Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors and The Christology of Luke’s Gospel 9780567681058, 9780567681072, 9780567681065

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

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

Editor Chris Keith

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

OLD TESTAMENT CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND THE CHRISTOLOGY OF LUKE’S GOSPEL

Gregory R. Lanier

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

Paperback first published 2020 First published in Great Britain in 2009edition by the Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd

Copyright © Gregory R. Lanier, 2018 Gregory R. Lanier has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on pp. ix–xii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lanier, Gregory R., author. Title: Old Testament conceptual metaphors and the Christology of Luke’s Gospel / Gregory R. Lanier. Description: 1 [edition]. | New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. | Series: Library of New Testament studies ; volume 591 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018000626| ISBN 9780567681058 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567681065 (epdf) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Luke--Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Metaphor in the Bible. | Bible. Luke--Relation to the Old Testament. | Bible. Old Testament--Relation to Luke. | Jesus Christ--Person and offices--Biblical teaching. Classification: LCC BS2595.52 .L36 2018 | DDC 226.4/06--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018000626 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-8105-8 PB: 978-0-5676-9328-0 ePDF: 978-0-5676-8106-5 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, ISSN 2513-8790, volume 591 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)v To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Acknowledgments ix Notes xi Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Field of Inquiry: Studying the Christology of Luke’s Gospel 1.1. Approaches 1.2. Outlooks 2. Area of Interest: Understanding OT Influences on GLuke’s Christology 3. Methodology: Unpacking GLuke’s Christological Use of OT Metaphors 3.1. History of Metaphor Theory 3.2. Current State 3.3. Using Conceptual Metaphor Theory in this Study 3.4. Other Assumptions and Terminology 4. Summary of Objectives Chapter 2 Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor 1. Preliminary Questions 1.1. What Are the Relevant Background Issues for the Infancy Hymns? 1.2. What Is Being Engaged by the Use of Ἐπισκέπτομαι in the Benedictus? 1.3. What Is Luke “Quoting”? 1.4. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? 1.5. Summary 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors 2.1. Source Domain(s) 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors 3. The Κέρας Metaphor in Luke 1:68–69 3.1. A Personified Horn 3.2. Defeat of Enemies, Status, and God’s Blessing

1 2 3 7 10 15 16 19 27 32 33 35 36 36 38 42 43 44 45 45 48 69 69 71

vi

Contents

3.3. Intimations of a Divine Horn 3.4. Summary 4. Christological Implications

74 78 78

Chapter 3 Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor 1. Preliminary Questions 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? 1.2. Ἐπισκέψεται or Ἐπεσκέψατο? 1.3. “From God” or “From Heaven”? 1.4. Is Ἀνατολή an Allusion to Ṣemaḥ? 1.5. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? 1.6. Summary 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors 2.1. Source Domain 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors 3. The Ἀνατολή Metaphor in Luke 1:78–79 3.1. Into Darkness Shines an Agent of Salvation 3.2. Visitation/Epiphany of the Dawn from Upon High 3.3. Summary 4. Christological Implications

80 80 80 82 83 84 88 89 90 91 92 110 110 116 123 124

Chapter 4 Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor 1. Preliminary Questions 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? 1.2. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? 1.3. Is the “Mother Bird” a Wisdom/Sophia Metaphor? 1.4. Summary 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors 2.1. Source Domain(s) 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors 3. The Ὄρνις Metaphor in Luke 13:34 3.1. Mother Jerusalem 3.2. Gathering Jerusalem’s Children 3.3. Refusal of the Gathering 3.4. Summary 4. Christological Implications

128 129 129 131 134 141 141 142 143 156 157 158 161 164 165

Chapter 5 Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors 1. Preliminary Questions 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? 1.2. How Have the Metaphors Been Interpreted? 1.3. Summary

168 169 171 175 176

Contents

2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors 2.1. Source Domain 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors 3. The Λίθος Metaphors in Luke 20:17–18 3.1. Rejection of the King-Stone 3.2. Divine Judgment as an Encounter with the “Crushing Stone” 3.3. Summary 4. Christological Implications

vii

176 177 180 198 199 208 212 213

Chapter 6 Conclusion 1. Summary of Results 1.1. Luke 1:68–69: Κέρας Metaphor 1.2. Luke 1:78–79: Ἀνατολή Metaphor 1.3. Luke 13:34: Ὄρνις Metaphor 1.4. Luke 20:17–18: Λίθος Metaphors 2. Divine Metaphors and Christology 2.1. God Is…horn, dawn, mother bird, stone-rock 2.2. Divine Identity Christology 2.3. Divine and Human Christology? 3. Closing Remarks

215 215 215 216 217 217 219 219 222 225 228

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

230 269 286

A c k n owl ed g me nts

This book results from an extended period of reflection on early Christology, the complex uses of Israel’s Scriptures in the formation of the New Testament, and the various ways one might go about bringing the two together. It is by no means the last word, but my hope is that it makes a productive contribution at the intersection of various sub-fields of early Christianity. I am grateful for numerous people for their support in making this possible. Special thanks are reserved for Dr. Simon Gathercole, who provided incisive critique and encouragement throughout the project, as well as Dr. James Aitken and Dr. Matthew Novenson, whose feedback in the latter stages was invaluable. I also express my gratitude to St. Edmund’s College and the University of Cambridge for various research stipends as well as various colleagues for their feedback on portions of the project, including Dr. Mateus Ferraz de Campos, Dr. Peter Gurry, Dr. Peter Head, and Dr. Michele Gemelos. Many thanks to Jarett Hall for providing the sketches of artifacts, and to Dr. Duncan Burns for his tremendous help with the manuscript, indexing, and numerous other details. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to family and friends who encouraged and supported us throughout the UK sojourn during which this project was completed. Your prayers, visits, and companionship made those years all the better. Finally, I can hardly find adequate words to express my thanks and love for my wife, Kate, whose sacrifices and care during this project cannot be overestimated, and for our three daughters, whose memories of wellieboots, scones, and the River Cam may fade, but whose imprint on our time abroad never will. Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

N ot es

Italics within quoted material is original unless otherwise indicated. Hebrew/Aramaic texts are provided in consonantal form. Greek quotations are provided as they appear in their source text, while individual words are rendered in lexical form. Syriac is provided in transliterated form. Old Testament citations will follow MT referencing unless context dictates the use of the LXX referencing; if both are needed, the LXX chapter/verse will be provided in square brackets. English abbreviations will be used for biblical books when either the MT or MT+LXX are in view (e.g., 1 Sam), but the standard LXX abbreviations will be followed when only the LXX is in view (e.g., 1 Kgdms). Unless otherwise indicated, 1. All images are copyright of the present author; 2. English translations of the Greek OT and NT are the author’s own; 3. English quotations from the OT are from the English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright 2001 by Crossway; 4. Greek texts of the NT are taken from Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012); 5. Hebrew/Aramaic texts of the HB are from Rudolf Kittel, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977); 6. Greek texts of the Septuagint are taken from Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); alternate readings from the Göttingen editions are noted on a case-by-case basis; 7. English translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls are taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Hebrew texts are taken from the DJD series (or related editiones principes cited in Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert [Leiden: Brill, 2010]);

xii Notes

8. Aramaic texts of the targumim are taken from Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2004); English translations are taken from the relevant volume of The Aramaic Bible series (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark); 9. English translations from the OT pseudepigrapha are taken from James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010); 10. English translations and Greek/Latin texts of Greco-Roman sources are taken from respective editions in the Loeb Classical Library; 11. Sources of other primary texts may be found in §1 of the Bibliography.

A b b r ev i at i ons

AB Abr. ABRL Ant. Apoc. Abr. Apoc. Zeph. Apol. ArBib ASV b. Barn. B’dA BDAG

BDB BDF BDS Ber. BETL BHS BJRL BZNW C. Mend. CAL CBQ Cant.

Anchor Bible De Abrahamo Anchor Bible Reference Library Antiquities of the Jews Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Zephaniah Apology The Aramaic Bible American Standard Version Babylonian Talmud Epistle of Barnabas La Bible d’Alexandria LXX. Edited Marguerite Harl et al. Paris: Cerf, 1986– Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996 Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961 La Bible du Semeur Berakoth Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contra Mendacium ad Consentium Hebrew Union College, Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu) Catholic Bible Quarterly Canticles

xiv Abbreviations CEQ

Cher. Clem. CLR CMT Comm. Prov. Conf. DCH De Orat. De Trin. Dial. Deut. Rab. DJD DSD DSS DSSSE Esth. Rab. ESV Evag. Exp. Ps. Exod. Rab. Ezek. Trag. FRLANT GELS GJohn GLuke GMark GMatthew GThom Haer. HALOT

HB Her. Hist. HTR Il. Inst. Orat.

Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann and James S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000 De cherubim Clement Cognitive Linguistics Research Conceptual Metaphor Theory Commentary on Proverbs Confusione linguarum Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2014 De Oratore De Trinitate Dialogue with Trypho Deuteronomy Rabbah Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Florentino García Martínez and Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, 1999 Esther Rabbah English Standard Version Evagoras Expositiones in Psalmos Exodus Rabbah Ezekiel the Tragedian Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Takamitsu Muraoka. Leuven: Peeters, 2009 Gospel According to John Gospel According to Luke Gospel According to Mark Gospel According to Matthew The Gospel of Thomas Adversus Haereses The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999 Hebrew Bible Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Histories Harvard Theological Review Iliad Institutio Oratoria

Abbreviations Ish. JBL JETS Jos. Asen. JQR JSJ JSJSup JSNT JSNTSup JSOTSup JTS Jub. L&N

xv

Ishmael Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Joseph and Aseneth Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 LAB Liber antiquitatum biblicarum Life of Adam and Eve LAE Lam. Rab. Lamentations Rabbah LCL Loeb Classical Library De Legibus Leg. Leg. All. Legum allegoriae LEH Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek– English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003 Lev. Rab. Leviticus Rabbah LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LSG Louis Segond French Bible Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A LSJ Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 LXX Septuagint LXX.D Septuaginta Deutsche: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009 m. Mishnah Mekh. Mekhilta Mem. Memorabilia Meta. Metamorphoses Midr. Midrash MT Masoretic Text Mos. De vita Moses Mut. De mutatione nominum Neof. Neofiti Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Barbara Aland et al. 28th NA28 ed. Münster: Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, 2012 NEG Nouvelle Edition de Genève 1979

xvi Abbreviations NETS

New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NT New Testament NTS New Testament Studies Numbers Rabbah Num. Rab. OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis Od. Odyssey Oed. Rex Oedipus Rex OG Old Greek OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary. P. Glare. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982 Onq. Onqelos De opificio mundi Opif. OT Old Testament OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 P.Oxy. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus Pan. Panarion PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pes. Pesachim Plant. De plantatione Poet. Poetics Post. De posteritate Caini Protrepticus Protr. Ps-Jon. Pseudo-Jonathan QG Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin R. Rabbi RB Revue biblique Rep. Republic Rhet. Rhetoric RSV Revised Standard Version SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series SBLSCS SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Shem. Shemoneh (Esreh or Esrei) Shep. Herm. Shepherd of Hermas SNTSMS SNTS Monograph Series Somn. De somniis De specialibus legibus Spec. STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StrB Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck. 4 vols. Munich: Beck, 1961

Abbreviations

xvii

Sukk. Sukkot SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Sym. Symposium t. Tosefta T.Abr. Testament of Abraham T.Ash. Testament of Asher T.Ben. Testament of Benjamin T.Dan Testament of Dan Testament of Judah T.Jud. T.Levi Testament of Levi T.Moses Testament of Moses T.Naph. Testament of Naphtali T.Sim. Testament of Simeon T.Zeb. Testament of Zebulon Taan. Ta’anith Tanch. Tanchuma Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard TDNT Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Teh. Tehillim Tg Targums (used generically) Tg. Targum (referring to a specific writing) Theog. Theogony TTwelve Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (used collectively) The Greek New Testament. Edited by Barbara Aland et al. 5th ed. UBS5 Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014. Val. Adversus Valentinianos Vg Vulgate Vetus Testamentum VT VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WUNT y. Jerusalem Talmud Yalk. Shim. Yalkut Shimoni ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 I n t r od uct i on

“God is my strong tower.” “God is my king.” “Israel is an unfaithful wife.” “Judah is a lion’s cub.” Israel’s Scriptures are replete with metaphors that attempt to capture certain intangible aspects of religious and political life by drawing on shared experiences within the natural world and day-today personal relationships. Divine metaphors are particularly noteworthy, as they are often central to the way Israel’s prophets and poets express in concrete form their otherwise abstract experiences of God.1 This use of metaphors continues in the Christian Scriptures, and the role such metaphors (divine and otherwise) play in informing the Christology of the Gospel of Luke is the focus of this study. There has been no shortage of studies dealing with the Christology of various NT writings in the past several decades. Scholars have studied everything from christological titles to exalted Jewish mediators to narrative characterizations of Jesus, and much in between. Conclusions have ranged from that which sees Jesus as merely a run-of-the-mill magician or Cynic philosopher to that which sees him as preexistent Lord of the cosmos. Amid such scholarship the Gospel of Luke (hereafter GLuke) has in some cases been a component of broader studies, while in other cases it has received full-scale analysis on its own. In light of this torrent of activity, this study makes no pretense of giving the definitive account of GLuke’s Christology, if that were even possible. Rather, it aims to make a targeted contribution that explores a certain kind of influence of the OT on GLuke’s portrayal of Jesus’ person and significance, which has not received sufficient attention previously. In particular, it will focus on how GLuke appropriates four metaphors from OT and Jewish tradition2 and applies them in various christologically

1.  Recent studies of divine metaphors in the HB include Gray 2014; Sweetser/ DesCamp 2014; Moore 2009; Dille 2004; Galambush 1992; Brettler 1989. 2.  The rationale for this focus on OT/Jewish influences will be given in §3.3.

2

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

significant ways to Jesus in Luke 1:68–69; 1:78–79; 13:34; 20:17–18.3 My thesis is as follows: GLuke re-maps these metaphors to conceptualize Jesus’ identity in terms that are reserved for deliverer-figures in some cases in OT/Jewish tradition, but uniquely for the God of Israel in others.4 Let us unpack this further. One challenge of these Lukan metaphors is that none are quotations of or even clear allusions to any specific OT passage, resulting in substantial exegetical debate for each. Rather, they appear to be novel creations drawing on concepts well-attested across numerous writings, whereby similar metaphors—though all varying in wording—are used to describe such things as Israel, status, king, Zion, salvation, and God. Simply tracing verbal parallelism, using the standard criteria of intertextuality (i.e. allusion/echo), has proven insufficient for each passage. Thus, methodologically we will approach these metaphors as metaphors, applying insights from contemporary metaphor theory to analyze how they employ existing OT/Jewish metaphors to portray Jesus in terms of other things, namely, animal horns, dawn/light, birds, and stones/rocks. This particular take on the data in GLuke has not been explored in detail before, and the interpretations offered here for these four passages will contribute to both the conversation about GLuke’s Christology and the exegetical questions surrounding each passage. To position this study further within the broader research landscape, I will outline its (1) general field of inquiry, namely, Lukan Christology as part of the broader study of NT Christology; (2) specific area of interest, dealing with GLuke’s use of the OT; and (3) methodology, that is, using metaphor theory in studying GLuke’s christological transformation of OT metaphors. At the end of this chapter, I will draw together these introductory matters to summarize the objectives of this study. 1. Field of Inquiry: Studying the Christology of Luke’s Gospel The field of NT Christology is concerned with how the documents of the NT (and their sources) portray the person and significance of Jesus.5 Three basic questions have dominated: how did the Christology of early Christians emerge historically, how should we best go about the study of the Christology of NT writings, and what exactly are their Christologies? 3.  The selection of these passages will be justified in §3.3. 4.  Definitions (i.e. “mapping,” “conceptual,” “metaphor”) will follow later in this chapter. 5.  R. Brown defines Christology as “any evaluation of Jesus in respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan” (1994: 1).



1. Introduction

3

The first question of the origins of Christology has sustained much debate regarding the process by which christological ideas emerged in the decades after Jesus’ ministry (was it slow or fast? gradual growth or stepfunction mutation?) and the relative influence of Jewish versus Hellenistic forces on this process. Some argue for “early high Christology” emerging organically out of a Jewish milieu, while others argue for “late” development of Christology arising within the Gentile church—with numerous scholars falling at various points between.6 However, GLuke has typically occupied uncertain ground in such debates,7 and our focus will be less on the origins question and more on the second and third questions with respect to GLuke, namely, scholarly approaches to Christology and the christological outlook(s) discerned in the writings. 1.1. Approaches Scholars have examined the christological data of the NT writings in numerous ways. We can summarize these efforts by sketching the profile of four approaches that are in some sense distinguishable, though overlapping at the margins.8 The first, and for over a century the primary, is the study of titles ascribed to Jesus—especially χριστός, κύριος, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου9—and how they manifest within various traditions deemed relevant to the NT (ancient Near East, Second Temple Judaism, Hellenism, gnosticism, rabbinic Judaism, etc.). GLuke has primarily played a contributing role to larger studies of titles,10 though 6.  For summaries of the debate, see Talbert 2011: 3–42; McGrath 2009: 5–15; Chester 2007a: 13–119; Moule 1977: 1–8; Marshall 1976: 36–49. Proponents of “early high Christology” include Hurtado (2005, 2003b, 1988), Bauckham (2008b), Hengel (1983); those defending a “late” development/evolution include Dunn (1980), Mack (1988), Casey (1991). 7.  Particularly due to issues surrounding its provenance, dating, and sources. As a Synoptic Gospel that uses prior sources (1:1–4), some view it as an “early” witness in the origins debate; but given its relationship to Acts (and possibly Paul or GJohn), others view it as a “late” witness. We will be treating it primarily as a literary deposit, thus mitigating any need to take a firm stance on these issues. 8.  By “approach” I mean the set of principles governing one’s treatment of the data and the hypotheses to be tested. “Approach” is a broader category than “method” such as form, tradition, and redaction criticism. Essentially every approach draws on the same basic methodological toolbox. 9.  Others include Son of David, Holy One, Savior, Elect One, Servant, prophet, priest. 10.  As a rough indication, in the three classic title-based studies, GLuke is cited ~160× in Bousset 1970[1921], ~350× in Hahn 1969, and ~50× in Cullmann 1959.

4

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

some GLuke-specific studies have emphasized the use of titles.11 Of late there has been a growing dissatisfaction with the “tyranny” of “the palaeontology of christological titles,”12 but the gravitational pull of titles remains strong.13 This sifting of titles overlaps with a second major approach, which studies how the christological ideas of the earliest Christian communities emerged out of or were influenced by their Greco-Roman or Jewish background(s).14 The older religionsgeschichtliche Schule situates the NT’s portrayal of Jesus against Hellenistic and Oriental movements, with particular emphasis on ruler cults (e.g., σωτήρ and “gospel” applied to Caesar), the itinerant miracle-working θεῖος ἀνήρ,15 Cynic philosophy, mystery religions, and Iranian or gnostic myths.16 Given the author’s apparent interest in the Roman Empire and familiarity with pagan philosophy, Luke–Acts has played a role in such discussions.17 However, in recent decades the old Schule has been resoundingly critiqued for its tendency to ascribe too much influence to gnosticism/mystery cults on the NT (and too little to Hellenization within Judaism), and in response there has arisen a “new” religionsgeschichtliche Schule that situates NT Christology primarily against its Jewish background(s).18 One scholarly effort within this new Schule focuses on how Christology emerges organically out of Jewish messianism, defined along kingly/ Davidic, priestly/Aaronic–Zadokite, prophetic/Mosaic, present/political, 11.  O’Toole (2004) focuses on GLuke’s redactional use of prophet, savior, servant, Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. Rowe’s “narrative/titular” approach focuses on κύριος (2006) and σωτήρ (2003). Among GLuke commentators, Fitzmyer studies titles in most detail (1981: 197–211). 12.  Keck 1986: 370. Talbert calls it a “futile endeavor” (2011: 7). 13.  Other recent studies involving titles include Novenson 2012; Peppard 2011; Casey 2009; Collins/Collins 2008. Hurtado (2003b) includes a significant titular component. 14.  See Bates’s summary (2015: 16–26). 15.  On “divine man” (and “magician”) Christology, see Ingram 2007; Blackburn 1991; M. Smith 1978; C. Holladay 1977. 16.  Major figures in this Schule include Bousset, Gunkel, Reitzenstein, Bultmann, and Kramer. 17.  More recently, Luke–Acts has factored in discussions about empire and other Hellenistic forces (R.B. Hays 2016: 266–71; Pinter 2013; Strait 2013; Rowe 2009, 2005; Kim 2008). Though these works have abandoned the baggage of the old German history-of-religions school, they retain the basic impulse of taking seriously the Hellenistic context (as particularly helped by Hengel 1974). 18.  For an overview of this Schule, see Fossum 1991.



1. Introduction

5

or spiritual/eschatological lines.19 For GLuke, Matera, Strauss, Bock, and Rese primarily apply the kingly/Davidic Messiah category; Croatto, Kingsbury, Johnson, and Moessner focus on the prophet-like-Moses framework in GLuke; Green sees a combination of Davidic Son, Servant, and Prophet.20 Another effort seeks to identify already-existing forms of Jewish speculation about divine mediator figures that would have catalyzed the earliest Christians’ understanding of Jesus as something more than a human Messiah-figure,21 given their background as exclusively monotheistic Jews.22 These figures are seen to provide conceptual raw materials that enabled NT writers to articulate their understanding of the exalted or heavenly status of Jesus. The category of exalted Jewish patriarchs—for example, Adam and Abel in T.Abr. (A), Enoch and Noah in 1 Enoch, Melchizedek in 11Q13, Jacob in Prayer of Joseph, Levi in T.Levi, and Moses in Ezek. Trag. and T.Moses23—has had less direct relevance in Lukan studies. However, some scholars have proposed there are angel(omorph)ic influences24—deriving from such principal angels as ‫( מלאך יהוה‬HB), Michael (Daniel, 1QM, 1 Enoch, LAE), Gabriel

19.  Scholarly views vary tremendously regarding how widespread messianic ideology was within Second Temple Judaism. Of numerous recent works on Messianology-Christology, see Boyarin 2012; Lucass 2011; Bird 2009; Collins/ Collins 2008; Fitzmyer 2007; Chester 2007b; Bockmuehl/Carleton Paget 2007; Horbury 2005, 1998; Laato 1997; Collins 1995; Charlesworth 1992. On the prophetlike-Moses “Messiah,” see Longenecker 1970: 32–8; Teeple 1957. 20.  Matera 1999: 49–82; Strauss 1995; Bock 1987; Rese 1969; Croatto 2005; Kingsbury 1993; L.T. Johnson 1991: 77–83; Moessner 1989; Green 1995: 56–64. 21.  See Dunn 2010: 59–90; Davis 1994 for overviews of Jewish divine agents. Note that Collins/Collins (2008) and Horbury (2005) argue—though on different grounds—for a Jewish ideology of a divine Messiah-king. 22.  The nature of Second Temple Jewish monotheism remains debated—namely, whether it retained integrity as exclusively monotheistic (cultic worship/reverence for only the God of Israel, irrespective of the existence of other heavenly beings) or had been compromised (thus making accommodation of another figure alongside God more easily digestible). See discussions in McGrath 2009: 2–22; Hurtado 1999; Stuckenbruck 1995: 272–3. For a critique of the notion that NT authors operated from an essentially unchanged Jewish monotheism after the Christ-event, see W. Hill 2015. 23.  See discussion in Chester 2007b: 368–76; Hurtado 1988: 21–2. 24.  Fletcher-Louis (1997) is the primary proponent of such influences in GLuke, but other key studies (some of which interact with GLuke) include Carrell 2005; Hannah 1999; Gieschen 1998; Segal 1992; Fossum 1985. Rowland’s treatment of exalted angels influenced many of these works (1982: 78–122). Longenecker (1970: 26–32) and Stuckenbruck (1995) make a more selective use of angel(omorph)ic

6

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(Daniel, 1 Enoch), Uriel (1 Enoch), Raphael (Tobit), Yahoel (Apoc. Abr.), Metatron (3 Enoch), and Angel of Light (1QM)—as well as hypostatic divine Wisdom25 in GLuke. Both Schulen devote extensive attention to reconstructing religiohistorical backgrounds behind the NT texts. Arising in part as a response to this perceived imbalance, a third approach, which has been particularly prominent for GLuke, focuses on literary-critical features in the canonical texts themselves. Taking GLuke (or any NT writing) as it stands, such endeavors attempt to understand how the identity and significance of Jesus is developed through such features as the author’s treatment of his sources and the unfolding of the narrative itself. How is GLuke’s portrayal different from that of, say, GMark or Q? How is Jesus characterized as the plot unfolds? What do the recorded speeches and sign-acts of Jesus imply about his status and self-consciousness? What must be presupposed about the state of early Christianity in order for GLuke’s narrative portrayal of Jesus to have made sense to the audience?26 Within Lukan scholarship, for instance, Henrichs-Tarasenkova examines how human and divine identities are developed through the gospel’s narrative. Bullard analyzes the episodes of Jesus’ knowledge of peoples’ thoughts in GLuke. Hays traces the OT influences on “the narrative representation of Jesus in the canonical Gospels” (including GLuke) as well as how “Jesus’ identity unfolds cumulatively through the Gospel [of Luke].” Rowe follows the narrative development of Jesus’ identity as “Lord.” Lee focuses on Jesus’ self-characterization in his speeches and actions. O’Toole and Buckwalter emphasize authorial intention and redactional handling of source material. Johnson and Moessner examine how the author shapes the narrative of GLuke around the Moses story. Böhlemann studies GLuke’s portrayal of Jesus in comparison with John the Baptist, both narratively categories. An important sub-debate arises from how some sources depict high degrees of veneration—a hotly debated term in itself—for certain intermediary figures while other sources prohibit such behavior (Bauckham 1999, 1981). 25.  I will discuss this “Wisdom” myth further in Chapter 4. While many focus on Wisdom-related influences on Paul (e.g., Dunn 1980; critiqued in Fee 2007: 594–630), GLuke has played an important role in the discussion of whether the double tradition/Q or GMatthew reflect a “Wisdom Christology.” Major treatments include Gench 1997; Deutsch 1996; Mack 1973; Hamerton-Kelly 1973; Christ 1970; Suggs 1970; Wilckens 1959; Feuillet 1955. GLuke factors less in discussions of other so-called hypostases (Logos, Shekinah, Voice, Glory, Name), which have focused on GJohn, Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation (A. Lee 2005: 77–84; Gieschen 1998: 70–122; Newman 1992). 26.  On this form of “implicit Christology,” see Thiselton 1994: 464.



1. Introduction

7

and redactionally. Coleridge deals with the Christology of the infancy narrative, and von der Osten-Sacken similarly studies the christological Klärungsprozeß of the travel narrative (i.e. how it develops/refines christological ideas introduced in Luke 1–9).27 These studies of Lukan Christology are wide-ranging in the passages they study and conclusions they derive, but they share an emphasis on the literary elements directly in front of us in GLuke, with relatively less focus on the tradition-history of titles or Hellenistic/Jewish influences, as it were, behind the text. A fourth approach, which examines the data from a slightly different angle than the third, traces certain motifs or themes in the NT writings to expose their Christological implications. For instance, Gathercole studies the “I have come” motif in the Synoptics. Turner explores the Spirit’s relationship to Jesus in GLuke (and Acts). Franklin focuses on themes of eschatology, judgment, and lordship and how they relate to Christology. Voss focuses on GLuke’s handling of redemptive-history in an attempt to unify various Christological motifs. Laurentin examines a variety of christological themes in Luke 1–2, including John as forerunner, Shekinah, virgin birth, and eschatology.28 In sum, numerous scholars have studied GLuke using the basic approaches to NT Christology in general (titles, history-of-religions, literary analysis, topics/themes), each of which yields insights into GLuke’s Christology—some complementary, some not. The present study will explore non-title-based elements of Lukan Christology and, specifically, blend elements of the second, by exploring the influence of antecedent OT/Jewish metaphors on GLuke, and the third/fourth, by examining how such metaphors fit within the narrative context of GLuke and accentuate certain themes or motifs in the gospel. 1.2. Outlooks Any study of NT Christology, irrespective of approach, aims to articulate the christological outlook—that is, the basic viewpoint on Jesus’ identity, character, and significance—of a verse, pericope, composition, corpus, or 27.  Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015; Bullard 2015; R.B. Hays 2014: x; 2016: 244; Rowe 2006; D. Lee 1999; O’Toole 2004 (labeling his method “composition criticism”); Buckwalter 1996; L.T. Johnson 2013; Moessner 1989; Böhlemann 1997: 213–74; Coleridge 1993; von der Osten-Sacken 1973. Similar to Coleridge, Dillon (2013) and Hendrickx (1984) study the literary/narrative structuring of the infancy narrative and hymns and derive some christological conclusions, but neither focus on Christology. 28.  Gathercole 2006 (several chapters include treatments of GLuke); M.M.B. Turner 1994, 1980; Franklin 1975; Voss 1965; Laurentin 1957.

8

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

author.29 The christological outlook a scholar detects in a given NT writing has typically been located somewhat artificially on a spectrum from “low” (emphasizing humanity, submission, instrumentality) to “high” (emphasizing heavenly status, divine co-equality) Christology.30 With respect to GLuke, the studies introduced above have yielded a somewhat bewildering array of positions on how to characterize GLuke’s dominant christological outlook.31 The most oft-repeated conclusions are that GLuke’s Christology is the “lowest” among the Synoptics,32 shows no evidence of preexistence,33 and is fundamentally subordinationist.34 Studies emphasizing that the governing christological lens in GLuke is one of Davidic Messiah or prophet-like-Moses tend to point in such a direction.35 29.  There is no necessary correlation between the approach one uses and the outlook one detects in the writings (let alone one’s conclusions about origins/development). For instance, study of titles may yield low-and-late Christology (Casey 2009) or high-and-early Christology (Hurtado 2003b). 30.  For decades the debate has been pitted as an overly simplistic dichotomy of “low” versus “high,” as if a given NT author or work is either one or the other (e.g., John and Paul are “high”; GLuke’s and Q are “low”). This seems to be a false dichotomy that does not fit with the data; see W. Hill’s critique in 2015: 3–18. Approaching NT Christology in such a way that allows any given writer/composition to register at one or more points seems more adequate. 31.  See Buckwalter’s taxonomy of dominant Christologies proposed for GLuke (exemplar, absentee, hero, savior, servant, messiah, divine son, etc.) (1996: 7–24). 32.  Barrett notes that GLuke has long been the “stronghold of the liberal humanitarian interpretation of Jesus” (1970: 22). Fletcher-Louis (summarizing a view with which he disagrees) writes, “Of all the gospels, Luke’s is often thought to have a particularly low Christology…[and] Luke adopts a conspicuously ‘high’ Christology” only in Acts (1997: 19, 21). 33.  Collins/Collins (2008: 123–45); Bovon (2006: 136); Dunn (1980: 209); Barrett (1970: 43); Conzelmann (1960: 185); Lampe (1956: 171), and others deny preexistence in GLuke. I use “preexistence” here in reference to ontological, heavenly, pre-incarnate existence of Jesus (versus “ideal” preexistence, whereby a person is known in the mind of God before coming onto the world stage but did not, strictly speaking, have ontological existence previously; see Blank 1974: 17; Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 83–4). 34.  That is, “Luke sees Jesus as wholly subordinate to the Father, given a share in the Father’s authority, but one which is derived from the Father. He is still the instrument of the Father and is still called his servant” (Franklin 1975: 54). The subordinationist position is also strongly voiced by Bovon 2006: 140; Tuckett 1999: 149 (summarizing what he takes to be the consensus); Conzelmann 1960: 173; Lampe 1956: 170–2. To this may be added Kirk 2016 for the Synoptics as a whole. 35.  See the examples in n. 20. Some (e.g., Bock, most recently in 2012: 149–84) argue for a form of two-step Christology in which Jesus, as Messiah in GLuke, is then revealed as exalted-Lord in Acts.



1. Introduction

9

However, several scholars have challenged this “low” consensus, particularly among those who have approached GLuke less on the basis of titles or religionsgeschichtliche influences and more on the basis of literary or thematic features. In particular, some detect evidence that GLuke understands Christ’s lordship as something that goes beyond that of a messianic king and is, rather, more akin to that exercised by God himself.36 Others suggest there are subtle but important cues that GLuke characterizes Jesus as preexistent in some way37 or as possessing “heavenly” status prior to his ascension.38 Still others argue for “divine Christology” in GLuke by noting how certain prerogatives normally belonging only to God are ascribed in various ways to Jesus.39 Recently, Hays has argued that “the ‘low’ Christology that modern NT criticism has perceived in Luke’s Gospel is an artificial construction” that ignores how Luke’s use of the OT reveals “the closest possible Verbindung of Jesus’ identity with the divine identity.”40 One may look at these seemingly divergent ways of understanding GLuke’s christological outlook and conclude, as some have, that “‘Luke’s Christology’ may be all but irrecoverable,” given the “lack of uniformity” of its various strands and the impossibility of “integrating them into any particular scheme.”41 Yet there would seem to be no a priori requirement that these varying christological outlooks must be crammed under a single governing scheme.42 While the apparent juxtaposition of, say, “low” Davidic/messianic elements alongside (at least according to some research) “high” divine/transcendent elements may trouble modern scholars, it is possible GLuke’s author is content to allow them to sit sideby-side. If nothing else, the complexity of the data suggests that GLuke’s Christology hits at multiple points along the “low–high” spectrum. The present study will bear this out, as the Lukan christological metaphors combine outlooks that might be classified as “low” (e.g., eschatological deliverer-figure) as well as “high” (e.g., divine identity). 36.  Rowe 2006: 20–8, 206; 2003. 37.  Gathercole 2006. Marshall is circumspect but admits that GLuke’s Christology may be “compatible” with preexistence (2005: 123). 38.  Fletcher-Louis 1997. 39.  Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015; Bullard 2015; O’Toole 2004; Buckwalter 1996: 191–2; Laurentin 1957. 40.  R.B. Hays 2014: 72 (a stronger assertion than in 2009: 117). 41.  Tuckett 1999: 148. 42.  Here I agree that “one influence must not be singled out to the detriment of others” (Bovon 2006: 166); similarly R.B. Hays 2016: 224 (“the effort to find a single controlling christological title or motif can only occlude the full range of Luke’s presentation…[and] is no longer a defensible reading strategy”).

10

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

2. Area of Interest: Understanding OT Influences on GLuke’s Christology Many studies of NT Christology and specifically Lukan Christology outlined above involve to significant degrees the christological use of Israel’s Scriptures43—from titles to Yahweh-texts to narrative frameworks—in the NT documents. In fact, many scholars have concluded GLuke’s primary interest in the OT is christological.44 The sub-discipline of the use of the OT in the NT deals with the text form used by NT writers,45 the hermeneutic employed by the author(s),46 and the identification of the specific textual sources themselves. These three questions are sometimes overlapping (e.g., verifying a source may hinge on text form) but often distinguishable (e.g., identifying the source may be independent of whether it is handled, say, typologically or literally).47 Let us examine briefly how such questions have been answered for GLuke, in order to set the background for our study of GLuke’s use of OT metaphors. 43.  We immediately run into problems of nomenclature. “Old Testament” and “Masoretic Text” are anachronistic; “Hebrew Bible” is inaccurate for most of the NT authors who engaged primarily with the Greek; and “LXX”/“Septuagint” blurs the fact that there was no single Greek tradition circulating at the time of the NT authors (see Green/Hays 2010: 123–5). For simplicity, OT will be used a shorthand for whatever form of “Israel’s Scriptures” may have been accessed (in whatever language) by NT authors. 44.  See Litwak’s summary of the history of research on this point (2005: 8–30; though he argues ecclesiology is a key purpose of GLuke’s use of the OT). Rese 1969 is another standard treatment of GLuke’s christological use of the OT. 45.  Especially when the NT reading varies from known Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or other textual traditions. Various explanations have been offered: the author may have been using a manuscript whose reading is no longer extant in the witnesses we have; accessing pre-existing OT testimonia or excerpta (a theory with a long history: Hatch 1889; Burkitt 1907; Harris 1916, 1920; Dodd 1952; Lindars 1961, 1964; Audet 1963; Hillyer 1971; Bruce 1973; Snodgrass 1973; Stanley 1992: 73–9; Albl 1999; Falcetta 2003, 2000; Lincicum 2008); citing from memory or oral tradition; or intentionally modifying a quotation. All may very well be in play. 46.  The hermeneutical question largely revolves around how/why a NT author departs from what would seem to be the historical-critical reading of an OT passage (for its original author and audience). Numerous models for explaining these deviations have been proposed, including typology (Goppelt 1982), “midrash” (Ellis 1969; Kimball 1994), and type-scene (Green/Hays 2010; Rusam 2003: 41–51). 47.  See Bock 1987: 16 for a discussion of the importance of distinguishing these questions.



1. Introduction

11

Regarding text form, there is broad consensus that Luke’s primary access to the OT comes about through the Septuagint.48 However, it is debated whether this holds true in the infancy narrative, where direct or indirect Semitic influences—denoted Hebraisms by some and (imitative) Septuagintalisms by others—are juxtaposed with Graecisms.49 Moreover, while the author uses several OT books, the strongest influences on GLuke appear to be Isaiah, Minor Prophets, Psalms, and Exodus.50 With regard to OT hermeneutic, there has been a long-standing opinion that Luke chiefly employs a “proof-from-prophecy” or “prophetic fulfillment” hermeneutic.51 That is, the author “regards a scriptural text as making a prediction about a future event or person, and that scriptural event or person maps directly to specific events(s) or person(s) within the scope of Luke–Acts,”52 most often Jesus himself. This view has been questioned of late on grounds that it uses “prophecy” equivocally (the gospel involves both OT “prophecies” as well as those pronounced by characters in the narrative), that it is unclear what exactly constitutes “fulfillment,” and that it simply does not account for all the data.53 While proof-from-prophecy retains some validity, other options—such as prefiguration and the recapitulation of OT patterns or themes—have also been proposed for GLuke,54 and this study will broadly fit with such efforts.

48.  Holtz (1968) remains the definitive study and has received recent support from Rusam (2003: 7–8) and Bock (1987: 14). See also Muraoka 2012; Ringgren 1986. 49.  See Radl 1996: 29–32 for a helpful summary of these features. As we will discuss in Chapter 2 §1.1, a strong contingent argues for a Semitic source of Luke 1–2, which the gospel author translated himself (less likely) or which was already translated into Greek (more likely). 50.  Mallen 2008; Holtz 1968. 51.  Fitzmyer 1992; J.T. Sanders 1987; Schubert 1954. 52.  Litwak 2005: 15. 53.  R.B. Hays 2014: 59; Litwak 2012: 151–6, 2005: 9–17; Rowe 2006: 33; Talbert 1984. Hays concludes that many of GLuke’s OT appeals are not predictionfulfillment but rather “create a narrative world thick with scriptural memory” (2016: 193–4). 54.  Prefiguration may be defined as “establish[ing] a connection between two events or persons in such a way that the first signifies not only itself but also the second, while the second involves or fulfills the first” (R.B. Hays 2014: 2). Bock (1987) focuses on “patterns” and “analogies” that are not, strictly speaking, “fulfilled,” but rather recapitulated in some way; similarly Mallen 2008.

12

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Finally, much scholarship focuses on identifying the specific OT sources influencing any given NT passage(s), in GLuke and elsewhere. This field of biblical “intertextuality” experienced its modern renaissance in the 1990s,55 but its broad strokes go further back.56 Space does not permit a full Forschungsbericht of biblical intertextuality,57 so I will simply highlight a few key points relevant to our study of GLuke. The overarching concern within biblical intertextuality is twofold: identifying what specific OT source(s) is/are being used in a given NT passage, and, having identified it/them, analyzing what the NT author is trying to communicate to the audience (actual/implied/ideal) by engaging the OT in this way.58 Results from the latter exercise are as diverse as the scholars doing such research. But there is a bit more common ground with respect to the former. The playing field is divided roughly as follows, acknowledging that the boundaries between categories are somewhat 55.  As is well known, “intertextuality” has its roots in poststructuralist literary criticism (Kristeva, Barthes), which attempts the decentering/destabilization of author-centric or any other form of normative interpretation of a text by arguing that every text is merely a network of intertexts; that is, any signifier merely points to other signifiers. In recent decades, R.B. Hays (2009, 2005, 1989) has fostered a cottage industry around the NT’s “intertextual” use of the OT by attempting to build on Kristeva’s theory (via J. Hollander 1981) without its underlying political and postmodernist ideology. Some have argued that this borrowing of the apparatus of intertextuality theory is merely a “stylish way of talking about allusion and influence” (Irwin 2004: 228)—precisely what Kristeva hoped would not happen! (Litwak 2012: 149). A good case is made that, strictly speaking, “intertextuality” is misapplied if referring to the NT project of identifying how OT allusions/echoes are being used to generate meaning for a given author and work, which presupposes some kind of normativity that is rejected within literary-criticism (Yoon 2013; Hatina 1999). Yet it remains common nomenclature and will be used here as shorthand for the theory and practice of studying “inner-biblical” influences or, in older terminology, “the use of the OT in the NT.” 56.  Larkin’s major GLuke study includes a lengthy discussion of how citations, quotations, allusions, and ideas (= echoes)—the same basic labels used by Hays-ians— have been studied since the Reformation (1974: 1–95). The recent labels “metalepsis” and “transumption” are largely revitalizing Dodd’s thesis (1952: 132–3) that an OT citation/allusion pulls in a broader context from the source passage(s) beyond the words employed. 57.  For GLuke, see Litwak 2012, 2005. 58.  Authorial intent and audience are, in light of the postmodernist critique, somewhat problematic in their own right (see Porter 2008: 34–6). Increasingly biblical intertextuality scholars are open to intertextual allusions/echoes that operate primarily at the level of the contemporary reading community and may not have been intended by the author (this, indeed, is closer to Kristeva’s original notion).



1. Introduction

13

fluid, and certain scholars’ labels/definitions may vary:59 (i) explicit and direct citation of an identifiable OT passage(s) using an introductory formula (e.g., γέγραπται); (ii) direct quotation of a specific OT passage without an introductory formula, where the wording/syntax matches an extant textual tradition to such a degree that there is little doubt that this particular passage is intended by the NT author; (iii) allusion to a particular OT passage where the verbal parallelism is looser (e.g., portions elided; wording changed; conflations with other texts) but it is “fairly clear what text is being alluded to”;60 and (iv) echo of the OT using “a few to several words that can be recognized” as coming from a biblical passage.61 It has long been recognized that GLuke employs citations and quotations relatively infrequently and instead makes regular use of allusions and echoes.62 Among numerous challenges faced by scholars engaged in biblical intertextuality, a major one has been verifying intertexts that fit the latter two categories—allusions and echoes. While scholars often disagree on how to differentiate allusion from echo,63 they share the basic notion that there is generally one recognizable source that is accessed indirectly (rather than directly, as with citation or quotation) in either case.64 But without a scriptural citation formula65 and significant verbal/syntactical parallels to a known OT textual tradition (Hebrew, Greek, other), what methodological controls are in place to validate whether this or that specific, recognizable OT source is actually in view, and with what degree of probability? How does one know an author is alluding to or echoing this particular OT source and not that one? Or is the author unintentionally employing LXX-sounding language from scriptural memory? Hays’s seven “tests” or 59.  Porter laments the inconsistency of labels but, in the end, proposes his own that cover basically the same ground (2007, 1997). 60.  Litwak 2012: 148. Beale argues an allusion is recognized by “incomparable or unique parallel in wording, syntax or in concept or in a cluster of motifs in the same order or structure” (2012: 31). Porter’s definition is broader (2008: 40; 1997: 95). 61.  Litwak 2012: 149. 62.  R.B. Hays 2016: 196; Green 1995: 24–8; R. Brown 1993: 235; Laurentin 1957: 100–101. 63.  Some do not distinguish them (e.g., Hollander, Hays, Beale). I will generally use “allusion/echo.” 64.  Langford 2013: 19–21; Beale 2012: 29–31; Porter 2008: 40; Brunson 2003: 11–13. 65.  Even this is no guarantee: in Luke 24:46, “thus it is written” introduces a sentence that has no recognizable OT source.

14

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

criteria for identifying allusions/echoes—availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction—have added some rigor to the discussion.66 However, the core problem remains: where does one draw the line between legitimate allusions/echoes of identifiable OT sources and scholarly imagination?67 Or, put differently, how does one tell the difference among an allusion/ echo to a particular OT intertext (and its local context), an author’s use of a broader motif or theme that may span numerous passages (as in Vorstellungsgeschichte or Überlieferungsgeschichte),68 and an intriguing connection found only in the exegete’s head? While this study cannot solve all these issues, we will nevertheless be forced to confront them in our four Lukan passages, which sit at the boundary where the standard criteria and categories of intertextuality begin to break down. As will be detailed in each subsequent chapter, all four passages lack a citation formula and match no extant textual tradition.69 They lack the sufficient verbal and syntactical correspondence to any specific, recognizable OT source texts needed reasonably to justify the label allusion/echo. But virtually all scholars who have studied them readily admit that the OT is behind each in some way. The question for us, then, is how to add methodological rigor to the NT use of the OT when the criteria provided by intertextuality are exceedingly strained. In our study of these four texts, conceptual metaphor theory will come alongside our effort to help provide such rigor.70 Let us turn there next. 66.  R.B. Hays 1993: 29–32. See the summary in Litwak 2012: 62–4; Wagner 2000: 9–13; critiqued by Porter 2008: 38–9. 67.  See Foster’s complaint (2015). This is not helped by the tendency towards ambiguous terminology: “echo chamber of scriptural resonances” (W. Hill 2015: 124); “catalytic fusion” (R.B. Hays 2014: xi); “atmospheric resonance” (Rowe 2006: 33); “harmonics” (Brunson 2003: 11). 68.  Steck 1967: 18. See also Liebers (1993: 93) for helpful parameters for tracing broad OT themes, and Ciampa (2008) on tracing “scriptural language and ideas” (not citation/allusion/echo). Porter’s broader definition of “echo” (intentionally departing from Hays)—“the invocation by means of thematically related language of some more general notion or concept” (2007: 109)—fits this category. However, he provides no methodological grounding for how to validate such “invocations.” 69.  Except Luke 20:17; the challenging portion is 20:18. 70.  While I would not share their negative opinion of intertextuality as such, I agree with Wassell/Llewelyn’s main point about metaphor theory: “Lurking beneath the façade of intertextuality has been mere guesswork, unbounded by methodological controls such as CTM [= Contemporary Theory of Metaphor] and CBT [= Conceptual Blending Theory]” (2014: 642–3).



1. Introduction

15

3. Methodology: Unpacking GLuke’s Christological Use of OT Metaphors As suggested in the preceding sections, our interest lies in examining the christological use of four metaphors in GLuke that are ultimately derived from the OT. However, given that their wording strains traditional intertextual criteria, interpreting these metaphors is not so simple as pointing to this or that possible source passage because, in effect, there may be dozens. Moreover, the very fact that these are apparently novel metaphors (rather than more direct uses of OT intertexts) in itself suggests that they merit being studied as metaphors, not merely as intertextual allusions/ echoes.71 Thus, there is warrant for bringing to bear the tools and frameworks provided by contemporary metaphor theory on the selected data in GLuke as a complement to other approaches. Metaphor theory will help us examine how these four Lukan metaphors conceptualize the identity and significance of Jesus in terms of other things that, elsewhere in OT/ Jewish tradition, are used to conceptualize God, Israel, deliverer-figures, and so on. In this section, then, I will describe contemporary metaphor theory and how it will be employed in this study. I will also clarify other methodological assumptions before wrapping up this introductory chapter. Like intertextuality, metaphor theory has experienced its own renaissance in the past four decades.72 While initially biblical scholars were late adopters, the use of metaphor theory in its various permutations is increasingly popular among OT scholars. Numerous substantial monographs have been written in recent years that apply some form of contemporary metaphor theory to metaphors within the HB. The application of metaphor theory to the NT has been much slower to develop, but there is a growing number of such studies.73 The present work, however, is one of just a

71.  We define “novel metaphor” as an utterance that extends existing/conventional mappings (on which more below) in a new way or formulates new mappings (see Dancygier/Sweetser 2014: 58–9; Lakoff 2006; Fraser 1979). 72.  In 1981 M. Johnson wrote, “We are in the midst of a metaphormania. Only three decades ago the situation was just the opposite: poets created metaphors, every­ body used them, and philosophers (linguists, psychologists, etc.) ignored them. Today we seem possessed by metaphor” (1981: ix). Van Noppen/Hols (1990, 1988, 1985) list over 10,000 publications across scholarly fields pre-1990 alone. 73.  SBL has run a “Metaphor Theory in the Hebrew Bible” seminar for several years, but none for the NT. For a bibliography of OT/NT studies, see Lanier 2014b.

16

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

few that focuses on the appropriation of OT conceptual metaphors in NT texts,74 and the only one, so far as I am aware, that does so specifically for christological purposes. The current orthodoxy is typically denoted Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT).75 Though arising out of cognitive linguistics,76 its broad outlines have been embraced even among those who do not otherwise operate out of a cognitive linguistics perspective.77 CMT defines metaphor as the mapping of a “source domain” onto a “target domain.” Put differently, it is the linguistic expression of how the mind understands one area of human experience (target) in terms of another area of human experience (source). These dense definitions require unpacking, especially given that CMT is still rather foreign within NT studies. The first step is to summarize how scholars arrived at such a definition. 3.1. History of Metaphor Theory The average observer has little trouble recognizing intuitively that the expression “Our marriage hit a pothole” is figurative, and most will probably be able to state that it is specifically a metaphor. But the task of providing detailed reasoning why it is considered a metaphor has challenged philosophers and linguists for over two millennia. The history of metaphor theory can be summarized succinctly as a movement away from viewing metaphors as merely dispensable and decorative speech that replaces literal wording, toward viewing metaphors as indispensable and creative ways of expressing how reality is understood.78 Two theories of metaphor have prepared the way for CMT: the substitution theory and the interaction theory. 74.  Other NT studies dealing with metaphors originating in the OT include Eberhart 2013; Gupta 2010. 75.  To be clear, the “Conceptual” modifies “Metaphor,” not “Theory” (in other words, it is a theory pertaining to conceptual metaphors; not a theory of metaphors that is conceptual). 76.  Cognitive linguistics views language not from the perspective of its system of syntactical rules (as with generative linguistics) but rather from the perspective of the human processes of conceptualization that lie behind words and grammar. Language and cognition mutually influence one another in the creation of meaning. For an overview, see Geeraerts/Dirven/Taylor 2006; for a recent treatment of its use in biblical studies, see Green/Howe 2014. 77.  Though see critiques in Fauconnier/Turner 2008; Baldauf 2000. 78.  Helpful summaries of the history of metaphor theory provided by biblical scholars include Gray 2014: 9–33; Jindo 2010: 1–54; Moore 2009: 4–58; Howe 2006: 14–214; Weiss 2006: 1–193.



1. Introduction

17

(i) Substitution theory, from Aristotle to the twentieth century. The dominant view of metaphor that held sway from classical Greece to the mid-1900s—and which many, from grade school grammarians to biblical scholars,79 still retain today—is that a metaphor is merely a stylistic trope that involves the substitution of one word for another based on resemblance or analogy between them.80 Aristotle (and possibly Plato and Isocrates before him) and the Latin rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian largely agreed that metaphor is a peculiar form of poetic speech whereby the ordinary term for something is replaced by an alien term in order to enhance the rhetorical style of what is being said.81 That is to say, in the metaphor “our marriage hit a pothole,” the metaphor is the word “pothole,” which has been substituted for the literal word that would otherwise belong there, such as “problem” or “difficulty.” The metaphorical substitution of terms makes the otherwise plain phrase “our marriage encountered a difficulty” into something more aesthetically interesting. Through this word-for-word substitution, a literal phrase is turned into a figurative phrase, but there has been no enhancement to the meaning, only an improvement in style. Thus, to interpret the metaphor, one simply needs to reverse the substitution by plugging back in the literal term that has been replaced.82 This view of metaphor—that it is simply a shortened form of simile that elides the comparative “like/as” to bring enhanced rhetorical punch83—basically held sway until the Enlightenment period.84 Perhaps unsurprisingly, Enlightenment rationalists and empiricists challenged the use of metaphors altogether, if they merely replace what could be expressed more clearly in literal prose.85 For many, metaphor was left for 79.  Noted by Blocher 2004: 634; Howe 2006: 13. 80.  See descriptions of substitution theory in Arseneault 2006: 42 (“a new decorative name is transferred to an object in substitution for its usual plain name, though for merely rhetorical effect”); Soskice 1987: 5–10; Ricoeur 1981: 3. 81.  Plato, Sym. 221e–222a; Isocrates, Evag. IX.9; Aristotle, Poet. XXI.7, 15–17; XXII.1–4; Rhet. III.2.5, 8–9, 12–13; III.3.4; III.4.1–2; Cicero, De Orat. III.38.152– 155; III.39.157; III.41.166–III.42.169; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. VII.6.1–19. 82.  “Substitution plus restitution equals zero” (Ricoeur 1976: 49); also Black 1962b: 32. 83.  Weiss 2006: 7. 84.  E.g., Augustine (C. Mend. 24; D. Trin. V.8.9; XV.9.15) and Aquinas (though within his nuanced understanding of language; see Howe 2006: 44) presupposed a form of substitution theory. 85.  See the scathing critiques of metaphor in Hobbes’s Leviathan (§I.5) and Locke’s Essay (I.11.2).

18

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

dead as an expendable stylistic accretion that does not belong in proper philosophical discourse.86 (ii) Interaction theory, and the rebirth of metaphor. In the early decades of the twentieth century, metaphor theory was given new life by scholars87 who rejected the substitution view and proposed another that remains influential today.88 This “interaction” theory (also known as incremental, interanimation, or semantic twist theory) maintains that a metaphor produces meaning through the simultaneous interaction of two ideas that have an underlying similarity but a surface-level conflict.89 Unlike substitution theory, interaction theory holds that the metaphor is not a word by itself but rather any syntactically complete utterance, ranging from short phrases to entire paragraphs.90 That is, the entire phrase “Our marriage hit a pothole” is the metaphor, not just “pothole.” Further, the metaphor consists of two distinct ideas that have received various labels: tenor/vehicle, primary/secondary, actual/hypothetical, and focus/frame. The first of each pair is what the author intends to communicate, which is usually though not always literal (i.e. something about marriage). The second of each pair is the idea that the utterance seems to be expressing if taken at face-value, through a surface reading of the words and syntax (i.e. something about traveling along a road and hitting a pothole). These two ideas are brought together under the auspices of some kind of similarity between them,91 but the heart of metaphor lies in the tension that results from their juxtaposition.92 The utterance seems to be making 86.  Gray 2014: 2; Howe 2006: 53. 87.  Prominent leaders of this revival include Richards (1936); Wheelwright (1962); Beardsley (1962, 1981); Black (1962a/b, 1979); Ramsey (1967); Ricoeur (1976, 1981); McFague (1983); Soskice (1987). 88.  Some identify an additional theory—the comparison, pragmatic, objectcomparison, or similarity theory—that fits somewhere between substitution theory and interaction theory. Space does not permit outlining it in detail; see Cohen 2005; Gray 2014: 17; Hills 2012 §4.2; Steen 2006: 53; Glucksberg 2001: 9. 89.  Each scholar provides a variation on this core definition; see the examples in Soskice 1987: 31–43; Black 1979: 28. 90.  An “utterance” is an internally coherent linguistic expression, written or spoken (Ziem 2008: 143). There remains debate regarding the syntactical scope of a metaphorical utterance (see Kittay 1989: 155; Ricoeur 1981: 49; Soskice 1987: 21). 91.  A “system of associated commonplaces” (Black 1962b: 40). 92.  This phenomenon has been called “impertinent predication” (Ricoeur 1981: 4), “semantic impertinence” (Weiss 2006: 40–4), “logical incompatibility” (Beardsley 1981: xxxiv), “deviance” (Glucksberg 2001: 47), “local incongruity” (Aaron 2001: 28), “literal falsity” (Goodman 1979: 125), “wörtliche Falschheit” (Keller-Bauer 1984: 49), and “category mistake” (Ricoeur 1976: 51).



1. Introduction

19

a false or contradictory claim at the surface-level, for everyone knows that marriages do not actually hit literal holes in the tarmac on a roadway. This tensive interaction between the two ideas brings one to new levels of insight, forcing one to ask, what is it about this seeming contradiction that helps me understand both ideas in a new way? The power of a metaphor “is not that it translates literal thought, but that the very thinking is…an increment to understanding.”93 Or, as another scholar puts it, a metaphor “cannot be translated without ‘loss of cognitive content’…[and] being untranslatable, it carries new information.”94 This new information, often called “surplus of meaning,” is the hallmark of the interaction view of metaphor.95 3.2. Current State The shift from seeing metaphor as an artistic device at the word level (substitution theory) to seeing it as conveying thought processes (interaction theory) flowered in the 1980s, with what has become known as Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Building on many of the insights of interaction theory (tension, surplus, etc.), scholars such as Lakoff, Johnson, and Turner took things one step further to argue that our cognitive processes themselves—in addition to the linguistic utterances to which such cognition gives rise, which had been the focus under interaction theory—are basically metaphorical in nature. We think, not just communicate, in metaphors.96 A metaphorical utterance is, in other words, the written or spoken expression of a concept in our minds that itself is structured as a metaphor.97 93.  Soskice 1987: 25. 94.  Ricoeur 1981: 87. I am unconvinced metaphors can never be fully translated into words; theoretically one could exhaust the meaning of a metaphor if afforded enough word count (in fact, this study attempts this very thing). The main point, however, is that metaphors are a compressed way of conveying significant amount of cognitive content, and with that I agree. 95.  See the discussions on surplus of meaning—i.e., non-semantic insights (emotional force, visual imagery, rhetorical weight, and so on) that go beyond the mere words used—in W. Brown 2002: 8–9; Ricoeur 1976: 45; Black 1962b: 46. 96.  Foundational works for CMT include Reddy 1979; Lakoff/Johnson 1980; Johnson 1981; Lakoff/Turner 1989; M. Turner 1998. See Galambush (1992: 6) on how CMT is an evolution, not revolution, relative to interaction theory. Most CMT scholars acknowledge their debt to (and the ongoing relevance of) Black, Ricoeur, etc. 97.  “Human thought processes are largely metaphorical… Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person’s conceptual system” (Lakoff/Johnson 1980: 6).

20

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

To elaborate, in order to understand something about the world, we often draw on our experiences of other things. We apply what we know about one thing to gain understanding of another. We “see as”—we see one thing as another. This structuring of our thinking in terms of common spatial-temporal experiences is, in short, a “conceptual metaphor.” For instance, one may conceptualize love relationships such as marriage as journeys along a road. This metaphorical way of understanding reality may, in turn, be given linguistic expression in a variety of specific metaphorical utterances: “our marriage hit a pothole” (as above), or “this dating relationship has been a one-way street,” or “we have come a long way in our friendship.” CMT holds that such utterances are not merely literary tropes but reveal how we actually think about the world. To use other examples, one might see business as a sporting contest that must be won (“we lost the contract”), or think of emotions as movement through space (“he is an emotional roller-coaster”). Thus, CMT defines metaphor as “the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another,” or, succinctly, “cross-domain mapping.”98 A domain consists of all the assumptions, background information, cultural conventions, and semantic data—that is, the slice of human experience—that relates to either of the two ideas in the metaphor.99 It is part of the “encyclopedia” of knowledge within a given community, which then enables one member to understand or, as it were, decode a metaphor coined by someone else who shares the same “encyclopedia.”100 For instance, the domain of a journey includes the entirety of one’s experience of what traveling on a journey entails (within a given group’s 98.  Lakoff 2006: 185–6. 99.  “Any sort of conceptualization: a perceptual experience, a concept, a conceptual complex, an elaborate knowledge system, etc.” (Langacker 2006: 31); “any coherent subset of human experience” (Howe 2006: 66–7). Though “domain” and “frame” are sometimes used interchangeably in CMT (Langacker 2008: 45–8), it is more common to say that a cognitive “frame” gives structure to a “domain” (i.e., a frame is more specific, a domain is more general)—see Fillmore/Baker 2009; Ziem 2008: 7–51. For simplicity we will use “domains” (and “elements,” below). 100.  This CMT understanding of an “encyclopedic” domain (Langacker 2006: 31) shares similarities with the “encyclopedia of reception” common to intertextuality scholars (R.B. Hays 2015: 195; 2009: 104) and “encyclopedic relationships” (or “universe of discourse,” or “community of reception”) within semiotics (Langford 2013: 28; Alkier 2009: 8; both drawing on Eco and Peirce—the former of whom Hays also cites). The shared idea is that a given utterance (including metaphor), in order to be understood, relies on a shared encyclopedia of conventionalized knowledge within a given social/cultural group in which the communication occurs.



1. Introduction

21

“encyclopedia”):101 travelers, means of transport, map, origination, destination, course of travel, medium of travel, direction of travel, speed, progress, obstacle, resupply station, scenic vista, and more. A conceptual metaphor generally involves two domains, the target and the source. The target domain relates to the main concept about which the metaphor’s creator is concerned; the source domain is that which is brought in and used to conceptualize the target domain. In our prior example, “marriage” is the target domain and “journey” is the source domain: one is concerned with understanding something about marriage (not journeys per se), but the journey source is used to do this. A metaphor, then, is the cognitive “mapping” or drawing of correspondences from the source domain to the target domain, such that interpreting the metaphor requires unpacking these mappings. To interpret a metaphor, each piece of information or “element”102 in the source is evaluated to see whether and how it might connect to something in the target to provide an angle on understanding it.103 Some elements are mapped, and others are not.104 To illustrate with “our marriage hit a pothole,” some elements of the journey source domain may be mapped to the marriage target domain: e.g., travelers → married partners; progress → how the marriage has been going before now; obstacle → specific problem (“pothole”) we are facing; destination → whether we will achieve the goal of life-long marriage. But some elements of the source domain, such as maps or scenic vistas, are left unmapped in this specific metaphor.

101.  While domains are generally applicable to any people group, the nature of what constitutes them may vary. E.g., the default “means of transport” in a Western, post-industrial community might be “automobile,” whereas for a pre-industrial Scandinavian culture it might be “longboat.” 102.  Sometimes called “gestalt,” “slot,” “relation,” “entailment.” I will use “element” for consistency. 103.  A cross-domain map is, thus, the “set of systematic correspondences between the source and the target in the sense that constituent conceptual elements of [the source] correspond to the constituent elements of [the target]” (Kövecses 2010: 6). Howe elaborates, “The correspondences mapped are ontological correspondences, so that entities in the (typically more abstract) target domain correspond in systematic fashion to entities in the (typically more concrete) source domain” (2006: 69). 104.  Understanding what is and is not mapped in a metaphor is an important step in interpretation (Kövecses 2010: 79–92), though determining this is often challenging (Rossow 2009: 258–9). We will rely on the syntax/semantics of the utterance and local context to guide our analysis.

22

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

The interpretive process within CMT drives towards articulating how a specific metaphorical utterance is expressing the conceptual metaphor (sometimes called “root metaphor” or “conventional metaphor”) that lies beneath it. By identifying the source and target domains as well as the specific mappings (and non-mappings) between them for a given utterance, one is able to understand how it draws on or extends a conceptual metaphor that, in principle, could also underly any number of other utterances. Standard CMT convention expresses such a conceptual metaphor and its domains in small caps using the copula “to be,” i.e. target is source.105 Thus, the utterance “our marriage hit a pothole” is a particular instance of the conceptual metaphor marriage is a journey.106 Such notation of a conceptual metaphor is another way of expressing the source → target mapping, such as journey (source) → marriage (target). Not only can the same conceptual metaphor (marriage is a journey) be used in a variety of utterances that would have different journey → marriage mappings (e.g., “I feel like I’m taking the backseat in this marriage,” or “my husband arrived at his final destination before I did”), but the same target domain (marriage) may be conceptualized through the use of other source domains. For example, marriage is a dance (“she made the first move, and I followed her lead”), or marriage is a machine (“our weekly date-night keeps the engine running”). Each of these metaphors takes the same target but maps entirely different source domains to it. And each serves to illustrate CMT’s main point, namely, that such source → target mapping is an essential part of how we structure our understanding of reality. I visualize and talk about marriage as a journey in some cases, and as a dance or machine in others. The preceding paragraphs give a concise but thorough summary of the current CMT orthodoxy,107 which is reflected in several OT and NT studies in recent years. A few corollary issues should be mentioned: (i) The above discussion has intentionally focused on defining metaphor and interpreting metaphorical utterances, but almost as much effort has gone into recognizing metaphors: how do you know you have one to begin with?108 Simply recognizing a metaphor based on its “figurativeness” 105.  This “to be” can be used flexibly, e.g., marriage is a journey or marriage is traveling on a journey. 106.  Or a higher-level form, e.g., love is travel or life is a journey. 107.  See fuller treatment in Dancygier/Sweetser 2014. 108.  “What makes something metaphorical and how we distinguish literal from nonliteral expressions has been the subject of thousands of studies” (Aaron 2001: 101).



1. Introduction

23

instead of “literalness” merely reframes the question as “how do you know something is figurative”?109 Numerous approaches have been proposed for recognizing metaphors, including selection-restriction violation (componential semantics)110 and first order versus second order divergence (pragmatic semantics).111 Metaphor recognition can be complex in biblical studies—e.g., is divine Father/Son language metaphorical? Most of our examples from OT/Jewish literature are fairly straightforward, allowing us to focus on interpretation and avoid burdening the discussion with lengthy recognition discussions. We will, however, summarize how the four metaphors in GLuke were recognized for this study in the next sub-section. (ii) CMT is sometimes criticized for overemphasizing the mental aspect of metaphor at the expense of the linguistic expression,112 which has led to helpful, but occasionally unclear, attempts at distinguishing “metaphors” from “models”/“frames” (mental structures grounded in experience; e.g., parent–child relationship), “image schemas” (representations of time/ space that are the building blocks of models; e.g., up-is-good/down-isbad), “conceptual metaphors,” and more.113 In this study, we will address this critique by grounding ourselves both in “metaphorical utterances” as the specific linguistic expressions being interpreted, and “conceptual metaphors” as the cognitive mappings that the utterances express. 109.  On differentiating literal from figurative, see Glucksberg 2001: 15; KellerBauer 1984: 2–4. 110.  In short, each word in an utterance possesses (i) semantic markers and (ii) selection restrictors that limit the kinds of other words with which it can be combined (predication, subject-verb-object, adverbial or adjectival modification, etc.) based on their semantic markers. A metaphor may be identified when an utterance brings two (or more) words into a semantic combination wherein the semantic markers of one word conflict with the selection restrictors of the other. To illustrate, the word “pothole” would include the selection restriction , which would generate a violation when combined with “marriage,” which lacks the semantic marker [roadway]. See Weiss 2006: 40–4; Hong 2006: 22–6; Kittay 1989: 52–65; R. Matthews 1971: 418–23. 111.  This approach notes that sometimes the tension of a metaphor may not be identified from the syntax (as with componential semantics), but only from examining the plain/surface meaning or “first order” context against the broader, “second order” context. To use a somewhat contrived illustration, “our marriage hit a pothole” would not actually be a metaphor if one’s minivan was (for some odd reason) named “Marriage”; only if it is known from the second order of context that this is not the case can we safely identify it as metaphor. See Long 1994: 515; Kittay 1989: 44, 65. 112.  Baldauf 2000; Soskice 1987: 16. 113.  Gray 2014: 13–14; Ziem 2008; Gibbs/Colston 2006.

24

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(iii) Another sub-debate among metaphor theorists concerns so-called dead metaphors. Within interaction theory a dead metaphor is one that may have originally had a tensive quality and surplus of meaning, but it loses both by becoming part of common vernacular.114 However, CMT holds that such metaphors may, in fact, be the most alive of all.115 Even highly lexicalized metaphors may be, in a sense, “resurrected” by using them in a novel way. A more relevant distinction within CMT, then, is not between living and dead but rather between conceptual/root metaphors (marriage is a journey) and novel/creative metaphors that are built from them (“our marriage hit a pothole”).116 For our purposes, this clarification is important particularly for israel’s god is a stone-rock (Chapter 5): whereas some argue this is a dead metaphor and “Rock” is merely a(n) epithet/name for God, the evidence does not bear this out. (iv) The relationship between simile and metaphor has long been debated. CMT holds that a simile is form of metaphor. Regardless of the use of comparatives (like, as, etc.), there is an underlying source → target mapping taking place with a simile just as with a metaphor.117 This is particularly important for Chapter 4, where Luke 13:34 technically takes the grammatical form of a simile (ὃν τρόπον). On CMT terms, it is still a metaphor. (v) Finally, the specialist may at this point ask, “what about blending?” Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT; also called “conceptual integration”) holds that “human beings engage in cognitive blending—the ongoing, real time process of thinking—by recruiting and combining meaning from well-established cognitive structures (e.g., local context and primary or culturally licensed metaphors or frameworks) in order to build new meaning.”118 CBT holds that any thought process involves at least four “mental spaces” (similar to “domains” in CMT): a generic space, the set of basic/abstract information that structures and governs everything going 114.  Keller-Bauer 1984: 4–5; Black 1979: 26. 115.  “They are ‘alive’ in the most fundamental sense: they are metaphors we live by. The fact that they are conventionally fixed within the lexicon of English makes them no less alive” (Lakoff/Johnson 1980: 55; also Lakoff/Turner 1989: 128–9). 116.  Dancygier/Sweetser 2014: 34–6. 117.  DesCamp/Sweetser note, “similes…have the same kind of effect and function as metaphor. They differ only in grammatical form” (2005: 212)—though similes often have a narrower range of “imaginative reflection” (W. Brown 2002: 7). The OT and NT make little distinction between them (Spencer 1996: 437). 118.  DesCamp/Sweetser 2005: 217. For an overview of blending, see Kövecses 2010: 272–81; Evans/Green 2007: 400–441; Fauconnier/Turner 2006; Coulson 2006; Coulson/Oakley 2000; Oakley 1998.



1. Introduction

25

on among the other spaces; two or more input spaces, the distinct sets of information that form the raw materials for the thinking process; and a blended space, where information from the input spaces is projected to enable multi-directional interaction (as governed by the generic space) as part of the cognitive process.119 CBT attempts in part to give an orderly account for how new (“emergent”) information structure can arise from existing mental spaces. There are two perspectives by which one might view CBT in relation to CMT. On the one hand, some argue that conceptual metaphors are simply a special case of blending, which is a broader phenomenon that underlies not only metaphors but nearly all human cognition.120 Namely, the one-directional source → target mapping of CMT is functionally the same as projecting two input spaces (source and target) into a blend with little or no multi-directionality in the interaction.121 On the other hand, some argue that blending may, in fact, be a competing model (at least in some instances) insofar as it accounts for certain features of cognition for which CMT mapping falls short. In particular, CBT is seen to be better suited when input spaces are not conventionalized within a linguistic community’s “encyclopedia” (as with CMT’s domains) but rather are dynamic; when input spaces involve other metaphors (leading to complex metaphors in the blend); and when new/emergent information structure arises from the blend that is not necessarily accounted for by the initial input spaces and one-directional mappings alone.122 CBT certainly brings additional flexibility to the table over CMT. On balance, however, a firm either/or may not be necessary, as a strong case has been made that both approaches can be seen as complementary: CMT works well for “stable 119.  As summarized by Fauconnier/Turner, conceptual blending “involves setting up mental spaces, matching across spaces, projecting selectively to a blend, locating shared structures, projecting backward to inputs, recruiting new structure to the inputs or to the blend, and running various operations in the blend itself” (2003: 44). 120.  Grady/Oakley/Coulson argue that “the two approaches are complementary… The cross-domain relationships which have been identified by CMT researchers shape and constrain the more complex process of conceptual blending” (2007: 420). 121.  DesCamp/Sweetser summarize, metaphors are “single scope blends…[that] involve a systematic pattern of mapping between the first input (source domain), which provides the language and images (the structure or frame), and the second input (target domain), which is the actual concept being considered” (2005: 220). 122.  See the discussion in Fauconnier/Turner 2008. They call metaphor theorists to go “beyond the usual focus on cross-domain mapping and inference transfer. We need to face squarely the far greater complexity of integrations [=blends] that lie behind observable metaphorical conceptual systems” (2008: 65).

26

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

knowledge structures represented in long-term memory,” while CBT works well for “dynamic evolution of speakers’ on-line representations.”123 The approach followed here will attempt to balance both principled and pragmatic considerations. As our analyses of the various ancient sources will reveal, the conceptual metaphors of relevance to this study are stable over time, well-defined, and fairly simple (rather than complex combinations of other metaphors or domains). This lies nearest to the heart of CMT, which “emphasizes the idea that there is a ‘metaphor system’ in which conceptual metaphors interact in order to provide relatively stable structure and organisation to the human conceptual system.”124 When we turn to GLuke, I will argue that we are dealing with a novel re-mapping of existing metaphors, such that the verses under discussion are innovative but remain intelligible within existing patterns/structures. Thus, CMT is the best fit for the data. On pragmatic grounds it is also acknowledged here that CBT brings with it some challenges in terms of implementation. The analytical framework of CBT is complex. To take a recent example, a blend diagram for a relatively common metaphor involved six circles, twenty-five distinct text strings, seventeen solid and dashed lines, and three arrows.125 CBT terminology is quite extensive as well, involving generic space, input space, blended space, schema, frame, (selective) projection, emergent structure, integration network, composition, elaboration, compression, completion, and more.126 CBT is also arguably best-suited for single examples127 and would prove somewhat impractical for analyzing dozens of metaphorical utterances found within various ancient writings (especially those that are stable and generally simple), as we will do here. Thus, while employing 123.  Grady/Oakley/Coulson 2007: 436. By “on-line” they mean the cognitive action of processing on-the-fly (not the World Wide Web). Evans/Green express the difference similarly: “conceptual metaphors feature mappings [that] hold between domains that are highly stable knowledge structures,” while CBT features “temporary conceptual ‘packets’ constructed ‘on-line’ during discourse” (2007: 435–6). Evans/ Green defend a symbiotic approach to CMT and CBT and conclude, “while Blending Theory accounts for much of what was originally thought to fall within the remit of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the latter nevertheless retains an important role in cognitive semantics in identifying primary metaphor mappings that are directly grounded in experience” (2007: 440). 124.  Evans/Green 2007: 436. 125.  Evans/Green 2007: 432. 126.  Fauconnier/Turner 2006: 303–15. 127.  Perhaps this is why “The surgeon is a butcher” is ubiquitously used/re-used in blending research (much like “Man is a wolf” among interaction theorists in prior decades).



1. Introduction

27

CBT directly could be advantageous for studying novel metaphors,128 it would be burdensome upon the reader—especially given the lack of familiarity with CBT within NT studies—to introduce yet another analytical framework on top of CMT. In short, for both principled and pragmatic reasons CMT will offer our primary toolbox, while insights provided by CBT will either be picked up in the CMT analyses or the general exegetical work, in order to avoid encumbering the effort with another layer of method.129 Even in this decision we will aim to keep things as simple as possible, so the reader can best follow the arguments. To that end, methodologically I will employ CMT as follows. 3.3. Using Conceptual Metaphor Theory in this Study The recognition step, the details of which are not all presented here, involved first examining approximately 250 pieces of christologically relevant data in GLuke, including narrative details, adjectives or attributes ascribed to Jesus, titles, and more. From these data, I isolated passages that, per our definition of metaphor, involve the mapping of a source domain from everyday experience to the target domain of Jesus. Though some christological titles are, arguably, metaphorical, they were excluded due to their extensive treatment elsewhere and our interest in exploring aspects of Lukan Christology not tied to titles. Also excluded were the parables in which, some argue, Jesus is self-identifying with a character in the story. Given ongoing debates about the nature of parables (allegory? realistic fiction?) and whether such self-identification is even happening, 128.  I would add, however, that this advantage does not necessarily arise from the apparatus of CBT itself (diagrams, lines, space projections). One often gets the impression that the jump to “emergent structure” (which is the defining contribution CBT brings to the table over CMT; Evans/Green 2007: 437) seems to be just that—a jump—that is not always immediately obvious from analysis itself. The analytical process behind CBT is often more helpful than the documentation, which can tend to obscure rather than clarify. 129.  Particularly in terms of integrating information from beyond the source and target domains, such as the narrative context in GLuke or literary motifs in the near context. On CBT terms these aspects of the analysis would be part of the generic space or other input spaces, but to keep things simple, I will integrate such data using standard exegetical practices. Moreover, in the chapters that follow I will often speak of how GLuke is “re-mapping,” “transforming,” or “re-appropriating” existing metaphors. This is simply my way of describing within the CMT framework what could also be described as “projecting information from additional input spaces into the blend” on CBT terms.

28

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

adding CMT to this hermeneutical mix would extend beyond our space constraints.130 This sifting process yielded four christological passages that meet the CMT definition.131 The passages are as follows (underlined portions indicate what I consider to be the metaphor proper, but the context in each case is important): 1:68–69

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.

1:78–79

Because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby ἀνατολή shall visit us from on high, ἐπιφᾶναι to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.132

13:34

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a bird gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

20:17–18

The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.

Each metaphorical utterance involves an identifiable source domain drawn from everyday experience (within the ancient context): horn, light (specifically dawn), mother bird, and stone-rock, respectively. The subsequent chapters will feature four sections for each metaphor. (§1) We will survey the preliminary exegetical questions impacting interpretation, which will vary for each passage, though two will be standard: a summary of why intertextual approaches have been insufficient, and a brief history of interpretation of the passage.

130.  On metaphor and parables, see Erlemann 2003; Weder 1978. 131.  I also considered Luke 2:30–32 but became convinced that the “light”/“glory” source domains are not being mapped to Jesus in a personifying sense; rather, they are an elaboration on τὸ σωτήριον (2:30), which I take to be an abstraction, not a circumlocution for Jesus (Dillon 2013: 129). The christological import of the “bridegroom” passage (Matt. 9:15/Mark 2:19/Luke 5:34) has been much debated; given its recent detailed treatment (Tait 2010), it is excluded here. Moreover, I am by no means obviating the possibility of other christological metaphors in GLuke; in such a case, the same basic method used here would be readily applicable. 132.  As much of the debate hinges on key words here, I leave them untranslated for now.



1. Introduction

29

(§2) The work of interpreting each metaphor will begin by examining the source domains and mappings that constitute, as feasibly a possible, the “encyclopedia” most pertinent to GLuke (rather than a modern one).133 But what might that be? There are two dimensions to this important question. The first relates to the conceptual stock relevant to Luke. Several considerations indicate that the OT should be treated as the chief influence on these metaphors in GLuke. The author positions the entire gospel as a narrative of the “things fulfilled” (τῶν πεπληροφορημένων πραγμάτων, 1:1) in Jesus Christ, to whom “all the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” attest (24:44). More specifically, the Benedictus—in which two of our metaphors are found—is not only saturated with OT vocabulary, syntax, and themes, but it also describes the sending of Jesus (the target domain of both metaphors) as a direct fulfillment of what was spoken “by the mouth of [God’s] holy prophets from of old” (1:70). Moreover, both 1:68–69 and 1:78–79 are part of the God of Israel’s plan for “his people” and the “house of David”—clear references to biblical themes. The metaphor in Luke 13:34, similarly, is bracketed by an appeal to the OT theme of the mistreatment of the prophets of Israel (13:33) and a direct citation of Psalm 118[117] (13:35). Finally, Luke 20:17 and 20:18 both seem to be introduced with a single scripture introduction formula (τί οὖν ἐστιν τὸ γεγραμμένον τοῦτο), and they conclude a parable that itself is dramatically shaped by the OT (especially Isa. 5). In short, the influence of the OT appears to be decisive on these four christological metaphors.134 As we will discuss in each chapter, the scholarly consensus is quite clear on this point—but not on which OT intertexts are being employed. Hence, we will focus our analysis of domains and metaphor mappings on data from the OT, in conjunction with other Jewish sources that feature metaphors similar to (and likely influenced by) OT antecedents.135 To that end, despite the problems inherent in both terms,136 we will use “OT/Jewish” as a shorthand for this approximation of the “encyclopedia” relevant to the study of these metaphors. We will be intentionally

133.  E.g., many OT bird metaphors use “vulture” positively, jarring the more negative modern (Western) view of vultures. 134.  This is not surprising given the broader influence of the OT on GLuke’s Christology (§2). 135.  A practical benefit of this approach is that we actually have enough data to do the analysis, thus mitigating the risk of excessive speculation. 136.  On “OT,” see n. 43. “Jewish” is also a slippery term, given the diversity found within Second Temple Judaism (as well as questions about Luke’s own background).

30

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

broad in approximating “Jewish” from the extant sources, including the versions, so-called apocrypha/pseudepigrapha, Qumran literature, Genizah literature, Philo, Josephus, and, to a limited degree, later rabbinic sources.137 None of this means, however, that the gospel author is not influenced by other factors such as the broader Hellenistic world.138 Thus, we will supplement our findings with literary or archaeological data from antiquity (ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman), where many of these conceptual metaphors are reflected.139 The second half of the question relates to the linguistic stock relevant to Luke. Strictly speaking CMT should first be applied within a given linguistic system—so that proper lexical and semantic analysis can be performed— before drawing cross-linguistic conclusions. This is, however, somewhat challenging for the material at hand: OT/Jewish sources are multi-lingual and involve translations; first-century Jews and Christians were often multi-lingual; Luke 1–2 may be derived from Hebrew/Aramaic sources;140 two of the metaphors (13:34 and 20:17–18) are ascribed to Jesus and may have been originally spoken in Aramaic; but, ultimately, GLuke is written in Greek. To balance these considerations, we will segment our source data into two groups: primary evidence consisting of Greek writings (primarily Greek OT, but also other Jewish Greek writings) and secondary evidence consisting of non-Greek OT/Jewish writings (and, as available, ancient Near Eastern/Greco-Roman sources). This approach will ensure that the core of our lexical and semantic work will be done in Greek—as the best approximation of Luke’s linguistic environment—while allowing other traditions to play a supporting role. This also fits with the scholarly consensus outlined in §2 above that the gospel author primarily interacts 137.  Our emphasis will neither be on tracing the chronological development of these metaphors nor positing direct literary dependencies but, more generally, on the variety or commonality in metaphors shared among these sources. The sheer quantity of these expressions across literary traditions suffices to show how they have endured (and fairly consistently, at that) over a long time period. Thus, we can avoid encumbering the discussion with diachronic concerns about dates and provenances (i.e. are TTwelve pre- or post-Lukan?). In other words, I am not arguing that Luke had literary access to these Jewish sources, but rather that they reflect a shared kind of mapping; that is, GLuke stands in a similar position of reception of these prior conceptual patterns. 138.  Which, of course, greatly influenced Judaism and Christianity in the first century. 139.  On the relationship between textual metaphors and visual imagery, see Zimmermann 2003: 10–11. 140.  See the discussion in Chapter 2 §1.1.



1. Introduction

31

with the OT via its Greek translation and demonstrates familiarity with substantial portions of the corpus.141 We will begin each analysis by identifying directly from these OT/ Jewish sources the basic elements of each chapter’s relevant source domain(s). We will then work inductively through numerous metaphorical utterances in the primary evidence (supplemented by secondary evidence) to explore how they map elements of the given source domain(s) to various target domains, thus developing a view of the conceptual metaphors they express. For instance, the horn source domain may be mapped to multiple target domains (e.g., defeat of enemies, status, god) reflecting multiple underlying conceptual metaphors—each of which is expressed in numerous specific utterances in the literature. I will summarize the data and source → target mappings using the following diagram (illustrated here with “our marriage hit a pothole”): Conceptual Metaphor: marriage is a journey journey (source) marriage (target) Travelers → Married partners Means of transport → Marriage relationship Map Origination Destination → Life-long, fulfilling marriage Course of travel Medium of travel Direction of travel Obstacle → Specific problem/crisis jeopardizing the “destination” Speed Progress on journey → How the marriage has been going before now Resupply station Scenic vista

In some cases, I will attempt to clarify how some conceptual metaphors are logically related to one another. For instance, marriage is a journey is a sub-class of love is travel. In other cases, the conceptual metaphors are more or less independent.

141.  The question of whether Luke at particular points derives his knowledge of the OT primarily via GMark (and the so-called double tradition/“Q”) is beside the point. In Lukan Sondergut, especially the infancy and travel narratives but elsewhere as well, the author demonstrates independent conversance with the Greek OT at numerous points (e.g., ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν in 20:42).

32

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(§3) From there we will turn to the use of the same source domain(s) in the GLuke passages listed above. I will undertake a detailed exegesis of the metaphorical utterance in GLuke to demonstrate how the mappings and conceptual metaphors uncovered in the OT/Jewish literature are being employed (or not) in the Lukan passage. This step in the analysis will include close attention to the lexical and semantic details of the metaphorical utterance and to the contextual framing in which the metaphor sits (which can include the surrounding verses, the presence of other motifs/themes in context, broader connections in GLuke).142 These discussions will highlight how the gospel has appropriated (or not appropriated) OT/Jewish “metaphorische Präzedenzen”143 in its portrayal of Jesus. (§4) We will conclude each chapter by drawing out the various christological implications of our metaphor analysis, including aspects of specifically divine Christology (via divine metaphors) that will receive further elaboration and synthesis in Chapter 6. 3.4. Other Assumptions and Terminology We will work from the NA28 text of GLuke, paying attention to variant readings where necessary. This is not strictly a redaction-critical study, hence no firm stance on the Synoptic Problem is required for our analyses. Most of the CMT-related terms have been covered above. A few other terms merit clear definitions. I will employ “motif” in three analyses: “divine visitation” in Chapter 2, “theophany/epiphany” in Chapter 3, and “gathering” in Chapter 4. By motif, I mean a recurring tradition that broadly involves the same wording, context, and interpretation across numerous OT/Jewish sources. I will use “prerogative” to refer to a right or responsibility belonging exclusively to a given individual. The entailments of such a prerogative may in some cases be delegated, but in others they may not; either way, ultimately the prerogative itself resides uniquely with that person.144 142.  We will use “framing” or “frame of reference” to refer to how literary context impacts interpretation of a given metaphor (which differs from the technical use of “frame” mentioned in n. 99). We simply mean that, e.g., the travel narrative constitutes part of the “framing” of the metaphor in 13:34. 143.  Keller-Bauer 1984: 50. 144.  To illustrate, a unique prerogative of the President of the United States is veto authority over legislative bills; it cannot be delegated to anyone else. Another prerogative of the President is command of the armed forces, the entailments of which are delegated to other military officials; however, final accountability falls with the President.



1. Introduction

33

Precisely defining “Messiah” and “messianic” proves quite vexing within scholarship (and many simply leave them undefined), but it is necessary for most subsequent chapters to be as clear as possible. Given how most Lukan scholars with whom I will interact use the terms, I will reserve them for the strand(s) of Jewish ideology focused on a human king from the line of David/Judah who will play an eschatological role. However, the Jewish data with respect to use/non-use of (‫משיח(א‬ and χρίστος and the types of eschatological figures envisioned is quite complex, as a few prominent examples indicate:

“Messiah/ Anointed” used “Messiah/ Anointed” not used

Davidic Kingly “Anointed,” Son of David Pss. Sol. 17:21–36 “King” from Judah T.Sim. 7:1–2

Non-Davidic Kingly

Non-Davidic Non-Kingly

“Son of Man” 1 En. 48:2–10

“Messiah of Aaron” (1QS 9; CD 12)

Moses on Throne Ezek. Trag. 66–88

“New Priest” T.Levi 18:2–5

Hence, I will also employ generic terms like “agent” or “deliverer” collectively to refer to “Messiah” as well as other eschatological saviorfigures (priestly, prophetic, heavenly, etc., which some scholars label “messianic”).145 “Luke” will denote the author of the gospel and “GLuke” the name of the gospel writing—likewise for the other evangelists and gospels. “Septuagint”/“LXX” will designate the collective Greek traditions of the OT (plus Apocrypha); specific traditions (e.g., Theodotion vs. Old Greek for Daniel) will be noted when necessary. Finally, I will often refer to GLuke’s metaphors by using the primary word of the metaphor’s source domain as shorthand (“κέρας metaphor”); this is done for brevity and does not indicate a substitution view of metaphor. 4. Summary of Objectives This study aims to contribute to ongoing work on Lukan Christology by exploring an area that has not received sufficient attention previously.146 We will examine four metaphorical utterances in GLuke (1:68–69; 145.  See the discussions on the complexities of “messianism”/“Messiah” nomenclature in Novenson 2012: 34–63; Bird 2009: 34–5; Collins/Collins 2008: 1–3; Chester 2007b: 198–201; Fitzmyer 2007: 2–7. 146.  Schröter (2003: 54) argues “metaphorische Christologie” has received insufficient attention.

34

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

1:78–79; 13:34; 20:17–18) that on close inspection appear not to be alluding to or echoing any individual OT text(s). Rather, they are creatively drawing on source domains—horn, light (dawn), mother bird, stone-rock—mapped in dozens of places in OT/Jewish literature to various target domains, such as defeat of enemies, status, god himself, and so on. It is my contention that, given how metaphors reflect the structure of cognitive activity, such a maneuver provides insight into how GLuke conceptualizes the character and significance of Jesus in terms of metaphors that were available and widely attested at the time. Some of these mappings are appropriated and re-mapped to Jesus in GLuke, and others are not. The question becomes, then, what outlook on Jesus’ identity is being communicated through the re-mapping of these antecedent conceptual metaphors to Jesus? How do such re-mappings enhance our understanding of GLuke’s Christology? In short, I will argue that some of the ways GLuke appropriates these OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors is consistent with an understanding of Jesus as an eschatological deliverer-figure (in some cases specifically “messianic”). Others, however, seem to suggest a divine Christology: Jesus’ identity is being conceptualized through metaphors that are normatively mapped in such ways that express God’s identity alone. A secondary outcome of this study will be to illustrate how CMT provides a form of methodological control or guidance in certain cases involving the use of the OT in the NT. Our inductive study of how the same source and target domains are used again and again, but with different verbatim renderings, across numerous textual sources may demonstrate how some citation/quotation/allusion/echo challenges can be mitigated.

Chapter 2 I nt e r pretat i on

of t h e Κ έρ α ς

M e taphor

Our first metaphor is found in the κέρας σωτηρίας passage of the Benedictus, which reads as follows: 1:68

Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο καὶ ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ,

1:69

καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ.1

The metaphor proper is 1:69, but, due to its καί, 1:68 provides important context. As introduced in Chapter 1, we will undertake the analysis of this passage in four steps: (1) surveying the preliminary exegetical questions that require attention before pursuing our analysis; (2) examining the source domains and conceptual metaphors in the OT/Jewish sources, as part of the “encyclopedia” of inputs to the gospel; (3) analyzing the appropriation of these metaphors in GLuke, especially with reference to syntax, contextual framing, and broader Lukan concerns; and (4) drawing out christological implications. While nearly all agree that these verses are drawing on something from the OT, the standard criteria of intertextuality have yielded little agreement as to what. Our application of CMT to this metaphorical utterance will attempt to provide more satisfactory results. I will argue that GLuke maps the horn domain to Jesus as target domain—drawing mainly on defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn and exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn conceptual metaphors—in such a way that is aptly labeled “messianic,” though this is not as obvious from Jewish usage as typically assumed. Moreover, there are indications that god is the horn of salvation is also being appropriated.

1.  The inconsequential variants mentioned in NA28 do not warrant discussion.

36

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

1. Preliminary Questions Four debates inform our discussion. Two of them relate to both the κέρας metaphor in this chapter and the ἀνατολή metaphor of Chapter 3: the background issues surrounding the infancy hymns and the “divine visitation” motif. Two are specific to this metaphor: identifying the OT source used by Luke and interpreting the metaphor itself. 1.1. What Are the Relevant Background Issues for the Infancy Hymns? In recent decades the critical consensus has shifted away from viewing GLuke’s infancy narrative (1:5–2:52) as a dispensable, ad hoc pastiche prepended to Luke 3–242 towards seeing it as a unified composition that sets up the remainder of the gospel.3 But even if this starting point is granted, numerous challenges arise, which I can only summarize here and state my positions as they bear on the analyses in this chapter and the next. (i) Infancy narrative in general. Scholarship remains divided about the sources of Luke 1–2 (e.g., Täufersekte tradition, “L-source,” “midrashic” compositions, GMatthew)4 and their original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek—including “Hebraisms” or imitative “Septuagintalisms”).5 (ii) Infancy hymns. Similar questions surround the Magnificat, Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis, and Gloria. Did Luke compose these hymns anew to fit the narrative or adapt them from pre-existing sources?6 If the latter, what were those sources, and were they Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek?7 Were the 2.  E.g., Wellhausen (1904) and Conzelmann (1960) ignore chs. 1–2. 3.  Serrano 2012: 56–9; Wolter 2008: 70–5; Tannehill 1999: 326; Coleridge 1993: 22–3; R. Brown 1993: 241–3; Fitzmyer 1981: 163; Oliver 1964; Minear 1966. 4.  On the first, see Dibelius 1971[1934]:124; Vielhauer 1952: 256. On the second and third, see Fitzmyer 1981: 85; Goulder/Sanderson 1957; Harnack 1931. On Luke’s possible use of Matt. 1–2, see Brooks 2007; Goodacre 2002: 57–60 (and Watson 2013: 131–5 on Luke’s use of GMatthew in general). The question is made more complex by recent proposals that Marcion’s “gospel”—which lacks the infancy narrative—reflects some form of Ur-GLuke (rather than a trimmed canonical GLuke); see discussions in Lieu 2011: 733–40; Klinghardt 2008: 26–7. 5.  For summaries of this debate, see Radl 1996: 29–32; R. Brown 1993: 245–7; Farris 1985: 31–2; N. Turner 1955; Winter 1954a. The most recent treatment is Jung (2004: 22–43), who defends Luke’s use of multiple Greek sources, with the alleged Semiticisms/Hebraisms deriving primarily from Septuagintal influence (2004: 212). 6.  Harnack is the main proponent of the former (1931: 72–5), Farris for the latter (1985: 16). Most agree that Luke used sources for the hymns even if they disagree on what they were (Dillon 2013: 7). 7.  For the Magnificat and Benedictus, many argue for Hebrew/Aramaic sources from a post-exilic community (Haupt 1919), Maccabean community (Winter 1954a),



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

37

hymns part of Luke’s composition or added later?8 What role does the OT play in the construction of the hymns?9 (iii) Benedictus. Is the hymn a unified composition, or was it pieced together from two (1:68–75 beraka + 1:76–79 genethliakon) or three parts (1:68–75; 1:76–77; 1:78–79) at different redactional stages?10 Secure answers to these questions are hard to come by, but the present study will operate on the following premises. Luke had direct access to Greek sources (which, in turn, may have relied on underlying Semitic sources) and was influenced heavily by the Septuagint in the infancy narrative. Ultimately the author is writing in Greek for an audience reading the work in Greek. This justifies the use of Septuagintal and other Greek Jewish sources as the primary evidence—that is, the best approximation of Luke’s linguistic milieu—in building the metaphor mappings. At the same time, the possibility of Semitic Vorlagen or linguistic interference also makes Hebrew/Aramaic sources possibly illuminating as secondary evidence. Regardless of their precise sources, the infancy hymns are saturated with the OT, making it a primary source for GLuke’s metaphors. Finally, irrespective of its compositional history, the Benedictus in its final form presents as a unified whole, given the Lukanisms, themes, and concentric structure spanning the entire hymn.11 Baptist sect (Dillon 2013: 53; Vielhauer 1952; Bultmann 1972[1921]:296), or first-century Palestinian Jews or Jewish-Christians (R. Brown 1993: 350–5; MuñozIglesias 1990: 10–21; Farris 1985: 16–31; Jones 1968; Gunkel 1921; Spitta 1906). 8.  Some argue that the hymns fit awkwardly into the narrative and thus were embedded later (Oro 1983: 148; see N. Lohfink 1995: 109–12 on “eingebettete Psalmen” in the OT and NT), while others support a tighter integration of the hymns (Dillon 2013: 3). 9.  A major view is that the hymns are little more than centos of other texts, with numerous possible sources of allusions proposed (1 Sam. 2; 2 Sam. 22; Pss. 41, 72, 111, 135, 146; Isa. 40, 42, 46, 49, 52; Hab. 3; Tob. 3; Judith; Baruch; 1–2 Maccabees; 1QM; 1QH)—see Coleridge 1993: 118; Goulder 1989: 239–43; Fitzmyer 1981: 376; Dreyer 1962. 10.  For the two-part view, see Klein 2006: 120–1; Bovon 2002: 67; Wiefel 1998: 62–3; Kaut 1990: 178–83; Winter 1954a: 334. One primary argument is the shift from aorist (4×) in 1:68–75 to future (3×) in 1:76–79. This, however, presupposes ἐπισκέψεται as the correct reading at 1:78, whereas I defend ἐπεσκέψατο in Chapter 3. The three-part view sees 1:76–77 as a Baptist insertion into a hymn that otherwise focuses on Jesus (Oliver 1964). Many proponents of either see portions deriving from Jewish (or Baptist) sources and portions from Christian sources (Kaut 1990: 232–46; Klostermann 1975: 21–2; Benoit 1956). 11.  The use of finite verb + infinitive construction and the combination of anarthrous infinitives with articular infinitives back-to-back are well-known Lukan

38

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

A last comment may be made about the christological outlook of the infancy narrative, whereby scholars (despite disagreements on its composition-history) readily discern various christological overtures that are further developed in chs. 3–24 (and Acts). These include, but are not limited to, Jesus’ status as God’s “son” (1:32a; 1:35; 2:49), “lord” (1:43; 2:11), “savior” of the world (2:11), and royal-Davidic Messiah (eternal reign on David’s throne, 1:32b–33; Davidic lineage, 2:4, 11; χριστός, 2:11, 26). The christological outlook of Luke 1–2 is complex, rather than one-dimensional, and our study of 1:68–69 and 1:78–79 will reinforce this. Not everything is necessarily “messianic.”12 Nevertheless, it is important to affirm there is clear evidence of Davidic messianism in Luke 1–2,13 and the presence of such features outside the Benedictus should factor into our discussion of the metaphors within it. 1.2. What Is Being Engaged by the Use of Ἐπισκέπτομαι in the Benedictus? A motif relevant for both the κέρας metaphor of this chapter and the ἀνατολή metaphor of the next is engaged by the two occurrences of ἐπισκέπτομαι (1:68 and 1:78) framing the Benedictus,14 which is nearly always rendered in English with “visit.” This word is one of a few used in OT/Jewish literature to express how God has shown or will show up on the scene in some way. The generic form of this motif is the “coming” of God,15 usually expressed with such verbs as ἥκω, -ἔρχομαι, -πορεύομαι, καταβαίνω, and γίνομαι, with God as the subject.16 Key contexts of such actions of God include his coming to deliver the people from Egypt (Exod. 3:8, κατέβην); leading the people in the wilderness (Ps. 68[67]:7, ἐκπορεύεσθαι); giving the law at Sinai (Exod. 19:11, 20; καταβήσεται, κατέβη); descending to fill the tabernacle (Deut. 31:15, κατέβη); coming or going to save his people from exile (Isa. 35:4, ἥξει; 42:13, ἐξελεύσεται; Mic. 1:3, ἐκπορεύεται and καταβήσεται); coming in stylistic features and appear in both sections of the hymn (Minear 1966: 114). The sections of the hymn share the themes of deliverance, God’s action, covenant, “visitation,” and the metaphors themselves (Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 177; Gnilka 1962: 231). On the concentric/chiastic structure, see Rousseau 1986; Hendrickx 1984: 50–1; Auffret 1978; Vanhoye 1966. 12.  Pace Bock 1990 and others who default to this category. 13.  As I defined it (Chapter 1 §3.4). 14.  Green (1995) and Coleridge (1993: 22–36) suggest “divine visitation” is a general theme of GLuke. 15.  Studies of this motif include E. Adams 2006; Jenni 1970; Schnutenhaus 1964; Pidoux 1947. 16.  Common verbs in Hebrew writings include ‫ירד‬, ‫בוא‬, and ‫יצא‬.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

39

future judgment (Zech. 14:5, ἥξει; Mal. 3:2, εἰσπορεύεται); and returning to the temple (Ezek. 43:2–4, ἤρχετο and εἰσῆλθεν). Generally the point of God’s departure is the heavenly realm (2 Kgdms 22:10; Ps. 18[17]:10; Isa. 19:1; Mic. 1:3; T.Levi 5.2)17 or high place (Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3), and he “comes” to various locations (Sinai, temple, battlefield) for various purposes (save, judge, fight).18 While some have argued that this broader “coming” tradition influences the NT primarily in christological parousia texts,19 our main interest will be in two variants of this general motif: “visitation” and “theophany/epiphany.” The latter is most important for Chapter 3 and will be taken up there (§3.2.c), but the former is relevant for both this chapter and the next and will be taken up here. Numerous OT/Jewish texts use ἐπισκέπτομαι or ἐπισκοπή in depictions of a “visitation” of God to his people.20 The verb always take a personal subject. In common Greek, its semantic domain includes “inspect,” “examine,” “evaluate,” and “consider.”21 Such uses are commonplace in the LXX and NT, but there are also numerous instances in which the verb or noun are used in contexts in which God leaves his heavenly dwelling to “visit” or be tangibly present with his people (individuals or the nation)22 in order to bring deliverance or judgment.23 Given the importance of these lexemes in Luke (1:68, 78; also 7:16; 19:44; Acts 15:14), several examples will be provided. Primary Evidence Gen. 50:24

[Jacob speaking:] I am dying, but God will visit (ἐπισκέψεται) you in a visitation (ἐπισκοπῇ) and lead you up out of this land.

Exod. 4:31

The people believed and rejoiced, because God had visited (ἐπεσκέψατο) the children of Israel.

17.  Cf. 1 En. 1.3–4; T.Moses 10.3. 18.  Jenni 1970: 254–56; Schnutenhaus 1964: 17. 19.  E. Adams 2006: 19. 20.  I am unaware of a comprehensive study of “divine visitation,” but see the shorter studies of André 2003 and Beyer 1964. 21.  LSJ 657; GELS 279–80. The noun is similar. 22.  See Evans’s discussion on how this pattern in the LXX/NT gives the verb a slightly more technical coloring than what is often seen in classical use (1992: 4). 23.  Deliverance: rescue from enemies (Jer. 29[36]:10; Jdt. 8:33), relief from famine (Ruth 1:6), conception (1 Kgdms 2:21), care or blessing (Ps. 79:15; Jer. 43:31; Ezek. 34:11; Zeph. 2:7; Jdt. 4:15; 13:20). Judgment: on his people (Hos. 4:14; Jer. 5:9) or on enemies (Ps. 58[57]:6; 88[87]:33; Sir. 35:18; others).

40

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Isa. 10:3

What will you all do in the day of visitation (ἐπισκοπῆς)? For affliction will come upon you from afar.

Isa. 29:5–6

It will be as an immediate moment before Lord σαβαωθ, for it will be a visitation (ἐπισκοπή) with thunder and earthquake and great noise.

Jer. 23:12

I will bring upon them misfortune in the year of their visitation (ἐνιαυτῷ ἐπισκέψεως αὐτῶν),24 declares the Lord.

Jer. 29[36]:10, 14

Thus says the Lord: When seventy years are about to be fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit (ἐπισκέψομαι) you and establish my words upon you, to return your people to this place… And I will appear (ἐπιφανοῦμαι) to you.25

Sir. 35:18

[The prayer of the humble] will not withdraw until the Most High visits (ἐπισκέψηται) and does justice for the righteous ones and works judgment.26

Pss. Sol. 11:1, 6

The God of Israel has shown mercy in the visitation (ἐπισκοπῇ) of them…that Israel might pass by at the visitation (ἐπισκοπῇ) of their God’s glory.

Pss. Sol. 15:2

Sinners will be destroyed forever in the day of the judgment of the Lord, when God visits (ἐπισκέπτηται) the earth in his justice.

T.Ash. 7.3

In the dispersion you shall be regarded as worthless, like useless water, until such time as the Most High visits (ἐπισκέψηται) earth.

T.Levi 4.4

Blessing shall be given to you and to all your posterity until through his son’s compassion the Lord shall visit (ἐπισκέψηται) all the nations.27

T.Jud. 23.5

The Lord will visit you (ἐπισκέψηται) in mercy and bring you up from captivity.28

24.  Ἐπίσκεψις is most commonly used for a census, but in a few cases such as this one it is used in an eschatological sense for “divine and punitive” judgment (GELS 280), synonymous with ἐπισκοπή. 25.  We will discuss ἐπιφαίνω in Chapter 3. 26.  Cf. the eschatological ἐπισκοπῆς κυρίου variant at Sir. 15:8 (Ziegler 1965: 193). 27.  υἱοῦ is likely Christian (OTP 1:789; Hollander/de Jonge 1985: 142). Compare T.Ben. 9.2–3, likely a Christian interpolation speaking of God’s sending “salvation” via the ἐπισκοπῇ μονογενοῦς προφήτου (some witnesses read υἱοῦ instead of προφήτου), who enters the temple and is hung on a tree. 28.  Some manuscripts differ in clause order, but all read ἐπισκέψηται.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

41

Secondary Evidence In every example provided above for which a Hebrew Vorlage is extant, the verb ‫ פקד‬or noun ‫ פקדה‬is used. These lexemes, when used in salvation or judgment-related contexts, carry quite similar semantic profiles in Hebrew as ἐπισκέπτομαι and ἐπισκοπή in Greek. They are used at Qumran in similar ways: 1QS 3.18; 4.18–19

He created man to rule the world and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation (‫ …)פקודתו‬God, in the mysteries of his knowledge and in the wisdom of his glory, has determined an end to the existence of injustice and on the appointed time of the visitation (‫ )פקודה‬he will obliterate it for ever.

CDa 7.21–8.3

These [sons of Seth] escaped at the time of the first visitation (‫…)פקודה‬while the renegades were delivered up to the sword. Thus will be the judgment of all those entering his covenant but who do not remain steadfast in them; they shall be visited (‫ )לפוקדם‬for destruction at the hand of Belial. This is the day when God will make a visitation (‫)יפקד‬.

Moreover, 4 Ezra appears to be rendering the same motif in Latin (visitem) and Syriac (sʿr):29 “The days are coming, and it shall be that when I draw near to visit the inhabitants of the earth, and when I require from the doers of iniquity the penalty of their iniquity” (6:18–19). In short, there appears to be strong evidence that when the OT/ Jewish motif of “divine visitation”30 is present in relevant Greek sources, three features are typically observed: verbalization with ἐπισκέπτομαι/ ἐπισκοπή,31 objective of salvation or judgment, and heavenly origination of God’s coming (explicit or implicit). Our analyses that follow will indicate that the use of ἐπισκέπτομαι in both 1:68 (κέρας metaphor) and 1:78 (ἀνατολή metaphor)—in light of contextual considerations—engages precisely this motif. 29.  “Visit” (Sokoloff 2008: 1027–8). 30.  Wiefel argues for an ancient Near Eastern background for this motif: “Gottesbesuch bei den Menschen ist ein uraltes mythisches Motiv, das sich in vielen Religionen findet” (1998: 64). 31.  I am not arguing that ἐπισκέπτομαι means “divine visitation”; rather, in such contexts (God as subject, saving action, often eschatological) it is normatively the action verb.

42

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

1.3. What Is Luke “Quoting”? As outlined in Chapter 1 §3.3, the imprint of OT/Jewish traditions and phrasing on the infancy narrative and Benedictus as a whole (as well as the specific appeal to “prophets of old,” 1:70) suggests that they provide the primary conceptual “encyclopedia” for this metaphor. In fact, few if any scholars doubt that OT/Jewish traditions underly this metaphor or even entertain other options. However, identifying with precision the specific textual source behind Luke 1:69 on traditional criteria of intertextuality has been elusive. The absence of a citation formula and lack of substantial verbal parallels to any known traditions rule out classifying it as a citation or quotation. The allusion/echo category is strained as well, as evidenced by the sheer number of LXX passages commonly offered up by commentators for 1:69 (underlined portions indicate alleged verbatim parallels): Luke 1:69

καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ

1 Kgdms 2:1

ὑψώθη κέρας μου ἐν θεῷ μου· ἐπλατύνθη ἐπὶ ἐχθροὺς τὸ στόμα μου, εὐφράνθην ἐν σωτηρίᾳ σου

1 Kgdms 2:10

ὑψώσει κέρας χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ

2 Kgdms 22:3

ὁ θεός μου φύλαξ ἔσται μου, πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ὑπερασπιστής μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου

Ps. 18[17]:3

ὁ θεός μου βοηθός μου, καὶ ἐλπιῶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ὑπερασπιστής μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου

Ps. 89[88]:18, 25

ἐν τῇ εὐδοκίᾳ σου ὑψωθήσεται τὸ κέρας ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ὑψωθήσεται τὸ κέρας αὐτοῦ

Ps. 92[91]:11

καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὡς μονοκέρωτος32 τὸ κέρας μου

Ps. 132[131]:17

ἐκεῖ ἐξανατελῶ κέρας τῷ Δαυιδ· ἡτοίμασα λύχνον τῷ χριστῷ μου

Ps. 148:14

καὶ ὑψώσει κέρας λαοῦ αὐτοῦ

Ezek. 29:21

ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀνατελεῖ κέρας παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ

Several challenges are posed by these options.33 No examples in this list or anywhere else combine the “visitation” of God with raising a horn. 32.  See n. 61 and §2.2.b for discussion on this LXX translation of ‫ ראם‬with μονοκέρωτος. Samaritan Pentateuch and DSS read ‫שור‬. 33.  See the summary in Rese 1969: 179–80; Jones 1968: 30.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

43

The use of ἐγείρω with κέρας is likewise unattested,34 and verbs normally used with κέρας in the LXX are ὑψόω, ἐπαίρω, or (ἐξ)ἀνατέλλω. There is no parallel to the combination of κέρας with ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ. Ezekiel 29:21 comes close but lacks the locative preposition and reads “Israel” rather than “David”; Psalm 89[88] and 132[131] deal with David but the verbs and modifiers (“our” horn, “his [David’s] horn,” and “horn to David”) are different. 1 Kingdoms 2:1 refers to Hannah’s “horn” and is, at least in the narrative, pre-Davidic, while the Lukan passage is clearly Davidic. 1 Kingdoms 2:10 speaks not of a “horn of salvation” but a “horn of his anointed [one].” Psalm 18[17] and 2 Kingdoms 22 are a close fit for κέρας σωτηρίας, but in context they refer to Yahweh as the horn, whereas Luke 1:69 portrays God as raising up the horn. Finally, the verb forms vary significantly: all but 1 Kgdms 2:1 are future, and several are passive. It is unsurprising, then, that scholars are all over the board regarding the OT intertext for this metaphorical utterance; indeed, it seems as if either none of these texts is the source or, in some way, most/all of them are. These complexities have even stimulated the suggestion that 1:69 is, in fact, a Lukan creation inserted into an underlying base hymn.35 Gnilka concludes this phrase is an “idiosyncratic construction” crafted by Luke or his sources.36 Bovon argues that Luke 1:68–69 takes “faded images” (“almost code words for the initiated”) and has allowed them to “bloom anew,”37 even if we are not easily attuned to the encoded meanings. There is justification, then, for reading the text as metaphor—drawing on conceptual metaphors across numerous OT passages—rather than merely a single, elusive intertextual allusion/echo. 1.4. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? Nearly all scholars assert without detailed analysis that GLuke’s κέρας metaphor “derive[s] from an animal’s horns, especially that of wild buffalo or oxen, which symbolize strength and power.”38 Some take 34.  Oro 1983: 161; Rese 1969: 179–80; Foerster 1964: 670. 35.  Dillon 2013: 52; Radl 1996: 93–7; Kaut 1990: 247–50. Rese argues, “Die Modifikation der Davidverheißung in L 1,69 läßt die Hand des Lk erkennen” (1969: 182). 36.  “Eigenwillige Wortkonstruktion” (1962: 221). 37.  Bovon 2002: 73–76. 38.  Fitzmyer 1981: 383. Wiefel is most succinct: “Horn meint Kraft” (1998: 64). Similarly Wolter 2008: 113; Klein 2006: 123; Bovon 2002: 72; Kremer 1998: 33; Tannehill 1996: 59; Nolland 1989: 85–6; Marshall 1978: 91; Foerster 1964: 669.

44

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

this “imagery/symbolism” to be an abstraction for salvation.39 A few tentatively suggest that, based on Ps. 18[17]:3 (2 Sam. 22:3), that “God himself…can be compared with this image.”40 The vast majority understand κέρας σωτηρίας to refer to Jesus as the “triumphant Messiah king from the House of David”—“the powerful king who will ascend David’s throne, that is, the Messiah.”41 This notion of a “Messianic horn” is so strong that a few scholars even treat κέρας as a messianic title,42 though it never features in title-based christological studies. In short, the equation for some seems quite simple: κέρας = Messiah. If so, as some argue, this passage reflects God’s act of “raising up men to be his instruments” and reiterates “the subordinationism and lack of metaphysical speculation which is rightly seen to characterize Luke’s Christology.”43 Few, however, ask the question why κέρας would be so obviously “messianic”; they simply assert it is based on the David-language, citing one or more of the passages listed above. CMT will offer assistance on this question, and a closer look at the metaphor will reveal ways in which the majority view, while correct in many aspects, is inadequate in others. 1.5. Summary Juxtaposing scholars’ proposed intertextual sources for Luke 1:69 with the nearly unanimous contention that GLuke’s κέρας is the Davidic Messiah (= Jesus) yields some problems that have not been sufficiently addressed. First, our detailed examination of the κέρας-related OT/Jewish metaphors will reveal mixed results with respect to messianism. While some have fostered a messianic reading, specifically of an eschatological Davidickingly sort, it is not so obvious as often assumed. Second, there is an important distinction to be made—which most have missed by overgeneralizing about “horn imagery”—between the κέρας as a material object belonging to the “anointed” person and the κέρας as a circumlocution for

39.  Auffret reads it as “force de salut” (1978: 249); also Maluf (2000: 5–6, 25–9). 40.  Bovon 2002: 72 (but he goes no further); similarly Dillon 2013: 51 and Laurentin 1957: 125–6. 41.  R. Brown 1993: 371 and Tannehill 1996: 59, respectively. Similarly Bock, Buckwalter, Chance, Coleridge, Dillon, Goulder, Hendriksen, Kaut, Klein, Kremer, Marshall, Nolland, Sahlin, Strauss, Wiefel, Wolter. While Vielhauer, Bultmann, and Dillon argue that the referent in Luke’s source was John the Baptist, few scholars doubt that the referent in GLuke is Jesus. 42.  Laato 1997: 321–9; Fitzmyer 1981: 383; Oro 1983: 162; Gnilka 1962: 221. 43.  Franklin 1975: 75–6 (in his comments on 1:69).



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

45

the “anointed” person.44 For these reasons, a closer look at GLuke’s κέρας metaphor as it draws upon OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors more broadly is warranted. 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors This section of our analysis will proceed in two steps: outlining the elements of the horn source domain(s), and then inductively studying the metaphorical utterances in OT/Jewish literature that map these source domains in various ways. 2.1. Source Domain(s) The noun κέρας in non-biblical and biblical Greek sources is almost exclusively used for animal horns, objects made of horn material, or objects shaped like horns.45 While it it certainly true that κέρας, when used for the horns of an animal, often does reflect the animal’s power or strength (as assumed by most NT scholars, above), this is merely the starting point for a much broader conceptual field evident in OT/Jewish and other sources. We will focus on two particular source domains involving horn: animal horns and altar horns. The κέρας of an animal is a pointed outgrowth on the head of a ram, goat, ox, bull, and so on. We identify six elements of the animal horn source domain:

44.  I will elaborate below, but let it be noted that in the κέρας passages in which the “anointed” is present (only Ps. 132[131]:7; 1 Kgdms 2:10; cf. 1 Kgdms 16:1, 13; 3 Kgdms 1:39) the κέρας is not identified as the χριστός figure, but rather belongs to or has reference to him (genitive or dative). The same holds true for other similar metaphorical utterances. Among numerous scholars who have worked on Luke 1:69, Henrichs-Tarasenkova is one of few who have observed this important distinction (2015: 153). 45.  LSJ 941; GELS 395; BDAG 540. This latter sense includes military flanks (e.g., 1 Macc. 9:1, 11; 9:16; 2 Macc. 15:20; numerous Greco-Roman instances), branches of a river (see examples in LSJ), and the spur of a mountain (e.g., Isa. 5:1; see Gray 2014: 65–6; Budde 1932: 55). In the LXX, κέρας translates ‫קרן‬ approximately 82 out of 89 possible times. Hebrew ‫ קרן‬has a narrower semantic range and is nearly always used for animal horns or the horn-shaped corners of the altar (see below), but it is occasionally used as a verb (Exod. 24:29–35; Ps. 69:32).

46

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(i)

Grows out of animal’s head. Κέρατα grow or sprout out of an animal’s head, marking the maturation of the animal into a position in which it can defend itself (Ps. 69[68]:32; Dan. 8:5–9 OG).46 (ii) Used to gore other animals. Κέρατα are primarily used to gore other animals, either offensively or defensively (Exod. 21:29).47 (iii) Can be lifted up. A horned animal will typically lift its κέρατα in the air after victory, demonstrating strength and power.48 (iv) Can be broken off. An animal’s κέρατα can also be broken or cut off, signaling defeat (Dan. 8:7 OG).49 (v) Identified with animal to which it belongs. Many uses of κέρας make explicit the kind of animal to which it belongs (wild ox, goat, ram). In combat the fate of the animal’s κέρατα, as its primary weapon, largely determines the fate of the animal. Hence, the animal’s prowess and fate is closely identified with its κέρατα: what happens to its κέρας, happens to the animal (again, Dan. 8:7–8). (vi) Can be used to make other objects. Animal κέρατα can be used as decorative raw material (like ivory) (Ezek. 27:15),50 as a trumpet,51 or as a vessel used to contain the oil of anointing (1 Kgdms 16:1, 13; 3 Kgdms 1:39).52 In several passages, the OT describes the κέρατα of the altar of burnt offering and the incense altar.53 Though the OT does not provide extensive detail about the purpose, shape, or origin of these horns, the following features may be noted:54 46.  Cf. Jub. 37.20; 4Q223 2.4.7–8. 47.  Cf. 4Q205 2.3.26; 4Q381 f46. 48.  See discussions in Gray 2014: 65; Süring 1980: 169. 49.  Cf. 1QM 1.4–5. 50.  Cf. 1QM 5.14. 51.  See, e.g., σημῆναι τῷ κέρατι in Xen., Anab. 2.2.4. Though ‫ קרן‬is occasionally used in the HB in this way (Josh. 6:4–5), LXX translators typically opt for σάλπιγξ, not κέρας (cf. ἐσάλπισεν τῇ κερατίνῃ, 3 Kgdms 1:39b). Some Jewish traditions hold that the first ‫ שופר‬was made out of the ram’s ‫ קרן‬of Gen. 22:13 (J. Morgenstern 1920: 163). Later ‫ שופרות‬were metallic but likely preserved the appearance of an animal’s ‫( קרן‬Süring 1980: 305–6). 52.  Kedar-Kopfstein argues, “The notion of power inherent in the horn was more important than its practical utility for such a purpose” (2004: 171). The use of horns as containers was common in the ancient Near East (Schleftelowitz 1912: 483–6). 53.  Cf. Rev. 9:13. 54.  For an overview, see Eberharter 1927: 394–5.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

47

(vii) Integrated at each top corner of the altar. The LXX describes Israel’s altars as having been constructed in such a way that κέρατα were fashioned at each of the top corners of the altar (τὰ κέρατα ἐπὶ τῶν τεσσάρων γωνιῶν, Exod. 27:2).55 (viii) Non-specific shape. Discoveries of horned altars in Israel and other ancient Near Eastern geographies indicate that these features, though perhaps inspired by animal horns, had a somewhat generic appearance/shape.56 (ix) Smeared with sacrificial blood. Though the OT gives little explanation why, a key part of the cultus is the priest’s smearing of blood ἐπὶ τὰ κέρατα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου (or similar in Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:7; 8:15; 16:18),57 such that atonement itself takes place “upon” them (ἐξιλάσεται…ἐπὶ τῶν κεράτων, Exod. 30:10).

Pre-seventh century BCE horned altars from Ekron58

55.  Cf. 11Q19 12.11–13. See the discussions in Süring 1980: 12–14; Obbink 1937: 43–4. 56.  Süring 1980: 276–7; pace Jobes 1961: 783 (who argues they were shaped like flames of light). 57.  Cf. 4Q156 2.1; 11Q19 16.16; 23.12. 58.  See the discussion in Gitin 2005: 40–56.

48

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Replica of the horned altar discovered at Tel Be’er Sheva

In sum, the two source domains relevant to our study are the animal horn (elements i–vi) and altar horns (vii–ix). 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors Per the method outlined in Chapter 1, we will work our way inductively through the OT/Jewish data to examine how these two source domains provide the raw materials from everyday life used to conceptualize a variety of target domains in metaphorical utterances. Our primary evidence will consist of relevant OT/Jewish Greek sources. We will, in turn, note secondary evidence from similar metaphors in Hebrew (or other languages in OT/Jewish sources) as well as Hellenistic and ancient Near Eastern findings. We offer these latter examples (coins, cylinder seals, etc.) not to imply direct influence on OT/Jewish thought or that of Luke, but rather to offer some indication that such metaphorical mappings span cultural boundaries and time periods. Our analysis identifies four underlying conceptual metaphors, mapping horn to the target domains of defeat of enemies, status, god’s blessing, and god himself. In some metaphors, the κέρας itself is the instrument that is doing the action, while in other cases it belongs to someone—either as a detached object or, figuratively speaking, as part of the body—and is wielded by that person or acted upon by a third party. While the data yield mixed evidence for an explicit, standalone messianic horn metaphor, we will point out along the way how the metaphorical mappings have likely fostered messianic interpretation. 2.2.a. Defeat of Enemies Is Striking Them with a Horn. We begin by examining cases in which κέρας features prominently in battle metaphors as the weapon wielded against enemies by God’s people (or vice



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

49

versa).59 This is arguably the main contributor to the aforementioned “horn = strength” interpretation: Primary Evidence Ps. 22[21]:22

Save me from the mouth of the lion and my humiliation from the horns (κεράτων) of the μονοκερώτων.60

3 Kgdms 22:11

Zedekiah, son of Chanana, made for himself iron horns (κέρατα σιδηρᾶ) and said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘With these you will gore (κερατιεῖς) the Syrians, until they are finished.’”61

Mic. 4:13

[God to Zion:] I will make your horns (κέρατα) of iron, and I will make your hoofs bronze, and with them you will destroy nations and crush many peoples.

Ezek. 34:21

With your sides and shoulders you push, and with your horns you gore (τοῖς κέρασιν ὑμῶν ἐκερατίζετε)—and force out all who fail.

Dan. 8:5–7a OG

The goat had a single horn (κέρας) between his eyes… I saw him drawing near to the ram, and he was enraged upon him and struck.

Zech. 2:4

These are the horns (κέρατα) that scattered Judah and shattered Israel…the nations that lifted up a horn (ἐπαιρόμενα κέρας) against the land of the Lord to scatter it.62

59.  Often with κερατίζω (“butt with horns,” LSJ 941; “gore with horns,” GELS 396). 60.  The translators’ typical use of μονόκερως (“with one horn”) to render ‫ראם‬ (which itself is debated) has long been a point of debate. The lexicons offer little help; LSJ simply takes μονόκερως as a gloss for MT’s “wild ox” (1144), as does GELS (467). The Vulgate reads rinoceros (Deut. 33:17), unicornis (Ps. 22[21]:22), or monoceros (Ps. 92[91]:11). It is also possible that the translators had in mind the North African rhinoceros (Godbey 1939: 262–4). Some have even postulated that the Septuagintal rendering suggests some sort of “messianic unicorn” tradition (see discussions in Bauks 2006; Gzella 2001: 282–90; Schaper 1994: 126–36). Whatever the case, μονόκερως is an odd choice because in some cases the animal has two horns (e.g., plural κεράτων; dual of ‫ קרן‬in the Vorlagen). Due to the debates, I leave μονόκερως untranslated. 61.  Likely a symbolic helmet (Cogan 2000: 491; House 1995: 236; DeVries 1985: 267); see §2.2.d. 62.  Referring to “four craftsmen” in 2:3.

50

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

In these metaphorical utterances the source domain of an animal κέρας is mapped to the target domain of battle: one’s victory over an enemy is conceptualized in terms of the use of a κέρας by an animal to gore/ beat/scatter another animal. The emphasis lies on how the victory for one party comes about through the instrumentality of the κέρας, which is wielded against the other party. Applying our method from Chapter 1, we may map the domains of the underlying conceptual metaphor as follows:63 defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn animal horn (source)

defeat of enemies (target)

(i)

Grows out of animal’s head

→ The one possessing the κέρας…

(ii)

Used to gore other animals

→ …Uses it in an offensive maneuver against an opponent…

(iii)

Can be lifted up

(iv)

Can be broken off

(v)

Identified with animal to which it belongs

(vi)

Can be used to make other objects

→ …And the one whose κέρας prevails is the one who wins the battle

In sum, the metaphorical utterances surveyed engage the animal horn source domain by conceptualizing the horn as the instrument which wins the victory in battle against enemies. The altar horn domain also appears in contexts dealing with enemies, but with a different mapping (see §2.2.d). Secondary Evidence This conceptual metaphor involving a horn as the instrument of victory in battle is found in other Jewish writings (1Q28b 5.26–27; 4Q205 f2 3.36; 1 En. 89.41–50) and was common in the ancient Near East:64

63.  In each chapter, I will list all the source domain elements in the first-occurring conceptual metaphor diagram; subsequently only those elements that are mapped will be shown. 64.  See discussions in Keel/Uehlinger 1998: 118; Engnell 1967: 12; Süring 1980: 245.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

51

Bottom of the ca. 3100 BCE Egyptian Narmer Palette, depicting a bull knocking down city walls

Top of the Egyptian Bull Palette, depicting the goring of an enemy

2.2.b. Exalting Someone’s Status Is Lifting His/Her Horn. We turn to a second collection of utterances, in which the status of a person or group is understood in terms of lifting (usually ὑψόω or ἐπαίρω) his/her/their κέρας in the air or lowering it (variety of verbs) to the ground. In such cases, the κέρας explicitly belongs to the person whose status change is depicted, typically as victory–defeat, increase–decrease of power, or improved– diminished social position. The metaphorical utterances are not always clear whether the κέρας should be understood as a detached, material object or as figuratively emerging from a person’s head. Either way the κέρας belongs to that person, expressed nearly always with a possessive genitive. In other words, the κέρας is not personified, but rather it is a tangible emblem denoting the status of the person. The κέρας is acted upon either by an outside party or by the person possessing it, and this action denotes either the raising or lowering of the status/power/position of the one to whom the κέρας belongs.

52

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Primary Evidence In most cases provided below, the one lifting up the κέρας is explicitly or implicitly (e.g., passives) God, but in the last two examples a person is doing the action in such a way that is perceived negatively:65 1 Kgdms 2:1

[Hannah:] My horn is lifted up (ὑψώθη κέρας μου) in my God.

Ps. 89[88]:18

For you are the boasting of their strength, and in your pleasure our horn is lifted up (ὑψωθήσεται τὸ κέρας ἡμῶν).66

Ps. 92[91]:11

My horn is lifted up (ὑψωθήσεται…τὸ κέρας μου) like that of the μονοκέρωτος.

Ps. 112[111]:9

His righteousness endures forever; his horn is lifted up (κέρας αὐτοῦ ὑψωθήσεται) in glory.

Ps. 148:14

He will lift up the horn of his people (ὑψώσει κέρας λαοῦ αὐτοῦ)—hymns [be] to all his holy ones, the children of Israel.67

1 Chr. 25:5

All these were the sons of Heman, who played for the king, in the words of God to lift a horn (ὑψῶσαι κέρας).

Sir. 47:5

[God] gave him strength in his right hand to slay a man mighty in war, to lift high his people’s horn (ἀνυψῶσαι κέρας λαοῦ αὐτοῦ).68

Ps. 75[74]:5-6

I said to transgressors, “Do not transgress,” and to sinners, “Do not lift up a horn (ὑψοῦτε κέρας)—do not raise high your horn (ἐπαίρετε εἰς ὕψος τὸ κέρας ὑμῶν).”

Amos 6:13

Have we not, in our strength, obtained horns (ἔσχομεν κέρατα)?69

65.  The cryptic phrase in 1 Macc. 2:48 may also fit this category: “They obtained the law from the hand of the Gentiles and kings, and they did not give a horn (κέρας) to sinners.” 66.  Chester (2007b: 247) takes this κέρας as the king, but the parallel with 89[88]:25 (referring to the king’s κέρας; see below) militates against this. 67.  On the Hebrew tradition, Dahood describes 148:14 as “figurative for granting victory or bestowing prosperity” (1970: 355); it is reproduced in Sir. 51:12(o) (Beentjes 1997: 93). 68.  Here and 51:12(o), Skehan/DiLella treat “horn” as a “symbol of power…and glory” (1987: 524–6, 570). 69.  In context, the prophet condemns Israel for false assurance.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

53

The reverse scenario involves lowering someone’s κέρας by shattering or cutting it off, resulting in defeat, humiliation, or lowered status:70 Jer. 48[31]:12, 25

Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will send to him [Moab] those who flee…and they will cut his horns to pieces (τὰ κέρατα αὐτοῦ συγκόψουσιν). … The horn (κέρας) of Moab is broken (συνετρίβη).71

Lam. 2:3

[The Lord] shattered (συνέκλασεν) in his wrathful anger every horn (κέρας) of Israel.72

Dan. 8:7b OG

[The goat] broke (συνέτριψε) his two horns (κέρατα), and there was no more strength in the ram to stand before the goat.

Sir. 47:7

[David] destroyed his enemies all around…and unto today he has broken their horn (συνέτριψεν αὐτῶν κέρας).

These metaphorical utterances express a mapping from the animal horn domain to the target domain of status, with two variations:

(iii) (v)

(iv) (v)

exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn animal horn (source) status (target) Can be lifted up → Increased prestige, power, or position… Identified with animal to which → …of the one possessing the it belongs κέρας that is lifted up in the air lowering someone’s status is cutting off his/her horn animal horn (source) status (target) Can be broken off → Diminished honor, defeat, or humiliation… Identified with animal to which → …of the one possessing the it belongs κέρας that is broken, shattered, or cut off

70.  Cf. the cutting off of the κέρατα of the altar in Amos 3:14 (see the discussion in Paul 1991: 124). 71.  Lundbom comments on these verses, “Moabite sovereignty is now ended” (2004: 282). 72.  Lam. Rab. 2:5 (to 2:3) describes this “horn” as something set upon the head of Israel which was taken away and given to the other nations.

54

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

These two variations of a broader conceptual metaphor—which we may generalize as status is a horn’s position—are combined in Ps. 75[74]:11: “All the horns of the sinners I will shatter, but the horns of the righteous will be lifted up” (πάντα τὰ κέρατα τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν συγκλάσω, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται τὰ κέρατα τοῦ δικαίου). In the above examples, the κέρατα belong to Hannah, Heman, Israel, Moab, and so on. There are also some cases wherein the κέρας belongs to a kingly figure, whose exaltation or humiliation is portrayed through similar horn metaphors: Deut. 33:16–17

May these come upon the head of Joseph, on the top of him who is glorified (δοξασθείς) among brothers. A firstborn bull, the beauty is his, and his horns (κέρατα αὐτοῦ) are the horns (κέρατα) of a μονοκέρωτος. With them he will gore (κερατιεῖ) the peoples all at once to the ends of the earth.73

1 Kgdms 2:10

[God] will judge the ends of the earth, and he gives strength to our kings, and he will lift up the horn of his anointed (ὑψώσει κέρας χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ).

Ps. 89[88]:21, 25

I have found David, my servant…and in my name will his horn be lifted up (ὑψωθήσεται τὸ κέρας αὐτοῦ).

Sir. 47:11

The Lord took away his [David’s, v. 2] sins, and lifted high his horn (ἀνύψωσεν…τὸ κέρας αὐτοῦ) forever, and gave him the covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel.

Sir. 49:4–5

Except David and Hezekiah and Josiah they all committed trespass, for they have forsaken the law of the Most High; the kings of Judah ceased, for they gave their horn (τὸ κέρας αὐτῶν) to others, and their glory (δόξαν) to a foreign nation.74

The first three in particular have attracted messianic interpretations: namely, the “Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim” tradition for Deut. 32:16– 17,75 and Davidic messianism for 1 Kgdms 2:10 and Ps. 89[88]:25. It is 73.  While a verb for “lifting up” Joseph’s κέρατα does not occur here, the context involving δοξάζω and κάλλος suggest that honored status is being conferred on Joseph. Moreover, notice how defeat of enemies is also being mapped in v. 17b. 74.  Observe the direct parallelism between κέρας and δόξα. 75.  See the discussions on this tradition—primarily connected to the Hebrew and targumic traditions, but still relevant to the Greek reception, given the use of μονόκερως—in Pearson 1998; Grossfeld 1988a: 108; Drazen 1982: 304–5; Torrey 1947: 257–8; b. Sukk. 52; Tg. Cant. 4:5.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

55

important to note, however, that consistent with the other general examples above, none of these five utterances mapping horn to a kingly figure’s status involve direct personification, whereby the κέρας itself would stand in for or be identified one-to-one with the given king figure, messianic or otherwise. That is to say, the equation is not κέρας = Messiah-figure (any more than κέρας = Hannah), but rather the κέρας is an object/appendage belonging to that figure. Secondary Evidence In every case above for which there is a corresponding Hebrew parent text behind the LXX renderings (except Jer. 48[31]:12), Hebrew ‫ קרן‬is used in quite similar metaphor mappings, usually with the verb ‫רום‬.76 In fact, this mapping of a lifted ‫ קרן‬to status is so common that some targumists often substitute ‫“( יקר‬honor”)77 for ‫קרן‬.78 A few other examples may be mentioned that reflect the same mappings to exalted status or lowered status:79 1QM 1.4–5

[Belial’s] anger wants to exterminate and cut off the horn of I[srael] ([‫)להכרית את קרן י[שראל‬.

4Q491c 1.22–23

(frag.)…to raise up the horn of [his] Mess[iah] ([‫)להקים קרן מש[יח‬.80

76.  Job 16:15 MT reads “[I] have laid my horn (‫ )קרני‬in the dust” (my translation), but LXX reads τὸ δὲ σθένος μου ἐν γῇ ἐσβέσθη (“And my strength has been extinguished in the earth”), losing ‫ → קרן‬κέρας. 77.  Jastrow 593; HALOT 431–32. 78.  E.g., Tg. Ps. 75:5–6; 89:17, 25; 132:17 (Stec 2014: 147). 79.  See also Mekh. R. Simon 35.3 (Nelson 2006: 151–2). Midr. Teh. 75:5 (repeated in three other midrashim; StrB 2.111) provides a fascinating elaboration on the ‫קרנים‬ belonging to Abraham (Isa. 5:1), Isaac (Gen. 22:13), Moses (Exod. 34:29), Samuel (1 Sam. 2:1), Aaron (Ps. 112:9), Sanhedrin (Hab. 3:4), Heman (1 Chr. 25:5), Jerusalem (Ps. 22:22), King Messiah (1 Sam. 2:10), and David (Ps. 132:17). The writer portrays all ten ‫ קרנים‬being cut off and given over to enemies in the exile (citing Dan. 7:7), with hope that God will ultimately cut off the enemy horns and again elevate these. 80.  4Q491c (f11) factors in many discussions of exalted mediator figures, given the phrases, “mighty throne in the congregation of the gods…I am counted among the gods (‫ …)עם אלים‬Who is comparable to me in my glory?” (1.5, 7, 8) (see Chester 2007b: 242–50; Collins 1995: 136). The end of the fragment (near 1.22–23) is abraded and has proven difficult to reconstruct. The reading provided above is supported by DSSSE 980; Chester 2007b: 242–50. However, others read the final visible letter as ‫ע‬, not ‫( ש‬Wise/Abegg/Cook 2005: 167; Duhaim in Charlesworth 1995: 153; Baillet 1982). Vermes offers no conjecture (1998: 185). The issue is challenging in part due to questions about whether the figure is positive or a prideful/

56

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors 11Q5 18.17–19

(Ps. 154) [Bless] YHWH who ransoms the humble from the hand of foreigner[s, who fre]es [the perfect from the wicked man’s hand; who raises a horn from Ja]cob (‫ )מקים קרן [מיע]קוב‬and judges [his people, Israel].81

11Q11 5.6–7

Your face is a face of [delus]ion, and your horns are horns of illu[si]on (‫)וקרניך קרני חל[ו]ם‬.82

Genizah Hymn 4.2

Blessed be [God], for he has broken the wicked and established the horn of the righteous (‫והעמיד קרן‬ ‫)צדיקים‬.83

boastful pretender (see Eshel 1999). Interestingly, 4Q491a f4—whose relationship to 4Q491c is disputed—reads “the enemy, to hu[mili]ate the horn of gu[ilt].” In the end, if the [‫ מש[יח‬reconstruction is correct, and the figure is positive rather than negative, we have some additional support for how the exalting someone’s status metaphor can be applied to a Messiah-figure. Note the use of ‫ קום‬as in 11Q5 18 above. 81.  There are numerous challenges with this passage, so our interpretation remains tentative. (i) The portion containing ‫ קרן‬is broken off in 11Q5 (hence the brackets), so it is usually reconstructed using later Syriac versions of Ps. 154 (Syriac Ps. 2). (ii) Most Syriac versions read a determined noun wdynʾ (“the judge”) after qrnʾ, leading Noth to argue based on parallelism that qrnʾ is a “Persönlichkeit”— which he admits would be unattested anywhere else in the Hebrew tradition (1930: 19–20). However, though the portion following the missing ‫ קרן‬in 11Q5 is somewhat abraded, upon inspection it best fits ‫ושופט‬, a Qal participle (not a noun) that parallels the other participles in the preceding cola (thus Reymond 2011: 80; DSSSE 1175; Charlesworth/Rietz 1997: 177; Lührmann 1968: 94). (iii) The ‫ מ‬prefix to ‫ יעקוב‬is not found in all Syriac versions. Reymond (2011: 88) and Lührmann (1968) omit it in their reconstruction of 11Q5 and simply read “horn of Jacob,” while Charlesworth/ Rietz (1997: 116–17) provide the same English rendering but include the Syriac mn. (iv) Though ‫ קום‬is often used for persons, the Hiphil (as here) can take material things as its direct object (e.g., Exod. 26:30; Lev. 26:1; Isa. 44:26; Jer. 10:20) and carries the sense of setting up or causing to rise up. (v) Scholars detect little evidence that an eschatological deliverer-figure is in view here (Reymond 2011: 88; J.A. Sanders 1964: 67). Lührmann concludes, “Mit dem ‘Horn’ ist also keine messianische Gestalt gemeint,” but rather it is an “Ausdruck der Kraft” as in Pss. 89; 148; Sir. 47:5 (1968: 95). Considering these factors, it seems the 11Q5 version in some way parallels God’s lifting of Jacob’s horn with the other actions done to bless his people and, thus, merits inclusion in this section; but this interpretation is by no means secure. 82.  Though this text (part of an incantation against enemies) is fragmentary, it seems best to fit here. 83.  Stec 2013: 46. Stec and Flusser/Safrai (2007) date the composition contemporaneous with Qumran.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

57

2.2.c. Sign of God’s Blessing Is His Causing a Horn to Sprout. Four important metaphors portray God causing the “sprouting” (or “springing up”) of a horn: [ἐξ]ἀνατέλλω taking κέρας as the object in Greek, or vb. ‫ צמח‬taking ‫ קרן‬as the object in Hebrew. Elsewhere I have conducted a detailed lexical study to demonstate that, in this specific category of usage, the Greek and Hebrew verbs overlap considerably.84 The verbs differ significantly from the primary and secondary evidence covered in the prior two sections, and in each case the context suggests a new horn “sprouts” (or “springs up”) on behalf of someone—expressed with the dative of advantage in Greek or ‫ ל‬of interest in the Hebrew85—rather than a horn belonging to someone that is wielded as a weapon or lifted up. I am not arguing that all four are directly (literarily) influencing GLuke—though some do make that argument, given the question about Semitic sources for the Benedictus. Rather, each example provides insight into the same conceptual mapping which, in turn, may influence GLuke even if the author is unaware of the Hebrew traditions. Each is regularly cited in “messianic” readings of Luke 1:69, so we will cover them in detail.86 Primary Evidence Ps. 132[131]:17 Ezek. 29:21

There I will cause a horn to sprout forth for David;87 I have prepared a lamp for my anointed. ἐκεῖ ἐξανατελῶ κέρας τῷ Δαυιδ ἡτοίμασα λύχνον τῷ χριστῷ μου. On that day, a horn will sprout for the whole house of Israel (ἀνατελεῖ κέρας παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ),88 and I will give you an open mouth in their midst. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

Greek Ps. 132[131] recalls David’s desire to build a temple for the Lord (v. 5). In vv. 13–18, the psalm concludes with various ways in which God secures Zion: residence there (v. 14), abundant flocks and food for

84.  Lanier 2015. For similar transitive uses of ‫צמח‬, see Gen. 2:9; 2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 147:8. 85.  Wallace 1996: 142–3; Waltke/O’Connor 1990: 207–8. 86.  The dates/provenances of Sir. 51:12(h) and Shem. Esreh 15 are debated, but I include them given their importance to scholarly discussion of Luke 1:69. 87.  Cf. HB ‫אצמיח קרן לדוד‬. 88.  Cf. HB ‫אצמיח קרן לבית ישראל‬.

58

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

the poor (v. 15), functioning priesthood (v. 16a), shouts for joy (v. 16b), a perpetual lamp for his anointed (v. 17b),89 shame for enemies (v. 18a), and a flourishing sanctuary (v. 18b).90 The parallelism in v.17ab is particularly important (κέρας//λύχνος and τῷ Δαυιδ//τῷ χριστῷ), for in both cases the objects are provided for the person’s benefit and are not identified with him or personified. Thus, the “sprouting” of the κέρας and preparing of the λύχνος are best seen as signs of God’s faithfulness in sustaining David’s dynasty despite its present humiliation—all part of God’s blessings on Zion.91 Ezekiel 29 is an oracle concerning judgment on Egypt and Tyre, punctuated by various signs by which the nations will know ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος (29:6, 9, 16). The oracle culminates in the handing over of Egypt to the Babylonians (29:20), so that no longer will the house of Israel be able to rely on their alliances with Egypt (29:16). The conclusion in v. 21, then, offers hope for the restoration of Judah after Egypt’s defeat, providing a final proof that ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος and reassurance that God is faithful to his promises despite the delay of the exile.92 In both cases the writer is extolling or praying for God’s blessing upon his people. The sprouting ([ἐξ]ἀνατέλλω) of a κέρας on behalf of David or Israel—perhaps drawing on how an animal’s horn grows as a sign of its maturity—seems to be a visible indicator or sign of this act of God’s blessing. We might generalize the underlying conceptual mapping as follows:

(i) (v)

sign of god’s blessing is his causing a horn to sprout for his people animal horn (source) god’s blessing (target) Grows out of animal’s head → God causes the κέρας to sprout or spring up as a sign/indication of his blessing… Identified with animal to which it → …Upon the one for whom the belongs κέρας sprouts or springs up

89.  Recalling 4 Kgdms 8:19, “He [God] promised to give to him [David] and to his sons a lamp (λύχνον) always”; see Laato 1992: 53. 90.  HB instead speaks of a crown for the king in v. 18b. 91.  Here I agree with Goldingay 2008: 557; Tate 1990: 419–28. 92.  Thus Block 1998: 152. Similarly ἀνατέλλω is used in metaphors that map the “sprouting” or “springing up” of plants to the flourishing of Jerusalem in Ezek. 16:7; 17:6–9.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

59

Secondary Evidence A similar conceptual metaphor lies behind two other passages that feature a ‫ קרן‬that God causes to “sprout” or “spring up” (‫ )צמח‬for the house of David. Sir. 51:12(h)

Give praise to God who makes a horn sprout for the house of David (‫)למצמיח קרן לבית דוד‬,93 for God’s love endures forever.

Shem. Esreh 15

Quickly sprout forth the Sprout of your servant David And lift his horn in your salvation For we await your salvation every day Blessed are you, LORD, who causes to sprout the horn of salvation.94 ‫את צמח דוד עבדך מהרה תצמיח‬ ‫וקרנו תרום בישועתך‬ ‫כי לישועתך קוינו כל־היום‬ ‫ברוך אתה יי מצמיח קרן ישועה‬

The Hebrew addendum to Sir. 51:12 features a litany of praises to God that draw on language from other psalms. The ‫ קרן‬metaphor is one of a sequence of phrases that extol God for his work of creation, redemption, gathering the dispersed of Israel, building the city/temple, and choosing the Zadokites as priests. The wording seems to combine the Hebrew of Ps. 132:17 and Ezek. 29:21.95 Shemoneh Esreh 15 is not found in the Palestinian version but is included in the Babylonian version, where it is appended to blessing 14 (which, in turn, is shorter than the Palestinian version). Both forms of blessing 14 focus on God’s return to Zion and rebuilding of the city and temple.96 Blessing 15 follows as an appeal for the provision of the ‫צמח‬-figure. It is unclear whether “his” of ‫( קרנו‬line 2) refers to David or the ‫( צמח‬line 1), but either way the horn domain maps to this figure’s exalted status (given ‫)רום‬. The metaphor mapping shifts, however, in the final statement (line 4), where the “sprouting” of a ‫ קרן ישועה‬by God (the subject of ‫ )מצמיח‬serves to summarize the salvation he has

93.  Beentjes 1997: 93. 94.  My translation. Cf. Instone-Brewer 2003: 34; Kimelman 1997: 315. Hebrew from Adler 1904: 50. 95.  Skehan/DiLella 1987: 570. 96.  See the discussion in Kimelman 1997: 315–16.

60

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

wrought for his people. It is possible that this ‫ קרן‬is the same as the one lifted “by” or “in” God’s salvation in line 2,97 but the shift from ‫ רום‬to ‫ צמח‬and the elision of the possessive suffix ‫ו‬- makes this identification uncertain. The line reads most naturally in the same basic sense as the prior examples. Each utterance discussed has been interpreted by some scholars along messianic lines.98 While there may be precedent for this with respect to Psalm 132[131]—e.g., Tg. Ps. 132:17 glosses “horn” with ‫ יקיר‬and inserts ‫( מליך‬thus, “king of glory”)99—there are reasons for caution elsewhere. Though indications of royal-Davidic interest appear in Ezek. 34:23–24 and 37:24–27, the context of Ezek. 29:21 offers little that would suggest a deliverer-figure is in view.100 While some read the ‫ קרן‬in Sir. 51:12(h) in a messianic way,101 the parallelism with the non-messianic ‫ קרן‬in 51:12(o) and the general absence of messianism in Sirach militate against this.102 And while Shem. Esreh 15 often factors in messianic discussions, some have argued that it is “more a manifestation of divine power than an expression of acute messianism.”103 Either way, as with §2.2.b, the direct identification of the horn with Messiah is unlikely in any of these examples. 2.2.d. God Is the Horn of Salvation. Finally, in a few instances the horn source domain is mapped directly to god himself. 97.  Compare the conflated summary of this prayer in the Jewish Habinenu: ‫( ובצמיחת קרן לדוד עבדך‬see Mishcon 1927: 38). 98.  Most likely due, at least with respect to the Hebrew traditions, to the messianic associations of ‫( צמח‬noun and verb) in the DSS and targums. See Chapter 3 §1.4. 99.  Stec 2004: 227. 100.  “Most scholars reject the messianic interpretation, on the grounds that the idea of a royal messianic deliverance is not important in Ezekiel, and the notion would in any case be intrusive in the context” (Block 1998: 152). Similarly Fitzmyer 2007: 50; Ringgren 2003: 411; Greenberg 1964: 615–16. 101.  Skehan provides little discussion but simply calls this text “messianic,” appealing to ‫ צמח‬in Jer. 23:5/33:15 and ‫ חטר‬in Isa. 11:1 (1987: 570). 102.  One must not put too much weight on this latter point, however, given the disputed relationship between the Hebrew hymn and the rest of Sirach (Skehan 1987: 569). 103.  Kimelman (1997: 318); he continues, “It is thus less a messianic liturgy than a divinely orchestrated redemptive drama.” Similarly Zeitlin 1964: 241. But Wiefel (1998: 64), Mowinckel (1956: 297), Spitta (1906: 306) argue the contrary, and generally I maintain it is more plausible to find evidence of some form of messianic ideology in the Amidah (and in this benediction). The emphasis, importantly, lies on the ‫צמח‬-figure, not the “horn of salvation.”



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

61

Primary Evidence The locus classicus is Ps. 18[17]:3b–4 (par. 2 Kgdms 22:3–4), which forms part of the psalm’s opening salvo invoking multiple natural or material source domains to portray aspects of God’s character and identity.104 The passages read as follows: Ps. 18[17]:3b–4 2 Kgdms 22:3–4

My God is my helper, and I will hope in him: my defender and horn of my salvation, my protector. In praise I will call upon the Lord and be saved from my enemies. ὁ θεός μου βοηθός μου, καὶ ἐλπιῶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, ὑπερασπιστής μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου, ἀντιλήμπτωρ μου. αἰνῶν ἐπικαλέσομαι κύριον καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι. My God will be my guard, and I will trust in him: my defender and horn of my salvation, my protector and refuge of my salvation—you save me from injustice. I will call upon the praiseworthy Lord and be saved from my enemies. ὁ θεός μου φύλαξ ἔσται μου, πεποιθὼς ἔσομαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, ὑπερασπιστής μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου, ἀντιλήμπτωρ μου καὶ καταφυγή μου σωτηρίας μου, ἐξ ἀδίκου σώσεις με. αἰνετὸν ἐπικαλέσομαι κύριον καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι.

Unlike prior conceptual metaphors, the κέρας is no longer an object or outgrowth of the person in view but is predicated to God himself. Given the framing of deliverance and protection, these utterances are best understood as extensions of the defeat of enemies conceptual metaphor, such that God himself, as κέρας, saves the psalmist from enemies (Ps. 18[17]:14, 17–19, 27, 37–43, 47–48). God’s action in delivering Israel from Egypt is also conceptualized via the horn domain:

104.  The most recent treatment is Gray 2014 (esp. 61–8), who summarizes, God “is pictured here not only as a place of sanctuary but also as a personal protector, the source of the psalmist’s strength for battle and his deliverer” (68).

62

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Num. 23:22 Num. 24:8

God is the one who led them out of Egypt—as the glory of a μονοκέρως to him. θεὸς ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν αὐτοὺς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ. God is the one who led him out of Egypt—as the glory of a μονοκέρως to him. θεὸς ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, ὡς δόξα μονοκέρωτος αὐτῷ.

The syntax of the second clause in both is peculiar. The αὐτῷ could refer either to Israel, given the parallelism (dative of interest; this is most natural for 24:8b, given αὐτόν in 24:8a, but it is by no means unusual to switch from plural αὐτούς in 23:22a to singular in 23:22b) or to God himself (dative of possession). Either way, both metaphors are clear that God is being likened (ὡς) to the δόξα μονοκέρωτος.105 Though κέρας is not used, on CMT grounds the horn domain is clearly being mapped here, given how μονόκερως features elsewhere in horn metaphors. As above, these metaphorical utterances extend the conceptual metaphor defeat of enemies to describe God’s delivering Israel from Egypt. Furthermore, 3 Kgdms 1:50 and 2:28 recall how the κέρατα of Israel’s altar could be grasped as a means of asylum from enemies. This act of grasping the altar’s κέρατα most likely invokes the presence/protection of God, who is represented by them.106 Just as the blood smeared on the κέρατα secures God’s mercy, so also his divine presence is extended to protect the one who grasps the κέρατα. The altar κέρατα, thus, in some sense reify the presence of God. Finally, we might also mention the following theophanic appearance of God: Hab. 3:3–4 LXX

God will come from Teman…and his splendor (φέγγος) will be like light (φῶς), [with] horns in his hands (κέρατα ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ).

105.  NETS presents a similar treatment. LXX.D reads “Pracht wie die eines Einhorns ist ihm (gegeben)”; the translators comment that the metaphor describes “die besondere Macht Gottes,” and that the ancient Near Eastern motif of “Hörner eines Wildstieres” has here been given “ein äquivalentes griech.-hellenistisches Motiv” (Karrer/Kraus 2011: 1:489). 106.  See the discussions in Propp 2006: 501; Kedar-Kopfstein 2004: 172; Cogan 2000: 164; DeVries 1985: 19; Süring 1980: 7–16; Eberharter 1927: 399. Morenz believes this underlies Ps. 18[17]:3 (1951: 152).



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor Hab. 3:3–4 Barb107

63

God will come from the South…splendor of light (διαύγασμα φωτός) will be to him; to him will be horns from his hand (κέρατα ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ).

The precise meaning of the phrases is not entirely evident, though perhaps the use of κέρατα is intended to reflect the shape of the splendorous light coming from God.108 In sum, though Ps. 18[17]:3b–4 (par.) certainly supplies the decisive evidence, there is other support for a conceptual metaphor that expresses the protection/refuge God provides in terms of the animal horn and altar horn domains: god is the horn of salvation109 source god (target) animal horn (ii) Used to gore other animals → God, as κέρας, defeats enemies and offers protection altar horn (vii) Integrated at each top corner of → (When grasped…) God, represented the altar by the κέρατα, is a refuge or asylum for his people (ix) Smeared with sacrificial blood → (During sacrifices…) God, represented by the κέρατα, is satisfied with the atonement offering

Secondary Evidence The Hebrew traditions for Ps. 18:3b–4 (par.) read “horn of my salvation” (‫)קרן ישעי‬, though some other details differ from the Greek. The Hebrew readings for Num. 23:22 (‫ )אל מוציאם ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬and 24:8 (‫ )אל מוציאו ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬are peculiar. The rare word ‫( תועפה‬only 2× elsewhere) suggests the eminence of the animal, which is conveyed by its horn(s).110 For both verses the ‫ כ‬is best read as resumptively modifying 107.  Greek (Barberini Codex) from Good 1959. 108.  LXX.D reads “Strahlen in seinen Händen” for LXX but “Hörner aus seiner Hand” for Barberini, providing no explanation; it merely comments that the imagery is similar to the representation of Aton in the Amarna period. 109. This summary fits well for everything but Hab. 3:3–4, where the sense of κέρατα remains elusive; for that utterance, we might suggest something like god is the horned one. 110.  ESV, RSV, and ASV, in fact, render “horns of a wild ox.” Levine suggests ‫ תועפת ראם‬is “functionally” equivalent to “antlers of the wild ox” (2000: 185). BDB offers “eminence, of towering horns” (419). Tg. Neof. and Onq. gloss it with ‫תוקף‬

64

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

“God” after the apposition, so that the final ‫ לו‬could either refer to Israel or God himself,111 as with the Greek above. Either way God’s deliverance in the exodus is portrayed via a horn metaphor, as before. Finally, the Hebrew for Hab. 3:3–4 reads ‫קרנים מידו‬,112 and it is the ‫ קרנים‬of the altar that are grasped in 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28. A close association between the horn domain and the deity (though not always god is horn) is a nearly universal feature in antiquity. From as early as the third millennium,113 numerous archaeological findings and inscriptions portray the gods of Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and others as possessing prominent horns or a horned crown/headdress:114

Akkadian “Seal of Adda,” depicting deities with horned headdresses, ca. 2300 BCE (“strength,” “power”; Jastrow 1644–66). Grossfeld remarks that Onq. is best understood as “like the horns of the wild ox” (1988a: 135); similarly McNamara/Clarke for Neof., “the eminence (=horns?) of a wild ox” (1995: 258). 111.  Levine: “El, who liberated him from Egypt, has horns like a wild ox” (2000: 189); also Ashley 1993: 481. 112.  See discussion in Kedar-Kopfstein 2004: 174. We should mention a similar (verbal) use of ‫ קרן‬in Exod. 24:29–35 (3×) to depict the radiance of Moses’ face after being in the presence of God on Sinai. This peculiarity generated some translational difficulty (e.g., Jerome), resulting in Moses’ horned appearance in medieval art (S. Sanders 2002; J. Morgenstern 1925; Mellinkoff 1970). Similarly, ‫ יקרונה‬is used in 4Q246 2.1 for the radiance of the “Son of God.” 113.  Süring 1980: 127. 114.  See Staub 2000: 54; Süring 1980: 117–298; Engnell 1967: 12; Obbink 1937: 46; Eberharter 1927: 397; Schleftelowitz 1912: 451–3. Keel/Uehlinger note that this portrayal of the deity waned in popularity in Iron Age I except in Syria/Mesopotamia (1998: 192).



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

Sumerian deity Ningirsu with eight-horned headdress, ca. 2100 BCE

Sun god with a horned headdress, Hammurabi stele, ca. 1750 BCE

Horned deity at the top of the ca. 3100 BCE Egyptian Narmer Palette

65

66

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Terra cotta of Zeus Ammon, ca. 100 CE

Given the common view in antiquity of the divine status or adoption of the king, it is unsurprising that the king is often represented in the same way as the deity:115

Akkadian king Naram-Sin, with a horned crown, ca. 2230 BCE116

115.  Süring 1980: 222–3; Eberharter 1927: 398. E.g., the Akkadian hymn “Tummal of Ninlil” reads, “let shine the horn of Tummal” and refers to the king as “the great heavenly bull” (Legrain 1922: 81). 116.  Moortgat 1969: 52.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

67

Egyptian scarab depicting the king (named in the cartouche) as a bull, ca. 1450 BCE

Tetradrachm depicting Alexander the Great with horns, ca. 297–281 BCE117

Depicting the king with horns is reflected in the apocalyptic symbolism in Dan. 7:24; 8:20–21; Zech. 2:1–2; 1 En. 90.37–38;118 and Sib. Or. 3.395–400.119

117.  See the discussion of Alexander’s horns in Staub 2000: 55–8; Süring 1980: 203, 223–4; A.R. Anderson 1927: 102–4; and Clement of Alexandria (Protr. IV). 118.  Some suggest the white bull may be a messianic symbol (Chester 2007b: 344–5; Torrey 1947: 266–7), but its appearance with a buffalo with black horns—and the fact that the ram, not the bull or buffalo, appears to be the deliverer-figure—casts doubt upon this hypothesis (Collins 1995: 31–4). 119.  In some examples, the various figures are portrayed as having horns or even as horns, consistent with how apocalyptic imagery frequently collapses symbol into referent.

68

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

2.2.e. Summary. Our analysis shows that it is overly simplistic to say that κέρας is an “emblem of strength,”120 though strength is partly in view for defeat of enemies. The source domains of the animal horn and altar horn are used metaphorically as a means of conceptualizing a variety of target domains. We have noted in particular a difference between metaphors in which the κέρας itself is an instrument that does something (such as strike an enemy) and those in which the action taken on the κέρας is a sign or emblem of something else (change in status, blessing). Notably, the usual suspects for Luke 1:69 mentioned above are distributed unevenly among three of these metaphors: Κέρας as an instrument/agent

Κέρας as a sign/emblem

defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn

exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn

(None)

1 Kgdms 2:1; 2:10; Pss. 89[88]:18, 25; 92[91]:11; 148:14

god is the horn of salvation

sign of god’s blessing is his causing a horn to sprout for his people

Ps. 18[17]:3–4; 2 Kgdms 22:2–4

Ps. 132[131]:17; Ezek. 29:21

We also highlighted points at which some horn metaphors have fostered messianic readings among interpreters, ancient and modern. However, we found few if any cases in which a horn metaphor actually personifies the κέρας as a Messiah-figure. So why do so many scholars default to this interpretation? I suggest that this tendency is due not to the horn domain, but to the combination of these particular target domains to which horn is mapped. The horn domain in itself does not appear to have much messianic currency: the key “horn” lexemes are conspicuously absent from, say, Psalms of Solomon, T.Levi and T.Jud. (which adopt other messianic metaphors), the major messianic Qumran texts,121 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Justin’s lists of OT messianic designations (Dial. 100.4; 126.1, including wisdom, star, root, son, ἀνατολή, stone, servant).122 Yet the target domains—defeat of enemies, exalted status, and god’s

120.  Hendrickx 1984: 91. 121.  E.g., 1QS 9; 1Q28a 2; CD 7, 12, 14, 19; 4Q174; 4Q252; 4Q521; 11QMelch. 122.  Though Justin takes Deut. 33:17 κέρατα μονοκέρωτος allegorically as a type of the vertical beam of Jesus’ cross (Dial. 91).



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

69

blessing—are all conceptually important to Jewish messianic ideologies. It is unsurprising, then, that the Davidic Messiah would be seen by many to “fit the bill” for such metaphors, but such messianic attraction seems to arise from the confluence of target domains, not the source domain. Having established the domains and conceptual metaphor(s) available to the author of GLuke, let us turn to Luke 1:68–69. 3. The Κέρας Metaphor in Luke 1:68–69 In §§1.3–1.4 we summarized the general consensus that GLuke’s ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας refers to “die Sendung des Messias.”123 We noted the difficulties encountered in discerning on intertextual grounds which particular OT text, if any, is the source of 1:69. Further, our results from §2 indicate that the usual suspects, though sharing the same horn domain, express in some cases fundamentally different conceptual mappings. Thus, our questions as we approach the κέρας text in GLuke as metaphor (rather than merely an allusion/echo) are these: how does GLuke’s identification of Jesus as the “horn of salvation” draw on the conceptual metaphors outlined above in conventional or, possibly, novel ways? As determined by the Lukan context, which antecedent metaphor mappings are being appropriated and which ones are not? And to what degree is it accurate to find a messianic sense to this metaphor? To answer such questions, we will attend closely to metaphor itself as well as its setting in the Benedictus, the infancy narrative, and the rest of Luke–Acts. 3.1. A Personified Horn As noted in §1.5, a key point requiring clarification is the precise configuration of GLuke’s κέρας. Is the “horn” an object or appendage that belongs to someone in some way, or is it directly identified with/as someone? A cumulative case built from a close examination of the syntax suggests the latter. (i) First, the pronoun modifying horn is ἡμῖν, not ἡμῶν. In the cases where the metaphor maps a horn that belongs to someone—that is, the horn of Hannah, David, Moab, Job, or the people of Israel—the genitive is used. The dative (of advantage) in GLuke, however, suggests that it is not quite “our” horn, but rather a horn raised “to us” or “on our behalf.”124

123.  G. Lohfink 1975: 27. 124.  Nine other first-person plural pronouns are used in the Benedictus.

70

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(ii) Moreover, the use of the locative preposition + dative (ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ), as opposed to the simple dative (cf. τῷ Δαυιδ in Ps. 132[131]:17; τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ in Ezek. 29:21), would seem to suggest that the horn is within or part of David’s house. Given GLuke’s emphasis on the birth of Jesus to David’s descendants (1:27; 2:4b), in the city of David (2:4a, 11), to inherit David’s throne (1:32), the syntax begins to push us in the direction of direct personification, whereby the horn in David’s house is specifically Jesus. (iii) Finally, the use of ἐγείρω rather than the customary “horn”-related verbs (ὑψόω, ἐπαίρω, -ἀνατέλλω) is also suggestive of personification. The combination ἐγείρω + κέρας is both unparalleled and somewhat peculiar from a lexical perspective.125 When used intransitively, the verb carries the sense of a person’s (or group’s) awakening from sleep or rising from a static or seated position.126 When used transitively (as here), it usually takes a person as its direct object and carries the sense of rousing to action, bringing into being, or raising up from a previous position.127 Thus, to the extent GLuke is influenced by the LXX, this verb choice is unusual. The most plausible explanation is that the author is appealing to the use of ἐγείρω for God’s “raising up” or “bringing onto the scene” certain people, such as judges (Judg. 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15), David (Acts 13:22; also + ἠγείρεν in C D 33. at 13:23, referring to Jesus), children of Abraham (Luke 3:8), and the “new priest” (T.Levi 18:2).128 Though some argue based on GLuke’s use of ἐγείρω elsewhere that it is an implicit reference to Jesus’ resurrection in 1:69,129 this is far from clear. 125.  Not only is ἐγείρω + κέρας unattested elsewhere (Fitzmyer 1981: 383; only Sib. Or. 13.159 uses ἐγείρω in the same context as κέρας, but not with κέρας as the object), but the use of ἐγείρω with ἐν (spatial, sphere, locative) is quite rare (1 Esdr. 1:23; perhaps Matt. 11:11; 12:42; Luke 7:16). Typically, if it occurs with a preposition, ἐπί, ἀπό, or ἐκ is used. 126.  E.g., Gen. 41:4, 7; 49:9; 1 Kgdms 5:3; 3 Kgdms 11:14; Pss. 107:3; 127:2; Isa. 5:11. LSJ mentions “awaken,” “rouse,” “stir oneself” (469). 127.  BDAG 271–2. There are a few exceptions, wherein ἐγείρω is used for erecting a building or moving a stone from its position (e.g., P.Oxy 1.1 [Thomas 30.3]), but neither sense fits here. Moreover, the LXX translators rarely render the normal verbs used with ‫—קרן‬namely, ‫ רום‬and ‫—צמח‬with ἐγείρω (only 1 Kgdms 2:8, “he raises up the poor”). 128.  Strauss 1995: 99–100; R. Brown 1993: 371; Oro 1983: 161 (who argues that the verb alone conveys “una personificación de ‘kéras’”); Fitzmyer 1981: 383; Gnilka 1962: 221. 129.  Dillon 2013: 63; Radl 1996: 95; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 202; Harnack 1911: 206. See Luke 9:7, 22; 11:31; 20:37; 24:6, 34; Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

71

In sum, when taken cumulatively the evidence suggests that κέρας maps specifically to the person of Jesus. The metaphor, that is, features a personified horn. On this point, then, the scholarly consensus is accurate.130 3.2. Defeat of Enemies, Status, and God’s Blessing Let us now examine GLuke’s metaphor in further detail with respect to the OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors identified in §2.2.a–2.2.c. Luke 1:68a introduces the Benedictus with Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,131 indicating that the hymn functions both as the content of Zechariah’s blessing (εὐλογῶν, 1:64) and the implied answer to the people’s question about the character of the child, Jesus (“What will this child be?,” 1:66).132 The Benedictus continues with three aorist indicatives in 1:68–69 (ἐπεσκέψατο, ἐποίησεν, ἤγειρεν) that refer in aggregate to the saving action of God in providing this child, followed by a hypotactic sequence of infinitive clauses and appositional phrases that expound this saving action.133 In particular, we observe the grammatical connection between the “horn of salvation” and the elaboration in 1:71 regarding this “salvation,” which is broken up by the parenthetical aside of 1:70: 1:69b

ἤγειρεν

1:71

κέρας σωτηρίας (accusative+genitive)

σωτηρίαν (accusative) ἐξ ἐχθρῶν ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν μισούντων

ἡμῖν ἡμῶν καὶ ἡμᾶς

The parallelism of the accusatives (grammatically both could be objects of ἤγειρεν), pronouns, and σωτηρία joins the two clauses together,134 indicating that the purpose of the κέρας is to provide “salvation from our enemies and from (the) hand of all who hate us” (my translation). This notion is paralleled with ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ῥυσθέντας in 1:74.135 130.  Pace Maluf 2000 (see n. 40). 131.  Most similar εὐλογητός phrases appear at the conclusion of LXX hymns (Pss 41[40]:14; 72[71]:18; 89[88]:53; 106[105]:48; 124[123]:6; 1 Kgdms 25:32; 3 Kgdms 1:48). 132.  Wiefel 1998: 62. 133.  Dillon 2013: 49; Oro 1983: 156. 134.  Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015: 153; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 206 (“una aposición explicativa”); Jones 1968: 31; Goulder 1989: 239; Klostermann 1975: 27. Dillon’s case that σωτηρίαν is appositional to λύτρωσιν (not κέρας) is unpersuasive because it requires his a priori excision of 1:69–70 from the hymn (2013: 64); similarly for Radl 1996: 94 (who follows Kaut 1990: 213–14). 135.  Kaut 1990: 207.

72

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

There has been much debate about the allegedly “conflicting images of salvation, the one social and political, the other spiritual,”136 due to the juxtaposition of σωτηρία/ῥύομαι and “enemy” language attached to the κέρας with righteousness/forgiveness language in 1:74b–77. Some suggest the Benedictus anticipates political-military victory provided by the horn,137 while others see this salvation as entirely spiritual.138 The use of ἐχθρός and μισέω elsewhere in Luke–Acts does not push us one direction or the other, as both words are used to refer to personal enemies, communal enemies, and spiritual forces.139 Likewise σωτηρία and ῥύομαι can include both physical and spiritual deliverance in the NT and LXX, which is consistent with how the OT regularly portrays salvation in both nationalistic and personal/spiritual terms.140 This holds, in fact, for other horn metaphors, which can be national (e.g., 3 Kgdms 22:11–12) or personal (e.g., Ps. 22[21]:21). Whatever the case, GLuke’s κέρας metaphor emphatically emphasizes both the reality of the enemies/haters and, more importantly, the one who by conquering them secures the fate of God’s people.141 Thus, our first finding is that GLuke appropriates to Jesus the conceptual metaphor wherein the horn provides defeat of enemies. This is notable, for among the OT/Jewish antecedents the emphasis falls on the κέρας itself that is the instrument providing victory in battle (by goring, smashing, etc.). Hence, we have some confirmation that in 1:69 Jesus is identified as the κέρας, specifically the κέρας that wins victory in battle. This sense of the defeat of enemies also provides one of several thematic links between the Benedictus and the Magnificat, which declares that God “has scattered the proud…[and] put down the mighty from their thrones” (1:51–54).142 136.  Green 1997: 114. 137.  “Die Rettung, die Gott schafft, ist politisch verstanden als Rettung aus der Macht der Feinde” (Wiefel 1998: 64); likewise, “Errettung von politischen Feinden… Befreiung vom Heidnischen Joch” (Klostermann 1975: 27). Similarly Kremer 1998: 34; Vielhauer 1952: 260. Tannehill suggests a certain “tragic irony,” whereby the hope of political deliverance from Rome is introduced in Luke 1–2 (including the Benedictus), but this hope is crushed by the Sanhedrin and Rome in Luke 23 (1988; 1986: 25–6). 138.  Coleridge 1993: 121; Nolland 1989: 84; Hendriksen 1979: 123. 139.  See Luke 6:22, 27, 35; 10:19; 19:14, 27, 43; 20:43; 21:17; Acts 2:35; 13:10. 140.  Foerster/Fohrer 1964: 966–92. 141.  Dillon’s view that the salvation involves merely an abstract form of “escape” from the enemies rather than anyone’s “victory” over them lacks compelling argumentation and simply bolsters his treatment of 1:69–70 as secondary accretions (2013: 51–3). Hendriksen’s notion that the horn delivers Israel “by means of knocking out and scattering the enemy” (1979: 124) is more accurate. 142.  Mittmann-Richert 1996: 32; Caird 1968: 55–8.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

73

While this may fit with certain messianic ideologies in which a future deliverer-figure plays a role in eschatological defeat of enemies, this is not well-attested via extant horn metaphors.143 GLuke’s personified κέρας, who is the agent that defeats “our” enemies, is novel. This conceptual mapping carries implications for other conceptual OT/Jewish metaphors identified above. Consistently among the various expressions of exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn, the κέρας belongs to the person whose elevation is understood in terms of lifting his/her κέρας in the air. Luke 1:69, however, is quite different. By emphasizing that the κέρας is personified as Jesus who brings about defeat of enemies—that is, shifting from horn-as-object-belonging-to-person to horn-as-person—the issue of exalted status is somewhat downplayed here. While the Benedictus and other infancy hymns certainly adumbrate the exaltation of Jesus as a kingly figure (which is confirmed in Luke 19:38), 1:69 is not necessarily appropriating this conceptual metaphor, at least not for Jesus’ status. Rather, a perhaps better conceptual fit, given ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυίδ, might be that for Luke (or his source) Jesus has in some sense embodied the κέρας belonging to David, the archetypal king. David’s or his house’s status reaches its highest point of exaltation when the κέρας, now concretized in Jesus, is raised up.144 With respect to the god’s blessing metaphor, the praise setting of the Benedictus (εὐλογητός), the direct action of God in raising up the κέρας (κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ as the subject of each aorist), and the parallelism with “did redemption” (ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ) all make evident that God’s blessing of his people is in view. Many have pointed out the similarity between GLuke’s wording and “horn of salvation” in Shem. Esreh 15 (line 4). However, we argued above that this phrase more likely envisions the “sprouting” of a ‫ קרן‬as a sign of God’s blessing, but in Luke 1:69 the blessing is accomplished by the κέρας itself (in defeating enemies). That is, the κέρας is the essential content of God’s blessing; it constitutes the blessing even as it signifies it. Taking stock of these findings, we conclude that Luke 1:69 most strongly appropriates defeat of enemies by re-mapping the target domain to Jesus, the victorious horn. The other conceptual metaphors are not completely filtered, but certainly less emphasized here.

143.  Deut. 33:17 may be the only example, but there the κέρατα belong to Joseph, not a Davidide. 144.  This might explain GLuke’s departure from ὑψόω/ἐπαίρω common to horn-status metaphors.

74

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn

exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn sign of god’s blessing is his causing a horn to sprout for his people

NT Appropriation



Jesus-as-κέρας defeats the corporate or spiritual enemies of God’s people



(Jesus is the concrete embodiment of the exalting of David’s status)



(God’s saving work in raising up the κέρας is celebrated—but the κέρας accomplishes it)

This yields somewhat unexpected implications with respect to the consensus “Davidic Messiah” reading of this passage. The defeat of enemies mapping is strongest here but is the least susceptible to messianic interpretation in the OT/Jewish tradition—and none of the usual intertexts suggested by scholars for 1:69 fall into this category (see §2.2.e). The exalting someone’s status metaphor, though occasionally taking a kingly/messianic figure as its target domain, is here downplayed. And while sign of god’s blessing is likely being appropriated here, it is likewise not as obviously messianic in OT/Jewish tradition as often assumed. Yet doubtless the Lukan infancy narrative as a whole adumbrates Jesus’ kingly/messianic status (recall §1.1). Therefore, I would suggest that it is more a function of how the “horn of salvation” is applied to Jesus in the messianic context of the Benedictus that it acquires the messianic sense often imputed to it by scholars—and less a function of some off-the-shelf messianic κέρας within OT/Jewish antecedents. In other words, Luke 1:69 is a “messianic” κέρας primarily due to its target domain (Jesus, already identified as Messiah by GLuke), and only secondarily due to any available “messianic” horn metaphors. It develops prior OT/Jewish traditions by focalizing these three domains—the intersection of which, we noted previously, attracts messianic interpretation—onto the person of Jesus. 3.3. Intimations of a Divine Horn Thus far we have engaged primarily on the immediate context of the κέρας metaphor, particularly the framing of salvation from enemies brought about by the horn. Two other frames of reference should be considered in our analysis, as they may bear on other conceptual re-mappings expressed in this utterance.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

75

First, it has long been noted that the first half of the Benedictus swims, as it were, in the current of ideas/language of the exodus.145 Four details are worth highlighting. (i) The use of ἐπισκέπτομαι and the salvationrelated context in 1:68 engages the “divine visitation” motif (§1.2), the archetype of which is, as established before, the exodus (Exod. 4:31). (ii) The idiosyncratic ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν146 (between ἐπισκέπτομαι in 1:68 and ἐγείρω in 1:69) reflects a Septuagintal convention used for the exodus: God did (ἐποίησεν) the mighty deed (τὴν μεγάλην) in Egypt to bring out his people (Exod. 14:31).147 Other ποιέω-phrases in the infancy narrative function similarly.148 (iii) The saturation of redemption-related language surrounding the horn metaphor (λύτρωσιν, 1:68; σωτηρίας/ν, 1:69, 71, 77; ῥυσθέντας, 1:74)—the highest concentration of such language in the Gospels149—likewise evokes the exodus. For instance, Exod. 14:13 describes the exodus as τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν ποιήσει ἡμῖν. Furthermore, -λυτρ- and ῥύομαι are paradigmatic words used for God’s redeeming Israel in the exodus, as in Exod. 6:6 (ῥύσομαι ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῆς δουλείας καὶ λυτρώσομαι ὑμᾶς).150 (iv) Finally, the infinitive in 1:74–75 expresses the outcome of what the “horn” achieves by delivering the people from their enemies, namely, that they might serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness (ἀφόβως…λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ).151 God likewise delivers his people out of Egypt so they might serve (λατρεύω) him,152 no longer fearing enemies but, rather, 145.  Schiffner observes “eine ganze Reihe von Anklängen an den Exodus” in the Benedictus (2008: 239); likewise Muñoz-Iglesias describes it as evincing a “nuevo Exodo” (1990: 175), and Wiefel takes the “Auszug aus Ägypten” as its “Prototyp” (1998: 63). Similarly Rusam 2003: 69; Kremer 1998: 33; Green 1997: 113–16. 146.  R. Brown classifies it as a Semitism lacking parallels elsewhere (1993: 371); the closest is Ps. 111[110]:9 (λύτρωσιν ἀπέστειλεν). 147.  Similarly Deut. 4:34; 7:19; 10:21; 34:12; Judg. 2:7. 148.  Luke 1:25; 1:49 (traced to Deut. 10:21 [an exodus text] by Mittmann-Richert 1996: 11; Harnack 1931: 68), and 1:51. 149.  See Coleridge 1993: 89–90. This salvation language (σωτηρ-/λυτρ-/ῥυο-) reflects a Lukan interest (Fitzmyer 1981: 222–3): σωτηρ- occurs 8× in GLuke, 0× in GMatthew and GMark (excluding [16:9–20]), 2× in GJohn (though σῴζω is common among the other evangelists); λυτρ- occurs 3× in GLuke, 1× each in GMatthew/ GMark, 0× in GJohn; ῥυο- occurs 2× in GMatthew and 0× in GMark and GJohn. 150.  Also Exod. 13:15; 15:13; Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam. 7:23; 1 Chr. 17:21; Mic. 6:4; Ps. 111[110]:9. 151.  λατρ- appears 3× (noun and verb) in GLuke (5× in Acts) but only 1× in GMatthew, 0× in GMark, 1× in GJohn. 152.  λατρεύσετε τῷ θεῷ (Exod. 3:12); ἵνα μοι λατρεύσῃ and similar forms (Exod. 4:23; 7:16; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 24, 26). See Dahl 1966: 146–7.

76

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

fearing the Lord.153 The cumulative impact of these features suggests that an important contextual framing for the κέρας metaphor is that of the exodus. It is possible, then, that such framing in the Benedictus might trigger an audience familiar with the exodus traditions to understand 1:69 in such a way that appropriates the mapping of the horn domain to god as the one who delivers Israel in the exodus (e.g., Num. 23:22//24:8). A second frame of reference should be considered as well, evoked by the parallelism of κέρας σωτηρίας in 1:69 with Ps. 18[17]:3 par. (ὁ θεός μου…κέρας σωτηρίας μου). A comparison with Psalm 18[17], while not necessarily indicating literary influence on GLuke, at least points to broad conceptual parallels that should be taken into account:154 God’s action from heaven Salvation from enemies

3 10 17 1 4 18

Davidic context

47 49 1

Psalm 18[17]: κύριος…ὁ θεός μου ἔκλινεν οὐρανὸν καὶ κατέβη ἐξαπέστειλεν ἐξ ὕψους ἐρρύσατο αὐτὸν κύριος ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου σωθήσομαι ῥύσεταί με ἐξ ἐχθρῶν μου καὶ ἐκ τῶν μισούντων με ὁ θεὸς τῆς σωτηρίας ὁ ῥύστης μου ἐξ ἐχθρῶν μου τῷ παιδὶ κυρίου τῷ Δαυιδ

68 78 71

Luke 1: ἐπεσκέψατο κύριος ὁ θεὸς

74

ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους155 σωτηρίαν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ῥυσθέντας

69

ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ

As outlined above, the psalm’s κέρας σωτηρίας is one of several refugerelated source domains used to conceptualize God. He descends from heaven and does battle with the psalmist’s enemies to provide deliverance for him, thus vindicating him against those enemies. It is not the psalmist’s own κέρας—that is, the emblem of his status—that is in view, but the κέρας is God himself, who undertakes everything needed to deliver him.

153.  From ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα (of the Egyptians) in Exod. 14:10, to reverent fear of the Lord (ἐφοβήθη δὲ ὁ λαὸς τὸν κύριον) in Exod. 14:31. Cf. Exod. 15:16; Deut. 2:25; 11:25. 154.  Note also parallels between Ps. 18[17]:28 and the Magnificat (1:48, 52–53). 155.  This phrase will be discussed extensively in the next chapter.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

77

The repeated emphasis is that god-as-horn engages in direct action on the psalmist’s behalf.156 This contextual framing, somewhat more strongly than that of the exodus, may also provide another angle on GLuke’s κέρας metaphor. Κέρας σωτηρίας, profuse language dealing with rescue from enemies, and the Davidic context may well evoke the Psalm 18[17] refuge metaphor, only with a conceptual shift: that which God does as κέρας σωτηρίας in the psalm is done by Jesus, who is likewise identified as κέρας σωτηρίας in Luke 1:69. Read within these two frames of reference, GLuke’s metaphor might be interpreted thus: God “visits” Israel to raise up jesus-as-horn, who accomplishes salvation/redemption/deliverance from enemies that is of the same kind as that accomplished by god-as-horn. OT Conceptual Metaphor(s)

NT Appropriation

defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn



The deliverance that God, the κέρας σωτηρίας, provides for his people…

god is the horn of salvation



…is provided by Jesus, the κέρας σωτηρίας

In short, it is plausible to surmise that first-century individuals familiar with the OT—when primed with the Benedictus’s language of redemption, deliverance, defeat of enemies, and so on—would have defaulted to think of God as the κέρας σωτηρίας, thereby understanding Jesus as doing what the God of Israel does as κέρας σωτηρίας.157 This would fit quite naturally with our finding that defeat of enemies is most prominent in Luke 1:69 (§3.2) and that god is the horn of salvation itself is an extension of that very conceptual metaphor (§2.2.d).

156.  Gunkel’s apt summary of this as “Gottes Einschreiten…in der Zeit” still stands (1921: 55–6). 157.  A brief note on 1:70, which parallels Acts 3:21: the event about which the “mouths of the prophets” spoke in 1:70 is the raising of the κέρας, but in Acts 3:21 it is the return of Jesus from heaven to restore all things. It is at least possible that 1:70 supports our interpretation here: while in Ps. 18[17] it is God who “comes down” from heaven to bring deliverance, the Benedictus may intimate what Jesus will do when he returns from heaven.

78

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

3.4. Summary Our analysis suggests that GLuke’s horn metaphor is mapping and, in some ways, re-mapping antecedent conceptual metaphors from an OT/ Jewish “encyclopedia.” The most obvious mapping is that of defeat of enemies, which Jesus accomplishes as κέρας. The exalted status and god’s blessing metaphors are relatively less prominent. There are some indications that the framing of GLuke’s metaphor in terms of the exodus tradition and Psalm 18[17] could suggest that the prerogatives ascribed to God as horn are being re-mapped to Jesus as well. If true, Luke 1:69 would be transforming the god is the horn of salvation metaphor to extend it christologically: namely, jesus is the horn of salvation. Such re-mapping would set GLuke’s metaphor somewhat apart from Shem. Esreh 15 and similar metaphors. Moreover, CMT has enabled us to see how GLuke’s novel metaphor brings together various conceptual mappings that would otherwise be less detectable if we relied only on parallels of vocabulary and syntax. By moving beyond the largely ineffective pursuit of the intertextual allusion/ echo for this example, we have arrived at a perspective that the real source of Luke 1:68–69—as with most novel metaphors—is a network of OT/Jewish conceptual horn metaphors available to the author. Or, put coarsely, the source of GLuke’s metaphor is not this or that OT text, but rather dozens. 4. Christological Implications At this stage I hesitate to draw many sweeping christological conclusions, but a few observations may be made. The analysis of OT/Jewish metaphors gives reason to pause before assuming there is an obvious and direct horn → messiah conceptual mapping in antecedent tradition that GLuke is simply borrowing. Though some horn metaphors have fostered such interpretations,158 it seems that GLuke’s application of the metaphor to Jesus—who is portrayed as Savior, king on David’s throne, and Lord elsewhere in Luke 1–2—is the dominant influence leading scholars to interpret κέρας σωτηρίας as a messianic deliverer, not necessarily the OT/ Jewish conceptual background. Thus, our results affirm, but somewhat indirectly, the broad consensus on this metaphor. Moreover, given the κέρας is raised by God, the notion that Jesus is an agent/instrument of

158.  Deut. 33:17; 1 Kgdms 2:10; Pss 89[88]:25; 132[131]:17; Ezek. 29:21; 4Q491c; Shem. Esreh 15.



2. Interpretation of the Κέρας Metaphor

79

God is not altogether inappropriate. However, we also offered possible evidence suggesting this metaphor may be re-mapping a divine conceptual metaphor—which would indeed be a novel adaptation. We will develop this last point further in Chapter 6, after working through the next three metaphors.

Chapter 3 I nt e r p r etat i on

of t h e Ἀ ν ατολή

M e taphor

We turn to the second christological metaphor in the Benedictus, which via ἐπισκέπτομαι bookends the prior: 1:78

διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἐν οἷς ἐπισκέψεται ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους,

1:79

ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις, τοῦ κατευθῦναι τοὺς πόδας ἡμῶν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰρήνης.

This metaphor, specifically 1:78b–79, has long been considered enigmatic. We will proceed in the same steps as before, drawing as needed on Chapter 2 §1.1 (Benedictus-related issues) and §1.2 (“divine visitation”) that are also relevant here. I will argue that GLuke’s metaphor portrays the coming of Jesus (target domain) in terms of the light (or dawn) source domain, specifically in terms of the OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors agent of salvation is a shining light and the coming of god is the dawn. The former occasionally attracts messianic interpretation; the latter is a divine metaphor that is quite suggestive for Lukan Christology. 1. Preliminary Questions We begin with a sketch of major debates that inform our interpretation: the OT source behind the verses, tense of ἐπισκέπτομαι, sense of ἐξ ὕψους, purported connection to ‫צמח‬, and main interpretive proposals. 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? Given the strong emphasis on promise-fulfillment in the Benedictus, the OT background of the prophecy about John in 1:76–77, and the combination of strikingly biblical phrasing (e.g., σπλάγχνα ἐλέους; ἐπισκέπτομαι; σκιᾷ θανάτου; ὁδὸν εἰρήνης), few if any scholars doubt that 1:78–79 reflects OT or Jewish ideas. However, it is hardly a citation or quotation, and intertextual attempts at identifying the precise source(s) of the allusion/



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

81

echo have proven particularly elusive. Fourteen passages are frequently mentioned in the scholarly literature as the intertextual source(s) of 1:78–79 (underlined portions indicate alleged verbal parallels):1 Luke 1:78b–79

ἐπισκέψεται ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους, ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις, τοῦ κατευθῦναι τοὺς πόδας ἡμῶν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰρήνης

Num. 24:17

ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ, καὶ ἀναστήσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ισραηλ

Ps. 18[17]:29

ὅτι σὺ φωτιεῖς λύχνον μου, κύριε· ὁ θεός μου, φωτιεῖς τὸ σκότος μου

Ps. 107[106]:10, 14

καθημένους ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, πεπεδημένους ἐν πτωχείᾳ καὶ σιδήρῳ…καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ σκότους καὶ σκιᾶς θανάτου καὶ τοὺς δεσμοὺς αὐτῶν διέρρηξεν

Ps. 110[109]:3

μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων· ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε

Ps. 112[111]:4

ἐξανέτειλεν ἐν σκότει φῶς τοῖς εὐθέσιν

Isa. 9:1

ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς

Isa. 42:6–7

ἔδωκά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν, ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους καὶ ἐξ οἴκου φυλακῆς καθημένους ἐν σκότει

Isa. 49:6, 9

ἰδοὺ τέθεικά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν…λέγοντα τοῖς ἐν δεσμοῖς ᾿Εξέλθατε, καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ σκότει ἀνακαλυφθῆναι

Isa. 58:8

τότε ῥαγήσεται πρόιμον τὸ φῶς σου, καὶ τὰ ἰάματά σου ταχὺ ἀνατελεῖ, καὶ προπορεύσεται ἔμπροσθέν σου ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου, καὶ ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ περιστελεῖ σε

1.  For some proponents of the Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre hypothesis for the Synoptic Problem, 1:78–79 may be influenced by Matt. 2:2 (τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ) or Matt. 4:16 (Goulder 1989: 1:242). Other scholars (e.g., Jacoby, Rusam, Laato) suggest GLuke is drawing on (purportedly) pre-Christian portions of TTwelve. I am not persuaded by either hypothesis, so we will limit this list to the OT; postbiblical writings will be incorporated below.

82

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Isa. 60:1–3

φωτίζου φωτίζου, Ιερουσαλημ, ἥκει γάρ σου τὸ φῶς, καὶ ἡ δόξα κυρίου ἐπὶ σὲ ἀνατέταλκεν. ἰδοὺ σκότος καὶ γνόφος καλύψει γῆν ἐπ᾽ ἔθνη· ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ φανήσεται κύριος, καὶ ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σὲ ὀφθήσεται. καὶ πορεύσονται βασιλεῖς τῷ φωτί σου καὶ ἔθνη τῇ λαμπρότητί σου

Jer. 23:5

ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀναστήσω τῷ Δαυιδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν

Zech. 3:8

διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἄγω τὸν δοῦλόν μου Ἀνατολήν

Zech. 6:12

ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ, Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καὶ ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ, καὶ οἰκοδομήσει τὸν οἶκον κυρίου

Mal. 3:20[4:2]

ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά μου ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἴασις ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ

The number and diversity of these purported sources of allusion/echo is telling: for this passage, it is difficult to sustain an argument why any of these passages, on standard intertextual grounds, is a better fit than the others when their contexts, verbatim correspondence, and OT significance vary so widely.2 For good reason Mittmann-Richert calls 1:78–79 a “Kreuz für die Auslegung,” Stein describes it as a “most difficult phrase,” and Fitzmyer concludes it is a “unique, enigmatic phrase.”3 In light of the inconclusive intertextual data, I will pursue a reading of the text as a metaphor that draws on a variety of antecedent OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors in a novel way. 1.2. Ἐπισκέψεται or Ἐπεσκέψατο? Scholars have long debated whether to read future ἐπισκέψεται or aorist ἐπεσκέψατο at 1:78. External evidence is inconclusive: there is a large and diverse group of witnesses that read aorist (incl. ‫א‬2 A C D f1,13 33. 𝔐), but ‫ *א‬B read future. The heart of the debate is the direction of scribal assimilation. Has an original aorist been assimilated to match the futures in 1:76–77? Or has an original future been assimilated to match the aorists (especially ἐπεσκέψατο) in 1:68–75? Scholars are about evenly divided; the UBS committee prefers ἐπισκέψεται and assigns a B rating.4 2.  Due to the weakness of LXX parallels and Greek peculiarities here, some propose a Hebrew/Aramaic Vorlage (see Mittmann-Richert 1996: 129–30; Jones 1968: 37; Winter 1953: 162). 3.  Respectively, 1996: 121; 1992: 101; 1981: 387. 4.  Metzger 2006: 110.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

83

While certainty is difficult to come by, my analysis favors aorist for a few reasons. In non-narrative passages, aorist is a valid aspectual choice to express divine actions—even future actions—irrespective of the actual timing of fulfillment. Though some argue the future is more natural here if pointing forward to Jesus’ birth or a later Christevent, aorists are used with respect to a yet-unborn Jesus elsewhere in the Benedictus (ἐπεσκέψατο, ἐποίησεν, ἤγειρεν, ἐλάλησεν; all of which are textually secure).5 Moreover, the alleged tense inconsistency with κληθήσῃ and προπορεύσῃ in 1:76—which prompts the aorist → future assimilation hypotheses in the first place—is readily explained. If the hymn chooses to portray the coming of Jesus in the aorist, it is only natural for the forthcoming role of John (already born, in fact) to be portrayed with respect to the adult Jesus in the future.6 Finally, this mixture of aorists and futures in the Benedictus resembles patterns seen in similar poetic/hymnic material, in which aorist is practically the default for portraying redemptive actions of God, though interspersed with futures.7 Thus, we depart from NA28 and use ἐπεσκέψατο (marked *) as the preferred reading, which I would translate “has visited” (as with 1:68). 1.3. “From God” or “From Heaven”? Some scholars take ἐξ ὕψους (genitive singular of ὕψος) as a circumlocution for God himself, so that whatever the ἀνατολή is (see below), it is sent directly from God, understanding ἐκ in the sense of personal

5.  Though the label “prophetic aorist” has been debated recently (Maluf 2000: 64), the future-pointing use of the aorist remains widely accepted category in the NT (Wallace 1996: 563–4) and is profusely attested in the LXX (Fanning 2015). Furthermore, scholars who attempt to back-translate 1:78–79 into Hebrew argue for the perfect ‫( פקדנו‬Sahlin 1945: 299; Haupt 1919: 73; Aytoun 1917: 283). If true, this would further support the aorist, as translation Greek renders 80-90% of perfects with aorist (Porter 1989: 118–9). 6.  Regardless of whether 1:76–77 are accretions or original (recall Chapter 2 §1.1), the fact that they are sandwiched in a hymn otherwise focused on Jesus opens up precisely this possibility of shifting tenses. 7.  Consider these aorist-to-future ratios in comparable hymnic material: Magnificat (Luke 1:46–66) 10-to-1; Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29–32) 2-to-0; Phil. 2:6–11, 7-to-0; Moses’ Song (Exod. 15:1–18) 40-to-6; Moses’ Blessing (Deut. 33:2–29) 24-to-25 (most of the futures refer to blessings on the tribes; the main action verbs are primarily aorist); Deborah’s Song (Judg. 15:2–31) 55-to-3; total for all examples 138-to-35 (114-to-10 without Moses’ Blessing).

84

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

origination.8 Others take ὕψους to refer to heaven or the dwelling place of God, understanding ἐκ in the sense of the location from which the ἀνατολή comes.9 Elsewhere I have argued that the former position is erroneously impacted by the use of ὕψιστος (which often does refer to “Most High” God10) in other places in GLuke, and that all evidence supports the latter view: ἐξ ὕψους here means “from heaven.”11 The upshot is non-trivial. Opting for “from God” allows many commentators to maintain an earthly origination of the ἀνατολή, which has simply been “provided by God.” Opting for “from heaven,” however, prompts some to argue for the preexistence or transcendent origin of the ἀνατολή. We will revisit this in §1.5. 1.4. Is Ἀνατολή an Allusion to Ṣemaḥ? Another debate centers on whether Luke 1:78–79 draws upon the Greek translation of ‫ צמח‬in Jer. 23:5 (par. 33:15 MT),12 Zech. 3:8, and Zech. 6:12 with ἀατολή. The relevant texts are provided here in both traditions:13 Jer. 23:5

Zech. 3:8 Zech. 6:12

‫הנה ימים באים נאם יהוה‬ ‫והקמתי לדוד צמח צדיק‬ ‫כי־הנני מביא את־עבדי צמח‬ ‫הנה־איש צמח שמו‬ ‫ומתחתיו יצמח‬ ‫ובנה את־היכל יהוה‬

Ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀναστήσω τῷ Δαυιδ ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἄγω τὸν δοῦλόν μου Ἀνατολήν Ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ, Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καὶ ὑποκάτωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀνατελεῖ, καὶ οἰκοδομήσει τὸν οἶκον κυρίου

Though translating ἀνατολή and ‫ צמח‬has proven challenging,14 it is widely acknowledged that ‫ צמח‬was becoming or had already become a 8.  E.g., Vinson 2008: 50; Wiefel 1998: 65; Mittmann-Richert 1996: 127; R. Brown 1993: 368–73; Rese 1969: 181; Schlier 1964; Schlatter 1960: 177–8; Lambertz 1952; Vielhauer 1952; Harnack 1931; Jacoby 1921. Tentative support from Kaut 1990: 189–90; Oro 1983: 169; Bertram 1972: 603. 9.  E.g., Wolter 2008: 117; Kremer 1998: 34; Nolland 1989: 90; Bovon 1989: 96; Bock 1987: 72–3; Fitzmyer 1981: 387; Klostermann 1975: 28–9; Voss 1965: 69–72; Gnilka 1962. 10.  Levinskaya 1996: 83–103. 11.  Lanier 2016b. 12.  Origen reads ἀνατολήν for ‫ צמח‬at Jer. 33[40]:15 (absent in LXX). 13.  Greek from Ziegler 1976, 1967. 14.  For ἀνατολή, the treatment of the three major LXX translations reveals the key issue, namely, whether the noun is primarily light-related or vegetation-related (Lanier 2015). NETS reads “Dawn,” “Shoot,” and “Shoot” (respectively); LXX.D



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

85

messianic designation by the time of the Greek translation of the prophets.15 There has been much debate about whether the translators made an error or switched the metaphor by using ἀνατολή (usually related to dawn, sunrise, or the east) to render ‫( צמח‬which typically carries a vegetative sense), or whether they were drawing on a dual “glow-grow” sense of the Hebrew.16 Yet the mere existence of this LXX translation has led many to conclude that GLuke’s ἀνατολή is an intertextual allusion to the Hebrew ‫צמח‬-figure—and, thus, functions basically as a messianic title in GLuke.17 I offer six arguments why ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους is not an intertextual allusion to these Jeremiah/Zechariah passages at all, thus preparing the way for a light-related reading. (i) When used in metaphors, ἀνατολή accommodates a wide range of target domains.18 For example, it is used in metaphors that refer to the growth/sprouting of Jerusalem (Ezek. 16:7; 17:10), friendship (Judg. 5:31), creation of the universe (Philo, Mut. 264), and development of virtues (Philo, Deus 88). Philo’s Conf. Ling. 60–67 provides an extensive example whereby the author starts with the “man named Ἀνατολή” takes precisely the opposite line and reads Sproß, (Sonnen-)Aufgang, and Aufgang; Bd’A reads Surgeon (a plant’s “sucker”) for all three. For ‫ צמח‬nearly all English translations render the Hebrew with “Branch,” though NASB footnotes an alternative “Sprout.” Most commentators (following S.R. Driver 1906: 364) now prefer “Sprout,” as do HALOT (1033) and BDB (855), but DCH (7:131) retains “Branch.” Recently even this gloss has been questioned (Rose argues for “vegetation, greenery, growth”; 2000: 95–120). German translations generally avoid the problem with Sproß (Schlachter-Bibel; Menge-Bibel; major commentators), yet Luther (1545) uses Gewächs for Jer. 23:5 and Zemach for Zechariah. French translations typically use germe (seed, sprout; BDS, LSG, NEG). 15.  Chester 2007b: 226; Rose 2003; Collins 1995: 25–31; Baldwin 1964; Allegro 1956. ‫ צמח‬is associated with a “messianic” figure in 4Q174, 4Q252, and 4Q285. The targum for the Jeremiah/Zechariah passages substitutes [‫ משיח[א‬for ‫צמח‬. 16.  Elsewhere (Lanier 2015) I have argued against both views and demonstrated that ἀνατολή is an adequate lexical choice for ‫ צמח‬in these passages. 17.  Laato 1997: 321–33; Mittmann-Richert 1996: 212 (translating Luke 1:78 with Sproß); N. Lohfink 1995: 121; Coleridge 1993: 122; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 234; Nolland 1989: 90; Fitzmyer 1981: 387; Rese 1969: 181; Jones 1968: 39; Sahlin 1945: 299–301. Several scholars propose that GLuke’s ἀνατολή is polysemic, alluding both to ‫ צמח‬as well as, say, the rising (ἀνατέλλω) star in Num. 24:17—Bock 2012: 155; Stanton 2007; Wiefel 1998: 65; Green 1997: 119; Tannehill 1996: 62; Hengel 1995: 234; R. Brown 1993: 373; Farris 1985: 140; Marshall 1978: 94; Caird 1968: 59. However, for reasons that follow I agree with Strauss that such a double meaning is “linguistically improbable” (1995: 105). 18.  See details in Lanier 2015.

86

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(quoting Zech. 6:12) but plays on the numerous uses of ἀνατολή/ἀνατέλλω (11× for sunrise, east, growth of plants, rising of luminary bodies) in order to associate this man with the Logos. In short, nothing inherent about ἀνατολή automatically forces one down the Jeremiah/Zechariah path; it sustains a variety of uses on its own. (ii) We should not assume that the precise wording of Greek Jeremiah/ Zechariah found in what is now called the Septuagint is the same as that used by Luke (or his sources). Aquila reads ἀναφυήν for Zech. 3:8 and 6:12 and βλάστημα δικαίου for Jer. 23:5, while Symmachus reads βλάστημα for Zech. 6:12, βλάστημα δίκαιον for Jer. 23:5, and βλάστημα δικαιοσύνην for Jer. 33[40]:15.19 Though these translations likely post-date GLuke, they point to the possibility of differing wording that may have circulated.20 Interestingly, T.Jud. 24.4 (possibly a Christian interpolation) reads βλαστὸς θεοῦ (which likely draws on the Jeremiah/Zechariah ‫)צמח‬21 in a chain of other OT metaphors understood messianically (ἀστήρ, σκήπτρον, ῥίζα, ῥάβδος)—rather than ἀνατολή. (iii) Early Jewish and Christian writings do not provide strong corroboration for the hypothesis. When Justin (Dial. 100.4; 106.4; 121.1; 126.1) and Hippolytus (Comm. Prov. to 30:18)22 use ἀνατολή christologically, they are directly citing Zech. 6:12, not Luke 1:78. Conversely, other authors appear to allude to Luke 1:78 without clear reference to the OT ἀνατολή passages: Melito of Sardis describes Jesus as ἥλιος ἀνατολῆς (On Baptism frag. 8.b.4); Irenaeus reflects both Luke 1:69 and 1:78 when he writes, “God caused the Orientem23 and Justum to arise (oriri) to the house of David, and raised up for him a cornu salutis” (Haer. 3.16.3); Clement of Alexandria describes Jesus in solar terms that evoke Luke 1:78–79: φῶς ἡμῖν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τοῖς ἐν σκότει κατορωρυγμένοις καὶ ἐν σκιᾷ θανάτου κατακεκλεισμένοις ἐξέλαμψεν ἡλίου καθαρώτερον (Protr. 11.114);24 and Tertullian writes of how the light (lucem) and sunrise (orientem)

19.  Aquila and Symmachus render ‫ צמח יהוה‬in Isa. 4:2 with ἔσται ἀνατολὴ κύριος rather than LXX’s ἐπιλάμψει ὁ θεὸς, which Radl argues may be the intertext for Luke 1:78 (1996: 125–6). 20.  Deviations from the “standard” LXX (‫א‬BA) occur elsewhere in Luke–Acts: e.g., Luke 4:19 reads κηρύξαι rather than καλέσαι in Isa. 61:2 (ms. 534 of Isaiah reads κηρύξαι); see also Luke 4:8 (Deut. 6:13); Luke 22:37 (Isa. 53:12); 23:30 (Hos. 10:8); Acts 1:20 (Ps. 69[68]:26). 21.  Per Kee in OTP 1:801. 22.  See Schaff’s note on the Greek (1994: 175). 23.  From oriens, “sunrise” or “east” (OLD 1268) 24.  See Hengel 1995: 281–2; Oro 1983: 168.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

87

are figures of Christ (Val. 3.1).25 In short, early reception of Luke 1:78 generally favors a light-bearing sense and does not seem to combine GLuke’s ἀνατολή with a ‫ צמח‬allusion.26 (iv) A few missing pieces in Luke 1:78 make it difficult to sustain the Zechariah allusion. It would strain the metaphor in GLuke to take ἀνατολή as a name, which is a key feature of Zech. 6:12 (ἀνήρ, ᾿Ανατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ),27 and ὄνομα itself is, of course, absent in GLuke. Moreover, Zech. 3:8 identifies the ἀνατολή as God’s “servant” (δοῦλόν μου), but this too is lacking in GLuke. Finally, there is no sense that GLuke’s ἀνατολή has anything to do with the building of the temple, which is precisely the primary prerogative of the figure in Zech. 6:12 (οἰκοδομήσει τὸν οἶκον κυρίου).28 For the allusion to Zechariah to work, one might expect more of these elements to be picked up in GLuke. (v) As noted above, GLuke’s ἀνατολή is described as coming/visiting “from heaven” or “from upon high.” By contrast, the ἀνατολή of Jer. 23:5 is “raised up” by God (ἀναστήσω), and that of Zech. 6:12 will “spring up” (ἀνατελεῖ) “from below” (ὑποκάτωθεν).29 (vi) Finally, a chief purpose of GLuke’s ἀνατολή is to provide light to those who sit in darkness (1:79). Neither the LXX Jeremiah/Zechariah readings nor the Hebrew traditions provide any indication that the figure has a light-bearing function.30 In fact, this absence of any sense of dawn/ light in the MT has largely generated the aforementioned LXX-translation conundrum in the first place. 25.  Similarly, Athanasius alludes to Luke 1:78–79 but clearly in luminary terms: ἐπιλάμψας ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους (Exp. Ps. 27.132.10–12). 26.  With respect to later writers, Jerome was familiar with the alternate Greek renderings of ‫צמח‬. He renders Luke 1:78 with oriens ex alto and—given his theory about the intertextual relationships among Num. 24:17, Zech. 6:12, Mal. 3:20[4:2], and Luke 1:78—renders Zech. 3:8 and 6:12 likewise with oriens/orientium but Jer. 23:15 and 33:5 with germen (Commentariorium in Jeremiam, col. 820, and Commentariorium in Zachariam, cols. 1438 and 1456). In other words, rather than conform Luke 1:78 to Zech. 3:8/6:12, he operated in the opposite direction and conformed the latter to the former. Moreover, Aquinas cites Chrysostom, Bede, and Basil reading oriens as a light-bearer at Luke 1:78 (1843: 60). 27.  Also +ὄνομα for Zech. 3:8 in several LXX manuscripts. Justin and Philo make clear reference to “name” (Justin, Dial. 106.4, ὄνομα αὐτῷ; 121.2, ὄνομα αὐτοῦ; Philo, Conf. 62a, ᾧ ὄνομα). 28.  On this point, GLuke lacks Mark 14:57–58. 29.  HB reads ‫מתחתיו‬. Rose argues that ‫ צמח‬carries the sense of arising/springing up from the ground (2000: 95–97). 30.  A. Lee 2005: 106–7.

88

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

In short, while some argue that GLuke is, perhaps, creatively transforming the ‫צמח‬-metaphor by means of the Septuagint,31 the cumulative weight of evidence suggests otherwise.32 Luke 1:78–79, rather, is a novel light-related metaphor,33 which must be analyzed on its own terms without importing an unverifiable ‫ צמח‬allusion. 1.5. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? A few scholars argue that the metaphor is an abstraction for, say, “the dawning of the messianic age”34 without any particular personified referent. However, as with κέρας in Chapter 2, the semantics of the utterance militate against this view, and most scholars support some form of personification. The nominative ἀνατολή is the subject of both the finite verb ἐπισκέπτομαι (“visit”) and the infinitive κατευθύνω (“lead”), both of which almost always take a personal subject.35 It is also difficult to understand how a generic “age” or “epoch” can in some sense originate locatively from heaven (ἐξ ὕψους).36 Thus, while no doubt the entire Benedictus is referring to some sort of salvation age, 1:78–79 takes a person as the target domain. But which person?

31.  E.g., Gathercole 2005: 482. 32.  Thus, I agree with Winter’s conclusion (though for additional reasons) that the equation of ἀνατολή with ‫ צמח‬is “unsafe” (1953: 160). 33.  Though some are more open to the Jeremiah/Zechariah connection, many scholars argue Luke 1:78 is primarily a light-related metaphor: Wolter 2008: 116–17 (“himmlische Lichtphänomene”); O’Toole 2004: 66–74; Kremer 1998: 34 (“das aufstrahlende Licht der Sonne oder eines Sterns”); Hendrickx 1984: 92; Klostermann 1975: 28–9 (“Lichterscheinung aus der Höhe”); Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 78. Most English translations read “dawn,” “sunrise,” or “dayspring.” Among advocates of a Semitic source for 1:78–79, those who doubt the Jeremiah/Zechariah connection choose Hebrew ‫( מזרח‬sunrise) or ‫( נגה‬brightness), or Aramaic ‫( דנחא‬shining) (e.g., Haupt, Zorell, Klostermann, Lambertz). 34.  Caird 1968: 59. Similarly Maluf 2000. 35.  On the former see Gathercole 2005: 474–5; Mittmann-Richert 1996: 123; Kaut 1990: 187–90. The latter point about κατευθύνω is rarely observed by commentators. The verb is used twice elsewhere in the NT with God as subject (1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 3:5); in the LXX only two have a non-personal subject (1 Sam. 6:12; Ezek. 17:10) out of 60+. 36.  This critique applies to Wolter’s view that the metaphor portrays how “mit Jesus Gottes Heil vom Himmel her unter seinem Volk epiphan wird” (2008: 117). Though Wolter gets much correct, it is hard to see how “God’s salvation” can be said to ἐπεσκέψατο* (from heaven), ἐπιφᾶναι, or κατευθῦναι.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

89

As introduced in the prior chapter, some scholars propose a Täufersekte as the originating community of the Benedictus and, thus, suggest John the Baptist is the ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους.37 However, John has already been dealt with in 1:76–77 as the forerunner of the one who visits in 1:78–79;38 moreover, there is little support in the NT for the notion that John’s role involves providing light. Some scholars suggest that God himself might be the ἀνατολή,39 but this option fails due to the syntax of the phrase (see details in §3.1 below). The overwhelming majority of scholars—including nearly all positing a Jeremiah/Zechariah allusion—consider the ἀνατολή to be the Messiah, specifically of a royal or Davidic sort. The metaphor has been described as “a designation for the messiah”; “the Davidic Messiah”; “agent of salvation who is a Davidide”; “the Davidic…king who delivers his people”; “Messiasbezeichnung”; “Messias Gottes”; “Bild für den Messias”; “Messiasname” and “Heilskönig aus davidischem Geschlecht”; “Herrscher von Gott”; “une référence royale-messianique”; and “Rey Mesías, descendiente de David.”40 Most who take ἐξ ὕψους as “from God” emphasize the humanness of the figure, while others take the metaphor as referring to a “Messiah from heaven,”41 a “transcendental figure,”42 or even some sort of preexistent Messiah.43 1.6. Summary The state of research reveals various challenges. There is no obvious OT intertext behind 1:78, and few come close. The “Davidic Messiah” hypothesis is certainly impacted once the Jeremiah/Zechariah allusion 37.  Not only in the pre-Lukan source but also in canonical GLuke: Dillon 2013: 80; Vinson 2008: 51; Klein 2006: 125; Kaut 1990: 191–201; Vielhauer 1952: 269. They commonly appeal to John’s epithet προφήτης ὑψίστου (1:76) and his enacting the return of Elijah “from heaven.” 38.  Mittmann-Richert 1996: 45; Tannehill 1996: 62. 39.  Scholars mentioning this option (but expressing doubts) include Kremer 1998: 34; Radl 1996: 123–7; Coleridge 1993: 122; Gnilka 1962: 228. 40.  Respectively, Nolland 1989: 89; Farris 1985: 140; Green 1997: 119; Bock 1993: 53; Wiefel 1998: 65; Rese 1969: 181; Klostermann 1975: 28–9; MittmannRichert 1996: 127, 220; 273; Bassin 2006: 129–30; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 234. Similarly Chance, Fitzmyer, Garland, Hendriksen, Jones, Laato, Rusam, Schlier, Stanton, Stein, Vanhoye, Voss. 41.  Dreyer 1962: 46; also R.B. Hays 2014: 67. 42.  Laato 1997: 328–9. 43.  “Luke 1:78…suggests that the Messiah is a pre-existent being come to earth” (Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 78); also Gathercole 2006: 238–40; Bovon 2002: 76.

90

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

is taken off the table,44 and one asks whether treating it simply as “messianic” offers the greatest explanatory power, or if there might not be more to say about the passage’s christological outlook. A comprehensive interpretation must be able to accommodate all the dimensions of the metaphor in a coherent way: a light-related entity associated with the dawn has visited us from the heavenly realm due to God’s mercy (to) ἐπιφᾶναι to those in darkness/shadow, and to guide them into paths of peace.

I aim to pursue such a reading of Luke 1:78–79 by approaching it as a novel metaphor that appropriates antecedent OT/Jewish conceptual mappings, including—but not limited to—ones that lend themselves to “messianic” interpretation. 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors In contrast to Chapter 2—where the source domain(s) were more lexically constrained (κέρας)—the situation is different here. Literal and metaphorical utterances involving light-related lexemes abound in OT/ Jewish literature, with ἀνατολή featuring in only some of them. To reduce the data to manageable proportions,45 our primary evidence will consist of Greek OT and Jewish passages that involve the phenomenon of light itself (e.g., φῶς, φέγγος, -λάμπω, φωτίζω, ἐπιφαύσκω), luminary-bodies (e.g., φωστήρ, ἥλιος, ἀστήρ),46 or the appearing/rising of such bodies (e.g., ἀνατέλλω, φαίνω, ὄρθρος). Such lexemes contribute semantically to metaphors that are best understood as mapping a general light domain in such ways that are relevant to the specific contours of Luke 1:78–79

44.  “If ἀνατολή does not come from ‫צמח‬, then the messianic uses of ἀνατολή lose their relevance” (Nolland 1989: 90). Likewise Maluf critiques those who embrace a ‫צמח‬-allusion too hastily (2000: 12). 45.  Space does not permit a full-blown lexical analysis of each of these words in their respective contexts. L&N provides a helpful proxy and includes most of these nouns/verbs in the same semantic categories (e.g., 1.26–33; 14.36–52). 46.  In several Greek texts relevant to GLuke’s linguistic milieu (Jer. 38:36; Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Sir. 50:7; Ep. Jer. 66; Matt. 24:29; also Hom., Il. 6.295 (ἀστὴρ δ’ ὣς ἀπέλαμπεν); Aristoph., Aves 1710 (προσέρχεται…ἀστὴρ ἰδεῖν ἔλαμψε).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

91

outlined above (salvation, deliverer-figures, God, and so on).47 As before, our secondary evidence will include similar metaphors in non-Greek writings as well as other evidence from ancient Near Eastern and GrecoRoman contexts, as appropriate. 2.1. Source Domain Among hundreds of passages that might fit our criteria, the following elements of a general light source domain, grounded in the writers’ actual experience of natural light and luminaries,48 may be detected: (i)

 Usually has a heavenly location/origin. Natural luminaries are typically depicted as dwelling or being set in the heavenly realm (Gen. 1:15; Isa. 13:10; 14:12; Jer. 4:23). Additionally, light related to divine effulgence is seen as originating in heaven (Ps. 80[79]:2–4; Isa. 18:4; Sir. 26:16). (ii)  Can have an earthly origin. Human-made light (e.g., lamps) and occasionally luminaries (e.g., sun/light in the east; Ezek. 8:16) can be depicted as originating in the earthly realm. (iii)  Presence means brightness. The shining of light provides brightness or luminescence (Hab. 3:4; Prov. 4:18; Philo, Post. 58; Sib. Or. 2.27–35). (iv)  Absence means darkness. The OT profusely describes the absence of natural or artificial light in terms of darkness (Gen. 1:4; Exod. 10:21–23; Isa. 5:30) due to the obscuring of light (Deut. 4:11), the cessation of light-emitting bodies (Isa. 13:10), direct divine intervention (Exod. 10:21), and the setting of the sun (Mic. 3:6). (v)  Able to make things visible. A chief function of light is to make visible the surroundings, enabling one to work, walk, etc. (Gen. 44:3; Exod. 13:21; 1 Kgdms 29:10). Morning light also makes visible deeds committed in darkness (1 Kgdms 14:36). (vi)  Transition marked by rising/dawning. The orderly phenomenon of the rising of the sun or the moon is seen as an important marker of the transition from night to day, or from season to season (Exod. 22:2; Ps. 104[103]:19; Eccl. 1:5).

47.  In other words, given space constraints some categories such as shining angelic vestments will not be included in our analysis, given they are not immediately relevant to GLuke’s metaphor. 48.  Janowski 1984: 22; Hempel 1960: 352.

92

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(vii)  Transition marked by falling/setting. As with (vi), the setting of the sun signals the transition from daytime to nighttime (Deut. 16:6). (viii)  Fixed pathway of the sun. Several texts emphasize the daily course of the sun from east to west (e.g., Josh. 10:12). (ix)  Materials may be used for producing light. Human-originated light requires oil, lamps, lampstands, and so forth (Exod. 27:20–21; 39:37[16]). 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors The elements of the source domain outlined above are flexible enough to be mapped to a variety of target domains in metaphorical utterances in OT/Jewish literature. Subtle but important distinctions are often made between light in itself (which can exist independently of a luminary, as when generated directly by God), luminary bodies (that generate or reflect light), and the arrival of the light of dawn that precedes the actual point of the sun’s breaking the horizon.49 In many cases these distinctions are blurred in metaphorical mappings, but in others more precision in source-target mapping—e.g., depictions of God as light distinct from God as dawn—becomes exegetically significant. Our analysis will focus on four underlying conceptual metaphors, namely, mapping the light source domain (including the sub-domain dawn) to salvation, agent of salvation, god himself, and the coming of god. 2.2.a. Salvation Is Going from Darkness to Light. Our starting point is the mapping of the light domain to a variety of target domains dealing with goodness, righteousness, life, and so on50—or the darkness domain to their opposites. We mention only a few representative examples. Primary Evidence On the one hand, numerous OT/Jewish utterances suggest that light is mapped to life (Ps. 56[55]:14, φωτὶ ζώντων) or righteousness (Ps. 37[36]:6, φῶς τὴν δικαιοσύνην; Isa. 51:4, κρίσις εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν).51 On the 49.  See discussion in Aalen 1974: 153–4. 50.  Langer (1989: 30–2) and Hempel (1960: 362) observe how light is used to depict redemption, release from exile, Heil, Gnade, Lebensgewährung, Recht, etc. 51.  Similarly, Philo often describes virtue, reason, and wisdom as φῶς in the mind/soul of humans (Post. 58; Plant. 40; Somn. 1.84, 116; Leg. All. 1.46; Her. 264). Cf. the combination of the two in 1 En. 58.2–3 (“The righteous ones shall be in the light of the sun and the elect ones in the light of eternal life”).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

93

other hand, we find the inverse mapping of darkness to death (Job 3:4; 10:21–22; 17:13) and judgment (Isa. 13:10b–11; Joel 2:2; Amos 5:20; Wis. 5:6).52 In some cases these mappings are combined in such a way that the transition from darkness to light portrays the transition from a state of ruin/judgment to a state of salvation.53 Ps. 107[106]:10–14

Those sitting in darkness (καθημένους ἐν σκότει) and shadow of death, having been bound in poverty and iron, for they provoked the oracles of God… He brought them out of darkness (ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ σκότους) and the shadow of death.

Ps. 112[111]:4

Light dawns in the darkness for the upright (ἐξανέτειλεν ἐν σκότει φῶς τοῖς εὐθέσιν).

Isa. 42:16

I will make for them the darkness into light (τὸ σκότος εἰς φῶς).

Mic. 7:8–9

Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy, when I fall. I will also rise, because if I sit in the darkness, the Lord will give light to me (ἐὰν καθίσω ἐν τῷ σκότει, κύριος φωτιεῖ μοι)… He will bring me out to the light (ἐξάξει με εἰς τὸ φῶς); I shall look upon his righteousness.

We might summarize this mapping as follows:

(i) (ii) (iii)

salvation is going from darkness to light source target Usually has a heavenly location/ origin Can have an earthly origin Presence means brightness → The desired state of experiencing the positive aspects of salvation

52.  See Aalen’s discussion of the future/eschatological significance of darkness (1974: 159), Maier’s treatment of Sonnenfinsternisse as an act of God’s judgment (1979: 404), and Wolff’s discussion of how darkness connects the Day of the Lord with the Sinai theophany (Deut. 4:11) (1977: 253–7). Another variant on this mapping might be evil is darkness (1QS 3.20–21, “In the hand of the Angel of Darkness is total dominion over the sons of deceit; they walk on paths of darkness”). 53.  The opposite transition from a positive to a negative state is also depicted as darkness overtaking light (e.g., Job 18:5–6; 30:26; see Clines 2006: 982, 1009).

94

(iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix)

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors salvation is going from darkness to light source target Absence means darkness → The current state of experiencing the negative aspects of ruin/judgment Able to make things visible Transition marked by rising/ → Moving from a state of ruin/ dawning judgment to one of salvation Transition marked by falling/ setting Fixed pathway of the sun Materials may be used for producing light

Secondary Evidence In addition to the Hebrew Vorlagen of the above passages (which speak similarly in terms of ‫אור‬, ‫זרח‬, ‫חשך‬, etc.), we see such conceptual mappings of light/darkness elsewhere in antiquity.54 Sun deities such as Shamash are often depicted as judges of those in darkness and saviors of those upon whom they shine.55 Similarly, the place of judgment in Greek literature is characterized by darkness, and several works feature Helios bringing light to mortals languishing in darkness.56 2.2.b. Agent of Salvation Is a Shining Light. The light → salvation mapping underlies another category of metaphors mapping light specifi­ cally to a personal target domain—sometimes generally, and other times specifically for an agent of salvation.57

54.  See Bultmann 1967. 55.  W. Brown 2002: 98. Langer records an ode to Shamash: “Richter des Himmels und der Erde, dessen Befehl sich nicht ändert, Shamas, der im Dunkel Recht verschafft, den Menschen Licht bereitet” (1989: 200–201; emphasis added); see others in Stähli 1984: 31–3. Hammurabi’s Code extols Shamash as the “almighty judge of heaven and earth” (Richardson 2000: 129). 56.  E.g., Hom., Od. 12.383; Hes., Theog. 958. 57.  We will explore whether the latter are specifically “Davidic/messianic” in §4. Relevant passages from T.Levi/T.Judah will be covered there also. light is likewise employed in descriptions of angelic figures (Isa. 14:12; Dan. 8:10; 1 En. 80.6; Sib. Or. 5.512–516; Apoc. Zeph. 6.11–15).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

95

Primary Evidence Isa. 60:1a, 3

Shine, shine, O Jerusalem (Φωτίζου φωτίζου, Ιερουσαλημ) for your light (φῶς) has come… Kings shall walk by your light (φωτί), and nations by your brightness (λαμπρότητι).58

Num. 24:17

A star shall rise from Jacob (ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ), and a man shall rise out from Israel.59

Isa. 42:6–7

I have given you as a covenant for the people, as a light for the nations (εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν).60

Isa. 49:6

I have appointed you as a covenant for the people, as a light for the nations (εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν), that you may be for salvation to the end of the earth.

Sib. Or. 3.652

God will send a King from the sun (ἀπ᾽ ἠελίοιο θεὸς πέμψει βασιλῆα).61

Sib. Or. 5.155–158

When after the fourth year a great star shines (λάμψῃ μέγας ἀστήρ) which alone will destroy the whole earth…62 A great star will come from heaven (ἥξει δ᾽ οὐρανόθεν ἀστὴρ μέγας).

T.Abr. (A) 12:5

Upon [the throne] sat a wondrous man, bright as the sun, like unto a son of God (ἀνὴρ θαυμαστὸς ἡλιόρατος ὅμοιος υἱῷ θεοῦ).63

58.  The precise referent of “your light” in 60:1a is ambiguous: does it refer to Jerusalem-as-light or to God-as-Jerusalem’s-light (as in 60:2; see below)? Watts takes it as the latter in MT (2005b: 865), but the “shine” imperatives addressed to Jerusalem (φωτίζου) suggest the former for the LXX; either way, Jerusalem is clearly the referent in 60:3. 59.  We will elaborate on this passage’s significance in Jewish circles in §4. 60.  On the debate about whether “you” (=Servant) here and Isa. 49:6 is an individual (author? Cyrus? Jeremiah? Zerubbabel? Messiah?) or corporate entity (nation of Israel?), see Watts 2005b: 650–8. 61.  Collins argues that Sib. Or. 3—deriving perhaps from a mid-second century BCE Egyptian Jewish community—evinces hope in a Ptolemaic deliverer (Collins 1974: 40–4). Chester suggests these oracles are not adopting Egyptian sun-god ideology but adapting it to Jewish messianism (2007b: 348–51). 62.  5.157 is a possible interpolation (Geffcken 1902: 111) and is not shown here. 63.  Referring to “son of Adam”/“Abel” (13:2).

96

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Though the specific metaphorical utterances vary in their appropriation of the source domain (e.g., agent as φῶς, agent as ἀστήρ) and the particulars of the target domains, each clearly reflects an underlying conceptual metaphor: the agent of salvation (broadly considered) is a shining light.64 In some cases, the figure arises, so to speak, “from below,” as in Num. 24:17; in other cases, the figure seems to be “from above” (Sibyls). Moreover, in several instances the arrival of the figure explicitly or implicitly marks a movement out of one state (exile/blindness/condemnation) into another (restoration/sight/salvation). Hence, we might map the conceptual metaphor as follows:

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

agent of salvation is a shining light source target Usually has a heavenly location/ → A figure shines from above… origin Can have an earthly origin → …Or arises from below, bringing… Presence means brightness → …Salvation (of various sorts)… Absence means darkness → …To those in need of rescue

Secondary Evidence Similar mappings of light are attested elsewhere in OT/Jewish sources: 2 Sam. 23:3–4

When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he is like the light of morning—the sun will rise (‫)כאור בקר יזרח־שמש‬.65

Prov. 16:5

In the light of a king’s face there is life (‫באור־פני־מלך‬ ‫)חיים‬.

CDa 7.18–19

The star (‫ )הכוכב‬is the Interpreter of the law.66 (similarly 4Q175 1.9–13; 1QM 11.5–8)

64.  Another example mapping the light domain (but in different ways) is Ps. 110[109]:3: “from the womb, before the Morning-star (πρὸ ἑωσφόρου), I brought you forth.” Bates (2015: 52–4) and Horbury (2003: 61–2) argue this envisions a preexistent Messiah-king. Similar vocabulary is used in Isa. 14:12 for an enemy king. 65.  My translation. The Hebrew here is difficult but seems to indicate some relationship between the sun and the idealized king (W. Brown 2010: 273; Janowski 1995: 235; Langer 1989: 38; Stähli 1984: 43); the LXX varies considerably. 66.  Quoting Num. 24:17 subsequently. This passage deals with the Prince of the Congregation and the Interpreter of the Law, who will play an eschatological role (Chester 2007: 336) in conjunction with the “visitation” (‫ )פקודה‬of God (cited above, Chapter 2 §1.2).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor 1Q28b 4.27

May he make you hol[y] among his people, like a luminary (‫…)למאור‬to shine (‫ )להאיר‬on the face of the many.67

4Q541 f9 1.3–4

His word is like the word of the heavens, and his teaching, according to the will of God. His eternal sun will shine (‫ )שמש עלמה תניר‬and its fire will burn in all the ends of the earth.68

11Q5 27.2

David, son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun (‫)ואור כאור השמש‬.

Genizah Hymn 2.4

By your might you have made me the light of nations (‫)לאור הגוים‬.69

1 En. 38:2

The Righteous One shall…reveal light to the righteous and elect.70

1 En. 48:4

[The Son of Man] will be a light of the Gentiles.

97

Similar expressions of this conceptual metaphor appear in ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman settings. For instance, several Mesopotamian rulers were compared to the sun deity,71 and the Babylonian king was often described as the living image of the sun.72 The Egyptian Potter’s Oracle (third century BCE) prophesies the coming of a god-king, “born of the Sun” and sent by the goddess Isis.73 The Ptolemies called themselves “sons of Helios”;74 further, Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos anticipates a Ptolemaic god-savior (θεός…Σαωτήρων) coming “from the

67.  Portions are fragmentary, but the addressee is likely the Priest (Barthélemy/ Milik 1955: 127). 68.  Debate surrounds the relationship between 4Q540–541, 548, the “Aramaic Levi” document (1Q21; 4Q213–214; Cairo Genizah fragments), and T.Levi—see de Jonge 1999; Kugler 1996: 171–220. The figure in view here—a priest or “Messiah of Aaron”—has in particular been scrutinized, given the “atonement”/“suffering” language (Chester 2007b: 256–8). 69.  Stec 2013: 38–9. 70.  Though in 38:4 it is the “light of the Lord of the Spirits” (= God) who shines. 71.  M.S. Smith 1990: 34; Langer 1989: 169. Hammurabi styles himself “the sun of Babylon who shines over all the lands of Sumer” (Richardson 2000: 41). 72.  C. Fischer 2002: 133; Stähli 1984: 43. 73.  Dollinger 2012. Collins discusses similarities between this Oracle and Sib. Or. 3 and 5 (1974: 40). 74.  Collins/Collins 2008: 50–1; Dunn suggests this as a Hellenistic precursor to the “Son of God” title (1980: 14–17).

98

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

east where the horses carry the sun.”75 Alexander the Great was often associated with the sun and Helios or Amun-Re,76 and the Colossus (built by Nero but modified/used by successors) bore a sun-crown in imitation of Sol. 2.2.c. God Is a Shining Light. Though a number of metaphorical utterances map the light domain to a human agent of salvation, metaphors depicting God in terms of light are also well-attested. On the one hand, the OT is adamant that luminaries are subordinate to Yahweh and that the sun is not God,77 yet on the other hand there are diverse metaphors in which Yahweh is described as light or the sun. Primary Evidence The Greek utterances are quite diverse in expression,78 and they tend either to describe God’s presence/countenance as the shining of light, or God himself directly as a light or luminary (or both). Consider the following examples:79 2 Kgdms 22:29

You are my lamp (λύχνος μου), O Lord; and the Lord will shine forth to me [in] my darkness (κύριος ἐκλάμψει μοι τὸ σκότος μου).

3 Kgdms 8:53a

A sun the Lord made manifest in the heavens (ἥλιον ἐγνώρισεν ἐν οὐρανῷ κύριος); he said he will dwell in darkness.80

Ps. 18[17]:29

My God, you illumine my darkness (φωτιεῖς τὸ σκότος μου).

75.  Hymns 4.164–170. 76.  Collins 1974: 42; A.R. Anderson 1927: 100. 77.  Whitley 2015: 138. 78.  Janowski observes how such motifs are flexible and take on an “uneinheitlicher Gestalt” (1984: 17). 79.  We might also mention Sir. 17:19: “All of their works are before him like the sun (ἅπαντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ), and his eyes are continually upon their ways.” The syntax of the first clause is unusual, but the second clause suggests that it is “God,” not the “works,” who is likened (ὡς) to the sun. 80.  Some take this as early evidence for “solar Yahwism” (Arneth 2000: 13–14; Keel/Uehlinger 1994: 287).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor Ps. 19[18]:5b

[God] has placed his tent in the sun (ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἔθετο τὸ σκήνωμα αὐτοῦ).81

Ps. 27[26]:1

The Lord is my light (φωτισμός μου) and my salvation.

Ps. 89[88]:16

Blessed are the people who know the shout—who will walk, O Lord, in the light of your face (ἐν τῷ φωτὶ τοῦ προσώπου σου).

Ps. 104[103]:1–2

Lord my God, you are magnified greatly, clothing yourself with light as a garment (ἀναβαλλόμενος φῶς ὡς ἱμάτιον).82

Isa. 4:2

On that day God will gloriously shine on the earth (ἐπιλάμψει ὁ θεὸς…μετὰ δόξης) with counsel.

Isa. 60:19

No longer will the sun be to you as a light of day (ἥλιος εἰς φῶς ἡμέρας), nor the rising of the moon give light (ἀνατολὴ σελήνης φωτιεῖ σοι) to you at night; but the Lord will be to you an eternal light (ἔσται σοι κύριος φῶς αἰώνιον).

Hab. 3:4a

His brightness (φέγγος) will be like light (ὡς φῶς).83

Philo, Virt. 164

When God, ὁ νοητὸς ἥλιος, arises and illuminates (ἐπιλάμψῃ) the soul, the whole darkness of vices and passions is dissipated.84

99

Unsurprisingly, as we have seen previously, there is much flexibility in how light is mapped to the target domain of God’s presence or God himself. One way to generalize the mapping is as follows:

81.  This interesting passage “imbues the divine warrior with solar attributes” (W. Brown 2010: 264). 82.  Additionally, v. 3 depicts God in ways similar to the sun/storm deity of antiquity, riding on a chariot pulled across the sky (Bilić 2012: 520; van der Toorn 1992; Dion 1991). The Hebrew is especially evocative (“He makes the clouds his chariot [‫ ;]רכובו‬he rides on the wings of the wind”). 83.  Recall Chapter 2, §2.2.d on “horns” in Hab. 3:4b. Gaster argues that Yahweh is being compared to the sun in this passage (1943: 345). This vision continues in 3:13 with Yahweh’s “going out” to save his people; see the extensive discussion in Jörg Jeremias 1965: 38–52. 84.  See also Philo’s light-related terms for God in, e.g., Somn. 1.72; Abr. 156.

100

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(i) (iii) (iv) (v)

god is a shining light source target Usually has a heavenly location/ → God’s heavenly existence origin Presence means brightness → God’s presence or countenance—or God himself Absence means darkness → Separation from God’s presence Able to make things visible → God reveals all things

Secondary Evidence Some passages in the HB (for which the Greek does not clearly retain the metaphor) present additional light mappings for god. Num. 6:25

The LORD make his face to shine (‫ )יאר פניו‬upon you.85

Ps. 84:12

For the LORD God is a sun and shield (‫)כי שמש ומגן יהוה‬.86

Dan. 9:17

Lord make your face to shine (‫ )האר פניך‬upon your sanctuary.

1 En. 38.4

They shall not be able to behold the faces of the holy ones, for the light of the Lord of the Spirits has shined.

Many ancient Near Eastern people groups also understood their deities in terms of light or sun/moon/star-related domains:87 the Hittite sun goddess Arinna, the Akkadian/Sumerian sun god Utu(t) or Shamash, the Canaanite El Elyon, the Phoenician/Syrian god Baalshamin, the Babylonian Marduk (“child of the sun”), the Amorite sun god Hammu, and the Ugaritic sun god Shapash.88 The Egyptian pantheon featured the sun—variously named Atum, Aton, Amon-Re, or Re (or Ra)—as the highest deity and father of Pharaoh.89 While solar theology was not uniform, the shared patterns 85.  Niehaus points out numerous other Mesopotamian parallels for the shining of the face of the deity (1995: 122–4); see also Niehr 1990: 155. 86.  See Arneth 2000: 2–3, 8. Day’s conjecture that ‫ שמש‬means “rampart” (2000: 158–9) is dubious. 87.  Wheelwright observes that light is the “archetypal image-idea of Deity” across cultures (1962: 123). Langer concludes that light is a “direktes Gottessymbol” in the ancient Near East (1989: 152). 88.  To this list might be added storm gods such as Ba‘al, who were often associated with sun deities (Dion 1991: 43–71). On the development of sun deities in the first millennium, see Niehr 1990: 141–7. 89.  See von Lieven 2008: 947–8; C. Fischer 2002: 125–30; Assmann 1995: 156–204; van der Toorn 1992: 238; Aalen 1974: 149–50. The Amarna Tablets



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

101

include praise to the sun-god as the protector, provider of order, savior of those in darkness, and just judge90—as well as a near-universal use of the winged sun disc as symbol for the sun-god, which began in Egypt and spread throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East.91 Furthermore, Greek worship of Helios may date as far back as the sixth century.92 While Helios began as a minor cultic deity, over time he became increasingly associated with Apollo.93 On the Roman side of the equation, worship of Sol developed somewhat differently, but he was accorded high status, and the worship of Sol Invictus became empire-wide in the second century CE.94 Consider also the following:

Akkadian cylinder seal depicting the sun god as a winged sun mention pharaoh as the offspring of Re (Tsevat 1953: 61). For a collection of hymns to the Egyptian Sonnengott, see Assmann 1999: 73–177. 90.  See Janowski (1984: 61–3, 134) and Arneth (2000: 141) for several examples of ancient Near Eastern hymns to the sun-god that express these themes. 91.  On the development of the sun disc, see Whitley 2015; Lauber 2013; Keel/ Uehlinger 1998: 174; Parayre 1990. 92.  H. Hoffmann 1963: 119; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893: 177. Helios-worship may have been influenced by ancient Near Eastern predecessors (Steele 2002: 584; E. Brown 2004: 254). 93.  H. Hoffmann 1963: 120. Plato, Callimachus, early Stoics, Proclus, and Himerius attest to widespread worship of Helios and explicitly identify Helios and Apollo (e.g., Plato’s Apol. 26d; Rep. 508A; Leg. 12.945e). Sophocles suggests that Helios was one of the most prominent of the gods (Oed. Rex 660–661). 94.  For Roman views of Sol worship, see Ovid, Meta. 1.750–2.400; Cicero, Rep. VI.9, 17. See Hijmans 1996: 118; Fontenrose 1940, 1939.

102

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Pharaoh Akhenaten worshipping the sun disc Aten, ca. 1300 BCE

Tablet of Shamash, depicting the sun god, with a sun disc on an altar, ca. 800 BCE



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

Amun-Re with horizontal horns and sun disc (on top of the horns); Shrine of King Taharqa, ca. mid-600s BCE

Top portion of Egyptian stele depicting winged sun disc and horned bull-god Apis (with sun disc)

103

104

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Royal seal ascribed to Hezekiah of Judah, depicting a winged sun disc, ca. 700s BCE95

This background poses a fascinating religionsgeschichtliche question regarding how we should differentiate OT and Jewish use of sun/lightrelated metaphors for God from actual cultic sun-worship.96 However one resolves this issue,97 CMT would suggest that the light domain can be mapped to god as the target domain (e.g., god is a shining light) without implying the converse (e.g., shining light is god, with its cultic entailments such as bowing down to the literal sun).98 95.  Numerous such stamps/seals have been discovered—dating as far back as Hezekiah—depicting a winged sun or a scarab. Many bear the inscription ‫למלך‬, suggesting they were Judah’s royal insignia. See Stähli 1984: 42–3; Janowski 1995: 220–2; Parayre 1990: 291–4. 96.  The sun-related passages (surveyed above), use of ‫ שמש‬in Israelite placenames (e.g., Josh. 15:10), east–west orientation of Solomon’s temple, winged-sun stamp seals used in Judah (see above), and (post-135 CE) sun mosaics at Beth Alpha and Hamat Tiberias synagogues are viewed by some as evidence for a form of solarYahweh cult in Israel/Judah. Some scholars propose that Yahweh was a sun god borrowed from Canaanites (Keel 1998, 1994; Dion 1991), while others see the solar cult as an aberration under Manasseh and Amon (2 Kings 21) (M.S. Smith 1990). The OT itself both prohibits (Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Job 31:26–28; Jer. 8:2) and describes (2 Kgs 23:11; Ezek. 8:16–17) such activity (on the latter, see I. Koch 2012; J.G. Taylor 1993: 19–24; McKay 1973; 1 En. 72:5). 97.  Some interpret these phenomena as a form of implicit polemic against pagan practices (Janowski 1995: 219; Stähli 1984: 39–40), while other see it as “inclusive monotheism” (Mastin 2004). 98.  DesCamp/Sweetser 2005: 221 deal with this issue of directionality with divine metaphors, demonstrating how mappings are not necessarily reversible (e.g., god is father≠father is god).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

105

2.2.d. The Coming of God is the Dawn. We have moved from general (salvation is going from darkness to light) to specific (agent of salvation or god is light), and in this final step we narrow the focus further to OT/Jewish metaphors that map to God a specific sub-category of the light domain, namely, dawn—that is, the arrival of the light of day or the rising of the sun. Primary Evidence Numerous OT/Jewish passages describe the expectation that the saving help of God (or his direct appearance) will arrive at dawn. Such expressions likely reflect three experiential contexts of life in Israel:99 the day-to-day experience of the rising of the sun to dispel the night;100 the apparent practice of administering justice at the city gate in the morning (Exod. 18:13; Ruth 4:1; 2 Kgdms 15:2);101 and the tradition of God’s presence and/or deliverance of Israel at or just before daybreak.102 The following passages convey this basically literal expectation of God’s Hilfe am Morgen:103 Ps. 46[45]:6

God will help her [Jerusalem] when morning dawns (τὸ πρὸς πρωί).

Ps. 90[89]:14

Let us be filled in the morning by your mercies (ἐνεπλήσθημεν τὸ πρωὶ τοῦ ἐλέους σου).

Zeph. 3:5

Morning by morning (πρωὶ πρωί) he brings his justice to light (εἰς φῶς).104

99.  “Das Erlebnis des täglichen Sonnenaufgangs, der Brauch der morgendlichen Rechtsprechung und spezifische Rettungserfahrungen im Lauf der Geschichte” (Janowski 1984: 15). 100.  Ziegler 1950: 284; Janowski 1984: 22–6. 101.  Hempel 1960: 360–2. Some scholars argue based on such passages as Pss. 5:4; 88[87]:14; 143[142]:8, and Wis. 16:28 that some Israelites regularly practiced a night vigil in the temple, awaiting the rising of the sun that signified the presence of God (McKay 1979); however, the evidence for this has been challenged (Barth/ Bergman 1975: 226–7; Ziegler 1950: 283). 102.  E.g., exodus (Exod. 14:24), giving of the law at Sinai (Exod. 19:16; 34:2), and victories over Jericho (Josh. 6:12–15), Jabesh-Gilead (1 Sam. 11:9–11), and Assyria (2 Kgs 19:35). See Hempel 1960: 359; Ziegler 1950: 286. 103.  Janowski 1984 and Ziegler 1950 remain the primary studies of this theme. 104.  Janowski considers this one of the earliest indicators of solar Yahwism (1995: 228).

106

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

This expectation of God’s help literally “in the morning” is extended metaphorically in several utterances that directly correlate the dawn or arrival or morning with the appearing of God himself: that is, what “is expected ‘toward morning,’ etc., is not directly the content of salvation and help. It was primarily the new presence of Yahweh in a theophany.”105 Given the prior conceptual metaphors (e.g., god is a shining light), the association of light with salvation, and the literal “help in the morning” motif, there is “nothing particularly surprising about the Israelite association of dawn with the saving epiphany of God.”106 While the contours of each expression vary, they have in common the use of Greek dawn or sunrise-related vocabulary (nouns and verbs) directly for God’s act of appearing: Deut. 33:2

The Lord came (ἥκει) from Sinai and appeared (ἐπέφανεν) from Seir upon us; he hastened forth (κατέσπευσεν) from Mount Paran.107

Isa. 58:8, 10

Then will your light break forth like the dawn (ῥαγήσεται πρόιμον τὸ φῶς σου); your healing will spring up speedily (ταχὺ ἀνατελεῖ); your righteousness will go before you; the glory of the Lord will surround you… If you give to the hungry bread from your soul, and satisfy the soul of the humbled, then will your light rise in the darkness (ἀνατελεῖ ἐν τῷ σκότει τὸ φῶς σου).108

105.  Barth 1975: 228. 106.  McKay 1979: 229. 107.  The LXX rendering of ‫“( זרח‬rise, dawn”) with ἐπιφαίνω is notable in that it conveys “in hellenistischer Zeit…den Selbsterweis der Gottheit” and may be “eine implizite Kritik am Herrscherkult der Ptolemäer” (Karrer/Kraus 2011: 598). See discussions of this verse and its relationship to theophany in Arneth 2000: 200; Janowski 1995: 233; Schnutenhaus 1964: 8; we will revisit ἐπιφαίνω in §3.2.c. 108.  My translation for v. 8a (which is syntactically difficult) is similar to LXX.D (“Dann wird dein Licht hervorbrechen wie der Morgen”). The word πρόιμον is somewhat unusual here and means something like “early” or “early morning/dawn” (= πρώϊος; see LSJ 1543–4). “Your” here refers to Israel. In support of taking the light/dawn domain as mapping to the target domain of god (i.e. as Israel’s light) is the parallelism of (v. 8a) “light…dawn” with the other phrases that are best understood as referring to God, namely, (v. 8b) “healing” (applied to God in Jer. 30[37]:17; 33:6; cf. God’s ἴασις in numerous psalms and Mal. 3:20), (v. 8c) “righteousness,” and (8d) δόξα. The “shining” of God in Isa. 60:2 would also corroborate this reading. See the discussion in Watts 2005b: 840–5.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor Isa. 60:2–3

Behold, darkness and gloom will cover the earth upon the nations, but upon you the Lord will shine (φανήσεται),109 and his glory will be seen upon you. And kings will come to your light (φωτί), and nations to your brightness (λαμπρότητι).110

Ezek. 43:2

Behold the glory of the God of Israel (δόξα θεοῦ Ισραηλ) was coming on the path of the gate seen towards the east (ἀνατολάς), and the noise of the company was greatly doubled, and the earth was shining forth like splendor (ἐξέλαμπεν ὡς φέγγος) from the glory all around.111

Hos. 6:3

We will press on to know the Lord; we will find him as a sure dawn (ὡς ὄρθρον112 ἕτοιμον εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν).113

Mal. 3:20

The sun of righteousness will rise (ἀνατελεῖ…ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης).114

T.Zeb. 9:8

The Lord himself will arise (ἀνατελεῖ) upon you, the light of righteousness (φῶς δικαιοσύνης) with healing and compassion in his wings.115

107

109.  HB reads ‫“( זרח‬rise, dawn”). 110.  On this verse Hempel writes, “Das aufstrahlende Morgenlicht repräsentiert das Kommen des rettenden Gottes in die Welt der Finsternis” (1960: 359). 111.  The prophet is depicting the return of God to the temple after his departure in chs. 8–11. Ezekiel 8:16 depicts twenty men at the temple “with their backs toward the Lord’s temple, and their faces opposite, and they were worshipping the sun (προσκυνοῦσιν τῷ ἡλίῳ).” Hence, the return of God from “the east” is a reversal of the abomination of sun-worship (Block 1998: 578; 1997: 297–8). 112.  “Day-break,” “dawn” (LSJ 1250). 113.  Niehr describes Yahweh here as “der am Morgen richtenden Gottheit” (1990: 149–50). 114.  For the wicked, the Lord’s appearing will be like the full heat of day (3:19), but for the righteous it will be a saving sun that comes at dawn (cf. Heb. ‫)זרח‬. This juxtaposition—combined with the use of δικαιοσύνη (as with Isa. 58:8) and the correlation of this “rising” with God’s return to the temple (3:1–2)—suggests that the metaphor’s target domain is God (see Glazier-McDonald 1987: 235–40). A. Hill and others connect this metaphor to the ancient Near Eastern winged sun disc imagery (see above) (1998: 349–50). For “healing in his wings” see Chapter 4 below. Though Mal. 3:20 is not interpreted messianically in the NT or rabbinic literature, it was taken thus by several church fathers and T. Jud. 24:1 (see Lewis 1999). 115.  While this passage includes Christian interpolations, “Lord” refers to God (as Mal. 3:20), given preceding references to creation and exile (DeSilva 2013: 26).

108

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

These utterances are not, of course, identical. God’s manifestation is depicted variously as the rising of the sun or breaking forth like the dawn. And the objective of this “dawning” ranges from the exodus to the future Day of the Lord. But shared among them is the use of dawnrelated language to portray the coming of God himself, generally to mark a transition for his people from a bad situation (darkness) to a good one (light).116 God’s direct manifestation or visible appearing is depicted as the dawn/sunrise or shining from the east, which we can summarize as follows:117

(i) (vi)

the coming of god is the dawn source target Usually has a heavenly location/ → From his dwelling in heavenly origin glory… Transition marked by rising/ → …God appears in visible dawning manifestation to bring about a transition from bad to good for his people, as the dawn of a new day

Secondary Evidence In some instances in the Hebrew tradition, the dawn-like appearing of God is expressed more explicitly, particularly with the use of ‫( זרח‬typically used for the “dawning,” “shining,” or “rising of the sun”) or ‫“( שחר‬first light of the morning,” “daybreak”)118 in the god-metaphors of Deut. 33:2, Isa. 58:8, Isa. 60:2, and Mal. 3:20. Other examples include the following: Isa. 33:2

LORD, be gracious to us; we wait for you. Be their arm every morning (‫)היה זרעם לבקרים‬, our salvation in the time of trouble.

Lam. 3:22b–23a

His mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning (‫)חדשים לבקרים‬.

1QHa 12.7

Like perfect dawn (‫ )וכשחר נכון‬you have revealed yourself to me with ear[ly] light (‫)לאור[תו]ם‬.119

116.  Note how these examples differ from those in which a figure comes from “the east” as a geographic direction, but for which, say, ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν is a common LXX circumlocution (Isa. 41:25). 117.  Alternatively, god’s theophany is the breaking of dawn. 118.  HALOT 281 and 1467, respectively. 119.  There is debate about reconstructing this final word. DSSSE reads ‫ לאור[תי]ם‬and offers “per[fect] light,” but Stegemann/Schuller/Newsom (provided above) suggest instead “‘early light’ or ‘dawn’” (2009: 161).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

109

Such a root metaphor is attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East; that is, not only are other deities depicted as light/sun (§2.2.c), but often their help or presence is connected to the morning/dawn.120 The following examples might be noted: sun-god hymns that highlight the dawn and the provision of justice at daybreak;121 epithets such as “morning judge” used for the sun-god;122 mythology that emphasizes the daily circuit of the sun god;123 and the use of iconography that depicts the rising of the sun-god from the eastern mountains.124 2.2.e. Summary. The preceding analysis demonstrates how in various OT/ Jewish metaphorical utterances (with numerous parallels from antiquity) the light source domain is mapped to the domains of salvation (that is, from darkness to light), an agent of salvation (sent by God), god himself, and the coming of god (extending “help in the morning”). These conceptual metaphors underly a plethora of metaphorical utterances in OT/Jewish literature and evince such variation in vocabulary that helps, in part, to explain the difficulties faced by those who attempt to pinpoint with any precision the source of the allusion/echo in Luke 1:78–79. The groundwork has thus been laid upon which a fresh assessment of GLuke’s metaphor can be built.

120.  Janowski 1984 summarizes this motif within ancient Near Eastern literature as “Die Hoffnung bzw. Gewißheit, daß der bedrängte Beter diese Errettung vom Tode durch die morgendliche Epiphanie des Sonnengottes erfährt” (1984: 5). 121.  For example, one Shamash incantation reads, “Dawn has broken; doors are (now) opened… For I am now cleansed by the light of the (rising) sun”; another reads, “Shamash, wenn du untergehst, wird den Menschen das Licht verfinstert; Shamash, wenn du aufgehst, wird die Wel[t] hell” (Janowski 1984: 27–8). One Egyptian Amun-Re hymn reads, “Du bist der Eine Gott, der keinen Zweiten hat! Re ist das, der im Himmel aufgeht, Atum, der die Menschheit erschuf” (Janowski 1984: 134); another reads, “Re-Harachte anbeten bei seinem Aufgang im östlichen Lichtland des Himmels” (Assmann 1999: 133). 122.  See examples of “Der morgendliche Richter” in Langer 1989: 176; Janowski 1984: 98–112. 123.  Janowski 1984: 136–7. 124.  E.g., the Akkadian cylinder seal in Chapter 2 §2.2.d depicts Shamash rising from the underworld, represented by the two mountains (the square blocks).

110

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

3. The Ἀνατολή Metaphor in Luke 1:78–79 As in the prior chapter, our interpretation focuses on how the conceptual metaphors outlined above—with their mappings from the light domain to various target domains—are appropriated (or not) in Luke 1:78–79. We will do so by paying close attention to the lexical/semantic details of the metaphorical utterance itself as well as the framing of the metaphor provided by the Benedictus, the infancy narrative, and GLuke as a whole. This analysis will proceed in two stages. First, we will examine how the salvation and agent of salvation metaphors are used in GLuke to portray Jesus’ salvific role in light-related terms, confirming to some degree the “messianic” consensus surveyed previously. Second, we will examine the evidence that suggests Luke 1:78–79 is also transforming in a novel way the the coming of god is the dawn conceptual metaphor by re-mapping it to Jesus as the target domain. That is, the passage portrays Jesus in terms of epiphany-as-the-dawn and divine visitation which, in the OT/Jewish “encyclopedia” of conceptual metaphors, map to God alone. In the summary we will compare this metaphor to similar Jewish metaphors to demonstrate continuity along the former (divine agent) and discontinuity along the latter (coming of god) lines, with resulting christological implications for GLuke. 3.1. Into Darkness Shines an Agent of Salvation We begin with how Luke 1:78–79 maps the light domain to Jesus to depict him as an agent sent by God to bring salvation for his people. We will look at the situation of those being saved and the details that convey Jesus’ agency in rescuing them. 3.1.a. Those Sitting in Darkness. The two clauses involving purpose infinitive in 1:79 indicate what the “visitation” of the ἀνατολή accomplishes. The first in 1:79a reads, “ἐπιφᾶναι to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death (τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις).”125 Who are these individuals, described in the third person (τοῖς…καθημένοις) here and first person (ἡμῶν) in 1:79b (via asyndeton)? The Benedictus elsewhere has alternated its description of the recipients of salvation with third-person and first-person designations, such that the most natural reading is that the same group—namely, God’s “people” (λάος) in 1:68— is in view here.

125.  Again ἐπιφᾶναι is left untranslated and will be discussed in §3.2.c.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

111

What is their situation? Recall from §2.2.a that darkness (or the absence of light) is often mapped to target domains relating to ruin, judgment, and even death. The context of the Benedictus suggests there may be multiple ways of understanding this darkness/shadow in which the “people” are sitting, roughly corresponding to the different ways of understanding the “salvation” offered by the horn discussed in Chapter 2. On the one hand, it may be the darkness of enemy oppression, given the emphasis in the first half of the Benedictus on the redemption of God’s “people” from their enemies and those who hate them. On the other hand, given that the διά clause in 1:78a connects back to 1:76–77 (as will be demonstrated below) where John’s mission is described as giving γνῶσιν σωτηρίας126 consisting in the forgiveness of their sins (ἐν ἀφέσει ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν),127 the darkness may also be a state of ruin or judgment for sin.128 Both options are plausible and need not be seen as mutually exclusive, especially given the inherent flexibility of darkness metaphors.129 Such a reading would reinforce the cohesion of the Benedictus: the actions of the κέρας (1:69–75), John the Baptist (1:76–77), and the ἀνατολή (1:78–79) all have in view the salvation, conceived in multiple ways, of God’s people. When the ἀνατολή achieves his purpose—ἐπιφᾶναι upon God’s people—he is delivering them out of a manifold darkness and into the light of σωτηρίας that has been in view all along in the Benedictus. Such an understanding of the transition from darkness to light in 1:79a is likewise consistent with the second infinitive clause (“to guide our feet in the way of peace”) in 1:79b: εἰρήνη in Luke–Acts (21×) can carry both the sense of peace-in-rescue-from-enemies (e.g., Luke 14:32) and the sense of peace-in-forgiveness-of-sins (e.g., Luke 7:50; 8:48). 3.1.b. The Agent Sent by God. Who rescues these “people” sitting in darkness and guides them into peace? Let us approach an answer by revisiting the fairly unusual phrasing of 1:78a, διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐν οἷς κτλ. Perhaps reflecting the oft-held theory that 1:76–77 are interpolated, or that 1:78–79 are not original to the Benedictus, or possibly

126.  A rare combination (Fitzmyer 1981: 386). 127.  Grammatically the ἐν could modify δοῦναι, γνῶσιν, or σωτηρίας (most likely either of the latter two). 128.  This is the first instance of “sin” language in GLuke, and it sets the stage for both John’s ministry (3:3) and Jesus’ ministry (5:20–21). 129.  Observe that the OT metaphors specifically involving σκία θανάτου reflect these diverse senses: e.g., man’s search for knowledge (Job 28:3); punishment for sin/ rebellion (Jer. 13:16); fear of death or enemies (Ps. 23[22]:4–5).

112

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

both (i.e. the tripartite division of the hymn),130 it has been common to treat the ending of 1:77 as a hard stop in the logical flow of the hymn.131 From there it is assumed that the διά clause starts a new thought about Jesus that is independent of the verses pertaining to John. Syntactically, however, this assumption does not hold. The phrase “the tender mercy of our God” is not only introduced by the διά but also further modified by the subsequent ἐν οἷς clause, with the neuter plural dative οἷς taking as its antecedent the neuter plural accusative σπλάγχνα. It would be unusual for the διά clause to introduce a standalone new idea that is immediately interrupted by another prepositional phrase. Rather, it is more likely that the σπλάγχνα clause occupies a janus-like position: the διά points backward to “forgiveness” (1:77b) to indicate that its causation is the mercies of God,132 and the ἐν points forward to establish the context out of which the “visitation” of the ἀνατολή takes place.133 That is to say, the syntax is as follows: E LQWKHIRUJLYHQHVVRIWKHLUVLQV      D RQDFFRXQWRI»ÀÚ WKHLQQHUPRVWPHUFLHVRIRXU*RG       E RXWRIZKLFKëÅÇđË ëȼÊÁñиÌÇ֭÷ÄÜËÒŸÌÇÂüëÆĩÐÇÍË

This syntactical analysis strengthens the relationship between the ἀνατολή metaphor and 1:76–77. It also clarifies that ἀνατολή is a personification for a figure who is, importantly, distinct from God. The syntax of ἐν οἷς dictates that the ἀνατολή is in some sense provided by God out of, or with respect to, his inward mercies and is, thus, unlikely to be identified or equated with God.134 The specific combination σπλάγχνα ἐλέους is 130.  See the summary in Nolland 1989: 83 (and Chapter 2 §1.1 above). 131.  This is reflected in how NA28 and some modern translations indent 1:77 but outdent 1:78. NET places a period after “sins” in 1:77 and starts a new sentence, collapsing διά and ἐν οἷς: “Because of our God’s tender mercy the dawn will break.” 132.  It is possible that διά points back not only to “forgiveness” but to the whole clause of 1:77 (Nolland 1989: 89); if so, my argument remains unchanged. 133.  Taking the ἐν either as reference or association (Wallace 1996: 372). The shift from third person (αὐτῶν) in 1:77 to first person in 1:78 (ἡμῶν/ἡμᾶς) presents no problem, as we have seen such shifts in the Benedictus already. 134.  T.Levi 4.4 includes a Christian interpolation that maintains a similar distinction between the one who has compassion and one whose coming is “ἐν” that compassion—only in this case the persons are reversed: “ἐν σπλάγχνοις υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ the Lord ἐπισκέψεται all the nations forever.” Cf. T.Jud. 23.5 (ἐπισκέψεται ὑμᾶς κύριος ἐν ἐλέει).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

113

unusual but the sense is clear.135 Just as the raising up of the “horn” in 1:69 is motivated by God’s mercy (ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν in 1:72), so also the action of the ἀνατολή is motivated by God’s mercy. There is, thus, a discernible parallelism with the “horn” metaphor,136 with both portraying a saving intervention via an agent whose arrival relates to God’s mercy: God’s initiative Mercy Aorist action verbs Agent of salvation

κέρας metaphor κύριος ὁ θεός (1:68) ποιῆσαι ἔλεος (1:72) ἐπεσκέψατο, ἤγειρεν (1:69) κέρας (1:69, 71)

ἀνατολή metaphor θεοῦ ἡμῶν (1:78a) σπλάγχνα ἐλέους ἐν οἷς (1:78a) ἐπεσκέψατο* (1:78b) ἀνατολή (1:78b–79)

In short, the syntax of 1:78 indicates that ἀνατολή, just like κέρας, maps to an agent of God who achieves the saving work in view—in this case, rescuing God’s people out of darkness and into light. The primary action the ἀνατολή figure (= Jesus, per §1.5) undertakes on behalf of those sitting in darkness is ἐπιφᾶναι. We will discuss the contours of this phrasing below and whether the typical English gloss “shine” is adequate. Sufficient for now is how the entire metaphorical utterance quite clearly maps the light domain to an agent of salvation as well as the state of those being saved, thus appropriating two OT/ Jewish conceptual metaphors: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) agent of salvation is a shining light

salvation is going from darkness to light

NT Appropriation



Out of God’s compassionate mercies, Jesus has been sent as an agent of salvation…



…To bring “people”/“us” out of darkness (oppression of enemies, ruin of sin) and into paths of peace

In short, it would seem Luke 1:78–79 shares many features with OT/ Jewish traditions that depict present or future deliverer-figures in a variety of ways (sun, stars, shining light) using the light domain. 135.  The phrase occurs elsewhere only in T.Zeb. 5.3; 7.3; 8.2—none of which are relevant here. 136.  Eckey 2004: 127.

114

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

But does the conclusion that Jesus is an agent of salvation sent by God exhaust the metaphor? Is it possible that more might be said about this metaphor’s christological outlook? A closer look at Luke 1:79 raises questions in this regard, which will lead into our next sub-section. Earlier we examined the complexities posed by 1:78 on standard intertextual grounds, but the intertexts for 1:79a and 1:79b are inconclusive as well. Of possible candidates for 1:79a, two appear to have a delivererfigure in view: Luke 1:79a

τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις.

Isa. 9:1

ὁ λαὸς ὁ πορευόμενος ἐν σκότει, ἴδετε φῶς μέγα· οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.

Isa. 42:6–7

ἔδωκά σε…εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν, ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐκ δεσμῶν δεδεμένους καὶ ἐξ οἴκου φυλακῆς καθημένους ἐν σκότει.

Regarding Isa. 9:1, the “darkness” language, combined with the exalted descriptions of the child/son in 9:5 and the LXX’s free rendering of the MT’s “Prince of Peace” (ἐγὼ γὰρ ἄξω εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ), cause it frequently to be advanced as the background for Luke 1:79a (“darkness” followed by “peace” in 1:79b).137 However, we must point out that the φῶς-related metaphor of Isa. 9:1 more naturally takes God as its target domain, not the child/son. Isaiah 9:2 elaborates on the metaphor with a second-person address to God, the shift to the “child” at 9:5 moves away from the “light”-metaphor, and, in the LXX gloss, the one bringing “peace” is God, not the child/son.138 It is, thus, far from obvious that φῶς in Isa. 9:1 takes the deliverer-figure of 9:5 as its target. The situation is, however, more straightforward with Isa. 42:6–7, where φῶς clearly maps to the “servant” figure. Moreover, other OT passages featuring comparable degrees of verbal/ syntactical parallelism with Luke 1:79a as the above examples deal not with an agent (like Isa. 42:6–7) but (like Isa. 9:1) with God, who delivers those sitting in darkness/shadow: 137.  Gathercole 2005: 478–9. Matt. 4:16 also quotes Isa. 9:1–2[8:23–9:1] but, like GLuke, reads καθήμενος rather than κατοικοῦντες. Moreover, GMatthew’s focus seems to be on Jesus’ fulfillment of Isa. 8:23[9:1] in his ministry in the region of Zebulun/Naphtali, not on the light/dark metaphor. 138.  For such reasons Fabry lists 9:6 as a key example of LXX “demessianization” (2006: 201).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor Ps. 107[106]:10–14

καθημένους ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου… καὶ ἐκέκραξαν πρὸς κύριον ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαι αὐτούς… καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ σκότους καὶ σκιᾶς θανάτου.

Ps. 23[22]:4

ἐὰν γὰρ καὶ πορευθῶ ἐν μέσῳ σκιᾶς θανάτου, οὐ φοβηθήσομαι κακά, ὅτι σὺ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἶ.

Mic. 7:8

διότι ἐὰν καθίσω ἐν τῷ σκότει, κύριος φωτιεῖ μοι.

115

This flexibility should give us pause before automatically assuming that delivering someone out of darkness is by default the function of a human agent. Unless we have already begged the question in the direction of Isa. 42:6–7, there is no methodological reason on intertextual grounds— verbatim parallelism, “volume,” etc.—why we should see Luke 1:79a as an allusion/echo of that passage rather than the alternatives proposed, especially given GLuke’s familiarity with Isaiah, Psalms, and the Twelve Prophets.139 Determining the background of 1:79b only compounds the problem. While the “way of peace” is a common OT idea expressed with a variety of lexemes, the most plausible background for GLuke’s clause is Isa. 42:16 or Ps. 5:9.140 In Isa. 42:16 there is a close relationship between being led on a “way/path” (ἄξω τυφλοὺς ἐν ὁδῷ, ᾗ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, καὶ τρίβους, οὓς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν) and the deliverance from darkness into light (ποιήσω αὐτοῖς τὸ σκότος εἰς φῶς)—precisely the combination in view in GLuke. However, the “servant”-φῶς in Isa. 42:6 (above) has passed out of view by 42:16, where it is God himself who leads into straight paths and turns σκότος into φῶς.141 Moreover, in Ps. 5:9 it is God who leads his people on the right path (κύριε…κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιόν μου τὴν ὁδόν σου).142 Consequently, though GLuke’s metaphor certainly appropriates agent of salvation is a shining light to Jesus, these considerations for 1:79— namely, how God himself saves those “sitting in darkness/shadow” and “leads” them in “paths” of peace—raise the question, is there more to be said here? Might the divine light and dawn metaphors merit consideration? We turn to this question next.

139.  Recall Chapter 1 §2. 140.  Other candidates are Isa. 41:3 and 59:8, but their target domains and contexts are distant from Luke 1:78–79. 141.  God specifically claims this as his prerogative (ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ποιήσω). 142.  Similarly in Pss. Sol. 6:2 (αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κατευθύνονται ὑπὸ κυρίου).

116

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

3.2. Visitation/Epiphany of the Dawn from Upon High To augment the interpretation of GLuke’s ἀνατολή metaphor as an agent of salvation, I will build a cumulative case that suggests that it also appropriates the conceptual metaphor the coming of god is the dawn but re-maps it to Jesus as its target domain. The four steps of this cumulative case will deal with (a) ἀνατολή as “dawn,” (b) visitation, (c) epiphany, and (d) framing against the forerunner-prophecies about John the Baptist. This portrayal of Jesus through this specifically divine metaphor (and related prerogatives) carries important implications for Lukan Christology. 3.2.a. Dawn. Thus far we have intentionally left ἀνατολή untranslated, so let us now establish a perspective on this word, which lies at the heart of the entire metaphor. In §1.4 we eliminated the option that ἀνατολή is an allusion to the Septuagintal ‫ צמח‬tradition (Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12). Moreover, the context in GLuke precludes the possibility that ἀνατολή refers to plant growth (Ezek. 16:7; 17:10; Pss. Sol. 5:9). While it is within the noun’s semantic range to be used for the process of the “rising” of a star or moon, it does not stand alone in such cases but includes another substantive; for instance, in the only example in the LXX, Isa. 60:19 reads ἀνατολὴ σελήνης.143 By far the most common sense of the noun is to refer to the dawn/sunrise directly (with or without ἥλιος) or to geographic east (typically plural),144 with the latter being a metonymic extension of the former, since dawn/sunrise is perceived as coming from the east. The Greek translators are consistent in using ἀνατολή/αί to translate ‫“( ]מ]זרח‬rising” or “dawn”) and ‫“( קדם‬east”).145 Given the lack of other substantives and the fact that ἀνατολή in 1:78–79 is the subject of other verbs (ἐπισκέπτομαι, ἐπιφαίνω, κατευθύνω), there would seem to be little reason to interpret standalone ἀνατολή in any other sense than that of dawn or sunrise, which, in turn, is consistent with both the other components of 1:78–79 and the personified uses of the light domain elsewhere.

143.  Other uses of ἀνατολή for the “rising” of a luminary body (other than the sun) in relevant Jewish literature also include the substantive: e.g., Philo, Opif. 58; Spec. 3.187 (and metaphorically in Conf. 60; 66); 1 En. 18:15; Jos. Asen. 14:1. Dölger, one of the few to notice this nuance, is thereby correct to argue that a process of rising cannot be in view in Luke 1:78–79 (1925: 155). 144.  See BDF 78. 145.  70+ times for the former, 80+ times for the latter—out of 170× total (~92%).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

117

In sum, lexical considerations suggest that 1:78–79 features the “dawn” or “sunrise” that appears “from on high.” While this somewhat stretches the phenomenological understanding of the “dawn” (normally from the eastern horizon), it is still fully intelligible as metaphor and consistent with the light source domain identified before.146 3.2.b. Visitation. The saving action done for “us” (ἡμᾶς) by the person, Jesus, who is the target domain of ἀνατολή/dawn, is described using the main indicative verb ἐπεσκέψατο* in 1:78. What are we to make of this verb, its second occurrence in the Benedictus? In Chapter 2 we observed two features of the “divine visitation” motif engaged in the κέρας metaphor: the use of ἐπισκέπτομαι to refer to God’s action in Luke 1:68, and the salvation/deliverance context of 1:69–75. Moreover, we demonstrated how in salvific settings in OT/Jewish literature, the acting subject of ἐπισκέπτομαι (or the one whose ἐπισκοπή is in view) is always God himself. The same holds true elsewhere for Luke–Acts, which alone in the NT uses ἐπισκέπτομαι/ἐπισκοπή to refer to a saving “visitation” of some sort.147 God is the subject in both Luke 7:16 (“God ἐπεσκέψατο his people!”) and Acts 15:14 (“God first ἐπεσκέψατο the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name”). But is the “divine visitation” motif engaged by this verb in 1:78–79? The context would suggest so, as all three features of the motif are present: the use of ἐπισκέπτομαι itself (regardless of tense), the accomplishment of salvation (salvation is going from darkness to light), and the notion that the visitation occurs “from heaven” or “from on high.”148 Yet there is a significant shift: whereas God “has visited” in 1:68, now it is the ἀνατολή-figure who, as we showed above, is not identical with God. In other words, the metaphor seems to indicate that there is something about this dawn-agent that puts him in the position to fulfill the eschatological visitation that, across OT/Jewish tradition (and in Luke 1:69; 7:16; Acts 15:14), is normatively a prerogative of God himself. In some way—which Luke leaves basically unexplained—the divine visitation is accomplished or perhaps embodied in Jesus, the heavenly ἀνατολή. This shift in the way

146.  Especially the element (i) usually has a heavenly location/origin (§2.1). 147.  Elsewhere in the NT, the word is used in the sense of “to make a careful inspection” in Acts 6:3; “to go to see a person” in Matt. 25:36, 43; Acts 7:23; 15:36; Jas 1:27; and “to exercise oversight” in Heb. 2:6; see BDAG 378. 148.  While ἐξ ὕψους suggests preexistence to some (Gathercole 2006: 242; Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 78; see §1.5), the full scope of the metaphor indicates this aspect, if valid, is secondary to divine visitation.

118

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

the motif is engaged likewise appears in Luke 19:44, where Jesus, upon his climactic arrival in Jerusalem, pronounces judgment on the people for rejecting “the time of your visitation” (τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου), implicitly referring to his visitation.149 3.2.c. Epiphany. Nearly all commentators and modern translations tend to neglect or completely overlook the fact that GLuke uses a significant verb at the start of 1:79a, which thus far we have left untranslated: the purpose of the “visitation” of the ἀνατολή is expressed by the aorist infinitive of ἐπιφαίνω.150 While this occurrence in GLuke is almost invariably rendered by translators and commentators as “to shine” or “to give light,”151 it only rarely carries that sense and, instead, nearly always suggests “show oneself” or “appear.”152 The verb is used elsewhere in the NT only at Acts 27:20; Titus 2:11; 3:4—all three as “appearing.” We must ask, then, is the rare sense “to shine/give light” the best way to understand 1:79a? Or is it possible that more prominent parts of the verb’s semantic domain, particularly “appearing,” might not also be relevant? To answer this question, we must revisit the discussion begun in Chapter 2 §1.2 regarding the divine “coming” motif, of which the theophany or visible manifestation of God is a related form.153 In numerous theophany passages in the LXX, God is depicted as visibly showing or revealing himself in some sort of tangible way, typically preceded or followed by cosmic upheaval, such as thunder, lightning, destruction of mountains, and so on. The archetype of such theophanies is that of Sinai (Exod. 19; 149.  See the analysis in Lanier 2014a; Rowe 2003: 23–4. 150.  Those reconstructing a Semitic Vorlage (and assuming a light-metaphor) typically opt for Hebrew verbs ‫זרח‬, ‫נגה‬, or ‫( אור‬see the discussion in Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 236–7; Haupt 1919; Aytoun 1917) or Aramaic ‫“( דנח‬rising”; CAL) (Dölger 1925: 155). 151.  Interestingly, D inserts φῶς, perhaps assimilating to 2:32. 152.  LSJ 699; BDAG 385. Luke 1:79, in fact, is one of the only passages listed in both under the “give light” gloss. GELS (285–6) does not even include “shine” or “give light” as a gloss; LEH offers only one possible instance. Bultmann/Lührmann observe that the “shine/give light” use of the verb is rare in early Christian literature, only at 1 Clem. 60:3 (δέσποτα [=God], ἐπίφανον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς) (1974: 10). 153.  Jörg Jeremias 1965 remains the standard work on this motif; see also Savran 2005; Niehaus 1995. In treating this as a sub-category of “coming,” I follow Janowski (who notes how the “frühe Theophanietraditionen” depict the “‘Kommen’ JHWHs als Epiphaniegeschehen”; 1995: 239) and Schnutenhaus (1964: 8–9). Greek θεοφάνεια is relatively rare and late, but not ἐπιφάνεια; we will use “theophany” and “epiphany” more or less interchangeably.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

119

24; 34), after which many others are patterned154—see Pss. 18[17]:8–16; 68[67]:8–11; 77[76]:17–20; 114[113]:3–7; Jeremiah 46–51; Zech. 9:14. Furthermore, most theophanies/epiphanies are oriented towards some sort of divine intervention,155 and they often involve God’s appearing from a high place or heaven (as with “visitation”). While we want to avoid equating lexeme with concept, the fact remains that nearly all OT theophany passages—which in Hebrew typically use ‫( ראה‬Niphal/Hiphil), ‫( יפע‬Hiphil), ‫( אור‬Hiphil), ‫( גלה‬Niphal), and ‫נגה‬ (Hiphil)156—are rendered in the LXX with ἐπιφαίνω or ἐπιφάνεια.157 The Greek verb is also used in many passages where God’s “face” (πρόσωπον) is said to appear to his people.158 See, for example, Gen. 35:7; Deut. 33:2 (which also includes “coming” language, ἥκει); Ps. 118[117]:27; Jer. 36:14; Ezek. 39:28; Zeph. 2:11; 2 Macc. 3:30; 3 Macc. 6:9.159 In fact, over 86% of occurrences of the verb in the LXX and OTP refer to a manifestation of God,160 and the verb is rarely if ever used to describe a human deliverer-figure in Jewish contexts.161 This reflects the use of the verb in Hellenistic Greek, where in religious contexts it typically “denotes the helpful intervention of the gods.”162 No doubt the use of the lexeme by Seleucid king Antiochus IV (e.g., Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανής in 1 Macc. 1:10; ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ or other 154.  Savran 2005: 206–24; Niehaus 1995: 16; Jenni 1970: 255–9; Jörg Jeremias 1965: 100–105; Schnutenhaus 1964: 12–13; Pidoux 1947: 50. Josephus describes the exodus as τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Ant. 2.339). Cf. T.Levi 3:9; 4 Ezra 8:23. 155.  Niehaus 1995: 21–2; Lührmann 1971: 189–90 (“helfendes Eingreifen”). 156.  For a discussion of the Hebrew forms, see Schnutenhaus 1964: 8–9; Rendtorff 1960. 157.  “Manifestation” or “appearance” (LEH 237; GELS 286); LSJ notes “esp. of deities appearing” (669). 158.  Num. 6:25; Pss. 31[30]:17; 67[66]:2; 80[79]:4, 8, 20; 119[118]:135. 159.  For a detailed treatment see Lührmann 1971. This usage pattern undermines Newman’s contention that the LXX translators chose δόξα over ἐπιφαίνω/ἐπιφάνεια to avoid pagan connotations (1992: 152–3). 160.  Josephus is more varied (6× for “appearing” of God/angels; 12× for people [but not eschatological agents]; 1× for “light”/σέλας) (Rengstorf 1975: 189), as is Philo (Borgen 2000: 145; but see Mut. 15). Cf. 1 Clem. 59:4, calling God to “appear” to the needy (τοῖς δεομένοις ἐπιφάνηθι). 161.  The noun ἐπιφάνεια is not used messianically in the LXX/OTP, either, but is associated with Jesus in 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Tit. 2:13 (see Lührmann 1971: 197–8). 162.  Bultmann/Lührmann 1974: 8. It is commonly used to describe the manifestation of Apollos (Cioffi 2013: 4). See Lührmann’s comments on Hellenistic use (1971: 188).

120

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

variations on coinage) as a “claim to divine status”163 would have been well-known to first-century Jews. Is it possible that such a theophany/epiphany motif may be engaged in GLuke here? At a minimum, the conjunction of this verb with ἐπισκέπτομαι, a salvation-related purpose, and heavenly origination (ἐξ ὕψους) should push us to take seriously this possibility.164 If so, Jesusas-dawn is not merely a generic light that is “shining” on those in darkness, but, specifically, he is “appearing”165 in some sort of epiphanic way that in nearly all other cases in Jewish tradition (and Hellenism, for that matter) is reserved for a divine figure. 3.2.d. Forerunner. The final piece of our cumulative case explores how the ἀνατολή metaphor is framed by the prophecy about John the Baptist’s “forerunning” role. As is well known, Luke 1–2 parallels John the Baptist and Jesus extensively.166 GLuke depicts John’s role by combining portions of Isaiah (single underline) and Malachi (double underline):167 Luke 1:17

καὶ αὐτὸς προελεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ168 ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει Ἠλίου, ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα καὶ ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρονήσει δικαίων, ἑτοιμάσαι κυρίῳ λαὸν κατεσκευασμένον.

163.  Collins/Collins 2008: 50–1. 164.  Oro offers up “una teofanía de Yahvé” as an option (1983: 168). Bultmann/ Lührmann believe the verb is used in Luke 1:79 “figuratively of the intervening of God to help” (1974: 10). 165.  Hence, Wolter’s “erscheinen” (“appear”) for this verb is apt (2008: 106). The combination of ἐπιφαίνω and ἀνατολή is rare, occurring only twice before the NT era (after the first century we find quotations of Luke 1:78–79; e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraem Syrus, and later fathers). Polybius reads κατὰ τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατολῆς ἐπιφαινομένης (Hist. 3.113.1; 11.22.6) to refer to the sunrise. While this should not bear too much weight, it does, at least, show that the use of ἐπιφαίνω in 1:79 can be consistent with taking ἀνατολή as “dawn.” 166.  See Böhlemann 1997; R. Brown 1993: 293; Tannehill 1986: 43–4; Laurentin 1957: 27–42. 167.  Note: Mal. 3:23–24 (MT) = 3:22–23 (LXX) = 4:5–6 (English translations). Even if 3:21–24 is a later addition to Mal. 3 (as some argue), the conflation by GLuke indicates the author saw it as a unified composition. 168.  Due to the difference in speakers (God in Mal. 3:1; narrator/third person in GLuke), there is a natural shift from μου to αὐτοῦ, and “sending” (ἐξαποστέλλω) to “going” (προελεύσεται/προπορεύσῃ). The shift from πρὸ προσώπου in Mal. 3:1 to ἐνώπιον/ἔμπροσθέν communicates identical content (numerous manuscripts read πρὸ προσώπου at Luke 1:76).



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

121

1:76

προπορεύσῃ γὰρ ἐνώπιον κυρίου ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ

3:4

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ·

7:27

ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου.

Isa. 40:3

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ῾Ετοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

Mal. 3:1, 23–24

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου…



ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμῖν Ηλιαν τὸν Θεσβίτην πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἡμέραν κυρίου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐπιφανῆ, ὃς ἀποκαταστήσει καρδίαν πατρὸς πρὸς υἱόν169

This extensive (and creative) use of the OT is significant, for a central feature of both Isa. 40:3 and Mal. 3:1, 22–23 is the role of the forerunner in preparing for the direct appearance of God. In Isa. 40:3 the voice in the wilderness precedes the revelation of God’s “glory” in 40:5 (ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου) as well as God’s coming (ἔρχεται) to save his people in 40:10—both instances of the “theophany” and “coming” motifs (Chapter 2 §1.2).170 In Mal. 3:1 the Elijah-like messenger likewise prepares the way for God to “come” (ἥξει) to bring judgment on the temple, another instance of the “coming” motif. More striking is Mal. 3:19–24, wherein the messenger precedes (πρίν) the eschatological “Day of the Lord” (3:22, ἡμέραν κυρίου).171 Malachi describes vividly how, when that day comes (3:19), the Lord will rise (ἀνατελεῖ) as the “sun of righteousness, with healing in its wings” (ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἴασις ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ, 3:20).172 The particular combination of ἀνατέλλω and ἥλιος173 is a common convention for the dawn/sunrise, more or less interchangeable with ἀνατολή.174 The messenger in Malachi, thus, precedes a coming of the κύριος that is depicted metaphorically as the sunrise (recall §2.2.d). 169.  Cf. Sir. 48:10. 170.  Koole 1997: 59. In the original context, the “voice” may have been collective for the exiles rather than an individual. 171.  The “day” is further described as ἐπιφανής (“manifest,” “appearing”; LSJ 670). 172.  Recall n. 114. “Wings” will be discussed in Chapter 4. 173.  Hebrew reads ‫ זרח‬and ‫שמש‬. 174.  Note ἐπιφανῆ (derived from ἐπιφαίνω) in Mal. 3:22.

122

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

To what degree is this broader contextual framing relevant for Luke 1:78–79? As shown above, the διά in 1:78 connects God’s mercies backward to the preceding clauses about John (1:76–77) as well as forward to the ἀνατολή metaphor. Moreover, the reference to ἐλέους θεοῦ for Jesus’ coming in 1:78 forms part of the broader “diptych” with John, whose birth to Elizabeth is described in terms of God’s ἔλεος in 1:58.175 Thus, not only is there broader parallelism between John and Jesus, there are local contextual reasons in the Benedictus to read the ἀνατολή metaphor in conjunction with the preceding verses of 1:76–77 about John’s ministry. Who, then, is John preceding as the one who fulfills the expectations of Isaiah/Malachi? While it is commonly argued that the forerunning “prophet-like-Elijah” precedes the Messiah, this view has been strongly contested as lacking sufficient non-NT evidence, and even the NT evidence has been questioned.176 Rather, in Isaiah 40, Malachi 3[4], and subsequent tradition, this figure—which GLuke sees fulfilled in John the Baptist—precedes God himself.177 For this reason the antecedent of κύριος in 1:76 (and 3:4) is somewhat unclear: does it refer to Jesus (as in 1:43; 2:11) or God (as in most other cases in Luke 1–2)?178 Perhaps that is precisely the point. John fulfills the eschatological role of the messenger who precedes the visitation of God and who announces the day when God himself will be the rising sun upon his people (the coming of god is the dawn). Only in this case, the ἀνατολή, the dawn from upon high, who visits and makes his epiphany to the people sitting in darkness, is Jesus himself. The “Prophet of the Most High” (προφήτης ὑψίστου in 1:76) goes before him who is visiting “from upon high” as the dawn. Let us take stock of where we have come in this section. Though none of the four points made above sustains the argument on its own, the cumulative force is significant. A close study of the lexical and semantic details of Luke 1:78–79 suggests that the primary source domain being mapped to Jesus is that of dawn (ἀνατολή), as a subset of light. Jesusas-dawn undertakes a “visitation” from heaven that is also described as an 175.  Nolland 1989: 89. 176.  Grindheim 2011: 55–7; Faierstein 1981; Fitzmyer 1985b; Hughes 1972; J.A.T. Robinson 1958. 177.  Grindheim concludes, “No evidence relevant to the New Testament connects this Elijah character with the Messiah. Instead, the conflated quotation from Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1 identifies him as the forerunner of God himself” (2011: 59). 178.  Rowe concludes it is “difficult to determine exegetically whether the κύριος for whom John is preparing is the God of Abraham or the babe yet to be born” (2006: 69–70); similarly Marshall 1978: 93.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

123

epiphanic “appearing” to save those who sit in darkness. This sense that Jesus is embodying the eschatological, divine visitation (or epiphany) as the dawn/sunrise fits well with the local framing of the metaphor, wherein John is announced as the forerunner (1:76–77) who in Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3[4] precedes a coming of God that is, likewise, depicted in such terms. GLuke’s ἀνατολή metaphor, then, may be interpreted as a complex metaphorical blend of two OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors, supplemented by the “divine visitation” and “theophany/epiphany” motifs: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s)

NT Appropriation

the coming of god is the dawn



Jesus is the dawn (ἀνατολή) that has visited (ἐπεσκέψατο*) from heaven (ἐξ ὕψους) to appear to (ἐπιφᾶναι)…

salvation is going from darkness to light



…God’s people who are languishing in darkness

Thus, our question posed at the end of §3.1.b—where we observed that 1:79ab may be better understood against the OT/Jewish background of God’s liberating people from darkness and leading them in paths of peace, rather than a deliverer-figure’s doing so—may be answered in the affirmative: indeed, much more may be said. GLuke appears to be re-mapping a divine conceptual metaphor to Jesus. 3.3. Summary Based on the preceding analysis, GLuke’s “enigmatic” ἀνατολή metaphor seems to fuse multiple conceptual metaphors in OT/Jewish tradition. First, it appropriates the agent of salvation is a shining light conceptual metaphor in such a way that depicts a deliverer-figure whose salvific coming (which, in turn, engages salvation is going from darkness to light for those “sitting in darkness”) is due to the mercies of God. Second, several factors—the OT background of 1:79ab, the dawn source domain, divine visitation, epiphany, framing with 1:76–77—are suggestive of the conceptual metaphor the coming of god is the dawn. In other words, CMT helps identify possible ways in which GLuke’s metaphor portrays Jesus as an agent sent by God, as the dawn who manifests certain prerogatives of God (including “visitation” and “epiphany”), and possibly both simultaneously. Let us explore the christological implications further.

124

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

4. Christological Implications As outlined in §1.5, a strong consensus—among those who advocate the ‫ צמח‬allusion and those who do not—is that Luke 1:78–79 is a metaphor for the Davidic Messiah.179 To what degree is this a sufficient reading of the passage? On the one hand, there is evidence that some examples covered in our agent of salvation discussion (§2.2.b) received specifically “messianic” interpretations within Judaism and early Christianity. Numbers 24:17 (ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον ἐξ Ιακωβ) has been the most influential in this regard, irrespective of whether proto-messianism should be read into its pentateuchal context. The LXX gloss of “scepter” with ἄνθρωπος (cf. 24:7) suggests to some that “Man” had become a messianic title.180 At Qumran the Hebrew tradition is often quoted and ‫ כוכב‬is interpreted as a priestly figure usually alongside the Davidic-messianic ‫( צמח‬CDa 7.15–8.3; 4Q175 1.9–13; 1QM 11.5–8).181 “Star”/‫ כוכב‬is glossed with ‫ מלך‬in Tg. Onq., Neof., and Ps-Jon., and the latter two also render “scepter” (‫)שבט‬ with ‫ משיחא‬at Num. 24:17b.182 It is interpreted messianically in Sib. Or. 5:155–158 as well as later rabbinic literature.183 Though there are no NT quotations of or allusions to the passage, it may lie behind 2 Pet. 1:19 (φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ) and Rev. 22:16 (ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός).184 Justin interprets ἀστήρ as Jesus in Dial. 106.4; 126.1; and 1 Apol. 32.2.185 We might also mention three important light metaphors from TTwelve. While questions regarding their dating and pre-Christian Jewish or Christian provenance require us to be cautious about whether (or which portions of) these examples are upstream or downstream of GLuke,186 they nevertheless offer important comparanda: 179.  Summarized in Wolter 2008: 116–17. 180.  See Fabry 2006: 202–3 (but Lust disagrees [1995]). 181.  Collins 1995: 74–9; Flusser 1959: 104–5. 182.  See Houtman/Sysling’s analysis (2008). 183.  y. Taan. 4:8 (Aqiba declaring Simon bar Kosiba/Kochba as “King Messiah” per Num. 24:17); Deut. Rab. 1:20. It may also lie behind Philo’s Mos. I.290. See Beyerle 2008 for analysis of such later “messianic” uses. 184.  See Davids 2006: 209; Conzelmann 1964: 312–16. On ancient Near Eastern/ Hellenistic veneration of the “morning star,” see Van der Sluijs 2009: 170. 185.  But ἀστήρ is missing from his OT messianic designation list at Dial. 100.4. 186.  De Jonge (2003, 1960, 1953) and Hollander/de Jonge (1985: 82–5), among others, argue that TTwelve are Christian compositions, though drawing on pre-Christian Jewish sources. Others (e.g., DeSilva 2013; Bauckham 2008a; Evans 1992) are more sympathetic to essentially pre-Christian Jewish provenance. Scholars on both sides admit difficulty separating Christian elements from Jewish.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

125

T.Levi 4.3

[Addressing Levi] The light of knowledge (φῶς γνώσεως) you shall kindle in Jacob, as you shall be as the sun (ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἔσῃ) for all the posterity of Israel.

T.Levi 18.2–3

The Lord will raise up a new priest to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed. He shall effect judgment of truth over the earth for many days. And his star shall arise in heaven as [of] a king. Lighting up the light [of knowledge] as the sun the day (ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον αὐτοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς βασιλεύς[-έως], φωτίζων φῶς [γνώσεως] ὡς ἐν ἡλίῳ ἡμέρας)… This one will shine forth like the sun in the earth (ἀναλάμψει ὡς ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ γῇ); he shall take away all darkness from under heaven, and there shall be peace in all the earth.187

T.Jud. 24.1

After this there shall arise for you a Star from Jacob (ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ἄστρον ἐξ Ἰακὼβ) in peace: and a man shall arise from my posterity like the Sun of righteousness (ὁ ἥλιος τῆς δικαιοσύνης), walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him will be found no sin.188

The messianism (or Christology?) of TTwelve is debated, but there is general agreement that both “eschatological priest” (of Levi) and “king” Messiah (of Judah) traditions are reflected here.189 Both testaments apply the light-related Num. 24:17, Mal. 3:20, and other passages to this figure or figure(s). These brief analyses confirm that GLuke’s ἀνατολή metaphor shares similarities with how some Jewish traditions map the light domain to specifically “messianic” deliverer-figures (sometimes priestly, sometimes kingly), even in quite elevated ways.190 So the consensus position on Luke 1:78–79 as “messianic” (particularly royal-Davidic) is not without grounds, even with ‫ צמח‬off the table.

187.  Brackets indicate Charles’s reading (1908). On this passage’s possible relationship with 4Q541 f9 (§2.2.b), see de Jonge 1999; Kugler 1996: 51–2; Puech 1993. Cf. the enigmatic sun/moon imagery related to Levi in T.Naph. 5:1–7. 188.  It is possible that two figures (“star” and “man”) are in view, as in CDa 7. 189.  DeSilva 2013: 36; De Jonge 1986; Hultgård 1980 (but see Kugler’s cautions, 1996: 216). There is debate over how the “new priest” in T.Levi 18 relates to the Levi-figure of T. Levi 4:3 (and 2.10–11); T. Jud. 21:2–4; T. Sim. 7:2; T. Dan 5:10; T. Ben. 11:2. 190.  Horbury argues that first-century Jews employed “great light” and “rising star” for a preexistent Messiah-figure (1998: 96)—though not all have been persuaded.

126

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

On the other hand, each example lacks key ingredients central to GLuke’s metaphor. While some try to trace Luke 1:78 directly to Num. 24:17 (primarily on the basis of the LXX’s ἀνατελεῖ),191 the two are conceptually quite distinct: GLuke’s ἀνατολή visits from heaven (ἐξ ὕψους), while the Num. 24:17 “star” (and “scepter”/“man”) arise from the human realm (ἐξ Ιακωβ/ἐξ Ισραηλ); there is no ἀστήρ in Luke 1:78–79; and GLuke’s ἀνατολή rescues people in darkness, whereas the Num. 24:17 “star”figure crushes political enemies. Moreover, even the lofty metaphors of TTwelve—which, recall, may include Christian interpolations that could very well rely on GLuke—tend to emphasize “light of knowledge”192 and lack the motifs of divine visitation (from heaven) and epiphany that are so prominent in Luke 1:78–79.193 Yet it is precisely GLuke’s application of these motifs—combined with transforming the divine metaphor the coming of god is the dawn to re-map it to Jesus—that would seem to be unparalleled elsewhere. It is thus unsurprising that some conclude 1:78–79 refers to “JHWH selbst oder der Messias, der kommt wie das aufstrahlende Licht der Sonne,”194 or “describes the ‘divine’ Messiah,”195 or portrays “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah whose identity is derived from the divine identity of YHWH.”196 Or, even more strongly, “ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους is most improbable as a figurative expression for a messiah [and] cannot possibly be applied to any one but to God.”197 Ultimately, it seems the GLuke leaves the tension unresolved. When read against a Lukan context that is already ripe with Davidic expectations (recall §1.1), the ἀνατολή metaphor certainly coheres with a (royal-) messianic Christology. At the same time, GLuke’s novel transformations are also suggestive of some sort of divine Christology. The resulting metaphor, i.e. jesus is the dawn from heaven, takes the conceptual metaphor the coming of god is the dawn, visitation, epiphany, freedom for those in darkness, guidance on paths of peace, and preparation by an Elijah-like figure—all usually or exclusively associated with God—and appropriates them in a unique way to Jesus.198 191.  Rusam 2003: 69–75; Klostermann 1975: 28–9; Voss 1965: 69–72. 192.  Which some trace to the single LXX occurrence of φῶς + γνῶσις in Hos. 10:12 (absent in MT). 193.  In fact, Levi is “as the sun” in T.Levi 4:3 only “until” (ἕως) God “visits” (ἐπισκέψεται) in 4:4 (recall Chapter 2 §1.2). 194.  Kremer 1998: 34. 195.  Bovon 2002: 76. 196.  Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015: 158. 197.  Winter 1953: 160. 198.  We will develop this further in Chapter 6.



3. Interpretation of the Ἀνατολή Metaphor

127

It is all the more notable, then, that Luke 1:78 likely uses aorist ἐπεσκέψατο*. Other Jewish messianic “star” and “sun” metaphors use the future, and other OT visitations or epiphanies of God were either temporary in the past199 or anticipated in the future. GLuke’s visitation of Jesus as the dawn from heaven, however, is described holistically/ perfectively as an accomplished redemptive event (even before Jesus’ actual birth). The christological implication for GLuke is that the longawaited eschatological visitation—the desired epiphany of the Lord—has finally taken place in the person of Jesus.

199.  Niehaus 1995: 20–1.

Chapter 4 I nt e r pr etat i on

of t h e

Ὄρν ι ς M e taphor

Our third christological metaphor occurs in a passage in GLuke’s travel narrative that has factored heavily in various scholarly debates about the double tradition/Q and so-called Wisdom Christology. In Luke 13:34 (par. Matt. 23:37), Jesus’ apostrophe to Jerusalem reads: Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν, ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε.1

In Chapter 1 we defined the metaphor as 13:34ac, while 13:34b (ἡ ἀποκτεὶνουσα…αὐτήν) is an aside. The literary context has been described as the “Höhepunkt seines Reiseberichts” or “eine gewisse Klimax”2 for Luke 13:31–35 and involves a decisive, proleptic denunciation of Jerusalem’s leadership as Jesus makes his way towards the city. It is puzzling, then, that the ὄρνις metaphor itself has been subject 1.  A few text-related issues are best summarized here. (i) Most assume ὄρνις (feminine) refers specifically to a “hen,” which makes the task of finding an OT source difficult given that ὄρνις occurs only twice in the LXX (3 Kgdms 2:46e; 4:23); the neuter ὄρνεον appears ~30×. Greek usage of the feminine form is, however, much broader; ὄρνις can refer to “bird” more generally, including birds of prey and domestic fowl (LSJ 1254). BDAG acknowledges the broader use (“the action of the mother bird or specif. of the hen,” 724). In light of this, I will leave the word untranslated or refer to it more generally as “mother bird.” (ii) There is a subtle difference between GLuke’s τὴν νοσσιάν (accusative singular of feminine νοσσιά; “brood”) and GMatthew’s τὰ νοσσία (accusative plural of neuter νοσσίον; “young bird”) (BDAG 679). Some attempt to argue that this implies a significant difference in the metaphor in each gospel (Steck 1967: 48–50), but few have found this convincing. (iii) Unlike GMatthew, GLuke does not repeat the verb ἐπισυνάγω in the second half of the clause (after ὃν τρόπον), which would normally be expected, but it is obviously implied (see Verheyden in Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 183). (iv) The use of ὃν τρόπον leads many to classify the saying as a simile, proverb, or Bildwort, but from a CMT perspective (Chapter 1 §3.2), it is rightly considered a metaphor. 2.  Lührmann 1969: 45; van der Kwaak 1966: 160.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

129

of no substantial treatment,3 usually receiving sparse comment or being completely overlooked.4 A detailed study will indicate what the metaphor contributes to our understanding of GLuke’s christological outlook: namely, that GLuke uses the ὄρνις metaphor to portray Jesus in terms of the divine conceptual metaphor god is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion. While the main interest here is, of course, GLuke’s use of the metaphor, the complexities introduced by the Matthean parallel necessitate some attention to broader questions that have a bearing on both, and to such preliminaries we turn. 1. Preliminary Questions Numerous issues surround Luke 13:34–35 par.,5 three of which are most pressing for our purposes: whether there is a particular source behind the text, the major interpretive positions, and the hypothesis that 13:34 is spoken by Wisdom/Sophia. After discussing each, we will turn in §2 to examine the OT/Jewish conceptual ὄρνις metaphors, at which point we will return to GLuke to apply these findings. 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? Given that 13:34 is situated in a context that includes a discussion with Pharisees, the prophet motif (13:33 and 13:34b), and a direct OT quotation in 13:35, there is little doubt among scholars that the most 3.  I am aware of only one article (Beavis 2003) that deals specifically with it (whether GMatthew, GLuke, or Q). Some studies cover the Jerusalemwort generally, but few engage in detail with the metaphor. 4.  For example, J.M. Robinson, after vaguely appealing to the ὄρνις metaphor (“Sophia so often sought to win Jerusalem only to be rejected”; 2005: 128), never again factors it into his extensive discussion of Wisdom, descent/rejection/ascent, Q, etc. 5.  (i) Form. Miller notes “form-critical ambiguity” in 13:34–35 (1988: 233), for the oracle includes woe, lament, warning, and promise. Jacobson classifies it as a “prophecy of disaster” (1992: 210–11; cf. “prophetischer Gerichtsworte,” Steck 1967: 51). (ii) Unity. Some argue that the person speaking in 13:34 is not the same as the person speaking in 13:35a and/or the “Coming One” in 13:35b, pointing primarily to the peculiar grammar in 13:35b (GLuke’s ἕως [ἥξει ὅτε] εἴπητε), λέγω ὑμῖν in 13:35b, and the apparent (for some) shift from a Wisdom figure in 13:34 to a Son of Man figure in 13:35. Thus, some argue 13:35 (or 13:35b) is a secondary accretion (see the discussions in Kloppenborg 1987: 227–30; Uro 1987: 236; P. Hoffmann 1972: 177). (iii) Authenticity. Dominical origin has been challenged by many (e.g., Harnack, Dibelius, Bultmann, Michael, Luz, Jacobson), though Fisk (2008: 157) and Tan (1997: 104–6) are recent advocates of its authenticity.

130

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

plausible “encyclopedia” for the metaphor is an OT/Jewish one. Scholars, in turn, fall into two camps regarding the literary source of Luke 13:34: namely, an OT source or a Jewish source that is no longer extant. The most common OT candidates put forward are as follows:6 Luke 13:34a,c

Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ…ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε

Deut. 32:11

ὡς ἀετὸς σκεπάσαι νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς νεοσσοῖς αὐτοῦ ἐπεπόθησεν, διεὶς τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ ἐδέξατο αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν μεταφρένων αὐτοῦ.

Ps. 91[90]:4a

ἐν τοῖς μεταφρένοις αὐτοῦ ἐπισκιάσει σοι, καὶ ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ ἐλπιεῖς·

Isa. 31:5

ὡς ὄρνεα πετόμενα, οὕτως ὑπερασπιεῖ κύριος ὑπὲρ Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἐξελεῖται καὶ περιποιήσεται καὶ σώσει.

Due to the lack of strong verbatim parallels, few scholars argue these are being explicitly cited/quoted here.7 It is more common to appeal to these intertexts (and perhaps others) as providing a generalized background.8 Recently Wolter has pointed out what most scholars tend to overlook: the emphasis in these OT examples lies on shelter provided by the bird’s wings, whereas GLuke includes an emphasis on gathering.9 The two are not the same, and few if any treatments of the metaphor have taken this issue seriously. By contrast, some maintain the OT fails to provide a fitting source for the metaphor altogether,10 and the main alternative is that 13:34 is a quotation from a lost Jewish apocryphon, such as a collection of wisdom 6.  CEQ lists no suggested OT sources for Q13:34, though it does for Q13:35, indicating the challenges of this verse. 7.  One does occasionally encounter strong language such as Miller’s, who writes that Deut. 32:11 is the “certain background for this image” (1988: 234; emphasis added). 8.  E.g., Gathercole notes that GMatthew “picks up on language” in Deut. 32:11; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 91:4 (2006: 218). 9.  Wolter 2008: 498; he writes that the metaphor is “nicht das schützende Bedecken mit den Flügeln, sondern das Sammeln,” and “Das Bild lässt viele Kommentatoren an die Metapher von Gottes Flügeln denken, under denen die Frommen Zuflucht suchen,…doch ist dort nie von ‘sammeln’ die Rede.” He argues that this notion of a bird’s “gathering” is not present in pre-Lukan sources. 10.  Fisk writes, “No surviving compositions antedating Luke compare God specifically to a hen” (2008: 159).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

131

sayings. While this view circulated before Bultmann,11 his championing of this hypothesis has been influential.12 For some proponents this hypothesis relies on an antecedent assumption that Luke 11:49–51 and 13:34–35 originally circulated as a unit, as they are found in Matt. 23:34–39, with some even suggesting that “The Wisdom of God said” (Luke 11:49a) alludes to the title of this very source (ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ). We will show in §1.3.a that this suggestion falls apart under scrutiny.13 In short, a standard intertextual treatment of Luke 13:34–35 as an allusion/echo has little to go on, and approaching it solely on the basis of OT shelter metaphors or as a lost Jewish Wisdom saying proves inadequate. There are just grounds, then, for approaching this text as a novel metaphor that draws on multiple cognitive domains—that is, both refuge and gathering—in OT/Jewish tradition. 1.2. How Has the Metaphor Been Interpreted? While attempts to identify the source for the metaphor have focused on OT parallels to ὄρνις/νοσσιά/πτέρυγας or the σοφία of Luke 11:49a, the various proposals for how to interpret the metaphor often take their starting point from the lead-in: Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ…ποσάκις ἠθέλησα. If “Jerusalem” is taken as strictly literal for the city itself, the phrase “how often have I desired” presents an intriguing difficulty: in GLuke’s narrative the speaker Jesus has not actually been to Jerusalem in any substantive way.14 How can he say ποσάκις with reference to doing something in the city that he has yet to visit?15 In light of this conundrum, many interpreters argue that the utterer of the ὄρνις metaphor seems to be an übergeschichtliches Subjekt, a “supra-historical figure,” a “superhuman” speaker.16 But who is this Subjekt? Proposals fall into four groups.

11.  Plath 1905: 458; Harnack 1908: 168; Michael 1918: 101. 12.  Bultmann 1972: 114–15; similarly Haenchen 1951: 53; Dibelius 1971: 284–5; Uro 1987: 236. 13.  See especially n. 41. 14.  Most exclude his childhood visits in Luke 1–2 or the temptation vision (4:9–11) from consideration. 15.  This is generally a non-issue for the narrative-less Q, though Fleddermann argues that Q13:34 implies multiple visits to Jerusalem (2005: 705). 16.  Bultmann 1995[1921]: 120; Piper 1989: 164; Uro 1987: 237. J.M. Robinson sees this as the only solution to the “how often” problem (1998: 246), though some offer GJohn’s chronology as a possible solution (Fisk 2008: 152). Neither maneuvers are necessary, as I argue below.

132

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(i) Q Prophet. A few scholars postulate that Q13:34–35 originated with a Q prophet who coined it in response to opposition faced while preaching in Jerusalem. Only in a later stratum of Q’s editing was it ascribed to the historical Jesus.17 This view has not been persuasive outside certain Q circles,18 and its presupposition about later community creation of Jesussayings has been challenged.19 (ii) Jesus as Messenger. A second hypothesis takes God to be the mother bird, and Jesus to be speaking as a messenger on his behalf.20 There is a certain prima facie appeal of this hypothesis, especially given προφήτης in 13:33. However, not only is such a view simply asserted (or even assumed) without defense, its biggest weakness is that it is formulated in such a way that it is unfalsifiable. One could theoretically take any statement of Jesus (or anyone else) and, absent explicit evidence to the contrary, claim that he is not speaking for himself but for someone else. How could you prove he is not? But in this case, there is also no explicit evidence in its favor. Elsewhere GLuke specifically marks when Jesus is speaking/acting on God’s or someone else’s behalf (especially 11:49a [!]; cf. 7:27; 8:39; 9:48; 10:16; 12:32),21 and the Jewish prophetic mode normatively makes clear when one speaks on Yahweh’s behalf.22 But such is not the case here. Jesus does not say, “Thus says the Lord” (or even, “Wisdom says”), but simply speaks; in fact, he emphasizes he is speaking in 13:35 (λέγω). In 13:34b he seems to distance himself from the προφήτας by speaking of them collectively with a passive verb, and there are no other textual indicators in Luke 13:34 suggesting that ἠθέλησα (aorist first singular) is meant to convey anything other than self-reference. (iii) Wisdom/Sophia. A popular position is that the speaking subject of the metaphor is preexistent Wisdom/Sophia. Whether Jesus speaks on behalf of Wisdom or is Wisdom is debated (and depends on whether one 17.  See Hoffmann in Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 153; Luz 2005: 160; Jacobson 1992: 213; Miller 1988: 238. 18.  Namely, those who embrace not only Q’s existence but the assumptions about an early Q community engaging in evangelistic missions to Palestinian Jews. 19.  Tan 1997: 106–7; Dunn 1978. 20.  Fisk 2008: 159; Tan 1997: 111–13; Gench 1997: 77–9; Bock 1990: 500; Dunn 1980: 202–3. 21.  See also where GLuke emphasizes Jesus himself says what God would normally say, e.g., 5:20–24 (σοὶ λέγω, v. 24), 6:27 (ἀλλά ὑμῖν λέγω). 22.  λέγει κύριος (or similar) appears ~650× in the LXX. In several addresses to Ιερουσαλημ, the prophets emphasize the Lord is speaking (e.g., Jer. 6:6–9; 13:12–27; Isa. 52:1–3).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

133

is referring to Q, GMatthew, or GLuke), but the main point of agreement is that the ὄρνις metaphor is a “typical wisdom analogy”23 whereby “it is Wisdom herself who, by sending forth prophets, had in vain essayed this gathering together of the children of Jerusalem.”24 Such scholars see clear signs of the Wisdom/Sophia mythology in 13:34–35: Wisdom/Sophia is the mother who visits the city that historically has killed her prophetic emissaries in order to gather her children, but she is rejected and disappears.25 This view became particularly popular during the explosion of Wisdom-Christology monographs in the 1970s–80s,26 but it has been around much longer and remains influential today. Proponents include Harnack, Bultmann, Wilckens, Steck, Uro, Piper, Deutsch, Kloppenborg, Robinson, Hoffman, and Verheyden,27 to name a few. It is worth noting that some scholars have taken this mother bird-as-Wisdom hypothesis a step further (especially for Matt. 23:37–39), arguing that the abandonment of the “house” (οἶκος) and departure of the speaker (οὐ μή με ἴδητε) suggest that the speaker is not only Wisdom/Sophia but specifically the Shekinah leaving the temple.28 This Jesus = Wisdom = Shekinah connection, however, has been challenged.29

23.  Edwards 1976: 132. 24.  Harnack 1908: 168–9. 25.  J.M. Robinson 2005: 121–8. 26.  Christ 1970: 136–52; Suggs 1970: 67; Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 32–3; Burnett 1981: 63–5. Mack (1973) does not engage with Luke 13:34–35 but sees “himmlische Weisheit” as “Mutter” in Jewish thought (157), influencing the Wisdom/Sophia treatment of this passage. 27.  Harnack 1908: 168–9; Bultmann 1995[1921]: 114–15; Wilckens/Fohrer 1964: 515–16; Wilckens 1959: 164; Steck 1967: 232; Uro 1987: 236; Piper 1989: 164; Deutsch 1996: 74, 1990: 45; Robinson/Hoffmann/Kloppenborg 2002: 48–9. Verheyden summarizes: “The lament over Jerusalem…is uttered by Wisdom likening herself to a hen” (in Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 167). 28.  Burnett 1981: 65–75; Suggs 1970: 66–8; more tentatively Christ 1970: 148; van der Kwaak 1966: 163; Wilckens 1959: 164. Some appeal to rabbinic sources that describe Israelites gathering under the wings of the Shekinah. The logic runs: Wings = Wisdom and Wings = Shekinah → Wisdom = Shekinah → Jesus = Wisdom and Jesus = Shekinah. The problem lies in the middle term (see next note). 29.  The hurdles to the Wisdom = Shekinah hypothesis are the lack of strong attestation of the Shekinah theology pre-70 CE and the paucity of Jewish sources that connect Wisdom directly with Shekinah; “in the ideology of the Sages…the term ‘Shekhina’ is not connected with ‘Wisdom’, and the two are not identified” (Urbach 1979: 64–5). Also Gench 1997: 71; Tan 1997: 111; Deutsch 1996: 74.

134

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(iv) Transcendent Jesus. A few interpreters take the ὄρνις metaphor to reflect some sort of transcendent aspect of Jesus himself. Gathercole interprets ποσάκις ἠθέλησα as an indicator of preexistence, whereby the phrase portrays “a transcendent figure who has been summoning Israel to repentance throughout her history.”30 He also notes that the mother bird may allude to “some kind of identification of Jesus with the Lord of Israel.”31 Grindheim comments about Luke 13:34 that “Jesus appears to have placed himself in God’s role,” but he does not develop the point further.32 Hays argues that here “Jesus disconcertingly speaks as though from a divine perspective,”33 offering “nothing other than a cry from the heart of Israel’s God.”34 Ultimately, there are two live options for the target domain of the metaphor: Wisdom/Sophia’s “wistful longing”35 to be received by Jerusalem, or some aspect of Jesus’ character/significance. I will argue for an interpretation that fits categorically with the latter, so we must address the former in detail before moving on. 1.3. Is the “Mother Bird” a Wisdom/Sophia Metaphor? The case for taking GLuke’s ὄρνις as maternal Wisdom/Sophia is built on two main arguments: the sequence and wording of the pericope, and the elements of the Wisdom/Sophia mythology seen to be present. We will critique each in turn. 1.3.a. Literary Sequence and Wording. Those approaching Luke 13:34–35 from a Wisdom/Sophia perspective focus on its reconstructed form in the double tradition/Q, for which Q13:34–35 is one of a few sayings deemed to reflect some sort of Wisdom speculation.36 As mentioned above, the literary sequences in GMatthew and GLuke vary considerably for this passage. GMatthew places it (23:37–39) sequentially after the “blood of Abel” saying (23:34–36), with the combined pericope forming the seventh of seven woes in the latter part of Jesus’ temple week. However, GLuke places both sayings at different points of Jesus’ pre-Jerusalem 30.  2006: 214. 31.  2006: 218. 32.  2011: 130–1. 33.  2014: 70–1. 34.  2016: 261. 35.  Suggs 1970: 67. 36.  Other Wisdom texts include Q6:23; 7:35; 10:21–22; 11:49–51 (Tuckett 2014: 183; Kloppenborg 1987: 110–11; Windisch 1914: 230–3).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

135

travel narrative, with the “blood of Abel” saying (11:49–51) forming the fifth of six woes at the Pharisee’s house, several episodes prior to 13:34–35. There is also a noticeably higher level of verbatim agreement between Matt. 23:37–39//Luke 13:34–35, contrasted with the much lower agreement for Matt. 23:34–36//Luke 11:49–51.37 These differences fuel extensive debate about which evangelist, if either, has preserved the original sequence38 and whether the sayings originally circulated as a unit (as in GMatthew) or separately (as in GLuke).39 Key for our purposes is how the Wisdom/Sophia position requires one particular solution: (i) both sayings were originally a unit (as in GMatthew), (ii) prefaced by a single introduction (preserved only in Luke 11:49) wherein ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ speaks both, (iii) but which the author of Matt. 23:34 changes to ἰδοὺ ἐγώ (= Jesus) to reflect his interests in Wisdom Christology. Each point faces serious challenges. The categorical shift in verb tense from the first saying (future in Matt. 23:34–36; mixed future/present in Luke 11:49–51) to the second saying (aorist in both) undermines (i) and, to a degree, (ii).40 We would have to believe either that Sophia is describing the same event (her descent, rejection, reascent) twice in immediate sequence, but shifting from a future-looking perspective to a perfective (and/or past-looking) perspective, or that Sophia is not speaking in the second saying. The former is implausible, and the latter undermines the entire hypothesis.41 Moreover, if scholars are correct that GMatthew is actively promoting a Wisdom/Sophia christological agenda here and elsewhere, one must assume its readers would be able to detect the shift from σοφία to ἐγώ—which, incidentally, has been arguably the central 37.  Based on NA28, I count 4 “major” disagreements (excluding minor case or spelling variations) for the former versus 16 for the latter; or, on a percent basis, the overlap is ~90% for the former versus ~50% in the latter (Tan 1997: 123). CEQ follows GLuke nearly 100% for both. 38.  A minority view is that Jesus spoke the saying twice (Bock 2002: 277). 39.  The issue has generated voluminous discussion, as indicated by Johnson/ Steinhauser/Jolliffe’s collection of over 100 scholarly opinions (2014: 3–167; see Kloppenborg 1987: 227–30 for a summary). According to Johnson, ~80 support GMatthew’s sequence (or argue against GLuke’s) versus ~50 who support GLuke’s (or argue against GMatthew’s). Verheyden concludes, “Scholars seem to be at a loss… Both sides can put forward strong arguments and both can claim famous Q scholars for their view” (Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 163). CEQ opts for GLuke’s sequence. 40.  Steck 1967; Haenchen 1951: 56. 41.  This logic also undermines the use of “Wisdom of God said” in Luke 11:49 to support the theory that the saying derives from a lost Jewish apocryphon (recall §1.1).

136

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

plank of the entire thesis about GMatthew’s alleged Wisdom interest42— to achieve this effect. But without access to GMatthew’s source (or a different oral tradition, perhaps), how could the audience detect such a subtle change? The author may very well have made such a redaction, but without knowledge of this redaction the audience would likely be clueless as to its Sophialogical intention. Finally, recent scholarship has challenged the entire Wisdom-Christology-in-Matthew project altogether for a variety of reasons beyond just this passage, thus undermining the assumption behind (iii).43 In sum, sequence and wording cannot support the supposition that the “original” metaphor takes Wisdom/Sophia as its target domain, and certainly not in GLuke, where there is no reason to assume ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ in 11:49 carries over to 13:34. The hypothesis must be substantiated on other grounds, to which we turn next. 1.3.b. Connections to Wisdom/Sophia Mythology. The second and more substantive argument in favor of Luke 13:34–35 as a Wisdom/Sophia metaphor is how it ostensibly reflects three motifs that are central to the Jewish Wisdom myth:44 the sending of emissaries in 13:34b;45 the maternal nature of Sophia; and the bird/wings imagery. However, most proponents of the Wisdom/Sophia interpretation of Luke 13:34–35 rarely engage in any detail with the sources around which scholarship has reconstructed the Jewish Wisdom myth. They simply assume the motifs are there—but is that truly the case? A close reading reveals that none of these motifs are present in any substantial way in these sources, and ultimately there is little evidence suggesting the ὄρνις metaphor is related to Wisdom/Sophia. The relevant Wisdom/Sophia passages are found in Job 28:1–28; Prov. 1:17–33; 8:1–36; 9:1–6; Sir. 1:1–20; 4:11–19; 6:18–37; 15:1–10; 24:1–34; 42.  E.g., Gench (agreeing with Suggs, Burnett, others) argues this is a “quite significant…redactional move [that] effects an identification of Jesus and Sophia” (1997: 35; emphasis added). 43.  Gathercole summarizes, “rumors of a full-blown Wisdom christology in the Synoptics have in some circles been greatly exaggerated, even in the case of Matthew’s gospel” (2006: 209); Macaskill further argues against the thesis (2007) and, notably, ignores Matt. 23:37–39. Yet recent proponents include Wilson 2015; Deutsch 1996. 44.  Though Bultmann’s version has been challenged due to its over-reliance on gnosticism, all the scholars listed above (and others) subscribe to a “fluid, many-sided wisdom complex” present in select OT/Jewish texts (Gench 1997: 5). 45.  That is, the “prophets” and “those who are sent to it.”



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

137

51:13–30; Bar. 3:9–4:4; Wisdom 6–10; 11Q5 18; 21; 1 Enoch 42; 4 Ezra 5:6–53; and 2 Bar. 48:1–47. Sixteen motifs are regularly mentioned in Wisdom studies,46 including the three mentioned above (shown in italics): Motifs of the Wisdom/Sophia Mythology 9. Descent (from heaven) 1. Hiddenness 10. (Re)ascent (to heaven) 2. Preexistence 11. Dwelling with humankind 3. Independent hypostatic existence 12. Rejection by humankind 4. Possession of knowledge 13. Invitation to a meal 5. God’s creation of Wisdom 14. Sending of envoys 6. Wisdom’s agency in creation 15. Mother imagery 7. Revealing wisdom to world 16. Bird/wings imagery 8. Revealing wisdom to elect

I have examined each wisdom source text to detect the presence and relative importance of these motifs, summarized in the table below using the following key: ● ○ Blank ×

Strong presence, central importance in the text Present, but not central to the text Absence of the motif Contradicts the motif

Text Job 28:1–28 Prov. 1:17–33 Prov. 8:1–36 Prov. 9:1–6 Sir. 1:1–20 Sir. 4:11–19 Sir. 6:18–37 Sir. 15:1–10 Sir. 24:1–34 Sir. 51:13–30 Bar. 3:9–4:4 Wisdom 6–10 11Q5 18 11Q5 21 1 Enoch 42 4 Ezra 5:6–33 2 Bar. 48:1–47

1 ● ○ ○

2

3

4

●

● ○

○

●

○

○

●

● ○

○ ●

○ ○ ● ○

● ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ● ● ● ●

●

● ○

○

●

○ ○ ○

5

6 ○

●

○

●

○

● ● ○

7 ○ ● ● ○ ○

○ ●

● ○

○

8

● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 × ○ ○ ● × ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ○ ○ × ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ●

● ○

● ● ○

○

●

● ○ ○

●

● ○ ○

○

○ ● ○

○

○

× ×

× ×

× ○

× ×

46.  No scholar focuses on all; this list combines Christ, Mack, Wilckens, Suggs, Deutsch, and Wilson.

138

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

While this analysis could be debated at the margins, on the whole it makes clear just how diverse the portrayals of Wisdom/Sophia are among these texts47—a phenomenon which has only recently been taken seriously. No text presents the full Wisdom myth (let alone motifs 14–16), and some have such sparse traces of Wisdom motifs that one questions whether too much has been made of them.48 Partly for this reason numerous scholars challenge the hypostatic Wisdom myth altogether and discuss these texts more as “poetic personifications of God.”49 Abundantly clear from the analysis is the lack of support for the Wisdom/Sophia hypothesis with respect to Luke 13:34 and motifs 14–16. Motif 14—Sending of envoys. The data indicate that the sending of prophetic emissaries is not a central part of the mythology to begin with. The emphasis is clearly on Wisdom’s role in communicating knowledge, not sending people to do it on her behalf. Even the three I have marked ○ (as a concession to scholars that so often appeal to them) are far from convincing.50 Proverbs 9:3–6 (“She has sent out her servants [δούλους] to call…‘Come, eat of my bread’”) speaks of δοῦλοι who do not speak Wisdom’s message but rather invite people to a meal, where apparently Wisdom will do the talking. Wisdom 7:27 reads, “In every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets.” This is the locus classicus for many scholars, but the emphasis here is not on how these “friends”/“prophets” are sent to other people to proclaim a message, but rather on Wisdom’s role in edifying them.51 Finally, some find the envoy motif in 2 Bar. 48:9 (“You give wisdom to the spheres so that they minister according to their positions”), but finding traces of sending is terribly strained here, and the passage deals with planetary bodies. In short, the evidence suggests “there was no pre-Christian Jewish motif of the goddess Sophia sending her envoys with revelation for man.”52 Rather, “in biblical-Jewish tradition it is God, not Wisdom, who 47.  Even in Wis. 6–10, none of the individual sub-sections/poems come close to representing the whole Sophia myth; only by adding them together can one detect the range of motifs tabulated above. 48.  Deutsch at least admits that “we are dealing with a composite picture” built from disparate texts “taken as a whole” (1996: 21). 49.  R.B. Hays 2014: 83; similarly A.H. Lee 2005: 39; Bauckham 2008b: 18; Bovon 2002: 287; Harrington 1997: 252; Hurtado 1988: 41. 50.  Some include Sir. 24:32–34, though it mentions nothing about intermediaries but explicitly sees Sophia as the one teaching. 51.  As even Gench admits (1997: 17). 52.  M.D. Johnson 1974: 53. Mack argues that the sending-of-prophets motif “prejudges the very question” (1971: 354), whereby scholars find the motif in the gospels and read it back into Jewish sources.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

139

sends prophets.”53 Moreover, it is not clear that the speaker of 13:34b is even claiming to have sent the messengers in the first place, for they are reported as “having been sent” (τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους).54 Motif 15—Mother imagery. Many scholars argue the feminine ὄρνις metaphor reflects the maternal aspect of Wisdom/Sophia. But is this valid? While Wisdom/Sophia is undoubtedly expressed as a feminine personification (grammatically and semantically), there is limited evidence for Wisdom/Sophia specifically as a mother. Proverbs 8:32 and Sir. 4:11 speak of Wisdom’s “sons”; Wisdom is μήτηρ55 in Sir. 15:2–4 and γενέτις (“parent”) in Wis. 7:12; and Luke 7:35 speaks of Wisdom’s τέκνων. However, there are numerous cases where maternal references undermine identifying Wisdom/Sophia as a mother figure.56 In Sir. 1:14, Wisdom/Sophia is present with the faithful in the womb of the mother and is not the mother herself. The wisdom passage of Bar. 3:9–4:4 contains no maternal references; only in the next oracle (4:5–5:5) does maternal imagery begin, but here Jerusalem—not Wisdom—is cast as mother.57 In Wis. 7:1–7, the speaker distinguishes between the mother who gave him birth, and wisdom that he sought and received after birth. The wisdom portion of 11Q5 21.11–1758 speaks of a lover and a wet-nurse, neither of which is one’s mother.59 In multiple places in 4 Ezra 5.46–47, 50–51, a human mother is in view but never associated in any way with Wisdom. Finally, 2 Bar. 48:15–18 emphasizes that neither Wisdom/Sophia nor a mother (and the two are not equated) truly brings one into existence, but rather God. The evidence that GLuke’s ὄρνις necessarily reflects the maternity of Wisdom/Sophia is, upon inspection, unconvincing. 53.  Luz 2005: 159. 54.  Perhaps a divine passive (Jacobson 1992: 212; Miller 1988: 235). 55.  It continues, “like the wife of his youth she will welcome him,” undermining the maternal sense (similarly Wis. 8:2). 56.  Mack (1973: 155–8) also points to Philo to support the notion of “Weisheit als Mutter” (Conf. 49; Rer. 53; Cher. 49; QG 4.97), but it is doubtful that hypostatic Wisdom is in view here but rather knowledge in general or God’s possession of wisdom, for which Philo employs numerous metaphors (A. Lee 2005: 59–61). 57.  Scribal annotations in BAQ make clear that the wisdom portion ends at 4:4, as do modern commentators (S. Adams 2014: 40–7; Steck et al. 1998: 45–58). 58.  11Q5 here does not actually use the word ‫חכמה‬, but Sir. 51:13–20 does insert σοφία. 59.  Indeed, “I became ablaze for her, I could not av[e]rt my face. I stirred my soul for her and on her heights I was not calm. ‘My hand’ opened […] her nakedness” presumably does not refer to the wisdom-seeker’s mother. Sirach 51:19–20 LXX downplays this language (see Charlesworth/Rietz 1997: 187–91).

140

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Motif 16—Bird/wings imagery. Finally, the Wisdom-related texts are almost devoid of any positive association of avian imagery with Wisdom/ Sophia. In fact, it is puzzling why so many scholars assume that the “bird” is so self-evidently Wisdom/Sophia in the first place,60 since many passages that do include bird-related figures very clearly distinguish them from Wisdom/Sophia. Job 28:7 observes that birds do not know the path to where wisdom can be found.61 In Prov. 1:17 the writer uses the metaphor of trapping a bird to warn his son against foolishness. In Sirach 24, numerous natural source domains—trees, mist on the earth, pillar of cloud, waves of the sea, vine, plants taking root, canals of water, light—are mapped to Wisdom/Sophia, but not birds. Baruch 3:15–17 includes “those who have sport with the birds of the air” among those who cannot find Wisdom/Sophia. And little support can be found in Philo62 or Qumran.63 60.  Among numerous Wisdom motifs catalogued by Wilson (2015: 9–10), avian imagery is absent. 61.  The treatment of wisdom here and in Job 38:36 shines light on the problem with the appeal some have made to Lev. Rab. 25:5 as the background of Luke 13:34 (e.g., Dunn 1980: 203). The midrash takes Job 38:36 as its lemma and interprets the hapax ‫ שכוי‬as a cock/hen. The midrash then reads, “The hen, when its young are tiny, gathers them together and places them beneath its wings, warming them up and grubbing for them. But when they are grown up, if one of them wants to get near her she pecks it on the head and says to it, ‘Go and grub in your own dunghill!’” While the allegory here may confirm the cultural currency of metaphor in Luke 13:34, it militates against the Wisdom/Sophia connection, just as with Job 28:7, for in the midrash “wisdom” (‫ )חכם‬is something that can or cannot be possessed by the hen and is, thus, not identified with the hen. 62.  The lone example is Rer. 125–127, where the “turtledove and pigeon” of Gen. 15:9 are allegorically compared to “divine and human wisdom” (additionally, goat = teachable soul; ram = perfect speech; etc.). Philo goes on to clarify that “divine wisdom” is a “possession” of God while “human wisdom” is that which dwells among men. Hence, it lends little support to Wisdom/Sophia mythology. 63.  The closest example, 4Q541 f2–5, is highly fragmentary. DSSSE reconstructs vv. 7–8 as follows: “The in[struction of wis]dom will come before you who has taken her nest (‫)קנה‬, and the bird (‫)ועופה‬, he has hunted it and he has sought [it…] to eat.” This requires numerous assumptions in order to piece together several fragments (i.e. Wise/Abegg/Cook 2005: 313 provide an entirely different reconstruction). Puech comments that ‫( קנה‬the fragment breaks off before ‫ )ק‬could be a verb such as “acquérir” or a substantive such as “un roseau” or “son nid” (its nest), admitting that the last option might be supported by ‫ועופה‬, perhaps akin to the eagle messenger in 2 Bar. 77:19–26 (2001: 235). Whatever the case, it is highly speculative to connect “wisdom” to the “bird” or “nest” here.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

141

Other texts to which scholars appeal to defend this hypothesis are Sir. 1:15 (“[She] ἐνόσσευσεν among men an eternal foundation”) and 14:26 (“He will place his children under her shelter [σκέπῃ αὐτῆς],” RSV). While the verb νοσσεύω in 1:15 (cf. νοσσιά in Luke 13:34) could suggest building a nest (as NETS), the object θεμέλιος suggests “nesting” is less emphasized here.64 Moreover, while the sheltering sense of 14:26 may at first glance be evocative of a bird’s caring for her children, the extended metaphor in Sir. 14:22–27 draws on the source domain of a house, not a fowl, so the background of σκέπη is more likely to be other OT “shelter”-metaphors. 1.4. Summary Taking stock of the preceding arguments, it seems unavoidable to conclude that Luke 13:34 is simply not a metaphor for Wisdom/Sophia. I find myself, then, in agreement with Luz (though not with his counterproposal regarding a Q prophet), who concludes, “It is time to bury the thesis that Matt. 23:37–39 [par. Luke 13:34–35] is a wisdom saying.”65 The pillars of the argument crumble when the data are examined. We might also add that Luke 13:35 further undermines the Wisdom/Sophia argument. Contra Bultmann and others, there is simply no Jewish textual support for the notion that Wisdom/Sophia will “be seen again” (after her apparent reascent) with a future deliverer-figure.66 The Wisdom/Sophia reading of the ὄρνις metaphor appears invalid. Having demonstrated this, we can move forward with a more adequate reading of the text, beginning with establishing the OT/Jewish conceptual metaphor(s). 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors We begin by noting that Luke 13:34 maps two related yet distinct domains to the speaker: mother (i.e. τέκνα…ἑαυτῆς) and bird (ὄρνις/νοσσιά/ πτέρυξ). In fact, there are two implied mothers in the metaphor (a point 64.  LEH suggests “build” (420); RSV “made”; LXX.D “gründete.” Mack proposes possible mistranslation (1973: 24). Hoffmann also doubts whether it supports the Wisdom-Vogelmutter hypothesis (Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 152). 65.  2005: 159–60. Similarly Tan 1997: 111. 66.  Kloppenborg 1987: 227–30; Suggs 1970: 70. Hoffmann further argues that “house forsaken” in 13:35 also undercuts the Wisdom hypothesis, for “in den alttestamentlich-jüdischen Parallelen zu dieser Aussage ist es immer Gott, der sein Heiligtum, den Ort seiner Anwesenheit in Israel, verlässt, niemals aber die Weisheit” (Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 153).

142

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

which is frequently overlooked),67 the ὄρνις and Jerusalem. Our analysis will sketch particular ways the mother and bird domains as well as the “gathering of Israel” motif are employed in OT/Jewish tradition to provide the conceptual background of Luke 13:34. At the lexical level our primary evidence for mother metaphors will include passages using common familial (e.g., μήτηρ, τέκνα, υἱός, θυγάτηρ, παιδίον, πενθερά) and birthing lexemes (e.g., ὠδίνω, τίκτω, γεννάω) in such contexts wherein the semantics make it fairly clear that a mother–child relationship is serving as the source domain; similarly, for bird we will focus on ὄρνις, νοσσιά, πτέρυξ, πέτομαι and other common avian lexemes. 2.1. Source Domain(s) Both mother and bird domains could be outlined in tremendous detail, but we will limit ourselves to the elements most pertinent for our analysis. We will mention three elements of the mother domain:  Mother has sons and/or daughters. By definition (and attested throughout the OT), a mother is identified as someone who has natural-born or adopted children (e.g., Ps. 113[112]:9). (ii)  Mother cares for her children. A central element of the OT/ Jewish view of motherhood is that a chief responsibility of the birth/adoptive mother is to nurture and care for her children. (iii)  Children’s behavior impacts the mother. The actions of sons/ daughters can either bring blessing or humiliation upon the mother (Prov. 10:1; Mic. 7:6).

(i)

Given we are approaching ὄρνις generally as “bird” (not “hen”),68 we will bypass complex discussions of ornithology69 and instead focus on two broad elements of the bird source domain: (iv)  Bird’s wings are used to provide shelter. Wings of various creatures, including birds and angels, are often stretched out over someone both literally and figuratively to provide a place of protection or shelter (e.g., σκέπη/σκεπάζω, below). (v)  Bird’s wings are used for flight. Wings are also used for flight (e.g., Deut. 4:17; 2 Kgdms 22:11).

67.  Beavis (2003: 121) is one of few who makes this connection. 68.  Recall n. 1. 69.  See G.R. Driver 1955; Goodenough 1953.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

143

2.2. Source–Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors These source domains are employed in a variety of important metaphors in OT/Jewish tradition, but for our purposes we highlight two categories: the relationship between jerusalem/zion and Israelites, and the shelter offered by god to his people. We will also discuss in this sub-section the “gathering of Israel” motif, which, though not necessarily metaphorical, is critical to our study. 2.1.a. Jerusalem/Zion is a Mother to Her Children the Israelites. First we observe how the mother domain is regularly mapped in OT/Jewish tradition to the relationship that exists between the Jerusalem or Zion70 (as mother) and Israelites (as sons/daughters/children): Primary Evidence Ps. 87[86]:5

“Μήτηρ Σιων,” says one, and “A person was born in her (ἄνθρωπος ἐγενήθη ἐν αὐτῇ).”

Isa. 49:20–21

[God speaking to Zion, v. 14] Your sons (οἱ υἱοί σου), whom you have lost, will say into your ears, “This place is too narrow for me; make for me a place so I can dwell.” Then you will say in your heart, “Who has begotten to me (ἐγέννησέν μοι) these? But I was childless (ἄτεκνος) and a widow (χήρα), so who nourished these for me?”

Isa. 50:1

Thus says the Lord [to the people]: “What kind was your mother’s (τῆς μητρὸς ὑμῶν) certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away?… Behold, for your sins were you sold, and for your lawlessness I sent away your mother (τὴν μητέρα ὑμῶν).”71

70.  On Zion theology, Ollenburger summarizes, “The central feature of the Jerusalem cult tradition, and that which bestowed upon Zion its sacral character, is the belief that Yahweh dwells among his people in Jerusalem” (1987: 23). In this chapter (and in Chapter 5) I will use “Zion” (LXX transliterates ‫ ציון‬with Σιων) with the same dual referentiality seen in biblical usage: temple mount and Jerusalem itself (Otto 2003: 346–7). 71.  Here “the present generation is seen as [Jerusalem’s] children” (Watts 2005b: 746–8). Cf. Jer. 5:7: “[To Jerusalem, v. 1] For which of these should I be merciful to you? οἱ υἱοί σου ἐγκατέλιπόν με and are swearing by those which are not gods. But I had fed them, yet they were committing adultery and lodging in the houses of prostitutes.”

144

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Isa. 51:17–18

Stand up, O Jerusalem… There is no one to comfort you from all your children whom you bore (πάντων τῶν τέκνων σου, ὧν ἔτεκες).

Isa. 54:1

Rejoice, barren one who did not bear (στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα); break forth and cry out, she who did not suffer birth pains (ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα). For all the children (τέκνα) of the desolate one are more than the one who has a husband.72

Isa. 66:8, 11

Zion suffered birth pains and bore her children (ὤδινεν καὶ ἔτεκεν Σιων τὰ παιδία αὐτῆς)… You may nurse (θηλάσητε) and be filled from her consoling breast (μαστοῦ παρακλήσεως αὐτῆς).

Ezek. 19:1–2

You, take up a lament upon the princes of Israel and say, “Who is your mother (μήτηρ)?”

Bar. 4:12

[Jerusalem says:] I was left desolate because of the sins of my children (ἠρημώθην διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῶν τέκνων μου), because they turned away from the law of God.

1 Macc. 1:38

Because of [Antiochus’ army] the residents of Jerusalem fled; she became a dwelling of strangers; she became strange to her offspring (γενήμασιν αὐτῆς), and her children forsook her (τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς ἐγκατέλιπον αὐτήν).

Of note is how some of these utterances (Isa. 50:1; Bar. 4:12; 1 Macc. 1:38; cf. 4 Ezra 10:7 and 2 Bar. 3:1–2 below) conceptualize the historical destruction of Jerusalem/Zion in terms of a mother’s desolation due to her rebellious children. The conceptual mapping underlying these more vivid maternal metaphors may also ground several common “son of”/“daughter of”/“children of” tropes seen throughout the LXX: θυγάτηρ Σιων (28×), θυγάτηρ Ιερουσαλημ (16×), θυγάτηρ Ισραηλ (7×), τέκνα Σιων (Joel 2:23; Zech. 9:13), υἱοὶ Σιων (Ps. 149:2; Lam. 4:2), υἱοὶ Ισραηλ (719×).73 Of course, in 72.  “Dieser Text ist der Höhepunkt in der Darstellung Sion/Jerusalems… Die Stadt wird als Frau personifiziert” (Karrer/Kraus 2011: 2:2640). 73.  One wonders whether the aforementioned metaphorical utterances and tropes give a maternal coloring to Josephus’s “Where now is that great city, the μητρόπολις of the whole Jewish race?” (War 7.8.7) or Isa. 1:26 (κληθήσῃ Πόλις δικαιοσύνης, μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων). LSJ notes that μητρόπολις can carry a metaphorical sense (particularly when the relationship between a city and its colonies is in view), but in other cases it is simply “capital-city” (1130–1)—as in Josh. 10:2; 14:15; 15:13; 21:11.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

145

some instances the biological terms (especially υἱός)74 may simply mean “people of” or “members of a class,” but the quantity and variety of occurrences of these tropes renders it plausible that the maternal mapping colors at least some of them. As seen in Gal. 4:26 (“The above Jerusalem is free, and she is μήτηρ ἡμῶν”) and Rev. 12:1–6,75 the Jerusalem/Zion mother metaphor was very much alive among early Christians.76 In some cases Jerusalem/Zion is the mother of those residing within the city walls, but in most cases she is mother of all Israelites, wherever they are.77 This makes sense given the symbolic importance of Jerusalem/Zion as the center of the life of the nation: as the city goes, so goes the nation. We may map the underlying conceptual metaphor as follows:

(i) (ii) (iii)

jerusalem/zion is a mother to her children the israelites mother (source) target Mother has sons and/or → The people of Israel (inside or daughters outside the city) are the children of Jerusalem/Zion Mother cares for her children Children’s behavior impacts the → Jerusalem/Zion is left desolate mother as a result of her children’s rebellion

Secondary Evidence The Hebrew Vorlagen of each of the above-mentioned Greek OT metaphorical utterances also reflect, without exception, similar mother mappings, and the related tropes (e.g., ‫בת־ציון‬, ‫בת־ירושלם‬, etc.) are wellrepresented in the HB as well. A few additional examples may be mentioned: 11Q5 22.4–5, 7

At your [Zion’s] glorious breast they shall suckle (‫…)יינקו‬and your sons (‫ )בניך‬will rejoice in your midst.78

74.  See LSJ 1846–7. 75.  “The woman is not only Eve but also Zion” (Bauckham 1993: 89). 76.  Notably, GLuke is the only NT writing with θυγάτηρ Ιερουσαλημ (23:28)—see further below. 77.  Wolter observes that Jerusalem is the mother-city of “Angehörigen des jüdischen Volkes” (2008: 498). Likewise, Stuhlmacher remarks, “Jerusalem… ‘Mutter’ der Israeliten ist” (1989: 145). 78.  Here “Zion/Jerusalem [is] personified as a mother comforted with the imminent return of her exiled children” (R. Anderson 2013: 53).

146

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors 4 Ezra 10:7

For Zion, the mother of us all (ṣhywn ʾmʾ dkln), is in deep grief and great humiliation.

2 Bar. 3:1–2

O Lord, my Lord, have I come into the world that I may see the wickedness of my mother (dʾmy)? No, my Lord. If I have found favor in your eyes, first take my spirit that I may go to my fathers and not witness the destruction of my mother (dʾmy).79

2 Esd. 2:2, 5–7 Vg

[Referring to Zion, 2:40:] The mother (mater) who bore (generavit) them says to them, “Go, children (filii), because I am a widow (vidua) and forsaken (derelicta).”… [Ezra to God:] O Father, I appeal to you for a witness over the mother of these children (matrem filiorum)…that you bring them to confusion, and their mother (matrem) to spoil…let them be scattered among the nations.

It is worth noting in passing that there are a few isolated cases in which the bird domain is mapped to Jerusalem/Zion: Ps. 74:19 MT

Do not deliver the soul of your turtledove (‫ )תורך‬to wild beasts.80

LAB 39:5

Let the dove (columba) to which Israel has been compared teach you, because when her children (filii) are taken from her, still she does not depart from her place.81

4 Ezra 5:25–26

From all the cities that have been built you have consecrated Zion for yourself, and from all the flying birds (prḥtʾ) that have been created you have named for yourself one dove (ywnʾ).

Similar mappings of the bird domain are present in some rabbinic texts.82 The late and sparse attestation of this metaphor prevents us from pressing 79.  Gurtner translation. He notes 2 Bar. 1–5 deals with the destruction of “mother” Jerusalem for the sins of the people and connects “wickedness” (byšth) here to Isa. 50:1 (2009: 21–33). 80.  The psalmist is praying to God to remember Zion. 81.  The “comparison” refers is 23:7, where God addresses Abraham, “I will make you like the dove (columbe), because you have taken for me a city that your sons will begin to build.” 82.  See Goodenough (1953: 42–3) for examples from b. Ber. 53b; Tg. Esth.; Midr. Cant.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

147

it too much into service here. On the whole, however, the mother metaphor for Jerusalem/Zion is well-attested across relevant Greek and non-Greek sources. 2.2.b. God is the Mother Bird of Israel. We turn to OT/Jewish metaphors that conceptualize God metaphorically in terms of the bird and mother domains. Unlike other ancient deities, Israel’s God never appears theophanically in the form of a bird, but his care for Israel is often depicted in terms of (figurative) wings. There are two target domains to which the bird domain is mapped: deliverance and shelter.83 Primary Evidence In two important cases, God’s rescue of his people in the exodus is depicted as his flying them out of Egypt: Exod. 19:4

You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and I bore you as on eagles’ wings (ὡσεὶ ἐπὶ πτερύγων ἀετῶν) and brought you to myself.

Deut. 32:11b–12

Spreading his wings (διεὶς τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ) he received them, and he took them up upon his back (ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν μεταφρένων αὐτοῦ). The Lord alone was leading them, and there was no foreign god with them.84

These are among the few metaphorical utterances that portray the flight of God.85 We may outline its mapping as follows:

(iv) (v)

deliverance is flight on god’s wings bird (source) target Bird’s wings are used to provide shelter Bird’s wings are used for flight → God carries his people out of Egypt and brings them to himself

83.  Rightly noted by Korpel 1990: 550 (though most scholars fail to distinguish them). 84.  HB carries more a sense of “gather upon his pinions/wingtips” (‫)אברתו‬, for which there is debate about whether the Hebrew envisions the bird “teaching its young to fly” (see Christensen 2002: 797; Schroer 1998: 270; Peels 1994: 302). The Greek more clearly evokes flight from Egypt. 85.  Cf. 2 Kgdms 22:11; Ps. 18[17]:11.

148

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

More commonly the bird domain is mapped to “protection” (σκέπη)86 which God’s people find when he stretches his “wings” (πτέρυγες) over them to “give them shelter” (σκεπάζω)87 or “shade” (σκιά).88 Consider these examples: Ruth 2:12

The Lord God of Israel, to whom you have come to trust beneath his wings (ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ).

Ps. 17[16]:8

In the protection of your wings you will shelter me (ἐν σκέπῃ τῶν πτερύγων σου σκεπάσεις με).

Ps. 36[35]:8

The children of mankind will hope in the protection of your wings (ἐν σκέπῃ τῶν πτερύγων σου).

Ps. 57[56]:2

O God, be merciful to me, for my soul has put its trust in you, and I will hope in the shadow of your wings (ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τῶν πτερύγων σου ἐλπιῶ), until lawlessness passes by.

Ps. 61[60]:5

I will be sheltered in the protection of your wings (σκεπασθήσομαι ἐν σκέπῃ τῶν πτερύγων σου).

Ps. 91[90]:4

With his back (μεταφρένοις) he will give shade (ἐπισκιάσει) to you, and under his wings you will hope (ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτοῦ ἐλπιεῖς).89

Mal. 3:20

…Healing in his wings (ἴασις ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ).

This use of the bird domain coheres with other protection metaphors for Yahweh—κέρας (Chapter 2), λίθος/πέτρα (stone/rock, Chapter 5), ὀχύρωμα (fortress), πύργος (tower), and so forth90—and may be mapped as follows:

(iv)

protection is shelter under god’s wings bird (source) target Bird’s wings are used to provide → God offers protection and refuge shelter to his people

In Ps. 84[83]:4 even the birds who provide the source domain for these very metaphors seek shelter in the presence of God.

86.  LSJ 1606; GELS 623; LEH 555. 87.  LEH 555; GELS “provide protective covering for” (623). 88.  “Shadow (as protection)” (LEH 555–6). 89.  Ps. 91[90]:11–12 is quoted in Luke 4:10–11, indicating the author’s familiarity with it. 90.  See W. Brown 2002: 20.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

149

Some of these metaphors also convey a sense of parental nurturing, which comes to clearest expression in the following: Deut. 32:11a

Like an eagle to shelter his nest (ὡς ἀετὸς σκεπάσαι νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ),91 he [κύριος, v. 12] also attended upon his young birds (νεοσσοῖς αὐτοῦ).

Isa. 31:5

Like birds hovering (ὡς ὄρνεα πετόμενα), thus the Lord will defend Jerusalem—he will deliver and preserve alive and save it.92

Due to such passages, the bird metaphor is often mentioned as one of the few mappings of the mother domain to God in Scripture,93 but others may be mentioned: Isa. 42:14

I have kept silent, but will I always keep silent and be forbear? I have endured like the one who gives birth (ἐκαρτέρησα ὡς ἡ τίκτουσα)—I will confound and dry up at the same time.

Isa. 49:15

Will a woman (γυνή) forget her child (παιδίου αὐτῆς), to not have mercy on the offspring of her womb (τὰ ἔκγονα τῆς κοιλίας αὐτῆς)? But even if this woman forgets, yet I will not forget you, said the Lord.

Isa. 66:13

As a mother (μήτηρ) will comfort someone, thus I also will comfort you, and in Jerusalem you will be comforted.

Hos. 13:8

I will encounter them like a bear robbed (ἄρκος ἀπορουμένη), and I will tear apart the refuge of their heart.

One way to generalize these mappings of the bird and mother source domains to God’s relationship with Israel—most clearly expressed in Deut. 32:11, but fleshed out further by the other examples—is through the following conceptual metaphor:94 91.  Or perhaps “brood” (LSJ 1169). 92.  HB expresses this more strongly with a feminine participle, about which Korpel writes, “God cares for Jerusalem as mother birds watch over their young” (1990: 550). The context is that in which Jerusalem’s leaders are called to trust in Yahweh, not alliances (Watts 2005a: 479). 93.  See Dille 2004; Beavis 2003: 125; Schroer 1995: 70. Schmitt (1985) argues that God-as-Mother derives directly from Jerusalem/Zion-as-Mother (see §2.2.a). God is never directly called μήτηρ in the LXX. 94.  mother and bird are also combined (but not for God) in Ps. 84[83]:4; Jer. 17:11; 4 Macc. 14:15.

150

(ii) (iv)

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors god is the mother bird of israel source target mother Mother cares for her children → God nurtures his children, Israel… bird Bird’s wings are used to provide → …by protecting them and giving shelter them shelter

Secondary Evidence Apart from the Hebrew traditions behind the examples above—all of which, in their own linguistic particulars, provide similar conceptual mappings as their Greek counterparts—we find other examples in which the bird domain is mapped to God in Jewish literature: 4Q504 f6.7

You have lifted us wonderfully [upon the wings of] eagles (‫ )נשרים‬and you have brought us to you. And like an eagle (‫ )כנשר‬which watches its nest (‫)קנו‬, circles [over its chicks,] stretches its wings (‫יפרוש‬ ‫)כנפיו‬, takes one and carries it […]

1 En. 39:7

I saw their abode underneath the wings of the Lord of spirits.95

2 Bar. 41:1–4

But again, I have seen others who have forsaken their vanities, and fled for refuge beneath your wings (tḥyt knpyk).

Interestingly, Tg. Onq. Deuteronomy 32, though changing the naturebased metaphors (mapping honey, rock, milk, lamb, rams, goats) to spiritual/political glosses in vv. 12–15, retains the divine bird metaphor in v. 11 (it begins: “Like an eagle that hastens to its nest, covering over its children” [‫)]כנשרא דמחיש לקניה על בנוהי מתחופף‬.96 Furthermore, certain deities in antiquity were understood in similar ways as a bird with outstretched, protective wings. In Egypt, the depiction of Amon as a goose, Nekhebet as a vulture, Behedet as a falcon, and Horus, Maat, Isis, and Nephthys with wings led to the use of wings as a generic hieroglyph for the “feminine-motherly aspect” of protection.97 95.  Black/VanderKam/Neugebauer 1985 translation. 96.  For rabbinic texts, whereby “to be beneath the wings of the Shekhina signifies to be under the Lord’s protection,” see Urbach 1979: 47. 97.  Keel 1978: 192; also W. Brown 2002: 20; Schroer 1998: 262; 1995: 67 (“Ideogramm für Mutterschaft”).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

151

In Ugarit there was a relatively fuzzy line between “anthropomorphic and theriomorphic representations”98 of various deities who were portrayed in the form of birds of prey. Philo of Byblos describes the Canaanite gods as having wings.99 Elsewhere in the ancient Near East the dove was often “used as a divine symbol,” often in direct association with “the essential female deity” and always evoking a sense of “divine presence and protection.”100 This divine use of bird imagery continues in a somewhat looser way in the Greco-Roman period, with Zeus-Ammon associated with the eagle, Hera with the peacock, and Helios-Apollo with the hen/ cock.101 Among the numerous artifacts are the following:

Wall mural of the Egyptian goddess Isis, ca. 1300 BCE

Isis sheltering Osiris with her wings, Philae Temple, Egypt 98.  Korpel 1990: 549. 99.  Korpel 1990: 544; Barr 1974: 29, 60. 100.  Goodenough 1953: 27–30. 101.  Goodenough 1953: 32, 54, 60.

152

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Sumerian god Anzû

Obverse of a tetradrachm featuring Ptolemy IV, ca. 200 BCE102

Eagle associated with Zeus Hypsistos 102.  The Tyrian shekel circulating in first-century Palestine featured a similar bird.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

153

Without question “a strong connection was made in the Ancient Near East between the Mother-Goddess and the vulture” as well as other birds.103 Early Christians likewise retained aspects of bird imagery,104 such as the Holy Spirit’s descent at Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3:22). 2.2.c. “Gathering of Israel.” We noted above that GLuke’s ὄρνις metaphor features both refuge and gathering. Thus far we have seen that a dominant way in which mother and bird domains are mapped in OT/ Jewish metaphors is to the target domain of God’s provision of shelter to Israel. Other than possibly Exod. 19:4 (§2.2.b above), where the Israelites are “brought to” (προσάγω) God, the notion of gathering is not generally connected to bird metaphors. However, in non-metaphorical contexts God’s gathering (usually verbalized with [ἐπι]συνάγω) of the Israelites is widely attested across OT/Jewish sources.105 It is one of several concepts that express Israelite/Jewish eschatological hopes: in this case, that on some future day—either the return from the exile or a point beyond that—God will act decisively to gather the scattered Israelites back to Zion. Primary Evidence Deut. 30:3–4

The Lord will heal your sins and have mercy on you, and he again will gather (συνάξει) you from all the nations to which the Lord scattered you. Even if your dispersion is from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather (συνάξει) you.

Neh. 1:9

Though your dispersion is as far as the utmost of heaven, from there I will gather (συνάξω) them and lead them into the place where I chose to establish my name there.

Ps. 107[106]:2–3

Let those redeemed by the Lord, whom he redeemed from the hand of the enemy, acknowledge—he gathered (συνήγαγεν) them from the country, from the east and west, from the north and the sea.

103.  Schroer 1998: 280. 104.  Sühling 1930 remains a key work on this theme. 105.  A recent treatment is Fuller 2006, which indicates much consistency of the “gathering” motif regardless of the individual/community expressing it.

154

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Isa. 11:12

He will lift up a sign to the nations and will gather (συνάξει) the ruined of Israel, and the scattered of Judah he will gather (συνάξει) from the four wings of the earth.106

Jer. 23:8

Therefore the days are coming, says the Lord, and you will no longer say, “The Lord lives, who led the house of Israel out of Egypt,” but, “The Lord lives, who gathered (συνήγαγεν) all the offspring of Israel from the land of the north and from all the countries, where he had expelled them there, and he returned them to their land.”107

Jer. 32[39]:37

I myself gather (συνάγω) them from every land where I scattered them there in my wrath.

Ezek. 11:17

Thus says the Lord, “I will also receive them from the nations and gather (συνάξω) them from the countries, where I scattered them.”

Mic. 4:6

In that day, says the Lord, I will gather (συνάξω) the broken, and those who have been driven out and rejected I will receive.

Zeph. 3:18

I will gather (συνάξω) those who are crushed.

Tob. 13:5, 15

Again he will show mercy, and will gather (συνάξει) us from all the nations where you have been scattered.… Rejoice and be glad for the sons of the righteous; for they will be gathered (συναχθήσονται).

Sir. 36:10

[Addressing God, v. 1]: Gather (συνάγαγε) all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning.108

2 Macc. 1:27

[Prayer to God, v. 24:] Gather together (ἐπισυνάγαγε) our dispersion; free those who are enslaved to the nations.

See also:

Ps. 50[49]:5; Isa. 49:5; 56:8; Ezek. 28:25; 37:21; 39:27; Mic. 2:12; 2 Macc. 2:18.

106.  This follows the prophecy of the “ῥίζα of Jesse” (11:10), but it is God who is doing the gathering, not the “Root”-figure. 107.  This verse is found soon after 23:5 (‫ צמח‬passage) in MT but is relocated to the end of the chapter in LXX (see Karrer/Kraus 2001: 2.2776); in either case, it is God himself who is gathering. 108.  Here the imperative is addressed to God (36:11).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

155

Furthermore, in some cases it is explicitly the “children” who are to be gathered by God: Isa. 43:5

[Addressing Israel, v. 1] Fear not, for I am with you. I will bring your offspring (σπέρμα) from the east, and from the west I will gather (συνάξω) you.

Isa. 60:4, 22

[Addressing Ιερουσαλημ, v. 1:] Lift up your eyes all around, and see your children gathered together (συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα σου); look, all your sons (υἱοί) have come from far away, and your daughters (θυγατέρες) will be taken up on shoulders… I, the Lord, will gather (συνάξω) them in due time.

Hos. 2:2

The children (υἱοί) of Judah and the children (υἱοί) of Israel shall be gathered together (συναχθήσονται)… And they shall go up from the land.

Across these examples a key component of Israelite/Jewish eschatology (regardless of time horizon or specific community) is God’s direct intervention to “gather” the children of Jerusalem/Zion—that is, all the Israelites—from where they have been scattered.109 Secondary Evidence The vast majority of the Hebrew renderings of the above-mentioned passages (for which there are Hebrew Vorlagen) depict God’s gathering the exiles with the verb ‫קבץ‬.110 Other examples may be noted: 4Q386 f1 2.1–3

“Consider, son of man, the land of Israel.” And I said, “I have seen, YHWH; behold it is desolate. And when will you gather them (‫”?)תקבצם‬111

Shem. Esreh 10

Blow on the great trumpet for our freedom, and lift up a banner for the gathering (‫)לקיבוץ‬112 of the exiles. Blessed are you LORD, who gathers (‫)מקבץ‬ the scattered of his people Israel.

109.  Hoffmann observes along these lines that this motif “ist zudem ein zentral Begriff vor allem prophetischer Verheißung aufgenommen… Er bezieht sich dort immer auf Jahwes Heilshandeln” (Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 152). 110.  “Gather, collect” (BDB 867–8). While we want to avoid a word-concept fallacy, Mommer rightly notes that in contexts in which “the gathering of Israel for the salvific age” is in view, ‫( קבץ‬esp. Piel and Niphal) is almost invariably used, and “Yahweh is consistently the subject” (2003: 490). 111.  Part of Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385/386/388). DSSSE glosses ‫“ קבץ‬assemble.” 112.  Hebrew from Instone-Brewer 2003: 31; some read ‫לקבצנו‬.

156

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

2.2.d. Summary. We have surveyed two conceptual metaphors in which the mother and bird domains are used to conceptualize the relationship between the Israelites and jerusalem/zion or god. We have also outlined the (non-metaphorical) motif of God’s eschatological “gathering” of the children of Israel. While there are few extant OT/Jewish traditions that explicitly bring these together,113 we could postulate the following logical relationship among them. The children of whom Jerusalem/Zion is depicted as mother are, in turn, given refuge under the wings of God, their mother bird. Likewise, God intervenes to “gather” these same children. We might venture to summarize this metaphorical blend as something like god is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion: GOD IS THE MOTHER BIRD OF ISRAEL JERUSALEM/ZION IS A MOTHER TO HER CHILDREN THE ISRAELITES

DELIVERANCE IS FLIGHT ON GOD’S WINGS

PROTECTION IS SHELTER UNDER GOD’S WINGS

GOD IS THE MOTHER BIRD WHO GATHERS THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM/ZION

The “Gathering of Israel” Motif

Having outlined the relevant OT/Jewish conceptual backdrop, we return to GLuke. 3. The Ὄρνις Metaphor in Luke 13:34 Having dispensed with the alternative (Wisdom/Sophia) and developed a perspective on the relevant OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors, we turn our attention to Luke 13:34–35. The reading I propose here, wherein GLuke’s metaphor ascribes to Jesus a prerogative of God as the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion, will be developed in three steps: Jerusalem as mother, the gathering of her children, and the refusal of the gathering. 113.  I am unaware of a Greek example other than Luke 13:44 (par.) itself, hence its novelty. 4Q392 f6–9 5–7 has been “tentatively” reconstructed (Falk in Chazon et al. 1999: 42), “[as a fat]her to his son, and as a bird to the you[ng of] its nest, [he gath]ered [our] dis[persed ones].” Similarly García Martínez/Tigchekaar 2000; Wise/ Abegg 2005: 451. Falk admits the reconstruction is based in part on the idea that “God as a protective bird most plausibly binds these fragments together,” so there is some circularity.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

157

3.1. Mother Jerusalem Many other interpretations of GLuke’s ὄρνις metaphor fail to take into consideration the implied other half of the metaphor, the “mother” Jerusalem whose children Jesus seeks to gather. Throughout GLuke’s travel narrative, the city of Jerusalem has loomed as the ineluctable goal towards which Jesus presses (9:51, 53; 13:33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11).114 In §1.2 we noted that most scholars take Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ…ποσάκις ἠθέλησα in 13:34 to indicate prior visits to the literal, geographic confines of the city to accomplish some objective.115 This literal reading, however, generates problems for GLuke’s chronology and plays a major role in the theories about a “supra-historical” speaker. Certain factors indicate there is a better way of approaching the phrase. On the one hand, the stimulus for Jesus’ saying is indeed the literal city. In 13:33 he states that he must go “today, tomorrow, and the day following,” for a prophet cannot die ἔξω (adverb of place) Jerusalem. Additionally, the Pharisees who warn him about Herod in 13:31 may well be from the city, thus prompting the entire conversation. On the other hand, certain features indicate that Jesus’ addressee is personified. The repeated vocative116 and sevenfold use of the second person in 13:34–35 (σου, ἠθελήσατε, ὑμῖν 2×, ὑμῶν, ἴδητε, εἴπητε) strain the literal sense of bricks and mortar. The accusation that Jerusalem is the “city that kills the prophets” (13:34b) is difficult if Jerusalem is intended only literally, for it is hardly true that the city qua city has killed anyone.117 The mention of Jerusalem’s τέκνα also indicates a non-literal sense. Therefore, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” is best understood in terms of the antecedent OT/Jewish tradition wherein the literal city of jerusalem/ zion is being mapped metaphorically as the mother to her children the israelites—supplying the implied other half of GLuke’s metaphor. Prompted by the literal referent, Jesus addresses “Jerusalem” as a 114.  See the extensive analysis in N.H. Taylor 1999; Chance 1988; Bachmann 1980. 115.  E.g., “Jesus von vergeblichen Versuchen spricht” (Wolter 2008: 498). 116.  The only such case in the NT (cf. LXX 18×). 117.  Miller observes that, strictly speaking, this idea would be unparalleled elsewhere (1988: 234). While the history of Israel’s mistreatment of its prophets is clearly in view (Fisk 2008: 155; Steck 1967: 58), this specific accusation presents some challenges, for in the OT only one prophet (Uriah in Jer. 26:20–23) is recorded as literally dying within the city walls (cf. the killing of Zechariah the priest in 2 Chr. 24:17–23 and Jezebel’s non-specific killing of prophets in 1 Kgs 18:4). If “Jerusalem” is personification, this tension would dissolve (see Tan 1997: 75–7).

158

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

personified entity that represents (as mother) the Jewish people (her children). This is consonant with what we would expect on CMT grounds, namely, that a metaphor maps a (normally literal) source domain to its (normally figurative) target domain. Jesus’ saying, then, fits the common “Apostrophe to Zion” form (e.g., Isa. 52; Jer. 4; 6; 11Q5 22),118 whereby Jerusalem is addressed as a representative entity, irrespective of the addressor’s physical relationship to it. The following mapping is proposed: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) jerusalem/zion is a mother to her children the israelites

NT Appropriation



“Jerusalem,” the destination of Jesus’ journey, is the mother of the Jewish people

In short, Jesus’ use of literal Jerusalem in the common mother metaphor from OT/Jewish tradition does not require that he had previously been there multiple times, either as an adult or in some form of preexistence, to address it thus.119 Rather, his frequent (ποσάκις) desire/will (θέλω) to gather the children can encompass prior dealings he has with any of Jerusalem’s children, wherever they are, and does not necessitate repeated visits to the city. Indeed, Jesus has already interacted with Pharisees/teachers (5:17) and disciples/crowds (6:17) “from Jerusalem” in his Galilean ministry. 3.2. Gathering Jerusalem’s Children Such an appropriation of the OT/Jewish tradition of “Mother Jerusalem” helps frame the next part of GLuke’s metaphor: Jesus’ desire to gather her children. As outlined in the prior section, in OT/Jewish tradition the 118.  See M. Morgenstern 2007. Other post-exilic Jerusalem-as-Mother metaphors surveyed previously may originate from someone who is distant from the city or has never been there. 119.  Nolland 1993: 742. Similarly Hoffmann questions the übergeschichtliches Subjekt view and instead sees “Jerusalem’s children” as metonymisch for a group of Jews (Johnson/Steinhauser/Jolliffe 2014: 151–3; Hoffmann 1972: 173–4). Hoffmann is on the right track, but on CMT terms I would classify this use of “Jerusalem” as metaphor rather than metonym, though the relationship between the two remains debated within cognitive linguistics (Croft 2006; Nerlich/Brown 2006; Radden/ Kövecses 1999). A metonym may be understood as an intra-domain mapping within the same domain (from part to the whole) rather than a cross-domain mapping between two different domains.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

159

“children” of Mother Jerusalem are collectively the Jewish people, as are the objects of God’s eschatological “gathering.” Close examination suggests the same holds true for Luke 13:34.120 As is well known, GLuke envisions the Jews as constituted by two groups who are often in tension with one another.121 On the one hand, we have the religious authorities, including Pharisees, rulers, scribes, elders, priests, teachers of the law, and οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ.122 On the other hand, we have the Jewish populace at large, for whom GLuke uses a variety of collective signifiers (γενεά, ὄχλος, μαθητής, λαός).123 Both rightly qualify as τέκνα of Mother Jerusalem in 13:34. The religious leaders’ seat of authority is Jerusalem; they are (like “Jerusalem/city” in 13:34b) accused of killing the prophets in 24:20; and they are Jesus’ immediate audience in 13:31–35. Yet the use of “children” previously in GLuke seems most closely aligned with the populace as a whole: 1:17 (ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα);124 3:8 (τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ);125 7:35 (ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία 120.  A related issue to the immediately preceding one is whether Jerusalem’s τέκνα must refer only to proper Jerusalemites who live in the literal city. We should recall that the OT/Jewish mother conceptual metaphor envisions “Jerusalem” as mother to all Israelites, whether they live in the city or not; moreover, the “gathering” motif typically has in view Israelites who are outside Jerusalem being gathered back to Zion. Given its literary context, Luke 13:34 appears to leave the question open. 121.  Tannehill 1988: 69. See, e.g., 5:30; 6:1–11; 7:28–35; 13:10–17. 122.  Space does not permit examining the debate regarding whether Luke–Acts has a more positive view of the Pharisees than the other gospels (see Kingsbury 1992; Carroll 1988; J.T. Sanders 1985). 123.  Numerous studies of GLuke’s treatment of and terminology for the Jewish populace include Martínez 2010: 171–6; Tannehill 1999; 1986: 141–66; Matera 1993; Frankenmölle 1991; Moessner 1988; Tyson 1984; George 1968; Strathmann/ Meyer 1967; Meyer/Katz 1967; Jervell 1965; Rau 1965; Dahl 1958; Dupont 1956. (i) “Generation” (γενεά) typically appears in indictments of the Jews for their negative response to Jesus. (ii) “Crowd” (ὄχλος) is neutral and emphasizes the horde as the “anonymous background” (Meyer/Katz 1967: 585–6) of Jesus’ miracles and teaching. (iii) “Disciple” (μαθητής) can refer to the Twelve (8:22) or a more general group of followers (19:37) (Marshall 1999: 353–4). (iv) “People” (λαός) is used generally in its Septuagintal sense, as a quasi-technical term emphasizing the chosenness of the Jews as the Gottesvolk, in contrast to Gentiles (though the line blurs in Acts; compare 4:27 with 15:14). G. Lohfink in particular emphasizes GLuke’s use of λαός with heilsgeschichtliche significance (1975: 23, 27, 30). 124.  Schürmann describes this verse as dealing with “die Zurüstung des Volkes Gottes” (1969: 35); see also Bovon 2002: 37–8. 125.  John is critiquing the ὄχλοι who come to meet him in the region around the Jordan. See the discussions in Green/Hays 2010: 133–4; Fitzmyer 1985a: 468.

160

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς).126 Thus, it seems best to understand τέκνα in 13:34 as referring to the Jews collectively—including the leaders and the populace—as in OT/Jewish tradition. If so, we can unpack the metaphor as follows. First, GLuke’s combination of ὄρνις, νοσσιά, and ὑπο τὰς πτέρυγας from the bird domain invokes that protection is shelter under god’s wings metaphor. Jesus desires to be the one who gives shelter or protection to the children of Jerusalem on whose behalf he conducts his ministry. For the populace, such intention is expressed in Jesus’ mission to rescue God’s λαός from enemies/darkness (1:68–79), liberate the oppressed (4:18b), seek and find the lost (11:8–9; 15:1–32; 19:9), heal the sick (4:40; 7:22), and restore the marginalized (14:12). For the religious leaders, it is expressed in, for instance, Jesus’ open engagement with them—even sharing meals on multiple occasions—to correct their religious misunderstandings. GLuke’s depiction of Jesus’ desire to offer shelter is quite flexible and encompasses “all” of the Jews and any variety of things from which shelter is sought. This mirrors the underlying OT/Jewish conceptual metaphor, wherein Israel or individual Israelites seek refuge from enemies (Ps. 17[16]:8–9; Isa. 31:1–5), “storms of destruction” (Ps. 57[56]:2), dangers in the wilderness (Deut. 32:10–12), pestilence (Ps. 91[90]:1–5), and poverty (Ruth 2:11–12). The focus of the underlying conceptual metaphor is not the thing from which protection is sought, but rather the one in whom it is sought.127 And in antecedent bird metaphors, God alone is such shelter for the people of Israel, and no other. But in GLuke, it is Jesus. Second, while “under her wings” maps to shelter, the verb ἐπισυνάγω combined with Jerusalem’s children invokes gathering. As outlined in §2.2.c, a deeply rooted expectation among various Jewish communities,128 verbalized with [ἐπι]συνάγω, is that God himself would gather the children

126.  This passage is highly debated (see Martínez 2010: 207–8; Gathercole 2003: 486–7; Deutsch 1990: 34; Feuillet 1955: 166–7). I would argue that the “children” most naturally refer to the λαός who have ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεὸν (7:29), in contrast to the religious authorities who have rejected God (7:30). However, some argue that John and Jesus are the “children” here. Compare Matt. 11:19: ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς. 127.  Wright’s martyrological interpretation of 13:34—“[it] envisages a farmyard fire, in which the hen gathers her brood under her wings for safety,” such that the hen (= Jesus) burns in the fire but the chicks (= Jerusalem) are safe (1997: 570)—is interesting but has won few supporters. 128.  Even to the present day, e.g., Shem. Esreh 10 (see above).



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

161

of Jerusalem/Zion in the eschaton. GLuke has previously signaled that Jesus’ coming is the inauguration of this eschatological time for all Israel (infancy hymns; 3:4–17; 4:19; 11:23, among others),129 and the distinctive structure of GLuke emphasizes Jesus’ activities in the wilderness, Galilee, Samaria, and other locales on his journey to Jerusalem/Zion. Thus, Luke 13:34 catches Jesus in medias res succinctly summarizing his desire, not yet consummated, to gather the children of Jerusalem—leaders and populace130—in terms of a mother bird gathering her brood. Through this integration of shelter and mother bird with the OT/ Jewish “gathering” motif, GLuke appropriates precisely the same combination discerned in OT/Jewish tradition—god is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion—only now changing the target domain to Jesus: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) protection is shelter under god’s wings god is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion

NT Appropriation



Jesus is the ὄρνις who desires to provide shelter…



…And bring about the eschatological ingathering of the “children of Jerusalem”

What characterizes Jesus’ ministry in all the areas where he has preached, healed, rebuked, called to repentance, and so on? A desire to be the mother bird who enacts the eschatological, divine “gathering” of the Jews and give them refuge.131 3.3. Refusal of the Gathering Somewhat surprisingly, given the importance of the hope of the “gathering” in Jewish eschatology, GLuke’s ὄρνις metaphor concludes in 13:34c with the accusation, οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. The second-plural verb makes clear that 129.  Note the use of συνάγω in a possibly similar way to our metaphor in 3:17 (“[Jesus’] winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather (συναγαγεῖν) the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire”) and 11:23 (“Whoever does not gather (συνάγων) with me scatters”). 130.  Including those from Galilee and surrounding areas, those who leave Jerusalem to meet with Jesus (5:17; 6:17), and, upon his entry in Luke 19, those within Jerusalem itself. 131.  John 11:51–52 envisions a similar “gathering.”

162

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

it is the τέκνα who are refusing Jesus’ offer, not Jerusalem-as-Mother.132 How should we understand this in light of the collective sense of “children” outlined above? It is fairly clear how this indictment falls upon the religious authorities. They have maintained a long-standing opposition to Jesus to this point, which will escalate as the gospel unfolds (19:47–48; 20:1, 19, 26, 45; 21:38; 22:2). In fact, in Chapter 5 we will explore in more detail the religious leaders’ decisive rejection of Jesus and resulting condemnation. It is more complex with respect to the populace, given how they have been largely positive towards Jesus thus far in the gospel. However, subsequent developments reveal how Jesus’ indictment anticipates their refusal as well. Immediately following the ὄρνις metaphor is an ominous warning in 13:35 that features Ps. 118[117]:26:133 Behold, your house (οἶκος) is forsaken.134 And I tell you, you will not see me until you say,135 “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”

GLuke’s “house forsaken” is debated, as it could refer to the religious leaders as the “house” (thus reiterating our point above), Jesus’ temple action, or the temple destruction of 70 CE.136 Regardless of one’s stance on this point, it seems likely that the citation, at least on some level, anticipates the triumphal entry of Luke 19 (where Jesus states he is heading after “today…tomorrow…third day,” 13:32),137 given how Jesus’ disciples

132.  Pace Beavis (2003: 121), who argues that Jerusalem is a “bad mother” who “rejects the divine offer” to gather her children. Rather, “die Nestbrut widerstrebte und sich nicht under den Flügeln zusammenfinden wollte” (Steck 1967: 49); similarly Tannehill 1986: 155. 133.  This verse has been much debated with respect to whether it holds out a (conditional?) hope of salvation or declares a definitive judgment (Wolter 2008: 499, 1999; Fisk 2008: 168–9; Allison 1983); we will return to this below. 134.  Jeremiah 12:7 and/or 22:1–9 are most likely the background of this warning (Fisk 2008: 160; Weinert 1982: 75–6). 135.  There are numerous variants here; English translations omit [ἥξει ὅτε]. 136.  See summary in Fisk 2008: 162–3. In Matt. 23:38–39, “house forsaken” likely refers to 70 CE, and the psalm citation to the parousia (Wagner 1997: 163; Uro 1987: 236). 137.  Supporters of this view include J.M. Robinson 1998: 258; Moessner 1989: 118; Tannehill 1986: 155; Lindars 1961: 172. Others see it primarily as a parousia reference (Wolter 2008: 499; Nolland 1993: 742). Ferda’s suggestion that it refers to both, with the former serving as a “proleptic fulfillment” of the latter (2015: 39), is appealing.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

163

greet him by singing precisely this psalm as he approaches the city (Luke 19:38).138 When the Pharisees command Jesus to rebuke them (19:39), Jesus responds with another apostrophe/lament that intensifies 13:34–35: For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you (σε καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοί). And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation. (Luke 19:43–44)

Once again we have an address to the city in second person terms, evoking the same personification as 13:34. At the terminus of Jesus’ journey, the Jewish people refuse to “know the time of your visitation” (19:44)139 that is realized in Jesus. As a result, Jesus declares that judgment will fall specifically on “you” (= τὴν πόλιν, Jerusalem, in 19:41) and “your children within you” (19:44a)—again using τέκνα collectively for the Jews, though here emphasizing inhabitants of the city.140 In other words, the children reject Jesus → Jerusalem will be destroyed141 → the children, both the leaders and the populace, will suffer the repercussions. Notably, this outcome is consistent with the jerusalem/zion is a mother to her children the israelites metaphor from §2.2.a, wherein the “Children's behavior impacts the mother” (source domain element [iii]; especially Isa. 50:1; Bar. 4:12; 1 Macc. 1:38). Things further sour for the populace in the temple week. GLuke’s eschatological discourse (21:5–36) intensifies the judgments pronounced in 13:35 and 19:41–44,142 and Jesus foretells “wrath against this λαός” in 21:23—just as he said it would fall upon the “children” in 19:44. In the climactic trial scene, Pilate calls together “the chief priests and the rulers and the λαός” (23:13) who “together” (παμπληθεί, 23:18) demand the

138.  Discussed further in Chapter 5 §3.1.a. Interestingly, in both 13:35 and 19:38, GLuke does not quote the second clause of Ps. 118[117]:26: “We bless you ἐξ οἴκου κυρίου.” 139.  Recall Chapter 3 §3.2.b. 140.  However, as history would show, the destruction of the mother city by the Romans does not impact only Jerusalemites but also those outside the city. 141.  Whether this warning is ex eventu is immaterial to our interpretation, as our focus lies on the relationship between the lament of 13:34–35 and that of 19:41–44. 142.  For instance, “there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” in 21:6 explicitly recalls 19:44 (Wolter 2008: 670). It also recalls 13:35, if one takes οἶκος to be the temple.

164

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

death of Jesus.143 This is a shocking turn of events, wherein the λαός who had long-supported Jesus are now swayed. Jerusalem’s children, both the religious authorities and the populace, have in the end proven unwilling to be gathered by Jesus and, ultimately, request his death.144 With much poignancy, then, Jesus exhorts the “Daughters of Jerusalem” to “weep for yourselves and for your τέκνα” on his way to the cross (23:28).145 In the end we find that the refusal of the “children” to be gathered by Jesus (13:34) proves to be an indictment on not only the religious authorities but also the populace at large. In effect, the Jews collectively have refused their mother bird. This does not, however, imply Luke holds that 100% of all Jews have refused Jesus and, thus, the Jewish people have no hope of future salvation.146 The term τέκνα can be used in 13:34 to indict Jews collectively but not, strictly speaking, exhaustively. Both GLuke and Acts feature numerous individuals within the Jewish populace (and even some leaders) who are, in effect, “gathered” by Jesus. But the breadth of the indictment of 13:34 remains, and it is no surprise that Luke subsequently assigns blame for this act of refusal/rebellion to “chief priests and rulers” (24:20), “all the house of Israel” (Acts 2:36), “rulers of the people and elders” (Acts 4:8–11), and “those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers” (Acts 13:27). 3.4. Summary The preceding discussion demonstrates how approaching GLuke’s ὄρνις metaphor with the methodological assistance of CMT makes sense not only of the utterance itself but also its location and thematic links within GLuke. Before arriving in the city itself, Jesus invokes a common 143.  Winter/Burkill/Vermes conjecture a “copyist’s slip” turned τοὺς ἄρχοντες τοῦ λαοῦ (found in 19:47; 22:66) to τοὺς ἄρχοντες καὶ τὸν λαόν (1974: 141), which would exonerate the λαός. However, no Greek manuscripts support this reading (but some later non-Greek witnesses do; George 1968: 504). 144.  “The participation of the people in the rejection and death of Jesus is understood as a tragic error by a group which has, in part, been presented sympathetically. The people make one fateful misjudgment which brings disaster” (Tannehill 1986: 165). 145.  Tannehill writes, “Daughters” are “individualized spokespersons for the ‘daughter of Zion,’ a personification of the city itself” (1986: 165–6), including both Jerusalemites and pilgrims from elsewhere. 146.  This issue (which is not limited to 13:34–35) has been extensively debated, regarding whether Luke–Acts envisions a total hardening of the Jews or, rather, a differentiation between repentant and unrepentant—see Schröter 2013; Fuller 2006: 48–51; Matera 1993; Tannehill 1988; G. Lohfink 1975; George 1968; Jervell 1965.



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

165

OT/Jewish metaphor in addressing “Jerusalem” as mother of her children the israelites. Further, the combination of the mother (τέκνα/ ἑαυτῆς) and bird (ὄρνις/νοσσιά/πτέρυξ) domains with the “gathering” motif indicate that Luke 13:34 is appropriating precisely the same concept found in OT/Jewish tradition. The metaphor whereby god is the mother bird who gathers Jerusalem’s children is re-mapped: jesus is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem. Yet, his desire to gather the children is refused. Such an outcome is consistent with the OT/Jewish understanding of Israel’s pattern of rejection of God, as in Deuteronomy 32, where God is simultaneously the mother bird of his people (32:11) and the one rejected by them.147 Moreover, the first destruction of Jerusalem’s house in 605–586 BCE occurs precisely because of Israel’s rejection of God, including the leaders and people. Hope for a future “gathering” developed out of this disaster. Yet in GLuke’s narrative, when Jesus undertakes the gathering of these children as their mother bird, they prove unwilling— and judgment on Mother-Jerusalem and her children will again be poured out. 4. Christological Implications I have argued strongly against the Wisdom/Sophia reading of GLuke’s ὄρνις metaphor. Instead the data suggest that GLuke is appropriating a divine conceptual metaphor but applying it to Jesus, investing him with certain prerogatives distinctive to God himself.148 We may color in this interpretation further by comparing Luke 13:34 with two similar Jewish texts. (i) There are few pre-NT instances in which a human figure specifically “gathers” Israel149 other than Pss. Sol. 17:26, 147.  Deut. 32:5–6, 15, 21: “They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his τέκνα because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted γενεά.” 148.  One potential objection to this interpretation might be that Jesus’ self-identification as a prophet in 13:33 contradicts a “divine” Christology here. However, recall in Luke 7:16 the people rejoice at Jesus’ miracle by saying, “A great prophet has arisen” and “God has visited his people,” the latter of which I argue supports the broader theme of Jesus’ embodiment of the divine visitation of Yahweh (Lanier 2014a). In this text, prophetic and divine intervention stand side-by-side, as in 13:33–34. The tension simply indicates the complexity of GLuke’s Christology. By analogy, those who argue that Matt. 23:37–39 identifies Jesus as Wisdom/Sophia seem to have no problem with 23:36 (par. Luke 13:33), such that Jesus is simultaneously “Träger der Weisheit…[and] er spricht als die Weisheit” (Christ 1970: 130). 149.  Cf. Mark 13:27//Matt 24:31.

166

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

which depicts the Messiah-figure gathering a holy people (συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον). This lacks, however, the mother domain prominent in Luke 13:34, which instead appears previously in Pss. Sol. 11:2–6: Stand upon a high place, O Jerusalem, and behold your children (τὰ τέκνα σου), from the east and the west, gathered together once again by the Lord (συνηγμένα εἰς ἅπαξ ὑπὸ κυρίου)…that Israel might pass by at the visitation of their God’s glory (ἐν ἐπισκοπῇ δόξης θεοῦ αὐτῶν).

Note that here it is God, not the messiah-figure, who gathers the “children of Jerusalem” in the time of his visitation. (ii) The “Address to Jerusalem” in Bar. 4:5–5:9150 reads: [Jerusalem speaking:] [4:10] I have seen the captivity of my sons and daughters (υἱῶν μου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων)… [11] With joy I nurtured them, but I sent them away with weeping and sorrow. [12] Let no one rejoice over me, a widow (χήρᾳ) and bereaved of many… [21] Take courage, children (τέκνα), cry to God, and he will deliver you from the power and hand of the enemy.… [Prophet addressing Jerusalem:] [4:37] Behold, your sons (υἱοί σου) are coming, whom you sent away; they are coming, gathered (συνηγμένοι) from east and west, at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God… [5:5] Arise, O Jerusalem, stand upon the height and look toward the east, and see your children gathered (σου συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα) from the west and east, at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing that God has remembered them. [6] For they went forth from you on foot, led away by enemies, but God will bring them to you (εἰσάγει δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς πρὸς σε). (RSV)

The passage elaborates on the metaphor jerusalem/zion is a mother to her children the israelites and the desolation of the mother Jerusalem due to the children’s rebellion,151 culminating with the hope that God himself will one day “gather” the scattered τέκνα of Jerusalem.152 150.  There is debate about whether Pss. Sol. 11:2–8 has influenced Baruch here, or vice versa (S. Adams 2014: 136–40). 151.  S. Adams 2014: 117–18; Steck 1998: 60. 152.  I would also note 2 Esd. 1:28–32 (Vg), which likely reworks GLuke/ GMatthew here (Miller 1988: 234; Suggs 1970: 66). It reads (underlines denote key phrases for comparison to GLuke): “Thus says the Lord Almighty: ‘Have I not entreated you [Judah] as a father entreats his sons or a mother her daughters (mater filias) or a nurse her children, that you should be my people and I should be your God, and that you should be my sons and I should be your father? I gathered you as a hen gathers her brood under her wings (ita vos collegi ut gallina filios suos sub



4. Interpretation of the Ὄρνις Metaphor

167

Both passages combine jerusalem/zion is a mother with the “gathering” of Jerusalem’s children by God. But in Luke 13:34–35 it is Jesus who is portrayed in these terms. In OT/Jewish tradition there is no other mother bird for Jerusalem’s children who provides shelter, only God himself. Likewise God (in almost every case) “gathers” the children of Jerusalem from wherever they have been scattered. And consistently it is God whom the children of Jerusalem refuse. Thus, GLuke’s reworking of this tradition suggests a novel transformation of each of these elements: Jesus is the mother bird who seeks to give the children of Jerusalem shelter and “gather” them under his wings, but they prove unwilling. This strains the boundaries of a simple allusion/echo of Exod. 19:4, Deut. 32:11, or Ps. 91[90]:4a. It is a significant re-mapping of divine metaphors and motifs to a new target domain. As such, it suggests some form of divine Christology, where Jesus is conceptualized in terms of the distinctive metaphors and prerogatives normally predicated to God. We will elaborate on this further in Chapter 6. For now let us turn to our final Lukan metaphor.

alas suas). But now, what shall I do to you? I will cast you out from my presence.… I sent you my prophets (proiciam vos a facie mea…ego misi meos prophetas ad vos), but you have taken and slain them and torn their bodies to pieces.’” The difference in emphasis is fascinating: the mother, the bird who gathers the brood, the one pouring out judgment for their rejection, and the one who sends the prophets—is God himself.

Chapter 5 I nt e r p r etat i on

of t h e Λ ί θ ος

M e taphor s

Our final analysis takes up the two λίθος metaphors at the conclusion of GLuke’s Parable of the Wicked Tenants (PWT), both of which map the stone domain to Jesus but in different ways: 20:17b

λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας

20:18

πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ’ ὃν δ’ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν.

The former is a direct citation of Ps. 118[117]:22, while the latter has presented several intertextual challenges, as we will see. In both cases CMT is applicable. An overwhelming amount of research has been done on both the “stone” tradition and the parable. Arguably “stone” has received more treatment than any other NT metaphor, given the stone-related passages in the Synoptics; Acts 4:11; Rom. 9:30–33; 1 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6–8 (and Barn. 6:1–4). Simultaneously PWT (Mark 12:1–12; Matt. 21:33–46; Luke 20:9–19; GThom. 65–66)1 has presented innumerable challenges in the field of parable interpretation.2 However, there has been no substantial treatment of GLuke’s use of these stone metaphors, and 20:18 is often lost in the fray of other PWT-related discussions. In this chapter I will examine the christological implications of both metaphors, arguing the following: Luke 20:17 (shorthand: “rejected stone”) portrays Jesus in terms of the OT/Jewish conceptual metaphor king is a rejected/ selected stone, while 20:18 (“crushing stone”) portrays him in terms of israel’s judgment/salvation by god is an encounter with a stone-rock. 1.  Marcion’s gospel excludes PWT and both stone metaphors (Epiph., Pan. 42.11.6[55]; Roth 2015: 460; Lieu 2015: 197). 2.  Dodd describes it as “the most difficult of parables” (1961: 124); Hengel similarly describes it as standing “im Kreuzfeuer der Kritik” (1968: 1).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

169

1. Preliminary Questions Before we turn to discussions of GLuke’s source (for 20:18) and the main interpretive positions, it is worth commenting on five other debates that inform our discussion. (i) PWT presents several critical challenges that have received much scrutiny in recent decades: narrative structure, realism, OT intertexts, source-criticism (including the “new” Synoptic Problem),3 metaphorical or allegorical correspondences, purported original, authenticity, and interpretation. I have covered these in detail elsewhere, so they need not be recounted here.4 We will focus on GLuke’s rendering of the parable as it relates to the stone metaphors, highlighting only exegetically significant Synoptic differences5 along the way. (ii) Some argue the PWT’s stone sayings are secondary accretions deriving from the early church’s post-resurrection apologetic, while others argue the Psalm 118 citation is the authentic dominical utterance that launched all other “stone” sayings in the NT and early Christian literature. I have summarized the various points of contention elsewhere.6 While I am persuaded by the evidence in favor of their authenticity, a firm stance is not necessarily required for our analysis of the stone metaphors’ contribution to the christological outlook of GLuke. (iii) The stone metaphors have for over a century been the chief witness in support of the theory that a written collection of apologetically focused OT excerpta, florilegia, or testimonia circulated among early JewishChristians prior to the writing of the NT.7 Even if this were true—and the jury is still out—it is of doubtful relevance to Luke 20:18, which fails to meet the testimonium criteria: it is not an OT citation (see below), it does not apparently circulate independently among early patristic writers

3.  That is, the direction(s) of influence among GMark, GMatthew, GLuke, and GThomas (see Gathercole 2014b; Goodacre 2014; Kloppenborg 2014). PWT presents a challenge in source-critical discussions, as none of the off-the-shelf theories (Two Source; Neo-Griesbach; Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre) sufficiently explain all the variations among the four traditions. 4.  Lanier 2016c. 5.  Specifically: the sequencing of the parable within GLuke’s passion narrative; GLuke’s muted allusions to the vineyard song of Isa. 5:1–7; the judgment dialogue in (20:15–17); the omission of Ps. 118[117]:23 after the first stone metaphor; and the inclusion of the “crushing stone” metaphor. 6.  Lanier 2016c, 2013 (including the question of “son-stone” wordplay). 7.  Recall Chapter 1 n. 45.

170

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(only in quotations of GLuke, which themselves are rare),8 and it does not cohere with the apologetic themes assumed to be central to the theory (as we will see in §3). (iv) A stunning amount of scholarly effort9 has been poured into the question of whether the hapax κεφαλὴ γωνίας in Ps. 118[117]:22 (and Luke 20:17b) refers to a foundation stone,10 keystone of an arch,11 masonry block (quoin) that interlocks two walls at their intersection,12 or capstone/copestone at the top of the building.13 With respect to GLuke, the stone 20:18 is ambiguous: someone can fall upon it, but it can also fall upon someone. If forced to choose for 20:17b, I would tentatively argue for a foundation-stone.14 Either way, GLuke’s main emphasis in both verses lies on the stone’s significance and function, rather than its architectural position. (v) Luke 20:18 is textually secure,15 but there is substantial textcritical debate surrounding whether the apparent parallel in Matt. 21:44 is authentic or interpolated from GLuke. The reading is present in 8.  I find ~10 citations in Origen, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Cyril of Alexandria. Dodd’s suggestion that Luke found the saying alongside Ps. 118:22 in an early testimony-book, but that later editions (such as Cyprian’s) accidentally dropped it out, seems special pleading (1952: 128). Jülicher appeals to Aphrahat as evidence that Luke 20:18 circulated in a testimony-book alongside Isa. 28:16 (1976[1910]: 2.401). Aphrahat I.6 reads: “Every one that believeth on it shall not fear. And whosoever falleth on that stone shall be broken, and every one on whom it shall fall, it will crush” (Schaff’s translation). However, Aphrahat is likely quoting GLuke here, not a pre-existing stone testimonium (Baarda 1995: 288). 9.  See summary in Berder 1996: 111–20. 10.  Namely, a Grundstein placed first that ensures the structure remains square. The stone of Hebrew Isa. 28:16 is considered to be this type (Cahill 1999: 351; Joachim Jeremias 1930: 277–8). But ἀκρογωνιαῖος used in Greek Isa. 28:16 is also used in Symmachus’ rendering of a top-stone in 4 Kgdms 25:17. 11.  Marshall 1978: 732. 12.  Fitzmyer 1985a: 1282; Derrett 1965: 181–3. 13.  Namely, an Abschlußstein that completes the building (Joachim Jeremias 1964; 1937; 1930; Hossfeld/Zenger 2011: 442); e.g., κεφαλὴ γωνίας in T.Sol. 22:7–8; 23.4 refers to the top of the temple. A variant on this position is Le Bas’s “pyramidion” hypothesis (1951, 1950, 1946). 14.  Given the redemptive-historical concerns of Luke–Acts, it makes more sense that the stone is not a finishing capstone—implying the building, however understood, was finished (aorist passive ἐγενήθη)—but a foundation-stone, signaling the beginning of something new with Jesus (see Weder 1978: 159). 15.  NA28 lists no variants. Per Swanson (1995: 334): Λ switches ἐπ’ to εἰς; 157 inserts οὖν after πᾶς; Δ drops the final δ’; W 69 change the tense of πέσῃ; and 124 reads τὸν λίθον ἐκεῖνον.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

171

most uncials, miniscules, Byzantine witnesses, lectionaries, versions, and church fathers. However, it is absent in D 33 itb,d,e,ff1,ff2,r1 sys Orig Euss Irenlat. The shorter Western reading has, since the time of Westcott-Hort’s “Western Non-Interpolation” hypothesis,16 led the editors of most Greek editions and synopses to enclose the verse in brackets, suspecting it was interpolated from GLuke into GMatthew early in the textual tradition.17 Elsewhere I have made the case in detail that the external and internal evidence best support this case for interpolation into GMatthew.18 For our purposes, then, Luke 20:18 is unique to GLuke and, thus, is a potentially important christological indicator for the gospel. Let us turn now to the two main preliminaries for GLuke. 1.1. What Is Luke “Quoting”? Luke 20:18 is widely considered “obscure,”19 and there is tremendous diversity of opinion with respect to its precise source, for which both OT and non-OT proposals have been offered. 1.1.a. OT Proposals. Scholars treating Luke 20:18 as an OT quotation or allusion offer two candidates, both of which have very limited verbal/ syntactical parallels (underlined): Luke 20:18

πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον συνθλασθήσεται· ἐφ’ ὃν δ’ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν

Isa. 8:14

ἐὰν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς, ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι

Dan. 2:44–4520

Theodotion λεπτυνεῖ καὶ λικμήσει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας, καὶ αὐτὴ ἀναστήσεται εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὃν τρόπον εἶδες ὅτι ἀπὸ ὄρους ἐτμήθη λίθος ἄνευ χειρῶν καὶ ἐλέπτυνεν τὸ ὄστρακον, τὸν σίδηρον κτλ.



Old Greek πατάξει δὲ καὶ ἀφανίσει τὰς βασιλείας ταύτας, καὶ αὐτὴ στήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καθάπερ ἑώρακας ἐξ ὄρους τμηθῆναι λίθον ἄνευ χειρῶν, καὶ συνηλόησε τὸ ὄστρακον, τὸν σίδηρον κτλ.

16.  Westcott/Hort 1890: §§240–242. 17.  Metzger 2006: 47; Aland/Aland 1987: 232–3; Kloppenborg 2006: 194–6. 18.  Lanier 2016a. 19.  Marshall 1978: 732. 20.  Ziegler/Munnich 1999 (Göttingen).

172

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

There are three views, each of which faces difficulties. (i) Daniel only. Some argue that only the Daniel 2 stone (Theodotion, specifically), given its eventual messianic treatment in Judaism21 and use of λικμάω,22 serves as the source for Luke 20:18.23 However, this position is weakened by several considerations. The verb λικμάω is not so rare that GLuke’s audience would automatically jump to Daniel.24 GLuke’s (and his audience’s) familiarity with some sort of Ur-Theodotion is also difficult to substantiate. Contextually the Danielic stone refers to political-eschatological Israel that crushes other political kingdoms, which is a concept quite removed from GLuke’s parable, where the stone is clearly Jesus and the kingdom/Israel emphasis is absent (contrast Matt. 21:43). The Daniel 2 stone rarely features as one of the christological stone passages until the patristic writers;25 Jewish messianic interpretations are late;26 and Daniel 2 as a whole plays little role in the NT and in GLuke specifically.27 Finally, this position fails to explain Luke 20:18a. (ii) Isaiah only. Others concur that the parallels with Dan. 2:44–45 (Theodotion or OG) are too slender to substantiate an allusion/echo, leaving only Isa. 8:14 as the source.28 Favoring this position is the 21.  The evidence for pre-NT messianic treatment is sparse. Joachim Jeremias (1964: 273) cites Josephus (War 10.210) as the main evidence, but it is by no means clear that the aspect of the “stone” about which Josephus “resolved not to speak” is its messianic content. Rather, a more natural reading is that Josephus prefers not to detail how the Daniel 2 stone refers to a (Jewish) nation that destroys the fourth pagan nation (Rome). 22.  “Crush, destroy” (Bornkamm 1964: 280; LSJ 1050; BDAG 596), or “winnow, scatter like chaff” (LSJ 1050; LEH 373). 23.  Meier 2012: 134; Jaubert 1973: 220; Hillyer 1971: 73; Joachim Jeremias 1964: 275; Bornkamm 1964: 281; Barnard 1964: 310; Siegman 1956: 376 (who calls it a “citation of Dn 2”); Oort 1909: 139. 24.  The verb is used ~17× in the LXX and over 300× elsewhere in the TLG corpus. 25.  Justin may be the first (Dial. 70, 76), appealing to Dan. 2 to support the virgin birth; but Black argues 4 Ezra 13:5–13 is the earliest Jewish-Christian midrashic treatment of Dan. 2 (1971: 13). 26.  Num. Rab. 13.14; Midr. Tanch. Toledot 20; Yalk. Shim. to Zech. 4:7. The latter two cite Zech. 4:7, describe the “great mountain” and “stone” as ‫מלך המשיח‬, and interpret it as the stone cut out in Daniel’s vision. 27.  See Sundberg 1959: 274; Dodd 1952: 69. 28.  Kloppenborg 2006: 218; Klauck 1978: 314; J.A.T. Robinson 1975: 450 (and among GMatthew commentators, Bonnard 1992: 317; Albright/Mann 1971: 265–6; Stendahl 1968: 67).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

173

possibility (which most of its proponents actually overlook)29 that Isa. 8:15a contributes an additional verbal parallel: διὰ τοῦτο ἀδυνατήσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται. However, the verbal/ syntactical parallels are, as with Daniel, quite slim, and it fails to explain Luke 20:18b. (iii) Conflation of both. The most common position is that Luke 20:18 is a conflation of both OT passages: Isa. 8:14 for 20:18a and Dan. 2:44–45 (Theodotion) for 20:18b.30 In addition to the problems with each half mentioned above, we should also note that the vast majority of conflated/composite quotations in the NT—even those possibly undergoing verbal transformations due to memory or oral tradition—are nevertheless much closer to a known Greek or Hebrew text-tradition than here. In short, there is simply little to go on if one simply applies standard intertextual criteria: λίθος is not itself enough to make clear that either of these two texts are the source of the quotation or allusion, and against the λικμάω parallel are other contextual factors that together would undermine the case (even according to common intertextual criteria, including Hays’s). I will argue instead that these two OT passages do form part of the conceptual metaphor structure that Luke 20:18 is appropriating in a novel way, but they are not, strictly speaking, the specific literary source(s) of Luke 20:18. 1.1.b. Non-OT Proposals. Among those who reject Isaiah 8 and Daniel 2, a number of solutions have been proposed. Some argue Luke 20:18 is a proverb31 derived from the author’s creative reworking of other traditions available to him, such as Sir. 13:2,32 Esth. Rab. 7:12,33 m. Sanh. 6:4,34

29.  Kloppenborg is an exception (2006: 218). 30.  E.g., Klein 2006: 625; Albl 1999: 271; Fitzmyer 1985a: 1286; Sicre 1977: 82; Bruce 1973: 233; Black 1971: 11; Derrett 1965; Swaeles 1960: 311. 31.  Hubaut 1976: 64–6; Bornkamm also mentions this possibility (1964: 281). 32.  “How can a clay pot take part with a kettle? It [the pot] will strike against and it will be broken (συντριβήσεται).” 33.  “If a stone falls on a pot, woe to the pot! If a pot falls on a stone, woe to the pot! In either case, woe to the pot!” (Simon 1961e: 85). Suggested by Snodgrass 1983: 77; Marshall 1978: 732. 34.  “One of the witnesses shoves him by his hips; if he falls onto his chest, he is turned onto his hips. If he dies from this, it is sufficient; if not, the second takes the stone and throws it upon his chest. If he dies from this, it is sufficient”; cf. b. Sanh. 45a-b.

174

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

and even Aesop 52.35 However, none of these candidates are close to the idea in GLuke, nor is it plausible that Luke had familiarity with the latter three. Others suggest that an otherwise unattested agraphon is the source,36 and the wildest guess is that Luke 20:18 reflects a “warrior’s boast” from Mandaean Liturgy.37 Yet others argue that Luke 20:18 is simply the author’s own “midrashic” commentary on the preceding stone quotation;38 while this points in the right direction, the use of the label “midrash” is suspect here. In sum, a definitive solution remains to be found for the specific source behind Luke 20:18; on standard intertextual grounds or otherwise, “l’origine reste obscure.”39 Rese, for instance, describes it as “das extremste Beispiel für die Freiheit des Lk bei der Heranziehung von Schriftzitaten vorliegt.”40 Bock suggests, most accurately in my view, that “there is no clear verbal link to any specific text. It is better to see a conceptual appeal to the stone…than a specific reference to a single text… Given the lack of verbal connection, a conceptual allusion is likely.”41 But which conceptual “encyclopedia”? As outlined in Chapter 1 §3.3, the weight of evidence indicates that OT/Jewish traditions are the appropriate places to begin, given the scripture quotation formula of 20:17a (τί οὖν ἐστιν τὸ γεγραμμένον τοῦτο)42 and the OT backdrop (Isa. 5 and elsewhere) of the vineyard at the heart of the parable. Thus, I aim to build on Bock’s insight by approaching Luke 20:18 (in conjunction with 20:17b) as a novel metaphor that draws on multiple OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors.43 35.  This fable features a clay jar’s fear of a bronze jar striking and shattering it (see Gibbs 2002); mentioned by Bornkamm (1964: 281). 36.  Snodgrass 1983: 71; Klauck 1978: 290; Wellhausen 1904: 112. 37.  Doran 1983 (but he does not go so far as to propose direct literary borrowing). The liturgy reads, “Any demon that dasheth himself against me will be shattered and if I strike at him he will be dashed to pieces” (16.2) (Drower 1959: 11; Lidzbarski 1962: 23). 38.  Frolov 2007: 26; Moyise 2001: 47; Lowe 1982: 257. 39.  Hubaut 1976: 66. 40.  Rese 1969: 173. 41.  Bock 1996: 1592, 1605. 42.  Cf. γεγραμμένον/α in Luke 4:7; 18:31; 21:22; 24:44; and γέγραπται in 2:23; 3:4; 4:4, 8, 10; 19:46; 24:46. It is possible that the author intended this formula to apply to both 20:17b and 20:18 (see Kloppenborg 2006: 214; Rese 1969: 172), but NA28/UBS5 render only 20:17b as such. 43.  Though I would not go so far as Carlston: “[it is a] confused deposit of an early Christian use of scriptural texts dealing with Christ as Stone” (1975: 80).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

175

1.2. How Have the Metaphors Been Interpreted? Though the source of the “rejected stone” metaphor in Luke 20:17 is obvious, scholarly interpretations are quite diverse and fall essentially in line with one’s view of the PWT as a whole:44 namely, this citation of Ps. 118[117]:22 reflects the early church’s apologetic regarding the death/resurrection of Jesus;45 Jesus’ fulfillment of the Jewish expectation that the Davidic Messiah (“beloved son”) would be rejected but eventually vindicated;46 or Jesus’ heilsgeschichtliche role in facilitating the transfer of the kingdom (or spiritual Israel, or the covenant, or spiritual temple) to the Gentile church.47 Apart from this third position, which some consider to be more pronounced in GMatthew than in GMark/GLuke, there is little discernible difference in how scholars interpret the metaphor specifically in GLuke versus the other two Synoptics. For most Lukan scholars the “messianic” stone interpretation is particularly strong, especially when this instance is viewed against the backdrop of other so-called NT stone testimonia mentioned above. Many scholars view the “crushing stone” metaphor as a “riddle”48 that has “no connection to the parable…[so] it is not easy to determine what Jesus intended by this saying.”49 Thus, many pay little attention to it. Among those who offer an interpretation, nearly all agree that 20:18 primarily intensifies the negative tone of GLuke’s PWT and suggests the unavoidable nature of judgment that will fall upon those who reject

44.  See Lanier 2016c. Various marginal readings (e.g., son/stone = John the Baptist; Lowe 1982) and the interpretation of the “stone” in GThom. 66 (Gathercole 2014a: 464–6; Kloppenborg 2006: 270–1; Weder 1978: 162) need not be examined here. 45.  Bovon 2012: 37; O’Toole 2004: 173–5; Kingsbury 1986: 645; Fitzmyer 1985a: 1282; Caird 1968: 220–21; Lindars 1961: 173–4. Against this view, see Duplantier 1989: 262. 46.  Bock 1996: 1603; Kimball 1993; Milavec 1989: 307–8; Snodgrass 1983 (though questioning whether Jesus intended it as an open claim to messiahship); Bousset 1970[1921]: 80; Derrett 1965. Numerous scholars (e.g., Kümmel, Klauck, Jeremias) question the view that υἱός could have been understood messianically by Jesus’ audience. Note, however, the “messianic” uses of ‫ בן‬in 4Q174, 4Q246, and 4Q369. 47.  Iverson 2012; Hultgren 2000: 351–82; Oberlinner 2000; Trimaille 1989; Kümmel 1978; Carlston 1975: 178–90. 48.  Witherington 2006: 406. 49.  Caird 1968: 220–21.

176

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

the claims of Jesus over them.50 In the main this view has much to commend it, but I will argue this metaphor conveys more christological content than often granted. 1.3. Summary We have surveyed numerous issues surrounding the interpretation of the two λίθος metaphors in GLuke and PWT. One observation to be made in light of the extensive research, particularly for Luke 20:18, is that there has often been a disconnect between scholars’ views of the source of the “crushing stone” saying (intertextual allusion/echo or otherwise) and its interpretive significance in GLuke. For instance, simply saying that Dan. 2:44–45 or Esth. Rab. 7:12 are behind the metaphor ultimately sheds little light on Luke 20:18 as it functions in GLuke, for it is by no means obvious what the gospel author would be getting at by appealing to those texts in such an obscure, indirect way. By bringing to bear the insights from CMT in establishing rigorously the “encyclopedia” of OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors which GLuke is appropriating (or not) in 20:17–18, I hope to make steps towards overcoming this disconnect. 2. Establishing the Conceptual Metaphors The stone metaphor is one of the most studied of all OT metaphors.51 Though stone and rock-related passages show up seemingly everywhere (~400× in LXX/HB; dozens in DSS, OTP, rabbinics, NT, and Christian literature), nearly all prior studies limit themselves to five: Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118[117]:22; Dan. 2:34–35, 44–45; and Zech. 3:8–9. Most simply describe that the stone metaphors show up frequently (and, in some cases, become messianized in their reception history). Of more interest for our purposes in advancing the discussion for Luke 20:17–18 is to ask why, from a cognitive perspective, the stone metaphors function this way, and how they relate to each other. That is, why would an Israelite think of God as a rock, or a king as a stone, to begin with? 50.  Onyenali 2013: 105; Puig à Tàrrech 2013: 113; Bock 1996: 1604–5; Klauck 1978: 314; Bornkamm 1964: 281; Jülicher 1976[1910]: 2:402. 51.  Monograph-length treatments include Dekker 2007; Kowalski 1996; Berder 1996; Olofsson 1990; Snodgrass 1973; Eichhorn 1972. To these may be added the stone/rock discussions in broader works (Brunson 2003; Creach 1996; Daniélou 1966).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

177

Given the quantity of possibly relevant data, the ensuing analysis will necessarily be limited in its supporting passages and source → target mappings. 2.1. Source Domain Before outlining the relevant elements of the source domain, we must determine whether to confine ourselves to λίθος (used in Luke 20:17–18) or also include metaphors involving πέτρα.52 At the lexical level, of course, there is a distinction: λίθος primarily carries the sense of a “stone” that is a detached object or the hard material that makes up such objects, while πέτρα carries the sense of an immobile geological formation such as a “rock,” “cliff,” “crag,” or “boulder.”53 At the semantic level, however, there are a few phenomena that indicate the boundary between the two lexemes is somewhat permeable.54 (i) Deviations in LXX translation patterns. While in most cases the LXX follows a consistent pattern (‫ → אבן‬λίθος and ‫צור‬/‫ → סלע‬πέτρα) in Job 41:7 and possibly 2 Kgdms 17:13 the translator may be reading ‫צר‬/‫ צור‬but translates with λίθος, not πέτρα.55 (ii) Similar literal uses. 1 Kingdoms 6:14 describes a λίθον μέγαν used as an altar, while Judg. 6:20–21 and 13:19 speak of a πέτραν used the same way. 1 Kingdoms 17:40 and 2 Kgdms 17:13 speak of λίθοι from a χείμαρρος (“brook”), while Job 22:24 similarly speaks of the πέτρα in a χείμαρρος. (iii) Parallelism. Wisdom 11:4 reads, “Water was given to them ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου // and healing of thirst ἐκ λίθου σκληροῦ.” Job 14:18b– 19a reads, “A πέτρα will wear out in its place // water will wear away λίθους.” (iv) Occasional interchangeability. Josephus, for example, sometimes switches between lexemes in the same contexts: “The troops…cast javelins and λίθοις at the king’s men… His men threw πέτραις at them 52.  Lexically both Greek words map pretty closely to Hebrew ‫ אבן‬and ‫צור‬/‫סלע‬, respectively. In the HB, ‫ צור‬and ‫ סלע‬are essentially synonymous (Fabry 2003: 314; Haag 1999; Olofsson 1990: 46). For a discussion of the Hebrew issue, see Snodgrass 1973: 9–11. 53.  LSJ 1049, 1397; GELS 431, 555. The word πέτρος occupies a middle position and can be used for both a “stone” (detached object; e.g., 2 Macc. 1:16; 4:41; Jos., War 5.174) or “rock” (formation; e.g., Isa. 2:19); πέτρος is quite common in antiquity but only occurs 13× in the LXX (often translating ‫ )סלע‬and 0× in the NT. However, note the Πέτρος/πέτρα wordplay in Matt. 16:18. 54.  L&N (2.21–24) locates both words semantically proximate to one another. 55.  Thus LEH.

178

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

from above” (Ant. 14.456–460);56 when describing Herod’s construction projects, Josephus summarizes how he built edifices ἐκ λευκῆς πέτρας (Ant. 15.331) and ἐκ λίθων λευκῶν (Ant. 15.392).57 He also makes an interesting use of πέτρα where we would otherwise expect λίθος. In War 5.270–273 Josephus describes how Jews would cry out τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ, “The son is coming” (ὁ υἱὸς ἔρχεται), when enemies use catapults against them in battle. This puzzling phrase most likely derives from the similarity in pronunciation between ‫“( בן‬son”) and ‫“( אבן‬stone).58 However, in Josephus’s description of the battle scene itself, he does not use the expected Greek equivalent (λίθος) but, rather, πέτρα.59 (v) Similar metaphorical use. Both words are used figuratively for the attribute of hardness: τὴν καρδίαν τὴν λιθίνην60 (Ezek. 36:26); ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ…ὡς λίθος (Job 41:16); ἔσται…κραταιότερον πέτρας (Ezek. 3:9); ἐστερέωσαν τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ πέτραν (Jer. 5:3). As will be detailed below, both λίθος and πέτρα are used in metaphors taking the people of Israel as the target domain. Moreover, in Isa. 8:14 both lexemes are used in the same metaphor that maps to the God of Israel (λίθου προσκόμματι…πέτρας πτώματι). Similar interchangeability is common in Christian writings, indicating that in Luke’s linguistic environment (regardless of final decisions on dating), such flexibility in metaphors was not uncommon. For instance, both Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6–8 feature a modified form of the Isaianic λίθος/πέτρα metaphorical utterance;61 Justin observes how the prophets describe Jesus as λίθος καὶ πέτρα ἐν παραβολαῖς (Dial. 113.38); and Barn. 6:2–3 describes Jesus as both λίθος ἰσχυρός and στερεὰν πέτραν. None of these considerations suggest λίθος and πέτρα are synonymous, but rather that their semantic domains overlap enough for us to draw on both in discussing a general stone-rock source domain, while respecting lexical differences in metaphor mappings as needed.62 56.  Cf. David’s throwing a λίθον at his enemy (1 Kgdms 17:49) and soldiers throwing πέτρους in 2 Macc. 1:16; 4:41. 57.  Throughout this section he also describes various structures as λίθοι, λίθου κατασκευή, etc. (15.334, 335, 338, 339, etc.). 58.  Berder 1996: 210; Snodgrass 1973: 93; Black 1971: 13. 59.  Four times: αἱ βαλλόμεναι πέτραι; ἐφυλάττοντο τὴν πέτραν; ἡ πέτρα φέροιτο; διεκπίπτειν τὴν πέτραν. 60.  Adjectival form of λίθος. 61.  Paul also refers to Christ as πέτρα in 1 Cor. 10:4. 62.  While our focus has been on the Greek lexemes, many of these examples of overlapping semantics apply to the corresponding Hebrew words ‫ אבן‬and ‫צור‬. Additionally, we see in Hebrew that (i) both are used in similar “begetting” metaphors



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

179

From a CMT perspective this is a natural approach, as metaphorical utterances can map the same domain or reflect the same underlying conceptual metaphor even if lexemes differ.63 The stone-rock domain includes a few sub-categories:64 (i)

 Used as cultic building material or to support the temple. Both λίθος and πέτρα are used in altars and memorial pillars (Gen. 28:18; Josh. 8:31; Judg. 6:21; 13:19; 1 Kgdms 6:7, 14; 3 Kgdms 18:32; Ps. 102[101]:14–15; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; cf. Jos., Ant. 8.60–63),65 as components of the temple complex (3 Kgdms 5:32; 7:46–48; Jos., Ant. 5.331–339), and as the foundation of the Zion-temple complex (3 Kgdms 6:1a; Isa. 16:1; Ps. 27[26]:4–5). (ii)  Used as secular building material. λίθοι are used in non-cultic building applications, such as wells (Gen. 29:2–10), city walls (Neh. 3:34–35), towers (Gen. 11:3), and houses (Lev. 14:40–45; Jer. 43[50]:9; 51[28]:26). (iii)  Characterized by durability and strength. Naturally occurring λίθοι (Job 6:12) and πέτραι (Deut. 8:15) possess the attributes of hardness, permanence, and strength.66

(Deut. 32:18; Jer. 2:27); (ii) both are used for God (‫ צור ישראל‬in 2 Sam. 23:3 and ‫אבן‬ ‫ ישראל‬in Gen. 49:24); (iii) both are used at Qumran to describe the faithful community (e.g., 1QHa 14.28–30; 15.11–12); (iv) ‫ אבן שתיה‬is often interchangeable with Zion’s ‫ צור‬in later Jewish use (e.g., Lev. Rab. 20.4 [Israelstram/Slotki 1961g: 256]). 63.  E.g., love is a journey does not require that specific utterances use only “journey.” Basson summarizes (for rock, in particular), “The psalmist employs four different Hebrew terms…as a means of accentuating the shelter provided by the deity.… In terms of the cognitive theory of metaphor, one can argue that the underlying cognitive strategy, with regard to the utilisation of these refuge metaphors, is that of metaphor coherency. One of the tenets of the cognitive view of metaphor is that concepts can be coherent when they ‘go or fit’ together” (2005: 14). 64.  See similar analyses in Kowalski 1996: 86–9; Alden 1980; Schwarzenbach 1954. Some elements are not covered here due to infrequency: pillow (Gen. 28:11), seat (Exod. 17:12), burial-stone (Josh. 8:29; Lam. 3:53); cutting instrument (Josh. 5:2–3); writing material (Exod. 24:12; 34:1–4); provider of honey (Ps. 81[80]:17) or water (Exod. 17:6; Num. 20:8–10). 65.  Kowalski emphasizes the numinous presence of God on such rocks, as we saw with the altar horns in Chapter 2 (1996: 70–73). Beer traces the origins of the Steinkultus of Israel to these initial memorial/cultic uses (1921: 2–3). 66.  Recall the metaphors listed above.

180

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(iv)

 Offer shelter/refuge. When referring to boulders, caves, or high cliffs, πέτρα denotes a place of shelter or refuge from enemies (Exod. 33:21; Num. 24:21; 1 Kgdms 13:6; Ps. 104[103]:18; Isa. 22:16). (v)  Serve as a notable topographic feature. In several cases, λίθοι and πέτραι are used as geographic markers and often assigned a name (e.g., λίθος τοῦ βοηθοῦ in 1 Kgdms 7:12; λίθου τοῦ Ζωελεθ in 3 Kgdms 1:9; πέτραν τὴν Ρεμμων in Judg. 20:45; πέτρα ἡ μερισθεῖσα in 1 Kgdms 23:28).67 (vi)  Used physically against someone. Both λίθοι and πέτραι can be thrown at (Lev. 20:2; Num. 14:10; 1 Kgdms 17:49) or dropped on (1 Kgdms 14:33; Jos., Ant. 14.460) an enemy to harm or kill them.68 (vii)  Constitutes precious material (often for making things). λίθος often denotes naturally occurring gemstones (Gen. 2:12; 2 Kgdms 12:30; 4 Kgdms 9:1; Job 28:6), precious stones used with the ephod (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–11), or material used for carving false idols (Lev. 26:1; Deut. 4:28; 4 Kgdms 19:18; Dan. 5:4). 2.2. Source-Target Mappings and Conceptual Metaphors While most prior studies of the stone/rock metaphors have focused on the key five,69 we will cast our net wider to establish in detail, from a host of specific utterances, how OT/Jewish tradition maps the stone-rock domain to four target domains of most interest here: people of israel, king, god himself,70 and judgment/salvation. 2.2.a. People of Israel are on/of Stone-Rock. We begin with metaphorical utterances in which the Israelites/Jews are conceptualized via the stone-rock domain in a variety of ways.71

67.  Also common in Hebrew (e.g., Josh. 15:58; 18:17 Judg. 7:25; 1 Sam. 4:1; 5:1; 7:12; Neh. 3:16). 68.  Cf. “rocks” held in the hands of the Titans in battle (πέτρας…ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες) (Hes., Theog. 675). 69.  Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118:22; Dan. 2:34–35, 44–45; Zech. 3:8–9. 70.  Bruce recognizes similar categories: “nation of Israel” (or “faithful remnant”), the “person of its king,” and “Yahweh himself” (1973: 235). 71.  See Betz’s discussion of the use of stone imagery for the Gottesgemeinde (1957).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

181

Primary Evidence Isa. 51:1–2

Look to the firm rock (ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τὴν στερεὰν πέτραν) which you have hewn, and to the pit of the cistern which you dug out. Look to Abraham your father (ἐμβλέψατε εἰς Αβρααμ τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν), and to Sarah who labored for you. For he was one, and I called him and blessed him.72 Isa. 54:11–12

[Speaking to personified Israel:73] O humble and unstable one, you who has not been comforted—behold, I myself will prepare your stone (λίθον) as coal and your foundations as sapphire, and I will set your fortifications as jasper and your gates in crystalline stones (λίθους), and your encircling walls in select stones (λίθους).

Lam. 4:1–2

How will the gold grown dim—how will the good silver change? Holy stones (λίθοι ἅγιοι) were brought forth at the head of every exit.The precious sons of Zion (υἱοὶ Σιων οἱ τίμιοι) who have been lifted up in gold. How are they considered as clay vessels, the work of a potter’s hand?74

Zech. 9:16

The Lord will save them in that day—his people as sheep—because like holy stones (λίθοι ἅγιοι) they have been thrown down upon his land.75

Two other metaphorical utterances—Zech. 12:3 and Dan. 2:34–35, 44–45—also speak of Israel as a λίθος, but we will cover them in §2.2.d below. These examples indicate much flexibility in the mapping of the stone-rock domain, which we can generalize as follows:

72.  The parallelismus membrorum of rock/Abram and pit/Sarah makes clear that it is Abraham as progenitor of Israel who is the στερεὰν πέτραν (agreeing with Kowalski 1996: 282–3 and Uchelen 1968: 187–8; pace Boer 1965: 58–67). 73.  See Chapter 4 n. 74, as well as 4Q164 below. 74.  The parallelism suggests the “holy stones” = “sons of Zion” (see Emerton 1967: 233). The Hebrew reading may also involve ‫בן‬-‫ אבן‬wordplay. 75.  LXX deviation from HB here is “vielleicht beeinflusst von Klgl 4,1” (Karrer/ Kraus 2011: 2:2466).

182

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

people of israel are on/of stone-rock source target Used as cultic building material → Firmly established by God (Isa. or to support the temple 54:11–12) Used as secular building material Characterized by durability and → Made fruitful out of barrenness strength by God (Isa. 51:1–2) Offer shelter/refuge Serve as a notable topographic feature Used physically against someone Constitutes precious material → Precious possession of God (often for making things) (Lam. 4:2; Zech. 9:16)

Secondary Evidence In addition to the Hebrew traditions behind the examples listed above (which map ‫ אבן‬and ‫)צור‬, we find the following: Jer. 21:12a–13

O house of David! Thus says the LORD… Behold, I am against you, O inhabitant of the valley, O rock (‫)צור‬ of the plain, declares the LORD; you who say, “Who shall come down against us, or who shall enter our habitations?”76

1QHa

[14.28–30] My God, I le[an] on your truth, for you place the foundation upon rock (‫)סלע‬, and beams to the correct size, and a t[rue] plumb line to [str]etch out, tested stones (‫ )אבני בחן‬to build a fortress which will not shake.… [15.11] You placed me like a sturdy tower, like a high wall, you founded upon rock (‫)סלע‬.77

4Q164 f1 1–3

They will found the council of the Community, [the] priests and the peo[ple…] the assembly of their elect, like a sapphire stone (‫ )אבן‬in the midst of stones (‫)אבנים‬.78

76.  This boast presents a vivid reversal of Zion theology: to the proud Jerusalemites who believe they (not Yahweh) are a secure rock, Yahweh declares that he is against them (Lundbom 2004: 114–16). W. Holladay comments, “Jerusalem has been tempted in her complacency to deify herself, taking on self-descriptions appropriate only to Yahweh himself” (1986: 577). The LXX transliterates as Σορ. 77.  These passages apply Isa. 28:16 (which we will cover in §2.2.c) to the Community. 1QS 8.5–7 and 4Q541 f24.5 similarly invoke “foundation stone” but only use the verb ‫יסד‬. 78.  This fragment (= 4QpIsad) is a pesher on Isa. 54:11–12.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

183

Expanding on the mapping outlined above, we find that Jer. 21:12a–13 employs element (iii) to convey Israel’s hardened opposition to God; the 1QHa passages draw on elements (i) and (iii) to portray the community as a temple-like edifice built on rock/stone; and 4Q164 maps element (vii) much like the aforementioned examples. This conceptual metaphor that understands the people of Israel in terms of the stone-rock domain appears to be unique to Israel within the ancient Near East. 2.2.b. King Is a Rejected/Selected Stone. In light of how later Jewish and Christian writings apply some λίθος metaphors to deliverer-figures— including metaphors that in their original context appear to take something else as their target domain—it is perhaps surprising that only one example, Ps. 118[117]:22, seems to fit this category in its original setting, and even this is debated. Primary Evidence Given the importance of Ps. 118[117]:22 to Luke 20:17, we will devote considerable attention to it. Before doing so, the λίθοι in Zechariah 3–4 need to be mentioned: Zech. 3:8–9

Hear now, O Joshua the great priest, you and your comrades sitting before you, for they are divining men: behold, I will bring my servant Ἀνατολή. For the stone (λίθος) that I have set before Joshua, on the single stone (λίθον) are seven eyes. Behold, I will dig a hole.

Zech. 4:7–10

Who are you, O great mountain, to prosper before Zerubbabel? And I will carry out the stone of the inheritance (τὸν λίθον τῆς κληρονομίας)—equality of grace, grace to it! And a word of the Lord came to me, saying, “The hands of Zerubbabel have founded this house, and his hands will complete it.”… And they will rejoice see the plummet stone (λίθον τὸν κασσιτέρινον)79 in Zerubbabel’s hand. These are the seven eyes of the Lord.

These λίθοι have attracted messianic speculation among some scholars,80 given the cast of characters—Joshua, Zerubbabel, Ἀνατολή81—present in 79.  More woodenly, “stone of tin.” 80.  E.g., Hillyer 1971: 66; Hooke 1956. 81.  Heb. ‫( צמח‬recall Chapter 3 §1.4). See Karrer/Kraus 2011: 2.2458.

184

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

these sequential visions. There are several reasons, however, for taking both λίθοι to refer to the building of the temple.82 Let us turn now to Psalm 118:83 Ps. 118[117]:22

The stone, which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner. λίθον, ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας

The first-person speaker of the psalm alternates from singular (vv. 5–21) to plural (vv. 23–27) to singular (v. 28).84 There is strong support for the view that the “I” is a kingly figure who represents the “we,”85 who calls upon all of Israel and the house of Aaron to praise the Lord (vv. 2–4) and leads the communal procession into the sanctuary (vv. 19–20). The “builders” (οἰκοδομοῦντες) apparently represent enemies (ἐχθρούς, v. 7) who have opposed/rejected the king, as evidenced by the way the “I” describes how he was distressed (v. 5), surrounded by πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (vv. 10–12), thrown down (ὠσθεὶς ἀνετράπην τοῦ πεσεῖν, v. 13), and near death (v. 17). While some suggest that λίθος refers to the nation of Israel

82.  For 3:8–9, see Wolters’s summary of the numerous options (2014: 102–3); LXX’s “dig a hole” (as well as HB’s “engrave an inscription”) is suggestive of preparation for a foundation-stone (“die Vorbereitung einer Grundsteinlegung”; Karrer/Kraus 2011: 2.2458). For 4:7–9, see the extensive discussions in Berder 1996: 135–44; Snodgrass 1973: 36–43; Le Bas 1951, 1950, 1946. Four factors suggest it refers to the foundation stone of the temple: the use of θεμελιόω in 4:9a; the future expectation of completion (ἐπιτελέσουσιν) in 4:9b; Zerubbabel’s wielding of a plummet-stone in 4:10; and his role in laying the temple foundation in Ezra 3:6–12. Observe also the “seven eyes” associated with the λίθος in each scene. 83.  There is no clear consensus regarding the date and composition-history of the original psalm (Brunson 2003: 23–6; Berder 1996: 92–101; Schröten 1995: 80–1) or the date of its Greek translation. Its importance is unquestioned, however, as it is a key part of the Jewish Hallel and is one of the most-cited passages in the NT. 84.  Commentators debate whether the psalm is individual or collective (Hossfeld/Zenger 2011: 231–3; Sicre 1977: 73–5). A mediating position whereby the individual represents the community seems best supported by the data (Eichhorn 1972: 9–17). 85.  The view that Ps. 118 is a royal psalm remains the most influential—see Hossfeld/Zenger 2011: 232–3; Brunson 2003: 34–45; Berder 1996: 74–9; Allen 1983: 123; Klauck 1978: 306; Dahood 1970: 155.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

185

as a whole and not to the speaker,86 a better case can be made that the stone is self-referential and depicts the direct, saving intervention of God to reverse the situation for the “I.”87 Verse 21 extols God who “has answered me and become to me salvation (ἐπήκουσάς μου καὶ ἐγένου μοι εἰς σωτηρίαν),” namely, from the opposition the speaker has experienced from nations who have opposed and surrounded him.88 The first half of v. 22, then, summarizes precisely this oppression as “rejection” by the builders. The turning point, however, is the vindication of the λίθον in (v. 22b), which is praised by the congregation as “the Lord’s doing” that is “marvelous in our eyes” (v. 23). In other words, the metaphor is the hinge from the plea of salvation for the “I” earlier in the psalm to the praise for that salvation by the “we” later, whom the “I” has led into the temple courts.89 The metaphor, then, does not appear to take Israel as its target domain, but rather is self-referential for the speaker and his fate. But why a λίθος in the first place? The setting of the psalm is the temple, given “gates of righteousness” (v. 19), “from the house of the Lord” (v. 26), and “horns of the altar” (v. 27).90 It is plausible that the stones of the temple walls, the holy rock of the Zion-temple complex,91 and perhaps the common temple/cult context of “builders”92 may have provided the conceptual impulse for the psalmist. In other words, the stones of the Zion temple are not the metaphor’s target domain93 but, rather, the source domain which the psalmist applies to the king figure. We might map this metaphor thus: 86.  Hillyer 1971: 67; Dahood 1970: 159; Hooke 1956: 248. If so it would reflect people of israel are on/of stone-rock. Yet Ps. 118:22 is rarely treated in Jewish tradition as referring to Israel/Zion, but to individuals (Sicre 1977: 78–9). 87.  Goldingay 2008: 162; Berder 1996: 149–60; Allen 1983: 125; Bruce 1973: 232; Derrett 1965: 181–5. 88.  Schröten rightly observes that v. 21 summarizes the saving events of the preceding section of the psalm and simultaneously prepares for v. 22 (1995: 86). 89.  Schröten’s analysis of the syntactical relationship between v. 22 and vv. 23–24 supports this flow of thought (1995: 72–7, 82). Hossfeld/Zenger divide the psalm differently, but still view vv. 22–24 as the “theological interpretation of the event of rescue narrated in vv. 5-18” (2011: 241). 90.  Schröten 1995: 84; Allen 1983: 124. Ollenburger also observes the close association in Zion theology between the king and the temple (1987: 59–61). 91.  Hossfeld/Zenger argue v. 22 is a “poeticization of the Zion and Temple theology” (2011: 232). 92.  See Berder 1996: 110. 93.  Pace Snodgrass 1973: 363.

186

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(i)

king is a rejected/selected stone source target Used as cultic building material or to support the temple → King opposed by enemies Rejected as unfit by builders Selected for a position of importance (cap- or foundation-stone)

→

King vindicated by God’s intervention

In sum, a close reading of this metaphorical utterance suggests that the stone-rock source domain, specifically λίθοι rejected or selected as part of building the temple, is mapped to the target domain of the rejection or vindication of the king who represents the people of Israel. Secondary Evidence Various strands of Jewish interpretation also take king to be the target domain of the Ps. 118:22 metaphor. Genizah hymn 1 applies this metaphor to “your servant David” (1.15): “A despised cornerstone, which the builders despised, you have raised to the headstone above all nations” (1.18).94 The targum applies it to David by glossing ‫ אבן‬with ‫“( טליא‬boy”), who was rejected “among the sons of Jesse” but “worthy to be appointed king (‫ )מליך‬and ruler (‫)שולטן‬.”95 Similarly Exod. Rab. 37:1: “This refers to king David, for it says, ‘The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone.’”96 A specifically eschatological, messianic interpretation of the psalm arose within Judaism, though how early this developed is debated.97 Somewhat surprisingly, however, this passage plays little apparent role at Qumran.98 2.2.c. Israel’s God Is a Stone-Rock. Given how Israel’s Zion theology presupposes God’s direct manifestation in the Zion temple, it is perhaps unsurprising to find a common mapping of the stone-rock domain (i.e. elements [i] and [iii]) to Israel’s god. Such mappings are profusely attested in various Hebrew traditions, but equivalent expressions using 94.  ‫פניה ממואסה אשר מאסו הבונים העלת לראש מעל כל המלכים‬. Flusser/Safrai date the hymn to the Second Temple period (2007: 258–9). 95.  Stec 2004: 210. On ‫ טליא‬as “Messiasbezeichnung,” see Gärtner 1954. 96.  Similarly b. Pes. 119a; but Midr. Teh. for Ps. 118, while interpreting much of the psalm about David, takes the stone as Abraham or Jacob. 97.  See Brunson 2003: 40–4; Wagner 1997: 158–61. 98.  Portions of Ps. 118—but not v. 22—are cited in 11Q5 16, 4Q173a, 4Q84 35.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

187

λίθος or πέτρα are less common in Greek due to an evident tendency—at least for some LXX translators—to “decode” the metaphor, as we will document below. Primary Evidence 2 Kgdms 22:2–3a

O God, my rock (πέτρα μου) and my fortress and the one who delivers me; my God is my guard, I will trust in him.99

Isa. 8:13–14

The Lord, him shall you sanctify, and he shall be your fear. And if you are trusting in him, he will be to you a sanctuary, and you will not encounter him as stumbling on a stone (ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι) nor as falling on a rock (ὡς πέτρας πτώματι).

The former utterance emphasizes the protection God provides, summarized as follows:

(iii) (iv)

israel’s god is a stone-rock source target Characterized by durability and → God provides solid, unending strength care for his people Offer shelter/refuge → God defends, protects, and sustains his people

The latter expresses the reverse idea whereby God, as stone-rock, proves not to protect his people under certain circumstances; we will analyze the passage (as well as Isa. 28:16, another possible divine λίθος metaphor) in more detail below (§2.2.d). Secondary Evidence The Hebrew Bible is rich with examples whereby ‫ אבן‬and ‫סלע‬/‫ צור‬are mapped to God.100 Consider the following select examples:

99.  Recall the κέρας and other metaphors in v. 22.3b (Chapter 2). 100.  It is “the ‘rock’ which symbolizes the presence of Yahweh,” such that there is “a close association, or even ambiguity, between Zion and Yahweh” (Ollenburger 1987: 77; cf. J.M.M. Roberts 1987: 44). Similarly Eichhorn summarizes, “Der Horizont für die Anrede und Bezeichnung Jahwes als ‫ צור‬die Theophanie Jahwes am Zionsheiligtum sei” (1972: 83). The significance of the Zion-Rock is extended in the later ‫אבן שתיה‬-cosmology, whereby the stone/rock in Jerusalem is the foundation of the world (at creation), navel/center-point of the cosmos, gateway to heaven, and

188

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Gen. 49:24

His arms were made agile by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob—from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel (‫)אבן ישראל‬.101

Deut. 32:4–37

[v. 4] The Rock (‫)הצור‬, his work is perfect… [v. 18] You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you (‫ )צור ילדך‬and you forgot the God who gave you birth… [v. 31] For their rock is not as our Rock (‫[ …)כי לא כצורנו צורם‬v. 37] Then he will say, “Where are their gods (‫)אלהימו‬, the rock (‫ )צור‬in which they took refuge?’”

Ps. 18:3a, 32, 47

The LORD is my rock (‫ )סלעי‬and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock (‫)צורי‬, in whom I take refuge…Who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock (‫)צור‬, except our God?… The LORD lives; and blessed be my rock (‫)ברוך צורי‬.

Ps. 94:22

The LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge (‫)אלוהי לצור מחסי‬.

Isa. 8:14

He will become a sanctuary and a stone (‫ )אבן‬of offense and a rock (‫ )צור‬of stumbling to both houses of Israel.

Isa. 17:10

For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge (‫)צור מעזך‬.

Isa. 26:4

Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock (‫)צור עולמים‬.

Isa. 30:29

As when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the LORD (‫)הר־יהוה‬, to the Rock of Israel (‫)צור ישראל‬.102

stone that stopped the flood. For expressions of the Eben Shetiyyah mythology, see m. Yoma 5.2; b. Yoma 54b; y. Yoma 42c/5.3; b. Sanh. 26b; Midr. Tanch. Bub. 6:4; Midr. Tanch. Qed. 7:10; Num. Rab. 12:4; Pirke R. Eliezer 10; 35. Cf. Ezek. 38:12; 1 En. 26:1; Jub. 8:19 (see Dekker 2007: 30–2; Snodgrass 1973: 207–8; Hertzberg 1962: 52; McKelvey 1962: 357). 101.  Dahood proposes emendations that do away with “Shepherd” and “Stone” altogether (1959: 1001–3), but Kapelrud (1974: 51) and Hertzberg (1962: 47–8) convincingly argue that ‫ אבן ישראל‬refers to Yahweh and derives from ‫צור ישראל‬. 102.  The context is a theophany of Yahweh in Zion (Watts 2005a: 472–4), such that ‫ צור ישראל‬most likely designates God. LXX takes it this way (see below), as do the targums.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors Isa. 44:8

Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock (‫ ;)צור‬I know not any.

Hab. 1:12

O LORD, you have ordained them as a judgment, and you, Rock (‫)צור‬, have established them for reproof.

189

In a variety of writings and contexts, it is God himself who is conceptualized as a stone-rock of protection, refuge, and security for his people.103 These examples fit well with (and further elaborate upon) the mapping outlined above for 2 Kgdms 22:2–3a. In light of this profuse attestation of stone-rock metaphors in the HB, one may ask, “Where have they gone in the Greek traditions?” An interesting phenomenon occurs with the Greek OT. Assuming the MT approximates the Vorlagen of the translators, we find that in most cases they “decode” the stone-rock metaphors and replace ‫סלע‬/‫צור‬/‫ אבן‬with other terms. It has been argued that this behavior arises out of a desire to avoid confusion with “pagan” use of nature imagery.104 Yet such an explanation is not without problems, given that the translators are more than happy to preserve other natural/material/structural lexemes in divine metaphors (e.g., κέρας, ἀετός, ἄρκος, φῶς, ὀχύρωμα, καταφυγή), and the use of “rock”/“stone” lexemes in metaphors or epithets for the deity among other people groups in antiquity is actually quite rare.105 103.  See extensive discussions of this root metaphor in W. Brown 2002: 16–31; Creach 1996: 56–67. Some scholars, in fact, treat ‫ צור‬and, to a lesser degree, ‫אבן‬ purely as Gottesnamen for Yahweh (Fabry 2003: 318–9; Knowles 1989; Wiegand 1890), but the diversity seen above indicates this is by no means always the case; most examples are clearly metaphorical mappings not merely names. 104.  Olofsson 1990: 44–85. 105.  The closest we come is the depiction of deities such as Shaddai, El, Anath, and Ba‘al as conducting their activities or dwelling on mountains in Mesopotamia (see Whitley 2015: 136; Fabry 2003: 312; Olofsson 1990: 43; Korpel 1990: 578–87; Knowles 1989: 315; Kapelrud 1974: 51). Moreover, Sumerian/Akkadian gods were personified or even called “mountain”: e.g., the Hymn to Enlil not only describes Enlil as dwelling on a mountain (“The temple of Enlil is a mountain,” A.54), but designates Enlil as the Great Mountain (“Its prince, the Great Mountain, father Enlil,” A.39; cf. A.109) (Black et al. 1998). There are few if any examples of Greco-Roman deities being described as λίθος or πέτρα, though the worship of idols made of stone was, of course, not uncommon (Keel 1978: 179–83; Ehrhardt 1945: 177–8; Beer 1921: 4–14). For instance, Xenophon notes how some Greeks worship stones (τοὺς δὲ καὶ λίθους καὶ ξύλα τὰ τυχόντα καὶ θηρία σέβεσθαι; Mem. 1.1.14); Clement of Alexandria accuses οἱ Ἄραβες of worshipping τὸν λίθον (Protr. 4.2).

190

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Whatever the motivation, this translation pattern in fact proves the point that the stone-rock domain was understood as being mapped to god: in some cases, the translators gloss the metaphors with θεός (or an equivalent), while in other cases a different word that still retains some element of the stone-rock domain (e.g., strength, refuge) is used. Let us examine both patterns with representative examples: (i) Hebrew to θεός (or similar) ‫צור ילדך‬ ‫לא כצורנו צורם‬

→ →

Ps. 18[17]:32 Ps. 28[27]:1

‫מי צור זולתי אלהינו‬ ‫אליך יהוה אקרא צורי‬

→ →

Ps. 30[29]:3 Ps. 62[61]:7 Ps. 73[72]:26 Ps. 92[91]:16 Isa. 17:10 Isa. 30:29

‫היה לי לצור־מעוז‬ ‫צור־עזי‬ ‫צור־לבבי‬ ‫יהוה צורי‬ ‫צור מעזך‬ ‫צור ישראל‬

→ → → → → →

Deut. 32:18 Deut. 32:31

θεὸν τὸν γεννήσαντά σε οὐκ ἔστιν ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν τίς θεὸς πλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν πρὸς σέ, κύριε, ἐκέκραξα, ὁ θεός μου γενοῦ μοι εἰς θεὸν ὑπερασπιστήν ὁ θεὸς τῆς βοηθείας μου ὁ θεὸς τῆς καρδίας μου κύριος ὁ θεός μου κυρίου τοῦ βοηθοῦ σου θεὸν τοῦ Ισραηλ

(ii) Hebrew to another term (often retaining a metaphorical sense)106 ‫אבן ישראל‬ ‫לי דבר צור ישראל‬ ‫יהוה סלעי…אלי צורי‬

→ → →

Ps. 19[18]:15 Ps. 78[77]:35 Ps. 89[88]:27

‫יהוה צורי וגאלי‬ ‫אלהים צורם‬ ‫אלי וצורי ישועתי‬

→ → →

Ps. 94[93]:22 Isa. 26:4

‫אלהי צור מכסי‬ ‫יהוה צור עולמים‬

→ →

Gen. 49:24 2 Kgdms 23:3 Ps. 18[17]:3

ὁ κατισχύσας107 Ισραηλ ἐμοὶ ἐλάλησεν φύλαξ108 Ισραηλ κύριος στερέωμά μου…θεός μου βοηθός μου109 κύριε βοηθέ μου καὶ λυτρωτά μου ὁ θεὸς βοηθὸς αὐτῶν θεός μου καὶ ἀντιλήμπτωρ110 τῆς σωτηρίας μου ὁ θεός μου εἰς βοηθὸν ἐλπίδος μου ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας ὁ αἰώνιος

106.  Likewise, the targums typically substitute ‫“( תקוף‬strength, power, protection”; Jastrow 1690). 107.  “Strengthen, overpower” (GELS 390–1). 108.  “One who keeps watch to protect” (GELS 722). 109.  Respectively, “solid, steadfast support” (GELS 635) and “helper” (GELS 120). 110.  “Helper” or “protector” (GELS 59; LEH).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

191

For the Greek translators, thus, the underlying conceptual mapping remains evident (stone-rock → god), even if they collapse the metaphor into a direct use of θεός/κύριος or an attribute of God (especially if θεός/ κύριος is already being used in the near context). A few of the metaphorical utterances listed above position God as the true ‫ צור‬against the false ‫ צור‬of the pagans (Deut. 32:31; Ps. 18[17]:32; Isa. 44:8).111 Such utterances further add to the intriguing Greek phenomena: whereas the Greek OT often (but not always) avoids λίθος and πέτρα in metaphors for Israel’s God, such is not the case when dealing with false gods. Not only are deities depicted as being fabricated ἐκ λίθου (Deut. 4:28; 29:16; 4 Kgdms 19:18),112 but in several cases the gods are described directly as λίθοι whom people worship/serve, not merely the material of which they are fabricated (Deut. 28:64; Jer. 2:27; 3:9; Ep. Jer. 38–39; Ezek. 20:32; Hab. 2:19).113 In sum, despite (or even because of) the Greek OT translation pecularities, there remains compelling primary and indirect secondary evidence that the use of λίθος and πέτρα in metaphors for God was still at home in a Greek-speaking milieu—certainly among those familiar with biblical traditions. Further support is found among other Jewish communities closer to the first-century context, for whom there was no such apparent “decoding” of god-rock metaphors: 1QHa 17.28

My refuge, my protection, the rock (‫ )סלע‬of my strength, my fortress.

1QHa 19.18

I give you thanks, my God, I exalt you, my Rock (‫)צורי‬.

4Q377 f2 2.8

He stood on the mountain to teach us that there is no God apart from him, and no Rock (‫ )צור‬like him.

4Q504 f2 5.19

We too have [we]aried /God/ by our iniquities, we have tried the Rock (‫ )צור‬with [our] si[n].114

Sir. 51:12(k)

Give praise to the Rock (‫ )צור‬of Isaac, for God’s love endures forever.

Shem. Esreh 18

Thou art the Rock of our lives (‫)צור חיינו‬.

111.  Kowalski 1996: 146–7; Wildberger 1979: 244–5. 112.  Hurowitz 1999. 113.  Possibly also πέτρα in Isa. 31:9. See also Jub. 22:18; 11Q19 51.21. 114.  ‫ צור‬is smudged but supported by Baillet 1982; DSSSE.

192

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

2.2.d. Judgment/Salvation Is an Encounter with a Stone-Rock. Our final analysis involves special cases of the metaphors discussed in §2.2.a and §2.2.c, whereby the stone-rock domain is mapped to israel or god to express judgment (or salvation) in terms of one’s encounter with a stone or rock (e.g., falling upon, being crushed by). The first mapping describes Israel as a stone that accomplishes eschatological defeat of its enemies: Daniel 2 OG

[2:34–35] As you looked until when a stone (λίθος)

was cut from a mountain without hands, and it struck the image upon its iron and clay feet and crushed them… The stone (λίθος) that struck the image became a great mountain and struck[a] the whole earth… [2:44–45] And in the times[b] of those kings the God of heaven will establish another kingdom—which will stand forever and never be destroyed—and this kingdom itself will not pass to another nation (ἔθνος),[c] but it will strike[d] and destroy[e] these kingdoms, and it will stand forever, just as you saw a stone (λίθον) cut from the mountain without hands, and it ground to a powder[d] the clay, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold. (Note: Theodotion—[a] “filled”; [b] “days”; [c] “people”; [d] “crush”; [e] “scatter”)

The reception history of Daniel’s λίθος metaphor has received much scrutiny,115 but in its original context the λίθος carved from the mountain (= Zion) maps to eschatological Israel (βασιλεία…εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), who will be brought forth by God himself (ἄνευ χειρῶν) to crush other nations/ kingdoms (ἔθνη/βασιλείας) that oppose it.116 The utterance suggests the following underlying mapping: judgment on nations is their encounter with israel as a stone.117 115.  See n. 21 on its eventual messianization. 116.  Collins 1993: 174–5; Snodgrass 1973: 47–9; Lindars 1961: 183–4; Siegman 1956: 369–70. Esth. Rab. 7:10 (introduced in §1.1 above) quotes Dan. 2 and likewise applies the stone-rock domain to corporate Israel, beginning, “In this world Israel are likened to rocks.” 117.  Hebrew Zech. 12:3 provides (secondary) evidence for this mapping: “On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone (‫ )אבן‬for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it.” Jerusalem is portrayed as a stone that, when attacked by other nations, in turn hurts them. God ultimately delivers Jerusalem from enemies and makes the “house of



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

193

A similar kind of judgment-related mapping is found in the divine stone-rock metaphors of Isa. 8:14–15 and 28:16, which merit a detailed discussion. Both prophecies share the same historical background— the aftermath of the Assyrian defeat of the Israel, the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, and Assyria’s impending invasion of Judah118—only 8:14 addresses Ahaz and 28:16 his successor Hezekiah. The question in both pericopes is this: will Judah trust in God or pursue security in political machinations? I will argue that both metaphors answer this question via a mapping of the stone-rock domain. We will analyze each in turn. Isaiah 8:13–15 reads as follows (major variations to MT italicized): Isa. 8:13–15

The Lord, him shall you sanctify, and he shall be your fear. And if you are trusting in him, he will be to you a sanctuary, and you will not encounter him as stumbling on a stone nor as falling on a rock. But the house of Jacob is in a snare, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are in a pit. Therefore, many among them will lose power, and will fall and be crushed, and people in safety will draw near and be captured.



κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται σου φόβος. καὶ ἐὰν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς ᾖς, ἔσται σοι εἰς ἁγίασμα, καὶ οὐχ119 ὡς λίθου προσκόμματι συναντήσεσθε αὐτῷ οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι· ὁ δὲ οἶκος Ιακωβ ἐν παγίδι, καὶ ἐν κοιλάσματι ἐγκαθήμενοι ἐν Ιερουσαλημ. διὰ τοῦτο ἀδυνατήσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται, καὶ ἐγγιοῦσιν καὶ ἁλώσονται ἄνθρωποι ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες.

David” become “like God (‫)כאלהים‬, like the angel of the lord” (12:8)—a “stunningly bold idea” (Meyers/Meyers 1993: 331). The LXX speaks of the same encounter of the nations against Jerusalem as a stone, but with a more negative emphasis on the trampling down of Jerusalem (λίθον καταπατούμενον). 118.  Blenkinsopp 2000b: 474. 119.  The LXX negation (+οὐκ/οὐδέ relative to MT) has received much attention (see Le Moigne 2005: 72–90; Olofsson 1990: 41–2). I would argue the LXX is not attempting to correct the Hebrew but rather clarifies what is clearly implied: for those who do trust in him, Yahweh will be a positive stone/rock (sanctuary)—but for those who do not trust, he will be a negative stone/rock (pace Oss 1989: 185). The ‫ו‬ before ‫ אבן‬could, thus, be understood as antithetical (“but”) (Snodgrass 1973: 19–26). Romans 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:8 do not read οὐκ/οὐδέ.

194

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

In the prophet’s crosshairs throughout Isaiah 7–8 are Ahaz and τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον (8:6, 11, 12)120 who must decide whether to trust the Rezin-Pekah alliance (8:11–12) or in God, who repeatedly offers signs of his faithfulness. The pivot is the λίθος/πέτρα metaphor itself, which shows the outcome of trusting/not trusting in God. The logic is as follows: (7:9) Will you have faith? (πιστεύσητε) σημεῖα of God’s trustworthiness: children Εμμανουηλ (7:14) and Ταχέως-σκύλευσον-ὀξέως-προνόμευσον121 (8:1–4) given to Isaiah (8:13–14) Will you have faith in God? (αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε / ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ πεποιθὼς) (8:14a) Yes → He will be a sanctuary (ἁγίασμα) (8:14b) No → He will be a λίθος/πέτρα of judgment (→ 8:15) (8:17) Will you have faith in God? (πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ) σημεῖα of God’s trustworthiness: παιδία given to Isaiah (8:18)

If God’s people trust in him and not foreign alliances, he will remain a sanctuary (ἁγίασμα). But for those who do not have faith, who seek their own way, who distrust the σημεῖα of God’s trustworthiness, they will instead “encounter” (συναντήσεσθε) and “draw near” (ἐγγιοῦσιν) to him as a stone-rock of judgment. In other words, those who think they “dwell in safety” within God’s own people (“house of Jacob,” “inhabitants of Jerusalem”) are actually in danger: the very one in whom (ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ) they are to trust will in fact judge them if they reject him. Encountering God as λίθου προσκόμματι and πέτρας πτώματι,122 they will “fall” (πίπτω), “be crushed” (συντρίβω),123 and “be captured” (ἁλίσκομαι).124 In a stunning reversal, the metaphor israel’s god is a stone-rock is inverted for those who lack trust.125 The important nuance is that this duality of salvation or judgment by God as a stone-rock is specifically applied within Israel, God’s own people, whose fate is determined via their encounter (συναντάω, ἐγγίζω) with god as stone-rock. The metaphor may, thus, be mapped as follows: 120.  Wagner describes “profound estrangement” between God and “this people” (2007: 261). 121.  The Greek wooden rendering of “Maher-shalal-hash-baz”. 122.  (i) πρόσκομμα (from προσκόπτω)—“result of stumbling” (non-biblical Greek), “stumbling” or “offense” in NT/LXX (LSJ 1517). (ii) πτῶμα (from πίπτω)— “fall” or “misfortune” (LSJ 1549). 123.  “Shatter, break into pieces, crush” (GELS 662), “shatter, crush” (LSJ 1728–9). 124.  “Be taken, conquered, fall into an enemy’s hands, caught, seized” (LSJ 66). 125.  Blenkinsopp 2000a: 242; Ollenburger 1987: 122–4.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

(iii) (iv) (vi)

195

israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stone-rock source target Characterized by durability and → God is a firm stone/rock… strength Offer shelter/refuge → …That is the sanctuary for those within his people who believe… Used physically against → …But a stone/rock on which someone those who do not believe fall and are crushed

While the mapping shares similarities with the Israel examples above (i.e. judgment on nations is their encounter with israel as a stone), the parties involved differ meaningfully: israel judging nations in the Zechariah/Daniel examples, and god judging (or saving) israel here in Isaiah. Let us turn to the related λίθος metaphor in Isa. 28:16: Isa. 28:16126

Therefore thus says the Lord, “Behold I place in the foundations of Zion a valuable, choice stone—a precious cornerstone in its foundations. And the one believing in it will not be ashamed.”



διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος ᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιων λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιμον εἰς τὰ θεμέλια αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων [ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ]127 οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ.

As with 8:14, the question here is that of trust. The prophet accuses the leaders of Jerusalem (28:14) of trusting not in God but rather placing their hope (ἐλπίδα) in and seeking shelter (σκεπασθησόμεθα) from a “covenant with Hades” (διαθήκην μετὰ τοῦ ᾅδου)128 that will prove to be a 126.  See Koch 2010 for the numerous exegetical challenges posed by the Hebrew tradition. J.M.M. Roberts calls it “one of the most notable cruxes in the Hebrew Bible” (1987: 27). 127.  The plus ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ (absent in the MT) is not found in B V Aquila Theodotion Symmachus Syro-Hexapla Origen 393 538. It is subject to debate regarding whether it is evidence of a pre-Christian messianization of this text (Joachim Jeremias 1964: 272; Bruce 1973: 234) or a later Christian assimilation (e.g., Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6; Albl 1999: 267–8). 128.  Likely an alliance with Egypt. For discussion of the Hebrew ‫ברית את־מות‬, see C. Hays 2010: 227–8; Dekker 2007: 166–71; Blenkinsopp 2000b: 477; Stewart 1988; Kaiser 1974: 251.

196

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

“lie” (ψεῦδος) (28:15). The prophet then declares that their false covenant will be annulled, and the price of their distrust in God will be destruction by an “rushing storm” (καταιγὶς φερομένη) (28:17–18). It is commonly supposed that the close association of Isa. 8:14 with 28:16 found in Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:6–8 is a later Christian phenomenon, either by Paul himself or an early testimonium. However, there is good evidence that the LXX translators interpreted 8:14 and 28:16 in light of one another.129 Consider the following parallels: Isaiah 8:14 and context 8:14—λίθος/πέτρα 8:18—Σιων 8:15—πίπτω, συντρίβω, ἁλίσκομαι 8:7—ὕδωρ πολύ of Assyria People and rulers 8:6, 11, 12—ὁ λαὸς οὗτος 8:21—ἄρχων Belief/trust… 7:9—πιστεύω 8:14, 17—πείθω

stone-rock Zion context Judgment

…“In him/it”

8:14, 17—ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ

Isaiah 28:16 and context 28:16—λίθος 28:16—Σιων 28:13—πίπτω, συντρίβω, ἁλίσκομαι 28:2—ὕδωρ πολύ of Assyria 28:5, 11, 14—ὁ λαὸς οὗτος 28:14—ἄρχων 28:15—ἐλπίς 28:16, 17—πιστεύω, ἐλπίς, πείθω 28:16—[ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ]130

In both passages the prophet promises that those who trust in God as refuge will be vindicated, but those who seek refuge elsewhere will be destroyed.131 In 8:14, it is God as stone-rock who executes this judgment; in 28:16, it is the foreign armies raised up by God. Either way, one’s spiritual fate—deliverance/sancturay or judgment—is portrayed metaphorically with respect to a stone-rock, with Isa. 8:14 emphasizing how the stone-rock brings judgment upon those who do not believe, and 28:16 emphasizing how the stone-rock secures those who do.

129.  “The conjunction of key phrases from both Isaianic ‘stone’ passages strongly suggests that the translator has read these texts in light of one another” (Wagner 2000: 150). What follows draws on Dekker 2007: 128–9; Wagner 2007: 264–6; 2000: 142–51; Snodgrass 1973: 99–100; Ziegler 1934: 95–6. 130.  If this thesis of mutual interpretation is valid, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ may not be a later addition (pre-Christian or otherwise) but rather an original gloss influenced by 8:14, 17. Tg. Isa. reads “the righteous who believe in these things (‫ )באלין‬will not be shaken,” thus attesting a Jewish tradition that also assigns “belief” a direct object. 131.  Creach suggests that all refuge-related metaphors express this same theme of dependence on God rather than other false refuges (1996: 37–48).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

197

While in Isa. 8:14 stone-rock undoubtedly maps to god, Isa. 28:16 is less clear. Numerous options for the target domain of 28:16 have been offered, including Hezekiah, Messiah, temple, faith, Davidic dynasty, remnant of Judah, and God himself.132 The history of reception (of both Hebrew and Greek versions) is mixed: Qumran maps the foundation stone to the faithful community;133 Tg glosses stone with ‫ ;מלך‬the Talmud interprets the stone as the cosmological ‫אבן‬ ‫;שתיה‬134 and the NT and early Christian writings often interpret the stone messianically.135 If the mutually influencing translation theory is correct, however, God himself should not be ruled out as the target domain (at least in the Greek version): the object of faith in Isaiah 8 (ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ) is God, so the same object, clarified in the LXX plus ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ, could be in view in Isaiah 28.136 Moreover, it is God who is most closely associated with Zion and its “foundation” (θεμέλια) (§2.2.c).137 If so, this suggests both Isa. 8:14 and 28:16 as mutually interpreting prophecies in the Greek tradition offer variations on the same underlying metaphor: israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stone-rock.

132.  Berder 1996: 128–34; Jacob 1995: 3–8; Oswalt 1986: 518; Lindblom 1955: 123–5. 133.  1QS 8.5–9; 11.8; 1QHa 14.26–27; 15.8–9; 4Q541 f24.5. See n. 77 above. 134.  See n. 129. 135.  Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6; Barn. 6:1–4. There is some debate regarding Rom. 9:33. While noting that the christological significance of the 9:33 stone is crystallized in 10:11, Wagner concludes, “Paul stops short of an explicit identification of the stone as Christ. Moreover, he does not present Jesus as the object of belief or trust, but rather God’s action in raising him from the dead and declaring him to be Lord. For Paul, to identify the stone with Christ is not to push God off center stage; it is rather to specify more exactly the manner in which God has become a stumbling stone to some in Israel. The irreducible polyvalence of Paul’s metaphor is thus rooted ultimately in his theological and christological convictions” (2000: 157). That is, Paul’s conflation of Isa. 8:14 + 28:16, while mapping to jesus, seems also to map to god. 136.  C. Hays observes the stone in 28:16 “seems at least to represent the deity or his word” (2010: 237); Wagner concludes about 28:16 (LXX), “the antecedent of ‘him’ may well be God” (2000: 144). 137.  Ollenburger argues that the stone = Zion = Yahweh here (“Israel’s ‘rock’ is Yahweh, and thus no independent security is granted to Zion apart from him” [1987: 117]); similarly J.M.M. Roberts 1987: 39; Hooke 1956: 241.

198

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

2.2.e. Summary. We have seen that there is significant diversity in these stone-rock metaphors. They are summarized here:138 PEOPLE OF ISRAEL ARE ON/OF STONE-ROCK

ISRAEL’S GOD IS THE TRUE STONE-ROCK

JUDGMENT ON NATIONS IS THEIR ENCOUNTER WITH ISRAEL AS A STONE

ISRAEL’S JUDGMENT/SALVATION IS THEIR ENCOUNTER WITH GOD AS A STONE-ROCK

KING IS A REJECTED/SELECTED STONE

Having established in detail the OT/Jewish stone-rock conceptual metaphors, we turn now to analyze GLuke’s use of λίθος metaphors at the conclusion of the PWT. 3. The Λίθος Metaphors in Luke 20:17–18 We will focus on interpreting the λίθος metaphors of Luke 20:17–18 independently of other NT stone-rock metaphors. Not only have the others received ample treatment elsewhere,139 but they are all distinct and should not be conflated. However, one underappreciated aspect of each of them is relevant for our study: all other NT authors creatively transform the stone-rock metaphor(s) in some way. Romans 9:33 inserts Isa. 8:14 between the two halves of Isa. 28:16, the first of which is closer to the MT and the second closer to the LXX. First Peter 2:6–8 brings three stone quotations together (Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118[117]:22; Isa. 8:14) within a context wherein the church has been described as λίθοι ζῶντες (2:5). Romans 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:8 read πέτρα(ν) σκανδάλου rather than πέτρας πτώματι (Isa. 8:14). Ephesians 2:20 extends the θεμέλια/ος and ἀκρογωνιαῖος of Isa. 28:16 to the prophets/apostles. Matthew 16:18 and 1 Cor. 10:4 creatively reappropriate OT “rock” traditions. And Acts 4:11 tweaks Ps. 118[117]:22 in several ways to focus it specifically on Jesus’ death and resurrection.140 138.  The dotted line indicates the shared basic mapping of judgment-bystone-rock (§2.2.d). 139.  This is not true, however, of Luke 20:18, for which I am aware of only two standalone treatments (Doran 1983; Oort 1909). In fact, Bornkamm warns “it is best not to attempt to elaborate an exposition” of Luke 20:18 (1964: 281). 140.  ὁ λίθος, ὁ ἐξουθενηθεὶς ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν τῶν οἰκοδόμων, ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας (underlines denote differences to Luke 20:17).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

199

For NT authors to pull this off—rather than simply quoting verbatim— they must presuppose their audience’s familiarity with the diverse stone-rock conceptual metaphors. From a CMT perspective, this is precisely what we should expect, given the prevalence of such metaphors in the OT/Jewish “encyclopedia” of mappings to the target domains of israel, king, and god. Thus, we should not be surprised to find the same in GLuke. The novel metaphor in 20:18, though appearing a riddle or puzzle to many modern interpreters,141 must have been sufficiently intelligible to the audience for it to achieve its effect, despite having no definitive intertext. With this as background, the thesis to be developed is as follows. Luke 20:17 appropriates the OT/Jewish conceptual metaphor king is a rejected/selected stone particularly to portray the definitive rejection of Jesus that has been unfolding up to that point in the gospel. The “builders” encounter Jesus-as-stone, and reject him. GLuke’s use of 20:17, thus, fits broadly with “messianic” readings of the stone and PWT. However, this encounter and rejection, in turn, is vindicated in an unusual way, by the “crushing stone” itself. Luke 20:18 thereby appropriates israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stone-rock but re-maps it to Jesus, who exercises judgment on those who reject him rather than trust in him. 3.1. Rejection of the King-Stone We begin by examining how the “rejected stone” metaphor (Luke 20:17b)—quoting Ps. 118[117]:22 but eliding Ps. 118[117]:23—provides a summary expression of GLuke’s portrayal of Jesus’ conflict with the people of Israel and their leaders. We introduced this conflict in the prior chapter, but here we will look at it from a different angle, focusing specifically on the tension in GLuke regarding who will accept or reject Jesus, or, put differently, will the people accept or reject him.142 With a view towards the λίθος metaphors, we will trace how this tension is anticipated earlier in GLuke, reaches an interim climax in the triumphal entry, crystallizes in GLuke’s PWT, and is captured succinctly in Luke 20:17. This analysis will, in turn, lay the groundwork for 20:18 (§3.2), whereby the encounter (and rejection) of the stone leads to devastating consequences.

141.  “The entire statement is puzzling” (Bovon 2012: 43). 142.  See further in Ferda 2015; Kinman 1999; Matera 1993; Tannehill 1988.

200

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

3.1.a. Anticipation. Three episodes earlier in the gospel reflect this acceptance/rejection tension and, indeed, point forward to GLuke’s λίθος metaphors. (i) While the infancy hymns are otherwise overwhelmingly optimistic about the salvific importance of Jesus (recall Chapters 2 and 3), Simeon’s oracles (Luke 2:34–35) anticipate a darker turn. Initially the Nunc Dimittis (2:29–32) declares that the “salvation” constituted by the arrival of the boy Jesus will be “light for revelation to Gentiles” and “glory to your people Israel” (2:32).143 However, Simeon subsequently declares that Jesus “is appointed (κεῖται) for the fall (πτῶσιν) and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign (σημεῖον) that is opposed… so that thoughts (διαλογισμοί) from many hearts may be revealed” (2:34). Though it is unclear whether this falling/rising refers to Israel as a whole or two groups within Israel,144 there is widespread consensus that in either case GLuke is anticipating opposition to Jesus, whereby (some of) the people of Israel will fall and (some) rise based on their encounter with him.145 The degree to which this statement and the Nunc Dimittis are programmatic for the rest of GLuke is debated,146 but few doubt that there are forward-pointing allusions to the PWT as well as OT stone-rock passages:147 ἰδού…κεῖται πτῶσιν148 σημεῖον διαλογισμοί

ἰδού…ἐμβαλῶ (Isa. 28:16) πεσών/πέσῃ (Luke 20:18) σημεῖα (Isa. 8:18) διελογίζοντο (Luke 20:14)

There is also narrative symmetry, whereby Luke 2:29–35 is pronounced in the temple and anticipates opposition to Jesus that, later in GLuke, climaxes in the temple. 143.  The syntax of these clauses has been much debated (is “light” for both “revelation + glory,” or are the two clauses parallel, “light-for-revelation-to-Gentiles” // “glory-to-Israel”?)—see Serrano 2012: 179–82; Klein 2006: 142; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 308–9. 144.  That is, all Israel sequentially falls and then rises, or one group falls and another rises. Commentators are evenly split (Dillon 2013: 133). Grammatically either is possible (Tannehill 1996: 72). 145.  See Bullard 2013: 67; R. Brown 1993: 460; Muñoz-Iglesias 1990: 293–313; Drake 1985: 135. 146.  Bullard 2013: 65; L.T. Johnson 1991: 16; Berger 1985; Grogan 1982. The Nazareth scene in 4:16–30 (also considered programmatic) enacts Simeon’s oracle. 147.  Serrano 2012: 184; Laato 1997: 329; Green 1997: 149; Strauss 1995: 119; Nolland 1989: 121; Snodgrass 1973: 2289; Laurentin 1957: 89–90; Winter 1954b: 118–19. 148.  Nominal form of πίπτω (BDAG 896).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

201

(ii) Twice GLuke predicts “rejection” of Jesus using the same verb (ἀποδοκιμάζω) found in Luke 20:17 and Ps. 118[117]:22.149 In Luke 9:22 (par. Mark 8:31) Jesus immediately declares after Peter’s confession that “the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected (ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι) by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” In addition to the verbal parallel, the rejectors here are precisely the same opponents of Jesus when he delivers the PWT (20:1; 20:19 [minus “elders”]).150 The same basic idea is repeated in the Lukan Sondergut of 17:25: before the “son of man” comes in his day (17:24), “first he must suffer many things and be rejected (ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι) by this generation.” Of particular interest is that the preceding sayings (17:20–24) appear in some form in the Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24:23–28 and Mark 13:21–23,151 but GLuke locates them before the temple week. (iii) These adumbrations of Psalm 118[117] reappear in Luke 13:35, discussed previously. Given the unwillingness of the “children of Jerusalem” to be gathered, Jesus declares, “I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,’” quoting Ps. 118[117]:26. The oracle drives forward the ongoing question regarding acceptance/rejection of Jesus, and it specifically anticipates his entry to Jerusalem where the psalm quotation is repeated.152 To this we now turn. 3.1.b. King Enters Jerusalem. Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem is “highly climactic from a narrative-critical perspective” for GLuke.153 Will the people of Israel and their leaders accept or reject Jesus as he reaches the goal of the journey? As all four Gospels record, Psalm 118[117]:26 is chanted when Jesus enters the city (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9–10; Luke 19:38a; John 12:13). GLuke alone, however, inserts “king” directly into Ps. 118[117]:26: εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (19:38a).154 GLuke portrays Jesus arriving as king to the temple, where 149.  On the connections between these prior instances and Luke 20:17/ Ps. 118[117]:22, see Brunson 2003: 112–16; Wagner 1997: 162. The verb is used 9× in the NT, 8× alluding to Ps. 118[117]:22. 150.  By contrast, Mark 12:12 does not mention the opponents by name. 151.  Aland (1996) parallels Luke 17:23–34, 37 with these sections of GMatthew and GMark. 152.  Snodgrass suggests, further, that the GLuke’s PWT itself “says in story form what the lament [13:34–35] says” (2008: 295). 153.  Ferda 2015: 29. 154.  GMark reads “kingdom of our Father David” after the psalm; GMatthew reads “Son of David” before the psalm; GJohn reads “[even] the King of Israel” after the psalm.

202

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

he is acclaimed as such by “the whole multitude of his disciples” (19:37). He is in some sense taking on the role of the kingly “I” in the Psalm 118 who leads the procession of Israelites to the temple and receives their praise.155 GLuke alone adds another striking phrase at the end of this psalm quotation: ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις (19:38b). Lacking any clear OT intertext, it is best understood as recapitulating the Gloria of Luke 2:14,156 which reads δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.157 The narrative has come full circle: the one who was proclaimed to the people as “Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (2:10–11) has now been accepted as king, at least by some, upon entering Jerusalem. However, not all receive Jesus as king. Some of the Pharisees in the crowd command Jesus to silence his disciples. GLuke alone draws on the stone-rock domain158 when Jesus responds, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out” (19:40). This metaphor likely does not refer to the 70 CE judgment on the temple but rather expresses the response of praise that Jesus should receive by all the people of Israel; that is, if the religious leaders refuse to accept Jesus, and if the disciples are silenced, then someone—even inanimate stones—will receive him properly.159 After pronouncing judgment on Jerusalem for the failure of its “children” in receiving his “visitation” (recall prior chapter), Jesus enters the temple, where the “chief priests and scribes and οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ were seeking to destroy him” (19:47). Though many disciples had accepted him, things have quickly gotten worse, and Jesus’ so-called triumphal entry devolves into an a-triumphal entry: “Jerusalem’s hardened spiritual condition is epitomized by its failure to recognize its king” in the end.160 155.  The timing (Passover week) and possible use of Ps. 118 in the Hallel make the atmosphere ripe for such “royalist claims” (J.A. Sanders 1987: 180). 156.  Wolter 2008: 630. 157.  The angels are then recorded as going εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, perhaps reflected in ἐν οὐρανῷ of 19:38b. 158.  Most likely the building stones of the temple (Wagner 1997: 168). 159.  As argued by Kinman 1994: 233–4; J.A. Sanders 1987: 187. Moreover, this phrase recalls a prior use of the stone-rock domain in Luke 3:8. In response to certain Jewish followers who presume upon their ethnic Jewish status rather than repent, John charges, “Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” Some have suggested that the Abraham-rock of Isa. 51:1–2 is the background here (Joachim Jeremias 1964: 270–1; Beer 1921: 9); if so, it would reflect the underlying conceptual metaphor people of israel are on/of stone-rock. 160.  Kinman 1999: 293.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

203

3.1.c. Parable of the Wicked Tenants. This conflict with the religious authorities, as the primary party that rejects Jesus as king, is crystallized in story form in the PWT. GLuke’s sequencing of the parable and several internal details heighten this element of conflict with Jesus’ opponents. (i) All three Synoptics place the PWT early in the Jerusalem week, but variations in order with respect to other pericopes are notable: Triumphal entry Bethany, fig tree (a) Temple action Bethany, fig tree (b) Challenge to authority Parable of Two Sons Parable of the Wicked Tenants Parable of the Wedding Feast Paying Taxes to Caesar Question about Resurrection

GMatthew 21:1–11 — 21:12–16 21:17–22 21:23–27 21:28–32 21:33–46 22:1–14 22:15–22 22:23–33

GMark 11:1–11a 11:11b–14 11:15–19 11:20–25 11:27–33 — 12:1–12 — 11:13–17 11:18–27

GLuke 19:28–44 — 19:45–48 — 20:1–8 — 20:9–19 — 20:19–26 20:27–40

GMatthew’s PWT is bracketed by two other parables and distanced from the temple action161 by the Bethany/fig tree interlude; GMark’s PWT follows immediately after the challenge to Jesus’ authority but is separated from the temple action by the Bethany/fig tree interlude. GLuke’s sequence is sparsest and most pronounced: Jesus enters the temple, conducts his temple action, receives a challenge from the religious authorities (20:1), and immediately delivers the parable. The PWT in GLuke, then, constitutes Jesus’ direct response to the religious authorities’ rejection of Jesus’ claims over them (“Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority,” 20:2). This difference in order is suggestive of the importance PWT plays in furthering the conflict developed thus far in GLuke. (ii) Several details of GLuke’s parable further heighten this element of conflict. Although the correspondences of the elements of the PWT (landlord, vineyard, tenants, messengers, son, etc.) have been much debated,162 GLuke’s conclusion suggests that the PWT is a microcosm of the broader conflict with the religious authorities occurring at that very

161.  On the various views of the significance of the temple action, see N.H. Taylor 2004: 462; Wright 1997: 413–17; Evans 1989; Chance 1988: 57–8; Franklin 1975: 88–90. 162.  Summarized in Lanier 2016c.

204

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

moment in the narrative.163 Jesus’ opponents realize that the parable’s depiction of the tenant’s rejection of the son indicts them for their rejection of Jesus: “The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them” (20:19). This in turn helps make sense of GLuke’s approach to Isaiah 5, one of the OT influences on the PWT.164 It is well-known that GLuke omits most of the Isaiah 5 allusions.165 Compare Isaiah 5 LXX with GMark and GLuke: LXX Isaiah 5

Mark 12 1 Ἀμπελῶνα ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν

Luke 20 9 Ἄνθρωπός [τις]

2 φραγμὸν περιέθηκα καὶ ἐχαράκωσα καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον σωρηχ καὶ ᾠκοδόμησα πύργον ἐν μέσῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ προλήνιον ὤρυξα ἐν αὐτῷ 4 τί ποιήσω ἔτι τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου…

καὶ περιέθηκεν φραγμὸν — [see above]

— — ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα

καὶ ὤρυξεν ὑπολήνιον

—

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν πύργον

—

—

13 Τί ποιήσω…

5 τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀμπελῶνί μου

9 τί [οὖν] ποιήσει ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος

15 τί οὖν ποιήσει αὐτοῖς ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος

163.  Frolov 2007; Brawley 1995; Tannehill 1986: 189–92. 164.  The relationship of Isa. 5 to PWT has been much debated (Kloppenborg 2004, 2002, 2000; Evans 2003, 1984; Weren 1998; Aus 1996: 5–15; Pedersen 1965: 173). Some argue the Septuagintal (or Hebrew, for those who argue for a Semitic original) allusions to Isa. 5:1–7 are secondary additions by the early church that cast the parable in an anti-Jewish light. Isaiah 5, however, is not required to link the vine/vineyard motif with Israel/Judah or Judaism, for such linkage is widely attested: Ps. 80:9–17; Jer. 2:21; 5:10; 6:9; 8:13; 12:10; Ezek. 15:1–8; 17:5–10; 19:10–14; Song 1:6; 2:15; 8:11–12; Hos. 2:14–17; 10:1; 4Q162; 4Q500; t. Suk. 3:15; t. Me’il 1:16; Exod. Rab. 30:17; 34:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; Cant. Rab. 7:13; cf. Shep. Herm. 55:1–11. 165.  Snodgrass describes the omitted details as “superfluous” and “irrelevant” (1973: 347); Kloppenborg agrees, further suggesting that Luke retains planting only through “editorial inadvertence” (2014: 222).



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

205

GLuke retains (with GMark) Isa. 5:2 “planted a vineyard” (using ἀμπελῶν), but unlike GMark (and GMatthew), GLuke alone retains the repeated question “What shall I/he do” from Isaiah 5, which suggests that more of the Isaiah framing has been preserved than is usually granted. But why are the rest of the vineyard details muted? I suggest this phenomenon in GLuke serves to focus the parable not on the vineyard—which some take as referring to the Jewish nation, covenant, or kingdom of God— but on the leaders and their rejection. In the rush to read PWT as a religionsgeschichtliche allegory for the Jew → Gentile transition,166 many commentators overlook how Isa. 5:3–4 (MT/LXX) specifically indicts the “men of Judah” and “inhabitants of Jerusalem” for the failed vineyard. The speaker asks them, “What shall I do” (τί ποιήσω), which sets up the implicit self-condemnation central to the song.167 The vineyard song focuses on the failure of the leaders who earlier in Isa. 3:14–15 have been accused of devouring the vineyard and crushing τὸν λαόν μου.168 It is the failure of these leaders that leads to judgment on the whole vineyard (5:7), and GLuke possibly signals this same dynamic by including the verbatim τί ποιήσω and downplaying the vineyard details.169 Additionally, GLuke (with GThomas) includes “perhaps” (ἴσως, 20:13) when the landlord deliberates about sending the son. Unlike Matt. 21:37// Mark 12:6, which express more confidence that the tenants “will respect” (ἐντραπήσονται) the son, GLuke’s rendering indicates some sense of contingency: will they or will they not receive the son? The acceptance/ rejection dynamic is taken yet further when GLuke alone reserves the act of killing for the “son” figure.170

166.  Iverson 2012; Marcus 1998; Ogawa 1979; Hubaut 1976; Trilling 1965. 167.  Namely, as a juridical parable (Williams 1985; Yee 1981; Willis 1977). 168.  On the importance of Isa. 3 for understanding Isa. 5, see Marcus 1998: 212. 169.  Here I agree with Klauck’s assessment: “Lk hat das Jesajazitat in der Einleitung u. a. auch deshalb gekürzt, weil er die metaphorische Identifizierung des Weinbergs mit Israel im Ansatz verhindern wollte.…Lk unterscheidet zwischen dem (zwar nicht ganz schuldlosen, aber) unwissenden, irregeleiteten Volk und seinen unbußfertigen Führern, denen er die Hauptschuld am Tode Jesu zuschiebt” (1978: 313). Similarly Trimaille 1989: 255–6; Carlston 1975: 76–7. 170.  Servants are killed in Matt. 21:35//Mark 12:5. GLuke also lacks the sending of group(s) of servants, which many take to refer to the OT prophets (Witherington 2006: 404; Keener 1999: 512). Thus, some argue that in GMatthew/GMark the “son” (= Jesus) is positioned as the last of the prophets; however, the different treatment in GLuke indicates that redemptive-history and/or prophetic Christology are less emphasized.

206

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Finally, GLuke alone concludes the question–answer interchange with μὴ γένοιτο (20:16),171 further accentuating the burgeoning conflict.172 There is some ambiguity about who exactly is speaking, for GLuke reads ἀκούσαντες δὲ εἶπαν (plural) with no explicit subject. Some argue the “people” (singular λαός, 20:9) are collectively the respondents.173 While grammatically this is possible, especially given the gap between 20:9 and 20:16,174 normally in GLuke λαός takes a singular verb.175 Perhaps a more obvious referent would be the religious leaders who are depicted with plural verbs (ἐζήτησαν, ἐφοβήθησαν, ἔγνωσαν) in 20:19. If so, this exclamation suggests their awareness of the parable’s implicit self-condemnation: they may meet the same fate as the tenants for their actions.176 Such a realization is verbalized more fully, as we have seen, in 20:19. Taking stock of where we have come, several elements leading up to Luke 20:17 indicate that one of the core issues coming to a head in the PWT is that of acceptance/rejection of Jesus, specifically among the religious leaders. This dynamic is anticipated earlier in GLuke (Simeon’s oracle, ἀποδοκιμάζω, 13:35), reaches a point of actualization in the Jerusalem entry (βασιλεύς, Ps. 118[117]:26, “stones”), and is highlighted in various distinctive features of GLuke’s PWT (sequencing, Isa. 5 framing, “perhaps,” μὴ γένοιτο). All this sets the stage for GLuke’s handling of the first metaphor. 3.1.d. Rejected “Son,” Rejected “Stone.” Though the λίθος metaphor in Luke 20:17 is a verbatim quotation of Ps. 118[117]:22, matching Matt. 21:42//Mark 12:10, we should not assume (as many scholars do) that the metaphor works the same way here—namely, as a veiled messianic claim or a proleptic reference to Jesus’ death and resurrection.177 In fact, compared to the other Synoptics, GLuke seems to position this metaphor almost entirely negatively as a definitive declaration of the final rejection of Jesus as king, which will lead to disastrous results. It is, in other words, an inversion of the original Psalm 118 metaphor. 171.  GMatthew has Jesus asking the question and the people answering; GMark has Jesus asking and answering his own question; GLuke has Jesus asking and answering the question followed by the response of μὴ γένοιτο. This is the only NT occurrence of μὴ γένοιτο outside of Paul. 172.  Hubaut 1976: 61–2. 173.  Kloppenborg 2006: 211; Fitzmyer 1985a: 1285. 174.  Cf. shift from singular ὄχλος to plural verbs in Luke 19:3–7. 175.  Luke 1:10, 17, 21; 3:15; 7:29; 18:43; 19:47; 20:6; 21:38; 23:27, 35. 176.  Brawley 1995: 35. 177.  Recall §1.2 above.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

207

As shown in §2.2.b, Ps. 118[117]:22 praises the saving intervention of God on behalf of the implied king figure, who is received with praise (Ps. 118[117]:26) when he enters the temple courts. In that context the metaphor emphasizes vindication of the king-figure. GLuke, however, heads a different direction. Before the psalm quotation, GLuke uniquely records the harsh intensity with which Jesus looks directly (ἐμβλέπω) at his interlocutors.178 After the psalm quotation, GLuke omits Ps. 118[117]:23—“this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes”—altogether, which Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:11 include immediately after the λίθος saying. Some have argued this omission is inexplicable or insignificant.179 However, this omission cannot be so easily swept under the rug. Psalm 118[117]:23 is central to the entire point of GMatthew’s and GMark’s accounts, for it is the key piece of information that points to the ultimate vindication (= resurrection?) of the “son”/“stone.” Without it the PWT tends towards despair. Indeed, in the psalm itself v. 23 ascribes to God what is left somewhat unclear in v. 22 (with the passive ἐγενήθη): God is the one who turns the bad situation for the “I” (= “stone”) to good. Thus, the omission is unlikely incidental or stylistic. Rather, it brings GLuke’s negative slant on the PWT to its zenith precisely at the point of the parable’s conclusion with the stone metaphor. While the author’s treatment of this same quotation in Acts 4:11 positions it specifically in terms of Jesus’ death and resurrection,180 in the PWT the emphasis is not on the ultimate vindication of the “son”/“stone” but his rejection by the builders.181 GLuke’s use of the Psalm 118 “rejected stone” then becomes clearer. Jesus’ disciples hail him as king when he enters the temple (Ps. 118[117]:26 in Luke 19:37); there remains some hope that the king-stone may become the κεφαλὴν γωνίας. But the “builders”—which in Acts 4:11 and Jewish 178.  BDAG 321. Kloppenborg argues this phrase heightens how Jesus turns their response to the parable into a warning against them (2006: 213). 179.  E.g., Bovon 2012: 37; Fitzmyer 1985a: 1281; Snodgrass 1973: 160. 180.  Snodgrass 1973: 239–43; Joachim Jeremias 1964: 274–5. While much commends Wagner’s study, my proposed reading disagrees with his conclusion that “Acts 4.11 thus serves as the hermeneutical key to Luke’s use of Psalm 118 throughout the Gospel” (1997: 173). There is no reason to assume Ps. 118[117]:22 works the same way in both places. 181.  L.T. Johnson 1991: 309; Carlston 1975: 80. With or without “son/stone” wordplay (which works only in Hebrew/Aramaic anyhow), GLuke clearly associates the rejected stone and τὸν υἱόν μου τὸν ἀγαπητόν with Jesus, given ἀγαπητός in the baptism scene of 3:22 (numerous witnesses read ἀγαπητός instead of ἐκλελεγμένος at 9:35).

208

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

tradition designates scribes and temple authorities182—become precisely the ones who reject Jesus. There is a poignant reversal here: in Tg. Ps. 118, the “builders” proclaim “Blessed is the one…” in v. 26,183 but in GLuke the “builders” definitively reject Jesus as the coming “king,” which the gospel has been anticipating all along. Hence: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) king is a rejected/selected stone

NT Appropriation



The king (= son/stone) has entered the temple amid praise from his disciples, but some (esp. religious leaders) definitively reject him

In this way Luke 20:17 captures the differentiation anticipated by Simeon’s oracle (2:34). Some within Israel initially accept him (“rise”); others, particularly the religious authorities, reject him (“fall”). Where the original psalm in both its Greek and Hebrew reception emphasizes vindication/acceptance after rejection, GLuke emphasizes the latter with only traces of the former. For, as noted in the prior chapter, even the “people” who had previously been positive towards Jesus join in with the religious authorities at Jesus’ trial. GLuke is not alone in this slant on the “rejected” stone, for we see a similar emphasis on rejection (downplaying ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας) in 1 Pet. 2:7. Thus, while Luke 20:17 is a direct citation (with introductory formula) of Ps. 118[117]:22, the subtleties of GLuke’s handling of this text show there is no one-size-fits-all strategy that applies to all three Synoptics (or Acts 4). 3.2. Divine Judgment as an Encounter with the “Crushing Stone” GLuke’s negative handling of the PWT and thorough emphasis on this definitive act of rejection does leave us with the question: what will result from this encounter with Jesus as stone? How will the “rejected stone” be vindicated (if resurrection is not, for GLuke, foregrounded)? An answer to this question is found in the second λίθος metaphor, which effectively replaces the omitted Ps. 118[117]:23.184 This sub-section will build on the 182.  Acts 4:11 decodes the “builders” as “you,” the “rulers of the people and elders” (4:8); cf. CDa 8.12; 8.18 (“because of [his] hatred for the builders [‫ ]בוני‬of the wall his anger is kindled”); CDb 19.31 (“God hates and detests the builders [‫ ]בוני‬of the wall”). See Onyenali 2013: 138; Evans 1996: 72. 183.  Some manuscripts, however, read “David” rather than “builders” at 118:26 (Stec 2004: 210). 184.  Hubaut 1976: 64–6; Rese 1969: 172.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

209

groundwork laid in the prior regarding acceptance/rejection, whereby I will argue that Luke 20:18 conceptualizes Jesus as exercising the prerogative of God as the stone-rock that judges those within Israel who reject him. 3.2.a. The Crushing Stone. We begin by observing the parallelism in how the question of vindication is answered by the PWT and, in turn, by the twofold stone metaphors. In GLuke’s PWT the landlord—representing God in GLuke’s version,185 as in the Isaiah 5 vineyard song—asks, upon the tenants’ repeated rejection of his servants, “What shall I do?” (20:13). He sends the son, who is also rejected, leading to another question, “What shall the lord of the vineyard do to them”? (20:15). GLuke’s account concludes that the landlord “will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (20:16). In the narrative world of the parable, it is the landlord (= God) who vindicates the rejection of the son by the tenants. Luke 20:17–18 recapitulates this dynamic in metaphorical form. The builders reject the stone, just as the tenants have rejected the son. Who will vindicate the “son”/“stone”? The novel metaphor of 20:18 supplies a different answer: “that stone” itself. There is a pronounced link between the stone of 20:17 and that of 20:18, via asyndeton and the masculine demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον (20:18a) that syntactically must refer back to the 20:17 λίθος. It is “that stone,” the rejected stone (not, strictly speaking, the feminine κεφαλὴν γωνίας), which brings judgment to vindicate its own rejection, expressed as an inverted couplet: 20:18a

πᾶς ὁ πεσὼν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν λίθον The one who falls upon that συνθλασθήσεται·186 stone is shattered

20:18b

ἐφ’ ὃν δ’ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει187 αὐτόν.

The stone falls on him and crushes him

In the first clause, the rejectors fall (πᾶς ὁ πεσών) upon the stone; in the second, the stone falls upon the rejectors (ὃν/αὐτόν referring back to

185.  Though social-rhetorical critics argue that the purported primitive version sees the landlord simply as a representative of the powerful elite (Malina/Rohrbaugh 2003: 109–11; Arnal 2000; Horne 1998), I am unaware of anyone who seriously doubts that canonical PWT sees the landlord as God. 186.  συνθλάω, “crush in such a way that an object is put in pieces” (BDAG 972; similarly LSJ 1717). GLuke’s passive might best be rendered “shattered.” 187.  See n. 22. The same verb is used for “winnowing” in Luke 3:15–17.

210

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

ὁ πεσών).188 The inverted parallelism suggests there are not two separate acts of judgment (e.g., X falls on the stone; the stone falls on Y), but rather a single, devastating action of judgment.189 Thus, the ambiguity about the architectural position of the Luke 20:18 stone is ultimately a non-issue;190 the focus is the sweeping devastation that befalls the rejectors in their encounter with the “stone.” Thus, the recapitulation as we move from the parable proper to the metaphors becomes quite clear: Parable: Metaphors:

Rejection of son by tenants Rejection of stone by builders

Judgment by landlord Judgment by “that stone”

The landlord (= God) intervenes to judge those who reject the son, but in GLuke’s Christology, Jesus is both the rejected stone and “that stone,” the crushing stone, who takes on the prerogative of judgment. How does this fit with OT/Jewish metaphorical precedents? 3.2.b. Encountering the Stone. Here we see the exegetical payoff of our prior treatment of acceptance/rejection in GLuke. As outlined previously, an important aspect of certain OT stone-rock metaphors is the question of whether the leaders of Israel/Judah will respond in faith to God or instead seek refuge elsewhere. In Isa. 8:14, will Ahaz and “this people” respond to the signs of God’s faithfulness and trust in him as their “sanctuary,” or run after an alliance? In Isa. 28:16, will “this people” reject God by placing hope in a deceitful covenant with foreigners? We even see this basic notion in Isa. 5:1–7 (the leaders of Israel/Judah have rejected the tender care of God [5:4] and produced fruit of injustice/ unrighteousness) and Ps. 118[17]:8–9 (“It is better to trust in the Lord [πεποιθέναι ἐπὶ κύριον] than to trust in man,” vv. 8–9). Common to each is how Israel will respond to God. What is the outcome? God himself executes judgment on those within his own people who do not trust in him. In Isa. 8:14–15, God is the stone-rock upon which they stumble/fall (προσκόμματι/πεσοῦνται) and are crushed (συντριβήσονται).191 He will be a snare and a trap and will break them; he will bring the ὕδωρ of Assyria. Likewise in Isa. 28:16, God will bring the terror of the ὕδωρ of Assyria upon those who reject the stone; he will “rise up…to do his deed (ἀναστήσεται…ποιήσει τὰ ἔργα 188.  Taking δέ as correlative rather than contrastive. 189.  While the future indicative of both verbs likely suggests an eschatological horizon, a gnomic future (see Robertson 1934: 876) should not be ruled out. 190.  Pace Derrett 1965: 183. 191.  L&N (226–227) includes συντρίβω (Isa. 8:14) and συνθλάω (Luke 20:18) in the same category.



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

211

αὐτοῦ)” (28:21). Even in Isa. 5:5–6, it is God (ποιήσω) who pours out judgment on the vineyard. In short, in the relevant OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors and other influences on GLuke’s PWT, it is God who brings judgment against those within his own people who stand against him.192 But in GLuke, Jesus takes on this prerogative. When the people of Israel encounter him as a stone-rock, the judgment that follows is conceptualized in 20:18 in the terms that elsewhere map to God’s judgment/ salvation. The innovation in GLuke is that not only will the rejectors fall on “that stone” (20:18a), but that stone will fall upon them and crush them (20:18b). This second clause heightens the aspect of judgment: Jesus is not only a passive stone-rock upon which those who reject him within Israel fall, but he actively falls on them. Thus, examining Luke 20:18 in light of 20:17 and everything else leading up to it, I suggest on CMT terms the following appropriations of OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors: OT Conceptual Metaphor(s) king is a rejected/selected stone

israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stone-rock

NT Appropriation



Jesus is rejected by the religious leaders (just as the son is rejected by the tenants)



Jesus exercises divine judgment on those who have rejected him: they fall upon him and are shattered— and vice versa

“That stone” is now the very one who will do what the landlord will do in the parable: he will bring destruction upon those within Israel who reject him as stone rather than accepting and trusting in him. As I have detailed elsewhere, GLuke not only depicts Jesus arriving at the temple in 19:37–45 as the “king” but also frames this as the longawaited, decisive visitation of God himself to the temple, in the person of 192.  Precisely here the case for Dan. 2:44–45 as the intertext for Luke 20:18 runs aground, though the same broad judgment-via-stone mapping is present (§2.2.d). GLuke nowhere signals that the entire Jewish nation is being substituted for the pagan nations who are crushed by the “kingdom”-λίθος of Dan. 2. The use of λικμάω in Theodotion is not enough to overcome the significant difference in how the mapping is Israel → Nations in Daniel versus God → Israel here—especially given that the same verb is used numerous times in the LXX to refer to God’s judgment on Israel and/or other nations (Isa. 17:13; 30:22; 41:16; Jer. 31:10; 49:32; Ezek. 26:4; 29:12; 30:23; 36:19).

212

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Jesus.193 In 19:44 Jesus declares that because the people and their leaders have rejected the “time of your visitation,” the “stones” of Jerusalem/ temple will again be torn down. It is not necessarily surprising, therefore, that Luke 20:18 would creatively employ and even escalate a divine stone-rock metaphor and use it to portray Jesus’ judgment on those who reject him. Luke 20:18 does not answer how exactly to tease out the details, but perhaps that is the power of this re-mapping: that which OT/Jewish tradition conceptualizes as God’s judgment upon those within Israel who encounter him as a “crushing stone,” GLuke maps to Jesus. 3.3. Summary The combination of λίθος metaphors in Luke 20:17–18 brings together numerous threads. The question posed in 2:34 and elaborated throughout the gospel—who will accept or reject Jesus, or will anyone ultimately accept him at his coming?—culminates in the dramatic encounter between Jesus and the people of Israel in Jerusalem. Some accept him as king (at least for now), while others, especially the religious leaders, reject him, as illustrated in PWT and summarized in Luke 20:17, which appropriates king is a rejected/accepted stone. In other words, when the people of Israel encounter Jesus as a stone, there is a decisive internal differentiation. Within the OT/Jewish “encyclopedia” of conceptual metaphors, this conceptualization of judgment specifically on Israel is mapped to God: israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stonerock. But in Luke 20:18 the target domain is now Jesus, the “crushing stone” who will bring judgment upon those within Israel who have rejected him as king-stone.194

193.  Lanier 2014a. Important aspects of this portrayal include the central role of the temple in GLuke’s infancy narrative and temptation scene, use of δόξα-terminology, adoption of imagery from Ezek. 8–11 and 43, and GLuke’s portrayal of Jesus’ descent from the Mount of Olives into the temple. 194.  This reading points in a particular direction regarding the question of the identity of the “others” to whom the vineyard will be given (Luke 20:16), which has been a major debate in light of post-World War II concerns about anti-Semitic readings of the parable. The common redemptive-historical interpretation is that the Gentile church constitutes the “others” and all Jews are thereby rejected. Though this has been more often imputed to GMatthew (due to Matt. 21:43), it remains a live option for GLuke (see J.T. Sanders 1987: 195–6). While the stone metaphors do not definitively answer the question, my analysis suggests that it is not all Jews who are judged by the landlord/“crushing stone,” but only the unrepentant, rejecting portion— especially the religious leaders. If so, the “others” in GLuke would naturally point to



5. Interpretation of the Λίθος Metaphors

213

4. Christological Implications Many focus on redemptive history (the Jew–Gentile question) or Jesus’ death and resurrection in these passages. Moreover, for GLuke the following comment is representative: Jesus is Son and heir in fulfilling the unique task of Messiah. The use of the Psalm draws on a pattern of rejection that has faced the nation and her kings, and points as well to the ultimate vindication of the Messiah… [However, in 20:18] the allusion is too uncertain in character to be discussed as christologically significant.195

On this view, whatever Christology expressed implicitly in GLuke’s λίθος metaphors is primarily, if not entirely, messianic. This perspective, however, is underdeveloped. While it is true that there are potentially messianic elements in the βασιλεύς → υἱός → λίθος logic from Luke 19:38 to 20:17, this is only half the picture. In Luke 20:17, the one who undertakes the promised “visitation” (ἐπισκοπή) of God to the temple is rejected by the leaders of Israel; in Luke 20:18, “that stone” in turn crushes those who have rejected him. While certain strands of Jewish messianism certainly ascribe to the Messiah-figure a role in eschatological judgment, the focus is almost always on judging the enemies of Israel.196 But here, the enemies, the rejectors, are within the people of God. And judgment that falls upon them, and particularly the mapping of the stone-rock domain to conceptualize such judgment, is that of God himself. Therefore, the christological upshot of Luke 20:18 is this: Jesus-asstone exercises the kind of judgment—reserved for God—upon those within Israel who, upon their encounter with him as stone-rock, end up rejecting him. In short, though messianic Christology is reflected in Luke 20:17, GLuke’s creative reappropriation of a divine conceptual metaphor in 20:18 is also suggestive of some form of divine Christology, as with prior chapters. What GMatthew and GMark express with Ps. 118[117]:23 (“This is the Lord’s doing”) GLuke expresses with a novel metaphor in which this is “that stone’s” doing. a new group of leaders who will tend the vineyard of God faithfully, namely Jesus’ apostles/disciples (i.e. Luke 22:30). See Hultgren 2000: 360; Brawley 1995; Mussner 1967 for similar proposals. 195.  Bock 1987: 127. 196.  E.g., 1Q28b 5.20–29; 11QMelch; Pss. Sol. 17:21–28; 1 En. 38:2–4; Sib. Or. 5:106–110. See Collins 1995: 67.

214

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

The fact that Luke 20:18 is not directly quoting or alluding to Isa. 8:14 or 28:16 (recall §1.1.a), but is nevertheless drawing on a conceptual metaphor that derives primarily from those passages, raises an intriguing question: why did GLuke not simply quote those texts, as Romans or 1 Peter do? Any answer would be speculative, of course, but there is some elegance in how a novel metaphor, rather than a more direct allusion, achieves in one stroke the transformation of target domains from god to jesus while avoiding predicating the Isaianic texts (particularly 8:14) directly to Jesus.197 As we turn to the concluding chapter, we will explore such intimations of divine Christology further.

197.  This perhaps explains why many scholars offer Isa. 8:14 as the intertext for Luke 20:18 but avoid taking seriously the christological implications. E.g., Kloppenborg writes, “Luke…interpreted the ‘stone of stumbling’ as Jesus himself” (2006: 218), but takes it no further.

Chapter 6 C on c l u s i on

In this final chapter, we will summarize the analyses of Chapters 2–5 and reflect on their implications for Lukan Christology. In particular I will suggest that these metaphors evince a christological outlook that fits broadly in the category of “divine identity Christology”—though this is not the only outlook in GLuke. Finally, we will comment on the implications this study has for the use of the OT in the NT. 1. Summary of Results We will tabulate how each Lukan metaphor has appropriated OT/Jewish conceptual metaphors and summarize the christological implications.1 1.1. Luke 1:68–69: Κέρας Metaphor defeat of enemies is striking them with a horn exalting someone’s status is lifting his/her horn sign of god’s blessing is his causing a horn to sprout for his people god is the horn of salvation

Jesus secures victory over the “enemies” of God’s people (Jesus embodies of the exalting of David’s status) (God’s blessing consists in providing Jesus) Jesus provides the deliverance that God alone provides as horn

After arguing that the metaphor in 1:69 is one of personification, I demonstrated how its mapping of the horn domain broadly confirms the scholarly consensus that Jesus is being portrayed as a deliverer-figure or Davidic Messiah.2 This is not, strictly speaking, necessitated by antecedent 1.  Only those mapped by GLuke are reproduced; for others that are filtered, see §2.2 of each chapter. 2.  Represented by, e.g., Fitzmyer, who argues that κέρας σωτηρίας is a “title for an agent of God’s salvation in David’s house, i.e. in a loose sense a messianic title” (1981: 383).

216

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

horn metaphors in OT/Jewish tradition, but the context in GLuke gives 1:69 this sense. In other words, many scholars argue that Luke 1:69 is “messianic” because it draws on the allegedly messianic “horns” in antecedent Jewish tradition; yet this move seems to be somewhat circular, insofar as they are reading Luke’s “messianic” coloring of κέρας σωτηρίας (due to the target domain in the infancy narrative) back into sources that may not be so obviously “messianic.” Furthermore, we also detected intimations that 1:69—if read against the framing of the Benedictus in terms of Psalm 18 (where κέρας σωτηρίας takes God himself as the target domain) and the exodus (wherein God is also the horn of deliverance for his people; e.g., Num. 23:22)—may map the divine metaphor god is the horn of salvation to Jesus. That is to say, prerogatives ascribed to God-as-Horn are being ascribed to Jesus, who nevertheless remains the divinely appointed deliverer (e.g., ἤγειρεν). However, relative to the other three metaphors studied, evidence of divine Christology is weakest here. 1.2. Luke 1:78–79: Ἀνατολή Metaphor salvation is going from darkness to light agent of salvation is a shining light the coming of god is the dawn

Jesus brings God’s people out of darkness/shadow and leads them in paths of peace Jesus is the deliverer-figure who accomplishes salvation for God’s people Jesus is the dawn that visits from on high/heaven to appear (epiphanically) to God’s people

After challenging the hypotheses that GLuke’s ἀνατολή alludes either to an abstract “era of salvation” or the ‫צמח‬/ἀνατολή-figure in Jeremiah/ Zechariah, I argued that it appropriates the divine conceptual metaphor the coming of god is the dawn. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the majority view of the ἀνατολή as an agent of salvation is entirely wrong—far from it—but rather that such a view is simply incomplete and cannot adequately explain the full contours of the metaphor.3 The analysis demonstrated how God’s own theophanic/epiphanic appearance to his people to save them is understood through the source domain of light/ dawn in OT/Jewish tradition. Several lines of evidence, then, support the case that 1:78–79 applies this very divine conceptual metaphor to Jesus: the OT background of 1:79, which indicates that God is just as likely (if 3.  Fitzmyer is again representative: “the ‘horn of salvation’ in David’s house is now presented as the messianic ‘Dawn from on High’” (1981: 279).



6. Conclusion

217

not more likely) to be the one who delivers those “sitting in darkness”; nuances of ἀνατολή as “dawn”; its coming ἐξ ὕψους, that is, from a point of heavenly origination; “visitation” motif that portrays God’s direct action of salvation or judgment; ἐπιφᾶναι language, for which it is at least plausible, if not probable, that a divine sense of “appearing” or “manifestation” is in view rather than simply “shining light”; and the OT background of the forerunner of the divine κύριος. Whereas God “visits” in 1:68–69 (horn metaphor), here the focus shifts: Jesus, though an agent of salvation, carries out in his person the divine visitation—in some way that GLuke leaves open-ended—from heaven as the dawn, whose epiphany brings salvation to those in darkness. 1.3. Luke 13:34: Ὄρνις Metaphor jerusalem/zion is a mother to her children the israelites protection is shelter under god’s wings god is the mother bird who gathers the children of jerusalem/zion

“Jerusalem” is the mother of the people Jesus desires together, but they refuse to be gathered and bring destruction upon their mother Jesus is the mother bird who desires to provide shelter… …And undertake the divine, eschatological ingathering of the “children of Jerusalem”

Having found other views inadequate—namely, that this verse refers to a Q-community prophet, a messenger, or (hypostatic) Wisdom/Sophia— my analysis demonstrated that this metaphor, at a high point of GLuke’s travel narrative, appropriates to Jesus certain divine prerogatives by mapping to him mother bird, refuge, and “gathering” of the children of Jerusalem/Zion. He is portrayed as the mother bird of the Jewish people who desires to bring about their eschatological ingathering—a composite divine metaphor—but is refused by many among both the leaders and the “people,” not unlike the rejection of God by ancient Israel in OT/Jewish tradition. 1.4. Luke 20:17–18: Λίθος Metaphors king is a rejected/selected stone israel’s judgment/salvation is their encounter with god as a stone-rock

Jesus is received as king by some, but he is rejected by the religious authorities Jesus exercises divine judgment within Israel, crushing those who, upon encountering him as “stone,” reject him

218

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Our analysis confirms the multi-faceted nature of the stone-rock metaphors that prove so popular in the OT/Jewish literature, NT, and beyond. With respect to Luke 20:17, our findings largely agree with the general consensus that the Psalm 118[17]:22 quotation expresses aspects of kingship,4 though with a decidedly negative slant that emphasizes the rejection of Jesus. However, GLuke’s elision of Psalm 118[117]:23 and introduction of a novel metaphor in 20:18 develops the Christology of the stone metaphor in a different direction than that seen in GMatthew/ GMark. The “crushing stone” appropriates a divine conceptual metaphor whereby God, who is normally a stone-rock of refuge for his people if they trust in him as stone-rock, becomes the stone-rock that crushes the unfaithful within Israel who reject him. This reading of 20:18 fits well with GLuke’s development of internal differentiation within the people of Israel (anticipated in Simeon’s oracle of 2:34–35 and elsewhere in the gospel). In sum, GLuke’s κέρας, ἀνατολή, and λίθος metaphors include mappings of OT/Jewish source domains to deliverer-related target domains, many of which can justifiably be labeled “messianic.” On this point it is worth clarifying what I am not arguing: I do not, in the main, disagree with the majority viewpoints that a divinely appointed agent of salvation is in view in these passages (or in GLuke as a whole). However, what I am arguing is that such consensus views for the metaphors studied are incomplete: these metaphors each, to varying degrees, also map a divine conceptual metaphor from OT/Jewish tradition to a new target domain, that of Jesus. This appropriation is strongest in the ὄρνις and ἀνατολή metaphors: no human mediator figure can be the mother bird who “gathers” Israel, nor do mere human mediators “visit from on high” and make an epiphany as the dawn. But such appropriation is by no means suppressed in the κέρας and λίθος metaphors: the possible exodus framing and semantics of 1:68–69 make it plausible that something more than “messianic” is envisioned, and the “crushing stone” metaphor in light of the PWT and preceding narrative episodes indicates a role of divine judgment within Israel that human mediators do not play. What, then, are we to make of this conceptual re-mapping of divine metaphors?

4.  Summarized well in Snodgrass 2008: 276–98.



6. Conclusion

219

2. Divine Metaphors and Christology As introduced in Chapter 1, it is no secret that OT/Jewish literature features numerous metaphors that conceptualize God as king, shield, tower, fortress, shepherd, husband, and so on.5 The advances in cognitive linguistics have led many scholars to take seriously how such divine metaphors are more than artistic/poetic expressions but, in fact, play a central role in structuring how Israelites conceive of the deity. When worshippers praise God as a shield or mighty fortress, they reveal that they actually visualize or conceptualize God as a shield or fortress, as one whose relationship to his people is characterized by the kind of protection or safety that such objects provide. Or when one describes God as a sure foundation, one’s mental picture of God is that he alone is unchanging and stable enough to base one’s life upon. Both personally and corporately, such expressions are “deeply embodied metaphors for abstract experience” of God.6 Conceptual metaphors are a way of capturing something of the identity or character of God himself that distinguishes him from other beings.7 The question becomes, then, to what degree is this true for the OT/Jewish metaphors studied here? How central are they to the identity of God and, thus, to the christological analyses undertaken here? 2.1. God Is…horn, dawn, mother bird, stone-rock Three observations help answer these questions. (i) First, our inductive analysis of the relevant OT/Jewish data in each chapter has illustrated the frequency and breadth of attestation of these metaphors—across time and across literary communities. While a metaphor like god is king is more common than some of those studied here, our analyses revealed how the underlying conceptual metaphors are reflected in dozens of specific metaphorical utterances.

5.  DesCamp/Sweetser identify 44 divine metaphors in the HB (2005), including all four studied here. 6.  Sweetser/DesCamp 2014: 22. 7.  The contemporary use of such divine metaphors would seem to corroborate their importance. For example, when I was originally drafting this chapter, the toddler of a Cambridge friend was undergoing brain surgery to remove a tumor. My friend sent out daily updates over several weeks, each concluding with a scriptural text that had been encouraging that day. Roughly half of them involved metaphors for God (horn, rock, refuge, etc.).

220

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

(ii) Second, we may also point to how each metaphor studied here is not merely incidental but expresses concerns that are central to Israelite/Jewish religious experience. For instance, horn, mother bird, and stone-rock convey how God provides refuge and protection for his people; similarly, the dawn/light metaphors play a key role in eschatological expectations of salvation. Furthermore, many of these metaphorical utterances occur in significant contexts: the exodus (Exod. 19; Deut. 32–33), monotheism (multiple stone-rock passages), David (Pss. 18[17]; 118[117]), exile (Isa. 8; 28), and restoration (Mal. 3–4). Though God as stone-rock is arguably more fundamental than, say, God as mother bird, none of these four is derived from some small cul-de-sac of Israel’s religious corpus. They are often front-and-center in many of its most significant compositions. (iii) Finally, frequently two or more of these source domains are mapped to God as the target domain within the same passage:8

Greek Examples (with Hebrew annotations) Deuteronomy 32–33—[32:4] God (θεός),a his work is true. [11] Like an eagle to shelter his nest (ὡς ἀετὸς σκεπάσαι νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ), he also attended upon his young birds (νεοσσοῖς αὐτοῦ). Spreading his wings (πτέρυγας) he received them, and he took them up upon his back. [18] You abandoned the God (θεός)a who bore you. [31] For their gods (θεοί)a are not as our God (θεός).a [33:2] The Lord came (ἥκει) from Sinai and appeared (ἐπέφανεν)b from Seir upon us.

● Greek and Hebrew ○ Hebrew (Greek “decodes”) horn light bird (dawn) (9) ● ●

stonerock ○

a—Heb. ‫צור‬ b—Heb. ‫זרח‬

8.  As in the Benedictus, incidentally. 9.  Recall also κέρατα referring to Joseph (or God, according to some scholars) in 33:17.



6. Conclusion

Greek Examples (with Hebrew annotations) 2 Kingdoms 22—[2] O God, my rock (πέτρα μου). [3] My God will be my guard, and I will trust in him: my defender and horn of my salvation (κέρας σωτηρίας μου). [11] He rode on a cherub and flew (ἐπετάσθη) and was seen on the wings (πτερύγων) of the wind. [29] You are my lamp (λύχνος μου), O Lord; and the Lord will shine forth (ἐκλάμψει) to me [in] my darkness. Psalm 18[17]—[3] The Lord is my support (στερέωμα)a…My God is my helper, and I will hope in him: my defender and horn of my salvation (κέρας σωτηρίας μου). [10] He rode on a cherub and flew; he came swiftly on the wings of the wind. [29] My God, you illumine (φωτιεῖς) my darkness. [46] The Lord lives, and blessed be my God (θεός).a a—Heb. ‫צור‬ Psalm 89[88]—[16] Blessed are the people who know the shout—who will walk, O Lord, in the light of your face (ἐν τῷ φωτὶ τοῦ προσώπου σου). [27] You are my Father, my God and protector (ἀντιλήμπτωρ)a of my salvation. a—Heb. ‫צור‬ Malachi 3—[20] The sun of righteousness will rise (ἀνατελεῖ… ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης)a and healing in his wings (πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ).

221

● Greek and Hebrew ○ Hebrew (Greek “decodes”) horn light bird (dawn) ● ● ●

●

●

(10)

●

●

●

stonerock ●

○

○

●

a—Heb. ‫זרח‬

10.  Ps. 89[88]:18, 18 include κέρας (exalted status) metaphors.

222

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

When Israel’s poets want to express something about God, they can recall history or state propositions—but they can also pile on metaphors that map various source domains to God. We note similar combinations of these source domains in ancient Near Eastern sources. For instance, sun-discs often include wings; images of the deity often feature a sun disc between the horns of a bull or before a figure with a horned headdress;11 divine sun imagery is occasionally associated with the “sacred mountain”;12 various birds were commonly associated with the sun-deity in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia;13 and the Book of the Dead combines the rising of the morning-star from the east and the bull-calf (horn) to express hope in salvation from Ra.14 In short, there is good evidence that the metaphors studied here are significant OT/Jewish ways of conceptualizing the identity of God. 2.2. Divine Identity Christology If that is the case, the appropriation of such divine conceptual metaphors in GLuke would seem to be a non-trivial maneuver. What is the significance of this conceptual re-mapping of divine metaphors to a different target domain, namely Jesus? I would argue that the results of our study best fit with what has become known within the field of NT Christology as “divine identity Christology.” With some of Bauckham’s seminal works15 there have arisen numerous scholarly efforts oriented around the christological outlook of “divine identity”: seeing NT writings as placing Jesus unambiguously “on the divine side of the line” that separates God from all other created beings.16 In part due to the bisemy of “identity” itself, these efforts can be grouped in two categories, which are commonly lumped together but should be distinguished. The more narrow category, which was Bauckham’s original thesis, emphasizes the noun “identity” as referring to who one is, or the essential character of a person that makes him distinct from other persons—in contrast to what one does (function/role) or what divinity is (ontology/nature).17 One’s unique identity is that which enables an 11.  Mayer-Opificius 1984: 198; Süring 1980: 138–50. 12.  Whitley 2015: 136. 13.  Sühling 1930: 169–71. 14.  Chapter 109 (Budge 1928: 317–18); see also Schroer 1998: 277–8. 15.  Bauckham 2008b[1998]; 1999; 1981. 16.  Bauckham 1981: 335. 17.  E.g., the NT presents “Jesus as intrinsic to who God is” (Bauckham 2008b: 31).



6. Conclusion

223

observer to pick him/her, as it were, “out of the crowd”18 of others who may, in fact, share the same functions or nature.19 As argued by Bauckham, the two primary indices of the divine identity within Jewish monotheism, which are absolutely distinct to God and “cannot be delegated as a mere function to a creature,”20 are his creation of all things and his sovereignty over all creation.21 Thus, to the extent that such indices are ascribed to Jesus in the NT, he is seen to be included in the divine identity of God the Father in such a way that is often described as “christological monotheism.”22 The broader category, which for most scholars is inspired by Bauckham,23 emphasizes the verb “identify” and marshals a variety of NT passages that portray Jesus doing something God normally does in OT/ Jewish tradition (apart from the unique indices of “identity” mentioned above). One key example involves NT quotations of the OT wherein Jesus is the subject in the NT context but God is the subject in the OT.24 Other examples include the predication to Jesus the sorts of activities (e.g., miracles, knowledge of hearts), prerogatives (e.g., forgiveness of sins, eschatological justice), designations (e.g., κύριος), or attributes (e.g., δόξα) that are generally predicated of God.25 Such maneuvers “identify” 18.  W. Hill 2015: 137. 19.  This last qualification is important, for among some scholars Jesus’ “identity” can be construed as membership in a class of beings that share in God’s “divinity” (e.g., divine agents [McGrath], divine kings [Collins/Collins], angels [FletcherLouis]) by virtue of his possessing the functions/characteristics of other members of that class, without his being equated/conflated/merged/identified with any specific member (specifically, God himself). This class-level “identity” is precisely not what Bauckham is proposing. 20.  Bauckham 2008b: 184. 21.  Bauckham also emphasizes cultic worship—along with Hurtado (2003a, 2003b)—as an index of divine identity (1999). Tilling (2012) adds another: Jesus’ trans-spatial, trans-temporal, incorporative relationship with the church that is unparalleled by exalted mediator-figures (only Yahweh’s relationship with Israel). 22.  Bauckham concludes, “the highest possible Christology—the inclusion of Jesus in the unique divine identity—was central to the faith of the early church even before any of the New Testament writings were written, since it occurs in all of them” (2008b: 19). See also Wright 2013: 2:644–56. 23.  E.g., Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015; R.B. Hays 2014; Grindheim 2011; Tait 2010; Fee 2007. Rowe’s “narrative identity” (2005: 17–19) roughly fits here; also Carrell 2005: 173; Buckwalter 1996: 192. 24.  E.g., Fee 2007: 631–8; Capes 1992; also Bauckham 2008b: 186–91. 25.  Blackburn describes these features as “assimilating” Jesus to Yahweh (1991: 133–82).

224

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

Jesus with God through the “joining of Christ as Lord with God the Father in several key moments of divine purpose and activity.”26 There are limitations to both categories. Some have critiqued the narrow category (specifically that of Bauckham) for defining the rules in such a way that smooths over tensions: e.g., rejecting divine hypo­ stases and including Wisdom/Logos automatically within the “divine identity,” or skirting around certain exalted patriarchs/angels who seem to be ascribed sovereign rule.27 The broader category has been critiqued for relying on an overly simplistic syllogism—“Only God has F. Jesus has F. Therefore, Jesus is God”28—that does not take seriously enough Jewish divine mediators who may, in some Jewish sources, have “F.”29 Acknowledging these limitations, I submit that this study of GLuke’s transformation of divine conceptual metaphors indicates a form of “divine identity christology” that fits somewhere between the two. On the one hand, our findings do not deal expressly with divine identity as confined to “creation” of and “sovereignty” over all things. We have also avoided any gymnastics required to get around possible competitors (Wisdom, Logos, exalted agents), openly admitting that divine and deliverer-figure metaphors sit side-by-side in these Lukan passages. Put differently, while we have uncovered little evidence that the divine conceptual metaphors for each of our chapters take target domains other than God—which is, of course, significant for our thesis—we also showed that GLuke may very well be exploiting other mappings of the same source domains in order to accentuate Jesus’ identity as a deliver-figure also. On the other hand, this maneuver in GLuke is more complex than, say, taking an LXX κύριος quotation and putting Jesus in the κύριος position, as with the broad category.

26.  Fee 2007: 48. Cf. Bates’s “prosopological exegesis” and “Christology of divine persons” (2015). 27.  See critiques in Chester 2007b: 17–25, 46–7. Dunn also critiques Bauckham for using the modern category of “identity” (2010: 141–4), but this critique has been answered by Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015: 56–88. 28.  As summarized by Tuggy in his critique of Bauckham (2013: 133). 29.  See the critiques in McGrath 2009 (who argues that all allegedly “high Christology” in the NT, even Paul and GJohn, can be explained via divine mediator speculation). Kirk’s proposal that the Synoptics present Jesus not as divine but only as an “idealized human figure” (2016) is the most recent challenge to such views of high(er) Christology.



6. Conclusion

225

The conceptual metaphors studied here extend across numerous texts, time periods, and even cultural groups. Therefore, to re-map certain longstanding source → target mappings that have always been used to conceptualize God—and now use them to conceptualize Jesus—is a significant way of articulating how Jesus shares in some way in the distinctiveness of God while remaining distinct. Such is precisely the essence of divine identity Christology. Not all GLuke’s metaphors are created equal, so some express this more strongly than others. But our results from GLuke indicate that, at a minimum, it is worth considering whether “divine identity Christology” might be broadened in this way. If so, this furthers our understanding of the christological outlook of GLuke. The gospel has employed these novel metaphors in such a way that suggests a “higher” Christology than commonly assumed. In the Benedictus, Jesus is announced as the one who will be the “visitation” of heavenly dawn, the divine “epiphany” to bring God’s people into light, and the horn who conquers their enemies. On his way to inaugurate what the Benedictus announces, Jesus is likewise conceptualized with the divine metaphor of the mother bird gathering “Jerusalem’s children,” but he is refused. When he arrives in Jerusalem, the divine “visitation” is definitively rejected, and Jesus becomes the stone-rock who will exercise divine judgment on those within Israel who reject him. In short, our results augment recent arguments that the gospel signals a Christology of divine identity.30 2.3. Divine and Human Christology? However, without question GLuke presents other christological outlooks elsewhere in the gospel and in these very texts themselves, as I have demonstrated in the preceding chapters. In fact, part of the challenge facing scholars who study Lukan Christology (mentioned in Chapter 1 §1.2) is the presence of elements suggestive of “lower” Christology directly alongside elements that some see as suggestive of “higher” Christology—the very same juxtaposition found in the metaphors studied. A brief, and by no means exhaustive, survey will help clarify this point:

30.  E.g., Henrichs-Tarasenkova 2015; R.B. Hays 2014; Bullard 2015.

226

Luke 1–2

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors Suggestive of “lower” Christology χριστός (2:11, 26) Davidic line (1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11) [--------------------------[---------------------------

Luke 3

Earthly ministry (3:23) Human descent from Adam (3:38) Luke 4 Anointed prophet (4:18–24) χριστός (4:41) Luke 7 προφήτης (7:16) Luke 9–10 τὸν χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (9:20) Teacher (10:25)

Luke 11 Luke 13 Luke 19–20 Luke 24

προφήτης (11:49) Teacher (11:45) προφήτης (13:33) βασιλεύς (19:38) Rejected stone metaphor (20:17) προφήτης (24:19) χριστός (24:26, 46)

Suggestive of “higher” Christology υἱὸς ὑψίστου (1:32) Virgin conception of κυρίος μου (1:43) σωτήρ and κύριος (2:11) Horn metaphor (1:68–69) Ἀνατολή metaphor (1:78–79) Light and δόξα (2:32–33) υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός at baptism (3:22) Called υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ by demons (4:41) Unique authority and power (4:36) Knowledge of thoughts (7:36–50) Reconstituting Israel (Twelve) (9:1) Transfiguration and δόξα (9:31) Knowledge of thoughts (9:46–48) Jubelruf (10:21–22) Knowledge of thoughts (11:17) Finger of God (11:20) Mother Bird metaphor (13:34) κύριος (19:31) Visitation (19:44) Crushing stone metaphor (20:18) Sending of the Spirit (24:49) Worship (24:52)

Upon inspection, our findings fit with a broader tendency in GLuke to present multiple christological outlooks side-by-side in a complex way. The data simply does not permit us to cram everything into a single category. But an important question is raised by this pattern: how might the author hold these diverse strands—particularly “lower” and “higher”—together? Answering this question would, of course, require a dedicated study in its own right. However, a few tentative suggestions may be put forward.31 One model that is popular within the “new” religionsgeschichtliche Schule is to envision the early church “promoting” or “upgrading” the

31.  To be clear, I am not referring to the ontological/metaphysical question(s), but rather how the author is using, for lack of a better term, pre-Nicene categories at his disposal.



6. Conclusion

227

status of Jesus along a continuum from “human” to “divine.”32 The basic framework is roughly as follows:

Human

God of Israel Prophet Teacher

Messiah

Divineman

Adopted Pre-existent Exalted Angel royal son Messiah figure (omorphic)

Wisdom? Logos?

Though perhaps useful in classifying various individual examples in Jewish literature,33 this framework provides little help with the actual data of GLuke. Apart from the resurrection, there is little to suggest “promotion” in the gospel, and the diverse strands of side-by-side data simply fail to fit into this scheme. We may more fruitfully approach GLuke’s data—especially given its emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of the Scriptures of Israel (1:1; 24:44; etc.)—through the lens of eschatological fulfillment. Within the OT as well as some (though not all, of course) Jewish sources, there are at least two archetypes of eschatological expectation: one archetype envisions some sort of human deliverer-figure who will be active in the final salvation of God’s people, and one archetype envisions the direct, personal, non-intermediated action of God. The former includes an array of figures, depending on the writing and source community: Son of Man, “Messiah(s),” prophet-like-Moses, prophet-like-Elijah, Zadokite or Aaronic priests, and more. The latter focuses on specific expectations of divine intervention that God himself alone does, without a mediator.34 Importantly, these are not competing archetypes but complementary ones,

32.  Hurtado, for instance, uses a thought process like this positively to support his binitarian hypothesis (2003a; 1988), while McGrath (2009) and Dunn (2010) use it negatively to undermine the possibility of “higher” Christology. These incompatible conclusions are part of the reason why I find this framework somewhat unsatisfactory. 33.  However, see W. Hill’s strong critique (2015). 34.  See the helpful discussions in Wright 2013: 651–5; Grindheim 2011: 36–8; E. Adams 2006; Rose 2003; Horbury 1998: 78–80; Hughes 1972: 192; Pidoux 1947: 10–27 (“Il semble que Dieu intervient lui-même sans intermédiaires,” 27). Laurentin summarizes well: “D’autre part la manifestation eschatologique était souvent représentée dans la Bible comme une manifestation de Yahweh lui-même” (1957: 107); that is, does GLuke envision Jesus as the “manifestation du Messie ou manifestation de Yahweh même?” (120).

228

Old Testament Conceptual Metaphors

expressing different aspects of the future hopes of Israel.35 It would seem that Luke is not trying to fit everything into the former or the latter, but rather using both archetypes simultaneously as lenses through which he articulates the significance of Jesus. That is to say, GLuke’s portrayal of Jesus as fulfilling the role of eschatological deliverer-figure(s) is tinted, so to speak, by one of the lenses. And the gospel’s portrayal of Jesus as the one who embodies or realizes the direct eschatological intervention of God in his own person—i.e. “visitation,” “gathering,” “epiphany,” and judgment within Israel, which prove so central to the metaphors studied here—is tinted by the other lens. Stated succinctly, GLuke portrays Jesus as “more than a Messiah,”36 which nevertheless includes “Messiah” within the “more than.” Such a reading of GLuke still leaves much unanswered, but it nevertheless opens the door for further reflection. 3. Closing Remarks As noted in each chapter, part of the challenge of these passages is that normal criteria used within biblical intertextuality break down here. CMT, however, has provided a flexible methodology whereby we could trace the ways the source domains behind GLuke’s metaphors are used in a variety of conceptual metaphor mappings across dozens of OT/Jewish texts. This brings some measure of rigor where verbatim correspondences are either lacking or too vague to substantiate a claim that this or that specific OT text is the source of a NT allusion/echo. One outcome of this study, then, is that we have outlined and applied a clear method that can be reproduced for similar NT texts. We close by noting that our results open up further avenues of christological inquiry, particularly with respect to other divine metaphors in the NT that are appropriated to Jesus, such as shepherd, bridegroom, sower, and glory.37 CMT might also be fruitfully applied to the seemingly elusive study of Son of God and Son of Man, where fresh insights might be gained from approaching these designations not by sifting through places where the same title is used, but by exploring how they metaphorically map the

35.  A good example of the juxtaposition is Ezek. 37, which combines both “I [God] will do it” (including “gathering” [συνάξω], 37:11–14, 21–23) and “My servant David shall be their king” (37:24–25). 36.  A phrase borrowed from Chester 2007a: 121. 37.  See Schröter 2003 (for Pauline metaphors); Tait 2010.



6. Conclusion

229

sonship source domain in various ways.38 Finally, the approach outlined here could fruitfully be applied to the study of other deliverer-metaphors that have a long life in OT, Jewish, and Christian literature, such as ‫צמח‬, “root” of Jesse, and scepter/rod.

38.  See Müller 2003.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Primary Sources Adler, Nathan M. 1904. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire. 7th ed. Trans. Simeon Singer. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Aland, Kurt. 1996. Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis editit. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Alexander, Philip S. 2003. The Targum of Canticles: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 17A. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. ———. 2007. The Targum of Lamentations: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 17B. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. Allegro, John M., and Arnold A. Anderson, eds. 1968. Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon. Aristotle. 1982a. Volume XXIII: Poetics. Longinus. On the Sublime. Trans. William H. Fyfe. LCL 199. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1982b. Volume XXII: Rhetoric. Trans. John Henry Freese. LCL 193. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Attridge, Harold et al., eds. 1994. Qumran Cave 4, VII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon. Baillet, Maurice, ed. 1982. Qumrân Grotte 4, III: 4Q482–4Q520. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon. Barthélemy, D., and J.T. Milik, eds. 1955. Qumran Cave I. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon. Baumgarten, Joseph M., ed. 1996. Qumran Cave 4, XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon. Beentjes, Pancratius. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 48. Leiden: Brill. Bernstein, Moshe, et al., eds. 2001. Qumran Cave 4, XXVII: Miscellanea, Part 2. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon. Bidawid, R.J., et al., eds. 1966. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version: Song of Songs, Tobit, 4 Ezra. Leiden: Brill. Black, J.A., et al. 1998. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Online: http:// www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk (accessed 12 March 2015). Braude, William G. 1959. The Midrash on Psalms. Vol. 2. Yale Judaica Series 13. New Haven: Yale University Press. Brooke, George, et al., eds. 1996. Qumran Cave 4, XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon.

Bibliography

231

Buber, Salomon. 1885. Midrasch Tanchuma: Ein Agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba. Wilna: Druck. Budge, E.A. Wallis. 1928. The Book of the Dead: An English Translation of the Chapters, Hymns, Etc., of the Theban Recension, with Introduction, Notes, Etc. New York: E.P. Dutton. Burrows, Millar, et al., eds. 1951. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol. II: Fascicle 2, Plates and Transcription of the Manual of Discipline. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Callimachus. 1989. Hymns and Epigrams. Trans. G.R. Mair. LCL 129. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cathcart, Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon, eds. 1989. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. ArBib 14. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Charles, R.H. 1908. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Edited from Nine Mss. Oxford: Clarendon. Charlesworth, James H., ed. 1995. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2, Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Charlesworth, James H., and Henry W.L. Rietz, eds. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Chazon, Esther, et al., eds. 1999. Qumran Cave 4, XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon. Chilton, Bruce D. 1987. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. ArBib 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Cicero. 1907. “Republic.” Pages 216–41 in The Library of Original Sources. Vol. 3, The Roman World. Ed. Oliver Thatcher. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co. ———. 1942. Volume IV: De Oratore, Book III. Trans. H. Rackham. LCL 349. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DeConick, April D. 2006. The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel. LNTS 287. London: T&T Clark International. Dimant, Devorah, ed. 2001. Qumran Cave 4, XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: PseudoProphetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon. Dollinger, André. 2012. “Apology of the Potter (Rainer Papyrus).” Online: http://www. reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/potters_oracle.htm (accessed 13 February 2014). Donner, H., and W. Rollig. 1962. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inscriften. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Drazen, Israel. 1982. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary. New York: Ktav. Epiphanius of Salamis. 1987. Panarion: Book I (Sects 1–46). Trans. Frank Williams. Leiden: Brill. Epstein, Isidore. 1935. The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Volume III: Sanhedrin. London: Soncino. ———. 1938a. The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ed, Volume II: ‘Erubin and Pesaḥim. London: Socino. ———. 1938b. The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ed, Volume III: Yoma, Sukkah, Bezah. London: Soncino. ———. 1948. The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera’im. London: Soncino.

232 Bibliography Eshel, Esther, et al., eds. 1998. Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon. Flusser, David, and Shmuel Safrai. 2007. “The Apocryphal Psalms of David.” Pages 258–82 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume I. Ed. David Flusser and Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. 1961a. Midrash Rabbah: Deuteronomy. Trans. J. Rabbinowitz. London: Soncino. ———. 1961b. Midrash Rabbah: Exodus. Trans. S.M. Lehrman. London: Socino. ———. 1961c. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, Vol. I. Trans. H. Freedman. London: Socino. ———. 1961d. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, Vol. II. Trans. H. Freedman. London: Socino. ———. 1961e. Midrash Rabbah: Esther. Trans. M. Simon. London: Socino. ———. 1961f. Midrash Rabbah: Lamentations. Trans. A. Cohen. London: Socino. ———. 1961g. Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus. Trans. J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki. London: Socino. ———. 1961h. Midrash Rabbah: Numbers, Vol. I. Trans. Judah J. Slotki. London: Socino. ———. 1961i. Midrash Rabbah: Numbers, Vol. II. Trans. Judah J. Slotki. London: Socino. ———. 1961j. Midrash Rabbah: Song of Songs. Trans. M. Simon. London: Soncino. Friedlander, Gerald. 1916. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer: According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. New York: Bloch Publishing. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. 2000. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. García Martínez, Florentino, et al., eds. 1998. Qumran Cave 11, II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon. Geffcken, Johannes. 1902. Die Oracula Sibyllina. Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 8. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Gelston, Anthony. 1987. The Peshiṭta of the Twelve Prophets. Oxford: Clarendon. Gibbs, Laura. 2002. Aesop’s Fables: A New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grossfeld, Bernard. 1988a. Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 9. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. ———. 1988b. The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and The Targum Onqelos to Numbers: Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 8. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Gurtner, Daniel M. 2009. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances. Jewish and Christian Texts 5. London: T&T Clark International. Hammer, Reuven. 1986. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Yale Judaica Series 24. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hayward, Robert. 1987. The Targum of Jeremiah: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 12. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Hesiod. 1996. Volume I: Theogony. Works and Days. Testimonia. Trans. Glenn W. Most. LCL 57. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Himerius. 2007. Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius. Ed. Robert J. Penella. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Homer. 2002. Odysseus, Volume I, Books I–XII. Trans. A.T. Murray and George E. Dimock. LCL 104. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Irenaeus of Lyon. 1857. Adversus Haereses. Vol. 2. Trans. W. Wigan Harvey. Cambridge: C.J. Clay. Isocrates. 1986. Volume III: Evagoras. Trans. Larue van Hook. LCL 373. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

233

Jacobson, Howard. 1996. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation, Volume 1. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums. Leiden: Brill. Jerome. 2006a. Commentariorium in Jeremiam Prophetam. Documenta Catholica Omnia. Cooperatorum Veritatis Societas. ———. 2006b. Commentariorium in Zachariam Prophetam Libri Duo. Documenta Catholica Omnia. Cooperatorum Veritatis Societas. Jonge, Marinus de. 1978. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece I.2. Leiden: Brill. Josephus. 1895. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Trans. William Whitson. Auburn, NY: John E. Beardsley. ———. 1965. Jewish Antiquities, Books 1–20. Trans. Henry St. John Thackeray. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1966. The Jewish War, Books 1–7. Trans. Henry St. John Thackeray. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. King, Edward G. 1882. The Yalkut on Zechariah: Translated with Notes and Appendices. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co. Legrain, Leon. 1922. Historical Fragments. Philadelphia: University Museum. Levey, Samson H. 1981. The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 13. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Lidzbarski, Mark. 1962. Mandäische Liturgien. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 17/1. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Marcovich, Miroslav. 2005. Iustini Martyris: Apologiae pro Christianis; Dialogus cum Tryphone. Patristische Texte und Studien 38. Berlin: de Gruyter. McNamara, Martin, and Ernest G. Clarke. 1995. Targums Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers. ArBib 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Milik, J.T., ed. 1977. Qumrân Grotte 4, II: Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157). DJD 6. Oxford: Clarendon. Milik, J.T., and Matthew Black, eds. 1976. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Nelson, W. David. 2006. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Neusner, Jacob. 1979. The Tosefta: Qodoshim (The Order of the Holy Things). New York: Ktav. ———. 1981. The Tosefta: Moed (The Order of the Appointed Times). New York: Ktav. ———. 1987. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Vol. 18, Besah and Taanit. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1990. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. Vol. 14, Yoma. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1997. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts: XI. Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Part Two: Pisqaot Twelve through Twenty-Eight. USF Academic Commentary Series 99. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1998. Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael. Vol. I, Pisha, Beshallah, Shirata, and Vayassa: An Analytical Translation. Brown Judaic Studies 148. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Ovid. 2004. Volume III: Metamorphoses, Books I–VIII. Trans. Frank J. Miller. LCL 42. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

234 Bibliography Philo. 1981. Volume I: On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Trans. F.H. Colson. LCL 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1985. Volume IV: On the Confusion of the Tongues. On the Migration of Abraham. Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies. Trans. F.H. Colson. LCL 261. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1999. Volume VII: On the Special Laws, IV; On the Virtues; On Rewards and Punishments. Trans. F.H. Colson. LCL 341. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Plato. 1966. Apology. Trans. Harold N. Fowler. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1. London: William Heinemann. ———. 1983. Volume III: Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias. Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. LCL 166. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1984. Volume XI: Laws, Books VII–XII. Trans. R.G. Bury. LCL 192. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———. 1987. Volume VI: The Republic, Books VI–X. Trans. Paul Shorey. LCL 276. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Polybius. 1893. History. Trans. Theodorus Büttner-Wobst. Leipzig: Teubner. Proclus. 1816. On the Theology of Plato, Vol. 2. Trans. Thomas Taylor. London: Prometheus Trust. Puech, Émile, ed. 2001. Qumrân Grotte 4, XXII: Textes Araméens, Première Partie 4Q529–549. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon. Quintilian. 1996. Institutio Oratoria, Books VII–IX. Trans. H.E. Butler. LCL 126. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. 1931. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. X: Psalmi cum Odis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. 2007. Septuaginta: Editio altera. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Riley, Mark. T. 1971. “Q.S. Fl. Tertulliani, Adversus Valentinanos:Text Translation, and Commentary.” PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Roberts, Matis, and Yehezkel Danziger, eds. 1987. The Mishnah: Seder Nezikin Vol. II(a): Tractate Sanhedrin. Artscroll Mishnah Series. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications. ———. 1989. The Mishnah: Seder Nezikin Vol. I(c): Tractate Bava Basra. Artscroll Mishnah Series. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications. Rottenberg, Yosef, et al. 1997. The Mishnah: Seder Moed Vol. III: Tractates Rosh Hashanah, Yoma, Succah. Artscroll Mishnah Series. New York: Mesorah Publications. Sanders, J.A., ed. 1965. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. 1991. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II. Vol. 3, Gregory the Great (II), Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. ———. 1994. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5, Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Schechter, S.1970. Documents of the Jewish Sectaries, Volume I: Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Edited from the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection. New York: Ktav. Schmidt, Francis. 1986. Le Testament grec d’Abraham: Introduction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Bibliography

235

Sophocles. 1912. Volume I: Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Trans. Francis Storr. LCL 20. New York: Macmillan. Stec, David M. 2004. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 16. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. ———. 2013. The Genizah Psalms: A Study of MS 798 of the Antonin Collection. Cambridge Genizah Study Series 5. Leiden: Brill. Steck, Odil H., et al. 1998. Das Buch Baruch; Der Brief des Jeremiah, Zu Ester und Daniel. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Apokryphen 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stegemann, Hartmut, et al., eds. 2009. 1QHodayota, with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon. Sukenik, E.L., ed. 1955. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes. Terry, Milton S. 1899. The Sibylline Oracles. Cincinnati: Curts & Jennings. Thomas, J. David. 1997. “P. Oxy. 4404.” The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. LXIV. Ed. E.W. Handley. London: British Academy for the Egypt Exploration Society. Thucydides. 1942. Historiae in Two Volumes. Ed. H.S. Jones and J.E. Powell. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Townsend, John T. 1997. Midrash Tanḥuma. Vol. II, Exodus and Leviticus. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav. Ulrich, Eugene, et al., eds. 2000. Qumran Cave 4, XI: Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Oxford: Clarendon. Vermes, Geza. 1998. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin. Virgil. 1966. Volume I: Aeneid, Books I–VI. Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough and G.P. Goold. LCL 63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walter, Donald M., et al., eds. 2012. The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: The Twelve Prophets. The Antioch Bible. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, eds. 2005. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperOne. Yadin, Yigael. 1983. The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2, Text and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yonge, C.D., ed. 2013. The Works of Philo. New updated ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Ziegler, Joseph. 1965. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XII.2, Sapienta Iesu Filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1967. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XIII, Duodecim Prophetae. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1976. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XV, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1983. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XIV, Isaias. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ziegler, Joseph, and Olivier Munnich. 1999. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vol. XVI.2, Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

236 Bibliography

Secondary Sources Aalen, Sverre. 1974. “‫אור‬.” TDOT 1: 147–67. Aaron, David H. 2001. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Language. Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism 4. Leiden: Brill. Adams, Edward. 2006. “The Coming of God Tradition and its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts.” Pages 1–19 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. Ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith Lieu. JSJSup 111. Leiden: Brill. Adams, Sean A. 2014. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. 1987. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Albl, Martin C. 1999. “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections. NovTSup 96. Leiden: Brill. Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann. 1971. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 26. New York: Doubleday. Alden, Robert L. 1980. “‫אבן‬.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Ed. R. Laird Harris et al. Vol. 1: 7–8. Chicago: Moody. Alkier, Stefan. 2009. “Intertextuality and Semiotics of Biblical Texts.” Pages 3–22 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Ed. Stefan Alkier et al. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Allegro, John M. 1956. “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” JBL 75, no. 3: 174–87. Allen, Leslie C. 1983. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Allison, Dale C. 1983. “Matt. 23:39–Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy.” JSNT 18: 75–84. Anderson, Andrew Runni. 1927. “Alexander’s Horns.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 58: 100–122. Anderson, Ruth. 2013. “Structure and Allusion in the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa 22:1–15).” DSD 20, no. 1: 51–70. André, G. 2003. “‫פקד‬.” TDOT 12: 50–63. Aquinas, Thomas. 1843. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels. Vol. III, Parts I & II: St. Luke. Ed. Paul A. Boer. Trans. John Newman. Oxford: John Henry Parker. Arnal, William E. 2000. “The Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of Peasantry.” Pages 135–57 in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Ed. Stephen Wilson and Michael Desjardins. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Arneth, Martin. 2000. “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit”: Studien zur Solarisierung der JahweReligion im Lichte von Psalm 72. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arseneault, Madeleine. 2006. “Metaphor: Philosophical Theories.” Pages 40–3 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Ed. Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Ashley, Timothy R. 1993. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Assmann, Jan. 1995. Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism. Trans. Anthony Alcock. New York: Kegan Paul International. ———. 1999. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography

237

Audet, Jean-Paul. 1963. “L’hypothèse des Testimonia: Remarques autour d’un livre récent.” RB 70: 381–405. Auffret, Pierre. 1978. “Note sur la structure littéraire de Lc i. 68–79.” NTS 24, no. 2: 248–58. Aus, Roger David. 1996. The Wicked Tenants and Gethsemane: Isaiah in the Wicked Tenants’ Vineyard, and Moses and the High Priest in Gethsemane: Judaic Traditions in Mark 12:1–9 and 14:32–42:1–64. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Aytoun, Robert. 1917. “The Ten Lucan Hymns of the Nativity in Their Original Language.” JTS 72: 274–88. Baarda, Tjitze. 1995. “ ‘The Cornerstone’: An Aramaism in the Diatessaron and the Gospel of Thomas?” NovT 37, no. 3: 285–300. Bachmann, Michael. 1980. Jerusalem und der Tempel: die geographisch-theologischen Elemente in der lukanischen Sicht des jüdischen Kultzentrums. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 6. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Baldauf, Christa. 2000. “Sprachliche Evidenz metaphorischer Konzeptualisierung: Probleme und Perspektiven der kognitivistischen Metapherntheorie im Anschluss an George Lakoff und Mark Johnson.” Pages 117–32 in Bildersprache verstehen: Zur Hermeneutik der Metapher und anderer bildlicher Sprachformen. Ed. Reuben Zimmermann. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Baldwin, Joyce G. 1964. “Ṣemaḥ as a Technical Term in the Prophets.” VT 14, no. 1: 93–7. Barnard, L.W. 1964. “The Testimonium Concerning the Stone in the New Testament and in the Epistle of Barnabas.” Pages 306–14 in Studia Evangelica Volume 3. Ed. F.L. Cross. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Barr, James. 1974. “Philo of Byblos and his ‘Phoenician History’.” BJRL 57, no. 1: 17–68. Barrett, C.K. 1970. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. Philadelphia: Fortress. Barth, Christian, and I. Bergman. 1975. “‫בקר‬.” TDOT 2: 217–28. Le Bas, Edwin. 1946. “Was the Corner-Stone of Scripture a Pyramidion?” PEQ 78, no. 2: 103–15. ———. 1950. “Zechariah’s Enigmatical Contribution to the Corner-Stone.” PEQ 82, no. 1: 102–22. ———. 1951. “Zechariah’s Climax to the Career of the Corner-Stone.” PEQ 83, no. 2: 139–55. Bassin, François. 2006. L’Évangile selon Luc, Tome I. Commentaire évangelique de la bible. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac. Basson, Alec. 2005. “ ‘You are my Rock and Fortress’: Refuge Metaphors in Psalm 31: A Perspective from Cognitive Metaphor Theory.” Acta Theologica 25, no. 2: 1–17. Bates, Matthew W. 2015. The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauckham, Richard. 1981. “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity.” NTS 27, no. 3: 322–41. ———. 1993. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Carlisle: Paternoster.

238 Bibliography ———. 1999. “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 43–69 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Ed. Richard Bauckham et al. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2008a. “The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 9–29 in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Ed. James H. Charlesworth and Gerbern S. Oegema. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2008b. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bauks, Michaela. 2006. “ ‘Auf die Hörner der Einhörner hin…’: Hinweise auf eine messianischen Relecture des Ps 21 (LXX)?” Pages 203–16 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Ed. Michael A. Knibb. BETL 195. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Beale, Greg K. 2012. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Beardsley, Monroe C. 1962. “The Metaphorical Twist.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 22, no. 3: 293–307. ———. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. Indianapolis: Hackett. Beavis, M.A. 2003. “ ‘I Like the Bird’: Luke 13.34, Avian Metaphors and Feminist Theology.” Feminist Theology 12, no. 1: 119–28. Beer, Georg. 1921. Steinverehrung bei den Israeliten: Ein Beitrag zur semitischen und allgemeinen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Benoit, Pierre. 1956. “L’Enfance de Jean-Baptiste selon Luc I.” NTS 3: 169–94. Berder, Michel. 1996. “La Pierre rejetée par les bâtisseurs”: Psaume 118,22–23 et son emploi dans les traditions juives et dans le Nouveau Testament. Études Bibliques, Nouvelle Série 31. Paris: Gabalda. Berger, Klaus. 1985. “Das Canticum Simeonis (Lk 2,29–32).” NovT 27, no. 1: 27–39. Bertram, Georg. 1972. “ὕψος κτλ.” TDNT 8: 602–20. Betz, Otto. 1957. “Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde: Eine Parallele zu Mt 16,17–19 in den Qumranpsalmen.” ZNW 48: 49–77. Beyer, Hermann. 1964. “ἐπισκέπτομαι.” TDNT 2: 599–622. Beyerle, Stefan. 2008. “ ‘A Star Shall Come Out of Jacob’: A Critical Evaluation of the Balaam Oracle in the Context of Jewish Revolts in Roman Times.” Pages 163–88 in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten. Leiden: Brill. Bilić, Tomislav. 2012. “Apollo, Helios, and the Solstices in the Athenian, Delphian, and Delian Calendars.” Numen 59, no. 5/6: 509–32. Bird, Michael F. 2009. Are You the One Who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Black, Matthew. 1971. “The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” NTS 18, no. 1: 1–14. Black, Matthew, James VanderKam, and O. Neugebauer. 1985. The Book of Enoch, or I Enoch: A New English Edition, with Commentary and Textual Notes. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill. Black, Max. 1962a. “Language and Reality.” Pages 1–16 in Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ———. 1962b. “Metaphor.” Pages 25–47 in Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Bibliography

239

———. 1979. “More about Metaphor.” Pages 19–45 in Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blackburn, Barry. 1991. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretive Background of the Miracle Traditions used by Mark. WUNT 2/40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Blank, Josef. 1974. “Die Sendung des Sohnes: zur christologischen Bedeutung des Gleichnisses von den bösen Winzern Mk 12,1–1.” Pages 11–41 in Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg. Ed. Joachim Gnilka. Freiburg: Herder. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2000a. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday. ———. 2000b. “Judah’s Covenant with Death (Isaiah XXVIII 14–22).” VT 50, no. 4: 472–83. Blocher, Henri. 2004. “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of Atonement.” JETS 47, no. 4: 629–45. Block, Daniel I. 1997. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 1998. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bock, Darrell L. 1987. Proclamation from Prophecy to Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. JSNTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT. ———. 1990. “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke–Acts: Christology and Mission.” Pages 494–511 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1990. Ed. Eugene H. Lovering. Atlanta: Scholars. ———. 1993. Luke. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. ———. 1996. Luke. Vol. 2, 9:51–24:53. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3B. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. ———. 2012. A Theology of Luke and Acts: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Bockmuehl, Markus, and James Carleton Paget, eds. 2007. Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. London: T&T Clark International. Boer, P.A.H. 1965. Second-Isaiah’s Message. Old Testament Studies 11. Leiden: Brill. Böhlemann, Peter. 1997. Jesus und der Täufer: Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas. SNTSMS 99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bonnard, Pierre. 1992. L’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu. 3rd ed. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé. Bornkamm, Günther. 1964. “λικμάω.” TDNT 4: 280–81. Bousset, Wilhelm. 1970. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. English trans. [1921] Nashville: Abingdon. Bovon, François. 1989. Das Evangelium nach Lukas 1. Teilband Lk 1,1–9,50. EvangelischKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Zürich: Benziger. ———. 2002. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Ed. Helmut Koester. Trans. Christine M. Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2006. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005). 2nd ed. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. ———. 2012. Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28–24:53. Ed. Helmut Koester. Trans. James Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Boyarin, Daniel. 2012. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: The New Press.

240 Bibliography Brawley, Robert L. 1995. “Falling and Fitting Shoes: Mise en Abyme and Voices of Scripture in Luke 20:9–19.” Pages 27–41 in Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Brettler, Marc Zvi. 1989. God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOTSup 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Brooks, E. Bruce. 2007. “Prolegomena to Proto-Luke.” Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature. 17 November 2007. Brown, Edwin L. 2004. “In Search of Anatolian Apollo.” Hesperia Supplements 33: 243–57. Brown, Raymond E. 1993. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Updated ed. ABRL. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1994. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist. Brown, William P. 2002. Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. ———. 2010. “ ‘Here Comes the Sun!’: The Metaphorical Theology of Psalms 15–24.” Pages 259–77 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Ed. Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Bruce, F.F. 1973. “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: III. The Corner Stone.” Expository Times 84: 231–5. Brunson, Andrew C. 2003. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. WUNT 158. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Buckwalter, H. Douglas. 1996. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. SNTSMS 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budde, K. 1932. “Zu Jesaja 1–5.” ZAW 9: 38–72. Bullard, Collin B. 2013. “The Revelation of Thoughts: Implicit Christology and Jesus’ Knowledge in the Gospel of Luke.” PhD dissertation, Cambridge University. ———. 2015. Jesus and the Thoughts of Many Hearts: Implicit Christology and Jesus’ Knowledge in the Gospel of Luke. LNTS 530. London: T&T Clark International. Bultmann, Rudolf. 1967. “Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik im Alterum.” Pages 323–55 in Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Ed. Erich Dinkler. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 1972. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Rev ed. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1995. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 10th Ed. [1921]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bultmann, Rudolph, and Dieter Lührmann. 1974. “φαίνω κτλ.” TDNT 9: 1–11. Burkitt, F.C. 1907. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Burnett, Fred W. 1981. The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew. Washington: University Press of America. Cahill, Michael. 1999. “Not a Cornerstone! Translating Ps 118, 22 in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” RB 106, no. 3: 345–57. Caird, George B. 1968. The Gospel of St. Luke. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. London: A. & C. Black. Capes, David F. 1992. Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology. WUNT 2/47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Carlston, Charles E. 1975. The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress. Carrell, Peter R. 2005. Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and Christology in the Apocalypse of John. SNTSMS 95. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Bibliography

241

Carroll, John T. 1988. “Luke’s Portrayal of the Pharisees.” CBQ 50, no. 4: 604–21. Casey, Maurice. 1991. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. ———. 2009. The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem. LNTS 343. London: T&T Clark International. Chance, J. Bradley. 1988. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Charlesworth, James H. 1992. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Ed. James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress. Chester, Andrew. 2007a. “The Christ of Paul.” Pages 109–21 in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2007b. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 1/207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Christ, Felix. 1970. Jesus Sophia: Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 57. Zürich: Zwingli. Christensen, Duane L. 2002. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. WBC 6B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Ciampa, Roy E. 2008. “Scriptural Language and Ideas.” Pages 41–57 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Ed. Stanley F. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: SBL. Cioffi, Robert L. 2013. “Seeing Gods: Epiphany and Narrative in the Greek Novels.” Ancient Narrative 11: 1–42. Clines, David J.A. 2006. Job 21–37. WBC 18A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Cogan, Mordechai. 2000. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday. Cohen, Ted. 2005. “Metaphor.” Pages 366–76 in Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Ed. Jerrold Levinson. New York: Oxford University Press. Coleridge, Mark. 1993. The Birth of the Lukan Narrative: Narrative as Christology in Luke 1–2. JSNTSup 88. Sheffield: JSOT. Collins, Adele Yarbro, and John J. Collins. 2008. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Collins, John J. 1974. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. SBLDS 13. Atlanta: Scholars. ———. 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 1995. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. ABRL. New York: Doubleday. Conzelmann, Hans. 1960. Theology of St. Luke. Trans. Geoffrey Buswell. New York: Harper & Brothers. ———. 1964. “φῶς κτλ.” TDNT 9: 310–58. Coulson, Seana. 2006. “Metaphor and Conceptual Blending.” Pages 32–9 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Ed. Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley. 2000. “Blending Basics.” Cognitive Linguistics 11, no. 3/4: 175–96. Creach, Jerome F.D. 1996. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

242 Bibliography Croatto, J. Severino. 2005. “Jesus, Prophet like Elijah, and Prophet-Teacher like Moses in Luke-Acts.” JBL 124, no. 3: 451–65. Croft, William. 2006. “Metonymy: The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies.” Pages 269–302 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Ed. Dirk Geeraerts et al. Cognitive Linguistics Research 34. New York: de Gruyter. Cullmann, Oscar. 1959. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans. Shirley Guthrie and Charles Hall. London: SCM. Dahl, Nils A. 1958. “A People for his Name.” NTS 4, no. 4: 319–27. ———. 1966. “The Story of Abraham in Luke–Acts.” Pages 139–58 in Studies in Luke– Acts: Essays Presented in Honour of Paul Schubert. Ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon. Dahood, Mitchell. 1959. “Is ʾEben Yiśrāʾēl a Divine Title (Gn 49,24)?” Biblica 40: 1002–7. ———. 1970. Psalms 101–150: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 17A. New York: Doubleday. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser. 2014. Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniélou, Jean. 1966. Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne (Les Testimonia). Théologie Historique 5. Paris: Beauschesne. Davids, Peter H. 2006. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Davis, Philip G. 1994. “Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology.” JTS 45, no. 2: 479–503. Day, John. 2000. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Dekker, Jaap. 2007. Zion’s Rock-Solid Foundations: An Exegetical Study of the Zion Text in Isaiah 28:16. Trans. Brian Doyle. Old Testament Studies 54. Leiden: Brill. Derrett, J. Duncan M. 1965. “The Stone the Builders Rejected.” Pages 180–6 in Studia Evangelica, Vol. 4. Ed. F.L. Cross. 102. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DesCamp, Mary Therese, and Eve Sweetser. 2005. “Metaphors for God: Why and How Do Our Choices Matter for Humans? The Application of Contemporary Cognitive Linguistics Research to the Debate on God and Metaphor.” Pastoral Psychology 53, no. 3: 207–38. DeSilva, David A. 2013. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as Witnesses to Pre-Christian Judaism: A Re-Assessment.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23, no. 1: 21–68. Deutsch, Celia. 1990. “Wisdom in Matthew: Transformation of a Symbol.” NovT 32, no. 1: 13–47. ———. 1996. Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International. DeVries, Simon J. 1985. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Waco, TX: Word Books. Dibelius, Martin. 1971. From Tradition to Gospel. [1934] Ed. William Barclay. Trans. Bertram Lee Woolf. Cambridge: James Clarke. Dille, Sarah J. 2004. Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. JSOTSup 398. London: T&T Clark International. Dillon, Richard J. 2013. The Hymns of St. Luke: Lyricism and Narrative Strategy in Luke 1–2. CBQ Monograph Series 50. Washington: Catholic Bible Association of America.

Bibliography

243

Dion, Paul E. 1991. “YHWH as Storm-God and Sun-God: The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Ps 104.” ZAW 103: 43–71. Dodd, C.H. 1952. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. New York: Scribner. ———. 1961. The Parables of the Kingdom. Rev. Ed. New York: Scribner. Dölger, Franz Joseph. 1925. Sol salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum; mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Ostung in Gebet und Liturgie. Münster: Abschendorff. Doran, Robert. 1983. “Luke 20:18: A Warrior’s Boast?” CBQ 45, no. 1: 61–67. Drake, Larry K. 1985. “The Reversal Theme in Luke’s Gospel.” PhD dissertation, St. Louis University. Dreyer, Andries J.G. 1962. “An Examination of the Possible Relation Between Luke’s Infancy Narratives and the Qumran Hodayot.” PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. Driver, G.R. 1955. “Birds in the Old Testament.” PEQ 87: 5–20. Driver, S.R. 1906. The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Drower, E.S. 1959. The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans. Leiden: Brill. Dunn, James D.G. 1978. “Prophetic ‘I’ Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity.” NTS 24, no. 2: 175–98. ———. 1980. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM. ———. 2010. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. London: SPCK. Duplantier, Jean-Pierre. 1989. “Les vignerons meurtriers: le travail d’une parabole.” Pages 259–70 in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspective nouvelles. Ed. Jean Delorme. Lectio Divina 135. Paris: Cerf. Dupont, Jacques. 1956. “ΛΑΟΣ ἘΞ ἘΘΝΩΝ (Act. XV. 14).” NTS 3, no. 1: 47–50. Eberhart, Christian A. 2013. Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament. WUNT 1/306. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Eberharter, Andreas. 1927. “Das Horn im Kult des Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 51: 394–9. Eckey, Wilfried. 2004. Das Lukasevangelium: Teilband 1: 1,1–10,42. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Edwards, Richard A. 1976. A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy, and Wisdom. Philadelphia: Fortress. Ehrhardt, Arnold. 1945. “Vir Bonus Quadrato Lapidi Comparatur.” HTR 38, no. 3: 177–93. Eichhorn, Dieter. 1972. Gott als Fels, Burg und Zuflucht: Eine Untersuchung zum Gebet des Mittlers in den Psalmen. Europäische Hochschulschriften 4. Bern: Peter Lang. Ellis, E. Earle. 1969. “Midrash, Targum and New Testament Quotations.” Pages 61–9 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Ed. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Emerton, J.A. 1967. “The Meaning of ‫ אבני־חדש‬in Lamentations 4:1.” ZAW 79, no. 2: 233–6. Engnell, Ivan. 1967. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Erlemann, Kurt. 2003. “Die Selbstpräsentation Jesu in den synoptischen Gleichnissen.” Pages 37–52 in Metaphorik und Christologie. Ed. Jörg Frey et al. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 120. Berlin: De Gruyter. Eshel, Esther. 1999. “The Identification of the ‘Speaker’ of the Self-Glorification Hymn.” Pages 619–35 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill.

244 Bibliography Evans, Craig A. 1984. “On the Vineyard Parables of Isaiah 5 and Mark 12.” Biblische Zeitschrift 28: 82–86. ———. 1989. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction.” CBQ 51: 237–70. ———. 1992. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. ———. “Jesus’ Parable of the Tenant Farmers in Light of Lease Agreements in Antiquity.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14: 65–83. ———. 2003. “How Septuagintal Is Isa. 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9?” NovT 45, no. 2: 105–10. Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. 2003. “‫צור‬.” TDOT 12: 311–21. ———. 2006. “Messianism in the Septuagint.” Pages 193–206 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SBLSCS 53. Atlanta: SBL. Faierstein, Morris M. 1981. “Why Do the Scribes Say That Elijah Must Come First.” JBL 100, no. 1: 75–86. Falcetta, Alessandro. 2000. “Testimonies: The Theory of James Rendel Harris in the Light of Subsequent Research.” PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham. ———. 2003. “The Testimony Research of James Rendel Harris.” NovT 45, no. 3: 280–99. Fanning, Buist. 2015. “Greek Tenses in John’s Apocalypse: Issues in Verbal Aspect, Discourse Analysis, and Diachronic Change.” Presented at the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. 5 May 2015. Farris, Stephen. 1985. The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and Significance. JSNTSup 9. Sheffield: JSOT. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2003. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. ———. 2006. “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks.” Pages 303–71 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Ed. Dirk Geeraerts et al. CLR 34. New York: de Gruyter. ———. 2008. “Rethinking Metaphor.” Pages 53–66 in The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fee, Gordon. 2007. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody: Hendrickson. Ferda, Tucker S. 2015. “Reason to Weep: Isaiah 52 and the Subtext of Luke’s Triumphal Entry.” JTS 66, no. 1: 28–60. Feuillet, André. 1955. “Jésus et la Sagesse Divine d’après les Évangiles Synoptiques. Le ‘logion johannique’ et l’Ancien Testament.” RB 62: 161–96. Fillmore, Charles J., and Collin Baker. 2009. “A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis.” Pages 314–40 in The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Ed. Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Claudia. 2002. “Twilight of the Sun-God.” Iraq 64: 125–34. Fisk, Bruce N. 2008. “See My Tears: A Lament for Jerusalem (Luke 13:31–35; 19:41– 44).” Pages 147–78 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Ed. J. Ross Wagner et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

245

Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1981. The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX). AB 28. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1985a. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). 2nd ed. AB 28A. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1985b. “More About Elijah Coming First.” JBL 104, no. 2: 295–96. ———. 1992. “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke–Acts.” Pages 524–38 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1992. Atlanta: Scholars. ———. 2007. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Fleddermann, Harry. 2005. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Peeters. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. 1997. Luke–Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. WUNT 2/94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Flusser, David. 1959. “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. vii.” Israel Exploration Journal 9, no. 2: 99–109. Foerster, Werner. 1964. “κέρας.” TDNT 3: 669–71. Foerster, Werner, and Georg Fohrer. 1964. “σῴζω κτλ.” TDNT 7: 965–1024. Fontenrose, Joseph E. 1939. “Apollo and Sol in the Latin Poets of the First Century B.C.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 70: 439–55. ———. 1940. “Apollo and the Sun God in Ovid.” The American Journal of Philology 61, no. 4: 429–44. Fossum, Jarl E. 1991. “The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology.” Pages 638–46 in SBL Seminar Papers 1991. Ed. E. Lovering. Atlanta: Scholars. ———. 1985. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. WUNT 1/36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Foster, Paul. 2015. “Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.” JSNT 38, no. 1: 96–111. Frankenmölle, H. 1991. “λαός.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:339–44. Ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Franklin, Eric. 1975. Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke–Acts. London: SPCK. Fraser, Bruce. 1979. “Interpretation of Novel Metaphors.” Pages 172–85 in Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frolov, Serge. 2007. “Reclaiming the Vineyard: The ‘Rebellious Tenants’ Story as a Political Allegory.” Pages 23–35 in The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler. Ed. Calvin Roetzel and Robert Foster. New Testament Monographs 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Fuller, Michael. 2006. The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke–Acts. BZNW 138. Berlin: de Gruyter. Galambush, Julie. 1992. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. SBLDS 130. Atlanta: Scholars. Garland, David. 2012. Luke. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Gärtner, Bertil. 1954. “‫ טליא‬als Messiasbezeichnung.” Svensk exegetisk Årsbok 18–19: 98–108. Gaster, Theodor H. 1943. “On Habakkuk 3,4.” JBL 62, no. 4: 345–6.

246 Bibliography Gathercole, Simon J. 2005. “The Heavenly ἀνατολή (Luke 1:78–9).” JTS 56, no. 2: 471–88. ———. 2006. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2014a. The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 11. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2014b. “Thomas Revisited: A Rejoinder to Denzey Lewis, Kloppenborg and Patterson.” JSNT 36, no. 3: 262–82. Geeraerts, Dirk, René Dirven and John R. Taylor, eds. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. CLR 34. New York: de Gruyter. Gench, Frances. 1997. Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew. Lanham: University Press of America. George, Augustin. 1968. “Israel dans l’oeuvre de Luc.” RB 75: 481–525. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W., and Herbert L. Colston. 2006. “Image Schema: The Cognitive Psychological Reality of Image Schemas and Their Transformations.” Pages 239–68 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Ed. Dirk Geeraerts et al. CLR 34. New York: de Gruyter. Gieschen, Charles A. 1998. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 42. Leiden: Brill. Gitin, Seymour. 2005. “Excavating Ekron: Major Philistine City Survived by Absorbing Other Cultures.” Biblical Archaeology Review Nov/Dec: 40–56, 66–7. Glazier-McDonald, Beth. 1987. Malachi: The Divine Messenger. SBLDS 98. Atlanta: Scholars. Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphor to Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gnilka, Joachim. 1962. “Der Hymnus des Zacharias.” Biblische Zeitschrift 6: 215–38. Godbey, Allen H. 1939. “The Unicorn in the Old Testament.” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 56, no. 3: 256–96. Goldingay, John. 2008. Psalms 90–150. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Good, Edwin M. 1959. “The Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.” VT 9, no. 1: 11–30. Goodacre, Mark. 2002. The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. New York: T&T Clark International. ———. 2014. “Did Thomas Know the Synoptic Gospels? A Response to Denzey Lewis, Kloppenborg and Patterson.” JSNT 36, no. 3: 282–93. Goodenough, E.R. 1953. “Birds.” Pages 27–71 in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, VIII. New York: Pantheon. Goodman, Nelson. 1979. “Metaphor as Moonlighting.” Critical Inquiry 6, no. 1: 125–30. Goppelt, Leonard. 1982. Typos: The Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. [1939] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Goulder, Michael D. 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm. 2 vols. JSNTSup 20. Sheffield: JSOT. Goulder, Michael D., and M.L. Sanderson. 1957. “St. Luke’s Genesis.” JTS 8, no. 1: 12–30. Grady, Joseph E., Todd Oakley and Seana Coulson. 2007. “Blending and Metaphor.” Pages 420–39 in The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Ed. Vyvyan Evans et al. London: Equinox.

Bibliography

247

Gray, Alison Ruth. 2014. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading Through Metaphor. Biblical Interpretation Series 127. Leiden: Brill. Green, Joel B. 1995. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Green, Joel B., and Richard B. Hays. 2010. “The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers.” Pages 122–39 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. Ed. Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Green, Joel B., and Bonnie G. Howe. 2014. Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter. Greenberg, Moshe. 1964. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday. Grindheim, Sigurd. 2011. God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self Understanding. LNTS 446. London: T&T Clark International. Grogan, Geoffrey W. 1982. “The Light and the Stone: A Christological Study in Luke and Isaiah.” Pages 151–67 in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie. Ed. Harold Rowdon. Leicester: InterVarsity. Gunkel, Hermann. 1921. “Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu bei Lukas.” Pages 43–60 in Festgabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden A. von Harnack. Ed. Karl Holl. Tübingen: Mohr. Gupta, Nijay. 2010. Worship that Makes Sense to Paul: A New Approach to the Theology and Ethics of Paul’s Cultic Metaphors. BZNW 175. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gzella, Holger. 2001. “Das Kalb und das Einhorn; Endzeittheophanie und Messianismus in der Septuaginta-Fassung von Ps 29(28).” Pages 257–90 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: sprachliche und theologische Aspekte. Ed. Erich Zenger. Herders biblische Studien 32. Freiburg: Herder. Haag, E. 1999. “‫סלע‬.” TDOT 10: 277. Haenchen, Ernst. 1951. “Matthäus 23.” ZTK 48: 38–63. Hahn, Ferdinand. 1969. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. London: Lutterworth. Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. 1973. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament. SNTSMS 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hannah, Darrell D. 1999. Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. WUNT 2/109. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Harnack, Adolf von. 1908. The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Trans. J.R. Wilkinson. London and New York. ———. 1911. Luke the Physician. Trans. William Morrison. London: Williams & Norgate. ———. 1931. “Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Luk. i. 46–55) nebst einigen Bemerkungen zu Luk. i and ii.” Pages 62–85 in Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche, I: Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik. Leipzig: de Gruyter. Harrington, Daniel J. 1997. “Ten Reasons Why the Qumran Wisdom Texts are Important.” DSD 4, no. 3: 245–54. Harris, J. Rendel. 1916. Testimonies, Part I. Ed. Vacher Burch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1920. Testimonies, Part II. Ed. Vacher Burch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

248 Bibliography Hatch, Edwin. 1889. “On Composite Quotations from the Septuagint.” Pages 203–14 in Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatina, Thomas R. 1999. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in NTS: Is There a Relationship?” Biblical Interpretation 7, no. 1: 28–43. Haupt, Paul. 1919. “Magnificat and Benedictus.” The American Journal of Philology 40, no. 1: 64–75. Hays, Christopher. 2010. “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22.” VT 60: 212–40. Hays, Richard B. 1993. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 2005. The Conversion of Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2009. “The Liberation of israel in Luke–Acts: Intertextual Narration as Countercultural Practice.” Pages 101–17 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Ed. Stefan Alkier et al. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. ———. 2014. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. ———. 2016. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Hempel, Johannes. 1960. “Die Lichtsymbolik im Alten Testament.” Studium Generale 13, no. 6: 352–68. Hendricksen, William. 1979. The Gospel of Luke. New Testament Commentary. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth. Hendrickx, Herman. 1984. The Infancy Narratives. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Hengel, Martin. 1968. “Das Gleichnis von den Weingartnern Mc 12:1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse.” ZNW 59: 1–39. ———. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies of Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1983. Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. Trans. John Bowden. London: SCM. ———. 1995. “The Song About Christ in Earliest Worship.” Pages 227–92 in Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Nina. 2015. Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity. LNTS 224. London: T&T Clark International. Hertzberg, Hans-Wilhelm. 1962. “Der heilige Fels und das Alte Testament.” Pages 45–53 in Beiträge zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hijmans, Steven E. 1996. “The Sun which Did Not Rise in the East: The Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of Non-Literary Evidence.” BABESCH: Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology 71: 115–50. Hill, Andrew E. 1998. Malachi: A New Translation and Commentary. AB 25D. New York: Doubleday. Hill, Wesley. 2015. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hills, David. 2012. “Metaphor.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/metaphor/. Hillyer, Norman. 1971. “ ‘Rock-Stone’ Imagery in 1 Peter.” Tyndale Bulletin 22, no. 1: 58–81.

Bibliography

249

Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme & Power of a Common-wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill. London: Andrew Crooke. Hoffmann, Herbert. 1963. “Helios.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 2: 117–24. Hoffmann, Paul. 1972. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. Münster: Aschendorff. Holladay, Carl R. 1977. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula: Scholars. Holladay, William L. 1986. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Ed. Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Hollander, Harm, and Marinus de Jonge. 1985. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP. Leiden: Brill. Hollander, John. 1981. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley: University of California Press. Holtz, Traugott. 1968. Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 104. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Hong, Seong-Hyuk. 2006. The Metaphor of Illness and Healing in Hosea and Its Significance in the Socio-Economic Context of Eighth-Century Israel and Judah. Studies in Biblical Literature 95. New York: Peter Lang. Hooke, S.H. 1956. “The Corner-Stone of Scripture.” Pages 235–49 in The Siege Perilous. London: SCM. Horbury, William. 1998. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM. ———. 2003. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies. New York: Continuum. ———. 2005. “Jewish Messianism and Early Christology.” Pages 3–24 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Ed. Richard Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Horne, Edward H. 1998. “The Parable of the Tenants as Indictment.” JSNT 71: 111–16. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. 2011. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. Trans. Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. House, Paul R. 1995. 1, 2 Kings. New American Commentary 8. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Houtman, Alberdina, and Harry Sysling. 2008. “Balaam’s Fourth Oracle (Numbers 24:15–19) According to the Aramaic Targums.” Pages 189–211 in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten. Themes in Biblical Narrative. Leiden: Brill. Howe, Bonnie. 2006. Because You Bear this Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter. Biblical Interpretation Series 81. Boston: Brill. Hubaut, Michel. 1976. La parabole des vignerons homicides. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 16. Paris: Gabalda. Hughes, John H. 1972. “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself.” NovT 14: 191–218. Hultgård, Anders. 1980. “The Ideal ‘Levite’, the Davidic Messiah and the Saviour Priest in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 93–110 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Ed. John J. Collin and George Nickelsburg. SBLSCS 12. Chico, CA: Scholars. Hultgren, Arland J. 2000. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor 1999. “‫—אבן משכית‬A New Interpretation.” JBL 118, no. 2: 201–8.

250 Bibliography Hurtado, Larry W. 1988. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. London: SCM. ———. 1999. “First Century Jewish Monotheism.” JSNT 71: 3–26. ———. 2003a. “Homage to the Historical Jesus and Early Christian Devotion.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 2: 131–46. ———. 2003b. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2005. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ingram, Helen. 2007. “Dragging Down Heaven: Jesus as Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in the Gospels.” PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham. Instone-Brewer, David. 2003. “The Eighteen Benedictions and the Minim Before 70 CE.” JTS 54, no. 1: 25–44. Iverson, Kelly R. 2012. “Jews, Gentiles, and the Kingdom of God: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Narrative Perspective (Mark 12:1–12).” Biblical Interpretation 20, no. 3: 305–35. Jacob, Edmond. 1995. “La pierre angulaire d’Ésaïe 28.16 et ses échos néotestamentaires.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 75: 3–8. Jacobson, Arland. 1992. The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge. Jacoby, Adolf. 1921. “ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους [Luke 1:78].” ZNW 20: 205–14. Janowski, Bernd. 1984. Rettungsgewissheit und Epiphanie des Heils: das Motiv der Hilfe Gottes ‘am Morgen’ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, Band I: Alter Orient. WMANT 59. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1995. “JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit.” Pages 214–41 in Pluralismus und Identität. Ed. J. Mehlhausen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Jastrow, Marcus. 1950. Dictionary of Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, Midrashic Literature and Targumim. New York: Pardes. Jaubert, Annie. 1973. “Symboles et figures christologiques dans le judaïsme.” Pages 219–36 in Exégèse biblique et Judaïsme. Ed. Jacques-E. Ménard. Strasbourg: Université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg. Jenni, Ernst. 1970. “ ‘Kommen’ im theologischen Sprachbegrauch des Alten Testaments.” Pages 251–61 in Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für W. Eichrodt. Ed. Hans Stoebe. Abhandlung zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59. Zürich: Zwingli. Jeremias, Joachim. 1930. “κεφαλὴ γωνίας–ἀκρογωνιαῖος.” ZNW 29: 264–80. ———. 1937. “Eckstein—Schlußstein.” ZNW 36: 154–7. ———. 1964. “λίθος.” TDNT 4: 268–80. Jeremias, Jörg. 1965. Theophanie: die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Jervell, Jacob. 1965. “Das gespaltene Israel und die Heidenvölker: Die Motivierung die Heidenmission in der Apostelgeschichte.” Studia Theologica 19: 68–96. Jindo, Job Y. 2010. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Jobes, Gertrude. 1961. “Horn.” Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, 1:782–3. Ed. Gertrude Jobes. New York: Scarecrow.

Bibliography

251

Johnson, Luke Timothy. 1991. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. ———. 2013. “The Christology of Luke–Acts.” Pages 145–61 in Contested Issues in Christian Origins and the New Testament: Collected Essays. NovTSup 146. Leiden: Brill. Johnson, Mark. 1981. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Johnson, Marshall D. 1974. “Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew’s Christology.” CBQ 36, no. 1: 44–64. Johnson, Stephen R., Michael G. Steinhauser and Ronald L. Jolliffe. 2014. The Database of the International Q Project: Q13:34–35: Judgment Over Jerusalem. Documenta Q. Leuven: Peeters. Jones, Douglas. 1968. “The Background and Character of the Lukan Psalms.” JTS 19, no. 1: 19–50. Jonge, Marinus de. 1953. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1960. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” NovT 4, no. 3: 182–235. ———. 1986. “Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 150–62 in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C.H. Lebram. Ed. J.W. van Henten et al. Studia Post-Biblica 36. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1999. “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.” Pages 71–89 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. E.G. Chazon and M.E. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2003. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve. SVTP 18. Leiden: Brill. Jülicher, Adolf. 1976. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 2 vols. [1910] Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Jung, Chang-Wook. 2004. The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative. JSNTSup 267. London: T&T Clark International. Kaiser, Otto. 1974. Isaiah 13–39. Trans. R.A. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster. Kapelrud, Arvid. 1974. “‫אבן‬.” TDOT 1: 48–51. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. 2011. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterung und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band I: Genesis bis Makkabäer. Band II: Psalmen bis Daniel. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Kaut, Thomas. 1990. Befreier und befreites Volk: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Magnifikat und Benediktus im Kontext der vorlukanischen Kindheitsgeschichte. Athenäums Monografien 77. Frankfurt: Hain. Keck, Leander E. 1986. “Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology.” NTS 32, no. 3: 362–77. Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 2004. “‫קרן‬.” TDOT 13: 167–74. Keel, Othmar. 1978. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Trans. T.J. Hallet. New York: Seabury.

252 Bibliography Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. 1994. “Jahwe und die Sonnengottheit von Jerusalem.” Pages 269–306 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Ed. W. Dietrich and M.A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. ———. 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Trans. Thomas Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress. Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Keller-Bauer, Friedrich. 1984. Metaphorisches Verstehen: Eine linguistische Rekonstruktion metaphorischer Kommunikation. Linguistische Arbeiten 142. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Kim, Seyoon. 2008. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kimball III, Charles A. 1993. “Jesus’ Exposition of Scripture in Luke 20:9–19: An Inquiry in Light of Jewish Hermeneutics.” Bulletin of Biblical Research 3: 77–92. ———. 1994. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. JSNTSup 94. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Kimelman, Reuven. 1997. “The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in Comparative Messianism.” JBL 116, no. 2: 313–20. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1986. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Secret of Jesus’ Divine Sonship in Matthew: Some Literary-Critical Observations.” JBL 105, no. 4: 643–55. ———. 1992. “The Pharisees in Luke–Acts.” Pages 2:1498–512 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, Volume II. Ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. BETL 100. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 1993. “Jesus as the ‘Prophetic Messiah’ in Luke’s Gospel.” Pages 29–42 in The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks and Abraham J. Malherbe. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Kinman, Brent. 1994. “ ‘The stones will cry out’ (Luke 19,40)—Joy or Judgment?” Biblica 75: 232–5. ———. 1999. “Parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28–44).” JBL 118, no. 2: 279–94. Kirk, R. Daniel. 2016. A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Kittay, Eva F. 1989. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Schema. Oxford: Clarendon. Klauck, Hans Josef. 1978. Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Neue Folge 13. Münster: Aschendorff. Klein, Hans. 2006. Das Lukasevangelium. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 1/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klinghardt, Matthias. 2008. “The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion.” NovT 50: 1–27. Kloppenborg, John S. 1987. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 2000. “Isaiah 5:1–7, the Parable of the Tenants, and Vineyard Leases on Papyrus.” Pages 111–34 in Text and Artefact: Religions in Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Ed. S.G. Wilson and M. Desjardins. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ———. 2002. “Egyptian Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9.” NovT 44: 134–59.

Bibliography

253

———. 2004. “Isa 5:1–7 LXX and Mark 12:1, 9, Again.” NovT 46: 12–19. ———. 2006. Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. WUNT 1/195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2014. “A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas.” JSNT 36, no. 3: 199–239. Klostermann, Erich. 1975. Das Lukasevangelium. 3rd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Knowles, Michael P. 1989. “ ‘The Rock, his Work Is Perfect’: Unusual Imagery for God in Deuteronomy XXXII.” VT 39, no. 3: 307–22. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. 2010. “The Quotations of Isaiah 8,14 and 28,16 in Romans 9,33 and 1Peter 2,6.8 as Test Case for Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament.” ZNW 101, no. 2: 223–40. Koch, Ido. 2012. “The ‘Chariots of the Sun’ (2 Kings 23:11).” Semitica 54: 211–19. Koole, Jan L. 1997. Isaiah III. Vol. 1, Isaiah 40–48. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Korpel, Marjo Christina Annette. 1990. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Kowalski, Vesta Marie Horejs. 1996. “Rock of Ages: A Theological Study of the Word ‫ צור‬as a Metaphor for Israel’s God.” PhD dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Kramer, Werner. 1966. Christ, Lord, Son of God. Studies in Biblical Theology 50. London: SCM. Kremer, Jacob. 1998. Lukasevangelium. Die neue Echter Bibel, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3. Würzburg: Echter. Kugler, Robert. 1996. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Early Judaism and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: Scholars. Kümmel, Werner G. 1978. “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mk 12,1–9).” Pages 207–17 in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Vol. 1. Ed. Erich Grässer et al. Marburger theologische Studien 3. Marburg: Elwert. Kwaak, H. van der. 1966. “Die Klage über Jerusalem (Matth. xxiii. 37–39).” NovT 8: 156–70. Laato, Antti. 1992. “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Jerusalemite/Israelite Royal Ideology.” CBQ 54: 49–66. ———. 1997. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of Jewish Messianic Expectations. Atlanta: Scholars. Lakoff, George. 2006. “Conceptual Metaphor: The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” Pages 185–238 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Ed. Dirk Geeraerts et al. CLR 34. New York: de Gruyter. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lambertz, Maximilian. 1952. “Sprachliches aus Septuaginta und Neuen Testament: I: Ev. Luc. 1 78b: Ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Leipzig 3: 79–87.

254 Bibliography Lampe, G.W.H. 1956. “The Lucan Portrait of Christ.” NTS 2, no. 3: 160–75. Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. “Cognitive Grammar: Introduction to Concept, Image, and Symbol.” Pages 29–68 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Ed. Dirk Geeraerts et al. CLR 34. New York: de Gruyter. ———. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langer, Birgit. 1989. Gott als ‘Licht’ in Israel und Mesopotamien: eine Studie zu jes 60, 1–3.19f. Österreichische biblische Studien 7. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk. Langford, Justin. 2013. Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. Lanier, Gregory R. 2013. “The Rejected Stone in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: Defending the Authenticity of Jesus’ Quotation of Ps 118:22.” JETS 56, no. 4: 733–51. ———. 2014a. “Luke’s Distinctive Use of the Temple: Portraying the Divine Visitation.” JTS 65, no. 2: 433–62. ———. 2014b. “Metaphor in the New Testament: Catching Up to the Conversation on Contemporary Metaphor Theory.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. San Diego, CA. November 22, 2014. ———. 2015. “The Curious Case of ‫ צמח‬and ἀνατολή: An Inquiry into Septuagint Translation Patterns.” JBL 134, no. 3: 505–27. ———. 2016a. “A Case for the Assimilation of Matthew 21:44 to the Lukan ‘Crushing Stone’ (20:18), with Special Reference to 𝔓104.” TC 21: 1–21. ———. 2016b. “ ‘From God’ or ‘From Heaven’? ἔξ ὕψους in Luke 1.78.” Biblica 97, no. 1: 121–27. ———. 2016c. “Mapping the Vineyard: Main Lines of Investigation Regarding the Parable of the Tenants in the Synoptics and Thomas.” Currents of Biblical Research 15, no. 1: 74–122. Larkin, William J. 1974. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament in Luke 22–23.” PhD dissertation, Durham University. Lauber, Stephan. 2013. “Flügelsonne.” Bibellexikon: Deutschen Bibelgesellschaft. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/78862 (accessed 2014 Sept 19). Laurentin, René. 1957. Structure et théologie de Luc 1–2. Paris: Gabalda. Lee, Aquila H.I. 2005. From Messiah to Preexistent Son: Jesus’ Self-Consciousness and Early Christian Exegesis of Messianic Psalms. WUNT 2/192. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lee, David. 1999. Luke’s Stories of Jesus: Theological Reading of Gospel Narrative and the Legacy of Hans Frei. JSNTSup 185. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Levine, Baruch A. 2000. Numbers 21–36. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday. Levinskaya, Irina. 1996. “God-Fearers and the Cult of the Most High God.” Pages 83–104 in The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lewis, Jack P. 1999. “ ‘Sun of Righteousness’ (Malachi 4:2): A History of Interpretation.” Stone–Campbell Journal 2, no. 1: 89–110. Liebers, Reinhold. 1993. “Wie Geschrieben Steht”: Studien zu einer besonderen Art frühchristlichen Schriftbezuges. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Bibliography

255

Lieu, Judith. 2011. “Marcion and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 731–52 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Ed. Paul Foster et al. BETL 239. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2015. Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieven, Alexandra von. 2008. “Sun God.” Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. English ed. Antiquity, Vol 13: 947–50. Leiden: Brill. Lincicum, David. 2008. “Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?” JETS 51, no. 2: 297–308. Lindars, Barnabas. 1961. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM. ———. 1964. “Second Thoughts IV. Books of Testimonies.” Expository Times 75, no. 6: 173–5. Lindblom, Johannes. 1955. “Der Eckstein in Jes. 28,16.” Pages 123–33 in Interpretationes: Ad VT Pertinentes (Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae). Ed. Nils Dahl and Arvid Kapelrud. Oslo: Land og Kirke. Litwak, Kenneth D. 2005. Echoes of Scripture in Luke–Acts: Telling the Story of God’s People Intertextually. JSNTSup 282. London: T&T Clark International. ———. 2012. “The Use of the Old Testament in Luke–Acts : Luke’s Scriptural Story of the ‘Things Accomplished Among Us’.” Pages 147–69 in Issues in Luke–Acts: Selected Essays. Ed. Sean Adams and Michael Pahl. Gorgias Handbooks 26. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. Locke, John. 1689. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. London. Lohfink, Gerhard. 1975. Die Sammlung Israel: Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 39. Munich: Kösel. Lohfink, Norbert. 1995. “Psalmen im Neuen Testament: Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte bei Lukas.” Pages 105–25 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: für Walter Beyerlin. 2nd ed. Ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Herders biblische Studien 1. Freiburg: Herder. Long, Gary Alan. 1994. “Dead or Alive? Literality and God-Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 62: 509–37. Longenecker, Richard N. 1970. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology 27. London: SCM. Lowe, Malcolm. 1982. “From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic Source.” NTS 28, no. 2: 257–63. Lucass, Shirley. 2011. The Concept of the Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. Library of Second Temple Studies 78. London: T&T Clark International. Lührmann, Dieter. 1968. “Ein Weisheitspsalm aus Qumran (11 Q Ps XVIII).” ZAW 80, no. 1: 87–98. ———. 1969. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 1971. “Epiphaneia: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte eines griechischen Wortes.” Pages 185–99 in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lundbom, Jack R. 2004. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday.

256 Bibliography Lust, Johan. 1995. “The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles: The Ἄνθρωπος in Num 24:7 and 17: Messianism and Lexicography.” Pages 233–57 in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992. Editors Leonard J. Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Luz, Ulrich. 2005. Matthew 21–28. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Macaskill, Grant. 2007. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. JSJSup 115. Leiden: Brill. Mack, Burton. 1971. Review of Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, by M. Jack Suggs. JBL 90: 353–5. ———. 1973. Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1988. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress. Maier, Johann. 1979. “Die Sonne im religiösen Denken des antiken Judentums.” Pages 346–412 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. II.19.1. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter. Malina, Bruce, and Richard Rohrbaugh. 2003. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress. Mallen, Peter. 2008. The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke–Acts. LNTS 367. London: T&T Clark International. Maluf, Leonard J. 2000. The Prophecy of Zechariah: A Study of the Benedictus in the Context of Luke–Acts. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University. Marcus, Joel. 1998. “The Intertextual Polemic of the Markan Vineyard Parable.” Pages 211–27 in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Ed. Graham Stanton and Guy Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, I. Howard. 1976. The Origins of New Testament Christology. London: InterVarsity. ———. 1978. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster. ———. 1999. “ ‘Israel’ and the Story of Salvation: One Theme in Two Parts.” Pages 340–57 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim Upon Israel’s Legacy. Ed. David P. Moessner. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. ———. 2005. “The Christology of Luke’s Gospel and Acts.” Pages 122–47 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. Ed. Richard Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Martínez, Roberto. 2010. “The Question of John the Baptist and the Testimony of Jesus: A Narrative-Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18–35.” PhD dissertation, Catholic University of America. Mastin, B.A. 2004. “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monotheism, and the Question of Dating.” Pages 326–51 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings from the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Ed. John Day. London: T&T Clark International. Matera, Frank. 1993. “Jesus’ Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9.51–19.46): A Conflict with Israel.” JSNT 51: 57–77. ———. 1999. New Testament Christology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Matthews, Robert J. 1971. “Concerning a ‘Linguistic Theory’ of Metaphor.” Foundations of Language 7: 413–25. Mayer-Opificius, Ruth. 1984. “Die geflügelte Sonne: Himmels- und Regendarstellungen im Alten Vorderasien.” Ugarit-Forschungen 16: 189–236.

Bibliography

257

McFague, Sallie. 1983. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. London: SCM. McKay, John W. 1973. “Further Light on the Houses and Chariots of the Sun in the Jerusalem Temple (2 Kings 23:11).” PEQ 105: 167–9. ———. 1979. “Psalms of Vigil.” ZAW 91, no. 2: 229–47. McKelvey, R.J. 1962. “Christ the Cornerstone.” NTS 8, no. 4: 352–9. McGrath, James F. 2009. The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meier, John P. 2012. “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in the Vineyard: Is the Gospel of Thomas Independent of the Synoptics?” Pages 129–45 in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera. Ed. C.W. Skinner and K.R. Iverson. Early Christianity and Its Literature 7. Atlanta: SBL Press. Mellinkoff, Ruth. 1970. The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press. Metzger, Bruce M. 1971. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies. ———. 2006. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd revised ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Meyer, Rudolf, and Peter Katz. 1967. “ὄχλος.” TDNT 5: 582–90. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. 1993. Zechariah 9–14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25C. New York: Doubleday. Michael, J. Hugh. 1918. “The Lament over Jerusalem.” American Journal of Theology 22, no. 1: 101–13. Milavec, Aaron A. 1989. “Mark’s Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen as Reaffirming God’s Predilection for Israel.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26, no. 2: 289–312. Miller, Robert J. 1988. “The Rejection of the Prophets in Q.” JBL 107, no. 2: 225–40. Minear, Paul S. 1966. “Luke’s Use of the Birth Stories.” Pages 111–30 in Studies in Luke– Acts: Essays in Honour of Paul Schubert. Ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon. Mishcon, A. 1927. “The Origin of ‫ את צמח דוד‬and Its Place in the ‘Amidah.” JQR 18, no. 1: 37–43. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. 1996. Magnifikat und Benediktus: Die ältesten Zeugnisse der judenchristlichen Tradition von der Geburt des Messias. WUNT 1/90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Moessner, David P. 1988. “The ‘Leaven of the Pharisees’ and ‘This Generation’: Israel’s Rejection of Jesus According to Luke.” JSNT 34, no. 3: 21–46. ———. 1989. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress. Le Moigne, Philippe. 2005. “οὐχ ὡς dans Ésaïe-LXX.” Pages 71–104 in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité. Ed. Jan Joosten and Philippe Le Moigne. Paris: Cerf. Mommer, P. 2003. “‫קבץ‬.” TDOT 12: 486–91. Moore, Anne. 2009. Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible Through Metaphor. New York: Peter Lang. Moortgat, Anton. 1969. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia: The Classical Art of the Near East. London: Phaidon. Morenz, Sigfried. 1951. “Das Tier mit den Hörnern, ein Beitrag zu Dan 7:7f.” ZAW 63: 151–4.

258 Bibliography Morgenstern, Julian. 1920. A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Cincinnati: Union of American Hebrew Congregations. ———. 1925. “Moses with the Shining Face.” Hebrew Union College Annual 2: 1–27. Morgenstern, Matthew. 2007. “The Apostrophe to Zion—A Philological and Structural Analysis.” DSD 14, no. 2: 178–98. Moule, C.F.D. 1977. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mowinckel, Sigmund. 1956. He that Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Trans. George Anderson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Moyise, Steve. 2001. “The Old Testament in Luke–Acts.” Pages 45–62 in The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. New York: Continuum. Müller, Peter. 2003. “Sohn und Sohn Gottes: Ubergänge zwischen Metapher und Titel. Verbindungslinien zwischen Metaphorik und Titelchristologie am Beispiel des Sohnestitels.” Pages 75–92 in Metaphorik und Christologie. Ed. Jörg Frey et al. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 120. Berlin: de Gruyter. Muñoz-Iglesias, Salvador. 1990. Los Evangelios de la Infancia 1: Los Cánticos del Evangelio de la Infancia según San Lucas. 2nd ed. Biblioteca de autores cristianos 508. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2012. “Luke and the Septuagint.” NovT 54, no. 1: 13–15. Mussner, Franz. 1967. “Die bösen Winzer nach Matthäus 21,33–46.” Pages 129–34 in Antijudaïsmus in Neuen Testament? Ed. Willehad Eckert. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Nerlich, B., and Keith Brown. 2006. “Metonymy.” Pages 109–13 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. Newman, Carey. 1992. Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric. NovTSup 69. Leiden: Brill. Niehaus, Jeffrey. 1995. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Carlisle: Paternoster. Niehr, Herbert. 1990. Der höchste Gott: alttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kanaanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Beihefte zur ZAW 190. Berlin: de Gruyter. Nolland, John. 1989. Luke 1–9:20. WBC 35A. Dallas, TX: Word Books. ———. 1993. Luke 9:21–18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Noppen, Jean-Pierre van. 1985. Metaphor: A Bibliography of Post-1970 Publications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ———. 1988. “More Books on Metaphor.” Revue belge de philogie et d’histoire 116, no. 3: 618–45. Noppen, Jean-Pierre van, and Edith Hols. 1990. Metaphor II: A Classified Bibliography of Publications from 1985 to 1990. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Noth, Martin. 1930. “Die fünf syrisch überlieferten apokryphen Psalmen.” ZAW 48: 1–23. Novenson, Matthew V. 2012. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oakley, Todd. 1998. “Conceptual Blending, Narrative Discourse, and Rhetoric.” Cognitive Linguistics 9, no. 4: 321–60. Obbink, Herman T. 1937. “The Horns of the Altar in the Semitic World, Especially in Jahwism.” JBL 56, no. 1: 43–9. Oberlinner, Lorenz. 2000. “Die Parabel von den Weinbergpächtern Mk 12,1–12: Ein Beispiel für antijüdische Einstellung der ersten christlichen Gemeinden?” Pages 54–77 in Festschrift für Weddig Fricke zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. K. Märker. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.

Bibliography

259

Ogawa, Akira. 1979. “Paraboles de l’Israël véritable? Reconsidération critique de Mt. XXI 28–XXI 14.” NovT 21, no. 2: 121–49. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Max. 1893. Kypros: The Bible and Homer. London: Asher. Oliver, Harold H. 1964. “The Lukan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke–Acts.” NTS 10: 202–26. Ollenburger, Ben C. 1987. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT. Olofsson, Staffan. 1990. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Conectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Onyenali, Rowland. 2013. The Trilogy of Parables in Mt 21.28–22.14 from a Matthean Perspective. African Theological Studies 3. Berlin: Peter Lang. Oort, H. 1909. “Lucas 20,18b.” Theologisch Tijdschrift 43: 138–40. Oro, María del Carmen. 1983. “Benedictus de Zacarias (Luk 1,68–79): Indicios de una cristología arcaica.” Revista Bíblica 45: 145–77. Oss, Douglas. 1989. “The Interpretation of the ‘Stone’ Passages by Peter and Paul: A Comparative Study.” JETS 32: 181–200. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. 1973. “Zur Christologie des lukanischen Reiseberichts.” Evangelische Theologie 33: 476–96. Oswalt, John N. 1986. Isaiah 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. O’Toole, Robert F. 2004. Luke’s Presentation of Jesus: A Christology. Subsidia Biblica 25. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Otto, Eckhart. 2003. “‫ציון‬.” TDOT 12: 333–65. Parayre, Dominique. 1990. “Les cachets ouest-sémitiques à travers l’image due disque solaire ailé (perspective iconographique).” Syria: Archéologie, Art et histoire 67, no. 2: 269–314. Paul, Shalom M. 1991. Amos. Ed. Frank Moore Cross. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Pearson, Brook W.R. 1998. “Dry Bones in the Judean Desert: The Messiah of Ephraim, Ezekiel 37, and the Post-Revolutionary Followers of Bark Kokhba.” JSJ 29, no. 2: 192–201. Pedersen, Sigfried. 1965. “Zum Problem der vaticinia ex eventu (ein Analyse von Mt. 21,33–46 par.; 22,1–10 par.).” Studia Theologica 19: 167–88. Peels, Hendrik G.L. 1994. “On the Wings of the Eagle (Deut. 32:11)—An Old Misunderstanding.” ZAW 106, no. 2: 300–303. Peppard, Michael. 2011. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pidoux, George. 1947. Le Dieu qui vient: Espérance d’Israel. Cahiers Theologiques 17. Paris: Delachaux et Nestlé. Pinter, Dean. 2013. “The Gospel of Luke and the Roman Empire.” Pages 101–15 in Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in NTS. Ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Piper, Ronald. 1989. Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus. SNTSMS 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plath, Margarete. 1905. “Der neuetestamentliche Weheruf über Jerusalem (Luk 13,34–35 = Matth. 23,37–39).” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 78: 455–60.

260 Bibliography Porter, Stanley E. 1989. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang. ———. 1997. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Ed. Craig A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2007. “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 98–110 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practices. Ed. Thomas L. Brodie et al. New Testament Monographs 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. ———. 2008. “Allusions and Echoes.” Pages 29–40 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Ed. Stanley F. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Propp, William H. C. 2006. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday. Puech, Émile. 1993. “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique: 4QTestLévi[c-d](?) et 4QAJa. Pages 449–501 in The Madrid Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991: Volume II. Editors Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill. Puig i Tàrrech, Armand. 2013. “Metaphorics, First Context and Jesus Tradition in the Parable of the Tenants in the Vineyard.” Biblische Notizen 159: 75–120. Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. “Towards a Theory of Metonymy.” Pages 17–59 in Metonymy in Language and Thought. Ed. Kause-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Radl, Walter. 1996. Der Ursprung Jesu: Traditiongeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Lukas 1–2. Herders biblische Studien 7. Freiburg: Herder. Ramsey, Ian. 1967. Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases. 2nd ed. London: SCM. Rau, GottfriEd. 1965. “Das Volk in der lukanischen Passionsgeschichte: Eine Konjektur zu Lk 23,13.” ZNW 56, no. 1–2: 41–51. Reddy, Michael. 1979. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language.” Pages 284–324 in Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rendtorff, Rolf. 1960. “ ‘Offenbarung’ im Alten Testament.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 85, no. 11: 833–4. Rengstorf, Karl, ed. 1973. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus: Volume I. Leiden: Brill. Rese, Martin. 1969. Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas. Studien zum Neuen Testament 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloh Verlagshaus. Reymond, Eric. 2011. New Idioms Within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (=11QPsa). Early Judaism and Its Literature 31. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Richards, I.A. 1936. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, M.E.J. 2000. Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation and Glossary. Semitic Texts and Studies 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: TCU. ———. 1981. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bibliography

261

Ringgren, Helmer. 1986. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament.” HTR 79, no. 1–3: 227–35. ———. 2003. “‫צמח‬.” TDOT 12: 409–13. Roberts, J.M.M. 1987. “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16).” JBL 106, no. 1: 27–45. Robertson, A.T. 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman. Robinson, J.A.T. 1958. “Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection.” NTS 4, no. 4: 263–81. ———. 1975. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: A Test of Synoptic Relationships.” NTS 21, no. 4: 443–61. Robinson, James M. 1998. “The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem.” Pages 225–60 in Von Jesus zum Christus: Christologische Studien. Festgabe für Paul Hoffmann zum 65. Geburstag. Ed. Rudolf Hoppe and Ulrich Busse. BZNW 93. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2005. “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels.” Pages 119–30 in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays. Ed. Christoph Heil and Joseph Verheyden. BETL 189. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. 2000. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2002. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English, with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress. Rose, Wolter H. 2000. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2003. “Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period.” Pages 168–85 in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum. Rossow, Justin. 2009. “Preaching the Story Behind the Image: A Narrative Approach to Metaphor for Preaching.” PhD dissertation, Concordia Seminary. Roth, Dieter T. 2015. The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 49. Leiden: Brill. Rousseau, François. 1986. “Les structures du Benedictus (Luc 1,68–79).” NTS 32, no. 2: 268–82. Rowe, C. Kavin. 2003. “Luke and the Trinity: An Essay in Ecclesial Biblical Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 56, no. 1: 1–26. ———. 2005. “Luke–Acts and the Imperial Cult: A Way Through the Conundrum?” JSNT 27, no. 3: 279–300. ———. 2006. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. BZNW 139. New York: de Gruyter. ———. 2009. World Upside Down: Reading Acts in a Graeco-Roman Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rowland, Christopher. 1982. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK. Rusam, Dietrich. 2003. Das alte Testament bei Lukas. BZNW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sahlin, Harold. 1945. Der Messias und das Gottesvolk: Studien zur protolukanischen Theologie. Uppsala: Alqvist.

262 Bibliography Sanders, J.A. 1964. “Two Non-Canonical Psalms in 11QPsa.” ZAW 76, no. 1: 57–75. ———. 1987. “A New Testament Hermeneutic Fabric: Psalm 118 in the Entrance Narrative.” Pages 177–90 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Ed. Craig A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars. Sanders, J.T. 1985. “The Pharisees in Luke–Acts.” Pages 142–88 in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders. Ed. Dennis E. Groh and Robert Jewett. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. ———. 1987. “The Prophetic Use of the Scriptures in Luke–Acts.” Pages 191–8 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Ed. Craig A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring. Atlanta: Scholars. Sanders, Seth L. 2002. “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face.” VT 52, no. 3: 400–406. Savran, George. 2005. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 420. London: T&T Clark International. Schaper, Joachim. 1994. “The Unicorn in the Messianic Imagery of the Greek Bible.” JTS 45, no. 1: 117–36. Schiffner, Kerstin. 2008. Lukas liest Exodus: eine Untersuchung zur Aufnahme erst­ testamentlicher Befreiungsgeschichte im lukanischen Werk als Schrift-Lektüre. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schlatter, Adolf. 1960. Das Evangelium des Lukas: Aus seinen Quellen erklärt. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Calwer. Schleftelowitz, Isidor. 1912. “Das Hörnermotiv in den Religionen.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 15: 451–87. Schlier, Heinrich. 1964. “ἀνατέλλω, ἀνατολή.” TDNT 1: 351–3. Schmitt, John. 1985. “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother.” RB 92: 557–69. Schnutenhaus, Frank. 1964. “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament.” ZAW 76, no. 1: 1–22. Schroer, Silvia. 1995. “Die Göttin und der Geier.” Zeitschrift des deutschen PalästinaVereins 3: 60–80. ———. 1998. “ ‘Under the Shadow of Your Wings’: The Metaphor of God’s Wings in the Psalms, Exodus 19.4, Deuteronomy 32.11 and Malachi 3.20, As Seen through the Perspective of Feminism and the History of Religion.” Pages 264–82 in Wisdom and Psalms. Ed. Carole Fontaine and Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Schröten, Jutta. 1995. Entstehung, Komposition und Wirkungsgeschichte des 118. Psalms. Bonner Biblische Beitäge 95. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. Schröter, Jens. 2003. “Metaphorische Christologie: Überlegungen zum Beitrag eines metapherntheoretischen Zugangs zur Christologie anhand einiger christologischer Metaphern bei Paulus.” Pages 53–74 in Metaphorik und Christologie. Ed. Jörg Frey, Jan Rohls and Ruben Zimmermann. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 120. Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. “Salvation for the Gentiles and Israel: On the Relationship between Christology and People of God in Luke.” Pages 227–46 in From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of New Testament Canon. Trans. Wayne Coppins. Waco: Baylor University Press. Schubert, Paul. 1954. “The Structure and Significance of Luke 24.” Pages 165–86 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann zu seinem 70 Geburtstag. Ed. W. Eltester. BZNW 21. Berlin: Töpelmann. Schürmann, Heinz. 1969. Das Lukasevangelium, Erster Teil (Kap. 1, 1 – 9, 50). Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder.

Bibliography

263

Schwarzenbach, Armin. 1954. “Fels und Stein.” Pages 113–23 in Die Geographische Terminologie im Hebräischen des Alten Testamentes. Leiden: Brill. Segal, Alan F. 1992. “The Risen Christ and Angelic Mediator Figures in Light of Qumran.” Pages 302–28 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. Serrano, Andrés García. 2012. The Presentation in the Temple: The Narrative Function of Lk 2:22–39 in Luke–Acts. Analecta Biblica 197. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press. Sicre, José Luis. 1977. “El uso del Salmo 118 en la cristologia neotestamentaria.” Estudios eclesiásticos 52: 73–90. Siegman, Edward F. 1956. “The Stone Hewn from the Mountain (Daniel 2).” CBQ 18: 364–79. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. New York: Doubleday. Sluijs, Marinus Anthony van der. 2009. “Who Are the ‘Attendants of Helios’?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 129, no. 2: 169–77. Smith, Mark S. 1990. “The Near Eastern Background for Solar Language for Yahweh.” JBL 109, no. 1: 29–39. Smith, Morton. 1978. Jesus the Magician. London: Gollancz. Snodgrass, Klyne. 1973. “The Christological Stone Testimonia in the New Testament.” PhD dissertation, University of St. Andrews. ———. 1983. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Inquiry Into Parable Interpretation. WUNT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ———. 2008. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sokoloff, Michael. 2008. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias. Soskice, Janet Martin. 1987. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spencer, Aída Besançon. 1996. “Father-Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor ‘Father’ for God in the Bible.” JETS 39, no. 3: 433–42. Spitta, F. 1906. “Die chronologischen Notizen und die Hymnen in Lc 1 u. 2.” ZNW 7: 281–317. Stähli, Hans-Peter. 1984. Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments. OBO 66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stanley, Christopher D. 1992. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stanton, Graham. 2007. “Messianism and Christology: Mark, Matthew, Luke and Acts.” Pages 78–96 in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget. London: T&T Clark International. Staub, Urs. 2000. “Das Tier mit den Hörnern: Ein Beitrag zu Dan 7.7f.” Pages 39–85 in Hellenismus und Judentum: Vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV. Ed. Othmar Keel and Urs Staub. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Steck, Odil H. 1967. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomischen Geschichtbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.

264 Bibliography Steele, Laura D. 2002. “Mesopotamian Elements in the Proem of Parmenides? Correspondences between the Sun-Gods Helios and Shamash.” The Classical Quarterly 52, no. 2: 583–8. Steen, Gerard. 2006. “Metaphor: Stylistic Approaches.” Pages 51–7 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Ed. Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. Stein, Robert H. 1992. Luke. New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman. Stendahl, Krister. 1968. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20. Lund: Gleerup. Stewart, Alistair C. 1988. “A Covenant with Death in Isaiah 28.” Expository Times 100: 375–7. Strait, Drew J. 2013. “Proclaiming Another King Named Jesus? The Acts of the Apostles and the Roman Imperial Cult(s).” Pages 130–45 in Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in NTS. Ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph Modica. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Strathmann, H., and R. Meyer. 1967. “λαός.” TDNT 4: 29–57. Strauss, Mark L. 1995. The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1995. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1989. “Die Stellung Jesu und des Paulus zu Jerusalem.” ZTK 86: 140–56. Suggs, M. Jack. 1970. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sühling, Friedrich. 1930. Die Taube als religiöses Symbol im christlichen Altertum. Freiburg: Herder. Sundberg Jr., Albert. 1959. “On Testimonies.” NovT 3, no. 4: 268–81. Süring, Margit. 1980. The Horn-Motif: In the Hebrew Bible and Related Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Iconography. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. Swaeles, R. 1960. “L’Arrière-fond scripturaire de Matt. XXI.43 et son lien avec Matt. XXI.44.” NTS 6, no. 4: 310–13. Swanson, Reuben J. 1995. New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Vol. 3, Luke: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Sweetser, Eve, and Mary Therese DesCamp. 2014. “Motivating Biblical Metaphors for God: Refining the Cognitive Model.” Pages 7–23 in Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. Ed. Joel B. Green and Bonnie G. Howe. Berlin: de Gruyter. Tait, Michael. 2010. Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18–22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded. Analecta Biblica 185. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press. Talbert, Charles H. 1984. “Promise and Fulfillment in Lucan Theology.” Pages 91–103 in Luke–Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. New York: Crossroads. ———. 2011. The Development of Christology during the First Hundred Years, and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology. NovTSup 140. Leiden: Brill. Tan, Kim Huat. 1997. The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. SNTSMS 91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

265

Tannehill, Robert. 1986. The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts. Vol. 1, The Gospel According to Luke. Foundations and Facets. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1988. “Israel in Luke–Acts: A Tragic Story.” JBL 104, no. 1: 69–85. ———. 1996. Luke. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon. ———. 1999. “The Story of Israel within the Lukan Narrative.” Pages 325–39 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim Upon Israel’s Legacy. Ed. David P. Moessner. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Tate, Marvin E. 1990. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Taylor, J. Glen. 1993. Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel. Old Testament Studies. London: T&T Clark International. Taylor, Nicholas H. 1999. “Jerusalem and the Temple in Early Christian Life and Teaching.” Neotestementica 33: 445–61. ———. 2004. “The Jerusalem Temple in Luke–Acts.” Hervormde teologiese studies 60, no. 1–2: 459–85. Teeple, Howard. 1957. The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. JBL Monograph Series 10. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1994. “Christology in Luke, Speech–Act Theory, and the Problem of Dualism in Christology.” Pages 453–73 in Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Tilling, Chris. 2012. Paul’s Divine Christology. WUNT 2/323. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Toorn, Karel van der. 1992. “Sun.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6: 237–9. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Torrey, Charles C. 1947. “The Messiah Son of Ephraim.” JBL 66, no. 3: 253–77. Trilling, Wolfgang. 1965. “Das Winzergleichnis: 21,33–45.” Pages 55–65 in Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäuse-Evangeliums. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 10. Munich: Kösel. Trimaille, Michel. 1989. “La parabole des vignerons meurtriers (Mc 12, 1–12).” Pages 247–58 in Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspective nouvelles. Ed. Jean Delorme. Paris: Cerf. Tsevat, Matitiahu. 1953. “The Ugaritic Goddess Nikkal-WIB.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12, no. 1: 61–2. Tuckett, Christopher M. 1999. “The Christology of Luke–Acts.” Pages 133–64 in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Ed. Joseph Verheyden. BETL 142. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 2014. “Feminine Wisdom in Q.” Pages 182–95 in From the Sayings to the Gospels. WUNT 1/328. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Tuggy, Dale. 2013. “On Bauckham’s Bargain.” Theology Today 70, no. 2: 128–43. Turner, M. Max B. 1980. “Luke and the Spirit: Studies in the Significance of Receiving the Spirit in Luke–Acts.” PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. ———. 1994. “The Spirit of Christ and ‘Divine’ Christology.” Pages 413–36 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Turner, Mark. 1998. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Turner, Nigel. 1955. “The Relation of Luke i and ii to Hebraic Sources and to the Rest of Luke–Acts.” NTS 2: 100–109. Tyson, Joseph B. 1984. “The Jewish Public in Luke–Acts.” NTS 30, no. 4: 574–83.

266 Bibliography Uchelen, N.A. von. 1968. “Abraham als Felsen.” ZAW 80: 183–91. Urbach, Ephraim E. 1979. The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes. Uro, Risto. 1987. Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 47. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Vanhoye, Albert. 1966. “Structure du ‘Benedictus’.” NTS 52, no. 4: 382–9. Vielhauer, Philipp. 1952. “Das Benedictus des Zacharias.” ZTK 49: 255–72. Vinson, Richard. 2008. Luke. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 21. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. Voss, Gerhard. 1965. Die Christologie der lukanischen Schriften in Grundzügen. Studia neotestamentica 2. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Wagner, J. Ross. 1997. “Psalm 118 in Luke–Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread.” Pages 154–78 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. ———. 2000. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2007. “Identifying ‘Updated’ Prophecies in Old Greek (OG) Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11–16 as a Test Case.” JBL 126, no. 2: 251–69. Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wassell, Blake E., and Stephen R. Llewelyn. 2014. “ ‘Fishers of Humans,’ the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, and Conceptual Blending Theory.” JBL 133, no. 3: 627–46. Watson, Francis. 2013. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Watts, John D.W. 2005a. Isaiah 1–33. Revised ed. WBC 25A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. ———. 2005b. Isaiah 34–66. Revised ed. WBC 25B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Weder, Hans. 1978. Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern: traditions- und redaktions­ geschichtliche Analysen und Interpretationen. FRLANT 120. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weinert, Francis D. 1982. “Luke, the Temple, and Jesus’ Saying about Jerusalem’s Abandoned House.” CBQ 44: 68–76. Weiss, Andrea. 2006. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. VTSup 107. Leiden: Brill. Wellhausen, Julius. 1904. Das Evangelium Lucae: Ubersetzt und Erklart. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Weren, Wilhelmus J.C. 1998. “The Use of Isaiah 5,1–7 in the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12,1–12; Matthew 21,33–46).” Biblica 79, no. 1: 1–26. Westcott, Brooke, and Fenton Hort. 1890. Introduction to the New Testament in Original Greek. London: MacMillan. Wheelwright, Philip. 1962. Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Whitley, John B. 2015. “‫ עיפה‬in Amos 4:13: New Evidence for the Yahwistic Incorporation of Ancient Near Eastern Solar Imagery.” JBL 134, no. 1: 127–38. Wiefel, Wolfgang. 1998. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Berlin: Evangelischer Verlangsanstalt. Wiegand, A. 1890. “Der Gottesname ‫ צור‬und seine Deutung in dem Sinne Bildner oder Schöpfer in der alten jüdischen Litteratur.” ZAW 10: 85–96.

Bibliography

267

Wilckens, Ulrich. 1959. Weisheit und Torheit: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu 1. Kor. 1 und 2. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wilckens, Ulrich, and Georg Fohrer. 1964. “σοφία κτλ.” TDNT 7: 465–528. Wildberger, H. 1979. “Gottesnamen und Gottesepitheta bei Jesaja.” Pages 219–48 in Jahwe und sein Volk: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bucherei 66. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Williams, Gary R. 1985. “Frustrated Expectations in Isaiah V 1–7: A Literary Interpretation.” VT 35, no. 4: 459–65. Willis, J.T. 1977. “The Genre of Isaiah 5:1–7.” JBL 96: 337–62. Wilson, Walter T. 2015. “Works of Wisdom (Matt 9,9–17; 11,16–19).” ZNW 106, no. 1: 1–20. Windisch, Hans. 1914. “Die göttliche Weisheit der Jüden und die paulinische Christologie.” Pages 220–34 in Neutestamentliche Studien: Georg Henrici zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Hans Windisch. WUNT 6. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Winter, Paul. 1953. “Two Notes on Luke I, II with Regard to the Theory of ‘Imitation Hebraisms’. (I) ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους.” Studia Theologica 7: 158–64. ———. 1954a. “Magnificat and Benedictus—Maccabaean Psalms?” BJRL 37: 328–47. ———. 1954b. “Some Observations on the Language of the Birth and Infancy Stories of the Third Gospel.” NTS 1, no. 2: 111–21. Winter, Paul, T.A. Burkill and Geza Vermes. 1974. On the Trial of Jesus. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Witherington III, Ben. 2006. Matthew. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. Wolff, Hans Walter. 1977. Joel and Amos. Trans. Waldemar Janzen, S. Dean McBride, Jr., and Charles A. Muenchow. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Wolter, Michael. 1999. “Israel’s Future and the Delay of the Parousia, According to Luke.” Pages 307–24 in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim Upon Israel’s Legacy. Ed. David P. Moessner. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. ———. 2008. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wolters, Al. 2014. Zechariah. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Wright, N.T. 1997. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress. ———. 2013. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. London: SPCK. Yee, Gale A. 1981. “A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable.” CBQ 43: 30–40. Yoon, David I. 2013. “The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies.” Currents of Biblical Research 12, no. 1: 58–76. Zeitlin, Solomon. 1964. “The Tefillah, the Shemoneh Esreh: An Historical Study of the First Canonization of the Hebrew Liturgy.” JQR 54, no. 3: 208–49. Ziegler, Joseph. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlangsbuchhandlung. ———. 1950. “Die Hilfe Gottes ‘am Morgen’.” Pages 281–8 in Alttestamentliche Studien: Friedrich Nötscher zum sechzigsten Geburtstage, 19 Juli 1950, gewidmet von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Ed. Hubert Junker et al. Bonn: P. Hanstein.

268 Bibliography Ziem, Alexander. 2008. Frames und sprachliches Wissen: Kognitive Aspekte der semantischen Kompetenz. Sprache und Wissen 2. Berlin: De Gruyter. Zimmermann, Ruben. 2003. “Paradigmen einer metaphorischen Christologie: Eine Leseanleitung.” Pages 1–34 in Metaphorik und Christologie. Ed. Jörg Frey et al. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 120. Berlin: de Gruyter.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1:4 91 1:15 91 2:9 57 2:12 180 11:3 179 15:9 140 22:13 46, 55 179 28:11 28:18 179 29:2–10 179 35:7 119 41:4 70 41:7 70 44:3 91 49:9 70 49:24 179, 188, 190 50:24 39 Exodus 3:8 38 3:12 75 4:23 75 39, 75 4:31 6:6 75 75 7:16 8:16 75 9:1 75 9:13 75 10:3 75 10:21–23 91 10:21 91 75 10:24 10:26 75 13:15 75

13:21 91 14:10 76 14:13 75 14:24 105 14:31 75, 76 15:1–18 83 15:13 75 15:16 76 17:6 179 17:12 179 18:13 105 19 118, 220 19:4 147, 153, 167 19:11 38 19:16 105 19:20 38 21:29 46 22:2 91 23:20 122 24 119 24:12 179 24:29–35 45, 64 25:7 180 26:30 56 27:2 47 27:20–21 92 28:9–11 180 29:12 47 30:10 47 33:21 180 34 119 34:1–4 179 105 34:2 34:29 55 92 39:16 39:37 92

Leviticus 4:7 47 8:15 47 14:40–45 179 16:18 47 20:2 180 26:1 56, 180 Numbers 6:25 14:10 20:8–10 23:22 24:7 24:8 24:17 24:21

100, 119 180 179 62, 63, 76, 216 124 62, 63, 76 81, 85, 87, 95, 96, 124–26 180

Deuteronomy 2:25 76 4:11 91, 93 4:17 142 4:19 104 4:28 180, 191 4:34 75 6:13 86 7:8 75 7:19 75 8:15 179 9:26 75 75 10:21 11:25 76 13:6 75 15:15 75 16:6 92

270 Deuteronomy (cont.) 17:3 104 21:8 75 24:18 75 28:64 191 29:16 191 30:3–4 153 31:15 38 32–33 220 32 165 32:4–37 188 32:4 188, 220 32:5–6 165 32:10–12 160 32:11–12 147 32:11 130, 149, 165, 167, 220 32:12 149 32:15 165 32:16–17 54 32:18 179, 188, 190, 220 32:21 165 32:31 190, 191, 220 188 32:37 33:2–29 83 33:2 39, 106, 108, 119, 220 33:16–17 54 49, 54, 68, 33:17 73, 78, 220 34:12 75 Joshua 5:2–3 179 6:4–5 46 6:12–15 105 8:29 179 8:31 179 10:2 144 10:12 92 144 14:15 15:10 104 15:13 144

Index of References 15:58 180 18:17 180 21:11 144 Judges 2:7 75 2:16 70 2:18 70 3:9 70 3:15 70 5:31 85 6:20–21 177 6:21 179 7:25 180 13:19 177, 179 15:2–31 83 20:45 180 Ruth 1:6 2:11–12 2:12 4:1

39 160 148 105

1 Samuel 37 2 2:1 55 2:1 lxx 42, 43, 52, 68 2:8 lxx 70 2:10 55 2:10 lxx 42, 43, 45, 54, 68, 78 4:1 180 5:1 180 5:3 lxx 70 6:7 lxx 179 6:12 88 6:14 lxx 177, 179 180 7:12 7:12 lxx 180 11:9–11 105 13:6 lxx 180 14:33 lxx 180 14:36 lxx 91 16:1 lxx 45, 46 16:13 lxx 45, 46

17:40 lxx 177 17:49 lxx 178, 180 25:32 lxx 71 29:10 lxx 91 2 Samuel 7:23 75 12:30 lxx 180 15:2 lxx 105 17:13 lxx 177 22 37 22 lxx 43, 221 22:2–4 lxx 68 22:2–3 lxx 187, 189 22:2 lxx 221 22:3–4 lxx 61 22:3 44 22:3 lxx 42, 187, 221 22:10 lxx 39 22:11 147 22:11 lxx 142, 221 22:29 lxx 98, 221 23:3–4 96 23:3 179, 190 23:5 57 1 Kings 1:9 lxx 180 1:39 46 1:39 lxx 45, 46 1:48 lxx 71 1:50 64 1:50 lxx 62 2:28 64 2:28 lxx 62 2:46 lxx 128 4:23 lxx 128 5:32 lxx 179 6:1 lxx 179 7:46–48 lxx 179 8:53 lxx 98 11:14 lxx 70 18:4 157 18:32 lxx 179 22:11 lxx 49 22:11–12 lxx 72 23:28 lxx 180

271

Index of References

2 Kings 8:19 lxx 58 9:1 lxx 180 19:18 lxx 180, 191 19:35 105 21 104 23:11 104 25:17 lxx 170 1 Chronicles 17:21 75 25:5 52, 55 2 Chronicles 24:17–23 157 Ezra 3:6–12 5:8

184 179

Nehemiah 1:9 153 3:16 180 3:34–35 179 Job 3:4 93 179 6:12 10:21–22 93 16:15 MT 55 93 17:13 18:5–6 93 22:24 177 28:1–28 136, 137 28:3 111 28:6 180 28:7 140 30:26 93 31:26–28 104 38:36 140 41:7 177 41:16 178 Psalms 2 56 5:4 105 5:9 115

16:8–9 16:8 17

160 148 43, 76–78, 220, 221 17:1 76 17:3–4 61, 63, 68 17:3 42, 44, 62, 76, 190, 221 17:4 76 17:8–16 119 17:8–9 160 17:8 130, 148 17:10 39, 76, 221 17:11 147 17:14 61 17:17–19 61 17:17 76 17:18 76 17:27 61 17:28 76 17:29 81, 98, 221 17:32 190, 191 17:37–43 61 17:46 221 17:47–48 61 17:47 76 17:49 76 18 43, 76–78, 216, 220, 221 18:1 76 18:3–4 61, 63, 68 18:3 42, 44, 62, 76, 188, 190, 221 18:4 76 18:5 99 119 18:8–16 18:10 39, 76, 221 18:11 147 18:14 61 18:15 190 18:17–19 61 18:17 76 18:18 76 18:27 61 18:28 76

18:29 18:32

81, 98, 221 188, 190, 191 18:37–43 61 18:46 221 18:47–48 61 18:47 76, 188 18:49 76 19:5 99 19:15 190 21:21 72 21:22 49 22:4–5 111 22:4 115 22:21 72 22:22 49, 55 23:4–5 111 23:4 115 26:1 99 26:4–5 179 27:1 99, 190 27:4–5 179 28:1 190 29:3 190 30:3 190 30:17 119 31:17 119 35:8 148 36:6 92 130 36:7 36:8 148 37:6 92 71 40:14 41 37 41:14 71 45:6 105 46:6 105 49:5 154 50:5 154 55:14 92 56:2 148, 160 92 56:14 57:2 148, 160 57:6 39 39 58:6 60:5 148 148 61:5

272 Psalms (cont) 61:7 190 62:7 190 66:2 119 67:2 119 67:7 38 67:8–11 119 68:7 38 68:8–11 119 68:26 86 68:32 46 69:26 86 69:32 45, 46 71:18 71 72 37 72:18 71 72:26 190 73:26 190 74:5–6 52 74:11 54 74:19 146 75:5–6 52 75:11 54 76:17–20 119 77:17–20 119 190 77:35 78:35 190 79:2–4 91 79:4 119 79:8 119 79:15 39 79:20 119 91 80:2–4 80:4 119 80:8 119 80:9–17 204 80:17 179 80:20 119 81:17 179 148, 149 83:4 84:4 148, 149 100 84:12 86:5 143 87:5 143 87:14 105 87:33 39 88 43, 221

Index of References 88:14 88:16 88:18

105 99, 221 42, 52, 68, 221 88:21 54 88:25 54, 68, 78 88:26 42 88:27 190, 221 88:33 39 88:53 71 89 43, 56, 221 89:14 105 89:16 99, 221 42, 52, 68, 89:18 221 89:21 54 89:25 42, 54, 68, 78 89:27 190, 221 89:53 71 90:1–5 160 90:4 130, 148, 167 90:11–12 148 90:14 105 160 91:1–5 91:4 130, 148, 167 91:11–12 148 91:11 42, 49, 52, 68 91:16 190 42, 49, 52, 92:11 68 92:16 190 93:22 190 94:22 188, 190 101:14–15 179 102:14–15 179 103:1–2 99 103:3 99 103:18 180 103:19 91 104:1–2 99 104:3 70, 99 104:18 180 104:19 91

105:48 106:2–3 106:10–14 106:14 106:48 107:2–3 107:10–14 107:10 109:3 110:3 110:9 111 111:4 111:9 112:4 112:9 113:3–7 113:9 114:3–7 117 117:2–4 117:5–21 117:5–18 117:5 117:7 117:8–9 117:10–12 117:13 117:17 117:19–20 117:19 117:21 117:22

71 153 93, 115 81 71 153 93, 115 81 81, 96 81, 96 75 37 81, 93 52, 75 81, 93 52, 55, 142 119 142 119 29, 201, 220 184 184 185 184 184 210 184 184 184 184 185 185 168, 170, 175, 176, 183–85, 198, 199, 201, 206– 208, 218 117:23–27 184 117:23–24 185 117:23 169, 185, 199, 207, 208, 213, 218 117:26 162, 163, 185, 201, 206, 207

273 117:27 117:28 118

119, 185 184 29, 169, 184, 201, 202, 206, 207, 220 118:2–4 184 118:5–21 184 118:5–18 185 118:5 184 184 118:7 118:8–9 210 118:10–12 184 118:13 184 118:22 186, 198, 199, 201, 206–208, 218 118:23 199, 207, 208, 213, 218 118:26 201, 206– 208 118:17 184 118:19–20 184 118:19 185 118:21 185 168, 170, 118:22 175, 176, 180, 183–85 118:23–27 184 118:23–24 185 169, 185 118:23 118:26 162, 163, 185 118:27 119, 185 118:28 184 118:135 119 119:135 119 123:6 71 124:6 71 127:2 70 131 43, 57, 60 131:5 57 45 131:7 131:13–18 57

Index of References 131:14 57 131:15 58 131:16 58 131:17 42, 57, 58, 68, 70, 78 131:18 58 132 43, 57, 60 132:5 57 132:7 45 132:13–18 57 132:14 57 132:15 58 132:16 58 132:17 42, 55, 57–59, 68, 70, 78 132:18 58 37 135 142:8 105 143:8 105 146 37 147:8 57 148 56 148:14 42, 52, 68 149:2 144 56 154 Proverbs 1:17–33 136, 137 1:17 140 91 4:18 8:1–36 136, 137 8:32 139 9:1–6 136, 137 138 9:3–6 10:1 142 16:5 96 Ecclesiastes 1:5 91 Song of Songs 1:6 204 2:15 204 8:11–12 204

Isaiah 1:26 144 2:19 177 3 205 3:14–15 205 4:2 86, 99 5 29, 174, 204–206, 209 5:1–7 169, 204, 210 5:1 45, 55 5:2 204, 205 5:3–4 205 5:4 204, 210 211 5:5–6 5:5 204 5:7 205 5:11 70 5:30 91 7–8 194 7:9 194, 196 7:14 194 8 173, 220 8:1–4 194 8:6 194, 196 8:7 196 8:11–12 194 8:11 194, 196 194, 196 8:12 8:13–15 193 8:13–14 187, 194 193, 210 8:14–15 8:14 171–73, 176, 178, 180, 188, 193–98, 210, 213, 214 8:15 173, 194, 196 8:17 194, 196 8:18 194, 196, 200 8:21 196 8:23–9:1 114 114 9:1–2

274 Isaiah (cont.) 9:1 81, 114 9:2 114 9:5 114 9:6 114 10:3 40 11:1 60 11:10 154 11:12 154 13:10–11 93 13:10 90, 91 14:12 91, 94, 96 16:1 179 17:10 188, 190 17:13 211 18:4 91 19:1 39 22:16 180 26:4 188, 190 28 197, 220 28:2 196 28:5 196 28:11 196 28:13 196 28:14 195, 196 196 28:15 28:16 170, 176, 180, 182, 187, 193, 195–98, 200, 210, 214 28:17–18 196 28:17 196 29:5–6 40 30:22 211 30:29 188, 190 31:1–5 160 31:5 130, 149 31:9 191 33:2 108 38 35:4 40 37, 122, 123 40:3 121 40:5 121 40:10 121 41:3 115

Index of References 41:16 41:25 42 42:6–7

211 108 37 81, 95, 114, 115 42:13 38 42:14 149 42:16 93, 115 43:1 155 43:5 155 44:8 189, 191 44:26 56 46 37 37 49 49:5 154 49:6 81, 95 49:9 81 49:14 143 49:15 149 49:20–21 143 50:1 143, 144, 146, 163 51:1–2 181, 182, 202 51:4 92 51:17–18 144 52 37, 158 52:1–3 132 53:12 86 54:1 144 54:11–12 181, 182 56:8 154 81, 106–108 58:8 58:10 106 59:8 115 60:1–3 82 60:1 95, 155 107 60:2–3 60:2 95, 106, 108 60:3 95 60:4 155 60:19 99, 116 60:22 155 61:2 86 66:8 144 66:11 144 66:13 149

Jeremiah 2:21 204 2:27 179, 191 3:9 191 4 158 4:23 91 5:1 143 5:3 178 5:7 143 5:9 39 5:10 204 6 158 6:6–9 132 6:9 204 8:2 104 8:13 204 10:20 56 12:7 162 12:10 204 13:12–27 132 111 13:16 17:11 149 21:12–13 182, 183 22:1–9 162 23:5 60, 82, 84–87, 116, 154 23:8 154 23:12 40 23:15 87 26:20–23 157 28:26 179 39, 40 29:10 29:14 40 106 30:17 31:10 211 31:12 53, 55 31:25 53 32:37 154 33:5 87 33:6 106 60, 86 33:15 33:15 mt 84 36:10 39, 40 40, 119 36:14 37:17 106 38:36 90

275 39:37 40:15 43:9 43:31 46–51 48:12 48:25 49:32 50:9 51:26

Index of References 154 86 179 39 119 53, 55 53 211 179 179

Lamentations 2:3 53 3:22–23 108 3:53 179 4:1–2 181 4:2 144, 182 Ezekiel 3:9 178 8–11 107, 212 8:16–17 104 8:16 91, 107 11:17 154 15:1–8 204 16:7 58, 85, 116 17:5–10 204 17:6–9 58 17:10 85, 88, 116 19:1–2 144 19:10–14 204 20:32 191 211 26:4 27:15 46 28:25 154 29 58 29:6 58 29:9 58 29:12 211 58 29:16 29:20 58 29:21 42, 43, 57–60, 68, 70, 78 30:23 211 32:7 90

34:11 39 34:21 49 34:23–24 60 36:19 211 36:26 178 228 37 37:11–14 228 37:21–23 228 37:21 154 37:24–27 60 37:24–25 228 38:12 188 39:27 154 39:28 119 43 212 43:2–4 39 43:2 107 Daniel 2

172, 173, 211 2 og 192 2:34–35 176, 180, 181 2:34–35 og 192 171–73, 2:44–45 176, 180, 181, 211 2:44–45 og 192 5:4 180 7:7 55 7:24 67 8:5–9 og 46 8:5–7 og 49 46 8:7–8 8:7 og 53 8:7 og 46 8:10 94 8:20–21 67 100 9:17 Hosea 2:2 155 2:14–17 204 4:14 39 6:3 107

10:1 10:8 13:8

204 86 149

Joel 2:2 93 2:23 144 Amos 3:14 53 5:20 93 6:13 52 Micah 1:3 2:12 3:6 4:6 4:13 6:4 7:6 7:8–9 7:8

38, 39 154 91 154 49 75 142 93 115

Habakkuk 1:12 189 2:6 117 2:19 191 3 37 3:3–4 lxx 62 3:3–4 Barb 63 3:3–4 63, 64 3:3 39 3:4 55, 91, 99 3:13 99 Zephaniah 2:7 39 2:11 119 3:5 105 3:18 154 Haggai 2:15

179

276 Zechariah 2:1–2 2:3 2:4 3–4 3:8–9

67 49 49 183 176, 180, 183, 184 3:8 82, 84, 86, 87, 116 4:7–10 183 4:7–9 184 4:7 172 4:9 184 6:12 82, 84, 86, 87, 116 9:13 144 9:14 119 9:16 181, 182 12:3 181, 192 12:8 193 14:5 39 Malachi 3–4 3

220 120, 122, 123, 221 3:1–2 107 3:1 120–22 3:2 39 3:19–24 121 107, 121 3:19 3:20 82, 87, 106–108, 121, 125, 148, 221 3:21–24 120 3:22–23 lxx 120 3:22–23 121 3:22 121 3:23–24 mt 120 3:23–24 121 4 122, 123 4:2 82, 87 4:5–6 et 120

Index of References New Testament Q 6.23 134 7.35 134 10.21–22 134 11.49–51 134 13.34 130, 131 13.35 130 13.34–35 132, 134 Matthew 1–2 36 2:2 81 4:16 81, 114 9:15 28 11:11 70 11:19 160 70 12:42 16:18 177, 198 21:1–11 203 21:9 201 21:12–16 203 21:17–22 203 21:23–27 203 21:28–32 203 21:33–46 168, 203 21:35 205 21:37 205 21:42 206, 207 21:43 172, 212 21:44 170 22:1–14 203 22:15–22 203 22:23–33 203 23:34–39 131 23:34–36 134, 135 23:34 135 23:36 165 23:37–39 133–36, 141, 165 23:37 128 23:38–39 162 24:23–28 201 24:29 90 24:31 165 25:36 117

Mark 2:19 28 8:31 201 11:1–11 203 11:9–10 201 11:11–14 203 11:13–17 203 11:15–19 203 11:18–27 203 11:20–25 203 11:27–33 203 12 204 12:1–12 168, 203 12:1 204 12:5 205 205 12:6 12:9 204 12:10 206 12:11 207 12:12 201 13:21–23 201 13:27 165 14:57–58 87 16:9–20 75 Luke 1–9 1–2

7 7, 30, 36, 38, 72, 78, 120, 122, 131, 226 1:1–4 3 1:1 29, 227 1:5–2:52 36 1:10 206 1:17 120, 159, 206 1:21 206 1:25 75 1:27 70, 226 1:32–33 38 38, 70, 226 1:32 1:35 38 1:43 38, 122, 226 83 1:46–66 1:48 76 1:49 75

277 1:51–54 72 1:51 75 1:52–53 76 1:58 122 1:64 71 1:66 71 1:68–79 160 1:68–75 37, 82 1:68–69 1, 28, 29, 33, 38, 43, 69, 71, 215, 217, 218, 226 1:68 35, 38, 39, 41, 71, 75, 76, 78, 83, 110, 113, 117 1:69–75 111, 117 1:69–70 71, 72 1:69 35, 42–45, 57, 68–78, 86, 113, 215, 216, 226 1:70 29, 42, 71, 77 71, 76, 113 1:71 1:72 113 1:74–77 72 75 1:74–75 1:74 71, 75, 76 37 1:76–79 1:76–77 37, 80, 82, 83, 89, 111, 112, 122, 123 1:76 83, 89, 120–22 1:77 112

Index of References 1:78–79

1, 28, 29, 34, 37, 38, 80–84, 86–90, 109– 11, 113, 115–17, 120, 122, 124–26, 216, 226 1:78 37–39, 76, 80, 82, 85– 89, 111–14, 117, 122, 126, 127 1:79 80, 87, 110, 111, 114, 115, 118, 120, 123, 216 2:4 38, 70, 226 2:10–11 202 2:11 38, 70, 122, 226 2:14 202 2:23 174 38, 226 2:26 2:29–35 200 2:29–32 83, 200 2:30–32 28 2:30 28 2:32–33 226 2:32 118, 200 2:34–35 200, 218 2:34 200, 208, 212 2:47 38 3–24 36, 38 3 226 3:3 111 161 3:4–17 3:4 121, 122, 174 3:8 70, 159, 202 3:15–17 209 3:16 206 3:17 161

153, 207, 226 3:23 226 3:38 226 4 226 4:4 174 4:6 70 4:7 174 4:8 86, 174 4:9–11 131 4:10–11 148 4:10 174 226 4:18–24 4:18 160 4:19 86, 161 4:27 159 4:34 70 4:36 226 4:40 160 4:41 226 5:17 158, 161 5:20–24 132 5:20–21 111 5:24 132 5:30 159 28 5:34 6:1–11 159 6:17 158, 161 6:22 72 6:27 72, 132 6:35 72 7 226 7:16 39, 70, 117, 165, 226 7:22 160 7:24 121 7:27 132 159 7:28–35 7:29 160, 206 7:30 160 7:35 139, 159 226 7:36–50 7:50 111 8:39 132 111 8:48 9–10 226 9:1 226 3:22

278 Luke (cont.) 9:7 9:20 9:22 9:31 9:35 9:46–48 9:48 9:51 9:53 10:16 10:19 10:21–22 10:25 11 11:8–9 11:17 11:20 11:23 11:31 11:34 11:45 11:49–51 11:49

70 226 70, 201 226 207 226 132 157 157 132 72 226 226 226 160 226 226 161 70 160 226 131, 135 131, 132, 135, 136, 226 12:32 132 13 226 13:10–17 159 13:31–35 128, 159 13:31 157 13:32 162 13:33–34 165 13:33 29, 129, 157, 165, 226 13:34–35 129, 131, 133–36, 141, 156, 157, 163, 164, 167, 201 13:34 1, 24, 28–30, 32, 34, 128–30, 132, 134, 136, 138–

Index of References

13:35

13:44 14:12 14:32 15:1–32 15:14 17:11 17:20–24 17:23–34 17:24 17:25 17:37 18:31 18:43 19–20 19 19:3–7 19:9 19:11 19:14 19:27 19:28–44 19:31 19:37–45 19:37 19:38 19:39 19:40 19:41–44 19:41 19:43–44 19:43 19:44 19:45–48 19:46 19:47–48

42, 156, 157, 159– 61, 163–66, 217, 226 29, 129, 132, 141, 162, 163, 201, 206 156 160 111 160 159 157 201 201 201 201 201 157, 174 206 226 161, 162 206 160 157 72 72 203 226 211 202, 207 73, 163, 201, 202, 213, 226 163 202 163 163 163 72 39, 118, 163, 212, 226 203 174 162

19:47

164, 202, 206 20 204 20:1–8 203 20:1 162, 201, 203 20:2 203 20:6 206 20:9–19 168, 203 204, 206 20:9 20:13 204, 205, 209 20:14 200 20:15–17 169 20:15 204, 209 20:16 206, 209, 212 20:17–18 1, 28, 30, 34, 176, 177, 198, 209, 212, 217 20:17 14, 29, 168, 170, 174, 175, 183, 198, 199, 201, 206, 208, 209, 211–13, 218, 226 20:18 14, 29, 168– 71, 173–76, 198–200, 209–14, 218, 226 20:19–26 203 20:19 162, 201, 204, 206 20:26 162 20:27–40 203 20:37 70 20:42 31 20:43 72 20:45 162 21:5–36 163 21:6 163 72 21:17

279

Index of References

21:22 174 21:23 163 21:38 162, 206 22:2 162 22:30 213 22:37 86 22:66 164 23 72 23:13 163 23:18 163 206 23:27 23:28 145, 164 23:30 86 23:35 206 24 226 226 24:19 24:20 159, 164 24:24 226 24:44 29, 174, 227 24:46 174, 226 24:49 226 226 24:52 28:21 211

13:27 15:14 15:36 27:20

John 11:51–52 161 12:13 201

1 Thessalonians 3:11 88

Acts 1:20 2:35 2:36 3:15 3:21 4 4:8–11 4:8 4:10 4:11 5:30 6:3 7:23 13:10 13:22 13:23

86 72 164 70 77 208 164 208 70 168, 198, 207, 208 70 117 117 72 70 70

Romans 9:30–33 9:33 10:11

164 39, 117 117 118 168 178, 193, 195–98 197

1 Corinthians 10:4 168, 178, 198 Galatians 4:26

145

Ephesians 2:20

168, 198

Philippians 2:6–11 83

2 Thessalonians 2:8 119 3:5 88 1 Timothy 6:14

119

2 Timothy 1:10 119 4:1 119 119 4:8 Titus 2:11 118 2:13 119 3:4 118 James 1:27

117

1 Peter 2:5 198 2:6–8 168, 178, 196, 198 2:6 195, 197 2:7 208 2:8 193 2 Peter 1:19

124

Revelation 9:13 46 145 12:1–6 22:16 124 Apocrypha 1 Esdras 70 1:23 2 Esdras 1:28–32 2:2 2:5–7 2:40

166 146 146 146

Tobit 3 13:5 13:15

37 154 154

Judith 4:15 39 8:33 39 13:20 39 Wisdom of Solomon 5:6 93 6–10 137, 138 7:1–7 139 7:12 139 7:27 138 8:2 139 11:4 177 16:28 105

280

Index of References

Sirach 1:1–20 1:14 1:15 4:11–19 4:11 6:18–37 13:2 14:22–27 14:26 15:1–10 15:2–4 15:8 17:19 24 24:1–34 24:32–34 26:16 35:18 35:21–22 36:1 36:10 36:11 47:5 47:7 47:11 48:10 49:4–5 50:7 51:12

136, 137 139 141 136, 137 139 136, 137 173 141 141 136, 137 139 40 98 140 136, 137 138 91 39, 40 40 154 154 154 52, 56 53 54 121 54 90 52, 57, 59, 60, 191 51:13–30 137 51:13–20 139 51:19–20 lxx 139 Baruch 3:9–4:4 3:15–17 4:4 4:5–5:9 4:5–5:5 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:21

137, 139 140 139 166 139 166 166 144, 163, 166 166

4:37 5:5 5:6

166 166 166

Letter of Jeremiah 38–39 191 66 90 1 Maccabees 1:10 119 1:38 144, 163 2:48 52 9:1 45 9:11 45 9:16 45 2 Maccabees 1:16 177, 178 1:24 154 1:27 154 2:18 154 3:30 119 4:41 177, 178 15:20 45 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1:3–4 39 18:15 116 26:1 188 213 38:2–4 38:2 97 38:4 97, 100 39:7 150 137 42 48:2–10 33 48:4 97 58:2–3 92 72:5 104 80:6 94 89:41–50 50 90:37–38 67 2 Baruch 1–5 3:1–2

146 144, 146

41:1–4 48:1–47 48:9 48:15–18 77:19–26

150 137 138 139 140

3 Maccabees 6:9 119 4 Ezra 5:6–53 137 5:25–26 146 5:46–47 139 5:50–51 139 6:18–19 41 8:23 119 10:7 144, 146 13:5–13 172 14:15 149 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6:11–15 94 Ezekiel the Tragedian 66–88 33 Joseph and Aseneth 14:1 116 Jubilees 8:19 188 22:18 191 46 37:20 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 23:7 146 39:5 146 Psalms of Solomon 5:9 116 115 6:2 11:1 40 11:2–8 166 11:2–6 166 11:6 40

281 15:2 17:21–36 17:21–28 17:26

Index of References 40 33 213 165

Sibylline Oracles 2:27–35 91 3 95, 97 3:395–400 67 3:652 95 5 97 5:106–110 213 5:155–158 95, 124 5:157 95 5:512–516 94 13:159 70 Testament of Abraham 12:5 95 13:2 95 Testament of Asher 7:3 40 Testament of Benjamin 9:2–3 40 11:2 125 Testament of Dan 5:10 125 Testament of Judah 21:2–4 125 23:5 40, 112 107, 125 24:1 Testament of Levi 2:10–11 125 3:9 119 4:3 125, 126 4:4 40, 112, 126 5:2 39 18 125 18:2–5 33 18:2–3 125 18:2 70

Testament of Moses 10:3 39 Testament of Naphtali 5:1–7 125 Testament of Simeon 7:1–2 33 7:2 125 Testament of Solomon 22:7–8 170 23:4 170 Testament of Zebulun 5:3 113 7:3 113 8:2 113 9:8 107 Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q28a 2 68 4.27 97 5.20–29 213 5.26–27 50 1QHa 108 12.7 14.26–27 197 14.28–30 179, 182 197 15.8–9 15.11–12 179 15.11 182 191 17.28 19.18 191 1QM 1.4–5 5.14 11.5–8

46, 55 46 96, 124

1QS 3.18 41 3.20–21 93 4.18–19 41

8.5–9 8.5–7 9 11.8

197 182 33, 68 197

4Q84 35

186

4Q156 2.1

47

4Q164 fl 1–3

182

4Q175 1.9–13

96, 124

4Q205 2.3.26 f2 3.36

46 50

4Q223 2.4.7–8

46

4Q246 2.1

64

4Q377 f2 2.8

191

4Q381 f46

46

4Q386 fl 2.1–3

155

4Q392 f6–9 5–7

156

4Q491a f4

56

Q491c 1.5 55 1.7 55 1.8 55 1.22–23 55 f11 55

282

Index of References

4Q504 f2 5.19 191 f2–5 140 f6.7 150 f9 125 f9 1.3–4 97 f24.5 182, 197 11Q5 16 186 56, 137 18 18.17–19 56 21 137 21.11–17 139 22 158 145 22.4–5 22.7 145 27.2 97 11Q11 5.6–7

56

11Q19 12.11–13 47 16.16 47 23.12 47 51.21 191 CD 7 7.21–8.3 12 14 19

68 41 33, 68 68 68

De cherubim 49 139

De specialibus legibus 3.187 116

De confusione linguarum 49 139 85 60–67 60 116 62a 87 66 116

De virtutibus 164 99

Quod Deus sit immutabilis 88 85 Legum allegoriae 1.46 92 De mutatione nominum 15 119 264 85 De opificio mundi 58 116 De plantation 40 92 De posteritate Caini 58 91, 92 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 4.97 139

CD A 7.15–8.3 124 7.18–19 96 8.12 208 8.18 208

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 53 139 125–127 140 264 92

CD B 19.31 208

De somniis 1.72 99 1.84 92 1.116 92

Philo De Abrahamo 156 99

De vita Mosis I.290 124 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 2.339 119 5.331–339 179 8.60–63 179 14.456–460 178 14.460 180 15.331 178 178 15.334 15.335 178 15.338 178 15.339 178 15.392 178 Jewish War 5.174 177 5.270–273 178 7.8.7 144 Targumic Texts Targum Canticles 4.5 54 Targum Onqelos Deuteronomy 32 150 32.11 150 32.12–15 150 Targum Psalms 75.5–6 55 89.17 55 89.25 55 118 208 118.26 208 132.17 55, 60

283 Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.4

Index of References

173

Yoma 5.2 188 Babylonian Talmud Berakot 53b 146 Pesaim 119a

186

Sanhedrin 26b 45a–b

188 173

Sukkah 52

54

Yoma 54b

188

Jerusalem Talmud Ta‘anit 4.8 124

Esther Rabbah 7.10 192 7.12 173, 176

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 10 188 35 188

Exodus Rabbah 30.17 204 34.3 204 37.1 186

Shem. Esreh 10 155, 160 14 59 15 57, 59, 60, 73, 78 15.1 59 15.2 59, 60 15.4 59, 73 18 191

Genizah hymn 1 186 1.15 186 1.18 186 2.4 97 4.2 56 Lamentations Rabbah 2.5 53 Leviticus Rabbah 11.7 204 20.4 179 25.5 140 Mekilta R. Simon 35.3 55 Midrash Tanch. Bub. 6.4 188

Yoma 42c/5.3

188

Tosefta Me’ilah 1.16

204

Sukkah 3.15

Midrash Tanch. Tol. 20 172

204

Midrash Tehillim 75.5 55 Ps. 118 186 Ps. 118.22 186

Other Rabbinic Works Canticles Rabbah 7.13 204 Deuteronomy Rabbah 1.20 124

Midrash Tanch. Qed. 7.10 188

Numbers Rabbah 12.4 188 13.14 172

Yalk. Shim. to Zechariah 4.7 172 Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 59.4 119 60.3 118 Barnabas 6.1–4 6.2–3

168, 197 178

Shepherd of Hermas 55.1–11 204 Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas 65–66 168 66 175 Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Aesop 52 174 Aristophanes Aves 1710 90 Aristotle Poetica XXI.7 17 XXI.15–17 17 XXII.1–4 17

284 Rhetorica III.2.5 III.2.8–9 III.2.12–13 III.3.4 III.4.1–2

Index of References

17 17 17 17 17

Athanasius Exposition of the Psalms 27.132.10–12 87 Augustine Contra mendacium 24 17 De Trinitate V.8.9 17 XV.9.15 17 Callimachus Hymni 4.164–170 98 Cicero De Oratore III.38.152– 155 17 III.39.157 17 III.41.166– III.42.169 17 De republica VI.9 101 VI.17 101 Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 4.2 189 11.114 86 Epiphanius Panarion 42.11.6[55] 168

Hesiod Theogonia 675 180 958 94

113.38 121.1 121.2 126.1

Hippolytus Commentarium in Proverbia 30.18 86

Melito of Sardis On Baptism 8.b.4 86

Homer Iliad 6.295

90

Odyssey 12.383

94

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.16.3 86 Isocrates Evagoras X.9

17

Jerome Commentariorum in Jeremiam 820 87 Commentariorum in Zachariam 1438 87 1456 87 Justin Apologia i 32.2

124

Dialogus cum Tryphone 100.4 86, 124 70 172 76 172 91 68 86, 87, 124 106.4

178 86 87 86, 124

Ovid Metamorphoses 1.750–2.400 101 Plato Apologia 26d

101

Leges 12.945e

101

Res publica 508A 101 Symposium 221e–222a 17 Polybius Historiae 3.113.1 120 11.22.6 120 Quintilian Institutio oratoria VII.6.1–19 17 Sophocles Oedipus Rex 660–661 101 Tertullian Adversus Valentinianos 3.1 87

285 Xenophon Anabasis 2.2.4

Index of References

46

Memorabilia 1.1.14 189 Ostraca, Papyri and Tablets Hymn to Enlil A.39 189 A.54 189 A.109 189

P.Oxy. 1.1

70

Early Church Fathers Aphrahat I.6 170

I n d ex of A ut hor s Aalen, S. 92, 93, 100 Aaron, D.H. 18, 22, 55, 97, 184 Abegg, M. Jr. 55, 140, 156 Adams, E. 38, 39, 227 Adams, S.A. 139, 166 Adler, N.M. 59 Aland, B. 171 Aland, K. 171, 201 Albl, M.C. 10, 173, 195 Albright, W.F. 172 Alden, R.L. 179 Alkier, S. 20 Allegro, J.M. 85 Allen, L.C. 184, 185 Allison, D.C. 162 Anderson, F.I. 67, 98, 145 André, G. 39 Arnal, W.E. 209 Arneth, M. 98, 100, 101, 106 Arseneault, M. 17 Ashley, T.R. 64 Assmann, J. 100, 101, 109 Audet, J.-P. 10 Auffret, P. 38, 44 Aus, R.D. 204 Aytoun, R. 83, 118 Baarda, T. 170 Bachmann, M. 157 Baillet, M. 55, 191 Baldauf, C. 16, 23 Baldwin, J.G. 85 Barnard, L.W. 172 Barr, J. 151 Barrett, C.K. 8 Barth, C. 105, 106 Barthélemy, D. 97 Bassin, F. 89 Basson, A. 179 Bates, M.W. 4, 96, 224 Bauckham, R. 3, 6, 124, 138, 145, 222–4 Bauer, W. 18, 24, 32 Bauks, M. 49 Beale, G.K. 13 Beardsley, M.C. 18

Beavis, M.A. 129, 142, 149, 162 Beentjes, P. 52, 59 Beer, G. 179, 189, 202 Benoit, P. 37 Berder, M. 170, 176, 178, 184, 185, 197 Berger, K. 200 Bergman, I. 105 Bertram, G. 84 Betz, O. 180 Beyer, H. 39 Beyerle, S. 124 Bilić, T. 99 Bird, M.F. 5, 28, 128, 130, 132–4, 136, 137, 140–2, 147, 148, 150, 152, 156, 161, 167, 217, 226 Black, J.A. 189 Black, Matthew 150, 172, 173, 178 Black, Max 17–19, 24, 67 Blackburn, B. 4, 223 Blank, J. 8, 137 Blenkinsopp, J. 193–5 Blocher, H. 17 Block, D.I. 58, 60, 107, 170 Bock, D.L. 5, 8, 10, 11, 38, 44, 84, 85, 89, 132, 135, 174–6, 213 Bockmuehl, M. 5 Boer, P.A.H. 181 Böhlemann, P. 6, 7, 120 Bonnard, P. 172 Bornkamm, G. 172–4, 176, 198 Bousset, W. 3, 4, 175 Bovon, F. 8, 9, 37, 43, 44, 84, 89, 126, 138, 159, 175, 199, 207 Boyarin, D. 5 Brawley, R.L. 204, 206, 213 Brettler, M.Z. 1 Brooks, E.B. 36 Brown, E. 101 Brown, K. 158 Brown, R. 2, 13, 44, 70, 75, 84, 85, 101, 120, 200 Brown, S.G. 213 Brown, W. 19, 24, 36, 37, 94, 96, 99, 101, 148, 150, 189 Bruce, F.F. 10, 173, 180, 185, 195



Index of Authors

Brunson, A.C. 13, 14, 176, 184, 186, 201 Buckwalter, H.D. 6–9, 44, 223 Budde, K. 45 Budge, E.A.W. 222 Bullard, C.B. 6, 7, 9, 200, 225 Bultmann, R. 4, 37, 44, 94, 118–20, 129, 131, 133, 136, 141 Burkill, T.A. 164 Burkitt, F.C. 10 Burnett, F.W. 133, 136 Cahill, M. 170 Caird, G.B. 72, 85, 88, 175 Capes, D.F. 223 Carleton Paget, J. 5 Carlston, C.E. 174, 175, 205, 207 Carrell, P.R. 5, 223 Carroll, J.T. 159 Casey, M. 3, 4, 8 Chance, J.B. 44, 89, 157, 203 Charles, R.H. 125 Charlesworth, J.H. 5, 55, 56, 139 Chazon, E. 156 Chester, A. 3, 5, 52, 55, 67, 85, 95–7, 224, 228 Christ, F. 6, 133, 165 Christensen, D.L. 147 Ciampa, R.E. 14 Cioffi, R.L. 119 Clines, D.J.A. 93 Cogan, M. 49, 62 Cohen, T. 18 Coleridge, M. 7, 36–8, 44, 72, 75, 85, 89 Collins, A.Y. 4, 5, 8, 97, 192, 223 Collins, J.J. 4, 5, 8, 55, 67, 85, 95, 97, 98, 120, 124, 192, 213, 223 Colston, H.L. 23 Conzelmann, H. 8, 36, 124 Cook, E. 55, 140 Coulson, S. 24–6 Creach, J.F.D. 176, 189, 196 Croft, W. 158 Cullmann, O. 3 Dahl, N.A. 75, 159 Dahood, M. 52, 184, 185, 188 Dancygier, B. 15, 22, 24 Davids, P.H. 124 Davis, P.G. 5 Dekker, J. 176, 188, 195, 196

287

Derrett, J.D. 170, 173, 175, 185, 210 DesCamp, M.T. 1, 24, 25, 104, 219 DeSilva, 107, 124, 125 Deutsch, C. 6, 133, 136–8, 160 DeVries, S.J. 49, 62 Dibelius, M. 36, 129, 131 Dille, S.J. 1, 149 Dillon, R.J. 7, 28, 36, 37, 43, 44, 70–2, 89, 200 Dion, P.E. 99, 100, 104 Dirven, R. 16 Dodd, C.H. 10, 12, 168, 170, 172 Dölger, F.J. 116, 118 Dollinger, A. 97 Doran, R. 174, 198 Drake, L.K. 200 Drazen, I. 54 Dreyer, A.D.G. 37, 89 Driver, S.R. 85, 142 Drower, E.S. 174 Dunn, J.D.G. 3, 5, 6, 8, 97, 132, 140, 224, 227 Duplantier, J.-P. 175 Dupont, J. 159 Eberhart, C.A. 16 Eberharter, A. 46, 62, 64, 66 Eckey, W. 113 Edwards, R.A. 133 Ehrhardt, A. 189 Eichhorn, D. 176, 184, 187 Ellis, E.E. 10 Emerton, J.A. 181 Engnell, I. 50, 64 Erlemann, K. 28 Eshel, E. 56 Evans, C.A. 124, 203, 204, 208 Evans, V. 24, 26, 27, 39 Fabry, H.-J. 114, 124, 177, 189 Faierstein, M.M. 122 Falcetta, A. 10 Fanning, B. 83 Farris, S. 36, 37, 85, 89 Fauconnier, G. 16, 24–6 Fee, G. 6, 223, 224 Ferda, T.S. 162, 199, 201 Feuillet, A. 6, 160 Fillmore, C.J. 20 Fischer, C. 97, 100

288

Index of Authors

Fisk, B.N. 129–32, 157, 162 Fitzmyer, J. 4, 5, 11, 36, 37, 43, 44, 60, 70, 75, 82, 84, 85, 89, 111, 122, 159, 170, 173, 175, 206, 207, 215, 216 Fleddermann, H. 131 Fletcher-Louis, C. 5, 8, 9 Flusser, D. 56, 124, 186 Foerster, W. 43, 72 Fohrer, G. 72, 133 Fontenrose, J.E. 101 Fossum, J.E. 4, 5 Foster, P. 14 Frankenmölle, H. 159 Franklin, E. 7, 8, 44, 203 Fraser, B. 15 Frolov, S. 174, 204 Fuller, M. 22, 153, 164 Galambush, J. 1, 19 García Martínez, F. 156 Garland, D. 89 Gärtner, B. 186 Gaster, T.H. 99 Gathercole, S.J. 7, 9, 88, 89, 114, 117, 130, 134, 136, 160, 169, 175 Geeraerts, D. 16 Geffcken, J. 95 Gench, F. 6, 132, 133, 136, 138 George, A. 159, 164 Gibbs, R.W. Jr. 23, 174 Gieschen, C.A. 5, 6 Gitin, S. 47 Glazier-McDonald, B. 107 Glucksberg, S. 18, 23 Gnilka, J. 38, 43, 44, 70, 84, 89 Godbey, A.H. 49 Goldingay, J. 58, 185 Good, E.M. 12, 23, 63, 82, 108, 181, 196, 207, 222, 228 Goodacre, M. 36, 81, 169 Goodenough, E.R. 142, 146, 151 Goodman, N. 18 Goppelt, L. 10 Goulder, M.D. 36, 37, 44, 71, 81, 169 Grady, J.E. 25, 26 Gray, A.R. 1, 16, 18, 23, 45, 46, 61 Green, J.B. 5, 10, 13, 16, 24, 26, 27, 38, 72, 75, 85, 89, 159, 200 Greenberg, M. 60 Grindheim, S. 122, 134, 223, 227

Grogan, G.W. 200 Grossfeld, B. 54, 64 Gunkel, H. 4, 37, 77 Gupta, N. 16 Gurtner, D.M. 146 Gzella, H. 49 Haag, E. 177 Haenchen, E. 131, 135 Hahn, F. 3 Hamerton-Kelly, R.G. 6, 8, 88, 89, 117, 133 Hannah, D.H. 5, 43, 52, 54, 55, 69 Harnack, A. von 36, 70, 75, 84, 131, 133 Harrington, D.J. 138 Harris, J.R. 10 Hatch, E. 10 Hatina, T.R. 12 Haupt, P. 36, 83, 88, 118 Hays, C. 195, 197 Hays, R.B. 4, 6, 7, 9–14, 20, 89, 134, 138, 159, 173, 195, 197, 223, 225 Hempel, J. 91, 92, 105, 107 Hendrickx, W. 7, 38, 68, 88 Hengel, M. 3, 4, 85, 86, 168 Henrichs-Tarasenkova, N. 6, 7, 9, 45, 71, 126, 224, 225 Hertzberg, H.-W. 188 Hijmans, S.E. 101 Hill, A.E. 107 Hill, W. 5, 8, 14, 223, 227 Hills, D. 18 Hillyer, N. 10, 172, 183, 185 Hobbes, T. 17 Hoffmann, P. 101, 129, 132, 133, 141, 155, 158 Holladay, W.L. 4, 182 Hollander, J. 12, 13, 40, 124 Holtz, T. 11 Hong, S.-H. 23 Hooke, S.H. 183, 185, 197 Horbury, W. 5, 96, 125, 227 Horne, E.H. 209 Hort, F. 171 Hossfeld, F.-L. 170, 184, 185 House, P.R. 28, 29, 44, 49, 57–9, 70, 73, 86, 133, 135, 141, 154, 162, 164, 165, 182–5, 192–4, 215–16 Houtman, A. 124 Howe, B. 16–18, 20, 21



Index of Authors

Hubaut, M. 173, 174, 205, 206, 208 Hughes, J.H. 122, 227 Hultgård, A. 125 Hultgren, A.J. 175, 213 Hurowitz, V.A. 191 Hurtado, L.W. 3–5, 8, 138, 223, 227 Ingram, H. 4 Instone-Brewer, D. 59, 155 Iverson, K.R. 175, 205 Jacob, E. 5, 39, 56, 95, 125, 154, 186, 188, 193, 194, 197 Jacobson, A. 129, 132, 139 Jacoby, A. 81, 84 Janowski, B. 91, 96, 98, 101, 104–6, 109, 118 Jastrow, M. 55, 64, 190 Jaubert, A. 172 Jenni, E. 38, 39, 119 Jeremias, Joachin 170, 175, 195, 202, 207 Jeremias, Jörg 99, 118, 119 Jervell, J. 159, 164 Jindo, J.Y. 16 Jobes, G. 47 Johnson, L.T. 5, 7, 200, 207 Johnson, M. 15, 19, 24 Johnson, M.D. 138 Johnson, S.R. 128, 132, 133, 135, 141, 155, 158 Jolliffe, R.L. 128, 132, 133, 135, 141, 158 Jones, D. 37, 42, 71, 82, 85, 89 Jonge, M. de 40, 97, 124, 125 Jülicher, A. 170, 176 Jung, C.-W. 36 Kaiser, O. 195 Kapelrud, A. 188, 189 Karrer, M. 62, 106, 144, 154, 181, 183, 184 Katz, P. 159 Kaut, T. 37, 43, 44, 71, 84, 88, 89 Keck, L.E. 4 Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 46, 62, 64 Keel, O. 50, 64, 98, 101, 104, 150, 189 Keener, C.S. 205 Keller-Bauer, F. 18, 24, 32 Kim, S. 4

289

Kimball, C.A. III 10, 175 Kimelman, R. 59, 60 King, P.D. 1, 2, 5, 9, 44, 52, 55, 58, 60, 66, 67, 73, 78, 89, 95–7, 103, 119, 124, 125, 176, 177, 180, 183–6, 198, 199, 201–3, 206–8, 211, 212, 217, 228 Kingsbury, J.D. 5, 159, 175 Kinman, B. 199, 202 Kirk, R.D. 8, 224 Kittay, E.F. 18, 23 Klauck, H.J. 172, 174–6, 184, 205 Klein, H. 37, 43, 44, 89, 173, 200 Klinghardt, M. 36 Kloppenborg, J.S. 129, 133–5, 141, 169, 171–5, 204, 206, 207, 214 Klostermann, E. 37, 71, 72, 84, 88, 89, 126 Knowles, M.P. 189 Koch, I. 104, 195 Koole, J.L. 121 Korpel, M.C.A. 147, 149, 151, 189 Kövecses, Z. 21, 24, 158 Kowalski, V.M.H. 176, 179, 181, 191 Kramer, W. 4 Kraus, W. 62, 144, 154, 181, 183, 184 Kremer, J. 43, 44, 72, 75, 84, 88, 89, 126 Kugler, R. 97, 125 Kümmel, W.G. 175 Kwaak, H. van der 128, 133 Laato, G. 5, 44, 58, 81, 85, 89, 200 Lakoff, G. 15, 19, 20, 24 Lambertz, M. 84, 88 Lampe, G.W.H. 8 Langacker, R.W. 20 Langer, B. 92, 94, 96, 97, 100, 109 Langford, J. 13, 20 Lanier, G.R. 15, 57, 84, 85, 118, 165, 169, 171, 175, 203, 212 Larkin, W.J. 12 Lauber, S. 101 Laurentin, R. 7, 9, 13, 44, 120, 200, 227 Le Bas, E. 170, 184 Le Moigne, P. 193 Lee, A.H.I. 6, 7, 87, 138–9 Legrain, L. 66 Levine, B.A. 63, 64 Levinskaya, I. 84 Lewis, J.P. 107 Lidzbarski, M. 174

290

Index of Authors

Liebers, R. 14 Lieu, J. 36, 168 Lincicum, D. 10 Lindars, B. 10, 162, 175, 192 Lindblom, J. 197 Litwak, K.D. 10–14 Llewelyn, S.R. 14 Locke, J. 17 Lohfink, N. 37, 69, 85, 159, 164 Long, G.A. 8, 10, 11, 13, 20–1, 23, 24, 26, 30–1, 49, 75, 80, 82, 162, 164, 229 Longenecker, R.N. 5 Lowe, M. 174, 175 Lucass, S. 5 Lührmann, D. 56, 118, 119, 120, 128 Lundbom, J.R. 53, 182 Lust, J. 124 Luz, U. 129, 132, 139, 141 Macaskill, G. 136 Mack, B. 3, 6, 133, 137–9, 141 Maier, J. 93 Malina, B. 209 Mallen, P. 11 Maluf, L.J. 44, 71, 83, 88, 90 Mann, C.S. 172 Marcus, J. 205 Marshall, I.H. 3, 9, 43, 44, 85, 122, 159, 170, 171, 173 Martínez, R. 156, 159, 160 Mastin, B.A. 104 Matera, F. 5, 159, 164, 199 Matthews, R.J. 23 Mayer-Opificius, R. 222 McFague, S. 18 McGrath, J.F. 3, 5, 223, 224, 227 McKay, J.W. 104, 106 McKelvey, R.J. 188 McNamara, M. 64 Meier, J.P. 172 Mellinkoff, R. 64 Metzger, B.M. 82, 171 Meyer, R. 159 Meyers, C.L. 193 Michael, J.H. 5, 129, 131 Milavec, A.A. 175 Milik, J.T. 97 Miller, R.J. 129, 130, 132, 139, 157, 166 Minear, P.S. 36, 38 Mishcon, A. 60

Mittmann-Richert, U. 72, 75, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89 Moessner, D, 5–7, 159, 162 Mommer, P. 155 Moore, A. 1, 16 Moortgat, A. 66 Morenz, S. 62 Morgenstern, J. 46, 64, 158 Moule, C.F.D. 3 Moyise, S. 174 Müller, P. 229 Munnich, O. 171 Muñoz-Iglesias, S. 37, 38, 70, 71, 75, 85, 89, 118, 200 Muraoka, T. 11 Mussner, F. 213 Nelson, W.D. 55 Nerlich, B. 158 Neugebauer, O. 150 Newman, C. 6, 119 Niehaus, J. 100, 118, 119, 127 Niehr, H. 100, 107 Nolland, J. 43, 44, 72, 84, 85, 89, 90, 112, 122, 158, 162, 200 Noth, M. 56 Novenson, M.V. 4 Oakley, T. 24, 26 Obbink, H. 47, 64 Oberlinner, L. 175 O’Connor, M.P. 57 Ogawa, A. 205 Ohnefalsch-Richter, M. 101 Oliver, H.H. 36, 37 Ollenburger, B.C. 143, 185, 187, 194, 197 Olofsson, S. 176, 177, 189, 193 Onyenali, R. 176, 208 Oort, H. 172, 198 Oro, M.d.C. 37, 43, 44, 70, 71, 84, 86, 120 Oss, D. 193 Oswalt, J.N. 197 O’Toole, R.F. 4, 6, 7, 9, 88, 175 Otto, E. 143 Parayre, D. 101, 104 Paul, S. 3, 6, 8, 53, 178, 196, 197, 206, 224



Index of Authors

Pearson, B.W.R. 54 Pedersen, S. 204 Peels, H.G.L. 147 Peppard, M. 4 Peuch, É. 125 Pidoux, G. 38, 119, 227 Pinter, D. 4 Piper, R. 131, 133 Plath, M. 131 Porter, S.E. 12–14, 83 Propp, W.H.C. 62 Puech, É. 125, 140 Puig i Tàrrech, A. 176 Radden, G. 158 Radl, W. 11, 36, 43, 70, 71, 86, 89 Ramsey, I. 18 Rau, G. 159 Reddy, M. 19 Rendtorff, R. 119 Rengstorf, K. 119 Rese, M. 5, 10, 42, 43, 84, 85, 89, 174, 208 Reymond, E. 56 Richards, I.A. 18 Richardson, M.E.J. 94, 97 Ricoeur, P. 17–19 Rietz, H.W.L. 56, 139 Ringgren, H. 11, 60 Roberts, J.J.M. 187, 195, 197 Robertson, A.T. 210 Robinson, J.A.T. 122, 172 Robinson, J.M. 129, 131, 133, 162 Rohrbaugh, R. 209 Rose, W.H. 85, 87, 227 Rossow, J. 21 Roth, D.T. 168 Rousseau, F. 38 Rowe, C.K. 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 118, 122, 223 Rowland, C. 5 Rusam, D. 10, 11, 75, 81, 89, 126 Safrai, S. 56, 186 Sahlin, H. 44, 83, 85 Sanders, J.A. 56, 202 Sanders, J.T. 11, 159, 212 Sanders, S.L. 64 Sanderson, M.L. 36 Savran, G. 118, 119

291

Schaff, P. 86, 170 Schaper, J. 49 Schiffner, K. 75 Schlatter, A. 84 Schleftelowitz, I. 46, 64 Schlier, H. 84, 89 Schmitt, J. 149 Schnutenhaus, F. 38, 39, 106, 118, 119 Schroer, S. 147, 149, 150, 153, 222 Schröten, Jutta 184, 185 Schröter, Jens 20, 164, 228 Schubert, P. 11 Schürmann, H. 159 Schwarzenbach, A. 179 Segal, A.F. 5 Serrano, A.G. 36, 200 Sicre, J.L. 173, 184, 185 Siegman, E.F. 172, 192 Simon, M. 55, 124, 173 Skehan, P.W. 52, 59, 60 Smith, M. 4 Smith, M.S. 97, 104 Snodgrass, K. 10, 173–8, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193, 196, 200, 201, 204, 207, 218 Sokoloff, M. 41 Soskice, J.M. 17–19, 23 Spencer, A.B. 24 Spitta, F. 37, 60 Stähli, H.-P. 94, 96, 97, 104 Stanley, C.D. 10 Stanton, G. 85, 89 Staub, U. 64, 67 Stec, D. 55, 56, 60, 97, 186, 208 Steck, O. 14, 128, 129, 133, 135, 139, 157, 162, 166 Steele, L.D. 101 Steen, G. 18 Stegemann, H. 108 Stein, R.H. 82, 89 Steinhauser, M.G. 128, 132, 133, 135, 141, 158 Stendahl, K. 172 Stewart, A.C. 195 Strait, D.J. 4 Strathmann, H. 159 Strauss, M.L. 5, 44, 70, 85, 200 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 5 Stuhlmacher, P. 145 Suggs, M.J. 6, 133, 134, 136, 137, 141, 166

292

Index of Authors

Sühling, F. 153, 222 Sundberg, A. Jr. 172 Süring, M. 46, 47, 50, 62, 64, 66, 67, 222 Swaeles, R. 173 Swanson, R.J. 170 Sweetser, E. 1, 15, 22, 24, 25, 104, 219 Sysling, H. 124 Tait, M. 28, 223, 228 Talbert, C.H. 3, 4, 11 Tan, K.H. 129, 132, 133, 135, 141, 157 Tannehill, R. 36, 43, 44, 72, 85, 89, 120, 159, 162, 164, 199, 200, 204 Tate, M.E. 58 Taylor, J.R. 16 Taylor, N.H. 104, 157, 203 Teeple, H. 5 Thiselton, A.C. 6 Thomas, J.D. 70 Tilling, C. 223 Torrey, C.C. 54, 67 Trilling, W. 205 Trimaille, M. 175, 205 Tsevat, M. 101 Tuckett, C.M. 8, 9, 134 Tuggy, D. 224 Turner, M. 16, 19, 24–6 Turner, M.M.B. 7 Turner, N. 36 Tyson, J.B. 159 Uchelen, N.A. von 181 Uehlinger, C. 50, 64, 98, 101 Urbach, E.E. 133, 150 Uro, R. 129, 131, 133, 162 van der Sluijs, M.A. 124 van der Toorn, K. 99, 100 van Noppen, J.-P. 15 VanderKam, J.C. 150 Vanhoye, A. 38, 89 Vermes, G. 55, 164 Vielhauer, P. 36, 37, 44, 72, 84, 89 Vinson, R. 84, 89 von der Osten-Sacken, P. 7 von Lieven, A. 100 Voss, G. 7, 84, 89, 126

Wagner, J.R. 14, 162, 186, 194, 196, 197, 201, 202, 207 Wallace, D.B. 57, 83, 112 Waltke, B.K. 57 Wassell, B. 14 Watson, F. 36 Watts, J.D.W. 95, 106, 143, 149, 188 Weder, H. 28, 170, 175 Weinert, F.D. 162 Weiss, A. 16–18, 23 Wellhausen, J. 36, 174 Weren, W.J.C. 204 Westcott, B. 171 Wheelwright, P. 18, 100 Whitley, J.B. 98, 189, 222 Wiefel, W. 37, 41, 43, 44, 60, 71, 72, 75, 84, 85, 89 Wiegand, A. 189 Wilckens, U. 6, 133, 137 Wildberger, H. 191 Williams, G.R. 205 Willis, J.T. 205 Wilson, W.T. 136, 137, 140 Windisch, H. 134 Winter, P. 36, 37, 82, 88, 126, 164, 200 Wise, M. 55, 97, 140, 156 Witherington, B. III 175, 205 Wolff, H.W. 93 Wolter, M. 36, 43, 44, 84, 88, 120, 124, 130, 145, 157, 162, 163, 202 Wolters, A. 184 Wright, N.T. 160, 203, 223, 227 Yee, G. 205 Yoon, D.I. 12 Zeitlin, S. 60 Ziegler, J. 40, 84, 105, 171, 196 Ziem, A. 18, 20, 23 Zimmermann, R. 30