level: the priestly rulers were preoccupied with the proper function of the sacrificial system and thus would not have been expected to make formal appearances outside of Jerusalem, from where they presided over the nation.2 In Mark, however, the absence of the temple establishment in Galilee should not be taken as to imply that their hostility is isolated from the opposition Jesus faces in the preceding chapters. While it is clear that the chief priests are the ones ultimately responsible for Jesus’s arrest in Jerusalem (cf. Mark 14:10, 63),3 Mark also depicts them as deliberating together with the scribes regarding how and when to put the messiah to death (cf. Mark 11:18; 14:1-2, 43). The instances in which the chief priests appear alongside the scribes in the Holy City are very significant, because they indicate in hindsight that the controversies in Galilee anticipate the attitude the priestly rulers themselves display in the latter part of the narrative.4 Indeed, in the two passages in Mark 1–10 where the scribes are described as having some connections with the Jerusalem elite, the evangelist makes it clear that they act as Jesus’s opponents. So, in Mark 3:20-30, ‘the scribes from Jerusalem [οἱ γραμματεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων]’ accuse Jesus of practising exorcisms by the authority of Beelzebul, and, in Mark 7:1-23, ‘the Pharisees and some of the scribes who came from Jerusalem [οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων]’ question Jesus on issues pertaining to hand washing and 1.  Other Jewish opponents are the Herodians (Mark 3:6; 12:13) and the Saddu� cees (Mark 12:28). See Kingsbury, Conflict, 43–88; and Bond, Caiaphas, 103–5. On Mark’s redaction of materials speaking of the opponents of Jesus, see M.J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders, SNT 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 1–51. 2.  Cf. Bond, Caiaphas, 34–5. 3.  See G.S. Sloyan, Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006), 29–54. 4.  As per οἱ γραμματεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων in Mark 3:22 and οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων in Mark 7:1. On the association of the scribes with the Jerusalem establishment, see D. Lührmann, ‘Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium’, ZNW 78 (1987): 169–85; S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 201; and R.L. Mowery, ‘Pharisees and Scribes, Galilee and Jerusalem’, ZNW 80 (1989): 266–8.

108

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

ceremonial purity. In the broad narrative context of Mark, these controversies surely set the tone for what Jesus will encounter when facing the priests in Jerusalem. The same idea is spelled out in the first passion prediction, in which Jesus, having been recognized as the messiah by his disciples despite the obduracy of the Jewish leaders in Galilee (Mark 8:29; cf. 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5), refers to his adversaries as a single group who would reject him in Jerusalem: ‘it is necessary for the Son of man to suffer many things and to be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes [δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων]’ (Mark 8:31). All of the other passion predictions, moreover, happen while Jesus transitions from Galilee to Jerusalem (Mark 9:12, 31; 10:33; cf. 11:18; 14:1, 43, 53, 55; 15:1, 31), which underscores the unity of the conflict motif in the narrative as a whole.5 Therefore, aside from the question of whether Mark accurately reflects the dynamics between the different groups in first-century Palestine, it is transparent that Pharisees, elders, scribes and chief priests constitute an anti-Jesus coalition, whose final decision to hand over the messiah into the hands of the Romans belongs to the Jerusalem elite.6 But notwithstanding the fact that the attitude of the Jewish leaders in Galilee foreshadows what Jesus encounters in Mark 11–16, it is the priestly establishment that is ultimately responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.7 Not only is the high priest the one finally to pronounce capital sentence on the messiah (Mark 14:64), Pilate himself knows that it was the chief priests who, ‘due to envy, had handed the King of the Jews over [ὅτι διὰ φθόνον παραδεδώκεισαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς]’ to be killed (Mark 15:10; cf. 15:9). At the momentous scene immediately preceding Jesus’s crucifixion, moreover, the chief priests stir the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas, a rebellious murderer, instead of Jesus the messiah (Mark 15:11; cf. 15:7). The significance of all this will become clearer as my argument unfolds here and in Chapter 5 below. At this point it is worth pointing out by way of introduction that at the heart of Jesus’s conflict with the chief priests lies the question of who the rightful ruler of the people of God should be. As Helen Bond remarks, ‘Mark’s presentation of Jesus as Christ, Son of God, and Lord, along with his insistence on Jesus’ popularity everywhere 5.  See further Bond, Caiaphas, 103–4. 6.  Kingsbury, Conflict, 65. 7.  As P. Fredriksen, ‘Jesus and the Temple, Mark and the War’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers, ed. D.J. Lull, SBLSP 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 293, rightly notes.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

109

he goes, fills the high priests with envy, as they see their own position as the leaders of Israel jeopardized’.8 The Baptism of John The first text of note is Mark 1:1-8, a passage which belongs to the Markan prologue and gives us a snapshot of the core of the narrative.9 Though the Jerusalem leaders are absent here, Mark 1:1-3 identifies the story of Jesus with prophetic hopes for the restoration of Jerusalem, thus indicating that the fate of the temple institution is significant to the Gospel. The opening verses, moreover, preface the preaching of John the Baptist in Mark 1:4-8, ascribing to him the role of a prophet who would herald the eschatological salvation of Zion. The two pericopae read as follows: 1:1 Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ].10 1:2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ·11 ἰδοὺ12 ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου·

8.  Bond, Caiaphas, 104. 9.  On the programmatic function of the prologue, see F. Matera, ‘The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark’s Gospel’, JSNT 34 (1988): 3–20; M.D. Hooker, Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospels (London: SCM, 1997), 8–11 and 20–1. See also D.E. Smith, ‘Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory’, Semeia 52 (1991): 1–9. On the scope of the Markan prologue – whether it ends in v. 13 or v. 15 – compare Matera (‘Prologue’, 3–20) and Hooker (‘Beginning’, 18–28) with L.E. Keck (‘The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel’, NTS 12 [1966]: 352–70) and J. Drury (‘Mark 1:1-15: An Interpretation’, in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. A.E. Harvey [London: SPCK, 1985], 25–36). 10.  The phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ is absent in the original reading of ‫א‬, as well as in Θ and 28 (among others), whereas it is attested as a correction in ‫א‬, as well as in B, D, L and W (among others). The occurrence of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in B, D, L and W is compelling and could suggest that the phrase was dropped due to haplography. The principle of lectio brevior alongside the reading in original ‫א‬, however, makes the problem ultimately indecisive. Compare P. Head, ‘A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” ’, NTS 37 (1991): 621–9; and T. Wasserman, ‘The “Son of God” Was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1)’, JTS 62 (2011): 1–31. 11.  A, K, P, W (among others) substitute τοῖς προφήταις for τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ (as attested in, e.g., ‫א‬, B, L, Δ) so as to cohere with the composite citation. The expression τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ is preferred on the basis of its being the most difficult reading as well as its attestation in ‫ א‬and B. 12.  The reading of ἐγώ after ἰδού in ‫א‬, A, K, L, P harmonizes with OG Mal 3:1 or LXX Exod 23:20 and perhaps with Matt 11:10.

110

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

1:3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ,13 1:4 ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ]14 βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ15 καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. 1:5 καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν 1:6 καὶ ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας16 καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ17 καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον. 1:7 Καὶ ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων· ἔρχεται ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου ὀπίσω μου, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς κύψας18 λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ. 1:8 ἐγὼ ἐβάπτισα ὑμᾶς ὕδατι, αὐτὸς δὲ βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν19 πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. 1:1 Beginning of the gospel of Jesus the messiah. 1:2 Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before you, who will prepare your way (OG Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1), 1:3 a voice crying out in the desert: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths (OG Isa 40:3)” ’, 1:4 John came baptising in the desert and preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. 1:5 And all the Judean countryside as well as all the Jerusalemites were going out to him, and they were being baptised by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins. 13.  D follows OG Isa 40:3 more closely and reads τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν instead of αὐτοῦ. 14.  The articular expression ὁ βαπτιστής in Mark 6:25 and 8:28 (cf. Matt 3:1; 11:11-12; 14:2, 8; 16:14; 17:13; Luke 7:20, 33; 9:19) accounts for the occurrence of ὁ before βαπτίζων in B and 33. 15.  D, Θ and 28 (among others) do not present ὁ before βαπτίζων, but have a slight change in word order: ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ βαπτίζων καί. This may reflect the attempt at making sense of v. 4 in relation to ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ in v. 5. Thus, ‘John came in the desert, baptising and preaching…in the Jordan’. 16.  Metzger (Commentary, 63) points out that ‘scribes who exchanged δέρριν for τρίχας [in D] did so without any firsthand knowledge of Near Eastern customs’. 17.  D omits καί ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, but this could be an instance of haplography. 18.  The omission of κύψας in D harmonizes with Matt 3:11, Luke 3:16 and John 1:27. 19.  ‫ א‬and 33 are the most significant witnesses that lack ἐν before ὕδατι but keep ἐν before πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Manuscripts A, K, L and P (among others) add ἐν before ὕδατι, whereas B and L (among others) omit ἐν before πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. The reading attested in ‫ א‬and 33 is likely the preferred on the basis of lectio difficilior.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10 1:6 1:7 1:8

111

Now, John was wearing camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and eating locusts and wild honey. And he was preaching, saying: ‘The one who is stronger than me comes after me, whose thong of the sandals I am not worthy, bowing down, to untie. I baptised you with water, but he will baptise you with the holy spirit.’

Mark refers to Isaiah as the source of the quotation in vv. 2-3, and indeed v. 3 cites OG Isa 40:3 verbatim.20 The precise source of v. 2, however, is more difficult to pin down. While the wording in Mark 1:2b is similar to LXX Exod 23:20a,21 the absence of the pronoun ἐγώ in Mark 1:2b and the use of the verb κατασκευάσει in Mark 1:2c resemble MT Mal 3:1: ‫הנני שׁלח מלאכי ופנה־דרך לפני‬.22 Accordingly, a number of scholars, including Rudolph Pesch, Robert Guelich, Robert Gundry, Rikki Watts and Adela Yarbro Collins, take the view that v. 2 represents a conflation of LXX Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1.23 Indeed, the language of Mal 3:1 itself seems to be indebted to Exod 23:20, and therefore it is not impossible that Mark 1:2 borrows from an interpretative tradition reading the two passages in connection to one another.24 On this stroke, it appears relevant that the Matthean Jesus, in speaking of John the Baptist, seems to make 20.  In its immediate context, one of the functions of Mark 1:2-3 is to speak of John the Baptist. But formal introductions to scriptural citations rarely occur in Mark. Aside from the two instances wherein Jesus is questioned about ‘what Moses wrote’ on the issue of divorce (cf. Mark 10:5 and 12:19), Mark uses formulae, such as καθὼς γέγραπται, in passages relating to the theme of biblical fulfilment (cf. Mark 7:6; 9:12-13; 11:17; 14:21, 27). In one of these passages, the phrase is used in connection both to Elijah, who, to Mark, is John the Baptist, and to the Son of man. This, along with the fact that prologues provided hermeneutical maps to the whole in ancient literature (see n. 9 above), seems to suggest the significance of the composite citation in vv. 2-3 to the entire narrative. Cf. Hooker, Beginnings, 10–11; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 135. 21.  Compare Mark 1:2b: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου; and LXX Exod 23:20a: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου. 22.  Compare in ‫ הנה אנכי שׁלח מלאך לפניך לשׁמרך בדרך‬MT Exod 23:20. See R.A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34a (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 7–8; Watts, New Exodus, 61–3; and Gundry, Mark, 35. 23.  R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1980), 1:78; Guelich, Mark, 7–8; Gundry, Mark, 35; Watts, New Exodus, 57–76; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 135–6. 24.  Compare LXX Exod 23:20a: Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ; to OG Mal 3:1a: Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου; and MT Exod 23:20: ‫הנה אנכי‬ ‫ ;שׁלח מלאך לפניך לשׁמרך בדרך‬to MT Mal 3:1: ‫הנני שׁלח מלאכי פנה־דרך לפני‬. Thus,

112

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the conflation more precise: Matt 10:11 inserts ἐγώ in keeping with OG Exod 23:20, but preserves κατασκευάσει and includes ἔμπροσθέν in resemblance to MT Mal 3:1.25 It is intriguing, in any case, that it is in Malachi 3 that the sending of the messenger (‫ הנני שׁלח מלאכי‬in MT Mal 3:1 and ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου in OG Mal 3:1) parallels the sending of Elijah (‫הנה אנכי‬ ‫ שׁלח לכם את אליה הנביא‬in MT Mal 3:23 and ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμῖν Ηλιαν τὸν Θεσβίτην in OG Mal 3:22).26 Elijah, whose end-time coming is announced only in Malachi in the Jewish scriptures, is a prominent eschatological archetype with whom John is identified in Mark 9:11-13 (cf. Matt 17:13; and Mark 6:15; 8:28; 9:4-5; 15:35-36);27 and the vestment of the Baptiser in Mark 1:6 fits the description of Elijah in 4 Kgdms 1:8: John’s wearing ‘a leather belt around his waist [ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ]’ recalls Elijah’s ‘having been girded with a leather belt around his waist [ζώνην δερματίνην περιεζωσμένος τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ]’. The mixed character of v. 2, of course, precludes us from ascribing more significance to Mal 3:1 than to LXX Exod 23:20 – and vice-versa – in Mark 1:2. But the Markan depiction of John as a prophet like Elijah in the context of an explicit biblical quotation increases the plausibility of the allusion to the postexilic prophet in the prologue. In this sense, the aforementioned substitution of τοῖς προφήταις for τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ in Mark 1:2a in manuscripts A and W,28 for example, instantiates an early reading of the passage which seemed to correct the Isaiah ascription by recognizing the reference to Mal 3:1 in Mark 1:2. Watts, New Exodus, 61–3: ‘any attempt to discern origins [of the citation in Mark 1:2] merely on the basis of form must reckon with the fact that Malachi 3:1 OG already betrays the influence of Exodus 23:20 and vice versa’ (62). Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:78; Guelich, Mark, 7–8; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 136. 25.  Cf. Guelich, Mark, 8. 26.  On the identification of the ‘divine messenger’ in Mal 3:1 with ‘Elijah the prophet’ in Mal 3:23-24, see M. Öhler, Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im frühen Christentum, BZNW 88 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 2–6. 27.  On John the Baptist as Elijah in Mark, see D.S. Black, ‘John, Elijah, or One of the Prophets: How the Markan Reader Understands Jesus Through John/Elijah’ (PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2012), 171–91. Interestingly, the reference to Elijah in Mark 9:11-13 is followed by the statement καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν in v. 13, which suggests that not only Jesus’s fate but also John’s is ‘according to scripture’. See further, J.S. Hanson, The Endangered Promises: Conflict in Mark, SBLDS 171 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 114ff. 28.  See n. 11.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

113

If Mark identifies John with Malachi 3 both by means of the biblical conflation in Mark 1:2 and through the Elijah imagery in Mark 1:6, then it would not be far-fetched to conclude that some elements from Malachi’s context are in view. In Mal 3:1, the divine herald would precede Yahweh’s return to the temple: ‘Behold, I send my messenger; he will clear up the way before me. And the Lord will suddenly come to his temple [‫( ’]הנני שׁלח מלאכי ופנה־דרך לפני ופתאם יבוא אל־היכלו האדון‬MT Mal 3:1; OG Mal 3:1: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου, καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος).29 The backdrop against which such a promise is made, however, is that of an unfulfilled hope for the restoration of Zion.30 The returnees from the Babylonian exile are said to have been offering improper sacrifices (Mal 1:7-8), a malpractice for which the Jerusalem priests were to blame (Mal 2:1-9).31 Hence, Malachi 3 announces the cleansing of the priesthood: ‘he will purge the sons of Levi and refine them as gold and silver [‫וטהר את בני‬ ‫( ’]לוי וזקק אתם כזהב וככסף‬MT Mal 3:3; OG Mal 3:3: καὶ καθαρίσει τοὺς υἱοὺς Λευι καὶ χεεῖ αὐτοὺς ὡς τὸ χρυσίον καὶ ὡς τὸ ἀργύριον). The tragedy of such a picture is that the Levites, whose job was to keep the sacrificial system pure, are actually the ones expected to be purified at the time of divine visitation. Implicit in Mal 3:1 is therefore a call to repentance. As Malachi 2 condemns the priests for the unrighteousness of the community, the message of the herald entails not only hope for restoration (cf. Mal 3:3-4), but simultaneously a warning to the Levites. Should they not honour Yahweh, judgement would come upon them, and blessings would be turned into curses (cf. Mal 2:2). Now, the phrase ‘in the desert’ in Mark 1:3-4 connects John more overtly with the Isaianic voice.32 Chapter 40 of OG Isaiah proclaims comfort for the exiles, promising that Yahweh would bring about forgiveness of sins and final restoration to Zion (OG Isa 40:1-6, 8-11). But, in contrast to the MT, the oracle in the OG commands the priests to announce future hope 29.  B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, SBLDS 98 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 130. The divine herald is ascribed the role of ‘clearing up’ or ‘looking upon’ the way in order for the glory of Yahweh to be revealed among his people (MT Mal 3:1: ‫ ;ופנה דרך לפני‬OG Mal 3:1: ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου) 30.  Ibid., 17. 31.  J.M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi, SBLDS 121 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 27–48, demonstrates that the terms ‘priest’ and ‘Levite’ (or ‘son of Levi’) are used interchangeably in Malachi. 32.  The linking of John the Baptist with the composite citation by means of the repetition of the phrase ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ in vv. 3-4 strongly suggests that, syntactically, the formula Καθὼς γέγραπται in v. 2 is also closely linked to what is said in v. 4 onwards.

114

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

to the Jerusalemites: ‘priests, speak to the heart of Jerusalem; comfort her, for her humiliation was fulfilled; her sin has been released, for she received from the hand of the Lord double her sins [ἱερεῖς λαλήσατε εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ιερουσαλημ παρακαλέσατε αὐτήν ὅτι ἐπλήσθη ἡ ταπείνωσις αὐτῆς λέλυται αὐτῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ὅτι ἐδέξατο ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου διπλᾶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῆς]’ (OG Isa 40:2). In this context, OG Isa 40:3 says that a voice in the desert would exhort the chosen people to prepare the way for Yahweh to return to Zion in order to save his people (OG Isa 40:3).33 Hence, Joel Marcus is correct to point out that the Isaiah ascription in Mark 1:2 and the exact quotation from OG Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:3 make the point that the gospel of Jesus the messiah centres on the scriptural promise that Yahweh would restore Jerusalem.34 In this way, John the Baptist is the Isaianic herald proclaiming hope for Zion – he is the voice summoning in the desert the people to prepare the way for Yahweh to deliver Jerusalem. If there is any force to the use of Mal 3:1 in the prologue, however, it, too, informs our interpretation of the ministry of John. Unlike OG Isa 40:3, Mal 3:1 implies a warning to the Jerusalem priests: the eschatological messenger would prepare the way of Yahweh’s return to the temple so as to purge the sons of Levi.35 Accordingly, whereas Mark 1:3 connects the ‘gospel of Jesus the messiah’ with the future restoration of Zion, Mark 1:2 conveys a call for the Levites to repent in the light of God’s impending visitation. Such a scriptural imagery, combined with John’s baptism and message of repentance, would suggest that, in order for ‘the gospel of Jesus the messiah’ to represent the comfort proclaimed in OG Isaiah 40, Yahweh’s return to Zion must be preceded by the priests’ appropriate response to the message of John. To follow John’s call for repentance, 33.  God’s act of deliverance is described as ‘good news [εὐαγγελιζόμενος]’ (cf. OG Isa 40:9). See further the discussion in Roberts, ‘Isaiah’, 140. See also Hengel, Zealots, 249–55, on how the wilderness motif from Isaiah motivated popular resistance movements at the turn of the era. Many, moreover, have regarded Isaiah 40 as speaking of a second exodus. E.g., R. Beaudet, ‘La typologie de l’Exode dans le Second-Isaïe’, Laval Théologique et Philosophique 19 (1963): 12–21; J. Blenkinsopp, ‘Scope and Depth of the Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah, 40–55’, Concilium 20 (1966): 41-50; H.M. Barstad, A Way in the Wilderness: The Second Exodus in the Message of Second Isaiah, JSS 12 (Manchester: University of Manchester, 1989). 34.  Marcus, Way, 12–47; and Watts, New Exodus, 53–90. So also Guelich, Mark, 10: ‘The “beginning of the gospel…written by Isaiah the prophet” would then become the complex events of 1:2b-15 regarding both the Baptist and Jesus that fulfilled Isaiah’s promise (cf. John’s appearance and role—Isa 40:3; Jesus’ appearance—Isa 42:1 and role—Isa 52:7; 6:1)’. 35.  Compare Marxsen, Mark, 37; Gundry, Mark, 31.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

115

in other words, would be the sine qua non for the priests to avoid God’s eschatological judgement.36 Admittedly, this generous reading presupposes that the evangelist was a savvy interpreter of the Jewish Scriptures and, as such, intentionally inserted the scriptural conflation of OG Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 between the Isaiah ascription and the quotation from OG Isa 40:3 in Mark 1:2-3.37 One may suggest alternatively that Mark simply preserves a tradition describing John as, among other things, ‘wearing camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist’, and that the possible link with the allusion to Mal 3:1, which in its broader context speaks of the coming of Elijah, is incidental. Be that as it may, even if one is adamant that Mark does not capitalize on the contexts of the biblical passages in Mark 1:2, it is nevertheless beyond question that the prologue frames the ‘gospel of Jesus the messiah’ both in terms of Isaiah’s hope for the restoration of Jerusalem and the need for the people to respond to the message of the Baptiser.38 John, after all, is not only the one ‘crying out in the desert’, but also the Elijah-like prophet whose baptism conveys ‘repentance for forgiveness of sins’ and whose message prepares his audience for the coming of Jesus. What is more, as I discuss more fully in the next chapter, when the narrative finally reaches its climax in the events in Jerusalem, Jesus confronts the Jewish authorities and links their impending judgement with their prior rejection of John (Mark 11:27–12:12).

36.  Cf. Watts, New Exodus, 90. Pace Watts, however, the priests are the primary objects of God’s eschatological purging, not the temple. That is, the temple is purged when the priests, who profane the temple, are purged. 37.  The composite biblical reference in Mark 1:1-3 may have derived from a ‘testimony book’ (cf. J.R. Harris, Testimonies [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916], 1:8; and Albl, Scripture, 21), or to a deliberate insertion of the conflation in Mark 1:2. The combination of different scriptural texts is attested elsewhere in Mark, which seems to support the lattermost view (cf. Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1 in Mark 1:11; Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17; Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1 in Mark 14:62; see Kee, ‘Function’, 176–7). Relatedly, there is also evidence that Mark combines different stories so that one helps to interpret the other (J.R. Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives’, NovT 31 [1989]: 193–216; S.G. Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, CBQ 64 [2002]: 78–89; and C.A. Evans, ‘How Mark Writes’, in The Written Gospel, ed. M. Bockmuehl and D.A. Hagner [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 135–48). 38.  This is the case even if one assumes that LXX Exod 23:20 is primarily in view in the Markan prologue. See the discussion in Watts, New Exodus, 66–7.

116

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

It is crucial to note at this point that neither John’s baptising in the Jordan39 nor the people’s confessing of sins outside of the Holy City should strike the reader as particularly novel – let alone Christian – practices.40 Both the washing of the body and the confession of sins are prescribed in the Levitical code. Chapters 14–16 of Leviticus, for instance, provide a long list of regulations on when a person was to bathe so as to attain ceremonial purity (also Lev 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 2 Kgs 5:10-14).41 It is said in Lev 15:13 that one should ‘wash the flesh in spring water [‫ורחץ‬ ‫( ’]בשׂרו במים חיים‬cf. Lev 15:11), which suggests that the washing did not always happen in the appointed place of worship (cf. Lev 14:9-11). Likewise, Leviticus 26 instructs the Israelites in exile to turn back to God by confessing their sins (Lev 26:40-45; cf. 26:33; Neh 9:16-18, 26-31; Ezra 9:6-15; Dan 9:4-16), which implies physical alienation from Jerusalem.42 39.  The Jordan had symbolic importance throughout ancient Jewish history (e.g. Exodus 14; Joshua 3–4; 2 Kings 2 and 6; cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.97-98). There is a vast amount of scholarship produced on the historical figure of John, but my concern here is to understand the implications of John’s baptism for the Jerusalem establishment as presented in Mark. See, e.g., M. Goguel, Au Seuil de L’Évangile: Jean-Baptiste (Paris: Payot, 1928); E. Lohmeyer, Johannes der Täufer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932); C.H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); J. Ernst, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation—Geschichte—Wirkungsgeschichte, BZNW 53 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989); R.L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study, JSNTSup 62 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991); B. Chilton, ‘John the Purifier’, in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration, B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, AGJU 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 203–20; J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 2, Mentor, Message and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), passim; J.E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). For further references, see the extensive lists in R.L. Webb, ‘John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus’, in Chilton and Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus, 181 n. 7 and 182–3 n. 13. 40.  This is the case regardless of whether John’s baptism also happened elsewhere. See further the discussion in Scobie, John, 41–8; K. Rudolph, ‘The Baptist Sects’, in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3, The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 471–500; Ernst, Johannes, 280–84; and Chilton, ‘John’, 211ff. 41.  See D.P. Wright, ‘Unclean and Clean (OT)’, in ABD, 6:729–41. J. Milgrom (Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 841–2) points out that rabbinic tradition specified the verb ‫רחץ‬, used in Leviticus to describe the act of bathing in water, in terms of ‫‘( טבל‬to immerse’). Yarbro Collins (Mark, 139) adds that the occurrences of βαπτίζω in Jdt 12:7 and Sir 34:25 already reflect the use of ‫ טבל‬with reference to ceremonial washing. 42.  On the relation between sin and purity in ancient Judaism, see J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 22–61.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

117

In fact, the description in Mark 1:4-5 of John baptising the people near the Judean desert as they confessed their sins finds a compelling parallel in Qumran.43 By the turn of the era, the Dead Sea sect also had been doing immersions and confession of sins, and its members seem to have been preoccupied with the proper way of performing those rituals. The Damascus Document says that one should not use filthy and shallow water for the cleansing of the body (CD 10:10-11), whereas the Rule of the Community speaks of public confession of sins as an important requirement of all those joining the sectarians (1QS 1:22–2:1; cf. 4Q393).44 Also noteworthy is the fact that the Qumran community sometimes blurred the lines separating physical cleansing from moral purity. The Rule of the Community thus closely associates ethical cleanness with ritual washing: on the one hand, those who refused to join the community were unable to repent and hence ‘could not be purified by any washing in water [‫( ’]לוא יטהר בכול מי רחץ‬cf. 1QS 2:25–3:5), but, on the other hand, those belonging to the sect were capable of ‘consecrating themselves by the cleansing water [‫( ’]להתקדש במי דוכי‬cf. 1QS 3:6-10).45 The ablutions and confession of sins practised in Qumran are assumed to reflect both the priestly self-understanding of the sectarians and their polemical stance towards the temple institution under the Hasmonean rule.46 Considering the similarities between the Baptiser’s activities and 43.  See G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962), 13–14; L.H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 103; Webb, John, 108–32; and M. Himmelfarb, ‘Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS and 4Q512’, DSD 8 (2001): 9–37. It is unsurprising, therefore, that many have linked the historical John with Qumran. See further W.H. Brownlee, ‘John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls’, Int 9 (1955): 71–90; and further references in C.H. Scobie, ‘John the Baptist’, in The Scrolls and Christianity, ed. M. Black (London: SCM, 1969), 58–69. But compare Taylor, John, 49–58, who argues that John was not directly associated with Qumran. To be sure, as noted by Beasley-Murray (Baptism, 18–31), Webb (‘John’, 191), Chilton (‘John’, 218) and Klawans (Impurity, 142–3), John’s baptism is also distinct: in contrast to the Levitical code and what we know about Qumran, he himself executes the washings – all the Jerusalemites were being baptised by him in the Jordan (Mark 1:5). But the parallels are still too conspicuous to be dismissed. 44.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 144; cf. D. Falk, ‘4Q393: A Communal Confession’, JJS 45 (1994): 184–207. 45.  See also 1QS 5:13. For further discussion, see Klawans, Impurity, 90. 46.  See D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 193–201; cf. C.A. Evans, ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century Temple’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. D.J. Lull, SBLSP 27 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 522–39.

118

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the Qumran procedures, Robert Webb regards the link between baptism, repentance and forgiveness of sins in John’s ministry (Mark 1:4; cf. Luke 3:3) as an indication that he mediated divine forgiveness and acted as a priest himself (as per the reference to his priestly line in Luke 1:5, 23).47 N.T. Wright, for his part, takes a step further and claims that the washing performed by John altogether supplanted the sacrificial system.48 In a similar vein, Nicholas Perrin, presuming that the Dead Sea sect envisaged the supersession of the temple, maintains that John believed a ‘new temple’ to be ‘already taking shape’ through his preaching in the desert.49 Such a line of contention, however, is inconsistent with the evidence both in the Scrolls and in Mark. For one thing, one must recall that the deep concern with issues of purity in Qumran ultimately represented the hope that the sectarians would control the Jerusalem shrine after the defeat of the sons of darkness in the end of days (cf. 1QM).50 This significantly 47.  Webb, John, 190–3; idem, ‘John’, 184, 191–2. See also Klawans, Impurity, 142–4, who agrees that John mediates forgiveness, but says nothing about John’s taking upon himself of priestly prerogatives. 48.  Wright, Jesus, 160–2. See also Dunn, Jesus, 359–60, who agrees that John mediates forgiveness, but is cautious not to conclude that John’s baptism replaces the temple rituals. 49.  Perrin, Temple, 41 (see 37–42). It is puzzling that Perrin reaches this conclusion even though he grants that ‘in John’s mind, the formation of a new Israel did not necessitate a clean break from all aspects of workday life in Jerusalem nor from, as far as we can tell, regular involvement in the life of the temple’ (39). 50.  Chilton, ‘John’, 214: ‘On a routine level, the Essenes appear to have focused on the issue of purity, thus maintaining a tense relationship with the cultic establishment which comported well with their apocalyptic expectation that control of the Temple would one day be theirs’. Nicholas Perrin is therefore correct to note that the Qumran sectarians saw themselves as representing an alternative to the temple (Temple, 34; cf. 1QS 8:1-10), but it does not follow that they understood the Jerusalem shrine to be once and for all redundant. For instance, though the Rule of the Community uses temple language to speak of the community of the Yahad (especially 1QS 8:4-6), it also deploys the scriptural text of Isa 40:3 to describe them as those ‘preparing the way of the Lord in the desert’ (1QS 8:12-14; 9:19-20), which betrays the hope for the future restoration of Jerusalem. More importantly, the Rule of the Community also announces the coming of the ‘messiahs of Aaron and of Israel’ (1QS 9:11), who, as I have argued in Chapter 1, were expected to rule over the Holy City in the end of days. Accordingly, it is more likely that the community of the Yahad regarded themselves as a temporary alternative to the temple, since they expected the Davidic messiah to establish them in Zion. This point seems to be further supported by the reference to the ‘sanctuary of humanity [‫ ’]מקדש אדם‬in 4Q174 1–2.1:6. The sanctuary of humanity could connote either a physical temple (e.g., Schwartz, ‘Temples’, 88; Wise, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 107–10) or the Qumran community itself (e.g., Brooke, Exegesis,

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

119

complicates the claim that John’s baptism replicates Qumran’s alleged view that the temple was no longer needed. If the practice of ablutions by the sectarians should inform how one interprets the baptism of John,51 it is certainly not to suggest that the latter renders the Jerusalem temple utterly obsolete. For another thing, while Mark 1:4-5 does connect John’s baptism with divine forgiveness,52 it is still highly doubtful how this would determine the redundancy of the Levitical system. Elsewhere in the narrative, Jesus commands a healed leper to obey the Levitical code and to offer in the temple what was required regarding the cleansing (Mark 1:44; cf. Leviticus 14). Given the overall continuity between Jesus and John in Mark – already in the prologue the focus narrows down from John, the Elijah-like prophet, to Jesus, the beloved Son of God (Mark 1:11; cf. Mark 9:12-13; 11:27-32)53 – the claim that the Baptiser supersedes the Jerusalem priesthood prompts: if that is the case, then why does Jesus send a man to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem? I return to this passage in a moment, but here it must be stressed that John’s preaching of divine forgiveness does not necessitate the replacement of the temple in Mark. Besides, while it is possible that John was a rural priest (cf. Luke 1:5, 23),54 the earliest Gospel makes absolutely nothing of his bloodline.

176; Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 165–89; Knibb, Qumran, 258–62), but it is unlikely that it stands for a permanent shrine, not least given the possible contrast between the ‘sanctuary of humanity’ and what was a reference to the ‘sanctuary of the Lord [‫ ’]מקדשׁ אדני‬in the partially preserved citation of Exod 15:17-18 in 4Q174 1–2.1:3 (cf. 11QTemple column 29; see Collins, Scepter, 116–17). Even if one assumes that the ‘sanctuary of humanity’ is the Qumran community, and that there is no contrast at all between the different sanctuaries in 4Q174, it is still not entirely clear that the sectarians understood themselves permanently to replace the Jerusalem temple. After all, 4Q174 itself looks forward to the coming of the Branch of David, who would take a stand in order to deliver Israel (4Q174 1–2.1:11-14) and to establish the Dead Sea community as Israel’s true priests. 51.  Cf. Brownlee, ‘John’, 71–90. 52.  See Klawans, Impurity, 139–43. Compare Taylor, Immerser, 49–58 with Dunn, Jesus, 357–61, on the possibility (or not) that John’s baptism was repeatable to each person. See also A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Origin of Christian Baptism’, Studia Liturgica 19 (1989): 28–46. 53.  Thus, the juxtaposition of Mal 3:1 and OG Isa 40:3 is not a set of proof texts to give scriptural symbolism to the ministry of John ‘in the desert’ (Mark 1:3, 4). As Jesus’s divine sonship overshadows the fact that he is baptised by John, the content of the prologue is also explicative of Mark 1:1. Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 9. 54.  Cf. P. Hollenbach, ‘Social Aspects of John the Baptizer’s Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism’, in ANRW 2.19.1:856.

120

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

It is more plausible that the baptism of John anticipates divine forgiveness insofar as it invites the Israelites to undefiled engagement in worship in view of God’s eschatological visitation to Zion through the messiah. This interpretation suits quite well the otherwise ambiguous phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν and finds partial support in Josephus’s account of John’s baptism: ‘the baptism would appear pleasing to [God], when they used it, not for the supplication of certain sins, but for the purity of the body, just as also when the soul had indeed been cleansed beforehand by righteousness [τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι μὴ ἐπί τινων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐφ᾿ ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης]’ (Ant. 18.117). According to Josephus, in other words, John’s ablutions were legitimate inasmuch as they were accompanied by genuine piety. In resemblance to the Rule of the Community, to be sure, Mark 1:4-5 does not allow a clear-cut distinction between ceremonial and ethical cleanness. On this point, Jonathan Klawans’s comment is well-taken: ‘[b]ecause John advocated baptism as a ritual of repentance, he clearly did not compartmentalize ritual impurity and sin’.55 Nevertheless, we have no good reasons to regard as a misjudgement Josephus’s differentiation between the water immersions performed by John and the exact process by which divine forgiveness was believed to be actualized.56 Leviticus itself says that ceremonial washing at times should be followed by sacrifices, including the ‘sin offering [‫( ’]חטאת‬cf. MT Lev 12:6), after which the priest would finally make atonement at the appointed place of worship (cf. Lev 14:8-20).57 But even more important is that the prologue portrays John as the one who makes ready the way of Yahweh by summoning all the people to belief in the authority of God’s ‘beloved son’ (Mark 1:11; 9:7). And that call, it should be emphasized, includes the priests. Therefore, the repentance John advocates entails the recognition of Jesus by all Israel in general and the Jerusalem rulers in particular (cf. Mark 1:1, 11). As the Baptiser himself admits, he is only the forerunner of ‘the stronger one’ – it is Jesus who baptises with the holy spirit and brings Jerusalem to its eschatological climax (Mark 1:7-8). So

55.  Klawans, Impurity, 144. 56.  Cf. Dunn, Jesus, 360. 57.  See further M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (Chico: Scholars, 1983), 54–5. Ceremonial impurity, moreover, not always had to go hand in glove with forgiveness of sins. For instance, while the people who have recently engaged in intra-marital sexual intercourse and childbirth are considered unclean, these practices are not rendered sinful (cf. Gen 1:28). See Klawans, Impurity, 22–61; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 139.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

121

the forgiveness of sins implied in John’s baptism conveys an anticipatory sense: it looks forward to the culmination of the fate of Jerusalem through Jesus the messiah.58 To quote Josef Ernst, ‘Die Taufe des Johannes vermittelt dem Umkehrenden die feste Zusage der Sündennachlassung – im kommenden Gericht’.59 In the light of the foregoing discussion, it appears, then, that the comment in Mark 1:5 – ‘the whole Judean countryside and all the Jerusalemites’ – is much more than a mere generalization. Mark suggests hyperbolically that all people from that particular side of the country, directly neighbouring the territory under priestly authority, came to listen to John (compare Matt 3:1-6 and Luke 1:1-18). But one is left wondering whether the priests were there, among those who were baptised by John, confessing their sins.60 The sweeping description in Mark 1:5, after all, contrasts with Mark’s habit of specifying the Jewish leaders elsewhere (cf. Mark 1:22; 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:11-14; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 12:28-40; 14:1, 43, 53-55; 15:1, 31). From its very outset, the narrative thus seems to presage the controversies between Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Mark 11–16.61 Would the Jerusalem rulers have known Jesus as the messianic son (cf. Mark 14:61), had they attended to the divine herald in the prologue (cf. Mark 1:11)? I address this issue more fully in Chapter 5 below. Mark mentions John again, when Jesus, having caused some disturbance at the temple (Mark 11:15-17), is questioned precisely by the temple rulers regarding the authority by which he predicates his actions (Mark 11:27-28). There, it is not incidental that Jesus responds by placing his actions in continuity with the baptism of John. As Mark 1:1-8 has already indicated, the Jewish rulers’ unbelief in the messiah is foreshadowed by their prior rejection of the heavenly endorsed end-time herald (Mark 11:29-30; cf. 9:12-13).62

58.  Note the emphasis on κατασκευάσει, ἑτοιμάσατε and εὐθείας ποιεῖτε in vv. 3-4. See R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 138; Hanson, Promises, 101–2, 122–3; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 137. 59.  Ernst, Johannes, 335. See also Meier, Jew, 2:54–5; pace Webb, John, 193. 60.  Matthew’s version has a reference to ‘many from the Pharisees and the Sadducees [πολλοὺς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων]’ (Matt 3:7), but there the intent of John’s message more evidently conveys judgement on the Jewish rulers (cf. Matt 3:8: ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας). 61.  Cf. Hanson, Promises, 122. 62.  Cf. Matera, ‘Prologue’, 12ff.

122

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The Healing of the Leper and the Witness to the Priests On top of the passing references to the Jerusalem leaders in the passion predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34), the narrative preceding Jesus’s entry into the Holy City (Mark 1–10) presents two explicit references to the priests. The first instance is Mark 1:40-45, which reads as follows: 1:40 1:41 1:42 1:43 1:44

Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν [καὶ γονυπετῶν]63 καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς64 ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτὸν65 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν66 εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.

1:40

And a leper came to him, urging him and saying to him: ‘If you are willing, you are able to cleanse me’. 1:41 And, moved by compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him and said to him: ‘I am willing; be cleansed’. 1:42 So immediately the leprosy left him, and he was clean. 1:43 And, giving him a strong warning, Jesus immediately sent him away. 1:44 He said to him: ‘See that you not tell anyone anything. But go away, show yourself to the priest and offer concerning your cleansing that which Moses commanded, as a witness to them.’

In brief, a leper begs Jesus for healing, to which the latter responds by demonstrating his non-deferential authority: ‘I am willing, be cleansed’ (Mark 1:41). 63.  While the absence of γονυπετῶν could be accounted for as haplography (note the same ending in παρακαλῶν and λέγων), manuscripts B, D and W strongly support the following reading: παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγων. Compare C.H. Tuner, ‘Textual Commentary on Mark 1’, JTS 28 (1927): 156–7. 64.  D (among others) substitutes ὀργισθείς for σπλαγχνισθείς. It is possible that copyists tried to soften the tone of Jesus’s attitude by replacing ὀργισθείς with σπλαγχνισθείς, but wider attestation as well as Jesus’s being ‘angry’ elsewhere in Mark (3:5; 10:14) suggest otherwise (e.g., Metzger, Commentary, 65; cf. Tuner, ‘Commentary’, 157; Taylor, Mark, 187; France, Mark, 115; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 179). 65.  The clause καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν is missing in W and B. 66.  ‫א‬, A, D, L and W (among others) harmonize with Matt 8:4 and Luke 5:14 by omitting μηδέν.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

123

With regards to the question of whether Jesus actually heals or simply declares the leper to be ritually clean, the evidence strongly suggests that both results are in view in the story. First, because καθαρίζω is the recurring verb in the pericope, ceremonial purity is likely the main concern of the story.67 Secondly, although θεραπεύω is more commonly used for healing in Mark (rather than καθαρίζω; cf. Mark 1:34; 3:2, 10; 6:5, 13), Mark 1:42 states that physical restoration is the outcome of Jesus’s touching of the leper: ‘and immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed’.68 By healing the man’s leprosy, that is, Jesus also cleanses him.69 Directly pertinent for my purposes is the fact that Jesus, having performed the miracle, instructs the leper to show himself to the priest and to offer what the Mosaic law prescribed, ‘as a witness to them’ (Mark 1:44; cf. Leviticus 13–14). Syntactically, the proximity between the imperative προσένεγκε and the phrase εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς suggests that the latter modifies primarily the former. The puzzle is that, while εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς may simply connote the necessity of the priestly confirmation of the cleansing according to Leviticus 14,70 the idea that the offering would serve as a witness does not belong to its scriptural setting.71 So in what sense is the offering intended as a witness in Mark 1:44? Mark uses the expression εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς at two other places. In Mark 6:11, Jesus exhorts his disciples, in the case of their not being welcomed at a given place, to shake off the dust under their feet ‘as a witness to them [εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς]’. In Mark 13:9, the followers of Jesus are told that they will be taken before political authorities to preach the gospel ‘as a witness to them [εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς]’. Given the emphasis on the hostility against the followers of Jesus in both Mark 6:11 and 13:9, some have maintained that Mark 1:44 conveys the sense of a 67.  France (Mark, 117) is therefore correct to suggest that the desired outcome of Jesus’s action is for the leper ‘to be restored to “clean” society’. 68.  Wrede (Messianic, 50) claims that Jesus only pronounces cleansing to the leper. But Yarbro Collins’s observation is to the point: the verb καθαρίζω ‘is used in Lev 14:2, 4, not for the healing of a skin disorder but for the process by which the person is declared ritually “clear” or “pure” and thus reintegrated into society. Here, however, it is clear that the verb is used for the process of physical healing’ (Mark, 179). See also R.H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 105. 69.  Note a similar dynamic between healing and cleansing in the story of Naaman in 2 Kgs 5:14. 70.  E.g., Taylor, Mark, 190; Gnilka, Markus, 1:93; Schweizer, Mark, 58. 71.  D.W. Chapman, The Orphan Gospel: Mark’s Perspective on Jesus, BS 16 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 75–6.

124

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

witness against them.72 Such a conclusion, however, seems implausible. Luke more clearly interprets Mark 6:11 as connoting a witness ‘against them [ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς]’ (Luke 9:5), but the preposition ἐπί never follows μαρτύριον in the earliest Gospel. What is more, not only is the phrase in Mark 13:9 ambiguous, Matthew and Luke read it positively, meaning that the witness is an opportunity for the disciples to preach the gospel to the rulers (cf. Matt 10:18-20; Luke 21:12-15).73 So the reading of αὐτοῖς as a dative of disadvantage in Mark 1:44 is poorly supported by the broader context of the narrative, and εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς connotes the more natural sense of ‘as a witness to them’.74 What, then, do the words of Jesus suggest? To begin with, it must be noted that the offering of the healed man is meant as a witness to the priests.75 This is confirmed by Mark 6:11 and 13:9, in which αὐτοῖς refers to its immediate antecedent – that is, ‘whatever place that should not receive you or listen to you’ in Mark 6:11 and the ‘governors and kings’ in Mark 13:9. It is unclear whether Jesus sends the man to the temple or to the village priest, but, bearing in mind that Leviticus 14 requires the killing of an animal as part of the ritual by which the person is declared clean, it is likely that the priests to whom the witness is directed in the story world of Mark are the ones officiating in Jerusalem, who were in charge of the temple sacrifices (cf. Lev 14:11). In Leviticus 14 it is clear that the ritual of cleansing is complete only after all the sacrificial procedures have been fulfilled (cf. MT Lev 14:20b: ‫ ;וכפר עליו הכהן וטהר‬cf. LXX Lev 14:20b: καὶ ἐξιλάσεται περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἱερεύς, καὶ καθαρισθήσεται).76 In Mark, Jesus pronounces the cleansing 72.  See H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, NTS 8 (Leiden Brill, 1965), 249; W.L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NLCNT (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974), 87; Kertelge, Wunder, 69; Guelich, Mark, 72, 76–7; E.K. Broadhead, ‘Mark 1,44: The Witness of the Leper’, ZNW 83 (1992): 260–5; R.L. Webb, ‘Jesus Heals a Leper: Mark 1.40–45 and Egerton Gospel 35–47’, JSHJ 4 (2006): 200–201; and Joseph, Jesus, 118. 73.  Ibid. Interestingly, Luke 21:13 lacks αὐτοῖς, thus simply suggesting ‘a witness’ to the gospel. 74.  Cf. Taylor, Mark, 190; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:146; Gnilka, Markus, 1:91; Gundry, Mark, 104; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 179. 75.  Pace, e.g., R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 103, who believes that ‘to them’ refers to Israel. See the further discussion in C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 95. 76.  Such a procedure would have taken eight days to take place. See France, Mark, 119.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

125

before the priests make atonement for the impurity of the leper.77 Indeed, Leviticus 14 says that the sacrifice was to follow the priestly recognition of the healing, and only then was the person to be declared cleansed (Lev 14:20b). It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Jesus in any way undermines the role of the Levites. Jesus’s declaration of cleansing involves his healing act and hence surpasses the function of the priests.78 Leviticus 13–14 gives regulations on how to deal with impurity, but nowhere are the ones officiating the sacrificial system expected to heal illnesses. Jesus’s restoration of the leper, in other words, does not necessarily usurp, nor does it contradict, what the priests were supposed to perform.79 It is Jesus himself, after all, who sends the leper to Jerusalem (Mark 1:42) and leaves it to the priests to conduct the examination prescribed in Lev 14:2-4. It would make little sense for Jesus to exhort the man to keep ‘what Moses commanded’, if the point was the subversion of the Israelite cultus. While the healing of the leper is de facto an act of cleansing, the priests are still the ones expected to confirm that the man is ceremonially clean (cf. Leviticus 13–14).80 What the evidence seems to indicate instead is that the witness to the priests conveys a call to repentance, much in line with what is announced in the Markan prologue. Ever since his return from the period of temptation in the desert (Mark 1:9-13), Jesus has been preaching the coming of the kingdom of God and summoning the people to belief in the gospel (Mark 1:14-15). More to the point, unlike the scribes, Jesus is said to teach ‘as one having authority [ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων]’ (Mark 1:22) – he is able to cast out demons with a simple command and to heal many suffering from diseases (Mark 1:23-34, 39). Following the same pattern,

77.  Cf. B. Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, NovTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 47. 78.  Pace Fletcher-Louis, ‘Messiah: Part 2’, 57–77. J.D.M. Derrett (Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 4, Midrash, the Composition of the Gospels, and Discipline [Leiden: Brill, 1986], 5–6) suggests that, at the historical level, the leper may have asked Jesus to declare him clean in the hope of saving the money corresponding to the sacrificial offering, thus placing Jesus in tension with the authorities in Jerusalem. But Derrett admits that Jesus does not contradict the temple system in the passage. See Crossley, Date, 87–88. 79.  Pace Chilton, Feast, 34: Jesus ‘takes up the authority assigned to the priests in Leviticus 14:2-9’; and Webb, ‘Jesus’, 198–9, who is yet correct that ‘the leper does not want to be a leper any longer’. 80.  Compare Chilton, Feast, 47.

126

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the cleansing of the man with leprosy displays Jesus’s unmatched power.81 Who is this who touches the leper and, rather than being contaminated, cleanses the diseased by his own will? So the offering is a witness to the priests in the sense that it points to the miraculous healing of the leper, which, in turn, evinces the authority of Jesus.82 The point of Jesus’s command, in other words, is ultimately christological: the offering is a witness about the healing, but also about the one who just cleansed the leper at will. It follows, then, that the witness is important because it is aimed at generating the appropriate response in the Jerusalem rulers. As R.T. France puts it, though it will take some time for Jesus to reach Jerusalem, the cured leper will give an ‘advance warning’ regarding the deeds of Jesus in Galilee.83 Mark does not tell us whether or not the healed man obeyed Jesus’s command and went to the priest. All we know is that the former broke the injunction to silence and ‘began to proclaim many things and to spread the word [ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον]’ (Mark 1:45). As already mentioned, moreover, the Jewish authorities consistently oppose Jesus throughout the Gospel. Pharisees and scribes accuse Jesus of blasphemy (Mark 2:1-12), question his standards for table fellowship and seeming disregard for religious asceticism (Mark 2:13-20), and take issues with his lenient view on Sabbath and washing of hands (Mark 2:23–3:5; 7:1-23). Pharisees and Herodians plot to kill the messiah (Mark 3:6), while some scribes from Jerusalem claim that he is possessed by Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). These instances anticipate the chief priests’ hostility to Jesus in Jerusalem, just as repeatedly announced by Jesus himself.84 It is relevant, in any case, that Jesus never demonstrates the 81.  Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 6. 82.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 179: ‘The healing is to demonstrate to the authorities that Jesus has the power to heal and therefore is God’s agent’ – and God’s agent of the eschatological kingdom at that. 83.  France, Mark, 120. 84.  This grim picture of the Jewish leaders in general, of course, reflects the evangelist’s view that they are the ones to blame for the crucifixion of Jesus. The emphasis on the hostility of the Jewish authorities also seems to underscore their responsibility in the crisis surrounding the temple ca. 70 CE, which, to Mark, relates to the implied admonition of Mal 3:1 in Mark 1:2. The evangelist’s editorial note about the ‘cleansing of all foods [καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα]’ in Mark 7:19b, for that matter, seems to betray a Sitz im Leben in which early Christian communities were already seeking to qualify the implications of kosher laws for an increasingly Gentile audience (cf. 1 Cor 8:8). Yet, there is no indication in Mark that Jesus altogether undermines the Jewish purity system. See Yarbro Collins, Mark, 356. See also D.J. Rudolph, ‘Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b’, EQ 74 (2002):

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

127

outright dismissal of the temple cult prior to his arrival in Jerusalem. This suggests that the conflict in Mark 11–16 takes place not on the unilateral initiative of Jesus, but as a response to the obduracy of the Jerusalem priests. I shall return to this point in the next chapter. The Example of King David and Abiathar the High Priest The other passage mentioning a priestly figure in Mark 1–10 is Mark 2:23-28. The section Mark 2:1–3:6 relays several controversy stories, in which the themes of Jesus’s authority and conflict are intertwined.85 The pericope in question presents the Pharisees challenging Jesus on account of his disciples’ plucking of grain on a Sabbath: 2:23

Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες86 τοὺς στάχυας. 2:24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 2:25 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, 2:26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως87 καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; 2:27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον· 2:28 ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. 299–311, who builds upon the works of, among others, Klawans (Impurity, 147–51), M. Bockmuehl (Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000]) and T. Holmén (Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking, BibInt 55 [Leiden: Brill, 2001]), and makes a cogent case that Mark 7:19 does not intend the total rejection of Jewish food laws, but rather gives a more nuanced account of the relation between ritual cleanliness and moral purity. Crossley (Date, 192) reaches a similar conclusion, though he thinks that Mark 7:19 both betrays a pre-50 CE Sitz im Leben and is about Jewish Christians’ dispensing of oral traditions demanding hand washing. See also J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law (London: SPCK, 1990), 37–60; and idem, ‘Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate’, NTS 48 (2002): 449–67. 85.  See J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6, SBLDS 48 (Chico: Scholars, 1980), 94. 86.  D, W and it read ἤρξαντο τίλλειν, but this may simply reflect attempts at erasing the somewhat odd phrase ὁδὸν ποιεῖν (or ὁδοποιεῖν in B). 87.  D, W and it harmonize with Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4, thus omitting ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως and eliminating the apparent inconsistency with the narrative of 1 Samuel 21.

128

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

2:23

And it happened that he passed through a grain field on Sabbath, and his disciples began to make way, plucking the heads of grain. 2:24 But the Pharisees said to him: ‘See, why do they do on Sabbath what is not rightful?’ 2:25 So he said to them: ‘Did you never read what David did when he had need, and he and those with him were hungry? 2:26 How he entered the house of God at the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the breads of offering, which it was not rightful for one to eat if not the priests, and he also gave [the breads] to those being with him (1 Sam 21:1-6)?’ 2:27 Then he said to them: ‘Sabbath came to be because of the human being, and not the human being because of Sabbath; 2:28 so the Son of man is lord also of Sabbath’.

Sabbath keeping was a matter of dispute in Second Temple Judaism. The discussions in Jub. 50:6-13 and CD 10–11 betray the concern regarding what constituted work on the seventh day of the week. But while not much is known about the Pharisaic interpretation of the matter, one finds a clear reference to the prohibition of harvesting in m. Shabb. 7:2, a rabbinic text which, though admittedly later than Mark, may very well reflect a pre-70 CE tradition (cf. Deut 23:25).88 This suggests that Mark 2:23-28 presupposes a similar issue, as the disciples’ plucking of grain is comparable to the act of harvesting and hence represents the breaking of Sabbath. So Jesus reacts by appealing to the Scriptures. The passage to which Jesus alludes here says that David came to Nob, where Ahimelech was serving as high priest (1 Sam 21:1-6). Ahimelech was the father of another high priest, namely, Abiathar, who is portrayed elsewhere in 1 Samuel as one of David’s allies (cf. 1 Sam 22:20-23). I return to the reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 shortly, but 1 Samuel 21 tells us that David, once in Nob, made up a story, saying that he and his servants were sent by King Saul in order to get some bread from Ahimelech. The reader knows, however, that David was alone, fleeing from King Saul (cf. 1 Samuel 20). As the scriptural story continues, Ahimelech gives David the holy bread, which, according to Lev 24:5-9, was reserved only for Aaron and his sons. The editorial comment in 1 Sam 21:6b regarding the bread’s having been ‘replaced on the day it had been taken away’ suggests that all this happened on a Sabbath, since Lev 24:8 prescribes for the holy bread of the presence to be arranged on the seventh day (cf. b. Menaḥ. 95). This explains why Jesus appeals to this story when questioned about Sabbath keeping. 88.  See further E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990), 6–23.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

129

Despite the fact that David is said to have lied to Ahimelech, the Talmud suggests that the rabbis attempted to justify David’s breaking of the Levitical law by prioritizing the preservation of human life over against the strict following of Torah regulations. Thus the ethical difficulties in 1 Sam 21:6 are explained in b. Menaḥ. 95b-96a: They said to him, ‘There is no bread here except for the show bread that is taken from before the Lord’. And David said to them, ‘There is no question concerning that bread, since it is not subject to the law of sacrilege [the priests’ having a right to it now], it is entirely common. But even the bread that has been sanctified today in a utensil give me to eat, for I am in danger of losing my life [and the law may be suspended to save a life].’89

Given Jesus’s addendum in Mark 2:25, ‘David and those with him were hungry’, one may assume that Mark 2:27 reflects the same exegetical move as b. Menaḥ. 95b-96a – namely, Sabbath was originally meant to keep humanity, not the other way round (cf. Mek. 109).90 If Jesus admits that the disciples broke the Sabbath, he also upholds the sacredness of the seventh day. Jesus himself admits that, like David’s companions, the disciples were indeed doing something forbidden (οὐκ ἔξεστιν). And, just as David’s doing of what was not right does not imply that his actions nullified the holiness of the breads, the disciples’ plucking of the heads of grain does not mean that Sabbath was made altogether void. What Jesus does instead is to build his defence on the basis of ‘the precedence of an authoritative example from the past’,91 and to stress that, however one understands the specifics of Sabbath keeping, it does not have priority over human needs. Taking it for granted that the servants 89.  J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation. XXIX.C: Tractate Menahot Chapters 8–13, BJS 237 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 107. See further I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917), 129; and Str-B 1:618–9; Guelich, Mark, 122. 90.  This point is repeated in the following pericope, when Jesus asks the people in the Synagogue whether ‘it is rightful to do good or to practise evil on Sabbath, to save a life or to kill [ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι, ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι]’ (Mark 3:4). 91.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 202. See also Evans, ‘New Testament Writers’, 39. To be sure, nowhere does Mark 2:23-28 say anything about the disciples’ being desperately hungry or eating what they harvested. Yet, there is no reason to doubt that some sort of need is implicit in the disciples’ actions, and the emphasis Jesus gives both on the hunger of ‘those with David’ as well as on the notion that ‘Sabbath is for human beings’ complicates any attempts at suggesting otherwise. Pace Hooker, Mark, 103–4; and Gundry, Mark, 142.

130

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

of David were present in 1 Sam 21:1-6 (cf. Mark 2:26), Jesus suggests that the disciples should be likewise exonerated from the consequences of breaking Sabbath, on the basis of David’s unlawful and yet acceptable attitude.92 What is important for my purposes is that Jesus brings the argument home with a christological punchline. In Mark 2:28, that is, Jesus says that ‘the Son of man is lord also of Sabbath’. Bultmann and others have suggested that the occurrence of ‘Son of man’ in v. 28 may represent a parallelism with ἄνθρωπος in v. 27 thus simply meaning ‘humanity’ – as Sabbath is made for humanity, humanity is lord of Sabbath.93 The conjunction ὥστε in Mark 2:28 does indicate that the statement ‘the Son of man is lord also of Sabbath’ is logically connected to Mark 2:27.94 The word κύριος, however, is never used in Mark to speak of humanity in general, and the evangelist most often employs ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου with reference to Jesus. It is much more likely, therefore, that the pithy statement in Mark 2:28 refers to Jesus himself. Elsewhere in the Gospel, the designation ‘Son of man’ is associated with the messianic epithet ‘the messiah, the Son of the Blessed’ (Mark 14:61-62), which suggests in hindsight that the former carries a christological sense in Mark 2:28.95 92.  On Jesus’s view of the companions of David in 1 Samuel 21, see Daube, ‘Responsibilities’, 5. 93.  Bultmann, History, 16–17; and also, e.g., L.S. Hay, ‘The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28’, JBL 89 (1970): 73–5; J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 61–2; J.B. Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 24–5; Lindars, Son of Man, 103–6. On the Aramaic equivalent to Son of man – namely, ‫ – בר נׁשא‬see G. Vermès, Jesus, 188–91, and his previous works cited therein. See also M. Casey, ‘General, Generic, and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987): 21–56; idem, The Solution to the Son of Man Problem, LNTS 343 (London: T&T Clark International, 2007), passim. 94.  See Guelich, Mark, 125–6. Pace, e.g., Taylor, Mark, 218; Lane, Mark, 120; Gnilka, Markus, 2:124; A. Lindemann, ‘ “Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden”: Historische und theologische Erwägungen zur Traditionsgeschichte der Sabbatperikope, Mark 2:23-28 parr.’, WD 15 (1979): 92–3; B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 103–6, who believe that v. 28 is an isolated saying simply attached to the passage as a summary statement. 95.  It is quite conceivable, of course, that the pithy statement in v. 28 was about human needs in pre-Markan form (cf. Bultmann, History, 27–8), but given the use of Son of man in the narrative as a whole, not least in Mark 14:61-62, the expression most likely conveys christological overtones.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

131

Furthermore, Mark 2:23-28 falls within a group of passages whose predominant purpose is to underscore Jesus’s authority (Mark 2:1–3:6; note Mark 2:10: ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς),96 and, therefore, Son of man here is most likely a reference to Jesus’s distinct identity. To wit: because Sabbath exists for the sake of humanity, it follows that Jesus, the Son of man, overrules Sabbath.97 Most importantly, the christological thrust of Jesus’s statement in Mark 2:28 forces the reader to revisit the reference to David in the preceding verses. Yarbro Collins’s comment is insightful: For the informed member of the audience, the allusion to Jesus’ status as the messiah in vv. 27-28 puts the appeal to the example of David in a new light. The incident is no longer seen primarily as an argument about human hunger and need in general, but about David as king and his authority. Just as David had authority to override conventional interpretations of the will of God because he was God’s chosen one, so also Jesus has authority to interpret and proclaim the will of God in the last days.98

Simply put, just as David could enter the house of God and eat the bread of offering because he was King David,99 Jesus has the authority to allow his disciples to fulfil their needs on the seventh day precisely because he is the lord over Sabbath. So, beneath the surface, the allusion to 1 Samuel 21 not only makes a legal point, but also highlights Jesus’s status as one comparable to David.100 96.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 204–5, rightly points out that the identity of ‘the son of man’ in Mark 2:10 and 2:28 is part of a riddle which finds its solution in Jesus, ‘the Son of man’. 97.  Hooker, Mark, 105; Gundry, Mark, 144–5. Pace Guelich, Mark, 126, the evidence overwhelmingly favours the interpretation of Son of man as a reference to Jesus. 98.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 205. Earlier arguments for Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’s authority in Mark 2:28 include E. Lohse, ‘Jesu Worte über den Sabbat’, in Judentum, Urchristentum und Kirsche, ed. W. Eltester, BZNW 26 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), 82–3; and H.E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 131. So also Hooker, Mark, 105; and France, Mark, 145. 99.  Jesus’s comment that ‘David entered the house of God’, absent in the original context of 1 Samuel 21, intensifies that he did ‘what was not rightful’. See P.V.M. Flesher, ‘Bread of the Presence’, in ABD, 1:780–81. 100.  This may explain the puzzling description in Mark 2:23 that ‘the disciples began to make way, plucking the heads of grain’. Many translate the entire sentence simply along the lines of ‘the disciples began to pluck the heads of grain as they made their way’ (e.g, Taylor, Mark, 215; Lane, Mark, 114; Gnilka, Markus, 1:118; Gundry, Mark, 139–40; Boring, Mark, 88). The simplest way of reading ποιεῖν, however,

132

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Given the christological motivation of the analogy with David, the mentioning of a high priest seems far from incidental. Were the point of the passage only to emphasize the priority of human needs over Sabbath keeping or simply to suggest Jesus’s Davidic identity, it would make little sense to bring up the relatively obscure figure of Abiathar. What does Mark imply with such a reference? When David fled from Saul and asked for food in Nob (1 Sam 21:1), Ahimelech’s immediate reaction was to tremble in fear and to ask, ‘Why are you alone, and no one with you?’ (1 Sam 21:2, NRSV).101 Whether or not Ahimelech believed in David’s made-up story, it is significant that the high priest gave David exactly what he asked for, including the holy bread of the presence (1 Sam 21:6). In doing so, Ahimelech shows the one soon to be crowned King of Israel unrestricted deference. When Jesus refers to 1 Samuel 21, he does not mention Ahimelech, but rather Abiathar, an outspoken supporter of David (cf. 2 Sam 15:2729). This has been accounted for in different ways: Mark misquotes from 1 Sam 21:1-6,102 alludes to the broader historical period of high priest Abiathar,103 or simply substitutes a more well-known figure for Ahimelech would be as a complement to ἤρξαντο – that is, the disciples ‘began to make way’ (cf. Guelich, Mark, 118; Hooker, Mark, 101; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 200). Note how Matt 12:1 altogether omits the expression ὁδὸν ποιεῖν and substitutes the infinitive τίλλειν for the Markan participle τίλλοντες. A later Mishnaic passage says that if a king decides to wage war against a nation, he could ‘make himself a road and none may protest against him: the king’s road has no prescribed measure’ (m. Sanh. 2:4a-b). While I do not wish to claim a parallel between Mark 2:23 and m. Sanh. 2:4a-b, it is nevertheless remarkable that, in resemblance to the rabbinic text, Mark depicts the disciples’ making way within the same context where the authority of a royal figure is affirmed. 101.  Ahimelech is the brother of Ahijah, one of the priests ministering under the rule of King Saul (1 Sam 22:9; cf. 14:2-3). This suggests that Ahimelech had been informed about David’s troubled relationship with Saul. So Ahimelech’s question in 1 Sam 21:2 most likely implied a security check. If David was alone he was likely fleeing from the king. The suspicion implied in Ahimelech’s question is in this way also the rationale behind David’s attempt at deception in 1 Sam 21:2-5. 102.  See D. Daube, ‘Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels’, NTS 19 (1972): 6; Guelich, Mark, 122; France, Mark, 146, who, on the basis of the references to Ahimelech as ‘son of Abiathar’ in 2 Sam 8:17 and 1 Chr 24:6, believes that Mark 2:26 simply reflects a confusion present already in the biblical tradition (cf. P.K. McCarter Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 9 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1984], 252–3). 103.  See M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel, SNTSM 102 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 151, who suggests that the Aramaic spoken by Jesus may have meant the lifetime of Abiathar. Gundry (Mark, 141–2), for his part,

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

133

(note the reference to Nob in 1 Sam 22:19; cf. 1 Sam 23:6-12; 2 Sam 15:24-35; 20:25; 1 Kgs 1:7-26; 4:4).104 Whatever view one takes, the attitude shown by Ahimelech, hesitant as it may have been, is broadly in line with the allegiance of Abiathar to David. The transposition, therefore, does not falsify the basic point of Mark 2:25-26. Both Ahimelech and Abiathar exemplify the positive attitude of priestly figures towards David. By mentioning Abiathar, whether mistakenly or not, Jesus underscores the fact that even a high priest consented to David’s breaking of the Levitical code. Inasmuch as 1 Samuel 21 is programmatic for Mark 2:25-28, Jesus portrays not only David, but also Abiathar as a paradigmatic character. If the high priest in 1 Samuel 21 showed compliance to David, how much more appropriate would it have been for the Jewish rulers to acquiescence in Jesus’s allowing his disciples to pluck grain on a Sabbath. The adversaries of Jesus in the passage, to be sure, are the Pharisees, and the tension is not primarily about the relationship between the royal messiah and the temple establishment. But the reference to the interaction between David and a high priest still seems significant. Is the Markan Jesus, by alluding to the story in 1 Samuel 21 within the context of his conflict with the Pharisees, pointing forward to his climactic confrontation with the temple rulers in chs. 11–16? Matthew, for that matter, augments the implications of the controversy for the Jerusalem institution by adding the famous saying, ‘but I tell you that something greater than the temple is here [λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε]’ (Matt 12:6). More importantly, the only other instance in the earliest Gospel in which the verb πεινάω occurs is Mark 11:12, where Jesus looks for fruit in a fig tree and finds nothing but leaves.105 In resemblance to Mark 2:25-26, which says that David ‘was hungry’ and ‘entered the house of God’, Mark 11:11-14 tells us that Jesus the eschatological king ‘entered believes that the reference to Abiathar justifies Jesus’s comment that ‘David entered the house of God’, but also grants that the name is inactive in the Markan passage, functioning primarily as a marker for the scriptural story. France (Mark, 146 n. 52), too, notes that when the author of Luke-Acts, for instance, uses the preposition ἐπί with reference to someone holding an office, it marks the period of the ‘tenure of office’ not the lifetime of the person (e.g. Luke 3:2; 4:27; 11:28). It is not impossible, however, that Mark followed a different syntactical rule in using ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως – and Luke, for that matter, omits the name Abiathar altogether in its redaction of the Markan passage (cf. Luke 6:4), which makes it difficult to compare it with Mark’s use of the preposition in this specific instance. 104.  See, for instance, Yarbro Collins Mark, 203 n. 130: the reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 ‘is probably due to the tendency in the transmission of an anecdote to transfer a story about an unknown or less famous person to a more famous person’. 105.  For a fuller discussion on Mark 11:12-14, see Chapter 5 below.

134

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Jerusalem into the temple’ and ‘was hungry’ as well.106 As we shall see in a moment, however, the high priest refuses to give the messiah a proper reception (cf. Mark 11:11), thus standing in stark contrast to the priests who showed unreserved deference to David in 1 Samuel 21. Soon after Jesus’s arrival into Jerusalem, the temple rulers in fact plan to destroy him (cf. Mark 11:18). It is therefore no surprise that Jesus ends up cursing the fig tree for its barrenness in Mark 11:14 – a symbolic action foreshadowing the indictment of the temple establishment in Mark 11:15-17. As it turns out, though Mark 2:23-28 is primarily about Sabbath keeping, its christological thrust correlates with what we have seen in the foregoing discussion. Intrinsic to the gospel of Jesus the messiah is the call for the Jerusalem rulers to take heed of John and to acknowledge the end-time king. According to Jesus himself, after all, Abiathar – and Ahimelech, for that matter – has set a clear scriptural precedent for such a response. Conclusion In this chapter, I have examined how Mark portrays Jesus’s stance towards the Jerusalem priesthood prior to his climactic arrival into the Holy City. Despite the paucity of direct references to the temple establishment in Mark 1–10, there is an aggregation of passages which evince the hope for the priests to recognize the authority of Jesus. In the prologue, Mark at the very least evokes the Isaianic promise concerning the restoration of Jerusalem, linking it with the call to repentance proclaimed by John, a prophet in the pattern of Elijah (cf. Mark 1:1-8). In the healing of the leper, Jesus upholds what is prescribed in Leviticus by commanding the man to take the offering to the temple as a witness to the priests (cf. Mark 1:40-44). We have seen that the offering of the healed man, far from implying the redundancy of the sacrificial system, attests to the power of Jesus and aims to provoke a positive response from the temple leaders. In the only instance where David is mentioned alongside a high priest (cf. Mark 2:23-28), moreover, Mark appears to make a similar point, albeit indirectly, by means of a reference to the story in 1 Samuel 21. There is therefore some indication that Mark assumes the place of the Jerusalem institution within Jesus’s kingdom preaching. The Markan Jesus, that is, does not reject the Israelite worship, nor does he initiate the implementation of a definitive substitution for it. Instead, Mark 1–10 presupposes that the temple, with its sacrificial system and its priesthood, 106.  Cf. I.B. Driggers, ‘The Politics of Divine Presence: The Temple as Locus of Conflict in the Gospel of Mark’, BibInt 15 (2007): 239.

4. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 1–10

135

should occupy a central place in Israel’s eschatological climax, much in line with current speculations regarding what the royal messiah was supposed to achieve. The reader of Mark, to be sure, knows that what is awaited, once Jesus decides to journey to Jerusalem, is his final rejection – a rejection already foreshadowed by the Jewish leaders’ opposition in Galilee (cf. Mark 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33). So the common thread undergirding the passages analysed in the foregoing is interwoven with the conviction that the Jerusalem rulers will not correspond to Jesus’s – and John the Baptist’s – aspirations. But this is no mere redactional clumsiness. As I shall argue in the next chapter of this study, Jesus, during his climactic visit to Jerusalem, also announces divine judgement on the temple establishment. By holding the call for the priests to belief in the messiah together with Jesus’s prescience regarding his sufferings in Mark 1–10, the evangelist accentuates the seriousness of the events that will occur in Mark 11–16. To this lattermost section of the Gospel we shall now turn.

Chapter 5 T he R oya l M es s i a h a n d t h e J e r usale m P r i e st s i n M a r k 11–16

I have argued thus far that royal messianism in the late Second Temple period was deeply concerned with the restoration of the Jerusalem institution. As another instance of discourse about the end-time king in that period, Mark portrays Jesus as the one who could effect the eschatological consummation of Zion. In Chapter 4, we have seen that, contrary to the view that Jesus outright supplants the Israelite sacrificial system, Mark presents the messiah’s stance towards the priests as implying an invitation to allegiance – they should receive him in Jerusalem and participate in the messianic kingdom. But Mark sets the tone for the latter chapters of the Gospel by telling us that Jesus also predicts his sufferings. In what follows, I examine key passages where Jesus interacts with the temple rulers in Jerusalem. It shall become clear that what motivates Jesus’s clash with the priestly leaders is not his rejection of the Israelite worship, but rather their obstinate refusal to acknowledge him. Despite John’s call to loyalty to the end-time king the priests reject Jesus, putting him to death. On the flip side, however, Mark tells us that it is because the priests repudiate the royal messiah that they, along with the temple itself, are doomed to face divine judgement. At the heart of Jesus’s final confrontation with the high priest, therefore, is the question of who God has established as Israel’s rightful ruler. In Mark’s view, it is Jesus the messianic son. The priests could have secured their place in that vision, but, by rejecting the royal messiah, they put themselves outside the kingdom. The Silence of the Priests at the Temple As discussed in Chapter 4, the priests play a central role in the prophecies alluded to in the Markan prologue (especially Mal 3:1, but also Isa 40:3). This is important, for not only does the use of said prophecies place the restoration of Zion at the core of the narrative, it indicates that the proclamation by John is inclusive of the Jerusalem institution. The temple priests, not just the Israelites in general, are to take heed of the divine

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

137

messenger. In particular, the repentance preached by John in Mark entails the recognition of Jesus, the stronger one who baptises the people with the holy spirit and is called God’s beloved son (Mark 1:7-9). So already at the outset Mark conveys the idea that the fate of Jerusalem depends on the priests’ acceptance of Jesus as the royal messiah. Since Jesus’s arrival into Jerusalem is thematically linked with the prologue, it is prima facie plausible that his activities in Mark 11–16 address the expectation raised in Mark 1:1-8. Before looking at the key passages where Jesus confronts the temple rulers, one critical point in Mark 11 must be noted. I argued in Chapter 3 that Jesus arrives into the Holy City in a royal manner (Mark 11:1-7; cf. Zech 9:9; Gen 49:11), and that the crowds hail him as the one to reestablish the Davidic throne (Mark 11:10; cf. OG Ps 117:26). The passage Mark 11:1-10 thus depicts the moment Jesus enters Zion as Israel’s king. The triumphal entry, however, ends uneventfully. In Mark 11:11, one reads that Jesus ‘entered Jerusalem and the temple; and having looked around at everything, being already nighttime, he departed to Bethany with the Twelve [εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ περιβλεψάμενος πάντα, ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς ὥρας, ἐξῆλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα]’. One of the key elements of Jesus’s royal procession is the aspiration that the priests would pronounce the benediction on the messiah at the temple. Such is the thrust of OG Ps 117:25-26, the text cited in Mark 11:9-10, which speaks of the victorious king’s receiving praise and acclamation ‘from the house of the Lord’. The triumphal entry itself is the culmination of the long section known as ‘the way’ (Mark 8–10), which depicts Jesus’s messianic journey to the Holy City (cf. Mark 10:32-34).1 Therefore, it is also evident that Mark 11:11 is the focal point of Jesus’s entry, which the narrative has also anticipated since the prologue. It is at the temple, where the chief priests exercise their authority, that Jesus’s ministry should reach its culmination.2 But Mark tells us that, tragically, Jesus arrives at the temple but receives no response from the priests. Instead, in what a number of interpreters believe to represent an anticlimax,3 the narrative shifts abruptly from the public acclamation of Jesus as king to his withdrawal as an anonymous sojourner. 1.  The journey is thus connected to Peter’s confession of the messiah in Caesarea (Mark 8:27-31) and the healing of Bartimaeus by the Son of David outside of Jericho (Mark 10:46-52). See Gray, Temple, 10–23. 2.  Cf. Marcus, Way, 138. 3.  See, e.g., Telford, Temple, 47; Gundry, Mark, 635; Evans, Mark, 146: ‘If Ps 118 gives us any guidance, especially as it is paraphrased in the Targum, then Jesus may very well have anticipated a priestly greeting. But none is recorded. This is admittedly

138

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

We have already seen that the priests are completely silent in Mark 1–10 as well. While such a silence is not entirely surprising – Jerusalem not Galilee was the seat of the priestly rule – it is by no means insignificant for Mark. The description ‘all the Judean countryside as well as all the Jerusalemites’ in Mark 1:5 is intriguing, for it betrays an interest, unique among the Synoptics, in pointing out that all those neighbouring the territory under priestly jurisdiction accept the message of John. The account in Matthew adds καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου (Matt 3:5) and thus is more comprehensive than Mark’s, whereas Luke omits the geographical origin of John’s audience altogether (cf. Luke 3:1-18). Since Mark always specifies scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, elders and chief priests whenever their attendance is relevant in the narrative, it is probable that the chief priests are not present in Mark 1:5. While Mark 1:4-8 names no other Jewish group, the absence of the priests is particularly meaningful, given that one of the scriptural passages deployed in the Markan prologue summons precisely the priestly elite, who were based in Jerusalem, to take heed of the divine herald. Lest we be accused of building a case from silence, we have already mentioned that later on in the narrative Mark makes it clear that the chief priests refuse to comply with John’s call to repentance. Having been asked by Jesus regarding the source of the baptism of John, the Jewish authorities, chief priests included, evade the question (Mark 11:27-33). I examine this passage more fully below, but here we must anticipate that Mark 11:27-33 betrays in retrospect the culpable absence of the chief priests in Mark 1–10 and, consequently, in Mark 11:11 as well. What is more, the admission that the chief priests have rejected the baptism of John all along also explains how Jesus can have no interaction with the priests in Mark 1–10 and yet be so certain that he will face their hostility in Mark 11–16. The lack of response of the priests in Mark 1–10 is not so much the reticence of the undecided, but rather the consent of those who act as accomplices of scribes, Pharisees, and later on elders in resisting John and rejecting Jesus. In this way, as the temple rulers do not join the crowds in acclaiming the royal messiah in the Holy City in Mark 11:11, their eloquent silence in Mark 1–10 is now more loudly reverberated. speculative, but it could explain the awkward, anticlimactic ending of the entrance narrative’; France, Mark, 442; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 521: ‘In a celebratory welcome, one would expect the leaders of the city to accompany the dignitary to the temple. For those who considered Jesus to be such a dignitary, his non reception by the leaders of the city would have been viewed as an affront’; Le Donne, Jesus, 200: ‘the lack of acknowledgement by the temple establishment was tantamount to an overt rejection of Jesus’ messianic agenda’.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

139

Jesus, however, would not overlook such a situation. According to Mark, the messiah ‘looks around at everything’ and, just the day after, he performs a series of symbolic actions pointing forward to divine judgement on the temple establishment. Therefore, by ending the triumphal entry on such a grim note, Mark prepares the reader for what comes next: Jesus is about to share the fate of John and to see the realization of his passion by the decision of the Jerusalem rulers. The Royal Messiah at the Temple With the chief priests’ nonresponse in Mark 11:11 firmly in the foreground, we must now discuss Mark 11:15-18, where Jesus is said to have caused some commotion at the Jerusalem temple. The passage reads as follows: 11:15 Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν4 εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστερὰς κατέστρεψεν, 11:16 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. 11:17 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. 11:18 Καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ ἐζήτουν πῶς αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν· ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν, πᾶς γὰρ ὁ ὄχλος ἐξεπλήσσετο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ. 11:15 So they came to Jerusalem. Having entered the temple, Jesus began to cast out the ones selling and buying at the temple. He also overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the chairs of the ones selling doves. 11:16 And anyone who would carry a vessel through the temple, he would not allow. 11:17 Jesus was also teaching and saying to them: ‘Is it not written: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (OG Isa 56:7)? But you have made it a “cave of bandits” (OG Jer 7:11)’. 11:18 The chief priests and the scribes heard it and began to seek how they might put him to death; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was amazed on account of his teaching.

4.  A few manuscripts (e.g., A, K, N, Γ), by including ὁ Ἰησοῦς, make it clear that the subject of εἰσελθών is Jesus.

140

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Both the meaning of Jesus’s words and the rationale behind his actions in this passage have been debated.5 The first issue relates to whether Mark 11:15-17 conveys the sense of cleansing6 or announcement of destruction.7 To begin with, one must recall that the preceding part of the Gospel does not undermine the significance of the temple for Jewish identity within Jesus’s ministry. While statements regarding Jerusalem are admittedly scarce in Mark 1–10, in one instance where the Levitical code is explicitly mentioned Jesus commands a man healed from leprosy to present his offering to the priest at the temple (cf. Mark 1:44). This suggests that Mark upholds the place of the Jerusalem shrine not only for Judaism in general, but also for Jesus’s end-time kingdom preaching. Whatever one makes of Mark 11:15-17, it is therefore important to bear in mind that in none of the passages to this point does Mark’s messiah oppose the temple qua temple.8 That Mark 1–10 assumes the sanctity of the temple resonates with the characterization of the royal messiah vis-à-vis the Jerusalem shrine in some of the sources discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 above. The temple was of utmost importance within some messianic expectations and, even when regarded as utterly corrupt, its restoration, not redundancy, was the solution looked forward to when the Davidic messiah would come (cf. 4Q174; 4Q284; 4Q161; Ps. Sol. 17:30). Granted that a new temple is also envisaged in some of the late Second Temple literature,9 Evans’s remark is nevertheless well-taken: 5.  See the survey in Wedderburn, ‘Temple’, 1–5; Ådna, Jesu, 8–21; and Joseph, Jesus, 133–56. For discussions on the historicity of Mark 11:15-17, compare Seeley, ‘Temple’, 263–83; Casey, ‘Temple’, 306–32; Betz, ‘Jesus’, 455–72; and Fredriksen, Christ, xxi–xxiv. My concern here is to examine how Mark understands them. 6.  E.g., Taylor, Mark, 462–3; Evans, ‘Temple’, 237–70; Hooker, Mark, 264–5; Chilton, Temple, 100; Gundry, Mark, 641–2; Dunn, ‘Purity’, 466. 7.  E.g., Donahue, Christ, 114; Gnilka, Markus, 2:131; Sanders, Jesus, 61–71; Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 72–89; Fredriksen, Christ, 112–13; Wright, Jesus, 416; Ådna, Jesu, 239–90. 8.  Worship at the temple was practised by the first disciples of Jesus in the book of Acts (see 2:46; 3:1; 5:42), which indicates that they understood the Levitical system to be effective so long as the temple still existed. See the discussion in Sanders, Jesus, 67; Fredriksen, Jesus, 94–106; and J. Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 218–20. Contra Joseph, Jesus, 157: ‘the strong probability that Jesus predicted the Temple’s destruction suggests that Jesus did not participate in the Temple cult’ (emphasis original). 9.  As Sanders (Jesus, 88–90) observes.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

141

there is no clear evidence that would suggest that the Messiah (or God acting through the Messiah) would destroy the temple.… There are no texts that predict the appearance of a messianic figure who first destroys (or predicts the destruction of) the temple and then rebuilds it. These texts only suggest that a new temple will be built, perhaps through the agency of the Messiah.10

Sure enough, as I have pointed out in Chapter 2, when 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch speak of a new temple, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE already lies in the recent past. Hence, the messiah in the apocalypses has nothing to do with the demise of the Herodian temple, but rather belongs to the future, when a heavenly Zion would be built in the place of the fallen earthly one. To Evans’s comment, moreover, it should be added that the accusation against Jesus at the trial scene – ‘we heard him speak, “I will destroy this hand-made temple and in three days I will build another, not hand-made one” [ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω]’ (Mark 14:58) – is regarded as false in Mark 14:57.11 That said, the problem still remains whether Mark 11:15-17 portrays an action of reformation or carries the sense of impending judgement. The key to understanding what Jesus conveys in his actions is Mark 11:17. The first scriptural quotation in Mark 11:17 is verbatim from OG Isa 56:7: οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.12 The Old Greek text of Isaiah 56 begins by exhorting the exiles to covenant-based ethical excellence in light of their impending liberation: ‘keep judgement and practise justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my mercy is about to be revealed [Φυλάσσεσθε κρίσιν, ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην· ἤγγισεν γὰρ τὸ σωτήριόν μου παραγίνεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἔλεός μου ἀποκαλυφθῆναι]’ (OG Isa 56:1).13 Verses 3-7 in turn announce that, as a result of Yahweh’s 10.  Evans, ‘Temple’, 249–50 (italics original). See also Fredriksen, Christ, 112; and Joseph, Jesus, 138. 11.  This is the case even if Mark 14:58, as Juel (Messiah, 72) notes, conveys the accusation as true in some sense – namely, that Jesus would build a temple ‘not hand-made’ – or if one agrees with Ådna (Jesu, 128) that the historical Jesus did announce his role in the destruction of the temple. 12.  The suggestion by A.E. Harvey (Jesus and the Constraints of History [London: Duckworth, 1982], 132), that Jesus must have used the Hebrew text of Isa 56:7 seems irrelevant, as the part from OG 56:7 cited in Mark 11:7 follows MT Isa 56:7 very closely: ‫ביתי בית־תפלה יחקרא לכל־העמים‬. 13.  On the theme of covenant in Isaiah 56, see further J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 135–41.

142

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

deliverance, the restored worship at the temple would include the outcast, not least ‘the foreigner [ὁ ἀλλογενής]’ (OG Isa 56:3).14 While some post-exilic Jews may have taken with ambivalence the idea that the nations would worship at the temple,15 the picture in OG Isa 56:7 is not unprecedented in the Scriptures. In the story in 3 Kgdms 8, King Solomon supplicates to Yahweh, when the ‘foreigner who is not from your people [τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ λαοῦ σου οὗτος]’ (3 Kgdms 8:41) should ‘pray towards the temple [προσεύξονται εἰς τὸν τόπον τοῦτον]’ (3 Kgdms 8:42; cf. ‫ אל־הבית הזה‬in MT 1 Kgs 8:42), Yahweh would ‘hear them from heaven [εἰσακούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ]’ and ‘do according to all things for which the foreigner should invoke you [ποιήσεις κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐπικαλέσηταί σε ὁ ἀλλότριος]’ (3 Kgdms 8:43).16 The reason Solomon begs God to concede to his prayer is ‘so that all the peoples may know your name and fear you just as your people Israel, and that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house which I built [ὅπως γνῶσιν πάντες οἱ λαοὶ τὸ ὄνομά σου καὶ φοβῶνταί σε καθὼς ὁ λαός σου Ισραηλ καὶ γνῶσιν ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐπικέκληται ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦτον, ὃν ᾠκοδόμησα]’ (3 Kgdms 8:43). By anticipating the inclusion of πάντα τα ἔθνη into the Jerusalem worship, therefore, OG Isa 56:7 coheres with the ideology of 3 Kingdoms 8 and suggests that the eschatological temple would fulfil the glory idealized in the years of Solomon.17 In short, the Gentiles would recognize the splendour of Yahweh, whose name was called upon in Zion; and Yahweh would not reject them.18 As discussed in Chapter 2 above, Psalm of Solomon 17 also anticipating the temple attracting all the nations. But, more importantly, according to this text, this 14.  Ibid., 140. Blenkinsopp notes that Isaiah 56 envisages the Gentiles to act as priests. This is possible, but Mark does not develop this idea any further. 15.  The author of 1 Macc 7:37 seems to leave the nations out of the equation: Σὺ ἐξελέξω τὸν οἶκον τοῦτον ἐπικληθῆναι τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἶναι οἶκον προσευχῆς καὶ δεήσεως τῷ λαῷ σου. See further Gaston, Stone, 87; Watts, New Exodus, 323. Others, however, had the inclusion of Gentiles in high regard (e.g., Josephus, War 4.182; 5.563; Ep. Arist. 99). See S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, CSCT 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 26–8. 16.  Cf. Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 83; Evans, Mark, 178. 17.  The Hebrew term translated as ἀλλότριος in 3 Kgdms 8:41-43 is ‫נכרי‬, which also stands behind ἀλλογενής in OG Isa 56:3. In both passages, the referents are the non-Jews. Given this context, the phrase πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν most likely envisages the inclusion of Gentiles, not only Diaspora Jews. 18.  On the extent to which the Gentiles were expected to partake in Jewish religious practices, see discussion in Blenkinsopp, Isaiah, 140–1. See also Gaston, Stone, 87.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

143

would happen under the domain of the Davidic king. The Son of David would purge Jerusalem for the nations to come ‘from the ends of the earth to see…the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified’ the Holy City and its eschatological king (Ps. Sol. 17:31; cf. 1 Kings 10).19 The twist in Mark 11:17 is that the citation from OG Isa 56:7 precedes Jesus’s indicting words: ‘but you have made it a cave of bandits’.20 The phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν is an allusion to OG Jer 7:11, the only instance in the Old Greek Scriptures where the expression occurs.21 The thrust of OG Jer 7:11 is to announce the destruction of the Jerusalem shrine. In its earliest context, OG Jeremiah 7 speaks of the consequences of the unfaithfulness of Judah during the decades anteceding the exile. Because Judah refused to listen to Yahweh’s insistent plea for repentance (cf. OG Jer 3:6–4:4), Zion would be destroyed (cf. OG Jer 4:23–6:30).22 It is noteworthy that the lack of discernment by the prophets and the priests is part of the catalyst for divine punishment: ‘the prophets prophesy unrighteousness, and the priests clapped their hands [οἱ προφῆται προφητεύουσιν ἄδικα, καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐπεκρότησαν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν]’ (OG Jer 5:29-31).23 To make things worse, prophets and priests also appear to have falsely assured the nation that Yahweh would never permit his temple to be destroyed. This is what is implied in OG Jer 7:4: ‘do not trust in yourselves on account of lying words, for they will absolutely not benefit you, saying: “The temple of Lord! The temple of the Lord it is!” [μὴ πεποίθατε ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ λόγοις ψευδέσιν, ὅτι τὸ παράπαν οὐκ ὠφελήσουσιν ὑμᾶς λέγοντες Ναὸς κυρίου ναὸς κυρίου ἐστίν]’.24 Against this, OG Jer 7:5-7 reminds the people that their presence in the land, represented by the security of the temple, 19.  In fact, OG Isa 55:3-5, which stands in the preceding context of OG Isaiah 56, promises the reinstallation of the Davidic monarchy in order for Israel to rule over the world (cf. Psalm 89). The proximity of OG Isa 56:7 to OG Isa 55:3-4 seems to indicate that the universalistic scope of the temple and the restoration of the Davidic throne are connected to one another already in the final form of Isaiah. See further J. Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 55–94. 20.  On redactional features in Mark 11:17, see F. Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 123. 21.  At this point, OG Jer 7:11 is close to MT Jer 7:11: ‫מערת פרצים‬. For a discussion on the possible Aramaic form of this allusion, see Evans, Mark, 174–5. 22.  P.C. Craigie, P.G. Kelly and J.F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1–12, WBC 26 (Dallas: Word, 1991), 122. 23.  For further discussion on the historical context with which Jeremiah interacts, see J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 22–3. 24.  See W. McKane, Jeremiah, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 163.

144

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

was conditional on their keeping of the covenant.25 Judah, however, chose to trust in ‘the lying words’, as they practised murder, adultery, robbery, false witness and idolatry, and yet would stand before Yahweh at the temple (OG Jer 7:8-10).26 So, the rhetorical question in OG Jer 7:11 – ‘Is my house, whereupon my name has been invoked, not a cave of bandits before you [μὴ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ὁ οἶκός μου, οὗ ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ἐκεῖ, ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν]?’ – is a divine indictment against the leaders of his people. Just as outlaws ‘secure for themselves a hideout in some secluded area’, so the leaders of the nation are said to have turned the Jerusalem temple into their own ‘cave of bandits’.27 The result would be the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in resemblance to what Yahweh had done to the sanctuary in Shiloh (OG Jer 7:12-15).28 It would be a stretch to claim that Mark 11:15-17 assumes the situation in first-century Judea to correspond exactly to what OG Jeremiah 7 originally addresses.29 There is no evidence that, to Mark, the priests contemporary to Jesus committed all the kinds of transgressions listed in OG Jeremiah 7, and it is even less the case that Mark depicts the Jewish people in general as in a state of thoroughgoing apostasy. Be that as it may, it is remarkable that Mark refers to the temple as a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, an expression which in the Scriptures so poignantly evokes the expectation for divine judgement on the priestly establishment, precisely in the context of Jesus’s polemical demonstrations at the Jerusalem shrine.30 If all that Jesus means is to cleanse the place of worship, why, instead of a scriptural passage speaking of the reformation of the temple (e.g. Ezek 43:20-26; Zech 14:20-21; or even Mal 3:3-4), does he allude to OG Jer 7:11?31 Since it is unmistakable that the denunciation expressed by the 25.  On the conditional security of Jerusalem, see C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 154; J.D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1987) 168–9. 26.  See P.J. Harland, ‘Robber or Violent Man? A Note on the Word parîs’, VT 46 (1996): 532–3. 27.  Cf. Thompson, Jeremiah, 280–1. 28.  See McKane, Jeremiah, 163; and Craigie, Kelly and Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah, 122. 29.  This must be maintained even if the verb ἐδίδασκεν in the beginning of Mark 11:17 suggests that ‘the larger context of the citation(s) is in view’, as H.J. Carey claims in ‘Teachings and Tirades: Jesus’ Temple Act and His Teachings in Mark 11:15-19’, Stone-Campbell Journal 10 (2007): 93–105 (100 here). 30.  Cf. R.A Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 110. 31.  It is puzzling, therefore, that Wedderburn, in his otherwise very informative study, says that ‘the two Old Testament texts quoted in the episode itself, Isa 56,7 and

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

145

phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν in OG Jer 7:11 points to the destruction of the First Temple, it is most plausible that Mark conveys the incident at the shrine as announcing the downfall of the Second Temple.32 Several passages in Mark 11–15 support this interpretation. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus speaks of the events inaugurating the eschaton by prophesying that the temple would soon be destroyed: ‘By no means a stone should be left here on another stone that should not be destroyed [οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ]’ (Mark 13:1). Given such an explicit statement, it is almost certain that Jesus suggests the fall of the temple in Mark 11:17 by evoking the indicting words from OG Jer 7:11.33 Some of those people mocking Jesus at the crucifixion scene, moreover, understand Jesus’s activities in Jerusalem precisely along such lines. Thus, the accusation brought against Jesus in Mark 14:58 is reproduced in the derision at Golgotha: ‘You who destroy and build the temple in three days [ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ οἰκοδομῶν ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις]’ (Mark 15:29-30).34 While Mark discredits the claim that Jesus himself intends to destroy the temple (cf. Mark 14:57-59), both the trial and the crucifixion scenes indicate that Jesus’s opponents inferred a threat to the security of the shrine from his deeds. Further, as Telford points out, the sandwiching of the temple incident between the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14) and the teaching about faith based on the withering of said fig tree (Mark 11:19-28) amounts to Mark’s view that the temple is under judgement. In this context, Mark 11:15-17 responds to an institution incapable of bearing fruit.35 Jer 7,11, do not support’ the sense of impending judgement (‘Temple’, 3). Pace also P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 1:146. 32.  Cf. Evans, Mark, 177: Josephus’s account of Jesus ben Ananias, who spoke against the temple in the first century CE, resembles OG Jeremiah 7 (War 6.301: φωνὴ ἐπὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ τὸν ναόν, φωνὴ ἐπὶ νυμφίους καὶ νύμφας, φωνὴ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν πάντα; cf. OG Jer 7:34: καὶ καταλύσω ἐκ πόλεων Ιουδα καὶ ἐκ διόδων Ιερουσαλημ φωνὴν εὐφραινομένων καὶ φωνὴν χαιρόντων, φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν νύμφης, ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ). 33.  On the significance of Mark 11:15-18 for Mark 13 and vice-versa, see Stein, Temple, 52. 34.  The flogging of Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus, War 6.300–309 provides an analogy for this reaction. No one speaking against the temple could hope for a positive response from the Jerusalem establishment. 35.  Telford, Temple, 238–9, 262. Compare C. Böttrich, ‘Jesus und der Feigenbaum: Mark 11.12-14, 20-25 in der Diskussion’, NovT 39 (1997): 328-59. Against Telford, Philip Esler has recently argued that, because Mark 11:19-28 is about prayer, Mark 11:12-14 is not about the temple (‘The Incident of the Withered Fig Tree in Mark

146

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

This, again, is not to say that Jesus, by pronouncing judgement on the Jerusalem establishment, implies the obsolescence of the entire Levitical system. As Klawans correctly shows, the prophetic critique of the temple cult in the Scriptures is not necessarily aimed at condemning ritual as such: ‘a prophet’s condemnation of the temple – and prediction of its destruction – could mean very simply that the prophet believes that doom is immanent, and that neither sacrifice nor anything else will avert the decree’.36 Similarly, the prediction of the demise of the Jerusalem shrine in Mark 11:17 does not necessitate the principled rejection of the temple institution per se. The driving out of all the groups listed in Mark 11:15 and the prohibiting of the carrying of the vessels in Mark 11:16, to be sure, does seem to represent the interruption of the sacrificial system. Yet, the overall emphasis of the passage strongly suggests that such a disruption, instead of conveying the redundancy of the temple sacrifices, would be the result of the forthcoming doom of the shrine. In this regard, Paula 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation’, JSNT 28 [2005]: 41–67 [49–52]; see also Gundry, Mark, 671–82). But while the theme of prayer is crucial to Mark 11:19-28, this does not diminish the view that the temple is the broader referent of the fig tree in Mark 11:12-14 and 11:19-28. As Watts (New Exodus, 314) points out, ‘Mark’s Jesus seems to me to be quite adept at changing tack if the situation offers a rationale for doing so’. Moreover, the linking of temple imagery with the symbol of the fig tree is attested elsewhere in the Gospel, when Jesus speaks of the destruction of the Jerusalem shrine (Mark 13:1-2) and alludes to ‘the parable of the fig tree’ as a metaphor for the signs indicating the fulfilment of such predictions (Mark 13:2829). No antecedent for ‘the parable of the fig tree’ in Mark 13 is found other than the two-stage fig tree incident in Mark 11, which suggests that the former expands on the latter (cf. Stein, Temple, 122–4). Esler grants that the expression ‘this mount’ in Mark 11:22 may refer to the temple mount, but dismisses this reading for the lack of ‘the throwing of the mount into the sea’ in Mark 13. The exact referent of ‘this mount’ has been, of course, debated, but Esler’s logic is in any case puzzling. Unless one thinks that a first-century audience would have expected Zion to be literally cast into the ocean, Mark 13 does not falsify our contention. On the contrary, Mark 11:22 speaks of the power of prayer in the light of the events which according to Mark are soon to come upon the temple – hence it may refer to Jesus’s own faith that God would soon vindicate him over against the temple establishment (cf. Telford, Temple, 59) or betray a Sitz im Leben in which prayer seems to compensate for the fall of ‘this mount’ (cf. J.R.D. Kirk, ‘Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25’, CBQ 74 [2012]: 523–7) – whereas Mark 13 describes the destruction of Jerusalem in explicit terms. Compare, e.g., E.K. Broadhead, ‘Which Mountain is “This Mountain”?’, Paradigms 2 [1986]: 33–8; S.E. Dowd, Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context of Markan Theology, SBLDS 105 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); Marshall, Faith, 168–9; and Gray, Temple, 48–53. 36.  Klawans, Purity, 94–9 (99).

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

147

Fredriksen’s note that the actions of the historical Jesus at the sanctuary ‘would have been readily understood by any Jew watching as a statement that the Temple was about to be destroyed’ is also applicable to Mark’.37 In sum, the sequence of events in Mark 11:15-17 functions as a symbolic act of judgement.38 Since Jesus is not opposed to the temple in Mark 1–10, it is surely the case that Jesus directs his protests against the ruling class holding jurisdiction over the cultic system. While the priests in Mark do not wholesale repeat what is described in the book of Jeremiah, the expression σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, borrowed from OG Jer 7:11, places the Jerusalem rulers at the crux of the problem (cf. 2 Bar. 10:18).39 Admittedly, insofar as Mark 11:15-17 anticipates the divine judgement on, not the reformation of, the Jerusalem institution, the actions of Jesus stand in discontinuity with what 37.  Fredriksen, Christ, 113 (emphasis original). See also France, Mark, 437; Holmén, Jesus, 309; Gray, Temple, 26; J.B. Chance, ‘The Cursing of the Temple and the Tearing of the Veil in the Gospel of Mark’, BibInt 15 (2007): 271–2. This is not to say, as Joseph (Jesus, 115) does, that ‘Mark’s Jesus puts an end to the Temple’s sacrificial service’. Jesus could not have shut down the entire worship system, as the temple was too huge for a person to achieve that alone. It is to say, however, that Jesus’s actions were symbolic (cf. Sanders, Jesus, 66; Ådna, Jesu, 385). By the same token, the relatively small impact of the incident dismisses the theory that Jesus intends to initiate a coup d’état (contra S.G.F. Brandon, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth [London: Batsford, 1968], 146; see Bond, Caiaphas, 65). Further, it must be repeated here that Jesus’s enactment of divine judgement does not imply the negation of the importance of the temple sacrifices. The temple worship had its utmost value so long as it existed (cf. Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42), and Jesus’s comment elsewhere in Mark that love is more important than sacrifices (Mark 12:33) simply affirms the priority of one over the other (contra Juel, Messiah, 134). 38.  Fredriksen (‘Temple, 299–301), while recognizing the deeply political overtones of the temple incident, suggests that the historical Jesus ‘symbolically enacted the impending apocalyptic destruction of the Temple’ (emphasis original), and that ‘such a destruction is not “negative”: it necessarily implies no condemnation’. This is not the case in Mark, however. 39.  The passage OG Jer 7:11 itself belongs to a broader scriptural tradition which clearly presents the priests as having a large share of the blame when the temple is said to be sub judice (e.g. Isa 28:7; Mic 3:11; Lam 4:13; Ezek 22:26; Mal 3:3). Cf. Evans, ‘Temple’, 248–52; Gray, Temple, 34–5; W.W. Watty, ‘Jesus and the Temple – Cleansing or Cursing’, ExpTim 93 (1982): 235–9; Klawans, Purity, 83. Contra Seeley, ‘Temple’, 279. Evans (‘Corruption’, 527) notes that the lament regarding the destruction of the First Temple in 2 Baruch 10 alludes to the figure of Jeremiah and refers to the priests as ‘false stewards’ (2 Bar. 10:18). Pace Gundry, Mark, 645, who does not see a direct relation between the allusion to OG Jer 7:11 and the chief priests in Mark.

148

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the Dead Sea Scrolls and Psalm of Solomon 17 envisage for the messiah vis-à-vis the temple. Both the Scrolls and the Psalm, that is, look forward to the restoration of the worship system, whether through the installation of the Qumran sectarians as the true Zadokites or otherwise. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Mark 11:15-17 still grapples with one fundamental issue assumed in the Jewish messiah texts: at the core of hopes regarding the end-time king lies a negotiation with the contemporary priestly officials. This is relevant because it problematizes the claim that Jesus, in foreseeing the impending destruction of the sanctuary, acts as prophet, not as messiah.40 Jesus may not tackle the temple the same way the end-time king was expected to do in the Scrolls or in Psalm of Solomon 17, but he does face up to the current priestly establishment – and that was one thing that the royal messiah was said to do. So why does Jesus regard the chief priests as blameworthy? It has been common to read the sequence of actions described in Mark 11:15-16 as representing Jesus’s critique of the way the first-century priests handled the cultic system. Some have argued that Jesus attacks the commercial activities associated with the temple – whether the business itself, with its use of Tyrian coinage,41 or the supposed exploitation of pilgrims by the traders42 – while others have contended that Jesus is concerned with the sanctity of the Court of the Gentiles, where those activities appear to have happened.43 Sure enough, it is quite conceivable that the driving 40.  See, e.g., Roloff, Kerygma, 94–5; Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 82: ‘the early Church’s interest in adding OT references to the Gospel tradition was very predominantly an interest in Jesus’ fulfilment of messianic and eschatological prophecies. But Mark 11:17 is not of this type’; and Wedderburn, ‘Temple’, 20. To Gundry’s basically correct remark – namely, ‘it was kings, not prophets, who cleansed and restored the temple’ (Mark, 642) – I add that it is also well-attested that the royal messiah would engage in polemics with the current priesthood in Jerusalem. So also Evans, Mark, 179: ‘it is quite possible that Jesus entered the temple precincts and acted with messianic authority’. 41.  E.g., N.Q. Hamilton, ‘Temple Cleansing Temple Bank’, JBL 83 (1964): 365–72; P. Richardson, ‘Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers, ed. E.H. Lovering (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 507–23; J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Jesus and the Money Changers (Mark 11:15-17; John 2:13-17)’, RB 107 (2000): 42–55. 42.  E.g., Taylor, Mark, 463; Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 76–7 and 84–5; Gundry, Mark, 645; and Driggers, ‘Politics’, 240–2. 43.  E.g., E. Lohmeyer, ‘Reinigung des Tempels’, ThBl 20 (1941): 257–64; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, SBT 47 (London: SCM, 1965), 36; W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 343–9; France, Mark, 444–5.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

149

out of ‘those selling and buying’, the overturning of ‘the tables of the moneychangers and the chairs of those selling doves’ and the forbidding of ‘carrying vessels through the temple’ may have been understood by the priests as a direct challenge to their usual modus operandi at the temple, but the temple business – or its alleged malpractice – seems to have been the least of the problems for Mark’s Jesus. Against the claim that Jesus opposes financial dealings relating to the temple, whether because he abominates the circulation of pagan currency within the shrine or because he is opposed to the payment of the temple tax, it should be pointed out, first, that Tyrian coinage was of standard usage in first-century Judea.44 Forbidding said currency from circulating at the temple would have prevented pilgrims both from paying the required temple tax and from buying items for sacrifice.45 Secondly, it is unlikely that Jesus altogether rejects the half shekel. Not only did the practice of money-offering at the temple derive from the Scriptures (cf. Exod 30:11-16; Neh 10:32-33), Mark never says that Jesus repudiates it (cf. Matt 17:24-27).46 Hence, E.P. Sanders is correct that a first-century Jew would have hardly thought of moneychangers, who provided pilgrims with the proper resources for participation in worship, as necessarily perpetrating unlawful operations.47 A comparable point can be made regarding the selling of animals for the obligatory sacrifices in the Holy City. It was not the case that every person coming from outside of Judea could afford to bring an animal all the way to the temple. To travel to Jerusalem would always involve the risk of injury to the animal and thus the potential for the offering to be blemished.48 For those who were socially located amongst the poor, the possibility of defiling an animal in the journey – in that case, a περιστερά (cf. Mark 11:15; as per, e.g., Lev 1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:6, 8) – would have made the pilgrimage even more burdensome.49 Richard Bauckham suggests that 44.  Richardson, ‘Tables’, 515. 45.  As per Bond, Caiaphas, 30 and 65; and Gray, Temple, 26–8; contra Bauckham, ‘Temple’, 72–89, who claims that Jesus opposed the temple tax in favour of the poor. 46.  Cf. J. Neusner, ‘Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation’, NTS 35 (1989): 287–90. 47.  Cf. Sanders, Jesus, 63; Fredriksen, Christ, 113. 48.  See S. Safrai, ‘The Temple’, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, ed. S. Safrai et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 1:865–907; and D.G. Reid, ‘Sacrifice and Temple Service’, in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 1044. 49.  Cf. Betz, ‘Temple’, 461.

150

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Jesus, in targeting the vendors of doves, went against the monopoly of the selling of birds by the temple treasurers and hence also the burdening of the poor.50 Jesus’s overturning the chairs of the ones selling specifically doves is no doubt bewildering, as it is known that other animals were also available for purchase both at the temple and elsewhere in Jerusalem.51 Nevertheless, the on-the-spot purchase of animals meeting the Levitical standards allowed Jews from afar, especially the less privileged ones, more easily to take part in the sacrifice.52 Just as with the Tyrian coinage, therefore, nothing in Mark presents the selling of animals in negative terms.53 As Bond puts it, if Jesus ‘were so against commercial activity, he would have had more to say on that matter’.54 In favour of the view that Mark 11:15-17 reacts against the abuse of the temple business, it is apparent that the chief priests are prone to engage in suspicious negotiations in Mark. They are the ones who cut a deal with Judas by promising him ‘money [ἀργύριον]’ in exchange for Jesus (Mark 14:10-11). Such a depiction seems to stand close to Josephus’s account of high priest Ananias ben Gamaliel, who is said to have resisted a sedition by bribing people who were ready to receive 50.  Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 76. 51.  On this matter, see the discussion in Wedderburn, ‘Temple’, 11–13; and J. Ådna, Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr., ADPV 25 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 121–2. 52.  Cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM, 1969), 48–9. So also Bond, Caiaphas, 65: ‘The pigeon sellers would have been selling pure and unblemished birds for use in personal sacrifices; presumably people could have bought their sacrificial victims elsewhere, but by buying them in the temple precincts people could be sure of the purity of the birds’. For cogent refutations of the argument by Victor Eppstein (‘The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple’, ZNW 55 [1964]: 42–58) – namely, that Caiaphas introduced dove sellers into the temple as a means of retaliation against the Sadducees’ selling of animals on the Mount of Olives, and that it is this decision by Caiaphas which Jesus repudiates – see Bond, Caiaphas, 177–8; and Wedderburn, ‘Temple’, 11–13, and the references cited therein. On the other hand, if there is any force to Chilton’s suggestion that Jesus demands the full ownership of the sacrifice by the offerer (Temple, 101), then the demonstration at the temple would have turned the entire custom of acquiring animals in Jerusalem on its head. But such a hypothesis finds no corroboration in the Gospel, and it is by no means clear that the purchase of the sacrificial victims at the temple would contradict the principle of ownership. On ownership in the prophetic literature, see Klawans, Purity, 85–90. 53.  In this particular regard, the Gospel of John seems to depart slightly from Mark: μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου (John 2:16). 54.  Bond, Caiaphas, 178 n. 7.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

151

from ‘his riches [τῷ πλούτω]’, and whose servants are reputed to have taken, ‘by using force violence [βιαζόμενοι]’, the tithes of ordinary priests (cf. Ant. 20.179-181, 205-214).55 Elsewhere Josephus indicates that the temple itself displayed an incredible amount of wealth (e.g., Ant. 14.110119; 15.395; War 5.210-224).56 Mark in turn suggests that the proper use of financial resources is an important topic in Jesus’s teachings. In Mark 10:17-22, for instance, Jesus advises a rich man to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor, whereas in Mark 12:41-44 a poor widow is praised for her faithful offering at the temple. In this respect, a degree of tension between the ideals Mark ascribes to Jesus and the priests’ financial dealings in the story world of the Gospel is certainly possible, and it is even likely that the evangelist sees the wealth of the temple aristocracy with some reservation. The evidence for the priests’ widespread involvement in illicit profit is, nonetheless, slim. There is one text in the Mishnah which speaks of Simeon ben Gamaliel’s dissatisfaction with the price of the pigeons sold in Jerusalem prior to 70 CE (m. Ker. 1.7).57 Other passages both in the Tosefta and in the Talmud confirm Josephus’s picture of the opulence of the Jerusalem institution (e.g., b. Pes. 57a; b. Ket. 65-66; b. Yoma 39b; t. Men. 13.19; cf. m. Kelim 12.7; m. Šabb. 6.5).58 Even so, whether or not m. Ker. 1.7 accurately represents the commercial affairs at the temple in the first century CE,59 no other early source supports the allegation that the animal costs had been systematically inflated in that period.60 Nor is there any hard evidence for a priestly ‘monopoly’ of the selling of doves 55.  See further discussion in A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple’, in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Yarbro Collins and M.M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 51–3. 56.  Evans, ‘Corruption’, 523–6. 57.  To Simeon, what was charged represented twenty-five times the original price. See discussion in Jeremias, Jerusalem, 34; A. Nolan, Jesus before Christianity (London: Darton, 1977), 102; and Evans, ‘Temple’, 260. 58.  Evans, ‘Corruption’, 524. 59.  Bauckham (‘Demonstration’, 77) advocates that Jesus protested against the abuse of the temple business, but admits that the price of doves as Gamaliel reports it is ‘too high to be credible’. 60.  See discussion in H. Cohn, The Trial and Death of Jesus (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967), 57. Moreover, the references to the priests as ‘thieves’ and ‘robbers of money or wealth’ in Tg. Jer. 6:13; 7:9; 8:10, often adduced to buttress the claim that Jesus combats the alleged extortion by the priests, primarily relate to the scriptural context of Jeremiah and hence seem inconsequential here.

152

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

for the sacrificial ceremonies at the temple.61 Granted that some rabbinical materials may suggest the stringency of the requirements for ‘a bird to be fit for sacrifice’ in the first century CE (e.g., m. Ḥul. 1.5; m. Me‘il. 3.4), this does not necessarily establish the probability, as Bauckham claims, that the selling of birds for sacrifice in Jerusalem ‘took place entirely under the auspices of the temple treasurer’.62 Besides, Josephus is indecisive on this issue, for he does not accuse the priests of absolute corruption.63 It is thus quite possible that the account of Ananias ben Gamaliel represents an exception – an example of ‘inappropriate behaviour among leaders’ that serves Josephus’s overall interest in presenting the Jewish aristocracy in positive terms.64 It is all the more impressive that, even if such a problem was endemic, Mark never capitalizes on it.65 In commending the poor widow in Mark 61.  Contra Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 77, who seems to depend too much on conjecture to reach such a conclusion. He himself admits that ‘the literal historicity of the story’ in m. Ker. 1:7 is questionable, but provides no clear evidence that the priests held a monopoly of the selling of doves either. The Gospel of Luke, for that matter, is the only canonical account to depict Joseph and Mary as going up to the temple to offer ‘a pair of doves and two young pigeons’ concerning Mary’s postpartum purification (Luke 2:22-24; cf. Lev 5:11; 12:8), which seems to indicate that the family of Jesus belonged among the poor. Luke is notoriously concerned with the poor (cf. Luke 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20, 22), and he knew the Markan account of Jesus’s action at the temple as well (see J.B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995], 11–16 and 63). Does Luke believe that the temple vendors exploited Joseph and Mary when they presented the offering in Luke 2:22-24? The Gospel is absolutely silent on that. Luke is also the only Synoptic Gospel to omit the fact that Jesus drove out those selling doves when he caused the commotion at the temple (cf. Luke 19:45-46). If Jesus’s actions were at some point in the earliest tradition understood as an attack on the priestly monopoly of dove selling, the silence in Luke regarding this issue would be very striking indeed. How likely is it that Luke would have given so much prominence to Jesus’s care for the poor, even portraying the family of Jesus himself as being less privileged, and yet he would have missed or been unfamiliar with the belief that Jesus attacks the priestly monopoly of dove selling? Perhaps said monopoly never existed – or, if it did, it was not a central problem for the gospel tradition. 62.  Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 76. 63.  Evans, ‘Corruption’, 525: ‘Josephus does not regard the priestly establishment itself as corrupt, or as responsible for Jerusalem’s destruction’. 64.  J.S. McLaren, ‘Corruption among the High Priesthood: A Matter of Perspec�tive’, in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. Z. Rodgers, M. Daly-Denton and A.F. McKinley, SJSJ 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 149. 65.  Pace R.A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 252–3, 300.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

153

12:41-44, Jesus seems to imply a critique of social inequality in the context of worship at the Jerusalem shrine, but the contrast that Jesus draws is not with the priests, but rather with ‘the crowd [ὁ ὄχλος]’ and ‘the many rich people [πολλοὶ πλούσιοι]’ who ‘were throwing the bronze into the treasury [βάλλει χαλκὸν εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον]’ (Mark 12:41).66 The temple officials, of course, would have largely benefitted from those contributions, but the passage focuses on the act of giving – the term βάλλω is used seven times in the passage, whereas λαμβάνω appears not even once – and the priests were exempted from the temple offering. So Mark 12:41-44 refers to the rich in general. To be more specific, in Mark 11:15, Jesus drives out both those selling and those buying. If the problem is the priests’ profiting from the commercialization of animals at the temple, why does Jesus cast out the innocent buyers as well? On top of this, Mark 11:16 says that Jesus does not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple. Since a ‘vessel [σκεῦος]’ was not necessarily used in financial operations (cf. Heb 9:21; Josephus, War 6.389),67 there is no point in forbidding its transportation if the denunciation of the priests’ greed is all that Jesus means. The temple could have been perceived for various reasons as being corrupt,68 but for Mark its destruction is not caused by the supposed priestly extortion. The suggestion that Jesus is concerned with the proper function of the so-called Court of the Gentiles likewise fails to stand up to scrutiny. Mark does seem to differentiate the outer area of the temple from its inner premises. The former, which is the focal point of Jesus’s activities in the Holy City, is called ἱερόν (cf. Mark 11:11, 15-16, 27; 12:35; 13:1, 3; 14:49), whereas ναός refers to the building inside the temple walls (cf. Mark 15:38; Josephus, War 5.211).69 Josephus tells us that no foreigner was allowed, under penalty of death, to enter ‘the inner enclosure [ὁ ἐντὸς περίβολος]’ (Ant. 15.417-418) or ‘the second, holy temple [τὸ δεύτερον ἱερὸν ἅγιον]’ of the shrine (War 5.194-195).70 This implies that the Gentiles 66.  Cf. Driggers, ‘Politics’, 241. Interestingly, elsewhere in Mark, Jesus even suggests that the concern for the poor could be relativized in the context of ‘doing a good work to him [καλὸν ἔργον ἠργάσατο ἐν ἐμοί]’ (Mark 14:6). Chilton (Feast, 49) is to the point in reminding us that ‘Jesus does not seem to have promulgated a coherent economic agenda as such’. 67.  For a critique of M.J. Ford, ‘Money Bags in the Temple [Mark. 11, 16]’, Bib 57 (1976): 249–53, that σκεῦος stands for ‘money bags’, see Gray, Temple, 28–9. See also Marcus, Mark, 783. 68.  In addition to Chapters 1 and 2 above, see Evans, ‘Corruption’, 522–39. 69.  Cf. D. Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 187–8. 70.  For a discussion, see E. Bickerman, ‘The Warning Inscription of Herod’s Temple’, JQR 37 (1946–47): 387–405; and Gaston, Stone, 87.

154

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

were permitted in the exterior area, whence Jesus expels the traders and the moneychangers in Mark 11:15. Since the citation from OG Isa 56:7 in Mark 11:17 expresses the hope that the temple would be a house of prayer for all nations, it is presumed that Jesus denounces the turning of the only place to which the Gentiles had access for worship at the temple – either a specific section named the ‘Court of the Gentiles’ or the outer patio in general – into a noisy marketplace. As Ernst Lohmeyer summarizes, ‘reinigt er den Vorholf der Heiden, der durch Priester, welche den Wechslern und Krämer ihre Geschäfte auf diesem eschatologisch providentiellen Platze gestatteten, zu einer “Mördergrube” entweiht worden ist’.71 Following this logic, some maintain that Jesus’s actions evoke Zech 14:21, which anticipates the day when business would no longer happen at the temple.72 Such a line of argument, however, is not without problems. When Mark speaks of the faith of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:29; 15:39; cf. 5:1-13; 7:31-33), their access into the ἱερόν is never at issue. It is not even certain whether an area especially devoted to Gentiles existed in the first century CE.73 If there were a Court of the Gentiles, nothing in Mark suggests that it is there that the traders are doing business. If one is willing to concede that it is there that the traders are doing business, then, again, the driving out of those buying the animals would have made very little sense indeed. The alternative view is that Jesus wishes the entire outer court to be used by non-Jews for prayer – as per πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (OG Isa 56:7 in Mark 11:17)74 – which is why the exclusion of all the noisy vendors from there is supposedly necessary. But this is a non sequitur. As the Jews 71.  Lohmeyer, Mystik, 171. See also Betz, ‘Temple’, 461–2. 72.  The closing line of Zech 14:21 says that ‘there will be no longer a vendor in the house of the Lord of Hosts [‫( ’]לא־יהיה כנעני עוד בבית־יהוה צבאות‬cf. OG Zech 14:21: οὐκ ἔσται Χαναναῖος οὐκέτι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ κυρίου παντοκράτορος). So Yarbro Collins (Mark, 529–30) notes: Zech 14:21 ‘expressed the idea that, on the Day of the Lord, the temple precinct would no longer be the site of economic transactions, in keeping with its radical holiness.… The Greek version of Zechariah attributed to Aquila reads μετάβολος (“huckster” or “retail dealer”), which Jerome translates with mercator (“trader” or “merchant”). So, although ‫ כנעני‬and Χαναναῖος could be interpreted as “Canaanite”, Mark 11:15 and John 2:16 provide evidence that at least some early Christians read Zech 14:21 as referring to traders’. See also de Jonge, ‘Temple’, 87–100; and Joseph, Jesus, 115–7. Compare with Chilton, Temple, 135–6, although his suggestion that it is Mark 11:16 which evokes Zech 14:20-21 seems unlikely. 73.  See Gaston, Stone, 87. 74.  In contrast to the other Synoptic Gospels, only Mark includes the phrase πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν from OG Isa 56:7 (cf. Matt 21:13; Luke 19:46).

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

155

themselves used the outer court for prayer (cf. Neh 11:17; Sir 50:17-19; Bar. 1:10-14),75 there is no reason to conclude that the temple business hindered worship in that area,76 even less so that the presence of the traders would have been offensive with respect to the Gentiles. Jesus himself is said to have used the external patio for public debates with his opponents (cf. Mark 11:27; 12:35). If the temple business was troublesome because it disrupted silence, one would presume that, ironically, Jesus is culpable for a similar fault: ‘day by day I was teaching you at the temple precincts [καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων]’ (Mark 14:49).77 If, then, Mark is neither against the temple as such nor responding to the possible malpractice of the sacrificial system, what then accounts for Jesus’s enacting of the fall of the temple? The most plausible explanation is that the problem Mark 11:15-17 addresses is primarily christological. At this point, it is imperative to recall that, when the nations are said to come to the Jerusalem temple in the relevant texts from the late Second Temple period, it is assumed that such an event would happen under the auspices of the eschatological king (cf. Ps. Sol. 17:30-31). The essential condition for the inclusion of Gentiles into Israelite worship, in other words, was the installation of the royal messiah.78 Kim Huat Tan is therefore correct to note that the reference to all the nations in Mark 11:17 is actually ‘a foil 75.  Cf. Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 83–4. 76.  Cf. France, Mark, 445. The claim by Hamilton (‘Temple’, 372) that the Gospels reflect the theology of the ‘antitemple hellenistic church’ and portray Jesus’s action at the temple as giving prominence to prayer over sacrifice is utterly implausible. To quote Bauckham, the contrast in Mark 11:17 ‘is between “house of prayer” and “cave of brigands”, not between “house of prayer” and place of sacrifice (‘Demonstration’, 83). 77.  What is more, the oracle from OG Isa 56:7 announces that Yahweh would accept ‘the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices [ὁλοκαυτώματα αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ θυσίαι αὐτῶν]’ (cf. ‫ עולתיהם וזבחיהם‬in MT Isa 56:7) brought by the Gentiles in the end of time, thus indicating that their participation in the entire temple worship, not just in prayer in the exterior area, is in view in the prophetic text Jesus cites in Mark 11:17. M. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1984), 175; Watts, New Exodus, 323–4. This point also eliminates the claim that Jesus envisages prayer to replace the temple sacrifices (cf. Schweizer, Mark, 233), and weakens the suggestion that the verb ἐκβάλλω in Mark 11:15, translated as ‘to cast out’, largely follows the pattern of Jesus’s exorcisms and speaks of the purging of the external parts of the temple. Pace Kelber, Kingdom, 98–9; Chávez, Temple, 137; and France, Mark, 444. 78.  See K.H. Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 188–92, whose conclusion is correct, though he makes no mention of how Jesus’s messiahship motivated his actions at the temple:

156

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

to highlight the crucial moment in God’s programme which was coming to pass with Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem’.79 Additionally, the evidence gathered in Chapters 1 and 2 indicates that the proper relation between the king and the priests was a significant concern in Jewish messianic speculation. In Mark 1–10, there is some indication that Jesus expects the temple rulers to acknowledge him. In the prologue, Mark identifies ‘the gospel of Jesus the messiah’ with Isaiah’s vision that God would restore Jerusalem, and presents John the Baptist’s call to repentance within that context (Mark 1:1-8). Later on in the narrative, Jesus commands a healed leper to offer the sacrifices concerning his purification ‘as a witness’ to the priests (Mark 1:44). As the offering is a token about the healer, the purpose of the testimony is so that the temple rulers would recognize that Jesus is in fact the one bringing about the kingdom of God (cf. Mark 1:15, 27). In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus alludes to the story of David’s taking from the bread of the presence in 1 Sam 21:1-6, so as to note that the disciples’ needs should take precedence over Sabbath keeping (cf. Mark 2:28). Jesus also illustrates the appropriate response to his authority by referring to Abiathar the high priest, thus making the point that David survived adversity because a high priest showed allegiance to him. In the light of this, it is chiefly the priests’ nonresponse to the messiah in Jerusalem (cf. Mark 11:11) – which is foreshadowed by their unbelief in the messages of John the Baptist and Jesus himself in Galilee (cf. Mark 1:5) and followed by their plot finally to put the messiah to death in Jerusalem (cf. Mark 11:18) – that underlies the events in Mark 11:15-17. This will become clearer as my argument unfolds in the following sections of this chapter, but to put it in simple terms, Mark believes the temple to be ill-fated because the priestly rulers have not acknowledged the royal Son of God, the one who could bring the Jerusalem institution to its eschatological fruition.80 Conversely, had the priests recognized Jesus, ‘Jesus viewed this particular phase of his ministry not only as the climax of his vocation but also the fulfilment of what Yahweh had promised regarding the temple on Zion through the prophets’ (190). 79.  Ibid., 191. 80.  Cf. Telford, Temple, 163. See also C.K. Barrett, ‘The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves’, in Ellis and Grässer, eds., Jesus und Paulus, 13–20. Contra Kirk, ‘Time’, 514–18, who claims that Jesus does not regard the Herodian Temple as representing the sanctuary envisioned in Isaiah 57. The Herodian Temple, in other words, was never meant to be the one about which Isaiah spoke. Kirk bolsters his argument by interpreting the comment in Mark 11:13 – ‘for it was not the time of figs [ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων]’ – as suggesting that the Herodian Temple did not belong to the eschatological age (521). Mark’s editorial note about the time of figs is indeed

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

157

the time would have been fulfilled for the temple to become ‘the house of prayer for all nations’, idealized in OG Isa 56:7 and Ps. Sol. 17:30-31 (cf. 1 Kings 10). One can safely assume, of course, that the correct maintenance of the Israelite cult – whether on ritual, financial or ethical matters – was of utmost importance to Mark.81 The use of Jeremiah’s idiom, ‘cave of bandits’, after all, conveys a critical tone, a sense that the sanctuary had been profaned. The main problem for Mark, in any case, is that the chief priests impede the fulfilment of OG Isa 56:7 by rejecting Israel’s eschatological king. When Mark 11:15-17 is read in its context, what one sees is the evangelist’s concern with preserving the key elements of the tradition he received on the one hand, and the augmentation of his own view that Jesus’s actions at the temple were occasioned by the priestly refusal to acknowledge him on the other.82 All the more consequential is that Mark 11:18 confirms Jesus’s indictment of the priests in Mark 11:15-17. As the Jerusalem rulers now plan to destroy Jesus, the temple is in effect proven to have become a ‘cave of bandits’ (cf. OG Jer 7:9-11; 18:23). Indeed, OG Jer 7:9 lists murder among the sins that Judah had committed, so the term λῃστής in OG Jer 7:11 most likely connotes the image of violent banditry, not simply of astute thievery. Interestingly enough, λῃστής is Josephus’s preferred word for describing the revolutionary, militaristic figures who jeopardized the political stability of Judea at the turn of the era (e.g. War 2.434-441; 4.504-510; Ant. 14.415-424). For Josephus, who writes disapprovingly of the Jewish revolt such would-be deliverers – who were quite likely some sort of messianic pretenders – are best regarded as failed insurrectionists against Rome.83 Given such a currency of λῃστής, Wright puzzling. As I have already pointed out, however, there is no indication that Jesus rejects the legitimacy of the Herodian Temple, and the problem in Mark 11:17 is that the priestly elite ‘has turned it [πεποιήκατε αὐτόν]’ – that is, the Herodian Temple, which Jesus assumes to be ‘God’s house [ὁ οἶκός μου]’ – into a cave of bandits, instead of making it a house of prayer for all nations in the pattern of Isaiah 56. So Jesus takes issue with those overseeing the temple, not the temple itself. This will become clearer as I discuss the parable of the wicked tenants, which has an explicit reference to the Jerusalem rulers’ refusal to give God the ‘fruit of his vineyard [τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος]’, even though it was ‘time [τῷ καιρῷ]’ for it (Mark 12:2). 81.  Cf. Bauckham, ‘Demonstration’, 85. Accordingly, when Jesus ‘looks around at everything’ in Mark 11:11, he quite possibly realizes that the temple at his time falls short of its eschatological ideal. 82.  Cf. Fredriksen, Christ, 113. 83.  Or ‘brigands’ as suggested by G.W. Buchanan, ‘Mark 11.15-19: Brigands in the Temple’, HUCA 30 (1959): 169–77. See also K.H. Rengstorf, ‘λῃστης’, in TDNT, 4:257-262.

158

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

surmises that ‘the Temple had become, in Jesus’ day as in Jeremiah’s, the talisman of nationalist violence, the guarantee that YHWH would act for Israel and defend her against her enemies’.84 Thus, to Wright, Jesus attacks the temple for its association with Jewish militaristic resistance.85 But, if there is any force to my argument, we must conclude that Mark turns the word λῃστής entirely on its head. Elsewhere, Mark uses λῃστής in a similar way to Josephus, though with a good dose of irony. In Mark 14:48, Jesus asks the crowd sent by the chief priests to arrest him in Gethsemane, ‘Have you come with swords and clubs to seize me, as against a bandit [λῃστής]?’ In Mark 15:27, it is alongside two ‘bandits [λῃσταί]’ that Jesus, the βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, is crucified (cf. Mark 15:26, 32). The reader of Mark obviously knows that, if anything, Jesus is not a guerrilla rebel. In Mark 11:17, however, it is Jesus who calls the Jerusalem elite bandits. Is Wright correct in suggesting that Jesus equates the temple rulers with those guerrilla warriors spoken of by Josephus? Mark precludes us from coming to such a conclusion. For one thing, the idea that revolutionary zeal was wholesale co-opted by the priests contemporary to Jesus is historically dubious.86 For another, Mark never gives the slightest hint that the chief priests are planning to overturn the dominion of the Romans.87 On the contrary, the narrative portrays the temple rulers as being engaged in a coalition against Jesus and actually complicit with the Romans in executing him. By calling the Jerusalem leaders λῃσταί, therefore, Mark accuses them of violent rebellion, but it is for conspiring to destroy God’s beloved son, not for fighting against Rome, that the authorities are indicted.88 They refuse to bless ‘the one coming in the name of Yahweh’ (Mark 11:11; cf. Mark 11:10) and seek to kill the messiah (Mark 11:18; cf. Mark 12:12). As bandits, they place themselves outside of the messianic kingdom, which is what would provoke the fall of the temple. Jesus reinforces this point in his subsequent visit to the temple. To that event, I now turn. 84.  Wright, Jesus, 420. 85.  Ibid. 86.  See, for instance, the involvement of the high priests in trying to dissuade the people not to join ‘Eleazar son of Ananias the high priest [Ἐλεάζαρος υἱὸς Ἀνανία τοῦ ἀρχιερέως]’ in forbidding the Romans to offer sacrifices at the temple (Josephus, War 2.408-416). 87.  It is quite possible, as Marcus (Way, 121–3) notes, that Mark 11:17 assumes an anti-revolutionary tone, in response to the events surrounding the Jewish war that culminated in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But Barrett (‘House’, 176) is right to note that it is not possible ‘to prove that the Temple was occupied by λῃσταί in the time of Jesus as it was during the war of A.D. 66–70’. 88.  Cf. Watts, New Exodus, 329.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

159

The Vollmachtfrage, the Wicked Tenants and the Rejected Stone The chief priests’ refusal to receive Jesus in Mark 11:11 and their subsequent plan to destroy him in Mark 11:18 have set the scene for the controversy in Mark 11:27-33. Having entered the temple as the Davidic king and announced its impending destruction, Jesus visits the Jerusalem shrine yet a third time in Mark 11,89 where the Jewish rulers question him concerning his authority. In response, Jesus reaffirms that the imminent fate of the temple is a consequence of the authorities’ rejection of the messiah. The passage in question comprises two pericopae, namely, Mark 11:27-33 and Mark 12:1-12. The first one, known as the Vollmachtfrage, reads as follows: 11:27 Καὶ ἔρχονται πάλιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι 11:28 καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς; ἢ τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς;90 11:29 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐπερωτήσω ὑμᾶς ἕνα λόγον, καὶ ἀποκρίθητέ μοι καὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ· 11:30 τὸ βάπτισμα τὸ Ἰωάννου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν ἢ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; ἀποκρίθητέ μοι. 11:31 καὶ διελογίζοντο πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες· ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ· διὰ τί [οὖν]91 οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; 11:32 ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον·92 ἅπαντες γὰρ εἶχον93 τὸν Ἰωάννην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἦν. 11:33 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγουσιν· οὐκ οἴδαμεν. καὶ94 ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ. 11:27 So they went again to Jerusalem. As he was walking around at the temple, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders came to him 11:28 and they told him: ‘By what kind of authority do you do these things? Or, who gave you this authority so that you might do these things?’ 89.  On the chronology of Mark 11, see Gundry, Mark, 664–5, 671–82. See also Tolbert, Sowing, 233. On the controversy in Mark 11:27-33, see G.S. Shae, ‘The Questions on the Authority of Jesus’, NovT 16 (1974): 10. 90.  Perhaps as a result of Jesus’s only focusing on the first question, D and K omit the second question entirely – ἢ τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς. 91.  Some manuscripts (e.g., A, C, L, W) omit the conjunction οὖν. 92.  A, D, K, L and W (among others) substitute λαόν for ὄχλον, but the latter is firmly supported by ‫ א‬and B. 93.  D, W and Θ give a more literal sense to the sentence by replacing εἶχον with ᾔδεισαν. 94.  A, D and K (among others) insert ἀποκριθείς after καί.

160

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

11:29 So Jesus said to them: ‘I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what kind of authority I do these things. 11:30 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from humans? Answer me.’ 11:31 So they began discussing with themselves, saying: ‘If we say “From heaven”, he will say “Why then did you not believe in him?” 11:32 But should we say “From humans”?’ They feared the crowd, for everyone had the opinion that John was truly a prophet. 11:33 So, answering Jesus, they said: ‘We do not know’. Then Jesus told them: ‘Neither do I tell you by what kind of authority I do these things’.

The presence of the elders alongside the chief priests and the scribes in Mark 11:27 recalls Mark 8:31, which anticipates Jesus’s rejection by the Jewish authorities for the first time in the narrative.95 As the Vollmachtfrage happens after Jesus’s royal procession into the temple, the pericope picks up on Mark 8:29 as well – it is as the messiah that Jesus is repudiated in Jerusalem. Whether or not the two questions in Mark 11:28 originally belonged to separate traditions,96 both queries constitute a doublet referring to the same authority in the final form of the story.97 The antecedent of ταῦτα, in turn, is most plausibly the deeds Jesus performs in Mark 11:15-17.98 Though 95.  The phrase εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα is missing in Mark 8:31, but occurs in the other passion prediction in Mark 10:33. See France, Mark, 453; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 538; and Gray, Temple, 55. 96.  E.g., Bultmann, Synoptic, 20; A.J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978), 70–2; Shae, ‘Authority’, 1–29; Telford, Temple, 39–49; de Jonge, ‘Cleansing’, 91. 97.  The demonstrative τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην in the second query indicates precisely that. Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 261; Taylor, Mark, 469; Lee, Autorität, 106–10; Stephen H. Smith, ‘The Literary Structure of Mark 11–12’, NovT 31 (1989): 104–24 (114); France, Mark, 454. 98.  Cf. Gaston, Stone, 88; J.-G. Mundla, Jesus und die Führer Israels: Studien zu den sog. Jerusalemer Streitgesprächen (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984), 15; Gundry, Mark, 655–7; Edwards, Mark, 350. The phrase ‘these things’ may include Jesus’s royal entry into Jerusalem in Mark 11:1-11 (cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 539), but since chief priests and scribes appear explicitly in Mark 11:18, Jesus’s actions at the outer court are most likely the referent. Less likely is the claim that ‘these things’ refers to Jesus’s ministry a whole, including his kingdom preaching in Galilee (e.g., Donahue, Christ, 118–20; Lee, Autorität, 111–16; T. Dwyer, The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 128 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 167). While it is not desirable to separate what Jesus does in Mark 1–10 from his activities in Mark 11–16, ταῦτα suggests a closer antecedent.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

161

Mark 11:27-33 immediately follows Jesus’s teaching on the withering of the fig tree, nothing suggests that the Jewish leaders are aware of what happens in Mark 11:19-26.99 It is transparent in Mark 11:18, on the other hand, that the temple rulers seek how to destroy Jesus because they had heard of the recent event at the outer court of the shrine. In short, since the sacrificial system functioned under the authority of the chief priests, they, now along with scribes and elders, inquire who had given Jesus the authorization to perform ‘these things’ at the temple.100 According to Mark, however, the Vollmachtfrage does not represent an honest question, but rather the chief priests’ claim to jurisdiction over the temple.101 In this respect, Mark 11:28 also represents a veiled attempt at incriminating Jesus. As Evans puts it: Either Jesus admitted his conduct was unauthorized, which would have made him publicly vulnerable, or he claimed a right superseding that of the ruling priests, a claim that would have made him politically vulnerable (cf. 14:6164). In either case, his conduct would then have provided a basis for a more formal proceeding against him, without fear of the crowd (cf. v 32; 12:12).102

Mark 11:15-17 does not depict the messiah as somehow superseding the priesthood, as though Jesus was assuming the role of the high priest himself or replacing the Levitical worship with a different religious programme.103 As we have seen, the temple incident conveys the indictment of the chief priests’ rejection of the eschatological king. This point of dispute notwithstanding, Evans is still correct in seeing the words in Mark 11:28 as ultimately aimed at disqualifying Jesus. 99.  Both Mark 11:12-14 and Mark 11:19-26 assume a private setting. 100.  On the proposal that Mark 11:27-33 reflects an underlying dispute between rabbis and scribes, see Gundry, Mark, 666–7, and the references cited therein. Also, given the overwhelming emphasis on Jesus’s identity throughout the Gospel, it is not desirable to distinguish christological from political reasons for the reaction in Mark 11:27-33. As Mark stands, it is precisely the question of who Jesus is that rests at the heart of the public clash with the temple rulers in Jerusalem. The Markan Jesus, after all, is no less than the royal messiah, a category that carries deeply political overtones. See Hultgren, Jesus, 138; and Shae, ‘Authority’, 19, who rightly believe that the christological emphasis of Mark 11:27-33 represents early Christian reflection (cf. Acts 4:7). It is not clear, however, whether they see the political significance of the story in its final form. 101.  Pace E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966), 394–5. 102.  Evans, Mark, 200. So also Gundry, Mark, 667: ‘The question of the Sanhedrin (v 28) presume that Jesus usurped their authority’. 103.  Pace also Fletcher-Louis, ‘Jesus: Part 1’; and idem, ‘Jesus: Part 2’.

162

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The key issue for the present study concerns the rationale behind Jesus’s counter-question in Mark 11:29-30. At the surface level, it seems that Jesus simply wishes to deflect the conversation so as to avoid giving his opponents a clear answer.104 But the use of counter-questions elsewhere in Mark, all of which instances invoke some kind of commonsense knowledge that in turn validates a concluding assertion, suggests that Jesus’s strategy has also a positive purpose. In Mark 2:18-22, Jesus excuses his disciples from fasting due to the fact that the bridegroom is among them; in Mark 2:23-28, he justifies the disciples’ plucking of grain on the Sabbath by appealing to 1 Sam 21:1-6; in Mark 10:2-9, he gives the Pharisees his own take on divorce based on the Pentateuch; and, in Mark 12:13-17, the counter-question prepares the audience for a pithy statement about paying tax to Rome.105 The later rabbis, moreover, deployed the same argumentative device in order to establish the legitimacy of the premise on which a final answer would be based.106 A notable example is found in the Babylonian Talmud, wherein Rabbi Aqiba is said to have answered a question with another query so as to affirm the divinely appointed distinctiveness of Sabbath: ‘And this question was asked by Turnusrufus of R. Akiba: “Wherein does this day [the Sabbath] differ from any other?” – He replied: “Wherein does one man differ from any other?” – “Because my Lord [the Emperor] wishes it”. “The Sabbath too”, R. Akiba rejoined, “then, is distinguished because the Lord wishes so” ’ (b. Sanh. 65b).107 These passages follow the basic pattern of putting forward a proposition, which both parties can agree upon, before the rejoinder to the original question is given. In the light of this, it is likely that Mark 11:29-30 is not designed just to evade the Vollmachtfrage, but to make a specific point about the leaders’ question and consequently about Mark 11:15-17 as well.108 The counter-question is thus of utmost importance. In order for the chief priests, the elders and the scribes to 104.  Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 539–40. 105.  See R. Tannehill, ‘Varieties of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories’, Semeia 20 (1981): 115–16. 106.  So Shae, ‘Authority’, 13: ‘This method of inquiry is used where an inquirer asks a rabbi a certain question of debatable nature. The rabbi answers the question with a counterquestion, the answer to which both the questioner and the rabbi itself can agree. On the basis of the agreement the rabbi can lead the inquirer to accept the validity of the rabbi’s answer to the question.’ 107.  Unless otherwise stated, all translation from the Babylonian Talmud in this chapter follow the Hebrew–English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1960–1994). See discussion in Evans, Mark, 203–4. 108.  Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus, 242.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

163

understand by what authority Jesus does these things, they must first consider Jesus’s view on the heavenly source of John’s baptism.109 But why does Jesus find it necessary to draw his opponents’ attention back to the baptism of John, in response to their question regarding the recent events at the temple? Lohmeyer, who is followed by Walter Grundmann, claims that the goal of the counter-question is to ground Jesus’s authority in the heavenly ordained proclamation of the Baptiser: ‘Also ist die Johannes-Taufe nicht ein analoges Beispiel, sondern der sachliche Grund der Vollmacht Jesu’.110 According to this line of reasoning, Jesus responds to the Vollmachtfrage by appealing to the one from whom his authority derives. Jostein Ådna, following the thesis put forward by Gerhard Barth, takes a step further and claims that Jesus points back to the forgiveness of sins associated with the message of the Baptiser (cf. Mark 1:4) – which, to Ådna and Barth, is autonomous from ‘allen der kultischen Reinheit’ – in order to substantiate the meaning of Jesus’s death as ‘Sühnetod’.111 The incident in Mark 11:15-17 consequently implies the redundancy of the Jerusalem ‘Sühnopferkultes’ within the eschatological salvation brought about by Jesus.112 Indeed, Lohmeyer is right to observe that Mark 11:29-30 presupposes some continuity between both figures, since John baptises Jesus (cf. Mark 1:9-10). Nevertheless, it is also the case that Mark portrays the power of the latter as far surpassing that of his forerunner. Jesus baptises with the holy spirit (Mark 1:7-8), teaches with awe-inspiring authority (Mark 1:22, 27), forgives sins (Mark 2:6-12) and silences the stormy sea as he wishes (Mark 4:39-41).113 Granted that the counter-question implies 109.  Hence the repetition of ἀποκρίθητέ μοι in Mark 11:29-30. See Bultmann, History, 20; cf. Evans, Mark, 201; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 539. 110.  Lohmeyer, Markus, 242; So also W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959), 236: ‘Vielmehr ist die Taufe des Täufers als der Grund der Vollmacht Jesu angesehen’. 111.  Ådna, Jesu, 296–8. See also G. Barth, Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit, BThSt 4 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 36ff. Compare Neusner, ‘MoneyChangers’, 290. 112.  Ådna, Jesu, 299. 113.  On the relation between the Vollmachtfrage and the theme of authority in Mark, with particular emphasis on Mark 1:22, 27, see R.J. Dillon, ‘ “As One Having Authority” (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of Jesus’ Teaching’, CBQ 57 [1995]: 100–2. See also Lee, Autorität, 199–204. Evans (Mark, 202–3) correctly notes the importance of Jesus’s authority as the Son of man (e.g., Mark 2:6-12, 28) and concludes that ‘Mark’s readers would have understood the deeper significance of Jesus’ authority in the light of the Gospel narrative’. Timothy Gray (Temple, 59), however, reads too much Danielic influence into our passage when he claims that,

164

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the activities of both John and Jesus to be sanctioned from heaven, the authority of the messiah is quite distinct from that of the Baptiser.114 As for Ådna’s proposal, it collapses on the presumption that the baptism of John bypasses the Levitical code in Mark. As I observed in Chapter 4, the idea that John nullifies the temple cult finds no corroboration in the Gospel. Even assuming that Mark attributes atoning significance to the death of Jesus, one must also bear in mind that the driving issue in Mark 11:27-33 concerns the authority of Jesus, not the supersession of the sacrificial system which John supposedly holds. So far as the Vollmachtfrage is concerned, the problem is not the Jerusalem shrine, but rather its rulers who reject the authority of the eschatological king.115 More on this below. Alternatively, Joachim Jeremias suggests that Mark 11:29-30 evokes the events in the baptism of Jesus – namely, the descent of the holy spirit and the heavenly declaration of Jesus’s divine sonship (cf. Mark 1:10-11).116 By implying that John’s baptism is ‘from heaven’ the counterquestion forces the leaders to admit that Jesus is the spirit-filled Son of God. Jeremias provides no substantial argument aside from a passing comment on the link between Mark 11:29-30 and Mark 1:10-11, thus making himself vulnerable to criticism. Gundry, for instance, raises the fair objection: if Jesus had all the events in Mark 1:10-11 in mind, ‘why does he ask a general question about the authority of John’s baptism instead of appealing to what happened to himself alone’?117 But while Gundry is correct that the counter-question focuses on John’s baptism, in my estimation Jeremias is right inasmuch as he tries to read Mark 11:29-30 in connection to the Markan prologue, which is where the ‘[t]he answer [to the counter-question] is clear: [Jesus does these things] by the authority granted the Son of Man in Daniel 7’ (my emphasis). Not only is the term ‘Son of man’ absent in Mark 11:27-33, there is not even a slight hint in Jesus’s counter-question in Mark 11:29-30 that he had Daniel 7 in mind. The expression ‘from heaven’ is, to be sure, associated with Jesus’s authority as the Son of man in Mark 2:6-12, and the Vollmachtfrage is indeed connected to Mark 8:31, where Jesus predicts his sufferings as the Son of man. Nevertheless, the counter-question calls attention to the baptism of John, where ‘beloved son’ not ‘Son of man’ is the language describing Jesus. In the light of the narrative of Mark as a whole, it is not desirable to distinguish Jesus’s authority, whether as Son of man or divine son, but it is by no means ‘clear’ that Daniel 7 is the key to Jesus’s counter-question. 114.  Pace Gnilka, Markus, 137–41, who suggests that Jesus’s authority is prophetic, in resemblance to John’s. See Evans, Mark, 204–5: ‘Jesus’ question about John’s authority is parallel, not consecutive’. 115.  So also Driggers, ‘Politics’, 242. 116.  Jeremias, Theology, 1:56. 117.  Gundry, Mark, 667.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

165

baptism of John is presented. One must also bear in mind that, as far as Mark goes, John’s baptism is never an end in itself. The purpose of the Markan prologue is to speak of John as the one preparing the way of the Lord (cf. Mark 1:2-3) and to introduce Jesus the messiah (cf. Mark 1:1), the stronger one (cf. Mark 1:7), the beloved son (cf. Mark 1:11). In this regard, Mark does not separate, as Gundry does, the question about John from the authority of Jesus affirmed in the baptism scene. Jesus poses a counter-question regarding John, but, really, the words in Mark 11:29-30 are about Jesus himself. More to the point, the Vollmachtfrage happens in the context of Jesus’s action at the temple and the chief priests’ subsequent reaction against it. This is especially relevant, for the purity of the Jerusalem and the fate of the temple are prominent motifs associated with the baptism of John in Mark 1:1-8. John is the Elijah-like prophet who calls the people to repentance in view of the Isaianic hopes concerning the restoration of the temple (cf. Mark 1:1-3). Given these thematic correspondences, it is actually unsurprising that Jesus makes a counterquestion about the baptism of John, when challenged on the recent events at the Jerusalem shrine in Mark 11:15-17.118 By invoking the baptism of John, Jesus connects the christological dots between the temple action and what the prologue suggests regarding the fate of Zion in the light of his identity. Much more than an astute equivocation, therefore, Jesus’s counterquestion reframes the conversation on his own terms and addresses what is in fact the heart of the problem: the Vollmachtfrage presupposes the Jerusalem rulers’ unbelief in the message of the Baptiser.119 From Mark’s perspective, the baptism of John is infused with prophetic power and is indeed from heaven. And yet, John was simply the forerunner of Jesus, God’s messianic son whom the Jerusalem rulers should have welcomed into the temple.120 The opponents of Jesus quite precisely get the logic when they deliberate among themselves, ‘If we say “From heaven”, he will say “Why did you not believe in him”?’ (Mark 11:31). Ironically, it is the Jewish leaders who, realizing that they have been put in the hot seat, decide to evade the conversation. They did not take heed of John, but at the same time lack the honesty as well as the courage to admit it. As Mark notes, ‘They feared the crowd, for everyone had the opinion that John was truly a prophet’ (Mark 11:32).121 The Vollmachtfrage thus echoes the 118.  Cf. Hooker, Mark, 272. 119.  See Evans, Mark, 205. 120.  Lee, Autorität, 142. 121.  Watts (New Exodus, 339) notes that ‘inability to perceive’ is prominent already in Mark 4 and 7.

166

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

deliberation to destroy Jesus in Mark 11:18 and further confirms the force of the indictment in Mark 11:17. Chief priests, scribes and now elders try to incriminate Jesus, but in the end it is Jesus who incriminates them. The controversy surrounding the authority of Jesus ends with his giving an unexpected response to the Jewish rulers: ‘Neither do I tell you by what kind of authority I do these things’ (Mark 11:33). As the narrative continues, Jesus takes control of the conversation and brings his argument home by making a more explicit point against his opponents.122 The pericope Mark 12:1-12 comprises two major parts, the parable of the wicked tenants in Mark 12:1-9 and the citation from OG Ps 117:22-23 in Mark 12:10-11: 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:7

Καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτοῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν· ἀμπελῶνα ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν καὶ περιέθηκεν φραγμὸν καὶ ὤρυξεν ὑπολήνιον καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν πύργον καὶ ἐξέδετο αὐτὸν γεωργοῖς καὶ ἀπεδήμησεν. καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς τοὺς γεωργοὺς τῷ καιρῷ δοῦλον ἵνα παρὰ τῶν γεωργῶν λάβῃ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος· καὶ123 λαβόντες αὐτὸν ἔδειραν καὶ ἀπέστειλαν κενόν. καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἄλλον δοῦλον· κἀκεῖνον ἐκεφαλίωσαν124 καὶ125 ἠτίμασαν. καὶ ἄλλον ἀπέστειλεν· κἀκεῖνον ἀπέκτειναν, καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους, οὓς μὲν δέροντες, οὓς δὲ ἀποκτέννοντες. ἔτι126 ἕνα εἶχεν υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν· ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν ἔσχατον πρὸς αὐτοὺς λέγων ὅτι ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου. ἐκεῖνοι δὲ οἱ γεωργοὶ πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εἶπαν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος· δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτόν, καὶ ἡμῶν ἔσται ἡ κληρονομία.

122.  On the unity of Mark 11:27–12:12, see Lee, Autorität, 65–74. Cf. S.Y. Kim, ‘Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Designations of Jesus’, in Tradition and Interpretation, E.E. Ellis Festschrift, ed. G.F. Hawthorne and O. Betz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 134–5. 123.  A, C, K, N and W (among others) clarify the contrast between vv. 3 and 4 by substituting οἱ δέ for καί. 124.  A, C, K and N (among others) include λιθοβολῆσαντες before ἐκεφαλίωσαν, but its omission is strongly supported by the combined attestation in ‫ א‬and B. Noting that Mark 12:3 ‘is the only occurrence of this word [ἐκεφαλίωσαν] in Greek literature’, Yarbro Collins (Mark, 540) concludes that the ‘reading of A C D et al. seems to be a correction from an unknown or lesser known word to a known or a better known word’. 125.  The occurrences of ἀπέστειλαν after καί in, e.g., A, C, K, N and W, are probably additions. 126.  The replacement of ὕστερον δέ for ἔτι in W and Θ seems to add more poignancy to the verse.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

167

12:8 12:9

καὶ λαβόντες ἀπέκτειναν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. τί [οὖν]127 ποιήσει ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος; ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀπολέσει τοὺς γεωργοὺς καὶ δώσει τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλοις. 12:10 οὐδὲ τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην ἀνέγνωτε· λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας· 12:11 παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη καὶ ἔστιν θαυμαστὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν; 12:12 Καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν ὄχλον, ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν εἶπεν. καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθον. 12:1

So he began to speak to them in parables: ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a vat underneath a winepress, built a tower, handed it over to tenant farmers and went on a journey. 12:2 He sent a servant to the tenant farmers in time, so that he might take from the tenant farmers from the fruits of the vineyard. 12:3 But, taking him, they beat him and sent him empty. 12:4 And again he sent to them another servant, and that one they beat over the head and dishonoured him. 12:5 So he sent another one, and that one they killed. And so many others, some of whom they beat, whereas others they kill. 12:6 He had yet one beloved son. He finally sent him to them, saying: “They will respect my son”. 12:7 But with regards to that one, the tenant farmers spoke to themselves: “This is the heir. Come! Let us kill him, and ours will be the inheritance.” 12:8 So, taking him, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. 12:9 What, therefore, will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come, destroy the tenant farmers and give the vineyard to others. 12:10 Did you not read this scripture: “The stone which the builders rejected, this one became the head of the corner. 12:11 This was from the Lord and it is marvellous in our eyes” (OG Ps 117:22-23)?’ 12:12 So they were seeking to seize him, but feared the crowd, for they knew that he spoke the parable with reference to them. And, leaving him, they went away. 127.  The absence of the conjunction οὖν in B and L (among others), on the one hand, and its occurrence in ‫א‬, A and C (among others), on the other hand, makes it difficult to decide on the earliest reading. But see G.D. Kilpatrick (‘Particles’, in The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition of C.H. Turner’s ‘Notes on Marcan Usage’ Together with Other Comparable Studies, ed. J.K. Elliott, NovTSup 71 [Leiden: Brill, 1993], 184), who argues that the shorter reading is more in keeping with Markan style.

168

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

There is a long-standing dispute over the Sitz im Leben of Mark 12:1-9,128 but the consensus holds that the language in Mark 12:1-9 is similar to OG Isa 5:1-7.129 In Mark 12:1, Jesus tells his opponents about a man who ‘planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a vat underneath a winepress and built a tower’, whereas OG Isa 5:1-2 introduces an oracle about ‘a vineyard [ἀμπελών]’ which eventually is said to belong to the Lord of Hosts (cf. OG Isa 5:7) – ‘I built a fence around it [φραγμὸν περιέθηκα]’, ‘planted a choice vine [ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον σωρηχ]’, ‘built a tower in its midst [ᾠκοδόμησα πύργον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτοῦ]’ and ‘dug a vat before a winepress in it [προλήνιον ὤρυξα ἐν αὐτῷ]’. The theme of transgression followed by judgement is also central to both passages (compare Mark 12:7-9 and OG Isa 5:4-7). It is difficult to ascertain, to be sure, whether Mark is directly indebted to the Old Greek version of Isa 5:2, given that the third person singular in Mark 12:1 agrees with the subject of the verbs in MT Isa 5:2 – ‘he dug a hedge around it, removed the stones from it, planted a choice vine, built a tower in its midst and hewed in it also a winepress [‫ויעזקהו ויסקלהו ויטעהו שׂרק ויבן מגדל בתוכו וגם־יקב חצב‬ ‫’]בו‬.130 In any case, it is beyond question that the Isaianic Song of the Vineyard stands in the background of Mark 12:1-9. 128.  E.g., C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York: Scribner’s, 1961), 96–102 and 124–32; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s, 1963), 11–3, 70–7; M. Hengel, ‘Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern: Mc 12:1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse’, ZNW 39 (1968): 1–39; C.E. Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 178–90; K. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation, WUNT 1/27 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 111–18; and J.S. Kloppenborg, ‘Self-Help or Deus ex Machina in Mark 12.9?’, NTS 50 (2004): 495–518. See also K. Snodgrass, ‘Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment’, BBR 8 (1998), 187–216; and J.S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine, WUNT 1/195 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). 129.  E.g., Jeremias, Parables, 70–7; Schweizer, Mark, 239; Juel, Messiah, 136–7; Snodgrass, Tenants, 47; Lee, Autorität, 161; Gundry, Mark, 684; Watts, New Exodus, 340; France, Mark, 461; Evans, Mark, 224–8; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 544–5; and recently J.S. Kloppenborg, ‘Egyptian Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9’, NovT 44 (2002): 134–59; idem, ‘Isa 5:1-7 OG and Mark 12:1, 9, Again’, NovT 46 (2004): 12–19. Questions concerning the relation between Mark 12:1-12 and the version attested in the Gospel of Thomas are beside the point here, since my aim is not to reconstruct the original form of the parable. See Evans, Mark, 217–22, and the references cited therein. 130.  See further C.A. Evans, ‘How Septuagintal is Isa. 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9?’, NovT 45 (2003): 105-10.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

169

It is widely agreed that the Song of the Vineyard is a judicial parable, by means of which Yahweh charges his people with infidelity.131 The passage speaks of a benevolent figure referred to as ‘beloved [ἠγαπημένος]’ (OG Isa 5:1), who has established a vineyard in a safe land and industriously provided for it (OG Isa 5:2; cf. OG Ps 79:9-19). As the parable continues, however, the beloved brings a complaint. Instead of yielding fruits of righteousness, the vineyard bore fruits of disobedience. ‘I waited for it to produce grapes [ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν]’, declares the oracle, ‘but it produced thorns [ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀκάνθας]’ (OG Isa 5:4; cf. MT Isa 5:4: ‘but it produced wild grapes [‫)’]ויעשׂ באשׁים‬. As a result, the desolation of the vineyard is announced: ‘I will abandon my vineyard [ἀνήσω τὸν ἀμπελῶνά μου]’ (OG Isa 5:6; cf. MT Isa 5:6: ‘I will set it as waste [‫)’]ואשׁיתהו בתה‬. Now, the force of the passage lies on the invitation for the whole nation, including its leaders, to adjudicate on the matter. Just before criticizing the vineyard for its inability to bear good fruit, the beloved summons the ‘man of Judah, the inhabitants in Jerusalem [ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ιουδα καὶ οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες ἐν Ιερουσαλημ]’ to ‘judge between me and my vineyard; what else will I do for my vineyard that I did not do for it [κρίνατε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀμπελῶνός μου. τί ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησα αὐτῷ]?’ (OG Isa 5:3-4).132 In this way, the parable anticipates judgement on the vineyard and assumes that the man of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will concur with the verdict of the beloved.133 The passage reaches its climax when it reveals that the vineyard represents the Israelites themselves: ‘for the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the house of Israel and the man of Judah the beloved new plant; I waited for it to produce judgement, but it produced lawlessness, not righteousness but outcry [ὁ γὰρ ἀμπελὼν κυρίου σαβαωθ οἶκος τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐστίν καὶ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Ιουδα νεόφυτον ἠγαπημένον· ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν, ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀνομίαν καὶ οὐ δικαιοσύνην ἀλλὰ κραυγήν]’ (OG Isa 5:7). The parable in Mark lacks the image of a choice vine, but Mark 12:1 seems to follow the identification of the vineyard with Israel from Isa 5:7 (as per also Isa 3:14; 27:2; Ps 80:9; Jer 2:21; 12:10; Ezek 19:10; 131.  See, e.g., J.T. Willis, ‘The Genre of Isaiah 5:1-7’, JBL 96 (1977): 337–62; G.A. Yee, ‘The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1-7 as Song and a Juridical Parable’, CBQ 43 (1981): 30–40, especially 33–6; G.T. Sheppard, ‘More on Isaiah 5:1-7 as a Juridical Parable’, CBQ 44 (1982): 45–7; C.A. Evans, ‘On the Vineyard Parables of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12’, BZ 28 (1984): 82–6; Watts, New Exodus, 340; and Gray, Temple, 62. See also U. Simon, ‘The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable’, Bib 48 (1967): 220-21, on the genre of ‘juridical parable’. 132.  The text of OG Isa 5:3-4 very closely follows MT Isa 5:3-4. 133.  Yee, ‘Song’, 31 (see also 40).

170

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Hos 10:1).134 Moreover, given that Mark 12:1-12 belongs together with the Vollmachtfrage, which in turn is connected to Jesus’s actions at the temple (cf. Mark 11:15-17; see also Mark 11:10-11, 12-14, 19-26; 13:1-2), the parable seems to encompass the Jerusalem institution just as much. Significantly, later rabbinic materials attest to an interpretive tradition that ascribes cultic significance to Isa 5:1-7. A passage in the Tosefta reads the tower and the winepress vat in Isa 5:2 as referring respectively to the temple and the altar: ‘[my beloved] built a tower in the midst of it [the vineyard] – that is the Temple – and hewed out a winepress therein – that is the altar’ (t. Suk. 3.15).135 Similarly, Targ. Isa. 5:2 renders part of Isa 5:2 as ‘I built my sanctuary in their midst, and I even gave my altar to atone for their sins’;136 and Targ. Isa. 5:5 interprets the imagery in Isa 5:5 as pertaining to the Israelite worship: ‘I will take up my Shekhinah from them, and they shall be for plundering; I will break down the place of their sanctuaries, and they will be for trampling’.137 Furthermore, the reference to the ‘holy height [‫ ’]מרום הקודש‬in what is likely an interpretation of Isaiah 5 in 4Q500 1.2-5138 suggests that the linking of the Song of the 134.  Cf. Evans, ‘Vineyard’, 84–6; J.C. de Moor, ‘The Targumic Background of Mark 12:1-12: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants’, JSJ 19 (1998): 68; Gray, Temple, 62. Pace K.R. Iverson, ‘Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Narrative Perspective (Mark 12:1-12)’, BI 20 (2012): 308–16, who argues that the vineyard represents the kingdom of God not Israel. Iverson also sees incongruence between the fruitfulness of the vineyard in Mark 12:2 and the overall negative anthropology in Mark – people never get Jesus quite right (311). In my estimation, however, Mark’s portrayal of Israel in general is more carefully nuanced than Iverson allows, as it does not assume utter unfruitfulness (see, e.g., Mark 1:5, 22, 27-28, 45; 2:1-2, 12; 3:7-8; 5:20; 6:2; 7:37; 9:15; 11:9, 18, 32; 12:12; 14:2). In any case, it is even more difficult to conceive that the vineyard represents the kingdom of God, since the vineyard is handed over to the tenant farmers (Mark 12:1), and the temple rulers are consistently portrayed in Mark as outsiders not the supervisors of the kingdom. All in all, the traditional interpretation of the vineyard as symbolizing Israel in Mark 12:1-9 still seems the most plausible one. So also Gundry, Mark, 689: ‘The vineyard represents Israel all the way through’. 135.  Translation by A.W. Greenup, Sukkah, Mishnah and Tosefta with Introduction, Translation and Short Notes (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 78. 136.  Translation by B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 11 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 10. 137.  Ibid., 11. 138.  As suggested by J.M. Baumgarten, ‘4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord’s Vineyard’, JJS 40 (1989): 2. See also G.J. Brooke, ‘4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants’, DSD 2 (1995): 268–94; Marcus, Way, 120; and Evans, Jesus, 397–401.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

171

Vineyard to the temple occurred in a tradition more ancient than Mark.139 This is not to claim that Mark is dependent on 4Q500, but simply to note the currency of such an interpretation in roughly the same period. Taken alongside the fact that Mark 11–13 is thoroughly centred on the temple, all these examples support the conclusion that Mark 12:1-9 encompasses the Jerusalem temple and its priestly establishment.140 The tenant farmers, in turn, to whom the man entrusts his vineyard, stand for the leaders who preside from Jerusalem over the nation.141 And it is on this point that Mark 12:1-9 departs more clearly from Isa 5:1-7. Unlike the latter, the former polemicizes against the tenant farmers, not the vineyard as a whole.142 This means that, instead of criticizing Israel in general for its failure to live up to God’s righteousness, Mark directs the dispute specifically towards the Jewish authorities (cf. Mark 11:27).143 139.  See also de Moor, ‘Tenants’, 70. 140.  Cf. W.J.C. Weren, ‘The Use of Isaiah 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1-12; Matthew 21,33-46)’, Bib 79 (1998): 17. See also Boring, Mark, 331; Snodgrass, Tenants, 77. 141.  See Snodgrass, ‘Research’, 193. Contra Iverson, ‘Tenants’, 318, who claims that Mark 12:1-9 ‘foreshadows the crowd’s turn against Jesus’ and, therefore, the tenants include ‘the people of Israel’. But while Mark does present ὁ ὄχλος as eventually joining the rulers in condemning Jesus (cf. Mark 15:6-11; as per also Mark 14:43), it is not at all obvious that those who arrest Jesus at Gethsemane (Mark 14:43) or those who ask Pilate to release Barabbas (Mark 15:8) belong to the same crowd as those who followed Jesus in Galilee (cf. Mark 1:22; 2:12; 5:20; 6:2; 7:37; 9:15; 11:9). See Lohmeyer, Markus, 337. Further, Mark 12:12 insists that the Jewish leaders sought to seize Jesus, but feared the crowd, though they knew that the parable was spoken of them (cf. Mark 11:18, 32). So Mark 12:12 itself explicitly differentiates between the Jerusalem rulers and Israel in general. Even if Mark portrays the crowds as ‘proverbially unstable’ (to cite Yarbro Collins, Mark, 719), the narrative also makes it clear that ὁ ὄχλος is ‘stirred up by the chief priests [οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀνέσεισαν τὸν ὄχλον]’ (Mark 15:11), and so it is the Jerusalem rulers who are ultimately to blame. So also Gundry, Mark, 689. 142.  See de Moor, ‘Tenants’, 68; Tolbert, Sowing, 238; and especially Iverson, ‘Tenants’, 310–11. On the practice of leasing in the period relevant to Mark, see C.A. Evans, ‘Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements in Antiquity’, JSP 14 (1996), 65–83. See also Hengel, ‘Gleichnis’, 20–21; and S. Freyne, Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1980), 162. 143.  Cf. Brooke, ‘Tenants’, 289–90; Watts, New Exodus, 342; E.H. Horne, ‘The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment’, JSNT 71 (1998): 113; Evans, Mark, 223. On the importance of the owner of the vineyard to the parable, see J.R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990), 54.

172

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

In a nutshell, Mark 12:3-5 rehearses the scriptural motif of the rejection of Yahweh’s envoys by the leaders of Israel.144 Thus, the summary statement in Mark 12:5 – ‘[he sent] so many others, some of whom they beat, whereas others they kill’ – parallels 2 Chr 36:14-16, where Yahweh is said to have sent his messengers, ‘because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; but they [the priestly rulers] kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy’ (NRSV). In addition, not only is the term ‘servant [δοῦλος]’ (deployed twice in Mark 12:2-5) well-attested with reference to Old Testament prophets (e.g., OG Jer 7:25-26; 25:4; OG Amos 3:7; OG Zech 1:6),145 the Vollmachtfrage places the repudiation of John the Baptist firmly in the foreground of the passage. The main issue in Mark 12:1-9 is that ‘the time’ has come, but the tenant farmers refused to pay the owner from the fruits of the vineyard (cf. Mark 12:2).146 More importantly, the rebellious attitude of the tenants finds its culmination as they covet the inheritance for themselves and throw the heir out of the vineyard (Mark 12:7-8). Like insurrectionists – or bandits – they usurp the authority which belonged to the owner, and end up committing murder. That the heir, also referred to in the parable as the ‘beloved son’, corresponds to Jesus is transparent from the prominence of the divine sonship motif in Mark – twice in the Gospel is Jesus explicitly called by God ‘my beloved son’ (Mark 1:11; 9:7; cf. Mark 15:39).147 Given such christological overtones in the parable, the decision 144.  I shall not delve into the question of whether each servant represents a particular historical figure. See Yarbro Collins, Mark, 545–6, who additionally entertains the possibility that the hapax ἐκεφαλίωσαν may allude to the beheading of John the Baptist. (So also J.D. Crossan, ‘The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen’, JBL 90 [1971]: 452.) The difficulty is that, as Yarbro Collins herself admits (Mark, 544), it is Herod, not the temple rulers, who is ultimately responsible for the death of John (Mark 6:17-29). Furthermore, as Evans points out (Mark, 234), ἐκεφαλίωσαν could be read in connection to ἠτίμασαν simply to convey the idea of disfiguring of appearance, as in the story in 2 Sam 10:2-5. (See also Gundry, Mark, 685.) On the possible verisimilitude of Mark 12:3-5, see Hengel, ‘Gleichnis’, 12–16. 145.  Cf. Lee, Autorität, 163; R. Liebers, ‘Wie geschrieben steht’: Studien zu einer besonderen Art frühchristlichen Schriftbezuges (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 370–3. 146.  See Evans, ‘Lease’, 74–80. 147.  Contra A. Milavec, ‘The Identity of “The Son” and “The Others”: Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Reconsidered’, BTB 20 (1990): 30–7; and D. Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 193–4, who argues that the son refers to John the Baptist. Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 73; Snodgrass, Tenants, 80–7;

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

173

of the owner is perfectly intelligible: the wicked tenants are worthy of destruction (Mark 12:9).148 In this way, the point of the allusion to OG Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17 is reinforced.149 The rulers of the Holy City, not least the chief priests, despised John (cf. Mark 11:31-32), refused to welcome the messianic king into the temple (cf. Mark 11:11) and were now plotting to destroy Jesus (cf. Mark 11:18). All this, it should be added, despite the fact that ‘the time has been fulfilled [πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός]’ for the coming of the messianic kingdom (cf. Mark 1:15; as per τῷ καιρῷ in Mark 12:2), which would have been characterized by the coming of the nations to Zion to see the glory of Yahweh and participate in the temple cultus (cf. OG Isa 56:7 in Mark 11:17).150 But, by rejecting the messiah and heir of God, the Jerusalem leaders have surpassed their predecessors in their iniquity. As a result, God will bring judgement on them and transfer the prerogative to preside over the people to others who submit themselves to the authority of God’s messianic son (Mark 12:9; cf. 13:1-2).151 The pericope – and, indeed, the entire controversy initiated in Mark 11:27 – ends with an explicit citation from OG Ps 117:22-23, which renders MT Ps 118:22-23 verbatim. In Mark 12:10, Jesus concludes his remarks by asking his opponents, ‘Did you not read this scripture: “The stone which the builders rejected, this one became the head of the Tolbert, Sowing, 248; Watts, New Exodus, 344; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 233; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 547. Pace Evans, Mark, 235: ‘ἀγαπητόν probably does not have messianic overtones’. True, but the divine sonship of Jesus in Mark does. See Chapter 3 above. 148.  Compare Kloppenborg, ‘Self-Help’, 507–18. 149.  Cf. Gray, Temple, 66. 150.  Cf. Marcus, Way, 121–4; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 547. The sense in which καιρός is used in Mark 12:13 is admittedly more complex, but does not falsify the connection between Mark 12:2 and Mark 1:15. On the use of καιρός in Mark 12:13, see R.H. Hiers, ‘Not the Season for Figs’, JBL 87 (1968): 394–400; Evans, Mark, 155–7; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 526. Furthermore, καιρός is used also in Mark 10:30 and Mark 13:33, and in both instances the term is closely associated with the theme of eschatology. See Iverson, ‘Tenants’, 314–15. 151.  See Bond, Caiaphas, 104. Some have maintained that the ‘others’ refers to the Gentiles. See, e.g., Jeremias, Parables, 70; Carlston, Parables, 189; Hooker, Mark, 276; Schweizer, Mark, 241; Marcus, Way, 115–18; Iverson, ‘Tenants’, 325–34. Mark, however, leaves this issue unresolved. The ‘others’ could be a reference to the disciples of Jesus (see Mark 10:35-45; cf. Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30), but even this suggestion is admittedly conjectural. See the discussion in Milavec, ‘Identity’, 30–37; Brooke, ‘Tenants’, 294; Gundry, Mark, 688; Evans, Mark, 237; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 547: the focus is ‘on the removal from power of the leaders who oppose Jesus’.

174

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

corner” ’. This is one of the few instances where Mark gives a formal introduction to a biblical reference – as per the phrase τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην (cf. Mark 1:2; 7:6; 11:17; 14:27) – and, despite the shift from the agricultural language of the parable to the architectural imagery of the psalm, the citation gives the preceding verses scriptural force.152 In other words, if Mark 12:1-9 builds upon Isa 5:1-7 to illustrate the implications of the leaders’ resistance to Jesus, Mark 12:10-11 shows that Jesus’s point is foreseen in OG Psalm 117. In particular, the link between vv. 1-9 and vv. 10-11 of ch. 12 is christological.153 The Targum interprets the term ‘stone [‫ ’]אבן‬in MT Ps 118:22 as speaking of the royal descendant of Jesse, King David: ‘The architects forsook the youth among the sons of Jesse, but he was worthy to be appointed king and ruler’ (Tg. Ps. 118:22).154 This rendition, albeit later than Mark, is relevant, as it corroborates the widespread scholarly view that MT Ps 118:22 allows for the wordplay between the words ‘stone [‫ ’]אבן‬and ‘son [‫( ’]בן‬cf. Exod 28:9-10 and Josh 4:6-7).155 On top of the example from Tg. Ps. 118:22, context also indicates that Mark 12:10 equates the ‘stone [λίθος]’ from OG Ps 117:22 with the ‘beloved son [υἱός ἀγαπητός]’ in Mark 12:6 (with no play on the Greek words, to be sure).156 152.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 548. See also Stern, Parables, 196–7, cited by Yarbro Collins. 153.  Cf. Snodgrass, ‘Research’, 202–3. 154.  Translation by D.M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with A Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 16 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 210. 155.  See, e.g., M. Black, ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, NTS 18 (1971–72): 11–14; Snodgrass, Tenants, 63–5, 95–118; A. Milavec, ‘Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen as Reaffirming God’s Predilection for Israel’, JES 26 (1989): 307–8; M. Trimaille, ‘La parabole des vignerons meurtriers (Mc 12, 1-12)’, in Les Paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles, ed. J. Delorme (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 253; C.A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, AGJU 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 403–4; Brooke, ‘Tenants’, 287; France, Mark, 463; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 548. Another example, though later than Mark, is Testament of Solomon, which ascribes the fulfilment of Ps 118:22 (OG Ps 117:22) to Solomon: ‘And I, Solomon, being lifted up, said: Truly now it has been fulfilled the scripture which said, “The stone which the builders rejected, this one became the head of the corner” [ἐγὼ δὲ Σολομῶν ἐπαιρόμενος εἶπον· Ἀληθῶς νῦν ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα· Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες οὗτος ἐγενήθη μὲν εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας]’ (23:4). 156.  On the textual issues of Mark’s use of OG Psalm 117, see R.H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 20.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

175

We have seen that the presence of the chief priests, the scribes and the elders in the Vollmachtfrage evokes the first passion prediction in Mark 8:31, where Jesus anticipates his rejection as the messiah by those three groups (cf. Mark 8:29). Significantly, the verb ἀποδοκιμάζω occurs only in Mark 8:31 and in the citation from OG Ps 117:22 within our passage. Such a verbal correspondence suggests that Mark, in resemblance to the Targum, reads the psalm with reference to Israel’s king, though in a way that serves the motif of the rejection of the royal messiah.157 Since it is transparent that the son and heir to the vineyard represents Jesus, the thematic juxtaposition of Mark 12:10-11 with Mark 12:1-9 is impossible to miss: the rejected stone is the despised son.158 The precise referent of the builders in the earliest setting of the psalm is less certain. The difficulty concerns the almost intractable problem of establishing the Sitz im Leben of the psalm, given its apparently mixed character.159 But the Scriptures provide a compelling precedent for referring to the national leaders in general as builders. For instance, Mic 3:10 pejoratively describes the leaders of the nation as ‘those who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity [‫בנה ציון בדמים‬ ‫( ’]וירושׁלם בעולה‬cf. OG Mic 3:10: οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες Σιων ἐν αἵμασιν καὶ Ιερουσαλημ ἐν ἀδικίαις). Interestingly, in Ezra 3:10, the priests themselves are explicitly said to have participated in the building of the Second Temple, leading the people in thanksgiving according to the order of David: ‘When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD [‫]ויסדו הבנים את־היכל יהוה‬, the priests in their vestments were stationed to praise the LORD with trumpets…according to the directions of King David of Israel’ (NRSV; cf. OG Ezra 3:10a: καὶ ἐθεμελίωσαν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὸν οἶκον κυρίου).160 Given such a biblical usage, Pierre Constant is likely correct that the builders in the psalm are the ‘compatriotes, peut-être des membres influents à l’intérieur même de la nation d’Israël’ who oppose the king.161 So, within the psalm itself, a tension exists between the builders who despise the stone in v. 22 and those who bless the king from the temple in v. 26.

157.  Cf. Gundry, Mark, 663; and Rowe, God’s Son, 263. 158.  So also Evans, Mark, 238; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 548. Cf. AhearneKroll, Psalms, 156–61. 159.  See the discussion in P. Constant, ‘Le psaume 118 et son emploi chris�tologique dans Luc et Actes: Une etude exegetique, litteraire et hermeneutique’ (PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2001), 69–90, and the references cited therein. 160.  Cf. Gray, Temple, 73. 161.  Constant, Le psaume, 109.

176

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

It is clear that the Gospel identifies the builders who reject the Davidic king with the farmers who despise the heir to the vineyard. And, in the context of Mark 11:27–12:9, both represent the Jerusalem establishment.162 But, more importantly, by citing OG Ps 117:22 in Mark 12:9, Mark brings the reader full circle to the quotation from OG Ps 117:26 in Mark 11:9.163 I have pointed out in Chapter 3 that OG Ps 117:26 speaks of the blessings pronounced on the victorious king from the temple. But while Mark highlights the royal identity of Jesus in the triumphal entry, it is the crowds, not the temple priests, who hail the Davidic king. In this way, Mark not only capitalizes on the tension between the builders and those who receive the king at the sanctuary in the psalm, he presents it in an unexpected way: those supposed to pronounce the blessings on the king from the temple (cf. OG Ps 117:26) prove themselves to be the ones who reject the stone (cf. OG Ps 117:22). Yet, the passage also points forward to God’s vindication of Jesus. The citation of OG Ps 117:23 in Mark 12:11 makes it clear that the rejected stone will, in a way that is ‘marvellous in our eyes’, become the κεφαλὴ γωνία. It is unclear whether the expression κεφαλὴ γωνία connotes the cornerstone first laid at the foundation of a building, the capstone atop a column, or the keystone completing an arch.164 The New Testament use of OG Ps 117:22 seems to suggest that early Christian tradition understood κεφαλὴ γωνία in terms of the first category – namely, ‘cornerstone’. In 1 Pet 2:6-7, κεφαλὴ γωνία is directly identified with ἀκρογωνιαῖος, a word deriving from a citation from OG Isa 28:16 (cf. Eph 2:20).165 Since in Mark the vindication of Jesus is actualized at the resurrection (cf. Mark 8:31; 162.  Cf. Snodgrass, Tenants, 113–18. See also Marcus, Way, 119–22. 163.  Watts, ‘Psalms’, 32, notes a chiasmus in Mark 11:1–12:12, with the temple action at its centre: 11:1-11 Royal procession and silence of the priests (cf. OG Ps 117:25-26) 11:12-14 Cursing of the fig tree 11:15-18 Demonstration at the outer court of the temple 11:19-26 Withering of the fig tree 11:27–12:12 Vollmachtfrage and the parable of the tenants (cf. OG Ps 117:22-23) 164.  Compare J. Jeremias, ‘Κεφαλὴ γωνίας – Ἀκρογωνιαῖος’, ZNW 29 (1930): 264–80; E. Lohmeyer, The Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relation between Cult and Gospel (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961), 46; H. Krämer, ‘γωνία κτλ’, in EDNT, 1:267–9. Part of the difficulty is caused by the fact that OG Ps 117:22 is the only occurrence of the phrase κεφαλὴ γωνία, which is also the case with its Hebrew equivalent ‫ ראשׁ פנה‬in Ps 118:22. 165.  A more distant paralleling of κεφαλὴ γωνία with ἀκρογωνιαῖος is attested in T. Sol. 22:7–23:4.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

177

9:9; 10:34), the thrust of OG Ps 117:23 in Mark 12:11 is unambiguous. Jesus, the rejected messianic son, will become ‘the most important one of all’ through his resurrection.166 As the reader would expect by now, the closing statement says that, though chief priests, scribes and elders realize that Jesus ‘spoke the parable with reference to them’, they act in the same pattern demonstrated in Mark 11:18 by ‘seeking to seize him’ (Mark 12:12). Such an attitude is repeated in Mark 14:1 and finally reaches its culmination in Mark 14:43-65. The Vollmachtfrage, the parable of the wicked tenants and the saying about the rejected stone thus set the scene for the final confrontation between the messiah and the high priest before the crucifixion. The Royal Messiah and the High Priest Mark’s account of the priests’ rejection of Jesus finds its culmination in Mark 14:55-64, where the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest, sentence the messiah to death (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33). The historicity of the trial scene has been the subject of much dispute,167 but

166.  France, Mark, 463. See also Marcus, Way, 114–24; Watts, ‘Psalms’, 35. Since Mark 11:27–12:12 happens at the temple, the image of a κεφαλὴ γωνία may signal the construction of a new sanctuary. The aforementioned example from 1 Peter 2, for that matter, speaks of the followers of Jesus as ‘living stones built as a spiritual house [λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικός]’ (1 Pet 2:5), thus attesting the belief that the earliest Christian communities represented a living temple (cf. also 1 Cor 3:10-17; Eph 2:20; 1QS 8.5-10). But Mark is not as forthright on this matter as is the author of 1 Peter. To be sure, the notion that Jesus would be responsible for the building of a new shrine, not made by human hands, will surface more clearly at the trial scene (cf. Mark 14:53-65), which I discuss further below. Here, however, the emphasis lies on Jesus’s vindication over his enemies, in a similar vein to the Davidssohnfrage. Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 548. 167.  The main objection to the historicity of the Markan trial scene relates to its inconsistencies with the rules for trial outlined in the Mishnah. For instance, Mark 14:55-64 happens at Passover, thus breaking the regulation in m. Sanh. 4.1 – ‘trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival-day’ – and Jesus is sentenced to death for blasphemy, even though, as we shall see in a moment, he does not disobey the prohibition in m. Sanh. 7.5 that one should never utter the divine name. On the historicity of the Markan trial scene, see D. Catchpole, ‘The Problem of Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial’, in The Trial of Jesus, 47–65; K. Schubert, ‘Biblical Criticism Criticised: With Reference to Jesus’ Examination before the Sanhedrin’, in Bammel and Moule, eds., Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 385–402, R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the

178

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

my primary concern is how Mark relays the story in connection to the passages discussed thus far. If the absence of the Jerusalem rulers in Mark 11:1-11 suggests the uneventful ending of Jesus’s royal procession into the temple, Mark 14:55-64 presents the climactic encounter between the king and the high priest. Instead of acknowledging the royal messiah, the latter claims supreme jurisdiction over the nation and finally rejects the former. The pericope reads as follows: 14:55 Οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον ἐζήτουν κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μαρτυρίαν εἰς τὸ θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, καὶ οὐχ ηὕρισκον· 14:56 πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐψευδομαρτύρουν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἴσαι αἱ μαρτυρίαι οὐκ ἦσαν. 14:57 καί τινες ἀναστάντες ἐψευδομαρτύρουν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες 14:58 ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω.168 14:59 καὶ οὐδὲ οὕτως ἴση ἦν ἡ μαρτυρία αὐτῶν. 14:60 καὶ ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς μέσον ἐπηρώτησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν λέγων· οὐκ ἀποκρίνῃ οὐδὲν τί οὗτοί σου καταμαρτυροῦσιν; 14:61 ὁ δὲ ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν.169 πάλιν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ; 14:62 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι,170 καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 14:63 ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς διαρρήξας τοὺς χιτῶνας αὐτοῦ λέγει· τί ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτύρων; 14:64 ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας· τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; οἱ δὲ πάντες κατέκριναν αὐτὸν ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου.171

Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 1:360–1. Compare Winter, Trial, 90–130. See also Rowe, God’s Son, 286–9, and the references cited therein. 168.  D substitutes ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω with ἀναστήσω ἀχειροποίητον, perhaps as an attempt at harmonizing with the theme of the resurrection of Jesus (cf. μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι in Mark 8:31). 169.  Some manuscripts (e.g., A, K, N P, W) read οὐδέν ἀπεκρίνατο, instead of οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν, but the latter is well supported by ‫ א‬and B. 170.  Origen as well as manuscripts θ and 565 (among others) harmonize Mark 14:62 with Matt 26:64 by adding σὺ εἶπας ὅτι before ἐγώ εἰμι. See the discussion in R. Kempthorne, ‘The Marcan Text of Jesus’ Answer to the High Priest (Mark xiv 62)’, NovT 19 (1977), 198–208; but compare with Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1005–6. 171.  A, K, N and W (among others) read εἶναι ἔνοχον θανάτου, and D omits εἶναι, but ἔνοχον εἶναι θανάτου is well supported by ‫ א‬and B.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

179

14:55 Now, the high priest and the entire Sanhedrin were seeking a witness against Jesus in order to put him to death, but they would not find any. 14:56 For many were bearing false witness against him, but the witnesses were not consistent. 14:57 Some would stand up and bear false witness against him, saying: 14:58 ‘We heard when he said: “I myself will destroy this handmade sanctuary and, after three days, will build another one, not handmade”.’ 14:59 But not even in this way was their witness consistent. 14:60 So the high priest stood up in their midst and questioned Jesus, saying: ‘Do you not answer anything? What is it that these men witness against you? 14:61 But Jesus was silent and did not answer anything. Again, the high priest was questioning him. And he said to him: ‘Are you the messiah, the Son of the Blessed?’ 14:62 So Jesus said: ‘I am, and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand (OG Ps 109:1) of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven (OG Dan 7:13).’ 14:63 Then the high priest, tearing up his tunic, said: ‘Why do we still have need of witnesses? 14:64 You heard the blasphemy! What does it appear to you?’ And all condemned him to be guilty deserving of death.

A major issue in this passage concerns the precise nature of the charge in Mark 14:64. To begin with, one must bear in mind that, in Jewish usage up to the first century CE, blasphemy was interpreted with some degree of fluidity, as it could connote a diversity of types of offence. In the Old Greek Scriptures, the term βλασφημία and its cognates often describe the slandering of Yahweh and his name (e.g., 4 Kgdms 19:4, 6, 22; OG Isa 52:5; OG Ezek 35:12; OG Dan 3:96 [Theodotion]; cf. 2 Macc 8:4), an act which is unanimously condemned in the sacred texts. The passage underpinning such a negative view is Exod 22:27, in which Moses commands the Israelites, ‘You must not curse God or curse the ruler of your people [‫( ’]אלהים לא תקלל ונשׂיא בעמך לא תאר‬cf. LXX Exod 22:27: θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις καὶ ἄρχοντας τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐ κακῶς ἐρεῖς).172 In 1 and 2 Maccabees, however, the word group relating to blasphemy could convey the sense either of defilement of holy things (cf. 1 Macc 2:6; see also βλάσφημος in OG Isa 66:3, which is associated with idolatry) or, as 172.  Cf. Evans, Contemporaries, 409. The reference to θεούς in LXX Exod 22:27, which stands for the Hebrew ‫אלהים‬, finds an interesting parallel in Ant. 4.202. See below for further discussion.

180

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Darrell Bock notes, of defamatory words in general (cf. 2 Macc 10:34-35; 12:14; 15:24).173 Thus, already in the biblical materials, blasphemy is not a technical concept, but rather describes a variety of practices associated with insult, slander and malicious action, whether directed towards God, sacred symbols or human beings.174 Several instances in the writings of Philo corroborate the understanding of blasphemy with reference to libellous speech among people, as also in 2 Maccabees (cf. Embassy 169; Flaccus 33-35; Joseph 74; Migration 115; Spec. Laws 4.197). In keeping with the Jewish Scriptures, moreover, Philo associates blasphemy with a haughty disposition towards the divine. In Embassy 367-368, for instance, Gaius is said to have claimed to be ‘apportioned with the nature of a god [θεοῦ κεκλήρωμαι φύσιν]’,175 a claim which was counted among unpardonable ‘blasphemies against the Deity [τῶν εἰς τὸ θεῖον βλασφημιῶν]’ (see also Flight 83-84; and Decalogue 62-63). Significantly, in Moses 2.206, Philo says that LXX Lev 24:15-16 implies the mere utterance of the name of the Israelite God: whoever ‘may even dare to utter “the Name” untimely, one must endure the punishment of death [ἀλλὰ καὶ τολμήσειεν ἀκαίρως αὐτοῦ φθέγξασθαι τοὔνομα, θάνατον ὑπομεινάτω τὴν δίκην]’.176 As with some of the aforementioned passages, Josephus also regards blasphemy as an offence which could be committed either against things dedicated to God or against fellow humans (cf. Ant. 6.238; 7.207; 14.405; War 2.145, 406).177 The linking of blasphemy with speech against God occurs specifically in what seems to be Josephus’s own interpretation of Lev 24:15-16, where he says that ‘the one who blasphemes a god should 173.  On βλασφημία in ancient Judaism, see D.L. Bock, 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, WUNT 2/106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 30–112. See also H.W. Beyer, ‘βλασφημέω, βλασφημία, βλάσφημος’, TDNT, 1:622–3; O. Hofius, ‘βλασφημία, βλασφημέω, βλάσφημος’, in EDNT, 219–21; and Sanders, Law, 57–60. 174.  See Bock, Blasphemy, 46–7. 175.  Here and subsequently, all citations of the Greek text of Philo follow L. Cohn and P. Wendland, eds., Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae Supersunt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962–63). 176.  LXX Lev 24:15-16: ‘Whatever human being who shall curse God will bear such a sin; and the one naming the name of the Lord must surely be put to death [Ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν καταράσηται θεόν, ἁμαρτίαν λήμψεται· ὀνομάζων δὲ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου θανάτῳ θανατούσθω]’. 177.  Cf. Bock, Blasphemy, 53. According to Josephus, the Essenes considered blasphemy against the name of Moses to be punishable by death as well (cf. War 2.145). But while the verbs ‫ גדף‬and ‫ נאץ‬are attested in Qumran (e.g., 1QpHab 10.13;

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

181

be stoned to death [ὁ δὲ βλασφημήσας θεὸν καταλευσθείς]’ (Ant. 4.202; cf. 6.183). On this matter, Josephus’s view clearly resembles Philo’s, though it is not clear precisely what the former would have deemed culpable of capital punishment.178 Also relevant for interpreting the trial of Jesus is the association of blasphemy with capital sentence attested in the Mishnah. In particular, the legal treatise Sanhedrin consistently lists blasphemy alongside idolatry among the most grievous sins. In m. Sanh. 9.3, for instance, stoning is said to be reserved solely for the worst criminals – namely, those who blaspheme and those who participate in idolatry. In m. Sanh. 6.4, moreover, ‘the blasphemer and the idolater’ are said to deserve not only death by stoning, but also to have their bodies hanged post-mortem (cf. m. Sanh. 7.4; m. Ker. 1.1). Furthermore, just as in Philo’s reading of LXX Lev 24:15-16 in Moses 2.206, m. Sanh. 7.5 specifies that what makes the blasphemer liable to death is the utterance of the divine name: ‘ “The blasphemer” is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself’ (see also m. Sebu. 4.13). We have, of course, no evidence decisively indicating that these punishments were systematically executed in Jesus’s time.179 It is also true that 1QS 4.11; CD 5.12; 4Q162 II.7-8), they never refer to Moses, nor do they occasion capital sentence – punishment for revilement and wicked speech was ultimately reserved for the eschaton. 178.  Josephus shows the concern with showing reverence to foreign deities as well. In Ant. 4.207 the audience is encouraged ‘not to blaspheme the gods whom the other cities esteem [Βλασφημείτω δὲ μηδεὶς θεοὺς οὓς πόλεις ἄλλαι νομίζουσι]’. But, given the reference to pagan entities as possible recipients of blasphemy in Ant. 4.207, it seems unlikely that the mentioning of the name of Yahweh in particular is in view in Ant. 4.202. Pace A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64’, JSNT 26 (2004): 392. 179.  Some have maintained that the Jews had lost the right to carry out the capital sentence by the time Mark was composed and, therefore, always depended on the approval of Rome for such matters. See, e.g., H. Danby, ‘The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels’, JTS 21 (1919): 72; Beyer, ‘βλασφημέω’, 622; and A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 1–47. Others, however, have challenged this view, arguing that local provinces had some degree of judicial autonomy, and the Sanhedrin perhaps had jurisdiction over religion-related crimes. See, e.g., P. Garnsey, ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’, JRS 58 (1968): 51–9; P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London: Duckworth, 1987), 169–70; and Bond, Caiaphas, 69. See further Brown, Messiah, 1:363–72; and H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 15–16. Relatedly, another feature in the Mishnah

182

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

the Mishnah limits the semantic scope of blasphemy strictly in religious terms.180 Yet, the coherence of the Mishnaic emphasis with Philo’s and Josephus’s may suggest that, by the first century CE, blasphemy deserving of death was associated with the abuse of the divine name, be it its mere utterance, or ‘human beings arrogating to themselves a degree of power and authority that was not fitting to them as finite creatures’.181 Mark, for his part, in keeping with the broad usage in ancient Judaism, assumes a variegated notion of βλασφημία and its cognates. On the one hand, Mark 7:21-23 lists βλασφημία alongside a series of transgressions which, coming ‘out of the human heart [ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων]’, can make a person unclean; and Mark 15:29 says that those passing by the crucified Jesus ‘were blaspheming him [ἐβλασφήμουν αὐτόν]’. Clearly in these instances blasphemy is equivalent to slander or verbal abuse.182 Whatever one makes of the charge in Mark 14:64, therefore, βλασφημία, βλασφημέω and βλάσφημος cannot be reduced to representing a fixed technical concept in the narrative as a whole.183 But, on the other hand, Mark also associates blasphemy with the dire sin of insulting the sphere pertaining to the divine. In the Beelzebub controversy, Jesus affirms that ‘all blasphemies that people may blaspheme [αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν]’ would be forgiven, except ‘the person who may blaspheme against the holy spirit [ὃς δ᾿ ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον]’ (Mark 3:28-29). So, in resemblance to Philo, Josephus and the Mishnah, Jesus distinguishes the severity of punishment according to the object of the blasphemy. All kinds of slander are tolerable, except towards the holy spirit, which ‘is liable for eternal sin [ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος]’ (Mark 3:29). More importantly, in the famous passage Mark 2:1-12, the scribes are deeply scandalized at Jesus’s saying that the sins of a paralytic were forgiven: ‘Why does this one speak this way? He blasphemes! Who is able to forgive sins if not the one God? [τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ· τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;]’ (Mark 2:7). Here the statement by Jesus’s opponents coheres well with Philo’s aforementioned reasoning in Embassy 367-368 concerning Gaius’s arrogation of superhuman prerogatives. As Yarbro Collins puts it, Jesus’s declaration of forgiveness of sins would have sounded to dismisses the credibility of the Sadducees, who no doubt played a major role in legal matters before the destruction of the temple. On this matter, see Blinzler, Trial, xiv–xv. 180.  As noted by Bock, Blasphemy, 68. 181.  Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 390. 182.  Ibid., 396. 183.  Pace Juel, Messiah, 97: the term in Mark ‘must represent a legal concept’.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

183

his adversaries like ‘an encroachment upon divine prerogatives and a usurpation of a role not appropriate to his status’.184 It is important to note, however, that the controversy surrounding Mark 2:5 is followed by the actual healing of the paralytic and, subsequently, by the people’s amazement at the authority of Jesus (cf. Mark 2:8-12), not the Jewish leaders’ desire to execute him. What, then, is the precise definition of βλασφημία in Mark 14:64? In the light of the aforementioned examples in Philo and the Mishnah, we must consider whether Jesus infringes the sacrosanctity of the tetragrammaton in Mark 14:62. Ethelbert Stauffer has famously suggested that Jesus’s words, ἐγώ εἰμι, imply a claim to divinity in connection to Isa 52:6: ‘For this reason my people will know my name; for this reason, in that day, I am he who says: “Here I am” [‫לכן ידע עמי שׁמי לכן ביום ההוא‬ ‫( ’]כי־אני־הוא המדבר הנני‬my emphasis; cf. OG Isa 52:6 διὰ τοῦτο γνώσεται ὁ λαός μου τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτὸς ὁ λαλῶν· πάρειμι).185 But do they? Aside from the trial scene, Jesus uses ἐγώ εἰμι only twice in the Gospel. In Mark 6:50, the idiom occurs in the context of Jesus’s walking on the sea (cf. Mark 6:45-51), a passage which, as Marcus has cogently argued, is saturated with Exodus imagery.186 Jesus’s words there are quite overtly linked to an event of epiphany and hence may plausibly imply his divine identity (cf. Exod 3:4; 20:2; Deut 5:6; Ps 77:20; Isa 52:6). In Mark 13:6, conversely, the phrase refers to false messiahs – ‘Many will come in my name, saying “It is I”, and they will deceive many [πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν]’ – which has no theological overtones. Accordingly, while in Mark 6:50 ἐγώ εἰμι may be a veiled shorthand for Jesus’s association with Yahweh, in Mark 13:6 it is a straightforward expression of self-identification. Nowhere in the narrative is the phrase a technicus terminus for the tetragrammaton. More to the point, at the trial scene, ἐγώ εἰμι is part of Jesus’s answer to the query posed by the high priest – ‘Are you he, the messiah the Son of the Blessed?’ – which, in turn, strongly suggests that Mark 14:62 is an ellipsis, ‘Yes, I am he, the messiah the Son of the Blessed’.187 As far as Mark is concerned, the circumlocutions ‘the Blessed’ and ‘the Power’ betray the avoidance by the 184.  Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 397. See also Juel, Messiah, 102–3. 185.  E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (London: SCM, 1960), 121–8. Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:437–8. 186.  See Marcus, Mark 1–8, 431–4. 187.  Cf. Catchpole, Trial, 134; Sanders, Law, 339. See also O. Linton, ‘The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm 110:1’, NTS 7 (1960–61): 259: “if Stauffer is right, the High Priest had to exclaim “blasphemy” at once upon the words “I am” ’.

184

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

high priest and Jesus respectively of mentioning the divine name.188 This forces us to conclude that, in Mark’s telling, Jesus could not have been condemned to death according to the prescriptions in Philo, Moses 2.206 and m. Sanh. 7.5.189 Alternatively, Marcus suggests that the key to interpreting the charge at the trial scene is to take the title ‘the Son of the Blessed’ as standing in restrictive apposition to ‘the messiah’ in Mark 14:61.190 Instead of taking both terms as synonyms, in other words, Marcus reads the former as qualifying the latter.191 Given that patronymic designations of messianic figures varied in the Jewish literature both earlier and later than Mark – the most explicit examples cited by Marcus being the messiah Son of David in Psalm of Solomon 17, the messiah (son) of Aaron in the Damascus Document, and the messiah Son of Joseph in b. Suk. 52a192 – Jesus is thought to be accused of blasphemy not for claiming to be the messiah, but for claiming to be a specific kind of messiah, the messiah-Son-of-God. Marcus concludes: [T]he title ‘Son of God’ was ambiguous enough to be open not only to a low, Davidic interpretation but also to a high, quasi-divine interpretation. When used to distinguish a figure from the Davidic Messiah, as we have shown to be the case in the phrase ‘Messiah-Son-of-God’, it would have fallen on Jewish ears as a claim to commensurability with God. In such a situation, the only possible response for one not predisposed to acknowledge Jesus’ words as divine revelation would be that of the high priest.193

But while the qualifying phrase ‘of Aaron’, for instance, by definition excludes the possibility of the same person’s being ‘of David’, things were not as clear cut with regards to divine sonship around the first century CE. 188.  Bock, Blasphemy, 8. Pace Gundry, Mark, 916, who suggests that the circumlocution in Mark 14:62 is due to Mark’s, not the historical Jesus’s, avoidance of the divine name: ‘Jesus did pronounce the tetragrammaton’. If Mark knew that the utterance of the tetragrammaton was the real cause of Jesus’s capital sentence, however, it is very difficult to explain why the evangelist would have obscured such vital information. In any case, as Evans (‘Blasphemy’, 413) points out, ‘[u]ttering the Divine Name, especially in the context of quoting Scripture and if with all proper evidence, is not blasphemous’. It is, moreover, transparent that Mark’s Jesus does not offend the divine name. 189.  Juel, Messiah, 64, 96. 190.  Marcus, ‘Mark 14:61’, 125–41. 191.  Ibid., 126 (n. 5 for further references). 192.  But see also the reference to ‘the messiah Son of Ephraim’ in the later passage Tg. Song 4:5. 193.  Marcus, ‘Mark 14:61’, 141.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

185

We have seen in Chapter 3 that there is a mass of evidence indicating that the royal messiah was also regarded as the divine son by the time Mark was written. Such a notion was predominantly rooted in the scriptural texts of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2, and attributed to the eschatological king in 4Q174 1–2 I, 10-12, 1QSa 2.11-12 and 4 Ezra 7 and 13.194 More to the point, Mark knows that the royal messiah can also be the Son of God – Jesus is God’s beloved son and no less than the eschatological king. It is only in later rabbinic speculation that the whole idea of divine sonship is rejected, but this very probably reflects a polemical stance towards the Christian confession of Jesus as the Son of God (e.g. Exod. Rab. 29.5; cf. Rom 1:3-4).195 Granted that Jesus is no ordinary human being, it remains doubtful that the Gospel ascribes to the high priest the view, attested only in later rabbinic sources, that divine sonship was a profanation of Jewish monotheism. In fact, when Mark 15:32 speaks of the chief priests’ mockery of the crucified Jesus, it uses a parallel idiom to ‘the messiah the Son of the Blessed’, as they dare ‘the messiah the King of Israel [ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ]’ to come down from the cross. Taken alongside the link between divine sonship and royal messianism in the relevant texts from the late Second Temple period (especially 4Q174), the crucifixion scene makes it clear that the Markan priests regard the Son of the Blessed as a synonym of the King of Israel and therefore a cipher for messiah.196 194.  Pace D. Lührmann, ‘Markus 14.55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Tempels im Markusevangelium’, NTS 27 (1980–81): 462. 195.  This thought is indebted to Matthew Novenson (‘Whose Son Is the Messiah?’, unpublished paper presented at the 2016 St. Andrews Symposium for Biblical and Early Christian Studies). Cf. P. Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012), 150–9. 196.  Additionally, Bond (Caiaphas, 102) rightly sees a parallelism between the two trials of Jesus in Mark – one before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:55-64) and the other before Pilate (Mark 15:1-5) – which seems to bolster the correspondence between ‘the Son of the Blessed’ and ‘the King of the Jews’. Another interesting point that emerges from the two trials is that, while Mark refers to the Roman prefect by name, Pilate, it does not name the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas. Having reviewed previous attempts at explaining this phenomenon (100–101), Bond concludes that, whereas the evangelist, on the one hand, ‘wants to minimize official Roman involvement’, he, on the other hand, ‘attempts to place as much blame as possible for the death of Jesus on the Jewish leaders [not the individual Caiaphas]: it is they who hand Jesus over to Pilate, act as the counsel for the prosecution against Jesus, and stir up the people to demand the release of Barabbas’ (103). On the significance of Jesus’s crucifixion as a royal pretender for the development of early Christology, see N.A. Dahl, ‘The Crucified Messiah’, in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine, ed. D.H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 27–48.

186

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

The other option is to read Mark 14:64 as primarily relating to Jesus’s juxtaposition of OG Ps 109:1 and OG Dan 7:13 in Mark 14:62.197 Such a view is widely favoured among scholars, most notably, Cranfield, Hooker, Catchpole, Hengel, Evans, Bock and Yarbro Collins.198 As discussed in Chapter 3, above, OG Ps 109:1 speaks of the vindication of the eschatological king against his enemies and his exaltation to Yahweh’s own right hand. Similarly, the vision of the ‘one like a son of man’ coming on the clouds of heaven in OG Dan 7:13 follows the Ancient of Days’ judgement of the pagan nations, represented by the beasts oppressing the people of God (OG Dan 7:12), and precedes his being given ‘eternal authority [ἐξουσία αἰώνιος]’ (OG Dan 7:14). The question is whether Mark regards speaking of oneself in terms of OG Ps 109:1 and OG Dan 7:13 as sufficient basis for executing a person for blasphemy. The combination of OG Ps 109:1 with OG Dan 7:13 in the context of God’s endorsement of an end-time ruler is not, of course, a Markan innovation. As discussed in Chapter 2, one finds in the Similitudes of Enoch the merging of imagery from those two scriptural texts under the rubric of a heavenly messiah who is highly exalted by God (cf. 1 En. 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2; 69:29). Given this, Hengel, who ascribes a very early origin to the tradition behind Mark 14:62, argues that the declaration was comparable to what is said of the Elect One in the Similitudes of Enoch – namely, just as the Enochic text, Mark depicts the messiah as sharing in divine qualities (1 En. 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2; 69:29; cf. Matt 19:28; 25:31).199 In a similar vein, though adducing a different example, Yarbro Collins suggests that Mark 14:62 implies Jesus’s participation in God’s glory, being analogous to Gaius’s self-proclaimed divinity, which was blasphemous in Philo’s view (Embassy 367-368).200 The problem, however, is that one can only 197.  For discussion on the language of enthronement in Psalm 110, as it relates to other psalms, see Rowe, God’s Son, 289–95, and the references cited in the footnotes. 198.  Catchpole, Trial, 72–153; M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 119–226; Evans, ‘Blasphemy’, 407–36; Bock, Blasphemy, 184–238; Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 379–401. So also Cranfield, Mark, 445; M.D. Hooker, 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 (London: SPCK, 1967), 172–3. 199.  Hengel, Christology, 181–8. See also Bock, Blasphemy, 201–2. On the relationship between the Gospels, particularly of Matthew, and Similitudes, see Theisohn, Der auserwählte, 152–201. 200.  Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 399–400. Similarly, Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1008: ‘It is probable that his blasphemy consists of implicitly placing himself on a par with God through his usage of Ps 110:1 in 14:62’.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

187

speculate whether the appropriation of OG Dan 7:13 and OG Ps 109:1 was deemed blasphemous by the end of the first century CE.201 Bock argues that there was plenty of room in post-biblical Jewish mythology to envisage heroes seated beside God without incurring the charge of blasphemy culpable of death (e.g., Adam in 2 En. 31:1-3; Abel in Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:6-18; Moses in Philo, Moses 1.158; the Elect One in 1 En. 55:4; Metraton in 3 En. 10).202 More to the point, it is by no means obvious that Mark assigns to the high priest the same view that Hengel suggests with regards to the Son of man in Similitudes. Furthermore, in contrast to the example of Gaius in Philo, Embassy 367-368, the ultimate incommensurability of God seems to have been a given in the Jewish sources speaking of exalted figures.203 So the words of Jesus in Mark 14:62, which are admittedly enigmatic, do not necessarily connote a blasphemy deserving of capital punishment. In the light of the foregoing, it seems reasonable to conclude that the difficulty in pinning down the exact cause for the condemnation of Jesus is actually part of Mark’s own agenda. As Juel rightly observes, long before the trial scene Mark has already positioned the reader hermeneutically in opposition to the Jewish authorities: The information Mark provides about Jesus’ opponents, the Jewish religious leaders…certainly does not prepare the reader for a fair trial. Mark paints a picture of men totally committed to Jesus’ destruction; their opposition is motivated by fear and jealousy, and they are ready to seize the first opportunity to destroy him – out of sight of the people. There is no significant change of characterization within the account of the trial itself.204

201.  See Catchpole, Trial, 135–41. 202.  Bock, Blasphemy, 113–83. A well-known exception is the later text b. Sanh. 38b, which relays a debate between Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Jose over the purpose of the plural thrones in Dan 7:9: ‘R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Shechinah? Rather, one throne for justice and the other for mercy.’ According to Rabbi Jose in b. Sanh. 38b to envisage a human figure being enthroned beside God was too great a sacrilege. See further A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 48ff. 203.  See, for instance, how the idea of ‘two powers in heaven’ is qualified in 3 Enoch 16 (in OTP, 1:269). See the discussion in Hurtado, Lord, 91–2. So also Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1009: ‘human beings can sit on a heavenly throne without incurring the charge of blasphemy’. 204.  Juel, Messiah, 63.

188

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

Or, to quote Bond, ‘Mark’s account is deliberately a parody of justice, a gathering of evil men’.205 That the high priest could act unjustly in condemning Jesus, after all, is entirely consistent with Mark’s portrayal of the Jewish authorities throughout the narrative. Sure enough, Mark casts the trial scene in a way that highlights, first and foremost, the innocence of Jesus. The members of the Sanhedrin are unable to impute anything blameworthy to him, as Mark regards everything the accusers say as ψευδομαρτυρία.206 While Mark 14:55-59 seems to assume Jesus’s stance towards the temple to convey an insult against those presiding over Jerusalem,207 the testimonies borne by those accusing Jesus were false and inconsistent – nowhere does Jesus say that he himself would destroy the temple and build a new one.208 Larry Hurtado is therefore to the point in saying that the trial has ‘nothing to do with any illegal behaviour’ from Jesus’s part.209 Instead, it is only after Jesus openly declares his identity as Israel’s royal messiah that he is seen as deserving death (Mark 14:63-64). Here, I must call the reader’s attention to the suggestion made some time ago by J. Blinzler, J.C. O’Neill and William Lane that Jesus was accused of blasphemy simply for declaring himself to be the messiah.210 Raymond Brown is absolutely correct that nowhere in the pre-Markan sources does the claim to messiahship alone suffice to accuse someone of blasphemy.211 As Evans notes, moreover, the example of Simon ben Kosiba, purportedly hailed messiah by Rabbi Akiba, indicates that, even after Mark was written, such a kind of acclamation could have been met with ambivalence, ‘but not with cries of blasphemy (cf. y. Ta’an. 4.5; b. Sanh. 93b)’.212 205.  Bond, Caiaphas, 105. See also Lührmann, ‘Markus 14.55–64’, 463, who sees ‘die Züge des unfairen Proßez’ in Mark 14:55-64. 206.  See Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 380. 207.  As noted by Taylor, Mark, 569–70; Catchpole, Trial, 132; Juel, Messiah, 99–100; Schweizer, Mark, 325; and Yarbro Collins, ‘Blasphemy’, 398. 208.  Bond, Caiaphas, 106: ‘Jesus never said he would destroy the temple himself’. See also W.S. Campbell, ‘Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction: Jesus’ Defense Strategies in Mark’s Trial and Execution Scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-39)’, JSNT 26 (2004): 286–7. Pace G.D. Kilpatrick, The Trial of Jesus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952), 9–15; Gundry, Mark, 900; and Ådna, Jesu, 114–53. 209.  Hurtado, Mark, 249. Cf. Bond, Caiaphas, 107. 210.  See Blinzler, Trial, 105–12; J.C. O’Neil, ‘The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus’ Trial Before the Sanhedrin’, in Bammel, ed., The Trial of Jesus, 77; and Lane, Mark, 536. 211.  Brown, Messiah, 1:534–5. 212.  Evans, ‘Blasphemy’, 407–8.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

189

This, however, is precisely the point in Mark 14:61-64. Simply to claim to be the messiah – let alone truly to be the messiah – is not to commit blasphemy. And yet, the high priest accuses Jesus of that.213 In this way, the lack of clarity in Mark on what kind of offence Jesus perpetrates is not incidental, as it highlights the illegitimacy of the Sanhedrin’s verdict. Pilate himself, though in the end endorsing the Jewish leaders’ decision, seems somewhat ambivalent as to whether Jesus really deserves capital punishment or not (cf. Mark 15:14). From the perspective of the high priest, to be sure, it is not only possible that Mark 14:62 betrays a presumptuous self-proclamation,214 but also likely that the combined allusion to OG Ps 109:1 and OG Dan 7:13 implies an attack at the Jerusalem establishment.215 On this stroke, it is highly significant that Jesus appropriates both the language of enthronement from the psalm and the role of the otherwise mysterious Danielic son of man with explicit reference to himself in response to the high priest.216 By deploying OG Ps 109:1 and OG Dan 7:13 Mark 14:62 emphasizes that the one about to be crucified is the messianic son, whom God will soon enthrone in heaven before the eyes of his enemies.217 It is one thing to envisage a messiah who will be seated on an exalted throne, as in the Similitudes of Enoch; it is a whole other thing to find a living person, bound as a criminal, predicting his own ascension in such a manner over against the temple rulers.218 Taken in the context of Jesus’s arrest as a failed revolutionist (cf. Mark 14:48), Jesus’s words would have

213.  So, though Blinzler, O’Neil and Lane get it right by saying that the messi�ahship of Jesus lies at the centre of the charge of blasphemy, they get it wrong by suggesting that the charge was legitimate. 214.  See Evans, ‘Blasphemy’, 407 n. 1. 215.  Hengel, Christology, 187: ‘The statement is – as I have already said – not only a claim to authority, but at the same time a word of the accused to his accusers’. 216.  Cf. Hooker, Son of Man, 173. This is unlike what Jesus does even in the Davidssohnfrage (Mark 12:35-37), where OG Ps 109:1 is cited to make a point about the messiah in the third person. 217.  It is true, as Evans notes (‘Blasphemy’, 419), that the theme of judgement occurs in the broader contexts of both scriptural passages (cf. OG Ps 109:6 and OG Dan 7:10). But contra Bock (Blasphemy, 202), who suggests that Jesus implies his role as the eschatological judge in the pattern of OG Dan 7:10, Yarbro Collins rightly points out that in OG Daniel 7 it is the Ancient of Days who judges the nations. See also K.S. O’Brien, The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative, LNTS 384 (London: T&T Clark International, 2010), 187. 218.  As Yarbro Collins (‘Blasphemy’, 399) points out. Cf. Bock, Blasphemy, 236.

190

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

been all the more offensive, perhaps even infringing the aforementioned prohibition in Exod 22:27 ‘not to curse the ruler of your people’.219 Nevertheless, in Mark’s view, Jesus will in fact be enthroned at the right hand of God as the rightful king of the nation. It follows, then, that the high priest and the entire Sanhedrin will be the object of divine judgement. The second person plural ὄψεσθε finds an analogous instance in 1 En. 55:4 – ‘You [kings of the earth] will see my Elect One sitting on the throne of glory’ – and makes the point that God will regard the temple rulers persecuting the messiah as those deserving punishment (cf. Mark 12:35-37). Given the christological thrust of the trial scene as well as the conspicuous role of the high priest in incriminating Jesus, therefore, one should not miss the connection with Mark 11:27–12:12. The time has come for the messianic son to be thrown out of the city by the Jerusalem rulers (cf. Mark 12:1-9).220 But Mark 14:55-64 presents an ironic twist akin to what is seen in the Vollmachtfrage and the parable of the wicked tenants. In Mark 11:27–12:12, the Jerusalem authorities try to challenge the basis of Jesus’s authority to pronounce judgement on the temple, but it is Jesus who indicts them for not accepting the heavenly endorsed baptism of John (cf. Mark 11:27-33). Had the chief priests taken heed of the message of the Elijah-like prophet (cf. Mark 1:1-8) and welcomed Jesus as the one restoring the ‘coming kingdom of our father David’ (cf. Mark 11:1-11), they would have secured their place in the economy of God’s vineyard (cf. Mark 12:1-9). But, in Mark 14:55-64, the Jewish leaders formally repudiate the heir to the vineyard. Hence, to Mark, it is the high priest along with the Sanhedrin who insult God by killing his messiah.221 In the end, it is Jesus, the messiah the Son of the Blessed, who will be exalted to the right hand of God, whereas his opponents will be judged.222

219.  J.B. Gibson (‘The Function of the Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64’, in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, ed. G. van Oyen and T. Shepherd [Leuven: Peeters, 2006], 173) is thus probably right to point out that the emphasis of the high priest’s question in Mark 14:61 lies on σύ – namely, ‘Are you of all people [God forbid!] the Christ…?’ See also Taylor, Mark, 567; and Lohmeyer, Markus, 328. 220.  Cf. Kingsbury, Christology, 118–24. 221.  Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark, 707. 222.  Rowe, God’s Son, 295: ‘Jesus is being judged, but God will judge his accusers’.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

191

The Crucified King and the Rending of the Temple Curtain Having depicted the unjust condemnation of Jesus by the high priest, Mark insists that the priestly rulers are the true architects of the plot to assassinate the royal messiah. Even though the Sanhedrin needs Rome to sanction their resolution, the chief priests are the ones who chair the assembly that leads to the handing over of Jesus to Pilate (Mark 15:1).223 It is also the chief priests – and no one else – who bring all types of accusations against Jesus before the Roman prefect (Mark 15:3) and stir the crowd not only to ask for the release of Barabbas, a murderous rebel (Mark 15:7-11), but obstinately to demand the crucifixion of Mark’s hero, Jesus (Mark 15:13-15).224 All this, moreover, happens as Jesus’s royal identity stands firmly in the foreground. The title ‘the King of the Jews [ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων]’ occurs on the lips of almost everyone interacting with Jesus at the crucifixion – of Pilate (three times in Mark 15:2, 9, 12), of the executioners (Mark 15:18), of the chief priests and the scribes who mock Jesus beside the cross (Mark 15:32; cf. 14:61) – and also on the inscription of charge nailed on the cross (Mark 15:26). It is therefore transparent that the chief priests pressure Pilate to order the execution of Jesus precisely because they see in the lattermost figure a claimant to the throne.225 There is, of course, a double irony in such a picture. On the one hand, the reader of Mark knows that Jesus, though ridiculed and rejected as a ‘bandit [λῃστής]’ (Mark 15:27), is no less than the end-time King of Israel.226 On the other hand, the leaders of the temple embrace a true insurrectionist, Barabbas, and form a diarchy of sorts with a pagan ruler, Pilate, 223.  This is not to deny that, to Mark, Pilate is equally guilty for the death of Jesus. See Bond, Pilate, 94–119. 224.  Cf. J. Pobee, ‘The Cry of the Centurion – a Cry of Defeat’, in Bammel, ed., The Trial of Jesus, 98. 225.  See Hengel, Christology, 15–58; Dahl, ‘Messiah’, 37–48. 226.  See A. Yarbro Collins, ‘From Noble Death to Crucified Messiah’, NTS 40 (1994): 495, who makes the case that Mark 15:16-20 presents a ‘parody of Jesus’s claim to be king or of his followers’ acclamation of his kingship’. See also Matera, Kingship, 148. K.R. Iverson, ‘A Centurion’s “Confession”: A PerformanceCritical Analysis of Mark 15:39’, JBL 130 (2011): 334; and H.K. Bond, ‘Paragon of Discipleship? Simon of Cyrene in the Markan Passion Narrative’, in Matthew and Mark across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford, ed. K.A. Bendoraitis and N.K. Gupta (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 18–35, who cogently argues that the portrayal of Simon of Cyrene in Mark 15:21 also functions as a parody of Jesus’s kingship. Pace Malbon, Jesus, 118–21, who rejects ‘kingship’ as a positive category in the passion narrative on the basis of the

192

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

against God’s rightful representative (cf. Mark 15:11). The spiteful words in Mark 15:32 are thus revealing – ‘Let the messiah the King of Israel come down from the cross now so that we may see and believe in him [ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν]’. Indeed, it is because the chief priests ignored John the Baptist’s call to repentance and instead plotted to kill Israel’s king that they refuse – and are actually unable – to see and to believe that Jesus is the royal messiah. So what one finds in Jesus’s crucifixion is another confirmation of the indictment of the Jerusalem establishment in Mark 11:17 and 12:1-9. In protecting Barabbas and manipulating the crowd to push Pilate to decide against the royal messiah, the chief priests prove themselves to be the ‘bandits [λῃσταί]’ who assassinate God’s beloved son. By way of closing my argument, one final issue must be addressed – namely, Jesus’s death on the cross and the subsequent tearing of the temple curtain. The passage Mark 15:33-39 reads as follows: 15:33 Καὶ γενομένης ὥρας ἕκτης σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ᾿ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης. 15:34 καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι;227 ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;228 15:35 καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον· ἴδε Ἠλίαν φωνεῖ. 15:36 δραμὼν δέ τις [καὶ]229 γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν λέγων· ἄφετε230 ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἠλίας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.

alleged unreliability of those who utter the title ‘King’ – namely, Pilate, the soldiers and the chief priests. This is unconvincing. Malbon herself admits that unreliable characters are capable of saying things that ring true to the implied author (119), and if one wishes to push the limits of what makes a character truly reliable, who could be counted as worthy in Mark? Apparently, even God has abandoned his own son at the cross. Conversely, Mark 11–15 is saturated with royal imagery attributed to Jesus. 227.  D and Θ substitute ηλει ηλει for ελωι ελωι and λαμα for λεμα (λαμα is attested in B as well) presumably to make it cohere with the Hebrew ‫( אלי אלי‬cf. Matt 27:46) and ‫ למה‬respectively. See Metzger, Commentary, 100–101: ‘the entire saying [in Mark] represents an Aramaic original’. 228.  A, C, N, P (and others) read με ἐγκατέλιπές (as per Matt 27:46, though A reads με ἐγκατέλειπές), instead of ἐγκατέλιπές με (cf. OG Ps 21:1; as per ‫ א‬and B). 229.  B, L and Ψ omit καί, whereas ‫א‬, A, C, K, N, Δ and 059 (among others) include it. 230.  ‫א‬, D and Θ seem to follow Matt 27:49 in replacing ἄφετε with ἄφες.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

193

15:37 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν. 15:38 Καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ᾿ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω. 15:39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν231 εἶπεν· ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν. 15:33 And, when it was the sixth hour, darkness came over the entire land until the ninth hour. 15:34 At the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’, which is translated as ‘My God, my God, why did you forsake me?’ (Ps 22:2). 15:35 Some of the bystanders, having heard this, were saying: ‘Look, he calls Elijah!’ 15:36 And one of them, having run, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, gave it to him, saying: ‘Leave it. Let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.’ 15:37 But Jesus, having released a great cry, expired. 15:38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 15:39 And the centurion who was standing opposite to him, seeing that he expired this way, said: ‘Truly, this man was Son of God’.

The pericope is striking in many ways, but, for my purposes, suffice it to say that the passage forms a thematic inclusio with Mark 1:1-11.232 The reference to Elijah, the language of the temple curtain ‘being torn [ἐσχίσθη]’, and the centurion’s confession of Jesus’s divine sonship point the reader back to the prologue, where Mark depicts John the Baptist as dressed up like Elijah (Mark 1:1-8; cf. 9:13), speaks of the heavens ‘being

231.  While several manuscripts (e.g., A, C, K, N, W, Γ, Δ, Θ) add the participle κράξας before ἐξέπνευσεν (κράξαντα καί in D), this seems to reflect harmonization with Matt 27:50. The absence of the participle is, in any case, supported by ‫ א‬and B (among others). 232.  S. Motyer, ‘The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost?’, NTS 33 (1987): 155–7; and D. Ulansey, ‘The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio’, JBL 110 (1991): 123–5. See E. Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 161–2; H.M. Jackson, ‘The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross’, NTS 33 (1987): 16–37; E.S. Malbon, Narrative Space an Mythic Meaning in Mark (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 82 and 187 n. 93; Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 263; Gundry, Mark, 949–50; Hanson, Promises, 129; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 762. But compare E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 99 n. 2; and F. Lentzen-Deis, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern (Frankfurt: Knecht, 1970), 280–1.

194

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

torn [σχιζομένους]’ at the descent of the holy spirit upon Jesus (Mark 1:10), and presents the messiah as God’s beloved son (Mark 1:11). Additionally, both passages flag the beginning and the end of Jesus’s ministry.233 These points are crucial, for they indicate that the story of Jesus’s death should be read in connection to Mark 1:1-11. So what does Mark 15:33-39 add to our discussion? One important aspect to note is Mark’s framing of the story so as to convey the sense of divine judgement.234 The language of darkness in Mark 15:33 finds some interesting similarities with OG Amos 8:9-10, where the darkening of the sun symbolizes the calamity which would fall upon the earth: ‘And it will come to pass on that day, says the Lord God, that the sun will set at noon, and the light will darken on the land by day; and I will turn your festivals into mourning and all your songs into lamentation [καὶ ἔσται ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ δύσεται ὁ ἥλιος μεσημβρίας, καὶ συσκοτάσει ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τὸ φῶς· καὶ μεταστρέψω τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον]’ (see also Jer 15:9; and Joel 2:10). Regardless of whether Mark 15:33 is dependent on OG Amos 8:9-10, it is in any case striking that, in resemblance to the latter, the former speaks of darkness coming over the land at noon in the context of a Jewish festival, namely, Passover (cf. Mark 14:1). More importantly, earlier in the narrative, when speaking of the fall of Jerusalem, Mark alludes to Isa 13:10 and announces the darkening of the sun as a sign of end-time tribulation: ‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light [ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς]’ (Mark 13:24). Given that the darkness in Mark 13 – and in Isaiah 13, for that matter – represents the cataclysm resulting from the judgement of the wicked, it is surely the case that Jesus’s death connotes a similar idea.235 Such a grimness in Mark 15:33 is further augmented by the contrast between Jesus’s cry of dereliction and the attitude of those standing by the cross in Mark 15:34-36. Having been formally rejected by the temple establishment, forsaken by his own disciples and sentenced by Pilate (cf. Mark 14:53–15:32), there is nothing else left for Jesus to do except to join 233.  Motyer, ‘Veil’, 155; Ulansey, ‘Veil’, 123. 234.  See Gundry, Mark, 947; Evans, Mark, 506; and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1062. 235.  Up to this point, my paragraph is indebted to Marcus (ibid.), who also points out that in Greco-Roman literature, ‘eclipses and other unusual astronomical events were often associated with the death of great people, such as Julius Caesar (see Virgil, Georgics 1.466-68; Plutarch, Caesar 69.3; Josephus, Ant. 14.309)’. This in turn suggests that οὕτως in Mark 15:39, otherwise ambiguous, may refer to the events surrounding Jesus’s death, not just ἐξέπνευσεν. See Bultmann, History, 274.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

195

the fate of his forerunner, John, and to die in utter abandonment.236 Thus, the Markan messiah cries out with a loud voice, ‘My God, my God, why did you forsake me?’, quoting Ps 22:2 in Aramaic. The lament in Ps 22:2 over God’s apparent absence from an ordeal (cf. Ps 22:6-18) is attributed to no less significant a figure than King David (‘a psalm of David [‫מזמור‬ ‫ ’]לדוד‬in Ps 22:1; cf. OG Ps 21:1: ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ), thus unsurprisingly ending with the assurance of God’s imminent deliverance (cf. Ps 22:19-31). The earliest Gospel, however, does not allude to the psalmist’s confidence in God’s rescue in this life.237 When Mark depicts the Roman executioners’ mockery of Jesus right before the crucifixion, it is by means of an almost verbatim allusion to OG Ps 21:18, ‘they divided his garments, casting lots over them [διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾿ αὐτά]’ (Mark 15:24). And, just a few verses prior to that, the soldiers make a humorous mimic of Jesus’s royal coronation: ‘so they dressed him in a purple cloak and, having weaved a crown of thorns, they put it on him; and they began to greet him: “Hail, King of the Jews” [καὶ ἐνδιδύσκουσιν αὐτὸν πορφύραν καὶ περιτιθέασιν αὐτῷ πλέξαντες ἀκάνθινον στέφανον·καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀσπάζεσθαι αὐτόν· χαῖρε, βασιλεῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων]’ (Mark 15:17-18). In the light of this, it becomes clear that the point of Ps 22:2 in Mark 15:34 is to present the death of the messiah in terms of the suffering of the Israelite king par excellence.238 236.  H.L. Chronis, ‘The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39’, JBL 101 (1982): 100. 237.  Compare Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:494; Marcus, Way, 180–6; idem, Mark 8–16, 1063; Evans, Mark, 507; and H.J. Carey, Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel, LNTS 398 (London: T&T Clark International, 2009), 139–70. It is elsewhere that Mark points forward to the final vindication of Jesus in his resurrection, as I have argued extensively above (cf. Mark 12:10-12; 14:62). 238.  See further discussion in Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms, 198–210. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 947. On the motif of the righteous sufferer in Second Temple Judaism, see Marcus, Way, 177–9. Borrowing from the work of Lother Ruppert (Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestamentlichen Motivs, SB 59 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972], 23–43), Marcus points out: ‘the basic picture in the Psalms of the Righteous Sufferer is of a person suffering in spite of his righteousness and calling for God to vindicate him by destroying his enemies in this life. In contrast, such apocalyptic sources as Wisd. Sol. 2:12-20; 5:1-7; 4 Ezra, and 2 Apoc. Bar., as well as the New Testament, present the idea that the righteous one must suffer on account of his righteousness but that he will be glorified at the eschaton. The New Testament picture, then, reflects an apocalyptic transformation of the Righteous Sufferer’ (177; emphases original).

196

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

And yet, again, Jesus’s interlocutors fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation. In another instance of misunderstanding, those standing by the cross confuse the Aramaic words ελωι ελωι with a cry for Ἠλίας (Mark 15:35-36).239 While it is unclear whether the bystanders are in any way associated with the chief priests and scribes from Mark 15:31,240 their reference to Elijah betrays the fact that they are Jews aware of the same scribal traditions with which Mark also was familiar (cf. Mark 9:11).241 This in turn explains the attitude of the person who soaks a sponge into sour wine in v. 35. In the Scriptures, Elijah is said to have been translated into heaven (2 Kgs 2:1-12), and some rabbis thought the Old Testament prophet could occasionally make an appearance to solve a difficult situation. A clear example is found in b. Ber. 58a, where Elijah is said to have come to adjudicate on an incident of fornication between a Jewish man and an Egyptian woman: ‘Elijah thereupon came in the form of a man and gave evidence [for the intercourse]’.242 Mark knows nothing of such a story, but elsewhere the narrative speaks of a scribal expectation for Elijah ‘to come first’, before the messiah (cf. Mark 9:11-12).243 By 239.  The fact that Mark preserves Jesus’s words in Aramaic suggests that the evangelist intended to convey an element of irony in the juxtaposition of ελωι and the Greek transliteration Ἠλίας. Cf. R.M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: ReaderResponse Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 109; Brown, Messiah, 2:1061–2; and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1064. See also C. Breytenbach, ‘Narrating the Death of Jesus in Mark: Utterances of the Main Character, Jesus’, ZNW 105 (2014): 153–68, who points out that Jesus’s death does not come as a surprise to him in the narrative. 240.  Cf. L. Schenke, Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer Literarkritischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passsionsgeschichte, SBS 69 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974), 98–9, who believes they are the priests and scribes themselves. But Yarbro Collins (Mark, 755 n. 226) regards such a conclusion as dubious. 241.  Cranfield, Mark, 459. 242.  See the further references in Hooker, Mark, 376; and Evans, Mark, 507–8. 243.  D.C. Allison, ‘Elijah Must Come First’, JBL 103 (1984): 256–8. Despite the lack of pre-Markan sources explicitly speaking of Elijah’s coming first, Mal 3:23-24 likely informed such a hope. To quote Allison, ‘[s]ince the Messiah is to come on the day of the Lord and since Elijah is to come before that day, it follows that Elijah must come first. Thus, although Mal 3 [4] does not itself teach that Elijah will be the Messiah’s precursor, the chapter could easily have been read this way by many.’ This is not to say that such an expectation was widespread (cf. M.M. Faierstein, ‘Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?’, JBL 100 [1981], 75–86), but the reference to the scribes in Mark 9:11-12 suggests that the belief that ‘Elijah must come first’ was not a Christian invention. Pace M.F. Whitters, ‘Why Did the

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

197

offering the crucified Jesus sour wine – a popular drink which served for the refreshment of the soldiers244 – perhaps the bystander attempts to quench the thirst of Jesus so as to give some extra time for Elijah to appear. Though it is possible that the words, ‘Let us see if Elijah comes to take him down’, stand in parallel to the mockery by the chief priests and scribes in Mark 15:32, Grundmann suggests that they ‘als letzter Versuch eines Glaubenden verstanden werden, der sich noch an eine letzte Möglichkeit klammert, ehe alles aus ist’.245 Either way, the deep irony here is that, according to the Markan prologue, Elijah has already come.246 He came, baptising in the desert, calling all the Israelites, including the priests, to repentance and faith in the messiah, the stronger one. But, as we have seen, not only do the Jewish rulers reject John – ‘they did to him whatever they wanted [καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον]’ (Mark 9:13) – they end up repudiating the messianic son in Jerusalem (cf. Mark 11:1-33). In this sense, the mentioning of Elijah in Mark 15:35-36, whether expressing mockery or a sincere expectation, betrays a clear sign of obduracy which lies beneath the surface. Had the Jerusalem authorities believed in John, they would have known that Elijah ‘has indeed come [καὶ Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθεν]’ (Mark 9:13); and, consequently, had the priests recognized Elijah, they would not have crucified Israel’s end-time king. Accordingly, it also makes perfect sense to see in the bystander’s giving sour wine to Jesus another dimension of the messiah’s suffering, one which recalls David’s agony in OG Ps 68:22 – ‘they gave me sour wine for my thirst [εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος]’.247 Yarbro Collins aptly captures the paradox: Bystanders Think Jesus Called upon Elijah before He Died (Mark 15:34-36)? The Markan Position’, HTR 95 (2002): 119–24, who suggests that Mark wants to correct the belief that Jesus was to be identified with Elijah. 244.  H.W. Heidland, ‘ὄξος’, in TDNT, 5:288–9; and ‘ὄξος’, in LSJ, 1235: ‘vin ordinaire’. See also Yarbro Collins, Mark, 756, and the references cited therein. 245.  Grundmann, Markus, 316. Cf. Brown, Messiah, 2:1064; Marcus, Way, 184; Evans, Mark, 508; J.R. Donahue and D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, PS 2 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 448; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 757. 246.  C.E. Jones, ‘A Question of Identity: “Who Do People Say that I Am?” Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel’, in Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton, ed. C. Rowland and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, JSNTSup 153 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 19–29; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 755–6; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1065. 247.  It is widely held that Mark 15:36 alludes to OG Ps 68:22. See Lohmeyer, Markus, 346; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:496; Lührmann, Markusevangelium, 263; Gnilka, Markus, 2:323; Juel, Exegesis, 96; Brown, Messiah, 2:1059; Gundry, Mark, 948; Evans, Mark, 508; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 751–9; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1065.

198

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood The individual offers Jesus the sour wine in order to extend his life long enough for Elijah to appear, if Jesus’ cry, as understood by the bystanders, is to be answered. The audiences of Mark know, however, that sour wine is not a fit drink for Jesus, the king of the Jews, that is, the messiah.… As a king, David, the speaker of [OG Psalm 68] deserved better than sour wine to drink. Jesus, who, according to the early Christian interpretation, is the subject of the psalm and the messiah, exercises his kingship ironically, at this stage of the eschatological scenario. The offer of sour wine, even if well intentioned, is one small detail in the ironic contrast between Jesus’ identity and the way he is treated.248

The sense of judgement conveyed in the language of darkness in Mark 15:33 is thus amplified by the sequence of events in Mark 15:34-36. Unlike its usage in Mark 15:36, of course, ὄξος probably means ‘vinegar’ in OG Ps 68:22.249 But the difference only confirms my point. To offer the crucified Jesus sour wine is just as inappropriate as to give King David vinegar. It is therefore unsurprising that Jesus does not drink from it. As announced at the Passover meal, because the Jerusalem elite repudiated Jesus as the royal messiah, only after his resurrection would he drink again from the fruit of the vine (Mark 14:25).250 In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that the rending of the veil in Mark 15:38 partially actualizes the judgement on the temple establishment announced in Mark 11:17 and 12:9 (cf. Mark 13:1-2).251 This is the case no matter which view one takes on the precise location of the καταπέτασμα. Some have maintained that, by καταπέτασμα, the evangelist means the curtain placed between the outer court and the inner sanctuary, whereas others have come to believe that it is the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.252 Both alternatives 248.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 759. 249.  Cf. Heidland, ‘ὄξος’, 288–9. 250.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 759, who rightly notes the connection between Mark 14:25 and 15:37. 251.  So also Evans, Mark, 509; Bond, Caiaphas, 104–5; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1066; and Chance, ‘Cursing’, 284–6. Compare Jackson, ‘Death’, 27–32; and Nicole Wilkinson Duran, The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements is Mark’s Passion Narrative, LNTS 378 (London: T&T Clark International, 2008), 120–1. 252.  For the former, see Juel, Messiah, 140–2; Lohmeyer, Markus, 347; Jackson, ‘Veil’, 22–3; Motyer, ‘Veil’, 155; Ulansey, ‘Veil’, 123–5; Gundry, Mark, 950; Evans, Mark, 509; France, Mark, 657. For the latter, see G. Lindeskog, ‘The Veil of the Temple’, ConBNT 11 (1947), 132; Taylor, Mark, 596 (and earlier references cited therein); C. Schneider, ‘καταπέτασμα’, TDNT 3 (1965), 628–30; Hengel, Atonement, 42; Hooker, Mark, 377–8; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 762.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

199

are equally possible.253 At any rate, the tearing of the veil, whether the external or the internal one, ‘from top to bottom’ can mean no less than divine retribution. The Jerusalem priests have rejected the messianic son, and therefore their jurisdiction – the temple – is now doomed.254 Crucial for my purposes is the link between the tearing of the veil at Jesus’s death and the ripping of heavens at the baptism scene. Howard Jackson argues that the use of ἐξέπνευσεν in Mark 15:37 parallels the coming of the holy spirit ‘into Jesus [εἰς αὐτόν]’ at the baptism, and evokes the motif of ‘punitive breath’ from Isa 11:4, which the shoot from the stump of Jesse was expected to exercise upon the wicked.255 According to Jackson, the rending of the καταπέτασμα is analogous to the judgement that the Isaianic shoot would bring upon the ungodly – as the holy spirit departs from Jesus at Golgotha, so it is suggested, the temple keepers are judged.256 In a similar vein but taking a step further, Steve Motyer contends that ἐξέπνευσεν conveys a positive sense, not simply judgement. Jesus’s last breath, says Motyer, ‘represents a Markan Pentecost, a

253.  Ulansey (‘Veil’, 123–5) adduces a passage from Josephus so as to bolster the parallel between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the outer curtain in Mark. In War 5.211-214, Josephus describes the καταπέτασμα, placed at the entrance to the inner sanctuary, as ‘a representation of everything that exists [εἰκόνα τῶν ὅλων]’, engraved with ‘all the heavenly spectacles [ἅπασαν τὴν οὐράνιον θεωρίαν]’. Accordingly, Ulansey suggests that the first readers of Mark’s crucifixion scene ‘would instantly have seen in their mind’s eye an image of the heavens being torn and would immediately have been reminded of Mark’s earliest description of the heavens being torn at the baptism’. See also A. Pelletier, ‘La tradition synoptique du “voile déchiré” à la lumière des réalités archéologiques’, RSR 46 (1958): 168–79. Yarbro Collins (Mark, 760–2), however, points out that elsewhere Josephus also describes the Holy of Holies by means of the same language – ‘as heaven [ὡς οὐρανός]’ (Ant. 3.123). See also Schneider, ‘καταπέτασμα’, 629. The use of ὁράω in Mark 15:39, which connotes visual perception, may indicate the physical proximity of the centurion to the καταπέτασμα and slightly favour the former view. Thus, Gundry, Mark, 950; cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:498. But the syntax of Mark 15:39 more likely suggests that what the centurion ‘sees’ is the way Jesus dies, not the rending of the temple curtain. 254.  As Harry Chronis (‘Veil’, 109) rightly notes, ἐσχίσθη represents a divine passive: the rending of the veil is ‘God’s own action’. So also Juel, Messiah, 137–8; and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1066: the ripping of the veil ‘comes, then, “from above”, that is, from God’. Cf. Gray, Temple, 185–6. 255.  Jackson, ‘Death’, 27–32. 256.  Ibid., 27. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 950: ‘Πνεῦμα means “breath”, “wind”, and “spirit”, so that in his last breath Jesus exhales the wind of the Spirit that rends the veil’; and Evans, Mark, 508–9.

200

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

proleptic bestowal of the Spirit analogous to the proleptic destruction of the Temple’, and ‘indicates the end of the old and the beginning of the new era, in which access to the Holy Place is open to all’.257 Both Jackson and Motyer, moreover, assume the connection between Mark 15:37-39 and Mark 1:1-11 to be somewhat linear, as though Jesus renders the temple obsolete from the very beginning of the narrative.258 The rending of the temple curtain in Mark 15:38, in other words, gives universal access to the divine presence apart from the Jerusalem temple, which has been supposedly anticipated already in Mark 1:1-11.259 Jackson is correct to interpret the rending of the veil as part of the divine judgement motif so prevalent in our pericope. Motyer’s suggestion that Mark 15:38 points forward to the universalistic scope of the community of faith is likewise plausible in the light of the centurion’s confession of Jesus in the following verse. Their arguments become less persuasive, however, when they overstate the significance of ἐξέπνευσεν as the causation of the tearing of the veil. The alleged linguistic connection between the πνεῦμα descending εἰς αὐτόν in Mark 1:10 and ἐξέπνευσεν in Mark 15:37 is certainly an overreach. For one thing, the verb ἐκπνέω is more simply translated as ‘expired’, a euphemism deployed to speak of a solemn death.260 For another, nothing suggests that the holy spirit departs from Jesus as he breathes his last (see πνεῦμά μου in Luke 23:46) – it is even debatable whether Mark 1:10 depicts the holy spirit as literally coming into Jesus – not to mention any allusions to Isa 11:4 or the idea that the centurion proleptically receives the baptism announced in Mark 1:8.261 But even more problematic is the notion that Mark is anti-temple throughout the narrative.262 As should have become clear by this point of our study, such a view is untenable and hence must be abandoned. The connection between Jesus’s death and the prologue is therefore more complex than the above suggestions allow. If anything, the expiration of Jesus on the cross represents the non-fulfilment of what is announced in Mark 1:8. We have seen in Chapter 4 that Mark associates the baptism with the holy spirit with the Isaianic hope for the restoration of Zion (cf. Mark 1:1-3). But the temple establishment end up plotting to crucify the messiah, the stronger one who could bring Jerusalem to its eschatological fruition. Indeed, the evangelist is completely silent about the realization 257.  Motyer, ‘Veil’, 155–6 (see also 157 n. 3); cf. Hooker, Mark, 378. 258.  Jackson, ‘Veil’, 24–5; Motyer, ‘Veil’, 156. Cf. Donahue, Christ, 203. 259.  Ibid., 156: ‘The moment of death is the moment at which the Spirit is given’. 260.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 763. So also Gundry, Mark, 949. 261.  Contra also Chance, ‘Cursing’, 290. 262.  Jackson, ‘Veil’, 24–5; Motyer, ‘Veil’, 156.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

201

of Mark 1:8. The connotations of the rending of the heavens in Mark 1:10 and the tearing of the temple veil in Mark 15:38 are thus closely related but also fundamentally distinct. In the first instance, it is in the context of anticipation for the redemption of Zion that the heavens are torn and Jesus is declared ‘my beloved son’ by God himself. In the second incident, the temple veil is ripped – an event which, given the symbolism surrounding the καταπέτασμα, recalls the first rending of the heavens in the prologue – in the context of divine judgement. Significantly, as I have argued extensively thus far, between these two occasions stands the obstinate refusal by the priestly elite both to take heed of John the Baptist and to acknowledge Jesus, Israel’s end-time king. This indicates that the centurion’s confession poses still another twist to the expectations given in the prologue. Juel maintains that the words of the soldier are in keeping with the overall use of irony in the crucifixion scene, and hence they convey the sense of derision.263 Kelly Iverson, however, has made a strong case that Mark 15:39 relays a genuine confession. He writes: The three verbal taunts in the trial and crucifixion scenes are set apart by metalinguistic terminology and/or descriptive commentary. The Jewish officials ‘condemn’ Jesus, ‘spit’ on him, and ‘beat him’ (14:64-65). The Roman soldiers dress Jesus in royal colors, weave a crown of thorns, beat him with a reed, spit on him, and bow down before him – all of which the storyteller explicitly describes as mockery (ένέπαιξαν αύτω, 15:20). Likewise, those at the cross were ‘blaspheming him’ (έβλασφήμουν αύτον, 15:29), ‘shaking their heads’ (κινοῦντες τὰς κεφὰλας αυτών, 15:29), ‘mocking’ (έμπαίζοντες, 15:31), and ‘hurling insults at him’ (ώνείδιζον αυτόν, 15:32).264

By contrast, Iverson continues, ‘[t]he absence of such language surrounding the Roman centurion is conspicuous and suggests a more favorable portrayal’.265 Sure enough, having been positioned to interpret the identity of Jesus accordingly, the reader agrees with the soldier that ‘truly this man was Son of God [ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν]’ (Mark 15:39). At a deeper level, therefore, as with the rending of heavens at the baptism scene, the tearing of the veil at the crucifixion precipitates 263.  D.H. Juel, A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 74 n. 7. See also Ahearne-Kroll, Psalms, 220–1. 264.  Iverson, ‘Confession’, 335. 265.  Ibid. See also Chronis, ‘Veil’, 97–114. It is uncertain whether the κεντυρίων was a Roman citizen proper, but he was at the very least Romanized (see the discussion in Yarbro Collins, Mark, 764–5).

202

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

an event of divine revelation. As Marcus puts it, ‘the glory of God hidden behind [the curtain] begins to radiate out into the world, and as an initial reflection of this unveiling, a human being, and a Gentile at that, acclaims Jesus’ divine sonship for the first time in the Gospel’.266 Indeed, particularly telling is that such a declaration, which resonates with God’s own perspective on Jesus (cf. Mark 1:11),267 comes from a non-Jew. This is significant, for, as I have pointed out above, Mark assumes the inclusion of Gentiles into the Israelite worship to be a central feature of the messianic age (as per OG Isa 56:7 in Mark 11:17; cf. Ps. Sol. 17.31-32). But the priests have failed to welcome ‘the one coming in the name of the Lord’ (cf. OG Ps 117:26), and, consequently, the Jerusalem temple, instead of displaying the glory of Yahweh to the nations, has become a den of insurrectionists soon to be destroyed (cf. Mark 11:17). In spite of this, the centurion, who in all probability understands divine sonship with reference to contemporary state religion,268 recognizes that it is the crucified messiah (cf. Mark 15:32), not Caesar,269 the legitimate Son of God. The soldier thus heralds the messianic rule among the Gentiles, except now this happens apart from the temple institution.270 As the 266.  Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1067. 267.  So also Kingsbury, Christology, 132; and Malbon, Jesus, 121–3. Marcus (Mark 8–16, 1067) speaks of Jesus’s death and the tearing of the temple curtain as constituting an event of divine revelation. 268.  See especially T.H. Kim, ‘The Anarthrous υἱὸς θεοῦ in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult’, Bib 79 (1998): 221–41; Yarbro Collins, ‘Jews’, 405–6; eadem, Mark, 766–8; and Peppard, Son of God, 130–1. 269.  Evans, Mark, 512. That the centurion evokes the Roman imperial cult, moreover, makes it highly probable that υἱὸς θεοῦ, albeit anarthrous, carries titular force. So Kim, ‘Anarthrous’, 223: ‘Augustus was known from the beginning of his political career as divi filus, “son of god”, which in Greek was written as “υἱος θεοῦ” or “θεοῦ υἱος” without the definite article’. Cf. E.C. Colwell, ‘A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament’, JBL 52 (1933): 12–21. 270.  This is the case even if the centurion has a different conception than Mark does about the totality of the identity of Jesus. Compare E.P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 295; and W. Shiner, ‘The Ambiguous Pronouncement of the Centurion and Shrouding of Meaning in Mark’, JSNT 78 (2000): 3–22. In any case, it is widely held that Mark 15:37-39 carries redemptive connotations for the Gentiles. Aside from Motyer, ‘Veil’, 156, see, for instance, Grundmann, Markus, 316; Linnemann, Passionsgeschichte, 163; Hengel, Atonement, 42; Chronis, ‘Veil’, 111; Hooker, Mark, 378; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 452; Hanson, Promises, 130. Be that as it may, I agree with Yarbro Collins (Mark, 767), contra Chronis (‘Veil’, 110), that ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ does not necessarily convey cultic overtones (compare 1 Kgdms 26:20 and OG Ps 22:5). Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:499.

5. The Royal Messiah and the Jerusalem Priests in Mark 11–16

203

statement that this man was truly Son of God stands in sharp contrast to the mockery of the chief priests in Mark 15:32, moreover, it testifies that it is the Jerusalem rulers, not necessarily the Gentiles, who have placed themselves outside of the messianic kingdom.271 Jesus is hanging on the cross, but God himself will exalt him to ‘the right hand of Power’, as Israel’s rightful king and ruler of the world. The temple priests, on the other hand, though for the time being standing at Golgotha in derision of the royal messiah, will soon be judged by God. Conclusion What becomes clear from the above discussion is that Jesus’s demonstration at the temple is a symbolic representation of God’s impending judgement. As with the picture that emerged from my discussion in Chapter 4, however, Mark 11–16 does not betray the absolute repudiation of the temple as such. Rather, Mark regards the Jerusalem shrine as a ‘cave of bandits’ in the pattern of OG Jer 7:11, because its rulers have rejected the eschatological king who could have fulfilled the vision of OG Isa 40:3, announced in the prologue. As a result of the priests’ insurrection against the royal messiah, punishment awaits them. Accordingly, to Mark, the doom of the temple is not the divine retribution for its malpractice. It is instead an event of christological significance, an attack on the jurisdiction of those who end up killing the royal messiah. Such an emphasis is confirmed in the Vollmachtfrage, where Jesus indicts the Jerusalem rulers for not taking heed of the message of John the Baptist in the first place. Likewise, the parable of the wicked tenants makes it clear that the fall of Jerusalem should be understood as God’s response to the assassination of the messianic son by the leaders of the nation. Most importantly, while Mark presents the Jewish authorities in general as constituting an anti-messiah alliance, it is the chief priests – with the high priest presiding over them – who, in the end, not only lead the Sanhedrin unjustly to condemn Jesus, but also incite Pilate and the crowds to endorse their decision. Unsurprisingly, the first event following Jesus’s death on the cross is the rending of the καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ from top to bottom, an event conveying a strong sense of divine judgement. Fundamental to Jesus’s stance towards the temple and the fate of the Jerusalem institution in Mark, therefore, is the way the priests respond to Jesus as the end-time king. Who is Israel’s rightful ruler? To Mark, it is Jesus the messiah, who, albeit rejected, will soon be enthroned in heaven at the right hand of God. 271.  Cf. Fredriksen, ‘Temple’, 305; Hooker, Mark, 24.

C on c l u s i on :

T he M a r ka n J es u s a m on g t he R oyal M e ssi ahs

As outlined in the Introduction, the aim of this study has been to examine, first, how the messiah texts from the late Second Temple period portray the interaction between the king and the Jerusalem priests in the ideal future, and, second, how Mark addresses this issue with reference to Jesus. Accordingly, I have made a two-fold case. On the one hand, royal messianism entailed, among other things, the hope for the Jerusalem institution to attain its idealized fruition. On the other hand, while Mark presupposes the same expectation, in the end he blames the Jerusalem rulers’ rejection of Jesus as the royal messiah for the impending destruction of the temple. In Chapter 1, I argued that the relevant passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls portray the royal messiah as a national liberator who would defeat the enemies of the chosen people. The eschatological high priest or the messiah of Aaron, conversely, would take precedence over the king in ceremonial matters (cf. 1QSb and 1QSa). This was anticipated, however, because the latter would legitimize the Qumran community as the true sons of Zadok. Far from betraying a negative view of Jewish royal ideology, therefore, the Scrolls envisage the Branch of David, or the messiah of Israel, to remedy the corruption of the current Jerusalem establishment. Despite the preeminence of the messiah of Aaron in cultic procedures, kingship and priesthood are regarded as complementary offices in the messiah texts from the Scrolls. In Chapter 2, I showed that the picture of the royal messiah in Psalm of Solomon 17 is largely consistent with that which is found in Qumran. The Son of David would liberate Israel from the oppression of the Gentile nations and their Jewish compromisers. While the Psalm does not articulate how the priests should interact with the king, its use of scriptural imagery from 1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicles 9 points to the glorious culmination of the Holy City and its temple institution. In the same vein, one of the achievements of the end-time king in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch would be the future restoration of Jerusalem. In 2 Baruch in particular, Zion will



Conclusion

205

be rebuilt by God himself, and a pristine worship system will be installed in the messianic age. In Chapter 3, I demonstrated that, despite modern attempts at claiming otherwise, Mark does present Jesus in royal messianic terms. The evangelist, of course, qualifies messiahship in terms of Jesus’s death and resurrection, but to him Jesus is no less than Israel’s end-time king, the one bringing about the kingdom of God. This becomes clear not only in Mark’s use of some royal psalms to describe the identity of Jesus – the messiah is the Son of God in the pattern of Psalm 2, ‘the one coming in the name of the Lord’ in the patter of OG Psalm 117 and the royal lord in the pattern of OG Psalm 109 – but also in the story of Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In Chapter 4, I contended that, as with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha, Mark 1–10 assumes the importance of the Jerusalem institution for the messianic kingdom. On this stroke, Mark 1–10 places the temple and its cultus at the centre of the eschatological turning point inaugurated by Jesus. At the outset, Mark announces the need for the priests to take heed of John and to acknowledge the authority of Jesus the royal messiah (cf. Mark 1:1-8). Such an emphasis finds corroboration in the sending of the leper to the temple ‘as a witness’ to the priests (Mark 1:40-44) and in the allusion to Abiathar’s deference to David in the story of the plucking of grain on Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). Finally, in Chapter 5, I argued that it is in the light of the narrative context outlined in Chapter 4 that Jesus’s confrontation with the temple elite in Mark 11–16 is better interpreted. First, Jesus’s demonstration at the temple does not connote the absolute repudiation of the sacrificial system, but rather God’s impending judgement for the Jerusalem rulers’ repudiation of the one who could have fulfilled the vision of OG Isa 40:3. To Mark, the Jerusalem establishment have turned the temple into a den of insurrectionists against the end-time king. This is confirmed in the Vollmachtfrage, in the parable of the wicked tenants and in the rending of the καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ at the crucifixion scene. What is pivotal for my argument is that, though Mark places all the Jewish authorities in the same group of Jesus’s adversaries, the chief priests are the ones ultimately responsible for his execution. The priests’ negative response to Jesus as the royal messiah is therefore what lies at the centre of Jesus’s criticism of the temple. Throughout my investigation, I have presupposed the variegated character of messianic discourse in Second Temple Judaism, of which the earliest Gospel represents an important instance. I have likewise assumed that the portrayal of Jesus in Mark is on significant points distinct from

206

Royal Messianism and the Jerusalem Priesthood

anything else found in the related literature. In contrast to other royal messiahs, for example, the Markan Jesus is not a future militant deliverer,1 but rather a figure from the past who was executed on a Roman cross.2 Nonetheless, my discussion has also capitalized on one crucial similarity between Mark and the messiah texts from the late Second Temple period. I have pointed out that, just as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the seventeenth Psalm of Solomon and the apocalypses of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch envisage, though in different ways, an unblemished order of priests officiating the temple under the auspices of the eschatological king, so also does the earliest Gospel. In presenting Jesus with royal messianic categories, Mark associates his message with the expectation that the Jerusalem institution would find its climax with the high priest overseeing the worship at the temple under the king’s authority. We are now in a position to suggest that questions concerning the proper relation between the royal and the priestly offices in Jewish national polity were crucial for Mark, just as they had been in messianic speculation around the turn of the era. This means that, if the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalm of Solomon 17, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch together provide the appropriate context against which to interpret Mark’s picture of Jesus as messiah, it is also the case that Mark instantiates a major concern in Jewish texts speaking of a royal messiah – namely, absolutely central to the interests of those hoping for the coming of the end-time king was the culmination of the Jerusalem institution and the establishment of a pristine priesthood over it. With regards to Mark, the priestly rulers were to acknowledge Jesus as the one announced by John, thus allying themselves with the messianic son. In telling us about Jesus’s encounter with the Jerusalem establishment, however, once more Mark departs from classic royal messianism. Unlike what is expected in, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Psalm of Solomon 17, Jesus does not restore the temple, but rather pronounces judgement upon it. Why? Contrary to the scholarly trend that assumes such an event to connote the complete obsolescence of the Levitical system, I have demonstrated that it actually conveys an attack on the priestly jurisdiction. 1.  As per M. Hengel, Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists (London: SPCK, 1975); and E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule, eds., Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); contra R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources (London: Methuen, 1931); and S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967). 2.  Cf. Fitzmyer, One Who Is, 1.



Conclusion

207

Following Jesus’s royal procession into the Holy City, the priests do not receive ‘the one coming in the name of the Lord’ at the temple (cf. OG Ps 117:26). The doom of the shrine therefore represents the divine retribution for the priests’ rejection of the end-time king, a fact which begins to be actualized when the temple veil is torn at the crucifixion scene. This point is highly significant, for it qualifies the view that Mark is irrevocably hostile towards Jewish religion in general and the sacrificial system in particular.3 At the core of Jesus’s polemics against the temple in Mark, in other words, lies the prior obduracy of those who were supposed to welcome the King of the Jews but end up crucifying him. This, in turn, betrays one significant, if often overlooked, aspect of Mark’s narrative purpose. It is beyond question that Mark, by defining Jesus’s identity in relation to his resurrection, addresses the paradox intrinsic to his message of a crucified messiah.4 In addition to this, we may now stress that Mark grapples with yet another contradiction implied in Jesus’s messiahship. How can he be Israel’s long-awaited ideal king, if, in stark contrast to what happened in the days of Solomon, the Jerusalem temple is just about to be destroyed by the Romans? After all, for the Jews familiar with the messianic expectations current in the period in question, the perfection of the temple, not its destruction, would be one of the messiah’s characteristic achievements.5 The answer Mark gives is remarkable. He blames the Jewish authorities, particularly the Jerusalem priestly elite, for the calamities surrounding 70 CE. Because the priests refused to acknowledge the royal messiah, neither they nor the temple can withstand God’s judgement.6 Jesus, on the other hand, is no mere pretender. Despite his being ridiculed as a failed messiah on the cross, Jesus will be enthroned at the right hand of God over against his adversaries and become the cornerstone of the nation.

3.  Pace Fredriksen, ‘Temple’, 304. 4.  See discussion in Hooker, Mark, 22–5; and Yarbro Collins, Mark, 101. Compare H.N. Roskam, The Purpose of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context, NovTSup 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 238. See also Dahl, Memory, 63–4. 5.  By the same token, we also know that the fall of the temple in 70 CE became the focus of much subsequent reflection. Josephus, for instance, is at pains to blame the would-be deliverers of the turn of the era, whom he calls ‘bandits [λῃσταί]’, for the destruction of Jerusalem. 6.  Cf. Hooker, Mark, 24.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Abbreviations according the The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed.

Primary Sources Aland, K., B. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. Martini and B. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013. Alexander, P.S. ‘The Redaction History of Serek ha Yahad: A Proposal’. RevQ 17 (1996): 437–53. Alexander, P.S., and G. Vermès. ‘4QSefer ha-Mihamah’. Page 238 in Qumran Cave 4: XXVI. Edited by S.J. Pfann and P.S. Alexander. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Allegro, J.M. Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Barthélemy, D., and J.T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Baumgarten, J.M. Qumran Cave 4: XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Charlesworth, J.H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Chilton, B. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. ArBib 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Cohn, L., and P. Wendland, eds. Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae Supersunt. 7 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962–63. Danby, H., trans. The Mishnah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Epstein, I., ed. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 30 vols. London: Soncino, 1960–90. Freedman, H., and M. Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. 3rd ed. London: Soncino, 1983. Greenup, A.W. Sukkah, Mishnah and Tosefta with Introduction, Translation and Short Notes. New York: Macmillan, 1925. Lehrman, S.M. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. London: Soncino, 1939. Nelson, W.D. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Neusner, J. The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation. XXIX.C: Tractate Menahot Chapters 8–13. BJS 237. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., and J.C. VanderKam, trans. 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Niese, B., ed. Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1885–95. Rabbinowitz, J., ed. Mishnah Megillah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931.

Bibliography

209

Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Stec, D.M. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with A Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 16. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Stone, M.E. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. VanderKam, J.C. Qumran Cave 4: XVII. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Vermès, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 4th ed. London: Penguin, 1995. Wacholder, B.Z. The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary. STDJ 56. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Wright, R.B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. London: T&T Clark International, 2007.

Secondary Sources Abegg, M. ‘1QSb and the Elusive High Priest’. Pages 3–16 in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman and W.W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. ‘The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?’ DSD 2 (1995): 125–44. ———. ‘Messianic Hope and 4Q285: A Reassessment’. JBL 113 (1994): 81–91. Abrahams, I. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. Achtemeier, P. ‘ “And he followed him”: Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10:46-52’. Semeia 11 (1978): 115–45. ———. ‘Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae’. JBL 91 (1972): 198–221. Ådna, J. Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr. ADPV 25. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. ———. Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung. WUNT 2/119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Ahearne-Kroll, S.P. The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion: Jesus’ Davidic Suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Albl, M.C. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Allen, L.C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Allison, D.C. ‘Elijah Must Come First’. JBL 103 (1984): 256–8. Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Ambrozic, A.M. The Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel. CBQMS 2. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972. Atkinson, K. An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon Pseudepigrapha. Lewiston: Mellen, 2001. ———. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. JSJSup 84. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. ‘On the Herodean Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17’. JBL 118 (1999): 435–60.

210 Bibliography Bammel, E., ed. The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule. SBT 13. London: SCM, 1970. Bammel, E., and C.F.D. Moule, eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Banks, R. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Barker, M. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. ———. ‘The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus’. Pages 93–111 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila and G.S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Barrett, C.K. ‘The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves’. Pages 13–20 in Jesus und Paulus. Edited by E.E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Barstad, H.M. A Way in the Wilderness: The Second Exodus in the Message of Second Isaiah. JSS 12. Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1989. Barth, G. Die Taufe in frühchristlicher Zeit. BThSt 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. Bauckham, R. ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written’. Pages 9–48 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by R. Bauckham. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. ———. ‘Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple’. Pages 72–89 in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity. Edited by B. Lindars. London: James Clark, 1988. Bauer, B. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker. Leipzig: Wigland, 1841–42. Baumgarten, A.I. ‘The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration’. DSD 4 (1997): 137–56. Baumgarten, J.M. ‘4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord’s Vineyard’. JJS 40 (1989): 1–6. Beale, G.K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984. Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1962. Beaudet, R. ‘La typologie de l’Exode dans le Second-Isaïe’. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 19 (1963): 12–21. Bernstein, M.J. ‘4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary’. JJS 45 (1994): 1–17. Best, E. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT, 1981. ———. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Betz, H.D. ‘Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18): A Comparative Religion Approach’. JBL 116 (1997): 461–2. ———. ‘Jesus as Divine Man’. Pages 114–33 in Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell. Edited by F.T. Trotter. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Betz, O. ‘The Concept of the So-Called “Divine Man” in Mark’s Christology’. Pages 229–40 in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Edited by D. Aune. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Bibliography

211

Betz, O., and W. Grimm. Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1977. Beyerle, S. ‘ “A Star Shall Come out of Jacob”: A Critical Evaluation of the Balaam Oracle in the Context of Jewish Revolts in Roman Times’. Pages 163–88 in The Prestige of a Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Edited by G.H. van Kooten and J.T. van Ruiten. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Bickerman, E. ‘The Warning Inscription of Herod’s Temple’. JQR 37 (1946–47): 387–405. Bieler, L. ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ. Das Bild des ‘göttlichen Menschen’ in Spätantike und Frühchristentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Höfels, 1935–36. Bird, M.F. Jesus Is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2013. Black, D.S. ‘John, Elijah, or One of the Prophets: How the Markan Reader Understands Jesus Through John/Elijah’. PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2012. Black, M. ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’. NTS 18 (1971–72): 1–14. ———. ‘The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins’. Pages 145–68 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Black, M.C. ‘The Rejected and Slain Messiah Who Is Coming with His Angels: The Messianic Exegesis of Zechariah 9–14 in the Passion Narratives’. PhD diss., Emory University, 1990. Blackburn, B. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2/40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Blenkinsopp, J. Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003. ———. ‘The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry’. JBL 80 (1961): 55–64. ———. ‘Scope and Depth of the Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah, 40–55’. Concilium 20 (1966): 41-50. Blinzler, J. The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against Jesus Christ. Westminster: Newman, 1959. Boccaccini, G. ‘Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Jewish Literature’. Pages 263–89 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———, ed. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Bock, D.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. WUNT 2/106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. ‘Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht’. Pages 58–113 in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Edited by D.L. Bock and J.H. Charlesworth. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Bockmuehl, M. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. ———. ‘A “Slain Messiah” in 4Q Serekh Milhamah (4Q285)?’ TynBul 43 (1992): 155–69. Bockmuehl, M., and J. Carleton-Paget, eds. Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London: T&T Clark International, 2007.

212 Bibliography Bond, H.K. Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004. ———. ‘Paragon of Discipleship? Simon of Cyrene in the Markan Passion Narrative’. Pages 18–35 in Matthew and Mark across Perspectives: Essays in Honour of Stephen C. Barton and William R. Telford. Edited by K.A. Bendoraitis and N.K. Gupta. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. ———. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Borg, M. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1984. Boring, E. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. ———. ‘Markan Christology: God-Language for Jesus?’ NTS 45 (1999): 451–71. Bornkamm, G. Jesus von Nazareth. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956. English translation: Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by I. McLuskey, F. McLuskey and J.M. Robinson. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1960. Böttrich, C. ‘Jesus und der Feigenbaum: Mark 11.12-14, 20-25 in der Diskussion’. NovT 39 (1997): 328–59. Bousset, W. Jesus. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetschke, 1904. English translation: Jesus. Edited by W.D. Morrison. Translated by J.P. Trevelyan. New York: Williams, 1911. ———. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Box, G.H. The Ezra-Apocalypse. London: Pitman, 1912. Boyarin, D. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: New Press, 2012. Brady, J.R. Jesus Christ: Divine Man or Son of God? Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. Brandon, S.G.F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. London: SPCK, 1951. ———. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. ———. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. London: Batsford, 1968. Braun, H. Qumran und das Neue Testament. Volume 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Brekelmans, C.W. ‘The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdoms’. OTS 14 (1965): 305–29. Bretcher, P.G. ‘Exodus 4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven’. JBL 87 (1968): 301–11. Breytenbach, C. ‘Narrating the Death of Jesus in Mark: Utterances of the Main Character, Jesus’. ZNW 105 (2014): 153–68. Broadhead, E.K. ‘Christology as Polemic and Apologetic: The Priestly Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark’. JSNT 47 (1992): 21–34. ———. ‘Mark 1,44: The Witness of the Leper’. ZNW 83 (1992): 260–5. ———. Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ———. ‘Which Mountain Is “This Mountain”?’. Paradigms 2 (1986): 33–8. Brooke, G.J. ‘4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants’. DSD 2 (1995): 268–94. ———. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Jewish Context. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1985. ———. ‘The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document’. RevQ 15 (1991): 215–30. ———. ‘The Thematic Content of 4Q252’. JQR 85 (1994): 33–59.

Bibliography

213

Brown, R.E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. ———. ‘J. Starcky’s Theory of Qumran Messianic Development’. CBQ 28 (1966): 51–7. ———. ‘The Messianism of Qumrân’. CBQ 19 (1957): 53–82. Brown, S.G. ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’ CBQ 64 (2002): 78–89. Brownlee, W.H. ‘John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls’. Int 9 (1955): 71–90. Bruce, F.F. Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. London: Tyndale, 1960. Brueggemann, W. Solomon: Israel’s Ironic Icon of Human Achievement. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2005. Buchanan, G.W. ‘Mark 11.15-19: Brigands in the Temple’. HUCA 30 (1959): 169–77. Bultmann, R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by J. Marsh. Oxford: Blackwell, 1963. Translation of Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. ———. Jesus. Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1929. English translation: Jesus and the Word. Translated by L.P. Smith and E.H. Lantero. London: Nicholson & Watson, 1935. ———. Theology of the New Testament. Volume 1. Translated by K. Grobel. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Reprint of Theology of the New Testament. Volume 1. Translated by K. Grobel. New York: Scribner’s, 1951. Burger, C. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine tradionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. FRLANT 98. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Campbell, W.S. ‘Engagement, Disengagement and Obstruction: Jesus’ Defense Strategies in Mark’s Trial and Execution Scenes (14.53-64; 15.1-39)’. JSNT 26 (2004): 283–300. Capper, B.J. ‘The New Covenant in Southern Palestine and the Arrest of Jesus’. Pages 90–116 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from the International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001. Edited by J.R. Davila. STDJ 46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Caquot, A. ‘Le Messianisme Qumrânien’. Pages 231–47 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. Gembloux: Leuven, 1978. Caragounis, C.C. The Son of Man. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Carey, H.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. LNTS 398. London: T&T Clark International, 2009. ———. ‘Teachings and Tirades: Jesus’ Temple Act and His Teachings in Mark 11:15-19’. Stone-Campbell Journal 10 (2007): 93–105. Carlston, C.E. The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Casey, M. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. SNTSM 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. ‘General, Generic, and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’. JSNT 29 (1987): 21–56. ———. The Solution to the Son of Man Problem. LNTS 343. London: T&T Clark International, 2007. ———. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. Casey, P.M. ‘Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple’. CBQ 59 (1997): 306–32.

214 Bibliography Catchpole, D. ‘The Problem of Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial’. Pages 47–65 in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule. Edited by E. Bammel. SBT 13. London: SCM, 1970. ———. The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day. Leiden: Brill, 1971. ———. ‘The Triumphal Entry’. Pages 319–34 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Chance, J.B. ‘The Cursing of the Temple and the Tearing of the Veil in the Gospel of Mark’. BibInt 15 (2007): 268–91. Chapman, D.W. The Orphan Gospel: Mark’s Perspective on Jesus. BS 16. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Charlesworth, J.H. ‘Challenging the Consensus Regarding Qumran Messianism’. Pages 120–34 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ———. ‘From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology’. Pages 225–64 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ———. Jesus within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988. _______, ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. ‘The Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha’. ANRW 2.19.1:188–218. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. ———. ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’. Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Charlesworth, J.H., H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema, eds. Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Chávez, E. The Theological Significance of Jesus’ Temple Action in Mark’s Gospel. TST 87. Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 2002. Chester, A. ‘Jewish Messianic Expectations and Mediatorial Figures’. Pages 17–90 in Paulus und das antike Judentum. Edited by M. Hengel and U. Heckel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991 ———. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 1/207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Chialà, S. ‘The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression’. Pages 156–63 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Chilton, B. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, NovTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. ‘Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage’. JSNT 14 (1982): 88–112. ———. ‘John the Purifier’. Pages 203–20 in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration. B. Chilton and C.A. Evans. AGJU 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. The Temple of Jesus. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. ———. ‘The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision’. NTS 27 (1980): 115–24. Chronis, H.L. ‘The Torn Veil: Cultus and Christology in Mark 15:37-39’. JBL 101 (1982): 97–114.

Bibliography

215

Coggins, R.J., and M. Knibb. The First and Second Books of Esdras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Cohn, H. The Trial and Death of Jesus. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967. Collins, J.J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1984. ———. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. ‘ “He Shall Not Judge by What His Eyes See”: Messianic Authority in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, DSD 2 (1995): 145–64. ———. ‘Jesus, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 100–119 in QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. ‘Messiahs in Context: Method in the Study of Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 213–30 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins and D.G. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. ———. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. ‘The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel’. JBL (1974): 50–66. ———. ‘The Son of Man in First Century Judaism’. NTS 38 (1992): 448–66. ———. ‘Testaments II: The Testamentary Literature in Recent Scholarship’. Pages 268–76 in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Edited by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and R.A. Kraft. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Colwell, E.C. ‘A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament’. JBL 52 (1933): 12–21. Constant, P. ‘Le psaume 118 et son emploi christologique dans Luc et Actes: Une etude exegetique, litteraire et hermeneutique’. PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2001. Cook, M.J. Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders. NovTSup 51. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Coppens, J. ‘Le messianism sapiential et les origines littéraires du Fils de l’homme daniélique’. Pages 33–41 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Noth and D.W. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Craigie, P.C. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco: Word, 1983. Craigie, P.C., P.G. Kelly and J.F. Drinkard, Jr. Jeremiah 1–12. WBC 26. Dallas: Word, 1991. Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Cross, F.M. ‘Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies’. Pages 13–14 in vol. 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ———. ‘The Structure of the Apocalypse of “Son of God” (4Q246)’. Pages 151–8 in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman and W.W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Crossan, J.D. ‘The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen’. JBL 90 (1971): 451–65. Crossley, J.G. The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity. JSNTSup 266. London: T&T Clark International, 2004

216 Bibliography Cullmann, O. Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. English translation: The Christology of the New Testament. Translated by S.C. Guthrie and C.A.M. Hall. London: SCM, 1959. Dahl, N.A. ‘The Crucified Messiah’. Pages 27–48 in Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Edited by D.H. Juel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ———. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. ———. ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus’. Pages 382–403 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. ‘Sources of Christological Language’. Pages 113–36 in Jesus the Christ: Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Edited by D.H. Juel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Danby, H. ‘The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels’. JTS 21 (1919): 51–76. Danker, F.W., W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Daube, D. ‘Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels’, NTS 19 (1972): 1–15. Davenport, G.L. ‘The “Anointed of the Lord” in the Psalm of Solomon 17’. Pages 67–92 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins. SBLSCS 12. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Davies, P.R. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the ‘Damascus Document’. JSOTSup 25. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. Davies, W.D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Davila, J.R. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha. JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Delcor, M. Le Livre de Daniel. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. Derrett, J.D.M. Studies in the New Testament. Volume 4. Midrash, the Composition of the Gospels, and Discipline. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Descamps, A.-L. ‘Pour une histoire du titre “Fils de Dieu” ’. Pages 529–71 in L’Évangile selon Marc: Tradition et rédaction. Edited by M. Sabbe. BETL 34. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1971. Dewey, J. Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1–3:6. SBLDS 48. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Dibelius, M. From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by B.L. Woolf. London: Nicholson & Watson, 1934. Translation of Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933. ———. Jesus. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1939. English translation: Jesus: A Study of the Gospels and an Essay on ‘The Motive for Social Action in the New Testament’. Translated by C.B. Hedrick and F.C. Grant. London: SCM, 1963. Dillon, R.J. ‘ “As One Having Authority” (Mark 1:22): The Controversial Distinction of Jesus’ Teaching’. CBQ 57 (1995): 92–113. Dimant, D. ‘4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple’. Pages 165–89 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. ———. History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. FAT 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

Bibliography

217

———. ‘The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance’. Pages 23–57 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Edited by D. Dimant and L.H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. ‘Qumran Sectarian Literature’. Pages 503–14 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M.E. Stone. CRINT 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Dodd, C.H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. ———. The Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Scribner’s, 1961. Dölger, F.J. ΙΧΘΥΣ. Das Fischsymbol in frühchristlicher Zeit. Volume 1. Rome: Spithover, 1910. Donahue, J.R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula: SBL, 1973. ———. The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990. ———. ‘The Quest for the Community of Mark’s Gospel’. Pages 817–32 in vol. 2 of The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Edited by F. van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett, G. van Belle and J. Verheyden. BETL 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. ———. ‘Temple, Trial, and Royal Christology [Mark 14:53-65]’. Pages 61–79 in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16. Edited by W.H. Kelber. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Donahue, J.R., and D.J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. PS 2. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002. Dowd, S.E. Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22-25 in the Context of Markan Theology. SBLDS 105. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Driggers, I.B. ‘The Politics of Divine Presence: The Temple as Locus of Conflict in the Gospel of Mark’. BibInt 15 (2007): 227–47. Drury, J. ‘Mark 1:1-15: An Interpretation’. Pages 25–36 in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study. Edited by A.E. Harvey. London: SPCK, 1985. Duff, P.B. ‘The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’ Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem’. JBL 111 (1992): 55–71. Duling, D.C. ‘The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity – Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis’. NTS 20 (1973): 55–77. ———. ‘Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David’. HTR 68 (1975): 235–52. Dunn, J.D.G. ‘Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate’. NTS 48 (2002): 449–67. ———. Jesus, Paul and the Law. London: SPCK, 1990. ———. Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM, 2006. ———. ‘ “Son of God” as “Son of Man” in the Dead Sea Scrolls? A Response to John Collins on 4Q246’. Pages 198–210 in The Scrolls and The Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Duran, N.W. The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements in Mark’s Passion Narrative. LNTS 378. London: T&T Clark International, 2008. Dwyer, T. The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 128. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Eaton, J.H. Kingship and the Psalms. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986.

218 Bibliography Edwards, J.R. ‘The Baptism of Jesus according to the Gospel of Mark’. JETS 34 (1991): 43–57. ———. ‘Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives’. NovT 31 (1989): 193–216. Eichrodt, W. Ezekiel. London: SCM, 1970. Eisenman, R., and M.O. Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years. Rockport: Element, 1992. Eisler, R. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. London: Methuen, 1931. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Embry, B. ‘The Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the Need for a Re-Evaluation’. JSP 13 (2002): 99–136. Eppstein, V. ‘The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple’. ZNW 55 (1964): 42–58. Ernst, J. Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation – Geschichte – Wirkungsgeschichte. BZNW 53. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Esler, P.F. ‘Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians’. SJT 51 (1998): 235–48. ———. ‘The Incident of the Withered Fig Tree in Mark 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation’. JSNT 28 (2005): 41–67. Evans, C.A. ‘Appendix: The Recently Published Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus’. Pages 547–65 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by B. Chilton and C.A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. ‘Are the “Son” Texts at Qumran Messianic?’ Pages 135–53 in QumranMessianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. ‘Biblical Interpretation at Qumran’. Pages 109–20 in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by A.J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. Chilton. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. ‘Diarchic Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth’. Pages 558–67 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Edited by L.H. Schiffman, E. Tov, J.C. VanderKam and G. Marquis. Jerusalem: IESIAA, 2000. ———. ‘How Mark Writes’. Pages 135–48 in The Written Gospel. Edited by M. Bockmuehl and D.A. Hagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———. ‘How Septuagintal is Isa. 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9?’ NovT 45 (2003): 105–10. ———. ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century Temple’. Pages 522–39 in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Edited by D.J. Lull. SBLSP 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ———. ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction’. CBQ 51 (1989): 237–70. ———. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. AGJU 25. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. ‘Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements in Antiquity’. JSP 14 (1996): 65–83. ———. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

Bibliography

219

———. ‘Messiahs’. Pages 537–42 in vol. 2 of Encyclopaedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L.H. Schiffman and J.C VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. ‘On the Vineyard Parables of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12’. BZ 28 (1984): 82–6. ———. ‘Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament?’ JSNT 38 (2015): 36–48. Faierstein, M.M. ‘Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?’ JBL 100 (1981): 75–86. Falk, D. ‘4Q393: A Communal Confession’. JJS 45 (1994): 184–207. Ferda, T.S. ‘Naming the Messiah: A Contribution to the 4Q246 “Son of God” Debate’. DSD 21 (2014): 150–75. Finegan, J. The Archeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Fitzmyer, J. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. SBLMS 25. Chico: Scholars Press, 1979. Flesher, P.V.M. ‘Bread of the Presence’. ABD 1:781. Fletcher-Louis, C. ‘Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1’. JSHJ 4 (2006): 155–75. ———. ‘Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2’. JSHJ 5 (2007): 57–79. ———. ‘The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71): The Son of Man, Apocalyptic Messianism and Political Theology’. Pages 58–79 in The Open Mind: Essays in Honour of Christopher Rowland. Edited by J. Knight and K. Sullivan. LNTS 522. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Flusser, D. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Ford, M.J. ‘Money Bags in the Temple [Mark. 11, 16]’. Bib 57 (1976): 249–53. Foster, P. ‘Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament’. JSNT 38 (2015): 96–111. Fowler, R.M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale, 1971. Fredriksen, P. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. ———. ‘Jesus and the Temple, Mark and the War’. Pages 293–310 in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 29. Edited by D.J. Lull. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. ———. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. New York: Knopf, 1999. Frei, H. The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1997. ———. ‘Theology and the Interpretation of Narrative: Some Hermeneutical Considerations’. Pages 94–116 in Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays. Edited by G. Hunsinger and W.C. Placher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

220 Bibliography Freyne, S. Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1980. ———. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Gager, J. ‘Messiahs and Their Followers’. Pages 37–46 in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco. Edited by P. Schäfer and M.R. Cohen. SHR 77. Leiden: Brill, 1998. García Martínez, F. ‘Nuevos Textos Messiánicos de Qumran y el Messias del Nuevo Testamento’. Comm 26 (1993): 3–31. Garnsey, P. ‘The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors’. JRS 58 (1968): 51–9. Garnsey, P., and R. Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. London: Duckworth, 1987. Gaston, L. No Stone upon Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Gathercole, S. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gibson, J.B. ‘The Function of the Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64’. Pages 171–88 in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark. Edited by G. van Oyen and T. Shepherd. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Ginzberg, L. An Unknown Jewish Sect. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976. Glazier-McDonald, B. Malachi: The Divine Messenger. SBLDS 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Gnilka, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. EKKNT. 2 vols. Zurich: Neukirchener, 1978–79. Goguel, M. Au Seuil de L’Évangile: Jean-Baptiste. Paris: Payot, 1928. Goldingay, J. Psalms. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Gould, E.P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Grabbe, L.L. ‘The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Society’. Pages in 386–402 Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Gray, T.C. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role. WUNT 2/242. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Green, J.B. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Green, W.S. ‘Introduction: Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question’. Pages 1–14 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Greenfield, J.C., and M.E. Stone. ‘The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes’. HTR 70 (1977): 51–65. Gieschen, C.A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. ‘The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch’. Pages 238–49 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Grundmann, W. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Guelich, R.A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34a. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Bibliography

221

Gundry, R.H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. ———. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Haenchen, E. Der Weg Jesu. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966. Hahn, F. Christologische Hoheitstitel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. English translation: The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. Translated by H. Knight and G. Ogg. London: Lutterworth, 1969. ———. Mission in the New Testament. Translated by F. Clarke. SBT 47. London: SCM, 1965. Translation of Verständnis der Mission im neuen Testament. WMANT 13. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1963. Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. ‘Sacred Violence and the Messiah: The Markan Passion Narrative as a Redefinition of Messianology’. Pages 461–93 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Hamilton, N.Q. ‘Temple Cleansing Temple Bank’. JBL 83 (1964): 365–72. Hannah, D.D. ‘The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch’. Pages 130–58 in ‘Who Is This Son of Man?’ The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. Edited by L.W. Hurtado and P.L. Owen. LNTS 390. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. Hanson, J.S. The Endangered Promises: Conflict in Mark. SBLDS 171. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Harland, P.J. ‘Robber or Violent Man? A Note on the Word parîs’. VT 46 (1996): 530–4. Harris, J.R. Testimonies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916. Harvey, A.E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. London: Duckworth, 1982. Hatina, T.R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative. JSNTSup 232. New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Hay, D. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Atlanta: SBL, 1989. Hay, L.S. ‘The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28’. JBL 89 (1970): 69–75. Hays, R.B. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014. Head, P. ‘A Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1: “The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” ’. NTS 37 (1993): 621–9. Hengel, M. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1981. Translation of ‘Der stellvertretende Sühnetod Jesu: ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des urchristlichen Kerygmas’. IKaZ 9 (1980): 1–25, 135–47. ———. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Translated by J. Bowden. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013. ———. ‘Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern: Mc 12:1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse’. ZNW 39 (1968): 1–39. ———. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1974. Translation of Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973.

222 Bibliography ———. The Son of God. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1976. Translation of Der Sohn Gottes: die Enstehung der Christologie und die jüdisch-hellenistische Religionsgeschichte. Tübingen: Mohr, 1975. ———. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. ———. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ———. Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists. London: SPCK, 1975. Hiers, R.H. ‘Not the Season for Figs’. JBL 87 (1968): 394–400. Higgins, J.B. ‘The Priestly Messiah’. NTS 13 (1966–67): 211–39. ———. The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Himmelfarb, M. ‘Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS and 4Q512’. DSD 8 (2001): 9–37. ———. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006. Hofius, O. ‘βλασφημία, βλασφημέω, βλάσφημος’. Pages 219–21 in vol. 1 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993. Hogan, K.M. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. JSJSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Holladay, C. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism. SBLDS 40. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Hollenbach, P. ‘Social Aspects of John the Baptizer’s Preaching Mission in the Context of Palestinian Judaism’. ANRW 2.19.1:850–75. Part 2, Principat, 19.1. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Holmén, T. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. BibInt 55. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hooker, M.D. Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospels. London: SCM, 1997. ———. The Gospel according to St Mark. BNTC. London: Black, 1991. ———. ‘Mark’. Pages 220–30 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. 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. London: SPCK, 1967. ———. ‘ “Who Can This Be?” The Christology of Mark’s Gospel’. Pages 79–99 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Edited by R.N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Horbury, W. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998. ———. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark International, 2003. Horgan, M.P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979. Horne, E.H. ‘The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment’. JSNT 71 (1998): 111–16. Horsley, R.A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Hultgård, A. ‘The Ideal “Levite”, the Davidic Messiah, and the Savior Priest in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs’. Pages 95–9 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J. Collins. SBLSCS 12. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Hultgren, A.J. Jesus and His Adversaries: The form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978.

Bibliography

223

Hurtado, L.W. ‘Fashion, Fallacies and Future Prospects in New Testament Studies’. JSNT 36 (2014): 299–324. ———. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. Mark: Based on the New International Version. NIBC 2. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983. Iverson, K.R. ‘A Centurion’s “Confession”: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark 15:39’. JBL 130 (2011): 329–50. ———. ‘Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Narrative Perspective (Mark 12:1-12)’. BI 20 (2012): 305–35. Jackson, H.M. ‘The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross’. NTS 33 (1987): 16–37. Jeremias, J. ‘Κεφαλὴ γωνίας – Ἀκρογωνιαῖος’. ZNW 29 (1930): 264–80. ———. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament. Translated by F.H. Cave and C.H. Cave. London: SCM, 1969. Translation of Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. ———. New Testament Theology. 2 vols. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1971. Translation of Neutestamentliche Theologie. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1971. ———. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S.H. Hooke. New York: Scribner’s, 1963. Translation of Die Gleichnisse Jesu. Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1947. Johansson, D. ‘The Identity of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: Past and Present Proposals’. CBR 9 (2010): 364–93. ———. ‘Jesus and God in the Gospel of Mark: Unity and Distinction’. PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011. Jones, C.E. ‘A Question of Identity: “Who Do People Say that I Am?” Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark’s Gospel’. Pages 19–29 in Understanding, Studying and Reading: New Testament Essays in Honour of John Ashton. Edited by C. Rowland and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis. JSNTSup 153. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Jonge, H.J. de. ‘The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21’. Pages 87–100 in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. London: Ashgate, 2003. Jonge, M. de. Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. ———. ‘Jesus, Son of David and Son of God’. Pages 95–104 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. ———. Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ———. ‘Psalms of Solomon’. Pages 159–77 in Outside the Old Testament. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 100 4. Edited by M. de Jonge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ———. ‘The Role of Intermediaries in God’s Final Intervention in the Future according to the Qumran Scrolls’. Pages 44–63 in Studies on the Jewish Background of the New Testament. Edited by O. Michael, S. Sarai, R. le Déaut, M. de Jonge and J. van Goudoerver. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969. ———. ‘The Use of the Term “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus’. NovT 8 (1966): 132–48.

224 Bibliography Joseph, S.J. Jesus and the Temple: The Crucifixion in Its Jewish Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Juel, D.H. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. ———. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. ———. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. ———. ‘The Origin of Mark’s Christology’. Pages 449–60 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Keck, L.E. ‘The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel’. NTS 12 (1966): 352–70. ———. ‘New Testament Christology: What, Then, Is New Testament Christology?’ Pages 185–200 in Who Do You Say that I Am? Essays on Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury. Edited by M.A. Powell and D.R. Bauer. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. ———. ‘Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology’. NTS 32 (1986): 370. Kee, H.C. ‘Aretalogy and Gospel’. JBL 92 (1973): 402–22. ———. ‘The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11–16’. Pages 165–88 in Jesus und Paulus. Edited by E.E. Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. ———. ‘The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?’ Pages 135–52 in Understanding the Sacred Text: Essays in Honor of Morton S. Enslin on the Hebrew Bible and Christian Beginnings. Edited by J. Reumann. Valley Forge: Judson, 1972. Keil, C.F. Jeremiah, Lamentations. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Kelber, W.H. The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Kempthorne, R. ‘The Marcan Text of Jesus’ Answer to the High Priest (Mark xiv 62)’. NovT 19 (1977): 198–208. Kertelge, K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Munich: Kösel, 1970. Kilpatrick, G.D. ‘Particles’. Pages 181–8 in The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark: An Edition of C.H. Turner’s ‘Notes on Marcan Usage’ Together with Other Comparable Studies. Edited by J.K. Elliott. NovTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ———. The Trial of Jesus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1952 Kim, S.Y. ‘Jesus – the Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Designations of Jesus’. Pages 134–48 in Tradition and Interpretation, E.E. Ellis Festschrift. Edited by G.F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. ———. The “Son of Man” as the Son of God. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Kim, T.H. ‘The Anarthrous υἱὸς θεοῦ in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult’. Bib 79 (1998): 221–41. Kingsbury, J.D. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ———. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Kirk, J.R.D. ‘Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25’. CBQ 74 (2012): 509–27. Kirschner, E.F. ‘The Place of the Exorcism Motif in Mark’s Christology, with Special Reference to Mark 3:22-30’. PhD diss., London Bible College, 1988. Kister, M. ‘The Development of the Early Recensions of the Damascus Document’. DSD 14 (2007): 61–76.

Bibliography

225

Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Klawans, J. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. ‘Interpreting the Last Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualization, and Anti-Sacrifice’. NTS 48 (2002): 3–9. ———. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Klein, L. ‘Zur Auslegung von Psalm 2: Ein Beitrag zum Thema: Gewalt und Gewalt­ losgkeit’. TBei 10 (1979): 63–71. Klijn, A.F.J. ‘2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch’. Pages 615–20 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Kloppenborg, J.S. ‘Egyptian Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9’. NovT 44 (2002): 134–59. ———. ‘Isa 5:1-7 OG and Mark 12:1, 9, Again’. NovT 46 (2004): 12–19. ———. ‘Self-Help or Deus ex Machina in Mark 12.9?’ NTS 50 (2004): 495–518. ———. The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. WUNT 1/195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Knibb, M. ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’. NTS 25 (1979): 344–57. ———. ‘The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII, 9b–VIII, 2a and XIX, 5b-14’. RevQ 15 (1991): 243–51. ———. The Qumran Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Krämer, H. ‘γωνία κτλ’. Pages 267–9 in vol. 1 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93. Kraus, H.-J. Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. ———. Psalmen. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972. Krause, D. ‘The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Jacob: Mark 11.1-10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah 9.9, and Psalm 118.25-26’. Pages 141–53 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Kuhn, H.-W. ‘Das Reittier Jesu in der Einzugsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums’. ZNW 50 (1959): 82–91. Kuhn, K.G. ‘The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel’. NTS 1 (1954–55): 168–80. Kvanvig, H.S. Roots of Apocalyptic. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988. ———. ‘The Son of Man in the Parables’. Pages 179–215 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Laato, A. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Lacocque, A. ‘The Vision of the Eagle in 4 Esdras, a Rereading of Daniel 7 in the First Century CE’. Pages 237–58 in Society of Biblical Literature 1981 Seminar Papers. SBLSP 20. Edited by K.H. Richards. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Lagrange, M. Évangile selon saint Marc. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1910. Lane, W.L. The Gospel according to Mark. NLCNT. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974.

226 Bibliography Laurin, R.B. ‘The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls’. RevQ 4 (1963–64): 39–52. Le Donne, A. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Lee, A. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT 2/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Lee, M.Y.-H. Jesus und die jüdische Autorität: eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mark 11,27–12,12. FB 56. Würzburg: Echter, 1986. Lemke, W. ‘Life in the Present and Hope for the Future’. Pages 200–214 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by J.L. Mays and P.J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Lentzen-Deis, F. Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1970. Levenson, J.D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper, 1987. ———. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Lichtenberger, H. ‘Messianische Erwartungen und messianische Gestalten in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels’. Pages 9–20 in Messiasvorstellungen bei Juden und Christen. Edited by E. Stegemann. Cologne: Kohlhammer, 1993. English translation: ‘Messianic Expectations and Messianisch Figures in the Second Temple Period’. Pages 9–20 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Liddell, H.G., R. Scott and H.S. Jones. A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Liebers, R. ‘Wie geschrieben steht’: Studien zu einer besonderen Art frühchristlichen Schriftbezuges. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Lightfoot, J.B., and J.R. Harmer, trans. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by M.W. Holmes. Leicester: Apollos, 1990. Lim, T. ‘The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252)’. JJS 43 (1992): 288–98. ———. Pesharim. CQS 3. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Lindars, B. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961. Lindemann, A. ‘ “Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden”: Historische und theologische Erwägungen zur Traditionsgeschichte der Sabbatperikope, Mark 2:23-28 parr.’. WD 15 (1979): 79–105. Lindeskog, G. ‘The Veil of the Temple’, ConBNT 11 (1947): 132–7. Linnemann, E. Studien zur Passionsgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Linton, O. ‘The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm 110:1’. NTS 7 (1960–61): 258–62. Liver, J. ‘The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth’. HTR 52 (1959): 149–85. Loader, W.R. ‘Christ at the Right Hand – Ps. cx. 1 in the New Testament’. NTS 24 (1978): 199–217. Lohmeyer, E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937. ———. Galiläa und Jerusalem. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936.

Bibliography

227

———. Johannes der Täufer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932. ———. The Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relation between Cult and Gospel. Translated by S. Todd. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1961. Translation of Kultus und Evangelium. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942. ———. ‘Reinigung des Tempels’. ThBl 20 (1941): 257–64. Lohse, E. ‘Hosianna’. NovT 6 (1963): 113–19. ———. ‘Jesu Worte über den Sabbat’, Pages 79–89 in Judentum, Urchristentum und Kirsche. Edited by W. Eltester. BZNW 26. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960. ———. ‘Die König aus Davids Geschlect—Bemerkungen zur messianischen Erwartung der Synagoge’. Pages 337–45 in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by O. Betz, M. Hengel and P. Schmidt. Leiden: Brill, 1963. ———. Die Texte aus Qumran. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971. Longenecker, R. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Lührmann, D. ‘Markus 14.55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Tempels im Markusevangelium’. NTS 27 (1980–81): 457–74. ———. ‘Die Pharisäer und die Schriftgelehrten im Markusevangelium’. ZNW 78 (1987): 169–85. ———. Das Markusevangelium. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Mack, B.L. ‘Wisdom Makes a Difference: Alternatives to “Messianic” Configurations’. Pages 15–48 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. MacRae, G. ‘Messiah and Gospel’. Pages 169–86 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Maier, J. ‘Messias oder Gesalbter? Zu einem übersetzungs- und Deutungsproblem in den Qumrantexten’. RQ 17 (1996): 585–612. Malbon, E.S. ‘The Jesus of Mark and “Son of David” ’. Pages 162–85 in Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation. Edited by E.S. Malbon. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. ———. Narrative Space an Mythic Meaning in Mark. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. ———. ‘ “Reflected Christology”: An Aspect of Narrative “Christology” in the Gospel of Mark’. Perspectives in Religious Studies 26 (1999): 127–36. ———. Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Waco: Baylor University Manson, T.W. ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’. BJRL 32 (1950): 171–93. ———. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931. Marcus, J. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 27a. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. ———. ‘Mark 14:61: “Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God”?’ NovT 31 (1989): 125–41. ———. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God. SBLDS 90. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992.

228 Bibliography Marshall, C.D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Marshall, I.H. ‘The Divine Sonship of Jesus’. Int 21 (1967): 87–103. ———. ‘Son of God or Servant of Yahweh? – A Reconsideration of Mark 1:11’. NTS 15 (1969): 326–36. Marxsen, W. Introduction to the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Matera, F.J. ‘Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings’. Pages 159–89 in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by F. García Martínez and J.T. Barrera. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. ———. ‘The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark’s Gospel’. JSNT 34 (1988): 3–20. ———. What Are they Saying about Mark? Mahwah: Paulist, 1987. McCarter Jr., P.K. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. McKane, W. Jeremiah. Volume 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. McLaren, J.S. ‘Corruption among the High Priesthood: A Matter of Perspective’. Pages 141–57 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Z. Rodgers, M. Daly-Denton and A.F. McKinley. SJSJ 132. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Meeks, W.A. ‘Why Study the New Testament?’ NTS 51 (2005): 166. Meier, J.P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 2, Mentor, Message and Miracles. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Metso, S. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Mettinger, T. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Metzger, B.M. ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’. Pages 518–24 in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. ———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. London: UBS, 1971. Meyers, C.L., and E.M. Meyers. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 25c. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Milavec, A. ‘The Identity of “The Son” and “The Others”: Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Reconsidered’. BTB 20 (1990): 30–7. ———. ‘Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen as Reaffirming God’s Predilection for Israel’. JES 26 (1989): 289–312. Milik, J.T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ———. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea. SBT 26. London: SCM, 1959. ———. ‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-resa dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’. JJS 23 (1972): 95–144. ———. ‘Les modeles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrân’. RevQ 15 (1992): 321–99. Milgrom, J. Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Moloney, F.J. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Moor, J.C. de. ‘The Targumic Background of Mark 12:1-12: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants’. JSJ 19 (1998): 63–80.

Bibliography

229

Moore, G.F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927). Moore, S.D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Moss, C.R. ‘The Transfiguration: An Exercise in Markan Accommodation’. BibInt 12 (2004): 69–89. Motyer, S. ‘The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost?’ NTS 33 (1987): 155–7. Moule, C.F.D. The Origins of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Mowery, R.L. ‘Pharisees and Scribes, Galilee and Jerusalem’. ZNW 80 (1989): 266–8. Mowinckel, S. He That Cometh. Nashville: Abingdon, 1954. Müller, U.B. Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Gütersloh: Mohr, 1972. Mundla, J.-G. Jesus und die Führer Israels: Studien zu den sog. Jerusalemer Streit­ gesprächen. Münster: Aschendorff, 1984. Murphy-O’Connor, J. ‘Jesus and the Money Changers (Mark 11:15-17; John 2:13-17)’. RB 107 (2000): 42–55. ———. ‘The Original Text of CD 7:9–8:2 = 19:5-14’. HTR 64 (1971): 379–86. Najman, H. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Naluparayil, J.C. The Identity of Jesus in Mark: An Essay on Narrative Christology. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 2000. ———. ‘Jesus of the Gospel of Mark: Present State of Research’. CBR 8 (2000): 191–226. Neirynck, F. Duality in Mark: Contributions to the Study of the Markan Redaction. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Neusner, J. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1973. ———. ‘Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation’. NTS 35 (1989): 287–90. ———. ‘Preface’. Pages ix–xiv in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Neusner, J., W.S. Green and E. Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Nickelsburg, G.W.E. ‘Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables’. Pages 23–47 in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Edited by G. Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ———. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ———. ‘Salvation without and with a Messiah: Developing Beliefs in Writings Ascribed to Enoch’. Pages 49–68 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., and J.C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Nineham, D.E. The Gospel of St Mark. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963. Nitzan, B. ‘Apocalyptic Ideas in 4 Ezra in Comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls’. Pages 22–31 in Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: International Studies. Edited by G. Boccaccini and J.M. Zurawski. LSTS 87. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.

230 Bibliography Nolan, A. Jesus before Christianity. London: Darton, 1977. Novenson, M.V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. The Grammar of Messianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. ———. ‘Whose Son is the Messiah?’ Unpublished paper presented at the 2016 St. Andrews Symposium for Biblical and Early Christian Studies. O’Brien, J.M. Priest and Levite in Malachi. SBLDS 121. Atlanta, Scholars, 1990. O’Brien, K.S. The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative. LNTS 384. London: T&T Clark International, 2010. O’Dell, J. ‘The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon (Re-evaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts)’. RevQ 3 (1961): 241–57. Oegema, G. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba. JSPSup 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. ———. ‘Messianic Expectations in the Qumran Writings: Theses on Their Development’. Pages 53–82 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ———. ‘Tradition-Historical Studies on 4Q252’. Pages 154–74 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Öhler, M. Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im frühen Christentum. BZNW 88. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. O’Neil, J.C. ‘The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus’ Trial Before the Sanhedrin’. Pages 72–7 in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule. Edited by E. Bammel. SBT 13. London: SCM, 1970. Pelletier, A. ‘La tradition synoptique du “voile déchiré” à la lumière des réalités archéologiques’. RSR 46 (1958): 168–79. Peppard, M. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Perrin, N. ‘The Christology of Mark: A Study in Methodology’. Pages 125–40 in The Interpretation of Mark. Edited by W.R. Telford. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. ———. ‘The Creative Use of Son of Man Traditions in Mark’. USQR 23 (1967–68): 357–65. ———. Jesus the Temple. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. ———. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Pesch, R. Das Markusevangelium. Freiburg: Herder, 1980. Peterson, D.N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Leiden: Brill: 2000. Pobee, J. ‘The Cry of the Centurion – a Cry of Defeat’. Pages 91–102 in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C.F.D. Moule. Edited by E. Bammel. SBT 13. London: SCM, 1970. Pomykala, K. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Price, S. ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult’. JHS 104 (1984): 79–95. Puech, E. ‘Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le “Royaume de Dieu” ’. RB 99 (1992): 98–131.

Bibliography

231

Räisänen, H. The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990. Reid, D.G. ‘Sacrifice and Temple Service’. Pages 1036–51 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000. Reimarus, H.S. Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger: Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbüttelschen Ungenannten. Berlin: Wever, 1788. English translation: Fragments. Edited by C.H. Talbert. Translated by R.S. Frase. London: SCM, 1971. Reinhartz, A Caiaphas the High Priest. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Richardson, P. ‘Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts’. Pages 507–23 in Society of Biblical Literature 1992 Seminar Papers. Edited by E.H. Lovering. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Ricoeur, P. History and Truth. Translated by C.H. Kelbley. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965. Translation of Histoire et vérité. Paris: Seuil, 1955. ———. ‘Interpretative Narrative’. Pages 237–57 in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by R.M. Schwartz. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990. Robbins, V.K. ‘The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the Marcan Theology’. JBL 92 (1973): 225–42. Roberts, J.J.M. ‘The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms’. CBQ 64 (2002): 679–80. Roloff, J. Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Rooke, D. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Roskam, H.N. The Purpose of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context. NovTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Rowe, C.K. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. BZNW 139. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Rowe, R.D. God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background to Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms. AGJU 50. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Rowland, C. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Rudolph, D.J. ‘Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b’. EQ 74 (2002): 299–311. Rudolph, K. ‘The Baptist Sects’. Pages 471–500 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Ruppert, L. Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestamentlichen Motivs. SB 59. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Ruzer, S. Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ryle, H.E., and M.R. James. Psalmoi Salomontos: Psalms of the Pharisees Commonly Called The Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Safrai, S. ‘The Temple’. Pages 865–907 in vol. 1 of The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography. Political History; Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern in co-operation with D. Flusser and W.C. van Unnik. CRINT 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976). Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985. ———. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. London: SCM, 1990. ———. Judaism: Practice and Belief: 63BCE–66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992.

232 Bibliography Sanders, J.A. ‘A New Testament Hermeneutic Fabric: Psalm 118 in the Entrance Narrative’. Pages 177–90 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis. Edited by C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Sandmel, S. ‘Parallelomania’. JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Schäfer, P. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012. Schaper, J. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 2/76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Schenke, L. Der gekreuzigte Christus: Versuch einer Literarkritischen und traditions­ geschichtlichen Bestimmung der vormarkinischen Passsionsgeschichte. SBS 69. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. Schiffmann, L.H. ‘The Concept of the Messiah in Second Temple and Rabbinic Literature’. Review and Exposition 84 (1987): 235–46. ———. ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’. Pages 116–29 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Schimanowski, G. Weisheit und Messias. Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der christlichen Präexistenzchristologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Scholem, G. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken, 1971. Schreiber, J. ‘Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums: Beobachtungen zur Theologie und Komposition des zweiten Evangeliums’. ZTK 58 (1961): 154–83. Schreiber, S. Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften. BZAW 105. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. ———. ‘Henoch als Menschensohn. Zur problematischen Schlussidentifikation in den Bilderreden des äthiopischen Henochbuches (äthHen 71,14)’. ZNW 91 (2000): 1–17. Schubert, K. ‘Biblical Criticism Criticised: With Reference to Jesus’ Examination before the Sanhedrin’. Pages 385–402 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Schultz, B. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. STDJ 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009 Schultz, S. ‘Markus und das Alte Testament’. ZThK 58 (1961): 184–97. Schürer, E. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Volume 2. 2nd ed. Translated by J. Macpherson, S. Taylor and P. Christie. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. Schwartz, D. ‘The Three Temples of 4QFlorilegium’. RevQ 10 (1979): 83. Schwartz, S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. CSCT 18. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Schweitzer, A. Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen: Mohr, 1906. English translation: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Translated by W. Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black, 1911. Schweizer, E. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Scobie, C.H. John the Baptist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. ———. ‘John the Baptist’. Pages 58–69 in The Scrolls and Christianity. Edited by M. Black. London: SCM, 1969. Scott, E.F. ‘What Did the Idea of Messiah Mean to the Early Christians?’ JR 1 (1921): 418–20. Seeley, D. ‘Jesus’ Temple Act’. CBQ 55 (1993): 263–83.

Bibliography

233

Segal, A.F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Shae, G.S. ‘The Questions on the Authority of Jesus’. NovT 16 (1974): 1–29. Sheppard, G.T. ‘More on Isaiah 5:1-7 as a Juridical Parable’. CBQ 44 (1982): 45–7. Sherwin-White, A.N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Shiner, W. ‘The Ambiguous Pronouncement of the Centurion and Shrouding of Meaning in Mark’. JSNT 78 (2000): 3–22. Sicre, J.L. De David al Mesías: Textos Básicos de la Esperanza Mesiánica. Estrella: Editora Verbo Divino, 1995. Simon, U. ‘The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable’. Bib 48 (1967): 207–42. Sjöberg, E. Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch. Lund: Gleerup, 1946. Slingerland, H.D. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research. SBLMS 21. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977/ Sloyan, G.S. Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006. Smith, D.E. ‘Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory’. Semeia 52 (1991): 1–9. Smith, M. ‘What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?’ JBL 78 (1959): 66–72. Smith, S.H. ‘The Function of the Son of David Tradition in Mark’s Gospel’. NTS 42 (1996): 523–39. ———. ‘The Literary Structure of Mark 11–12’, NovT 31 (1989): 104–24. Snodgrass, K. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry into Parable Interpretation. WUNT 1/27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ———. ‘Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment’. BBR 8 (1998): 187–216. Stanton, G. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Starcky, J. ‘Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân’. RB 70 (1963): 481–505. Stauffer, E. Jesus and His Story. London: SCM, 1960. Stegemann, H. ‘Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb and to Qumran Messianism’. RevQ 17 (1996): 479–505. Steichele, H.-J. Der leidende Sohn Gottes: Eine Untersuchung einiger alttestamentlicher Motive in der Christologie des Markusevangeliums. Biblische Untersuchungen 14. Regensburg: Pustet, 1980. Stein, R.H. Jesus, the Temple and the Coming Son of Man: A Commentary on Mark 13. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. ———. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Stern, D. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Steudel, A ‘ “‫ ”אחרית הימים‬in the Texts from Qumran’. RevQ 16 (1994): 225–47. Stone, M.E. ‘The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra’. Pages 295–314 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Edwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. ———. Features of the Eschatology of 4 Ezra. HSS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. ———. ‘The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra’. Pages 209–24 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ———. ‘Reactions to Destructions of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception and Conversion’. JSJ 12 (1981): 195–204.

234 Bibliography Strack, H.L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–61. Stromberg, J. An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. Strugnell, J. ‘Notes en marge du volume V des Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’. RevQ 7 (1969–71): 183–86. Stuckenbruck, L. ‘Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism’. Pages 90–113 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Stuhlmacher, P. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Volume 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. ———. Jesus von Nazareth – Christus des Glaubens. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1988. Suhl, A. Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markus­ evangelium. Gütersloh: Mohr, 1965. Suter, D.W. Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch. SBLDS 47. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. Talmon, S. ‘The Concept of Mašiah and Messianism in Early Judaism’. Pages 79–115 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. The World of Qumran from Within. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Tan, K.H. The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Tannehill, R. ‘The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology’. Semeia 16 (1979): 57–95. ———. ‘Varieties of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories’. Semeia 20 (1981): 101–19. Taylor, J.E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Taylor, V. The Gospel according to St Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952. ———. The Life and Ministry of Jesus. London: Macmillan, 1955. Telford, W.R. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree in Mark’s Gospel and Its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition. JSOTSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. ———. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Theisohn, J. Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bildenderen des Äthiopischen Henoch. SUNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Thompson, J.A. The Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Tillesse, G.M. de. Le secret messianique dans L’Evangile de Marc. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Tolbert, M.A. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Tödt, H.E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965. Trimaille, M. ‘La parabole des vignerons meurtriers (Mc 12, 1-12)’. Pages 247–58 in Les Paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles. Edited by J. Delorme. Paris: Cerf, 1989. Trocmé, E. ‘Is There a Markan Christology?’ Pages 3–13 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of C.F.D. Moule. Edited by B. Lindars and S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Bibliography

235

Tromp, J. ‘The Sinners and the Lawless in Psalm of Solomon 17’. NovT 35 (1993): 347–51. Tuckett, C.M. Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers. Louisville: John Knox, 2001. ———, ed. The Messianic Secret. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Tuner, C.H. ‘Textual Commentary on Mark 1’. JTS 28 (1927): 156–7. Tyson, J.B. ‘The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark’. JBL 80 (1961): 261–8. Ulansey, D. ‘The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark’s Cosmic Inclusio’. JBL 110 (1991): 123–5. Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. NovTSup 8. Leiden Brill, 1965. Van der Woude, A.S. Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân. SSN 3. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957. Van Iersel, B. ‘Fils de David et Fils de Dieu’. Pages 113–32 in La Venue du Messie: Messianisme et Eschatologie. Edited by É. Massaux, P. Grelot, H. Riesenfeld and B. Rigaux. RechBib 6. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962. VanderKam, J.C. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. London: Routledge, 1998. ———. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. ———. ‘Messianism in the Scrolls’. Pages 211–34 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Ulrich and J.C. VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1994. ———. Qumran Cave 4: XVII. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. ———. ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71’. Pages 169–91 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Vermès, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. ———. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. London: Collins, 1973. ———. ‘Qumran Corner: The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285)’. JJS 43 (1992): 85–94. ———. ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’. JJS 43 (1992): 299–305. Vielhauer, P. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. Wasserman, T. ‘The “Son of God” Was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1)’. JTS 62 (2011): 1–31. Watson, D.F. Honor among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Watts, R.E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT 2/88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. ———. ‘The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’s Perspective on Jesus and the Temple’. BibInt 15 (2007): 307–22. ———. ‘The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel’. Pages 25–46 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Watty, W.W. ‘Jesus and the Temple – Cleansing or Cursing’. ExpTim 93 (1982): 235–9. Webb, R.L. ‘Jesus Heals a Leper: Mark 1.40–45 and Egerton Gospel 35–47’. JSHJ 4 (2006): 177–202. ———. ‘John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus’. Pages 187–97 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by B. Chilton and C.A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991.

236 Bibliography Wedderburn, A.J.M. ‘Jesus’ Action at the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?’ ZNW 97 (2006): 1–22. Weeden, T.J. ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel’. ZNW 59 (1968): 145–58. Weren, W.J.C. ‘The Use of Isaiah 5,1-7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1-12; Matthew 21,33-46)’. Bib 79 (1998): 1–26. White, S.A. ‘A Comparison of the “A” and “B” Manuscripts of the Damascus Document’. RevQ 48 (1987): 537–53. Whitters, M.F. ‘Why Did the Bystanders Think Jesus Called upon Elijah before He Died (Mark 15:34-36)? The Markan Position’. HTR 95 (2002): 119–24. Willis, J.T. ‘The Genre of Isaiah 5:1-7’. JBL 96 (1977): 337–62. Winter, P. The Trial of Jesus. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Wise, M.O. ‘4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam’. RevQ 15 (1991): 103–32. ———. ‘The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll’. JNES 49 (1990): 167–78. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953. Wrede, W. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. English translation: The Messianic Secret. Translated by J.C.G. Greig. Cambridge: Clarke, 1971. ———. Vorträge und Studien. Tübingen: Mohr, 1907. Wright, D.P. ‘Unclean and Clean (OT)’. ABD 6:730–42. Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. London: SPCK, 1996. Wright, R.B. ‘The Psalms, the Pharisees, and the Essenes’. Pages 136–54 in 1972 Proceedings from the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Seminar. Edited by R.A. Kraft. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972. ———. ‘The Psalms of Solomon’. Pages 639–50 in vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Xeravits, G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Y. The Scrolls of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yarbro Collins, A. ‘The Appropriation of the Individual Psalms of Lament by Mark’. Pages 223–41 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C.M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. ‘The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64’. JSNT 26 (2004): 379–401. ———. ‘From Noble Death to Crucified Messiah’. NTS 40 (1994): 481–503. ———. ‘Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple’. Pages 45–61 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday. Edited by A. Yarbro Collins and M.M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ———. ‘The Origin of Christian Baptism’. Studia Liturgica 19 (1989): 28–46. ———. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. ———. ‘Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans’. HTR 93 (2000): 85–100. ———. ‘Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews’. HTR 92 (1999): 393–408. Yarbro Collins, A., and J.J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Yee, G.A. ‘The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1-7 as Song and a Juridical Parable’. CBQ 43 (1981): 30–40.

Bibliography

237

Zeitlin, S. The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1978. Zimmerman, F. ‘The Language, the Date, and the Portrayal of the Messiah in IV Ezra’. HS 26 (1985): 203–18. Zimmermann, J. Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT 2/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1:28 120 49:10-11 95 49:10 27, 28, 44 49:11 95, 137 Exodus 3:4 183 4:22 85 14 116 15:17-18 30, 119 20:2 183 22:27 179, 190 23:20 112, 115 23:20 lxx 109, 111 23:20-21 67 28:9-10 174 29:7 14 30:11-16 149 Leviticus 1:14 149 2:22-24 152 4:18 152 5:7 149 5:11 149, 152 6:20 152 7:22 152 7:35 14 12:6 120, 149 12:8 149, 152 13–14 123, 125 14–16 116 14 119, 123–5 14:2-4 125

14:2 123 14:4 123 14:8-20 120 14:9-11 116 14:11 124 14:13 152 14:20 124, 125 14:21 152 15:11 116 15:13 116 16:8-16 68 16:20 152 16:22 152 19:45-46 152 22:6 116 24:5-9 128 24:8 128 24:15-16 180, 181 26 116 26:33 116 26:40-45 116 Numbers 6 38 6:23-26 37 6:23 38 6:26 38 19:7-9 116 24:15-17 43 24:17 36, 43–5 Deuteronomy 5:6 183 17 34, 59, 61, 75 17:18 34 23:25 128

Joshua 3–4 116 4:6-7 174 1 Samuel 2:35 11 12:3-5 14 14:2-3 132 20 128 21 127, 128, 130–4 21:1-6 128, 130, 132, 156, 162 21:1 132 21:2-5 132 21:2 132 21:6 128, 129, 132 22:9 132 22:19 133 22:20-23 128 23:6-12 133 26:20 lxx 202 2 Samuel 2:4-7 14 2:35 30 7 1, 28, 185 7:10-14 29, 83 7:11-16 54 7:11-14 29 7:12-14 99 7:13-16 11 7:14 29, 69 7:16 28, 99 8 101

239 8:17 132 9:13 lxx 96 10 204 10:2-5 172 14:4 93 15:24-35 133 15:27-29 132 20:25 133 23:5 28 1 Kings 1:7-26 133 1:8 2 1:32-40 1 1:32-37 1 1:38-39 1 1:39 1 2:35 2 3:4-10 67 3:13 1 4:2 2 4:4 133 6–10 2 8 lxx 142 8:41 lxx 142 8:41-43 lxx 142 8:42 142 8:42 lxx 142 8:43 lxx 142 10 61, 76, 143, 157 10:1-10 60 10:23-25 1 10:24-25 61 10:25 61 19:15-16 14 19:16 14 2 Kings 1:8 lxx 112 2 116 2:1-12 196 5:10-14 116 5:14 123 6 116 6:26 93

Index of References 19:4 lxx 179 19:6 lxx 179 19:22 lxx 179 1 Chronicles 15 70 15:24-25 70 15:27-28 70 15:27 70 15:28 70 24:6 132 2 Chronicles 9 61, 76, 204 9:1-9 60 9:23-24 61 9:24 61 Ezra 9:6-15 116 Nehemiah 9:16-18 116 9:26-31 116 10:32-33 149 11:17 155 Psalms 2

14, 57, 68, 75, 78, 86, 88, 93, 94, 96, 102, 104–6, 185, 205 2:1-2 29, 83 2:2-7 99 2:2 65, 86 2:4 86 2:6-7 86 2:7 29, 83–5, 87, 93, 115 2:9 57, 58, 72, 83 8 104 8:7 70, 97, 104 8:29 86

9:1 86 9:7 86 18 14 20 14 21 14 21:1 192, 195 21:18 195 22:1 195 22:2 193, 195 22:5 202 22:6-18 195 22:19-31 195 24:5 94 24:7-10 94 45 14 68:22 197, 198 72 14 77:20 183 79:9-19 169 80:9 169 89 14, 143 89:3-4 54 89:20 70 89:26-27 70 101 14 109 78, 98, 103, 105, 106, 205 109:1 88, 97–104, 179, 186, 187, 189 109:3 83 109:4 14 109:5-6 102 109:5 102 109:6 102, 189 110 13, 14, 66, 68 110:1 70, 98, 102, 103, 115, 186 110:3 66 117 9, 78, 92–4, 96, 97, 102, 104–6, 174, 205

240 Psalms (cont.) 117:1-21 94 117:10-18 94 117:10-13 96 117:19-20 94 117:22-23 9, 93, 166, 167, 173, 176 117:22 175, 176 117:23 176, 177 117:25-26 9, 137 117:25 93, 94 117:26 92–5, 137, 175, 176, 202, 207 118 137 118:22-23 173 118:22 174, 176 118:25 92, 93 132 14 144 14 Proverbs 8:12-14 65 Isaiah 3:14 169 5 170 5:1-7 168, 170, 171, 174 5:1-2 168 5:1 169 5:2 168-70 5:3-4 169 5:4-7 168 5:4 169 5:5 170 5:6 169 5:7 168, 169 6:1 114 7:17 48 9 14 10:3 114 10:34–11:1 31, 32 11 14, 75 11:1-5 22, 33, 35, 58

Index of References 11:1-4 11:1 11:4

58, 65, 68 31–3, 99 37, 58, 199, 200 11:15 99 13 194 13:10 194 27:2 169 28:7 147 28:16 176 40 113, 114 40:1-6 113 40:2 114 40:3 12, 110, 111, 115, 118, 119, 136, 203, 205 40:8-11 113 40:9 114 42:1 85, 86, 114, 115 52:5 179 52:6 183 52:7 114 53:9 59 55:3-5 143 55:3-4 143 56 141, 157 56:1 141 56:3-7 141 56:3 142 56:7 12, 13, 115, 139, 141–4, 154, 155, 157, 173, 202 66:3 179 Jeremiah 2:21 169 3:6–4:4 143 4:23–6:30 143 5:29-31 143 7 13, 143, 144 7:4 143

7:5-7 143 7:8-10 144 7:9-11 157 7:9 157 7:11 6, 13, 115, 139, 143–5, 147, 157, 173, 203 7:12-15 144 7:25-26 172 7:34 145 12:10 169 15:9 194 18:23 157 23:1-6 14 23:5-6 99 23:5 22, 28, 29, 83 25:4 172 33:15 22, 28 33:17-26 42 33:17-18 30 33:17 54 33:19-26 28 Lamentations 4:13 147 Ezekiel 9:4 45 17 14 19:10 169 20:33 32 22:26 147 34–48 32 34 14 34:23 32 34:24 32 35:12 179 36:25 59 37:22 32 37:24 32 37:25 32 39:3-4 32 40–48 32 43:20-26 144

241 Daniel 3:96 179 7 64, 68, 69, 164, 189 7:9 187 7:10 189 7:12 186 7:13 115, 179, 186, 187, 189 7:14 186 9:4-16 116 9:25 41 9:26 41 Hosea 10:1 170 Joel 2:10 194 Amos 3:7 172 5:27 48 8:9-10 194 9:11 22, 28, 29, 44, 47 Micah 3:10 175 3:11 147 5:1-3 14 Haggai 2:4-23 42 Zechariah 1:6 172 3:8 2, 29, 30, 42 4:14 2, 16, 42, 43 6:12-13 2, 42 6:12 29 6:13 2 9:9-10 2, 14 9:9 16, 95, 137

Index of References 9:10 95 13:7 16, 45 14:20-21 16, 144, 154 14:21 154 Malachi 1:3-4 113 1:7-8 113 2 113 2:1-9 113 2:2 113 3 112, 113, 196 3:1 10, 13, 109, 111–15, 119, 126, 136 3:3-4 113, 144 3:3 113, 147 3:22 112 3:23-24 112, 196 3:23 112 4:5 10 4:6 10 New Testament Matthew 1:1-17 14 1:1 92 1:6 104 3:1-6 121 3:1 110 3:5 138 3:7 121 3:8 121 3:11 110 8:4 122 10:11 112 10:18-20 124 11:10 109 11:11-12 110 12:1 132 12:4 127 12:6 133 14:2 110 14:8 110

16:14 110 17:13 110, 112 17:24-27 149 19:28 173, 186 21:2-4 95 21:4-5 16 21:9 92 21:12-13 6 21:13 154 22:44 97 22:45 100 25:31 186 26:26-28 7 26:64 178 27:46 192 27:49 192 27:50 193 Mark 1–10

23, 106, 107, 122, 127, 134, 135, 138, 140, 147, 156, 205 1:1-11 178, 193, 194, 200 1:1-8 106, 109, 121, 134, 137, 156, 165, 190, 193, 205 1:1-5 110 1:1-3 109, 115, 200 1:1 1, 21, 84, 86, 109, 119, 120, 165 1:2-15 114 1:2-3 86, 111, 115, 165 1:2 10, 13, 109, 111–15, 126, 174 1:3-8 110 1:3-4 113

242 Mark (cont.) 1:3 12, 111, 114, 119 1:4-8 109, 138 1:4-5 117, 119, 120 1:4 110, 113, 118, 119, 163 1:5 110, 117, 121, 138, 156, 170 1:6-8 111 1:6 112 1:7-9 137 1:7-8 120 1:7 9, 165 1:8 200, 201 1:9-13 125 1:9-11 78 1:9-10 85 1:10-11 164 1:10 194, 200, 201 1:11 11, 84–6, 115, 119– 21, 165, 172, 202 1:13 109 1:14-15 125 1:15-17 156 1:15 86, 109, 156, 173 1:22 102, 103, 107, 121, 125, 163, 170, 171 1:23-34 125 1:23-26 87 1:27-28 170 1:27 156 1:34 123 1:39 125 1:40-45 122 1:40-44 106, 122, 134, 205

Index of References 1:41 122 1:42 123, 125 1:44 2, 8, 14, 119, 123, 124, 140, 156 1:45 126, 170 2:1–3:6 127, 131 2:1-12 126, 182 2:1-2 170 2:5 183 2:6-12 163, 164 2:6 103, 106, 108, 121, 135 2:7 182 2:8-12 183 2:10 131 2:12 170, 171 2:13-20 126 2:16 103, 106, 108, 121, 135 2:18-22 162 2:23–3:5 126 2:23-28 105, 106, 127–9, 131, 134, 156, 162, 205 2:23 131, 132 2:25-28 133 2:25-26 105, 133 2:25 129 2:26 128, 130, 132, 133 2:27-28 131 2:27 129, 130 2:28 130, 131, 156, 163 3:2 123 3:4 129 3:5 122 3:6 107, 126 3:7-8 170 3:10 123 3:20-30 107

3:22

103, 106–8, 121, 126, 135 3:28-29 182 3:29 182 4 165 4:38 91 4:39-41 163 5:1-13 87, 154 5:20 170, 171 5:41 19 6:2 99, 170, 171 6:3 104 6:5 123 6:11 123, 124 6:13 123 6:14-16 81 6:15 112 6:17-29 172 6:25 110 6:45-51 183 6:50 183 7 165 7:1-23 107, 126 7:1 103, 106–8, 121, 135 7:5 103, 106, 108, 121, 135 7:6 111, 174 7:11 19 7:19 126, 127 7:21-23 182 7:29 154 7:31-33 154 7:34 19 7:37 170, 171 8–10 91, 137 8:4 99 8:22-26 91 8:26-29 81 8:27-38 11 8:27-31 137 8:28 110, 112 8:29-30 93

243 8:29

1, 84, 108, 160, 175 8:31 87, 93, 103, 106, 107, 121, 122, 135, 160, 175–8 8:33 11 9:4-5 112 9:5 91 9:7 11, 85, 87, 120, 172 9:9 122, 177 9:11-14 121 9:11-13 106, 112 9:11-12 196 9:11 196 9:12-13 111, 119, 121 9:12 10, 87, 108, 135, 177 9:13 10, 193, 197 9:14 103 9:15 170, 171 9:17 91 9:31 108, 122, 135, 177 9:38 91 9:41 84 10:2-9 162 10:5 111 10:12 91 10:14 122 10:17-22 151 10:17 91 10:20 91 10:32-34 137 10:32 90 10:33-34 122 10:33 103, 106–8, 121, 135, 177 10:34 177 10:35-45 173 10:35 91

Index of References 10:46–11:10 97 10:46-52 88, 89, 91, 137 10:47-52 90 10:47 90 10:48 90, 91 10:51 88, 103 11–16 23, 106, 108, 121, 127, 133, 135–8, 160, 203, 205 11–15 13, 145, 192 11–13 171 11–12 8 11 13, 94, 137, 146, 159 11:1-33 197 11:1–12:44 8 11:1–12:12 176 11:1-11 12, 92, 95, 96, 160, 176, 190 11:1-10 137 11:1-7 137 11:1-6 95 11:2-6 96 11:7 95, 141 11:8 96 11:9-10 9, 92, 97, 137 11:9 92–4, 170, 171, 176 11:10-11 170 11:10 1, 8, 92, 93, 137, 158 11:11-26 10 11:11-14 133 11:11 97, 134, 137–9, 153, 156–9, 173 11:12-26 10, 13 11:12-14 133, 145, 146, 161, 170, 176

11:12 133 11:13 156 11:14 134 11:15-18 13, 139, 145, 176 11:15-17 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–14, 121, 134, 140, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 155, 157, 160, 163, 165, 170 11:15-16 148, 153 11:15 146, 149, 153–5 11:16 16, 146, 153, 154 11:17 6, 12, 13, 111, 115, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148, 154, 155, 157, 158, 166, 173, 174, 192, 198, 202 11:18 6, 103, 107, 108, 121, 134, 156–61, 166, 170, 171, 173, 177 11:19-28 145, 146 11:19-26 161, 170, 176 11:20-25 145 11:21 91 11:22 146 11:27–12:12 6, 9, 115, 166, 176, 177, 190

244 Mark (cont.) 11:27–12:9 176 11:27-33 99, 138, 159–61, 164, 190 11:27-32 119 11:27-28 121 11:27 107, 121, 153, 155, 160, 171, 173 11:28 160, 161 11:29-33 160 11:29-30 9, 121, 162–5 11:31-32 173 11:31 165 11:32 161, 165, 170, 171 11:33 166 12 174 12:1-12 2, 11, 12, 93, 159, 166, 167, 170 12:1-11 13 12:1-9 166, 168, 170–2, 174, 175, 190, 192 12:1-7 166 12:1 168-70 12:2-5 172 12:2 157, 172, 173 12:3-5 172 12:3 166 12:5 172 12:6 174 12:7-9 168 12:7-8 172 12:8-12 167 12:9-10 13, 96 12:9 12, 173, 176, 198 12:10-11 9, 93, 97, 166, 174, 175

Index of References 12:10

12, 92, 93, 173, 174 12:11 176, 177 12:12 158, 161, 170, 171, 177 12:13-17 162 12:13 107, 173 12:14 91 12:19 91, 111 12:28-40 103, 107, 121 12:28-34 103 12:28 107 12:32 91, 103 12:34 103 12:35-37 14, 88, 97– 9, 101–4, 189, 190 12:35 84, 100, 101, 153, 155 12:36 97, 98, 101, 104 12:37 98–100 12:41-44 151, 153 12:41 153 13 20, 145, 146, 194 13:1-2 2, 146, 170, 173, 198 13:1 91, 145, 153 13:3 153 13:6 183 13:9 123, 124 13:21 84 13:28-29 146 14:1-2 107 14:1 107, 108, 121, 177, 194 14:2 170 14:6 153 14:10-11 150 14:10 107 14:12-16 2 14:21 111

14:22-24 7, 8 14:25 198 14:27 16, 111, 174 14:32 19 14:43-65 177 14:43 107, 108, 121, 171 14:45 91 14:48 158, 189 14:49 153, 155 14:53–15:32 194 14:53-65 177 14:53-64 12 14:53-55 107, 121 14:53 108 14:55-65 188 14:55-64 2, 6, 8, 103, 177–9, 185, 190 14:55-59 188 14:55 108 14:57-59 145 14:57 141 14:58 9, 12, 141, 145 14:61-64 161, 189 14:61-63 84 14:61-62 130 14:61 1, 11, 84, 121, 184, 190, 191 14:62 86, 115, 178, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189 14:63-64 188 14:63 107 14:64-65 201 14:64 11, 108, 179, 182, 183, 186 15 96, 102 15:1-32 6 15:1-5 185 15:1 107, 108, 121, 191 15:2-32 102

245 15:2 191 15:3 191 15:6-15 2 15:6-11 171 15:7-11 191 15:7 108 15:8 171 15:9 108, 191 15:10 108 15:11 108, 171, 192 15:12 191 15:13-15 191 15:14 189 15:17-18 195 15:18 96, 191 15:20 201 15:21 191 15:22 19 15:24 195 15:26 10, 96, 158, 191 15:27 158, 191 15:29-30 145 15:29 182, 191 15:31 84, 96, 107, 108, 121, 196, 201 15:32 1, 158, 185, 191, 192, 197, 201–3 15:33-39 192–4 15:33-36 192 15:33 194, 198 15:34-36 198 15:34 19, 195 15:35-36 112, 196, 197 15:37-39 193, 200, 202 15:37-38 8 15:37 198–200 15:38 153, 198, 200, 201 15:39 87, 154, 172, 194, 199, 201

Index of References Luke 1:1-18 121 1:5 118, 119 1:23 118, 119 1:69 14 2:21 14 2:22-24 152 3:1-18 138 3:2 133 3:3 118 3:16 110 3:31 14, 104 4:27 133 5:14 122 6:4 127, 133 7:20 110 7:33 110 9:5 124 9:19 110 11:28 133 19:45-46 6 19:46 154 20:43 97 20:44 100 21:12-15 124 21:13 124 22:19-20 7 22:30 173 23:46 200 John 1:27 110 2:16 150, 154

Ephesians 2:20

176, 177

Hebrews 1:13 97 2:6-7 97 9:21 153 1 Peter 2 177 2:5 177 2:6-7 176 Apocrypha Judith 12:7 116 Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 195 5:1-7 195 Sirach 34:25 116 44:19 67 45:2-3 67 45:7-8 67 46:1-2 67 47:6-11 67 50:1-24 60 50:7 67 50:11 67 50:17-19 155 50:27 67

Acts 2:46 140, 147 3:1 140, 147 3:13-26 86 4:7 161 4:27-30 86 5:42 140, 147

Baruch 1:10-14 155

Romans 1:3-4 185

2 Maccabees 8:4 179 10:34-35 180 12:14 180 15:24 180

1 Corinthians 3:10-17 177 8:8 126

1 Maccabees 2:6 179 7:37 142 14:41-47 55

246 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 37–71 63, 66, 69 38:2 63 39:6 64 40:5 64 45:3-4 64 46 67 46:1 64 46:2-4 63 47:1 64 47:4 64 48 67 48:2 63 48:3 64, 66 48:6 64, 66 48:8–49:4 64, 65 48:8 64, 65 48:9 64 48:10 64, 65 49:1-4 65 49:1 65 49:2 64, 65 49:3 65 49:4 64, 65 51:3 64, 66, 186 51:5 64 52:4 64–6 52:6 64 52:9 64 53:6 63, 64 55:4 64, 66, 186, 187, 190 61:5 64 61:8 64, 66, 186 61:10 64 62:1 64 62:2 64, 66, 186 62:5 63 62:7 63 62:8-9 66 62:9 63 62:14 63 63:11 63 69:26-27 63 69:29 63, 64, 66, 186

Index of References 71:1 63 71:14 63 71:17 63 2 Baruch 1:1-5 72, 73 4 74 4:1-3 74 4:1 73 4:2-6 73 6 74 6:3-9 73 6:7-9 74, 76 6:7 75 10 147 10:18 147 29:2–30:1 14 29:3 72 30:1 72 39:1–40:4 73 40:1-2 73 59:4 73 70:9 73 72:1-6 73 72:2 73 72:6 73 73:1 73 80:2 73 2 Enoch 31:1-3 187 3 Enoch 10 187 16 187 4 Ezra 3:1-2 73 7 71, 185 7:26 73 7:27 70 7:28-29 70, 73 7:29 70 7:30-44 14 8:52 73 10:25-59 73 10:50 73

11:32 71 11:37 71 12 71 12:10-12 69 12:31-34 71 12:31 71 12:32 71 12:33-35 72 12:33 71 12:34 71 13 69, 71, 72, 185 13:1-13 69 13:3 69 13:10 69 13:32 69 13:35 73 13:36 73 13:37 69 13:52 69 Letter of Aristeas 98 67 99 142 Jubilees 50:6-13 128 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

9:6-18 187

Psalms of Solomon 2 60 2:2 52 2:13 60 2:26 52 8:15-20 52 17–18 14 17 52, 54, 57–9, 61, 66, 71, 75, 76, 83, 93, 103, 142, 148, 184, 204, 206 17:1-3 54

247 17:1 61 17:4-20 54 17:4 54 17:5-6 54 17:6 55 17:7-9 53 17:7-8 53 17:7 52 17:8 55 17:9 53 17:11-15 55, 59 17:11 53, 59 17:12-13 53 17:13 52 17:15 59 17:16-20 55 17:16 59 17:21-25 55 17:21 58 17:22-30 60 17:22-24 22 17:23-24 57, 83, 87 17:23 57, 59 17:26-30 56 17:27 83 17:30-31 155, 157 17:30 61, 140 17:31-32 202 17:31 57, 60, 61, 143 17:32-43 58 17:32 57 17:33 58 17:35-36 58 17:35 57, 58 17:36 57, 58 17:37 57 17:40 57 17:43 60 17:44-46 54 18 60 18:1 61 18:5-8 58 18:5 60 Testament of Gad 8:1 42

Index of References Testament of Issachar 5:7-8 42 Testament of Judah 21:1-4 42 21:4 55 24:1-6 44 Testament of Levi 18:6-13 83 Testament of Naphtali 8:2 42 Testament of Simeon 7:1-2 42 Testament of Solomon 22:7–23:4 176 23:4 174 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa 20.7 38 20.14 38 25.34 38 1QM 1.4-9 36 5.1 35, 36 7.9-18 36 11.1-7 36 14.3 35 15.2 36 1QS 1.22–2.1 117 2.25–3.5 117 3.6-10 117 3.13 38 4.11 181 8.1-10 118 8.4-6 118 8.5-10 177 8.12-14 118 8.16 41 9.7-10 40

9.9-11 40, 44, 46 9.9-10 15 9.11 40, 49, 118 9.12 38, 41 9.19-20 118 9.21 38 12.22–13.1 15 14.18-19 15 19.10-11 15 19.33–20.1 15 1QSa 2.11-21 48–50 2.11-16 48 2.11-12 14, 49, 83, 185 2.11 50 2.12 50 2.14 14 2.17-21 49 2.19 50 2.20-21 14 2.20 14 1QSb 1.1-20 38 1.1 37, 38 1.21 37 3–5 39 3.1-6 37, 38 3.1 37 3.3 37, 38 3.22 37 4 38 4.3 37 4.22-28 37, 38 4.23 50 5.2-21 37 5.20-29 38 5.20-22 36 5.20 37 5.21 37, 39, 47 5.26-26 38 1QpHab 2.12-15 33 10.13 180

248 4Q161 5-6 33 8-10 32, 34 8-10, 1-9 33 8-10, 11-16 33 8-10, 17-24 33 8-10, 17 33, 47 8-10, 19 34 8-10, 21 58 8-10, 24 34, 35 8-10, 23 34 4Q162 II.7-8 181 4Q174 1–2 28 1-2 I, 2-6 30 1-2 I, 3-6 30 1-2.1:3 119 1-2.1:6 118 1-2 I, 10-13 28–30 1-2 I, 10-12 83, 185 1-2.1:11-14 119 1-2 I, 11-13 47 1-2 I, 11 29 1-2 I, 12-13 29 1-2 I, 17 30 1-2 I, 18-19 29, 83, 87 5.2 45 6–7 30 4Q246 2.1 68 4Q252 2 II 27 V 28 5.1-4 95 V, 1-4 26–8 V, 3-4 27, 28 5.3 48 4Q257 1.1 38

Index of References 4Q259 3.7 38 4.2 38 4Q285 4.2-5 32 4.5 31 5.3 33 7.1-6 30, 31 7.2-3 31 7.4 58 7.5-6 35 7.5 31 4Q298 1-2, I, 1

38

4Q379 1 III, 1

38

4Q401 1-2, 1

38

4Q403 1 I, 30 II, 18

38 38

4Q405 8-9, 1

38

4Q433a 2.2 38 4Q500 1.2-5 170 4Q510 1.4 38 4Q511 2 I, 1 2 VIII, 4

38 38

4Q569 1-2, 1

38

11QT col. 29 119 56.12–59.21 34, 58 58 30 CD 1.7 45 5.12 181 6.2 45 7.10-15 48 7.11 45 7.16 44 7.18-21 43 7.18-20 30, 35 7.18-19 14, 47, 48 7.20 48 10–11 128 10.10-11 117 12–14 14 12.22–13.1 30, 40, 45, 46 12.23–13.1 48 12.23 46, 47 14.18-19 30, 40, 45, 46 14.19 45, 47 17.18-21 44 19.10-11 14, 30, 40, 45, 46, 48 19.10 46 19.33–20.1 30, 40 19.35–20.1 45, 46 20.1 46, 47 Philo Against Flaccus 33–35 180 Allegorical Interpretation 169 180 367-368 180 On Flight and Finding 83-84 180

249 On the Decalogue 62–63 180 On the Embassy to Gaius 367-368 186, 187 On the Life of Joseph 74 180 On the Life of Moses 1.158 187 2.114-115 67 2.206 180, 181, 184 On the Migration of Abraham 115 180 On the Special Laws 4.197 180 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3.123 199 3.178 67 4.202 179, 181 4.207 181 5.210-224 151 6.183 181 6.238 180 7.207 180 13.288-300 55 13.300-301 39, 42 14.37-45 54 14.69-79 54 14.69-72 53 14.71-72 54 14.309 194 14.110-119 151 14.405 180 14.415-424 157 14.468-491 53 15.395 151

Index of References 15.417-418 153 17.271-272 42 17.278 42 18.117 120 20.179-181 151 20.97-98 116 Jewish War 1.50-69 55 1.673 95 2.145 180 2.406 180 2.408-416 158 2.434-441 157 4.182 142 4.504-510 157 4.509-510 42 5.194-195 153 5.211-214 199 5.211 153 5.235 67 5.563 142 6.389 153

Sanhedrin 2:4 132 4:1 177 6:4 181 7:4 181 7:5 177, 181, 184 9:3 181 Babylonian Talmud Berakot 58a 196 Ketubbot 65–66

151

Menaḥot 95–96 129 95 128 Pesaḥim 57a 151

Mishnah Ḥullin 1:5 152

Sanhedrin 38b 187 65b 162 93b 188

Kelim 12:7 151

Sukkah 52a 184

Keritot 1:1 181 1:7 151, 152

Yoma 39b 151

Me‘ilah 3:4 152 Šabbat 6:5 151 7:2 128 Šebu‘ot 4:13 181

Tosefta Menaḥot 13:19 151 Sukkah 3:15 170 Jerusalem Talmud Ta‘anit 4:5 188

250 Targumic Texts Targum Isaiah 5:2 170 5:5 170 Targum Psalms 118:22 174 Targum Jeremiah 6:13 151 7:9 151 8:10 151 Targum Song 4:5 184

Index of References Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98:8 28 Exodus Rabbah 29:5 185

Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.15 19

Mekilta 109 129

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1.1 19

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 12:10 100

Plutarch Caesar 69.3 194 Virgil Georgics 1.466-68 194

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abegg, M. 30, 34–7, 39 Abrahams, I. 129 Achtemeier, P. 80, 88–92, 100 Ådna, J. 5, 7, 140, 141, 147, 150, 163, 188 Ahearne-Kroll, S.P. 23, 91, 94, 101, 175, 201 Aland, B. 1 Aland, K. 1 Albl, M.C. 97, 115 Alexander, P. 41 Alexander, P.S. 31, 32 Allegro, J.M. 28, 32, 33 Allen, L.C. 94 Allison, D.C. 196 Alter, R. 17 Ambrozic, A.M. 86 Atkinson, K. 52–5, 57–9 Bammel, E. 206 Banks, R. 124 Barker, M. 14, 67 Barrett, C.K. 156, 158 Barstad, H.M. 114 Barth, G. 163 Barthelémy, D. 36, 37, 48, 49 Bauckham, R. 5, 19, 140, 142, 148–52, 155, 157 Bauer, B. 15 Baumgarten, A.I. 43 Baumgarten, J.M. 44, 45, 170 Beale, G.K. 62 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 117 Beaudet, R. 114 Bernstein, M.J. 27 Best, E. 88, 193 Betz, H.D. 6, 80, 81, 149, 154 Betz, O. 81, 140 Beyer, H.W. 180, 181 Beyerle, S. 44, 45 Bickerman, E. 153 Bieler, L. 79 Bird, M.F. 4 Black, D.S. 112 Black, M. 66, 120, 174

Black, M.C. 95, 96 Blackburn, B. 81, 82, 87 Blenkinsopp, J. 94, 114, 141, 142 Blinzler, J. 11, 182, 188 Boccaccino, G. 67 Bock, D.L. 63, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 189 Bockmuehl, M. 15, 32, 127 Bond, H.K. 15, 107–9, 147, 149, 150, 173, 181, 185, 188, 191, 198 Borg, M. 155 Boring, E.M. 87, 88, 91, 131, 171 Bornkamm, G. 3 Böttrich, C. 145 Bousset, W. 3, 79, 85 Box, G.H. 69 Boyarin, D. 62 Brady, J.R. 81 Brandon, S.G.F. 80, 147, 206 Braun, H. 25 Brekelmans, C.W. 62 Bretcher, P.G. 85 Breytenbach, C. 196 Broadhead, E.K. 14, 124, 146 Brooke, G.J. 16, 27–30, 40, 45, 118, 170, 171, 173, 174 Brown, R.E. 26, 40, 177, 178, 181, 188, 196, 197 Brown, S.G. 115 Brownlee, W.H. 117, 119 Bruce, F.F. 49 Brueggemann, W. 61 Buchanan, G.W. 157 Bultmann, R. 3, 79, 88, 130, 160, 163, 194 Burger, C. 3, 91, 92, 101, 105 Campbell, W.S. 188 Capper, B.J. 57 Caquot, A. 40, 42, 46 Caragounis, C.C. 69 Carey, H.J. 144, 195 Carleton-Paget, J. 15 Carlston, C.E. 168, 173 Casey, M. 65, 130, 132

252

Index of Authors

Casey, P.M. 5, 140 Catchpole, D. 11, 94–6, 177, 183, 186–8 Chance, J.B. 198, 200 Chapman, D.W. 123 Charlesworth, J.H. 3, 21, 22, 37, 41, 52, 57 Chávez, E. 5, 13, 155 Chester, A. 21, 23, 37, 40, 41, 45, 50, 57 Chialá, S. 64 Chilton, B. 5, 82, 87, 89, 90, 101, 116– 18, 125, 140, 150, 153, 154, 170 Chronis, H.L. 195, 199, 201, 202 Coggins, R.J. 70 Cohn, H. 151 Cohn, L. 180 Collins, J.J. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28–30, 34, 36–8, 40, 41, 43–5, 50, 52–5, 57, 59, 62–4, 66, 67, 69, 71–3, 82, 83, 88, 96, 119 Colwell, E.C. 202 Constant, P. 175 Cook, M.J. 107 Coppens, J. 65 Craigie, P.C. 86, 143, 144 Cranfield, C.E.B. 124, 186, 196 Cross, F.M. 40, 46, 68 Crossan, J.D. 172 Crossley, J.G. 20, 125, 127 Cullmann, O. 3, 85 Dahl, N.A. 3, 22, 93, 185, 191, 207 Dalman, G. 85 Danby, H. 181 Daube, D. 130, 132 Davenport, G.L. 52, 54, 57–9 Davies, P.R. 40 Davies, W.D. 148 Davila, J.R. 63 Delcor, M. 62 Derrett, J.D.M. 125 Descamps, A.-L. 79 Dewey, J. 127 Dibelius, M. 3, 79 Dillon, R.J. 163 Dimant, D. 27, 30, 53, 119 Dodd, C.H. 18, 168 Dölger, F.J. 82 Donahue, J.R. 5, 8–11, 20, 140, 160, 171, 197, 200, 202 Dowd, S.E. 146

Driggers, I.B. 134, 148, 153, 164 Drinkard, J.F., Jr 143, 144 Drury, J. 109 Duff, P.B. 96 Duling, D.C. 28, 30, 87, 89, 104 Dunn, J.D.G. 3, 23, 68, 118–20, 127, 140 Duran, N.W. 202 Dwyer, T. 160 Eaton, J.H. 94 Edwards, J.R. 84, 85, 115, 160 Eichrodt, W. 32 Eisenman, R. 31 Eisler, R. 206 Eissfeldt, O. 53 Elliger, K. 2 Embry, B. 60 Eppstein, V. 150 Epstein, I. 162 Ernst, J. 116, 121 Esler, P.F. 19, 145, 146 Evans, C.A. 5–7, 15, 16, 18, 26, 28, 30, 32, 39, 47, 68, 90, 97, 115, 117, 129, 137, 140–3, 145, 147, 148, 151–3, 161–5, 168–73, 175, 179, 184, 186, 188, 189, 194–9, 202 Faierstein, M.M. 196 Falk, D. 117 Ferda, T.S. 68 Finegan, J. 95 Fitzmyer, J. 21, 22, 26, 37, 40, 41, 43, 68–70, 102, 206 Flesher, P.V.M. 131 Fletcher-Louis, C. 13, 67, 68, 125, 161 Flusser, D. 117 Ford, M.J. 153 Foster, P. 18 Fowler, R.M. 196 France, R.T. 84, 85, 96, 98, 101, 103, 122–4, 126, 131–3, 138, 147, 148, 155, 160, 168, 174, 177, 198 Fredriksen, P. 4, 5, 108, 140, 141, 147, 149, 157, 203, 207 Frei, H. 17 Freyne, S. 107, 171 Gager, J. 24 Garcia Martinez, F. 25, 26, 28 Garnsey, P. 181



Index of Authors

Gaston, L. 5, 142, 153, 154, 160 Gathercole, S. 4 Gibson, J.B. 190 Gieschen, C.A. 67 Ginzberg, L. 40 Glazier-McDonald, B. 113 Gnilka, J. 101, 123, 124, 131, 140, 164, 197 Goguel, M. 116 Goldingay, J. 66 Gould, E.P. 202 Grabbe, L.L. 68 Gray, T.C. 5, 13, 91, 137, 146, 147, 149, 153, 160, 163, 169, 170, 173, 175, 199 Green, J.B. 152 Green, W.S. 21 Greenfield, J.C. 63 Greenup, A.W. 170 Grimm, W. 82 Grundmann, W. 163, 197, 202 Guelich, R.A. 111, 112, 114, 124, 129–32 Gundry, R.H. 98, 100, 111, 114, 124, 129, 131, 132, 140, 146–8, 159–61, 164, 170–5, 184, 188, 193–5, 197–200 Haenchen, E. 161 Hahn, F. 3, 79, 91, 148 Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. 96 Hamilton, N.Q. 148, 155 Hannah, D.D. 63 Hanson, J.S. 112, 121, 193, 202 Harland, P.J. 144 Harmer, J.R. 100 Harrington, D.J. 197, 202 Harris, J.R. 115 Harvey, A.E. 141 Hatina, T.R. 18 Hay, D. 98, 101, 104 Hay, L.S. 130 Hays, R.B. 18, 87 Head, P. 109 Heidland, H.W. 197, 198 Hengel, M. 20, 80, 81, 83, 104, 114, 168, 172, 186, 189, 191, 198, 202, 206 Hesse, F. 21 Hiers, R.H. 173 Higgins, J.B. 16, 130 Himmelfarb, M. 43, 117 Hofius, O. 180 Hogan, K.M. 71

253

Holladay, C. 81 Hollenbach, P. 119 Holmén, T. 127, 147 Hooker, M.D. 4, 17, 18, 91, 109, 111, 129, 131, 132, 140, 165, 173, 186, 189, 196, 198, 200, 202, 203, 207 Horbury, W. 15, 22, 66, 83 Horgan, M.P. 33, 36, 44 Horne, E.H. 171 Horsley, R.A. 144, 152 Hultgård, A. 44 Hultgren, A.J. 160, 161 Hurtado, L.W. 81, 87, 88, 91, 105, 187, 188 Iverson, K.R. 170, 171, 173, 191, 201 Jackson, H.M. 193, 198, 200 James, M.R. 52 Jeremias, J. 85, 101, 150, 151, 164, 168, 172, 176 Johansson, D. 78, 87 Jones, C.E. 197 Jonge, H.J. de 4, 21, 26, 43, 53, 57, 84, 91, 96, 100, 154, 160 Joseph, S.J. 5, 124, 140, 141, 147, 154 Juel, D.H. 3–5, 9–11, 18, 19, 86–8, 94, 103, 105, 141, 147, 168, 182–4, 187, 188, 197–9, 201 Keck, L.E. 17, 109 Kee, H.C. 18, 81, 82, 86, 87, 115 Keil, C.F. 144 Kelber, W.H. 5, 89, 155 Kelly, P.G. 143, 144 Kempthorne, R. 178 Kertelge, K. 90, 124 Kilpatrick, G.D. 167, 188 Kim, S.Y. 3, 166, 202 Kingsbury, J.D. 4, 11, 12, 81, 84, 91, 94, 100–102, 105, 107, 108, 190, 202 Kirk, J.R.D. 146, 156 Kirschner, E.F. 87 Kister, M. 45 Klausner, J. 15, 57, 72 Klawans, J. 8, 13, 116–20, 127, 140, 146, 147, 150 Klein, L. 86 Klijn, A.F.J. 72, 73 Kloppenborg, J.S. 168, 173

254

Index of Authors

Knibb, M. 30, 45, 63, 70, 119 Krämer, H. 176 Kraus, H.-J. 66, 86, 94 Krause, D. 95 Kuhn, H.-W. 16, 96 Kvanvig, H.S. 64, 66, 68 Laato, A. 22, 54, 58, 61 Lacocque, A. 69 Lagrange, M. 79 Lane, W.L. 124, 130, 131, 188 Laurin, R.B. 16, 49, 50 Le Donne, A. 2, 16, 58, 61, 89, 93, 138 Lee, A. 94 Lee, M.Y.-H. 9, 160, 163, 165, 166, 168, 172 Lemke, W. 32 Lentzen-Deis, F. 193 Levenson, J.D. 144 Lichtenberger, H. 26, 40 Liebers, R. 172 Lightfoot, J.B. 100 Lim, T. 27, 32, 40 Lindars, B. 18, 85, 130 Lindemann, A. 130 Lindeskog, G. 198 Linnemann, E. 193, 202 Linton, O. 183 Liver, J. 16 Loader, W.R. 101 Lohmeyer, E. 79, 80, 116, 119, 126, 148, 154, 160, 162, 163, 171, 176, 190, 197, 198 Lohse, E. 49, 55, 91, 94, 131 Longenecker, R. 121 Lührmann, D. 107, 153, 185, 188, 193, 197 Mack, B.L. 60 MacRae, G. 82 Maier, J. 21 Malbon, E.S. 4, 88, 89, 91–3, 102, 104, 191, 193, 202 Manson, T.W. 3, 62, 64 Marcus, J. 4, 12, 20, 85–9, 91, 96, 100– 103, 114, 137, 153, 158, 170, 173, 176, 177, 183, 184, 186, 187, 194–9, 202 Marshall, C.D. 90, 146 Marshall, I.H. 84, 85 Martini, C. 1

Martitz, W. von 81 Marxsen, W. 79, 114 Matera, F.J. 4, 17, 23, 85, 88, 94, 102, 109, 121, 191 McCarter, P.K., Jr. 132 McKane, W. 143, 144 McLaren, J.S. 152 Meeks, W.A. 19 Meier, J.P. 116, 121 Metso, S. 41 Mettinger, T.N.D. 86 Metzger, B. 1, 68, 85, 97, 110, 122, 192 Meyers, C.L. 96 Meyers, E.M. 96 Milavec, A. 172–4 Milgrom, J. 116 Milik, J.T. 36, 37, 41, 48, 49, 63, 68 Moloney, F.J. 173 Moor, J.C. de 171 Moore, G.F. 70 Moore, S.D. 17 Moss, C.R. 82 Motyer, S. 193, 194, 198, 200, 202 Moule, C.F.D. 3, 206 Mowery, R.L. 107 Mowinckel, S. 15, 62 Müller, U.B. 62, 70, 72 Mundla, J.-G. 160 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 45, 148 Najman, H. 73 Naluparayil, J.C. 4, 78 Neirynck, F. 143 Neusner, J. 21, 60, 129, 149, 163 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 52, 62, 63, 65–7 Niese, B. 54 Nineham, D.E. 79 Nitzan, B. 75 Nolan, A. 151 Novenson, M.V. 15, 70, 185 O’Brien, J.M. 113 O’Brien, K.S. 189 O’Dell, J. 53 O’Neil, J.C. 188 Oegema, G. 21, 22, 26, 27, 32, 40, 41, 54 Öhler, M. 112 Pelletier, M. 199 Peppard, M. 82, 84, 202



Index of Authors

Perrin, N. 5, 80, 84, 118 Pesch, R. 111, 112, 124, 183, 195, 197, 199, 202 Peterson, D.N. 19 Pobee, J. 191 Pomykala, K. 22, 23, 32, 36, 42–4, 54, 55, 57–60 Price, S. 82 Puech, E. 68 Rahlfs, A. 57 Räisänen, H. 80 Reid, D.G. 149 Reimarus, H.S. 3 Reinhartz, A. 15 Rengstorf, K.H. 157 Richardson, P. 148, 149 Ricoeur, P. 17, 19 Robbins, V.K. 91 Roberts, J.J.M. 86, 114 Roloff, J. 130, 148 Rooke, D. 15, 32, 35 Roskam, H.N. 207 Rowe, C.K. 17 Rowe, R.D. 23, 85, 86, 94, 101, 103, 175, 178, 186, 190 Rowland, C. 62 Rudolph, D.J. 126, 127 Rudolph, K. 116 Rudolph, W. 2 Ruppert, L. 195 Ruzer, S. 35 Ryle, H.E. 52 Safrai, S. 149 Saller, R. 181 Sanders, E.P. 3, 5, 6, 23, 36, 128, 140, 147, 149, 180, 183 Sanders, J.A. 93 Sandmel, S. 24 Schäfer, P. 185 Schaper, J. 83 Schenke, L. 196 Schiffmann, L.H. 25, 42, 101, 117 Schimanowski, G. 64 Schneider, C. 198, 199 Scholem, G. 15 Schreiber, J. 3, 80 Schreiber, S. 57, 62, 63, 65, 66 Schubert, K. 177

255

Schultz, B. 36 Schultz, S. 18 Schürer, E. 14, 15, 75 Schwartz, D. 30, 118 Schwartz, S. 142 Schweitzer, A. 3 Schweizer, E. 90, 123, 155, 168, 173, 188 Scobie, C.H. 116, 117 Scott, E.F. 15 Seeley, D. 140, 147 Segal, A.F. 187 Shae, G.S. 159–62 Sheppard, G.T. 169 Sherwin-White, A.N. 181 Shiner, W. 202 Sicre, J.L. 22 Simon, U. 169 Sjöberg, E. 64, 70 Slingerland, H.D. 43 Sloyan, G.S. 107 Smith, D.E. 109 Smith, M. 21, 23, 42 Smith, S.H. 91, 160 Snodgrass, K. 168, 171, 172, 174, 176 Stanton, G. 4 Starcky, J. 40 Stauffer, E. 183 Stec, D.M. 174 Stegemann, H. 50 Steichele, H.-J. 85, 86 Stein, R.H. 5, 123, 145, 146 Stern, D. 172, 174 Steudel, A. 29, 39 Stone, M.E. 63, 68–73, 75 Stromberg, J. 143 Strugnell, J. 32 Stuckenbruck, L. 21, 63, 64, 66, 69–73 Stuhlmacher, P. 7, 145 Suhl, A. 18 Suter, D.W. 63 Talmon, S. 16, 21, 41, 51 Tan, K.H. 155, 156 Tannehill, R. 87, 162 Taylor, J.E. 116, 117, 119 Taylor, V. 3, 79, 85, 90, 122–4, 130, 131, 140, 148, 160, 188, 190, 198 Telford, W.R. 5, 10, 84, 101, 137, 145, 146, 156, 160 Theisohn, J. 62, 64, 65, 69, 186

256

Index of Authors

Thompson, J.A. 143, 144 Tillesse, G.M. de 80 Tödt, H.E. 131 Tolbert, M.A. 87, 105, 159, 171, 173 Trimaille, M. 174 Trocmé, E. 81 Tromp, J. 55 Tuckett, C.M. 4, 80 Tuner, C.H. 122 Tyson, J.B. 80, 89 Ulansey, D. 193, 194, 198, 199 Van de Loos, H. 124 Van der Woude, A.S. 25, 28, 34, 46, 54 Van Iersel, B. 90, 104 VanderKam, J.C. 15, 26, 27, 35, 62–6, 75 Vermès, G. 3, 14, 25, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 45, 47–9, 68, 130 Vielhauer, P. 85 Wacholder, B.Z. 44, 46 Wasserman, T. 109 Watson, D.F. 80 Watts, R.E. 10, 18, 23, 85, 87, 94, 97, 100, 111, 112, 114, 115, 142, 146, 155, 158, 165, 169, 171, 173, 176, 177 Watty, W.W. 147 Webb, R.L. 116–18, 121, 124, 125 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 5, 140, 148, 150

Weeden, T.J. 3, 80 Wendland, P. 180 Weren, W.J.C. 171 White, S.A. 45 Whitters, M.F. 196, 197 Willis, J.T. 169 Winter, P. 11, 178 Wise, M.O. 30, 31, 58, 118 Wittgenstein, L. 22 Wrede, W. 3, 78–80, 100, 123 Wright, D.P. 116 Wright, N.T. 3, 118, 140, 158 Wright, R.B. 53, 56 Xeravits, G. 26 Yadin, Y. 32 Yarbro Collins, A. 20, 23, 63, 64, 66, 71, 72, 82–5, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 100, 105, 111, 112, 116, 117, 119–24, 126, 129, 131–3, 138, 151, 154, 160, 162, 163, 166, 168, 171–5, 177, 181–3, 186, 188–91, 193, 196–202, 207 Yee, G.A. 169 Zeitlin, S. 58 Zimmerman, F. 69 Zimmermann, J. 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, 44, 45