God's Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? 9781472550484, 9780567431110, 9780567600523

Citation preview

Abbreviations

x

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 ’Abot R. Nat. ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan Abr. On the Life of Abraham ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library Adv. Haer. Against Heretics Ag. Ap. Against Apion AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums AnBib Analecta biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– Ant. Jewish Antiquities Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments b. Babylonian Talmud Bar. Baruch 2 Bar. 2 Baruch BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Ber. Berakot

BETL Bib BibLeb BibOr BJRL

xi

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Bibel und Leben Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester B. Mes. Baba Mesi‘a BN Biblische Notizen BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CC Continental Commentaries CD-A Damascus Document Cels. Contra Celsum 1 Chron. 1 Chronicles 2 Chron. 2 Chronicles 1 Clem. 1 Clement Col. Colossians ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Conf. On the Confusion of Tongues 1 Cor. 1 Corinthians 2 Cor. 2 Corinthians CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Dan. Daniel Det. That the Worse Attacks the Better Deut. Deuteronomy

Abbreviations

x

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 ’Abot R. Nat. ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan Abr. On the Life of Abraham ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library Adv. Haer. Against Heretics Ag. Ap. Against Apion AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums AnBib Analecta biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– Ant. Jewish Antiquities Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments b. Babylonian Talmud Bar. Baruch 2 Bar. 2 Baruch BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Ber. Berakot

BETL Bib BibLeb BibOr BJRL

xi

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Bibel und Leben Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester B. Mes. Baba Mesi‘a BN Biblische Notizen BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CC Continental Commentaries CD-A Damascus Document Cels. Contra Celsum 1 Chron. 1 Chronicles 2 Chron. 2 Chronicles 1 Clem. 1 Clement Col. Colossians ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Conf. On the Confusion of Tongues 1 Cor. 1 Corinthians 2 Cor. 2 Corinthians CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Dan. Daniel Det. That the Worse Attacks the Better Deut. Deuteronomy

xii

Abbreviations

Dial. Dialogue with Trypho Did. Didache DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EBib Etudes bibliques Eccl. Ecclesiastes EKK ­Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar 1 En. 1 Enoch 2 En. 2 Enoch 3 En. 3 Enoch Eph. Ephesians ‘Erub. ‘Erubin 2 Esd. 2 Esdras Est. Esther ET English translation Exod. Exodus ExpTim Expository Times Ezek. Ezekiel Ezek. Trag. Ezekiel the Tragedian FB Forschung zur Bibel FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gal. Galatians Gen. Genesis Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Hab. Habakkuk Hag. Haggai Ḥag. Ḥagigah HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology Heb. Hebrews Her. Who Is the Heir? HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Hos. Hosea HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review

Abbreviations

xiii

HUCM Monographs of the Hebrew Union College ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal Int Interpretation Isa. Isaiah ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly Jas James JBL Journal of Biblical Literature Jdt. Judith Jer. Jeremiah JJS Journal of Jewish Studies Jos. Josephus Jos. Asen. Joseph and Aseneth Josh. Joshua JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus h­ ellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JTS Journal of Theological Studies Jub. Jubilees Judg. Judges J.W. Jewish War KEK ­Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1 Kgdms 1 Kingdoms 2 Kgdms 2 Kingdoms 3 Kgdms 3 Kingdoms 4 Kgdms 4 Kingdoms 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings L.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

xii

Abbreviations

Dial. Dialogue with Trypho Did. Didache DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries EBib Etudes bibliques Eccl. Ecclesiastes EKK ­Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar 1 En. 1 Enoch 2 En. 2 Enoch 3 En. 3 Enoch Eph. Ephesians ‘Erub. ‘Erubin 2 Esd. 2 Esdras Est. Esther ET English translation Exod. Exodus ExpTim Expository Times Ezek. Ezekiel Ezek. Trag. Ezekiel the Tragedian FB Forschung zur Bibel FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gal. Galatians Gen. Genesis Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Hab. Habakkuk Hag. Haggai Ḥag. Ḥagigah HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology Heb. Hebrews Her. Who Is the Heir? HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Hos. Hosea HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review

Abbreviations

xiii

HUCM Monographs of the Hebrew Union College ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal Int Interpretation Isa. Isaiah ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly Jas James JBL Journal of Biblical Literature Jdt. Judith Jer. Jeremiah JJS Journal of Jewish Studies Jos. Josephus Jos. Asen. Joseph and Aseneth Josh. Joshua JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus h­ ellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JTS Journal of Theological Studies Jub. Jubilees Judg. Judges J.W. Jewish War KEK ­Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1 Kgdms 1 Kingdoms 2 Kgdms 2 Kingdoms 3 Kgdms 3 Kingdoms 4 Kgdms 4 Kingdoms 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings L.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

xiv

Abbreviations

L.A.E. Life of Adam and Eve Lam. Lamentations LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lectio divina Leg. Allegorical Interpretation Lev. Leviticus LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LXX Septuagint LTP Laval théologique et philosophique m. Mishnah 1 Macc. 1 Maccabees 2 Macc. 2 Maccabees 3 Macc. 3 Maccabees 4 Macc. 4 Maccabees Mal. Malachi Mart. Ascen.  Isa. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Mek. Mekilta Mic. Micah Midr. Midrash Migr. On the Migration of Abraham Mk Mark Mos. On the Life of Moses MT Masoretic Text Mt. Matthew Mut. On the Change of Names NA27 ­Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edn Nah. Nahum Neh. Nehemiah NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

Abbreviations

NTL New Testament Library NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies Num. Numbers Obad. Obadiah OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis Onq. Onqelos Opif. On the Creation of the World OTL Old Testament Library ÖTK Ökumenischer ­Taschenbuch-Kommentar OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983 OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën par. parallel Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati 1 Pet. 1 Peter 2 Pet. 2 Peter PGM Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by K. Preisendanz. Berlin, 1928 Phil. Philippians Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Praem. On Rewards and Punishments Prov. Proverbs Ps. Psalm Ps.-J. ­Pseudo-Jonathan Pss. Psalms Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon 1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon QD Quaestiones disputatae QE Questions and Answers on Exodus QG Questions and Answers on Genesis 4QFlor 4QFlorilegium 1QH Thanksgiving Hymns 1QIsa Isaiah scroll

xv

xiv

Abbreviations

L.A.E. Life of Adam and Eve Lam. Lamentations LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lectio divina Leg. Allegorical Interpretation Lev. Leviticus LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LXX Septuagint LTP Laval théologique et philosophique m. Mishnah 1 Macc. 1 Maccabees 2 Macc. 2 Maccabees 3 Macc. 3 Maccabees 4 Macc. 4 Maccabees Mal. Malachi Mart. Ascen.  Isa. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Mek. Mekilta Mic. Micah Midr. Midrash Migr. On the Migration of Abraham Mk Mark Mos. On the Life of Moses MT Masoretic Text Mt. Matthew Mut. On the Change of Names NA27 ­Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edn Nah. Nahum Neh. Nehemiah NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

Abbreviations

NTL New Testament Library NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies Num. Numbers Obad. Obadiah OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis Onq. Onqelos Opif. On the Creation of the World OTL Old Testament Library ÖTK Ökumenischer ­Taschenbuch-Kommentar OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983 OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën par. parallel Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati 1 Pet. 1 Peter 2 Pet. 2 Peter PGM Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by K. Preisendanz. Berlin, 1928 Phil. Philippians Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Praem. On Rewards and Punishments Prov. Proverbs Ps. Psalm Ps.-J. ­Pseudo-Jonathan Pss. Psalms Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon 1QapGen Genesis Apocryphon QD Quaestiones disputatae QE Questions and Answers on Exodus QG Questions and Answers on Genesis 4QFlor 4QFlorilegium 1QH Thanksgiving Hymns 1QIsa Isaiah scroll

xv

xvi

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

1QM War Scroll 11QMelch 11QMelchizedek 1QS Rule of the Community 1QSa Rule of the Congregation 1QSb Rule of the Blessings 11QT Temple Scroll Rab. Midrash Rabba RB Revue biblique RBL Review of Biblical Literature Rev. Revelation RevQ Revue de Qumran RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RNT Regensburger Neues Testament Rom. Romans Sacr. On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 2 Sam. 2 Samuel Sanh. Sanhedrin SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien ScEccl Sciences ecclésiastiques SE Studia evangelica Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Sir. Sirach SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNTSU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Sof. Soferim Somn. On Dreams Song Song of Songs SP Sacra pagina

Spec. STDJ StPB Str-B

xvii

On the Special Laws Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia ­post-biblica Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich, 1922–1961 SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Ta‘an. Ta‘anit T. Ab. Testament of Abraham Tan. Tanhuma T. Ash. Testament of Asher TB Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin T. Dan. Testament of Dan TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Tg. Targum 1 Thess. 1 Thessalonians 2 Thess. 2 Thessalonians THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1 Tim. 1 Timothy 2 Tim. 2 Timothy T. Isaac Testament of Isaac T. Iss. Testament of Issachar TJ Trinity Journal T. Job Testament of Job T. Jud. Testament of Judah T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Mos. Testament of Moses T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali Tob. Tobit T. Reub. Testament of Reuben

xvi

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

1QM War Scroll 11QMelch 11QMelchizedek 1QS Rule of the Community 1QSa Rule of the Congregation 1QSb Rule of the Blessings 11QT Temple Scroll Rab. Midrash Rabba RB Revue biblique RBL Review of Biblical Literature Rev. Revelation RevQ Revue de Qumran RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RNT Regensburger Neues Testament Rom. Romans Sacr. On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 2 Sam. 2 Samuel Sanh. Sanhedrin SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien ScEccl Sciences ecclésiastiques SE Studia evangelica Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Sir. Sirach SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNTSU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Sof. Soferim Somn. On Dreams Song Song of Songs SP Sacra pagina

Spec. STDJ StPB Str-B

xvii

On the Special Laws Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia ­post-biblica Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich, 1922–1961 SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Ta‘an. Ta‘anit T. Ab. Testament of Abraham Tan. Tanhuma T. Ash. Testament of Asher TB Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin T. Dan. Testament of Dan TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Tg. Targum 1 Thess. 1 Thessalonians 2 Thess. 2 Thessalonians THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1 Tim. 1 Timothy 2 Tim. 2 Timothy T. Isaac Testament of Isaac T. Iss. Testament of Issachar TJ Trinity Journal T. Job Testament of Job T. Jud. Testament of Judah T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Mos. Testament of Moses T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali Tob. Tobit T. Reub. Testament of Reuben

xviii

xix

Abbreviations

TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum T. Sim. Testament of Simeon T. Sol. Testament of Solomon TThSt Trierer theologische Studien TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift T. Zeb. Testament of Zebulon Vit. Ap. Life of Apollonius v. verse vv. verses WBC Word Biblical Commentary Wis. Wisdom of Solomon WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament y. Jerusalem Talmud ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zech. Zechariah Zeph. Zephaniah ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

PREFACE

The seed that eventually bore this book was sown when my seminary professor Egil Sjaastad introduced me to the arguments of the late Norwegian scholar Sverre Aalen. As I continued my studies of the New Testament and early Christianity, I found that his “yahwistic analogy” was able to explain many aspects of the gospel tradition. Since I began to focus on this specific research project, I have benefitted from the help of many people. At a very early stage, Michael Wolter gave me some very valuable advice. As I presented the early results of my research, I was sent back to the drawing board after challenging questions from Chris Beetham, Steve Bryan, Desta Heliso, and other members of an academic seminar at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology. Other friends and colleagues that have given generously of their time in interacting with my work include Sverre Bøe, Paul Hoskins, David Pao, Frank Thielman, Dan Treier, and Bob Yarbrough. Special thanks are also due to Gail O’Day, the dean of Candler School of Theology, who granted me status as a visiting scholar and made it possible for me to undertake research for this book. The staff at the dean’s office and the staff at Pitts Theological Library were exemplary in giving me all the assistance I could possibly need. On a more personal level, I would like to thank my mother, Inger-Johanne Grindheim, who always supports me in every way she can, as I pursue teaching and scholarship in distant lands. Substantial support also came from my in-laws, Don and Debbie Minton, as they generously welcomed Melissa and me into their home when I had to be in the US to do research. They cheerfully put up with my absentmindedness and odd work schedule. What sacrifices my wife has made because of this project I will never know, for she has never mentioned them. Serving as my inspiration, encouragement,

xviii

xix

Abbreviations

TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum T. Sim. Testament of Simeon T. Sol. Testament of Solomon TThSt Trierer theologische Studien TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift T. Zeb. Testament of Zebulon Vit. Ap. Life of Apollonius v. verse vv. verses WBC Word Biblical Commentary Wis. Wisdom of Solomon WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament y. Jerusalem Talmud ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zech. Zechariah Zeph. Zephaniah ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

PREFACE

The seed that eventually bore this book was sown when my seminary professor Egil Sjaastad introduced me to the arguments of the late Norwegian scholar Sverre Aalen. As I continued my studies of the New Testament and early Christianity, I found that his “yahwistic analogy” was able to explain many aspects of the gospel tradition. Since I began to focus on this specific research project, I have benefitted from the help of many people. At a very early stage, Michael Wolter gave me some very valuable advice. As I presented the early results of my research, I was sent back to the drawing board after challenging questions from Chris Beetham, Steve Bryan, Desta Heliso, and other members of an academic seminar at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology. Other friends and colleagues that have given generously of their time in interacting with my work include Sverre Bøe, Paul Hoskins, David Pao, Frank Thielman, Dan Treier, and Bob Yarbrough. Special thanks are also due to Gail O’Day, the dean of Candler School of Theology, who granted me status as a visiting scholar and made it possible for me to undertake research for this book. The staff at the dean’s office and the staff at Pitts Theological Library were exemplary in giving me all the assistance I could possibly need. On a more personal level, I would like to thank my mother, Inger-Johanne Grindheim, who always supports me in every way she can, as I pursue teaching and scholarship in distant lands. Substantial support also came from my in-laws, Don and Debbie Minton, as they generously welcomed Melissa and me into their home when I had to be in the US to do research. They cheerfully put up with my absentmindedness and odd work schedule. What sacrifices my wife has made because of this project I will never know, for she has never mentioned them. Serving as my inspiration, encouragement,

xx

Preface

1

and indefatigable sounding-board, she has a great share in this product of my research. Above all, I give thanks to Jesus, whose words always provide new perspectives when I study them. May this work bring glory to his name!

INTRODUCTION

Who did Jesus think he was? What was he thinking when he took it upon himself to put an end to all evil? Who gave him the right to forgive wrongdoings committed against others? By what authority did he decide other people’s fate in the afterlife? What right did he have to demand total commitment from his followers? Who did Jesus think he was when he overturned the collective wisdom of the community? Scholars who have studied Jesus in his Jewish context have found that his claims were astonishing, even excessive. Jesus has been compared to the great founder of Israel’s faith, Moses; to Jewish expectations regarding the promised savior, the Messiah; and even to the speculations regarding angels and archangels. Scholars have concluded that Jesus placed himself as the foremost among God’s messengers. Jesus was the final and ultimate agent of God. The contention of this book is that these explanations are inadequate. Jesus’ words and deeds do not make him the outstanding divine representative. Jesus did what none of God’s representatives had done or could do. Only God himself could say and do what Jesus said and did. Jesus therefore claimed to take God’s place. Jesus claimed to be God’s equal.

Scope To defend this thesis, I will discuss some elements of the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus appears to act in a role that in the Jewish tradition was reserved for God. Jesus apparently understood his mission to be connected with the kingdom of God, and the first chapter will examine the nature of his claim in this respect. After a survey of the concept of God’s kingly rule in the Jewish tradition, the chapter will focus primarily on the Beelzebul saying (Lk. 11.20 par.), which is where Jesus’ claim most clearly comes to expression. By equating his own

xx

Preface

1

and indefatigable sounding-board, she has a great share in this product of my research. Above all, I give thanks to Jesus, whose words always provide new perspectives when I study them. May this work bring glory to his name!

INTRODUCTION

Who did Jesus think he was? What was he thinking when he took it upon himself to put an end to all evil? Who gave him the right to forgive wrongdoings committed against others? By what authority did he decide other people’s fate in the afterlife? What right did he have to demand total commitment from his followers? Who did Jesus think he was when he overturned the collective wisdom of the community? Scholars who have studied Jesus in his Jewish context have found that his claims were astonishing, even excessive. Jesus has been compared to the great founder of Israel’s faith, Moses; to Jewish expectations regarding the promised savior, the Messiah; and even to the speculations regarding angels and archangels. Scholars have concluded that Jesus placed himself as the foremost among God’s messengers. Jesus was the final and ultimate agent of God. The contention of this book is that these explanations are inadequate. Jesus’ words and deeds do not make him the outstanding divine representative. Jesus did what none of God’s representatives had done or could do. Only God himself could say and do what Jesus said and did. Jesus therefore claimed to take God’s place. Jesus claimed to be God’s equal.

Scope To defend this thesis, I will discuss some elements of the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus appears to act in a role that in the Jewish tradition was reserved for God. Jesus apparently understood his mission to be connected with the kingdom of God, and the first chapter will examine the nature of his claim in this respect. After a survey of the concept of God’s kingly rule in the Jewish tradition, the chapter will focus primarily on the Beelzebul saying (Lk. 11.20 par.), which is where Jesus’ claim most clearly comes to expression. By equating his own

God’s Equal

Introduction

acts with the presence of God’s kingly rule, Jesus implicitly equates his own presence with the eschatological coming of God to earth. Following up on Jesus’ direct claims with respect to the kingdom of God, the second chapter will ask how he understood his actions in regard to this program. Jesus interprets the significance of his actions in his response to John the Baptist (Lk. 7.22 par.), which will be discussed in detail. In this brief saying, Jesus identifies his miracles as the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding God’s eschatological acts and the establishment of the new creation. Having seen that Jesus sees his own works as the works of God, it is time to turn to his words. Many scholars have compared Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness to the authority of God himself, and the third chapter discusses the theme of forgiveness in its Jewish setting. Since there are no clear examples of human beings forgiving sins, the implication is again that Jesus takes God’s place and exercises an authority that was reserved for God (Mk 2.5 par.). Chapter 4 turns to the eschatological equivalent of forgiveness: the final judgment. As Jesus expected to be the final judge of where people will spend the afterlife (Mt. 25.34-46), he once more placed himself in a role that ­first-century Jews would have reserved for God. The authority with which Jesus invests his words is reflected in his teaching as well, which is the subject of the fifth chapter. Jesus’ thoughts about his own authority shine through when he compares his own words to those of the Mosaic law, as he does in the ­so-called antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.21-48). It appears that Jesus here claims to speak with an authority that transcends that of the Torah. Differently put, his words were at the same level as God’s Word. A person’s s­ elf-understanding will inevitably put its stamp on that person’s relationships to other people, and Jesus’ exceptional s­ elf-understanding is reflected in the exceptional demands he makes of his disciples, as discussed in the sixth chapter. No other ethical responsibility compares to the disciples’ duties vis-à-vis Jesus. Jesus’ response to the would-be follower who wanted to bury his father (Mt. 8.22 par.) shows this attitude most clearly. The most obvious explanation is that Jesus understands himself to be the object of the religious devotion that is only due God. Does Jesus’ ­self-understanding as God’s equal also come to expression in the way he speaks about himself ? Chapter 7 is devoted to answering this question,

and looks at some of the metaphors that Jesus uses to refer to himself. Among these, the bridegroom and the mother bird were w ­ ell-known metaphors that in the Scriptures of Israel were used for God. As metaphors can be used rather fluidly, these examples do not constitute independent evidence for my thesis. But Jesus’ application of these epithets to himself serves as corroborating evidence. In the course of these chapters, many comparisons will be made between Jesus’ claims and Jewish ideas regarding the various mediators between God and the world. The eighth chapter will complete this comparison in a more systematic way. Jewish ideas regarding the major intermediaries will be surveyed in order to compare each of these figures to the picture of Jesus that has emerged through the preceding chapters. Although some of Jesus’ claims are partly anticipated in earlier Jewish thought, the characters described there have their authority from God and consistently exercise it on God’s behalf. In contrast, Jesus appears to think that his authority is inherently his own. The discussion in the first eight chapters will make the initial question even more pressing: if Jesus thought he could take God’s place, who did he think he was? The ninth chapter will therefore look more specifically at the sayings that may provide an insight into how Jesus understood his own identity. The main issue here is how he saw himself in relation to the Father, and the most relevant sayings will be those where Jesus refers to himself as the son of the Father. A few sayings in the Synoptic Gospels have often been understood as indications that Jesus did not see himself as quite equal to God, namely his reply to the rich man who addressed him as “good teacher” (Mk 10.18 par.), his acknowledgement of ignorance (Mk 13.32 par.), as well as the response to James and John, where he defers to the authority of the Father (Mk 10.40 par.). I will therefore discuss whether these sayings militate against the thesis I have put forward. Most scholars agree that Jesus repeatedly referred to himself as son of man, even though there is little agreement regarding the precise meaning and even less regarding the connotations of this term. In any case, if Jesus did refer to himself in this way, this investigation into Jesus’ ­self-understanding must also be able to account for this evidence. The tenth chapter is devoted to that task. The eleventh and final chapter turns to the question of his attitude to the temple. There is broad consensus among scholars that Jesus’ conflict with the temple establishment was one of the major causes of his death, and the nature

2

3

God’s Equal

Introduction

acts with the presence of God’s kingly rule, Jesus implicitly equates his own presence with the eschatological coming of God to earth. Following up on Jesus’ direct claims with respect to the kingdom of God, the second chapter will ask how he understood his actions in regard to this program. Jesus interprets the significance of his actions in his response to John the Baptist (Lk. 7.22 par.), which will be discussed in detail. In this brief saying, Jesus identifies his miracles as the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding God’s eschatological acts and the establishment of the new creation. Having seen that Jesus sees his own works as the works of God, it is time to turn to his words. Many scholars have compared Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness to the authority of God himself, and the third chapter discusses the theme of forgiveness in its Jewish setting. Since there are no clear examples of human beings forgiving sins, the implication is again that Jesus takes God’s place and exercises an authority that was reserved for God (Mk 2.5 par.). Chapter 4 turns to the eschatological equivalent of forgiveness: the final judgment. As Jesus expected to be the final judge of where people will spend the afterlife (Mt. 25.34-46), he once more placed himself in a role that ­first-century Jews would have reserved for God. The authority with which Jesus invests his words is reflected in his teaching as well, which is the subject of the fifth chapter. Jesus’ thoughts about his own authority shine through when he compares his own words to those of the Mosaic law, as he does in the ­so-called antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.21-48). It appears that Jesus here claims to speak with an authority that transcends that of the Torah. Differently put, his words were at the same level as God’s Word. A person’s s­ elf-understanding will inevitably put its stamp on that person’s relationships to other people, and Jesus’ exceptional s­ elf-understanding is reflected in the exceptional demands he makes of his disciples, as discussed in the sixth chapter. No other ethical responsibility compares to the disciples’ duties vis-à-vis Jesus. Jesus’ response to the would-be follower who wanted to bury his father (Mt. 8.22 par.) shows this attitude most clearly. The most obvious explanation is that Jesus understands himself to be the object of the religious devotion that is only due God. Does Jesus’ ­self-understanding as God’s equal also come to expression in the way he speaks about himself ? Chapter 7 is devoted to answering this question,

and looks at some of the metaphors that Jesus uses to refer to himself. Among these, the bridegroom and the mother bird were w ­ ell-known metaphors that in the Scriptures of Israel were used for God. As metaphors can be used rather fluidly, these examples do not constitute independent evidence for my thesis. But Jesus’ application of these epithets to himself serves as corroborating evidence. In the course of these chapters, many comparisons will be made between Jesus’ claims and Jewish ideas regarding the various mediators between God and the world. The eighth chapter will complete this comparison in a more systematic way. Jewish ideas regarding the major intermediaries will be surveyed in order to compare each of these figures to the picture of Jesus that has emerged through the preceding chapters. Although some of Jesus’ claims are partly anticipated in earlier Jewish thought, the characters described there have their authority from God and consistently exercise it on God’s behalf. In contrast, Jesus appears to think that his authority is inherently his own. The discussion in the first eight chapters will make the initial question even more pressing: if Jesus thought he could take God’s place, who did he think he was? The ninth chapter will therefore look more specifically at the sayings that may provide an insight into how Jesus understood his own identity. The main issue here is how he saw himself in relation to the Father, and the most relevant sayings will be those where Jesus refers to himself as the son of the Father. A few sayings in the Synoptic Gospels have often been understood as indications that Jesus did not see himself as quite equal to God, namely his reply to the rich man who addressed him as “good teacher” (Mk 10.18 par.), his acknowledgement of ignorance (Mk 13.32 par.), as well as the response to James and John, where he defers to the authority of the Father (Mk 10.40 par.). I will therefore discuss whether these sayings militate against the thesis I have put forward. Most scholars agree that Jesus repeatedly referred to himself as son of man, even though there is little agreement regarding the precise meaning and even less regarding the connotations of this term. In any case, if Jesus did refer to himself in this way, this investigation into Jesus’ ­self-understanding must also be able to account for this evidence. The tenth chapter is devoted to that task. The eleventh and final chapter turns to the question of his attitude to the temple. There is broad consensus among scholars that Jesus’ conflict with the temple establishment was one of the major causes of his death, and the nature

2

3

God’s Equal

Introduction

of this conflict must therefore be intimately related to how Jesus understood his personal mission. In this chapter I will therefore ask if my thesis is able to account for this evidence as well.

to authenticity. But, more importantly, elements of the Jesus tradition that play no role in early Christian theology are unlikely to be the creation of the early church.3 Even more unlikely to stem from the early church are the elements that stand in tension with known emphases of the earliest Christian writings. A focus of this investigation will therefore be to compare the Gospel traditions with the interests and trends that are in evidence in the earliest Christian teaching. This historical inquiry will be combined with a history-­of-religions approach. The claims of Jesus will be compared to similar claims made on behalf of divine agents in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. This comparison will help evaluate Jesus’ claims and understand their implications in his historical context. This study presupposes that Mark is the oldest of the Gospels and that Matthew and Luke depend on a common source. However, as both the existence and content of this source is hypothetical, I focus on the extant sources. As far as possible, I avoid basing my argument on a reconstruction of sources. Material in other Gospels will be discussed when relevant, but the primary focus will be on the Synoptic Gospels, as they are generally acknowledged as the earliest written records about Jesus.

4

Method The object of this study is the ­self-understanding of the historical Jesus. Two considerable difficulties immediately present themselves. The first difficulty concerns whether we can know anything about the s­ elf-understanding of a historical person. We have no access to his thoughts about himself, but his recorded words and deeds will inevitably reveal something about what these thoughts were. When I in the following refer to Jesus’ ­self-understanding, I therefore mean what we can infer about Jesus’ ­self-understanding from his words and deeds. The second difficulty concerns what we can know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The sources that provide information about him are all biased and written with their own agenda. All of the Synoptic Gospels, which provide the source material for this study, are written with the purpose of convincing the audience of their own faith perspective on Jesus as the Son of God. Without corroborating evidence, how can we trust the information they provide? The present study makes use of the traditional criteria for weighing the evidence in these writings.1 Appeal is made to the criteria of embarrassment, dissimilarity, multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection and execution. Where this study purports to make some progress is in the use of the criterion of dissimilarity as a positive criterion.2 If an element of the Gospel tradition can be shown to be without parallel in the Jewish tradition, it strengthens its claim 1.  See especially John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 167–95. 2.  Many scholars have called for less confidence in the criterion of dissimilarity, especially when used negatively. That would only result in a caricature, an anomalous Jesus, enigmatic to his surroundings and misunderstood by all of his followers (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, 172; similarly, M. Eugene Boring, “The ­Historical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case,” Semeia 44 [1988]: 17–21). Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter have rightly criticized such a program as an ahistorical quest for an ahistorical Jesus (Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, trans. M. Eugene Boring [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 167–71).

5

3.  Cf. Craig A. Evans, “The Life of Jesus,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, NTTS 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 445.

God’s Equal

Introduction

of this conflict must therefore be intimately related to how Jesus understood his personal mission. In this chapter I will therefore ask if my thesis is able to account for this evidence as well.

to authenticity. But, more importantly, elements of the Jesus tradition that play no role in early Christian theology are unlikely to be the creation of the early church.3 Even more unlikely to stem from the early church are the elements that stand in tension with known emphases of the earliest Christian writings. A focus of this investigation will therefore be to compare the Gospel traditions with the interests and trends that are in evidence in the earliest Christian teaching. This historical inquiry will be combined with a history-­of-religions approach. The claims of Jesus will be compared to similar claims made on behalf of divine agents in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. This comparison will help evaluate Jesus’ claims and understand their implications in his historical context. This study presupposes that Mark is the oldest of the Gospels and that Matthew and Luke depend on a common source. However, as both the existence and content of this source is hypothetical, I focus on the extant sources. As far as possible, I avoid basing my argument on a reconstruction of sources. Material in other Gospels will be discussed when relevant, but the primary focus will be on the Synoptic Gospels, as they are generally acknowledged as the earliest written records about Jesus.

4

Method The object of this study is the ­self-understanding of the historical Jesus. Two considerable difficulties immediately present themselves. The first difficulty concerns whether we can know anything about the s­ elf-understanding of a historical person. We have no access to his thoughts about himself, but his recorded words and deeds will inevitably reveal something about what these thoughts were. When I in the following refer to Jesus’ ­self-understanding, I therefore mean what we can infer about Jesus’ ­self-understanding from his words and deeds. The second difficulty concerns what we can know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The sources that provide information about him are all biased and written with their own agenda. All of the Synoptic Gospels, which provide the source material for this study, are written with the purpose of convincing the audience of their own faith perspective on Jesus as the Son of God. Without corroborating evidence, how can we trust the information they provide? The present study makes use of the traditional criteria for weighing the evidence in these writings.1 Appeal is made to the criteria of embarrassment, dissimilarity, multiple attestation, coherence, and rejection and execution. Where this study purports to make some progress is in the use of the criterion of dissimilarity as a positive criterion.2 If an element of the Gospel tradition can be shown to be without parallel in the Jewish tradition, it strengthens its claim 1.  See especially John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 167–95. 2.  Many scholars have called for less confidence in the criterion of dissimilarity, especially when used negatively. That would only result in a caricature, an anomalous Jesus, enigmatic to his surroundings and misunderstood by all of his followers (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, 172; similarly, M. Eugene Boring, “The ­Historical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case,” Semeia 44 [1988]: 17–21). Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter have rightly criticized such a program as an ahistorical quest for an ahistorical Jesus (Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, trans. M. Eugene Boring [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002], 167–71).

5

3.  Cf. Craig A. Evans, “The Life of Jesus,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter, NTTS 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 445.

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

6

1 GOD’S VICTORIOUS INTERVENTION: JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

The grand vision that characterizes the teaching of Jesus is the breaking in of the kingdom of God. This vision provides a clue, not only to Jesus’ eschatology, but also to what he thought about himself. Most scholars agree that Jesus’ announcements about this kingdom show that he claims to speak for God in a special way. But in this chapter I intend to demonstrate that Jesus makes an even bolder claim for himself. He not only appears as God’s spokesperson, but he identifies his own presence and his own activities with the rule of God. The substantiation of this thesis will take place in two steps. First, I will discuss the concept of God’s kingly rule in the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. I will show that this concept is associated with the expectations of God’s intervention on earth, without a human agent, to defeat his enemies. Second, I will discuss Jesus’ teaching on the presence of God’s kingly rule. I will show that Jesus identifies the eschatological intervention of God with his own activities in casting out demons (Lk. 11.20-22 par.).

Background The Scriptures of Israel The Hebrew expression for the “kingdom” or “kingly rule of God” (‫)מלכות יהוה‬1 occurs only once in the Scriptures of Israel (1 Chron. 28.5),2 but it is related to

1.  For “kingly rule” as the meaning of ‫ מלכות‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of P ­ ost-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, trans. D. M. Kay (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 94. 2.  The expression ‫ ממלכת יהוה‬occurs only in 2 Chron. 13.8. References to the kingdom or kingship with a personal pronoun pointing to God are found in Pss. 103.19; 145.11, 12, 13;

7

the more central idea that YHWH is king.3 God’s kingship is the object of praise in numerous psalms. He is the king of the universe (Pss. 22.29; 29.10; 47.3, 9-10; 68.35; 93.1-2; 95.3-5; 96.10; 99.1-5; 103.19; 145.10-13). Since his rule extends from Zion (Pss. 48.3; 50.2; 99.2), God intervenes for Israel’s salvation (Pss. 29.11; 44.5; 47.4-5; 48.12; 98.1-6; 99.4; 102.14-18; 149.2-9). God’s salvation of Israel extends to his defeat of the cosmic powers, over whom he also establishes his rule. Psalm 68 praises God for his victory over Israel’s enemies, and vv. 22-24 may have cosmic overtones.4 The transcendental aspects of God’s victory are also brought out in Psalm 74, where the traditional powers of chaos – the sea, the dragons in the waters, and Leviathan – are crushed by God, the king from old (vv. 13-17).5 With the conventional language of a theophany (cf. Exod. 19.16-20; 24.10, 16-17; Deut. 5.4; 9.10, 15; Pss. 18.8-16; 50.3; Hab. 3.3-12), Psalm 97 describes God’s coming to earth to bring about a new state of affairs when his righteousness is universally acknowledged (v. 6).6 This intervention naturally also entails his judgment (Pss. 96.13; 98.9). The theme of God’s kingly rule is prevalent in other Scriptures as well. God, as the universal king (Isa. 44.6; Jer. 10.7, 10; Mal. 1.14b; 1 Chron. 29.11-12), is seated on a heavenly throne (1 Kgs 22.19; Isa. 6.1-3). The temple in Jerusalem is a representation of this throne (Isa. 6.1; 37.16). Israel has a special relationship with the universal king (Exod. 19.6; Num. 23.21), and it is incumbent upon them to submit to God’s kingly rule (1 Sam. 8.7; 12.12; Jer. 8.19; 10.7,

Dan. 3.33; 4.31; 1 Chron. 17.14. Kingdom or kingship is also attributed to God in Obad. 21; Ps. 22.29; Dan. 2.44; 1 Chron. 29.11. 3.  John Bright takes “the kingdom of God” as the center of the Hebrew Bible (The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church [New York: Abingdon, 1953]), but he has had few followers. See Dale Patrick, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” in The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Lee Willis (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1987), 67–69. For God’s kingdom in the Scriptures of Israel, see Joseph Coppens, La royauté – le règne: Le royaume de Dieu cadre de la relève apocalyptique, vol. 1 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal, BETL 50 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 89–264; John P. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 243–47, 271–79; Christian Grappe, Le Royaume de Dieu: Avant, avec et après Jésus, Le monde de la Bible 42 (Geneva: Labor et Fies, 2001), 13–83. 4.  Cf. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Waco: Word, 1990), 182. 5. ­Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 248. 6.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 475.

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

6

1 GOD’S VICTORIOUS INTERVENTION: JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

The grand vision that characterizes the teaching of Jesus is the breaking in of the kingdom of God. This vision provides a clue, not only to Jesus’ eschatology, but also to what he thought about himself. Most scholars agree that Jesus’ announcements about this kingdom show that he claims to speak for God in a special way. But in this chapter I intend to demonstrate that Jesus makes an even bolder claim for himself. He not only appears as God’s spokesperson, but he identifies his own presence and his own activities with the rule of God. The substantiation of this thesis will take place in two steps. First, I will discuss the concept of God’s kingly rule in the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. I will show that this concept is associated with the expectations of God’s intervention on earth, without a human agent, to defeat his enemies. Second, I will discuss Jesus’ teaching on the presence of God’s kingly rule. I will show that Jesus identifies the eschatological intervention of God with his own activities in casting out demons (Lk. 11.20-22 par.).

Background The Scriptures of Israel The Hebrew expression for the “kingdom” or “kingly rule of God” (‫)מלכות יהוה‬1 occurs only once in the Scriptures of Israel (1 Chron. 28.5),2 but it is related to

1.  For “kingly rule” as the meaning of ‫ מלכות‬in the Hebrew Bible, see Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of P ­ ost-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, trans. D. M. Kay (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 94. 2.  The expression ‫ ממלכת יהוה‬occurs only in 2 Chron. 13.8. References to the kingdom or kingship with a personal pronoun pointing to God are found in Pss. 103.19; 145.11, 12, 13;

7

the more central idea that YHWH is king.3 God’s kingship is the object of praise in numerous psalms. He is the king of the universe (Pss. 22.29; 29.10; 47.3, 9-10; 68.35; 93.1-2; 95.3-5; 96.10; 99.1-5; 103.19; 145.10-13). Since his rule extends from Zion (Pss. 48.3; 50.2; 99.2), God intervenes for Israel’s salvation (Pss. 29.11; 44.5; 47.4-5; 48.12; 98.1-6; 99.4; 102.14-18; 149.2-9). God’s salvation of Israel extends to his defeat of the cosmic powers, over whom he also establishes his rule. Psalm 68 praises God for his victory over Israel’s enemies, and vv. 22-24 may have cosmic overtones.4 The transcendental aspects of God’s victory are also brought out in Psalm 74, where the traditional powers of chaos – the sea, the dragons in the waters, and Leviathan – are crushed by God, the king from old (vv. 13-17).5 With the conventional language of a theophany (cf. Exod. 19.16-20; 24.10, 16-17; Deut. 5.4; 9.10, 15; Pss. 18.8-16; 50.3; Hab. 3.3-12), Psalm 97 describes God’s coming to earth to bring about a new state of affairs when his righteousness is universally acknowledged (v. 6).6 This intervention naturally also entails his judgment (Pss. 96.13; 98.9). The theme of God’s kingly rule is prevalent in other Scriptures as well. God, as the universal king (Isa. 44.6; Jer. 10.7, 10; Mal. 1.14b; 1 Chron. 29.11-12), is seated on a heavenly throne (1 Kgs 22.19; Isa. 6.1-3). The temple in Jerusalem is a representation of this throne (Isa. 6.1; 37.16). Israel has a special relationship with the universal king (Exod. 19.6; Num. 23.21), and it is incumbent upon them to submit to God’s kingly rule (1 Sam. 8.7; 12.12; Jer. 8.19; 10.7,

Dan. 3.33; 4.31; 1 Chron. 17.14. Kingdom or kingship is also attributed to God in Obad. 21; Ps. 22.29; Dan. 2.44; 1 Chron. 29.11. 3.  John Bright takes “the kingdom of God” as the center of the Hebrew Bible (The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church [New York: Abingdon, 1953]), but he has had few followers. See Dale Patrick, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” in The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Lee Willis (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1987), 67–69. For God’s kingdom in the Scriptures of Israel, see Joseph Coppens, La royauté – le règne: Le royaume de Dieu cadre de la relève apocalyptique, vol. 1 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal, BETL 50 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 89–264; John P. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 243–47, 271–79; Christian Grappe, Le Royaume de Dieu: Avant, avec et après Jésus, Le monde de la Bible 42 (Geneva: Labor et Fies, 2001), 13–83. 4.  Cf. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Waco: Word, 1990), 182. 5. ­Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 248. 6.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 475.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

10; 46.18; 48.15; 51.57). In connection with the idea of Zion as God’s throne, Israel’s king is seen as exercising the rule of YHWH. His kingdom is YHWH’s kingdom (1 Chron. 17.14; 28.5; 2 Chron. 13.5, 8), provided that he observe YHWH’s commandments (1 Chron. 28.7).7 But the king of Israel is repeatedly seen as failing to meet this condition, and the concept of God’s kingdom becomes connected with the expectation of God’s future intervention.8 As the king, God is known to intervene on behalf of his people (Exod. 15:13-19), and the prophetic writings develop an expectation of a decisive future action of God (Isa. 33:17-22; 37:20; 52:7-10).9 They describe a day when God will make manifest his rule from Jerusalem, bring judgment upon his enemies (Isa. 24:21-23), and save his afflicted ones (Isa. 43:15-21; Mic. 4:6-8; Obad. 17-21). On that day, God will come as the warrior who defeats the enemies of his people (Zeph. 3:15-20). Universal in scope, this kingdom can no longer be identified with the kingdom of Israel.10 The picture of the ­other-worldly glory that accompanies God’s judgment

reaches a climax in Zechariah 14. Crystallizing earlier prophecies about divine intervention, this chapter provides a detailed vision of the day when the Lord will come to the earth and fight the enemies of Israel (v. 3).11 The salvation that is described can no longer be understood in continuity with the present world order, but presupposes the onset of an entirely new world order, characterized by paradisiacal conditions (vv. 6-9).12 In accordance with this apocalyptic perspective, future expectations center on God’s kingly rule, rather than on that of the future Davidic king.13 God’s universal kingship will manifest itself (v. 9a). Possibly alluding to the Shema (Deut. 6.4),14 the prophet announces that “the LORD will be one and his name one” (v. 9b). God, who is already the king of the universe, will be universally acknowledged as such (cf. 14.16). His kingdom will be as tangible on earth as it is in heaven.15 In the book of Daniel, the conflict between the kingdom of God and the enemies of his people takes on cosmic dimensions. By God’s intervention the worldly kingdoms pass away and his eternal kingdom is established (Dan. 2.44).16 God’s kingdom is a universal and eternal kingdom (Dan. 3.33; 4.31-32; 6.27), and he gives this eternal kingdom to the Son of Man (Dan. 7.13-14) and to the people of the holy ones of the Most High (Dan. 7.27).17 Even though

8

7.  Cf. Gerhard von Rad in Hermann Kleinknecht, et al., “βασιλεύς κτλ,” in TDNT, 1:569–70; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 521–22. This theme is not made explicit in the Psalms. Nevertheless, Robert Rowe finds “a clear link with the Davidic king [and Yahweh’s rule centered in Zion].” As evidence he cites Pss. 80.17; 84.9; 89.3-4, 18ff. (ET). See Robert D. Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background in Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms, AGJU 50 [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 18, 22, 59). None of these Psalms uses ‫ מלכות‬terminology to connect God and the king. The kingship of Israel’s king is in the Psalms clearly derived from the authority of God, but the themes of Yahweh’s kingly rule and the rule of the king are kept remarkably separate. 8.  Cf. Dennis C. Duling, “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven,” in ABD, 4:50; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 246–47. 9.  Craig Evans summarizes Isaiah’s expectations of God’s kingdom as “the powerful, saving presence of God” (“Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 155). 10.  Attempting to prove the thesis that there is “a close relationship between the kingdom of God and messianic kingship,” Rowe maintains that the themes are connected in the Book of Isaiah. He shows that Isaiah 40-55 is rich in material describing God’s kingly rule. Finding royal imagery in the description of the servant in ch. 42, he concludes that the servant is a messianic character whose rule is connected with the kingdom of God. He also connects this character with the anointed one in 61.1, whose function as a messenger warrants identifying him with the messenger of 52.7 (God’s Kingdom, 3–4, 63–84). Even if all of these identifications be granted, Isaiah 40-55 does not describe any of these figures as exercising God’s rule. Only the messenger in Isa. 52.7 does have a function explicitly connected with God’s rule. His function is to announce it. Rowe has not shown that Isaiah 40-55 supports his thesis.

9

11.  Michael Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 286. 12.  Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco: Word, 1984), 285, 288. 13.  Sigmund Mowinckel observes: “In so far as the future hope and eschatology borrowed material from the ­other-worldly hope of a new creation and a new world and were gradually conformed to that hope, to that extent does the kingly rule of YHWH, not the Messiah, become the central idea and the dominating conception” (He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson [New York: Abingdon, 1954], 159). 14.  S. Dean McBride, Jr., “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” Int 27 (1973): 278. 15.  Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, 289. 16. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 247. It is possible that the description of God’s kingdom as a kingdom that shall never be destroyed reflects a Babylonian claim in the Uruk Prophecy from the sixth century, about an eternal dynasty for Nebuchadnezzar II. Daniel 2.44 refers to a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly kingdom, in accordance with the book’s polemic against the hubris of secular rulers (John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 170–71). 17.  The most prevalent interpretations of the Son of Man figure (Dan. 7.13-14) include the Messiah, a heavenly or angelic being, or a collective symbol. If v. 27 is given its full weight as interpretive (cf. v. 16), the last option should be preferred, seeing the Son of Man either as a symbol of the people of God or as a character that represents them. See especially Maurice

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

10; 46.18; 48.15; 51.57). In connection with the idea of Zion as God’s throne, Israel’s king is seen as exercising the rule of YHWH. His kingdom is YHWH’s kingdom (1 Chron. 17.14; 28.5; 2 Chron. 13.5, 8), provided that he observe YHWH’s commandments (1 Chron. 28.7).7 But the king of Israel is repeatedly seen as failing to meet this condition, and the concept of God’s kingdom becomes connected with the expectation of God’s future intervention.8 As the king, God is known to intervene on behalf of his people (Exod. 15:13-19), and the prophetic writings develop an expectation of a decisive future action of God (Isa. 33:17-22; 37:20; 52:7-10).9 They describe a day when God will make manifest his rule from Jerusalem, bring judgment upon his enemies (Isa. 24:21-23), and save his afflicted ones (Isa. 43:15-21; Mic. 4:6-8; Obad. 17-21). On that day, God will come as the warrior who defeats the enemies of his people (Zeph. 3:15-20). Universal in scope, this kingdom can no longer be identified with the kingdom of Israel.10 The picture of the ­other-worldly glory that accompanies God’s judgment

reaches a climax in Zechariah 14. Crystallizing earlier prophecies about divine intervention, this chapter provides a detailed vision of the day when the Lord will come to the earth and fight the enemies of Israel (v. 3).11 The salvation that is described can no longer be understood in continuity with the present world order, but presupposes the onset of an entirely new world order, characterized by paradisiacal conditions (vv. 6-9).12 In accordance with this apocalyptic perspective, future expectations center on God’s kingly rule, rather than on that of the future Davidic king.13 God’s universal kingship will manifest itself (v. 9a). Possibly alluding to the Shema (Deut. 6.4),14 the prophet announces that “the LORD will be one and his name one” (v. 9b). God, who is already the king of the universe, will be universally acknowledged as such (cf. 14.16). His kingdom will be as tangible on earth as it is in heaven.15 In the book of Daniel, the conflict between the kingdom of God and the enemies of his people takes on cosmic dimensions. By God’s intervention the worldly kingdoms pass away and his eternal kingdom is established (Dan. 2.44).16 God’s kingdom is a universal and eternal kingdom (Dan. 3.33; 4.31-32; 6.27), and he gives this eternal kingdom to the Son of Man (Dan. 7.13-14) and to the people of the holy ones of the Most High (Dan. 7.27).17 Even though

8

7.  Cf. Gerhard von Rad in Hermann Kleinknecht, et al., “βασιλεύς κτλ,” in TDNT, 1:569–70; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 521–22. This theme is not made explicit in the Psalms. Nevertheless, Robert Rowe finds “a clear link with the Davidic king [and Yahweh’s rule centered in Zion].” As evidence he cites Pss. 80.17; 84.9; 89.3-4, 18ff. (ET). See Robert D. Rowe, God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background in Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms, AGJU 50 [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 18, 22, 59). None of these Psalms uses ‫ מלכות‬terminology to connect God and the king. The kingship of Israel’s king is in the Psalms clearly derived from the authority of God, but the themes of Yahweh’s kingly rule and the rule of the king are kept remarkably separate. 8.  Cf. Dennis C. Duling, “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven,” in ABD, 4:50; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 246–47. 9.  Craig Evans summarizes Isaiah’s expectations of God’s kingdom as “the powerful, saving presence of God” (“Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 155). 10.  Attempting to prove the thesis that there is “a close relationship between the kingdom of God and messianic kingship,” Rowe maintains that the themes are connected in the Book of Isaiah. He shows that Isaiah 40-55 is rich in material describing God’s kingly rule. Finding royal imagery in the description of the servant in ch. 42, he concludes that the servant is a messianic character whose rule is connected with the kingdom of God. He also connects this character with the anointed one in 61.1, whose function as a messenger warrants identifying him with the messenger of 52.7 (God’s Kingdom, 3–4, 63–84). Even if all of these identifications be granted, Isaiah 40-55 does not describe any of these figures as exercising God’s rule. Only the messenger in Isa. 52.7 does have a function explicitly connected with God’s rule. His function is to announce it. Rowe has not shown that Isaiah 40-55 supports his thesis.

9

11.  Michael Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 286. 12.  Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco: Word, 1984), 285, 288. 13.  Sigmund Mowinckel observes: “In so far as the future hope and eschatology borrowed material from the ­other-worldly hope of a new creation and a new world and were gradually conformed to that hope, to that extent does the kingly rule of YHWH, not the Messiah, become the central idea and the dominating conception” (He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson [New York: Abingdon, 1954], 159). 14.  S. Dean McBride, Jr., “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” Int 27 (1973): 278. 15.  Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, 289. 16. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 247. It is possible that the description of God’s kingdom as a kingdom that shall never be destroyed reflects a Babylonian claim in the Uruk Prophecy from the sixth century, about an eternal dynasty for Nebuchadnezzar II. Daniel 2.44 refers to a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly kingdom, in accordance with the book’s polemic against the hubris of secular rulers (John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 170–71). 17.  The most prevalent interpretations of the Son of Man figure (Dan. 7.13-14) include the Messiah, a heavenly or angelic being, or a collective symbol. If v. 27 is given its full weight as interpretive (cf. v. 16), the last option should be preferred, seeing the Son of Man either as a symbol of the people of God or as a character that represents them. See especially Maurice

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

the Son of Man is made king, it should be noted that the Son of Man does not establish the kingdom of God. As it is given to him, it must have been previously established. In the Scriptures of Israel, therefore, the future expectations connected with the concept of God’s kingly rule center around the theme that God himself will come to the earth as the divine warrior, defeat the enemies of his people, and manifestly establish God’s unopposed rule on the earth. As this rule is universal in scope, it transcends the kingdom of Israel.18 It should not be dubbed the messianic kingdom, as God is portrayed as intervening on earth without any human agent and establishing his own rule.19

Among Second Temple literature, the Psalms of Solomon most clearly chisel out a role for the son of David in relation to God’s kingdom. But not even in Ps. Sol. 17 – with its elaborate description of the expected king – is Israel’s kingdom equated with God’s kingdom.21 God’s kingdom is eternal and exalted over all the nations (17.3). The function of the son of David is to purge Israel and restore righteous rule (17.22-44). He will also command the submission of the Gentile kingdoms (17.30-31). Since God is the eternal king he is expected to intervene and raise up this son of David (17.45-46). God’s kingship, therefore, is the warrant, so to speak, for his future intervention to bring about glorious conditions for his people. This is also the logic of Tobit 13, which blesses God for the certainty of his future salvation. His kingdom is forever (13.1). As the king, he will restore the fortunes of Jerusalem and rebuild his house in the holy city (13.10, 15-17). The third book of the Sibylline Oracles also distinguishes between God as the king of the kingdom and his prince, who is probably the Messiah (Sib. Or. 3.46-57).22 Similarly, the son of God from 4Q246, which may be the Messiah or a collective symbol for the people of God, is also attributed with an eternal kingdom (ii.5), but not the kingdom of God.23 In 4QFlorilegium, a quotation from the Song of Moses (Exod. 15.17-18) invokes the idea of God’s eternal rule (4Q174 1.i.3-4). The rhetorical function of this reference is to serve as the warrant that the true temple will be built (1.i.2-6), that God’s people will be granted their rest (1.i.7-9), and that the eschatological royal Messiah will have an eternal kingdom (1.i.10-13). This scroll provides the closest association of God’s kingdom and David’s kingdom that can be found in the published texts from Qumran.24 There is, however, no identification of the kingdoms, as the one is the warrant for the other.

10

Second Temple Judaism Similar ideas come to expression in the literature of Second Temple Judaism.20 God is the universal king (T. Mos. 4.2; 1QM 6.6; 1QHa 18.8; 1QapGen 2.4, 7, 14; 10.10; Philo, Spec. 1.207) and all rulers are subject to his kingship (Wis. 6.3). This kingship extends from Zion (Jub. 1.28) and is the foundation for his intervention on behalf of Israel (Sir. 51.12; Jdt. 9.12-13). The hope of the righteous is therefore connected with the eternal rule of God (Wis. 3.8).

Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); Collins, Daniel, 304–10. 18. Bright, Kingdom, 143–45. 19. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 171–72. Seeing “kingdom of God” as the central theme of the Scriptures of Israel, Bright finds this motif in many places where it is not explicit in the texts. He therefore maintains that “the Jews looked in particular for a Redeemer, or Messiah, who should establish the Kingdom of God victoriously” even though the themes of God’s kingdom and of the eschatological messianic redeemer are not connected in the Bible (Kingdom, 18). The editors of “the new Schürer” fail to distinguish clearly between the messianic kingdom and the kingly rule of God. As evidence that the messianic kingdom is identified with the kingdom of God, they adduce Ps. Sol. 17.4; T. Mos. 10.1, 3 (Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2, rev. edn, ed. Geza Vermes, et al. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979], 531). Ps. Sol. 17.4 does not mention the kingdom of God, only David’s kingdom, which is not identical with God’s kingdom (cf. above). T. Mos. 10.1, 3 do not mention the Messiah at all, only the kingly rule of God. 20.  For God’s kingdom in Second Temple Judaism, see especially Odo Camponovo, Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften, OBO 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 128–446; John J. Collins, “The Kingdom of God in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Lee Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 81–95; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 248–69, 283–88; Grappe, Le Royaume, 70–120.

11

21.  Cf. Michael Lattke, “Zur jüdischen Vorgeschichte des Synoptischen Begriffs der ‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 23–24; Camponovo, Königtum, 221–22. 22.  Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 18. 23.  See especially John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 157–60; Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran, WUNT II/104 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 128–70. 24.  Cf. Rowe, God’s Kingdom, 97–98. According to Rowe, the texts from Qumran provide ample evidence that the kingdom of God is connected with the Messiah. In 4Q504, the

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

the Son of Man is made king, it should be noted that the Son of Man does not establish the kingdom of God. As it is given to him, it must have been previously established. In the Scriptures of Israel, therefore, the future expectations connected with the concept of God’s kingly rule center around the theme that God himself will come to the earth as the divine warrior, defeat the enemies of his people, and manifestly establish God’s unopposed rule on the earth. As this rule is universal in scope, it transcends the kingdom of Israel.18 It should not be dubbed the messianic kingdom, as God is portrayed as intervening on earth without any human agent and establishing his own rule.19

Among Second Temple literature, the Psalms of Solomon most clearly chisel out a role for the son of David in relation to God’s kingdom. But not even in Ps. Sol. 17 – with its elaborate description of the expected king – is Israel’s kingdom equated with God’s kingdom.21 God’s kingdom is eternal and exalted over all the nations (17.3). The function of the son of David is to purge Israel and restore righteous rule (17.22-44). He will also command the submission of the Gentile kingdoms (17.30-31). Since God is the eternal king he is expected to intervene and raise up this son of David (17.45-46). God’s kingship, therefore, is the warrant, so to speak, for his future intervention to bring about glorious conditions for his people. This is also the logic of Tobit 13, which blesses God for the certainty of his future salvation. His kingdom is forever (13.1). As the king, he will restore the fortunes of Jerusalem and rebuild his house in the holy city (13.10, 15-17). The third book of the Sibylline Oracles also distinguishes between God as the king of the kingdom and his prince, who is probably the Messiah (Sib. Or. 3.46-57).22 Similarly, the son of God from 4Q246, which may be the Messiah or a collective symbol for the people of God, is also attributed with an eternal kingdom (ii.5), but not the kingdom of God.23 In 4QFlorilegium, a quotation from the Song of Moses (Exod. 15.17-18) invokes the idea of God’s eternal rule (4Q174 1.i.3-4). The rhetorical function of this reference is to serve as the warrant that the true temple will be built (1.i.2-6), that God’s people will be granted their rest (1.i.7-9), and that the eschatological royal Messiah will have an eternal kingdom (1.i.10-13). This scroll provides the closest association of God’s kingdom and David’s kingdom that can be found in the published texts from Qumran.24 There is, however, no identification of the kingdoms, as the one is the warrant for the other.

10

Second Temple Judaism Similar ideas come to expression in the literature of Second Temple Judaism.20 God is the universal king (T. Mos. 4.2; 1QM 6.6; 1QHa 18.8; 1QapGen 2.4, 7, 14; 10.10; Philo, Spec. 1.207) and all rulers are subject to his kingship (Wis. 6.3). This kingship extends from Zion (Jub. 1.28) and is the foundation for his intervention on behalf of Israel (Sir. 51.12; Jdt. 9.12-13). The hope of the righteous is therefore connected with the eternal rule of God (Wis. 3.8).

Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); Collins, Daniel, 304–10. 18. Bright, Kingdom, 143–45. 19. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 171–72. Seeing “kingdom of God” as the central theme of the Scriptures of Israel, Bright finds this motif in many places where it is not explicit in the texts. He therefore maintains that “the Jews looked in particular for a Redeemer, or Messiah, who should establish the Kingdom of God victoriously” even though the themes of God’s kingdom and of the eschatological messianic redeemer are not connected in the Bible (Kingdom, 18). The editors of “the new Schürer” fail to distinguish clearly between the messianic kingdom and the kingly rule of God. As evidence that the messianic kingdom is identified with the kingdom of God, they adduce Ps. Sol. 17.4; T. Mos. 10.1, 3 (Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2, rev. edn, ed. Geza Vermes, et al. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979], 531). Ps. Sol. 17.4 does not mention the kingdom of God, only David’s kingdom, which is not identical with God’s kingdom (cf. above). T. Mos. 10.1, 3 do not mention the Messiah at all, only the kingly rule of God. 20.  For God’s kingdom in Second Temple Judaism, see especially Odo Camponovo, Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften, OBO 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 128–446; John J. Collins, “The Kingdom of God in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Lee Willis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 81–95; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 248–69, 283–88; Grappe, Le Royaume, 70–120.

11

21.  Cf. Michael Lattke, “Zur jüdischen Vorgeschichte des Synoptischen Begriffs der ‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 23–24; Camponovo, Königtum, 221–22. 22.  Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 18. 23.  See especially John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 157–60; Johannes Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran, WUNT II/104 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 128–70. 24.  Cf. Rowe, God’s Kingdom, 97–98. According to Rowe, the texts from Qumran provide ample evidence that the kingdom of God is connected with the Messiah. In 4Q504, the

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

The earthly kingdom of Israel is normally not referred to as God’s kingdom,25 therefore, but there are exceptions. The Testament of Benjamin 9:1 mentions that the kingdom of the Lord will be taken away from the tribe of Benjamin.26 On the whole, however, the apocalyptic literature is characterized by a sharper distinction between the earthly and the heavenly realm. God’s kingly rule often refers to his transcendent rule (1 En. 9:4-6; 63:2-4; 81:3; 84:2-5). In Qumran, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe heavenly liturgy, where God’s transcendent kingship is the object of praise (4Q400 1.ii.1-2; 2 1, 3-4; 4Q401 1-2 4; 14.i.6; 4Q403 1.i.8, 32; 1.ii.3,10; 4Q405 23.i.3; 23.ii.11-12).27

This heavenly rule of God will one day become manifest on earth as well. Usually without mention of the Messiah, the apocalyptic writings develop the prophetic expectation of God the king coming to earth to defeat the cosmic enemies of his people (T. Dan. 5.10-13) and give them salvation (Sib. Or. 3.705-731).28 Characteristic of the apocalyptic outlook, God’s coming means a fundamental change of the current world order and the restoration of paradisiacal conditions (1 En. 25.3-6; Sib. Or. 3.767-784).29 For the wicked, however, his coming will entail eternal punishment (1 En. 27.2-3; 91.12-13).30 Chapter 10 of the Testament of Moses gives a graphic portrayal of this manifestation of the kingly rule of God. The traditional effects describing a theophany are used: shaking of the earth, lowering of the mountains, darkening of the sun and the moon, astral disturbances, and the disappearance of the sea (vv. 4-6; cf. Isa. 40.4; Joel 2.10; 3.4; Mic. 1.4; Hag. 2.21). Accompanied by these events, “his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end” (v. 1). Not only Satan, but all of God’s enemies will come to their ultimate demise (vv. 1b-2). No human beings play any role in this vision, not even the Messiah.31 Instead, “the Heavenly One will arise from his kingly throne. Yea, he will go forth from his holy habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of his sons” (10.3).32

12

Messiah is not mentioned, but the covenant with David is referred to in fragments 1–2, col. iv, lines 6–7. Further down, the column also mentions “Zion, your holy city and your wonderful house” (line 12), where Rowe translates “the House of Thy majesty.” He is thus able to see a link between the Messiah and the kingdom of God (God’s Kingdom, 97). The word that Rowe translates as “majesty,” however, is ‫תפארתכה‬, a general word for ornament, honor, and splendor. The mere occurrence of this word in a text that also mentions God’s covenant with David does not constitute evidence that the Messiah’s rule was associated with God’s rule. In 4QBlessings (­4Q286-290), it is possible that the one surviving line from 4Q287 fragment 10 (line 13) is to be translated “the Holy Spirit is settled upon his Messiah” (God’s Kingdom, 101). The fact that the other fragments refer to God’s kingdom, however, does not constitute a link between the Messiah and God’s kingdom. A similar objection must be made with respect to Rowe’s appeal to 4Q381, which makes extensive use of Psalm 89. There is a reference to God’s anointed one in fragment 15 (line 7) and references to God’s judgment and lordship in fragment 1 (lines 12 and 14, respectively). In fragment 19, Rowe points to a badly preserved line that reads: “your kingdom to your servant” (1.5). The immediately preceding line is equally fragmentary: “(of) pure gold, and you will give me,” but Rowe thinks there is a reference to God’s gift of the kingdom to the Davidic king (God’s Kingdom, 100). However, fragment 19 is too badly preserved to provide a context, and its meaning is irrecoverable. In the Messianic Apocalypse from cave four (4Q521), Rowe observes that the Messiah is mentioned in fragment 2, column ii, line 1. The column then proceeds to describe the throne of an eternal kingdom (line 7) and various works associated with God’s kingship (lines 8 and 12; see God’s Kingdom, 98). But even if it be granted that the anointed one indeed is the royal Messiah, the fragment does not attribute these works to him (cf. ch. 2). 25.  Cf. Helmut Merklein, “Die Einzigkeit Gottes als die sachliche Grundlage der Botschaft Jesu,” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987): 16. 26.  The tendency not to associate the kingdom of Israel with the kingdom of God and to understand God’s kingdom in an exclusively eschatological sense appears to be reflected in the Septuagint. Where the MT refers to David’s role in “my [God’s] kingdom” (1 Chron. 17.14), the LXX has “in his kingdom” (ἐν βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ). Camponovo observes that the translation of the relevant passages is consistently futuristic (Königtum, 398–99). 27.  See especially Anna Maria Schwemer, “Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatsliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 45–118.

13

28.  Cf. George Foot Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim, vol. 2, reprint, 1930 (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1997), 378; Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20. Camponovo finds an ­anti-messianic concept in the Apocalypse of Weeks, where the temple will be built without the agency of the Messiah (1 En. 91.13). God himself is presumably the agent of the passive verb (Königtum, 253). 29. Camponovo, Königtum, 245, 351; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 315. The description “­this-worldly” for the eschatology of the third book of the Sibylline Oracles is somewhat misleading (pace Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 254). Even though the kingdom is established on earth, it presupposes a change of world order. 30.  The Hebrew text of 1 En. 91.13 refers to ‫( היכל ]מ[ל]כ[ות רבא‬4Q212 4:18). 31.  Michael Wolter correctly concludes that the messianic expectation does not belong to the semantic field of the kingdom of God. God’s unmediated presence is constitutive of his rule (“‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’,” ZNW 86 [1995]: 10; similarly Collins, “Kingdom,” 90). Despite his tendency to connect the Messiah and the kingdom of God, Bright admits that “the genuine Apocalyptic gives little thought to the Messiah Prince” and observes that only God can usher in his kingdom (Kingdom, 168–69). Similarly, Rowe, whose thesis is that the kingdom of God was linked to the Messiah, observes that the Testament of Moses emphasizes “God’s personal action” (God’s Kingdom, 95). 32.  Quotations taken from J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” in OTP, 931, 932.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

The earthly kingdom of Israel is normally not referred to as God’s kingdom,25 therefore, but there are exceptions. The Testament of Benjamin 9:1 mentions that the kingdom of the Lord will be taken away from the tribe of Benjamin.26 On the whole, however, the apocalyptic literature is characterized by a sharper distinction between the earthly and the heavenly realm. God’s kingly rule often refers to his transcendent rule (1 En. 9:4-6; 63:2-4; 81:3; 84:2-5). In Qumran, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice describe heavenly liturgy, where God’s transcendent kingship is the object of praise (4Q400 1.ii.1-2; 2 1, 3-4; 4Q401 1-2 4; 14.i.6; 4Q403 1.i.8, 32; 1.ii.3,10; 4Q405 23.i.3; 23.ii.11-12).27

This heavenly rule of God will one day become manifest on earth as well. Usually without mention of the Messiah, the apocalyptic writings develop the prophetic expectation of God the king coming to earth to defeat the cosmic enemies of his people (T. Dan. 5.10-13) and give them salvation (Sib. Or. 3.705-731).28 Characteristic of the apocalyptic outlook, God’s coming means a fundamental change of the current world order and the restoration of paradisiacal conditions (1 En. 25.3-6; Sib. Or. 3.767-784).29 For the wicked, however, his coming will entail eternal punishment (1 En. 27.2-3; 91.12-13).30 Chapter 10 of the Testament of Moses gives a graphic portrayal of this manifestation of the kingly rule of God. The traditional effects describing a theophany are used: shaking of the earth, lowering of the mountains, darkening of the sun and the moon, astral disturbances, and the disappearance of the sea (vv. 4-6; cf. Isa. 40.4; Joel 2.10; 3.4; Mic. 1.4; Hag. 2.21). Accompanied by these events, “his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end” (v. 1). Not only Satan, but all of God’s enemies will come to their ultimate demise (vv. 1b-2). No human beings play any role in this vision, not even the Messiah.31 Instead, “the Heavenly One will arise from his kingly throne. Yea, he will go forth from his holy habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of his sons” (10.3).32

12

Messiah is not mentioned, but the covenant with David is referred to in fragments 1–2, col. iv, lines 6–7. Further down, the column also mentions “Zion, your holy city and your wonderful house” (line 12), where Rowe translates “the House of Thy majesty.” He is thus able to see a link between the Messiah and the kingdom of God (God’s Kingdom, 97). The word that Rowe translates as “majesty,” however, is ‫תפארתכה‬, a general word for ornament, honor, and splendor. The mere occurrence of this word in a text that also mentions God’s covenant with David does not constitute evidence that the Messiah’s rule was associated with God’s rule. In 4QBlessings (­4Q286-290), it is possible that the one surviving line from 4Q287 fragment 10 (line 13) is to be translated “the Holy Spirit is settled upon his Messiah” (God’s Kingdom, 101). The fact that the other fragments refer to God’s kingdom, however, does not constitute a link between the Messiah and God’s kingdom. A similar objection must be made with respect to Rowe’s appeal to 4Q381, which makes extensive use of Psalm 89. There is a reference to God’s anointed one in fragment 15 (line 7) and references to God’s judgment and lordship in fragment 1 (lines 12 and 14, respectively). In fragment 19, Rowe points to a badly preserved line that reads: “your kingdom to your servant” (1.5). The immediately preceding line is equally fragmentary: “(of) pure gold, and you will give me,” but Rowe thinks there is a reference to God’s gift of the kingdom to the Davidic king (God’s Kingdom, 100). However, fragment 19 is too badly preserved to provide a context, and its meaning is irrecoverable. In the Messianic Apocalypse from cave four (4Q521), Rowe observes that the Messiah is mentioned in fragment 2, column ii, line 1. The column then proceeds to describe the throne of an eternal kingdom (line 7) and various works associated with God’s kingship (lines 8 and 12; see God’s Kingdom, 98). But even if it be granted that the anointed one indeed is the royal Messiah, the fragment does not attribute these works to him (cf. ch. 2). 25.  Cf. Helmut Merklein, “Die Einzigkeit Gottes als die sachliche Grundlage der Botschaft Jesu,” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987): 16. 26.  The tendency not to associate the kingdom of Israel with the kingdom of God and to understand God’s kingdom in an exclusively eschatological sense appears to be reflected in the Septuagint. Where the MT refers to David’s role in “my [God’s] kingdom” (1 Chron. 17.14), the LXX has “in his kingdom” (ἐν βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ). Camponovo observes that the translation of the relevant passages is consistently futuristic (Königtum, 398–99). 27.  See especially Anna Maria Schwemer, “Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatsliedern aus Qumran,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 45–118.

13

28.  Cf. George Foot Moore, Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim, vol. 2, reprint, 1930 (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1997), 378; Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20. Camponovo finds an ­anti-messianic concept in the Apocalypse of Weeks, where the temple will be built without the agency of the Messiah (1 En. 91.13). God himself is presumably the agent of the passive verb (Königtum, 253). 29. Camponovo, Königtum, 245, 351; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 315. The description “­this-worldly” for the eschatology of the third book of the Sibylline Oracles is somewhat misleading (pace Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 254). Even though the kingdom is established on earth, it presupposes a change of world order. 30.  The Hebrew text of 1 En. 91.13 refers to ‫( היכל ]מ[ל]כ[ות רבא‬4Q212 4:18). 31.  Michael Wolter correctly concludes that the messianic expectation does not belong to the semantic field of the kingdom of God. God’s unmediated presence is constitutive of his rule (“‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’,” ZNW 86 [1995]: 10; similarly Collins, “Kingdom,” 90). Despite his tendency to connect the Messiah and the kingdom of God, Bright admits that “the genuine Apocalyptic gives little thought to the Messiah Prince” and observes that only God can usher in his kingdom (Kingdom, 168–69). Similarly, Rowe, whose thesis is that the kingdom of God was linked to the Messiah, observes that the Testament of Moses emphasizes “God’s personal action” (God’s Kingdom, 95). 32.  Quotations taken from J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” in OTP, 931, 932.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

In the later apocalyptic works, the kingdom of God represents the final stage on the eschatological timetable. After the coming of the Messiah (2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1; 39.7) and after the eschatological judgment has taken place (2 Bar. 30.2-5; 70.1-10), the age of God’s kingdom begins (2 Bar. 73.1). This kingdom is therefore clearly distinguished from the messianic kingdom.33 In this kingdom there is a state of joy that presupposes the establishment of a new world order (2 Bar. 73.1-74:4).34 In contrast to these apocalyptic expectations, the idea also develops that God’s rule is exercised through the observance of his law by his people (2 Macc. 1.7; cf. Jub. 50.9; Wis. 10.10).35 Consequently, God’s future kingdom can be understood as a kingdom of godliness and righteousness (Sib. Or. 3.­767-784). Nevertheless, the eschatological implications do not disappear. God’s kingship is the warrant for the future redemption of his people (2 Macc. 2:17-18; cf. 3 Macc. 2.13, 19-20). In Diaspora Judaism, the spiritualized understanding of the kingdom is prevalent. The kingdom is inhabited by the virtuous, who participate in the rule by the exercise of virtue (4 Macc. 2.23; Philo, Migr. 197; Abr. 261; Somn. 2.244; Spec. 4.164).36 For this study, however, the eschatological use of the kingdom of God concept is the most relevant. Scholars have long observed two strands in Jewish eschatology, a nationalistic, focusing on Israel, and a religious or apocalyptic, focusing on the righteous individual. These two strands cannot be sharply separated, but there is a tendency in the later sources to focus more exclusively on the religious aspect. It appears, however, that the concept of the Messiah is more at home in the nationalistic expectations, whereas the hope for the manifestation of the kingly rule of God belongs to the religious and apocalyptic ideas. This hope was connected with the concepts of theophany, of God’s direct

intervention on earth, his defeat of his cosmic enemies, and a new world order with paradisiacal conditions.37 In the Isaiah Targum there is a tendency to prefer the phrase “kingdom of God” (‫ )מלכות יהוה‬when reference is made to the eschatological intervention of God. Although this Targum is of a later date (fourth century CE), it appears to contain the only extant witness of exegetical traditions that are also found in the New Testament.38 Perhaps motivated by a desire to avoid anthropomorphisms, the Targum tends to substitute “kingdom of God” for references to God’s own actions. Where the MT speaks of God ruling on Mount Zion (24.23), the Targum proclaims that “the kingdom of the LORD of hosts will be revealed on the Mount of Zion and in Jerusalem and before the elders of his people in glory.”39 The annunciation of this rule (52.7) is therefore the annunciation of his kingdom. When the Lord descends to Mount Zion (31.4) or is revealed to his people (40.9) the Targumist sees the revelation of his kingdom. Similarly, the Targum of the Minor Prophets tends to avoid concrete references to the future appearance of God’s rule. Instead, the Targum refers to the revelation of his kingdom (Tg. Obad. 21; Tg. Mic. 4.7; Tg. Zech. 14.9).40 This survey shows, then, that when the kingdom of God is not identified with the early monarchy or is entirely spiritualized, it is associated with the intervention of God without a human intermediary. Often, this intervention

14

33.  Karl Georg Kuhn in Kleinknecht, et al., “βασιλεύς κτλ,” TDNT 1:574; Schürer, The History, vol. 2, 536–37. 34.  Without using the expression “kingdom of God,” 4 Ezra describes similar paradisiacal conditions following the death of the Messiah (7:29-44). 35. Camponovo, Königtum, 187. 36.  Collins, “Kingdom,” 87–88. In Philo, this idea is related to the thought that the gift of wisdom is a way in which God gives some of his kingly power to humans (Abr. 261). Cf. Naoto Umometo, “Die Königsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 252.

15

37.  Joseph Klausner observes: “Yet, because of afflictions and persecutions, there was to come a time when the Jews perforce would dream of a ‘kingdom of heaven’ and ‘a kingdom not of this world.’ But this kingdom is not the kingdom of the Messiah” (The Messianic Idea in Israel, from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, translated from the 3rd Hebrew edition by W. F. Stinespring [New York: Macmillan, 1955], 418, cf. 408–19, emphasis his). See also Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 371–73; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 263–64. Based on a survey of the use of the “kingdom of God” in the Scriptures of Israel and early Jewish literature, Jacques Schlosser concludes that Jesus’ sayings regarding a future kingdom, especially in the Lord’s Prayer, refer to the coming of God himself (Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, vol. 1, EBib [Paris: Gabalda, 1980], 269–82). 38.  Craig A. Evans, “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 193–94. 39.  All quotations from the Isaiah Targum are taken from Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, The Aramaic Bible 11 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987). 40.  Cf. Bruce D. Chilton, God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom, SNTSU 1 (Freistadt: Plöchl, 1979), 87; Camponovo, Königtum, 431.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

In the later apocalyptic works, the kingdom of God represents the final stage on the eschatological timetable. After the coming of the Messiah (2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1; 39.7) and after the eschatological judgment has taken place (2 Bar. 30.2-5; 70.1-10), the age of God’s kingdom begins (2 Bar. 73.1). This kingdom is therefore clearly distinguished from the messianic kingdom.33 In this kingdom there is a state of joy that presupposes the establishment of a new world order (2 Bar. 73.1-74:4).34 In contrast to these apocalyptic expectations, the idea also develops that God’s rule is exercised through the observance of his law by his people (2 Macc. 1.7; cf. Jub. 50.9; Wis. 10.10).35 Consequently, God’s future kingdom can be understood as a kingdom of godliness and righteousness (Sib. Or. 3.­767-784). Nevertheless, the eschatological implications do not disappear. God’s kingship is the warrant for the future redemption of his people (2 Macc. 2:17-18; cf. 3 Macc. 2.13, 19-20). In Diaspora Judaism, the spiritualized understanding of the kingdom is prevalent. The kingdom is inhabited by the virtuous, who participate in the rule by the exercise of virtue (4 Macc. 2.23; Philo, Migr. 197; Abr. 261; Somn. 2.244; Spec. 4.164).36 For this study, however, the eschatological use of the kingdom of God concept is the most relevant. Scholars have long observed two strands in Jewish eschatology, a nationalistic, focusing on Israel, and a religious or apocalyptic, focusing on the righteous individual. These two strands cannot be sharply separated, but there is a tendency in the later sources to focus more exclusively on the religious aspect. It appears, however, that the concept of the Messiah is more at home in the nationalistic expectations, whereas the hope for the manifestation of the kingly rule of God belongs to the religious and apocalyptic ideas. This hope was connected with the concepts of theophany, of God’s direct

intervention on earth, his defeat of his cosmic enemies, and a new world order with paradisiacal conditions.37 In the Isaiah Targum there is a tendency to prefer the phrase “kingdom of God” (‫ )מלכות יהוה‬when reference is made to the eschatological intervention of God. Although this Targum is of a later date (fourth century CE), it appears to contain the only extant witness of exegetical traditions that are also found in the New Testament.38 Perhaps motivated by a desire to avoid anthropomorphisms, the Targum tends to substitute “kingdom of God” for references to God’s own actions. Where the MT speaks of God ruling on Mount Zion (24.23), the Targum proclaims that “the kingdom of the LORD of hosts will be revealed on the Mount of Zion and in Jerusalem and before the elders of his people in glory.”39 The annunciation of this rule (52.7) is therefore the annunciation of his kingdom. When the Lord descends to Mount Zion (31.4) or is revealed to his people (40.9) the Targumist sees the revelation of his kingdom. Similarly, the Targum of the Minor Prophets tends to avoid concrete references to the future appearance of God’s rule. Instead, the Targum refers to the revelation of his kingdom (Tg. Obad. 21; Tg. Mic. 4.7; Tg. Zech. 14.9).40 This survey shows, then, that when the kingdom of God is not identified with the early monarchy or is entirely spiritualized, it is associated with the intervention of God without a human intermediary. Often, this intervention

14

33.  Karl Georg Kuhn in Kleinknecht, et al., “βασιλεύς κτλ,” TDNT 1:574; Schürer, The History, vol. 2, 536–37. 34.  Without using the expression “kingdom of God,” 4 Ezra describes similar paradisiacal conditions following the death of the Messiah (7:29-44). 35. Camponovo, Königtum, 187. 36.  Collins, “Kingdom,” 87–88. In Philo, this idea is related to the thought that the gift of wisdom is a way in which God gives some of his kingly power to humans (Abr. 261). Cf. Naoto Umometo, “Die Königsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 252.

15

37.  Joseph Klausner observes: “Yet, because of afflictions and persecutions, there was to come a time when the Jews perforce would dream of a ‘kingdom of heaven’ and ‘a kingdom not of this world.’ But this kingdom is not the kingdom of the Messiah” (The Messianic Idea in Israel, from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, translated from the 3rd Hebrew edition by W. F. Stinespring [New York: Macmillan, 1955], 418, cf. 408–19, emphasis his). See also Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 371–73; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 263–64. Based on a survey of the use of the “kingdom of God” in the Scriptures of Israel and early Jewish literature, Jacques Schlosser concludes that Jesus’ sayings regarding a future kingdom, especially in the Lord’s Prayer, refer to the coming of God himself (Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, vol. 1, EBib [Paris: Gabalda, 1980], 269–82). 38.  Craig A. Evans, “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” in The Canon Debate, ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 193–94. 39.  All quotations from the Isaiah Targum are taken from Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, The Aramaic Bible 11 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987). 40.  Cf. Bruce D. Chilton, God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom, SNTSU 1 (Freistadt: Plöchl, 1979), 87; Camponovo, Königtum, 431.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

is also connected with God’s defeat of Satan and the establishment of a new world order.

Lk. 17.20-21 dismisses the idea that the coming of the kingdom is announced by visible signs, Lk. 11.20 would be contradicting this saying if it pointed to exorcisms as signs ­pre-announcing the coming of the kingdom.44 The logic of Lk. 11.14-23 also makes better sense if the exorcisms are seen as signs of an existing state, in which Satan has been overpowered.45 This state corresponds to the state where God’s kingly rule is present. Satan being overpowered, God is already exercising his rule, as the exorcisms demonstrate.46 This interpretation

16

The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus That Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom must be understood as realized eschatology has been recognized since the work of Charles Harold Dodd.41 No modern scholar has defended the consistent future understanding of the kingdom previously advocated by Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer.42 But Dodd’s view has also been criticized as too ­one-sided, and subsequent studies have attempted to account for both the present and the future aspects of the kingdom of God. There is clear evidence in the teaching of Jesus that he thought of the kingdom as in some sense already present. His exorcisms are seen as the decisive sign of the presence of the kingdom in Lk. 11.20 par., where Jesus says: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come (ἔφθασεν) to you.” The translation of this saying depends on whether the word ἔφθασεν goes back to the Aramaic ‫“( מטא‬has come”) or ‫קרב‬ (“has come near”). A close parallel is found in Lk. 10.9b, in the words: “The kingdom of God has come near (ἤγγικεν) to you.” If Lk. 11.20 is read in light of this verse, the translation “has come near” would commend itself, as ἐγγίζω is normally the equivalent of ‫קרב‬. If, on the other hand, Lk. 11.20 is allowed to govern the interpretation of both verses, the translation in both verses should be “has come,” since φθάνω is the equivalent of ‫מטא‬.43 There is a way past arbitrariness, however, since context, not etymology, determines meaning. As 41.  C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 2d edn, reprint, 1936 (New York: Scribner’s, 1961). 42.  E. P. Sanders and Dale Allison may be the scholars that come closest to the views of Schweitzer and Weiss. Somewhat reluctantly, Sanders admits that Jesus probably could understand God’s kingdom as God’s power which was at work in his own ministry, although the expression primarily refers to a n­ ear-future expectation (Jesus and Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 152). For Allison, the central theme of Jesus’ message was the imminence of the kingdom (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 120), but he also observes that Jesus saw the kingdom as “already manifesting itself” (Millenarian Prophet, 145). For an overview of the history of research, see Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, New Testament Library (London: SCM, 1963), 13–157 and several of the essays in Wendell Lee Willis, ed., The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987). 43. Perrin, Kingdom, 63.

17

44.  Taking his cue from the exodus typology in Jesus’ language, George Wesley Buchanan compares the sign of exorcism to the plagues in Egypt. As the plagues were signs of the near future redemption of Israel, so are the exorcisms a sign of the near future arrival of the kingdom of God, in the form of liberation from Roman rule (Jesus, the King and His Kingdom [Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1984], 42–43). The comparison with the plagues, however, has to be read into the text and it confuses the logic of Jesus’ response in Lk. 11.20-22 par. Verses 21-22 argue that Jesus has already defeated Satan. His exorcisms are indicative of the subsequent state. 45.  David Flusser compares Jesus’ words in Lk. 11.21-22 to T. Mos. 10.1 and maintains that there is an important distinction. Whereas the Testament of Moses envisions the complete defeat of Satan, Jesus’ words only imply that he is “weakened” (The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, 4th edn, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley, introd. by James H. Charlesworth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 88). It is doubtful, however, that “weaken” is an adequate translation of νικάω (v. 22). But too much emphasis should not be placed on the precise shade of meaning of individual words, as we do not know the exact words Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Nevertheless, the image that is painted is of the presence of God’s kingdom, which implies the presence of God’s unopposed rule. The defeat and consequent plunder of Satan are described as proof that this is now the state of affairs. The logic of the saying requires that Satan is already defeated, for the point of the saying concerns the consequences of this defeat. 46.  Similarly, Werner G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, trans. Dorothea M. Barton (London: SCM, 1957), 105–9; Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, trans. John Murray (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 124; Philipp Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 31 (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 89; Ingrid Maisch, “Die Botschaft Jesu von der Gottesherrschaft,” in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 29; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 137–38; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 28A (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 919, 922; Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT II/54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 170; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2, EKK 3/2 (Zurich: Benziger, 1996), 175; Bernd Kollmann, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum, FRLANT 170 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 183–86; Martin Hengel, “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20,” in La Main de Dieu = Die Hand Gottes, ed. René Kieffer and Jan Bergman, WUNT 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 104; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 453–54; Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

is also connected with God’s defeat of Satan and the establishment of a new world order.

Lk. 17.20-21 dismisses the idea that the coming of the kingdom is announced by visible signs, Lk. 11.20 would be contradicting this saying if it pointed to exorcisms as signs ­pre-announcing the coming of the kingdom.44 The logic of Lk. 11.14-23 also makes better sense if the exorcisms are seen as signs of an existing state, in which Satan has been overpowered.45 This state corresponds to the state where God’s kingly rule is present. Satan being overpowered, God is already exercising his rule, as the exorcisms demonstrate.46 This interpretation

16

The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus That Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom must be understood as realized eschatology has been recognized since the work of Charles Harold Dodd.41 No modern scholar has defended the consistent future understanding of the kingdom previously advocated by Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer.42 But Dodd’s view has also been criticized as too ­one-sided, and subsequent studies have attempted to account for both the present and the future aspects of the kingdom of God. There is clear evidence in the teaching of Jesus that he thought of the kingdom as in some sense already present. His exorcisms are seen as the decisive sign of the presence of the kingdom in Lk. 11.20 par., where Jesus says: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come (ἔφθασεν) to you.” The translation of this saying depends on whether the word ἔφθασεν goes back to the Aramaic ‫“( מטא‬has come”) or ‫קרב‬ (“has come near”). A close parallel is found in Lk. 10.9b, in the words: “The kingdom of God has come near (ἤγγικεν) to you.” If Lk. 11.20 is read in light of this verse, the translation “has come near” would commend itself, as ἐγγίζω is normally the equivalent of ‫קרב‬. If, on the other hand, Lk. 11.20 is allowed to govern the interpretation of both verses, the translation in both verses should be “has come,” since φθάνω is the equivalent of ‫מטא‬.43 There is a way past arbitrariness, however, since context, not etymology, determines meaning. As 41.  C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 2d edn, reprint, 1936 (New York: Scribner’s, 1961). 42.  E. P. Sanders and Dale Allison may be the scholars that come closest to the views of Schweitzer and Weiss. Somewhat reluctantly, Sanders admits that Jesus probably could understand God’s kingdom as God’s power which was at work in his own ministry, although the expression primarily refers to a n­ ear-future expectation (Jesus and Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 152). For Allison, the central theme of Jesus’ message was the imminence of the kingdom (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 120), but he also observes that Jesus saw the kingdom as “already manifesting itself” (Millenarian Prophet, 145). For an overview of the history of research, see Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, New Testament Library (London: SCM, 1963), 13–157 and several of the essays in Wendell Lee Willis, ed., The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987). 43. Perrin, Kingdom, 63.

17

44.  Taking his cue from the exodus typology in Jesus’ language, George Wesley Buchanan compares the sign of exorcism to the plagues in Egypt. As the plagues were signs of the near future redemption of Israel, so are the exorcisms a sign of the near future arrival of the kingdom of God, in the form of liberation from Roman rule (Jesus, the King and His Kingdom [Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1984], 42–43). The comparison with the plagues, however, has to be read into the text and it confuses the logic of Jesus’ response in Lk. 11.20-22 par. Verses 21-22 argue that Jesus has already defeated Satan. His exorcisms are indicative of the subsequent state. 45.  David Flusser compares Jesus’ words in Lk. 11.21-22 to T. Mos. 10.1 and maintains that there is an important distinction. Whereas the Testament of Moses envisions the complete defeat of Satan, Jesus’ words only imply that he is “weakened” (The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius, 4th edn, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley, introd. by James H. Charlesworth [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 88). It is doubtful, however, that “weaken” is an adequate translation of νικάω (v. 22). But too much emphasis should not be placed on the precise shade of meaning of individual words, as we do not know the exact words Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Nevertheless, the image that is painted is of the presence of God’s kingdom, which implies the presence of God’s unopposed rule. The defeat and consequent plunder of Satan are described as proof that this is now the state of affairs. The logic of the saying requires that Satan is already defeated, for the point of the saying concerns the consequences of this defeat. 46.  Similarly, Werner G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, trans. Dorothea M. Barton (London: SCM, 1957), 105–9; Rudolf Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, trans. John Murray (Freiburg: Herder, 1963), 124; Philipp Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 31 (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 89; Ingrid Maisch, “Die Botschaft Jesu von der Gottesherrschaft,” in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 29; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 137–38; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 28A (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 919, 922; Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT II/54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 170; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2, EKK 3/2 (Zurich: Benziger, 1996), 175; Bernd Kollmann, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum, FRLANT 170 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 183–86; Martin Hengel, “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20,” in La Main de Dieu = Die Hand Gottes, ed. René Kieffer and Jan Bergman, WUNT 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 104; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 453–54; Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

is confirmed by the prepositional clause ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (“upon you”), which implies that the kingdom is in the presence of the audience (cf. Mt. 23.35; Lk. 10.6; 21.12, 34; 24.49; Acts 1.8; Jas 2.7; 1 Pet. 4.14; Rev. 2.24).47 E. P. Sanders has challenged this view. He thinks it is possible that Lk. 11.20 par. and Mt. 11.5 show Jesus’ understanding of the kingdom as a present reality through his own ministry, but contends that it is no more than a possibility. He argues that we do not know the original context of Jesus’ saying in Lk. 11.20 par. (he thinks the passage was not originally a unity) and that we do not know the precise wording of Jesus’ statement in Aramaic. It is therefore futile to discuss the precise meaning of ἔφθασεν.48 As for the latter point, the meaning of Jesus’ saying does not depend on the precise nuance of one word but on the internal logic of the saying.49 As for the former point, the saying makes good sense in the context where the evangelists have placed it and there is little reason to assume that it originally was not spoken in connection with a response to Jesus’ exorcism. In any case, the connection with exorcism is made in the saying itself and that is the connection that warrants the interpretation indicated here. The saying itself is also evocative of significant themes from the Scriptures of Israel, themes that further substantiate this interpretation (cf. below).50 The connection between signs that are already happening and the presence of the kingdom also comes to expression when Jesus sends out the twelve. He tells them to announce the presence of the kingdom and perform the

accompanying signs of healing, vivification, and exorcism (Mt. 10.7-8).51 The presence of the kingdom is thus connected with tangible events indicative of the overturn of the present world order. It is unwarranted, therefore, to see in the kingdom a mere inward quality. The saying about the kingdom being “among you” (Lk. 17.20-21) must also be understood in this light.52 As Jesus here addresses his opponents, he must be referring to an objective reality that he brought in his own person. An already present reality is also presupposed in the notoriously difficult saying about those who use force against the kingdom (Mt. 11.12/Lk. 16.16). Whatever the saying means, the kingdom must be present for someone to grasp it or to enter it forcefully. To this category of sayings should finally be added a number of statements that do not refer to the kingdom explicitly, but reflect the idea that a new and qualitatively different era was present in Jesus’ person (Mk 2.19, 21-22 par.; Mt. 12.41-42; 13.16-17).53

18

Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas, WMANT 76 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 260; Maurice Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, SNTSMS 122 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 171–72; Costantino Antonio Ziccardi, The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to L ­ uke-Acts, Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 165 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2008), 436–37. Contra Richard H. Hiers, The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and Ministry of Jesus, University of Florida Humanities Monograph 38 (Gainesville, Fl.: University of Florida Press, 1973), 61–62. 47.  I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 476; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1080. 48.  Jesus and Judaism, 133–41. Cf. also Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 2002), 133–34. 49.  Similarly, Risto Uro, “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q,” in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 80–81. 50.  For a refutation of Sanders’s view, see also Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 413, 422–23.

19

51.  Christopher Mearns maintains that Q has a consistent future eschatology. He claims that the sayings about the signs of the kingdom have been included in Q in order to correct them by putting them alongside other sayings that warn against a reliance on signs. The explicit presupposition for his argument is that in the earliest Christian community (before the writing of Q) these sayings were interpreted as proclaiming a realized eschatology (“Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16,” SJT 40 [1987]: 204–5). In light of the reverence shown to Jesus in the earliest communities, however, it is unlikely that the author of Q would have included authentic Jesus sayings in order to correct them. But if Mearns’s hypothesis be correct it implies that realized eschatology was earlier than future eschatology. 52.  Most scholars agree that “among you,” rather than “within you,” is the best translation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν. See Bent Noack, Das Gotttesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk. 17.20–24, Symbolae Biblicae Uppsalienses 10 (Lund: Gleerup, 1948); Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 33–34; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 73–74; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 201–15. 53.  Cf. Perrin, Rediscovering, 63–77; Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1971), 103–8; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 87–243; Dale C. Allison, Jr., The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 103–4; George R. ­Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 71–107; Helmut Merkel, “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 142–50; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 399–454; Alexander Prieur, Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft: Exegetische Studien zum lukanischen Verständnis, WUNT II/89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 225–27; Grappe, Le Royaume, 169–76; Giuseppe Segalla, Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento: Tra memoria escatologica di Gesù e promessa del futuro regno di Dio, Logos 8.2 (Leumann (Torino): Elledici, 2006), 141–42.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

is confirmed by the prepositional clause ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (“upon you”), which implies that the kingdom is in the presence of the audience (cf. Mt. 23.35; Lk. 10.6; 21.12, 34; 24.49; Acts 1.8; Jas 2.7; 1 Pet. 4.14; Rev. 2.24).47 E. P. Sanders has challenged this view. He thinks it is possible that Lk. 11.20 par. and Mt. 11.5 show Jesus’ understanding of the kingdom as a present reality through his own ministry, but contends that it is no more than a possibility. He argues that we do not know the original context of Jesus’ saying in Lk. 11.20 par. (he thinks the passage was not originally a unity) and that we do not know the precise wording of Jesus’ statement in Aramaic. It is therefore futile to discuss the precise meaning of ἔφθασεν.48 As for the latter point, the meaning of Jesus’ saying does not depend on the precise nuance of one word but on the internal logic of the saying.49 As for the former point, the saying makes good sense in the context where the evangelists have placed it and there is little reason to assume that it originally was not spoken in connection with a response to Jesus’ exorcism. In any case, the connection with exorcism is made in the saying itself and that is the connection that warrants the interpretation indicated here. The saying itself is also evocative of significant themes from the Scriptures of Israel, themes that further substantiate this interpretation (cf. below).50 The connection between signs that are already happening and the presence of the kingdom also comes to expression when Jesus sends out the twelve. He tells them to announce the presence of the kingdom and perform the

accompanying signs of healing, vivification, and exorcism (Mt. 10.7-8).51 The presence of the kingdom is thus connected with tangible events indicative of the overturn of the present world order. It is unwarranted, therefore, to see in the kingdom a mere inward quality. The saying about the kingdom being “among you” (Lk. 17.20-21) must also be understood in this light.52 As Jesus here addresses his opponents, he must be referring to an objective reality that he brought in his own person. An already present reality is also presupposed in the notoriously difficult saying about those who use force against the kingdom (Mt. 11.12/Lk. 16.16). Whatever the saying means, the kingdom must be present for someone to grasp it or to enter it forcefully. To this category of sayings should finally be added a number of statements that do not refer to the kingdom explicitly, but reflect the idea that a new and qualitatively different era was present in Jesus’ person (Mk 2.19, 21-22 par.; Mt. 12.41-42; 13.16-17).53

18

Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas, WMANT 76 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 260; Maurice Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, SNTSMS 122 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 171–72; Costantino Antonio Ziccardi, The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to L ­ uke-Acts, Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 165 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2008), 436–37. Contra Richard H. Hiers, The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and Ministry of Jesus, University of Florida Humanities Monograph 38 (Gainesville, Fl.: University of Florida Press, 1973), 61–62. 47.  I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 476; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1080. 48.  Jesus and Judaism, 133–41. Cf. also Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 2002), 133–34. 49.  Similarly, Risto Uro, “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q,” in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 80–81. 50.  For a refutation of Sanders’s view, see also Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 413, 422–23.

19

51.  Christopher Mearns maintains that Q has a consistent future eschatology. He claims that the sayings about the signs of the kingdom have been included in Q in order to correct them by putting them alongside other sayings that warn against a reliance on signs. The explicit presupposition for his argument is that in the earliest Christian community (before the writing of Q) these sayings were interpreted as proclaiming a realized eschatology (“Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16,” SJT 40 [1987]: 204–5). In light of the reverence shown to Jesus in the earliest communities, however, it is unlikely that the author of Q would have included authentic Jesus sayings in order to correct them. But if Mearns’s hypothesis be correct it implies that realized eschatology was earlier than future eschatology. 52.  Most scholars agree that “among you,” rather than “within you,” is the best translation of ἐντὸς ὑμῶν. See Bent Noack, Das Gotttesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk. 17.20–24, Symbolae Biblicae Uppsalienses 10 (Lund: Gleerup, 1948); Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 33–34; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 73–74; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 201–15. 53.  Cf. Perrin, Rediscovering, 63–77; Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1971), 103–8; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 87–243; Dale C. Allison, Jr., The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 103–4; George R. ­Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 71–107; Helmut Merkel, “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 55 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 142–50; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 399–454; Alexander Prieur, Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft: Exegetische Studien zum lukanischen Verständnis, WUNT II/89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 225–27; Grappe, Le Royaume, 169–76; Giuseppe Segalla, Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento: Tra memoria escatologica di Gesù e promessa del futuro regno di Dio, Logos 8.2 (Leumann (Torino): Elledici, 2006), 141–42.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

This kingdom is also in some sense future, however. At the Last Supper, when he tells his disciples that he will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in the kingdom of God (Mk 14.25 par.), Jesus is looking forward to a future kingdom. Consequently, he can teach his followers to pray for the coming of the kingdom (Lk. 11.2 par.). The parables about growth (Mk 4.19, 26-29, 30-32 par.) and eschatological judgment (Mt. 13.24-30, 47-50) are also most naturally understood in this light.54 Scholars have suggested different models for understanding the simultaneous present and future aspects of the kingdom.55 Perhaps the best explanation is the one offered by Ernst Haenchen, who spoke of “eschatology that is in the process of realization.”56 In proclaiming the presence of the eschatological kingdom of God, Jesus did not draw on existing messianic expectations (cf. above). This proclamation should therefore not be explained as an expression of Jesus’ messianic ­self-understanding.57 In his statements regarding the kingdom, Jesus takes

God’s place.58 A closer look at the Beelzebul pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) will show that Jesus’ statements are closely associated with related themes regarding God’s eschatological coming to earth.

20

54.  Cf. Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 245–417; Allison, End of the Ages, 101–2; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 291–397. 55.  The “kingdom of God” is very rich in connotations. The present discussion has presupposed the meaning “God’s kingly rule,” based on the Jewish background. In the Synoptic Gospels, however, the meaning “kingdom,” in the sense of a territory where God rules, must also be considered, as the references to entering the kingdom show (Mk 9.47; 10:15 par., 23-25 par.; Mt. 5.20; 7.21). See especially Hans Kvalbein, Jesus: Hvem var han og hva ville han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap (Oslo: Luther, 2008), 88–101; Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory and Imagination (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 164–90. In order to do justice to the multifaceted character of the concept of the kingdom of God, Norman Perrin has explained it as a tensive symbol (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 31; followed by Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 256–57). 56.  In a personal letter to Joachim Jeremias, quoted from Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 2d edn, trans. S. H. Hooke (New York: Scribner’s, 1972), 230. 57.  Contra, e.g. Marinus de Jonge, God’s Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 103; Joel Willitts, Matthew’s Messianic ­Shepherd-King, BZNW 147 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 168–73]. According to David Flusser, Jesus’ most unique innovation was the identification of the kingdom of heaven and the messianic era (The Sage, 87, 95). He has correctly observed that Jesus’ proclamation of the presence of the eschatological kingdom is not associated with the Messiah in contemporary Jewish thought. There is no evidence, however, that Jesus identified the kingdom of heaven (or the kingdom of God) with the messianic times. As I will argue below, the presence of the kingdom in his own person represents the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding God’s own coming to earth.

21

The Original Unity of the Beelzebul Pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) Most of the discussions regarding the origin of the Beelzebul pericope do not pertain to its authenticity, but to whether it was originally a unity or not.59 Bultmann maintains that the original saying only consists of Jesus’ refutation of his opponents’ question by insisting that Satan cannot cast out Satan (Mt. 12.2526/Mk 3.23-26/Lk. 11.17-19).60 The question by whose power other exorcists work cannot originally be connected with this saying because it would imply that these exorcists also work by the power of God and that their activity is evidence of the presence of the kingdom. Finally, an independent saying (also

58.  Similarly, Wolter, “‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’,” 14. 59.  See Santiago Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy,” BTB 29 (1999): 121. If Mearns’s unlikely hypothesis (see footnote 51) be correct, it serves as an argument in favor of historicity for it implies that Q included a saying with which the author had considerable reservations (“Realized Eschatology in Q?” 204–5). 60.  Joel Marcus also finds this passage to be the result of combining independent traditions. He has argued that an unstated premise of the logical argument in Lk. 11.17-19 par. is that “Satan’s kingdom is obviously not laid waste.” This argument is then seen to contradict the saying in Lk. 11.20 par. Marcus’s explanation is that there was a development in Jesus’ understanding of the eschatological significance of his own work. Lk. 11.20 par. belongs to a later stage of his development, after his vision of the fall of Satan and his conviction that Satan’s downfall was effected by his own ministry. The common interpretation of Lk. 11.17-19 par., that it is a reductio ad absurdum argument, is rejected by Marcus for two reasons. He observes that there is no evidence that Jesus speculated about Satan’s intentions and that the conditional clause in v. 18 is constructed with εἰ + aorist indicative in the protasis, which he claims refers to facts that lie in the past, not what is being deliberated regarding the future (“The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28/2 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 248–67). This argument is not persuasive. Marcus requires evidence for a detail (Jesus speculated about Satan’s intentions), but is happy to build his case on the assumption of a major shift in Jesus’ ­self-understanding, a shift for which he adduces no direct evidence. As for the significance of the aorist tense in Lk. 11.18 par., it is best understood as not referring to any specific time (cf. Lk. 7.35; Rom. 8.29; Eph. 5.29). A similar conditional construction, with εἰ + aorist indicative in the protasis and where the meaning clearly has to do with future contingencies, is found in Mk 13.20 par. Cf. also Ronald A. Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 329–30.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

This kingdom is also in some sense future, however. At the Last Supper, when he tells his disciples that he will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in the kingdom of God (Mk 14.25 par.), Jesus is looking forward to a future kingdom. Consequently, he can teach his followers to pray for the coming of the kingdom (Lk. 11.2 par.). The parables about growth (Mk 4.19, 26-29, 30-32 par.) and eschatological judgment (Mt. 13.24-30, 47-50) are also most naturally understood in this light.54 Scholars have suggested different models for understanding the simultaneous present and future aspects of the kingdom.55 Perhaps the best explanation is the one offered by Ernst Haenchen, who spoke of “eschatology that is in the process of realization.”56 In proclaiming the presence of the eschatological kingdom of God, Jesus did not draw on existing messianic expectations (cf. above). This proclamation should therefore not be explained as an expression of Jesus’ messianic ­self-understanding.57 In his statements regarding the kingdom, Jesus takes

God’s place.58 A closer look at the Beelzebul pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) will show that Jesus’ statements are closely associated with related themes regarding God’s eschatological coming to earth.

20

54.  Cf. Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 245–417; Allison, End of the Ages, 101–2; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 291–397. 55.  The “kingdom of God” is very rich in connotations. The present discussion has presupposed the meaning “God’s kingly rule,” based on the Jewish background. In the Synoptic Gospels, however, the meaning “kingdom,” in the sense of a territory where God rules, must also be considered, as the references to entering the kingdom show (Mk 9.47; 10:15 par., 23-25 par.; Mt. 5.20; 7.21). See especially Hans Kvalbein, Jesus: Hvem var han og hva ville han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap (Oslo: Luther, 2008), 88–101; Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory and Imagination (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 164–90. In order to do justice to the multifaceted character of the concept of the kingdom of God, Norman Perrin has explained it as a tensive symbol (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 31; followed by Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 256–57). 56.  In a personal letter to Joachim Jeremias, quoted from Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 2d edn, trans. S. H. Hooke (New York: Scribner’s, 1972), 230. 57.  Contra, e.g. Marinus de Jonge, God’s Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 103; Joel Willitts, Matthew’s Messianic ­Shepherd-King, BZNW 147 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 168–73]. According to David Flusser, Jesus’ most unique innovation was the identification of the kingdom of heaven and the messianic era (The Sage, 87, 95). He has correctly observed that Jesus’ proclamation of the presence of the eschatological kingdom is not associated with the Messiah in contemporary Jewish thought. There is no evidence, however, that Jesus identified the kingdom of heaven (or the kingdom of God) with the messianic times. As I will argue below, the presence of the kingdom in his own person represents the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding God’s own coming to earth.

21

The Original Unity of the Beelzebul Pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) Most of the discussions regarding the origin of the Beelzebul pericope do not pertain to its authenticity, but to whether it was originally a unity or not.59 Bultmann maintains that the original saying only consists of Jesus’ refutation of his opponents’ question by insisting that Satan cannot cast out Satan (Mt. 12.2526/Mk 3.23-26/Lk. 11.17-19).60 The question by whose power other exorcists work cannot originally be connected with this saying because it would imply that these exorcists also work by the power of God and that their activity is evidence of the presence of the kingdom. Finally, an independent saying (also

58.  Similarly, Wolter, “‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’,” 14. 59.  See Santiago Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy,” BTB 29 (1999): 121. If Mearns’s unlikely hypothesis (see footnote 51) be correct, it serves as an argument in favor of historicity for it implies that Q included a saying with which the author had considerable reservations (“Realized Eschatology in Q?” 204–5). 60.  Joel Marcus also finds this passage to be the result of combining independent traditions. He has argued that an unstated premise of the logical argument in Lk. 11.17-19 par. is that “Satan’s kingdom is obviously not laid waste.” This argument is then seen to contradict the saying in Lk. 11.20 par. Marcus’s explanation is that there was a development in Jesus’ understanding of the eschatological significance of his own work. Lk. 11.20 par. belongs to a later stage of his development, after his vision of the fall of Satan and his conviction that Satan’s downfall was effected by his own ministry. The common interpretation of Lk. 11.17-19 par., that it is a reductio ad absurdum argument, is rejected by Marcus for two reasons. He observes that there is no evidence that Jesus speculated about Satan’s intentions and that the conditional clause in v. 18 is constructed with εἰ + aorist indicative in the protasis, which he claims refers to facts that lie in the past, not what is being deliberated regarding the future (“The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28/2 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 248–67). This argument is not persuasive. Marcus requires evidence for a detail (Jesus speculated about Satan’s intentions), but is happy to build his case on the assumption of a major shift in Jesus’ ­self-understanding, a shift for which he adduces no direct evidence. As for the significance of the aorist tense in Lk. 11.18 par., it is best understood as not referring to any specific time (cf. Lk. 7.35; Rom. 8.29; Eph. 5.29). A similar conditional construction, with εἰ + aorist indicative in the protasis and where the meaning clearly has to do with future contingencies, is found in Mk 13.20 par. Cf. also Ronald A. Piper, “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 329–30.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

attested in Gos. Thom. 35) about binding up the strong has been added both to the Markan version and to the composite story in Q.61 Bultmann’s reconstruction is unlikely, however. It is more probable that Matthew and Luke preserve an authentic core. The question about the power of other exorcists is not contradicting the logic of the story and does not imply that other exorcists usher in the kingdom of God. That saying pertains to the source of the exorcisms, not to what they say about the kingdom of God.62 The fact that it is possible to read this question the way Bultmann does, however, militates against the idea that these sayings were joined together by Christian tradition. Christian tradition would not be likely to move in a direction that diminished the uniqueness of Jesus.63 The verses are also so closely connected logically that it is difficult to see how they would have originally been independent sayings and subsequently connected. Lk. 11.20 provides the positive counterpart to v. 19, with a striking parallelism between “by Beelzebul” and “by the finger of God.” Both verses presuppose the charge rendered in v. 18.64

In any case, the fact that a core behind at least Lk. 11.20-22 goes back to the historical Jesus is very rarely disputed. Whether originally a unity or not, these sayings are traced back to the historical Jesus by the majority of scholars.65 They provide his interpretation of the exorcisms as evidence of the presence of the kingdom of God.

22

61.  Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2nd edn, FRLANT 29 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 10–12. Similarly, Perrin, Rediscovering, 63–64; Albert Fuchs, Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach dem historischen Jesus, SNTSU 5 (Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1980), 82–94; John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 122–27; Heinz Schürmann, “QLk 11,14–36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 1, ed. F. van Segbroeck, et al., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 570–74; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 168. 62.  Cf. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 107; Edward J. Woods, The Finger of God and Pneumatology in ­Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 146. Following a patristic interpretation, Robert J. Shirock argues that “your sons” (Lk. 11.19 par.) refers to Jesus’ disciples and that he calls them “your sons” out of gentleness towards the inquirers. The logic of Lk. 11.19 is then that Jesus’ disciples are doing exactly what he does and that their activities also signify the presence of the kingdom (“Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 46–51). This identification removes the problem presented by Bultmann (Shirock is followed by Guijarro, “Politics of Exorcism,” 121). Shirock’s interpretation is possible, but not the most obvious one. Cf. Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 165–66. 63.  Similarly, Harry Fleddermann, with an assessment by F. Neirynck, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, BETL 122 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 59. 64.  For the unity of the saying in Matthew/Luke, see Dieter Zeller, “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 405–7;

23

Authenticity of the Beelzebul Pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) It is the problem of isolating Lk. 11.20 from its context, however, that has prompted Heikki Räisänen to question the authenticity of the entire pericope. He further finds that the reference to “your sons” betrays a setting in the later Christian community. With this expression the scope of the controversy has been broadened to include Israel as a people. He also finds it inexplicable that the Christologically significant statement about the presence of the kingdom in Jesus’ ministry has been omitted by Mark.66 But Räisänen’s arguments are unconvincing. The expression “your sons” is a Semitism, an indication of its origin in the setting of Jesus himself or that of the early community. It does not refer to “Israel,” but to the disciples of the group which Jesus addressed.67 Neither is it surprising that Mark has omitted Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1067–70; Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 91; Schröter, Jesu Worte, 257–59; Woods, Finger of God, 145–46. 65.  Augustin George, “Paroles de Jésus sur les miracles (Mt 11, 5.21; 12, 27.28 et par.),” in Jésus aux origines de la christologie, 2nd edn, ed. Jacques Dupont, BETL 40 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 296–300; Arland J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 105–6; Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 155–56; Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums, BBB 54 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1980), 136–38; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 407–17, 420–21; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 174; James D. G. Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20 – a Word of Jesus?” in Pneumatology, vol. 2 of The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 192–94; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 200–201; Guijarro, “Politics of Exorcism,” 121; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 172–73. Kloppenborg thinks Q 11:20 was a “perhaps authentic kingdom saying” (Formation of Q, 122). 66.  Heikki Räisänen, “Exorcism and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?” in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 133–35. Philip Sellew also appears to conclude from the absence of the saying in Mark to the secondary nature of Lk. 11.20/Mt. 12:28 (“Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue Story or Sayings Cluster?” Forum 4, no. 3 [1988]: 101–2). 67.  Cf. Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 92.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

attested in Gos. Thom. 35) about binding up the strong has been added both to the Markan version and to the composite story in Q.61 Bultmann’s reconstruction is unlikely, however. It is more probable that Matthew and Luke preserve an authentic core. The question about the power of other exorcists is not contradicting the logic of the story and does not imply that other exorcists usher in the kingdom of God. That saying pertains to the source of the exorcisms, not to what they say about the kingdom of God.62 The fact that it is possible to read this question the way Bultmann does, however, militates against the idea that these sayings were joined together by Christian tradition. Christian tradition would not be likely to move in a direction that diminished the uniqueness of Jesus.63 The verses are also so closely connected logically that it is difficult to see how they would have originally been independent sayings and subsequently connected. Lk. 11.20 provides the positive counterpart to v. 19, with a striking parallelism between “by Beelzebul” and “by the finger of God.” Both verses presuppose the charge rendered in v. 18.64

In any case, the fact that a core behind at least Lk. 11.20-22 goes back to the historical Jesus is very rarely disputed. Whether originally a unity or not, these sayings are traced back to the historical Jesus by the majority of scholars.65 They provide his interpretation of the exorcisms as evidence of the presence of the kingdom of God.

22

61.  Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2nd edn, FRLANT 29 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 10–12. Similarly, Perrin, Rediscovering, 63–64; Albert Fuchs, Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach dem historischen Jesus, SNTSU 5 (Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1980), 82–94; John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 122–27; Heinz Schürmann, “QLk 11,14–36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 1, ed. F. van Segbroeck, et al., BETL 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 570–74; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 168. 62.  Cf. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 107; Edward J. Woods, The Finger of God and Pneumatology in ­Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 146. Following a patristic interpretation, Robert J. Shirock argues that “your sons” (Lk. 11.19 par.) refers to Jesus’ disciples and that he calls them “your sons” out of gentleness towards the inquirers. The logic of Lk. 11.19 is then that Jesus’ disciples are doing exactly what he does and that their activities also signify the presence of the kingdom (“Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 46–51). This identification removes the problem presented by Bultmann (Shirock is followed by Guijarro, “Politics of Exorcism,” 121). Shirock’s interpretation is possible, but not the most obvious one. Cf. Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 165–66. 63.  Similarly, Harry Fleddermann, with an assessment by F. Neirynck, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, BETL 122 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 59. 64.  For the unity of the saying in Matthew/Luke, see Dieter Zeller, “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 405–7;

23

Authenticity of the Beelzebul Pericope (Lk. 11.17-23 par.) It is the problem of isolating Lk. 11.20 from its context, however, that has prompted Heikki Räisänen to question the authenticity of the entire pericope. He further finds that the reference to “your sons” betrays a setting in the later Christian community. With this expression the scope of the controversy has been broadened to include Israel as a people. He also finds it inexplicable that the Christologically significant statement about the presence of the kingdom in Jesus’ ministry has been omitted by Mark.66 But Räisänen’s arguments are unconvincing. The expression “your sons” is a Semitism, an indication of its origin in the setting of Jesus himself or that of the early community. It does not refer to “Israel,” but to the disciples of the group which Jesus addressed.67 Neither is it surprising that Mark has omitted Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1067–70; Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 91; Schröter, Jesu Worte, 257–59; Woods, Finger of God, 145–46. 65.  Augustin George, “Paroles de Jésus sur les miracles (Mt 11, 5.21; 12, 27.28 et par.),” in Jésus aux origines de la christologie, 2nd edn, ed. Jacques Dupont, BETL 40 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 296–300; Arland J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 105–6; Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 155–56; Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums, BBB 54 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1980), 136–38; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 407–17, 420–21; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 174; James D. G. Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20 – a Word of Jesus?” in Pneumatology, vol. 2 of The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 192–94; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 200–201; Guijarro, “Politics of Exorcism,” 121; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 172–73. Kloppenborg thinks Q 11:20 was a “perhaps authentic kingdom saying” (Formation of Q, 122). 66.  Heikki Räisänen, “Exorcism and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?” in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 133–35. Philip Sellew also appears to conclude from the absence of the saying in Mark to the secondary nature of Lk. 11.20/Mt. 12:28 (“Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue Story or Sayings Cluster?” Forum 4, no. 3 [1988]: 101–2). 67.  Cf. Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 92.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

this saying, with its association of kingdom and power in the present ministry of Jesus. Mark focuses more on the future aspects of the kingdom.68 He is also concerned to portray Jesus as a paradoxical king, whose kingship displayed no outward glory but manifested itself in lowliness.69 On the other hand, several observations speak in favor of authenticity. The setting, a response to accusations with regard to Jesus’ exorcisms, corresponds to what we know about the historical Jesus. That the eyewitnesses, favorably and unfavorably disposed towards him, perceived Jesus as a successful exorcist is hard to doubt. His exorcisms are well attested in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 1.21-28 par.; 5.1-20 par.; 7.24-30 par.; 9.14-29 par.). In contrast, the early church places

little emphasis on exorcism (Acts 8.7; 16:16-18), despite the commission reported in Mk 6.7 par. Jesus is also frequently described as an exorcist by ­non-Christian witnesses; one of the charges raised against him is that he was a sorcerer (Origen, Cels. 1.6, 68; 2.49; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.32; Justin, Dial. 69.7; b. Sanh. 43a). The Jewish accusations likely owe their origin to the questions raised by the hostile witnesses to Jesus’ exorcisms, as reported in Mk 3.22 par. (cf. Jn 7.20; 8.48, 52).70 It appears that his reputation was so well established that his detractors were unable to deny it; their only recourse was to redefine it as an evil act. Jesus’ reputation can also be seen in the use of his name by other exorcists (Mk 9.38; Lk. 10.17; Acts 16.18; 19.13). In the magical papyri, Jesus’ name is invoked alongside the name of Israel’s God (PGM 4:1233, 3020).71 The saying in Lk. 11.20 par. corresponds well to what is known about Jesus’ exorcisms. In contrast to other exorcists (Tob. 8.2; Acts 19.13; Jos. Ant. 8.4549; J.W. 7.­183-185), Jesus does not use any technique to drive out the demons. Accordingly, Lk. 11.20/Mt. 12.28 attributes the exorcism to the finger/Spirit of God. The saying stands out in its Jewish context, therefore. Nor is it easily explained within the early church, which appears to have placed little emphasis on exorcism. The focus on realized eschatology is also difficult to ascribe to the church. We know that the delay of the Parousia soon became a question of concern to the church (2 Thess. 2:1-12). The implicit Christology, without the use of titles, is likewise more characteristic of Jesus than of early Christian proclamation.72 By the criterion of double dissimilarity, Lk. 11.20 stands very

24

68.  The Beatitudes, attributing present possession of the kingdom to the poor (Mt. 5.3; Lk. 6.20), are not found in Mark. Neither is the saying about the presence of the kingdom “in your midst” (17.21). Mark also has less emphasis on the proclamation of the nearness of the kingdom. Matthew explicitly mentions the nearness of the kingdom as the topic both of John’s preaching (3.2) and of that of the disciples (10.7; cf. Lk. 9.2). The parallel passages in Mark contain no references to the kingdom. On the other hand, Mark includes many sayings about future entrance to the kingdom (9.47; 10.15, 23, 24, 25; 12.34). He is the only evangelist who explicitly combines this theme with the profit of amputation (Mk 9.47; cf. Mt. 5.29; 18.9). Jens Dechow concludes that the kingdom for Mark comes in the imminent future (Gottessohn und Herrschaft Gottes: Der Theozentrismus des Markusevangeliums, WMANT 86 [­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000], 74). Cf. also Michael Hauser, Die Herrschaft Gottes im Markusevangelium, Europäische Hochschulschriften 647 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998), 34. On the other hand, Hatina correctly shows that Mark’s Gospel is far from devoid of realized eschatology. He argues that ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (1.15) means that “the kingdom of God is in the state of arrival.” In favor of this translation, he observes that Mark announces that the time is fulfilled (1.15); that the prologue presents eschatological fulfillment, not prophecy; and that Jesus’ ministry brings a new reality of healing and exorcism. He also finds the presence of the kingdom to be implied in sayings about entrance into the kingdom (9.47; 10.14-15, 23-25). See In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, JSNTSup 232 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 125–28. Scholtissek observes that, while Mark has not included the saying found in Lk. 11.20 par., he expresses the same idea narratively (“Der Sohn Gottes für das Reich Gottes: Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Eschatologie bei Markus,” in Der Evangelist als Theologe: Studien zum Markusevangelium, ed. Thomas Söding, SBS 163 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995], 74). Compared with the other Synoptic Gospels, however, the explicit connection of present realization and kingdom terminology is toned down in Mark. 69.  Cf. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, where he is greeted as king (Mk 11.7-10), but fails to establish his rule. See Paul Brooks 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): 64–71. Fleddermann has argued that Mark’s account overall is secondary to Q. He thinks the association of exorcisms with the kingdom does not fit Mark’s outlook, as Mk 1.14-15 connects the kingdom to the entirety of Jesus’ ministry (Mark and Q, 60).

25

70.  Franz Annen, Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.), Frankfurter theologische Studien 20 (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976), 193–94; Graham Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel Green, B. and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 166–80. 71. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 136–42; Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20,” 189–91. Cf. also Gregory E. Sterling, “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43a,” CBQ 55 (1993): 490–92. 72.  W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 339; Michael Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen (Q 11,19–20) und die Erkenntnis der ägyptischen Magier (Ex 8,15): Q 11,20 als bewährtes Beispiel für ­Schrift-Rezeption Jesu nach der Logienquelle,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 626. Peter Wolff, on the other hand, finds that the Christology of Lk. 11.20 is so significant that it speaks against authenticity. He thinks that the verse is

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

this saying, with its association of kingdom and power in the present ministry of Jesus. Mark focuses more on the future aspects of the kingdom.68 He is also concerned to portray Jesus as a paradoxical king, whose kingship displayed no outward glory but manifested itself in lowliness.69 On the other hand, several observations speak in favor of authenticity. The setting, a response to accusations with regard to Jesus’ exorcisms, corresponds to what we know about the historical Jesus. That the eyewitnesses, favorably and unfavorably disposed towards him, perceived Jesus as a successful exorcist is hard to doubt. His exorcisms are well attested in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 1.21-28 par.; 5.1-20 par.; 7.24-30 par.; 9.14-29 par.). In contrast, the early church places

little emphasis on exorcism (Acts 8.7; 16:16-18), despite the commission reported in Mk 6.7 par. Jesus is also frequently described as an exorcist by ­non-Christian witnesses; one of the charges raised against him is that he was a sorcerer (Origen, Cels. 1.6, 68; 2.49; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.32; Justin, Dial. 69.7; b. Sanh. 43a). The Jewish accusations likely owe their origin to the questions raised by the hostile witnesses to Jesus’ exorcisms, as reported in Mk 3.22 par. (cf. Jn 7.20; 8.48, 52).70 It appears that his reputation was so well established that his detractors were unable to deny it; their only recourse was to redefine it as an evil act. Jesus’ reputation can also be seen in the use of his name by other exorcists (Mk 9.38; Lk. 10.17; Acts 16.18; 19.13). In the magical papyri, Jesus’ name is invoked alongside the name of Israel’s God (PGM 4:1233, 3020).71 The saying in Lk. 11.20 par. corresponds well to what is known about Jesus’ exorcisms. In contrast to other exorcists (Tob. 8.2; Acts 19.13; Jos. Ant. 8.4549; J.W. 7.­183-185), Jesus does not use any technique to drive out the demons. Accordingly, Lk. 11.20/Mt. 12.28 attributes the exorcism to the finger/Spirit of God. The saying stands out in its Jewish context, therefore. Nor is it easily explained within the early church, which appears to have placed little emphasis on exorcism. The focus on realized eschatology is also difficult to ascribe to the church. We know that the delay of the Parousia soon became a question of concern to the church (2 Thess. 2:1-12). The implicit Christology, without the use of titles, is likewise more characteristic of Jesus than of early Christian proclamation.72 By the criterion of double dissimilarity, Lk. 11.20 stands very

24

68.  The Beatitudes, attributing present possession of the kingdom to the poor (Mt. 5.3; Lk. 6.20), are not found in Mark. Neither is the saying about the presence of the kingdom “in your midst” (17.21). Mark also has less emphasis on the proclamation of the nearness of the kingdom. Matthew explicitly mentions the nearness of the kingdom as the topic both of John’s preaching (3.2) and of that of the disciples (10.7; cf. Lk. 9.2). The parallel passages in Mark contain no references to the kingdom. On the other hand, Mark includes many sayings about future entrance to the kingdom (9.47; 10.15, 23, 24, 25; 12.34). He is the only evangelist who explicitly combines this theme with the profit of amputation (Mk 9.47; cf. Mt. 5.29; 18.9). Jens Dechow concludes that the kingdom for Mark comes in the imminent future (Gottessohn und Herrschaft Gottes: Der Theozentrismus des Markusevangeliums, WMANT 86 [­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000], 74). Cf. also Michael Hauser, Die Herrschaft Gottes im Markusevangelium, Europäische Hochschulschriften 647 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998), 34. On the other hand, Hatina correctly shows that Mark’s Gospel is far from devoid of realized eschatology. He argues that ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (1.15) means that “the kingdom of God is in the state of arrival.” In favor of this translation, he observes that Mark announces that the time is fulfilled (1.15); that the prologue presents eschatological fulfillment, not prophecy; and that Jesus’ ministry brings a new reality of healing and exorcism. He also finds the presence of the kingdom to be implied in sayings about entrance into the kingdom (9.47; 10.14-15, 23-25). See In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, JSNTSup 232 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 125–28. Scholtissek observes that, while Mark has not included the saying found in Lk. 11.20 par., he expresses the same idea narratively (“Der Sohn Gottes für das Reich Gottes: Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Eschatologie bei Markus,” in Der Evangelist als Theologe: Studien zum Markusevangelium, ed. Thomas Söding, SBS 163 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995], 74). Compared with the other Synoptic Gospels, however, the explicit connection of present realization and kingdom terminology is toned down in Mark. 69.  Cf. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, where he is greeted as king (Mk 11.7-10), but fails to establish his rule. See Paul Brooks 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): 64–71. Fleddermann has argued that Mark’s account overall is secondary to Q. He thinks the association of exorcisms with the kingdom does not fit Mark’s outlook, as Mk 1.14-15 connects the kingdom to the entirety of Jesus’ ministry (Mark and Q, 60).

25

70.  Franz Annen, Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.), Frankfurter theologische Studien 20 (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976), 193–94; Graham Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel Green, B. and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 166–80. 71. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 136–42; Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20,” 189–91. Cf. also Gregory E. Sterling, “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43a,” CBQ 55 (1993): 490–92. 72.  W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 339; Michael Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen (Q 11,19–20) und die Erkenntnis der ägyptischen Magier (Ex 8,15): Q 11,20 als bewährtes Beispiel für ­Schrift-Rezeption Jesu nach der Logienquelle,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 626. Peter Wolff, on the other hand, finds that the Christology of Lk. 11.20 is so significant that it speaks against authenticity. He thinks that the verse is

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

well. The saying also coheres well with Jesus’ other sayings that emphasize a realized eschatology (Mk 3.27 par.; Mt. 11.2-6 par.; cf. also Mt. 9.37-38; 11.11-12; 12.41-42; 13.16-17; Lk. 17.20-21).73 Justifiably, therefore, the vast majority of scholars have concluded that this saying has a high claim to authenticity.74 The Jesus seminar voted Mk 3.27; Mt. 12.27-29; Lk. 11.17-22; and Gos. Thom. 35.1-2 pink.75

Other scholars have added that Matthew may have been motivated to change “finger” to “Spirit” because of the context in which he used this saying. He has placed the Beelzebul controversy in a context that focuses on the Holy Spirit. It is preceded by a quotation from Isa. 42.1-3, which demonstrates Jesus’ endowment with the Spirit (Mt. 12.18-21), and it is followed by the warning concerning sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12.31-32).77 On the other hand, Luke’s lack of interest in the word δάκτυλος (“finger”) has also been noted. He uses it only in Lk. 11.20, 46; 16.24 and the latter two instances are held to stem from his sources.78 Subsequent studies have criticized Manson, however. As C. S. Rodd observes, when it comes to references to the Spirit, Luke takes more liberties vis-à-vis his sources than does Matthew. In Lk. 21.15, he appears to have omitted a reference to the Spirit (cf. Mk 13.11), whereas he has added a mention of the Spirit in 4:1 (cf. Mk 1.12); 4:14 (cf. Mk 1.14); 10:21 (cf. Mt. 11.25); and 11:13 (cf. Mt. 7.11).79 Rodd also observes that Matthew betrays no tendency to delete anthropomorphisms, as he refers to the earth as God’s footstool

26

The Original Version of the Saying To gain a better understanding of what Jesus meant with this saying, it is necessary to ask precisely what the original wording was. In their rendering of this saying, Matthew and Luke broadly agree, but part ways on one important point. According to Matthew, Jesus claims that “it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons” (12.28), whereas Luke’s Jesus says: “it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons” (11.20). Many scholars have followed T. W. Manson, who concluded that Matthew deviated from Q when he wrote “the Spirit of God” rather than “the finger of God,” as found in Lk. 11.20. Manson argued that Luke is known to have taken a keen interest in the work of the Spirit in Jesus’ ministry and it is unlikely that he would have passed up the opportunity to make a reference to the Spirit of God here, had he known the tradition that is preserved in Mt. 12.28. Manson also thought that the desire to remove anthropomorphisms could account for the removal of the reference to God’s finger. The allusion to Exod. 8.15 also eminently fits Jesus’ argument. The presence of inimitable acts compelled the Egyptian magicians to recognize the work of God’s finger. Likewise, Jesus’ argument is that his ministry evinces equally unique acts and that they defy any other explanation.76

a secondary commentary on Jesus’ exorcisms (Die frühe nachösterliche Verkündigung des Reiches Gottes, FRLANT 171 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 87–88). The verse certainly is significant for Christology, but it lacks the use of titles characteristic of the early church. 73.  Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20,” 197–200. 74.  According to Davies and Allison, the authenticity of Mt. 12:28 “would seem to be one of the assured results of modern criticism” (Matthew, Vol. 2, 339). Cf. also Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, 91–94; Kollmann, Wundertater, 182. See also footnote 65. 75.  Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 51, 185, 329–30, 493. 76.  T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 82.

27

77. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 200; Dieter Trunk, Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium, Herders biblische Studien 3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 70–71; Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 88–89; Schröter, Jesu Worte, 256; Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen,” 620; Woods, Finger of God, 158–59. Other interpreters who believe Luke’s version is original include I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 476; Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 101; Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevengeliums, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 201; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 132–34; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 235; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 918; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT I/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 456; Michael Lawrence Humphries, “The Language of the Kingdom of God in the Beelzebul Discourse” (PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1990), 202–6; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 330; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Waco: Word, 1993), 341; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 410–11, 464; Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1079; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 175; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 364; Grappe, Le Royaume, 170; Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen,” 620; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 167–68; Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 170–71. Even though his concern is to show the authenticity of the Matthean version, Chrys C. Caragounis appears to concede that Luke’s “finger” has the best claim to being the original (“Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ S ­ elf-Understanding,” TynBul 40 [1989]: 8–10). 78.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 340. 79.  Similarly, Augustin George, “Notes sur quelques traits lucaniens de l’expression ‘Par le doigt de Dieu’ (Luc XI,20),” ScEccl 18 (1966): 464–65. J. E. Yates has taken Rodd’s argument further. By comparing Mark and Luke, he finds that Luke consistently omits references to the Spirit as agent (“Luke’s Pneumatology and Lk. 11,20,” SE 2 [1964]: 296–99).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

well. The saying also coheres well with Jesus’ other sayings that emphasize a realized eschatology (Mk 3.27 par.; Mt. 11.2-6 par.; cf. also Mt. 9.37-38; 11.11-12; 12.41-42; 13.16-17; Lk. 17.20-21).73 Justifiably, therefore, the vast majority of scholars have concluded that this saying has a high claim to authenticity.74 The Jesus seminar voted Mk 3.27; Mt. 12.27-29; Lk. 11.17-22; and Gos. Thom. 35.1-2 pink.75

Other scholars have added that Matthew may have been motivated to change “finger” to “Spirit” because of the context in which he used this saying. He has placed the Beelzebul controversy in a context that focuses on the Holy Spirit. It is preceded by a quotation from Isa. 42.1-3, which demonstrates Jesus’ endowment with the Spirit (Mt. 12.18-21), and it is followed by the warning concerning sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12.31-32).77 On the other hand, Luke’s lack of interest in the word δάκτυλος (“finger”) has also been noted. He uses it only in Lk. 11.20, 46; 16.24 and the latter two instances are held to stem from his sources.78 Subsequent studies have criticized Manson, however. As C. S. Rodd observes, when it comes to references to the Spirit, Luke takes more liberties vis-à-vis his sources than does Matthew. In Lk. 21.15, he appears to have omitted a reference to the Spirit (cf. Mk 13.11), whereas he has added a mention of the Spirit in 4:1 (cf. Mk 1.12); 4:14 (cf. Mk 1.14); 10:21 (cf. Mt. 11.25); and 11:13 (cf. Mt. 7.11).79 Rodd also observes that Matthew betrays no tendency to delete anthropomorphisms, as he refers to the earth as God’s footstool

26

The Original Version of the Saying To gain a better understanding of what Jesus meant with this saying, it is necessary to ask precisely what the original wording was. In their rendering of this saying, Matthew and Luke broadly agree, but part ways on one important point. According to Matthew, Jesus claims that “it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons” (12.28), whereas Luke’s Jesus says: “it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons” (11.20). Many scholars have followed T. W. Manson, who concluded that Matthew deviated from Q when he wrote “the Spirit of God” rather than “the finger of God,” as found in Lk. 11.20. Manson argued that Luke is known to have taken a keen interest in the work of the Spirit in Jesus’ ministry and it is unlikely that he would have passed up the opportunity to make a reference to the Spirit of God here, had he known the tradition that is preserved in Mt. 12.28. Manson also thought that the desire to remove anthropomorphisms could account for the removal of the reference to God’s finger. The allusion to Exod. 8.15 also eminently fits Jesus’ argument. The presence of inimitable acts compelled the Egyptian magicians to recognize the work of God’s finger. Likewise, Jesus’ argument is that his ministry evinces equally unique acts and that they defy any other explanation.76

a secondary commentary on Jesus’ exorcisms (Die frühe nachösterliche Verkündigung des Reiches Gottes, FRLANT 171 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 87–88). The verse certainly is significant for Christology, but it lacks the use of titles characteristic of the early church. 73.  Dunn, “Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20,” 197–200. 74.  According to Davies and Allison, the authenticity of Mt. 12:28 “would seem to be one of the assured results of modern criticism” (Matthew, Vol. 2, 339). Cf. also Fuchs, Beelzebulkontroverse, 91–94; Kollmann, Wundertater, 182. See also footnote 65. 75.  Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 51, 185, 329–30, 493. 76.  T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 82.

27

77. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 200; Dieter Trunk, Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium, Herders biblische Studien 3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 70–71; Hengel, “Lk 11,20,” 88–89; Schröter, Jesu Worte, 256; Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen,” 620; Woods, Finger of God, 158–59. Other interpreters who believe Luke’s version is original include I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 476; Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 101; Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevengeliums, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 201; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 132–34; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 235; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 918; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT I/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), 456; Michael Lawrence Humphries, “The Language of the Kingdom of God in the Beelzebul Discourse” (PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1990), 202–6; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 330; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Waco: Word, 1993), 341; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 410–11, 464; Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1079; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 175; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 364; Grappe, Le Royaume, 170; Labahn, “Jesu Exorzismen,” 620; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 167–68; Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 170–71. Even though his concern is to show the authenticity of the Matthean version, Chrys C. Caragounis appears to concede that Luke’s “finger” has the best claim to being the original (“Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ S ­ elf-Understanding,” TynBul 40 [1989]: 8–10). 78.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 340. 79.  Similarly, Augustin George, “Notes sur quelques traits lucaniens de l’expression ‘Par le doigt de Dieu’ (Luc XI,20),” ScEccl 18 (1966): 464–65. J. E. Yates has taken Rodd’s argument further. By comparing Mark and Luke, he finds that Luke consistently omits references to the Spirit as agent (“Luke’s Pneumatology and Lk. 11,20,” SE 2 [1964]: 296–99).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

(5.34-35). Rodd’s conclusion is therefore that there is no reason to assume that “finger of God” is found in Q.80 Other arguments in favor of the primacy of Matthew’s account have also been adduced. The Beelzebul pericope constitutes an instance where Matthew preserves the presumably more original phrase “kingdom of God,” rather than substituting his favorite “kingdom of heaven.”81 This observation loses much weight, however, as Matthew’s terminology may have been motivated by the contrast with “his kingdom” in Mt. 12.26.82 One might also turn Manson’s argument around. If Matthew and Luke’s source read “finger of God,” why would Matthew have changed this expression and passed up such an opportunity to use his favorite new Moses motif?83 Robert P. Menzies therefore thinks that Luke deliberately omitted the reference to the Spirit of God. He argues that Luke associates the Spirit strictly with prophetic speech, not with miracles and exorcisms, and that he edited his source accordingly.84 Menzies’s understanding of Luke’s pneumatology is probably too restrictive, however. Jesus’ ministry as a whole, including his healing miracles, is connected with his anointing with the Spirit in the programmatic sermon in Nazareth (4.18).85

Both Luke and Matthew’s versions have good claims to originality. It may be impossible to reach a conclusion.86 But even on the assumption that Matthew has preserved his source accurately, the expression “finger of God” is likely authentic. Rodd, who has made the case that Luke is not the one who preserves Q most faithfully here, concludes that “finger of God” is original and goes back to the historical Jesus. The saying may have existed in alternate forms at a very early stage and Luke may depend on his own source here.87 It is in any case difficult to account for the phrase as a product of Luke’s literary ingenuity. Robert H ­ amerton-Kelly suggests that, since Luke had introduced the “Spirit of God” in 11.13, he used the synonym “finger of God’ in 11.20.88 But Luke typically uses “power of God” in parallel with “Spirit of God” (Lk. 1.35; 24.49). The expression “finger of God” is unusual, unattested in the earliest Christian literature. In Jewish sources, the expression also appears to be avoided, as it is frequently omitted when the story of the plagues is retold (Jub. 48.5-12;

28

80.  C. S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” ExpTim 72 (1960–61): 157. Rodd is followed by Robert G. ­Hamerton-Kelly, “A Note on Matthew XII. 28 par. Luke XI. 20,” NTS 11 (1964–65): 167; ­Jean-Marie van Cangh, “‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu–par le doigt de Dieu’: Mt 12,28 par. Lc 11,20,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 342; Robert W. Wall, “‘The Finger of God’: Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20,” NTS 33 (1987): 145; Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to L ­ uke-Acts, JSNTSup 54 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 186; John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, 1993), 639–40; Martin Emmrich, “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy,” WTJ 62 (2000): 271. 81. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 50–51. 82. Trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 70. 83.  George, “‘Par le doigt de Dieu’,” 462–63. ­Jean-Marie van Cangh observes the parallels between Jesus and Moses in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7.1-51) and suggests that Luke was motivated by his desire to describe Jesus as the new Moses when he introduced the expression “finger of God” (“‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu’,” 339–40). The parallels (Acts 7.25, 27, 35, 39) concern the rejection motif, however, not the victory. 84. Menzies, Early Christian Pneumatology, 188–89. Similarly, Emmrich, “Beelzebul Controversy,” 272. 85.  Menzies argues that Luke edited Jesus’ quotation from Isa. 61.1-2 in such a way that it would refer specifically to his preaching (Early Christian Pneumatology, 161–77). Jesus’ preaching may well have been important to Luke, but his focus on Jesus’ miracles, especially in his use of Isa. 61:1-2, cannot possibly be ignored. Luke repeats the phrase “the blind receive their sight” from Isa. 61.1 in 7.22, immediately after his summary statement about Jesus’

29

miracles (7.21), indicating that this prophecy had found its fulfillment in the specific acts of healing that Jesus had performed. For Luke, Jesus’ anointment with the Spirit, prophesied in Isa. 61.1-2, cannot be limited to prophetic speech. 86.  The Critical Edition of Q prints δακτύλῳ in square brackets and notes Matthew’s πνεύματι as an alternative (James McConkey Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds, The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas With English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 232). 87.  Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” 158. 88. ­Hamerton-Kelly observes that “hand of God,” “finger of God,” and “Spirit of God” may be used in parallelism in the Hebrew Bible (compare Ezek. 8.1 with 8.3; 11.5 and see Ezek. 37.1). Since Luke has already introduced the Spirit in 11:13, he thinks Luke uses “finger of God” as a ­well-known synonym in 11.20 (“Matthew XII. 28 Par,” 168–69). Nolland adds that Luke is the only one of the Synoptic Gospels that uses anthropomorphisms such as “the hand of God” (1.66; Acts 4.28, 30; 7.50; 11.21; 13.11) and the “arm of God” (Lk. 1.51; Acts 13.17), and that Luke is the one who is most concerned to show the connection with God’s dealing with his people in the past, such as in this allusion to the exodus (Luke 9:21–18:34, 639). These arguments carry less weight, however. If Luke has a penchant for anthropomorphisms he does not introduce them when he describes Jesus’ earthly ministry. They appear only in the infancy narratives, which are so strongly influenced by Septuagintal language, and in the book of Acts. Luke may have a special interest in showing the continuity with God’s dealings with his people in the past, but all the Synoptic gospels take special care in highlighting the exodus motif. For the exodus motif in Mark, see Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, WUNT II/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark, reprint, 1992 (London: T & T Clark, 2004). For Matthew, see Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

(5.34-35). Rodd’s conclusion is therefore that there is no reason to assume that “finger of God” is found in Q.80 Other arguments in favor of the primacy of Matthew’s account have also been adduced. The Beelzebul pericope constitutes an instance where Matthew preserves the presumably more original phrase “kingdom of God,” rather than substituting his favorite “kingdom of heaven.”81 This observation loses much weight, however, as Matthew’s terminology may have been motivated by the contrast with “his kingdom” in Mt. 12.26.82 One might also turn Manson’s argument around. If Matthew and Luke’s source read “finger of God,” why would Matthew have changed this expression and passed up such an opportunity to use his favorite new Moses motif?83 Robert P. Menzies therefore thinks that Luke deliberately omitted the reference to the Spirit of God. He argues that Luke associates the Spirit strictly with prophetic speech, not with miracles and exorcisms, and that he edited his source accordingly.84 Menzies’s understanding of Luke’s pneumatology is probably too restrictive, however. Jesus’ ministry as a whole, including his healing miracles, is connected with his anointing with the Spirit in the programmatic sermon in Nazareth (4.18).85

Both Luke and Matthew’s versions have good claims to originality. It may be impossible to reach a conclusion.86 But even on the assumption that Matthew has preserved his source accurately, the expression “finger of God” is likely authentic. Rodd, who has made the case that Luke is not the one who preserves Q most faithfully here, concludes that “finger of God” is original and goes back to the historical Jesus. The saying may have existed in alternate forms at a very early stage and Luke may depend on his own source here.87 It is in any case difficult to account for the phrase as a product of Luke’s literary ingenuity. Robert H ­ amerton-Kelly suggests that, since Luke had introduced the “Spirit of God” in 11.13, he used the synonym “finger of God’ in 11.20.88 But Luke typically uses “power of God” in parallel with “Spirit of God” (Lk. 1.35; 24.49). The expression “finger of God” is unusual, unattested in the earliest Christian literature. In Jewish sources, the expression also appears to be avoided, as it is frequently omitted when the story of the plagues is retold (Jub. 48.5-12;

28

80.  C. S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” ExpTim 72 (1960–61): 157. Rodd is followed by Robert G. ­Hamerton-Kelly, “A Note on Matthew XII. 28 par. Luke XI. 20,” NTS 11 (1964–65): 167; ­Jean-Marie van Cangh, “‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu–par le doigt de Dieu’: Mt 12,28 par. Lc 11,20,” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 342; Robert W. Wall, “‘The Finger of God’: Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20,” NTS 33 (1987): 145; Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to L ­ uke-Acts, JSNTSup 54 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 186; John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC 35B (Dallas: Word, 1993), 639–40; Martin Emmrich, “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy,” WTJ 62 (2000): 271. 81. Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 50–51. 82. Trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 70. 83.  George, “‘Par le doigt de Dieu’,” 462–63. ­Jean-Marie van Cangh observes the parallels between Jesus and Moses in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7.1-51) and suggests that Luke was motivated by his desire to describe Jesus as the new Moses when he introduced the expression “finger of God” (“‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu’,” 339–40). The parallels (Acts 7.25, 27, 35, 39) concern the rejection motif, however, not the victory. 84. Menzies, Early Christian Pneumatology, 188–89. Similarly, Emmrich, “Beelzebul Controversy,” 272. 85.  Menzies argues that Luke edited Jesus’ quotation from Isa. 61.1-2 in such a way that it would refer specifically to his preaching (Early Christian Pneumatology, 161–77). Jesus’ preaching may well have been important to Luke, but his focus on Jesus’ miracles, especially in his use of Isa. 61:1-2, cannot possibly be ignored. Luke repeats the phrase “the blind receive their sight” from Isa. 61.1 in 7.22, immediately after his summary statement about Jesus’

29

miracles (7.21), indicating that this prophecy had found its fulfillment in the specific acts of healing that Jesus had performed. For Luke, Jesus’ anointment with the Spirit, prophesied in Isa. 61.1-2, cannot be limited to prophetic speech. 86.  The Critical Edition of Q prints δακτύλῳ in square brackets and notes Matthew’s πνεύματι as an alternative (James McConkey Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds, The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas With English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 232). 87.  Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” 158. 88. ­Hamerton-Kelly observes that “hand of God,” “finger of God,” and “Spirit of God” may be used in parallelism in the Hebrew Bible (compare Ezek. 8.1 with 8.3; 11.5 and see Ezek. 37.1). Since Luke has already introduced the Spirit in 11:13, he thinks Luke uses “finger of God” as a ­well-known synonym in 11.20 (“Matthew XII. 28 Par,” 168–69). Nolland adds that Luke is the only one of the Synoptic Gospels that uses anthropomorphisms such as “the hand of God” (1.66; Acts 4.28, 30; 7.50; 11.21; 13.11) and the “arm of God” (Lk. 1.51; Acts 13.17), and that Luke is the one who is most concerned to show the connection with God’s dealing with his people in the past, such as in this allusion to the exodus (Luke 9:21–18:34, 639). These arguments carry less weight, however. If Luke has a penchant for anthropomorphisms he does not introduce them when he describes Jesus’ earthly ministry. They appear only in the infancy narratives, which are so strongly influenced by Septuagintal language, and in the book of Acts. Luke may have a special interest in showing the continuity with God’s dealings with his people in the past, but all the Synoptic gospels take special care in highlighting the exodus motif. For the exodus motif in Mark, see Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, WUNT II/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark, reprint, 1992 (London: T & T Clark, 2004). For Matthew, see Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

L.A.B. 10.1; Jos., Ant. 2.­300-302). Judged by the criterion of dissimilarity, the expression stands relatively well.89

of others (Exod. 8.15; 31.18; Deut. 9.10; cf. Ps. 8.4).94 Eduard Schweizer aptly observes that Jesus “is equating his finger with God’s.”95 At the same time, the descriptions of Jesus’ exorcisms in the Synoptic Gospels seem to imply that Jesus performed his exorcisms by his own power. Several scholars have demonstrated that, although previous studies have tended to overstate the uniqueness of Jesus’ exorcisms, they do indeed stand out when they are compared with contemporary exorcists.96 Jesus does not appeal to any power outside himself, either by the use of material objects as a help in exorcisms (cf. Tob. 8.3; Jos., Ant. 8.47; J. W. 7.­180-185) or by praying to God (cf. 1QapGen 20.28; PGM 4.1232, 3019). Even though he does command the demons with words that may have sounded formulaic he did not make use of spells or incantations (cf. Jos., Ant. 8.45; 4Q560 1.ii.5-6; 11Q11 5.2-13; PGM 4.86-87). Significantly, Jesus is nowhere quoted as using the word ὁρκίζω (“adjure”) in his exorcisms. In Mk 9.25, however, he uses an emphatic “I.”97

30

God’s Direct Intervention It remains plausible, therefore, that Jesus connected his exorcisms with the finger of God. If so, he was alluding to the exodus story and the Egyptians’ reactions to the plagues. According to Exod. 8.15 MT, “the magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God!’”90 The expression came to signify God’s sovereign intervention, as when the Ten Commandments were said to be “written with the finger of God” (Exod. 31.18; cf. Deut. 9.10) and the heavens, “the work of your fingers” (Ps. 8.4).91 In Luke’s account, the phrases “by Beelzebul” (v. 19) and “by the finger of God” (v. 20) occur in antithetic parallelism.92 There is a strong emphasis on God as the agent of the exorcism.93 It should be noted that Jesus does not attribute the exorcism to the finger of God alone. He takes credit for the exorcism himself (“[ἐγὼ] ἐκβάλλω”) and thereby claims for himself what he also attributes to the finger of God. This is significant, as all the occurrences of the expression “finger of God” in the Scriptures of Israel emphasize God’s activity as contrasted with the activities

89. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 415–16. 90.  Jacques Schlosser argues that the expression was so unusual in Jewish texts that it must be understood as a direct allusion to Exod. 8.15 (Règne, vol. 1, 134). Following C. F. Evans, Robert W. Wall has argued that Deut. 9.10, rather than Exod. 8.15, is the primary background for Lk. 11.20. By echoing the Sinai tradition, the Beelzebul pericope thus sounds a warning to Israel not to repeat their ancestors’ failure to respond appropriately when addressed by God (“‘Finger of God’,” 145–50). Edward Woods sees both Exod. 8.15 and Deut. 9.10 as the background of Lk. 11.20 (Finger of God, 87–100). The appeal to Deut. 9.10 is based on observations in the larger context of Luke’s gospel. In the context of the historical Jesus, Exod. 9.15 MT must be considered the primary background. 91.  Similarly, Heinrich Schlier, “δάκτυλος,” in TDNT, 2:20; Gerhard A. Klingbeil, “The Finger of God in the Old Testament,” ZAW 112 (2000): 414; Woods, Finger of God, 87–100. Moshe Weinfeld comments that “[t]he ‘finger of God,’ in contrast to the ‘hand of God,’ indicates some extraordinary performance” (Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 408). 92. Woods, Finger of God, 140. 93.  In the Greek text, the “finger of God” stands in a prepositional phrase with ἐν. This preposition should here be understood not in an instrumental sense, but in a sense of agency (cf. Lk. 4.1). Jesus did not drive out the demons with the help of God’s finger; God’s finger was the agent driving out the demons. Cf. Woods, Finger of God, 136.

31

94.  Similarly, Ben Witherington, III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 203. In his study of the expression “finger of God,” Pieter van der Horst concludes that “it is God’s sovereignty over the powers of evil and his intervention on behalf of his people through a human agent that is at the foreground” (“‘The Finger of God’: Miscellaneous Notes on Luke 11:20 and Its Umwelt,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and ­Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge, NovTSup 89 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 93). However, it is doubtful that the expression has any connotation of human agency. Both in Deut. 9.10 and in Ps. 8.4 is such an idea ruled out. In the interpretation attested in Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan, the focus is rather on the contrast between human and divine power: “This is not by the power or strength of Mosheh and Aharon; but this is a plague sent from before the Lord” (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 8.19). Similarly, Midrash Exodus Rabba 10.7 (on 8.19) has the interpretation: “As soon as the magicians realised that they were not able to produce gnats, they recognised that the deeds were those of a God and not witchcraft.” In the writings of Philo, the expression “finger of God” occurs twice in Migr. 85, where it refers to divine wisdom, and once in Mos. 1.112, where it refers to God’s actions in Egypt. Likewise, in Mekhilta Exodus Beshallah 7 (on 14.31) the “finger of God” refers to the plagues that God brought upon the Egyptians. 95.  Eduard Schweizer, Jesus, trans. David E. Green (London: SCM, 1971), 14. 96.  According to Dieter Trunk, there is one account of exorcism in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius that is comparable to the exorcisms of Jesus as reported in the Synoptic Gospels. In Vit. Ap. 4.20 Apollonius drives out a demon without any other means than his own power (Der Messianische Heiler, 352, 357). From the third century CE and characterized by Pythagorean influence, this work is far removed from the Synoptic Gospels, and a comparison is of limited value. 97. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 157–65; Trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 357–62, 428–29; ­Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Jesu Heilungen und Exorzismen: Ein Stück Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie,

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

L.A.B. 10.1; Jos., Ant. 2.­300-302). Judged by the criterion of dissimilarity, the expression stands relatively well.89

of others (Exod. 8.15; 31.18; Deut. 9.10; cf. Ps. 8.4).94 Eduard Schweizer aptly observes that Jesus “is equating his finger with God’s.”95 At the same time, the descriptions of Jesus’ exorcisms in the Synoptic Gospels seem to imply that Jesus performed his exorcisms by his own power. Several scholars have demonstrated that, although previous studies have tended to overstate the uniqueness of Jesus’ exorcisms, they do indeed stand out when they are compared with contemporary exorcists.96 Jesus does not appeal to any power outside himself, either by the use of material objects as a help in exorcisms (cf. Tob. 8.3; Jos., Ant. 8.47; J. W. 7.­180-185) or by praying to God (cf. 1QapGen 20.28; PGM 4.1232, 3019). Even though he does command the demons with words that may have sounded formulaic he did not make use of spells or incantations (cf. Jos., Ant. 8.45; 4Q560 1.ii.5-6; 11Q11 5.2-13; PGM 4.86-87). Significantly, Jesus is nowhere quoted as using the word ὁρκίζω (“adjure”) in his exorcisms. In Mk 9.25, however, he uses an emphatic “I.”97

30

God’s Direct Intervention It remains plausible, therefore, that Jesus connected his exorcisms with the finger of God. If so, he was alluding to the exodus story and the Egyptians’ reactions to the plagues. According to Exod. 8.15 MT, “the magicians said to Pharaoh, ‘This is the finger of God!’”90 The expression came to signify God’s sovereign intervention, as when the Ten Commandments were said to be “written with the finger of God” (Exod. 31.18; cf. Deut. 9.10) and the heavens, “the work of your fingers” (Ps. 8.4).91 In Luke’s account, the phrases “by Beelzebul” (v. 19) and “by the finger of God” (v. 20) occur in antithetic parallelism.92 There is a strong emphasis on God as the agent of the exorcism.93 It should be noted that Jesus does not attribute the exorcism to the finger of God alone. He takes credit for the exorcism himself (“[ἐγὼ] ἐκβάλλω”) and thereby claims for himself what he also attributes to the finger of God. This is significant, as all the occurrences of the expression “finger of God” in the Scriptures of Israel emphasize God’s activity as contrasted with the activities

89. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 415–16. 90.  Jacques Schlosser argues that the expression was so unusual in Jewish texts that it must be understood as a direct allusion to Exod. 8.15 (Règne, vol. 1, 134). Following C. F. Evans, Robert W. Wall has argued that Deut. 9.10, rather than Exod. 8.15, is the primary background for Lk. 11.20. By echoing the Sinai tradition, the Beelzebul pericope thus sounds a warning to Israel not to repeat their ancestors’ failure to respond appropriately when addressed by God (“‘Finger of God’,” 145–50). Edward Woods sees both Exod. 8.15 and Deut. 9.10 as the background of Lk. 11.20 (Finger of God, 87–100). The appeal to Deut. 9.10 is based on observations in the larger context of Luke’s gospel. In the context of the historical Jesus, Exod. 9.15 MT must be considered the primary background. 91.  Similarly, Heinrich Schlier, “δάκτυλος,” in TDNT, 2:20; Gerhard A. Klingbeil, “The Finger of God in the Old Testament,” ZAW 112 (2000): 414; Woods, Finger of God, 87–100. Moshe Weinfeld comments that “[t]he ‘finger of God,’ in contrast to the ‘hand of God,’ indicates some extraordinary performance” (Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 408). 92. Woods, Finger of God, 140. 93.  In the Greek text, the “finger of God” stands in a prepositional phrase with ἐν. This preposition should here be understood not in an instrumental sense, but in a sense of agency (cf. Lk. 4.1). Jesus did not drive out the demons with the help of God’s finger; God’s finger was the agent driving out the demons. Cf. Woods, Finger of God, 136.

31

94.  Similarly, Ben Witherington, III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 203. In his study of the expression “finger of God,” Pieter van der Horst concludes that “it is God’s sovereignty over the powers of evil and his intervention on behalf of his people through a human agent that is at the foreground” (“‘The Finger of God’: Miscellaneous Notes on Luke 11:20 and Its Umwelt,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and ­Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge, NovTSup 89 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 93). However, it is doubtful that the expression has any connotation of human agency. Both in Deut. 9.10 and in Ps. 8.4 is such an idea ruled out. In the interpretation attested in Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan, the focus is rather on the contrast between human and divine power: “This is not by the power or strength of Mosheh and Aharon; but this is a plague sent from before the Lord” (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 8.19). Similarly, Midrash Exodus Rabba 10.7 (on 8.19) has the interpretation: “As soon as the magicians realised that they were not able to produce gnats, they recognised that the deeds were those of a God and not witchcraft.” In the writings of Philo, the expression “finger of God” occurs twice in Migr. 85, where it refers to divine wisdom, and once in Mos. 1.112, where it refers to God’s actions in Egypt. Likewise, in Mekhilta Exodus Beshallah 7 (on 14.31) the “finger of God” refers to the plagues that God brought upon the Egyptians. 95.  Eduard Schweizer, Jesus, trans. David E. Green (London: SCM, 1971), 14. 96.  According to Dieter Trunk, there is one account of exorcism in Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius that is comparable to the exorcisms of Jesus as reported in the Synoptic Gospels. In Vit. Ap. 4.20 Apollonius drives out a demon without any other means than his own power (Der Messianische Heiler, 352, 357). From the third century CE and characterized by Pythagorean influence, this work is far removed from the Synoptic Gospels, and a comparison is of limited value. 97. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 157–65; Trunk, Der messianische Heiler, 357–62, 428–29; ­Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Jesu Heilungen und Exorzismen: Ein Stück Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie,

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

Jesus’ exorcisms therefore appear to be attributed simultaneously to the sovereign intervention of God and to Jesus’ own power. He appears to be saying that his own power is at the same time God’s power.98

18:12, the priestly Messiah is said to bind Beliar, but this is likely a Christian addition.101 In any case, this is not a close parallel. The warfare imagery in T. Levi 18 is subdued at best. In the days of the priestly Messiah there will be peace upon all the earth (18.4). In his priesthood there will no longer be any sin, and even the lawless will turn from his lawlessness (18.9). The priestly Messiah will open Paradise (18.10) and give the holy ones to eat of the tree of life (18.11). It is in this context that his binding of Beliar must be understood. The image is not of warfare as much as it is that Beliar’s activities will cease.102 The Testament of Zebulon paints a more militant image, in another passage that may have been influenced by Christian scribes. According to T. Zeb. 9.8, the author looks forward to a time when God himself will intervene in history, liberate the captives of Beliar, and trample down every spirit of error. Most explicitly, the Testament of Simeon explains that the spirits of error will be trampled underfoot when God the Lord appears on earth (6.5-6). Similarly, the Testament of Dan looks forward to the salvation of the Lord, when he will wage war against Beliar (5.10), and the Testament of Asher proclaims that the Most High will visit the earth and crush the dragon’s head in the water (7.3).103 The third book of the Sibylline Oracles expects the almighty God to consume Beliar with fire (3.73). These ideas correspond to the picture of God ushering in his kingdom in T. Mos. 10.1, 3, when Satan ceases to exist.104

32

The Divine Warrior In the continuation of the Beelzebul pericope, Jesus describes himself in warrior terms, as the one who binds and conquers Satan (Lk. 11.21-22). All the Synoptics share the motif of a power struggle in this brief parable, but Matthew and Mark have a picture of burglary, whereas Luke envisions a militaristic battle. Luke stays closer to the language of Isa. 49.24-25, to which the saying alludes. If Luke has preserved the original with his more Scriptural language in the previous verse, it is not unlikely that he has done so in these verses as well. The war metaphor is consistent with the picture of conflict drawn in the preceding verses (Lk. 11.17-18) and with Jesus’ kingdom language (Lk. 11.1718, 20).99 Many scholars connect this binding activity with messianic expectations, but it is difficult to find any ­pre-Christian evidence of this idea.100 In T. Levi

ed. Wolfgang Kraus and ­Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, WUNT 162 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 104; Todd E. Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in ­Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading, SNTSMS 129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 66. Pieter Craffert, who understands Jesus in the category of a shaman, also acknowledges that Jesus’ exorcistic practices distinguish him from conventional exorcists (The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in ­Anthropological-Historical Perspective, Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Perspective 3 [Eugene, Or.: Cascade, 2008], 300). 98.  Merklein observes that God’s eschatological work is identified with the work that Jesus does alone (“Die Einzigkeit Gottes,” 27–28). Commenting not on the historical Jesus but on the theology of Luke, Todd Klutz observes that “Jesus tacitly plays the role of God himself” (Exorcism Stories, 79). On the assumption that Luke’s portrait of Jesus reliably describes his unconventional approach to exorcisms, the comment applies to the historical Jesus as well. In another study, Klutz discusses the use of Jesus’ name by other exorcists. He concludes that this usage is comparable to the invocation of various deities in comparable settings (“The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 159–60). 99. Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 131; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 125; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 173. Contra Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 418; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 177. 100.  As E. P. Sanders correctly observes (Jesus and Judaism, 134–35).

33

101.  H. W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, SVTP 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 180–81; Robert A. Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 51–52; contra Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 160. The later Pesiq. Rab. 36 also quotes Satan’s expression of anguish before the ­pre-existent Messiah, who would send him to Gehinnom. Cf. Walter Grundmann, “ἰσχύω κτλ,” in TDNT, 3:400. In a clearly Christian addition, T. Benj. 3.8 describes the Lamb of God, the savior of the world, who will destroy Beliar and his servants. After examining the evidence, Graham Twelftree concludes that there is no ­pre-Christian evidence that the Messiah was associated with the battle with Satan and the demons through exorcism (Jesus the Exorcist, 184–89). Similarly, Woods, Finger of God, 149–50. 102.  For a spiritualized understanding of war against Beliar, see also T. Reub. 4.11; T. Sim. 5.3; T. Iss. 7.7; T. Dan. 5.1; T. Ash. 1.8; T. Benj. 3.4; 6.1; 1QS 1.16-18, 22-26; cf. T. Naph. 8.4. Jubilees 23.27-31 describes the paradisiacal conditions that will follow Israel’s renewed commitment to the law in the end times. At that time, there will no longer be a Satan (23.29). Occasionally, the end of Beliar is described without identifying the agent of his destruction (T. Jud. 25.3). 103.  It is almost certainly a Christian scribe who has added: “He shall come as a man eating and drinking with human beings.” Cf. Howard Clark Kee in OTP 1:818. 104.  More remotely related, God imprisons the Watchers in Jub. 10.6. Lesser demons

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

Jesus’ exorcisms therefore appear to be attributed simultaneously to the sovereign intervention of God and to Jesus’ own power. He appears to be saying that his own power is at the same time God’s power.98

18:12, the priestly Messiah is said to bind Beliar, but this is likely a Christian addition.101 In any case, this is not a close parallel. The warfare imagery in T. Levi 18 is subdued at best. In the days of the priestly Messiah there will be peace upon all the earth (18.4). In his priesthood there will no longer be any sin, and even the lawless will turn from his lawlessness (18.9). The priestly Messiah will open Paradise (18.10) and give the holy ones to eat of the tree of life (18.11). It is in this context that his binding of Beliar must be understood. The image is not of warfare as much as it is that Beliar’s activities will cease.102 The Testament of Zebulon paints a more militant image, in another passage that may have been influenced by Christian scribes. According to T. Zeb. 9.8, the author looks forward to a time when God himself will intervene in history, liberate the captives of Beliar, and trample down every spirit of error. Most explicitly, the Testament of Simeon explains that the spirits of error will be trampled underfoot when God the Lord appears on earth (6.5-6). Similarly, the Testament of Dan looks forward to the salvation of the Lord, when he will wage war against Beliar (5.10), and the Testament of Asher proclaims that the Most High will visit the earth and crush the dragon’s head in the water (7.3).103 The third book of the Sibylline Oracles expects the almighty God to consume Beliar with fire (3.73). These ideas correspond to the picture of God ushering in his kingdom in T. Mos. 10.1, 3, when Satan ceases to exist.104

32

The Divine Warrior In the continuation of the Beelzebul pericope, Jesus describes himself in warrior terms, as the one who binds and conquers Satan (Lk. 11.21-22). All the Synoptics share the motif of a power struggle in this brief parable, but Matthew and Mark have a picture of burglary, whereas Luke envisions a militaristic battle. Luke stays closer to the language of Isa. 49.24-25, to which the saying alludes. If Luke has preserved the original with his more Scriptural language in the previous verse, it is not unlikely that he has done so in these verses as well. The war metaphor is consistent with the picture of conflict drawn in the preceding verses (Lk. 11.17-18) and with Jesus’ kingdom language (Lk. 11.1718, 20).99 Many scholars connect this binding activity with messianic expectations, but it is difficult to find any ­pre-Christian evidence of this idea.100 In T. Levi

ed. Wolfgang Kraus and ­Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, WUNT 162 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 104; Todd E. Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in ­Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading, SNTSMS 129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 66. Pieter Craffert, who understands Jesus in the category of a shaman, also acknowledges that Jesus’ exorcistic practices distinguish him from conventional exorcists (The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in ­Anthropological-Historical Perspective, Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Perspective 3 [Eugene, Or.: Cascade, 2008], 300). 98.  Merklein observes that God’s eschatological work is identified with the work that Jesus does alone (“Die Einzigkeit Gottes,” 27–28). Commenting not on the historical Jesus but on the theology of Luke, Todd Klutz observes that “Jesus tacitly plays the role of God himself” (Exorcism Stories, 79). On the assumption that Luke’s portrait of Jesus reliably describes his unconventional approach to exorcisms, the comment applies to the historical Jesus as well. In another study, Klutz discusses the use of Jesus’ name by other exorcists. He concludes that this usage is comparable to the invocation of various deities in comparable settings (“The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 159–60). 99. Laufen, Doppelüberlieferungen, 131; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 125; Casey, An Aramaic Approach to Q, 173. Contra Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 418; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 177. 100.  As E. P. Sanders correctly observes (Jesus and Judaism, 134–35).

33

101.  H. W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, SVTP 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 180–81; Robert A. Kugler, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 51–52; contra Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 160. The later Pesiq. Rab. 36 also quotes Satan’s expression of anguish before the ­pre-existent Messiah, who would send him to Gehinnom. Cf. Walter Grundmann, “ἰσχύω κτλ,” in TDNT, 3:400. In a clearly Christian addition, T. Benj. 3.8 describes the Lamb of God, the savior of the world, who will destroy Beliar and his servants. After examining the evidence, Graham Twelftree concludes that there is no ­pre-Christian evidence that the Messiah was associated with the battle with Satan and the demons through exorcism (Jesus the Exorcist, 184–89). Similarly, Woods, Finger of God, 149–50. 102.  For a spiritualized understanding of war against Beliar, see also T. Reub. 4.11; T. Sim. 5.3; T. Iss. 7.7; T. Dan. 5.1; T. Ash. 1.8; T. Benj. 3.4; 6.1; 1QS 1.16-18, 22-26; cf. T. Naph. 8.4. Jubilees 23.27-31 describes the paradisiacal conditions that will follow Israel’s renewed commitment to the law in the end times. At that time, there will no longer be a Satan (23.29). Occasionally, the end of Beliar is described without identifying the agent of his destruction (T. Jud. 25.3). 103.  It is almost certainly a Christian scribe who has added: “He shall come as a man eating and drinking with human beings.” Cf. Howard Clark Kee in OTP 1:818. 104.  More remotely related, God imprisons the Watchers in Jub. 10.6. Lesser demons

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

Whereas the standard view in the Jewish sources seems to be that God himself would deal with Beliar, some of the writings from Qumran show how God is waging this war through his agents. The War Scroll describes the war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, also identified as the sons of Belial (1QM 1.1). Most scholars understand this battle as symbolic of the community’s war against evil, but it has been argued that it should be understood as an earthly battle that corresponds to the cosmic battle between the powers of light and darkness.105 In any case, God’s people will in this battle defeat the armies of Belial (1QM 11.8-9; 15.2-3; 17.15) by the power of God (1QM 11.4; 16.1, 13-14), who is attributed with the triumph over Belial himself (1QM 1.1415; 18.1, 3, 11). The fight in which the people take part is always described as a battle against the armies of Belial, also identified as the band of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Philistines, the Kittim of Ashur, and their allies (1QM 1.1-2). There is no clear instance where the people engage Belial directly, only his troops. The scroll describes the day when Belial will be removed (1QM 15.17), but the text is too fragmentary to know who the agent of his removal will be. Only God is mentioned in the previous line. In 18.1, the War Scroll contains a parallel to Lk. 11.20: “when the hand of the God of Israel is raised against the whole horde of Belial.”106 In the following lines, there is a close correspondence between the works of God and the works of his agents, the holy ones, in their battle against Ashur and the Kittim. Column 11 also reflects a correspondence between the warfare of God’s anointed ones (11.7) and the war that God will fight from heaven (11.17). If Lk. 11.20 is interpreted in light of the War Scroll, it is possible to see Jesus as an agent whose victory over God’s enemies corresponds to God’s own victory over Satan.107 As a consequence of God’s victory, he is able to exercise power over the demons, as the holy ones of the War Scroll are able to defeat

the hordes of Belial (1QM 11.8-9; 15.2-3; 17.15). In light of the following two verses in Luke, however, Jesus is better understood as claiming for himself the role of God. He overpowers the strong man (Lk. 11.22), Satan, a task which the War Scroll reserves for God. The function of God’s anointed in the War Scroll corresponds more closely to the function of Jesus’ disciples, who are commissioned by him to execute his work and perform exorcisms (Mk 6.7 par.).108 Jesus himself, as the stronger one (Lk. 11.22), takes on a role that is more closely paralleled by God, in whose power the holy ones are able to defeat their enemies (1QM 11.4; 16.1, 13-14).109 The writings from Qumran also describe one figure who has a significant role vis-à-vis Belial, namely Melchizedek. Apparently God’s eschatological agent, the mysterious Melchizedek character carries out the vengeance of God’s judgments and frees those who are bound by Belial (11Q13 ii.13), who will subsequently be devoured by fire (11Q13 iii.7). But not even Melchizedek is explicitly said to capture Belial himself.110 It is rather the image of YHWH as a divine warrior in the cosmic battle with evil forces, an idea which emphasizes God’s direct intervention in the world, which is the most important background to the saying in Lk. 11.20 par.111

34

are also bound by angels. Raphael binds the afflicting demon Asmodeus (Tob. 8.3) and is sent by God to bind the leading Watcher Azaz’el (1 En. 10.4). Michael is sent to bind Semyaza (1 En. 10.11; cf. 1 En. 54.5-6; 88.3). According to T. Levi 3.3, God sends hosts of armies to effect judgment on Beliar and his armies. Cf. Str-B 2:168; Richard H. Hiers, “‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations,” JBL 104 (1985): 235–47. 105.  Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 4–7. 106.  “Hand” and “finger” may sometimes be used interchangeably (­Hamerton-Kelly, “Matthew XII. 28 Par,” 168). 107.  Similarly, Woods, Finger of God, 150.

35

108.  The historicity of this commission is frequently doubted (Bultmann, Geschichte, 155–56; Joachim Gnilka, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1, EKK 2/1 [Zurich: Benziger, 1978], 237). In favor of historicity, see Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT II/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 330–31; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 28 (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 752–53; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 152. For my present purposes, it suffices to note the distinction between the one that authorizes and the ones that are authorized. Jesus is in Lk. 11.20-22 not described as authorized or commissioned by God. His own strength is greater than that of Satan. 109.  As Lattke correctly observes, the Messiah plays no role in the War Scroll (“‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20–21). 110.  Margaret Barker correctly observes: “Melchizedek was not a warrior” (The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God [London: SPCK, 1992], 89). 111. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 94. Following Leif Vaage (“Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence” [PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1987]), Humphries has argued that the apocalyptic w ­ orld-view is irrelevant for understanding the rhetoric of Q 11.14-26. The purpose of the pericope is rather to establish Jesus and his followers as insiders, as falling within the Jewish ethos, against accusations of deviant behavior (“Beelzebul Discourse,” 316–21; cf. also idem, “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14–26,” Forum 9, no. 1–2 [1993]: 140–43; similarly Sellew, “Beelzebul,” 105). This may indeed be part of the purpose of this saying, but that does not rule out the possibility that Jesus would have pointed to the eschatological significance of his work to establish his legitimacy. Humphries’s case is based on the argument that “kingdom of God”

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

Whereas the standard view in the Jewish sources seems to be that God himself would deal with Beliar, some of the writings from Qumran show how God is waging this war through his agents. The War Scroll describes the war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness, also identified as the sons of Belial (1QM 1.1). Most scholars understand this battle as symbolic of the community’s war against evil, but it has been argued that it should be understood as an earthly battle that corresponds to the cosmic battle between the powers of light and darkness.105 In any case, God’s people will in this battle defeat the armies of Belial (1QM 11.8-9; 15.2-3; 17.15) by the power of God (1QM 11.4; 16.1, 13-14), who is attributed with the triumph over Belial himself (1QM 1.1415; 18.1, 3, 11). The fight in which the people take part is always described as a battle against the armies of Belial, also identified as the band of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Philistines, the Kittim of Ashur, and their allies (1QM 1.1-2). There is no clear instance where the people engage Belial directly, only his troops. The scroll describes the day when Belial will be removed (1QM 15.17), but the text is too fragmentary to know who the agent of his removal will be. Only God is mentioned in the previous line. In 18.1, the War Scroll contains a parallel to Lk. 11.20: “when the hand of the God of Israel is raised against the whole horde of Belial.”106 In the following lines, there is a close correspondence between the works of God and the works of his agents, the holy ones, in their battle against Ashur and the Kittim. Column 11 also reflects a correspondence between the warfare of God’s anointed ones (11.7) and the war that God will fight from heaven (11.17). If Lk. 11.20 is interpreted in light of the War Scroll, it is possible to see Jesus as an agent whose victory over God’s enemies corresponds to God’s own victory over Satan.107 As a consequence of God’s victory, he is able to exercise power over the demons, as the holy ones of the War Scroll are able to defeat

the hordes of Belial (1QM 11.8-9; 15.2-3; 17.15). In light of the following two verses in Luke, however, Jesus is better understood as claiming for himself the role of God. He overpowers the strong man (Lk. 11.22), Satan, a task which the War Scroll reserves for God. The function of God’s anointed in the War Scroll corresponds more closely to the function of Jesus’ disciples, who are commissioned by him to execute his work and perform exorcisms (Mk 6.7 par.).108 Jesus himself, as the stronger one (Lk. 11.22), takes on a role that is more closely paralleled by God, in whose power the holy ones are able to defeat their enemies (1QM 11.4; 16.1, 13-14).109 The writings from Qumran also describe one figure who has a significant role vis-à-vis Belial, namely Melchizedek. Apparently God’s eschatological agent, the mysterious Melchizedek character carries out the vengeance of God’s judgments and frees those who are bound by Belial (11Q13 ii.13), who will subsequently be devoured by fire (11Q13 iii.7). But not even Melchizedek is explicitly said to capture Belial himself.110 It is rather the image of YHWH as a divine warrior in the cosmic battle with evil forces, an idea which emphasizes God’s direct intervention in the world, which is the most important background to the saying in Lk. 11.20 par.111

34

are also bound by angels. Raphael binds the afflicting demon Asmodeus (Tob. 8.3) and is sent by God to bind the leading Watcher Azaz’el (1 En. 10.4). Michael is sent to bind Semyaza (1 En. 10.11; cf. 1 En. 54.5-6; 88.3). According to T. Levi 3.3, God sends hosts of armies to effect judgment on Beliar and his armies. Cf. Str-B 2:168; Richard H. Hiers, “‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations,” JBL 104 (1985): 235–47. 105.  Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 4–7. 106.  “Hand” and “finger” may sometimes be used interchangeably (­Hamerton-Kelly, “Matthew XII. 28 Par,” 168). 107.  Similarly, Woods, Finger of God, 150.

35

108.  The historicity of this commission is frequently doubted (Bultmann, Geschichte, 155–56; Joachim Gnilka, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1, EKK 2/1 [Zurich: Benziger, 1978], 237). In favor of historicity, see Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT II/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 330–31; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 28 (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 752–53; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 152. For my present purposes, it suffices to note the distinction between the one that authorizes and the ones that are authorized. Jesus is in Lk. 11.20-22 not described as authorized or commissioned by God. His own strength is greater than that of Satan. 109.  As Lattke correctly observes, the Messiah plays no role in the War Scroll (“‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20–21). 110.  Margaret Barker correctly observes: “Melchizedek was not a warrior” (The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God [London: SPCK, 1992], 89). 111. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 94. Following Leif Vaage (“Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence” [PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1987]), Humphries has argued that the apocalyptic w ­ orld-view is irrelevant for understanding the rhetoric of Q 11.14-26. The purpose of the pericope is rather to establish Jesus and his followers as insiders, as falling within the Jewish ethos, against accusations of deviant behavior (“Beelzebul Discourse,” 316–21; cf. also idem, “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14–26,” Forum 9, no. 1–2 [1993]: 140–43; similarly Sellew, “Beelzebul,” 105). This may indeed be part of the purpose of this saying, but that does not rule out the possibility that Jesus would have pointed to the eschatological significance of his work to establish his legitimacy. Humphries’s case is based on the argument that “kingdom of God”

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

If Luke’s reference to the finger of God is original, a connection with the exodus event is also established. The song of Moses (Exod. 15.1-19) ties the exodus with the theme of God’s kingly rule (Exod. 15.18) and provides a striking illustration of the divine warrior motif.112 The song highlights how God acted alone in delivering Israel; Moses is not even mentioned.113 Instead, the Lord himself has defeated Pharaoh (15.4), who proved no match for God’s power (15.7-10). The idea of God as the divine warrior is directly related to the thought of a conflict between God and the cosmic forces (Isa. 27.1; Hab. 3.8-15; Ps. 89.10-11). These forces are defeated by the sovereign Lord alone; human beings do not take part in this cosmic battle. Occasionally, humans are seen as participants in the Lord’s holy war. But, as is the case in the War Scroll, their engagement is with Satan’s minions, not with Satan himself (cf. above). By casting his conflict with Satan in the imagery of warfare, therefore, Jesus is not playing the role of an eschatological divine agent. Rather, he is assuming God’s own role, as the one who conquers Satan.114

Jesus’ saying also recalls Isaiah’s portrayal of the conquering Lord in Isa. 49.24-25: “Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? But thus says the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; for I will contend with those who contend with you, and I will save your children.”115 This text has the form of a disputation regarding the strength of the Lord. Is he capable of liberating Israel?116 The answer comes in the form of a strong affirmation and announces a new stage in Israel’s history, when God himself will intervene on behalf of his people.117 Contrary to human experience, the strong will not prevail; they will be trumped by God’s own salvation.118 With his allusion to this passage of Scripture, Jesus explains his own activities as the intervention of God to save his people. Whereas Isaiah promised victory over the Persian enemy, Jesus reinterprets the promise and applies it to his own victory over the cosmic enemy of God’s people, the prince of demons, Satan himself.119 Essential elements of the apocalyptic vision of God’s kingly rule are therefore present in Jesus’ words: the i­ n-breaking of God’s kingly rule and the divine warrior’s defeat of Satan. In his answer to John the Baptist, another saying about the presence of the kingdom, Jesus also goes far in claiming the presence of paradisiacal conditions: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good

36

terminology does not occur in apocalyptic writings, but is found in Hellenistic Judaism. This is an overstatement at best (cf. above). The fact remains that Jesus does put himself on the center stage in the eschatological battle with Satan (Lk. 11.18, 21-22), claiming God’s role according to Jewish eschatology. Such a claim would likely elicit reactions other than what he hoped for, had he merely intended to establish himself as an “insider.” The apocalyptic nature of Jesus’ claim is also ignored by Douglas E. Oakman. He explains the saying in Lk. 11.20 par. on the basis of the social situation in Galilee and argues that Jesus used the metaphor of the kingdom of God to challenge the existing power structures (“Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope,” Forum 4, no. 3 [1988]: 114, 121). The grandeur of Jesus’ claims is noted by Graham Twelftree, who is unable to find any parallels to the association of exorcisms and the coming of the kingdom of God. He thinks that Jesus was the first to make this connection (Jesus the Exorcist, 173). 112.  Exod. 15.18 functions frequently in the literature of Second Temple Judaism as the formula to express God’s universal kingship (Ps. Sol. 17.1, 46; 4Q174 1.i.3). Cf. Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20, 23, 24. 113.  Brevard S. Childs, Exodus, OTL (London: SCM, 1974), 249. 114.  Ernst Percy suggests that the strong man in Lk. 11.21-22 par. does not refer to Jesus. Corresponding to the “finger of God” in 11.20 par., the strong man is God (Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung, Lunds universitets årsskrift 49:5 [Lund: Gleerup, 1953], 182–87). This is a strained way of reading the text, but Percy has rightly perceived how closely Jesus’ and God’s actions are intertwined in this passage. In his commentary on Lk. 11.21-22, Bovon refers to the kingdom of Christ as conquering that of Satan (Lukas, vol. 2, 179). But he does not appear to reflect further on the interchangeability of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ or its implications.

37

115.  Cf. Grundmann, “ἰσχύω κτλ,” 3:400; I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 477. The Servant in Isaiah 53.12 will also divide the spoil with the strong, but as a reward for his sacrifice. He is not himself a warrior who binds the strong. The Servant cannot be the primary background for Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding as the conqueror of Satan, therefore (pace Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 94).Taking Mk 3.27 as the more original version of the saying, Meier finds Isa. 24.21-22, with the reference to binding in the pit, as a more likely background (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 419). That passage also refers to the Lord’s eschatological coming to earth to reign as king. 116.  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 392; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 314. 117.  Odil Hannes Steck, “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 49,14–26,” BN 55 (1990): 46. 118.  Klaus Baltzer, ­Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, trans. Margaret Kohl, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 332. 119.  A similar interpretation of Isa. 49.24-25 is presupposed in the War Scroll, where the images from Isaiah are applied to the final victory of God himself in the end times (1QM 12.10-14; 19.2-8).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

If Luke’s reference to the finger of God is original, a connection with the exodus event is also established. The song of Moses (Exod. 15.1-19) ties the exodus with the theme of God’s kingly rule (Exod. 15.18) and provides a striking illustration of the divine warrior motif.112 The song highlights how God acted alone in delivering Israel; Moses is not even mentioned.113 Instead, the Lord himself has defeated Pharaoh (15.4), who proved no match for God’s power (15.7-10). The idea of God as the divine warrior is directly related to the thought of a conflict between God and the cosmic forces (Isa. 27.1; Hab. 3.8-15; Ps. 89.10-11). These forces are defeated by the sovereign Lord alone; human beings do not take part in this cosmic battle. Occasionally, humans are seen as participants in the Lord’s holy war. But, as is the case in the War Scroll, their engagement is with Satan’s minions, not with Satan himself (cf. above). By casting his conflict with Satan in the imagery of warfare, therefore, Jesus is not playing the role of an eschatological divine agent. Rather, he is assuming God’s own role, as the one who conquers Satan.114

Jesus’ saying also recalls Isaiah’s portrayal of the conquering Lord in Isa. 49.24-25: “Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? But thus says the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; for I will contend with those who contend with you, and I will save your children.”115 This text has the form of a disputation regarding the strength of the Lord. Is he capable of liberating Israel?116 The answer comes in the form of a strong affirmation and announces a new stage in Israel’s history, when God himself will intervene on behalf of his people.117 Contrary to human experience, the strong will not prevail; they will be trumped by God’s own salvation.118 With his allusion to this passage of Scripture, Jesus explains his own activities as the intervention of God to save his people. Whereas Isaiah promised victory over the Persian enemy, Jesus reinterprets the promise and applies it to his own victory over the cosmic enemy of God’s people, the prince of demons, Satan himself.119 Essential elements of the apocalyptic vision of God’s kingly rule are therefore present in Jesus’ words: the i­ n-breaking of God’s kingly rule and the divine warrior’s defeat of Satan. In his answer to John the Baptist, another saying about the presence of the kingdom, Jesus also goes far in claiming the presence of paradisiacal conditions: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good

36

terminology does not occur in apocalyptic writings, but is found in Hellenistic Judaism. This is an overstatement at best (cf. above). The fact remains that Jesus does put himself on the center stage in the eschatological battle with Satan (Lk. 11.18, 21-22), claiming God’s role according to Jewish eschatology. Such a claim would likely elicit reactions other than what he hoped for, had he merely intended to establish himself as an “insider.” The apocalyptic nature of Jesus’ claim is also ignored by Douglas E. Oakman. He explains the saying in Lk. 11.20 par. on the basis of the social situation in Galilee and argues that Jesus used the metaphor of the kingdom of God to challenge the existing power structures (“Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope,” Forum 4, no. 3 [1988]: 114, 121). The grandeur of Jesus’ claims is noted by Graham Twelftree, who is unable to find any parallels to the association of exorcisms and the coming of the kingdom of God. He thinks that Jesus was the first to make this connection (Jesus the Exorcist, 173). 112.  Exod. 15.18 functions frequently in the literature of Second Temple Judaism as the formula to express God’s universal kingship (Ps. Sol. 17.1, 46; 4Q174 1.i.3). Cf. Lattke, “‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’,” 20, 23, 24. 113.  Brevard S. Childs, Exodus, OTL (London: SCM, 1974), 249. 114.  Ernst Percy suggests that the strong man in Lk. 11.21-22 par. does not refer to Jesus. Corresponding to the “finger of God” in 11.20 par., the strong man is God (Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung, Lunds universitets årsskrift 49:5 [Lund: Gleerup, 1953], 182–87). This is a strained way of reading the text, but Percy has rightly perceived how closely Jesus’ and God’s actions are intertwined in this passage. In his commentary on Lk. 11.21-22, Bovon refers to the kingdom of Christ as conquering that of Satan (Lukas, vol. 2, 179). But he does not appear to reflect further on the interchangeability of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ or its implications.

37

115.  Cf. Grundmann, “ἰσχύω κτλ,” 3:400; I. Howard Marshall, Luke, 477. The Servant in Isaiah 53.12 will also divide the spoil with the strong, but as a reward for his sacrifice. He is not himself a warrior who binds the strong. The Servant cannot be the primary background for Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding as the conqueror of Satan, therefore (pace Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 94).Taking Mk 3.27 as the more original version of the saying, Meier finds Isa. 24.21-22, with the reference to binding in the pit, as a more likely background (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 419). That passage also refers to the Lord’s eschatological coming to earth to reign as king. 116.  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 392; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 314. 117.  Odil Hannes Steck, “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 49,14–26,” BN 55 (1990): 46. 118.  Klaus Baltzer, ­Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, trans. Margaret Kohl, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 332. 119.  A similar interpretation of Isa. 49.24-25 is presupposed in the War Scroll, where the images from Isaiah are applied to the final victory of God himself in the end times (1QM 12.10-14; 19.2-8).

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

news brought to them” (Lk. 7.22).120 But the theme of eschatological judgment of the wicked is entirely absent. The same saying may provide an explanation. Jesus alludes to the prophecies in Isa. 35.5-6; 61.1 as now being fulfilled, without including any of the references to judgment contained in those same prophecies. The implicit point is likely that the prophecies must be understood as being only partially fulfilled at this time.121 It seems, therefore, that the primary framework for understanding Jesus’ exorcisms should be the visions of direct divine intervention to defeat the cosmic enemies of God’s people and establish the unopposed rule of God. In Dan. 7.13-14, this rule is delegated to the Son of Man. But this is not the tradition that Jesus uses when he explains the significance of his exorcisms. The connection between the kingdom of God and the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14 is at best subdued in the Synoptic Gospels.122 There are only two examples where the concepts are combined. In the explanation of the parable of the weeds, Jesus predicts that the angels of the Son of Man “will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers” (Mt. 13.41). In his teaching on discipleship, Jesus warns that those who are ashamed of him, “of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Immediately afterwards, he announces the coming of the kingdom of God with power (Mk 8.38–9.1). Both of these examples concern the future kingdom of God.123 Jesus does not appear to associate the present kingdom of God with the Son of Man. There is no evidence, therefore, that Jesus intended his claim to establish the kingdom to be understood in light of the transfer of God’s kingdom to the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14 and to the people of the holy

ones of the Most High in Dan. 7.27.124 The reason is probably that the Danielic vision of the Son of Man concerns the vindication of the suffering people of God, not the establishment of God’s kingly rule. In the book of Daniel, the Son of Man is given the kingdom; he does not inaugurate it. Commentators typically note that God is exercising his rule through the exorcisms of Jesus,125 but Jesus’ explanation points in a different direction. Jesus himself is the stronger one who conquers the devil. What Jesus is saying is not that God exercises his power through him, but that he himself is the divine warrior, engaged in the cosmic battle with Satan, now handing him his ultimate defeat.126 This divine warrior is known from the Scriptures of Israel and from Jewish tradition as YHWH.

38

120.  The authenticity of this saying is disputed. For a full discussion, see Chapter 2. If the saying is deemed inauthentic, however, the Baptist’s question still shows that at an early stage Christians felt the problem that the prophecies were not completely fulfilled. If that were the case, the problem would most likely have been caused by the fact that Jesus did claim to fulfill the prophecies regarding the eschatological intervention of God. 121. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 667–68; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 245. 122.  In a famous article, Philip Vielhauer argues that since these concepts are not connected in the Synoptic tradition, the Son of Man sayings must be secondary (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 58). 123.  The Matthean version of the story of the rich young man (19.16-30) mentions the difficulty of entering the kingdom of heaven (19.24) and proceeds to refer to the glory of the Son of Man at the renewal of all things (19.28). Again, the future kingdom and the future glory of the Son of Man are in view.

39

Conclusion When the concept is used eschatologically, the kingly rule of God refers to God’s intervention on earth without any human agent. In the time leading up to the time of Jesus, the expression was increasingly used in an apocalyptic sense, invoking the vision of God’s ultimate victory over Satan and the establishment of a new world order with paradisiacal conditions. When Jesus claims that his exorcisms are the sign of the inauguration of God’s kingly rule and the defeat of Satan, his words are best understood against this background of eschatological expectations. Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God implies a claim regarding his own identity. He claims that God’s unmediated intervention as the divine warrior takes place through his own actions.

124.  It is of course possible that Jesus did understand his inauguration of the kingdom in this light and that it has been omitted in the course of tradition, perhaps motivated by a Christology that saw Jesus as exercising God’s own authority. Dan. 7.13-14 appears to have been an important Scripture passage for the Synoptic tradition (Mk 13.26 par.; 14.62 par.), however, and it is not likely that the early Christians would have passed up such an opportunity to use it. It is especially difficult in the case of Matthew to explain any such omission. Matthew tends to emphasize the glory connected with Jesus as the coming Son of Man. 125. Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1083. 126.  Joachim Jeremias also does not do justice to the evidence when he identifies Jesus as the messenger of Isa. 52.7, the messenger who announces the kingly rule of God (New Testament Theology, 108). Jesus does not merely announce it; he brings it in his own person.

God’s Equal

1.  God’s Victorious Intervention

news brought to them” (Lk. 7.22).120 But the theme of eschatological judgment of the wicked is entirely absent. The same saying may provide an explanation. Jesus alludes to the prophecies in Isa. 35.5-6; 61.1 as now being fulfilled, without including any of the references to judgment contained in those same prophecies. The implicit point is likely that the prophecies must be understood as being only partially fulfilled at this time.121 It seems, therefore, that the primary framework for understanding Jesus’ exorcisms should be the visions of direct divine intervention to defeat the cosmic enemies of God’s people and establish the unopposed rule of God. In Dan. 7.13-14, this rule is delegated to the Son of Man. But this is not the tradition that Jesus uses when he explains the significance of his exorcisms. The connection between the kingdom of God and the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14 is at best subdued in the Synoptic Gospels.122 There are only two examples where the concepts are combined. In the explanation of the parable of the weeds, Jesus predicts that the angels of the Son of Man “will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers” (Mt. 13.41). In his teaching on discipleship, Jesus warns that those who are ashamed of him, “of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Immediately afterwards, he announces the coming of the kingdom of God with power (Mk 8.38–9.1). Both of these examples concern the future kingdom of God.123 Jesus does not appear to associate the present kingdom of God with the Son of Man. There is no evidence, therefore, that Jesus intended his claim to establish the kingdom to be understood in light of the transfer of God’s kingdom to the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14 and to the people of the holy

ones of the Most High in Dan. 7.27.124 The reason is probably that the Danielic vision of the Son of Man concerns the vindication of the suffering people of God, not the establishment of God’s kingly rule. In the book of Daniel, the Son of Man is given the kingdom; he does not inaugurate it. Commentators typically note that God is exercising his rule through the exorcisms of Jesus,125 but Jesus’ explanation points in a different direction. Jesus himself is the stronger one who conquers the devil. What Jesus is saying is not that God exercises his power through him, but that he himself is the divine warrior, engaged in the cosmic battle with Satan, now handing him his ultimate defeat.126 This divine warrior is known from the Scriptures of Israel and from Jewish tradition as YHWH.

38

120.  The authenticity of this saying is disputed. For a full discussion, see Chapter 2. If the saying is deemed inauthentic, however, the Baptist’s question still shows that at an early stage Christians felt the problem that the prophecies were not completely fulfilled. If that were the case, the problem would most likely have been caused by the fact that Jesus did claim to fulfill the prophecies regarding the eschatological intervention of God. 121. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 667–68; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 245. 122.  In a famous article, Philip Vielhauer argues that since these concepts are not connected in the Synoptic tradition, the Son of Man sayings must be secondary (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 58). 123.  The Matthean version of the story of the rich young man (19.16-30) mentions the difficulty of entering the kingdom of heaven (19.24) and proceeds to refer to the glory of the Son of Man at the renewal of all things (19.28). Again, the future kingdom and the future glory of the Son of Man are in view.

39

Conclusion When the concept is used eschatologically, the kingly rule of God refers to God’s intervention on earth without any human agent. In the time leading up to the time of Jesus, the expression was increasingly used in an apocalyptic sense, invoking the vision of God’s ultimate victory over Satan and the establishment of a new world order with paradisiacal conditions. When Jesus claims that his exorcisms are the sign of the inauguration of God’s kingly rule and the defeat of Satan, his words are best understood against this background of eschatological expectations. Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God implies a claim regarding his own identity. He claims that God’s unmediated intervention as the divine warrior takes place through his own actions.

124.  It is of course possible that Jesus did understand his inauguration of the kingdom in this light and that it has been omitted in the course of tradition, perhaps motivated by a Christology that saw Jesus as exercising God’s own authority. Dan. 7.13-14 appears to have been an important Scripture passage for the Synoptic tradition (Mk 13.26 par.; 14.62 par.), however, and it is not likely that the early Christians would have passed up such an opportunity to use it. It is especially difficult in the case of Matthew to explain any such omission. Matthew tends to emphasize the glory connected with Jesus as the coming Son of Man. 125. Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1083. 126.  Joachim Jeremias also does not do justice to the evidence when he identifies Jesus as the messenger of Isa. 52.7, the messenger who announces the kingly rule of God (New Testament Theology, 108). Jesus does not merely announce it; he brings it in his own person.

2.  Doing the Works of God

40

41

evaluation of John the Baptist as the precursor to God’s eschatological coming to earth (Mt. 11.10 par.).

2 DOING THE WORKS OF GOD: JESUS’ MIRACLES

In the previous chapter, I argued that Jesus claimed to bring the kingdom of God and the new creation. As evidence for this claim, Jesus pointed to his works in casting out demons. He maintained that these works demonstrated that he had defeated Satan, God’s major enemy. The present chapter will proceed from Jesus’ exorcisms to a broader examination of his miracles. There is broad agreement among scholars that Jesus was known as a miracle worker, whatever the modern explanation for his extraordinary actions may be.1 My concern here is not with the nature of these miracles or how they should be explained. I am interested in how Jesus understood the significance of these perceived miracles and what that may tell us about his s­ elf-understanding. The way in which Jesus went about performing miracles may tell us something about how he understood them, and the first part of this chapter will discuss the characteristics of Jesus’ miracles and focus on how he appears to have depended on his own power. Second, I will examine the passage where Jesus provides an interpretation of his actions, his answer to John the Baptist (Mt. 11.5 par.). In his reply, Jesus refers to God’s own acts of new creation. Jesus here claims God’s own role for himself, a claim that is confirmed in his

1.  Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, reprint, 1973 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 79; Gerd Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, trans. Francis McDonagh (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), 277; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 157; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 310; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 617–31; Geert Van Oyen, “Markan Miracle Stories in Historical Jesus Research: Redaction Criticism and Narrative Analysis,” in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, ed. Lietaert Peerbolte and Michael Labahn, Library of New Testament Studies 288 (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 87–89.

Miracles by His Own Power Performing miracles was not unique to Jesus. Several miracle workers are known from the Jewish tradition as well as from the ­Greco-Roman world.2 From a Jewish context, more or less contemporary with Jesus, Honi the ­Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa were known to perform healings and even to stop the rain. Several scholars have suggested that Jesus’ miracles place him in the category of such Jewish charismatic miracle workers.3 This parallel, however, is only superficial. The miracles of Honi the ­Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa were seen as the ultimate manifestations of the power of prayer (Jos. Ant. 14.22; m. Ta‘an. 3.8; m. Ber. 5.5; b. Ber. 34b; b. Ta‘an. 24b).4 In contrast, Jesus gives no indication that he is dependent upon an outside force for his miracles.5 The only place for prayers in connection with 2.  See Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 78–150; Kollmann, Wundertater, 73–173; Wendy Cotter, Miracles in ­Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (London: Routledge, 1999); Michael Becker, Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus, WUNT II/144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, JSNTSup 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); Erkki Koskenniemi, The Old Testament ­Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism, WUNT II/206 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 3.  Most notably Vermes, Jesus, 63–79. David Flusser also compares Jesus’ miracles to those of Jewish charismatics, but concludes that Jesus had a higher ­self-awareness than these. He finds this ­self-awareness expressed in Jesus’ idea of divine sonship, which he compares to the author of the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH 4.27-29) (Jesus, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997], 113–20). Many scholars also doubt that the picture of Honi and Hanina that emerges from later rabbinical sources can be used as evidence for beliefs current at the time of Jesus (cf. Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s ­Christian-Jewish Community, CSHJ [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], 181; Eve, Jesus’ Miracles, 272–95). 4.  Michael Becker has argued that Honi and Hanina relied on magical practices, and that the emphasis on pious prayer has been amplified in the course of tradition. In the later stages of tradition, he finds a tendency to make Honi and Hanina conform to the “rabbinic mainstream” (Wunder, 291–378). In any case, the source of their power is conceived to be outside themselves. 5.  Becker observes that prayer plays a subordinate role in the accounts of Jesus’ miracles. Jesus’ own authority is viewed as the power that is at work (Wunder, 434). Kollmann observes that Jesus stands out by comparison with contemporary miracle workers in that prayer and

2.  Doing the Works of God

40

41

evaluation of John the Baptist as the precursor to God’s eschatological coming to earth (Mt. 11.10 par.).

2 DOING THE WORKS OF GOD: JESUS’ MIRACLES

In the previous chapter, I argued that Jesus claimed to bring the kingdom of God and the new creation. As evidence for this claim, Jesus pointed to his works in casting out demons. He maintained that these works demonstrated that he had defeated Satan, God’s major enemy. The present chapter will proceed from Jesus’ exorcisms to a broader examination of his miracles. There is broad agreement among scholars that Jesus was known as a miracle worker, whatever the modern explanation for his extraordinary actions may be.1 My concern here is not with the nature of these miracles or how they should be explained. I am interested in how Jesus understood the significance of these perceived miracles and what that may tell us about his s­ elf-understanding. The way in which Jesus went about performing miracles may tell us something about how he understood them, and the first part of this chapter will discuss the characteristics of Jesus’ miracles and focus on how he appears to have depended on his own power. Second, I will examine the passage where Jesus provides an interpretation of his actions, his answer to John the Baptist (Mt. 11.5 par.). In his reply, Jesus refers to God’s own acts of new creation. Jesus here claims God’s own role for himself, a claim that is confirmed in his

1.  Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, reprint, 1973 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 79; Gerd Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, trans. Francis McDonagh (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983), 277; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 157; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 310; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 617–31; Geert Van Oyen, “Markan Miracle Stories in Historical Jesus Research: Redaction Criticism and Narrative Analysis,” in Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, ed. Lietaert Peerbolte and Michael Labahn, Library of New Testament Studies 288 (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 87–89.

Miracles by His Own Power Performing miracles was not unique to Jesus. Several miracle workers are known from the Jewish tradition as well as from the ­Greco-Roman world.2 From a Jewish context, more or less contemporary with Jesus, Honi the ­Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa were known to perform healings and even to stop the rain. Several scholars have suggested that Jesus’ miracles place him in the category of such Jewish charismatic miracle workers.3 This parallel, however, is only superficial. The miracles of Honi the ­Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa were seen as the ultimate manifestations of the power of prayer (Jos. Ant. 14.22; m. Ta‘an. 3.8; m. Ber. 5.5; b. Ber. 34b; b. Ta‘an. 24b).4 In contrast, Jesus gives no indication that he is dependent upon an outside force for his miracles.5 The only place for prayers in connection with 2.  See Howard Clark Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 78–150; Kollmann, Wundertater, 73–173; Wendy Cotter, Miracles in ­Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (London: Routledge, 1999); Michael Becker, Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus, WUNT II/144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, JSNTSup 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); Erkki Koskenniemi, The Old Testament ­Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism, WUNT II/206 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 3.  Most notably Vermes, Jesus, 63–79. David Flusser also compares Jesus’ miracles to those of Jewish charismatics, but concludes that Jesus had a higher ­self-awareness than these. He finds this ­self-awareness expressed in Jesus’ idea of divine sonship, which he compares to the author of the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH 4.27-29) (Jesus, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997], 113–20). Many scholars also doubt that the picture of Honi and Hanina that emerges from later rabbinical sources can be used as evidence for beliefs current at the time of Jesus (cf. Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s ­Christian-Jewish Community, CSHJ [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], 181; Eve, Jesus’ Miracles, 272–95). 4.  Michael Becker has argued that Honi and Hanina relied on magical practices, and that the emphasis on pious prayer has been amplified in the course of tradition. In the later stages of tradition, he finds a tendency to make Honi and Hanina conform to the “rabbinic mainstream” (Wunder, 291–378). In any case, the source of their power is conceived to be outside themselves. 5.  Becker observes that prayer plays a subordinate role in the accounts of Jesus’ miracles. Jesus’ own authority is viewed as the power that is at work (Wunder, 434). Kollmann observes that Jesus stands out by comparison with contemporary miracle workers in that prayer and

42

God’s Equal

Jesus’ miracles is when the sufferers pray to Jesus for his intervention. If we turn to the Synoptic Gospels for an explanation of Jesus’ practice, Jesus’ ability to heal is a recurring motif (Mk 1.40 par.; Mt. 8.8-9 par.).6 His miracles leave us with the impression that he was conscious of acting in God’s own role.7 healing techniques play no role in connection with Jesus’ miracles (Wundertater, 309–12). Blackburn makes similar observations; Jesus performs miracles “autonomously.” Blackburn defends the historicity of this characteristic and maintains that there is no need to look to possible Hellenistic θεῖος ἀνήρ figures to explain it. Blackburn’s explanation is that there was no major distinction in the Jewish world between prayer miracles and miracles performed by command of the miracle worker (Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark, WUNT II/40 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991], 127–33). With respect to the exorcisms; Twelftree notes that Jesus depended on his own resources (Jesus the Exorcist, 165). Stevan L. Davies explains Jesus’ miracles as the work of a faith healer, but adds that Jesus understood himself as “the manifestation of God on earth (­through-spirit possession)” (Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity [New York: Continuum, 1995], 75). I will argue here that he is right that Jesus understood himself as the manifestation of God, but the qualification that this presence was mediated by the Spirit is unwarranted. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus only once refers to the Holy Spirit in connection with his miracles. That reference appears in the Matthean version of the Beelzebul pericope: “but if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (12.28). But even here, Jesus does not claim Spirit possession. He does not attribute his works to the agency of the Spirit. Rather, he equates his own work with the work of the Spirit (cf. Chapter 1). 6.  It is possible to see Jesus’ referring to his faith as the source of his power when he affirms in Mk 9.23 that “all things can be done for the one who believes.” If his faith in God were the source of his power, the ultimate miracle worker would be God. A better interpretation, however, is to see Jesus’ reply as stating a general principle, explaining the intercessor’s and the disciples’ failure to perform the exorcism. From his response (v. 24), it is evident that the intercessor took it as a reference to faith on his part, not on Jesus’ part (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Cambridge New Testament Commentary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 302–3; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A [Dallas: Word, 1989], 52; similarly, Martin Meiser, Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu den synoptischen Evangelien, BZNW 96 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998], 169; contra Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, SNTSMS 64 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 118–19). 7.  Sverre Aalen, “Jesu kristologiske selvbevissthet: Et utkast til ‘jahvistisk kristologi’,” in Guds sønn og Guds rike: Nytestamentlige studier 1 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973), 278. Eve observes that Jesus is consistently described in the Gospels as “bearer of numinous power,” rather than merely “petitioner” of “mediator of numinous power. He finds this fact indicative – though not conclusively so – of Jesus’ divinity (Jesus’ Miracles, 386). E. P. Sanders, on the other hand, finds that no conclusions regarding Jesus’ ­self-understanding can be drawn on the basis of the miracles (Jesus and Judaism, 158, 170). I would respond that the miracle stories as they are preserved in the Gospels are suggestive of a remarkable confidence on Jesus’ part in his own abilities. But it is only in his comments to John the Baptist that we get a glimpse into the basis for this ­self-confidence. Sanders considers it unlikely, however,

2.  Doing the Works of God

43

Miracles as God’s New Creation This impression is confirmed when we turn to the few sayings where Jesus has provided an interpretation of his miracles and explained how he understood their significance. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were the one to come or if they were to wait for another, Jesus replied by referring to his miracles: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (Mt. 11.5 par.). Jesus’ role is also defined in relation to John the Baptist, about whom Jesus has very lofty things to say. With a conflated quotation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, he is identified as an eschatological messenger (Mt. 11.10 par.), and then in a direct statement as “Elijah who is to come” (Mt. 11.14). I will discuss the origin of these sayings before I move on to examine their significance.

Authenticity Several scholars conclude that the interchange between Jesus and the disciples of John the Baptist is not authentic. First, they argue that John’s eschatological expectations would have made it unthinkable for him to have asked this question of Jesus because John thought the final judgment was imminent and that it would be brought about by God or perhaps a heavenly Son of Man.8 Second, Jesus’ response is not messianic.9 Third, the appeal to prophetic texts to explain the significance of Jesus’ miracles is unlikely to stem from Jesus himself. It should rather be explained as early Christian apologetics based on exegesis of the expectations in the Book of Isaiah.10 Fourth, the absence of exorcisms in the list of miracles is strange if the list were Jesus’ own. Exorcisms played an important role in his ministry and ­self-understanding.11 Consequently, the

that these comments have been preserved accurately enough to give us a reliable insight into Jesus’ ­self-understanding (ibid., 136–40). 8.  Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 129–30; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 290. 9.  Rudolf Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage, QD 52 (Freiburg: Herder, 1970), 40; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 291. 10. Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? 40–41; Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, NTAbh 8 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 211; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 292; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 177–78. 11.  George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 292; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 410.

42

God’s Equal

Jesus’ miracles is when the sufferers pray to Jesus for his intervention. If we turn to the Synoptic Gospels for an explanation of Jesus’ practice, Jesus’ ability to heal is a recurring motif (Mk 1.40 par.; Mt. 8.8-9 par.).6 His miracles leave us with the impression that he was conscious of acting in God’s own role.7 healing techniques play no role in connection with Jesus’ miracles (Wundertater, 309–12). Blackburn makes similar observations; Jesus performs miracles “autonomously.” Blackburn defends the historicity of this characteristic and maintains that there is no need to look to possible Hellenistic θεῖος ἀνήρ figures to explain it. Blackburn’s explanation is that there was no major distinction in the Jewish world between prayer miracles and miracles performed by command of the miracle worker (Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark, WUNT II/40 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991], 127–33). With respect to the exorcisms; Twelftree notes that Jesus depended on his own resources (Jesus the Exorcist, 165). Stevan L. Davies explains Jesus’ miracles as the work of a faith healer, but adds that Jesus understood himself as “the manifestation of God on earth (­through-spirit possession)” (Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity [New York: Continuum, 1995], 75). I will argue here that he is right that Jesus understood himself as the manifestation of God, but the qualification that this presence was mediated by the Spirit is unwarranted. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus only once refers to the Holy Spirit in connection with his miracles. That reference appears in the Matthean version of the Beelzebul pericope: “but if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (12.28). But even here, Jesus does not claim Spirit possession. He does not attribute his works to the agency of the Spirit. Rather, he equates his own work with the work of the Spirit (cf. Chapter 1). 6.  It is possible to see Jesus’ referring to his faith as the source of his power when he affirms in Mk 9.23 that “all things can be done for the one who believes.” If his faith in God were the source of his power, the ultimate miracle worker would be God. A better interpretation, however, is to see Jesus’ reply as stating a general principle, explaining the intercessor’s and the disciples’ failure to perform the exorcism. From his response (v. 24), it is evident that the intercessor took it as a reference to faith on his part, not on Jesus’ part (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Cambridge New Testament Commentary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 302–3; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A [Dallas: Word, 1989], 52; similarly, Martin Meiser, Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu den synoptischen Evangelien, BZNW 96 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998], 169; contra Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, SNTSMS 64 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 118–19). 7.  Sverre Aalen, “Jesu kristologiske selvbevissthet: Et utkast til ‘jahvistisk kristologi’,” in Guds sønn og Guds rike: Nytestamentlige studier 1 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973), 278. Eve observes that Jesus is consistently described in the Gospels as “bearer of numinous power,” rather than merely “petitioner” of “mediator of numinous power. He finds this fact indicative – though not conclusively so – of Jesus’ divinity (Jesus’ Miracles, 386). E. P. Sanders, on the other hand, finds that no conclusions regarding Jesus’ ­self-understanding can be drawn on the basis of the miracles (Jesus and Judaism, 158, 170). I would respond that the miracle stories as they are preserved in the Gospels are suggestive of a remarkable confidence on Jesus’ part in his own abilities. But it is only in his comments to John the Baptist that we get a glimpse into the basis for this ­self-confidence. Sanders considers it unlikely, however,

2.  Doing the Works of God

43

Miracles as God’s New Creation This impression is confirmed when we turn to the few sayings where Jesus has provided an interpretation of his miracles and explained how he understood their significance. When John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were the one to come or if they were to wait for another, Jesus replied by referring to his miracles: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them” (Mt. 11.5 par.). Jesus’ role is also defined in relation to John the Baptist, about whom Jesus has very lofty things to say. With a conflated quotation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, he is identified as an eschatological messenger (Mt. 11.10 par.), and then in a direct statement as “Elijah who is to come” (Mt. 11.14). I will discuss the origin of these sayings before I move on to examine their significance.

Authenticity Several scholars conclude that the interchange between Jesus and the disciples of John the Baptist is not authentic. First, they argue that John’s eschatological expectations would have made it unthinkable for him to have asked this question of Jesus because John thought the final judgment was imminent and that it would be brought about by God or perhaps a heavenly Son of Man.8 Second, Jesus’ response is not messianic.9 Third, the appeal to prophetic texts to explain the significance of Jesus’ miracles is unlikely to stem from Jesus himself. It should rather be explained as early Christian apologetics based on exegesis of the expectations in the Book of Isaiah.10 Fourth, the absence of exorcisms in the list of miracles is strange if the list were Jesus’ own. Exorcisms played an important role in his ministry and ­self-understanding.11 Consequently, the

that these comments have been preserved accurately enough to give us a reliable insight into Jesus’ ­self-understanding (ibid., 136–40). 8.  Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 129–30; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 290. 9.  Rudolf Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage, QD 52 (Freiburg: Herder, 1970), 40; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 291. 10. Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? 40–41; Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, NTAbh 8 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 211; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 292; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 177–78. 11.  George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 292; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 410.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

exchange is thought to have originated with some of John’s followers who had become disciples of Jesus.12 The third and fourth of these arguments belong together. Jesus’ reply is intended to cast his works as the fulfillment of various biblical prophecies (Isa. 26.19; 29.18; 35.5-6; 42.7, 18; 61.1), and exorcisms play no role in the Scriptures of Israel. It is to be expected, therefore, that they are not mentioned in Jesus’ reply either. True, he is not completely bound by these Scriptures, as he includes a reference to the cleansing of lepers.13 The picture Jesus draws on the basis of these prophecies, however, is that of the new creation, with paradisiacal conditions. Exorcisms were for Jesus the proof of Satan’s downfall (cf. Chapter 1), and that is a slightly different motif. The question of authenticity boils down to whether the appeal to prophetic texts to explain Jesus’ ministry is likely to have originated with Jesus himself. This possibility cannot of course be ruled out. If the early church could have thought of the Isaianic prophecies to explain Jesus’ miracles, so could Jesus. More importantly, the hypothesis of an origin in the early church suffers from two serious problems. First, if the early church created Jesus’ response, why would they put the objections in the mouth of John the Baptist? Would it have served their purposes to show that such a respected figure as John the Baptist had doubts about Jesus?14 Would not the ­well-known form of a conflict story with the scribes and the Pharisees be a more obvious setting for such a saying? It is conceivable that some in the early church intended to elevate Jesus above his forerunner, John the Baptist, or even wished to discredit John. They could

have been motivated by a desire to win converts among John’s disciples. As Acts 19.1-7 shows, some time went by before the disciples of John were successfully incorporated into the Jesus movement.15 However, if this were the case, one would expect that John also was made to acknowledge Jesus’ superiority to himself. The agenda to persuade John’s disciples seems to be better served by the traditions of Jesus’ baptism, where John makes such an acknowledgement. The failure of John to respond with consent even places the tradition preserved in Mt. 11.2-6 par. in some tension with these baptism traditions. Second, Jesus’ reply does not bear the stamp of early church exegesis. Isa. 29.18-19; 35.5-6 play no role in early Christian writings apart from the Gospels. The passage itself contains no reference to the Messiah, so it would have been of limited use to prove Jesus’ Messiahship. As it stands, this saying contains no explicit Christology. This application of Isaianic prophecies to Jesus fits better in the context of his own ministry, therefore, than in the context of the early church. As for the argument that John the Baptist’s question is unthinkable within his eschatological universe, it would in any case only apply to the setting of this saying, not the saying itself.16 But the observation that John expected the eschatological judgment does not mean he could not have asked the question reported in Mt. 11.3 par. On the contrary, the cognitive dissonance in John’s evaluation of Jesus must have been what prompted his question. Jesus appears to be bringing the kingdom of God, but the concomitant eschatological judgment does not seem to be forthcoming. I will argue below that this is precisely the conundrum that Jesus’ reply addresses.17 As for the messianic nature of Jesus’

44

12. Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 216; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 289–90; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 410. 13.  But it is possible that the stories of Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17-24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5.1-16) make up the background for the reference to the cleansing of lepers (David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 299). 14.  In his paper to the Jesus seminar, Walter Wink argued for the highest probability rating, red, of Mt. 11.5-6 par. He contends that the church would not have created a story about a doubting John the Baptist who remains unconvinced by Jesus’ reply. He also finds it unlikely that the church would have portrayed Jesus as unambiguous and noncommittal when asked whether he was the Messiah (“Jesus’ Reply to John: Matt 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23,” Forum 5, no. 1 [1989]: 124–27). Similarly, Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT 3/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1969), 414. John P. Meier adds that the stamp of the early kerygma, the scandal of the cross, is absent. Most importantly, he finds it quite unlikely that the early church would have created the implicit threat directed at the Baptist (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 136).

45

15.  Ulrich Luz sees the difficulty of explaining the origin of the saying in the early church. He points out that scholarship has come up with conflicting explanations for the church’s motivation in creating it: making John the Baptist a witness to Jesus’ Messiahship (but he presents no such witness); to deal with uncertainty in the community; to polemicize against John’s ­non-Christian disciples; and to win converts from the same disciples (Matthew 8–20, 131). 16.  Some scholars believe Jesus’ saying is authentic and that John’s question is a secondary addition (Bultmann, Geschichte, 22, 57; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 413–114), but see Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? 39. 17.  Luz concludes that the saying may be original if it be granted that John the Baptist expected not God but the Son of Man and Jesus understood himself as the apocalyptic Son of Man (Matthew 8–20, 132). As I will argue, the saying makes the best sense if John expected the coming divine judgment of the world and if Jesus identified his own ministry with the coming of God.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

exchange is thought to have originated with some of John’s followers who had become disciples of Jesus.12 The third and fourth of these arguments belong together. Jesus’ reply is intended to cast his works as the fulfillment of various biblical prophecies (Isa. 26.19; 29.18; 35.5-6; 42.7, 18; 61.1), and exorcisms play no role in the Scriptures of Israel. It is to be expected, therefore, that they are not mentioned in Jesus’ reply either. True, he is not completely bound by these Scriptures, as he includes a reference to the cleansing of lepers.13 The picture Jesus draws on the basis of these prophecies, however, is that of the new creation, with paradisiacal conditions. Exorcisms were for Jesus the proof of Satan’s downfall (cf. Chapter 1), and that is a slightly different motif. The question of authenticity boils down to whether the appeal to prophetic texts to explain Jesus’ ministry is likely to have originated with Jesus himself. This possibility cannot of course be ruled out. If the early church could have thought of the Isaianic prophecies to explain Jesus’ miracles, so could Jesus. More importantly, the hypothesis of an origin in the early church suffers from two serious problems. First, if the early church created Jesus’ response, why would they put the objections in the mouth of John the Baptist? Would it have served their purposes to show that such a respected figure as John the Baptist had doubts about Jesus?14 Would not the ­well-known form of a conflict story with the scribes and the Pharisees be a more obvious setting for such a saying? It is conceivable that some in the early church intended to elevate Jesus above his forerunner, John the Baptist, or even wished to discredit John. They could

have been motivated by a desire to win converts among John’s disciples. As Acts 19.1-7 shows, some time went by before the disciples of John were successfully incorporated into the Jesus movement.15 However, if this were the case, one would expect that John also was made to acknowledge Jesus’ superiority to himself. The agenda to persuade John’s disciples seems to be better served by the traditions of Jesus’ baptism, where John makes such an acknowledgement. The failure of John to respond with consent even places the tradition preserved in Mt. 11.2-6 par. in some tension with these baptism traditions. Second, Jesus’ reply does not bear the stamp of early church exegesis. Isa. 29.18-19; 35.5-6 play no role in early Christian writings apart from the Gospels. The passage itself contains no reference to the Messiah, so it would have been of limited use to prove Jesus’ Messiahship. As it stands, this saying contains no explicit Christology. This application of Isaianic prophecies to Jesus fits better in the context of his own ministry, therefore, than in the context of the early church. As for the argument that John the Baptist’s question is unthinkable within his eschatological universe, it would in any case only apply to the setting of this saying, not the saying itself.16 But the observation that John expected the eschatological judgment does not mean he could not have asked the question reported in Mt. 11.3 par. On the contrary, the cognitive dissonance in John’s evaluation of Jesus must have been what prompted his question. Jesus appears to be bringing the kingdom of God, but the concomitant eschatological judgment does not seem to be forthcoming. I will argue below that this is precisely the conundrum that Jesus’ reply addresses.17 As for the messianic nature of Jesus’

44

12. Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 216; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 289–90; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 410. 13.  But it is possible that the stories of Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17-24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5.1-16) make up the background for the reference to the cleansing of lepers (David W. Pao and Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Luke,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 299). 14.  In his paper to the Jesus seminar, Walter Wink argued for the highest probability rating, red, of Mt. 11.5-6 par. He contends that the church would not have created a story about a doubting John the Baptist who remains unconvinced by Jesus’ reply. He also finds it unlikely that the church would have portrayed Jesus as unambiguous and noncommittal when asked whether he was the Messiah (“Jesus’ Reply to John: Matt 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23,” Forum 5, no. 1 [1989]: 124–27). Similarly, Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, HTKNT 3/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1969), 414. John P. Meier adds that the stamp of the early kerygma, the scandal of the cross, is absent. Most importantly, he finds it quite unlikely that the early church would have created the implicit threat directed at the Baptist (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 136).

45

15.  Ulrich Luz sees the difficulty of explaining the origin of the saying in the early church. He points out that scholarship has come up with conflicting explanations for the church’s motivation in creating it: making John the Baptist a witness to Jesus’ Messiahship (but he presents no such witness); to deal with uncertainty in the community; to polemicize against John’s ­non-Christian disciples; and to win converts from the same disciples (Matthew 8–20, 131). 16.  Some scholars believe Jesus’ saying is authentic and that John’s question is a secondary addition (Bultmann, Geschichte, 22, 57; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 413–114), but see Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? 39. 17.  Luz concludes that the saying may be original if it be granted that John the Baptist expected not God but the Son of Man and Jesus understood himself as the apocalyptic Son of Man (Matthew 8–20, 132). As I will argue, the saying makes the best sense if John expected the coming divine judgment of the world and if Jesus identified his own ministry with the coming of God.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

reply, the objection is only valid if Messiahship was not only the most important, but the only, element of Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. I have argued that it was not. As the interchange fits the context of Jesus’ ministry and since the hypothesis of an origin in the early church raises more questions than it answers, I conclude, with the majority of scholars, that Mt. 11.5-6 par. most likely preserves an authentic saying of Jesus.18 Jesus’ application of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 to John the Baptist (Mt. 11.10 par.) is also frequently seen as a later addition to the Jesus tradition. The conflated quotation identifies John as an eschatological messenger. Since the Synoptic Gospels describe John as the one who prepared the way for Jesus, the quotation implicitly also identifies Jesus as the ultimate eschatological figure. As such, it appears to be a proof text for Jesus’ identity.19 However, the origin of the conflation of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is not easy to explain. It appears in the double tradition in Matthew and Luke (usually attributed to Q), as well as in a quite different context in the Gospel of Mark (1.2). The form of the quotation cannot be fully explained on the basis of the LXX, but seems partly to go back to the Hebrew text.20 Several scholars therefore accept the hypothesis that the combination of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, in the particular form preserved in Mark as well as in Luke/Matthew, originated at an early stage of the tradition and became stereotyped in its Greek form.21 If the conflated quotation originated at a very early stage, is it possible to say something more about its likely genesis? Conflated quotations such as this one

were not common in Jewish writings around the turn of the era. The earliest evidence of their use is found in the writings of the apostle Paul, who was a master of conflating Scripture quotations. His technique was quite distinctive, however. It has been compared to the combinations of Scripture passages in one of the scrolls from Qumran (4QFlorilegium), but this scroll does little more than string quotations together. As James Scott has showed, Paul’s conflated quotations demonstrate quite another level of creative composition.22 It is such a creative conflation that we encounter in Mt. 11.5 as well. The two passages Exod. 23.30 and Mal. 3.1 are combined in Jewish exegesis (Exod. Rab. 32.9 [on 23.20]). But there Mal. 3.1 is brought in to explain Exod. 23.30, alongside other verses about the angel of the Lord, such as Exod. 3.2 and Judg. 6.11-14. The verses are not conflated as they are in Mt. 11.10 par. Even if this combination of Scriptures should be ­pre-Christian, it has no bearing on the origin of Mt. 11.10 par.23 The nature of the quotation demonstrates a kind of creativity that is not in evidence before the letters of the apostle Paul. As Paul shows no demonstrable interest in John the Baptist, he is an unlikely candidate as the forger of this particular conflation. We should probably be looking for another brilliant and creative mind in the very early church, therefore, which means that there are limited possibilities besides the historical Jesus himself.24 Moreover, as the case was with Jesus’ response to the Baptist, his use of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is not well suited for the church’s apologetic needs. As I will argue below, neither of the messengers involved appears as a forerunner of the Messiah. One might also wonder if the early church is likely to be responsible for attributing such an exalted role to John the Baptist. The position he is given here means that he can almost be seen as competing with Jesus, as John emerges as the messenger of YHWH. The Book of Acts provides some indications that there were at least some followers of John that did not immediately join ranks with the early Jesus movement (Acts 19.1-7). It would not

46

18.  In addition to the scholars already cited, cf. also James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 55–60; Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 663; Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der ­Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT II/7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 299–300; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 244–45; François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1.1–9.50, trans. Christine M. Thomas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 278. 19. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 419; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 137; Bovon, Luke 1, 279. 20.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 249; Watts, New Exodus, 61–62; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 302; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 283. 21.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250. Wiefel’s observation that such quotations were commonplace in early Christian and rabbinic exegesis only applies to a later stage in the history of interpretation (Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus, THKNT 1 [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998], 213).

47

22.  James M. Scott, “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6.16c-18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology,” JSNT 56 (1994): 77. 23.  Contra Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20 (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1954), 50. 24.  Cf. C. H. Dodd, who argues that Jesus himself was the primary responsible for the exegetical underpinnings of the early Christian kerygma (According to the Scriptures: The ­Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, reprint, 1952, Fontana Books [London: Collins, 1965], 109–10).

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

reply, the objection is only valid if Messiahship was not only the most important, but the only, element of Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. I have argued that it was not. As the interchange fits the context of Jesus’ ministry and since the hypothesis of an origin in the early church raises more questions than it answers, I conclude, with the majority of scholars, that Mt. 11.5-6 par. most likely preserves an authentic saying of Jesus.18 Jesus’ application of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 to John the Baptist (Mt. 11.10 par.) is also frequently seen as a later addition to the Jesus tradition. The conflated quotation identifies John as an eschatological messenger. Since the Synoptic Gospels describe John as the one who prepared the way for Jesus, the quotation implicitly also identifies Jesus as the ultimate eschatological figure. As such, it appears to be a proof text for Jesus’ identity.19 However, the origin of the conflation of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is not easy to explain. It appears in the double tradition in Matthew and Luke (usually attributed to Q), as well as in a quite different context in the Gospel of Mark (1.2). The form of the quotation cannot be fully explained on the basis of the LXX, but seems partly to go back to the Hebrew text.20 Several scholars therefore accept the hypothesis that the combination of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1, in the particular form preserved in Mark as well as in Luke/Matthew, originated at an early stage of the tradition and became stereotyped in its Greek form.21 If the conflated quotation originated at a very early stage, is it possible to say something more about its likely genesis? Conflated quotations such as this one

were not common in Jewish writings around the turn of the era. The earliest evidence of their use is found in the writings of the apostle Paul, who was a master of conflating Scripture quotations. His technique was quite distinctive, however. It has been compared to the combinations of Scripture passages in one of the scrolls from Qumran (4QFlorilegium), but this scroll does little more than string quotations together. As James Scott has showed, Paul’s conflated quotations demonstrate quite another level of creative composition.22 It is such a creative conflation that we encounter in Mt. 11.5 as well. The two passages Exod. 23.30 and Mal. 3.1 are combined in Jewish exegesis (Exod. Rab. 32.9 [on 23.20]). But there Mal. 3.1 is brought in to explain Exod. 23.30, alongside other verses about the angel of the Lord, such as Exod. 3.2 and Judg. 6.11-14. The verses are not conflated as they are in Mt. 11.10 par. Even if this combination of Scriptures should be ­pre-Christian, it has no bearing on the origin of Mt. 11.10 par.23 The nature of the quotation demonstrates a kind of creativity that is not in evidence before the letters of the apostle Paul. As Paul shows no demonstrable interest in John the Baptist, he is an unlikely candidate as the forger of this particular conflation. We should probably be looking for another brilliant and creative mind in the very early church, therefore, which means that there are limited possibilities besides the historical Jesus himself.24 Moreover, as the case was with Jesus’ response to the Baptist, his use of Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 is not well suited for the church’s apologetic needs. As I will argue below, neither of the messengers involved appears as a forerunner of the Messiah. One might also wonder if the early church is likely to be responsible for attributing such an exalted role to John the Baptist. The position he is given here means that he can almost be seen as competing with Jesus, as John emerges as the messenger of YHWH. The Book of Acts provides some indications that there were at least some followers of John that did not immediately join ranks with the early Jesus movement (Acts 19.1-7). It would not

46

18.  In addition to the scholars already cited, cf. also James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 55–60; Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 663; Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der ­Evangelien-Überlieferung, WUNT II/7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 299–300; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 244–45; François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1.1–9.50, trans. Christine M. Thomas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 278. 19. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 419; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 137; Bovon, Luke 1, 279. 20.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 249; Watts, New Exodus, 61–62; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 302; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 283. 21.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250. Wiefel’s observation that such quotations were commonplace in early Christian and rabbinic exegesis only applies to a later stage in the history of interpretation (Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus, THKNT 1 [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998], 213).

47

22.  James M. Scott, “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6.16c-18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology,” JSNT 56 (1994): 77. 23.  Contra Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20 (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1954), 50. 24.  Cf. C. H. Dodd, who argues that Jesus himself was the primary responsible for the exegetical underpinnings of the early Christian kerygma (According to the Scriptures: The ­Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, reprint, 1952, Fontana Books [London: Collins, 1965], 109–10).

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

have been in the interest of the early church to provide ammunition for those who might have elevated the memory of John and remained on the outside of the church. It becomes difficult, therefore, to explain the origin of Mt. 11.10 par. within the early church.25 A setting in the life of Jesus himself is more likely.26

bring eschatological healing and the realization of God’s promises regarding the era of salvation. The new creation with its paradisiacal conditions is a reality through the actions of Jesus.29 Jesus’ allusion to these prophecies also provides an indirect correction of John the Baptist’s expectation. The prophecies to which Jesus alludes also paint clear pictures of God’s judgment (Isa. 26.19; 29.20-21; 35.4; 42.17; 61.2), but these images are conspicuously absent from Jesus’ detailed account of their fulfillment. The implicit message to the Baptist seems to be that Jesus brought a different kind of eschatological salvation than he expected. Jesus comes to bring salvation, but not to exact judgment.30 Jesus and the Baptist both presuppose, however, that eschatological fulfillment is what is in view. It is unclear what the Baptist may have meant with the expression “the one who is to come” (Mt. 11.3 par.), and Jesus’ answer does not clarify it directly.31 The prophecies to which Jesus alludes concern three different eschatological characters. Isa. 26.19; 29.18; 35.5-6; and 42.18 refer to eschatological salvation

48

Fulfillment of Prophecy Turning to examine the significance of Jesus’ words, one observes that his reply to John the Baptist alludes to several prophecies in the Book of Isaiah. The first phrase, “the blind receive their sight,” echoes Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18; 61.1; the second, “the lame walk,” recalls Isa. 35.6; the third, “the lepers are cleansed,” finds no obvious counterpart in the Scriptures of Israel;27 the fourth, “the deaf hear,” alludes to Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.18; the fifth, “the dead are raised,” reflects Isa. 26.19; and the sixth, “the poor have good news brought to them,” echoes Isa. 61.1.28 The point of Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist is obviously that his works constitute evidence of who he is. By phrasing his answer with allusions to the Book of Isaiah, he also implies that his miracles should be understood as the literal fulfillment of these prophecies. Jesus therefore implicitly claims more than to be a charismatic miracle worker; he claims to 25.  Schürmann maintains the original unity of the saying in Lk. 7.24-27, dismissing the possibility that the conflated quotation is a later interpretive addition. He appears to be open to the possibility that the saying goes back to Jesus himself (Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 417). 26.  So also Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 47; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 160; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250. Luz points out that the introductory formula (γέγραπται) is characteristic of later style and thinks the Scripture quotation is a later addition (Matthew 8–20, 137). But even if the introductory formula be late, it does not follow that the quotation is. 27.  It is possible that the stories of Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17-24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5.1-16) make up the background (Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 299). 28.  Cf. Lena Lybæk, New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes, FRLANT 198 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 85; Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew, WUNT II/170 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 160. This plethora of echoes or allusions does not presuppose extended scribal activity, and therefore preclude an origin with the historical Jesus. We are not dealing with clear quotations; Jesus has simply made loose references to some distinct themes from Isaiah. Mt. 11.5 par. does not go beyond what may easily be uttered by someone with extensive knowledge of Israel’s Scriptures and with the memory characteristic of an oral culture. All the allusions that have been identified may not even have been consciously made. It is of course also possible that the original saying has been polished in the course of transmission so that it would correspond more closely to its Scriptural basis. What is important for my argument is that Jesus identified his miracles with the prophecies regarding the end time miracles.

49

29.  Similarly, Becker, Wunder, 441–42. 30.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 667–68; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 245. 31.  Fitzmyer thinks that John believed Jesus to be the eschatological Elijah and that Jesus instead identifies John as Elijah. Noting the ambiguity in the title “the coming one” as well as in Jesus’ response, Fitzmyer also argues that John’s question relates to the coming of Elijah (cf. Mal. 3.1). Instead of answering this directly, Jesus refers to his deeds as explaining who he is (Luke [I-IX], 666–67, 672). Several scholars have argued that the Baptist’s expectations do not match any descriptions of the coming of the Messiah as closely as they match the Hebrew Bible’s descriptions of the coming of YHWH himself (e.g. John H. Hughes, “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself,” NovT 14 [1972]: 191–218; Josef Ernst, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser, RNT [Regensburg: Pustet, 1974], 51–52; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 290; Bettina von Kienle, Feuermale: Studien zur Wortfelddimension ‘Feuer’ in den Synoptikern, im pseudophilonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und im 4. Esra, BBB 89 [Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993], 58–59). Robert L. Webb acknowledges that only Yahweh himself meets all the characteristics of the figure John expects but concludes that he must have anticipated that these functions would be performed by an agent of Yahweh (John the Baptizer and Prophet: A S­ ocio-Historical Study, JSNTSup 62 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 282–88). Jeffrey Trumbower concludes that the coming one that John was waiting for was either an agent of YHWH or YHWH himself (“The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 40). Öhler argues that “the coming one” in Lk. 3.16 par. must be the Messiah, as the text clearly identifies him as Jesus (Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im Neuen Testament, BZNW 88 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997], 54). That conclusion does not follow.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

have been in the interest of the early church to provide ammunition for those who might have elevated the memory of John and remained on the outside of the church. It becomes difficult, therefore, to explain the origin of Mt. 11.10 par. within the early church.25 A setting in the life of Jesus himself is more likely.26

bring eschatological healing and the realization of God’s promises regarding the era of salvation. The new creation with its paradisiacal conditions is a reality through the actions of Jesus.29 Jesus’ allusion to these prophecies also provides an indirect correction of John the Baptist’s expectation. The prophecies to which Jesus alludes also paint clear pictures of God’s judgment (Isa. 26.19; 29.20-21; 35.4; 42.17; 61.2), but these images are conspicuously absent from Jesus’ detailed account of their fulfillment. The implicit message to the Baptist seems to be that Jesus brought a different kind of eschatological salvation than he expected. Jesus comes to bring salvation, but not to exact judgment.30 Jesus and the Baptist both presuppose, however, that eschatological fulfillment is what is in view. It is unclear what the Baptist may have meant with the expression “the one who is to come” (Mt. 11.3 par.), and Jesus’ answer does not clarify it directly.31 The prophecies to which Jesus alludes concern three different eschatological characters. Isa. 26.19; 29.18; 35.5-6; and 42.18 refer to eschatological salvation

48

Fulfillment of Prophecy Turning to examine the significance of Jesus’ words, one observes that his reply to John the Baptist alludes to several prophecies in the Book of Isaiah. The first phrase, “the blind receive their sight,” echoes Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 18; 61.1; the second, “the lame walk,” recalls Isa. 35.6; the third, “the lepers are cleansed,” finds no obvious counterpart in the Scriptures of Israel;27 the fourth, “the deaf hear,” alludes to Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.18; the fifth, “the dead are raised,” reflects Isa. 26.19; and the sixth, “the poor have good news brought to them,” echoes Isa. 61.1.28 The point of Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist is obviously that his works constitute evidence of who he is. By phrasing his answer with allusions to the Book of Isaiah, he also implies that his miracles should be understood as the literal fulfillment of these prophecies. Jesus therefore implicitly claims more than to be a charismatic miracle worker; he claims to 25.  Schürmann maintains the original unity of the saying in Lk. 7.24-27, dismissing the possibility that the conflated quotation is a later interpretive addition. He appears to be open to the possibility that the saying goes back to Jesus himself (Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 417). 26.  So also Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 47; Schlosser, Règne, vol. 1, 160; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250. Luz points out that the introductory formula (γέγραπται) is characteristic of later style and thinks the Scripture quotation is a later addition (Matthew 8–20, 137). But even if the introductory formula be late, it does not follow that the quotation is. 27.  It is possible that the stories of Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17-24) and Elisha (2 Kgs 5.1-16) make up the background (Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 299). 28.  Cf. Lena Lybæk, New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes, FRLANT 198 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 85; Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew, WUNT II/170 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 160. This plethora of echoes or allusions does not presuppose extended scribal activity, and therefore preclude an origin with the historical Jesus. We are not dealing with clear quotations; Jesus has simply made loose references to some distinct themes from Isaiah. Mt. 11.5 par. does not go beyond what may easily be uttered by someone with extensive knowledge of Israel’s Scriptures and with the memory characteristic of an oral culture. All the allusions that have been identified may not even have been consciously made. It is of course also possible that the original saying has been polished in the course of transmission so that it would correspond more closely to its Scriptural basis. What is important for my argument is that Jesus identified his miracles with the prophecies regarding the end time miracles.

49

29.  Similarly, Becker, Wunder, 441–42. 30.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 667–68; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 245. 31.  Fitzmyer thinks that John believed Jesus to be the eschatological Elijah and that Jesus instead identifies John as Elijah. Noting the ambiguity in the title “the coming one” as well as in Jesus’ response, Fitzmyer also argues that John’s question relates to the coming of Elijah (cf. Mal. 3.1). Instead of answering this directly, Jesus refers to his deeds as explaining who he is (Luke [I-IX], 666–67, 672). Several scholars have argued that the Baptist’s expectations do not match any descriptions of the coming of the Messiah as closely as they match the Hebrew Bible’s descriptions of the coming of YHWH himself (e.g. John H. Hughes, “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself,” NovT 14 [1972]: 191–218; Josef Ernst, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser, RNT [Regensburg: Pustet, 1974], 51–52; George, “Paroles de Jésus,” 290; Bettina von Kienle, Feuermale: Studien zur Wortfelddimension ‘Feuer’ in den Synoptikern, im pseudophilonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und im 4. Esra, BBB 89 [Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993], 58–59). Robert L. Webb acknowledges that only Yahweh himself meets all the characteristics of the figure John expects but concludes that he must have anticipated that these functions would be performed by an agent of Yahweh (John the Baptizer and Prophet: A S­ ocio-Historical Study, JSNTSup 62 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], 282–88). Jeffrey Trumbower concludes that the coming one that John was waiting for was either an agent of YHWH or YHWH himself (“The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 40). Öhler argues that “the coming one” in Lk. 3.16 par. must be the Messiah, as the text clearly identifies him as Jesus (Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im Neuen Testament, BZNW 88 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997], 54). That conclusion does not follow.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

brought by God himself.32 Isa. 42.7 refers to the work of the Servant of the Lord, and Isa. 61.1 to the Lord’s anointed messenger. Of the characters that figure in these Isaianic prophecies, the anointed servant of Isa. 61.1-7 does not perform any miracles; he is merely a herald. The servant of Isa. 42.1-9 is credited with the opening of eyes that are blind, but it is not clear whether this should be understood literally.33 Since Jesus is referring to his own miracles, the character he most closely resembles is God, who is the agent of eschatological healing. The eschatological expectations in Second Temple Judaism confirm this interpretation. Healing was understood to be characteristic of the messianic age, but the Messiah was not expected to be a healer. That role was reserved for God himself (Jub. 23.26-30; 1 En. 96.3; 4 Ezra 8.52-54; 2 Bar. 29.7).34 More specifically, in the Qumran community, several of the motifs from Isaiah’s prophecies were taken up in a way that reminds one of Jesus’ answer to the Baptist. Fragment 2 of the second column of 4Q Messianic Apocalypse specifically mentions the giving of sight to the blind (line 8), making the dead

alive (line 12), and proclaiming the good news to the poor (line 12). These miracles were seen as characteristic of the messianic salvation. But the agent of the healing and restoration was explicitly said to be the Lord, not the Messiah (4Q521 2.ii.5-13). John Collins has argued, however, that the eschatological works described in 4Q521 2.ii.5-13 were done through the Messiah, as God’s agent. He concedes that the grammar clearly shows God as the subject of these works, but observes that proclaiming good news to the poor (line 12) is normally not the work of God, but of his herald (Isa. 61.1-2). As the Lord’s anointed is mentioned in line 1, Collins thinks he was God’s agent who proclaimed the good news. If so, he must also have been the agent of the other works mentioned in line 12: healing the wounded and making the dead live.35 The works mentioned in line 12, however, prompt a similar counter argument to Collins’s interpretation: God’s herald is not raising the dead; that is the work of God himself. Moreover, while it is unusual that God is the one who proclaims (‫ )בשר‬good news, it is not unprecedented. The author of the Thanksgiving Hymns praises God for proclaiming peace to all disaster (4Q432 3.3; cf. 1QHa 10.6). Moreover, the identification of the Messiah in line 1 is uncertain. The Hebrew ‫ למשיחו‬may be plural as well as singular. If it is plural it may refer to the people of God, not the Messiah.36 The evidence therefore weighs in favor of the grammatically straightforward reading of lines 5–13: these are the works of God himself.37 This scroll therefore shows that the works

50

32.  The absence of the Messiah in these prophecies does not deter John ­Yueh-Han Yieh from interpreting them messianically (One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report, BZNW 124 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004], 41). 33.  For a discussion, see Baltzer, ­Deutero-Isaiah, 132–33. 34.  Brian M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel, OBO 23 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 165–66; Colin Brown, “Synoptic Miracle Stories: A Jewish Religious and Social Setting,” Forum 2 (1986): 60; Hans Kvalbein, “The Wonders of the ­End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 Par,” JSP 18 (1998): 106; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 134. Joseph Klausner stresses that the Messiah is not thought to be a miracle worker in the Tannaitic literature (Messianic Idea, 506). Lidija Novakovic argues that Matthew understands Jesus’ healing miracles as specifically messianic works. She discusses the texts from the Pseudepigrapha that describe the healings in the end time and concede that God is always the healer, never the Messiah. However, she maintains that these healings accompany the appearance of the Messiah and that they characterize the messianic times (Messiah, 163–67). That may be so, but the fact remains that the agent of the healings was not the Messiah. David’s son Solomon was known as an exorcist who could control demons and the sicknesses they brought, according to T. Sol. 18.1-42. The Testament of Solomon has probably undergone Christian redaction and is of uncertain date. D. C. Duling suggests first to third century CE (“Testament of Solomon,” in OTP, 1.940–43). It is unlikely that these traditions were known in the time of Jesus; they are not reflected in the material about Solomon in the earlier Jewish literature (cf. James H. Charlesworth, “The Son of David, Solomon and Jesus,” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997], 79–84). In any case, there is no connection between these traditions and the available texts regarding Jesus’ understanding of his miracles.

51

35.  John J. Collins, “The Works of the Messiah,” DSD 1 (1994): 100; “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 113–15; similarly John P. Meier, Companions and Competitors, vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 497. Marc Philonenko compares 4Q521 to Zoroastrian ideas about the Saoshyant and argues that the ­Life-giver is either God or the author himself (“Adonaï, le Messie et le Saoshyant: Observations nouvelles sur 4Q521,” RHPR 82 [2002]: 261–64). 36.  So Niebuhr, “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten (4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung),” in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, BETL 131 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 638, but see Collins, “Jesus, Messianism,” 114–15. 37.  Similarly, Jean Duhaime, “Le messie et les saints dans un fragment apocalyptique de Qumrân (4Q521 2),” in Ce Dieu qui vient: Étude sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-cinquième anniversaire, ed. Raymond Kuntzmann, LD 159 (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 273; Niebuhr, “4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 640; Émile Puech, “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

brought by God himself.32 Isa. 42.7 refers to the work of the Servant of the Lord, and Isa. 61.1 to the Lord’s anointed messenger. Of the characters that figure in these Isaianic prophecies, the anointed servant of Isa. 61.1-7 does not perform any miracles; he is merely a herald. The servant of Isa. 42.1-9 is credited with the opening of eyes that are blind, but it is not clear whether this should be understood literally.33 Since Jesus is referring to his own miracles, the character he most closely resembles is God, who is the agent of eschatological healing. The eschatological expectations in Second Temple Judaism confirm this interpretation. Healing was understood to be characteristic of the messianic age, but the Messiah was not expected to be a healer. That role was reserved for God himself (Jub. 23.26-30; 1 En. 96.3; 4 Ezra 8.52-54; 2 Bar. 29.7).34 More specifically, in the Qumran community, several of the motifs from Isaiah’s prophecies were taken up in a way that reminds one of Jesus’ answer to the Baptist. Fragment 2 of the second column of 4Q Messianic Apocalypse specifically mentions the giving of sight to the blind (line 8), making the dead

alive (line 12), and proclaiming the good news to the poor (line 12). These miracles were seen as characteristic of the messianic salvation. But the agent of the healing and restoration was explicitly said to be the Lord, not the Messiah (4Q521 2.ii.5-13). John Collins has argued, however, that the eschatological works described in 4Q521 2.ii.5-13 were done through the Messiah, as God’s agent. He concedes that the grammar clearly shows God as the subject of these works, but observes that proclaiming good news to the poor (line 12) is normally not the work of God, but of his herald (Isa. 61.1-2). As the Lord’s anointed is mentioned in line 1, Collins thinks he was God’s agent who proclaimed the good news. If so, he must also have been the agent of the other works mentioned in line 12: healing the wounded and making the dead live.35 The works mentioned in line 12, however, prompt a similar counter argument to Collins’s interpretation: God’s herald is not raising the dead; that is the work of God himself. Moreover, while it is unusual that God is the one who proclaims (‫ )בשר‬good news, it is not unprecedented. The author of the Thanksgiving Hymns praises God for proclaiming peace to all disaster (4Q432 3.3; cf. 1QHa 10.6). Moreover, the identification of the Messiah in line 1 is uncertain. The Hebrew ‫ למשיחו‬may be plural as well as singular. If it is plural it may refer to the people of God, not the Messiah.36 The evidence therefore weighs in favor of the grammatically straightforward reading of lines 5–13: these are the works of God himself.37 This scroll therefore shows that the works

50

32.  The absence of the Messiah in these prophecies does not deter John ­Yueh-Han Yieh from interpreting them messianically (One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report, BZNW 124 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004], 41). 33.  For a discussion, see Baltzer, ­Deutero-Isaiah, 132–33. 34.  Brian M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel, OBO 23 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 165–66; Colin Brown, “Synoptic Miracle Stories: A Jewish Religious and Social Setting,” Forum 2 (1986): 60; Hans Kvalbein, “The Wonders of the ­End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 Par,” JSP 18 (1998): 106; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 134. Joseph Klausner stresses that the Messiah is not thought to be a miracle worker in the Tannaitic literature (Messianic Idea, 506). Lidija Novakovic argues that Matthew understands Jesus’ healing miracles as specifically messianic works. She discusses the texts from the Pseudepigrapha that describe the healings in the end time and concede that God is always the healer, never the Messiah. However, she maintains that these healings accompany the appearance of the Messiah and that they characterize the messianic times (Messiah, 163–67). That may be so, but the fact remains that the agent of the healings was not the Messiah. David’s son Solomon was known as an exorcist who could control demons and the sicknesses they brought, according to T. Sol. 18.1-42. The Testament of Solomon has probably undergone Christian redaction and is of uncertain date. D. C. Duling suggests first to third century CE (“Testament of Solomon,” in OTP, 1.940–43). It is unlikely that these traditions were known in the time of Jesus; they are not reflected in the material about Solomon in the earlier Jewish literature (cf. James H. Charlesworth, “The Son of David, Solomon and Jesus,” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997], 79–84). In any case, there is no connection between these traditions and the available texts regarding Jesus’ understanding of his miracles.

51

35.  John J. Collins, “The Works of the Messiah,” DSD 1 (1994): 100; “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 113–15; similarly John P. Meier, Companions and Competitors, vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 497. Marc Philonenko compares 4Q521 to Zoroastrian ideas about the Saoshyant and argues that the ­Life-giver is either God or the author himself (“Adonaï, le Messie et le Saoshyant: Observations nouvelles sur 4Q521,” RHPR 82 [2002]: 261–64). 36.  So Niebuhr, “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten (4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung),” in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, BETL 131 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 638, but see Collins, “Jesus, Messianism,” 114–15. 37.  Similarly, Jean Duhaime, “Le messie et les saints dans un fragment apocalyptique de Qumrân (4Q521 2),” in Ce Dieu qui vient: Étude sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-cinquième anniversaire, ed. Raymond Kuntzmann, LD 159 (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 273; Niebuhr, “4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 640; Émile Puech, “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

Jesus mentions in his answer to the Baptist were connected with the expectations of God’s eschatological intervention in the world. Against this background, Jesus’ startling claim can be appreciated. While some of God’s messengers could play a subsidiary role in connection with eschatological healing, the agent of such healing emerges as God himself. Jesus identifies his own miracles with these prophecies regarding God’s own acts.38 He thereby implicitly places himself in the role of God, bringing eschatological salvation.39 Most scholars recognize that Jesus in his answer to John the Baptist refers to prophecies that describe the works of God. Many conclude that these acts are

reinterpreted as messianic acts in the context of Jesus’ ministry.40 This conclusion has good support in the case of Matthew’s Gospel, where the works in question are identified as the works of Messiah (11.2). What makes Matthew’s expression possible, however, is the Christian use of Christ/Messiah (χριστός) approximating a proper name for Jesus. In other words, the identification of the works as messianic works is a retrospective identification. In its historical context, when Jesus uttered this saying, he would not have been understood as referring to messianic works. Rather, he would have been understood as claiming to do the works that God – not a mediator – was expected to do. In the historical context, Jesus’ claim would be a claim to take God’s place. Later, when the Christian community understood Jesus, the Messiah, to be the eternal Son of God, the works of God could also be understood as the works of the Messiah.

52

Messianism,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 556, 558; Jörg Frey, “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien,” in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, ed. Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker, BZNW 114 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), 307–8. 38.  Michael Becker, “4Q521 und die Gesalbten,” RevQ 18 (1997): 95. To see Jesus as God’s agent or representative does not do full justice to this identification (pace Howard Clark Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times, SNTSMS 55 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986], 79, 125; Karl Wilhelm Niebuhr, “4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 641). 39.  Similarly, Gundry, Matthew, 206; Jacques Schlosser, “Q et la Christologie implicite,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 313; Günther H. Juncker, “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), 293; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 280. Cf. also Peter Stuhlmacher and Martin Hengel, who emphasize that Jesus understood God’s salvation and God himself to be present in his own person and works (Peter Stuhlmacher, Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, vol. 1 of Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2d ed. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997], 74; Martin Hengel, “Jesus der Messias Israels,” in Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 138 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 69–70). Similarly, Thomas P. Rausch, Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 90. Jens Schröter observes that Lk. 7.22 goes beyond what a messianic understanding of Jesus can explain (Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 47 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: ­Neukirchener Verlag, 2001], 155–56). Niebuhr observes that Jesus is presented as doing the works of God, and concludes that he is God’s representative (“4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 640). He does not defend this qualification exegetically. Similarly, Grant Macaskill suggests that the passive verbs in Mt. 11.5 may be understood as divine passives. He maintains that Jesus’ answer to the Baptist deflects the attention from his person to the fact that the present time is the time of salvation (Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 137). Macaskill suggests a false antithesis. Jesus points to his works to demonstrate who he is (cf. Mt. 11.6).

53

John the Baptist and Elijah Following his reply to John’s messengers, Jesus turns to the crowds and gives them his evaluation of John. John is now identified as a forerunner: “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you” (Mt. 11.10). Jesus’ words also imply that John is the fulfillment of prophecy, as they constitute a conflated quotation, taken from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1. In the context of Exodus 23, v. 20 describes an angel or messenger (Heb.: ‫ ;מלאך‬Gr.: ἄγγελος) that the Lord will send to guard Israel on their way to the Promised Land. Israel are warned against disobeying his voice. If they do, they will not be forgiven. If Israel obey the angel, however, God will be with them as the warrior who stands against their enemies. God’s own presence in judgment is also the theme in Malachi 3. The Lord announces: “See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple” (Mal. 3.1a). Whoever this messenger was, he is sent by God to precede his own coming. That much is clear, although interpreters differ as to who and how many other characters the oracle identifies.41 Jesus

40.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 242; Lybæk, New and Old, 89; Novakovic, Messiah, 161–62. 41.  The identity of the various characters in Mal. 3.1 has puzzled interpreters. The first character is the Lord God, who is the speaker. God announces the sending of his messenger, who will prepare the way before him. The third character is “the Lord whom you seek” who

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

Jesus mentions in his answer to the Baptist were connected with the expectations of God’s eschatological intervention in the world. Against this background, Jesus’ startling claim can be appreciated. While some of God’s messengers could play a subsidiary role in connection with eschatological healing, the agent of such healing emerges as God himself. Jesus identifies his own miracles with these prophecies regarding God’s own acts.38 He thereby implicitly places himself in the role of God, bringing eschatological salvation.39 Most scholars recognize that Jesus in his answer to John the Baptist refers to prophecies that describe the works of God. Many conclude that these acts are

reinterpreted as messianic acts in the context of Jesus’ ministry.40 This conclusion has good support in the case of Matthew’s Gospel, where the works in question are identified as the works of Messiah (11.2). What makes Matthew’s expression possible, however, is the Christian use of Christ/Messiah (χριστός) approximating a proper name for Jesus. In other words, the identification of the works as messianic works is a retrospective identification. In its historical context, when Jesus uttered this saying, he would not have been understood as referring to messianic works. Rather, he would have been understood as claiming to do the works that God – not a mediator – was expected to do. In the historical context, Jesus’ claim would be a claim to take God’s place. Later, when the Christian community understood Jesus, the Messiah, to be the eternal Son of God, the works of God could also be understood as the works of the Messiah.

52

Messianism,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 556, 558; Jörg Frey, “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien,” in Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, ed. Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker, BZNW 114 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), 307–8. 38.  Michael Becker, “4Q521 und die Gesalbten,” RevQ 18 (1997): 95. To see Jesus as God’s agent or representative does not do full justice to this identification (pace Howard Clark Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times, SNTSMS 55 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986], 79, 125; Karl Wilhelm Niebuhr, “4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 641). 39.  Similarly, Gundry, Matthew, 206; Jacques Schlosser, “Q et la Christologie implicite,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. Andreas Lindemann, BETL 158 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 313; Günther H. Juncker, “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), 293; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 280. Cf. also Peter Stuhlmacher and Martin Hengel, who emphasize that Jesus understood God’s salvation and God himself to be present in his own person and works (Peter Stuhlmacher, Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus, vol. 1 of Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2d ed. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997], 74; Martin Hengel, “Jesus der Messias Israels,” in Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, WUNT 138 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 69–70). Similarly, Thomas P. Rausch, Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 90. Jens Schröter observes that Lk. 7.22 goes beyond what a messianic understanding of Jesus can explain (Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 47 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: ­Neukirchener Verlag, 2001], 155–56). Niebuhr observes that Jesus is presented as doing the works of God, and concludes that he is God’s representative (“4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung,” 640). He does not defend this qualification exegetically. Similarly, Grant Macaskill suggests that the passive verbs in Mt. 11.5 may be understood as divine passives. He maintains that Jesus’ answer to the Baptist deflects the attention from his person to the fact that the present time is the time of salvation (Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 137). Macaskill suggests a false antithesis. Jesus points to his works to demonstrate who he is (cf. Mt. 11.6).

53

John the Baptist and Elijah Following his reply to John’s messengers, Jesus turns to the crowds and gives them his evaluation of John. John is now identified as a forerunner: “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you” (Mt. 11.10). Jesus’ words also imply that John is the fulfillment of prophecy, as they constitute a conflated quotation, taken from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1. In the context of Exodus 23, v. 20 describes an angel or messenger (Heb.: ‫ ;מלאך‬Gr.: ἄγγελος) that the Lord will send to guard Israel on their way to the Promised Land. Israel are warned against disobeying his voice. If they do, they will not be forgiven. If Israel obey the angel, however, God will be with them as the warrior who stands against their enemies. God’s own presence in judgment is also the theme in Malachi 3. The Lord announces: “See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple” (Mal. 3.1a). Whoever this messenger was, he is sent by God to precede his own coming. That much is clear, although interpreters differ as to who and how many other characters the oracle identifies.41 Jesus

40.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 242; Lybæk, New and Old, 89; Novakovic, Messiah, 161–62. 41.  The identity of the various characters in Mal. 3.1 has puzzled interpreters. The first character is the Lord God, who is the speaker. God announces the sending of his messenger, who will prepare the way before him. The third character is “the Lord whom you seek” who

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

has thus identified John the Baptist as the eschatological messenger who will appear before God himself will come to the earth.42 The Book of Malachi may well give a clue to the identity of this messenger. In the last two verses of the book, Elijah is announced to come before the day of the Lord (Mal. 3.23-24 [ET 4.5-6]). Since both Elijah and the messenger of 3.1 appear before the judgment of God, the two should probably be identified. Malachi 3.23-24 provides an interpretation of the oracle in 3.1.43 It appears, therefore, that Jesus with his Scriptural quotation is identifying John as the

eschatological prophet Elijah, an identification that is explicit in the Gospel of Matthew (11.14).44 Many scholars maintain that Jews expected Elijah to come as the precursor of the Messiah.45 If so, Jesus could here be understood implicitly to claim Messiahship. There is little evidence to support this understanding, however. It seems to be based on the assumption that the coming of the Messiah was the central idea in all versions of Jewish eschatology. But the sources do not give such an exclusive place to the Messiah. It is unwarranted to assume that if Elijah is described as an eschatological character, he must be the forerunner of the Messiah. The earliest reference to an eschatological appearance of Elijah is found in Mal. 3.23-24 (ET 4.5-6). However, there is no reference to the Messiah in the Book of Malachi, and the oracle about Elijah specifically announces his coming “before the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 3.23). A connection between Elijah and the Messiah must be read into this text based on a preconceived eschatological system.46 After Mal. 3.23-24, the earliest occurrence of Elijah as an eschatological figure is found in Sir. 48.10-11, where Elijah is expected “to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.” Here Elijah appears as a freestanding eschatological character; the Messiah is not mentioned in Sirach at all.47

54

“will suddenly come to his temple.” Finally, the Lord also refers to the coming of the messenger of the covenant. The messenger appears to be a prophetic character and “the Lord whom you seek” is most likely God, as he is coming to “his temple.” Elsewhere, ‫( האדון‬with the article) refers to the Lord God. See Exod. 23.17; 34.23; Isa. 1.24; 3.1; 10.16, 33; 19.4; cf. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 10, reprinted (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 656; John Merlin Powis Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 63; Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3.1,” JBL 103 (1984): 252–53; Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, 328; Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 288–89; Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25D (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 268, 287; Andrew S. Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” TynBul 57 (2006): 218–19; contra France, who identifies the second, third, and fourth characters above as the same messenger (Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission [London: Tyndale, 1971], 91). A more difficult question concerns the identity of the fourth character, the messenger of the covenant. Many interpreters prefer the translation “angel of the covenant” (for ‫)מלאך הברית‬. They also observe that the close association between the Lord and the angel as well as the distinction between them may recall the descriptions of the Angel of the Lord (John Merlin Powis Smith, Malachi, 63–64; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 289; Hill, Malachi, 287–89). Another suggestion is that the messenger of the covenant is a priestly figure (Malchow, “Messenger,” 253–54). Others argue on the basis of the parallelism of the two lines in v. 1 and identify the messenger of the covenant as the Lord God himself (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, vol. 10, 656; Watts, New Exodus, 69; Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” 219–27). For an overview of the various interpretive options, see David M. Miller, “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3,” NTS 53 (2007): 4–5. 42.  Similarly, R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, New Testament Profiles (Downers Grove: IVP, 1989), 310; Juncker, “Angel of the Lord,” 295–302; Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” 218–19, 223–24. Davies and Allison conclude that “Jesus has replaced Yahweh” (Matthew, Vol. 2, 250). Gnilka observes that the quoted Scripture refers to the coming of the Lord himself, but he takes the point in Mt. 11.10 to be that the messianic times have arrived (Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 415). 43.  John Merlin Powis Smith, Malachi, 62–63; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 340; Hill, Malachi, 383.

55

44. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 671; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250; Öhler, Elia, 68–69; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 142; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283. 45.  Str-B 4.784-789; Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 357; Klausner, Messianic Idea, 451–57; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: The University Press, 1964), 159; Joachim Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” in TDNT, 2.931–34; Peter Schäfer, “Die Torah in der messianischen Zeit,” ZNW 65 (1974): 30–31; Vermes, Jesus, 94–95; Dale C. Allison, Jr, “Elijah Must Come First,” JBL 103 (1984): 256–58; Karin H ­ edner-Zetterholm, “Elijah and the Messiah as Spokesmen for Rabbinic Ideology,” in The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 63–65. But see the more cautious discussions in M. M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?” JBL 100 (1981): 75–86; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104 (1985): 295–96; Collins, “The Works of the Messiah,” 104–6; Öhler, Elia, 1–30; David M. Miller, “Messenger,” 1–11. 46.  Allison provides an example of this approach when he reasons: “Since 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” (“Elijah,” 257). 47.  Klausner nevertheless concludes that Elijah appears in Sirach as the herald of the Messiah (Messianic Idea, 257). Jeremias believes that Sirach seems to have expected Elijah

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

has thus identified John the Baptist as the eschatological messenger who will appear before God himself will come to the earth.42 The Book of Malachi may well give a clue to the identity of this messenger. In the last two verses of the book, Elijah is announced to come before the day of the Lord (Mal. 3.23-24 [ET 4.5-6]). Since both Elijah and the messenger of 3.1 appear before the judgment of God, the two should probably be identified. Malachi 3.23-24 provides an interpretation of the oracle in 3.1.43 It appears, therefore, that Jesus with his Scriptural quotation is identifying John as the

eschatological prophet Elijah, an identification that is explicit in the Gospel of Matthew (11.14).44 Many scholars maintain that Jews expected Elijah to come as the precursor of the Messiah.45 If so, Jesus could here be understood implicitly to claim Messiahship. There is little evidence to support this understanding, however. It seems to be based on the assumption that the coming of the Messiah was the central idea in all versions of Jewish eschatology. But the sources do not give such an exclusive place to the Messiah. It is unwarranted to assume that if Elijah is described as an eschatological character, he must be the forerunner of the Messiah. The earliest reference to an eschatological appearance of Elijah is found in Mal. 3.23-24 (ET 4.5-6). However, there is no reference to the Messiah in the Book of Malachi, and the oracle about Elijah specifically announces his coming “before the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal. 3.23). A connection between Elijah and the Messiah must be read into this text based on a preconceived eschatological system.46 After Mal. 3.23-24, the earliest occurrence of Elijah as an eschatological figure is found in Sir. 48.10-11, where Elijah is expected “to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.” Here Elijah appears as a freestanding eschatological character; the Messiah is not mentioned in Sirach at all.47

54

“will suddenly come to his temple.” Finally, the Lord also refers to the coming of the messenger of the covenant. The messenger appears to be a prophetic character and “the Lord whom you seek” is most likely God, as he is coming to “his temple.” Elsewhere, ‫( האדון‬with the article) refers to the Lord God. See Exod. 23.17; 34.23; Isa. 1.24; 3.1; 10.16, 33; 19.4; cf. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 10, reprinted (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 656; John Merlin Powis Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 63; Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3.1,” JBL 103 (1984): 252–53; Ralph L. Smith, ­Micah-Malachi, 328; Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 288–89; Andrew E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25D (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 268, 287; Andrew S. Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” TynBul 57 (2006): 218–19; contra France, who identifies the second, third, and fourth characters above as the same messenger (Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission [London: Tyndale, 1971], 91). A more difficult question concerns the identity of the fourth character, the messenger of the covenant. Many interpreters prefer the translation “angel of the covenant” (for ‫)מלאך הברית‬. They also observe that the close association between the Lord and the angel as well as the distinction between them may recall the descriptions of the Angel of the Lord (John Merlin Powis Smith, Malachi, 63–64; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 289; Hill, Malachi, 287–89). Another suggestion is that the messenger of the covenant is a priestly figure (Malchow, “Messenger,” 253–54). Others argue on the basis of the parallelism of the two lines in v. 1 and identify the messenger of the covenant as the Lord God himself (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, vol. 10, 656; Watts, New Exodus, 69; Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” 219–27). For an overview of the various interpretive options, see David M. Miller, “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3,” NTS 53 (2007): 4–5. 42.  Similarly, R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, New Testament Profiles (Downers Grove: IVP, 1989), 310; Juncker, “Angel of the Lord,” 295–302; Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” 218–19, 223–24. Davies and Allison conclude that “Jesus has replaced Yahweh” (Matthew, Vol. 2, 250). Gnilka observes that the quoted Scripture refers to the coming of the Lord himself, but he takes the point in Mt. 11.10 to be that the messianic times have arrived (Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 415). 43.  John Merlin Powis Smith, Malachi, 62–63; Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 340; Hill, Malachi, 383.

55

44. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 671; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 250; Öhler, Elia, 68–69; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 142; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 283. 45.  Str-B 4.784-789; Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 357; Klausner, Messianic Idea, 451–57; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: The University Press, 1964), 159; Joachim Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” in TDNT, 2.931–34; Peter Schäfer, “Die Torah in der messianischen Zeit,” ZNW 65 (1974): 30–31; Vermes, Jesus, 94–95; Dale C. Allison, Jr, “Elijah Must Come First,” JBL 103 (1984): 256–58; Karin H ­ edner-Zetterholm, “Elijah and the Messiah as Spokesmen for Rabbinic Ideology,” in The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 63–65. But see the more cautious discussions in M. M. Faierstein, “Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?” JBL 100 (1981): 75–86; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” JBL 104 (1985): 295–96; Collins, “The Works of the Messiah,” 104–6; Öhler, Elia, 1–30; David M. Miller, “Messenger,” 1–11. 46.  Allison provides an example of this approach when he reasons: “Since 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” (“Elijah,” 257). 47.  Klausner nevertheless concludes that Elijah appears in Sirach as the herald of the Messiah (Messianic Idea, 257). Jeremias believes that Sirach seems to have expected Elijah

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

There may be a reference to Elijah in the Enochic Dream Visions (1 En. 83-90) as well. In 1 En. 90.31 Enoch reports being held by a ram. This ram is usually identified as Elijah,48 although Judas Maccabeus has also been suggested.49 If so, the passage provides evidence that Elijah appears together with Enoch before the coming of the Messiah.50 However, Elijah plays no role in Enoch’s eschatological scenario, except to hold Enoch. He does not prepare anybody for the coming of the s­ now-white cow (1 En. 90.37), the messianic character in Enoch’s vision.51 Elijah is further mentioned in one fragmentary Qumran scroll, 4Q558. The scroll promises that Elijah will be sent (4Q558 1.ii.4), but not enough of the scroll has been preserved that we can know anything about his function or even to whom he will be sent.52 It is also possible that Elijah makes his appearance in the Damascus Document. The author of this document looks forward to the coming of the one “who teaches justice at the end of days” (CD-A 6.11). “The one who teaches justice” (‫ )יורה הצדק‬is later used as a term for the eschatological Elijah.53 In any case, however, this teacher of justice has no connection with the Messiah, except that they both will arise in the end time.54

In some Rabbinic texts, Elijah appears together with the Messiah. In a deliberation about Sabbath days and festival days in b. ‘Erub. 43a-b, the possible coming of Elijah and the Messiah is brought into the discussion and Mal. 3.23 is quoted to refer to the eschatological coming of Elijah.55 However, this text does not explain Elijah’s role vis-à-vis the Messiah; it is not even clear as to who might come first. It first presents the argument that “as Elijah would not come, the Messiah also would not come,” apparently assuming that Elijah must come first. But subsequently this argument is contradicted, and it is maintained that “Elijah would not, but the Messiah might come.” This text therefore shows that Elijah and Messiah were both expected as eschatological characters, but it does not provide any evidence as to how they were thought to relate to each other.56 The closest association of Elijah and the Messiah is found in the Targums. Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan mentions him together with the Messiah and promises that he will come at the end of the captivity (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 40.10). According to Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30.4, Elijah will gather the people from dispersion, and afterwards they will be taken care of by the Messiah. Finally, in Tg. Lam. 4.22, the people will be freed by the Messiah and Elijah the high priest. Here Elijah comes before or together with the Messiah, but his role is quite different. He is not a messenger and he does not prepare the way, as he does in Mal. 3.23-24 and Mt. 11.10 par. Now he is a redeemer and a high priest.57 Likewise, in m. Soṭah 9.15, the resurrection of the dead is expected to come through Elijah. The very different character of these Elijah expectations and the late date of these texts make it unlikely that they are relevant for Jesus’ concept of Elijah.

56

as the Messiah (“Ἑλ[ε]ίας,” 2.931). Apart from the unfounded assumption that the Messiah belongs in every eschatological scenario, there is no basis for either of these conclusions. So, correctly, Faierstein, “Elijah,” 78. 48.  R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch Together with a Reprint of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), 215; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 279; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 405. 49.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 45. 50.  Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931. 51.  This reference in 1 En. 90.31 is the only evidence Vermes adduces for his conclusion that probably the majority of Jews expected Elijah to come as the herald of the messianic age (Jesus, 94–95). On the other hand, Faierstein correctly observes that Elijah (occurring in 1 En. 90.31) and the Messiah (occurring in 1 En. 90.37) are unrelated in the Enochic account (“Elijah,” 79). 52.  J. Starcky prematurely concludes that Elijah here appears as a forerunner of the Messiah (“Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran,” RB 70 [1963]: 498). Fitzmyer justifiably demurs (“The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave V,” in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974], 137). Cf. also Öhler, Elia, 16–22. 53.  Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931–32. 54. In Soferim, a rabbinic text whose final form probably dates from the seventh or eighth century CE, a prayer for the coming of Elijah the prophet is juxtaposed with a prayer for the

57

coming of Messiah (Sof. 19.9). Cf. Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931. However, this text does not comment on what relationship there might be between these two eschatological characters. Cf. Faierstein, “Elijah,” 76. As for the Christian texts that attest to the idea that Elijah will come before the Messiah, they must be understood as being dependent on the Gospel account that Elijah preceded Jesus. The preeminent title for Jesus in the early church quickly became Messiah/Christ. When the New Testament referred to Elijah as Jesus’ promised precursor, the conclusion lay close at hand that Elijah was the expected forerunner of the Messiah. 55.  Besides Mal. 3.23-24 and the testimony of the Gospels, b. ‘Erub. 43a-b is the only evidence Allison adduces for a ­first-century belief in Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah (“Elijah”). 56.  Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer refers to Elijah as an eschatological character in ch. 43, but he is not mentioned in relation to the Messiah. 57.  The idea of Elijah as an eschatological high priest is developed in later Rabbinic sources. Cf. Str-B 4.789-792. Other Rabbinic texts focus on the eschatological prophet Elijah as the one who will solve halakic problems. Cf. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 451–55.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

There may be a reference to Elijah in the Enochic Dream Visions (1 En. 83-90) as well. In 1 En. 90.31 Enoch reports being held by a ram. This ram is usually identified as Elijah,48 although Judas Maccabeus has also been suggested.49 If so, the passage provides evidence that Elijah appears together with Enoch before the coming of the Messiah.50 However, Elijah plays no role in Enoch’s eschatological scenario, except to hold Enoch. He does not prepare anybody for the coming of the s­ now-white cow (1 En. 90.37), the messianic character in Enoch’s vision.51 Elijah is further mentioned in one fragmentary Qumran scroll, 4Q558. The scroll promises that Elijah will be sent (4Q558 1.ii.4), but not enough of the scroll has been preserved that we can know anything about his function or even to whom he will be sent.52 It is also possible that Elijah makes his appearance in the Damascus Document. The author of this document looks forward to the coming of the one “who teaches justice at the end of days” (CD-A 6.11). “The one who teaches justice” (‫ )יורה הצדק‬is later used as a term for the eschatological Elijah.53 In any case, however, this teacher of justice has no connection with the Messiah, except that they both will arise in the end time.54

In some Rabbinic texts, Elijah appears together with the Messiah. In a deliberation about Sabbath days and festival days in b. ‘Erub. 43a-b, the possible coming of Elijah and the Messiah is brought into the discussion and Mal. 3.23 is quoted to refer to the eschatological coming of Elijah.55 However, this text does not explain Elijah’s role vis-à-vis the Messiah; it is not even clear as to who might come first. It first presents the argument that “as Elijah would not come, the Messiah also would not come,” apparently assuming that Elijah must come first. But subsequently this argument is contradicted, and it is maintained that “Elijah would not, but the Messiah might come.” This text therefore shows that Elijah and Messiah were both expected as eschatological characters, but it does not provide any evidence as to how they were thought to relate to each other.56 The closest association of Elijah and the Messiah is found in the Targums. Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan mentions him together with the Messiah and promises that he will come at the end of the captivity (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 40.10). According to Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30.4, Elijah will gather the people from dispersion, and afterwards they will be taken care of by the Messiah. Finally, in Tg. Lam. 4.22, the people will be freed by the Messiah and Elijah the high priest. Here Elijah comes before or together with the Messiah, but his role is quite different. He is not a messenger and he does not prepare the way, as he does in Mal. 3.23-24 and Mt. 11.10 par. Now he is a redeemer and a high priest.57 Likewise, in m. Soṭah 9.15, the resurrection of the dead is expected to come through Elijah. The very different character of these Elijah expectations and the late date of these texts make it unlikely that they are relevant for Jesus’ concept of Elijah.

56

as the Messiah (“Ἑλ[ε]ίας,” 2.931). Apart from the unfounded assumption that the Messiah belongs in every eschatological scenario, there is no basis for either of these conclusions. So, correctly, Faierstein, “Elijah,” 78. 48.  R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch Together with a Reprint of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912), 215; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 279; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 405. 49.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 45. 50.  Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931. 51.  This reference in 1 En. 90.31 is the only evidence Vermes adduces for his conclusion that probably the majority of Jews expected Elijah to come as the herald of the messianic age (Jesus, 94–95). On the other hand, Faierstein correctly observes that Elijah (occurring in 1 En. 90.31) and the Messiah (occurring in 1 En. 90.37) are unrelated in the Enochic account (“Elijah,” 79). 52.  J. Starcky prematurely concludes that Elijah here appears as a forerunner of the Messiah (“Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran,” RB 70 [1963]: 498). Fitzmyer justifiably demurs (“The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave V,” in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974], 137). Cf. also Öhler, Elia, 16–22. 53.  Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931–32. 54. In Soferim, a rabbinic text whose final form probably dates from the seventh or eighth century CE, a prayer for the coming of Elijah the prophet is juxtaposed with a prayer for the

57

coming of Messiah (Sof. 19.9). Cf. Jeremias, “Ἑλ(ε)ίας,” 2.931. However, this text does not comment on what relationship there might be between these two eschatological characters. Cf. Faierstein, “Elijah,” 76. As for the Christian texts that attest to the idea that Elijah will come before the Messiah, they must be understood as being dependent on the Gospel account that Elijah preceded Jesus. The preeminent title for Jesus in the early church quickly became Messiah/Christ. When the New Testament referred to Elijah as Jesus’ promised precursor, the conclusion lay close at hand that Elijah was the expected forerunner of the Messiah. 55.  Besides Mal. 3.23-24 and the testimony of the Gospels, b. ‘Erub. 43a-b is the only evidence Allison adduces for a ­first-century belief in Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah (“Elijah”). 56.  Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer refers to Elijah as an eschatological character in ch. 43, but he is not mentioned in relation to the Messiah. 57.  The idea of Elijah as an eschatological high priest is developed in later Rabbinic sources. Cf. Str-B 4.789-792. Other Rabbinic texts focus on the eschatological prophet Elijah as the one who will solve halakic problems. Cf. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 451–55.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

A midrashic work from the ninth century CE, Pesiqta Rabbati, states clearly that Elijah will come three days before the Messiah. He will “stand upon the mountains of Israel and weep and lament upon them” (35.4).58 But, without corroborating evidence, it is clearly unwarranted to assume that this text testifies to ­pre-Christian ideas. Quite apart from the references in Jewish literature, however, it appears that the Gospels give evidence of an expectation that Elijah would precede the Messiah. The disciples ask Jesus: “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (Mk 9.11 par.).59 Their question follows a reference by Jesus to the resurrection of the Son of Man (Mk 9.9 par.). At the stage of the historical Jesus, this exchange cannot bear the weight of evidence for a belief in Elijah as a precursor to the Messiah. Even if it be granted that the disciples understood the expression “son of man” as referring to Jesus’ Messiahship, it is unlikely that they would have thought of resurrection as exclusively pertaining to the Messiah. Jewish messianic expectations do not include the belief that he would rise from the dead. His work may be associated with resurrection, but that would be a general resurrection of the whole world (Dan. 12.2; 2 Macc. 7.9, 11, 14, 23; 12.44; 1 En. 62.15; 103.4; Ps. Sol. 3.12; Sib. Or. 4.179-192; Apoc. Mos. 13.3-4; 41.3; 43.2; 4Q521 2.ii.12).60 Jesus’ subsequent mention of the restoration of all things (Mk 9.12 par.) is also naturally understood within this framework. Finally, the unanimous testimony of the Gospels is that the disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead. The question of the disciples therefore most likely reflects an idea that Elijah must come before the final restoration.61

Conclusion

58

58.  Quoted from Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths, vol. 2, translated from the Hebrew by William G. Braude, Yale Judaica Series 18 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 675. 59.  Cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr, “Elijah,” 256; David M. Miller, “Messenger,” 113–14. 60.  See Christian Grappe, “Naissance de l’idée de résurrection dans le judaïsme,” in Résurrection: L’­àpres-mort dans la monde ancient et le Nouveau Testament, ed. Odette Mainville and Daniel Marguerat, Le monde de la Bible 45 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001), 46–60; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 108–28, 146–206. 61.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” 295.

59

A coherent picture now emerges. Jesus does not appeal to any power outside himself when he performs his miracles. His own account of these miracles in his reply to John the Baptist provides the explanation: Jesus’ miracles represent the fulfillment of God’s own eschatological works as he brings the new creation. As he did with respect to his exorcisms, so does Jesus identify his own miracles as the eschatological acts of God. This extraordinary understanding of his own actions is affirmed by Jesus’ evaluation of John the Baptist. In preparing the way for Jesus, John the Baptist has taken on the role of the eschatological Elijah. No evidence relevant to the New Testament connects this Elijah character with the Messiah. Instead, the conflated quotation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 identifies him as the forerunner of God himself. The implications are that Jesus identifies his own presence with the presence of God, and his own acts with the eschatological acts of God. Consequently, he has no need to seek outside power to perform his mighty works. He apparently thinks he already possesses this power since he is acting as God.

God’s Equal

2.  Doing the Works of God

A midrashic work from the ninth century CE, Pesiqta Rabbati, states clearly that Elijah will come three days before the Messiah. He will “stand upon the mountains of Israel and weep and lament upon them” (35.4).58 But, without corroborating evidence, it is clearly unwarranted to assume that this text testifies to ­pre-Christian ideas. Quite apart from the references in Jewish literature, however, it appears that the Gospels give evidence of an expectation that Elijah would precede the Messiah. The disciples ask Jesus: “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (Mk 9.11 par.).59 Their question follows a reference by Jesus to the resurrection of the Son of Man (Mk 9.9 par.). At the stage of the historical Jesus, this exchange cannot bear the weight of evidence for a belief in Elijah as a precursor to the Messiah. Even if it be granted that the disciples understood the expression “son of man” as referring to Jesus’ Messiahship, it is unlikely that they would have thought of resurrection as exclusively pertaining to the Messiah. Jewish messianic expectations do not include the belief that he would rise from the dead. His work may be associated with resurrection, but that would be a general resurrection of the whole world (Dan. 12.2; 2 Macc. 7.9, 11, 14, 23; 12.44; 1 En. 62.15; 103.4; Ps. Sol. 3.12; Sib. Or. 4.179-192; Apoc. Mos. 13.3-4; 41.3; 43.2; 4Q521 2.ii.12).60 Jesus’ subsequent mention of the restoration of all things (Mk 9.12 par.) is also naturally understood within this framework. Finally, the unanimous testimony of the Gospels is that the disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead. The question of the disciples therefore most likely reflects an idea that Elijah must come before the final restoration.61

Conclusion

58

58.  Quoted from Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths, vol. 2, translated from the Hebrew by William G. Braude, Yale Judaica Series 18 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 675. 59.  Cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr, “Elijah,” 256; David M. Miller, “Messenger,” 113–14. 60.  See Christian Grappe, “Naissance de l’idée de résurrection dans le judaïsme,” in Résurrection: L’­àpres-mort dans la monde ancient et le Nouveau Testament, ed. Odette Mainville and Daniel Marguerat, Le monde de la Bible 45 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001), 46–60; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 108–28, 146–206. 61.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, “More About Elijah Coming First,” 295.

59

A coherent picture now emerges. Jesus does not appeal to any power outside himself when he performs his miracles. His own account of these miracles in his reply to John the Baptist provides the explanation: Jesus’ miracles represent the fulfillment of God’s own eschatological works as he brings the new creation. As he did with respect to his exorcisms, so does Jesus identify his own miracles as the eschatological acts of God. This extraordinary understanding of his own actions is affirmed by Jesus’ evaluation of John the Baptist. In preparing the way for Jesus, John the Baptist has taken on the role of the eschatological Elijah. No evidence relevant to the New Testament connects this Elijah character with the Messiah. Instead, the conflated quotation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 identifies him as the forerunner of God himself. The implications are that Jesus identifies his own presence with the presence of God, and his own acts with the eschatological acts of God. Consequently, he has no need to seek outside power to perform his mighty works. He apparently thinks he already possesses this power since he is acting as God.

3.  God’s Pardon

60

3 GOD’S PARDON: JESUS AND FORGIVENESS

As I have discussed in the previous two chapters, Jesus apparently identified his own works with the eschatological acts of God. The following four chapters proceed to the significance of Jesus’ words and the claim to authority that is implicit in them. Judging from the testimony of the Synoptic Gospels as well as from recent scholarly attention, the words of Jesus that constitute the boldest claim to authority are his words of forgiveness. I will argue here that when Jesus forgave sins, he placed himself in a role reserved for God. To defend this thesis, I will first discuss the authenticity of the tradition that Jesus forgave sins. Focusing primarily on the criterion of dissimilarity, I will show that the forgiveness sayings are unlikely to have originated in the early church. Second, I will look at the material regarding forgiveness in the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. I will examine the proposed parallels to Jesus’ acts of forgiveness, and I will show that only Jesus claimed the absolute authority to forgive sins.

Authenticity In the Synoptic Gospels, we find two stories where Jesus explicitly conveys the forgiveness of sins. The story of the healing of the paralytic is found in all three Synoptics (Mk 2.1-12/Mt. 9.2-8/Lk. 5.17-26). In addition, Luke’s Gospel contains the story of the sinful woman in Simon’s house (7.36-50). The question regarding the prehistory of Luke’s story is complex, and this story does not contain a clear statement regarding Jesus’ authority to forgive, such as the

61

one we find in Mk 2.10 par.1 I will therefore focus primarily on the story of the paralytic. Several scholars have argued that Jesus did not forgive sins, but that the forgiveness sayings are the product of the early church. In the case of the paralytic, the church was motivated by a desire to add Christological impact to an already existing miracle story. As it now stands, this story may be divided into two parts: the first part concerns forgiveness and the second part concerns healing. Many form critics have concluded that they were originally separate stories.2 This explanation runs into difficulties, however, as the two themes are intertwined. The part of the story that recounts the healing serves the purpose of explaining that Jesus had the authority he exercised when he forgave sins. In any case, one must ask why the early church would have chosen to add a saying about forgiveness. Bultmann was of the opinion that the church needed to legitimate its own practice of forgiving sins.3 But this view is not confirmed when the form of the forgiveness saying is compared to the practice of the early church. Jesus explained that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2.10 par.). The picture we have of the earliest Christological development shows a focus on Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, which were interpreted as exaltation to the right hand of God, based on an interpretation of such passages of Scripture as Psalm 2 (Acts 4.25-26; 13.33), Psalm 8 (1 Cor. 15.27), and Psalm 110 (Acts 2.34-35; 1 Cor. 15.25).4 The high Christology of 1.  For a discussion of the origin of Luke’s story, see Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 684–86; Bovon, Luke 1, 290–93; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 689–91. 2.  See, e.g. Bultmann, Geschichte, 12; Ingrid Maisch, Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine ­exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12, SBS 52 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972), 29–39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 152–53; ­Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr.),” BZ 25 (1981): 225–36; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, SP 1 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 124; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 84; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44. For a refutation of the various f­ orm-critical hypotheses regarding this passage, see Christian Paul Ceroke, “Is Mk 2.10 a Saying of Jesus?” CBQ 22 (1960): 369–90; cf. also Volker Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 189–97. 3. Bultmann, Geschichte, 13; similarly Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44. 4.  David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973); Michel Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu: Résurection de Jésus et actualisation de Psaume 110.1 dans le Nouveau Testament, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1978);

3.  God’s Pardon

60

3 GOD’S PARDON: JESUS AND FORGIVENESS

As I have discussed in the previous two chapters, Jesus apparently identified his own works with the eschatological acts of God. The following four chapters proceed to the significance of Jesus’ words and the claim to authority that is implicit in them. Judging from the testimony of the Synoptic Gospels as well as from recent scholarly attention, the words of Jesus that constitute the boldest claim to authority are his words of forgiveness. I will argue here that when Jesus forgave sins, he placed himself in a role reserved for God. To defend this thesis, I will first discuss the authenticity of the tradition that Jesus forgave sins. Focusing primarily on the criterion of dissimilarity, I will show that the forgiveness sayings are unlikely to have originated in the early church. Second, I will look at the material regarding forgiveness in the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism. I will examine the proposed parallels to Jesus’ acts of forgiveness, and I will show that only Jesus claimed the absolute authority to forgive sins.

Authenticity In the Synoptic Gospels, we find two stories where Jesus explicitly conveys the forgiveness of sins. The story of the healing of the paralytic is found in all three Synoptics (Mk 2.1-12/Mt. 9.2-8/Lk. 5.17-26). In addition, Luke’s Gospel contains the story of the sinful woman in Simon’s house (7.36-50). The question regarding the prehistory of Luke’s story is complex, and this story does not contain a clear statement regarding Jesus’ authority to forgive, such as the

61

one we find in Mk 2.10 par.1 I will therefore focus primarily on the story of the paralytic. Several scholars have argued that Jesus did not forgive sins, but that the forgiveness sayings are the product of the early church. In the case of the paralytic, the church was motivated by a desire to add Christological impact to an already existing miracle story. As it now stands, this story may be divided into two parts: the first part concerns forgiveness and the second part concerns healing. Many form critics have concluded that they were originally separate stories.2 This explanation runs into difficulties, however, as the two themes are intertwined. The part of the story that recounts the healing serves the purpose of explaining that Jesus had the authority he exercised when he forgave sins. In any case, one must ask why the early church would have chosen to add a saying about forgiveness. Bultmann was of the opinion that the church needed to legitimate its own practice of forgiving sins.3 But this view is not confirmed when the form of the forgiveness saying is compared to the practice of the early church. Jesus explained that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2.10 par.). The picture we have of the earliest Christological development shows a focus on Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, which were interpreted as exaltation to the right hand of God, based on an interpretation of such passages of Scripture as Psalm 2 (Acts 4.25-26; 13.33), Psalm 8 (1 Cor. 15.27), and Psalm 110 (Acts 2.34-35; 1 Cor. 15.25).4 The high Christology of 1.  For a discussion of the origin of Luke’s story, see Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 684–86; Bovon, Luke 1, 290–93; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 1, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 689–91. 2.  See, e.g. Bultmann, Geschichte, 12; Ingrid Maisch, Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine ­exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12, SBS 52 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972), 29–39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 152–53; ­Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr.),” BZ 25 (1981): 225–36; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, SP 1 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 124; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 84; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44. For a refutation of the various f­ orm-critical hypotheses regarding this passage, see Christian Paul Ceroke, “Is Mk 2.10 a Saying of Jesus?” CBQ 22 (1960): 369–90; cf. also Volker Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 189–97. 3. Bultmann, Geschichte, 13; similarly Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44. 4.  David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973); Michel Gourgues, À la droite de Dieu: Résurection de Jésus et actualisation de Psaume 110.1 dans le Nouveau Testament, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1978);

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

the early church is occupied with the heavenly position of Jesus, at the right hand of the Father.5 The tendency in the early church was to see authority associated with the heavenly Christ. Also Jesus’ promise to the disciples associated forgiveness with a heavenly authority (Mt. 16.19; 18.18). To the extent that the New Testament documents refer to the Lord’s verification of their practices, the reference is to the Lord’s present authority, presumably exercised from heaven (1 Cor. 5.4; Jas 5.15). Mk 2.10 par. therefore differs markedly from the interests of the early church when Jesus’ authority is associated specifically with his earthly, as opposed to his heavenly, existence.6 If the early church connected their own practice of forgiveness to that of Jesus, their argument would be based on the unexpressed presupposition that the church can do what the Messiah did. If the leaders of the church created this controversy story as a justification of their practices, however, one would expect them to have spelled out the argument. The Gospel traditions contain several statements that join the disciples closely to their lord (Mt. 10.25; 19.28; Jn 12.26; 15.20) and the evangelists could have expanded these traditions by including references to forgiveness of sins. But they did not. On Bultmann’s reconstruction, the connection between Jesus and the leaders of the church may be found in the practice of healing. In Mk 2.1-12, the authority to forgive sins is evidenced by the power to heal. Bultmann conjectures that in the early church, power to work miracles was seen as the validation of their authority to forgive sins. But our earliest records of the church’s practice give no hint of such a development.7 Paul apparently felt no need to cite either Jesus

as a model or the power to work miracles as justification when he admonished the Corinthian church to forgive the offender and when he assured them of his own forgiveness (2 Cor. 2.7, 10). Moreover, there was not a clear tendency in early Christianity to ascribe forgiveness of sins to Jesus. Forgiveness of sins was still God’s prerogative. Jesus himself taught his disciples to pray to the Father for forgiveness (Mt. 6.12 par.; cf. Mt. 6.14-15; 18.35; Mk 11.25-26; Lk. 23.34). When Jesus was associated with forgiveness, the typical expression was that forgiveness is acquired in Jesus’ name (Lk. 24.47; Acts 2.38; 10.43; 1 Jn 2.12; cf. Acts 13.38), or, in Pauline terminology, “in Christ” (Eph. 1.7; Col. 1.14). In the undisputed Pauline epistles, there is only one reference to forgiveness of sins, namely the quotation from Psalm 32.1-2 in Rom. 4.7-8. Paul made clear that the agent of forgiveness is God (Rom. 4.6). This is also the norm in the later writings, whenever the agent of forgiveness is made explicit (Acts 8.22; Col. 2.13; Jas 5.15). Outside of the Gospels, only 1 Jn 1.9 in the NT unambiguously describes Jesus as the agent of forgiveness. There is no evidence, therefore, that the early church had an interest in attributing forgiveness to the earthly Jesus.8 Neither is there any indication that the Synoptic tradition heightened the Christological impact of the story of the paralytic. Matthew’s version rather lessens the implications. He omits the rationale for the blasphemy charge, “Who can forgive sins except one: God?” (Mk 2.7). His redactional remarks may even be understood to open the door for a less provocative interpretation when he observes that the crowds glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings (Mt. 9.8).9

62

James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 33–36; Martin Hengel, “‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ and the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110.1,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 133–225. 5.  Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, FRLANT 83 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 32–33; Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 28–35. 6.  Not surprisingly, some manuscripts (W pc b q) have omitted ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in Mk 2.10. 7.  Pointing to Jn 20.23 and Lk. 24.47, Maurice Casey maintains that when the authority to forgive was transferred to the church, there was no connection to healing (The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem, Library of New Testament Studies 343 [London: T & T Clark, 2007], 165). Volker Hampel also finds Bultmann’s explanation untenable. It was the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not his healing, that served as the warrant for forgiveness in the early church (Menschensohn, 193; cf. Otto Michel, “Binden und Lösen,” in Reallexikon für Antike und

63

Christentum, vol. 2 [Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1954], 376–78). Walter Wink concludes that the church’s practice of forgiving sins had to owe its origin to Jesus himself (The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 77). 8.  Christopher Tuckett thinks the saying about forgiveness in 2.10 must be the product of Markan redaction. He argues that the saying fits only within Mark’s literary scheme, as Mark associates “Son of Man” with suffering and introduces the title precisely in the context where he prepares the audience for Jesus’ rejection and execution (“The Present Son of Man,” JSNT 14 [1982]: 65–66). These arguments do not concern the historicity of Jesus’ forgiveness, only the Son of Man saying in Mk 2.10. It must be replied, however, that there is no apparent reason why Mark would have connected Jesus’ rejection to his practice of forgiving sins. It is not clear that the saying is as ­tailor-made for Mark’s literary purposes as Tuckett maintains. If the term “son of man” is a modest ­self-reference with enigmatic connotations (cf. Chapter 10), the saying in Mk 2.10 is intelligible also outside the context where it is found in Mark’s Gospel. 9.  This interpretation is not necessarily Matthew’s own; it is possible that he saw the

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

the early church is occupied with the heavenly position of Jesus, at the right hand of the Father.5 The tendency in the early church was to see authority associated with the heavenly Christ. Also Jesus’ promise to the disciples associated forgiveness with a heavenly authority (Mt. 16.19; 18.18). To the extent that the New Testament documents refer to the Lord’s verification of their practices, the reference is to the Lord’s present authority, presumably exercised from heaven (1 Cor. 5.4; Jas 5.15). Mk 2.10 par. therefore differs markedly from the interests of the early church when Jesus’ authority is associated specifically with his earthly, as opposed to his heavenly, existence.6 If the early church connected their own practice of forgiveness to that of Jesus, their argument would be based on the unexpressed presupposition that the church can do what the Messiah did. If the leaders of the church created this controversy story as a justification of their practices, however, one would expect them to have spelled out the argument. The Gospel traditions contain several statements that join the disciples closely to their lord (Mt. 10.25; 19.28; Jn 12.26; 15.20) and the evangelists could have expanded these traditions by including references to forgiveness of sins. But they did not. On Bultmann’s reconstruction, the connection between Jesus and the leaders of the church may be found in the practice of healing. In Mk 2.1-12, the authority to forgive sins is evidenced by the power to heal. Bultmann conjectures that in the early church, power to work miracles was seen as the validation of their authority to forgive sins. But our earliest records of the church’s practice give no hint of such a development.7 Paul apparently felt no need to cite either Jesus

as a model or the power to work miracles as justification when he admonished the Corinthian church to forgive the offender and when he assured them of his own forgiveness (2 Cor. 2.7, 10). Moreover, there was not a clear tendency in early Christianity to ascribe forgiveness of sins to Jesus. Forgiveness of sins was still God’s prerogative. Jesus himself taught his disciples to pray to the Father for forgiveness (Mt. 6.12 par.; cf. Mt. 6.14-15; 18.35; Mk 11.25-26; Lk. 23.34). When Jesus was associated with forgiveness, the typical expression was that forgiveness is acquired in Jesus’ name (Lk. 24.47; Acts 2.38; 10.43; 1 Jn 2.12; cf. Acts 13.38), or, in Pauline terminology, “in Christ” (Eph. 1.7; Col. 1.14). In the undisputed Pauline epistles, there is only one reference to forgiveness of sins, namely the quotation from Psalm 32.1-2 in Rom. 4.7-8. Paul made clear that the agent of forgiveness is God (Rom. 4.6). This is also the norm in the later writings, whenever the agent of forgiveness is made explicit (Acts 8.22; Col. 2.13; Jas 5.15). Outside of the Gospels, only 1 Jn 1.9 in the NT unambiguously describes Jesus as the agent of forgiveness. There is no evidence, therefore, that the early church had an interest in attributing forgiveness to the earthly Jesus.8 Neither is there any indication that the Synoptic tradition heightened the Christological impact of the story of the paralytic. Matthew’s version rather lessens the implications. He omits the rationale for the blasphemy charge, “Who can forgive sins except one: God?” (Mk 2.7). His redactional remarks may even be understood to open the door for a less provocative interpretation when he observes that the crowds glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings (Mt. 9.8).9

62

James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 33–36; Martin Hengel, “‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ and the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110.1,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 133–225. 5.  Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, FRLANT 83 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 32–33; Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 28–35. 6.  Not surprisingly, some manuscripts (W pc b q) have omitted ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς in Mk 2.10. 7.  Pointing to Jn 20.23 and Lk. 24.47, Maurice Casey maintains that when the authority to forgive was transferred to the church, there was no connection to healing (The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem, Library of New Testament Studies 343 [London: T & T Clark, 2007], 165). Volker Hampel also finds Bultmann’s explanation untenable. It was the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not his healing, that served as the warrant for forgiveness in the early church (Menschensohn, 193; cf. Otto Michel, “Binden und Lösen,” in Reallexikon für Antike und

63

Christentum, vol. 2 [Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1954], 376–78). Walter Wink concludes that the church’s practice of forgiving sins had to owe its origin to Jesus himself (The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 77). 8.  Christopher Tuckett thinks the saying about forgiveness in 2.10 must be the product of Markan redaction. He argues that the saying fits only within Mark’s literary scheme, as Mark associates “Son of Man” with suffering and introduces the title precisely in the context where he prepares the audience for Jesus’ rejection and execution (“The Present Son of Man,” JSNT 14 [1982]: 65–66). These arguments do not concern the historicity of Jesus’ forgiveness, only the Son of Man saying in Mk 2.10. It must be replied, however, that there is no apparent reason why Mark would have connected Jesus’ rejection to his practice of forgiving sins. It is not clear that the saying is as ­tailor-made for Mark’s literary purposes as Tuckett maintains. If the term “son of man” is a modest ­self-reference with enigmatic connotations (cf. Chapter 10), the saying in Mk 2.10 is intelligible also outside the context where it is found in Mark’s Gospel. 9.  This interpretation is not necessarily Matthew’s own; it is possible that he saw the

64

God’s Equal

Based on the criterion of dissimilarity, therefore, the forgiveness saying is not likely to have originated with anyone other than the historical Jesus. The peculiar form of the saying is unlikely to have been derived from the early church, and, as I will show below, the saying is difficult to explain against a Jewish background. With respect to the criterion of coherence, there are other elements of the Gospel tradition that are closely associated with Jesus’ forgiveness. He was known to have meal fellowships with sinners (Mk 2.13-17 par.) and gained the reputation as a friend of tax collectors and sinners (Lk. 7.34).10 The criterion of multiple attestation also strengthens the likelihood that the act of forgiveness of sins may be ascribed to the historical Jesus. It is attested in the triple tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 2.1-12 par.), as well as in the material that is unique to Luke (7.36-50).11 Finally, the forgiveness sayings also hold up well by the criterion of rejection and execution, as such activity may have fueled the blasphemy charge against Jesus (Mk 2.6-7 par.).12

crowd’s statement as an expression of an inadequate understanding of who Jesus was. Cf. page 194, note 15. 10.  Cf. ­Chong-Hyon Sung, Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum, WUNT II/57 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 232–41. Many scholars find it likely that Jesus’ mission was directed towards the “sinners” (Ben F. Meyer, “Jesus’ Ministry and ­Self-Understanding,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 19 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 351; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 526–28). Jesus also taught parables about forgiveness, he instructed his disciples to forgive and to pray to the Father for forgiveness, and he spoke about the unforgivable sin (cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 242–75; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 527). This material does not, however, directly present Jesus as the one who forgives. While it shows that Jesus was interested in sin and forgiveness, it is not directly relevant to the case I am arguing here: that Jesus himself forgave sins. 11.  It has been argued that Lk. 7.36-50 is dependent on the story of Jesus’ anointing in Bethany from Mk 14.3-6 (Bultmann, Geschichte, 19–20). If so, Mark may be the only independent witness to provide evidence that Jesus forgave sins. But Luke’s account is usually believed to stem from Luke’s source (Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 684; Bovon, Luke 1, 290). 12.  The narrative setting is often deemed to be secondary, but the announcement of forgiveness is considered authentic by the majority of scholars (e.g. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 158; Barnabas Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 46–47; Hooker, Mark, 82–83; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 680).

3.  God’s Pardon

65

Significance Whether it is authentic or goes back to the evangelists, the scribes’ charge of blasphemy also gives an indication of how Jesus’ action was interpreted. He was seen to take upon himself a role that exclusively belonged to God.13 This charge is understandable in light of the biblical data that shows God as the one who forgives sin. In the Hebrew Bible, forgiveness is an important concept that can be expressed with several different terms. The most common “formula” for forgiveness is the priestly “[the sin] shall be forgiven them,” with ‫ סלח‬in the nifal stem (Lev. 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19.22; Num. 15.25, 26, 28). In all of the occurrences of ‫סלח‬, God is the agent of forgiveness.14 When the word ‫ נשא‬is used for forgiveness, it usually refers to forgiveness by God,15 but it may also be used for forgiveness by human beings (Gen. 50.17; Exod. 10.17; 1 Sam. 15.25; 25.28). When humans forgive sins, however, ‫נשא‬ refers to sins committed specifically against themselves. Human beings do not forgive sins in general. The concept of forgiveness can also be expressed metaphorically. Such metaphors include passing over, removal, purification, healing, meal fellowship, and prophetic signs such as Hosea’s taking back his unfaithful wife. In

13.  So also ­Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1947), 37; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene McLuskey, Fraser McLuskey, and James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 81; Morna 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), 90; Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 276; Seyoon Kim, The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God, WUNT 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 89–90; I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, 2nd edn (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), 50; Hampel, Menschensohn, 199; E. Earle Ellis, “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel Green, B. and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 192–94; Otfried Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b,” in Neutestamentliche Studien, reprint, 1994, WUNT 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 38–56; Stephen T. Davis, “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’: Jesus, Forgiveness, and Divinity,” in Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, ed. Christine Helmer and Charlene T. Higbe (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 119–23. 14.  Jacob Milgrom observes: “in the entire Bible, only God dispenses sālaḥ, never humans” (Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 245). This usage is reflected in the Septuagint as well, where the subject of ἀφίημι is always God (cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 173). 15.  Gen. 18.26; Exod. 23.21; 32.32; 34.7; Num. 14.18-19; Josh. 24.19; Isa. 2.9; 33.24; Hos. 1.6; 14.3; Mic. 7.18; Job 7.21; Pss. 25.18; 32.1, 5; 99.8.

64

God’s Equal

Based on the criterion of dissimilarity, therefore, the forgiveness saying is not likely to have originated with anyone other than the historical Jesus. The peculiar form of the saying is unlikely to have been derived from the early church, and, as I will show below, the saying is difficult to explain against a Jewish background. With respect to the criterion of coherence, there are other elements of the Gospel tradition that are closely associated with Jesus’ forgiveness. He was known to have meal fellowships with sinners (Mk 2.13-17 par.) and gained the reputation as a friend of tax collectors and sinners (Lk. 7.34).10 The criterion of multiple attestation also strengthens the likelihood that the act of forgiveness of sins may be ascribed to the historical Jesus. It is attested in the triple tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 2.1-12 par.), as well as in the material that is unique to Luke (7.36-50).11 Finally, the forgiveness sayings also hold up well by the criterion of rejection and execution, as such activity may have fueled the blasphemy charge against Jesus (Mk 2.6-7 par.).12

crowd’s statement as an expression of an inadequate understanding of who Jesus was. Cf. page 194, note 15. 10.  Cf. ­Chong-Hyon Sung, Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum, WUNT II/57 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 232–41. Many scholars find it likely that Jesus’ mission was directed towards the “sinners” (Ben F. Meyer, “Jesus’ Ministry and ­Self-Understanding,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 19 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 351; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 526–28). Jesus also taught parables about forgiveness, he instructed his disciples to forgive and to pray to the Father for forgiveness, and he spoke about the unforgivable sin (cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 242–75; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 527). This material does not, however, directly present Jesus as the one who forgives. While it shows that Jesus was interested in sin and forgiveness, it is not directly relevant to the case I am arguing here: that Jesus himself forgave sins. 11.  It has been argued that Lk. 7.36-50 is dependent on the story of Jesus’ anointing in Bethany from Mk 14.3-6 (Bultmann, Geschichte, 19–20). If so, Mark may be the only independent witness to provide evidence that Jesus forgave sins. But Luke’s account is usually believed to stem from Luke’s source (Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 684; Bovon, Luke 1, 290). 12.  The narrative setting is often deemed to be secondary, but the announcement of forgiveness is considered authentic by the majority of scholars (e.g. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 158; Barnabas Lindars, Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 46–47; Hooker, Mark, 82–83; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 680).

3.  God’s Pardon

65

Significance Whether it is authentic or goes back to the evangelists, the scribes’ charge of blasphemy also gives an indication of how Jesus’ action was interpreted. He was seen to take upon himself a role that exclusively belonged to God.13 This charge is understandable in light of the biblical data that shows God as the one who forgives sin. In the Hebrew Bible, forgiveness is an important concept that can be expressed with several different terms. The most common “formula” for forgiveness is the priestly “[the sin] shall be forgiven them,” with ‫ סלח‬in the nifal stem (Lev. 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19.22; Num. 15.25, 26, 28). In all of the occurrences of ‫סלח‬, God is the agent of forgiveness.14 When the word ‫ נשא‬is used for forgiveness, it usually refers to forgiveness by God,15 but it may also be used for forgiveness by human beings (Gen. 50.17; Exod. 10.17; 1 Sam. 15.25; 25.28). When humans forgive sins, however, ‫נשא‬ refers to sins committed specifically against themselves. Human beings do not forgive sins in general. The concept of forgiveness can also be expressed metaphorically. Such metaphors include passing over, removal, purification, healing, meal fellowship, and prophetic signs such as Hosea’s taking back his unfaithful wife. In

13.  So also ­Marie-Joseph Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1947), 37; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene McLuskey, Fraser McLuskey, and James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 81; Morna 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), 90; Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 276; Seyoon Kim, The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God, WUNT 30 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 89–90; I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology, 2nd edn (Downers Grove: IVP, 1990), 50; Hampel, Menschensohn, 199; E. Earle Ellis, “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel Green, B. and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 192–94; Otfried Hofius, “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b,” in Neutestamentliche Studien, reprint, 1994, WUNT 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 38–56; Stephen T. Davis, “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’: Jesus, Forgiveness, and Divinity,” in Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, ed. Christine Helmer and Charlene T. Higbe (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 119–23. 14.  Jacob Milgrom observes: “in the entire Bible, only God dispenses sālaḥ, never humans” (Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 245). This usage is reflected in the Septuagint as well, where the subject of ἀφίημι is always God (cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 173). 15.  Gen. 18.26; Exod. 23.21; 32.32; 34.7; Num. 14.18-19; Josh. 24.19; Isa. 2.9; 33.24; Hos. 1.6; 14.3; Mic. 7.18; Job 7.21; Pss. 25.18; 32.1, 5; 99.8.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

all these diverse descriptions, God is the agent of forgiveness.16 Consequently, God is implicitly seen as the only one who forgives (Exod. 34.7; Isa. 43.25; 44.22; 55.7; Pss. 103.3; 130.4). The same picture emerges from the writings of the Second Temple period. God is the one who forgives (Sir. 2.11; 16.11; Ps. Sol. 9.12). According to Martin G. Abegg, Jr.’s Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts, ‫ סלח‬occurs nineteen times in the literature from Qumran, eleven times with God as the explicit subject,17 and eight times with God implicitly as the subject.18 The noun ‫סליחה‬ occurs thirty-four times. In each of the twenty-one occurrences where the text is preserved well enough that we can tell, the implicit subject of forgiveness is God.

This designation confuses grammar and theology, and it should be abandoned altogether.21 In the present context, an appeal to God as the agent of the action is not only unmotivated, but it renders the scribes’ reaction (v. 7) completely inexplicable.22 What is more, the passive voice is the default voice in the Hebrew Bible when God himself is speaking and announcing forgiveness of sins (Lev. 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19.22; Num. 15.25, 26, 28). Occasionally, God announces the forgiveness of sins in the first person active, but in those cases, the object is always a third party (Gen. 18.26; Num. 14.20; 2 Chron. 7.14; Jer. 5.1; 31.34; 33.8; 36.3; 50.20),23 not the person being addressed directly. In other words, God is reported as saying “I forgive them” and “your sins will be forgiven,” but never “I forgive you.” Jesus’ use of the passive voice therefore followed the pattern of the Hebrew Bible when God declares that someone’s sins are forgiven (Lev. 4.31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26).24 In the same way, Jesus’ words are intended as performative words. The implied subject of such a performative statement is the one who makes the statement. Jesus’ statement effects the forgiveness of the paralytic’s sins.25 That Jesus communicates his own forgiveness is indirectly confirmed by a comparison with the disciples’ authority to forgive sins. Jesus promises them that their forgiveness will be confirmed by a forgiveness in heaven (Mt. 16.19; 18.18). By contrast, no such assurance is given in the case of Jesus’ forgiveness. The obvious explanation is that no such confirmation is necessary. Jesus himself offers the forgiveness of God.26

66

Communicating God’s Forgiveness Many scholars maintain, however, that the form of Jesus’ forgiveness saying points beyond Jesus himself, that he merely announces the forgiveness of sins by God.19 The saying employs the passive voice of the verb (ἀφίενται), and this form is interpreted as a s­ o-called “divine passive.”20 This designation is misleading, as it gives the impression that we are dealing with a grammatical category. But the grammatical voice is simply passive. The agent of a passive verb must be decided by the context in each individual case; it cannot be determined by appealing to a presumed category known as “divine passive.” 16. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 46–52, 178. 17.  11Q5 19.13; 11Q6 4-5.14; 11QT 53.21; 54.3; 1QHa 6.24; 1QS 2.8; 4Q364 18.5; 4Q365 33a-b:4; 4Q416 2.iv.10; 4Q504 4.7; 4Q506 ­131-132.14. 18.  11QT 18.8; 26.10; 27.2; 4Q177 3.10; 4Q256 3.2; 4Q257 2.5; 4Q398 14-17.ii.2; 4Q399 1.i.10. 19.  Klaus Scholtissek finds here an implicit claim to know and express the will of God (Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie, NTAbh 25 [Münster: Aschendorff, 1992], 167). 20. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 156, 216; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 28; Matthias Kreplin, Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und Christologische Reflexion: ­Historisch-Kritische Analyse, WUNT II/141 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 124; similarly, Klauck, “Sündenvergebung,” 241; Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987], 182; Ingo Broer, “Jesus und das Gesetz: Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des Problems und zur Frage der Sündervergebung durch den historischen Jesus,” in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, ed. Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992], 99; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 527; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 185).

67

21.  I am indebted to D. A. Carson and Stanley E. Porter for this argument. In Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn, Biblical Languages: Greek Series 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 65–66, Porter discusses several examples of the “divine passive” and concludes that they must be regarded as scholarly speculation. Sung, following a suggestion by Otto Betz, compounds the confusion when he employs the category “passivum messianicum” (Vergebung der Sünden, 217). 22.  Similarly, Hofius, “Sündenvergebung,” 40–47. 23.  In Jer. 5.7 God makes a statement about his frustration over Israel’s sins, saying: “How can I forgive you?” 24.  Otfried Hofius finds the same pattern in the Rabbinic literature (“Sündenvergebung,” 50–52). 25.  Similarly, Wolfgang Weiss, ‘Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht’: Die Streit- und Schulgespräche des ­Markus-Evangeliums, BZNW 52 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 130, n. 17; Hofius, “Sündenvergebung,” 39. 26.  This contrast to the forgiveness of the disciples also militates against the interpretation

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

all these diverse descriptions, God is the agent of forgiveness.16 Consequently, God is implicitly seen as the only one who forgives (Exod. 34.7; Isa. 43.25; 44.22; 55.7; Pss. 103.3; 130.4). The same picture emerges from the writings of the Second Temple period. God is the one who forgives (Sir. 2.11; 16.11; Ps. Sol. 9.12). According to Martin G. Abegg, Jr.’s Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts, ‫ סלח‬occurs nineteen times in the literature from Qumran, eleven times with God as the explicit subject,17 and eight times with God implicitly as the subject.18 The noun ‫סליחה‬ occurs thirty-four times. In each of the twenty-one occurrences where the text is preserved well enough that we can tell, the implicit subject of forgiveness is God.

This designation confuses grammar and theology, and it should be abandoned altogether.21 In the present context, an appeal to God as the agent of the action is not only unmotivated, but it renders the scribes’ reaction (v. 7) completely inexplicable.22 What is more, the passive voice is the default voice in the Hebrew Bible when God himself is speaking and announcing forgiveness of sins (Lev. 4.20, 26, 31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19.22; Num. 15.25, 26, 28). Occasionally, God announces the forgiveness of sins in the first person active, but in those cases, the object is always a third party (Gen. 18.26; Num. 14.20; 2 Chron. 7.14; Jer. 5.1; 31.34; 33.8; 36.3; 50.20),23 not the person being addressed directly. In other words, God is reported as saying “I forgive them” and “your sins will be forgiven,” but never “I forgive you.” Jesus’ use of the passive voice therefore followed the pattern of the Hebrew Bible when God declares that someone’s sins are forgiven (Lev. 4.31, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26).24 In the same way, Jesus’ words are intended as performative words. The implied subject of such a performative statement is the one who makes the statement. Jesus’ statement effects the forgiveness of the paralytic’s sins.25 That Jesus communicates his own forgiveness is indirectly confirmed by a comparison with the disciples’ authority to forgive sins. Jesus promises them that their forgiveness will be confirmed by a forgiveness in heaven (Mt. 16.19; 18.18). By contrast, no such assurance is given in the case of Jesus’ forgiveness. The obvious explanation is that no such confirmation is necessary. Jesus himself offers the forgiveness of God.26

66

Communicating God’s Forgiveness Many scholars maintain, however, that the form of Jesus’ forgiveness saying points beyond Jesus himself, that he merely announces the forgiveness of sins by God.19 The saying employs the passive voice of the verb (ἀφίενται), and this form is interpreted as a s­ o-called “divine passive.”20 This designation is misleading, as it gives the impression that we are dealing with a grammatical category. But the grammatical voice is simply passive. The agent of a passive verb must be decided by the context in each individual case; it cannot be determined by appealing to a presumed category known as “divine passive.” 16. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 46–52, 178. 17.  11Q5 19.13; 11Q6 4-5.14; 11QT 53.21; 54.3; 1QHa 6.24; 1QS 2.8; 4Q364 18.5; 4Q365 33a-b:4; 4Q416 2.iv.10; 4Q504 4.7; 4Q506 ­131-132.14. 18.  11QT 18.8; 26.10; 27.2; 4Q177 3.10; 4Q256 3.2; 4Q257 2.5; 4Q398 14-17.ii.2; 4Q399 1.i.10. 19.  Klaus Scholtissek finds here an implicit claim to know and express the will of God (Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie, NTAbh 25 [Münster: Aschendorff, 1992], 167). 20. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 156, 216; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 28; Matthias Kreplin, Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und Christologische Reflexion: ­Historisch-Kritische Analyse, WUNT II/141 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 124; similarly, Klauck, “Sündenvergebung,” 241; Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987], 182; Ingo Broer, “Jesus und das Gesetz: Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des Problems und zur Frage der Sündervergebung durch den historischen Jesus,” in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, ed. Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992], 99; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 527; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 185).

67

21.  I am indebted to D. A. Carson and Stanley E. Porter for this argument. In Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn, Biblical Languages: Greek Series 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 65–66, Porter discusses several examples of the “divine passive” and concludes that they must be regarded as scholarly speculation. Sung, following a suggestion by Otto Betz, compounds the confusion when he employs the category “passivum messianicum” (Vergebung der Sünden, 217). 22.  Similarly, Hofius, “Sündenvergebung,” 40–47. 23.  In Jer. 5.7 God makes a statement about his frustration over Israel’s sins, saying: “How can I forgive you?” 24.  Otfried Hofius finds the same pattern in the Rabbinic literature (“Sündenvergebung,” 50–52). 25.  Similarly, Wolfgang Weiss, ‘Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht’: Die Streit- und Schulgespräche des ­Markus-Evangeliums, BZNW 52 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 130, n. 17; Hofius, “Sündenvergebung,” 39. 26.  This contrast to the forgiveness of the disciples also militates against the interpretation

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

The disciples, as their practice is recorded in Acts, do not offer forgiveness on their own authority. They continue to attribute forgiveness to God (8.22; 26.18), and proclaim that this forgiveness is acquired through Jesus Christ (5.31; 10.43; 13.38). Their forgiveness may be mediated through baptism (2.38) and repentance and prayer (8.22). The closest association of forgiveness with the apostles’ ministry is attested in Paul’s speech in Antioch of Pisidia. Paul announces that “through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13.38).27

They had no inherent authority, but had to have it given to them. There is no connection, therefore, between Jesus’ authority to forgive and the authority that is given to the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14, where there is no mention of forgiveness.29 Consequently, the Gospel tradition also refers to Jesus’ power to forgive without even mentioning the Son of Man (Lk. 7.48). But it is of course possible that Jesus claimed to have received the authority to forgive and that this claim was omitted in the tradition, perhaps out of a desire to heighten the Christological implications. It is impossible to prove or disprove that something has been omitted in the course of tradition, but in this case it can be shown not to be likely. The Gospel of Matthew does not shy away from the statement that Jesus has been given authority (Mt. 28.18), but his authority to forgive is never explained in this way. According to the available evidence, therefore, Jesus did not point beyond himself to authorize his forgiveness. Apparently, he thought this authority was inherently his own.

68

The Son of Man The authority that Jesus claimed (Mk 2.10 par.) has been explained against the background of Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man, who was given authority from God (Dan. 7.13-14).28 The sheer presence of the expression “son of man,” however, does not establish a connection to the vision in Daniel 7. In older scholarship this expression was frequently assumed to have been a recognizable title, but more recent examinations of the evidence have shown this assumption to be tenuous. “Son of man” is an expression that refers to an individual human being. Additional allusions are necessary in order to forge a link to Daniel’s Son of Man (cf. Chapter 10). But there are no thematic connections between the story about the paralytic and the Danielic vision. In Dan. 7.13-14, the Son of Man is given authority and glory. In contrast, there is no hint of Jesus being given authority in any version of the story about the paralytic. He simply has the authority to forgive sins (Mk 2.10 par.). In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus gives authority to his disciples (Lk. 10.19), but the Gospel contains no corresponding statement about authority given to Jesus. The implication is that Jesus already had authority; he had no need to have it given to him. The disciples were in a different situation. that Jesus here appears as a spokesperson of God (Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 585; similarly Bovon, Luke 1, 182). 27.  That Jesus teaches his disciples to refer to their own forgiveness in connection with their prayer to the Father for forgiveness (Mt. 6.12 par.) does not militate against my argument above. The Lord’s Prayer distinguishes between the i­ntra-human forgiveness of the disciples and the eschatological forgiveness of God. It is the latter authority that Jesus claims to exercise. 28.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 93; Hooker, Mark, 87; similarly Wolfgang Weiss, Streit- und Schulgespräche, 137. Edwin K. Broadhead also finds the point of the story to be that Jesus is “endued with divine authority” (Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 74 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], 79).

69

The Priesthood This claim to the authority to forgive sets Jesus apart from other Jewish institutions associated with forgiveness.30 Some scholars have suggested that Jesus through his forgiveness was usurping the role of the priesthood.31 But there is a fundamental difference: the priests did not offer forgiveness. Their function

29.  Peter Müller sees a connection between Mk 2.10 and Dan. 7.13, but observes that Mark has developed the idea in a new direction (“Zwischen dem Gekommenen und dem Kommenden: Intertextuelle Aspekte der Menschensohnaussagen im Markusevangelium,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 [­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004], 138). 30.  Jörg Frey observes that Jesus goes beyond all known categories (“Der historische Jesus,” 318). 31.  See Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 100; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 240; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 93; Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 175 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 69; Gerd Theissen, Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung, FRLANT 202 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 205. John Dominic Crossan, observing that healing presupposes forgiveness, maintains that Jesus’ act threatened the power of the temple establishment. He assumes that Jesus’ healing/forgiving ministry was similar to that of the Baptist. Surprisingly, he does not even attempt to provide evidence that John was ever reported to heal sickness or forgive sins (Historical Jesus, 324).

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

The disciples, as their practice is recorded in Acts, do not offer forgiveness on their own authority. They continue to attribute forgiveness to God (8.22; 26.18), and proclaim that this forgiveness is acquired through Jesus Christ (5.31; 10.43; 13.38). Their forgiveness may be mediated through baptism (2.38) and repentance and prayer (8.22). The closest association of forgiveness with the apostles’ ministry is attested in Paul’s speech in Antioch of Pisidia. Paul announces that “through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13.38).27

They had no inherent authority, but had to have it given to them. There is no connection, therefore, between Jesus’ authority to forgive and the authority that is given to the Son of Man in Dan. 7.13-14, where there is no mention of forgiveness.29 Consequently, the Gospel tradition also refers to Jesus’ power to forgive without even mentioning the Son of Man (Lk. 7.48). But it is of course possible that Jesus claimed to have received the authority to forgive and that this claim was omitted in the tradition, perhaps out of a desire to heighten the Christological implications. It is impossible to prove or disprove that something has been omitted in the course of tradition, but in this case it can be shown not to be likely. The Gospel of Matthew does not shy away from the statement that Jesus has been given authority (Mt. 28.18), but his authority to forgive is never explained in this way. According to the available evidence, therefore, Jesus did not point beyond himself to authorize his forgiveness. Apparently, he thought this authority was inherently his own.

68

The Son of Man The authority that Jesus claimed (Mk 2.10 par.) has been explained against the background of Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man, who was given authority from God (Dan. 7.13-14).28 The sheer presence of the expression “son of man,” however, does not establish a connection to the vision in Daniel 7. In older scholarship this expression was frequently assumed to have been a recognizable title, but more recent examinations of the evidence have shown this assumption to be tenuous. “Son of man” is an expression that refers to an individual human being. Additional allusions are necessary in order to forge a link to Daniel’s Son of Man (cf. Chapter 10). But there are no thematic connections between the story about the paralytic and the Danielic vision. In Dan. 7.13-14, the Son of Man is given authority and glory. In contrast, there is no hint of Jesus being given authority in any version of the story about the paralytic. He simply has the authority to forgive sins (Mk 2.10 par.). In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus gives authority to his disciples (Lk. 10.19), but the Gospel contains no corresponding statement about authority given to Jesus. The implication is that Jesus already had authority; he had no need to have it given to him. The disciples were in a different situation. that Jesus here appears as a spokesperson of God (Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 585; similarly Bovon, Luke 1, 182). 27.  That Jesus teaches his disciples to refer to their own forgiveness in connection with their prayer to the Father for forgiveness (Mt. 6.12 par.) does not militate against my argument above. The Lord’s Prayer distinguishes between the i­ntra-human forgiveness of the disciples and the eschatological forgiveness of God. It is the latter authority that Jesus claims to exercise. 28.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 93; Hooker, Mark, 87; similarly Wolfgang Weiss, Streit- und Schulgespräche, 137. Edwin K. Broadhead also finds the point of the story to be that Jesus is “endued with divine authority” (Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 74 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], 79).

69

The Priesthood This claim to the authority to forgive sets Jesus apart from other Jewish institutions associated with forgiveness.30 Some scholars have suggested that Jesus through his forgiveness was usurping the role of the priesthood.31 But there is a fundamental difference: the priests did not offer forgiveness. Their function

29.  Peter Müller sees a connection between Mk 2.10 and Dan. 7.13, but observes that Mark has developed the idea in a new direction (“Zwischen dem Gekommenen und dem Kommenden: Intertextuelle Aspekte der Menschensohnaussagen im Markusevangelium,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 [­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004], 138). 30.  Jörg Frey observes that Jesus goes beyond all known categories (“Der historische Jesus,” 318). 31.  See Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 100; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 240; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 93; Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 175 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 69; Gerd Theissen, Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung, FRLANT 202 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 205. John Dominic Crossan, observing that healing presupposes forgiveness, maintains that Jesus’ act threatened the power of the temple establishment. He assumes that Jesus’ healing/forgiving ministry was similar to that of the Baptist. Surprisingly, he does not even attempt to provide evidence that John was ever reported to heal sickness or forgive sins (Historical Jesus, 324).

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

was to administer the sacrifices, and, as a result, sins would be forgiven. The agent of the forgiving is God (Lev. 4.20, etc.).32 Only on this understanding of the priesthood is it possible to explain adequately the reaction of the scribes when they accused Jesus of blasphemy (Mk 2.7 par.).33

his righteous rule (17.35), there will be no unrighteousness in the land (17.36). The presence of a new ethical standard, not the forgiveness of the old one, is what the psalmist has in view.38 In the case of the Testament of Levi, chapter 18 describes the new priest, in whose “priesthood sin shall cease” (18.9). The thought is most likely that of the final atonement for sin, and it may be the result of Christian editing. The Damascus Document also looks forward to the atonement for sin in the messianic age. The role of the priestly Messiah is described in 14.19, where the reconstruction can be translated in different ways. In García Martínez’s rendering, the line reads: “[until there arises the messia]h of Aaron and Israel. And their iniquity will be atoned [through meal and s­ in-offerings.]” The phrase “through meal and ­sin-offerings” goes back to the reconstruction of the two words ‫ממנחה וחטאת‬. But if the preposition ‫ מן‬is taken to express separation, rather than means, the translation would be “and he (the Messiah) will atone for their sin better than meal and sin offerings.” On this basis, Joseph Baumgarten concludes that this Messiah will forgive sins without any ritual.39 However, if the line indeed refers to atonement without ritual, the meaning is more likely connected to the Qumranic idea of atonement through righteous deeds (1QS 9.4-6; 4Q174 1.i.6-7). These texts do not describe the Messiah as forgiving sins, and Jesus’ act of forgiveness cannot be explained against the background of these expectations.

70

The Messiah The Messiah is also associated with the forgiveness of sins in Jewish expectation, but the agent of forgiveness remains God himself. When the Davidic savior comes, God will cleanse Israel from their transgressions and apostasies (Ezek. 27.23-24). God will bring his servant the Branch and remove Israel’s guilt (Zech. 3.8-9).34 Koch has argued that the Targum on Isaiah 53 understood the Messiah as the one who would forgive sins.35 But in the Targum the role of the servant is that of intercessor (53.4, 12), and God forgives the people’s sins for the servant’s sake (53.6, 12).36 Similarly, Eduard Lohse compares Jesus’ forgiveness to the expectations regarding a Messiah that will put an end to sin (Ps. Sol. 17.36, 41 and T. Levi 18.9).37 But the idea that sin will be no more is not exactly the same as that of forgiveness. The Psalms of Solomon 17 describes the ideal conditions under the Messiah, who will be pure from sin (17.41). As a result of

32.  According to Jacob Milgrom, “[t]he priest carries out the purgation rites but only God determines their efficacy” (Leviticus 1–16, 245). Otfried Hofius has surveyed the evidence in the Hebrew Bible, in the Samaritan literature of the Aramaic period, and in the literature of Second Temple Judaism with respect to possible references to forgiveness offered by human beings. He concludes that the assumption that the priests forgave sins lacks any support in the sources (“Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum,” in Neutestamentliche Studien, reprint, 1983, WUNT 132 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 59–67). 33.  Similarly, Bas M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader–Response Commentary, trans. W. H. Bisscheroux, reprint, 1998 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 147–48. Davies and Allison think that the reaction is prompted by the scribes’ misunderstanding of the divine passive in ἀφίενται (Matthew, Vol. 2, 91). 34.  Cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 61. 35.  K. Koch, “Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jesaja 53 – Targum: Ein Beitrag zu der Praxis der aramäischen Bibelübersetzung,” JSJ 3 (1972): 117–48. 36.  Cf. Otfried Hofius, “Kennt der Targum zu Jes 53 einen sündenvergebenden Messias?” in Neutestamentliche Studien, WUNT 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 80–107; Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 142–43. 37.  Eduard Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 2nd edn, FRLANT 46 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 175.

71

The Prayer of Nabonidus The functions of the priesthood and the Messiah do not provide a precedent for Jesus’ forgiveness, but many scholars think that there is one text from Cave 4 at Qumran that does. In the Prayer of Nabonidus, the Babylonian king Nabonidus reports that he suffered from an inflammation. He claims that his sins were forgiven when he contacted a Jewish exorcist (4Q242 1-3.4). Due to the significant lacunae in the manuscript, it is impossible to be sure what

38.  Barry Blackburn observes that none of the Jewish ­end-time figures were bestowed with authority to forgive sins (Theios Anēr, 138). 39.  Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Messianic Forgiveness of sin in CD 14.19 (4Q266 10 i 12–13),” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 541–42.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

was to administer the sacrifices, and, as a result, sins would be forgiven. The agent of the forgiving is God (Lev. 4.20, etc.).32 Only on this understanding of the priesthood is it possible to explain adequately the reaction of the scribes when they accused Jesus of blasphemy (Mk 2.7 par.).33

his righteous rule (17.35), there will be no unrighteousness in the land (17.36). The presence of a new ethical standard, not the forgiveness of the old one, is what the psalmist has in view.38 In the case of the Testament of Levi, chapter 18 describes the new priest, in whose “priesthood sin shall cease” (18.9). The thought is most likely that of the final atonement for sin, and it may be the result of Christian editing. The Damascus Document also looks forward to the atonement for sin in the messianic age. The role of the priestly Messiah is described in 14.19, where the reconstruction can be translated in different ways. In García Martínez’s rendering, the line reads: “[until there arises the messia]h of Aaron and Israel. And their iniquity will be atoned [through meal and s­ in-offerings.]” The phrase “through meal and ­sin-offerings” goes back to the reconstruction of the two words ‫ממנחה וחטאת‬. But if the preposition ‫ מן‬is taken to express separation, rather than means, the translation would be “and he (the Messiah) will atone for their sin better than meal and sin offerings.” On this basis, Joseph Baumgarten concludes that this Messiah will forgive sins without any ritual.39 However, if the line indeed refers to atonement without ritual, the meaning is more likely connected to the Qumranic idea of atonement through righteous deeds (1QS 9.4-6; 4Q174 1.i.6-7). These texts do not describe the Messiah as forgiving sins, and Jesus’ act of forgiveness cannot be explained against the background of these expectations.

70

The Messiah The Messiah is also associated with the forgiveness of sins in Jewish expectation, but the agent of forgiveness remains God himself. When the Davidic savior comes, God will cleanse Israel from their transgressions and apostasies (Ezek. 27.23-24). God will bring his servant the Branch and remove Israel’s guilt (Zech. 3.8-9).34 Koch has argued that the Targum on Isaiah 53 understood the Messiah as the one who would forgive sins.35 But in the Targum the role of the servant is that of intercessor (53.4, 12), and God forgives the people’s sins for the servant’s sake (53.6, 12).36 Similarly, Eduard Lohse compares Jesus’ forgiveness to the expectations regarding a Messiah that will put an end to sin (Ps. Sol. 17.36, 41 and T. Levi 18.9).37 But the idea that sin will be no more is not exactly the same as that of forgiveness. The Psalms of Solomon 17 describes the ideal conditions under the Messiah, who will be pure from sin (17.41). As a result of

32.  According to Jacob Milgrom, “[t]he priest carries out the purgation rites but only God determines their efficacy” (Leviticus 1–16, 245). Otfried Hofius has surveyed the evidence in the Hebrew Bible, in the Samaritan literature of the Aramaic period, and in the literature of Second Temple Judaism with respect to possible references to forgiveness offered by human beings. He concludes that the assumption that the priests forgave sins lacks any support in the sources (“Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum,” in Neutestamentliche Studien, reprint, 1983, WUNT 132 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000], 59–67). 33.  Similarly, Bas M. F. van Iersel, Mark: A Reader–Response Commentary, trans. W. H. Bisscheroux, reprint, 1998 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 147–48. Davies and Allison think that the reaction is prompted by the scribes’ misunderstanding of the divine passive in ἀφίενται (Matthew, Vol. 2, 91). 34.  Cf. Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 61. 35.  K. Koch, “Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jesaja 53 – Targum: Ein Beitrag zu der Praxis der aramäischen Bibelübersetzung,” JSJ 3 (1972): 117–48. 36.  Cf. Otfried Hofius, “Kennt der Targum zu Jes 53 einen sündenvergebenden Messias?” in Neutestamentliche Studien, WUNT 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 80–107; Sung, Vergebung der Sünden, 142–43. 37.  Eduard Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 2nd edn, FRLANT 46 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 175.

71

The Prayer of Nabonidus The functions of the priesthood and the Messiah do not provide a precedent for Jesus’ forgiveness, but many scholars think that there is one text from Cave 4 at Qumran that does. In the Prayer of Nabonidus, the Babylonian king Nabonidus reports that he suffered from an inflammation. He claims that his sins were forgiven when he contacted a Jewish exorcist (4Q242 1-3.4). Due to the significant lacunae in the manuscript, it is impossible to be sure what

38.  Barry Blackburn observes that none of the Jewish ­end-time figures were bestowed with authority to forgive sins (Theios Anēr, 138). 39.  Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Messianic Forgiveness of sin in CD 14.19 (4Q266 10 i 12–13),” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, ed. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich, STDJ 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 541–42.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

the correct reading is. Most likely the subject of the forgiving is God,40 but it remains a possibility that Nabonidus actually attributes the act of forgiveness to the exorcist.41 But even if it be granted that the exorcist forgave Nabonidus’ sin, the parallel to Jesus is superficial. The perspective throughout Nabonidus’ prayer is not of sin and forgiveness but of sickness and healing. When the prayer relates the previous worship of idols, the point is not that these acts were sinful, rather that they were futile and could not offer any help against the suffering. The meaning of the initial forgiveness saying (4Q242 1-3.4), which sums up the whole story, is that the exorcist was able to put an end to the sufferings that were understood to be the consequence of sin. The word for sin (‫ )חטא‬thus functions as a metonym for sin’s consequence. Geza Vermes notes the close connection between forgiveness and healing in this text, and observes that the

meaning of forgiveness is tantamount to healing. He understands the Synoptics’ account of the forgiveness and healing of the paralytic along similar lines.42 But it is doubtful that the connection between healing and forgiveness is equally close in the Gospel context. If we go by the account in the Synoptic Gospels, the two acts are clearly distinguished, so much so that many scholars have concluded that they were originally two separate accounts (cf. above).43 There is no terminological or thematic link between forgiveness and healing. The terminology for forgiveness used in the Synoptics occurs repeatedly in the LXX (Exod. 32.32; Num. 14.19; Ps. 24.18; Job 42.10; Sir. 2.11; 28.1, 2) but in no instance is there an obvious connection to healing. In the Synoptic accounts, the paralytic is not healed when his sins are forgiven, but when Jesus tells him to stand up. Vermes’s interpretation of the forgiveness as little more than a circumlocution for healing is unfounded. The Prayer of Nabonidus therefore offers no real parallel to the forgiveness in the Gospels, even on the unlikely assumption that the exorcist is the agent of forgiveness.44

72

40.  A good case can be made for taking the first words of line 4 (‫ )וחטאי שבק לה‬with what precedes in line 3, the sense being: “and God forgave my sins.” See above all John J. Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus Ar,” in Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, vol. 3, ed. George Brooke, et al., DJD 22 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 89–90. Similarly, Rudolf Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Q ­ umran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzählung, Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. P ­ hilologisch-historische Klasse 107/3 (Berlin: Akademie, 1962), 23–24, 30, 33; Pierre Grelot, “La prière de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab),” RevQ 9 (1978): 485, 488–89; A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab),” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor, BETL 46 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), 122, 124; Frank Moore Cross, “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus,” IEJ 34 (1984): 263–64; L. P. Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period, NTOA 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 149–57; Émile Puech, “La prière de Nabonide (4Q242),” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honor of Martin McNamara, ed. Kevin J. Catchcart and Michael Maher, JSOTSup 230 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 211, 216–18; Juncker, “Angel of the Lord,” 336–39. This interpretation does not rely on J. T. Milik’s questionable emendation of the text, reading ‫ לי‬for ‫ לה‬in line 4 (“‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments Araméens de Qumrân 4 [Pl. I],” RB 63 [1956]: 408). 41.  So Joseph A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C.–Second Century A.D.), BibOr 34 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 3; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Prayer of Nabonidus,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 35; Florentino García Martínez, “The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 120, 125–6; P. W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 56–57; Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds, (1Q1–4Q273), vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 487.

73

Melchizedek Adela Yarbro Collins points to the Qumranic Melchizedek traditions as a parallel to Jesus’ words of forgiveness in Mk 2.5 par.45 According to 11Q13 2.6, Melchizedek will free the captives “from [the debt of] all their iniquities.” At this time, atonement will also “be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek” (11Q13 2.8). The column describes a jubilee (2.7) which refers to the eschatological salvation. The debt cancellation in this jubilee is interpreted as a reference to the captives, who will be given freedom (2.4). Melchizedek’s role is therefore comparable to that of the exorcist

42. Vermes, Jesus, 67–68. Other scholars who see the Prayer of Nabonidus as a parallel to Jesus’ announcement of forgiveness include: Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 585; Lindars, Son of Man, 45; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 217; Casey, Solution, 153. 43.  Correctly, van Iersel, Mark, 147. Several scholars believe that the healing and the forgiveness may originally have been two separate stories (Bultmann, Geschichte, 12; Maisch, Heilung des Gelähmten, 29–39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 152–53; Klauck, “Sündenvergebung,” 225–36; Harrington, Matthew, 124; Hooker, Mark, 84; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44). But see Hampel, Menschensohn, 189–97. 44.  Contra Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 90; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 589; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217. 45.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 185.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

the correct reading is. Most likely the subject of the forgiving is God,40 but it remains a possibility that Nabonidus actually attributes the act of forgiveness to the exorcist.41 But even if it be granted that the exorcist forgave Nabonidus’ sin, the parallel to Jesus is superficial. The perspective throughout Nabonidus’ prayer is not of sin and forgiveness but of sickness and healing. When the prayer relates the previous worship of idols, the point is not that these acts were sinful, rather that they were futile and could not offer any help against the suffering. The meaning of the initial forgiveness saying (4Q242 1-3.4), which sums up the whole story, is that the exorcist was able to put an end to the sufferings that were understood to be the consequence of sin. The word for sin (‫ )חטא‬thus functions as a metonym for sin’s consequence. Geza Vermes notes the close connection between forgiveness and healing in this text, and observes that the

meaning of forgiveness is tantamount to healing. He understands the Synoptics’ account of the forgiveness and healing of the paralytic along similar lines.42 But it is doubtful that the connection between healing and forgiveness is equally close in the Gospel context. If we go by the account in the Synoptic Gospels, the two acts are clearly distinguished, so much so that many scholars have concluded that they were originally two separate accounts (cf. above).43 There is no terminological or thematic link between forgiveness and healing. The terminology for forgiveness used in the Synoptics occurs repeatedly in the LXX (Exod. 32.32; Num. 14.19; Ps. 24.18; Job 42.10; Sir. 2.11; 28.1, 2) but in no instance is there an obvious connection to healing. In the Synoptic accounts, the paralytic is not healed when his sins are forgiven, but when Jesus tells him to stand up. Vermes’s interpretation of the forgiveness as little more than a circumlocution for healing is unfounded. The Prayer of Nabonidus therefore offers no real parallel to the forgiveness in the Gospels, even on the unlikely assumption that the exorcist is the agent of forgiveness.44

72

40.  A good case can be made for taking the first words of line 4 (‫ )וחטאי שבק לה‬with what precedes in line 3, the sense being: “and God forgave my sins.” See above all John J. Collins, “4QPrayer of Nabonidus Ar,” in Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, vol. 3, ed. George Brooke, et al., DJD 22 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 89–90. Similarly, Rudolf Meyer, Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Q ­ umran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzählung, Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. P ­ hilologisch-historische Klasse 107/3 (Berlin: Akademie, 1962), 23–24, 30, 33; Pierre Grelot, “La prière de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab),” RevQ 9 (1978): 485, 488–89; A. S. van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab),” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor, BETL 46 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), 122, 124; Frank Moore Cross, “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus,” IEJ 34 (1984): 263–64; L. P. Hogan, Healing in the Second Temple Period, NTOA 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 149–57; Émile Puech, “La prière de Nabonide (4Q242),” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honor of Martin McNamara, ed. Kevin J. Catchcart and Michael Maher, JSOTSup 230 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 211, 216–18; Juncker, “Angel of the Lord,” 336–39. This interpretation does not rely on J. T. Milik’s questionable emendation of the text, reading ‫ לי‬for ‫ לה‬in line 4 (“‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments Araméens de Qumrân 4 [Pl. I],” RB 63 [1956]: 408). 41.  So Joseph A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C.–Second Century A.D.), BibOr 34 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 3; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Prayer of Nabonidus,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 35; Florentino García Martínez, “The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 120, 125–6; P. W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 56–57; Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds, (1Q1–4Q273), vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 487.

73

Melchizedek Adela Yarbro Collins points to the Qumranic Melchizedek traditions as a parallel to Jesus’ words of forgiveness in Mk 2.5 par.45 According to 11Q13 2.6, Melchizedek will free the captives “from [the debt of] all their iniquities.” At this time, atonement will also “be made for all the sons of [light and] for the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek” (11Q13 2.8). The column describes a jubilee (2.7) which refers to the eschatological salvation. The debt cancellation in this jubilee is interpreted as a reference to the captives, who will be given freedom (2.4). Melchizedek’s role is therefore comparable to that of the exorcist

42. Vermes, Jesus, 67–68. Other scholars who see the Prayer of Nabonidus as a parallel to Jesus’ announcement of forgiveness include: Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 585; Lindars, Son of Man, 45; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 217; Casey, Solution, 153. 43.  Correctly, van Iersel, Mark, 147. Several scholars believe that the healing and the forgiveness may originally have been two separate stories (Bultmann, Geschichte, 12; Maisch, Heilung des Gelähmten, 29–39; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 152–53; Klauck, “Sündenvergebung,” 225–36; Harrington, Matthew, 124; Hooker, Mark, 84; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 44). But see Hampel, Menschensohn, 189–97. 44.  Contra Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 90; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 589; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217. 45.  Yarbro Collins, Mark, 185.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

known from the Prayer of Nabonidus. He does not forgive sin; he eliminates its results. The atonement should probably be understood in the same way, as a reversal of the effects of sin. In any case, to provide atonement is not the same as to pronounce forgiveness. Melchizedek does not therefore provide a parallel to the role of Jesus as the one who forgives sin.

closer examination, however, this interpretation proves difficult. It is not Jesus’ mere invocation of “the Son of Man” that demonstrates his authority; it is the concomitant act: the healing of the paralytic.47 Jesus’ healing of the paralytic does not show that human beings have authority, as most human beings are unable to duplicate that act. Jesus’ healing shows that Jesus’ authority is not mere words, but is backed up by his actions. This interpretation is confirmed when Jesus’ authority to forgive is compared to Matthew’s description of the disciples’ authority to do the same (Mt. 18.18). Their forgiveness is not connected to the act of healing. The warrant for the disciples’ authority is the authority of Jesus, who authorizes his disciples (Mt. 18.20). Jesus, on the other hand, has this authority in his own right. He does not refer to someone else to warrant it, but to his own authoritative acts. Jesus’ words of forgiveness must be seen as a claim to a special authority that he does not share with everyone else.

74

Forgiveness by Human Beings Jesus’ forgiveness is therefore best understood as an instance of Jesus acting in a role that in a Jewish context was reserved for YHWH. It does not necessarily follow that Jesus put himself in God’s place; it is possible he intended to show that functions previously understood to be God’s prerogatives could now be performed by others. This understanding may be confirmed by Jesus’ words that it was as the Son of Man that he had authority to forgive (Mk 2.10 par). The expression “son of man” was not a recognizable title in Jesus’ time, but was an indefinite term to refer to a human being and could be used generically for human beings in general. Many scholars have argued that in the genuine words of Jesus, the term should be understood generically (cf. Chapter 10). If so, Jesus here appears to be saying that human beings have the authority to forgive.46 On

46. Manson, Teaching, 227–32; Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, ÖTK 2/1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979), 154; Flusser, Jesus, 64–65; Schalom ­Ben-Chorin, Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes, trans. and ed. Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 106–7. Walter Wink argues that Jesus’ authority to forgive is an authority that belongs to all human beings. He connects the Son of Man saying in Mk 2.10 par. with the one in Mk 2.23-28 par. and takes the term to refer to human beings in general. But the chief foundation for his argument is the editorial comment in Mt. 9.8: “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.” Noting the plural form of “human beings,” he states: “We must cling to Mt. 9.8 with all our might because it is one of the few passages in which we can know unequivocally that at least one of the evangelists understands the Human Being in a collective sense” (Human Being, 78). This statement reveals the rather questionable exegesis in which Wink engages. He is forced to assume that the original meaning of the Son of Man sayings was lost at a very early stage of the tradition. Not only that, but the correct understanding happens to be reflected in one of the redactional remarks of Matthew, the evangelist who shows the strongest interest in the titular meaning of the Son of Man (cf. Mt. 10.23; 13.37, 41; 16.27; 28; 17.12; 19.28; 24.39, 44; 25.31; 26.2). Barnabas Lindars and Maurice Casey understand “son of man” as referring to a group of human beings, such as the prophets, who had the authority to forgive (Lindars, Son of Man, 45–46; Casey, Solution, 152–56). Their view is based on the assumption that the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) provides evidence of forgiveness by human beings (cf. above).

75

Conclusion The forgiveness sayings in Mk 2.5, 10 par., with their focus on the earthly authority of Jesus, are unlikely to stem from the early church and are best understood to be authentic. If Jesus made these statements, he took upon himself a role that was known as the prerogative of God himself. Unlike others in the early Christian community, Jesus did not refer beyond himself to warrant his authority. His authority was demonstrated by his own act of healing. The closest possible parallel to Jesus’ authority is found in an uncertain interpretation of one of the writings from Qumran, the Prayer of Nabonidus. On this reading, an unnamed exorcist forgives the sin of Nabonidus. But “sin” in this context functions as a metonym for the consequences of sin, illness. The 47.  Similarly, Carsten Colpe, “Traditionsüberschreitende Argumentationen zu Aussagen Jesu über sich selbst,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Gert Jeremias, H ­ einz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 232. The connection between Jesus’ forgiveness and his act of healing also militates against the interpretation of Karel Hanhart. He maintains that Jesus does not identify himself with the Human One (Son of Man), to whose authority to forgive sins Jesus refers (“Son, Your Sins Are Forgiven: Mk 2,5,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2, ed. F. van Segbroeck, et al., BETL 100 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 1013–14). For the question of the identification of Jesus as the Son of Man, see Chapter 10.

God’s Equal

3.  God’s Pardon

known from the Prayer of Nabonidus. He does not forgive sin; he eliminates its results. The atonement should probably be understood in the same way, as a reversal of the effects of sin. In any case, to provide atonement is not the same as to pronounce forgiveness. Melchizedek does not therefore provide a parallel to the role of Jesus as the one who forgives sin.

closer examination, however, this interpretation proves difficult. It is not Jesus’ mere invocation of “the Son of Man” that demonstrates his authority; it is the concomitant act: the healing of the paralytic.47 Jesus’ healing of the paralytic does not show that human beings have authority, as most human beings are unable to duplicate that act. Jesus’ healing shows that Jesus’ authority is not mere words, but is backed up by his actions. This interpretation is confirmed when Jesus’ authority to forgive is compared to Matthew’s description of the disciples’ authority to do the same (Mt. 18.18). Their forgiveness is not connected to the act of healing. The warrant for the disciples’ authority is the authority of Jesus, who authorizes his disciples (Mt. 18.20). Jesus, on the other hand, has this authority in his own right. He does not refer to someone else to warrant it, but to his own authoritative acts. Jesus’ words of forgiveness must be seen as a claim to a special authority that he does not share with everyone else.

74

Forgiveness by Human Beings Jesus’ forgiveness is therefore best understood as an instance of Jesus acting in a role that in a Jewish context was reserved for YHWH. It does not necessarily follow that Jesus put himself in God’s place; it is possible he intended to show that functions previously understood to be God’s prerogatives could now be performed by others. This understanding may be confirmed by Jesus’ words that it was as the Son of Man that he had authority to forgive (Mk 2.10 par). The expression “son of man” was not a recognizable title in Jesus’ time, but was an indefinite term to refer to a human being and could be used generically for human beings in general. Many scholars have argued that in the genuine words of Jesus, the term should be understood generically (cf. Chapter 10). If so, Jesus here appears to be saying that human beings have the authority to forgive.46 On

46. Manson, Teaching, 227–32; Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, ÖTK 2/1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979), 154; Flusser, Jesus, 64–65; Schalom ­Ben-Chorin, Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes, trans. and ed. Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001), 106–7. Walter Wink argues that Jesus’ authority to forgive is an authority that belongs to all human beings. He connects the Son of Man saying in Mk 2.10 par. with the one in Mk 2.23-28 par. and takes the term to refer to human beings in general. But the chief foundation for his argument is the editorial comment in Mt. 9.8: “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.” Noting the plural form of “human beings,” he states: “We must cling to Mt. 9.8 with all our might because it is one of the few passages in which we can know unequivocally that at least one of the evangelists understands the Human Being in a collective sense” (Human Being, 78). This statement reveals the rather questionable exegesis in which Wink engages. He is forced to assume that the original meaning of the Son of Man sayings was lost at a very early stage of the tradition. Not only that, but the correct understanding happens to be reflected in one of the redactional remarks of Matthew, the evangelist who shows the strongest interest in the titular meaning of the Son of Man (cf. Mt. 10.23; 13.37, 41; 16.27; 28; 17.12; 19.28; 24.39, 44; 25.31; 26.2). Barnabas Lindars and Maurice Casey understand “son of man” as referring to a group of human beings, such as the prophets, who had the authority to forgive (Lindars, Son of Man, 45–46; Casey, Solution, 152–56). Their view is based on the assumption that the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) provides evidence of forgiveness by human beings (cf. above).

75

Conclusion The forgiveness sayings in Mk 2.5, 10 par., with their focus on the earthly authority of Jesus, are unlikely to stem from the early church and are best understood to be authentic. If Jesus made these statements, he took upon himself a role that was known as the prerogative of God himself. Unlike others in the early Christian community, Jesus did not refer beyond himself to warrant his authority. His authority was demonstrated by his own act of healing. The closest possible parallel to Jesus’ authority is found in an uncertain interpretation of one of the writings from Qumran, the Prayer of Nabonidus. On this reading, an unnamed exorcist forgives the sin of Nabonidus. But “sin” in this context functions as a metonym for the consequences of sin, illness. The 47.  Similarly, Carsten Colpe, “Traditionsüberschreitende Argumentationen zu Aussagen Jesu über sich selbst,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Gert Jeremias, H ­ einz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 232. The connection between Jesus’ forgiveness and his act of healing also militates against the interpretation of Karel Hanhart. He maintains that Jesus does not identify himself with the Human One (Son of Man), to whose authority to forgive sins Jesus refers (“Son, Your Sins Are Forgiven: Mk 2,5,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2, ed. F. van Segbroeck, et al., BETL 100 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992], 1013–14). For the question of the identification of Jesus as the Son of Man, see Chapter 10.

76

God’s Equal

text does not constitute a real parallel to Jesus’ actions, where forgiveness and healing are understood as separate acts. The best explanation for Jesus’ acts is that he understood himself to have an authority that in a Jewish context was exclusively attributed to God. Jesus appears to have put himself in a role that was reserved for God and thus implicitly claimed to be God’s equal.

77

4 PASSING GOD’S JUDGMENT: JESUS AS THE ESCHATOLOGICAL JUDGE

In the previous chapter I argued that Jesus took upon himself God’s prerogative of forgiving sins. He thereby implicitly claimed the sovereign right to anticipate the eschatological judgment and determine people’s eternal destiny. The logical consequence is that Jesus saw himself as the eschatological judge. The present chapter will discuss the authenticity of some essential sayings where Jesus describes his own role in the eschatological judgment. I will devote the most attention to the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46, which contains the most explicit picture of Jesus as the eschatological judge. Jesus’ claims will then be compared to the various human and angelic judges that are portrayed in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. I intend to show that Jesus expected to determine the eternal destiny – not only of certain individuals – but of all people, and that this role went beyond the claims that were made on behalf of other figures save one, namely God.

Advocate or Judge? Joachim Jeremias ruled out the possibility that the picture of Jesus as judge could be authentic because Jesus is not seen in that role in the earliest elements of the tradition. Instead, Jesus claimed the role as a witness or an advocate before the judgment seat of God. In Mt. 10.32-33, for example, he says: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (cf. also Mk 8.38; Lk. 9.26; 12.8-9).1 1.  Parables, 207. Similarly, Marius Reiser examines the texts broadly accepted as authentic and observes that Jesus is not referred to as judge. He concludes that the judge for him was God (Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context, trans.

76

God’s Equal

text does not constitute a real parallel to Jesus’ actions, where forgiveness and healing are understood as separate acts. The best explanation for Jesus’ acts is that he understood himself to have an authority that in a Jewish context was exclusively attributed to God. Jesus appears to have put himself in a role that was reserved for God and thus implicitly claimed to be God’s equal.

77

4 PASSING GOD’S JUDGMENT: JESUS AS THE ESCHATOLOGICAL JUDGE

In the previous chapter I argued that Jesus took upon himself God’s prerogative of forgiving sins. He thereby implicitly claimed the sovereign right to anticipate the eschatological judgment and determine people’s eternal destiny. The logical consequence is that Jesus saw himself as the eschatological judge. The present chapter will discuss the authenticity of some essential sayings where Jesus describes his own role in the eschatological judgment. I will devote the most attention to the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46, which contains the most explicit picture of Jesus as the eschatological judge. Jesus’ claims will then be compared to the various human and angelic judges that are portrayed in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. I intend to show that Jesus expected to determine the eternal destiny – not only of certain individuals – but of all people, and that this role went beyond the claims that were made on behalf of other figures save one, namely God.

Advocate or Judge? Joachim Jeremias ruled out the possibility that the picture of Jesus as judge could be authentic because Jesus is not seen in that role in the earliest elements of the tradition. Instead, Jesus claimed the role as a witness or an advocate before the judgment seat of God. In Mt. 10.32-33, for example, he says: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (cf. also Mk 8.38; Lk. 9.26; 12.8-9).1 1.  Parables, 207. Similarly, Marius Reiser examines the texts broadly accepted as authentic and observes that Jesus is not referred to as judge. He concludes that the judge for him was God (Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context, trans.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

These texts, however, are not specific. They do not give a clear description of the different characters in a court scene, and do not ascribe the role of judge to anyone. The texts do not clearly show Jesus as judge; nor do they clearly rule out the possibility that he might be.2 There are also some problems with the assumption that Jesus was not seen as judge in the earliest tradition. This assumption makes it difficult to account for Mt. 19.28/Lk. 22.30. In this saying Jesus promises his twelve disciples that they will be judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. This saying has a strong claim to authenticity. Most New Testament scholars agree that Jesus did gather a circle of twelve disciples around himself. There is no reason to ascribe this element of the Gospel tradition to the early church.3 The twelve play no role in early church history and they were soon eclipsed by Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. What is more, it is difficult to imagine that the early church would have created the traditions about the twelve, as long as Judas was one of them.4

The same arguments apply to the saying about the twelve judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We find no tendency toward exalting the twelve disciples in the Gospel tradition, rather the opposite. There is also no reason why the early church would create a tradition that involved Judas being seated on a glorious throne judging Israel’s tribes. By the criterion of double dissimilarity the saying also stands very well. There is no other known instance from early Christian literature of the twelve being promised twelve thrones on which to judge Israel’s tribes. Nor was there any such expectation for the Messiah’s followers within Judaism. What the disciples are promised finds its closest parallels in the expectations regarding the Messiah himself in Ps. Sol. 17.26: “he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God.” The core of Jesus’ promise to the disciples is therefore likely to be authentic.5 If Jesus

78

Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 309; similarly James M. Robinson, Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 75). That is an argument from silence that will be challenged here. 2.  As Casey correctly observes (Solution, 185). Cf. Werner Zager, who concludes that Mark’s sayings about eschatological judgment presuppose that Jesus is the ­end-time judge, although he comes to a different conclusion for the historical Jesus (Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur markinischen Jesusüberlieferung einschliesslich der Q-Parallelen, BZNW 82 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996], 307; similarly Eduard Lohse, “Christus als der Weltenrichter,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Strecker [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975], 481). In his study of the judgment sayings in Q, Brian Han Gregg concludes that Jesus’ function in the final judgment is not clear. While there is no indication that the judge is anyone other than God, Jesus plays a decisive role in this judgment (The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, WUNT II [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 271–72). For my present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the earliest judgment traditions do not place Jesus in a role that excludes him from being the judge. 3.  Walter Schmithals maintains that the idea of the twelve disciples is secondary. It was unknown to the original version of Mark’s Gospel (“Grundschrift”) and included in the redactional process (Markus, 167). Even if Schmithals’s view of the redactional process be granted, however, one must explain why they were introduced in the final version of the Gospel of Mark. They do not play any role in the surviving records of the early church, and in Mark’s Gospel they are not clearly distinguished from the more amorphous group of disciples, as Schmithals notes (ibid., 205). Why would Mark introduce a fictitious concept that served no function for his literary purposes? 4.  See Bornkamm, Jesus, 150; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 208; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 100–101; James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 136–38; Meier, A Marginal

79

Jew, Vol. 3, 128–47; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 181–89. Davies and Allison also point out that if the election of Matthias (Acts 1.12-26) is historical the significance of the twelve must have been established before Easter (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997], 58; cf. also Allison, Millenarian Prophet, 142–43). Günter Klein summarizes the skepticism of earlier scholarship. He notes that the reference to the twelve in 1 Cor. 15.5 presupposes that Judas was not among them; that the use of Ps. 69.26 (Acts 1.20) to account for Judas’ betrayal is explicable within the p­ ost-Easter community; and that the word παλιγγενεσία in Mt. 19.28 belongs in the Hellenistic church. Klein therefore maintains that both the concept of the twelve and the numbering of Judas among them originated in the early church (Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee, FRLANT 77 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961], 35–36). However, Paul’s failure to demonstrate awareness of the Judas traditions does not imply that Judas was not originally among the twelve. Rather, it shows that “the twelve” was a fixed concept at his time and that the twelve no longer played a significant role as individuals. The use of Ps. 69.26 to explain the betrayal may stem from the community, but the explanation presupposes that there was an event that needed to be explained. Klein suggests that one or several of the first disciples apostatized and that the act of apostasy was projected into the life of Jesus. This speculative hypothesis does not solve the problem: why would the early church create traditions that place the traitor as judge on a throne? As for the form of Mt. 19.28, the fact that the saying is capable of transmission in Hellenistic garb (in contrast to the version in Lk. 22.30) has little bearing on its authenticity. 5.  So also Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 47; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957), 217; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 1414; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 58; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 216; Allison, Millenarian Prophet, 142–43; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 510–11; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 137–38; Markus Bockmuehl, “God’s Life as a Jew: Remembering the Son of God as Son of David,” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 72–73. Reginald Fuller argues that

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

These texts, however, are not specific. They do not give a clear description of the different characters in a court scene, and do not ascribe the role of judge to anyone. The texts do not clearly show Jesus as judge; nor do they clearly rule out the possibility that he might be.2 There are also some problems with the assumption that Jesus was not seen as judge in the earliest tradition. This assumption makes it difficult to account for Mt. 19.28/Lk. 22.30. In this saying Jesus promises his twelve disciples that they will be judges of the twelve tribes of Israel. This saying has a strong claim to authenticity. Most New Testament scholars agree that Jesus did gather a circle of twelve disciples around himself. There is no reason to ascribe this element of the Gospel tradition to the early church.3 The twelve play no role in early church history and they were soon eclipsed by Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. What is more, it is difficult to imagine that the early church would have created the traditions about the twelve, as long as Judas was one of them.4

The same arguments apply to the saying about the twelve judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We find no tendency toward exalting the twelve disciples in the Gospel tradition, rather the opposite. There is also no reason why the early church would create a tradition that involved Judas being seated on a glorious throne judging Israel’s tribes. By the criterion of double dissimilarity the saying also stands very well. There is no other known instance from early Christian literature of the twelve being promised twelve thrones on which to judge Israel’s tribes. Nor was there any such expectation for the Messiah’s followers within Judaism. What the disciples are promised finds its closest parallels in the expectations regarding the Messiah himself in Ps. Sol. 17.26: “he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God.” The core of Jesus’ promise to the disciples is therefore likely to be authentic.5 If Jesus

78

Linda M. Maloney [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 309; similarly James M. Robinson, Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 75). That is an argument from silence that will be challenged here. 2.  As Casey correctly observes (Solution, 185). Cf. Werner Zager, who concludes that Mark’s sayings about eschatological judgment presuppose that Jesus is the ­end-time judge, although he comes to a different conclusion for the historical Jesus (Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur markinischen Jesusüberlieferung einschliesslich der Q-Parallelen, BZNW 82 [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996], 307; similarly Eduard Lohse, “Christus als der Weltenrichter,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Strecker [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975], 481). In his study of the judgment sayings in Q, Brian Han Gregg concludes that Jesus’ function in the final judgment is not clear. While there is no indication that the judge is anyone other than God, Jesus plays a decisive role in this judgment (The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q, WUNT II [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 271–72). For my present purposes, it is sufficient to note that the earliest judgment traditions do not place Jesus in a role that excludes him from being the judge. 3.  Walter Schmithals maintains that the idea of the twelve disciples is secondary. It was unknown to the original version of Mark’s Gospel (“Grundschrift”) and included in the redactional process (Markus, 167). Even if Schmithals’s view of the redactional process be granted, however, one must explain why they were introduced in the final version of the Gospel of Mark. They do not play any role in the surviving records of the early church, and in Mark’s Gospel they are not clearly distinguished from the more amorphous group of disciples, as Schmithals notes (ibid., 205). Why would Mark introduce a fictitious concept that served no function for his literary purposes? 4.  See Bornkamm, Jesus, 150; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 208; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 100–101; James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 136–38; Meier, A Marginal

79

Jew, Vol. 3, 128–47; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 181–89. Davies and Allison also point out that if the election of Matthias (Acts 1.12-26) is historical the significance of the twelve must have been established before Easter (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997], 58; cf. also Allison, Millenarian Prophet, 142–43). Günter Klein summarizes the skepticism of earlier scholarship. He notes that the reference to the twelve in 1 Cor. 15.5 presupposes that Judas was not among them; that the use of Ps. 69.26 (Acts 1.20) to account for Judas’ betrayal is explicable within the p­ ost-Easter community; and that the word παλιγγενεσία in Mt. 19.28 belongs in the Hellenistic church. Klein therefore maintains that both the concept of the twelve and the numbering of Judas among them originated in the early church (Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee, FRLANT 77 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961], 35–36). However, Paul’s failure to demonstrate awareness of the Judas traditions does not imply that Judas was not originally among the twelve. Rather, it shows that “the twelve” was a fixed concept at his time and that the twelve no longer played a significant role as individuals. The use of Ps. 69.26 to explain the betrayal may stem from the community, but the explanation presupposes that there was an event that needed to be explained. Klein suggests that one or several of the first disciples apostatized and that the act of apostasy was projected into the life of Jesus. This speculative hypothesis does not solve the problem: why would the early church create traditions that place the traitor as judge on a throne? As for the form of Mt. 19.28, the fact that the saying is capable of transmission in Hellenistic garb (in contrast to the version in Lk. 22.30) has little bearing on its authenticity. 5.  So also Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 47; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957), 217; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 1414; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 58; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 216; Allison, Millenarian Prophet, 142–43; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 510–11; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 137–38; Markus Bockmuehl, “God’s Life as a Jew: Remembering the Son of God as Son of David,” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 72–73. Reginald Fuller argues that

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

did appoint others to be judges, he must have presupposed that an even more exalted role belonged to himself. If this promise to the disciples is authentic, it is intrinsically likely that Jesus also saw himself as the head judge. There is one passage in the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus unequivocally appears as the eschatological judge. That is the judgment scene in Mt. 25.3146, where the Son of Man separates the sheep from the goats before he tells those on his right side that they are blessed and those on his left side that they are cursed. Some scholars have dismissed the possibility that Jesus could have referred to himself as the eschatological judge and therefore deemed this passage inauthentic. But, as I argued above, this possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. It becomes necessary, then, to examine the passage more closely for possible clues as to its origin.

or vv. 31-33 did not originally belong together with the rest of the passage.6 For my present purposes, the question specifically concerns vv. 34-46. These verses paint the picture of Jesus as the one who separates people into two groups. He thereby determines whether they will be punished or rewarded in the afterlife.7 Some commentators have identified several traits in the passage that speak against its origin with the historical Jesus. Schweizer observes that Jesus only spoke of the final judgment in metaphors, never concretely as here; and that he would not have identified himself with those who suffer in the way that he does in vv. 40 and 45.8 Luz deems it unlikely that Jesus would have referred

80

The Authenticity of Mt. 25.31-46 The question of the origin of Matthew’s final judgment scene is highly disputed. Many scholars find it unlikely that the exalted vision of Jesus as the Son of Man seated on the throne of his glory (25.31) is authentic. The first three verses also stand apart from the rest of the passage. Verse 31 is the only verse that mentions the Son of Man, whereas vv. 34-46 use the titles “king” and “lord” instead. Moreover, vv. 32-33 are the only verses that mention sheep and goats. In the following narrative, the picture is instead that of human beings, who are in dialogue with the judge. There are reasons to assume, therefore, that v. 31

the saying in Mt. 19.28 is authentic, but maintains that it makes a distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man (The Foundations of New Testament Christology [London: Lutterworth, 1965], 123–24). Rudolf Bultmann maintains that the idea of the twelve as judges belongs in the setting of the exalted Lord (Geschichte, 170–71). Joachim Gnilka thinks the saying originated in the Q community, where he thinks the idea of a judgment of Israel is at home. According to Gnilka, the saying first applied to the community, only later to the twelve. He offers no explanation why this saying should be applied to the twelve at a secondary stage of tradition (Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT I/2 [Freiburg: Herder, 1988], 173–74). Vielhauer also deems the saying inauthentic. His reasons were that the word παλιγγενεσία is a Hellenistic term whose Aramaic basis cannot be reconstructed and that the concept of the twelve cannot go back to Jesus (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 68). The first reason does not concern the main idea of the saying, which is perfectly intelligible in the context of Jewish apocalyptic. For the concept of the twelve, cf. above. Based on the assumptions that Jesus neither spoke of himself as the Son of Man nor of apocalyptic judgment, the Jesus seminar voted both Mt. 19.28 and Lk. 22.30 black (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 222–23, 389).

81

6.  So J. A. T. Robinson, “The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats,” NTS 2 (1956): 226–32; Simon Légasse, Jésus et l’enfant: ‘Enfants’, ‘petits’ et ‘simples’ dans la tradition synoptique, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 87–88; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 475; Johannes Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch, SUNT 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 175; Ulrich Wilckens, “Gottes geringste Brüder–zu Mt 25,31–46,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grasser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 374; Daniel Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu, 2nd expanded edn, Le Monde de la Bible 5 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995), 488–93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 418. But see David R. Catchpole, who argues that Mt. 25.31 is authentic (“The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A ­Re-Appraisal of Matthew XXV. 31–46,” BJRL 61 [1978–79]: 356–87). 7.  Robert Gundry also concludes that Mt. 25.31 is redactional, and explains it as an amplification of the similar sayings in Mt. 16.27 and 19.28, with influence from Dan. 12.2 and Zech. 14.5. He maintains that the rest of the passage stems from the evangelist, and explains it as Matthew’s further development of the parables of separation in 13.24-30, 36-43, 47, where evil people are separated from good, as the weeds are separated from the harvest and the good fish are separated from the bad. Gundry also attributes these parables to Matthew (Matthew, 511). This reconstruction is unlikely, primarily because it does not account for the clear shift that takes place between vv. 33 and 34. In Mt. 25.31-46, only vv. 32-33 have the character of a parable. The following verses do not refer to sheep and goats, but to the individuals on the right and on the left. Similar objections may be raised against Joachim Gnilka, who also observes the Matthean elements in vv. 31-32 and contends that the passage forms such an intricate unity that it must be Matthean in its entirety. He explains the odd reference to Jesus as king as developing out of the characteristic Matthean focus on the kingdom of the Son of Man (Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, 368–70). The use of the title “king” for Jesus, however, is better explained as the preservation of Jesus’ own use (cf. below). J. D. M. Derrett sees the passage as a Christian product, inspired by Lev. 20.26 (“Unfair to Goats [Mt 25.32–33],” ExpTim 108 [1997]: 178). 8. Schweizer, Matthew, 475.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

did appoint others to be judges, he must have presupposed that an even more exalted role belonged to himself. If this promise to the disciples is authentic, it is intrinsically likely that Jesus also saw himself as the head judge. There is one passage in the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus unequivocally appears as the eschatological judge. That is the judgment scene in Mt. 25.3146, where the Son of Man separates the sheep from the goats before he tells those on his right side that they are blessed and those on his left side that they are cursed. Some scholars have dismissed the possibility that Jesus could have referred to himself as the eschatological judge and therefore deemed this passage inauthentic. But, as I argued above, this possibility cannot be ruled out a priori. It becomes necessary, then, to examine the passage more closely for possible clues as to its origin.

or vv. 31-33 did not originally belong together with the rest of the passage.6 For my present purposes, the question specifically concerns vv. 34-46. These verses paint the picture of Jesus as the one who separates people into two groups. He thereby determines whether they will be punished or rewarded in the afterlife.7 Some commentators have identified several traits in the passage that speak against its origin with the historical Jesus. Schweizer observes that Jesus only spoke of the final judgment in metaphors, never concretely as here; and that he would not have identified himself with those who suffer in the way that he does in vv. 40 and 45.8 Luz deems it unlikely that Jesus would have referred

80

The Authenticity of Mt. 25.31-46 The question of the origin of Matthew’s final judgment scene is highly disputed. Many scholars find it unlikely that the exalted vision of Jesus as the Son of Man seated on the throne of his glory (25.31) is authentic. The first three verses also stand apart from the rest of the passage. Verse 31 is the only verse that mentions the Son of Man, whereas vv. 34-46 use the titles “king” and “lord” instead. Moreover, vv. 32-33 are the only verses that mention sheep and goats. In the following narrative, the picture is instead that of human beings, who are in dialogue with the judge. There are reasons to assume, therefore, that v. 31

the saying in Mt. 19.28 is authentic, but maintains that it makes a distinction between Jesus and the Son of Man (The Foundations of New Testament Christology [London: Lutterworth, 1965], 123–24). Rudolf Bultmann maintains that the idea of the twelve as judges belongs in the setting of the exalted Lord (Geschichte, 170–71). Joachim Gnilka thinks the saying originated in the Q community, where he thinks the idea of a judgment of Israel is at home. According to Gnilka, the saying first applied to the community, only later to the twelve. He offers no explanation why this saying should be applied to the twelve at a secondary stage of tradition (Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT I/2 [Freiburg: Herder, 1988], 173–74). Vielhauer also deems the saying inauthentic. His reasons were that the word παλιγγενεσία is a Hellenistic term whose Aramaic basis cannot be reconstructed and that the concept of the twelve cannot go back to Jesus (“Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 68). The first reason does not concern the main idea of the saying, which is perfectly intelligible in the context of Jewish apocalyptic. For the concept of the twelve, cf. above. Based on the assumptions that Jesus neither spoke of himself as the Son of Man nor of apocalyptic judgment, the Jesus seminar voted both Mt. 19.28 and Lk. 22.30 black (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 222–23, 389).

81

6.  So J. A. T. Robinson, “The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats,” NTS 2 (1956): 226–32; Simon Légasse, Jésus et l’enfant: ‘Enfants’, ‘petits’ et ‘simples’ dans la tradition synoptique, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 87–88; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 475; Johannes Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch, SUNT 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 175; Ulrich Wilckens, “Gottes geringste Brüder–zu Mt 25,31–46,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grasser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 374; Daniel Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu, 2nd expanded edn, Le Monde de la Bible 5 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995), 488–93; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 418. But see David R. Catchpole, who argues that Mt. 25.31 is authentic (“The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A ­Re-Appraisal of Matthew XXV. 31–46,” BJRL 61 [1978–79]: 356–87). 7.  Robert Gundry also concludes that Mt. 25.31 is redactional, and explains it as an amplification of the similar sayings in Mt. 16.27 and 19.28, with influence from Dan. 12.2 and Zech. 14.5. He maintains that the rest of the passage stems from the evangelist, and explains it as Matthew’s further development of the parables of separation in 13.24-30, 36-43, 47, where evil people are separated from good, as the weeds are separated from the harvest and the good fish are separated from the bad. Gundry also attributes these parables to Matthew (Matthew, 511). This reconstruction is unlikely, primarily because it does not account for the clear shift that takes place between vv. 33 and 34. In Mt. 25.31-46, only vv. 32-33 have the character of a parable. The following verses do not refer to sheep and goats, but to the individuals on the right and on the left. Similar objections may be raised against Joachim Gnilka, who also observes the Matthean elements in vv. 31-32 and contends that the passage forms such an intricate unity that it must be Matthean in its entirety. He explains the odd reference to Jesus as king as developing out of the characteristic Matthean focus on the kingdom of the Son of Man (Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, 368–70). The use of the title “king” for Jesus, however, is better explained as the preservation of Jesus’ own use (cf. below). J. D. M. Derrett sees the passage as a Christian product, inspired by Lev. 20.26 (“Unfair to Goats [Mt 25.32–33],” ExpTim 108 [1997]: 178). 8. Schweizer, Matthew, 475.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

to himself as the “coming Son of M ­ an-World Judge” and that he would have used the title “king” for himself (vv. 34, 40). He also adds that the passage stands out by comparison with the other Son of Man sayings, which are quite short, whereas this passage is relatively long.9 As for the question of Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man,” that pertains to vv. 31-33 and does not concern us here.10 The observation that Jesus elsewhere does not speak quite like he does here is inconclusive. In Matthew’s Gospel this scene appears as a climactic saying of Jesus, but that fact alone does not determine its inauthenticity. It is necessary to ask whether the unique features of the passage are more likely to be the product of the early church than of the historical Jesus.

why they would use the humiliating expression “the least of my brothers.”13 If the early church were responsible for the rhetorically powerful idea that Jesus is identified with his suffering disciples or ministers, one also has to wonder why this theme is not reflected anywhere else in the New Testament.14 At the literary level of Matthew’s Gospel, however, it is unlikely that “the least of my brothers” refer specifically to Christians. One of the main arguments used to defend it is that Jesus refers to the little ones several times in the Gospel of Matthew, and the referent is always the disciples (10.42; 11.11; 18.6, 10, 14). In most of these instances, however, the little ones are further qualified with the pronoun “these” (10.42; 18.6, 10, 14), identifying them as the disciples who were present when Jesus was speaking. In the one remaining example, the “least” is further qualified as the “least in the kingdom of heaven” (11.11). In Mt. 25.40, 45, there is no such qualification and no indication in the immediate context that Jesus had his disciples in mind. What is more, the parallels that are cited use the Greek word μικρός, whereas Mt. 25.40 uses the superlative ἐλάχιστος.15 A second argument in favor of this interpretation has more weight, namely that the word “brother” in Matthew is frequently used with reference to the disciples (12.48-50; 18.15, 21, 35; 23.8; 28.10). But it is possible to see a

82

Identification Saying As for the origin of Jesus’ identification with those who suffer, this question is tied up with the interpretation of the phrase “the least of my brothers” in v. 40. There are two major views.11 The first and probably most common is that the expression refers to all those who suffer. The other view is that it refers to Christians or Christian missionaries. On the second interpretation, it is easier to fit the saying into the life of the early church.12 At a time when Christians were beginning to experience persecution – and the Gospel of Matthew repeatedly refers to the possibility of suffering for the sake of the gospel (5.10-11, 44; 10.17-18) – someone may have created this story in order to emphasize the importance of caring for Christians who suffer. What better motivation could be given than the idea that what one has done to suffering Christians one has really done to Christ himself? One can also speculate that the idea of Jesus’ identification with his disciples originated among Christian ministers who wanted to lend authority to their own ministry. If so, however, one wonders

9.  Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 267. 10.  The identification of Jesus as the Son of Man is also Lamar Cope’s main argument for denying the authenticity of the whole passage (“Matthew XXV: 31–46: ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ Reinterpreted,” NovT 11 (1969): 42). But that argument only applies to v. 31. 11.  For an overview of interpretations and arguments, see Sherman W. Gray, The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25. 31–46: A History of Interpretation, SBLDS 114 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 428–29; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 267–74. 12.  Cope, “Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 42.

83

13.  Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, who takes “the least of my brothers and sisters” as Christian missionaries, but emphasizes that their description does support an exalted view of the ministry (“Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles,” JBL 34 [1965]: 36). 14.  The New Testament authors frequently urge the believers to honor and care for their ministers (1 Thess. 5.12-14; Gal. 6.6; 1 Cor. 9.3-14; 16.15-18; Heb. 13.17; 1 Pet. 5.5), but this exhortation is never motivated by an appeal to the idea that to honor and care for one’s minister really is to honor Christ. On the other hand, all of the four canonical Gospels frequently attribute the idea of Jesus’ identification with his disciples to Jesus himself (Mk 9.37, 41; Mt. 10.40, 42; 18.5; Lk. 9.48; 10.16; Jn 13.20; cf. Mt. 5.10-11; 10.24-25; Lk. 6.22; 21.12, 17). The evidence from the New Testament does not support the claim that the identification theme in Mt. 25.40, 45 must have originated within the early church. 15.  Cope maintains that the parallel between Mt. 10.42 and 25.40, 45 is conclusive. In both cases, Jesus refers to acts of mercy done to the little ones, and in 10.42 the referent is clearly his disciples. Cope also notes that “the least” are exempt from the judgment in Mt. 25.34-46 (“Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 39). However, the parallel between Mt. 10.42 and 25.40, 45 is not very close. Except for the word “one” (ἕνα and ἑνί), not a single word is repeated. The observation that “the least” do not come before the judgment is tenuous. Their absence is not clearly stated; on the contrary, all nations were gathered (v. 32). To insist that they cannot be in view both as those who have received mercy in the past and as among those presented for judgment now is to understand the apocalyptic scene too woodenly.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

to himself as the “coming Son of M ­ an-World Judge” and that he would have used the title “king” for himself (vv. 34, 40). He also adds that the passage stands out by comparison with the other Son of Man sayings, which are quite short, whereas this passage is relatively long.9 As for the question of Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man,” that pertains to vv. 31-33 and does not concern us here.10 The observation that Jesus elsewhere does not speak quite like he does here is inconclusive. In Matthew’s Gospel this scene appears as a climactic saying of Jesus, but that fact alone does not determine its inauthenticity. It is necessary to ask whether the unique features of the passage are more likely to be the product of the early church than of the historical Jesus.

why they would use the humiliating expression “the least of my brothers.”13 If the early church were responsible for the rhetorically powerful idea that Jesus is identified with his suffering disciples or ministers, one also has to wonder why this theme is not reflected anywhere else in the New Testament.14 At the literary level of Matthew’s Gospel, however, it is unlikely that “the least of my brothers” refer specifically to Christians. One of the main arguments used to defend it is that Jesus refers to the little ones several times in the Gospel of Matthew, and the referent is always the disciples (10.42; 11.11; 18.6, 10, 14). In most of these instances, however, the little ones are further qualified with the pronoun “these” (10.42; 18.6, 10, 14), identifying them as the disciples who were present when Jesus was speaking. In the one remaining example, the “least” is further qualified as the “least in the kingdom of heaven” (11.11). In Mt. 25.40, 45, there is no such qualification and no indication in the immediate context that Jesus had his disciples in mind. What is more, the parallels that are cited use the Greek word μικρός, whereas Mt. 25.40 uses the superlative ἐλάχιστος.15 A second argument in favor of this interpretation has more weight, namely that the word “brother” in Matthew is frequently used with reference to the disciples (12.48-50; 18.15, 21, 35; 23.8; 28.10). But it is possible to see a

82

Identification Saying As for the origin of Jesus’ identification with those who suffer, this question is tied up with the interpretation of the phrase “the least of my brothers” in v. 40. There are two major views.11 The first and probably most common is that the expression refers to all those who suffer. The other view is that it refers to Christians or Christian missionaries. On the second interpretation, it is easier to fit the saying into the life of the early church.12 At a time when Christians were beginning to experience persecution – and the Gospel of Matthew repeatedly refers to the possibility of suffering for the sake of the gospel (5.10-11, 44; 10.17-18) – someone may have created this story in order to emphasize the importance of caring for Christians who suffer. What better motivation could be given than the idea that what one has done to suffering Christians one has really done to Christ himself? One can also speculate that the idea of Jesus’ identification with his disciples originated among Christian ministers who wanted to lend authority to their own ministry. If so, however, one wonders

9.  Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 267. 10.  The identification of Jesus as the Son of Man is also Lamar Cope’s main argument for denying the authenticity of the whole passage (“Matthew XXV: 31–46: ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ Reinterpreted,” NovT 11 (1969): 42). But that argument only applies to v. 31. 11.  For an overview of interpretations and arguments, see Sherman W. Gray, The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25. 31–46: A History of Interpretation, SBLDS 114 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 428–29; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 267–74. 12.  Cope, “Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 42.

83

13.  Cf. J. Ramsey Michaels, who takes “the least of my brothers and sisters” as Christian missionaries, but emphasizes that their description does support an exalted view of the ministry (“Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles,” JBL 34 [1965]: 36). 14.  The New Testament authors frequently urge the believers to honor and care for their ministers (1 Thess. 5.12-14; Gal. 6.6; 1 Cor. 9.3-14; 16.15-18; Heb. 13.17; 1 Pet. 5.5), but this exhortation is never motivated by an appeal to the idea that to honor and care for one’s minister really is to honor Christ. On the other hand, all of the four canonical Gospels frequently attribute the idea of Jesus’ identification with his disciples to Jesus himself (Mk 9.37, 41; Mt. 10.40, 42; 18.5; Lk. 9.48; 10.16; Jn 13.20; cf. Mt. 5.10-11; 10.24-25; Lk. 6.22; 21.12, 17). The evidence from the New Testament does not support the claim that the identification theme in Mt. 25.40, 45 must have originated within the early church. 15.  Cope maintains that the parallel between Mt. 10.42 and 25.40, 45 is conclusive. In both cases, Jesus refers to acts of mercy done to the little ones, and in 10.42 the referent is clearly his disciples. Cope also notes that “the least” are exempt from the judgment in Mt. 25.34-46 (“Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 39). However, the parallel between Mt. 10.42 and 25.40, 45 is not very close. Except for the word “one” (ἕνα and ἑνί), not a single word is repeated. The observation that “the least” do not come before the judgment is tenuous. Their absence is not clearly stated; on the contrary, all nations were gathered (v. 32). To insist that they cannot be in view both as those who have received mercy in the past and as among those presented for judgment now is to understand the apocalyptic scene too woodenly.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

progression in Matthew’s use of the word “brother,” corresponding to the change from the positive “little” to the superlative “least.” From identifying the disciples as his true family in 12.49-50, Jesus now includes even the least as his brothers and sisters in 25.40.16 In favor of the interpretation that “the least of my brothers” refers to all those who suffer, on the other hand, one observes that Matthew’s Jesus has emphasized the need for b­ oundary-breaking love (5.43-48). In his concluding speech, Jesus now connects this exhortation to the eschatological judgment.17 At the level of Matthew’s narrative, therefore, “the least of my brothers” should be taken not as a reference to Christians, but to all those who suffer. If that is how Matthew understood it, it is unlikely that the phrase originally had different connotations. The development would more likely take an originally universal saying and apply it specifically to the church than do the opposite.18 If “the least of my brothers” refers to the marginalized in general, Jesus’ identification with them is indeed striking. On my hypothesis that Jesus understood himself as God’s equal, this identification becomes explicable. God’s identification with those who suffer is known from the Scriptures of Israel and Jewish sources (Prov. 14.31; 19.17; 2 En. 44.2; Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9). Jesus’ own identification with the poor can be seen as another example of how he puts himself in God’s place.19 As a human being experienced in suffering, he

may have intensified that idea and arrived at the more immediate expression of identification that is found in this text.

84

16.  John Paul Heil, “The Double Meaning of the Narrative of Universal Judgment in Matthew 25.31–46,” JSNT 69 (1998): 9. 17.  See further Sigurd Grindheim, “Ignorance Is Bliss: Attitudinal Aspects of the Judgment According to Works in Matthew 25:31–46,” NovT 50 (2008): 328–31. 18.  David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 373. 19.  Egon Brandenburger has argued that the whole passage must have originated in the Hellenistic church. He maintains that the dialogues in vv. 34-45 could not have circulated without a narrative setting, and he observes the very careful composition of these dialogues. On this basis, he rejects the various hypotheses regarding an authentic core that has been edited by the evangelist. He then argues that the idea of Jesus’ brotherhood with the suffering has its closest parallels in Rom. 8.29; Heb. 2.11-18. These passages presuppose the idea of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God. This idea is not in evidence for the historical Jesus, but is first found in the Hellenistic church. Brandenburger therefore concludes that the whole passage is of Hellenistic Christian origin (Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25, 31–46, SBS 99 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980], 20–32, 80–86). But his presuppositions are invalid. That a passage demonstrates a careful composition does not prove that previous versions never existed. More importantly, the presuppositions for Jesus’ identification with the least are not spelled out in this passage. If, as I have argued, Jesus

85

“King” As for the title “king,” this was a ­well-established epithet for God (Ps. 47.3; Isa. 24.34; 33.22; Zeph. 3.15; Obad. 21; Zech. 14.16-17; 1 En. 84.2; Jub. 1.28; Sib. Or. 3.56; Ps. Sol. 17.1; T. Mos. 4.2). The application of the title to Jesus is quite unusual and remarkable. This attribution is often assumed to stem from Christian tradition or from the evangelist himself. But this assumption explains nothing. There is no evidence that the earliest Christians used this title for Jesus. Perhaps because the charge on Jesus’ cross was that he was the king of the Jews, the title remains associated with outsiders to the Jesus movement, as Acts 17.17 shows. The Jews in Thessalonica accuse the Christians, saying “They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus.”20 The evangelist Matthew uses the word “king” relatively frequently. It refers to David (1.6) and secular rulers (2.1, 3, 9; 10.18; 11.18; 14.9; 17.25). In addition, God is referred to as king in the Sermon on the Mount (5.35) and in the parables of the unforgiving servant (18.23) and the wedding banquet (22.2, 7, 11, 13). Jesus is called king by the magi (Mt. 2.2) and mockingly by the Roman soldiers (27.29) and the passers-by at the cross (27.42), as well as in the question from Pilate (27.11) and in the charge that was placed above him on the cross (27.37). In 21.5, Matthew applies Zech. 9.9 to Jesus, where he is called “your king.” But there are no instances where Matthew’s own narrative refers to Jesus as king.21 The rest of the New Testament displays the same pattern. Jesus’ followers do not call him “king.” The exceptions are found in the Gospel of John. In 1.49 Nathanael greets Jesus as the Son of God, the king of Israel. At Jesus’ triumphal

understood himself as God’s equal, he may have attributed to himself the already existing idea of God’s identification with the weak. 20.  Similarly, Wilckens, “Brüder,” 372; and with respect to the Gospel of Mark, Broadhead, Naming Jesus, 78. 21.  Several critics have noted that there is a preponderance of the word “king” in Matthew’s Gospel (J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 230; Cope, “Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 37; Légasse, L’enfant, 89). But Matthew uses the term for God, not for Jesus. Cf. Ingo Broer, “Das Gericht des Menschensohnes über die Völker,” BibLeb 11 (1970): 279–80.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

progression in Matthew’s use of the word “brother,” corresponding to the change from the positive “little” to the superlative “least.” From identifying the disciples as his true family in 12.49-50, Jesus now includes even the least as his brothers and sisters in 25.40.16 In favor of the interpretation that “the least of my brothers” refers to all those who suffer, on the other hand, one observes that Matthew’s Jesus has emphasized the need for b­ oundary-breaking love (5.43-48). In his concluding speech, Jesus now connects this exhortation to the eschatological judgment.17 At the level of Matthew’s narrative, therefore, “the least of my brothers” should be taken not as a reference to Christians, but to all those who suffer. If that is how Matthew understood it, it is unlikely that the phrase originally had different connotations. The development would more likely take an originally universal saying and apply it specifically to the church than do the opposite.18 If “the least of my brothers” refers to the marginalized in general, Jesus’ identification with them is indeed striking. On my hypothesis that Jesus understood himself as God’s equal, this identification becomes explicable. God’s identification with those who suffer is known from the Scriptures of Israel and Jewish sources (Prov. 14.31; 19.17; 2 En. 44.2; Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9). Jesus’ own identification with the poor can be seen as another example of how he puts himself in God’s place.19 As a human being experienced in suffering, he

may have intensified that idea and arrived at the more immediate expression of identification that is found in this text.

84

16.  John Paul Heil, “The Double Meaning of the Narrative of Universal Judgment in Matthew 25.31–46,” JSNT 69 (1998): 9. 17.  See further Sigurd Grindheim, “Ignorance Is Bliss: Attitudinal Aspects of the Judgment According to Works in Matthew 25:31–46,” NovT 50 (2008): 328–31. 18.  David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 373. 19.  Egon Brandenburger has argued that the whole passage must have originated in the Hellenistic church. He maintains that the dialogues in vv. 34-45 could not have circulated without a narrative setting, and he observes the very careful composition of these dialogues. On this basis, he rejects the various hypotheses regarding an authentic core that has been edited by the evangelist. He then argues that the idea of Jesus’ brotherhood with the suffering has its closest parallels in Rom. 8.29; Heb. 2.11-18. These passages presuppose the idea of the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God. This idea is not in evidence for the historical Jesus, but is first found in the Hellenistic church. Brandenburger therefore concludes that the whole passage is of Hellenistic Christian origin (Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25, 31–46, SBS 99 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980], 20–32, 80–86). But his presuppositions are invalid. That a passage demonstrates a careful composition does not prove that previous versions never existed. More importantly, the presuppositions for Jesus’ identification with the least are not spelled out in this passage. If, as I have argued, Jesus

85

“King” As for the title “king,” this was a ­well-established epithet for God (Ps. 47.3; Isa. 24.34; 33.22; Zeph. 3.15; Obad. 21; Zech. 14.16-17; 1 En. 84.2; Jub. 1.28; Sib. Or. 3.56; Ps. Sol. 17.1; T. Mos. 4.2). The application of the title to Jesus is quite unusual and remarkable. This attribution is often assumed to stem from Christian tradition or from the evangelist himself. But this assumption explains nothing. There is no evidence that the earliest Christians used this title for Jesus. Perhaps because the charge on Jesus’ cross was that he was the king of the Jews, the title remains associated with outsiders to the Jesus movement, as Acts 17.17 shows. The Jews in Thessalonica accuse the Christians, saying “They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus.”20 The evangelist Matthew uses the word “king” relatively frequently. It refers to David (1.6) and secular rulers (2.1, 3, 9; 10.18; 11.18; 14.9; 17.25). In addition, God is referred to as king in the Sermon on the Mount (5.35) and in the parables of the unforgiving servant (18.23) and the wedding banquet (22.2, 7, 11, 13). Jesus is called king by the magi (Mt. 2.2) and mockingly by the Roman soldiers (27.29) and the passers-by at the cross (27.42), as well as in the question from Pilate (27.11) and in the charge that was placed above him on the cross (27.37). In 21.5, Matthew applies Zech. 9.9 to Jesus, where he is called “your king.” But there are no instances where Matthew’s own narrative refers to Jesus as king.21 The rest of the New Testament displays the same pattern. Jesus’ followers do not call him “king.” The exceptions are found in the Gospel of John. In 1.49 Nathanael greets Jesus as the Son of God, the king of Israel. At Jesus’ triumphal

understood himself as God’s equal, he may have attributed to himself the already existing idea of God’s identification with the weak. 20.  Similarly, Wilckens, “Brüder,” 372; and with respect to the Gospel of Mark, Broadhead, Naming Jesus, 78. 21.  Several critics have noted that there is a preponderance of the word “king” in Matthew’s Gospel (J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 230; Cope, “Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 37; Légasse, L’enfant, 89). But Matthew uses the term for God, not for Jesus. Cf. Ingo Broer, “Das Gericht des Menschensohnes über die Völker,” BibLeb 11 (1970): 279–80.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

entry into Jerusalem in Jn 12.13, the crowd adds “the king of Israel” to their quotation of Ps. 118.26. Apart from that, Zech. 9.9, with the reference to “your king,” is applied to Jesus (Lk. 19.38; Jn 12.15). Otherwise, when Jesus is called king the title is further qualified, as in “king of kings” (1 Tim. 6.15; Rev. 17.14; 19.16) and “king of the nations” (Rev. 15.3). The best explanation of the use of the title “king” in Mt. 25.34, 40 is therefore that Jesus himself, before Easter, used the title as a s­ elf-reference, and that he thereby appropriated for himself an epithet that was normally used for God. It is less likely that the early Christians, after Easter, would have put in Jesus’ mouth a title that was a favorite of the outsiders of the movement. The use of the title “king” for Jesus must therefore be seen as a stamp of authenticity. For Jesus to use about himself a metaphor that was known to be used for God is not unprecedented. In the virtually undisputedly authentic fasting saying in Mk 2.19, Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom, saying: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” The bridegroom metaphor is frequently used in the Scriptures of Israel and in Judaism for God’s relationship to his people (Hos. 2.19-20; Isa. 54.5-6; Ezek. 16.8; Deut. Rab. 3.16; Pirqe R. El. 41; Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17; see further Chapter 7).

The Criteria for Judgment There are several elements of the passage that can hardly have originated with anyone other than Jesus himself. Many scholars acknowledge that the criteria for judgment are best explained as going back to Jesus.24 These criteria are very difficult to situate in the early church. The highly exalted vision of Christ in this passage indicates that the purpose of the story must have been partly Christological. It would be surprising if the church had created this Christologically significant passage and furnished it with such elaborate criteria for the final judgment, but without any criteria that are explicitly Christological.25 The lack of any such criteria in Mt. 25.31-46 has always puzzled Christian commentators, who struggle to harmonize this passage with the doctrine of justification by faith. The Gospel of Matthew has a lot to say about judgment. In many instances, such as the parables of the weed among the wheat (13.24-30, 36-43), the good

86

Setting If the use of the title “king” hardly fits the setting of the early church, neither does the thrust of the whole passage. It has been suggested that this is an apocalyptic text, whose purpose is to provide comfort for persecuted Christians, but the text does not fit this pattern very well. Jesus nowhere says that those who believe in him will be vindicated and that those who do not believe in him will be condemned. An important feature of the passage is that those who are vindicated are caught by surprise and are ignorant of the reasons for their acquittal.22 It is not much comfort to look ahead to a future judgment if one does not know what the outcome is going to be.23 The function of the passage is rather parenetic: to stress importance of acts of mercy.

22.  Grindheim, “Ignorance,” 314. 23.  Graham Stanton, who has argued at length that Mt. 25.31-46 is an apocalyptic text, maintains that those presented for judgment are ­non-Christians. This makes for a more logically coherent scenario: Christians are comforted by the thought that ­non-Christians will be judged based on how they have treated them (A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew

87

[Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992], 221–30). It assumes that the text is something of a ­genre-bender, however, as comparable apocalyptic texts envision vindication of the faithful members of the community and condemnation of the outsiders. Vindication is not an option for outsiders. The texts quoted by Stanton confirm this picture (Joel 3.1-3; 4 Ezra 7.37-38; 1 En. 62.9-12; 104.3-4). In 2 Bar. 72.2-73.1 (which is from late first century) some of the nations will be spared, not based on their deeds, but after they have become subject to God’s people. Stanton’s attempt at understanding Mt. 25.31-46 as early Christian apocalyptic is therefore unsuccessful. 24.  So J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 233–36; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 418. 25.  The most relevant parallels may be found in the Pauline epistles, where references to judgment according to works may be found in Rom. 2.13, 27; 6.21-22; 14.10-12; 2 Cor. 5.10; Gal. 6.8; Col. 3.23-25. It is impossible here to enter into the full discussion regarding these passages, but for my present purposes it should be noted that none of these passages provide specific ­non-Christological criteria. Arguably, all of them presuppose that faith in Christ is what is decisive in order to stand in judgment. Within the argument of Romans, the righteous uncircumcised person (2.27), the one who is a Jew inwardly (2.29), must be the one who has faith in Christ. The freedom from sin that brings eternal life (Rom. 6.22) is the freedom that is won through Jesus Christ (6.6-7). The reapers of eternal life are those who sow to the Spirit (Gal. 6.8), the Spirit that is given through the gospel of Christ (3.2, 14). Rom. 14.10-12 does not specify any criteria for judgment; the point is merely that God – not human beings – will be the judge. The statements in 2 Cor. 5.10 and Col. 3.23-25 do not provide much more specificity. In 2 Cor. 5.10, the criterion for eschatological reward or punishment is whether one has done good or evil, and in Col. 3.23 the believers in Colossae are assured that they will receive their reward, whereas the wrongdoer will also be paid back. On the other hand, Paul repeatedly makes it clear that the decisive criterion in God’s judgment is whether one has faith in Christ (Rom. 3.26; 5.1-2; 10.4; 2 Cor. 5.19-21; Gal. 2.16; 3.24-26; Phil. 3.8-11). Matthew’s detailed list of criteria with no apparent Christological foundation is unique in the earliest Christian literature.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

entry into Jerusalem in Jn 12.13, the crowd adds “the king of Israel” to their quotation of Ps. 118.26. Apart from that, Zech. 9.9, with the reference to “your king,” is applied to Jesus (Lk. 19.38; Jn 12.15). Otherwise, when Jesus is called king the title is further qualified, as in “king of kings” (1 Tim. 6.15; Rev. 17.14; 19.16) and “king of the nations” (Rev. 15.3). The best explanation of the use of the title “king” in Mt. 25.34, 40 is therefore that Jesus himself, before Easter, used the title as a s­ elf-reference, and that he thereby appropriated for himself an epithet that was normally used for God. It is less likely that the early Christians, after Easter, would have put in Jesus’ mouth a title that was a favorite of the outsiders of the movement. The use of the title “king” for Jesus must therefore be seen as a stamp of authenticity. For Jesus to use about himself a metaphor that was known to be used for God is not unprecedented. In the virtually undisputedly authentic fasting saying in Mk 2.19, Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom, saying: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” The bridegroom metaphor is frequently used in the Scriptures of Israel and in Judaism for God’s relationship to his people (Hos. 2.19-20; Isa. 54.5-6; Ezek. 16.8; Deut. Rab. 3.16; Pirqe R. El. 41; Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17; see further Chapter 7).

The Criteria for Judgment There are several elements of the passage that can hardly have originated with anyone other than Jesus himself. Many scholars acknowledge that the criteria for judgment are best explained as going back to Jesus.24 These criteria are very difficult to situate in the early church. The highly exalted vision of Christ in this passage indicates that the purpose of the story must have been partly Christological. It would be surprising if the church had created this Christologically significant passage and furnished it with such elaborate criteria for the final judgment, but without any criteria that are explicitly Christological.25 The lack of any such criteria in Mt. 25.31-46 has always puzzled Christian commentators, who struggle to harmonize this passage with the doctrine of justification by faith. The Gospel of Matthew has a lot to say about judgment. In many instances, such as the parables of the weed among the wheat (13.24-30, 36-43), the good

86

Setting If the use of the title “king” hardly fits the setting of the early church, neither does the thrust of the whole passage. It has been suggested that this is an apocalyptic text, whose purpose is to provide comfort for persecuted Christians, but the text does not fit this pattern very well. Jesus nowhere says that those who believe in him will be vindicated and that those who do not believe in him will be condemned. An important feature of the passage is that those who are vindicated are caught by surprise and are ignorant of the reasons for their acquittal.22 It is not much comfort to look ahead to a future judgment if one does not know what the outcome is going to be.23 The function of the passage is rather parenetic: to stress importance of acts of mercy.

22.  Grindheim, “Ignorance,” 314. 23.  Graham Stanton, who has argued at length that Mt. 25.31-46 is an apocalyptic text, maintains that those presented for judgment are ­non-Christians. This makes for a more logically coherent scenario: Christians are comforted by the thought that ­non-Christians will be judged based on how they have treated them (A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew

87

[Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992], 221–30). It assumes that the text is something of a ­genre-bender, however, as comparable apocalyptic texts envision vindication of the faithful members of the community and condemnation of the outsiders. Vindication is not an option for outsiders. The texts quoted by Stanton confirm this picture (Joel 3.1-3; 4 Ezra 7.37-38; 1 En. 62.9-12; 104.3-4). In 2 Bar. 72.2-73.1 (which is from late first century) some of the nations will be spared, not based on their deeds, but after they have become subject to God’s people. Stanton’s attempt at understanding Mt. 25.31-46 as early Christian apocalyptic is therefore unsuccessful. 24.  So J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 233–36; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 418. 25.  The most relevant parallels may be found in the Pauline epistles, where references to judgment according to works may be found in Rom. 2.13, 27; 6.21-22; 14.10-12; 2 Cor. 5.10; Gal. 6.8; Col. 3.23-25. It is impossible here to enter into the full discussion regarding these passages, but for my present purposes it should be noted that none of these passages provide specific ­non-Christological criteria. Arguably, all of them presuppose that faith in Christ is what is decisive in order to stand in judgment. Within the argument of Romans, the righteous uncircumcised person (2.27), the one who is a Jew inwardly (2.29), must be the one who has faith in Christ. The freedom from sin that brings eternal life (Rom. 6.22) is the freedom that is won through Jesus Christ (6.6-7). The reapers of eternal life are those who sow to the Spirit (Gal. 6.8), the Spirit that is given through the gospel of Christ (3.2, 14). Rom. 14.10-12 does not specify any criteria for judgment; the point is merely that God – not human beings – will be the judge. The statements in 2 Cor. 5.10 and Col. 3.23-25 do not provide much more specificity. In 2 Cor. 5.10, the criterion for eschatological reward or punishment is whether one has done good or evil, and in Col. 3.23 the believers in Colossae are assured that they will receive their reward, whereas the wrongdoer will also be paid back. On the other hand, Paul repeatedly makes it clear that the decisive criterion in God’s judgment is whether one has faith in Christ (Rom. 3.26; 5.1-2; 10.4; 2 Cor. 5.19-21; Gal. 2.16; 3.24-26; Phil. 3.8-11). Matthew’s detailed list of criteria with no apparent Christological foundation is unique in the earliest Christian literature.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

and the bad fish (13.47-50), the laborers in the vineyard (20.1-16), the wedding banquet (22.1-14), and the parable of the talents (25.14-30), a coming judgment is presupposed, but no specifics are provided as to the criteria for this judgment. When such criteria are spelled out, they are usually tied directly to one’s relationship with Christ, such as to have followed Jesus’ teaching (7.2427; 13.10-17, 37-38), to have accepted the signs Jesus did (11.20-24), to have received Jesus oneself (21.33-46; 23.37-39), to have waited vigilantly for the bridegroom, Jesus (25.1-13),26 or not to have caused those who believe in him to stumble (18.6-9). The programmatic saying in 5.20, about the need for a greater righteousness to enter the kingdom of heaven, is not directly Christologically defined, but the greater righteousness must refer to the teaching that Jesus offered in the Sermon on the Mount and that transcends the law. It is thus based on acceptance of the authority of Jesus as the new Moses. Similarly, in the encounter with the rich young man (19.16-30), Jesus maintained that observance of the Mosaic Law is insufficient. It was necessary for the rich young man to sell everything he owned and follow Jesus in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. There is only one saying that contains criteria for judgment that are not Christological. That is the saying about the speck and the log in Mt. 7.1-2, where Jesus says that you will be judged by the judgment you make. But this saying has more of a proverbial character and is not necessarily eschatological, like the other passages that reflect the judgment theme. The list of criteria in Mt. 25.35-36 is quite unusual, therefore. It does not correspond to an obvious redactional tendency on Matthew’s part, but it does correspond to what we know about Jesus’ focus on deeds of mercy.27 Regarding the criteria for judgment, there is thus a considerable degree of

discontinuity with the early church. But if we turn to the Jewish context, we observe a high degree of continuity. All the acts of mercy found in Mt. 25.3536 are paralleled in comparable Jewish lists, except the reference to visiting those in prison (cf. Isa. 58.7; Ezek. 18.7, 16; Job 22.6-7; 31.17, 19, 21, 31-32; Tob. 1.16-17; 4.16; Sir. 7.34-35; 2 En. 9; 42.8; 63.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 7; b. Soṭah 14a). On the other hand, the deed of providing a burial for the dead, sometimes included in comparable Jewish lists (cf. Tob. 1.7; b. Soṭah 14a; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 34.6), is missing from the list in Matthew. In Mt. 8.21-22 par. Jesus refused the request of a would-be disciple to bury his father. Jesus’ attitude here is surprisingly strict, as Jews considered the responsibility to provide a funeral for one’s parents to be one of the most important commandments. As Jesus’ words fit neither a Jewish nor a Hellenistic context, most scholars hold this saying to be authentic (cf. Chapter 6).28 Turning again to the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46, we note that the substitution of prison visits for the deed of providing a burial is a feature that corresponds to what we otherwise know about Jesus.29 It also harmonizes well with Jesus’ message of b­ oundary-breaking love. By the criterion of coherence, therefore, at least this element is likely to go back to Jesus himself. To sum up the discussion of the origin of Matthew 25.31-46, it is possible to situate the passage in the life of a church that suffers persecution, if one adopts a restrictive interpretation of “the least of my brothers.” But there are several elements that are difficult to explain if the passage is not authentic, such as the use of the title “king” for Jesus, the difficulty of reading the passage as a word of comfort, and the lack of Christologically defined criteria for judgment. On the other hand, the thrust of the passage corresponds well with the message of Jesus, especially if the universal interpretation is adopted. I conclude, therefore, that the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46 goes back to the historical Jesus, even if it may have been edited by Matthew or by his source.30

88

26.  In the context of Matthew’s Gospel, the bridegroom is Jesus. A number of scholars argue that the parable was originally spoken by Jesus, but that he meant the bridegroom as a reference to God (cf. note 31). Their argument corroborates the point I am making here: ­non-Christological judgment scenes are from the historical Jesus; the tendency of the early church is to make judgment scenes Christological. 27.  Wilckens observes the bold identification of the Son of Man with those who suffer. He thinks this move cannot be explained by the hortatory interests of the evangelist (“Brüder,” 375–76). Catchpole notes that the criteria cohere with the authentic voice of Jesus (“The Poor,” 389–92). H. E. W. Turner finds the creative use of the criteria likely to stem from the historical Jesus “Expounding the Parables: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats [Mt 25:31–46],” ExpTim 77 [1965–66]: 243).

89

28.  Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, ed. John Riches, trans. James C. G. Greig, reprint, 1981 (New York: Crossroad, 1996), 5–8; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 252–53; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 50, 93. The Jesus seminar voted the saying pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 160). 29.  This element is ignored by Cope, who maintains that Matthew’s judgment scene bears little originality compared to Jewish lists of merciful acts and that these acts are often seen in Matthew’s redactional remarks (“Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 41–42). 30.  Similarly, Manson, Sayings, 249; Jeremias, Parables, 207–9; J. A. T. Robinson,

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

and the bad fish (13.47-50), the laborers in the vineyard (20.1-16), the wedding banquet (22.1-14), and the parable of the talents (25.14-30), a coming judgment is presupposed, but no specifics are provided as to the criteria for this judgment. When such criteria are spelled out, they are usually tied directly to one’s relationship with Christ, such as to have followed Jesus’ teaching (7.2427; 13.10-17, 37-38), to have accepted the signs Jesus did (11.20-24), to have received Jesus oneself (21.33-46; 23.37-39), to have waited vigilantly for the bridegroom, Jesus (25.1-13),26 or not to have caused those who believe in him to stumble (18.6-9). The programmatic saying in 5.20, about the need for a greater righteousness to enter the kingdom of heaven, is not directly Christologically defined, but the greater righteousness must refer to the teaching that Jesus offered in the Sermon on the Mount and that transcends the law. It is thus based on acceptance of the authority of Jesus as the new Moses. Similarly, in the encounter with the rich young man (19.16-30), Jesus maintained that observance of the Mosaic Law is insufficient. It was necessary for the rich young man to sell everything he owned and follow Jesus in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. There is only one saying that contains criteria for judgment that are not Christological. That is the saying about the speck and the log in Mt. 7.1-2, where Jesus says that you will be judged by the judgment you make. But this saying has more of a proverbial character and is not necessarily eschatological, like the other passages that reflect the judgment theme. The list of criteria in Mt. 25.35-36 is quite unusual, therefore. It does not correspond to an obvious redactional tendency on Matthew’s part, but it does correspond to what we know about Jesus’ focus on deeds of mercy.27 Regarding the criteria for judgment, there is thus a considerable degree of

discontinuity with the early church. But if we turn to the Jewish context, we observe a high degree of continuity. All the acts of mercy found in Mt. 25.3536 are paralleled in comparable Jewish lists, except the reference to visiting those in prison (cf. Isa. 58.7; Ezek. 18.7, 16; Job 22.6-7; 31.17, 19, 21, 31-32; Tob. 1.16-17; 4.16; Sir. 7.34-35; 2 En. 9; 42.8; 63.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 7; b. Soṭah 14a). On the other hand, the deed of providing a burial for the dead, sometimes included in comparable Jewish lists (cf. Tob. 1.7; b. Soṭah 14a; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 34.6), is missing from the list in Matthew. In Mt. 8.21-22 par. Jesus refused the request of a would-be disciple to bury his father. Jesus’ attitude here is surprisingly strict, as Jews considered the responsibility to provide a funeral for one’s parents to be one of the most important commandments. As Jesus’ words fit neither a Jewish nor a Hellenistic context, most scholars hold this saying to be authentic (cf. Chapter 6).28 Turning again to the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46, we note that the substitution of prison visits for the deed of providing a burial is a feature that corresponds to what we otherwise know about Jesus.29 It also harmonizes well with Jesus’ message of b­ oundary-breaking love. By the criterion of coherence, therefore, at least this element is likely to go back to Jesus himself. To sum up the discussion of the origin of Matthew 25.31-46, it is possible to situate the passage in the life of a church that suffers persecution, if one adopts a restrictive interpretation of “the least of my brothers.” But there are several elements that are difficult to explain if the passage is not authentic, such as the use of the title “king” for Jesus, the difficulty of reading the passage as a word of comfort, and the lack of Christologically defined criteria for judgment. On the other hand, the thrust of the passage corresponds well with the message of Jesus, especially if the universal interpretation is adopted. I conclude, therefore, that the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46 goes back to the historical Jesus, even if it may have been edited by Matthew or by his source.30

88

26.  In the context of Matthew’s Gospel, the bridegroom is Jesus. A number of scholars argue that the parable was originally spoken by Jesus, but that he meant the bridegroom as a reference to God (cf. note 31). Their argument corroborates the point I am making here: ­non-Christological judgment scenes are from the historical Jesus; the tendency of the early church is to make judgment scenes Christological. 27.  Wilckens observes the bold identification of the Son of Man with those who suffer. He thinks this move cannot be explained by the hortatory interests of the evangelist (“Brüder,” 375–76). Catchpole notes that the criteria cohere with the authentic voice of Jesus (“The Poor,” 389–92). H. E. W. Turner finds the creative use of the criteria likely to stem from the historical Jesus “Expounding the Parables: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats [Mt 25:31–46],” ExpTim 77 [1965–66]: 243).

89

28.  Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, ed. John Riches, trans. James C. G. Greig, reprint, 1981 (New York: Crossroad, 1996), 5–8; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 252–53; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 50, 93. The Jesus seminar voted the saying pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 160). 29.  This element is ignored by Cope, who maintains that Matthew’s judgment scene bears little originality compared to Jewish lists of merciful acts and that these acts are often seen in Matthew’s redactional remarks (“Matthew XXV: 31–46,” 41–42). 30.  Similarly, Manson, Sayings, 249; Jeremias, Parables, 207–9; J. A. T. Robinson,

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

God as Judge? Advocates of this view often maintain that originally God was depicted as the judge. In the course of redaction, changes were made so that Jesus took the role of judge. The elements that most frequently are ascribed to redaction include the introduction, where the Son of Man is seated on the throne; the insertion of “my Father” in v. 34 (cf. v. 41), to say that the righteous are blessed by “my Father” and thus introduce a distinction between the judge and God; and the insertion of the term “brothers” in v. 40 (cf. v. 45), to identify the judge as the brother – and not the father – of the marginalized. If the passage is stripped of these allegedly redactional elements, nothing prevents us from seeing God as the judge.31 But if the passage has been worked over to change the identity of the judge, it becomes difficult to explain the use of the title “king.” We have already seen

that it is unlikely to have been introduced as a title for Jesus in the course of tradition.32 It is possible that the title “king” belonged in the original version and that it referred to God. But if so, why was it not changed to an established title for Jesus when the identity of the judge was changed from God to Jesus? Moreover, if Jesus originally spoke about God as judge, he must also have envisioned God as the one who identified with the least. This identification is paralleled in Jewish sources (Prov. 14.31; 19.17; 2 En. 44.2; Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9), but it is problematic in this context. It would mean that acts done or not done toward God are what is decisive in the final judgment. But elsewhere, Jesus refers to one’s attitude towards himself as decisive in judgment (Mt. 10.32-33; Mk 8.38; Lk. 9.26; 12.8-9). It would cohere better with Jesus’ own message if Jesus was also the one who was identified with the least in this judgment scene. If so, he must be the judge as well. Several scholars have observed that the judge’s identification with the poor here goes one step further than what is attested in Jewish sources. Whereas Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9 can say that food given to the poor is counted as though it were given to God, Jesus claims that deeds done to the least are done to him. This heightened identification is easier to account for if it is attributed to the human being Jesus than if it is attributed to God.33 Not only is the identification unusually close, in this judgment scene the judge himself is the one who is identified with the poor.34 This combination is also more naturally attributed to Jesus than to God.35

90

“The Sheep and the Goats,” 225–36; Légasse, L’enfant, 86–93; Broer, “Gericht,” 276–84; Wilckens, “Brüder,” 365–76; Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 217–19; Marguerat, Jugement, 493–94; Christian Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, Europäische Hochschulschriften 653 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 439–49; Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 325–26; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1023–24. Catchpole concludes that the whole passage, 25.31-46, essentially goes back to the historical Jesus (“The Poor,” 356–92). Johannes Friedrich argues on the basis of linguistic criteria, the criterion of coherence, and the absence of the theology of the early church that the passage is likely to be authentic (Gott im Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25,31–46, Calwer Theologische Monographien A, 7 [Stuttgart, 1977], 289–96). Zumstein and Victor Kossi Agbanou conclude based on word statistics that Mt. 25.32b-46 contains a ­pre-Matthean tradition (Jean Zumstein, La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu, OBO 16 [Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1977], 329–33; Victor Kossi Agbanou, Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25: Tradition et rédaction, EBib 2 [Paris: Gabalda, 1983], 184–94; similarly, Gérard Claudel, “Le Jugement comme révélation chez Matthieu: Une lecture de Mt 25,31–46,” in Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser, vol. 2 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, ed. Claude Coulot, LD 198 [Paris: Cerf, 2004], 68–80). 31.  Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 207–8; J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 237; Broer, “Gericht,” 286–88; Wilckens, “Brüder,” 377; Zumstein, La condition, 334; Lambrecht, The Parables of Jesus, 219; Marguerat, Jugement, 493–94; David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, SNTSMS 88 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 125; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 395; Wiefel, Matthäus, 433–34; Hultgren, Parables, 325; Claudel, “Le Jugement,” 58–62; Nolland, Matthew, 1023, 1027, 1031–32. Bultmann thought the passage came from Jewish tradition, and that Jesus had been substituted for God as the judge when it was Christianized in the early church (Geschichte, 131). For a refutation, see Broer, “Gericht,” 285–88; David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 356–73.

91

32.  Several scholars attribute the term “king” to Matthean redaction, but they ignore the fact that Matthew elsewhere uses the term for God, not for Jesus. Cf. note 21. 33. Schweizer, Matthew, 476. For other reasons, Schweizer considers the judgment scene to have originated in the early church (cf. above). 34.  Herbert Braun finds no parallels in Jewish or Egyptian sources to this combination (Die Synoptiker, vol. 2 of ­Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 24/II [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957], 94, n. 2). 35.  Broer, who notes how the identification theme sets this judgment scene apart, nevertheless concludes that the judge originally was God. The decisive argument for him is the use of the epithet “king,” which is unattested as an epithet for Jesus in the earlier sources. He therefore concludes that the king originally was God, and that Matthew preserved the term even though the judge later was identified as God (“Gericht,” 285–88). This argument can also be turned around, however. If the identity of the judge was changed and a clear Christological title such as “Son of Man” was imposed upon the existing material, why preserve a title that was frequently used for God, but never for Jesus?

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

God as Judge? Advocates of this view often maintain that originally God was depicted as the judge. In the course of redaction, changes were made so that Jesus took the role of judge. The elements that most frequently are ascribed to redaction include the introduction, where the Son of Man is seated on the throne; the insertion of “my Father” in v. 34 (cf. v. 41), to say that the righteous are blessed by “my Father” and thus introduce a distinction between the judge and God; and the insertion of the term “brothers” in v. 40 (cf. v. 45), to identify the judge as the brother – and not the father – of the marginalized. If the passage is stripped of these allegedly redactional elements, nothing prevents us from seeing God as the judge.31 But if the passage has been worked over to change the identity of the judge, it becomes difficult to explain the use of the title “king.” We have already seen

that it is unlikely to have been introduced as a title for Jesus in the course of tradition.32 It is possible that the title “king” belonged in the original version and that it referred to God. But if so, why was it not changed to an established title for Jesus when the identity of the judge was changed from God to Jesus? Moreover, if Jesus originally spoke about God as judge, he must also have envisioned God as the one who identified with the least. This identification is paralleled in Jewish sources (Prov. 14.31; 19.17; 2 En. 44.2; Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9), but it is problematic in this context. It would mean that acts done or not done toward God are what is decisive in the final judgment. But elsewhere, Jesus refers to one’s attitude towards himself as decisive in judgment (Mt. 10.32-33; Mk 8.38; Lk. 9.26; 12.8-9). It would cohere better with Jesus’ own message if Jesus was also the one who was identified with the least in this judgment scene. If so, he must be the judge as well. Several scholars have observed that the judge’s identification with the poor here goes one step further than what is attested in Jewish sources. Whereas Midr. Tanḥ. Deut. 15.9 can say that food given to the poor is counted as though it were given to God, Jesus claims that deeds done to the least are done to him. This heightened identification is easier to account for if it is attributed to the human being Jesus than if it is attributed to God.33 Not only is the identification unusually close, in this judgment scene the judge himself is the one who is identified with the poor.34 This combination is also more naturally attributed to Jesus than to God.35

90

“The Sheep and the Goats,” 225–36; Légasse, L’enfant, 86–93; Broer, “Gericht,” 276–84; Wilckens, “Brüder,” 365–76; Jan Lambrecht, Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 217–19; Marguerat, Jugement, 493–94; Christian Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, Europäische Hochschulschriften 653 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 439–49; Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 325–26; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1023–24. Catchpole concludes that the whole passage, 25.31-46, essentially goes back to the historical Jesus (“The Poor,” 356–92). Johannes Friedrich argues on the basis of linguistic criteria, the criterion of coherence, and the absence of the theology of the early church that the passage is likely to be authentic (Gott im Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25,31–46, Calwer Theologische Monographien A, 7 [Stuttgart, 1977], 289–96). Zumstein and Victor Kossi Agbanou conclude based on word statistics that Mt. 25.32b-46 contains a ­pre-Matthean tradition (Jean Zumstein, La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu, OBO 16 [Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1977], 329–33; Victor Kossi Agbanou, Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25: Tradition et rédaction, EBib 2 [Paris: Gabalda, 1983], 184–94; similarly, Gérard Claudel, “Le Jugement comme révélation chez Matthieu: Une lecture de Mt 25,31–46,” in Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser, vol. 2 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, ed. Claude Coulot, LD 198 [Paris: Cerf, 2004], 68–80). 31.  Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 207–8; J. A. T. Robinson, “The Sheep and the Goats,” 237; Broer, “Gericht,” 286–88; Wilckens, “Brüder,” 377; Zumstein, La condition, 334; Lambrecht, The Parables of Jesus, 219; Marguerat, Jugement, 493–94; David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, SNTSMS 88 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 125; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 395; Wiefel, Matthäus, 433–34; Hultgren, Parables, 325; Claudel, “Le Jugement,” 58–62; Nolland, Matthew, 1023, 1027, 1031–32. Bultmann thought the passage came from Jewish tradition, and that Jesus had been substituted for God as the judge when it was Christianized in the early church (Geschichte, 131). For a refutation, see Broer, “Gericht,” 285–88; David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 356–73.

91

32.  Several scholars attribute the term “king” to Matthean redaction, but they ignore the fact that Matthew elsewhere uses the term for God, not for Jesus. Cf. note 21. 33. Schweizer, Matthew, 476. For other reasons, Schweizer considers the judgment scene to have originated in the early church (cf. above). 34.  Herbert Braun finds no parallels in Jewish or Egyptian sources to this combination (Die Synoptiker, vol. 2 of ­Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 24/II [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957], 94, n. 2). 35.  Broer, who notes how the identification theme sets this judgment scene apart, nevertheless concludes that the judge originally was God. The decisive argument for him is the use of the epithet “king,” which is unattested as an epithet for Jesus in the earlier sources. He therefore concludes that the king originally was God, and that Matthew preserved the term even though the judge later was identified as God (“Gericht,” 285–88). This argument can also be turned around, however. If the identity of the judge was changed and a clear Christological title such as “Son of Man” was imposed upon the existing material, why preserve a title that was frequently used for God, but never for Jesus?

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

In the final analysis, however, it is impossible to demonstrate that Jesus originally did not refer to God as the judge. A possibility cannot be disproven. This particular hypothesis runs against some counter indications that I have outlined above, but they are not insurmountable. On balance, however, one should not assume that the meaning of a text has been changed decisively in the course of tradition unless there are good reasons for such an assumption. In this case, the weightiest objection against seeing Jesus as having described himself in this scene seems to be that Jesus hardly could have envisioned himself as judge. But if, as I have argued, that possibility cannot be ruled out from the outset, it is more likely that Jesus spoke about himself than that he spoke about God.36

It is not stated explicitly, but the scene most likely presupposes a general resurrection and the gathering of some or all of the resurrected for the final verdict. If so, then Jesus emerges as the judge that on his own authority passes a verdict that determines people’s destiny in the afterlife.38

92

The Nature of the Judgment I will therefore proceed with my investigation, assuming that the core of Mt. 25.34-46 goes back to the historical Jesus and that Jesus saw himself as the judge. However, the uncertainty of the original form of the judgment scene makes it impossible to know the scope of judgment that Jesus envisioned. Matthew’s version refers to the gathering of “all the nations” (v. 32), but that phrase is usually considered redactional. At the level of Matthew’s Gospel, interpreters differ as to whether the church and the Jewish people are included.37 Even if the phrase should be original, the lack of a broader original context makes it even more difficult to know what Jesus might have meant by it. If we restrict ourselves to the part that has the best claim to authenticity, vv. 34-46, there are no clear indications of the scope of the judgment. It is clear, however, that the picture is of an eschatological judgment. There is no regular procedure, but an apparently omniscient judge presents the evidence in each case and pronounces an unappealable verdict. This verdict concerns the entire life of the respective groups and determines whether they will participate in the eschatological reward or suffer eschatological punishment (vv. 34, 41, 46). 36.  Similarly, Manson, Sayings, 249; Friedrich, Gott im Bruder? 180–83; David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 378; Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, 442–43. Zager concludes that all the Son of Man sayings that refer to a final judgment are secondary (Gottesherrschaft, 274). He does not discuss the evidence for Jesus as judge that is treated here, Mt. 19.28/ Lk. 22.30 and Mt. 25.34-46. 37.  For an overview of the different views of the scope of judgment, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 422; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 267–74.

93

Eschatological Judgment in Second Temple Judaism The Messiah The expectation of an eschatological judgment that would determine people’s destiny in the afterlife is well attested in Jewish sources.39 As far as the available evidence goes, however, there is no ­pre-Christian expectation that the Messiah would function as the eschatological judge. It is difficult to systematize the material describing the diverse eschatological views of Second Temple Judaism, but the later sources describe a general resurrection and a universal judgment that will take place at the end of the Messiah’s rule, when God himself will be the judge (4 Ezra 7.26-44; 2 Bar. 30.1-5). In some of the earlier sources, the Messiah comes to put an end to the evil forces of the world (Sib. Or. 3.652-54; Philo, Praem. 95).40 But in the portrayal of the messianic times in the Sibylline Oracles (3.652-795), for example, God is consistently the one who judges (3.671-72, 693, 742; cf. 3.56, 91). Under this messianic rule, Israel will have peace and be restored to glory. These descriptions take on paradisiacal dimensions, but do not assume a general resurrection or a discontinuation of the present world order. The Messiah’s rule is modeled after that of King David. In the Psalms of Solomon, the author entreats God to raise up a son of David (17.21), who will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God (17.26). The sense is that he will rule justly over Israel, as 38.  Manson maintains that the verdict is ultimately passed by the Father, as the judge says “come, you that are blessed by my Father” (25.34; see Sayings, 250). But this is to read too much into the judge’s announcement. The blessing of the Father is the basis for the judge’s verdict, but it is still the judge who passes sentence. 39.  For Jewish expectations of the eschatological judgment, see Larry J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, JSNTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 29–91; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 19–143; Nicola Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund, WMANT 96 (Göttingen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 28–154; Gregg, Final Judgment, 35–78. 40. Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 338–39; Schürer, The History, Vol. 2, 526–27, 544–46; ­Beasley-Murray, Kingdom, 47–48.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

In the final analysis, however, it is impossible to demonstrate that Jesus originally did not refer to God as the judge. A possibility cannot be disproven. This particular hypothesis runs against some counter indications that I have outlined above, but they are not insurmountable. On balance, however, one should not assume that the meaning of a text has been changed decisively in the course of tradition unless there are good reasons for such an assumption. In this case, the weightiest objection against seeing Jesus as having described himself in this scene seems to be that Jesus hardly could have envisioned himself as judge. But if, as I have argued, that possibility cannot be ruled out from the outset, it is more likely that Jesus spoke about himself than that he spoke about God.36

It is not stated explicitly, but the scene most likely presupposes a general resurrection and the gathering of some or all of the resurrected for the final verdict. If so, then Jesus emerges as the judge that on his own authority passes a verdict that determines people’s destiny in the afterlife.38

92

The Nature of the Judgment I will therefore proceed with my investigation, assuming that the core of Mt. 25.34-46 goes back to the historical Jesus and that Jesus saw himself as the judge. However, the uncertainty of the original form of the judgment scene makes it impossible to know the scope of judgment that Jesus envisioned. Matthew’s version refers to the gathering of “all the nations” (v. 32), but that phrase is usually considered redactional. At the level of Matthew’s Gospel, interpreters differ as to whether the church and the Jewish people are included.37 Even if the phrase should be original, the lack of a broader original context makes it even more difficult to know what Jesus might have meant by it. If we restrict ourselves to the part that has the best claim to authenticity, vv. 34-46, there are no clear indications of the scope of the judgment. It is clear, however, that the picture is of an eschatological judgment. There is no regular procedure, but an apparently omniscient judge presents the evidence in each case and pronounces an unappealable verdict. This verdict concerns the entire life of the respective groups and determines whether they will participate in the eschatological reward or suffer eschatological punishment (vv. 34, 41, 46). 36.  Similarly, Manson, Sayings, 249; Friedrich, Gott im Bruder? 180–83; David R. Catchpole, “The Poor,” 378; Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, 442–43. Zager concludes that all the Son of Man sayings that refer to a final judgment are secondary (Gottesherrschaft, 274). He does not discuss the evidence for Jesus as judge that is treated here, Mt. 19.28/ Lk. 22.30 and Mt. 25.34-46. 37.  For an overview of the different views of the scope of judgment, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 422; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 267–74.

93

Eschatological Judgment in Second Temple Judaism The Messiah The expectation of an eschatological judgment that would determine people’s destiny in the afterlife is well attested in Jewish sources.39 As far as the available evidence goes, however, there is no ­pre-Christian expectation that the Messiah would function as the eschatological judge. It is difficult to systematize the material describing the diverse eschatological views of Second Temple Judaism, but the later sources describe a general resurrection and a universal judgment that will take place at the end of the Messiah’s rule, when God himself will be the judge (4 Ezra 7.26-44; 2 Bar. 30.1-5). In some of the earlier sources, the Messiah comes to put an end to the evil forces of the world (Sib. Or. 3.652-54; Philo, Praem. 95).40 But in the portrayal of the messianic times in the Sibylline Oracles (3.652-795), for example, God is consistently the one who judges (3.671-72, 693, 742; cf. 3.56, 91). Under this messianic rule, Israel will have peace and be restored to glory. These descriptions take on paradisiacal dimensions, but do not assume a general resurrection or a discontinuation of the present world order. The Messiah’s rule is modeled after that of King David. In the Psalms of Solomon, the author entreats God to raise up a son of David (17.21), who will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God (17.26). The sense is that he will rule justly over Israel, as 38.  Manson maintains that the verdict is ultimately passed by the Father, as the judge says “come, you that are blessed by my Father” (25.34; see Sayings, 250). But this is to read too much into the judge’s announcement. The blessing of the Father is the basis for the judge’s verdict, but it is still the judge who passes sentence. 39.  For Jewish expectations of the eschatological judgment, see Larry J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, JSNTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 29–91; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 19–143; Nicola Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund, WMANT 96 (Göttingen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 28–154; Gregg, Final Judgment, 35–78. 40. Moore, Judaism, Vol. 2, 338–39; Schürer, The History, Vol. 2, 526–27, 544–46; ­Beasley-Murray, Kingdom, 47–48.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

in the early days of David’s son Solomon (1 Kgs 3.9, 28).41 According to v. 29, his just rule will be extended also to the nations.42 Perhaps it is along these lines that we should also understand the obscure “Son of God” text from Qumran (4Q246). This text describes a character that will be called son of God and son of the Most High (4Q246 ii.1). The question of the identity of this figure is disputed among the experts. Some scholars have identified him with a historical person, but most understand the text to be messianic.43 The text says that “his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace” (4Q246 ii.5-6). The scene described is comparable to that of Psalms of Solomon 17: the current miserable state of the world, with oppressive people ruling the earth (4Q246 i.4), crushing everything (4Q246 ii.3), will continue “until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword” (4Q246 ii.4). The change that eventually will take place is thus not a change of the world order, but is continuous with the present world. When the son of God comes, his rule is described as “judging” and it will extend to the whole earth (4Q246 ii.5-7). Continuing the Davidic imagery, the author of the scroll adds that God will be his strength; God will wage war for him (4Q246 ii.7-8; cf. 2 Sam. 22.33, 40; Ps. 18.33, 40).44 There is no reason to conclude that the son of God in this text is attributed with an absolute judgment that concerns the totality of people’s lives, in the sense that Jesus claimed for himself in Mt. 25.34-46.

A judging Messiah also appears in Fourth Ezra, but his function as judge is limited. In 4 Ezra 7.28-29, the reign of the Messiah is expected to last for 400 years, after which the Messiah will die. A more detailed description is provided in Ezra’s eagle vision, where the Messiah plays an important role. Having been kept by God until the end of days, he will emerge in order to censure the Roman Empire (12.32). The Romans will be presented before his judgment seat, and then they will be destroyed by him (12.33; cf. 13.37-38). Judgment is not here associated with passing a verdict; the meaning of “judgment” is closer to vengeance. The Messiah will carry out the judgment and punish the evildoers. His judgment is also not ultimate. When he has delivered the remnant of God’s people from oppression, the final day of judgment will come (12.34).45 A similar picture is painted in 2 Baruch, where the Messiah appears to convict the last ruler of all of his wicked deeds (40.1) before he kills him (40.2; cf. 72.2).

94

41.  Reiser correctly observes that we must distinguish between the Messiah’s office as judge and the judgment he carries out. The former refers to his just rule (17.26, 29), the latter to his punishment of the sinners (17.24-25). See Jesus and Judgment, 49. 42.  The archangel Michael is invested with similar attributes. He brings perfect justice to the world (1QM 17.8). He is not, however, judge in the sense of determining the eternal destiny of people. This distinction appears to be overlooked by Reiser (Jesus and Judgment, 156). For a discussion of these different visions of “judgment,” see Hanna Roose, Eschatologische Mitherrschaft: Entwicklungslinien einer urchristlichen Erwartung, NTOA 54 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 35–36, 44–45. 43.  Florentino García Martínez, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 159–90; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 154–67. See further Chapter 8. 44.  For the connections between Ps. Sol. 17 and 4Q246, see also Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118 (1999): 454.

95

Abel Commentators have therefore noted that the description of Jesus as judge in Matthew 25.31-46 is without any known parallel among Jewish messianic expectations.46 The renewed interest in the Jewish Jesus has instead focused attention on other characters that were described as an eschatological judge. Perhaps the best parallel to the idea of an exalted human being as judge is the picture of Abel found in the Testament of Abraham.47 This writing is

45.  The Messiah’s judgment in 4 Ezra 12.32-34 must not be confused with God’s judgment in 7.33-44, therefore. So, correctly, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 105; contra Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II/142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 100. G. H. Box argues that 12.34 has been added by the redactor of 4 Ezra, in order to harmonize the eagle vision with the view of the Messiah in 7.28-29 (The ­Ezra-Apocalypse, Being Chapters 3–14 of the Book Commonly Known as 4 Ezra [or II Esdras] [London: Sir Isaac Pitman, 1912], 274). But see Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 210. 46.  There are a few known instances where a messianic character is described as an eschatological judge, but they are all late (Tg. Isa. 53.9; b. Ḥag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b). Cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 266. 47.  David E. Aune, “The Judgement Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5.10),” in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel, ed. Janice Capel Anderson, Claudia Setzer, and Philip Sellew, JSNTSup 221 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 83; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 421; Flusser, Jesus, 130; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 156.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

in the early days of David’s son Solomon (1 Kgs 3.9, 28).41 According to v. 29, his just rule will be extended also to the nations.42 Perhaps it is along these lines that we should also understand the obscure “Son of God” text from Qumran (4Q246). This text describes a character that will be called son of God and son of the Most High (4Q246 ii.1). The question of the identity of this figure is disputed among the experts. Some scholars have identified him with a historical person, but most understand the text to be messianic.43 The text says that “his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace” (4Q246 ii.5-6). The scene described is comparable to that of Psalms of Solomon 17: the current miserable state of the world, with oppressive people ruling the earth (4Q246 i.4), crushing everything (4Q246 ii.3), will continue “until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword” (4Q246 ii.4). The change that eventually will take place is thus not a change of the world order, but is continuous with the present world. When the son of God comes, his rule is described as “judging” and it will extend to the whole earth (4Q246 ii.5-7). Continuing the Davidic imagery, the author of the scroll adds that God will be his strength; God will wage war for him (4Q246 ii.7-8; cf. 2 Sam. 22.33, 40; Ps. 18.33, 40).44 There is no reason to conclude that the son of God in this text is attributed with an absolute judgment that concerns the totality of people’s lives, in the sense that Jesus claimed for himself in Mt. 25.34-46.

A judging Messiah also appears in Fourth Ezra, but his function as judge is limited. In 4 Ezra 7.28-29, the reign of the Messiah is expected to last for 400 years, after which the Messiah will die. A more detailed description is provided in Ezra’s eagle vision, where the Messiah plays an important role. Having been kept by God until the end of days, he will emerge in order to censure the Roman Empire (12.32). The Romans will be presented before his judgment seat, and then they will be destroyed by him (12.33; cf. 13.37-38). Judgment is not here associated with passing a verdict; the meaning of “judgment” is closer to vengeance. The Messiah will carry out the judgment and punish the evildoers. His judgment is also not ultimate. When he has delivered the remnant of God’s people from oppression, the final day of judgment will come (12.34).45 A similar picture is painted in 2 Baruch, where the Messiah appears to convict the last ruler of all of his wicked deeds (40.1) before he kills him (40.2; cf. 72.2).

94

41.  Reiser correctly observes that we must distinguish between the Messiah’s office as judge and the judgment he carries out. The former refers to his just rule (17.26, 29), the latter to his punishment of the sinners (17.24-25). See Jesus and Judgment, 49. 42.  The archangel Michael is invested with similar attributes. He brings perfect justice to the world (1QM 17.8). He is not, however, judge in the sense of determining the eternal destiny of people. This distinction appears to be overlooked by Reiser (Jesus and Judgment, 156). For a discussion of these different visions of “judgment,” see Hanna Roose, Eschatologische Mitherrschaft: Entwicklungslinien einer urchristlichen Erwartung, NTOA 54 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 35–36, 44–45. 43.  Florentino García Martínez, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings,” in The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 159–90; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 154–67. See further Chapter 8. 44.  For the connections between Ps. Sol. 17 and 4Q246, see also Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118 (1999): 454.

95

Abel Commentators have therefore noted that the description of Jesus as judge in Matthew 25.31-46 is without any known parallel among Jewish messianic expectations.46 The renewed interest in the Jewish Jesus has instead focused attention on other characters that were described as an eschatological judge. Perhaps the best parallel to the idea of an exalted human being as judge is the picture of Abel found in the Testament of Abraham.47 This writing is

45.  The Messiah’s judgment in 4 Ezra 12.32-34 must not be confused with God’s judgment in 7.33-44, therefore. So, correctly, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 105; contra Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse, WUNT II/142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 100. G. H. Box argues that 12.34 has been added by the redactor of 4 Ezra, in order to harmonize the eagle vision with the view of the Messiah in 7.28-29 (The ­Ezra-Apocalypse, Being Chapters 3–14 of the Book Commonly Known as 4 Ezra [or II Esdras] [London: Sir Isaac Pitman, 1912], 274). But see Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 210. 46.  There are a few known instances where a messianic character is described as an eschatological judge, but they are all late (Tg. Isa. 53.9; b. Ḥag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b). Cf. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 266. 47.  David E. Aune, “The Judgement Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5.10),” in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel, ed. Janice Capel Anderson, Claudia Setzer, and Philip Sellew, JSNTSup 221 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 83; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 421; Flusser, Jesus, 130; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 156.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

commonly dated to the time between 70 CE and 117 CE, however, and its expectations regarding judgment are sometimes thought to have been influenced by Christian ideas.48 In any case, T. Ab. Rec. A 13.2 describes Abel as seated on a throne. He is the judge of the whole creation, both sinners and righteous (13.3). He has been given this judgment by God, so that every human being will be judged by their peer (13.3-5).49 Abel’s judgment, however, is not the final judgment; it is preliminary and it is succeeded by two additional judgments. The second judgment is by the twelve tribes of Israel (13.6). But the third and final, complete judgment is the judgment of God himself (13.7-8).50 In Recension B of the Testament of Abraham, Abel is also referred to as judge (11.2), but his function is subsidiary to that of the Lord himself, who is the one who passes sentence (11.7). Although he is called a judge, Abel has a role that is better compared to the role Jesus gives to the twelve disciples. Abel as judge does not offer a parallel to the absolute and ultimate judging function that Jesus anticipates for himself in Mt. 25.31-46.51

Melchizedek Another character sometimes compared to Jesus is Melchizedek. 52 In 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), Melchizedek has an essential function in the eschatological judgment.53 Also here, the supreme judge is God himself (11Q13 ii.10-11). Melchizedek is not clearly attributed with the act of passing sentence; that authority is reserved for God. As God’s agent, however, Melchizedek is carrying out the vengeance of God’s judgment (ii.13). In Jub. 4.22-23 Melchizedek is also given a crucial function at God’s judgment, but he is not the judge. He testifies against the Watchers that they had sinned, and he writes down the judgment of the world.

96

48.  The clearest example of such influence is found in T. Ab. Rec. A 13.1-13, which appears to be dependent on 1 Cor. 3.13-15. See D. W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5, NovTSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 91–92; Dale C. Allison, Jr, Testament of Abraham, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 277–78; James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 203–4. Mathias Delcor, however, concludes that the Christian elements in the Testament of Abraham are merely at a superficial level (Le testament d’Abraham: Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension grecque longue, suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales [Leiden: Brill, 1973], 63–67). 49.  Additionally, the transfer of judgment to Abel may be due to the tendency of later Jewish apocalyptic to tone down anthropomorphic language and transfer divine activities to God’s agents (Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity [New York: Crossroad, 1982], 105). 50.  Allison postulates that vv. 4-8 are a secondary addition to the description of Abel’s judgment in vv. 2-3 (Testament of Abraham, 278). If he be correct, the earlier version may have given Abel a role as the ultimate judge. Allison also notes, however, that every portion of ch. 13 has undergone Christian redaction (ibid.). Any reconstruction of an earlier version will therefore remain speculative. 51.  Cf. Timo Eskola, who observes that the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46 differs from Jewish descriptions of human beings as eschatological judges. Jesus’ function as judge is not related to his resurrection (Messiah and the Throne, 271–73).

97

The Son of Man A similar pattern may be observed in the Similitudes (1 En. 37-71), which demonstrate a considerable interest in the eschatological judgment. In principle, the final judge is God himself, the Lord of the Spirits. He judges all human beings (38.3; 41.9; 50.4; 62.2-4; 63.8; 65.10; 67.10; 68.5). As the judge, the Lord of the Spirits will also personally execute the punishment that befalls the sinners (41.2; 53.2; 60.6, 25; 65.6, 10), but have compassion on those who repent (50.2-3). When he punishes the sinners, God hands them over to tormenting angels, who in turn cast them into the burning furnace. This destiny is also described as the Lord of the Spirits’ own vengeance (54.5-6; cf. 55.3; 66.1; 68.2). As the sovereign judge, God may also appoint deputy judges (41.9). The most prominent deputy judge in the Similitudes is the Son of Man, also called the Elect One or the Righteous One.54 He is also known as the Messiah (48.10; 52.4). According to 1 En. 45.3, the Elect One will be seated on the throne of

52.  James D. G. Dunn, “Incarnation,” in ABD, 3.401; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 421; Flusser, Jesus, 130; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 156. 53.  For a discussion of the identity of Melchizedek here, see Rick Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” JSP 16 (2006): 75–86. 54.  There is a scholarly consensus that these three expressions refer to the same figure, however this figure is to be identified. The Son of Man with whom righteousness dwells (46.2) must be the same as the Righteous One (38.2; 53.6). The Son of Man and the Elect One are also described with the same terminology, performing the same functions (Carsten Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” in TDNT, 8.423; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity [New York: Crossroad, 1989], 148; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, First Book of,” in ABD, 2.512).

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

commonly dated to the time between 70 CE and 117 CE, however, and its expectations regarding judgment are sometimes thought to have been influenced by Christian ideas.48 In any case, T. Ab. Rec. A 13.2 describes Abel as seated on a throne. He is the judge of the whole creation, both sinners and righteous (13.3). He has been given this judgment by God, so that every human being will be judged by their peer (13.3-5).49 Abel’s judgment, however, is not the final judgment; it is preliminary and it is succeeded by two additional judgments. The second judgment is by the twelve tribes of Israel (13.6). But the third and final, complete judgment is the judgment of God himself (13.7-8).50 In Recension B of the Testament of Abraham, Abel is also referred to as judge (11.2), but his function is subsidiary to that of the Lord himself, who is the one who passes sentence (11.7). Although he is called a judge, Abel has a role that is better compared to the role Jesus gives to the twelve disciples. Abel as judge does not offer a parallel to the absolute and ultimate judging function that Jesus anticipates for himself in Mt. 25.31-46.51

Melchizedek Another character sometimes compared to Jesus is Melchizedek. 52 In 11QMelchizedek (11Q13), Melchizedek has an essential function in the eschatological judgment.53 Also here, the supreme judge is God himself (11Q13 ii.10-11). Melchizedek is not clearly attributed with the act of passing sentence; that authority is reserved for God. As God’s agent, however, Melchizedek is carrying out the vengeance of God’s judgment (ii.13). In Jub. 4.22-23 Melchizedek is also given a crucial function at God’s judgment, but he is not the judge. He testifies against the Watchers that they had sinned, and he writes down the judgment of the world.

96

48.  The clearest example of such influence is found in T. Ab. Rec. A 13.1-13, which appears to be dependent on 1 Cor. 3.13-15. See D. W. Kuck, Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5, NovTSup 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 91–92; Dale C. Allison, Jr, Testament of Abraham, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 277–78; James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 203–4. Mathias Delcor, however, concludes that the Christian elements in the Testament of Abraham are merely at a superficial level (Le testament d’Abraham: Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension grecque longue, suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales [Leiden: Brill, 1973], 63–67). 49.  Additionally, the transfer of judgment to Abel may be due to the tendency of later Jewish apocalyptic to tone down anthropomorphic language and transfer divine activities to God’s agents (Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity [New York: Crossroad, 1982], 105). 50.  Allison postulates that vv. 4-8 are a secondary addition to the description of Abel’s judgment in vv. 2-3 (Testament of Abraham, 278). If he be correct, the earlier version may have given Abel a role as the ultimate judge. Allison also notes, however, that every portion of ch. 13 has undergone Christian redaction (ibid.). Any reconstruction of an earlier version will therefore remain speculative. 51.  Cf. Timo Eskola, who observes that the judgment scene in Mt. 25.31-46 differs from Jewish descriptions of human beings as eschatological judges. Jesus’ function as judge is not related to his resurrection (Messiah and the Throne, 271–73).

97

The Son of Man A similar pattern may be observed in the Similitudes (1 En. 37-71), which demonstrate a considerable interest in the eschatological judgment. In principle, the final judge is God himself, the Lord of the Spirits. He judges all human beings (38.3; 41.9; 50.4; 62.2-4; 63.8; 65.10; 67.10; 68.5). As the judge, the Lord of the Spirits will also personally execute the punishment that befalls the sinners (41.2; 53.2; 60.6, 25; 65.6, 10), but have compassion on those who repent (50.2-3). When he punishes the sinners, God hands them over to tormenting angels, who in turn cast them into the burning furnace. This destiny is also described as the Lord of the Spirits’ own vengeance (54.5-6; cf. 55.3; 66.1; 68.2). As the sovereign judge, God may also appoint deputy judges (41.9). The most prominent deputy judge in the Similitudes is the Son of Man, also called the Elect One or the Righteous One.54 He is also known as the Messiah (48.10; 52.4). According to 1 En. 45.3, the Elect One will be seated on the throne of

52.  James D. G. Dunn, “Incarnation,” in ABD, 3.401; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 421; Flusser, Jesus, 130; Reiser, Jesus and Judgment, 156. 53.  For a discussion of the identity of Melchizedek here, see Rick Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” JSP 16 (2006): 75–86. 54.  There is a scholarly consensus that these three expressions refer to the same figure, however this figure is to be identified. The Son of Man with whom righteousness dwells (46.2) must be the same as the Righteous One (38.2; 53.6). The Son of Man and the Elect One are also described with the same terminology, performing the same functions (Carsten Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” in TDNT, 8.423; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity [New York: Crossroad, 1989], 148; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, First Book of,” in ABD, 2.512).

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

glory. This throne can only be God’s own throne.55 The function of the Elect One is to try the works of human beings. But even though the Elect One executes the eschatological judgment, judgment still fundamentally belongs to God.56 He is the one who will reward the righteous ones and destroy the sinners (45.6). In chapter 49, the Elect One is described in an even more glorious way. He has an everlasting glory (49.2) and will judge all the secret things when no one will be able to lie before his judgment (49.4). His glory is not inherently his own, however; it is derived from his standing before the Lord of Spirits (49.2) and from his election according to the Lord’s good pleasure (49.4). Also in 55.4, the Elect One sits on the throne of glory. He judges the host of evil spiritual beings, but he exercises judgment as a representative, in the name of the Lord of Spirits. In 61.8 the Elect One is placed on the throne of glory by the Lord of Spirits. Now he judges the holy ones and lets their deeds be weighed in the balance. His judgment is according to the righteous judgment of the Lord of Spirits (61.9).57 In 1 En. 46.2, this character is introduced as the Son of Man with whom righteousness dwells. The Lord of Spirits has chosen him (cf. 48.6). The Son of Man is clearly subordinate to the Lord of Spirits, as he is named in the Lord’s presence before the creation of the world (48.2-3). In 48.4 he is associated with the Servant of the Lord from Isa. 42.6; 49.6, as he is identified as the light of the Gentiles. Before him all those who live on the earth will worship, but the object of worship will be the Lord of Spirits (48.5). The Son of Man is a mighty instrument of God’s judgment, and he will demote the strong (46.6). As judge, the Son of Man will also sit on the throne of his glory (62.5; 69.29).58 At that time, the rulers of the earth will beg him for mercy (62.9), but the Lord

of Spirits himself will intervene and make them flee (62.10), only so that they will be delivered to the punishing angels (62.11). Then the wrath of the Lord of Spirits will rest upon them (62.12). On the day of God’s judgment, the sinners will be shamed before the Son of Man (63.11). But for the righteous, there will be a length of days with the Son of Man (71.17). Not only the Son of Man, but also the lightnings, the lights, and the thunder are commissioned to execute judgment on behalf of the Lord of Spirits (59.1-2). This passage is significant, because it may give us pause in concluding that something is a real parallel based on verbal similarity. When weather phenomena are attributed with performing judgment it shows that the Similitudes use the terminology of judgment for entities that are nothing more than tools in the hands of God. It is worth noting that the Elect One or the Son of Man is not described as passing sentence independently. He may be an independent personal being with a will of his own, but when he passes sentence he does so on behalf of God. There are no clear instances in the relevant literature that anyone other than God was conceived as the ultimate judge of all human beings. This function is the exclusive prerogative of God. The Fourth Gospel appears to share the same understanding when the ability to give life to the dead and judge the world are cited as the examples par excellence of how the Son shares in the divine prerogatives of the Father, offering these examples to demonstrate the unique unity of the Father and the Son (5.17-29).59

98

55.  Cf. Darrell D. Hannah, who also argues well that this elevation of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is a unique case in Second Temple Judaism. Nowhere else are intermediaries seen to share God’s throne (“The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch,” ZNW 94 [2003]: 82–95). 56.  Cf. Hannah, who observes that the Son of Man sits on the throne and passes judgment only as a function of his office and at the behest of the Lord of Spirits (“Throne of His Glory,” 87). 57.  Cf. Wendebourg, who observes that the Elect One is subordinated to God, as he passes judgment in his name (Tag des Herrn, 101). 58.  Some manuscripts include a reference to the Son of Man sitting on his throne of glory in 69.27, and add that the head of the judgment was given to him.

99

Conclusion The authenticity of the passage where Jesus clearly takes on the role of the eschatological judge, Mt. 25.31-46, is difficult to assess. But unless the possibility that Jesus could think of himself in these terms is ruled out a priori, it seems most likely that the scene goes back to the historical Jesus. Elements such as the title “king” for Jesus and the n­ on-Christological criteria for judgment do not bear the stamp of the early church. The text could be situated in the early church if “the least of my brothers” refers to Christians, but the function

59.  C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), 255.

God’s Equal

4.  Passing God’s Judgment

glory. This throne can only be God’s own throne.55 The function of the Elect One is to try the works of human beings. But even though the Elect One executes the eschatological judgment, judgment still fundamentally belongs to God.56 He is the one who will reward the righteous ones and destroy the sinners (45.6). In chapter 49, the Elect One is described in an even more glorious way. He has an everlasting glory (49.2) and will judge all the secret things when no one will be able to lie before his judgment (49.4). His glory is not inherently his own, however; it is derived from his standing before the Lord of Spirits (49.2) and from his election according to the Lord’s good pleasure (49.4). Also in 55.4, the Elect One sits on the throne of glory. He judges the host of evil spiritual beings, but he exercises judgment as a representative, in the name of the Lord of Spirits. In 61.8 the Elect One is placed on the throne of glory by the Lord of Spirits. Now he judges the holy ones and lets their deeds be weighed in the balance. His judgment is according to the righteous judgment of the Lord of Spirits (61.9).57 In 1 En. 46.2, this character is introduced as the Son of Man with whom righteousness dwells. The Lord of Spirits has chosen him (cf. 48.6). The Son of Man is clearly subordinate to the Lord of Spirits, as he is named in the Lord’s presence before the creation of the world (48.2-3). In 48.4 he is associated with the Servant of the Lord from Isa. 42.6; 49.6, as he is identified as the light of the Gentiles. Before him all those who live on the earth will worship, but the object of worship will be the Lord of Spirits (48.5). The Son of Man is a mighty instrument of God’s judgment, and he will demote the strong (46.6). As judge, the Son of Man will also sit on the throne of his glory (62.5; 69.29).58 At that time, the rulers of the earth will beg him for mercy (62.9), but the Lord

of Spirits himself will intervene and make them flee (62.10), only so that they will be delivered to the punishing angels (62.11). Then the wrath of the Lord of Spirits will rest upon them (62.12). On the day of God’s judgment, the sinners will be shamed before the Son of Man (63.11). But for the righteous, there will be a length of days with the Son of Man (71.17). Not only the Son of Man, but also the lightnings, the lights, and the thunder are commissioned to execute judgment on behalf of the Lord of Spirits (59.1-2). This passage is significant, because it may give us pause in concluding that something is a real parallel based on verbal similarity. When weather phenomena are attributed with performing judgment it shows that the Similitudes use the terminology of judgment for entities that are nothing more than tools in the hands of God. It is worth noting that the Elect One or the Son of Man is not described as passing sentence independently. He may be an independent personal being with a will of his own, but when he passes sentence he does so on behalf of God. There are no clear instances in the relevant literature that anyone other than God was conceived as the ultimate judge of all human beings. This function is the exclusive prerogative of God. The Fourth Gospel appears to share the same understanding when the ability to give life to the dead and judge the world are cited as the examples par excellence of how the Son shares in the divine prerogatives of the Father, offering these examples to demonstrate the unique unity of the Father and the Son (5.17-29).59

98

55.  Cf. Darrell D. Hannah, who also argues well that this elevation of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is a unique case in Second Temple Judaism. Nowhere else are intermediaries seen to share God’s throne (“The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch,” ZNW 94 [2003]: 82–95). 56.  Cf. Hannah, who observes that the Son of Man sits on the throne and passes judgment only as a function of his office and at the behest of the Lord of Spirits (“Throne of His Glory,” 87). 57.  Cf. Wendebourg, who observes that the Elect One is subordinated to God, as he passes judgment in his name (Tag des Herrn, 101). 58.  Some manuscripts include a reference to the Son of Man sitting on his throne of glory in 69.27, and add that the head of the judgment was given to him.

99

Conclusion The authenticity of the passage where Jesus clearly takes on the role of the eschatological judge, Mt. 25.31-46, is difficult to assess. But unless the possibility that Jesus could think of himself in these terms is ruled out a priori, it seems most likely that the scene goes back to the historical Jesus. Elements such as the title “king” for Jesus and the n­ on-Christological criteria for judgment do not bear the stamp of the early church. The text could be situated in the early church if “the least of my brothers” refers to Christians, but the function

59.  C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), 255.

100

God’s Equal

of the passage becomes difficult to explain on such a reading. Another possibility is that Jesus originally spoke of God as the judge, but that hypothesis raises new difficulties, such as how God could be so closely identified with those who suffer. If Jesus did intend this judgment scene as a description of his own role, then he saw himself as the one who would decide the eternal destiny of all people. Such a role goes beyond anything that contemporary Jewish sources envisioned either for human or angelic beings in the eschatological judgment. When angels or humans appear in eschatological judgment scenes, their functions as judges are subordinate to God, who is the ultimate judge. In Mt. 25.31-46, on the other hand, Jesus executes judgment independently of anyone else. Jesus puts himself in a place that in a Jewish context, as far as we know, was reserved for God alone.60 Jesus’ discourse in Mt. 25.31-46 must therefore be read as another implicit claim to be God’s equal.

60.  Similarly, D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 521; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Waco: Word, 1995), 742.

101

5 SPEAKING WITH GOD’S AUTHORITY: JESUS AND THE LAW

In the previous two chapters, I argued that Jesus thought he could speak as God, forgive sins, and pass the eschatological verdict. These conclusions prompt the question of how Jesus valued his own words compared to the words of God. In this chapter I will examine how Jesus appears to have understood his own teaching in relation to the teaching of Israel’s Scriptures. Whereas older commentators have often found a Jesus who abrogated the Mosaic law,1 recent studies have tended to emphasize Jesus’ conformity to the Torah. In his practice, he conformed to the law, and his statements regarding the law fall within the range of the Jewish interpretive discussion of his time.2 Jesus did not see himself in rebellion against or competition with the authority of the God of Israel. But even if Jesus approved of the authority of the law it does not follow that Jesus placed himself underneath it. The question of how he understood his own authority in relation to the law must still be raised. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. Jesus’ clearest statements regarding his own authority vis-à-vis the Mosaic law are found in the s­ o-called antitheses (Mt. 5.21-48). In these sayings, Jesus

1.  E.g., Schweizer, Jesus, 105; Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), 262. 2.  E.g., Philip Sigal, The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew, Studies in Biblical Literature 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990), 37–60; William Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNT II/97 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Jesper Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in Its Narrative and Historical Contexts, ConBNT 32 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000); ­Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006); John P. Meier, Law and Love, Vol. 4 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009).

100

God’s Equal

of the passage becomes difficult to explain on such a reading. Another possibility is that Jesus originally spoke of God as the judge, but that hypothesis raises new difficulties, such as how God could be so closely identified with those who suffer. If Jesus did intend this judgment scene as a description of his own role, then he saw himself as the one who would decide the eternal destiny of all people. Such a role goes beyond anything that contemporary Jewish sources envisioned either for human or angelic beings in the eschatological judgment. When angels or humans appear in eschatological judgment scenes, their functions as judges are subordinate to God, who is the ultimate judge. In Mt. 25.31-46, on the other hand, Jesus executes judgment independently of anyone else. Jesus puts himself in a place that in a Jewish context, as far as we know, was reserved for God alone.60 Jesus’ discourse in Mt. 25.31-46 must therefore be read as another implicit claim to be God’s equal.

60.  Similarly, D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 521; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Waco: Word, 1995), 742.

101

5 SPEAKING WITH GOD’S AUTHORITY: JESUS AND THE LAW

In the previous two chapters, I argued that Jesus thought he could speak as God, forgive sins, and pass the eschatological verdict. These conclusions prompt the question of how Jesus valued his own words compared to the words of God. In this chapter I will examine how Jesus appears to have understood his own teaching in relation to the teaching of Israel’s Scriptures. Whereas older commentators have often found a Jesus who abrogated the Mosaic law,1 recent studies have tended to emphasize Jesus’ conformity to the Torah. In his practice, he conformed to the law, and his statements regarding the law fall within the range of the Jewish interpretive discussion of his time.2 Jesus did not see himself in rebellion against or competition with the authority of the God of Israel. But even if Jesus approved of the authority of the law it does not follow that Jesus placed himself underneath it. The question of how he understood his own authority in relation to the law must still be raised. This chapter is devoted to answering that question. Jesus’ clearest statements regarding his own authority vis-à-vis the Mosaic law are found in the s­ o-called antitheses (Mt. 5.21-48). In these sayings, Jesus

1.  E.g., Schweizer, Jesus, 105; Michael D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), 262. 2.  E.g., Philip Sigal, The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew, Studies in Biblical Literature 18 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990), 37–60; William Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNT II/97 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Jesper Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in Its Narrative and Historical Contexts, ConBNT 32 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000); ­Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006); John P. Meier, Law and Love, Vol. 4 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

quotes Israel’s Scriptures with the introductory formula: “you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times” (5.21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), and contrasts it with the emphatic: “but I tell you” (5.22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). My examination of this formula will be divided into two main parts, discussing first the authenticity of these sayings and then their significance. I will argue that Jesus claims an authority that matches the authority of God in Scripture.

For my present purposes, my concern is with the antithetical formula, not the individual sayings. Not all scholars accept that the formula goes back to the historical Jesus. Some maintain that the formula is the product of Matthean or ­pre-Matthean redaction. These scholars often refer to the Lukan parallels to argue that the original form of the sayings lack the antithetical form.4 This argument based on the criterion of multiple attestation is problematic, however, as it can be turned around based on the criterion of dissimilarity: the antithesis formula originated with Jesus, but it played no role in subsequent Christian teaching. Luke has therefore no interest in reproducing it.5 A closer examination shows that the formula holds up rather well according to the criterion of dissimilarity. Several erudite scholars have attempted to explain the antithesis formula against a rabbinic background, but no true parallel has been found (cf. below). In the early church, there is no demonstrable interest in challenging the authority of the Torah in the way that Jesus does here. One might argue that Matthew was motivated by his w ­ ell-known desire to portray Jesus as the new Moses, who brought the perfect interpretation of the law or even a new law. But the role that Jesus took in Mt. 5.21-48 cannot be explained as that of a new Moses. Jesus did not bring a new revelation from God, but he implicitly claimed that his own authority supersedes that of the law

102

Authenticity of the Antitheses (Mt. 5.21-48) The first, second, and fourth of the antitheses are only found in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas the teaching of the third, fifth, and sixth are paralleled in Luke, but without the antithetical form (Lk. 16.18; 6.29-31; 6.27-28). Concerning their authenticity, many scholars have followed Bultmann, who argued that a core behind the first, second, and fourth antitheses is authentic. According to Bultmann, these sayings require both the thesis and the antithesis to be meaningful. He therefore concluded that the authentic core included the antithetical formula, although some elements of the sayings were secondary. As for the remaining antitheses, Bultmann thought the Lukan versions were original and that the antithetical form had been supplied by Matthew.3

3. Bultmann, Geschichte, 142–44; similarly, Gerhard Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Percy Scott, Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Hans Joachim Held, NTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 93; Eduard Lohse, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Eduard Lohse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 73; Robert A. Guelich, “The Antitheses of Matthew V. 21–48: Traditional and/or Redactional?” NTS 22 (1975–76): 444–57; Georg Strecker, “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5 21–48 par),” ZNW 69 (1978): 39–47; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 504–5; Traugott Holtz, “‘Ich aber sage euch’: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis Jesu zur Tora,” in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, ed. Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 138–39; Michael Krämer, Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: Eine synoptische Studie zu Mt 4,23–7,29 und Lk 6,17–49, Deutsche Hochschulschriften 433 (Egelsbach: ­Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 1994), 29–38. Luz maintains that the first and second antitheses are p­ re-Matthean, whereas the others are redactional (Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, rev. edn, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 227–28). Nolland thinks the first antithesis may go back to the historical Jesus (Matthew, 228–29). For a defense of the authenticity of the third, fifth, and sixth antitheses in particular, see Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 252–53.

103

4.  Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 141; Paul Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel, WUNT II/177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 97; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29; similarly Andrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 96. It has been suggested that Luke’s “but I say to you that listen” (7.27) is the embryonic form of this formula (Graham N. Stanton, Studies in Matthew, 301). 5.  W. D. Davies thinks the adversative form in Lk. 6.27 presupposes an original antithetical form like the one found in Matthew’s version (The Setting, 388). One of Luke’s interests is to show the legitimacy of the Jesus movement and its compliance to the Mosaic law. Jervell observes that Luke’s Jesus acts in accordance with the Scriptures, and concludes that Jesus for Luke was subordinate to God and not divine (“The Lucan Interpretation of Jesus as Biblical Theology,” in New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992, ed. Sigfred Pedersen, NovTSup 76 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 85). While I would not agree with Jervell’s conclusion, his observations show that Luke’s omission of the antithesis formula is easily explained.

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

quotes Israel’s Scriptures with the introductory formula: “you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times” (5.21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), and contrasts it with the emphatic: “but I tell you” (5.22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). My examination of this formula will be divided into two main parts, discussing first the authenticity of these sayings and then their significance. I will argue that Jesus claims an authority that matches the authority of God in Scripture.

For my present purposes, my concern is with the antithetical formula, not the individual sayings. Not all scholars accept that the formula goes back to the historical Jesus. Some maintain that the formula is the product of Matthean or ­pre-Matthean redaction. These scholars often refer to the Lukan parallels to argue that the original form of the sayings lack the antithetical form.4 This argument based on the criterion of multiple attestation is problematic, however, as it can be turned around based on the criterion of dissimilarity: the antithesis formula originated with Jesus, but it played no role in subsequent Christian teaching. Luke has therefore no interest in reproducing it.5 A closer examination shows that the formula holds up rather well according to the criterion of dissimilarity. Several erudite scholars have attempted to explain the antithesis formula against a rabbinic background, but no true parallel has been found (cf. below). In the early church, there is no demonstrable interest in challenging the authority of the Torah in the way that Jesus does here. One might argue that Matthew was motivated by his w ­ ell-known desire to portray Jesus as the new Moses, who brought the perfect interpretation of the law or even a new law. But the role that Jesus took in Mt. 5.21-48 cannot be explained as that of a new Moses. Jesus did not bring a new revelation from God, but he implicitly claimed that his own authority supersedes that of the law

102

Authenticity of the Antitheses (Mt. 5.21-48) The first, second, and fourth of the antitheses are only found in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas the teaching of the third, fifth, and sixth are paralleled in Luke, but without the antithetical form (Lk. 16.18; 6.29-31; 6.27-28). Concerning their authenticity, many scholars have followed Bultmann, who argued that a core behind the first, second, and fourth antitheses is authentic. According to Bultmann, these sayings require both the thesis and the antithesis to be meaningful. He therefore concluded that the authentic core included the antithetical formula, although some elements of the sayings were secondary. As for the remaining antitheses, Bultmann thought the Lukan versions were original and that the antithetical form had been supplied by Matthew.3

3. Bultmann, Geschichte, 142–44; similarly, Gerhard Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. Percy Scott, Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Hans Joachim Held, NTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 93; Eduard Lohse, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Eduard Lohse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 73; Robert A. Guelich, “The Antitheses of Matthew V. 21–48: Traditional and/or Redactional?” NTS 22 (1975–76): 444–57; Georg Strecker, “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5 21–48 par),” ZNW 69 (1978): 39–47; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 504–5; Traugott Holtz, “‘Ich aber sage euch’: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis Jesu zur Tora,” in Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, ed. Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 138–39; Michael Krämer, Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: Eine synoptische Studie zu Mt 4,23–7,29 und Lk 6,17–49, Deutsche Hochschulschriften 433 (Egelsbach: ­Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 1994), 29–38. Luz maintains that the first and second antitheses are p­ re-Matthean, whereas the others are redactional (Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, rev. edn, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 227–28). Nolland thinks the first antithesis may go back to the historical Jesus (Matthew, 228–29). For a defense of the authenticity of the third, fifth, and sixth antitheses in particular, see Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 252–53.

103

4.  Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 141; Paul Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel, WUNT II/177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 97; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29; similarly Andrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 96. It has been suggested that Luke’s “but I say to you that listen” (7.27) is the embryonic form of this formula (Graham N. Stanton, Studies in Matthew, 301). 5.  W. D. Davies thinks the adversative form in Lk. 6.27 presupposes an original antithetical form like the one found in Matthew’s version (The Setting, 388). One of Luke’s interests is to show the legitimacy of the Jesus movement and its compliance to the Mosaic law. Jervell observes that Luke’s Jesus acts in accordance with the Scriptures, and concludes that Jesus for Luke was subordinate to God and not divine (“The Lucan Interpretation of Jesus as Biblical Theology,” in New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992, ed. Sigfred Pedersen, NovTSup 76 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 85). While I would not agree with Jervell’s conclusion, his observations show that Luke’s omission of the antithesis formula is easily explained.

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

(cf. below).6 The tendency of the early church is rather in the opposite direction: to show that Jesus conformed to the law.7 Nor is there any tendency to show that the ethics of the early Christians transcend the requirements of the Torah. The authors of The Letter of James and First Peter are content to describe their ethical expectations as fulfillment of the Mosaic law (Jas 2.8; 4.11; 1 Pet. 1.15-16). They do not reflect a conviction that Christians obey someone whose authority surpasses the law. With the exception of the Jesus material in the Gospels, the boldest statements in the New Testament are found in the Pauline literature, where the law is sometimes said to be superseded in Christ (Rom. 6.14; 7.6; 10.4; Gal. 3.25; 5.18; Eph. 2.15; 1 Tim. 1.9). In contrast to the antitheses, however, these Pauline statements serve as justification for not applying the commandments in the Mosaic law. A similar concern lies behind the Synoptic traditions where Jesus appears to stand above the law (Mk 2.23-28 par.; 7.1-23). But the purpose of the antitheses in Matthew is the opposite: to sharpen the commandments of Moses. Other New Testament writers have adopted the standard that is expressed in several of the antitheses (Jas 5.12; 1 Jn 3.15; 1 Cor. 7.10), but nowhere can we detect an interest in justifying this high standard by invoking Jesus’ authority as superior to the Mosaic law.8

why it is unattested outside the Gospel of Matthew. If so, the Matthean form of the antitheses could be the product of a Matthean redactional tendency.9 But Matthew’s theological tendency was rather the opposite, as his introduction to the antitheses shows (Mt. 5.17-20). Jesus denies in 5.17 that he has come to abolish the law, and several scholars find here a tension with the following antitheses.10 Moreover, on the assumption that Matthew was responsible for the formula, it becomes difficult to explain his purposes in inflating Jesus’ authority claims in this way. Davies and Allison detect in the emphasis on forgiveness a concern on Matthew’s part to alleviate the tensions in the Christian community, between Jewish and Gentile Christians.11 It is hard to imagine, however, how a Jesus that stood above the Torah might stifle Gentile arrogance towards Jewish Christians.12 Jack Suggs recognizes the implicit authority claim in the antitheses and maintains that the original hearers of Jesus would not have understood him to have spoken with such an authority. He thinks that neither did the early church attribute this authority to the earthly Jesus, only to the exalted Christ. Suggs sees these observations as an argument against authenticity, but one may equally well apply the criterion of dissimilarity and see them as an argument in favor of authenticity. More importantly, Suggs argues on formal grounds that the antitheses are Matthean redactional products. He questions the observation that the sayings in

104

Matthean Origin? Nevertheless, the possibility remains that Jesus did not claim an authority superior to the Torah and that his restraint from making such a claim explains 6.  This observation militates against the view of John Kampen, who understands the antitheses to have originated as a rebuttal of certain elements within the Jewish community (John Kampen, “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses Within the Social World of the Matthean Community,” DSD 1 [1994]: 351). In a debate with other Jews, however, Matthew would have been shooting himself in the foot if he claimed that Jesus’ authority was above that of the Torah. 7.  Davies and Allison find a tendency in the Synoptic tradition to tone down the statements that can be interpreted as critique of the law (Matthew, Vol. 2, 58). The Synoptic Gospels typically emphasize how Jesus’ words are in accordance with the Scriptures. 8.  The author of Ephesians might have had an occasion to make reference to the traditions regarding Jesus’ authority exceeding that of the law, when he explained that the mystery which he proclaimed was not revealed in the past (Eph. 3.5). It is of course impossible to know why he did not mention any such tradition. He may not have wanted to include it or he may not have known of such a tradition, either because Jesus did not claim such an authority or because it was not widely known that he did. The silence is in any case compatible with my observation that the early Christians had very little interest in an authority that transcended the Torah.

105

9.  Robert Banks maintains that Matthew amplified an original formula in order to highlight its Christological implications (Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 28 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], 182–83). 10.  Davies and Allison argue that it is more likely that Matthew has preserved the tradition in 5.21-48 and that he is responsible for the addition of 5.17-20, in order to guard against what he saw as a misunderstanding of the antitheses (Matthew, Vol. 1, 505). Scholars with different views regarding the antitheses also conclude that Matthew’s placement of 5.17-20 was intended to prevent a wrong interpretation of the antitheses (Luz, Matthew 1–7, 223). Cf. Samuel Byrskog, who concludes that 5.17-18 “reflects axiomatic convictions of the author and his intended hearers/readers” (“Matthew 5.17–18 in the Argumentation of the Context,” RB 104 [1997]: 570). Davies and Allison’s argument correctly observes that law critique cannot be explained as a specifically Matthean tendency. 11.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 90. Cf. also John P. Meier, who understands Matthew’s theology as a reaction to the new situation of an ethnically mixed Christian community (Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt.5.17–48, AnBib 71 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976], 27–28). 12.  On the traditional interpretation of Romans, Gentile arrogance seems rather to be inspired by the conviction that the new covenant transcends the old.

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

(cf. below).6 The tendency of the early church is rather in the opposite direction: to show that Jesus conformed to the law.7 Nor is there any tendency to show that the ethics of the early Christians transcend the requirements of the Torah. The authors of The Letter of James and First Peter are content to describe their ethical expectations as fulfillment of the Mosaic law (Jas 2.8; 4.11; 1 Pet. 1.15-16). They do not reflect a conviction that Christians obey someone whose authority surpasses the law. With the exception of the Jesus material in the Gospels, the boldest statements in the New Testament are found in the Pauline literature, where the law is sometimes said to be superseded in Christ (Rom. 6.14; 7.6; 10.4; Gal. 3.25; 5.18; Eph. 2.15; 1 Tim. 1.9). In contrast to the antitheses, however, these Pauline statements serve as justification for not applying the commandments in the Mosaic law. A similar concern lies behind the Synoptic traditions where Jesus appears to stand above the law (Mk 2.23-28 par.; 7.1-23). But the purpose of the antitheses in Matthew is the opposite: to sharpen the commandments of Moses. Other New Testament writers have adopted the standard that is expressed in several of the antitheses (Jas 5.12; 1 Jn 3.15; 1 Cor. 7.10), but nowhere can we detect an interest in justifying this high standard by invoking Jesus’ authority as superior to the Mosaic law.8

why it is unattested outside the Gospel of Matthew. If so, the Matthean form of the antitheses could be the product of a Matthean redactional tendency.9 But Matthew’s theological tendency was rather the opposite, as his introduction to the antitheses shows (Mt. 5.17-20). Jesus denies in 5.17 that he has come to abolish the law, and several scholars find here a tension with the following antitheses.10 Moreover, on the assumption that Matthew was responsible for the formula, it becomes difficult to explain his purposes in inflating Jesus’ authority claims in this way. Davies and Allison detect in the emphasis on forgiveness a concern on Matthew’s part to alleviate the tensions in the Christian community, between Jewish and Gentile Christians.11 It is hard to imagine, however, how a Jesus that stood above the Torah might stifle Gentile arrogance towards Jewish Christians.12 Jack Suggs recognizes the implicit authority claim in the antitheses and maintains that the original hearers of Jesus would not have understood him to have spoken with such an authority. He thinks that neither did the early church attribute this authority to the earthly Jesus, only to the exalted Christ. Suggs sees these observations as an argument against authenticity, but one may equally well apply the criterion of dissimilarity and see them as an argument in favor of authenticity. More importantly, Suggs argues on formal grounds that the antitheses are Matthean redactional products. He questions the observation that the sayings in

104

Matthean Origin? Nevertheless, the possibility remains that Jesus did not claim an authority superior to the Torah and that his restraint from making such a claim explains 6.  This observation militates against the view of John Kampen, who understands the antitheses to have originated as a rebuttal of certain elements within the Jewish community (John Kampen, “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses Within the Social World of the Matthean Community,” DSD 1 [1994]: 351). In a debate with other Jews, however, Matthew would have been shooting himself in the foot if he claimed that Jesus’ authority was above that of the Torah. 7.  Davies and Allison find a tendency in the Synoptic tradition to tone down the statements that can be interpreted as critique of the law (Matthew, Vol. 2, 58). The Synoptic Gospels typically emphasize how Jesus’ words are in accordance with the Scriptures. 8.  The author of Ephesians might have had an occasion to make reference to the traditions regarding Jesus’ authority exceeding that of the law, when he explained that the mystery which he proclaimed was not revealed in the past (Eph. 3.5). It is of course impossible to know why he did not mention any such tradition. He may not have wanted to include it or he may not have known of such a tradition, either because Jesus did not claim such an authority or because it was not widely known that he did. The silence is in any case compatible with my observation that the early Christians had very little interest in an authority that transcended the Torah.

105

9.  Robert Banks maintains that Matthew amplified an original formula in order to highlight its Christological implications (Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 28 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], 182–83). 10.  Davies and Allison argue that it is more likely that Matthew has preserved the tradition in 5.21-48 and that he is responsible for the addition of 5.17-20, in order to guard against what he saw as a misunderstanding of the antitheses (Matthew, Vol. 1, 505). Scholars with different views regarding the antitheses also conclude that Matthew’s placement of 5.17-20 was intended to prevent a wrong interpretation of the antitheses (Luz, Matthew 1–7, 223). Cf. Samuel Byrskog, who concludes that 5.17-18 “reflects axiomatic convictions of the author and his intended hearers/readers” (“Matthew 5.17–18 in the Argumentation of the Context,” RB 104 [1997]: 570). Davies and Allison’s argument correctly observes that law critique cannot be explained as a specifically Matthean tendency. 11.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 90. Cf. also John P. Meier, who understands Matthew’s theology as a reaction to the new situation of an ethnically mixed Christian community (Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt.5.17–48, AnBib 71 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976], 27–28). 12.  On the traditional interpretation of Romans, Gentile arrogance seems rather to be inspired by the conviction that the new covenant transcends the old.

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

the first, second, and fourth antitheses could not have existed without the antithetical form. James 5.12 shows that the prohibition against oaths in the fourth antithesis circulated without this formula.13 Suggs is correct that the teaching of the antitheses does not presuppose the form they have in Mt. 5.21-48. But the question is how Matthew’s peculiar form most likely would have originated. Suggs maintains that the criterion of dissimilarity supports a Matthean origin as well as it supports an origin with the historical Jesus. This argument presupposes that Matthew was as equally original and radical a teacher as was Jesus, which is doubtful. Suggs suggests that the form of the antitheses reflects a specific Matthean interest: to highlight Jesus’ authority which stands behind the Christian righteousness that transcends that of the scribes and Pharisees.14 This argument would be more convincing if it were applied to Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. The radical teaching of the antitheses is not likely to demonstrate the superiority of a particular community. More importantly, the idea of Jesus’ superiority to the law does not directly serve the idea that he teaches a higher righteousness. It might even be understood to contradict it. In any case, there is no demonstrable tendency in the early church to undergird their ethical teaching in this way. Moreover, a linguistic examination of the antitheses shows that they differ significantly from what we know about Matthew’s style. The formula ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν only occurs in the antitheses (5.22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), nowhere else

in Matthew or in the other Synoptic Gospels. Matthew prefers instead ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν or ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, which he uses 29 times, and λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, which he uses four times.15 The combination of ἠκούσατε and ὅτι occurs five times in the antitheses (5.21, 27, 33, 38, 43), but Matthew does not use it elsewhere. The form ἐρρέθη is attested four times in the rest of the New Testament, but Matthew only uses it in the antitheses (5.21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). He prefers the form ῥηθέν. The construction πᾶς ὁ followed by a participle is also unusual in Matthew. Except in the antitheses (5.22, 28, 32), it only occurs in Mt. 7.8, 21, 26. In 7.8, 26, the phrase is a part of the double tradition of Matthew and Luke and can hardly be attributed to Matthean style. Stylistic considerations therefore militate against the hypothesis that the evangelist is responsible for the form of the antitheses.16 If the form of the antitheses cannot be attributed to the evangelist, we are left with the possibility that the form of the Matthean antitheses was the product of a ­pre-Matthean theological tendency and that the final redaction of Matthew’s Gospel intended to modify this tendency.17 Such a hypothesis is unnecessarily

106

13.  Hans Dieter Betz also finds Bultmann’s analysis inadequate and opts for an origin of the antitheses by the redactor of the Sermon on the Mount (The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain [Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Lk. 6.20–49], Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995], 211–14). 14.  M. Jack Suggs, “The Antitheses as Redactional Products,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 433–44; similarly Ingo Broer, “Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthäus,” BZ 19 (1975): 58–59, 62–63; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29. Paul Foster also argues that the form of the antitheses is redactional. He explains the form as motivated by Matthew’s community’s need for ­self-legitimization. They were in conflict with Jewish communities over the locus of the highest authority, which they attributed to Jesus, rather than to the Torah (Community, 97, 140–43). This explanation is an improvement over against that of Suggs, in that Foster recognizes that the antithetical form primarily has implications for the source of authority, rather than ethical conduct per se. The problem remains, however, that there is no evidence that the early Christian communities had an interest in pitting Jesus’ authority against the law. On the contrary, early Christian apologetic was concerned to show that Jesus and the early church conformed to the law.

107

15.  Broer argues on the other hand that the string of sayings with an almost identical formula is likely to be redactional. He also notes that Matthew tends to sharpen Jesus’ antitheses (cf. Mt. 10.34; 15.11, 17-18, 20; 19.8, 9) and to emphasize Jesus’ sayings with the emphatic ἐγώ. For the latter point, he refers to Mt. 10.16; 11.20; 26.15, but only the first of these verses include the word ἐγώ (“Antithesen,” 53, 57). In any case, Broer has not shown that Matthew has a tendency to pit Jesus’ ἐγώ against the law of Moses. If the point about sharpening antitheses be granted, one might observe that the formula ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν nowhere occurs in these sayings. As for the repetitive style in Mt. 5.21-48, it may as well be the style of a memorable teacher. In any case, many scholars attribute to Matthew the application of the formula to several of these sayings. But his use of the formula is easier to explain if he inherited if from Jesus than if he created it himself. Meier argues against the authenticity of the antithetical formula on the basis that Mt. 5.21-48 is replete with Matthean redactional activity and that Matthew has a tendency to sharpen Jesus’ antitheses (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29). The former observation does not rule out the possibility that Mt. 5.21-48 contains authentic material. Meier himself argues for the authenticity of the third and fourth antitheses (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 102–19, 198–206). As for the latter point, it is too general to serve as an argument for the Matthean origin of this particular formula. 16.  Strecker, “Antithesen,” 45; François Vouga, Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique, Le monde de la Bible 17 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988), 197–98. 17.  Some of the scholars who have followed Bultmann’s analysis of the antitheses have concluded that the first, second, and fourth antitheses are ­pre-Matthean without committing to their authenticity (see Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 93; Holtz, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” 139).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

the first, second, and fourth antitheses could not have existed without the antithetical form. James 5.12 shows that the prohibition against oaths in the fourth antithesis circulated without this formula.13 Suggs is correct that the teaching of the antitheses does not presuppose the form they have in Mt. 5.21-48. But the question is how Matthew’s peculiar form most likely would have originated. Suggs maintains that the criterion of dissimilarity supports a Matthean origin as well as it supports an origin with the historical Jesus. This argument presupposes that Matthew was as equally original and radical a teacher as was Jesus, which is doubtful. Suggs suggests that the form of the antitheses reflects a specific Matthean interest: to highlight Jesus’ authority which stands behind the Christian righteousness that transcends that of the scribes and Pharisees.14 This argument would be more convincing if it were applied to Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. The radical teaching of the antitheses is not likely to demonstrate the superiority of a particular community. More importantly, the idea of Jesus’ superiority to the law does not directly serve the idea that he teaches a higher righteousness. It might even be understood to contradict it. In any case, there is no demonstrable tendency in the early church to undergird their ethical teaching in this way. Moreover, a linguistic examination of the antitheses shows that they differ significantly from what we know about Matthew’s style. The formula ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν only occurs in the antitheses (5.22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44), nowhere else

in Matthew or in the other Synoptic Gospels. Matthew prefers instead ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν or ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, which he uses 29 times, and λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, which he uses four times.15 The combination of ἠκούσατε and ὅτι occurs five times in the antitheses (5.21, 27, 33, 38, 43), but Matthew does not use it elsewhere. The form ἐρρέθη is attested four times in the rest of the New Testament, but Matthew only uses it in the antitheses (5.21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). He prefers the form ῥηθέν. The construction πᾶς ὁ followed by a participle is also unusual in Matthew. Except in the antitheses (5.22, 28, 32), it only occurs in Mt. 7.8, 21, 26. In 7.8, 26, the phrase is a part of the double tradition of Matthew and Luke and can hardly be attributed to Matthean style. Stylistic considerations therefore militate against the hypothesis that the evangelist is responsible for the form of the antitheses.16 If the form of the antitheses cannot be attributed to the evangelist, we are left with the possibility that the form of the Matthean antitheses was the product of a ­pre-Matthean theological tendency and that the final redaction of Matthew’s Gospel intended to modify this tendency.17 Such a hypothesis is unnecessarily

106

13.  Hans Dieter Betz also finds Bultmann’s analysis inadequate and opts for an origin of the antitheses by the redactor of the Sermon on the Mount (The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain [Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Lk. 6.20–49], Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995], 211–14). 14.  M. Jack Suggs, “The Antitheses as Redactional Products,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975), 433–44; similarly Ingo Broer, “Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthäus,” BZ 19 (1975): 58–59, 62–63; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29. Paul Foster also argues that the form of the antitheses is redactional. He explains the form as motivated by Matthew’s community’s need for ­self-legitimization. They were in conflict with Jewish communities over the locus of the highest authority, which they attributed to Jesus, rather than to the Torah (Community, 97, 140–43). This explanation is an improvement over against that of Suggs, in that Foster recognizes that the antithetical form primarily has implications for the source of authority, rather than ethical conduct per se. The problem remains, however, that there is no evidence that the early Christian communities had an interest in pitting Jesus’ authority against the law. On the contrary, early Christian apologetic was concerned to show that Jesus and the early church conformed to the law.

107

15.  Broer argues on the other hand that the string of sayings with an almost identical formula is likely to be redactional. He also notes that Matthew tends to sharpen Jesus’ antitheses (cf. Mt. 10.34; 15.11, 17-18, 20; 19.8, 9) and to emphasize Jesus’ sayings with the emphatic ἐγώ. For the latter point, he refers to Mt. 10.16; 11.20; 26.15, but only the first of these verses include the word ἐγώ (“Antithesen,” 53, 57). In any case, Broer has not shown that Matthew has a tendency to pit Jesus’ ἐγώ against the law of Moses. If the point about sharpening antitheses be granted, one might observe that the formula ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν nowhere occurs in these sayings. As for the repetitive style in Mt. 5.21-48, it may as well be the style of a memorable teacher. In any case, many scholars attribute to Matthew the application of the formula to several of these sayings. But his use of the formula is easier to explain if he inherited if from Jesus than if he created it himself. Meier argues against the authenticity of the antithetical formula on the basis that Mt. 5.21-48 is replete with Matthean redactional activity and that Matthew has a tendency to sharpen Jesus’ antitheses (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 217, n. 29). The former observation does not rule out the possibility that Mt. 5.21-48 contains authentic material. Meier himself argues for the authenticity of the third and fourth antitheses (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 4, 102–19, 198–206). As for the latter point, it is too general to serve as an argument for the Matthean origin of this particular formula. 16.  Strecker, “Antithesen,” 45; François Vouga, Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique, Le monde de la Bible 17 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988), 197–98. 17.  Some of the scholars who have followed Bultmann’s analysis of the antitheses have concluded that the first, second, and fourth antitheses are ­pre-Matthean without committing to their authenticity (see Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 93; Holtz, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” 139).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

complex, however, and it raises the question of why the final redactor could not have omitted the inauthentic “but I say” formula, which did not express his own interests and could be omitted without disturbing the general flow of thought. I therefore conclude that it is difficult to account for the origin of the antithetical form as the product of the early church. The formula “you have heard it was said to those of ancient times . . . but I say to you” is therefore more likely to be authentic, based on the criterion of dissimilarity.18 The criterion of rejection and execution corroborates this conclusion. A Jesus claiming authority superior to the law is likely to have provoked the wrath of the authorities.

rabbis only serves to highlight the differences: Jesus did not engage in a discussion, and he did not justify his position with exegetical arguments. Instead, he simply referred to his own person as the source of his authority.21 Hans Dieter Betz observes that the “but I tell you” formula goes beyond the rabbinic “but you must say,”22 but he argues that the issue in the antitheses is over the interpretation of the law. Jesus can therefore be understood basically as a Jewish rabbi, who engages in the ongoing debate over the correct understanding of the Torah.23 Based on the work of Ben Zion Wacholder, he also finds a parallel to the Teacher of Righteousness, the presumed author of 11Q Temple. According to Wacholder’s interpretation, 11Q Temple is written as “new Torah.”24 But Jesus’ words do not merely concern exegesis. Several scholars have understood him actually to correct Scripture, but that is disputed.25 In any case,

108

The Nature of the Claim If it be granted that Jesus did speak in the characteristic way that is preserved in the antitheses, he implicitly claimed a remarkable authority. He quoted a passage from Scripture with the introductory formula: “you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times.” The use of a passive form of the verb “to say” to introduce authoritative tradition is known from rabbinic sources. As the source of the tradition is God, the implied agent of the verb “said” (ἐρρέθη) must be God.19 Over against this tradition, Jesus presented his own teaching: “but I say to you.” With an emphatic “I” (ἐγώ), he thus pitted his own authority against the authority of Torah, which was given by God himself.

Rabbinic Parallels Jesus’ contrasting formula has been compared to the legal discussions of the rabbis, but only remote parallels have been found.20 A comparison with the

18.  Similarly, Ben F. Meyer, Aims, 144. W. D. Davies is also open to this possibility (The Setting, 387–88). Cf. note 5. 19. Banks, Jesus and the Law, 202. 20.  According to David Daube, Jesus’ formula corresponds to rabbinic formulas used in exegetical discussion. He compares Jesus’ ἠκούσατε ὅτι to the rabbinic “I have heard” (‫אני‬ ‫)שומע‬, which is used to introduce a dubious interpretation. As for Jesus’ ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Daube refers to the rabbinic “you must say” (‫)אמרת‬, which introduces the correct understanding. The parallel is not very close. Jesus used the second person plural for the hearing, where the rabbis used the first person singular. He also used the first person singular when giving the corrective, whereas the rabbis used the second person plural. Jesus also added the dative ὑμῖν, which shows that he placed himself – not in the middle of a discussion but – over against his audience. Daube explains the differences as due to the different

109

settings. The rabbinic discussion was of an academic nature, but Jesus spoke as a legislator. Daube also concedes that Jesus spoke with a superior authority (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: School of Oriental and African Studies, The University of London, 1956], 55–62). With such modifications, the value of the parallel is considerably reduced. Moreover, as Byrskog observes, Jesus’ emphatic “I” (ἐγώ) remains unparalleled (Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community, ConBNT 24 [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992], 294–95; cf. also Martin Hengel, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana, vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften, Martin Hengel, WUNT 109 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999], 268). 21. Byrskog, Only Teacher, 295–96; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 127–30. 22.  Contra Daube, Rabbinic Judaism, 56–61. 23. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 209–11; similarly, A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 55; Ragnar Leivestad, Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles, trans. David Aune (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 107–9. 24.  Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness, HUCM 8 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), 1–32. Wacholder also suggests: “The author’s attitude to the traditional Torah was perhaps similar to that found in Mt. 5.17, which in paraphrase may be rendered: ‘I have not come to diminish the law of Moses, but to complete it’” (Dawn of Qumran, 32). Cf. also Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, SAOC 49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 157–79. 25.  For the view that Jesus contradicts Scripture, see Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 62. For the view that Jesus provides an authoritative interpretation of the law, see W. D. Davies, The Setting, 427–28; Roger Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives, SNTSMS 48 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 8–16; Saldarini, Matthew’s ­Christian-Jewish Community, 161; Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. J. Bradford

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

complex, however, and it raises the question of why the final redactor could not have omitted the inauthentic “but I say” formula, which did not express his own interests and could be omitted without disturbing the general flow of thought. I therefore conclude that it is difficult to account for the origin of the antithetical form as the product of the early church. The formula “you have heard it was said to those of ancient times . . . but I say to you” is therefore more likely to be authentic, based on the criterion of dissimilarity.18 The criterion of rejection and execution corroborates this conclusion. A Jesus claiming authority superior to the law is likely to have provoked the wrath of the authorities.

rabbis only serves to highlight the differences: Jesus did not engage in a discussion, and he did not justify his position with exegetical arguments. Instead, he simply referred to his own person as the source of his authority.21 Hans Dieter Betz observes that the “but I tell you” formula goes beyond the rabbinic “but you must say,”22 but he argues that the issue in the antitheses is over the interpretation of the law. Jesus can therefore be understood basically as a Jewish rabbi, who engages in the ongoing debate over the correct understanding of the Torah.23 Based on the work of Ben Zion Wacholder, he also finds a parallel to the Teacher of Righteousness, the presumed author of 11Q Temple. According to Wacholder’s interpretation, 11Q Temple is written as “new Torah.”24 But Jesus’ words do not merely concern exegesis. Several scholars have understood him actually to correct Scripture, but that is disputed.25 In any case,

108

The Nature of the Claim If it be granted that Jesus did speak in the characteristic way that is preserved in the antitheses, he implicitly claimed a remarkable authority. He quoted a passage from Scripture with the introductory formula: “you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times.” The use of a passive form of the verb “to say” to introduce authoritative tradition is known from rabbinic sources. As the source of the tradition is God, the implied agent of the verb “said” (ἐρρέθη) must be God.19 Over against this tradition, Jesus presented his own teaching: “but I say to you.” With an emphatic “I” (ἐγώ), he thus pitted his own authority against the authority of Torah, which was given by God himself.

Rabbinic Parallels Jesus’ contrasting formula has been compared to the legal discussions of the rabbis, but only remote parallels have been found.20 A comparison with the

18.  Similarly, Ben F. Meyer, Aims, 144. W. D. Davies is also open to this possibility (The Setting, 387–88). Cf. note 5. 19. Banks, Jesus and the Law, 202. 20.  According to David Daube, Jesus’ formula corresponds to rabbinic formulas used in exegetical discussion. He compares Jesus’ ἠκούσατε ὅτι to the rabbinic “I have heard” (‫אני‬ ‫)שומע‬, which is used to introduce a dubious interpretation. As for Jesus’ ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, Daube refers to the rabbinic “you must say” (‫)אמרת‬, which introduces the correct understanding. The parallel is not very close. Jesus used the second person plural for the hearing, where the rabbis used the first person singular. He also used the first person singular when giving the corrective, whereas the rabbis used the second person plural. Jesus also added the dative ὑμῖν, which shows that he placed himself – not in the middle of a discussion but – over against his audience. Daube explains the differences as due to the different

109

settings. The rabbinic discussion was of an academic nature, but Jesus spoke as a legislator. Daube also concedes that Jesus spoke with a superior authority (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [London: School of Oriental and African Studies, The University of London, 1956], 55–62). With such modifications, the value of the parallel is considerably reduced. Moreover, as Byrskog observes, Jesus’ emphatic “I” (ἐγώ) remains unparalleled (Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community, ConBNT 24 [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992], 294–95; cf. also Martin Hengel, “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana, vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften, Martin Hengel, WUNT 109 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999], 268). 21. Byrskog, Only Teacher, 295–96; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 127–30. 22.  Contra Daube, Rabbinic Judaism, 56–61. 23. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 209–11; similarly, A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 55; Ragnar Leivestad, Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles, trans. David Aune (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 107–9. 24.  Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness, HUCM 8 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), 1–32. Wacholder also suggests: “The author’s attitude to the traditional Torah was perhaps similar to that found in Mt. 5.17, which in paraphrase may be rendered: ‘I have not come to diminish the law of Moses, but to complete it’” (Dawn of Qumran, 32). Cf. also Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, SAOC 49 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 157–79. 25.  For the view that Jesus contradicts Scripture, see Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 62. For the view that Jesus provides an authoritative interpretation of the law, see W. D. Davies, The Setting, 427–28; Roger Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives, SNTSMS 48 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 8–16; Saldarini, Matthew’s ­Christian-Jewish Community, 161; Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, trans. J. Bradford

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

however, the statements to which he compared his own statements are pure Scripture quotations. The only exception is the sixth antithesis. In the first five, Jesus did not compare his sayings to alternative interpretations of Scripture but to Scripture itself.26 The rabbinic “but you must say” sayings typically introduce a correction to a previously quoted opinion by another rabbi. If these sayings be granted as a parallel, therefore, the conclusion must be that Jesus’ sayings were offered as correctives and that it was Scripture he corrects. Alternatively, it might be suggested that the “but I say to you” sayings were not intended to challenge the comparative statements, but to offer an interpretation of them. But this understanding will not work in the case of the sixth antithesis because the dictum “hate your enemies” is explicitly contradicted in the following.27 As the last example shows, Jesus’ “but I tell you” sayings pit his own authority against that of the previously quoted statement. In the first five antitheses, the statements whose authority is challenged are from Scripture, not from traditional interpretations. In light of these differences between the first five and the last of the antitheses, it is not possible to explain these sayings simply by observing that they all concern the interpretation of the law.28 Regardless of whether he actually intended to correct Scripture, he intended his

authority at least to match that of Scripture.29 It may be objected that the first five antitheses, which concern commandments from Scripture, make the commandments more rigorous, and that only the sixth antithesis, which concerns a ­non-Scriptural implication, corrects the previously quoted statement. It could then be argued that Jesus did not claim an authority higher than Scripture, only an authority higher than other interpreters. One must distinguish, however, between contradicting and claiming higher authority. Even if Jesus is not seen to be contradicting Scripture he formally claimed the same superior authority over against Scripture as he claimed over against the admonishment to hate one’s enemies. In the first five antitheses, Jesus used this authority to make more rigorous demands than Scripture.30 In the last antithesis, he used this authority to contradict a contemporary interpretation. The “but I say” formula must therefore be taken to mean: “here follows a superior authority.” 31 A comparison of the antitheses to Jesus’ exegetical discussions confirms that the antitheses do not merely concern the interpretation of Scripture. The antitheses differ markedly from Mt. 19.3-9, where Jesus engages the rabbinic exegetical debate on divorce. In Mt. 19.3-9, there is no antithetical formula, nor is there any indication that Jesus’ words are contrasted with those of Scripture. Instead, he illuminates the question with another passage from Scripture (Gen. 2.24) and offers his own authoritative comment.

Robinson, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 57; Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 166–73. For an approach that sees Jesus affirming the law while at the same time transcending it, see Banks, Jesus and the Law, 242–46; France, Evangelist and Teacher, 191–97; Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 48–58. Related to this debate is also the question of Jesus’ attitude to the purity laws (Mk 7.1-23 par.). Many scholars find that Jesus went further than merely interpreting the Mosaic law, and several have found in this observation an implication that Jesus’ authority went beyond that of Moses and the prophets, e.g. I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 47–49. Other scholars point out that Jesus himself is never seen in conflict with the written Mosaic law, only with the Pharisaic commandments. Even in the incident of plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, it were the disciples, not Jesus himself, who were understood to be violating the law (Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby [New York: Macmillan, 1925], 364; Flusser, Jesus, 58–60). 26. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 229–30. 27.  This argument based on the sixth antithesis is valid even if the sixth antithesis be deemed inauthentic. It presupposes that the meaning of the original formula has been understood correctly by those who expanded its use. 28. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 209, 214, 217–18, 231, 243, 263, 277, 301, 309; similarly, Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 172; Keener, Matthew, 181–82.

29.  Similarly, Ben F. Meyer, Aims, 144; Jacques Schlosser, Jésus de Nazareth, 2nd edn. (Paris: Agnès Viénot Éditions, 2002), 223; Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 334; Yieh, One Teacher, 34–35. So also Paul Foster, although he finds this claim to authority to have originated with the Matthean community (Community, 141). 30.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 508; Graham N. Stanton, Studies in Matthew, 302. 31.  As Ernst Käsemann correctly observes (“The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague [London: SCM, 1964], 37). Similarly, Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 89; Banks, Jesus and the Law, 189; Dieter Zeller, “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber,” in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch, ed. Ludger Schenke, SBS (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 301. Meier correctly observes that Jesus here claims a higher authority than the Torah (The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel, Theological Inquiries [New York: Paulist, 1979], 243). But then he explains this authority by maintaining that Jesus “claims direct and intuitive knowledge of God’s will” (ibid., 244). The Sermon on the Mount contains no reference to Jesus’ knowledge of God’s ethical demands. Andrew Chester observes that for Matthew Jesus “speaks with divine authority” (Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 207 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 505).

110

111

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

however, the statements to which he compared his own statements are pure Scripture quotations. The only exception is the sixth antithesis. In the first five, Jesus did not compare his sayings to alternative interpretations of Scripture but to Scripture itself.26 The rabbinic “but you must say” sayings typically introduce a correction to a previously quoted opinion by another rabbi. If these sayings be granted as a parallel, therefore, the conclusion must be that Jesus’ sayings were offered as correctives and that it was Scripture he corrects. Alternatively, it might be suggested that the “but I say to you” sayings were not intended to challenge the comparative statements, but to offer an interpretation of them. But this understanding will not work in the case of the sixth antithesis because the dictum “hate your enemies” is explicitly contradicted in the following.27 As the last example shows, Jesus’ “but I tell you” sayings pit his own authority against that of the previously quoted statement. In the first five antitheses, the statements whose authority is challenged are from Scripture, not from traditional interpretations. In light of these differences between the first five and the last of the antitheses, it is not possible to explain these sayings simply by observing that they all concern the interpretation of the law.28 Regardless of whether he actually intended to correct Scripture, he intended his

authority at least to match that of Scripture.29 It may be objected that the first five antitheses, which concern commandments from Scripture, make the commandments more rigorous, and that only the sixth antithesis, which concerns a ­non-Scriptural implication, corrects the previously quoted statement. It could then be argued that Jesus did not claim an authority higher than Scripture, only an authority higher than other interpreters. One must distinguish, however, between contradicting and claiming higher authority. Even if Jesus is not seen to be contradicting Scripture he formally claimed the same superior authority over against Scripture as he claimed over against the admonishment to hate one’s enemies. In the first five antitheses, Jesus used this authority to make more rigorous demands than Scripture.30 In the last antithesis, he used this authority to contradict a contemporary interpretation. The “but I say” formula must therefore be taken to mean: “here follows a superior authority.” 31 A comparison of the antitheses to Jesus’ exegetical discussions confirms that the antitheses do not merely concern the interpretation of Scripture. The antitheses differ markedly from Mt. 19.3-9, where Jesus engages the rabbinic exegetical debate on divorce. In Mt. 19.3-9, there is no antithetical formula, nor is there any indication that Jesus’ words are contrasted with those of Scripture. Instead, he illuminates the question with another passage from Scripture (Gen. 2.24) and offers his own authoritative comment.

Robinson, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 57; Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 166–73. For an approach that sees Jesus affirming the law while at the same time transcending it, see Banks, Jesus and the Law, 242–46; France, Evangelist and Teacher, 191–97; Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York: Crossroad, 1999), 48–58. Related to this debate is also the question of Jesus’ attitude to the purity laws (Mk 7.1-23 par.). Many scholars find that Jesus went further than merely interpreting the Mosaic law, and several have found in this observation an implication that Jesus’ authority went beyond that of Moses and the prophets, e.g. I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 47–49. Other scholars point out that Jesus himself is never seen in conflict with the written Mosaic law, only with the Pharisaic commandments. Even in the incident of plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, it were the disciples, not Jesus himself, who were understood to be violating the law (Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby [New York: Macmillan, 1925], 364; Flusser, Jesus, 58–60). 26. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 229–30. 27.  This argument based on the sixth antithesis is valid even if the sixth antithesis be deemed inauthentic. It presupposes that the meaning of the original formula has been understood correctly by those who expanded its use. 28. Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 209, 214, 217–18, 231, 243, 263, 277, 301, 309; similarly, Loader, Jesus’ Attitude, 172; Keener, Matthew, 181–82.

29.  Similarly, Ben F. Meyer, Aims, 144; Jacques Schlosser, Jésus de Nazareth, 2nd edn. (Paris: Agnès Viénot Éditions, 2002), 223; Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 334; Yieh, One Teacher, 34–35. So also Paul Foster, although he finds this claim to authority to have originated with the Matthean community (Community, 141). 30.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 508; Graham N. Stanton, Studies in Matthew, 302. 31.  As Ernst Käsemann correctly observes (“The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans. W. J. Montague [London: SCM, 1964], 37). Similarly, Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn,” 89; Banks, Jesus and the Law, 189; Dieter Zeller, “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber,” in Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch, ed. Ludger Schenke, SBS (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 301. Meier correctly observes that Jesus here claims a higher authority than the Torah (The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel, Theological Inquiries [New York: Paulist, 1979], 243). But then he explains this authority by maintaining that Jesus “claims direct and intuitive knowledge of God’s will” (ibid., 244). The Sermon on the Mount contains no reference to Jesus’ knowledge of God’s ethical demands. Andrew Chester observes that for Matthew Jesus “speaks with divine authority” (Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 207 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 505).

110

111

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

These observations also show that the Temple Scroll does not constitute a real parallel to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Even if Wacholder’s interpretation be granted and 11Q Temple were intended to be received as Scripture, 11Q Temple does not challenge the authority of the earlier revelations in Scripture. At most, it provides a revelation supplement for the end times. The voice of YHWH is reported in the first person (11QTa 45.14; 51.7), but he does not contrast his teaching to the previous revelation in Scripture. The striking characteristic of the antitheses, Jesus’ pitting his own words against those of Scripture, remains unparalleled.

is that Jesus did not claim to “represent” anybody. He speaks on his own.35 He thereby goes beyond the authority of the prophets, who carefully ascribed the ultimate authority to YHWH with the formula “thus says the Lord.”36 The evidence therefore does not support the conclusion that Jesus here spoke as God’s representative.37

112

Moses Davies and Allison find an astonishing authority claim in the antithesis formula, exceeding that of the men of old and paralleling that of Moses.32 Again, however, this parallel is inadequate. In the Pentateuch, Moses is consistently portrayed as speaking with authority because God had spoken to him. The writings of Second Temple Judaism also portray Moses as lawgiver, but he does not give the law on his own authority.33 In contrast, Jesus did not refer to the authority of God. The implication of the antitheses is either that Jesus intended to set aside the authority of YHWH who had spoken to the ancestors, or that he made the claim that the same authority was his own in some inherent way.34 What is so striking in all of these instances 32.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 512. Cf. also Georg Strecker, who thinks that Jesus corrects the Torah, but rejects the idea of any messianic implications. Instead, he thinks Jesus’ authority can be explained as prophetic (“Antithesen,” 70–71). 33. The Letter of Aristeas refers to Moses as “our lawgiver” (131) and “the legislator” (139). He is attributed with “establishing these matters” (133), and he is also said to have “hedged us in on all sides with strict observances” (142) and to have “enacted this legislation” (144). Nevertheless, it is the power of God that runs “through the entire legislation” (133). He is the one who sends the “damages and visitations” that result from disobedience (131). The authority of the law is not derived from the authority of Moses as the lawgiver, but from the fact that it corresponds to the government of the one supreme power (143). Moses could be the legislator because he was “endowed by God for the knowledge of universal truths” (139). Accordingly, his accomplishment was to teach Israel to worship the true, sovereign God (­141-142). 34. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 229–31; similarly, Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 30, 32. Samuel Sandmel concludes that, while Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount did not abolish the Mosaic law, he introduced an entirely new law (Judaism and Christian Beginnings [New York: Oxford University Press, 1978], 359). Sandmel does not comment on what such a claim reveals about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding, however.

113

Messiah Perhaps the most common explanation for Jesus’ implicit authority claim is that it is an expression of his messianic s­ elf-understanding.38 But the Jewish messianic expectations had no room for a Messiah who pits his own authority against that of the law of Moses.39 On the contrary, the days of the Messiah were seen as the days when the law will be upheld. It is the time when the Gentiles will finally acknowledge the excellence of God’s law and freely submit to it (Isa. 2.3; Sib. Or. 3.719). God’s restored people of the messianic times will keep his law (Jub. 23.26; T. Zeb. 10.2; Tg. Onq. Gen. 49.12; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30).40 In 2 Baruch, the Messiah will protect the rest of God’s people (40.3), who are defined by their obedience to the law (54.5) and distinguished from the apostates, those “who have cast away from them the yoke of [God’s] Law” (41.3). In the Christian additions to the Sibylline Oracles, the Messiah

35. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 152; I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 49–50. 36. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 188. 37.  Contra Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 254. 38.  Joseph Klausner finds that, while Jesus did not think of himself as God, the antitheses express a belief in himself that is ultimately unacceptable within Judaism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus relied upon himself more than upon Moses. Klausner traces this ­self-confidence to Jesus’ messianic s­ elf-awareness (Jesus of Nazareth, 378–79, 409). Similarly, Käsemann, “The Historical Jesus,” 37–38; Lohse, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” 85; Wolfgang Schrage, “Bergpredigt und Christologie,” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its J­ udeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný, ed. Jiří Mrázek and Jan Roskovec, JSNTSup 272 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 179–80. Dieter Zeller explains this authority as the prerogative of the Messiah who is also the Son of God (“Vollmächtiger Lehrer,” 306). 39.  Hengel observes that Jesus introduced something new when he pitted his authority against that of the Torah (“Bergpredigt,” 269). 40. ­Pseudo-Philo describes the time of salvation as the time when Israel will be like a brooding dove, never leaving her nest, the nest being a metaphor for the law (L.A.B. 21.6). Cf. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 368. Regarding the Tannaim, George Foot Moore observes that the law would be studied and kept better than ever in the messianic age (Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim, vol. 1, reprint, 1927 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997], 271).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

These observations also show that the Temple Scroll does not constitute a real parallel to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Even if Wacholder’s interpretation be granted and 11Q Temple were intended to be received as Scripture, 11Q Temple does not challenge the authority of the earlier revelations in Scripture. At most, it provides a revelation supplement for the end times. The voice of YHWH is reported in the first person (11QTa 45.14; 51.7), but he does not contrast his teaching to the previous revelation in Scripture. The striking characteristic of the antitheses, Jesus’ pitting his own words against those of Scripture, remains unparalleled.

is that Jesus did not claim to “represent” anybody. He speaks on his own.35 He thereby goes beyond the authority of the prophets, who carefully ascribed the ultimate authority to YHWH with the formula “thus says the Lord.”36 The evidence therefore does not support the conclusion that Jesus here spoke as God’s representative.37

112

Moses Davies and Allison find an astonishing authority claim in the antithesis formula, exceeding that of the men of old and paralleling that of Moses.32 Again, however, this parallel is inadequate. In the Pentateuch, Moses is consistently portrayed as speaking with authority because God had spoken to him. The writings of Second Temple Judaism also portray Moses as lawgiver, but he does not give the law on his own authority.33 In contrast, Jesus did not refer to the authority of God. The implication of the antitheses is either that Jesus intended to set aside the authority of YHWH who had spoken to the ancestors, or that he made the claim that the same authority was his own in some inherent way.34 What is so striking in all of these instances 32.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 512. Cf. also Georg Strecker, who thinks that Jesus corrects the Torah, but rejects the idea of any messianic implications. Instead, he thinks Jesus’ authority can be explained as prophetic (“Antithesen,” 70–71). 33. The Letter of Aristeas refers to Moses as “our lawgiver” (131) and “the legislator” (139). He is attributed with “establishing these matters” (133), and he is also said to have “hedged us in on all sides with strict observances” (142) and to have “enacted this legislation” (144). Nevertheless, it is the power of God that runs “through the entire legislation” (133). He is the one who sends the “damages and visitations” that result from disobedience (131). The authority of the law is not derived from the authority of Moses as the lawgiver, but from the fact that it corresponds to the government of the one supreme power (143). Moses could be the legislator because he was “endowed by God for the knowledge of universal truths” (139). Accordingly, his accomplishment was to teach Israel to worship the true, sovereign God (­141-142). 34. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 229–31; similarly, Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 30, 32. Samuel Sandmel concludes that, while Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount did not abolish the Mosaic law, he introduced an entirely new law (Judaism and Christian Beginnings [New York: Oxford University Press, 1978], 359). Sandmel does not comment on what such a claim reveals about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding, however.

113

Messiah Perhaps the most common explanation for Jesus’ implicit authority claim is that it is an expression of his messianic s­ elf-understanding.38 But the Jewish messianic expectations had no room for a Messiah who pits his own authority against that of the law of Moses.39 On the contrary, the days of the Messiah were seen as the days when the law will be upheld. It is the time when the Gentiles will finally acknowledge the excellence of God’s law and freely submit to it (Isa. 2.3; Sib. Or. 3.719). God’s restored people of the messianic times will keep his law (Jub. 23.26; T. Zeb. 10.2; Tg. Onq. Gen. 49.12; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30).40 In 2 Baruch, the Messiah will protect the rest of God’s people (40.3), who are defined by their obedience to the law (54.5) and distinguished from the apostates, those “who have cast away from them the yoke of [God’s] Law” (41.3). In the Christian additions to the Sibylline Oracles, the Messiah

35. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 152; I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 49–50. 36. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 188. 37.  Contra Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 254. 38.  Joseph Klausner finds that, while Jesus did not think of himself as God, the antitheses express a belief in himself that is ultimately unacceptable within Judaism. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus relied upon himself more than upon Moses. Klausner traces this ­self-confidence to Jesus’ messianic s­ elf-awareness (Jesus of Nazareth, 378–79, 409). Similarly, Käsemann, “The Historical Jesus,” 37–38; Lohse, “‘Ich aber sage euch’,” 85; Wolfgang Schrage, “Bergpredigt und Christologie,” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its J­ udeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný, ed. Jiří Mrázek and Jan Roskovec, JSNTSup 272 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 179–80. Dieter Zeller explains this authority as the prerogative of the Messiah who is also the Son of God (“Vollmächtiger Lehrer,” 306). 39.  Hengel observes that Jesus introduced something new when he pitted his authority against that of the Torah (“Bergpredigt,” 269). 40. ­Pseudo-Philo describes the time of salvation as the time when Israel will be like a brooding dove, never leaving her nest, the nest being a metaphor for the law (L.A.B. 21.6). Cf. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 368. Regarding the Tannaim, George Foot Moore observes that the law would be studied and kept better than ever in the messianic age (Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim, vol. 1, reprint, 1927 [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997], 271).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

is also described as fulfilling the law (1.332; cf. T. Levi 16.3) and establishing a law observant people (1.384).41 The Qumran community’s distinctive concern for correct law observance has also shaped their messianic expectations. For them, the covenant was determinative of the messianic times (1QSa 1.4-5; 1QSb 5.23; 11Q13 ii.24). Participation in the messianic banquet was contingent upon law observance (1QSa 1.1-2). Far from giving his own law, the priestly Messiah would be an interpreter of the law (CD-A 7.18; 4Q174 1.i.11). The kingly Messiah would also stand out by virtue of his law observance (4Q252 5.5). Since the authority of the law is seen to be higher than the authority of the Messiah, messianic pretensions cannot explain Jesus’ emphatic claims in Mt. 5.21-48. In the rabbinic sources, the predominant view is that the messianic times will bring perfect obedience to the Torah.42 Some adjustments may be expected as a result of the eschatological events, but those do not pertain to the essential validity of the law in the messianic age. Occasionally, however, there are references to a new Torah. These references are quite late, and Klausner has argued that they all can be explained as reactions to the Christian movement.43 In any case, the Messiah’s role as teacher of the new Torah is marginal, and he is not expected to teach on his own authority. According to Yalqut on Isa. 26.2, “God will sit and expound a new Torah which He will, one day, give by the Messiah’s hand.”44

Jesus’ implicit claim to authority in the antitheses can therefore not be explained on the basis of messianic expectations.45 Only one explanation remains: Jesus placed his own authority at the same level as that of God.

114

41.  For Terence L. Donaldson, the key to the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is the use of Zion imagery. He bases this view primarily on the reference to a city on a mountain (Mt. 5.14), which he takes as a reference to Jerusalem and Zion. Accordingly, Jesus is seen as the Messiah who restores the eschatological community on Zion and brings the new law (Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology, JSNTSup 8 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 116–18). This interpretation of Mt. 5.14 is tenuous, however. Such a specific reference would normally require a definite article, which is lacking here (Byrskog, Only Teacher, 298–99). In any case, the connection with Zion expectations does not explain the characteristic contrast between old and new found in the antitheses. 42.  Schäfer, “Torah,” 32–36. 43. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 446–47. 44.  Quoted from W. D. Davies, The Setting, 176. Davies cites five sources that may be understood as referring to a new Torah: Targum on Isa. 12.3; Midrash Qohelet on 2.1 and on 11.8; Targum on Song of Songs 5.10; Yalqut on Isa. 26.2; and Midrash Rabba Song of Songs 2.29 on 2.13. Only Midrash Qohelet on 11.8 and Yalqut on Isa. 26.2 mention the Messiah. Midrash Qohelet on 11.8 refers to “the Torah of the Messiah,” but does not elaborate on what role the Messiah is expected to play (ibid., 172–79).

115

Prepositive Amen This interpretation receives some corroboration from Jesus’ characteristic teaching style. Most scholars agree that the use of “amen” to introduce, rather than conclude, a statement is an authentic element of Jesus’ teaching (cf. Mt. 5.26; 11.11; 17.20; Mk 3.28; Lk. 4.24, etc.).46 No parallel has been found to this characteristic usage.47 Whereas “amen” was normally used as a response, to affirm the reliability of something that was said, Jesus used it to introduce his own sayings and to emphasize his own authority.48

Conclusion Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount presupposes an authority that only compares to that of God himself. This authority can hardly be explained as being made by the early church on Jesus’ behalf. The s­ o-called antitheses in the Gospel of Matthew (5.21-48) serve to make even more rigorous demands than what is stated in the law of Moses. No such interest can be detected in the early church. Based on the criterion of dissimilarity, the antithetical formula is therefore likely to be authentic. If so, Jesus pitted his own words against those of the Torah, which was given by God. Moses and the rabbis never made such claims on their own behalf; nor was the Messiah expected to do so. Jesus’ view of his own authority therefore

45.  Chester also observes that Jesus’ teaching is not adequately described as a new Torah. It does not have the specific commandments that characterize the Torah. Instead, Jesus prescribes “a whole way of life that takes on a radically new dimension” (Messiah and Exaltation, 505). Jörg Frey observes that Jesus goes beyond all known categories (“Der historische Jesus,” 318). 46.  The fact that the disciples did not continue the practice is a strong argument in favor of its authenticity. See Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 35–36; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 379–82; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 487–89; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 367–69; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 523–24; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 700–701. 47. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 536. 48.  Riesner finds in the usage an implicit claim to transcend the authority of the prophets (Jesus als Lehrer, 378).

God’s Equal

5.  Speaking with God’s Authority

is also described as fulfilling the law (1.332; cf. T. Levi 16.3) and establishing a law observant people (1.384).41 The Qumran community’s distinctive concern for correct law observance has also shaped their messianic expectations. For them, the covenant was determinative of the messianic times (1QSa 1.4-5; 1QSb 5.23; 11Q13 ii.24). Participation in the messianic banquet was contingent upon law observance (1QSa 1.1-2). Far from giving his own law, the priestly Messiah would be an interpreter of the law (CD-A 7.18; 4Q174 1.i.11). The kingly Messiah would also stand out by virtue of his law observance (4Q252 5.5). Since the authority of the law is seen to be higher than the authority of the Messiah, messianic pretensions cannot explain Jesus’ emphatic claims in Mt. 5.21-48. In the rabbinic sources, the predominant view is that the messianic times will bring perfect obedience to the Torah.42 Some adjustments may be expected as a result of the eschatological events, but those do not pertain to the essential validity of the law in the messianic age. Occasionally, however, there are references to a new Torah. These references are quite late, and Klausner has argued that they all can be explained as reactions to the Christian movement.43 In any case, the Messiah’s role as teacher of the new Torah is marginal, and he is not expected to teach on his own authority. According to Yalqut on Isa. 26.2, “God will sit and expound a new Torah which He will, one day, give by the Messiah’s hand.”44

Jesus’ implicit claim to authority in the antitheses can therefore not be explained on the basis of messianic expectations.45 Only one explanation remains: Jesus placed his own authority at the same level as that of God.

114

41.  For Terence L. Donaldson, the key to the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is the use of Zion imagery. He bases this view primarily on the reference to a city on a mountain (Mt. 5.14), which he takes as a reference to Jerusalem and Zion. Accordingly, Jesus is seen as the Messiah who restores the eschatological community on Zion and brings the new law (Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology, JSNTSup 8 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 116–18). This interpretation of Mt. 5.14 is tenuous, however. Such a specific reference would normally require a definite article, which is lacking here (Byrskog, Only Teacher, 298–99). In any case, the connection with Zion expectations does not explain the characteristic contrast between old and new found in the antitheses. 42.  Schäfer, “Torah,” 32–36. 43. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 446–47. 44.  Quoted from W. D. Davies, The Setting, 176. Davies cites five sources that may be understood as referring to a new Torah: Targum on Isa. 12.3; Midrash Qohelet on 2.1 and on 11.8; Targum on Song of Songs 5.10; Yalqut on Isa. 26.2; and Midrash Rabba Song of Songs 2.29 on 2.13. Only Midrash Qohelet on 11.8 and Yalqut on Isa. 26.2 mention the Messiah. Midrash Qohelet on 11.8 refers to “the Torah of the Messiah,” but does not elaborate on what role the Messiah is expected to play (ibid., 172–79).

115

Prepositive Amen This interpretation receives some corroboration from Jesus’ characteristic teaching style. Most scholars agree that the use of “amen” to introduce, rather than conclude, a statement is an authentic element of Jesus’ teaching (cf. Mt. 5.26; 11.11; 17.20; Mk 3.28; Lk. 4.24, etc.).46 No parallel has been found to this characteristic usage.47 Whereas “amen” was normally used as a response, to affirm the reliability of something that was said, Jesus used it to introduce his own sayings and to emphasize his own authority.48

Conclusion Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount presupposes an authority that only compares to that of God himself. This authority can hardly be explained as being made by the early church on Jesus’ behalf. The s­ o-called antitheses in the Gospel of Matthew (5.21-48) serve to make even more rigorous demands than what is stated in the law of Moses. No such interest can be detected in the early church. Based on the criterion of dissimilarity, the antithetical formula is therefore likely to be authentic. If so, Jesus pitted his own words against those of the Torah, which was given by God. Moses and the rabbis never made such claims on their own behalf; nor was the Messiah expected to do so. Jesus’ view of his own authority therefore

45.  Chester also observes that Jesus’ teaching is not adequately described as a new Torah. It does not have the specific commandments that characterize the Torah. Instead, Jesus prescribes “a whole way of life that takes on a radically new dimension” (Messiah and Exaltation, 505). Jörg Frey observes that Jesus goes beyond all known categories (“Der historische Jesus,” 318). 46.  The fact that the disciples did not continue the practice is a strong argument in favor of its authenticity. See Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 35–36; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 379–82; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 1, 487–89; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 367–69; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 523–24; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 700–701. 47. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 536. 48.  Riesner finds in the usage an implicit claim to transcend the authority of the prophets (Jesus als Lehrer, 378).

116

God’s Equal

117

goes beyond all known categories. In this respect, Jesus can only be compared to God.49 His implicit claim to authority in the antitheses represents another claim to be God’s equal.

6 ISSUING GOD’S CALL: JESUS’ RELATIONSHIP TO HIS DISCIPLES

If Jesus thought his own authority was higher than that of the Torah, one would expect this attitude to shine through in his interaction with his followers as well. In this chapter I will discuss Jesus’ relationship to his disciples and ask what the implications are for Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. This discussion falls into two parts. The first section will explore the significance of Jesus’ call of twelve disciples. I intend to show that his call of the twelve constituted a redefinition of the people of God. The second section looks at the nature of Jesus’ call and examines the demands that Jesus placed on his followers. Of these demands, the most radical is his reply to the would-be follower who requested permission to bury his father (Mt. 8.21-22 par.). I will argue that Jesus’ call of his disciples compares to God’s call of the prophets and to God’s demand for absolute commitment. The best explanation for Jesus’ attitude is that he thought of himself as equal to God. He had taken the place of Israel’s God, who demanded wholehearted love (Deut. 6.5).

Twelve Disciples To gather disciples was the common practice of a rabbi in ­first-century Judaism, but Jesus’ practice stands out by the importance given to the number twelve. There is an emerging consensus in recent scholarship that Jesus’ special call of twelve disciples is part of the most reliable core of the tradition.1 These twelve individuals play no role in the early Christian tradition. The lists of their names are also conspicuously different in the three Synoptic Gospels (Mk 3.16-19; Mt. 10.2-4; Lk. 6.14-16), which serves as an indication that the function of

49.  Similarly, Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 276–77; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 127.

1.  See especially Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106.

116

God’s Equal

117

goes beyond all known categories. In this respect, Jesus can only be compared to God.49 His implicit claim to authority in the antitheses represents another claim to be God’s equal.

6 ISSUING GOD’S CALL: JESUS’ RELATIONSHIP TO HIS DISCIPLES

If Jesus thought his own authority was higher than that of the Torah, one would expect this attitude to shine through in his interaction with his followers as well. In this chapter I will discuss Jesus’ relationship to his disciples and ask what the implications are for Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. This discussion falls into two parts. The first section will explore the significance of Jesus’ call of twelve disciples. I intend to show that his call of the twelve constituted a redefinition of the people of God. The second section looks at the nature of Jesus’ call and examines the demands that Jesus placed on his followers. Of these demands, the most radical is his reply to the would-be follower who requested permission to bury his father (Mt. 8.21-22 par.). I will argue that Jesus’ call of his disciples compares to God’s call of the prophets and to God’s demand for absolute commitment. The best explanation for Jesus’ attitude is that he thought of himself as equal to God. He had taken the place of Israel’s God, who demanded wholehearted love (Deut. 6.5).

Twelve Disciples To gather disciples was the common practice of a rabbi in ­first-century Judaism, but Jesus’ practice stands out by the importance given to the number twelve. There is an emerging consensus in recent scholarship that Jesus’ special call of twelve disciples is part of the most reliable core of the tradition.1 These twelve individuals play no role in the early Christian tradition. The lists of their names are also conspicuously different in the three Synoptic Gospels (Mk 3.16-19; Mt. 10.2-4; Lk. 6.14-16), which serves as an indication that the function of

49.  Similarly, Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 276–77; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 127.

1.  See especially Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

these lists was not to remember these individuals, but to recall the significance of the number twelve (cf. also Chapter 4). The significance of this number is explained in a saying of Jesus: “you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22.30 par.). This saying is sometimes thought to have originated in the early church, but that is unlikely. The early church would hardly have included Judas in this glorious promise (cf. Chapter 4). Jesus must have promised the twelve disciples that they would be exalted above the twelve tribes of Israel and effectively replace the twelve patriarchs as the heads of these tribes. In other words, these disciples were given a foundational role in the people of God.2 If this is not a downright redefinition of God’s people, it is at least a redefinition of the hierarchy within this people.3 It implies that Jesus’ selection of the twelve trumps even God’s own selection of Israel’s twelve patriarchs. The reason could of course be that God had decided to make his updated election known through Jesus, but that would be an inference from silence. Jesus’ words leave the impression that he is the one who makes the choice of the twelve; he is not merely communicating God’s choice.

teachers, as rabbinic pupils might be. Instead, Jesus introduced his disciples to the kingdom of God.4 The disciples eventually understood Jesus’ call to follow him as a demand to “leave everything” (Mk 10.28 par.), an understanding Jesus did not correct but rather commended. He promised them a hundredfold reward (vv. 29-30 par.). Even scholars who do not grant the authenticity of Jesus’ response (cf. above) agree that Jesus probably made promises like this to the disciples in exchange for all their sacrifices.5 These promises may be understood as intended on a social level; the inherent rewards of the new fellowship outweigh the costs. But all the Synoptic versions of Jesus’ promise are of an eschatological nature, and an eschatological interpretation also coheres with Jesus’ eschatological outlook (cf. Chapter 1). If so, Jesus appears to mean that sacrifices made by his followers fulfilled a religious duty. This interpretation receives some confirmation when we compare Jesus’ promise to the similar promises with respect to suffering for the Torah (4 Ezra 7.89-91) and God’s own promises to provide hundredfold returns (2 Sam. 24.3; 1 Chron. 21.3).6

118

Jesus’ Demands It is not only the number twelve, however, but also the demands that Jesus places on his disciples that are extraordinary. Hengel points out that Jesus’ relationship to his disciples cannot be explained as analogous to that of a rabbi and his disciples. In a rabbi–pupil relationship, the initiative always came from the student; a rabbi did not call students. The idea of following after also differs from that of the rabbinic school. In the latter context, the expression “following after” could be used for the concept of being someone’s student and even for the process of observing the rabbi’s practice of the law. But the idea of following after in the sense of imitation was a fundamentally different idea that Jesus introduced. His relationship with his followers did not have the characteristics of a school, and his disciples were never encouraged to change

2. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 355; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 151; McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” 198–208. 3.  Similarly, McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” 204–5.

119

“Leave the dead to bury the dead” (Mt. 8.22 par.) The commandment to leave everything is exemplified in the most poignant way when Jesus addressed a would-be disciple who requested permission to bury his father first. Jesus curtly replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their 4. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 50–57. Cf. also C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930), 218. As many scholars agree, Jesus also differed from the rabbis in that he sent his disciples out as ambassadors of the kingdom of God (Bornkamm, Jesus, 148–49; Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 73–80; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 154–63). According to Jacques Schlosser, the authority implicit in Jesus’ sending formula (Lk. 10.3 par.) parallels that of God (“Q et la Christologie,” 304). The sending formula in and of itself can hardly bear this weight, but Schlosser has correctly seen the nature of Jesus’ relationship to his disciples (cf. below). 5.  Meier argues that beatitudes like the one in Mk 10.28-29 are attested in both Matthew’s and Luke’s traditions and that the messages of these beatitudes cohere with Jesus’ actions. He therefore concludes that at least some of these beatitudes are likely to be authentic (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 336). The Jesus seminar finds this saying in its Markan form to fit too well into the early church to be authentic. The seminar is open to the possibility, however, that an authentic core may be detected when the references to persecutions and eschatological reward are eliminated, as well as the phrase: “on my account and on account of the good news” (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 93). 6.  Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 2, EKK 2/2 (Zurich: Benziger, 1979), 92–93.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

these lists was not to remember these individuals, but to recall the significance of the number twelve (cf. also Chapter 4). The significance of this number is explained in a saying of Jesus: “you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22.30 par.). This saying is sometimes thought to have originated in the early church, but that is unlikely. The early church would hardly have included Judas in this glorious promise (cf. Chapter 4). Jesus must have promised the twelve disciples that they would be exalted above the twelve tribes of Israel and effectively replace the twelve patriarchs as the heads of these tribes. In other words, these disciples were given a foundational role in the people of God.2 If this is not a downright redefinition of God’s people, it is at least a redefinition of the hierarchy within this people.3 It implies that Jesus’ selection of the twelve trumps even God’s own selection of Israel’s twelve patriarchs. The reason could of course be that God had decided to make his updated election known through Jesus, but that would be an inference from silence. Jesus’ words leave the impression that he is the one who makes the choice of the twelve; he is not merely communicating God’s choice.

teachers, as rabbinic pupils might be. Instead, Jesus introduced his disciples to the kingdom of God.4 The disciples eventually understood Jesus’ call to follow him as a demand to “leave everything” (Mk 10.28 par.), an understanding Jesus did not correct but rather commended. He promised them a hundredfold reward (vv. 29-30 par.). Even scholars who do not grant the authenticity of Jesus’ response (cf. above) agree that Jesus probably made promises like this to the disciples in exchange for all their sacrifices.5 These promises may be understood as intended on a social level; the inherent rewards of the new fellowship outweigh the costs. But all the Synoptic versions of Jesus’ promise are of an eschatological nature, and an eschatological interpretation also coheres with Jesus’ eschatological outlook (cf. Chapter 1). If so, Jesus appears to mean that sacrifices made by his followers fulfilled a religious duty. This interpretation receives some confirmation when we compare Jesus’ promise to the similar promises with respect to suffering for the Torah (4 Ezra 7.89-91) and God’s own promises to provide hundredfold returns (2 Sam. 24.3; 1 Chron. 21.3).6

118

Jesus’ Demands It is not only the number twelve, however, but also the demands that Jesus places on his disciples that are extraordinary. Hengel points out that Jesus’ relationship to his disciples cannot be explained as analogous to that of a rabbi and his disciples. In a rabbi–pupil relationship, the initiative always came from the student; a rabbi did not call students. The idea of following after also differs from that of the rabbinic school. In the latter context, the expression “following after” could be used for the concept of being someone’s student and even for the process of observing the rabbi’s practice of the law. But the idea of following after in the sense of imitation was a fundamentally different idea that Jesus introduced. His relationship with his followers did not have the characteristics of a school, and his disciples were never encouraged to change

2. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 355; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 151; McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” 198–208. 3.  Similarly, McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” 204–5.

119

“Leave the dead to bury the dead” (Mt. 8.22 par.) The commandment to leave everything is exemplified in the most poignant way when Jesus addressed a would-be disciple who requested permission to bury his father first. Jesus curtly replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their 4. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 50–57. Cf. also C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930), 218. As many scholars agree, Jesus also differed from the rabbis in that he sent his disciples out as ambassadors of the kingdom of God (Bornkamm, Jesus, 148–49; Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 73–80; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 154–63). According to Jacques Schlosser, the authority implicit in Jesus’ sending formula (Lk. 10.3 par.) parallels that of God (“Q et la Christologie,” 304). The sending formula in and of itself can hardly bear this weight, but Schlosser has correctly seen the nature of Jesus’ relationship to his disciples (cf. below). 5.  Meier argues that beatitudes like the one in Mk 10.28-29 are attested in both Matthew’s and Luke’s traditions and that the messages of these beatitudes cohere with Jesus’ actions. He therefore concludes that at least some of these beatitudes are likely to be authentic (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 2, 336). The Jesus seminar finds this saying in its Markan form to fit too well into the early church to be authentic. The seminar is open to the possibility, however, that an authentic core may be detected when the references to persecutions and eschatological reward are eliminated, as well as the phrase: “on my account and on account of the good news” (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 93). 6.  Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 2, EKK 2/2 (Zurich: Benziger, 1979), 92–93.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

own dead” (Mt. 8.22 par.). He thus claimed that following him took precedence even over children’s solemn responsibility to provide a funeral for their parents. This responsibility was deemed to be of the utmost importance, derived from the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (cf. Gen. 50.5; Tob. 4.3; 6.13-15; Sir. 38.16; m. Ber. 3.1; b. Soṭah 14a). The authenticity of this saying is confirmed by the criterion of dissimilarity, as what Jesus says here defies explanation both in a Jewish and a Hellenistic setting. Moreover, the call to “follow after” belongs in the setting of the earthly Jesus, not the exalted Lord. Most scholars therefore trace it back to the historical Jesus.7 In his magisterial treatment, Hengel has demonstrated how Jesus in this saying transcends all known categories for teacher–pupil relationships. He points out that the obligation to bury one’s parents was considered so important that it trumped other requirements of the Mosaic law. As a general rule, the Mishnah states: “One whose dead is lying before him [awaiting burial] is exempt from the recitation of the Shema, and from [wearing] phylacteries” (m. Ber. 3.1).8 High priests and Nazirites were normally prohibited from contracting uncleanness by coming into contact with a corpse, even that of their parents (Lev. 21.11; Num. 6.6-7). According to later rabbinic interpretation, however, the obligation to provide a funeral for one’s parents took precedence.9 According to Hengel, Jesus’ refusal of the would-be disciple to bury his father is the clearest example of him setting aside the requirements of the Mosaic law.10 The explanation for this radical break with conventional piety cannot be found in any overruling ethical principle, but only in Jesus’ absolute demand for loyalty to his person, a demand that compares only to God’s own call of the prophets of Israel.11

The closest parallel to Jesus’ attitude is found in the story of Elijah’s call of Elisha, where Elisha also requested to bid his parents farewell before he followed the prophet. According to Hengel’s interpretation, Elijah denied the request (1 Kgs 19.19-21).12 What distinguishes Jesus from Elijah, however, is that Elijah’s call of Elisha ultimately derived from God’s call of Elisha as a prophet (1 Kgs 19.16). Jesus’ call had no other source but himself.13 Hengel’s explanation of Jesus’ refusal to bury has been challenged by Bockmuehl. He reads the story in light of the prohibition for high priests and Nazirites to contract uncleanness from the corpses of their own parents (Lev. 21.11; Num. 6.6-7). As for Hengel’s observation that these laws were overruled by the requirement to provide a funeral, Bockmuehl comments that the evidence provided is from the Tannaitic period and therefore unlikely to reflect attitudes current in the first century. Bockmuehl understands Jesus to require of his followers a commitment analogous to that required of the Nazirites.14

120

7. Bultmann, Geschichte, 84; Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 5–8, 86–88; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 252–53; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 50, 93. The Jesus seminar voted the saying pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 160). 8.  Quoted from Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988), 6. 9. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 9–11. 10. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 14; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 313. Sanders concludes: “At least once Jesus was willing to say that following him superseded requirements of piety and the Torah” (Jesus and Judaism, 255). 11. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 71–73, 87. Catchpole notes that the call is a prophetic call, but does not reflect on the Christological implications (Jesus People: The Historical Jesus

121

and the Beginnings of Community [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 64–65). Seeing Jesus as a prophet who announces the eschatological crisis, Harvey maintains that Jesus takes the liberty to set aside fundamental duties (Constraints, 61; similarly B. R. McCane, “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead’: Secondary Burial and Matt 8.21–22,” HTR 83 [1990]: 42). However, Jesus did not refer to the imminence of the kingdom as a warrant for his words; he referred to the need to follow himself. It is Jesus’ person, not the moment he announces, that motivates his commandment. 12. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 16; similarly Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 239. 13. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 17. 14.  Markus Bockmuehl, “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Dead’: Jesus and the Law Revisited,” in Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 35–48. However, Jesus’ ministry appears not to have included any of the ascetic practices that characterized the Nazirite vow (cf. Lk. 7.35 par.; Mk 2.18 par.; see also Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 43–48). ­Fletcher-Louis suggests instead that Jesus commanded the would-be disciple to perform an act of judgment by not burying his father, who was condemned as being spiritually dead. He compares Jesus’ words to passages from the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism where ­non-burial is mentioned as the punishment of the wicked (Deut. 28.26; 2 Kgs 9.10; Jer. 7.33; 22.19; Ezek. 29.5; Pss. Sol. 2.27; 4.19-20; 1 En. 98.13; cf. ibid., 57-66). However, Jesus does not elsewhere advocate any radical separation from the outsiders; his practice differs markedly from for example the Qumran community in this respect. What is more, this saying is not about judgment on outsiders, but on the cost of discipleship. If Lk. 14.26 par. is allowed to inform this discussion (cf. below), Jesus called his followers to hate – not only family but also oneself – in order to be his disciple. The point is not separation or judgment, but the absolute priority that must be given to one’s commitment to Jesus.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

own dead” (Mt. 8.22 par.). He thus claimed that following him took precedence even over children’s solemn responsibility to provide a funeral for their parents. This responsibility was deemed to be of the utmost importance, derived from the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (cf. Gen. 50.5; Tob. 4.3; 6.13-15; Sir. 38.16; m. Ber. 3.1; b. Soṭah 14a). The authenticity of this saying is confirmed by the criterion of dissimilarity, as what Jesus says here defies explanation both in a Jewish and a Hellenistic setting. Moreover, the call to “follow after” belongs in the setting of the earthly Jesus, not the exalted Lord. Most scholars therefore trace it back to the historical Jesus.7 In his magisterial treatment, Hengel has demonstrated how Jesus in this saying transcends all known categories for teacher–pupil relationships. He points out that the obligation to bury one’s parents was considered so important that it trumped other requirements of the Mosaic law. As a general rule, the Mishnah states: “One whose dead is lying before him [awaiting burial] is exempt from the recitation of the Shema, and from [wearing] phylacteries” (m. Ber. 3.1).8 High priests and Nazirites were normally prohibited from contracting uncleanness by coming into contact with a corpse, even that of their parents (Lev. 21.11; Num. 6.6-7). According to later rabbinic interpretation, however, the obligation to provide a funeral for one’s parents took precedence.9 According to Hengel, Jesus’ refusal of the would-be disciple to bury his father is the clearest example of him setting aside the requirements of the Mosaic law.10 The explanation for this radical break with conventional piety cannot be found in any overruling ethical principle, but only in Jesus’ absolute demand for loyalty to his person, a demand that compares only to God’s own call of the prophets of Israel.11

The closest parallel to Jesus’ attitude is found in the story of Elijah’s call of Elisha, where Elisha also requested to bid his parents farewell before he followed the prophet. According to Hengel’s interpretation, Elijah denied the request (1 Kgs 19.19-21).12 What distinguishes Jesus from Elijah, however, is that Elijah’s call of Elisha ultimately derived from God’s call of Elisha as a prophet (1 Kgs 19.16). Jesus’ call had no other source but himself.13 Hengel’s explanation of Jesus’ refusal to bury has been challenged by Bockmuehl. He reads the story in light of the prohibition for high priests and Nazirites to contract uncleanness from the corpses of their own parents (Lev. 21.11; Num. 6.6-7). As for Hengel’s observation that these laws were overruled by the requirement to provide a funeral, Bockmuehl comments that the evidence provided is from the Tannaitic period and therefore unlikely to reflect attitudes current in the first century. Bockmuehl understands Jesus to require of his followers a commitment analogous to that required of the Nazirites.14

120

7. Bultmann, Geschichte, 84; Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 5–8, 86–88; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 252–53; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 50, 93. The Jesus seminar voted the saying pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 160). 8.  Quoted from Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988), 6. 9. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 9–11. 10. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 14; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 313. Sanders concludes: “At least once Jesus was willing to say that following him superseded requirements of piety and the Torah” (Jesus and Judaism, 255). 11. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 71–73, 87. Catchpole notes that the call is a prophetic call, but does not reflect on the Christological implications (Jesus People: The Historical Jesus

121

and the Beginnings of Community [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 64–65). Seeing Jesus as a prophet who announces the eschatological crisis, Harvey maintains that Jesus takes the liberty to set aside fundamental duties (Constraints, 61; similarly B. R. McCane, “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead’: Secondary Burial and Matt 8.21–22,” HTR 83 [1990]: 42). However, Jesus did not refer to the imminence of the kingdom as a warrant for his words; he referred to the need to follow himself. It is Jesus’ person, not the moment he announces, that motivates his commandment. 12. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 16; similarly Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 239. 13. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 17. 14.  Markus Bockmuehl, “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Dead’: Jesus and the Law Revisited,” in Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 35–48. However, Jesus’ ministry appears not to have included any of the ascetic practices that characterized the Nazirite vow (cf. Lk. 7.35 par.; Mk 2.18 par.; see also Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 43–48). ­Fletcher-Louis suggests instead that Jesus commanded the would-be disciple to perform an act of judgment by not burying his father, who was condemned as being spiritually dead. He compares Jesus’ words to passages from the Scriptures of Israel and the writings of Second Temple Judaism where ­non-burial is mentioned as the punishment of the wicked (Deut. 28.26; 2 Kgs 9.10; Jer. 7.33; 22.19; Ezek. 29.5; Pss. Sol. 2.27; 4.19-20; 1 En. 98.13; cf. ibid., 57-66). However, Jesus does not elsewhere advocate any radical separation from the outsiders; his practice differs markedly from for example the Qumran community in this respect. What is more, this saying is not about judgment on outsiders, but on the cost of discipleship. If Lk. 14.26 par. is allowed to inform this discussion (cf. below), Jesus called his followers to hate – not only family but also oneself – in order to be his disciple. The point is not separation or judgment, but the absolute priority that must be given to one’s commitment to Jesus.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

On either of these interpretations, Jesus effectively replaced commitment to YHWH with commitment to his own person. If Hengel’s explanation is correct, Jesus made loyalty to himself a more important commandment than the most solemn requirement in the Mosaic law.15 On Bockmuehl’s interpretation, Jesus expects his followers to be consecrated to himself, rather than to YHWH.16 In any case, Jesus’ commandment is another example of how he takes the place that belongs to God alone. This understanding is confirmed by Jesus’ explicit commandment that the disciples hate their father and mother if they want to be his disciples (Lk. 14.26 par.).17 In Second Temple Judaism, the idea was widespread that the responsibility to honor one’s parents ranked second only to the responsibility to honor God. In Sir. 7.27, 29, the sage forges a parallelism of the commandments to honor your father and to fear the Lord. According to Philo, one should honor one’s parents next to God (Spec. 2.235), and Josephus makes clear that honor to parents “the Law ranks second only to honour to God” (Ag. Ap. 2.206;18 cf. also Sib. Or. 3.­593-594).19 In m. B. Mes. 2.11, on the other hand, one’s responsibilities vis-à-vis one’s teacher even take precedence over those to one’s father.20 But Jesus’ words went further. He did not arbitrate between conflicting responsibilities; he made an absolute priority of one’s relationship to him over against that to one’s parents.21 One might suspect that he was motivated by a

general disdain for familial obligations, but elsewhere the opposite is seen to be the case. He referred the rich man to the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (Mk 10.19 par.), and he criticized the Pharisees and the scribes for neglecting this commandment under the pretense of honoring God (Mk 7.9-13 par.). The explanation for Jesus’ demand is rather that he saw himself as the rightful recipient of the honor due to God. He required that the commitment owed to God be shown to him.22

122

15.  Stephen Barton also observes that the relationship to Jesus overrules one’s obligations to the Mosaic law (Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, SNTSMS 80 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], 149–50). 16.  Bockmuehl does not reflect on the implications of his interpretation for Jesus’ ­self-understanding. His conclusion is that the saying probably means: “Come and follow me: those who are truly consecrated to God have even more important things to do” (“‘Let the Dead Bury’,” 48). He ignores the implications of the calling being to follow Jesus, not to be consecrated to God. Less specifically, Davies and Allison find a precedent in the Scriptures of Israel, that “religious reasons” may exempt someone from the obligation to provide a funeral (Matthew, Vol. 2, 58). 17.  This saying is widely held to be authentic (Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 398; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 109; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 221). The Jesus seminar voted the version in Lk. 14.26 pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 353). 18.  Quoted from Flavius Josephus, The Life. Against Apion, vol. I of Josephus, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 377. 19.  Cf. Peter Balla, The ­C hild-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment, WUNT 155 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 86–90, 105. 20.  Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 221. 21.  Fitzmyer compares it to the commandment in Qumran to hate those outside the sect

123

Conclusion Jesus’ relationship with his disciples can be understood as another expression of his ­self-understanding. He saw himself as God’s equal and as the one who now took God’s place in interacting with his people. Consequently, he chose twelve disciples and reconstituted the people of God. He saw no moral requirement that could be more important than the religious duty to be fully committed to him. Even the most solemn commandments in the law, the duty to honor one’s parents and provide for their funeral, could be set aside in light of the higher duty to follow him. Where the law prescribed dedication to God, he demanded dedication to himself. It appears that he understood the first commandment, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6.5), as a commandment to love him.23

(1QS 1.10), which presumably might include family members (Luke [X-XXIV], 1063). But Jesus does not introduce an absolute division between outsiders and insiders, and his commandment to hate entails even one’s own life. 22.  Cf. Balla, ­Child-Parent Relationship, 230. Gnilka compares this saying to the Jewish conviction that obedience to the Torah takes precedence over obedience to parents (Matthäusevangelium, Vol. 1, 396). Luz observes that the Mosaic commandment is superseded (Matthew 8–20, 113). The implication is again that Jesus claims an authority that only God has (cf. Chapter 4). Jacob Neusner observes regarding this saying: “only God can demand of me what Jesus is asking” (A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, 53). 23.  Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 275–76; similarly N. T. Wright, Victory, 302.

God’s Equal

6.  Issuing God’s Call

On either of these interpretations, Jesus effectively replaced commitment to YHWH with commitment to his own person. If Hengel’s explanation is correct, Jesus made loyalty to himself a more important commandment than the most solemn requirement in the Mosaic law.15 On Bockmuehl’s interpretation, Jesus expects his followers to be consecrated to himself, rather than to YHWH.16 In any case, Jesus’ commandment is another example of how he takes the place that belongs to God alone. This understanding is confirmed by Jesus’ explicit commandment that the disciples hate their father and mother if they want to be his disciples (Lk. 14.26 par.).17 In Second Temple Judaism, the idea was widespread that the responsibility to honor one’s parents ranked second only to the responsibility to honor God. In Sir. 7.27, 29, the sage forges a parallelism of the commandments to honor your father and to fear the Lord. According to Philo, one should honor one’s parents next to God (Spec. 2.235), and Josephus makes clear that honor to parents “the Law ranks second only to honour to God” (Ag. Ap. 2.206;18 cf. also Sib. Or. 3.­593-594).19 In m. B. Mes. 2.11, on the other hand, one’s responsibilities vis-à-vis one’s teacher even take precedence over those to one’s father.20 But Jesus’ words went further. He did not arbitrate between conflicting responsibilities; he made an absolute priority of one’s relationship to him over against that to one’s parents.21 One might suspect that he was motivated by a

general disdain for familial obligations, but elsewhere the opposite is seen to be the case. He referred the rich man to the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (Mk 10.19 par.), and he criticized the Pharisees and the scribes for neglecting this commandment under the pretense of honoring God (Mk 7.9-13 par.). The explanation for Jesus’ demand is rather that he saw himself as the rightful recipient of the honor due to God. He required that the commitment owed to God be shown to him.22

122

15.  Stephen Barton also observes that the relationship to Jesus overrules one’s obligations to the Mosaic law (Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew, SNTSMS 80 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], 149–50). 16.  Bockmuehl does not reflect on the implications of his interpretation for Jesus’ ­self-understanding. His conclusion is that the saying probably means: “Come and follow me: those who are truly consecrated to God have even more important things to do” (“‘Let the Dead Bury’,” 48). He ignores the implications of the calling being to follow Jesus, not to be consecrated to God. Less specifically, Davies and Allison find a precedent in the Scriptures of Israel, that “religious reasons” may exempt someone from the obligation to provide a funeral (Matthew, Vol. 2, 58). 17.  This saying is widely held to be authentic (Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 398; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 109; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 221). The Jesus seminar voted the version in Lk. 14.26 pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 353). 18.  Quoted from Flavius Josephus, The Life. Against Apion, vol. I of Josephus, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 377. 19.  Cf. Peter Balla, The ­C hild-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment, WUNT 155 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 86–90, 105. 20.  Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 221. 21.  Fitzmyer compares it to the commandment in Qumran to hate those outside the sect

123

Conclusion Jesus’ relationship with his disciples can be understood as another expression of his ­self-understanding. He saw himself as God’s equal and as the one who now took God’s place in interacting with his people. Consequently, he chose twelve disciples and reconstituted the people of God. He saw no moral requirement that could be more important than the religious duty to be fully committed to him. Even the most solemn commandments in the law, the duty to honor one’s parents and provide for their funeral, could be set aside in light of the higher duty to follow him. Where the law prescribed dedication to God, he demanded dedication to himself. It appears that he understood the first commandment, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6.5), as a commandment to love him.23

(1QS 1.10), which presumably might include family members (Luke [X-XXIV], 1063). But Jesus does not introduce an absolute division between outsiders and insiders, and his commandment to hate entails even one’s own life. 22.  Cf. Balla, ­Child-Parent Relationship, 230. Gnilka compares this saying to the Jewish conviction that obedience to the Torah takes precedence over obedience to parents (Matthäusevangelium, Vol. 1, 396). Luz observes that the Mosaic commandment is superseded (Matthew 8–20, 113). The implication is again that Jesus claims an authority that only God has (cf. Chapter 4). Jacob Neusner observes regarding this saying: “only God can demand of me what Jesus is asking” (A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, 53). 23.  Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 275–76; similarly N. T. Wright, Victory, 302.

7.  God’s Epithets

124

7 GOD’S EPITHETS: JESUS’ METAPHORICAL ­SELF-DESCRIPTIONS

In the first two chapters I argued that Jesus understood his actions as the eschatological acts of God, and in the subsequent four chapters I maintained that he invested his own words with the same authority as God’s words. My explanation was that Jesus thought himself to be God’s equal. This raises the question: does Jesus’ ­self-understanding shine through in the way he speaks about himself as well? Jesus’ claims discussed in the previous chapters were implicit. One would therefore expect that his s­ elf-descriptions would also contain implicit, rather than explicit, ­self-claims. In this chapter, I will discuss four of Jesus’ ­self-referential metaphors: the bridegroom, the mother bird, the king, and the sower. These metaphors were well established as epithets for God, and Jesus’ appropriation of them may therefore reflect the same presupposition as his words and actions: Jesus saw himself in God’s role. But even if Jesus did use metaphors that were elsewhere used for God, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus believed he was God’s equal. Metaphors can be reshaped and reapplied. The following examples will therefore be inconclusive if taken by themselves. In light of the foregoing discussion, however, I submit them as corroborating evidence that Jesus saw himself in God’s role.

The Bridegroom The clearest example of Jesus’ use of a divine epithet is when he referred to himself as the bridegroom. When Jesus was asked why his disciples were not fasting, he justified their practice by stating: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mk 2.19a par.).

125

As most scholars agree, this saying has a strong claim to authenticity. Rudolf Bultmann accepted it, and the Jesus seminar voted it pink.1 The n­ on-fasting of the disciples distinguishes them from contemporary Judaism as well as from the later church (cf. Acts 13.2-3; 14.23; Did. 8.1). Also, if the saying is read in a p­ ost-Easter perspective, the removal of the bridegroom is easily taken as a reference to Jesus’ death. But there is no hint of a resurrection, which makes it unlikely that the saying was a creation of the early church.2 As Jeremias observed, the bridegroom metaphor is frequently used in the Scriptures of Israel and in Judaism for God’s relationship to his people (Hos. 2.19-20; Isa. 54.5-6; Ezek. 16.8; Deut. Rab. 3.16; Pirqe R. El. 41; Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17), but there are no clear examples of it being used for the Messiah.3 The earliest known example in Jewish sources of the bridegroom as a reference to the Messiah is from Pesiqta Rabbati 15.14-15, which is dated to the sixth or the seventh century.4

1. Bultmann, Geschichte, 96; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 47. Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 171; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 114. Following Bultmann, many scholars see the following discussion in Mk 2.19b-22 as secondary, however. See especially, Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 79–82. 2.  J. C. O’Neill, “The Source of the Parables of the Bridegroom and the Wicked Husbandmen,” JTS 39 (1988): 486. 3.  Joachim Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” in TDNT, 4.1101–2. 4.  O’Neill objects that the bridegroom was used as a metaphor for the Messiah in Psalm 45, the Song of Songs, Isa. 51.5 (with 62.11) in Qumran, and Zech. 9.9 (“Bridegroom,” 485). But he has not established his case. As for Psalm 45, he does not show that this Psalm was interpreted messianically in this way. As for the Song of Songs, when it was understood allegorically in Jewish interpretation, the bridegroom was God (Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17; cf. Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” 4.1102). As for Isa. 51.5 and 62.11, these verses do not refer to a bridegroom. In Isa. 51.5 MT, God announces that he will rule the nations by “my arm,” and in 1QIsaa this rule will take place by “his arm.” In Isa. 62.11 MT, the Lord proclaims Zion’s salvation to the end of the earth, whereas in 1QIsaa this proclamation is given specifically to “him” (cf. Millar Burrows, ed., The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery [New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950]). These alterations may reflect a messianic interpretation of these verses in Qumran, but this Messiah is not described as a bridegroom. The same goes for Zech. 9.9. O’Neill has not shown that there is a bridegroom in view there. O’Neill is followed by Wolfgang Schenk, who adds that Joseph and Aseneth constitutes a closer parallel to Mk 2.19-20 (“Die rhetorische Funktion der Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and ­non-canonical: Essays in honour of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge, NovTSup 89 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 275, n. 55). However, the Messiah is not mentioned in Joseph and Aseneth. Joseph, who is portrayed as the bridegroom of Aseneth, is called son of God (6.3, 5; 13.13) and his firstborn son (18.11;

7.  God’s Epithets

124

7 GOD’S EPITHETS: JESUS’ METAPHORICAL ­SELF-DESCRIPTIONS

In the first two chapters I argued that Jesus understood his actions as the eschatological acts of God, and in the subsequent four chapters I maintained that he invested his own words with the same authority as God’s words. My explanation was that Jesus thought himself to be God’s equal. This raises the question: does Jesus’ ­self-understanding shine through in the way he speaks about himself as well? Jesus’ claims discussed in the previous chapters were implicit. One would therefore expect that his s­ elf-descriptions would also contain implicit, rather than explicit, ­self-claims. In this chapter, I will discuss four of Jesus’ ­self-referential metaphors: the bridegroom, the mother bird, the king, and the sower. These metaphors were well established as epithets for God, and Jesus’ appropriation of them may therefore reflect the same presupposition as his words and actions: Jesus saw himself in God’s role. But even if Jesus did use metaphors that were elsewhere used for God, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus believed he was God’s equal. Metaphors can be reshaped and reapplied. The following examples will therefore be inconclusive if taken by themselves. In light of the foregoing discussion, however, I submit them as corroborating evidence that Jesus saw himself in God’s role.

The Bridegroom The clearest example of Jesus’ use of a divine epithet is when he referred to himself as the bridegroom. When Jesus was asked why his disciples were not fasting, he justified their practice by stating: “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mk 2.19a par.).

125

As most scholars agree, this saying has a strong claim to authenticity. Rudolf Bultmann accepted it, and the Jesus seminar voted it pink.1 The n­ on-fasting of the disciples distinguishes them from contemporary Judaism as well as from the later church (cf. Acts 13.2-3; 14.23; Did. 8.1). Also, if the saying is read in a p­ ost-Easter perspective, the removal of the bridegroom is easily taken as a reference to Jesus’ death. But there is no hint of a resurrection, which makes it unlikely that the saying was a creation of the early church.2 As Jeremias observed, the bridegroom metaphor is frequently used in the Scriptures of Israel and in Judaism for God’s relationship to his people (Hos. 2.19-20; Isa. 54.5-6; Ezek. 16.8; Deut. Rab. 3.16; Pirqe R. El. 41; Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17), but there are no clear examples of it being used for the Messiah.3 The earliest known example in Jewish sources of the bridegroom as a reference to the Messiah is from Pesiqta Rabbati 15.14-15, which is dated to the sixth or the seventh century.4

1. Bultmann, Geschichte, 96; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 47. Cf. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 171; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 114. Following Bultmann, many scholars see the following discussion in Mk 2.19b-22 as secondary, however. See especially, Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 79–82. 2.  J. C. O’Neill, “The Source of the Parables of the Bridegroom and the Wicked Husbandmen,” JTS 39 (1988): 486. 3.  Joachim Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” in TDNT, 4.1101–2. 4.  O’Neill objects that the bridegroom was used as a metaphor for the Messiah in Psalm 45, the Song of Songs, Isa. 51.5 (with 62.11) in Qumran, and Zech. 9.9 (“Bridegroom,” 485). But he has not established his case. As for Psalm 45, he does not show that this Psalm was interpreted messianically in this way. As for the Song of Songs, when it was understood allegorically in Jewish interpretation, the bridegroom was God (Mek. Exod. 15.2; 19.1, 17; cf. Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” 4.1102). As for Isa. 51.5 and 62.11, these verses do not refer to a bridegroom. In Isa. 51.5 MT, God announces that he will rule the nations by “my arm,” and in 1QIsaa this rule will take place by “his arm.” In Isa. 62.11 MT, the Lord proclaims Zion’s salvation to the end of the earth, whereas in 1QIsaa this proclamation is given specifically to “him” (cf. Millar Burrows, ed., The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery [New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950]). These alterations may reflect a messianic interpretation of these verses in Qumran, but this Messiah is not described as a bridegroom. The same goes for Zech. 9.9. O’Neill has not shown that there is a bridegroom in view there. O’Neill is followed by Wolfgang Schenk, who adds that Joseph and Aseneth constitutes a closer parallel to Mk 2.19-20 (“Die rhetorische Funktion der Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and ­non-canonical: Essays in honour of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge, NovTSup 89 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 275, n. 55). However, the Messiah is not mentioned in Joseph and Aseneth. Joseph, who is portrayed as the bridegroom of Aseneth, is called son of God (6.3, 5; 13.13) and his firstborn son (18.11;

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

The theme is more common in the earliest Christian literature, where the identification of Christ as the bridegroom is a stock motif (Mt. 22.2; 25.1-13; Jn 3.29; 2 Cor. 11.2; Eph. 5.25-27; Rev. 19.7, 21.2, 9; 22.17). In Christian sources, the love song to the king in Psalm 45 is interpreted with reference to Christ (Heb. 1.8-9; Justin, Dial. 38.3; 56.14; 63.4-5; 86.3).5 But this Psalm does not explicitly mention a bridegroom, and the early Christological interpretations of it do not develop the idea that Christ is the bridegroom. Among Jewish sources, the Targum of Psalms interprets Psalm 45 messianically.6 The Targum refers to the Messiah (anointed) king in v. 3, based on the information in v. 8, that God has anointed him. But the king in the Psalm is not consistently understood as the Messiah. Sometimes, the king is taken as a reference to God. The queen in v. 10 is interpreted as the Torah.7 No picture of the Messiah as a bridegroom emerges from the Targumic interpretation of Psalm 45, therefore. Because of the implicit high Christology of the saying, Hultgren expresses doubt with respect to its authenticity. Even though he takes Mk 2.19a as the authentic core of the saying, he is less certain about the word “bridegroom.” He correctly sees its allegorical significance, and finds it more at home in the

setting of the early church.8 The saying does not fit the “Christ as bridegroom” motif either, however, as the disciples are not identified as the bride, but as the wedding guests. Avoiding these implications, many commentators take the original saying not to refer to Jesus himself. Instead, they find here a statement regarding the joy during the messianic times, as compared to the joy of a wedding.9 But it is not the fact of the wedding feast that is mentioned as the cause for joy; it is the presence of a person, the bridegroom.10 These exegetical moves show that commentators have had difficulty accepting that Jesus used “bridegroom” as a ­self-reference. But this difficulty disappears if Jesus’ use of this title is seen as another expression of his s­ elf-understanding as God’s equal. As the one who took God’s place, he found a w ­ ell-known description of God and applied it to himself.11

126

21.4; 23.10). As such, he represents the people of God, not an eschatological character (cf. Chapter 8). William H. Brownlee has made a similar argument based on the rendering of Isa. 61.10 in 1QIsaa, which he translates: “He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom, as a priest with a garland!” (emphasis his). Brownlee maintains that the priest mentioned here is the Messiah of Aaron (“Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament,” NTS 3 [1952–53]: 205). If he be correct, it would provide the desired example of “bridegroom” as a messianic title. However, Brownlee’s messianic interpretation of the Qumranic reading of Isa. 61.10 is unlikely to be correct. When “priest” (‫ )כהן‬occurs in the singular in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reference is normally to the high priest (1QSa 2.19 is likely an exception). The Qumranic reading of Isa. 61.10 is most probably an attempt to clarify the meaning of Isa. 61.10: the speaker is adorned like a bridegroom and like the high priest (cf. Joachim Gnilka, “‘Bräutigam’ – spätjüdisches Messiasprädikat?” TThSt 69 [1960]: 298–301; Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 599). 5.  Jocelyn McWhirter argues that a messianic interpretation of Psalm 45 is also presupposed in the Gospel of John (The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS 138 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006], 106–22). 6.  The date of this Targum is uncertain, perhaps the fourth to the sixth century CE (David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, The Aramaic Bible 16 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004], 2). 7.  Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, HUCM 2 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C ­ ollege-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 111–12.

127

The Mother Bird Another saying that falls into this category is Jesus’ censure of Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Lk. 13.34 par.) This saying is attested in the double tradition of Matthew and Luke, but is often considered to be inauthentic. The reason is obvious: the saying does not seem to fit in the context of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus addressed Jerusalem and expressed his frequent desire to gather her people. This reference to frequency

8. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 79. 9. Dodd, The Parables, 89; Perrin, Kingdom, 190–91; Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” 4.1103; J. A. Ziesler, “The Removal of the Bridegroom: A Note on Mark II. 18–20 and Parallels,” NTS 19 (1972–73): 191; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 114; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 110; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 110; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 237; Bovon, Luke 1, 191. Walter Schmithals finds in the saying a general metaphor regarding the joy at a wedding (Markus, 218; similarly, Wolfgang Weiss, Streit- und Schulgespräche, 101). 10. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 173; similarly, Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 296. So also Adela Yarbro Collins, who adds that Jesus as the chief agent of God mediated his presence (Mark, 199). The concept of mediation has to be read into the text. 11.  Similarly, Cranfield, St. Mark, 110; Philip B. Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables,” TJ 2 (1981): 11–12; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 139.

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

The theme is more common in the earliest Christian literature, where the identification of Christ as the bridegroom is a stock motif (Mt. 22.2; 25.1-13; Jn 3.29; 2 Cor. 11.2; Eph. 5.25-27; Rev. 19.7, 21.2, 9; 22.17). In Christian sources, the love song to the king in Psalm 45 is interpreted with reference to Christ (Heb. 1.8-9; Justin, Dial. 38.3; 56.14; 63.4-5; 86.3).5 But this Psalm does not explicitly mention a bridegroom, and the early Christological interpretations of it do not develop the idea that Christ is the bridegroom. Among Jewish sources, the Targum of Psalms interprets Psalm 45 messianically.6 The Targum refers to the Messiah (anointed) king in v. 3, based on the information in v. 8, that God has anointed him. But the king in the Psalm is not consistently understood as the Messiah. Sometimes, the king is taken as a reference to God. The queen in v. 10 is interpreted as the Torah.7 No picture of the Messiah as a bridegroom emerges from the Targumic interpretation of Psalm 45, therefore. Because of the implicit high Christology of the saying, Hultgren expresses doubt with respect to its authenticity. Even though he takes Mk 2.19a as the authentic core of the saying, he is less certain about the word “bridegroom.” He correctly sees its allegorical significance, and finds it more at home in the

setting of the early church.8 The saying does not fit the “Christ as bridegroom” motif either, however, as the disciples are not identified as the bride, but as the wedding guests. Avoiding these implications, many commentators take the original saying not to refer to Jesus himself. Instead, they find here a statement regarding the joy during the messianic times, as compared to the joy of a wedding.9 But it is not the fact of the wedding feast that is mentioned as the cause for joy; it is the presence of a person, the bridegroom.10 These exegetical moves show that commentators have had difficulty accepting that Jesus used “bridegroom” as a ­self-reference. But this difficulty disappears if Jesus’ use of this title is seen as another expression of his s­ elf-understanding as God’s equal. As the one who took God’s place, he found a w ­ ell-known description of God and applied it to himself.11

126

21.4; 23.10). As such, he represents the people of God, not an eschatological character (cf. Chapter 8). William H. Brownlee has made a similar argument based on the rendering of Isa. 61.10 in 1QIsaa, which he translates: “He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom, as a priest with a garland!” (emphasis his). Brownlee maintains that the priest mentioned here is the Messiah of Aaron (“Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament,” NTS 3 [1952–53]: 205). If he be correct, it would provide the desired example of “bridegroom” as a messianic title. However, Brownlee’s messianic interpretation of the Qumranic reading of Isa. 61.10 is unlikely to be correct. When “priest” (‫ )כהן‬occurs in the singular in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reference is normally to the high priest (1QSa 2.19 is likely an exception). The Qumranic reading of Isa. 61.10 is most probably an attempt to clarify the meaning of Isa. 61.10: the speaker is adorned like a bridegroom and like the high priest (cf. Joachim Gnilka, “‘Bräutigam’ – spätjüdisches Messiasprädikat?” TThSt 69 [1960]: 298–301; Fitzmyer, Luke [I-IX], 599). 5.  Jocelyn McWhirter argues that a messianic interpretation of Psalm 45 is also presupposed in the Gospel of John (The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel, SNTSMS 138 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006], 106–22). 6.  The date of this Targum is uncertain, perhaps the fourth to the sixth century CE (David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, The Aramaic Bible 16 [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004], 2). 7.  Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, HUCM 2 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C ­ ollege-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 111–12.

127

The Mother Bird Another saying that falls into this category is Jesus’ censure of Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Lk. 13.34 par.) This saying is attested in the double tradition of Matthew and Luke, but is often considered to be inauthentic. The reason is obvious: the saying does not seem to fit in the context of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus addressed Jerusalem and expressed his frequent desire to gather her people. This reference to frequency

8. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 79. 9. Dodd, The Parables, 89; Perrin, Kingdom, 190–91; Jeremias, “νύμφη κτλ,” 4.1103; J. A. Ziesler, “The Removal of the Bridegroom: A Note on Mark II. 18–20 and Parallels,” NTS 19 (1972–73): 191; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 114; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 110; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 110; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 237; Bovon, Luke 1, 191. Walter Schmithals finds in the saying a general metaphor regarding the joy at a wedding (Markus, 218; similarly, Wolfgang Weiss, Streit- und Schulgespräche, 101). 10. Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 173; similarly, Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 1, 296. So also Adela Yarbro Collins, who adds that Jesus as the chief agent of God mediated his presence (Mark, 199). The concept of mediation has to be read into the text. 11.  Similarly, Cranfield, St. Mark, 110; Philip B. Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables,” TJ 2 (1981): 11–12; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 139.

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

coheres poorly with the storyline in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus only visits Jerusalem once as an adult, a visit that has not even taken place yet at the point where Luke places the saying. Even if his ministry to Jerusalem was more extensive than what is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. the Gospel of John), Jesus’ “how often” (ποσάκις) seems excessive.12 This “how often” is more naturally connected with the many prophets and messengers that are sent to the city. The speaker of this saying therefore seems to conceive of himself as the sender of the prophets. It appears that the saying must be attributed to an entity that stands above history. Consequently, Bultmann and others have argued that Lk. 13.34 par. was originally a Jewish saying spoken in the name of God’s wisdom.13 If what I have argued in the preceding chapters is broadly correct, however, Jesus appears to have placed himself in God’s role. The saying in Lk. 13.34 par. may then be seen as an expression of this s­ elf-understanding; he may have uttered this saying from a ­time-transcending perspective, seeing himself in the role of God who sent the prophets to Jerusalem. It is therefore necessary to ask once more if the saying is more likely to have originated in the early church or with the historical Jesus. Eugene Boring and Robert Miller have argued that the Sitz im Leben of the saying is that of the Q community and that the saying should be understood as a word of the risen Jesus, communicated by a Christian prophet.14 Miller claims that this hypothesis solves the problem of the reference to “how often;” Jesus had often tried to gather Jerusalem’s children through the prophets he

had sent to Jerusalem after his resurrection. The saying also had a function in the Q community: it served their polemic against Israel.15 This reconstruction is problematic, however. It presupposes that the Q community was engaged in a systematic, prophetic ministry to Jerusalem. There is no evidence of such a ministry. In fact, Miller himself concedes that “[t]his is the only reference to a Jerusalem ministry in Q.”16 What is more, Jesus’ desire to gather Jerusalem’s children relates to Jerusalem’s killing the prophets and stoning those sent to them.17 This cannot refer to the ministry of the Q community, but must refer to the prophets chronicled in the Scriptures of Israel. If Jesus’ “how often” referred to early Christian prophets, this saying would place the Scriptural prophets and the early Christian prophets in the same category. But John the Baptist was viewed as the last and the greatest in the line of the prophets, before the coming of Jesus himself (Lk. 7.28 par.). To situate Jesus’ “how often” saying in the Q community therefore creates more problems than it solves. This saying therefore fits better in the setting of the historical Jesus than in that of the early church, but that does not necessarily mean that the saying is authentic. As it stands, the saying serves the apologetic needs of the early church. It explains Jerusalem’s rejection of the gospel, a fact for which the early church needed an explanation (cf. Rom. 11.1). It is conceivable that the present form of the saying represents the early church’s embellishment of something Jesus had said. If so, it is difficult to know what elements of the saying are authentic. But if a prophetic inspiration is ruled out and we are left

12. Bultmann, Geschichte, 120; Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick des Propheten, WMANT 23 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 53–54; M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 66–67; Robert J. Miller, “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q,” JBL 107 (1988): 137. Steck also adds that Jesus would hardly predict God’s rejection of Jerusalem or announce his own parousia in the first person (Gewaltsame Geschick, 54–55). These arguments are based on assumptions regarding what Jesus could or could not do, and they amount to little more than a circular argument. In any case, these observations concern Lk. 13.35 par. My concern here is with Lk. 13.34, not whether v. 35 was part of the original saying. 13. Bultmann, Geschichte, 120; similarly Steck, Gewaltsame Geschick, 56–57; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 228. 14.  M. Eugene Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 46 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 171–73; Robert J. Miller, “Rejection,” 237–39; similarly Luz, Matthew 21–28, 160–61.

15.  Boring also argues that there are elements in the saying that are characteristic of the early Christian prophets: the eschatological understanding of the imminent end and the expressions ἰδού and λέγω [δὲ] ὑμῖν (Sayings, 171). However, this eschatological outlook is equally characteristic of Jesus. As for the terminological arguments – which concern Lk. 13.35, not v. 34 – the expressions ἰδού and λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν are frequently used by Jesus. To restrict ourselves to the sayings that receive a pink or red rating by the Jesus seminar, ἰδού occurs in Mk 4.3 (= Mt. 13.3); Mt. 7.4; 11.8 (= Lk. 7.25); 12.49; 13.3; Lk. 13.7, and λέγω (δὲ) ὑμῖν occurs in Mt. 6.25 (= Lk. 12.22), 29; 18.13; 19.23, 24; Lk. 11.8; 12.27; 13.24; 18.14. Cf. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels. 16.  Robert J. Miller, “Rejection,” 237, n. 56. 17.  Miller contends that the speaker of the oracle cannot be identical with the sender of the prophets (“Rejection,” 235; similarly Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 173). However, the different verb forms (the verb “sent” [ἀπεσταλμένους] is a perfect passive participle, and the verb “desired” [ἠθέλησα] is an aorist indicative) alone are not sufficient to warrant this conclusion. Thematically, the two sentences belong together.

128

129

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

coheres poorly with the storyline in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus only visits Jerusalem once as an adult, a visit that has not even taken place yet at the point where Luke places the saying. Even if his ministry to Jerusalem was more extensive than what is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. the Gospel of John), Jesus’ “how often” (ποσάκις) seems excessive.12 This “how often” is more naturally connected with the many prophets and messengers that are sent to the city. The speaker of this saying therefore seems to conceive of himself as the sender of the prophets. It appears that the saying must be attributed to an entity that stands above history. Consequently, Bultmann and others have argued that Lk. 13.34 par. was originally a Jewish saying spoken in the name of God’s wisdom.13 If what I have argued in the preceding chapters is broadly correct, however, Jesus appears to have placed himself in God’s role. The saying in Lk. 13.34 par. may then be seen as an expression of this s­ elf-understanding; he may have uttered this saying from a ­time-transcending perspective, seeing himself in the role of God who sent the prophets to Jerusalem. It is therefore necessary to ask once more if the saying is more likely to have originated in the early church or with the historical Jesus. Eugene Boring and Robert Miller have argued that the Sitz im Leben of the saying is that of the Q community and that the saying should be understood as a word of the risen Jesus, communicated by a Christian prophet.14 Miller claims that this hypothesis solves the problem of the reference to “how often;” Jesus had often tried to gather Jerusalem’s children through the prophets he

had sent to Jerusalem after his resurrection. The saying also had a function in the Q community: it served their polemic against Israel.15 This reconstruction is problematic, however. It presupposes that the Q community was engaged in a systematic, prophetic ministry to Jerusalem. There is no evidence of such a ministry. In fact, Miller himself concedes that “[t]his is the only reference to a Jerusalem ministry in Q.”16 What is more, Jesus’ desire to gather Jerusalem’s children relates to Jerusalem’s killing the prophets and stoning those sent to them.17 This cannot refer to the ministry of the Q community, but must refer to the prophets chronicled in the Scriptures of Israel. If Jesus’ “how often” referred to early Christian prophets, this saying would place the Scriptural prophets and the early Christian prophets in the same category. But John the Baptist was viewed as the last and the greatest in the line of the prophets, before the coming of Jesus himself (Lk. 7.28 par.). To situate Jesus’ “how often” saying in the Q community therefore creates more problems than it solves. This saying therefore fits better in the setting of the historical Jesus than in that of the early church, but that does not necessarily mean that the saying is authentic. As it stands, the saying serves the apologetic needs of the early church. It explains Jerusalem’s rejection of the gospel, a fact for which the early church needed an explanation (cf. Rom. 11.1). It is conceivable that the present form of the saying represents the early church’s embellishment of something Jesus had said. If so, it is difficult to know what elements of the saying are authentic. But if a prophetic inspiration is ruled out and we are left

12. Bultmann, Geschichte, 120; Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick des Propheten, WMANT 23 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 53–54; M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 66–67; Robert J. Miller, “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q,” JBL 107 (1988): 137. Steck also adds that Jesus would hardly predict God’s rejection of Jerusalem or announce his own parousia in the first person (Gewaltsame Geschick, 54–55). These arguments are based on assumptions regarding what Jesus could or could not do, and they amount to little more than a circular argument. In any case, these observations concern Lk. 13.35 par. My concern here is with Lk. 13.34, not whether v. 35 was part of the original saying. 13. Bultmann, Geschichte, 120; similarly Steck, Gewaltsame Geschick, 56–57; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 228. 14.  M. Eugene Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 46 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 171–73; Robert J. Miller, “Rejection,” 237–39; similarly Luz, Matthew 21–28, 160–61.

15.  Boring also argues that there are elements in the saying that are characteristic of the early Christian prophets: the eschatological understanding of the imminent end and the expressions ἰδού and λέγω [δὲ] ὑμῖν (Sayings, 171). However, this eschatological outlook is equally characteristic of Jesus. As for the terminological arguments – which concern Lk. 13.35, not v. 34 – the expressions ἰδού and λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν are frequently used by Jesus. To restrict ourselves to the sayings that receive a pink or red rating by the Jesus seminar, ἰδού occurs in Mk 4.3 (= Mt. 13.3); Mt. 7.4; 11.8 (= Lk. 7.25); 12.49; 13.3; Lk. 13.7, and λέγω (δὲ) ὑμῖν occurs in Mt. 6.25 (= Lk. 12.22), 29; 18.13; 19.23, 24; Lk. 11.8; 12.27; 13.24; 18.14. Cf. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels. 16.  Robert J. Miller, “Rejection,” 237, n. 56. 17.  Miller contends that the speaker of the oracle cannot be identical with the sender of the prophets (“Rejection,” 235; similarly Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 173). However, the different verb forms (the verb “sent” [ἀπεσταλμένους] is a perfect passive participle, and the verb “desired” [ἠθέλησα] is an aorist indicative) alone are not sufficient to warrant this conclusion. Thematically, the two sentences belong together.

128

129

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

with reshaping in the course of tradition or even creative tradition, the simile of Jesus as a mother hen (ὄρνις) has a reasonable claim to have originated with Jesus himself. Had the mother hen been a ­well-known metaphor for Jesus, it is easy to see how it could have been substituted for something else Jesus originally said. But this way of describing Jesus is unattested in early Christian literature apart from this saying. Its preservation in this saying may therefore be just that: preservation.18 The image of the mother bird that Jesus used has a rich background in the Scriptures of Israel. The Lord, Israel’s God, sustained his people in the wilderness, like an eagle that spreads its wings over its young (Deut. 32.11-12). His continued protection means that Jerusalem need not seek political alliances. God protects Jerusalem “like birds hovering overhead” (Isa. 31.5). Consequently, “the shadow of your wings” becomes a favorite metaphor for taking one’s refuge in God (Pss 17.8; 36.8; 57.2; 63.8; cf. Pss 61.5; 91.4; Ruth 2.12; 2 Bar. 41.4; 2 Esd. 1.30).19 When Jesus refers to himself as a mother bird, he is appropriating to himself a ­well-established metaphor for God and his protection. A very similar application of the metaphor is found in 2 Esdras, where it refers to the Lord Almighty’s care for Israel: “I gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under

her wings” (1.30). Jesus’ saying may reflect his ­self-understanding as the one who takes God’s place.20

130

18.  Jeremias sees in the saying an indication that Jesus at one point expected to die by stoning. He therefore finds the saying to be authentic, preserving an unfulfilled announcement (New Testament Theology, 284). Other scholars who conclude in favor of authenticity include Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 79–81; Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 173–80; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 337–39; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 175–76; Horsley, Spiral of Violence, 301–4; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, 306–7; David R. Catchpole, “Temple Traditions in Q,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury, JSNTSup 48 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 327–29; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 456; Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, 421–25; Folker Siegert, “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’ Jesus als ‘Tempel’ in den Passionsüberlieferungen,” in Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels: Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung, ed. Johannes Hahn and Christian Ronning, WUNT 147 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 122. Carlston thinks there lies behind the saying an authentic core where Jesus did speak as a “­supra-historical entity” (“Wisdom and Eschatology in Q,” in Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982], 117). Davies and Allison are undecided (Matthew, Vol. 3, 314). 19.  Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 279–80; Schweizer, Matthew, 444; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 159, 161.

131

The King Jesus may also be understood to be appropriating for himself a divine epithet when he refers to himself as “king” in the judgment scene in Mt. 25.34-46. This king divides people into two groups, one on his right and the other on his left. Those on his right he will send to eternal life, whereas those on his left will go away to eternal punishment. Many commentators observe that this king looks a lot like God, and many think that Jesus originally referred to God as king (cf. Chapter 4). God was frequently referred to as king in the Jewish tradition (Ps. 47.3; Isa. 24.34; 33.22; Zeph. 3.15; Obad. 21; Zech. 14.16-17; 1 En. 84.2; Jub. 1.28; Sib. Or. 3.56; Ps. Sol. 17.1; T. Mos. 4.2) as well as in the Gospel of Matthew (5.35; 18.23; 22.2, 7, 11, 13). If so, the early church may have altered the story so that Jesus has taken God’s place. In Chapter 4, I have argued that this explanation is unlikely. “King” is not a preferred title for Jesus in the early church; it was the outsiders who preferred to refer to Jesus in this way. It is more likely, therefore, that this characteristic usage stems from Jesus himself. As Jesus’ claim to be the ultimate eschatological judge goes beyond messianic expectations, his use of the title “king” seems to be another example of his implicit claim to stand in God’s place.

20.  Cf. Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 279–80; Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, reprint, 1995 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 85–56; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 336. Nolland finds here a claim to “act in the place of God” (Luke 9:21–18:34, 742). Bovon also notes that the image has associations of God as protector (Lukas, vol. 2, 455). Aware of the background of the image, Davies and Allison suggest that Jesus may be speaking the word of God in the first person, analogous to the prophets (Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 320–21; similarly Horsley, Spiral of Violence, 301). Their interpretation illustrates the kind of eisegesis that is necessary to avoid the straightforward implications of the saying. As it stands, the saying does not give Jesus the role of a prophet; he is rather the sender of the prophets. Moreover, the formula “thus says the Lord” is lacking, and there is no indication that Jesus is speaking for anyone other than himself.

God’s Equal

7.  God’s Epithets

with reshaping in the course of tradition or even creative tradition, the simile of Jesus as a mother hen (ὄρνις) has a reasonable claim to have originated with Jesus himself. Had the mother hen been a ­well-known metaphor for Jesus, it is easy to see how it could have been substituted for something else Jesus originally said. But this way of describing Jesus is unattested in early Christian literature apart from this saying. Its preservation in this saying may therefore be just that: preservation.18 The image of the mother bird that Jesus used has a rich background in the Scriptures of Israel. The Lord, Israel’s God, sustained his people in the wilderness, like an eagle that spreads its wings over its young (Deut. 32.11-12). His continued protection means that Jerusalem need not seek political alliances. God protects Jerusalem “like birds hovering overhead” (Isa. 31.5). Consequently, “the shadow of your wings” becomes a favorite metaphor for taking one’s refuge in God (Pss 17.8; 36.8; 57.2; 63.8; cf. Pss 61.5; 91.4; Ruth 2.12; 2 Bar. 41.4; 2 Esd. 1.30).19 When Jesus refers to himself as a mother bird, he is appropriating to himself a ­well-established metaphor for God and his protection. A very similar application of the metaphor is found in 2 Esdras, where it refers to the Lord Almighty’s care for Israel: “I gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks under

her wings” (1.30). Jesus’ saying may reflect his ­self-understanding as the one who takes God’s place.20

130

18.  Jeremias sees in the saying an indication that Jesus at one point expected to die by stoning. He therefore finds the saying to be authentic, preserving an unfulfilled announcement (New Testament Theology, 284). Other scholars who conclude in favor of authenticity include Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 79–81; Hoffmann, Logienquelle, 173–80; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 337–39; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 175–76; Horsley, Spiral of Violence, 301–4; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, 306–7; David R. Catchpole, “Temple Traditions in Q,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury, JSNTSup 48 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 327–29; Bovon, Lukas, vol. 2, 456; Riniker, Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu, 421–25; Folker Siegert, “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’ Jesus als ‘Tempel’ in den Passionsüberlieferungen,” in Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels: Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung, ed. Johannes Hahn and Christian Ronning, WUNT 147 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 122. Carlston thinks there lies behind the saying an authentic core where Jesus did speak as a “­supra-historical entity” (“Wisdom and Eschatology in Q,” in Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982], 117). Davies and Allison are undecided (Matthew, Vol. 3, 314). 19.  Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 279–80; Schweizer, Matthew, 444; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 159, 161.

131

The King Jesus may also be understood to be appropriating for himself a divine epithet when he refers to himself as “king” in the judgment scene in Mt. 25.34-46. This king divides people into two groups, one on his right and the other on his left. Those on his right he will send to eternal life, whereas those on his left will go away to eternal punishment. Many commentators observe that this king looks a lot like God, and many think that Jesus originally referred to God as king (cf. Chapter 4). God was frequently referred to as king in the Jewish tradition (Ps. 47.3; Isa. 24.34; 33.22; Zeph. 3.15; Obad. 21; Zech. 14.16-17; 1 En. 84.2; Jub. 1.28; Sib. Or. 3.56; Ps. Sol. 17.1; T. Mos. 4.2) as well as in the Gospel of Matthew (5.35; 18.23; 22.2, 7, 11, 13). If so, the early church may have altered the story so that Jesus has taken God’s place. In Chapter 4, I have argued that this explanation is unlikely. “King” is not a preferred title for Jesus in the early church; it was the outsiders who preferred to refer to Jesus in this way. It is more likely, therefore, that this characteristic usage stems from Jesus himself. As Jesus’ claim to be the ultimate eschatological judge goes beyond messianic expectations, his use of the title “king” seems to be another example of his implicit claim to stand in God’s place.

20.  Cf. Aalen, “‘Jahvistisk kristologi’,” 279–80; Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology, reprint, 1995 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 85–56; Pao and Schnabel, “Luke,” 336. Nolland finds here a claim to “act in the place of God” (Luke 9:21–18:34, 742). Bovon also notes that the image has associations of God as protector (Lukas, vol. 2, 455). Aware of the background of the image, Davies and Allison suggest that Jesus may be speaking the word of God in the first person, analogous to the prophets (Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 320–21; similarly Horsley, Spiral of Violence, 301). Their interpretation illustrates the kind of eisegesis that is necessary to avoid the straightforward implications of the saying. As it stands, the saying does not give Jesus the role of a prophet; he is rather the sender of the prophets. Moreover, the formula “thus says the Lord” is lacking, and there is no indication that Jesus is speaking for anyone other than himself.

132

God’s Equal

The Sower Another passage that has been understood in this way is found in Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mk 4.38). This parable is attested in the triple tradition of Mark, Matthew (13.3-8), and Luke (8.5-8), as well as in the Gospel of Thomas (9). Most scholars agree that an original version goes back to the historical Jesus, and that this original version makes reference to a sower who went out to sow (Mk 4.3 par.).21 It is reasonable to interpret the sower as referring to Jesus himself.22 The work of the sower appears to be an illustration of the ministry of Jesus. But the point of the parable is not to say anything about the identity of the sower. He is only mentioned at the outset; in the following all the focus falls on the seed and the crops.23 One might therefore argue that the work of the sower is applicable to all those who engage in the work of proclaiming the kingdom. Jesus’ predecessors, such as John the Baptist, could be included.24 By extension, so might also Jesus’ disciples. The interpretation that is included in Mk 4.14 does not identify the sower, but describes him as sowing the word. As God is described metaphorically as a sower in the Jewish tradition (Jer. 31.27-28; Hos. 2.23; 1 En. 62.8), Payne has suggested that Jesus’ parable of the sower should be interpreted in this light. If so, this parable would be another instance where Jesus places himself in the role of God.25 There are problems with this interpretation, however. The parallel between Jesus’ parable and the traditional pictures of God as sower is not very close. Whereas God sows Israel in the land (Jer. 31.27-28; Hos. 2.23) and sows the congregation of the elect (1 En. 62.8), Jesus’ seed is the proclamation of the kingdom.26 As Jesus probably did not intend the sower to be an exclusive ­self-reference, a more relevant parallel is found in the moral principle that one 21.  Bultmann thinks the tradition has altered the parable to the point where the original meaning is irrecoverable (Geschichte, 216). The Jesus seminar voted all four versions pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 54, 190–91, 305, 478). 22.  Focusing on the literary level of the parable, Marcus presents a strong argument for seeing Jesus as the sower (The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, SBLDS 90 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 37–39). 23.  So correctly Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 192. 24. Dodd, The Parables, 145–47. 25.  Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim,” 4–6; similarly Marie Sabin, “Reading Mark 4 as Midrash,” JSNT 45 (1992): 14–16. 26. France, Mark, 190.

7.  God’s Epithets

133

reaps what one sows (Job 4.8; Hos. 8.7; 10.12; Sir. 7.3).27 There is therefore little reason to see Jesus making a lofty claim for himself in this parable.28

Conclusion There is some evidence to suggest that Jesus’ claim to be equal to God is reflected in the way he spoke about himself. But the weight of this evidence should not be exaggerated. Jesus does not appear to be making an exclusive ­self-claim when he speaks about the sower, for example. In two sayings whose authenticity is difficult to assess, Jesus calls himself “king” and refers to himself as the mother bird. Both of these sayings are best understood against the background of God’s s­ elf-descriptions in the Jewish tradition. The strongest evidence is found in Jesus’ saying about fasting, a saying that is very likely to be authentic. When Jesus there calls himself the bridegroom, he is not applying a messianic image to himself. Rather, the presupposition for his use of metaphor seems to be his conviction that he takes God’s place in interacting with the world.

27.  Hubert Frankemölle, “Hat Jesus sich selbst verkündigt? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln,” BibLeb 13 (1972): 195. 28.  Payne also argues that Jesus applies divine epithets to himself when he refers to the director of the harvest (Mk 4.26-29; Mt. 13.24-30, 41), as the shepherd (Mt. 18.12-14; Lk. 15.47), as the father (Lk. 15.11-32), and as the vineyard owner (Mk 12.1-9 par.). See “Jesus’ Implicit Claim,” 6–14. However, it is not clear in these cases that Jesus is claiming this role for himself. He does not specify whether it is he or God who should be understood in these roles.

132

God’s Equal

The Sower Another passage that has been understood in this way is found in Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mk 4.38). This parable is attested in the triple tradition of Mark, Matthew (13.3-8), and Luke (8.5-8), as well as in the Gospel of Thomas (9). Most scholars agree that an original version goes back to the historical Jesus, and that this original version makes reference to a sower who went out to sow (Mk 4.3 par.).21 It is reasonable to interpret the sower as referring to Jesus himself.22 The work of the sower appears to be an illustration of the ministry of Jesus. But the point of the parable is not to say anything about the identity of the sower. He is only mentioned at the outset; in the following all the focus falls on the seed and the crops.23 One might therefore argue that the work of the sower is applicable to all those who engage in the work of proclaiming the kingdom. Jesus’ predecessors, such as John the Baptist, could be included.24 By extension, so might also Jesus’ disciples. The interpretation that is included in Mk 4.14 does not identify the sower, but describes him as sowing the word. As God is described metaphorically as a sower in the Jewish tradition (Jer. 31.27-28; Hos. 2.23; 1 En. 62.8), Payne has suggested that Jesus’ parable of the sower should be interpreted in this light. If so, this parable would be another instance where Jesus places himself in the role of God.25 There are problems with this interpretation, however. The parallel between Jesus’ parable and the traditional pictures of God as sower is not very close. Whereas God sows Israel in the land (Jer. 31.27-28; Hos. 2.23) and sows the congregation of the elect (1 En. 62.8), Jesus’ seed is the proclamation of the kingdom.26 As Jesus probably did not intend the sower to be an exclusive ­self-reference, a more relevant parallel is found in the moral principle that one 21.  Bultmann thinks the tradition has altered the parable to the point where the original meaning is irrecoverable (Geschichte, 216). The Jesus seminar voted all four versions pink (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 54, 190–91, 305, 478). 22.  Focusing on the literary level of the parable, Marcus presents a strong argument for seeing Jesus as the sower (The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, SBLDS 90 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 37–39). 23.  So correctly Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 192. 24. Dodd, The Parables, 145–47. 25.  Payne, “Jesus’ Implicit Claim,” 4–6; similarly Marie Sabin, “Reading Mark 4 as Midrash,” JSNT 45 (1992): 14–16. 26. France, Mark, 190.

7.  God’s Epithets

133

reaps what one sows (Job 4.8; Hos. 8.7; 10.12; Sir. 7.3).27 There is therefore little reason to see Jesus making a lofty claim for himself in this parable.28

Conclusion There is some evidence to suggest that Jesus’ claim to be equal to God is reflected in the way he spoke about himself. But the weight of this evidence should not be exaggerated. Jesus does not appear to be making an exclusive ­self-claim when he speaks about the sower, for example. In two sayings whose authenticity is difficult to assess, Jesus calls himself “king” and refers to himself as the mother bird. Both of these sayings are best understood against the background of God’s s­ elf-descriptions in the Jewish tradition. The strongest evidence is found in Jesus’ saying about fasting, a saying that is very likely to be authentic. When Jesus there calls himself the bridegroom, he is not applying a messianic image to himself. Rather, the presupposition for his use of metaphor seems to be his conviction that he takes God’s place in interacting with the world.

27.  Hubert Frankemölle, “Hat Jesus sich selbst verkündigt? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln,” BibLeb 13 (1972): 195. 28.  Payne also argues that Jesus applies divine epithets to himself when he refers to the director of the harvest (Mk 4.26-29; Mt. 13.24-30, 41), as the shepherd (Mt. 18.12-14; Lk. 15.47), as the father (Lk. 15.11-32), and as the vineyard owner (Mk 12.1-9 par.). See “Jesus’ Implicit Claim,” 6–14. However, it is not clear in these cases that Jesus is claiming this role for himself. He does not specify whether it is he or God who should be understood in these roles.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

134

135

Prince of Light, Melchizedek, Moses, other enthroned characters, the Son of Man, Philo’s ideal human being, and the Logos.

8 MEDIATORY FIGURES IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

The previous chapters have drawn many comparisons between Jesus’ claims and various human and angelic figures that hold exalted positions in Jewish tradition. It is now time for a more systematic presentation of the claims that were made on behalf of the most important of these figures. Each character’s claims can then be compared more comprehensively to the claims that were made by Jesus, so that Jesus’ claims can be evaluated in his own context. The following overview will be based on a considerable diversity of sources, spanning several centuries in time and representing quite different communities. It seems tenuous to combine the disparate contributions of such sources in order to construct a unified picture.1 I will therefore focus on characters in the way they emerge in individual texts or texts that are clearly related (such as the writings of a single author), rather than attempt to synthesize material that may or may not describe the same individual. Even if it could be established with relative probability that two texts should refer to the same character (such as the archangel Michael), it does not at all follow that the two texts share the same view of that character. In other words, I will not assume that there was in Second Temple Judaism a unified concept of the Messiah, but I will treat the individual witnesses separately.2 This chapter will be organized according to the different figures, which include: the Messiah, actual messianic pretenders, the Angel of the Lord, the

1.  For an example of this approach, see Barker, Great Angel. 2.  For an overview of the scholarly discussion regarding the definition of “Messiah,” see James H. Charlesworth, “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 3–35; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 191–327.

The Royal Messiah The best known of the savior figures in the Jewish tradition is the Messiah. Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah take as their starting point the promise that God gave to David in 2 Sam. 7.12-16 (cf. 2 Sam. 23.1-7; 1 Chron. 17.1-15). This promise forms the basis of several royal psalms (2; 18; 72; 89; 110) and is specifically applied to the future in many prophetic oracles.3 The humanity of this figure is hardly in doubt, since he is identified as a descendent of David (2 Sam. 7.12). But he is also called a son of God (2 Sam. 7.14). In Ps. 2.7, God announces to the king: “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Scholars debate whether this oracle should be understood in terms of adoption or begetting, but, in any case, the expression is metaphorical. The word “today” (‫ ;היום‬σήμερον) indicates that the divine sonship is associated with the king’s relationship with God. It does not refer to his origin or to his nature. Most of the messianic passages in the Scriptures of Israel do not focus on the divine sonship of this king, but on his salvific function. But some texts apply divine epithets to the king or to the Messiah. In Ps. 45.7 the king is addressed as God: “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.” While such a view of the king was common in the Ancient Near East, it is unparalleled in the Bible. To avoid the conclusion that the king is called God, scholars have suggested various emendations of the verse.4 But the Septuagint has followed the Masoretic

3.  Amos 9.11-12; Hos. 3.4-5; Mic. 4.8; 5.1-6; Isa. 4.2; 7.13-17; 9.2-7; 11.1-16; 55.3; Jer. 23.1-8; 30.8-9, 21-22; 33.14-26; Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.24-25; Zech. 3.8; 6.12-13; 9.9. In the Scriptures of Israel, the word Messiah is only used for an eschatological figure in Dan. 9.25, 26. Joseph Fitzmyer has insisted that only those passages which specifically refer to anointing should be considered messianic (The One Who is to Come [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 4). In agreement with the majority of scholars, however, I will use the term for an eschatological figure who is clearly identified as a son of David. For the development of messianic ideas, see especially Mowinckel, He That Cometh; James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Collins, The Scepter and the Star. 4.  Cf. H ­ ans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 451–52.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

134

135

Prince of Light, Melchizedek, Moses, other enthroned characters, the Son of Man, Philo’s ideal human being, and the Logos.

8 MEDIATORY FIGURES IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

The previous chapters have drawn many comparisons between Jesus’ claims and various human and angelic figures that hold exalted positions in Jewish tradition. It is now time for a more systematic presentation of the claims that were made on behalf of the most important of these figures. Each character’s claims can then be compared more comprehensively to the claims that were made by Jesus, so that Jesus’ claims can be evaluated in his own context. The following overview will be based on a considerable diversity of sources, spanning several centuries in time and representing quite different communities. It seems tenuous to combine the disparate contributions of such sources in order to construct a unified picture.1 I will therefore focus on characters in the way they emerge in individual texts or texts that are clearly related (such as the writings of a single author), rather than attempt to synthesize material that may or may not describe the same individual. Even if it could be established with relative probability that two texts should refer to the same character (such as the archangel Michael), it does not at all follow that the two texts share the same view of that character. In other words, I will not assume that there was in Second Temple Judaism a unified concept of the Messiah, but I will treat the individual witnesses separately.2 This chapter will be organized according to the different figures, which include: the Messiah, actual messianic pretenders, the Angel of the Lord, the

1.  For an example of this approach, see Barker, Great Angel. 2.  For an overview of the scholarly discussion regarding the definition of “Messiah,” see James H. Charlesworth, “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 3–35; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 191–327.

The Royal Messiah The best known of the savior figures in the Jewish tradition is the Messiah. Jewish expectations regarding the Messiah take as their starting point the promise that God gave to David in 2 Sam. 7.12-16 (cf. 2 Sam. 23.1-7; 1 Chron. 17.1-15). This promise forms the basis of several royal psalms (2; 18; 72; 89; 110) and is specifically applied to the future in many prophetic oracles.3 The humanity of this figure is hardly in doubt, since he is identified as a descendent of David (2 Sam. 7.12). But he is also called a son of God (2 Sam. 7.14). In Ps. 2.7, God announces to the king: “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Scholars debate whether this oracle should be understood in terms of adoption or begetting, but, in any case, the expression is metaphorical. The word “today” (‫ ;היום‬σήμερον) indicates that the divine sonship is associated with the king’s relationship with God. It does not refer to his origin or to his nature. Most of the messianic passages in the Scriptures of Israel do not focus on the divine sonship of this king, but on his salvific function. But some texts apply divine epithets to the king or to the Messiah. In Ps. 45.7 the king is addressed as God: “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.” While such a view of the king was common in the Ancient Near East, it is unparalleled in the Bible. To avoid the conclusion that the king is called God, scholars have suggested various emendations of the verse.4 But the Septuagint has followed the Masoretic

3.  Amos 9.11-12; Hos. 3.4-5; Mic. 4.8; 5.1-6; Isa. 4.2; 7.13-17; 9.2-7; 11.1-16; 55.3; Jer. 23.1-8; 30.8-9, 21-22; 33.14-26; Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.24-25; Zech. 3.8; 6.12-13; 9.9. In the Scriptures of Israel, the word Messiah is only used for an eschatological figure in Dan. 9.25, 26. Joseph Fitzmyer has insisted that only those passages which specifically refer to anointing should be considered messianic (The One Who is to Come [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 4). In agreement with the majority of scholars, however, I will use the term for an eschatological figure who is clearly identified as a son of David. For the development of messianic ideas, see especially Mowinckel, He That Cometh; James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Collins, The Scepter and the Star. 4.  Cf. H ­ ans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 451–52.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

Text and not shied away from using “God” as a name for the king. The messianic oracle in Isa. 9.6 goes even further and attributes one of God’s names to the child that is to be born. He will be known as “Mighty God.” Elsewhere, the Book of Isaiah only uses that exalted title (‫ )אל גבור‬for God himself (10.21; cf. Deut. 10.17; Jer. 32.18, Neh. 9.32, Ps. 24.8). Whatever these oracles may have meant in their original contexts, my interests here lie in the way they were understood at the time of Jesus. The Septuagint betrays no unified tendency in its treatment of the passages mentioned above.5 It is possible that the translator of the Septuagint found a miraculous birth in Isa. 7.14. The Hebrew text announces a sign consisting of the pregnancy of a young woman. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word ‫ עלמה‬is usually rendered by the Greek word νεᾶνις, but in Isa. 7.14 the translator has chosen παρθένος, which has stronger connotations of virginity. But the most striking difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text is found in Isa. 9.6 (9.5 LXX). In the Septuagint, the child is not given the name “Mighty God.” The Hebrew ‫ אל‬is instead understood as denoting an angelic being, and the child is called “Messenger of Great Counsel” (Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος). Most of the surviving Jewish writings from the Second Temple period show little apparent interest in the Messiah. Apart from the writings from Qumran, our most important source is the Psalms of Solomon. Ps. Sol. 17.21-51 gives an elaborate description of the future Davidic king, who will be a political deliverer (cf. Ps. Sol. 18 heading; 18;5, 7). According to Ps. Sol. 17.32, he is a king who will be known as “the Lord Messiah.” If this indeed is the correct reading of the verse, the Greek κύριος does not correspond to God’s name YHWH, but to the Hebrew ‫ אדון‬and it is used as a royal title.6 Being pure from

sin (17.36), he is a unique human being. But there is no indication that this king is more than human. In contrast to 2 Sam. 7.14, this Messiah is not specifically called God’s son. Divine sonship is instead predicated of all the people of God (Ps. Sol. 17.27).7

136

5.  See Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 54–62. 6.  All surviving manuscripts read χριστος κυριος, but many scholars argue that this reading is corrupt. The original is thought to be the Hebrew construct ‫משיח יהוה‬, which corresponds to the Greek χριστος κυριου. ‫ משיח יהוה‬is mistranslated χριστος κυριος in Lam. 4.2 LXX, and the same error is assumed to have been committed here. Another possibility is that Christian scribes, who would have seen κυριος as a messianic title, were responsible for the change. Jews, on the other hand, could not have understood the text in this way. For them, ‫ משיח יהוה‬could only mean “the Lord’s Messiah.” Despite the lack of positive evidence in the surviving manuscripts, Rahlf’s edition of the LXX therefore reads: χριστος κυριου. Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer: Eine Untersuchung zur

137

Qumran The picture that emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls is different.8 The “Son of God” document (4Q246) mentions a character who will be called son of God and son of the Most High (4Q246 2.1). This document immediately proceeds to describe the enemies of God’s people (4Q246 2.2-3), and it has been argued that “son of God” should be understood as a name for a particularly reprehensible pagan king, possibly Alexander Balas9 or Antiochus IV Epiphanes,10 or inneren jüdischen Geschichte (Greifswald: Bamberg, 1874), 132; Joachim Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts, ALGHJ 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 71; Michael Pietsch, ‘Dieser ist der Sproß Davids . . .’: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum, WMANT 100 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener-Verlag, 2003), 234. Against this hypothesis, Robert R. Hann argues that Messiah without qualification could be understood as a title, and that κύριος could be understood as another regal title, translating ‫אדון‬ (“Christos Kyrios in PsSol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered,” NTS 31 [1985]: 624–25; cf. Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in OTP, 2.667–68). A similar explanation was suggested by Herbert Edward Ryle and Montague Rhodes James (ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ: Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891], 141–42). It is unnecessary, therefore, to postulate a translational or transcriptional error to account for the wording of the surviving manuscripts of Ps. Sol. 17.32. The suggested emendation must therefore be deemed to be unwarranted. Ps. Sol. 17.32 cannot be ignored as evidence of the use of the title κύριος for the Messiah. 7. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 323; James H. Charlesworth, “Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 31; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 342–43; Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas,” 96–97. In their investigation of the possible divinity of the Messiah in the Jewish tradition, Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins do not offer an extensive discussion of Ps. Sol. 17 (King and Messiah). 8.  For an overview, see A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); Collins, The Scepter and the Star, and, more comprehensively, Zimmermann, Messianische Texte. 9.  So J. T. Milik, according to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1979), 92. 10.  So Émile Puech, “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = ­pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’,” RB 99 (1992): 115–16.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

Text and not shied away from using “God” as a name for the king. The messianic oracle in Isa. 9.6 goes even further and attributes one of God’s names to the child that is to be born. He will be known as “Mighty God.” Elsewhere, the Book of Isaiah only uses that exalted title (‫ )אל גבור‬for God himself (10.21; cf. Deut. 10.17; Jer. 32.18, Neh. 9.32, Ps. 24.8). Whatever these oracles may have meant in their original contexts, my interests here lie in the way they were understood at the time of Jesus. The Septuagint betrays no unified tendency in its treatment of the passages mentioned above.5 It is possible that the translator of the Septuagint found a miraculous birth in Isa. 7.14. The Hebrew text announces a sign consisting of the pregnancy of a young woman. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word ‫ עלמה‬is usually rendered by the Greek word νεᾶνις, but in Isa. 7.14 the translator has chosen παρθένος, which has stronger connotations of virginity. But the most striking difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text is found in Isa. 9.6 (9.5 LXX). In the Septuagint, the child is not given the name “Mighty God.” The Hebrew ‫ אל‬is instead understood as denoting an angelic being, and the child is called “Messenger of Great Counsel” (Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος). Most of the surviving Jewish writings from the Second Temple period show little apparent interest in the Messiah. Apart from the writings from Qumran, our most important source is the Psalms of Solomon. Ps. Sol. 17.21-51 gives an elaborate description of the future Davidic king, who will be a political deliverer (cf. Ps. Sol. 18 heading; 18;5, 7). According to Ps. Sol. 17.32, he is a king who will be known as “the Lord Messiah.” If this indeed is the correct reading of the verse, the Greek κύριος does not correspond to God’s name YHWH, but to the Hebrew ‫ אדון‬and it is used as a royal title.6 Being pure from

sin (17.36), he is a unique human being. But there is no indication that this king is more than human. In contrast to 2 Sam. 7.14, this Messiah is not specifically called God’s son. Divine sonship is instead predicated of all the people of God (Ps. Sol. 17.27).7

136

5.  See Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 54–62. 6.  All surviving manuscripts read χριστος κυριος, but many scholars argue that this reading is corrupt. The original is thought to be the Hebrew construct ‫משיח יהוה‬, which corresponds to the Greek χριστος κυριου. ‫ משיח יהוה‬is mistranslated χριστος κυριος in Lam. 4.2 LXX, and the same error is assumed to have been committed here. Another possibility is that Christian scribes, who would have seen κυριος as a messianic title, were responsible for the change. Jews, on the other hand, could not have understood the text in this way. For them, ‫ משיח יהוה‬could only mean “the Lord’s Messiah.” Despite the lack of positive evidence in the surviving manuscripts, Rahlf’s edition of the LXX therefore reads: χριστος κυριου. Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer: Eine Untersuchung zur

137

Qumran The picture that emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls is different.8 The “Son of God” document (4Q246) mentions a character who will be called son of God and son of the Most High (4Q246 2.1). This document immediately proceeds to describe the enemies of God’s people (4Q246 2.2-3), and it has been argued that “son of God” should be understood as a name for a particularly reprehensible pagan king, possibly Alexander Balas9 or Antiochus IV Epiphanes,10 or inneren jüdischen Geschichte (Greifswald: Bamberg, 1874), 132; Joachim Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts, ALGHJ 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 71; Michael Pietsch, ‘Dieser ist der Sproß Davids . . .’: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum, WMANT 100 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener-Verlag, 2003), 234. Against this hypothesis, Robert R. Hann argues that Messiah without qualification could be understood as a title, and that κύριος could be understood as another regal title, translating ‫אדון‬ (“Christos Kyrios in PsSol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered,” NTS 31 [1985]: 624–25; cf. Robert B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in OTP, 2.667–68). A similar explanation was suggested by Herbert Edward Ryle and Montague Rhodes James (ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ: Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891], 141–42). It is unnecessary, therefore, to postulate a translational or transcriptional error to account for the wording of the surviving manuscripts of Ps. Sol. 17.32. The suggested emendation must therefore be deemed to be unwarranted. Ps. Sol. 17.32 cannot be ignored as evidence of the use of the title κύριος for the Messiah. 7. Klausner, Messianic Idea, 323; James H. Charlesworth, “Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 31; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 342–43; Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas,” 96–97. In their investigation of the possible divinity of the Messiah in the Jewish tradition, Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins do not offer an extensive discussion of Ps. Sol. 17 (King and Messiah). 8.  For an overview, see A. S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); Collins, The Scepter and the Star, and, more comprehensively, Zimmermann, Messianische Texte. 9.  So J. T. Milik, according to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1979), 92. 10.  So Émile Puech, “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = ­pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’,” RB 99 (1992): 115–16.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

even the eschatological archenemy of God’s people.11 But it is more likely that the title is intended positively, and that the son of God should be associated with the people of God, who appear on the stage in line 4. The figure could be understood as a guardian angel,12 a coming Jewish ruler,13 Israel collectively,14 or, as is perhaps most likely, an individual that represents the people.15 This son of God is described in a way characteristic of the Messiah and probably also inspired by the Danielic Son of Man.16 He has an eternal kingdom, is a truthful judge, and brings peace to the earth as he establishes his worldwide rule (4Q246 2.5-7a). He will not do so on his own authority, however; God is his strength, wages war for him, and makes the nations submit to him (4Q246 7b-9a). There is no hint that his sonship implies that he is equal to God or divine. It refers to his unique privilege as God’s special protégé. Divine sonship is mentioned in 4QFlorilegium as well. The scroll quotes 2 Sam. 7.14, where God promises that David’s son will be a son to him (4Q174 3.11). There is nothing in the text that explains the nature of this sonship, however. The argument focuses on identifying this son as the “branch of David,” a royal Messiah who will emerge alongside the Interpreter of the law at the end of days.17 Several other texts mention the sonship of the Messiah, without elaborating on its meaning. The Messianic Rule describes the seating arrangements when God “begets the Messiah with them” (1QSa 2.11-12).18 In 4Q369, there is a

reference to “a ­first-born son” (4Q369 1.ii.6), which may indicate a Davidic character as well (cf. Ps. 89.28).19 Later texts express the limitations of the Messiah directly. In 4 Ezra he is clearly a mere mortal. After he has been revealed, he and his people will rejoice for 100 years (4 Ezra 7.28). But then the Messiah will die, even though God calls him his son (4 Ezra 7.29).20 Second Baruch also associates the appearance of the Messiah with the end (29.3; 30.1; 39.7). His role is that of a judge. He will convict the last ruler and punish him (40.1-2) and save God’s people (70.9). Of all the nations, he will kill some and spare some (72.2). As in 4 Ezra, his eschatological role is preparatory, preceding the rule of God. Although his dominion lasts forever, it is limited to the time “until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled” (40.3).21

138

11.  So David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” Immanuel 10 (1980): 33. 12.  So Florentino García Martínez, “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 173. 13.  So Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran,” Bib 74 (1993): 173–74. 14.  Martin Hengel is open to this possibility (The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of ­Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, trans. John Bowden [London: SCM, 1976], 45). 15.  For an overview of research, see Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 153–58. 16.  So Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 157–60; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 158–68; Géza G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library, STDJ 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 88–89; Émile Puech, “Le fils de Dieu, le fils du ­Très-Haut, messie roi en 4Q246,” in Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann, vol. 1 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, ed. Claude Coulot, LD 198 (Paris: Cerf, 2004), 282–86; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 231–32; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 66–73. 17. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 110–13; Pietsch, ‘Sproß Davids’, 215–16. 18.  Different reconstructions of the text have been proposed, but Evans argues well for

139

“The Elect of God” Another Dead Sea scroll that may refer to the Messiah is the “Elect of God” text (4Q534). This scroll describes the birth and ascendancy of a character called the elect of God (4Q534 1.10). Like the Messiah (Isa. 11.2), the elect one is distinguished by his wisdom (4Q534 1.7-9). The Scroll’s mention of “the spirit of his breath” (4Q534 1.10) may be an allusion to the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.4. Accordingly, some scholars have identified this elect one as the Messiah.22 But the majority of scholars follow Joseph Fitzmyer, who thinks the

accepting the reading quoted above (“Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998], 139). 19.  John Strugnell and Harold W. Attridge, “4Q369: ‘4QPrayer of Enosh’,” in Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, ed. James C. VanderKam, DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 359; Evans, “‘Son’ Texts,” 150–51. Zimmermann is also open to the possibility that the reference may be to Enoch (Messianische Texte, 218–20). 20.  Box finds in these verses the work of a redactor, who made use of rabbinic sources (­Ezra-Apocalypse, 110–11). But see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 204–7. 21.  Cf. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas,” 108–10. 22.  Jean Starcky, “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” in Mémorial du cinquantenaire, 1914–1964, Écoles des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1964), 51–66; Émile Puech, Les données qumrâniennes et classiques, vol. 2 of La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

even the eschatological archenemy of God’s people.11 But it is more likely that the title is intended positively, and that the son of God should be associated with the people of God, who appear on the stage in line 4. The figure could be understood as a guardian angel,12 a coming Jewish ruler,13 Israel collectively,14 or, as is perhaps most likely, an individual that represents the people.15 This son of God is described in a way characteristic of the Messiah and probably also inspired by the Danielic Son of Man.16 He has an eternal kingdom, is a truthful judge, and brings peace to the earth as he establishes his worldwide rule (4Q246 2.5-7a). He will not do so on his own authority, however; God is his strength, wages war for him, and makes the nations submit to him (4Q246 7b-9a). There is no hint that his sonship implies that he is equal to God or divine. It refers to his unique privilege as God’s special protégé. Divine sonship is mentioned in 4QFlorilegium as well. The scroll quotes 2 Sam. 7.14, where God promises that David’s son will be a son to him (4Q174 3.11). There is nothing in the text that explains the nature of this sonship, however. The argument focuses on identifying this son as the “branch of David,” a royal Messiah who will emerge alongside the Interpreter of the law at the end of days.17 Several other texts mention the sonship of the Messiah, without elaborating on its meaning. The Messianic Rule describes the seating arrangements when God “begets the Messiah with them” (1QSa 2.11-12).18 In 4Q369, there is a

reference to “a ­first-born son” (4Q369 1.ii.6), which may indicate a Davidic character as well (cf. Ps. 89.28).19 Later texts express the limitations of the Messiah directly. In 4 Ezra he is clearly a mere mortal. After he has been revealed, he and his people will rejoice for 100 years (4 Ezra 7.28). But then the Messiah will die, even though God calls him his son (4 Ezra 7.29).20 Second Baruch also associates the appearance of the Messiah with the end (29.3; 30.1; 39.7). His role is that of a judge. He will convict the last ruler and punish him (40.1-2) and save God’s people (70.9). Of all the nations, he will kill some and spare some (72.2). As in 4 Ezra, his eschatological role is preparatory, preceding the rule of God. Although his dominion lasts forever, it is limited to the time “until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled” (40.3).21

138

11.  So David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” Immanuel 10 (1980): 33. 12.  So Florentino García Martínez, “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, STDJ 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 173. 13.  So Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran,” Bib 74 (1993): 173–74. 14.  Martin Hengel is open to this possibility (The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of ­Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, trans. John Bowden [London: SCM, 1976], 45). 15.  For an overview of research, see Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 153–58. 16.  So Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 157–60; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 158–68; Géza G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library, STDJ 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 88–89; Émile Puech, “Le fils de Dieu, le fils du ­Très-Haut, messie roi en 4Q246,” in Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann, vol. 1 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, ed. Claude Coulot, LD 198 (Paris: Cerf, 2004), 282–86; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 231–32; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 66–73. 17. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 110–13; Pietsch, ‘Sproß Davids’, 215–16. 18.  Different reconstructions of the text have been proposed, but Evans argues well for

139

“The Elect of God” Another Dead Sea scroll that may refer to the Messiah is the “Elect of God” text (4Q534). This scroll describes the birth and ascendancy of a character called the elect of God (4Q534 1.10). Like the Messiah (Isa. 11.2), the elect one is distinguished by his wisdom (4Q534 1.7-9). The Scroll’s mention of “the spirit of his breath” (4Q534 1.10) may be an allusion to the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.4. Accordingly, some scholars have identified this elect one as the Messiah.22 But the majority of scholars follow Joseph Fitzmyer, who thinks the

accepting the reading quoted above (“Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls,” in ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998], 139). 19.  John Strugnell and Harold W. Attridge, “4Q369: ‘4QPrayer of Enosh’,” in Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, ed. James C. VanderKam, DJD 13 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 359; Evans, “‘Son’ Texts,” 150–51. Zimmermann is also open to the possibility that the reference may be to Enoch (Messianische Texte, 218–20). 20.  Box finds in these verses the work of a redactor, who made use of rabbinic sources (­Ezra-Apocalypse, 110–11). But see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 204–7. 21.  Cf. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas,” 108–10. 22.  Jean Starcky, “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân,” in Mémorial du cinquantenaire, 1914–1964, Écoles des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1964), 51–66; Émile Puech, Les données qumrâniennes et classiques, vol. 2 of La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie

140

God’s Equal

elect one was Noah.23 Against this view, however, it is argued that the application of this title to Noah is not in evidence at this early stage.24 Whoever this elect one is, he is no ordinary human being. The surviving text does not attribute to him any divine titles, but describes his exceptional wisdom. “[H]e will know the secrets of man. And his wisdom will reach all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of all living things” (4Q534 1.8). What is in view is probably biological knowledge and knowledge of the works and destinies of all humans (cf. 1 En. 81.2).25 Armed with this wisdom, he has an unassailable power. “[T]heir plans against him will come to nothing, although the opposition of all living things will be great” (4Q534 1.9). However, these unmatched qualities are not inherent with him. As a young man, his knowledge was remarkably limited (4Q534 1.4). His special wisdom stems from a special revelation.26 “The Elect of God” does not have a knowledge or a power that compares to God’s; he is uniquely gifted by God.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

141

The Angel of the Lord

In a climate of messianic expectation, several popular leaders in Israel were associated with messianic hopes. As far as we can tell from the accounts in Josephus’ writings, however, none of these made claims that were comparable to Jesus’. Their own actions were not identified with the actions of God. Instead, they were seen as special agents of God, whose leadership would trigger his intervention (cf. Jos., J. W. 2.259; Ant. 20.168).27

A character that is more closely associated with God is the Angel of Lord. In the Scriptures of Israel, this angel is a mysterious character. In Zech. 1.12 the Angel of the Lord addresses the Lord of hosts, and must clearly be understood as a separate character from him. But in a number of passages, the narrative blurs the distinction between the two. A good example is found in Gideon’s encounter with the angel of the Lord under the oak at Ophrah. The angel talks to Gideon and Gideon responds (Judg. 6.11-15), but suddenly the narrative changes the identity of Gideon’s conversation partner to God himself (Judg. 6.16). Similar accounts are found concerning Abraham (cf. Gen. 22.11 and 22.12), Hagar (cf. Gen. 16.7, 9, 10, 11 and 16.13), and Moses (cf. Exod. 3.2, 3 and 3.7). Another important text is Exod. 23.20, where God promises to send an angel in front of Israel and that God’s name will be in him. Although the word “angel” is not used, a similar ambiguity can be observed in Genesis 18. The story switches between saying that Abraham met and talked with the Lord (Gen. 18.1, 13) and with three men (Gen. 18.2) who ate Sarah’s food (Gen. 18.8).28 In later Jewish literature, the term “Angel of the Lord” is less prominent. Instead, there is a heightened interest in the archangels.29 The description of these angels is sometimes dependent upon the Scriptural traditions regarding the Angel of the Lord, but the effect is to lessen rather than to exploit the ambiguity that is found in the Scriptural accounts. This literature betrays a tendency to emphasize the spiritual nature of God.30 Accordingly, his interaction with the world tends to be attributed to his agents.

éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien, EBib 22 (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 676–77; Evans, “‘Son’ Texts,” 144–45; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 200–202. 23.  Fitzmyer, “‘Elect of God’ Text,” 158–59. So also Hermann Lichtenberger, “Messiasvorstellungen in Qumran und die neutestamentliche Christologie,” Communio viatorum 44 (2002): 154. 24. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 201. 25.  Ibid., 180. 26.  Ibid., 176. 27.  Cf. Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus, New Voices in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Winston, 1999), 161, 171.

28.  There are other examples where “Lord” and “Angel of the Lord” appear to be used synonymously (Gen. 48.15-16; Judg. 5.23; 2 Kgs 19.34-35; Isa. 37.35-36; Zech. 3.1-10; 12.8). Cf. also Barker, Great Angel, 31–34; Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU 42 [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 57–69. 29.  See Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, WUNT 36 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 257–338; Barker, Great Angel, 70–96; Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, ­Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT II/94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 109–215; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 124–51; Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT II/109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 15–121. 30. Rowland, Open Heaven, 105.

Messianic Pretenders

140

God’s Equal

elect one was Noah.23 Against this view, however, it is argued that the application of this title to Noah is not in evidence at this early stage.24 Whoever this elect one is, he is no ordinary human being. The surviving text does not attribute to him any divine titles, but describes his exceptional wisdom. “[H]e will know the secrets of man. And his wisdom will reach all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of all living things” (4Q534 1.8). What is in view is probably biological knowledge and knowledge of the works and destinies of all humans (cf. 1 En. 81.2).25 Armed with this wisdom, he has an unassailable power. “[T]heir plans against him will come to nothing, although the opposition of all living things will be great” (4Q534 1.9). However, these unmatched qualities are not inherent with him. As a young man, his knowledge was remarkably limited (4Q534 1.4). His special wisdom stems from a special revelation.26 “The Elect of God” does not have a knowledge or a power that compares to God’s; he is uniquely gifted by God.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

141

The Angel of the Lord

In a climate of messianic expectation, several popular leaders in Israel were associated with messianic hopes. As far as we can tell from the accounts in Josephus’ writings, however, none of these made claims that were comparable to Jesus’. Their own actions were not identified with the actions of God. Instead, they were seen as special agents of God, whose leadership would trigger his intervention (cf. Jos., J. W. 2.259; Ant. 20.168).27

A character that is more closely associated with God is the Angel of Lord. In the Scriptures of Israel, this angel is a mysterious character. In Zech. 1.12 the Angel of the Lord addresses the Lord of hosts, and must clearly be understood as a separate character from him. But in a number of passages, the narrative blurs the distinction between the two. A good example is found in Gideon’s encounter with the angel of the Lord under the oak at Ophrah. The angel talks to Gideon and Gideon responds (Judg. 6.11-15), but suddenly the narrative changes the identity of Gideon’s conversation partner to God himself (Judg. 6.16). Similar accounts are found concerning Abraham (cf. Gen. 22.11 and 22.12), Hagar (cf. Gen. 16.7, 9, 10, 11 and 16.13), and Moses (cf. Exod. 3.2, 3 and 3.7). Another important text is Exod. 23.20, where God promises to send an angel in front of Israel and that God’s name will be in him. Although the word “angel” is not used, a similar ambiguity can be observed in Genesis 18. The story switches between saying that Abraham met and talked with the Lord (Gen. 18.1, 13) and with three men (Gen. 18.2) who ate Sarah’s food (Gen. 18.8).28 In later Jewish literature, the term “Angel of the Lord” is less prominent. Instead, there is a heightened interest in the archangels.29 The description of these angels is sometimes dependent upon the Scriptural traditions regarding the Angel of the Lord, but the effect is to lessen rather than to exploit the ambiguity that is found in the Scriptural accounts. This literature betrays a tendency to emphasize the spiritual nature of God.30 Accordingly, his interaction with the world tends to be attributed to his agents.

éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien, EBib 22 (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 676–77; Evans, “‘Son’ Texts,” 144–45; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 200–202. 23.  Fitzmyer, “‘Elect of God’ Text,” 158–59. So also Hermann Lichtenberger, “Messiasvorstellungen in Qumran und die neutestamentliche Christologie,” Communio viatorum 44 (2002): 154. 24. Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 201. 25.  Ibid., 180. 26.  Ibid., 176. 27.  Cf. Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus, New Voices in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Winston, 1999), 161, 171.

28.  There are other examples where “Lord” and “Angel of the Lord” appear to be used synonymously (Gen. 48.15-16; Judg. 5.23; 2 Kgs 19.34-35; Isa. 37.35-36; Zech. 3.1-10; 12.8). Cf. also Barker, Great Angel, 31–34; Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, AGJU 42 [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 57–69. 29.  See Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, WUNT 36 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 257–338; Barker, Great Angel, 70–96; Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, ­Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT II/94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 109–215; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 124–51; Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, WUNT II/109 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 15–121. 30. Rowland, Open Heaven, 105.

Messianic Pretenders

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

Michael The ­best-known archangel is Michael. He is mentioned in Dan. 10.13, 21, where he appears as the guardian angel of Israel and is clearly distinct from and inferior to God. In Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan, the man who fought with Jacob is identified as the angel Michael (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 32.25). In contrast to the Hebrew Bible, however, the Targum does not include the comment that Jacob had fought with God (Gen. 32.28) or that he had seen God face to face (Gen. 32.30). Instead, Michael tells Jacob that he was magnified with the angels of the Lord, and Jacob is stunned that he survived seeing the angels of the Lord (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 32.28, 30). Similarly, in the Testament of Abraham 2-3, the story of Michael’s encounter with Abraham may be modeled after the story of three men visiting Abraham in Genesis 18. Unlike in the Hebrew Bible, there is no confusion as to whether Abraham spoke to an angel or to God. Michael comes to Abraham after leaving the presence of God (T. Ab. 2.1) and he greets Abraham as elect of God and friend of the heavenly One (T. Ab. 2.3). Although Isaac’s act of prostration before the angel may signify worship, Michael attributes the answer of prayer to the Lord God (T. Ab. 3.6).31 Elsewhere, Michael is portrayed as a divine agent. He is variously identified as the chief of the holy angels (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.16), the Commander-­inChief (T. Ab. 1.4; 2.1), the Lord’s greatest archangel (2 En. 22.6 [A]; T. Ab. 1.4; L.A.E. 25.2; 29.1) or archistratig (2 En. 22.6 [J]; 33.10; 71.28 [J]; 72.5 [J]), the Prince of the world (Pirqe R. El. 27), the Prince of Israel (3 En. 44.10), and the great Prince (3 En. 17.3; b. Ḥag. 12b).32 In his actions he is subordinated to God. God sends him to punish the evil angels (1 En. 10.11-13; cf. 54.5-6; 4Q202 4.8-11), to fight for his people (1QM 17.6), and to take Adam to Paradise (Apoc. Mos. 37.5; L.A.E. 48.1-3). Michael teaches Enoch the heavenly secrets (1 En.

71.3-5) and functions as his intercessor (2 En. 33.10 [J]). In 3 Baruch, he also intercedes for Israel (3 Bar. 12.8; 14.2), and the Babylonian Talmud describes him presenting a sacrifice on the temple altar (b. Ḥag. 12b). According to the Life of Adam and Eve, Michael was the first angel to worship Adam, the image of God (L.A.E. 14.2), and he called Satan and the other angels to worship him also (L.A.E. 13.3; 14.1-15.2).

142

31.  Gieschen correctly observes that descriptions of Michael may be dependent on Angel of the Lord traditions (Angelomorphic Christology, 127–31). He fails to observe, however, that the tendency of these descriptions is to distinguish more clearly between the angel and God. 32.  Although Michael is frequently portrayed as the ­highest-ranking angel, the other archangels are not seen to be ruled by him. He is not appropriately called God’s vice regent, therefore. So correctly, Richard Bauckham, God Crucified, 19; similarly Johannes Peter Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes, Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 14–25. In the War Scroll, he is exalted above all the gods (1QM 17.7), but he does not command the other angels. Pace Hannah, Michael and Christ, 39.

143

Iaoel Michael is overshadowed, however, by the angel Iaoel according to the Apocalypse of Abraham (first to second century CE). The description of Iaoel appears to identify him with the angel of Exod. 23.20, the angel in whom God’s name was. Iaoel is also sent to be with Israel (Apoc. Ab. 10.16), and he mediates the name of God (Apoc. Ab. 10.3, 6, 8). Iaoel’s own name, a combination of God’s two names ‫ יהוה‬and ‫אל‬, is also one of the names used in the worship of God (Apoc. Ab. 17.13). There is no indication that Iaoel is worshiped, however, as the name ‫ אל‬is uttered both by Abraham and Iaoel himself when they worship God together (cf. Apoc. Ab. 17.8). The physical description of Iaoel in the likeness of a man with a body like sapphire and hair like snow (Apoc. Ab. 10.4; 11.2-3) may be inspired by Ezekiel’s vision of God’s glory (Ezek. 1.26-28) and Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.9).33 Despite this exalted position, Iaoel is nothing more than an agent of God. He has been given his name by God (Apoc. Ab. 10.7), who sends him to bless Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 10.6, 13), to restrain the cosmic powers (Apoc. Ab. 10.9-10), and to execute God’s judgment (Apoc. Ab. 10.11-2).34 Israel In the Prayer of Joseph (first century CE), the preeminent angel is known as Israel. This angel is given several exalted names, such as “a man seeing God” (3), “the firstborn of every living thing” (3), “the archangel of the power of the Lord” (3), “the chief captain among the sons of God” (7) and “the first minister before the face of God” (9). As this writing has only partially survived in the form of brief

33. Fossum, Name of God, 318–19. 34.  Although Iaoel may here be seen with “divine functions,” these functions do not show him to be equal to God. These functions are not genuinely his own; he performs them on behalf of God (pace Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 143).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

Michael The ­best-known archangel is Michael. He is mentioned in Dan. 10.13, 21, where he appears as the guardian angel of Israel and is clearly distinct from and inferior to God. In Targum ­Pseudo-Jonathan, the man who fought with Jacob is identified as the angel Michael (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 32.25). In contrast to the Hebrew Bible, however, the Targum does not include the comment that Jacob had fought with God (Gen. 32.28) or that he had seen God face to face (Gen. 32.30). Instead, Michael tells Jacob that he was magnified with the angels of the Lord, and Jacob is stunned that he survived seeing the angels of the Lord (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 32.28, 30). Similarly, in the Testament of Abraham 2-3, the story of Michael’s encounter with Abraham may be modeled after the story of three men visiting Abraham in Genesis 18. Unlike in the Hebrew Bible, there is no confusion as to whether Abraham spoke to an angel or to God. Michael comes to Abraham after leaving the presence of God (T. Ab. 2.1) and he greets Abraham as elect of God and friend of the heavenly One (T. Ab. 2.3). Although Isaac’s act of prostration before the angel may signify worship, Michael attributes the answer of prayer to the Lord God (T. Ab. 3.6).31 Elsewhere, Michael is portrayed as a divine agent. He is variously identified as the chief of the holy angels (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.16), the Commander-­inChief (T. Ab. 1.4; 2.1), the Lord’s greatest archangel (2 En. 22.6 [A]; T. Ab. 1.4; L.A.E. 25.2; 29.1) or archistratig (2 En. 22.6 [J]; 33.10; 71.28 [J]; 72.5 [J]), the Prince of the world (Pirqe R. El. 27), the Prince of Israel (3 En. 44.10), and the great Prince (3 En. 17.3; b. Ḥag. 12b).32 In his actions he is subordinated to God. God sends him to punish the evil angels (1 En. 10.11-13; cf. 54.5-6; 4Q202 4.8-11), to fight for his people (1QM 17.6), and to take Adam to Paradise (Apoc. Mos. 37.5; L.A.E. 48.1-3). Michael teaches Enoch the heavenly secrets (1 En.

71.3-5) and functions as his intercessor (2 En. 33.10 [J]). In 3 Baruch, he also intercedes for Israel (3 Bar. 12.8; 14.2), and the Babylonian Talmud describes him presenting a sacrifice on the temple altar (b. Ḥag. 12b). According to the Life of Adam and Eve, Michael was the first angel to worship Adam, the image of God (L.A.E. 14.2), and he called Satan and the other angels to worship him also (L.A.E. 13.3; 14.1-15.2).

142

31.  Gieschen correctly observes that descriptions of Michael may be dependent on Angel of the Lord traditions (Angelomorphic Christology, 127–31). He fails to observe, however, that the tendency of these descriptions is to distinguish more clearly between the angel and God. 32.  Although Michael is frequently portrayed as the ­highest-ranking angel, the other archangels are not seen to be ruled by him. He is not appropriately called God’s vice regent, therefore. So correctly, Richard Bauckham, God Crucified, 19; similarly Johannes Peter Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes, Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 14–25. In the War Scroll, he is exalted above all the gods (1QM 17.7), but he does not command the other angels. Pace Hannah, Michael and Christ, 39.

143

Iaoel Michael is overshadowed, however, by the angel Iaoel according to the Apocalypse of Abraham (first to second century CE). The description of Iaoel appears to identify him with the angel of Exod. 23.20, the angel in whom God’s name was. Iaoel is also sent to be with Israel (Apoc. Ab. 10.16), and he mediates the name of God (Apoc. Ab. 10.3, 6, 8). Iaoel’s own name, a combination of God’s two names ‫ יהוה‬and ‫אל‬, is also one of the names used in the worship of God (Apoc. Ab. 17.13). There is no indication that Iaoel is worshiped, however, as the name ‫ אל‬is uttered both by Abraham and Iaoel himself when they worship God together (cf. Apoc. Ab. 17.8). The physical description of Iaoel in the likeness of a man with a body like sapphire and hair like snow (Apoc. Ab. 10.4; 11.2-3) may be inspired by Ezekiel’s vision of God’s glory (Ezek. 1.26-28) and Daniel’s vision of the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.9).33 Despite this exalted position, Iaoel is nothing more than an agent of God. He has been given his name by God (Apoc. Ab. 10.7), who sends him to bless Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 10.6, 13), to restrain the cosmic powers (Apoc. Ab. 10.9-10), and to execute God’s judgment (Apoc. Ab. 10.11-2).34 Israel In the Prayer of Joseph (first century CE), the preeminent angel is known as Israel. This angel is given several exalted names, such as “a man seeing God” (3), “the firstborn of every living thing” (3), “the archangel of the power of the Lord” (3), “the chief captain among the sons of God” (7) and “the first minister before the face of God” (9). As this writing has only partially survived in the form of brief

33. Fossum, Name of God, 318–19. 34.  Although Iaoel may here be seen with “divine functions,” these functions do not show him to be equal to God. These functions are not genuinely his own; he performs them on behalf of God (pace Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 143).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

quotations in Origen and as the original language is unknown, the Prayer of Joseph is difficult to interpret. However it is to be understood, it appears striking that a human being, Jacob, is attributed with preexistence (2-3) and the status as the first of creation.35 But the surviving lines contain no hint of an encroaching on God’s prerogatives. An absolute distinction between the creator and his creation is maintained. Israel is first among creation, but is equally dependent upon God as all other created beings. He is “the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life” (3) and “the first minister before the face of God” (8).

to the descriptions of Joseph and Aseneth, respectively. Like Aseneth (1.4), Repentance is exceedingly beautiful (15.7, 8) and a virgin (15.8). Aseneth becomes Joseph’s sister through her repentance (7.8; cf. 8.6; 19.11; 21.5),38 and Repentance is the unnamed angel’s sister (15.8). When the unnamed angel is introduced he is said to be “in every respect similar to Joseph” (14.9). They have similar robes, crowns, and staffs (5.5; 14.9).39 The reason for this correspondence is probably that the angels are thought of as the guardian angels of Joseph and Aseneth, respectively.40 In the case of Repentance, the unnamed angel explains that she is the guardian of all virgins (15.7). The role of the unnamed angel is to clear the way for Aseneth’s marriage to Joseph and to introduce her to the honeycomb, which gives her eternal life. In this respect, there is a correspondence between the actions of the angel and Aseneth’s conversion. Joseph first prays to God as the ­life-giver that he may let Aseneth eat of the bread of life (8.9; cf. 8.3). Seeing Joseph, Aseneth realizes that he is the son of God (6.3, 5) and is eventually driven to repent of her idolatry and to turn to God in prayer (11.3-13.14). In her own prayer, Aseneth addresses God as the l­ ife-giver (12.1-2) and expresses her desire to take refuge in him (12.3; 13.2). Through the mediation of the unnamed angel, Aseneth partakes in the honeycomb, which is the bread of life that gives eternal life (16.14-16), and she becomes City of Refuge (15.7). Just as Joseph is the instrument that brings Aseneth to conversion, so is the unnamed angel the instrument that provides her with the ­life-giving honeycomb. Recalling the manna from the wilderness (cf. Jos. Asen. 16.8 and Exod. 16.14, 31), the honeycomb is a rich symbol.41 It is capable of bringing to mind the sweet mercy of God42 and the new life that Aseneth receives.43

144

Joseph and Aseneth No name is provided for the chief angel that appears in the romantic novel Joseph and Aseneth. The angel that comes down to Aseneth is identified as the “commander of the whole host of the Most High” in Joseph and Aseneth 14.8 (cf. 15.12). His appearance is sparkling like lightning, sunshine, and fire. One is reminded of the theophanies in Ezek. 1.26-28 and Dan. 10.5-6.36 The angel tells Aseneth that he has written her name as the first of all into the book of the living (15.4) and that he has given her to Joseph as his bride (15.6). When Aseneth offers him a meal, it appears that he has the ability to speak a honeycomb into being (16.1-6). But the angel explains that the honeycomb has been made by the bees of the paradise of delight. They made it from the dew of the roses of life in God’s paradise (16.14). This honeycomb turns out to be nothing less than the spirit of life, and all who eat of it are given immortality (16.14-15). When the angel departs, Aseneth realizes her mistake in thinking that she had been talking to a man; she now thinks he was a God (17.9). This angel is very significant for my present purposes because he is seen as acting on his own.37 He is not merely a messenger; nor is he passively being exalted. It is therefore necessary to probe further into the nature, identity, and functions of this angel. There are two prominent angels in the story of Joseph and Aseneth. In addition to the angel Aseneth thinks is a god, the story also mentions the angel Repentance. The descriptions of these two angels correspond closely

35.  Cf. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 137–42. 36.  Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, TSAJ 34 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 268. 37. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 272.

145

38.  Cf. Moyer V. Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol,” JSP 16 (1997): 106–7. 39.  Cf. George J. Brooke, “Men and Women as Angels in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 14 (2005): 166–69. 40. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 269. 41.  Christoph Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung, Ortsbestimmung, WUNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965), 129–30; Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Marc Philonenko, StPB 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 96. 42.  Anathea ­P ortier-Young, “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” JSP 14 (2005): 153–57. 43.  Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth,” 100–108.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

quotations in Origen and as the original language is unknown, the Prayer of Joseph is difficult to interpret. However it is to be understood, it appears striking that a human being, Jacob, is attributed with preexistence (2-3) and the status as the first of creation.35 But the surviving lines contain no hint of an encroaching on God’s prerogatives. An absolute distinction between the creator and his creation is maintained. Israel is first among creation, but is equally dependent upon God as all other created beings. He is “the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life” (3) and “the first minister before the face of God” (8).

to the descriptions of Joseph and Aseneth, respectively. Like Aseneth (1.4), Repentance is exceedingly beautiful (15.7, 8) and a virgin (15.8). Aseneth becomes Joseph’s sister through her repentance (7.8; cf. 8.6; 19.11; 21.5),38 and Repentance is the unnamed angel’s sister (15.8). When the unnamed angel is introduced he is said to be “in every respect similar to Joseph” (14.9). They have similar robes, crowns, and staffs (5.5; 14.9).39 The reason for this correspondence is probably that the angels are thought of as the guardian angels of Joseph and Aseneth, respectively.40 In the case of Repentance, the unnamed angel explains that she is the guardian of all virgins (15.7). The role of the unnamed angel is to clear the way for Aseneth’s marriage to Joseph and to introduce her to the honeycomb, which gives her eternal life. In this respect, there is a correspondence between the actions of the angel and Aseneth’s conversion. Joseph first prays to God as the ­life-giver that he may let Aseneth eat of the bread of life (8.9; cf. 8.3). Seeing Joseph, Aseneth realizes that he is the son of God (6.3, 5) and is eventually driven to repent of her idolatry and to turn to God in prayer (11.3-13.14). In her own prayer, Aseneth addresses God as the l­ ife-giver (12.1-2) and expresses her desire to take refuge in him (12.3; 13.2). Through the mediation of the unnamed angel, Aseneth partakes in the honeycomb, which is the bread of life that gives eternal life (16.14-16), and she becomes City of Refuge (15.7). Just as Joseph is the instrument that brings Aseneth to conversion, so is the unnamed angel the instrument that provides her with the ­life-giving honeycomb. Recalling the manna from the wilderness (cf. Jos. Asen. 16.8 and Exod. 16.14, 31), the honeycomb is a rich symbol.41 It is capable of bringing to mind the sweet mercy of God42 and the new life that Aseneth receives.43

144

Joseph and Aseneth No name is provided for the chief angel that appears in the romantic novel Joseph and Aseneth. The angel that comes down to Aseneth is identified as the “commander of the whole host of the Most High” in Joseph and Aseneth 14.8 (cf. 15.12). His appearance is sparkling like lightning, sunshine, and fire. One is reminded of the theophanies in Ezek. 1.26-28 and Dan. 10.5-6.36 The angel tells Aseneth that he has written her name as the first of all into the book of the living (15.4) and that he has given her to Joseph as his bride (15.6). When Aseneth offers him a meal, it appears that he has the ability to speak a honeycomb into being (16.1-6). But the angel explains that the honeycomb has been made by the bees of the paradise of delight. They made it from the dew of the roses of life in God’s paradise (16.14). This honeycomb turns out to be nothing less than the spirit of life, and all who eat of it are given immortality (16.14-15). When the angel departs, Aseneth realizes her mistake in thinking that she had been talking to a man; she now thinks he was a God (17.9). This angel is very significant for my present purposes because he is seen as acting on his own.37 He is not merely a messenger; nor is he passively being exalted. It is therefore necessary to probe further into the nature, identity, and functions of this angel. There are two prominent angels in the story of Joseph and Aseneth. In addition to the angel Aseneth thinks is a god, the story also mentions the angel Repentance. The descriptions of these two angels correspond closely

35.  Cf. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 137–42. 36.  Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, TSAJ 34 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 268. 37. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 272.

145

38.  Cf. Moyer V. Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol,” JSP 16 (1997): 106–7. 39.  Cf. George J. Brooke, “Men and Women as Angels in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 14 (2005): 166–69. 40. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 269. 41.  Christoph Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung, Ortsbestimmung, WUNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965), 129–30; Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Marc Philonenko, StPB 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 96. 42.  Anathea ­P ortier-Young, “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” JSP 14 (2005): 153–57. 43.  Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth,” 100–108.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

In comparison with Joseph, the unnamed angel’s role in connection with Aseneth’s conversion becomes clear. He does not give Aseneth new life; he is instrumental in making her find it. God is the giver of life (8.9; 12.1-2), and even the angel needs to eat of the bread of life (15.15).44 His inferiority to God is also clear from how his name belongs to the book of the Most High, where it has been written by the finger of God (15.12). Although the angel’s powers exceed those of human beings, they are not divine. The angel is an extraordinary powerful agent of God, serving his salvific purposes.

Viewed within the conceptual world of 3 Enoch, however, Metatron is not a character comparable to Jesus. Metatron is not portrayed with an authority of his own that matches the authority of God. He does not act as God acts, but he is consistently on the receiving end of God’s actions. His exalted status is given him by God as a reward for his righteousness (3 En. 4.3; 6.3). God is the one who seats him on the throne (3 En. 10.2) that God had made for him (3 En. 10.1). He rules the angels in God’s name (3 En. 10.5), and he judges them on God’s authority (3 En. 16.1). Although Metatron holds the highest position under God in heaven, his status is not entirely unique. Other angels are also known by the name YHWH (eight according to 3 En. 10.3 and sixteen according to 3 En. 18.8-24; cf. 30.1). Moreover, to be shown obeisance is not an exclusive prerogative of Metatron (cf. 3 En. 18.1-23). Third Enoch also contains an implicit warning against overestimating Metatron’s position. When ’Aher sees him on the throne and concludes that “there are indeed two powers in heaven” (3 En. 16.3), ’Aher is not allowed to return to God (3 En. 16.4) and Metatron has to vacate his throne and suffer sixty lashes of fire (3 En. 16.5; cf. b. Ḥag. 15a).48

146

Metatron Another character who appears to be inspired by the angel from Exod. 23.20 is Metatron, who is known from 3 Enoch (fifth to sixth century CE).45 God proclaims that his name is in him (3 En. 12.5; cf. b. Sanh. 38b). His list of exalted titles include: “Prince of the Divine Presence” (3 En. 1.4; 3.1; 5.1; 6.1 etc.) and “the glory of the highest heaven” (3 En. 13.1; 15.1; 16.1 etc.). God gives Metatron some of his own majesty, magnificence, and glory, and he even calls him “the lesser YHWH” (3 En. 12.5; 48C:7). Like God, Metatron has seventy names. God took them “from his own name and bestowed on him” (3 En. 48D:5; cf. 48D:1 Crac. B).46 Metatron is installed as God’s vice regent and is given authority over all the angels (3 En. 4.5; 10.3-6). There is a limit to his authority, however; eight princes are exempt from his government (3 En. 10.3). God also gives him a throne, equal to his own, where Metatron is seated (3 En. 10.1-2). In his majesty, Metatron is given foreknowledge of the thoughts and deeds of all humans (3 En. 11.2-3; 45.1-6).47 He judges the heavenly beings (3 En. 16.1), and they fall prostrate before him (3 En. 4.9). The Metatron traditions are even more interesting as parallels to Jesus’ claims because Metatron is identified as a human being. He is Enoch, the son of Jared (3 En. 4.3).

44.  The bees that made the honeycomb also ate of it (16.20). It is possible that these bees correspond to the people of God (cf. P ­ ortier-Young, “Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” 140). 45.  Cf. Fossum, Name of God, 297–301; Barker, Great Angel, 78–80, 90–92; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 146–48. 46. Fossum, Name of God, 298–99. 47.  It is an overstatement, however, when Andrei A. Orlov maintains that Metatron is “[e]ndowed with the same attributes as God” and that he is omniscient (The ­Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 138).

147

48.  A mirror reading of this passage leads to the conclusion that the author(s) of 3 Enoch knew of specific groups that worshiped heavenly beings in addition to YHWH. It is even possible that chapter 16 of 3 Enoch was added in order to correct the exalted view of Metatron in the preceding chapters. However, without firm evidence, such a conclusion must remain tentative. Cf. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 61–62; James R. Davila, “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 16–17. “Two powers in heaven” is a Talmudic cipher for different teachings that were deemed heretical (Segal, Two Powers, 33–59). In the Babylonian Talmud, there is a refutation of some heretics who held too high a view of Metatron. Associating him with the angel of Exod. 23.20, the heretics argued that the angel’s carrying God’s name was grounds for worshiping him. These heretics also found in the angel’s authority to forgive sins an argument for his high stature (b. Sanh. 38b). It is impossible to identify the heretics who were targeted, but they likely included Christians (cf. Segal, Two Powers, 68–71). The tractate does not provide reliable evidence of beliefs that antedate or are independent of Christianity.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

In comparison with Joseph, the unnamed angel’s role in connection with Aseneth’s conversion becomes clear. He does not give Aseneth new life; he is instrumental in making her find it. God is the giver of life (8.9; 12.1-2), and even the angel needs to eat of the bread of life (15.15).44 His inferiority to God is also clear from how his name belongs to the book of the Most High, where it has been written by the finger of God (15.12). Although the angel’s powers exceed those of human beings, they are not divine. The angel is an extraordinary powerful agent of God, serving his salvific purposes.

Viewed within the conceptual world of 3 Enoch, however, Metatron is not a character comparable to Jesus. Metatron is not portrayed with an authority of his own that matches the authority of God. He does not act as God acts, but he is consistently on the receiving end of God’s actions. His exalted status is given him by God as a reward for his righteousness (3 En. 4.3; 6.3). God is the one who seats him on the throne (3 En. 10.2) that God had made for him (3 En. 10.1). He rules the angels in God’s name (3 En. 10.5), and he judges them on God’s authority (3 En. 16.1). Although Metatron holds the highest position under God in heaven, his status is not entirely unique. Other angels are also known by the name YHWH (eight according to 3 En. 10.3 and sixteen according to 3 En. 18.8-24; cf. 30.1). Moreover, to be shown obeisance is not an exclusive prerogative of Metatron (cf. 3 En. 18.1-23). Third Enoch also contains an implicit warning against overestimating Metatron’s position. When ’Aher sees him on the throne and concludes that “there are indeed two powers in heaven” (3 En. 16.3), ’Aher is not allowed to return to God (3 En. 16.4) and Metatron has to vacate his throne and suffer sixty lashes of fire (3 En. 16.5; cf. b. Ḥag. 15a).48

146

Metatron Another character who appears to be inspired by the angel from Exod. 23.20 is Metatron, who is known from 3 Enoch (fifth to sixth century CE).45 God proclaims that his name is in him (3 En. 12.5; cf. b. Sanh. 38b). His list of exalted titles include: “Prince of the Divine Presence” (3 En. 1.4; 3.1; 5.1; 6.1 etc.) and “the glory of the highest heaven” (3 En. 13.1; 15.1; 16.1 etc.). God gives Metatron some of his own majesty, magnificence, and glory, and he even calls him “the lesser YHWH” (3 En. 12.5; 48C:7). Like God, Metatron has seventy names. God took them “from his own name and bestowed on him” (3 En. 48D:5; cf. 48D:1 Crac. B).46 Metatron is installed as God’s vice regent and is given authority over all the angels (3 En. 4.5; 10.3-6). There is a limit to his authority, however; eight princes are exempt from his government (3 En. 10.3). God also gives him a throne, equal to his own, where Metatron is seated (3 En. 10.1-2). In his majesty, Metatron is given foreknowledge of the thoughts and deeds of all humans (3 En. 11.2-3; 45.1-6).47 He judges the heavenly beings (3 En. 16.1), and they fall prostrate before him (3 En. 4.9). The Metatron traditions are even more interesting as parallels to Jesus’ claims because Metatron is identified as a human being. He is Enoch, the son of Jared (3 En. 4.3).

44.  The bees that made the honeycomb also ate of it (16.20). It is possible that these bees correspond to the people of God (cf. P ­ ortier-Young, “Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” 140). 45.  Cf. Fossum, Name of God, 297–301; Barker, Great Angel, 78–80, 90–92; Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 146–48. 46. Fossum, Name of God, 298–99. 47.  It is an overstatement, however, when Andrei A. Orlov maintains that Metatron is “[e]ndowed with the same attributes as God” and that he is omniscient (The ­Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 138).

147

48.  A mirror reading of this passage leads to the conclusion that the author(s) of 3 Enoch knew of specific groups that worshiped heavenly beings in addition to YHWH. It is even possible that chapter 16 of 3 Enoch was added in order to correct the exalted view of Metatron in the preceding chapters. However, without firm evidence, such a conclusion must remain tentative. Cf. Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, SJLA 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 61–62; James R. Davila, “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 16–17. “Two powers in heaven” is a Talmudic cipher for different teachings that were deemed heretical (Segal, Two Powers, 33–59). In the Babylonian Talmud, there is a refutation of some heretics who held too high a view of Metatron. Associating him with the angel of Exod. 23.20, the heretics argued that the angel’s carrying God’s name was grounds for worshiping him. These heretics also found in the angel’s authority to forgive sins an argument for his high stature (b. Sanh. 38b). It is impossible to identify the heretics who were targeted, but they likely included Christians (cf. Segal, Two Powers, 68–71). The tractate does not provide reliable evidence of beliefs that antedate or are independent of Christianity.

148

God’s Equal

The Prince of Light Another exalted spiritual being, the Prince of Light, is mentioned occasionally in the Dead Sea Scrolls.49 According to the treatise on the two spirits (1QS 3.13–4.26), the Prince of Light governs all the generations of truth. The treatise on the two spirits advocates a total predestination of all the acts of human beings, both good and evil. Their evil thoughts and works are caused by the Angel of Darkness, and their good thoughts and works are caused by the Prince of Light (3.19-23, 25-26; 4.24-26).50 In the War Scroll, the Prince of Light is also attributed with the dominion of all the spirits of truth (1QM 13.10). The Prince of Light is also known as the spirit of truth (1QS 3.18-19), the spirit of light (1QS 3.25), and the angel of his truth (1QS 3.24).51 The purpose of the treatise of the two spirits is to uphold a radical monism, where God is seen to be the originator of all things (1QS 3.15-16; 4.16, 25). It is in this light that the function of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness must be understood. They have no authority in their own right, but they are means of expressing God’s sovereign rule. They are created by God (1QS 3.25), and they are the means by which he continues to be present among human beings (1QS 3.18).

Melchizedek One of the most intriguing characters in the literature of Second Temple is Melchizedek.52 The portrait that is given of him in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) is patterned after several known descriptions of God. Just as God’s people are dubbed “his inheritance” (Deut. 32.9), so does 11Q13 refer to Melchizedek’s people as his inheritance (ii.5). They are also called “the men of the lot of Melchizedek” (ii.8), an expression that mirrors the similar phrase “men of

49.  For an identification of the Prince of Light and Michael, see Hannah, Michael and Christ, 64–74. 50.  For a recent discussion of the nature of the predestination of 1QS 3.13-4.26, see Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel, WUNT II/202 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 55–58. 51.  In 4Q177 4.12 the angel of truth is a deliverer, rather than a ruler. He rescues the sons of light from the power of Belial. 52.  For a comprehensive overview of Melchizedek traditions, see Eric F. Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, STDJ 74 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 138–90.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

149

God’s lot” (1QS 2.2).53 The year of the Lord’s favor (Isa. 61.2a) has become a year of Melchizedek’s favor (ii.9), and the vengeance of God (cf. Isa. 61.2b) will be carried out by Melchizedek (ii.13). He performs actions that normally were attributed to God: to free the captives (ii.4-6; cf. Deut. 30.3; Ps. 146.7; Jer. 23.3; Ezek. 34.13) and to set free those who have been bound by Belial (ii.13; cf. 1QM 1.14-15; 4.1-2; 18.1; Sib. Or. 3.63).54 He is also associated with atonement (ii.8), but his role is not specified.55 Verses from the Psalms that originally spoke about God may also have been applied to Melchizedek. Line 10 of column 2 quotes Ps. 82.1, which speaks about God taking a stand in the assembly of angels. In the scroll, the meaning appears to have been changed, however. The subject, ‫אלוהים‬, no longer refers to God, but to Melchizedek.56 In the same line, Ps. 7.8-9 is also quoted, with its reference to God’s judgment of the peoples. Again, the judgment seems to be attributed to Melchizedek. This interpretation is confirmed in lines 12–13, which explain that Melchizedek carries out the vengeance of God’s judgment.57

53.  Florentino García Martínez, “Las tradiciones sobre Melquisedec en los manuscritos de Qumrán,” Bib 81 (2000): 73. 54. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet, 73; Michael O. Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. edn (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 591; Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 79. 55.  Anders Aschim thinks it likely that Melchizedek is the implied subject of the atonement, and that he is attributed with a ­high-priestly function (“Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 132). Van de Water argues that the atonement in 11QMelch is of an eschatological nature and that it is therefore better understood as a divine act (“Michael or Yhwh?” 80). 56.  It is also possible that Melchizedek is straight out identified as “your God” (‫)אלוהיך‬ in ii.24-25, but the identification depends on a conjectural restoration of the text, reading Melchizedek in line 25. 57.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967): 37; Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 74–75; Paul. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša̔, CBQMS 10 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), 59; Émile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de 11QMelkîsédeq,” RevQ 12 (1987): 510–11; García Martínez, “Melquisedec,” 73. Contra J. Carmignac, “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisedeq,” RevQ 7 (1970): 366. Milik seems to go beyond the evidence, however, when he claims that Melchizedek is a hypostasis of God (“­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 [1972]: 125).

148

God’s Equal

The Prince of Light Another exalted spiritual being, the Prince of Light, is mentioned occasionally in the Dead Sea Scrolls.49 According to the treatise on the two spirits (1QS 3.13–4.26), the Prince of Light governs all the generations of truth. The treatise on the two spirits advocates a total predestination of all the acts of human beings, both good and evil. Their evil thoughts and works are caused by the Angel of Darkness, and their good thoughts and works are caused by the Prince of Light (3.19-23, 25-26; 4.24-26).50 In the War Scroll, the Prince of Light is also attributed with the dominion of all the spirits of truth (1QM 13.10). The Prince of Light is also known as the spirit of truth (1QS 3.18-19), the spirit of light (1QS 3.25), and the angel of his truth (1QS 3.24).51 The purpose of the treatise of the two spirits is to uphold a radical monism, where God is seen to be the originator of all things (1QS 3.15-16; 4.16, 25). It is in this light that the function of the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness must be understood. They have no authority in their own right, but they are means of expressing God’s sovereign rule. They are created by God (1QS 3.25), and they are the means by which he continues to be present among human beings (1QS 3.18).

Melchizedek One of the most intriguing characters in the literature of Second Temple is Melchizedek.52 The portrait that is given of him in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13) is patterned after several known descriptions of God. Just as God’s people are dubbed “his inheritance” (Deut. 32.9), so does 11Q13 refer to Melchizedek’s people as his inheritance (ii.5). They are also called “the men of the lot of Melchizedek” (ii.8), an expression that mirrors the similar phrase “men of

49.  For an identification of the Prince of Light and Michael, see Hannah, Michael and Christ, 64–74. 50.  For a recent discussion of the nature of the predestination of 1QS 3.13-4.26, see Sigurd Grindheim, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel, WUNT II/202 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 55–58. 51.  In 4Q177 4.12 the angel of truth is a deliverer, rather than a ruler. He rescues the sons of light from the power of Belial. 52.  For a comprehensive overview of Melchizedek traditions, see Eric F. Mason, ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, STDJ 74 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 138–90.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

149

God’s lot” (1QS 2.2).53 The year of the Lord’s favor (Isa. 61.2a) has become a year of Melchizedek’s favor (ii.9), and the vengeance of God (cf. Isa. 61.2b) will be carried out by Melchizedek (ii.13). He performs actions that normally were attributed to God: to free the captives (ii.4-6; cf. Deut. 30.3; Ps. 146.7; Jer. 23.3; Ezek. 34.13) and to set free those who have been bound by Belial (ii.13; cf. 1QM 1.14-15; 4.1-2; 18.1; Sib. Or. 3.63).54 He is also associated with atonement (ii.8), but his role is not specified.55 Verses from the Psalms that originally spoke about God may also have been applied to Melchizedek. Line 10 of column 2 quotes Ps. 82.1, which speaks about God taking a stand in the assembly of angels. In the scroll, the meaning appears to have been changed, however. The subject, ‫אלוהים‬, no longer refers to God, but to Melchizedek.56 In the same line, Ps. 7.8-9 is also quoted, with its reference to God’s judgment of the peoples. Again, the judgment seems to be attributed to Melchizedek. This interpretation is confirmed in lines 12–13, which explain that Melchizedek carries out the vengeance of God’s judgment.57

53.  Florentino García Martínez, “Las tradiciones sobre Melquisedec en los manuscritos de Qumrán,” Bib 81 (2000): 73. 54. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet, 73; Michael O. Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, rev. edn (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005), 591; Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 79. 55.  Anders Aschim thinks it likely that Melchizedek is the implied subject of the atonement, and that he is attributed with a ­high-priestly function (“Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 132). Van de Water argues that the atonement in 11QMelch is of an eschatological nature and that it is therefore better understood as a divine act (“Michael or Yhwh?” 80). 56.  It is also possible that Melchizedek is straight out identified as “your God” (‫)אלוהיך‬ in ii.24-25, but the identification depends on a conjectural restoration of the text, reading Melchizedek in line 25. 57.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967): 37; Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 74–75; Paul. J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša̔, CBQMS 10 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), 59; Émile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de 11QMelkîsédeq,” RevQ 12 (1987): 510–11; García Martínez, “Melquisedec,” 73. Contra J. Carmignac, “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisedeq,” RevQ 7 (1970): 366. Milik seems to go beyond the evidence, however, when he claims that Melchizedek is a hypostasis of God (“­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 [1972]: 125).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

These lines also show, however, that Melchizedek executes this judgment on behalf of God, not in his own right.58 In lines 15–16, the scroll quotes Isa. 52.7 and introduces the messenger of good news. This messenger is not identified as Melchizedek, but appears to be a separate character. He is in turn identified as the Messiah to appear at the end of the seven weeks according to Dan. 9.25.59 Melchizedek would therefore seem to be a different e­ nd-time character.60 Apart from the Similitudes in 1 Enoch, 11Q13 probably provides the closest ­pre-Christian parallels to the claims of Jesus. Just as Jesus is preceded by John, the final eschatological messenger, so is Melchizedek announced by a messianic character.61 Like Jesus, so is Melchizedek described as taking God’s role and attributed with the fulfillment of prophecies regarding God’s eschatological

acts. Like Jesus, so does Melchizedek function as an eschatological judge. Like Jesus, so is Melchizedek also distinguished from God. The description of Melchizedek even goes beyond Jesus’ ­self-claims in one respect, as God’s name, ‫אלוהים‬, is attributed to Melchizedek. On the other hand, most of Jesus’ claims are unmatched in 11Q13. Melchizedek is not said to inaugurate the unmediated rule of God, he does not forgive sins, he does not speak with the same authority as God, and he does not issue a prophetic call. The divine functions that are clearly attributed to Melchizedek are those of the eschatological deliverer and the eschatological judge. But in contrast to Jesus (cf. Chapter 4), Melchizedek does not judge on his own authority; he merely carries out the vengeance of God. His acts of deliverance are also connected with this function as God’s agent (11Q13 ii.13). All in all, the description of Melchizedek has more in common with Jewish ideas concerning exalted angels than with Jesus’ s­ elf-claims. Melchizedek’s exalted nature is seen primarily in the titles that are attributed to him, but in terms of function he is an agent of God and not equal to him.

150

58.  It is also an overstatement when Chester claims that Melchizedek “assumes God’s role as judge and the role of atoning for sin” (Messiah and Exaltation, 372). 59.  A. S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlischer Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OtSt 14 (1965): 367; Milik, “­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-resa’,” 126; Puech, “11QMelkîsédeq,” 513; García Martínez, “Melquisedec,” 79. Contra Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 81. 60.  The identity of Melchizedek has been the object of an extensive scholarly debate. The majority opinion is that he should be identified with the archangel Michael. See Woude, “Melchisedek,” 368–72; Milik, “­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-Resa’,” 125; Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša̔, 71–74; Puech, “11QMelkîsédeq,” 511–12; similarly, Mason, ‘Priest Forever’, 183–90. Paul Rainbow has proposed that Melchizedek is better understood as a messianic figure, in light of the Qumranic expectations of more than one Messiah (“Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran,” BBR 7 [1997]: 179–94). Based on the divine names attributed to Melchizedek, Franco Manzi has suggested that Melchizedek was meant as another name for God (Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran, AnBib 136 [Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997], 102). Line 13 of column 2 militates against this interpretation, however. When Melchizedek is said to “carry out the vengeance of Go[d’s] judgments,” the author distinguishes between God and Melchizedek. In a modification of Manzi’s position, Rick Van de Water has argued that Melchizedek was understood as a second divine power, a divine being who was YHWH’s agent (“Michael or Yhwh?”). My argument does not depend on a specific identification of Melchizedek, but focuses on what can be learned from 11Q13. Unless Manzi be correct that Melchizedek is a name for God, 11Q13 is an intriguing example of a character whose status encroached upon the uniqueness of God. If 11Q13 describe messianic beliefs and refer to an expected human being its relevance for our understanding of Jesus is even greater. 61.  Rainbow argues that Melchizedek should be identified with the messenger of peace and the Messiah mentioned in 11Q13 ii.15-20 (cf. note 60). If so, there is no parallel to John as Jesus’ forerunner.

151

Moses Of the characters associated with the history of Israel, Moses naturally takes pride of place. In the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, Moses has a dream where he is seated on God’s throne in heaven (Ezek. Trag. 68-82). To be seated on this throne is one of the exclusive prerogatives of God in Jewish literature. Some scholars have therefore maintained that the Exagoge shows Moses as being divinized.62 But most scholars see Moses as a divine agent who is installed as king, either in heaven63 or on earth.64 There are several good 62.  So Pieter van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34 (1983): 25; Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology,” DSD 3 (1996): 245–46. 63.  So Wayne A. Meeks, The ­Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 148–49; Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 58–59. 64.  So Richard Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 55–56; John

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

These lines also show, however, that Melchizedek executes this judgment on behalf of God, not in his own right.58 In lines 15–16, the scroll quotes Isa. 52.7 and introduces the messenger of good news. This messenger is not identified as Melchizedek, but appears to be a separate character. He is in turn identified as the Messiah to appear at the end of the seven weeks according to Dan. 9.25.59 Melchizedek would therefore seem to be a different e­ nd-time character.60 Apart from the Similitudes in 1 Enoch, 11Q13 probably provides the closest ­pre-Christian parallels to the claims of Jesus. Just as Jesus is preceded by John, the final eschatological messenger, so is Melchizedek announced by a messianic character.61 Like Jesus, so is Melchizedek described as taking God’s role and attributed with the fulfillment of prophecies regarding God’s eschatological

acts. Like Jesus, so does Melchizedek function as an eschatological judge. Like Jesus, so is Melchizedek also distinguished from God. The description of Melchizedek even goes beyond Jesus’ ­self-claims in one respect, as God’s name, ‫אלוהים‬, is attributed to Melchizedek. On the other hand, most of Jesus’ claims are unmatched in 11Q13. Melchizedek is not said to inaugurate the unmediated rule of God, he does not forgive sins, he does not speak with the same authority as God, and he does not issue a prophetic call. The divine functions that are clearly attributed to Melchizedek are those of the eschatological deliverer and the eschatological judge. But in contrast to Jesus (cf. Chapter 4), Melchizedek does not judge on his own authority; he merely carries out the vengeance of God. His acts of deliverance are also connected with this function as God’s agent (11Q13 ii.13). All in all, the description of Melchizedek has more in common with Jewish ideas concerning exalted angels than with Jesus’ s­ elf-claims. Melchizedek’s exalted nature is seen primarily in the titles that are attributed to him, but in terms of function he is an agent of God and not equal to him.

150

58.  It is also an overstatement when Chester claims that Melchizedek “assumes God’s role as judge and the role of atoning for sin” (Messiah and Exaltation, 372). 59.  A. S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlischer Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OtSt 14 (1965): 367; Milik, “­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-resa’,” 126; Puech, “11QMelkîsédeq,” 513; García Martínez, “Melquisedec,” 79. Contra Van de Water, “Michael or Yhwh?” 81. 60.  The identity of Melchizedek has been the object of an extensive scholarly debate. The majority opinion is that he should be identified with the archangel Michael. See Woude, “Melchisedek,” 368–72; Milik, “­Milkî-sedeq et ­Milkî-Resa’,” 125; Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša̔, 71–74; Puech, “11QMelkîsédeq,” 511–12; similarly, Mason, ‘Priest Forever’, 183–90. Paul Rainbow has proposed that Melchizedek is better understood as a messianic figure, in light of the Qumranic expectations of more than one Messiah (“Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran,” BBR 7 [1997]: 179–94). Based on the divine names attributed to Melchizedek, Franco Manzi has suggested that Melchizedek was meant as another name for God (Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran, AnBib 136 [Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997], 102). Line 13 of column 2 militates against this interpretation, however. When Melchizedek is said to “carry out the vengeance of Go[d’s] judgments,” the author distinguishes between God and Melchizedek. In a modification of Manzi’s position, Rick Van de Water has argued that Melchizedek was understood as a second divine power, a divine being who was YHWH’s agent (“Michael or Yhwh?”). My argument does not depend on a specific identification of Melchizedek, but focuses on what can be learned from 11Q13. Unless Manzi be correct that Melchizedek is a name for God, 11Q13 is an intriguing example of a character whose status encroached upon the uniqueness of God. If 11Q13 describe messianic beliefs and refer to an expected human being its relevance for our understanding of Jesus is even greater. 61.  Rainbow argues that Melchizedek should be identified with the messenger of peace and the Messiah mentioned in 11Q13 ii.15-20 (cf. note 60). If so, there is no parallel to John as Jesus’ forerunner.

151

Moses Of the characters associated with the history of Israel, Moses naturally takes pride of place. In the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, Moses has a dream where he is seated on God’s throne in heaven (Ezek. Trag. 68-82). To be seated on this throne is one of the exclusive prerogatives of God in Jewish literature. Some scholars have therefore maintained that the Exagoge shows Moses as being divinized.62 But most scholars see Moses as a divine agent who is installed as king, either in heaven63 or on earth.64 There are several good 62.  So Pieter van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34 (1983): 25; Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology,” DSD 3 (1996): 245–46. 63.  So Wayne A. Meeks, The ­Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, NovTSup 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 148–49; Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 58–59. 64.  So Richard Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, ed. Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 55–56; John

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

reasons for the latter interpretation. Lines 79–80 mention a multitude of stars that fell down at Moses’ feet. This is apparently an allusion to Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37.9), where the stars refer to his brothers and the significance is that Joseph will be their ruler. Moses’ father-­in-law also interprets the dream and explains that Moses “shall rule and govern men” (Ezek. Trag. 86) and that he will see “things present, past, and future” (Ezek. Trag. 88). In other words, the heavenly elements of the dream are given an earthly interpretation. Moses is a ruler on earth. In any case, Ezekiel the Tragedian does not portray Moses as God’s equal.65 As in the case of the exalted angels, God remains the sovereign one. Moses receives his privileges from God. God hands him the scepter (Ezek. Trag. 74), seats him on the throne (Ezek. Trag. 74-75), and gives him the crown (Ezek. Trag. 75). Moses is still restricted from seeing God’s face (Ezek. Trag. 101), and he is merely God’s agent in bringing the plagues on Egypt. God is the one who acts (Ezek. Trag. 135, 141, 144, 147, 149, 154). God is the one who commands Israel regarding the Paschal sacrifice; Moses is simply his spokesperson (Ezek. Trag. ­156-157). Another possible enthronization of Moses is described in the fragments from ­Pseudo-Orpheus, as they have survived in the form of quotations in the writings of Eusebius. In Recension C, lines 32–33 refer to a character who is “established in the great heaven on a golden throne,” but it is not perfectly clear if these lines refer to Moses’ heavenly ascent or to his vision of God’s throne. In the preceding lines we have learned that only one man has seen God (25–26), so the logic seems to require that lines 32–33 describe his vision of God. But there is no obvious change of subject, so the grammar points to Moses as the one seated on the throne.66 The overall context, however, tips the scales in favor of seeing God as the one who is enthroned. The thrust of the poem is

to uphold a strict monism and to maintain that God is the source of both good and evil. Line 10 announces that “all things have been completed by him.” The vision in lines 30–39 of the character on the throne elaborates on this idea. Line 38 proclaims about this figure that “he brings everything to completion on earth.” The parallel to line 10 indicates that the subject is the same. Since God is clearly the subject of line 10, he is most likely the subject of line 38 as well. The description of the character on the throne in lines 30–39 also fits God much better than Moses. He “rides in spirit through the air and through the water of the stream” (30–31), “stands with his feet on the earth” (33), and “stretches out his right hand to the ends of the ocean” (34). Both the mountains and the sea fear his anger (35–37), and he is “the beginning, the middle, and the end” (39). Following this vision, Moses is reintroduced, as the source of the preceding information. Lines 40–41 continue: “as the saying of the ancients, as the one ­water-born has described it, The one who received [revelations] from God in aphorisms, in the form of a double law.” In contrast to the eternity of the character on the throne (39), Moses is here described as “­water-born,” which alludes to the circumstances surrounding his birth. Moses’ role vis-à-vis the heavenly elements is also much more modest: he is knowledgeable about their paths (27-28). When the parts are interpreted in light of the whole, the picture is clear: Moses sees God; he does not do his works.

152

Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Conceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion, WUNT II/173 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 91–102. 65.  So, correctly, Timo Eskola, who finds that not only an earthly but also a heavenly function is described in the vision (Messiah and the Throne, 88–90). 66.  For the interpretation that Moses is being enthroned, see Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 137–38; Lierman, Moses, 233–36. For the interpretation that God’s throne is described, see Carl R. Holladay, Orphica, vol. 4 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, SBLTT 40 Pseudepigrapha Series 14 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 210–11.

153

Philo Exalted statements about Moses abound in Philo’s writings as well. Philo repeatedly comments on Exod. 7.1, which says that God has made Moses like God to Pharaoh. To Philo, however, there is an absolute distinction between God and creation. He takes God’s s­ elf-presentation, “I am who I am” (Exod. 3.13) to imply that “others lesser than He have not being, as being indeed is, but exist in semblance only, and are conventionally said to exist” (Det. 160). Exod. 7.1 is interpreted in light of this principle, so that Philo can affirm that “in reality [Moses] is not God,” but “is said to be a god to the foolish man” (Det. 162).67 The name “God” thus belongs to Moses by virtue of his wisdom, and the text becomes a lesson regarding the excellence of the wise man (ὁ σοφός).

67.  Quotations from Philo, Philo, vol. 1, trans. F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker, LCL 226 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

reasons for the latter interpretation. Lines 79–80 mention a multitude of stars that fell down at Moses’ feet. This is apparently an allusion to Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37.9), where the stars refer to his brothers and the significance is that Joseph will be their ruler. Moses’ father-­in-law also interprets the dream and explains that Moses “shall rule and govern men” (Ezek. Trag. 86) and that he will see “things present, past, and future” (Ezek. Trag. 88). In other words, the heavenly elements of the dream are given an earthly interpretation. Moses is a ruler on earth. In any case, Ezekiel the Tragedian does not portray Moses as God’s equal.65 As in the case of the exalted angels, God remains the sovereign one. Moses receives his privileges from God. God hands him the scepter (Ezek. Trag. 74), seats him on the throne (Ezek. Trag. 74-75), and gives him the crown (Ezek. Trag. 75). Moses is still restricted from seeing God’s face (Ezek. Trag. 101), and he is merely God’s agent in bringing the plagues on Egypt. God is the one who acts (Ezek. Trag. 135, 141, 144, 147, 149, 154). God is the one who commands Israel regarding the Paschal sacrifice; Moses is simply his spokesperson (Ezek. Trag. ­156-157). Another possible enthronization of Moses is described in the fragments from ­Pseudo-Orpheus, as they have survived in the form of quotations in the writings of Eusebius. In Recension C, lines 32–33 refer to a character who is “established in the great heaven on a golden throne,” but it is not perfectly clear if these lines refer to Moses’ heavenly ascent or to his vision of God’s throne. In the preceding lines we have learned that only one man has seen God (25–26), so the logic seems to require that lines 32–33 describe his vision of God. But there is no obvious change of subject, so the grammar points to Moses as the one seated on the throne.66 The overall context, however, tips the scales in favor of seeing God as the one who is enthroned. The thrust of the poem is

to uphold a strict monism and to maintain that God is the source of both good and evil. Line 10 announces that “all things have been completed by him.” The vision in lines 30–39 of the character on the throne elaborates on this idea. Line 38 proclaims about this figure that “he brings everything to completion on earth.” The parallel to line 10 indicates that the subject is the same. Since God is clearly the subject of line 10, he is most likely the subject of line 38 as well. The description of the character on the throne in lines 30–39 also fits God much better than Moses. He “rides in spirit through the air and through the water of the stream” (30–31), “stands with his feet on the earth” (33), and “stretches out his right hand to the ends of the ocean” (34). Both the mountains and the sea fear his anger (35–37), and he is “the beginning, the middle, and the end” (39). Following this vision, Moses is reintroduced, as the source of the preceding information. Lines 40–41 continue: “as the saying of the ancients, as the one ­water-born has described it, The one who received [revelations] from God in aphorisms, in the form of a double law.” In contrast to the eternity of the character on the throne (39), Moses is here described as “­water-born,” which alludes to the circumstances surrounding his birth. Moses’ role vis-à-vis the heavenly elements is also much more modest: he is knowledgeable about their paths (27-28). When the parts are interpreted in light of the whole, the picture is clear: Moses sees God; he does not do his works.

152

Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Conceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion, WUNT II/173 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 91–102. 65.  So, correctly, Timo Eskola, who finds that not only an earthly but also a heavenly function is described in the vision (Messiah and the Throne, 88–90). 66.  For the interpretation that Moses is being enthroned, see Crispin H. T. ­Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 137–38; Lierman, Moses, 233–36. For the interpretation that God’s throne is described, see Carl R. Holladay, Orphica, vol. 4 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, SBLTT 40 Pseudepigrapha Series 14 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 210–11.

153

Philo Exalted statements about Moses abound in Philo’s writings as well. Philo repeatedly comments on Exod. 7.1, which says that God has made Moses like God to Pharaoh. To Philo, however, there is an absolute distinction between God and creation. He takes God’s s­ elf-presentation, “I am who I am” (Exod. 3.13) to imply that “others lesser than He have not being, as being indeed is, but exist in semblance only, and are conventionally said to exist” (Det. 160). Exod. 7.1 is interpreted in light of this principle, so that Philo can affirm that “in reality [Moses] is not God,” but “is said to be a god to the foolish man” (Det. 162).67 The name “God” thus belongs to Moses by virtue of his wisdom, and the text becomes a lesson regarding the excellence of the wise man (ὁ σοφός).

67.  Quotations from Philo, Philo, vol. 1, trans. F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker, LCL 226 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

When Philo discusses Moses’ names in his treatise On the Change of Names, the focus is also on Moses as a model wise man. Regarding the name “Man of God,” Philo makes the general point that such a name belongs to the “greater, more perfect, truly ­God-inspired soul.” He adds that “this same person is a god, because he is wise and therefore the ruler of every fool” (Mut. 128).68 In On the Life of Moses, Philo also makes reference to Moses being called by God’s name and it explains it as Moses seeing the invisible and incorporeal world (1.158). Elsewhere, Philo takes a step further from this understanding of “God” as referring to the prototypical wise man. In his Allegorical Interpretation, he attributes the title “God” – not to Moses – but to the mind (1.40), and in On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, Moses’ being God is explained as his ability to rule both the entire body and the mind (9; cf. Mos. 1.25-29). In another discussion of Moses’ superiority, the title refers to the mind when it is under the influence of divine inspiration (Migr. 84). Commenting on Exod. 24.2, where Moses alone is allowed to approach God, Philo likewise applies this title to the prophetic mind. He continues: “such men become kin to God and truly divine” (QE 2.29).69 To be under prophetic inspiration can also be described as to be completely possessed with the love of God, as Philo does in Every Good Man Is Free, where such a man, who serves the living God alone, is called God (43).70 Philo’s use of Exod. 7.1 displays a clear pattern, therefore. In his exposition, the purpose of Exod. 7.1 is not to show the exalted stature of Moses the individual or to attribute him with an authority that belongs to God.71 Instead, Philo

wants to demonstrate the splendor of wisdom. True, this discussion presupposes a very high view of Moses’ wisdom. However, divinity is not associated with Moses as an individual, but with the virtues he embodies in an exemplary way.72 In Philo’s On the Life of Moses, Moses is given the whole world as a possession. As a result, all the elements obey him (Mos. 1.­155-156). These privileges follow naturally from the fact that Moses is known as a friend of God. Since God possesses everything, his friend shares in all his treasures “as far as he is capable” (Mos. 1.157).73 Again, Moses is portrayed as the paradigmatic wise man. What Philo wants to show is that virtue is the means by which one can attain unity with God, and Moses serves as the chief example of that. Accordingly, Moses receives gifts from God; he does not act in his place. In Philo’s writings, Moses does not encroach upon the prerogatives of God. Philo’s Moses does not constitute a parallel to Jesus’ s­ elf-claims, therefore.

154

68.  Quotations from Philo, Philo, vol. 5, trans. F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker, LCL 275 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). 69.  Quoted from Philo, Questions and Answers on Exodus, vol. 2 of Philo Supplement, trans. Ralph Marcus, LCL 401 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), 70. 70.  Apart from the passages discussed above, Philo also quotes Exod. 7.1 in On Dreams 2.189 and On the Change of Names 19, but there he provides no interpretation. 71.  Erwin R. Goodenough has argued that Philo’s view of Moses was inconsistent. On the one hand, Philo did not intend to challenge Jewish monotheism and he never acknowledged more than one deity. In this sense Moses was not God. On the other hand, Moses was clearly distinguished from other human beings in his divinification. He had become so divinized that the divesting of his human nature in his death was almost of no consequence (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism [Amsterdam: Philo, 1969], 228–29; similarly Meeks, ­Prophet-King, 104–6; Lierman, Moses, 232). Goodenough’s chief evidence for Moses’ uniqueness (Sacr. 8-10), however, is a passage that explains that the mind is immortal (Sacr. 8). For Philo, the concept of Moses’ divinity is not primarily a statement about Moses the individual, but about the potential of the human mind.

155

Qumran Exodus 7.1, which played such a large role in the writings of Philo, is alluded to in one of the Qumran scrolls as well (4Q374).74 The scroll is fragmentary, however, and does not include much in terms of interpretation. But the subject of the relevant passage is God, who made Moses “like a God over the powerful ones, and a cause of reel[ing] (?) for Pharaoh” (4Q374 2.ii.6).75 The picture is

72.  See especially Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in ­Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology, SBLDS 40 (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press, 1977), 108–60; similarly, Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, SBLDS 25 (Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1975), 66–67; Hurtado, One God, 60–63. 73.  Quoted from Philo, Philo, vol. 6, trans. F. H. Colson, LCL 289 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), 357. 74.  Carol A. Newsom, “4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, STDJ 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 46. 75.  Crispin F ­ letcher-Louis has argued that these lines describe Moses’ divinization at Mount Sinai (not his confrontation with Pharaoh) and that Moses himself should be understood as the subject of these lines (not God). If so, Moses is described in a way that resembles God. Moses caused their hearts to melt and their entrails to dissolve (2.ii.7, cf. 2.ii.9). Their hearts were strengthened when Moses let his face shine for them for healing (2.ii.8). Like God, Moses was also unknown to the people (2.ii.9). ­Fletcher-Louis gives five reasons for his conclusion: (1) Moses is divinized in other texts from Second Temple Judaism; (2) Moses is described with divine warrior language in line 6 (“cause of reeling for Pharaoh”); (3) “the powerful ones” over whom Moses was made like a

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

When Philo discusses Moses’ names in his treatise On the Change of Names, the focus is also on Moses as a model wise man. Regarding the name “Man of God,” Philo makes the general point that such a name belongs to the “greater, more perfect, truly ­God-inspired soul.” He adds that “this same person is a god, because he is wise and therefore the ruler of every fool” (Mut. 128).68 In On the Life of Moses, Philo also makes reference to Moses being called by God’s name and it explains it as Moses seeing the invisible and incorporeal world (1.158). Elsewhere, Philo takes a step further from this understanding of “God” as referring to the prototypical wise man. In his Allegorical Interpretation, he attributes the title “God” – not to Moses – but to the mind (1.40), and in On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, Moses’ being God is explained as his ability to rule both the entire body and the mind (9; cf. Mos. 1.25-29). In another discussion of Moses’ superiority, the title refers to the mind when it is under the influence of divine inspiration (Migr. 84). Commenting on Exod. 24.2, where Moses alone is allowed to approach God, Philo likewise applies this title to the prophetic mind. He continues: “such men become kin to God and truly divine” (QE 2.29).69 To be under prophetic inspiration can also be described as to be completely possessed with the love of God, as Philo does in Every Good Man Is Free, where such a man, who serves the living God alone, is called God (43).70 Philo’s use of Exod. 7.1 displays a clear pattern, therefore. In his exposition, the purpose of Exod. 7.1 is not to show the exalted stature of Moses the individual or to attribute him with an authority that belongs to God.71 Instead, Philo

wants to demonstrate the splendor of wisdom. True, this discussion presupposes a very high view of Moses’ wisdom. However, divinity is not associated with Moses as an individual, but with the virtues he embodies in an exemplary way.72 In Philo’s On the Life of Moses, Moses is given the whole world as a possession. As a result, all the elements obey him (Mos. 1.­155-156). These privileges follow naturally from the fact that Moses is known as a friend of God. Since God possesses everything, his friend shares in all his treasures “as far as he is capable” (Mos. 1.157).73 Again, Moses is portrayed as the paradigmatic wise man. What Philo wants to show is that virtue is the means by which one can attain unity with God, and Moses serves as the chief example of that. Accordingly, Moses receives gifts from God; he does not act in his place. In Philo’s writings, Moses does not encroach upon the prerogatives of God. Philo’s Moses does not constitute a parallel to Jesus’ s­ elf-claims, therefore.

154

68.  Quotations from Philo, Philo, vol. 5, trans. F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker, LCL 275 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). 69.  Quoted from Philo, Questions and Answers on Exodus, vol. 2 of Philo Supplement, trans. Ralph Marcus, LCL 401 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), 70. 70.  Apart from the passages discussed above, Philo also quotes Exod. 7.1 in On Dreams 2.189 and On the Change of Names 19, but there he provides no interpretation. 71.  Erwin R. Goodenough has argued that Philo’s view of Moses was inconsistent. On the one hand, Philo did not intend to challenge Jewish monotheism and he never acknowledged more than one deity. In this sense Moses was not God. On the other hand, Moses was clearly distinguished from other human beings in his divinification. He had become so divinized that the divesting of his human nature in his death was almost of no consequence (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism [Amsterdam: Philo, 1969], 228–29; similarly Meeks, ­Prophet-King, 104–6; Lierman, Moses, 232). Goodenough’s chief evidence for Moses’ uniqueness (Sacr. 8-10), however, is a passage that explains that the mind is immortal (Sacr. 8). For Philo, the concept of Moses’ divinity is not primarily a statement about Moses the individual, but about the potential of the human mind.

155

Qumran Exodus 7.1, which played such a large role in the writings of Philo, is alluded to in one of the Qumran scrolls as well (4Q374).74 The scroll is fragmentary, however, and does not include much in terms of interpretation. But the subject of the relevant passage is God, who made Moses “like a God over the powerful ones, and a cause of reel[ing] (?) for Pharaoh” (4Q374 2.ii.6).75 The picture is

72.  See especially Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in ­Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology, SBLDS 40 (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press, 1977), 108–60; similarly, Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, SBLDS 25 (Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1975), 66–67; Hurtado, One God, 60–63. 73.  Quoted from Philo, Philo, vol. 6, trans. F. H. Colson, LCL 289 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), 357. 74.  Carol A. Newsom, “4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, STDJ 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 46. 75.  Crispin F ­ letcher-Louis has argued that these lines describe Moses’ divinization at Mount Sinai (not his confrontation with Pharaoh) and that Moses himself should be understood as the subject of these lines (not God). If so, Moses is described in a way that resembles God. Moses caused their hearts to melt and their entrails to dissolve (2.ii.7, cf. 2.ii.9). Their hearts were strengthened when Moses let his face shine for them for healing (2.ii.8). Like God, Moses was also unknown to the people (2.ii.9). ­Fletcher-Louis gives five reasons for his conclusion: (1) Moses is divinized in other texts from Second Temple Judaism; (2) Moses is described with divine warrior language in line 6 (“cause of reeling for Pharaoh”); (3) “the powerful ones” over whom Moses was made like a

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

comparable to that which is found in Ezekiel the Tragedian. Moses is given an exalted status by God, but the absolute distinction between God and Moses is not blurred.76

revealed himself to Moses as he never did to anyone else (Memar Marqah 1.9). As prophet, Moses was invested with the divine name.77 According to Memar Marqah 1.1, the angel “said Moses, Moses, and he replied Here am I (Ex. iii. 4, et seq.). Wonderful mysteries and all revelations were sent down. He said Moses, Moses, telling him that he would bring about His will and His recompense. He said Moses, Moses, revealing to him that he would be vested with prophethood and the divine Name. He said Moses, Moses, making known to him that he would be the deliverer of the Hebrews and the slayer of the Egyptians” (cf. Memar Marqah 1.9; 6.6).78 Moses’ investiture with the divine name, therefore, means that Moses was given a unique function as the instrument that carried out God’s actions. It does not mean that Moses was at the same level as God. In the commentary on Exod. 7.1, where Moses is made like a God to Pharaoh, Memar Marqah takes a similar approach. Moses is called God so that God can do his works through him:

156

Samaritan Views The Samaritan commentary on the Pentateuch, the Memar Marqah (third or fourth century CE), also displays considerable interest in the exalted status of Moses. He is the greatest of all the prophets (Memar Marqah 1.1 etc.). God

God (line 6) must refer to the people of Israel, not the Egyptian army; (4) there is mention of Moses’ shining face in line 8: (5) the expression “no one knew you” (2.ii.9) may refer to the transformation of Moses (­Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374,” 247–50). Even if all of these arguments were granted, however, they amount to nothing more than a possibility. But, on closer inspection, all of ­Fletcher-Louis’s observations are better explained on the assumption that God is the subject of these lines. As for (1), other texts that describe Moses’ “divinization” (if that is indeed an appropriate term) do not attribute divine functions to Moses. If they are adduced as parallels they serve as an argument against ­Fletcher-Louis’s conclusion. As for (2), even if Moses is described with divine warfare language, God is still the one who acts in line 6, and Moses is a tool in his hand. As for (3), ­Fletcher-Louis argues that the third person pronoun in line 8 requires an antecedent. In line 8 the third person pronoun refers to Israel, but there is no mention of Israel in line 7. ­Fletcher-Louis therefore thinks that “the powerful ones” in line 6 must serve to introduce Israel into the text. There is a lacuna towards the end of line 7, however, and it is more likely that an original reference to Israel in line 7 is now lost. To assume that “the powerful ones” refers to Israel solves nothing. How was the reader supposed to understand that “the powerful ones” used in parallelism with Pharaoh was a reference to Israel? Moreover, when Moses is said to be made like a God over the powerful ones, there is probably an allusion to Exod. 7.1, where Moses was made a God to Pharaoh. Even if Israel were identified as a “the powerful ones,” however, it does not militate against seeing God as the subject of these lines. As for (4), line 8 reads: “he let his face shine.” A reference to Sinai is the most obvious here, but that does not necessitate making Moses the subject. In the biblical story, the one who made Moses’ face shine is implicitly seen to be God, as Moses himself did not know it was shining (Exod. 34.29). If the Scroll is read in light of the biblical story, God is most naturally thought of as the subject here as well. As for (5), ­Fletcher-Louis refers to L.A.B. 61.8-9 where the angel of the Lord is said to have changed David’s appearance so that no one recognized him. The statement in 4Q374 2.ii.9, however, is more absolute than the one in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum. ­Pseudo-Philo refers to David’s appearance when he was transformed, and the statement about no one knowing him focuses on the nature of the transformation. In 4Q374, on the other hand, the statement about no one knowing is not related to a transformation, but to a person. The statement makes best sense if it refers to God, whom no one can see (Exod. 33.20). 76.  It is possible that Sir. 45.2 also alludes to Exod. 7.1. Moses is said to be equal in glory to the holy ones (ἁγίων). The underlying Hebrew word is ‫אלהים‬, but the rest of the sentence is not preserved in the Hebrew text (cf. Hurtado, One God, 56). The overall picture in Sirach 45 is very similar to that of 4Q374. God is the subject throughout.

157

See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet (Ex. vii. I; Targ.). See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, so that you will exact vengeance on him for the congregation. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, that he and all his people may be destroyed. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, through the rod which I gave you to reveal wonders. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh by my will. Destroy all the Egyptians in a twinkling of the eye. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. I shall put him in your power, and you will slay him in judgement. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. You are the redeemer of the blood of the sons of the Righteous. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. Be not afraid of him, for I have put him in your power.

77.  Cf. Fossum, Name of God, 87–94. 78.  Quoted from John Macdonald, ed. and trans., The Translation, vol. 2 of Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah, BZAW 84 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963), 4.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

comparable to that which is found in Ezekiel the Tragedian. Moses is given an exalted status by God, but the absolute distinction between God and Moses is not blurred.76

revealed himself to Moses as he never did to anyone else (Memar Marqah 1.9). As prophet, Moses was invested with the divine name.77 According to Memar Marqah 1.1, the angel “said Moses, Moses, and he replied Here am I (Ex. iii. 4, et seq.). Wonderful mysteries and all revelations were sent down. He said Moses, Moses, telling him that he would bring about His will and His recompense. He said Moses, Moses, revealing to him that he would be vested with prophethood and the divine Name. He said Moses, Moses, making known to him that he would be the deliverer of the Hebrews and the slayer of the Egyptians” (cf. Memar Marqah 1.9; 6.6).78 Moses’ investiture with the divine name, therefore, means that Moses was given a unique function as the instrument that carried out God’s actions. It does not mean that Moses was at the same level as God. In the commentary on Exod. 7.1, where Moses is made like a God to Pharaoh, Memar Marqah takes a similar approach. Moses is called God so that God can do his works through him:

156

Samaritan Views The Samaritan commentary on the Pentateuch, the Memar Marqah (third or fourth century CE), also displays considerable interest in the exalted status of Moses. He is the greatest of all the prophets (Memar Marqah 1.1 etc.). God

God (line 6) must refer to the people of Israel, not the Egyptian army; (4) there is mention of Moses’ shining face in line 8: (5) the expression “no one knew you” (2.ii.9) may refer to the transformation of Moses (­Fletcher-Louis, “4Q374,” 247–50). Even if all of these arguments were granted, however, they amount to nothing more than a possibility. But, on closer inspection, all of ­Fletcher-Louis’s observations are better explained on the assumption that God is the subject of these lines. As for (1), other texts that describe Moses’ “divinization” (if that is indeed an appropriate term) do not attribute divine functions to Moses. If they are adduced as parallels they serve as an argument against ­Fletcher-Louis’s conclusion. As for (2), even if Moses is described with divine warfare language, God is still the one who acts in line 6, and Moses is a tool in his hand. As for (3), ­Fletcher-Louis argues that the third person pronoun in line 8 requires an antecedent. In line 8 the third person pronoun refers to Israel, but there is no mention of Israel in line 7. ­Fletcher-Louis therefore thinks that “the powerful ones” in line 6 must serve to introduce Israel into the text. There is a lacuna towards the end of line 7, however, and it is more likely that an original reference to Israel in line 7 is now lost. To assume that “the powerful ones” refers to Israel solves nothing. How was the reader supposed to understand that “the powerful ones” used in parallelism with Pharaoh was a reference to Israel? Moreover, when Moses is said to be made like a God over the powerful ones, there is probably an allusion to Exod. 7.1, where Moses was made a God to Pharaoh. Even if Israel were identified as a “the powerful ones,” however, it does not militate against seeing God as the subject of these lines. As for (4), line 8 reads: “he let his face shine.” A reference to Sinai is the most obvious here, but that does not necessitate making Moses the subject. In the biblical story, the one who made Moses’ face shine is implicitly seen to be God, as Moses himself did not know it was shining (Exod. 34.29). If the Scroll is read in light of the biblical story, God is most naturally thought of as the subject here as well. As for (5), ­Fletcher-Louis refers to L.A.B. 61.8-9 where the angel of the Lord is said to have changed David’s appearance so that no one recognized him. The statement in 4Q374 2.ii.9, however, is more absolute than the one in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum. ­Pseudo-Philo refers to David’s appearance when he was transformed, and the statement about no one knowing him focuses on the nature of the transformation. In 4Q374, on the other hand, the statement about no one knowing is not related to a transformation, but to a person. The statement makes best sense if it refers to God, whom no one can see (Exod. 33.20). 76.  It is possible that Sir. 45.2 also alludes to Exod. 7.1. Moses is said to be equal in glory to the holy ones (ἁγίων). The underlying Hebrew word is ‫אלהים‬, but the rest of the sentence is not preserved in the Hebrew text (cf. Hurtado, One God, 56). The overall picture in Sirach 45 is very similar to that of 4Q374. God is the subject throughout.

157

See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet (Ex. vii. I; Targ.). See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, so that you will exact vengeance on him for the congregation. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, that he and all his people may be destroyed. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, through the rod which I gave you to reveal wonders. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh by my will. Destroy all the Egyptians in a twinkling of the eye. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. I shall put him in your power, and you will slay him in judgement. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. You are the redeemer of the blood of the sons of the Righteous. See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. Be not afraid of him, for I have put him in your power.

77.  Cf. Fossum, Name of God, 87–94. 78.  Quoted from John Macdonald, ed. and trans., The Translation, vol. 2 of Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah, BZAW 84 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963), 4.

God’s Equal

158

See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. He is defeated before you and you have no need of any assistance” (1.4).

79

Other Enthroned Characters Moses is not the only figure that is seated on a heavenly throne. In the first column of the Qumranic fragment 11 from 4Q491, an unidentified character is also seen to be enthroned in heaven. Maurice Baillet thought the scroll belonged to the War Scroll and attributed the enthronement to the archangel Michael.80 But the description in 4Q491 is more appropriate for a human being.81 This individual is exalted above all other human beings and is seated on a mighty throne in the congregation of the angels (‫ ;אלים‬4Q491 11.i.5). It is impossible to identify this individual, but his exaltation is comparable to that of Moses and Metatron. His enthronement does not mean that he takes God’s place. He remains a recipient of the gifts of God.82 Other apocalyptic writings describe several other characters seated on a throne by God.83 Job looks forward to the throne that will come from the right hand of the Father (T. Job 33.3). During his heavenly journey, Isaiah gets a preview of his own throne (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7.22). According to the Testament of Isaac, thrones are likewise prepared for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (T. Isaac 2.7). In the Testament of Abraham, Adam is given a similarly exalted position. He is found seated on a golden throne, and his appearance is like God’s (T. Ab. Rec. A 11.4, 9). His function is totally passive, however; he is merely watching the people of the world. Apparently unable to influence the outcome, he cries when

79.  Quoted from Macdonald, The Translation, 18. 80.  Maurice Baillet, (4Q482–4Q520), vol. 3 of Qumrân grotte 4, DJD 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 12, 26–29. 81.  So Morton Smith, “Two Ascended to Heaven,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 296–99; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 146–49; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 300–310; Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 81–84. 82.  Collins correctly concludes regarding this text: “In no case does this ‘divinization’ impinge on the supremacy of the Most High, the God of Israel” (The Scepter and the Star, 149; similarly Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 82). 83.  For a comprehensive overview of ancient Jewish throne visions, see Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 65–123.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

159

he sees the many entering the gate to eternal punishment and rejoices when he sees the few entering the gate to Paradise (T. Ab. Rec. A 11.9-11). Another throne is occupied by Adam’s son, Abel. He is described as “a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like unto a son of God” (T. Ab. Rec. A 12.5). Unlike Adam, he has a clearly defined function as an eschatological judge. However, his judgment is merely preliminary to God’s own judgment (cf. Chapter 4). In all these enthronement scenes, the absolute sovereignty of God is never challenged.84 Those enthroned are inferior to him and dependent on him. Usually, the enthronement serves no apparent function besides showing the individuals to be honored by God.

The Son of Man The most exalted character in the literature of Second Temple Judaism is the Son of Man. This character first appears in Daniel’s vision where “one like a human being” came with the clouds of heaven. There is probably no character in the Scriptures of Israel who shares as many of God’s attributes as this one. He “was given dominion, glory, and kingship,” and “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan. 7.14). Most notably, “his dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed” (Dan. 7.14). These characteristics place the Son of Man in the closest proximity to God.85 Since Daniel is told that the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven “shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High” and the third person singular suffix is subsequently used with apparent reference to this people, there are good reasons to view the one like a human being as a collective symbol of the people of God, much like the four beasts are symbols of the worldly kingdoms (Dan. 7.1-8, 15-28).86 However, the vision of the one 84.  Similarly, Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 155. 85.  Stefan Beyerle, “‘Der mit den Wolken des Himmels kommt’: Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefüge ‘Menschensohn’,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 39. 86.  So R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 317–24; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 348–50.

God’s Equal

158

See, I make you as God to Pharaoh. He is defeated before you and you have no need of any assistance” (1.4).

79

Other Enthroned Characters Moses is not the only figure that is seated on a heavenly throne. In the first column of the Qumranic fragment 11 from 4Q491, an unidentified character is also seen to be enthroned in heaven. Maurice Baillet thought the scroll belonged to the War Scroll and attributed the enthronement to the archangel Michael.80 But the description in 4Q491 is more appropriate for a human being.81 This individual is exalted above all other human beings and is seated on a mighty throne in the congregation of the angels (‫ ;אלים‬4Q491 11.i.5). It is impossible to identify this individual, but his exaltation is comparable to that of Moses and Metatron. His enthronement does not mean that he takes God’s place. He remains a recipient of the gifts of God.82 Other apocalyptic writings describe several other characters seated on a throne by God.83 Job looks forward to the throne that will come from the right hand of the Father (T. Job 33.3). During his heavenly journey, Isaiah gets a preview of his own throne (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7.22). According to the Testament of Isaac, thrones are likewise prepared for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (T. Isaac 2.7). In the Testament of Abraham, Adam is given a similarly exalted position. He is found seated on a golden throne, and his appearance is like God’s (T. Ab. Rec. A 11.4, 9). His function is totally passive, however; he is merely watching the people of the world. Apparently unable to influence the outcome, he cries when

79.  Quoted from Macdonald, The Translation, 18. 80.  Maurice Baillet, (4Q482–4Q520), vol. 3 of Qumrân grotte 4, DJD 7 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 12, 26–29. 81.  So Morton Smith, “Two Ascended to Heaven,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 296–99; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 146–49; Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, 300–310; Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 81–84. 82.  Collins correctly concludes regarding this text: “In no case does this ‘divinization’ impinge on the supremacy of the Most High, the God of Israel” (The Scepter and the Star, 149; similarly Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 82). 83.  For a comprehensive overview of ancient Jewish throne visions, see Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 65–123.

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

159

he sees the many entering the gate to eternal punishment and rejoices when he sees the few entering the gate to Paradise (T. Ab. Rec. A 11.9-11). Another throne is occupied by Adam’s son, Abel. He is described as “a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like unto a son of God” (T. Ab. Rec. A 12.5). Unlike Adam, he has a clearly defined function as an eschatological judge. However, his judgment is merely preliminary to God’s own judgment (cf. Chapter 4). In all these enthronement scenes, the absolute sovereignty of God is never challenged.84 Those enthroned are inferior to him and dependent on him. Usually, the enthronement serves no apparent function besides showing the individuals to be honored by God.

The Son of Man The most exalted character in the literature of Second Temple Judaism is the Son of Man. This character first appears in Daniel’s vision where “one like a human being” came with the clouds of heaven. There is probably no character in the Scriptures of Israel who shares as many of God’s attributes as this one. He “was given dominion, glory, and kingship,” and “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan. 7.14). Most notably, “his dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed” (Dan. 7.14). These characteristics place the Son of Man in the closest proximity to God.85 Since Daniel is told that the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven “shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High” and the third person singular suffix is subsequently used with apparent reference to this people, there are good reasons to view the one like a human being as a collective symbol of the people of God, much like the four beasts are symbols of the worldly kingdoms (Dan. 7.1-8, 15-28).86 However, the vision of the one 84.  Similarly, Eskola, Messiah and the Throne, 155. 85.  Stefan Beyerle, “‘Der mit den Wolken des Himmels kommt’: Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefüge ‘Menschensohn’,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 39. 86.  So R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929), 317–24; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 348–50.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

like a human being is not given an interpretation like the four beasts. He also appears separately from them and is included in the vision of the Ancient One. The vision of the Ancient One is not merely symbolic, but is presented as a vision of God’s heavenly throne. It is better to conclude that the one like a human being is also more than a symbol; he may be the heavenly representative of the people of God.87 For my present purposes, however, the subsequent interpretation of Daniel’s vision is more important than its original meaning. In the literature of Second Temple Judaism, this Son of Man is understood as more than a symbol; he is a heavenly figure. The most elaborate development of this character is found in the Similitudes that are preserved in 1 Enoch. There has been much scholarly debate over the relevance of these traditions for the study of the New Testament, and their dating is uncertain. Some scholars have argued that they are irrelevant for an understanding of the New Testament.88 But most scholars now date them late in the first century BCE or early in the first century CE.89 I will treat them here as evidence of traditions that may have been known at the time of Jesus.

The portrait of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is inspired by Daniel’s vision (cf. Dan. 7.13 and 1 En. 46.1), but it also moves beyond Daniel in significant ways. Most characteristically, the Son of Man is no longer presented before the throne of God, but is himself seated on the heavenly throne as the eschatological judge. This Son of Man is not only exalted to a position comparable to that of God, but he also has functions that are known to belong exclusively to God. Several titles are used for this character in the Similitudes.90 He is introduced as the Elect One (45.3), and occasionally identified as the Messiah (48.10; 52.4). All of these terms are used for the same character, as similar descriptions are given to all of them and they can be used interchangeably.91 Towards the end of the Similitudes, the Son of Man appears to be identified with Enoch (71.14). The last two chapters of the Similitudes may have been a later addition, however. It is also possible that “son of man” is used in a ­non-titular sense here, referring to Enoch as a human being (cf. Ezek. 2.1).92 The identification of the Son of Man remains uncertain, therefore. According to the Similitudes, the Elect One will sit on the seat of glory and judge humankind (45.3), even the secret things (49.4). Not only humans, but

160

87.  So Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.422–23; Rowland, Open Heaven, 178–82. Cf. John Collins, who argues that the “holy ones of the Most High” refers to angels and that the “one like a human being” is the angel Michael (Daniel, 304–19). 88.  Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.429. For a discussion, see Matthew Black, “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Claims,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 161–68. 89.  For a discussion, see Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1976): 345–59; Christopher L. Mearns, “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1976): 360–69; Joseph Coppens, Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire, vol. 2 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal, BETL 61 (Leuven: Peeters, 1983), 148–55; Siegbert Uhlig, Das äthiopische H ­ enoch-buch, JSHRZ 5.6 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), 574–75; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 3.1, rev. edn, ed. Geza Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 256–59; David W. Suter, “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 415–43; Michael E. Stone, “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; or, Some Considerations of David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 444–49; James H. Charlesworth, “Can we Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 450–68; Darrell D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 469–77; Luca Acrari, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian

161

Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 478–86; Hanan Eshel, “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 487–91. 90.  The title “Son of Man” itself corresponds to three different terms in Ge’ez, which is the language in which the Similitudes have survived. However, all of these terms probably go back to the Hebrew ‫בן האדם‬. Cf. Black, 1 Enoch, 206. 91. Theisohn, Richter, 31–35; James C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 185–86. 92.  For the view that the identification of Enoch as the Son of Man is original to the Similitudes, see VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 177–85. For the view that Enoch is originally not so identified, see Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.426–27; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 90–94. Helge Kvanvig has argued that in the final version of 1 Enoch the Son of Man must be consistently identified as Enoch (“The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 197–210), but see John J. Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 221–27.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

like a human being is not given an interpretation like the four beasts. He also appears separately from them and is included in the vision of the Ancient One. The vision of the Ancient One is not merely symbolic, but is presented as a vision of God’s heavenly throne. It is better to conclude that the one like a human being is also more than a symbol; he may be the heavenly representative of the people of God.87 For my present purposes, however, the subsequent interpretation of Daniel’s vision is more important than its original meaning. In the literature of Second Temple Judaism, this Son of Man is understood as more than a symbol; he is a heavenly figure. The most elaborate development of this character is found in the Similitudes that are preserved in 1 Enoch. There has been much scholarly debate over the relevance of these traditions for the study of the New Testament, and their dating is uncertain. Some scholars have argued that they are irrelevant for an understanding of the New Testament.88 But most scholars now date them late in the first century BCE or early in the first century CE.89 I will treat them here as evidence of traditions that may have been known at the time of Jesus.

The portrait of the Son of Man in the Similitudes is inspired by Daniel’s vision (cf. Dan. 7.13 and 1 En. 46.1), but it also moves beyond Daniel in significant ways. Most characteristically, the Son of Man is no longer presented before the throne of God, but is himself seated on the heavenly throne as the eschatological judge. This Son of Man is not only exalted to a position comparable to that of God, but he also has functions that are known to belong exclusively to God. Several titles are used for this character in the Similitudes.90 He is introduced as the Elect One (45.3), and occasionally identified as the Messiah (48.10; 52.4). All of these terms are used for the same character, as similar descriptions are given to all of them and they can be used interchangeably.91 Towards the end of the Similitudes, the Son of Man appears to be identified with Enoch (71.14). The last two chapters of the Similitudes may have been a later addition, however. It is also possible that “son of man” is used in a ­non-titular sense here, referring to Enoch as a human being (cf. Ezek. 2.1).92 The identification of the Son of Man remains uncertain, therefore. According to the Similitudes, the Elect One will sit on the seat of glory and judge humankind (45.3), even the secret things (49.4). Not only humans, but

160

87.  So Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.422–23; Rowland, Open Heaven, 178–82. Cf. John Collins, who argues that the “holy ones of the Most High” refers to angels and that the “one like a human being” is the angel Michael (Daniel, 304–19). 88.  Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.429. For a discussion, see Matthew Black, “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Claims,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 161–68. 89.  For a discussion, see Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1976): 345–59; Christopher L. Mearns, “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1976): 360–69; Joseph Coppens, Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire, vol. 2 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal, BETL 61 (Leuven: Peeters, 1983), 148–55; Siegbert Uhlig, Das äthiopische H ­ enoch-buch, JSHRZ 5.6 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), 574–75; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 3.1, rev. edn, ed. Geza Vermes, et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 256–59; David W. Suter, “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 415–43; Michael E. Stone, “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; or, Some Considerations of David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 444–49; James H. Charlesworth, “Can we Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 450–68; Darrell D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 469–77; Luca Acrari, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian

161

Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 478–86; Hanan Eshel, “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 487–91. 90.  The title “Son of Man” itself corresponds to three different terms in Ge’ez, which is the language in which the Similitudes have survived. However, all of these terms probably go back to the Hebrew ‫בן האדם‬. Cf. Black, 1 Enoch, 206. 91. Theisohn, Richter, 31–35; James C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 185–86. 92.  For the view that the identification of Enoch as the Son of Man is original to the Similitudes, see VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 177–85. For the view that Enoch is originally not so identified, see Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.426–27; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 90–94. Helge Kvanvig has argued that in the final version of 1 Enoch the Son of Man must be consistently identified as Enoch (“The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 197–210), but see John J. Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 221–27.

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

also Azaz’el and his army (55.4) and the angels will be judged by him (61.8). He is preeminently righteous (39.6); righteousness belongs to the Son of Man and righteousness dwells with him (46.3). The Son of Man will also execute the eschatological act of deposing the rulers of this world (46.4-6). When he sits on the throne of his glory, that very sight brings terror and pain to the wicked (62.5; cf. 69.29). As a result, they will worship him (62.6, 9). The righteous will lean on him, as he is the light of the Gentiles and the hope of those who are sick in their hearts (48.4).93 He will be worshiped by all the inhabitants of the world (48.5). The end time events happen by his authority as the Messiah (52.4). As the Elect One, he has an eternal glory (49.2), and “the spirit of wisdom, the spirit which gives thoughtfulness, the spirit of knowledge and strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness” dwell in him (49.3).94 From his seat on God’s throne, he speaks the secrets of wisdom (51.2). As the Son of Man he also reveals wisdom to the saints (48.7). The Elect One is attributed with revealing the house of his congregation (53.6), which possibly means that he will build the heavenly temple.95 Unlike all the other characters in this survey, this Son of Man manifests several uniquely divine characteristics. He sits on God’s throne in heaven. His role on that throne is not merely passive; he also actively takes God’s place. All humankind worships him, and he judges both humans and angels. He executes

divine judgment by destroying the rulers of this world, and he dispenses divine salvation in his role as the object of hope for the elect.96 The Son of Man is also distinguished from God, and he is seen to be inferior to him. When he and God are both on the scene, the Son of Man is invariably on the receiving end of the works of God. God makes the Elect One dwell on earth among humans (45.4-5). The Son of Man is chosen by God, who has destined him to be victorious (46.3). From eternity, the Elect One is preexistent with God (48.6), who has given him his name (48.2).97 In his preexistence, the Son of Man was hidden by God, who eventually revealed him to the saints (62.7). The supremacy of God is also presupposed when the Son of Man is said to be strong before the Lord of the Spirits (69.29). Sometimes the division of labor between the Son of Man and God is not perfectly clear. Several events are expected to take place when the Son of Man is revealed, but it is never made clear whether it is God or the Son of Man himself who will make them happen. We are not told who will cause the dead to rise (51.1; 61.5),98 the earth to rejoice (51.5), the metals to melt (52.6-9), the wicked to be filled with shame and driven away from the presence of the Son of Man (63.11), and all evil to disappear before his face (69.29). Neither do we learn who will reveal the name of the Son of Man to the saints (69.27). Diverging information is provided regarding the seating of the Son of Man. We read that God seated the Elect One on the throne of glory (61.8), but later that the Son of Man seated himself on the throne of his own glory (69.29). Despite this opacity and despite the unique exaltedness of the Son of Man, the Similitudes contain several indications that the Son of Man does not have his authority in his own right. His authority is from God, and the Son of Man

162

93.  Steven Richard Scott asserts that the Son of Man is attributed with the qualities of YHWH when he is referred to as the staff of the righteous and the light of the Gentiles (“The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes,” JSP 18 [2008]: 70). However, the most obvious background for the light of the Gentiles is the servant of Isa. 42.6; 49.6 (cf. Theisohn, Richter, 114–24; Coppens, Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire, 136–37; Black, “Messianism,” 157; VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 190). “The staff of the righteous” has no obvious parallels in the Scriptures of Israel. 94.  Scott maintains that the righteousness and wisdom attributed to the Son of Man in 1 En. 49.1-4 are God’s qualities (“Binitarian Nature,” 73). The closest known parallel to the expression in 1 En. 49.3, however, is the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.2 (Black, “Messianism,” 155). 95.  R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 31; Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zur Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischer Sendung, WUNT II/119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 70–71; William Horbury, Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 91, n. 13.

163

96.  Kvanvig maintains that the New Testament picture of the Son of Man differs essentially from that of the Parables only in that the New Testament Son of Man suffered a violent death (“Son of Man,” 211–15). 97.  There is a discussion of whether the Son of Man’s preexistence is an actual or an ideal preexistence, whether he had preexistence in his own right or merely in the mind of God. See Gottfried Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias: Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie, WUNT II/17 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 153–94; VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 180–82; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 89. 98.  R. H. Charles goes beyond the evidence when he attributes the resurrection to the Son of Man (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1913], 214).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

also Azaz’el and his army (55.4) and the angels will be judged by him (61.8). He is preeminently righteous (39.6); righteousness belongs to the Son of Man and righteousness dwells with him (46.3). The Son of Man will also execute the eschatological act of deposing the rulers of this world (46.4-6). When he sits on the throne of his glory, that very sight brings terror and pain to the wicked (62.5; cf. 69.29). As a result, they will worship him (62.6, 9). The righteous will lean on him, as he is the light of the Gentiles and the hope of those who are sick in their hearts (48.4).93 He will be worshiped by all the inhabitants of the world (48.5). The end time events happen by his authority as the Messiah (52.4). As the Elect One, he has an eternal glory (49.2), and “the spirit of wisdom, the spirit which gives thoughtfulness, the spirit of knowledge and strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness” dwell in him (49.3).94 From his seat on God’s throne, he speaks the secrets of wisdom (51.2). As the Son of Man he also reveals wisdom to the saints (48.7). The Elect One is attributed with revealing the house of his congregation (53.6), which possibly means that he will build the heavenly temple.95 Unlike all the other characters in this survey, this Son of Man manifests several uniquely divine characteristics. He sits on God’s throne in heaven. His role on that throne is not merely passive; he also actively takes God’s place. All humankind worships him, and he judges both humans and angels. He executes

divine judgment by destroying the rulers of this world, and he dispenses divine salvation in his role as the object of hope for the elect.96 The Son of Man is also distinguished from God, and he is seen to be inferior to him. When he and God are both on the scene, the Son of Man is invariably on the receiving end of the works of God. God makes the Elect One dwell on earth among humans (45.4-5). The Son of Man is chosen by God, who has destined him to be victorious (46.3). From eternity, the Elect One is preexistent with God (48.6), who has given him his name (48.2).97 In his preexistence, the Son of Man was hidden by God, who eventually revealed him to the saints (62.7). The supremacy of God is also presupposed when the Son of Man is said to be strong before the Lord of the Spirits (69.29). Sometimes the division of labor between the Son of Man and God is not perfectly clear. Several events are expected to take place when the Son of Man is revealed, but it is never made clear whether it is God or the Son of Man himself who will make them happen. We are not told who will cause the dead to rise (51.1; 61.5),98 the earth to rejoice (51.5), the metals to melt (52.6-9), the wicked to be filled with shame and driven away from the presence of the Son of Man (63.11), and all evil to disappear before his face (69.29). Neither do we learn who will reveal the name of the Son of Man to the saints (69.27). Diverging information is provided regarding the seating of the Son of Man. We read that God seated the Elect One on the throne of glory (61.8), but later that the Son of Man seated himself on the throne of his own glory (69.29). Despite this opacity and despite the unique exaltedness of the Son of Man, the Similitudes contain several indications that the Son of Man does not have his authority in his own right. His authority is from God, and the Son of Man

162

93.  Steven Richard Scott asserts that the Son of Man is attributed with the qualities of YHWH when he is referred to as the staff of the righteous and the light of the Gentiles (“The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes,” JSP 18 [2008]: 70). However, the most obvious background for the light of the Gentiles is the servant of Isa. 42.6; 49.6 (cf. Theisohn, Richter, 114–24; Coppens, Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire, 136–37; Black, “Messianism,” 157; VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 190). “The staff of the righteous” has no obvious parallels in the Scriptures of Israel. 94.  Scott maintains that the righteousness and wisdom attributed to the Son of Man in 1 En. 49.1-4 are God’s qualities (“Binitarian Nature,” 73). The closest known parallel to the expression in 1 En. 49.3, however, is the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.2 (Black, “Messianism,” 155). 95.  R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 31; Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zur Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischer Sendung, WUNT II/119 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 70–71; William Horbury, Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T & T Clark, 2003), 91, n. 13.

163

96.  Kvanvig maintains that the New Testament picture of the Son of Man differs essentially from that of the Parables only in that the New Testament Son of Man suffered a violent death (“Son of Man,” 211–15). 97.  There is a discussion of whether the Son of Man’s preexistence is an actual or an ideal preexistence, whether he had preexistence in his own right or merely in the mind of God. See Gottfried Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias: Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie, WUNT II/17 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 153–94; VanderKam, “Son of Man,” 180–82; Yarbro Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 89. 98.  R. H. Charles goes beyond the evidence when he attributes the resurrection to the Son of Man (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books, vol. 2 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1913], 214).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

exercises authority on God’s behalf. Although he is a revealer, he does not reveal his own wisdom, but God’s (48.7; 50.2). The Elect One has his own throne of glory, but he stands before the Lord of Spirits (49.2). When the Elect One judges Azaz’el and his army, he does so in the name of the Lord of Spirits (55.4).99 His judgment of the angels is determined by the word and method of God (61.9). While the wicked rulers worship the Son of Man, it is God who will cause them to be frantic, make them flee and be ashamed, and finally deliver them up to punishment (62.10-11). God has also reserved some of his characteristic works for himself. He is the one who transforms heaven and the earth (45.4-5). Salvation is in his name (48.7), and in his name the congregation of the Elect One will not be hindered (53.6). Even more than Melchizedek, the Enochic Son of Man has partly been credited with the position and functions of God himself. As far as I know, he provides the closest Jewish parallel to the claims of Jesus. But Jesus claims even more for himself. He personally takes on the cosmic enemies of God, and brings the new creation. God’s eschatological rule is identified with his personal presence. When he acts as judge, both by dispensing forgiveness now and by deciding the eternal destiny of all humankind at the eschaton, he himself is the ultimate authority. Accordingly, his own revelation even supersedes that of God. In contrast to the Enochic Son of Man, he does not appear to need God’s ratification of his eschatological acts.

the σῶμα (Opif. ­134-135; Leg. 3.161; Somn. 1.34; Her. 56). This dichotomy can in turn be seen to correspond to two different types of human beings, the heavenly and the earthly (Leg. 1.31-32), one that lives by reason, by the divine spirit (θείῳ πεύματι), and one that lives by blood and the pleasures of the flesh (Her. 57).100 As there is an explicit contrast between this ideal human being and actual, created human beings in Philo’s thinking, this figure cannot inform our understanding of the historical Jesus.101

164

Philo’s Ideal Human Being There are several other figures that scholars have suggested have influenced early Christological thinking. For the most part, the comparison concerns ideas that were developed to describe the exalted or preexistent Jesus. They have little to offer regarding our understanding of the earthly Jesus. One such character is the ideal human being, as described by Philo. Philo’s terminology is somewhat confusing, but may be summarized as follows: In Gen. 1.26-27 Philo sees the creation of the heavenly, immortal part of the soul, the νοῦς, created, or rather breathed, by God, according to the image of the Logos. In Gen. 2.7, however, the heavenly part was joined with the earthly, mortal part,

99.  Cf. Wendebourg, Tag des Herrn, 101.

165

Logos In Philo’s thinking, God’s interaction with the world takes place through the Logos. This Logos may be referred to as divine (Somn. 1.62), as God (Somn. 1.­227-230), and as the second God (QG 2.62). Nevertheless, the Logos is not equal to God, and Philo explains that the Logos is only improperly called God (Somn. 1.­229-230). The Logos is also identified with the archangel (Conf. 146; Her. 205).102 Scholars have debated whether Philo’s Logos is a separate entity, a hypostasis (cf. Her. 2-5), or whether it is merely a metaphorical construct, a way of expressing the Platonic and Stoic concept of ideal forms (cf. Opif. 24).103 100.  Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 119–21; Birger Albert Pearson, The ­Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 12 (Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 17–21; Richard A. Horsley, “Pneumatikos Vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status Among the Corinthians,” HTR 69 (1976): 275–78; Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” NovT 37 (1995): 362–65; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 268–69. 101.  Fossum discusses the gnostic development of Philo’s ideas and their relevance for the understanding of the exalted picture of Christ in Col. 1.15-20 (The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA 30 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 15–24). 102.  Hannah observes that the term ἀρχάγγελος only occurs elsewhere in Philo in Som. 1.157. In that passage the archangel is also referred to as Lord and as the one who is (τὸ ὄν). Hannah therefore concludes that the archangel should be identified with God (Michael and Christ, 85–86). This argument assumes too rigorous a level of consistency in Philo’s use of terminology. 103.  For the former view, see Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 265; Hurtado, One God, 44–48; Dunn, Christology, 220–28; Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo, Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

exercises authority on God’s behalf. Although he is a revealer, he does not reveal his own wisdom, but God’s (48.7; 50.2). The Elect One has his own throne of glory, but he stands before the Lord of Spirits (49.2). When the Elect One judges Azaz’el and his army, he does so in the name of the Lord of Spirits (55.4).99 His judgment of the angels is determined by the word and method of God (61.9). While the wicked rulers worship the Son of Man, it is God who will cause them to be frantic, make them flee and be ashamed, and finally deliver them up to punishment (62.10-11). God has also reserved some of his characteristic works for himself. He is the one who transforms heaven and the earth (45.4-5). Salvation is in his name (48.7), and in his name the congregation of the Elect One will not be hindered (53.6). Even more than Melchizedek, the Enochic Son of Man has partly been credited with the position and functions of God himself. As far as I know, he provides the closest Jewish parallel to the claims of Jesus. But Jesus claims even more for himself. He personally takes on the cosmic enemies of God, and brings the new creation. God’s eschatological rule is identified with his personal presence. When he acts as judge, both by dispensing forgiveness now and by deciding the eternal destiny of all humankind at the eschaton, he himself is the ultimate authority. Accordingly, his own revelation even supersedes that of God. In contrast to the Enochic Son of Man, he does not appear to need God’s ratification of his eschatological acts.

the σῶμα (Opif. ­134-135; Leg. 3.161; Somn. 1.34; Her. 56). This dichotomy can in turn be seen to correspond to two different types of human beings, the heavenly and the earthly (Leg. 1.31-32), one that lives by reason, by the divine spirit (θείῳ πεύματι), and one that lives by blood and the pleasures of the flesh (Her. 57).100 As there is an explicit contrast between this ideal human being and actual, created human beings in Philo’s thinking, this figure cannot inform our understanding of the historical Jesus.101

164

Philo’s Ideal Human Being There are several other figures that scholars have suggested have influenced early Christological thinking. For the most part, the comparison concerns ideas that were developed to describe the exalted or preexistent Jesus. They have little to offer regarding our understanding of the earthly Jesus. One such character is the ideal human being, as described by Philo. Philo’s terminology is somewhat confusing, but may be summarized as follows: In Gen. 1.26-27 Philo sees the creation of the heavenly, immortal part of the soul, the νοῦς, created, or rather breathed, by God, according to the image of the Logos. In Gen. 2.7, however, the heavenly part was joined with the earthly, mortal part,

99.  Cf. Wendebourg, Tag des Herrn, 101.

165

Logos In Philo’s thinking, God’s interaction with the world takes place through the Logos. This Logos may be referred to as divine (Somn. 1.62), as God (Somn. 1.­227-230), and as the second God (QG 2.62). Nevertheless, the Logos is not equal to God, and Philo explains that the Logos is only improperly called God (Somn. 1.­229-230). The Logos is also identified with the archangel (Conf. 146; Her. 205).102 Scholars have debated whether Philo’s Logos is a separate entity, a hypostasis (cf. Her. 2-5), or whether it is merely a metaphorical construct, a way of expressing the Platonic and Stoic concept of ideal forms (cf. Opif. 24).103 100.  Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 119–21; Birger Albert Pearson, The ­Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians, SBLDS 12 (Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 17–21; Richard A. Horsley, “Pneumatikos Vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status Among the Corinthians,” HTR 69 (1976): 275–78; Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity,” NovT 37 (1995): 362–65; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 268–69. 101.  Fossum discusses the gnostic development of Philo’s ideas and their relevance for the understanding of the exalted picture of Christ in Col. 1.15-20 (The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, NTOA 30 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 15–24). 102.  Hannah observes that the term ἀρχάγγελος only occurs elsewhere in Philo in Som. 1.157. In that passage the archangel is also referred to as Lord and as the one who is (τὸ ὄν). Hannah therefore concludes that the archangel should be identified with God (Michael and Christ, 85–86). This argument assumes too rigorous a level of consistency in Philo’s use of terminology. 103.  For the former view, see Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone, CRINT 2.2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 265; Hurtado, One God, 44–48; Dunn, Christology, 220–28; Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo, Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

It is beyond the scope of this study to enter into that discussion. Whether it is a separate entity or not, however, the Logos cannot be identified with creation, as it represents an ideal. The Logos is sometimes conceived of as the ideal human being, thus called the one created in the image of God (Conf. 146). Sometimes it is conceived of as the ideal according to which human beings are created, and human beings are thus seen as created in the image of the Logos (QG 2.62). In any case, as the Logos represents an ideal, not an individual, these ideas are relatively far removed from the claims of the historical Jesus. Samaritan sources also make distinctions within the Godhead. In Memar Marqah 6.3, the Glory is distinguished from the Divinity. The creation of human beings is attributed to the Divinity, but the Glory is responsible for making them complete with a great spirit. Whereas the Divinity gave the human beings mind and speech, the Glory gave them illumination and knowledge. There is a far stretch from the development of these ideas and the claims of an actual human being to take God’s place. But they show that it was possible within Judaism to conceive of a plurality within the one God and even to speak of distinct entities within this plurality.

But the differences are even more significant. The figures that are exalted in Jewish sources are typically angels or characters from the distant past.104 Their experiences take place in the heavenly world. The titles with which they are bestowed are mostly honorary titles. When these figures are attributed with divine functions, the functions are placed in an eschatological future. The characters also remain unequivocally inferior to God and exercise their divine functions by appointment from him. In contrast, Jesus invests his earthly words and actions with an authority that equals God’s. He does not refer to an appointment by God as a warrant for his authority, and he thereby creates the impression that the authority he claims is inherently his own.

166

167

Conclusion There are many similarities between the claims made on behalf of the figures surveyed above and the claims made by Jesus. The closest parallels are found in the traditions regarding Melchizedek and the heavenly Son of Man. Melchizedek functions as an eschatological judge, defeats Belial, and saves God’s people. Passages from Scripture that originally referred to YHWH can also be applied to him. He is even called by God’s name, ‫אלוהים‬. More impressive still is the heavenly Son of Man from the Similitudes in 1 Enoch. The Son of Man sits on God’s throne in heaven. From that throne he exercises several uniquely divine functions. He is the judge of both humans and angels, he destroys the rulers of this world, and he is the savior of the faithful. He also receives the worship of all humankind.

AD 200 1.2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 106–7. For the latter, see H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 231–32; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 450–51.

104.  After a comparison of Jewish exaltation accounts and New Testament Christology, Chester concludes that there is no direct line from these accounts to the idea that a contemporary human figure is placed alongside God in the heavenly world (Messiah and Exaltation, 119–20).

God’s Equal

8.  Mediatory Figures in Second Temple Judaism

It is beyond the scope of this study to enter into that discussion. Whether it is a separate entity or not, however, the Logos cannot be identified with creation, as it represents an ideal. The Logos is sometimes conceived of as the ideal human being, thus called the one created in the image of God (Conf. 146). Sometimes it is conceived of as the ideal according to which human beings are created, and human beings are thus seen as created in the image of the Logos (QG 2.62). In any case, as the Logos represents an ideal, not an individual, these ideas are relatively far removed from the claims of the historical Jesus. Samaritan sources also make distinctions within the Godhead. In Memar Marqah 6.3, the Glory is distinguished from the Divinity. The creation of human beings is attributed to the Divinity, but the Glory is responsible for making them complete with a great spirit. Whereas the Divinity gave the human beings mind and speech, the Glory gave them illumination and knowledge. There is a far stretch from the development of these ideas and the claims of an actual human being to take God’s place. But they show that it was possible within Judaism to conceive of a plurality within the one God and even to speak of distinct entities within this plurality.

But the differences are even more significant. The figures that are exalted in Jewish sources are typically angels or characters from the distant past.104 Their experiences take place in the heavenly world. The titles with which they are bestowed are mostly honorary titles. When these figures are attributed with divine functions, the functions are placed in an eschatological future. The characters also remain unequivocally inferior to God and exercise their divine functions by appointment from him. In contrast, Jesus invests his earthly words and actions with an authority that equals God’s. He does not refer to an appointment by God as a warrant for his authority, and he thereby creates the impression that the authority he claims is inherently his own.

166

167

Conclusion There are many similarities between the claims made on behalf of the figures surveyed above and the claims made by Jesus. The closest parallels are found in the traditions regarding Melchizedek and the heavenly Son of Man. Melchizedek functions as an eschatological judge, defeats Belial, and saves God’s people. Passages from Scripture that originally referred to YHWH can also be applied to him. He is even called by God’s name, ‫אלוהים‬. More impressive still is the heavenly Son of Man from the Similitudes in 1 Enoch. The Son of Man sits on God’s throne in heaven. From that throne he exercises several uniquely divine functions. He is the judge of both humans and angels, he destroys the rulers of this world, and he is the savior of the faithful. He also receives the worship of all humankind.

AD 200 1.2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 106–7. For the latter, see H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 231–32; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 450–51.

104.  After a comparison of Jewish exaltation accounts and New Testament Christology, Chester concludes that there is no direct line from these accounts to the idea that a contemporary human figure is placed alongside God in the heavenly world (Messiah and Exaltation, 119–20).

9.  The Unique Son of God

168

9 THE UNIQUE SON OF GOD: SUBORDINATE AND EQUAL

In the sayings examined in the first seven chapters, Jesus appears to have taken God’s place. He identified his own actions with the unmediated rule of God, he established this rule by defeating Satan and his army, he pronounced the divine verdict of forgiving sins, he expected to be the one who passes God’s ultimate judgment regarding people’s destiny in the afterlife, he claimed for his teaching an authority that surpassed the word of God, he demanded a personal loyalty at the level of that given only to God, and he applied divine epithets to himself. In the first seven chapters, I argued that all of these characteristics go back to the historical Jesus. Other scholars have reached different conclusions, but very few doubt that Jesus at least claimed to bring the kingdom of God and to issue a call that took precedence over all other obligations. Jesus’ claims have been compared to similar claims made on behalf of characters known from Jewish history and eschatological expectation. These characters were thought to act for God in an exceptional way. But Jesus claimed a different level of authority that was inherently his own. In Chapter 8, I showed that the comparable characters in the Jewish tradition take on a role that is more clearly inferior to God. These observations prompt an obvious question: who did Jesus think he was? Did he think he was God? Did he think he was a second God? These questions are not answered directly in the Synoptic Gospels, but some of Jesus’ sayings contain hints regarding how he thought about himself. In this chapter, I will first discuss some sayings that reflect Jesus’ thoughts about his relationship to the Father: sayings where he appears subordinate to him (especially Mk 10.40 par.) and sayings where he refers to himself as the son of the Father (especially Lk. 10.22 par.). Second, I will discuss two

169

passages that are often cited as counter indications to the thesis I have advanced in the preceding chapters, passages that have been understood to reflect Jesus’ inferiority to the Father: the saying where he admits ignorance about the time of the end (Mk 13.32 par.) and the saying where he apparently objects to being called good (Mk 10.18 par.).

Subordinate to the Father At least one thing seems clear. Jesus did not think he was God. As Raymond Brown has insisted, the question of whether Jesus was God would have been understood quite differently in the first century than it might be today. In the first century, the question would not have been taken to mean: was he the second person of the Godhead? It would simply have meant: did he believe that he was the Father in heaven?1 The answer to this question is obviously no. Jesus distinguishes his identity from that of the Father. The Synoptic tradition unanimously portrays him as praying to his Father (Mk 1.35; 6.46 par.; 14.32-39 par.; Mt. 11.25-26 par.; Lk. 3.21; 5.16; 6.12; 9.18, 28, 29; 11.1; 22.32; 23.46), and speaking about his relationship with him (Mk 8.38 par.; Mt. 10.32-33; 11.27 par.; 26.53; Lk. 2.49; 22.29; 24.49). As Jesus turned to his Father in prayer, his relationship appears to be one of submission. His deference to his Father also comes to expression in the story where James and John requested the seats at his right and his left (Mk 10.35-40 par.). This scene is often considered secondary, as it reflects a messianic identification of Jesus, the prospect of martyrdom for the disciples, and the Markan emphasis on the misunderstanding of the disciples.2 But scholars who think Jesus saw himself as the Messiah conclude in favor of authenticity.3 In answer to James and John’s question, Jesus tells them that “to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared” (Mk 10.40). The agent of the passive verb “prepared”

1.  Raymond E. Brown, “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” BTB 15 (1985): 77; similarly, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 377. 2.  Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT II/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 160; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 104; Bultmann, Geschichte, 23; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 94–95, 226; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 494. 3.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 86.

9.  The Unique Son of God

168

9 THE UNIQUE SON OF GOD: SUBORDINATE AND EQUAL

In the sayings examined in the first seven chapters, Jesus appears to have taken God’s place. He identified his own actions with the unmediated rule of God, he established this rule by defeating Satan and his army, he pronounced the divine verdict of forgiving sins, he expected to be the one who passes God’s ultimate judgment regarding people’s destiny in the afterlife, he claimed for his teaching an authority that surpassed the word of God, he demanded a personal loyalty at the level of that given only to God, and he applied divine epithets to himself. In the first seven chapters, I argued that all of these characteristics go back to the historical Jesus. Other scholars have reached different conclusions, but very few doubt that Jesus at least claimed to bring the kingdom of God and to issue a call that took precedence over all other obligations. Jesus’ claims have been compared to similar claims made on behalf of characters known from Jewish history and eschatological expectation. These characters were thought to act for God in an exceptional way. But Jesus claimed a different level of authority that was inherently his own. In Chapter 8, I showed that the comparable characters in the Jewish tradition take on a role that is more clearly inferior to God. These observations prompt an obvious question: who did Jesus think he was? Did he think he was God? Did he think he was a second God? These questions are not answered directly in the Synoptic Gospels, but some of Jesus’ sayings contain hints regarding how he thought about himself. In this chapter, I will first discuss some sayings that reflect Jesus’ thoughts about his relationship to the Father: sayings where he appears subordinate to him (especially Mk 10.40 par.) and sayings where he refers to himself as the son of the Father (especially Lk. 10.22 par.). Second, I will discuss two

169

passages that are often cited as counter indications to the thesis I have advanced in the preceding chapters, passages that have been understood to reflect Jesus’ inferiority to the Father: the saying where he admits ignorance about the time of the end (Mk 13.32 par.) and the saying where he apparently objects to being called good (Mk 10.18 par.).

Subordinate to the Father At least one thing seems clear. Jesus did not think he was God. As Raymond Brown has insisted, the question of whether Jesus was God would have been understood quite differently in the first century than it might be today. In the first century, the question would not have been taken to mean: was he the second person of the Godhead? It would simply have meant: did he believe that he was the Father in heaven?1 The answer to this question is obviously no. Jesus distinguishes his identity from that of the Father. The Synoptic tradition unanimously portrays him as praying to his Father (Mk 1.35; 6.46 par.; 14.32-39 par.; Mt. 11.25-26 par.; Lk. 3.21; 5.16; 6.12; 9.18, 28, 29; 11.1; 22.32; 23.46), and speaking about his relationship with him (Mk 8.38 par.; Mt. 10.32-33; 11.27 par.; 26.53; Lk. 2.49; 22.29; 24.49). As Jesus turned to his Father in prayer, his relationship appears to be one of submission. His deference to his Father also comes to expression in the story where James and John requested the seats at his right and his left (Mk 10.35-40 par.). This scene is often considered secondary, as it reflects a messianic identification of Jesus, the prospect of martyrdom for the disciples, and the Markan emphasis on the misunderstanding of the disciples.2 But scholars who think Jesus saw himself as the Messiah conclude in favor of authenticity.3 In answer to James and John’s question, Jesus tells them that “to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared” (Mk 10.40). The agent of the passive verb “prepared”

1.  Raymond E. Brown, “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” BTB 15 (1985): 77; similarly, Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 377. 2.  Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT II/2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 160; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 104; Bultmann, Geschichte, 23; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 94–95, 226; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 494. 3.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 86.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

(ἡτοίμασται) is not mentioned, but it is presumably the Father. It would be unwarranted, however, on the basis of this saying alone, to conclude that Jesus did not claim the same authority as God.4 There is a tension between this saying and the w ­ ide-ranging evidence that Jesus acted with an authority that equaled God’s. The question thus becomes more pressing: how did Jesus envision his relationship to God the Father?

for other human beings. Jesus apparently taught his disciples to address God in the same way that he did (Mt. 6.9 par.; cf. Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6).8 There is also reliable evidence that Jesus referred to himself as the son of the Father. The parable of the wicked tenants is accepted by most scholars as originating with Jesus in some form.9 Since the parable refers to the death of Jesus, but not his resurrection, an origin in the early church is unlikely. In this parable, Jesus mentioned the son of the vineyard owner (Mk 12.6; Mt. 21.37; Lk. 20.13; Gos. Thom. 65.6). This son must refer to himself, and the vineyard owner must refer to God. It is difficult to be certain, however, of how much to read into this designation. Perhaps the distinction between the son and the slaves owes only to the dramatic form of the parable.10 But it is more likely that the distinction reflects Jesus’ awareness that he was qualitatively set apart from the previous messengers of God. This distinction cannot be explained as merely functional, as the slaves and the son had the same function. Instead, the distinction must have to do with the different relationship that Jesus had with his father.11

170

Jesus as the Son of the Father The first clue to our understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God comes in the way he referred to him. There is widespread agreement among scholars that Jesus addressed God as Father.5 Although not entirely unprecedented,6 his practice appears to have made such an impression on the hearers that the Aramaic term, ’abba, is preserved even in writings intended for a ­Greek-speaking audience (Mk 14.36; cf. Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6).7 Compared to his contemporaries, therefore, it appears that Jesus had a heightened sense of a filial relationship with God. But there is nothing in his address to the Father that clearly shows him to have an essentially different relationship with God than what is possible

4.  C. Drew Smith sees Jesus here as the “authoritative representative of God” (“‘This is My Beloved Son; Listen to Him’: Theology and Christology in the Gospel of Mark,” HBT 24 [2002]: 79). 5. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 320. The Jesus seminar gave an unusual red vote to the opening “Our Father” of the Lord’s Prayer, finding in the word ’abba the authentic words of Jesus (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 148–49, 325–27). 6.  Joachim Jeremias famously claimed that this form of address to God was unprecedented in a Jewish context and unique to Jesus (Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966], 15–33). Joseph Fitzmyer later confirmed his findings. He observed that, while God could be referred to as “Father” in statements (Sir. 51.10; Tob. 13.4; Jub. 1.24-25, 28; 19.29; 1QH 17.35-36), there was no firm evidence that he was so addressed in Hebrew or Aramaic prayers. The example in Sir. 23.1, 4 reads differently in the Hebrew text (“Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, LD 123 [Paris: Cerf, 1985], 25–28). But the publication of the findings of Cave 4 from Qumran has changed this picture. In two prayers, God is addressed as “my Father” (4Q372 1.16; 4Q460 5.i.5) 7.  The account of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14.36) is usually considered not to be authentic. But see Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 17–20.

171

8.  Bornkamm observes that Jesus appears to distinguish his own relationship to the Father from that of his disciples. Jesus speaks of “my Father” and “your Father,” but never of “our Father” (Jesus, 128–29). However, it would be an argument from silence to draw any conclusions on the basis of this observation. Cf. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 25. 9. Jeremias, Parables, 70–73; Dodd, The Parables, 96–102; Bas M. F. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten, NovTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 129–43; Frankemölle, “Christologische Implikationen,” 196–200; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 35; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 221–22; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 1278–81; Hultgren, Parables, 360–62; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 216–30. The Jesus seminar deemed the version in the Gospel of Thomas, with its lack of allegorical traits, to be the most authentic and gave it a pink rating, whereas the versions in the Synoptic Gospels were voted gray (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 510–11, 100–101, 234–35, 377–78; similarly John Dominic Crossan, In Parables [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], 89–94). Some scholars have judged the parable as secondary in its entirety, e.g.: Bultmann, Geschichte, 191; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 83; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 148. Several are undecided, e.g. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 177–78; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 36–37. 10. Dodd, The Parables, 100–101; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 35–36. 11. Manson, Teaching, 104; Oskar Skarsaune, “We Have Found the Messiah! Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity,” Mishkan 45 (2005): 8. Van Iersel objects that the identification of the servants as prophets belongs to a later stage in the transmission of the parable. The distinction between Jesus and the prophets can therefore not have been part of the original intention (Teaching, 144–45). However, this interpretation does not depend on an identification of the servants, but on the observation that the parable singles out the son and shows him to have a unique relationship with the vineyard owner. To understand the term “son” as a designation

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

(ἡτοίμασται) is not mentioned, but it is presumably the Father. It would be unwarranted, however, on the basis of this saying alone, to conclude that Jesus did not claim the same authority as God.4 There is a tension between this saying and the w ­ ide-ranging evidence that Jesus acted with an authority that equaled God’s. The question thus becomes more pressing: how did Jesus envision his relationship to God the Father?

for other human beings. Jesus apparently taught his disciples to address God in the same way that he did (Mt. 6.9 par.; cf. Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6).8 There is also reliable evidence that Jesus referred to himself as the son of the Father. The parable of the wicked tenants is accepted by most scholars as originating with Jesus in some form.9 Since the parable refers to the death of Jesus, but not his resurrection, an origin in the early church is unlikely. In this parable, Jesus mentioned the son of the vineyard owner (Mk 12.6; Mt. 21.37; Lk. 20.13; Gos. Thom. 65.6). This son must refer to himself, and the vineyard owner must refer to God. It is difficult to be certain, however, of how much to read into this designation. Perhaps the distinction between the son and the slaves owes only to the dramatic form of the parable.10 But it is more likely that the distinction reflects Jesus’ awareness that he was qualitatively set apart from the previous messengers of God. This distinction cannot be explained as merely functional, as the slaves and the son had the same function. Instead, the distinction must have to do with the different relationship that Jesus had with his father.11

170

Jesus as the Son of the Father The first clue to our understanding of Jesus’ relationship to God comes in the way he referred to him. There is widespread agreement among scholars that Jesus addressed God as Father.5 Although not entirely unprecedented,6 his practice appears to have made such an impression on the hearers that the Aramaic term, ’abba, is preserved even in writings intended for a ­Greek-speaking audience (Mk 14.36; cf. Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6).7 Compared to his contemporaries, therefore, it appears that Jesus had a heightened sense of a filial relationship with God. But there is nothing in his address to the Father that clearly shows him to have an essentially different relationship with God than what is possible

4.  C. Drew Smith sees Jesus here as the “authoritative representative of God” (“‘This is My Beloved Son; Listen to Him’: Theology and Christology in the Gospel of Mark,” HBT 24 [2002]: 79). 5. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 320. The Jesus seminar gave an unusual red vote to the opening “Our Father” of the Lord’s Prayer, finding in the word ’abba the authentic words of Jesus (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 148–49, 325–27). 6.  Joachim Jeremias famously claimed that this form of address to God was unprecedented in a Jewish context and unique to Jesus (Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966], 15–33). Joseph Fitzmyer later confirmed his findings. He observed that, while God could be referred to as “Father” in statements (Sir. 51.10; Tob. 13.4; Jub. 1.24-25, 28; 19.29; 1QH 17.35-36), there was no firm evidence that he was so addressed in Hebrew or Aramaic prayers. The example in Sir. 23.1, 4 reads differently in the Hebrew text (“Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” in À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, LD 123 [Paris: Cerf, 1985], 25–28). But the publication of the findings of Cave 4 from Qumran has changed this picture. In two prayers, God is addressed as “my Father” (4Q372 1.16; 4Q460 5.i.5) 7.  The account of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14.36) is usually considered not to be authentic. But see Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 17–20.

171

8.  Bornkamm observes that Jesus appears to distinguish his own relationship to the Father from that of his disciples. Jesus speaks of “my Father” and “your Father,” but never of “our Father” (Jesus, 128–29). However, it would be an argument from silence to draw any conclusions on the basis of this observation. Cf. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 25. 9. Jeremias, Parables, 70–73; Dodd, The Parables, 96–102; Bas M. F. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten, NovTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 129–43; Frankemölle, “Christologische Implikationen,” 196–200; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 35; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 221–22; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 1278–81; Hultgren, Parables, 360–62; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 216–30. The Jesus seminar deemed the version in the Gospel of Thomas, with its lack of allegorical traits, to be the most authentic and gave it a pink rating, whereas the versions in the Synoptic Gospels were voted gray (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 510–11, 100–101, 234–35, 377–78; similarly John Dominic Crossan, In Parables [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], 89–94). Some scholars have judged the parable as secondary in its entirety, e.g.: Bultmann, Geschichte, 191; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 83; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 148. Several are undecided, e.g. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 177–78; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 36–37. 10. Dodd, The Parables, 100–101; Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 35–36. 11. Manson, Teaching, 104; Oskar Skarsaune, “We Have Found the Messiah! Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity,” Mishkan 45 (2005): 8. Van Iersel objects that the identification of the servants as prophets belongs to a later stage in the transmission of the parable. The distinction between Jesus and the prophets can therefore not have been part of the original intention (Teaching, 144–45). However, this interpretation does not depend on an identification of the servants, but on the observation that the parable singles out the son and shows him to have a unique relationship with the vineyard owner. To understand the term “son” as a designation

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

This qualitatively outstanding relationship is also reflected in the saying about the son’s ignorance. In his Olivet discourse, Jesus explains: “about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk 13.32 par.). Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this saying, however.12 Some consider it unlikely that Jesus would have referred to himself as “the son.” But given his heightened awareness of God’s fatherhood and the evidence from the parable of the wicked tenants, this objection cannot be conclusive. Carrying more weight is the observation that the saying appears to presuppose a setting in the early church, when the time of the parousia became an increasingly pressing issue. But the arguments for authenticity are stronger. Many scholars have observed that the early church would probably not have created a saying that downplays Jesus’ uniqueness and attributes him with ignorance.13 The difficult nature of the saying appears

to be reflected in the textual transmission of the Matthean parallel (24.37), where the majority of the witnesses, including the first corrector of Sinaiticus, have omitted the words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. A few copies of Mark’s Gospel testify to the same omission. Luke did not include the saying. It is most likely, therefore, that this saying goes back to the historical Jesus. Even though Jesus here makes a clear statement regarding his submission to the Father (cf. further below), he also singles himself out as closer to God than everyone else. There is a crescendo in Jesus’ words, beginning with “no one,” continuing with “not even the angels” and “nor the Son,” and concluding with “only the Father.” Jesus stands above the angels in this hierarchy, second in rank to the Father.14 There is no evidence in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus explicitly used the title “Son of God” to refer to himself, but his absolute use of the title “son” describes his relationship to God as his father.15 However, a claim to divine sonship would not have been exceptional in a Jewish context. In the Scriptures of Israel, angels and heavenly beings (Ps. 29.1; 89.7; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Dan. 3.25) as well as Israel (Exod. 4.22-23; Jer. 31.9, 20; Hos. 11.1) and the king (2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chron. 17.13; 22.10; 28.6; Ps. 2.7; 89.27) could be referred to as sons of God.16 In 1 En. 105.2, God mentions his son, but the text does not make clear who that son is. Scholarly guesses include the Messiah and Enoch himself.17 In later texts, the Messiah was addressed by God as “my Son” (4 Ezra 7.28-29; 13.32, 37, 52; 14.9; cf. T. Levi 4.2), and the Messianic Rule from Qumran describes God’s begetting of the Messiah (1QSa 2.11-12).

172

of the prophets is to ignore the qualitative distinction the parable introduces (contra Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 218). One does not do full justice to the parable when it is seen as an expression of Jesus’ prophetic consciousness, therefore (pace Frankemölle, “Christologische Implikationen,” 204). 12.  E.g., Bultmann, Geschichte, 130; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 328–29; Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 131, n. 1; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 310; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 207; Lindars, Son of Man, 112–13; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 212–13. 13.  Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd edn (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 522; van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 117–20; Jacques Winandy, “Le logion de l’ignorance (Mc, XIII, 32; Mt., XXIV, 36),” RB 75 (1968): 63; Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 229–31; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, 169; Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 914. This difficulty has led several scholars to postulate an original saying of Jesus that did not include the son title (Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 40–42; Bornkamm, Jesus, 226; Jeremias, Abba, 40; Eduard Schweizer in Peter Wülfing von Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” in TDNT, 8.372; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 378–79). The Jesus Seminar reports being of divided mind with respect to this saying. They do not think that Jesus would have referred to himself as “the son” or that he would have made chronological predictions regarding the end. But they also acknowledge the difficulty of seeing the ­post-Easter community responsible for a saying about Jesus’ ignorance. They find it likely that Jesus could have made a statement like this regarding the fall of the temple, but that the wording was unlikely to be his own (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 114). The problems are only exacerbated, however, if one postulates that the church took an original saying about Jesus’ ignorance and inserted the exalted “son” title. Cf. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 118. C. K. Barrett counters that “the description of Jesus by the most honorific title available would be precisely the sort of compensation that tradition would introduce” (Jesus and the Gospel Tradition [London, 1967], 25–26; followed by Vermes, Jesus, ‘200–201). This explanation is conjectural. Moreover, the emendation envisioned here does not amount to a compensation, but heightens the tension.

173

14.  Ben Witherington, III, The Gospel of Mark: A ­Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 349; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 940. Van Iersel concludes that this saying implies a superhuman nature (“übermenschliche Existenz”) on Jesus’ part (‘Der Sohn’, 123). Aquila Lee maintains that the closeness between the Father and Son “implies a divine sonship of a unique personal relationship to the Father” (From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ S­ elf-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms, WUNT II/192 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 146). These inferences, however, are unwarranted. A knowledge that surpasses that of the angels need not imply that someone is more than human. According to 1 Pet. 1.12, the angels do not share the believers’ knowledge of the gospel. 15.  Hahn distinguishes between the two titles, “Son of God” and “Son.” He sees “Son of God” originating as a messianic title, whereas the title “Son” developed out of Jesus’ relationship to God as his father (Christologische Hoheitstitel, 328–29). 16.  For the history of religions background, see especially Hengel, Son of God, 21–56. 17. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

This qualitatively outstanding relationship is also reflected in the saying about the son’s ignorance. In his Olivet discourse, Jesus explains: “about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk 13.32 par.). Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this saying, however.12 Some consider it unlikely that Jesus would have referred to himself as “the son.” But given his heightened awareness of God’s fatherhood and the evidence from the parable of the wicked tenants, this objection cannot be conclusive. Carrying more weight is the observation that the saying appears to presuppose a setting in the early church, when the time of the parousia became an increasingly pressing issue. But the arguments for authenticity are stronger. Many scholars have observed that the early church would probably not have created a saying that downplays Jesus’ uniqueness and attributes him with ignorance.13 The difficult nature of the saying appears

to be reflected in the textual transmission of the Matthean parallel (24.37), where the majority of the witnesses, including the first corrector of Sinaiticus, have omitted the words οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. A few copies of Mark’s Gospel testify to the same omission. Luke did not include the saying. It is most likely, therefore, that this saying goes back to the historical Jesus. Even though Jesus here makes a clear statement regarding his submission to the Father (cf. further below), he also singles himself out as closer to God than everyone else. There is a crescendo in Jesus’ words, beginning with “no one,” continuing with “not even the angels” and “nor the Son,” and concluding with “only the Father.” Jesus stands above the angels in this hierarchy, second in rank to the Father.14 There is no evidence in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus explicitly used the title “Son of God” to refer to himself, but his absolute use of the title “son” describes his relationship to God as his father.15 However, a claim to divine sonship would not have been exceptional in a Jewish context. In the Scriptures of Israel, angels and heavenly beings (Ps. 29.1; 89.7; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Dan. 3.25) as well as Israel (Exod. 4.22-23; Jer. 31.9, 20; Hos. 11.1) and the king (2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Chron. 17.13; 22.10; 28.6; Ps. 2.7; 89.27) could be referred to as sons of God.16 In 1 En. 105.2, God mentions his son, but the text does not make clear who that son is. Scholarly guesses include the Messiah and Enoch himself.17 In later texts, the Messiah was addressed by God as “my Son” (4 Ezra 7.28-29; 13.32, 37, 52; 14.9; cf. T. Levi 4.2), and the Messianic Rule from Qumran describes God’s begetting of the Messiah (1QSa 2.11-12).

172

of the prophets is to ignore the qualitative distinction the parable introduces (contra Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 218). One does not do full justice to the parable when it is seen as an expression of Jesus’ prophetic consciousness, therefore (pace Frankemölle, “Christologische Implikationen,” 204). 12.  E.g., Bultmann, Geschichte, 130; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 328–29; Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 131, n. 1; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 310; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 207; Lindars, Son of Man, 112–13; Luz, Matthew 21–28, 212–13. 13.  Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd edn (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 522; van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 117–20; Jacques Winandy, “Le logion de l’ignorance (Mc, XIII, 32; Mt., XXIV, 36),” RB 75 (1968): 63; Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 229–31; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, 169; Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 914. This difficulty has led several scholars to postulate an original saying of Jesus that did not include the son title (Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 40–42; Bornkamm, Jesus, 226; Jeremias, Abba, 40; Eduard Schweizer in Peter Wülfing von Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” in TDNT, 8.372; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 378–79). The Jesus Seminar reports being of divided mind with respect to this saying. They do not think that Jesus would have referred to himself as “the son” or that he would have made chronological predictions regarding the end. But they also acknowledge the difficulty of seeing the ­post-Easter community responsible for a saying about Jesus’ ignorance. They find it likely that Jesus could have made a statement like this regarding the fall of the temple, but that the wording was unlikely to be his own (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 114). The problems are only exacerbated, however, if one postulates that the church took an original saying about Jesus’ ignorance and inserted the exalted “son” title. Cf. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 118. C. K. Barrett counters that “the description of Jesus by the most honorific title available would be precisely the sort of compensation that tradition would introduce” (Jesus and the Gospel Tradition [London, 1967], 25–26; followed by Vermes, Jesus, ‘200–201). This explanation is conjectural. Moreover, the emendation envisioned here does not amount to a compensation, but heightens the tension.

173

14.  Ben Witherington, III, The Gospel of Mark: A ­Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 349; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 940. Van Iersel concludes that this saying implies a superhuman nature (“übermenschliche Existenz”) on Jesus’ part (‘Der Sohn’, 123). Aquila Lee maintains that the closeness between the Father and Son “implies a divine sonship of a unique personal relationship to the Father” (From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ S­ elf-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms, WUNT II/192 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 146). These inferences, however, are unwarranted. A knowledge that surpasses that of the angels need not imply that someone is more than human. According to 1 Pet. 1.12, the angels do not share the believers’ knowledge of the gospel. 15.  Hahn distinguishes between the two titles, “Son of God” and “Son.” He sees “Son of God” originating as a messianic title, whereas the title “Son” developed out of Jesus’ relationship to God as his father (Christologische Hoheitstitel, 328–29). 16.  For the history of religions background, see especially Hengel, Son of God, 21–56. 17. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

In 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), we find an interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.12-14 where the person who God calls his son is identified as the “branch of David” (another messianic title).18 As for what Jesus meant when he referred to himself as the son, the evidence from Mk 12.6 par.; 13.32 par. does not tie the title directly to Messiahship. Jesus’ language does suggest that he saw himself in a closer relationship with God than anyone else, and that he was next to God in the heavenly hierarchy. As the Son, Jesus also deferred to the Father and submitted to him. Jesus’ understanding of sonship appears to stand in some tension with his insistence that his authority matches that of God.

It is also maintained that the saying reflects an identification of Jesus with Wisdom and therefore presupposes a later stage of Christological development. The revelation language has many parallels in Hellenistic sources and is thought to be alien to a Jewish context and to have originated in the Hellenistic church. Jesus’ language here is also unparalleled in the Synoptic Gospels and is thought to be more at home in the Johannine tradition (cf. Jn 3.35; 7.29; 10.15; 13.3). Although Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 may go back to the historical Jesus, Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 appears to be a later addition. Whereas vv. 25-26 are a prayer, v. 27 is a statement about knowledge and revelation of the Father. It has the character of a commentary on the preceding verses. Moreover, the way Jesus explicitly lays claim to authority, rather than assumes it, also differs from the pattern that is known from the authentic tradition. Finally, a different setting is detected in Mt. 11.27 as compared to 11.25-26. Whereas vv. 25-26 attribute revelation simply to “the infants,” v. 27 attributes it to the elect. A setting in the early church may account for this change. But these arguments are not conclusive. The objection against the use of the son title only has weight if Mk 13.32 par. be deemed inauthentic, which is unlikely (cf. above). As for the background of the saying, it is now clear that it is more likely to be found in Jewish Wisdom traditions.20 Wisdom ideas

174

The Unique Son (Lk. 10.21-22/Mt. 11.25-27) This tension is not fully resolved, but there is one instance where Jesus explains his understanding of sonship in a little more detail. That is the saying about the mutual and exclusive knowledge of the Father and the Son. Luke and Matthew have preserved the saying with almost perfect agreement. According to Matthew, Jesus says: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11.25-27).

Authenticity However, this claim to uniqueness on Jesus’ part is judged to be inauthentic by many scholars.19 Jesus’ use of the title “son” is deemed uncharacteristic. 18.  Joseph Fitzmyer maintains that the title Son of God was never linked with the Messiah in ­pre-Christian Judaism (Luke [I-IX], 206, 338). He is correct that the two titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” do not occur together. The two motifs are nevertheless combined in some texts, and both titles may be used for a Davidic figure. 19.  Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, reprint, 1913 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 303–8; Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus, 2nd edn, FRLANT 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 45–50; Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 2nd edn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 280–84; Bultmann, Geschichte, 171–72; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 40–43; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 321–24; Vermes, Jesus, 201; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium,

175

vol. 1, 441; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 182. Some scholars think that Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 are authentic, but Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 a later commentary. See Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT 3/2/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 107–8, 115–19; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 164. Critics that conclude in favor of the authenticity of Mt. 11.2527/Lk. 10.21-22 include: Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, 2nd edn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958), 292–94; A. M. Hunter, “Crux Criticorum—Matt. 11.25–30,” NTS 8 (1962): 242–45; van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 151–57; Jeremias, Abba, 47–50; Schweizer in Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” 8.373; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 336–37; Gundry, Matthew, 218; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 870; Adelbert Denaux, “The Q-Logion Mt 11,27 / Lk 10,22 and the Gospel of John,” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, BETL101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 172; Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 570; Lee, Preexistent Son, 137–42. Some remain undecided, e.g. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 28–34; Simon Légasse, “Le logion sur le Fils révélateur (Mt., XI, 27 par. Lc., X, 22): Essai d’analyse prérédactionelle,” in La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes, ed. Joseph Coppens, BETL 41 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976), 269–73; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 20.  As Jeremias has shown, the language of the saying also betrays Semitic influence, indicating that its origin was in a Palestinian context. He points out that the pairing of οὐδείς and εἰ μή as well as οὐδέ and εἰ μή correspond to the Aramaic ‫ לית‬. . . ‫אלא‬, and the use of ἀποκαλύπτω with the meaning “reveal” is unusual in Greek. As characteristics of Semitic style, he points to the use of asyndeton in the beginning of v. 27, the repetition of the same verb in

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

In 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), we find an interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.12-14 where the person who God calls his son is identified as the “branch of David” (another messianic title).18 As for what Jesus meant when he referred to himself as the son, the evidence from Mk 12.6 par.; 13.32 par. does not tie the title directly to Messiahship. Jesus’ language does suggest that he saw himself in a closer relationship with God than anyone else, and that he was next to God in the heavenly hierarchy. As the Son, Jesus also deferred to the Father and submitted to him. Jesus’ understanding of sonship appears to stand in some tension with his insistence that his authority matches that of God.

It is also maintained that the saying reflects an identification of Jesus with Wisdom and therefore presupposes a later stage of Christological development. The revelation language has many parallels in Hellenistic sources and is thought to be alien to a Jewish context and to have originated in the Hellenistic church. Jesus’ language here is also unparalleled in the Synoptic Gospels and is thought to be more at home in the Johannine tradition (cf. Jn 3.35; 7.29; 10.15; 13.3). Although Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 may go back to the historical Jesus, Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 appears to be a later addition. Whereas vv. 25-26 are a prayer, v. 27 is a statement about knowledge and revelation of the Father. It has the character of a commentary on the preceding verses. Moreover, the way Jesus explicitly lays claim to authority, rather than assumes it, also differs from the pattern that is known from the authentic tradition. Finally, a different setting is detected in Mt. 11.27 as compared to 11.25-26. Whereas vv. 25-26 attribute revelation simply to “the infants,” v. 27 attributes it to the elect. A setting in the early church may account for this change. But these arguments are not conclusive. The objection against the use of the son title only has weight if Mk 13.32 par. be deemed inauthentic, which is unlikely (cf. above). As for the background of the saying, it is now clear that it is more likely to be found in Jewish Wisdom traditions.20 Wisdom ideas

174

The Unique Son (Lk. 10.21-22/Mt. 11.25-27) This tension is not fully resolved, but there is one instance where Jesus explains his understanding of sonship in a little more detail. That is the saying about the mutual and exclusive knowledge of the Father and the Son. Luke and Matthew have preserved the saying with almost perfect agreement. According to Matthew, Jesus says: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11.25-27).

Authenticity However, this claim to uniqueness on Jesus’ part is judged to be inauthentic by many scholars.19 Jesus’ use of the title “son” is deemed uncharacteristic. 18.  Joseph Fitzmyer maintains that the title Son of God was never linked with the Messiah in ­pre-Christian Judaism (Luke [I-IX], 206, 338). He is correct that the two titles “Messiah” and “Son of God” do not occur together. The two motifs are nevertheless combined in some texts, and both titles may be used for a Davidic figure. 19.  Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede, reprint, 1913 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 303–8; Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus, 2nd edn, FRLANT 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921), 45–50; Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 2nd edn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 280–84; Bultmann, Geschichte, 171–72; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 40–43; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 321–24; Vermes, Jesus, 201; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium,

175

vol. 1, 441; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 182. Some scholars think that Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 are authentic, but Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 a later commentary. See Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, HTKNT 3/2/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 107–8, 115–19; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 164. Critics that conclude in favor of the authenticity of Mt. 11.2527/Lk. 10.21-22 include: Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, 2nd edn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958), 292–94; A. M. Hunter, “Crux Criticorum—Matt. 11.25–30,” NTS 8 (1962): 242–45; van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 151–57; Jeremias, Abba, 47–50; Schweizer in Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” 8.373; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 336–37; Gundry, Matthew, 218; Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 870; Adelbert Denaux, “The Q-Logion Mt 11,27 / Lk 10,22 and the Gospel of John,” in John and the Synoptics, ed. Adelbert Denaux, BETL101 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 172; Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, 570; Lee, Preexistent Son, 137–42. Some remain undecided, e.g. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 28–34; Simon Légasse, “Le logion sur le Fils révélateur (Mt., XI, 27 par. Lc., X, 22): Essai d’analyse prérédactionelle,” in La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes, ed. Joseph Coppens, BETL 41 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976), 269–73; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 20.  As Jeremias has shown, the language of the saying also betrays Semitic influence, indicating that its origin was in a Palestinian context. He points out that the pairing of οὐδείς and εἰ μή as well as οὐδέ and εἰ μή correspond to the Aramaic ‫ לית‬. . . ‫אלא‬, and the use of ἀποκαλύπτω with the meaning “reveal” is unusual in Greek. As characteristics of Semitic style, he points to the use of asyndeton in the beginning of v. 27, the repetition of the same verb in

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

are not developed to the point of identifying Jesus and Wisdom, however (cf. below). The question of the stage of theological development is therefore merely a question of whether Jesus could have appropriated Wisdom language to describe his relationship to the Father. It would be circular reasoning to deny the authenticity of Jesus’ use of Wisdom language for himself on the basis that Jesus could not have used Wisdom language in such a way. If the saying is as closely related to the Gospel of John as has been maintained (but cf. below), the best explanation is that one of the sources of influence for the Johannine tradition has been found in this saying.21 John’s Gospel is usually dated much later than the double tradition of Matthew and Luke. To postulate a Johannine influence on the double tradition is to turn things upside down. The different form and character of Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 and Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 may indicate that these verses were not originally a unity, but it does not follow that they cannot be authentic. In any case, Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 can hardly be explained as having originated in the community as a commentary on the dominical saying in Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21. In Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21, the Father dispenses revelation, but in Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 the dispenser of revelation is the Son. It is also misguided to see an explicit claim to authority in Jesus’ words. The saying is not primarily about authority, but about knowledge (cf. further below). Moreover, the point of Jesus’ statement is not to make a claim for himself, but to explain how the disciples can know the Father. The argument that there is a church setting behind Mt. 11.27 is the strongest argument against authenticity. On closer inspection, however, it can be seen that the form of Mt. 11.27 is more at home in the setting of the earthly Jesus than in that of the early church. According to this verse, Jesus is the one who reveals the Father. As far as the available evidence goes, the p­ ost-Easter community did not envision him in quite the same role. His role was now that of

being revealed (Acts 26.16; 1 Cor. 1.7; Gal. 1.16; 3.23; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Tim. 3.16; 6.14; 2 Tim. 1.10; 4.1, 8; Heb. 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13, 20; 5.4; 1 Jn 1.2; 2.28; 3.2, 5, 8). The role of revealer was instead seen to have been taken over by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2.10). The theme of the Son’s revelation of the Father has been compared to the theology of John, where Jesus is the only one who can reveal God (1.14-18).22 The difference is considerable, however. In the Gospel of John, Jesus does not reveal God, as he does in Mt. 11.27. He reveals himself and his glory (2.11; 14.21, 22; 21.1, 14). Because he is equal to God, Jesus’ s­ elf-revelation is a revelation of God. The one who has seen the Son has seen the Father (14.9); the Son has been given the name of the Father (17.12) and reveals that name to his people (17.6). When he makes the Father known (1.18), it is because he himself is the only God (μονογενὴς θεός). His act of making the Father known (1.18) is therefore also an act of showing his own glory (1.14). The thrust of Mt. 11.27 is quite different: it does not stress the equality of the Son and the Father, but their exclusive relationship. The Son’s revelation of the Father is not a consequence of Jesus’ ­self-revelation, but a consequence of his exclusive knowledge. Jesus’ role in Mt. 11.27 is not the role the ­post-Easter community attributed to the Son; it is the role they attributed to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the saying is consistent with what we know about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. He thought of himself as being in an unusually intimate relationship with God, whom he addressed as his father. Davies and Allison also point out that the saying stands in some tension with the early Christian tradition that all believers know the Father (Jn 14.7; 17.3).23 It is therefore less likely that this saying stems from the early church than from the historical Jesus.24

176

the second and third sentence, as well as the parallelism due to the lack of a reciprocal pronoun in the same sentences (Abba, 48). Cf. also Gundry, Matthew, 2118. 21.  Lucien Cerfaux observes that the language of the saying is not characteristic of the Gospel of John. He points to the use of ­un-Johannine vocabulary such as παραδίδωμι, ἐπιγινώσκω, and ἀποκαλύπτω (“L’Évangile de Jean et le ‘logion johannique’ des Synoptiques,” in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d’Exégèse et d’Histoire Religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux réunies à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-dixième anniversaire, vol. 3, BETL 18 [Gembloux, France: Duculot, 1954], 161–62). Cf. also van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 156; Maurits Sabbe, “Can Mt 11,27 and Lk 10,22 Be Called a Johannine Logion?” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 365–71.

177

22.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 23.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 24.  A distinct ideological bias against the leaders of the early church must be detected behind the verdict of the Jesus Seminar regarding the authenticity of Lk. 10.21-22: “Secret teaching passed on only to those in the inner circle would have been inimical to the openness and inclusiveness that was characteristic of Jesus, but it would have been congenial to the leaders of the new movement, whose positions of authority were made secure by the special knowledge they professed to possess” (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 322). There is no evidence that the leaders of the early church secured their position by claims to special knowledge. On the contrary, Paul elevated the authority of the basic gospel above apostolic authority (Gal. 1.8). “The perfect,” with whom he attributes the ability to discern all things (1 Cor. 2.15), most likely refers to all Christians (cf. Sigurd Grindheim, “Wisdom

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

are not developed to the point of identifying Jesus and Wisdom, however (cf. below). The question of the stage of theological development is therefore merely a question of whether Jesus could have appropriated Wisdom language to describe his relationship to the Father. It would be circular reasoning to deny the authenticity of Jesus’ use of Wisdom language for himself on the basis that Jesus could not have used Wisdom language in such a way. If the saying is as closely related to the Gospel of John as has been maintained (but cf. below), the best explanation is that one of the sources of influence for the Johannine tradition has been found in this saying.21 John’s Gospel is usually dated much later than the double tradition of Matthew and Luke. To postulate a Johannine influence on the double tradition is to turn things upside down. The different form and character of Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21 and Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 may indicate that these verses were not originally a unity, but it does not follow that they cannot be authentic. In any case, Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 can hardly be explained as having originated in the community as a commentary on the dominical saying in Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21. In Mt. 11.25-26/Lk. 10.21, the Father dispenses revelation, but in Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22 the dispenser of revelation is the Son. It is also misguided to see an explicit claim to authority in Jesus’ words. The saying is not primarily about authority, but about knowledge (cf. further below). Moreover, the point of Jesus’ statement is not to make a claim for himself, but to explain how the disciples can know the Father. The argument that there is a church setting behind Mt. 11.27 is the strongest argument against authenticity. On closer inspection, however, it can be seen that the form of Mt. 11.27 is more at home in the setting of the earthly Jesus than in that of the early church. According to this verse, Jesus is the one who reveals the Father. As far as the available evidence goes, the p­ ost-Easter community did not envision him in quite the same role. His role was now that of

being revealed (Acts 26.16; 1 Cor. 1.7; Gal. 1.16; 3.23; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Tim. 3.16; 6.14; 2 Tim. 1.10; 4.1, 8; Heb. 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.7, 13, 20; 5.4; 1 Jn 1.2; 2.28; 3.2, 5, 8). The role of revealer was instead seen to have been taken over by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2.10). The theme of the Son’s revelation of the Father has been compared to the theology of John, where Jesus is the only one who can reveal God (1.14-18).22 The difference is considerable, however. In the Gospel of John, Jesus does not reveal God, as he does in Mt. 11.27. He reveals himself and his glory (2.11; 14.21, 22; 21.1, 14). Because he is equal to God, Jesus’ s­ elf-revelation is a revelation of God. The one who has seen the Son has seen the Father (14.9); the Son has been given the name of the Father (17.12) and reveals that name to his people (17.6). When he makes the Father known (1.18), it is because he himself is the only God (μονογενὴς θεός). His act of making the Father known (1.18) is therefore also an act of showing his own glory (1.14). The thrust of Mt. 11.27 is quite different: it does not stress the equality of the Son and the Father, but their exclusive relationship. The Son’s revelation of the Father is not a consequence of Jesus’ ­self-revelation, but a consequence of his exclusive knowledge. Jesus’ role in Mt. 11.27 is not the role the ­post-Easter community attributed to the Son; it is the role they attributed to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the saying is consistent with what we know about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding. He thought of himself as being in an unusually intimate relationship with God, whom he addressed as his father. Davies and Allison also point out that the saying stands in some tension with the early Christian tradition that all believers know the Father (Jn 14.7; 17.3).23 It is therefore less likely that this saying stems from the early church than from the historical Jesus.24

176

the second and third sentence, as well as the parallelism due to the lack of a reciprocal pronoun in the same sentences (Abba, 48). Cf. also Gundry, Matthew, 2118. 21.  Lucien Cerfaux observes that the language of the saying is not characteristic of the Gospel of John. He points to the use of ­un-Johannine vocabulary such as παραδίδωμι, ἐπιγινώσκω, and ἀποκαλύπτω (“L’Évangile de Jean et le ‘logion johannique’ des Synoptiques,” in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d’Exégèse et d’Histoire Religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux réunies à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-dixième anniversaire, vol. 3, BETL 18 [Gembloux, France: Duculot, 1954], 161–62). Cf. also van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’, 156; Maurits Sabbe, “Can Mt 11,27 and Lk 10,22 Be Called a Johannine Logion?” in Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel, BETL 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 365–71.

177

22.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 23.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 283. 24.  A distinct ideological bias against the leaders of the early church must be detected behind the verdict of the Jesus Seminar regarding the authenticity of Lk. 10.21-22: “Secret teaching passed on only to those in the inner circle would have been inimical to the openness and inclusiveness that was characteristic of Jesus, but it would have been congenial to the leaders of the new movement, whose positions of authority were made secure by the special knowledge they professed to possess” (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 322). There is no evidence that the leaders of the early church secured their position by claims to special knowledge. On the contrary, Paul elevated the authority of the basic gospel above apostolic authority (Gal. 1.8). “The perfect,” with whom he attributes the ability to discern all things (1 Cor. 2.15), most likely refers to all Christians (cf. Sigurd Grindheim, “Wisdom

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

Context But if it is difficult to be certain whether Jesus is responsible for this saying, it is not any easier to decide what he may have meant by it. The interpretation is complicated by the fact that we do not know its original context. In Matthew, the saying about exclusive knowledge is followed by an invitation to the weary to come to Jesus (11.28-30), a saying with clear Wisdom themes.25 But Luke has instead combined it with a blessing on the disciples for seeing what they see (10.23-24). In addition comes the fact that the form of Mt. 11.25-26 differs markedly from that of 11.27. Verses 25-26 are a prayer, but v. 27 makes a statement about knowledge and revelation. Many scholars therefore follow Bultmann in concluding that these verses were not originally a unity.26 Caution is necessary, therefore, in the interpretation of this saying. The precise connotations of the words as they were originally spoken elude us. But even though it is impossible to explain the exact nature of the relationship that comes to expression in the saying, it is clear that the inherent claim is formidable. Jesus maintains not only that he is the only one who knows the Father

and the one who dispenses knowledge about him, but that no one except the Father knows him.

178

for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church [1 Corinthians 2:6–16],” JBL 121 [2002]: 704–9). The First Letter of John challenges any claim to special knowledge by assuring the believers that they “have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge” (1 Jn 2.20). They therefore need no one to teach them, as “his anointing teaches you about all things” (1 Jn 2.27). The most exalted description of the apostles is perhaps found in the Letter to the Ephesians where they are hailed as the foundation of the church (2.20), and Paul is attributed with a special insight into God’s mystery (3.3-4), which was previously unknown (Eph. 3.5). This theme is however balanced with the more egalitarian idea that everyone shares this insight into the mystery (3.9) and the prayer that all may excel in knowledge and be filled with the fullness of God (3.18-19). 25.  The invitation to come (Sir. 24.19; 51.30), to find rest (Sir. 6.28; cf. 22.13; 51.27), and to take on the yoke (Sir. 51.26) was also used in Jewish Wisdom traditions. Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 283–84; Wilckens in Ulrich Wilckens and Georg Fohrer, “σοφία κτλ,” in TDNT, 7.516–17; Suggs, Wisdom, 96; Felix Christ, Jesus Sophia: Die S­ ophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern, ATANT 57 (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 110–12; Celia Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30, JSNTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 114–18, 130–39; Ben Witherington, III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 202–8; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 150. 26.  Geschichte, 171–72 Similarly, e.g. Légasse, “Le Fils révélateur,” 247–49; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 198; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, 115; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 157–58. Van Iersel has suggested that Mt. 11.27 par. is the response to the question regarding Jesus’ authority (Mk 6.2), but that is no more than speculation (‘Der Sohn’, 153–57).

179

Moses Traditions Scholars have made various suggestions regarding the background of this claim to exclusive knowledge of the Father, but none of them is a perfect fit.27 Working from the context of Matthew’s Gospel, Dale Allison argues forcefully that Jesus here can be understood as the new Moses. Moses’ humility (cf. Mt. 11.29) was exceptional, and he enjoyed a closer relationship to God than anyone else (Exod. 33.11-23; Num. 12.1-8; Deut. 34.9-12; cf. Sir. 43.3-5; Philo, Leg. 3.100-103; Her. 262). Just as Moses received a revelation and handed it over to Israel, so did Jesus receive the revelation of all things from the Father and passed it on to his disciples. The verb παραδίδωμι in v. 27 is a technical term for the handing over of tradition, and Allison points out that Moses received the Torah from God and started the chain of tradition (Deut. 10.4 LXX; Sir. 45.5; L.A.B. 11.2; m. Abot 1.1).28 This is not a true parallel, however. The Greek word that is used in these texts for God’s giving the Torah to Moses is δίδωμι, not παραδίδωμι, which is found in Mt. 11.27. Whereas παραδίδωμι denotes a horizontal relationship,29 δίδωμι is a broader term. But more important than verbal correspondence are the conceptual differences that are presupposed in the context. The revelatory link in the Mosaic chain of tradition is the act of God, who sovereignly chooses to break through the divine–human barrier and give his law to Moses. The revelatory link in Mt. 11.27 that is comparable to the one between God and Moses is the link between Jesus and his disciples.30 Accordingly, there is a terminological distinction between the relationship between Jesus and the Father on the one hand and the relationship between Jesus and the disciples

27.  Jeremias has suggested that the saying should be understood as a proverb that is generically true about fathers and sons: no one knows a son except the father, and no one knows a father except the son (Abba, 49–50). That may or may not be the background of the second and third sentences of the saying, but it does not explain the form it has in Mt. 11.27/ Lk. 10.22. Jesus not only claims to know the Father, but to be the one who chooses to whom he will reveal him, because all things have been handed over to him by his Father. 28. Allison, The New Moses, 218–33. 29. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 166. 30.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, “Abba,” 36; Hunter, “Matt. 11.25–30,” 246.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

Context But if it is difficult to be certain whether Jesus is responsible for this saying, it is not any easier to decide what he may have meant by it. The interpretation is complicated by the fact that we do not know its original context. In Matthew, the saying about exclusive knowledge is followed by an invitation to the weary to come to Jesus (11.28-30), a saying with clear Wisdom themes.25 But Luke has instead combined it with a blessing on the disciples for seeing what they see (10.23-24). In addition comes the fact that the form of Mt. 11.25-26 differs markedly from that of 11.27. Verses 25-26 are a prayer, but v. 27 makes a statement about knowledge and revelation. Many scholars therefore follow Bultmann in concluding that these verses were not originally a unity.26 Caution is necessary, therefore, in the interpretation of this saying. The precise connotations of the words as they were originally spoken elude us. But even though it is impossible to explain the exact nature of the relationship that comes to expression in the saying, it is clear that the inherent claim is formidable. Jesus maintains not only that he is the only one who knows the Father

and the one who dispenses knowledge about him, but that no one except the Father knows him.

178

for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church [1 Corinthians 2:6–16],” JBL 121 [2002]: 704–9). The First Letter of John challenges any claim to special knowledge by assuring the believers that they “have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge” (1 Jn 2.20). They therefore need no one to teach them, as “his anointing teaches you about all things” (1 Jn 2.27). The most exalted description of the apostles is perhaps found in the Letter to the Ephesians where they are hailed as the foundation of the church (2.20), and Paul is attributed with a special insight into God’s mystery (3.3-4), which was previously unknown (Eph. 3.5). This theme is however balanced with the more egalitarian idea that everyone shares this insight into the mystery (3.9) and the prayer that all may excel in knowledge and be filled with the fullness of God (3.18-19). 25.  The invitation to come (Sir. 24.19; 51.30), to find rest (Sir. 6.28; cf. 22.13; 51.27), and to take on the yoke (Sir. 51.26) was also used in Jewish Wisdom traditions. Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 283–84; Wilckens in Ulrich Wilckens and Georg Fohrer, “σοφία κτλ,” in TDNT, 7.516–17; Suggs, Wisdom, 96; Felix Christ, Jesus Sophia: Die S­ ophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern, ATANT 57 (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 110–12; Celia Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30, JSNTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 114–18, 130–39; Ben Witherington, III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 202–8; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 150. 26.  Geschichte, 171–72 Similarly, e.g. Légasse, “Le Fils révélateur,” 247–49; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 198; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, 115; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 157–58. Van Iersel has suggested that Mt. 11.27 par. is the response to the question regarding Jesus’ authority (Mk 6.2), but that is no more than speculation (‘Der Sohn’, 153–57).

179

Moses Traditions Scholars have made various suggestions regarding the background of this claim to exclusive knowledge of the Father, but none of them is a perfect fit.27 Working from the context of Matthew’s Gospel, Dale Allison argues forcefully that Jesus here can be understood as the new Moses. Moses’ humility (cf. Mt. 11.29) was exceptional, and he enjoyed a closer relationship to God than anyone else (Exod. 33.11-23; Num. 12.1-8; Deut. 34.9-12; cf. Sir. 43.3-5; Philo, Leg. 3.100-103; Her. 262). Just as Moses received a revelation and handed it over to Israel, so did Jesus receive the revelation of all things from the Father and passed it on to his disciples. The verb παραδίδωμι in v. 27 is a technical term for the handing over of tradition, and Allison points out that Moses received the Torah from God and started the chain of tradition (Deut. 10.4 LXX; Sir. 45.5; L.A.B. 11.2; m. Abot 1.1).28 This is not a true parallel, however. The Greek word that is used in these texts for God’s giving the Torah to Moses is δίδωμι, not παραδίδωμι, which is found in Mt. 11.27. Whereas παραδίδωμι denotes a horizontal relationship,29 δίδωμι is a broader term. But more important than verbal correspondence are the conceptual differences that are presupposed in the context. The revelatory link in the Mosaic chain of tradition is the act of God, who sovereignly chooses to break through the divine–human barrier and give his law to Moses. The revelatory link in Mt. 11.27 that is comparable to the one between God and Moses is the link between Jesus and his disciples.30 Accordingly, there is a terminological distinction between the relationship between Jesus and the Father on the one hand and the relationship between Jesus and the disciples

27.  Jeremias has suggested that the saying should be understood as a proverb that is generically true about fathers and sons: no one knows a son except the father, and no one knows a father except the son (Abba, 49–50). That may or may not be the background of the second and third sentences of the saying, but it does not explain the form it has in Mt. 11.27/ Lk. 10.22. Jesus not only claims to know the Father, but to be the one who chooses to whom he will reveal him, because all things have been handed over to him by his Father. 28. Allison, The New Moses, 218–33. 29. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 166. 30.  Similarly, Fitzmyer, “Abba,” 36; Hunter, “Matt. 11.25–30,” 246.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

on the other. Everything has been handed over (παρεδόθη) to Jesus from the Father, but Jesus reveals (ἀποκαλύψαι) knowledge to those whom he chooses.31 What is striking in Jesus’ words is the reciprocity between himself and the Father. God’s relationship to Moses is described as a ­one-way street: God grants Moses knowledge of him. But in Jesus’ words, not only does the Son know the Father, the Father is also privy to exclusive knowledge of the Son.32 Again, this is where the parallel with Moses breaks down. When Moses is granted exclusive knowledge of God, the exclusiveness of the knowledge has to do with the fact that no one can know God (Exod. 33.20). In Jesus’ words, the Father has been granted an equally exclusive knowledge of the Son. If the parallel with Moses be maintained, the logic requires that God also is given exclusive knowledge of Moses, as no one else can know him. But there is no such reciprocity in the relationship between God and Moses, and the comparison between Jesus and Moses merely shows that Jesus must be seen in a different category than Moses. Jesus’ saying places the Father and the Son on the same level. Ulrich Luz captures it well: “The knowledge here spoken of is knowledge of like by like.”33

to God can be described as that of a son to a father (Exod. 4.22; Jer. 31.9; Hos. 11.1).35 Israel’s knowledge of the Lord is also expected to be shared more broadly (Isa. 11.9; 19.21; Hab. 2.14). On the basis of these parallels, Dunn finds that Jesus in Mt. 11.27 is described as the quintessential, righteous Israelite, a representative of Israel in the last days.36 Dunn’s view is based on the interpretation of “all things” (πάντα) as referring to authority, a view he shares with many scholars.37 In favor of this view, one may point to the parallels with Dan. 7.13-14 and Mt. 28.19, where the Son of Man and Jesus, respectively, are given authority. It is also argued that “all things” refers back to “these things” (ταῦτα) in Mt. 11.25 par., and that the Son’s knowledge of the Father can hardly be the referent of “these things.” Instead, “these things” must refer to Jesus’ authority. These arguments are more impressive on the literary than the historical level. It is not certain that Mt. 11.25-26 and Mt. 11.27 were originally a unit. More importantly, the connection between this saying and the Danielic Son of Man is not very close. The concept of the Son of Man is not mentioned here; it must be inferred on the basis of the “handing over.” The connection to Dan. 7.13-14 is somewhat closer in Mt. 28.18, where Jesus claims that all authority has been given to him. But the saying of the risen Jesus in Mt. 28.19 cannot be used as the basis for our understanding of what the historical Jesus said in Mt. 11.27 par. Moreover, if Jesus alluded to the transferal of authority in Dan. 7.14, this allusion was lost in the process of transmission and translation. Mt. 11.27 par. uses the word παραδίδωμι, whereas the word δίδωμι is used in the Greek versions of Dan. 7.14. The father/son metaphor is also missing from Dan. 7.13-14. In the form that Dan. 7.13-14 and Mt. 11.27 par. have survived, there are no verbal links between them. The saying that makes up the basic unit, Mt. 11.27, consists of four lines: (1) “All things have been handed over to me by my Father”; (2) “and no one knows the Son except the Father”; (3) “and no one knows the Father except the Son”; (4) “and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” The second

180

Israel and the Son of Man This observation militates against the argument of James Dunn as well. Dunn thinks Jesus should be understood here against the background of God’s election of Israel. According to Dunn, the handing over of all things to Jesus corresponds to the giving of all authority to the Son of Man and the holy ones of the Most High in Dan. 7.13-14, 27.34 He also points out that knowledge language may frequently have overtones of election (Gen. 18.19; Exod. 33.12; Num. 16.5 LXX; Jer. 1.5; Hos. 13.5; Amos 3.2) and that Israel’s relationship 31.  This distinction is ignored by John ­Yueh-Han Yieh. Despite the fact that Jesus is never said to be on the receiving end of revelation in the Gospel of Matthew, he concludes that “[b]eing the Son of God, Jesus alone knows the Father and has a direct access to divine revelation in its totality.” (One Teacher, 260, cf. 329). 32.  Johannes Nützel finds here an unprecedented claim (Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften, FB 39 [Würzburg: Echter, 1980], 166). 33. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 168. 34.  Cf. also Paul Hoffmann, “Die Offenbarung des Sohnes: Die apokalyptischen Voraussetzungen und ihre Verarbeitung im Q-Logion Mt 11,27 par Lk 10,22,” Kairos 12 (1970): 274.

181

35.  Similarly, Eduard Schweizer in Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” 8.373. 36. Dunn, Christology, 199–200. 37.  Hoffmann, “Offenbarung des Sohnes,” 273; John S. Kloppenborg, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” LTP 34 (1978): 140–41; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, 110; Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1011–12.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

on the other. Everything has been handed over (παρεδόθη) to Jesus from the Father, but Jesus reveals (ἀποκαλύψαι) knowledge to those whom he chooses.31 What is striking in Jesus’ words is the reciprocity between himself and the Father. God’s relationship to Moses is described as a ­one-way street: God grants Moses knowledge of him. But in Jesus’ words, not only does the Son know the Father, the Father is also privy to exclusive knowledge of the Son.32 Again, this is where the parallel with Moses breaks down. When Moses is granted exclusive knowledge of God, the exclusiveness of the knowledge has to do with the fact that no one can know God (Exod. 33.20). In Jesus’ words, the Father has been granted an equally exclusive knowledge of the Son. If the parallel with Moses be maintained, the logic requires that God also is given exclusive knowledge of Moses, as no one else can know him. But there is no such reciprocity in the relationship between God and Moses, and the comparison between Jesus and Moses merely shows that Jesus must be seen in a different category than Moses. Jesus’ saying places the Father and the Son on the same level. Ulrich Luz captures it well: “The knowledge here spoken of is knowledge of like by like.”33

to God can be described as that of a son to a father (Exod. 4.22; Jer. 31.9; Hos. 11.1).35 Israel’s knowledge of the Lord is also expected to be shared more broadly (Isa. 11.9; 19.21; Hab. 2.14). On the basis of these parallels, Dunn finds that Jesus in Mt. 11.27 is described as the quintessential, righteous Israelite, a representative of Israel in the last days.36 Dunn’s view is based on the interpretation of “all things” (πάντα) as referring to authority, a view he shares with many scholars.37 In favor of this view, one may point to the parallels with Dan. 7.13-14 and Mt. 28.19, where the Son of Man and Jesus, respectively, are given authority. It is also argued that “all things” refers back to “these things” (ταῦτα) in Mt. 11.25 par., and that the Son’s knowledge of the Father can hardly be the referent of “these things.” Instead, “these things” must refer to Jesus’ authority. These arguments are more impressive on the literary than the historical level. It is not certain that Mt. 11.25-26 and Mt. 11.27 were originally a unit. More importantly, the connection between this saying and the Danielic Son of Man is not very close. The concept of the Son of Man is not mentioned here; it must be inferred on the basis of the “handing over.” The connection to Dan. 7.13-14 is somewhat closer in Mt. 28.18, where Jesus claims that all authority has been given to him. But the saying of the risen Jesus in Mt. 28.19 cannot be used as the basis for our understanding of what the historical Jesus said in Mt. 11.27 par. Moreover, if Jesus alluded to the transferal of authority in Dan. 7.14, this allusion was lost in the process of transmission and translation. Mt. 11.27 par. uses the word παραδίδωμι, whereas the word δίδωμι is used in the Greek versions of Dan. 7.14. The father/son metaphor is also missing from Dan. 7.13-14. In the form that Dan. 7.13-14 and Mt. 11.27 par. have survived, there are no verbal links between them. The saying that makes up the basic unit, Mt. 11.27, consists of four lines: (1) “All things have been handed over to me by my Father”; (2) “and no one knows the Son except the Father”; (3) “and no one knows the Father except the Son”; (4) “and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” The second

180

Israel and the Son of Man This observation militates against the argument of James Dunn as well. Dunn thinks Jesus should be understood here against the background of God’s election of Israel. According to Dunn, the handing over of all things to Jesus corresponds to the giving of all authority to the Son of Man and the holy ones of the Most High in Dan. 7.13-14, 27.34 He also points out that knowledge language may frequently have overtones of election (Gen. 18.19; Exod. 33.12; Num. 16.5 LXX; Jer. 1.5; Hos. 13.5; Amos 3.2) and that Israel’s relationship 31.  This distinction is ignored by John ­Yueh-Han Yieh. Despite the fact that Jesus is never said to be on the receiving end of revelation in the Gospel of Matthew, he concludes that “[b]eing the Son of God, Jesus alone knows the Father and has a direct access to divine revelation in its totality.” (One Teacher, 260, cf. 329). 32.  Johannes Nützel finds here an unprecedented claim (Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften, FB 39 [Würzburg: Echter, 1980], 166). 33. Luz, Matthew 8–20, 168. 34.  Cf. also Paul Hoffmann, “Die Offenbarung des Sohnes: Die apokalyptischen Voraussetzungen und ihre Verarbeitung im Q-Logion Mt 11,27 par Lk 10,22,” Kairos 12 (1970): 274.

181

35.  Similarly, Eduard Schweizer in Martitz, et al., “υίός κτλ,” 8.373. 36. Dunn, Christology, 199–200. 37.  Hoffmann, “Offenbarung des Sohnes,” 273; John S. Kloppenborg, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” LTP 34 (1978): 140–41; Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, vol. 2, 110; Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, 1011–12.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

and third of these lines refer to knowledge (“no one knows”), not authority. It is most likely, therefore, that “all things” refers primarily to knowledge.38 If we are justified in reading Mt. 11.27 par. with Mt. 11.25-26 par., perhaps “all things” should be understood comprehensively, to include both knowledge and authority.39 In any case, the Son of Man traditions do not offer a parallel to the exclusive knowledge that the Son has been granted by the Father.40 This saying cannot be explained on the basis of Son of Man Christology, therefore.41 As for the appeal to election language, it is clear that election may be expressed in terms of knowledge and fatherhood, and that exclusivity is a characteristic of election. But these concepts do not explain the focus on reciprocity that is so striking in Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22.42 Because of the reciprocal nature of the saying, the verb “know” must have the same meaning throughout. If the verb refers to election, does the Son choose the Father? And why is the verb in the present tense? Is the verse describing a continuous choosing?43 Dunn also compares Jesus’ revelatory function to that of Israel, who in prophetic texts is said to spread knowledge of God. But again it must be insisted that Israel do not “reveal” God’s nature. In the prophetic texts (Isa. 11.9; 19.21; Hab. 2.14), God is the one who grants knowledge to the Gentiles. In Mt. 11.27/ Lk. 10.22, however, Jesus has taken God’s place. He is the one who dispenses revelation, and he is the one who elects.44

Wisdom The exclusive position that Jesus claims for himself therefore goes beyond the traditions regarding Moses, the Son of Man, and Israel. A more adequate comparison may be made with Jewish wisdom ideas. Jesus’ assurance that no one knows the Son except the Father is paralleled by the conviction that no one but the Lord knows this Wisdom (Job 28.20-28; Sir. 1.6-8; Bar 3.15-35; cf. 1 En. 63.2-3; 84.3). The corresponding claim that no one knows the Father except the Son mirrors the idea of Wisdom’s perfect knowledge of God (Wis. 8.4, 8; 9.4, 9, 11). Also Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive revealer of the Father can be compared to the theme of Wisdom granting knowledge of God (Wis. 7.27; cf. 9.17-18; 10.10; Sir. 4.11-14).45 In a more general way, Jesus’ picture of his intimate knowledge of the Father corresponds to the colorful picture of Wisdom as God’s intimate (Wis. 7.25-26). If the earliest records of Jesus’ words may serve as a guide to their interpretation, the assumption of a Wisdom background is further strengthened. The evangelist Matthew has placed this saying in a context that is rich in allusions to Wisdom traditions.46 However, there are also problems with the view that Jesus has made use of Wisdom traditions. Dunn notes that the Father–Son imagery does not fit Wisdom ideas very well. He observes that it is only the locus of Wisdom – not Wisdom itself – that is hidden from all except God, according to Job 28.20, 23; Sir. 1.6; Bar 3.17, 29-31, 36. Finally, he argues that Wisdom traditions do not provide a good parallel to the idea of the Son as the exclusive revealer of Wisdom.47 These arguments show that Jesus has not merely repeated Wisdom

182

38. Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 874; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 279–80; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 166. 39.  Bo Reicke, “πᾶς κτλ,” in TDNT, 5.895. 40.  Légasse compares this saying to the Son of Man traditions and observes that the mutual exclusive knowledge of the Father and the Son goes beyond what is attributed to the Son of Man in the Enoch tradition. In 1 Enoch, the mysteries of the Son of Man were also made known to the angels and the elect (“Le Fils révélateur,” 258). 41.  Similarly, Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 438–39; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 319; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 164–65. 42.  For the same reason, the comparison with the wise man in the Wis. 2.13, 16, 18 must be deemed inadequate (Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 106). 43. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 439. 44.  Lee observes that “Jesus was conscious of being God’s unique agent who alone mediated the final revelation of God, and thus God’s unique Son” (Preexistent Son, 143).

183

45. Christ, Jesus Sophia, 89–90; similarly Légasse, “Le Fils révélateur,” 259–60; Kloppenborg, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” 144; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 103; idem, Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 56; Frances Taylor Gench, Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997), 117–18. Suggs compares Jesus’ words to the description of the wise man in the Wisdom of Solomon. He finds there a convergence of the ideas of election, eschatological knowledge, the close relationship between father and son, and the failure of human beings to know both the father and the son (Wis. 2.13, 16-18; 4.10, 13-15; 4.20-5.16). See Wisdom, 91–92. The problem with this comparison is similar to the comparison with Moses (cf. above). The wise man in the Wisdom of Solomon does not reveal the Father. 46.  Cf. note 25. 47. Dunn, Christology, 199. Deutsch maintains that sonship imagery and wisdom ideas are combined in the Son of Man character in 1 Enoch (cf. 49.4; 51.3; Hidden Wisdom, 106). But a filial relationship is not implied in the Son of Man character. First Enoch does not describe

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

and third of these lines refer to knowledge (“no one knows”), not authority. It is most likely, therefore, that “all things” refers primarily to knowledge.38 If we are justified in reading Mt. 11.27 par. with Mt. 11.25-26 par., perhaps “all things” should be understood comprehensively, to include both knowledge and authority.39 In any case, the Son of Man traditions do not offer a parallel to the exclusive knowledge that the Son has been granted by the Father.40 This saying cannot be explained on the basis of Son of Man Christology, therefore.41 As for the appeal to election language, it is clear that election may be expressed in terms of knowledge and fatherhood, and that exclusivity is a characteristic of election. But these concepts do not explain the focus on reciprocity that is so striking in Mt. 11.27/Lk. 10.22.42 Because of the reciprocal nature of the saying, the verb “know” must have the same meaning throughout. If the verb refers to election, does the Son choose the Father? And why is the verb in the present tense? Is the verse describing a continuous choosing?43 Dunn also compares Jesus’ revelatory function to that of Israel, who in prophetic texts is said to spread knowledge of God. But again it must be insisted that Israel do not “reveal” God’s nature. In the prophetic texts (Isa. 11.9; 19.21; Hab. 2.14), God is the one who grants knowledge to the Gentiles. In Mt. 11.27/ Lk. 10.22, however, Jesus has taken God’s place. He is the one who dispenses revelation, and he is the one who elects.44

Wisdom The exclusive position that Jesus claims for himself therefore goes beyond the traditions regarding Moses, the Son of Man, and Israel. A more adequate comparison may be made with Jewish wisdom ideas. Jesus’ assurance that no one knows the Son except the Father is paralleled by the conviction that no one but the Lord knows this Wisdom (Job 28.20-28; Sir. 1.6-8; Bar 3.15-35; cf. 1 En. 63.2-3; 84.3). The corresponding claim that no one knows the Father except the Son mirrors the idea of Wisdom’s perfect knowledge of God (Wis. 8.4, 8; 9.4, 9, 11). Also Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive revealer of the Father can be compared to the theme of Wisdom granting knowledge of God (Wis. 7.27; cf. 9.17-18; 10.10; Sir. 4.11-14).45 In a more general way, Jesus’ picture of his intimate knowledge of the Father corresponds to the colorful picture of Wisdom as God’s intimate (Wis. 7.25-26). If the earliest records of Jesus’ words may serve as a guide to their interpretation, the assumption of a Wisdom background is further strengthened. The evangelist Matthew has placed this saying in a context that is rich in allusions to Wisdom traditions.46 However, there are also problems with the view that Jesus has made use of Wisdom traditions. Dunn notes that the Father–Son imagery does not fit Wisdom ideas very well. He observes that it is only the locus of Wisdom – not Wisdom itself – that is hidden from all except God, according to Job 28.20, 23; Sir. 1.6; Bar 3.17, 29-31, 36. Finally, he argues that Wisdom traditions do not provide a good parallel to the idea of the Son as the exclusive revealer of Wisdom.47 These arguments show that Jesus has not merely repeated Wisdom

182

38. Fitzmyer, Luke (X-XXIV), 874; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 279–80; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 166. 39.  Bo Reicke, “πᾶς κτλ,” in TDNT, 5.895. 40.  Légasse compares this saying to the Son of Man traditions and observes that the mutual exclusive knowledge of the Father and the Son goes beyond what is attributed to the Son of Man in the Enoch tradition. In 1 Enoch, the mysteries of the Son of Man were also made known to the angels and the elect (“Le Fils révélateur,” 258). 41.  Similarly, Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 438–39; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 319; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 164–65. 42.  For the same reason, the comparison with the wise man in the Wis. 2.13, 16, 18 must be deemed inadequate (Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 106). 43. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, 439. 44.  Lee observes that “Jesus was conscious of being God’s unique agent who alone mediated the final revelation of God, and thus God’s unique Son” (Preexistent Son, 143).

183

45. Christ, Jesus Sophia, 89–90; similarly Légasse, “Le Fils révélateur,” 259–60; Kloppenborg, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” 144; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 103; idem, Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 56; Frances Taylor Gench, Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997), 117–18. Suggs compares Jesus’ words to the description of the wise man in the Wisdom of Solomon. He finds there a convergence of the ideas of election, eschatological knowledge, the close relationship between father and son, and the failure of human beings to know both the father and the son (Wis. 2.13, 16-18; 4.10, 13-15; 4.20-5.16). See Wisdom, 91–92. The problem with this comparison is similar to the comparison with Moses (cf. above). The wise man in the Wisdom of Solomon does not reveal the Father. 46.  Cf. note 25. 47. Dunn, Christology, 199. Deutsch maintains that sonship imagery and wisdom ideas are combined in the Son of Man character in 1 Enoch (cf. 49.4; 51.3; Hidden Wisdom, 106). But a filial relationship is not implied in the Son of Man character. First Enoch does not describe

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

ideas and applied them to himself. His thoughts about his own relationship to his Father cannot be neatly matched to a known category. The parallels are not close enough, therefore, to conclude that Jesus here identifies himself with Wisdom. But the closest parallel to the idea of exclusive mutual knowledge remains the traditions regarding God and his Wisdom. It seems plausible, then, that Jesus has made use of Wisdom motifs and reshaped them to express the nature of his relationship to the Father.48 If so, the implication is that he is equally inextricably linked to the Father as God’s own Wisdom is linked to God. But Jesus takes the tendency to hypostatize Wisdom to a new level when he combines the Wisdom motif with the theme of father and son. Jesus clearly distinguishes his own identity from the identity of the Father. His appearance in the role of God can therefore not mean that he thinks he is the Father or that he is the earthly manifestation of the Father. Jesus is the Father’s son. He understands this sonship to mean that he has a relationship to the Father that is qualitatively different from that of all other human beings. The fundamental distinction between God and human beings is not found in the distinction between Jesus and God; it is found in the distinction between Jesus and other human beings. As a result, Jesus is able to take the Father’s place on earth. If one asks about Jesus’ identity, the answer is not that he is God’s Wisdom. He is God’s Son, but sonship is redefined through the use of Wisdom ideas. “God’s son” is no longer merely an honorary title; it describes the intimate relationship between Father and Son, a relationship between equals, yet with a clear hierarchy.

According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus pleads ignorance regarding the time of the end: “but about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk 13.32 par.). Here Jesus makes a significant distinction between himself and the Father. When it comes to knowledge of future events, Jesus is not equal to the Father. Only the Father knows the time of the end; Jesus does not. It has been argued that this saying shows that Jesus did not consider himself to be equal to God, but rather a subordinate agent of God.49 On the other hand, several dogmatic explanations of the saying have been put forward.50 Suggestions include the ideas that Jesus knew according to his divine nature, but not according to his human nature; that Jesus really knew, but could not communicate it to the disciples; and that his incarnation involved the putting off of divine characteristics such as omniscience. But there is no evidence from the available sources that the historical Jesus thought in any of these ways.51 In its own context, the main purpose of this saying is to warn against the confidence that one can know the time of the end (cf. Lk. 17.20-21). The point is not to make a statement about who Jesus is, but about the impossibility of knowing when the end will come.52 Nevertheless, the saying has broader implications. The question of what it says about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding cannot be avoided. It is impossible to know how Jesus would have reconciled this statement with his apparent conviction that he could say and do what otherwise only God could do. The following explanation can therefore not claim to be more than speculation. If the saying is read in light of what Jesus said elsewhere about his relationship to God, I suggest that it reflects his submission to his Father. When it comes to power and authority, Jesus freely acted as if there was no distinction between himself and the Father. The power and authority that belonged to the

184

Ignorance of the End (Mk 13.32 par.) Some of Jesus’ statements appear to conflict with the understanding of himself as God’s equal. A saying that has been frequently discussed throughout the history of interpretation occurs as the conclusion to his Olivet discourse.

his relationship to God as that of a son to a father. Son of Man terminology is rather used to describe someone who has the form of a human being. 48.  Cf. Kloppenborg, who observes that Jesus in Mt. 11.27 appears as more than a wise man. He concludes that the verse represents “reflective mythology” (“Wisdom Christology in Q,” 147).

185

49.  E.g., C. Drew Smith, “Theology and Christology,” 79–80. 50.  For an overview, see Luz, Matthew 21–28, 213; Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 120–22. 51.  Recent Christian scholars are content to note that Jesus’ ignorance was a part of his humanity. See Raymond E. Brown, Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 91–102. 52.  So correctly, Marcus, Mark 8–16, 918.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

ideas and applied them to himself. His thoughts about his own relationship to his Father cannot be neatly matched to a known category. The parallels are not close enough, therefore, to conclude that Jesus here identifies himself with Wisdom. But the closest parallel to the idea of exclusive mutual knowledge remains the traditions regarding God and his Wisdom. It seems plausible, then, that Jesus has made use of Wisdom motifs and reshaped them to express the nature of his relationship to the Father.48 If so, the implication is that he is equally inextricably linked to the Father as God’s own Wisdom is linked to God. But Jesus takes the tendency to hypostatize Wisdom to a new level when he combines the Wisdom motif with the theme of father and son. Jesus clearly distinguishes his own identity from the identity of the Father. His appearance in the role of God can therefore not mean that he thinks he is the Father or that he is the earthly manifestation of the Father. Jesus is the Father’s son. He understands this sonship to mean that he has a relationship to the Father that is qualitatively different from that of all other human beings. The fundamental distinction between God and human beings is not found in the distinction between Jesus and God; it is found in the distinction between Jesus and other human beings. As a result, Jesus is able to take the Father’s place on earth. If one asks about Jesus’ identity, the answer is not that he is God’s Wisdom. He is God’s Son, but sonship is redefined through the use of Wisdom ideas. “God’s son” is no longer merely an honorary title; it describes the intimate relationship between Father and Son, a relationship between equals, yet with a clear hierarchy.

According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus pleads ignorance regarding the time of the end: “but about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mk 13.32 par.). Here Jesus makes a significant distinction between himself and the Father. When it comes to knowledge of future events, Jesus is not equal to the Father. Only the Father knows the time of the end; Jesus does not. It has been argued that this saying shows that Jesus did not consider himself to be equal to God, but rather a subordinate agent of God.49 On the other hand, several dogmatic explanations of the saying have been put forward.50 Suggestions include the ideas that Jesus knew according to his divine nature, but not according to his human nature; that Jesus really knew, but could not communicate it to the disciples; and that his incarnation involved the putting off of divine characteristics such as omniscience. But there is no evidence from the available sources that the historical Jesus thought in any of these ways.51 In its own context, the main purpose of this saying is to warn against the confidence that one can know the time of the end (cf. Lk. 17.20-21). The point is not to make a statement about who Jesus is, but about the impossibility of knowing when the end will come.52 Nevertheless, the saying has broader implications. The question of what it says about Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding cannot be avoided. It is impossible to know how Jesus would have reconciled this statement with his apparent conviction that he could say and do what otherwise only God could do. The following explanation can therefore not claim to be more than speculation. If the saying is read in light of what Jesus said elsewhere about his relationship to God, I suggest that it reflects his submission to his Father. When it comes to power and authority, Jesus freely acted as if there was no distinction between himself and the Father. The power and authority that belonged to the

184

Ignorance of the End (Mk 13.32 par.) Some of Jesus’ statements appear to conflict with the understanding of himself as God’s equal. A saying that has been frequently discussed throughout the history of interpretation occurs as the conclusion to his Olivet discourse.

his relationship to God as that of a son to a father. Son of Man terminology is rather used to describe someone who has the form of a human being. 48.  Cf. Kloppenborg, who observes that Jesus in Mt. 11.27 appears as more than a wise man. He concludes that the verse represents “reflective mythology” (“Wisdom Christology in Q,” 147).

185

49.  E.g., C. Drew Smith, “Theology and Christology,” 79–80. 50.  For an overview, see Luz, Matthew 21–28, 213; Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 120–22. 51.  Recent Christian scholars are content to note that Jesus’ ignorance was a part of his humanity. See Raymond E. Brown, Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 91–102. 52.  So correctly, Marcus, Mark 8–16, 918.

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

Father also belonged to him, not by virtue of appointment, but by virtue of who he was. At the same time, Jesus claimed to act in perfect obedience to the Father and to submit to his will. Read in this light, his claim to ignorance is understandable. He awaited his Father’s command to initiate the apocalyptic events he had outlined in his speech.53 Jesus’ claim to ignorance is not a claim out of inability, but a claim out of deference.

presuppositions behind it. Then he makes a statement about the uniqueness of God. The most natural way to read the first part of this saying is that Jesus wants the rich man to make clear what he means. In other words, Jesus wants to elicit from the man what he thinks about Jesus.55 As the story is preserved, however, Jesus’ question receives no answer and remains open. When Jesus adds that no one is good but God alone, he does not make a direct statement about himself. What this statement means regarding Jesus’ identity is merely implied, and the presuppositions of the audience will determine what implications are drawn. This openness is also borne out in the history of interpretation. Some scholars find that Jesus here denies that he is equal to God. They point out that Jesus ascribes goodness to God alone, not to himself.56 Other scholars find that Jesus’ answer was intended to tease out the implication that Jesus was indeed equal to God. These scholars claim that Jesus wanted the rich man to realize who Jesus really was. In favor of this view, Wright has pointed out that Jesus summarizes seven of the Ten Commandments. He takes that to imply that Jesus substituted his own commandments (“sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me”) for those remaining. Jesus thus takes the place of God himself in giving absolute commandments (cf. also Chapter 6).57 Similarly, Gathercole explains that Jesus did proceed to pontificate regarding what was good, and that he therefore implicitly claimed to be good “in the absolute, divine sense.”58 The diverging interpretations of this saying continue to demonstrate the openness of Jesus’ words. He does not make a statement about himself, but provokes the audience to make their own judgment.

186

The Rich Man (Mk 10.18 par.) Another saying that scholars have found to conflict with the idea that Jesus is God’s equal is found in the context of his encounter with a rich man. This man addressed Jesus as “good teacher,” and Jesus answered: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10.17-18 par.). Most scholars consider this saying to be authentic. It is deemed unlikely that the church would have created a saying where Jesus questions the appropriateness of calling him good.54 Many scholars also conclude that Jesus in this saying distinguishes himself from God and maintains that he is not appropriately called good, as God is. In the form of the saying that has survived, however, Jesus makes no explicit statement regarding himself. He does not directly affirm or deny the appropriateness of the man’s address. Instead, he responds with a question that challenges the

53.  I presume a setting for the saying where Jesus had been speaking about the end and the final judgment (cf. “that day”). How much of the Olivet discourse goes back to the historical Jesus is another question. 54. Bultmann, Geschichte, 20–21; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 142; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 89; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 40; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 515–17. The scholars of the Jesus seminar are aware of this argument in favor of authenticity, and they observe that Matthew has changed the saying. In Matthew’s version, Jesus instead wonders why the man asks him concerning what is good. The change may have been deliberate, to avoid the problem that was felt in Jesus’ answer. Luke has preserved the same version as Mark, however, and the Seminar finds here an indication that Luke may not have felt the problem that modern scholars perceive. In conclusion, the Seminar found that the saying was unlikely to have existed independently of the story. They therefore gave it a gray rating: unlikely to stem from the historical Jesus (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 90–91). Their arguments are not persuasive. The criterion of embarrassment would be meaningless if a saying is deemed not to have been embarrassing because it has been preserved. Also, even if the saying were not preserved independently, it does not follow that it is inauthentic.

187

55.  Similarly, John M. McDermott, “Didn’t Jesus Know He Was God? Mark 10:17–22,” ITQ 73 (2008): 319–20. 56.  Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 209; Taylor, Mark, 426–27; Raymond E. Brown, Jesus God and Man, 7; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 86; Suzanne Watts Henderson, Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, SNTSMS 135 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 230, n. 92; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 725–26. 57.  N. T. Wright, Victory, 302; similarly, McDermott, “Didn’t Jesus Know,” 319. 58.  Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

God’s Equal

9.  The Unique Son of God

Father also belonged to him, not by virtue of appointment, but by virtue of who he was. At the same time, Jesus claimed to act in perfect obedience to the Father and to submit to his will. Read in this light, his claim to ignorance is understandable. He awaited his Father’s command to initiate the apocalyptic events he had outlined in his speech.53 Jesus’ claim to ignorance is not a claim out of inability, but a claim out of deference.

presuppositions behind it. Then he makes a statement about the uniqueness of God. The most natural way to read the first part of this saying is that Jesus wants the rich man to make clear what he means. In other words, Jesus wants to elicit from the man what he thinks about Jesus.55 As the story is preserved, however, Jesus’ question receives no answer and remains open. When Jesus adds that no one is good but God alone, he does not make a direct statement about himself. What this statement means regarding Jesus’ identity is merely implied, and the presuppositions of the audience will determine what implications are drawn. This openness is also borne out in the history of interpretation. Some scholars find that Jesus here denies that he is equal to God. They point out that Jesus ascribes goodness to God alone, not to himself.56 Other scholars find that Jesus’ answer was intended to tease out the implication that Jesus was indeed equal to God. These scholars claim that Jesus wanted the rich man to realize who Jesus really was. In favor of this view, Wright has pointed out that Jesus summarizes seven of the Ten Commandments. He takes that to imply that Jesus substituted his own commandments (“sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me”) for those remaining. Jesus thus takes the place of God himself in giving absolute commandments (cf. also Chapter 6).57 Similarly, Gathercole explains that Jesus did proceed to pontificate regarding what was good, and that he therefore implicitly claimed to be good “in the absolute, divine sense.”58 The diverging interpretations of this saying continue to demonstrate the openness of Jesus’ words. He does not make a statement about himself, but provokes the audience to make their own judgment.

186

The Rich Man (Mk 10.18 par.) Another saying that scholars have found to conflict with the idea that Jesus is God’s equal is found in the context of his encounter with a rich man. This man addressed Jesus as “good teacher,” and Jesus answered: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mk 10.17-18 par.). Most scholars consider this saying to be authentic. It is deemed unlikely that the church would have created a saying where Jesus questions the appropriateness of calling him good.54 Many scholars also conclude that Jesus in this saying distinguishes himself from God and maintains that he is not appropriately called good, as God is. In the form of the saying that has survived, however, Jesus makes no explicit statement regarding himself. He does not directly affirm or deny the appropriateness of the man’s address. Instead, he responds with a question that challenges the

53.  I presume a setting for the saying where Jesus had been speaking about the end and the final judgment (cf. “that day”). How much of the Olivet discourse goes back to the historical Jesus is another question. 54. Bultmann, Geschichte, 20–21; Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 142; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 89; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 40; Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 3, 515–17. The scholars of the Jesus seminar are aware of this argument in favor of authenticity, and they observe that Matthew has changed the saying. In Matthew’s version, Jesus instead wonders why the man asks him concerning what is good. The change may have been deliberate, to avoid the problem that was felt in Jesus’ answer. Luke has preserved the same version as Mark, however, and the Seminar finds here an indication that Luke may not have felt the problem that modern scholars perceive. In conclusion, the Seminar found that the saying was unlikely to have existed independently of the story. They therefore gave it a gray rating: unlikely to stem from the historical Jesus (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 90–91). Their arguments are not persuasive. The criterion of embarrassment would be meaningless if a saying is deemed not to have been embarrassing because it has been preserved. Also, even if the saying were not preserved independently, it does not follow that it is inauthentic.

187

55.  Similarly, John M. McDermott, “Didn’t Jesus Know He Was God? Mark 10:17–22,” ITQ 73 (2008): 319–20. 56.  Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 209; Taylor, Mark, 426–27; Raymond E. Brown, Jesus God and Man, 7; Gnilka, Markusevangelium, vol. 2, 86; Suzanne Watts Henderson, Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, SNTSMS 135 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 230, n. 92; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 725–26. 57.  N. T. Wright, Victory, 302; similarly, McDermott, “Didn’t Jesus Know,” 319. 58.  Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

188

God’s Equal

189

Conclusion This overview of Jesus’ statements regarding his relationship to his Father has shown that he considered himself to be subject and obedient to the Father. There is some tension between these statements and the various examples surveyed in the previous chapters, where Jesus appears to think he was God’s equal. The Synoptic Gospels do not give us much insight into how Jesus may have thought about this tension, if it was even felt by him. But it seems clear that he understood his relationship to the Father in terms of sonship. The saying in Lk. 10.22 par. shows that Jesus understood this sonship in a unique way. The Father’s relationship to Jesus differed from his relationship to all other human beings. His relationship to other human beings could be described as a o­ ne-way street, where the humans were on the receiving end of revelation dispensed from the Father. In contrast, the Father’s relationship to Jesus was a ­two-way street, a fully reciprocal relationship between equals. As a consequence, Jesus was the one who dispensed revelation to human beings. In other words, Jesus was closer to the Father than everyone else, so close in fact that he belonged on the divine side of the divine–human divide.

10 JESUS AS THE SON OF MAN

According to the Synoptic tradition, Jesus’ favorite s­ elf-designation was “Son of Man.” Is this modest ­self-designation conceivable for a man who thought he was God’s equal? After a brief discussion of the authenticity of the term “Son of Man” as a ­self-designation for Jesus, this chapter will consider what the term might have meant to him. An influential scholarly proposal is that Jesus used the term as a generic reference to human beings. The second part of this chapter will discuss this proposal and argue that Jesus rather used “Son of Man” as a specific reference to himself. In the third part, attention is directed to the connotations of the term. In the Synoptic Gospels, the “Son of Man” has associations to Daniel’s heavenly vision (Dan. 7.9-14). I will assess the authenticity of this association and discuss how Jesus’ ­self-designation as “Son of Man” coheres with the implicit s­ elf-claims I have treated in the preceding chapters.

Authenticity Few scholars now doubt that Jesus used the expression “son of man.”1 If he did not, it becomes difficult to explain why the expression occurs in all strata of the Gospel tradition, always on the lips of Jesus, and is virtually absent outside the Gospels.2 It is also unlikely that Jesus would have used the expression with 1.  A few scholars have concluded that all the Son of Man sayings are secondary (e.g. Philipp Vielhauer, “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer,” in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 31 [Munich: Kaiser, 1965], 92–140; Hans Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 2 [Munich: Kaiser, 1967], 152–56). 2.  Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 1, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 507; Theissen

188

God’s Equal

189

Conclusion This overview of Jesus’ statements regarding his relationship to his Father has shown that he considered himself to be subject and obedient to the Father. There is some tension between these statements and the various examples surveyed in the previous chapters, where Jesus appears to think he was God’s equal. The Synoptic Gospels do not give us much insight into how Jesus may have thought about this tension, if it was even felt by him. But it seems clear that he understood his relationship to the Father in terms of sonship. The saying in Lk. 10.22 par. shows that Jesus understood this sonship in a unique way. The Father’s relationship to Jesus differed from his relationship to all other human beings. His relationship to other human beings could be described as a o­ ne-way street, where the humans were on the receiving end of revelation dispensed from the Father. In contrast, the Father’s relationship to Jesus was a ­two-way street, a fully reciprocal relationship between equals. As a consequence, Jesus was the one who dispensed revelation to human beings. In other words, Jesus was closer to the Father than everyone else, so close in fact that he belonged on the divine side of the divine–human divide.

10 JESUS AS THE SON OF MAN

According to the Synoptic tradition, Jesus’ favorite s­ elf-designation was “Son of Man.” Is this modest ­self-designation conceivable for a man who thought he was God’s equal? After a brief discussion of the authenticity of the term “Son of Man” as a ­self-designation for Jesus, this chapter will consider what the term might have meant to him. An influential scholarly proposal is that Jesus used the term as a generic reference to human beings. The second part of this chapter will discuss this proposal and argue that Jesus rather used “Son of Man” as a specific reference to himself. In the third part, attention is directed to the connotations of the term. In the Synoptic Gospels, the “Son of Man” has associations to Daniel’s heavenly vision (Dan. 7.9-14). I will assess the authenticity of this association and discuss how Jesus’ ­self-designation as “Son of Man” coheres with the implicit s­ elf-claims I have treated in the preceding chapters.

Authenticity Few scholars now doubt that Jesus used the expression “son of man.”1 If he did not, it becomes difficult to explain why the expression occurs in all strata of the Gospel tradition, always on the lips of Jesus, and is virtually absent outside the Gospels.2 It is also unlikely that Jesus would have used the expression with 1.  A few scholars have concluded that all the Son of Man sayings are secondary (e.g. Philipp Vielhauer, “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer,” in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, TB 31 [Munich: Kaiser, 1965], 92–140; Hans Conzelmann, Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 2 [Munich: Kaiser, 1967], 152–56). 2.  Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 1, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 507; Theissen

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

reference to someone other than himself (cf. Lk. 12.8-9 par.), and that the sayings where Jesus is identified with the Son of Man are the product of the early church.3 This hypothesis faces the insurmountable difficulties that the “Son of Man” was neither a recognizable title at the time of Jesus nor a title that plays any role in the Christology of the early church.4

a test of where this meaning is possible. Those sayings that require a different meaning for the term are considered inauthentic. There is something circular about this method, and it runs the risk of imposing a predetermined meaning on the sayings examined. It seems better to look for a pattern to emerge when the sayings are studied as a whole. In the following, I will therefore classify the sayings according to the tradition in which they occur, and treat all these sayings together. Focusing on the earlier collections of traditions, I will begin with the double tradition of Luke and Matthew and proceed with the Gospel of Mark.6

190

Son of Man – Generic or Specific? An influential view of Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man” is associated with the scholars Maurice Casey and Barnabas Lindars. They argue that, on Jesus’ lips, the Aramaic ‫ בר אנשא‬was a generic expression that referred to human beings in general. When the phrase was translated into Greek, however, the meaning changed, and it was understood as a title that referred exclusively to Jesus. As a consequence, the early church created other sayings where the Son of Man was clearly understood as a title. According to Casey and Lindars, only the sayings that can be understood with a generic reference are deemed to be authentic.5 Since Casey and Lindars argue that “human being” is the meaning of the Aramaic term ‫בר אנשא‬, their exegesis of the Synoptic material takes the form of and Merz, Historical Jesus, 541–53; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 737–39; James M. Robinson, Jesus, 101. 3.  So Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM, 1952), 28–32; Bornkamm, Jesus, 175–78; Heinz Eduard Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1959), 105–6; Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.433–60; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 32–53; Fuller, Foundations, 119–25, 143–55; Willi Marxsen, The Beginnings of Christology, Together with the Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem, trans. J. Boyce, D. Juel, and W. Proehlmann (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), 39–47. A more recent version of this view is proposed by Adela Yarbro Collins, who also thinks that Jesus distinguished between himself and the son of man. She does not suggest that Jesus used “son of man” as a title, but that he did use it with reference to Dan. 7.13-14 (“Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin, College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5 [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990], 191). 4.  Cf. Ragnar Leivestad, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1971–72): 243–67; Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 25–35; Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, SNTSMS 107 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 97–120; Casey, Solution, 82–115. But see Beyerle, “‘Wolken’,” 33–52. 5.  See especially Lindars, Son of Man; Casey, Solution.

191

The Double Tradition The earliest known source to the sayings of Jesus is usually thought to be found in the material that is shared by Matthew and Luke (often attributed to the hypothetical Sayings Gospel Q). Most of the Son of Man sayings in this material describe a contrast or comparison between the Son of Man and another specific individual. In Lk. 7.34 par. the Son of Man is contrasted with John the Baptist;7 in Lk. 11.30 par. he is compared to Jonah;8 in Lk. 12.10 par. he is

6.  In scholarly discussion, the “Son of Man” sayings are usually classified in three groups: (1) the earthly Son of Man; (2) the suffering of the Son of Man; and (3) the future glory of the Son of Man. This classification has proven valuable, but it is not without its problems. Not all sayings fall neatly into one of these categories (Lk. 6.22; 9.58 par.; 17.26 par.), and there may be some overlap between the first two. This classification also runs the risk of “stacking the cards” with respect to the question of the authenticity of the various sayings. 7.  Maurice Casey considers this saying to be one of the authentic Son of Man sayings. His criteria for doing so are that he is able to reconstruct the hypothetical Aramaic original and that the “Son of Man” can be understood in an idiomatic sense, as a generic term for a human being. Jesus uses the idiom to say something that is true about human beings in general or about a group of human beings, something that is especially true about himself. Regarding Lk. 7.34 par., Casey maintains that the coming of the Son of Man does not refer to the preexistence of Christ, but to a coming that is true for all human beings. That may be so, but it does not follow that Jesus is making a general statement. Surprisingly, Casey contends that “[f]or the idiom to be effective, it is necessary for the rest of the statement to be true of more people than Jesus, but not for everyone” (Solution, 137). The force of Jesus’ statement is rather that the Pharisees and the lawyers are rejecting God’s special messengers, John the Baptist and himself. Matthew Black correctly observes: “To attempt to read a communal meaning into the expression does violence to the whole context” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], 329; similarly Richard J. Bauckham, “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or ‘Someone’,” JSNT 2 [1985]: 25–26). 8.  Lindars argues against an exclusive reference to Jesus in this saying. His argument is based on the assumption that the interpreter must choose between a generic idiom and an

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

reference to someone other than himself (cf. Lk. 12.8-9 par.), and that the sayings where Jesus is identified with the Son of Man are the product of the early church.3 This hypothesis faces the insurmountable difficulties that the “Son of Man” was neither a recognizable title at the time of Jesus nor a title that plays any role in the Christology of the early church.4

a test of where this meaning is possible. Those sayings that require a different meaning for the term are considered inauthentic. There is something circular about this method, and it runs the risk of imposing a predetermined meaning on the sayings examined. It seems better to look for a pattern to emerge when the sayings are studied as a whole. In the following, I will therefore classify the sayings according to the tradition in which they occur, and treat all these sayings together. Focusing on the earlier collections of traditions, I will begin with the double tradition of Luke and Matthew and proceed with the Gospel of Mark.6

190

Son of Man – Generic or Specific? An influential view of Jesus’ use of the expression “son of man” is associated with the scholars Maurice Casey and Barnabas Lindars. They argue that, on Jesus’ lips, the Aramaic ‫ בר אנשא‬was a generic expression that referred to human beings in general. When the phrase was translated into Greek, however, the meaning changed, and it was understood as a title that referred exclusively to Jesus. As a consequence, the early church created other sayings where the Son of Man was clearly understood as a title. According to Casey and Lindars, only the sayings that can be understood with a generic reference are deemed to be authentic.5 Since Casey and Lindars argue that “human being” is the meaning of the Aramaic term ‫בר אנשא‬, their exegesis of the Synoptic material takes the form of and Merz, Historical Jesus, 541–53; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 737–39; James M. Robinson, Jesus, 101. 3.  So Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM, 1952), 28–32; Bornkamm, Jesus, 175–78; Heinz Eduard Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1959), 105–6; Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” 8.433–60; Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 32–53; Fuller, Foundations, 119–25, 143–55; Willi Marxsen, The Beginnings of Christology, Together with the Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem, trans. J. Boyce, D. Juel, and W. Proehlmann (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979), 39–47. A more recent version of this view is proposed by Adela Yarbro Collins, who also thinks that Jesus distinguished between himself and the son of man. She does not suggest that Jesus used “son of man” as a title, but that he did use it with reference to Dan. 7.13-14 (“Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin, College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5 [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990], 191). 4.  Cf. Ragnar Leivestad, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1971–72): 243–67; Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 25–35; Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, SNTSMS 107 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 97–120; Casey, Solution, 82–115. But see Beyerle, “‘Wolken’,” 33–52. 5.  See especially Lindars, Son of Man; Casey, Solution.

191

The Double Tradition The earliest known source to the sayings of Jesus is usually thought to be found in the material that is shared by Matthew and Luke (often attributed to the hypothetical Sayings Gospel Q). Most of the Son of Man sayings in this material describe a contrast or comparison between the Son of Man and another specific individual. In Lk. 7.34 par. the Son of Man is contrasted with John the Baptist;7 in Lk. 11.30 par. he is compared to Jonah;8 in Lk. 12.10 par. he is

6.  In scholarly discussion, the “Son of Man” sayings are usually classified in three groups: (1) the earthly Son of Man; (2) the suffering of the Son of Man; and (3) the future glory of the Son of Man. This classification has proven valuable, but it is not without its problems. Not all sayings fall neatly into one of these categories (Lk. 6.22; 9.58 par.; 17.26 par.), and there may be some overlap between the first two. This classification also runs the risk of “stacking the cards” with respect to the question of the authenticity of the various sayings. 7.  Maurice Casey considers this saying to be one of the authentic Son of Man sayings. His criteria for doing so are that he is able to reconstruct the hypothetical Aramaic original and that the “Son of Man” can be understood in an idiomatic sense, as a generic term for a human being. Jesus uses the idiom to say something that is true about human beings in general or about a group of human beings, something that is especially true about himself. Regarding Lk. 7.34 par., Casey maintains that the coming of the Son of Man does not refer to the preexistence of Christ, but to a coming that is true for all human beings. That may be so, but it does not follow that Jesus is making a general statement. Surprisingly, Casey contends that “[f]or the idiom to be effective, it is necessary for the rest of the statement to be true of more people than Jesus, but not for everyone” (Solution, 137). The force of Jesus’ statement is rather that the Pharisees and the lawyers are rejecting God’s special messengers, John the Baptist and himself. Matthew Black correctly observes: “To attempt to read a communal meaning into the expression does violence to the whole context” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd edn [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], 329; similarly Richard J. Bauckham, “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or ‘Someone’,” JSNT 2 [1985]: 25–26). 8.  Lindars argues against an exclusive reference to Jesus in this saying. His argument is based on the assumption that the interpreter must choose between a generic idiom and an

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

contrasted with the Holy Spirit;9 and in Lk. 17.26 he is compared to Noah. The only Son of Man sayings that are in evidence in the double tradition and where the Son of Man is not clearly juxtaposed with another individual are Lk. 9.58 par.; Lk. 12.40 par.; and Lk. 17.24 par. In the latter of these, however, the Son of Man is obviously a specific individual, as his appearance is sufficiently spectacular to be compared to the flash of lightning across the sky. He is also contrasted with Noah in the immediate context (Lk. 17.26 par.). The saying about his unexpected parousia in Lk. 12.40 par. compares him to the proverbial thief (Lk. 12.39 par.), and is clearly specific as well. This leaves Lk. 9.58 par., where the Son of Man is contrasted, not with a specific individual, but with foxes and birds: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” This statement is in any case not true for human beings in general, as most people have homes.10 Casey finds that Jesus was referring to itinerant preachers and their disciples in general, and that the saying was especially true of Jesus himself. The result of the translation into Greek was to make it an exclusive reference to Jesus. But this translation made the saying less effective as a response to the would-be follower.11 Although this is a saying where a more general meaning appears plausible, this interpretation is not without its problems. If the point were to explain

the hardship of itinerant ministry, the note about having “nowhere to lay his head” is too melodramatic. Jesus elsewhere envisions that his disciples will be received in other people’s houses (Mk 6.10 par.). The parallel that is sometimes adduced, from Plutarch’s Life of Tiberius Gracchus, laments the situation of the soldiers of Italy. Plutarch notes their lack of a fixed abode (ἄοικοι καὶ ἀνίδρυτοι), but he stops short of complaining of the lack of a place to lay their head (Tiberius Gracchus 9.5). Jesus’ saying may therefore very well be intended to refer exclusively to the exceptional suffering Jesus underwent as a result of his ministry. The rhetorical effect of the response to the prospective disciple may have been something like: “Are you sure you know who it is you are asking to follow?”12 Jesus’ words may even play on Wisdom ideas, as God’s Wisdom could not find any dwelling place among human beings (1 En. 46.1-2). The parallel to Wisdom is not obvious, but at least it must be admitted that if the saying in Lk. 9.58 par. is capable of a “generic interpretation” the saying is also capable of a “Christological interpretation.” The passage does not constitute compelling evidence for either approach. There are also two sayings in the double tradition where only the Lukan form includes an explicit reference to the Son of Man. The makarism in Lk. 6.22 promises the disciples that they are blessed when they are persecuted “on account of the Son of Man,” and Lk. 12.8 is a promise that the Son of Man will acknowledge before God’s angels those who acknowledge him before others. Both of these sayings require a specific referent for “the Son of Man.”13 Finally, Matthew and Luke both attest to Jesus’ words about the disciples sitting “on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Only Matthew, however, mentions the Son of Man in this saying, when he looks forward to the time when “the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory” (19.28). As the throne of the Son of Man is juxtaposed with the twelve thrones of the twelve disciples, a specific throne and a specific Son of Man must be in view here as well. Since Matthew and Luke are divided with respect to the wording of these

192

apocalyptic Son of Man. Since the apocalyptic Son of Man cannot be a sign “to this generation” he opts for the generic interpretation (Son of Man, 39–42). 9.  Casey finds here a general meaning: speaking against another person will be forgiven, as well as a specific meaning where the idiom is applied to Jesus (Solution, 143; similarly Lindars, Son of Man, 36–37). As for the context of this saying, Luke differs from Mark and Matthew. Whereas Luke includes it in the context of the Son of Man’s role in the last judgment (Lk. 12.8-12), Mark and Matthew place this saying in the context of the Beelzebul controversy (Mk 3.19b-29; Mt. 12.22-32). Both of these contexts concern something Jesus does, and which is not done by anybody else. But if an original version of the saying concerned sin against human beings versus sin against the Holy Spirit, the comparison is oddly asymmetrical. One would have expected: sin against human beings will be forgiven, but sin against God will not be forgiven. The particularity in the reference to the Holy Spirit is heightened in the version found in the Gospel of Thomas: “Whoever blasphemes against the Father, it will be forgiven him. And whoever blasphemes against the Son, it will be forgiven him. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither on earth nor in heaven” (Gos. Thom. 44 quoted from Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q). 10.  Contra Bultmann, Geschichte, 107. 11. Casey, Solution, 177–78.

193

12.  Similarly, Lindars, Son of Man, 29–31; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 272–73. 13.  Casey maintains that Jesus was the preeminent witness in the last judgment, but that the expression “Son of Man” also included a reference to other witnesses (cf. Lk. 11.31-32 par.; 22.20 par.). See Solution, 184–85. On this interpretation, however, the correlation between the first (“everyone who acknowledges me . . .”) and the second part of the saying (“the Son of Man also will acknowledge . . .”) breaks down.

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

contrasted with the Holy Spirit;9 and in Lk. 17.26 he is compared to Noah. The only Son of Man sayings that are in evidence in the double tradition and where the Son of Man is not clearly juxtaposed with another individual are Lk. 9.58 par.; Lk. 12.40 par.; and Lk. 17.24 par. In the latter of these, however, the Son of Man is obviously a specific individual, as his appearance is sufficiently spectacular to be compared to the flash of lightning across the sky. He is also contrasted with Noah in the immediate context (Lk. 17.26 par.). The saying about his unexpected parousia in Lk. 12.40 par. compares him to the proverbial thief (Lk. 12.39 par.), and is clearly specific as well. This leaves Lk. 9.58 par., where the Son of Man is contrasted, not with a specific individual, but with foxes and birds: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” This statement is in any case not true for human beings in general, as most people have homes.10 Casey finds that Jesus was referring to itinerant preachers and their disciples in general, and that the saying was especially true of Jesus himself. The result of the translation into Greek was to make it an exclusive reference to Jesus. But this translation made the saying less effective as a response to the would-be follower.11 Although this is a saying where a more general meaning appears plausible, this interpretation is not without its problems. If the point were to explain

the hardship of itinerant ministry, the note about having “nowhere to lay his head” is too melodramatic. Jesus elsewhere envisions that his disciples will be received in other people’s houses (Mk 6.10 par.). The parallel that is sometimes adduced, from Plutarch’s Life of Tiberius Gracchus, laments the situation of the soldiers of Italy. Plutarch notes their lack of a fixed abode (ἄοικοι καὶ ἀνίδρυτοι), but he stops short of complaining of the lack of a place to lay their head (Tiberius Gracchus 9.5). Jesus’ saying may therefore very well be intended to refer exclusively to the exceptional suffering Jesus underwent as a result of his ministry. The rhetorical effect of the response to the prospective disciple may have been something like: “Are you sure you know who it is you are asking to follow?”12 Jesus’ words may even play on Wisdom ideas, as God’s Wisdom could not find any dwelling place among human beings (1 En. 46.1-2). The parallel to Wisdom is not obvious, but at least it must be admitted that if the saying in Lk. 9.58 par. is capable of a “generic interpretation” the saying is also capable of a “Christological interpretation.” The passage does not constitute compelling evidence for either approach. There are also two sayings in the double tradition where only the Lukan form includes an explicit reference to the Son of Man. The makarism in Lk. 6.22 promises the disciples that they are blessed when they are persecuted “on account of the Son of Man,” and Lk. 12.8 is a promise that the Son of Man will acknowledge before God’s angels those who acknowledge him before others. Both of these sayings require a specific referent for “the Son of Man.”13 Finally, Matthew and Luke both attest to Jesus’ words about the disciples sitting “on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Only Matthew, however, mentions the Son of Man in this saying, when he looks forward to the time when “the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory” (19.28). As the throne of the Son of Man is juxtaposed with the twelve thrones of the twelve disciples, a specific throne and a specific Son of Man must be in view here as well. Since Matthew and Luke are divided with respect to the wording of these

192

apocalyptic Son of Man. Since the apocalyptic Son of Man cannot be a sign “to this generation” he opts for the generic interpretation (Son of Man, 39–42). 9.  Casey finds here a general meaning: speaking against another person will be forgiven, as well as a specific meaning where the idiom is applied to Jesus (Solution, 143; similarly Lindars, Son of Man, 36–37). As for the context of this saying, Luke differs from Mark and Matthew. Whereas Luke includes it in the context of the Son of Man’s role in the last judgment (Lk. 12.8-12), Mark and Matthew place this saying in the context of the Beelzebul controversy (Mk 3.19b-29; Mt. 12.22-32). Both of these contexts concern something Jesus does, and which is not done by anybody else. But if an original version of the saying concerned sin against human beings versus sin against the Holy Spirit, the comparison is oddly asymmetrical. One would have expected: sin against human beings will be forgiven, but sin against God will not be forgiven. The particularity in the reference to the Holy Spirit is heightened in the version found in the Gospel of Thomas: “Whoever blasphemes against the Father, it will be forgiven him. And whoever blasphemes against the Son, it will be forgiven him. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither on earth nor in heaven” (Gos. Thom. 44 quoted from Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q). 10.  Contra Bultmann, Geschichte, 107. 11. Casey, Solution, 177–78.

193

12.  Similarly, Lindars, Son of Man, 29–31; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 272–73. 13.  Casey maintains that Jesus was the preeminent witness in the last judgment, but that the expression “Son of Man” also included a reference to other witnesses (cf. Lk. 11.31-32 par.; 22.20 par.). See Solution, 184–85. On this interpretation, however, the correlation between the first (“everyone who acknowledges me . . .”) and the second part of the saying (“the Son of Man also will acknowledge . . .”) breaks down.

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

last three sayings, it is very difficult to know whether the underlying tradition included a reference to the Son of Man or not. In any case, the general pattern which has been established for the sayings from the double tradition is not changed: the Son of Man refers to a specific individual.

of Man as the eschatological character to be preceded by Elijah redivivus, who came to restore all things (Mk 9.12 par.).18 He described the purpose of his life as vicarious suffering (Mk 10.45 par.).19 Finally, he repeatedly referred to his glorious enthronement, when he would have the decisive role in the judgment of the world (Mk 8.38 par.)20 and when he would be seated at the right hand of the Father and come with the clouds of heaven (Mk 13.26 par.; 14.62 par.). There is only one Son of Man saying in the Gospel of Mark that can easily

194

The Gospel of Mark A similar point can be made for the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of Mark.14 Most of them connect the Son of Man with events that were specifically associated with Jesus, and with no one else. After Jesus had forgiven the sins of the paralytic, he explained: “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2.10 par.).15 Repeatedly, Jesus spoke of his impending death with details such as his betrayal, his rejection by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and his resurrection after three days (Mk 8.31 par.; 9.31 par.; 10.33 par.). These details do not leave the question open as to whether he might have been including his followers. Jesus also made reference to events that were characteristic of his own fate when he condemned the one who would betray him (Mk 14.21 par.)16 and announced the time of his betrayal (Mk 14.41 par.). He instructed the disciples not to tell anyone about the Transfiguration “until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (Mk 9.9 par.).17 He identified the Son

14.  So also Tuckett, “Son of Man,” 59. 15.  Similarly, Tuckett, “Son of Man,” 66. Casey concedes that Jesus here primarily refers to himself, but adds that he secondarily refers to an undefined group of people who could also forgive sins and thus heal the psychosomatic illnesses caused by sin (Solution, 163–66). This interpretation is based on the questionable assumption that someone other than Jesus could forgive sins, and does not fit the narrative setting, where Jesus is the one who forgives and his forgiveness meets with the reaction that no one but God can do that (cf. Chapter 3). It could be argued that the Matthean version of this story lends support to the general interpretation, as Matthew concludes the story with the comment: “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings” (Mt. 9.8). Such an interpretation of Matthew’s intent is unlikely, however, as Matthew’s portrait of the Son of Man is more developed than the other Synoptic Gospels and highlights the exceptional glory that attaches to the character (cf. Mt. 13.41; 16.27-28; 19.28; 25.31). Cf. Hare, Son of Man, 274. 16.  Casey argues that Jesus in Mk 14.21 applies to Judas a general condemnation of traitors, but concedes that, although “[t]he general level of meaning is essential to the idiom . . . it was not the point of the saying, which was to predict Jesus’ death and condemn the man who brought it about” (Solution, 136; cf. also his discussion of Lk. 22.48: ibid., 198–99). It appears that the general level of meaning must be read into this saying; this saying cannot serve as evidence of it. 17.  The meaning of this saying would of course have been unmistakable after Jesus’

195

resurrection. If the saying is authentic, however, the original meaning would not have been equally clear. The Jewish expectation of the resurrection was that of a general resurrection (N. T. Wright, Resurrection, 146–206). Jesus’ subsequent reference to the restoration of all things (Mk 9.12 par.) may point in the same direction, but he then discusses the fate of the Son of Man compared to that of Elijah (Mk 9.12-13 par.). The saying must therefore be understood on an individual level. 18.  Casey finds that “the Son of Man” here originally referred primarily to John the Baptist and secondarily to Jesus and those who would die with him (Solution, 129–30). After Mk 2.28, this saying offers the best example of the possibility of a general interpretation. But the point of the saying is lost if it is interpreted in this way. It concerns Elijah redivivus/John the Baptist’s role as a precursor. The saying therefore requires a thrust that concerns the one for whom John was preparing. 19.  Casey maintains that Mk 10.45 par. reflects Jesus’ expectation that some of his followers would die with him. His own and their deaths are understood as having atoning effects, as the deaths of the righteous could be understood in this way in contemporary Judaism (4 Macc. 6.28-29; 17.20-22). See Solution, 131–34. This is a possible interpretation of Jesus’ saying, but it presupposes that Jesus believed that the death of his disciples would have an atoning effect. This presupposition raises the question of why this exalted understanding of the disciples’ suffering has made no impact in the surviving documents of the early church. The significance of the persecution and suffering of the believers is frequently discussed, and various theological explanations are offered: it will lead to salvation (Mk 8.35 par.); it is the entrance to glory (2 Cor. 4.17; 1 Clem. 5.4); it leads to exaltation (Phil. 1.20); it is a privilege of grace (Phil. 1.29); it signifies a break with sin (1 Pet. 4.1); it is evidence of one’s election (1 Thess. 1.4-6); it is the means of final vindication (Rev. 12.11). But if Jesus offered the glorious explanation that martyred disciples participate in his atoning work, why is this explanation completely forgotten or ignored by the early church? In Col. 1.24 Paul connects his own sufferings to those of Christ and refers to them as sufferings “for your sake.” The underlying context is most likely that of the “messianic woes,” a predetermined measure of sufferings that the people of God have to undergo before the end, not that Paul participates in Christ’s work of atonement (cf. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 70; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 115). Scholars who do not see the messianic woes as the specific background also reject any thought of a participation in Christ’s sacrifice (Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, trans. Andrew Chester [London: SPCK, 1976], 105; Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, trans. Astrid B. Beck, AB 34B [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 292–95). 20.  Casey finds a general meaning in this saying. Cf. Solution, 184–85 (see also note 13).

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

last three sayings, it is very difficult to know whether the underlying tradition included a reference to the Son of Man or not. In any case, the general pattern which has been established for the sayings from the double tradition is not changed: the Son of Man refers to a specific individual.

of Man as the eschatological character to be preceded by Elijah redivivus, who came to restore all things (Mk 9.12 par.).18 He described the purpose of his life as vicarious suffering (Mk 10.45 par.).19 Finally, he repeatedly referred to his glorious enthronement, when he would have the decisive role in the judgment of the world (Mk 8.38 par.)20 and when he would be seated at the right hand of the Father and come with the clouds of heaven (Mk 13.26 par.; 14.62 par.). There is only one Son of Man saying in the Gospel of Mark that can easily

194

The Gospel of Mark A similar point can be made for the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of Mark.14 Most of them connect the Son of Man with events that were specifically associated with Jesus, and with no one else. After Jesus had forgiven the sins of the paralytic, he explained: “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2.10 par.).15 Repeatedly, Jesus spoke of his impending death with details such as his betrayal, his rejection by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and his resurrection after three days (Mk 8.31 par.; 9.31 par.; 10.33 par.). These details do not leave the question open as to whether he might have been including his followers. Jesus also made reference to events that were characteristic of his own fate when he condemned the one who would betray him (Mk 14.21 par.)16 and announced the time of his betrayal (Mk 14.41 par.). He instructed the disciples not to tell anyone about the Transfiguration “until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead” (Mk 9.9 par.).17 He identified the Son

14.  So also Tuckett, “Son of Man,” 59. 15.  Similarly, Tuckett, “Son of Man,” 66. Casey concedes that Jesus here primarily refers to himself, but adds that he secondarily refers to an undefined group of people who could also forgive sins and thus heal the psychosomatic illnesses caused by sin (Solution, 163–66). This interpretation is based on the questionable assumption that someone other than Jesus could forgive sins, and does not fit the narrative setting, where Jesus is the one who forgives and his forgiveness meets with the reaction that no one but God can do that (cf. Chapter 3). It could be argued that the Matthean version of this story lends support to the general interpretation, as Matthew concludes the story with the comment: “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings” (Mt. 9.8). Such an interpretation of Matthew’s intent is unlikely, however, as Matthew’s portrait of the Son of Man is more developed than the other Synoptic Gospels and highlights the exceptional glory that attaches to the character (cf. Mt. 13.41; 16.27-28; 19.28; 25.31). Cf. Hare, Son of Man, 274. 16.  Casey argues that Jesus in Mk 14.21 applies to Judas a general condemnation of traitors, but concedes that, although “[t]he general level of meaning is essential to the idiom . . . it was not the point of the saying, which was to predict Jesus’ death and condemn the man who brought it about” (Solution, 136; cf. also his discussion of Lk. 22.48: ibid., 198–99). It appears that the general level of meaning must be read into this saying; this saying cannot serve as evidence of it. 17.  The meaning of this saying would of course have been unmistakable after Jesus’

195

resurrection. If the saying is authentic, however, the original meaning would not have been equally clear. The Jewish expectation of the resurrection was that of a general resurrection (N. T. Wright, Resurrection, 146–206). Jesus’ subsequent reference to the restoration of all things (Mk 9.12 par.) may point in the same direction, but he then discusses the fate of the Son of Man compared to that of Elijah (Mk 9.12-13 par.). The saying must therefore be understood on an individual level. 18.  Casey finds that “the Son of Man” here originally referred primarily to John the Baptist and secondarily to Jesus and those who would die with him (Solution, 129–30). After Mk 2.28, this saying offers the best example of the possibility of a general interpretation. But the point of the saying is lost if it is interpreted in this way. It concerns Elijah redivivus/John the Baptist’s role as a precursor. The saying therefore requires a thrust that concerns the one for whom John was preparing. 19.  Casey maintains that Mk 10.45 par. reflects Jesus’ expectation that some of his followers would die with him. His own and their deaths are understood as having atoning effects, as the deaths of the righteous could be understood in this way in contemporary Judaism (4 Macc. 6.28-29; 17.20-22). See Solution, 131–34. This is a possible interpretation of Jesus’ saying, but it presupposes that Jesus believed that the death of his disciples would have an atoning effect. This presupposition raises the question of why this exalted understanding of the disciples’ suffering has made no impact in the surviving documents of the early church. The significance of the persecution and suffering of the believers is frequently discussed, and various theological explanations are offered: it will lead to salvation (Mk 8.35 par.); it is the entrance to glory (2 Cor. 4.17; 1 Clem. 5.4); it leads to exaltation (Phil. 1.20); it is a privilege of grace (Phil. 1.29); it signifies a break with sin (1 Pet. 4.1); it is evidence of one’s election (1 Thess. 1.4-6); it is the means of final vindication (Rev. 12.11). But if Jesus offered the glorious explanation that martyred disciples participate in his atoning work, why is this explanation completely forgotten or ignored by the early church? In Col. 1.24 Paul connects his own sufferings to those of Christ and refers to them as sufferings “for your sake.” The underlying context is most likely that of the “messianic woes,” a predetermined measure of sufferings that the people of God have to undergo before the end, not that Paul participates in Christ’s work of atonement (cf. Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 70; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 115). Scholars who do not see the messianic woes as the specific background also reject any thought of a participation in Christ’s sacrifice (Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, trans. Andrew Chester [London: SPCK, 1976], 105; Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, trans. Astrid B. Beck, AB 34B [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 292–95). 20.  Casey finds a general meaning in this saying. Cf. Solution, 184–85 (see also note 13).

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

be understood as a general reference, namely the saying about the Son of Man as lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2.28 par.). These words are spoken as a justification – not for the acts of Jesus, but for the disciples’ plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mk 2.23). The saying follows as a rejoinder to the general statement that “the sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk 2.27). The claim that human beings were lords of the Sabbath would be natural here.21 On the other hand, it was Jesus who stood accused (2.24), and one would expect him to provide a defense of his permissiveness. The analogy Jesus offers refers to the comparable acts of David, when he ate the bread of Presence and gave some to his companions (Mk 2.26). Jesus’ comparison concerns himself and David, more than it concerns his disciples and the companions of David. It is fitting, therefore, that the conclusion to Jesus’ response should concern his own role in relation to the Sabbath: he is lord of the Sabbath. I conclude, regarding the Son of Man sayings attested in the earliest sources, that “the Son of Man” refers specifically to Jesus alone.22 A general interpretation is plausible in one saying (Mk 2.28 par.) and possible in one or two more (Lk. 9.58 par.; Mk 9.9 par.), but in neither of these sayings is the general interpretation without problems and the specific interpretation has a good claim to being correct also in these instances. If the sayings are considered as a whole, the specific interpretation is the only possibility.23

This conclusion is only valid for the extant sources, the earliest being the Gospel of Mark and the double tradition of Matthew and Luke. It is possible that the expression originally had a different meaning and that this meaning was changed in the course of transmission. It is possible that Jesus meant something entirely different when he used the expression ‫בר אנשא‬, and that the use of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in translation changed the meaning and gave rise to radically altered sayings and new sayings that were created by the p­ ost-Easter community. If that be the case, however, Jesus’ original meaning is now irrecoverable.24 The evidence of the earliest extant sources points unanimously to the specific meaning. Any hypothesis that postulates a different meaning on Jesus’ part must remain speculative. Not only must it isolate a few sayings as the only ones that can be considered authentic, it must also argue for a strained interpretation of those sayings.25 The only possible way backwards to the historical Jesus must be based on a presupposition of continuity between the historical Jesus and the earliest records.

196

The double tradition in Matthew and Luke may attest to an independent version of this saying (Lk. 9.26/Mt. 16.27). Cf. Lindars, Son of Man, 50–53. 21.  This saying is the first example Casey cites as evidence that a general reference is intended in all the authentic Son of Man sayings (Solution, 121–25). 22.  Similarly, Burkett, Son of Man, 92–96; Ulrich B. Müller, “Jesus als ‘der Menschensohn’,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 100–109. Dunn concludes that Jesus used the expression in an ambiguous way, as a somewhat modest s­ elf-reference, but not as a title (Jesus Remembered, 746). I would add only that the context of his sayings (as they are preserved) removes the ambiguity. 23.  It is also worth noting that “the Son of Man” is consistently arthrous in the Gospel tradition (except Jn 5.27), in contrast to the other biblical occurrences, where the singular form is consistently anarthrous. This characteristic usage may reflect an Aramaic idiom, where the arthrous ‫ בר )א(נשא‬is used in a generic sense. But it is also possible that the arthrous υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is the translator’s way of making clear that the term refers to a specific character. Moule has argued that this specific character is none other than the one like a son of man that is known from Dan. 7.13 (C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 12–17; “‘The Son of Man’: Some Facts,” NTS 41 [1995]: 277–79;

197

The Aramaic Evidence However, a theory regarding Jesus’ use of the term “son of man” must not only explain the Greek data in the Synoptic Gospels, but must also account for Jesus’

similarly Peter Müller, “Intertextuelle Aspekte,” 151). However close to Dan. 7.13 the link may be, the consistent use of the article in the Greek text of the Gospels lends some support to the interpretation that the referent is a specific individual. 24.  That is the conclusion of Mogens Müller (The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation, Copenhagen International Seminar [London: Equinox, 2008], 419). 25.  Casey claims to use an objective criterion in his delimiting of authentic sayings: those whose original Aramaic he thinks he is able to reconstruct (Solution, 119–21). This criterion may serve as an inconclusive positive criterion, but hardly as a negative criterion. If a saying demonstrably may go back to an Aramaic original, that strengthens the likelihood that it is authentic, but it does not rule out the possibility that it originated in an ­Aramaic-speaking community. On the other hand, the use of this criterion as a negative criterion presupposes a too rigid understanding of the transmission process. One’s inability to reconstruct the Aramaic original may be due to the paraphrastic nature of the transmission. Such a saying may well preserve Jesus’ ipsissima vox if not his ipsissima verba. Cf. Paul Owen, “Review of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem,” RBL, no. 2 (2009), http://www.bookreviews. org/pdf/6442_6959.pdf. Bauckham observes that the proliferation of Son of Man sayings becomes difficult to explain if the only authentic sayings be those that reasonably can be understood generically (“Son of Man,” 28–29).

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

be understood as a general reference, namely the saying about the Son of Man as lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2.28 par.). These words are spoken as a justification – not for the acts of Jesus, but for the disciples’ plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mk 2.23). The saying follows as a rejoinder to the general statement that “the sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk 2.27). The claim that human beings were lords of the Sabbath would be natural here.21 On the other hand, it was Jesus who stood accused (2.24), and one would expect him to provide a defense of his permissiveness. The analogy Jesus offers refers to the comparable acts of David, when he ate the bread of Presence and gave some to his companions (Mk 2.26). Jesus’ comparison concerns himself and David, more than it concerns his disciples and the companions of David. It is fitting, therefore, that the conclusion to Jesus’ response should concern his own role in relation to the Sabbath: he is lord of the Sabbath. I conclude, regarding the Son of Man sayings attested in the earliest sources, that “the Son of Man” refers specifically to Jesus alone.22 A general interpretation is plausible in one saying (Mk 2.28 par.) and possible in one or two more (Lk. 9.58 par.; Mk 9.9 par.), but in neither of these sayings is the general interpretation without problems and the specific interpretation has a good claim to being correct also in these instances. If the sayings are considered as a whole, the specific interpretation is the only possibility.23

This conclusion is only valid for the extant sources, the earliest being the Gospel of Mark and the double tradition of Matthew and Luke. It is possible that the expression originally had a different meaning and that this meaning was changed in the course of transmission. It is possible that Jesus meant something entirely different when he used the expression ‫בר אנשא‬, and that the use of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in translation changed the meaning and gave rise to radically altered sayings and new sayings that were created by the p­ ost-Easter community. If that be the case, however, Jesus’ original meaning is now irrecoverable.24 The evidence of the earliest extant sources points unanimously to the specific meaning. Any hypothesis that postulates a different meaning on Jesus’ part must remain speculative. Not only must it isolate a few sayings as the only ones that can be considered authentic, it must also argue for a strained interpretation of those sayings.25 The only possible way backwards to the historical Jesus must be based on a presupposition of continuity between the historical Jesus and the earliest records.

196

The double tradition in Matthew and Luke may attest to an independent version of this saying (Lk. 9.26/Mt. 16.27). Cf. Lindars, Son of Man, 50–53. 21.  This saying is the first example Casey cites as evidence that a general reference is intended in all the authentic Son of Man sayings (Solution, 121–25). 22.  Similarly, Burkett, Son of Man, 92–96; Ulrich B. Müller, “Jesus als ‘der Menschensohn’,” in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, ed. Dieter Sänger, ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67 (­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 100–109. Dunn concludes that Jesus used the expression in an ambiguous way, as a somewhat modest s­ elf-reference, but not as a title (Jesus Remembered, 746). I would add only that the context of his sayings (as they are preserved) removes the ambiguity. 23.  It is also worth noting that “the Son of Man” is consistently arthrous in the Gospel tradition (except Jn 5.27), in contrast to the other biblical occurrences, where the singular form is consistently anarthrous. This characteristic usage may reflect an Aramaic idiom, where the arthrous ‫ בר )א(נשא‬is used in a generic sense. But it is also possible that the arthrous υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is the translator’s way of making clear that the term refers to a specific character. Moule has argued that this specific character is none other than the one like a son of man that is known from Dan. 7.13 (C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 12–17; “‘The Son of Man’: Some Facts,” NTS 41 [1995]: 277–79;

197

The Aramaic Evidence However, a theory regarding Jesus’ use of the term “son of man” must not only explain the Greek data in the Synoptic Gospels, but must also account for Jesus’

similarly Peter Müller, “Intertextuelle Aspekte,” 151). However close to Dan. 7.13 the link may be, the consistent use of the article in the Greek text of the Gospels lends some support to the interpretation that the referent is a specific individual. 24.  That is the conclusion of Mogens Müller (The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation, Copenhagen International Seminar [London: Equinox, 2008], 419). 25.  Casey claims to use an objective criterion in his delimiting of authentic sayings: those whose original Aramaic he thinks he is able to reconstruct (Solution, 119–21). This criterion may serve as an inconclusive positive criterion, but hardly as a negative criterion. If a saying demonstrably may go back to an Aramaic original, that strengthens the likelihood that it is authentic, but it does not rule out the possibility that it originated in an ­Aramaic-speaking community. On the other hand, the use of this criterion as a negative criterion presupposes a too rigid understanding of the transmission process. One’s inability to reconstruct the Aramaic original may be due to the paraphrastic nature of the transmission. Such a saying may well preserve Jesus’ ipsissima vox if not his ipsissima verba. Cf. Paul Owen, “Review of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem,” RBL, no. 2 (2009), http://www.bookreviews. org/pdf/6442_6959.pdf. Bauckham observes that the proliferation of Son of Man sayings becomes difficult to explain if the only authentic sayings be those that reasonably can be understood generically (“Son of Man,” 28–29).

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

use of the underlying Aramaic expression. The phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is quite unnatural in Greek and is not found in Greek texts independent of the New Testament. It is obvious that it represents a wooden translation of the Aramaic, and that it goes back to the term ‫בר אנשא‬.26 This term means “a human being.” It can be used both for a particular human being and for human beings in general.27 There is no known example that ‫ בר אנשא‬can be used as a title.28 The modern debate over its meaning was precipitated by Geza Vermes, who in a famous essay argued that ‫ בר אנשא‬may be used idiomatically as a circumlocution for “I.”29 Vermes has provided ample evidence that ‫ בר )א(נשא‬may be used as a s­ elf-reference. But he has not been able to convince the majority of scholars that these examples are best explained as a circumlocution for “I.”30 Casey and Lindars have argued that ‫ בר )א(נשא‬instead has a generic sense.31 The ­self-referential use is understood as a generic use that is especially true about the speaker. In one example Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai desires an extra mouth so that one of them can be exclusively dedicated to the study of the law. Simeon is quoted as saying: “I would have implored the ­All-Merciful that he should create mouths for man (‫ ;)לבר נשא‬one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs” (y. Ber. 1.5).32 Such an act of creation would of

course concern humankind as such, although Simeon’s concern is for himself. The generic sense is used with special reference to the speaker. But not all of the examples can be explained in that way. Sometimes ‫)א(נשא‬ ‫ בר‬is better understood as indefinite, similar to the English “one” or “someone.” In y. Ber. 2.8, Cahana asks with an implied ­self-reference: “A man (‫ )בר נש‬whose mother wishes him well and another whose stepmother honors him, should he go there?”33 Cahana is not making a general statement about humankind here, but he is not specifically referring to himself, either. Rather, he refers to an indefinite human being; the context makes it clear that this human being is none other than himself. This usage provides the best explanation for Jesus’ use of “the son of man” as a ­self-reference. Jesus’ practice may perhaps also be compared to Paul’s preference for the third person and the use of the indefinite ἄνθρωπος in his account of his own experiences (2 Cor. 12.2-4). In itself, “son of man” is indefinite, but the context makes it clear that Jesus is referring to himself in a roundabout way.34 Regardless of what the connotations may have been when Jesus spoke of himself in this way, Jesus’ use of “the son of man” likely referred to himself as a specific individual.

198

199

Connotations 26. Casey, Solution, 61. 27.  Geza Vermes, “Appendix E: The Use of ‫בר נש‬/‫ בר נשא‬in Jewish Aramaic,” in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts: With an Appendix on the Son of Man, 3rd edn, ed. Matthew Black (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 315–19; Casey, Solution, 61–67. 28.  This is true also for Dan. 7.13, where the heavenly being does not bear the title Son of Man (‫)בר אנשא‬, but is compared to a son of man (‫)כבר אנש‬. 29.  Vermes, “‫בר נש‬/‫בר נשא‬.” 30.  But see C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 178, n. 25; Günther Schwarz, Jesus ‘der Menschensohn’: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Menschensohnworten Jesu, BWANT 6/19 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), 73–85. Fitzmyer insists that the examples cited by Vermes are too late to be relevant for our understanding of ­first-century Aramaic. If the later material is ruled out, it becomes difficult to explain Jesus’ usage. Fitzmyer maintains that only the Son of Man sayings that can be understood as generic are original (Luke [I-IX], 210). It is possible, however, as Bietenhard and Bauckham have urged, that Jesus’ use of “son of man” is innovative and therefore without contemporary parallels (Hans Bietenhard, “‘Der Menschensohn’ – ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien: I. Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil,” in ANRW, II.25.1.307; “Son of Man,” 30). 31. Lindars, Son of Man, 17–24; Casey, Solution, 56–81. 32.  Quoted from The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot, editing,

If the simplest explanation for all of the evidence is that Jesus used the expression “son of man” and intended it as an exclusive ­self-reference, what did he mean by it? The passage from the Scriptures of Israel that may provide a key to its significance is Daniel 7. After the description of the four beasts, one like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7.13). To this character is given “dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed” (7.14). Many scholars understand this son of man as a collective symbol, but there are good reasons for seeing him as an individual (cf. Chapter 8). A son of man character

translation, and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums 18 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 106. 33.  Quoted from The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot, 246–47. 34.  Similarly, Bietenhard, “‘Menschensohn’,” II.25.1.266–313; Richard J. Bauckham, “Son of Man,” 27–30.

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

use of the underlying Aramaic expression. The phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is quite unnatural in Greek and is not found in Greek texts independent of the New Testament. It is obvious that it represents a wooden translation of the Aramaic, and that it goes back to the term ‫בר אנשא‬.26 This term means “a human being.” It can be used both for a particular human being and for human beings in general.27 There is no known example that ‫ בר אנשא‬can be used as a title.28 The modern debate over its meaning was precipitated by Geza Vermes, who in a famous essay argued that ‫ בר אנשא‬may be used idiomatically as a circumlocution for “I.”29 Vermes has provided ample evidence that ‫ בר )א(נשא‬may be used as a s­ elf-reference. But he has not been able to convince the majority of scholars that these examples are best explained as a circumlocution for “I.”30 Casey and Lindars have argued that ‫ בר )א(נשא‬instead has a generic sense.31 The ­self-referential use is understood as a generic use that is especially true about the speaker. In one example Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai desires an extra mouth so that one of them can be exclusively dedicated to the study of the law. Simeon is quoted as saying: “I would have implored the ­All-Merciful that he should create mouths for man (‫ ;)לבר נשא‬one for him to exert himself in Torah and the other one for his other needs” (y. Ber. 1.5).32 Such an act of creation would of

course concern humankind as such, although Simeon’s concern is for himself. The generic sense is used with special reference to the speaker. But not all of the examples can be explained in that way. Sometimes ‫)א(נשא‬ ‫ בר‬is better understood as indefinite, similar to the English “one” or “someone.” In y. Ber. 2.8, Cahana asks with an implied ­self-reference: “A man (‫ )בר נש‬whose mother wishes him well and another whose stepmother honors him, should he go there?”33 Cahana is not making a general statement about humankind here, but he is not specifically referring to himself, either. Rather, he refers to an indefinite human being; the context makes it clear that this human being is none other than himself. This usage provides the best explanation for Jesus’ use of “the son of man” as a ­self-reference. Jesus’ practice may perhaps also be compared to Paul’s preference for the third person and the use of the indefinite ἄνθρωπος in his account of his own experiences (2 Cor. 12.2-4). In itself, “son of man” is indefinite, but the context makes it clear that Jesus is referring to himself in a roundabout way.34 Regardless of what the connotations may have been when Jesus spoke of himself in this way, Jesus’ use of “the son of man” likely referred to himself as a specific individual.

198

199

Connotations 26. Casey, Solution, 61. 27.  Geza Vermes, “Appendix E: The Use of ‫בר נש‬/‫ בר נשא‬in Jewish Aramaic,” in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts: With an Appendix on the Son of Man, 3rd edn, ed. Matthew Black (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 315–19; Casey, Solution, 61–67. 28.  This is true also for Dan. 7.13, where the heavenly being does not bear the title Son of Man (‫)בר אנשא‬, but is compared to a son of man (‫)כבר אנש‬. 29.  Vermes, “‫בר נש‬/‫בר נשא‬.” 30.  But see C. H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1970), 178, n. 25; Günther Schwarz, Jesus ‘der Menschensohn’: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Menschensohnworten Jesu, BWANT 6/19 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986), 73–85. Fitzmyer insists that the examples cited by Vermes are too late to be relevant for our understanding of ­first-century Aramaic. If the later material is ruled out, it becomes difficult to explain Jesus’ usage. Fitzmyer maintains that only the Son of Man sayings that can be understood as generic are original (Luke [I-IX], 210). It is possible, however, as Bietenhard and Bauckham have urged, that Jesus’ use of “son of man” is innovative and therefore without contemporary parallels (Hans Bietenhard, “‘Der Menschensohn’ – ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien: I. Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil,” in ANRW, II.25.1.307; “Son of Man,” 30). 31. Lindars, Son of Man, 17–24; Casey, Solution, 56–81. 32.  Quoted from The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot, editing,

If the simplest explanation for all of the evidence is that Jesus used the expression “son of man” and intended it as an exclusive ­self-reference, what did he mean by it? The passage from the Scriptures of Israel that may provide a key to its significance is Daniel 7. After the description of the four beasts, one like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7.13). To this character is given “dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed” (7.14). Many scholars understand this son of man as a collective symbol, but there are good reasons for seeing him as an individual (cf. Chapter 8). A son of man character

translation, and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums 18 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 106. 33.  Quoted from The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot, 246–47. 34.  Similarly, Bietenhard, “‘Menschensohn’,” II.25.1.266–313; Richard J. Bauckham, “Son of Man,” 27–30.

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

which is modeled upon the portrait in Daniel 7 appears in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch as well.35 There seems to be some evidence for the use of “son of man” as a title, therefore. If so, Jesus may have intended to identify himself as the heavenly figure known from Daniel 7 and the Similitudes. But this interpretation runs into considerable difficulties. “Son of man” does not appear to have been a recognizable title in 1 Enoch. The initial description of the character fills the expression with meaning by alluding to Daniel 7 (1 En. 46.1). What is more, the Synoptic Gospels give no indication that “the son of man” was understood as a title, let alone the title of an exalted heavenly being. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ implicit claims frequently met with disapproval from the scribes of Israel, but no one seemed to have a quibble with his appropriation of the expression “son of man” for himself. Neither is there any trace of the early church using “son of man” as a title. The term is carefully preserved as Jesus’ way of referring to himself, but there is no record of Christians confessing Jesus as the Son of Man.36 When the expression occurs in the Book of Revelation (1.13; 14.14), it is not as a title, but as a simile.37 If the expression “son of man” on Jesus’ lips had more than a purely denotative function,38 its connotations must have been sufficiently enigmatic as to be lost on the original audience and deemed unfit for confessional use by the early Christians. This possibility cannot be ruled out. If what I have argued in the preceding chapters is broadly correct, Jesus’ exalted ­self-understanding frequently remained implicit. If “son of man” was an unusual s­ elf-designation, and especially if it was associated with humility and modesty,39 Jesus’ linking of the title with an authority that equals the authority of God (Mk 2.10 par.) would likely have generated some puzzlement. There are also clear traces in the gospel tradition that “the son of man” was understood as an enigmatic ­self-designation

(Mt. 16.13; Jn 12.34).40 A solution to this enigma would have been provided in the son of man sayings that allude to the Danielic Son of Man, who came with the clouds of heaven and to whom was given everlasting dominion, glory, and kingship that will not be destroyed (Dan. 7.13-14). The clearest such allusions occur in the Olivet discourse (Mk 13.26 par.) and the account of Jesus’ trial (Mk 14.62 par.). An allusion to Dan. 7.13-14 may also have been intended in the sayings that describe the appearance of the Son of Man in the sky (cf. “coming with the clouds of heaven” in Dan. 7.13), as well as the sayings that associate the coming of the Son of Man (cf. “coming” in Dan. 7.13) with his glory (cf. “glory” in Dan. 7.14) or with his kingdom (cf. “kingship” [LXX: βασιλεία] in Dan. 7.14). Thus, the appearance of the Son of Man is like “the lightning flashes and lights up the sky” in Lk. 17.24 (cf. Mt. 24.27); the Son of Man “comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” in Mk 8.38 (cf. Lk. 9.26; Mt. 16.27); he “is seated on his throne of glory” in Mt. 19.28; he “comes in his glory” in Mt. 25.31; he is “coming in his kingdom” in Mt. 16.28; he is coming in an apocalyptic sense in Mt. 10.23; 16.28; 24.27, 37, 39, 44; Lk. 12.40; 18.8; and his apocalyptic kingdom is referred to in Mt. 13.41.41

200

35.  The Similitudes of 1 Enoch are now usually dated to the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE (cf. Chapter 8). Therefore, these traditions may well have been known to Jesus’ contemporaries. 36.  Stephen’s words in Acts 7.56 do not reflect independent Christian testimony, but are a mere echo of Jesus’ own words (Mk 14.62 par.). 37.  In a quotation from Ps. 8.5, Heb. 2.6 makes reference to a “son of man” (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) and applies it to Jesus. Unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, however, “son of man” is here anarthrous. As in Ps. 8.5, it is not used as a title. 38.  That is the conclusion of Hare, Son of Man, 280. 39.  Vermes, “‫בר נש‬/‫בר נשא‬,” 327.

201

Jesus and Daniel 7 The question of the authenticity of these individual sayings is unimportant for my present purposes.42 But a more general question must be asked: Does this 40.  Cf. Hampel, Menschensohn, 164. 41.  Vermes, who insists that Jesus did not associate the “son of man” with Dan. 7.13-14, acknowledges a direct or indirect reference to Dan. 7.13-14 in all of these verses (Jesus, 179). It has also been argued that Lk. 12.8 par. should be understood as dependent upon Daniel 7. The central character is the Son of Man, the Father and the angels are present, the context is that of the final judgment, and the Son of Man has the function of judge (Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation, WUNT 38 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986], 203; Hampel, Menschensohn, 156; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 214). The parallel is not very close, however. The context of Daniel 7 is that of judgment of the hostile world powers and the vindication of the people of God; in Lk. 12.8 par. the judgment is on individuals, including the disciples themselves, and serves as a warning to them. In Daniel 7, the son of man is not explicitly attributed with the function to judge; it is only implicit in his role as ruler. While this saying can be understood within the trajectory of a Danielic understanding of the Son of Man, it cannot serve as independent evidence of such an understanding. 42.  Many scholars now argue that only those Son of Man sayings that can be understood on the basis of the Aramaic idiom (variously understood) are authentic (e.g. Vermes, Jesus, 177–86; Lindars, Son of Man, 29–84; Richard J. Bauckham, “Son of Man,” 29–30; Schwarz, ‘Menschensohn’, 96–326; Hare, Son of Man, 257–80; Ulrich B. Müller, “‘Der Menschensohn’,”

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

which is modeled upon the portrait in Daniel 7 appears in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch as well.35 There seems to be some evidence for the use of “son of man” as a title, therefore. If so, Jesus may have intended to identify himself as the heavenly figure known from Daniel 7 and the Similitudes. But this interpretation runs into considerable difficulties. “Son of man” does not appear to have been a recognizable title in 1 Enoch. The initial description of the character fills the expression with meaning by alluding to Daniel 7 (1 En. 46.1). What is more, the Synoptic Gospels give no indication that “the son of man” was understood as a title, let alone the title of an exalted heavenly being. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ implicit claims frequently met with disapproval from the scribes of Israel, but no one seemed to have a quibble with his appropriation of the expression “son of man” for himself. Neither is there any trace of the early church using “son of man” as a title. The term is carefully preserved as Jesus’ way of referring to himself, but there is no record of Christians confessing Jesus as the Son of Man.36 When the expression occurs in the Book of Revelation (1.13; 14.14), it is not as a title, but as a simile.37 If the expression “son of man” on Jesus’ lips had more than a purely denotative function,38 its connotations must have been sufficiently enigmatic as to be lost on the original audience and deemed unfit for confessional use by the early Christians. This possibility cannot be ruled out. If what I have argued in the preceding chapters is broadly correct, Jesus’ exalted ­self-understanding frequently remained implicit. If “son of man” was an unusual s­ elf-designation, and especially if it was associated with humility and modesty,39 Jesus’ linking of the title with an authority that equals the authority of God (Mk 2.10 par.) would likely have generated some puzzlement. There are also clear traces in the gospel tradition that “the son of man” was understood as an enigmatic ­self-designation

(Mt. 16.13; Jn 12.34).40 A solution to this enigma would have been provided in the son of man sayings that allude to the Danielic Son of Man, who came with the clouds of heaven and to whom was given everlasting dominion, glory, and kingship that will not be destroyed (Dan. 7.13-14). The clearest such allusions occur in the Olivet discourse (Mk 13.26 par.) and the account of Jesus’ trial (Mk 14.62 par.). An allusion to Dan. 7.13-14 may also have been intended in the sayings that describe the appearance of the Son of Man in the sky (cf. “coming with the clouds of heaven” in Dan. 7.13), as well as the sayings that associate the coming of the Son of Man (cf. “coming” in Dan. 7.13) with his glory (cf. “glory” in Dan. 7.14) or with his kingdom (cf. “kingship” [LXX: βασιλεία] in Dan. 7.14). Thus, the appearance of the Son of Man is like “the lightning flashes and lights up the sky” in Lk. 17.24 (cf. Mt. 24.27); the Son of Man “comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” in Mk 8.38 (cf. Lk. 9.26; Mt. 16.27); he “is seated on his throne of glory” in Mt. 19.28; he “comes in his glory” in Mt. 25.31; he is “coming in his kingdom” in Mt. 16.28; he is coming in an apocalyptic sense in Mt. 10.23; 16.28; 24.27, 37, 39, 44; Lk. 12.40; 18.8; and his apocalyptic kingdom is referred to in Mt. 13.41.41

200

35.  The Similitudes of 1 Enoch are now usually dated to the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE (cf. Chapter 8). Therefore, these traditions may well have been known to Jesus’ contemporaries. 36.  Stephen’s words in Acts 7.56 do not reflect independent Christian testimony, but are a mere echo of Jesus’ own words (Mk 14.62 par.). 37.  In a quotation from Ps. 8.5, Heb. 2.6 makes reference to a “son of man” (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) and applies it to Jesus. Unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, however, “son of man” is here anarthrous. As in Ps. 8.5, it is not used as a title. 38.  That is the conclusion of Hare, Son of Man, 280. 39.  Vermes, “‫בר נש‬/‫בר נשא‬,” 327.

201

Jesus and Daniel 7 The question of the authenticity of these individual sayings is unimportant for my present purposes.42 But a more general question must be asked: Does this 40.  Cf. Hampel, Menschensohn, 164. 41.  Vermes, who insists that Jesus did not associate the “son of man” with Dan. 7.13-14, acknowledges a direct or indirect reference to Dan. 7.13-14 in all of these verses (Jesus, 179). It has also been argued that Lk. 12.8 par. should be understood as dependent upon Daniel 7. The central character is the Son of Man, the Father and the angels are present, the context is that of the final judgment, and the Son of Man has the function of judge (Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation, WUNT 38 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986], 203; Hampel, Menschensohn, 156; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 214). The parallel is not very close, however. The context of Daniel 7 is that of judgment of the hostile world powers and the vindication of the people of God; in Lk. 12.8 par. the judgment is on individuals, including the disciples themselves, and serves as a warning to them. In Daniel 7, the son of man is not explicitly attributed with the function to judge; it is only implicit in his role as ruler. While this saying can be understood within the trajectory of a Danielic understanding of the Son of Man, it cannot serve as independent evidence of such an understanding. 42.  Many scholars now argue that only those Son of Man sayings that can be understood on the basis of the Aramaic idiom (variously understood) are authentic (e.g. Vermes, Jesus, 177–86; Lindars, Son of Man, 29–84; Richard J. Bauckham, “Son of Man,” 29–30; Schwarz, ‘Menschensohn’, 96–326; Hare, Son of Man, 257–80; Ulrich B. Müller, “‘Der Menschensohn’,”

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

association of “the Son of Man” and the vision in Dan. 7.13-14 stem from the historical Jesus or is it the result of theological reflection in the early church? If the ­post-Easter community preserved the expression “son of man” as a favorite ­self-designation of Jesus, it is plausible that they would have expanded some of his sayings so as to make this s­ elf-reference more meaningful to them. They may have found the apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7 a useful tool to do so. Even if all the sayings cited above preserve an authentic core of what Jesus said, they may have been emended in the course of tradition so that they include an allusion to Dan. 7.13-14. On the other hand, even if some or all of the sayings cited above be inauthentic, they may preserve the memory that Jesus identified the Son of Man with the heavenly being from Dan. 7.13-14. There is one observation that may tip the scales of likelihood in the direction of authenticity. The Danielic Son of Man plays a minimal role in the theology of the early church. Outside the Gospels, only the Book of Revelation alludes to this passage (Rev. 1.7, 13; 11.15; 14.14).43 Rev. 1.7 and 14.14 describe someone like a son of man coming or sitting on the clouds, a reasonably clear echo of Dan. 7.13. But the Book of Revelation is usually dated in the 90s CE, and this book alone is flimsy evidence for a theological tendency that is assumed to be at work in the Gospel of Mark, which is usually dated around 70 CE. On the other hand, the early church shows considerable interest in another “son of man” text, namely Psalm 8. Verse 5 of this Psalm marvels over God’s care for the son of man (Heb.: ‫ ;בן אדם‬Gr.: υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου). Psalm 8 is a favorite Psalm for messianic exegesis in the early church. Psalm 8.7 is quoted about Christ as early as in 1 Corinthians (15.27), a letter that dates to 55–57 CE. The same verse is alluded to with a messianic interpretation in Eph. 1.22 and possibly alluded to in Phil. 3.21 as well. In the Letter to the Hebrews, this Psalm is quoted at length in a Christological argument (2.6-8). Verse 5, which mentions the son of man, is referred to explicitly (Heb. 2.6), and this son of man is identified with Jesus (Heb. 2.9).44 Psalm 8 was in the early church also associated with

the preeminently messianic Psalm 110 (1 Cor. 15.25-27; Eph. 1.20-22), which was also associated with the Son of Man in Mk 14.62 par. It appears, therefore, that Ps. 8.5 would have been a more obvious choice had the church wanted to invest the gospel stories about the son of man with a Scriptural allusion. But the early church’s favorite son of man text, Psalm 8, plays no role in the Gospels. On the other hand, the Gospels’ favorite Son of Man text, Daniel 7, plays no role in the earliest writings of the early church. The best explanation may well be that the Gospel stories preserve an authentic tradition when they associate the Son of Man with Dan. 7.13-14.45 If the expression “the son of man” is understood in light of Dan. 7.13-14, a number of connotations are possible: the Son of Man is a heavenly being appearing as a human,46 he is the eschatological judge (cf. the Similitudes of 1 Enoch),47 he is the representative of the people of God and will experience vindication subsequent to his suffering.48 As an enigmatic s­ elf-designation, its

202

103–9; Casey, Solution, 119–21). For the position that sayings from all three classes of sayings (those concerning the present authority of the Son of Man, the suffering of the Son of Man, and the future Son of Man) are authentic, see Hooker, Son of Man, 82–87, 93–99, 103, 116–21, 122–23, 134, 143–47, 161–62, 172–73; I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 72–79; Caragounis, Son of Man, 168–242. 43.  This observation is based on the list of quotations and allusions in NA27. 44.  Commentators are divided over the interpretation of Heb. 2.5-9. Does the author of

203

Hebrews understand the Psalm messianically? In its original context, Ps. 8.5-7 describes human beings in general, but the context of Hebrews is a Christological argument. Some interpreters conclude that the author of Hebrews has understood the Psalm to refer to human beings, but given it an messianic application (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 215–17), whereas others find that the primary reference of “son of man” in Heb. 2.5 is Christ (­Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991], 194; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 150–52; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 71–75; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A S­ ocio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 108–11). 45.  Referring to Lk. 12.32; Mt. 19.28/Lk. 22.28, 30, Jeremias observes that other authentic sayings make reference to Daniel 7 (New Testament Theology, 265). Some scholars have also argued that the overlap of important motifs in Daniel and Jesus’ preaching is another argument for Danielic associations of “the Son of Man.” The most significant connections are found in the theme of the kingdom of God and the defeat of God’s enemies (Caragounis, Son of Man, 168–215; Craig A. Evans, “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 [2003]: 167–69). I have argued, however, that Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God is not fully explicable against the background of the vision of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7, but that it must be understood against the broader context of God’s kingly rule in the Scriptures of Israel (cf. Chapter 1). Other scholars who trace the association of “the Son of Man” and Dan. 7.13-14 to the historical Jesus include Hooker, Son of Man, 116–21; Bietenhard, “‘Menschensohn’,” II.25.1.307; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 43–50; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 747–60. 46. Kim, ‘Son of Man’, 15–37; Caragounis, Son of Man, 61–144. 47.  George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in ABD, 6.137–42. 48. Hooker, Son of Man, 11–32; Moule, Christology, 12–22.

God’s Equal

10.  Jesus as the Son of Man

association of “the Son of Man” and the vision in Dan. 7.13-14 stem from the historical Jesus or is it the result of theological reflection in the early church? If the ­post-Easter community preserved the expression “son of man” as a favorite ­self-designation of Jesus, it is plausible that they would have expanded some of his sayings so as to make this s­ elf-reference more meaningful to them. They may have found the apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7 a useful tool to do so. Even if all the sayings cited above preserve an authentic core of what Jesus said, they may have been emended in the course of tradition so that they include an allusion to Dan. 7.13-14. On the other hand, even if some or all of the sayings cited above be inauthentic, they may preserve the memory that Jesus identified the Son of Man with the heavenly being from Dan. 7.13-14. There is one observation that may tip the scales of likelihood in the direction of authenticity. The Danielic Son of Man plays a minimal role in the theology of the early church. Outside the Gospels, only the Book of Revelation alludes to this passage (Rev. 1.7, 13; 11.15; 14.14).43 Rev. 1.7 and 14.14 describe someone like a son of man coming or sitting on the clouds, a reasonably clear echo of Dan. 7.13. But the Book of Revelation is usually dated in the 90s CE, and this book alone is flimsy evidence for a theological tendency that is assumed to be at work in the Gospel of Mark, which is usually dated around 70 CE. On the other hand, the early church shows considerable interest in another “son of man” text, namely Psalm 8. Verse 5 of this Psalm marvels over God’s care for the son of man (Heb.: ‫ ;בן אדם‬Gr.: υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου). Psalm 8 is a favorite Psalm for messianic exegesis in the early church. Psalm 8.7 is quoted about Christ as early as in 1 Corinthians (15.27), a letter that dates to 55–57 CE. The same verse is alluded to with a messianic interpretation in Eph. 1.22 and possibly alluded to in Phil. 3.21 as well. In the Letter to the Hebrews, this Psalm is quoted at length in a Christological argument (2.6-8). Verse 5, which mentions the son of man, is referred to explicitly (Heb. 2.6), and this son of man is identified with Jesus (Heb. 2.9).44 Psalm 8 was in the early church also associated with

the preeminently messianic Psalm 110 (1 Cor. 15.25-27; Eph. 1.20-22), which was also associated with the Son of Man in Mk 14.62 par. It appears, therefore, that Ps. 8.5 would have been a more obvious choice had the church wanted to invest the gospel stories about the son of man with a Scriptural allusion. But the early church’s favorite son of man text, Psalm 8, plays no role in the Gospels. On the other hand, the Gospels’ favorite Son of Man text, Daniel 7, plays no role in the earliest writings of the early church. The best explanation may well be that the Gospel stories preserve an authentic tradition when they associate the Son of Man with Dan. 7.13-14.45 If the expression “the son of man” is understood in light of Dan. 7.13-14, a number of connotations are possible: the Son of Man is a heavenly being appearing as a human,46 he is the eschatological judge (cf. the Similitudes of 1 Enoch),47 he is the representative of the people of God and will experience vindication subsequent to his suffering.48 As an enigmatic s­ elf-designation, its

202

103–9; Casey, Solution, 119–21). For the position that sayings from all three classes of sayings (those concerning the present authority of the Son of Man, the suffering of the Son of Man, and the future Son of Man) are authentic, see Hooker, Son of Man, 82–87, 93–99, 103, 116–21, 122–23, 134, 143–47, 161–62, 172–73; I. Howard Marshall, Christology, 72–79; Caragounis, Son of Man, 168–242. 43.  This observation is based on the list of quotations and allusions in NA27. 44.  Commentators are divided over the interpretation of Heb. 2.5-9. Does the author of

203

Hebrews understand the Psalm messianically? In its original context, Ps. 8.5-7 describes human beings in general, but the context of Hebrews is a Christological argument. Some interpreters conclude that the author of Hebrews has understood the Psalm to refer to human beings, but given it an messianic application (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36 [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 215–17), whereas others find that the primary reference of “son of man” in Heb. 2.5 is Christ (­Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, KEK 13 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991], 194; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 150–52; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 71–75; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A S­ ocio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 108–11). 45.  Referring to Lk. 12.32; Mt. 19.28/Lk. 22.28, 30, Jeremias observes that other authentic sayings make reference to Daniel 7 (New Testament Theology, 265). Some scholars have also argued that the overlap of important motifs in Daniel and Jesus’ preaching is another argument for Danielic associations of “the Son of Man.” The most significant connections are found in the theme of the kingdom of God and the defeat of God’s enemies (Caragounis, Son of Man, 168–215; Craig A. Evans, “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 [2003]: 167–69). I have argued, however, that Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God is not fully explicable against the background of the vision of the one like a son of man in Daniel 7, but that it must be understood against the broader context of God’s kingly rule in the Scriptures of Israel (cf. Chapter 1). Other scholars who trace the association of “the Son of Man” and Dan. 7.13-14 to the historical Jesus include Hooker, Son of Man, 116–21; Bietenhard, “‘Menschensohn’,” II.25.1.307; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2, 43–50; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 747–60. 46. Kim, ‘Son of Man’, 15–37; Caragounis, Son of Man, 61–144. 47.  George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in ABD, 6.137–42. 48. Hooker, Son of Man, 11–32; Moule, Christology, 12–22.

204

God’s Equal

interpretation will depend on the presuppositions of the interpreter.49 If what I have outlined in the previous chapters is broadly correct, it may be appropriate to understand the Son of Man as a heavenly being who exercises the authority of God. In the Synoptic tradition, his glory is even equal to that of the Father (Mk 8.38 par.). The biblical concept of the day of the Lord is also transferred to the Son of Man (Lk. 17.24, 30), so that the Son of Man takes the place of God as the eschatological judge (cf. Mt. 13.41; 19.28; 25.31).50

Conclusion The significance of the term “son of man” continues to puzzle biblical scholars, as it apparently puzzled those who were first exposed to the term as a designation for Jesus. The quest for its interpretation seems to be a particularly clear example of the decisive influence of the interpreter’s own presuppositions. In this light, I cannot claim that Jesus’ use of the term offers additional compelling evidence for the view of Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding I have advocated here. However, if one broadly accepts the arguments I have presented in the previous nine chapters, Jesus’ use of the term may be understandable within that framework. As one who understood himself as God’s equal, Jesus may have used “the son of man” as a cryptic ­self-designation. Such usage would have been in keeping with his apparent tendency to avoid making explicit claims regarding his exalted status. If Jesus also associated the term with the Danielic vision of the Son of Man as a heavenly being, those who caught this allusion could appreciate the connotations of the term. As the Son of Man, Jesus could be understood as a heavenly being, even more glorious than the Danielic and Enochic figures. As God’s equal, he shared the glory of the Father.

205

11 GOD’S NEW TEMPLE

If Jesus claimed to be the presence of God on earth, this claim would have had consequences for his attitude towards the temple in Jerusalem. According to the Scriptures of Israel, the temple was the place where God would meet his people (Exod. 25.22; 1 Kgs 8.29; Ps. 132.1-10). If God now met his people in Jesus of Nazareth, what were the implications for the traditional meeting place, the temple? In the present chapter I will examine the traditions regarding Jesus’ conflict with the Jerusalem temple and see if my hypothesis regarding Jesus’ ­self-understanding is able to account for this evidence. There are two traditions that are relevant: the charge that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple (Mk 14.58 par.), and Jesus’ temple action (Mk 11.15-17 par.). The first two parts of this chapter will discuss the nature of these traditions. In the third section, I will compare these traditions to Jewish messianic expectations. I will argue that these traditions are unable to explain Jesus’ attitude towards the temple. The fourth part of this chapter turns to the Jewish ideas regarding God’s own eschatological temple, and the fifth part discusses how Jesus can be understood within this framework.

The Temple Charge (Mk 14.58 par.)

49.  Mogens Müller has masterfully documented how the history of the interpretation of the Son of Man mirrors the Christological thinking of the corresponding era (‘Son of Man’). 50.  Ulrich B. Müller, “‘Der Menschensohn’,” 114–17.

The Synoptic Gospels all report that Jesus was in conflict with the temple establishment, but it has proved difficult to analyze the nature of this conflict. The Synoptics appear to have an interest in toning down the tension between Jesus and the temple, perhaps as a result of their interest in emphasizing the continuity between Jesus and God’s previous revelation. This tendency is most pronounced in Luke, who ties his story of the revelation in Jesus directly to the temple (cf. Lk. 1.9; 24.53).

204

God’s Equal

interpretation will depend on the presuppositions of the interpreter.49 If what I have outlined in the previous chapters is broadly correct, it may be appropriate to understand the Son of Man as a heavenly being who exercises the authority of God. In the Synoptic tradition, his glory is even equal to that of the Father (Mk 8.38 par.). The biblical concept of the day of the Lord is also transferred to the Son of Man (Lk. 17.24, 30), so that the Son of Man takes the place of God as the eschatological judge (cf. Mt. 13.41; 19.28; 25.31).50

Conclusion The significance of the term “son of man” continues to puzzle biblical scholars, as it apparently puzzled those who were first exposed to the term as a designation for Jesus. The quest for its interpretation seems to be a particularly clear example of the decisive influence of the interpreter’s own presuppositions. In this light, I cannot claim that Jesus’ use of the term offers additional compelling evidence for the view of Jesus’ s­ elf-understanding I have advocated here. However, if one broadly accepts the arguments I have presented in the previous nine chapters, Jesus’ use of the term may be understandable within that framework. As one who understood himself as God’s equal, Jesus may have used “the son of man” as a cryptic ­self-designation. Such usage would have been in keeping with his apparent tendency to avoid making explicit claims regarding his exalted status. If Jesus also associated the term with the Danielic vision of the Son of Man as a heavenly being, those who caught this allusion could appreciate the connotations of the term. As the Son of Man, Jesus could be understood as a heavenly being, even more glorious than the Danielic and Enochic figures. As God’s equal, he shared the glory of the Father.

205

11 GOD’S NEW TEMPLE

If Jesus claimed to be the presence of God on earth, this claim would have had consequences for his attitude towards the temple in Jerusalem. According to the Scriptures of Israel, the temple was the place where God would meet his people (Exod. 25.22; 1 Kgs 8.29; Ps. 132.1-10). If God now met his people in Jesus of Nazareth, what were the implications for the traditional meeting place, the temple? In the present chapter I will examine the traditions regarding Jesus’ conflict with the Jerusalem temple and see if my hypothesis regarding Jesus’ ­self-understanding is able to account for this evidence. There are two traditions that are relevant: the charge that Jesus threatened to destroy the temple (Mk 14.58 par.), and Jesus’ temple action (Mk 11.15-17 par.). The first two parts of this chapter will discuss the nature of these traditions. In the third section, I will compare these traditions to Jewish messianic expectations. I will argue that these traditions are unable to explain Jesus’ attitude towards the temple. The fourth part of this chapter turns to the Jewish ideas regarding God’s own eschatological temple, and the fifth part discusses how Jesus can be understood within this framework.

The Temple Charge (Mk 14.58 par.)

49.  Mogens Müller has masterfully documented how the history of the interpretation of the Son of Man mirrors the Christological thinking of the corresponding era (‘Son of Man’). 50.  Ulrich B. Müller, “‘Der Menschensohn’,” 114–17.

The Synoptic Gospels all report that Jesus was in conflict with the temple establishment, but it has proved difficult to analyze the nature of this conflict. The Synoptics appear to have an interest in toning down the tension between Jesus and the temple, perhaps as a result of their interest in emphasizing the continuity between Jesus and God’s previous revelation. This tendency is most pronounced in Luke, who ties his story of the revelation in Jesus directly to the temple (cf. Lk. 1.9; 24.53).

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

In any case, the starting point for an examination of Jesus’ attitude to the temple is the ­well-attested accusation that he announced its destruction. According to both Matthew and Mark, one of the charges that led to Jesus’ execution was that he had said “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (Mk 14.58 par.). The historical value of the trial accounts has been the object of much discussion since Eduard Lohse showed how they fail to comply with a number of the rules laid down for legal proceedings in the Mishnah.1 Some scholars have questioned the relevance of Lohse’s findings, as the Gospels only describe informal hearings and since the mishnaic legislation is of a later date.2 In any case, even if the trial accounts may not be based on reliable historical information from the actual proceedings, the charges are likely to reflect some of the accusations that were brought against Jesus during his ministry. Alternatively, they may reflect the interests of the evangelists and the way they wanted to portray Jesus. With respect to the temple charge, however, it can be explained neither on the basis of the evangelists’ theological interests nor as a literary device. Any developed “temple Christology” is difficult to detect, and the charge does not serve any function in the plot. In the case of Luke, it appears that he preferred not to report the charge at all. The charge is however reflected in the story of Stephen (Acts 6.14). Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, may have found that the charge was so well known that it would not serve any purpose to omit it. A different version, where Jesus threatens to destroy the temple, is also preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (71). Mark’s reservations are seen in that he qualified the charge as based on false testimony. Mark’s qualification that the charge was brought by false witnesses raises the question of whether there was any substance behind the accusation, and what that substance might have been. Both Matthew and Mark, and even

Luke, report that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple (Mk 13.2 par.). Whether or not this saying should be authentic, it does establish one important point: Mark’s Jesus threatened the destruction of the temple. Mark’s qualification of the temple charge as false can therefore not pertain to this basic fact. The fact that Jesus talked about the destruction and renewal of the temple is corroborated also by the Gospel of John, where the statement is interpreted in light of the resurrection: “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2.19). On this major point at least, both Jesus’ followers and accusers agree: Jesus threatened the destruction of the temple. The witnesses may be biased with regard to the wording, the context, and the nature of the threat, but its basic fact is very likely historical. If Mark agreed that Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, his objection to the charge may perhaps have to do with the idea that Jesus promised to rebuild it.3 On a historical reconstruction, however, it is difficult to envision that Jesus’ actually did speak of the destruction of the temple but not of its restoration. If Jesus was brought up on reliable charges that he threatened to destroy the temple, these charges would hardly have stood any stronger if they were augmented by the false accusation that he intended to rebuild it. It is not any easier to explain the second part of the temple charge as the product of Mark’s literary activity. That Jesus was falsely accused of wanting to build the temple serves no purpose in Mark’s story. Two possibilities then remain: (1) Jesus promised the restoration of the temple, but the evangelists wanted to suppress this element of the tradition. If so, it probably would have been easier to omit this part of the temple charge altogether, as Luke did. (2) Jesus spoke both of the destruction and the renewal of the temple, but Mark thought that Jesus’ accusers had twisted his words. He therefore labeled the accusations as false (Mk 14.57-58).4

1.  Eduard Lohse, “Der Prozess Jesu Christi,” in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testament, ed. Eduard Lohse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 96–97. 2.  For a defense of the historicity of the account, see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, WUNT II/106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 189–237; idem, “Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 625–56.

3.  Dieter Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Temples im Markusevangelium,” NTS 27 (1980–81): 466. 4.  Many scholars now consider both elements of the charge to have a basis in something Jesus had said. Cf. McKelvey, The New Temple, 70–71; Gerd Theissen, “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld vonm Stadt und Land,” TZ 32 (1976): 144–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 71–75; Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 113–52; Siegert, “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’,” 109. Some scholars, however, have questioned whether Jesus promised the renewal of the temple. John Donahue observes that the destruction and rebuilding of the temple are not combined in the Jewish tradition. In the early Christian tradition, Jesus’ threat regarding the destruction of

206

207

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

In any case, the starting point for an examination of Jesus’ attitude to the temple is the ­well-attested accusation that he announced its destruction. According to both Matthew and Mark, one of the charges that led to Jesus’ execution was that he had said “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands” (Mk 14.58 par.). The historical value of the trial accounts has been the object of much discussion since Eduard Lohse showed how they fail to comply with a number of the rules laid down for legal proceedings in the Mishnah.1 Some scholars have questioned the relevance of Lohse’s findings, as the Gospels only describe informal hearings and since the mishnaic legislation is of a later date.2 In any case, even if the trial accounts may not be based on reliable historical information from the actual proceedings, the charges are likely to reflect some of the accusations that were brought against Jesus during his ministry. Alternatively, they may reflect the interests of the evangelists and the way they wanted to portray Jesus. With respect to the temple charge, however, it can be explained neither on the basis of the evangelists’ theological interests nor as a literary device. Any developed “temple Christology” is difficult to detect, and the charge does not serve any function in the plot. In the case of Luke, it appears that he preferred not to report the charge at all. The charge is however reflected in the story of Stephen (Acts 6.14). Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, may have found that the charge was so well known that it would not serve any purpose to omit it. A different version, where Jesus threatens to destroy the temple, is also preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (71). Mark’s reservations are seen in that he qualified the charge as based on false testimony. Mark’s qualification that the charge was brought by false witnesses raises the question of whether there was any substance behind the accusation, and what that substance might have been. Both Matthew and Mark, and even

Luke, report that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple (Mk 13.2 par.). Whether or not this saying should be authentic, it does establish one important point: Mark’s Jesus threatened the destruction of the temple. Mark’s qualification of the temple charge as false can therefore not pertain to this basic fact. The fact that Jesus talked about the destruction and renewal of the temple is corroborated also by the Gospel of John, where the statement is interpreted in light of the resurrection: “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2.19). On this major point at least, both Jesus’ followers and accusers agree: Jesus threatened the destruction of the temple. The witnesses may be biased with regard to the wording, the context, and the nature of the threat, but its basic fact is very likely historical. If Mark agreed that Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, his objection to the charge may perhaps have to do with the idea that Jesus promised to rebuild it.3 On a historical reconstruction, however, it is difficult to envision that Jesus’ actually did speak of the destruction of the temple but not of its restoration. If Jesus was brought up on reliable charges that he threatened to destroy the temple, these charges would hardly have stood any stronger if they were augmented by the false accusation that he intended to rebuild it. It is not any easier to explain the second part of the temple charge as the product of Mark’s literary activity. That Jesus was falsely accused of wanting to build the temple serves no purpose in Mark’s story. Two possibilities then remain: (1) Jesus promised the restoration of the temple, but the evangelists wanted to suppress this element of the tradition. If so, it probably would have been easier to omit this part of the temple charge altogether, as Luke did. (2) Jesus spoke both of the destruction and the renewal of the temple, but Mark thought that Jesus’ accusers had twisted his words. He therefore labeled the accusations as false (Mk 14.57-58).4

1.  Eduard Lohse, “Der Prozess Jesu Christi,” in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testament, ed. Eduard Lohse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 96–97. 2.  For a defense of the historicity of the account, see Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus, WUNT II/106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 189–237; idem, “Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 625–56.

3.  Dieter Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Temples im Markusevangelium,” NTS 27 (1980–81): 466. 4.  Many scholars now consider both elements of the charge to have a basis in something Jesus had said. Cf. McKelvey, The New Temple, 70–71; Gerd Theissen, “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld vonm Stadt und Land,” TZ 32 (1976): 144–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 71–75; Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 113–52; Siegert, “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’,” 109. Some scholars, however, have questioned whether Jesus promised the renewal of the temple. John Donahue observes that the destruction and rebuilding of the temple are not combined in the Jewish tradition. In the early Christian tradition, Jesus’ threat regarding the destruction of

206

207

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

A comparison of the trial accounts in Matthew and Mark may shed some light on what the evangelists found objectionable. The Gospel of Matthew also includes the accusation regarding the destruction and reconstruction of the temple (Mt. 26.61), but Matthew does not qualify it as being false. Instead, he has made three changes as compared with Mark. He has changed the direct threat “I will destroy” to a statement of ability: “I am able to destroy;” he has omitted the antithesis between “made with hands” and “not made with hands;” and he has omitted the word “another” (ἄλλον). If Matthew’s revisions are a guide, the alleged falsity of the charge may pertain to the idea that Jesus had threatened to destroy the temple himself.5 Possibly, it may also have to do with the presupposition that Jesus spoke of the Jerusalem temple, which must have been the referent of the “temple made with hands.” On this supposition, Jesus’ words should be interpreted along the lines of Jn 2.19-22, that Jesus spoke about himself.6 Finally, it may be that the inclusion of the adjective ἄλλος was

taken to mean that the new temple would be of the same kind as the existing temple. If Jesus were looking forward to a heavenly temple, the implication that he would build another physical temple might have been what the evangelists considered false.7 At this point, a comparison with Jewish expectations regarding the renewal of the temple may help us understand the nature of Jesus’ claims. The literature of Second Temple Judaism contains many diverse traditions regarding the rebuilding of the temple (cf. below). Some of these involve the Messiah, and some expect a temple to be built by God and not by human beings. Some envision a physical temple and some a heavenly sanctuary. As a rule, none of these traditions combines the idea of a judgment of the temple with the picture of a new and more glorious building. If the old temple is in view at all, it is usually seen to be in ruins. The sorry state of the existing temple may be a result of God’s previous judgment, but the eschatological event of temple renewal is not seen as an act that combines judgment and destruction of the old temple with the erection of a new and more glorious one. If Jesus combines these two ideas, the reason is likely that he has in mind a new temple that is of a different kind than the existing one.8 Had Jesus simply wanted to establish a temple like the one that already existed there would be no need to destroy the old one. Had he wanted a temple service free of sinful practices, it would have been the sinful practices he would have had to remove, not the temple itself. But when Jesus combines the ideas of judgment and renewal, we are led to the conclusion that Jesus expected the establishment of a qualitatively different temple than the existing physical structure. This expectation may at least partly explain the evangelists’ reservations with regard

208

the temple also exists independently of the promise of restoration. Donahue therefore concludes that we are dealing with two separate traditions, and that Mark is responsible for combining them. His position is based on a rather unusual application of the criterion of dissimilarity, as dissimilarity is seen as an argument for Markan origin. Positively, Donahue claims that the combination of the two traditions served Mark’s interest in a critique of the temple and a focus on the Christian community as a substitute for the temple (Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 10 [Missoula, Mt: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973], 109–35). Schlosser also concludes that the promise to rebuild the temple must be inauthentic. He also interprets the saying as pertaining to the new community, and he finds that there are insufficient parallels to this idea to believe that it could have originated with the historical Jesus (Jacques Schlosser, “La parole de Jésus sur la fin du temple,” NTS 36 [1990]: 411–12). There are several problems with these arguments. In the form that they are preserved, Jesus’ words about reconstruction are not given an interpretation. The Gospel of John takes the saying to refer to Jesus’ body and his resurrection (Jn 2.21-22), and that is the most obvious interpretation of the Markan version as well. For his Christian audience, Mark’s reference to “three days” would have associations of the resurrection. The understanding of the Christian community as the new temple is likely a later development (1 Cor. 3.16-17; 6.19; 2 Cor. 6.16; Eph. 2.21). Donahue’s and Schlosser’s arguments therefore do not pertain to the actual saying, but to the church’s interpretation of it. Donahue and Schlosser also leave one question without a satisfactory answer: What would have motivated Mark to combine the ideas of destruction and restoration? Donahue shows that Mark has an interest in temple critique, but fails to demonstrate a corresponding interest in portraying the new community as the new temple. 5.  Similarly, Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 31 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 206; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 701; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1014. 6. McKelvey, The New Temple, 69; Ellis, “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58,” 199–201;

209

Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 526. 7.  Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, SNTSMS 117 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 231–32. 8.  The closest parallel to Jesus’ combination of judgment and restoration is found in a later apocalyptic writing, 2 Baruch. Chapter 32 refers to the destruction both of the first and the second temple: “For after a short time, the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. That building will not remain; but it will again be uprooted after some time and will remain desolate for a time. And after that it is necessary that it will be renewed in glory and that it will be perfected into eternity” (2 Bar. 32.3-5). The destruction and rebuilding are in this scenario relatively far removed in time. In contrast, Jesus draws the destruction and the rebuilding together. He does not see the two as sequential events, but as connected.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

A comparison of the trial accounts in Matthew and Mark may shed some light on what the evangelists found objectionable. The Gospel of Matthew also includes the accusation regarding the destruction and reconstruction of the temple (Mt. 26.61), but Matthew does not qualify it as being false. Instead, he has made three changes as compared with Mark. He has changed the direct threat “I will destroy” to a statement of ability: “I am able to destroy;” he has omitted the antithesis between “made with hands” and “not made with hands;” and he has omitted the word “another” (ἄλλον). If Matthew’s revisions are a guide, the alleged falsity of the charge may pertain to the idea that Jesus had threatened to destroy the temple himself.5 Possibly, it may also have to do with the presupposition that Jesus spoke of the Jerusalem temple, which must have been the referent of the “temple made with hands.” On this supposition, Jesus’ words should be interpreted along the lines of Jn 2.19-22, that Jesus spoke about himself.6 Finally, it may be that the inclusion of the adjective ἄλλος was

taken to mean that the new temple would be of the same kind as the existing temple. If Jesus were looking forward to a heavenly temple, the implication that he would build another physical temple might have been what the evangelists considered false.7 At this point, a comparison with Jewish expectations regarding the renewal of the temple may help us understand the nature of Jesus’ claims. The literature of Second Temple Judaism contains many diverse traditions regarding the rebuilding of the temple (cf. below). Some of these involve the Messiah, and some expect a temple to be built by God and not by human beings. Some envision a physical temple and some a heavenly sanctuary. As a rule, none of these traditions combines the idea of a judgment of the temple with the picture of a new and more glorious building. If the old temple is in view at all, it is usually seen to be in ruins. The sorry state of the existing temple may be a result of God’s previous judgment, but the eschatological event of temple renewal is not seen as an act that combines judgment and destruction of the old temple with the erection of a new and more glorious one. If Jesus combines these two ideas, the reason is likely that he has in mind a new temple that is of a different kind than the existing one.8 Had Jesus simply wanted to establish a temple like the one that already existed there would be no need to destroy the old one. Had he wanted a temple service free of sinful practices, it would have been the sinful practices he would have had to remove, not the temple itself. But when Jesus combines the ideas of judgment and renewal, we are led to the conclusion that Jesus expected the establishment of a qualitatively different temple than the existing physical structure. This expectation may at least partly explain the evangelists’ reservations with regard

208

the temple also exists independently of the promise of restoration. Donahue therefore concludes that we are dealing with two separate traditions, and that Mark is responsible for combining them. His position is based on a rather unusual application of the criterion of dissimilarity, as dissimilarity is seen as an argument for Markan origin. Positively, Donahue claims that the combination of the two traditions served Mark’s interest in a critique of the temple and a focus on the Christian community as a substitute for the temple (Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 10 [Missoula, Mt: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973], 109–35). Schlosser also concludes that the promise to rebuild the temple must be inauthentic. He also interprets the saying as pertaining to the new community, and he finds that there are insufficient parallels to this idea to believe that it could have originated with the historical Jesus (Jacques Schlosser, “La parole de Jésus sur la fin du temple,” NTS 36 [1990]: 411–12). There are several problems with these arguments. In the form that they are preserved, Jesus’ words about reconstruction are not given an interpretation. The Gospel of John takes the saying to refer to Jesus’ body and his resurrection (Jn 2.21-22), and that is the most obvious interpretation of the Markan version as well. For his Christian audience, Mark’s reference to “three days” would have associations of the resurrection. The understanding of the Christian community as the new temple is likely a later development (1 Cor. 3.16-17; 6.19; 2 Cor. 6.16; Eph. 2.21). Donahue’s and Schlosser’s arguments therefore do not pertain to the actual saying, but to the church’s interpretation of it. Donahue and Schlosser also leave one question without a satisfactory answer: What would have motivated Mark to combine the ideas of destruction and restoration? Donahue shows that Mark has an interest in temple critique, but fails to demonstrate a corresponding interest in portraying the new community as the new temple. 5.  Similarly, Donald Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 31 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 206; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 701; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1014. 6. McKelvey, The New Temple, 69; Ellis, “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58,” 199–201;

209

Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 526. 7.  Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration, SNTSMS 117 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 231–32. 8.  The closest parallel to Jesus’ combination of judgment and restoration is found in a later apocalyptic writing, 2 Baruch. Chapter 32 refers to the destruction both of the first and the second temple: “For after a short time, the building of Zion will be shaken in order that it will be rebuilt. That building will not remain; but it will again be uprooted after some time and will remain desolate for a time. And after that it is necessary that it will be renewed in glory and that it will be perfected into eternity” (2 Bar. 32.3-5). The destruction and rebuilding are in this scenario relatively far removed in time. In contrast, Jesus draws the destruction and the rebuilding together. He does not see the two as sequential events, but as connected.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

to the charges brought against Jesus; they knew that he did not envision a new physical temple.

to have been directed against the temple service as such, or at least essential aspects of it, such as the temple tax and the sacrifices.10 If this reconstruction is broadly correct, Jesus’ action symbolically pointed to the termination of the conventional temple service. And if Jesus’ attitude to the institution of the temple service was not exclusively negative, he most likely had immediate expectations regarding a temple service of a different kind than the existing one. The above reconstruction challenges the traditional view of Jesus’ temple action as a cleansing, a view that finds support in Jesus’ own explanation for this action: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mk 11.17 par.). Scholars who view Jesus’ action as a symbol of destruction often argue that this conflated quotation from Jer. 7.11; Isa. 56.7 is inauthentic. But the two interpretations of Jesus’ action are not necessarily mutually exclusive.11 If Jesus symbolically announced the temple’s destruction, his actions may very well have been accompanied by an explanation of the rationale behind the judgment. This rationale may well have included an indictment regarding the corruption

210

Jesus’ Temple Action (Mk 11.15-17 par.) This understanding of Jesus and the temple may receive some corroboration from the account of the ­so-called temple cleansing. Most scholars now consider these accounts to be based on reliable historical tradition, although they differ as to the reliability of the saying that provides the interpretation of the event (Mk 11.17 par.). An apparently independent tradition regarding a temple action is preserved in the Gospel of John (2.13-22), and the criterion of multiple attestation thus speaks in favor of its historicity. That Jesus was in conflict with the temple is also one of the likely reasons for his death, so the criterion of rejection and execution is met as well. What is more, there is no apparent reason why the early church would have created this tradition. The temple incident does not serve any theological purpose in the Synoptic Gospels.9 Traditionally, the incident has been understood as a cleansing, directed at the corruption associated with the trade that took place on the temple precincts. But many recent studies have observed that Jesus’ actions may not only have been directed against certain corrupt practices. According to Mk 11.15-16, Jesus began to drive out, not only those who were selling, but also those who were buying. He overturned the tables of the money changers, which would make it difficult for anyone to pay the temple tax. He also overturned the seats of those who sold doves, which specifically concerned the sacrifices for the poor. Mark finally includes the cryptic statement that he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. All of these actions taken together appear 9. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 527. For a detailed discussion, see Klyne R. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 29–439. David Seeley’s main objections are to the appropriateness of the commentary in Mk 11.17 par., but he also questions whether Jesus’ action could have taken place without intervention from the temple police (“Jesus’ Temple Act,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 264–71). This last objection has been discussed by many scholars. Most conclude that Jesus’ action constituted a minor incident and that its significance was symbolic (e.g. Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? trans. William Klassen, Facet Books Biblical Series 28 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 16–18; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 69–70), but see Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 448–54.

211

10.  So, with varying emphases, Harvey, Constraints, 129–31; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–76; Jacob Neusner, “­Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation,” NTS 35 (1989): 289–90; Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 239–86; Bryan, Judgment and Restoration, 211–25; Timothy C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 25–30. Bauckham objects that Jesus’ purely destructive action was not likely to symbolize the replacement of the temple. Instead, he argues that Jesus’ point was to censure corrupt business practices, not to announce a new temple (Richard Bauckham, “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. Barnabas Lindars [Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988], 86–87). But Bauckham also thinks that Jesus objected in principle to the temple tax (ibid., 75). 11.  Sanders argues that Jesus did not intend to ‘cleanse’ the temple, but that his actions instead were symbolic of the impending judgment of the temple. The understanding of the event as a ‘cleansing’ originated in the early church and is reflected by the evangelists, who have included the inauthentic quotation from Isa. 56.7; Jer. 7.11 in order to interpret the action in this way (Jesus and Judaism, 61–69). The most forceful objections against Sanders’s view have come from Craig Evans, who has defended the traditional interpretation of the event. Evans has not disputed the idea that Jesus’ action constituted a warning of the temple’s destruction, but maintains that the two ideas of cleansing and warning are complementary (“Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 [1989]: 237–70; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 135–37; James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd edn [London: SCM, 2006], 63–65).

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

to the charges brought against Jesus; they knew that he did not envision a new physical temple.

to have been directed against the temple service as such, or at least essential aspects of it, such as the temple tax and the sacrifices.10 If this reconstruction is broadly correct, Jesus’ action symbolically pointed to the termination of the conventional temple service. And if Jesus’ attitude to the institution of the temple service was not exclusively negative, he most likely had immediate expectations regarding a temple service of a different kind than the existing one. The above reconstruction challenges the traditional view of Jesus’ temple action as a cleansing, a view that finds support in Jesus’ own explanation for this action: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mk 11.17 par.). Scholars who view Jesus’ action as a symbol of destruction often argue that this conflated quotation from Jer. 7.11; Isa. 56.7 is inauthentic. But the two interpretations of Jesus’ action are not necessarily mutually exclusive.11 If Jesus symbolically announced the temple’s destruction, his actions may very well have been accompanied by an explanation of the rationale behind the judgment. This rationale may well have included an indictment regarding the corruption

210

Jesus’ Temple Action (Mk 11.15-17 par.) This understanding of Jesus and the temple may receive some corroboration from the account of the ­so-called temple cleansing. Most scholars now consider these accounts to be based on reliable historical tradition, although they differ as to the reliability of the saying that provides the interpretation of the event (Mk 11.17 par.). An apparently independent tradition regarding a temple action is preserved in the Gospel of John (2.13-22), and the criterion of multiple attestation thus speaks in favor of its historicity. That Jesus was in conflict with the temple is also one of the likely reasons for his death, so the criterion of rejection and execution is met as well. What is more, there is no apparent reason why the early church would have created this tradition. The temple incident does not serve any theological purpose in the Synoptic Gospels.9 Traditionally, the incident has been understood as a cleansing, directed at the corruption associated with the trade that took place on the temple precincts. But many recent studies have observed that Jesus’ actions may not only have been directed against certain corrupt practices. According to Mk 11.15-16, Jesus began to drive out, not only those who were selling, but also those who were buying. He overturned the tables of the money changers, which would make it difficult for anyone to pay the temple tax. He also overturned the seats of those who sold doves, which specifically concerned the sacrifices for the poor. Mark finally includes the cryptic statement that he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. All of these actions taken together appear 9. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61; Yarbro Collins, Mark, 527. For a detailed discussion, see Klyne R. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 29–439. David Seeley’s main objections are to the appropriateness of the commentary in Mk 11.17 par., but he also questions whether Jesus’ action could have taken place without intervention from the temple police (“Jesus’ Temple Act,” CBQ 55 [1993]: 264–71). This last objection has been discussed by many scholars. Most conclude that Jesus’ action constituted a minor incident and that its significance was symbolic (e.g. Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? trans. William Klassen, Facet Books Biblical Series 28 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 16–18; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 69–70), but see Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 448–54.

211

10.  So, with varying emphases, Harvey, Constraints, 129–31; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–76; Jacob Neusner, “­Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation,” NTS 35 (1989): 289–90; Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 239–86; Bryan, Judgment and Restoration, 211–25; Timothy C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 25–30. Bauckham objects that Jesus’ purely destructive action was not likely to symbolize the replacement of the temple. Instead, he argues that Jesus’ point was to censure corrupt business practices, not to announce a new temple (Richard Bauckham, “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple,” in Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. Barnabas Lindars [Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988], 86–87). But Bauckham also thinks that Jesus objected in principle to the temple tax (ibid., 75). 11.  Sanders argues that Jesus did not intend to ‘cleanse’ the temple, but that his actions instead were symbolic of the impending judgment of the temple. The understanding of the event as a ‘cleansing’ originated in the early church and is reflected by the evangelists, who have included the inauthentic quotation from Isa. 56.7; Jer. 7.11 in order to interpret the action in this way (Jesus and Judaism, 61–69). The most forceful objections against Sanders’s view have come from Craig Evans, who has defended the traditional interpretation of the event. Evans has not disputed the idea that Jesus’ action constituted a warning of the temple’s destruction, but maintains that the two ideas of cleansing and warning are complementary (“Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 [1989]: 237–70; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 3, 135–37; James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd edn [London: SCM, 2006], 63–65).

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

of the holy place. According to the Synoptists’, this rationale contained an allusion to Jeremiah’s temple sermon. This sermon also made the threat that God will destroy the Jerusalem sanctuary (Jer. 7.14). But the other text to which the Synoptists allude, Isa. 56.7, paints a picture of the eschatological renewal. In this renewal, both Jews and Gentiles would be brought near to God in his house. The evangelists’ interpretation is therefore broadly compatible with the view for which I have argued above: the threat of judgment and the promise of eschatological renewal were both included in Jesus’ action.12 An alternative interpretation of the temple action has been proposed by Adela Yarbro Collins. She thinks that Jesus was motivated by a profound interest in the holiness of the temple. He wanted to uphold a level of holiness that was appropriate for the ideal temple described in Ezekiel and the Temple Scroll.13 On this interpretation, Jesus’ action was indicative of the renewal of the temple without presupposing the judgment of the existing one. This understanding is possible, but the above interpretation that Jesus’ action symbolized a direct attack on the temple service is preferable. That interpretation coheres with what the temple charge tells us about Jesus’ attitude to the temple.

need of rebuilding, the Lord anoints several royal figures and one priest for this task. Cyrus is the Lord’s anointed (Isa. 45.1) and his instrument in rebuilding the temple (Isa. 44.28). Zerubbabel is also given a ­God-ordained role in the rebuilding enterprise (Zech. 4.9). Zerubbabel is not a clearly defined messianic character, but belongs in the Davidic line as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3.2; Neh. 12.1; Hag. 1.1 etc.), Jehoiachin’s son (1 Chron. 3.17). God also promises that the priest Josiah will build the temple (Zech. 6.12-13). Josiah is more closely associated with the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.1, as he is called “branch.” The rebuilding of the temple is also attributed to “a certain royal tribe” in Sib. Or. 3.288-290. These ideas clearly pertain to a physical temple in Jerusalem, and they correspond to a time when there was no temple in Jerusalem. They have no place in a time when the temple is standing. Naturally, Jewish literature from before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE shows no interest in the building of a temple, and that task is nowhere assigned to the Messiah.16 With the fall of the Second Temple, however, this situation changes. The theme of the Lord’s anointed as the builder of the temple is now reapplied. The Targum on Zech. 6.12-13 provides an explicitly messianic interpretation of the high priest Josiah, who was to build the temple. But the most significant text is the Targum on Isaiah 53, which is read messianically. According to the Targum, the Messiah “will build the sanctuary which was profaned for our sins, handed over for our iniquities” (53.5).17

212

The Messiah and the Temple If Jesus associated himself with these events, they do not fit well into a messianic paradigm.14 There is no evidence that the Messiah was expected to play a role in the destruction of the temple.15 As for the building of a temple, however, this task has traditionally been associated with the anointed king. The prophet Nathan announced that David’s son would build a house for the Lord (2 Sam. 7.13; 1 Chron. 17.12). When the temple is later in ruins and in 12.  Similarly, Wright and Bryan, who argue that the quotation is authentic (N. T. Wright, Victory, 406–28; Bryan, Judgment and Restoration, 217). 13.  Adela 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. Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 54–61. 14.  Pace McKelvey, The New Temple, 67–68; Andrew Chester, “The Sibyl and the Temple,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury, JSNTSup 48 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 54; N. T. Wright, Victory, 490–93; Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 471–72. 15. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 200; Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64,” 465.

213

16.  Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 200; Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64,” 465. The Psalms of Solomon attributes the restoration of Jerusalem to the Messiah. “And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning, (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord, with which God has glorified here” (17.30b-31). The temple is not explicitly mentioned in this context, but it is likely to lie behind the reference to the glory of the Lord. But the passage is not sufficiently specific that the building of the temple can be seen as a messianic task in the Psalms of Solomon. The Testament of Dan also promises the restoration of Jerusalem in the messianic times (T. Dan 5.9-13), but does not mention the temple specifically and does not describe the Messiah as the agent of the rebuilding. 17.  Quoted from Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 104. There is a possible connection between the future Messiah and the building of the temple in Midrash Rabba on Leviticus 9.6; Midrash Rabba on Numbers 13.2; and Midrash Rabba on the Song of Songs 4.32. With reference to Isa. 41.25, all these texts announce that the Messiah whose place is in the north will come and rebuild the temple. It is not clear, however, if the Messiah in view is the future Messiah or if it is Cyrus, as the reference to Isa. 41.25 may imply. Cf. Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 86.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

of the holy place. According to the Synoptists’, this rationale contained an allusion to Jeremiah’s temple sermon. This sermon also made the threat that God will destroy the Jerusalem sanctuary (Jer. 7.14). But the other text to which the Synoptists allude, Isa. 56.7, paints a picture of the eschatological renewal. In this renewal, both Jews and Gentiles would be brought near to God in his house. The evangelists’ interpretation is therefore broadly compatible with the view for which I have argued above: the threat of judgment and the promise of eschatological renewal were both included in Jesus’ action.12 An alternative interpretation of the temple action has been proposed by Adela Yarbro Collins. She thinks that Jesus was motivated by a profound interest in the holiness of the temple. He wanted to uphold a level of holiness that was appropriate for the ideal temple described in Ezekiel and the Temple Scroll.13 On this interpretation, Jesus’ action was indicative of the renewal of the temple without presupposing the judgment of the existing one. This understanding is possible, but the above interpretation that Jesus’ action symbolized a direct attack on the temple service is preferable. That interpretation coheres with what the temple charge tells us about Jesus’ attitude to the temple.

need of rebuilding, the Lord anoints several royal figures and one priest for this task. Cyrus is the Lord’s anointed (Isa. 45.1) and his instrument in rebuilding the temple (Isa. 44.28). Zerubbabel is also given a ­God-ordained role in the rebuilding enterprise (Zech. 4.9). Zerubbabel is not a clearly defined messianic character, but belongs in the Davidic line as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3.2; Neh. 12.1; Hag. 1.1 etc.), Jehoiachin’s son (1 Chron. 3.17). God also promises that the priest Josiah will build the temple (Zech. 6.12-13). Josiah is more closely associated with the messianic prophecy in Isa. 11.1, as he is called “branch.” The rebuilding of the temple is also attributed to “a certain royal tribe” in Sib. Or. 3.288-290. These ideas clearly pertain to a physical temple in Jerusalem, and they correspond to a time when there was no temple in Jerusalem. They have no place in a time when the temple is standing. Naturally, Jewish literature from before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE shows no interest in the building of a temple, and that task is nowhere assigned to the Messiah.16 With the fall of the Second Temple, however, this situation changes. The theme of the Lord’s anointed as the builder of the temple is now reapplied. The Targum on Zech. 6.12-13 provides an explicitly messianic interpretation of the high priest Josiah, who was to build the temple. But the most significant text is the Targum on Isaiah 53, which is read messianically. According to the Targum, the Messiah “will build the sanctuary which was profaned for our sins, handed over for our iniquities” (53.5).17

212

The Messiah and the Temple If Jesus associated himself with these events, they do not fit well into a messianic paradigm.14 There is no evidence that the Messiah was expected to play a role in the destruction of the temple.15 As for the building of a temple, however, this task has traditionally been associated with the anointed king. The prophet Nathan announced that David’s son would build a house for the Lord (2 Sam. 7.13; 1 Chron. 17.12). When the temple is later in ruins and in 12.  Similarly, Wright and Bryan, who argue that the quotation is authentic (N. T. Wright, Victory, 406–28; Bryan, Judgment and Restoration, 217). 13.  Adela 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. Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 54–61. 14.  Pace McKelvey, The New Temple, 67–68; Andrew Chester, “The Sibyl and the Temple,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury, JSNTSup 48 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 54; N. T. Wright, Victory, 490–93; Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 471–72. 15. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 200; Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64,” 465.

213

16.  Cf. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 200; Lührmann, “Markus 14. 55–64,” 465. The Psalms of Solomon attributes the restoration of Jerusalem to the Messiah. “And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning, (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord, with which God has glorified here” (17.30b-31). The temple is not explicitly mentioned in this context, but it is likely to lie behind the reference to the glory of the Lord. But the passage is not sufficiently specific that the building of the temple can be seen as a messianic task in the Psalms of Solomon. The Testament of Dan also promises the restoration of Jerusalem in the messianic times (T. Dan 5.9-13), but does not mention the temple specifically and does not describe the Messiah as the agent of the rebuilding. 17.  Quoted from Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 104. There is a possible connection between the future Messiah and the building of the temple in Midrash Rabba on Leviticus 9.6; Midrash Rabba on Numbers 13.2; and Midrash Rabba on the Song of Songs 4.32. With reference to Isa. 41.25, all these texts announce that the Messiah whose place is in the north will come and rebuild the temple. It is not clear, however, if the Messiah in view is the future Messiah or if it is Cyrus, as the reference to Isa. 41.25 may imply. Cf. Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 86.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

These temple traditions share the common characteristic that they presuppose that the temple in Jerusalem is in ruins (except in the case of Solomon) and that a new, physical temple therefore needs to be built. Jesus’ attitude differs markedly from these expectations in that his message is not of restoration alone. Instead, Jesus announces both doom and renewal. The implication is probably that he had in mind the building of a temple different in kind from the existing one.

as the one who saved his people and brought them to “the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established” (Exod. 15.17). The text of 4QFlorilegium is corrupt and it is not perfectly clear who the author envisions as the builder of the new temple, but the omission of the relevant phrase from 2 Samuel 7 and the use of the text from Exod. 15.17-18 make it overwhelmingly likely that God is expected to build the temple himself.19 Based on his reconstruction of the text, García Martínez translates: “this (refers to) the house which [he will establish] for [him] in the last days, as is written in the book of [Moses: Exod. 15.17-18 ‘The temple of] YHWH your hands will est[a]blish. YHWH shall reign for ever and ever’” (4Q174 1.i.2).20 In 11QTemple, the expectation that God will erect a new temple comes to expression as well. The new temple is seen as a new act of creation: “I shall sanctify my [te]mple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, establishing it for myself for all days, according to the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel” (11Q19 29.8-10).21 Other eschatological expectations also focus on God as the builder of the temple. The author of Jubilees looks forward to the regathering of Israel, when God promises: “I shall build my sanctuary in their midst” (Jub. 1.17). In the apocalyptic writings, the idea of God building a new temple is incorporated into the visions of a new creation. The Animal Apocalypse found in 1 Enoch looks forward to a new temple for the faithful of Israel. This temple will replace the old one and it will be built by God himself: “I went on seeing until the Lord of the sheep brought about a new house, greater and loftier than the first one, and set it up in the first location which had been covered up – all its pillars were new, the columns new; and the ornaments new as well as greater than those of the first, (that is) the old (house) which was gone. All the sheep were within it” (90.29).22 A similar idea is found in 4 Ezra, where the seer is told to “remain in the field where no house had been built” (4 Ezra 10.51). In this field “there was

214

God’s Eschatological Temple Jesus’ expectations regarding the temple did not draw on messianic ideas. But there were other temple traditions that had more in common with Jesus’ ideas. Several texts look to God himself to build the eschatological temple.18 The basis for these expectations is the proclamation in the Song of Moses, which refers to a sanctuary built by God: “you brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established” (Exod. 15.17). The renewal of the temple is most elaborately predicted by the prophet Ezekiel, who prophesies that God will build a new temple (37.26-28) and sees a vision of the ideal temple. This temple will appear after God’s judgment is completed; in his vision Ezekiel heard God explain that he in his anger had consumed those who were defiling the temple (Ezek. 43.8). In the new temple, there would no longer be any such defilement (Ezek. 43.7b), but the glory of the Lord himself would fill it (Ezek. 43.4-5) and he would dwell there forever (Ezek. 43.7). More remotely related are the prophecies regarding God glorifying his temple (Isa. 60.7, 13). Among the writings from Qumran, 4QFlorilegium refers to the expectations about the building of a temple in 2 Sam. 7.10 and provides an eschatological interpretation. However, whereas 2 Sam. 7.13 explicitly states that David’s son will build the house, this phrase about the builder of the temple is omitted in 4QFlorilegium. Instead, the erection of the temple is connected with Exod. 15.17-18, which attributes the building to God himself. God is praised 18.  McKelvey finds the background for these expectations in the disappointments with the building of the Second Temple (Ezra 3.12), and this disappointment appears to have given rise to speculations regarding a heavenly temple (The New Temple, 23–24).

215

19. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 172–81; cf. also Chester, “The Sibyl,” 51. 20.  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol. 1, 353. 21.  Quoted from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds, (4Q274– 11Q31), vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1251. 22.  Quoted from E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP (1983), 1.71.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

These temple traditions share the common characteristic that they presuppose that the temple in Jerusalem is in ruins (except in the case of Solomon) and that a new, physical temple therefore needs to be built. Jesus’ attitude differs markedly from these expectations in that his message is not of restoration alone. Instead, Jesus announces both doom and renewal. The implication is probably that he had in mind the building of a temple different in kind from the existing one.

as the one who saved his people and brought them to “the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established” (Exod. 15.17). The text of 4QFlorilegium is corrupt and it is not perfectly clear who the author envisions as the builder of the new temple, but the omission of the relevant phrase from 2 Samuel 7 and the use of the text from Exod. 15.17-18 make it overwhelmingly likely that God is expected to build the temple himself.19 Based on his reconstruction of the text, García Martínez translates: “this (refers to) the house which [he will establish] for [him] in the last days, as is written in the book of [Moses: Exod. 15.17-18 ‘The temple of] YHWH your hands will est[a]blish. YHWH shall reign for ever and ever’” (4Q174 1.i.2).20 In 11QTemple, the expectation that God will erect a new temple comes to expression as well. The new temple is seen as a new act of creation: “I shall sanctify my [te]mple with my glory, for I shall make my glory reside over it until the day of creation, when I shall create my temple, establishing it for myself for all days, according to the covenant which I made with Jacob at Bethel” (11Q19 29.8-10).21 Other eschatological expectations also focus on God as the builder of the temple. The author of Jubilees looks forward to the regathering of Israel, when God promises: “I shall build my sanctuary in their midst” (Jub. 1.17). In the apocalyptic writings, the idea of God building a new temple is incorporated into the visions of a new creation. The Animal Apocalypse found in 1 Enoch looks forward to a new temple for the faithful of Israel. This temple will replace the old one and it will be built by God himself: “I went on seeing until the Lord of the sheep brought about a new house, greater and loftier than the first one, and set it up in the first location which had been covered up – all its pillars were new, the columns new; and the ornaments new as well as greater than those of the first, (that is) the old (house) which was gone. All the sheep were within it” (90.29).22 A similar idea is found in 4 Ezra, where the seer is told to “remain in the field where no house had been built” (4 Ezra 10.51). In this field “there was

214

God’s Eschatological Temple Jesus’ expectations regarding the temple did not draw on messianic ideas. But there were other temple traditions that had more in common with Jesus’ ideas. Several texts look to God himself to build the eschatological temple.18 The basis for these expectations is the proclamation in the Song of Moses, which refers to a sanctuary built by God: “you brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O Lord, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O Lord, that your hands have established” (Exod. 15.17). The renewal of the temple is most elaborately predicted by the prophet Ezekiel, who prophesies that God will build a new temple (37.26-28) and sees a vision of the ideal temple. This temple will appear after God’s judgment is completed; in his vision Ezekiel heard God explain that he in his anger had consumed those who were defiling the temple (Ezek. 43.8). In the new temple, there would no longer be any such defilement (Ezek. 43.7b), but the glory of the Lord himself would fill it (Ezek. 43.4-5) and he would dwell there forever (Ezek. 43.7). More remotely related are the prophecies regarding God glorifying his temple (Isa. 60.7, 13). Among the writings from Qumran, 4QFlorilegium refers to the expectations about the building of a temple in 2 Sam. 7.10 and provides an eschatological interpretation. However, whereas 2 Sam. 7.13 explicitly states that David’s son will build the house, this phrase about the builder of the temple is omitted in 4QFlorilegium. Instead, the erection of the temple is connected with Exod. 15.17-18, which attributes the building to God himself. God is praised 18.  McKelvey finds the background for these expectations in the disappointments with the building of the Second Temple (Ezra 3.12), and this disappointment appears to have given rise to speculations regarding a heavenly temple (The New Temple, 23–24).

215

19. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 172–81; cf. also Chester, “The Sibyl,” 51. 20.  García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Vol. 1, 353. 21.  Quoted from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds, (4Q274– 11Q31), vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1251. 22.  Quoted from E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP (1983), 1.71.

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

no foundation of any building, because no work of human construction could endure in a place where the city of the Most High was to be revealed” (10.5354). Likewise, in 2 Baruch God announces that Jerusalem will be judged for a while (2 Bar. 4.1). Afterwards, the eternal building “will be revealed.” This building “was already prepared from the moment that [God] decided to create Paradise” (4.3). It was shown to Abraham and Moses, but “now it is preserved with [God]–as also Paradise” (4.6; cf. 68.5). In other words, the true temple will be revealed by God in the new creation. The expectation of a temple built by God and not by human beings was apparently compatible with the idea that the temple would be erected by a mediator character described as a heavenly savior. The fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles contains a portrait of a royal savior figure coming from heaven (Sib. Or. 5.414). “[H]e provided ornament and made a holy temple” (5.422). Although this savior figure is seen as the builder of the temple, the founder of the greatest temple is said to be God, who “accomplishes these things” (5.431-32).23 The heavenly Son of Man of the Similitudes (1 En. 37-71) may also have been associated with the eschatological temple. According to 1 En. 53.6, he would reveal the house of his congregation. This house is contrasted with the deep valley where the sinners will be punished (53.1-5) and associated with the rest that will be granted to the righteous (53.7). Several scholars have identified this house as the heavenly temple that is described in 1 En. 71.5-7; cf. 14.15-18).24

specific about how Jesus understood his role, as the available evidence is sparse. One possibility is that he understood himself as the eschatological herald who announced the eschatological actions of God. I argued above, however, that Jesus identified John the Baptist as the final eschatological herald (cf. Chapter 2). If that be correct, it makes it unlikely that Jesus saw himself as a herald in connection with the eschatological temple. Another possibility is that he saw himself as the heavenly savior, who would be God’s agent in the renewal of the temple. If Jesus drew upon exegetical traditions based on Daniel 7 when he referred to himself as the Son of Man, he may have seen himself as the divine agent who would build the heavenly temple (cf. 1 En. 53.7). However, the evidence for these expectations is uncertain. The best explanation appears to be that Jesus saw himself as acting in God’s role. The evidence surveyed above does not connect Jesus directly with God’s role in building the temple, but corroborating evidence can be cited. I argued in Chapter 2 that Jesus used the prophecy in Mal. 3.1 to explain his own ministry. This text announces that “the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple.” Since this lord is coming to his own temple, the lord in question is most likely God himself. This coming is “like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap,” (3.2); he will bring a purging judgment upon Israel. If Jesus understood this prophecy as a description of his own function, it would follow that he saw himself in the role of the Lord who came to the temple with judgment and renewal.

Jesus and the Temple

Conclusion

Jesus’ attitude towards the temple must be understood in the context of these traditions regarding God’s eschatological temple. It is difficult to be more

The traditions regarding Jesus’ attitude to the temple are difficult to assess, but it seems clear that he threatened its destruction. Most likely, this threat was combined with an expectation that a new and better temple would soon emerge. As Jewish messianic texts have nothing to say about a qualitatively different temple, Jesus’ expectations can hardly be explained against this background. His ideas have more in common with the visions of the eschatological temple that God himself would build. The available evidence does not explain how Jesus understood his own role in building this eschatological temple. Therefore, the temple traditions in the Synoptic Gospels do not provide independent evidence for my thesis.

216

23.  Cf. Chester, “The Sibyl,” 47–50. 24. Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 70–71; Horbury, Messianism, 91, n. 13. R. J. McKelvey leaves the question open (The New Temple, 31). It is also possible that the author of 4 Ezra envisions a role for the heavenly Danielic savior in the building of the temple. In Ezra’s dream this man “carved out for himself a great mountain” (4 Ezra 13.6), and according to the interpretation this mountain represents Zion, which shall be prepared and built (13.36). Bryan finds here a reference to the building of the temple by the Messiah, but the text is at most only suggestive of this idea (Judgment and Restoration, 194–96). Bryan also finds a temple built by the Messiah in 4Q174 1.i.6-7 (ibid., ­198-199).

217

God’s Equal

11.  God’s New Temple

no foundation of any building, because no work of human construction could endure in a place where the city of the Most High was to be revealed” (10.5354). Likewise, in 2 Baruch God announces that Jerusalem will be judged for a while (2 Bar. 4.1). Afterwards, the eternal building “will be revealed.” This building “was already prepared from the moment that [God] decided to create Paradise” (4.3). It was shown to Abraham and Moses, but “now it is preserved with [God]–as also Paradise” (4.6; cf. 68.5). In other words, the true temple will be revealed by God in the new creation. The expectation of a temple built by God and not by human beings was apparently compatible with the idea that the temple would be erected by a mediator character described as a heavenly savior. The fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles contains a portrait of a royal savior figure coming from heaven (Sib. Or. 5.414). “[H]e provided ornament and made a holy temple” (5.422). Although this savior figure is seen as the builder of the temple, the founder of the greatest temple is said to be God, who “accomplishes these things” (5.431-32).23 The heavenly Son of Man of the Similitudes (1 En. 37-71) may also have been associated with the eschatological temple. According to 1 En. 53.6, he would reveal the house of his congregation. This house is contrasted with the deep valley where the sinners will be punished (53.1-5) and associated with the rest that will be granted to the righteous (53.7). Several scholars have identified this house as the heavenly temple that is described in 1 En. 71.5-7; cf. 14.15-18).24

specific about how Jesus understood his role, as the available evidence is sparse. One possibility is that he understood himself as the eschatological herald who announced the eschatological actions of God. I argued above, however, that Jesus identified John the Baptist as the final eschatological herald (cf. Chapter 2). If that be correct, it makes it unlikely that Jesus saw himself as a herald in connection with the eschatological temple. Another possibility is that he saw himself as the heavenly savior, who would be God’s agent in the renewal of the temple. If Jesus drew upon exegetical traditions based on Daniel 7 when he referred to himself as the Son of Man, he may have seen himself as the divine agent who would build the heavenly temple (cf. 1 En. 53.7). However, the evidence for these expectations is uncertain. The best explanation appears to be that Jesus saw himself as acting in God’s role. The evidence surveyed above does not connect Jesus directly with God’s role in building the temple, but corroborating evidence can be cited. I argued in Chapter 2 that Jesus used the prophecy in Mal. 3.1 to explain his own ministry. This text announces that “the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple.” Since this lord is coming to his own temple, the lord in question is most likely God himself. This coming is “like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap,” (3.2); he will bring a purging judgment upon Israel. If Jesus understood this prophecy as a description of his own function, it would follow that he saw himself in the role of the Lord who came to the temple with judgment and renewal.

Jesus and the Temple

Conclusion

Jesus’ attitude towards the temple must be understood in the context of these traditions regarding God’s eschatological temple. It is difficult to be more

The traditions regarding Jesus’ attitude to the temple are difficult to assess, but it seems clear that he threatened its destruction. Most likely, this threat was combined with an expectation that a new and better temple would soon emerge. As Jewish messianic texts have nothing to say about a qualitatively different temple, Jesus’ expectations can hardly be explained against this background. His ideas have more in common with the visions of the eschatological temple that God himself would build. The available evidence does not explain how Jesus understood his own role in building this eschatological temple. Therefore, the temple traditions in the Synoptic Gospels do not provide independent evidence for my thesis.

216

23.  Cf. Chester, “The Sibyl,” 47–50. 24. Ådna, Stellung zur Tempel, 70–71; Horbury, Messianism, 91, n. 13. R. J. McKelvey leaves the question open (The New Temple, 31). It is also possible that the author of 4 Ezra envisions a role for the heavenly Danielic savior in the building of the temple. In Ezra’s dream this man “carved out for himself a great mountain” (4 Ezra 13.6), and according to the interpretation this mountain represents Zion, which shall be prepared and built (13.36). Bryan finds here a reference to the building of the temple by the Messiah, but the text is at most only suggestive of this idea (Judgment and Restoration, 194–96). Bryan also finds a temple built by the Messiah in 4Q174 1.i.6-7 (ibid., ­198-199).

217

218

God’s Equal

However, this thesis offers a simple and coherent explanation for Jesus’ attitude to the temple. As the one who brought the new age and the dawning of the new creation, Jesus also came to renew the temple. This renewal presupposed the judgment of the existing temple service. As the one who came to fulfill the prophecies regarding God’s own coming to earth, Jesus saw himself as bringing judgment and restoration.

219

CONCLUSION

I have argued that Jesus spoke and acted with an authority that only God was thought to have. He understood his relationship to God as that of a son who was both equal and subordinate to the Father. The evidence discussed in the preceding chapters has been studied closely by many scholars. Most of them reach very different conclusions from the ones reached here. They are content to note that Jesus claimed to represent God in a more authoritative way than anyone before him had done. But they do not see Jesus as God’s equal. In comparison with these previous studies, the advantage of the present study is threefold. First, it is able to account for a wide range of the Jesus tradition, and it does not postulate an early church origin for ideas that play little or no role in the early church’s teaching. This study takes seriously the Jesus who claimed to inaugurate the new creation, a reality the church still expected to come in the future. It also accounts for the Jesus that envisioned an eschatological judgment based on ­non-Christological criteria, so uncharacteristic of the early church. This study does justice to the Jesus who forgave sins on earth, a function the early church did not associate with him. In addition, this study takes seriously the Jesus who pitted his authority against the Mosaic Law and did so in order to sharpen the requirements he found there. The early church demonstrates no interest in this aspect of Jesus’ authority. Second, this study does not provide interpretations of individual sayings that must be based on inferences in the text. There is no reason to accept the unexpressed premise that Jesus’ authority has been given to him. It is unnecessary to assume an unexpressed “thus says the Lord” when Jesus authoritatively addresses Israel, or that an equally unexpressed “in the name of God” lies behind his forgiveness. The hypothesis that a judgment text referring to Jesus was originally about God becomes superfluous. Similarly, there is no need to

218

God’s Equal

However, this thesis offers a simple and coherent explanation for Jesus’ attitude to the temple. As the one who brought the new age and the dawning of the new creation, Jesus also came to renew the temple. This renewal presupposed the judgment of the existing temple service. As the one who came to fulfill the prophecies regarding God’s own coming to earth, Jesus saw himself as bringing judgment and restoration.

219

CONCLUSION

I have argued that Jesus spoke and acted with an authority that only God was thought to have. He understood his relationship to God as that of a son who was both equal and subordinate to the Father. The evidence discussed in the preceding chapters has been studied closely by many scholars. Most of them reach very different conclusions from the ones reached here. They are content to note that Jesus claimed to represent God in a more authoritative way than anyone before him had done. But they do not see Jesus as God’s equal. In comparison with these previous studies, the advantage of the present study is threefold. First, it is able to account for a wide range of the Jesus tradition, and it does not postulate an early church origin for ideas that play little or no role in the early church’s teaching. This study takes seriously the Jesus who claimed to inaugurate the new creation, a reality the church still expected to come in the future. It also accounts for the Jesus that envisioned an eschatological judgment based on ­non-Christological criteria, so uncharacteristic of the early church. This study does justice to the Jesus who forgave sins on earth, a function the early church did not associate with him. In addition, this study takes seriously the Jesus who pitted his authority against the Mosaic Law and did so in order to sharpen the requirements he found there. The early church demonstrates no interest in this aspect of Jesus’ authority. Second, this study does not provide interpretations of individual sayings that must be based on inferences in the text. There is no reason to accept the unexpressed premise that Jesus’ authority has been given to him. It is unnecessary to assume an unexpressed “thus says the Lord” when Jesus authoritatively addresses Israel, or that an equally unexpressed “in the name of God” lies behind his forgiveness. The hypothesis that a judgment text referring to Jesus was originally about God becomes superfluous. Similarly, there is no need to

God’s Equal

Conclusion

assume that when Jesus compares his words with Scripture he really means to compare them to other interpretations. Third, this study does not accept superfluous parallels as genuine precedents. The earthly messianic kingdom is not compared to God’s kingdom and the new creation. Deputy judges are not likened to Jesus’ role as the ultimate judge. Prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord are not placed at the same level as Jesus who spoke on his own authority. The Jesus who emerges then is a Jesus who said and did what only God could say and do. His claims are unmatched by Jewish expectations of the Messiah, by Jewish ideas regarding the glorious characters of Israel’s past, the most exalted of the angels, and even the heavenly Son of Man. According to the contemporary Jewish sources, these divine agents do not engage Satan directly, and they do not inaugurate the new creation. They do not forgive sins, and they do not autonomously pass the ultimate, eschatological judgment. They do not pit their own authority against the authority of the word of God. Nor do they demand a loyalty that takes precedence over the commandments of God. There is, however, a certain fluidity in the way the eschatological events could be described. They could simultaneously be ascribed to an outstanding divine agent and to God himself. Apparently, no one saw a contradiction between the idea that God would do something and that he would do it through his agent. This observation may perhaps indicate a different way of reading the evidence that I have discussed in this book. Did Jesus claim to do the acts of God in the same manner as these divine agents? In other words, did Jesus mean that God now was doing his works through him? Such an interpretation of Jesus’ claims would be unwarranted. The reason why some of the Jewish sources can be read in this way is that they are ambiguous. The same acts are attributed both to God and to his agents. But Jesus’ claims were not ambiguous. He spoke and acted on his own authority. He appears to have his authority by virtue of who he is, not by virtue of appointment. This is not to deny that there is a tension in the way Jesus spoke about himself. His implicit claims to authority are so strong that one wonders if he thought he was YHWH, or if he thought he was a second god who had appeared on earth to take YHWH’s place. That is evidently not the case, however, as he repeatedly expresses his complete submission to the Father. Sonship has thus emerged as the metaphor Jesus used for his relationship to

God the Father. He understood this sonship to set him apart in a unique relationship to the Father, a relationship that was so close that he could be both subordinate and equal to God. Jesus’ own thoughts about his divine sonship go a long way towards resolving the tension between his equality with God and his submission to the Father. But it is not surprising that the Christological reflection in the early church capitalized on the title “Son of God” and developed its connotations further so that they could more fully account for both of these aspects of Jesus’ character.

220

221

Implications These conclusions have w ­ ide-ranging implications for how we understand the development of early Christology. The use of the names “Lord” and “God” for Jesus may have developed directly from his own claims to take God’s place and fulfill the promises regarding God’s interaction with his creation. The inspiration for Paul’s remarkable inclusion of Jesus in the Shema (Deut. 6.4; cf. 1 Cor. 8.6) can also be traced back to the historical Jesus. He saw himself as the object of the devotion that was due only to God (Deut. 6.5; cf. Chapter 6). The Christian practice of worshiping Jesus together with the Father (Rev. 5.13) was the logical next step. When Jesus’ sonship was understood in such lofty terms that he could be attributed with the fullness of God (Col. 1.19), the roots can be found in Jesus’ own interpretation of his relationship to the Father. He had explained that he was uniquely close to the Father, so close that he belonged on the divine side of the divine–human divide (cf. Chapter 9). The seed that later bore the Wisdom Christology of Hebrews and John can also be found in Jesus’ own musings about this relationship (Mt. 11.27 par.; cf. Chapter 9). Even the idea of his preexistence is not far away if Jesus’ appearance was seen to fulfill the prophecies regarding God’s eschatological coming to earth. Jesus’ claim to be the agent of the new creation (Lk. 7.22 par.; cf. Chapter 2) could also have led to the church’s conviction that he was the agent of the first creation (Col. 1.16). The fountainhead of later Trinitarian theology may also be found in the portraits of Jesus where he is so close to the Father that the two can appear as interchangeable, although Jesus maintains his own identity. There may thus have been a direct line from Jesus’ own ­self-understanding to the Christological claims of the early church.

God’s Equal

Conclusion

assume that when Jesus compares his words with Scripture he really means to compare them to other interpretations. Third, this study does not accept superfluous parallels as genuine precedents. The earthly messianic kingdom is not compared to God’s kingdom and the new creation. Deputy judges are not likened to Jesus’ role as the ultimate judge. Prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord are not placed at the same level as Jesus who spoke on his own authority. The Jesus who emerges then is a Jesus who said and did what only God could say and do. His claims are unmatched by Jewish expectations of the Messiah, by Jewish ideas regarding the glorious characters of Israel’s past, the most exalted of the angels, and even the heavenly Son of Man. According to the contemporary Jewish sources, these divine agents do not engage Satan directly, and they do not inaugurate the new creation. They do not forgive sins, and they do not autonomously pass the ultimate, eschatological judgment. They do not pit their own authority against the authority of the word of God. Nor do they demand a loyalty that takes precedence over the commandments of God. There is, however, a certain fluidity in the way the eschatological events could be described. They could simultaneously be ascribed to an outstanding divine agent and to God himself. Apparently, no one saw a contradiction between the idea that God would do something and that he would do it through his agent. This observation may perhaps indicate a different way of reading the evidence that I have discussed in this book. Did Jesus claim to do the acts of God in the same manner as these divine agents? In other words, did Jesus mean that God now was doing his works through him? Such an interpretation of Jesus’ claims would be unwarranted. The reason why some of the Jewish sources can be read in this way is that they are ambiguous. The same acts are attributed both to God and to his agents. But Jesus’ claims were not ambiguous. He spoke and acted on his own authority. He appears to have his authority by virtue of who he is, not by virtue of appointment. This is not to deny that there is a tension in the way Jesus spoke about himself. His implicit claims to authority are so strong that one wonders if he thought he was YHWH, or if he thought he was a second god who had appeared on earth to take YHWH’s place. That is evidently not the case, however, as he repeatedly expresses his complete submission to the Father. Sonship has thus emerged as the metaphor Jesus used for his relationship to

God the Father. He understood this sonship to set him apart in a unique relationship to the Father, a relationship that was so close that he could be both subordinate and equal to God. Jesus’ own thoughts about his divine sonship go a long way towards resolving the tension between his equality with God and his submission to the Father. But it is not surprising that the Christological reflection in the early church capitalized on the title “Son of God” and developed its connotations further so that they could more fully account for both of these aspects of Jesus’ character.

220

221

Implications These conclusions have w ­ ide-ranging implications for how we understand the development of early Christology. The use of the names “Lord” and “God” for Jesus may have developed directly from his own claims to take God’s place and fulfill the promises regarding God’s interaction with his creation. The inspiration for Paul’s remarkable inclusion of Jesus in the Shema (Deut. 6.4; cf. 1 Cor. 8.6) can also be traced back to the historical Jesus. He saw himself as the object of the devotion that was due only to God (Deut. 6.5; cf. Chapter 6). The Christian practice of worshiping Jesus together with the Father (Rev. 5.13) was the logical next step. When Jesus’ sonship was understood in such lofty terms that he could be attributed with the fullness of God (Col. 1.19), the roots can be found in Jesus’ own interpretation of his relationship to the Father. He had explained that he was uniquely close to the Father, so close that he belonged on the divine side of the divine–human divide (cf. Chapter 9). The seed that later bore the Wisdom Christology of Hebrews and John can also be found in Jesus’ own musings about this relationship (Mt. 11.27 par.; cf. Chapter 9). Even the idea of his preexistence is not far away if Jesus’ appearance was seen to fulfill the prophecies regarding God’s eschatological coming to earth. Jesus’ claim to be the agent of the new creation (Lk. 7.22 par.; cf. Chapter 2) could also have led to the church’s conviction that he was the agent of the first creation (Col. 1.16). The fountainhead of later Trinitarian theology may also be found in the portraits of Jesus where he is so close to the Father that the two can appear as interchangeable, although Jesus maintains his own identity. There may thus have been a direct line from Jesus’ own ­self-understanding to the Christological claims of the early church.

Bibliography

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalen, Sverre. “Jesu kristologiske selvbevissthet: Et utkast til ‘jahvistisk kristologi’.” In Guds sønn og Guds rike: Nytestamentlige studier 1, 271–88. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973. Acrari, Luca. “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 478–86. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Agbanou, Victor Kossi. Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25: Tradition et rédaction. EBib 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1983. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory and Imagination. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. ——. “Elijah Must Come First.” JBL 103 (1984): 256–58. ——. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ——. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. ——. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. Testament of Abraham. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Annen, Franz. Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.). Frankfurter theologische Studien 20. Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976. Aschim, Anders. “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 129–47. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Atkinson, Kenneth. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118 (1999): 435–60. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Aune, David E. “The Judgement Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5.10).” In Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel, edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Claudia Setzer, and Philip Sellew. JSNTSup 221, 68–86. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ——. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Ådna, Jostein. Jesu Stellung zur Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischer Sendung. WUNT II/119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Baillet, Maurice. (4Q482–4Q520). Vol. 3 of Qumrân grotte 4. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Balla, Peter. The ­Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment. WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Baltzer, Klaus. ­Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Banks, Robert J. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

223

Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. London: SPCK, 1992. Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London, 1967. Barth, Gerhard. “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, translated by Percy Scott, Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Hans Joachim Held. NTL, 58–164. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke. Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Astrid B. Beck. AB 34B. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Barton, Stephen C. Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. SNTSMS 80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ——. “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, edited by Barnabas Lindars, 72–89. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988. ——. “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 43–69. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or ‘Someone’.” JSNT 2 (1985): 23–33. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Messianic Forgiveness of sin in CD 14.19 (4Q266 10 i 12–13).” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich. STDJ 30, 537–44. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ­Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Becker, Michael. “4Q521 und die Gesalbten.” RevQ 18 (1997): 73–96. ——. Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus. WUNT II/144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ­Ben-Chorin, Schalom. Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes. Translated and edited by Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Luke 6.20–49). Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995. Beyerle, Stefan. “‘Der mit den Wolken des Himmels kommt’: Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefüge ‘Menschensohn’.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblischtheologische Studien 67, 1–52. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Bietenhard, Hans. “‘Der Menschensohn’ – ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien: I. Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil.” In ANRW, II.25.1.265–350. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. ——. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. ——. “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Claims.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 145–68. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. WUNT II/40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002.

Bibliography

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalen, Sverre. “Jesu kristologiske selvbevissthet: Et utkast til ‘jahvistisk kristologi’.” In Guds sønn og Guds rike: Nytestamentlige studier 1, 271–88. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973. Acrari, Luca. “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 478–86. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Agbanou, Victor Kossi. Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25: Tradition et rédaction. EBib 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1983. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory and Imagination. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. ——. “Elijah Must Come First.” JBL 103 (1984): 256–58. ——. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ——. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. ——. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. Testament of Abraham. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Annen, Franz. Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.). Frankfurter theologische Studien 20. Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976. Aschim, Anders. “Melchizedek and Jesus: 11QMelchizedek and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 129–47. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Atkinson, Kenneth. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118 (1999): 435–60. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Aune, David E. “The Judgement Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5.10).” In Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel, edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Claudia Setzer, and Philip Sellew. JSNTSup 221, 68–86. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ——. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Ådna, Jostein. Jesu Stellung zur Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischer Sendung. WUNT II/119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Baillet, Maurice. (4Q482–4Q520). Vol. 3 of Qumrân grotte 4. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Balla, Peter. The ­Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and Its Environment. WUNT 155. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Baltzer, Klaus. ­Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Banks, Robert J. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

223

Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. London: SPCK, 1992. Barrett, C. K. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. London, 1967. Barth, Gerhard. “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law.” In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, translated by Percy Scott, Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Hans Joachim Held. NTL, 58–164. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke. Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Astrid B. Beck. AB 34B. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Barton, Stephen C. Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. SNTSMS 80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ——. “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” In Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, edited by Barnabas Lindars, 72–89. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988. ——. “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 43–69. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Bauckham, Richard J. “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in My Position’ or ‘Someone’.” JSNT 2 (1985): 23–33. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “Messianic Forgiveness of sin in CD 14.19 (4Q266 10 i 12–13).” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich. STDJ 30, 537–44. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ­Beasley-Murray, George R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Becker, Michael. “4Q521 und die Gesalbten.” RevQ 18 (1997): 73–96. ——. Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus. WUNT II/144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ­Ben-Chorin, Schalom. Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes. Translated and edited by Jared S. Klein and Max Reinhart. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5.3–7.27 and Luke 6.20–49). Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995. Beyerle, Stefan. “‘Der mit den Wolken des Himmels kommt’: Untersuchungen zum Traditionsgefüge ‘Menschensohn’.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblischtheologische Studien 67, 1–52. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Bietenhard, Hans. “‘Der Menschensohn’ – ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien: I. Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil.” In ANRW, II.25.1.265–350. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd edn. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. ——. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. ——. “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Claims.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 145–68. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. WUNT II/40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. WUNT II/106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 589–667. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. Luke. Vol. 1. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. ——. Luke. Vol. 2. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Bockmuehl, Markus. “God’s Life as a Jew: Remembering the Son of God as Son of David.” In Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 60–78. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ——. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Dead’: Jesus and the Law Revisited.” In Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics, 23–48. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Borgen, Peder. “Philo of Alexandria.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael Stone. CRINT 2.2, 233–82. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Boring, M. Eugene. “The H ­ istorical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case.” Semeia 44 (1988): 9–44. ——. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene McLuskey, Fraser McLuskey, and James M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. 2nd edn. FRLANT 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Vol. 2. EKK 3/2. Zurich: Benziger, 1996. ——. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1.1–9.50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Bowman, Robert M., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Box, G. H. The ­Ezra-Apocalypse, Being Chapters 3–14 of the Book Commonly Known as 4 Ezra (or II Esdras). London: Sir Isaac Pitman, 1912. Brandenburger, Egon. Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25, 31–46. SBS 99. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Braun, Herbert. Die Synoptiker. Vol. 2 of ­Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 24/II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church. New York: Abingdon, 1953. Broadhead, Edwin K. Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ——. Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 74. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Broer, Ingo. “Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthäus.” BZ 19 (1975): 50–63. ——. “Das Gericht des Menschensohnes über die Völker.” BibLeb 11 (1970): 273–95. ——. “Jesus und das Gesetz: Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des Problems und zur Frage der Sündervergebung durch den historischen Jesus.” In Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, edited by Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger, 61–104. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Brooke, George J. “Men and Women as Angels in Joseph and Aseneth.” JSP 14 (2005): 159–77. Brown, Colin. “Synoptic Miracle Stories: A Jewish Religious and Social Setting.” Forum 2 (1986): 55–76. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Vol. 1. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

——. “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” BTB 15 (1985): 74–79. ——. Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Brownlee, William H. “Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament.” NTS 3 (1952–53): 12–30, 195–210. Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration. SNTSMS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Buchanan, George Wesley. Jesus, the King and His Kingdom. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984. Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2nd edn. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. ——. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM, 1952. Burchard, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung, Ortsbestimmung. WUNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. SNTSMS 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Burrows, Millar, ed. The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. ConBNT 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992. ——. “Matthew 5.17–18 in the Argumentation of the Context.” RB 104 (1997): 557–71. Camponovo, Odo. Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften. OBO 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Cangh, ­Jean-Marie van. “‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu–par le doigt de Dieu’: Mt 12,28 par. Lc 11,20.” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 337–42. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Caragounis, Chrys C. “Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ ­Self-Understanding.” TynBul 40 (1989): 3–23, 223–38. ——. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. WUNT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Carlston, Charles E. “Wisdom and Eschatology in Q.” In Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 101–19. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Carmignac, J. “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisedeq.” RevQ 7 (1970): 343–78. Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In Matthew, Mark, Luke. Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 1–599. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. SNTSMS 122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ——. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. London: T & T Clark, 2007. ——. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. Catchpole, David. Jesus People: The Historical Jesus and the Beginnings of Community. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Catchpole, David R. “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A ­Re-Appraisal of Matthew XXV. 31–46.” BJRL 61 (1978–79): 355–97. ——. “Temple Traditions in Q.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William Horbury. JSNTSup 48, 305–29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Cerfaux, Lucien. “L’Évangile de Jean et le ‘logion johannique’ des Synoptiques.” In Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d’Exégèse et d’Histoire Religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux réunies à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-dixième anniversaire, vol. 3. BETL 18, 161–74. Gembloux, France: Duculot, 1954.

224

225

Bibliography

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell L. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. WUNT II/106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “Blasphemy and the Jewish Examination of Jesus.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 589–667. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. Luke. Vol. 1. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. ——. Luke. Vol. 2. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Bockmuehl, Markus. “God’s Life as a Jew: Remembering the Son of God as Son of David.” In Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 60–78. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ——. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Dead’: Jesus and the Law Revisited.” In Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics, 23–48. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Borgen, Peder. “Philo of Alexandria.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael Stone. CRINT 2.2, 233–82. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Boring, M. Eugene. “The H ­ istorical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case.” Semeia 44 (1988): 9–44. ——. Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by Irene McLuskey, Fraser McLuskey, and James M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. 2nd edn. FRLANT 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Vol. 2. EKK 3/2. Zurich: Benziger, 1996. ——. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1.1–9.50. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Bowman, Robert M., and J. Ed Komoszewski. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Box, G. H. The ­Ezra-Apocalypse, Being Chapters 3–14 of the Book Commonly Known as 4 Ezra (or II Esdras). London: Sir Isaac Pitman, 1912. Brandenburger, Egon. Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthäus 25, 31–46. SBS 99. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. Braun, Herbert. Die Synoptiker. Vol. 2 of ­Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 24/II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Bright, John. The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and Its Meaning for the Church. New York: Abingdon, 1953. Broadhead, Edwin K. Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ——. Teaching with Authority: Miracles and Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 74. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Broer, Ingo. “Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthäus.” BZ 19 (1975): 50–63. ——. “Das Gericht des Menschensohnes über die Völker.” BibLeb 11 (1970): 273–95. ——. “Jesus und das Gesetz: Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des Problems und zur Frage der Sündervergebung durch den historischen Jesus.” In Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, edited by Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger, 61–104. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Brooke, George J. “Men and Women as Angels in Joseph and Aseneth.” JSP 14 (2005): 159–77. Brown, Colin. “Synoptic Miracle Stories: A Jewish Religious and Social Setting.” Forum 2 (1986): 55–76. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Vol. 1. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

——. “Did Jesus Know He Was God?” BTB 15 (1985): 74–79. ——. Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Brownlee, William H. “Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New Testament.” NTS 3 (1952–53): 12–30, 195–210. Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration. SNTSMS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Buchanan, George Wesley. Jesus, the King and His Kingdom. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984. Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2nd edn. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. ——. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM, 1952. Burchard, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung, Ortsbestimmung. WUNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. SNTSMS 107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Burrows, Millar, ed. The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. ConBNT 24. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992. ——. “Matthew 5.17–18 in the Argumentation of the Context.” RB 104 (1997): 557–71. Camponovo, Odo. Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften. OBO 58. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Cangh, ­Jean-Marie van. “‘Par l’Esprit de Dieu–par le doigt de Dieu’: Mt 12,28 par. Lc 11,20.” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 337–42. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Caragounis, Chrys C. “Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ ­Self-Understanding.” TynBul 40 (1989): 3–23, 223–38. ——. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. WUNT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Carlston, Charles E. “Wisdom and Eschatology in Q.” In Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 101–19. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Carmignac, J. “Le document de Qumran sur Melkisedeq.” RevQ 7 (1970): 343–78. Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In Matthew, Mark, Luke. Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 1–599. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. SNTSMS 122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ——. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. Library of New Testament Studies 343. London: T & T Clark, 2007. ——. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. Catchpole, David. Jesus People: The Historical Jesus and the Beginnings of Community. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Catchpole, David R. “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A ­Re-Appraisal of Matthew XXV. 31–46.” BJRL 61 (1978–79): 355–97. ——. “Temple Traditions in Q.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William Horbury. JSNTSup 48, 305–29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Cerfaux, Lucien. “L’Évangile de Jean et le ‘logion johannique’ des Synoptiques.” In Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Études d’Exégèse et d’Histoire Religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux réunies à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-dixième anniversaire, vol. 3. BETL 18, 161–74. Gembloux, France: Duculot, 1954.

224

225

Bibliography

Bibliography

Ceroke, Christian Paul. “Is Mk 2.10 a Saying of Jesus?” CBQ 22 (1960): 369–90. Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch Together with a Reprint of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. ——, ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, James H. “Can we Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 450–68. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 3–35. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ——. Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1988. ——. “Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 21–52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “The Son of David, Solomon and Jesus.” In The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, edited by Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen, 72–87. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. ——, ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ——. “The Sibyl and the Temple.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William Horbury. JSNTSup 48, 37–69. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Childs, Brevard S. Exodus. OTL. London: SCM, 1974. ——. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chilton, Bruce D. God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTSU 1. Freistadt: Plöchl, 1979. ——. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Christ, Felix. Jesus Sophia: Die S­ ophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern. ATANT 57. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. Claudel, Gérard. “Le Jugement comme révélation chez Matthieu: Une lecture de Mt 25, 31–46.” In Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser. Vol. 2 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, edited by Claude Coulot. LD 198, 51–97. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Collins, John J. “4QPrayer of Nabonidus Ar.” In Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, vol. 3, edited by George Brooke, John Collins, Torleif Elgvin, Peter Flint, Jonas Greenfield, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, Émile Puech, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Michael Stone. DJD 22, 83–93. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. ——. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1989. ——. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 216–27. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 100–119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

——. “The Kingdom of God in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, edited by Wendell Lee Willis, 81–95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. ——. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. ——. “The Works of the Messiah.” DSD 1 (1994): 98–112. Colpe, Carsten. “Traditionsüberschreitende Argumentationen zu Aussagen Jesu über sich selbst.” In Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Gert Jeremias, H ­ einz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, 230–45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. ——. “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.” In TDNT, 8.400–477. Conzelmann, Hans. Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 2. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. Cope, Lamar. “Matthew XXV: 31–46: ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ Reinterpreted.” NovT 11 (1969): 32–44. Coppens, Joseph. Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire. Vol. 2 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal. BETL 61. Leuven: Peeters, 1983. ——. La royauté – le règne: Le royaume de Dieu cadre de la relève apocalyptique. Vol. 1 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal. BETL 50. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. Cotter, Wendy. Miracles in ­Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories. London: Routledge, 1999. Craffert, Pieter F. The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in ­AnthropologicalHistorical Perspective. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Perspective 3. Eugene, Or.: Cascade, 2008. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. The Cambridge New Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Cross, Frank Moore. “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus.” IEJ 34 (1984): 260–64. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. ——. In Parables. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Cullmann, Oscar. Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958. Dalman, Gustaf. The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of P ­ ost-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, The University of London, 1956. Davies, Stevan L. Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity. New York: Continuum, 1995. Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: The University Press, 1964. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 3. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997. Davila, James R. “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 3–18. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

226

227

Bibliography

Bibliography

Ceroke, Christian Paul. “Is Mk 2.10 a Saying of Jesus?” CBQ 22 (1960): 369–90. Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch Together with a Reprint of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. ——, ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, James H. “Can we Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 450–68. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 3–35. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ——. Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1988. ——. “Messianology in the Biblical Pseudepigrapha.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 21–52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “The Son of David, Solomon and Jesus.” In The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, edited by Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen, 72–87. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. ——, ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Chester, Andrew. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ——. “The Sibyl and the Temple.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William Horbury. JSNTSup 48, 37–69. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Childs, Brevard S. Exodus. OTL. London: SCM, 1974. ——. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chilton, Bruce D. God in Strength: Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom. SNTSU 1. Freistadt: Plöchl, 1979. ——. The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Christ, Felix. Jesus Sophia: Die S­ ophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern. ATANT 57. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. Claudel, Gérard. “Le Jugement comme révélation chez Matthieu: Une lecture de Mt 25, 31–46.” In Mélanges offerts à Jacques Schlosser. Vol. 2 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, edited by Claude Coulot. LD 198, 51–97. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Collins, John J. “4QPrayer of Nabonidus Ar.” In Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, vol. 3, edited by George Brooke, John Collins, Torleif Elgvin, Peter Flint, Jonas Greenfield, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, Émile Puech, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Michael Stone. DJD 22, 83–93. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. ——. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1989. ——. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 216–27. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. “Jesus, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 100–119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

——. “The Kingdom of God in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, edited by Wendell Lee Willis, 81–95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. ——. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1995. ——. “The Works of the Messiah.” DSD 1 (1994): 98–112. Colpe, Carsten. “Traditionsüberschreitende Argumentationen zu Aussagen Jesu über sich selbst.” In Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Gert Jeremias, H ­ einz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann, 230–45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. ——. “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.” In TDNT, 8.400–477. Conzelmann, Hans. Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die evangelische Theologie 2. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. Cope, Lamar. “Matthew XXV: 31–46: ‘The Sheep and the Goats’ Reinterpreted.” NovT 11 (1969): 32–44. Coppens, Joseph. Le fils d’homme vétéro- et intertestamentaire. Vol. 2 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal. BETL 61. Leuven: Peeters, 1983. ——. La royauté – le règne: Le royaume de Dieu cadre de la relève apocalyptique. Vol. 1 of La relève apocalyptique du messianisme royal. BETL 50. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. Cotter, Wendy. Miracles in ­Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories. London: Routledge, 1999. Craffert, Pieter F. The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in ­AnthropologicalHistorical Perspective. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Perspective 3. Eugene, Or.: Cascade, 2008. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. The Cambridge New Testament Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Cross, Frank Moore. “Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus.” IEJ 34 (1984): 260–64. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. ——. In Parables. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Cullmann, Oscar. Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958. Dalman, Gustaf. The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of P ­ ost-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902. Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, The University of London, 1956. Davies, Stevan L. Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity. New York: Continuum, 1995. Davies, W. D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: The University Press, 1964. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 3. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997. Davila, James R. “Of Methodology, Monotheism and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 3–18. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

226

227

Bibliography

Bibliography

Davis, Stephen T. “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’: Jesus, Forgiveness, and Divinity.” In Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, edited by Christine Helmer and Charlene T. Higbe, 113–23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Dechow, Jens. Gottessohn und Herrschaft Gottes: Der Theozentrismus des Markusevangeliums. WMANT 86. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. Delcor, Mathias. Le testament d’Abraham: Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension grecque longue, suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Denaux, Adelbert. “The Q-Logion Mt 11,27 / Lk 10,22 and the Gospel of John.” In John and the Synoptics, edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL101, 163–99. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Derrett, J. D. M. “Unfair to Goats (Mt 25.32–33).” ExpTim 108 (1997): 177–78. deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A S­ ocio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Deutsch, Celia. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30. JSNTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. ——. Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Dibelius, Martin. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The S­ ub-Structure of New Testament Theology. 1952. Fontana Books. London: Collins, 1965. ——. The Founder of Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1970. ——. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955. ——. The Parables of the Kingdom. 2nd edn. 1936. New York: Scribner’s, 1961. Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Donaldson, Terence L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the G ­ reco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992): 55–71. Duhaime, Jean. “Le messie et les saints dans un fragment apocalyptique de Qumrân (4Q521 2).” In Ce Dieu qui vient: Étude sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-cinquième anniversaire, edited by Raymond Kuntzmann. LD 159, 265–74. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Duling, D. C. “Testament of Solomon.” In OTP, 1.935–87. Duling, Dennis C. “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven.” In ABD, 4.49–69. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. ——. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ——. “Incarnation.” In ABD, 3.397–404. ——. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. ——. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990. ——. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——. “Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 – a Word of Jesus?” In Pneumatology. Vol. 2 of The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn, 187–204. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

——. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. 2nd edn. London: SCM, 2006. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58.” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, edited by Joel Green, B. and M. Turner, 192–203. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Emmrich, Martin. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy.” WTJ 62 (2000): 267–79. Ernst, Josef. Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1974. Eshel, Hanan. “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 487–91. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. WUNT II/142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 135–53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 161–70. ——. “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 151–79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989): 237–70. ——. “The Life of Jesus.” In Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter. NTTS 25, 427–75. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ——. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. ——. “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers.” In The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 185–95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. JSNTSup 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Faierstein, M. M. “Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?” JBL 100 (1981): 75–86. Fishbane, Michael. Haftarot. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran.” Bib 74 (1993): 153–74. ——. “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God.” In À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. LD 123, 15–38. Paris: Cerf, 1985. ——. “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave V.” In Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 127–60. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. ——. “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11.” JBL 86 (1967): 25–41. ——. The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981. ——. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 28A. New York: Doubleday, 1985. ——. “More About Elijah Coming First.” JBL 104 (1985): 295–96. ——. The One Who is to Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1979. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., and D. J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts

228

229

Bibliography

Bibliography

Davis, Stephen T. “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’: Jesus, Forgiveness, and Divinity.” In Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, edited by Christine Helmer and Charlene T. Higbe, 113–23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Dechow, Jens. Gottessohn und Herrschaft Gottes: Der Theozentrismus des Markusevangeliums. WMANT 86. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. Delcor, Mathias. Le testament d’Abraham: Introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension grecque longue, suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Denaux, Adelbert. “The Q-Logion Mt 11,27 / Lk 10,22 and the Gospel of John.” In John and the Synoptics, edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL101, 163–99. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Derrett, J. D. M. “Unfair to Goats (Mt 25.32–33).” ExpTim 108 (1997): 177–78. deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A S­ ocio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Deutsch, Celia. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah and Discipleship in Matthew 11.25–30. JSNTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. ——. Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Dibelius, Martin. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The S­ ub-Structure of New Testament Theology. 1952. Fontana Books. London: Collins, 1965. ——. The Founder of Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1970. ——. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955. ——. The Parables of the Kingdom. 2nd edn. 1936. New York: Scribner’s, 1961. Donahue, John R. Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 10. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Donaldson, Terence L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the G ­ reco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992): 55–71. Duhaime, Jean. “Le messie et les saints dans un fragment apocalyptique de Qumrân (4Q521 2).” In Ce Dieu qui vient: Étude sur l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament offertes au professeur Bernard Renaud à l’occasion de son s­ oixante-cinquième anniversaire, edited by Raymond Kuntzmann. LD 159, 265–74. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Duling, D. C. “Testament of Solomon.” In OTP, 1.935–87. Duling, Dennis C. “Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven.” In ABD, 4.49–69. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. ——. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ——. “Incarnation.” In ABD, 3.397–404. ——. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975. ——. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990. ——. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——. “Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 – a Word of Jesus?” In Pneumatology. Vol. 2 of The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn, 187–204. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

——. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. 2nd edn. London: SCM, 2006. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. “­Deity-Christology in Mark 14:58.” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, edited by Joel Green, B. and M. Turner, 192–203. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Emmrich, Martin. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy.” WTJ 62 (2000): 267–79. Ernst, Josef. Die Briefe an die Philipper, an Philemon, an die Kolosser, an die Epheser. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1974. Eshel, Hanan. “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 487–91. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Eskola, Timo. Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. WUNT II/142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Are the ‘Son’ Texts at Qumran Messianic? Reflections on 4Q369 and Related Scrolls.” In ­Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Herman Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, 135–53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 161–70. ——. “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 151–79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ——. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989): 237–70. ——. “The Life of Jesus.” In Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter. NTTS 25, 427–75. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ——. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. ——. “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers.” In The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 185–95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Eve, Eric. The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles. JSNTSup 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Faierstein, M. M. “Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?” JBL 100 (1981): 75–86. Fishbane, Michael. Haftarot. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran.” Bib 74 (1993): 153–74. ——. “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God.” In À cause de l’Évangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B. à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. LD 123, 15–38. Paris: Cerf, 1985. ——. “The Aramaic ‘Elect of God’ Text from Qumran Cave V.” In Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 127–60. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. ——. “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11.” JBL 86 (1967): 25–41. ——. The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981. ——. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 28A. New York: Doubleday, 1985. ——. “More About Elijah Coming First.” JBL 104 (1985): 295–96. ——. The One Who is to Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1979. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., and D. J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts

228

229

Bibliography

Bibliography

(Second Century B.C.–Second Century A.D.). BibOr 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Fleddermann, Harry, with an assessment by F. Neirynck. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. BETL 122. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. ­Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.” DSD 3 (1996): 236–52. ——. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ——. “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God.” JSNT 26 (2003): 39–68. ——. ­Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT II/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Flint, P. W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” In Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, 41–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flusser, David. “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran.” Immanuel 10 (1980): 31–37. ——. Jesus. In collaboration with R. Steven Notley. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997. ——. The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius. 4th edn. In collaboration with R. Steven Notley, with an introduction by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. NTOA 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. ——. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Foster, Paul. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel. WUNT II/177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ——. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale, 1971. ——. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. New Testament Profiles. Downers Grove: IVP, 1989. Frankemölle, Hubert. “Hat Jesus sich selbst verkündigt? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln.” BibLeb 13 (1972): 184–207. Frey, Jörg. “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien.” In Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, edited by Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker. BZNW 114, 273–336. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Friedrich, Johannes. Gott im Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25,31–46. Calwer Theologische Monographien A, 7. Stuttgart, 1977. Fuchs, Albert. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach dem historischen Jesus. SNTSU 5. Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1980. Fuller, Reginald H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. London: Lutterworth, 1965. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246.” In Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9, 162–79. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings.” In The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

edited by Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson, 159–89. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ——. “The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis.” In Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9, 116–36. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “Las tradiciones sobre Melquisedec en los manuscritos de Qumrán.” Bib 81 (2000): 70–80. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. (1Q1–4Q273). Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——, eds. (4Q274–11Q31). Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gench, Frances Taylor. Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997. George, Augustin. “Notes sur quelques traits lucaniens de l’expression ‘Par le doigt de Dieu’ (Luc XI,20).” ScEccl 18 (1966): 461–66. ——. “Paroles de Jésus sur les miracles (Mt 11, 5.21; 12, 27.28 et par.).” In Jésus aux origines de la christologie. 2nd edn, edited by Jacques Dupont. BETL 40, 283–301, 429–30. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gnilka, Joachim. “‘Bräutigam’ – spätjüdisches Messiasprädikat?” TThSt 69 (1960): 298–301. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. EKK 2/1. Zurich: Benziger, 1978. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 2. EKK 2/2. Zurich: Benziger, 1979. ——. Das Matthäusevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT I/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1986. ——. Das Matthäusevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT I/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969. Goulder, Michael D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. Gourgues, Michel. À la droite de Dieu: Résurection de Jésus et actualisation de Psaume 110.1 dans le Nouveau Testament. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1978. Grappe, Christian. “Naissance de l’idée de résurrection dans le judaïsme.” In Résurrection: L’­àpres-mort dans la monde ancient et le Nouveau Testament, edited by Odette Mainville and Daniel Marguerat. Le monde de la Bible 45, 45–72. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001. ——. Le Royaume de Dieu: Avant, avec et après Jésus. Le monde de la Bible 42. Geneva: Labor et Fies, 2001. Gray, Sherman W. The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25. 31–46: A History of Interpretation. SBLDS 114. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Gray, Timothy C. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. WUNT II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Grelot, Pierre. “La prière de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab).” RevQ 9 (1978): 483–95. Grindheim, Sigurd. The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel. WUNT II/202. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ——. “Ignorance Is Bliss: Attitudinal Aspects of the Judgment According to Works in Matthew 25:31–46.” NovT 50 (2008): 313–31. ——. “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 2:6–16).” JBL 121 (2002): 689–709. Grundmann, Walter. “ἰσχύω κτλ.” In TDNT, 3.3967–402. Guelich, Robert A. “The Antitheses of Matthew V. 21–48: Traditional and/or Redactional?” NTS 22 (1975–76): 444–57. ——. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

230

231

Bibliography

Bibliography

(Second Century B.C.–Second Century A.D.). BibOr 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Fleddermann, Harry, with an assessment by F. Neirynck. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. BETL 122. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. ­Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.” DSD 3 (1996): 236–52. ——. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ——. “‘Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead’: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God.” JSNT 26 (2003): 39–68. ——. ­Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT II/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Flint, P. W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” In Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, 41–60. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flusser, David. “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran.” Immanuel 10 (1980): 31–37. ——. Jesus. In collaboration with R. Steven Notley. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997. ——. The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius. 4th edn. In collaboration with R. Steven Notley, with an introduction by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fossum, Jarl E. The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology. NTOA 30. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. ——. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Foster, Paul. Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel. WUNT II/177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ——. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale, 1971. ——. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. New Testament Profiles. Downers Grove: IVP, 1989. Frankemölle, Hubert. “Hat Jesus sich selbst verkündigt? Christologische Implikationen in den vormarkinischen Parabeln.” BibLeb 13 (1972): 184–207. Frey, Jörg. “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien.” In Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung, edited by Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker. BZNW 114, 273–336. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Friedrich, Johannes. Gott im Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25,31–46. Calwer Theologische Monographien A, 7. Stuttgart, 1977. Fuchs, Albert. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: Traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22–27 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach dem historischen Jesus. SNTSU 5. Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1980. Fuller, Reginald H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. London: Lutterworth, 1965. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246.” In Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9, 162–79. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings.” In The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

edited by Florentino García Martínez and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson, 159–89. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ——. “The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis.” In Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9, 116–36. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “Las tradiciones sobre Melquisedec en los manuscritos de Qumrán.” Bib 81 (2000): 70–80. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. (1Q1–4Q273). Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——, eds. (4Q274–11Q31). Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gench, Frances Taylor. Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997. George, Augustin. “Notes sur quelques traits lucaniens de l’expression ‘Par le doigt de Dieu’ (Luc XI,20).” ScEccl 18 (1966): 461–66. ——. “Paroles de Jésus sur les miracles (Mt 11, 5.21; 12, 27.28 et par.).” In Jésus aux origines de la christologie. 2nd edn, edited by Jacques Dupont. BETL 40, 283–301, 429–30. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gnilka, Joachim. “‘Bräutigam’ – spätjüdisches Messiasprädikat?” TThSt 69 (1960): 298–301. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. EKK 2/1. Zurich: Benziger, 1978. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 2. EKK 2/2. Zurich: Benziger, 1979. ——. Das Matthäusevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT I/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1986. ——. Das Matthäusevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT I/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1988. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. Amsterdam: Philo, 1969. Goulder, Michael D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. Gourgues, Michel. À la droite de Dieu: Résurection de Jésus et actualisation de Psaume 110.1 dans le Nouveau Testament. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1978. Grappe, Christian. “Naissance de l’idée de résurrection dans le judaïsme.” In Résurrection: L’­àpres-mort dans la monde ancient et le Nouveau Testament, edited by Odette Mainville and Daniel Marguerat. Le monde de la Bible 45, 45–72. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001. ——. Le Royaume de Dieu: Avant, avec et après Jésus. Le monde de la Bible 42. Geneva: Labor et Fies, 2001. Gray, Sherman W. The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25. 31–46: A History of Interpretation. SBLDS 114. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Gray, Timothy C. The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. WUNT II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Grelot, Pierre. “La prière de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab).” RevQ 9 (1978): 483–95. Grindheim, Sigurd. The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel. WUNT II/202. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ——. “Ignorance Is Bliss: Attitudinal Aspects of the Judgment According to Works in Matthew 25:31–46.” NovT 50 (2008): 313–31. ——. “Wisdom for the Perfect: Paul’s Challenge to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 2:6–16).” JBL 121 (2002): 689–709. Grundmann, Walter. “ἰσχύω κτλ.” In TDNT, 3.3967–402. Guelich, Robert A. “The Antitheses of Matthew V. 21–48: Traditional and/or Redactional?” NTS 22 (1975–76): 444–57. ——. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

230

231

Bibliography

Bibliography

Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy.” BTB 29 (1999): 118–29. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. WBC 33A. Waco: Word, 1993. ——. Matthew 14–28. WBC 33B. Waco: Word, 1995. Hahn, Ferdinand. Christologische Hoheitstitel. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. ­Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. “A Note on Matthew XII. 28 par. Luke XI. 20.” NTS 11 (1964–65): 167–69. Hampel, Volker. Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Hanhart, Karel. “Son, Your Sins Are Forgiven: Mk 2,5.” In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2, edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BETL 100, 997–1016. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Hann, Robert R. “Christos Kyrios in PsSol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered.” NTS 31 (1985): 620–27. Hannah, Darrell D. “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 469–77. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT II/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. ——. “The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch.” ZNW 94 (2003): 68–96. Hare, Douglas R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. SP 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. Hatina, Thomas R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative. JSNTSup 232. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Hauser, Michael. Die Herrschaft Gottes im Markusevangelium. Europäische Hochschulschriften 647. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. ­Hedner-Zetterholm, Karin. “Elijah and the Messiah as Spokesmen for Rabbinic Ideology.” In The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by Magnus Zetterholm, 57–78. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Heil, John Paul. “The Double Meaning of the Narrative of Universal Judgment in Matthew 25.31–46.” JSNT 69 (1998): 3–14. Henderson, Suzanne Watts. Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. SNTSMS 135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Edited by John Riches. Translated by James C. G. Greig. 1981. New York: Crossroad, 1996. ——. “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20.” In La Main de Dieu = Die Hand Gottes, edited by René Kieffer and Jan Bergman. WUNT 94, 87–106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. ——. “Jesus der Messias Israels.” In Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 138, 1–80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ——. “‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ and the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110.1.” In Studies in Early Christology, 119–225. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995. ——. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of J­ ewish-Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1976. ——. Studies in Early Christology. 1995. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

——. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Translated by William Klassen. Facet Books Biblical Series 28. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. ——. “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund.” In Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften, Martin Hengel. WUNT 109, 219–92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hiers, Richard H. “‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations.” JBL 104 (1985): 233–50. ——. The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and Ministry of Jesus. University of Florida Humanities Monograph 38. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1973. Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Hoffmann, Paul. “Die Offenbarung des Sohnes: Die apokalyptischen Voraussetzungen und ihre Verarbeitung im Q-Logion Mt 11,27 par Lk 10,22.” Kairos 12 (1970): 270–88. ——. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. NTAbh 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. Hofius, Otfried. “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. 1994. WUNT 132, 38–56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ——. “Kennt der Targum zu Jes 53 einen sündenvergebenden Messias?” In Neutestamentliche Studien. WUNT 132, 70–107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ——. “Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. 1983. WUNT 132, 57–69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Hogan, L. P. Healing in the Second Temple Period. NTOA 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Holladay, Carl R. Orphica. Vol. 4 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. SBLTT 40 Pseudepigrapha Series 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. ——. Theios Aner in ­Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1977. Hollander, H. W., and Marinus de Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Holtz, Traugott. “‘Ich aber sage euch’: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis Jesu zur Tora.” In Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, edited by Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger, 135–45. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to St. Mark. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. ——. The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term ‘Son of Man’ and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel. London: SPCK, 1967. Horbury, William. Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T & T Clark, 2003. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. ——. “Pneumatikos Vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status Among the Corinthians.” HTR 69 (1976): 269–88. Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Winston, 1999. Horst, Pieter van der. “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” JJS 34 (1983): 21–29. ——. “‘The Finger of God’: Miscellaneous Notes on Luke 11:20 and Its Umwelt.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and N ­ on-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda, edited by William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge. NovTSup 89, 89–103. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Horton, Fred L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to

232

233

Bibliography

Bibliography

Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy.” BTB 29 (1999): 118–29. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. WBC 33A. Waco: Word, 1993. ——. Matthew 14–28. WBC 33B. Waco: Word, 1995. Hahn, Ferdinand. Christologische Hoheitstitel. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. ­Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. “A Note on Matthew XII. 28 par. Luke XI. 20.” NTS 11 (1964–65): 167–69. Hampel, Volker. Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Hanhart, Karel. “Son, Your Sins Are Forgiven: Mk 2,5.” In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 2, edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BETL 100, 997–1016. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Hann, Robert R. “Christos Kyrios in PsSol 17.32: ‘The Lord’s Anointed’ Reconsidered.” NTS 31 (1985): 620–27. Hannah, Darrell D. “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 469–77. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT II/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. ——. “The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch.” ZNW 94 (2003): 68–96. Hare, Douglas R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. SP 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982. Hatina, Thomas R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative. JSNTSup 232. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Hauser, Michael. Die Herrschaft Gottes im Markusevangelium. Europäische Hochschulschriften 647. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. ­Hedner-Zetterholm, Karin. “Elijah and the Messiah as Spokesmen for Rabbinic Ideology.” In The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by Magnus Zetterholm, 57–78. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Heil, John Paul. “The Double Meaning of the Narrative of Universal Judgment in Matthew 25.31–46.” JSNT 69 (1998): 3–14. Henderson, Suzanne Watts. Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. SNTSMS 135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Edited by John Riches. Translated by James C. G. Greig. 1981. New York: Crossroad, 1996. ——. “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20.” In La Main de Dieu = Die Hand Gottes, edited by René Kieffer and Jan Bergman. WUNT 94, 87–106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. ——. “Jesus der Messias Israels.” In Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie, Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 138, 1–80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ——. “‘Sit at My Right Hand!’ The Enthronement of Christ and the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110.1.” In Studies in Early Christology, 119–225. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995. ——. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of J­ ewish-Hellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1976. ——. Studies in Early Christology. 1995. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

——. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Translated by William Klassen. Facet Books Biblical Series 28. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. ——. “Zur matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund.” In Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften, Martin Hengel. WUNT 109, 219–92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Hiers, Richard H. “‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations.” JBL 104 (1985): 233–50. ——. The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and Ministry of Jesus. University of Florida Humanities Monograph 38. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 1973. Hill, Andrew E. Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25D. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Hoffmann, Paul. “Die Offenbarung des Sohnes: Die apokalyptischen Voraussetzungen und ihre Verarbeitung im Q-Logion Mt 11,27 par Lk 10,22.” Kairos 12 (1970): 270–88. ——. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. NTAbh 8. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. Hofius, Otfried. “Jesu Zuspruch der Sündenvergebung: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Mk 2,5b.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. 1994. WUNT 132, 38–56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ——. “Kennt der Targum zu Jes 53 einen sündenvergebenden Messias?” In Neutestamentliche Studien. WUNT 132, 70–107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ——. “Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum.” In Neutestamentliche Studien. 1983. WUNT 132, 57–69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Hogan, L. P. Healing in the Second Temple Period. NTOA 21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Holladay, Carl R. Orphica. Vol. 4 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. SBLTT 40 Pseudepigrapha Series 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. ——. Theios Aner in ­Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula, Mt: Scholars Press, 1977. Hollander, H. W., and Marinus de Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Holtz, Traugott. “‘Ich aber sage euch’: Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis Jesu zur Tora.” In Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, edited by Ingo Broer and Jens-W. Taeger, 135–45. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to St. Mark. BNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. ——. The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term ‘Son of Man’ and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel. London: SPCK, 1967. Horbury, William. Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T & T Clark, 2003. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. ——. “Pneumatikos Vs. Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status Among the Corinthians.” HTR 69 (1976): 269–88. Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Winston, 1999. Horst, Pieter van der. “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” JJS 34 (1983): 21–29. ——. “‘The Finger of God’: Miscellaneous Notes on Luke 11:20 and Its Umwelt.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and N ­ on-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda, edited by William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge. NovTSup 89, 89–103. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Horton, Fred L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to

232

233

Bibliography

Bibliography

the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Hossfeld, ­Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Hubbard, Moyer V. “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol.” JSP 16 (1997): 97–110. Hughes, John H. “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself.” NovT 14 (1972): 191–218. Hultgren, Arland J. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979. ——. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Humphries, Michael L. “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14–26.” Forum 9, no. 1–2 (1993): 121–50. Humphries, Michael Lawrence. “The Language of the Kingdom of God in the Beelzebul Discourse.” PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1990. Hunter, A. M. “Crux Criticorum—Matt. 11.25–30.” NTS 8 (1962): 241–49. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In OTP, 1.5–89, 1983. Jeremias, Joachim. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. ——. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971. ——. The Parables of Jesus. 2nd edn. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner’s, 1972. ——. Die Sprache des Lukasevengeliums. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ——. “Ἑλ(ε)ίας.” In TDNT, 2.928–41. ——. “νύμφη κτλ.” In TDNT, 4.1099–1106. The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot. Editing, translation, and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums 18. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Jervell, Jacob S. “The Lucan Interpretation of Jesus as Biblical Theology.” In New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992, edited by Sigfred Pedersen. NovTSup 76, 77–92. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Jonge, Marinus de. God’s Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Josephus, Flavius. The Life. Against Apion. Vol. I of Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Juel, Donald. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Juncker, Günther H. “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology.” PhD diss. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001. Kampen, John. “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses Within the Social World of the Matthean Community.” DSD 1 (1994): 338–63. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Problem of the Historical Jesus.” In Essays on New Testament Themes, translated by W. J. Montague, 15–47. London: SCM, 1964. Kee, Howard Clark. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. SNTSMS 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ——. Miracle in the Early Christian World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 10. Reprinted. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Kim, Seyoon. The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God. WUNT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Klauck, ­Hans-Josef. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr.).” BZ 25 (1981): 223–48. Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by Herbert Danby. New York: Macmillan, 1925. ——. The Messianic Idea in Israel, from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. Translated from the 3rd Hebrew edition by W. F. Stinespring. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Klein, Günter. Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee. FRLANT 77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Kleinknecht, Hermann, Gerhard von Rad, Karl Georg Kuhn, and Karl Ludwig Schmidt. “βασιλεύς κτλ.” In TDNT, 1.563–93. Klingbeil, Gerhard A. “The Finger of God in the Old Testament.” ZAW 112 (2000): 409–15. Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ——. “Wisdom Christology in Q.” LTP 34 (1978): 129–47. Klutz, Todd E. The Exorcism Stories in L ­ uke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading. SNTSMS 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ——. “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 156–65. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Knibb, Michael A. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review.” NTS 25 (1976): 345–59. Kobelski, Paul. J. Melchizedek and Melchireša̔. CBQMS 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Koch, K. “Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jesaja 53 – Targum: Ein Beitrag zu der Praxis der aramäischen Bibelübersetzung.” JSJ 3 (1972): 117–48. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kollmann, Bernd. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum. FRLANT 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Koskenniemi, Erkki. The Old Testament ­Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. WUNT II/206. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Kraeling, Carl H. John the Baptist. New York: Scribner’s, 1951. Kraus, ­Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Krämer, Michael. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: Eine synoptische Studie zu Mt 4,23–7,29 und Lk 6,17–49. Deutsche Hochschulschriften 433. Egelsbach: H ­ änselHohenhausen, 1994. Kreitzer, Larry J. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Kreplin, Matthias. Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und Christologische Reflexion: H ­ istorisch-Kritische Analyse. WUNT II/141. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Kuck, D. W. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5. NovTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

234

235

Bibliography

Bibliography

the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Hossfeld, ­Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Hubbard, Moyer V. “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol.” JSP 16 (1997): 97–110. Hughes, John H. “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself.” NovT 14 (1972): 191–218. Hultgren, Arland J. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979. ——. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Humphries, Michael L. “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy: Q 11:14–26.” Forum 9, no. 1–2 (1993): 121–50. Humphries, Michael Lawrence. “The Language of the Kingdom of God in the Beelzebul Discourse.” PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1990. Hunter, A. M. “Crux Criticorum—Matt. 11.25–30.” NTS 8 (1962): 241–49. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ——. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” In OTP, 1.5–89, 1983. Jeremias, Joachim. Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. ——. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971. ——. The Parables of Jesus. 2nd edn. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner’s, 1972. ——. Die Sprache des Lukasevengeliums. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ——. “Ἑλ(ε)ίας.” In TDNT, 2.928–41. ——. “νύμφη κτλ.” In TDNT, 4.1099–1106. The Jerusalem Talmud: First Order: Zeraïm, Tractate Berakhot. Editing, translation, and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums 18. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Jervell, Jacob S. “The Lucan Interpretation of Jesus as Biblical Theology.” In New Directions in Biblical Theology: Papers of the Aarhus Conference, 16–19 September 1992, edited by Sigfred Pedersen. NovTSup 76, 77–92. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Jonge, Marinus de. God’s Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Josephus, Flavius. The Life. Against Apion. Vol. I of Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Juel, Donald. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. SBLDS 31. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Juncker, Günther H. “Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology.” PhD diss. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001. Kampen, John. “The Sectarian Form of the Antitheses Within the Social World of the Matthean Community.” DSD 1 (1994): 338–63. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Problem of the Historical Jesus.” In Essays on New Testament Themes, translated by W. J. Montague, 15–47. London: SCM, 1964. Kee, Howard Clark. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. SNTSMS 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ——. Miracle in the Early Christian World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 10. Reprinted. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Kim, Seyoon. The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God. WUNT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Klauck, ­Hans-Josef. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr.).” BZ 25 (1981): 223–48. Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by Herbert Danby. New York: Macmillan, 1925. ——. The Messianic Idea in Israel, from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. Translated from the 3rd Hebrew edition by W. F. Stinespring. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Klein, Günter. Die zwölf Apostel: Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee. FRLANT 77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Kleinknecht, Hermann, Gerhard von Rad, Karl Georg Kuhn, and Karl Ludwig Schmidt. “βασιλεύς κτλ.” In TDNT, 1.563–93. Klingbeil, Gerhard A. “The Finger of God in the Old Testament.” ZAW 112 (2000): 409–15. Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ——. “Wisdom Christology in Q.” LTP 34 (1978): 129–47. Klutz, Todd E. The Exorcism Stories in L ­ uke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading. SNTSMS 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ——. “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus.” In The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origin of the Worship of Christ, edited by Carey C. Newman and James R. Davila. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63, 156–65. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Knibb, Michael A. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review.” NTS 25 (1976): 345–59. Kobelski, Paul. J. Melchizedek and Melchireša̔. CBQMS 10. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Koch, K. “Messias und Sündenvergebung in Jesaja 53 – Targum: Ein Beitrag zu der Praxis der aramäischen Bibelübersetzung.” JSJ 3 (1972): 117–48. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Kollmann, Bernd. Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum. FRLANT 170. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Koskenniemi, Erkki. The Old Testament ­Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. WUNT II/206. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Kraeling, Carl H. John the Baptist. New York: Scribner’s, 1951. Kraus, ­Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Krämer, Michael. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt: Eine synoptische Studie zu Mt 4,23–7,29 und Lk 6,17–49. Deutsche Hochschulschriften 433. Egelsbach: H ­ änselHohenhausen, 1994. Kreitzer, Larry J. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Kreplin, Matthias. Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und Christologische Reflexion: H ­ istorisch-Kritische Analyse. WUNT II/141. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Kuck, D. W. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5. NovTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

234

235

Bibliography

Bibliography

Kugler, Robert A. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Kümmel, Werner G. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. London: SCM, 1957. Kvalbein, Hans. Jesus: Hvem var han og hva ville han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap. Oslo: Luther, 2008. ——. “The Wonders of the ­End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 Par.” JSP 18 (1998): 87–110. Kvanvig, Helge S. “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 179–215. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Labahn, Michael. “Jesu Exorzismen (Q 11,19–20) und die Erkenntnis der ägyptischen Magier (Ex 8,15): Q 11,20 als bewährtes Beispiel für S ­ chrift-Rezeption Jesu nach der Logienquelle.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 617–33. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Lagrange, ­Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Marc. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1947. Lambrecht, Jan. Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Lattke, Michael. “Zur jüdischen Vorgeschichte des Synoptischen Begriffs der ‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’.” In Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller, 9–25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB 54. Bonn: Hanstein, 1980. Lee, Aquila. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ S­ elf-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT II/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Leivestad, Ragnar. “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man.” NTS 18 (1971–72): 243–67. ——. Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles. Translated by David Aune. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. HUCM 2. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C ­ ollege-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. Levine, ­Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006. Légasse, Simon. Jésus et l’enfant: ‘Enfants’, ‘petits’ et ‘simples’ dans la tradition synoptique. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. ——. “Le logion sur le Fils révélateur (Mt., XI, 27 par. Lc., X, 22): Essai d’analyse prérédactionelle.” In La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes, edited by Joseph Coppens. BETL 41, 245–74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Messiasvorstellungen in Qumran und die neutestamentliche Christologie.” Communio viatorum 44 (2002): 139–60. Lierman, John. The New Testament Moses: Christian Conceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion. WUNT II/173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Loader, William. Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. WUNT II/97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Lohse, Eduard. “Christus als der Weltenrichter.” In Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Georg Strecker, 475–86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. ——. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

——. “‘Ich aber sage euch’.” In Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Eduard Lohse, 73–87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. ——. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. 2nd edn. FRLANT 46. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. ——. “Der Prozess Jesu Christi.” In Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testament, edited by Eduard Lohse, 88–103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Rev. edn. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. ——. Matthew 8–20. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——. Matthew 21–28. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ——. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Lührmann, Dieter. “Markus 14. 55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Temples im Markusevangelium.” NTS 27 (1980–81): 457–74. Lybæk, Lena. New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes. FRLANT 198. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Macdonald, John, ed. and trans. The Translation. Vol. 2 of Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah. BZAW 84. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. Mach, Michael. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. TSAJ 34. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Maisch, Ingrid. “Die Botschaft Jesu von der Gottesherrschaft.” In Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller, 27–41. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. ——. Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine e­ xegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12. SBS 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Malchow, Bruce V. “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3.1.” JBL 103 (1984): 252–55. Malone, Andrew S. “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” TynBul 57 (2006): 215–28. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1957. ——. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its form and content. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Manzi, Franco. Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran. AnBib 136. Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997. Marcus, Joel. “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus.” In Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28/2, 247–77. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. 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. AB 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. ——. 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. 1992. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Marguerat, Daniel. Le jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. 2nd expanded edn. Le monde de la Bible 5. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995. Marshall, Christopher D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. SNTSMS 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

236

237

Bibliography

Bibliography

Kugler, Robert A. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Kümmel, Werner G. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. London: SCM, 1957. Kvalbein, Hans. Jesus: Hvem var han og hva ville han? En innføring i de tre første evangelienes budskap. Oslo: Luther, 2008. ——. “The Wonders of the ­End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 Par.” JSP 18 (1998): 87–110. Kvanvig, Helge S. “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 179–215. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Labahn, Michael. “Jesu Exorzismen (Q 11,19–20) und die Erkenntnis der ägyptischen Magier (Ex 8,15): Q 11,20 als bewährtes Beispiel für S ­ chrift-Rezeption Jesu nach der Logienquelle.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 617–33. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Lagrange, ­Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Marc. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1947. Lambrecht, Jan. Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Lattke, Michael. “Zur jüdischen Vorgeschichte des Synoptischen Begriffs der ‘Königsherrschaft Gottes’.” In Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller, 9–25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. BBB 54. Bonn: Hanstein, 1980. Lee, Aquila. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ S­ elf-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT II/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Leivestad, Ragnar. “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man.” NTS 18 (1971–72): 243–67. ——. Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological Titles. Translated by David Aune. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Levey, Samson H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. HUCM 2. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C ­ ollege-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. Levine, ­Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006. Légasse, Simon. Jésus et l’enfant: ‘Enfants’, ‘petits’ et ‘simples’ dans la tradition synoptique. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. ——. “Le logion sur le Fils révélateur (Mt., XI, 27 par. Lc., X, 22): Essai d’analyse prérédactionelle.” In La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes, edited by Joseph Coppens. BETL 41, 245–74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1976. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Messiasvorstellungen in Qumran und die neutestamentliche Christologie.” Communio viatorum 44 (2002): 139–60. Lierman, John. The New Testament Moses: Christian Conceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion. WUNT II/173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus, Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Loader, William. Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. WUNT II/97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Markus. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Lohse, Eduard. “Christus als der Weltenrichter.” In Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Georg Strecker, 475–86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. ——. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

——. “‘Ich aber sage euch’.” In Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Eduard Lohse, 73–87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. ——. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht. 2nd edn. FRLANT 46. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. ——. “Der Prozess Jesu Christi.” In Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testament, edited by Eduard Lohse, 88–103. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary. Rev. edn. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. ——. Matthew 8–20. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——. Matthew 21–28. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ——. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Lührmann, Dieter. “Markus 14. 55–64: Christologie und Zerstörung des Temples im Markusevangelium.” NTS 27 (1980–81): 457–74. Lybæk, Lena. New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes. FRLANT 198. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 115. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Macdonald, John, ed. and trans. The Translation. Vol. 2 of Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah. BZAW 84. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. Mach, Michael. Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit. TSAJ 34. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Maisch, Ingrid. “Die Botschaft Jesu von der Gottesherrschaft.” In Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Fiedler and Dieter Zeller, 27–41. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. ——. Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine e­ xegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12. SBS 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Malchow, Bruce V. “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3.1.” JBL 103 (1984): 252–55. Malone, Andrew S. “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3.1?” TynBul 57 (2006): 215–28. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1957. ——. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its form and content. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Manzi, Franco. Melchisedek e l’angelologia nell’Epistola agli Ebrei e a Qumran. AnBib 136. Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1997. Marcus, Joel. “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus.” In Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28/2, 247–77. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ——. 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. AB 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. ——. 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. 1992. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Marguerat, Daniel. Le jugement dans l’Évangile de Matthieu. 2nd expanded edn. Le monde de la Bible 5. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1995. Marshall, Christopher D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. SNTSMS 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

236

237

Bibliography

Bibliography

——. The Origins of New Testament Christology. 2nd edn. Downers Grove: IVP, 1990. Martitz, Peter Wülfing von, Georg Fohrer, Eduard Schweizer, Eduard Lohse, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. “υίός κτλ.” In TDNT, 8.334–99. Marxsen, Willi. The Beginnings of Christology, Together with the Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem. Translated by J. Boyce, D. Juel, and W. Proehlmann. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. Mason, Eric F. ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. STDJ 74. Leiden: Brill, 2008. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5.” Int 27 (1973): 273–306. McCane, B. R. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead’: Secondary Burial and Matt 8.21– 22.” HTR 83 (1990): 31–43. McDermott, John M. “Didn’t Jesus Know He Was God? Mark 10:17–22.” ITQ 73 (2008): 307–33. McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. McKnight, Scot. “Jesus and the Twelve.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 181–214. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. McWhirter, Jocelyn. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Mearns, Christopher L. “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch.” NTS 25 (1976): 360–69. ——. “Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16.” SJT 40 (1987): 189–210. Meeks, Wayne A. The ­Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Meier, John P. Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ——. Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt.5.17–48. AnBib 71. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. ——. Law and Love. Vol. 4 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. ——. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. Vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ——. The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ——. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. Theological Inquiries. New York: Paulist, 1979. Meiser, Martin. Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 96. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to ­Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Merkel, Helmut. “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 119–61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Einzigkeit Gottes als die sachliche Grundlage der Botschaft Jesu.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987): 13–32. Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979. ——. “Jesus’ Ministry and S ­ elf-Understanding.” In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19, 337–52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Meyer, Rudolf. Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Q ­ umran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzählung. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. P ­ hilologisch-historische Klasse 107/3. Berlin: Akademie, 1962.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles.” JBL 34 (1965): 27–37. Michel, Otto. “Binden und Lösen.” In Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 2, 374–80. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1954. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ——. “­Milkî-sedeq et M ­ ilkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 97–144. ——. “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments Araméens de Qumrân 4 (Pl. I).” RB 63 (1956): 407–15. Miller, David M. “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3.” NTS 53 (2007): 1–16. Miller, Robert J. “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q.” JBL 107 (1988): 225–40. Mohrlang, Roger. Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives. SNTSMS 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Montefiore, C. G. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings. London: Macmillan, 1930. Moore, George Foot. Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. Vol. 1. 1927. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. ——. Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. Vol. 2. 1930. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Moule, C. F. D. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ——. “‘The Son of Man’: Some Facts.” NTS 41 (1995): 277–79. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Translated by G. W. Anderson. New York: Abingdon, 1954. Müller, Mogens. The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation. Copenhagen International Seminar. London: Equinox, 2008. Müller, Peter. “Zwischen dem Gekommenen und dem Kommenden: Intertextuelle Aspekte der Menschensohnaussagen im Markusevangelium.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67, 130–57. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Müller, Ulrich B. “Jesus als ‘der Menschensohn’.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67, 91–129. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Neusner, Jacob. “­Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation.” NTS 35 (1989): 287–90. ——. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ——, trans. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 1988. Newsom, Carol A. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10, 40–52. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——. “Enoch, First Book of.” In ABD, 2.508–16. ——. “Prayer of Nabonidus.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael Stone. CRINT 2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ——. “Son of Man.” In ABD, 6.137–50. Niebuhr, ­Karl-Wilhelm. “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten (4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung).” In The Scriptures in the Gospels, edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. BETL 131, 637–46. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.

238

239

Bibliography

Bibliography

——. The Origins of New Testament Christology. 2nd edn. Downers Grove: IVP, 1990. Martitz, Peter Wülfing von, Georg Fohrer, Eduard Schweizer, Eduard Lohse, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. “υίός κτλ.” In TDNT, 8.334–99. Marxsen, Willi. The Beginnings of Christology, Together with the Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem. Translated by J. Boyce, D. Juel, and W. Proehlmann. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. Mason, Eric F. ‘You Are a Priest Forever’: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. STDJ 74. Leiden: Brill, 2008. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5.” Int 27 (1973): 273–306. McCane, B. R. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead’: Secondary Burial and Matt 8.21– 22.” HTR 83 (1990): 31–43. McDermott, John M. “Didn’t Jesus Know He Was God? Mark 10:17–22.” ITQ 73 (2008): 307–33. McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. McKnight, Scot. “Jesus and the Twelve.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 181–214. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. McWhirter, Jocelyn. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Mearns, Christopher L. “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch.” NTS 25 (1976): 360–69. ——. “Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16.” SJT 40 (1987): 189–210. Meeks, Wayne A. The ­Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Meier, John P. Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ——. Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt.5.17–48. AnBib 71. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. ——. Law and Love. Vol. 4 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. ——. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. Vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1994. ——. The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ——. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel. Theological Inquiries. New York: Paulist, 1979. Meiser, Martin. Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zu den synoptischen Evangelien. BZNW 96. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to ­Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Merkel, Helmut. “Die Gottesherrschaft in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 119–61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Einzigkeit Gottes als die sachliche Grundlage der Botschaft Jesu.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987): 13–32. Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979. ——. “Jesus’ Ministry and S ­ elf-Understanding.” In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19, 337–52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Meyer, Rudolf. Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Q ­ umran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte Weisheitserzählung. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. P ­ hilologisch-historische Klasse 107/3. Berlin: Akademie, 1962.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles.” JBL 34 (1965): 27–37. Michel, Otto. “Binden und Lösen.” In Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. 2, 374–80. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1954. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. ——. “­Milkî-sedeq et M ­ ilkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 97–144. ——. “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel: Fragments Araméens de Qumrân 4 (Pl. I).” RB 63 (1956): 407–15. Miller, David M. “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3.” NTS 53 (2007): 1–16. Miller, Robert J. “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q.” JBL 107 (1988): 225–40. Mohrlang, Roger. Matthew and Paul: A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives. SNTSMS 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Montefiore, C. G. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings. London: Macmillan, 1930. Moore, George Foot. Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. Vol. 1. 1927. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. ——. Judaism: In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. Vol. 2. 1930. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Moule, C. F. D. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ——. “‘The Son of Man’: Some Facts.” NTS 41 (1995): 277–79. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Translated by G. W. Anderson. New York: Abingdon, 1954. Müller, Mogens. The Expression ‘Son of Man’ and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation. Copenhagen International Seminar. London: Equinox, 2008. Müller, Peter. “Zwischen dem Gekommenen und dem Kommenden: Intertextuelle Aspekte der Menschensohnaussagen im Markusevangelium.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67, 130–57. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Müller, Ulrich B. “Jesus als ‘der Menschensohn’.” In Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität, edited by Dieter Sänger. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 67, 91–129. N ­ eukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Neusner, Jacob. “­Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation.” NTS 35 (1989): 287–90. ——. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ——, trans. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 1988. Newsom, Carol A. “4Q374: A Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10, 40–52. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ——. “Enoch, First Book of.” In ABD, 2.508–16. ——. “Prayer of Nabonidus.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by Michael Stone. CRINT 2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ——. “Son of Man.” In ABD, 6.137–50. Niebuhr, ­Karl-Wilhelm. “Die Werke des eschatologischen Freudenboten (4Q521 und die Jesusüberlieferung).” In The Scriptures in the Gospels, edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. BETL 131, 637–46. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997.

238

239

Bibliography

Bibliography

——. “Jesu Heilungen und Exorzismen: Ein Stück Theologie des Neuen Testaments.” In Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and K ­ arl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 162, 99–112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Noack, Bent. Das Gotttesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk. 17.20–24. Symbolae Biblicae Uppsalienses 10. Lund: Gleerup, 1948. Nolan, Brian M. The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel. OBO 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ——. Luke 9:21–18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas: Word, 1993. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. 1913. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974. Novakovic, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT II/170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Nützel, Johannes M. Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften. FB 39. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. O’Neill, J. C. “The Source of the Parables of the Bridegroom and the Wicked Husbandmen.” JTS 39 (1988): 485–89. Oakman, D. E. “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope.” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988): 109–23. Orlov, Andrei. The ­Enoch-Metatron Tradition. TSAJ 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Overman, Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Owen, Paul. “Review of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem.” RBL, no. 2 (2009). http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6442_6959.pdf. Öhler, Markus. Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im Neuen Testament. BZNW 88. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Pao, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 251–414. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Patrick, Dale. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” In The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, edited by Wendell Lee Willis, 67–79. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Payne, Philip B. “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables.” TJ 2 (1981): 3–23. Pearson, Birger Albert. The ­Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians. SBLDS 12. Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Percy, Ernst. Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung. Lunds universitets årsskrift 49.5. Lund: Gleerup, 1953. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ——. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. New Testament Library. London: SCM, 1963. ——. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ——. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Pesch, Rudolf. Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage. QD 52. Freiburg: Herder, 1970. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT II/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT II/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. Vol. 2. Translated from the Hebrew by William G. Braude. Yale Judaica Series 18. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. Philo. Philo. Vol. 1. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker. LCL 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

——. Philo. Vol. 5. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker. LCL 275. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. ——. Philo. Vol. 6. Translated by F. H. Colson. LCL 289. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. ——. Questions and Answers on Exodus. Vol. 2 of Philo Supplement. Translated by Ralph Marcus. LCL 401. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Philonenko, Marc. “Adonaï, le Messie et le Saoshyant: Observations nouvelles sur 4Q521.” RHPR 82 (2002): 259–66. ——. Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Marc Philonenko. StPB 13. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Pietsch, Michael. ‘Dieser ist der Sproß Davids . . .’: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum. WMANT 100. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener-Verlag, 2003. Piper, Ronald A. “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 317–49. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd edn. Biblical Languages: Greek Series 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ­Portier-Young, Anathea. “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb.” JSP 14 (2005): 133–57. Priest, J. “Testament of Moses.” In OTP, 1.919–34. Prieur, Alexander. Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft: Exegetische Studien zum lukanischen Verständnis. WUNT II/89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Puech, Émile. Les données qumrâniennes et classiques. Vol. 2 of La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien. EBib 22. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. ——. “Le fils de Dieu, le fils du ­Très-Haut, messie roi en 4Q246.” In Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann. Vol. 1 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, edited by Claude Coulot. LD 198, 271–88. Paris: Cerf, 2004. ——. “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = ­pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’.” RB 99 (1992): 98–131. ——. “Notes sur le manuscrit de 11QMelkîsédeq.” RevQ 12 (1987): 483–513. ——. “La prière de Nabonide (4Q242).” In Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honor of Martin McNamara, edited by Kevin J. Catchcart and Michael Maher. JSOTSup 230, 208–27. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996. ——. “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism.” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich. STDJ 30, 545–65. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rainbow, Paul A. “Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran.” BBR 7 (1997): 179–94. Rausch, Thomas P. Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Räisänen, Heikki. “Exorcism and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65, 119–42. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Reicke, Bo. “πᾶς κτλ.” In TDNT, 5.886–96. Reiser, Marius. Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der ­EvangelienÜberlieferung. WUNT II/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Riniker, Christian. Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu. Europäische Hochschulschriften 653. Bern: Peter Lang, 1999. Robinson, J. A. T. “The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats.” NTS 2 (1956): 225–37.

240

241

Bibliography

Bibliography

——. “Jesu Heilungen und Exorzismen: Ein Stück Theologie des Neuen Testaments.” In Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and K ­ arl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 162, 99–112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Noack, Bent. Das Gotttesreich bei Lukas: Eine Studie zu Luk. 17.20–24. Symbolae Biblicae Uppsalienses 10. Lund: Gleerup, 1948. Nolan, Brian M. The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel. OBO 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ——. Luke 9:21–18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas: Word, 1993. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. 1913. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974. Novakovic, Lidija. Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT II/170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Nützel, Johannes M. Jesus als Offenbarer Gottes nach den lukanischen Schriften. FB 39. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. O’Neill, J. C. “The Source of the Parables of the Bridegroom and the Wicked Husbandmen.” JTS 39 (1988): 485–89. Oakman, D. E. “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope.” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988): 109–23. Orlov, Andrei. The ­Enoch-Metatron Tradition. TSAJ 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Overman, Andrew. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Owen, Paul. “Review of Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem.” RBL, no. 2 (2009). http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6442_6959.pdf. Öhler, Markus. Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im Neuen Testament. BZNW 88. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Pao, David W., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Luke.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 251–414. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Patrick, Dale. “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament.” In The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation, edited by Wendell Lee Willis, 67–79. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Payne, Philip B. “Jesus’ Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables.” TJ 2 (1981): 3–23. Pearson, Birger Albert. The ­Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians. SBLDS 12. Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Percy, Ernst. Die Botschaft Jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung. Lunds universitets årsskrift 49.5. Lund: Gleerup, 1953. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ——. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. New Testament Library. London: SCM, 1963. ——. A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ——. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Pesch, Rudolf. Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage. QD 52. Freiburg: Herder, 1970. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT II/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. ——. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT II/2. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths. Vol. 2. Translated from the Hebrew by William G. Braude. Yale Judaica Series 18. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968. Philo. Philo. Vol. 1. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker. LCL 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929.

——. Philo. Vol. 5. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. F. Whitaker. LCL 275. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. ——. Philo. Vol. 6. Translated by F. H. Colson. LCL 289. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. ——. Questions and Answers on Exodus. Vol. 2 of Philo Supplement. Translated by Ralph Marcus. LCL 401. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Philonenko, Marc. “Adonaï, le Messie et le Saoshyant: Observations nouvelles sur 4Q521.” RHPR 82 (2002): 259–66. ——. Joseph et Aseneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Marc Philonenko. StPB 13. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Pietsch, Michael. ‘Dieser ist der Sproß Davids . . .’: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum. WMANT 100. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener-Verlag, 2003. Piper, Ronald A. “Jesus and the Conflict of Powers in Q: Two Q Miracle Stories.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 317–49. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd edn. Biblical Languages: Greek Series 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ­Portier-Young, Anathea. “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb.” JSP 14 (2005): 133–57. Priest, J. “Testament of Moses.” In OTP, 1.919–34. Prieur, Alexander. Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft: Exegetische Studien zum lukanischen Verständnis. WUNT II/89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Puech, Émile. Les données qumrâniennes et classiques. Vol. 2 of La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le Judaïsme ancien. EBib 22. Paris: Gabalda, 1993. ——. “Le fils de Dieu, le fils du ­Très-Haut, messie roi en 4Q246.” In Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann. Vol. 1 of Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament, edited by Claude Coulot. LD 198, 271–88. Paris: Cerf, 2004. ——. “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246 = ­pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’.” RB 99 (1992): 98–131. ——. “Notes sur le manuscrit de 11QMelkîsédeq.” RevQ 12 (1987): 483–513. ——. “La prière de Nabonide (4Q242).” In Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honor of Martin McNamara, edited by Kevin J. Catchcart and Michael Maher. JSOTSup 230, 208–27. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996. ——. “Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism.” In The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues, edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Charles Ulrich. STDJ 30, 545–65. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Rainbow, Paul A. “Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran.” BBR 7 (1997): 179–94. Rausch, Thomas P. Who is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Räisänen, Heikki. “Exorcism and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65, 119–42. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Reicke, Bo. “πᾶς κτλ.” In TDNT, 5.886–96. Reiser, Marius. Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der ­EvangelienÜberlieferung. WUNT II/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Riniker, Christian. Die Gerichtsverkündigung Jesu. Europäische Hochschulschriften 653. Bern: Peter Lang, 1999. Robinson, J. A. T. “The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats.” NTS 2 (1956): 225–37.

240

241

Bibliography

Bibliography

Robinson, James M. Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Robinson, James McConkey, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas With English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Rodd, C. S. “Spirit or Finger.” ExpTim 72 (1960–61): 157–58. Rohland, Johannes Peter. Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes. Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Roose, Hanna. Eschatologische Mitherrschaft: Entwicklungslinien einer urchristlichen Erwartung. NTOA 54. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Rowe, Robert D. God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background in Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms. AGJU 50. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Rowland, Christopher. Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism. 2nd edn. London: SPCK, 2002. ——. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Ryle, Herbert Edward, and Montague Rhodes James. ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ: Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Sabbe, Maurits. “Can Mt 11,27 and Lk 10,22 Be Called a Johannine Logion?” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 363–71. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Sabin, Marie. “Reading Mark 4 as Midrash.” JSNT 45 (1992): 3–26. Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew’s C ­ hristian-Jewish Community. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Schäfer, Peter. “Die Torah in der messianischen Zeit.” ZNW 65 (1974): 27–42. Schenk, Wolfgang. “Die rhetorische Funktion der Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and n­ on-canonical: Essays in honour of Tjitze Baarda, edited by William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge. NovTSup 89, 251–76. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Schimanowski, Gottfried. Weisheit und Messias: Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie. WUNT II/17. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schlier, Heinrich. “δάκτυλος.” In TDNT, 2.20–21. Schlosser, Jacques. Jésus de Nazareth. 2nd edn. Paris: Agnès Viénot Éditions, 2002. ——. “La parole de Jésus sur la fin du temple.” NTS 36 (1990): 398–414. ——. “Q et la Christologie implicite.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 289–316. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. ——. Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus. Vol. 1. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1980. Schmithals, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Vol. 1. ÖTK 2/1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. God’s Rule and Kingdom. Translated by John Murray. Freiburg: Herder, 1963. Scholtissek, Klaus. “Der Sohn Gottes für das Reich Gottes: Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Eschatologie bei Markus.” In Der Evangelist als Theologe: Studien zum Markusevangelium, edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 163, 63–90. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. ——. Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie. NTAbh 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1992.

Schrage, Wolfgang. “Bergpredigt und Christologie.” In Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its J­ udeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný, edited by Jiří Mrázek and Jan Roskovec. JSNTSup 272, 171–88. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. ——. Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener Verlag, 2001. Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. ALGHJ 7. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 2. Rev. edn. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979. ——. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3.1. Rev. edn. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Schürmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT 3/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1969. ——. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT 3/2/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. ——. “QLk 11,14–36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt.” In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 1, edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BETL 100, 563–86. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Schwarz, Günther. Jesus ‘der Menschensohn’: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Menschensohnworten Jesu. BWANT 6/19. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. ——. Jesus. Translated by David E. Green. London: SCM, 1971. ——. The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Andrew Chester. London: SPCK, 1976. Schwemer, Anna Maria. Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatsliedern aus Qumran. In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 45–118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Scott, James M. “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6.16c-18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology.” JSNT 56 (1994): 73–99. Scott, Steven Richard. “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes.” JSP 18 (2008): 55–78. Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Seeley, David. “Jesus’ Temple Act.” CBQ 55 (1993): 263–83. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. SJLA 25. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Segalla, Giuseppe. Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento: Tra memoria escatologica di Gesù e promessa del futuro regno di Dio. Logos 8.2. Leumann (Torino): Elledici, 2006. Sellew, Philip. “Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue Story or Sayings Cluster?” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988): 93–108. Shirock, Robert J. “Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19.” JSNT 46 (1992): 41–51. Siegert, Folker. “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’ Jesus als ‘Tempel’ in den Passionsüberlieferungen.” In Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels: Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung, edited by Johannes Hahn and Christian Ronning. WUNT 147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sigal, Philip. The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew. Studies in Biblical Literature 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Sim, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Skarsaune, Oskar. “We Have Found the Messiah! Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity.” Mishkan 45 (2005): 5–128.

242

243

Bibliography

Bibliography

Robinson, James M. Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Robinson, James McConkey, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas With English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Rodd, C. S. “Spirit or Finger.” ExpTim 72 (1960–61): 157–58. Rohland, Johannes Peter. Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes. Beihefte der Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Roose, Hanna. Eschatologische Mitherrschaft: Entwicklungslinien einer urchristlichen Erwartung. NTOA 54. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Rowe, Robert D. God’s Kingdom and God’s Son: The Background in Mark’s Christology from Concepts of Kingship in the Psalms. AGJU 50. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Rowland, Christopher. Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism. 2nd edn. London: SPCK, 2002. ——. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Ryle, Herbert Edward, and Montague Rhodes James. ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ: Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Sabbe, Maurits. “Can Mt 11,27 and Lk 10,22 Be Called a Johannine Logion?” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 363–71. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Sabin, Marie. “Reading Mark 4 as Midrash.” JSNT 45 (1992): 3–26. Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew’s C ­ hristian-Jewish Community. CSHJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Schäfer, Peter. “Die Torah in der messianischen Zeit.” ZNW 65 (1974): 27–42. Schenk, Wolfgang. “Die rhetorische Funktion der Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and n­ on-canonical: Essays in honour of Tjitze Baarda, edited by William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge. NovTSup 89, 251–76. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Schimanowski, Gottfried. Weisheit und Messias: Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie. WUNT II/17. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schlier, Heinrich. “δάκτυλος.” In TDNT, 2.20–21. Schlosser, Jacques. Jésus de Nazareth. 2nd edn. Paris: Agnès Viénot Éditions, 2002. ——. “La parole de Jésus sur la fin du temple.” NTS 36 (1990): 398–414. ——. “Q et la Christologie implicite.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by Andreas Lindemann. BETL 158, 289–316. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. ——. Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus. Vol. 1. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1980. Schmithals, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Vol. 1. ÖTK 2/1. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. God’s Rule and Kingdom. Translated by John Murray. Freiburg: Herder, 1963. Scholtissek, Klaus. “Der Sohn Gottes für das Reich Gottes: Zur Verbindung von Christologie und Eschatologie bei Markus.” In Der Evangelist als Theologe: Studien zum Markusevangelium, edited by Thomas Söding. SBS 163, 63–90. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. ——. Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie. NTAbh 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1992.

Schrage, Wolfgang. “Bergpredigt und Christologie.” In Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its J­ udeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný, edited by Jiří Mrázek and Jan Roskovec. JSNTSup 272, 171–88. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. ——. Jesus und die Anfänge der Christologie. ­Biblisch-theologische Studien 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: N ­ eukirchener Verlag, 2001. Schüpphaus, Joachim. Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. ALGHJ 7. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 2. Rev. edn. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979. ——. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3.1. Rev. edn. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Schürmann, Heinz. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. 1. HTKNT 3/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1969. ——. Das Lukasevangelium. Vol. 2. HTKNT 3/2/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. ——. “QLk 11,14–36 kompositionsgeschichtlich befragt.” In The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, vol. 1, edited by F. van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden. BETL 100, 563–86. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Schwarz, Günther. Jesus ‘der Menschensohn’: Aramaistische Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Menschensohnworten Jesu. BWANT 6/19. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew. Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. ——. Jesus. Translated by David E. Green. London: SCM, 1971. ——. The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Andrew Chester. London: SPCK, 1976. Schwemer, Anna Maria. Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatsliedern aus Qumran. In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 45–118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Scott, James M. “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6.16c-18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology.” JSNT 56 (1994): 73–99. Scott, Steven Richard. “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes.” JSP 18 (2008): 55–78. Scroggs, Robin. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Seeley, David. “Jesus’ Temple Act.” CBQ 55 (1993): 263–83. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism. SJLA 25. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Segalla, Giuseppe. Teologia biblica del Nuovo Testamento: Tra memoria escatologica di Gesù e promessa del futuro regno di Dio. Logos 8.2. Leumann (Torino): Elledici, 2006. Sellew, Philip. “Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue Story or Sayings Cluster?” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988): 93–108. Shirock, Robert J. “Whose Exorcists Are They? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19.” JSNT 46 (1992): 41–51. Siegert, Folker. “‘Zerstört diesen Tempel . . .!’ Jesus als ‘Tempel’ in den Passionsüberlieferungen.” In Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels: Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung, edited by Johannes Hahn and Christian Ronning. WUNT 147. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sigal, Philip. The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew. Studies in Biblical Literature 18. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Sim, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Skarsaune, Oskar. “We Have Found the Messiah! Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity.” Mishkan 45 (2005): 5–128.

242

243

Bibliography

Bibliography

Smith, C. Drew. “‘This is My Beloved Son; Listen to Him’: Theology and Christology in the Gospel of Mark.” HBT 24 (2002): 53–86. Smith, John Merlin Powis. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Smith, Morton. “Two Ascended to Heaven.” In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL, 290–301. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Smith, Ralph L. ­Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco: Word, 1984. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “The Temple Incident.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 429–80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. Stanton, Graham. “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, edited by Joel Green, B. and M. Turner, 164–80. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Starcky, Jean. “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran.” RB 70 (1963): 481–505. ——. “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân.” In Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–1964, Écoles des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris, 51–66. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1964. Stec, David M. The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible 16. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. Steck, Odil Hannes. “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 49,14–26.” BN 55 (1990): 36–46. ——. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick des Propheten. WMANT 23. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1954. Sterling, Gregory E. “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43a.” CBQ 55 (1993): 467–93. ——. “‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity.” NovT 37 (1995): 355–84. Stone, Michael E. “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; or, Some Considerations of David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 444–49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Strecker, Georg. “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5 21–48 par).” ZNW 69 (1978): 36–72. ——. The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Strugnell, John, and Harold W. Attridge. “4Q369: ‘4QPrayer of Enosh’.” In Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, edited by James C. VanderKam. DJD 13, 353–62. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism.” In The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies, 90–113. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. Vol. 1 of Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Suggs, M. Jack. “The Antitheses as Redactional Products.” In Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Georg Strecker, 433–44. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. ——. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Sung, ­Chong-Hyon. Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum. WUNT II/57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.

Suter, David W. “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 415–43. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Svartvik, Jesper. Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in Its Narrative and Historical Contexts. ConBNT 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Waco: Word, 1990. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Theisohn, Johannes. Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch. SUNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Theissen, Gerd. Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung. FRLANT 202. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. ——. Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Translated by Francis McDonagh. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983. ——. “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld vonm Stadt und Land.” TZ 32 (1976): 144–58. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Thielman, Frank. The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity. New York: Crossroad, 1999. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Tödt, Heinz Eduard. Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1959. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist.” In The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, 28–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Trunk, Dieter. Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium. Herders biblische Studien 3. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Present Son of Man.” JSNT 14 (1982): 58–81. Turner, H. E. W. “Expounding the Parables: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Mt 25:31–46).” ExpTim 77 (1965–66): 243–46. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II/54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische ­Henoch-buch. JSHRZ 5.6. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984. Umometo, Naoto. “Die Königsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon.” In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 207–56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Uro, Risto. “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q.” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65, 67–118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Vaage, Leif E. “Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence.” PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1987. Van de Water, Rick. “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13.” JSP 16 (2006): 75–86. van Iersel, Bas M. F. ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten. NovTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964. ——. Mark: A Reader–Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. 1998. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Van Oyen, Geert. “Markan Miracle Stories in Historical Jesus Research: Redaction Criticism and Narrative Analysis.” In Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle

244

245

Bibliography

Bibliography

Smith, C. Drew. “‘This is My Beloved Son; Listen to Him’: Theology and Christology in the Gospel of Mark.” HBT 24 (2002): 53–86. Smith, John Merlin Powis. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Malachi. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Smith, Morton. “Two Ascended to Heaven.” In Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL, 290–301. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Smith, Ralph L. ­Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco: Word, 1984. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “The Temple Incident.” In Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247, 429–80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Stanton, Graham N. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. Stanton, Graham. “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, edited by Joel Green, B. and M. Turner, 164–80. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Starcky, Jean. “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumran.” RB 70 (1963): 481–505. ——. “Un texte messianique araméen de la grotte 4 de Qumrân.” In Mémorial du cinquantenaire 1914–1964, Écoles des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris, 51–66. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1964. Stec, David M. The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible 16. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. Steck, Odil Hannes. “Beobachtungen zu Jesaja 49,14–26.” BN 55 (1990): 36–46. ——. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick des Propheten. WMANT 23. ­Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1954. Sterling, Gregory E. “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29; Luke 9:37–43a.” CBQ 55 (1993): 467–93. ——. “‘Wisdom Among the Perfect:’ Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity.” NovT 37 (1995): 355–84. Stone, Michael E. “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; or, Some Considerations of David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 444–49. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Strecker, Georg. “Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5 21–48 par).” ZNW 69 (1978): 36–72. ——. The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Strugnell, John, and Harold W. Attridge. “4Q369: ‘4QPrayer of Enosh’.” In Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, edited by James C. VanderKam. DJD 13, 353–62. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism.” In The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, edited by Stanley E. Porter. McMaster New Testament Studies, 90–113. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. Vol. 1 of Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Suggs, M. Jack. “The Antitheses as Redactional Products.” In Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Georg Strecker, 433–44. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1975. ——. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. Sung, ­Chong-Hyon. Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum. WUNT II/57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.

Suter, David W. “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables.” In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, 415–43. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Svartvik, Jesper. Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1–23 in Its Narrative and Historical Contexts. ConBNT 32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Waco: Word, 1990. Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Theisohn, Johannes. Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch. SUNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Theissen, Gerd. Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung. FRLANT 202. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. ——. Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Translated by Francis McDonagh. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983. ——. “Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld vonm Stadt und Land.” TZ 32 (1976): 144–58. Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Thielman, Frank. The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity. New York: Crossroad, 1999. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Tödt, Heinz Eduard. Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1959. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “The Role of Malachi in the Career of John the Baptist.” In The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner, 28–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Trunk, Dieter. Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium. Herders biblische Studien 3. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Present Son of Man.” JSNT 14 (1982): 58–81. Turner, H. E. W. “Expounding the Parables: The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Mt 25:31–46).” ExpTim 77 (1965–66): 243–46. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II/54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische ­Henoch-buch. JSHRZ 5.6. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984. Umometo, Naoto. “Die Königsherrschaft Gottes bei Philon.” In Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult, edited by Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer. WUNT 55, 207–56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Uro, Risto. “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q.” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65, 67–118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Vaage, Leif E. “Q: The Ethos and Ethics of an Itinerant Intelligence.” PhD diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1987. Van de Water, Rick. “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13.” JSP 16 (2006): 75–86. van Iersel, Bas M. F. ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten. NovTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1964. ——. Mark: A Reader–Response Commentary. Translated by W. H. Bisscheroux. 1998. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Van Oyen, Geert. “Markan Miracle Stories in Historical Jesus Research: Redaction Criticism and Narrative Analysis.” In Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle

244

245

Bibliography

Bibliography

Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, edited by Lietaert Peerbolte and Michael Labahn. Library of New Testament Studies 288, 87–99. London: T & T Clark, 2006. VanderKam, James C. “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 169–91. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Vermes, Geza. “Appendix E: The Use of ‫בר נש‬/‫ בר נשא‬in Jewish Aramaic.” In An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts: With an Appendix on the Son of Man. 3rd edn, Matthew Black, 310–28. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. ——. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. 1973. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Vielhauer, Philipp. “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31, 55–91. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. ——. “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer.” In Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31, 92–140. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. von Kienle, Bettina. Feuermale: Studien zur Wortfelddimension ‘Feuer’ in den Synoptikern, im pseudophilonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und im 4. Esra. BBB 89. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993. Vouga, François. Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique. Le monde de la Bible 17. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. HUCM 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. Wall, Robert W. “‘The Finger of God’: Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20.” NTS 33 (1987): 144–50. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT II/88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A S­ ocio-Historical Study. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weiss, ­Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Weiss, Wolfgang. ‘Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht’: Die Streit- und Schulgespräche des ­Markus-Evangeliums. BZNW 52. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer: Eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte. Greifswald: Bamberg, 1874. Wendebourg, Nicola. Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund. WMANT 96. Göttingen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Wiefel, Wolfgang. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THKNT 1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. Wilckens, Ulrich. “Gottes geringste Brüder–zu Mt 25,31–46.” In Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grasser, 363–83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Wilckens, Ulrich, and Georg Fohrer. “σοφία κτλ.” In TDNT, 7.465–528. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 1.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Willis, Wendell Lee, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Willitts, Joel. Matthew’s Messianic S­ hepherd-King. BZNW 147. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Winandy, Jacques. “Le logion de l’ignorance (Mc, XIII, 32; Mt., XXIV, 36).” RB 75 (1968): 63–79.

Wink, Walter. The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. ——. “Jesus’ Reply to John: Matt. 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23.” Forum 5, no. 1 (1989): 121–28. Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. Wise, Michael O., Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Rev. edn. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005. Witherington, Ben, III. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ——. The Gospel of Mark: A ­Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ——. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Wolff, Peter. Die frühe nachösterliche Verkündigung des Reiches Gottes. FRLANT 171. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ——. “‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’” ZNW 86 (1995): 5–19. Woods, Edward J. The Finger of God and Pneumatology in L ­ uke-Acts. JSNTSup 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Woude, A. S. van der. “Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab).” In Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, edited by M. Delcor. BETL 46, 121–29. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978. ——. “Melchisedek als himmlischer Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” OtSt 14 (1965): 354–73. ——. Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. ——. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wright, Robert B. “Psalms of Solomon.” In OTP, 2.639–70. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yarbro Collins, Adela. “Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus.” In Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5, 187–93. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1990. ——. “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, edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell, 45–61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ——. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Yarbro Collins, Adela, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Yates, J. E. “Luke’s Pneumatology and Lk. 11,20.” SE 2 (1964): 295–99. Yieh, John ­Yueh-Han. One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report. BZNW 124. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Zager, Werner. Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur markinischen Jesusüberlieferung einschliesslich der Q-Parallelen. BZNW 82. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996.

246

247

Bibliography

Bibliography

Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment, edited by Lietaert Peerbolte and Michael Labahn. Library of New Testament Studies 288, 87–99. London: T & T Clark, 2006. VanderKam, James C. “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71.” In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 169–91. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Vermes, Geza. “Appendix E: The Use of ‫בר נש‬/‫ בר נשא‬in Jewish Aramaic.” In An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts: With an Appendix on the Son of Man. 3rd edn, Matthew Black, 310–28. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. ——. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. 1973. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Vielhauer, Philipp. “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu.” In Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31, 55–91. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. ——. “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Tödt und Eduard Schweizer.” In Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. TB 31, 92–140. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. von Kienle, Bettina. Feuermale: Studien zur Wortfelddimension ‘Feuer’ in den Synoptikern, im pseudophilonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und im 4. Esra. BBB 89. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993. Vouga, François. Jésus et la loi selon la tradition synoptique. Le monde de la Bible 17. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. Wacholder, Ben Zion. The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. HUCM 8. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. Wall, Robert W. “‘The Finger of God’: Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20.” NTS 33 (1987): 144–50. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT II/88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Webb, Robert L. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A S­ ocio-Historical Study. JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weiss, ­Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. KEK 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Weiss, Wolfgang. ‘Eine neue Lehre in Vollmacht’: Die Streit- und Schulgespräche des ­Markus-Evangeliums. BZNW 52. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer: Eine Untersuchung zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte. Greifswald: Bamberg, 1874. Wendebourg, Nicola. Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund. WMANT 96. Göttingen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Wiefel, Wolfgang. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THKNT 1. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. Wilckens, Ulrich. “Gottes geringste Brüder–zu Mt 25,31–46.” In Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grasser, 363–83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Wilckens, Ulrich, and Georg Fohrer. “σοφία κτλ.” In TDNT, 7.465–528. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to AD 200 1.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Willis, Wendell Lee, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20-th Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Willitts, Joel. Matthew’s Messianic S­ hepherd-King. BZNW 147. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Winandy, Jacques. “Le logion de l’ignorance (Mc, XIII, 32; Mt., XXIV, 36).” RB 75 (1968): 63–79.

Wink, Walter. The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. ——. “Jesus’ Reply to John: Matt. 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23.” Forum 5, no. 1 (1989): 121–28. Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. Wise, Michael O., Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Rev. edn. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005. Witherington, Ben, III. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ——. The Gospel of Mark: A ­Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ——. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Wolff, Peter. Die frühe nachösterliche Verkündigung des Reiches Gottes. FRLANT 171. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. HNT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ——. “‘Was heisset nu Gottes reich?’” ZNW 86 (1995): 5–19. Woods, Edward J. The Finger of God and Pneumatology in L ­ uke-Acts. JSNTSup 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Woude, A. S. van der. “Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab).” In Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, edited by M. Delcor. BETL 46, 121–29. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978. ——. “Melchisedek als himmlischer Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” OtSt 14 (1965): 354–73. ——. Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumrân. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. ——. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wright, Robert B. “Psalms of Solomon.” In OTP, 2.639–70. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yarbro Collins, Adela. “Daniel 7 and the Historical Jesus.” In Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5, 187–93. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1990. ——. “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, edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell, 45–61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ——. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Yarbro Collins, Adela, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Yates, J. E. “Luke’s Pneumatology and Lk. 11,20.” SE 2 (1964): 295–99. Yieh, John ­Yueh-Han. One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report. BZNW 124. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Zager, Werner. Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur markinischen Jesusüberlieferung einschliesslich der Q-Parallelen. BZNW 82. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996.

246

247

248

249

Bibliography

Zeller, Dieter. “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber.” In Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch, edited by Ludger Schenke. SBS, 299–317. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ——. “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material.” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 395–409. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Ziccardi, Costantino Antonio. The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to ­Luke-Acts. Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 165. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2008. Ziesler, J. A. “The Removal of the Bridegroom: A Note on Mark II. 18–20 and Parallels.” NTS 19 (1972–73): 190–94. Zimmermann, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT II/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Zumstein, Jean. La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1977.

INDEX OF REFERENCES The Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint Genesis 1.26-27 164 2.7 164 2.24 111 16.7 141 16.9 141 16.10 141 16.11 141 16.13 141 18.19 180 18.26 65n. 15, 67 22.11 141 22.12 141 37.9 152 48.15-16 141n. 28 50.5 120 50.17 65 Exodus 3.2 47, 141 3.3 141 3.4 157 3.7 141 3.13 153 4.22-23 173 4.22 181 7.1 153, 154, 155, 156n. 76, 157 8.15 26, 30, 31 10.17 65 15.1-19 36 15.4 36 15.7-10 36 15.13-19 8 15.17-18 11, 214, 215 15.17 214, 215 15.18 36 16.14 145 16.31 145 18.1 141 18.2 141

18.8 141 18.13 141 19.6 7 19.16-20 7 23.17 54n. 41 23.20 43, 46, 47, 53, 59, 141, 143, 146, 147n. 48 23.21 65n. 15 24.2 154 24.10 7 24.16-17 7 25.22 205 31.18 30, 31 32.32 65n. 15, 73 33.11-23 179 33.12 180 33.20 156n. 75, 180 34.7 65n. 15, 66 34.23 54n. 41 34.29 156n. 75 Leviticus 4.20 65, 67, 70 4.26 65, 67 4.31 65, 67 4.35 65, 67 5.10 65, 67 5.13 65, 67 5.16 65, 67 5.18 65, 67 5.26 65, 67 19.22 65, 67 20.26 81n. 7 21.11 120, 121 Numbers 6.6-7 120, 121 12.1-8 179 14.18-19 65n. 15 14.19 73 14.20 67 15.25 65, 67 15.26 65, 67 15.28 65, 67 16.5 LXX 180

23.21 7 Deuteronomy 5.4 7 6.4 9, 221 6.5 117, 123, 221 9.10 7, 30, 31 9.15 7 10.4 LXX 179 10.17 136 28.26 121n. 14 30.3 149 32.9 148 32.11-12 130 34.9-12 179 Joshua 24.19 65n. 15 Judges 5.23 141n. 28 6.11-14 47 6.11-15 141 6.16 141 Ruth 2.12 130 1 Samuel 8.7 7 12.12 7 15.25 65 25.28 65 2 Samuel 7.10 214 7.12-14 174 7.12-16 135 7.12 135 7.13 212, 214 7.14 135, 137, 138, 173 22.33 94 22.40 94 23.1-7 135 24.3 119

248

249

Bibliography

Zeller, Dieter. “Jesus als vollmächtiger Lehrer (Mt 5–7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber.” In Studien zum Matthäusevangelium: Festschrift für Wilhelm Pesch, edited by Ludger Schenke. SBS, 299–317. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ——. “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material.” In Logia: Les paroles de Jésus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens, edited by Joël Delobel. BETL 59, 395–409. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Ziccardi, Costantino Antonio. The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God According to ­Luke-Acts. Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 165. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2008. Ziesler, J. A. “The Removal of the Bridegroom: A Note on Mark II. 18–20 and Parallels.” NTS 19 (1972–73): 190–94. Zimmermann, Johannes. Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. WUNT II/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Zumstein, Jean. La condition du croyant dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16. Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1977.

INDEX OF REFERENCES The Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint Genesis 1.26-27 164 2.7 164 2.24 111 16.7 141 16.9 141 16.10 141 16.11 141 16.13 141 18.19 180 18.26 65n. 15, 67 22.11 141 22.12 141 37.9 152 48.15-16 141n. 28 50.5 120 50.17 65 Exodus 3.2 47, 141 3.3 141 3.4 157 3.7 141 3.13 153 4.22-23 173 4.22 181 7.1 153, 154, 155, 156n. 76, 157 8.15 26, 30, 31 10.17 65 15.1-19 36 15.4 36 15.7-10 36 15.13-19 8 15.17-18 11, 214, 215 15.17 214, 215 15.18 36 16.14 145 16.31 145 18.1 141 18.2 141

18.8 141 18.13 141 19.6 7 19.16-20 7 23.17 54n. 41 23.20 43, 46, 47, 53, 59, 141, 143, 146, 147n. 48 23.21 65n. 15 24.2 154 24.10 7 24.16-17 7 25.22 205 31.18 30, 31 32.32 65n. 15, 73 33.11-23 179 33.12 180 33.20 156n. 75, 180 34.7 65n. 15, 66 34.23 54n. 41 34.29 156n. 75 Leviticus 4.20 65, 67, 70 4.26 65, 67 4.31 65, 67 4.35 65, 67 5.10 65, 67 5.13 65, 67 5.16 65, 67 5.18 65, 67 5.26 65, 67 19.22 65, 67 20.26 81n. 7 21.11 120, 121 Numbers 6.6-7 120, 121 12.1-8 179 14.18-19 65n. 15 14.19 73 14.20 67 15.25 65, 67 15.26 65, 67 15.28 65, 67 16.5 LXX 180

23.21 7 Deuteronomy 5.4 7 6.4 9, 221 6.5 117, 123, 221 9.10 7, 30, 31 9.15 7 10.4 LXX 179 10.17 136 28.26 121n. 14 30.3 149 32.9 148 32.11-12 130 34.9-12 179 Joshua 24.19 65n. 15 Judges 5.23 141n. 28 6.11-14 47 6.11-15 141 6.16 141 Ruth 2.12 130 1 Samuel 8.7 7 12.12 7 15.25 65 25.28 65 2 Samuel 7.10 214 7.12-14 174 7.12-16 135 7.12 135 7.13 212, 214 7.14 135, 137, 138, 173 22.33 94 22.40 94 23.1-7 135 24.3 119

250 1 Kings 3.9 94 3.28 94 3.29 94 8.29 205 171.17-24 44n. 13, 48n. 27 19.16 121 19.19-21 121 22.19 7 2 Kings 5.1-16 44n. 13, 48n. 27 9.10 121n. 14 19.34-35 141n. 28 1 Chronicles 3.17 213 17.1-15 135 17.12 212 17.13 173 17.14 7n. 2, 8, 12n. 26 21.3 119 22.10 173 28.5 6, 8 28.6 173 28.7 8 29.11-12 7 29.11 7n. 2 2 Chronicles 7.14 67 13.5 8 13.8 6n. 2, 8 Ezra 3.2 213 3.12 214n. 18 Nehemiah 9.32 136 12.1 213 Job 1.6 173 2.1 173 4.8 133 7.21 65n. 15 22.6-7 89 28.20-28 183 28.20 183 28.23 183 31.17 89 31.19 89 31.21 89 31.31-32 89 38.7 173

Index of References

Index of References 42.10 73 Psalms 2 61, 135 2.7 135, 173 7.8-9 149 8 61, 202 8.4 30, 31 8.5-7 203n. 44 8.5 200n. 37, 202, 203 8.7 202 17.8 130 18 135 18.8-16 7 18.33 94 18.40 94 22.29 7, 7n. 2 24.8 136 24.18 LXX 73 25.18 65n. 15 29.1 173 29.10 7 29.11 7 32.1-2 63 32.1 65n. 15 36.8 130 43.15-21 8 44.5 7 45 125n. 4, 126 45.7 135 47.3 7, 85, 131 47.4-5 7 47.9-10 7 48.3 7 48.12 7 50.2 7 50.3 7 57.2 130 61.5 130 63.8 130 68 7 68.22-24 7 68.35 7 69.26 79n. 4 72 135 74 7 74.13-17 7 82.1 149 89 12n. 24, 135 89.7 173 89.10-11 36 89.27 173 89.28 139 91.4 130 93.1-2 7 95.3-5 7

96.10 7 96.13 7 97 7 97.6 7 98.1-6 7 98.9 7 99.1-5 7 99.2 7 99.4 7 99.8 65n. 15 102.14-18 7 103.3 66 103.19 6n. 2, 7 110 61, 135, 203 118.26 86 130.4 66 132.1-10 205 145.10-13 7 145.11 6n. 2 145.12 6n. 2 145.13 6n. 2 146.7 149 149.2-9 7 Proverbs 14.31 84, 91 19.17 84, 91 Song of Songs 125n. 4 Isaiah 1.24 54n. 41 2.3 113 2.9 65n. 15 3.1 54n. 41 4.2 135n. 3 6.1-3 7 6.1 7 7.13-17 135n. 3 7.14 136 9.2-7 135n. 3 9.6 136 10.16 54n. 41 10.21 136 10.33 54n. 41 11.1-16 135n. 3 11.1 213 11.2 139162n. 94 11.4 139 11.9 181, 182 19.4 54n. 41 19.21 181, 182 24.21-22 37 n. 115 24.21-23 8 24.34 131

24.34 85 26.19 44, 49 27.1 36 29.18-19 45 29.18 44, 48, 49 29.20-21 49 31.5 130 33.17-22 8 33.22 85, 131 33.24 65n. 15 35.4 49 35.5-6 38, 44, 45, 49 35.5 48 37.16 7 37.20 8 37.35-36 141n. 28 40-55 8n. 8 40.4 13 41.25 213n. 17 42 8n. 8 42.1-3 27 42.1-9 50 42.7 44, 48, 50 42.17 49 42.18 44, 48, 49 43.25 66 44.6 7 44.28 213 44.22 66 45.1 213 49.24-25 32, 37 51.5 125n. 4 52.7-10 8, 39n 126, 150 52.7 8n. 8 53.12 37 n. 115 54.5-6 86, 125 55.3 135n. 3 55.7 66 56.7 211, 212 58.7 89 60.7 214 60.13 214 61.1-2 28n. 85, 44, 51 61.1-7 50 61.1 8n. 8, 29n. 85, 38, 44, 48, 50 61.2 49, 149 61.10 126n. 4 62.11 125n. 4 Jeremiah 1.5 180 5.1 67 5.7 67n. 23 7.11 211 7.14 212

7.33 121n. 14 8.19 7 10.7 7 10.10 7, 8 22.19 121n. 14 23.1-8 135n. 3 23.3 149 30.8-9 135n. 3 30.21-22 135n. 3 31.9 173, 181 31.20 173 31.27-28 132 31.34 67 32.18 136 33.8 67 33.14-26 135n. 3 36.3 67 48.15 8 46.18 8 50.20 67 51.57 8 Lamentations 4.2 136n. 6 Ezekiel 1.26-28 143, 144 2.1 161 8.1 29n. 88 8.3 29n. 88 11.5 29n. 88 16.8 86, 125 18.7 89 18.16 89 27.23-24 70 29.5 121n. 14 34.13 149 34.23-24 135n. 3 37.1 29n. 88 37.24-25 135n. 3 37.26-28 214 43.4-5 214 43.7 214 43.8 214 43.7b 214 Daniel 2.44 7n. 2, 9, 9n. 16 3.25 173 3.33 7n. 2, 9 4.31-32 9 4.31 7n. 2 6.27 9 7 217 7.1-8 159 7.9-14 189

251 7.9 143 7.13-14 9, 9n. 17, 38, 39n. 124, 68, 69, 180, 181, 190n. 3, 201, 202, 203 7.13 161, 197n. 23, 198n. 28, 199, 201 7.14 159, 181, 199, 201 7.15-28 159 7.27 9, 9n. 17, 39, 180 9.25 135n. 3, 150 9.26 135n. 3 10.5-6 144 10.13 142 10.21 142 12.2 58, 81n. 7 Hosea 1.6 65n. 15 2.19-20 86, 125 2.23 132 3.4-5 135n. 3 8.7 133 10.12 133 11.1 173, 181 13.5 180 14.3 65n. 15 Joel 2.10 13 3.1-3 87n. 23 3.4 13 Amos 3.2 180 9.11-12 135n. 3 Obadiah 17-21 8 21 7n. 2, 85, 131 Micah 1.4 13 4.6-8 8 4.8 135n. 3 5.1-6 135n. 3 7.18 65n. 15 Habakkuk 2.14 181, 182 3.3-12 7 3.8-15 36 Zephaniah 3.15-20 8 3.15 85, 131

250 1 Kings 3.9 94 3.28 94 3.29 94 8.29 205 171.17-24 44n. 13, 48n. 27 19.16 121 19.19-21 121 22.19 7 2 Kings 5.1-16 44n. 13, 48n. 27 9.10 121n. 14 19.34-35 141n. 28 1 Chronicles 3.17 213 17.1-15 135 17.12 212 17.13 173 17.14 7n. 2, 8, 12n. 26 21.3 119 22.10 173 28.5 6, 8 28.6 173 28.7 8 29.11-12 7 29.11 7n. 2 2 Chronicles 7.14 67 13.5 8 13.8 6n. 2, 8 Ezra 3.2 213 3.12 214n. 18 Nehemiah 9.32 136 12.1 213 Job 1.6 173 2.1 173 4.8 133 7.21 65n. 15 22.6-7 89 28.20-28 183 28.20 183 28.23 183 31.17 89 31.19 89 31.21 89 31.31-32 89 38.7 173

Index of References

Index of References 42.10 73 Psalms 2 61, 135 2.7 135, 173 7.8-9 149 8 61, 202 8.4 30, 31 8.5-7 203n. 44 8.5 200n. 37, 202, 203 8.7 202 17.8 130 18 135 18.8-16 7 18.33 94 18.40 94 22.29 7, 7n. 2 24.8 136 24.18 LXX 73 25.18 65n. 15 29.1 173 29.10 7 29.11 7 32.1-2 63 32.1 65n. 15 36.8 130 43.15-21 8 44.5 7 45 125n. 4, 126 45.7 135 47.3 7, 85, 131 47.4-5 7 47.9-10 7 48.3 7 48.12 7 50.2 7 50.3 7 57.2 130 61.5 130 63.8 130 68 7 68.22-24 7 68.35 7 69.26 79n. 4 72 135 74 7 74.13-17 7 82.1 149 89 12n. 24, 135 89.7 173 89.10-11 36 89.27 173 89.28 139 91.4 130 93.1-2 7 95.3-5 7

96.10 7 96.13 7 97 7 97.6 7 98.1-6 7 98.9 7 99.1-5 7 99.2 7 99.4 7 99.8 65n. 15 102.14-18 7 103.3 66 103.19 6n. 2, 7 110 61, 135, 203 118.26 86 130.4 66 132.1-10 205 145.10-13 7 145.11 6n. 2 145.12 6n. 2 145.13 6n. 2 146.7 149 149.2-9 7 Proverbs 14.31 84, 91 19.17 84, 91 Song of Songs 125n. 4 Isaiah 1.24 54n. 41 2.3 113 2.9 65n. 15 3.1 54n. 41 4.2 135n. 3 6.1-3 7 6.1 7 7.13-17 135n. 3 7.14 136 9.2-7 135n. 3 9.6 136 10.16 54n. 41 10.21 136 10.33 54n. 41 11.1-16 135n. 3 11.1 213 11.2 139162n. 94 11.4 139 11.9 181, 182 19.4 54n. 41 19.21 181, 182 24.21-22 37 n. 115 24.21-23 8 24.34 131

24.34 85 26.19 44, 49 27.1 36 29.18-19 45 29.18 44, 48, 49 29.20-21 49 31.5 130 33.17-22 8 33.22 85, 131 33.24 65n. 15 35.4 49 35.5-6 38, 44, 45, 49 35.5 48 37.16 7 37.20 8 37.35-36 141n. 28 40-55 8n. 8 40.4 13 41.25 213n. 17 42 8n. 8 42.1-3 27 42.1-9 50 42.7 44, 48, 50 42.17 49 42.18 44, 48, 49 43.25 66 44.6 7 44.28 213 44.22 66 45.1 213 49.24-25 32, 37 51.5 125n. 4 52.7-10 8, 39n 126, 150 52.7 8n. 8 53.12 37 n. 115 54.5-6 86, 125 55.3 135n. 3 55.7 66 56.7 211, 212 58.7 89 60.7 214 60.13 214 61.1-2 28n. 85, 44, 51 61.1-7 50 61.1 8n. 8, 29n. 85, 38, 44, 48, 50 61.2 49, 149 61.10 126n. 4 62.11 125n. 4 Jeremiah 1.5 180 5.1 67 5.7 67n. 23 7.11 211 7.14 212

7.33 121n. 14 8.19 7 10.7 7 10.10 7, 8 22.19 121n. 14 23.1-8 135n. 3 23.3 149 30.8-9 135n. 3 30.21-22 135n. 3 31.9 173, 181 31.20 173 31.27-28 132 31.34 67 32.18 136 33.8 67 33.14-26 135n. 3 36.3 67 48.15 8 46.18 8 50.20 67 51.57 8 Lamentations 4.2 136n. 6 Ezekiel 1.26-28 143, 144 2.1 161 8.1 29n. 88 8.3 29n. 88 11.5 29n. 88 16.8 86, 125 18.7 89 18.16 89 27.23-24 70 29.5 121n. 14 34.13 149 34.23-24 135n. 3 37.1 29n. 88 37.24-25 135n. 3 37.26-28 214 43.4-5 214 43.7 214 43.8 214 43.7b 214 Daniel 2.44 7n. 2, 9, 9n. 16 3.25 173 3.33 7n. 2, 9 4.31-32 9 4.31 7n. 2 6.27 9 7 217 7.1-8 159 7.9-14 189

251 7.9 143 7.13-14 9, 9n. 17, 38, 39n. 124, 68, 69, 180, 181, 190n. 3, 201, 202, 203 7.13 161, 197n. 23, 198n. 28, 199, 201 7.14 159, 181, 199, 201 7.15-28 159 7.27 9, 9n. 17, 39, 180 9.25 135n. 3, 150 9.26 135n. 3 10.5-6 144 10.13 142 10.21 142 12.2 58, 81n. 7 Hosea 1.6 65n. 15 2.19-20 86, 125 2.23 132 3.4-5 135n. 3 8.7 133 10.12 133 11.1 173, 181 13.5 180 14.3 65n. 15 Joel 2.10 13 3.1-3 87n. 23 3.4 13 Amos 3.2 180 9.11-12 135n. 3 Obadiah 17-21 8 21 7n. 2, 85, 131 Micah 1.4 13 4.6-8 8 4.8 135n. 3 5.1-6 135n. 3 7.18 65n. 15 Habakkuk 2.14 181, 182 3.3-12 7 3.8-15 36 Zephaniah 3.15-20 8 3.15 85, 131

252

Index of References

Index of References

Haggai 1.1 213 2.21 13 Zechariah 1.12 141 3.1-10 141n. 28 3.8-9 70, 135n. 3 4.9 213 6.12-13 135n. 3, 213 9.9 85, 86, 125n. 4, 135n. 3 12.8 141n. 28 14 9 14.3 9 14.5 81n. 7 14.6-9 9 14.9a 9 14.9b 9 14.16-17 85, 131 14.16 9 Malachi 1.14b 7 3 53 3.1 43, 46, 47, 49n. 31, 53, 54, 59, 217 3.2 217 3.23 57 3.23-24 54, 55, 57

Apocrypha Tobit 1.16-17 89 4.3 120 4.16 89 6.13-15 120 8.2 25 8.3 31, 34n. 104 13 11 13.1 11 13.4 170n. 6 13.10 11 13.15-17 11 Judith 9.12-13 10 Wisdom of Solomon 2.13 182n. 41, 183n. 45 2.16-18 183n. 45 2.16 182n. 41 2.18 182n. 41 3.8 10 4.10 183n. 45 4.13-15 183n. 45

4.20-5.16 183n. 45 6.4 10 7.27 183 8.4 183 8.8 183 9.4 183 9.9 183 9.11 183 9.17-18 183 10.10 14, 183 Sirach 1.6-8 183 1.6 183 2.11 66, 73 4.11-14 183 6.28 178n. 25 7.3 133 7.25-26 183 7.27 122 7.29 122 7.34-35 89 16.11 66 22.13 178n. 25 23.1 170n. 6 23.4 170n. 6 24.19 178n. 25 28.1 73 28.2 73 38.16 120 43.3-5 179 45.2 156n. 76 45.5 179 48.10-11 55 51.10 170n. 6 51.12 10 51.26 178n. 25 51.27 178n. 25 51.30 178n. 25 Baruch 3.15-35 183 3.17 183 3.29-31 183 3.36 183 2 Maccabees 2.17-18 14 7.9 58 7.11 58 7.14 58 7.23 58 12.44 58 2 Esdras 1.30 130-1

The New Testament Matthew 1.6 85 2.1 85 2.2 85 2.3 85 2.9 85 3.2 24n. 68 5.3 24n. 68 5.10-11 82, 83n. 14 5.14 114n. 41 5.17-20 105 5.17 105, 109n. 24 5.20 20n. 55, 88 5.21-48 2, 101-16 5.21 102, 107 5.22 102, 106, 107 5.26 115 5.27 102, 107 5.28 102, 106, 107 5.29 24n. 68 5.31 102, 107 5.32 102, 106, 107 5.33 102, 107 5.34-35 28 5.34 102, 106 5.35 85, 131 5.38 102, 107 5.39 102, 106 5.43-48 84 5.43 102, 107 5.44 82, 102, 106 6.9 171 6.12 63, 68n. 27 6.14-15 63 6.25 129n. 15 6.29 129n. 15 7.1-2 88 7.4 129n. 15 7.8 107 7.11 27 7.21 20n. 55, 107 7.24-27 88 7.26 107 8.8-9 42 8.21-22 89, 117 8.22 2, 119-23 9.2-8 60 9.8 63, 74n. 46, 194n. 15 9.37-38 26 10.2-4 117 10.7-8 19 10.7 24n. 68 10.16 107n. 15 10.17-18 82

10.18 85 10.23 74n. 46, 201 10.24-25 83n. 14 10.25 62 10.32-33 77, 91, 169 10.34 107n. 15 10.40 83n. 14 10.42 83 11.2-6 26 11.2 53 11.3 45, 49 11.5-6 44n. 14, 46 11.5 18, 40, 43-53 11.6 52n. 39 11.8 129n. 15 11.10 41, 43, 47, 48, 53-8 11.11 26, 83, 115 11.12 19, 26 11.14 43, 55 11.18 85 11.20 107n. 15 11.20-24 88 11.25-26 169, 175, 176, 178, 181 11.25-27 174-84 11.25 27, 181 11.27 169, 175n. 20, 181, 182, 221 11.28-30 178 11.29 179 12.18-21 27 12.22-32 192n. 9 12.25-26 21 12.26 28 12.27-29 26 12.28 25, 26, 42n. 5 12.31-32 27 12.41-42 19, 26 12.48-50 83 12.49-50 84 12.49 129n. 15 13.3-8 132 13.3 129n. 15 13.10-17 88 13.16-17 19, 26 13.24-30 20, 81n. 7, 87, 133n. 28 13.36-43 81n. 7, 87 13.37-38 88 13.37 74n. 46 13.41 38, 74n. 46, 133n. 28, 194n. 15, 201, 204 13.47-50 20, 88 14.9 85 14.36 170n. 7 15.11 107n. 15

15.17-18 107n. 15 15.20 107n. 15 16.13 201 16.19 62, 67 16.27-28 194n. 15 16.27 74n. 46, 81n. 7, 196n. 20, 201 16.28 74n. 46, 201 17.12 74n. 46 17.20 115 17.25 85 18.5 83n. 14 18.6-9 88 18.6 83 18.9 24n. 68 18.10 83 18.12-14 133n. 28 18.13 129n. 15 18.14 83 18.15 83 18.18 62, 67, 75 18.20 75 18.21 83 18.23 85, 131 18.35 63, 83 19.3-9 111 19.8 107n. 15 19.9 107n. 15 19.16-30 38n. 123, 88 19.23 129n. 15 19.24 38n. 123, 129n. 15 19.28 38n. 123, 62, 74n. 46, 78, 79n. 4, 80n. 5, 81n. 7, 92n. 36, 193, 194n. 15, 201, 203n. 45, 204 20.1-16 88 21.5 85 21.33-46 88 21.37 171 22.1-14 88 22.2 85, 126, 131 22.7 85, 131 22.11 85, 131 22.13 85, 131 23.8 83 23.35 18 23.37-39 88 24.27 201 24.37 173, 201 24.39 74n. 46, 201 24.44 74n. 46, 201 25.1-13 88, 126 25.14-30 88 25.31-33 81, 82 25.31-46 77, 80-100 25.31 74n. 46, 80, 82n. 9,

253 194n. 15, 201, 204 25.32-33 80, 81n. 7 25.32 83n. 15, 92 25.33 81n. 7 25.34-45 84n. 19 25.34-46 2, 80, 81, 92, 94, 131 35.34 81n. 7, 82, 86, 92, 93n. 38 25.35-36 88, 89 25.40 81, 82, 83, 84, 86 25.41 91, 92 25.45 81, 83, 90 25.46 92 26.2 74n. 46 26.15 107n. 15 26.53 169 26.61 208 27.11 85 27.29 85 27.37 85 27.42 85 28.10 83 28.18 181 28.19 181 Mark 1.2 46 1.12 27 1.14 27 1.14-15 24n. 69 1.15 24n. 68 1.21-28 24 1.35 169 1.40 42 2.1-12 60-75 2.5 2, 73, 75 2.6-7 64 2.7 63, 67, 70 2.10 61, 62, 63n. 8, 68, 69n. 29, 74, 75, 194, 200 2.13-17 64 3.16-19 117 2.18 121n. 14 2.19a 19, 86, 124-7 2.19b-22 125n. 1 2.21-22 19 2.23-28 74n. 46, 104 2.23 196 2.24 196 2.26 196 2.27 196 2.28 195n. 18, 196 3.19b-29 192n. 9 3.22 25 3.23-26 21

252

Index of References

Index of References

Haggai 1.1 213 2.21 13 Zechariah 1.12 141 3.1-10 141n. 28 3.8-9 70, 135n. 3 4.9 213 6.12-13 135n. 3, 213 9.9 85, 86, 125n. 4, 135n. 3 12.8 141n. 28 14 9 14.3 9 14.5 81n. 7 14.6-9 9 14.9a 9 14.9b 9 14.16-17 85, 131 14.16 9 Malachi 1.14b 7 3 53 3.1 43, 46, 47, 49n. 31, 53, 54, 59, 217 3.2 217 3.23 57 3.23-24 54, 55, 57

Apocrypha Tobit 1.16-17 89 4.3 120 4.16 89 6.13-15 120 8.2 25 8.3 31, 34n. 104 13 11 13.1 11 13.4 170n. 6 13.10 11 13.15-17 11 Judith 9.12-13 10 Wisdom of Solomon 2.13 182n. 41, 183n. 45 2.16-18 183n. 45 2.16 182n. 41 2.18 182n. 41 3.8 10 4.10 183n. 45 4.13-15 183n. 45

4.20-5.16 183n. 45 6.4 10 7.27 183 8.4 183 8.8 183 9.4 183 9.9 183 9.11 183 9.17-18 183 10.10 14, 183 Sirach 1.6-8 183 1.6 183 2.11 66, 73 4.11-14 183 6.28 178n. 25 7.3 133 7.25-26 183 7.27 122 7.29 122 7.34-35 89 16.11 66 22.13 178n. 25 23.1 170n. 6 23.4 170n. 6 24.19 178n. 25 28.1 73 28.2 73 38.16 120 43.3-5 179 45.2 156n. 76 45.5 179 48.10-11 55 51.10 170n. 6 51.12 10 51.26 178n. 25 51.27 178n. 25 51.30 178n. 25 Baruch 3.15-35 183 3.17 183 3.29-31 183 3.36 183 2 Maccabees 2.17-18 14 7.9 58 7.11 58 7.14 58 7.23 58 12.44 58 2 Esdras 1.30 130-1

The New Testament Matthew 1.6 85 2.1 85 2.2 85 2.3 85 2.9 85 3.2 24n. 68 5.3 24n. 68 5.10-11 82, 83n. 14 5.14 114n. 41 5.17-20 105 5.17 105, 109n. 24 5.20 20n. 55, 88 5.21-48 2, 101-16 5.21 102, 107 5.22 102, 106, 107 5.26 115 5.27 102, 107 5.28 102, 106, 107 5.29 24n. 68 5.31 102, 107 5.32 102, 106, 107 5.33 102, 107 5.34-35 28 5.34 102, 106 5.35 85, 131 5.38 102, 107 5.39 102, 106 5.43-48 84 5.43 102, 107 5.44 82, 102, 106 6.9 171 6.12 63, 68n. 27 6.14-15 63 6.25 129n. 15 6.29 129n. 15 7.1-2 88 7.4 129n. 15 7.8 107 7.11 27 7.21 20n. 55, 107 7.24-27 88 7.26 107 8.8-9 42 8.21-22 89, 117 8.22 2, 119-23 9.2-8 60 9.8 63, 74n. 46, 194n. 15 9.37-38 26 10.2-4 117 10.7-8 19 10.7 24n. 68 10.16 107n. 15 10.17-18 82

10.18 85 10.23 74n. 46, 201 10.24-25 83n. 14 10.25 62 10.32-33 77, 91, 169 10.34 107n. 15 10.40 83n. 14 10.42 83 11.2-6 26 11.2 53 11.3 45, 49 11.5-6 44n. 14, 46 11.5 18, 40, 43-53 11.6 52n. 39 11.8 129n. 15 11.10 41, 43, 47, 48, 53-8 11.11 26, 83, 115 11.12 19, 26 11.14 43, 55 11.18 85 11.20 107n. 15 11.20-24 88 11.25-26 169, 175, 176, 178, 181 11.25-27 174-84 11.25 27, 181 11.27 169, 175n. 20, 181, 182, 221 11.28-30 178 11.29 179 12.18-21 27 12.22-32 192n. 9 12.25-26 21 12.26 28 12.27-29 26 12.28 25, 26, 42n. 5 12.31-32 27 12.41-42 19, 26 12.48-50 83 12.49-50 84 12.49 129n. 15 13.3-8 132 13.3 129n. 15 13.10-17 88 13.16-17 19, 26 13.24-30 20, 81n. 7, 87, 133n. 28 13.36-43 81n. 7, 87 13.37-38 88 13.37 74n. 46 13.41 38, 74n. 46, 133n. 28, 194n. 15, 201, 204 13.47-50 20, 88 14.9 85 14.36 170n. 7 15.11 107n. 15

15.17-18 107n. 15 15.20 107n. 15 16.13 201 16.19 62, 67 16.27-28 194n. 15 16.27 74n. 46, 81n. 7, 196n. 20, 201 16.28 74n. 46, 201 17.12 74n. 46 17.20 115 17.25 85 18.5 83n. 14 18.6-9 88 18.6 83 18.9 24n. 68 18.10 83 18.12-14 133n. 28 18.13 129n. 15 18.14 83 18.15 83 18.18 62, 67, 75 18.20 75 18.21 83 18.23 85, 131 18.35 63, 83 19.3-9 111 19.8 107n. 15 19.9 107n. 15 19.16-30 38n. 123, 88 19.23 129n. 15 19.24 38n. 123, 129n. 15 19.28 38n. 123, 62, 74n. 46, 78, 79n. 4, 80n. 5, 81n. 7, 92n. 36, 193, 194n. 15, 201, 203n. 45, 204 20.1-16 88 21.5 85 21.33-46 88 21.37 171 22.1-14 88 22.2 85, 126, 131 22.7 85, 131 22.11 85, 131 22.13 85, 131 23.8 83 23.35 18 23.37-39 88 24.27 201 24.37 173, 201 24.39 74n. 46, 201 24.44 74n. 46, 201 25.1-13 88, 126 25.14-30 88 25.31-33 81, 82 25.31-46 77, 80-100 25.31 74n. 46, 80, 82n. 9,

253 194n. 15, 201, 204 25.32-33 80, 81n. 7 25.32 83n. 15, 92 25.33 81n. 7 25.34-45 84n. 19 25.34-46 2, 80, 81, 92, 94, 131 35.34 81n. 7, 82, 86, 92, 93n. 38 25.35-36 88, 89 25.40 81, 82, 83, 84, 86 25.41 91, 92 25.45 81, 83, 90 25.46 92 26.2 74n. 46 26.15 107n. 15 26.53 169 26.61 208 27.11 85 27.29 85 27.37 85 27.42 85 28.10 83 28.18 181 28.19 181 Mark 1.2 46 1.12 27 1.14 27 1.14-15 24n. 69 1.15 24n. 68 1.21-28 24 1.35 169 1.40 42 2.1-12 60-75 2.5 2, 73, 75 2.6-7 64 2.7 63, 67, 70 2.10 61, 62, 63n. 8, 68, 69n. 29, 74, 75, 194, 200 2.13-17 64 3.16-19 117 2.18 121n. 14 2.19a 19, 86, 124-7 2.19b-22 125n. 1 2.21-22 19 2.23-28 74n. 46, 104 2.23 196 2.24 196 2.26 196 2.27 196 2.28 195n. 18, 196 3.19b-29 192n. 9 3.22 25 3.23-26 21

254 3.27 26, 37 n. 115 3.28 115 4.1-9 20 4.3 129n. 15, 132 4.14 132 4.26-29 20, 133n. 28 4.30-32 20 4.38 132-3 5.1-20 24 6.2 178n. 26 6.7 25, 35 6.10 193 6.46 169 7.1-23 104 7.19-13 123 7.24-30 24 8.31 194 8.35 195n. 19 8.38-9.1 38 8.38 77, 91, 169, 201, 204 9.9 58, 194, 196 9.11 58 9.12-13 195n. 17 9.12 58, 195 9.14-29 24 9.23 42n. 6 9.24 42n. 6 9.25 31 9.31 194 9.37 83n. 14 9.38 25, 195 9.41 83n. 14 9.47 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.14-15 24n. 68 10.15 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.17-18 186 10.18 3, 169, 186-7 10.19 123 10.23-25 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.23 20n. 68 10.24 20n. 68 10.25 20n. 68 10.28-29 119n. 5 10.28 119 10.29-30 119 10.33 194 10.40 3, 168, 169 10.45 195 11.2-6 45 11.7-10 24n. 69 11.15-16 210 11.15-17 205, 210-12 11.17 210, 211 11.25-26 63 12.1-9 133n. 28 12.6 171, 174

Index of References

Index of References 12.34 24n. 68 13.2 207 13.11 27 13.20 21n. 60 13.26 39n. 124, 195, 201 13.32 3, 169, 172, 174, 175, 184-6 14.3-6 64n. 11 14.21 194 14.25 20 14.32-39 169 14.36 170 14.41 194 14.57-58 207 14.58 205-10 14.62 39n. 124, 195, 201, 203 Luke 1.9 205 1.35 29 1.51 29n. 88 1.66 29n. 88 2.49 169 4.1 27, 30n. 93 4.14 27 4.18 28 3.21 169 4.24 114n. 44 5.16 169 5.17-26 60 6.12 169 6.14-16 117 6.20 24n. 68 6.22 83n. 14, 191n. 6, 193 6.27-28 102, 103n. 5 6.29-31 102 7.21 29n. 85 7.22 2, 28n. 85, 38, 52n. 39, 221 7.24-27 48n. 25 7.25 129n. 15 7.27 103n. 4 7.28 129 7.34 64, 191 7.35 21n. 60, 121n. 14 7.36-50 60, 64 7.48 69 8.5-8 132 9.2 24n. 68 9.18 169 9.26 77, 91, 196n. 20, 201 9.28 169 9.29 169 9.48 83n. 14 9.58 191n. 6, 192, 193, 196 10.6 18

10.9b 16 10.16 83n. 14 10.17 25 10.19 68 10.21-22 174-84 10.21 27 10.22 168 10.23-24 178 11.1 169 11.2 20 11.8 129n. 15 11.13 27, 29, 29n. 88 11.14-23 17 11.14-26 35n. 111 11.17-18 32 11.17-19 21 11.17-23 21-39 11.18 21n. 60, 36n. 111 11.19 22, 22n. 62, 30 11.20 16, 17, 18, 21n. 60, 22, 23, 24n. 68, 25, 26, 27, 29, 29n. 88, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36n. 111, 36n. 114 11.20-22 6, 16, 17n. 44, 23, 35n. 108 11.21-22 17n. 45, 32, 36n. 111, 36n. 114 11.22 17n. 45, 35 11.30 191 11.31-32 193n. 13 11.46 27 12.8-9 77, 91, 190, 201n. 41 12.8-12 192n. 9, 193 12.10 191 12.22 129n. 15 12.27 129n. 15 12.32 203n. 45 12.39 192 12.40 192, 201 13.7 129n. 15 13.24 129n. 15 13.34 127-31 13.35 128n. 12, 129n. 15 14.26 121n. 14, 122 15.4-7 133n. 28 15.11-32 133n. 28 16.16 19 16.18 102 16.24 27 17.20-21 17, 19, 26, 185 17.21 24n. 68 17.24 192, 201, 204 17.26 191n. 6, 192 17.30 204 18.8 201 18.14 129n. 15

19.38 86 20.13 171 21.12 18, 83n. 14 21.15 27 21.17 83n. 14 21.34 18 22.20 193n. 13 22.28 203n. 45 22.29 169 22.30 78, 79n. 4, 80n. 5, 92n. 36, 118, 203n. 45 22.32 169 22.48 194n. 16 23.34 63 23.46 169 24.47 62n. 7, 63 24.49 18, 29, 169 24.53 205 John 1.14-18 177 1.14 177 1.18 177 1.49 85 2.11 177 2.13-22 210 2.19-22 208 2.19 207 2.21-22 208n. 4 3.29 126 3.35 175 5.27 196n. 23 7.20 25 7.29 175 8.48 25 8.52 25 10.15 175 12.13 86 12.15 86 12.26 62 12.34 201 13.3 175 13.20 83n. 14 14.7 177 14.9 177 14.21 177 14.22 177 15.20 62 17.3 177 17.6 177 17.12 177 20.23 62n. 7 21.1 177 21.14 177

Acts 1.8 18 1.12-26 79n. 4 1.20 79n. 4 2.38 63, 68 4.25-26 61 4.28 29n. 88 4.30 29n. 88 5.31 68 6.14 206 7.1-51 28n. 83 7.25 28n. 83 7.27 28n. 83 7.35 28n. 83 7.39 28n. 83 7.50 29n. 88 7.56 200n. 36 8.7 25 8.22 63, 68 10.43 63, 68 11.21 29n. 88 13.2-3 125 13.11 29n. 88 13.17 29n. 88 13.33 61 13.38 63, 68 14.23 125 16.16-18 25 16.18 25 17.17 85 19.1-7 45, 47 19.13 25 26.16 177 26.18 68 Romans 2.13 87n. 25 2.27 87n. 25 2.29 87n. 25 3.26 87n. 25 4.6 63 4.7-8 63 5.1-2 87n. 25 6.6-7 87n. 25 6.14 104 6.21-22 87n. 25 6.22 87n. 25 7.6 104 8.15 170, 171 8.29 21n. 60, 84n. 19 10.4 87n. 25, 104 11.1 129 14.10-12 87n. 25 1 Corinthians 1.7 177

255 2.10 177 2.15 177n. 24 3.13-15 96n. 48 3.16-17 208n. 4 5.4 62 6.19 208n. 4 7.10 104 8.6 221 9.3-14 83n. 14 15.5 79n. 4 15.25 61 15.25-27 203 15.27 61, 202 16.15-18 83n. 14 2 Corinthians 2.7 63 2.10 63, 87n. 25 4.17 195n. 19 5.10 87n. 25 5.19-21 87n. 25 6.16 208n. 4 11.2 126 12.2-4 199 Galatians 1.8 177n. 24 1.16 177 2.16 87n. 25 3.2 87n. 25 3.14 87n. 25 3.23 177 3.24-26 87n. 25 3.25 104 4.6 170, 171 5.18 104 6.6 83n. 14 6.8 87n. 25 Ephesians 1.7 63 1.20-22 203 1.22 202 2.15 104 2.20 178n. 24 2.21 208n. 4 3.3-4 178n. 24 3.5 104n. 8, 178n. 24 3.9 178n. 24 3.18-19 178n. 24 5.25-27 126 5.29 21n. 60 Philippians 1.20 195n. 19 1.29 195n. 19

254 3.27 26, 37 n. 115 3.28 115 4.1-9 20 4.3 129n. 15, 132 4.14 132 4.26-29 20, 133n. 28 4.30-32 20 4.38 132-3 5.1-20 24 6.2 178n. 26 6.7 25, 35 6.10 193 6.46 169 7.1-23 104 7.19-13 123 7.24-30 24 8.31 194 8.35 195n. 19 8.38-9.1 38 8.38 77, 91, 169, 201, 204 9.9 58, 194, 196 9.11 58 9.12-13 195n. 17 9.12 58, 195 9.14-29 24 9.23 42n. 6 9.24 42n. 6 9.25 31 9.31 194 9.37 83n. 14 9.38 25, 195 9.41 83n. 14 9.47 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.14-15 24n. 68 10.15 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.17-18 186 10.18 3, 169, 186-7 10.19 123 10.23-25 20n. 55, 24n. 68 10.23 20n. 68 10.24 20n. 68 10.25 20n. 68 10.28-29 119n. 5 10.28 119 10.29-30 119 10.33 194 10.40 3, 168, 169 10.45 195 11.2-6 45 11.7-10 24n. 69 11.15-16 210 11.15-17 205, 210-12 11.17 210, 211 11.25-26 63 12.1-9 133n. 28 12.6 171, 174

Index of References

Index of References 12.34 24n. 68 13.2 207 13.11 27 13.20 21n. 60 13.26 39n. 124, 195, 201 13.32 3, 169, 172, 174, 175, 184-6 14.3-6 64n. 11 14.21 194 14.25 20 14.32-39 169 14.36 170 14.41 194 14.57-58 207 14.58 205-10 14.62 39n. 124, 195, 201, 203 Luke 1.9 205 1.35 29 1.51 29n. 88 1.66 29n. 88 2.49 169 4.1 27, 30n. 93 4.14 27 4.18 28 3.21 169 4.24 114n. 44 5.16 169 5.17-26 60 6.12 169 6.14-16 117 6.20 24n. 68 6.22 83n. 14, 191n. 6, 193 6.27-28 102, 103n. 5 6.29-31 102 7.21 29n. 85 7.22 2, 28n. 85, 38, 52n. 39, 221 7.24-27 48n. 25 7.25 129n. 15 7.27 103n. 4 7.28 129 7.34 64, 191 7.35 21n. 60, 121n. 14 7.36-50 60, 64 7.48 69 8.5-8 132 9.2 24n. 68 9.18 169 9.26 77, 91, 196n. 20, 201 9.28 169 9.29 169 9.48 83n. 14 9.58 191n. 6, 192, 193, 196 10.6 18

10.9b 16 10.16 83n. 14 10.17 25 10.19 68 10.21-22 174-84 10.21 27 10.22 168 10.23-24 178 11.1 169 11.2 20 11.8 129n. 15 11.13 27, 29, 29n. 88 11.14-23 17 11.14-26 35n. 111 11.17-18 32 11.17-19 21 11.17-23 21-39 11.18 21n. 60, 36n. 111 11.19 22, 22n. 62, 30 11.20 16, 17, 18, 21n. 60, 22, 23, 24n. 68, 25, 26, 27, 29, 29n. 88, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36n. 111, 36n. 114 11.20-22 6, 16, 17n. 44, 23, 35n. 108 11.21-22 17n. 45, 32, 36n. 111, 36n. 114 11.22 17n. 45, 35 11.30 191 11.31-32 193n. 13 11.46 27 12.8-9 77, 91, 190, 201n. 41 12.8-12 192n. 9, 193 12.10 191 12.22 129n. 15 12.27 129n. 15 12.32 203n. 45 12.39 192 12.40 192, 201 13.7 129n. 15 13.24 129n. 15 13.34 127-31 13.35 128n. 12, 129n. 15 14.26 121n. 14, 122 15.4-7 133n. 28 15.11-32 133n. 28 16.16 19 16.18 102 16.24 27 17.20-21 17, 19, 26, 185 17.21 24n. 68 17.24 192, 201, 204 17.26 191n. 6, 192 17.30 204 18.8 201 18.14 129n. 15

19.38 86 20.13 171 21.12 18, 83n. 14 21.15 27 21.17 83n. 14 21.34 18 22.20 193n. 13 22.28 203n. 45 22.29 169 22.30 78, 79n. 4, 80n. 5, 92n. 36, 118, 203n. 45 22.32 169 22.48 194n. 16 23.34 63 23.46 169 24.47 62n. 7, 63 24.49 18, 29, 169 24.53 205 John 1.14-18 177 1.14 177 1.18 177 1.49 85 2.11 177 2.13-22 210 2.19-22 208 2.19 207 2.21-22 208n. 4 3.29 126 3.35 175 5.27 196n. 23 7.20 25 7.29 175 8.48 25 8.52 25 10.15 175 12.13 86 12.15 86 12.26 62 12.34 201 13.3 175 13.20 83n. 14 14.7 177 14.9 177 14.21 177 14.22 177 15.20 62 17.3 177 17.6 177 17.12 177 20.23 62n. 7 21.1 177 21.14 177

Acts 1.8 18 1.12-26 79n. 4 1.20 79n. 4 2.38 63, 68 4.25-26 61 4.28 29n. 88 4.30 29n. 88 5.31 68 6.14 206 7.1-51 28n. 83 7.25 28n. 83 7.27 28n. 83 7.35 28n. 83 7.39 28n. 83 7.50 29n. 88 7.56 200n. 36 8.7 25 8.22 63, 68 10.43 63, 68 11.21 29n. 88 13.2-3 125 13.11 29n. 88 13.17 29n. 88 13.33 61 13.38 63, 68 14.23 125 16.16-18 25 16.18 25 17.17 85 19.1-7 45, 47 19.13 25 26.16 177 26.18 68 Romans 2.13 87n. 25 2.27 87n. 25 2.29 87n. 25 3.26 87n. 25 4.6 63 4.7-8 63 5.1-2 87n. 25 6.6-7 87n. 25 6.14 104 6.21-22 87n. 25 6.22 87n. 25 7.6 104 8.15 170, 171 8.29 21n. 60, 84n. 19 10.4 87n. 25, 104 11.1 129 14.10-12 87n. 25 1 Corinthians 1.7 177

255 2.10 177 2.15 177n. 24 3.13-15 96n. 48 3.16-17 208n. 4 5.4 62 6.19 208n. 4 7.10 104 8.6 221 9.3-14 83n. 14 15.5 79n. 4 15.25 61 15.25-27 203 15.27 61, 202 16.15-18 83n. 14 2 Corinthians 2.7 63 2.10 63, 87n. 25 4.17 195n. 19 5.10 87n. 25 5.19-21 87n. 25 6.16 208n. 4 11.2 126 12.2-4 199 Galatians 1.8 177n. 24 1.16 177 2.16 87n. 25 3.2 87n. 25 3.14 87n. 25 3.23 177 3.24-26 87n. 25 3.25 104 4.6 170, 171 5.18 104 6.6 83n. 14 6.8 87n. 25 Ephesians 1.7 63 1.20-22 203 1.22 202 2.15 104 2.20 178n. 24 2.21 208n. 4 3.3-4 178n. 24 3.5 104n. 8, 178n. 24 3.9 178n. 24 3.18-19 178n. 24 5.25-27 126 5.29 21n. 60 Philippians 1.20 195n. 19 1.29 195n. 19

256 3.8-11 87n. 25 3.21 202 Colossians 1.14 63 1.15-20 165n. 101 1.16 221 1.19 221 1.24 195n. 19 2.13 63 3.4 177 3.23-25 87n. 25 1 Thessalonians 1.4-6 195n. 19 5.12-14 83n. 14 2 Thessalonians 1.7 177 2.1-12 25 1 Timothy 1.9 104 3.16 177 6.14 177 6.15 86 2 Timothy 1.10 177 4.1 177 4.8 177 Hebrews 1.8-9 126 2.5-9 202n. 44 2.5 203n. 44 2.6-8 202 2.6 200n. 37, 202 2.9 202 2.11-18 84n. 19 9.26 177 13.17 83n. 14 James 2.7 18 2.8 104 4.11 104 5.12 104, 106 5.15 62, 63 1 Peter 1.7 177 1.12 173n. 14 1.13 177 1.15-16 104 1.20 177

Index of References

Index of References 4.1 195n. 19 4.14 18 5.4 177 5.5 83n. 14 1 John 1.2 177 1.9 63 2.12 63 2.20 178n. 24 2.27 178n. 24 2.28 177 3.2 177 3.3-4 178n. 24 3.5 177 3.8 177 3.15 104 Revelation 1.7 202 1.13 200, 202 2.24 18 5.13 221 11.15 202 12.11 195n. 19 14.14 200, 202 15.3 86 17.14 86 19.7 126 19.16 86 21.2 126 21.9 126 22.17 126

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 5.17-29 99 9.4-6 12 10.4 34n. 104 10.11-13 142 10.11 34n. 104 25.3-6 13 27.2-3 13 38.2 97n. 54 38.3 97 39.6 162 41.2 97 41.9 97 42.6 98 45.3 97, 161 45.4-5 163, 164 45.6 98 46.1-2 193 46.1 161, 200 46.2 97n. 54, 98

46.3 162, 163 46.4-6 162 46.6 98 48.2-3 98 48.2 163 48.4 98, 162 48.5 98, 162 48.6 98, 163 48.7 162, 164 48.10 97, 161 49.1-4 162n. 94 49.2 98, 162, 164 49.3 162 49.4 98, 161, 183n. 47 49.6 98 50.2-3 97, 164 50.4 97 51.1 163 51.2 162 51.3 183n. 47 51.5 163 52.4 97, 161, 162 52.6-9 163 53.2 97 53.6 97n. 54, 162, 164 54.5-6 34n. 104, 97, 142 55.3 97 55.4 162, 164 59.1-2 99 60.6 97 60.25 97 61.5 163 61.8 94, 162, 163 61.9 98, 164 62.2-4 97 62.5 98, 162 62.6 162 62.7 163 62.8 132 62.9-12 87n. 23 62.9 98, 162 62.10-11 164 62.10 99 62.11 99 62.12 99 62.15 58 63.2-3 183 63.2-4 12 63.8 97 63.11 99, 163 65.6 97 65.10 97 66.1 97 67.10 97 68.2 97 68.5 97

69.27 98n. 58, 163 69.29 98, 162, 163 71.3-5 143 71.14 161 71.17 99 81.2 140 81.3 12 84.2-5 12, 85 84.2 131 84.3 183 88.3 34n. 104 90.29 215 90.31 56 90.37 56 91.12-13 13 91.13 13n. 28, 13n. 30 96.3 50 98.13 121n. 14 103.4 58 104.3-4 87n. 23 105.2 173 2 Baruch 4.1 216 4.3 216 4.6 216 14.15-18 216 29.3 14, 139 29.7 50 30.1-5 93 30.1 14, 139 30.2-5 14 32.3-5 209n. 8 39.7 14, 139 40.1-2 139 40.1 95 40.2 95 40.3 113, 139 41.3 113 41.4 130 53.1-5 216 53.6 216 53.7 216, 217 54.5 113 68.5 216 70.1-10 14 70.9 139 71.5-7 216 72.2-73.1 87n. 23, 95 72.2 139 73.1-74.4 14 73.1 14 2 Enoch 9 89 22.6 [A] 142

22.6 [J] 142 33.10 142 33.10 [J] 143 42.8 89 44.2 84, 91 63.1 89 71.28 [J] 142 72.5 [J] 142 3 Baruch 12.8 143 14.2 143 3 Enoch 1.4 146 3.1 146 4.3 146, 147 4.5 146 4.9 146 5.1 146 6.1 146 6.3 147 10.1-2 146 10.1 147 10.2 147 10.3-6 146 10.3 146, 147 10.5 147 11.2-3 146 12.5 146 13.1 146 15.1 146 16 147n. 48 16.1 146, 147 16.3 147 16.4 147 16.5 147 16.20 146n. 44 17.3 142 18.1-23 147 18.8-24 147 30.1 147 44.10 142 45.1-6 146 48C:7 146 48D:1 Crac. B 146 48D:5 146 3 Maccabees 2.13 14 2.19-20 14 4 Ezra 7.26-44 93 7.28-29 95, 173 7.28 139

257 7.29-44 14 7.29 139 7.33-44 95n. 45 7.37-38 87n. 23 7.89-91 119 8.52-54 50 10.53-54 216 10.51 215 12.32-34 95n. 45 12.32 95, 173 12.33 95 12.34 95 13.6 216n. 24 13.36 216n. 24 13.37-38 95 13.37 173 13.52 173 14.9 173 4 Maccabees 2.23 14 6.28-29 195n. 19 17.20-22 195n. 19 Apocalypse of Abraham 10.3 1410.4 143 10.6 143 10.7 143 10.8 143 10.9-10 143 10.11-12 143 10.13 143 10.16 143 11.2-3 143 17.8 143 17.13 143 Apocalypse of Moses 13.3-4 58 37.5 142 41.3 58 43.2 58 Ezekiel the Tragedian 156 68-82 151 74-75 152 74 152 75 152 79-80 152 86 152 88 152 101 152 135 152 141 152 144 152

256 3.8-11 87n. 25 3.21 202 Colossians 1.14 63 1.15-20 165n. 101 1.16 221 1.19 221 1.24 195n. 19 2.13 63 3.4 177 3.23-25 87n. 25 1 Thessalonians 1.4-6 195n. 19 5.12-14 83n. 14 2 Thessalonians 1.7 177 2.1-12 25 1 Timothy 1.9 104 3.16 177 6.14 177 6.15 86 2 Timothy 1.10 177 4.1 177 4.8 177 Hebrews 1.8-9 126 2.5-9 202n. 44 2.5 203n. 44 2.6-8 202 2.6 200n. 37, 202 2.9 202 2.11-18 84n. 19 9.26 177 13.17 83n. 14 James 2.7 18 2.8 104 4.11 104 5.12 104, 106 5.15 62, 63 1 Peter 1.7 177 1.12 173n. 14 1.13 177 1.15-16 104 1.20 177

Index of References

Index of References 4.1 195n. 19 4.14 18 5.4 177 5.5 83n. 14 1 John 1.2 177 1.9 63 2.12 63 2.20 178n. 24 2.27 178n. 24 2.28 177 3.2 177 3.3-4 178n. 24 3.5 177 3.8 177 3.15 104 Revelation 1.7 202 1.13 200, 202 2.24 18 5.13 221 11.15 202 12.11 195n. 19 14.14 200, 202 15.3 86 17.14 86 19.7 126 19.16 86 21.2 126 21.9 126 22.17 126

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 5.17-29 99 9.4-6 12 10.4 34n. 104 10.11-13 142 10.11 34n. 104 25.3-6 13 27.2-3 13 38.2 97n. 54 38.3 97 39.6 162 41.2 97 41.9 97 42.6 98 45.3 97, 161 45.4-5 163, 164 45.6 98 46.1-2 193 46.1 161, 200 46.2 97n. 54, 98

46.3 162, 163 46.4-6 162 46.6 98 48.2-3 98 48.2 163 48.4 98, 162 48.5 98, 162 48.6 98, 163 48.7 162, 164 48.10 97, 161 49.1-4 162n. 94 49.2 98, 162, 164 49.3 162 49.4 98, 161, 183n. 47 49.6 98 50.2-3 97, 164 50.4 97 51.1 163 51.2 162 51.3 183n. 47 51.5 163 52.4 97, 161, 162 52.6-9 163 53.2 97 53.6 97n. 54, 162, 164 54.5-6 34n. 104, 97, 142 55.3 97 55.4 162, 164 59.1-2 99 60.6 97 60.25 97 61.5 163 61.8 94, 162, 163 61.9 98, 164 62.2-4 97 62.5 98, 162 62.6 162 62.7 163 62.8 132 62.9-12 87n. 23 62.9 98, 162 62.10-11 164 62.10 99 62.11 99 62.12 99 62.15 58 63.2-3 183 63.2-4 12 63.8 97 63.11 99, 163 65.6 97 65.10 97 66.1 97 67.10 97 68.2 97 68.5 97

69.27 98n. 58, 163 69.29 98, 162, 163 71.3-5 143 71.14 161 71.17 99 81.2 140 81.3 12 84.2-5 12, 85 84.2 131 84.3 183 88.3 34n. 104 90.29 215 90.31 56 90.37 56 91.12-13 13 91.13 13n. 28, 13n. 30 96.3 50 98.13 121n. 14 103.4 58 104.3-4 87n. 23 105.2 173 2 Baruch 4.1 216 4.3 216 4.6 216 14.15-18 216 29.3 14, 139 29.7 50 30.1-5 93 30.1 14, 139 30.2-5 14 32.3-5 209n. 8 39.7 14, 139 40.1-2 139 40.1 95 40.2 95 40.3 113, 139 41.3 113 41.4 130 53.1-5 216 53.6 216 53.7 216, 217 54.5 113 68.5 216 70.1-10 14 70.9 139 71.5-7 216 72.2-73.1 87n. 23, 95 72.2 139 73.1-74.4 14 73.1 14 2 Enoch 9 89 22.6 [A] 142

22.6 [J] 142 33.10 142 33.10 [J] 143 42.8 89 44.2 84, 91 63.1 89 71.28 [J] 142 72.5 [J] 142 3 Baruch 12.8 143 14.2 143 3 Enoch 1.4 146 3.1 146 4.3 146, 147 4.5 146 4.9 146 5.1 146 6.1 146 6.3 147 10.1-2 146 10.1 147 10.2 147 10.3-6 146 10.3 146, 147 10.5 147 11.2-3 146 12.5 146 13.1 146 15.1 146 16 147n. 48 16.1 146, 147 16.3 147 16.4 147 16.5 147 16.20 146n. 44 17.3 142 18.1-23 147 18.8-24 147 30.1 147 44.10 142 45.1-6 146 48C:7 146 48D:1 Crac. B 146 48D:5 146 3 Maccabees 2.13 14 2.19-20 14 4 Ezra 7.26-44 93 7.28-29 95, 173 7.28 139

257 7.29-44 14 7.29 139 7.33-44 95n. 45 7.37-38 87n. 23 7.89-91 119 8.52-54 50 10.53-54 216 10.51 215 12.32-34 95n. 45 12.32 95, 173 12.33 95 12.34 95 13.6 216n. 24 13.36 216n. 24 13.37-38 95 13.37 173 13.52 173 14.9 173 4 Maccabees 2.23 14 6.28-29 195n. 19 17.20-22 195n. 19 Apocalypse of Abraham 10.3 1410.4 143 10.6 143 10.7 143 10.8 143 10.9-10 143 10.11-12 143 10.13 143 10.16 143 11.2-3 143 17.8 143 17.13 143 Apocalypse of Moses 13.3-4 58 37.5 142 41.3 58 43.2 58 Ezekiel the Tragedian 156 68-82 151 74-75 152 74 152 75 152 79-80 152 86 152 88 152 101 152 135 152 141 152 144 152

258 147 152 149 152 154 152 156-157 152 Joseph and Aseneth 125n. 4, 144-6 1.4 145 5.5 145 6.3 125n. 4, 145 6.5 125n. 4, 145 7.8 145 8.3 145 8.6 145 8.9 145, 146 11.3-13.14 145 12.1-2 145, 146 12.3 145 13.2 145 13.13 125n. 4 14.8 144 14.9 145 15.4 144 15.6 144 15.7 145 15.8 145 15.12 144, 146 15.15 146 16.1-6 144 16.8 145 16.14-15 144 16.14-16 145 16.14 144 17.9 144 18.11 125n. 4 19.11 145 21.4 126n. 4 21.5 145 23.10 126n. 4 Jubilees 1.17 215 1.24-25 170n. 6 1.28 10, 85, 131, 170n. 6 4.22-23 97 10.6 33n. 104 19.29 170n. 6 23.26-30 50 23.26 113 23.27-31 33n. 102 23.29 33n. 102 48.5-12 29 50.9 14 Letter of Aristeas 131 112n. 33

Index of References

Index of References 133 112n. 33 139 112n. 33 141-142 112n. 33 142 112n. 33 143 112n. 33 144 112n. 33 Liber Antiquitate Biblicarum 10.1 30 11.2 179 21.6 113n. 40 Life of Adam and Eve 13.3 143 14.1-15.2 143 14.1 143 14.2 143 25.2 142 29.2 142 48.1-3 142 61.8-9 156n. 75 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 3.16 142 7.22 158 Prayer of Joseph 2-3 144 3 143, 144 7 143 8 144 9 143 Psalms of Solomon 2.27 121n. 14 3.12 58 4.19-20 121n. 14 9.12 66 17 11, 70, 94 17.1 36n. 112, 85, 131 17.3 11 17.4 10n. 19 17.21 93 17.21-51 136 17.22-44 11 17.24-25 94n. 41 17.26 79, 93, 94n. 41 17.27 137 17.29 94n. 41 17.30-31 11, 213n. 16 17.32 136, 137n. 6 17.35 71 17.36 70, 71, 137 17.41 70 17.45-46 11

17.46 36n. 112 18 heading 136 18.5 136 18.7 136

13.3 [Rec. A] 96 13.4-8 [Rec. A] 96n. 50 13.6 [Rec. A] 96 13.7-8 [Rec. A] 96

Pseudo-Orpheus 10 [Rec. C ] 153 25-26 [Rec. C ] 152 27-28 [Rec. C ] 153 30-39 [Rec. C ] 153 30-31 [Rec. C ] 153 32-33 [Rec. C ] 152 33 [Rec. C ] 153 34 [Rec. C ] 153 35-37 [Rec. C ] 153 39 [Rec. C ] 153 40-41 [Rec. C ] 153

Testament of Isaac 2.7 158

Sibylline Oracles 1.332 114 1.384 114 3.46-57 11 3.56 85, 93, 131 3.63 149 3.288-290 213 3.593-594 122 3.73 33 3.91 93 3.652-795 93 3.652-654 93 3.671-2 93 3.693 93 3.705-731 13 3.719 113 3.742 93 3.767-784 13, 14 4.179-192 58 5.414 216 5.422 216 5.431-432 216 Testament of Abraham 1.4 142 2.1 142 2.3 142 3.6 142 11.2 [Rec. B] 96 11.4 [Rec. A] 158 11.7 [Rec. B] 96 11.9-11 [Rec. A] 159 11.9 [Rec. A] 158 12.5 [Rec. A] 159 13.1-13 [Rec. A] 96n. 48 13.2-3 [Rec. A] 96n. 50 13.2 [Rec. A] 96 13.3-5 [Rec. A] 96

Testament of Job 33.3 158 Testament of Moses 4.2 10, 85, 131 10 13 10.1 10n. 19, 13, 17n. 45, 33 10.1b-2 13 10.3 10n. 19, 13, 33 10.4-6 13 Testament of Solomon 18.1-42 50n. 34 Testament of Reuben 4.11 33n. 102 Testament of Simeon 5.3 33n. 102 6.5-6 33 Testament of Levi 3.3 34n. 104 4.2 173 16.3 114 18 33 18.4 33 18.9 33, 70, 71 18.10 33 18.11 33 18.12 32-3 Testament of Judah 25.3 33n. 102 Testament of Issachar 7.7 33n. 102 Testament of Zebulon 9.8 33 10.2 113 Testament of Dan 5.1 33n. 102 5.9-13 213n. 16 5.10-13 13 5.10 33

259

Testament of Naphtali 8.4 33n. 102

1QSb 5.23 114

Testament of Asher 1.8 33n. 102 7.3 33

1QM 1.1-2 34 1.1 34 1.14-15 34, 149 4.1-2 149 6.6 10 11.4 34, 35 11.7 34 11.8-9 34, 35 11.17 34 12.10-14 37 n. 119 13.10 148 15.2-3 34, 35 15.17 34 16.1 34, 35 16.13-14 34, 35 17.6 142 17.7 142n. 32 17.8 94n. 42 17.15 34, 35 18.1 34, 149 18.3 34 18.11 34 19.2-8 37 n. 119

Testament of Benjamin 3.4 33n. 102 3.8 33n. 101 6.1 33n. 102 9.1 12

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 6.11 56 7.18 114 14.19 71 1QIsa 125n. 4, 126n. 4 1QapGen 2.4 10 2.7 10 2.14 10 10.10 10 20.28 31 1QS 1.10 123n. 21 1.16-18 33n. 102 1.22-26 33n. 102 2.8 66n. 17 3.13-4.26 148, 148n. 50 3.15-16 148 3.18-19 148 3.18 148 3.19-23 148 3.24 148 3.25-26 148 3.25 148 4.16 148 4.24-26 148 4.25 148 9.4-6 71 1QSa 1.1-2 114 1.4-5 114 2.2 149 2.11-12 138, 173 2.19 126n. 4

1QH 4.27-29 41n. 3 6.24 66n. 17 10.6 51 17.35-36 170n. 6 18.8 10 4Q174 47, 174, 214 1.i.2-6 11 1.i.2 215 1.i.3-4 11 1.i.3 36n. 112 1.i.6-7 71, 216n. 24 1.i.7-9 11 1.i.10-13 11 1.i.11 114 3.11 138 4Q177 3.10 66n. 18 4.12 148n. 51 4Q202 4.8-11 142 4Q212 4.18 13n. 30

258 147 152 149 152 154 152 156-157 152 Joseph and Aseneth 125n. 4, 144-6 1.4 145 5.5 145 6.3 125n. 4, 145 6.5 125n. 4, 145 7.8 145 8.3 145 8.6 145 8.9 145, 146 11.3-13.14 145 12.1-2 145, 146 12.3 145 13.2 145 13.13 125n. 4 14.8 144 14.9 145 15.4 144 15.6 144 15.7 145 15.8 145 15.12 144, 146 15.15 146 16.1-6 144 16.8 145 16.14-15 144 16.14-16 145 16.14 144 17.9 144 18.11 125n. 4 19.11 145 21.4 126n. 4 21.5 145 23.10 126n. 4 Jubilees 1.17 215 1.24-25 170n. 6 1.28 10, 85, 131, 170n. 6 4.22-23 97 10.6 33n. 104 19.29 170n. 6 23.26-30 50 23.26 113 23.27-31 33n. 102 23.29 33n. 102 48.5-12 29 50.9 14 Letter of Aristeas 131 112n. 33

Index of References

Index of References 133 112n. 33 139 112n. 33 141-142 112n. 33 142 112n. 33 143 112n. 33 144 112n. 33 Liber Antiquitate Biblicarum 10.1 30 11.2 179 21.6 113n. 40 Life of Adam and Eve 13.3 143 14.1-15.2 143 14.1 143 14.2 143 25.2 142 29.2 142 48.1-3 142 61.8-9 156n. 75 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 3.16 142 7.22 158 Prayer of Joseph 2-3 144 3 143, 144 7 143 8 144 9 143 Psalms of Solomon 2.27 121n. 14 3.12 58 4.19-20 121n. 14 9.12 66 17 11, 70, 94 17.1 36n. 112, 85, 131 17.3 11 17.4 10n. 19 17.21 93 17.21-51 136 17.22-44 11 17.24-25 94n. 41 17.26 79, 93, 94n. 41 17.27 137 17.29 94n. 41 17.30-31 11, 213n. 16 17.32 136, 137n. 6 17.35 71 17.36 70, 71, 137 17.41 70 17.45-46 11

17.46 36n. 112 18 heading 136 18.5 136 18.7 136

13.3 [Rec. A] 96 13.4-8 [Rec. A] 96n. 50 13.6 [Rec. A] 96 13.7-8 [Rec. A] 96

Pseudo-Orpheus 10 [Rec. C ] 153 25-26 [Rec. C ] 152 27-28 [Rec. C ] 153 30-39 [Rec. C ] 153 30-31 [Rec. C ] 153 32-33 [Rec. C ] 152 33 [Rec. C ] 153 34 [Rec. C ] 153 35-37 [Rec. C ] 153 39 [Rec. C ] 153 40-41 [Rec. C ] 153

Testament of Isaac 2.7 158

Sibylline Oracles 1.332 114 1.384 114 3.46-57 11 3.56 85, 93, 131 3.63 149 3.288-290 213 3.593-594 122 3.73 33 3.91 93 3.652-795 93 3.652-654 93 3.671-2 93 3.693 93 3.705-731 13 3.719 113 3.742 93 3.767-784 13, 14 4.179-192 58 5.414 216 5.422 216 5.431-432 216 Testament of Abraham 1.4 142 2.1 142 2.3 142 3.6 142 11.2 [Rec. B] 96 11.4 [Rec. A] 158 11.7 [Rec. B] 96 11.9-11 [Rec. A] 159 11.9 [Rec. A] 158 12.5 [Rec. A] 159 13.1-13 [Rec. A] 96n. 48 13.2-3 [Rec. A] 96n. 50 13.2 [Rec. A] 96 13.3-5 [Rec. A] 96

Testament of Job 33.3 158 Testament of Moses 4.2 10, 85, 131 10 13 10.1 10n. 19, 13, 17n. 45, 33 10.1b-2 13 10.3 10n. 19, 13, 33 10.4-6 13 Testament of Solomon 18.1-42 50n. 34 Testament of Reuben 4.11 33n. 102 Testament of Simeon 5.3 33n. 102 6.5-6 33 Testament of Levi 3.3 34n. 104 4.2 173 16.3 114 18 33 18.4 33 18.9 33, 70, 71 18.10 33 18.11 33 18.12 32-3 Testament of Judah 25.3 33n. 102 Testament of Issachar 7.7 33n. 102 Testament of Zebulon 9.8 33 10.2 113 Testament of Dan 5.1 33n. 102 5.9-13 213n. 16 5.10-13 13 5.10 33

259

Testament of Naphtali 8.4 33n. 102

1QSb 5.23 114

Testament of Asher 1.8 33n. 102 7.3 33

1QM 1.1-2 34 1.1 34 1.14-15 34, 149 4.1-2 149 6.6 10 11.4 34, 35 11.7 34 11.8-9 34, 35 11.17 34 12.10-14 37 n. 119 13.10 148 15.2-3 34, 35 15.17 34 16.1 34, 35 16.13-14 34, 35 17.6 142 17.7 142n. 32 17.8 94n. 42 17.15 34, 35 18.1 34, 149 18.3 34 18.11 34 19.2-8 37 n. 119

Testament of Benjamin 3.4 33n. 102 3.8 33n. 101 6.1 33n. 102 9.1 12

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 6.11 56 7.18 114 14.19 71 1QIsa 125n. 4, 126n. 4 1QapGen 2.4 10 2.7 10 2.14 10 10.10 10 20.28 31 1QS 1.10 123n. 21 1.16-18 33n. 102 1.22-26 33n. 102 2.8 66n. 17 3.13-4.26 148, 148n. 50 3.15-16 148 3.18-19 148 3.18 148 3.19-23 148 3.24 148 3.25-26 148 3.25 148 4.16 148 4.24-26 148 4.25 148 9.4-6 71 1QSa 1.1-2 114 1.4-5 114 2.2 149 2.11-12 138, 173 2.19 126n. 4

1QH 4.27-29 41n. 3 6.24 66n. 17 10.6 51 17.35-36 170n. 6 18.8 10 4Q174 47, 174, 214 1.i.2-6 11 1.i.2 215 1.i.3-4 11 1.i.3 36n. 112 1.i.6-7 71, 216n. 24 1.i.7-9 11 1.i.10-13 11 1.i.11 114 3.11 138 4Q177 3.10 66n. 18 4.12 148n. 51 4Q202 4.8-11 142 4Q212 4.18 13n. 30

260 4Q242 74n. 46 1-3.3 72 1-3.4 71, 72-3 4Q246 94, 137 2.4 94 2.1 94, 137 2.2-3 137 2.3 94 2.4 94, 138 2.5-6 94 2.5-7 94, 138 2.5 11 2.7-9 138 2.7-8 94 4Q252 5.5 114 4Q256 3.2 66n. 18 4Q257 2.5 66n. 18 4Q286-290 12n. 24 4Q287 10.13 12n. 24 4Q364 18.5 66n. 17 4Q365 33a-b:4 66n. 17 4Q369 1.ii.6 139 4Q372 1.16 170n. 6 4Q374 155, 156n. 76 2.ii.6 155, 156n. 72 2.ii.7 155-6n. 72 2.ii.8 155-6n. 72 2.ii.9 155-6n. 72 4Q381 1.12 12n. 24 1.14 12n. 24 15.7 12n. 24

Index of References

Index of References 19 12n. 24 19.i.5 12n. 24 4Q398 14-17.ii.2 66n. 18 4Q399 1.i.10 66n. 18 4Q400 1.ii.1-2 12 2.1 12 2.3-4 12 4Q401 1-2.4 12 14.i.6 12 4Q403 1.i.8 12 1.i.32 12 1.ii.3 12 1.ii.10 12 4Q405 23.i.3 12 23.ii.11-12 4Q416 2.iv.10 66n. 17 4Q432 3.3 51 4Q460 5.i.5 170n. 6 4Q491 11.i.5 158 4Q504 11n. 24 1-2.iv.6-7 12n.24 1-2.iv.24 12n.24 4.7 66n. 17 4Q506 131-132.14 66n. 17 4Q521 2.ii.1 12n. 24, 51 2.ii.5-13 51 2.ii.7 12n. 24 2.ii.8 12n. 24, 50 2.ii.12 12n. 24, 51, 58

Every Good Man Is Free 43 154

4Q534 1.4 140 1.7-9 139 1.8 140 1.9 140 1.10 139 4Q558 1.ii.4 56

On Dreams 1.34 165 1.62 165 1.229-230 165 2.189 154n. 70 2.244 14

4Q560 1.ii.5-6 31

On Rewards and Punishments 95 93

11Q5 19.13 66n. 17

On the Change of Names 19 154n. 70 128 154

11Q6 4-5.14 66n. 17 11Q13 2.2 149 2.4-6 149 2.4 73 2.5 148 2.6 73 2.7 73 2.8 73, 148 2.9 149 2.10-11 97 2.10 149 2.12-13 149 2.13 35, 97, 149, 150n. 60, 151 2.15-16 150 2.15-20 150n. 61 2.24-25 149n. 56 2.24 114 3.7 35 11QT 109, 112 18.8 66n. 18 26.10 66n. 18 29.8-10 215 27.2 66n. 18 53.21 66n. 17 54.3 66n. 17

Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1.31-32 165 1.40 154 3.100-103 179 3.161 165

On the Confusion of Tongues 146 165, 166 On the Creation of the World 24 165 134-135 165 On the Life of Abraham 261 14, 14n. 36 On the Life of Moses 1.25-29 154 1.112 31n. 94 1.155-156 155 1.157 155 1.158 154 On the Migration of Abraham 84 154 85 31n. 94 197 14 On the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel 8-10 154n. 71 9 154

That the Worse Attacks the Better 160 153 162 153 Who Is the Heir? 2-5 165 56 165 57 165 205 165 262 179

Josephus Against Apion 2.206 122 Jewish Antiquities 2.300-302 30 8.45-49 25 8.45 31 8.47 31 14.22 41 20.168 Jewish War 2.259 140 7.180-185 31 7.183-185 25

Targums Targum Isaiah 12.3 114n. 44 24.23 15 31.4 15 40.9 15 52.7 15 53 70, 213 53.4 70 53.5 213 53.6 70 53.9 95n. 46 53.12 70

261 Targum Psalms 45 126 45.3 126 45.8 126 45.10 126 Targum Song of Songs 5.10 114n. 44 Targum Qohelet 2.1 114n. 44 11.8 114n. 44 Targum Lamentations 4.22 57 Targum Onqelos Genesis 49.12 113 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 32.25 142 32.28 142 32.30 128 Exodus 8.19 31n. 94 40.10 57 Deuteronomy 30 113 30.4 57 34.6 89

Early Christian Texts Gospel of Thomas 9 132 35 22 44 192n. 9 35.1-2 26 65.6 171 71 206

On the Special Laws 1.207 10 1.227-230 165 2.235 122 4.164 14

Targum Obadiah 21 15

Didache 8.1 125

Targum Mica 4.7 15

1 Clement 5.4 195n. 19

Questions on Exodus 2.29 154

Targum Zechariah 6.12-13 213 14.9 15

Questions on Genesis 2.62 165, 166

Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.32 25

260 4Q242 74n. 46 1-3.3 72 1-3.4 71, 72-3 4Q246 94, 137 2.4 94 2.1 94, 137 2.2-3 137 2.3 94 2.4 94, 138 2.5-6 94 2.5-7 94, 138 2.5 11 2.7-9 138 2.7-8 94 4Q252 5.5 114 4Q256 3.2 66n. 18 4Q257 2.5 66n. 18 4Q286-290 12n. 24 4Q287 10.13 12n. 24 4Q364 18.5 66n. 17 4Q365 33a-b:4 66n. 17 4Q369 1.ii.6 139 4Q372 1.16 170n. 6 4Q374 155, 156n. 76 2.ii.6 155, 156n. 72 2.ii.7 155-6n. 72 2.ii.8 155-6n. 72 2.ii.9 155-6n. 72 4Q381 1.12 12n. 24 1.14 12n. 24 15.7 12n. 24

Index of References

Index of References 19 12n. 24 19.i.5 12n. 24 4Q398 14-17.ii.2 66n. 18 4Q399 1.i.10 66n. 18 4Q400 1.ii.1-2 12 2.1 12 2.3-4 12 4Q401 1-2.4 12 14.i.6 12 4Q403 1.i.8 12 1.i.32 12 1.ii.3 12 1.ii.10 12 4Q405 23.i.3 12 23.ii.11-12 4Q416 2.iv.10 66n. 17 4Q432 3.3 51 4Q460 5.i.5 170n. 6 4Q491 11.i.5 158 4Q504 11n. 24 1-2.iv.6-7 12n.24 1-2.iv.24 12n.24 4.7 66n. 17 4Q506 131-132.14 66n. 17 4Q521 2.ii.1 12n. 24, 51 2.ii.5-13 51 2.ii.7 12n. 24 2.ii.8 12n. 24, 50 2.ii.12 12n. 24, 51, 58

Every Good Man Is Free 43 154

4Q534 1.4 140 1.7-9 139 1.8 140 1.9 140 1.10 139 4Q558 1.ii.4 56

On Dreams 1.34 165 1.62 165 1.229-230 165 2.189 154n. 70 2.244 14

4Q560 1.ii.5-6 31

On Rewards and Punishments 95 93

11Q5 19.13 66n. 17

On the Change of Names 19 154n. 70 128 154

11Q6 4-5.14 66n. 17 11Q13 2.2 149 2.4-6 149 2.4 73 2.5 148 2.6 73 2.7 73 2.8 73, 148 2.9 149 2.10-11 97 2.10 149 2.12-13 149 2.13 35, 97, 149, 150n. 60, 151 2.15-16 150 2.15-20 150n. 61 2.24-25 149n. 56 2.24 114 3.7 35 11QT 109, 112 18.8 66n. 18 26.10 66n. 18 29.8-10 215 27.2 66n. 18 53.21 66n. 17 54.3 66n. 17

Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1.31-32 165 1.40 154 3.100-103 179 3.161 165

On the Confusion of Tongues 146 165, 166 On the Creation of the World 24 165 134-135 165 On the Life of Abraham 261 14, 14n. 36 On the Life of Moses 1.25-29 154 1.112 31n. 94 1.155-156 155 1.157 155 1.158 154 On the Migration of Abraham 84 154 85 31n. 94 197 14 On the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel 8-10 154n. 71 9 154

That the Worse Attacks the Better 160 153 162 153 Who Is the Heir? 2-5 165 56 165 57 165 205 165 262 179

Josephus Against Apion 2.206 122 Jewish Antiquities 2.300-302 30 8.45-49 25 8.45 31 8.47 31 14.22 41 20.168 Jewish War 2.259 140 7.180-185 31 7.183-185 25

Targums Targum Isaiah 12.3 114n. 44 24.23 15 31.4 15 40.9 15 52.7 15 53 70, 213 53.4 70 53.5 213 53.6 70 53.9 95n. 46 53.12 70

261 Targum Psalms 45 126 45.3 126 45.8 126 45.10 126 Targum Song of Songs 5.10 114n. 44 Targum Qohelet 2.1 114n. 44 11.8 114n. 44 Targum Lamentations 4.22 57 Targum Onqelos Genesis 49.12 113 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 32.25 142 32.28 142 32.30 128 Exodus 8.19 31n. 94 40.10 57 Deuteronomy 30 113 30.4 57 34.6 89

Early Christian Texts Gospel of Thomas 9 132 35 22 44 192n. 9 35.1-2 26 65.6 171 71 206

On the Special Laws 1.207 10 1.227-230 165 2.235 122 4.164 14

Targum Obadiah 21 15

Didache 8.1 125

Targum Mica 4.7 15

1 Clement 5.4 195n. 19

Questions on Exodus 2.29 154

Targum Zechariah 6.12-13 213 14.9 15

Questions on Genesis 2.62 165, 166

Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.32 25

262

Index of References Justin

Dialogue with Trypho 38.3 126 56.14 126 63.4-5 126 69.7 25 86.3 126

Origen Agains Celsus 1.6 25 1.68 25 2.49 25

Rabbinic Writings Mishnah Abot 1.1 179 Baba Mesi‘a 2.11 122 Berakot 3.1 120 5.5 41 Soṭah 9.15 57 Ta‘anit 3.8 41 Babylonian Talmud Berakot 34b 41 ‘Erubin 43a-b 57 Ḥagigah 12b 142, 143

14a 95n. 46 15a 147 Sanhedrin 38b 95n. 46, 147n. 48 43a 25

Leviticus 9.6 213n. 17 Numbers 13.2 213n. 17 Deuteronomy 3.16 86, 125 Song of Songs 2.29 on 2.13 114n. 44 Song of Songs 4.32 213n. 17

Soṭah 14a 89, 120

Midrash Tanḥuma Deuteronomy 15.9 84, 91

Ta‘anit 24b 41

Mekhilta Exodus 14.31 31n. 94 15.2 86, 125 19.1 86, 125 19.17 86, 125

Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 1.5 198 2.8 199

Other Rabbinic Works Pesiqta Rabbati 15.14-15 125 35.4 58 36 33n. 101 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 27 142 41 86, 125 43 57n. 56 ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 7 89 Soferim 19.9 57n. 54

Midrash

Yalqut Isaiah 26.2 114

Samaritan Writings Memar Marqah 1.1 156 1.4 157-8 1.9 157 6.3 166 6.6 157

Greco-Roman Writings Greek Magical Papyri 4.86-87 31 4.1232 31 4.1233 25 4.3019 31 4.3020 25

Midrash Qohelet 11.8 114n. 44

Philostratus Life of Apollonius 4.20 31n. 96

Midrash Rabba Exodus 10.7 31n. 94 Exodus 32.9 47

Plutarch Life of Tiberius Gracchus 9.5 193

SUBJECT INDEX Abel 95–6, 159 amen 115 Angel of the Lord 141–7 anthropomorphism 15, 26–9, 96 Aramaic 16, 18, 80, 170, 175, 190, 196–9 authenticity 23–6, 43–8, 60–4, 80–92, 102–8, 120, 125, 126–7, 127–30, 132, 170, 172–3, 174–7, 186, 189–90, 202–4, 206, 210 bridegroom 124–7 burial 119–23 “cleansing of the temple” 210–12 creation see new creation criteria of authenticity 4–5, 103, 191, 202

healing 42, 71–3, 75 Holy Spirit 25–9, 177 Honi the Circle-Drawer 41

paradise see new creation Priesthood 69–70, 120–1, 213 Prince of Light 148

Iaoel 143 ideal human being 164–5 identification 82–5, 91 Israel 143–4, 180–2

Q 26–9, 191–4, 128–9, 191–4 Qumran 11, 12, 34–5, 50–1, 56, 66, 71–4, 94, 114, 137–40, 148–51

John the Baptist 46–9, 53 judgment 7, 8, 35, 38, 43, 49, 53–4, 77–100, 138, 139, 143, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 159, 161–4, 166, 195, 204, 209, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220

Rabbinic practices 108–12, 118–19 redaction criticism 23–4, 26–8, 80–1, 85, 103–8, 206, 207, 210 revelation 15, 103, 112, 140, 153, 157, 162–4, 174–80, 182, 183, 188, 205, 216

king, God as 7–8, 10, 85 Jesus as 85–6, 131 kingdom of God 6–39 knowledge, Jesus' 184–6

Dead Sea Scrolls see Qumran “divine passive” 66–7 divine warrior 8–10, 32–9

law, Jesus and 101–16, 120–3 obedience of the 14 Logos 165–6

Elect 97–9, 139–40, 161–4 election 118, 132, 175, 180, 182 Elijah 53–9, 121, 195 enthronization see throne exegesis in the early church 45, 46–7, 202–3 exodus 30, 36 exorcism 16–17, 25, 30–2, 38, 39, 43–4

Melchizedek 35, 73–4, 97, 148–51, 166 mercy, deeds of 89 Messiah 11, 13–14, 32–3, 45, 50–1, 53, 55–8, 70–1, 79, 93–5, 97, 113–15, 125–6, 135–40, 150, 161, 162, 169, 173, 174, 212–14, 220 Metatron 146–7 method 4–5, 191 Michael 142–3 miracles 40–53 Moses 112–13, 151–8, 179–80 mother bird 127–31

Father, God as 170–1 forgiveness 60–76 form criticism 21–4, 44, 61, 79–80, 86, 102, 127–9, 169, 171, 172, 175–6, 178 goodness of God 186–7 Hanina ben Dosa 41

Nazirites 120–1 new creation 9, 13–16, 33, 37, 39, 44, 48–53, 93, 214–16

Satan 13, 17, 33–7, 149, 162, 164, 166, 220 Septuagint 135, 136 Son of God 135–9, 168–88 Son of Man 9–10, 38–9, 58, 68–9, 74, 80, 82, 90, 97–9, 138, 159–64, 166, 180–2, 189–204, 216, 217, 220 sower 132–3 subordinate, Jesus as 169–70 Teacher of Righteousness 109 temple 205–18 throne 7, 8, 13, 79, 80, 90, 96, 97, 98, 118, 135, 146, 147, 151–3, 158–9, 160–4, 166, 193, 195, 201 tradition history 21–2, 26–9, 80–1 trial of Jesus 206–9 twelve disciples 18, 78–9, 117–18, 123 wisdom 128, 139–40, 153, 155, 162, 164, 175–6, 178, 183–4, 193, 221

262

Index of References Justin

Dialogue with Trypho 38.3 126 56.14 126 63.4-5 126 69.7 25 86.3 126

Origen Agains Celsus 1.6 25 1.68 25 2.49 25

Rabbinic Writings Mishnah Abot 1.1 179 Baba Mesi‘a 2.11 122 Berakot 3.1 120 5.5 41 Soṭah 9.15 57 Ta‘anit 3.8 41 Babylonian Talmud Berakot 34b 41 ‘Erubin 43a-b 57 Ḥagigah 12b 142, 143

14a 95n. 46 15a 147 Sanhedrin 38b 95n. 46, 147n. 48 43a 25

Leviticus 9.6 213n. 17 Numbers 13.2 213n. 17 Deuteronomy 3.16 86, 125 Song of Songs 2.29 on 2.13 114n. 44 Song of Songs 4.32 213n. 17

Soṭah 14a 89, 120

Midrash Tanḥuma Deuteronomy 15.9 84, 91

Ta‘anit 24b 41

Mekhilta Exodus 14.31 31n. 94 15.2 86, 125 19.1 86, 125 19.17 86, 125

Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 1.5 198 2.8 199

Other Rabbinic Works Pesiqta Rabbati 15.14-15 125 35.4 58 36 33n. 101 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 27 142 41 86, 125 43 57n. 56 ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 7 89 Soferim 19.9 57n. 54

Midrash

Yalqut Isaiah 26.2 114

Samaritan Writings Memar Marqah 1.1 156 1.4 157-8 1.9 157 6.3 166 6.6 157

Greco-Roman Writings Greek Magical Papyri 4.86-87 31 4.1232 31 4.1233 25 4.3019 31 4.3020 25

Midrash Qohelet 11.8 114n. 44

Philostratus Life of Apollonius 4.20 31n. 96

Midrash Rabba Exodus 10.7 31n. 94 Exodus 32.9 47

Plutarch Life of Tiberius Gracchus 9.5 193

SUBJECT INDEX Abel 95–6, 159 amen 115 Angel of the Lord 141–7 anthropomorphism 15, 26–9, 96 Aramaic 16, 18, 80, 170, 175, 190, 196–9 authenticity 23–6, 43–8, 60–4, 80–92, 102–8, 120, 125, 126–7, 127–30, 132, 170, 172–3, 174–7, 186, 189–90, 202–4, 206, 210 bridegroom 124–7 burial 119–23 “cleansing of the temple” 210–12 creation see new creation criteria of authenticity 4–5, 103, 191, 202

healing 42, 71–3, 75 Holy Spirit 25–9, 177 Honi the Circle-Drawer 41

paradise see new creation Priesthood 69–70, 120–1, 213 Prince of Light 148

Iaoel 143 ideal human being 164–5 identification 82–5, 91 Israel 143–4, 180–2

Q 26–9, 191–4, 128–9, 191–4 Qumran 11, 12, 34–5, 50–1, 56, 66, 71–4, 94, 114, 137–40, 148–51

John the Baptist 46–9, 53 judgment 7, 8, 35, 38, 43, 49, 53–4, 77–100, 138, 139, 143, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 159, 161–4, 166, 195, 204, 209, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220

Rabbinic practices 108–12, 118–19 redaction criticism 23–4, 26–8, 80–1, 85, 103–8, 206, 207, 210 revelation 15, 103, 112, 140, 153, 157, 162–4, 174–80, 182, 183, 188, 205, 216

king, God as 7–8, 10, 85 Jesus as 85–6, 131 kingdom of God 6–39 knowledge, Jesus' 184–6

Dead Sea Scrolls see Qumran “divine passive” 66–7 divine warrior 8–10, 32–9

law, Jesus and 101–16, 120–3 obedience of the 14 Logos 165–6

Elect 97–9, 139–40, 161–4 election 118, 132, 175, 180, 182 Elijah 53–9, 121, 195 enthronization see throne exegesis in the early church 45, 46–7, 202–3 exodus 30, 36 exorcism 16–17, 25, 30–2, 38, 39, 43–4

Melchizedek 35, 73–4, 97, 148–51, 166 mercy, deeds of 89 Messiah 11, 13–14, 32–3, 45, 50–1, 53, 55–8, 70–1, 79, 93–5, 97, 113–15, 125–6, 135–40, 150, 161, 162, 169, 173, 174, 212–14, 220 Metatron 146–7 method 4–5, 191 Michael 142–3 miracles 40–53 Moses 112–13, 151–8, 179–80 mother bird 127–31

Father, God as 170–1 forgiveness 60–76 form criticism 21–4, 44, 61, 79–80, 86, 102, 127–9, 169, 171, 172, 175–6, 178 goodness of God 186–7 Hanina ben Dosa 41

Nazirites 120–1 new creation 9, 13–16, 33, 37, 39, 44, 48–53, 93, 214–16

Satan 13, 17, 33–7, 149, 162, 164, 166, 220 Septuagint 135, 136 Son of God 135–9, 168–88 Son of Man 9–10, 38–9, 58, 68–9, 74, 80, 82, 90, 97–9, 138, 159–64, 166, 180–2, 189–204, 216, 217, 220 sower 132–3 subordinate, Jesus as 169–70 Teacher of Righteousness 109 temple 205–18 throne 7, 8, 13, 79, 80, 90, 96, 97, 98, 118, 135, 146, 147, 151–3, 158–9, 160–4, 166, 193, 195, 201 tradition history 21–2, 26–9, 80–1 trial of Jesus 206–9 twelve disciples 18, 78–9, 117–18, 123 wisdom 128, 139–40, 153, 155, 162, 164, 175–6, 178, 183–4, 193, 221

Index of Modern Names

INDEX OF MODERN NAMES Aalen, Sverre 42n. 7, 65n. 13, 116n. 49, 123n. 23, 130n. 19, 131n. 20 Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 66, 149n. 54 Acrari, Luca 160n. 89 Agbanou, Victor Kossi 90n. 30 Allison, Dale C. 16n. 42, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 20n. 55, 25n. 72, 26n. 74, 27n. 78, 29n. 88, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 46n. 20, 46n. 21, 48n. 26, 49n. 30, 53n. 40, 54n. 42, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 55n. 46, 57n. 55, 58n. 59, 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 70n. 33, 73n. 44, 79n. 4, 79n. 5, 81n. 6, 82n. 11, 87n. 24, 90n. 31, 92n. 37, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 102n. 3, 104n. 7, 105, 111n. 30, 112n. 32, 115n. 46, 118n. 2, 122n. 16, 122n. 17, 122n. 20, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 169n. 3, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 22, 177n. 23, 179, 182n. 38, 186n. 54, 201n. 41, 203n. 45, 209n. 6, 211n. 11 Annen, Franz 25n. 70 Aschim, Anders 149n. 55 Atkinson, Kenneth 94n. 44 Attridge, Harold W. 139n. 19, 203n. 44 Aune, David E. 95n. 47, 130n. 18 Ådna, Jostein 162n. 95, 207n. 4, 211n. 10, 213n. 17, 216n. 24 Baillet, Maurice 158 Balla, Peter 122n. 19, 123n. 22 Baltzer, Klaus 37 n. 118, 50n. 33

Banks, Robert 105, 108n. 19,110n. 25, 111n. 31 Barker, Margaret 35n. 110, 134n. 1, 141n. 28, 141n. 29, 146n. 45 Barrett, C. K. 172n. 13 Barth, Gerhard 102n. 3, 107n. 17 Barth, Markus 195n. 19 Barton, Stephen 122n. 15 Bauckham, Richard J. 62n. 5, 142n. 32, 151n. 64, 191n. 7, 197n. 25, 198n. 30, 199n. 34, 201n. 42, 211n. 10 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 71n. 39 Beasley-Murray, George R. 19n. 53, 93n. 40 Becker, Michael 41n. 2, 41n. 4, 41n. 5, 49n. 29, 52n. 38 Ben-Chorin, Schalom 74n. 46 Betz, Dieter 67n. 21 Betz, Hans Dieter 106n. 13, 109n. 23, 110n. 28 Beyerle, Stefan 159n. 85, 190n. 3 Bietenhard, Hans 198n. 30, 199n. 34, 203n. 45 Black, Matthew 56n. 48, 160n. 88, 161n. 90, 162n. 93, 162n. 94, 191n. 7 Blackburn, Barry 42n. 5, 71n. 38 Blanke, Helmut 195n. 19 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 37 n. 116 Bock, Darrell L. 18n. 47, 23n. 64, 27n. 77, 39n. 125, 61n. 1, 181n. 37, 206n. 2 Bockmuehl, Markus 79n. 5, 121, 122 Borgen, Peder 165n. 103 Boring, M. Eugene 4n. 2, 128–9 Bornkamm, Günther 65n. 13,

78n. 4, 119n. 4, 171n. 8, 172n. 13, 190n. 3 Bousset, Wilhelm 174n. 19 Bovon, François 17n. 46, 22n. 61, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 32n. 99, 36n. 114, 46n. 18, 46n. 19, 61n. 1, 64n. 11, 68n. 26, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20 Bowman, Robert M. 185n. 50 Box, G. H. 95n. 45, 139n. 20 Brandenburger, Egon 84n. 19 Braun, Herbert 91n. 34 Bright, John 7n. 3, 10n. 18, 10n. 19, 13n. 31 Broadhead, Edwin K. 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 85n. 20 Broer, Ingo 66n. 20, 85n. 21, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 91n. 35, 106n. 14, 107n. 15 Brooke, George J. 145n. 39 Brown, Colin 50n. 34 Brown, Raymond E. 169n. 1, 185n. 51, 187n. 56, 189n. 2 Brownlee, WIlliam H. 126n. 4 Bryan, Steven M. 209n. 7, 211n. 10, 212n. 12, 216n. 24 Buchanan, George Wesley 17n. 44 Bultmann, Rudolf 21–2, 35n. 108, 45n. 16, 61, 62, 64n. 11, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 90n. 31, 102, 120n. 7, 125, 128, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 174n. 19, 178, 186n. 54, 190n. 3, 192n. 10 Burchard, Christoph 145n. 41 Burkett, Delbert 190n. 3, 196n. 22 Burrows, Millar 125n. 4 Byrskog, Samuel 105n. 10, 109n. 20, 109n. 21, 114n. 41 Camponovo, Odo 10n. 20, 11n. 21, 12n. 26, 13n. 28, 13n. 29, 14n. 35, 15n. 431

Cangh, Jean-Marie van 28n. 80, 28n. 83 Caragounis, Chrys C. 27n. 77, 201n. 41, 202n. 42, 203n. 45, 203n. 46 Carlston, Charles E. 130n. 18 Carmignac, J. 149n. 57 Carson, D. A. 67n. 21, 100n. 60 Casey, Maurice 10n. 17, 18n. 46, 22n. 62, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 32n. 99, 62n. 7, 73n. 42, 74n. 46, 78n. 2, 190n. 4 190n. 5, 191n. 7, 192n. 9, 192n. 11, 193n. 13, 194n. 15, 194n. 16, 195n. 18, 195n. 19, 195n. 20, 196n. 21, 197n. 25, 198, 202n. 42 Catchpole, David R. 81n. 6, 84n. 18, 88n. 27, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 92n. 36, 120n. 11, 130n. 18 Cerfaux, Lucien 176n. 21 Ceroke, Christian Paul 61n. 2 Charles, R. H. 56n. 48, 159n. 86, 163n. 98 Charlesworth, James H. 50n. 34, 78n. 4, 134n. 2, 135n. 3, 137n. 7, 160n. 89 Chester, Andrew 111n. 31, 115n. 45, 134n. 2, 137n. 7, 138n. 16, 150n. 58, 167n. 104, 212n. 14, 215n. 19, 216n. 23 Childs, Brevard S. 36n. 113, 37n. 116 Chilton, Bruce D. 15n. 39, 15n. 40 Christ, Felix 178n. 25, 183n. 45 Claudel, Gérard 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Collins, John J. 9n. 16, 10n. 17, 10n. 20, 11n. 23, 13n. 31, 14n. 36, 51, 55n. 45, 72n. 40, 94n. 43, 97n. 54, 135n. 3, 136n. 5, 137n. 7, 137n. 8, 138n. 16, 158n. 81, 158n. 82, 160n. 87, 161n. 92, 163n. 97 Colpe, Carsten 75n. 47, 97n. 54, 160n. 87, 160n. 88, 161n. 92, 190n. 3 Conzelmann, Hans 189n. 1 Cook, Edward 149n. 54

Cope, Lamar 82n. 10, 82n. 12, 83n. 15, 85n. 21, 89n. 29 Coppens, Joseph 7n. 3, 160n. 89, 162n. 93 Cotter, Wendy 41n. 2 Craffert, Pieter F. 32n. 97 Cranfield, C. E. B. 42n. 6, 127n. 11 Cross, Frank Moore 72n. 40 Crossan, John Dominic 40n. 1, 69n. 31, 171n. 9 Cullmann, Oscar 175n. 19 Dalman, Gustaf 6n. 1 Daube, David 108n. 20, 109n. 22 Davies, Stevan L. 42n. 5 Davies, W. D. 25n. 72, 26n. 74, 27n. 78, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 46n. 20, 46n. 21, 48n. 26, 49n. 30, 53n. 40, 54n. 42, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 70n. 33, 73n. 44, 79n. 4, 79n. 5, 81n. 6, 82n. 11, 87n. 24, 90n. 31, 92n. 37, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 102n. 3, 103n. 5, 104n. 7, 105, 108n. 18, 109n. 25, 111n. 30, 112n. 32, 114n. 44, 115n. 46, 118n. 2, 122n. 16, 122n. 17, 122n. 20, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 169n. 3, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 22, 177n. 23, 182n. 38, 186n. 54, 201n. 41, 203n. 45, 209n. 6, 211n. 11 Davila, James R. 32n. 98, 96n. 48, 147n. 48 Davis, Stephen T. 65n. 13 Dechow, Jens 24n. 68 Delcor, Mathias 96n. 48 Delitzsch, F. 54n. 41 Denaux, Adelbert 175n. 19 Derrett, J. D. M. 81n. 7 deSilva, David A. 203n. 44 Deutsch, Celia 178n. 25, 182n. 42, 183n. 45 DeVries, Simon J. 121n. 12 Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar 155n. 72 Dibelius, Martin 174n. 19 Dodd, C. H. 16, 16n. 41, 47n. 24, 99n. 59, 127n. 9, 132n. 24, 171n. 9, 171n. 10, 198n. 30

265 Donahue, John R. 207n. 4 Donaldson, Terence L. 114n. 41 Duff, Paul Brooks 24n. 69 Duhaime, Jean 51n. 37 Duling, Dennis C. 8n. 8, 50n. 34 Dunn, James D. G. 23n. 65, 25n. 71, 26n. 73, 46n. 18, 62n. 4, 64n. 10, 97n. 52, 101n. 2, 115n. 46, 165n. 103, 170n. 7, 171n. 8, 171n. 9, 171n. 10, 175n. 19, 180–3, 190n. 2, 195n. 19, 196n. 22, 203n. 45, 211n. 11 Ellingworth, Paul 203n. 44 Ellis, E. Earle 65n. 13, 208n. 6 Emmrich, Martin 28n. 80, 28n. 84 Ernst, Josef 49n. 31 Eshel, Hanan 161n. 89 Eskola, Timo 95n. 45, 96n. 51, 152n. 65, 158nn. 81–3, 159n. 84 Evans, C. F. 30n. 90 Evans, Craig A. 5n. 3, 8n. 9, 15n. 38, 27n. 77, 33n. 101, 138n. 18, 139n. 19, 140n. 22, 171n. 9, 203n. 45, 211n. 11 Eve, Eric 41n. 2, 41n. 3, 42n. 7 Faierstein, M. M. 55n. 45, 56n. 47, 56n. 51, 57n. 54 Fishbane, Michael 9n. 11 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 17n. 46, 27n. 77, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 49n. 30, 49n. 31, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 56n. 52, 58n. 61, 61n. 1, 64n. 11, 68n. 26, 72n. 41, 73n. 42, 79n. 5, 115n. 47, 122n. 21, 126n. 4, 135n. 3, 137n. 9, 138n. 13, 140n. 23, 149n. 57, 170n. 6, 171n. 9, 174n. 18, 175n. 19, 179n. 30, 182n. 38, 198n. 30 Fleddermann, Harry 22n. 63, 24n. 69, 28n. 81 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. 121n. 14, 141n. 29, 151n. 62, 152n. 66, 155n. 75 Flint, P. W. 72n. 41

Index of Modern Names

INDEX OF MODERN NAMES Aalen, Sverre 42n. 7, 65n. 13, 116n. 49, 123n. 23, 130n. 19, 131n. 20 Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 66, 149n. 54 Acrari, Luca 160n. 89 Agbanou, Victor Kossi 90n. 30 Allison, Dale C. 16n. 42, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 20n. 55, 25n. 72, 26n. 74, 27n. 78, 29n. 88, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 46n. 20, 46n. 21, 48n. 26, 49n. 30, 53n. 40, 54n. 42, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 55n. 46, 57n. 55, 58n. 59, 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 70n. 33, 73n. 44, 79n. 4, 79n. 5, 81n. 6, 82n. 11, 87n. 24, 90n. 31, 92n. 37, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 102n. 3, 104n. 7, 105, 111n. 30, 112n. 32, 115n. 46, 118n. 2, 122n. 16, 122n. 17, 122n. 20, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 169n. 3, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 22, 177n. 23, 179, 182n. 38, 186n. 54, 201n. 41, 203n. 45, 209n. 6, 211n. 11 Annen, Franz 25n. 70 Aschim, Anders 149n. 55 Atkinson, Kenneth 94n. 44 Attridge, Harold W. 139n. 19, 203n. 44 Aune, David E. 95n. 47, 130n. 18 Ådna, Jostein 162n. 95, 207n. 4, 211n. 10, 213n. 17, 216n. 24 Baillet, Maurice 158 Balla, Peter 122n. 19, 123n. 22 Baltzer, Klaus 37 n. 118, 50n. 33

Banks, Robert 105, 108n. 19,110n. 25, 111n. 31 Barker, Margaret 35n. 110, 134n. 1, 141n. 28, 141n. 29, 146n. 45 Barrett, C. K. 172n. 13 Barth, Gerhard 102n. 3, 107n. 17 Barth, Markus 195n. 19 Barton, Stephen 122n. 15 Bauckham, Richard J. 62n. 5, 142n. 32, 151n. 64, 191n. 7, 197n. 25, 198n. 30, 199n. 34, 201n. 42, 211n. 10 Baumgarten, Joseph M. 71n. 39 Beasley-Murray, George R. 19n. 53, 93n. 40 Becker, Michael 41n. 2, 41n. 4, 41n. 5, 49n. 29, 52n. 38 Ben-Chorin, Schalom 74n. 46 Betz, Dieter 67n. 21 Betz, Hans Dieter 106n. 13, 109n. 23, 110n. 28 Beyerle, Stefan 159n. 85, 190n. 3 Bietenhard, Hans 198n. 30, 199n. 34, 203n. 45 Black, Matthew 56n. 48, 160n. 88, 161n. 90, 162n. 93, 162n. 94, 191n. 7 Blackburn, Barry 42n. 5, 71n. 38 Blanke, Helmut 195n. 19 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 37 n. 116 Bock, Darrell L. 18n. 47, 23n. 64, 27n. 77, 39n. 125, 61n. 1, 181n. 37, 206n. 2 Bockmuehl, Markus 79n. 5, 121, 122 Borgen, Peder 165n. 103 Boring, M. Eugene 4n. 2, 128–9 Bornkamm, Günther 65n. 13,

78n. 4, 119n. 4, 171n. 8, 172n. 13, 190n. 3 Bousset, Wilhelm 174n. 19 Bovon, François 17n. 46, 22n. 61, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 32n. 99, 36n. 114, 46n. 18, 46n. 19, 61n. 1, 64n. 11, 68n. 26, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20 Bowman, Robert M. 185n. 50 Box, G. H. 95n. 45, 139n. 20 Brandenburger, Egon 84n. 19 Braun, Herbert 91n. 34 Bright, John 7n. 3, 10n. 18, 10n. 19, 13n. 31 Broadhead, Edwin K. 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 85n. 20 Broer, Ingo 66n. 20, 85n. 21, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 91n. 35, 106n. 14, 107n. 15 Brooke, George J. 145n. 39 Brown, Colin 50n. 34 Brown, Raymond E. 169n. 1, 185n. 51, 187n. 56, 189n. 2 Brownlee, WIlliam H. 126n. 4 Bryan, Steven M. 209n. 7, 211n. 10, 212n. 12, 216n. 24 Buchanan, George Wesley 17n. 44 Bultmann, Rudolf 21–2, 35n. 108, 45n. 16, 61, 62, 64n. 11, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 90n. 31, 102, 120n. 7, 125, 128, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 174n. 19, 178, 186n. 54, 190n. 3, 192n. 10 Burchard, Christoph 145n. 41 Burkett, Delbert 190n. 3, 196n. 22 Burrows, Millar 125n. 4 Byrskog, Samuel 105n. 10, 109n. 20, 109n. 21, 114n. 41 Camponovo, Odo 10n. 20, 11n. 21, 12n. 26, 13n. 28, 13n. 29, 14n. 35, 15n. 431

Cangh, Jean-Marie van 28n. 80, 28n. 83 Caragounis, Chrys C. 27n. 77, 201n. 41, 202n. 42, 203n. 45, 203n. 46 Carlston, Charles E. 130n. 18 Carmignac, J. 149n. 57 Carson, D. A. 67n. 21, 100n. 60 Casey, Maurice 10n. 17, 18n. 46, 22n. 62, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 32n. 99, 62n. 7, 73n. 42, 74n. 46, 78n. 2, 190n. 4 190n. 5, 191n. 7, 192n. 9, 192n. 11, 193n. 13, 194n. 15, 194n. 16, 195n. 18, 195n. 19, 195n. 20, 196n. 21, 197n. 25, 198, 202n. 42 Catchpole, David R. 81n. 6, 84n. 18, 88n. 27, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 92n. 36, 120n. 11, 130n. 18 Cerfaux, Lucien 176n. 21 Ceroke, Christian Paul 61n. 2 Charles, R. H. 56n. 48, 159n. 86, 163n. 98 Charlesworth, James H. 50n. 34, 78n. 4, 134n. 2, 135n. 3, 137n. 7, 160n. 89 Chester, Andrew 111n. 31, 115n. 45, 134n. 2, 137n. 7, 138n. 16, 150n. 58, 167n. 104, 212n. 14, 215n. 19, 216n. 23 Childs, Brevard S. 36n. 113, 37n. 116 Chilton, Bruce D. 15n. 39, 15n. 40 Christ, Felix 178n. 25, 183n. 45 Claudel, Gérard 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Collins, John J. 9n. 16, 10n. 17, 10n. 20, 11n. 23, 13n. 31, 14n. 36, 51, 55n. 45, 72n. 40, 94n. 43, 97n. 54, 135n. 3, 136n. 5, 137n. 7, 137n. 8, 138n. 16, 158n. 81, 158n. 82, 160n. 87, 161n. 92, 163n. 97 Colpe, Carsten 75n. 47, 97n. 54, 160n. 87, 160n. 88, 161n. 92, 190n. 3 Conzelmann, Hans 189n. 1 Cook, Edward 149n. 54

Cope, Lamar 82n. 10, 82n. 12, 83n. 15, 85n. 21, 89n. 29 Coppens, Joseph 7n. 3, 160n. 89, 162n. 93 Cotter, Wendy 41n. 2 Craffert, Pieter F. 32n. 97 Cranfield, C. E. B. 42n. 6, 127n. 11 Cross, Frank Moore 72n. 40 Crossan, John Dominic 40n. 1, 69n. 31, 171n. 9 Cullmann, Oscar 175n. 19 Dalman, Gustaf 6n. 1 Daube, David 108n. 20, 109n. 22 Davies, Stevan L. 42n. 5 Davies, W. D. 25n. 72, 26n. 74, 27n. 78, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 46n. 20, 46n. 21, 48n. 26, 49n. 30, 53n. 40, 54n. 42, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 68n. 28, 69n. 31, 70n. 33, 73n. 44, 79n. 4, 79n. 5, 81n. 6, 82n. 11, 87n. 24, 90n. 31, 92n. 37, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 102n. 3, 103n. 5, 104n. 7, 105, 108n. 18, 109n. 25, 111n. 30, 112n. 32, 114n. 44, 115n. 46, 118n. 2, 122n. 16, 122n. 17, 122n. 20, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 169n. 3, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 22, 177n. 23, 182n. 38, 186n. 54, 201n. 41, 203n. 45, 209n. 6, 211n. 11 Davila, James R. 32n. 98, 96n. 48, 147n. 48 Davis, Stephen T. 65n. 13 Dechow, Jens 24n. 68 Delcor, Mathias 96n. 48 Delitzsch, F. 54n. 41 Denaux, Adelbert 175n. 19 Derrett, J. D. M. 81n. 7 deSilva, David A. 203n. 44 Deutsch, Celia 178n. 25, 182n. 42, 183n. 45 DeVries, Simon J. 121n. 12 Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar 155n. 72 Dibelius, Martin 174n. 19 Dodd, C. H. 16, 16n. 41, 47n. 24, 99n. 59, 127n. 9, 132n. 24, 171n. 9, 171n. 10, 198n. 30

265 Donahue, John R. 207n. 4 Donaldson, Terence L. 114n. 41 Duff, Paul Brooks 24n. 69 Duhaime, Jean 51n. 37 Duling, Dennis C. 8n. 8, 50n. 34 Dunn, James D. G. 23n. 65, 25n. 71, 26n. 73, 46n. 18, 62n. 4, 64n. 10, 97n. 52, 101n. 2, 115n. 46, 165n. 103, 170n. 7, 171n. 8, 171n. 9, 171n. 10, 175n. 19, 180–3, 190n. 2, 195n. 19, 196n. 22, 203n. 45, 211n. 11 Ellingworth, Paul 203n. 44 Ellis, E. Earle 65n. 13, 208n. 6 Emmrich, Martin 28n. 80, 28n. 84 Ernst, Josef 49n. 31 Eshel, Hanan 161n. 89 Eskola, Timo 95n. 45, 96n. 51, 152n. 65, 158nn. 81–3, 159n. 84 Evans, C. F. 30n. 90 Evans, Craig A. 5n. 3, 8n. 9, 15n. 38, 27n. 77, 33n. 101, 138n. 18, 139n. 19, 140n. 22, 171n. 9, 203n. 45, 211n. 11 Eve, Eric 41n. 2, 41n. 3, 42n. 7 Faierstein, M. M. 55n. 45, 56n. 47, 56n. 51, 57n. 54 Fishbane, Michael 9n. 11 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 17n. 46, 27n. 77, 35n. 108, 38n. 121, 46n. 18, 49n. 30, 49n. 31, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 56n. 52, 58n. 61, 61n. 1, 64n. 11, 68n. 26, 72n. 41, 73n. 42, 79n. 5, 115n. 47, 122n. 21, 126n. 4, 135n. 3, 137n. 9, 138n. 13, 140n. 23, 149n. 57, 170n. 6, 171n. 9, 174n. 18, 175n. 19, 179n. 30, 182n. 38, 198n. 30 Fleddermann, Harry 22n. 63, 24n. 69, 28n. 81 Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. 121n. 14, 141n. 29, 151n. 62, 152n. 66, 155n. 75 Flint, P. W. 72n. 41

266 Flusser, David 17n. 45, 20n. 57, 41n. 3, 74n. 46, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 110n. 25, 138n. 11 Fossum, Jarl E. 141n. 29, 143n. 33, 146n. 45, 146n. 46, 157n. 77, 165n. 101 Foster, Paul 103n. 4, 106n. 14, 111n. 29 France, R. T. 54n. 41, 54n. 42,110n. 25, 127n. 11, 132n. 26, 173n. 14 Frankemölle, Hubert 133n. 27, 171n. 9, 172n. 11 Frey, Jörg 52n. 37, 69n. 30, 115n. 45 Friedrich, Johannes 90n. 30, 92n. 36 Fuchs, Albert 22n. 61, 26n. 74 Fuller, Reginald H. 79n. 5, 190n. 3 Funk, Robert W. 26n. 75, 27n. 77, 43n. 10, 61n. 2, 61n. 3, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 89n. 28, 103n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 122n. 17, 125n. 1, 129n. 15, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 170n. 5, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 24, 186n. 54 García Martínez, Florentino 71, 72n. 41, 94n. 43, 138n. 12, 149n. 53, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 215 Gathercole, Simon J. 187 Gench, Frances Taylor 183n. 45 George, Augustin 23n. 65, 27n. 79, 28n. 83, 43n. 8, 43n. 9, 43n. 10, 43n. 11, 44n. 12, 49n. 31 Gieschen, Charles A. 141n. 28, 141n. 29, 142n. 31, 143n. 34, 144n. 35, 146n. 45 Gnilka, Joachim 27n. 77, 35n. 108, 43n. 11, 44n. 12, 46n. 19, 54n. 42, 69n. 31, 80n. 5, 81n. 7, 113n. 35, 118n. 2, 119n. 6, 120n. 10, 122n. 17, 123n. 22, 125n. 1, 126n. 4, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 174n. 19, 182n. 41, 182n. 43, 186n. 54, 187n. 56 Goodenough, Erwin R. 154n. 71 Goulder, Michael D. 101n. 1

Index of Modern Names Gourgues, Michel 61n. 4 Grappe, Christian 7n. 3, 10n. 20, 19n. 53, 27n. 77, 58n. 60 Gray, Sherman W. 82n. 11 Gray, Timothy C. 211n. 10 Gregg, Brian Han 78n. 2, 93n. 39 Grelot, Pierre 72n. 40 Grindheim, Sigurd 84n. 17, 86n. 22, 148n. 50, 177n. 24 Grundmann, Walter 33n. 101, 37 n. 115 Guelich, Robert A. 42n. 6, 102n. 3, 127n. 9, 132n. 23 Guijarro, Santiago 21n. 59, 22n. 62, 23n. 65 Gundry, Robert H. 27n. 77, 52n. 39, 81n. 7, 175n. 19, 176n. 20 Haenchen, Ernst 20 Hagner, Donald A. 27n. 77, 100n. 60, 182n. 41 Hahn, Ferdinand 62n. 5, 170n. 5, 172n. 12, 173n. 15, 174n. 19, 190n. 3 Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. 28n. 80, 29, 29n. 88, 34n. 106 Hampel, Volker 61n. 2, 62n. 7, 65n. 13, 73n. 43, 201n. 40, 201n. 41 Hanhart, Karel 75n. 47 Hann, Robert R. 137n. 6 Hannah, Darrell D. 98n. 55, 98n, 56, 141n. 29, 142n. 32, 148n. 49, 160n. 89, 165n. 102 Hanson, John S. 140n. 27 Hare, Douglas R. 193n. 12, 194n. 15, 200n. 38, 201n. 42 Harrington, Daniel J. 61n. 2, 72n. 41, 73n. 43 Harvey, A. E. 109n. 23, 121n. 11, 211n. 10 Hatina, Thomas R. 24n. 68 Hauser, Michael 24n. 68 Hay, David M. 61n. 4 Hedner-Zetterholm, Karin 55n. 45 Heil, John Paul 84n. 16 Henderson, Suzanne Watts 187n. 56 Hengel, Martin 17n. 46, 23n. 64, 23n. 67, 27n. 77, 52n.

39, 62n. 4, 89n. 28, 109n. 20, 113n. 39, 118, 119n. 4, 119n. 4, 120, 121, 122, 131n. 20, 138n. 14, 173n. 16, 210n. 9 Hiers, Richard H. 18n. 46, 34n. 104 Hill, Andrew E. 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Hoffmann, Paul 29n. 86, 43n. 10, 44n. 12, 129n. 17, 130n. 18, 180n. 34, 181n. 37 Hofius, Otfried 65n. 13, 67n. 22, 67n. 24, 67n. 25, 70n. 32 Hogan, L. P. 72n. 40 Holladay, Carl R. 152n. 66, 155n. 72 Hollander, H. W. 33.n 101 Holtz, Traugott 102n. 3, 107n. 17 Hooker, Morna D. 61n. 2, 64n. 12, 65n. 13, 68n. 28, 73n. 43, 202n. 42, 203n. 44, 203n. 48 Hoover, Roy W. 26n. 75, 27n. 77, 43n. 10, 61n. 2, 61n. 3, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 89n. 29, 103n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 122n. 17, 125n. 1, 129n. 15, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 170n. 5, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 24, 186n. 54 Horbury, William 162n. 95, 216n. 24, 216n. 24 Horsley, Richard A. 66n. 20, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 140n. 27, 165n. 100 Horst, Pieter van der 31n. 94, 151n. 62 Horton, Fred L. 149n. 57 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 7n. 5, 7n. 6 Hubbard, Moyer V. 145n. 38, 145n. 43 Hughes, John H. 49n. 31 Hultgren, Arland J. 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 125n. 1, 126, 127n. 8, 171n. 9 Humphries, Michael L. 27n. 77, 35n. 111 Hunter, A. M. 175n. 19, 179n. 30 Hurtado, Larry W. 111n. 29, 151n. 63, 155n. 72, 156n. 76, 165n. 103

Isaac, E. 215n. 22 James, Montague Rhodes 137n. 6 Jeremias, Joachim 19n. 53, 20n. 56, 27n. 77, 35n. 111, 37 n. 115, 39n. 126, 48n. 26, 55n. 45, 55n. 47, 56n. 50, 56n. 53, 57n. 54, 77, 89n. 30, 90n. 31, 102n. 3, 113n. 37, 115n. 46, 125, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 170n. 6, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 175n. 20, 179n. 27, 203n. 45 Jervell, Jacob S. 103n. 5 Jonge, Marinus de 20n. 57, 33.n 101 Juel, Donald 208n. 5, 212n. 15, 213n. 16, 215n. 19 Juncker, Günther H. 52n. 39, 54n. 42, 72n. 40 Kampen, John 104n. 6 Käsemann, Ernst 111n. 31, 113n. 38 Kee, Howard Clark 33n. 103, 41n. 2, 52n. 38 Keener, Craig S. 27n. 77, 110n. 28 Keil, C. F. 54n. 41 Kim, Seyoon 65n. 13, 203n. 46 Klauck, Hans-Josef 61n. 2, 66n. 20, 73n. 43 Klausner, Joseph 15n. 37, 50n. 34, 55n. 45, 55n. 47, 57n. 57, 110n. 25, 113n. 38, 113n. 40, 114n. 43, 137n. 7, 169n. 1 Klein, Günter 79n. 4 Klein, Ralph W. 8n. 7 Klingbeil, Gerhard A. 30n. 91 Kloppenborg, John S. 22n. 61, 23n. 65, 29n. 86, 32n. 99, 128n. 13, 178n. 26, 181n. 37, 183n. 45, 184n. 48 Klutz, Todd E. 32n. 97, 32n. 98 Knibb, Michael A. 160n. 89 Kobelski,Paul J. 149n. 57, 150n. 60 Koch, K. 70 Koester, Craig R. 203n. 44 Kollmann, Bernd 17n. 46, 26n. 74, 41n. 2, 41n. 5

Index of Modern Names

267

Komoszewski, J. Ed 185n. 50 Koskenniemi, Erkki 41n. 2 Kraeling, Carl H. 43n. 8 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 135n. 4 Krämer, Michael 102n. 3 Kreitzer, Larry J. 93n. 39 Kreplin, Matthias 66n. 20 Kuck, D. W. 96n. 48 Kugler, Robert A. 33.n 101 Kuhn, Karl Georg 14n. 33 Kümmel, Werner G. 17n. 46, 19n. 52, 79n. 5, 130n. 18, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 174n. 19 Kvalbein, Hans 20n. 55, 50n. 34 Kvanvig, Helge S. 161n. 92, 163n. 96

66n. 20, 79n. 5, 81, 82n. 9, 82n. 11, 92n. 37, 95n. 46, 102n. 3, 105n. 10, 109n. 25, 110n. 26, 112n. 34, 122n. 17, 123n. 22, 128n. 14, 130n. 19, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 179n. 29, 180, 182n. 38, 182n. 41, 185n. 50 Lührmann, Dieter 207n. 3, 212n. 15, 213n. 16 Lybæk, Lena 48n. 28, 53n. 40

Labahn, Michael 25n. 72, 27n. 77 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 65n. 13 Lambrecht, Jan 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Lattke, Michael 11n. 21, 11n. 22, 13n. 28, 35n. 109, 36n. 112 Laufen, Rudolf 23n. 65, 32n. 99 Lee, Aquila 173n. 14, 175n. 19, 182n. 44 Leivestad, Ragnar 109n. 23, 190n. 4 Levey, Samson H. 126n. 7 Levine, Amy-Jill 101n. 2 Légasse, Simon 81n. 6, 85n. 21, 90n. 30, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 182n. 40, 183n. 45 Lichtenberger, Hermann 140n. 23 Lierman, John 152n. 64, 152n. 66, 154n. 71 Lindars, Barnabas 64n. 12, 73n. 42, 74n. 46, 172n. 12, 190n. 5,191n. 8, 192n. 9, 193n. 12, 196n. 20, 198, 201n. 42 Loader, William 101n. 2, 110n. 25, 110n. 28 Lohmeyer, Ernst 187n. 56 Lohse, Eduard 70, 78n. 2, 102n. 3, 113n. 38, 195n. 19, 206n. 1 Luz, Ulrich 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 45n. 15, 45n. 17, 46n. 19, 48n. 26, 50n. 34, 55n. 44,

Macaskill, Grant 52n. 39, 109n. 21, 116n. 49, 178n. 25 McBride, S. Dean, Jr. 9n. 14 McCane, B. R. 121n. 11 McDermott, John M. 187n. 55, 187n. 57 Mach, Michael 144n. 36, 144n. 37, 145n. 40 McKelvey, R. J. 162n. 95, 207n. 4, 208n. 6, 212n. 14, 214n. 18, 216n. 24 McKnight, Scot 79n. 4, 118n. 2, 118n. 3 McWhirter, Jocelyn 126n. 5 Maisch, Ingrid 17n. 46, 61n. 2, 73n. 43 Malchow, Bruce V. 54n. 41 Malone, Andrew S. 54n. 41, 54n. 42 Manson, T. W. 26–8, 74n. 46, 79n. 5, 89n. 30, 92n. 36, 93n. 38, 171n. 11 Manzi, Franco 150n. 60 Marcus, Joel 21n. 60, 29n. 88, 73n. 42, 73n. 44, 127n. 9, 132n. 22, 172n. 13, 185n. 52, 187n. 56, 208n. 5 Marguerat, Daniel 81n. 6, 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Marshall, Christopher D. 42n. 6 Marshall, I. Howard 18n. 47, 27n. 77, 37 n. 115, 65n. 13, 110n. 25, 113n. 35, 202n. 42 Marxsen, Willi 190n. 3 Mason, Eric F. 148n. 52, 150n. 60 Mearns, Christopher L. 19n. 51, 21n. 59, 160n. 89 Meeks, Wayne A. 151n. 63, 154n. 71

266 Flusser, David 17n. 45, 20n. 57, 41n. 3, 74n. 46, 95n. 47, 97n. 52, 110n. 25, 138n. 11 Fossum, Jarl E. 141n. 29, 143n. 33, 146n. 45, 146n. 46, 157n. 77, 165n. 101 Foster, Paul 103n. 4, 106n. 14, 111n. 29 France, R. T. 54n. 41, 54n. 42,110n. 25, 127n. 11, 132n. 26, 173n. 14 Frankemölle, Hubert 133n. 27, 171n. 9, 172n. 11 Frey, Jörg 52n. 37, 69n. 30, 115n. 45 Friedrich, Johannes 90n. 30, 92n. 36 Fuchs, Albert 22n. 61, 26n. 74 Fuller, Reginald H. 79n. 5, 190n. 3 Funk, Robert W. 26n. 75, 27n. 77, 43n. 10, 61n. 2, 61n. 3, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 89n. 28, 103n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 122n. 17, 125n. 1, 129n. 15, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 170n. 5, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 24, 186n. 54 García Martínez, Florentino 71, 72n. 41, 94n. 43, 138n. 12, 149n. 53, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 215 Gathercole, Simon J. 187 Gench, Frances Taylor 183n. 45 George, Augustin 23n. 65, 27n. 79, 28n. 83, 43n. 8, 43n. 9, 43n. 10, 43n. 11, 44n. 12, 49n. 31 Gieschen, Charles A. 141n. 28, 141n. 29, 142n. 31, 143n. 34, 144n. 35, 146n. 45 Gnilka, Joachim 27n. 77, 35n. 108, 43n. 11, 44n. 12, 46n. 19, 54n. 42, 69n. 31, 80n. 5, 81n. 7, 113n. 35, 118n. 2, 119n. 6, 120n. 10, 122n. 17, 123n. 22, 125n. 1, 126n. 4, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 174n. 19, 182n. 41, 182n. 43, 186n. 54, 187n. 56 Goodenough, Erwin R. 154n. 71 Goulder, Michael D. 101n. 1

Index of Modern Names Gourgues, Michel 61n. 4 Grappe, Christian 7n. 3, 10n. 20, 19n. 53, 27n. 77, 58n. 60 Gray, Sherman W. 82n. 11 Gray, Timothy C. 211n. 10 Gregg, Brian Han 78n. 2, 93n. 39 Grelot, Pierre 72n. 40 Grindheim, Sigurd 84n. 17, 86n. 22, 148n. 50, 177n. 24 Grundmann, Walter 33n. 101, 37 n. 115 Guelich, Robert A. 42n. 6, 102n. 3, 127n. 9, 132n. 23 Guijarro, Santiago 21n. 59, 22n. 62, 23n. 65 Gundry, Robert H. 27n. 77, 52n. 39, 81n. 7, 175n. 19, 176n. 20 Haenchen, Ernst 20 Hagner, Donald A. 27n. 77, 100n. 60, 182n. 41 Hahn, Ferdinand 62n. 5, 170n. 5, 172n. 12, 173n. 15, 174n. 19, 190n. 3 Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. 28n. 80, 29, 29n. 88, 34n. 106 Hampel, Volker 61n. 2, 62n. 7, 65n. 13, 73n. 43, 201n. 40, 201n. 41 Hanhart, Karel 75n. 47 Hann, Robert R. 137n. 6 Hannah, Darrell D. 98n. 55, 98n, 56, 141n. 29, 142n. 32, 148n. 49, 160n. 89, 165n. 102 Hanson, John S. 140n. 27 Hare, Douglas R. 193n. 12, 194n. 15, 200n. 38, 201n. 42 Harrington, Daniel J. 61n. 2, 72n. 41, 73n. 43 Harvey, A. E. 109n. 23, 121n. 11, 211n. 10 Hatina, Thomas R. 24n. 68 Hauser, Michael 24n. 68 Hay, David M. 61n. 4 Hedner-Zetterholm, Karin 55n. 45 Heil, John Paul 84n. 16 Henderson, Suzanne Watts 187n. 56 Hengel, Martin 17n. 46, 23n. 64, 23n. 67, 27n. 77, 52n.

39, 62n. 4, 89n. 28, 109n. 20, 113n. 39, 118, 119n. 4, 119n. 4, 120, 121, 122, 131n. 20, 138n. 14, 173n. 16, 210n. 9 Hiers, Richard H. 18n. 46, 34n. 104 Hill, Andrew E. 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Hoffmann, Paul 29n. 86, 43n. 10, 44n. 12, 129n. 17, 130n. 18, 180n. 34, 181n. 37 Hofius, Otfried 65n. 13, 67n. 22, 67n. 24, 67n. 25, 70n. 32 Hogan, L. P. 72n. 40 Holladay, Carl R. 152n. 66, 155n. 72 Hollander, H. W. 33.n 101 Holtz, Traugott 102n. 3, 107n. 17 Hooker, Morna D. 61n. 2, 64n. 12, 65n. 13, 68n. 28, 73n. 43, 202n. 42, 203n. 44, 203n. 48 Hoover, Roy W. 26n. 75, 27n. 77, 43n. 10, 61n. 2, 61n. 3, 73n. 43, 80n. 5, 89n. 29, 103n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 122n. 17, 125n. 1, 129n. 15, 132n. 21, 169n. 2, 170n. 5, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 177n. 24, 186n. 54 Horbury, William 162n. 95, 216n. 24, 216n. 24 Horsley, Richard A. 66n. 20, 130n. 18, 131n. 20, 140n. 27, 165n. 100 Horst, Pieter van der 31n. 94, 151n. 62 Horton, Fred L. 149n. 57 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 7n. 5, 7n. 6 Hubbard, Moyer V. 145n. 38, 145n. 43 Hughes, John H. 49n. 31 Hultgren, Arland J. 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 125n. 1, 126, 127n. 8, 171n. 9 Humphries, Michael L. 27n. 77, 35n. 111 Hunter, A. M. 175n. 19, 179n. 30 Hurtado, Larry W. 111n. 29, 151n. 63, 155n. 72, 156n. 76, 165n. 103

Isaac, E. 215n. 22 James, Montague Rhodes 137n. 6 Jeremias, Joachim 19n. 53, 20n. 56, 27n. 77, 35n. 111, 37 n. 115, 39n. 126, 48n. 26, 55n. 45, 55n. 47, 56n. 50, 56n. 53, 57n. 54, 77, 89n. 30, 90n. 31, 102n. 3, 113n. 37, 115n. 46, 125, 127n. 9, 130n. 18, 170n. 6, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 175n. 20, 179n. 27, 203n. 45 Jervell, Jacob S. 103n. 5 Jonge, Marinus de 20n. 57, 33.n 101 Juel, Donald 208n. 5, 212n. 15, 213n. 16, 215n. 19 Juncker, Günther H. 52n. 39, 54n. 42, 72n. 40 Kampen, John 104n. 6 Käsemann, Ernst 111n. 31, 113n. 38 Kee, Howard Clark 33n. 103, 41n. 2, 52n. 38 Keener, Craig S. 27n. 77, 110n. 28 Keil, C. F. 54n. 41 Kim, Seyoon 65n. 13, 203n. 46 Klauck, Hans-Josef 61n. 2, 66n. 20, 73n. 43 Klausner, Joseph 15n. 37, 50n. 34, 55n. 45, 55n. 47, 57n. 57, 110n. 25, 113n. 38, 113n. 40, 114n. 43, 137n. 7, 169n. 1 Klein, Günter 79n. 4 Klein, Ralph W. 8n. 7 Klingbeil, Gerhard A. 30n. 91 Kloppenborg, John S. 22n. 61, 23n. 65, 29n. 86, 32n. 99, 128n. 13, 178n. 26, 181n. 37, 183n. 45, 184n. 48 Klutz, Todd E. 32n. 97, 32n. 98 Knibb, Michael A. 160n. 89 Kobelski,Paul J. 149n. 57, 150n. 60 Koch, K. 70 Koester, Craig R. 203n. 44 Kollmann, Bernd 17n. 46, 26n. 74, 41n. 2, 41n. 5

Index of Modern Names

267

Komoszewski, J. Ed 185n. 50 Koskenniemi, Erkki 41n. 2 Kraeling, Carl H. 43n. 8 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 135n. 4 Krämer, Michael 102n. 3 Kreitzer, Larry J. 93n. 39 Kreplin, Matthias 66n. 20 Kuck, D. W. 96n. 48 Kugler, Robert A. 33.n 101 Kuhn, Karl Georg 14n. 33 Kümmel, Werner G. 17n. 46, 19n. 52, 79n. 5, 130n. 18, 171n. 9, 172n. 13, 174n. 19 Kvalbein, Hans 20n. 55, 50n. 34 Kvanvig, Helge S. 161n. 92, 163n. 96

66n. 20, 79n. 5, 81, 82n. 9, 82n. 11, 92n. 37, 95n. 46, 102n. 3, 105n. 10, 109n. 25, 110n. 26, 112n. 34, 122n. 17, 123n. 22, 128n. 14, 130n. 19, 171n. 9, 172n. 12, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 179n. 29, 180, 182n. 38, 182n. 41, 185n. 50 Lührmann, Dieter 207n. 3, 212n. 15, 213n. 16 Lybæk, Lena 48n. 28, 53n. 40

Labahn, Michael 25n. 72, 27n. 77 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 65n. 13 Lambrecht, Jan 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Lattke, Michael 11n. 21, 11n. 22, 13n. 28, 35n. 109, 36n. 112 Laufen, Rudolf 23n. 65, 32n. 99 Lee, Aquila 173n. 14, 175n. 19, 182n. 44 Leivestad, Ragnar 109n. 23, 190n. 4 Levey, Samson H. 126n. 7 Levine, Amy-Jill 101n. 2 Légasse, Simon 81n. 6, 85n. 21, 90n. 30, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 182n. 40, 183n. 45 Lichtenberger, Hermann 140n. 23 Lierman, John 152n. 64, 152n. 66, 154n. 71 Lindars, Barnabas 64n. 12, 73n. 42, 74n. 46, 172n. 12, 190n. 5,191n. 8, 192n. 9, 193n. 12, 196n. 20, 198, 201n. 42 Loader, William 101n. 2, 110n. 25, 110n. 28 Lohmeyer, Ernst 187n. 56 Lohse, Eduard 70, 78n. 2, 102n. 3, 113n. 38, 195n. 19, 206n. 1 Luz, Ulrich 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 45n. 15, 45n. 17, 46n. 19, 48n. 26, 50n. 34, 55n. 44,

Macaskill, Grant 52n. 39, 109n. 21, 116n. 49, 178n. 25 McBride, S. Dean, Jr. 9n. 14 McCane, B. R. 121n. 11 McDermott, John M. 187n. 55, 187n. 57 Mach, Michael 144n. 36, 144n. 37, 145n. 40 McKelvey, R. J. 162n. 95, 207n. 4, 208n. 6, 212n. 14, 214n. 18, 216n. 24 McKnight, Scot 79n. 4, 118n. 2, 118n. 3 McWhirter, Jocelyn 126n. 5 Maisch, Ingrid 17n. 46, 61n. 2, 73n. 43 Malchow, Bruce V. 54n. 41 Malone, Andrew S. 54n. 41, 54n. 42 Manson, T. W. 26–8, 74n. 46, 79n. 5, 89n. 30, 92n. 36, 93n. 38, 171n. 11 Manzi, Franco 150n. 60 Marcus, Joel 21n. 60, 29n. 88, 73n. 42, 73n. 44, 127n. 9, 132n. 22, 172n. 13, 185n. 52, 187n. 56, 208n. 5 Marguerat, Daniel 81n. 6, 90n. 30, 90n. 31 Marshall, Christopher D. 42n. 6 Marshall, I. Howard 18n. 47, 27n. 77, 37 n. 115, 65n. 13, 110n. 25, 113n. 35, 202n. 42 Marxsen, Willi 190n. 3 Mason, Eric F. 148n. 52, 150n. 60 Mearns, Christopher L. 19n. 51, 21n. 59, 160n. 89 Meeks, Wayne A. 151n. 63, 154n. 71

268 Meier, John P. 4n. 1, 4n. 2, 7n. 3, 8n. 8, 9n. 16, 10n. 20, 13n. 29, 18n. 50, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 20n. 55, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 30n. 89, 32n. 99, 37 n. 115, 40n. 1, 44n. 14, 51n. 35, 64n. 12, 73n. 44, 78n. 4, 79n. 5, 89n. 28, 101n. 2, 103n. 4, 105n. 11, 106n. 14, 107n. 15, 111n. 31, 115n. 46, 119n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 172n. 13, 186n. 54 Meiser, Martin 42n. 6 Menzies, Robert P. 28n. 80, 28n. 84, 28n. 85 Merkel, Helmut 19n. 53 Merklein, Helmut 12n. 25, 32n. 98 Merz, Anette 64n. 10, 66n. 20, 79n. 5, 115n. 46, 190n. 2 Meyer, Ben F. 23n. 65, 64n. 10, 108n. 18, 111n. 29 Meyer, Rudolf 72n. 40 Michaels, J. Ramsey 83n. 13 Michel, Otto 62n. 7 Milgrom, Jacob 65n. 14, 70n. 32 Milik, J. T. 56n. 49, 72n. 40, 137n. 9, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 150n. 60 Miller, David M. 54n. 41, 55n. 45, 58n. 59 Miller, Robert J. 128–9 Mohrlang, Roger 109n. 25 Montefiore, C. G. 119n. 4 Moore, George Foot 13n. 28, 15n. 37, 55n. 45, 93n. 40, 113n. 40 Moule, C. F. D. 196n. 23, 203n. 48 Mowinckel, Sigmund 9n. 13, 10n. 19, 15n. 37, 135n. 3, 159n. 86 Müller, Mogens 197n. 24, 204n. 49 Müller, Peter 69n. 29, 197n. 23 Müller, Ulrich B. 196n. 22, 201n. 42, 204n. 50 Neusner, Jacob 112n. 34, 120n. 8, 123n. 22, 211n. 10 Newsom, Carol A. 155n. 74 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 13n. 29, 56n. 48, 72n. 41, 97n. 54, 173n. 17, 203n. 47

Index of Modern Names Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 31n. 97, 51n. 36, 51n. 37, 52n. 38, 52n. 39 Noack, Bent 19n. 52 Nolan, Brian M. 50n. 34 Nolland, John 28n. 80, 29n. 88, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 102n. 3, 131n. 20, 175n. 19 Norden, Eduard 174n. 19, 178n. 25 Novakovic, Lidija 48n. 28, 50n. 34, 53n. 40 Nützel, Johannes M. 180n. 32 Oakman, Douglas E. 36n. 111 O’Neill, J. C. 125n. 2, 125n. 4 Orlov, Andrei A. 146n. 47 Overman, Andrew 103n. 4 Owen, Paul 197n. 25 Oyen, Geert van 40n. 1 Öhler, Markus 49n. 31, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 56n. 52 Pao, David W. 44n. 13, 46n. 20, 48n. 27, 131n. 20 Patrick, Dale 7n. 3 Payne, Philip B. 127n. 11, 132n. 25, 133n. 28 Pearson, Birger Albert 165n. 100 Percy, Ernst 36n. 114 Perrin, Norman 16n. 42, 16n. 43, 19n. 52, 19n. 53, 20n. 55, 22n.61, 127n. 9, 190n. 4 Pesch, Rudolf 35n. 108, 43n. 9, 43n. 10, 45n. 16, 61n. 2, 64n. 12, 66n. 20, 73n. 43, 78n. 4, 125n. 1, 127n. 10, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 11, 172n. 12, 186n. 54 Philonenko, Marc 51n. 35, 145n. 41 Pietsch, Michael 137n. 6, 138n. 17 Piper, Ronald A. 21n. 60 Porter, Stanley E. 67n. 21 Portier-Young, Anathea 145n. 42, 146n. 44 Priest, J. 13n. 32 Prieur, Alexander 19n. 53 Puech, Émile 51n. 37, 72n. 40, 137n. 10, 138n. 16, 139n. 22, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 150n. 60

Rad, Gerhard von 8n. 7 Rainbow, Paul A. 150n. 60, 150n. 61 Rausch, Thomas P. 52n. 39 Räisänen, Heikki 23 Reicke, Bo 182n. 39 Reiser, Marius 77n. 1, 93n. 39, 94n. 41, 94n. 42, 95n. 47, 97n. 52 Riesner, Rainer 46n. 18, 115n. 46, 115n. 48, 130n. 18, 175n. 19 Riniker, Christian 90n. 30, 92n. 36, 130n. 18 Robinson, James McConkey 29n. 86, 78n. 1 Robinson, J. A. T. 81n. 6, 85n. 21, 87n. 24, 89n. 30, 90n. 31, 190n. 2 Rodd, C. S. 27, 28n. 80, 29n. 87 Rohland, Johannes Peter 142n. 32 Roose, Hanna 94n. 42 Rowe, Robert D. 8n. 7, 8n. 10, 11n. 24, 12n. 24, 13n. 31 Rowland, Christopher 18n. 48, 96n. 49, 141n. 30, 160n. 87 Runia, David T. 166n. 103 Ryle, Herbert Edward 137n. 6 Sabbe, Maurits 176n. 21 Sabin, Marie 132n. 25 Saldarini, Anthony J. 41n. 3, 109n. 25 Sanders, E. P. 16n. 42, 18, 32n. 100, 40n. 1, 42n. 7, 69n. 31, 78n. 4, 79n. 5, 89n. 28, 117n. 1, 120n. 7, 120n. 10, 207n. 4, 210n. 9, 211n. 10, 211n. 11 Sandmel, Samuel 112n. 34 Schäfer, Peter 55n. 45, 114n. 42 Schenk, Wolfgang 125n. 4 Schimanowski, Gottfried 163n. 97 Schlier, Heinrich 30n. 91 Schlosser, Jacques 15n. 37, 17n. 46, 19n. 52, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 27n. 77, 30n. 90, 48n. 26, 52n. 39, 111n. 29, 119n. 4, 208n. 4 Schmithals, Walter 74n. 46, 78n. 3, 127n. 9

Schnabel, Eckhard J. 44n. 13, 46n. 20, 48n. 27, 131n. 20 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 17n. 46 Scholtissek, Klaus 24n. 68, 66n. 19 Schrage, Wolfgang 113n. 38 Schröter, Jens 17n. 46, 23n. 64, 27n. 77, 52n. 39 Schüpphaus, Joachim 137n. 6 Schürer, Emil 10n. 19, 14n. 33, 93n. 40, 160n. 89 Schürmann, Heinz 22n. 61, 44n. 14, 45n. 16, 48n. 25, 127n. 10, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 181n. 37 Schwarz, Günther 198n. 30, 201n. 42 Schweitzer, Albert 16 Schweizer, Eduard 31, 81, 91n. 33, 101n. 1, 130n. 19, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 181n. 35, 195n. 19 Schwemer, Anna Maria 12n. 27 Scott, James M. 47n. 22 Scott, Steven Richard 162n. 93, 162n. 94 Scroggs, Robin 165n. 100 Seeley, David 210n. 9 Segal, Alan F. 147n. 48 Segalla, Giuseppe 19n. 53 Sellew, Philip 23n. 66, 35n. 111 Shirock, Robert J. 22n. 62 Siegert, Folker 130n. 18, 207n. 4 Sigal, Philip 101n. 2 Sim, David C. 90n. 31 Skarsaune, Oskar 171n. 11 Smith, C. Drew 170n. 4, 185n. 49 Smith, John Merlin Powis 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Smith, Morton 158n. 81 Smith, Ralph L. 9n. 12, 9n. 15, 54n. 41 Snodgrass, Klyne R. 210n. 9, 212n. 14 Stanton, Graham N. 25n. 70, 86n. 23, 103n. 4, 111n. 30 Starcky, Jean 56n. 52, 139n. 22 Stec, David M. 126n. 6 Steck, Odil Hannes 37 n. 117, 128n. 12, 128n. 13

Index of Modern Names

269

Stendahl, Krister 47n. 23 Sterling, Gregory E. 25n. 71, 165n. 100 Stone, Michael E. 95n. 45, 139n. 20, 160n. 89 Strecker, Georg 102n. 3, 107n. 16, 109n. 25, 112n. 32 Strugnell, John 139n. 19 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 95n. 45, 137n. 7, 139n. 21 Stuhlmacher, Peter 52n. 39 Suggs, M. Jack 105, 106n. 14, 128n. 12, 178n. 25, 183n. 45 Sung, Chong-Hyon 64n. 10, 65n. 14, 66n. 16, 67n. 21, 70n. 34, 70n. 36 Suter, David W. 160n. 89 Svartvik, Jesper 101n. 2

van Iersel, Bas M. 70n. 33, 73n. 43, 171n. 9, 171n. 11, 172n. 13, 173n. 14, 175n. 19, 176n. 21, 178n. 26 Van Oyen, Geert 40n. 1 VanderKam, James C. 161n. 91, 161n. 92, 162n. 93, 163n. 97 Verhoef, Pieter A. 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Vermes, Geza 10n. 19, 40n. 1, 41n. 3, 55n. 45, 56n. 51, 72, 73n. 42, 160n. 89, 172n. 13, 174n. 19, 198, 200n. 39, 201n. 41, 201n. 42 Vielhauer, Philipp 17n. 46, 38n. 122, 80n. 5, 111n. 31, 189n. 1 von Kienle, Bettina 49n. 31 Vouga, François 107n. 16

Tate, Marvin E. 7n. 3 Taylor, Vincent 172n. 13, 187n. 56 Theisohn, Johannes 81n. 6, 161n. 91, 162n. 93 Theissen, Gerd 4n. 2, 40n. 1, 64n. 10, 66n. 20, 69n. 31, 79n. 5, 115n. 46, 189n. 2, 207n. 4 Thielman, Frank S. 110n. 25 Thiselton, Anthony C. 165n. 100 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 72n. 41, 215n. 20, 215n. 21 Tödt, Heinz Eduard 190n. 3 Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 49n. 31 Trunk, Dieter 27n. 77, 28n. 82, 31n. 96, 31n. 97 Tuckett, Christopher M. 63n. 8, 194n. 14, 194n. 15 Turner, H. E. W. 88n. 27 Twelftree, Graham H. 17n. 46, 22n. 62, 25n. 71, 31n. 97, 33n. 101, 36n. 111, 42n. 5

Wacholder, Ben Zion 109 Wall, Robert W. 28n. 80, 30n. 90 Watts, Rikki E. 29n. 88, 46n. 20, 54n. 41 Webb, Robert L. 49n. 31 Weinfeld, Moshe 30n. 91 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 203n. 44 Weiss, Johannes 16 Weiss, Wolfgang 67n. 25, 68n. 28, 127n. 9 Wellhausen, Julius 136n. 6 Wendebourg, Nicola 93n. 39, 98n. 57, 164n. 99 Wiefel, Wolfgang 46n. 21, 90n. 31 Wilckens, Ulrich 81n. 6, 85n. 20, 88n. 27, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 178n. 25 Williamson, Ronald 165n. 103 Willitts, Joel 20n. 57 Winandy, Jacques 172n. 13 Wink, Walter 44n. 14, 63n. 7, 74n. 46 Winter, Dagmar 4n. 2 Wise, Michael O. 109n. 24, 149n. 54 Witherington, Ben, III 31n. 94, 113n. 36, 172n. 13, 173n. 14, 178n. 25 Wolff, Peter 25n. 72 Wolfson, H. A. 166n. 103 Wolter, Michael 13n. 31, 21n. 58, 46n. 20, 52n. 39, 55n. 44

Uhlig, Siegbert 160n. 89 Umometo, Naoto 14n. 36 Uro, Risto 18n. 49 Vaage, Leif E. 35n. 111 Van de Water, Rick 97n. 53, 149n. 54, 149n. 55, 150n. 59, 150n. 60

268 Meier, John P. 4n. 1, 4n. 2, 7n. 3, 8n. 8, 9n. 16, 10n. 20, 13n. 29, 18n. 50, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 20n. 55, 23n. 65, 27n. 77, 30n. 89, 32n. 99, 37 n. 115, 40n. 1, 44n. 14, 51n. 35, 64n. 12, 73n. 44, 78n. 4, 79n. 5, 89n. 28, 101n. 2, 103n. 4, 105n. 11, 106n. 14, 107n. 15, 111n. 31, 115n. 46, 119n. 4, 119n. 5, 120n. 7, 172n. 13, 186n. 54 Meiser, Martin 42n. 6 Menzies, Robert P. 28n. 80, 28n. 84, 28n. 85 Merkel, Helmut 19n. 53 Merklein, Helmut 12n. 25, 32n. 98 Merz, Anette 64n. 10, 66n. 20, 79n. 5, 115n. 46, 190n. 2 Meyer, Ben F. 23n. 65, 64n. 10, 108n. 18, 111n. 29 Meyer, Rudolf 72n. 40 Michaels, J. Ramsey 83n. 13 Michel, Otto 62n. 7 Milgrom, Jacob 65n. 14, 70n. 32 Milik, J. T. 56n. 49, 72n. 40, 137n. 9, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 150n. 60 Miller, David M. 54n. 41, 55n. 45, 58n. 59 Miller, Robert J. 128–9 Mohrlang, Roger 109n. 25 Montefiore, C. G. 119n. 4 Moore, George Foot 13n. 28, 15n. 37, 55n. 45, 93n. 40, 113n. 40 Moule, C. F. D. 196n. 23, 203n. 48 Mowinckel, Sigmund 9n. 13, 10n. 19, 15n. 37, 135n. 3, 159n. 86 Müller, Mogens 197n. 24, 204n. 49 Müller, Peter 69n. 29, 197n. 23 Müller, Ulrich B. 196n. 22, 201n. 42, 204n. 50 Neusner, Jacob 112n. 34, 120n. 8, 123n. 22, 211n. 10 Newsom, Carol A. 155n. 74 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 13n. 29, 56n. 48, 72n. 41, 97n. 54, 173n. 17, 203n. 47

Index of Modern Names Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm 31n. 97, 51n. 36, 51n. 37, 52n. 38, 52n. 39 Noack, Bent 19n. 52 Nolan, Brian M. 50n. 34 Nolland, John 28n. 80, 29n. 88, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 102n. 3, 131n. 20, 175n. 19 Norden, Eduard 174n. 19, 178n. 25 Novakovic, Lidija 48n. 28, 50n. 34, 53n. 40 Nützel, Johannes M. 180n. 32 Oakman, Douglas E. 36n. 111 O’Neill, J. C. 125n. 2, 125n. 4 Orlov, Andrei A. 146n. 47 Overman, Andrew 103n. 4 Owen, Paul 197n. 25 Oyen, Geert van 40n. 1 Öhler, Markus 49n. 31, 55n. 44, 55n. 45, 56n. 52 Pao, David W. 44n. 13, 46n. 20, 48n. 27, 131n. 20 Patrick, Dale 7n. 3 Payne, Philip B. 127n. 11, 132n. 25, 133n. 28 Pearson, Birger Albert 165n. 100 Percy, Ernst 36n. 114 Perrin, Norman 16n. 42, 16n. 43, 19n. 52, 19n. 53, 20n. 55, 22n.61, 127n. 9, 190n. 4 Pesch, Rudolf 35n. 108, 43n. 9, 43n. 10, 45n. 16, 61n. 2, 64n. 12, 66n. 20, 73n. 43, 78n. 4, 125n. 1, 127n. 10, 169n. 2, 171n. 9, 172n. 11, 172n. 12, 186n. 54 Philonenko, Marc 51n. 35, 145n. 41 Pietsch, Michael 137n. 6, 138n. 17 Piper, Ronald A. 21n. 60 Porter, Stanley E. 67n. 21 Portier-Young, Anathea 145n. 42, 146n. 44 Priest, J. 13n. 32 Prieur, Alexander 19n. 53 Puech, Émile 51n. 37, 72n. 40, 137n. 10, 138n. 16, 139n. 22, 149n. 57, 150n. 59, 150n. 60

Rad, Gerhard von 8n. 7 Rainbow, Paul A. 150n. 60, 150n. 61 Rausch, Thomas P. 52n. 39 Räisänen, Heikki 23 Reicke, Bo 182n. 39 Reiser, Marius 77n. 1, 93n. 39, 94n. 41, 94n. 42, 95n. 47, 97n. 52 Riesner, Rainer 46n. 18, 115n. 46, 115n. 48, 130n. 18, 175n. 19 Riniker, Christian 90n. 30, 92n. 36, 130n. 18 Robinson, James McConkey 29n. 86, 78n. 1 Robinson, J. A. T. 81n. 6, 85n. 21, 87n. 24, 89n. 30, 90n. 31, 190n. 2 Rodd, C. S. 27, 28n. 80, 29n. 87 Rohland, Johannes Peter 142n. 32 Roose, Hanna 94n. 42 Rowe, Robert D. 8n. 7, 8n. 10, 11n. 24, 12n. 24, 13n. 31 Rowland, Christopher 18n. 48, 96n. 49, 141n. 30, 160n. 87 Runia, David T. 166n. 103 Ryle, Herbert Edward 137n. 6 Sabbe, Maurits 176n. 21 Sabin, Marie 132n. 25 Saldarini, Anthony J. 41n. 3, 109n. 25 Sanders, E. P. 16n. 42, 18, 32n. 100, 40n. 1, 42n. 7, 69n. 31, 78n. 4, 79n. 5, 89n. 28, 117n. 1, 120n. 7, 120n. 10, 207n. 4, 210n. 9, 211n. 10, 211n. 11 Sandmel, Samuel 112n. 34 Schäfer, Peter 55n. 45, 114n. 42 Schenk, Wolfgang 125n. 4 Schimanowski, Gottfried 163n. 97 Schlier, Heinrich 30n. 91 Schlosser, Jacques 15n. 37, 17n. 46, 19n. 52, 19n. 53, 20n. 54, 27n. 77, 30n. 90, 48n. 26, 52n. 39, 111n. 29, 119n. 4, 208n. 4 Schmithals, Walter 74n. 46, 78n. 3, 127n. 9

Schnabel, Eckhard J. 44n. 13, 46n. 20, 48n. 27, 131n. 20 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 17n. 46 Scholtissek, Klaus 24n. 68, 66n. 19 Schrage, Wolfgang 113n. 38 Schröter, Jens 17n. 46, 23n. 64, 27n. 77, 52n. 39 Schüpphaus, Joachim 137n. 6 Schürer, Emil 10n. 19, 14n. 33, 93n. 40, 160n. 89 Schürmann, Heinz 22n. 61, 44n. 14, 45n. 16, 48n. 25, 127n. 10, 175n. 19, 178n. 26, 181n. 37 Schwarz, Günther 198n. 30, 201n. 42 Schweitzer, Albert 16 Schweizer, Eduard 31, 81, 91n. 33, 101n. 1, 130n. 19, 172n. 13, 175n. 19, 181n. 35, 195n. 19 Schwemer, Anna Maria 12n. 27 Scott, James M. 47n. 22 Scott, Steven Richard 162n. 93, 162n. 94 Scroggs, Robin 165n. 100 Seeley, David 210n. 9 Segal, Alan F. 147n. 48 Segalla, Giuseppe 19n. 53 Sellew, Philip 23n. 66, 35n. 111 Shirock, Robert J. 22n. 62 Siegert, Folker 130n. 18, 207n. 4 Sigal, Philip 101n. 2 Sim, David C. 90n. 31 Skarsaune, Oskar 171n. 11 Smith, C. Drew 170n. 4, 185n. 49 Smith, John Merlin Powis 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Smith, Morton 158n. 81 Smith, Ralph L. 9n. 12, 9n. 15, 54n. 41 Snodgrass, Klyne R. 210n. 9, 212n. 14 Stanton, Graham N. 25n. 70, 86n. 23, 103n. 4, 111n. 30 Starcky, Jean 56n. 52, 139n. 22 Stec, David M. 126n. 6 Steck, Odil Hannes 37 n. 117, 128n. 12, 128n. 13

Index of Modern Names

269

Stendahl, Krister 47n. 23 Sterling, Gregory E. 25n. 71, 165n. 100 Stone, Michael E. 95n. 45, 139n. 20, 160n. 89 Strecker, Georg 102n. 3, 107n. 16, 109n. 25, 112n. 32 Strugnell, John 139n. 19 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 95n. 45, 137n. 7, 139n. 21 Stuhlmacher, Peter 52n. 39 Suggs, M. Jack 105, 106n. 14, 128n. 12, 178n. 25, 183n. 45 Sung, Chong-Hyon 64n. 10, 65n. 14, 66n. 16, 67n. 21, 70n. 34, 70n. 36 Suter, David W. 160n. 89 Svartvik, Jesper 101n. 2

van Iersel, Bas M. 70n. 33, 73n. 43, 171n. 9, 171n. 11, 172n. 13, 173n. 14, 175n. 19, 176n. 21, 178n. 26 Van Oyen, Geert 40n. 1 VanderKam, James C. 161n. 91, 161n. 92, 162n. 93, 163n. 97 Verhoef, Pieter A. 54n. 41, 54n. 43 Vermes, Geza 10n. 19, 40n. 1, 41n. 3, 55n. 45, 56n. 51, 72, 73n. 42, 160n. 89, 172n. 13, 174n. 19, 198, 200n. 39, 201n. 41, 201n. 42 Vielhauer, Philipp 17n. 46, 38n. 122, 80n. 5, 111n. 31, 189n. 1 von Kienle, Bettina 49n. 31 Vouga, François 107n. 16

Tate, Marvin E. 7n. 3 Taylor, Vincent 172n. 13, 187n. 56 Theisohn, Johannes 81n. 6, 161n. 91, 162n. 93 Theissen, Gerd 4n. 2, 40n. 1, 64n. 10, 66n. 20, 69n. 31, 79n. 5, 115n. 46, 189n. 2, 207n. 4 Thielman, Frank S. 110n. 25 Thiselton, Anthony C. 165n. 100 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 72n. 41, 215n. 20, 215n. 21 Tödt, Heinz Eduard 190n. 3 Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 49n. 31 Trunk, Dieter 27n. 77, 28n. 82, 31n. 96, 31n. 97 Tuckett, Christopher M. 63n. 8, 194n. 14, 194n. 15 Turner, H. E. W. 88n. 27 Twelftree, Graham H. 17n. 46, 22n. 62, 25n. 71, 31n. 97, 33n. 101, 36n. 111, 42n. 5

Wacholder, Ben Zion 109 Wall, Robert W. 28n. 80, 30n. 90 Watts, Rikki E. 29n. 88, 46n. 20, 54n. 41 Webb, Robert L. 49n. 31 Weinfeld, Moshe 30n. 91 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 203n. 44 Weiss, Johannes 16 Weiss, Wolfgang 67n. 25, 68n. 28, 127n. 9 Wellhausen, Julius 136n. 6 Wendebourg, Nicola 93n. 39, 98n. 57, 164n. 99 Wiefel, Wolfgang 46n. 21, 90n. 31 Wilckens, Ulrich 81n. 6, 85n. 20, 88n. 27, 90n. 30, 90n. 31, 178n. 25 Williamson, Ronald 165n. 103 Willitts, Joel 20n. 57 Winandy, Jacques 172n. 13 Wink, Walter 44n. 14, 63n. 7, 74n. 46 Winter, Dagmar 4n. 2 Wise, Michael O. 109n. 24, 149n. 54 Witherington, Ben, III 31n. 94, 113n. 36, 172n. 13, 173n. 14, 178n. 25 Wolff, Peter 25n. 72 Wolfson, H. A. 166n. 103 Wolter, Michael 13n. 31, 21n. 58, 46n. 20, 52n. 39, 55n. 44

Uhlig, Siegbert 160n. 89 Umometo, Naoto 14n. 36 Uro, Risto 18n. 49 Vaage, Leif E. 35n. 111 Van de Water, Rick 97n. 53, 149n. 54, 149n. 55, 150n. 59, 150n. 60

270

Index of Modern Names

Woods, Edward J. 22n. 62, 23n. 64, 27n. 77, 30nn. 90–3, 33n. 101, 34n. 107 Woude, A. S. van der 72n. 40, 137n. 8, 150n. 59, 150n. 60 Wright, N. T. 17n. 46, 58n. 60, 123n. 23, 187n. 57, 195n. 17, 212n. 12, 212n. 14 Wright, Robert B. 137n. 6

Yadin, Yigael 34n. 105 Yarbro Collins, Adela 66n. 20, 73n. 45, 127n. 10, 136n. 5, 137n. 7, 138n. 16, 161n. 92, 163n. 97, 169n. 2, 190n. 3, 208n. 5, 210n. 9, 212n. 13 Yates, J. E. 27n. 79 Yieh, John Yueh-Han 50n. 32, 111n. 29, 180n. 31

Xeravits, Géza G. 138n. 16, 149n. 54

Zager, Werner 78n. 2, 92n. 36

Zeller, Dieter 22n. 64, 111n. 31, 113n. 38 Zenger, Eric 7n. 5, 7n. 6 Ziccardi, Costantino Antonio 18n. 46 Ziesler, J. A. 127n. 9 Zimmermann, Johannes 11n. 23, 137n. 8, 138n. 15, 138n. 16, 138n. 17, 139n. 19, 140n. 22, 140n. 24, 140n. 25, 140n. 26, 158n. 81 Zumstein, Jean 90n. 30, 90n. 31