John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161540059, 9783161540066, 3161540050

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum N euen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber I Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber I Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

403

Brian C. Dennert

John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew

Mohr Siebeck

BRIAN C. DBNNERT: bom 1982; 2003 BA; 2006 MDiv; 2009 ThM; 2013 PhD; currently Pastor of Leaderl!bip 'fraining Residency and Theo1ogy at Faith Church in Dyer, IN.

ISBN 978-3-16-154005-9 e!SBN 978-3-16-154006-6 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019

ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliograpbie; detailed bibliograpbic data are availab1e oo the Iotemet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Mohr Siebeck, Tübiogen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced. in whole or in part, in any form (beyond th.at permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

To Beth

Preface 1bis study is a slightly revised version of my 2013 doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Theology at Loyola University Chicago. My dissertation supervisor, Dr. Ed:mondo Lupieri, deserves a special thank you for serving as a great director for my research and for being a wonderful mentor to me throughout my studies at Loyola. Dr. Thomas l l Tobin, SJ ofLoyola University Chicago and Dr. Niebolas Perrin of Wheaton College also served on my dissertation committee and offered helpful critiques of my argumentation and style, for which I am grateful. The faculty and students in the Department of Theology at Loyola created an attnosphere that both encouraged me and challenged me in my studies and research, and I thank them for their influence on my development as a scholar. I am also grateful for the administrative help provided by Catherine Wolf and Marianne Wolfe throughout my time at Loyola and the leadership provided Dr. Wendy J. Cotter, CSJ as the Graduale Program Director. A number of people helped me navigate the intricate publication process for this monograph. Alec Lucas, Teresa Calpino and Isaac Oliver all helped me know how to move from dissertation to book, and many others encouraged me to submit my manuscript for consideration. I thank Dr. Tobias Nicklas and Dr. Jörg Frey for accepting my manuscript for publication; I am honored that my work will appear in this series of monographs that I have continually found helpful in my own research. I also want to thank Henning Ziebritzki and the statT at Mohr Siebeck for their guidance and help. There are many others whose support and encouragernent prepared me for and preserved me through the work of this monograph. The faculties at Cedarville University and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School helped develop my interest and abilities in biblical scholarship during my undergraduate and graduale studies. I have been blessed with wonderful parents, Rick and Lea Dennert, who have supported every venture in my life. The men, women, and children at Trinity Presbyterian Church cared for me while writing and revising this work, continually rerninding me of why I wanted to write this in the first place. Finally, I must thank my wife, Betb, and our children, Emma and Micah. Beth believed in my ability to complete this project more than I did, and I would not have done it without her support. I dedicate this volume to her.

Table of Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations ........................................................................................... XIII

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................... I I. History of Research and Status Quaestionis .......................................... I 1.1 Mattbew and Judaism ...................................................................... 2 1.2 John the Baptist... ............................................................................ 7 1.3 John the Baptist in Matthew .......................................................... l5 1.4 Status Quaestionis and the Contribution ofTbis Prqject ............... 18 2. Approach of the Proj ect ....................................................................... 19 2.1 Positions Regarding Sources, Date, and Intended Audience .......... 19 2.2 Methodology ................................................................................. 25 3. Summary of Argument and Chapters ................................................... 29

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four First- or Early Second-Century Texts ..................................................... 31 I. The Baptist in Mark ............................................................................ 32 1.1 Evidence ....................................................................................... 33 1.1.1 Mark 1:1-15 .......................................................................... 33 1.1.2 Mark 2: 18-22 ........................................................................ 36 1.1.3 Mark6:14-29 ........................................................................ 37 1.1.4 Mark 8:28 .............................................................................. 39 1.1.5 Mark 9:11-13 ........................................................................ 39 1.1.6 Mark 11:27-33 ...................................................................... 41 1.2 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 42 2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts ..................................................................... 43 2.1 Evidence ....................................................................................... 44

X

Table of Contents

2.1.1 Luke .................................................................................. 45 2.1.1.1 Luke 1:5-80 ................................................................... 45 2.1.1.2 Luke 3:1-22 ................................................................... 48 2.1.1.3 Luke 5:33-39 .................................................................. 53 2.1.1.4 Luke 7:18-35 .................................................................. 53 2.1.1.5 Luke 9:7-9 ..................................................................... 56 2.1.1.6 Luke 9:18-21 .................................................................. 57 2.1.1.7 Luke 11:1-4 ................................................................... 51 2.1.1.8 Luke 16:16 ..................................................................... 51 2.1.1.9 Luke 20:1-8 ................................................................... 58 2.1.2 Acts ....................................................................................... 59 2.1.2.1 Acts 1:4-5 ...................................................................... 59 2.1.2.2 Acts 1:21-22 .................................................................. 60 2.1.2.3 Acts 10:34-43 ................................................................ 60 2.1.2.4Acts 11:15-17 ................................................................ 60 2.1.2.5 Acts 13:23-25 ................................................................ 61 2.1.2.6Acts 18:24-19:7 ............................................................. 61 2.2 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 65 3. The Baptist in John .............................................................................. 66 3.1 Evidence ....................................................................................... 69 3.1.1 John 1:6--8, 15 ....................................................................... 69 3.1.2 John 1:19-42 ......................................................................... 71 3.1.3 John 3:22-4:3 ........................................................................ 75 3.1.4 John 5:33-36 ......................................................................... 78 3.1.5 John 10:40-41 ....................................................................... 80 3.2 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 80 4. The Baptist in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities ........................................ 82 4.1 Evidence ....................................................................................... 85 4.2 Evaluation ..................................................................................... 90 5. Conc1usion: Synthesis and Sul1l1IIlll)' ................................................... 92

Chapter 3. Matthew 21:23-32 and 17:10--13 ............................ 95 1. Matthew 21:23-32 ............................................................................... 96 1.1 Redaction and Context .................................................................. 97 1.2 The Crowd's View of John as a Prophet ..................................... 102 1.3 The Jewish Leaders' Fallure to Believe John .............................. 103 1.4 John Came in the "Way ofRighteousness" ................................. 108 1.5 The Belief ofTax Collectors and Prostitutes ............................... 114 1.6 Sul1l1IIlll)' ofMatthew 21:23-32 .................................................. 119 2. Matthew 17:10--13 ............................................................................. 120 2.1 Redaction and Context.. .............................................................. 121

Table of Contenta

XI

2.2 The Understanding of the Disciples and the F ailure of the Religious Leaders to Understand ................................................. 124 2.3 The Rejection ofthe Promised Elijah .......................................... 125 2.4 The RoJe ofthe Passage in the Dispute with Matthew's Jewish Opponents ....................................................................... 129 2.5 Summary ofMatthew 17:10-13 .................................................. 131 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 132

Chapter 4. Matthew 3: 1-17 ..................................................... 133 1. Content and Redaction ...................................................................... 133 1.1 Matthew 3:1-{5 ............................................................................ 133 1.2 Matthew 3:7-12 .......................................................................... 152 1.3 Matthew 3:13-17 ........................................................................ 165 2. The Depiction ofthe Baptist in Matthew 3:1-17 in Relation with 17:10-13 and 21:23-32 ............................................................. 172 3. The Relationship ofThemes in Matthew 3:1-17 to the Jewish Setting ofMatthew ....................................................... 175 3.1 The Similarities between John and Jesus 175 3.2 Jesus' Ministry as the Culmination of John's Ministry ................ 179 3.3 Summary..................................................................................... 181 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 182

Chapter 5. Matthew 9:14-17 and 11:2-19 .............................. 183 1. Matthew 9:14-17 .............................................................................. 183 1.1 Content andRedaction ................................................................ 185 1.2 Implications for the RoJe ofthe Matthean Baptist in the Gospel's Setting ................................................................ 194 2. Matthew 11:2-19 .............................................................................. 195 2.1 Context ....................................................................................... 196 2.2 Matthew II :2-{5 .......................................................................... 199 2.3 Matthew 11:7-15 ........................................................................ 206 2.4Matthew 11:16-19 ...................................................................... 216 2.5 Summary and Synthesis ofMatthew 11:2-19.............................. 226 2.6 Implications for the RoJe ofthe Matthean Baptist in the Gospel's Setting ................................................................ 226 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 227

XII

Table of Contents

Chapter 6. Matthew 4:12, 14:1-13a, and 16:14 ....................... 229 I. Matthew 4:12 .................................................................................... 230 2. Matthew 14:1-13a............................................................................. 235 2.1 Context ....................................................................................... 236 2.2 Matthew 14:1-2 .......................................................................... 238 2.3 Excursus: John the Baptist in Matthew 16: 14 .............................. 241 2.4 Matthew 14:3-13a ...................................................................... 244 2.5 Implications for the Role ofthe Matthean Baptist in the Gospel' s Setting ................................................................ 254 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 255

Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusions .................................... 257 I. Synthesis of Study ............................................................................. 257 2. Significance in Dialogue with Previous Studies ................................ 260 3. Suggestions for Further Research ...................................................... 260

Bibliography.............................................................................................. 265 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................................... 301 Index ofModern Authors .......................................................................... 323 Index of Subjects ....................................................................................... 333

Abbreviations Abbreviations are those of The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (2nd ed.; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014) with the following additions:

Ancient Texts Adv. Iovin. Op. imp. Matt.

Adversus Jovinianum (Against Jovinianus) Opus impeifectum in Matthaeum (Incomplete Commentary onMatthew)

Secondary Sources ACT ASE

BG HBSt lBT JSHJ MBI MTS NCBC

NTC NTMon PTS

RUIH SNTI StBib StBibEC StudLit TC ZECNT

Ancient Cbristian Texts Annali di Storia dell 'Esegesi Biblische Gestalten Herders biblische Studien Interpreting Biblical Texts Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Methods in Biblical Interpretation Marburger Theologische Studien New Cambridge Bible Commentary The New Testament in Context New Testament Monographs Parderbomer Theologische Studien Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History Studies in New Testament Interpretation Studi Biblici Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Studia Liturgica TC: A Journal ofBiblical Textual Criticism Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the N ew Testament

Chapter 1

Introduction In examining the role of John the Baptist within the Jewish setting of the Gospel ofMatthew, this study stands at the intersection oftwo areas ofscholarship (Matthean studies and study of John the Baptist) !hat can be surprisingly isolated from each other due to scholarly specialization and the glut of works produced within each field. 1 Therefore, rather than taclding a new issue, this study is an attempt to revisit a topic by placing it within a new framework, believing !hat attention to the Jewish setting of the Gospel of Matthew may prompt fresh observations and explanations for the roJe of the Matthean Baptist. After examining developments in research on Matthew and on the figure of John the Baptist and revealing how the advances in each area have not yet been applied to the study of the Matthean Baptist, an overview of the proj ect' s approach regarding sources, date, intended audience, and methodology will appear, followed by a preview of the averarehing argurnent ofthe work and the individual chapters.

1. History ofResearch and Status Quaestionis Since this study integrales two areas of scholarship, it is important to note the developments in each area and to survey the insights of those who have previously stood at this scholarly intersection. Therefore, this examination ofthe history of research will discuss research on Matthew and Judaism ( 1.1 ), research on John the Baptist in general (1.2), and discussions on the Matthean John (1.3), aod it will conclude with an overview of the status quaestionis and contribution oftbis project (1.4).

1

The sharp divide between the work of scholars doing "Jesus research" and commenta-

tors noted by Cmig S. Keener also applies to studies ofJohn the Baptist (see The Historical Jesus ofthe Gospels [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], xxviü-xxx).

2

Chapter 1. lntroduction

1.1 MatthewandJudaism

Discussion of the audience and setting of Matthew and its relationship to Judaism begins with the earliest writers on Matthew? Eusebius's Ecc/esiastical History includes Jrenaeus's statement that Matthew published a written gospel "among the Hebrews" (i!v ToT~ 'Eßpa{ot~) (Hist. Ecc/. 5.8.2 = Haer. 3.1.1), Origen's beliefthat Matthew wrote "to believing people from Judaism" (ToT~ c:brb 'Iouöa"iCTfLO!i m," 1DNT 2:93941). 39 See Morris M. Faierstein, "Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First?" JBL 100 (1981): 75-1!6; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "More about Elijah Coming First," JBL !04 (1985): 295-96; Markus Öhler, "The Expectation of Elijah and the Preseoce ofthe Kingdom ofGod," JBL 118 (1999): 461-64; Pellegrini, E/ija, 177,215-16. Dale C. Allisoo's attem.pt to refute Faierstein is not compelling (on the consensus around Faierstein's position, see Pellegrini, Elij, 160), but he does help remind scholars about the limited informationoftbis time period ("Elijah Must Come Firs~" JBL 103 [1984]: 256-58). It seems best to say that the idea of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah was not common, recognizing that some groups m.ight have had such a belief (Marcus, Mark, 2:646). 40 On the transfiguration prefiguring Jesus' resurrection, see Margaret E. Thral4 "Elijah aod Moses in Mark's Account ofthe Transfiguration," NTS 16 (1970): 305-17.

1. The Baptist in Mark

41

has not yet come. 41 While Jesus does not explicitly name John as Elijah, the description !hat "they did to him whatever they wanted" (9: 13) combined with the allusions to Elijah in the death of John and use of Mal 3:1 to introduce John identifies him as the "Elijah to come." The passage thus defends the Elijanic identity of John, using the suffering of the Son of Man to substantiate a suffering Elijah. 42

1.1.6Mark 11:27-33 The final reference to John occurs in a dispule in Jerusalem. After the demonstration in the temple (11:15-19) and the incident of the fig tree (11:12-14, 20--25), the chief priests, scribes, and elders, ask Jesus to tell them what authority he has to do "these things"43 and who gave him this authority (11 :28).44 Jesus responds to the question intended to trap him with a question !hat traps his opponents, as he asks about the origin of the "baptism of John" (11 :29--30). The discussion among Jesus' opponents reveals !hat they did not believe in John (11 :31) and that they "fear" the "crowd" because the crowd believes John to have been a prophet (11 :32). The Iack of response causes Jesus to refuse to answer their question (11 :33) and to tell them the parable of the wicked tenants (12: 1-12). A number of insights about the Markan Baptist emerge from this final passage. First, there is a difference of opinion about John between the religious Ieaders and the people, particularly in Jerusalem since "all Jerusalem" wen! out to John (1:5) and held John tobe a prophet while the religious Ieaders did not believe him (11:31). In addition, the crowd does not seem to have played a roJe in John's execution, as they still hold him to be a prophet after his death. The passage also bighlights similarities between the ministries of Jesus and John, as both challenge the religious establishment. 45 While there are 41

Brower, "Elijah," 88; Öhler, "The Expectation ofElijah," 469. Cf Joel Marcus, "Mark 9,11-13 'As It Has Been Written,"' ZNW 80 (1989): 42--63. While Wink labels John as "Elijah incognito" as a way to match the "messianic secret" about Jesus (John the Baptist, 16), it seems better to view this passage as showing John is umecognized and rejected as the promised Elijah like the Messiah was umecognized and rejected, as there is no command for secrecy about bis identity akin to Jesus' prohibitions of telling others about bis identity ( cf. Pellegrini, Elija, 383). Moreover, the Iack of explicit reference to John as Elijah is an indirect way that narrative makes its point, a technique common in Mark (Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 34 ). 4 3 "These things" appears to refer to the events in the temple as weil as the teaching in the temple described in 11:27 and potentially even Jesus• entire ministry. 44 It seems better to view the two parts of 11 :28 as asking the same thing in two different ways rather than two different questions (see C. A. Evans, Mark 8:22-16:20, 199201). 45 Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 65. On both figures purifying the cult, see Christine E. Joynes, "A Question of Identity: 'Who Do Peop1e Say That I Am?' Elijah, John the Bap42

42

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

similarities in their ministries and John's ministry is used as a way to defend Jesus' work, the ministry of John is subordinated under that of Jesus. 46 In fact, the reference to John's baptism would seem to recall this difference, as John's baptismal ministry looked forward to Jesus' ministry in the Spirit.

1.2 Evaluation In Mark's Gospel, John is the promised Elijah. A1l Elijah, he is Jesus' precursor who prepares the way for the ministry of the Son of God. Two important facets oftbis preparatory work are its prototypical and provisiooal natures. The many similarities between John and Jesus noted above show John as a prototype for Jesus' ministry. The ministries of John and Jesus are both in accordance with the Scriptures, with prophecies oflsaiah explaining the ministry of each figure. John and Jesus each prompt reexarninatioos of the traditiooal expectations for eschatological figures, as John is a suffering Elijah and Jesus a suffering Messiah, and the crowds and the disciples have problems recognizing the true identity of each figure in light of the way that they do not cohere to traditional expectatioos. John also foreshadows Jesus' ministry in that he presents a change from the status quo of Judaism and the Mosaic law in bis offer of forgiveness of sins in baptism rather than in the temple (1:4). John's popularity with the people and oppositioo from the Ieaders oflsrael as weil as the Rornan-appointed ruler (Herod Antipas) prefignres the respoose Jesus' ministry receives.47 The suffering of each figure also serves as an example ofthe fact that the followers of Jesus will suffer. Finally, the identificatioo of Jesus as the resurrected John as weil as Jesus' use of John in bis coofrootation with the religious Ieaders in Jerusalem shows the similarity between the two figures in the eyes of some individuals. Aloogside of these similarities, however, are a number of differences that point to Jesus' superiority and the provisional nature of John's ministry. John preaches baptism (1:4), but Jesus calls for faith in the gospel because ofthe kingdom (1:14-15). Moreover, John notes that bis baptism will be surpassed by "the mightier one" who will baptize with the Holy Spirit (1:7-8), showing John's practice to be temporary. In fact, Jesus r«iects the idea of "baptisms" (7:1-19) 48 and offers the forgiveness of sins by bis word (2:1-12), thus sup-

tist, and Jesus in Mark's Gospel," in Understanding, Studying, and Reading: New Testa-

ment Essays in Honour of John Ashton (ed. Christopher Rowland and Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis; JSNTSup 153: Sheffield: Sheffie1d Academic, 1998), 25. 46 See Lupieri, "John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions.'' 433. The subordination of John's ministry throughout the Gospel and the parable that follows indicate that Jesus is not ooly not inferior but the fulfillmeot of John's ministry (see France, Mark, 453). 47 Herod potslohn to death (6:16), and that the Herodians seek to kill Jesus (3:6). 48 While 7:4 uses ßa'1rt'!crJL6~ rather than ßli'1t't'ur~a, the term the one used to describe John' s ministry (1 :4), there seems to be some similarity between John's practices and those

1. The Baptist in Mark

43

planting John's ministry. While John advocates fasting like the Pharisees (2:18-22), Jesus alters the call to fast due to the salvation-historical importance ofhis presence and his ahsence (2:18-22); Jesus' ministry creates a radical shift in behavior and ritual practice. Johu and Jesus both discuss marriage laws, but Johu's teaching reflects the teaching of the Sinaitic law concerning marriage (6:18) while Jesus grounds his teachings in the account of creation (10:2-12). There are similarities in the sufferings of each, but Jesus is the only one who is raised from the dead and whose death has salvific qualities (10:45). Johu's ministry stands closer to the "old" form of Judaism than that advanced by Jesus. This is not due to a failure in Johu but rather to his place at "the beginning ofthe gospel"; Johu stands on the cusp ofthe eschatological fulfillment that occurs in Jesus' ministry, making Johu one who stands "between the times. " 49 The chronological separation of Johu and Jesus in Mark affirms that Johu's ministry occurs before Jesus' commences. While preparing for Jesus, John's work thus remains provisional, and once Jesus' ministry begins, Johu 's ministry is eclipsed. Many of the key elements discussed in chapter I concerning the Matthean portrayal of Johu appear in his Markan source. First, there are a number of ways in which Johu and Jesus parallel each other in Mark while also being differentiated, with John being subordinated to Jesus. Furthermore, the Markan Baptist stands "between the times," reflecting the divergent proposals concerning the Matthean Baptist's placement with the prophets or the church. Finally, the Elijah image is a key element in the Markan portrayal. These ideas do not seem to have originated with Matthew, as he seems to adapt these traditional themes for his own purposes.

2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts While Luke-Acts features unique material concerning the Baptist (e.g., Luke 1-2; Acts), much of its material is an independent development of some of the sourcesalso used by Matthew (Mark and Q traditions). Analysis of LukeActs therefore reveals the way that a different writer developed similar traditions for his own purposes at a comparable point in time.

ofthe Jews in line with their similar practices of fasting (cf. 2:18-22). The use of different words, however, could be a way toseparate John from the practice of other Jews. 4 9 Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 37.

44

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

2.1 Evidence Among the canonical gospels, Luke-Acts contains the most material about Jobn tbe Baptist. 50 Altbougb some scbolars have separated the perspective on tbe Baptist in tbe Lukan infancy narratives from the perspective offered in the rest of Luke-Acts, 51 tbis study will not assume a disjunction between Luke 12 and tbe rest of the work as tbe numerous tbem.atic connections between tbe birtb narratives and the rest oftbe Luke-Acts show that any potential sources have been thorougbly integrated into tbe rest of tbe work. 52

50 In addition to the monographs on the Lukan Baptist (Peter Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer: Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas [SNTSMS 99; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997]; Christoph Gregor Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet: Die Charakterzeichnung Johannes des Täufers im lukanischen Erzählwerk [HBSt 31; Freiburg: Herder, 2001]; Jaroslav Rindoä, He of Whom It is Written: John the Baptist and Elijah in Luke [ÖBS 38; Frankfurt a.m Main: Lang, 2010]), also see the discussions in Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (Irans. Geoffrey Buswell; New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 18-27; Wink, John the Baptist, 42-86; S. G. Wilson, "Lukan Eschato1ogy," NTS 15 (1970): 330-36; Bammel, "The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition," 105-9; Otto Böcher, "Lukas und Johanoes der Täufer," SNTSU 4 (1979): 27-44; Michael Bachmaon, "Johannes der Täufer bei Lukas: Nachzügler oder Vorläufer," in Wort der Zeit: Festgabe ftir Kar/ Heinrich Rengstoifzum 75. Geburtstag (ed. WilfridHaubeck and Michael Bachmann; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 123-55; I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (3d ed; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 145-47; Robert J. Miller, "Eiijah, Joho, and Jesus in the Gospel of Luke," NTS 34 (1988): 611-22; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 81-154; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke the Theologian (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), 86-116; Webb, John the Baptizer, 60-10; Lupieri, "Joho the Baptist in New Testament Traditions," 442-46; Tatum, John the Baptist, 54-72; U. Müller, Johannes der Täufer, 134--61. The discussion ofLuke in Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 105--44, only focuses on bis Sondergut, omitting Luke' s redaction of Markan and Q traditions. ' 1 E.g., Conzelmann ( The Theology of St. Luke, 22-24) and Böeher ("Lukas," 28-29) explicitly maintain divergences between the perspective of the Baptist in Luke 1-2 and Luke 3-24. Both Wink (John the Baptist) and Ernst (Johannes der Täufer) analyze the infancy narrative separately from the rest of Luke' s work. 52 On the numerous thematic Connections between the birth narratives and the rest of Luke-Acts, see H. H. Oliver, "The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts," NTS 10 (1963-64): 202-26; Joseph P. Tyson, "The Birth Narratives and the Beginning of Luke's Gospel," Semeia 52 (1991): 103-20. There are stylistic differences between Luke 1-2 and Luke 3-24 that point to 1-2 deriving from a source (see Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 109-10), but it is di:fficult ifnot impossible to determine what elements are pre-Lukan traditionsandin what context such traditions might have originated (see Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 10-44). For discussions on the issue ofa possible Baptist source in Luke 1, see Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 244--53; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greelc Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 46-50; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 113-20.

2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts

45

2.1.1 Luke

Before examining the Lukan data about the Baptist, one must note the omission ofMark 9:11-13. While this omission could Iead to tbe conclusion !hat Luke does not view Jobn as Elijah redivivus and suppresses this idea in bis redaction of Mark, 53 the difficulties found in tbis Markan text point to other plausible reasons for its omission. 54 Moreover, tbe appearance of Elijanic themes elsewbere in Luke, as discussed below, points against the absence of 9:11-13 being due to a desire to e1iminate Elijanic imagery. 2.1.1.1 Luke 1:5-80

Luke begins bis "order1y account" about Jesus with a record of Jobn's 1ineage and birth, a description !hat empbasizes bis pious roots and extraordinary origin. The first !hing described about Jobn is bis priestly beritage, as bis father was a priest and bis molher was also from the priestly 1ine (1:5). 55 Since Zecbariah and Elizabeth are ''righteous before God" and "b1ame1ess" (1:6), Jobn's parents are part ofthe faitbful peop1e oflsrae1. 56 The miraculous circumstances of bis hirth reca11 numerous birtb stories in the Jewish Scriptures, further connecting Jobn to the Jewisb peop1e. 57 The announeerneut of joy, g1adness, and the rejoicing ofmany (1:14) and description of Gabrie1 as "proc1aiming good news" (Eillrf'Ysl..fl;m) (1: 19) situates Jobn's birth as part of

53

AB maintained in e.g., Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 101, n. I; Wink, John

the Baptist, 42-43. 54

One stylistic reason for the omission could stem from the "rabbinic" questioning that

takes place in Mark 9:9-13

(Bamme~

''The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition," 106),

which Luke seeks to eliminate. Another explanation is that the passage is redundant in light ofthe suffering ofthe Son ofMan in 9:31 (Öhler, "The Expectation ofE!ijah," 467 n.

26). Luke's use of IA~Au9Ell in 7:33 ("For John the Baptist has come" [IA~Au9Ell]) conld also allude to the reference in Mark 9:13 !hat Elijah "has come" (~Au9E11), presenting another reason for the omission of Mark 9:11-13 (Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 86). For further considerations, see S. Wilson, "Lukan Eschatology," 333. 55 As also stressed by C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet, 93; Rindo§, He ofWhom, 41.

" C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet, 94, 102, 297. Against J. Massyngberde Ford, "Zealotism and the Lukan InfimcyNarrative," NavT 18 (1976): 28()-92, there is no need to associate John's family with the Zealots, as Luke uses the term ''righteous" to refer to

those who do the will ofGod(1:17; 2:25; 23:50; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14). 57

In particular, the story recalls the births of lsaac, Samson, and Samuel. The reversal ofbarrenness also appears in the births of Jacob and Esau and Joseph, and the reference to John being filled wi.th the Spirit is reminiscent of Jeremiah. The appearance of Gabriel recalls the figurein Daniel9-10 (see R. Brown, The Birth ofthe Messiah, 270--71 for more on the "echoes" of Daniel). On connections to the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the opening chapters as well as the outline of 1 Chronicles 1-10, see Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (NT Mon

I; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), 284-89, 523-27.

46

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

the fulfillment of the hope of restoration. 58 That the birth announcement occurs wbile bis father performed bis priestly work in the temple (1:8-14) shows John standing in continuity with the temple. John's ministry fulfills the promises ofMalachi, as "he will go before [the Lord their God] in the spirit and power of Elijah" to prepare the people (1: 17). 59 This Statement identifies John's ministry with that of the expected Elijah. 60 The text has a distinct emphasis on John's work as Elijah, as the focus on ''turning" (olmm:tl (5:33; 7:20, 33; 9:19). All appearances of this title likely come from bis sources, and no references are in bis special material or Acts. This tendency may indicate less of an emphasis on John's work ofbaptism, focusing on bis proclamation rather than on bis rite. 70 For arebuttal to Conzelmann's argument that the Jordan is the area ofJohn and Judea and Galilee the domain of Jesus (The Theo/ogy of St. Luke, 18-26), see Wink, John the Baptist, 48-51. 71 While often seen as a way to avoid Elijah typology, other plausible explanations exist for this absence, e.g., a focus on John's preaching of ethical reforms and social order (Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:469). 72 The absence of Mal 3:1 could stem from Mark's naming oflsaiah rather than Malach~ the appearance ofMal 3:1 and its themes in Luke 1:17 and 7:27, Luke's use ofQ at a point ofMark/Q overlap here, or its absence in Luke's form ofthe Markan source. 67 68

2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts

49

!hat "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6).73 This statement further grounds John's ministry as one of renewal of Israel and the dawning of salvation, with the return of the people from exile leading to the inclusion ofthe gentiles. 74 While John's ministry is towards Israel (1:80), it thus has a universal element as part ofits final goal. John's message features a note ofcomingjudgment (3:7) and a call to holy living (3: 8), with proper actions rather than proper lineage the means to escape the inuninent judgment (3:8b-9). There is a greater focus on ethics than ritual in John's message, as baptism is effective only if joined with "frnits" (Kilplt~), the nature of which 3:10---14 elucidate. John's exhortations to ethical behavior to the crowds, the tax collectors, and the soldiers (3:10, 12, 14) are in line with the interests of the Third Evangelist and the Lukan Jesus.75 This focus on proper actions fulfills the description of John's work as "turning hearts" in the opening chapter (1: 16-17). The emphasis on ethics also points to the possibility of inclusion of the gentiles, with the presence of soldiers likely indicating !hat gentiles were influenced by John's ministry. 76 While many ofthe differences between Luke 3:16-17 and Mark 1:7-8 also appear in Matthew and thus could be found in a tradition before Luke, n he 73

On the way that the expansion of the quotation alters the meaning oflsa 40:3 in Luke, see David W. Pao, Act.v and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2/138; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr. Bib1ical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 38-40. 74 The use oflsa 40 would link John's message with the return from exile, as John prepares them to retum from. exile. See discussion in Michael E. Fuller, "Isaiah 40.3-5 and Luk:e's Understanding ofthe Wildemess of John the Baptist," in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels Volume 3: The Gospel of Luke (ed. Thom.as Hatina; LNTS 376; SSF.JC 16; Edinburgh: T&T Oark, 2010), 43-58. 75 See Böcher, "Lukas," 31. However, one must not overstate the interests as peculiar to Luke in contrast to other writings of Jesus believers (Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 94-95; Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 138) and Jewish teachers (Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 142). On links to Greco-Roman ideas, see Bammel, "The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition," 1056; Brent Kinman, "Luke's Exoneration of John the Baptist," JTS44 (1993): 595-98. John's teaching, therefore, could indicate it is the fulfillment ofthe Jewish law as weil as GrecoRoman virtues (Bovon, Luke, 125). 76 While the text does not explicitly state that the soldiers were gentiles, it seems best to view them as gentiles in light of the difficulties a solider would have remaining a faith:ful Jew (see Wendy J. Cotter, "Cornelius, the Roman Army, andReligion," in Religious Rivalries and the Strugglefor Success in Caesarea Maritma [ed. Terence L. Donaldson; Studies in Christianity and Judaism 8; Water1oo: Wilfrid Laurier, 2000], 279-301) and the presence ofgentile centurions elsewhere in Luk:e-Acts (Luke 7:1-10; Acts 10:1-2). 77 This could be a place of Mark/Q overlap, as Matthew and Luke differ from Mark in portraying the baptism of''the mighty one" as a "Holy Spirit-and-fire" baptism, interweaving the comments ofthe superiority ofthe coming one vis-8-vis John with the comparison of their respective baptisms while omitting the Markan idea of "stooping down" (xUtjla~). and including reference to the gathering of grain and the burning of the chaff (3: 17). In contrast to Matthew, however, Luke also omits the fact that the "mighty one'' comes "af-

50

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

has thoroughly adapted bis sources into bis work. Luke places this teaching of John within the people's pondering of whether John is the Messiah (3:15), showing John's popularity and the people's interpretation of John in conjunction with eschatological beliefs such as the appearance of the Messiah. 78 John's response affirms the preparatory nature of bis work in three ways. First, John explicitly denies that he is the messiah, showing that there is not a dual messianism in Luke-Acts. 79 Second, John compares bis baptismal work with that of the coming one, showing that he prepares with water but that the coming one will give purification through the Holy Spirit and fire. 80 Third, ter" (0'1t'fuw) John. The omissionoftbis phrase could be a way to avoid the impression that Jesus was a disciple of John (on 0'1t'fo-cu J.WU referring to a teacher-student relationship, see

Grobe!, "He That Cometh," 397-401), particularly since Acts 13:25 (cf. Acts 10:37) uses the moretemporal term ~erd in recounting a saying similar tothat which appears here (see

Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:472-73). Luke does not exhibit the sam.e concern to show Jesus tobe John •s successor that appears in Mark 1:14, with Luke 3:21-22 leaving open the possibility that John and Jesus bad some chronological overlap in ministry. 78 Joel B. Green, The Gospel ofLuke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 180. 79 The familial connection between Mary and Elizabeth could actually be a way to show Jesus as from both the line of David and Aaron and thus fulfills multiple types of messianic expectations ( cf. Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 41 ). so The meaning of John's description of a baptism in Holy Spirit and fire is a complex issue; see esp. discussions in Ernest Best, "Spirit-Baptism," NovT 4 (1960): 236-43; James D. G. Dunn, "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," NovT 14 (1972): 81-92; Harry Fleddermann, "John and the Coming One (Matt 3:1-12//Luke 3:16-17)," SBL Seminar Papers, 1984 (SBLSP 23; Chico, CA: Scbolars Press, 1984), 377-84; Webb, John the Baptizer, 289-95; Arebio W. D. Hui, "Jobo the Baptist and Spirit-Baptism," EvQ 72 (1999): 99-115. While the reference to fire in 3:17 could suggest that "fire" is used in a negative sense of judgment in 3:16, both John's baptism and the baptism ofthe one who will come seem to have a positive meaning (Paul W. Hollenbach, "Social Aspects of John the Baptist's Preaching Mission in the Context ofPalestinianJudaism," ANRW2.I9.I [1979]: 867-68). The fulfillment of this baptism at Pentecost and at the "extensions of the event" in Acts (see Schuyler Brown, "Water Baptism and Spirit-Baptism in Luke-Acts," AThR 59 [1977]: 141-51) also points to a positive meaning of this baptism. While often used for imagery of judgment, fire can have the meaning of purification (see e.g., lsa 1:25; Ezek 22:18-22; Zech 13:9;

Mal3:1-3; IQS 4.2!l-21), with water also having a meaning ofpurification and connected to the Spirit in lsa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27; 37:14, 23; 39:29; Joel2:28-29; Jobo 3:5, providing a point of contact between water baptism and the baptism in Spirit and fire (for

connections betweeo the Holy Spirit and fire, see Isa 4:4; 40:24; 41:16, Jer 23:19; 30:23; Ezek 13:11-13; IQSb 5.24-25). Therefore, tbe haptism described in 3:16 is neither two baptisms (Webb, John the Baptizer, 289-95) nor a single baptism with two elements

(Duon, "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism," 81-92), bot a single baptism ofpurification (for similar view, see Hui, "Jobn the Baptist," 109-11; cf. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 146-48). The use ofjudgm.ent (:Iire) and salvation (gathering into the granary) in 3:17 makes that reference a summary of John's message of judgment and salvation, with the reference to baptism in 3:16 only highlighting the positive elements of John's message. On a simi1ar focus on the positive element of John's preaching in Luke, see Roberto Martinez, The Question of John

2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts

51

the image ofthe "threshing floor" reveals John's ministry tobe one ofseparation of the repentant and unrepentant in preparation for the one who is coming, who will give blessing ("into his granary'') or judgment ("burn with unquenchable fire") in light ofthe separation already made. 81 The section on John's ministry concludes by noting it tobe a summary of John's preaching and !hat he "was preaching good news to the people" (E"IiayyEÄ!l;E"to ~Ov A.a6v) (3:18). Therefore, John's preaching is in continuity with the preaching of the angels (1:19; 2:10), of Jesus (e.g., 4:18, 43; 8:1; 20:1), and ofJesus' disciples (e.g., 9:6; Acts 5:42; 8:4, 12; 11:20). 82 Johu thus stands as a prototype for the preaching of Jesus and the preaching of the disciples. 83 Moreover, the audiences of John and Jesus are similar, as John preaches to groups !hat later appear in Jesus' ministry. John's baptismal ministry and the proclamation of the "forgiveness of sins" will also be elements of the proclamation of the apostles in Acts, and his itinerant ministry has links with the ministry ofthe early church. 84 John's message differs from !hat of Jesus and his disciples, however, in !hat Johu 's message declares that one will come rather than that one has come. There is also discontinuity in particu1ar elements. For example, John proclaims !hat the tree will receive judgment soon (3:9) while Jesus speaks about a fig tree being given more time (13:6-9). 85 Although scholars have sought to argue that the description of John's fate before Jesus' haptism and the omission of explicit reference to John at Jesus' baptism are part ofLuke's attempt to locate John and Jesus in different salvathe Baptist and Jesus' Indictment of the Religious Leaders: A Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18-35 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012), 98-100, 175-76 (cf. ibid., 94-96). Marthrez, however, seems to downplay the negative element of John's preaching too strongly, as some judgment remains in the words of the Luk:an John. 81 See Robert L. Webb, "The Activity of John the Baptist's Expected Figure at the Tbreshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 ~Luke 3.17)," JSNT43 (1991): 103-11. 82 Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 88-89. Against Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 23 n. I (followed by e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke, I :475). Luke's use of EÖaJ11f.Aitw would seern to be a mistake if he intended to exclude John from the time of fulfillment (Marshall, Luke: Historian, 146). 83 Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 111. Fora challenge to Böcher's claim that there is no parallelism between John and Jesus outside of Luke 1-2, see C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet. 84 Conzelmann sees a liuk between John's preaching of (I) judgment, (2) repentance, and (3) exhortation and the preaching of the early chnrch (The Theology of St. Luke, 26), with Green also finding a liuk between John's message of(l) proclamation, (2) repentance, and (3) forgiveness with the comotissioning ofthe followers ofJesus in 24:47 (Luke, 170). On the itinerant connection, see Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1951), 10. 85 See Lupieri, "John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions," 443-44; Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 16().-74.

52

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

tion-bistorical eras or to diminish the figure of the Baptist in light of a competition with bis followers, 86 it seems more likely that this sequence is due to a narrative technique of Luke in wbich he summarizes John's ministry in a single unit and then removes him so that J esus is the only figure on stage. 87 Like the birth narratives, there are a number of other similarities occurting between the ministry of John in 3:1-19 and the ministry of Jesus in 3:204:44, substantiating that the removal of John in 3:20 has a similar function to that of I :80. 88 in addition, the reference to Herod as the figure who opposes John foreshadows the way that Herod will oppose Jesus (13:31; 23:6-12) and a different person named Herod will oppose the apostles (Acts 12:1-5). A significant difference between Luke and Mark seems to be that the reception of the Spirit is what starts the Lukan Jesus' ministry (3:23), not John's imprisonment as in Mark 1:14, indicating that Luke does not bighlight Jesus' ministry as chronologically following John's. ln surn, Luke depicts John fulfilling the prophecies about birn, as he calls Israel to repentance as one who prepares for another. While reference still appears to bis baptizing work, the focus of Luke's description is on his preacbing, which announces judgment, exhorts ethical behavior, and points to one who is to hring sal vation. ln effect, he preaches the gospel message before Jesus ministers, and therefore serves as a model for Jesus' followers.

86

The separation of John and Jesus into different salvation-historical epochs has been

most famously argued in Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 21. For critique of Conzelmann's view, see S. Wilson, "Lukan Eschatology," 331-32; Bachm.ann, "Johannes der Täufer," 123-55; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 100--101. A helpful catalogue of different theories appears in Richard J. Erickson, "The Jailing of John and the Baptism. of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21," JETS 36 (1993): 457-59, with Erickson adopting the position that an anti-

Baptistpoletnie stands behind Luke's construction, a positionnot followed here. 87 On the separation of John and Jesus as part ofa narrative technique ofLuk.e, see e.g., C. F. Evans, Luke, 230; R Brown, The Birth ofthe Messiah, 391-92; Green, Luke, 162; cf. C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet, 198-99. That John reappears in the Gospel indicates that there is not a firm separation between the two, making a narrative purpose more likely than a salvation-historical one (Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 54). 88 Both John and Jesus go to the wildemess (3:2; 4:1), have a passage from Isaiah define their ministry (3:4-6; 4:18), isane warnings to their audience (3:7-9; 4:24-27), are questioned about their identity (3:15; 4:34), and preach good news (3:18; 4:43); see R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 250 n. 44; Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer, 44-62; C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet, 181-95. The introduction of explicit opposition to John at this point, which prompts his removal, also serves to create a parallelism between John and Jesus, as Jesus filces opposition in 4:16-30 (Erickson, "The Jailing of John," 456).

2. The Baptist in Luke-Acts

53

2.1.1.3 Luke 5:33-39 Luke inc1udes the Markan story in which an unnarned group asks J esus about his discip1es eating whi1e the discip1es of John and the Pharisees fast. 89 The most noteworthy alterations are the comment about the frequent nature ofthe fasting of John's discip1es and the grouping offasting with prayers (5:33). 90 It seems best to view the additional comment in Jesus' response about not desiring new wine after drinking o1d wine because "The o1d is good" (5:39) as an affirmation of the "o1d" roots of Jesus' teaching, making the Pharisees innovators of new ideas. 91 Like its Markan source, the passage is more about salvation history than fasting. 92 John has preached about one who is to come, but his discip1es do not recognize that this figure is Jesus and act more 1ike the Pharisees as a result. The fai1ure for John's discip1es to see Jesus as the figure to come reveals that Jesus may not seem to match the figure John described and that not al1 properly understand John's message.

2.1.1.4 Luke 7:18-35 Whi1e the previous passage dealt with the fai1ure of John's discip1es and comes from Mark, the next reference to the Baptist derives from Q traditions and focuses on the failure of the Baptist to understand Jesus' teaching. 93 John's discip1es report to him about Jesus' actions (7:18), prompting John to askwhether Jesus is the one to come (7:19-20). Matthew 11:2 notes that John heard about these deeds whi1e in prison, but no reference to John's imprisonment occurs here and contemporaneous ministries of John and Jesus thus may be implied. 94 89

The use of''the disciples ofthe Pharisees" makes it unlikely that the Pharisees ask the

question (against Johnson, Luke, 98). 90 That 5:33 states Jesus' disciples "eat and drink" (Mark 2:18: "do not fast") offers a better connection to the previous story, where Jesus "eats and drink" (Luke 5:30); see C. Müller, Mehr als ein Prophet, 213. 91 For a more thorough argument for this interpretation, see Green, Luke, 249-50; cf. Bovon, Luke, 193. 92 That fasting will occur in the future (Luke 5:35; see Acts 9:8-11; 13:1-3; 14:23) indicates that the issue is not about fasting but a proper salvation-historical perspective. "With the exception of7:29-30, the rest of7:18-35 has a parallel in Matthew, malring it likely that such material comes from a shared written tradition (Q). For an opposing view arguing that 7:18-35 reflects a transformation ofthe story ofMicaiah in 1 Kings 22:1-38 rather than tradition(s) from Q, see Brodie, The BiTthing of the New Testament, 312-24. For more detailed discussion oftbis section, see Martfnez, The Question ofJohn. 94 See C. F. Evans, Luke, 350; Tilly, Johannes der Täufer, 85. Wbile the reference to John's imprisonment in 3:20 could make reference to John's imprisonment here unnecessary (see Martinez, The Question of John, 91), Luk:e's narrative style (discussed above) would not require John tobe in prison when he poses the question to Jesus, as the reference

54

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

The question that John asks Jesus, whom Luke Iabels as the Lord (7: 19),95 through two of his disciples indicates a failure of John to understand who Jesus is and highlights the contrast between the expectations of John about "the coming one" (6 epx6J.l&Voxli~E'IIov for Jesus' movement as in 1:29. Furthermore, Jesus is simpiy moving araund in 1:35, whereas he was coming toward the Baptist ('11'p0~ a'Ö't'Ov) in I :29.

3. The Baptist in John

75

Baptist's witness to Jesus, as the Baptist's disciples become the first disciples of Jesus at the encouragement ofthe Baptist. 1• 1

3.1.3 John 3:22-4:3 After remarks relating Jesus' baptizing work tothat ofthe Baptist (3:22-24), the Baptist has a dialogue with some ofhis disciples prompted by their argument with a "Jew" (3:25-30). Comments by the narrator follow this conversation (3:31-36), 192 with a reference to the Baptist then appearing in the introduction to Jesus' encounterwith the Samaritao woman (4:1-3). Since nothing in the text indicates that the haptizing ministries of the Baptist aod Jesus are different in content or meaning, Jesus' baptismal activity reveals parallels between the Baptist aod Jesus. 193 Jesus appears to minister in the Judeao countryside 194 while the Baptist works in Aenon near Salim, which is probably a location in Samaria. 195 The Baptist remains popular, aod his location shows his influence spreading to new areas. 196 The text does not describe why the Baptist chaoged locations, but the note of bis imprisonment (3:24) as weil as the explaoation Jesus' later movement (4:1-3) suggest that he changed locations because of opposition or persecution. 197

Merwe, "The Historical and Theological Significance," 272. Older exegetes often viewed 3:31-36 as the words ofthe Baptist (see Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 209), with some modern writers holding this view (e.g., C. Barrett, John, 182; Wahlde, John, 2:163; Williams, "John [the Baptist]," 56). It seems best to view them as the words of the narrator (with e.g., Moloney, John, 111; Carson, John, 212), as the passage shifts from dialogue to monologue, which also happens in Jesus' conversation with Nieodemus (3:12-21) (see Stowasser,Johannes der Täufer, 158 n. 25). 193 See R. Brown, John, 151; Stowasser, Johannes der Täufer, 202; cf. Schnackenburg, John, 1:411-12. It is unclear ifthis was the firsttimethat Jesus bad a baptismal ministry, as the imperfect !ßam!Csv could have ingressive force ("he began to baptize") or could show the resumption ofa habitual practice (as suggested in Moloney, John, 105). Perhaps it is best to view it as portraying an activity of long duration, indicating not whether Jesus begins or resumes baptizing butthat he did it for an extended period of time (see Stowasser, Johannes der Täufer, 202). Other similarities are that Jesus and the Baptist both possess disciples and are called ''rabbi." 194 Since Jesus was last seen in Jerusalem (2:23), the note that he trave1ed "into the Judean land" (el~ -rijv 1oua-a!av yij\1) is best interpreted as a movement from the urban center of Judea into the surrounding rural areas (see e.g., C. Barrett, John, 183; Schnackenburg, 191

192

John, I :41 0; Carson, John, 209; Wablde, John, 2: ISO), though the possibility remains that there was travel between 2:23 and 3:23 that is not explicitly mentioned (see Keener, John, I :576) orthat the textlinks different sources (see Moloney, John, 104).

"' As supported in e.g., Schnackeoburg, John, I :412; Carson, John, 209; Moloney, John, 108. 196

C. Barrett, John, 184; Bennema, ''The Character ofJohn," 275. In addition to reconciling the overlapping Drinistries of Jesus and the Baptist in John with their sequential ministry in the Synoptic traditions (Carson, John, 162; Stowasser, 197

76

Chapter 2. John the Baptist in Four Extant Texts

The Baptist's disciples engage in a dispute (~l]'tt]mc;) with a "Judean" (Iooöaioc;), 198 a person from the area in which Jesus is baptizing and that is hostile to the work of Jesus and John, 199 in a discussion that links this dispute with the previous comments about Jesus' baptizing activity. The Baptist's disciples learn about Jesus' growing influence in Judea in the midst of this dispute over purification (xa9ap1u!L6~). The Baptist and Jesus are thus allies against the Jewish establishment in advancing a different purity system. 200 By alluding to the Baptist's testimony about Jesus across the Jordan, the Statement of the Baptist's disciples about Jesus' popularity (3:26) serves as one more opportunity for the Baptist to testify about Jesus.2°1 The tone of the question that comes from the Baptist's disciples indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of John's testimony, in cantrast to the disciples of the Baptist in 1:35-50.202 The Baptist thus seeks to clarify bis roJe while

Johannes der Täufer, 204; Wahlde, John, 2:157, 162), the reference to bis imprisonment shows the Baptist will suffer (see Keener, John, 1:577; LiDCo!n, Truth on Trial, 65). 198

While an early papyrus (P"'), the original band of N, and some later majuscules (G,

9, 0141) and minuscules (f', 1' 3, 565, 597, 1071, 1342) read "Iou~afw>, there is early and widespread support for 'Ioucla:fou, and the fact that this is the only reference to a singular makes it more likely to be the original reading that was changed by scribes to the more common plural term (Metzger, A Textua/ Commentary, 175). Baldensperger and others (e.g., Bammel, "The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition," 110; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 208) conjecture that the text originally read "Jesus" (with others suggesting 'Tcdv 17Jaoü referring to the disciples of Jesus), but the Iack of evidence for this reading presents a major chal1enge. Fora thorough discussion oftbis topic and the view that the Evangelist is responsible for the change from "Jesus" to "a Jew," see John W. Pryor, "John the Baptist and Jesus: Tradition and Texts in John 3.24," JSNT 66 (1997): 15-26. 199 See Schnackenburg, John, 1:413-41; Mo1oney, John, 109. Whi1e the partner in debate with the Baptist's disciples could be a Jew who was baptized by Jesus (see Stowasser, Johannes der Täufer, 204), the fact that this term e1sewhere often refers opponents of Jesus casts doubt on such a possibility (cf. K.eener, John, 1:577, who notes that this personwas a Jew of"Pharisaic, Jerusalemite persuasion"). 200 Since the issue is "purification" and not "baptism," the issue is not the respective baptism.s of Jesus and the Baptist but the different approach to purification between the Baptist's disciples and other Jews (cf Carson, John, 210). The use ofl.o~ in Matthew causes the statement about the Ieaders fearing the crowd and their perception of John to have additional significance in Matthew. In his monograph on the crowds in Matthew, J. R C. Cousland argues !hat the crowds are a "distinct and relatively consistent entity, figuring, along with the disciples and Jewish Ieaders, as one of the main groups in the gospel," and a group that is "representative of Israel" but "distinct from its Ieaders."" Cousland also finds that Matthew portrays the crowd with "transparency'' in that they "do not represent members ofMatthew's community, but the Jewish people - as distinguished from their Ieaders - of Matthew's own day."20 In depicting the crowds as initially well-disposed towards Jesus but tunring on him at the prompting of the religious Ieaders, Cousland argues that Matthew's portrayal serves as a wayto call for Jews ofMatthew's time to overcome the opinions in circulation about Jesus and believe in him. In light ofthe transparency in the Matthean portrayal ofthe Oi(:Ao~ noted by Cousland, the crowd's opinion aboot John in 21:26 would thus reflect the 18

See Ernst Bammel, "The Baptist in Early Christion Tradition," NTS 18 (1971-72): 103. Note the use of the plural aoOAot in Matthew's account of the parable of the wicked tenants rather than single servant as in the Markan and Lukan fonns and the detail about killlog the servants in the parable of the wedding feast, something not found in the similar story of Luke 14:15-24. Prophets are called JoO:>.ot in LXX 2 Chron 24:19; Jer 7:25-26; 25:4 (cf Prov 9:3) (Hagner, Matthew, 2:620). On the motif ofthe fate ofthe prophets, see Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen: Neokirebener Verlag, 1967). The link between John and the fate of the prophets in Matthew is most notably developed in Wolfgang Trilling, "Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus," BZ3 (1959): 272-75,284. 19 J. R. C. Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (NovTSop 102; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 301. On discussion oftbis point, see ibid., 31-98. 20 Ibid., 302. Examination ofthe transparency ofthe crowds appears in ibid., 263-300.

1. Matthew 11.13-31

103

understanding of"the Jewish people ofMatthew's own day." While one must he cautious in moving from the text to the historical setting of the Gospel, the depiction ofthe Baptist in the other gospelsandin Josephus lends credence to the idea that a positive perspective on the Baptist persisted among Jews outside ofthe Jesus movement. Moreover, there is nothing in Matthew that indicates the crowd's opinion of John changes; while the crowd welcomes Jesus as a prophet (see 21:11) hut then calls for bis execution (27:20--23) and believes the lie about bis body being stolen (28: 15), John's prophetic status continues in the world of the narrative and therefore probably also in the world behind the narrative. Although Matthew's use of the present tense (Mxouu~>) to describe the crowds' opinion of John could be due to the use of direct discourse here,21 the present tense may further display the transparency ofthe text, showing that the Jewish people still believe John tobe a prophet. In light of Matthew's overall tendencies to draw parallels between the opponents of Jesus in the narrative and the opponents ofhis group, the view ofthe Jewish Ieaders and/or the Pharisees towards John would likely have some correspondence to the opponents ofMatthew's time. Matthew also differs from Mark in that the term "prophet" appears earlier in Matthew to describe John the Baptist. A reference to John's standing as a prophet occurs in Jesus' speech to the crowds (Tot~ 6xA.o1~) (11:7), 22 noting that they not only went to see a prophet but saw one who is more than a prophet (11:9). Jesus' application ofthe parable ofthe two children states that the chief priests and elders have rejected the will of God by rejecting John, a remark that portrays John as one who declares the will of God, affirming the central truth ofthe crowd's opinion about John. The two parablesthat follow highlight that God's messengers are continually rejected by the Jewish Ieaders, showing that John is rej ected like the prophets and like Jesus and Jesus' followers. While affirming that John is a prophet, Jesus declares John tobe "more than a prophet" (11:9, emphasis mine), indicating that the crowd is on the right track hut that its opinion of John needs refinement. 1.3 The Jewish Leaders' Failure to Believe John

This passage also goes beyond the Markan parallel in highlighting the failure of Jewish opponents to believe John. 23 As noted above, Matthew places the statement that Jesus' opponents were afraid of the crowd and that the crowd held John tobe a prophet on the lips ofJesus' opponents (Matt 21 :26) rather than as a comment ofthe narrator (Mark 11:32). While this shift could simply 21

As maintained in Hagner, Matthew, 2:618. On the Iack of differentiation between the singular and plural of Ö)(Aol in Matthew, see Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew, 37-39. 23 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 422, who notes that "behind Matthew's composition and editing" in 21:28-32 "lies the purpose ofhigbligbting the Jewish Ieaders' guilt." 22

104

Chapter 3. Matthew 21:23-32 and 17:10-13

be a smoother way of stating the point of the Marlcan text, the use of direct discourse shows Jesus' opponents intentionally and explicitly evading the truth in an effort to maintain control over the crowd. 24 They are more interested in appearances and power than in truth, a characteristic that marks the behavior of Jesus' Jewish opponents elsewhere (e.g., 6:1-18; 23:2-36; cf. 22:16)25 and will ultimately Iead to the suppression of the report of Jesus' resurrection (28:11-15). In fact, the Ieaders are so concerned about others' opinion of them that they fail to speak on important matters, including the status of a popular prophetic figure. Since the remarks of Jesus' adversaries echo Herod's attitude earlier in Matthew (14:5), a similarity also exists between the Jewish Ieaders and Herod 26 Matthew thus shows the religious Ieaders to be ineffective and unqualified Ieaders. The Matthean account also draws greater attention to the opposition of the religious Ieaders towards John the Baptist. While the Markan passage points out that Jesus' opponents did not "believe" John (Mark 11:31), the point is not further developed. In contrast, the Matthean Jesus revisits their opinion of John, noting again that they did not believe him (Matt 21:32). Moreover, Matthew notes that not only did Jesus' opponents refuse John when he came to them "in the way of righteousness" (21:32a) but even after "seeing" (18611TE~). they did not change their minds and believe. Matthew therefore portrays the religious Ieaders as repeatedly rejecting John. Most commentators see the implied object of "seeing" in 21:32 as the response of the tax collectors and prostitutes, often noting that their response should provoke repentance amongst the Jewish leaders,27 but a number of considerations in the context indicate that the object of "seeing" may rather be the ministry of Jesus. 28 First, Matthew uses the word E!öo• in the following 24

Cf. Konradt, Israel, Kirche, 137.

25

See Richard A. Edwards, Matthew's Story ofJesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 74; Carter and Heil, Matthew's Parables, 154; Yamasaki, John the Baptist, 138; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 506. 26 On their failure to act as Ieaders, see Bruner, Matthew, 2:369--70. The Jewish Ieaders are more like the leadership displayed by the gentiles than the ideal shown by Jesus and expected ofthe Ieaders ofGod's people (cf. 20:25-28). 27 See e.g., Dupont, "Les deux fils dissemblables," 27; Meier, .. John the Baptist," 401; Sand, Matthäus, 431; Daniel Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 297; W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:171; Hagner, Matthew, 2:614; Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 103; Hare, Matthew, 247; Carter and Heil, Matthew's Parahles, 158-59; Keener, Matthew, 509; Hultgren, The Parab/es of Jesus, 221; Luz, Matthew, 3:32; Olmstead, Matthew's Trilogy, 108; Turner, Matthew, 509. Bonnard also fiills into this camp, but bis comment that the religious Ieaders did not believe John and then did not believe Jesus (Matthieu, 313) reflects a tension that could Iead to the conclusion discussed in n. 28. " With Gundry, Matthew, 424. Cf. Bammel, "The Baptist in Early Christian Tradition," 103; Carter and Heil, Matthew's Parables, 158-59. This issue receives minimal considera-

1. Matthew 11.13-31

105

parable in the phrase !ÖovrE~ 'l'Ov ulov (21:38). 29 Furthermore, 21:32 notes the failure of the religious Ieaders to change their mind about John "afterward" (ßO'l'Epov), with the parable of the wicked tenants using the sarne word to introduce the sending of the son in 21:37.'0 The only other appearance of fLE'l'EfLEAOfU'I in Matthew and the Synoptics is Matt 27:3, in which Judas has "regret" after seeing !hat Jesus was condemned The discussion of Jesus' authority in 21:23-27 has already linked Jesus' authority with John's baptism, implying !hat accepting John's baptism will Iead to accepting Jesus' authority.' 1 Jesus' ministry therefore provides the chief priests and elders another chance to accept John's message. Since one's opinion and response to Jesus and John are intertwined, the r«iection of Jesus !hat Matthew chronicles is also a rejection of John the Baptist. R'; Mark 9:13: 0..~;\.uBE>), and Matthew's statement that ''they did not know bim [Joho]" (ou>< i:rrf.yw»rra.> a.uTiw). Additionally, Matthew uses illlt to j oin the facts that "they did not know bim" and ''they did to him as much as they willed," emphasizing this contrast. Matthew notes !hat the treatment of Elijab and Son of Man are similar (o6Tw~) rather than depicting both as the fulfillment of Scripture (Mark 9:12, 13). Finally, Matthew adds a comment about the disciples understanding that Jesus spoke about Joho (17:13). The primary aim oftbis passage does not seem to be to make clear !hat Joho is Elijab or simply to eliminate major problems in the Markan account in developing a "double typology" of Joho as the eschatological Elijab and Jesus suiTering like John. 107 Matthew explicitly states !hat Joho is Elijab earlier in the narrative (11:10, 14), so this does not stand as a new idea in this text. In addition, Matthew actually decreases the connections between John's death and Jesus' death hereinthat he removes Mark's remarks that both were "as it is written". 108 Matthew thus removes material that coheres with his interests elsewhere, as Matthew shows a propensity to relate Jesus' life to the Scriptures andbighlight similarities between Joho and Jesus. 109 Further examination of the changes made by Matthew reveals that the greater issue here is the disciples' understanding ofthe figure of Joho versus The idea of"double typology" appears in Osborne, Matthew, 650. On Matthew seeking to make c1ear that John is Elijah, see e.g., David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 168; Harrington, Matthew, 254. On Matthew eliminating difficu1ties in Mark's text, see e.g., Hagoer, Matthew, 2:497; C. A. Evans, Matthew, 322. 108 See Hagner, Matthew, 2:497; W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:715. That Matthew omits this reference to Jesus' death as fulfilling the Scriptures makes it unlikely that Matthew tries to show that Jesus' death but not John's is according to Scripture. The earlier references to Jesus' death being in accordance with Scripture might also explain the omission of the point here (J ohn Bowman, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christion Jewish Possover Haggadah [StPB 8; Leideo: Brill, 1965], 196). 109 While it is certainly possible that Matthew omitted the Markan statements that the suffering ofthe Son ofMan and Elijah "had been writteo" (ylypama1) because ofa fili1ure to find any texts supporting this point (as noted in e.g., Wentling, "A Comparison of the Elijan Motifs," 114), the Jewish Scriptures used by Matthew e1sewhere as "fu1fi1hnent" texts may cause one to wonder ifMatthew could not find any text to support this point (cf. Nolland, Mauhew, 709). Moreover, Brant Pitre offers a potential explanation for the view that Elijah would have to suffer in Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of Exile: Restoralion Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (WUNT 2/204; Tiibingeo: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 188-97, and W. Davies and Allison note that there is a possibility that traditions saw Elijah being rejected (Matthew, 2:716, referring to Mal 4:6; 4 Ezra 7:29). On the elimination of the phrases "as it is written" as a way to focus more upon John and Elijah, see Bonnard, Matthieu, 257. 107

124

Chapter 3. Matthew 21:23-32 and 17:10-13

the rejection of John by the religious Ieaders. After discussing the contrast between the disciples and the religious Ieaders in understanding who J ohn is and the implications of the rejection of the promised Elijah, attention will turn to the place and value of the text within the conflict between Matthew' s group and its J ewish opponents. 2.2 The Understanding of the Disciples and the Failure of the Religious Leaders to Understand

Rather than telling the audience !hat Jesus spoke about John the Baptist, the narrator's concluding comment states !hat the disciples understood (ovvijxav ol !Lctß~Tal) !hat Jesus was talking about John when he spoke about Elijah (17:13). Therefore, the issue is the disciples' awareness of this truth, not John's identity. This text implies !hat the disciples did not understand John to be Elij ah until this point. The failure of the disciples to grasp this truth when Jesus initially teaches it demonstrates !hat Jesus' declaration !hat John is Elijah (11:14-15) is indeed difficult to understand. 110 The disciples need Jesus' help tobe able to recognize John as Elijah.lll in contrast to the disciples' understanding is the uniquely Matthean note about the failure of others to "know" (~mytvwaxw) John tobe Elijah.' 12 While adding that those who "did to [Elijah] whatever they pleased" did not "know" him, Matthew does not state explicitly who these indi viduals are. As in Mark, the most natural reading would be to identify "they'' with the "scribes," the last group mentioned in the text. 113 An objection to this proposal, however, is !hat the scribes play no roJe in Matthew's account ofthe death of John. 114 The comment !hat ''thus also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them" (Matt 17: 12b) offers some clarity, however, by connecting those who did not "know" John with those who cause the suffering of Jesus, a group !hat Jesus has states includes the elders, chief priests, and scribes (Matt 16:21 ). 115 in effect, Matthew makes these people accomplices in John's death.' 16 While Matthew still depicts J ohn' s death at the hand of Herod and includes no note 110

John's sufferlog and death, the only narrated events about John between Matt 11 and 17, mayhave madebelief in him as Elijah even more difficult. 111 Patte, Matthew, 239. 112 Bammel (''The Baptist in Early Christion Tradition," 102 n. 6) highlights Trilling's notable failure to discuss the fact that John was "not known" (see "Die Täufertradition," 279-1!2). Gundry lists !•nyiVruu""' as a Mattheanism (Matthew, 348). 113 Cf. Bonnard, Matthieu, 258, who notes that the term initially applies to scribes but expands to all the populace. Hagner notes that ''they'' are the scribes and Jewish leaders (Matthew, 2:499). E.g., Yamasaki,John the Baptist, 135. Noted in e.g., Trilling, "Die Täufertradition," 280; R. Edwards, Matthew's Story, 63; W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:716; Nolland, Matthew, 709. 110 Origen, Comm. Matt. 13.1 (ANF9:474). 114

115

2. Matthew 17:10--13

125

about the participation ofthe religious Ieaders io John's death, this comment could reflect that these groups did nothing to stop Herod from killiog John and were pleased with it. 117 Moreover, the chief priests, elders, and scribes do not actually kill Jesus, as he is executed by the Romans, but they are implicated for supporting and dernandiog this action by the Romans. 118 Therefore, the text reveals a parallelism between John and Jesus in their rejections, pointing to the iovolvement of Jewish Ieaders io the death of each man. The reference to the "scribes" teachiog that Elijah comes first but participating with the group that did not "know" him conforms to the earlier portrayal ofthe scribes in Matthew. In 2:1-12, the scribes have the correct teachiog ab out the birthplace of the Messiah but rather than seeking out the Messiah to worship him, they are participants io Herod's plot to locate and destroy the Messiah. Later, the Matthean Jesus highlights that the scribes and the Pharisees say the right thing but do not do it (23:2-3). 119 The scribes therefore teach what is right (Elijah must come) but do not practice it (they refuse to acknowledge his arrival io the form of John). In the same way (ollTw~). the Ieaders stumble over Jesus even though he does the works of the promised Messiah, and they will do to him what they wish: destroy him. Thus, their Iack of recognition of John and Jesus is not an iotellectual deficiency, but an active rejection and opposition. 120 2.3 The Rejection of the Promised Elijah

The passagealso draws further attention to John's identity as the Elijah promised in Malachi who calls the people of Israel to repentance io preparation for the arrival of the day of the Lord and to the rej ection of this figure by the Ieaders. The Matthean form of the passage does this through iocreasing the connections to the prophecy of Malachi and stressiog that the fulfillment of this passage has happened io the person of John. As a result, the failure ofthe religious Ieaders to heed John's message means that they stand under a curse. The redactional analysis of the passage above noted the subtle difference between Matt 17:11 and Mark 9:12 io Matthew's use of a future form of ll) ''puts more stress on the activity of baptism" (W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:288; cf. Clayton R Bowen, "Prolegomena to a New Study of John the Baptist," in Studies in the New Testament: Collected Papers of Dr. Clayton R. Bowen [ed. Robert J. Hutcheon; Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1936], 33-34). Ifthe article is a later addition influenced by the identification of John as "the Baptist" (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutscbe Bibelgesellscbaft, 1994], 62), the emphasis in Mark on John's baptizing work is even stronger, as bis appearance is characterized by baptizing (ßaml~wv) and preaching a baptism ("''PVuv aÖ't'ou) and 4 Kgdms I :8 (Cc.\v~v 8Ep!LaT!v~v mp••Cwufdvo~ rijv 6ucj>!Jv auTou). Closer examination ofMatt 3:4, however, reveals a number of difficulties with the description of John evoking the figure ofElijah. 37 One weakness isthat Matt 3:4 is not an exact parallel to 4 Kgdms 1:8. Another weakness isthat the description of Elijah wearing a leather belt is a minor feature in the account of Elijah, meaning that an allusion to 4 Kgdms I :8 may not be readily discemed by the original audience. In addition, the use of a leather belt was typical of a Bedouin; it was not unique to Elijah or unusual. Moreover, 4 Kgdms I :8 states that Elijah is a hairy man (av~p 8a in Mark 1:6 (D, a), but there are no variaots in Matt 3:4 featuring alpp· 46 Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist, 17; Yamasak:i, John the Baptist, 84. Against Tilly, Johannes, 38, 175-87, who argues for a connection between John's diet and the proph-

ets on the basis ofa controversial claim found in Otto Böcher, "Aß Johannes der Täufer kein Brot (Luk. Vii.33)?" NTS 18 (1971-72): 90--92. For ao evaluation ofBöcher's position, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:48. 47 Jo. Taylor, The Immerser, 35-38; cf. Scobie, John the Baptist, 136-40. Against Turner, Matthew, 109; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 10.4 (NPNF' 10:64); Peter Chrysologus, Sermons, 167.8-9 (Simonetti, Matthew, la:41). Adnlfvon Schialterhighlights that Johu possesses the garments ofthe repentance and the poor (Der Evangelist Matthäus: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbständigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium [6th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwcr, 1963], 60), combining this position with the view discussed in the following note. 48 See e.g., Vielhauer, "Tracht und Speise," 53; R M. Becker, "Kamelhaare," 20--21. The normalcy of John's dress among Bedouins is readily recognized (e.g., Scobie, John the Baptist, 128, 135-36; W. Davies aod Allison, Matthew, 1:296; Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 286), but Luz rej ects the position that John' s diet is the normal diet of a Bedouin, which he notes is ''bread, milk, aud dstes" (Matthew, I: 136 n. 19). II need not be argued, however, that the normal diet of a Bedouin consisted only oflocusts and honey, but rather that the consumption of locusts and honey were normal for this group of people. On the consumption of locusts by Bedouins and discussion of Jerome's comments about the normalcy of eating locusts inAdv. /ovin. 2.7 [NPNFl6:393], see Kelhoffer, The Diet ofJohn the Baptist, 36-79. On honey as a "regular sweetener in the Palestinian diet.. see Keener, Matthew, 119. For a thorough discussion ofhoney in the ancient world, see Kelhoffer, The Diet ofJohn the Baptist, 81-99. These that !hink Johu's diet reflects that of the poor include Schlatter, Matthäus, 60; Keener, Matthew, 118-19; Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 95; Osborue, Matthew, 112. Thuse that fiud

1. Content and Redaction

143

there is a sense in which John's behavior regarding dress aod food reflects Jesus' teaching in theSennon on the Mount in !hat John does not worry about what he wears or eats (see Matt 6:25--33),49 it seems doubtful !hat the primary emphasis here is to demonstrate John's proper behavior as a disciple since this description of John precedes the Sennon on the Mount. The Markan description of John's diet aod dress reflects !hat of a mao living in the wilderness, aod the same meaning is present in the similar description ofthe Baptist in Matthew, 50 with Matthew's depiction ofthe diet of John as consisting (solely) of locusts aod wild honey offering ao additional element by associating John the Baptist with other "wilderness survivors. " 51 Analogaus diets of food found in the wilderness appear in traditions about Isaiah (Mart. Isa. 2:7-11) aod the group of Jews led by Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 5:21-26), as each party resided in the wilderness due to the threat of persecution. The fact !hat John preaches in ao area (Judea) hostile to Jesus (2:20--22) suggests !hat John's presence in the wildemess was due to persecution akin to these figures who offered protests against the authorities of their time. John's dress also reflects !hat of a survivor living in the wilderness who offers some sort of critique or protest of the status quo. 52 asceticism in both John's dress and diet include Sand, Matthäus, 66; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 75; W. Barnos Tatum, John the Baptist and Jesus: AReport ofthe Jesus Seminar (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1994), 116; Luz, Matthew, 1:135-36. A number ofwriters note that John' s diet reflects asceticism while bis clothes point to him being Elijah (e.g., W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:296-97; Gundry, Matthew, 45; Y amasaki, John the Baptist, 84; Scbnackenburg, Matthew, 30). 49 On John as a model disciple due to bis behavior, see Lisa M. Bowens, ''The Ro1e of John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel," WW 30 (2010): 312. Cf. Chmmatius, Tractate on Matthew 9.1 (Simonetti, Matthew, la:40); Jo. Taylor, The Immerser, 38-39. Many Vß'iters that deem John's diet as a sign ofhis asceticism regard John's asceticism as an examp1e for followers of Jesus. so On the the Markan Baptist, see esp. Vie1hauer, "Tracht und Speise," 47-54; E. M. Becker, "Kamelhaare," 13-28; Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist, 121-23 (cf. the discussion of the historical Baptist in Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:49). On a similar viewpoint adapted in Matthew, see Häfner, Der verheißene Vorläufer, 28-29. 51 Kelhoffer, The Diet ofJohn the Baptist, 124-28. John's diet consists offood that grows without human Iabor, further indicating that John resi.des away from society. On the historical John's diet as consisting of"natural food," see Lupieri, "John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions," 439-41; idem, "The Law and the Pmphets Were until Jobn: John the Baptist between Jewish Halakhot and Cbristian History of Salvation," Neot 35 (2001): 49-56; Jo. Taylor, The lmmerser, 34. s2 Even though there is not an exact parallel of a figme clothed in camel's hair, John's garment fits a figure who has been "cut off from all of society's amenities" (K.eener, Matthew, 118), reca1ling others who wore garments of anima1 products while 1iving on the fringes of society (Heb II :37; I Clem. 17: I; cf. Josephus, J. W. 1.480 and the discussion of this text in Kraeling, John the Baptist, 15). Also see discussion of John's gannent showing him tobe

144

Chapter4. Matthew3:1-17

While the note about John's diet and dress may primarily show him as a man in the wildemess protesting the world in which he Jives, it also supplies the audience an insight into bis place among the various groups within Judaism since John's choice of wardrohe and food reflects first-century halakic debates. John's practices would align him most closely with the views ofthe Pharisees, 53 as he wears the product ofan (unclean) animal (Lev 11:4),54 does not seem to have special practices like those reflected in CD 12.13-15 to keep the purity of locusts allowed under the Mosaic law (Lev 11 :22), 55 and eats wild honey that could contain the larvae of bees or other impurities (against CD 12.12b).56 This observation about John's halakic practices would be equally true of the Markan text, but Matthew's special interest in the "scribes and Pharisees" and the appearance ofthe Pharisees at John's baptism in 3:7 increases the likelihood ofits relevancy for Matthew.

on the fringe of society in Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westmi~ John Knox, 1998), 63. The use of camel hair rather than sheep or goat skin could stem from the practices of the historical Baptist but it may also indicate that John was more marginalized than figures hefore him. 53 See Lupieri, "The Law and Prophets," 50-52; Jo. Taylor, The lmmerser, 42; James K.elhoffer, "Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust-Easting in the Ancient Near East aod at Qumran," DSD II (2004): 294-314. Against Stevan L. Davies, "John the Baptist aod Esseoe Kashruth," NTS 29 (1983): 569-71; James H. Charlesworth, "John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers in Light ofthe Rule ofthe Community," in The Provo International Co'!{erence on the Dead Seo Scro//s (ed D. W. Parry aod E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leideo: Brill, 1999), 353-75, both ofwhom cantend that John's practices reflect those ofthe Essenes. The lack of attention to coolring techniques of locusts seems more reflective of the Pharisees, and John's dress and consumption ofwild honey disagrees with the practices described in the various works related to Qumran, which for the sake of simplicity Vrill be classi:fied as Essene. It is unclear where the Saddu.cees stood on these issues. 54 For discussions of whether one could wear clothlog made from animals, see 11QT 47.7-18; 51.1-5; 4QMMT' 17-23; 4Q268 fr. I col. 2; m. Hul. 9.1; Teh. 1.4; 'Ed. 6.3; Yad. 4.6. Some early commentators viewed the fact that John wore an unclean animalas a sign of the inclusion of gentiles; see the excerpts from Maximus of Turin and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Fragment 12) in Simonetti, Matthew, 1a:40-41. Since, as Lupieri points out, it is uolikely that John bad a Ioom ro make the gannent hiroself ("John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions," 441 ), it would seern that John did not think he could hecome impure dne ro the Iack of purity ofthe one who made the gannent. ss On regulations concerning the consumption oflocusts, also see m. Ter. 10.9, 11.1; m. Ber. 6.3; m. 'Ed. 8.4; m. Hul. 3.7, 8.1; m. '.Abod. Zar. 2.7. 56 On various opinions as to how to safeguard the purity ofhoney, see m. Mak. 3.8, 6.4; Teh. 3.1; b. Bek. ?b. Cf. Philo's comment about the Essenes in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 8.1.8. It should be noted, however, that some rahbis were less lenient in regards to the purity ofhoney (see m. Mak. 6.4; b. Bek. 7b, as noted in Lupieri, "The Law and Prophets," 51), so John's behavior in relation to honey could also have m.ade him. deviant in the eyes of some, even potentially most, Pharisees.

1. Content and Redaction

145

The response of the crowds to John' s call for repentance and announeerneut of the imminent arrival of the kingdom appears in 3:5--6. There are some slight variations between the groups responding to John listed by Mark and Matthew. The city of Jerusalem is present on both lists, but Matthew mentions Jerusalem first and refers to the city itse1f (e~e?ropeueTo ?rpo~ w~o~) to fast while the bridegroom is with them (Mark 2:19b). The conjunction oe in Matt 9:16 more closely links the saying about the hridegroom to the statement about the cloth than in Mark 2:19--21,9 and Matthew's Substitution of

6

Works !hat higblight how the passage contributes to the image of Johu the Baptist in Matthew include Edgar Krentz, "None Greater among Those Born from Women: John the Baptist in the Gospel ofMatthew," CurThM 10 (1983): 337; GIII)' Y amasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew's Narrative (JSNTSup 167; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). Cf Ernst, Johannes der Täufer, 166. 7 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, 103, quoting lohn A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 75. Yamasak:i goes too far, however, in treating John's disciples "as ifthey are John himself." 8 For this perspective on many of the differences between Matthew and Mark, see Repschinski, The Controversy Stories, 83--90, 247-48; Michael G. Steinhauser, "Neuer Wein braucht neue Schläuchen," in Biblische Randbemerkungen (ed. H. Merklein and J. Lange; Wurzberg: Echter, 1974), 114-17; William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Oitical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988--97), 2:107-16; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew (2 vols.; WBC 33; Waco, TX: Nelson, 1991, 1995), 1:242; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Fersecution (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 6&--71. There are a number of minor agreements between Matthew 9:14-17 and Luke 5:33-39 against Mark 2:18--22, but these agreem.ents do not seem. significant enough to warrant the supposition of another source (with Johu Notland, Matthew [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 389; cf. Ulrich Luz, Matthew [trans. James Crouch; 3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minnt>apolis: Fortress, 2001-7], 2:36 n. 4). Sorne diffi:rences could rellect Palestiman memory (Backhaus, Die ''Jüngerkreise" des Täufers Johonnes, 155-57; cf. J. C. O'Neill, "The Source ofthe Parabtes ofthe Bridegroom and Wicked Husbandmen," JTS 39 [1988]: 488). 9 The tradition history ofthe account is beyond the scope oftbis examination, but the relationship between the question of fasting and the metaphors has sparked much discussion, with various proposals for the connection (see e.g., J. B. Muddiman, "Jesus and Fasting," in Jesus aux origenes de Ia christo/ogie [ed. J. Dupont; BETL 40; Gembloux: Duculot, 1975], 27181; George Brooke, "The Feast of New Wine and the Question of Fasting," ExpTim 95 [1984]: 175-76) while others bave songht to explain the meaning ofthe statements as inde-

186

Chapter 5. Matthew 9:U-17 and 11:12-19

the noun i".tTtov for the pronoun ff umlpxo> and Salvation History in Matthew's Gospel," inBuilt Upon the Rock (ed. Daniel M. Gurtner andJohn Nolland; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 97; cf. Jerome, Comm. Matt. 2.11.11 (FC 117:131). Against those who !hink that Jesns refers to hirnself with the phrase 6 fLIXPO (e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 37.2 [NPNF' 10:244--45]; Oscar Cnllman, ••o o1rl•w f~TEUUClll and order of"the Prophetsand Law," see Llewelyn, "Traditiongeschichte," 342--46. 141 Two items that reflect Matthew' s tendencies but do not seem overly signifi.cant are the use ofthe title 6 ßamcO'ljl ('rOD ßamca'C'Oil) and tbe phrase "the kingdorn ofheaven." 142 Martinez, The Question ofJohn, 51-53. On Luke's lack. ofinterest in John by com.parsion. see ibid., 54-56. 143 On John's work as a period, see Wink, John the Baptist, 29; W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:254. 144 Tbere could be a slightly different meaning between Matthew's &.1 and Luke's l'iXP< (with Luke's ward more likely original; see David R Catchpole, "On Doing Violence to 1he Kingdom," JTSA 25 [1978]: 56-57; cf R Edwards, "Matthew's Use," 64), but the difference

2. Matthewl1:2-19

213

Matthew 11:12 has proven to be one of the most difficult verses in Matthew and perhaps all of the New Testament. 145 Since others have addressed the issues in this text in more detail, this discussion will briefly set forth the positions adopted and then turn to understand the meaning of the passage as a whole. The phrase a7ro 8o ~!ll'P&i• 'lwawou 'rOÜ ßam!crroü includes John, as a7ro typically has an inclusive meaning in Matthew, especially when used with lw~. 146 A passive meaning is more likely for ß•aCE'rctl, referring to the violence that the kingdom suffers, for two reasons: (1) the Matthean context shows opposition in mentioning John's imprisonment and the rejection by "this generation" portrayed in the parable that follows (11: 16-19); and (2) the words ß•aCol.r.)uoii~ reflects a sigoificant shift in the narrative.

230

Chapter 6. Matthew 4:12, 14:1-13a, anti 16:14

1. Matthew 4:12 Matthew echoes Mark in depicting Jesus' chronological succession of the Baptist in that Jesus only begins his ministry after John's arrest. Matthew's description ofthis event, however, injects additional elements of significance for understanding the author's use of John, especially when consideration of 4:12 includes its wider context (4:13-17). In particular, Matthew's account shows John's imprisonment causing the fulfillment of God's plan and Jesus' ministry as continuing John's ministry and btinging it to its cnlmination. Like Mark, Matthew uses a passive form of 7rczpczolowp.• to describe what happens to John. 3 The significance of this lexical choice and its grammatical tense is twofold. First, it establishes a link between John, Jesus, and the disciples, as the word appears with reference to all three parties. 4 Second, the use of the passive can be construed as a "divine passive," indicating that John's arrest is not just in accordance with the will of God but prompted by God.' John's imprisonment serves as a way of showing that the suffering of Jesus and his disciples does not run counter to God 's plan or call into question the divine approval of their ministries. In fact, suffering seerns to be part of their mission and the accomplishment ofGod's will, as it is for John. A further notable aspect of this construction is that the human agency through which the divine action occurs is unnamed. In light of the information given in the rest ofthe narrative, Jewish figures seem tobe at work in

3 Matthew 4:12 has an aarist passive indicative form ('11'ape~69)]) since it is the content of what Jesus heard. Mark 1:14 is an aarist passiveinfinitiveform ('1t'apa~o9ijl'al), serving as a temporal infinitive introduction to the statement. 4 The verbis used with reference to Jesus in 10:4; 17:22; 20:18-19; 26:2, 15-16, 21,

23-25,45-46, 48; 27:2-4, 18, 26 and with reference to the disciples in 10:17, 19, 21; 24:9, 10. While many of these references have Markan parallels, some are insertions (26:2, 25)

and others are in unique material (27:3, 4) (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 59). Not every appearance ofthe word is directly connected to John, Jesus, and the disciples, but most of the appearances of the word not directly tied to these figures refer to objects (ll:27; 25:14, 20, 22, as noted in Janice Cape! Anderson, Matthew's Narrative Web: Over, anti Over, and Over Again [JSNTSup 91; Sheffie1d: JSOT Press, 1994], 88) or occur as part of a hypothetical scenario (e.g., 5:25; 18:34). 5 As noted in e.g., W. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:375; Josef Ernst, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 165; Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew (IBC; Louisville: Wesiminster John K.nox, 1993), 247; Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 113. Also see Norman Perrin, "The Uso of (/Jara)didonai in Connection with the Passion of Jesus in the New Testament," in Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde ( ed. Eduard Lohse; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 204-12.

1. Matthew4:12

231

the arrest of John. 6 Since John alienated hirnself from the Matthean Pharisees and Sadducees with his words in 3:7-10, this action against John may be viewed as part oftheir response to John's challenge. 7 The use of7rr:tprz1il1iw!L• also points to Jews handing John over to Roman officials, as this is what happens to Jesus and is what will happen to the disciples (cf. 10:17-22). 8 The rest ofMatthew's narrative reveals opposition to John from Jewish forces, as "this generation" lay serious charges against John in 11:18 and the authorities and Pharisees reject John's ministry in 21:23-32. Matthew's note about John's ministry in the Judean territory (3:1) places him in area hostile to Jesus, with this hostility to Jesus coming from an alliance between Romanappointed political Ieaders and Jewish groups (2:4). 9 Since this alliance targets Jesus and John supports Jesus, one would expect John and Jesus to follow a similar path, something that Matthew makes explicit in 17: 10-13, as the same groups !hat killed John are said to be at work in orchestrating Jesus' death. Therefore, Matthew' s narrative points to Jewish groups playing a roJe in John 's arrest. Matthew also depicts Jesus as reacting to John's arrest. Mark's note about John's arrest is strictly chronological, as he states that Jesus ministered in Galilee after John had been arrested through a temporal infinitive construction (Mark 1:14: !LETII TO 7rr:tprzöo6ijvr:tl TOv 'lw-1997. Deines, Roland. "Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew: An Ongoing Debate." Pages 53-84 in Built Upon the Rock. Edited by Daniel

M. Gurtner and John Notland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Delorme, Jean. "John the Baptist's Head- The Word Perverted: A Reading ofa Narrative Mark 6.14-29." Semeia 81 (1998): 115-29. Dennert, Brian C. "Constructing Righteousness: The «Better Righteousness}) of Matthew as Part ofthe Development ofa Christian Identity." Annali di Storia dell'Esegesi 28/2

(2011): 57-80. -. "Hanukkah and the Testimony of Jesus' Works (John 10:22-39)." Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 431-51. -. '"The Rejection ofWisdom's Call': Matthew's Use ofProverbs 1:2o-33 in the Parabte of Children in the Marketplace." In Se arehing the Scriptures: Studies in Context andIntertextuality. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Jeremiah J. Johnston. Sturlies in Scripture in

Early Judaism and Christianity 19. London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. ''Herod's Oath and the Head of John the Baptist." Biblische Zeitschrift 9 (1965): 49-59, 233-46. -. "The Parahle ofthe Two Sons." Studia Theologica 25 (1971): 109-16. Destro, Adriana and Mauro Pesce. Encounters with Jesus: The Man in His Place and Time. Translated by Brian McNeil. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Deutsch, Celia. Hitiden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke: Wisdom, Torah, and Discipleship in

Matt 11,25-30. Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament Supplement 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. -. "Wisdom in Matthew: Transformation of a Symbol." Novum Testamentum 32 (1990): 13-47. DeYoung, James. "The Function ofMalachi 3.1 in Matthew 11.10 Kingdom Reality as the Hermeneutic of Jesus." Pages 66--91 in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited

Bibliography

275

by Craig A. Evans and William R. Stegner. Jonrnal for the Stndy of the New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Dibelius, Martin. Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1911. Dillon, Richard. "The Benedictus in Micro and Macro Context. '' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006): 457-80. Dobschütz, Ernst von. "Matthew as Rabbi and Catechist." Pages 19-29 in The Interpretation of Matthew. Edited by Graham Stanton. lssues in Religion and Theology 3. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. -. The Parables ofthe Kingdom. Rev. ed. NewYork: Seribner's Son, 1961. Donahue, John R. The Gospel in Parable: Metaphor, Narrative, and Theology in the Synoptic Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. -. "Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a Sackgasse?" Pages 27-57 in The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Edited by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and Edgar V. McKnight. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 109. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 39-60. -, and Daniel Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Sacred Pagina 2. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002. Donaldson, Terrence. "For Herod Had John Arrested." Studios in REligion 28 (1999) 3548. Doyle, Rod. "Matthew 11:12- AChallenge to the Evangelist's Comnmnity." Colloquium 18 (1985): 21}-30. Draper, Jonathan A. "Do the Dirlache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism?" Pages 217-41 in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documenta from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? Edited by Huub van de Sandt. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980. -. "How Did Mathew Go about Composing His Gospel." Pages 39-58 inJesus, Matthew, and Early Christianity: Essays in Memory of Graham N. Stanton. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner, Joel Willitts, and Richard Burridge. The Library ofNew Testament Studies 435. London: T &T Clark, 2011. -. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Malring l. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. -. "John the Baptist's Use of Scripture." Pages 42-54 in The Gospela and Scriptures of Israel. Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament: Supplement Series 104. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William R. Stegner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. -. "Pharisees, Sinners, and Jesus." Pages 61-88 in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990. -. "Spirit-and-Fire Raptism." Novum Teslamentum 14 (1972): 81-92. Dupont, Jacques. "L'ambassade de Jean Baptiste." La nouvelle revue theologique 83 (1961): 805-21, 943-59. -. "Los deux fils dissemblables (Mt. 21)." Assemblees du Seigneur 57 (1971): 21}-32. Duran, Nicole Wilkinson. "Return of the Disembodied or How John the Baptist Lost His Head." Pages 277-91 in Reading Communities, Reading Scripture: Essays in Honor of

276

Bibliography

Daniel Patte. Edited by Gary A. Phillips and Nicole Wilkinson Duran. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002. Eck, Ernest van. "A Sitz for the Gospel ofMark? A Critical Reaction to Bauckham's Theory on the Universality of the Gospels." Hervormde teologiese studies 54 (2000): 9731008. Edwards, James R. "Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives." Novum TeSlamentum 31 (1989): 193-216. Edwards, Ricbard A. Matthew's Story of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. -. "Matthew's Use ofQ in Chapter Eleven." Pages 257-75 in Logia: /es paroles de Jesusthe sayings ofJesus. Edited by Joel Delobel. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and Other Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by A. H. Krappe. New York: L. MacVeagh, 1931. Eissfeldt. Otto. "IUJ)p&iuat 1räcrov Buca1ocr6v7JY in Matthäus 3:15." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft61 (1970): 209-15. Elliott, James K.eith. ''The Parahle ofthe Two Sons: Text and Exegesis." Pages 67-77 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 161. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Elliott, John H. "The Jewish Messianic Movement: From Faction to Sect." Pages 75-95 in Modelling Early Christianity: Social ScientiflC Studies ofthe New Testament in lts Context. Edited byPhilip F. Esler. London: Routledge, 1995. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Elliott, John K. "Did the Lord's Prayer Originale with John the Baptist?" Theologische Zeitschrift 29 (1973): 215. -. "Ho baptizon and Mark 1.4." Theologische Zeitschrift31 (1975): 14-15. "The Use of l:u:po~ in the N ew Testament." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 60 (1969): 140-41. Eloff, Mervyn. ":A1r6 ... lw~ and Salvation History in Matthew's Gospel." Pages 85-107 in Built Upon the Rock. Edited by Daniel M. Gcrtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Enslin, Morton S. "John and Jesus." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde derälteren Kirche 66 (1975): 1-18. Erickson, Ricbard J. "The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21." Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 36 (1993): 455-66. Ernst, Josef. Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 53. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. -. "War Jesus ein Schüler Johannes des Täufers?" Pages 13-33 in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus für Joachim Gnilka. Edited by Hubort Frankeornölle and Kar! Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Esler, Philip F. "Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham' s Gospels for All Christians." Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998): 23548. -. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acta: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. Society for New Testament Study Monograph Series 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. -. Galatians. London: Routledge, 1998.

Bibliography

277

Etzioni, Amitai, "Community." Page 83 in The Cambridge Dictionary ofSociology. Edited by Bryan S. Turner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Evans, Christopher F. Saint Luke. Trinity Press International New Testament Com.mentary. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990. Evans, Craig A "The Baptism of John in Typologi.cal Context." Pages 45-71 in Dimensions in Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 234. Edited by Stanley E. Porterand Anthony R. Cross. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. -. "Fulfilling the Law and Seeking Righteousness in Matthew and in the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 102-14 in Jesus, Matthew's Gospel, and Early Christianity. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner, Joel Willitts, and Richard A. Burridge. The Library ofNew Testament Studios 435. London: T&T Clark, 2011. "The Jewish Gospel Tradition." Pages 241-77 inJewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. -. "Josephus on John the Baptist and Other Jewish Prophets ofDeliverance." Pages 55--63 in The Historical Jesus in Context. Edited by Dale C. Alliso~ J ohn Dominic Cross~ and Am.y-Jill Levine. Princeton Readings in Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. -. Mark 8:22-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34b. Dallas: Word, 2001. -. Matthew. New Cambridge Bible Comm.entary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Eve, Erle. "Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment." Pages 89-114 in Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Edited by Mark Goodacre and Niebolas Perrin. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Faierstein, Morris M. "Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First?" Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 75-86. Farmer, William R. "John the Baptist." Pages 955--62 in vol. 2 of The Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Ahingdon, 1962. -. "Who Are the 'Tax-collectors and Sinners' in the Synoptic Tradition?" Pages 167-74 in From Faith to Faith: Essays in Honor of Donald G. Miller on his 70th Birthday. Edited by D. Y. Hadidan. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979. Feldman, Louis H. "Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, His Writings, and His Significance." Pages 763-862 in Aufotieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat 21.2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. -. Josephus and Modern Schalarship (1937-80). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. -. "Introduction." Pages 23--67 inJosephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Feuillet, A "La controverse sur le jeune (Mc 2,18-20; Mat 9,14-15; Lc 5,33-35)." La nouvelle revue theologique 90 (1968): 113-36,252-77. Fielder, Martin Johannes. "Der Begriff a-uauouthi'J im Matthäus-Evangelium., auf seine Grundlagen untersucht." Ph.D. diss., Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1957. "Gerechtigkeit im Matthäus-Evangelium." Theologische Versuche 8 (1977): 63-75. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with lntroduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 31. NewYork: Doubleday, 1998. - The Gospel according to Luke: lntroduction, Translation, and Notes. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 28, 28A. New Y ork: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.

278

Bibliography

-. Luke the Theologian. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989. -. "More about Elijab Coming First." Journal of Biblical Literature I 04 (1985): 295-96.

Fleddermann, Harry. "John and the Coming One (Matt 3:1-12//Luke 3:16-17)." Pages 377-84 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1984. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23. Chico, CA: Schalars Press, 1984. -. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Flusser, David. ''Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew." Immanue/5 (1975): 37-45. Foakes-Jackson, Frederick John and Kirsopp Lake, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. 5 vols. London: MacMillian, 192l. III189. Liu,lWin: Thmple Purity in 1-2 Corinthiaos. 2013. Jbl. IU343. Livesey. N'ma E.: Circmncision as a Malleahle Symbol. 2010. Jbl. IU295. Loader, WilliamR.G.: Jesus' AttitudeTowards the Law. 1997. Jbl. II/97. Löht; Gebhard: VerherrlichlDlg Gottes durch Philosophie. 1997. K>l. 97. Löht; Hermut: Studien zum frühchristlichen und frühjüdischen Gebet 2003. KJ/.160. - see Hengel, Martin. - see Leonhard, Clemens. Löht; WinrichAlfried: Basilides und seine Schule. 1995. Vol. 83. Lorenzen, Stefanie: Das paulinische EikonKonzept. 2008. Jbl. II/250. Lugioyo, Brian: see Reynolds, BenjaminE. Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. 1998. Jbl. III101. Luther, Susanne: Sprachethik im Neuen Testament. 2015. Jbl. III394. - I Röder, Jörg I Schmidt, Eckart D. (Ed.): Wie Geschichten Geschichte schreiben. 2015. Jbl. II/395.

Luz, Ulrich: seeAlexeev. Anatoly A. - see Dunn, James D.G. Lykke, Anne uodFriedrich T. Schipper (Ed.): KnltundMacht. 2011. Jbl. II/319. Lyu, Eun-Geol: Sünde und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. 2012. Jbl. II/318. Mackay, Ian D.: Jobo's Relationship with Marl1. II/126. Nzelsen, Jesper Tang: Die kognitive Dimension des Kreuzes. 2009. 11>1. II/263. Nusen, Andreas: Gott und der Nächste im antikenJudentum.l974. 1!>1.15. Noack, Christian: Gottesbewußtsein. 2000. 11>1. II/116. Noormann, Rolf: Irenäus als Paulusinterpret 1994. 11>1. II/66. Norelli, Enrico: see Clivaz, Claire. Norin, Stig: see Hultgärd, Anders. Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer ofthe Siek. 2003. 11>1. IU170. Obermann. Andreas: Die christologische Erfiillung der Schrift im Johannesovangelium. 1996. 11>1. II/83. Ochs, Christoph: Matthaeus Adversus Christianos. 2013. Vol. II/350. - see Deines, Roland. Oh/er, Marku.r: Barnabas. 2003. 1!>/.156. - see Becker, Michael. - (Ed.): Aposteldelaet und antikes Vereinswesen. 2011. I!>L 280. Oestreich, Bernhard: Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe. 2012. 11>1. 296. Ogereau, Julien M: Paul's Koinonia with the Philippians. 2014. 11>1. II/377. Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mission. 1988. Vol. II/31. Oliver, Isaac W: Torah Praxis aller 70 CE. 2013. 11>1. II/355. Onuki, Talrashi: Heil und Erlösung. 2004. 1!>/.165. Oppong-Kwni, Peter Y.: Matthean Sets ofParables. 2013. 11>1. II/340. Oropeza, B. J.: Paul andApostssy. 2000. 11>1. II/115. On; Peter: ChristAbsent and Present. 2013. 11>1. II/354. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Kommunikation mit GottundChristus.2006. 1!>1.197. - Taufe und 'JYpos. 2000. 11>1. IU118. Ounsworth, Richard: Iosbua JYpology in the NewTestament. 2012. Vol. Il/328. Pale Hera, Marianus: Christology and DiscipleshipinJohn 17.2013. I!>I.IU342. Pao, David W: Acta and tbe Isaierdc New Exodus. 2000. I!>L IU130. Pardee, Nancy: The Genre and Development of theDideche. 2012. 11>1. II/339.

Wusenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Park, Eung Chun: The Mission Discourse in Matthew's Interpretation. 1995.1!>1. IU81. Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions ofAfterlife in Jewishlnsriptions. 2000. 1!>1. II/121. Park, Young-Ho: Paul 's Ekklesia as a Civic Assemb1y. 2015. 1!>1. IU393. Parsenios, George L.: Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif. 2010. 1!>1. 258. Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse ofthe Curse. 2000. Val. II/114. Paulsen, Henning: Studien zur Literaturund Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Ed. by Ute E. Eisen. 1997. 1!>1. 99. Pearce, Stuah J.K.: The Land ofthe Body. 2007. 1!>1. 208. Peres, /mre: Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003. 1!>1.157. Peridns, Judith: see Ramelli, Iloria. Perry, Peter 8.: The Rhetoric ofDigressions. 2009. 1!>1. II/268. Pettipiece, Tfmothy: see Piovanelli, Pierluigi. Pierce, Chad T.: Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ. 2011.1!>1. IU305. Philip, Finny: The Origins ofPauline Pneumatology. 2005. 1!>1. IU194. Philanenko, Mare (Ed.): Le Trßne de Dieo. 1993.1!>1. 69. Pi/hafer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreittoo. 1990. 1!>1. II/39. - Philippi. Vol. 1 1995.1!>1. 87.- Vol. 2 '2009. 1!>1.119. - Die früben Christen und ihre Welt. 2002. 1!>1.145. - see Becker, Eve-Marie. - see Ego, Beate. Piovanelli, Pierluigi and Tony Burire with the Collaboratinn of Timothy Pettipiece (Ed. ): Rediscovering the Apocryphal Cnntinent: N ew Perspectives on Early Christian and LateAntiqueApocryphal Textsand Traditions. 2015. 1!>1. 349. Pitre. Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End ofthe Exile. 2005. 1!>1. IU204. Plümacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschichten. 2004. I!>L 170. Pöhlmann, Wolfgang: Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus. 1993.1!>1. 68. Poirier, John C.: The Tongues ofAngels. 2010. 1!>1. II/287. Pokornj, Petr andJosifB. Souifek: BibelauslegungalsTheologie.1997. Vo/.100. - and Jan Roskovec (Ed. ): Philosopbical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. 2002. 1!>1.153.

Popkes, Enno Edzard: Das Menschenbild des Thomasevangeliums. 2007. 1!>1. 206. - Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den jobanneiscben Scbriften. 2005. 1!>1. II/197. - and Gregvr llllrst (Ed.): Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos. 2012.1!>1. 297. - see FTey, Jörg. - see Janowsld, Bernd. Porter, Stanley E.: Tbe Paul ofActs. 1999. 1!>1.115. Prieur,Aiexander: Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft. 1996. 1!>1. II/89. Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. 1!>1. II/45. Puig i Tdrrech, Armand: Jesus: An Uncommon Joumey. 2010. 1!>1. II/288. Rllbens, Volker: The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul. '2013. 1!>1. II/283. Ramelli, Raria and Judith Perkins (Ed.): Easly Christlau and Jewish Narrative. 20 15. 1!>1. 348. Riiisänen, Heilclri: Paul and the Law. 1983, '1987.1!>1. 29. Rehfeld, Emmanuel L.: Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus. 2012. 1!>1. II/326. Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Val. 5. Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen(Joh 9). 1995. 1!>1. II/73. Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. 1994. 1!>1. 74. Reiser, Marius: Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrifl2007. Vol. 217. - Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984.1!>1. IU11. Reynolds, BenjaminE.: TheApocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of Jobn 2008. 1!>1. II/249. - Brian Lugioyo and.Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Ed.): Reconsidering the Relationship between Biblical and Systematic Tbeology in the NewTestament. 2014. Val. II/369. Rlrodes, James N.: The Epistle ofBamabas and the Deuternnnntic Tradition. 2004. 1!>1. II/188. Richarrls, E. RDndalph: Tbe Secretary in the Leiters ofPaul. 1991.1!>1. IU42. Richardson. Christopher A.: Pioneer and Perfecter ofFaith. 2012. 1!>1. II/338. Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 3 1988. 1!>1. II/7. - Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994. 1!>1. 71. Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs. 1987.1!>1. 41. Röcker, Fritz W.: Belial und Katechon. 2009. 1!>1. II/262.

Wusenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Röder, Jörg: see Luther Susanne. Röhser, Günter: Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde. 1987. Vol. ll/25. Rogalslcy, Sviatoslav: seeKaralwlis, Christos. Rollens, Sarah E.: Framing Social Criticism in the Jesus Movement. 2014. Vo/. IU374. Root. Brodley W.: First Century Galilee. 20 14. Vo/.IU378. Rose, Christian: Theologie als Erzählung im Marlrusevangelium. 2007. Vol. ll/236. - Die Wolke der Zeugen. 1994. Vol. I/160. Roslcovec, Jan: see Polwrnj, Petr. Roth, Dieter T., Zimmermann, Ruhen and Labahn, Michael (Ed.): Metaphor, Narrative, andParables in Q. 2014. Vol. 315. - (Ed.):seeKOk;Jacobus(Kobus). Rothschild, Clare K.: Baptist Traditions and Q. 2005. Vol. 190. - Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon. 2009. Vol. 235. -

LukeActs and the Rhetoric ofHistory. 2004.

-

Paul inAthens. 2014. Vol. 341.

-

see Frey. Jö>g. andJens Schröter (Ed.): The Rise and Ex-

Voi.IUI75.

pansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries ofthe Common Era. 2013. Vol. 301. - and lrevor W. Thompson (Ed.): Christian Body, Christion Self. 2011. Vol. 284. - see Blanton IY. Thomas R. Rudolph. David J.: A Jew to the Jews. 2011. Vo/. IU304. Rüegger. Hans-Ulrich: Verstehen, was Markus =ählt. 2002. Vo/. ll/155. Rüger. Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der KairoerGeniza.l991. Vol. 53. Ruf, Marlin G.: Die heiligen Propheten, eore Apostel und ich. 2011. Vol. IU300. Runesson, Anders: see Becker, Eve-Marie. - see Ehrlich, Carl S. Sänger. Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mystetien. 1980. Vol. I/15. - Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. 1994. Vol. 75. - see Burchard, Christoph. - and Ulrich Me/1 (Ed.): Paulus und Johanoes. 2006. Vo/.198. Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact ofthe Semeia in the Gospel ofJohn. 2004. Vo/. I/1186. Salzmann. Jörg Christian: Lehren und Ermahoen. 1994. Vol. IU59. Samuelsson, Gunnar: Cruci:fixion inAntiquity. '2013. Vol. IU310.

Sande/in, Karl-Gustav: Attraction and Danger of Alieo Religioo. 2012. Vol. 290. Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul- One ofthe Prophets? 1991. Vol. IU43. - see Hvalvik; Reidar. Sato, Migalru: Q und Prophetie. 1988. Vo/. IU29. Schäfer. Ruth: Paulus bis zumApostelkonzil. 2004. Vo/. I/1179. Schaper. Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. 1995. Vo/. IU76. Schedtler. Justin Jeffcoat: A Heavenly Chorus. 2014. Vol. I/1381. Schimanowsld, Gottfried: Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2002. Vo/. IU154. - WeisheitundMessias.l985. Vol. IU17. Schippet; Friedrich T.: see Lykke, Anne. Schläpfer, Esther: see Konradt, Matthias. Schlichting, Günter: Einjüdisches Leben Jesu. 1982. Vol. 24. Schlie;ßer, Benjamin: Abraham's Faith in Romans4. 2007. Vol. IU224. Schmidt, Eckart D.: seeLuther Susanne. Schnabel, Eckhard J.: Law and Wisdom from Ben Sirs to Paul. 1985. Vol. IU16. - see Chapman, David W. Schnelle. Udo: see l?ey, Jörg. Schröter, Jens: Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament. 2007. Vol. 204. - see Frey, Jörg. - see Rothschild, Clare K. Schuller, Eileen: see Ehrlich, Carl S. Schultheiß, Tanja: Das Petrusbild im Johannesevangelium. 2012. Vol. IU329. Schutter, Wdliam L.: Hermeneutic and Compositioninl Peter. 1989. Vol. IU30. Schwartz, Darlief R.: Reading the First Ceotory. 2013. Vol. 300. - Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. 1992. Vol. 60. Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Murtin Scott, /an W.: hnplicit Epistemology in the Leiters ofPaul. 2005. Vol. IU205. Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons ofGod. 1992. Vol. IU48. - Paul and the Nations. 1995. Vol. 84. Shi, Wenhua: Paul's Message ofthe Cross as Body Language. 2008. Vol. IU254. Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use oflsaiah in Romans. 2002. Vol. I/1156. Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten. Teil I 1980. Vol. 20- Teil II 1992. Vol. 61. - Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Vol. 26. - Argumeotatioo hei Paulus. 1985. Vol. 34. - Phiion vonAlexandrien. 1988. Vol. 46.

Wusenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Siggelkow-Berner, Birke: Die jüdischen Feste im Bellum Judaicum des Flavius Josephus. 2011. Vol. II/306. Sigismund, Marcus: see Kreuzer. Siegfried. Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux I/TI. 1981. Vol. 23. Smit, Peter-Ben: Fellowship and Food in the Kingdam. 2008. Vol. IU234. Smith, Claire S.: Pauline Communities as 'Scholastic Communities' .2012. Vol. IU335. Smifh, Julien: Christ the Ideal King. 20 II. Vol. IU313. Snodgrass, Klyne: The Paxahle afthe Wicked Tenants. 1983. Vol. 27. Snyder, G/enn E.: Acts afPaul. 2013. Vol. IU352. Snyder, .JuliaA.: Language and ldentity in AncientNarratives. 2014. Vol. II/370. Söding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997. Vol. 93. - see Thüsing, Wilhelm. Sommer; Michael: DerTag der Plagen. 2015. Vol. IU387. Sommer; Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums. 1993. Vol. IU58. Sorensen, Erle: Possession and Exorcism in the NewTestament and Early Cbristianity. 2002.

Vol. IU157. Souifek, JosefB.: see Polwnrj, Petr. Southa/1, David J.: Rediscovering Righteous-

ness in Romans. 2008. Vol. 240. Spangenberg Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen Boodes. 1993. Vol. IU55. Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999. Vol. IUllO. Speyer; Wolfgang: Frühes Christentum im antikeo Strahlungsfeld. Val. I: 1989. Vol. 50. - Val. II: 1999. Voi.I16. - Val. m: 2007. Vol. 213. Spittler, Janet E.: Airima1s in the Apocryphal Acts aftheApostles. 2008. Vol. IU247. - see N~eklas, Tobias. Sprinkle, Preston: Law and Life. 2008. Vol. II/241. Stadelmtmn, Helge: BenSiraals Scbriftgelebrter. 1980. Vol. IU6. Standhartinger; Angela (Ed ): see Avemarie. Friedrich. - see Eisen, Ute E. Stanton, Graham: Studies in Matthew and Early Cbristianity. Ed. by Marlrus Backmuehl aod DavidLincicum. 2013. Vol. 309. Stein, Hans Joachim: Frühchristliche Mahlfeiern. 2008. Vol. IU255.

Stenschke, Christoph W.: Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Th.eir Coming to Faith. Vol. IU108. Stephens, Mark B.: Annihilation or Renewal? 2011. Voi.IU307. Sterck-Degueldre. Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau namens Lydia. 2004. Vol. IU176. Stettler, Christian: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000. Vol. IU/31. - Das letzte Gericht. 2011. Vol. IU299. Stettler, Htm11ß: Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe. 1998. Vol. IU/05. - Heiligung bei Paulus. 2014. Vol. IU368. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel: 1be Impact ofYom Kippur an Early Cbristianity. 2003. Vol. 163. Stowasser, Murtin (Ed.): Das Gottesbild in der Offenbarung des Johannes. 2015. Vol. IU397. Strobel, August: Die Stunde der Wahrheit 1980. Vol. 21. Strownsa. Guy G.: Barbarian Pbilasophy. 1999. Vol.ll2. Stuckenbruck, Loren T.: Angel Veneration and Cbristolagy. 1995. VoL IU70. -

The Myth afRebelliausAngels. 2014.

Vol. 335. Stephen C. Barton andBenjamin G. Wold (Ed.): Memory in the Bible andAntiquity. 2007. Vol. 212. Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed): Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. 1983. Vol. 28. - Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002. Vol./46. Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Sünden. 1993. Vol. IU57. -

Svendsen, SU.fanN.: AllegoryTransformed. 2009. Vol. IU269. Swafford II!Jrb, Corh.: The Cburch in the Wtlderness. 2014. Vol. IU379. Tajro, Harry W.: The Trial afSt. Paul. 1989.

Vol. IU35. - The Martyrdom afSt.Paul. 1994. Vol. IU67. Tam, Josaphat C.: Apprehension of Jesus in the

Gospel ofJohn. 2015. VoL IU399. Tel/be, M'zlwel: Christ-Bellevers in Epbesus. 2009. Vol. 242. Thate, MIChael J.: Remem.brance ofThings Paat? 2013. Vol. IU351. - Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Constantine R. Campbell (Ed.): ,In Christ' in Paul. 2014. VoLIU384. Theißen, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 1979, 3 1989. Vol. 19. Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Corpus Iohannenm. 2010. Vol. 267. - Studien zum Römerbrief. 2001. VoL 136.

Wusenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

-

see Mußner, Franz. Thompson,lrevor W.: see Rothschild. Clare K Thornton, Claus-Jürgen: Der Zeuge des Zeugen. 1991. 11>1. 56. Thüsing, Wilhelm: Studien zurneutestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. byThomas Söding. 1995. 11>1. 82. Thuren, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000. 11>1.124. Thyen, Hartwig: Studien zmn Corpus Iohanneum. 2007. 11>1. 214. Tibbs, Clint: Religious Experience ofthe Pneuma. 2007.1!>/.111230. Tilling, Chris: Paul 's Divine Christology. 20 12. 1!>1.1U323. 1bit, David S. du: TheiosAn1hropos. 1997. 11>1.11191. Tolmie. D. Francais: Persuading the Galatians. 2005. 11>1. Il/190. - see Hunt, StevenA. Tomson, Peter J. andDoris Lambers-Petry (Ed.): The Image oftho Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. 2003.1!>1.158. 1bney, Carl N.: Paul's lnclusive E1hic. 2008. 11>1. IU252. - siehe Frey. Jörg. TOth, Franz: see Frey, Jörg. Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus fromPaul to Ignatius. 2004. 11>1. 166. 7reloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfoot the Historian. 1998. 11>1. II/103. Troftgruben, 7roy M: A Conclusion Unhindered. 2010. IV/. IU280. Tso, Marcus KM: Ethics in the Qumran Community. 2010. 11>1. IU292. Tsuji, Manahu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung. 1997. 11>1. Il/93. 'IUcken, Christopher: From tho Sayings to tho Gospels. 2014.11>1. 328. Tiwal, Michael: From Jerusalem Priest to RomaoJew.2013.11>/. IU357. Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. 11>1. IU54. Uytanlet, Samson: Luke-Acts and Jewish Historiography. 2014. 11>1. IU366. Ulrichs, Km/ Friedrich: Christusglaohe. 2007. 11>1.111227. Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem Johannesevangelium. 2001. 11>1. IU/37. Vahrenhorst, Martin: Kultische Sprache in den Paulushtiefen. 2008. 11>1. 230. Vanhoozer Kevin J.: see Reynolds, BenjaminE. - see Thate, Michael J. Vegge, Ivar: 2 Corinthians - a Letter about Recoociliation. 2008. 1!>/.111239.

Verheyden, Joseph, Korinna Zamfir and Tobias Nicldos (Ed. ): Prophots and Prophecy in Jewish andEarly ChristianLiterature. 2010. 1!>/.111286. - see Grundeken, Mark. - see Nie/das, Tobias. V'uotzky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World 1995. 11>1. 80. Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie. 2002. 11>1. 144. Volp, Ulrich: see Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. 2002. 11>1. 149. ~ng. Li/y C.: Geoderand Potity in tho ProtevangeliumofJames. 2013. Vol. Il/358. Waaler, Erik: The Shema and The First Commandment in First Corinthians. 2008. 1!>/.111253. Wagener, Ulrilce: Die Ordnung des "Hauses Gottes". 1994.11>/. Il/65. Wagner, J. Ross: see Wdk, Florian. Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004. 11>1. IU185. Wallrer. Donald D.: Paul 's Offer ofLeoieocy (2 Cor 10:1). 2002. 11>1. Il/152. Walser, GeorgA.: Old Testament Quatations in Hebrews. 2013. 11>1. IU356. Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangelica. Ed. hy Wolfgang Kraus und Flotian Wilk. 1997. 11>1. 98. Wonder. Bernd: Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. 1998. Vol. 104. Wani/e, Timothy: The Jerusalem Temple and EarlyChristianldeotity. 2010.11>1. IU291. Wasserman. Emma: The Death ofthe Soul in Romaos 7. 2008.11>1. 256. Waters, Guy: The Eod ofDeuteronomy in tho Epistles ofPaul. 2006. Vol. 221. Wätt, Jan G. van der (Ed.): Eschatology ofthe New Testament and Some Related Documeots. 2011. 11>1. IU315. - andRuben Zimmermann (Ed.): Rothinking theEthicsofJohn.2012. Vol. 291. - see Frey, Jörg. - see Zimmermann, Ruhen. WatU, Peter: see Deines, Roland. WatU, Rikld: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. 1997. 11>1. IU88. Webb, Robert L.: see Bock. Darreil L. Wedderburn, Alexander J.M: Baptism andResmrection. 1987. Vol. 44. - TheDeathofJesus. 2013. Vol. 299. - Jesus and the Historians. 2010. Vol. 269. Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. 1985. 11>1. IU14.

Wusenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich: Taufe und Mahlgemeinschafl. 2014.1'0/. 338. Weiß, Hans-Friedrich: Frühes Christentum und Gnosis. 2008. Vol. 225. Weissenrieder, Annette: Images ofßlness in the Gospel ofLuke. 2003. 1'0/. II/164. - aodDavid L. Ba/eh (Ed.): Contesred Spacca. 2012. 1'0/. 285. - and.RobertB. Coote(Ed.):Theln.terfaceof Orality and Writing. 2010. 1'0/. 260. - Friederike Wendt and.Petra von Gemünden (Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. 1'0/. II/193. Welck; Christian: Erzählte ,Zeichen'.1994. 1'01. II/69. Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette. Weyer-Menkhoff. .Karl: Die Ethik des Johannesevangeliums im sprachlichen Feld des Handelns. 2014. 1'01. II/359. Wuuda, 1lmothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000. 1'01. II/127. Wifttrond, Albert: Epocha aod Styles. 2005. 1'01.179. Willt; Florian aodJ. Ross Wagner (Ed.): Between Gospel and Election. 2010. Vol. 257. - see Walter. Nikolaus. Wdliams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000. Vol.IU113. Wüliams, Margaret H.: Jews in a Graeco-RomanEnvironment. 2013.1'0L 312. Wdliams, 1Tavis B.: Good Works in 1 Peter. 2014.1'01. 337. Wilson, ToddA.: The Curse ofthe Law and the Crisis in Galatia. 2007. I'Ol.II/225. Wilson, Walter T.: Love without Pretense. 1991. 1'0/.II/46. Winn, Adam: The Purpose ofMark's Gospel. 2008. Val. II/245. Winninge, Milcael: see Holmberg. Bengt. Wuchmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sira zu Paulus. 2004. Val. 173. Wudom, Jeffrey: Blessing for the Nationsand the Curse ofthe Law. 2001. 1'01. II/133. Witmer, Stephen E.: Divine Instruction in Early Chtiatianity. 2008. 1'01. II/246. Witulski. Thomas: Apk II und der Bar KokhhaAufstand. 2012. 1'0/.II/337. Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, andAngels. 2005. 1'01. II/200 I. Wolter, Michael: Theologie und Ethos im frühen Chtiatentum. 2009.1'01. 236.

- see Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Worthington, Jonathan: Creation in Paul and Philo. 2011. 1'01. II/317. Wright, Archie T.: The Origin ofEvil Spirits. 2005, '2013. Vol.II/198. WUcherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus. 2002. 1'01. 142. JJUrst, Gregor: see Popkes, Enno Edzard. Wypadlo,Adrian: Die Verklärung Jesu nach demMarlrusevangelium. 2013.1'01. 308. Yates, John W.: The Spirit and Creation in Paul. 2008. 1'01. II/251. Yeung. Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002. 1'01. II/147. Young. Stephen E.: Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. 2011. 1'01. II/311. Zamfir. Corinna: see Verheyden, Joseph Zangenberg. Jürgen, Harold W. Attridge aod Dak B. Martin (Ed.): Religion, Ethnicity aod Idenrity in Ancient Galilee. 2007. 1'01. 210. Zelyck, Lorne R.: John arooog the Other Gospels 2013. 1'01. ll/347. Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Lehrer. 1984, '1988. 1'01. II/12. Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte aus Qumran. 1998. 1'0/. II/104. Zimmermann, Ruhen: Christologie der Bilder imJohaunesevaogelium. 2004. 1'01.171. - Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis. 2001. 1'0/. II/122. - (Ed.): Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu. 2008. 1'01. 231. - aodJan G. van der I!Utt (Ed.): Moral Laoguage in the New Testament Vol. II. 2010. Vol.II/296. - see Frey, Jörg. - see Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. - see Hunt, StevenA. - see Knllmann, Bernd. - see Roth, Dieter T. - see Watt, Jan G. van der. Zugmann, Michael: ,,llellenisten" in der Apostelgeschichte. 2009. Vol. IU264. Zumstein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas Zwiep, Arie W.: Christ, the Spirit and the CommunityofGod. 2010.1'0Lll/293. - Judaa aod the Choice ofMatthiaa. 2004. 1'01. ll/187.

For a complete catalogue of this series please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2040 • D-72010 Tiibingen/GermaJry Up-to-date information on the internetat www.mohr.de