Synoptikon: Streams of Tradition in Mark, Matthew, and Luke (The New Testament Gospels in Their Judaic Contexts, 3) 9004521542, 9789004521544

Citation preview

Synoptikon

The New Testament Gospels in Their Judaic Contexts Series Editors Alan J. Avery-Peck Bruce Chilton Associate Editor Darrell Bock Editor for the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus Daniel M. Gurtner Editors for Rabbinic Literature Alan J. Avery-Peck Jacob Neusner, ‫ז״ל‬ Editors for the Literature of Qumran Craig A. Evans Lawrence H. Schiffman Editor for the Targumim Bruce Chilton

volume 3

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ntgjc

Synoptikon Streams of Tradition in Mark, Matthew, and Luke

By

Bruce Chilton With

Alan J. Avery-Peck Darrell Bock Craig A. Evans Daniel M. Gurtner Jacob Neusner, ‫ז״ל‬ Lawrence H. Schiffman

With indices by

Jonathan A. Campbell

leiden | boston

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022035077

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. isbn 978-90-04-52154-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-52155-1 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Bruce Chilton, Alan Avery-Peck, Darrell Bock, Craig A. Evans, Daniel M. Gurtner, Lawrence H. Schiffman. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface

vii

Prologue: The Formation of the Synoptic Gospels Analysis

29

Epilogue

481

Pericope Index 505 Modern Author Index Topical Index 513

509

1

Preface The series “The New Testament Gospels in Their Judaic Contexts” has previously resulted in two volumes, one dedicated to Mark, the other to Matthew and Luke combined. The aim throughout has targeted comparisons with Pseudepigrapha together with Josephus and Philo, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature together with the Targumim; consequently, each volume is substantial. At the beginning of the project, consideration was given to producing a synoptic presentation of the first three Gospels, but a reckoning of the space that would have been demanded, in view of the voluminous comparisons involved, precluded that option. With the publication of the first two volumes, however, it appeared feasible to issue a Synoptikon as a companion volume that builds on our contribution to date while avoiding undue redundancy. The purpose of the Synoptikon is not to reproduce all the evidence already gathered, but to suggest applications of a selection of the data. The series has always been intended as an aide for commentators in the broad sense of those who engage the Gospels critically and with the awareness that the consideration of their Judaic environments is crucial. Placing the texts within that setting has suggested particular streams of tradition that interacted so as to produce the Gospels. The result, of course, is not a commentary on the Gospels, but an appreciation of the process that produced them. That, together with specific evidence, is intended to serve the commentator, who of course also has recourse to the first two volumes in the series. In addition, those volumes offer introductory essays on each of the bodies of literature concerned, which are not reproduced here. The Editors of this project have been generous in the deployment of their extraordinary acumen, and I thank them for their support in this more individual phase of work, which amounts to a caesura within our engagement with the Synoptics prior to our mutual address of the Gospel according to John in the next phase of our project. Indeed, production of a Synoptikon seemed to the late Jacob Neusner and me to be the logical extent of the project at the time he and I proposed it. The Editors’ decision to continue reflects our enjoyment of the process, as well as our estimate of the value of comparative engagement. Challenges in regard to presentation are inevitable in endeavors of this kind, and I am grateful to the staff of Brill for their ingenuity and expertise in addressing them. Bruce Chilton Annandale

prologue

The Formation of the Synoptic Gospels In the Aramaic of Jesus’ time, besorta’—which corresponds to euanggelion— referred to a message of victory. In the Dead Sea Scrolls before the time of Jesus (4Q539 2.5) and the Book of Isaiah in its Aramaic version from after his time (the Targum, cf. Isaiah 52:7), for example, the verbal form basar is used to speak of the final tidings of God’s triumph.1 The written version of the Targum was finalized long after the time of Jesus, but—in the way of much Rabbinic literature and, as will emerge, the Gospels—much earlier traditions are incorporated within it. Usages preserved in the Targum form a precedent for Jesus’ preaching. In the quotations of this volume, where the Targum introduces new wording as compared to the Hebrew text of Isaiah or other biblical works, italics are used, so that the particular meaning of Isaiah for Aramaic speakers will be clear (Targum Isaiah 52:7; 53:1): How beautiful upon the mountains of the land of Israel are the feet of him who announces victory, who publishes peace, who announces good victory, who publishes redemption, who says to the congregation of Zion, The Kingdom of your God is revealed. Who has believed this, our message of victory? And to whom has the strength of the mighty arm of the lord been so revealed? The Aramaic usages (besora and basar) that stand behind “gospel” (euanggelion) and “preach the gospel” (euanggelizomai) in the New Testament appear in these instances, as does the exact equivalent of Jesus’ signature concern, the Kingdom of God (see the Analysis on Mark 1:15, for example). Jesus poses a central paradox within all study of the Gospels. He can only be accessed by means of the documents from the New Testament, which themselves derive from earlier traditions. Any such tradition can only be known

1 See The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, of which the general editor is Stephen A. Kaufman, for both sources; http://cal.huc.edu/. A recent survey provides a generally reliable, although sometimes summary, account of the development of the language; Holger Gzella, Aramaic. A History of the First World Language (translated by Benjamin D. Suchard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021).

© Bruce Chilton, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004521551_002

2

prologue

inferentially, so that Jesus is an inference from an inference: definable only to the extent it is possible to see how he acted in order to produce the results he did in streams of tradition that fed the Gospels.2 Yet he is a necessary inference, since the Gospels and their constituent traditions point back to him as their source. Jesus obviously did more than repeat what the Aramaic version of Isaiah and other sources already said throughout Galilee and Judea, but the fact remains that as quoted in the earliest written sources he used the Aramaic language of his time in a way that this Targum and other Judaic sources help illuminate. Naturally, the attribution of statements to him within the Gospels must take account of the perspectives of those who wrote the documents and the oral teachers who preceded those documents, but coincidences between his words and ancient Aramaic texts is an indication that his distinctive perspective has been preserved in the process. After all, according to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus also used the term “gospel” to speak of news of divine victory, and to refer to his own message as in the Isaiah Targum. He said both, “The time has been filled, and the kingdom of God has approached: repent and believe in the message” (Mark 1:15) and, after he was anointed by a woman in Bethany prior to his arrest in the Markan and Matthean narratives, “Wherever the message of victory is announced in the whole world, what she did will also be spoken of in memory of her” (Mark 14:9; Matthean 26:13). The similarity of usage between Jesus and the Targum indicates that he framed his message in the Aramaic tradition of his own time and that his usage of the term of besorta’/euanggelion in particular was shaped by that tradition. His principal concern was to announce the Kingdom of God as the final news of victory, and to call people to belief in that announcement. To do so meant that he crafted oral teaching that his disciples could also convey, and that he also expected his disciples to remember his own story as part of this message. Only on that basis could he expect that what the woman did would “be spoken of in memory of her.” This “gospel” taught by Jesus (usually referred to without capitalizing the first letter) consisted of materials he crafted for memorization, the method by which rabbis taught their disciples. But because he died at an early age for a rabbinic master, the work of compiling his teaching fell to his successors. His immediate followers were his first successors in teaching, and eventually their numbers included the authors of the texts we call Gospels (with a capitalized first letter), written forty years and more after Jesus’ death. Beginning as a prophetic announcement, Jesus’ gospel naturally included what he said and did, as in the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible, and to 2 See Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus. An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000) xxi.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

3

that extent historical reminiscence is woven into that message. During Jesus’ life, the materials concerning him where kept as oral tradition in the memories of his followers. (Literacy rates were low in Antiquity; education in Galilee rarely included reading and writing, but was conveyed by means of collective memory.) The Gospels in the New Testament are the earliest written sources known concerning Jesus, although it is possible (some scholars would say likely) that some of the oral tradition had been preserved in writing prior to the composition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Whatever the exact moment at which the transition was made from the oral to the written medium, the Gospels as they can be read today appear to be the result of a cumulative process, involving Jesus’ own preaching, the compilation and presentation of his teaching by his disciples, and the writing of the Gospels. For this reason, Jesus’ role in beginning the process of the formation of the Gospels is only accessible by means of inference from the stages of the compilations of his disciples (an increasingly recognized factor in scholarship),3 and they can only be known from inference on the basis of the written Gospels and contemporaneous writings. The Synoptic Gospels in particular offer a considerable advantage for the study of their constituent traditions, because they are comparable in their wording, their syntax, and their literary order. Their relationship is such that they can be printed so that they can be viewed together; hence the term synopsis. They are connected in a way that sets them apart from John’s Gospel and later works such as the Gospel according to Thomas. At the same time each of the Synoptic Gospels is distinctive from the others in terms of wording, syntax, and order, even in those cases in which they can be directly compared, and each presents some material that is unique within the New Testament.

∵ Because the Gospels came to us in writing, it was natural to conceive of them as borrowing from one another. Augustine thought of Matthew coming first, being shorted by Mark, and then of Luke as an aggregating work. In the eighteenth century, an influential proposal put Mark at the end of the process, but since about eighty percent of Mark is reproduced in Matthew, and sixty percent in Luke, it has seemed more natural to locate Mark nearer the beginning than the end of the evolution of the Gospels.4 3 See, for example, Richard C. Miller, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 2015) 131–132. 4 See Raymond E. Brown, “Gospels in General; Synoptic Gospels in Particular,” in An Introduc-

4

prologue

The deviation of one Gospel from another is not a problem in principle for a theory that involves one Evangelist using the work of another. Josephus, who used written sources as well as what might be called ear-witness testimony, is capable of presenting the same event in quite different ways. He refers to the death of Agrippa i in the sparest of terms in Jewish War 2 § 219, but expatiates on the role of providence within Agrippa’s life in Antiquities 19 §§ 343–352.5 The deeper issue is that the Synoptic Gospels sometimes present material unique to each, and also agreements of two in contrast to the third. Among the latter class of comparison, a substantial body of Jesus’ teaching, described below under “A mishnah of Jesus’ teaching: the so-called Q,” is presented by Matthew and Luke in aggregate, but not by Mark. This resulted in the theory that two sources, Mark and “Q,” preceded Matthew and Luke and were incorporated within the compositional programs involved.6 Although the “Two Source Theory,” as it is called, has endured, it does not account for substantial material presented by Matthew alone and by Luke alone. The difficulty also remains that the order of Matthew and Luke is different within material that they share. An answer to such problems is usually called the “Four-Source Theory,” because a Matthean source (referred to as “M”) and a Lukan source (“L”) are also factored in. Burnett Hillman Streeter, who devised the approach, counted Mark as having 661 verses, Matthew 1068 verses, Luke 1149 verses, Q 200 verses, M 230 verses, and L 400. But Q and L on his analysis combined to form Proto-Luke before Luke was composed, and local traditions also were incorporated in Matthew and Luke.7 Understandably, the complexity of solutions of this kind met resistance, although Streeter himself dispensed with yet another source which is nonetheless still commonly invoked : a postulated proto-Mark to explain deviations of Matthew and Luke from Mark. Nonetheless, a representative attitude has it that

tion to the New Testament: The Abridged Edition (edited by Marion L. Soards; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016) 37. 5 For the role of source criticism in study of Josephus, see Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa i. The Last King of Judaea: Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 23 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1990), and, in regard to Agrippa’s death, Bruce Chilton, “The Death of Agrippa, ‘the Great King.’ Perspectives from Josephus, Philo, and Acts” *. 6 See F. Gerald Downing, “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107.1 (1988) 69–85. Usually, this theory is associated with Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die synolptischen Evangelien. Ihr Ursrung und geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863). 7 See Burnett Hillman Streeter, “Part ii.—The Synoptic Problem,” The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins (London MacMillan, 1924) 150–360.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

5

“no solution to the Synoptic Problem solves all the difficulties.” In coming to this conclusion Raymond Brown recommended the Two-Source Theory as “a relatively simple solution that is largely satisfactory.”8 As he argued that position, Brown also acknowledged that between Jesus and the written Gospels, apostolic teaching was the mediating connection. In this regard, he asserted a common denominator in analyses otherwise as divergent as those of C.H. Dodd and Rudolf Bultmann.9 Their appeal to oral tradents was understood to target the stage prior to compositional development. This phase was especially emphasized in the contribution of Marcel Jousse, who insisted that, as a rabbi, Jesus instructed his disciples in the art of memorization; Jousse emphasized the role of Peter as a major influence within the process.10 Although Marcel Jousse exercised a profound influence on Milman Perry, so that the role of oral memory within the production of the Homeric epics became recognized, his contribution has been largely ignored in the study of the Gospels until recently.11 Yet he insisted on a feature of oral tradition that has become commonly recognized. Where the form critical appraisal of Bultmann had treated oral traditions as individual pearls (to use the metaphor of K.L. Schmidt12), Jousse recognized that pearls in actual traditions are already

8 9

10

11

12

Brown, “Gospels in General; Synoptic Gospels in Particular,” 38. Brown, “Gospels in General; Synoptic Gospels in Particular,” 35; C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1936) 22–49; Rudolf Bultmann, A History of the Synoptic Tradition i. The observation in regard to Bultmann is brought out well in C. W. Schnell, “Tendencies in the Synoptic Resurrection Tradition: Rudolf Bultmann’s Legacy and an Important Christian Tradition” Neotestamentica 23. 2 (1989) 177–194. Dodd’s insight is taken up in William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 10–11 and C. Marvin Pate, 40 Questions About the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015) 111. Marcel Jousse’s principal contributions, dating from between 1931 and 1957, have recently been rendered in English by Edgard Sienaert; see especially In Search of Coherence. Introducing Marcel Jousse’s Anthropology of Mimism (Eugene: Pickwick, 2016) and Memory, Memorization, and Memorizers. The Galilean Oral-Style Tradition and Its Traditionists: Biblical Performance Criticism 15 (Eugene: Cascade, 2018). Werner Kelber offers a succinct and telling account in his “Foreword” to Memory, Memorization, and Memorizers. Further discussion is available in Forgotten Compass. Marcel Jousse and the Exploration of the Oral World (edited by Werner Kelber and Bruce Chilton; Eugene: Cascade, 2022). K.L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1919) 281. His position is searchingly criticized in C.H. Dodd, “The Framework of the Gospel Narrative,” Expository Times 43 (1931) 396–400; since then, Dodd’s critique has become a staple in Englishspeaking scholarship.

6

prologue

threaded. Their associations might well change, but to imagine them in isolation is an abstract exercise, as Thorleif Boman13 and Birger Gerhardsson14 showed conclusively. More profoundly, however, Jousse called attention to the underlying intent of oral tradition, the purpose that distinguishes it from the written word and especially from the printed word. Instead of being designed to stop and record a past moment, these textes fluides are, in the words of Werner Kelber, “waiting to be reactivated.”15 On the page they might seem static, but their function is to awaken a performance, an enactment of that which is remembered in the fresh circumstances of the performer. Tradents of a living culture are not simply archivists; rather, they produce their cultures in the name of memory. Memory is not only their stock and trade, but also their principal tool, yet their purpose is not memorization as such, but active creation. Some of these tradents are named in the New Testament. Along with himself, as a late-comer to the apostolic company, Paul names Peter, the Twelve, a group of more than 500 “brothers,” James, and “the rest of the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). They are identified by Paul in association with among the most vibrant of New Testament traditions, those of Jesus’ resurrection. At that juncture, the standard of deviation of one Synoptic Gospel from another rises, as it does also within the infancy narratives. Particular reasons for that will concern the Analysis of this volume; for the immediate purpose, the observation will hold that the range of the traditions involved is not amenable to explanation on the grounds of a single source.16 Paul’s list is a starting point, for identifying people known to have influenced the traditions of the New Testament during its formative period. Once their identities are taken into account, the usual method of deducing sources from the Gospels can be supplemented and refined. Instead of suppos13 14

15

16

Thorlief Boman, Die Jesus-Überlieferung im Lichte der neuernen Volkskunde (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967). Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript. Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity: Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis (Lund: Gleerup, 1961). This is Kelber’s formulation in “Foreword”, xxi. Jousse offers a precedent for Kelber’s own contribution; see, for example, The Oral and the Written Gospel. The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), where Kelber explains the clash of cultures between oral culture and print culture, pp. xiv–xviii. Interesting, Streeter also made some comments along those lines, The Four Gospels, 191–195. In a separate work, I have analyzed the traditions on the basis of Paul’s list; see Bruce Chilton, Resurrection Logic. How Jesus’ First Followers Believed God Raised Him from the Dead (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2019).

the formation of the synoptic gospels

7

ing sources in order to account for differences, we are in a position of tracing streams of tradition as they emerged and fed the Synoptic Gospels in both agreement and tension. Once they reached their point of influence on the texts, there is little reason to think that those streams stopped,17 although the acceptance of the Gospels as canonical might give the impression of fixity. In fact, of course, Papias in the second century famously prioritized the “living voice” of tradition (as quoted in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3.39), and the so-called apocryphal Gospels indicate that voices lived on for centuries. The situation is comparable to that of Rabbinic literature, in which the production of the Mishnah did not extinguish (although it deeply influenced) the continued flow of oral tradition. This Prologue, like the volume it introduces, will not deal with the influence of the streams after the Synoptic Gospels, rewarding as such a consideration might be. But the formation of the Synoptics is an appropriate staging point of analysis, and the opportunities for comparison they provide is invaluable. Streams are initially identified in the Prologue and then articulated in the Analysis. The Epilogue, which refines the designation of the streams, then takes us to the issue of the changing standard of deviation among the Synoptic Gospels. That factor is often left unaddressed, but any theory of Synoptic origins should deal with it. Similarly, the lack of some apostolic figures from Synoptic streams, most notably Paul, will be addressed in the context of discussion in the Epilogue.

1

Before the Gospels

1.1 Peter’s Teaching Referring to a visit to Jerusalem in the year 35 ce, Paul said that he consulted with Peter for fifteen days (Galatians 1:18). The purpose of that consultation was for Paul, a new convert to the movement of Jesus, to learn what Peter 17

Here, “streams of tradition” is applied in a way that differs from that of Jan Assman in Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 77–78 (with note 11). He refers in context to written materials as a “stream of tradition,” inspired by Leo Oppenheim’s characterization of Assyrian sources. But he then remarks in a note, “This fluid structure is best illustrated by the Bible, which represents a thousand-year stream of tradition that suddenly came to a standstill.” The canonical process would not be described as a sudden halt by scholars of the Hebrew Bible, and Assman’s list of the many genres included makes it clear that oral traditions (emphatically plural) were at issue, not only written sources. Such is emphatically the case within the Gospels.

8

prologue

knew.18 Peter’s gospel is conveyed in those passages in the written Gospels in which Peter is described as being present as a centrally important figure. Identified on that basis the stream’s contents would have included such passages as the call of the first disciples (Mark 1:16–20; Matthew 4:18–2219), the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21–43; Matthew 9:18–26; Luke 8:40–56), the confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27–33; Matthew 16:13–16a, 20–23; Luke 9:18–22), the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1–3a, 4–5, 7–8; Matthew 16:28–17:2a, 3–5, 8; Luke 9:27), the Eucharist (Mark 14:21–24; Matthew 26:24, 26–28; Luke 22:19–20, 22), and Jesus’ hearing before Caiaphas (Mark 14:53–65; Matthew 26:57–68; Luke 22:54–55, 71). As in the cases of all sources in the study of the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, issues of precise content, dating, and origin need to be approached on the basis of inference from the written texts as they stand, and therefore scholars can and do differ in their findings. The story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31; Matthew 8:14–15; Luke 4:38–39) shows that both Peter and his brother had moved to Capernaum (from Bethsaida, cf. John 2:44), and were living with the family of Peter’s wife, a natural arrangement, because the static stock of housing throughout Jewish Galilee meant that marriage often involved men moving in with their in-laws. In a subsistence culture such as Jewish Galilee, dowry often meant accommodation, the principal wealth available. Jesus was able to establish himself as a rabbi in Capernaum because Simon Peter and Andrew both (see Mark 1:29) received him into their home there. The Gospels portray Jesus as calling Peter and Andrew to become his disciples, along with two other brothers named James and John, while he was walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1:16–20; Matthew 4:18–22). A vignette that appears in Luke 5:1–11 and deriving from another stream of tradition portrays as present from the outset the dynamic that would mark Jesus’ relationship with his prime disciple. Peter is obdurate, and Jesus pushes him. Peter relents, breaks through, shares Jesus’ insight, repents and asks forgiveness for his human failures and doubts. Although the descriptions involved are schematic, they give an impression of Peter’s character, as well as Jesus’, and reflect the interests of the stream of tradition, described below. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law begins a sequence of passages in which Peter appears to be the origin of an oral stream best preserved in Mark, which

18 19

For this meeting, its dating, and context, see Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul. An Intellectual Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2004) 64–87. As explained in the Analysis, Luke 5:1–11 is from another stream. For that reason also, Lukan references as well as the extent of some passages may seem truncated in this initial listing, which is supplemented in the Epilogue.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

9

relates healings of Jesus in which disciples appear in witness (Mark 1:32–45; 5:31, 37, 40). An emphasis upon Jesus’ healings also characterizes the summary message concerning Jesus’ witnessed activity attributed to Peter in Acts 10:36– 43. Moreover, the words of Peter quoted in the book of Acts identify Jesus as the one whom God “anointed with Holy Spirit and power” (Acts 10:38), a key theme within the stream (see Mark 1:10–11; Matthew 3:16–17; Luke 3:22). The forgiveness of sin features centrally in Jesus’ practice of healing, understood as delivered to his apostles (Mark 2:1–12; Matthew 9:1–8; Luke 5:17–26). The time from which Simon would have been called “Peter” (that is, Kêpha’ in Aramaic) should accordingly be reckoned from when the apostles were delegated to heal and preach on Jesus’ behalf (Mark 3:16; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:14). The setting of that delegation will take up attention in the Analysis below, and in the discussion of intermediate streams. Since the second century ce, a tradition has claimed that Mark’s Gospel in particular was based on Peter’s teaching (see Papias’ testimony [quoting John the presbyter] in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15–16). In fact, however, Matthew and Luke also incorporate this material, and these Gospels along with Mark were deeply influenced by Peter. 1.2 A Mishnah of Jesus’ Teaching: The So-Called “Q” The Gospels according to Matthew and Luke share a considerable run of material, for the most part sayings of Jesus (amounting to some two hundred verses), which appears to derive from an earlier stream of tradition. Much of the early work to identify what was conceived of as a source was conducted by German scholars, with the result that the stream came to be known by the first letter of the German word for “source,” Quelle; hence, “Q.”20 Because the alleged source can only be identified by a comparison of Matthew and Luke, rather than by an actual, ancient document, its existence remains a hypothesis, and some scholars deny that it existed. In whatever form, however, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a distinctive stream of tradition. Recent discussion of “Q” has brought about a remarkable consensus that at least some of the sayings within it were circulated a few years after the crucifixion, around the year 35 ce, and that—with modification—Luke’s Gospel is probably the best guide to its content.21 Reasons to qualify that judgment

20

21

The most influential contribution was that of H.J. Holtzmann. The model was taken up by a seminar convened at Oxford by William Sanday, see his Studies in the Synoptic Problem. By Members of the University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911). See 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: Herme-

10

prologue

emerge with the Analysis of this volume, but the usual convention of preference for Luke in citation provides a degree of rationalization that is helpful. The earliest version probably included a charge to Jesus’ disciples (Luke 10:16), a strategy to coopt competitors (Luke 9:49–50), examples of how to speak of the kingdom (Luke 6:20b–21 • Luke 11:2–4), and a comparison of John the Baptist and Jesus as principal emissaries of the kingdom (Luke 7:24b–28; 16:16). Jesus’ teaching was arranged in the form of a memorized message (a mishnah) by his apostles after his death. They had already been authorized among a larger group of disciples to convey his message prior to the crucifixion (Mark 3:13–19; Matthew 10:1–4; Luke 6:12–16, from the Petrine stream principally). They took up activity in Jesus’ name to Israel at large after the resurrection. But the construction of a mishnah was a challenge, since Jesus had not reached the age at which a rabbi might finalize his own teaching for memorization. The stream was preserved orally in Aramaic and explained how the twelve apostles were to discharge their purpose. It included the materials already specified, instructions to Jesus’ disciples, a strategy to deal with competition, paradigms to illustrate the kingdom and its ethics, and comparative reference to John the Baptist. As specified, that is perhaps the original order, according with the purpose of the material within the redemption of Israel. But the topics are obviously more stable than any particular order, and there are variations of content and placement between Matthew and Luke, and overlaps with the presentation of Mark, which vitiate claims to know the precise shape or even structure of the stream. In any case, to some extent curiosity about the order of “Q” is a function of expecting the stream to have a narrative shape akin to the present form of the Gospels. As a mishnah, however, the stream sets out halakhoth for the conduct of those who follow Jesus instruction of this kind, as is typified by Luke 17:3–4 (which is not represented elsewhere, but developed further in Matthew 18:21– 35):

neia (edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). The present confidence contradicts the Oxford consensus articulated by Streeter (see note 7 above). The present characterization of the Mishnaic stream has been developed in dialogue with the works of David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: Clark, 1993); Leif E. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts. Jesus’ First Followers According to Q (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994); and Siegfried Schulz, Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich; Theologischer Verlag, 1972). In view of recent discussion, the stream is here referenced in terms of Luke alone, as in Bruce Chilton, Pure Kingdom. Jesus’ Vision of God: Studying the Historical Jesus 1 (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids and London: spck, 1996) 107–115, where further secondary sources are cited.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

11

Be wary with yourselves. If your fellow sins, scold him, and if he repents, release him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and the seventh time returns to you, saying, “I repent,” you will release him. Ethical directives, sometimes extensive and yet also unpredictably parabolic, are characteristic of this stream and represent its principal contribution. 1.3 James’ Teaching James, the eldest brother of Jesus named in Mark 6:3, became the most influential leader of his brother’s movement in Jerusalem after the resurrection. There he was a respected figure in the Temple, acknowledged as a holy man by the population at large, not only by Christians, as Josephus indicates (Antiquities 20 §§197–203). James’ association with the Temple resulted in his remembering Jesus’ last meal with his followers at the time of the meal of Passover, the Seder; James engaged vigorously in framing how followers of Jesus should order their meals, as the book of Acts indicates (Acts 15:13–29). This is the most prominent example of his influence within the Gospels, but Synoptic passages that reflect a keen focus on practices within or associated with the Temple likely represent the influence of James, especially when a connection with Aramaic influence is also apparent. Recent scholarship has rightly seen that the identification of Jesus’ Last Supper with Passover is theologically motivated. The Gospels correctly report that the authorities had every reason to deal with Jesus before the crowds of Passover arrived, and said that they would act prior to Passover (Matthew 26:2–5; Mark 14:1–2; Luke 22:1–2). Jesus’ final meals would therefore have taken place near the paschal season, but not during the actual feast. That would explain why the most basic elements of the Seder—lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs (see Exodus 12:1–8)—are notable in the narratives for their absence. Jesus expressed a desire to eat the Passover, as Luke 22:15 indicates, but that desire remained unfulfilled. Despite these facts, there is no question of any ambiguity in Matthew 26:17– 20; Mark 14:12–17; Luke 22:7–14: the passage emphatically presents the last supper as a paschal Seder. John’s Gospel makes a similar attempt, but with a different timing, making Jesus’ death coincide with the slaying of the lambs prior to Passover (see John 19:31, 36 with Exodus 12:6, 46). The lambs were slain before the meal, so it is clear that the calendar of the early Church (both in James’ source and in John’s Gospel) has shaped the presentation of events in different but comparable ways. Timing the Last Supper literally at Passover presents historical problems. Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 insist that Jesus’ instructions to prepare to

12

prologue

celebrate the feast in the city were given on the first day of unleavened bread, when the paschal lamb was to be slain. That contradicts the practice mandated in the book of Exodus, where the lamb was to be selected on the tenth day of the month, for slaughter on the fourteenth day of the month (Exodus 12:3–6). Arrangements needed to be made several days prior to the feast for the rule of Exodus to be fulfilled. The scarcity of accommodation in Jerusalem—which is commonly recognized to have had an inadequate infrastructure for the number of pilgrims at Passover—would have required even more notice. The paradox, then, is that the only passage to insist upon a paschal chronology (see Matthew 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13), with the unequivocal reference to the meal as the Passover, does not make good sense in the light of that chronology. What purpose is served by the strict identification of the Last Supper as a Seder in Matthew 26:17–20; Mark 14:12–17; Luke 22:7–14? This liturgical setting, however implausible the precise chronology involved, effects several changes in the understanding of the meal.22 By means of this tight association with Passover, James tightly linked Jesus’ meal to the liturgical year of Judaism and to Jerusalem. If Jesus’ Last Supper were understood as strictly paschal, its reenactment would be limited in three ways. Temporally, it could only take place at Passover; geographically, the appropriate venue would be Jerusalem, the sole place where paschal lambs could be offered; socially, participants would need to be circumcised (see Exodus 12:48). The last limitation appears the most dramatic, given the increasing importance of non-Jewish Christians during the course of the first century and later. By fully identifying Jesus’ meal and Passover, the circle of potential participants in the fully paschal Eucharist excluded the uncircumcised and was limited to those who were Jews or who accepted circumcision, since circumcision was an explicit requirement for males who took part in a Seder (according to Exodus 12:48–49). Once Jesus’ movement reached gentiles, the matter of their participation in such a paschal supper would become problematic, if James’ teaching were followed. That was exactly what happened when controversy erupted between James’ position and Paul’s (see Galatians 2:11–21). A view of increasing popularity in scholarship has it that the existence of sources in the Gospels establishes their accuracy. In this case as in many others, however, the influence of the source (James in the instance to hand) is evident by its discrepancy from others, and its motivation may have more to do with liturgy and authority than with historical accuracy.23 22 23

See Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meanings. Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles: Supplements to Novum Testamentum 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 93–108. In this regard, see Judith C.S. Redman, “How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and

the formation of the synoptic gospels

13

1.4 Mary Magdalene’s Teaching Mary Magdalene is the only named recipient of exorcism by Jesus in the New Testament. Moreover, the way in which she is identified—as having been possessed by seven demons in Luke 8:2—intimates repeated exorcism. Every detailed story involving Jesus and unclean spirits bears geographical associations with Mary’s native village of Magdala. If we apply the same logic and refer to the same kind of evidence that has been applied to Peter, Mary Magdalene also emerges as the author of a stream of tradition complete with her oral signature. She was the single most important conduit of stories concerning Jesus’ exorcisms. Simply by following Jesus, the Magdalene evidenced the purifying presence of Spirit, by which Jesus claimed he banished unclean spirits (Matthew 12:28); her experience and her standing put her in an ideal position to craft the detailed exorcism stories we read in the Gospels. Read in order in the earliest of the written Gospels (Mark), these three stories amount to a manual of how to cope with unclean spirits (Mark 1:21–28; 5:1–18a; 9:14–27): by identifying them, confronting them with divine Spirit, and proclaiming their defeat. They also reflect a progressive development as Jesus honed his craft to deal with increasingly difficult cases of possession. The first story in the Magdalene source comes from near the beginning of Jesus’ time in Capernaum after 24 ce (Mark 1:21–28); the second reflects the period of his flight from Herod Antipas in 27ce (Mark 5:1–18a); the third appears after Jesus’ Transfiguration in 31ce (Mark 9:14–27).24 The first exorcism story, set in the Capernaum synagogue, depicts unclean spirits whose threat dissolves once they are confronted with purity (Mark 1:21– 28). Read in detail, this account reveals Mary Magdalene’s oral signature, in terms of geography, method of exorcism, and interest in uncleanness. Her perspective governs the presentation of the story, reflecting an insider’s knowledge of the inner struggle that exorcism involved for a person who was possessed. The demon in the story speaks, but the people in the synagogue hear only inarticulate shrieks. Jesus alone understands the meaning of the sounds. The demon identifies itself with all unclean demons of the spirit world in a fas-

24

the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129.1 (2010) 177–197, in criticism of Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). These passages, the issues involved, chronology and the Magdalene source are dealt with in Bruce Chilton, Mary Magdalene. A Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2005).25–46, 150– 160, 203–206.

14

prologue

cinating switch of pronouns in the text (here italicized; Mark 1:24): “We have nothing for you, Nazarene Jesus! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the holy one of God!” The slip back and forth between plural and singular often surprises readers of Mark’s text. Multiple demons—like Mary’s seven and the demon that found seven colleagues to re-possess a person in one of Jesus’ sayings from the Mishnaic stream (Luke 11:24–26; Matthew 12:43–45)—signaled the resistance of the demonic world as a whole. Jesus viewed the violence of demons as part of the impending defeat of their regime. In addition to its identification with unclean spirits as a whole, the demon in the synagogue also specifies the purpose of Jesus’ exorcisms: not simple banishment, but their definitive removal from power. Fearing destruction, the unclean spirits act before Jesus speaks, initiating a preemptive strike by naming him. Naming was a formula that exorcists usually used to invoke divine power and force demons to obey their commands. Such spells were more effective when they identified a demon by name. In this case, however, the demon jumps in with a spell and a naming of its own. In effect, it is exorcising the exorcist, a departure from the well-documented form of exorcism stories in the ancient world. Mary’s narrative describes this as a noisy event. The demon “cried out” (Mark 1:23 from the outset). Jesus shouted back in equally rough language, “Shut up, and get out from him!” (v. 25). The demon’s obedience comes under protest; it “convulsed” its nameless victim and departed with a scream (v. 26). These acute observations all point toward a storyteller with keen knowledge of the deep combat with evil that Jesus’ exorcisms involved, their raucous quality, and the danger that the exorcist would be defeated. Moreover, the storyteller knows how Jesus interpreted the demons’ wordless shout (Mark 1:24–25). Whoever conveyed this story had to know both what went on and what Jesus thought about it. Mary Magdalene best fits the description of that storyteller. 1.5 Barnabas’ Teaching The prominence and high status of Barnabas within Jesus’ movement in Jerusalem is indicated by the book of Acts (Acts 4:36–36); his introduction of Paul to active apostolic work in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26) is indirectly confirmed by Paul himself (Galatians 2:1–13). Barnabas was a Levite, from the priestly caste of Judaism, and had been brought up in Cyprus in a family of wealth. By background, therefore, he brought into Jesus’ movement a concern with issues of ritual purity and, at the same time, a positive assessment of the Diaspora. At the same time, he put his wealth at the disposal of the apostles to such an extent that he was known not only as Joseph, his original name, but also by the nick-

the formation of the synoptic gospels

15

name “Barnabas,” meaning “son of consolation” in Aramaic according to Acts (Acts 4:36–37), although “son of prophecy” would be a more direct rendering of the Aramaic expression bar-nebu’ah. Priestly interest in how to maintain true purity in a Diaspora setting, apart from defilement, is reflected in the Gospels. In a famous saying, Jesus said that it is not what does goes into a person that defiles, but what comes out of a person (Mark 7:15). Jesus point was that purity comes from the inside out, not the outside in, by what a person does and says, rather than external observance. His original meaning was not limited to food, because a literal restriction to food would have him speaking of regurgitation, rather than ethical behavior, when he referred to what comes out of a person. By means of commentary, however, his teaching was applied to issues of what foods could be eaten even by non-Jews in the Diaspora, far from the original setting of Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel, the discussion of Jesus’ meaning literally moves to a different place, signaling a fresh setting, and a new meaning is imputed to his words (Mark 7:17–23). In a house, apart from the crowd, the disciples ask Jesus what he means in his parabolic aphorism concerning what defiles (Mark 7:17). He replies in a way that makes “what goes into a person” from outside the exact equivalent of food, which passes through the stomach and into the latrine, so that its risible lack of importance becomes obvious (7:18–19). What proceeds from a person, however, is equated with a list of “bad thoughts:” “sexual abuses, thefts, killings, adulteries, greeds, malices, deceit, indecency, evil eye, cursing, arrogance, foolishness,” these are the evils within which are said to defile a person (7:20–23). The comment moves into commentary, in response to the initial question (Mark 7:17), and specifies that Jesus’ original saying had refuted the impurity of foods. Mark’s explicit statement at the end of v. 19, “making all foods clean,” draws out the logic of the comment. The catalogue insists, on the other hand, that defilement is to be taken seriously, once it is understood to be moral instead of alimentary (vv. 20–23). The list of intellectual vices defines them as the most dangerous, literal impurities. Purity can no longer be a matter of what is eaten, but must be seen as a matter of what is thought. The impetus to transcend concerns about the purity of foods and to emphasize the purity of thoughts is characteristic of Hellenistic Christianity. Paul reports (with favor) on the practice in Antioch before emissaries from James came, when meals could be conducted with common fellowship among Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus (see Galatians 2:12). The tendency of Hellenistic communities of Christians to mix their Jewish and non-Jewish constituencies, and therefore to relax or ignore issues of purity in foods, is here documented by Paul (writing in 53 ce). The vocabulary of the list of vices in

16

prologue

Mark 7 is also more typical of the Pauline literature (in the broadest sense) than of any other body of literature in the New Testament. Such vices are classed as impurity in Romans 1:24; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 5:3; Colossians 3:5. Early Christianity (which Pauline literature reflects) saw a shift in the understanding of the medium of impurity: no longer foods, but moral intentions, conveyed the danger of defilement. Paul seems to dismiss the conception of purity itself; the logical extension of his analysis is that all things are pure to the pure, a position reflected in the derivatively Pauline Titus 1:15. The circle responsible for Mark 7:20–23, on the other hand, insists upon the danger of impurity, but sees contagion in moral terms. The identification of the circle is obviously a matter of inference, but— among the possibilities given by Paul in Galatians 2—the most plausible is that of Barnabas. In effect, once Jesus enters the house in Mark 7:17, a new social setting is addressed, and the point of his teaching, as commented upon and expanded by means of a catalogue, is that vices rather than foods are sources of impurity. 1.6 Mediating Streams Between the principal streams of the Synoptic tradition and the writing of the first three Gospels, several decades and profound changes confronted those who professed belief in Jesus.25 When Agrippa i acceded to the title and power of Herod the Great as King of Judea in 41 ce, governance by means of Roman prefects such as Pontius Pilate was dissolved. Both Agrippa and Claudius, who appointed him, found the persecution Jesus’ followers expedient. But Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 ce sowed confusion, and Rome resorted again to direct rule, from this time under the aegis of a procurator who could coordinate administrative and military policy. Claudius appreciated the growing volatility of the region, which the famine of 46 ce exacerbated. Nero’s accession in 54 ce saw increasing difficulty for Christians, whom the emperor famously blamed for the fire in Rome in 64ce. In 66 ce Eleazar, the sagan or manager of the Temple, refused to accept imperial offerings there, and Vespasian was tasked with putting down the revolt. The destruction of the Temple in 70ce, during the siege mounted by Vespasian’s son Titus, was therefore the culmination of thirty years of mounting tension. The impact on these epochal events on the movement that came to be called Christianity during just this period may be traced by the deaths of its lead-

25

The following summary is based on Bruce Chilton, The Herods. Murder, politics, and the art of succession (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2021) 175–204.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

17

ers: after Jesus in 32 ce, James, the son of Zebedee prior to Agrippa’s death in 44 ce, James, the brother of Jesus, in 62ce; Paul, Peter, and Barnabas also all died during the sixties, and Mary Magdalene appears to have lost her life when Vespasian demolished Magdala in 67ce.26 During the same period of time, a shift to an emphasis on the Diaspora had been begun among the successors to Jesus, and Greek increasingly supplanted Aramaic as the natural language within the movement. The process of identifying the perspectives and people that mediated the streams to the composition of Mark, Matthew, and Luke illuminates the development of the streams themselves, but also discloses issues of concern that the streams left to those who produced the Gospels. Although discussions of the Mishnaic stream often concern the perceived “delay of the parousia”27 as a dominant focus, the stream itself enhances the expectation of judgement. In Luke 10:13–14, for example, Chorazin and Bethsaida are threatened with the fate of Tyre and Sidon, on the grounds that they had not repented. Jesus himself is not associated with preaching there, which evidently took place as a result of his followers after his death.28

26

27 28

The death of Barnabas is notoriously difficult to place, because recourse to a fifth century sourse, The Acts of Barnabas has been necessary; see Tony Burke, “Acts of Barnabas,” eClavis: Christian Apocrypha (2017) http://www.nasscal.com/e‑clavis‑christian‑apocrypha/​ acts‑of‑barnabas/. See, for example, Andreas Lindemann, “Neuere Literatur Zur Logienquelle Q,” Theologische Rundschau, 80.4 (2015) 377–424. In a recent article, John S. Kloppenborg has criticized the assumption that “Q” is a single document, acknowledging that the treatment in which he collaborated (cf. n. 20) represents the “apogee” of the literary model; see “Oral and Literary Contexts for the Sayings Gospel Q,” Built on Rock or Sand? Q Studies. Retrospects, Introspects and Prospects: Biblical Tools and Studies 34 (edited by Christoph Heil, Gertraud Harb, Dennis A. Smith; Leuven: Peeters, 2018) 49–72, 50. He nonetheless persists in asserting a Galilean provenience for the whole. Yet the condemnation of Galilean sites presupposes a relocation of the stream in Jerusalem, the focus of the Twelve in the book of Acts. That would correspond to the two stages of “Q” that Kloppenborg agrees to, following previous discussion. Relocation would also address the linguistic problem that Kloppenborg creates for himself. He assumes only Galilee as the provenience and only Greek as the language of “Q,” because he takes it as a “fact, upon which virtually all agree, that Q was composed in Greek” (64). That means he has to assert counterfactually that Greek was the common language of Galilee, although he also acknowledges that Aramaic was used in the region. A strength of his article remains that he breaks with the orthodoxy of a single, documentary “Q,” in favor of the argument that the material achieved the stage of writing as what he calls a “script or an aide-mémoir” (68–71) that is: what in cultural context would be called a mishnah (and hardly a “Sayings Gospel”).

18

prologue

One of the themes in the extended Mishnaic tradition concerns the definition of the community of Jesus’ followers during his lifetime, in the near future (from the perspective of his followers), and ultimately—in the new age that God was about to establish. His followers are portrayed as those who in the present age are reviled for their loyalty to the son of man in the way the prophets of Israel were once reviled (Luke 6:22–23). They are promised a reversal of their condition “in that day” (Luke 10:12)—that is, the moment when God’s purpose is achieved through the son of man. Their reward is already assured in the promise that they will sit upon thrones to judge the twelve clans of Israel (Luke 22:28–30). That promise stands in stunning contrast to Jesus’ response in a different stream of tradition to the request for James and John, the sons of Zebedee, to sit on either side of him in the kingdom (Mark 10:35–45; Matthew 20:20–28, from the Magdalene stream). From the point of view of James, the son of Zebedee, whom Agrippa i had executed (Acts 12:20), that request had already been granted. Meanwhile, however, they are to show restraint in judgment, following the halakhah of the original version of the stream (Luke 6:41–42). By refusing to judge others and extending forgiveness to them, disciples will be amply rewarded by God in the future. Disciples must be prepared, however, for radical conflict with their loved ones, and they must be ready to give up traditional obligations toward the family in view of the higher demands involved in proclaiming the advent of God’s Kingdom in the near future (Luke 9:57–60a). Their commitment to the work of the Kingdom will cause violent disruptions in their domestic lives (Luke 12:51– 53). What is called for in the cause of discipleship is described as hatred toward one’s own family and even a willingness to abandon one’s own life, as Jesus did in his fidelity to what he believed was God’s will for him (Luke 14:26). There can be no wavering as to where one’s ultimate obligations and values are directed. In the extended Mishnaic stream associated with James, the son of Zebedee, Jesus’ followers are to carry forward the work he launched: they must heal the sick and announce the coming of God’s rule. To carry out this activity they must move from town to town, indifferent to any conventional system of support, relying only upon the generosity of their hearers (Luke 10:3), but ready to move on if their message is rejected. Their responsibilities are discharged when they proclaim by word and act the triumphant message of what God is doing through Jesus. God will bring judgment in his own way on those who refuse to heed the message. The members of the community of Jesus rejoice in the special wisdom about God’s purpose that has been disclosed to them through Jesus (Luke 10:22).

the formation of the synoptic gospels

19

An even greater claim to the full disclosure of divine purpose appears in another intermediate stream. Prominent links between Mark 13 and the Book of Daniel reinforce the impression that the discourse of Jesus prior to his passion in all the Synoptics (Mark 13:1–32; Matthew 24:1–13, 15–36; Luke 21:1–33) is apocalyptic by intent. The seers of the apocalyptic tradition conveyed (1) a way of understanding history, (2) a belief about how knowledge of God’s purpose is communicated to human beings, and (3) a set of assumptions about the community that is the recipient of this knowledge, including their immediate prospects of struggle and suffering and their long-range confidence in divine vindication. In this view of the world, history is the story of the conflict between divine forces and the forces of evil, which for the time being have seized control of the human situation, subjecting both political powers and individuals to demonic control. God has disclosed to the faithful that they will have to endure suffering, even martyrdom, for some time to come, but that through his chosen agent, the hostile forces will be overcome and the divine rule established. In that new situation, the faithful will share in the rule of God and will be fully vindicated in the triumph over evil. This knowledge cannot be inferred from the course of events or arrived at by human wisdom, according to the perspective of apocalypse, but is given in veiled form only to the elect community. The specific concern in Mark 13 with the threatened coming of armies to seize Jerusalem and destroy the Temple may make it appear to date from the years after the priestly nationalists began their revolt against the Romans but before the Temple was destroyed: that is, between 66 and 70ce. That was well after the death of James, whose stream of tradition is most intimately associated within the Synoptic Gospels. But a disciple named Silas was closely involved with James (see Acts 15:13–33) and appears elsewhere in works with apocalyptic interests (see 1Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12). He was the likely exponent of James’ teaching in the critical circumstances following the death of James.29 In a similar fashion, the streams of Barnabas and of Peter extend well beyond the deaths of their originators, so as to continue their flow until the emergence of the Gospels. Symeon Niger is listed second (after Barnabas) in a group of Antiochene prophets in which Paul, under the name of Saul, features last (Acts 13:1). Under his influence, an increased emphasis upon prophecy emerged in the Barnaban stream (see Luke 2:21–32 and the analytic comments, for example).30 In the case of the Petrine stream, “my son Mark”—a figure to 29

30

See Bruce Chilton, “David Wenham, ‘The Little Apocalypse,’ Paul—and Silas,” Who Created Christianity? Fresh Approaches to the Relationship between Paul & Jesus (edited by Craig A. Evans and Aaron W. White; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2020) 169–193. See Edgar R. Smothers, “Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts xv, 14),” The Harvard Theological

20

prologue

be distinguished from “John called Mark” (Acts 12:12)—appears as an inheritor of Peter’s teaching in Rome according to 1Peter (see 1 Peter 5:13).31 1 Peter’s emphasis on the fiery testing (1Peter 4:12–17) within which the Petrine magisterium is proof agrees, for example, with Mark 9:49. By the accidents of scholarly discussion, the Mishnaic stream has been treated as an exceptional source, so that “Q” continues literally to be treated as a Gospel in some quarters. But a consistent sensitivity to currents of tradition, and correlation to named tradents within the New Testament, reveals that streams of Jesus’ teaching flowed through the traditions of Peter, Mary Magdalene, James, and Barnabas, and that intermediate inheritors prior to the Gospels (Mark in the case of Peter, Silas in the case of James, Symeon Niger in the case of Barnabas, James the son of Zebedee in the case of the Mishnaic source) also shaped the traditions significantly. Within the Analysis, distinctive fonts will identify the streams that have been discussed: The Petrine stream, of Aramaic origin, rendered in Greek prior to Mark’s Gospel c. 35 ce [font: Brill roman], with later revision by a tradent identified in the comments as a follower named Mark from 1 Peter 5:13, not the same person as the Evangelist [font: Brill italic]. An instructional stream or Mishnah, called “Q” in much scholarship when it appears in Matthew and Luke, rendered from Aramaic into Greek prior to Mark, contemporaneous with the Petrine stream c. 35 ce [font: Brill bold], with a later, apocalyptic revision associated with James, the son of Zebedee [font: Brill bold italic]. The Jacobean stream (composed in Greek with Aramaic elements prior to Mark), from c. 40 ce, supplemented by the Silan stream, named after Silas, also known as Silvanus [font: Brill small caps and Brill small caps italic]. The Magdalene stream (originally an Aramaic donor, rendered in Greek prior to Mark’s Gospel), from c. 40ce [font: Noto Sans]. The Barnaban stream (composed in Greek with some awareness and incorporation of Aramaic traditions, including from the Petrine, Mishnaic and Mag-

31

Review 46.4 (1953) 203–215 as well as Stanislaus Giet, “L’Assemblée Apostolique et le Décret de Jerusalem. Qui était Syméib?” Recherches de science religieuse 39 (1951–1952) 203–220. Manaen’s influence is also noted in analytic comments, in relation to the court of Antipas, but that is scarcely the actual perspective of the stream at any stage, although awareness of Herodian politics is evident. Cf. Michael J. Kok, “From Paul’s Fellow Worker to Peter’s Interpreter,” The Gospel on the Margins. The Reception of Mark in the Second Century (Minneapolis: 1517 Media, 2015) 107– 160.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

21

dalene streams), from c. 45ce [font: Brill bold small caps] supplemented prior to the Lukan redaction by a tradent identified in the comments as Symeon Niger, Acts 13:1 [font: Brill bold small caps italic]. Redactional markers (entirely in Koinê), from c. 73ce (Mark), c. 80 ce (Matthew), c. 85 ce (Luke) [font: Noto Sans bold]. Fuller characterization of each of the streams, consideration of their relationship to one another prior to the Gospels, and investigation of their status as oral and/or written as well as Aramaic and/or Greek, must await the analytic comments, and so are taken up in the Epilogue. By taking account of how teaching developed among Jesus’ followers, we can better appreciate the richness and variety of the written Gospels. The understanding of those streams, in turn, is always to be refined exegetically, as the texts are encountered in their settings and in relation to other texts

2

Written Gospels

No Gospel is simply a copy of another; rather, each represents the choices among varying traditions, written and/or oral, and the development of those traditions that had taken place in a given locality. Although a some agreement is emerging in regard to the cities in which each Gospel emerged, a consensus reflected here, their origins are a matter of inference, based upon clues in the texts themselves and later traditions of the Church. Similarly, the actual authors of each Gospel are unknown. Who they were, where they worked, and what the purpose of their writing was are all matters that must be inferred from the texts themselves. The inferences that have informed this volume are noted here. In a sense, once any tradition is framed within a Gospel, it ceases to be traditional, and becomes a component of the composition. That compositional character (known for a many decades as “redaction” in the circle of New Testament scholarship) is distinctive for each Gospel, and yet does not expunge the quality of the streams that fed the work. For this reason, it would require a complete commentary to discuss how each Gospel takes up its traditional streams and frames them into its characteristic structure of meaning, although in the Analysis that follows certain typical features are indicated. That task is beyond the purposes of this volume, although the identification of streams is evidently of direct relevance to the task of commentary. When elements are identified as “redactional” in the Analysis, the designation is of course not exhaustive, but merely draws attention to some characteristic idioms and methods of the Gospel concerned. When idiomatic expressions, compositional frameworks, and

22

prologue

selections of materials from streams are taken in account, the structure of each Gospel appears. In the Epilogue, influences by which each structure emerges in a given Gospel will be explored. 2.1 The Gospel according to Mark “According to Mark” (its title in antiquity) appears to be the oldest of the Gospels, since its material is almost wholly replicated in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. The writing that now bears Mark’s name seems to have been compiled from streams that consisted of relatively short runs of tradition from several informants. This Gospel does not have the strict narrative sequence one might expect either from a firsthand observer or biographer. The baptism of Jesus must have come early in the development of his public persona, and the confrontation with the authorities in Jerusalem obviously came at the end of his career; otherwise there is little firm indication of chronological order in the Gospel according to Mark. Mark does not read as a biography would, but was written with the significance of Jesus mind: declared God’s Son at his baptism (1:11), made known as such to his most privileged followers (9:7), as well as to a Roman centurion at the moment of the crucifixion (15:39). The sources most immediately used by the author were apparently Greek, since quotations from the Scriptures are for the most part based on Greek, rather Hebrew, originals. Still, from time to time Aramaic in sayings of Jesus is directly transliterated, and the version of Isaiah he cites agrees in crucial cases with the Targum (the Aramaic version) of Isaiah. Although some of Mark’s sources ultimately reached back to Jesus and his immediate followers, they had already been rendered into Greek by the time the Gospel was composed. Mark’s language is a Semitized Greek,32 with occasional hints that Aramaic locutions have influenced the style. Yet some of the terms used are derived from Latin, as well. Mark must have been written in a place where Greek was the common language, where there was exposure to Roman culture, and yet where part of the underlying culture was Semitic-speaking. The importance for Mark of Jesus’ challenges to Jewish leaders—scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees—suggests that it was written with some awareness of these groups and their influence. At the same time, Mark’s grasp of the basics of Judaism is sometimes tenuous at best (see Mark 7:3–4). The same paradox of local knowledge expressed side by side with surprising ignorance emerges in the special attention paid in

32

See Armin D. Baum, “Mark’s Paratactic ϰαί as a Secondary Syntactic Semitism,” Novum Testamentum 58.1 (2016)1–26.

the formation of the synoptic gospels

23

Mark’s narrative to the gentile cities Tyre and Sidon and to the distant but also gentile Decapolis, which in Mark’s occasionally bizarre geography are spoken of as if they were in proximity to one another (Mark 7:31). As a whole, Rome would seem to be this Gospel’s city of origin,33 because it maintained sufficient contact with Judaism and Jerusalem to explain Mark’s high level of information, but was also sufficiently distant from them (sometimes to the point of anti-Semitism) to explain Mark’s lapses into implausibility and geographical ignorance. Mark’s emphasis upon the comprehensive defeat of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple suggests that a date after the Roman campaign, when news of the destruction of Jerusalem became known (c. 73ce), is plausible. 2.2 The Gospel according to Matthew “According to Matthew” owes its position as the first book in the New Testament to its widespread usage in the ancient Church, as is shown by frequent references to this Gospel among the Fathers and within Gnostic writings. The Gospel owes its title to its identification of a tax agent and disciple by that name (Matthew 9:9), although he is called Levi in Mark (Mark 2:14) and Luke (Luke 5:27). Yet the name “Matthew” does appear in all three Synoptic Gospels as among the Twelve (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15): the first Gospel’s innovation lies not in the name, but in its association of that name with the disciple who was or had been a tax agent. The first Gospel shows a keen interest in how Jesus’ life and work fulfills prophecies from the Scriptures of Israel, in the final judgment which is to accompany the end of the world, in the teaching of angelology, and in the emerging custom of celibacy among believers (Matthew 19:1–12). All of these features suggest a Syrian provenience, and particularly Damascus (although Antioch has also been suggested). Elisha had healed the Syrian general who came from Damascus (2Kings 5:1–14), there were disciples of Jesus in that city from shortly after his resurrection (see Acts 9:10–22). Among them, Essenes seem to have featured prominently, and some distinguishing characteristics of Matthew’s Gospel, especially its presentation of Jesus as the authoritative teacher of the Law, echo features of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the figure called the Teacher of Righteousness is also portrayed in Mosaic terms. After Jesus’ crucifixion and the visions that convinced many of his disciples that he had overcome death, Jesus’ Galilean followers faced opposition from

33

See Robyn Whitaker, “Rebuke or Recall? Rethinking the Role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75.4 (2013) 666–682.

24

prologue

the priestly authorities who had encouraged his execution. Those of them with enough commercial contacts or skills to be mobile settled out of harm’s way in cities near Israel such as Damascus. Damascus was a large, pluralistic city with a thriving quarter of Jewish merchants. Ananias, who baptized Paul under prompting by his own visionary experience of Jesus (Acts 9:1–19), had gravitated there in 32 ce, along with dozens of disciples like him, convinced that visions of Jesus alive and elevated to his Father’s Throne fulfilled God’s promises to Israel. They didn’t think of themselves as “Christians” yet. That word had not even been coined. They persistently called the teaching of their resurrected rabbi “the way” (hodos in Greek; Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), the equivalent of the Rabbinic term halakhah (literally, how God commands Israel to “go”). In the years before there was any formal division between Judaism and Christianity, Jesus’ followers saw their master as the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny, and most of them worked out their peculiar vision in relative harmony with their Jewish neighbors. By the time Matthew’s Gospel was written around 80 ce, the leaders of the churches in Damascus clearly saw themselves as separate from the synagogues there, and stopped using the designation “rabbi” altogether, apart from reference to Jesus (Matthew 23:7–8), but Matthew also shows that the importance of vision had in no way diminished. This is the only Gospel, for example, that speaks of Jesus coming back to earth with all his angels to judge all the nations, dividing them up into sheep and goats according to how people had behaved toward one another during their lives (Matthew 25:31–46). Depicted many times in Christian art, it is the classic scene of apocalyptic judgment: eternal punishment for the goats; eternal life for the sheep. Matthew’s poetics pivot on the impact of apocalypse on the material world, just as Mark’s poetics pivot on the silent amazement that revelation brings. Chapter 23 of the Gospel consequently reflects the growing tension with many Jewish communities that did not recognize Jesus as Son of God and messiah, as well as the growing importance of the institution of the synagogue in the period after 70ce, when the Romans destroyed the Temple. The Roman arson of Jerusalem finds its allusion in Matthew 22:7. That reference, together with the evidence of the growing power of the Pharisees and the influence of synagogues, has suggested to scholars that the Gospel should be dated around 80 ce. Considerable overlap with the Gospel according to Mark has led many scholars to suppose that Mark constituted a source of Matthew, but all the shared material need not all have been in written form, since oral instruction was vital within the primitive Church. But the first Gospel is no mere patchwork of sources. Its structure is clearly marked through its preface, a unique presenta-

the formation of the synoptic gospels

25

tion of Jesus’ birth from the perspective of Scriptural fulfillment (chapters 1–2), and through clearly marked sections that tie together narrative and discourse (including the famous and uniquely Matthean Sermon on the Mount) as Jesus progresses from his baptism and preaching in Galilee (chapters 3–7), through his healings, both personally and by means of the Twelve (chapter 8–10), into an emphasis upon his own persona (chapters 11–13), until he explicitly proclaims his authority to his followers (chapters 14–18), and clashes with the authorities in Jerusalem (chapters 19–25). In a closing section, Jesus passes through death to resurrection (chapters 26–28). The fivefold structure of the middle sections recalls the five books of Moses. This impression is strengthened by the explicit contrast between Jesus’ rules for his people and those given by Moses in the first discourse (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). Just as Moses went up on the mountain to give instruction to God’s people (Exodus 24), so Jesus repeatedly in Matthew ascends a mountain to inform God’s people and to manifest his divine authority (Matthew 4:8; 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; 28:16). In Jesus’ presentation of his people’s responsibility to God in this Gospel there is a distinctive emphasis on true righteousness, in contrast to that of the Pharisaic tradition (3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33). That theme is most fully developed in a discourse of chapter 23, which developed as the hostility between Matthew’s community and the Pharisees (or Rabbis) intensified. This hostility comes to its most radical expression when the Jewish people willingly call down responsibility for shedding Jesus’ blood on themselves and their children, and this after Pilate—the only person with authority to order the execution—has washed his hands of guilt (Matthew 27:24–25). The climax of the Gospel is reached at the close, when the eleven disciples (after Judas delivered Jesus to the authorities and then killed himself) worship Jesus34 and are commanded to make disciples of all nations by baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and by teaching them to keep Jesus’ commandments (28:16–20). 2.3 The Gospel according to Luke “According to Luke” and “Acts,” now separated in the Christian canon of Scripture by the Gospel according to John, were composed as a two-volume work, which begins with the divine preparation for the birth of Jesus and ends with Paul in Rome, symbolizing the worldwide mission of the church. The similar opening lines of each, the dedication to the same person (named as Theo-

34

See Hak Chol Kim, “The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew,” Biblica 93.2 (2012) 227–241.

26

prologue

philus), and the reference in Acts 1:1 back to “the earlier book” all indicate a common author. The similarity in editorial style and overall point of view confirms this conclusion, which is taken for granted by scholars across the spectrum of theological stances. The Gospel opens by acknowledging the oral preachers who provided the sources for the text (Luke 1:1–4). Written around 90 ce in Antioch, a larger, and more diverse and thoroughly pagan city than Damascus, Luke deliberately casts a wider net for these sources than Mark and Matthew do. The purpose of LukeActs was to insist that, despite variety and controversy within Jesus’ movement, a single, unifying impulse of Spirit motivated everything that had happened since before the time of John the Baptist’s preaching. Since the second century ce to the present, the author has been identified as the Luke who is mentioned as a co-worker of Paul in Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11 and described as a “beloved physician” in Colossians 4:14. Some scholars have inferred from the occasional shifts in the narrative of Acts from “they” to “we” (see, for example, Acts 16:1 with 16:11; 20:1 with 20:6) that the author was a companion of Paul on part of his journeys around the Mediterranean Sea. But the change from third person to first person plural is found in historical writings of that epoch, and in any case appears in connection with Timothy in Acts, rather than Luke. More likely, the author, as he indicates in Luke 1:1–2, was not himself an eyewitness of the events he reports, but based his account on reports he had heard or read from those who were. For convenience, we refer to him as Luke, but as is the case with the other Gospels, the identity of the authors is simply unknown, probably has been from the earliest years of the document’s existence, and many sources—oral and written—fed into the final product. The final author is nonetheless remarkably skilled and fluent as a writer. This is apparent in the ability to modify the Gospel’s style in ways that are appropriate to the material presented. In the opening section of the Gospel (Luke 1–3), for example, the writing sounds “like the Bible”– that is, it effectively mimics the style of the Septuagint (which was, of course, the version of the Bible that Luke was using) and gives the reader a sense of continuity between the characters from biblical history and the events the Gospel recounts. Some of these connections are implicit, such as the parallels between the divine gift of a son, John, to the childless couple Zechariah and Elizabeth (1:5–25, 57–80) and the story of the birth of Samuel in 1Samuel 1. The exultant hymns that celebrate these miraculous births are also similar (cf. 1Samuel 2 and Luke 1:67–79). The care with which the ritual requirements are fulfilled for both the boys and the testimony of the pious men and women around the Temple strengthen this sense of continuity within the history of God’s covenant people. Other con-

the formation of the synoptic gospels

27

nections are explicit, such as the angelic voice that links the birth of Jesus to the divine assurance to David that he will have an enduring royal line (2:10– 11). Luke’s depiction of the new community’s outreach to the humble and to outsiders is anticipated in the coming of the shepherds at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20). Although the third Gospel relied upon traditions comparable to Mark’s Gospel as well as the Mishnaic stream as its basic sources, Luke adapts them to its own purposes, rearranging the sequence and adjusting the details. In various editorial additions the final writer shows familiarity with literary conventions of the period, such as the dating of events by reference to several concurrent rulers (Luke 3:1–2) and the composition of extended speeches by leading characters in his story. In the overall narrative of Acts, where we learn how the gospel moved from Jerusalem to Rome, the style resembles that of a popular literary genre of the second century ce and later, known as the romance. The major objective of Luke in both volumes of this work (Luke and Acts) is to show that from the beginning, the covenant people of God have had the divinely intended potential to become a universally inclusive community.35 Both volumes acknowledge that not all will be persuaded by God’s message through Jesus, but everyone has the possibility of responding in faith to this gospel. For example, when Simeon blesses the child Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:21–32), he declares that Jesus’ coming is intended as “a light for Gentiles’ revelation, and your people Israel’s glory.” Similarly, in the extended quotation from Isaiah at Jesus’ baptism, we read, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:4–6; compare Mark 1:3). That theme is apparent in the special material that Luke has included, as well as in the modification of sayings and narratives taken over from earlier sources. In its portrayal of a universalizing Christianity and its access to widespread traditions concerning Jesus in both Aramaic and Greek, Luke’s Gospel likely derives from Antioch around the year 90 ce. 35

See Jocelyn McWhirter, Rejected Prophets. Jesus and His Witnesses in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013).

Analysis

∵

the formation of the synoptic gospels

31

Key to Fonts The Petrine stream, of Aramaic origin, rendered in Greek prior to Mark’s Gospel c. 35 ce [font: Brill roman], with later revision by a tradent identified in the comments as a follower named Mark from 1Peter 5:13, not the same person as the Evangelist [font: Brill italic]. An instructional stream or Mishnah, called “Q” in much scholarship when it appears in Matthew and Luke, rendered from Aramaic into Greek prior to Mark, contemporaneous with the Petrine stream c. 35 ce [font: Brill bold], with a later, apocalyptic revision associated with James, the son of Zebedee [font: Brill bold italic]. The Jacobean stream (composed in Greek with Aramaic elements prior to Mark), from c. 40 ce, supplemented by the Silan stream, named after Silas, also known as Silvanus [font: Brill small caps and Brill small caps italic]. The Magdalene stream (originally an Aramaic donor, rendered in Greek prior to Mark’s Gospel), from c. 40ce [font: Noto Sans]. The Barnaban stream (composed in Greek with some awareness and incorporation of Aramaic traditions, including from the Petrine, Mishnaic, and Magdalene streams), from c. 45 ce [font: Brill bold small caps] supplemented prior to the Lukan redaction by a tradent identified in the comments as Symeon Niger, Acts 13:1 [font: Brill bold small caps italic]. Redactional markers (entirely in Koinê), from c. 73 ce (Mark), 80 ce (Matthew), 85 ce (Luke) [font: Noto Sans bold].

© Bruce Chilton et al., 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004521551_003a

32

Analysis

Preface; Abrahamic, Davidic, and (in Luke) Adamic Genealogies Matthew 1:1–17

Luke 1:1–4; 3:23–38 1 Many have endeavored to order a fresh narrative concerning the events consummated among us,2 as those who were eyewitnesses and became assistants of the word from the inception conveyed them to us. 3 Accordingly, it seemed to me that I— one who followed after—should also write to you anew, in everything accurately, in

1 Account of Anointed Jesus’ descent — David’s son, Abraham’s son: 2 Abraham produced Isaac; Isaac produced Jacob; Jacob produced Judah and his brothers; 3 Judah produced Perez and Zerah from Tamar; Perez produced Hezron; Hezron produced Ram; 4 Aram produced Amninadab; yet Amminadab produced Nahshon; Nahshon produced Salmon; 5 Salmon produced Boaz from Rahab; Boaz produced Jobed from Ruth; Jobed produced Jesse; 6 Jesse produced David, the king. David produced Solomon from Uriah’s wife; 7 Solomon produced Rehoboam; Rehoboam produced Abijah; Abijah produced Asa; 8 Asa produced Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat produced Joram; Joram produced Uzziah; 9 Uzziah produced Jotham; Jotham produced Ahaz; Ahaz produced Hezekiah; 10 Hezekiah produced Manasseh; Manasseh produced Amon; Amon produced Josiah; 11 Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers at the Babylonian deportation.12 After the Babylonian deportation Je-

sequence, your excellency Theophilus, 4 so that you can recognize the certainty concerning the words in which you have been instructed.

[Chapter 3] 23 Jesus himself began around thirty years old, being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, 24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Jannai, of Joseph, 25 of Mattathias, of Amos, of Nahum, of Esli, of Naggai, 26 of Maath, of Mattathias, of Semein, of Josech, of Jodah, 27 of Joanan, of Rhesa, of Zerubbabel, of Shealtiel, of Neri, 28 of Melchi, of Addi, of Cosam, of Elmadan, of Er, 29 of Joshua, of Eliezer, of Jorim, of Matthat, of Levi, 30 of Simeon, of Judah, of Joseph, of Jonam, of Eliakim, 31 of Melea, of Menna, of Mattatha, of Nathan, of David, 32 of Jessai, of Jobel, of Boaz, of Sala, of Nahshon, 33 of Admminadab, of Admin, of Arni, of Hezrom, of Perez, of Judah, 34 of Jacob, of Isaac, of Abraham, of Terah, of Nahor, 35 of Serug, of Reu, of Peleg, of Eber, of Shelah, 36 of Cainan, of Arphaxad,

Analysis choniah produced Shealtiel; Salathiel produced Zerubbabel; 13 Zerubbabel produced Abiud; Abiud produced Eliakim; Eliakim produced Azor; 14 Azor produced Zadok; Zadok produced Achim; Achim produced Eliud; 15 Eliud produced Eleazar; Eleazar produced Matthan; Matthan produced Jacob; 16 yet Jacob produced Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus called Anointed was produced. 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were fourteen generations, and from David until the Babylonian deportation fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian deportation until the Anointed fourteen generations.

33 of Shem, of Noah, of Lamech, 37 of Methusalah, of Enoch, of Jared, of Mahalaleel, of Cainan, 38 of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

Not only are the lineages differently presented:1 they are different. In each case, the stream’s interests are plain. The Levites in Luke indicate the concerns of a stream engaged with priestly issues (which are to some extent comparable to those of the priest Josephus), while the generational stages of Matthew reveal the Davidic interests of another stream. As each sets out its agenda, the identities of the two streams emerge. Luke’s editorial concerns are signaled in the introduction (Luke 1:1–4). The Matthean genealogy is periodized within a scheme of three sets of fourteen generations. The lineage clearly traces a climax with David in the first set, anchoring Jesus within a Davidic identity. At the same time, the reference to Tamar in v. 3 (cf. Genesis 38:13–26) intimates that irregular births do not disrupt descent. The persistence of that theme is conveyed by the mentions of Ruth (v. 5), Bathsheba (v. 6, provocatively identified as the wife of Uriah), and of course the absence of the usual assertion of paternity in the case of Joseph (v. 16). Within this context, it is interesting that the mother of Boaz is named as 1 Names are rectified to accord with received English usage. For example, Hezron in Matthew 1:3 is Esrôm in the Greek text of the Gospel, but is spelled as it is in Genesis 46:12 (for Hebrew Chezrôn), and Amon in Matthew v. 10 appears as Amôs in the best witnesses. Aram in vv. 3–4 is often rendered as “Ram,” following the Hebrew text of Ruth 4:19; 1 Chronicles 2:9–10.

34

Analysis

Rachab, although not specified in the book of Ruth 4:18–22, which otherwise agrees with Matthew 1:3–6 (but compare Joshua 2:1–21). The twin emphases, on Davidic descent and irregularities of birth, are consistent throughout the genealogy, which accords with the status of James, the brother of Jesus, as a descendent of David2 and yet also with the upcoming narrative of the unusual circumstances of Jesus’ birth. Taken together, these indication suggest the influence of the expanded Jacobean stream evolved (as we shall see) under the influence of Silas. James is portrayed in the book of Acts as citing Amos 9:11–12, in order to support an inclusion of gentiles in a supportive role of the “tent of David” (Acts 15:16–17). The passage bore messianic significance both before James and after. Among the scrolls of Qumran, this is clearly articulated in Florilegium 1–2i, 21:12–13 (citing the promise to David in 2Samuel 7:13–14): “And I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen.” (Amos 9:11) He (is) the booth of David that is falle[n w]ho will arise to save Israel. Elsewhere in the scrolls the “booth of David” is understood to refer to the Law (cd 7:15–17). The implication is that restoration will not take place until the Law is interpreted aright and obeyed. In the Talmud, Bavli Sanhedrin 96b–97b this motif is continued: Said R. Naḥman to R. Isaac, “Have you heard when the son of ‘the fallen one’ will come?” He said to him, “Who is the son of ‘the fallen one’?” He said to him, “It is the Messiah.” “Do you call the Messiah ‘the son of the fallen one’?” He said to him, “Yes, for it is written, ‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, the fallen one’ (Amos 9:11).” James’ scriptural argument in Acts, which coheres with Matthew’s genealogical argument in this regard, falls chronologically between these two examples of this enduring interpretation. Although the Lukan genealogy also links Jesus to David, the periodization of Matthew is absent, and descent is traced all the way back to God’s creation of the first person (cf. 4Ezra 7:28; 12:32). “As was supposed” in 3:24 reflects the portrayal of Jesus’ birth, unique to Luke’s Gospel, which makes his paternity divine (1:35). But the stream clearly is not grounded in any qualification that priestly

2 See Stephen C. Carlson, “The Davidic Key for Counting the Generations in Matthew 1:17,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76.4 (2014) 665–683.

Analysis

35

descent confers in terms of divine paternity, but rather in the vigor of Levitical identity, with what that implies for issues connected with worship. If the genealogy is accepted, Jesus is truly Davidic. At the same time, the deviation of the figures named from Matthew’s list provide a Levitical strand within Jesus, identity: the name “Levi” appears in two generations (vv. 24, 29), and by tracing ancestors back, not only to Abraham, but also before Abraham, the stream takes us into the period when patriarchal sacrifice, without the differentiation of a hereditary priesthood, was portrayed. In the book of Acts, Barnabas stands out as a Levite (Acts 3:36), and the distinctive stream associated with him (subject to adaptation as in the case of the stream associated with James) reveals traits that mark him out as the precursor of its traditions. In this regard, the age of thirty was also the moment that qualified a priest as mature in respect of his function (Numbers 4:47). Josephus, a close contemporary of the Gospel according to Luke as well as Acts, provides several examples of the elaboration of a priestly genealogy. Josephus emphasizes that the pedigree of a priest from both sides of the family must be “unmixed and pure” (Against Apion 1 §§30–35) and sets out his own genealogy (Life §§ 1–6), but he conceives of priesthood as beginning with Aaron (Antiquities 20 §§ 224–230). At Qumran a man at thirty is qualified to take part in legal disputes (Community Rule 1:13). Famously, both the Scrolls of Qumran (in 11Q Melchizedek) and the New Testament (Hebrews 7) derive priesthood from before Aaron. In that the priesthood was a topic that aroused considerable dispute,3 the specific claim in regard to Melchizedek need not be invoked in the Lukan genealogy for its assertion of priestly legitimacy prior to Aaron to be resonant.

3 Cf. John J. Collins, “The Persistence of Non-Mosaic Judaism,” The Invention of Judaism. Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017) 62–79.

36

Analysis

Announcement of John the Baptist’s Birth; Zechariah; Repentance of Israel Luke 1:5–23 5 A priest lived in the days of King Herod of Judea, Zechariah by name, from Abijah’s division, and his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in relation to God, blameless in proceeding by all the decrees and statutes of the Lord. 7 They did not have a child, since Elizabeth was barren, and both were well advanced in their days. 8 It happened while he was engaged in priestly service to God with the order of his division, 9 by the custom of the priesthood he was allotted to offer incense. He entered into the Temple of the Lord, 10 and all the multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 But by him was seen the Lord’s messenger, standing right of the altar of the incense. 12 Zechariah was shaken when he saw: fear fell upon him. 13 But the messenger said to him, “Do not fear, Zechariah, since your petition has been heeded, and your wife Elizabeth will produce a son for you, and you shall call his name John. 14He will be your joy and exultation, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 He indeed shall be great before the Lord: wine and alcohol he shall not drink; he will be filled with Holy Spirit — even from his mother’s belly! 16 Many of Israel’s sons will turn back to the Lord their God, 17 and he will himself will go before him with Elijah’s spirit and power, to turn back fathers’ hearts to children and disobedient people to the righteous’ intention, to prepare a people equipped for the Lord.” 18 Zechariah said to the messenger, “By what shall I know this? For I am elderly myself, and my wife advanced in her days.” 19 The messenger replied and said to him, “I am Gabriel, the one who stands by before God: I was delegated to speak to you and to herald these things to you. 20 And look: you will be silent and not able to speak, until the day these things happen, in that you did not believe my words, which shall be fulfilled in their time.” 21 And the people awaited Zechariah, and marveled at the time he took in the Temple. 22 When he came out he was not able to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the Temple; he was gesturing to them, and remained mute. 23 When the days of his ritual service were filled, he went away into his home.

Analysis

37

The priestly interest of the Barnaban stream continues, with a notable emphasis on John’s Nazirite status, which in the Jacobean stream is associated with Jesus’ brother James (Acts 21:17–24). John is both of priestly lineage and a prophetic figure, comparable even to Elijah in his eschatological function (see Malachi 4:5–6). In this dual priestly and prophetic role, John is reminiscent of Samuel, who is also designated a Nazirite on the basis of his birth to parents in similar straits to the parents of John (1Samuel 1:22; cited and emphasized in 4QSamuela 2a–d:1–3). The story of John’s nativity is so similar to that of Samuel that a “petition” for a child is simply assumed in Luke 1:13, while it is specified in 1Samuel 1:17. Gabriel’s special role in revelation such as is depicted here is attested at Qumran (Words of Michael f1:4–7, cf. Daniel 8:16–17). The specification of Elizabeth as of priestly descent as well as Zechariah means that the strictures of genealogy set out by Josephus are met (see the last section), and Josephus also reflects the system of courses of priests who serve in the Temple (Antiquities 7 §§363–367). The promise of Holy Spirit in v. 15 anticipates its role in the selection of Barnabas and Paul for their apostolic “work” (ergon) by a group of “prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1–2), a group including Barnabas himself, described as a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36). That work involves an extension to gentiles, beginning from Barnabas’ native Cyprus (Acts 13:4–12). Paul’s speech before Agrippa ii, the third account of Jesus’ appearance to Paul in Acts, describes his purpose in just those terms (Acts 26:16–18), and has Paul call his encounter with the risen Jesus an optasia (v. 1, “vision”), corresponding to what Zechariah is described as seeing in Luke 1:22.4 The association of Barnabas with another Herodian in Acts 13:1 suggests a continuity between Acts 13:1–3: Acts 26:1–32 and Luke 1:5–23 (complete with its reference to King Herod in v. 5). This connection, as will become apparent in Luke 1:57–80, illuminates why Zechariah suffers from a temporary inability to speak: it features as part of his prophetic persona.

4 See Bruce Chilton, Resurrection Logic. How Jesus’ First Followers Believed God Raised Him from the Dead (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2019) 157–162, 186, which assigns Acts 9:1–22 to Damascus, Acts 22:3–21 to Jerusalem, and Acts 26:8–20 to Antioch (and Barnabas, the principal tradent of that city within the first century).

38

Analysis

Announcement of Virgin Birth to Mary; Son of the Most High’s Task; David’s Throne and Jacob’s House Luke 1:24–38 24 After these days, Elizabeth his wife conceived, and she hid herself away five months, saying, 25 “Has the Lord acted for me in this way, in days he surveyed, to remove people’s reproach of me?” 26 In the sixth month the messenger Gabriel was delegated from God into a town of Galilee, whose name was Nazareth, 27to a maiden contracted in marriage to a husband from David’s line, whose name of was Joseph, and the name of the maiden was Mary. 28 He went in to her and said, “Greeting, begraced: the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was shaken through at the word, puzzled at what sort of address this could be. 30 The messenger said to her, “Do no fear, Mary, because you have found grace with God. 31 Look: you will conceive in the womb and give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and shall be called Most High’s son, and the Lord God will give him his father David’s throne, 33 and he shall reign over Jacob’s house forever: of his kingdom there will not be an end.” 34 But Mary said to the messenger, “How will this be, since I do not know a husband?” 35 The messenger replied and said to her, “Holy Spirit will come over you, and Most High’s power will overshadow you, for this reason also what is produced as holy will be called God’s Son. 36 And look: Elisabeth is your relative — she also has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her that is still called barren! 37 Because with God not a single oracle will be impossible.” 38 Mary said, “Look: the Lord’s servant; may it happen to me according to your oracle.” And the messenger went away from her. The definitive rule of the heir of David (v. 33) is an anticipation pursued in the strand and shared with Florilegium 1–2i, 21:10–13 (cited above in connection with the genealogy of Jesus). It is also expressed in Psalms of Solomon 17:4:3 Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel, and swore to him about his descendants forever, that his kingdom should not fail before you.

Analysis

39

The titles “great” and “Most High’s Son” also appear in Aramaic Apocalypse i:5-ii:3, but in that case they are fleeting marks of glory, attributed to a prince whose power is of limited duration. Here the emphasis lies upon divine Sonship, making the attribution definitive. Just as the Barnaban stream applies the Nazirite theme in a way that differs from James’ circle, so also it subordinates Jesus’ status as son of David to his designation as God’s Son. Gabriel’s response to Mary’s incredulous question in v. 35 rivets attention on the birth as the pivot of Jesus’ identity by means of the Holy Spirit. Her specific statement that she did “not know a husband” in v. 34 does not provoke anything like the sign given to Zechariah in v. 19. Rather, Gabriel echoes the prophecy of Genesis 18:14, a scene in which angelic mediation is also involved, in the assurance to Sarah that she will bear a son. The origin of the birth is holy, and the emphasis of Gabriel’s promise is that the resultant birth, God’s Son, is holy (v. 35). Conception by the Spirit of God may call to mind the creation of Adam by the breath (or Spirit) of God in Genesis 2:7. Perhaps it is for this reason the evangelist Luke identifies Adam as “son of God” (3:38), for he, like Jesus who is also called “son of God,” was generated by the Spirit of God. Even here, Hannah’s song in 1Samuel 2:2 finds an echo, prior to the song of Mary where the resonance is unmistakable. Holiness is the issue, rather than any intimation of sexual intercourse with an angelic being, as for example in Genesis Apocryphon 2:1–18, where Bitenosh insists to Lamech that he is the father of the child she bears. The insistence that the child to be is holy is reminiscent of 1Corinthians 7:14, where Paul asserts without argument that children of believers (whether it is the mother or the father who believes) are “holy.” Apparently Paul presupposes agreement with the claim of inherited sanctity, as if it were already broadly accepted. Paul’s point is that, if the children are holy, then—even if one spouse in a marriage is an unbeliever—the husband or the wife is made holy by the partner. In Luke 1:35 the source of that holiness is the Spirit.

40

Analysis

Mary and Elizabeth Meet; the Magnificat; God and the Humble and Poor Luke 1:39–56 39 Mary arose in those days and eagerly traveled into the hills, into a town of Judea; 40 she entered into the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby actually jumped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with Holy Spirit. 42She cried out with a great shout and said, “You are blessed among women, and the fruit of your womb is blessed! 43 How can this be, that my Lord’s mother comes to me? 44 Look: as the sound of your greeting came into my ears, the baby in my womb jumped in exultation. 45 The woman who believed that there will be perfection in what was spoken to her from the Lord is favored!” 46 And Mary said, “My being exalts the Lord, 47 and my spirit exults in God my savior, 48 because he looked upon the humility of his servant. Look: from now all generations will say I am favored, because the Powerful one has done great things for me — his name is holy! 50 And his mercy is for generations and generations among those who fear him. 51 He has ruled mightily with his arm, scattering the arrogant in their hearts’ purpose. 52 He takes down the powerful from thrones, and lifts up the humble. 53 He fills the hungry with good and dispatches the wealthy away with nothing. 54 He supports Israel his child, remembering mercy, 55 just as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever.” 56 Mary remained with her around three months, and returned to her house. The promise of John’s birth had already associated him with the Holy Spirit as a prophetic endowment (vv. 15, 17), so that the baby recognizes Mary with her child (v. 41) before Elizabeth does. Only then does Elizabeth speak on the basis of being filled with Spirit (vv. 41–45). Mary, on the other hand, has prompted the encounter by her eager departure to Judea (v. 39). The themes of the new psalm are woven into the close familial relationship between Mary and Elizabeth; already v. 36 refers to Elizabeth as Mary’s relative (suggenis). Since Elizabeth is described as from the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), that reinforces Jesus’ relation to the priesthood in the Barnaban stream. As Joseph Fitzmyer remarks, “each mother learns from heaven about the child of the other,”5 which anticip5 See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke i–ix. Introduction, Translation, and Notes 1: Anchor Bible 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 358.

Analysis

41

ates a pattern of collective prophecy exemplified in Acts (see especially Acts 9:1–20). The combination of prophetic and priestly dimensions is encapsulated by Mary in vv. 46–55, which echoes Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1–10. Hannah there refers to the “poor” (1Samuel 2:8), while Mary in her song refers rather to those who hunger (v. 53). For this reason and in view of the connections cited, an association with the group called “the poor” in Jerusalem, led by James the brother of Jesus,6 seems less compelling than an association with Barnabas’ circle. François Bovon observes a number of similarities between Luke 1:50–55 and the Psalms of Solomon.7 When these are taken into account, in addition to the expectation of the “son of David” in Psalms of Solomon 17:21, Mary’s song finds its place within the Barnaban stream in a priestly and prophetic movement centered on the Temple in Jerusalem in opposition to its defilement by outsiders and insiders, and messianic in its dedication.

6 See Galatians 2:10 and James 1:10–11; 2:5–6; 5:1–2 as well as the discussion in Stephen Farris, The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives. Their Origin, Meaning and Significance: Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 9 (Sheffield: jsot, 1985); Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke: The Anchor Bible Reference Library (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977). 7 See François Bovon, Luke 1: Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 55–56 and Joseph L. Trafton, “The Psalms of Solomon,” The Historical Jesus in Context (edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) 256–265.

42

Analysis

John Named outside of Family Tradition; the Benedictus; Salvation and Deliverance; David’s House and Covenant; John as Messenger of the Coming Light Luke 1:57–80 57 Elizabeth’s time was filled, for her to bear, and she produced a son. 58 And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had exalted his mercy with her, and they rejoiced with her. 59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they naturally called him by the name of his father, Zechariah. 60 His mother intervened and said, “No, but he shall be called John.” 61 They said to her that: “None of your relations is called by this name.” 62 They motioned to its father: what would he wish him to be called? 63 He requested a slate and wrote, “John is its name,” and they all marveled. 64 But his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue, and he started to speak, blessing God. 65Fear came upon all those neighboring them and in all the hillside of Judea all these things were rumored, 66 and all who heard took them in their heart, saying, “What then shall this child be?” Indeed the Lord’s hand was with him. 67 And Zechariah his father was filled with Holy Spirit and he prophesied, saying, 68 “The Lord God of Israel is blessed, because he oversaw and made redemption for his people, 69 and raised for us a horn of salvation in David’s house, his child. 70 This he promised primordially through the mouth of his holy prophets: 71 salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, 72 to do mercy with our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant. 73 This is the oath that he swore to Abraham our father, to provide for us: 74 delivered from enemies’ hand, fearlessly to reverence him 75 in piety and righteousness before him all our days. 76 And you, child, shall be called Most High’s prophet, because you will proceed before the Lord to prepare his ways, 77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people, by release of their sins, 78 through our God’s feelings of mercy, by which the dawn from on high oversees us, 79 to shine on those in darkness and residing in death’s shadow, and to direct our feet in peace’s way.” 80 But the child grew and prevailed in spirit, and was in the wilderness until the day of his showing to Israel.

Analysis

43

Zechariah opens his mouth to name his child in a way that accords with Gabriel’s command in v. 13 (so that John existence is a reminder that “The Lord is gracious,” as his name indicates). Zechariah was the recipient of that command, and his wife Elisabeth concurs (vv. 60, 63), although he had been speechless since the angelic visitation. The emphatically prophetic character of his speech means that “his mouth” was opened (v. 67) in contrast to his earlier, temporary condition; now he prophesies by means of the Holy Spirit, even as the author of Qumran’s Hodayot claims God has placed his words in “my mouth” (Hodayota 16:17). As he does so Zechariah at least alludes to Jesus, who derives from the house of David, v. 69; it may be that the psalm was originally composed with Jesus in view.8 After all, the Barnaban stream knows him as a prophet (see, for example, Luke 24:19), and David was said to be a servant raised up by God as a deliverer (4 Ezra 3:23; cf. 1Maccabees 4:30). The image at the close of the canticle, however, speaks of a prophet who prepares the Lord’s way in the manner of Elijah (v. 76, cf. Malachi 3:1; 4:5), an identification of John the Baptist rather than Jesus, which Jesus himself asserts in Luke 7:24–30 and associated passages. Perhaps, just as John and Jesus are associated in priestly antecedents, they are also conceived to share a Davidic lineage. The reference to John being “in the wilderness” until his later appearance there (cf. Luke 3:2) removes any doubt about the connection of the canticle within Luke, even if elision between John and Jesus within the Barnaban stream cannot be excluded. The emphasis upon prophecy overtakes narration and so focuses on the association of John and Jesus in their later significance as to overtake an account of events. The themes of covenant and remembrance are shared with Psalms of Solomon 10:4 (cf. also Hodayota12:5–6): “And the Lord will remember his servants in mercy, for the testimony of it (is) in the Law of the eternal covenant, and the testimony of the Lord (is) in the ways of men in (his) supervision.”

8 In this regard, see Farris (1985) 130, 190.

44

Analysis

Jesus’ Birth: In Matthew Joseph’s Perspective, Isaiah 7, Dream Disclosure; in Luke Census, Journey to Bethlehem Matthew 1:18–25

Luke 2:1–7

18 Anointed Jesus’ descent, however, was in this way: his mother Mary was contracted in marriage to Joseph; before they came together she was found pregnant from Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph was righteous, and, unwilling to make a display of her, he preferred to release her quietly. 20 But while he pondered this, look: a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, “Joseph, David’s son, do not fear to take Mary your wife, because that which is produced in her is from Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this happened so that what was said by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, 23 “Look, the maiden will become pregnant and will bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel [which is translated, God is with us].” 24 Joseph was raised from sleep and did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and took his wife. 25 And he did not know her until she bore a son, and he called his name Jesus.

1 In those same days an ordinance went out from Augustus Caesar for the inhabited world to be registered. 2 This first registry happened while Quirinius governed Syria. 3 All proceeded to be registered, each to one’s own town. 4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, into Judea, into David’s town, which is called Bethlehem, since he was of David’s house and paternity, 5 to be registered with Mary who was contracted in marriage to him, being heavily pregnant. 6 While they were still there, the days were filled for her to bear, 7 and she bore her first-born son, and swathed him and laid him in a trough, because there was no place for them in the lodging.

Precisely when comparable, the Jacobean and Barnaban streams prove to be crucially different. Despite their differing streams and concerns, Joseph Fitzmyer correctly observes that Matthew 1:18 agrees with Luke 1:27 in setting the

Analysis

45

scene in the legal situation that a marriage contract had been agreed, but cohabitation had not been established.9 That tenuous moment is a point of departure for understanding why the New Testament offers not one but three theories of Jesus’ conception. One New Testament theory presents Jesus’ birth as the consequence of an intervention of Holy Spirit (by an unspecified method), although Mary had not had sexual relations with a man. That is the explanation of Luke’s Gospel most emphatically (Luke 1:34–35), seconded less explicitly by the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew 1:18–25). A second explanation, expressed by Philip in John’s Gospel after he had become Jesus’ disciple, maintains that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph (John 1:45), and it is—categorically and rather oddly—repeated both by John’s Ioudaioi in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:42) and by Luke’s congregation in Nazareth (Luke 4:22). Although the last references are or may be dismissive, Philip’s is not, and it is difficult to see how the genealogies of Jesus, variously presented by Matthew (1:1–17) and Luke (3:23–38), can have been developed except on the supposition of this second theory. Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 try to finesse the issue, but these adjustments seem to be post hoc. Further, Jesus’ identity as David’s son—recognized by the Gospels (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47, 48; Luke 18:38, 39) as well as by Paul and later sources (Romans 1:3, cf. 2Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16)— implicitly invokes this theory, since only Joseph (himself called David’s son in Matthew 1:20, cf. Luke 1:27, 32; 2:4) can have mediated that pedigree to Jesus. Whether having been raised by Joseph would have effected a person’s status as David’s son in a way comparable to birth status is a tenuous proposition. Finally, in John’s Gospel opponents appear to taunt Jesus with being born of “fornication” (porneia; John 8:41), and such an accusation is often seen as standing behind the pointed omission of Joseph, together with reference to Jesus’ mother and siblings, in the identification of Jesus in Mark 6:3. At that juncture, Matthew’s reference to Jesus as the son of the workman (Matthew 13:55) has been construed to imply Joseph’s paternity (but also as saying, in a Semitic idiom, that Jesus belonged to the class of such workers). But Luke 4:22, the apparent analogue of Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55, has the people in Nazareth say unequivocally that Jesus is Joseph’s son, and this story might lay behind John 6:42. Under any of the theories invoked, the issue of Jesus’ paternity could lead to the conclusion that he was a mamzer. Although a mamzer is subject to exclu-

9 See Fitzmyer, Luke (1981) 343–344

46

Analysis

sion in Deuteronomy 23:2, the term is not defined. Yebamot 4:13 in the Mishnah attests an established consensus by the second century that incest—under the terms of reference of Leviticus (which of course were more rigorous than in the Hellenistic world)—would produce a mamzer. At the same time, a rabbi named Joshua supported by Simeon ben Azzai (allegedly citing written evidence) broadens the definition, by including adultery as grounds for finding mamzerut: How is one a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:2)? Any case of near of kin which is forbidden, the words of Rabbi Aqiba. Simeon of Teman says, Any case where they [that is, the parents] were liable to extirpation by heaven (Leviticus 18:29). And the halakhah is according to his words. Rabbi Joshua says, Any case where they were liable to death by a court. Said Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai, “I found a scroll of descents in Jerusalem, and there was written in it: A certain man is a mamzer, from a man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20)”—confirming the words of Rabbi Joshua. It is interesting that, in Matthew’s Gospel, Joseph is portrayed as having decided to divorce Mary quietly (Matthew 1:19). In the Mishnah, the possibility of such a dissolution of the contract between betrothal and common domicile is mentioned (see Sotah 4:1). In the present case, such an act would imply voiding the contract of marriage without a formal charge of her adultery as well as involving the mamzerut of the child. This Mishnaic tractate cites Deuteronomy 23:2 explicitly, moving into a case of adulterous relations by way of application of the statute. The connection of ideas is easy to follow, because the themes of virginity, adultery, rape and incest are developed in Deuteronomy (22:13–30) just before the mention of the mamzer, and the punishment for such crimes (sometimes expressly demanded in this chapter of Deuteronomy) is stoning. Ketubot 1:9 in the Mishnah, however, is even more to the point, since it corresponds to Mary’s predicament as specified in Matthew 1:18: She was pregnant, and they said to her, “What kind of fetus is this?” [She answers:] “From a certain man, and he is a priest!” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, “She is believed.” And Rabbi Joshua says, “We do not rely on her statement. But she remains in the assumption of having become pregnant by a Netin or a mamzer, until she brings evidence for her words.” Here we have two opposed policies. In one (Gamaliel’s and Eliezer’s) the testimony of a mother suffices to establish fatherhood; in the other (Joshua’s),

Analysis

47

evidence—presumably in the shape of knowledge of the couple’s common domicile (again, see Matthew 1:18)—was required. At a later stage, mamzerut was defined as when a gentile or slave was known to be the father, and this fed into the claim that Jesus was the product of Mary’s intercourse with a Roman soldier.10 Although the issue of mamzerut lies in the background of both Matthew and Luke, neither narrative explores the matter. Rather, Matthew reflects a stream derived from James, which puts Joseph at the center of attention, attributing dreams to him worthy of his biblical namesake. Josephus also emphasizes the divine disclosure within Joseph’s dreams in particular (Antiquities 2 §§ 11–16), and he attributes similar powers of divination to himself on the basis of his priestly lineage (The Jewish War 3 §§352–354).11 Matthew’s Joseph is similarly gifted, and within this stream of tradition, he requires no explanation as to what the name “Jesus” means (v. 21, cf. v. 23). As in the case of Josephus, as well, the events in Matthew are said to be in fulfilment of Scripture, although far more precisely than in the case of Josephus. This, of course, is a leitmotif in Matthew and derives from Silas’ updating of the approach of James. Where James himself is quoted to assert the halakhic correspondence of Scripture to practices he endorsed (Acts 15:15–21), Silas was associated with a pictorial, often apocalyptic application of Scripture (as in Matthew 24:15, where Silas’ influence will be discussed). Luke’s counterpart stream reflects the point of view of Roman rule within Syria, and specifically the census under Quirinius (2:1–2). The claim of an empire-wide census cannot be sustained, but the stream appears to make Syria its world, and on that basis to speak of the census that followed Archelaus’ deposition as king of Juda and the attendant census in 6 ce (see Antiquities 18 §§1–10).12 When plans for a census were put in place by Quirinius, the consequence was a tax revolt. During this period, a census did not require a household-by-household accounting, but assessment was made by profes-

10

11 12

The later definition of mamzerut is developed in Bavli Qiddushin 70a; the tale about the fictive soldier is told in Origen’s Contra Celsum, cf. Bavli Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a; for further discussion, see Bruce Chilton, “Recovering Jesus’ Mamzerut,” Jesus and Archaeology (edited by James H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 84–110; Andrew T. Lincoln, Born of a Virgin? Reconceiving Jesus in the Bible, Tradition, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). See Robert Gnuse, “Dream Reports in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” Revue Biblique 96. 3 (1989) 358–390. See Edward Dąbrowa, “The Date of the Census of Quirinius and the Chronology of the Governors of the Province of Syria,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178 (2011) 137–142.

48

Analysis

sional publicans contracted by Rome to collect the tax. Together with local officials, publicans assessed the global payment of towns and regions and collected a commission.13 In addition to the perennial objections to paying taxes, resistance in Judea appropriated the biblical imperative against census-taking as a motivation14 and forwarded the ideology that only God could be regarded as the true ruler of Israel.15

13

14

15

Commissions were theoretically low, but the opportunity for corruption was endemic, both in the level of tax charged and the opportunities to engage in money-lending. See Edgar Kiser and Danielle Kane, “The Perils of Privatization: How the Characteristics of Principals Affected Tax Farming in the Roman Republic and Empire,” Social Science History 31. 2 (2007) 191–212 and Fritz Herrenbrück, Jesus und die Zöllner. Historische und neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchungen: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 41 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990). See 2Samuel 24:1–17; 1Chronicles 21:1–17. This resistance helps account for the odd statement in Luke 2:1 that the “inhabited world” (oikoumenê) was to be taxed. The Syrian provenience of the Lukan source, which put the whole area under the Roman legate, best explains the usage. Josephus, Antiquities 18 §§1–28.

Analysis

49

Angelic Announcement to Shepherds; Savior, Anointed, Lord: Mary’s Response Luke 2:8–20 8 In the same region shepherds camped and kept watch at night over their flock. 9 And a messenger of the Lord stood over them, the Lord’s glory shined around them, and they were afraid — with great fear. 10 And the messenger said to them, “Do not fear, because look: I herald to you great joy such as will be for all people, 11because a savior has been born for you today, who is Lord Anointed, in David’s town. 12 And here is a sign for you—you will find a baby swathed and lying in a trough.” 13 And suddenly there was with the messenger a multitude of heaven’s army, praising God and saying, 14 “Glory is with God in greatest heights, and peace on earth among men of favor.” 15 When the messengers went away from them to the heaven, the shepherds started to speak with one another, “Now let us go through until Bethlehem and see this oracle that has happened, which the Lord made known to us.” 16 They came hastening and discovered both Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the trough. 17 As they saw they made known concerning the oracle spoken to them concerning this child. 18 And all who heard marveled concerning what was spoken by the shepherds to them, 19 but Mary kept all these oracles together, turning them over in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all that they heard and saw — just as was spoken to them. The expanded Barnaban stream widens the scope of prophetic awareness by means of signs, with reference to David featuring as a pivot of prophecy rather than its limit, as well as by an extension of those to whom revelation is given. The nature of the disclosure is of another world, as in Hodayota 9:34–36: For God thunders with the roar of His strength and His holy dwelling roars forth in His glorious truth. Then the heavenly hosts shall raise their voice and the everlasting foundations shall melt and quake. The war of the heroes of heaven shall spread over the world and shall not return until an annihilation that has been determined from eternity is completed. Nothing like this has ever occurred.

50

Analysis

Philo is well aware that shepherds may be wise, since God is compared to a shepherd (On Farming §50), and David’s vocation as a shepherd is part of the intended meaning.16 Yet the exclusion of shepherds as witnesses (owing to their supposedly inveterate dishonesty) by the time of the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 25b)17 probably also characterizes the intent here. Comparison with Acts’ presentation of Cornelius (Acts 10), a Roman centurion, as a precursor of an extension of Jesus’ message to the gentiles, may be appropriate. The suggestion, however, that shepherds in the vicinity of Bethlehem might be associated with the provision of animals for the Temple18 would represent a link with the theme of the Temple within this stream. Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 37:11 states that Jacob kept the dreaming of Joseph “in his heart,” which is reminiscent of Luke 2:19, 51.19 This statement links the passages back to Mary and the annunciation to her. Like Mary (and later in the Synoptics, the women who are present for Jesus death and interment), the shepherds occupy a place of both marginality and privilege.

16 17

18

19

So Fitzmyer (1981) 395–396. For a full discussion, see Avraham Steinberg and F. Rosner, “Sources for the Debate: Torah Alone or Torah Together with Worldly Occupation,” The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 32.1 (1996) 65–93. See Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 2 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993) 131–132. His suggestion that “flocks” were kept there, in the sense of Luke 2:8, may stretch the meaning of Mishnah Sheqalim 7:4, which relates to where the animals were found, not to how they were maintained, nor by whom. The tension of this passage with Mishnah Baba Qamma 7:7, where flocks are only to be kept in Syria or the wilderness, is striking. See Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Genesis: Aramaic Bible 1B (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992) 125.

Analysis

51

The Magis’ Visit; the Star; Micah 5; Dream Protection Matthew 2:1–12 1 As Jesus was brought forth in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, look: magi came from the east to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is the one born king of the Judeans? For we have seen his star in the east, and we have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard, he was shaken, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 he gathered all the high priests and scribes of the people and inquired from them where the Anointed was brought forth. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written through the prophet: 6 ‘You, Bethlehem, land of Judah, by no means are you least among the governors of Judah, for from you will come the governing ruler, who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ” 7 Then Herod called the magi covertly, established from them the period the star appeared, 8 and sent them to Bethlehem. He said, “Proceed, examine accurately concerning the child: but as soon as you find him, report to me, so that I myself will come to worship him.” 9 They heard the king, proceeded, and look: the star that they had seen in the east led before them, until it came to stand above where the child was. 10 They saw the star and rejoiced—exceptionally great joy. 11 They came to the home and saw the child with Mary his mother; they fell down and worshipped him, opened their stores and offered him gifts—gold and incense and myrrh. 12 They were advised by a dream not to revert to Herod, and they withdrew by another way into their land. Two strands of oracular authority, astronomical and scriptural, set out Jesus’ status as both king (v. 2) and the anointed (v. 4). The first means are astronomical, rooted in the coming of the magi from the east, according to Philo of Alexandria (Philo, Every Good Man is Free § 74) the home of Persian wisdom, including with regard to portents read from the stars (and planetary stars). As Abram realizes by a word of the Lord in Jubilees 12.17, “All of the signs of the stars and the signs of the sun and the moon are all in the hand of the Lord. Why am I seeking?” In Damascus Document 8:18–21 the star of Numbers 24:17 is interpreted in terms of the ruler of the nation. The perspective from which the “star” is described lies east of the Jordan River, a likely allusion to the geographical origin of the literary stream within Matthew that contributes the narrative. Astrological occurrences were con-

52

Analysis

sidered omens of significant events, such as change in kingship (Josephus, The Jewish War 6 §289; Jubilees 8:3; 12:17; cf. Testament of Levi 18:3; Testament of Judah 24:1; Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 156a, Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashanah 11b). Astrological images were sometimes used to describe important eschatological figures (cf. 1Enoch 106:2, 10; Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 21:3). Planetary conjunctions, which are perennially claimed to be rare, are perhaps the most likely phenomena consistent with the description here. They are in fact frequent; in 2 ce, the likely year of Jesus’ birth if he died age thirty in 32 ce (cf. Luke 3:23), astronomical regressions show an alignment of Mars and Saturn during the autumn.20 The precise connection with Judean Bethlehem features as the second, scriptural aspect of Matthew’s oracular stream, marking Jesus as the anointed by means of the citations from Micah 5:2 (in a modified form compared to both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint). The Silan extension of the Jacobean stream combines astrological and interpretative elements to portray Jesus as anointed to rule, much as in the Psalms of Solomon 17:21–46. This portrayal deploys the imagery of Isaiah 60:1, 5–6 within the nativity, contrasting with the fact that the family was well known to have been far from wealthy. By means of Isaian imagery, the significance of events overtakes an interest in their plausible narration.

20

S. de Meis and J. Meeus, “Quintuple planetary groupings—Rarity, historical events and popular beliefs,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association 104.6 (1994) 293–297; for further dates connected with Jesus, see Chilton, Rabbi Jesus. An Intimate Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2000) xiii–xvi.

Analysis

53

Jesus’ Circumcision and Visit in the Temple; Law-Abiding Parents; the Nunc Dimittis; Salvation Tied to the Child; Israel and the Nations; Jesus: Must Be about My Father’s Work; Mary’s Response Luke 2:21–52 21 When eight days were filled, to circumcise him, his name was indeed called Jesus, which was called by the messenger before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of their purification were filled according to Moses’ law, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present to the Lord — 23 as is written in the Lord’s law that every male breaking open womb shall be called holy to the Lord — 24 and to give sacrifice according to what is said in the Lord’s law, a yoke of mourning doves or two doves. 25 And look: a man was in Jerusalem whose name was Symeon, and this man was righteous and devoted, anticipating the consolation of Israel, and Spirit was Holy upon him, 26 and it had been imparted to him by the Holy Spirit — not to see death before he saw the Lord’s Anointed. 27 He came in the Spirit into the sanctuary, and while the parents brought the child Jesus in for them to do according to what is accustomed in the law concerning him, 28 he also received him into his arms and blessed God and said, 29 “Now you release your servant in peace, Overlord, according to your oracle, 30 because my eyes saw your salvation, 31 which you prepared in front of all peoples’ face, 32 a light for Gentiles’ revelation, and your people Israel’s glory.” 33 And his father and mother were marveling at the things spoken concerning him. 34 And Symeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Look: he is set for the collapse and arising of many in Israel, and for a contradictory sign, 35 and through your own soul a sword shall pass, in order that the deliberations of many hearts might be uncovered.” 36 And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, from Asher’s tribe—she was advanced in many days, living with a husband seven years from her maidenhood, 37 and she was a widow until eighty-four years—she did not desist from the sanctuary, reverencing with fasts and petitions night and day. 38 In the same hour she stood by and acknowledged God and spoke concerning him to all those anticipating Jerusalem’s redemption. 39 And when they had completed all according to the Lord’s law, they returned to Galilee to their own city, Nazareth. 40 And

54

Analysis

the child grew and strengthened, fulfilled by wisdom, and God’s grace was upon him. 41 And his parents proceeded annually to Jerusalem on the feast of Pascha. 42 And when he became twelve years old, they went up according to the custom of the feast 43 and they accomplished the days; when they returned, the child Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, and his parent did not know. 44 They reckoned he was in the caravan, and came a day’s way, and searched him out among the relatives and acquaintances. 45 They did not find him, and returned to Jerusalem, searching him out. 46 And it happened after three days they found him in the sanctuary, sitting in the midst of the teachers and hearing them and interrogating them. 47 But all who heard him were beside themselves, at the understanding and his replies. 48 They saw him and were overwhelmed and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you acted with us in this way? Look: your father and I are distressed in seeking you!” 49 And he said to them, “Why was it that you sought me? Did you not know that it is necessary for me to be among those of my father?” 50 And they did not understand the oracle that he spoke to them. 51 And he went down with them and came into Nazareth, and he was submitted to them. And his mother kept all the oracles together in her heart. 52 And Jesus progressed in wisdom and stature and grace, with God and with men. The prophetic emphasis of the expanded Barnaban recension is spelled out, as well as its relentless focus on Jerusalem. Particular attention is paid to Symeon, like Zechariah in the Barnaban stream an incidental but vivid character. The spelling of Symeon’s name reflects the Aramaic form from which the more familiar “Simon” is derived. Owing to the unusual form, John Chrysostom argued that the Symeon at the meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15:14) was the Symeon of Luke (Luke 2:25). Stanislaus Giet built upon this identification, while acknowledging its lack of plausibility, by equating Acts 15:14 with Symeon Niger in Acts 13:1.21 Neither of those attempts is successful, and the “Symeon” seems to be Simon Peter in the context of Acts 15. But the appearance of Symeon Niger

21

For a discussion that remains useful and interesting, see Edgar R. Smothers, “Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts xv, 14),” The Harvard Theological Review 46.4 (1953) 203–215 as well as Stanislaus Giet, “L’Assemblée Apostolique et le Décret de Jerusalem. Qui était Syméon?” Recherches de science religieuse 39 (1951–1952) 203–220.

Analysis

55

in Acts 13:1 is interesting in its own right. He is listed second among the prophets and teachers of Antioch, a list headed by Barnabas and with Paul (as “Saul”) in the last position. This group is the instrument of the Holy Spirit’s instruction to send Barnabas and Paul out on what becomes the mission to the gentiles. Symeon in Luke 2:25–32 also speaks prophetically, as a result of the activity and promise of the Holy Spirit, and his prophecy specifically includes the gentiles. There is no indication of their being the same person, but the resonance of the names and the common prophetic function are striking. Symeon Niger, in the company of and in common purpose with Barnabas, seems to be the extender of the tradition of Barnabas, much as Silas served in that role for James, the brother of Jesus (see Acts 15:22–29). This prophecy includes an anticipation of rejection, a theme that becomes predominant in Acts (see, for example, Acts 13:44–48, where Paul and Barnabas associate their rejection with light dawning on the gentiles), and also features in Luke (see 4:23–27). The much sparer reference to Anna, reminiscent of Hannah in 1Samuel 1–2, makes Jerusalem the center of interest, while specifically extending prophecy to women (see Acts 21:9). Women like Anna who remained unmarried after the death of their husbands were regarded as exemplary in piety (Judith 8:4–8; 16:22–24). The locations in Jerusalem and Nazareth are linked by the practice of purity, which is also an active interest in Reworked Pentateuche 1a–b:3–13 (cf. Leviticus 12:2–8): If [a wo]man conceives, and bears a male child, [then she shall be unclean] se[ven] [days. As in the days of her menstrual impurity,] she [shall be un]clean. In the eigh[th] day [the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.] She shall continue [in the blood of her purification] for thirty[three] days. [She shall not touch any holy thing,] nor come into the sanctuary, until [the days of her purification] are completed. [But if she bears a female child,] then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstrual impurity, [and she shall continue for] sixty-[six days] in the blood of her purification. [When the] days of [her] pu[rification are fu]lfilled, [for a son] or for a daughter, she shall bring[ a lamb,] one year old, as a burnt offering, and a yo[ung p]igeon, or a turtle [dove, for a sin offering,] to the door of the tent of me[eting, to] [the] pries[t. He shall o]ffer [it before] the lord, [and make atonement for her,] and she shall be cleansed from the flow [of her blood.] [Th]is is the law for her that b[ears a child, whether a male or a female. If she does not have enough for a lamb,] then she shall take two tur[tle doves, or two young pigeons, the one] the pr[iest shall make at]onement for her, [and she shall be clean.]

56

Analysis

By presenting the Temple in association with this practice, Jesus’ link to the place as his “father’s house” (Luke 2:49) anticipates his presence in the Temple at the close of the Gospel (Luke 19:45–48). Extended narratives of the childhood of significant individuals are attested for Moses (Josephus, Antiquities 2 § 230; Philo, Moses 1.5 § 21), Samuel (Josephus, Antiquities 5 § 348) and, autobiographically, Josephus (Life 1 §§8–9), and Josephus says Samuel began his prophetic ministry at the age of twelve (Antiquities 5 §348). Joseph Fitzmyer’s suggestion that the presentation is “in imitation of the Samuel story” is sensible,22 when the link to the sanctuary is kept in mind as a pivotal factor.

22

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1981) 420.

Analysis

57

Flight to Egypt; Massacre of Bethlehem’s Children; Hosea 11; Jeremiah 31; Dream Protection; the Nazorean Matthew 2:13–23 13 But as they withdrew, look: a messenger of the Lord appeared by dream to Joseph, saying, “Be raised, take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt, and be there until I speak to you: Herod is about to seek the child, to destroy him.” 14 He was raised, took the child and his mother at night and withdrew into Egypt, 15 and he was there until the demise of Herod, so that what was said by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled, saying, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” 16 Then Herod saw that he had been mocked by the magi: he was extremely enraged. He delegated and murdered all the boy children in Bethlehem and in all its regions, from two years old and under, according to the period that he had determined from the magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying, 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great lamentation: Rachel weeping for her children, and she will not be comforted, because they are not.” 19 But when Herod was deceased, look: a messenger of the Lord appeared by dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Be raised, take the child and his mother and proceed to the land of Israel, because those who sought the child’s life have died.” 21 He was raised and took the child and his mother, and went into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea instead of his father Herod, he was frightened to depart there, but being advised by dream he withdrew into the districts of Galilee. 23 He went and resided in a town called Nazareth, thus what was said through the prophets was fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” In Qumran’s apocryphal expansion of Genesis (the Genesis Apocryphon) Abraham is warned in a dream of the dangers he and Sarah will face in Egypt (1QapGenesis 19:14–15). The dream prepares him for the threat against Sarah’s sexual purity, which if compromised could have called into question Isaac’s paternity. The family of Jesus travels back and forth to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–23), as if that were a readily effected journey. That voyage is said to fulfill Hosea 11:1, where the term “son” is used, but in the prophetic text that is actually a reference to the people of Israel coming from Egypt. The Hosea Targum makes

58

Analysis

this explicit by saying, “Out of Egypt I have called them sons,” perhaps with the Matthean interpretation in mind.23 Plausibility is strained to the point that it becomes doubtful whether the references are made more to narrate actual happenings or to forge connections with Scripture. In both precise and approximative engagement with Scripture, the Silan stream shows its background in Damascus. Nonetheless, Matthew cites the news that Archelaus ruled over Judea as the reason that Joseph settled with his family in Galilee. Similarly, Matthew complemented the bare memory of a slaughter with a citation of Scripture; by the time this part of Matthew was composed it was more important to relate events to the book of Jeremiah (31:15) than to detail the events themselves (Matthew 2:16b–18). The memory of James, the foundation of Silas’ revision, is strongly associated with the Nazirite vow, and anchored a loyal community in Jerusalem (see Acts 21:18–26 and the account of Hegesippus24). His standing in the city and within Jesus’ movement was such that he became the leading figure in discussion of questions of ritual, most importantly the decision in 46 ce that those of the gentiles who sought baptism in Jesus’ name should not be required to keep the covenant of circumcision (Acts 15:1–19). In Acts 15, the use of Scripture attributed to James, like the argument itself, is quite unlike Paul’s. James claims that Peter’s baptism of non-Jews is to be accepted because “the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:15), and he goes on to cite from the book of Amos. As James has it, there is actual agreement between Symeon and the words of the prophets, as two people might agree: the use of the verb sumphoneô is nowhere else in the New Testament used in respect of Scripture. Because James provides only one citation but refers to the words of the prophets, a programmatic approach to interpretation is intimated. The continuity of Christian experience with Scripture is marked as a greater concern than within Paul’s interpretation, and James expects that continuity to be verbal, a matter of agreement with the prophets’ words, not merely with possible ways of looking at what they mean. 23

24

For further examples of the phenomenon, see Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Introduction: Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 402–403. See Jacob Neusner, Bruce D. Chilton, and Baruch A. Levine, “The Nazirite,” Torah Revealed, Torah Fulfilled. Scriptural Laws in Formative Judaism and Earliest Christianity (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008) 43–75 and the account of Hegesippus which Eusebius reports; see Ecclesiastical History 2.23.1–19, Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History I: Loeb Classical Library 153 (translated by Kirsopp Lake; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). For an account of the meeting, including its date, see Chilton, Rabbi Paul. An Intellectual Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2004) 131–146, 268.

Analysis

59

The citation from Amos (9:11–12, from the version of the Septuagint, which was the Bible of Luke-Acts) comports well with James’ concern that the position of the Church agree with the principal vocabulary of the prophets (Acts 15:16–17): After this I will come back and restore the tent of David which has fallen, and rebuild its ruins and set it up anew, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the gentiles upon whom my name is called.... In the argument of James as represented here, what the belief of gentiles achieves is, not the expansive redefinition of Israel (as in Paul’s thought), but the restoration of the house of David, with Gentile recognition of the Torah as it related to them (compare Romans 9–11).25 The argument is possible because a Davidic genealogy of Jesus—and, therefore, of his brother James—is assumed.26 James’ clear connection of his brother’s movement to the Scriptures of Israel was the precedent for Silas to extend these links by means of the pattern of citation and the assertion of the fulfilment of what is cited within Matthew’s Gospel. On that basis, the Evangelist discovered a principle of structure.27

25

26 27

See Markus Bockmuehl, “The Noachide Commandments and New Testament Ethics,” Jewish Law in Gentile Churches. Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) 145–173. See Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (tr. R. and C. Winston; New York: Knopf, 1960) 14–15. See James E. Patrick, “Matthew’s ‘Pesher’ Gospel Structure around Ten Messianic Citations of Isaiah,” The Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010) 43–81 and Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic. The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961).

60

Analysis

John the Baptist and Isaiah 40; Rebuke of Listeners in Matthew and Luke (Involving Differing Groups); Call to Repentance; Stronger One to Come Matthew 3:1–12

Mark 1:1–8

1 In those days John the immerser arrives, proclaiming in the wilder-

2 saying, “Repent, because the kingdom of the heavens has approached.” 3 For this is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “Sound of one calling in the wilderness—Prepare the Lord’s way, make his paths straight.” 4 John himself had his clothing from camel’s hair and a skin strap around his waist, and his nourishment was locusts and field-honey. 5 Then there proceeded out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the surroundings of the Jordan, 6 and they were immersed by him in the river Jordan while recognizing their sins. ness of Judea,

7 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Zadokites coming for the immersion, he said to them, “Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 So: make fruit worthy of repentance! 9 Do not presume to say among yourselves, ‘We have a father—Abraham,’ because I say to you that God is able from these

1 Beginning the message of Anointed Jesus, God’s Son, 2 exactly as written in the prophet Isaiah— “See: I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way. 3 Sound of one calling in the wilderness—Prepare the Lord’s way, Make his paths straight.” 4 There came John the immerser in the wilderness, announcing an immersion of repentance for sins’ release. 5 And there proceeded out to him all the Judean region and all the Jerusalemites, and they were immersed by him in the River Jordan, recognizing their sins. 6 And John was clothed in camel’s hair and a skin strap around his waist, and he ate locusts and fieldhoney.

Luke 3:1–18 1 In the fifteenth year of Caesar Tiberius’ government, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, while Philip his brother was tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene, 2 during Annas’ and Caiaphas’ high priesthood, God’s oracle came upon John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he came into every surrounding land of the Jordan, announcing an immersion of repentance for sins’ release. 4 As it is written in a book of the prophet Isaiah’s words: “Sound of one calling in the wilderness— Prepare the Lord’s way, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley shall be fulfilled, and every mount and hill humbled, and the crooked shall be for straight, and the rough for smooth ways, 6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”

7 Then he was saying to the crowds proceeding out to be immersed by him: “Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 So: make fruit worthy of repentance! Do not even begin to say among yourselves, ‘We have a father—Abraham,’ because I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise children for Abra-

61

Analysis

ham! 9 Yet already the ax is laid to the root of the trees: so every tree not making good fruit is cut out and thrown into fire.”

stones to raise children for Abraham! 10 Yet already the ax is laid to the root of the trees: so every tree not making choice fruit is cut out and thrown into fire.”

11 “I indeed immerse you in water for repentance, but the one who comes after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He himself will immerse you in Holy Spirit and fire, 12whose pitchfork is in his hand: and he will clear out his threshing floor and gather his grain into the storehouse. Yet the refuse he will incinerate with unquenchable fire.”

7 He announced, saying: “One stronger than I comes after me, of whom I am not worthy—bent down—to release his sandals’ tie. 8 I immerse you in water, but he shall immerse you by Holy Spirit.”

10 The crowds questioned him and said, “So what shall we do?” 11 He answered and said to them, “One who has two tunics, give over to the one who has not! And one who has food, do likewise!” 12 Yet tax-agents came to be immersed and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 But he said to them, “Deal with nothing more than is appointed to you.” 14 And even soldiers questioned him, saying, “And what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Extort from no one, and do not gouge! And make do with your wages.” 15 Yet the people anticipated, and everyone inquired in their hearts concerning John, if perhaps he himself were the Anointed. 16 John answered them all, saying, “I indeed immerse you in water, but the one stronger than I am comes, whose sandals’ tie I am not worthy to loosen. He himself will immerse you in Holy Spirit and fire, 17 whose pitchfork is in his hand to clear out his threshing floor and to gather the grain into the storehouse. Yet the refuse he will incinerate with unquenchable fire.” 18 So he exhorted in many other ways and messaged the people.

The beginning of the Petrine stream with reference to John the immerser is established in Acts 10:34–43, a passage whose importance was noted by C.H. Dodd.28 To this basic structure in Mark both Matthew and Luke add from

62

Analysis

the expanded Mishnaic stream, whose contribution in this case involves portraying John as an apocalyptic figure. The inspiration for this portrayal lies in Jesus’ reference to John within the earliest stage of this stream (see Luke 7:24– 28; Matthew 11:7–11). Already, in the earliest form of the Mishnaic stream (Luke 7:27; Matthew 11:10), John is associated with Malachi 3:1 as well as Isaiah 40:3. The association is honored in the presentation of Mark 1:2–3 (where the recognition perhaps reflects an awareness of the Mishnaic stream). The former passages makes an association with Elijah, which then motivates the physical descriptions of Mark 1:6; Matthew 3:4. The Isaian reference appears in Qumran’s Community Rule 8.13–17: … they shall separate from the session of perverse men to go to the wilderness, there to prepare the way of truth for the Lord, as it is written, “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isaiah 40:3). This means the expounding of the Law, decreed by God through Moses for obedience, that being defined by what has been revealed for each age, and by what the prophets have revealed by his Holy Spirit. No man belonging to the Covenant of the Community, who flagrantly deviates from any commandment is to touch the pure food belonging to the holy men. Within Mark, particular association with cleanness include the use of camel’s hair (Mishnah Negaim 11:2), locusts (Mishnah Hullin 8:1), and honey (Mishnah Makhshirin 6:4). Josephus in Antiquities 18 §117 asserts that John’s baptism was to serve as a ritual of purity following a return to righteousness. Righteousness and bathing together made one pure. Josephus makes a nearly or actually dualistic distinction between the righteousness which effects purification of the soul and the baptism which symbolizes the consequent purification of the body, and that is consistent with his portrayal of others with whom he expresses sympathy, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and Bannus. But his description also comports well with the Gospels’ presentation in terms of repentance and the promise of the Spirit of God. John’s baptism was driven by an expectation of divine judgment: a baptism of divine Spirit. The anticipation of imminent judgment and purification, both

28

C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. Three Lectures (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1937) 36–49, 72–81.

Analysis

63

positive for those who respond and negative for those who do not, would supply a suitable motivation for John’s activity and help to account for his appropriation within early Christianity to serve as the paradigm of baptism in Jesus’ name for receiving the Holy Spirit (see, for example, Acts 2:38; 10:27, both in speeches of Peter). Particularly, Jesus’ defense of his own authority in terms of John’s baptism shows that John’s teaching of the Spirit inspired Jesus (Matthew 21:23–27; Mark 11:27–33; Luke 20:1–8). John’s practice of repeated immersion as the realization of forgiveness and the promise of God’s Spirit, precedented by the book of Ezekiel (36:22–27) most prominently,29 was the characteristic feature of his public activity. Matthew and Luke both, in comparable ways, include materials from the Mishnaic stream. The opening of Matthew (v. 3) identifies John by means of allusion to the original position of the reference to him in the stream (Luke 7:27; Matthew 11:10), with the same introduction. More substantially, Matthew stresses the pivotal importance of repentance in view of eschatological judgment, already a strong feature of the Mishnaic stream in its presentation of John and Jesus. In the case of Matthew, the preaching of the two is precisely coordinated (see 3:2 and 4:17), an indication of the later, consistent emphasis of the Mishnaic stream under the influence of James, the son of Zebedee. Luke joins Matthew in insisting upon apocalyptic judgment in a manner reminiscent of Community Rule2:7–8: “May you be damned without mercy in return for your dark deeds, an object of wrath licked by eternal flame, surrounded by utter darkness.” The warning against oppressing the poor (Luke 3:10–14) is similar to the charge in the Damascus Document, “You must not rob the poor” (6:16–17). In addition, Luke reflects its tie to the revised Barnaban stream in its first two chapters with a chronological notice that links events to Herodian and civil rulers (Luke 3:1), as well as to the ruling high priestly family (v. 2), remind29

See Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser. John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism: Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Bruce Chilton, “Yochanan the Purifier and His Immersion,” Toronto Journal of Theology 14.2 (1998) 197–212; and Chilton, “John the Purifier: His Immersion and His Death,” Teologiese Studies 57.1–2 (2001) 247–267. An attempt has recently been made to argue that John’s aim was “atonement” rather than “purification”; see Eyal Regev, “Washing, Repentance, and Atonement in Early Christian Baptism and Qumranic Purification Liturgies,” Journal for the Study of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 3 (2016) 33–60, especially 43–47, concluding that “John drew on this association of immersion in water as an act purification, but did not baptize to purify the immersed person from defilement.” In addition to the question of whether this distinction would have been obvious to those who came to John, the treatment does not seem to devote adequate attention to the importance of the Spirit both before and after John; see Chilton, Jesus’ Baptism and Jesus’ Healing: His Personal Practice of Spirituality (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998).

64

Analysis

ing the hearer of the John’s descent from Zechariah. The expansion by Symeon Niger, already taken up within Luke, also contributes an anticipation of the mission to gentiles in the expansion of the quotation from Isaiah (Luke 3:5–6), the inclusion of ethical instruction for those on the borders of Judaism if not outside it (vv. 10–15, 18), and a concomitant messianic focus that turns on the issue of Spirit (v. 15, cf. 2:11, 26 and Acts 13:25).

Analysis

65

Herod Imprisons John Luke 3:19–20 19 But Herod, the tetrarch, confuted by him concerning Herodias the wife of his brother and concerning all the evils that Herod did, 20 added this to them, as well: he locked John up in prison. Luke’s placement of this reference, much earlier than Matthew’s (14:3–12) and Mark’s (6:17–29), makes it appear that John did not personally baptize Jesus. The sometimes philo-Herodian concerns of the Barnaban stream are also incompatible with the famous story of the dance of Herodias’ daughter (Mark 6:17–29; Matthew 14:4–12), which is absent from Luke. Chronologically, however, Luke seems correct that John died well before Jesus became famous. Josephus relates the occasion of the marriage in Antiquities 18 §§109–110: In the meantime, a quarrel, whose origin I shall relate, arose between Aretas, king of Petra, and Herod. The tetrarch Herod had taken the daughter of Aretas as his wife and had now been married to her for a long time. When starting out for Rome, he lodged with his half-brother Herod, who was born of a different mother, namely, the daughter of Simon the high priest. Falling in love with Herodias, the wife of this half-brother (she was a daughter of their brother Aristobulus and sister to Agrippa the Great), he brazenly broached to her the subject of marriage. She accepted and pledged herself to make the transfer to him as soon as he returned from Rome. It was stipulated that he must oust the daughter of Aretas. The major flaw in this plan was that the daughter of Arestas did not cooperate. She deserted Antipas by staging a flight from Machaerus back to her father, and Machaerus is just where John was executed (Antiquities 18 §§ 116–119). Because that quarrel ultimately led to battle, some scholars have dated the marriage with Herodias far too late, as if the battle and the end of the marriage were nearly contemporaneous. In fact there was a considerable delay between the start of hostility and open war. Josephus’ famous report about John in Antiquities 18 §§116–119 is a flashback, related to explain the opinion among “some Jews” that the defeat of Antipas’ army at the hands of Aretas, the king of Nabatea, was divine retribution for his treatment of John the Baptist (Antiquities 18 §116). Josephus says that Aretas made this “the beginning of enmity,” but really Antipas picked the fight with his former ally with his scheme with Hero-

66

Analysis

dias. That is scarcely a chronological account.30 Open battle with Aretas only commenced after Philip’s death in 34 ce, by which time some of Philip’s troops joined Antipas, but then betrayed him (so Antiquities 18 §§ 113–115). Indeed, the punitive mission of Vitellius against Aretas was only aborted as a result of Tiberius’ death in 37 ce (Antiquities 18 §§115, 120–125). A critical reading of Josephus suggests that John should no longer be dated by means of the Synoptic chronology, whose usage as a catechetical instrument makes it unsuitable as an historical tool. (The idea of a single year ministry of Jesus, frequently repeated, confuses the duration of events related with the period of instruction for those who were taught on the basis of the Synoptic Gospels.) Rather, John was put to death well before Jesus came to public prominence (probably in 21 ce), during a period when Herod Antipas was emboldened by his recent foundation of Tiberias as well as his marriage to the ever ambitious Herodias, once his brother’s wife.

30

As F.F. Bruce recognized long ago; cf. New Testament History (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972) 28, 30–31. For further discussion of this incident, see Chilton, The Herods. Murder, Politics, and the Art of Succession (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021) 156–160. As I indicate, the reassessment of John has been possible as a result of the work of Christine Saulnier, “Herode Antipas et Jean le Baptiste: Quelques remarques sur les confusions chronologiques de Flavius Josèphe,” Revue Biblique 91 (1984) 362–376.

67

Analysis

Jesus’ Baptism, in Matthew to Fulfil All Righteousness; Spirit Descends on the Son; Three Enumerated Temptations in Matthew and Luke, in Different Order Matthew 3:13–17; 4:1–11 13 Then Jesus arrives at the Jordan from Galilee for John, to be immersed by him. 14 Yet John impeded him, saying, “I have need to be immersed by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, and said to him, “Permit it now, for so it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted him. 16 When Jesus had been immersed, at once he ascended from the water, and look: the heavens were opened, and he saw God’s Spirit descending as a dove, coming upon him. 17 And look: a voice from the heavens, saying: “This is my son, the beloved, in whom I take pleasure.” [chapter 4] 1Then was Jesus conducted into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tested by the devil. 2 He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he hungered. 3 The oppressor came forward and said to him, “If you are God’s son, speak so that these stones become bread.” 4 He replied and said, “It is written, ‘Man will not live by bread alone, but by every oracle that comes from God’s mouth.’” 5 Then the devil takes him to the holy city and stood him on the summit of the sanctuary, 6 and says to him, “If you are God’s son, throw yourself down, for it is written that, ‘He has decreed to his messengers about you, and they will bear you on hands, so you do not strike your foot on a

Mark 1:9–13

Luke 3:21–22; 4:1–13

9 It happened in those days there 21 But it happened when all came Jesus from Nazareth of Gali- the people were immersed, lee and he was immersed into the Jordan by John.

10 At once he ascended from the water and saw the heavens split and the Spirit as dove descend to him. 11 And a voice came from the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; in you I take pleasure.”

12 And at once the Spirit throws him out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, tested by Satan; and he was with the animals,

and Jesus was immersed and praying, the heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “You are my son, beloved; in you I take pleasure.”

[chapter 4] 1 Jesus, full of Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2 forty days, tested by the devil. He ate nothing in those days, and when they had been consummated, he hungered. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are God’s son, speak to this stone so that it becomes bread.” 4 Jesus replied to him, “It is written, ‘Man will not live by bread alone.’” 5 He conducted him and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to him, “To you will I give all this authority and their glory—because to me it is delivered over, and to whom I want I give it. 7 So if you worship before me, all will be yours!” 8 Jesus replied and said to him, “It is writ-

68

Analysis

stone.’” 7 Jesus told him, “Again it is written, ‘You will not test out your Lord God.’” 8 Again the devil takes him to an extremely high mountain, and shows him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and said to him, “These all will I give you, if you fall to worship me.” 10 Then Jesus says to him, “Depart, Satan! For it is written, ‘Your Lord God will you worship, and him alone will you reverence.’” 11 Then the devil leaves and the angels provided for him. him, and look: angels came forward and provided for him.

ten, ‘Your Lord God will you worship, and him alone will you reverence.’ ” 9 But he led him to Jerusalem and stood him on the summit of the sanctuary, and said to him, “If you are God’s son, throw yourself down from here, 10 for it is written, ‘He has decreed to his messengers about you, to guard over you,’ 11 and, ‘they will bear you on hands, so you do not strike your foot on a stone.’” 12 Jesus replied and said to him. “It is said, ‘You shall not test out your Lord God.’” 13 The devil consummated every test, and desisted from him up till a time.

The interest in Jesus’ immersion and its connection with the Holy Spirit is characteristic of the Petrine stream (cf. Acts 10:37–38, cf. 2:38). Jesus’ baptism becomes paradigmatic of the baptism of believers in the time after the resurrection. The reference to the devil in Acts 10:38 reflects the kind of brief reference to testing by Satan that Mark provides, but the full narrative presented in Matthew and Luke represents the contribution of the Mishnaic stream in its later, apocalyptic phase. Enoch was said to have been brought on high for illumination (1 Enoch 87:3– 4): Those ones which had come out last seized me by my hand and took me from the generations of the earth, lifted me up into a high place, and showed me a high tower above the earth, and all the hills were firm. (One of them) said to me, “Stay here until you see everything that will happen to these elephants, camels, and donkeys, as well as to the stars and to the bovids—all of them.” In the case of Baruch, both Jerusalem (2Baruch 6:3) and a mountain (2 Baruch 76:3–4), the latter after forty days, are involved. Those places, however, are distinct from the wilderness, the point of departure in Matthew and Luke, and the sole reference in Mark. Mark offers a balanced reference to the Spirit from the Petrine stream within the story of Jesus’ baptism. The Mishnaic stream is organically related by means of the concern with testing, but taken in a more specific direction, reminiscent of Jubilees 17:15–18:

Analysis

69

And it came to pass in the seventh week, in its first year, in the first month, in that jubilee, on the twelfth of that month, that words came in heaven concerning Abraham that he was faithful in everything which was told him and he loved the Lord and was faithful in all affliction. And Prince Mastema came and he said before God, “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son. And he is more pleased with him than everything. Tell him to offer him (as) a burnt offering upon the altar. And you will see whether he will do this thing. And you will know whether he is faithful in everything in which you test him.” And the Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions because he tested him with his land, and with famine. And he tested him with the wealth of kings. And he tested him again with his wife, when she was taken (from him), and with circumcision. And he tested him with Ishmael and with Hagar, his maidservant, when he sent them away. And in everything in which he tested him, he was found faithful. And his soul was not impatient. And he was not slow to act because he was faithful and a lover of the Lord. Ritual immersion, cleansing, and the Holy Spirit are linked in the Community Rule (3:4–9; cf. Community Rulea 2:1–9). This dimension of meaning was explored for centuries later; Talmud Bavli, Qiddushin 83a–b: R. Meir would ridicule sinners. One day Satan appeared to him on the opposite side of a canal in the form of a woman. There being no ferry, he [Meir] grabbed a rope [stretched across the river] and proceeded across. When he had reached half way, [Satan] released him, saying, “If they had not proclaimed in Heaven, ‘Watch out for R. Meir and his Torah-learning,’ I would not have valued your life at two maahs.” R. Aqiba would ridicule sinners. One day Satan appeared to him on the top of a palm tree in the form of a woman. He was climbing up, till he got half way up the palm tree, when [Satan] released him, saying, “If they had not proclaimed in Heaven, ‘Watch out for R. Aqiba and his Torah-learning,’ I would not have valued your life at two maahs.” Every day Pelimo would be accustomed to say, “An arrow in the eyes of Satan.” One day, the eve of the Day of Atonement, Satan appeared to him in the guise of a poor man. [Satan] came and called at the door. They brought food out to him. [Satan] said to him, “On a day such as this, when everybody is inside, should I be outside?” They brought him in and served food to him. He said to them, “On such a day, when everybody is at the table, should I sit all by myself?” They brought him in and seated him at the table. While he was sitting there, his body was covered with suppurating sores, and he conducted himself in a dis-

70

Analysis

gusting way. [Pelimo] said to him, “Sit nicely.” He said to him, “Give me a cup of wine.” They gave a cup of wine to him. He coughed and spit the phlegm into it. They yelled at him. He fainted and died. They heard people saying, “Pelimo has killed a man, Pelimo has killed a man.” He fled, hiding out in a privy. [Satan] followed him in, and Pelimo fell before him. When [Satan] saw how troubled he was, he revealed himself to him. [Pelimo] said to him, “How come you go around saying this and that?” “So how am I supposed to talk?” He said to him, “May the All-Merciful rebuke Satan.” A characteristic “overlap” between presentations has been taken as a sign of sources, as B.H. Streeter observed.31 The setting of the developed dialogue between Jesus and the devil in the Mishnaic stream presupposes that Jesus has already acquired a following and a degree of authority, features of his later development rather than the early moment of his baptism.

31

See B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (Macmillan: London, 1924) 186–191, taken up afresh in Harry T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q. A Study of the Overlap Texts: Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 122 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995) and James Van Dore, “Evidence for a Relationship between Mark and Q,” Greco-Roman and Jewish Tributaries to the New Testament Festschrift in Honor of Gregory J. Riley (edited by Christopher S. Crawford; Claremont: Claremont Press, 2018) 45–70. On the formation and social location of the source, see Paul Foster, “Is Q a ‘Jewish Christian’ Document?” Biblica 94. 3 (2013) 368–394.

71

Analysis

Galilean Announcement; Call to Repentance and the Kingdom (Matthew and Mark); Isaiah 8:23–9:1 in Matthew; Synagogue Scene with Isaiah 61 and 58 Mixed in Luke, with Anger at Claim of Gentile Blessing Matthew 4:12–17

Mark 1:14–15

12 When he heard that John had been delivered over, he retreated into Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazara behind he went to and resided in Capernaum by the sea, in the boundaries of Zebulon and Naphtali, 14 that what was said through the prophet Isaiah should be fulfilled, when he says, 15 “Land of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations, 16 the people who dwell in darkness have seen great light, and to those who dwell in the region and shadow of death, light has dawned upon them.” 17 From then Jesus began to announce and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has approached.

14 After John was delivered over, 14 Jesus returned in the Jesus came into Galilee, announ- power of the Spirit into Gacing the message of God lilee, and fame went out into all the surrounding land concerning him. 15 He himself was teaching in their synagogues, glorified by all. 16 And he came to Nazara, where he had been nurtured, and he entered according to his custom on the day of the sabbaths into the synagogue. And he arose to read 17 and there was delivered to him a scroll, of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Lord’s Spirit is upon me, forasmuch as he 15 and saying—“The time has been anointed me to message trifilled, and the kingdom of God has umph to the poor. He delegapproached: repent and believe in ated me to proclaim release the message.” to captives and recovery of sight to blind, to dispatch the broken with release, 19 to announce an acceptable year of the Lord!” 20 He rolled the scroll, gave it back to the assistant, and sat. And of all, the eyes in the congregation were staring at him. 21 But he began to say to them: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears!” 22 And all attested him and marveled at the words of grace that proceeded out from his mouth, and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” 23 And he said

.

Luke 4:14–30

72

Analysis to them, “You will by all means say this comparison to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ As much as we heard happened in Capernaum, do also here, in your own country!” 24 But he said, “Amen I say to you that no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 Yet in truth I say to you, There were many widows in Israel during Elijah’s days, when the heaven was shut three years and six months, as a great famine came on all the land, 26 and to none of them was Elijah sent, except to Sarepta of Sidon, to a widow woman. 27 And there were many scabby people in Israel while Elisha was prophet, and none of them was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian.” 28 And all in the synagogue were filled with rage when they heard this; 29 they arose and threw him out, outside of the town, and led him to an edge of the mount on which their town was built, so as to hurl him down. 30 But he went through their midst and proceeded.

“Nazara,” the Aramaic form in both Matthew 4:13 and in Luke 4:16, might incline one to think in terms of a tradition derived from the Mishnaic stream, but there are substantial differences in the material each Gospel presents. More likely, each independently reflects a reminiscence of the Aramaic form of the name. Luke explains departure from Nazareth in terms of repeating a prophetic topos of being rejected, which accords with the pattern of Barnabas and Paul in Acts (see 13:46). Luke 4:14–15 strains this presentation by echoing the Petrine theme of Jesus’ fame (cf. for example, Matthew 9:26). The developed form of the Barnaban stream is reflected, just as the fulfillment of Scripture in Matthew is derived from the developed Silan stream. The reference to the

Analysis

73

scroll of Isaiah is reminiscent of usages at Qumran,32 with which the Barnaban stream from time to time reflects. The phrase “kingdom of God” in the Petrine stream (Mark 1:14–15)33 is in line with Melchizedek ii:15–25 from Qumran: This [ ] is the day of the [peace ab]out which he said [through Isa]iah the prophet who said: [“How] beautiful upon (the) mountains are the feet [of] the messen[ger who an]nounces peace, the mes[senger of good who announces salvati]on, [sa]ying to Zion, Your God [is king”] (Isaiah 52:7). Its interpretation: the mountains [are] the prophet[s]; they [ ] every [ ] And the “messenger” i[s] the anointed of the spir[it], as Dan[iel] said [about him: “Until an anointed, a prince, it is seven weeks” (Daniel 9:25). And the messenger of] good who announ[ces salvation] is the one about whom it is written, [ ]. “To comfo[rt] the [afflicted” (Isaiah 61:2), its interpretation:] to [in]struct them in all the ages of the w[orld in truth [ ] [ ] has turned away from Belial and shall retu[rn to ] [ ] in the judgement[s of] God, as is written about him: “[Saying to Zi]on: your God is king” (Isaiah 52:7). [Zi]on i[s] [the congregation of all the sons of justice, who] establish the covenant, who avoid walking [on the p]ath of the people. And your G[o]d is [Melchizedek who will fr]ee [them from the han]d of Belial. And as for what he said: And you shall blow the ho[rn in] all the [l]and (of) [ ] … 32

33

See R. Steven Notley, “Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel: An Inconvenient Truth,” The Language Environment of First Century Judaea. Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, Volume Two (edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 320–346, 332. In this otherwise useful study, Notley conflates a source that is “Hebraized,” “Hebraic,” and in Hebrew (see pp. 324–325, for example). Every contact with usages evidenced at Qumran need not have been in the Hebrew language, and need not have been expressed in Hebrew. Cf. A.M. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom: A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972); Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation (London: scm, 1976); Jean Carmignac, Le Mirage de l’Eschatologie. Royauté, Règne et Royaume de Dieu … sans Eschatologie (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979); Bruce Chilton, God in Strength. Jesus’ Announcement of the Kingdom: Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 1 (Freistadt: Plochl, 1979), reprinted in The Biblical Seminar of jsot (Sheffield: 1987); Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981); Odo Camponovo, Königtum: Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften: Orbis biblicus et orientalis 58 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984); George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); Christian Grappe, Le Royaume de Dieu: avant, avec et après Jésus (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2001); Craig A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005) 49–75.

74

Analysis

This understanding of Isaiah 52:7 is also reflected in the Targum, “the kingdom of your God is revealed,” where the phrase as also attributed to Jesus is inserted. Within the Barnaban stream, emphasis falls on the prophetic understanding of being anointed, a conception also prominent at Qumran; Damascus Document ii:2–13: [ ] He taught them through ⟨those⟩ anointed by the Holy Spirit, the seers of truth.

75

Analysis

First Calling of Disciples; Miraculous Catch as Metaphor of Call (in Luke alone), to Become Fishers of Men Matthew 4:18–22

Mark 1:16–20

Luke 5:1–11

18 Yet walking by the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon called Rock and Andrew his brother, casting rig into the sea, because they were fishers. 19 And he says to them, “Come on after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” 20 They at once left their nets and followed him. 21 He progressed from there and he saw another two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets, and he called them. 22 They at once left the boat and their father and followed him.

16 He passed along by the Sea of Galilee, and saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, rigcasting into the sea, because they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Come on after me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 At once, they left their nets and followed him. 19 He progressed a little and saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat mending their nets 20 and at once he called them. And leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the employees, they went away after him.

1

Yet it happened that the crowd

amassed upon him and they heard

and he was standing himself by the Lake of Gennesaret, 2 and he saw two boats standing by the lake; the fishers from them had got out and were washing the nets. 3 He embarked into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a bit from the land. He sat and from the boat he taught the crowds. 4 But when he stopped speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and lower your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon replied and said, “Master, the whole night we labored and took nothing, but on your oracle I will lower the nets.” 6 And doing this they hemmed in a great multitude of fish, yet their nets tore through. 7 And they signaled to the associates in the other boat to come take together with them, and they came and both the boats were filled so that they were sinking. 8 Simon Rock saw and fell on his knees before Jesus, saying, “Go away from me, because I am a man, a sinner, Lord!” 9 — since astonishment gripped him and all with him at the catch of the fish they were taking together, 10 and similarly also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were the word of God

76

Analysis partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear: from now you will be snaring people!” 11 And putting the boats into the land they left all; they followed him.

Jesus’ call to his disciples fits the model of the charismatic leader exemplified by Elijah’s call of Elisha (1Kings 19:19–21). The combination of the themes of the kingdom, repentance, belief, and discipleship reinforces the prophetic connections of the message and activity as a whole. The prophetic model, however, should be distinguished from the classic paradigm from the time of the Mishnah onward, where the emphases on learning the Torah, and on the decision of a student to learn the Torah from a master, predominate over the charismatic initiative of the prophet. Nonetheless, the theme of the disciple’s necessary humility in relation to the teacher remains a constant, as in Babylonian Talmud Sotah 5a: R. Ḥiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: A disciple of the Sages should possess an eighth [of pride]. R. Ḥuna the son of R. Joshua said: [This small amount of pride] crowns him like the awn of the grain. Raba said: [A disciple of the Sages] who possesses [haughtiness of spirit] deserves excommunication, and if he does not possess it he deserves excommunication. R. Naḥman b. Isaac said: “He should not possess it or part of it; is it a trifling matter concerning which it is written: ‘Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord!’ (Proverbs 16:5)?” Matthew and Mark each represent adaptation of the Petrine stream, with Matthew introducing specification of the status of the first four disciples as brothers (Matthew 4:18, 21). Although the innovative Matthean interest in duality goes beyond that, including two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28), two blind people (Matthew 9:27 and 20:29), and again sons or brothers (Matthew 20:21, 24; 26:37 cf. 21:28, 31), false witnesses (Matthew 26:60), and accused prisoners (Matthew 27:21). Luke, using the Barnaban stream, places a story in Luke 5:1–11 of Jesus instructing Simon how to fish, and then making him into a man-catcher early in the narrative of Jesus’ public acts; the story has attracted attention for its similarity to John 21:1–14. The sons of Zebedee are involved, as in John 21, and Peter’s identification of himself as a sinner (Luke 5:8) seems to presuppose a dramatic event such as Peter’s denial of Jesus.34 Luke’s Gospel places all appear34

Dale Allison, Resurrecting Jesus. The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New

Analysis

77

ances of the risen Jesus within Jerusalem and its environs, so that a motivation for retrojecting the narrative of the miraculous draught of fish into the early period of Jesus’ activity can easily be supplied. Because the Barnaban stream was homiletic, focusing on how the Law and the Prophets present a pattern that culminates in Jesus (see Luke 24:27), its original order was likely more discursive than narrative, perhaps along the lines of an analogy with John’s Gospel. For this reason, it may well have opened its account of Peter’s prophetic status with reference to the flawed loyalty that was nonetheless redeemed by his encounter with the risen Jesus. Because the stream cannot be assumed to be narrative, it is unnecessary to attribute apparent oddities of order to Luke. The prophetic interest in the evolved Barnaban stream associated with Symeon Niger stresses a feature of the metaphor of people as fish that anticipates the netting of gentiles. The breaking of the nets in 5:6, as well as the size of the crowd pressing on Jesus (v. 1), and the notice of the need for cooperation among colleagues in order to bring the haul in (v. 7) are evocative of the challenge of the widening circle of Jesus’ followers after the resurrection. The comparison with fish can also carry negative associations, as in Pesher Habakkuk 5:12–6:5: “You made men as helpless as fish in the sea, like something a worm could rule over.” He draws them [all] out [with a ho]ok, pulls them in with his net, gathers them with his dr[agnet. Therefore he sacrifices] to his net, therefore he is happy [and rejoi]ces [and burns incense to his dragnet; for by them] his lot in life [is enriched] [“and his food is wholesome” (1:14–16.) This refers to] the Kittim, and they added to their wealth by all their plunder like the fish of the sea. And when it says, “therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his dragnet,” [ ] this means that they sacrifice to their standards, and that their weapons are what they worship. Direct comparison with the Roman army is evidently not at issue in Luke or the other Synoptic Gospels, but the imagery of fish if open to comparison to the diversity and range of gentiles, a particular concern of the Barnaban stream.

York: T&T Clark, 2005) 254–259. Joseph A. Fitzmyer went so far as to refer to Luke 5:8 as a “suture-verse,” on the grounds that “one would expect a comment of awe or gratitude toward the wonder-worker rather than a confession of unworthiness;” Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke i–ix. Introduction, Translation, and Notes 1: Anchor Bible 28 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 561.

78

Analysis

Exorcism; Holy One of God; Silencing Demons, Amazement at Jesus’ Authority Mark 1:21–28

Luke 4:31–37

21 And they proceed into Capernaum. At once 31 And he came down into Capernaum, a town on the sabbaths he entered into the syn- of Galilee, and he was teaching them on sabagogue and taught.

22 And they were over-

baths

32 and they were overwhelmed at his

whelmed at his teaching, because he taught teaching, because his word was with authorthem as having authority, and not as the let- ity. 33 And there was in the synagogue a perterers.

23 And at once there was in the syn-

son having an unclean spirit, and he cried

agogue a person with an unclean spirit. He out with a great sound, cried out and said,

24 “We have nothing for

34 “Let be, we have

nothing for you, Nazarene Jesus! Have you

you, Nazarene Jesus! Have you come to des- come to destroy us? I know who you are— troy us? I know who you are—the holy one of the holy one of God!”

25 Jesus scolded it and said: “Shut up, and get out from him!” 26 The unclean spirit God!”

35

And Jesus scolded

it and said: “Shut up, and come out of him.” The unclean spirit tossed him in the midst

convulsed him, sounded with a big sound, and came out of him, without harming him. and got out from him. 27 And all were amazed.

36 And amazement came over everyone, and

Result: they argued together, saying, “What they spoke together with one another, saying, is this? A new teaching with authority! Even “What is this word? Because with authority the unclean spirits he directs, and they obey and power he directs the unclean spirits, and him.”

28

And his renown went out at once they come forth!”

37

And rumor concerning

everywhere, into all the surrounding region him proceeded out into every place of the surof Galilee.

rounding land.

The Magdalene stream offers a clean contribution to Mark and Luke. The stream contributed to the Gospel the stories contained in Mark 1:21–28; 5:1–13; 5:25–34; 7:31–37; 8:22–26; 9:14–29; 14:3–9; 15:42–47; 16:1–8,35 all of which involve Mary Magdalene and usually focus on exorcism, and was introduced by wording similar to Luke 8:2–3, where Mary appears as the only named beneficiary in the New Testament of Jesus’ activity as an exorcist.36 Matthew appears to

35 36

The source is discussed, and its material identified, in Bruce Chilton, Mary Magdalene. A Biography (New York: Doubleday, 2005) 35–38, 40–46, 90, 94, 107, 173, 203–206. In that this is the case, the argument that “Magdalene” originates not with a place, but rather with the alleged nickname “Tower-ess” bestowed by Jesus on Mary, seems unlikely; see Joan E. Taylor, “Missing Magdala and the Name ‘Magdalene,’ ” Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 146.3 (2014) 2-5-223, 208, 222. Her point that “tower” exerts metaphorical force is well taken, but Jesus’ nicknames typically have a point of departure. On the other hand,

Analysis

79

ignore the stream at this point, but in fact shows an awareness of the presentation (Matthew 4:23–25). In effect, Matthew condenses radically, in order to present the Sermon on the Mount at an early stage. When considered alongside texts from Qumran, the stream indicates that demonology and rites of expulsion were common in Second Temple Judaism. In the Song of the Sage A 1:1–9, the Instructor declares God’s power over demonic beings that may fall upon the sons of light and lead them astray: [ ] praises. Ble[ssings to the K]ing of Glory. Words of thanksgiving in psalms of [ ] to the God of knowledge, splendor of s[treng]th, the God of gods, Lord of all the holy ones. [His] domini[on] is over all the mighty strong ones, and by the power of His streng[th] all will be dismayed and scattered, running hurriedly from the majesty of the dwe[lling] of His royal glory. [ ] And I, the instructor, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers and [desert dwellers] and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their [ ] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of lig[ht], by the guilt of the ages of [those smitten] by iniquity—not for eternal destruction, [bu]t for an era of humiliation for transgression. [ ] Sing for joy, righteous ones, for the God of wonder. My psalms are for the upright. [ ] And [ let] all those who are blameless exalt him! The halakhic context of Mishnah Erubin 4:1 also offers an analogy with Mark: He whom gentiles took forth [beyond the sabbath limit], or an evil spirit, has only four cubits [in which to move about]. The point of the passage concerns the power of evil spirits over otherwise healthy people; the person affected by the evil spirit is unable to do anything about it.

Taylor’s caution that several places in the area (including Midgal Nunya, Magadan, and Dalmanoutha) might be the place in view seems appropriate. It might be the case that Mary’s place of origin, combined with Jesus’ difficulties in dealing with her possession, caused him to compare her to a tower that resists a siege.

80

Analysis

Peter’s Mother-in-Law Healed, with Relatively Late Placement in Matthew and Reference to Isaiah 53:4; Healing Summary Matthew 8:14–17; 4:23–25

Mark 1:29–39

14 Jesus came to the home of Peter 29 At once he went out from the and saw his mother-in-law was synagogue and came into the thrown and fevered, home of Simon and Andrew with James and John. 30 But Simon’s mother-in-law was lying down, fevered, and at once they talk to 15 and he touched her hand and him about her. 31 He came forthe fever released her and she was ward and raised her—grasping the raised and was providing for him. hand. And the fever left her, and 16 Yet as it had become evening, she was providing for them. 32 Yet they brought to him many demon- as it had become evening, when possessed, and he threw the spir- the sun set, they were bringing to its out with a word, and he healed him all those who were sick and all those that were sick, 17 so that those demon-possessed. 33 And what was said through Isaiah the whole town was gathered tothe prophet was fulfilled, gether at the door. saying, “He took our diseases and bore the illnesses.” 34 And he healed many that were [chapter 4] sick with various illnesses, and he threw out many demons, and 23 And he went around all Galilee, he did not let the demons speak, teaching in their synagogues and because they knew him. 35 Very— announcing the message of the at night—early, he arose and went kingdom and healing every ill- away into a wilderness place, and ness and every weakness among there he was praying. 36 And Simon the people. 24 And his renown and those with him pursued him, went away into all Syria, and they 37 and found him and say to him: brought forward to him all those “All are seeking you.” 38 And he who were sick with various ill- says to them, “We go elsewhere, nesses and beset with tor- into the surrounding villages, so ments: demon-possessed people that I might announce there also; and moon-mad and paralytics. because for this I came out.” 39 And And he healed them. 25 And many he came announcing came into crowds followed him from Galilee their synagogues in the whole of and Ten Cities and Jerusalem and Galilee and throwing out demons.

Luke 4:38–44 38 And arising from the synagogue he entered into the house of Simon. But Simon’s mother-in-law was beset with a big fever, and they asked him about her. 39 He stood over her and scolded the fever and it left her, and arising immediately she was providing for them. 40 As the sun set, everyone —as many as had those ailing with various illnesses—led them to him. On each one of them he laid hands and healed them.

41 Demons went out from many, but shouting and even saying, “You are the son of God!” He scolded and did not let them talk, because they knew he was the Anointed. 42 But when it became day, he went out and proceeded into a wilderness place, and the crowds sought him out and came there, and they constrained him not to proceed from them. 43 But he said to them: “In other towns also it is necessary for me to message the kingdom of God, because I was delegated for this.”44 And he was announcing in the synagogues of Judea.

Judea and beyond Jordan.

The Petrine stream reflects touching by way of therapy, associated with Elijah (1Kings 17:17–24) and Elisha (2Kings 4:18–37), and practiced with particular relation to hands into the time of the Talmud (Bavli Berakhot 5b):

Analysis

81

Ḥiyya bar Abba got sick. Rabbi Yoḥanan came to him. He said to him, “Are these sufferings precious to you?” He said to him, “I don’t want them; I don’t want their reward.” He said to him, “Give me your hand.” He gave him his hand, and he raised him up. Rabbi Yoḥanan got sick. Rabbi Ḥanina came to him. He said to him, “Are these sufferings precious to you?” He said to him, “I don’t want them; I don’t want their reward.” He said to him, Give me your hand. He gave him his hand and he raised him up. Why so? Rabbi Yoḥanan should have raised himself up? They say, “A prisoner cannot get himself out of jail.” Eliezer got sick. Rabbi Yoḥanan came to see him and found him lying in a dark room. He uncovered his arm, and light fell. He saw that Rabbi Eliezer was weeping. He said to him, “Why are you crying? Is it because of the Torah that you did not learn sufficiently? We have learned: All the same are the ones who do much and do little, so long as each person will do it for the sake of heaven. If it is because of insufficient income? Not everyone has the merit of seeing two tables, as you have. You have been a master of Torah and also have enjoyed wealth. Is it because of children? Here is the bone of my tenth son whom I buried, so it was no great loss not to have children, since you might have had to bury them.” He said to him, “I am crying because of this beauty of mine that will be rotting in the ground.” He said to him, “For that it certainly is worth crying,” and the two of them wept together. In the course of time, he said to him, “Are these sufferings precious to you?” He said to him, “I don’t want them; I don’t want their reward.” He said to him, “Give me your hand.” He gave him his hand, and he raised him up. The Matthean version of the story shows that the Silan connection with Jesus and the fulfilment of Scripture build upon the Petrine stream (cf. Matthew 4:17). The reference to Syria and the east side of the Jordan, on the other hand, reveal the geographical orientation of the Gospel as a whole (Matthew 4:24– 25). Lukan variations to some extent represent stylistic improvements, but in Luke 4:41 demonic knowledge of Jesus’ identity reflects the Petrine orientation (cf., for example, Mark 8:29–30), while Jesus’ designation as God’s Son in this setting represents the influence of the Barnaban stream (see Mark 3:11–12). The mention of exorcism in conjunction with healing and the laying on of hands that appears here in Luke coincides closely with the prayer of Abraham for Pharaoh and his house in the Genesis Apocryphon 20:26– 29:

82

Analysis

So he called me to himself and asked me, “What have you done to me because of your wife [Sar]ai? You told me, ‘She is my sister,’ yet she was actually your wife! I took her as my own wife! Here she is; take her, go, depart from all the provinces of Egypt! But first, pray for me and my house that this evil spirit may be exorcised from us.” So I prayed for him, that blasphemer, and laid my hands upon his [he]ad. Thereupon the plague was removed from him, the evil [spirit] exorcised [from him,] and he was healed. Joseph Fitzmyer has observed that the practice of laying on of hands does not appear in the Hebrew Bible or rabbinic literature,37 although the Talmudic passage cited above suggests that this finding is not categorically correct, even if generally pertinent. Thus, the earliest mention of this practice in a Jewish text appears in the Genesis Apocryphon. Luke connects healing and exorcism of evil spirits with the laying on of hands, but does not here connect the idea of intercessory prayer in connection with the healings and exorcisms performed by Jesus.

37

Joseph Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2004[3rd Edition]). Here Fitzmyer follows David Flusser, “Healing through the Laying-on of Hands in a Dead Sea Scroll,” Israel Exploration Journal, 7.2 (1957) 107–108.

83

Analysis

A “Leper” Cleansed; a Wilderness Period in Mark and Luke Matthew 8:1–4

Mark 1:40–45

Luke 5:12–16

1 Yet when he had come down from 40 There comes to him a scabby the mountain, many crowds fol- man, summoning him and saying lowed him. 2 And look: a scabby to him: “If you want, you are able person comes forward to worship to cleanse me.” 41 Moved to his gut, him, saying, “Lord, if you want, he stretched the hand and touched you are able to cleanse me.” 3 He him and says to him, “I want: be stretched the hand and touched cleansed.” 42 And at once the scab him, saying, “I want: be cleansed.” went away from him, and he was And at once his scab was cleansed. cleansed. 43 He censured him and 4 And Jesus says to him, “See, talk at once he threw him out, 44 and to no one, but depart, show your- says to him, “Look, say nothing to self to the priest and offer the gift anyone, but depart, show yourself which Moses directed, for testi- to the priest and offer concernmony to them.” ing your cleansing what Moses directed, for testimony to them.” 45 But he went out and began to . announce a lot and to spread the word. Result: he was no longer able

12 And it happened that he was in one of the towns and look: a man full of scab. He saw Jesus and fell upon his face, petitioned him saying, “Lord, if you want, you are able to cleanse me.” 13 He stretched the hand and touched him, saying, “I want: be cleansed.” And at once the scab went away from him. 14 And he personally charged him talk to no one, but: “Go away, show yourself to the priest and offer concerning your cleansing just as Moses directed, for testimony to them.” 15 But the word rather went about concerning him, and many crowds came together to hear and to be healed from their ailments. 16 Yet to enter openly into a town, but he personally was retreating in wilwas outside in wilderness places, dernesses and praying. and they were coming to him from everywhere.

Leviticus 13–14 assumes that “outbreak” (sara‘at) comes and goes and that its presence and absence can be detected. When the issue is “outbreak” in humans (as distinct from cloth and houses), it is clear that the great concern, and the cause of uncleanness, is broken flesh (13:15). “The scabby man” in Mark falls into the classification of the person afflicted with the skin ailment called sara’at, still conventionally mistranslated “leprosy” but clearly not the same as Hansen’s Disease. The skin ailment is taken in Tosefta Negaim 6:7 to represent a consequence of gossiping or other anti-social conduct: He comes to the priest, and the priest says to him: My son, Go and examine yourself and return [from your evil ways]. For plagues come only because of gossip, and scab comes only to those who are arrogant. And the Omnipresent judges man only in mercy. Lo, they [plagues] come on his house: [if] he repents, it requires dismantling; and if not, it requires demolishing. Lo, they appear on his clothing: [if] he repents, it requires tearing; and if not, it requires burning. Lo, they appear on his body: [if] he repents, he repents; and if not, Solitary shall he dwell; outside of the camp is his dwelling [Leviticus 13:46].

84

Analysis

The Qumran sectarians recapitulate various biblical laws regarding sara’at with halakhic application and without great variation. Jesus, not himself a priest, recognizes the Scriptural injunction that the priest declare the person clean and yet preempts the priestly decision. In Mishnah Negaim 3:1 sages determine the status of the afflicted party, and they instruct the priest what to say, but the priest alone is permitted to declare the decision as to the man’s status: All are made unclean by plagues except for the gentiles and a resident alien. All are suitable to examine the plagues. But the [actual declaration of] uncleanness and cleanness is in the hands of a priest. They say to him, “Say, Unclean,” and he says, “Unclean;” say, “Clean,” and he says, “Clean.” Damascus Document 13.4–7 takes a similar position: … But if it is a case of the law of skin-diseases, then the priest must come and be present in the camp, and the overseer shall instruct him in the details of the Law, [ ] and even if the priest is ignorant, it is he who must isolate the one suffering from skin-disease, because that duty is the priests’ alone. The priest’s actions appear to consist solely in the acts of official, communal declaration of disease and the final deposition of the afflicted party.

85

Analysis

Healing of the Paralytic; Dispute in regard to Who Can Forgive Sins; Son of Man’s Authority Matthew 9:1–8

Mark 2:1–12

1

1 He entered again into Caper- 17 It happened in one of the days naum for days and it was heard that he himself was teaching and that he was in house. 2 And many there were Pharisees and lawyers were gathered together. Result: it who had come from every village no longer held, even by the door, of Galilee and Judaea and Jerus-

He embarked into a boat and

crossed, and came into his own town.

and he was speaking the word to

2 And look: they carried forward to them. 3 And there come those carhim a paralytic left upon a mat. rying to him a paralytic, lifted by four. 4 They were not able to carry through to him because of the crowd, and they unroofed the roof where he was, and digging up, they lower the litter where the paraJesus saw their faith and said to lytic was lying down. 5 Jesus sees the paralytic, “Be brave, child, your their faith, and says to the parasins have been released!” lytic, “Child, your sins are released.” 3 And look: some of the letter- 6 But some of the letterers were ers said among themselves, “He sitting there and deliberating in curses!” their hearts, 7 “Because he speaks like this, he curses! Who is able to release sins except one—God?!” 4 Jesus saw their thoughts and said, 8 At once Jesus recognizes in his “To what purpose do you pon- spirit that they were deliberating der evil things in your hearts? 5 among themselves and says, “Why Because what is easier, to say, ‘Your are you deliberating these things sins have been released,’ or to say, in your hearts? 9 What is easier, ‘Raise and walk around’? to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are released’, or to say—‘Raise, lift your litter and walk about?’ 10 But 6 But so that you may know that so that you may know that the son the son of man has authority upon of man has authority to release the earth to release sins”—then sins upon the earth.” He says to he says to the paralytic: “Raise, the paralytic: 11 “To you I say, Raise, take your mat and depart into your lift your litter and depart into your house!” 7 He was raised and went house.” 12 He was raised and at away into his house. once lifted the litter, and he went out before all.

Luke 5:17–26

alem; and the Lord’s power was in

18 And look: men carrying on a mat a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to carry him in and set him before him. 19 Not finding means, how they could carry him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof, let him down through the tiles with the stretcher into the midst, before Jesus. 20 He saw their faith, and said, “Man, your sins have been released,” 21 and the letterers and the Pharisees began to deliberate, saying, “Who is he who speaks curses?! Who is able to release sins except only God?” 22 Jesus recognized their thoughts and replied, said to them, “Why are you deliberating in your hearts? 23 What is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been released,’ or so say— ‘Raise and walk about’? him to cure.

24 But so that you may know that the son of man has upon the earth authority to release sins.” He said to the paralyzed man: “To you I say, Raise, and take up your stretcher, and proceed to your house.” 25 He immediately arose before them, taking what he had lain on, and went away to his house, glorifying 8 The crowds saw and were afraid, Result: all were beside themselves God. 26 And ecstasy took everyone and glorified God, who had given and glorified God, because—“We and they glorified God and were such authority to men. have never seen like this!” filled with fear, saying, “We have seen wonders today.”

86

Analysis

Qumran texts contain a precedent for the healer as intercessor for forgiveness; Prayer of Nabonidus 1.2–4.1: With the evil disease I was smitten for seven years and was made unlike a man. And I prayed to God Most High and a spell-caster released my sins for him [God]. He was a Jewish man from among the exiles and he said to me, Make it known and write it down, to give glory and great honor to the name of God Most High. And so I have written, I was smitten with the evil disease in Teima, and I was made unlike a man for seven years. I prayed to all the gods of silver and gold, of bronze and iron, of wood and stone and clay from the time that I thought that these were gods who would be able to cure me … apart from them I became strong again … The restriction to God alone as having the authority to forgive sins, on the other hand, may derive from a straightforward reading of the Scriptures of Israel (Exodus 34:6–7; Isaiah 43:25; 44:22). The objection seems theoretical, because Jesus “recognizes in his spirit that they were deliberating among themselves” (Mark 2:8), cf. the Septuagint’s characterization of God as “knower of hearts” (1 Samuel 16:7; 1Kings 8:39; Psalm 7:9 [lxx 10]; Jeremiah 11:20). Among the Qumran sectarians, a permanently crippled person is to be excluded from the congregation (Rule of the Congregation ii:3–9, see also War Scroll 7:4–5), being considered unclean: No man who suffers from a single one of the uncleannesses that affect humanity shall enter their assembly; neither is any man so afflicted to receive an assignment from the congregation. No man with a physical handicap—crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh—or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation—may en[ter] to take a place [i]n the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation. For the holy angels are [a part of] their [congrega]tion. The amazement of the crowd in Mark’s account perhaps stems from the supposedly permanent character of the man’s condition. The Petrine stream notably presents the purification of the man with outbreak (Mark 1:40–45) prior to the healing of the paralytic. One famous ḥasid, a contemporary of Jesus who lived near Nazareth, named Ḥanina ben Dosa, said his prayer would be fluent if what he was praying for was something God accepted (Mishnah Berakoth 5:5):

Analysis

87

They said concerning R. Ḥaninah b. Dosa, When he would pray for the sick he would say: This one shall live or: This one shall die. They said to him, How do you know? He said to them, If my prayer is fluent, then I know that it is accepted; but if not, I know that it is rejected. Forgiveness, however, not prayer, was Jesus’ principal technique of healing in the Petrine understanding. “Your sins are released,” became his characteristic declaration to those who were healed by his touch; and his typical advice afterward, “sin no more,” was complementary to that. His language reflects the Judaic conception of sin as constraint, a binding of one’s natural capacity. To release sin—and “release” is what the terms in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic that are traditionally rendered as “forgive” actually mean—was therefore to break apart an incapacitating shackle. The Petrine stream is suffused with the conviction, grounded in the Resurrection, that Jesus confers forgiveness of sins as well as Holy Spirit (Acts 3:38).

88

Analysis

Call of Matthew (Matthew) or Levi (Mark and Luke); Dispute in regard to Jesus’ Association with Sinners, with Reference to Hosea 6:6 in Matthew; Call to Sinners Matthew 9:9–13

Mark 2:13–17

9 Jesus went along from there

13 And he went out

Luke 5:27–32 again by the

sea, and all the crowd were com-

14 He went along and saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the taxagency, and he says to him, “Follow me.” He arose and followed him.15 And happens he was lying down in his home, and there were many tax-agents and sinners reclining together with Jesus and his students; because they were many, and they followed him. 16 The letterers of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and taxagents, and were saying to his students: “He eats with tax-agents and sinners!” 17 Jesus heard and says to them, “The vigorous do not have need of a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call righteous, but sinners.” ing to him, and he taught them.

and saw a man sitting at the taxagency, called Matthew, and says to him, “Follow me.” He arose and followed him. 10 And it happened he was reclining for a meal in the home, and look: many taxagents and sinners had come to recline together with Jesus and his students. 11 The Pharisees saw and were saying to his students, “For what reason does your teacher eat with tax-agents and sinners? 12 He heard and said, The vigorous do not have need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Proceed, and learn what this is: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ Because I have not come to call righteous, but sinners.”

27 And after this he went out and observed a tax-agent, Levi by name, sitting at the tax agency, and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 Leaving everything, he arose and followed him. 29 And Levi made a huge repast for him in his home, and there was a big crowd of tax-agents and others who were lying down with them. 30 And the Pharisees and their letterers complained to his students, saying, “For what reason do you eat and drink with tax-agents and sinners?” 31 Jesus replied and said to them, “Those who are healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Tax agents in Mishnah Tohorot 7:6 are assumed to handle objects in the house and so to impart uncleanness to the contents of the house: The tax agents who entered the house—the house is unclean. If there is a gentile with them, they are believed to state, “We did not enter.” But they are not believed to state, “We entered, but we did not touch.” The thieves who entered the house—unclean is only the place [trodden by] the feet of the thieves. And what do they render unclean? The foods, and the liquids, and clay utensils that are open. But the couches and the seats and clay utensils that are sealed with a tight seal are clean. If there is a gentile with them, or a woman, everything is unclean. That understanding could explain why some noted that Jesus ate with taxagents; it was a signal that he did not eat his food in a condition of cultic

Analysis

89

cleanness, in the same manner as the Pharisees and others did (cf. also 1 Maccabees 1:62–63). A rabbi’s acceptance of a tax agent as a student makes the issue programmatic, an especially notable development, since taxation was an emblem of Roman hegemony (Pesher Habakkuk v:16—vi: 8): [This refers to] the Kittim, and they added to their wealth by all their plunder like the fish of the sea. And when it says, ‘Therefore he sacrifices to his net and burns incense to his dragnet’ (Habakkuk 1:16), [ ] this means that they sacrifice to their standards, and that their weapons are what they worship. ‘For by them his lot in life is enriched and his food is wholesome’ (Habakkuk 1:17) means that they impose their yoke and their taxes; this is “their food” on all the peoples yearly, thus ruining many lands. The extension of the principle of purity, already evident in Mark 1:40–45, is pursued in this section of the Petrine stream. Matthew 9:13a represents a Jacobean addition, an early form of the motif of Scriptural fulfillment. The name Matthew in v. 9 came to be associated with the first Gospel as a whole and derives from the Silan expansion of James’ stream. The aim of changing the name from Levi, however, is probably designed less as an assertion of authorship than as a means to avoid the scandal of a descendant of priests involved with taxation. Otherwise, the representation of the Petrine stream is direct. Lukan variations might be understood as editorial, but the influence is from the Barnaban stream in emphasizing Levi’s generosity and the need for repentance.

90

Analysis

Dispute in regard to Fasting, with Metaphors of Bridegroom, Mending Garments, Wineskins, and (in Luke’s Case) Wine Matthew 9:14–17

Mark 2:18–22

Luke 5:33–39

14 Then the students of John come forward to him, saying, For what reason do we and the Pharisees fast, but your students do not fast? 15 And Jesus said to them, The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them!

18 And the students of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and they come and say to him, “For what reason do the students of John and the students of the Pharisees fast, but your own do not fast?” 19 And Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them! As much time as they have the bridegroom with them, they are not able to fast. 20 But days will come when the bridegroom will be lifted away from them, and then they will fast in that day. 21 No one sews a patch of new unshrunk material on an old garment. But if so, the filling lifts from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear happens. 22 And no one puts new wine into old skins. But if so, the wine will burst the skins and the wine and the skins are ruined. But new wine into new skins!”

33 But they said to him, “The students of John fast frequently and make petitions, similarly also the Pharisees’: but yours eat and drink!” 34 But Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests while the bridegroom is with them cannot make fast!

But days will come when the bridegroom will be lifted away from them, and then they will fast!

16 No one puts a patch of new unshrunk material on an old garment. Because the filling lifts from the garment, and a worse tear happens. 17 Neither do they put new wine into old skins. But indeed if so, the skins are burst and the wine is poured out and the skins are ruined. But they put new wine into new skins, and both are preserved together.

35 But days will come, and when the bridegroom will be lifted away from them, then they will fast in those days.” 36 And he was also saying a comparison to them: “No one tears a patch from a new garment, puts it on an old garment! But if indeed so, the new will tear and the patch from the new does not agree with the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old skins. But if indeed so, the new wine will burst the old and it will be poured out and the skins will be ruined. 38 But new wine is put into new skins. 39 No one drinking old wants new, because he says, ‘The old is good.’ ”

.

Weddings were times of rejoicing, and only bitter tragedy would lead to mourning at such an occasion (1Maccabees 1:27, 39; 9:39–41; 3 Maccabees 4:6; Josephus, The Jewish War 6 §§300–301). The metaphor of wine as friendship (Sirach 9:10) might be in play within the passage. When first published, the sectarian text 4Q502, was called Ritual of Marriage (see 10:3–15):38

38

M. Baillet, Qumran grotte 4, iii (4Q482–4Q520): Discoveries in the Judean Desert vii (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) 81–105, pls. xxix–xxxiv.

Analysis

91

[Blessed be the God of Israel who to this] time of joy to praise His name [ ] their adults and youths [ ] their [r]ams and go[ats] from our flocks and from the creeping things [cre]eping under our shadow and the birds [that fly in ]our[ sky] and our soil and all its produce] [and al]l the fruit of the tree and our water [ ] and the waters of its deeps, all of us [blessing] the name of the God of Israel w[ho has given us this fes]tival for our joy and also [ ] season of thanks[giving] among the righteous adults[ ] in peace [ ] giving thanks to God and praising [ ] brothers to me, adults [ble]ssed among us [ ] holy [ ] elders of the Most [Ho]ly Place [to]day I am [blessing] the God of Israel [ ] [ ] kno[wledgeable a]dults [ ] Such a definitive contextual setting for the text is likely overstated, and alternative ritual occasions have been suggested for the text’s setting.39 At the same time, the festive dimension is unmistakable and would apply in the case of marriage. The naturalness of the metaphor of marriage extended well into the Rabbinic period (see Bavli Ḥagigah 14b); Now when this was told to R. Joshua, he and R. Yose the priest were walking on the way. They say, “Let us too expound the works of the chariot.” R. Joshua gave the first exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice, but the heavens became overcast with clouds, and some sort of a rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels got together and came to listen, like people who get together and come to enjoy the entertainments that are made for the groom and bride. Mishnah Kelim 27:13 helps account for why the image of a cloth suited a discussion of purity, as in all the Synoptic Gospels: [A piece of cloth] three-by-three [handbreadths] that was torn, if one put it on the chair and his flesh touches the chair, is clean. And if not, it is unclean. [A piece of cloth] three-by-three [fingerbreadths] from which one thread wore away, or on which was found a knot, or two threads running alongside each other, is clean. [A piece of cloth] three-by-three

39

S.W. Crawford, “Not According to Rule: Women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran,” Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds., Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields, with the Assistance of Eva Ben-David; Leiden & Boston: E.J. Brill, 2003) 127–150. See also J.M. Baumgarten “4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?” jjs 34 (1983) 125–135.

92

Analysis

[fingerbreadths] which one threw into the rubbish heap is clean. [If] one took it back, it is unclean. Always does throwing it out purify it and recovering it render it unclean, except for [cloth] of purple or of good crimson. R. Eliezer says, “Also a new patch is like them.” R. Simeon says, “They are all clean. These [items] were mentioned only because of returning lost property.” For all the agreement evident among the three Synoptic Gospels, the conclusions reached in Matthew and Luke differ from one another, and from Mark. Luke’s closing note of preference for old wine (Luke 5:39) is consistent with Mishnah Avot 4:20: Rabbi says, “Do not look at the bottle but at what is in it. You can have a new bottle full of old wine, and an old bottle which has not got even new wine.” Luke’s statement of preference for old wine is a case of expressing why some will not change when something fresh is being offered, as the addition in v. 33 also suggests. The contrast at the close does not directly reflect Luke’s perspective, given the previous sayings in this pericope. In this case, the Barnaban stream characterizers opponents, reflecting the contribution of Luke’s Antioch. On the other hand, Matthew’s preservationist concern (Matthew 9:17) accords more with Mishnah Taanit 1:4–7: [If] the seventeenth day of Marḥeshvan came and rain did not fall, individuals began to fast a sequence of three fasts [Monday, Thursday, Monday]. They eat and drink once it gets dark. And they are permitted to work, bathe, anoint, put on a sandal, and have sexual relations. [Once] the new moon of Kislev has come and rain has not fallen, the court decrees a sequence of three fasts for the whole community. They eat and drink once it gets dark. And they are permitted to work, bathe, anoint, put on a sandal, and have sexual relations. Once these [fasts] have gone by and they have not been answered, the court decrees a sequence of three more fasts for the community. They eat and drink [only] while it is still day [on the day prior to the fast]. And they are forbidden [on the fast] to work, bathe, anoint, put on a sandal, and have sexual relations. And they lock the bathhouses. [If] these [further fasts] have passed and they have not been answered, the court decrees a sequence of seven more fasts for them, which then add up to thirteen fasts for the community. Lo, these [further fasts] are still more stringent than the first ones, for on these they sound

Analysis

93

the shofar, and they lock up the stores. On Mondays they partially open [the stores] after dark. And on Thursdays they are permitted [to open them all day long] because of the honor owing to the sabbath. [If] these too have passed and they have not been answered, they cut down on commerce, building, planting, the making of betrothals and marriages, and on greeting one another, like people subject to divine displeasure. Individuals go back and fast until the end of Nisan. [Once] Nisan has ended, [if] it then rains, it is a sign of a curse, since it says, “Is it not wheat harvest today? I will call unto the Lord, that he send thunder and rain, and you shall know and see that great is your wickedness which you have done in the sight of God to ask a king for yourself” (1 Samuel 12:17). In a similar way, Damascus, by means of the Silan revision of James’ stream, contributes the conclusion in Matthew that both fasting and celebration may and should be preserved. Mark appears closest to the Petrine stream in an unabashed joy of celebration, somewhat in the manner of 4Q502, preserving practices of abstinence or criticizing them. At the same time, a perspective that includes the death of Jesus is clearly maintained.

94

Analysis

Dispute over Plucking Grain on Sabbath; Comparison to David and the Bread of Presentation, with Appeal to Priests’ Work and Hosea 6:6 in Matthew; Son of Man as Lord of the Sabbath Matthew 12:1–8

Mark 2:23–28

Luke 6:1–5

1 In that time Jesus proceeded on the sabbaths through the sowings, and his students hungered, and they began to pick heads and to eat. 2 The Pharisees saw and said to him, “Look: your students do what it is not right to do on sabbath!” 3 But he said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he hungered, and those with him? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the bread of the presentation—which it was not allowable for him to eat nor those with him, but for the priests alone? 5 Or have you not read in the law that the priests in the sanctuary on the sabbaths profane the sabbath and are innocent? 6 Yet I say to you that there is here something greater than the sanctuary! 7 But if you knew what this is: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not condemn the innocent! 8 For the son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

23 And it happened he was proceeding on the sabbaths through the sowings, and his students began to make a way, picking the heads. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “See: why are they doing on the sabbaths what is not right?!” 25 And he says to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need and hungered, himself and those with him? 26 He entered into the house of God (Abiathar high priest) and ate the bread of the presentation —that is not right to eat except for the priests—and gave also to those who were with him.” 27 And he was saying to them, “The sabbath happened for man and not man for the sabbath.

1 Yet it happened on sabbath he proceeded across through sowings, and his students were picking and eating the heads, rubbing with hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not right on the sabbaths?!” 3 Jesus replied and said to them, “Have you not read this either, what David did when he hungered, himself and those with him? 4 He entered into the house of God and took the bread of the presentation; he ate and gave to those with him that which is not right to eat except alone for the priests!”

28 Result: the son of the man is lord 5 And he was saying to them, “The even of the sabbath!” son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Jesus’ argument as recounted in the passage rests on the principle that the sabbath is delivered for God’s people rather than the reverse (Mekhilta 31:13 [109b]): Rabbi Simon b. Menasiah says: Behold it says: And you shall keep the sabbath for it is holy unto you (Exodus 31:14). This means: The sabbath is given to you but you are not surrendered to the sabbath. Nonetheless, the invocation of the right to harvest crops for food on the sabbath contrasts with the careful provision made by the Rabbinic halakhah for

Analysis

95

the protection of the sanctity of the sabbath, as a memorial to creation (Exodus 20:8–11) and to the liberation from bondage (Deuteronomy 5:12–15). Sanctification of the sabbath is clearly marked within early Judaism, and so must not be regarded as a Rabbinic innovation; see Jubilees 2:25–33: He created heaven and earth and everything that he created in six days. And the Lord made the seventh day holy for all of his works. Therefore he commanded concerning it, Let everyone who will do any work therein die. And also whoever defiles it let him surely die. And you, command the children of Israel, and let them guard this day so that they might sanctify it and not do any work therein, and not defile it because it is more holy than any day. And everyone who pollutes it let him surely die. And anyone who will do any work therein, let him surely die forever so that the children of Israel might guard this day throughout their generations and not be uprooted from the land because it is a holy day and a blessed day. And every man who guards it and keeps therein a sabbath from all his work will be holy and blessed always like us. Make known and recount to the children of Israel the judgment of the day that they should keep the sabbath thereon and not forsake it in the error of their hearts. And (make known) that it is not permitted to do work thereon which is unlawful, (it being) unseemly to do their pleasure thereon. And (make known) that they should not prepare thereon anything which will be eaten or drunk, which they have not prepared for themselves on the sixth day. And (make known that it is not lawful) to draw water or to bring in or to take out any work within their dwellings which is carried in their gates. And they shall not bring in or take out from house to house on that day because it is more holy and it is more blessed than any day of the jubilee of jubilees. On this day we kept the sabbath in heaven before it was made known to any human to keep the sabbath thereon upon the earth. The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the sabbath thereon upon the earth. And the Creator of all, who created this day for a blessing and sanctification and glory, blessed it more than all days. This law and testimony was given to the children of Israel as an eternal law for their generations. It might be that the meagre amount of grain taken by the disciples (only handfuls) shows that their action is not a deliberate harvest, but merely for an immediate need. The Jacobean stream makes this explicit (Matthew 12:1), although Luke 6:1 reflects the Barnaban stream in specifying the work involved. In any

96

Analysis

case, the advanced form of the stream related to James makes an argument on the basis of Jesus’ superiority to the Temple, together with the assertion that the Torah requires priestly work on the sabbath (Numbers 28:9–10). This reflects sharp tensions with major institutions of Judaism in the time of Silas.

97

Analysis

Dispute over Healing on the Sabbath; Argument of Sheep in Danger (in Matthew Alone); What Is Right to Do on the Sabbath?; Pharisees’ Reaction Matthew 12:9–14 9

Luke 6:6–11

1 And he entered again into synagogue; and a man was there having the hand dried. 2 And they were scrutinizing him, if on the sabbaths he will heal him, so that they could accuse him.

6 Yet it happened on another sabbath he entered again into the synagogue and taught; and there was a man and his right hand was dry. 7 But the letterers and the Pharisees were scrutinizing him, if on the sabbath he heals, so that they might find cause to accuse him.

He transferred from there and

10 and look: a man having a dry hand. And they interrogated him, saying, “Is it right to heal on the sabbaths?”—so that they could accuse him. 11 But he said to them, “What man of you will there be that will have one sheep, and if it falls on the sabbaths into a pit, will not grab hold of it and raise it? 12 So how much more does a man matter than a sheep!?” Result: it is right to behave well on the sabbaths. 13 Then he says to the man, “Stretch out the hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored—healthy as the other. 14 The Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. went into their synagogue,

.

Mark 3:1–6

3 And he says to the man having the dry hand, “Raise—into the middle!” 4 And he says to them, “Is it right on the sabbaths to do good or to do bad, to save a life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 He glared around at them with rage, grieving at their hardness of heart, and says to the man, “Stretch out the hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out at once with the Herodians and gave counsel against him, how they might destroy him.

8 He himself knew their thoughts, and said to the man having the dry hand, “Raise—and stand in the middle.” He arose and stood. 9 But Jesus said to them, “I interrogate you, whether it is right on the sabbath to do good or to do bad, to save life or to destroy?” 10 He glared around at them all and said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did, and his hand was restored. 11 But they were filled with senselessness, and talked through with one another what they might do with Jesus.

The issue of keeping the sabbath in Mark 1:21–28; 2:23–28 has steadily mounted to the present, third instance, to the point that it becomes a mortal issue according to Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:9 (cf. the softer statement in Luke 6:11). This intermediate climax, capped by the intent of Jesus’ opponents to destroy him involves combining the Magdalene and Petrine streams in Mark, but the latter has already set out this direction. Jesus, as the recipient of God’s Spirit (Mark 1:9–13), preaches (1:14–15, 39), calls followers (1:16–20), heals (1:20– 38), conveys purity (1:39–45), forgives sin in the context of healing (2:1–12), and redefines how purity is to be preserved (2:13–17, 18–22) and the sabbath is to be kept (2:23–3:6). These appear to be living issues for the Petrine com-

98

Analysis

munity; they are well articulated in narrative terms as well as by means of dialog, and their presentation is well maintained across the Synoptic Gospels. The saying attributed to Jesus takes for granted that one may sustain life on the sabbath day. The Rabbinic law concurs that one may override the restrictions of the sabbath in order to save a human life, but one may not harvest crops or prepare food on the sabbath day; see for example Mishnah Shabbat 18:3: They do not deliver the young of cattle on the festival, but they help out. And they do deliver the young of a woman on the sabbath. They call a midwife for her from a distant place, and they violate the sabbath on her [the woman in childbirth’s] account. And they tie the umbilical cord. Rabbi Yose says, “Also: They cut it.” Qumran observance is reflected in Miscellaneous Rules 6:2–8, which allows for the rescue of human life on the sabbath but restricts the type of activity that can be performed in the attempt: On the sabbath day let no [man put on] soiled [garment]s. Let no man [wea]r garments wh[ich] have dust or [lint] on them on the day [ ] of the sabbath [ ] Let no ma[n] ca[rry out] any vessel or foo[d] from his tent on the day [ ] of the sabbath [ ]. Let no man raise up an animal which falls into the water on the sabbath day. And if it is a human being that falls into the water [on] the sabbath [day], let him cast his garment to him to raise him up therewith, but an implement he may not carry [to raise him up on] the sabbath [day]. Jesus, precisely in being more comparable to Pharisees than to the covenanters, enters more into dispute with the latter. The Pharisaic group called “the Herodians” must have enjoyed the protection of Herod and his house; the authorities referred to in Rabbinic literature as the “sons of Batera” (see Bavli Baba Mesia 84a–85a) may also have been such a group. It is interesting to note, too, that in the thought of Qumran physical defects meant disqualification from participation in holy war (cf. War Scroll 7:4–6, esp. line 4–5: “no lame, blind, paralysed person … shall go out with them”) and sitting at places of honor in the great messianic banquet (cf. Rule of the Congregationa 2:5–9, esp. lines 5–6: “paralysed in his feet or in his hands”). Evidently the priestly restrictions of Leviticus 21:17–21 (cf. v. 19: “a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand”) were applied to the general membership, at least in certain settings of great religious and/or eschatological importance.

Analysis

99

The halakhah from Qumran is disputed in Matthew 12:11–12, where the version found in the Damascus Document 9.13–14 may be in mind: No one should help an animal give birth on the sabbath; [ ] and if it falls into a well or a pit, he may not lift it out on the sabbath. The Jacobean community speaks against a rival group in this case, an indication that Essenes were predominate in the originating city of James’ stream. By contrast, Luke’s version ends on a generalizing note reminiscent of 2 Timothy 3:8–9. Luke’s Gospel is also informed by a cognate version, from the augmented Barnaban stream, which follows.

100

Analysis

In Luke, a Dispute over Healing a Woman on the Sabbath, and Summaries in regard to Healing (with Reference to Exorcisms in Mark and Luke) and Isaiah 42 in Matthew Luke 13:10–17 10 He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbaths, 11 and look — there was a woman having a spirit of disease eighteen years and bent over and unable to straighten up completely. 12 Jesus saw her, shouted and said to her, “Woman, you are released from your disease.” 13 And he laid hands on her and she immediately was made erect and glorified God. 14 The synagogue leader responded, indignant that Jesus healed on the sabbath, and was saying to the crowd, “There are six days when it is required to work, so come during those for healing, and not on the day of the sabbath!” 15 But the Lord answered him and said, “Frauds! Doesn’t each of you on sabbath release his ox or his donkey from the trough and lead him for drinking? 16 And this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound eighteen years, was it not required for her to be released from this bond on the day of the sabbath?” 17 All opposing him were ashamed as he said this, and all the crowed rejoiced at all the wonders done by him. Matthew 12:15–21

Mark 3:7–12

Luke 6:17–19

15 Jesus knew, and retreated from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all, 16 and he scolded them so that they would not make him acclaimed, 17 so that what was said through the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled, saying, 18 “Look: my youth, whom I cherish, my beloved, in whom my life takes pleasure, I will place my Spirit upon him, and he will announce judgment to the gentiles.19 He will neither quarrel nor scream, nor will anyone hear his voice in the roads, 20 a

7 And Jesus with his students retreated to the sea, and a big throng from Galilee followed him — and from Judea 8 and from Jerusalem and from Idumea and the other side of the Jordan, and around Tyre and Sidon — a big throng, hearing how much he was doing, came to him. 9 And he spoke to his students, so a boat would be engaged for him because of the crowd, so they would not crush him, 10 because he healed many. Result: as many as had plagues fell on him so they

17

He came down with them and

stood on a level place—and a big

crowd of his students, and a big throng of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, 18 who came to hear him and to be cured from their illnesses. And those troubled by unclean spirits were healed, 19 and all the crowd sought to touch him, because power came out from him and cured everyone.

101

Analysis crushed papyrus he will not break, a guttering wick he will not extinguish, until he put the judgment out in victory, 21 and the gentiles will hope in his name.”

could touch him. 11 And the unclean spirits, whenever they perceived him, fell before him and shouted, saying: “You are the son of God!” 12 And he scolded them a lot so they would not make him acclaimed.

In the Markan text, deriving from the Barnaban stream, the recognition of Jesus beyond local bounds (cf. Zechariah 8:20–23) comes to emphatic expression, along with his recognition as Son of God. The Aramaic Apocalypse i:4—ii:9 found at Qumran is a central text in the discussion of early Jewish messianic belief: [Amid] great [signs], tribulation is coming upon the land. [After much killing] and slaughter, a prince of nations [will arise] the king of Assyria[ and E]gypt [ ] he will be ruler over the land [ ] will do and all will serve [him.] will be called the Great, and be designated by his name. He will be called the Son of God, they will call him the son of the Most High. But like the meteors that you saw, so will be their kingdom. They will reign only a few years over the land, and all will trample people and nation (will trample) nation, [ ] until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge the land justly, and all (nations) will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land, and all the nations shall do homage to them. The great God will be their help He himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, all of them he will overthrow before them. God’s rule will be an eternal rule and all the depths of … The identification of the person called “Son of God,” “son of the Most High,” in line 1 of column ii above is debated. It seems likely that the title at Qumran does not imply a divine figure, but a human one, and is here in any case only a provisional figure until the disclosure of God’s eternal kingdom. “Son of God” clearly need not be a messianic or royal title on every occasion, and even when it is, the emphases vary (cf. Genesis 6:2, 4; 2Samuel 7:14; Hosea 11:1; Psalm 2:7). The meaning of the phrase turns in its usage in a given context, and in this case the “son” has ruling power over malevolent forces, a key eschatological theme, and acts on God’s behalf. It is used deliberately of those who live beyond territorial Israel.

102

Analysis

The appended citation of Isaiah 42 in Matthew, derived from the Silan stream, makes Jesus’ significance for the gentiles explicit. The Septuagintal reading of Isaiah 42:4 extends the hope of God’s victory to the gentiles, an outlook that is not explicit in the Masoretic Text, which refers to “coastlands” rather than gentiles. Luke’s closing remark intimates the extent of Jesus’ significance without the specification of Matthew or Mark. Interestingly, however, all three Synoptic Gospels have Jesus and those who follow him traveling on the sabbath, and this time without dispute being involved. This is another indication, along with the incipient universalism of the scene, that the Barnaban stream is at issue. But it is striking that the scene is appended at the same point in each Gospel, suggesting that the Barnaban stream operated by complementing the assembled traditions of the Peter stream, the Mishnaic stream, and the Magdalene stream. The Jacobean stream, by its layering in to the Barnaban stream in Matthew 12:17–21, shows that it also is of a complementary nature.

103

Analysis

The Naming of the Twelve, Simon First and Judas Iscariot Last Matthew 10:1–4

Mark 3:13–19

1 He summoned the twelve stu- 13 And he ascends into the moundents tain and summons those he himself wanted, and they went away to him. 14 And he made twelve, whom he also named envoys, so they would be with him, and so he and gave them authority of un- would delegate them to announce clean spirits so as to throw them 15 and to have authority to throw out, and to heal every illness and out demons. 16 And he made the every disease. Twelve, and he put a name to 2 And these are the names of the Simon, Rock, 17 and James of Zebetwelve envoys: first Simon, called dee and John the brother of James Rock, and Andrew his brother and —and he put a name to them: James of Zebedee and John his Boanerges, that is, sons of Thunbrother, 3 Philip and Bartholomew, der—18 and Andrew and Philip Thomas and Matthew the tax- and Bartholomew and Matthew agent, James of Alphaeus and and Thomas and James of AlThaddeus, 4 Simon the Kananean phaeus and Thaddeus and Simon and Judas the Iscariot, who also the Kananean 19 and Judas Iscariot, would deliver him over. who also delivered him over.

Luke 6:12–16 12 Yet it happened in those days he went out into the mountain to pray, and was spending the night in the prayer of God. 13 And when it became day, he called to his students, and chose from them twelve, whom he also named envoys:

14 Simon, whom he also named Rock, and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew 15 and Matthew and Thomas and James of Alphaeus and Simon called zealot 16 and Judas of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a betrayer.

Moses provides the archetype of passing on prophetic authority (Numbers 11:16, 24–29). The number twelve features prominently in the interpretation and organization at Qumran; see, for example, Community Rule (Serekh ha-Yaḥad) 8:1–10: In the party of the Yaḥad there shall be twelve laymen and three priests who are blameless in the light of all that has been revealed from the whole law, so as to work truth, righteousness, justice, loving kindness and humility, one with another. They are to preserve faith in the land with self-control and a broken spirit, atoning for sin by working justice and suffering affliction. They are to walk with all by the standard of truth and the dictates proper to the age. When such men as these come to be in Israel then shall the party of the Yaḥad truly be established, [ ] an eternal planting (Jubilees 16:26), a temple for Israel, and—mystery!—a holy of holies for Aaron; true witnesses to justice, chosen by God’s will to atone for the land and to recompense the wicked their due. [ ] They will be the tested wall, the precious cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16) whose [ ] foundations shall neither be shaken nor swayed, [ ] a fortress, a holy of holies for Aaron,

104

Analysis

all of them knowing the covenant of justice and thereby offering a sweet savor. They shall be a blameless and true house in Israel, upholding [ ] the covenant of eternal statutes. They shall be an acceptable sacrifice, atoning for the land and ringing in the verdict against evil, so that perversity ceases to exist. If such traditions were known to the disciples of the Petrine stream, in light of Jesus’ teaching regarding the kingdom and the eschatological appearance of the holy angels (Mark 8:38), the disciples could be understood as a special cabinet of the king, perhaps akin to the tradition of twelve leaders, to be assisted not by a guard of mighty men, but by a miraculously supplied host of angels. The place of this list, principally from the Petrine stream, is best reflected in Matthew, where it is associated with the actual dispatch of the Twelve. The identification of Matthew accords with 9:9, and reflects the updated Jacobean stream of Silas. The difference of names at the close of Luke’s list reflects a different stream, derived from Barnabas, which also contributes the characterization of Jesus in deep prayer (Luke 6:12, cf. 22:43 [a textual variant40]).

40

Textual variants in the Gospels sometimes represent oral traditions that circulated during the period of copying. The most famous case is that of the woman taken in adultery, which variously appears in Luke (after 24:53) and John (after 7:36, or 7:52 or 21:25), and belongs intrinsically to neither Gospel.

105

Analysis

Exorcism; Dispute in regard to the Source of Jesus’s Healing; in Matthew, Jesus’ Identity as David’s Son; in Mark the Claim He Is Beside Himself; in Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ Exorcisms as Indicating the Kingdom Has Come; Parable of a Strong Man; the Unforgiveable Sin; Unclean Spirit Seeking a Home in Matthew and Luke, as well as Comparisons involving Jonah and the Queen of the South; Parable of a Tree’s Fruit in Matthew, of a Light on a Lampstand in Luke Matthew 12:22–45

Mark 3:20–30

Luke 11:14–23; 12:10; 11:24–33

22 Then was carried forward to him a demon-possessed man, blind and deaf; and he healed him, with the result that the deaf man spoke and saw. 23 And all the crowds were beside themselves, and saying, “Is he David’s son?” 24 The Pharisees heard and said, “He does not throw out demons except by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons!” 25 He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is wasted, and every city or house divided against itself will not be stood. 26 And if Satan throws out Satan, he is divided against himself! So how will his kingdom be stood? 27 And if I by Beelzebul throw out demons, by whom do your sons throw them out? For this, they themselves will be your judges. 28 But if I throw out demons by God’s Spirit, then the kingdom of God has arrived upon you!

20 And he comes into a house and the crowd comes together again, so they are not even able to eat bread. 21 Those along by him heard, and went out to seize him, because they were saying: “He is beside himself.” 22 And the letterers who had come down from Jerusalem were saying: “He has Beelzebul!” and: “By the ruler of the demons he throws out the demons!” 23 He summoned them by comparisons and was saying to them, “How can Satan throw out Satan? 24 And if a kingdom is against itself divided, that kingdom cannot be stood! 25 And if a home is divided against itself, that home will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has arisen against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is at an end.

14 He was throwing out a deaf demon; but it happened when the demon went out, the deaf man spoke and the crowds marveled.

27 No one, however, can enter the home of the strong man to rob 29 Or: how is someone able to enter his vessels unless he first binds the into the home of the strong man strong man, and then he will rob and to seize his vessels, unless he his home. binds the strong man first? And then he will rob his home!

30 Who is not with me is against

15 But some among them said, “By Beelzebul, ruler of the demons, he throws out demons!” 16 Others tested and sought a sign from heaven from him. 17 He himself knew their intentions and said to them, “Every kingdom against itself divided is wasted, and a house against a house falls. 18 And if even Satan against himself is sundered, how will his kingdom be stood? Because you say by Beelzebul I throw out demons. 19 But if I by Beelzebul throw out demons, by whom do your sons throw them out? For this, they themselves will be your judges. 20 But if I throw out demons by God’s finger, then the kingdom of God has arrived upon you! 21 Whenever the strong man is equipped and guards his own courtyard, his belongings are in peace. 22 If ever one stronger than he enters and conquers him, he takes up his armor in which he had depended and gives away his spoils. 23 One

106

Analysis

me, and who does not gather with me scatters! 31 For this reason I say to you, Every sin and curse will be released men, but the curse of the Spirit will not be released! 32 And whoever says a word against the son of man, it will be released for him; but whoever says a word against the Holy Spirit, it will not be released him, neither in this age nor in the coming age!

who is not with me is against me, and one who does not gather with me scatters!” 28 Amen I say to you that: Everything will be released the sons of the men, the sins and the curses, as much as they curse, 29 but whoever should curse the Holy Spirit will never ever have release, but is liable for a perpetual sin.” 30 Because they were saying, “He has

[Chapter 12] 10 “And everyone who will speak a word against the son of man, it will be released to him, but to him whose curses the Holy Spirit, it shall not be released.”

an unclean spirit.”

33 Either make the tree choice and its fruit choice, or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten! Because the tree is known from the fruit. 34 Offspring of vipers! How are you able to speak good things, being evil yourselves? Because from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man puts good things out from the good store, and the evil man from the evil store puts out evil things. 36 But I say to you that every idle utterance which men speak, they will pay back an account concerning it in judgement’s day. 37 Because from your words you will be vindicated, and from your words you will be condemned.” 38 Then some of the letterers and Pharisees replied to

“Teacher, we want to see a sign from you”. 39 He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation searches after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 Because exactly as Jonah was in the belly of the beast three days and three nights, so the son of man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. 41 Ninevite men will arise in the judgment with this generation and will conhim,

[Chapter 11]

24 When the unclean spirit goes out from the man, it passes through waterless places seeking repose, and not finding it, then it says, ‘I will return to my house, whence I went out.’ 25 It goes and finds it swept and furnished. 26 Then it proceeds and takes along other spirits more evil than itself—seven!—and entering they dwell there. And the endings of that man become worse than the beginnings.” 27 It happened while he was saying this

woman from the crowd lifted up voice and said to him, some

107

Analysis demn it, because they repented at Jonah’s announcement, and look: more than Jonah is here! 42 South’s queen will be raised in the judgment with this generation, and will condemn it, because she came from the limits of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and look: more than Solomon is here! 43 But when the unclean spirit goes out from the man, it passes through waterless places seeking repose, and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will turn back to my house, whence I went out.’ It goes and finds it vacant, swept and furnished. 45 Then it proceeds and takes along with itself seven other spirits more evil than itself, and entering they dwell there. And the endings of that man become worse than the beginnings. So it will be also in this evil generation.”

“Favored the belly thatbore you and the breasts that you sucked!” 28 But he himself said, “Favored rather those hearing and guarding the word of God.” 29 Yet as the crowds were mustering up, he began to say ,

“This generation is an evil generation: it seeks a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah. 30 Because just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so the son of man will also be to this generation. 31 South’s queen will be raised in the judgment with the men of this generation, and will condemn them, because she came from the limits of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and look: more than Solomon is here! 32 Ninevite men will arise in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at Jonah’s announcement, and look: more than Jonah is here! 33 No one kindles a lamp to set it in secret nor sets it under the bin, but on the lamp stand, so that those proceeding in see the light.”

The community of Qumran believed that their enemies were under the power of “the spirits of Belial” (Damascus Document 12:2). Indeed, in the great eschatological battle the righteous of Israel will confront the “army of Belial” (War Scroll 1:1). Belial is another name for Beelzebul (so also is Mastema, which will appear below). Interest in the dynamics of exorcism is here pursued to its theoretical root, in a way that permits exorcism to be conducted in Jesus’ name despite the fierce resistance described. The reference to being “outside” corresponds to a description from a later period of Merkabah mystics in ecstasy (see Tosefta Ḥagigah 2:3, 5): Four entered the garden [Paradise]: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Other [Elisha], and Aqiba. One gazed and perished, one gazed and was smitten,

108

Analysis

one gazed and cut down sprouts, and one went up whole and came down whole. Rabbi Joshua was walking in a piazza, and Ben Zoma was coming toward him. When he reached him, he did not greet him. He said to him, “From where and where [are you going], Ben Zoma?” He said to him, “I was concentrating upon the works of Creation, and there is not even a handbreadth between the upper waters and the nether waters, for it says, ‘The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters’ (Genesis 1:2). And it says, ‘Like an eagle that stirs up its nest that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, so the Lord alone did lead him’ (Deuteronomy 32:11). Just as this eagle flutters above its nest, touching and not touching, so there is no more space between the upper waters and the nether waters than a handbreadth.” Said Rabbi Joshua to his disciples, “Ben Zoma already is on the outside.” The days were only a few before Ben Zoma disappeared. The name Baalzebul appears to have been the original name of the god of Ekron, meaning “Lord of the circle (of heaven)”, which is mocked as Baalzebub, “Lord of the flies,” in 2Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16. In Jubilees, the figure Mastema is described in princely language such as appears in Mark, and is described leading people into error and sin (Jubilees 10.7–8): And the Lord our God spoke to us so that we might bind all of them. And the chief of the spirits, Mastema, came and he said, Lord, Creator, leave some of them before me, and let them obey my voice. And let them do everything which I tell them, because if some of them are not left for me, I will not be able to exercise the authority of my will among the children of men because they are (intended) to corrupt and lead astray before my judgment because the evil of the sons of men is great. The basic question of what sins might be forgiven is posed in Mishnah Yoma 8:8–9: A sin offering and an unconditional guilt offering atone. Death and the Day of Atonement atone when joined with repentance. Repentance atones for minor transgressions of positive and negative commandments. And as to serious transgressions, [repentance] suspends the punishment until the Day of Atonement comes along and atones. He who says, “I shall sin and repent, sin and repent”—they give him no chance to do repentance. “I will sin and the Day of Atonement will atone”—the Day of Atonement does not atone. For transgressions done between man and the

Analysis

109

Omnipresent, the Day of Atonement atones. For transgressions between man and man, the Day of Atonement atones, only if the man will regain the good will of his friend. This exegesis did Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah state: “‘From all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord’ (Leviticus 16:30)—for transgressions between man and the Omnipresent does the Day of Atonement atone. For transgressions between man and his fellow, the Day of Atonement atones, only if the man will regain the good will of his friend.” The interaction of streams in this case is complex at first sight, but quite explicable. Mark represents the Petrine stream most strongly, but its complementarity with the Mishnaic stream is apparent. In the literature, this is commonly referred to as an “overlap” of sources, on the assumption of discrete documents that may be collated.41 If, however, we are dealing with living and adapting streams, rather than fixed documents, confluence represents a better characterization. Adaptations of the Mishnaic stream, which does not agree with the occasion of the Petrine stream (Matthew 12:22; Luke 11:14, cf. Mark 3:20) produce the deviations apparent within Matthew and Luke that characterize this section. The stream associated with James introduces Jesus’ identification as David’s son (Matthew 12:23) as well as the comparison with Jonah and the Queen of the South (Matthew 12:40–41; Luke 11:30–32). Luke’s handling of the streams reflects the difficulty of coordination, and the placement of comparable material in differing locations endorses an approach along the lines of streams. It is notable that Luke 11:33 has a near twin in Luke 8:16. In Luke 11:21–22, the Petrine stream represents an adaptation towards the apocalyptic emphases of both the adapted Mishnaic stream and Silas’ revision of James’ stream. Matthew 12:32– 37, 39 reflects a strong adaptation of the Mishnaic stream in this direction (cf. Luke 6:43–45, which is presented below).

41

See Streeter’s brilliant observation, “the overlapping of Mark and Q is more certain than is the existence of Q;” B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (1924) 186.

110

Analysis

Jesus’ Family and Those who Do God’s Will (Matthew and Mark) or Word (Luke) Matthew 12:46–50

Mark 3:31–35

Luke 8:19–21

46

31 And his mother and his brothers come and standing outside, they delegated to him, calling him. 32 And there sat around him a crowd, and they say to him, “Look: your mother and your brothers are outside seeking you.” 33 He replied to them and says, “Who is my mother, and brothers?” 34 He glares around at those sitting in a circle about him, says, “See: my mother and my brothers. 35 Whoever does the will of God, this is my brother and sister and mother.”

19 Yet his mother and his brothers

While he was still speaking

Look: his mother and his brothers had stood outside, seeking to speak to him. 48 He replied and said to the one who was telling him, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” 49 He stretched his hand over his students and said, “Look: my mother and my brothers. 50 Because whoever does the will of my father who is in heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother.” to the crowds,

came along to him, and they were not able to reach him because of the crowd. 20 But it was announced

to him, “Your mother and your brothers have stood outside, wanting to see you.” 21 He replied and said to them, “My mother and my brothers are these, who hear and do the word of God!”

The language in Damascus Document 20.6–13, relating to “the household of Law,” reflects the conception of a new family: When his actions become evident, according to the interpretation of the Law which the men of holy perfection live by, no one [ ] is allowed to share either wealth or work with such a one, for all the holy ones of the Almighty have cursed him. Such is the fate for all who reject the commandments, whether old or new, who have turned their thoughts to false gods [ ] and who have lived by their willful hearts: they have no part in the household of Law. [ ]They will be condemned along with their companions who have gone back to the men of Mockery, because they have uttered lies against the correct laws and rejected the sure covenant [ ] that they made in the land of Damascus, that is, the New Covenant. Neither they [ ] nor their families shall have any part in the household of Law. The conception embraces members of the community who are a household based on adherence to God’s laws (the teaching of the sect). The Petrine stream within all three Synoptic Gospels pursues such a conception, as does Yerushalmi Qiddushin 4:2 at a later stage: How does Rabbi Eleazar interpret the reference to sons? When Israel does the will of the Holy One, blessed be he, they are called his children, and

Analysis

111

when Israel does not do the will of the Holy One, blessed be he, they are not called his children. The wording of Luke 8:21 agrees more with this presentation than the other Synoptic Gospels, and the diction might echo Luke 11:28, a uniquely Lukan import from the Mishnaic stream. In all, however, the first three Gospels preserve the capstone of a run of Petrine material, which culminates on the fictive family that gathers in Jesus’ name (cf. 1Peter 4:17, for example).

112

Analysis

Opening of the Great Sermon: Beatitudes and (in Luke) Sanctions; Eschatological Reversal; Vindication of the Just Matthew 5:1–12

Luke 6:20–26

1 He saw the crowds and went up into the mountain, and when he had sat down his students came forward. 2 He opened his mouth and taught them, saying, 3 “The poor in spirit are favored, because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens; 4 Mourners are favored, because they will be encouraged; 5 The gentle are favored, because they will inherit the earth; 6 Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are favored, because they will be satisfied; 7 The merciful are favored, because they will receive mercy; 8 The pure in heart are favored, because they will see God; 9 The peacemakers are favored, because they will be called God’s sons; 10 Those persecuted on account of righteousness are favored, because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens; 11 You are favored, when they revile you and persecute you and say every evil against you, lying, on my account. 12 Rejoice and celebrate! Because your reward is great in the heavens— for so they persecuted the prophets before you.”

20 He personally lifted up his eyes towards his students

and said, “The poor are favored, because yours is the kingdom of God; 21 Those who hunger now are favored, because you will be satisfied; Those who weep now are favored, because you will laugh;

22 You are favored, when men hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and throw out your name as evil on the son of man’s account. 23 Rejoice in that day and skip, for look: your reward is great in the heaven—for their fathers did the same things to the prophets. 24 Except: Miseries to you rich, because you possess your encouragement; 25 Miseries to you who are filled up now, because you will hunger; Miseries, who laugh now, because you will mourn and weep; 26 Miseries, when all men speak well of you — for their fathers did the same things for the false prophets.”

Analysis

113

The strong similarity between Matthew and Luke amply justifies their sharing of a stream. The term for “source” in German (Quelle) gave the stream its common designation as “Q.” Yet despite moments of stunning correspondence between the two presentations, there are also signal differences. These may be accounted for by factoring in the usage of the Mishnaic stream within the Jacobean and Barnaban cycles prior to their incorporation within the Gospels. The Jacobean presentation readily accommodates comparison between Jesus and Moses. Matthew 5:1–2 might be compared to Jubilees 1:2–4: And Moses went up to the mountain of the Lord. And the glory of the Lord dwelt upon Mount Sinai, and a cloud overshadowed it for six days. And he called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud. And the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like fire burning on top of the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights. With that link in mind, the notable emphasis upon the Torah, uniquely articulated in Matthew in passages within the Sermon on the Mount such as Matthew 5:17–19, finds a ready home. Texts from Qumran also insist upon the connection between keeping the Torah and divine blessing, in a way which is especially commensurate with the Matthean presentation (see Beatitudes 2–3ii+3:1–10): Blessed are those who hold fast to its statutes and do not hold fast to the ways of injustice. [ ] Ble[ssed] are those who rejoice in it, and do not burst forth on paths of folly. [ ] Blessed are those who seek it with pure hands, and do not search for it with a deceitful heart. [ ] Blessed is the man who attains wisdom, [ ] and walks in the law of the Most High: establishes his heart in its ways, [ ] restrains himself by its corrections, is con[tin]ually satisfied with its punishments, does not forsake it in the face of [his] trials, at the time of distress he does not abandon it, does not forget it [in the day of] terror and in the humility of his soul he does not abhor [ ] But he meditates on it continually, and in his trial he reflects [upon it, and with al]l his being [he gains understanding] in it,

114

Analysis

[and he establishes it] before his eyes so as not to walk in the ways [of …] together, and perfects his heart by it, [and places a crown of fine g]old [upon] his [hea]d, and with kings it shall se[at him, and with ]his[ st]aff over the ju[st and amo]ng [the counc]il of brothers he shall disce[rn …] The process of gathering sayings into the structure of a Sermon resulted in the natural attraction of materials that once were set in a different context; some might have belonged initially to the prophetic milieu of the Jesus’ movement after the resurrection. One will note that whereas Qumran’s Beatitudes text is oriented towards wisdom, Jesus’ beatitudes exhibit a distinctively eschatological orientation. The presentation and tenor of Luke’s version of an example of Jesus’ preaching represent the same phenomenon but in a different key,42 and show the influence of motifs expressed in 1Enoch. As in Enoch, both blessing and cursing are at issue (see 1 Enoch 99:10–15): In those days, blessed are they all who accept the words of wisdom and understand them, to follow the path of the Most High; they shall walk in the path of his righteousness and not become wicked with the wicked; and they shall be saved. Woe unto you who spread evil to your neighbors! For you shall be slain in Sheol. Woe unto you who make sinful and deceitful measures! Who acquire worldly knowledge, for you shall be consumed by it. Woe unto you who build your houses through the hard toil of others, and your building materials are bricks and stones of sin, I tell you, you have no peace. Woe unto you who reject the foundations and the eternal inheritance of your (fore–) fathers! Who shall pursue after the wind— the idol; for there shall be no rest for you. Woe unto you who engage in oppression and give aid to injustice! Slaying your neighbors until the day of the great judgment, because he shall debase your glory. Prophetic strictures apply particularly to the rich in 1 Enoch (94:8) as in Luke (6:24), a particular concern within the circle of Barnabas (see Acts 4:32–5:11).

42

Note that the phrasing of Luke 6:22 corresponds to Deuteronomy 22:14 in a way that Matthew 5:11 does not; see Notley (2014) 333.

115

Analysis

Salt of the Earth; Lamp on a Stand Matthew 5:13–16

Mark 9:49–50; 4:21

Luke 14:34–35; 8:16

13 “You are the salt of the earth; yet if salt becomes insipid, by what can it be salted? It is no longer effective for anything, except—having been thrown outside—to be trampled by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A town lying on a mountain cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do they burn a lamp and set it under the bin, but on the lamp stand! And it shines on all those in the home. 16 So shall your light shine before men, that they see your choice works and glorify your father in the heavens.”

49 “Because everyone will be salted with fire. 50 Salt is choice, but if the salt becomes unsalted, with what shall you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another.”

34“So salt is choice, yet if salt becomes insipid, by what can it be seasoned? 35 It is suitable neither for earth nor manure: they throw it outside. The one who has ears to hear, hear!”

[Chapter 4] 21 And he was saying to them: “The lamp does not come so that it is set under the bin or under the bed! So that it is set on a lamp stand, right?”

[Chapter 8] 16 “Yet no one kindles a lamp and covers it with a vessel or sets it under a bed, but he puts it on a lamp stand, so that those who proceed in see the light.”

The comparison with light has a deep biblical resonance, but Matthew’s presentation in particular takes up an emphasis often found at Qumran, for example in Rule of Benedictions 4:27–28: … May he establish you as hol[y] among his people, as the [“greater] light” [to illumine] the world with knowledge, and to shine upon the face of many [with wisdom leading to life.] Both the beginning and the end of the passage in Matthew reflect the incorporation of Mishnaic material within the perspective of the Jacobean stream, which brings out the plainest ethical stress among the Synoptic Gospels. The influence of that stream also explains why more material has been aggregated with this discourse in Matthew than in others Gospels. Scholars of the Mishnaic stream usually prefer the Lukan presentation, and the form of the sayings does seem less adapted in this case as compared to Matthew. Luke also conveys a different version of the saying about a lamp (8:16) in 11:33, indicating a closer adherence to traditions prior to the Gospel (in this case perhaps also Petrine tradition, as indicated below) than is the case in Matthew. In its earliest form, the comparison of the covering of a lamp with a dish to avoid scorching the inside of a dwelling (a practice indicated in Mishnah Shabbat 16:7) was a point of departure, not a target of ridicule.

116

Analysis

Mark, on the other hand, appears to reflect the Petrine tradition as well as the Mishnaic tradition in this case, with wording that departs from that of the Mishnaic stream. The opening (9:49) also conveys a sharp eschatological insistence on the imagery of salt, which bears sacrificial meaning; see, for example Temple Scrolla 20:13–14: And on all your offerings you shall put salt, and you shall not l[e]t [the salt of the covenant] be lacking [forever.] This shapes the Petrine presentation towards a vision of fiery testing such as is also conveyed in 1Peter 4:12–17. That letter is not generally accepted as Peter’s composition, but it preserves the memory of “my son Mark” (1 Peter 5:13) in Rome.43 A successor of Peter, and predecessor of the Gospel according to Mark, to which he perhaps gave his name, he shaped the Petrine stream to confront the demands of martyrdom. The close of this passage (Mark 9:50), however, represents the perspective of the Evangelist, a less austere point of view.

43

See the excellent treatment of Michael J. Kok, “From Paul’s Fellow Worker to Peter’s Interpreter,” The Gospel on the Margins. The Reception of Mark in the Second Century (Minneapolis: 1517 Media, 2015) 107–160. In the end, however, I do not agree with his judgement that the Mark of 1Peter 5:13 is entirely fictive, and favor the view that the name Mark should not be harmonized, as argued by C. Clifton Black, Mark. Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 66. The very fact that “John, called Mark” and “my son Mark” are referred to differently seems to me an indication that they are different people.

117

Analysis

Not One Stroke of the Law Will Pass; in Matthew a Programmatic Statement of Fulfilment Matthew 5:17–20

Luke 16:16–17

17 “Do not presume that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to demolish, but to fulfill. 18 Because Amen I say to you, until heaven and earth pass along, not one dot, not one small stroke will pass along from the law until everything happens. 19 If anyone releases one of the least of these decrees and teaches men that way, he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens. Yet whoever does and teaches, this person will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. 20 Because I say to you, that except your righteousness overflow— more than the letterers’ and Pharisees’—you shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.”

16 “The law and the prophets: till John! From then the kingdom of God is messaged triumphantly, and everyone avails: into it! 17 But it is easier for the heaven and the earth to pass along than for one small stroke to fall from the law.”

Luke provides, not only an earlier indication of the tradition from the Mishnaic stream than Matthew does, but also a better indication of its originating placement within an evaluation of John the immerser. The statement in regard to the Torah, taken it itself, would seem unexceptional, as compared to statements such as in Jubilees 5:13: And the judgment of all of them has been ordained and written in the heavenly tablets without injustice. And if any of them transgress from their way with respect to what was ordained for them to walk in, or if they do not walk in it, the judgment for every nature and every kind has been written. In Luke (and the Mishnaic stream), however, the statement about the Torah is ancillary to the declaration concerning the kingdom of God. In contrast, the Matthean tradition, derived from the stream of James focuses on the issue of the Torah in an even more emphatic manner than in

118

Analysis

Jubilees. Matthew also honors the Mishnaic tradition in its native setting (see Matthew 11:12–13), but here reflects the Jacobean perspective, down to its competition with Pharisaism (5:20) in Damascus. The use of “Amen” in 5:18 accords with this finding. Use of the repeated word “Amen” at Qumran is generally limited to concluding curses or blessings, as in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Deuteronomy 27, and Numbers 5:22). However, the idea that Jesus’ expression reflects a non-Hebrew context in all cases is likely negated by the discovery of a seventh-century bce ostracon which places “amen” at the beginning of affirmative speech.44 In Jesus’ speech, the word “amen” functions as an asseverative particle, the equivalent of “in truth” in Aramaic. And while this use is not present at Qumran, an awareness of the usage in Hebrew could be invoked to stress the authority of a statement.45 Once introduced, it traveled laterally across streams, but is especially privileged in Jacobean material.

44

45

J. Strugnell, “‘Amen, I Say unto You’ in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature,”Harvard Theological Review, 67.2 (1974) 177–182. For the ostracon’s text, see J. Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century b.c.,” Israel Exploration Journal (1960) 129–139, plate 17. See Bruce Chilton, “‘Amen’: An Approach through Syriac Gospels,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1978) 203–211.

119

Analysis

On Anger, in Matthew a Formal Antithesis, and Reconciliation Matthew 5:21–26 21 “You heard it was said to the ancients, You shall not murder, but whoever does murder shall be liable to the judgment. 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to the judgment; whoever says to his brother, ‘Raka!’ will be liable to the council, whoever says, ‘Fool!’ will be accountable to the gehenna of fire. 23 So if you offer your gift on the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there, before the altar, and depart: first be reconciled with your brother, and then go offer your gift. 25 Be well disposed with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the way; otherwise, the adversary will deliver you over to the judge, and the judge to the assistant, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Amen I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the last quadrans.”

Luke 12:57–59

57 “But why do you not also judge from ourselves what is just? 58 For as you depart with your adversary to a ruler, on the way take trouble to be reconciled by him; otherwise, he will drag you to the judge, and the judge will deliver you over to the magistrate and the magistrate will throw you into prison. 59 I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the last mite!”

Matthew’s recourse to the Jacobean stream, which prefaces instruction in regard to reconciliation with a procedure for anger, assumes a well-developed structure of community. Both the concern in regard to anger and the discipline are reminiscent of those at Qumran, as expressed for example in Community Rule 6:25–27: Anyone who answers his comrade defiantly or impatiently, thereby rejecting the instruction of his fellow and rebelling against the orders of his

120

Analysis

higher-ranked comrade, [has u]surped authority; he is to be punished by reduced rations and [exclusion from the pure meals] for on[e] year. Among the sectarians, the council judges, condemns, and decides punishment for members of the community who speak or act inappropriately, while obedience to the council brings atonement for sin. The sectarians, moreover, expect Israel’s king to appoint judges who will not pervert justice or accept bribes. Those who do are to be killed (Temple Scroll 51:11–18). Another feature of Matthew’s presentation that is comparable with Qumran turns on the term raka in v. 22, meaning “dunce.” The term was common in Aramaic, and the root appears in sectarian literature in the context of unwholesome speech; as in Damascus Document 10:17–18: On the sabbath day, one may not speak any coarse or empty (rq) word … Speech against a fellow sectarian fell into the same category. Socially, competition between the community of James and that of the sectarians is assumed, and it is notable that here the Jacobean stream presupposes ready access to the Temple and the practice of sacrifice. Nonetheless, the coin referred to at the close, the quadrans, is designated as the least valuable Roman coin. Luke, on the other hand, simply refers to a lepton, “mite,” a fraction of the value of a quadrans. The same term is used of the meager offering of an impoverished widow in Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2. This assumes a proceeding in which the litigant has fewer resources and less standing than in Matthew. While the Mishnaic stream imagines a setting in Jerusalem, where some political distance and relative autonomy from Roman authority and wealth is assumed, the Jacobean stream, even as it speaks of the Temple, refers to its Graeco-Roman setting in the same city (Damascus) with which the Essenes had long historical ties. To this extent, as well as in the apocalyptic turn of Matthew 5:25–26, Silas’ influence is also apparent in the shape of the stream as transmitted to Matthew.

121

Analysis

On Marriage and Adultery, in Matthew an Antithesis Matthew 5:27–32 27 “You heard that it was said, You shall not perpetrate adultery. 28 But I say to you that everyone looking at a woman to long for her has already perpetrated adultery with her in his heart. 29 But if your right eye makes you falter, take it out and throw it from you, for it is beneficial for you that one of your parts should perish, and not that your whole body should be thrown into gehenna. 30 And if your right hand makes you falter, cut it off and throw it from you, for it is beneficial for you that one of your parts should perish, and not that your whole body should go off into gehenna. 31 It was said, Whoever releases his wife, give her a certificate. 32 But I say to you that everyone who releases his woman apart from a matter of infidelity makes her become adulterous, and he who marries a released woman becomes adulterous.”

Luke 16:18

18 “Everyone who releases his woman and marries another perpetrates adultery, and one released from husband who marries perpetrates adultery.”

The issue of lustful looking is by no means of unique concern to the Jacobean stream (Matthew 5:28), but is clearly expressed in Psalms of Solomon 4:4–6: His eyes are on every woman indiscriminately, his tongue lies when swearing a contract. At night and in hiding he sins as if no one saw. With his eyes he speaks to every woman of illicit affairs; he is quick to enter graciously every house as though innocent. May God remove from the devout those who live in hypocrisy; may his flesh decay and his life be impoverished.

122

Analysis

Similarly, the collection of hymns called Barkhi Nafshi associates sins with an inner inclination and, like much of the Hebrew Bible, metaphorically links adultery and sexual sin with the eyes; see Barkhi Nafshib 2i:1–3: and you have set a [p]ure [heart] in its place. [ ] The evil inclination you have driven far from me with rebukes and the spirit of ho]liness you have [set] in [my] heart. Adulterousness of eyes [you have removed from me and it gazed upon] all your [w]ays. This concern, more than any other, informs the presentation in Matthew. Indeed, the teaching in regard to divorce appears as an addendum and, uniquely among the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew accords with a stance attributed to Shammai in Mishnah Gittin 9:10: The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, since it is said, ‘Because he has found in her indecency in anything’ (Deuteronomy 24:1).” Luke, on the other hand, again better preserves the Mishnaic stream without the additions of the Jacobean stream. Luke 16:18 is all the Gospel has to say on the topic of divorce, since there is no Lukan counterpart to Mark 10:2–12; Matthew 19:3–12. What Luke conveys assumes women may divorce as well as be divorced, a situation attested in the Elephantine Papyri46 and acknowledged with strong disapproval by Josephus (Antiquities 15 §§ 259–260).

46

See David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 75–81.

Analysis

123

Antithesis on Oaths Matthew 5:33–37 33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, You shall not perjure, but you shall render your oaths to the Lord. 34 Yet I say to you not to swear altogether, not by heaven, because it is God’s throne, 35 not by the earth, because it is his footstool, not towards Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great king. 36 Neither swear by your own head, because you cannot make one hair white or black! 37 But your word ‘yes’ should be yes, and ‘no,’ no; what goes beyond these is from the evil one.” The correspondence between this Jacobean teaching and the Essenes is strong. The comparison involves how the sectarians were perceived by others, as Josephus, The Jewish War 2 §135 shows: Holding righteous indignation in reserve, they are masters of their temper, champions of fidelity, very ministers of peace. Any word of theirs has more force than an oath; swearing they avoid, regarding it as worse than perjury, for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already. Yet this perception of practice at Qumran requires some nuance, since it turns out that an oath was central to entry into the covenant; Damascus Document 15:1–5: [A man must not] swear either by Aleph and Lamedh (Elohim) or by Aleph and Daleth (Adonai), but rather by the oath of those who enter into the covenant vows. [ ] He must not make mention of the Law of Moses, because the Name of God is written out fully in it, [ ] and if he swears by it, and then commits a sin, he will have defiled the Name. [ ] But if he has sworn by the covenant vow[s in front of] the judges, [ ] if he has violated them, he is guilty; he should then confess his sin and make restitution and then he will not bear the burden of sin [and d]ie. Assessed in such terms, James’ version of Jesus’ teaching restricts oaths to the point of their disappearance, beyond the strictures observed at Qumran, much as it demands a righteousness greater than that of Pharisees (Matthew 5:20 cf. 3:12).

124

Analysis

Concern that oaths can involve a diminution of the honor owed to God, even when they are kept, resulted in a reserve which was widely represented in Judaism; as Philo, Decalogue 84 indicates: That being which is the most beautiful, and the most beneficial to human life, and suitable to rational nature, swears not itself, because truth on every point is so innate within him that his bare word is accounted an oath. Next to not swearing at all, the second best thing is to keep one’s oath; for by the mere fact of swearing at all, the swearer shows that there is some suspicion of his not being trustworthy. For that reason, James’ construction of Jesus’ position appealed far beyond Jerusalem (“the city of the great king”) and across the Diaspora.

125

Analysis

Love of Enemies, an Antithesis in Matthew; Turning the Other Cheek and Imitating God Matthew 5:38–48

Luke 6:27–36

38 “You heard that it was said, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist the evil one, but whoever cuffs you on your right cheek, turn to him the other as well. 40 And to the one who wishes to litigate with you, even to take your tunic, leave him the cloak as well! 41 And whoever requisitions you to journey one mile, depart with him two! 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not withhold from the one who wishes to borrow from you. 43 You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and you shall hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, ‘Love your enemies, and pray on behalf of those who persecute you,’ 45 so you might become sons of your father in heavens. Because he makes his sun dawn upon evil people and good people, and makes rain upon just and unjust. 46 Because if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-agents do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what do you do that goes beyond? Do not even the gentiles do the same? 48 You, then, shall be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect.”

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, act well with those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray concerning those who abuse you. 29 To the one who hits you on the cheek, furnish the other also. And from the one who takes your cloak, do not forbid the tunic! 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and do not demand from the one who takes what is yours. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, do to them similarly. 32 And if you love those who love you, what sort of grace is that for you? Because even the sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do you good, what sort of grace is that to you? Even the sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what sort of grace is that to you? Even sinners lend so that they receive the equivalent back. 35 Except: love your enemies and do good and lend—anticipating nothing—and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of Most High, because he is good to the ungrateful and evil. 36 Become compassionate, just as your father is also compassionate.”

126

Analysis

Differences between the two presentations are evident and are addressed below, but their point of departure is shared and is commonly expressed within early Judaism; Jubilees 1:24–25: And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called sons of the living God. And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them. Even the way in which Matthew and Luke express the culminating principle in their final verses picks up signal themes. Matthew 5:48 might be compared with Jubilees 15:3: And the Lord appeared to Abram and he said to him, “I am God Shaddai. Be pleasing before me and be perfect.” Luke, on the other hand, is resonant with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Leviticus 22:28: My people, sons of Israel, as I am compassionate in the heavens so shall you become compassionate on the earth. The composite nature of the Targumim is such that, upon occasion, one may discern in them the survival of materials that circulated in the time of Jesus, and which probably influenced his teaching and/or the memory of that teaching among those disciples who were familiar with such traditions. Leviticus 22:28 in Pseudo-Jonathan is an example of such a survival. The expansion in the Targum is unquestionably innovative in comparison to the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, the possible echo in Luke 6:36 favors the view that PseudoJonathan reflects an earlier tradition. Since no sources for the Lukan remark other than the Targum have so far been identified, it seems likely that the Targumic tradition—as distinct from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan itself—was current during the first century. Its presence in Luke indicates either that it influenced Jesus or that it influenced his followers’ formulation of this teaching. A causative reading taken in the opposite direction is, of course, theoretically possible: perhaps the saying originated with Jesus and was then anonymously taken up within the Targum. Yet the statement is rhetorically more at home within Luke than in Pseudo-Jonathan, where it appears unmotivated,

Analysis

127

a tradition incorporated simply because it was valued. It seems inherently unlikely that Pseudo-Jonathan, which of all the Pentateuchal Targumim is perhaps the most influenced by a concern to guard and articulate Judaic integrity, would inadvertently convey a saying of Jesus.47 More likely, both PseudoJonathan and Luke’s Jesus are here independently passing on proverbial wisdom: both sources convey material from the stock of folk culture. After all, the same Targum twice explains love of another person (whether an Israelite or a stranger) with the maxim, “that which is hateful to you, do not do” (Leviticus 19:18, 34 in Pseudo-Jonathan; Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12).48 Luke shows that the stock of proverbial wisdom Jesus drew on goes back to the first century, while Pseudo-Jonathan shows that it continued to be reused until the seventh century. The Targumic echo is therefore most certainly not the immediate source of Jesus’ statement, but it may help us to understand the nature and general character of Jesus’ statement within Judaism.49 Both Luke and Matthew evince an urban environment unlike the milieu of Jesus in Galilee. Loaning and borrowing have become possible and are permitted (see Luke 6:34; Matthew 5:42), but usury among fellow Israelites was forbidden (Josephus, Antiquities 4 §266; Apion 2 § 208; cf. Sirach 4:1–10; 8:12; 20:15; 29:1–2; Tobit 4:7). While the Mishnaic stream was rooted in Galilee, as was the Jacobean stream, each reflects a new, urban environment, with loans, courts, and military activity. The last element is more prominent in Matthew (5:39, 41) than in Luke (6:29), and it is notable that the Jacobean stream in Matthew begins with that setting, prior to stating the principle of loving enemies. That principle can be simply cited, since it was already well known; Letter of Aristeas 227:

47

48

49

This rendering of Leviticus 22:28 is forbidden by the Yerushalmi, Berakhot 5.3 (9c) and Megillah 4.9 (75c), perhaps with an awareness that it had been co-opted within Christianity. See the discussion in Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch: Analecta Biblica 27 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966) 133–138; Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 136–138. There is also a well-established connection with Shabbat 31a in the Babylonian Talmud. For a discussion of the question, see Bruce Chilton and J.I.H. McDonald, Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 8; for further texts, see Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de la Biblioteca Vatico (Madrid: Consejo superior de Investigociones Cientificas, 1980–1988) 3:502–503. A similar claim can be made for the use of the phrase “high priests” in Pseudo-Jonathan (Leviticus 16:1), which shows that the plural usage in the New Testament is no error. See Michael Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan. Leviticus: The Aramaic Bible 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994) 165.

128

Analysis

He complimented him, and asked the next guest, “To whom must a man be generous?” “It is a man’s duty,” he replied, “(to be generous) toward those who are amicably disposed to us. That is the general opinion. My belief is that we must (also) show liberal charity to our opponents so that in this manner we may convert them to what is proper and fitting to them. You must pray God that these things be brought to pass, for he rules the minds of all.” Yet the Jacobean stream is well aware of another version of the principle (Matthew 5:43), which seems to reflect awareness of the Essenes’ teaching, such as in Community Rule 1:9–11: He is to teach them both to love all the Children of Light—each commensurate with his rightful place in the council of God—and to hate all the Children of Darkness, each commensurate with his guilt and the vengeance due him from God. The relationship of the texts suggests the Jacobean stream was produced in an urban environment (as in the case of the Mishnaic stream) where Essene teaching was current. Both Jerusalem and Damascus fit that description, and each had its impact on the evolution of the stream prior to Matthew.

Analysis

129

Giving Alms in Secret Matthew 6:1–4 1 “Be wary not to do your righteousness before men, to be observed by them: indeed, otherwise, you have no reward from your father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make a donation, do not trumpet before yourself, just as the frauds do in the synagogues and in the lanes, so they might be glorified by men: Amen I say to you, they get their reward. 3 Yet when you make a donation, your left hand should not know what your right hand does, 4 so your donation might be in secret, and your father who sees in secret will repay you.” Display is a particular feature of urban environments, and the Jacobean stream confronts the challenge in its religious dimension. The Psalms of Solomon also targets the issue of hypocrisy; Psalms of Solomon 4:6–8, 20: May God remove from the devout those who live in hypocrisy; may his flesh decay and his life be impoverished. May God expose the deeds of those who try to impress people; (and expose) their deeds with ridicule and contempt. And the devout will prove their God’s judgment to be right when sinners are driven out from the presence of the righteous, those who please men, who deceitfully quote the Law …. Let crows peck out the eyes of the hypocrites, for they disgracefully empty many people’s houses and greedily scatter (them). Both the problem and the solution feature within an epochal discussion in early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. Several of the attitudes articulated in the Jacobean stream still featured in Talmudic discussion; Bavli Sukkot 49b: A Tannaite authority of the house of R. Anan taught, “What is the sense of Scripture’s statement, ‘The roundings of your thighs’ (Song of Songs 7:2)? Why are the teachings of Torah compared to the thigh? It is to teach you that, just as the thigh is kept hidden, so teachings of Torah are to be kept hidden.” That is in line with what R. Eleazar said, “What is the sense of the verse of Scripture, ‘It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: only to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God’ (Micah 6:8)? ‘To do justly’ refers to justice. ‘To love mercy’ refers to doing deeds of loving kindness. ‘And to walk humbly with your

130

Analysis

God’ refers to taking out a corpse for burial and bringing the bride in to the marriage-canopy. And is it not a matter of argument a fortiori: Now if, as to matters that are ordinarily done in public, the Torah has said, ‘To walk humbly,’ matters that are normally done in private, all the more so [must they be done humbly and in secret, that is, the giving of charity is done secretly].” Said R. Eleazar, “Greater is the one who carries out an act of charity more than one who offers all the sacrifices. For it is said, ‘To do charity and justice is more desired by the Lord than sacrifice’ (Proverbs 21:3).” And R. Eleazar said, “An act of loving kindness is greater than an act of charity. For it is said, ‘Sow to yourselves according to your charity, but reap according to your loving kindness’ (Hosea 10:12). If a man sows seed, it is a matter of doubt whether he will eat a crop or not. But if a man harvests the crop, he most certainly will eat it.” And R. Eleazar said, “An act of charity is rewarded only in accord with the loving kindness that is connected with it. For it is said, ‘Sow to yourselves according to your charity, but reap according to your loving kindness’ (Hosea 10:12).” Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority: In three aspects are acts of loving kindness greater than an act of charity. An act of charity is done only with money, but an act of loving kindness someone carries out either with his own person or with his money. An act of charity is done only for the poor, while an act of loving kindness may be done either for the poor or for the rich. An act of charity is done only for the living. An act of loving kindness may be done either for the living or for the dead. And R. Eleazar has said, “Whoever does an act of charity and justice is as if he has filled the entire world with mercy. For it is said, ‘He loves charity and justice, the earth is full of the loving kindness of the Lord’ (Psalms 33:5). Now you might wish to say that whoever comes to jump may take a leap, [it being easy to do good]. Scripture accordingly states [to indicate that the opportunity to do good is rare], ‘How precious is your loving kindness, O God’ (Psalms 36:8). Now you might wish to say that the same is the case for fear of Heaven [so that one who fears Heaven nonetheless has trouble in carrying out charity and justice]. Scripture accordingly states, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him’ (Psalms 103:17).” Said R. Hama bar Pappa, “Every man who enjoys grace is assuredly a God-fearer. For it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him’ (Psalms 103:17).” And R. Eleazar said, “What is the sense of the following verse of Scripture: ‘She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness

Analysis

131

is on her tongue’ (Proverbs 31:26)? Now is there such a thing as a Torah that is one of loving kindness and a Torah that is not one of loving kindness? But rather the study of Torah done for its own sake falls into the category of Torah of loving kindness, and Torah not studied for its own sake falls into the category of Torah that is not of loving kindness.” There are those who say, “Study of Torah in order to teach it is Torah of loving kindness, while Torah learned not so as to teach it is Torah that is not of loving kindness.” The extent and detail of the attitudes recommended, from sources of early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism, cohere particularly well with the ideals of the Jacobean stream (cf. James 2:1–13).

132

Analysis

Instructions for Prayer, including the Disciples’ Prayer in Matthew and Luke Matthew 6:5–15 5 “And whenever you pray, you will not be as the frauds. Because they delight in standing to pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the roads, so they might appear to men. Amen I say to you, they get their reward. 6 But when you pray, enter into your nook and—closing your door—pray to your father who is in secret, and your father who sees in secret will repay you.7 Yet when you pray, do not prattle like the gentiles, because they suppose that in their verbosity they will be heeded. 8 So do not be like them, because God your father knows of what you have need before you ask him. 9 So you pray in this manner: ‘Our father, who is in the heavens, your name will be sanctified, 10 your kingdom will come, your will happen—as in heaven— even on earth. 11 Our bread that is coming, give us today, 12 and release us our debts, as we also have released our debtors, 13 And do not bring us to the test, but deliver us from the evil one.’ 14 For if you release men their transgressions, your heavenly father will also release yours, 15 but if you do not release men their transgressions, neither will your father release your transgressions.”

Mark 11:25

25 “And whenever you stand praying,

release if you have anything against someone, so that your father who is in the heavens will also release your transgressions for you.”

Luke 11:1–8 1 And it happened when he was in some place praying, when he had ceased, one of his students said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his students. 2 Yet he said to them, “When you pray, say: ‘Father, your name will be sanctified, your kingdom will come. 3 Our bread that is coming, be giving us each day, 4 and release us our sins, because we also ourselves release everyone who is indebted to us, And do not bring us to the test.’” 5 And he said to them, “Who among you will have a friend, and he will proceed to him at midnight and say to him — ‘Friend, furnish me three loaves, 6 since my friend came along to me on the way and I do not have anything to set before him’ — 7 and will answer him inside, say, ‘Don’t make me trouble: the door has already been shut and my children are with me in the bed: I am not able to arise to give you!’? 8 I say to you, even if he will not arise to give him on account of his being a friend, indeed on account of his shamelessness he will be raised to give him as much as he needs.”

Of the two versions of the Lord’s Prayer in the New Testament (Matthew 6:9–15; Luke 11:2–4), Luke’s is widely considered the earlier in form, and it does seem

Analysis

133

plain that Matthew presents what is, in effect, a commentary woven together with the prayer. The relative sparseness of Luke has won it recognition among scholars as the nearest to the form of an outline that Jesus recommended. In both there is an emphasis on attention in prayer that accords with Tosefta Berakhot 3:7: “One who was walking in a place of danger and of bandits recites a brief prayer” (Mishnah Berakhot 4:4). What is this brief prayer? R. Eliezer says, “May thy will be done in the heavens above, and grant ease to those who fear you, and do what is good in thine own eyes. Praised [be Thou, O Lord,] who hearkens to prayer.” R. Yose says, “Hearken to the prayer of thy people Israel and quickly fulfill their requests. Praised [be Thou, O Lord], who hearkens to prayer.” R. Eleazar b. R. Ṣadoq says, “Hearken to the sound of the cries of your people Israel and quickly fulfill their requests. Praised [be Thou, O Lord,] who hearkens to prayer.” Others say, “The needs of thy people are many and they are impatient. May it be thy will, Lord our God, to give to each and every one according to his needs, and to each and every creature that which he lacks. Praised [be Thou, O Lord,] who hearkens to prayer.” Said R. Eleazar b. R. Ṣadoq, “My father used to recite a short prayer on the eve of the sabbath: ‘And on account of the love, Lord our God, with which Thou hast loved thy people Israel, and on account of the compassion, our King, which Thou hast bestowed on the members of thy covenant, Thou hast given us, Lord our God, this great and holy seventh day with love.’ Over the cup [of wine] he would say, ‘who sanctified the sabbath day,’ and he would not conclude [the benediction with a closing benedictory formula].” The distinctiveness of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew as compared to Luke should make it plain beyond a doubt that one Gospel cannot be explained simply on the basis of literal copying from another. Matthew gives us the received view of the prayer in its community, emphasizing the communal practice of the Jacobean stream, just as Luke provides the received view of the Barnaban stream in an emphasis upon piety. Absence of a fixed form may reflect the flexibility of teaching used for liturgy, and Mark may well betray an awareness of the prayer without citing it here (cf. Mark 14:36). The Last Supper tradition exhibits a similar kind of flexibility. A model is at issue in Jesus’ teaching, rather than a precise liturgy.50 The generative model of the Lord’s Prayer consists of calling God father, confessing that 50

See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” À Cause de l’Evangile. Études

134

Analysis

his name should be sanctified and that his kingdom should come, and then asking for daily bread, forgiveness, and not to be brought to the test. The model unfolds under two major headings: i) an address of God (1) as father, (2) with sanctification of God’s name, and (3) vigorous assent to the coming of God’s kingdom; ii) a petition for (1) bread, (2) forgiveness, and (3) constancy. The two major headings are clearly distinguished in grammatical terms. The address of God in the Greek text is as a third person, a father, and is followed by imperatives in the third person (“your name be sanctified,” “your kingdom come”), while the plea for bread is in the imperative of the second person (“give”), as is the appeal for forgiveness (“forgive”), and constancy (“do not bring”). The two major divisions of the outline are symmetrical, a structure which links the elements which constitute the divisions. In i.1, God is called father, and that father is asked for the bread of the day in ii.1. The invocation of the sanctity of God in i.2 is then related to the petition for forgiveness in ii.2. Finally, the prayer for God’s kingdom in i.3 corresponds to the appeal for constancy in ii.3. Assessed by its individual elements, the Lord’s Prayer may be characterized as a fairly typical instance of the Judaic piety of its period. To call God “father” was—as such—nothing radical, and the association of his fatherly care with his actual provision for prayerful Israel is attested in Psalm 68:5. The same passage shows that the connection of God’s holiness to his fatherhood was seen as natural, and the importance of sanctifying God’s name within the earliest of Rabbinic texts of prayer—such as the Qaddish, which means “Sanctified [be God’s name]”—is well known. That his holiness is consistent with people being forgiven and accepted by him is also unexceptionable. Finally, the idea that God’s being king amounts to a “kingdom” which was about to be revealed is amply precedented within the Targumim, and they insist upon the loyal response of God’s people to that revelation. sur les Synoptiques et Actes offertes à Jacques Dupont: ld 123 (Paris: Cerf, 1985) 14–38; Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father’: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111.4. (1992) 611–630; Bruce Chilton, “God as ‘Father’ in the Targumim, in Non-Canonical Literatures of Early Judaism and Primitive Christianity, and in Matthew,” The Pseudepigrapha and the Early Biblical Interpretation: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 14 (eds. J.H. Charlesworth and C.A. Evans; Sheffield: jsot, 1993) 151–169; Jesus’ Prayer and Jesus’ Eucharist. His Personal Practice of Spirituality (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997).

135

Analysis

Aramaic retroversion on this understanding is straightforward: ’abba yitqadash shemakh tetey malkhutakh hav li yoma laḥma d’ateh ushebaq li yat ḥobati ve’al ta‘eleyni lenisyona

father/source your name will be sanctified your kingdom will come give me today the bread that is coming and release me my debts and not bring me to the test

These elements may be compared directly to biblical precedents: ’abba— Isaiah 63:16; yitqadash shemakh— Leviticus 11:44; tetey malkhutakh— Psalm 96:10; hav li yoma laḥma d’ateh— Psalm 104:27–28; ushebaq li yat ḥobati— Zechariah 3:1–5; ve’al ta‘eleyni lenisyona— Genesis 22:1. The initial point of the model is that God is to be approached as father, his named sanctified, and his kingdom welcomed. The act of prayer along those lines, with great variety over time and from place to place and tradition to tradition, has been a hallmark of Christianity. The prayer shows a disciple dependent on God in every area of life (material, spiritual, relational). The disciple is a learner looking to God in all spheres. At Qumran a sincere prayer, as opposed to prayers of pretense, is likened to a sweet aroma (cf. Rule of the Congregation 9:4–5). To address God as one’s father, and yet to sanctify his name, acknowledges the ambivalence which might permeate our attitude toward God. He approaches us freely and without restraint, and yet is unapproachable, as holy as we are ordinary. The welcoming of his kingdom, of his comprehensive rule within the terms of reference of our world, wills away our ambivalence. His intimate holiness is to invade the ordinary, so that any ambivalence is overcome by the force of God itself. The kingdom is dynamically ingressive, and is welcomed in the act of prayer. This remains the case however others might react to the kingdom. The result of the kingdom’s ingression by means of prayer is the emphasis upon forgiveness in Mark, upon authenticity in Matthew, and upon persistence in prayer in Luke. Mark achieves that stress by a radical curtailment of what is cited, Matthew (that is, the Jacobean stream) by means of commentary and extensive introduction, and Luke (that is, the Barnaban stream) by means of an alternative introduction and a parabolic addendum.

136

Analysis

Secrecy in Fasting Matthew 6:16–18 16 “Yet when you fast, do not become like the sulky frauds. Because they mess up their faces so that they appear to be fasting to men: Amen I say to you, they get their reward. 17 But when you are fasting, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 so that you do not appear to be fasting to men, but to your father who is in secret, and your father who sees in secret will repay you.” The communal practice of the Jacobean stream is again reflected, with its emphasis on personal accountability before God. A similar conviction comes to expression at Qumran; Festival Prayersb frag. 2, lines 1–5: Remember, Lord, the feast of your compassion and the time of the return [ ] for us you established it, a festival of fasting … [ ] and you know the secret matters and revealed matter[s … you know our inclinations … It is notable that anointing is referred to (v. 17) since James is described in Eusebius, citing Hegesippus, as refusing to use oil (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3–7). That abstinence, however, refers to what he did during the observance of a Nazirite vow, for which James was widely reputed. The present passage does not concern that vow in particular.

137

Analysis

Storing Up Treasure in Heaven; Selling Possessions in Luke Matthew 6:19–21

Luke 12:33–34

19 “Do not store yourselves stores on the earth, where moth and decay mess up, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But do store for yourselves stores in heaven, where neither moth nor decay messes up, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 Because where your store is, there will be also your heart.”

33 “Sell your belongings and give donation: make yourselves purses that do not age, an inviolable treasure in the heavens, where thief does not approach nor moth ruin. 34 Because where your store is, there also will be your heart”.

Although Luke generally lies closer to the Mishnaic stream than Matthew, in this case the Barnaban emphasis on the disposal of wealth (cf. Luke 6:20–23 and Acts 4:32–37, for instance) comes to expression at the outset. In this regard the similarity of Matthew’s deployment of the Jacobean stream accords more than Luke with Mishnah Avot 4:9–10: R. Yonatan says, “Whoever keeps the Torah when poor will in the end keep it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty.” R. Meir says, “Keep your business to a minimum and make [your] business Torah. And be humble before everybody. And if you treat the Torah as nothing, you will have many treating you as nothing. And if you have labored in Torah, [God] has a great reward to give you.” The Barnaban stream accords more with 1Enoch 108:8: Those who love God have loved neither gold nor silver, nor all the good things which are in the world, but have given over their bodies to suffering.

138

Analysis

The Lamp of the Body Is the Eye; No One Can Serve Two Masters Matthew 6:22–24

Luke 11:34–36; 16:13

22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If then your eye is clear, your whole body will be light; 23 but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

34 “The lamp of the body is the eye. Whenever your eye is clear, your whole body will also be light; but if ever it is evil, even your body is dark. 35 So look out: otherwise, the light in you is darkness! 36 So if your whole body is light, not having any dark portion, there will be whole light, as when the lamp with the dazzle enlightens you.

24 Nobody can serve two proprietors, because either he will hate the one and love the other, or adhere to one and despise the other; you cannot serve God and mammon.”

[chapter 16] 13 No manager can serve two proprietors, because either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will adhere to one and despise the other; you cannot serve God and mammon.”

Light is a symbol of favor and understanding, typically given by God to the righteous; 1Enoch 38:4: And from that time, those who possess the earth will neither be rulers nor princes, they shall not be able to behold the faces of the holy ones, for the light of the Lord of the Spirits has shined upon the face of the holy, the righteous, and the elect. The theme is persistent, reaching well into the Rabbinic period; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 11.6: “And the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun” (Ecclesiastes 11:7). Sweet is the light of the Torah; “and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes:” happy is he whose study enlightens him like the sun. R. Aha says, “Sweet is the light of the world-to-come; happy is he who is worthy to behold that light, as it is stated, ‘Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun’ (Isaiah 30:26).”

Analysis

139

The Lukan addition relative to Matthew (Luke 11:36) balances the statement in regard to darkness with a bold claim of transformation into light which accords with the ethical eschatology of the Barnaban stream; 2 Baruch 38:1: And I prayed and said: O Lord, my Lord, you are the one who has always enlightened those who conduct themselves with understanding. Where the Jacobean stream frames the meaning of the Mishnaic stream by means of aggregation, the Barnaban counterpart intersperses its characteristic perspective within the material. Both versions maintain the Aramaic usage of mammon, which is also instanced at Qumran: Damascus Document 14:20: Whoever lies knowingly in a matter of mammon shall be ex[pelled … Another text warns the comunnity of Qumran (4Q416 frg. 2, 2:17): Do not sell your soul for money. This is another case of a persistent usage across several kinds of literature; Targum Isaiah 5:22–23: Woe to those who are heroes at drinking and men of possessions in getting drunk from old wine, who acquit the sinner because they receive from him mammon of deceit and wickedly take away the innocence of the innocent!

140

Analysis

Counsel in Regard to Anxiety Matthew 6:25–34

Luke 12:22–32

25 “For this reason I say to you, Do not worry about your life, what you should eat or what you should drink, or about your body, what you should wear: is not life more than nourishment and the body than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of heaven: they neither sow nor harvest, nor do they gather into barns, and your heavenly father nourishes them. Don’t you matter more than they? 27 And who among you is able by worrying to add one cubit to his height? 28 And why do you worry about clothing? Learn from the lilies of the field, how they grow: they do not labor or spin. 29 But I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was appareled as one of them! 30 Yet if God so attires the blade of the field—present today and thrown into an oven tomorrow—not you by much more, skeptics?! 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or, ‘What shall we drink?’ or, ‘What shall we be appareled in?’ 32 Because the gentiles seek out all these things: because your heavenly father knows that you have need of all these things. 33 Yet seek first the kingdom and its righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 So do not worry in regard to tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself: sufficient to the day is its badness.”

22 But he said to his students, “For this reason I say to you, Do not worry about life, what you should eat, or about body, what you should wear, 23 because life is more than nourishment and the body than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor harvest, for them there is not a shed or a barn, and God nourishes them. How much more you matter than the birds! 25 And who among you is able by worrying to add to his height one cubit? 26 So if you are not able in regard to the least matter why do you worry concerning the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow; they do not labor or spin. But I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was appareled as one of them! 28 Yet if God so bedecks the blade in a field— present today and thrown into an oven tomorrow—how much more you, skeptics! 29 And you—do not seek what you should eat and what you should drink and do not be anxious. 30 Because the gentiles of the world seek out all these things, and your father knows that you have need of these things. 31 Except: seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you. 32 Do not fear, little flock, because your father took pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

The sharing of materials from the Mishnaic stream sometimes calls attention to radically different placements. While Matthew ensconces the advice in regard to worry within its large sermon, Luke’s approach is to offer a fresh section of

Analysis

141

teaching halfway through the Gospel, by which time resistance has become an evident issue. Luke 12:32 caps this perspective with the eschatological ethics of the Barnaban stream. The approach by means of eschatology contrasts with the providential confidence urged by the teaching, which accords with Psalms of Solomon 5:9–10 (and for that matter Psalm 145): You feed the birds and the fish, as you send rain to the wilderness that the grass may sprout to provide pasture in the wilderness for every living thing, and if they are hungry, they will lift up their face to you. Once the connection between divine care for creation and his concern for his people has been made, the apparently carelessness of animals in their natural state becomes a cautionary reminder to human beings; Tosefta Qiddushin 5:15: Rabbi says, “A man should always endeavor to teach his son a trade which is clean of thievery and easy. And he should pray to him to whom belongs all wealth. For you have no trade in which is not found poverty to inform you that wealth and poverty are not derived from a particular trade” (Mishnah Qiddushin 4:14). R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “In your whole life, did you ever see a lion working as a porter, a deer working as a fruit picker, a fox working as a storekeeper? A wolf selling pots, a domestic beast or a wild beast or a bird who had a trade? Now these are created only to work for me, and I was made only to work for my Master. Now is there not an argument a fortiori: Now if these, who were created only to work for me, lo, they make a living without anguish, I who have been created to work for my Master, is it not reasonable that I too should make a living without anguish! But my deeds have ruined things, and I have spoiled my living.” Another rabbinic teacher is remembered to have observed (Pesiqta de-Rab Kahana 8.1): Though the man who is concerned with Torah labors under the sun, his treasure is above the sun. As the Mishnaic stream presents this caution, the contrast of God’s people with gentiles is emphasized (Matthew 6:32; Luke 12:30).

142

Analysis

Warning against Judging Others in Matthew and Luke, Especially in View of the Danger of Hypocrisy; the Principle of Measure for Measure Matthew 7:1–6

Mark 4:24

Luke 6:37–42

1 “Do not judge, so that you are 24 And he was saying to them: not judged! 2 “Because by what judgment you judge, you shall be judged,

and by what measure you measure it shall be measured to you!

3 But why do you see the particle that is in your brother’s eye, but you do not notice in your own eye a timber? 4 Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me throw out the particle from your eye,’ and look: timber in your eye!? 5 Fraud! First throw out the timber from your eye, and then you will see distinctly to throw out the particle from your brother’s eye.” 6 Do not give the holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before the pigs; otherwise, they will trample them down with their feet and turn to tear you apart!”

37 “And do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Acquit, and you will be acquitted. 38 Give, and it shall be given to you: good measure—pressed, “Look at what you listen to! By shaken, overflowing—they what measure you measure it will give into your embrace. shall be measured to you, and Because in the measure you shall be added to you.” measure it shall be measured back to you.” 39 Yet he also said a comparison to them: “A blind man cannot guide a blind man! Won’t they both fall into a pit? 40 And student is not above teacher: but everyone practiced will be as his teacher. 41 But why do you see the particle that is in your brother’s eye, but you do not notice a timber in your very own eye? 42 How are you able to say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me throw out the particle that is in your eye,’ without yourself seeing timber in your eye!? Fraud! First throw out the timber from your eye, and then you will see distinctly to throw out the particle from your brother’s eye.”

The correspondence of Mark 4:24 with Matthew 7:2 and Luke 6:38 again raises the issue of whether Mark’s Gospel is written with an awareness of the Mishnaic stream. If so, the association of sayings evidently differed from iteration to iteration. But that is clearly the case in Matthew and Luke in any event, and Mark appears to represent the same phenomenon.

Analysis

143

The moral concept of “measure for measure” is well known in Judaism, being broadly evidenced by the Targums and by Rabbinic literature.51 Targum Isaiah 27:8 may be compared to Matthew 7:2; Mark 4:24: Luke 6:38: With the measure you were measuring with they will measure you. In each instance, the maxim is stated as an ethical concept that explains a judgment. In Targum Isaiah, the judgment applies to a future king who will be oppressing Israel and signals Israel’s rescue by God and the king’s defeat. In the Synoptic Gospels, the phrase is cast in the plural and refers to Jesus’ listeners. The principle in both the Targum and the Gospels works the same, with reformulation for the context. That flexible character suggests that the ethical notion of “measure for measure” functions as proverb. A survey of other Jewish writings supports that conclusion. The Mishnah, at Sotah 1:7, states the principle in the third person, as does the Babylonian Talmud in B. Sanhedrin 100a. Genesis Rabbah to Genesis 1:31 similarly emphasizes the principle as an ongoing key fulcrum in judgment. The addition of the Jacobean stream at Matthew 7:6 accords with a concern with holiness expressed at Qumran; Halakhic Lettera 4 8(iv):8–12: And one should not let dogs enter the h[o]ly camp, because they might eat some of the [b]ones of the [ with] the flesh on them. For Jerusalem is the holy camp, it is the plac[e] which he has chosen from among all the tribes of [Israel, since ]Jerusalem is the head of the ca[mps of Israel. In contrast, the Barnaban stream introduces the comparison with the blind without expressing concern for the issue of purity involved; Temple Scrolla 45:12–14: No blind man shall enter it (i.e., the Temple) all their days, so that they will not defile the city in which I dwell; for I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel for ever and ever. The concern of the Barnaban stream is less with cleanness here than with the full measure of reward that is possible; Testament of Zebulon 5:3:

51

Kloppenborg, “Oral and Literate Contexts,” 66–67 has observed the standardization of language in loan agreements.

144

Analysis

Have mercy in your inner being, my children, because whatever anyone does to his neighbor, the Lord will do to him. Luke 6:38 especially reflects this vigorous hope.

145

Analysis

Ask and It Will Be Given, in Particular What Is Good (Matthew) or the Holy Spirit (Luke) Matthew 7:7–11

Luke 11:9–13

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you, seek, and you will find, knock, and it will be opened to you! 8 Because everyone who asks receives, and one who seeks finds and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or: what man among you, whom his son will ask bread, will render him a stone! 10 Or even: will ask fish, and will render him a snake! 11 So if you— being evil—know to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father who is in the heavens give good to those who ask him.”

9 “And I say to you, Ask, and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock, and it will be opened to you! 10 Because everyone who asks receives, and one who seeks finds and to the one who knocks it is open. 11 Yet of what father among you will the son ask fish, and instead of fish he will render a snake! 12 Or even: will ask an egg, will render him a scorpion! 13 So if you—remaining evil— know to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father who is from the heaven give Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”

The close correspondence of wording, despite the differing placements of the tradition, make it clear that Matthew and Luke both drew upon the Mishnaic stream, in Luke’s case tinged with the Barnaban stream of transmission, which emphasized the importance of the prophetic Spirit (see Acts 13:2). Seeing that as the greatest of all gifts was also characteristic of the Essenes; Instructionb 2ii:6–9: For no price exchanges your Holy Spirit, for there is no price equal in value [to it.] Yet the underlying principle is by no means sectarian, and is instanced in Josephus; Apion 2 §197: We should beseech God not to give us blessings, for he has given them spontaneously and put them at the disposal of all, but for capacity to receive, and, having received, to keep them. In this case, Josephus represents a broad consensus in early Judaism, shared by the Mishnaic stream and Jesus, influenced by the Wisdom tradition (see Wisdom 6:12–14).

146

Analysis

The Golder Rule; the Narrow Gate Matthew 7:12–14

Luke 6:31; 13:23–24

12 “So everything—whatever you want men to do for you—do for them yourselves likewise: because this is the law and the prophets. 13 Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is a road and the way broad that leads to destruction, and those entering through it are many; 14 because the gate is narrow and the way restricted which leads to life, and those finding it are few.”

31 “And just as you want men do to you, do to them similarly.” [chapter 13] 23 Yet someone said to him, “Lord, are those saved few?” But he said to them: 24 “Struggle to enter through the narrow gate, because many, I say to you, seek to enter in and are not capable”.

While Matthew presents the largest collection of material from the Mishnaic stream in the single sermon that begins with chapter 5, in Luke the material is distributed to several discrete speeches. The Matthean expansions—the appeal to the Torah and the Prophets and the emphasis on the condemnation of the easy way—derive from the Jacobean stream. The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum twice explains love of another person (whether an Israelite or a stranger) with the maxim, “that which is hateful to you, do not do” (Leviticus 19:18, 34 in Pseudo-Jonathan; Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12).52 Luke shows that the stock of proverbial wisdom Jesus drew on goes back to the first century, while Pseudo-Jonathan shows that it continued to be reused until the seventh century. The Targumic echo is therefore most certainly not the immediate source of Jesus’ statement, but it may help us to understand the nature and general character of Jesus’ statement within Judaism. Interest in the contrast between the constraint of entering into promise and the wealth of that inheritance is a common theme; 4 Ezra 7:3–16:

52

There is also a well-established connection with Shabbat 31a in the Babylonian Talmud. For a discussion of the question, see Bruce Chilton and J.I.H. McDonald, Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom: Biblical Foundations in Theology (London: spck, 1987) 8. An innovative article by Matthew Goldstone argues that a pre-Rabbinic discussion of the principle also produced discussion of the teaching of exemplary retaliation in Matthew and Luke; “Rebuke, Lending, and Love: An Early Exegetical Tradition on Leviticus 19:17–18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136.2 (2017) 307–321.

Analysis

147

I said, “Speak, my lord.” And he said to me, “There is a sea set in a wide expanse so that it is broad and vast, but it has an entrance set in a narrow place, so that it is like a river. If anyone, then, wishes to reach the sea, to look at it or to navigate it, how can he come to the broad part unless he passes through the narrow part? Another example: There is a city built and set on a plain, and it is full of all good things; but the entrance to it is narrow and set in a precipitous place, so that there is fire on the right hand and deep water on the left; and there is only one path lying between them, that is, between the fire and the water, so that only one man can walk upon that path. If now that city is given to a man for an inheritance, how will the heir receive his inheritance unless he passes through the danger set before him?” I said, “He cannot, lord.” And he said to me, “So also is Israel’s portion. For I made the world for their sake, and when Adam transgressed my statutes, what had been made was judged. And so the entrances of this world were made narrow and sorrowful and toilsome; they are few and evil, full of dangers and involved in great hardships. But the entrances of the greater world are broad and safe, and really yield the fruit of immortality. Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them. But now why are you disturbed, seeing that you are to perish? And why are you moved, seeing that you are mortal? And why have you not considered in your mind what is to come, rather than what is now present?”

148

Analysis

Warnings against False Prophets, Known by Their Fruit; Not All Who Call Jesus “Lord” Known by Him Matthew 7:15–23

Luke 6:43–46; 13:25–27

15 “Be wary of the false prophets, such as come to you in sheep’s clothing, but within they are predatory wolves. 16 From their fruit you will recognize them: they neither collect grape-clusters from briar nor figs from thistles! 17 In this manner, every good tree makes choice fruit. But the rotten tree makes evil fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, neither a rotten tree make choice fruit. 19 Every tree not making choice fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. 20 Consequently: from their fruits you will recognize them. 21 Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my father who is in the heavens. 22 Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord: did we not prophesy in your name, and by your name throw out demons, and in your name do many miracles?’ 23 And then I will warrant to them, ‘Never did I know you: Clear away from me, you who work the lawlessness!’”

43 “Because there is neither a choice tree making rotten fruit, nor again a rotten tree making choice fruit; 44 because each tree from its own fruit is known. Because they neither collect figs from briar, nor pick a grape-cluster from a thorn! 45 The good man from the good store of the heart bears forth the good, and the evil from the evil bears forth evil, because from heart’s overflow his mouth speaks. 46 Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? [chapter 13] 25 From whenever the house manager is raised and shuts up the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open for us,’ he will reply and say to you, ‘I do not know you: where are you from?’ 26 Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate before you and drank, and in our roads you taught!’ 27 And he will say, saying to you, ‘I do not know where you are from: stand away from me, all workers of injustice!’ ”

Both in the opening and in the body of the address (Matthew 7:15, 22) false prophecy is a particular interest of the Jacobean stream, an emphasis it holds in common with some Essene texts; False Prophets 1–9: The false prophets who arose in [Israel] Balaam [son of] Beor [The] Old Man from Bethel [Zede]kiah son of Ḥa[na]anah

Analysis

149

[Aha]b son of K[ol]iah [Zede]kiah son of Ma[a]seiah [Shemaiah the Ne]hlemite [Hananiah son of Az]ur, [a prophet from Gib]eon. We also hear in the Damascus Document: “they prophesied falsehood to turn Israel from following God” (6:1–2). But the issue is of course not merely sectarian, but arises wherever prophetic speech is taken as authoritative; Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:5–6: A false prophet (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1), one who prophesies concerning something which he has not actually heard or concerning something which was not actually said to him is put to death by man. But he who holds back his prophecy, he who disregards the words of another prophet, or the prophet who transgresses his own words, is put to death by heaven, as it is said, “I will require it of him” (Deuteronomy 18:19). He who prophesies in the name of an idol (Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1), and says, “Thus did such-and-such an idol say to me,” [is put to death] even though he got the law right, declaring unclean that which in fact is unclean, and declaring clean that which in fact is clean. Matthew does not include the correspondent of Luke 6:45 within this master discourse, but does include it in a later speech (Matthew 12:35). Sometimes, then, it is Matthew who aggregates material to the sermon, and sometimes Luke. In both Gospels, however, the Mishnaic stream has been layered at the close of the passage with an eschatological emphasis, from the Silan revision or that of James the son of Zebedee.

150

Analysis

Contrast of a House Built on the Rock with Its Opposite Matthew 7:24–29

Luke 6:47–7:1

24 “So everyone, such as hears these my words and does them, will be likened to a prudent man, who constructed his home on the rock. 25 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and fell against that house, and it did not fall, because it had been founded upon the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these my words and does not do them will be likened to a foolish man, such as constructed his home upon the sand. 27 And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and struck against that home, and it fell, and its collapse was great.” 28 And it happened when Jesus fin-

47 “Everyone coming to me and hearing my words and doing them, I will show you who he is like. 48 He is like a man constructing a home, who dug and excavated and put a foundation on the rock. Yet when a flood happened, the river burst on that home, and it was not capable of shaking it, because it had been well constructed. 49 But the one who has heard and has not done is like a man who constructed a home upon the earth without a foundation, on which the river burst, and at once it collapsed, and the wreck of that home was great.” [Chapter 7] 1 He fulfilled all his declarations in the hearing of the people; accordingly, he entered into Capernaum.

ished these words, the crowds were overwhelmed by his teaching, 29 because he was teaching them as having authority, and not as their letterers.

Foolish building is a well-known metaphor for a failure to rely upon God in early Judaism; 1Enoch 94:7: Woe unto those who build their houses with sin! For they shall all be demolished from their foundations; and they shall fall by the sword. Those who amass gold and silver; they shall quickly be destroyed. Storm also features as a means of divine judgement; Sibylline Oracles 3:689– 692: God will judge all men by war and sword and fire and torrential rain. There will also be brimstone from heaven and stone and much grievous hail. Death will come upon four-footed creatures. Although Matthew and Luke go their different ways in incorporating the Mishnaic stream, the stream itself appears to have presented an extended dis-

Analysis

151

course, capped by the present parable. The close in Matthew echoes the Magdalene stream (reflected in Mark 1:21, 22; Luke 7:32), albeit in a fragmentary way, while Luke resumes the link with Capernaum that links with the next passage.

152

Analysis

Healing the Centurion’s Servant; in Luke, Contact by Means of Elders of the Community, and in both Matthew and Luke a Contrast with Faith as Found Generally within Israel Matthew 8:5–13

Luke 7:2–10; 13:28–30

5 He entered into Capernaum and there 2 A certain centurion had a slave badly off, came to him a centurion, summoning him about to expire, who was valued by him. 3 He heard concerning Jesus and 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant has been delegated to him elders of the Jews, thrown paralyzed in the home, sorely tor- inquiring of him if he would come save his tured.” slave. 4 Those who came along to Jesus summoned him eagerly, saying, “He is worthy that you provide this to him. 5 Because he loves our 7 He says to him, “I will come heal him.” nation and himself constructed the synagogue for us.” 6 And Jesus 8 The centurion replied and stated, “Lord I proceeded with them. Yet already am not worthy that you should enter under when he remained not far from the my roof, home, the centurion sent friends to him, “Lord: do not take trouble, but only say by word, and my servant shall because I am not worthy so that you should be cured. 9 Because I also am a man under enter under my roof, 7 neither do I conauthority, having soldiers under myself, and sider myself worthy to come to you, but say I say to this one, ‘Proceed,’ and he proceeds, by word, and my servant shall be cured. 8 and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and Because I also am a man ordered under to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does.” 10 Jesus authority, having solders under myself, and heard and marveled and said to those fol- I say to this one, ‘Proceed,’ and he proceeds, lowing, “Amen I say to you, with not one in and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and Israel have I found such faith.” to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does.” 9 Jesus heard these things and marveled at him, turned to the crowd following him and said, “I say to you, neither in Israel have I found such faith. [Chapter 13] 11 “Yet I say to you that many shall come 28 There shall be the weeping and the from east and west and recline with Abra- grinding of teeth, when you see Abraham ham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets of the heavens. 12 But the sons of the king- in the kingdom of God, but you cast out,

Analysis dom shall be thrown out into the outer darkness; There shall be the weeping and the grinding of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Depart, and as you believedit shall happen to you.” And the servant was cured in that hour.

153 outside. 29 And they will come from east and west and from north and south and recline in the kingdom of God. 30 And look: there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.” [Chapter 7] 10 Those who were sent returned to the house and found the slave healthy.

A story concerning Ḥanina ben Dosa in Bavli Berakhot 34b has long been a point of comparison with Jesus:53 There was the case in which the son of Rabban Gamaliel fell ill. He sent two disciples of sages to R. Ḥanina b. Dosa to pray for mercy for him. When he saw them, he went up to his upper room and prayed for mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them, “Go, for his fever has left him.” They said to him, “Are you a prophet?” He said to them, “I am not a prophet nor a disciple of a prophet, but this is what I have received as a tradition: ‘If my prayer is fluent, then I know that it is accepted, and if not, then I know that it is rejected’” (Mishnah Berakhot 5:5). They sat down and wrote down the hour, and when they came back to Rabban Gamaliel, he said to them, “By the Temple service! You were neither early nor late, but that is just how it happened. At that very moment, his fever left him and he asked us for water to drink.” There was the further case involving R. Ḥanina b. Dosa. He went to study Torah with R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, and the son of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai fell ill. He said to him, “Ḥanina, my son, pray for mercy for him so that he will live.” He put his head between his knees and prayed for mercy for him, and he lived. Said R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, “If Ben Zakkai [that is, I] had put his head between his knees all day long, they would not pay attention to him [in Heaven].” Said his wife to him, “And is Ḥanina greater than you?” He said to her, “No. But he is like a slave before the king, and I am like a prince before the king.”

53

See George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962) ii: 235–236 and Alan J. Avery-Peck, “The Galilean Charismatic and Rabbinic Piety: The Holy Man in the Talmudic Literature,” The Historical Jesus in Context (edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, John Dominic Crossan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) 149–165.

154

Analysis

Perhaps owing to this analogy, the presentation in both Matthew and Luke has been taken to lie very close to history and to be a part of the Mishnaic stream. So understood such a narrative is unique within the stream, and of course its anticipation of gentile involvement in Jesus’ movement is anachronistic from the points of view of the stream itself; compare, for example, Matthew 6:32; Luke 12:30. Without question, elements from the Mishnaic stream are present in Matthew 8:11–12, but they are located elsewhere in Luke 13:28–29. This indicates the accommodation of Mishnaic material within the late phase of the Petrine stream, in which the circle of believes is understood to be “the house of faith” (see 1Peter 1:5, 7, 9, 21; 5:9 with Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9). The Barnaban stream treats this issue with greater nuance, presenting the centurion as a Godfearer who is sensitive to issues of purity. The community of Qumran believe that on their behalf God “will renew for [the Prince of the Congregation] the covenant of the Congregation, so as to establish the kingdom of his people forever” (1QSb 5:20–21). Jesus, however, warns that the “sons of the kingdom” may in fact be cast out into outer darkness. Eschatological judgment is emphasized in the Mishnaic stream, particularly as influenced by James the son of Zebedee. Its imagery is well precedented; 1 Enoch 103:7–8: You yourselves know that they will bring your souls down to Sheol; and they shall experience evil and great tribulation—in darkness, nets, and burning flame. Your souls shall enter into the great judgment; it shall be a great judgment in all the generations of the world. Woe unto you, for there is no peace for you! The “outer darkness” of Matthew 8:12 may be a contribution from the Silan stream, which repeats the imagery (Matthew 22:13; 25:30). But the motif is too well known for that issue to be pressed with any assurance.

Analysis

155

Raising of the Widow of Nain’s Son Luke 7:11–17 11 And it happened thereafter that he proceeded to a town called Nain and his disciples and a great crowd proceeded with him. 12 Yet as he approached to the gate of the town, and look — there was borne out a dead only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a sizeable crowd of the town was with her. 13 The Lord saw her and was moved for her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 He came forward and touched the coffin; those who carried stood, and he said, “Young man, I say to you, be raised.” 15 And the dead youth sat up and began to speak, and he gave him to his mother. 16 But fear took everyone and they glorified God, saying, “A great prophet has been raised among us,” and, “God has visited his people.” 17 And this word went out in all Judaea concerning him and in all the surrounding region. The Barnaban stream, in incorporating the story about the centurion, reflects its comment to the presentation of Jesus in prophetic terms (as in Luke 4:16– 30) and its conclusion to the story of the widow’s son invokes the memory of Elijah (1Kings 17:17–24, cf. 2Kings 4:18–37). In doing so, the prophetic persona is understood as eschatological in significance; 4Q521.11–13 “Messianic Apocalypse:” And the Lord will perform marvelous acts such as have not existed, just as he said, for he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim victory to the poor and he will make the poor whole, lead those who are uprooted and enrich the hungry.

156

Analysis

Challenges of Discipleship: Foxes Have Holes while Son of Man Has No Abode; the Dead Left to Bury Their Dead; in Luke, Even Leave-Taking is Disallowed Matthew 8:18–22

Luke 9:57–62

18 Jesus saw a crowd around him and commanded to depart to the opposite shore. 19 One letterer came forward and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you travel.” 20 And Jesus says to him, “The foxes have dens and the birds of the heaven nests, but the son of man does not have where he lays the head.” 21 Yet another of the students said to him, “Lord, permit me to go first and bury my father.” 22 But Jesus says to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

57 They were proceeding on the way and someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go travel.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have dens and the birds of heaven nests, but the son of man does not have where he lays the head.” 59And he said to another, “Follow me.” But he said, “Permit me to go and first bury my father.” 60 Yet he said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61 And another also said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first permit me to take leave of those in my house.” 62 Yet Jesus said, “No one who puts hand to plow and looks back is ready for the kingdom of God.”

The Barnaban stream is most explicit when Jesus’ prophetic insistence is at issue, to the point that it is more stringent than what Elijah demanded of Elisha (1 Kings 19:19–21). Yet this stringency is clearly already expressed in the origin of this teaching, the Mishnaic stream, which conflicts with the honor owed a parent; Josephus, Apion 2 §206: Honor to parents the Law ranks second only to honor to God, and if a son does not respond to the benefits received from them—for the slightest failure in his duty towards them—it hands him over to be stoned. It requires respect to be paid by the young to all their elders, because God is the most ancient of all. Just as there is a tension with the ordinary requirement of honor, so the expression of comparison of people with animals becomes disjunctive, in contrast to Matthew 6:25–34; Luke 12:22–32 (and see Tosefta Qiddushin 5:15, cited in that context), where the similarity of their treatment by God is asserted. This is sug-

Analysis

157

gestive of the more eschatological, less sapiential perspective of the Mishnaic stream in its later phase, a consideration that coheres with the developed scene that is presented. In the case of Matthew, the introduction of the scribe in 18:19 as not understanding the demands of discipleship typifies the Jacobean stream and does not agree with the perspective of the passage as a whole, which stresses radical itineracy rather than misunderstanding. Matthew has also, in 8:18, echoed the Petrine stream (represented in Mark 4:35, but not cited by Matthew in its initial context).

158

Analysis

Calming the Storm and Insistence on Faith; Reaction: Who Can This Be? Matthew 8:23–27

23 He embarked into a boat and his students followed him, 24 and look: a great quake came in the sea, with the result that the boat was covered by the waves. Yet he himself was sleeping. 25 They came forward and raised him, saying, “Lord: save! We are perishing!” 26 And he says to them, “Why are you timid, skeptics?” Then, raised up, he scolded the winds and the sea, and there happened a great calm. 27 The men marveled and said, “Of what sort can he be, that even the winds and the sea obey him?”

Mark 4:35–41

Luke 8:22–25

35 And he says to them in that day, when it had become evening, “We go through to the opposite side.” 36 And leaving the crowd they take him along as he was in the boat, and other boats were with him. 37 And there happens a big tempest of wind and the waves pile into the boat. Result: the boat was now swamped. 38 And he himself was in the stern, sleeping on the cushion. And they raise him and say to him, “Teacher, don’t you care that we are perishing?!” 39 And being roused he scolded the wind and said to the sea: “Silent, shut up!” And the wind ceased, and there happened a great calm. 40 And he said to them, “Why are you timid? Do you not yet have faith?” 41 And they feared a great fear and were saying to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

22 And it happened in one of the days that he himself—and his students—embarked into a boat, and he said to them, “We go through to the opposite side of the lake;” and they set out. 23 They were sailing, and he drifted off to sleep. And there came down to the lake a tempest of wind, and they were filling up and imperiled.

24 They came forward and roused him, saying, “Master, master, we are perishing!” But being roused he scolded the wind and the surf of the water, and they stopped, and there happened a calm. 25 But he said to them, “Where is your faith?” They feared and marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he directs even the winds and the water, and they obey him?”

Differences among the three Gospels in this case seem to arise from independent recourse to a single tradition; in this case the combination of emphases on faith and Jesus’ power reflects the Petrine stream. The origin of Jesus’ power appears to be wisdom concerning the divine ordering of the world; 1 Enoch 60:11–25: Then the other angel who was going with me was showing me the hidden things: what is first and last in heaven, above it, beneath the earth, in the depth, in the extreme ends of heaven, the extent of heaven; the storerooms of the winds, how the winds are divided, how they are weighed, how the winds divide and dissipate, the openings of the winds, each according to the strength of its wind; the power of the light of the moon and how it is the right amount, the divisions of the stars, each according to its nomenclature, and all the subdivisions; the thunders according to the places where they fall, and the subdivisions of the lightnings according

Analysis

159

to their flashing of light and the velocity of the obedience of the whole array of them. So the thunders have their (respective) moments of rest with patience; and (each thunder) is marked by its (respective) sound. Neither the thunder nor the lightning becomes disjoined one from the other; both go together in a single breeze and do not part. For when the lightning flashes light, the thunder utters its sound; also, at that moment, the wind causes (the thunder) to come to rest and divides equally (the time) between each one of them. For the reservoir of their moments (of thundering) is like the sand, (so) each one of them is restrained with a bridle and turned back by the power of the wind and driven in this manner all over the numerous corners of the earth. Now, the sea breeze is masculine and strong and according to the power of its strength it holds back (the air) and, in this manner, is driven and dispersed among all the mountains of the world. The frost-wind is its own guardian and the hail-wind is a kind messenger. The snow-wind has evacuated (its reservoir); it does not exist because of its strength; there is in it only a breeze that ascends from (the reservoir) like smoke, and its name is frost. And the wind and the mist do not dwell together with them in their reservoirs. But (the mist) has its own reservoir, for its course is glorious. It has light and darkness both in the rainy season and the dry season; and its reservoir is itself an angel. The dwelling place of the dew-breeze is in the extreme ends of heaven and is linked together with the reservoirs of the rain in (both) its courses of the rainy season and the dry season; also the clouds of (the dew) and the clouds of the mist are associated feeding each other mutually. When the rain-wind becomes activated in its reservoir, the angels come and open the reservoir and let it out; and when it is sprayed over the whole earth, it becomes united with the water which is upon the earth; and whensoever it unites with (other waters, it unites) with the water upon the earth which is for the use of those who dwell on the earth, for it is nourishment for the earth (sent) from the Most High in heaven. So in this manner there is a measuring system for the rain given to the angels. All these things I saw as far as the garden of the righteous ones. And the angel of peace who was with me said to me, “These two monsters are prepared for the great day of the Lord (when) they shall turn into food. So that the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits should come down upon them in order that the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits should not be issued in vain but slay the children with their mothers, and the children with their fathers, when the punishment of the Lord of the Spirits comes down upon everyone. After that there shall be the judgment according to his mercy and his patience.”

160

Analysis

The insight involved, however, can also be attributed to children, in a way that articulates the latent presence of God within a person; for a later development, see Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:1: Said Rabbi Tanḥum: “Once a boatload of gentiles was sailing the Mediterranean. There was one Jewish child on the boat. A great storm came upon them in the sea. Each person took his idol in his hand and cried out. But it did not help them. Once they saw that their cries were of no avail, they turned to the Jewish child and said, ‘Child, rise up and call out to your God. For we have heard that he answers you when you cry out to him, and that he is heroic.’ The child immediately rose up and cried out with all his heart. The Holy One, blessed be he accepted his prayer and quieted the seas. When the ship reached dry land everyone disembarked to purchase his needed staples. They said to the child, ‘Don’t you want to buy anything?’ He said to them, ‘What do you want of me? I am just a poor traveler.’ They said to him, ‘You are just a poor traveler? They are the poor travelers! Some of them are here, and their idols are in Babylonia. Some of them are here, and their idols are in Rome. Some of them are here and their idols are with them, but they do them no good. But wherever you go, your God is with you.’” In 4Q521.1 “Messianic Apocalypse” we are told that “heaven and earth will obey” God’s Messiah. Jesus’ stilling the storm on the lake could be interpreted as illustrative of that authority.

161

Analysis

The Demonic “Legion” of the Gerasenes (Mark and Luke) or Gadarenes (Matthew); in Mark and Luke, the Possessed Man’s Subsequent Action Matthew 8:28–34

Mark 5:1–20

Luke 8:26–39

28

1

And they came to the opposite

26 And they sailed down to the area

into the area of the Gadarenes, and

side of the sea, into the area of

of the Gerasenes, which is opposite

there met him

the Gerasenes.

He came to the opposite shore,

2

He got out from

Galilee.

the boat, and at once there met

27 He came out on the land, and there

him from the graves a man with an

met him some man from the town

unclean spirit.

3

He had the hab-

having demons.

itation among the tombs, and no two demon-possessed people, coming

out

from

the

graves—ex-

tremely violent, so that one was not capable of passing through that way.

one was any longer able—even with a chain—to bind him.

4

(For many

times he had been bound with fet-

And for a long period he had not worn a garment, and did not remain in a home but among the tombs.

ters and chains, and the chains were torn apart by him, and the fetters shattered, and no one was capable of subduing him.)

5

And all night

and day he was among the tombs and in the hills, shouting and cutting himself with stones.

6 He saw Jesus

from a distance, and ran and worshipped him,

29

7

and shouting with a

28

He saw Jesus and shouted out,

big sound he says, “I have nothing for

fell before him and said with a big

And look: they shouted, saying,

you, Jesus, son of the highest God! I

sound, “I have nothing for you, Jesus,

“We have nothing for you, son of

adjure you by God, do not torment

son of the highest God! I petition

Have you come before

me!” 8 Because he had been saying to

you, do not torment me!”

him, “Unclean spirit, get out from the

had charged the unclean spirit to get

man!”

out of the man. Because on many

God!

time to torment us!?”

29

For he

occasions it had wrenched him away, and he was shackled, guarded with chains and fetters; he ripped apart the shackles and he was driven by

9

And he interrogated him: “What

the demon into the wildernesses.

30

is your name?” And it says to him,

Yet Jesus interrogated him, “What is

“Legion is my name, because we are

your name?” But it said, “Legion—”

many.”

10

And they summoned him

because many demons entered into

31

a lot, so that he would not dispatch

him.

30 Yet there was a distance from them a herd of many pigs grazing; 31 and

them outside of the area. 11 Yet there

so that he would not direct them

was there by the hill a big herd of pigs

to go away into the netherworld.

the demons summoned him, saying,

grazing. 12 They summoned him and

Yet there was a herd of numerous

“If you throw us out, dispatch us into

said, “Send us into the pigs, so that

pigs grazing on the hill. And they

13 And he

summoned him so that he would per-

them, “Depart.” They went out and

permitted them. The unclean spirits

mit them to enter into those, and he

went away into the pigs, and look: all

went out and entered into the pigs,

permitted them. 33 The demons went

the herd rushed over the cliff into the

and the herd rushed over the cliff into

out from the man but entered into

the herd of pigs!”

32 And he said to

we may enter into them.”

And they summoned him,

32

162

Analysis

sea, and they died in the waters.

33

the sea, about two thousand, and

the pigs, and the herd rushed over

14 And

the cliff into the lake, and they were

Yet those tending them fled, went

they were choked in the sea.

away into the city and reported

those tending them fled and repor-

choked off.

everything, all about the demon-

ted in the town and in the fields, and

what had happened and fled and

possessed people.

34

34

Those tending saw

And look: all

they came to see what it was that had

reported in the town and in the fields.

the town came out to a meeting with

happened. 15 And they come to Jesus,

35 Yet they came out to see what had

Jesus.

and perceive the demon-possessed

happened, and came to Jesus, and

man sitting, clothed and rational—

found the man sitting from whom

the one who had had the legion—

the demons had gone out, clothed

and they were afraid.

16

And those

and rational, by the feet of Jesus, and

36 Those who had

who had seen how it happened to the

they were afraid.

demon-possessed man—and about

seen how the demon-possessed man

17 And

They saw him and summoned, that

the pigs—recounted to them.

he should pass from their boundar-

they began to summon him to go

ies.

away from their boundaries.

18

He

embarked into the boat

was saved reported to them.

37 And

all the multitude of the surrounding land of the Gerasenes asked him to go away from them, because they were beset with great fear. He himself

.

embarked into a boat and returned.

and the demon-possessed person summoned him so that he might be with him. 19 And he did not let him, but says to him, “Depart into your house, to your own people, and report to them how much the Lord has done for you and has had compassion on you.” 20 And he went away and began to announce in Ten Cities how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

38 But the man from whom the demons had gone out petitioned him, to be with him. Yet he discharged him, saying, 39 “Return into your house and narrate how much God did for you.”

He went away through the whole town and announced how much Jesus had done for him.

The tradition of the exorcism itself derives from the Magdalene stream and is placed across the Sea of Galilee from Magdala. The account assumes the ambiance and impurity of demons; Jubilees 10:1: In the third week of that jubilee the polluted demons began to lead astray the children of Noah’s sons and to lead them to folly and to destroy them. Only a definitive change, a break in demonic power, could be conceived as ending that régime; Testament of Simeon 6:6: Then all the spirits of error shall be given over to being trampled underfoot. And men will have mastery over the evil spirits.

Analysis

163

Experience during the persecution of Antiochus iv had made pigs a metonym of uncleanness (Josephus, Antiquities 13 § 243), with the result that they were symbolic of impurity itself; Mishnah Baba Qamma 7:7: They do not rear small cattle in the Land of Israel, but they do rear them in Syria and in the wastelands that are in the Land of Israel. They do not rear chickens in Jerusalem, on account of the Holy Things, nor do priests [rear chickens] anywhere in the Land of Israel, because of the [necessity to preserve] the cleanness [of heave offering and certain other foods that are handed over to the priests]. They do not rear pigs anywhere. The account in the Synoptics encapsulates the sensibility of what a deranged person would do; Tosefta Terumot 1:3: Who is an imbecile? One who goes out alone at night, and who sleeps in a graveyard, and who rips his clothing, and who loses what is given to him. The account of the exorcism proper is provided an addendum by the Barnaban stream, which makes the exorcised man the earliest example of preaching concerning Jesus on gentile territory. Although Matthew more directly represents the Magdalene stream in not including the Barnaban addendum, the Jacobean stream in its Silan recension is also represented in Matthew. The demoniac prevents passage through the area as a result of impurity (Matthew 8:28), and the specific fear of the legion of demons is eschatological destruction (Matthew 8:29). The reference to two demoniacs (Matthew 8:28, 33), however, seems to reflect awareness of other similar traditions, such as Mark 1:23–28, which derives from the Petrine stream and is not detailed by Matthew (although Matthew 4:29 shows an awareness of Mark 1:22). The situation is similar in the cases of the two blind men in Matthew 9:27; 20:30. The community of Qumran believed that David composed four psalms designed to cure the possessed (Apocryphal Psalms [11Q5] 27:9–10; cf. 11Q11). True to the Davidic tradition, Jesus is able to overpower evil spirits, even when their number might be said to be a “legion.”

164

Analysis

Jairus’ Daughter Raised and the Woman with a Flow of Blood Healed Matthew 9:18–26

Mark 5:21–43

Luke 8:40–56

18

21 Jesus crossed in the boat again to the opposite side and there was gathered a big crowd upon him, and he was along the sea. 22 And there comes one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, sees him and falls at his feet, 23 and was summoning him a lot, saying: “My little daughter is at her end, so come lay hands on her, so she might be saved and live.” 24 And he went away with him, and there followed him a big crowd and they were pressing around him. 25 And a women who had a flow of blood twelve years 26 (and had suffered a lot from many physicians and had expended everything that was hers and had not improved, but rather got worse) 27 had heard things concerning Jesus. She came in the crowd from behind, touched his garment. 28 She was saying: “If I touch even his garments, I shall be saved.” 29 And at once the fountain of her blood dried up, and she knew in the body that she was cured of the scourge. 30 Jesus at once recognized in himself the power gone out from him and turned back in the crowd; he was saying, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his students were saying to him, “Look at the crowed pressing around you, and you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he glared around to see the woman who had done this. 33 But the woman was afraid and trembling: she knew what had happened to her; she came and fell before him and said all the truth to him.

40

While he was speaking these

things to them,

look: one ruler comes forward, worships him, saying: “My daughter has just deceased! But come, lay your hand upon her, and she will live!” 19 Jesus was raised and followed him (his students, as well). 20 And look: a woman hemorrhaging twelve years

came forward from behind, touched the tassel of his garment. 21 She was saying in herself, “If I touch only his garment, I shall be saved.”

Yet while Jesus returned the

crowd awaited him, because they all were expecting him.

41 And look: a man came whose name was Jairus, and he continued ruler of the synagogue. He fell by Jesus’s feet and summoned him to enter into his house 42 because he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying. While he departed the crowds were suffocating him. 43 And a women who had a flow of blood for twelve years (such as was not capable of being healed by anyone)

44 came forward from behind, touched the tassel of his garment,

and immediately the flow of her blood stood still.

45 And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched me?” Everyone denied, and Rock said, “Master, the crowds beset you, and press about.” 46 But Jesus said, “Who touched me?—because I knew power gone out from me.” 47 The woman saw that she did not escape notice, and came trembling and, falling before him, reported before all the people for what reason she had touched him, and how she was cured immediately.

165

Analysis 22 Jesus turned and saw her, said, “Be brave, daughter, your faith has saved you!” And the woman was saved from that hour.

23 And Jesus came into the home of the ruler and saw the flute-players and the distressed crowd.

24 He was saying, “Clear away! Because the child has not died, but sleeps.” And they were ridiculing him. 25 But when the crowd had been thrown out, he went in,

grasped her hand, and the girl was raised.

26 And this news went out into that whole land.

34 But he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you; depart in peace and be healthy of your scourge.” 35 While he still speaks, they come from the synagogue leader, saying: “Your daughter died —why do you still trouble the teacher?” 36 Jesus overheard the word spoken, and says to the synagogue leader, “Do not be afraid; only believe.” 37 And he did not let anyone follow along with him except Rock and James and John, James’s brother. 38 And they come into the house of the synagogue leader, and he perceives distress: women weeping and wailing a lot. 39 He entered and says to them, “Why are you distressed and weeping? The child has not died, but sleeps.” 40 And they were ridiculing him. But he personally threw everyone out, takes along the father of the child and the mother and those with him and proceeds into where the child was. 41 He grasped the hand of the child and says to her, “Taleitha koum,” which is translated: “Girl, I say to you, raise!” 42 And at once the girl arose and was walking around (because she was twelve years old). And they were at once beside themselves with great bewilderment. 43 And he directed them a lot so that no one should know this, and he said she be given to eat.

48 But he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you; proceed in peace.” 49 While he still speaks, someone comes from the synagogue leader, saying: “Your daughter has died: trouble the teacher no longer.” 50 Jesus heard and replied to him, “Do not be afraid; only believe, and she shall be saved.” 51 He came to the home and he did not let anybody enter with him except Rock and John and James and the child’s father and mother. 52 All were weeping and mourning her,

but he said, “Do not weep, she has not died, but sleeps.” 53 And they were ridiculing him, knowing that she had died.

54 He personally grasped her hand and shouted, saying, “Child, raise!” 55 And her spirit returned, and she arose immediately, and he directed she be given to eat. 56 And her parents were beside themselves, but he charged them to say to no one what had happened.

Two issues predominate in the complex of material as a whole. The first of these, impurity, becomes an unmistakable emphasis in the condition of death; Mishnah Ohalot 15:10: He who touches the corpse and touches the utensils, [or] he who overshadows the corpse and touches the utensils—they are unclean. He who overshadows the corpse and overshadows the utensils, [or] he who

166

Analysis

touches the corpse and overshadows the utensils—they are clean. If his hand was a handbreadth square, they are unclean. Two houses, and in them are approximately two half olive’s bulks of corpse matter—he put his two hands into each of them—if there is in his hands a square handbreadth, he brings the uncleanness, and if not, he does not bring the uncleanness. The flow of blood and bodily fluids targets the same underlying issue; Josephus, The Jewish War 5 §227: Persons afflicted with gonorrhea or leprosy were excluded from the city altogether; the Temple was closed to women during their menstruation, and even when free from impurity they were not permitted to pass the boundary which we have mentioned above. Men not thoroughly clean were debarred from admission to the inner court, from which even priests were excluded when undergoing purification. Interestingly, the two matters may be connected, as they are in the case of this material from the Petrine stream; Mishnah Niddah 7:1: The blood of the menstruating woman and the flesh of a corpse impart uncleanness when they are wet and impart uncleanness when they are dry. But the [Zab’s] flux, phlegm, spit, and the creeping thing, carrion, and semen impart uncleanness when they are wet and do not impart uncleanness when they are dry. One of the indications that the Petrine stream is a crafted composition is that the issue of purity has been addressed since the opening (Mark 1:29– 39). The connection of belief and healing, apparent since Mark 2:1–12, is also developed in the sequence, and is a fresh insistence which makes the prophetic connection (1Kings 17:17–24; 2Kings 4:18–37) implicit rather than emphatic. The verb “save” (Mark 5:23, 28, 34) links both narratives in their presentation, and in their relationship to the issues of impurity and faith. That broadening usage becomes characteristic of the soteriological appeal associated with Peter (see Acts 2:40; 4:9, 12; 11:14; 15:11), as is the unspoken assumption that Jesus wore tassels on his garment (cf. Numbers 15:37–41 with Matthew 9:20; Luke 8:44, contrast Mark 5:20).

Analysis

167

Healing of Two Blind Men and the Exorcism of a Mute Man Matthew 9:27–33 27 And there followed Jesus passing by from there two blind men, shouting and saying, “Have compassion on us, David’s son!” 28 He came to the home and the blind men came forward to him, and he says to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They say to him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith it shall be to you.” 30 And their eyes were opened and Jesus censured them, saying, “See no one shall know!” 31 They went out and spread his fame in that whole land. 32 They were coming out and look: they carried forward to him a dumb, demon-possessed man; the demon was thrown out and the dumb man spoke. 33 And the crowds marveled, saying, “It has not ever appeared so in Israel.” 34 But the Pharisees were saying, “By the ruler of the demons he throws out demons!” This is an example of a summarizing presentation, which Matthew itself gives in fuller form at 20:29–34 (cf. Matthew 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43). The presentation nonetheless generalizes Jesus’ Davidic identity as the source of his capacity in healing, an emphasis of the Jacobean stream. Since the work of Dennis Duling in regard to this theme,54 further texts from Qumran have deepened critical appreciation of the association between Solomon and exorcism; Apocryphal Psalms 2:2–4: [… A Psalm of ] Solomon. He call[ed …] [… the spi]rits and the demons […] […] these are [the de]mons and the pri[nce of Maste]mah The generalization holds in regard to the other incidents, recounted in spare form (see also 12:23, with its reference to Jesus as the son of David), expressed 54

See Dennis C. Duling, “The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity— Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis,” New Testament Studies 20.1 (1973) 77–77; “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David.” The Harvard Theological Review 68.3/4 (1975) 235–252; “The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic,” New Testament Studies 24.3 (1978) 392–410; “Matthew’s Plurisignificant ‘Son of David’ in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22.3 (1992) 99–116; Jirí Dvoracek, The Son of David in Matthew’s Gospel in the Light of the Solomon as Exorcist Tradition: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 415 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).

168

Analysis

in terms of the Matthean duality (cf. the comment on 4:18) which finds its origin in such traditions. The developed interlocution in regard to faith (vv. 28–29) is also characteristic of the stream, which absorbs earlier traditions in a way that suggests the later form of James’ circle, under the leadership of Silas.

169

Analysis

Teaching in Towns and Villages, Announcing the Kingdom in Matthew and Luke, with Women Supporting in Luke; Comparison to Sheep without a Shepherd (Matthew and Mark); Prayer for Workers in Matthew; Sending of the Twelve in Mark and Matthew, to Israel Alone in Matthew; Sending of the Seventy-Two in Luke Matthew 9:35–10:1, 5–16

Mark 6:6b, 34, 7–13

35 And Jesus went around all the towns and villages, teaching in 6b And he went around the villages their synagogues and announcing in a circle, teaching. the message of the kingdom and healing every illness and every disease.

Luke 8:1–3; 10:1–2; 9:1–6; 10:3 1 And in order, it happened that he himself made way through town and village, announcing and messaging the kingdom of God, and the Twelve were with him. 2 And there were some women who had been healed from evil spirits and ailments—Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,

3 and Joanna, Chusa’s

wife (Herod’s officer), and Susanna and many others—such as provided for them from their belongings.

36 He saw the crowds and felt concerning them, because they were wandering and scattered like sheep not having a shepherd.

37 Then he says to his students, “The harvest is great, but the workers few: 38 so petition the Lord of the harvest so that he will put out workers for his harvest.”

34 He came out and saw a big crowd and felt for them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd, and he began to teach them [Chapter 10] a lot. 1 After this the Lord assigned seventy-two and delegated them two by two to every town and place where he was about to come. 2 Yet he was saying to them, “The harvest is great, but the workers few: so petition the Lord of the harvest so that he will put out workers for his harvest.”

[Chapter 10] 7 And he summoned the Twelve 1 He summoned his twelve stu- and began to delegate them two dents and gave them authority of by two, and was giving them auunclean spirits so as to throw them thority of the unclean spirits, out, and to heal every illness and every disease.

[Chapter 9] 1 He convoked the twelve and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to heal sicknesses, 2 and he delegated them to announce the kingdom of God and to cure,

170 5 These twelve Jesus delegated, charging them—saying, “Do not go away by a route of gentiles, and do not enter into a town of Samaritans! 6 Rather, proceed to the lost sheep of Israel’s house! 7 But announce as you proceed, saying: ‘The kingdom of the heavens has approached!’ 8 Heal ailing people, raise dead people, cleanse scabby people, throw out demons: take gratis, give gratis. 9 Do not procure yourselves gold or silver or copper for your belts, 10 neither a bag for a way nor two tunics, neither sandals nor a staff: because the worker is worth his nourishment! 11 Yet into whatever town or village you enter, locate someone worthy in it, and there remain until you go out. 12 When you are entering into the home, greet it, 13 and if the home is worthy, your peace will be upon it, but if it is not worthy, your peace will return upon you. 14 And whoever does not receive you, nor hear your words, when you go out outside the home or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15 Amen I say to you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

Analysis

8 and he charged them so that they took nothing on the way except a staff alone, no bread, no bag, no change in the strap— 9 but being shod with sandals, and not to wear two tunics. 10 And he was saying to them, “Wherever you enter into a home, there remain until you leave from there.

3 and he said to them, “Take nothing on the way: no stick, no bag, no bread, no money, no having two tunics!

11 And whatever place will not receive you or hear you, proceeding out from there shake out the dust under your feet for witness to them.”

And such as do not receive you, going out from that town, shake off the dust under your feet, for a witness to them.”

12

4 And whichever home you enter, there remain until from there you go out.

6 They went out and went through 13 and they by villages, messaging and healing threw out many demons, and anoin- everywhere. They went out and announced

so that they repented,

ted with oil many who were unhealthy, and healed.

16 Look: I delegate you as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be smart as snakes, and as untainted as doves.”

[Chapter 10] 3 “Depart, look: I delegate you as sheep in the midst of wolves.”

Mark reflects the Petrine stream in the case of the dispatch of the Twelve, with its emphasis on the image of shepherding (6:34, cf. 1 Peter 2:25). At the close

Analysis

171

of the passage, Mark borrows from the Magdalene stream (6:13, echoed also in v. 7) and a signature concern with anointing as well as exorcism. The avoidance of oil by Essenes, as mentioned by Josephus ( Jewish War 2 § 123), is most likely due to stringent requirements regarding the purity of liquids, which is here directly contradicted. At its center, however, the Markan passage reflects the more practical form of the Mishnaic stream (Mark 6:8–11), which prepares the Twelve for travel even as it uses their acceptance or rejection hospitality or its absence as signs of a community’s relationship to the announcement. By the stage of usage by Matthew and Luke, the Mishnaic stream is more stringent in eliminating what is ordinarily required for a journey, in order to enhance the issue of how they are received (Matthew 10:10–13, 15–16; Luke 9:3– 4; 10:3). In regard to footwear in particular, the contrast is striking; see Bavli Yoma 77a: How on the basis of Scripture do we know that refraining from putting on sandals is a form of affliction? As it is written, “And David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives and wept as he went up and he had his head covered and went bare” (2Samuel 15:20)—for what [did he weep]? Would you not say, because of not wearing sandals? How so? Maybe it means, bare of horse and whip? Rather, said R. Naḥman bar Isaac, “Proof derives from here: ‘Go and loose the sack-cloth from off your loins and put your shoe from off your foot’ (Isaiah 20:2). And it is written, ‘And he did so, walking naked and bare’ (1Samuel 20:2). Now, bare of what? Obviously bare of sandals.” How so? Maybe it means, he was wearing patched up shoes. For if you don’t take that position, then you also would have to say that “naked” means, literally bare-assed! Rather, it means in torn garments, and here too, it means, in patched up shoes. Rather, said R. Naḥman bar Isaac, “Proof [that refraining from wearing sandals is a form of affliction] derives from here: ‘Withhold your foot from being unshod and your throat from thirst’ (Jeremiah 2:25)—keep yourself from sin, lest your food become unshod, and keep your tongue from idle gossip, lest your throat become dry with thirst.” In each case, the saying about the harvest (Matthew 9:37–38; Luke 10:2) sets out the urgency that is a hallmark of the Mishnaic stream in a recension that stresses eschatology. The element of judgment is also prominent; see Jubilees 20:6 in comparison to Matthew 10:15: You consumed with fire and sulphur the men of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices; and you made them an example to those who should come afterward.

172

Analysis

This is an instance of the recension of the stream by James, the son of Zebedee, which is not apparent in Mark. Luke fills out reference to the Magdalene stream in Luke 8:2–3, but the account of the sending of the Twelve, in its transformation into the sending of the Seventy-two, the number of the gentile nations, reflects the Barnaban stream (Luke 10:1). The pairing of Paul and Barnabas in Acts may be foreshadowed in the insistence of going out by twos, a motif which also finds an echo in Mark 6:7. The restriction of the activity of the Twelve to territorial Israel in Matthew shows the influence of the Jacobean stream (Matthew 10:5–8). Likewise, Matthew 10:9 is unique, although it agrees with material in both Matthew and Luke, identified as the second version of the Mishnaic stream, which reflects greater stringency than the Mishnaic material found elsewhere in those Gospels and in Mark. In several fragmentary texts from Qumran we find expressed the hope that God will someday give Israel a faithful shepherd (cf. 1Q34bis frg. 3, 2:8; 4Q504 frgs. 1–2R, 4:7; cf. Damascus Document 13:8–9).

173

Analysis

Teaching on Being Delivered to Synagogues and Rulers; in Matthew, Mission until the Son of Man Comes; All to Be Revealed; Fear the One Who Can Send to Gehenna; Families Divided; Vouching for the Son of Man; Lose Life to Save It Mathew 10:17–39

17 “Yet be wary of men, because they will deliver you over to councils and in their synagogues they will flog you, 18 and you will be led to governors and kings for my sake, for testimony to them and to the gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you over, do not worry how or what you should speak, because it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak. 20 For you are not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of your father is speaking among you. 21 Yet brother will deliver over brother to death: father, child—and children will rise up against parents and put them to death. 22 And you will be hated by all on account of my name, but the one who remains till the end shall be saved. 23 Yet when they persecute you in this town, flee to another. Because Amen I say to you, you will not complete the towns of Israel until the Son of Man comes. 24 A student is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his lord. 25 Enough for a student that he should be as his teacher and a slave as his lord. If they label the housemaster Beelzebul, how much more his house members! 26 So do not fear them, because nothing is covered which will not be uncovered, and secret which will not become known! 27 What I say to you in the darkness, say in the light, and what

Luke 12:11–12, 2–9, 51–53; 14:25–27; 17:33

11 “But when they carry you into the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry how or how you should defend yourselves or what you should say, 12 because the Holy Spirit will teach you in the same hour what it is necessary to say.”

2 “But nothing is covered over which will not be uncovered, and secret that will not become known! 3 In view of which, as much as in the darkness you say, in the light shall be heard; and in the ear what you speak, among the nooks, shall be announced on the roofs! 4 Yet I say to you,

174 you hear in your ear, announce on the roofs! 28 And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill life; rather fear the one who is able to destroy both life and body in gehenna! 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them will fall upon the earth without your father. 30 But even all the hairs of your head have been counted! 31 So do not fear: you matter more than many sparrows! 32 So everyone such as will vouch for me before men, I also will vouch for before my father who is in the heavens; 33 but whoever will deny me before men, I also will deny before my father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not presume that I came to put peace on the earth! I did not come to put peace—but a sword!

35 Because I came to split man against his father, and daughter against her mother, and a bride against her mother-in-law, 36 and a man’s enemies will be his housemembers!”

37 “The one who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and the one who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, 38 and whoever does not take his cross and follow behind me, is not worthy of me. 39 The one who has found his life will ruin it, and the one who has ruined his life for my sake will find it.”

Analysis my friends: do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more to do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: fear the one who after killing has authority to throw you into gehenna! Yes, I say to you, fear this one! 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But even all the hairs of your head were counted! Do not fear: you matter more than many sparrows! 8 But I say to you, everyone who will vouch for me before men, the Son of Man will also vouch for before the messengers of God; 9 but the one who denies me before men, will be denied before the messengers of God. 51 You think that I came along to give peace to the earth? No, I say to you, but sooner division! 52 Because from now on they will be five in one house divided among themselves, three contra two and two contra three. 53 They will be divided: father contra son and son contra father, mother contra daughter and daughter contra mother, mother-in-law contra her bride and bride contra the mother-in-law.” [chapter 14] 25 There proceeded together to him many crowds; he turned and said to them, 26 “If someone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to me my student. 27 Whoever does not haul his own cross and come after me is not able to be my student.” [Chapter 17] 33 “Who should seek to make his life safe shall ruin but who should ruin shall make it alive.”

Analysis

175

The enhanced stream of James, the son of Zebedee, continues to be represented, with a clear insistence upon ethical stringency in face of eschatological judgment. But uniquely Matthean material also reflects the stream of James, the brother of Jesus, and the setting of long-standing Judaic opposition (Matthew 10:17, 34 [cf. 5:17 in respect of the latter]), while the Mishnaic stream is focused more on those with political (probably Herodian) power (Matthew 10:18; Luke 12:11). In either case, the sense of division takes up a major theme of apocalyptic Judaism; 1Enoch 100:1–3: In those days, the father will be beaten together with his sons, in one place; and brothers shall fall together with their friends, in death, until a stream shall flow with their blood. For a man shall not be able to withhold his hands from his sons nor from (his) sons’ sons in order to kill them. Nor is it possible for the sinner to withhold his hands from his honored brother. From dawn until the sun sets, they shall slay each other. The horse shall walk through the blood of sinners up to his chest; and the chariot shall sink down up to its top. This theme continued into the period of the Mishnah; Mishnah Sotah 9:15: With the footprints of the Messiah: presumption increases, and the vine gives its fruit and wine at great cost. And the government turns to heresy And there is no reproof. The gathering place will be for prostitution. And Galilee will be laid waste. And the Gablan will be made desolate. And the men of the frontier will go about from town to town, and none will take pity on them. And the wisdom of scribes will putrefy. And those who fear sin will be rejected. And the truth will be locked away. Children will shame elders, and elders will stand up before children. “For the son dishonors the father and the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation is the face of a dog. A son is not ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our Father in heaven. R. Pinhas b. Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to cleanness, cleanness leads to abstinence, abstinence leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to the fear of sin, the fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes through Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”

176

Analysis

Although signs of intervention from the Jacobean stream may seem slight, they are traces of the work of aggregation that clearly went into the Matthean presentation, and they reflect an anticipation of the Son of Man characteristic of James. To be sure the Mishnaic stream in all its forms transmits sayings of Jesus (see Matthew 10:24–25 with Luke 6:40, Matthew 10:29–31 with Luke 12:6– 7; Matthew 10:39 with Luke 17:33) but systematic opposition and eschatological confrontation are hallmarks of the later recension. Clearly, the work of aggregation began long before the Synoptic Gospels were composed. The recension of the Mishnaic stream by James, the son of Zebedee, involved a re-ordering of sayings, as well as augmentation and recontextualization. In that new setting, the issue of contact with gentiles became notable (Matthew 10:18), and that formed a point of convergence for the Jacobean stream (above all, see Matthew 10:23). In the case of both James, the son of Zebedee, and James, the brother of Jesus, composition involved the absorption and extension of previous streams.

177

Analysis

Formula of Connection between Jesus and His Followers, Framed as a Commission in Matthew and Luke: The One Who Receives You Receives Me Matthew 10:40–11:1 40 “The one who receives you receives me, and the one who receives me receives the one who delegated me. 41 The one who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous man in a righteous man’s name shall receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever would give one of these little ones, in the name of a student, only a cup of cold water to drink, Amen I say to you, will not lose his reward.”

Mark 9:41

Luke 10:16 16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who ignores you ignores me, and the one who ignores me ignores the one who delegated me.”

41 “For who would give you a cup of water to drink in the name of your being of Anointed, Amen I say to you, will not lose his reward.”

[Chapter 11] 1 And it happened when Jesus completed ordering his twelve students, he transferred from there to teach and to announce in their cities.

The aggregation of material from the Mishnaic stream in Matthew results in it sometimes rendering a more complete accounting than Luke, and less accommodated to the messianic claims of the later movement than the less complete version in Mark. Throughout the Synoptic tradition at this point, a conception of agency is assumed; Mishnah Qiddushin 2:1: A man effects betrothal on his own or through his agent. A woman becomes betrothed on her own or through her agent. A man betroths his daughter when she is a girl on his own or through his agent. The emphasis in all versions of the teaching falls on the symmetrical treatment of principal and agent, moving in either direction.

178

Analysis

John the Baptist’s Inquiry on the One to Come; Jesus on John: What Did You Go Out to See? Yet: Least in the Kingdom Is Greater than John; Parable of the Stubbornness of This Generation; Woes on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; Satan Falls like Lightening in Luke; What Is Revealed to Infants and Not the Wise; Imperative to “Come on to Me” in Matthew Matthew 11:2–30

2 John heard in the detention the deeds of the anointed, and sent through his students. 3 He said to him, “Are you the one who comes, or are we expecting one other?”

4 Jesus answered and said to them, “Proceed: report to John what you hear and see. 5 Blind people see again and lame people walk around, scabby people are cleansed and dumb people hear, and dead are raised and poor are messaged triumph: 6 and favored the one who does not falter at me!” 7 Yet while they were proceeding Jesus began to say to the crowds about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to observe? Reed shaken by wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man attired in soft clothes? Look: those in kings’ houses bear soft clothes! 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet! 10 This is he concerning whom it is written, ‘Look: I delegate my messenger before your face, who will ready your way before

Luke 7:18–35; 10:12–15, 17–22 18 And his students reported to John concerning all these things. John summoned a certain two of his students 19 and sent to the Lord, saying, “Are you the one who comes, or are we expecting another?” 20 The men came along to him and said, “John the Immerser delegated us to you, saying, Are you the one who comes, or are we expecting another?“ 21 In that hour he healed many from illnesses and plagues and evil spirits, and he graced many blind people to see. 22 He replied and said to them, “Proceed: report to John what you saw and heard. Blind people see again and lame people walk around, scabby people are cleansed and dumb people hear, dead are raised, poor people are messaged triumph: 23 and favored the one who does not falter at me.” 24 Yet while the messengers of John were going away, he began to say to the crowds concerning John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to observe? Reed shaken by wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man attired in soft garments? Look: those among the kings subsist in splendid apparel and indulgence! 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is he concerning whom it is written, ‘Look: I delegate my

Analysis you.’ 11 Amen I say to you, there has not been raised among women-born one greater than John the Immerser! But the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he! 12 Yet from the days of John the Immerser until now, the kingdom of the heavens avails itself, and availers seize it! 13 Because all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, 14 and if you want to accept, he is Elijah who is going to come.15 The one having ears, Listen! 16 To what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the markets who shout over to the others, saying, 17 We fluted for you, and you did not dance, We wailed and you did not mourn! 18 Because John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look: a man who is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-agents and sinners. And wisdom is vindicated from her deeds.”

20 Then he began to revile the towns in which most of his miracles happened, because they had not repented: 21 “Miseries are yours, Chorazin, miseries are yours, Bethsaida! Because if the miracles which happened among you happened in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ash. 22 Except I say to you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in judgment day than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, would you be exalted unto heaven? You will go down unto Hades’! Because if the miracles which

179 messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 28 I say to you, no one among women-born is greater than John! But the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he!” 29 All the people and the tax-agents heard and vindicated God, having been immersed with John’s immersion. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers annulled the counsel of God for themselves, not having been immersed by him. 31 “To what shall I liken the men of this generation: and what are they like? 32 They are like children in market sitting and shouting to one another, that say, We fluted for you, and you did not dance, We wailed and you did not weep! 33 Because John the Immerser has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 35 The son of man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look: a man who is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-agents and sinners.’ And wisdom is vindicated from all her children.” [chapter 10] 12 “I say to you that in Sodom in that day it will be more bearable than in that town. 13 Miseries are yours, Chorazin, miseries are yours, Bethsaida! Because if the miracles which happened among you had happened in Tyre and Sidon, they would have sat repenting long ago in sackcloth and ash. 14 Except it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, would you be exalted unto heaven? You will go down unto Hades’!”

180

Analysis

happened you had happened in Sodom, it would have remained up until this day! 24 Except I say to you that it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom in judgment-day than for you.” 17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subjected to us in your name. 18 And he said to them, “I perceived Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Look — I have given you authority to tread over snakes and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall injure you. 20 Except do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you: but rejoice that your names are written in heaven!” 25 In that time Jesus replied; he said, “I 21 In this hour he exulted in the vouch to you, father, Lord of heaven and Holy Spirit and said, “I vouch to of earth, because you hid these things you, father, Lord of heaven and of from wise and understanding people, earth, because you hid away these and uncovered them to infants! 26 Yes, things from wise and understandfather, because so it became pleasure ing people, and uncovered them before you. 27 Everything has been de- to infants! Yes, father, because so livered over to me by my father, and no one it became pleasure before you. 22 recognizes the son except the father, nor Everything has been delivered over to me does anyone recognize the father except by my father, and no one knows who the the son and one to whom the son intends son is except the father, and who the father to uncover. 28 Come on to me all who is except the son and one to whom the son labor and are burdened, and I will intends to uncover.” provide you repose. 29 Take my yoke on yourselves, and learn from me, because I am gentile and humble in heart, and you will find repose for your lives. 30 Because my yoke is good and my burden is slight.”

Early statements from the Mishnaic stream have been developed in the increasingly eschatological, confrontative, and messianic recension associated with

Analysis

181

James the son of Zebedee. The initial statements, constituting the point of departure for the further development of the stream, are Jesus’ statement concerning John the immerser (Matthew 11:7b–9, 11–12; Luke 7:24b–28)) and his declaration concerning himself in relation to John (Matthew 11:16–19, 25–27; Luke 7:31–35). The messianic recension of the Mishnaic stream then points the discussion so as to make Christology the consistent focus, with John portrayed as interlocutor (Matthew 11:2–7a; Luke 7:19b–20, 22–24a). The answer that Jesus gives to John’s disciples presents a conflation of passages from Isaiah that emphasize healing, liberation, and restoration (cf. Isaiah 26:19; 29:18–19, 35:5–6; and 61:1–2). Among the scrolls from Qumran, Tanḥumim (4Q176) 1–2i: 4b–11 (cf. Psalms of Joshua 22: ii:9–14) similarly incorporates selected Isaian passages, many from second Isaiah, that promise comfort, restoration and healing to readers. However, while Tanḥumim shares an eschatological hope rooted in sustained exegesis of the consolation passages of Isaiah, it does not emphasize or make a direct connection to messianic expectation, as in Matthew and Luke. The extent of this categorical assertion is indicated by Matthew 10:20–24; Luke 10:12–15, where rejection on the ground in Galilee is met by eschatological condemnation, and geographical distance from the places concerned (Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13) is assumed.55 Nonetheless, the connection of the themes in play is reminiscent of Messianic Apocalypse 2ii+4:1–13: […] For the hea]vens and the earth shall listen to his messiah [and all w]hich is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones. Strengthen yourselves, O you who seek the Lord, in his service. Will you not find the Lord in this, all those who hope in their heart? For the Lord attends to the pious and calls the righteous by name. Over the humble his Spirit hovers, and he renews the faithful in his strength. For he will honor the pious upon the th[ro]ne of his eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bo[wed down. (Psalm 146:7–8)] And for[ev]er I shall hold fast [to]

55

John S. Kloppenborg joins C.C. McCown in this observation, yet does not apply the insight to the Mishnaic stream, but only to Luke; see “Luke’s Geography: Knowledge, Ignorance, Sources, and Spacial Conception,”Luke on Jesus, Paul, and Earliest Christianity. What Did He Really Know?: Biblical Tools and Studies 29 (edited by Joseph Verheyden and John S. Kloppenborg; Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 101–143, 106. For the eventual connection of the source called Q to Jerusalem, see Andries van Aarde, “The Historicity of the Circle of the Twelve: All Roads Lead to Jerusalem,” hts Theological Studies 55.4 (1999) 795–826.

182

Analysis

those [who h]ope and in his faithfulness sh[all …] and the frui[t of ] good [dee]ds shall not be delayed for anyone and the Lord shall do glorious things which have not been done, just as he said. For he shall heal the critically wounded, he shall revive the dead, he shall send good news to the afflicted (Isaiah 61:1), 1he shall sati[sfy the poo]r, he shall guide the uprooted, he shall make the hungry rich …. In Matthew, characteristically Jacobean material (Matthew 11:13–15; 28–30), and in Luke, characteristically Barnaban material (Luke 7:18–19a, 21, 29–30; 10:17–20) have been added. The last Barnaban addition is especially striking in light of 1Enoch 104:1: I swear unto you that in heaven the angels will remember you for good before the glory of the Great One; and your names shall be written before the glory of the Great One. When Jesus confesses that God has hid his mysteries from the wise and disclosed them to the unprofessional, he has subverted Daniel’s prayer (Dan 2:23, 21—in that order): “To thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for thou hast given me wisdom … he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” When Jesus invites people to come to him and take upon themselves his yoke and learn from him, he speaks as Wisdom. Note the interesting parallels with Sirach 51 (with close verbal parallels presented in italics): 51:23 Draw near to me, you who are untaught, and lodge in my school. 51:24 Why do you say you are lacking in these things, and why are your souls very thirsty? 51:25 I opened my mouth and said, Get these things for yourselves without money. 51:26 Put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by. 51:27 See with your eyes that I have labored little and found myself much rest. The community of Qumran were willing to submit to God’s yoke (cf. Barkhi Nafshie frg. 3, line 3; frg. 5, line 3).

Analysis

183

Anointing by the Sinful Woman; Parable of Debt Cancelled; Forgiveness of Sins; Faith Has Saved You Luke 7:36–50 36 But some one of the Pharisees asked him, so he would eat with him; he entered into the house of the Pharisee and laid down. 37 And look: there was a woman such as was a sinner in the town, and she recognized that he was lying down in the Pharisee’s home, acquired an alabaster of myrrh 38 and stood behind by his feet, weeping. She began with tears to wet his feet and with the hair of her head she wiped, and kissed his feet and anointed with myrrh. 39 The Pharisee who invited him looked and spoke within himself, saying, “If he were the prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman it is such as touches him — that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus replied and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he stated – “Teacher, say.” 41 “There were two owing money to a certain lender. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 They did not have enough to repay; he graced the two. So who of them will love him more?” 43 Simon replied, said, “I presume that the one to whom he graced more.” He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” 44 He turned to the woman and told Simon, “You see this woman? I entered into your home, you did not give me water for feet: but she with tears wets my feet and wipes with her hair. 45 A kiss you did not give me: but she from the moment I entered has not left off kissing my feet. 46 With oil you did not anoint my head: but she with myrrh anointed my feet. 47 Thanks to which I say to you, her many sins have been released, because she loved much: but to whom little is released, loves little.” 48 Yet he said to her, “Your sins have been released.”49 And those reclining together began to say among themselves, “Who is he who releases even sins?” 50 But he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; proceed in peace.” The story in the Gospel of Luke, derived from the Barnaban stream, presupposes prophetic clairvoyance (Luke 7:39: “If he were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman it is such as touches him”). The precedent in mind is most likely the prophets Elijah and Elisha, who also possessed the power of clairvoyance (e.g., 2Kings 1:1–16; 5:24–27; 6:11–12) and who are explicitly

184

Analysis

mentioned in the Lukan version of the preaching in the synagogue of Nazareth (Luke 4:16–30, esp. vv. 25–27). The vignette turns on the issue of how forgiveness and ethics are related. Bavli Shabbat 156b formally addresses the issue of whether Israelites are subject to fate, but the examples cited turn on the issue of how acts of love or charity deliver a person from death: It is also the position of Samuel that Israel is not subject to the stars. For Samuel and Ablat were in session, and some people were going along to a lake. Said Ablat to Samuel, “That man is going but won’t come back, a snake will bite him and he’ll die.” Said to him Samuel, “Yeah, well, if he’s an Israelite, he will go and come back.” While they were in session, he went and came back. Ablat got up and took off the man’s knapsack and found in it a snake cut up and lying in two pieces. Said Samuel to the man, “What did you do [today in particular]?” He said to him, “Every day we tossed our bread into one pot and ate, but today one of us had no bread, and he was shamed. I said to the group, ‘I will go and collect the bread.’ When I came to him, I acted as if I collected the bread, so he shouldn’t be ashamed.” He said to him, “You have carried out a religious duty.” Samuel went forth and expounded, “‘But charity delivers from death’ (Proverbs 10:2)—not from a grotesque death, but from death itself.” It is also the position of Aqiba that Israel is not subject to the stars. For R. Aqiba had a daughter. Chaldaean astrologers told him, “On the day that she goes into the bridal canopy, a snake will bite her and she’ll die.” This worried him a lot. On that day she took a brooch and stuck it into the wall, and by chance it sank into the eye of a snake. The next day when she took it out, the snake came trailing along after it. Her father said to her, “What did you do [today in particular]?” She said to him, “In the evening a poor man came to the door, and everyone was busy with the banquet so no one could take care of him, so I took some of what was given to me and gave it to him.” He said to her, “You have carried out a religious duty.” R. Aqiba went forth and expounded, “‘But charity delivers from death’ (Proverbs 10:2)—not from a grotesque death, but from death itself.” That principle, coherent with Luke 7:47, is articulated directly in Bavli Rosh Hashanah 16b: And said R. Isaac, “Four things cancel a person’s judgment. And these are they: charity, crying out [in supplication], change of name, and change

Analysis

185

of deeds. Charity—as it is written (Proverbs 10:2): ‘[Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit], but righteousness delivers from death.’ ” The wording is notable, because although the text from Proverbs deals with righteousness, the underlying issue is identified as love. Owing to the ambient reality of indebtedness, release is a pressing concern throughout the period of Second Temple Judaism from well before the period of the Talmud; Apocryphal Mosesa 3:4–6: It will come to pass when [you obe]y [this commandment,] and release [your hand in] thi[s y]ear, [every lender w]ho [has lent something to] a man and [who has something of his brothers] shall re[lease it to ] his [fell]ow, for [it will be called “a release ]of [G]o[d you]r [God.” Similarly we hear at Qumran the promise that Israel will be forgiven its debts/ sins (cf. Melchizedek 2:6).

186

Analysis

Parable of the Soils; Secret(s) of the Kingdom for Disciples; Isaiah 6, with Fullest Citation in Matthew; Prophets and Other Elites Longed to See What Disciples See (Matthew and Luke); Explanation of Parable of the Soils; Nothing Hidden that Will Not Be Revealed; Look at What You Listen To in Mark; Measure You Use Will Be Applied to You in Matthew and Mark Matthew 13:1–23; 5:15; 10:26; 7:2 1 In that day Jesus went out of the home, sat by the sea, 2 and there were gathered to him many crowds. Result: he embarked in a boat, sat, and all the crowd stood on the shore. 3 And he spoke to them a lot in comparisons, saying,

“Look: the sower went out to sow. 4 And in his sowing some fell by the way; the birds came and consumed them. 5 Yet others fell on the gravels, where they did not have much earth, and at once they dawned up, because they did not have depth of earth. 6 The sun dawned and they were scorched, and because they did not have root, they dried. 7 Yet others fell among the thorns, and the thorns ascended and choked them. 8 Yet others fell upon choice earth and gave fruit: each a hundred and sixty and thirty.

9 One having ears, listen!”

Mark 4:1–25

1 And again he began to teach along the sea. And there gathered together to him the biggest crowd. Result: he embarked into a boat, sat in the sea, and all the crowd were at the sea on the land. 2 And he was teaching them in comparisons a lot, and saying to them in his teaching: 3 “Listen. Look: the sower went out to sow. 4 And it happened in the sowing, one fell along the way, and the birds came and consumed it. 5 And another fell into the gravel, where also it did not have much earth, and at once it dawned up, because it did not have depth of earth. 6 And when the sun dawned it was scorched, and because it did not have root, it dried. 7 And another fell into the thorns, and the thorns ascended and choked it around, and it did not give fruit. 8 And others fell into the choice earth and were giving fruit: they ascended and grew and bore for thirty, and in sixty and in a hundred.” 9 And he was saying, “Who has ears to hear, listen!” 10 And when they were on their own, those around

Luke 8:4–10; 10:23–24; 8:11–18

4 Yet a great crowd came together, and those from every town were proceeding in to him.

He said through a comparison:

5 “The sower went out to sow his germ. And in his sowing one fell by the way, and was trampled, and the birds of the heaven consumed it. 6 And another fell down on the rock, and dried in growing, because it did not have moisture.

7 And another fell in the midst of the thorns; the thorns grew together and choked it off. 8 And another fell into the good earth, and made fruit in growing, a hundred times over.”

Saying this, he shouted, “One having ears to hear, Listen!” 9 But his students interrog-

187

Analysis 10 The students came forward and said to him, “For what reason do you speak in comparisons to them?” 11 He replied and said to them, “Because to you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those it has not been given. 12 Because to such as has, it will be given to him and made overflowing, but such as does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in comparisons, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And by them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled again, saying, ‘You will listen by hearing and not understand, and looking, you will look and not see; 15 for the heart of this people has become gross, and they listen with dull ears and they close their eyes, otherwise, they would see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn back and I would heal them!’ 16 But your eyes are favored because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 For Amen I say to you, that many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear. 18 So, you hear the comparison of the one who sowed:

him with the Twelve were asking him about the comparisons. 11 And he was saying to them, “To you the secret of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside everything happens in comparisons,

ated him, “What might this comparison be?” 10 Yet he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but to the rest they are in comparisons,

12 so that seeing they see so that seeing they do not and do not see, and listen- see, and hearing they do not ing they listen and not un- understand.” derstand; otherwise, they would turn back and it would be released them!”

[chapter 10] 23 And turning he said privately to the students, “Favored are the eyes that see what you see. 24 For I say to you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see, and did not see, and to 13 And he says to them: “You hear what you hear, and did do not know this compar- not hear.” ison: and how will you know 19 when everybody hears the all the comparisons? 14 The [chapter 8] word of the kingdom and sower sows the word. 15 These 11 “This is the comparison: the does not understand, the are the ones along the road, germ is the word of God. 12 evil one comes and seizes where the word is sown. And Those by the way are those

188 what is sown in his heart. This is the one sown by the way. 20 But the one sown on the gravels, this is the one who hears the word, at once receives it with joy, 21 and has not a root in himself, but is transient, when either oppression or persecution because of the word happens, at once he falters. 22 And the one sown among the thorns, this is the one who hears the word and the care of the age and the deception of wealth choke around the word, and it becomes fruitless. 23 And the one sown upon the choice earth, this is the one who hears the word and understands, who bears fruit, and makes each a hundred and sixty and thirty.” [Chapter 5] 15 “Neither do they burn a lamp and set it under the bin, but on the lamp stand! And it shines on all those in the home.” [Chapter 10] 26 “So do not fear them, because nothing is covered which will not be uncovered, and secret which will not become known!” [Chapter 7] 2 “Because by what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and by what measure you measure it shall be measured to you!”

Analysis when they listen, at once Satan comes and takes the word sown into them. 16 And these are similarly the ones sown on the gravel, who when they hear the word, at once they receive it with joy, 17 and they have not a root in themselves, but are transient, when either oppression or persecution because of the word happens, at once they falter. 18 And others are those sown into the thorns. These are those who have heard the word, 19 and the cares of the age and the deception of wealth and the longings for the rest proceed in, choke around the word, and it becomes fruitless. 20 And those sown upon the choice earth are those, such as hear the word and appropriate and bear fruit, in thirty and sixty and one hundred.” 21 And he was saying to them: “The lamp does not come so that it is set under the bin or under the bed! So that it is set on a lamp stand, right? 22 For nothing is hidden except it shall be made acclaimed, neither is it concealed but so that it come into acclaim. 23 If anyone has ears to listen, listen!” 24 And he was saying to them: “Look at what you listen to! By what measure you measure it shall be measured to you, and shall be added to you.

who heard, then the devil comes and takes the word from their heart so they are not saved, having believed.

13 But those on the rock are those who whenever they hear they accept the word with joy, and these have not a root; they believe for a time, and in time of test, they desert.

14 But the one falling among the thorns, these heard and proceeding by cares and wealth and pleasures of life they are choked around and do not bear to maturity.

15 But the one in the choice earth, these are such as heard the word in choice and good heart, hold tight, and bear fruit in perseverance. 16 No one kindles a lamp and hides it in a vessel or puts it under a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those proceeding in might see the light. 17 Because there is nothing hidden that will not become acclaimed, nor concealed that will not become known and come into acclaim.

25 For who has, it shall be given to 18 So see how you hear, because he him, and who has not, even what who has, it shall be given to him, one has shall be taken from him.” and he who has not, even what he seems to have shall be taken from him.”

Analysis

189

Although the initial setting of the collection of parables is familiarly Petrine (Matthew 13:1–2; Mark 4:156), its informing principle is an explanation of why parables are taught and what their meaning is. The principle is spelled out, instantiated, and explained, within the Jacobean stream (Matthew 13:3–11, 13– 23; Mark 4:2–20; Luke 8:4d–15). The pivot of the explanation lies in the interpretation of Isaiah 6:9–10. Mark 4:11–12 illustrates an instance in which Jesus appears to have cited a form of Scripture that is closer to the Targum than to any other extant source: And he said, “Go, and speak to this people that hear indeed, but do not understand, and see indeed, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and repent and it be forgiven them.” In such cases, an awareness that he does so helps us to understand his preaching. Targum Isaiah 6:9–10 is an especially famous instance, and it helps to explain Mark 4:11, 12. The statement in Mark could be taken to mean that Jesus told parables with the express purpose “that” (Greek: hina) people might see and not perceive, hear and not understand, lest they turn and be forgiven. In fact, of course, it is a characterization, rather than a intended result. The Targum also (unlike the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint) refers to people not being “forgiven,” as in Mark (rather than not being “healed”), and this suggests that the Targum may give the key to the meaning presupposed in Mark. The relevant clause in the Targum refers to people who behave in such a way—“so that” (indicated in Aramaic by the letter “d” [dalet])—they see and do not perceive, hear and do not understand, lest they repent and they be forgiven. It appears that Jesus was characterizing people in the Targumic manner, as he characterizes his own fate as the son of man similarly in Mark with a clause employing hina (see Mark 9:12); he was not acting deliberately in order to be misunderstood. In this famous case from Mark, then, the underlying Aramaism of using the clause with d caused the saying of Jesus to use the term hina in Greek, which may mean “in order that” or “so that.”57 If the former meaning obtains, Mark’s

56 57

Luke’s more summary statement in 8:4 suggests an awareness that a reminiscence along Petrine lines here is not altogether apposite. See T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955) 7680, 300-304; Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible. Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah (London: spck, 1984) 90–98; Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive. Isaiah 6.9–19 in Early

190

Analysis

Jesus speaks so as not to be understood, and deliberately to preclude the forgiveness of those who do not understand. If the latter meaning obtains, then Jesus referred to Isaiah in its Targumic form in order to characterize the kind of people who do not respond to his message, and what happens to them. The fact of the similarity in wording with the Targum shows us that the second meaning is preferable, as does the fact that Jesus elsewhere in Mark refers to his own followers as being hard-hearted, with unseeing eyes and unhearing ears (Mark 8:17–18). His point in alluding once again to Isaiah 6 is given at the end of the rebuke, “Do you not yet understand?” (Mark 8:21). Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 6 in its Targumic form was intended to rouse hearers to understanding, not to make their misunderstanding into his own program. In such cases, a passage from a Targum and a passage from a Gospel evidence comparable material with cognate wording that is associated with the same text of Scripture. This obviously does not mean that Jesus depended on the Targum as we know it, but he does seem to have been influenced and informed by traditions which the Targum preserved better than anything else. Both Matthew (13:11–15) and Luke (8:10) represent evolved counterparts of the presentation in Mark (4:11–12). Matthew’s version of the teaching recognizes the association with the same passage in Isaiah, but no longer in Targumic form. Insertion of 13:12 here (compare the independent placement of Mark 4:25 and Luke 8:18b) serves the same end as quoting a Septuagintal form of the passage: to establish preference between one group and another on the ground of divine intent. A signature concern with the fulfilment of Scripture represents the contribution of the Silan recension (Matthew 13:14–15). Luke’s version may appear so succinct as to obviate any reference to a Scriptural basis of the characterization, but Acts 28:23–28 shows that, within Luke’s work overall, Isaiah 6:9–10 was understood in terms of a preference for believing gentiles. The relationship between Targum Isaiah 6:9–10 and Mark 4:11–12 has already been discussed above. Within that discussion, it became apparent that Jesus’

Jewish and Christian Interpretation: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). For an attempt to deny the Targumic connection, see M.D. Goulder, “Those Outside (Mk. 4:10–12),” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991) 289–302. The argument is refuted in Chilton and Evans, “Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures,” Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research: New Testament Tools and Studies 19 (edited by Bruce Chilton and C.A. Evans; Leiden: Brill 1995) 281– 335. For a rebuttal of an apparently deliberately mistaken caricature of the argument, see Evans, “An Aramaic Parable in a Greek Gospel: The Quest for the Original Meaning of the Vineyard Parable,” Earliest Christianity within the Boundaries of Judaism. Essays in Honor of Bruce Chilton: The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 49 (edited by Alan J. Avery Peck, Craig A. Evans, and Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 281–302.

Analysis

191

usage was designed to characterize the attitude of those who were so dense when it came to seeing and hearing that they were not forgiven. Comparison with Mishnah Avot 5:14–15 is fruitful in this regard: There are four sorts among those who go to the study house: He who goes but does not carry out [what he learns]—he has at least the reward for the going. He who practices but does not go [to study]—he has at least the reward for the doing. He who both goes and practices—he is truly pious. He who neither goes nor practices—he is truly wicked. There are four traits among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sifter. A sponge—because he sponges everything up; a funnel— because he takes in on one side and lets out on the other; a strainer—for he lets out the wine and keeps in the lees; and a sifter—for he lets out the coarse flour and keeps in the finest flour. Characteristically, he directed such warnings to people who were trying to listen to him, such as his own disciples (as in Mark 8:17–18). The perspective of the entire complex of material might be compared to Jubilees 11:11; 24:15 (cf. 4Ezra 8:41–45): And Prince Mastema sent crows and birds so that they might eat the seed which was being sown in the earth in order to spoil the earth so that they might rob mankind of their labors. Before they plowed in the seed, the crows picked it off the surface of the earth. And he sowed in the land of the Philistines, and he raised grain one hundredfold. And Isaac became very wealthy, and the Philistines became jealous of him. Unquestionably, however, the present setting of Mark 4:11–12 gives Jesus’ statement a fresh, rather elitist meaning. The new setting is revealed in the claim that is directed by Jesus to “those around him with the Twelve” that the mystery of the kingdom has been given to them, while “to those outside everything happens in parables” (Mark 4:10–11). Here the actual understanding of Jesus’ teaching is restricted, so that what was originally a rebuke of dense hearers (including disciples) becomes the warrant of the exclusive possession of the “mystery” by a select few; see Mysteriesb 1aii_b:1–6: [Consider the sooth]sayers, those teachers of sin. Say the parable, declare the riddle before we speak; then you will know if you have truly under-

192

Analysis

stood. […] your foolishness, for the seal of the vision is sealed up from you, and you have not properly understood the eternal mysteries and you have not become wise in understanding. […] for you have not properly understood the origin of wisdom; but if you should unseal the vision […] all your wisdom, for to you is the par[able …] Hear now what is [the] hidden [wisdom …] shall not be […] [v]ision […] The term “mystery” appears only here in the Gospels, while it is found rather frequently in the Pauline corpus (in its broad sense), and in the Revelation of John. That fact comports with another: the reference to people who do not belong to the movement as “those outside” fits with the usage of later Christianity (see 1 Corinthians 5:11–13, 1Thessalonians 4:12, and Colossians 4:5). The probable source of the saying of Jesus in its present context is the Jerusalem circle around James, Jesus’ brother. That would account for several factors: (1) the Aramaism with its Targumic source, (2) the reference to a tight group “around Jesus” before mention of the Twelve, and (3) the claim exclusively to interpret and apply the teaching of Jesus. The last trait is expressly attributed to James in the Acts of the Apostles (15:13–29), when he adjudicates the dispute over circumcision: was it necessary for believers, along with baptism, for salvation (see Acts 15:1)? The decision, which is presented as James’ own judgment, is that circumcision was not required, although uncircumcised Christians must observe certain basic rules of purity out of loyalty to the Law of Moses. The meeting of the leaders present endorses that judgment, and demands by letter that uncircumcised Christians in Antioch follow the policy. In Mark 4:10–12, the claim exclusively to interpret is also deployed. The stream aggregated complementary material from the Mishnaic stream (Luke 8:16–18; Mark 4:21–25; cf. Matthew 13:8; 5:15; 10:26; 7:2). The perspective is resonant with Targum of Isaiah 48:6: You have heard: has what is revealed to you been revealed to any other people, and will you not declare it? The same basic apothegm concerning the measure in Mark 4:24; Matthew 7:2 is cited in the Mishnah Sotah 1:7 with reference to the wife accused of adultery (Numbers 5): By that same measure by which a man metes out [to others], do they mete out to him: She primped herself for sin, the Omnipresent made her repulsive. She exposed herself for sin, the Omnipresent exposed her. With the thigh she began to sin, and afterward with the belly, therefore

Analysis

193

the thigh suffers the curse first, and afterward the belly. But the rest of the body does not escape. It is then illustrated both negatively and positively: punishment and reward. Scripture provides the main probative evidence for the anticipation that when God judges, he will match the act of merit with an appropriate reward and the sin with an appropriate punishment. The proposition begins, however, with general observations as to how things are, and not with specific allusions to proof-texts; the character of the law set forth in Scripture is reflected upon. The measure in the Isaiah Targum 27:8 is applied to a single figure, the oppressor of Jacob, rather than to a general group, as in Jesus’ saying: With the measure you were measuring with they will measure you. Still, in both cases the address in the second person is used. A similar aphorism, crafted in the third person, was common in Rabbinic literature (see also, Sotah 8b and Genesis 38:25 in Pseudo-Jonathan), so it should be taken that we have here a proverb in Aramaic which Jesus and a meturgeman of Isaiah both just happened to use in the second person. This is an instance in which, despite close verbal agreement, no case for dependence can be made one way or the other. The resonance of this run of material with Aramaic proverbs and idioms, however, is manifest.

194

Analysis

Parable of Mysterious Growth Mark 4:26–29 26 And he was saying: “The kingdom of God like this, as a man throws the germ upon the earth, 27 and sleeps and is raised night and day, and the germ buds and sprouts. How, he doesn’t know himself. 28 Of itself the earth bears fruit, first blade, then head, then full grain in the head. 29 But when the fruit delivers, at once he dispatches the sickle, because the harvest has occurred.” The progression from sprout to fruit reflects the mercy of God from the generative power of the earth to the appearance of blossom and seed in both Mark and the Sapiential-like Work (1–2i:10–15) from Qumran: like g[r]ass it springs from its earth and bears fruit; like a blossom is his mercy: his wind blo[ws] and [ ] dries up, and the wind whisks its blossom away into oblivion [ ] and it shall not be found from the wind. [ ] They shall seek it but not find it, and there will be no hope. Like a shadow it [ ] against the li[ght]. And now listen, my people, pay attention to me. Suddenly [ ] be destroyed by the [chast]isement of God, they shall remember the wonders he did in Egypt and his portents [ ] your hearts [ ] terrified before his visitation. The Markan parable in vv. 26–29 emphasizes the act of harvest and the ripeness of the time for harvest, while the wisdom from Qumran warns that the blossom will be lost before the seed ever appears. Another text from Qumran offers an analogy of the person who plants; Instructiong 5:5–10: [If you are a f]armer, observe the appointed times of the summer, gather your crops in their time, and the season [of harvest in its appointed time. Medi]tate on all your crops; in your labor give attentio[n to the knowledge of] good and evil, [the m]an of understanding with the man of folly, [ ] Thus, a man of [understanding] every [ ] he will say [in the abun]dance of his knowledge [ ] [he w]ill be in all his [wa]y, which [ ] without [ ] [ ] among you and even [ ] … The fact that the parable appears uniquely in Mark might incline one to think of it in terms of the Petrine stream. But the comparison commences a metaphorical string (Mark 4:30–32; Matthew 13:31–33; Luke 13:18–20, as discussed below)

Analysis

195

from the Mishnaic stream, which is also represented immediately before Mark 4:26–29. For this reason, it is better associated with the Mishnaic stream, on the understanding that Matthew 13:24–30 represents the same parable metabolized in the Jacobean stream.

196

Analysis

Parable of Wheat and Weeds Matthew 13:24–30 24 Another comparison he set out for them, saying, “The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a man who sowed choice seed in his field. 25 While men slept, his enemy came and sowed about weeds in the midst of the grain and went away. 26 But when the blade sprouted and made fruit, then the weeds also appeared. 27 The servants of the house-master came forward and said to him, ‘Lord, did you not sow choice seed in your own field? So how does it have weeds?’ 28 Yet he told them, ‘An enemy man did this!’ But they say to him, ‘So do you want us to go cull them?’ 29 But he stated, ‘No! Otherwise, culling the weeds you uproot the grain together with them. 30 Leave them grow together up until the harvest, and in the time of harvest I will say to the harvesters, ‘Cull the weeds first and bind them as bales to incinerate them, and gather the grain into my storehouse!’” The parable assumes that God will come to earth and gather a harvest of the evil and the good in some depictions; 2Baruch 70:2: Behold, the days are coming and it will happen when the time of the world has ripened and the harvest of the seed of the evil ones and the good ones has come that the Mighty One will cause to come over the earth and its inhabitants and its rulers confusion of the spirit and amazement of the heart. In his eschatological judgment God was expected to condemn the wicked by incinerating them as in a furnace; 1Enoch 54:6: Then Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel themselves shall seize them on that great day of judgment and cast them into the furnace (of fire) that is burning that day, so that the Lord of the Spirits may take vengeance on them on account of their oppressive deeds which (they performed) as messengers of Satan, leading astray those who dwell upon the earth. These terms of reference are taken for granted in a parable of growth that is applied in order to deal with the problem of present evil in the world of the Jacobean stream.

197

Analysis

Parables of Mustard Seed and (in Matthew and Luke) Yeast Matthew 13:31–35

Mark 4:30–34

Luke 13:18–21

31 Another comparison he set out for them, saying, “The kingdom of the heavens is like a grain of mustard that a man takes and sows it in his field, 32 which is smaller than all the seeds, but when it grows, it is greater than all the herbs and becomes a tree. Result: the birds of the heaven come and dwell in its branches.” 33 Another comparison he spoke to them: “The kingdom of the heavens is like yeast, which a woman takes, conceals in flour, three seahs, until all is yeasted.” 34 All these things Jesus spoke in comparisons to the crowds, and apart from a comparison he spoke nothing to them, 35 such that what was said though the prophet was fulfilled, saying, “I will open my mouth in comparisons, I will utter things hidden from time primordial”

30 And he was saying: “How shall we liken the kingdom of God, or in what comparison shall we put it? 31 Like a grain of mustard, which whenever it is sown upon the earth is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the earth, 32 but when it is sown, it comes up and becomes greater than all the herbs and makes big branches. Result: the birds of the heaven are able to dwell under its shade.”

18 So he was saying: “What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I liken it? 19 It is like a grain of mustard that a man takes and throws in his own garden,

and it grows and becomes for a tree, and the birds of the heaven dwell in its branches.” 20 And again he said, “To what shall I liken the kingdom of God? 21 It is like yeast, which a woman takes, hides in flour, three seahs, 33 And with many such comparis- until all is yeasted.” ons he was speaking the word to them, exactly as they were able to listen, 34 but apart from comparison he was not speaking to them, but privately to his own students he explained everything.

The tiny size of the mustard seed was proverbial (Mishnah Niddah 5:2; Mishnah Toharot 8:8; Bavli Berakhot 31a), but so was its surprising fecundity; Bavli Ketuvot 111b: It once happened to a man at Shiḥin to whom his father had left three twigs of mustard that one of these split and was found to contain nine kab of mustard, and its timber sufficed to cover a potter’s hut. Attempts by interpreters to associated both mustard seed and leaven with impurity in particular appear tendentious,58 and it is notable in particular

58

See Ryan S. Schellenberg, “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71.3 (2009) 527–543.

198

Analysis

that yeast may be associated with the Torah in a saying of R. Ḥiyya; Yerushalmi Ḥagigah 76c.42–43: “If they should forsake me but keep my Torah, the leaven that is in [the Torah] will bring them closer to me.” In both cases, the symbolic issue is not purity or impurity, but permeation. Parables, understood as comparisons with or without narrative development, were appreciated as a test of wisdom, as well as potential vehicles of wisdom; Mysteriesb 1a ii–b:1–2: [ ] the mag]icians who are skilled in transgression, utter the parable and relate the riddle before it is discussed, and then you will know whether you have considered and the signs of the heav[ens] your foolishness, for the [s]eal of the vision is sealed from you, and you have not considered the eternal mysteries, and you have not come to understand wisdom. Commensurate with this stance, the Silan stream provides a comprehensive hermeneutics of parables (Matthew 13:35), while the Petrine stream indicates only a habitual resort to parable (Mark 4:33: Matthew 13:34).

Analysis

199

Explanation of Parable of Wheat and Weeds; Parables of Treasure in the Field, a Pearl, and a Catch of Fish; Teaching Made Up of Treasure, New and Old Matthew 13:36–52 36

Then he left the crowds, came into the home. And his students came for-

ward to him, saying, “Explicate to us the comparison of the weeds of

the field.” 37 He replied and said, “The one sowing the choice seed is the son of man. 38 The field is the world. Yet the choice seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the evil one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil. But the harvest is age’s completion, and the harvesters are messengers. 40 So: just as the weeds are culled and incinerated in fire, so will it be in the completion of the age. 41 The son of man will delegate his messengers, and they will cull from his kingdom all the falterings and those doing lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire: there will be the wailing and the grinding of teeth. 43 Then the just will blaze out like the sun in the kingdom of their father. One having ears, listen! 44 The kingdom of the heavens is like a hidden treasure in the field, which a man finds, hides, and from his joy departs and sells whatever he has, and purchases that field. 45 Again the kingdom of the heavens is like a dealer seeking choice pearls. 46 But finding one precious pearl, he goes away, peddles everything—whatever he has—and purchases it. 47 Again the kingdom of the heavens is like a dragnet thrown into the sea, that gathers together from every sort, 48 which—when it is full—they haul up upon the shore, sit and cull: the choice for containers, but the rotten they throw out. 49 In this way it will be in the completion of the age: the messengers will come out, and separate the evil from the midst of the just 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire: there will be the wailing and the grinding of teeth. 51Have you understood all these things?” They say to him, “Yes.” 52 Yet he said to them, “For this reason every letterer studied for the kingdom of the heavens is like a man who is house-master, who puts out from his treasure new and old.” In Matthew the Silan recension of the Jacobean stream continues its contribution, with a strong emphasis on the apocalyptic role of the son of man; see 1 Enoch 69:27–29:

200

Analysis

(Then) there came to them a great joy. And they blessed, glorified, and extolled (the Lord) on account of the fact that the name of that (Son of) Man was revealed to them. He shall never pass away or perish from before the face of the earth. But those who have led the world astray shall be bound with chains; and their ruinous congregation shall be imprisoned; all their deeds shall vanish from before the face of the earth. Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits. Here ends the third parable of Enoch. This perspective, often represented by the Silan recension, is so strong that it absorbs and reorients sapiential material (see Matthew 13:44–46), which might be taken to be prudential; see Bavli Shabbat 119a: He went, sold all his property, and bought a precious stone with the proceeds. The contrast is sufficiently great that in light of the aggregations of material that precedes, the derivation of these sayings from the Mishnaic stream seems likely.

201

Analysis

Rejection at Nazareth; the Nexus of Miracle and Belief Matthew 13:53–58

Mark 6:1–6a

53

1 And he went out from there, and comes into his native land, and his students follow him. 2 It became sabbath, and he began to teach in the synagogue, and many hearing were overwhelmed, saying, “Where did he get these things from, and what is this wisdom that is given to him? And what sort of miracles happen through his hands? 3 Isn’t this the journeyman, Mary’s son, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they faltered upon him. 4 And Jesus was saying to them, “A prophet is not dishonored except in his native land and among his kin and in his home.” 5 And he was not able there to do any miracle, except that laying hands on a few who were unhealthy, he healed. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief.

And it happened when Jesus finished

these comparisons, he transferred from there.

54 He came into his native land, and was teaching them in their synagogue. Result: they were overwhelmed and said, “Where did he get this wisdom and the miracles from? 55 Isn’t this the journeyman’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And aren’t his sisters all with us? So where did he get all these things?” 57 And they faltered upon him. Yet Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not dishonored except in the native land and in his home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

This Petrine passage reveals more in regard to Jesus’ relations than would otherwise be known. Absence of reference to Joseph likely reflects not only his death, but local awareness that he had been dead for some time. The accusation by a “Jew” cited by Celsus in his work True Doctrine (cited in turn by Origen) appears to be the earliest form of the accusation that later became a trope in polemic; Origen, Against Celsus 1.28, 32: He says that she was repudiated by her husband, who was a journeyman by trade, after she was convicted of adultery ….and had a child by a soldier named Pantera. Circumstances that would cause Jesus to be regarded as a mamzer (see the discussion of Matthew 1:18–25), taken in combination with the present passage adequately explain how such slanders arose. The aphorism in regard to the reception of a prophet (Mark 6:4; Matthew 13:57) is embedded within the narrative, which provides its contextual framing,

202

Analysis

rather than within an aggregation of other sayings, as in the Mishnaic stream. The attitude toward the rejection is more self-reflexive than the response at Qumran to those who willfully stand apart from the community, who deny themselves the capacity to repent; Community Rule 2:24–3:4: So shall all together comprise a Yaḥad whose essence is truth, genuine humility, love of charity and righteous intent, caring for one another after this fashion within a holy society, comrades in an eternal fellowship. Anyone who refuses to enter [the society of G]od, preferring to continue in his willful heart, shall not [the as]sociation of his truth, inasmuch as his soul has rejected the disciplines foundational to knowledge: the laws of righteousness. He lacks the strength to repent. He is not to be reckoned among the upright. His knowledge, strength, and wealth are not to enter the society of the Yaḥad. Surely, he ploughs in the muck of wickedness, so defiling stains would mar his repentance. Yet he cannot be justified by what his willful heart declares lawful, preferring to gaze on darkness rather than the ways of light. With such an eye, he cannot be reckoned faultless. Although the perspectives of the aphorism and the Community Rule are quite different, they share a conviction that rejection produces rejection.

203

Analysis

Herod Antipas’ Fear of Jesus; in Matthew and Mark, the Beheading of John the Immerser Matthew 14:1–12a

Mark 6:14–29

Luke 9:7–9

1 In that time Herod the governor heard of Jesus’ repute, 2 and he said to his domestics, “This is John the immerser: he himself has been raised from the dead, and for this reason by him the miracles become powerful.”

14 And Herod the king heard, for his name became acclaimed, and he was saying, “John the immerser has been raised from the dead, and for this reason by him the miracles become powerful.” 15 But others were saying: “He is Elijah;” yet others were saying: “A prophet as one of the prophets.” 16 But Herod heard and was saying, “John — whom I beheaded — he has been raised.” 17 Because Herod himself had delegated, seized John and bound him in prison, on account of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother, since he had married her. 18 Because John had been saying to Herod, “It is not right for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 But Herodias held it against him and wanted to kill him, and was not able. 20 Because Herod feared John, knowing he was a righteous and holy man, and guarded him, and when he listened to him a lot he was at a loss, and he listened to him gladly. 21 And there came an opportune day, when Herod during birthday celebrations made a dinner for his courtiers and the tribunes and the first people in Galilee, 22 and the daughter of Herodias came in, danced, and pleased Herod and those reclining together.

7 But Herod the governor heard everything that was happening, and was confounded, since it was said by some, “John had been raised from the dead,” 8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, yet others that some prophet of old had arisen.

3 Because Herod had seized John, bound him, and stowed him in prison, on account of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother. 4 Because John had been saying to him, “It is not right for you to have her.” 5 He wanted to kill him, and feared the crowd, because they held him as a prophet.

6 Yet when Herod’s birthday celebrations came,

the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst, and pleased Herod.

9 But Herod said, “John I beheaded: but who is this concerning whom I hear such things?” And he was seeking to see him.

204

Analysis

7 Accordingly, he vouched to her with an oath to give her whatever she implored.

8 Yet she, prompted by her mother: “Give me, here upon a dish, the head of John the immerser!”

9 The king grieved both at the oaths and those who were reclining together; he commanded it to be given. 10 He sent and beheaded John in the prison,

11 and his head was carried upon a dish and given to the girl, and she carried it to her mother. 12a His students came forward and took his body and buried it.

But the king said to the girl, “Implore of me whatever you want, and I will give it to you.” 23 And he swore to her: “Whatever you implore me, I will give you, up until half of my kingdom!” 24 She came out and said to her mother, “What shall I implore?” Yet she said, “The head of John the immerser.” 25 She entered at once with eagerness to the king and implored, saying, “I want that you give me immediately, upon a dish, the head of John the immerser!” 26 The king became mournful both at his oaths and those who were reposing, did not want to deny her. 27 At once the king delegated an executioner and directed him to bring his head. He went away and beheaded him in the prison, 28 and brought his head upon a dish and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 His students heard and came and took his body and laid it in a grave.

The chronology of the incident is discussed in the analysis of Luke 3:19–20 above. Josephus, the best guide in terms of context, nonetheless is vague when it concerns the motivation for John’s execution by Antipas, saying merely that he feared his influence might result in riot (Antiquities 18 § 118). Luke 3:19; Matthew 14:3–4; Mark 6:17–18 make Antipas’ marriage to Herodias the cause of John’s criticism, and the source of Antipas’ enmity. The law of Deuteronomy 22:30, prohibiting marriage to the ex-wife of one’s father, is expanded at Qumran (by means of Leviticus 18:6) to prohibit a man from marrying the ex-wife of a brother; Temple Scrolla 66:11–17: … A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor shall he uncover his father’s skirt. A man shall not take his brother’s wife, nor shall he uncover his

Analysis

205

brother’s skirt, be it his father’s son or his mother’s son, for this is impurity. A man shall not take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, for this is an abomination. A man shall not take his father’s sister or his mother’s sister, for it is wickedness. A man shall not take [ ] his brother’s daughter or his sister’s daughter, for it is an abomination. This stringency survived through the period; Yerushalmi Yebamot 1:1: It is written, You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s nakedness (Leviticus 18:16). The implication of this statement is that the prohibition applies, whether it is the wife of his brother from the same father [but not the same mother], or the wife of his brother from the same mother but not the same father], the wife of his brother who was alive at the same time and the wife of his brother who was not alive at the same time [but died before he was born, whether the brother was yet alive or whether the brother had already died, whether the brother had had children or whether the brother did not have children. [Is it then possible to suppose that] any woman [in any of these categories] then has been removed from this categorical prohibition on account of levirate marriage? [For brothers from the same mother only:] Here it is written, If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son … (Deuteronomy 25:5). And elsewhere it is written, We are twelve brothers, sons of our father (Genesis 42:32). Just as “brothers” used in this latter context refers to brothers from the same father [but from different mothers], so “brothers” stated here [with respect to the levirate connection] means that they are brothers from the same father. Against this background, Herodian practice (and not only Antipas’ marriage to Herodias) no doubt provoked scandal. Archelaus faced objections for his marriage to Glaphyra, formerly the wife of his dead half-brother Alexander,59 and Antipas put himself in the same predicament. Although the Gospels’ portrayal of John as a critic of Antipas’ marriage is plausible, disagreement remains in regard to which brother Herodias was married to. Matthew 14:3 and Mark 6:17 identify him as Philip the tetrarch. On the other hand, Josephus reports that Herod the Great had arranged the marriage 59

See Josephus, The Jewish War 2 §§114–116; and Josephus, Antiquities 17 §§ 339–341. The marital politics of Herod are nicely described by Eyal Regev, “Herod’s Jewish Ideology Facing Romanization: On Intermarriage, Ritual Baths, and Speeches,” Jewish Quarterly Review 100.2 (2010) 197–222.

206

Analysis

of Herodias to Herod ii (the son of Mariamme ii; Jewish War 1 § 557). In an attempt to resolve the issue, Herod ii has often been called Herod Philip by scholars, an expedient rejected as illusory by Nikos Kokkinos.60 Yet Kokkinos has also argued that Herodias first married Herod ii and then Philip the tetrarch prior to her marriage to Antipas. It is notable that even after Philip’s death, some of his troops deliberately turned against Antipas in battle (Antiquities 18 §114), suggesting that they repaid one form of treachery with another. All in all, the Gospels’ identification of Philip as Herodias’s husband prior to Antipas should not be summarily dismissed.61 On the other hand, Josephus’s statement that Philip died without children (Antiquities 18 § 108) suggests that he did not father Herodias’s daughter. Presumably, the young lady came from Herodias’s marriage with Herod ii, as Josephus indicates. Mark and Matthew also present an unusual account in which a dance by Herodias’s daughter62 during a birthday celebration for Antipas pleases him to the extent that he promises her whatever she might wish. She asks for John’s head on a platter (Mark 6:14–29; Matt 14:1–12), and her request is carried out. Given the threat to Antipas’s legitimacy represented by John as well as the account in Josephus, it seems unnecessary to suppose that the performance was really necessary. In its telling, the account characterizes Antipas as weak and the women of his household as corrupt in the style of Jezebel.63 Yet a res-

60

61

62

63

See Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 30 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 223, 264–271 and in regard to issues of dating, Ross S. Kraemer, “Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125.2 (2006) 321–349, especially 333 and n. 26. I have discussed this and related issues in The Herods. Murder, Politics, and the Art of Succession (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2021) 156–168. This is still the reflex of Julia Wilker, Für Rom und Jerusalem. Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Studien zur Alten Geschichte 5 (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 2007) 25–26, although in other ways she finds confluence between Josephus and the New Testament. Josephus in Antiquities 18 §§136–137, unlike the Gospels, names the daughter as Salomé and refers to her father as Herod ii. But then, as if to complicate matters, he says this Salomé married Philip and then went on to marry the son of Agrippa i’s brother, named Aristobulus, bearing three sons. As Kraemer (“Implicating Herodias,” 329) points out, however, Aristobulus struck a coin with his wife, Salomé, in 54 ce; the delay in time between Philip’s death and her bearing children to Aristobulus makes it appear unlikely the same Salomé is at issue. See Kraemer, “Implicating Herodias,” who on p. 337 refers to the story of Lucius Quinctius Flaminius, who beheaded a condemned man at a dinner party because a courtesan said she had never seen a person have his head cut off. He was expelled from the Senate in 184 bce, and the story was repeated until the first century and has been cited often. Krae-

Analysis

207

ult of this stylized telling is to suggest a certain hesitancy on Antipas’s part; although he is not portrayed as sympathetic, he appears ambivalent. His key fear, that Jesus might be John the Immerser raised from the dead (Mark 6:14; Matt 14:2; Luke 9:7–9), is the occasion of the narrative and reflects a degree of irresolution on his part. Although the account is stylized, it reflects a conflicted reaction within Antipas’s court to the events concerning John. A comparable attitude is also reflected in a later vignette concerning Jesus (Luke 23:6–12, discussed later). A woman who followed Jesus, named Joanna, was the wife of Chuza, one of Antipas’s officials (Luke 8:2);64 later still (well after Jesus’s death), someone from Antipas’s circle of friends appears among the “prophets and teachers” of Jesus’ followers in Antioch (Acts 13:1–3). Although Antipas had John killed and later attempted to inflict the same fate on Jesus, the eclecticism of his court gave an opportunity for diverse groups within Judaism to find some degree of support there. The story about Herodias and a daughter who came to be identified with Salomé provides a window into the ferment within Antipas’s regime as it struggled for royal power and at the same time attempted to find its way among the varying strains of Judaism represented within its region. The teacher whose views are reflected in the story of Herodias’ daughter (Joseph Barnabas, a wealthy Levite from Cyprus; see Acts 4:32–37)65 argued for an accommodation of Jesus’s movement with the house of Herod (under the much more benign form of Agrippa ii, cf. Acts 25:13–26:32) and so the story depicts Antipas as a nearly innocent victim of intrigue within his own court.

64

65

mer’s position apparently derives from that of the present writer in Rabbi Jesus, 61–63, that the song and dance were not necessary (which is why Luke 3:19–20 actually eliminates them). Joanna plays a central role in the reconstruction of Jesus’ movement by Marianne Sawicki, “Magdalenes and Tiberiennes: City Women in the Entourage of Jesus,” in Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re-viewed, Biblical Interpretation 43, ed. Ingrid R. Kitzberger (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 181–202. See also Julia Wilker, Für Rom und Jerusalem, 117, 266 (cf. also 323) also mentioning Manaen in Acts 13.1. As Sean Freyne points out, Sawicki portrays a more uniformly upper-class group than is plausible; see “Archaeology and the Historical Jesus,” Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 64–83, 81–83. On the other hand, Freyne’s own attempt to explain the reference to Joanna and Chuza as “a Lukan retrojection” (82) seems facile, although in what follows, I agree with his view of a sympathetic portrayal of Herodians within Luke and Luke’s sources. His role in Jesus’ movement is discussed in Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 111–113, 120–121, 255– 256. Since the publication of that work, the German monograph by Bernd Kollman has appeared in English; see Joseph Barnabas: His Life and Legacy (trans. Miranda Henry; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004). His conclusions may find support in recent archaeological work; see Philip H. Young, “The Cypriot Aphrodite Cult: Paphos, Rantidi, and Saint Barnabas,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64, no. 1 (2005) 23–44.

208

Analysis

A trope had emerged by that time in the literature of Judaism in which gentile rulers, to whom Antipas was comparable, were especially swayed by women.66 The source even refers to Antipas as “king” (Mark 6:14), which was the case only in his dreams but became a fact for later Herodians. Barnabas’ stream incorporated the influences of teachers who were related to courtiers, such as Joanna, and took sides within Antipas’ entourage, in this case vigorously against Herodias. The uneven take-up of the stream within Luke is notable, especially given the Gospel’s reliance upon it in the opening chapters. The attitude toward the Herodians provides the key to this selectivity. As Luke’s Gospel and Acts were composed, the Herodian dynasty came to its closest association with imperial power, in the relationship between Herod the Great’s great-granddaughter Bereniké and Titus, son of Vespasian and the second Flavian emperor.67 A work set out as an explanation of Christianity for a magistrate (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1, and the comparable address of Felix in Acts 24:2), would do well not to portray a Roman client ruler as indecisive or weak. Interestingly, Luke soon goes on to exclude even more material, known in Synoptic scholarship as “the Great Omission.”

66

67

See the book of Esther in the Hebrew Bible, for example, and Judith in the Apocrypha, as well as the sober assessment of Morten Hørning Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5, no. 1 (2007) 7–32. As detailed in Chilton, The Herods, 228–234.

209

Analysis

Feeding the Five Thousand; in Matthew and Mark, Jesus’ Walking on the Sea of Galilee Matthew 14:12b–36

Mark 6:30–56

12b …they went and reported 30 And the delegates gather toto Jesus. gether to Jesus and reported to him everything, as much as they had done and as much as they had taught. 31 And he says to them, “Come on: you yourselves— privately—into a wilderness place and repose a little.” Because those coming and departing were many, and they did not have opportunity even to eat. 32 And they went 13 Yet when Jesus heard, he re- away by the boat to a wilderness treated from there by boat into place privately. 33 And they saw a wilderness place privately. The them departing and many knew crowds heard, and were following and they ran together there by dry him by land from the towns. land from all the towns and pre14 He came out and saw a big crowd ceded them. 34 He came out and and felt for them, and healed their saw a big crowd and felt for them, unhealthy. because they were as sheep not having a shepherd, and he began to teach them a lot. 15 Yet when it became even- 35 The hour becoming ing, the students came for- already late, his students ward to him, saying, “The came forward to him and place is wilderness, and the were saying: “The place is hour has already passed. wilderness, and already a Release the crowds, so that late hour. 36 Release them, going away into the vil- so that going away into the lages they might buy them- fields and villages around selves food.” 16 But Jesus said they might buy themselves to them: “They have no need something to eat.”37 But he to go away. Give them to eat replied to them, said: “Give yourselves.” them to eat yourselves.” And 17 But they say to him, “We they say to him, “Shall we do not have here anything go away, buy two hundred except five breads and two denarii of bread, and give fish!” 18 Yet he said, “Bring them to eat?” 38 But he says them to me here.” to them, “How much bread do you have? Depart, see!” And they know, say, “Five, 19 He commanded the and two fish.” 39 And he dircrowds to recline for a ected them all to recline meal upon the blades, for a meal — symposiums,

Luke 9:10–17 10 And the delegates returned and narrated to him how much they had done, and he took them along and withdrew privately into a town called Bethsaida.

11 The crowds knew, and followed him. He received them and was speaking to them concerning the kingdom of God, and he cured those in need of healing.

12 But the day began to wane; the Twelve came forward him and said to him, “Release the crowd, so that proceeding into the villages and fields around they might lodge and find provision. Because here we are in a wilderness place!” 13 But said to them, “Give them to eat yourselves.” But they said, “There are with us no more than five breads and two fish, unless we proceed to buy food for all this people!” 14 Because there were around five thousand men. But he saidto his students, “Recline them in parties, about fifty each.”

210

and he took the five breads and the two fish, looked up into heaven, blessed and broke, gave the breads to his students, and the students to the crowds.

20 All both ate and were satisfied, and they took the excess of fragments, twelve full baskets. 21 Yet those eating were about five thousand men, apart from women and children. 22 And at once he compelled his students to embark into a boat and to go before him to the opposite shore, until when he released the crowds. 23 Having released the crowds, he ascended the mountain privately to pray, and when evening had come, he was alone there. 24 Yet the boat lay already distant many stadiums from the land, tormented by the waves, because the wind was contrary. 25 And on the fourth watch of the night, he came to them, walking on the sea. 26 But when the students saw him walking on the sea, they were shaken, saying, “It’s a phantom!” And they shouted from fear. 27 Yet Jesus spoke with them at once, saying, “Courage! It is I, do not fear.” 28 Rock replied and said to him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come

Analysis symposiums — upon the green blades. 40 And they leaned back — garden plots, garden plots — by hundreds and fifties. 41 He took the five breads and the two fish, and looked up into the heaven, blessed and broke apart the breads, and was giving it to his students, so they would set it out for them, and the two fish he distributed to all. 42 All both ate and were satisfied, 43 and lifted full fragments twelve baskets and from the fish. 44 Those who ate the bread were five thousand men. 45 And at once he compelled his students to embark into the boat and to go before into the opposite shore, to Bethsaida, until he released the crowd. 46 He parted from them and went away to the mountain to pray. 47 And when it had become evening, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and he himself was alone on the land. 48 He saw them tormented in the progress, because the wind was contrary to them, and around the fourth watch of the night, he comes to them walking on the sea, and he was wishing to go by them. 49 But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought: “It’s a phantom”! And they shouted out, 50 because they all saw him, and were shaken. But he spoke with them at once, and says to them, “Courage! It is I, do not be afraid.”

15 And they did so, and they all reclined. 16 He took the five breads and the two fish, looked up into the heaven, blessed them and broke apart, and gave to the students, to set out to the crowd. 17 And all both ate and were satisfied. And what exceeded them of fragments was taken, twelve baskets.

211

Analysis to you upon the waters!” 29 And he said, “Come!” Rock descended from the boat and walked upon the waters and came to Jesus. 30 But he saw the wind, was frightened; he began to sink, and shouted, saying, “Lord, save me!” 31 At once Jesus stretched the hand and took hold of him, and says to him, “Skeptic! For what purpose did you doubt?” 32 They ascended into the boat, and the wind ceased. 33 Those in the boat worshipped him and said, “Truly you are God’s son!” 34 They crossed over and came on the land into Gennesaret. 35 The men of that place recognized him, and delegated to that whole surrounding area, and they carried to him all those who were sick,

36 and summoned him so that they might only touch the tassel of his garment; and as many as touched him were saved.

51 And he ascended to them, to the boat, and the wind ceased, and they were extremely, deeply beside themselves. 52 Because they did not understand about the bread, but their heart was hardened.

53 They crossed over on the land, and came into Gennesaret, and anchored. 54 When they came out of the boat, at once they recognized him, 55 and they ran around that whole area, and began to carry around upon litters those who were sick wherever they heard, “He is here.” 56 Wherever he proceeded in, into villages or towns or fields, they set out the ailing in the marketplaces and summoned him so that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched him were saved.

Providing bread in the wilderness will naturally bring to mind the provision of manna during Israel’s sojourn (Exodus 16:31). In Quman’s Song of the Sageb the wise man hopes that Israel will “open their mouth for God’s kindnesses and search for his manna” (frg. 10, line 9). Living off the scarce resources of the wilderness appears as a feature of purity (2Maccabees 5:27) and might be related to the promise of eschatological plenty; 2Baruch 29:3–8: And it will happen that when all that which should come to pass in these parts has been accomplished, the Anointed One will begin to be revealed. And Behemoth will reveal itself from its place, and Leviathan will come from the sea, the two great monsters which I created on the fifth day of

212

Analysis

creation and which I shall have kept until that time. And they will be nourishment for all who are left. The earth will also yield fruits ten thousandfold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine. And those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and they will, moreover, see marvels every day. For winds will go out in front of me every morning to bring the fragrance of aromatic fruits and clouds at the end of the day to distill the dew of health. And it will happen at that time that the treasury of manna will come down again from on high, and they will eat of it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of time. The Petrine stream (Mark 6:30–34; Matthew 14:12b–14; Luke 9:10–11) takes that as an occasion of Jesus’ teaching and healing (especially Mark 6:53–56, but also Matthew 14:14; Luke 9:11). In the latter respect, see Bavli Taanit 23b: Ḥanan the Retiring was the son of the daughter of Ḥoni the Circle-Drawer. When the world needed rain, rabbis would send to him kindergarten children, and they would take hold of the hem of his garment and say to him, “Father, father, give us rain!” He would say before the Holy One, blessed be he, “Do it for the sake of these, who don’t know the difference between the father who gives rain and the father who does not give rain.” And why was he called Hanan the Retiring? Because he would retire to the privy [and lock the door]. The topos of the garment’s hem also appears in Mark 6:56; Matthew 14:36. The imagery of sheep was dear to the Petrine tradition (see John 21:15– 17; 1Peter 2:25; 5:1–5) and is applied in a way reminiscent of the role of the mebaqqer at Qumran; Damascus Document 13:7–10: This is the rule for the overseer of a camp. He must teach the general membership about the works of God, instruct them in his mighty miracles, relate to them the future events coming to the world with their interpretations; he should care for them as a father does his children, taking care of all their problems as a shepherd does for his flock. He should loosen all their knots, that there be no one oppressed or crushed in his congregation. Bethsaida (Luke 9:10b) was elevated to the status of a city under Philip the tetrarch (Josephus, Antiquities 18 §28), and he was buried there, at his own

Analysis

213

request (Antiquities 18 §108); it is also named as the native town of Peter (John 1:44). Two major scenes complement the Petrine stream, from its Barnaban and Jacobean counterparts. The feeding of the five thousand is rich with prophetic resonance (see 2 Kings 4:38–44). The scale, setting, numerical grouping, and preparation of the communal meal is reminiscent of provisions within the Dead Sea Scrolls; Rule of the Congregation 2:17b–22: [When] they gather [at the] communal [tab]le, [having set out bread and w]ine so the communal table is set [for eating] and [the] wine (poured) for drinking, none [may re]ach for the first portion of the bread or [the wine] before the Priest. For [he] shall [bl]ess the first portion of the bread and the wine, [reac]hing for the bread first. Afterw[ard] the Messiah of Israel [shall re]ach for the bread. [Finally,] ea[ch] member of the whole congregation of the Yaḥad [shall give a bl]essing, [in descending order of ] rank. This procedure shall govern every me[al], provided at least ten me[n are ga]thered together. Specification of offering a blessing (cf. Mark 4:31; Matthew 14:19; Luke 9:16) is more elaborate in the practice of Qumran than elsewhere, but it is a perennial feature of mealtime practice; Bavli Berakhot 35a: What is the source of this rule [that one must say a blessing before eating produce]? It is in accord with what our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority—The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise to the Lord (Leviticus 19:24). [This verse refers to produce in the fourth year after planting a given tree.] This teaches that [produce] requires the recitation of a blessing, both before and after eating. On the basis of the foregoing exegesis, Rabbi Aqiba said, “It is forbidden for a person to taste anything before reciting a blessing.” Although Eucharistic overtones are inescapable in the Barnaban stream, blessing is therefore not by any means restricted to that context. For the Jacobean stream and its Silan expansion, the power of God to make a way in the midst of the water (cf. Isaiah 44:1, for example) is axiomatic. At the same time, comparison is instructive with the Hodayoth, where the raging of the waves arises in unusual contexts; Hodayota 11:3–21: [ ] You have made my face to shine [ ] [ ] for yourself, with eternal glory together with all [ ] [ ] your mouth, and you have delivered me from [ ] and

214

Analysis

from [ ] [ ] now [my] soul [for] they did [n]ot esteem me. They set [my] soul as a boat in the [d]epths of the sea, and as a fortified city befo[re her enemy.] I am in distress, as a woman about to give birth to her first born. For her pangs come over her, and she has excruciating pain in her birth canal, writhing in the womb of the pregnant one. For children come into life through the crashing waves of death, and she who is pregnant with a male child is afflicted by her birth pains. For through the crashing waves of death she delivers a male child, through the pains of Sheol there bursts forth from the womb of the pregnant one, a wonderful counselor with his strength. A male child is safely delivered from the crashing waves. Into the one who is pregnant with him rush all the crashing waves, and excruciating pains when they are born, and terror to their mothers. And when he is born, all pangs come suddenly to the womb of the pregnant one. But she that is pregnant with wickedness experiences excruciating pain, and the crashing waves of the pit for all works of terror. And the foundations of the wall break as a ship upon the water, and the clouds thunder with a roar. Those who sit in the dust, as those who go down to the seas are terrified by the roar of the water, and all their wise men are as sailors on the deeps. For all their wisdom is swallowed up by the roar of the seas, when the ocean depths boil over the springs of water, and they are tossed up to the towering waves and crashing waves by their roar. And when they are tossed up, Sh[eo]l [and Abaddon] shall open. [And al]l the arrows of the pit, when they descend into the deep, shout out, and the gates [of Sheol] open [for all] the works of wickedness. Then the doors of the pit shut up the one who is pregnant with injustice, and the eternal bars shut up the spirits of wickedness. [ ] [ ] I give thanks to you, Lord, for you have redeemed my soul from the pit. From Sheol and Abaddon you have raised me up to an eternal height, so that I might walk about on a limitless plain, and know that there is hope for him whom you created from the dust for the eternal council. This explains why the same metaphor can be used as naturally as it is; Hodayota 14:25b–27a: […] I have [become] as a sailor on a ship in the raging seas; their waves and all their breakers come over me. A staggering wind roars [without] calm to revive the soul nor any paths to make a straight way over the waters. By the time of the Talmud, the imagery had become even richer; Baba Batra 73a:

Analysis

215

Said Rabbah, “Sailors told me, ‘The wave that sinks a ship appears with a white froth of fire at the crest, and when stricken with clubs on which is incised, “I am that I am, Yah, the Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,” it will subside (and not sink the ship).’” Said Rabbah, “Sailors told me, ‘Between one wave and another there is a distance of three hundred parasangs, and the height of the wave is the same three hundred parasangs.’ Once, when we were on a voyage, a wave lifted us up so high that we could see the resting place of the smallest star, and there was a flash, as if one shot forty arrows of iron; and if it had lifted us up any higher, we would have been burned by the heat. And one wave called to the next, ‘Friend, have you left anything in the world that you did not wash away? I’ll go and wipe it out.’ And the other said, ‘Go see the power of the master, by whose command I must not pass the sand of the shore by even so much as the breadth of a thread: “Fear you not me? says the Lord.” Will you not tremble at my presence, who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it cannot pass (Jeremiah 5:22).’ ” In Mark’s Gospel uniquely (Mark 6:52) a connection is made between the stilling of and appearance on the sea and the feeding, but this is a proleptic reference to Mark 8:17–21, and in the end serves to heighten the contrasts involved between the Barnaban and the Jacobean stream. The Silan recension of the latter accords Peter prominence (again uniquely, Matthew 14:28–33), but in a way that assesses him ambivalently. In the cessation of the wind (Mark 6:51; Matthew 14:32) we may again have an example of Jesus acting as God’s Messiah whom “heaven and earth obey,” as expressed in Qumran’s Messianic Apocalypse (see Commentary on Mark 4:35–41; Matthew 8:23–27; Luke 8:22– 25 above).

216

Analysis

Dispute in regard to Handwashing, and the True Source of Defilement; in Mark, a General Statement that All Foods Are Clean Matthew 15:1–20

Mark 7:1–23

1 Then there come forward to Jesus from 1 The Pharisees gather to him, and some Jerusalem Pharisees and letterers, saying, of the letterers who had come from Jerusalem. 2 And seeing that some of his students ate bread with unclean (that is, unwashed) hands 3 —because the Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash hands with fist do not eat, retaining the tradition of the elders,

⁴

and from mar-

ketplace unless they immerse they do not eat, and they receive many others just like these to retain, immersions of cups

5 the Pharisees and the letterers interrogate him, “For what reason do your students not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unclean hands?” 6 Yet he said to them, “Duly Isaiah prophesied about you frauds, as it is written, ‘This people with lips honors me, but their heart keeps distant from me. 7 In vain they worship me, teaching men’s decrees as doctrines.’ 8 Leaving the decree of God, you retain men’s tradition.” 9 And he was saying to them, “Duly you annul the commandment of God, so that you establish your tradition. 10Because Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘The one who insults father or mother shall die the death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to father or mother, Qorban [that is, gift] whatever you were owed from me,’ 12 you no longer let him do anything for father or and jugs and pots—

2 “For what reason do your students transgress the tradition of the elders? Because they do not wash hands whenever they eat bread!”

3 He replied and said to them, “And for what reason do you also transgress the decree of God for your tradition!? 4 Because God said, ‘Honor father and mother,’ and, ‘The one who insults father or mother, shall die the death!’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Whatever you were owed from me is Gift,” 6 shall not honor his father. And you void the word of God for your tradition.’ 7 Frauds!

Analysis Duly Isaiah prophesied about you, saying, 8 ‘This people with lips honors me, but their heart keeps distant from me. 9 In vain they worship me, teaching men’s decrees as doctrines.’” 10 He summoned the crowd and said to them, “Listen and understand: 11 That which enters into the mouth does not defile the man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” 12 Then the students came forward, say to him, “You know that the Pharisees who heard this word falter!” 13 He replied and said, “Every plant which my heavenly father did not plant shall be uprooted! 14 Leave them; they are blind guides! If a blind person guides a blind person, they will both fall into a pit.” 15 Peter replied and said to him, “Explicate the comparison to us!” 16 But he said, “Still, are you senseless, too? 17 Don’t you know that everything entering into the mouth passes into the belly, and is thrown out into a latrine? 18 But what proceeds out from the mouth comes forth from the heart, and that defiles the man. 19 Because from the heart come forth evil intentions: killings, adulteries, sexual abuses, thefts, false witnessings, cursings. 20 These defile the man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

217 mother, 13 voiding the word of God by your tradition that you deliver over. And you do many suchlike things.” 14 He summoned the crowd again, and said to them, “Everybody listen to me and understand: 15 There is nothing outside the man, proceeding into him that defiles him, but what proceeds out of the man is what defiles the man.”

17 And when he entered into a house away from the crowd, his students were interrogating him about the comparison. 18 And he says to them, “So, are you senseless, too? Don’t you apprehend that everything outside proceeding into the man is not able to defile him, 19 for it does not proceed into the heart, but into the belly, and proceeds out into the latrine?” [Making all foods clean.] 20 But he was saying: “What proceeds out from the man, that defiles the man. 21 For from within, from the heart of men, bad intentions proceed out: sexual abuses, thefts, killings, 22 adulteries, greeds, malices, deceit, indecency, evil eye, cursing, arrogance, foolishness. 23 All these evils proceed out from within and defile the man.”

218

Analysis

The passage coordinates three distinct questions: (1) the practice of purity in view of the direction in which impurity travels (Mark 7:1–2, 5, 14–15; Matthew 15:1–2, 10–11) (2) the qorban vow as a legitimate practice (Mark 7:6–13; Matthew 15:3–9), and (3) the status of ritual as compared to moral impurity (Mark 7:17– 23; Matthew 15:12–20). The three levels correspond to the Petrine stream, in which handwashing in relation to Pharisaic practice needed to be addressed; the Jacobean stream, with its particular awareness of sacrificial custom in Jerusalem; and the Barnabas stream, which accommodates the issue of impurity to the concerns of the Diaspora. Requirements of washing, which was seen as continuous with moral purity, were not specific to Pharisaic practice; Letter of Aristeas 305–306: Following the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea in the course of their prayers to God, and then proceeded to the reading and explication of each point. I asked this question: “What is their purpose in washing their hands while saying their prayers?” They explained that it is evidence that they have done no evil, for all activity takes place by means of the hands. Thus they nobly and piously refer everything to righteousness and truth. Within the practice of Jesus, however, the presupposition that Israelites ate and produced foods in a state of purity (see Luke 10:8) marked a difference with the Pharisees which the saying in regard to the direction in which impurity moves provides both motivation and context. The particular issue of qorban is also reflected in Mishnah Nedarim 3:2: [If] he said, “Qonam be any benefit my wife gets from me, for she stole my purse,” “for she beat up my son,” and he found out that she had not beaten up his son, or he found out that she had not stolen it [the vow is null]. [If] he saw people eating figs [belonging to him] and said, “Lo, they are qorban to you!” and they turned out to be his father and brothers, and there were others with them—the House of Shammai say, “They are permitted, and those with them are prohibited.” And the House of Hillel say, “These and those [men] are permitted [to eat the figs].” That this was not an entirely specialist concern is shown by the Jewish Ossuary from Jebel Ḫallet eṭ-Ṭûri:68

68

For discussion of this ossuary, its discovery, and interpretation of its Aramaic inscription,

Analysis

219

Everything that a man will find to his profit in this ossury (is) qorban to God from the one within it. The terms of practical awareness, however, proximity to the Temple is assumed throughout. A Diaspora trope, taken up in the Barnaban stream, concentrates on issues of moral purity; see Wisdom of Solomon 14:13–26:69 Pursuing child-killing rites, hidden mysteries, frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep their lives or their marriages pure, treacherously doing away with one another, and corrupting with distress. All is a confusion of blood and murder, theft and deceit, decay, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, confusion over good, forgetfulness of favor, pollution of souls, perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and dissolution. Recourse to such a position at Qumran, of course, demonstrates that there is no question of restricting these attitudes to the Diaspora; Community Rule 4:9–11: The operations of the spirit of falsehood result in greed, neglect of righteous deeds, wickedness, lying, pride and haughtiness, cruel deceit and fraud, massive hypocrisy, a want of self-control and abundant foolishness, a zeal for arrogance, abominable deeds fashioned by whorish desire, lechery in its filthy manifestation, a reviling tongue, blind eyes, deaf ears, stiff neck and hard heart—to the end of walking in all the ways of darkness and evil cunning. What is striking in the case of the Barnaban stream is not the deployment of the trope, but the purpose of the deployment, to redefine purity in moral terms.

69

see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Qorbân Inscription from Jebel Ḫallet eṭ-Ṭûri and Mk 7:11/Mt 15:5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959) 60–65. See J.D. Charles, “Vice and Virtue Lists,” Dictionary of New Testament Background. A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans; Downers Grove, I: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 1252–1257. For an interesting treatment of Paul’s incorporation of such lists, see E.P. Sanders, “The Corinthian Correspondence, Part 4: Vice Lists and Homosexual Activity,” Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought (Minneapolis: 1517 Media, 2015) 335–374.

220

Analysis

Jesus Exorcises Gentile Woman’s Daughter; the Mother’s Self-Comparison to Dogs is the “Faith” (Matthew) or “Word” (Mark) that Warrants Fulfilment of Her Request Matthew 15:21–28 21

Mark 7:24–30

24 From there he arose but went away into 22 Look: the regions of Tyre and Sidon. He entered a Canaanite woman from those re- into a home, and wished no one to know. gions came out and shouted, say- And he was not able to be hid, 25 but at once ing, “Have mercy on me, Lord, David’s there heard about him a woman whose little son! My daughter is badly demon- daughter had an unclean spirit. She came, fell possessed.” 23 But he did not answer at his feet 26 (yet the women was Greek, Syroher a word. His students came for- phoenician by race) and implored him so that ward and asked him, saying, “Release he would throw the demon out of her daughher, because she is shouting after ter. us!” 24 He replied and said, I was not delegated, except to the missing sheep of Israel’s house. 25 She came 27 And he was saying to her, “Let the chiland worshipped him, saying, “Lord, dren be sated first, because it is not fair relieve me!” 26 He replied and said, “It is to take the bread of the children and to not fair to take the bread of the children throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she replied and and to throw it to the dogs.” 27 But she said, says to him, “Indeed, Lord: even the dogs From there Jesus went out and retreated

into the regions of Tyre and Sidon.

“Indeed, Lord: even the dogs eat from the under the table eat from the scraps of the scraps which fall from the table of their lords.” children.”

28 Then Jesus replied and said to her, “Woman,

29

And he said to her, “Because

of this word, Depart: the demon has gone

your faith is great! It shall happen to you as out from your daughter.”

30 She went away

you want!” And her daughter was cured from to her house, and found the child thrown that hour.

upon the bed, and the demons having gone out.

The assumption of the passage includes Jesus’ reputation as an exorcist (Mark 7:26; Matthew 15:22), and there are ample analogies for the claim to be able to deal with demons; an example is Qumran’s Songs of the Sagea f1:4b–7a: … And I, the Instructor, proclaim his glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers …] and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the

Analysis

221

present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of lig[ht] The biblical narrative, in which David was credited with providing relief for Saul from the evil spirit that God placed upon him (1 Samuel 16:23), helps explains the designation of Jesus as David’s son in the Jacobean stream (Matthew 15:22). As Michael Mach observes, the Qumran sect did not simply pray on behalf of the demon-possessed; Psalmsa scroll indicates that the community recited exorcism liturgies, understood as derived from David against demons.70 Although the woman’s petition to Jesus as David’s son likely pertains to a larger messianic agenda, within that agenda was an expectation of messianic power over demonic forces. By the same token, the vignette turns on the uncleanness of dogs (Mark 7:27; Matthew 15:26); Halakhic Lettera f8iv:8–12a: … one may not bring dogs into the holy camp because they may eat some of the [b]ones from the sanc[tuary and] the meat which is still on them. For Jerusalem is the holy camp. It is the place that he chose from all the tribes of Israel, for Jerusalem is the foremost of the camps of Israel. The issue of uncleanness is embedded within the territory described (Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:21), and the Magdalene stream here layers those vectors of impurity with the gender of the woman and her daughter. A comparable layering is attested in the Testament of Qohath, a pseudonymous work dating no later than a century prior to Mark’s Gospel; Testament of Qohath 1i:4–13: And now, my sons, be careful with the inheritance that has been entrusted to you, and which your ancestors have bequeathed to you. Do not give your inheritance away to strangers, nor your inheritance to assimilationists, lest you become low and degraded in their eyes, and they despise you; for then they will be alien to you and become your rulers. So hold firm to the command of Jacob your ancestor, grasp tightly the judgements of Abraham and the good deeds of Levi and myself, and be holy and pure from all intermingling, holding firm to the truth, walking in integrity and not with a divided heart, but with a pure heart, and with an honest and good spirit. And you will give me a good name among yourselves to Levi,

70

Michael Mach, “Demons,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1 (edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 189–192.

222

Analysis

joy to Jacob, celebration to Isaac, and praise to Abraham, because you have kept and passed on the inheritance that your ancestors left you: truth, good deeds, honesty, perfection, purity, holiness, and priesthood, according to everything that I have commanded you … Such warnings about diluting the inheritance of Israel by contact with those who associate with outsides (and implicitly outsiders themselves) convey an understandable position when gentile hegemony challenged the integrity of territorial Israel and the cultural autonomy of Jews living in the Diaspora. Yet the comparison with a dog also conveys a possibility that is exploited in the story. Just as 1Samuel 17:43 provides an analogy of language of dogs for people in terms of status, so Bavli Baba Batra 8a instances the deployment of such language in reference to oneself: Rabbi opened his storehouse in a year of famine, announcing, “Let all those come in [and get food] who are masters of Scripture, Mishnah, Gemara, law, lore, but let unlearned people not come in.” Rabbi Jonathan b. Amram forced his way in. He said to him, “Rabbi, feed me.” He said to him, “My son, have you studied Scripture?” “No.” “Have you repeated Mishnah traditions?” “No.” He said to him, “If so, on what basis can I feed you?” He said to him, “Feed me like a dog or like a raven.” He gave him some food. After he left, Rabbi was in session and was distressed, saying, “Woe is me, for I gave my bread to an unlettered person!” Rabbi Simeon bar Rabbi said before him, “But maybe it was Jonathan b. Amram, your disciple, who has never in his life been willing to profit from the glory owing to the Torah [that he has learned].” They made an investigation and found that that is who it was. Said Rabbi, “Then let everybody come in.” The dynamics of the story are remarkably similar to those of the vignette in the Magdalene stream, with its prioritization of the woman’s statement (Mark 7:28–29; Matthew 15:27–28), a unique valorization in the Gospels. Rabbinic haggadoth also offer analogies to the importance of faith in effecting divine action; Mekhilta Beshallah 1.13–16: Rabbi says, “‘The faith that they trusted in me is so worthy that I should divide the sea for them.’ For it is said, ‘That they turn back and encamp’ (Exodus 14:2).” R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “[God said:] ‘For the sake of their father, Abraham, I shall divide the sea for them:’ ‘For he remembered his holy word to Abraham his servant’ (Psalm 105:42). ‘And he brought forth his people with joy’ (Psalm 105:43).” R. Eleazar b. Judah of Kefar Tota says,

Analysis

223

“‘For the sake of the tribal progenitors I shall divide the sea for them:’ ‘You have pierced through because of his tribes’ (Habakkuk 3:14). ‘To him who divided the Red Sea into parts’ (Psalm 136:13).” Abtalyon says, “ ‘The faith that they trusted in me is so worthy that I should divide the sea for them.’ For it is said, ‘And they believed’ (Exodus 4:31).” Matthew 15:28 accords more strongly to this presentation, perhaps under the influence of the language of the Petrine stream (cf. Matthew 9:22; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48), than does Mark 7:29.

224

Analysis

In Mark, the Healing of a Deaf and Mute Person; Healing Summary in Matthew Matthew 15:29–31

Mark 7:31–37

29 Jesus went through from there and came 31 He again went out from the regions of Tyre, by the sea of Galilee, ascended into the and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee mountain and stayed there.

in the middle of the regions of Ten Cities.

32

And they carry to him a deaf and mute per-

30

And there came forward to him many son and they summon him so that he might

crowds having with them crippled, lame, lay the hand on him.

33

He took him away

blind, deaf, and many others. And they from the crowd privately and put his fingers scattered them by his feet,

into his ears, spat and touched his tongue. 34 He looked up into heaven, sighed and says

and he healed them.

to him, “Ephatha (that is, Be opened up)!”

35

And his hearing opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke clearly.

36

He ordered them strictly so that they would

31 Result: the crowd marveled, seeing deaf

speak to no one, but as much as he ordered

people speak and lame people walking and them, they announced rather all the more. blind people seeing, and glorified the God

37

of Israel.

measure, saying, “He has done everything

And they were overwhelmed beyond all

well: he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak.”

The location of this event in the Decapolis (Ten Cities; Mark 7:31) means that a predominantly gentile region on the east side of the Sea of Galilee is involved. This pursues an interest of the Magdalene stream, but with no real attention to the geography involved. This may help explain Matthew’s far less categorical statement (Matthew 15:29). With the Jacobean stream, Matthew has insisted that Jesus’ real target was Israel (Matthew 15:24), so that the effective omission of this story is explicable. Impurity of place is matched by the impurity of the condition described (Mark 7:32). The Yahad at Qumran excluded those with obvious physical defects from full participation in the community, particularly guarding the sanctity of the assembly or congregation; Rule of the Congregation 2:5–10: No man with a physical handicap—crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh—or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation—may en[ter]

Analysis

225

to take a place [i]n the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation. For the holy angels are [a part of] their [congrega]tion. If [one of] these people has some[thing] to say to the holy congregation, let an oral [de]position be taken, but the man must n[ot] enter [the congregation,] for [h]e has been smitten. This practice especially included the deaf, who could not hear God’s law and thus were prone to go beyond it (see Halakhic Lettera 4 8iv:2–4). Rich associations of the cure of deafness are shared by Mark 7:37 and Targum Isaiah 35:5–6: Then the eyes of the house of Israel, that were as blind to the law, shall be opened, and their ears, which were as deaf to listen to the sayings of the prophets, shall listen; then, when they see the exiles of Israel who are gathered and going up to their land, even as swift harts, and not to be checked, their tongue which was dumb shall sing for joy. This celebration summarizes a theme of long lineage; War Scroll 14:4–6: … Blessed is the God of Israel, who guards lovingkindness for his covenant and the appointed times of salvation for the people he redeems. He has called those who stumble unto wondrous [accomplishment]s, and he has gathered a congregation of nations for annihilation without remnant in order to raise up in judgement he whose heart has melted, to open a mouth for the dumb to sing [ ] mighty deeds, and to teach feeble [ ] warfare. He gives those whose knees shake strength to stand. Spit also has its own resonance with the physical constitution of a person; Community Rule 1:20–22: Who can measure your glory? Who, indeed, is man among your glorious works? As what can he, born of a woman, be reckoned before you? Kneaded from dust, his body is but the bread of worms; he is so much spit, mere nipped-off clay—and for clay his longing. Shall clay contest, the vessel plumb counsel? Not surprisingly, spit could be seen as polluting; Community Rule 7:13: A man who spits into the midst of a session of the general membership is to be punished by reduced rations for thirty days.

226

Analysis

But the Magdalene stream (Mark 7:33) reflects its use in association with healing, perhaps precisely because it was so closely associated with the understanding of how people are framed; Yerushalmi Shabbat 14:4: Samuel said this: It is prohibited to put tasteless spit into the eye on the Sabbath. In this case, as in the Magdalene stream, the usage of saliva is for literal healing, so that actual practice is reflected.

227

Analysis

The Feeding of the Four Thousand Matthew 15:32–39

Mark 8:1–10

32 Jesus summoned his students 1 In those days there was again and said, “I feel for the crowd, a crowd, big and not having anything they could eat; summoning the students, he says to them, because already three days they 2 “I feel for the crowd, because remain with me, and they do not already three days they remain have anything they can eat. with me, and they do not have anything they can eat. 3 And if And I do not want to release them I release them hungry to their hungry; otherwise, they will give house, they will give out on the out on the way.” way. And some of them are from 33 And his students say to him, “In far away.” 4 And his students what way may we in a wilderness replied to him, “In what way will sate such a crowd with so much anyone be able to sate these bread?” 34 Jesus says to them, “How people with bread here, in wilmuch bread do you have?” But they derness?” 5 And he asked them, said, “Seven, and a few fish.” 35 He “How much bread do you have?” charged the crowd to recline on But they said, “Seven.” 6 And he the earth 36 and took the seven charges the crowd to recline on loaves and the fish, and he gave the earth, and took the seven thanks, broke and gave to his stu- loaves, gave thanks, broke and dents, and the students to the gave them to his students so that crowd. they would set out, and they set out to the crowd. 7 And they had 37 And they all ate and were sated, a few fish; and blessing them, he and the overflow of fragments said to set them out, too. 8 And they took up, seven full baskets. 38 they ate and were sated, and they But those eating were four thou- took up abundant fragments, sand men, apart from women and seven baskets. 9 Yet there were children. 39 He released the around four thousand. And he crowds and embarked into the released them. 10 At once he emboat and came into the regions of barked into the boat with his stuMagadan. dents and came into the districts of Dalmanutha.

228

Analysis

Many of the same analogies cited in respect of Mark 6:30–44 apply here. The two passages convey different messages, however, by their citation of differing numbers. The focus on Israel in Mark 6 is maintained by means of the number twelve. Here, the number seven conveys the extent of God’s vigilance over the whole earth (see Zechariah 4:2, 10, and Acts 6:1–7) in its four compass points (Zechariah 6:1–5). The Barnaban stream calls attention to this distinction in Mark 8:19–21; Matthew 16:9–12, as is discussed at that point. Application to eucharistic participation among non-Jews is emphasized by the reference to travel over the Sea of Galilee in Mark 8:10; Matthew 15:39.

229

Analysis

Jesus’ Response to Those Seeking a Sign; Warning of the Yeast of the Pharisees (and of Zadokites in Matthew, or of Herod in Mark), Interpreted in Terms of Feedings of the Thousands in Matthew and Mark; in Luke Reading the Weather and the Times Matthew 16:1–12

Mark 8:11–21

Luke 11:16, 29; 12:1, 54–56

1 Pharisees and Zadokites came forward and tested him; they demanded he show them a sign from the heaven. 2 He replied and said to them, 4 “An evil and adulterous generation seeks out a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, except the sign of Jonah!” He left them behind and went away.5 The students went to opposite shore, and they forgot to take bread.

11 And the Pharisees came out and started to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from the heaven, testing him. 12 He sighed in his spirit and says, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Amen I say, If a sign shall be given to this generation....” 13 Leaving them, he embarked again and went away to the opposite side. 14 And they forgot to take bread, and except for one loaf they did not have any with themselves in the boat. 15 He ordered them strictly and said, “See, look out for the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” 16 And they deliberated with one another, because they did not have bread. 17 He knew and says to them, “Why do you deliberate because you do not have bread? Do you not yet apprehend or understand? Do you have your hardened hearts? 18 Having eyes you do not look, and having ears you do not listen? And don’t you remember: 19 when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many bushels full of fragments did you take up?” They say to him, “Twelve.”20 “When the seven for the four thousand: fulfilments of how

16 Others tested and were seeking a sign from heaven from him.

6 Yet Jesus said to them, “Watch, be wary of the yeast of the Pharisees and Zadokites.” 7 But they deliberated among themselves, saying, “We did not take bread!” 8 Jesus knew and said, “Why do you deliberated among yourselves, skeptics — because you do not have bread ?! 9 Do you not yet apprehend or remember — the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many bushels you took!? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many baskets you took? 11 How do you not apprehend that I did not talk to you about loaves? But be wary of the yeast of the Pharisees and Zadokites.” 12 Then they under-

29 While the crowds swelled he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks a sign and a sign shall not be given to is, except the sign of Jonah!”

[Chapter 12] 1 While the ten thousands of the crowd were gathered up together — so that they trampled one another—he began to say to his students first, “Be wary in yourselves of the yeast — such as is hypocrisy — of the Pharisees.”

230

Analysis

stood that he had not said to be many of full baskets of wary of the yeast of breads but of fragments did you take up?” the teaching of the Pharisees and And they say to him, “Seven.” Zadokites. 21 And he was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?” 54 But he was also saying to the crowds, “When you see a cloud dawning from west, at once you say, ‘A thunderstorm is coming,’ and it is so. 55 And when it is blowing from south, you say, ‘It will be roasting,’ and it is. 56 Frauds! You know to assess the face of earth and heaven, but you do not know to assess this time?”

Complaints in regard to the “evil and adulterous generation” that resists prophecy (Matthew 16:4; Luke 11:29, cf. Mark 8:12) are generally well precedented;71 Pesher Nahum 3–4ii:7–10a: “All because of the harlot’s many fornications. Beautiful is she, a witch indeed, who acquires peoples through fornication, whole clans through sorcery” (Nahum 3:4). This refers to the deceivers from Ephraim, who through their deceptive teaching, lying talk, and dishonest speech deceive many: kings, princes, priests, native and foreigner alike. Cities and clans will pass away through following their principles, nobles and rulers will perish through their [arrog]ant talk. The accusation continued to be leveled well after the period of the New Testament; Targum of Isaiah 57:3: But you, draw near hither, people of the generation whose deeds are evil, whose plant was from a holy plant, and they are adulterous and harlots. Mark 8:12 represents an early caution against seeking signs, which is then pressed further in Matthew 16:4; Luke 11:29.

71

See O. Linton, “The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mk. 8:11–12 and Parallesl),” Studia Theologica 19 (1965) 112–129; J. Gibson, “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990) 37–66; Roland Deines, Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhuasen und Graetz. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungern zum Neuen Testament 101 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 514.

Analysis

231

In the case of the earlier prophetic critique of seeking signs in the Barnaban stream, the stance is comparable to the stance of Rabbi Joshua against Rabbi Eliezer in a famous Haggadah; Bavli Baba Mesia 59a–b: If one cut [a clay oven] into parts and put sand between the parts, Rabbi Eliezer declares the oven broken-down and therefore insusceptible to uncleanness. And sages declare it susceptible. And this is what is meant by the oven of Akhnai. Why the oven of Akhnai? Said Rabbi Judah said Samuel, “It is because they surrounded it with arguments as with a snake and proved it was insusceptible to uncleanness.” A Tannaite statement: On that day Rabbi Eliezer produced all of the arguments in the world, but they did not accept them from him. So he said to them, “If the law accords with my position, this carob tree will prove it.” The carob was uprooted from its place by a hundred cubits—and some say, four hundred cubits. They said to him, “There is no proof from a carob tree.” So he went and said to them, “If the law accords with my position, let the stream of water prove it.” The stream of water reversed flow. They said to him, “There is no proof from a stream of water.” So he went and said to them, “If the law accords with my position, let the walls of the school house prove it.” The walls of the school house tilted toward falling. Rabbi Joshua rebuked them, saying to them, “If disciples of sages are contending with one another in matters of law, what business do you have?” They did not fall on account of the honor owing to Rabbi Joshua, but they also did not straighten up on account of the honor owing to Rabbi Eliezer, and to this day they are still tilted. So he went and said to them, “If the law accords with my position, let the Heaven prove it!” An echo came forth, saying, “What business have you with Rabbi Eliezer, for the law accords with his position under all circumstances!” Rabbi Joshua stood up on his feet and said, “‘It is not in heaven’ (Deuteronomy 30:12).” What is the sense of, It is not in heaven? Said Rabbi Jeremiah, “[The sense of Joshua’s statement is this:] For the Torah has already been given from Mount Sinai, so we do not pay attention to echoes, since you have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, ‘After the majority you are to incline’ (Exodus 23:2).” Rabbi Nathan came upon Elijah and said to him, “What did the Holy One, blessed be he, do at that moment?” He said to him, “He laughed and said, ‘My children have overcome me, my children have overcome me!’ ” Comparatively, of course, the Barnaban stream is harsher in its criticism, and may be compared with Qumran’s Mysteriesa frg. 1, 1:5–6 = Mysteriesb frg. 3, lines 4–6:

232

Analysis

This will be for you a sign that this is going to happen: When those born of sin are locked up, evil will disappear before justice as [da]rkness disappears before light. As smoke vanishes, and n[o] longer exists, so will evil vanish forever. The reflexive usage of yeast as symbolizing evil is grounded in the sense that the comparison is natural; Bavli Berakhot 17a: And when R. Alexandri had finished saying his prayer, this is what he said: “Lord of the ages, it is perfectly obvious to you that our will is to do your will. But what prevents it? It is the leaven in the dough and the subjugation to the pagan kingdoms. May it be pleasing before you, O Lord our God, to save us from their power so that we may return to carry out the rules that please you with a whole heart.” Because the quality of yeast varied, some of it was not effective and could ruin the result. The failure could be attributed to the character of the yeast rather than to its lack of potency. Plutarch in Quaestiones Romae 10972 even provides a quasi-philosophical explanation of the matter: “Yeast is itself also the product of corruption, and produces corruption in the dough in which it is mixed; for the dough becomes flabby and inert, and altogether the process of leavening seems to be one of putrefaction; at any rate if it goes too far it completely sours and spoils the flour.” No precise agreement with that perspective can be supposed in the proverbial reference to yeast, but the underlying comparison appears standard. The commentary on the miraculous feedings in vv. 17–21 indicates that the numbers cited in the two stories bear significance for the Barnaban stream. The commentary relates back to the number twelve, corresponding to Israel in Mark 6:43; Matthew 14:20; Luke 9:17, and to the number seven, corresponding to the gentile nations in Mark 8:5, 6, 8; Matthew 15:34, 36, 37. Luke promise in his prologue to relate the narrative “in order” (Luke 1:3) resulted in his omission of a section of the Barnaban stream from the Gospel, since Acts was the suitable setting for dealing with engagement with the gentiles.

72

See Plutarch, Moralia. Volume iv: Loeb Classical Library 305 (edited by Frank Cole Babbitt; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936).

233

Analysis

Graduated Healing of a Blind Man Mark 8:22–26 22 And they come into Bethsaida, and they carry to him a blind man and summon him, so that he would touch him. 23 He took hold of the blind man’s hand and carried him out, outside the village; he spat into his eyeballs, laid hands on him and interrogated him, “You seeing anything?” 24 He looked up and was saying, “I see people, because I see like trees walking around.”

25 Then he laid hands on his eyes again;

and he directed his gaze and was restored and discerned everything clearly. 26 And he delegated him into his house, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

The use of spit for healing ailments of the eye has already been encountered in Yerushalmi Shabbat 14:4 (cited in respect of Mark 7:33).73 Women are particularly associated with the practice; Yerushalmi Sotah 1:4: Rabbi Zabedeh, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi, would tell the following story. “Rabbi Meir would teach a lesson in the synagogue of Ḥammata every Sabbath night. There was a woman who would come regularly to hear him. One time the lesson lasted a longer time than usual. She went home and found that the light had gone out. Her husband said to her, ‘Where have you been?’ She replied to him, ‘I was listening to the lesson.’ He said to her, ‘May God do such-and-so and even more, if this woman enters my house before she goes and spits in the face of that sage who gave the lesson.’ Rabbi Meir perceived with the help of the Holy Spirit [what had happened] and he pretended to have a pain in his eye. He said, ‘Any woman who knows how to recite a charm over an eye—let her come and heal mine.’ The woman’s neighbors said to her, ‘Lo, your time to go back home has come. Pretend to be a charmer and go and spit in Rabbi Meir’s eye.’ She came to him. He said to her, ‘Do you know how to heal a sore eye through making a charm?’ She became frightened and said to him, ‘No.’ He said to her, ‘Do they not spit into it seven times, and it is good for it?’ After she had spit in his eye, he said to her, ‘Go and tell your husband that

73

See also Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Studies of the New Testament and Its World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983) 113; Carolyn J. Sharp, “Phinehan Zeal and Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT,” Revue de Qumran 70 (1997) 207–222; Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity. A Sourcebook (London and New York: Routledge, 1999) 40–43 ; Mark. A. Chancey, The Myth of the Gentile Galilee. Society of the New Testament Monograph Series 118 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 107–108.

234

Analysis

you did it one time.’ She said to him, ‘And l spit seven times!’ Rabbi Meir’s disciples said to him, ‘Rabbi, in such a way do they disgracefully treat the Torah [which is yours]? If you had told us about the incident with the husband, would we not have brought him and flogged him at the stock, until he was reconciled with his wife?’ He said to them, ‘And should the honor owing to Meir be tantamount to the honor owing to Meir’s creator? Now if the Holy Name, which is written in a state of sanctification, the scripture (Numbers 5:11–31) has said is to be blotted out with water so as to bring peace between a man and his wife, should not the honor owing to Meir be dealt with in the same way!’” The application of a cognate method, the assumption that treatment does not produce immediate results (cf. Luke 8:2), and the location of events in Bethsaida (or a village near to Bethsaida, cf. Mark 8:22, 26) all lead to the association with Mary Magdalene.74 The result of restoration implies a fresh assessment of the man’s purity; Rule of the Congregation 2:5–9: No man with a physical handicap—crippled in both legs or hands, lame, blind, deaf, dumb or possessed of a visible blemish in his flesh—or a doddering old man unable to do his share in the congregation—may en[ter] to take a place [i]n the congregation of the m[e]n of reputation. For the holy angels are [a part of] their [congrega]tion. The same restriction is found in the War Scroll, with regard to participation in holy war: “No one crippled, blind, or lame …” (7:4).

74

Cf. Bruce Chilton, Mary Magdalene. A biography (New York: Double, 2005) 62–63, 205.

235

Analysis

Peter’s Confession of Jesus as the Anointed One; in Matthew, Peter’s Revelation from the Father and His Endowment with Keys of the Kingdom; Passion Prediction; Rebuke of Peter as Satan in Matthew and Mark; Teaching on Self Denial; Judgment before the Son of Man Matthew 16:13–27

Mark 8:27–38

Luke 9:18–26

13 Jesus came into the regions of Philip’s Caesarea, and he asked his students, saying, “Who do men say the son of man is?” 14 But they said, “Some, John the immerser, and others Elijah, yet different people, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He says to them, “But who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Rock replied and said, “You are the Anointed, the son of the living God!” 17 Jesus replied and said to him, “You are favored, Simon bar Jonah, because flesh and blood did not uncover this for you, but my father who is in heavens! 18 And I say to you that you are Rock, and upon this rock I shall build my congregation, and Hades’ gates will not prevail over it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind upon the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose upon the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens.” 20 Then he scolded the students, so that they would say to no one that he is the Anointed. 21 From then Anointed Jesus began to show his students that it was necessary for him to go away to Jerusalem and suffer much from the elders and high priests and letterers and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 Rock took him aside and began to scold him, saying, “Merciful to me, Lord: this will never happen to you!” 23 But he turned, said to Rock, “Get behind me, Satan. You are my faltering, because you do not think God’s way, but men’s.”

27 And Jesus went out, and his students, into the villages of Philip’s Caesarea, and on the way he interrogated his students, saying to them, “Who do men say I am?” 28 But they said to him, saying: “John the immerser, and others: Elijah, yet others: one of the prophets.” 29 And he personally interrogated them, “But who do you say I am?” Rock replies, says to him, “You are the Anointed.”

18 It happened he was praying apart and his students were together with him, and he interrogated them, saying, “Who do the crowds say I am?” 19 They answered and said, “John the immerser, but others Elijah, yet others that some prophet of old has arisen.” 20 But he said to them, “But who do you say I am?” Rock replied and said, “The Anointed of God.”

30 And he scolded them, so that they would talk to no one concerning him. 31 And he began to teach them that it was necessary for the son of man to suffer a lot and be condemned by the elders and the high priests and the letterers and be killed and after three days arise. 32 And he was speaking the word frankly; Rock took him aside, began to scold him. 33 Yet he turned back, saw his students, and scolded Rock and says, “Depart after me, Satan, because you do not think God’s way, but men’s.”

21 He scolded and charged them to say this to no one, 22 saying, “It is necessary for the son of man to suffer much and be condemned of the elders and the high priests and the letterers and be killed and on the third day to be raised.”

236

Analysis

24 Then Jesus said to his students, “If anyone wishes to come after me, deny himself and take his cross and follow me! 25 For whoever wishes to save his life, will ruin it, but whoever ruins his life for me will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gain the whole world but forfeit his life? Or what will a man give as exchange for his life? 27 For the son of man is about to come in the glory of his father with his messengers, and then he will reward each according to his conduct.”

34 He summoned the crowd with his students and said to them, “If anyone wants to follow after me, deny himself and take his cross and follow me! 35 For whoever wishes to save his own life, will ruin it, but whoever will ruin his life for me and the message will save it. 36 For what’s the profit for a man to gain the whole world and to forfeit his life? 37 For what should a man give in exchange for his own life? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man will be ashamed of also, when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels.”

23 And he was saying to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, deny himself and take his cross each day and follow me! 24 For whoever wishes to save his life, will ruin it, but whoever ruins his life for me, this one will save it. 25 For what does it profit a man: gaining the whole world, yet ruining or forfeiting himself? 26 For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of this one the son of man will be ashamed, when he comes in his glory and the father’s and the holy angels’.”

Jesus poses his question outside of the territory of Antipas, away from political retribution, on the assumption that, however he is identified, he may be known as “the human being” (“the son of man”75). Elijah is a well-established 75

Morna Hooker, Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of DeuteroIsaiah in the New Testament (London spck, 1959); R.T. France, “The Servant of the Lord in the Teaching of Jesus,” Tyndale Bulletin (1968) 26–52; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) 129–156; E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Monograph Series 4 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1981) 33–42; Christopher Tuckett, ed., The Messianic Secret: Issues in Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Adele Yarbo Collins, “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,’” Harvard Theological Review 80 (1987) 391–407; Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs, Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); The Five Gospels. The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (edited by Robert W. Funk and Roy W. Hoover; New York: Macmillan, 1993) 78–79; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1995); N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 481–486; William H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer, eds, Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Conference on Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998); Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds, The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. Daniel P. Bailey; Grand Rapids:

Analysis

237

figure within the Gospels (apart from this passage and the next, see Matthew 11:14; 27:47, 49; Mark 6:15; 15:35, 36; Luke 1:17; 4:25, 26; John 1:21, 25), and the place of Jeremiah in a similar association (which appears uniquely in Matthew 16:14) has drawn comment. At Qumran he appears as a pivotal figure; Pseudo-Ezekiela f18ii:1–10: […] in Tahpanhes w[hich is in the land of Egypt …] And they said to him, “Inquire [on our behalf of G]od […” But] Jeremi[ah did not listen] to them, not inquiring of Go[d] for them, [nor lifting up] a song of rejoicing and a prayer. Jeremiah lamented [… laments] [ov]er Jerusalem. [And the word of the lord came to] Jeremiah in the land of Tahpanhes, which is in the land of Eg[ypt, saying, “Speak to] the children of Israel and to the children of Judah and Benjamin, [thus you shall say to them,] ‘Seek My statutes every day and ke[ep] my commandments [and do not go] after the i[d]ols of the Gentiles after which [your fathers] w[ent, for] [they] shall not sav[e you’” …] The specification in Matthew is sufficiently unusual to suggest that it reflects the work of the Jacobean stream. It is striking, however, that the term “Anointed” is not explicated at all in Mark 8:29, and is qualified only by “of God” in Luke 9:20, while Matthew 16:16 adds, “the son of the living God.” In no case is enough definition accorded to khristos to determine its meaning in comparison with the many references in early Judaic texts, a feature that permits the experience of Jesus himself to define the term (Mark 8:31; Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22). Nonetheless, Matthew’s unique qualification is reminiscent of the role of Melchizedek at Qumran; Melchizedek 2:8b–12: … For this is the time decreed for “the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor” (Isaiah 61:2, modified) and for [his] hos[ts, together] with the holy ones of God, for a kingdom of judgment, just as it is written 10 concerning him in the Songs of David, “A godlike being has taken his place in the coun[cil of God;] in the midst of the divine beings he holds judgment” (Psalm 82:1). Scripture also s[ays] about him, “Over [it] take your seat in the highest heaven; a divine being will judge the peoples” (Psalm 7:7–8). Concerning what scripture s[ays, “How long will y]ou judge unjustly, and Wm B. Eerdmans, 2004), Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem: Library of New Testament Studies 343 [formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series] (London–New York, T&T Clark, 2007).

238

Analysis

sh[ow] partiality to the wick[e]d? [S]el[ah” (Psalm 82:2),] the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, becau[se all of them have rebe]lled, turn[ing] from God’s precepts [and so becoming utterly wicked.] Peter’s revelation, as well, is held not to be derived from “flesh and blood,” a phrase used innovatively in the Job Targum (in manuscript 110 of the Bibliothèque Nationale), to refer to human beings and their limited knowledge (Job Targum 37:20, within the speech of Elihu). Céline Mangan notes this and the similar usage in Matthew 16:17 (and 1 Enoch 15:4).76 In the following chapter (Job Targum 38:17, the Lord’s reply to Job), the question is posed “Is it possible that the gates of death have been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death of gehenna?” When Peter is told in Matthew 16:17–18 that “flesh and blood” has not revealed the identity of Jesus to him, and that “Hades’ gates” will not prevail against the church of which he is the rock (kepha’ in Aramaic), that may be taken to be a use of imagery comparable to what is reflected in the Job Targum in reference both to the limitations of flesh and blood and to the power of the gates of death.77 Similarly, those echoes join the resonance of the passage with the Isaiah Targum 22:22, where shutting and opening are made into specifically priestly functions.78 The reference to Peter as “Satan” (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33) at this point in the narrative accords with comments above in regard to the probable timing of the Temptation of Jesus. The striking expansion in Matthew alone (Matthew 16:17–19) represents an extension of the Petrine stream, which accords with the commission of Peter in John 21. Its inclusion here is in some tension with the rebuke of Peter as “Satan.” While Jesus declares that he will build his Congregation on the “rock” (Matthew 16:18), the author of Qumran’s Community Rule confesses, “the path of my steps goes over firm rock, it does not waver before anything. For the truth of God is the rock of my steps” (11:4–5). The Habakkuk pesherist address God himself as “Rock”: “O Rock, you have made them for rebuke” (5:1; cf. Hodayota 17:28; 19:18). 76 77 78

Céline Mangan, The Targum of Job: The Aramaic Bible 15 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991) 83. See Thomas Finley, “‘Upon This Rock’: Matthew 16:18 and the Aramaic Evidence,” Aramaic Studies 4.2 (2006) 133–151. See Bruce Chilton, “Shebna, Eliakim, and the Promise to Peter,” The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Essays in Tribute to Howard Clarke Key (edited by Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 311–326.

Analysis

239

Given the lack of clear qualification of what “Anointed” means, the reliance on the motif of vindication after three days (Mark 8:31; Matthew 16:31; Luke 9:22) acquires increased importance. Its importance across Judaic literature is amply evidenced; examples include Rule of the Congregation 1:25–27 and Genesis Rabbah 91:1.1: … [ ] Whenever the entire congregation is required to assemble, whether to deliver a legal verdict, as a party of the Yaḥad, or as a war council, then they shall consecrate them for three days, ensuring that everyone who comes is properly prep[ared for the counc]il. And he put them all together in prison for three days (Genesis 42:6–17): The Holy One, blessed be he, never leaves the righteous in distress for more than three days. On the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live” (Genesis 42:18): That is in line with this verse: “After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live in his presence” (Hosea 6:2). That is, on the third day as in the case of the tribal fathers. The Petrine stream weaves this motif through with anticipation of events in Jerusalem that are assumed as part of hearers’ awareness. The cross in Jesus’ saying (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23) stands for the possibility of crucifixion, but for other possibilities, as well. Yet the use of this metaphor within the aphorism obviously does not make the whole saying metaphorical or hyperbolic. Jesus is talking about actual self-denial, up to and including Roman execution, the most painful end imaginable to a person’s mortal existence. If there is a passage in the Gospels where Jesus alludes to the Aqedah, it would be this saying, because it is possible that Jewish teachers in his time taught that Isaac carrying the wood up Mt. Moriah was “like a man carrying his cross on his shoulder” (Genesis Rabbah 56:3).79 The date of this Rabbinic teaching remains uncertain, but the possibility emerges that Jesus used a proverbial simile, not a completely original metaphor, in his saying, and that he demanded that his disciples learn from Isaac’s obedience, which went well beyond conventional good behavior. John Dominic Crossan has argued that the appearance of the saying across a wide range of literature, from Mark to The Gospel according to Thomas, tells

79

See Bruce Chilton, Abraham’s Curse. Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West (New York: Doubleday, 2008) 64–68.

240

Analysis

against taking it as later teaching projected back onto Jesus. Crossan compared Jesus’ statement to the philosophy of Epictetus: “If you want to be crucified, wait and the cross will arrive” (Epictetus, Discourses 2.2.20). Because Epictetus was born some twenty years after Jesus’ died, and justified his stance with an appeal to the Stoic imperative to maintain “reason” (logos) in the face of adversity, it involves more than a stretch of the imagination to claim that Epictetus is the source of Jesus’ image. A better comparison is with the Rabbinic statement, already mentioned, that Isaac carrying the wood was like a man carrying his cross. It accords with a confidence in the vindication of the righteous that is widely attested in Judaism; Bavli Qiddushin 40b: Said R. Eliezer bar Ṣadoq, “To what are the righteous compared in this world? To a tree that is standing in a clean place, with its foliage extending from it to an unclean place. What do people say? ‘Cut off the foliage from the tree so that the whole of it may be clean, as is its character.’ Thus the Holy One, blessed be he, brings suffering upon the righteous in this world so that they will inherit the world-to-come: ‘and though your beginning is small, yet the latter end shall greatly increase’ (Job 8:7).”

241

Analysis

Some Will Not Taste Death until They See the Kingdom of God (Mark and Luke) or the Son of Man Coming (Matthew); the Transfiguration; in Luke, Disciples Weighed Down with Sleep; Offer to Build Three Lodges; Jesus Designated as God’s Son; in Matthew, the Disciples’ Fear; Jesus Orders Silence (Matthew and Mark); Command (Matthew and Mark) or Fact (Luke) of Silence; in Matthew and Mark, Discussion of the Coming of Elijah Matthew 16:28–17:13

Mark 9:1–13

Luke 9:27–36

28 “Amen I say to you that there are some of those standing here such as will never taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” [Chapter 17] 1 And after six days Jesus takes Rock and James and John his brother and brings them up to a high mountain privately. 2 And he was transmuted before them and his face shone as the sun, and his clothing became white as the light. 3 And look: there was seen by them Moses and Elijah, speaking together with him.

1 And he was saying to them, “Amen I say to you that there are some here of those standing, such as will never taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come in power.” 2 And after six days Jesus takes Rock and James and John along and brings them up to a high mountain privately: alone. And he was transmuted before them 3 and his clothing became gleaming, very white, as a launderer on the earth is not able to whiten. 4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were speaking together with Jesus.

27 “But I say to you truly, there are some there of those standing such as will never taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

4 Rock answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is fine for us to be here; if you want, I shall make here three lodges: one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 Rock answered and says to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is fine for us to be here, and we shall build three lodges: one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 For he did not know what he should 5 While he was still speaking, answer, because they were look: an lustrous cloud overshad- terrified.

28 Yet it happened after these words, about eight days, taking Rock and John and James he ascended to the mountain to pray. 29 And it happened while he prayed the appearance of his face was different and his garments flashed out white. 30 And look: two men were speaking together with him, such as were Moses and Elijah, 31 who were seen in glory speaking of his exodus, which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem. 32 Yet Rock and those with him were weighed down with sleep. But becoming alert, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 And it happened as they were being separated from him, Rock said to Jesus, “Master, it is fine for us to be here, and we shall build three lodges: one yours and one Moses’ and one Elijah’s (not knowing what he was saying).” 34 But while he was saying this there came a cloud and overshadowed

242 owed them, and look: a sound from the cloud, saying, “This is my son, the beloved, in whom I take pleasure: hear him.” 6 The students heard and fell on their faces and were exceedingly frightened. 7 Jesus came forward and touched them and said, “Be raised, and do not fear!” 8 They lifted up their eyes and saw no one but him, Jesus alone. 9 They descended from the mountain, and Jesus decreed to them, saying, “Say the vision to no one until when the son of man is raised from the dead!” 10 And the students interrogated him, saying, “Why, then, do the letterers say that Elijah must first come?” 11 He replied and said, “Elijah indeed comes and will restore all things, 12 yet I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did with him whatever they wanted to. So the son of man is about to suffer from them.” 13 Then the students understood that he talked to them concerning John the immerser.

Analysis 7 And there came a cloud over- them, and they were afraid shadowing them, and there came a when they entered into the sound from the cloud, “This is my cloud. 35 A voice came from son, the beloved: hear him.” the cloud, saying, “This is my son, the chosen: him hear.” 36 And when the voice came, Jesus was found alone.

8 Suddenly looking around they no longer saw anyone with themselves but Jesus, alone. 9 They descended from the mountain, and he ordered them so that they would narrate to no one what they had seen, except when the son of man had arisen from the dead. 10 And they retained the word, arguing among themselves what to arise from the dead meant. 11 And they interrogated him, saying: “The letterers say that Elijah must first come.” 12 But he told them: “Indeed, Elijah coming first restores all things, and how is it written about the son of man, that he should suffer a lot and be despised? 13 But I say to you that even Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they wanted to, just as was written about him.”

And they were silent and reported to no one in those days anything of what they had seen.

The three privileged disciples, with Peter at their head, experience the promise of the kingdom in terms reminiscent of Moses’ ascent of Sinai with three privileged followers (Exodus 24:1–11). Here are the emblems of the Petrine catechesis and its conception of the kingdom: Jesus is related to God as Moses once was, and Peter is his Aaron, a witness that the kingdom has been covenanted. The Transfiguration is a good example of the Petrine cycle generally. Part of its program is to portray Peter, James, and John as the best representatives of Jesus. They are the first of the disciples called (Mark 1:16–20), the only disciples present at the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21–24, 35–43) as well as the Transfiguration, and Jesus’ companions in Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–42).

Analysis

243

The ascent up a mountain (Mark 9:2; Matthew 17:1; Luke 9:28) recalls Moses’ ascent for revelation, which Josephus describes as beyond ordinary human capacity (Josephus, Antiquities 3 §76). A mountain is also the location of Moses’ removal from the company of Eleazar and Joshua; Josephus, Antiquities 4 §§323–326: While still taking leave of Eleazar and Joshua and conversing with them, suddenly a cloud stood over him and he turned invisible in some ravine. Traditions of this kind put Moses in the category of those whom, like Elijah and Enoch, had not died; Josephus, Antiquities 9 §28: But of Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the flood, it is written in the sacred books that they became invisible, and no one knows of their death. This conviction in regard to Moses endured for centuries; Sifre to Deuteronomy 357.10.5: And some say, Moses did not really die, but he is alive and serving God above. Here it is said, “[died] there” Deuteronomy (34:5), and elsewhere, “And he was there with the Lord” (Exodus 34:28). In the Aramaic and Hebrew locution, deathless people were those who “shall not taste death,” so that the saying in Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27 is itself the germ of the Transfiguration narrative. Jesus invokes witnesses who are immortal for his assurance of God’s kingdom, and the Petrine stream then recounts how a select group of disciples saw just those witnesses with Jesus.80 The six days of Mark 9:2; Matthew 17:1 and the eight days of Luke 9:28 articulate cognate symbolism. The revelation to Moses on Sinai follows six days (Exodus 24:16), and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the eighth day is when Moses’ companions encounter a delayed reaction to the vision (Exodus 24:11 in Pseudo-Jonathan). The shift in numerology is one of the indications of a change to the Barnaban stream, which also stresses the change to Jesus’ face and clothing (Luke 9:29; Matthew 17:2); 1Enoch 14:20:

80

See Bruce Chilton, “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision,” New Testament Studies 27.1 (1980) 115–124; “Not to Taste Death: A Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Usage,” Studia Biblica 1978 2 (edited by E.A. Livingston; Sheffield: jsot, 1980) 29–36; “Transfiguration,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. D.N. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992) vi:640–642.

244

Analysis

And the great glory was sitting upon it—as for his gown, which was shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow. At times, transformation is central within the tradition of Enoch; 2 Enoch 22:8– 9 [J manuscript]: And the Lord said to Michael, Go, and extract Enoch from [his] earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into the clothes of my glory. And so Michael did, just as the Lord had said to him. He anointed me and he clothed me. And the appearance of that oil is greater than the greatest light, and its ointment is like sweet dew, and its fragrance myrrh; and it is like the rays of the glittering sun. Those related to the divine presence could be thought of as sharing those glorious characteristics; 2Baruch 51:3: Also, as for the glory of those who proved to be righteous on account of my law, those who possessed intelligence in their life, and those who planted the root of wisdom in their heart—their splendor will then be glorified by transformations, and the shape of their face will be changed into the light of their beauty so that they may acquire and receive the undying world which is promised to them. The point of such comparisons is positive, which makes the negative comparison to what a launderer can achieve (Mark 9:3) seem misplaced. Eusebius, citing Hegesippus, recounts that James was put to death with the fulling club of a launderer (Ecclesiastical History 2.23.17–18), so that a certain competition among sources may be signaled here. Usage of the term exodus in the Barnaban stream (Luke 9:31) is unusual and reflects an awareness of the antecedents of the tradition as a whole. It is somewhat at odds with the reference to lodges (Mark 9:5; Matthew 17:4; Luke 9:33), reminiscent more of the Festival of Sukkoth than of Passover, and a marker of the likely occasion of the narrative.81 Fear features in all the versions of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:6; Matthew 17:6; Luke 9:34), a trait of narratives of vision; 1Enoch 46:1: And I entered into the house, which was hot like fire and cold like ice, and there was nothing inside it; (so) fear covered me and trembling seized me. And as I shook is and trembled, I fell upon my face and saw a vision. 81

See Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus, 174–196.

Analysis

245

The central focus, however, lies on Jesus as “son” (Mark 9:7; Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35), which is also precedented within visionary accounts; Prayer of Enosh 1ii:5–12: and (by) your good judgements you purified him for [ ] in eternal light and you made him a firstbo[rn] son to you [ ] like him for a prince and ruler in all your earthly land [ ] [the] cr[own of the] heavens and the glory of the clouds you have set [on him] [ ] and the angel of your peace in his congregation and [ ] [ ] him righteous laws, as a father does a so[n] [ ] his love your soul cleaves to [ ] [ ] for by them [you established] your glory … Although metaphor is involved, the language of appointment might also be emphasized at Qumran; Prayer of Enosh 1ii:5–9a: and you chose your good judgments for him to […] in everlasting light, and you appointed him as your firstbo[rn] son. [There is none] like him, as a prince and ruler in all your inhabited world […] the c[rown of the] heavens and glory of the clouds you have laid [on him …] […] and the angel of your peace in his congregation. Whether these lines from the Prayer of Enosh should be interpreted as applying to Israel or to an individual as representative for Israel (such as a king) the imagery shared between them and the Synoptic Gospels in this passage shows their currency in first-century Jewish contexts. Within the setting of a vision, then, distinction of a person in terms of sonship appears also to have been a feature. Jesus’ Transfiguration follows the pattern of prophetic encounters with God in Scripture (Exodus 24; 1Kings 19:1–18; 2Kings 2:3–15). Elijah’s encounter made him deathless, and therefore subject to a return to earth (Malachi 4:1–6); in the Talmud, see Bavli Sanhedrin 98a: R. Joshua b. Levi found Elijah standing at the door of the burial vault of R. Simeon b. Yohai. He said to him, “Am I going to come to the world-tocome?” He said to him, “If this master wants.” Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “Two did I see, but a third voice did I hear.” [Joshua b. Levi] said to him, “When is the Messiah coming?” [Elijah] said to him, “Go and ask him.” “And where is he sitting?” “At the gate of the city.” “And what are the marks that indicate who he is?” “He is sitting among the poor who suffer illness, and all of them untie and tie their bandages all together, but he unties them and ties them one by one. He is thinking, ‘Perhaps I may be wanted, and I do not

246

Analysis

want to be held up.’” He went to him, saying to him, “Peace be unto you, my master and teacher.” He said to him, “Peace be unto you, son of Levi.” He said to him, “When is the master coming?” He said to him, “Today.” He went back to Elijah, who said to him, “What did he tell you?” He said to him, “‘Peace be unto you, son of Levi.’” He said to him, “He [thereby] promised you and your father the world-to-come.” [Joshua b. Levi] said to him, “But he lied to me. For he said to me, ‘I am coming today,’ but he did not come.” He said to him, “This is what he said to you, ‘Today, if you will obey his voice’ (Psalm 95:7).” How Elijah relates to what is said to Jesus on the mountain is therefore a natural question, although not an inevitable one, since Luke omits the discussion that Mark and Matthew recount. (See the remark above in regard to Mark 9:3b.) The answer in regard to Elijah (Mark 9:9–13; Matthew 17:9–13) involves a shift in the place and time of the discussion that likely signals a change of stream, reflecting a growing theology of the necessity of Jesus’ suffering. The restriction of the circle of discussion is typical of a group gathered around James, which was located in Jerusalem and from time to time evidences Essene influence. The Aramaic Vision from Qumran, which is so fragmentary that it is difficult to categorize and whose title may therefore be misleading, contains a paraphrase of Malachi 3:23 (= 4:5): “I will send Elijah to you” (Aramaic Vision 54ii:4). Part of the development of the figure of Elijah in Judaism involved a change in expectations for the purpose of the return of Elijah. Originally, Elijah’s appearance in Malachi 4:5 (English) was associated with the coming of the “day of the Lord.” Elijah was identified as the messenger announcing what we can call the parousia of the Lord in Malachi 3:1–2. A shift of expectations about Elijah, from the one who announces the coming of the lord to Elijah as the predecessor of the Messiah(s), or the Messianic era, became common in later Judaism. It seems that this development probably provided several emerging Jewish contexts of messianic expectations and biblical interpretation, in which at least one, Christian interpretation, linked developing traditions related to the coming of the messiah with prophetic oracles pertaining to the “day/coming of the Lord.”

247

Analysis

Healing of Boy with Seizures, after Disciples Fail; Jesus Rebukes a Faithless Generation; He Attributes Healing to Faith in Matthew and to Prayer in Mark; Faith to Move Mountains (Matthew) or Trees (Luke); Lukan Parable of a Servant Matthew 17:14–21

Mark 9:14–29

Luke 9:37–43a; 17:5–10

14 They came to the crowd

14

They came to the students and

37 It happened on the next day they

saw a big crowd around them and

came down from the mountain and

letterers arguing with them.

15

At

there met him a big crowd.

once all the crowd saw him and were bewildered; they ran and greeted him.

16

And he interrogated them,

“What are your arguing about with

17

them?”

man, kneeling to him and saying,

from the crowd, “Teacher, I brought

cried, saying, “Teacher, I petition you

15

my son to you, who has a dumb

to look upon my son, because he is

“Lord, have mercy upon my son,

And answered him one

38

and there came forward to him a

18 And wherever it seizes him,

And look: a man from the crowd

spirit.

Because often he falls into fire and

it breaks him, and he foams and

takes him and suddenly shouts and

often into water. 16 And I brought him

gnashes his teeth and shrivels. And

convulses him with foam and hardly

forward to your students, and they

I talked to your students, so they

separates from him, shatters him. 40

were not able to heal him.”

would throw it out, and they were not

And I petitioned your students, so

capable.”

they would throw it out, and they

Jesus replied and says, “Faithless

19 He replied to them and says, “Faith-

were not able.”

and perverted generation, how long

less generation, how long will I be

said, “Faithless and perverted gener-

will I be with you? How long will I

for you? How long will I endure

ation, how long will I be for you and

endure you? Bring him to me here!”

you? Bring him to me!”

20 And they

endure you? Convey your son here!”

brought him to him. The spirit saw

42 But while he was still coming for-

him and at once convulsed him up;

ward, the demon broke him and con-

he fell upon the ground and rolled,

vulsed him.

17

foaming.

my only one,

39

because he is moon-mad and sick.

41

and look: a spirit

Jesus replied and

21 And he interrogated his

father, “For how much time has it happened like this to him?” But he said, “From infancy,

22

and often

it throws him into even both fire and water, to destroy him. But if you can, help us—feeling for us!”

23

But Jesus said to him, “ ‘If you

can’—everything is possible to the one who believes!”

24

At once the

father of the child shouted, was saying, “I believe: help my unbelief!”

25

Jesus saw that a crowd was running

18

And Jesus scolded it, and the

together, and scolded the unclean

Yet Jesus scolded the unclean spirit,

demon went out from him. And the

spirit, saying to it, “Dumb and deaf

and cured the child and gave him

child was healed from that hour.

spirit, I direct you, come out of him

over to his father.

and no longer enter into him.”

26

248

Analysis It shouted and convulsed a lot, and

19 Then the students came forward to Jesus privately. They said, “For what reason were we not able to throw it out?” 20 But he says to them, “For your skepticism. Because Amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard, you will say to this mountain, ‘Pass from here to there,’ and it will pass, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

came out; and he became as if dead.

43a But all were overwhelmed at the

Result: many said that he had died.

majesty of God.

27 And Jesus held his hand fast and raised him, and he arose. 28 He entered into a house and his students interrogated him privately, “Why were we not able to throw it out.” 29 And he said to them, “This sort cannot go out by anything except by prayer.”

[Chapter 17] 5 And the delegates said to the Lord, “Augment faith for us.” 6 But the Lord said, “If you have faith as a grain of mustard, you would say to this mulberry, ‘Be rooted up, and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you. 7 Who of you that has a slave plowing or herding, who comes in from the field, will say to him, ‘At once come, recline?’ 8 However, will he not say to him, ‘Prepare what I will dine on, and provide for me — girded — until I have eaten and drunk, and after this you yourself will eat and drink?’ 9 There is no credit to a slave because he has done what was directed! 10 In the same way you also, when you have done all that was directed you, say that we are useless servants, we have done what we ought.”

Analysis

249

Diseases and chronic disorders were sometimes attributed to malevolent spirits during the Second Temple period with the result that incantations and verbal exorcisms appear in both the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls; see Songs of the Sagea 1:1–7:82 Ble[ssings to the K]ing of Glory. Words of thanksgiving in psalms of […] […] to the God of knowledge, splendor of s[treng]th, the God of gods, Lord of all the holy ones. [His] domini[on] is over all the mighty, strong ones, and by the power of His streng[th] all will be dismayed and scattered, running hurriedly from the majesty of the dwe[lling] of His royal glory. And I, the Instructor, proclaim his glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers …] and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of lig[ht], by the guilt of the ages of [those] smitten by iniquity—not for eternal destruction. The specificity of the ailment and its diagnosis as requiring exorcism might be compared with a later reference; Bavli Gittin 70a: He who comes from the privy should not have sexual relations until he has waited for enough time to walk a half a mile, on account of the demon of the privy’s accompanying him. And if he did have sexual relations right away, he will have children suffering from epilepsy. The detail of this narrative, and its natural association with other stories that involve exorcism, suggest that it derives from a stream. This stream appears to derive from a circle of tradents associated with Mary Magdalene. When Jesus taught his disciples about the practice of exorcism, he specifically recognized the problem of serial possession in a way that mirrors Mary’s experience (Luke 8:2). In Luke’s Gospel, this teaching appears shortly after the reference to Mary’s possession, and her experience may be reflected in an emblematic say-

82

On this topic, see Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles: jsnts 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).

250

Analysis

ing of Jesus in regard to exorcism (Luke 11:24–26, see also Matthew 12:43–45): “When the unclean spirit goes out from the man, it passes through waterless places seeking repose, and not finding it, then it says, ‘I will return to my house, whence I went out.’ It goes and finds it swept and furnished. Then it proceeds and takes along other spirits more evil than itself—seven!—and entering they dwell there. And the endings of that man become worse than the beginnings.” The effort by a plurality of disciples seems to refer to repeated attempts by them to pronounce an incantation that might succeed in driving out the offending spirit. In Luke’s telling of the encounter (Luke 9:43), the crowd is overwhelmed at the majesty of God. The majesty described here is likely parallel to the similar phrases in both Songs of the Sage fragments, in which the tipheret (majesty, splendor) of the Lord is the effective cause of the exorcism of evil spirits (see Songs of the Sagea 1:4b, “proclaim his glorious splendor so as to frighten …” and Songs of the Sageb 1:4–5a, in which the driving away of wicked spirits is cause for proclaiming the “splendor of it all”). Jesus’ response to the failures of the disciples alludes to the faithless generation of the wilderness accounts in Numbers. The fate of those who escaped slavery, only to die in the wilderness due to unbelief and disobedience, seems to have been a motif common in Judaism in the Second Temple period, and appears also in the Damascus Document; Damascus Document 1:11b–2:5–9: … He taught to later generations what God did to the generation deserving wrath, a company of traitors. They are the ones who depart from the proper way. That is the time of which it was written, “Like a rebellious cow, so rebelled Israel” (Hosea 4:16). When the Man of Mockery appeared, who sprayed on Israel lying waters, he led them to wander in the trackless wasteland. He brought down the lofty heights of old, turned aside covering the sin of those who repent of wrongdoing. But strength, might, and great wrath in the flames of fire with all the angels of destruction shall come against all who rebel against the proper way and who despise the law, until they are without remnant or survivor, for God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created, He knew what they would do. So He rejected the generations of old and turned away from the land until they were gone. The Barnaban stream in both its earlier (Mark 9:28–29; Matthew 17:19– 20a) and more developed (Matthew 17:20b–21; Luke 17:5–10) forms is set off by a change of scene and discussion of Jesus with his disciples. The expanded form in Matthew and Luke may have adapted sayings material from the Mish-

Analysis

251

naic stream. The parable in Luke 17:7–10 is reminiscent of Rabbinic counsel;83 Mishnah Avoth 2:8: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel and Shammai. He would say, “If you have learned much Torah, do not puff yourself up on that account, for it was for this purpose that you were created.”

83

See Holger Michael Zellentin, Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature: Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 139 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 223.

252

Analysis

Second Passion Prediction; Disciples’ Grief (Matthew) or Incomprehension (Mark and Luke); Dispute in regard to Greatness, and the Example of a Child Matthew 17:22–23; 18:1–5

Mark 9:30–37

Luke 9:43b–48 43b Yet while all were marveling at all that he was doing, he said to his students,

22 Yet as they assembled together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The son of man is about to be delivered over into men’s hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.”

30 They went from there and proceeded through Galilee, and he did not want anyone to know, 31 because he was teaching his students and saying: “The son of man is delivered over into men’s hands, and they will kill him, and having been killed after three days he will arise.” 32 But they did not comprehend the oracle, and were afraid to interrogate him.

44 “Put these words into your ears, because the son of man is about to be delivered over into men’s hands.” 45 But they did not comprehend this oracle, and it was covered over from them so that they did not apprehend it, and they were afraid to ask him concerning this oracle.

And they grieved exceedingly. [Chapter 18]

33 And they came into Capernaum. He came into the home and he forward to Jesus saying, “Who, interrogated them, “What were you then, is greater in the kingdom of deliberating on the way?” 34 They the heavens?” were silent, because they were disputing with one another on the way over who was greater. 35 He sat down and called the Twelve, and says to them, “If anyone wants to be first, one will be last of all and ser2 He summoned a child and stood vant of all.” 36 He took a child and it in their midst 3 and said, “Amen stood it in their midst, embraced it I say to you, if you do not turn and said to them, and become as the children, you will never enter into the kingdom of the 37 “Whoever receives one of such heavens! 4 Such as humbles oneself, children on my name, receives me, then, as this child, this one is greater and whoever receives me does not in the kingdom of the heavens, 5 and receive me, but the one who delegwhoever receives one such child on ated me.” my name, receives me.” 1

In that hour the students came

46 And there ensued a discussion among them, who might be greater than them.

47 Jesus knew the discussion of their heart, took a child and stood it by himself 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child on my name, receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who delegated me. For the least among you all, this one remains great.”

Analysis

253

While earlier Jesus’ reference to his way of rejection and vindication resulted in Peter’s misunderstanding (Mark 8:31–33; Matthew 16:21–23), in this case the Twelve are corrected (Mark 9:35) in a development of the Petrine stream. Divine reference for the seemingly insignificant over the great is a feature of apocalyptic sources; 2Baruch 48:19 and 51:5: Look at the small ones who submit to you, and save all those who come to you. And do not take away the hope of our people, and do not make short the times of our help. When they, therefore, will see that those over whom they are exalted now will then be more exalted and glorified than they, then both these and those will be changed, these into the splendor of angels and those into startling visions and horrible shapes; and they will waste away even more. At the same time, a similar sensibility extends into Rabbinic literature; Bavli Baba Mesia 85b: Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zira, “What is the meaning of the verse, ‘The small and the great are there [in the world-to-come], and the servant is free from his master’ (Job 3:19)? Don’t we know that ‘The small and the great are there’? Rather, whoever makes himself small on account of teachings of the Torah in this world is made great in the world-to-come, and whoever makes himself into a slave on account of the teachings of the Torah in this world is made a free man in the world-to-come.” To a significant extent the imperative of care for unprotected children underlies such teaching; Bavli Megillah 13a: Anyone who raises a boy or girl orphan in his house, Scripture considers it as if he bore him.

254

Analysis

Violent Death or Accident a Call to Repentance; Fruitless Fig Tree to Be Cut Down Luke 13:1–8 1 Yet some were present in the same time, reporting to him concerning the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 He replied and said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans had been sinners beyond all Galileans, because they suffered these things? 3 No, I say to you, but unless you all repent, you will similarly perish! 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Shiloam fell and killed them: do you think that they had been debtors more than all the men inhabiting Jerusalem? 5 No, I say to you, but unless you all repent, you will likewise perish!” 6 But he was saying this comparison: “Someone had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and came seeking fruit on it, and did not find. 7 And he said to the vine-worker, ’Look: for three years I have been coming to seek fruit on this fig tree, and do not find. Cut it down! For what purpose does it even deplete the earth?’ 8 He replied and says, ‘Lord, leave it this year also, until I will dig around it and throw in manure. 9 And it might bear fruit the coming year — but if indeed not, you will cut it down.’” Mixing blood with sacrifices (Luke 13:1) epitomizes conflict and violence in a place that should be peaceful; the particular incident is detailed in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18 §§60–62: But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many thousands of the people assembled, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bade the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and

Analysis

255

equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not, nor did they spare them in the least; and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition. Prior to what proved to be his final departure to Jerusalem, probably in 31 ce, Rabbi Jesus was given grisly news of some “Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1). Although Luke does not explain the reference, Josephus provides full details.84 Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct in Jerusalem, a practical measure and also an iconic gesture of Roman power. Financing the project was difficult, so Pilate seized funds from the treasury of the Temple. Protest was inevitable, and on this occasion, Pilate was prepared for it in a way he had not been in the case of his bringing Roman shields into the Temple. In the cruelest, most cynical maneuver of his tenure, he agreed to meet with a large group of protesters within the great court of the Temple itself and had a podium built so he could speak to them. When he mounted the podium, however, it was not to explain his policy or his behavior but to signal to his soldiers—dispersed out of uniform throughout the crowd—to begin clubbing the people who were gathered. Hundreds of them died under the blows and in the stampede of frightened demonstrators. Their blood had indeed been mixed with their sacrifices, and all this on holy ground. Josephus is also aware of the site of Siloam, though not of the incident reported in Luke 13:4; Josephus, The Jewish War 5 §140: Siloam; for so we called that fountain of sweet and abundant water. A statement found in Hosea Targum 1:3 may be illuminating of the Lukan version of the lesson of the fig, and even for Mark 11:12–14, 20–23 and Matthew 21:18–22: if they repent, it will be forgiven them; but if not, they will fall as the leaves of a fig-tree fall. 84

Josephus, The Jewish War 2 §§175–177; Josephus, Antiquities 18 §§ 60–62. Pilate’s building of an aqueduct brought water in from fifty miles away and was evidently costly as well as beneficial to Jerusalem and the operation of the Temple. Without being describable as conscientious, Pilate was an effective governor from the point of view of Rome. It is interesting that Josephus’s reference to Jesus (albeit glossed in Christian interests) appears immediately after the presentation of this incident in Antiquities 18 §§ 63–64. For discussion and chronology, see Bruce Chilton, The Herods, 167–168, 317–319 nn. 45, 56.

256

Analysis

Inclusion of the passage here explains omission from the cursing of the fig tree within the scene of Jesus’ occupation of the Temple. Yet in this case, as in Mark 11:12–14, 20–23 and Matthew 21:18–22, the identification of the image with the Temple appears to presuppose a later period, when destruction threatened or had actually been accomplished.

Analysis

257

Question on Paying the Double Drachma Tax; Parable of Sons and Strangers; Catching a Fish to Pay the Tax Matthew 17:24–27 24 Yet as they came into Capernaum, those who take the double drachma came forward to Rock and said, “Your teacher does not pay the double drachma?” 25 He says, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him saying, “How does it seem to you, Simon? Who do the kings of the earth take taxes or duty from? From their sons or from foreigners?” 26 Yet as he was saying, “From the foreigners,” Jesus stated to him, “Therefore the sons are free! 27But so that we will not cause them to falter, proceed to a sea, throw a fishhook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth, and you will find a stater: take that, give to them for me and you!” The “double drachma” was the name of the modest annual donation of a half-shekel (two drachmas) per Israelite male throughout the world (see also Josephus, Antiquities 18 §312–313 and Exodus 30:11–16). Taxation could become a contentious issue, especially when the payment formerly made for the Temple was coopted by Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem; Josephus, The Jewish War 7 §218: On all Jews, wheresoever resident, he (Caesar) imposed a poll-tax of two drachms, to be paid annually into the capitol as formerly contributed by them to the temple at Jerusalem. Such was the position of Jewish affairs at this date. Before that time, the institution of the tax was broadly accepted. Rabbinic discussion nonetheless reflects ambivalence; Bavli Nedarim 62b: Said Raba, “It is permitted for a rabbinic scholar to say, ‘I’m not paying the poll tax,’ in line with the verse: ‘It shall not be lawful to impose upon them minda, belo, and halak’ (Ezra 7:24), and said R. Judah, ‘Minda refers to the king’s tax, belo, the poll tax, and halach, the corvée.’ ” Even when the Temple stood, the sectarians at Qumran parted from general usage, connecting the Exodus legislation to a lifetime tax or offering that was collected when a male first mustered into the community at twenty years old; Ordinancesa f1ii:6–7a:

258

Analysis

[… concer]ning [the ransom:] the money of the valuation which a man gives as ransom for his life shall be half [a shekel in accordance with the shekel of the sanctuary.] He shall give it only o[nce] in his life. Jesus’ rejection of the tax in the depiction of the expanded Jacobean stream, reflecting a period just after the destruction of the Temple, appears more global.85 In effect, Jesus tells his preeminent disciple that all Israelites, as sons of a king, should be free of taxes for the Temple, and that those who collect such taxes might as well go fish for them. While that is not quite a categorical refusal to pay the tax, neither is it anything like an obedient agreement to support the Temple with money. The Temple on this view was not to be supported with currency, but by the offerings of one’s hands. Outright defiance of the custom is avoided by the story of a fish, which similarly appears as an agent of angelic intervention in Tobit 6:2–8. As a means of escaping transactional disaster, a fish might also appear; Bavli Shabbat 119a: Joseph-the-Sabbath-Lover: there was a gentile in his neighborhood who had a lot of property. The Chaldaeans told him, “Joseph-the-SabbathLover is going to consume all your property.” He went and sold all his property and bought a jewel with the proceeds; this he put in his turban. As he was crossing a bridge, the wind blew off the turban and threw it into the water. A fish swallowed it. The fish was caught and brought to market on a Friday afternoon before sunset. They said, “Who will buy it now?” They said to them, “Go show it to Joseph-the-Sabbath-Lover, because he usually buys.” They took it to him. He bought it, cut it open and found the jewel in it. He sold it for thirteen roomfuls of gold coins. A certain old man met him and said, “He who lends to the Sabbath—the Sabbath pays him back.” The Silan version of the Jacobean stream enters a similar haggadic realm.

85

See Bruce Chilton, “A Coin of Three Realms: Matthew 17:24–27,” The Bible in Three Dimensions. Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 87 (ed. D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl, S.E. Porter; Sheffield: jsot, 1990) 269–282, followed by Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire. Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001) 130–144.

259

Analysis

In Mark and Luke, Teaching Not to Stop an Exorcist Using Jesus’ Name, because Whoever Is Not against Us/You Is For Us/You; Whoever Causes One of the Little Ones to Falter Will Be Judged; If Hand, Eye or Foot Causes You to Falter, Remove It (Matthew and Mark) Matthew 18:6–9

Mark 9:38–48

Luke 9:49–50; 17:1–2 49 John replied and said, “Master, we saw someone throwing out demons in your name, and we stopped him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to them, “Do not stop:

6 “Yet whoever makes one of these little ones who believe in me falter, it would be beneficial for him to have a donkey-drawn millstone hung around his neck and to sink in the expanse of the sea! 7 Miseries are the world’s from falterings! Because it is necessary for falterings to come, except miseries are the man’s through whom the faltering comes! 8 Yet if your hand or foot makes you falter, cut and throw it away from you! It is better for you to enter into life maimed or lame than having two hands or two feet to be thrown into the perpetual fire! 9 And if your eye makes you falter, remove and throw it away from you: it is better for you to enter into the life one-eyed than having two eyes to be thrown into the gehenna of fire.”

38 John told him, “Teacher, we saw someone throwing out demons in your name, and we stopped him, because he wasn’t following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him! Because there is no one who will do a miracle upon my name and will be able quickly to revile me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For who would give you a cup of water to drink in the name of your being of Anointed, Amen I say to you, shall not lose his reward. 42 And whoever makes one of these little ones who believe in me falter, better for him if a donkey-drawn millstone were placed around his neck and he were thrown into the sea! 43 And if your hand makes you falter, cut it off: better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go away into gehenna, into the inextinguishable fire. 45 And if your foot makes you falter, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life lame than having two feet to be thrown into gehenna. 47 And if your eye makes you falter, throw it away: better for you to enter into the kingdom of God one-eyed than having two eyes to be thrown into gehenna, 48where their worm does not expire and the fire is not extinguished.”

for whoever is not against you is for you.”

[Chapter 17] 1 Yet he said to his students, “It is impossible for falterings not to come, except: miseries for him through they come! 2 It would be more advantageous to him if a mill stone were placed around his neck and he had been tossed into the sea, than that he caused on of these little ones to falter!”

260

Analysis

The two stages of the Mishnaic stream are well represented in this passage. It begins with a light degree of narrative, establishing context in Jesus’ exorcistic practice (Mark 9:38–40; Luke 9:49–50), and then shifts to the eschatological condemnation of those who reject the movement of the “Anointed” (Mark 9:41– 50; Matthew 18:6–9; Luke 17:1–2), a term in respect of which Jesus himself was more than cautious (cf. Mark 8:30; Matthew 16:20; Luke 9:21). This extension of the stream under the influence of James, the son of Zebedee appears to have included the common germ of Matthew 18:7; Luke 17:1. The final verse of the book of Isaiah in the Targum identifies who will suffer—and specifies where they will suffer—at the end of time; Targum Isaiah 66:24: And they shall go forth and look on the bodies of the sinful men who have rebelled against my Memra; for their breaths will not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and the wicked shall be judged in gehenna until the righteous will say concern them, “We have seen enough.” “Gehenna” is just what Jesus associates with the statement that “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched” (Mark 9:48, and see vv. 44, 46 in many manuscripts), which is taken from the same verse of Isaiah.86 The term “gehenna” refers in a literal sense to the Valley of Hinnom in the Kidron Valley,

86

Arnold Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache. Das galiläische Aramäisch in seiner Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu (Freiburg et Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1896) 77–78; Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible, 101–107; Günther Schwarz, >>Und Jesus Sprach