The Christology

of Jesus
"WHOEVER HE WAS or was not, whoever he thought he was, whoever he
has become in the memories of [people] since and will go on becoming for
as long as [we] remember him-exalted, sentimentalized, debunked, made and
remade to the measure of each generation's desire, dread, indifference-he
was a man once, whoever else he may have been. And he had a man's face, a
human face.... Ecce homo Pilate said-Behold the man-yet whatever our
religion or lack of it, we tend to shrink from beholding him and play our
game instead with Shakespeare's face or Helen of Troy's because with them
the chances are we could survive almost anything-Shakespeare's simper, say,
or a cast in Helen's eye. But with Jesus the risk is too great; the risk that his
face would be too much for us if not enough, either a face like any other face
to see, pass by, forget, or a face so unlike any other that we would have no
choice but to remember it always and follow or flee it to the end of our days
and beyond.

"So once again, for the last time or the first time, we face that face ... Take
it or leave it, if nothing else it is at least a face we would know anywhere-a
face that belongs to us somehow, our age, our culture; a face we somehow
belong to. Like the faces of people we love, it has become so familiar that
unless we take pains we hardly see it at all. Take pains. See it for what it is
and, to see it whole, see it too for what it is just possible it will become . . .
He had a face . . . [that was) not a front for him to live his life behind but a
frontier, the outermost visib;e edge of his life itself in all its richness and
multiplicity . . . The faces of Jesus then-all the ways he had of being and
being seen. The writers of the New Testament give no description of any of
them because it was his life alive inside of them that was the news they
hawked rather than the color of his eyes.
F. Buechner
 Contents
Preface

1. Methodological and Historical Considerations

Formal Arguments

Methodological Matters

Jesus the

Judean Baptizer?

Conclusions

Jesus and the Pharisees

Caveats and the Criteria for Authenticity

2. Christology and the Relationships of Jesus

Jesus and the Baptist

The Beginning of the Gospel

Vipers and

Vituperation

Doubts and Distinctions

Queries from Prison

The Greatest Man

 Alive

Attack upon the Realm

Contrasting Styles of Ministry

Who Were the Pharisees?

Purity and

Purpose

The Sabbath-Rest or

Restoration?

Fasting or Feasting?

Banqueting with the Bad

Jesus, Revolutionaries, and Romans

Josephus and the Revolutionaries

How

Revolutionary Was Galilee?

Jewish Messianic

Movements

Jesus as a Revolutionary

Revolutionary Disciples?

Revolt in the

Wilderness?
 Testing Jesus' Metal

Grand Entrance?

A Temple Tantrum?

Conclusions

Jesus and the Disciples

No Sign of

Approval

Eyesight to the Blind

Unseasonable Expectations?

Conclusions

4. Christology and the Words of Jesus

Jesus as Teacher and Preacher

Jesus' Hermeneutics

"Amen, I Say"

David's Son or David's Lord?

Jesus and the Dominion of God

The Mystery of

the Meshalim

Abba and Filial Consciousness

 Abba

Inside Information

Heaven Knows

The Son of Man

Jesus the Charismatic Leader

Jesus' Sense of

Purpose

Jesus' Sense of Mission

Jesus and

the Twelve 126,

Fishing for Followers

Two by

Two

A Radical Renunciation

You Be the

Judge

Conclusions

3. Christology and the Deeds of Jesus

Jesus the Visionary

The Fall of Satan 146,

 The Rise of the Son

Miracles and Mighty Signs

Miracles and Magic in Antiquity

Jesus

and the "theios aner" Concept

The Handling of Miracles in Mark and Q

Jesus'

Interpretation of His Miracles

What Is the Basileia?

The Coming and Power

of the Dominion of God

Background Issues: Enoch and His Kin

Jesus' Language

Bar enash in Daniel 7 and

Enoch

Possible Gospel Allusions to

Similitudes and Daniel

The Son of Man and His

Itinerant Lifestyle

The Son of Man

 Manhandled

A Ransom for Many

"Trailing Clouds of Glory" Conclusions

5. Afterword and Conclusions

Wrede's "Messianic Secret" Motif

Jesus' Self-Perception

Abbreviations

Bibliography

Index
 Preface
BECAUSE rr HAS been now almost 40 years since E. Kasemann and others
launched the new quest for the historical Jesus, and because some modern
scholars continue to be skeptical about the possibility of saying anything
significant about the historical Jesus' self-understanding, it may rightly be
asked, Why this book and why now? The reasons are several.

First, we are only now in a position to assess the relevance for the study
of Jesus and benefit from the tremendous amount of work that J. H.
Charlesworth and others have done on the extracanonical literature of early
Judaism. This data is especially germane to the study of the Son of man
material and to helping us to see the scope and character of messianic
expectations in early Judaism.

Second, a renewed optimism exists in many parts of the scholarly guild

today that something significant can indeed be known about the historical
Jesus and even about his self-understanding. This is shown by a host of
recent scholarly works on Jesus by R. A. Horsley, M. Borg, H. Boers, J.
Charlesworth, M. de Jonge, and R. Leivestad to mention but a few.

Third, as will become clear in chapter 1 of this study, some of form

criticism's older assumptions about the Jesus material no longer will stand
close scrutiny. The more scholarship becomes convinced of the essentially
Jewish character of the Jesus material and the likelihood that for several
decades it was handled and passed on at least to some extent like Jewish
tradition, the less convincing arguments become that suggest the synoptic
material developed rather like pure folklore. M. Hengel has also reminded us
that in the main the dilemma of the gospel writer was not how to create
enough material to present a reasonably full portrait of Jesus but rather how
to edit a considerable array of sources and types of material down to
manageable size (cf. Luke 1:1-4).
 Finally, the scholarly work currently being done in the Jesus Seminar and
in Q studies has in various ways raised once again questions about the
portrait of Jesus that arises especially from the sayings material. Yet it is not
sufficient to pursue this matter simply by examining the sayings material, or
the titles, or for that matter any other single type of material in the Jesus
tradition. Perhaps the most significant problem with some of the most recent
studies on Jesus is the tendency to focus too much on one or another type of
material to the exclusion of the rest of the evidence. Thus, for example, E. P.
Sanders bases too much on what he takes to be the reasonably certain facts
about Jesus' life. It would seem, then, that the time is propitious for
presenting a broad-scale study on the self-understanding of Jesus,
approaching the matter from different angles and seeing what all the
evidence that can be reasonably argued to go back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu
will reveal to us.

Throughout this study I have sought to provide a good sense translation of

quotes from German, French, or other languages, rather than a more literal
rendering. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own. In
addition to the usual system of abbreviations, short titles keyed to the
bibliography are used. Because of this both abbreviations and bibliography
are grouped at the end.

This book has been made possible only through the aid of many people. I
would like to express my appreciation to C. K. Barrett, Richard Hays, N. T.
Wright, as well as the late John Hollar of Fortress Press for their scholarly
advice. Also, I should like to thank Brad Weidenheimer, our librarian, who
diligently sought out many necessary books and articles not available at
Ashland Theological Seminary Library. For the preparation of the
bibliography [ am grateful to Lori Lower of ATS. Finally, I must give credit
to my wife, Ann, who carefully types, edits, and critiques my work. On a
personal level, this book is dedicated to my parents, Ben and Joyce
Witherington. On an academic level, this study is dedicated to John Hollar
(in memoriam), who guided me and made possible the publication of this
book, and to C. K. Barrett, to whom I owe a great debt as my mentor.

Ben Witherington, III

 1

Methodological and Historical Considerations

STRANGE AS IT may seem, the question whether Jesus himself had a
Christology has not been explored in a systematic way. This lacuna has not
been for a lack of approaches. Since the beginning of the new quest for the
historical Jesus in the 1950s, both exegetes and theologians have been
preoccupied with Christologies in and of the New Testament-the Gospels,
Paul, Q, or other sources. Some have sought to isolate the Christologies of
individual communities, even though there is little evidence that any
community had a pure form of Christology as characterized by the use of
one title or type of thinking or preaching.' Exploring the Christologies of the
New Testament is important, but doing this in place of a Christology of Jesus
is a fundamental mistake because, as de Jonge says, "any survey of the early
Christian response to Jesus should start with at least a brief outline of what
Jesus thought and told about himself. How did he understand his relation to
God and his role in God's dealings with Israel and humanity?"'

Persons familiar with the historical-critical approach to the New

Testament might not find this lack of studies on Jesus' Christology strange,
since some form critics, because of their assumptions as to how the church
had handled the Jesus tradition, virtually ruled out all possible concrete
knowledge about the historical Jesus' views on various subjects. The
resurrection of Jesus-or the resurrection experiences of Jesus' first followers,
as they maintained-generated a christological approach to Jesus and the
Jesus material. Thus, a great chasm was fixed between the historical Jesus
and the church's later views of Jesus as Christ, Lord, or Son of God. This is a
serious error because, as de Jonge notes:

Jesus is at the center of all early (and later) Christology. This

presupposes some degree of continuity between what he said and did
 and people's reactions. It also presupposes some continuity between the
situation of his followers before Jesus' cross and resurrection and their
situation after those events.'

In a similar way, L. W. Hurtado concludes: "a key factor that must be taken
into account in understanding the rise of early Christian devotion to Jesus is
the pre-Easter ministry of Jesus and its effects upon his followers."4 In other
words, it is no longer necessary nor sufficient simply to assume that
historically there must have been a radical difference between the way Jesus
viewed and presented himself and the way the early church interpreted him.s

In this book, I intend to state as much as I think is plausible about how

Jesus viewed himself, particularly with respect to christological matters, in
an attempt to associate Christian faith with the life of the Jesus of history.' It
is one thing, however, to say Christian faith is based on the facts of Jesus'
life and quite another to maintain that faith is based on our ability to
establish, much less prove, the reality of those facts by the historical-critical
method. Because Christian faith long antedated the historical-critical
method, no necessary dependency can be posited of faith on this method.
Historical-critical method functions to cast doubt on or provide support for
the authenticity of various historical traditions. In this sense, I remain
committed to the historical-critical method, including the possibilities and
limitations of form criticism.' What follows, therefore, should be seen as an
attempt to underscore the value of the study of the forms in which the
synoptic material was passed down. I also value related sorts of literary
criticism, including rhetorical and genre criticism.
FORMAL ARGUMENTS

Particular assumptions about the nature and transmission of the gospel

material congruent with Bultmann and Dibelius's formal analyses need to be
contested.' Bultmann claims that the early church did not perceive (or at least
did not make) a distinction between the pre-Easter sayings of Jesus and the
post-Easter inspired utterances of (anonymous?) Christian prophets which,
he claims, were accepted as the words of the ascended Jesus, and were
sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately, retrojected into settings in
Jesus' ministry.' Whereas Bultmann thinks the tradition moved from general
fluidity to general fixation, he nonetheless posits that the sayings material
was more freely handled in the middle (when a saying of a prophet was
accepted as a saying of the ascended Lord), or near the end of the fixation
process (when the saying of a prophet or the ascended Lord became a saying
of the historical Jesus). The Book of Revelation indicates there were
utterances of the ascended Christ spoken through prophets in the early
church, but this does not prove either that such utterance were
indiscriminately collected with other utterances of Christian prophets, or that
sayings of the exalted Lord became sayings of the historical Jesus. Indeed,
the evidence from Revelation points in the opposite direction because the
sayings of the exalted Lord spoken through a Christian prophet (who is
named) are identified precisely as such. This indicates that such sayings
were distinguished from the sayings of the historical Jesus.10

Even more doubtful is Bultmann's appeal to Odes of Solomon 42.6, not

only because it is still widely held that the Odes should be dated after the
Gospel material." When one examines the relevant non-Gospel material, we
find that Paul distinguishes between his own authoritative utterances and
those of his Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25, 40), and 1 Cor. 14:29 indicates that
the utterances of the prophets were to be weighed and tested, not accepted as
of unquestionable authority as were the Lord's words (cf. 7:10, 12). Even
when such prophetic utterances were approved, it is still not clear from this
material that they were accorded the same status as, or were
indistinguishable from, the words of the historical Jesus. As J. D. G. Dunn
has shown, in both the New Testament and other early Christian literature,
there is evidence that Christians, like their Jewish forebears, had a healthy
suspicion about prophetic oracles and subjected them to close scrutiny,
inquiring about their source. Note that Luke carefully mentions the prophet's
name when he cites an oracle (Acts 11:27, 28; 13:1, 2; 21:10).12

If the utterances of Christian prophets were valued as highly as the

sayings of the earthly Jesus, then the rationale for retrojecting them back into
the ministry of Jesus is lacking.13 Further, how has it happened, if the early
church retrojected prophetic material into a ministry setting, that we have
little or no Gospel material dealing with some of the major crises of the early
church over circumcision, baptism, the relationship of Jews to Gentiles -
including table fellowship with Gentiles, and the basis for acceptance among
Jesus' people? Can we legitimately assume that all these matters were settled
when the Gospels were written or that none of them was an issue for the
evangelists?14 Although it is possible that the sayings of Christian prophets
or the exalted Lord were at some point (accidentally?) attributed to the
earthly Jesus, the evidence is not convincing and cannot be used to argue
that the original Sitz im Leben of much of the Gospel sayings material is the
post-Easter Christian community.15

Certainly M. E. Boring has made a case that we have a substantial number

of sayings of Christian prophets in the Synoptics."B Boring candidly admits
that "we have no primary sources except whatever sayings from Christian
prophets may be contained in the Synoptic tradition itself. [And] it is a
defective method to identify prophetic logia in the tradition on the basis of a
characterization construed from this same tradition."17 How, then, does one
get around such an impasse? First, Boring suggests that one should sift the
rest of early Christian literature both within and without the canon to discern
the character and form of early Christian prophecy. Second, if one has a
saying that on other grounds is widely regarded as secondary, one should
examine it to see if it might be an utterance of a Christian prophet.' Boring
believes that such oracles of the risen Lord arose separately from and were
combined with the sayings traditions in the period A.U. 30-70. After that
period, he believes, prophecy and Gospel tradition became literary
phenomena in their own right, and thus the intermixing of the materials
ceased.
 Because we have already discounted some of the evidence from
Revelation that might support Boring's case, we will now examine the rest of
his evidence. First, Boring points to several sayings in the Pauline material
that he thinks are or point to prophetic oracles of Paul himself - Rom. 11:25-
27; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:15-17. In two of these sayings the key
material is introduced with a reference to a mystery that is now being
disclosed, which sets the utterance off from other pronouncements. This
word mystery occurs only once in the whole of the synoptic tradition in the
obscure saying about the purpose of Jesus' parables (Mark 4:11; Matt. 13:11;
Luke 8:10)! Many scholars consider that saying secondary. Thus the use of
the word mysterion helps us find only one possible Christian prophetic
utterance in the Synoptics. Furthermore, the eschatological or even
apocalyptic content of the two sayings in Romans does not distinguish them
from other sayings we find in the synoptic tradition, some of which likely go
back to a Sitz im Leben /esu.

The most plausible Pauline example is 1 Thess. 4:15-17, a teaching about

the parousia and events surrounding it. Paul does not say that this material is
a prophecy, but that it is en logo kyriou, which may mean "in the teaching of
the Lord." Paul could be alluding to the teachings of the earthly Jesus or to
those of the risen Lord. Certainly, there are some eschatological utterances
that may have come from the earthly Jesus about the future coming of the
Son of Man and the circumstances surrounding that event.19 Recall also that
in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul clearly distinguishes between his own utterances and
those of the Lord. Thus, even in the most plausible of the examples from the
Pauline literature there is room to doubt that Paul is claiming these teachings
came ultimately from the risen Lord rather than the earthly Jesus.20 Nor do
these sayings encourage us to think he confused or made no distinction
between the two sorts of utterances.21

Boring also cites the classic example of Agabus found in Acts 11:27-29;
21:10-11. Unfortunately for Boring's case, Luke explicitly tells us that
Agabus's prophecy came to him not from the risen Lord, but from the Holy
Spirit (21:11; cf. 11:28). Thus Boring argues unconvincingly that Luke has
changed an original reference to the risen Lord so that the Holy Spirit is now
credited as the source of this utterance -a conjecture without textual basis but
with a thematic basis because Luke does stress the Holy Spirit in his
twovolume work."

Besides eschatological content, Boring lists three other features that he

believes distinguish Christian prophetic speech-initial Amen, chiasmus, and
legal form.27 Jesus probably spoke, Boring admits, on some eschatological
matters and used the initial Amen to introduce these and other kinds of
sayings. Because Boring allows that Jesus himself probably spoke some
prophetic oracles, a prophecy cannot be taken automatically as an utterance
of a later Christian prophet. In fact, Boring candidly admits that "since Jesus
was himself something of a charismatic figure, who is frequently portrayed
in the Gospels as a prophet . . . authentic sayings are also likely to manifest
prophetic traits. `21

In regard to chiasmus, New Testament scholars frequently are unable to

agree whether or not a certain saying, hymn, or passage manifests this
structuring device. It seems that chiasmus is more in the eye of the beholder
than in the text itself. In regard to the so-called law words that E. Kasemann
and others have categorized, I neither focus on these sayings nor base any
conclusions on them. Some of these law sayings may not go back to the
historical Jesus and may have come from Christian teachers or other
authority figures rather than from early Christian prophets. There is nothing
in such sayings, however, that strongly leads us to think they came from
prophets.

Thus, although Boring has made a case for finding sayings of Christian
prophets in the Synoptics, his criteria for discerning such sayings and his
results are disputable. Boring concludes: "Has it been demonstrated in the
preceding pages that sayings of Christian prophets can be identified within
the Synoptic tradition? No."2S I would agree. He has neither given us any
sure means by which to detect that a synoptic saying may come from a
Christian prophet nor provided convincing evidence that the early church
intentionally transferred sayings of the risen Lord (which Revelation shows
were extant) to the earthly Jesus in the synoptic material. In view of Boring's
admission that his study may lead to the verdict of non liquet, the burden of
proof should be on those who claim there are early Christian prophetic
utterances in the Synoptics. Granted, there is secondary or redactional
material in the Synoptics. It is one thing, however, to demonstrate that a
saying is secondary and quite another to demonstrate it is an early Christian
prophecy.

What, then, is the character of the Gospel tradition and how did it
develop? The contention that it developed in a manner analogous to the
growth of folk literature has rightly been subjected to close scrutiny.
Although comparisons of this kind are natural and needful, similarities in
form or content do not prove that the origin or development of the two sets
of material are the same. A selective comparison leads to questionable
conclusions, as is the case with the studies of Dibelius and Bultmann.
Neither scholar, as E. P. Sanders has shown, made a systematic attempt to
see how various sorts of folk stories developed over a period of time,
perhaps because of the difficulties of finding, dating, and relating various
versions of a story. Instead, the form critics apparently derived their laws of
transmission by assuming that purity of form indicates relative antiquity and
by examining how the first evangelist and Luke used Mark and Q and how
later Christian literature used the canonical Gospels. Sanders notes, "the
form critics did not show, outside of the Synoptic Gospels, that there was a
body of tradition which had at first existed in pure forms, but whose purity
of form had been corrupted by the passage of time."26 Further, the majority
of the synoptic data seems to be of mixed form. Thus, it is not clear whether
the so-called pure forms were earlier and then corrupted or later and the
result of good editing.

Dibelius clearly derives his laws of development by analyzing the needs

and activities of the Christian communities and by positing that a certain
need requires a certain form of material. Any variation from that form
indicates development. In practice, Dibelius admits that comparisons with
folk literature are hard pressed to reveal how Christian material developed
because folk literature does not grow out of the same kind of community
with the same kind of needs.27 More consistently, Bultmann distinguishes
between laws of formation and laws of transmission. The former he
discovers by analyzing comparative literature, the latter almost exclusively
by studying the Gospels and their interrelationships. In the work of both
Bultmann and Dibelius, then, "the laws of transmission have not been
established outside the Christian material itself."28

The problem of selective use of examples arises even when Bultmann

draws conclusions about how the Gospel material developed from his study
of the Gospels' interrelationships. For instance, Bultmann argues that details
(names, places, and so on) often were added to the tradition as it developed.
His explanation for the many cases in which Mark includes, and the parallels
omit, such details is usually an appeal to an Ur-Markus hypothesis. In fact,
although the evidence is mixed, Sanders shows that Mark is usually more
detailed than the parallels.29 Thus, the assumption is suspect that the Gospel
traditions originally were rather bland and anonymous, and that names and
details later were attached to give life to the story in order to connect it with
figures important to the history of early Christianity or at least to some part
of the early church.

The appropriateness of appealing to the laws of formation of folk

literature to explain the formation of the Gospel material is questionable for
five reasons: (1) usually the material used as a basis of comparison
developed over a much longer period of time than the Gospel's 40- to 70-
year gestation period; (2) the folk literature appealed to seldom is dealing
with historical events to the same degree, if at all, that the Gospels are; (3)
various factors -eyewitnesses, reverence for the historical figure being
written about-probably acted as a restraint on the degree of embellishment of
the Gospel material, unlike the case with much of folk literature; (4) even in
the rabbinic literature that provides the closest parallels there is nothing
comparable to the Gospel's focus on, proclamation of, and belief in one
person;30 and (5) it is more probable that the first disciples of Jesus and the
earliest post-Easter community would have passed on his words and deeds in
a way that showed as much respect for the tradition as Jewish students
showed their teachers' words and deeds in the first century than have
allowed the tradition to undergo radical transformation in ways analogous to
folk literature.31

It is plausible that Jesus' first disciples used techniques of transmission

common in their milieu, for example, memorization, repetition, and even
brief note taking. There is evidence that Jesus used various mnemonic
devices, suggesting that he sought to make his teaching both memorable and
memorizable.32 Yet one must be cautious in assuming that Jesus' sayings
were treated in the same way later rabbinic material was handled. As
Schiirmann has pointed out, Jesus was both more and other than a rabbi
because it appears he intended his words to be taken as a revelation of God's
eschatological plans. This would make the preservation of the form of the
material important if the contents were to be passed on intact to other
believers.33 The disciples, however, seemed to be more concerned to
conserve, pass on, and apply to new situations Jesus' meaning than his exact
words. That is, the material is dependent on the Sitz im Leben for its specific
formulation. Translation of the sayings tradition from Aramaic into Greek at
an early date shows that the preservation of the exact form of the words and
linguistic idiom was not essential for the early Christians. This factor, along
with theological purpose, may account for many of the divergences in
wording in parallel Gospel traditions. Nevertheless, the traditions that the
Gospel writers employed were community property; the evangelists were not
as free in shaping them as they would have been had they created these
materials. As G. Hughes puts it, "for those who lived as contemporaries with
the transmission process, there was a genuine possibility of testing the
information given by the writer ... over against the traditions, [which are] the
public property of the community within which the traditions have been
received ... ; but this implies, in turn, that his [the biblical writer's] picture of
Jesus is not at his beck and call but is subject to some degree of historical
scrutiny."3'

The question then becomes: To what degree of historical scrutiny? M.

Hengel has demonstrated that the categories of Hellenistic and Palestinian
are no longer adequate guides for distinguishing the earlier and later strata in
the Gospel material.35 In particular that a saying or tradition has a
Hellenistic flavor is no certain sign of its lateness.

Furthermore, J. N. Sevenster, R. H. Gundry, and recent studies on the

character of Galilee in particular make clear that Greek was widely known in
first-century Palestine, especially in Galilee .36 In fact, the archaeological
evidence indicates that both literate and basically illiterate Jews (both scribes
and fishermen) would have known at least enough Greek to do business in a
mixed-language milieu. Galileans in particular had considerable contact with
Greek-speaking people. Sevenster concludes that "no matter how very
superficial and sketchy that knowledge was, many from all layers of society
understood it [Greek] and were able to speak and write it."" Thus, it is
possible that Jesus' disciples, even before Easter, began to translate Jesus'
sayings into Greek for the benefit of people in Palestine. Indeed, Jesus
himself may have spoken publicly in Greek, if the crowd being addressed
was sufficiently diverse. Further, as H. C. Kee has suggested, it was likely
part of Jesus' plan to address a wider audience than simply small-town and
Aramaic-speaking Galileans, as both his taking up residence in the
crossroads town, Capernaum, and various traditions about his travels and
contacts beyond the scope of Israel suggest.m

These considerations do not yield the conclusion that Jesus mainly spoke
Greek (the Aramaic phrases from Jesus found in Mark suggest otherwise),
even though he may well have done so in the Decapolis or when
encountering a Syro-Phoenician, for example. My point is that neither the
language nor time factor can any longer be claimed as a significant barrier
between the New Testament critic and some of the earliest stages of the
tradition. That the Jesus material comes to us in Greek is no sure indication
that this material has gone through a long or convoluted process of
evolution. If proclamation of the life and sayings of Jesus began shortly after
Easter-or, in the case of some of Jesus' words and deeds, even before Easter-
then translation of Jesus' sayings and the stories about him may have begun
even in the A.D. 30s. Both Dodd and Stanton have shown that there was an
interest not only in Jesus' words but also in his deeds in early Christian
preaching.39

The assumption that the translation of the Gospel material into Greek was
not undertaken for a long time after its proclamation in Aramaic made
plausible the assumption that considerable changes and corruption took
place in the material before it was ever rendered into Greek. Such an
assumption, however, ignores or too easily dismisses the careful work of
Jeremias and M. Black on the Aramaic background of the sayings tradition
in the Gospels. When such work is taken seriously, then it appears likely
either that there was a substantial and relatively fixed Aramaic tradition from
an early date which lies behind much of the sayings material we find in the
Gospels, or that this Aramaic material if not fixed at a very early date, was
nonetheless translated at a very early date into Greek. This would account
for the fact that a great deal of the sayings material can be readily translated
back into Aramaic and manifests various sorts of Semitisms. After pursuing
the matter for many years, Black reevaluated his work:

For the sayings and teachings of Jesus, however, there is little doubt that
the bulk of Semitisms are translation phenomena and have arisen in the
process of translating and paraphrasing the verba ipsissima of Jesus.... I
have seen no reason to change the conclusions which I reached in my
Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts that an Aramaic tradition
(oral or written) lies behind the sayings of Jesus (in the Fourth Gospel as
well as the Synoptics).40

Significantly, those New Testament scholars in the modern era who have
been the most well-versed in both Aramaic and Greek have tended to draw
rather conservative conclusions about the state of the sayings material as we
find them in the Gospels."

Determining the Sitz im Leben of a pericope by analyzing its Gospel and

pre-Gospel form(s) needs to be discussed. Often the form of a saying or
pericope will give only a clue to its original Sitz im Leben, especially in
cases when the same form was used in different situations for various
reasons. The variety of views about the original Sitz im Leben of most
pericopes alone demonstrates that only in a minority of cases does form
clearly indicate the Sitz im Leben. Form criticism has been useful primarily
in the study of pronouncement and miracle stories. In the remainder of the
Gospel material, the form categories suggested (for example, legends) tell us
little about a narrative's form, dealing instead with content and implying a
judgment on the material's historical value.':

As Bultmann recognized, Dibelius's statement, "in the beginning was the

sermon," was unduly restrictive in his attempt to encapsulate the situation
that gave rise to the various Gospel forms. A variety of activities led to a
variety of forms of tradition. As Schurmann has shown, it is also
unwarranted to restrict the potential Sitz im Leben of a Gospel pericope to
the postEaster community. The inner life of Jesus' itinerant followers, as well
as the outer life of that group who apparently went out to proclaim the good
news during the ministry of Jesus, provided the sociological conditions in
which Jesus' words and deeds could have begun to take on a somewhat fixed
form prior to Easter.43 It is necessary to distinguish between the situation or
event that gave rise to a tradition and the conditions in which a tradition was
actualized, that is, collected and passed on in a relatively fixed form by
Jesus' disciples.44 In the case of a saying, it is possible that Jesus himself
formed the tradition. In the case of a narrative, what Sitz im Leben /esu
normally means is that the tradition, although formed after Easter, arose out
of the pre-Easter events and the discussion and relating of those events by
Jesus' disciples. No one is contending that narratives (apart from the
meshalim, if one wants to call them narratives) came from Jesus' lips. Even
if the tradition was not actualized until after Easter, it does not follow that
the church created the narrative out of non-historical material. To form a
tradition about certain events is not the same as inventing the circumstances
narrated.

My view of the origins of the Gospel tradition is based on some of the

earliest New Testament documents (Paul's letters to Thessalonica and
Corinth). At various places in his letters, Paul adopts the technical language
used when the transmission and reception of authoritative traditions was
being referred to in later rabbinic Judaism (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:1, 3; 1
Thess. 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6). Paul also speaks of Christian traditions as
paradosis (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). These facts, although they do
not lead to the conclusion that the Jesus tradition was passed on in exactly
the same manner as the Jewish material, do establish one point:

Early Christianity is conscious of the fact that it has a tradition of its

own including many traditions which the Church teachers hand on to the
congregations, which the congregations receive, and which they then are
to guard and to live after. In Paul's times there existed a conscious,
deliberate ... transmission in the early Church.45
 What sort of traditions were being passed on in Paul's day? A variety of
traditions may have included: narrative and sayings material involving the
last supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23ff. which supports the view that the passion
narrative was fixed relatively early); credal summaries and lists of witnesses
to Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:1, 3, 4); important sayings of Jesus (1 Cor.
7:10, 11); and ethical exhortations to follow Jesus' or Paul's example, or the
church's ethical teaching (1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1, 2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; Gal. 1:9).
This shows that not only the sayings of Jesus but also other traditions-some
ethical, some credal, some narrative-were being passed on by Paul and
others in the early church.46

Combining the above considerations with Schurmann's work on the pre-

Easter Sitz im Leben of much of the Gospel material and Dunn's argument
about the use of criteria to test and sift early Christian prophecy, a general
picture emerges of a tradition that was relatively fixed at an early date,
especially in the case of Jesus' sayings. Two factors may have led even in the
case of the narrative material to a rather conservative handling of the
material: the interest of early Christian preachers in Jesus' deeds as shown by
C. H. Dodd and G. N. Stanton; and the concern of Luke and other Hellenistic
Christians to convey historical information accurately." Even though it is
probably true that Riesenfeld, Gerhardsson, and Riesner have gone too far in
stressing both the fixing process and the fixed result in early Christian
transmission'48 W. D. Davies is right to stress that the Jewish milieu of the
earliest tradition and a respect in the community for Jesus, his words, and
deeds probably exercised a conserving and conservative influence on the
tradition.49

Two additional factors militate against a radical chasm between the

historical Jesus and the faith of the early church. First, we need to reckon,
according to Hengel, with the editing and condensing of a vast amount of
source material by the evangelists (cf. Luke 1:lff; John 20:30).5°

The earliest stage was not the isolated individual tradition, but the
elemental wealth of impressions called forth by the meteoric appearance
of Jesus. Then still during Jesus' lifetime, there began a process of
collection which at the same time meant selection and restriction.sl
The process of editing and limiting is shown, for example, when we examine
how the first evangelist handles his Markan source material. Some
expansion of the source material is also in evidence and here we may learn
about the concerns of the evangelists and the early Christians. This does not
warrant the assumption, however, that the evangelists or their early Christian
predecessors were the creators of the Gospel tradition, or especially of the
sayings tradition. As 1. H. Marshall says:

It is clear that the basic tradition of the sayings of Jesus was modified
both in the tradition and by the Evangelists in order to re-express its
significance for new situations; it is by no means obvious that this basic
tradition was created by the early church. Similarly, it is unlikely that the
stories about Jesus and the narrative settings for his teaching are [all]
products of the church's Sitz im Leben. The fact that such material was
found to be congenial for use in the church's situation is no proof it was
created for this purposes'

Second, the assumption that we may attribute the Jesus tradition to

Gemeindetheologie is faulty according to P. G. Muller." Jesus spoke not in a
historical vacuum but in a very particular (social, economic, political, and
religious) setting with others who lived in the same milieu, including
disciples, sympathizers, large and small crowds, and even opponents. How
could a Gemeindetheologie arise that, unlike rabbinic literature, focused on
one particular Jew - and a crucified one at that - and was concerned with his
ongoing significance?5' How did it happen that a collection of Jesus' logia
was made if his words were not remembered and preserved by some? Muller
maintains that this sort of collection was made because "Jesus must be seen
as a factual participant in the communication process ... of his time, his
preaching was no monologue, but the result of social interaction in a speech
process in which Jesus himself was a Sender as well as a Receiver.""
Furthermore, Jesus spoke not only in the midst of an esoteric and private
group of disciples but also in public. Much of what he said we moderns
would deem mass communication. 36 In such a setting was it possible for
some sort of radical amnesia to take place about Jesus' actual words and
deeds not only for his adherents but also for his opponents? In view of the
later antagonistic relationship between Judaism and Christianity, surely the
early church took care about what they placed on Jesus' lips because others
besides his followers heard him speak. Jesus himself was a speech event that
was a challenge to his immediate context -to ongoing discussion and
interpretation. Thus, Muller stresses that:

the speech of Jesus (... in both word and deed ... ) methodologically can
not be severed from the speech of the Community focusing on him....
(Rather] ... the linguistic explication in the Gemeindetheologie stands in
genetic connection with the speech of Jesus in Word and Deed. [Thus]
the line from the historical Jesus as speaker to the Community
concerned with speaking about Jesus in a Christological fashion must ...
be borne in mind more if the question about the historical Jesus and his
authentic presence in the text of the New Testament is puts'

What Jesus said was not fully understood until after Easter, but, as Muller
stresses, this very lack of understanding led to more reflection on the actual
words and deeds of Jesus.

What, then, was the role of the Easter events in regard to the origins of the
Gospel traditions? On the one hand, to argue that most of the synoptic
corpus arose as a response to and reflection on the Easter experiences is not
convincing, especially when the disciples' experiences are seldom the focus
in the Gospel tradition. Furthermore, the resurrection is only rarely alluded
to before the passion narrative, and then either in the context of the Jewish
debate about such matters (cf. Mark 12:18-27 and par.),58 or a cursory
reference is made without clear reference to Jesus' coming vindication
beyond death (e.g., Mark 8:38). On the other hand, what happened as a result
of the Easter experiences was not the creation of the Gospel tradition; rather,
"through the Easter experiences a new horizon of understanding was opened
up."59 The Easter experiences led to a deeper understanding and
appreciation of what Jesus said and did during his ministry, as the later
Gospel traditions admit (e.g., John 16:4). As Muller puts it, there was a
speech continuity before and after the Easter experiences, and the earlier
hearing and reflecting on the speech event of Jesus did not cease but was
enhanced by such experiences. Thus, the alleged chasm between the speech
event of the historical Jesus and the post-Easter speaking about Jesus
probably never existed. This, however, does not prove a christological
continuity between Jesus and the early church.60 That possibility can be
explored only through a detailed investigation of the synoptic material - the
aim of this study. Nevertheless, the warning of E. Hoskyns and N. Davey
should have been heeded long ago:

The final task of the historian is to gather up the evidence and to

describe that event in such a manner that it is shown to lie within the
structure of human life and to be intelligible in that context. Further, it
must be described in such a manner that the emergence of the primitive
church is also intelligible on the basis of the life and death of Jesus of
Nazareth. For any historical reconstruction which leaves an
unbridgeable gulf between the faith of the primitive church and the
historical Jesus must be both inadequate and uncritical: inadequate,
because it leaves the origin of the church unexplained; and uncritical,
because a critical sifting of the evidence of the New Testament points
towards the life and death of Jesus as the ground of primitive Christian
faith, and points in no other direction."

The Gerhardsson theory about the origin and transmission of the Gospel
materials has been put forward in a revised version by R. Riesner.'2 Rather
than proceeding anachronistically and comparing the formation of Gospel
material to that of the later rabbinic material, Riesner bases his argument on
what can be demonstrated about the nature of learning in the first century,
particularly in settings such as the Jewish home and synagogue. Comparison
with the rabbinic material was suspect because there is nothing quite
comparable in rabbinic literature to the fixation in the Gospels on one
teacher's words and deeds and because of the serious problem of projecting
practices of Judaism after A.D. 70 back on Jesus' era.

Furthermore, Jesus was not a professional rabbi and in many ways he

acted differently from those who later were called rabbis. There is no
evidence that he set up a Torah school. Indeed, Jesus' idea of discipleship is
more than being a student or tradent of a great teacher, although that role
was part of discipleship. Whether or not his sayings were treated like Holy
Writ can be determined only by examining the Gospel data, not by a priori
arguments.

Riesner has obviated a good deal of this sort of criticism by focusing on

ancient educational practices that were not confined to settings such as a
Torah school. He has shown that learning by heart was the mainstay of
education in Jewish homes, synagogues, and elsewhere in the Mediterranean
crescent in the early first century. Riesner reminds us that the focus of
synagogue worship even in early Judaism was the reciting of Scripture and
the exposition of that text, very much like what we find in Luke 4:16-30
(whatever the historical value of that text as a record of an event in Jesus'
life). He has also shown, based on the work of S. Freyne and E. Meyers,"
that in Galilee there was a commitment to the Torah, synagogue training, and
the usual staples of a Jewish education. Further, he appears to be correct that
up to 80 percent of the synoptic sayings material bears evidence of being
cast in poetic form in the Aramaic original,'' making it both memorable and
memorizable. Moreover, Jesus cast his utterances in short and sometimes
mnemonic form to aid in the learning.

How, then, do we evaluate these arguments? First, the arguments of

Riesner and Gerhardsson are based on general observations about the form
of some of the shorter sayings material, but notably not on the meshalim,
which was perhaps Jesus' most characteristic form of public utterance.
Whether this theory fits the facts can only be determined by a detailed study
of the Gospel material itself. Gerhardsson did not undertake such a study and
Riesner only partially analyzes the synoptic evidence while concentrating on
the material that bolsters his case.'s Gerhardsson admits:

It is clear that the Jesus tradition is elaborated. The adherents of Jesus

have influenced the tradition of Jesus' words, in that they have laid out
their meaning and have undertaken certain corrections in wording-
through omissions, additions, and reshaping-and for all the sayings they
have formulated and reformulated narrative traditions.... There is also
apparently reason to question, whether or not certain ... logia and
parables in the spirit and style of Jesus were formulated...."
This is no small series of qualifications, and it means that any sort of rigid
application of the Gerhardsson theory fails when the Synoptics are closely
analyzed.

W. Kelber, in reaction to the form critics and the Gerhardsson school, has
written a provocative book in which he asserts that oral speech and written
texts should be sharply distinguished both in their nature and in what he calls
their hermeneutics." Kelber agrees with the theories of A. B. Lord, a
specialist in orality, that the spoken and written media are so distinct that the
two need to be analyzed very differently.

Oral and written compositions come into existence under different

circumstances. A speaker addresses an audience in front of him, and its
presence in turn affects the delivery of his speech. There is a sense in
which performer and audience share in the making of the message. An
author, by contrast ... exercise(s) controls over his composition in a
manner unknown to the performer of live speech."

Kelber repeatedly talks about oral speech as involving "living words," as

opposed to written speech that is seen as a dead abstraction, separable from
the speaker. He seems to think that written words can be understood apart
from a socio-historical context of meaning in a way that is not true of oral
speech. He insists that "oral transmission is controlled by the law of social
identification rather than by the technique of verbatim memorization."69
Things are transmitted, he urges, only if the hearer can identify with or
appropriate the message heard. Furthermore, there is no such thing as
repeating oneself when one speaks orally; "each oral performance is an
irreducibly unique creation ... each moment of speech is wondrously fresh
and new."70 Finally, Kelber claims that oral transmission tends to preserve
the essential information but to abandon features that are not met with social
approval."

Here only a summary critique of Kelber is possible. First, his criticism of

Bultmann and Gerhardsson is correct at various points. Against Bultmann,
he is right that there is no speech chasm between Jesus and the early
church.72 Against Gerhardsson, he is right that we do not have any clear
evidence that notetaking was a characteristic response of the disciples to
their teacher's words during the ministry of Jesus. Kelber is also correct in
showing that what we often have in the Synoptics is simply a written record
of various sorts of oral traditions; in other words, we are dealing with
material that the evangelists did not by and large create out of whole cloth.73
But Kelber is probably wrong in stating that we have no evidence of
pregospel textuality because both the Q material and documents such as the
Gospel of Thomas seem to offer such evidence.

Second, Kelber tries too hard to distinguish early Christianity as an oral

community from the Qumran community as a people grounded in written
documents and words. It seems more plausible that, because early
Christianity was a development of early Judaism, one must reckon not only
with the effect of both the oral and the written sayings on Jesus' followers
but also with the interaction of the oral and written on each other. This
conclusion has been recently confirmed by L. Hurtado who also points out
that Kelber has not done a historical investigation of the level of literacy in
Palestine in particular or the Roman empire in general, that Mark seems to
be patterned after oral speech and was likely intended for oral performance,
and that even texts once written were subject to some modifications due to
later editing and copying.74

That the early followers of Jesus were still in many ways people of the
Book is adequately shown both by the overwhelming number of allusions to
the Old Testament in some of the earliest written sources (for example, the
Markan passion material) and by the primitive catenas of Old Testament
texts found in the New Testament. The reality of that sacred tradition surely
affected how the early Christians thought about and handled their own new
traditions that Jesus and others generated. Frankly, too much of what Kelber
wishes to assert is based on research about how oral transmission especially
of Balkan folk ballads and epic poetry operates in the modern era. But what
we have in the New Testament is not the ancient equivalent of folklore or
Aesop's fables, but the story of a historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. It is
also questionable whether the early handlers or proclaimers of the Jesus
tradition, including the evangelists, were attempting to mythologize a
historical figure. For example the attempt to find a theos aner Christology in
Mark would seem to have failed.75 Only in the case of the synoptic parables
is the analogy sufficiently close to folklore to warrant the sort of
comparisons Kelber would like to make.

Third, too much of Kelber's work exudes a romanticism about oral speech
as more living than written speech. Indeed, it is not because words are
spoken but because one has direct contact with a living speaker that oral
communication can be distinguished from written speech. For instance, it is
the gestures and intonation of the speaker, and the possibility of adjusting
one's words on an ongoing basis to suit the occasion and audience that gives
oral communication certain advantages over written words and not the fact
that an encoder's words are spoken. Furthermore, there are varieties of oral
speech. Not all varieties are couched in such a way to make them socially
acceptable, nor are all forms strongly affected-much less conditioned-by the
audience. Various of the minatory sayings in the Gospels suggest
confrontation rather than social adaptation to the audience at hand. If the
socalled preventive censorship stressed by Kelber was fully operational at
the level of oral tradition'76 then how do we explain so many uncomfortable
and enigmatic words of Jesus passed down in the sayings material?

Fourth, Kelber also overemphasizes the low level of literacy in Jesus'

environment. The evidence of Sevenster and others shows that even Jewish
fishermen had a rudimentary reading knowledge both of their native tongue
and of the language of commerce, Koine Greek. The evidence we have from
early Judaism does not suggest that only the elite could read and write in
Jesus' day. Rather, it suggests that a goodly number of Jews, especially males
who did business in a multilingual society and who would be called upon to
recite Torah on the Sabbath, had learned such skills in synagogue school and
in the home. Remember that Israel was an occupied land, having been
influenced by Hellenization and now by the Roman presence. Kelber also
overplays the idea that Jesus' movement was a rural one, removed from
contexts where writing might be valuable or even required. Lower Galilee
was no remote backwater in Jesus' day."

Finally, too much of what Kelber assumes about the Gospel tradition is
based on doubtful interpretations of key texts like Luke 10:16 that can easily
be understood in the context of Jewish language about the Shaliach.'a If
Jesus did commission some of his followers to act as his agents, then this
text is perfectly plausible on the lips of Jesus himself.'9 It is not necessary to
see this as a text created by a Christian prophet who assumed his words were
the very words of the risen and exalted Christ and, thereby, equivalent to the
words of the earthly Jesus.

Kelber's work has been influenced in many ways by the more substantial
study of E. Guttgemanns.°0 Note that Guttgemanns, like Kelber, is heavily
dependent on Lord's work on Balkan epic poets and the way they orally
created poetry-" Both Kelber and Guttgemanns dismiss the more proximate
and Jewish analogies to Gospel traditions in favor of a Balkan folklore
analogy. They too hastily claim that epic poetry, particularly oral epic poetry
and ballads, is closer in genre or nature to the oral source material that lies
behind the written Gospels than any other sort of material. This overlooks
not only the long gestation period that epic tales undergo, which is so very
different from the Gospel traditions, but also the hints that our Gospel
writers are not free-form composers of their material but are limited to a
significant degree by the historical substance of what they record, in other
words, that their material is based on the testimonies of things actually seen
and heard (cf. Luke 1:1-4).

Both Guttgemanns and Kelber overplay the degree to which early

Judaism could be called an oral culture. They also disagree with the
judgment of Bultmann and others that the composition of the Gospels is
simply the completion of the process begun with the first oral traditions. In
other words, both authors insist on the discontinuity between oral and
written material. Guttgemanns especially stresses the way "the written
'simultaneously objectifies the information' and makes it more easily
communicable." 62 Yet the truth is that oral communication also objectifies
a speaker's thoughts and is just as subject to misuse and misunderstanding by
one's audience as written words are. Oral words can be filtered and dealt
with as abstractions or taken out of their original context just as written
words can be. The loss of original Sitz im Leben happens to both oral and
written communication. Furthermore, a great deal of the contrast
Guttgemanns wants to make between listener and reader is based on the
assumption that oral speech is by nature dialogical.83 But there are various
sorts of oral performances besides dialogue, for example, monologue,
prophetic proclamation, instruction, and recitation for the purpose of
learning and memorization. Giitt- gemanns's case requires that there be
something inherently dialogical about oral speech that is not true of written
words, but he has failed to demonstrate such an extreme claim. Paul's letters
are as dialogical as many forms of oral speech.

Guttgemanns's conclusions stress that as a result of Lord's work "for the

first time the sociological discontinuity between the oral and the written
mode of tradition has been empirically demonstrated with respect to oral
literature."" This conclusion oversteps the limits of the evidence. What one
can say is that in an environment where only oral communication is used
(and thus there is no interaction between oral and written media), or when
one is using a purely oral medium (such as singing), there are certain traits
that distinguish that sort of communication from written communication.
The Gospel material, however, neither arose in a purely oral environment
nor remained in the transmission of material purely oral at the pre-synoptic
stage of development. If the Qumran community is any analogy at all, then
probably some of the Gospel material was written down early in order to
provide a tangible record of the oral tradition. I am willing to accept the
older form-critical suggestion that, at the earliest writing stages of the
Gospel material, what we have is a record of or surrogate for the oral
tradition. Thus, we are able to find various traits of oral tradition in Mark
and Q (for example, the use of mnemonics).85 This means that there is a
continuity between the oral and written at the earliest stages of the written
form of the Gospel material. It also means that one should see Mark and the
collector(s) of the Q material as more recorders than composers of their
material, although in the case of both Mark and Q there is some creative
arrangement of the smaller units of tradition as well as some redactional
modification and provision of a framework in which to put those smaller
units.

Following a traditional critical approach to the Gospels, I am willing to

say that by examining the way the first evangelist and Luke handled Mark
and Q, the following conclusions can be reached. Not only does the Gospel
material seem to have been handled rather conservatively but also there is no
reason to think it was otherwise when this material was in the oral stage of
transmission. Indeed, at the oral stage things may have been less fluid
because there was no fixed written text on which one could elaborate. If the
analogy with Jewish, non-Christian literature is any guide, then elaboration
was more likely to come once there was a relatively fixed and recorded
corpus from which to work. Thus, reliance on one's recall of what had been
memorized, which would have had a very fixed form, was no longer
necessary. Haggadic and Midrashic treatments of a narrative are possible
when there is a fixed text in writing and when losing the original is no longer
a perceived danger. If Luke's prologue is any guide, then there was an
attempt to sift the multiple sources of information available about Jesus'
words and deeds. To be sure, each pericope or saying must stand on its own
so far as whether or not it goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu, and in this
study we will not assume the authenticity of any key text.
METHODOLOGICAL MATTERS

Methodology, according to Robert Funk, is not an indifferent net -it catches

what it intends to catch." In many recent efforts to investigate the life of
Jesus to see if anything remotely unique much less messianic could be
found, not surprisingly the answer has been largely negative. To a great
degree this is caused by a failure to fish with a sufficiently large or
multifaceted net. On the one hand those who insist on finding the real Jesus
only in certain aphorisms and a small collection of parables that have had to
survive an overzealous filtering process to be proclaimed authentic, not
surprisingly arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was largely silent about
himself. On the other hand, those who insist on relying on certain key
actions of Jesus, to the exclusion of the vast majority of his sayings, in order
to discover who Jesus really was, are able to conclude that Jesus was simply
another Jew interested in restoration theology.

Although I agree that certain undisputed facta-such as Jesus' crucifixion

and his relationship with the Baptist-can serve as the lynchpins of an
argument that otherwise depends on examining the words, deeds, and
relationships of Jesus, these undisputed facta are too few to provide an
adequate foundation on which to build much of a case. In fact, as the recent
criticisms of E. P. Sanders's Jesus and Judaism have pointed out, accepting
only sayings that seem to cohere with these few accepted facts of Jesus' life
are likely to produce a somewhat distorted view of Jesus.87 The vast
majority of Jesus' sayings, including the ones that most scholars consider
authentic, do not have to do with matters such as the Baptist, or Jesus'
crucifixion, or his final trip to Jerusalem and the events that ensued."

With the majority of scholars, I suggest we give the most attention to the
sayings material if we are to understand how the historical Jesus viewed
himself. It is the logia that have obtained a relatively fixed form earlier than
any of the other Jesus material and have been passed down in a more fixed
form than all the narrative material (with the possible exception of the
passion narrative). Nevertheless, in terms of the order of dealing with
material it is wise to begin with what is less controversial. In order to
provide a general frame of reference, we will begin our study with Jesus'
relationships to some of his contemporaries, the Baptist being the first of
these, and then examine some of Jesus' deeds and how he evaluated them.
Finally, we will focus on some of the more controversial sayings material
dealing with the basileia, the Son of man, and other related matters.

Still another example of fishing with too small a net is the attempt to
interpret Jesus almost solely in light of either his Jewish background or a
certain religionsgeschichtliche approach. With this approach we end up with
a simple Galilean hasid, a peripatetic Cynic philosopher, or even a
Hellenistic or Jewish magician.

Another sort of methodological mistake is made when there is an attempt

to discern what Jesus thought about himself simply by examining those
passages that include some so-called title which Jesus may or may not have
used. In all of these cases less is not necessarily more. It is refreshing to find
a scholar like Gerd Theissen who freely admits that applying his
methodology to the data will not give us the key to understanding Jesus and
the movement he initiated." Nonetheless, in the vast majority of recent
studies of Jesus there seemingly has been so much specialization, and so
many attempts to rule the majority of available data out of bounds from the
outset, that any progress in the discussion of Jesus and Christology has been
rendered virtually impossible due to a too abrupt methodological foreclosing
of the field of focus. In short, the fallacy of mistaking the part for the whole,
or ignoring the whole for the sake of concentrating on the part, however
superbly and correctly that part has been analyzed, has led to significant
distortion. B. F. Meyer stressed that it is wrong to decide

historicity questions . . . in peremptory fashion by a single acid test .. .

dealing with the data atomistically. Questions of historicity are not
reasonably handled in this way. On the whole it is rare that a solid
judgment of historicity can be made prior to and apart from a large
frame of reference.90

We will try to use that broader frame of reference by examining Jesus' words
and deeds in the context of his relationships. We will be attempting to heed
the needed warning of S. Freyne:

The historian must constantly pay attention to the data-all the

dataavailable, irrespective of how disparate the pieces may appear to be
and how resistant they are to being fit into a plausible pattern ... we
[should] take seriously the fact that Jesus both taught and did certain
actions that were seen by his contemporaries as works of power.... It is
this very combination of deeds and words that makes it so difficult to fit
Jesus neatly into any of the roles that can be documented-teacher,
oracular prophet, prophet of liberation, aspirant to popular kingship,
man of deeds (hasid) despite the clear similarities with all of them, and
even though he is sometimes hailed in one or other of those roles by his
audience.91

Some contend that the Gospels present no firm, historical material even of
an indirect nature on which to judge the matter of whether or not Jesus had a
Messianic self-consciousness.92 Such a skeptical judgment will be
challenged in this book. This does not mean I think there is sufficient
evidence in the Gospels to psychoanalyze much less psychologize Jesus. As
B. Malina points out, the way people were presented in antiquity was almost
never by offering a cradle-to-grave picture of personality development,
much less a psychological profile of what made this or that individual tick.
Rather, a portrait was painted by relating certain things the person said or
did, or by focusing on certain relationships that person had.93 It was
believed that one could judge the tree by the fruit it bore.

Malina convincingly argues that moderns in the West operate with a

different model of personality than was the case in first-century Palestine. In
Jesus' day, personal identity was established and grounded in one's religious,
ethnic, social, familial, and economic group.94 Thus, it was widely believed
that a person could be known chiefly through his or her interpersonal
behavior, that is, through speech, actions, and forms of interrelating. For us
this might seem to be an indirect way of knowing someone, especially if it
amounted to presenting many sayings in which the speaker does not speak
directly about him- or herself. But in some ways the best way to get to know
someone is by listening to his or her indirect testimony that is not self-
conscious. I suspect that one reason for the modern counsel of despairthat
we can not know anything about how the historical Jesus viewed himself-is
because we too often come to the Gospels with our modern paradigms of
how we may come to know something about a particular person. These
paradigms are overly influenced, however, by modern psychological theories
about human individuality.

The study of any historical person is risky, and this is certainly true when
one is assessing from indirect evidence how a historical person like Jesus
evaluated himself. The evidence is primarily indirect because Jesus seldom
spoke directly about himself and because we have no documents from his
hand. What we do have is a record that concentrates on three years of his
life. There is insufficient data to analyze in any modern way Jesus' character
development or most of the significant influences on his life, especially his
pre-adult life, which modern psychology often deems the most crucial period
for character formation. Thus, we should not attempt a psychoanalysis of
Jesus because his Gospel portraits do not allow us to do so. Does this mean
that any attempt to discern something of what the adult Jesus thought of
himself is doomed to failure? I think not for several reasons.

First, we intend to investigate the Gospel material with a very specific

question in mind: Does this material reveal what the adult Jesus thought of
himself during his earthly ministry with regard to the questions of his
messianic, or filial, or transcendent, or even divine consciousness?" In short,
does the evidence warrant the deduction that Jesus thought of himself in
categories that go beyond normal human self-perceptions?96 We are
interested in investigating Jesus' self-understanding in these matters, not his
self-consciousness. As D. Wells rightly says of the term self-understanding,
it is

less psychological and more cognitive. It has to do with the value we

place on ourselves and the meaning we draw from our lives. Our self-
understanding answers the questions as to who we are and why we do
what we do. There will be psychological components in our answers, but
self-understanding differs from self-consciousness as interpretation does
 from fact. Our selfconsciousness is the raw material upon which we
work; what we make of it is our self-understanding."

Because the Synoptics do claim that Jesus was more than an ordinary mortal,
it follows that if there were any data available from the early first century
which warranted such a claim, the evangelists would probably have
assembled it. Thus, happily, the data we seek is not other than what can be
found in the Synoptic Gospels. The first three evangelists were indeed
interested in Christology, and the texts suggest they were also interested in
Jesus' views on christological matters. The available sources and our specific
focus correspond in subject matter sufficiently to give hope of concrete
results. Furthermore, we shall avoid theorizing about Jesus' birth, early
childhood, youth, or possible afterlife. Rather, our concern is to focus on the
material that recounts various aspects of Jesus' earthly ministry. With this
focus and given the apparent character of the Gospels as well as the interests
of their authors in answering the question of who Jesus was and who he
thought himself to be, there is some real prospect of success in our
investigation, provided there is historical substance to the Gospel material
we intend to investigate.

In Jesus' case especially, who a person is, who he claims to be, what he
thinks of himself, and what others claim about him can all be different. On
the one hand, Jesus' disciples could have claimed Jesus to be the Christ and
could have been wrong. Or Jesus' critics could have claimed he was an
instrument of the Devil and they too could have been mistaken. It is also
historically possible that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah or Son of
God but was mistaken. On the other hand, various of these claims could be
true. It is not our purpose to assess the truth of these claims of or about Jesus
made by the evangelists, Jesus himself, or his critics. Theological evaluation
of such claims is a second-order question that can only be addressed after
one establishes what the claims actually amounted to historically. It is
crucial, however, that we not rule out in advance that Jesus could have made
some extraordinary claims, or at least understood himself in a manner that
went beyond ordinary human self-understanding. C. F. D. Moule was correct
to urge that we must allow for the "sheer originality of Jesus" including not
only "the originality of what Jesus may have said, but also of what he was.""
 Then, too, it is not sufficient to evaluate only claims, whether explicit or
implicit, but all the data that may suggest an answer to the question of how
Jesus viewed himself. We will devote ourselves to the task of evaluating how
Jesus understood himself in regard to christological matters, using all the
tools of the historical-critical method. Until the biblical texts are seen in their
proper context and are clearly understood, the question of the veracity of this
material cannot be posed."

A further problem for our study arises because it has been maintained that
"knowledge of the historical Jesus is not essential ..." to Christian faith.100
If by this one means that Christian faith could ultimately survive without a
historical Jesus that substantially corresponds with the church's portraits of
him, as both Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith, then I disagree,
especially since Christianity purports to be a historical religion and not a
philosophy of life. What the historical Jesus was actually like matters
tremendously in this particular sort of religion. E. Sjoberg is much nearer the
mark when he insists that "the question about the historicity of the messianic
self-understanding of Jesus is the central question in the investigation of
early Christianity. Everything hangs on that."101 It is because of this central
importance that I have undertaken the difficult task of searching out from the
Synoptics whether or not Jesus had a messianic self-concept, or at least some
sort of transcendent self-understanding.
CAVEATS AND THE CRITERIA FOR AUTHENTICITY

With B. Chilton, I agree that the way to begin a historical analysis is with the
text as we have it. Then, "if one can isolate what the redactor has brought to
a given passage, one can infer that the residue of the passage stems from the
tradition prior to the Evangelist. "102 The residue must then be examined to
see if it goes back to a Sitz im Leben /esu. One should peel the onion from
the outside in.103 Unfortunately, because of the size of the task I cannot
always present the results of my redaction-critical analysis of a passage or of
the themes and tendencies of a given evangelist before I deal with a text in
what is probably its earliest form. Often I can only present some evidence
for the reason I think this or that form of a saying or passage is the most
primitive. Considerably more time, however, is spent dealing with the basic
question of the authenticity of the earliest layer of tradition. This is
necessary if we hope to say anything with confidence about Jesus' views of
himself.

Concerning the criteria for authenticity, one would hope that we are
beyond the point of limiting authentic material only to those traditions that
can pass that most stringent of all tests-the criterion of dissimilarity.
Although this is an important criterion, sometimes it is not the most accurate
gauge of authenticity because Jesus did share some things in common with
early Judaism and early Christianity. Often more useful are the criteria of
multiple attestation of the core (in various sources or, less frequently, in
various forms) and coherence around that core. The criterion of dissimilarity
serves to confirm the authenticity of a saying; it generally cannot be used to
rule out the authenticity of other sayings because Jesus had some coherence
with his predecessors and successors. Only when we find material that can
be shown to clearly contradict the core established by the criterion of
dissimilarity can a negative verdict be pronounced on a tradition that does
not meet the criterion of dissimilarity.

The criterion of style or characteristic motifs also is helpful as a

secondary criterion, employed after other data have been analyzed and a core
group of material pronounced authentic.104 I place considerable weight on
whether or not a given saying or tradition goes back to an Aramaic original,
or whether or not it plausibly fits into a Palestinian context of Jesus' era.
Finally, scholarly consensus should be considered, although, because it may
be wrong, a scholar has the right to differ on individual sayings or pericopes.

The criteria for authenticity recently outlined by D. Polkow are quite

compatible with my own.'°5 In a preliminary stage of the investigation, he
first discounts redaction and then discounts tradition. Then he applies the
primary criteria for authenticity (dissimilarity, coherence, multiple
attestation) followed by secondary criteria like style and scholarly
consensus.106

In this study we will focus on the primary and secondary criteria,

mentioning occasionally how the preliminary criteria have been applied.
These primary and secondary criteria work better with sayings material than
with narratives, although they may be used in the latter case as well. In
general, more redactional elements may be expected in the narratives and
narrative frameworks than in the sayings material, even though the sayings
do also manifest the work of the evangelists because the narratives were
transmitted mainly by his followers and not by Jesus himself (unless we are
talking about meshalim).107

From my siftings, I present only the material that, using the

historicalcritical method, reasonably goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu.
Thus, I avoid two methodological errors: ruling out prematurely any
particular kind of material-for example, sayings, meshalim, miracle tales,
pronouncement stories, and arguing for the authenticity of all of the Gospel
material. A reasonable explanation of the data is not only a possible one but
also is a sufficient and coherent one in light of all the other evidence.

To be limited by the scope of the data, we will need to forego asking some
interesting questions that the texts themselves do not address. This study is
an exegetical analysis of texts-focusing on the exegetical and historical tasks
before proceeding to second-order questions; it is not an exercise in
systematic theology. Thus, some christological questions are not discussed
here. For example, I am not interested in Jesus' views of God (that is, Jesus'
theology) except as it has bearing on his views of himself. Nor do I seek
either a theology of Jesus or a study of his views about himself as an
ordinary human being. I am interested in evidence that Jesus thought of
himself as more than an ordinary human being. I recognize that, strictly
speaking, the term Christology applies only to ideas about the Messiah. I use
the term to refer, however, not only to messianic self-understanding but also
to any sort of transcendent self-concept out of which may have arisen a
christological view of self.

This is not a life of Jesus, although an understanding of the salient

elements of that life are necessary to our inquiry. I am well aware of A.
Schweitzer's warnings that each epoch since Jesus' time has found its own
thoughts in him, and so to speak has recreated him in its own image.108 I
hope I am not guilty of that; some of the things I discovered in this study
disturbed my own predispositions and prior understanding of Jesus.

To be a good historian and exegete it is necessary to evaluate the data on

its own terms. R. L. Wilken was right to insist that "we have no license to
judge the distant past on the basis of our present perception of events of
more recent times."109 After all, our times are very different from the days
of Jesus in many ways, and our own personal experiences may also be
different from his. What we normally experience cannot be assumed to
encompass the full range of possible human experiences. I do not intend to
foreclose such issues on the basis of any sort of modern a priori judgment
that such things do not and cannot happen. The evidence for all sorts of
events and claims both usual and unusual need to be examined by the
historian. If an ordinary explanation cannot be found, then an extraordinary
one cannot be ruled out.

I wish to stress that in this book I am basically raising the first-order

questions about the meaning of texts and their larger historical context and
behind both of these, the way Jesus understood himself. Interpreting texts
and presenting their probable meaning is not the same as asserting truth
claims. Thus, it is perfectly possible for someone to conclude that my
analysis about how Jesus viewed himself is correct, but that Jesus was wrong
about himself. What Jesus either explicitly or implicitly claimed about
himself is one matter; whether those claims are true or not is another matter
altogether. G. B. Caird is also right to say, "It is one thing to ask what the
New Testament teaches, and quite another to ask whether that teaching is
credible to ourselves or to others."10

Most of my material, with rare exception, is taken from Mark or Q. Thus,

I will start with what are probably our earliest sources and go into later
material, if it confirms hints in the authentic synoptic material or if it helps
make sense of that data. I will not be dealing with material such as the "I
Am" discourses in the Fourth Gospel because it is difficult to argue on the
basis of the historical-critical method that they go back to a Sitz im Leben
Jesu. Even when we can get back to such a Sitz im Leben from Mark or Q,
what can be recovered is often only the substance of what Jesus said or did,
although sometimes we are able to recover his very words. The success of
this investigation, I would like to stress, does not hinge on any one piece of
data, but rather on the overall picture that emerges from an investigation of
the relevant relationships, deeds, and words of Jesus. Thus, even if I am
wrong about a particular saying, action, or relationship being authentic, the
overall results of the study will still stand.

I am indebted to the recent scholarly efforts of Charlesworth, Riches,

Horsley, Sanders, Meyer, O'Neill, Borg,"' Harvey, and Vermes to name but a
few. They cannot be blamed for deficiencies found in this study. Most of
these scholars did not address the question of Jesus and Christology directly,
and where it was discussed it was in light of the particular approach and
slant the writer pursued. In short, the topic has not recently been tackled
head-on in any full way in the English-speaking world using all the
resources of the historical-critical method. I am quite convinced that this is a
task, however, that must be undertaken because as F. Mussner and W.
Kummel have pointed out, "Christology hangs in the air if it is not grounded
in Jesus' own self-consciousness.""' With L. E. Keck I urge that "though the
historical Jesus is but a part of the whole of Christology, it is the crucial part
without which nothing else has validity or significance in the long run."113

What is needed, then, is an effort to analyze the relationships, deeds, and

words of Jesus in their historical context, drawing not only on the usual tools
of historical criticism but also on recent gains in the sociological study of the
New Testament period, as well as the literary analysis of various types of
ancient literature. Attempted here is this broad approach, which has as its
basis exegesis and historical analysis. The extent of success in my efforts
needs to be decided by the reader.
 z

Christology and the

Relationships of Jesus
JESUS' RELATIONSHIPS APPEAR at first to be a promising avenue to get
a fix on his self-conception. There is, however, a problem that emerges. Not
all of Jesus' relationships extend over his whole adult life. For instance, what
we can discern from his relation with John may be helpful in understanding
Jesus before or at the beginning of his ministry, but it may not be helpful in
evaluating Jesus at the climax of his ministry.

If Jesus' general knowledge, self-understanding, and wisdom increased or

developed over the course of his lifetime (Luke 2:52), then any fixation with
only the Jesus whom John knew, or only the Jesus whom the Romans
encountered at the conclusion of Jesus' life, or only the Jesus with whom the
Pharisees interacted in the Galilean ministry will give us but a partial
picture. To treat Jesus like other historical figures, we cannot accept such an
approach. Granted, the material that we have deals mostly with the last one
to three years of his life, and there may have been little development in
Jesus' self-conception during so short a span. Because of the dramatic turns
that his life took during this last period, we should not draw such a
conclusion prematurely without first examining all of the evidence that
reflects a Sitz im Leben Jesu.

We will focus first on Jesus and John and then on Jesus' relationships with
several groups he encountered during the Galilean ministry -the Pharisees
and the sinners, the revolutionaries and the Romans, and the disciples. In this
manner, we hope to discern, first, how Jesus viewed himself over the course
of his adult life and, second, to what extent his process of selfdefinition is
revealed in the last years of his life.
JESUS AND THE BAPTIST

In the wake of the new quest for the historical Jesus and the Qumran
literature, the exploration of the synoptic pericopes and logia that deal with
Jesus and John the Baptist has yielded diverse hypotheses: (1) John was an
Essene and perhaps so was Jesus; or (2) Jesus was only a disciple of John; or
(3) Jesus, although initially a follower of the Baptist, developed his own
style and message for ministry to Israel that significantly differed from
John's; or (4) Jesus saw both John's and his own ministry as part of a single
final attempt by God to bring a wayward people back into proper
relationship with God in the light of the inbreaking dominion, which meant
judgment or redemption depending on how one responded to the summons
of John and Jesus. One's view affects how one answers many christological
questions. If, for instance, Jesus was no more than a disciple of John or a
prophet who continued John's ministry (the second view), then it may be
improper to speak of a Christology of or about Jesus.

W. Wink's detailed redaction critical study of the Baptist traditions offers

a beginning because, if we can separate redactions from sources, then a less
biased historical perspective on John and Jesus is opened. Wink maintains
that "the history of John the Baptist has ... served as the seemingly secure
bedrock on which the reconstruction of the history of Jesus could proceed."'
A great deal of the Baptist material might also reflect the polemics of the
Christian church against the Baptist sect in the period A.D. 70 and afterward.
Wink shows, however, that the Gospel tradition, far from being polemics
against John and his followers, claims John for the Christian cause. Thus,
progressing chronologically from Mark to the Fourth Gospel, generally
speaking John's words about Jesus become increasingly confessional.'

Even in Mark's Gospel, John is "the beginning of the Gospel," the one
who sets things in motion and prepares Israel for the coming of God's
dominion. The Gospel writers were hardly guilty according to Wink of
"anachronistically projecting back into its origin the later conflict between
Christians and John's disciples."3 The evidence of a conflict between the
followers of Jesus and John in the later period seems scant. It is unlikely that
the early church, which was increasingly concerned to indicate the
uniqueness of its Savior, created a group of traditions that not only
connected Jesus to John, but also gave John a significant role.

Wink argues that it is Jesus' own positive evaluation of the Baptist which
accounts for the subsequent appreciation of John by the evangelists.' We may
add that they were concerned to state how the Jesus movement and the
Gospel events got started. The evangelists' unity on John's connection to "the
beginning of the Gospel" results from historical realities that could not be
ignored if the evangelists were to be fair to their source material.

Wink's redaction-critical work yields the following conclusions: (1) Mark

portrays John as Elijah incognito, which parallels the Messianic-secret motif;
(2) Matthew uses John as an ally of Jesus against the hostile front of
opposition Jesus encountered in Judaism; (3) Luke accepts the Markan
picture of John as forerunner and adapts it to his conception of
Heilsgeschichte; and (4) the fourth evangelist offers a John portrayed as the
ideal witness to Jesus as God's Christ, the Lamb.' From the Markan and Q
material, de Jonge concludes that:

although John is clearly described as Jesus' forerunner, and the new

dispensation in God's dealings with Israel and the world only begins
with Jesus, there is no indication that John is expressly relegated to an
inferior position. John was important ... and there was no need to put
groups of disciples of John (Luke 7:18) right concerning the true status
of their master.'

Keeping these tendencies and conclusions in mind makes differentiating

redaction from source material much easier.

What is the Baptist's historical context? Is he an isolated prophet, a

manifestation of the Qumran sect, or another leader of a reform movement in
Judaism? On the one hand, John appears like an Old Testament prophet in
both his oracles of doom and his ascetical behavior. On the other hand, his
practice of baptizing has no precedent in the Old Testament prophetic
literature and is like the practices of Qumran and other baptist-type sects
(Ebionites, Elkasites, Nasoreans, or an individual like Banus). John cannot
be seen as simply a reformer of society like the Pharisees because he calls
even the ritually pure and the righteous to repentance and baptism and he
threatens that one's descent from Abraham was neither a protection from the
coming judgment nor a guarantee of one's place in God's final dominion, and
because he did not write off the nation as the sons of darkness-he calls them
to repentance. Yet John, unlike Jesus, apparently performed no miraculous
deeds or signs. John's water rite, however, seems to have a different focus
than the practices of Qumran, coming closer to what we know of Jewish
proselyte baptism.' Nevertheless, despite the differences from the Qumran
practice, J. Becker asserts, "the Baptist belongs together much more with the
Teacher of Righteousness."

In conclusion, although John may have been a part of the Qumran

community, he is no longer a member when we encounter him in the Gospel
literature because (1) he calls the nation to repentance, (2) he allows both the
unclean and the clean, the sinners and the righteous, to come into contact
with him, and (3) his water rite is not merely a repeatable ritual ablution.
Second, Jesus recognized John as a prophetic figure, and there is no reason
to dispute this identification. There is also no reason to see John as the
founder of a messianic movement because neither in the Gospels nor in
Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2) is there any evidence that John viewed himself in
such a light. Nevertheless, he seems to have felt that the final and decisive
judgment of God was about to fall on Israel. Finally, John should not be seen
as a reformer in the same manner that the Pharisees or Zealots were
reformers. He urges neither a levitical nor a revolutionary program to cure
the nation's ills. He was in many ways a unique figure that caused a stir
amongst the religious and in the halls of power in the region because he was
perceived to be a threat to various authority figures, a threat to the religious
and political status quo. We must investigate the relevant data in Mark, Q,
and to some extent John to determine the relationship of Jesus and John:
Mark 1:1-11, 14, 15;' Matthew 3/Luke 3:1-22; Matt. 11:2-19/Luke 7:18-35;
and John 3:22-4:3.10
THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL (MARK 1:1-11)

That John preached in the chalk wilderness adjacent to the Jordan River and
baptized in that river is little disputed. According to Luke (3:1), John
appeared during the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, which dates him
somewhere between autumn A.D. 27 and the summer of A.D. 29.11 If we
couple Luke's information with what we find in Josephus (Ant. 18.109-19),
which implies that John was executed by Herod Antipas around A.D. 32,12
we are able to date rather precisely when Jesus was in contact with John.
Apparently, the wilderness setting was not created out of the composite
citation that introduces the Gospel of Mark (Exod. 23:20a; Mal. 3:1 MT; Isa.
40:3 almost verbatim from the LXX), especially because scholars agree that
John baptized Jesus in the Jordan. John's ministry probably was mainly in, or
near, Judea, with some ventures into Perea and possibly into Galilee." The
likelihood of this is shown by three considerations: (1) Mark 1:5 tells us that
those who were coming to John were from Judea in general and Jerusalem in
particular; (2) if John had contact with or formerly had been a member of the
Qumran sect, then we might expect to find him in this region; (3) the
relevant material in Josephus also suggests a setting of Judea and Perea for
John's ministry." Thus, Jesus was probably baptized by John in or near
Judea, and if there was a period when Jesus was with John, or perhaps
assisted him, or was engaged in a parallel activity, it also was probably in
Judea. In short, there is a possible Judean period in Jesus' life prior to his
public Galilean ministry. This is supported by John 3:22-4:3, if that material
has any historical substance.

Although Mark 1:6 may be drawn from the portrait of Elijah (the leather
girdle, cf. 2 Kings 1:8), the rest of the description is plausible, and John's
diet comports with what was available in the Judean wilderness." If John
viewed himself as a prophet, then it should not be surprising that he dressed
and acted in a way that reflected his awareness of prophetic literature.

Opinions as to the purpose of John's baptism are varied. Josephus

suggests that it was for the purification of the body "when the soul had
previously been cleansed by righteous conduct" (Ant. 18.117). Yet he seems
aware of its association with the forgiveness of sins because he asserts that
this baptism was not to be used to beg off from sins previously committed,
unless there was that previous cleansing of the soul. This suggests a parallel
with the assertion of the Gospel of Mark: repentance and confession were
necessary before or with the act of baptism in order for the act to be
authentic (the outward act symbolizing the inner cleansing). Mark 1:5
mentions the audible confession of sins, and the previous verse says that this
baptism was "for the remission of sins." Recent study suggests that there
may not have been proselyte baptism in pre-Christian times, so John's
practice may have been novel.'"

Whatever Mark contributed to this summary, it is historically plausible

that John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. By the criterion of
dissimilarity this motif seems to be authentic because Christians associated
forgiveness of sins with Jesus and what he accomplished on the cross.
Furthermore, they would hardly have invented the idea that Jesus underwent
a baptism for the forgiveness of sins because Jews associated forgiveness
with the activities and sacrifices offered in the temple and because Christians
had a high view of Jesus' character. John offered something radical and
different-an alternative way to forgiveness apart from the fulfillment of all
the legal requirements of the law." No wonder the Lukan tradition asserts
that tax collectors and even (Roman?) soldiers came to John for baptism
(Luke 3:12-14).18 This tradition seems to be confirmed by the criterion of
multiple attestation, for Matt. 21:31-32 asserts that John baptized tax
collectors and harlots (cf. Luke 7:29-30). If this was the case, then John too
was at odds with both the temple establishment and the Pharisees on the
means of procuring forgiveness - something they thought only God could
dispense through the proper legal channels. Could Jesus have obtained his
idea about forgiveness of sins from John?

In reference to Mark 1, did John proclaim a coming one whose baptism he

contrasted with his own water baptism? On the surface one can deduce that
this is a Christian addition to the historical tradition meant to cast John into
Jesus' shadow. Bultmann sees vv. 7-8 as a later addition to the passage." This
overlooks that Q had its own version of this tradition (Matt. 3:11/Luke
3:16).20 Bornkamm puts it this way:
 The preaching and baptism of John the Baptist ... is confirmed by the
fact that the Christian message no longer presented the work of the
coming judge of the world in terms of a baptism of the Spirit and fire,
and that a strong tension exists between its presentation of Christ and the
picture of the Messiah as announced by John.21

This means that John did not see himself as the definitive revealer of God
but expected a sequel to his ministry. From Mark and Q, it is not clear
whether he expected that judge to be Yahweh's self-intervention or some
lesser and perhaps human agent of God bringing judgment on God's people-
as had happened so often before in Israel's history. If the saying about the
sandals is authentic, then it might suggest a human agent, but it could be a
metaphor stressing John's servant status in relationship to the coming one.22

In terms of the Markan outline, Wink argues that the material we have just
discussed is seen by Mark as the beginning of the gospel-the good news
begins with John and his ministry.23 Against this V. Taylor urges that this
overlooks seeing Mark 1:1 as a title for the whole Gospel, and he claims that
this underestimates the importance of the Scripture citation in 1:2-3.24 As
both Cranfield and Lane point out, however, 1:1-4 are probably one long
introductory sentence that asserts that, although the good news concerns
Jesus Christ, it begins with the wilderness prophet. The good news was
bound up with the preparatory role and work of John.2S
VIPERS AND VITUPERATION (MATTHEW 3/LUKE 3:1-22)

Havener states: "Although John appears or is mentioned only a few times in

Q, nonetheless, he is second only to Jesus in importance, and about a tenth
of Q is devoted to materials concerning him."26 Thus John the Baptist
played an important role in the pre-Gospel traditions about Jesus, and there
were probably good historical reasons that John was included in the
collections of Gospel traditions and even in the logia of Jesus. The anomaly
of this must be stressed-in the midst of the church's collection of Jesus'
sayings were also included sayings of John!

Following Polag's reconstruction of the Vorlage behind Matthew 3/Luke

3:1-22, we arrive at the following sermon in miniature:

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bear fruit that befits repentance, And [do] not ... say to yourselves "We
have Abraham as our father"; For I tell you that God is able from these
stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the
root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you [with) water but he who is
mightier than I is coming.... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his
threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he
will burn with unquenchable fire .17

That John is addressing Israel is beyond cavil because of the reference to

Abraham,2e but was this sermon addressed to the multitude (as Luke avers),
or to some specific group of Jews (as Matthew suggests)? Marshall contends
that the Matthean specification of the narrower audience seems to comport
with his redactional tendencies elsewhere (cf. Matt. 16:1, 6, 11f.).29 This
overlooks that in Luke 7:29-30 there is a testimony about antipathy between
John and the Pharisees, and as J. Fitzmyer points out the address "brood of
vipers" suggests some specific group that displeased John.30 Indeed the
sermon suggests that there was some particular group that John was
surprised to find coming for baptism in order to flee the wrath to come,
whereas this was not his reaction to all those who came. He did expect some
response by some Israelites but not by this particular group.

The answer to the question "Who told you to flee?" would be John
himself if the addressees were simply the multitudes who came to hear John
at the Jordan! But John seems to think that someone else had told the
Pharisees and Sadducees about his message of imminent judgment, and
apparently they had come to hear it for themselves.

Is this speech an apocalyptic fragment or more generally an

eschatological judgment oracle, perhaps not unlike what we find in some of
the minor prophets? Becker has rightly concluded that "Jesus shares with the
Baptist the same relationship to Apocalyptic. Neither are Apocalypticists and
they only use Apocalyptic material to a limited extent."sn John is using
metaphorical speech; clearly he expects some act of divine judgment to fall
on Israel soon, unless there was an about face in the nation's character.
Although wrath is emphasized, John allows that the winnower will gather
some wheat. John should not be viewed as only a prophet of doom.

Once again John does not specify who will come after him. The figure of
the winnower gives us no clue as to whether or not John expects a human
agent of divine judgment. Matthew 13:41, for instance, specifies angels of
the Son of man being sent out to do the gathering of the evildoers. Possibly
John has some Messianic figure in view as the coming one, but more cannot
be said with the evidence we have.32 If the evidence of 1QS 4:20-21 is
germane, then God is seen as the agent who will sift humanity, but there the
focus is not on separation but the purifying of certain individuals.

David Catchpole compares this material to the parables of the tares and of
the dragnet. He demonstrates striking parallels between the teaching of Jesus
and John and concludes:

In the earliest form of the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:24b, 26b, 30b)
there is documented the overlap and therefore the continuity between the
preaching of the historical John and that of the historical Jesus. Both
preachers affirmed the imminent and challenging reality of God's future
and final kingship implemented in judgment, and both called for an
 immediate response so that the disaster of belonging to the category of
chaff or weeds might be averted and replaced by the security of
belonging to the category of the wheat.3'

The many points of continuity between Jesus and John reveal a great deal
about Jesus' self-conception.

Matthew 3:9 talks about being children of Abraham. D. Allison has

pointed out that Isa. 51:1-2 is the background for these verses: "Look to the
rock from whence you were hewn ... Look to Abraham your father and Sarah
who bore you."" Because the verb translated "to raise up" probably has the
sense of "to cause progeny to come forth" the point of the saying is that God
can give even to the rocks the power to bring forth children of Abraham-
physical descent is no longer a guarantee of salvation, if it ever was. Here is,
as Allison avers, as strong an attack on what Sanders calls covenantal
nomism as one could wish to find. The children of Israel are being told that
repentance and conversion is required of them if they are to avert personal
disaster, and this is true even of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is the
content of their character, not their physical lineage, that will determine
whether they are cut down at the root or survive the coming judgment. Even
D. Daube, a Jewish scholar, has remarked that this passage means that "you
must acquire him [Abraham] like strangers.""

John seems to believe that Israel, or at least its leadership, is deeply

corrupt and requires conversion to avert judgment. It could be argued that
John saw as his task the gathering of a remnant to weather the storm of the
coming wrath of God. But he had not reckoned on the current leadership of
Israel being part of that remnant, hence his response here.

What did John think about this coming one? Besides the idea that he will
bring judgment, which may correspond to the idea that he will baptize with
fire, the contrast is made between John's own baptizing with water and the
coming one baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Various scholars have maintained
that this reference to the Holy Spirit can hardly be authentic, but before
accepting this view we should ask what John meant if he said such a thing,
and whether such an utterance could have been made at all in a preChristian
Sitz im Leben.

First, seeing the phrase "in/with the Holy Spirit" as a purely Christian
addition is difficult because Jesus did not baptize anyone with or in the Holy
Spirit. Yet this utterance sets up the expectation that we will see Jesus doing
what John suggested. In fact, the Synoptic Gospel writers do not portray
Jesus, even in purely redactional summaries or remarks, as baptizing anyone
or even talking about doing so. He seems to speak only of his own (coming)
baptism (Luke 12:50). In the one saying that does mention Jesus' disciples
undergoing a baptism similar to his own, it seems that the Holy Spirit is not
the subject and that Jesus is not the bestower of the baptism in question
(Mark 10:38-39). Although it can be argued that the reference is to the
bestowal at Pentecost, remember that this reference to the Holy Spirit needs
to make sense within the outline of Mark and Matthew, not in LukeActs
only. All three of the Synoptic Gospels refer to this baptism with the Holy
Spirit and it must make sense within their narrative structure.

Second, the term Holy Spirit was known in the Old Testament and other
early Jewish literature (cf. Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10f.; Pss. Sol. 17:42; 1QS 4.20,
8.16; C. D. 2.12). The coming of the Spirit in the last days was also a
familiar concept (Joel 2:28-30; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 18:31; cf. 1QS 4.20-
21). Even the contrast between water and Spirit is known (Isa. 44:3; Ezek.
36:25-27; 1QS 4.21). Thus, the ingredients existed in the Old Testament and
the thought world of John for such an utterance to be made. What precisely
he meant by it, and in particular whether it is a reference to coming salvation
perhaps with purgation (hence the reference to fire?) or simply a coming
judgment, is hard to say. One thing does seem clear: John is contrasting his
baptism to the later Spirit baptism with the implication that his baptism will
not have the same efficacy or effect as the later one.
DOUBTS AND DISTINCTIONS (MATT. 11:2-19/LUKE 7:18-
35)

The Q material in Matthew 11/Luke 7 dealing with Jesus and John should be
seen as three separate sets of traditions: Matt. 11:2-6 and par.; Matt. 11:7-11
and par.; and Matt. 11:16-19 and par. We will also look at the saying about
violence and the basileia (Matt. 11:12-13/Luke 16:16).

Queries from Prison (Matt. 11:2-6/Luke 7:18-23) The first subsection is

structured as a pronouncement story, culminating in Jesus' reply to John's
disciples. Although Bultmann regards the saying of Jesus that climaxes the
story as authentic,36 he regards the setting as inauthentic. Against this view,
Kiimmel has rightly pointed out that: (1) the setting of the story, had it been
created by the early church, would surely have placed a different title than
the vague "coming one" on John's lips (there is no evidence that this was
ever a title for Jesus in the early church); (2) in view of the tendency for the
tradition to stress John's role as a witness to Jesus (John 1), the expression of
doubt by John is surely not the invention of the Christians who passed on
these traditions.37 Marshall makes the point'that Jesus' reply does not
directly answer John's question; indirect responses are characteristic of Jesus
when confronted with questions about his identity.38 Furthermore, the
evidence is weak for a supposed antagonistic relationship between the
disciples of Jesus and John in the latter part of the first century as a
significant factor affecting the shape of the Baptist traditions in the
Gospels.39 D. Li hrmann points to the "scandal" of a description of Jesus'
work without any reference to his death and resurrection as an indication that
this material can be seen as a saying of Jesus.40 We may confidently state
that this material derives from a Sitz im Leben Jesu.

Matthew more nearly gives us the original form of this saying. In view of
the Lukan additions about the sending of two disciples and the account of
Jesus' healings in the presence of the two requisite messengers (witnesses?),
apart from the redactional "tou Christou" in Matt. 11:2, the Matthean version
seems more primitive." Matthew tells us that John's query comes from the
period after he was incarcerated by Herod. The question relates to John's
previous proclamation about a coming one, whom he saw as bringing about
God's definitive judgment on Israel, although not without rescuing a certain
remnant. Fitzmyer has urged that the allusion is to Mal. 3:1 in light of Luke
3:15-17, and that John probably saw Jesus as Elijah redivivus.41 If so, then
Jesus seems to be rejecting such an identification and replacing it with a
more Isaianic vision of his role. As Fitzmyer demonstrates, however, "the
coming one" could just as well be an allusion to Zech. 9:9 (erchetai LXX)
and to the Qumran literature using such language to talk about the future
Messiah(s) (cf. IQS 9.11, 4QPBless. 3)." Furthermore, in the Malachi
passage it is God who finally comes and judges after the messenger has
come and refined God's people.

Yet John seems to have expected his successor, "the Coming One," to be a
judging figure. Here is the clue to explaining John's quandary. Jesus did not
seem to be carrying out judgment on the people; rather, he seems to be about
the business of healing and helping them." Jesus makes clear that he did not
come to live up to John's expectations but to God's call upon his life. If the
emphasis in John's message was coming judgment, then the emphasis in
Jesus' words and deeds was that the inbreaking of the dominion of God
meant liberation and healing, although if one rejected that liberation,
judgment would follow.

What does Jesus' response indicate about his self-understanding? First,

note that Jesus' response consists of six brief parallel clauses and a closing
remark that has a poetic form in Aramaic.45 Such use of Aramaic poetry
seems to have been characteristic of Jesus. Second, this is a composite
citation from Isa. 29:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1; 26:19, with the addition of the
allusion to lepers, but perhaps 2 Kings 5 lies in the background of that
portion of the saying. This citation suggests that Jesus saw himself as more
than a prophet. "He sees in his ministry something which does not merely
revive prophecy but 'fulfills' it."" The emphasis here is on the present
fulfillment of Old Testament hopes for the messianic or eschatological
age.47 The evidence that in early Judaism the Messiah was expected to be a
healer is slender. Thus, if Jesus did see himself in that role, then it seems he
had his own vision of what being a messiah would entail. As Fitzmyer points
out, Jesus seems to have deliberately left out the references to vengeance in
Isa. 29:20; 35:5; 61:2, which could have been quoted with the material we
have." Jesus instead sees himself as a bearer of eschatological blessing,
perhaps one who brings about the conditions associated with the final
eschatological dominion of God. The final blessing formula is also
significant. In light of the way skandalidzo is used in the Gospel material
(Luke 17:2; Mark 4:17; 6:3; 9:42-47; 14:27, 29; "to stumble," or in the
passive "to take offense"), what is probably meant is that how one reacts to
Jesus will determine one's standing at the eschatological judgment.

The negative form of this blessing is probably conditioned by the fact that
John seems to be having doubts about Jesus, perhaps even losing confidence
in him.49 To this Jesus replies in effect: blessed is the one who does not give
up faith in me. Flusser assesses this tradition:

What is important is that Jesus affirmed in principle the Baptist's

question about the eschatological meaning of his activities, but without
explicitly declaring he was the coming Messiah. He establishes his claim
to the eschatological office by pointing to his preaching of salvation and
to his supernatural works of healing. Jesus saw these as an unmistakable
sign that the era of salvation had already dawned.

Clearly this story is not told for its own sake because we are not told how
John responded to Jesus' answer. It should be added that this saying, if it is a
response to John's query from prison, suggests that Jesus began his ministry
before John's death.

The Greatest Man Alive (Matt. 11:7-11/Luke 7:24-28) According to the Q

tradition in Matt. 11:7-11/Luke 7:24-28, Jesus was by no means stinting in
his praise of John. He is called the greatest person ever born and said to be
more than a prophet. It seems impossible to maintain that Matt. 11:9, 11 and
parallel are anything other than the very words of Jesus, for the church
would never have invented them.

It is possible that the Scripture quotation is an editorial addition, and some

would argue that Matt. 11:11b should be seen as such. On this view, these
verses were added by the church to put John in his place-as Jesus'
forerunner.51 Schweizer, who argues against the authenticity of the Scripture
quotation, argues in favor of 11:11b because Jesus could hardly have praised
John so highly without qualifying his remarks in relationship to the coming
dominion of God. Purely on literary grounds, the formulation of 11:11a
seems to require 11:11b for what we seem to have here is antithetical
parallelism. It can also be maintained that the argument for the later addition
of 11:11b rests on the uncertain assumption that it must be seen as a
derogatory remark about John.s2

Several elements in this pericope simply confirm what we have already

surmised about John from Mark 1: that he was to be found in the wilderness
and that his raiment was far from that of royalty's. This gives independent
confirmation from Q to the motifs in the Markan narrative we examined
earlier.

The reference to a reed shaking in the wind also probably relates to John's
setting, not his character, because such vegetation did grow around the
Jordan." There may also be an allusion to Herod Antipas in 11:8, in which
case John is being contrasted with him and this remark was made after John
was imprisoned. It is possible that Matt. 11:11ff. did originally go with what
precedes it, although we will not contend for this view.

What is of importance is that Jesus calls John more than a prophet. What
could that possibly augur not only about John but also about how Jesus
viewed himself? Jesus includes John not only in the prophetic category but
also in a higher one as well. This suggests that Jesus saw him as the last and
greatest eschatological prophet-preparing God's people for God's final and
climactic act of redemptive judgment. This is what John's own words would
suggest because he did foresee a coming one; Jesus' estimation may have
been based in part on John's own words. If this assessment is correct, then
the citations of Mal. 3:1 and Exod. 23:20 are accurate insights into what
Jesus thought of John, even if these Scriptures were added later. Surely Jesus
did not see himself in any category less than John. The idea that Jesus saw
himself as a prophet is well attested in at least two different layers of the
tradition (Luke 13:33-34; Mark 6:4 and par.). If, however, Jesus saw John as
the final great prophet, then this implies that he saw himself either as the
coming one or as some sort of messianic figure that went beyond purely
prophetic categories, without making the prophetic label entirely
inappropriate.

What are we to make of Matt. 11:11/Luke 7:28? These sayings suggest

that Jesus saw John either as a transitional figure with one foot in the age of
the law and the prophets and the other foot in the new age or as the one who
initiates the process at the outset of the turn of the eons.s' In either case, John
is not excluded from the inbreaking dominion of God and may be included
in it. If so, then the antithetical statements in Matt. 11:11 are probably not
meant to contrast John who is outside the kingdom with those who are
within it. Rather, the comparison is between two ways of evaluating the
human condition: those born of women and those in the dominion of God.
These two categories are not mutually exclusive. The point is that even the
greatest person in terms of human origins does not have as great a status as
the least of those who has been transformed by and included in God's
inbreaking dominion. The latter has an origin from God which eclipses all
purely human or physical categories, origins, or estimations. As Marshall
puts it, "possession of a place in the kingdom is more important than being
the greatest of the prophets."ss

Some have conjectured that ho mikroteros should be seen as a

comparative, not a superlative, and thus refer to Jesus himself.-56 Against
this is the very structure of the utterance, which contrasts those born of
women and the least in God's dominion. Were there an intended contrast
between John and Jesus here, then mikroteros might refer to Jesus being
younger, but this seems unlikely on Jesus' lips at this point. The focus is not
on Jesus and John but on those bom of women and anyone in the dominion,
even the least participant in it. The two realms in Jesus' mind are of
qualitative difference in significance; the one derives from physical
generation, the other is a result of God's supernatural intervention in human
events and lives. All else pales in light of the possibilities of participating in
God's dominion. Here Jesus seems to have picked up and expanded John's
contrast between physical descent and repentance and faith as a prerequisite
of participating in the coming dominion.
Attack upon the Realm (Matt. 11:12-13/Luke 16:16) Most difficult of the
logia from Q is Matt. 11:12-13//Luke 16:16. Yet it is important because it
appears to give substantial support to M. Borg's contention that "there is
much in the Gospels that suggests conflict as a context for interpreting the
teaching of Jesus."s' The saying is not located in its original context either in
Matthew or Luke, which makes discerning its meaning more difficult.S° In
general, E. Bammel's argument that we should see two different sayings has
met with little acceptance, not least because of the special vocabulary about
force in both versions of this sayings' In view of the difficulty of the saying
and its apparent placing of the Baptist and his work alongside of (or of a
piece with) Jesus' work, the argument against the authenticity of the saying
does not prevail.60

In discerning the saying's original form, four considerations are crucial:

(1) the Matthean form is more difficult and thus probably nearer to the
original, at least in 11:12; (2) this view is supported when we note the typical
Lukan vocabulary about preaching the basileia (cf. 4:43; 8:1) and the apo
tote;" (3) it appears that Matthew, in order to connect the statement about
prophets and law with 11:14, which refers to Elijah, has reversed the original
order of the saying, which Luke does preserve; and (4) Matthew seems to
have added the word "prophesied" to 11:13. Thus, the original form of this
saying is likely to be as Polag has reconstructed it: The law and prophets
were until John; since then the basileia has suffered violence and the violent
take it by force.62

Commentators generally agree that biadzo should be taken in malem

partem, a conclusion that is supported by E. Moore's detailed investigation
of both biadzo and harpadzo in Josephus. Especially in combination they are
used "to signify the direct employment of physical violence as a means of
coercion, and ... they carry with them a strong overtone of censure. "63 The
question still remains whether we should take biadzetai as middle or passive.
If it is a middle, then the sense would be that the basileia overpowers by
force, presses hard, or even acts with violence, whereas in the passive it
would mean that the dominion itself suffers violence. The Matthean form of
this part of the saying favors the idea that the dominion is suffering violence
because we are immediately told that violent men plunder it (auten: the
dominion itself). This fits with the usual negative connotation of the main
verbs in question.

To what, then, would Jesus be referring? At least three conjectures are

possible, and a preference is linked to whether or not one sees John as a part
of or initiator of God's inbreaking activity/realm. One meaning is that both
John (at the hands of Herod Antipas) and Jesus (perhaps at the hands of the
crowds) had suffered from those who would use violence to achieve their
aims. In the case of John that meant silencing him; in the case of Jesus,
attempting to force his hand and make him a political ruler.6' A second
possible meaning is that local revolutionaries were attempting to force the
dominion of God to emerge by undertaking acts of violence against the
Romans. Such a statement on Jesus' lips is possible, especially in view of his
own comments about violence (Luke 22:49-51; Matt. 26:52). A third
possible meaning is that sinners and outcasts were taking the dominion by
storm, so to speak, ever since the possibility of right standing with God had
first been offered through baptism by John and then later by Jesus' preaching
of the good news. The only difficulty with this last view is that it makes
various negative verbs, and a noun that usually has a negative sense, serve a
positive purpose-describing an activity Jesus wholly condoned. Thus, the
first or second view seems the more probable.

Nevertheless, we can draw five conclusions from this saying. First, Jesus
sees the dominion as a present reality that can be acted upon.es Second,
Jesus sees John either as a transitional figure straddling the old era of law
and prophets and the new eon, introduced by his preaching and baptizing,"
or as the first in the new era. The preposition mechri (or even heos arti) is
susceptible to such an interpretation. In either case, this would explain how
Jesus would interpret John's and his own experience together. Third, the
rather volatile atmosphere in which John and Jesus preached and worked is
attested. In such a setting, care was needed in order not to be co-opted by
violent men for their own more political causes. Fourth, Jesus did not see his
work as merely a continuation of the agendas of the previous age-the time of
the law and prophets was ceasing to be (or, if John was already dead, had
ceased to be). The inbreaking of the dominion meant a new-indeed an
eschatological-state of affairs for God's people. Fifth, it is hardly possible
here to take basileia to mean what B. D. Chilton wants it to mean-God in his
activity-because Jesus was not saying that God was under attack or suffering
violence! Here is a saying that shows that the basileia must be seen not
merely as a reign but also as a realm.67

Contrasting Styles of Ministry (Matt. 11:16-19/Luke 7:31-35) That Jesus

perceived John as a man of God with divine authority is also clear from such
texts as Mark 11:27-33 and parallels that probably contain an authentic
utterance of Jesus.68 Various texts suggest that Jesus was willing to parallel
his own work and divine authority with John's. These same texts suggest that
Jesus saw himself as having divine authority and a divine commission. None
of the texts that suggest parallels or even the indebtedness of Jesus to John,
should cause us to overlook those texts that suggest Jesus distinguished
himself and his work from John in various regards. One such text is the Q
material of Matt. 11:16-19/Luke 7:31-35.

Even the most stringent sifters of the Gospel tradition agree that the
substance of this material, a wisdom saying in the form of a modified
similitude, should be accepted as coming from a Sitz im Leben Jesu.69 Two
difficulties are the saying of or about Wisdom at the end of the pericope and
the use of Son of man. The latter may be an original "I" that has been
replaced with the Son of man.70 But if bar enasha was sometimes used by
Jesus as a circumlocution when referring to his own present ministry, then
there is no good reason to doubt its originality here.71 With regard to the
wisdom saying, scholars are evenly divided on its original form. Almost
certainly Luke has added panton at 7:35, but it could also be argued that
Matthew altered the original to speak of Wisdom's deeds in light of Matt.
11:2. Against such a conclusion, Hill is probably right that "deeds" is the
original reading at this point since "children" is suspect on the grounds of
harmonization with Luke 7:35.72 This, however, does not decide what was
in the Vorlage behind the present forms of this saying. The reading "deeds"
should probably be seen as original because in Luke's Gospel there is an
attempt even in the birth narratives to show how John and Jesus are closely
linked together in life and in God's plan. The allusion in Luke to Jesus and
John as Wisdom's children would fit this redactional agenda nicely.73
 This saying comments on "this generation," a phrase often used
pejoratively in the Gospels to mean this wicked or faithless generation (cf.
Luke 11:29-32 and par.; 11:50f. and par.; 17:25; Mark 8:12, 38, passim). In
the Old Testament, it is also used to criticize the immorality or faithlessness
of Israel (cf. Deut. 32:5, 20; Judg. 2:10; Pss. 78:8; 95:10; Jer. 7:29). The
phrase in its present context suggests a basic rejection of Jesus by the
majority of his potential audience in Israel. Thus, this saying derives from
late in the ministry when it was evident that the vast majority were to reject
the good news Jesus offered as they had rejected John's ministry.

Even though it is possible to interpret the similitude otherwise, we should

recognize the standard Jewish introduction of a parabolic saying, so that the
comparison is between the whole situation described in the saying and the
behavior or case of "this generation." The comparison is not suggesting that
"this generation" is like the children first mentioned in the similitude, but
that they are like the playmates who respond to the children calling them to
play." Thus, we are to see the children, who are inviting the others to play
first at a wedding and then at a funeral, as Jesus and John. Both Jesus and
John performed for them but they would neither dance nor mourn, refusing
to be drawn into the events Jesus and John were heralding.

To be sure, it might be pressing the comparison too far to correlate the

dancing with Jesus and the mourning with John. Nonetheless, in Matt. 11:18
and parallels, we hear of John's ascetical behavior (neither eating nor
drinking, which Luke has expanded), and in 11:19 of Jesus' full participation
in the fellowship of breaking bread and drinking wine, even with sinners and
toll collectors.76 Neither extreme of behavior pleased "this genera- tion"-
they labeled John a fanatic or a madman (he has a demon) and Jesus as
immoral and a libertine (not only a glutton and a sot, but a friend of those
who should be shunned -sinners and traitors). This is a caricature: John did
eat and drink some things and we have no evidence that Jesus was famous
for overindulgence. Nevertheless, the perceived difference in the way John
and Jesus went about ministry is aptly reflected. Jesus says in effect that it
does not matter which extreme of behavior was suggested or what reaction
to life was encouraged because nothing pleased this faithless audience; they
would not play either John's or Jesus' game.
 What is striking about this similitude is that, although Jesus groups
himself with John as a performer before Israel (notice the "we"), he
definitely distinguishes their behavior. They had different visions about how
to go about their ministries. Jesus neither carried the efforts of John a step
further nor adopted the same modus operandi. Jesus preached good news of
the dominion's arrival; John baptized and warned of coming judgment and
the need for preparation. The difference between these two men was not
simply that Jesus ministered after John, and thus saw the inbreaking of what
John only looked forward to in his lifetime (Mark 6:14-29; Josephus Ant.
18.5.2, 1.116-119). What besides sequence made for this difference?
Matthew 11:19b reads "but Wisdom is justified by her works." "Works" is
probably the original reading especially in view of the reference to children
in the similitude. It is more probable that "works" would be changed to
"children" to make the saying fit neatly with what precedes. The meaning
would be that despite the rejection by the general public, which has been the
subject of discussion up to this point, Wisdom will be vindicated by her
deeds.

A significant tradition in early Judaism developed about wisdom as "a

quasi-personal hypostasis in heaven, a divine agent expressing the mind of
God, who preaches to men and longs to dwell among them but is rejected by
them"" (cf. Job 1, 28; Prov. 1, 8; Sir. 1, 24; 11QPs-a 18; Bar. 3f.; 1 En. 42; 4
Ez. 5; 2 Bar. 48; Wisdom, passim). Especially in Proverbs 8, Wisdom cries
out in the public places urging the people to listen. The striking parallel to
the setting of our similitude suggests that Jesus had this text in mind.

Let me introduce a rather speculative notion to make sense of aspects of

the Jesus tradition that suggest his self-understanding. Hurtado has
demonstrated the widespread use of the concept of divine agency in early
Judaism, applied to everything from personified divine attributes, to
patriarchs, to special angels.78 Let us suppose that Jesus saw himself as
God's Shaliach or agent, someone endowed with divine authority and power,
the very authority and power of the sender.79 This idea is found rather
frequently in recent scholarly discussions of the historical Jesus. The
Shaliach must be endowed with a divine commission and instructions. He
must have a certain knowledge from and of the sender, indeed wisdom to
carry out the sender's instructions and purposes. He must know key aspects
of the sender's mind. This profile describes the portrait of Wisdom we find in
Proverbs 8 and elsewhere in the Wisdom literature. Is it not conceivable that
a Jesus who saw himself as God's agent might also have seen himself as
divine Wisdom incarnate or as a figure such as the Enochian Son of man?°°
J. Breech, no conservative, argues: "The appended saying interprets Jesus as
the heavenly Wisdom who comes down to earth and calls men in the
marketplace but they do not heed (Proverbs 8)."81

This Wisdom theme could be part of the first evangelist's christological

redactional wor02 Two things, however, count against this conclusion. First,
this does not blend in well with other christological redaction of the first
evangelist, or even with his overall christological presentation that involves
both source and redactional material.83 Second, it is Luke, not Matthew,
who tells us that Jesus is the one who will dispense wisdom to his followers
in their hour of trial (Luke 21:15). If Matthew had a Wisdom focus in his
redactional work, then we might have expected to see the evidence of it in
his apocalyptic discourse, but in fact we find it only in the parallel material
in Luke. Thus, the conjecture of seeing the wisdom motif in Matt.
11:19//Luke 7:35 as going back to Jesus has more to commend it than
Suggs's view. This conjecture must find support in other texts because one
text is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion."

If Jesus did see himself as God's Wisdom in the flesh, then it would
explain: (1) a saying such as Matt. 12:42/Luke 11:31, which may well be
authentic;as Solomon had wisdom, but Jesus was greater by being the
manifestation of Wisdom in the flesh; (2) the reason that Jesus preferred the
parable or similitude as a mode of speech -one characteristic form or genre
of wisdom literature; (3) the reason that he felt free to vary not only from
conventional wisdom but also from Torah in the manner he did ("but I say to
you"); (4) his felt-closeness to the Father (abba) and his apparent belief that
he had special knowledge of the Father that only Jesus could reveal;" (5) a
saying such as "foxes have holes" in Matt. 8:20/Luke 9:58; which is like 1
En. 42.2 and Eccles. 24:6-22 where Wisdom has no dwelling place; (6) how,
as early as ten to fifteen years after Jesus' death, the church was already
singing Christ hymns such as Phil. 2 that apparently manifested a belief in
the preexistence of the Son; and (7) the reason that Jesus distinguishes
himself from John in various crucial ways.

Whatever one thinks of Matt. 11:19b, Jesus did see himself as taking on a
task like that of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. Distinguishing himself from John is
his modus operandi for ministry because Jesus viewed himself in a different
light and perhaps in a different category than he viewed John, whom Jesus
said was more than a prophet. It may be asked, Why did Jesus not call
himself Wisdom more directly or more often than in this one saying (Matt.
11:19b)? The explanation at hand is that he used the Son of man terminology
in place of Wisdom.
JESUS THE JUDEAN BAPTIZER? (JOHN 3:22-4:3)

Many believe the controversial material from John 3-4 has little historical
substance to it. Nevertheless, it is worth a brief look, bearing in mind that
our conclusions to this point stand regardless of one's view about the nature
of the Fourth Gospel vis-A-vis historical matters.

Linnemann's challenging study on Jesus and John led her to the following
conclusions on the basis of the historical substance behind John 3:22-4:3: (1)
Jesus worked as a baptizer, or at least allowed and encouraged his disciples
to do so (4:2), during the lifetime of John;87 (2) Jesus drew greater crowds
as a baptizer than John; (3) Jesus stayed for a long time with John beyond
the Jordan in Perea, allowing himself not only to be baptized by John but
also to become a disciple of John; (4) the later side by side baptizing of two
groups became a problem; (5) Jesus abandoned his baptizing when he heard
that the Pharisees had learned Jesus was having more success than John, for
it was not his intention to weaken or compromise John's position in the eyes
of his opponents (the Pharisees); (6) Jesus learned from John of this new
way of right standing with God-through repentance and baptism apart from
detailed fulfillment of the law's requirements; (7) this led Jesus to the
conclusion that the event of the repentance of sinners and tax collectors was
the sign of the final inbreaking of God's mighty dominion. Coupled with
John's imprisonment, it prompted Jesus to take up a ministry of preaching
the inbreaking dominion in his native region of Galilee."

What are we to make of these suggestions? First, 3:22-23 does not

indicate that Jesus was in the Baptist's circle, or that he baptized with or
under his tutelage.19 What is suggested is a parallel practice in the same
general region during the same general time period. Jesus endorsed John's
work, as being baptized by John implies. Definitely, Mark 11:27-33 (and
par.) indicates that Jesus saw John's baptism as having divine approval. This
suggests that Jesus got the idea for a brief baptizing ministry from John
because Jesus saw John's effectiveness in calling people to repentance and
preparation for the coming divine activity.
 Second, it is quite plausible that Jesus, out of respect for John, ceased his
own parallel ministry so as not to compromise John's work. Perhaps he saw
his own efforts as an attempt to supplement, not supplant, John's efforts.
Perhaps when it became apparent that John would not minister anymore due
to imprisonment, Jesus had to carefully evaluate the call of God on his life to
see if God was urging him to go a step further than the Baptist, perhaps with
a somewhat different emphasis or modus operandi. Jesus would preach, heal,
and fellowship directly with the people rather than wait for them to come to
him.

Both points six and seven are believable although they cannot be verified.
Perhaps Jesus did gain some insight into the new work to which God was
calling him by observing the method and message of John. Nevertheless,
when he began his Galilean ministry he no longer saw his work as an
extension or supplement of John's, if he had ever done so. Allowances must
be made for both the similarities and the differences between Jesus' and
John's ministries because these indicate that Jesus did not see himself as
another prophet like John, although John was the closest and nearest point of
comparison on the contemporary Judean scene. Thus, even though Jesus saw
both John and himself as prophetic figures, nonetheless he saw John as more
than just another prophet and himself as more than and other than John.
CONCLUSIONS

One key insight drawn from the material is that Jesus saw himself as not
merely announcing but bringing about the eschatological blessings promised
in Isaianic prophecies. Unlike John, Jesus apparently did not expect a
coming one, a successor. He himself was bringing the final eschatological
message and work of God for God's people Israel.90 This explains the
strident, urgent tone to much of what Jesus said. Salvation for Israel hinged
on how it responded to Jesus' call and, before that, to John's.

A second insight is that Jesus may have seen himself as divine Wisdom in
the flesh, or at least as carrying out the tasks and roles that the Wisdom
literature portrays Wisdom as doing. This, when coupled with Jesus'
understanding of himself as the Shaliach of God, may go a long way toward
explaining Jesus' exalted sense of authority, power, and mission. It may
explain why he felt free to say and do striking things that did not match up
with common expectations about either a prophet or a Messiah.

Jesus said John was the greatest of those born of women and, thus, is the
one figure in the Gospel tradition to whom Jesus seems to compare and
contrast himself, both in his words and deeds. Although Jesus could have
compared himself to various other contemporaries (Herod Antipas, Caesar,
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the priests and Levites, the revolutionaries), or
with prophetic or kingly figures in Israel's past (David, Solomon, Moses,
Jonah), he chose to mention such figures only in passing, or with less
frequency than he mentions John. Although the chronological placement of
many of Jesus' sayings about John is not clear, Jesus was comparing and
contrasting himself to John from early on to near the very end of Jesus'
ministry (cf. Mark 11:27-33 and par.). John was the main human touchstone
for Jesus, the one figure who helped him sort out his own sense of identity
and mission.

A third insight by inference is that Jesus manifested a normal progressive

historical consciousness. Although it appears that Jesus early on saw himself
acting parallel to and perhaps even as a supplement to John's ministry (if the
material in John 3:22-4:3 has any historical substance), when John was
imprisoned -or perhaps even shortly before then, when John appeared to be
in some danger-Jesus reevaluated God's call on his life, leading to his all too
short ministry in Galilee. The seeds of that "something greater than John"
self-understanding may have been planted as early as Jesus' baptism by
John, which seems to have coincided with some sort of charismatic
experience or vision that Jesus had about being God's unique Son.9' Jesus
may have seen himself as the coming one of whom John spoke, although
clearly Jesus saw his task and message as placing more emphasis on the
good news about God's inbreaking activity than on the bad news of
judgment that John stressed when speaking of the coming one. Certainly the
eschatological consciousness of both men, their understanding of the crucial
and decisive time that was dawning for Israel, is very similar in nature and
orientation. Jesus saw John as a transitional figure, the last of the old style
prophets, or the decisive eschatological prophet of God, who has one foot in
and introduces the new eon. Of both John and Jesus it was said the dominion
suffers violence.
JESUS AND THE PHARISEES

The debate about Jesus' relationship with the Pharisees is crucial to our study
because of its bearing on christological questions. At stake is Jesus'
relationship with the most prominent and popular of the Jewish parties of the
pre-A.D. 70 period and his view of Torah with its oral extrapolations in the
"traditions of the elders." In short, at stake is Jesus' relationship with the
form of Judaism that survived the destruction of the temple and became the
font of all later forms of Judaism.

WHO WERE THE PHARISEES?

Pharisaism was, at least for many in the pre-A.D. 70 period, the religious
vox populi as well as the group most revered by the people. Examining
Jesus' reaction to the Pharisees and what it says about his self-concept gives
us significant clues about Jesus' view of: (1) the moral condition of early
Judaism and its popular leadership; and (2) how Jesus saw himself relating
to and fitting in with his own people.

The subject of Jesus' relationship with the Pharisees appears frequently in

the Synoptic Gospels, although seldom as the focus of a given pericope in its
final form. Information about the Pharisees is also given in Josephus's works
and in the rabbinic material of the two Talmuds and the Mishnah.
Unfortunately, the initial impression that it will be easy to access that
relationship is deceptive because of some complex issues raised by these
sources.

First, the relationship between the perushim, the sopherim, the hakamim,
the haberim, the scribes, and the group the New Testament calls the
Pharisees is not dear. E. Rivkin explains this relationship with a series of
equations: the perushim - the Pharisees-the haberim = the hakamim = the
sopherim." Rivkin sees the Pharisees as a scholarly class dedicated to the
twofold law. Unlike J. Neusner, Rivkin does not see such issues as purity
and sabbath observance as the primary focus of the Pharisees. Rather, "the
Pharisees were teachers of salvation for the individual through a community
of true believers in the two-fold law, and not nationalists focusing on the
land, or on the temple or on the sovereign state.""

There are problems with Rivkin's assessment. First, as Neusner's work on

the rabbinic material concerning the pre-A.D. 70 Pharisees shows, most of
the legal pericopes in that corpus involving Pharisees "deal with dietary
laws: ritual purity for meals and agricultural rules governing the fitness of
food for Pharisaic consumption. Observance of sabbaths and festivals is a
distant third."94 This squares with the overall impression the Synoptics give
concerning what preoccupied the Pharisees and what issues they argued with
Jesus. As Neusner repeatedly asserts, broadly speaking the rabbinic and New
Testament literature agree on what were the prevailing issues for Pharisaism,
and these were the very matters about which Jesus took issue with this
group.

Second, particularly in Mark but also elsewhere in the Gospel tradition,

scribes and Pharisees are associated but still distinguished, even to the point
of being mentioned separately (cf. Mark 3:22; Matt. 8:19; 9:14; 13:52). Most
interesting is the phrase in Mark that speaks of "the scribes of the Pharisees"
(Mark 2:16). I share Bowker's view that "the references to Pharasaioi in
Mark . . . appear to reflect, with very great precision indeed, the transition
from the Pharasaioi of Josephus to the perushim attacked as extremists, of
the rabbinic sources."" In the rabbinic literature hakamim is the term used to
describe the Pharisees of the pre-A.D. 70 period as a whole, but occasionally
the term perushim is used. Rivkin plausibly suggests that perushim in the
rabbinic literature is used only of the Pharisees of the earlier period writ
large when they are juxtaposed with the Sadducees.96 Together all the
references to perushim suggest that this term is used sometimes as a noun
meaning separatists and sometimes as a label for the group we know as the
Pharisees, although in later rabbinic literature it may sometimes refer to a
particular group of Pharisees-the ultraorthodox. In fact, if one compares M.
Hag. 2.7 and Dem. 2.3, a solution to our dilemma suggests itself, as Danby
and Moore saw long ago.97

Third, the term perushim is used in the post-A.D. 70 rabbinic literature

basically as a polemical term (the Separatists) to refer to the haberim, except
when the term was needed to distinguish hakamim from the Sadducees as a
particular religious group or ongoing movement.96 This probably means that
the term haberim ("associates" or "companions") refers to a group within the
Pharisaic movement-an ultraorthodox wing that may have led a
semicloistered existence a good deal of the time in order to insure full
obedience to their interpretation of the Old Testament laws about ritual
purity. They were sectarian, not unlike the Qumranites.

Supporting this view is Rivkin's admission that the haberim were not a
scholarly lass but individuals who had voluntarily taken upon themselves
extra religious duties, such as tithing from produce above what was
required." Sanders is surely right in saying, "It is generally granted on all
hands ... that before 70 there were haberim-lay people who maintained
themselves in a relatively high state of ritual purity. What is important to
note is that such groups were small, voluntary associations which accepted
special rules for special reasons."100 They should not be equated with the
larger group the New Testament calls Pharisees (who may have numbered as
many as 6000).101

To sum up, the pre-A.D. 70 Pharisees are the group that later rabbinic
literature calls the hakamim or sometimes the sopherim (although the latter
may refer to Pharisaic leaders or teachers of the larger movement). The
haberim cannot simply be equated with the Pharisees; more and less strict
Pharisees existed in and before Jesus' day, as the controversies between the
houses of Shammai and Hillel make clear. Because it was the more lenient,
Hillel group that prevailed in most regards in Judaism,102 the ultraorthodox
haberim are not surprisingly labeled separatists in the later tradition in a
somewhat polemical sense. Among the Pharisees of Jesus' day were
haberim, scribes (the Torah copiers and scholars who would be expected to
give the interpretation of the Torah), and ordinary observant lay people and
teachers who were part of the movement (some of whom were among the
haberim, some of whom were not). In the New Testament, the term Pharisee
refers variously to the haberim among the movement, the non-haberim, and
the movement as a whole; only the context may give dues. That the New
Testament term Pharisee already has its more polemical reference to the
ultraorthodox among the movement-the haberim-is less likely. In any event,
Jesus was confronted by Pharisees of varying degrees of rigidity about
matters of the law and especially ritual purity.103

Several general observations about the Pharisees now can be made. First,
it is true that one of the overarching goals of the Pharisees was to "spread
Scriptural holiness throughout the land"-to borrow a phrase from another era
of religious history. "In a very specific way the Pharisees claimed to live as
if they were priests, as if they had to obey at home the laws that applied to
the Temple."104 Second, the Pharisees claimed to be those who passed on
oral Torah that originally, in their way of thinking, was passed on to Moses
at Sinai along with the written Torah and was preserved through passing on
the tradition intact by a succession of faithful tradents. By claiming to have
the correct interpretation and ability to explain (and expand) the law
according to oral tradition to meet new situations, they asserted implicit and
sometimes explicit authority over all Jewish people. Not surprisingly, they
did not easily tolerate anyone who threatened the assumptions upon which
that authority was based. As the Mishnah later explained: "It is more
culpable to teach against the ordinances of the scribes than against the Torah
itself" (M. San. 11.3).

What is surprising is how Hellenized even the Pharisees could be, in

many ways appearing like a Hellenistic philosophical school or move-
ment.10S Hillel may have steered the Pharisaic movement in a more
quietistic and Hellenistic (philosophical and sectarian rather than political or
revolutionary) trajectory. At the group's inception, however, they were not
only involved in the political positions during part of the Hasmonean period
but also were a bit revolutionary in their approach to some matters.106
Politics certainly was not the dominant concern of the Pharisees of Jesus'
day, except insofar as it affected their ability to carry on their religious
movement as they saw fit. Their agenda was the hallowing of everyday life
in all its aspects within the existing structure of society, not apart from it, as
was the case with the Qumranites.
PURITY AND PURPOSE

Was Jesus a Pharisee, or at least inclined to be one of their adherents?

Evidence such as Jesus' involvement with the structure of the existing Jewish
society and his lack of withdrawal from that society for any length of time
favors such a suggestion. Further, there are texts in which Jesus seems to
commend to his audience the teachings of the Pharisees along with their
right to positions of teaching authority (Matt. 23:3) and concedes that the
Pharisees maintain a certain standard of righteousness (Matt. 5:20). If one
maintains the authenticity of Matt. 5:17-18 or Luke 16:17, then it could even
be urged that Jesus was a rigorist in regard to observance of Torah, a posture
that various Pharisees definitely took toward the law. Finally, Jesus seems to
have affirmed a belief in resurrection (cf. Mark 12:18ff.), which comports
with Pharisaic teaching. 107

There are several problems with this line of reasoning, however. First,
drawing this picture of Jesus relies too heavily on Matthew to the neglect of
the earlier material in Mark and Q. Second, it ignores some of the stringent
criticism of the Pharisees even within Matthew, not all of which is likely to
be later polemics of the Christian church (cf. Matthew 23). Third, Jesus not
only had table fellowship with those whom the Pharisees considered unclean
(e.g., sinners and tax collectors) but also felt free to touch and be touched by,
discourse with, and even have as traveling companions people who were
sometimes ritually or morally unclean. 108 When we add to this the fact that
the Pharisees always appear in controversy settings with Jesus in our earliest
Gospel (twelve times),109 we have a picture at variance with that of Jesus,
the Pharisee. Finally, the work of two scholars completes our pic- ture.10 M.
Borg confirms that one of the essential characteristics of Jesus' ministry was
controversy, particularly over holiness issues. Finally, D. Catchpole has also
rightly pointed to some of the likely authentic Sabbath controversy material,
some of the Q antitheses, Jesus' divorce ruling which is at odds with Mosaic
law, and the fact that controversy with the Pharisees seems to lie behind
many of the parables as evidence that Jesus could not have been a Pharisee
or even largely in agreement with them.
 Thus, the impression of Jesus in constant controversy with the Pharisees
cannot be dismissed as polemical ax grinding by Mark. The majority of
scholars still believe that Mark was written prior to or very near the fall of
Jerusalem and the temple. This means that Mark was written long before the
Berkat ha minim, and thus before the Christians could no longer actively
participate in synagogue services. In short, Mark's Gospel was written in a
period when the Christian community was still sorting out its relationship
with Judaism and would not be generating a programmatic attack on the
Pharisees, the most prominent and popular party within Judaism.

Let us evaluate the Markan material that focuses on Jesus' relationship to

the Pharisees. Mark 7 is a collection of Jesus' teachings probably given on
more than one occasion and grouped here due to thematic similarity (dealing
with the issues of ritual and moral purity). This material may already have
been grouped by catchword connection in Mark's source. It is plausible that
Jesus had discussions with the Pharisees on two vital topics-the matters of
handwashing and of clean and unclean food.

The haberim among the Pharisees most likely criticized Jesus in regard to
a failure on his or his disciples' part to wash their hands."' This would have
been a controversy over what Mark calls the "tradition of the elders" (Mark
7:5), which probably refers to the oral Torah or oral expansions on Torah
that the Pharisees accepted as binding in addition to the written Torah. R.
Booth, in his detailed work on tradition and legal history, concludes that
haberim did practice supererogatory handwashing before A.D. 70 and before
the hakamim made a decree on the subject."' There is, then, nothing
improbable about Jesus discussing such a matter with the haberim.

When one analyzes Mark 7:15ff., however, the matter at issue is clean and
unclean food. At stake here is not merely a supererogatory practice but the
Torah's teaching. Certainly, in his redactional and parenthetical comment at
7:19b, Mark believes that Jesus is setting aside the Old Testament laws about
clean and unclean food.

Yet there is still another historical objection to the plausibility of Jesus

having such discussions in Galilee. On the one hand, such scholars as
Jeremias and Farmer seem confident that there was a considerable Pharisaic
presence in Galilee."' On the other hand, M. Smith avers, "There is strong
evidence that there were practically no Pharisees in Galilee during Jesus'
lifetime.""' Several things count against Smith's view. First, there are the
examples of Johanan ben Zakkai who moved to Galilee from the south and
Eleazar from Galilee who seems to represent the Pharisaic point of view and
is involved in the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene (Ant. 20.34-
49).

Second, many Pharisees felt strongly about convincing other Jews of their
viewpoints because they wanted Jewish society as a whole to reflect the
holiness of the temple, and the Jesus tradition mentions their penchant for
proselytizing (cf. Matt. 23:15; Ant. 20.34-49)."s One should not be misled
by the fact that the Pharisees are not focused on by Josephus in his
narratives. As A. J. Saldarini says:

The minor role played by the Pharisees in Josephus is explained by his

concentration on the governing class and its political and military
fortunes... . Neither the priesthood, the aristocrats, nor the peasants are
treated except when they have an impact on the fortunes of the nation as
a whole. The Pharisees are mentioned at times of change, crisis, or
transition in government because when power shifted they and many
other social and political forces in Jewish society became active in
competition for power and influence.""

Third, in view of S. Freyne's detailed study, lower Galilee cannot be

characterized as some cultural backwater cut off from the major movements
of Judaism in the first century."' Indeed, as J. A. Overman indicates, what is
striking is the degree of urbanization in Galilee.118 The very existence of
numerous synagogues in Galilee makes it likely that there were resident
Pharisees in the region.

Fourth, Mark suggests that the Pharisees and scribes at least once came
from Jerusalem to discuss matters with Jesus (7:1; cf. 3:22). This has
suggested to some that they may have been retainers of the temple leadership
so far as it was represented in Galilee.119 Mark realizes that the center of the
Pharisaic movement was in the south, but this would not prevent members of
the movement from traveling north to hear what a notable teacher like Jesus
had to say on subjects of importance to them (ritual purity or sabbath
observance). Thus, Jesus probably had ongoing discussions with the
Pharisees in Galilee whether or not those debating with him actually lived in
Galilee.

Finally, it is right to point out that "since Mark writes just before or after
the war against Rome, he is not anachronistically reading the later
Pharisees/rabbis back into Jesus' life. His traditions reflect at least the mid-
first century ...."lm I would argue that they ultimately go back to the
experience. of Jesus himself.

Turning to the discussion on handwashing in Mark 7:1-8, it sometimes is

urged that Jesus does not seem to respond to the question as to why the
disciples eat with defiled hands. As Taylor points out, however, the quotation
of Isa. 29:13 is very apposite on this occasion,121 especially when coupled
with the saying in Mark 7:8. I judge the challenge to the authenticity of the
response in 7:6-8 to have failed. For our purposes, only 7:7-8 need represent
the gist of Jesus' response, and here it is clear that Jesus is criticizing the
upholding of oral Torah as the expense of written Torah. Interestingly, Jesus
calls the oral Torah the teaching or precepts of human beings. Inherent in
this is a lower assessment of oral tradition than seems to have been
characteristic of the Pharisees. Besides calling such traditions human, Jesus
seems to believe that oral Torah and written Torah could be in conflict with
one another. At least in the case of the haberim, Jesus states that their
priorities are askew, putting oral before written Torah. Now, it appears Jesus
rejects the "traditions of the elders" at least on this point and thus does not
manifest a Pharisaic attitude toward oral Torah. This suggestion is confirmed
by some of the probably authentic material among the famous antitheses (cf.
Matt. 5:21ff.).122

We now turn to Mark 7:15, widely regarded as an authentic Jesus logion

(although independent of the earlier discussion in Mark 7:1-8). Some doubts,
however, have been expressed by Sanders and Harvey.12, Sanders doubts
that if Jesus had made such a clear pronouncement, then Peter and James
could hardly have contended for the maintenance of food laws in the earliest
church. This sort of critique ignores several key factors. First, the Gospel
tradition is clear that many things Jesus said were not immediately
understood either by the disciples or others. Second, the metaphorical nature
of this saying lends itself to several possible interpretations. Third, even
Mark feels it necessary to explain the saying in 7:15 to his much later
Christian audience, suggesting that the meaning cannot be assumed to be
obvious. Fourth, if Mark is writing to a predominantly gentile audience, then
there would have been no need to create such a saying because his audience
would not assume the uncleanness of food. In short, the saying must be at
least pre-Markan and thus have been passed on at some point by the Jewish
Christian community, which assuredly did not invent such a saying. Finally,
Paul, a Pharisee, would not have come up with the principle he states in
Rom. 14:14 about nothing being unclean of itself, had there not been some
Jesus tradition or precedent in the earliest period of the church for such a
remark. 124 More likely, Paul's remark goes back to the saying in Mark 7:4-
15 than he came up with the same idea independently. I conclude that the
arguments against the authenticity of this saying are strained.

Bultmann tells us that in form this saying is probably a wisdom utter-

ance,12S more specifically, a mashal or metaphorical utterance in two parts.
126 As Daube puts it, "it is deliberately obscure. In fact to the public at large
.. . it must sound like an allusion to some strange piece of magic."127 The
first half of the saying must refer to food, with the point being that no food
that goes into a person can make him or her unclean. This member of the
twofold saying could stand on its own, but probably should not.
Nonetheless, even if only this part of the saying is authentic, it presents a
strong case for the view that Jesus judged the laws in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14, as well as oral expansions on them, no longer were valid.
Perhaps Jesus said this because he believed that a new situation prevailed for
believers because the kingdom was now breaking into human history.

Booth tries to negate the force of the usual interpretation by contending

that we have here a relative rather than an absolute contrast, the oulalla
construction, meaning "nothing outside a person defiles that person as much
as things that come from within it."128 This is possible, and a Semitic
dialectical comparison using contrastive terms could lie behind the text here,
but there are serious problems with this view. First, whatever the text
originally meant, in light of 7:19b Mark obviously understands the Greek
construction in 7:15 to indicate a clear contrast, and it may well be that Mark
has formulated this saying in Greek for the first time. Second, we do not
have here the simple oulalla formula but rather oudenlalla. The word ouden
here must mean "nothing," and I can find no examples where ouden
simpliciter means "not so much." Nor can ouden simply mean "not" or "no"
here because the point refers to some object or lack of it that enters the
human being from outside. The United Bible Societies Greek New
Testament suggests a colon before the saying introduced by alla, not the
comma one might expect if a simple oulalla construction was in view here.
Third, the difficulty of this saying favors its authenticity, in view of the
tendency in later Gospel material to depict Jesus as a law-abiding Jew. It
stands in contrast to the positions of both early Judaism and the earliest
Jewish Christian church. On the basis of the criterion of dissimilarity, its
claims to authenticity are impeccable if the clear contrast is the intent of the
saying.

The second half of the saying is more enigmatic than the first. The phrase
"but that which goes forth from a person is the thing that makes a person
unclean" might refer to the emission of bodily fluids or waste such as semen,
urine, excrement, or spittle. 129 If this saying was originally given by Jesus
to the Pharisees, then this is how the second half of the saying would have
been understood. In fact, 7:19a might favor this interpretation with the
reference to that which goes into the stomach and then out into the latrine. It
is not until we get to 7:21-22 that we can deduce a ritual/moral impurity
contrast, and some contend that this material is Mark's own moralistic
expansion on the original saying. Regardless, one conclusion seems firm on
the basis of Mark 7:15: Jesus was no Pharisee, and he seems to have
assumed the authority to declare some portions of Torah invalid. Westerholm
says that Jesus

did not recognize scribal authority as binding.... It seems clear that he

conceived the will of God and the nature of biblical law in a different
fashion ... whereas Pharisaic halakhah found the will of God in the
divinely ordained statutes of scripture, all of which had to be carefully
obeyed, Jesus shows an apparent indifference toward certain aspects of
 the scriptural law.... His repeated statements that purity is an inner, not
external, matter make the observance of scriptural rules of ritual purity
for their own sake ... religiously indifferent.... His attacks against the
tradition are not motivated by the view that it is extrabiblical and thus
lacking in authority, but by a fundamentally different conception of the
will of God. Jesus did not define the will of God in terms of the careful
fulfillment of scripture's statutes; for him the attitude of the heart was
critical.10

This is not merely a matter of priorities or of repeating the prophetic

message of getting back to the heart of the law-sediqa and hesed.131 Jesus
seems to assume an authority over Torah that no Pharisee or Old Testament
prophet assumed -the authority to set it aside. What is striking about the way
Jesus relates to the law is that his response in the authentic material seems
varied. Sometimes he affirms the validity of some portions of the law.132
Sometimes he intensifies the law's demands (e.g., portions of the Sermon on
the Mount), a point of view that does not violate the law but goes beyond it.
133 Sometimes he adds new material, apparently of juridical force, to the
law (e.g., his teaching on adultery and divorce in Mark 10/Matthew 19).13'
Sometimes he sets aside the Torah as he does in Mark 7:15.135 In short, he
feels free not only to operate with a selective hermeneutic but also to add
and subtract from Scripture.

All of this suggests that Jesus did not see himself as a Galilean hasid or
another prophet, even one like Elijah. He saw himself in a higher or more
authoritative category than either of these types familiar to Jewish believers,
but we cannot substantiate this conclusion without first looking at texts
where Jesus interacts with the Pharisees and then at texts indicating his view
of the law. At this point, we can say with Westerholm:

the centre of Jesus' ministry was not his understanding of the law of
God, but the message of divine intervention in the history of God's
people:... Jesus' message for "sinners" was not that a true understanding
of God's law showed them to be either more or less sinners than the
Pharisees made them out to be; sinners they were but God's salvation
had come near to them as well117'
THE SABBATH-REST OR RESTORATION?

Mark depicts Jesus at odds with the Pharisees over what he or his disciples
are doing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28 and par.; healing on the Sabbath,
Mark 3:1ff. and par.; and the unique Luke 13:10-17). On the basis of
multiple attestation we may be rather certain Jesus did have such
controversies in regard to Sabbath behavior.

Yet Sanders suggests that a story like Mark 2:23-28 is too unrealistic to be
considered an authentic report of Jesus' behavior. He parodies the narrative:
"Pharisees did not organize themselves into groups to spend their Sabbaths
in Galilean cornfields in the hope of catching someone trans- gressing."137
This caricature makes the story seem too fantastic to be believed. Sanders's
skepticism is based on the belief that there were few if any Pharisees in
Galilee before A.D. 70 and that it is unlikely that the Judean Pharisees made
long expeditions to catch Jesus as a lawbreaker. Reasons to believe that there
were Pharisees in Galilee have already been given. Further, if Jesus really
was a controversial teacher and healer, then he would have been precisely
the kind of person the Pharisees would have investigated to see whether he
agreed with or was a threat to their ideas and authority.

I grant that Galilee was probably looked upon by the Pharisees rather like
a mission field, for Freyne has shown that in some regards (such as on the
matter of paying the temple terumoth, the half shekel) Galileans apparently
followed Sadducean rather than Pharisaic practice, and so would have been
considered lax by the stricter Pharisees. But even allowing for this fact,
Freyne's careful conclusion is warranted: "It still does not seem possible to
eliminate completely a genuine confrontation between Jesus and
Pharisaism.... When all these passages have been subjected to a thorough
form- and redaction-critical analysis they still leave no reasonable doubt that
Jesus was at odds with the Pharisees on a number of crucial points in their
piety."138

As Mark 2:23-28 is presented, there are various views of what happened,

none of which require us to envision Pharisees lurking in cornfields on the
Sabbath waiting to catch Jesus. In fact, the story says nothing of them even
being in the fields. Verse 24 simply says that the Pharisees spoke to Jesus
about the conduct of his disciples. While Ide could mean that the Pharisees
observed the disciples' behavior on that Sabbath, it may mean no more than
"Look here, why are your disciples acting in this fashion?" a question that
could have been raised after the occurrence as well as during it. Mark's
account is elliptical and does not explain the location of the Pharisees. In any
case, Sanders has to read more into the location of the dispute than is
warranted.

Its form is a conflict-speech that ends with a final pronouncement to

silence the critics. Should we see v. 28 as part of the original story, or as a
redactional summary to bring out the christological import of the story? In
view of the grammatical awkwardness of the verse being tacked onto verse
27 by means of a hoste clause, even such a conservative commentator as
Cranfield is willing to grant that the verse is an editorial conclusion.139

The remainder of the pericope seems authentic. First, the reference to

Abiathar as high priest creates difficulties and probably was not invented by
the early church because it appears to place an error in Jesus' mouth. Second,
this story is about the behavior of the disciples, not Jesus, although Jesus
accepts responsibility for his disciples' behavior. Later polemic was more
likely to make this a direct fete d fete between Jesus and the Pharisees about
Jesus' behavior in which he is vindicated. In short, a direct christological
focus might be suspect, but not the narrative itself as presented in Mark.
Third, this pericope does not elaborate on the possible parallels between
Jesus and David. Daube stresses that this narrative reflects the ordinary
dynamic between disciples and their teacher, in which the latter assumes
responsibility for his followers' behavior. The implication is that he either
passively accepts or actively endorses such behavior because he does not
correct it.10 "So powerful is a master's position that an action he condones
may be imputed to him just as much as one he initiates.""' In short, this
narrative depicts a relationship between Jesus and his followers which is
believable in Jesus' pre-A.D. 70 Jewish Sitz im Leben.
 The bone of contention in this story is neither the plucking and eating of
standing corn-the Old Testament specifically permits this (cf. Deut. 23:24-
25; Lev. 19:9-10, 23:22; Deut. 24:19ff.)-nor the length of the disciples'
Sabbath journey, but the time when these actions transpire-on the Sabbath.
Several approaches have been taken to the appeal to David's example in this
pericope. First, possibly it is meant to establish a precedent in extremis for
the disciples' behavior. Against this there is no indication in the text that
eating was a life or death matter for the disciples in this case. Even strict
Pharisees seem to have agreed that life-threatening situations overrode the
prohibition against work on the Sabbath. No such situation is found here.

Second, it might be an example of Jesus' selective hermeneutic and

prioritizing-stressing that moral matters take precedence over ritual ones.
Although possible, this does not fully explain why the story proceeds as it
does. Is the issue that there are special circumstances that-or special persons
who-can change the rules of the game? In view of the climax (2:27), the
implicit issue is Jesus' interpretation of the Sabbath which allows behavior
seemingly in violation of Exod. 16:25-26, which rules out gleaning and
plucking. Thus, the issue in this case, as in Mark 7:15, is neither oral Torah
nor the traditions of the elders but the written Torah itself. R. Banks sees
here "a novel use of the Old Testament, christological in character, so
striking that it must stem from Jesus himself."12 Given his reading of
7:2728, Banks is probably right to suggest that by this quote Jesus "is
insisting that if only the Pharisees had understood something of the nature of
his mission they would not have condemned his disciples for their
action."tom

Third, an attempt can be made to fend off the apparent radical direction of
Jesus' permission to glean and the accompanying saying by quoting Mekil.
Exod. 13.14 or B. T. Yom. 85b: "the Sabbath is delivered to you and not you
to the Sabbath." These quotes are from a later period of Jewish history, and
H. Braun is probably right to point out that "this rule of conduct ... only
signifies that the Sabbath might be violated only to rescue a human life."1"
The thrust of 2:27 is rather different from this. Jesus' point of view seems to
be that human beings do not exist for the sake of the law, but rather the
converse. The function of the Sabbath is to restore and renew creation to its
full capacity, just as leaving the land fallow for a sabbatical year might do.

The disciples' eating was a means of restoration and renewal for them.
Thus, they should be permitted to eat, even at the expense of specific, dear
prohibitions in the law. In short, Jesus sees it as part of his mission to
interpret matters according to their true or original intention, no longer
making allowances for the hardness of human hearts. This is especially clear
in Jesus' teaching on marriage in which he appeals to the creation order and
the fact that "from the beginning it was not so."1*5 This approach seems to
be implicit in both the allowance of the disciples to glean and the response in
2:27. This does not amount to appealing to one part of Scripture over
another. Rather, there is in the midst of the Pharisees a distinctive person
uniquely authorized by God who, like David, might do something creative
and new. This meant that at least some of the old rules no longer applied, for
a new situation was dawning, a divine dominion was breaking in through the
ministry of Jesus. Jesus was offering new commandments or possibilities in
light of the new eschatological situation.146

The explanatory power of this view of Jesus' actions is evident when we

apply it both here and in the healing-on-the-Sabbath stories. Because I have
already treated two of these stories in detail,117 it is sufficient to quote
Banks's conclusion that they

give an invaluable insight into Jesus' attitude towards the sabbath. For
him it is not only a day upon which it is appropriate to heal, it is the day
on which one must do so. . . . His practice is a direct consequence of his
understanding of his mission, not in the first instance, an attempt to
provoke the Pharisaic opposition by transgressing either the oral or
written Law. Inasmuch as it may run counter to the Mosaic Law it is
indicative again of his position above it, not an explicit stand against it.
148

From this conclusion a question arises: What sort of person takes such a
stance in relation to the law?
 The categories of teacher or prophet are inadequate to explain such a
stance: We have here either a lawbreaker or one who stands above the law
and uses it to fit his mission and the new situation that results from that
mission. The latter seems more probable because of Jesus' careful regard for
some aspects of the law. Infidels are not concerned about scrupulous
observance of some laws when they feel free to violate others with impunity.
All of this suggests that whether or not Jesus was right about himself, he did
conceive of himself as being in a special and perhaps almost unprecedented
(with the exception of David?) category vis-a-vis the Old Testament law and
other institutions of Judaism. Although he does not make this clear in so
many words, it is implicit in both his actions and words, especially in the
controversies with the Pharisees.

Possible confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus' view of the law

comes from the sayings of a near contemporary of Jesus, Johanan ben
Zakkai, who is reported to have been a disciple of Hillel and who migrated
north to Galilee during the period when Jerusalem and the temple were about
to fall. After a lengthy discussion about the matters of clean and unclean, the
passage in Numbers Rabbah 19.2 concludes: "It is not the dead that defiles
nor the water that purifies. The Holy One, blessed be He merely says: 'I have
laid down a statute ... I have issued a decree. You are not allowed to
transgress My decree."' In Strack-Billerbeck, a volume that must be used
with caution, it is suggested that this was Johanan's polemic against Jesus'
novel attitude toward the law,149 in particular Mark 7:15. This is
conceivable and suggests that some in Johanan's day were actually
questioning the validity or at least the applicability of some of the law. Jesus
was the sort of person who would have received Johanan's censure, whether
or not he actually responded to Jesus in this famous dictum.

Harvey's treatment on the constraints of history has suggested that there

was a particular set of parameters within which Jesus must have operated in
order to be understood, much less accepted, by his Jewish contemporaries. I
agree that he had to communicate in understandable terms and categories,
although he did not have to agree with current or popular uses of such terms
and categories. As N. T. Wright pointed out, one needs to be fairly flexible
when using such an approach because it is impossible to say with certainty
that Jesus could or could not have said or done one thing or another.10 We
do not know enough about pre-A.D. 70 Judaism to be certain what the outer
limits of comprehensibility or acceptability might have been.

From what we do know, however, it appears that, for both the Pharisees
and the ordinary observant Jew, Jesus' actions and sayings as depicted in
Mark 2:23ff. and 7:15 suggest that he sometimes stepped beyond what was
normally perceived to be the acceptable limits of Jewish diversity. His
actions, however, were at least partially comprehensible even to nondisciples
because he does frequently talk and act in ways that seem to communicate to
an audience wider than the Twelve.

Did Jesus see himself as the dispenser of a new Torah in the messianic
age? W. D. Davies showed with reasonable certainty that the rabbinic
material that talks in terms of a new Torah in the messianic age post-dates
A.D. 70. Nevertheless, the evidence, especially from the intertestamental and
early rabbinic literature, allows Davies to conclude:

We can at least affirm that there were elements inchoate in the Messianic
hope of Judaism, which could make it possible for some to regard the
Messianic Age as marked by a New Torah, new indeed ... not merely in
the sense that it affirmed the old on a new level, but in such a way to
justify the adjective HDSHH that was applied to it.'61

What this means is that it is conceivable, in a setting like pre-A.D. 70

Palestine, where there was considerable messianic fervor among various
elements of the population, for Jesus to have introduced a lex nova, or at
least a novel approach to the old law supplemented by his own teaching,
especially if he felt that the messianic age was being ushered in by his own
ministry. We have yet to show that Jesus believed this.
FASTING OR FEASTING?

In our discussion of Jesus' relationship to the Baptist we discerned that there

were elements of continuity and discontinuity between John's movement and
that of Jesus. In Mark 2:18-22 we find yet another element of discontinuity -
Jesus' disciples do not fast as a regular practice. It is possible that the
reference to the Pharisees here is redactional. This is not a necessary
inference on several accounts. Fasting was one of the pillars of Pharisaism.
The Pharisees made a practice of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays (cf.
Luke 18:12; M. Taan. 1.4-5; B.T. Taan. 10a). The Old Testament required
fasting only on Yom Kippur (cf. Exod. 20:10; Num. 29:9-11; Lev. 35:9), but
at the end of the prophetic period other fast days were being practiced (cf.
Zech. 7:5; 8:19; cf. J.T. Taan. 68a-d). Note that, as in the Sabbath
controversy story, at issue is the behavior of Jesus' disciples, which may
suggest the earliness of this narrative because there appears to have been a
tendency to give Gospel stories more of a christocentric focus as the
tradition developed.

Reference to Jesus' death in this pericope is unlikely, it is objected, at so

early a point in the ministry. Mark has probably not presented this material
in its original chronological setting. This story reflects a time when John was
already dead and his disciples were mourning and fasting as a result. More
likely, the placement of this story is due to Mark's (or his source's) desire to
group together various narratives about Jesus' controversies with the Phari-
sees.1s2 The reference to "the disciples of the Pharisees" is another objection
to this story's authenticity. This may refer to nothing more than the lay
adherents of the Pharisaic teachers. Pharisees taken as a group did not have
disciples, but some of their individual scribes or teachers did.

The sayings in 2:21-22 were originally a separate unit, as is suggested by

the absence of any linking words at the beginning of 2:21. Focusing our
attention on 2:18-20, the form is a pronouncement story. It has been argued
that 2:19b-20 because of its allegorical element is likely to reflect a later
Christian creation, and thus is not part of the original material. Against this,
as Cranfield noted, there is already an element of allegory in 2:19a. In any
case, as R. E. Brown has shown, various Jewish meshalim had allegorical
elements so that a hard and fast distinction between a parable and supposed
later allegorical accretions cannot be made. Parables in Jesus' day and before
often had allegorical elements.1S3 Yet, there is no explicit reference here to
Jesus as the bridegroom. Later Christian tradition was not reluctant to make
this idea more explicit (cf. Eph. 5:22-32; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7, 9; 21:2, 9;
22:17). Lane says, "Although the image of the wedding feast was sometimes
used by the rabbis to express the joy of the messianic era, neither in the Old
Testament nor in later Jewish literature was the Messiah represented as the
bridegroom. "154 Thus, whatever Jesus intended by this reference, it would
not likely have been immediately understood as any sort of explicit
messianic claim. There was no conventional notion of messiah as
bridegroom. Thus, 2:19b-20 fit the pattern that we have noted all along-
Jesus, when making claims about himself through word or deed, employed
an indirect and allusive (and some might say elusive) manner to avoid
identification with various popular notions of the day.

The question about fasting is raised by the Baptist's followers and the
Pharisee's adherents. Jesus' disciples did not make it a habit to fast.', Jesus'
response is by analogy-the situation is like the circumstances of a Jewish
wedding. Are "the sons of the bridechamber"'-',6 to fast as long as the
bridegroom is with them? While the bridegroom is with them, they are not
able to fast.', But days will come when he will be taken away from them, and
then they will fast in that day.

No explicit mention is made as to how the bridegroom will be taken away.

We might expect a more explicit reference to crucifixion or a violent death if
this were a later church creation. The passive aparthe implies that God will
conclude the bridegroom's life at some future time (an example of a divine
passive in which God is the implied agent of the action). The verb itself
means to take away or remove, although there is no strong sense of a violent
removal (cf. Isa. 53:8 LXX where the context implies violent removal). Here
Jesus implies that the time of his life and ministry is a time for joy and
celebration-for feasting, not fasting. Fasting is and will be appropriate at a
time of mourning after the bridegroom is removed from the earthly scene.
This might be analogous to the present situation of the Baptist's followers
who are fasting as part of their mourning for their departed leader.

Thus, Jesus seems aware of bringing about a new or different set of affairs
that are cause for celebration. The celebration is not only because the
kingdom is breaking in but also because Jesus is dwelling in the midst of his
disciples. This saying also reinforces our earlier conclusion that Jesus was no
Pharisee. But there is a further point - if the text does not imply John is dead,
then perhaps we are meant to see a distinction between what characterizes
the disciples of Jesus while he is present and the disciples of John. In any
event, the appropriateness of celebration due to a special occurrence or
person should not be missed. What Jesus was about prompted, if not
required, an appropriate response. The failure of the inquisitors to see
something special in the situation, or perhaps even in Jesus, caused their
failure to understand the behavior of Jesus' disciples.
BANQUETING WITH THE BAD

Jesus most certainly directed his attention to the least, the lost, and the last
among Israel's populace.158 In particular, Jesus had a reputation of sharing
in table fellowship with such people, as is confirmed by the criterion of
multiple attestation (cf. from L, Luke 7:36-50; 19:1-10; from Q, Matt.
11:1911 Luke 7:34; and our present text, Mark 2:15-17 and par.). But who
were these people?

Biblical scholarship tends to identify the sinners with the am ha 'aretz and
to assume telonai refers to those who worked for the Romans, when it may
refer to customs officials who worked for Herod Antipas or Philip. Sanders's
work establishes clearly that the am ha 'aretz cannot simply be equated with
the sinners of the New Testament.119 Nor should the poor be equated with
the sinners. When Jesus associated with the outcasts of society, it is not that
he associated with the common folk who did not observe all the ritual purity
rules of the haberim. The rabbinic sources urged Pharisees (in particular, the
haberim among them) not to have table fellowship with the am ha 'aretz.16°
Yet this does not make the am ha 'aretz sinners; it means they are not as
ritually observant as the Pharisees or, in particular, the haberim.

In the sixty or so Old Testament references to this phrase, am ha 'aretz is

not a technical term of either a polemical or negative nature. Indeed, it is not
a technical term at all .161 The phrase varies in reference from context to
context with Bretz meaning everything from a particular village and its
surrounding area, to a region, to the nation as a whole. Yet, the term is not
used to indicate a particular kind of people. There is a distinction in some
intertestamental documents like the Psalms of Solomon between the sinner
(or wicked) and the righteous (or devout), but this is a moral distinction
without any connection between this usage and the idea of the am ha 'aretz
(cf. Pss. Sol. 2:34ff.; 3; 12:6). This moral distinction is relevant to our
discussion of Mark 2:15-17, especially 17b.

Examining the uses of the term sinner in the Synoptics discloses that it is
used differently in various contexts. In Mark 14:41 the term sinner refers to
Jesus' enemies who are coming to arrest him. Here also the word means
something like "immoral people" (cf. Luke 24:7). But in Luke 13:1-3 we
find the term referring to everyone, much like the usages of later Christianity
and some early Jewish literature (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:21-22). Again the term here
does not mean the ritually non-observant but appears to have a more general
moral sense: All fall short of God's righteous moral requirements." Thus,
neither the biblical, extrabiblical, nor rabbinic evidence suggests that
"sinner" designates the ordinary people of the land, the common folk who
were not as ritually observant as the Pharisees or, especially, the haberim.
Rather, the term sinner always has a moral connotation, and varies in
meaning from a broad reference to all humans in their moral inadequacy in
the sight of God to a more specific reference to a notable group of moral
failures. In the later case, the term is a virtual equivalent to the wicked and
refers to those considered morally suspect or even openly immoral.163

It is this last group, the morally suspect and openly immoral, that Jesus
says he came to call and with whom he had table fellowship. Not
surprisingly, this behavior was considered scandalous by the Pharisees and
especially by the haberim, who would have seen such table fellowship as the
antithesis of their own. Examining Mark 2:15-17 and 14:41 together, it is
striking that Jesus classified his arrestors in the same category as the openly
immoral-the wicked-with whom Jesus was accused of associating. In Mark
2:15-17 note that Jesus agrees with his adversaries in calling his table
companions sinners, although his use of righteous may be ironic in his final
reply.

A. Oppenheimer's detailed study shows that the term am ha 'aretz cannot

refer to a particular class of persons such as the poor. Rather, both poor and
rich can be classified in this way if they are neglectful of strict observance of
various rules of ritual purity. Indeed, even a priest can be classified as an am
ha 'aretz (M. Hor. 3.8). Furthermore, the am ha 'aretz cannot be said to be the
dominant social group in Galilee as distinguished from the case in Judea. As
Oppenheimer states: "The sources ... do not testify to a sparseness of the
knowledge of Torah and of the observance of the commandments in Galilee,
nor to its having been inhabited by 'ammei ha-aretz.' The evidence in the
New Testament about the Sages who came to Galilee from Jerusalem do not
prove that in Galilee itself there were no Sages." 164 Oppenheimer even
dismantles the assumption that Jesus' followers can be identified as or with
the am ha 'aretz. The characteristic of the ammei ha 'aretz-that they neglected
various strict rules about ritual purity-can be distinguished from Jesus'
attitude, namely, that such rules cannot merely be neglected but even
declared no longer applicable (Mark 7:15). In contrast, the ammei ha 'aretz
neither opposed nor denied the validity of such rules; they just did not fully
observe them. Thus, although it may be the case that Jesus had various
ammei ha 'aretz among his followers, the two groups should not be
identified. Oppenheimer's summary definition is instructive: "the ammei ha-
aretz ... were not a sect with its own principles but rather a social stream that
had neither social institutions nor frameworks, and that were not scrupulous
in the observance of all the commandments and in the study of the Torah in
accordance with the outlook of the Sages and the teachers of the Torah
.11161 The image of Jesus leading a sort of disgruntled peasant group from
Galilee that was opposed to the Pharisees finds no basis in the material about
the am ha 'aretz. It might be nearer to the mark to say Jesus focused on the
anawim in his ministry, which no doubt included some who were neglectful
of strict Torah observance.

Further insight into the meaning of Mark 2:15-17 is gained from the
Qumran material.'" On the basis of 1QSa 2.17-21 and 1QS 6.4-5, the table
fellowship Jesus was sharing with sinners was not merely a foreshadowing
but a foretaste of the messianic banquet, when those from all sorts of places
and walks of life would sit down at table together. The Qumran evidence
suggests that "the Qumranites were ... celebrating their regular community
meals as if the messiahs were already there, that is, were celebrating in
anticipation of the future consummation. "167 Jesus' views of who would be
included in the consummate banquet differed from the Qumranite views.
Nonetheless, it is notable that the Qumran text reads "when Messiah shall
summon them ... they shall gather for the common [tab]le, to eat and [to
drink] new wine ... Thereafter the Messiah of Israel shall extend his hand
over the bread, [and] all the Congregation of the Community [shall utter a]
blessing ... It is according to this statute that they shall proceed at every met
all at [which] at least ten men are gathered together."16° Apart from the last
line, one might think the subject was purely the future messianic banquet,
but the last line makes clear that the banquet is being shared in the present as
well.

It is uncertain whether Mark 2:13-14 should be included with 2:15-17, or

whether the two stories have been associated because of the common theme
of the calling of customs or tax collectors to follow Jesus or have fellowship
with him. Thus, we shall not contend for the unity of this material. In regard
to 2:13-14, the Synoptics are unanimous that Jesus had at least one
deliberately called customs official among his inner circle. There is no
reason to doubt the authenticity of this testimony even if the tradition is not
completely dear on the name of this individual -Levi or Matthew. It is
striking, however, that the "sinners and tax (or customs) collectors" are
found together in a variety of sources in the Gospels (cf. Luke 15:2; Matt.
11:19 and par.; Mark 2:16 and par.), suggesting an association of groups that
goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. Furthermore, the evidence from the
Psalms of Solomon makes the contrast of sinners and righteous in the final
pronouncement of 2:17b believable on the lips of Jesus. Thus, there are no
significant obstacles to taking vv. 2:15-17 as reflecting a situation in the life
of Jesus and his response to it.

It is uncertain from 2:15 whose house Jesus is in, but because the
connection with 2:13-14 is probably not original, it may even be that Jesus'
own house is in view. If this is the case, then we see him not merely
attending a banquet with the wicked and the customs collectors but hosting
one. Because the Greek text is not clear on this point, we will build nothing
on that suggestion. We are told that this was no private affair with an isolated
Zaccheus, but a dinner with many tax collectors and sinners. There may also
be reference to numerous disciples as well, even though the text is
ambiguous on this point. The reference to the scribes of the Pharisees
appears to reflect a viable distinction, revealing a knowledge that not all
Pharisees were experts in or copiers of Torah. This same distinction, found
in another source (Acts 23:9), suggests its historical accuracy. That the
scribes object to Jesus' behavior (and here it is his behavior that is at issue,
although his disciples are confronted about it) is quite understandable in
view of some of the things the Old Testament says about the wicked (cf. Ps.
10:15; 141:5; and esp. Prov. 2:22; 10:30; 14:9: "God scorns the wicked, but
the upright enjoy his favor").

How could Jesus be a godly man, much less sent by God, if he acted in
contrast to what the Scriptures said about the wicked and about God's
attitude toward the wicked? Again Jesus' behavior would be seen as
deliberate disobedience to Torah and its warning about the wicked. This is
why more than one commentator has urged that Jesus' view of the law
threatened the national existence, hence the strong negative reaction by
Pharisees and others.19 Borg has put it this way:

Holiness as the cultural dynamic shaping Israel's ethos had originated as

a survival strategy during the exile and afterward as the Jewish people
pondered their recent experience of destruction and suffering. They were
determined to be faithful to God in order to avoid another outpouring of
divine judgement. Moreover, as a small social group-a conquered one at
that, bereft of kingship ... they were profoundly endangered by the
possibility of assimilation into the surrounding cultures ... The quest for
holiness addressed both needs. It was the path of faithfulness and the
path of social survival ... The laws regarding purity and tithing were the
major focus of the Pharisaic intensification of holiness. The Pharisaic
program thus addressed the greatest source of non-observance, that
created by the double system of taxation.10

Thus, Jesus' behavior on the Sabbath, his behavior toward sinners, and his
pronouncement about clean and unclean would certainly have been
perceived by the Pharisees as a direct threat to Jewish survival and, in fact, a
form of unfaithfulness to God. Not surprisingly, they are depicted as openly
hostile toward Jesus. The irony is that Jesus saw the Pharisaic approach to
holiness as the real threat to both the internal cohesion of God's people and
to their survival -because such a strict approach to holiness left most people
on the outside.

Mark 2:17a is likely a conventional or proverbial saying (cf. Mekil. Exod.

15:26; Pausanias ap. Plutarch Apophthegmata Laconica 230F). Jesus, like
many others, could occasionally draw on conventional material. This saying
gives us clear insight into how Jesus viewed himself and his ministry like a
doctor whose task is to help those who are ill or in need of treatment. This
image of Jesus as physician is also found in another layer of the tradition in
Luke 4:23 where once again it is coupled with a conventional or proverbial
saying.

The physician analogy suggests two things: Jesus understood his life task
as helping and healing the least, the last, and the lost; and he knew that
inherent in that agenda was a setting aside or transcending of any observance
of certain Old Testament laws about ritual purity and the proper separation
of the wicked and the righteous. To reclaim the wicked for God, Jesus had to
be willing to at least abrogate or transcend certain provisions of the Old
Testament law, not unlike a doctor who when assuming the responsibilities
of a physician also assumes the risk of contracting the patient's condition,
even though this is not intended. Thus, it was an inherent byproduct of Jesus'
ministry that strict obedience to the written Torah, much less to the oral
Torah, was an impossibility. This ministry to sinners and tax collectors (who
here were probably customs officials of Herod Antipas, not Rome) also
resulted in his being reckoned as one of the wicked in some minds. Now,
when we investigate some of the likely authentic sayings of Jesus that depict
him as upholding some portions of the law, 171 it will become apparent that
probably in Jesus' own mind he saw himself in his ministry to sinners as
transcending the old restrictions in light of the new situation created by the
Kingdom breaking-in in his ministry. In short, it is doubtful he saw himself
as a lawbreaker, but surely various of those who did not interpret Jesus'
ministry as he did would have seen him as such. As Dodd once said of the
Pharisees' attitude about Jesus, "It was that they discerned in Him an attitude
in religious matters which was fundamentally inconsistent with their
presuppositions. "172

One final issue from Mark 2:15-17 remains: Are we to assume that v. 17b
is meant to be serious or ironic? How we read the tenor of the remark will
determine how it should be interpreted. If it is ironic, then the term dikaios
would mean something like the so-called righteous. In some texts, however,
Jesus seems to allow that the scribes and Pharisees did maintain a laudable
standard of righteousness (e.g., Matt. 5:20), although there is also plenty of
polemical material which could suggest the contrary (cf. Matt. 23:1-7, esp. v.
2, and Mark 12:38-40). The problem in evaluating this varied polemical
material is that we cannot always be sure that Jesus is addressing the same
group of Pharisees or scribes or haberim in each case, and further some texts
possibly reflect an earlier, some a later, perspective during the ministry.
Some of these remarks may have come after the Pharisaic evaluation of
Jesus had changed or had become unreservedly negative, and some texts are
held to reflect a Christian polemical viewpoint dating to after A.D. 85. For
this reason we will not be including the more polemical material in our
discussion of Jesus and the Pharisees as its authenticity is difficult to
establish.

Taking Mark 2:17b on its own, we need to concentrate on the focus of the
text, not on its possible implications about the righteous. The point is Jesus
came to call sinners, and this meant that he was directing his ministry
especially to a particular type of Israelite-the least, last, and lost. This did not
rule out others from aligning themselves with Jesus, indeed when Jesus uses
the phrase lost sheep of Israel, he seems to refer to all of Israel. The term
hamartolos in Mark 2:15-17 should not be assumed to have its later Pauline
meaning where it refers to all fallen human beings. Rather, the usage here is
more in line with earlier Jewish literature, especially the Wisdom literature.
What then does it mean to "call" sinners? Presumably this means to invite
them to become disciples, or possibly to summon them to repentance in view
of the inbreaking kingdom or both. What is striking about this behavior is
that Jesus does not require repentance or changed behavior in advance of
having table fellowship with the sinners. Rather, he seeks them out as they
are, and without prerequisites calls them to face the implications of his
ministry and the inbreaking Dominion of God. This interpretation comports
with two other important pieces of data about Jesus' ministry. First, among
his disciples or the wider circle of his followers were various sorts of people
from the fringes or outcasts of society-a tax collector, possibly a Zealot,
some fishermen, some women, and some sinners. Second, Jesus' vision of
guests at the messianic banquet appears to have included such people (cf. the
Q saying Matt. 8:11-12/Luke 13:29). Possibly then he saw meals with
sinners and tax collectors as a foreshadowing or foretaste of that banquet in
the kingdom. This may imply that he saw himself as fulfilling a messianic
mission. Schi rmann argues that on occasion, Jesus performed not "prophetic
symbolic actions" so much as "eschatological fulfillment signs." 73
Banqueting with the bad may have been one such sign that the
eschatological reign of God had broken in.

We have now come to the end of our discussion of Jesus' relationship to

the Pharisees. B. Lindars has summed up his impressions of the data this
way:

On the one hand Jesus preaches the crisis of the coming kingdom, and
draws attention to the piercing moral challenge which this entails. On
the other hand he practices a compassionate ministry, which frequently
involves him in setting aside the strict application of the law, so that he
runs the risk of incriminating himself with the scribes and Pharisees."'

From a very different starting point U. Luz concludes:

Jesus was certainly also rejected by many Pharisees. His liberal

interpretation of the Sabbath laws and especially his freedom regarding
the regulations governing ritual cleanliness must have appeared
problematic to the Pharisees, one of whose chief concerns was the ritual
purity of the whole people of God (Israel).... I for one do not consider
the numerous scenes in the Gospels which speak of conflict between
Jesus and the Pharisees have all been fabricated . . .175

I see little reason to disagree with these assessments. Surely Jesus was no
Pharisee, but rather in the arguably authentic Gospel material he is always
depicted as being in controversy with them.

In terms of the christological implications of this material, we have seen

indirect evidence that Jesus viewed himself as more than just a prophet or
teacher. How he handles Torah, especially in terms of his own ministry's
priorities, suggests a person who thought of himself in ways that a Galilean
hasid never did. In fact, texts such as Mark 2:18-22 suggest that Jesus
believed he and his ministry represented something distinctive and special,
which were cause for special celebration-an idea that comports with the
feasting with sinners and tax collectors. The analogy with David and his
situation in Mark 2:23-28 suggests at least a special person and special
circumstances are the explanation for the disciples' behavior. Implicit
messianic implications may be here. Mark 7:15 makes quite clear that Jesus'
attitude toward the law is not one that a typical teacher or prophet would
assume. Not only does Jesus appeal to one part of the law against another,
but he also deems some of the law no longer applicable or, to put it another
way, abrogated in view of the new situation of the Kingdom's coming in his
ministry. He believes that he is implementing God's true intentions for
humanity in institutions such as the Sabbath, even though the way he acts is
at variance with the usual understanding in early Judaism of the Old
Testament Sabbath texts.

Who, then, did Jesus think he was? In this section we have seen an
individual who thought he had authority over and above the Torah, a person
who did not agree with the Pharisees about oral Torah, a person who felt that
the new situation caused by his ministry was reason for celebration and
special responses. In short, he was a person who appears to have thought that
'new occasions teach new duties.'

Later we will examine in more detail the possibility that Jesus also saw
himself as God's Shaliach, or special agent imbued with the full authority of
the Father and sent on a special mission of limited duration to reclaim what
belonged to the Father. We have already seen some indications that this is
how Jesus may have viewed himself. Indeed, the material we have examined
so far seems to point in this direction for two reasons: (1) the way Jesus
takes an independent line, acting in accord with how he perceived his own
task, even if it meant going against either the Traditions of the fathers or the
Torah or both; (2) the way Jesus is held responsible for his disciples' actions
and how they are queried about his actions suggest a relationship of agency
as well as discipleship. Clearly the relationship of Jesus and his inner circle
is a close one in terms of word and deed.
JESUS, REVOLUTIONARIES, AND ROMANS

Obtaining an adequate historical perspective on a matter is often difficult,

and nowhere is this more the case than in trying to assess how Jesus felt
about the revolutionary response to Rome by some Jews. Bound up with this
is the issue of what form or forms that revolutionary response actually took
from A.D. 6 until the fall of Jerusalem and beyond. This means we need to
assess both Gospel data and the accuracy of the historian Josephus. What are
we to make of his various and apparently contradictory references to Zealots,
brigands, revolutionaries, bandits, robbers, and the sicarii to mention only
some of the terms he uses to describe those who were willing to take
weapons in their hands during the period A.D. 6-74? We need to deal with
Josephus and his perspective on the revolutionaries before we can assess
Jesus' response to them, so that we will have a clear notion of that to which
he was reacting. One of Jesus' followers was apparently called Simon the
Zealot. How are we to assess this if, as some aver, there was no party of the
Zealots until the outbreak of the Jewish War in the 60s?

JOSEPHUS AND THE REVOLUTIONARIES

The student of Josephus is confronted with the same sort of problems in

dealing with his works as the biblical scholar faces with the synoptic
Gospels, because the two versions of Josephus's account of Jewish history,
The Jewish Wars and Jewish Antiquities, differ significantly. Take, for
example, the varying perspective on the Pharisees in these two works. From
Antiquities one can deduce that the Pharisees were a significant factor in
social and political matters in pre-A.D. 70 Judaism. Not only are they
mentioned first among the three major "philosophies" of Judaism but they
are also given more discussion than in the Wars (cf. Ant. 18.11ff. and Wars
2.163ff.). In the Wars the mention of the Pharisees is brief, and this brevity is
especially striking given the lengthy discussion of the Essenes which begins
the section on the three more ancient philosophies. It might be possible to
deduce, with M. Smith and J. Neusner, that the Pharisees were a rather minor
sect, or at least not a leading or dominant one in the pre-A.D. 70 period, and
that in Antiquities Josephus has magnified their role in light of post-A.D. 70
developments.

But it is equally possible to draw another conclusion. Dunn urges that: (1)
although the reference to the Pharisees is briefer, in the crucial section of
Wars they are called the "leading" sect (ten proten, 2.163); (2) it is probable
that Josephus, who was writing the Wars in Rome in the 70s under the
patronage of Vespasian and as a propaganda piece, that is, in part an
apologia of the Jewish people to be read by Romans and other non-Jews,
deliberately downplayed the role of the Pharisees in his earlier work so as
not to draw attention to and suspicion upon them.176 In Antiquities, written
considerably later, Josephus not only had the benefit of a longer time to
assess the matter but surely felt more certain that Judaism and Pharisaism
had survived the disaster of the 70s.

This observation is important for our study of the revolutionaries because

it seems likely that the later work, Antiquities, gives us a clearer perspective
as to what was actually the case with these Jews. When Josephus wrote
Wars, he was concerned to cast blame for the disasters of the 60s and 70s on
the more militant Jews. In the later work he does this as well, but he is
writing less out of bitterness and the heat of the moment because Wars was
composed only shortly after the end of the debacle in Israel. In fact,
Josephus states explicitly that the purpose of Wars is "to deter others who
may be tempted to revolt" (3.108). This is not the case with Antiquities, a
work apparently composed gradually and under some external urging (it was
not finished until A.D. 93-94 during the reign of Domitian and shortly before
Josephus's death). As H. St. J. Thackeray observed, "The author thus severs
his connexion with Roman political propaganda and henceforth figures
solely as Jewish historian and apologist.""7 Bear in mind that Antiquities
deliberately concludes at the onset of the Jewish Wars in A.D. 66.1°

The tone differs between the Wars and Antiquities on the subject of
revolutionaries. When speaking of Judas the Galilean and the so-called
fourth philosophy he founded among the Jews in A.D. 6 at the time of the
census of Quirinius (Wars 2.118-119), Josephus mentions no connection
between Judas and the Pharisees. In fact he says that Judas founded a group
that had nothing in common with the other major parties of Judaism
(Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes). By contrast, Ant. 18.23 says that the group
founded by Judas "agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the
Pharisees, except they have a passion for liberty ..." Further, in Ant. 18.3-4
Josephus says that Judas enlisted the aid of one Saddok, a Pharisee. These
connections with Pharisaism are missing in the Wars in the parallel passages.
This is likely because Josephus wanted Pharisaism to survive the disasters of
the Jewish wars, and its survival was still in doubt when he wrote the Wars.
Keep in mind that Josephus tells us in his Life 11- 21 that at one point he
resolved to join the Pharisees and went into basic training in order to do so.
His sympathies were clearly with this group. He even admits that the
revolutionary government in Jerusalem during the Jewish War sent two
Pharisees to Galilee in an action directed against Josephus himself, then
provincial commander (Life 197[39]). Surely it follows that his references in
the Antiquities to the associations of Pharisaism and Judas's so-called
philosophy are historically accurate because Josephus would hardly have
invented such an idea. This is all the more the case in view of the fact that
Josephus was at one time a rebel commander in Galilee and would likely
have wanted to cover his tracks, disassociating himself from the failed
revolutionary movement especially in his earlier work (Wars).

Another comparative example further illustrates our point. In Wars 2.56,

Josephus only briefly mentions Judas's breaking into the armories at
Sepphoris. Here Judas seems to be nothing more than a bandit. By contrast
in Ant. 17.271-72, Josephus candidly admits that the act at Sepphoris was
part of Judas's "zealous pursuit of royal rank." In short there is more
involved than mere banditry or anger with the powers that be. R. A. Horsley
and J. S. Hanson in fact point out "that there were several mass movements
composed of Jewish peasants from villages or towns such as Emmaus,
Bethlehem, Sepphoris-people rallying around the leadership of charismatic
figures viewed as anointed kings of the Jews. These movements occurred in
all three principal areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine (Galilee, Perea,
Judea), and just at the time when Jesus of Nazareth was presumably born."1"
We will have more to say on the subject of messianic figures and movements
in Jesus' era shortly.
 A further difficulty, especially in regard to Wars, is that Josephus seems to
contradict himself at various points. In Wars 2.253-54, Josephus dates the
rise of the sicarii to the procuratorship of Felix (A.D. 52-60), whereas later
in the same work (Wars 7.253-54) he seems to date the origins of this group
to the time of Judas himself (tote gar hoi sikarioi). As Hengel points out, in
the Wars Josephus only once (2.254ff.) mentions the new tactics of the
sicarii from which they got their name (apparently a label first applied to
them by the Romans), but this sort of information occurs more frequently in
Antiquities.'" Thus, it is wiser to give preference to the later and less
polemical evidence of Josephus in Antiquities on these matters, than to the
material in the earlier work. To be sure, all the data needs to be critically
evaluated and used, but preference will be given to Antiquities in matters of
historical accuracy about the Zealots, the sicarii, and revolutionaries in
general.

When we focus on Antiquities, note immediately that Josephus does not

intend to treat Judas and the events of A.D. 6 as an isolated incident with no
relationship to later revolutionary activities, a fact that the New Testament
confirms (cf. Acts 5:34-35).181 On the contrary, Josephus states explicitly
that Judas and Saddok planted the seeds of the later troubles, which probably
is an allusion to the events of the 60s and 70s (cf. Ant. 18.9-10). Josephus
freely admits the popularity of the movement that Judas and Saddok started
and connects it with what he calls the later ruin or destruction of early
Judaism. Also, at Ant. 18.5ff., the author makes quite clear that this is a
theocratic movement because they rely on the help of the divine (theion).
This is confirmed at Ant. 18.23ff., where Josephus says that Judas and his
followers admit only God as their true leader and master. If Josephus is right
in connecting the sicarii with both Judas and Masada, then the evidence is
germane that the inhabitants were religiously observant Jews-as the ritual
bath and synagogue at Masada indicate. It is thus impossible to characterize
this movement as purely social or political. As was so often the case, politics
and religion were intertwined in first-century Judaism, and this was
especially true with the movement Judas started. Josephus admits this,
despite his apparent distaste for the group's violent tactics and his
willingness to call them bandits or brigands or self-aggrandizing insurgents
on various occasions (cf. Ant. 18.24ff.; 18.4-7, noting the reference to
lesterion).1e2

Also probable was a family link between Judas and some of the major
later leaders of the revolutionaries. For instance, Josephus mentions
Menahem as the son(?) of Judas the Galilean, and one who seems to have
assumed leadership among the sicarii (Wars 2.425, 433), taking them off to
Masada. He was killed by the partisans of another group of insurgents
identified with a man called Eliezar. Notably, the theocratic ideology is again
mentioned by Josephus (Wars 2.433). Thus, although Josephus willingly
calls the sicarii lestas, nonetheless he does not try to make their motives for
action purely personal, political, or social. Furthermore, we read at Wars
2.444 that Menahem was followed or attended by tous zelotes. Possibly,
Josephus is not referring to some particular party called "the Zealots" that
was led by Menahem, but simply uses the term in a more generic sense to
refer to a group of zealous persons, or even "fanatics" as Thackeray would
have it.183 Later there is reference to Eliezar son of Simon and "the zelotes
under him" (Wars 2.564-5), which suggests that the term could be or was
also applied to a group with more priestly connections. 184

Nevertheless, Wars 2.444 plausibly indicates that for Josephus, there was
an integral connection between Judas, Menahem, the sicarii, and at least
some of those who in the 60s were called Zealots. Although it is true that
Josephus does not use the term Zealot of anyone before he begins narrating
the events of the Jewish War, this observation may not be very
significant.181

The family connection with Judas seems to go even further, if we are to

believe Wars 7.253-56. Here we are told that the sicarii at Masada are led by
a descendant of Judas, a man by the name of Eleazar. This is surely the same
Eleazar mentioned in Wars 2.444 as escaping from the temple area at the
time of Menahem's murder and later becoming the despot of Masada. He is
called in the earlier passage the son of Jairus. Thus, a clear familial line is
traceable from Judas to at least one group of the insurgents during the Jewish
War. 186 At Ant. 20.102, Josephus indicates Judas's sons were crucified by
Tiberius Alexander about A.D. 45. In view of the history of this family, it
would seem likely that their crucifixion was due to some sort of political
unrest they had caused, not mere banditry. As Rengstorf argues, "The
Romans themselves did not in fact treat as lestai the Zealots whom they
captured. Their punishment was crucifixion, and this alone was enough to
show that they were regarded and treated as political offenders."187 Further,
as Hengel has insisted of both groups of A.D. 6 and 73, they are said to
recognize only God as their leader and Lord.'""

Josephus explicitly connects Judas to the ensuing woes of the 60s and 70s
which began after Gessius Florus, the procurator of Judea in A.D. 64-65
(Ant. 18.24). This may be either because his family carried on the cause or
because the ideals he espoused were continued by a significant contingent of
the insurgents in the 60s. In any case, Josephus seems to insist on connecting
Judas to the later events and to indicate that his ideology provided the
underpinnings to this movement.

That various separate robber bands decided to take advantage of the chaos
during the Jewish war to advance their own personal gain or purposes need
not be doubted. Simon bar Giora may be one such person, even though he
apparently attempted to make common cause with the sicarii at Masada
(Wars 4.503ff.). Josephus says that the sicarii could not be tempted to join
him. Thus, it must have been with others that Simon marched on Jerusalem
and opposed the priestly Zealots and their allies the Idumaeans (cf. Wars
4.509ff.). It needs to be granted that Josephus does not use the term Zealot of
anyone prior to the Jewish War itself. Yet, it also seems correct to say that
Josephus does not use zelotes as a technical term for a unified party, but as a
character reference for all the insurgents during the Jewish War whose
motives could be associated with zeal for the law or monotheism or some
theocratic ideal. It is striking that when with some venom Josephus writes of
the (priestly) Zealots, he does so in terms similar to the way he describes the
sicarii-their religious claims and their actions (cf. Wars 7.268-70; Ant.
18.1ff.).

Thus, it appears that despite the protests of M. Smith and others,'89

Hengel's careful conclusions are fully warranted: "the Jewish Freedom
movement between 6 and 70 A.D. had a certain uniform ideological basis.
They stood near to Pharisaic piety and bore the impression of a strongly
eschatological [outlook]."'" They may also have patterned themselves on the
zealous deeds of Phineas and the Maccabees, as Kingdon strongly urges."'

In the face of this, R. Horsley has recently maintained that "there is

simply no evidence for any violent resistance movement at the time of
Jesus."'" In order to maintain such a view, Horsley must: (1) ignore or
dismiss the remarks of Josephus that indicate the religious motifs for some
of the actions of various insurgents; (2) dismiss or ignore the family
connection between Judas the Galilean and those apparently in the forefront
of resistance after Jesus' day and especially in the events of the Jewish War;
(3) ignore that Josephus uses the term "bandit" pejoratively because of his
attempt to distance himself from the resistance movement, despite the fact
that in such texts as Ant. 18.23ff. and 18.4ff. Josephus admits that these
socalled bandits were not mere robbers, but those who had a theocratic
vision of how Israel should be; and (4) distinguish between Judas and the
later sicarii. Horsley attempts to dispose all of this by saying, "The Fourth
Philosophy, however, had focused its opposition on the tribute to Rome,
whereas the Sicarii focused exclusively on the Jewish high-priestly
aristocracy.""' This ignores that an attack on the aristocracy was also an
attack on Rome and its collaborators, so there is hardly a real distinction in
aims of the two sorts of actions. Furthermore, his case rests at crucial points
too heavily on the more polemical and apologetical work Wars.'94 One must
also add that Horsley's distinction between the early and middle decades of
the first century, although having some truth to it, does not lead to the
conclusion that there was an essential difference in kind or character
between say A.U. 30 and 60. Rather the difference was a matter of degree.
What had long been festering in Judea and Galilee erupted in the 60s. The
eruption in the 60s was not the result of a sudden change in attitude toward
Rome, or the sudden organization of resistance to Rome.

For our purposes, what is crucial is that: (1) during the months in which
Jesus ministered, although perhaps fewer outbursts of violence occurred than
before and after the third decade of the Christian era, nonetheless an ongoing
movement of zealous people existed, who for religious as well as other
reasons were prepared to take revolutionary action against Rome, and its
collaborators; and (2) while there may not have been a party specifically
called the Zealots in Jesus' day,"s the ideals of Phineas and the Maccabees
were still much alive and had significant popular support.'% The fact that the
movement begun by Judas the Galilean seems to have been a family affair
should not lead us to see it as an isolated phenomenon without popular
support. To the contrary, Josephus says that many and especially the young
were affected and infected by the potent ideology Judas had offered the
people when he insisted that paying taxes to Rome was a violation of Jewish
religion.'9'

Thus, the question needs to be raised, Was Jesus like his fellow native of
Galilee, Judas, a revolutionary? If Jesus had a messianic understanding,
could he have seen himself in terms that the sicarii and others would have
found appealing? Could he have made claims or held views like those
Josephus predicates of Judas (he sought 'Basileios time," Ant. 17.272; on
messianic pretenders of the period, cf. Ant. 17.273ff.; Wars 2.57ff.)?
HOW REVOLUTIONARY WAS GALILEE?

We have been discussing the larger contextual issue of whether or not there
even was a revolutionary movement in Israel during and after the time of
Jesus. A related issue is whether or not Galilee was a hotbed of revolutionary
fervor, perhaps the epicenter of such sentiments. This issue is raised not least
because Jesus was a Galilean and ministered in Galilee but also because
Josephus keeps referring to people such as Judas the Galilean, and events
such as Judas the son of Ezechias's raising of a considerable group of
followers at Sepphoris and raiding the royal arsenals there (Wars 2.56). This
raid happened either shortly after Jesus was born or when he was a small boy
only a few miles from his home town.

In our investigation of the revolutionary potential of Galilee we are aided

by the detailed works of E. Meyers, S. Freyne, G. Theissen, and Barnett.19°
What these studies show is that while there were insurgents from and in
Galilee, "the widely held view of the Galilean as a revolutionary, a boor or
am-ha'ares or a speaker of poor Aramaic ... is open to considerable doubt. "I"
Nevertheless, all Israel was in a state of considerable tension after the death
of Herod the Great not least because of the shifting political scene, with
client kings or governors in turns ruling parts of the promised land,200 and,
as de Jonge says, the "longing for decisive change was intense."201

Meyers stresses that one must distinguish sharply between the character
of upper and lower Galilee, Jesus being from the latter, while a figure like
John of Gischala would be associated with the former. Further, Josephus
admits that Judas the so-called Galilean was from Gamala, a city in lower
Gaulinitis on the Transjordanian side of the Galilean Sea (Ant. 18.4). Meyers
adds, 'The hills of lower Galilee present no effective barrier to
communication. Indeed Lower Galilee is closely tied to the busy trade of
both the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee ... On the other hand, Upper
Galilee ... is a self-enclosed area defined by the awesome slopes of the
Meiron massif."2m
 The evidence Meyers produces is sufficient to show that Jesus grew up in
the most developed area in both Galilees. Furthermore, Jesus' ministry seems
to have been largely confined to lower Galilee, yet a survey of the Gospels
shows him avoiding (deliberately?) the major cities of the region such as
Sepphoris and Tiberias. His ministry seems directed primarily to the smaller
towns and villages, especially around the Sea of Galilee, with Capernaum as
his base of operations. Jesus, then, lived in a region where there was a more
cosmopolitan and open environment than was true in upper Galilee and the
evidence supports the view that lower Galilee, while maintaining Aramaic as
its main spoken language at least among the Jews dwelling there, had a
substantial Greek component in its linguistic character, in contrast to upper
Galilee.203 This strongly suggests that in terms of culture and cultural
attitudes, lower Galilee was more Hellenized than either upper Galilee or the
Transjordan region from which Judas the insurgent came.

Lower Galilee, because its soil was much more fertile than that of Judea,
was highly valued during Jesus' age. This may have bearing on the
revolutionary potential of the region because it was subject to the abuses of
absentee landlordism, as well as double taxation-both civil and religious.
This may have been counteracted because lower Galilee was not a rural
backwater; parochialism was not likely a major factor.

Freyne, after a detailed study of Galilee during our period, draws the
following conclusions. First, the potential and factors for lower Galilee to
become a cauldron bubbling over with revolutionary ferment were not
absent, but striking is the little clear evidence for such a conclusion except at
the beginning and end of the first procuratorial period.204 Even these
examples can be explained because the Jews frequently tried to take
advantage of transitions in power to regain some of their former position and
power in the region. Second, the only places where we clearly see
revolutionary activity in lower Galilee in the relevant period seem to have
been Tiberias and Sepphoris, both of which Jesus seems to have avoided.
Third, revolutionary activities associated with Judas in the early period and
with his descendants during the Jewish War focused not in Galilee but Judea
and particularly Jerusalem. Fourth, despite a few scattered large cities,
Galilee had a predominantly peasant ethos, and the Galilean peasant fared
better than his Judean counterpart, although his situation was far from ideal.
Fifth, the crucial political and social events or circumstances that might
provoke revolution to arise in Galilee were apparently absent in Jesus' day,
even though the potential was there.205 Was Jesus' appearance, perhaps due
to some of his "signs and wonders," seen by the revolutionaries as a signal
for them to arise and throw off the yoke of Rome? This question will be
raised when we examine the Gospel material itself.
JEWISH MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS

G. Theissen, in his sociological study of the Jesus movement, points to

certain critical factors in Galilee that were conducive to such a movement
and could have led to it being messianic in character. First, a significant
number of people in Galilean society seemingly had become marginalized
for political, social, or religious reasons. These were people such as
overtaxed fishermen, tax collectors, harlots, the diseased, tenant farmers, and
day laborers. Messianic movements characteristically draw on such
marginalized people to build a cohesive resistance to the status quo. Those
who have least to lose by change also have the most to gain. Now, it cannot
be denied that the Jesus movement at least in part oriented itself toward and
included various of these sorts of people.206

Second, after referring to the cases of Judas the Galilean, Jesus, John of
Gischala, and the Qumranites, Theissen argues: "The programmes of all
renewal movements suggest a detachment from the Hellenistic cities and an
ambivalent attitude towards Jerusalem."207 This remark is striking because
Jesus not only avoided Hellenistic cities like Tiberias and Sepphoris, but the
Jesus tradition, if it is reliable at this point, indicates both Jesus' love for
Jerusalem and his belief in its impending doom.20"

Third, such movements manifested a theocratic vision, believing God was

or would soon intervene and establish direct, divine rule because God alone
is King. This we can see not only in Judas the Galilean and later in the sicarii
but also in Jesus who proclaimed the inbreaking of the Dominion of
God.209

Fourth, Barnett has discerned a particular pattern suggesting that the Jesus
movement, even during Jesus' own ministry, already had an intentionally
messianic character. Its character was not unlike that of other such
movements of the day, as indicated by the messianic character of particular
symbolic acts. Consider the following chart:210
 One other figure, John the Baptist, might fit on this chart because he
certainly performed symbolic acts of baptism in the wilderness at the Jordan,
preached a coming judgment, attracted significant crowds, and led what W.
D. Davies calls a repentance movement of which many feel Jesus was at one
time a part." ' Nevertheless, John apparently disclaimed any messianic status.
This chart suggests that particular sorts of symbolic acts, relating to religious
and often Old Testament matters, would have been construed by early Jews
as a signal that the messiah or the messianic age was at hand. Jesus is
credited with performing such a symbolic act in all four Gospels. Indeed, the
Feeding is the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels. Thus, if the Gospels
are accurate in recording that Jesus performed some sort of symbolic act
before a large crowd which could have conjured up messianic visions and
hopes, then his ministry would fit into a pattern that seems characteristic of
early Jewish messianic movements.

It has been pointed out that early Jewish messianism was more often
focused on a "Salvation hope" rather than a "central Saving person" because
such messianism was essentially theocentric in orientation.212 I would put
the matter somewhat differently. It is clear from sources as diverse as the
Qumran literature and the Psalms of Solomon that before and during Jesus'
day, a significant focus was on one or more messianic figures, who are
properly understood in the larger context of messianic hope. In short,
although messianic hope involved more than an interest in a coming
anointed one, such a coming one was often the focal point of that hope both
during and before Jesus' day. Furthermore, the longing for God's anointed
did not cease after the disasters of A.D. 70 and the disappointment with
various failed messianic movements in the first and early second century
A.D., as is shown by P. Schafer's review of the relevant data from the
Tannaitic and Amoraic period.:ta
 We are reminded by G. Scholem that in Judaism redemption has always
been conceived as having a public character, involving historical events, and
not merely as having internal and purely spiritual changes within
individuals, although those sorts of change were also involved in the
messianic hope.214 He also stresses, "When the Messianic idea appears as a
living force in the world of Judaism ... it always occurs in the closest
connection with apocalypticism."215 By this he means that messianism is
almost always associated with ideas that the end, or at least the messianic
age, is about to break in abruptly at any moment, and it presupposes a
fundamentally pessimistic assessment of the present state of affairs of God's
people. 'Jewish Messianism is in its origins and by its nature ... a theory of
catastrophe. This theory stresses the revolutionary, cataclysmic element in
the transition from every historical present to the Messianic future .11216

Although a Jew might prepare for its coming and in a sense provide a
climate of readiness for the intervention, a Jew did not expect to personally
bring in the messianic age by any set of historical actions. The usual belief
seems to be that the messianic age could be hindered from coming by
unpreparedness, but it could not be forced into happening because it entailed
the intervention of God. This needs to be borne in mind when assessing the
revolutionaries and their possible connections to messianic movements.
Also, it needs to be remembered that in a good deal of the literature, "the
figure of the Messiah, in whom fulfillment of redemption is concentrated,
remains peculiarly vague.""' This means a range of possibilities of what
messiah might be like were circulating, although there was a strong
expectation that messiah would rectify the societal injustices God's people
faced and throw off the yoke of any foreign rule.

It is instructive to consider the nature of a Jewish messianic movement

other than the Jesus movement. Davies has brought to bear the insights from
a later Jewish messianic movement and its interpreters. The study of the
movement that was spawned as a result of the life and activities of Sabbatai
Svi led Scholem to deduce the following as a general paradigm:

First there is the emergence of a messianic figure. He serves as a

catalyst, negatively, for the radical criticism of the existing order;
 positively, of dreams at long last come true, of barriers long-standing
being broken down, of a new creation-all this accompanied by an
impulse to propagate the good news. And then secondly, this messianic
figure must meet a widespread need and be understood to satisfy that
need in terms of an interpretative ideological structure of magnitude and
depth.218

Now, this description gives us some possible clues for interpreting Jesus
and his ministry because: (1) as we saw in our discussion on the Pharisees
Jesus not only radically criticized the laws of clean and unclean (cf. Mark 7)
but he also associated with tax collectors and sinners, as well as with the
diseased, making him a clear threat to the existing religious and social order
of Judaism; (2) Jesus clearly served as the catalyst for a movement that long
outlasted his earthly lifetime; (3) Jesus' preaching of God's inbreaking
dominion seems to have offered much not only to the disenfranchised but
also to some of the enfranchised, if they would change their life and follow
him (e.g., Joanna of Chuza, Lazarus's family); (4) Jesus undoubtedly was
one who felt compelled to proclaim his message to the public; and (5) Jesus
couched his proclamation in terms of the familiar terminology of the malkut
that was coming, thus like the revolutionaries providing a religious
framework to interpret his actions and ministry in general. In the setting of
occupied Palestine such a proclamation coupled with various direct actions
for the disenfranchised would have been seen to meet deeply felt needs of
God's people. F. C. Grant observed that in the context of God's people
"where political depression exists Messianism flames up as a political hope,
centered in a royal-divine person; where economic depression exists
(without political unrest), Messianism looks forward to an age of economic
exaltation ..."219 This suggests that whatever Jesus' public claims for
himself may or may not have been, clearly his actions and preaching would
likely have raised messianic questions and expectations in the context and
environment of early Judaism that manifested both political and economic
unrest.

These remarks are all the more likely to be correct in view of what
Theissen points out about the close of the reign of Herod the Great: He even
went beyond the bounds of Jewish monotheism, having
 himself celebrated as a god (OGIS 415) ... He succeeded in finding a
prophet who promised him the kingdom in God's name (Ant. 15.373ff.).
He probably also wanted to promote himself as messiah, the new David.
Whereas David had only made preparations for building the temple, and
Solomon carried them out, Herod did both ... Thus Herod usurped not
only power, but the messianic hopes of Israel. This must have had a
devastating effect and aroused even greater longing for the true Messiah,
who would not hand the Jewish people over to the power of Rome....
This longing must have increased during Herod's long reign. After his
death, messianic pretenders appeared everywhere: Judas in Galilee,
Simon in Perea, Athronges in Judea...... Such madness seized the nation
at that time because they had no king of their own . . ." (Ant. 17.10.5-7,
par. 277).2°

Davies points out that it turned out to be more crucial who Messiah was in
the case of Christianity, than in some messianic movements, because the
focus was on Jesus and his teaching in ways that were not true of the
movement set in motion by Sabbatai Svi.ul Davies stresses one other
element about such messianic movements-their eschatological and
sometimes apocalyptic orientation, an orientation that exists in the Jesus
tradition even from its point of origin.

We have briefly pointed to some indicators in the environment and in

Jesus' ministry that could have led to the interpretation of Jesus and his
movement in messianic categories, in view of both the revolutionary
sentiments and the messianic expectations evident in early Judaism. Whether
such an interpretation actually transpired and whether Jesus saw his ministry
in this light can only be determined by a close examination of the relevant
Gospel data.

Most students of the New Testament are aware that there was no single
normative set of expectations involving the messiah that existed in early
Judaism. Thus, for instance, not only at Qumran (1QS 9.11) but elsewhere as
well (cf. Test. Levi 18; Reuben 6.8) Messianic hopes focused on not one but
two figures-a priestly and a kingly anointed one. Also at Qumran were some
who anticipated an eschatological or messianic prophet, perhaps one like
Moses (cf. 4QTestim; 1QS 9.11). This form of messianic hope seems to be
reflected in the Fourth Gospel (John 1:31; 6:14). One major problem in
evaluating the evidence is that only a small portion of texts actually
mentions an anointed one using the specific term Mashiach (or in Greek
Christos). Various texts express future hope without focusing it on the
coming of one or more human individuals.

Nevertheless, perhaps the most prevalent and popular form of messianic

expectation was for a ruler of Davidic descent, and nowhere is this better
expressed than in Psalms of Solomon 17, which C. Rowland says is "typical
of the central characteristics of messianic beliefs with its emphasis on the
human descendant of David, the vanquishing of Israel's foes and the
establishment of a reign of justice and peace on earth under the direction of
the King."2" This text also makes two other things evident. First, messianic
expectation basically focused on one or several human figures, not divine
ones, although there is some evidence from 4 Ezra 13-14 and 1 Enoch 37-71
to suggest that some expected a preexistent divine figure to come. The
former work seems to be late first century, while the latter is much debated,
although it may have been produced as early as the lifetime of Jesus.227
Second, messianic expectation did not include, according to the evidence
available, a suffering much less a crucified messiah. On the contrary, the
normal expectation was that the messiah would come and vanquish the
oppressors of God's people. There were other sorts of expectations, such as
the Samaritan expectation of the Ta'eb or restorer.224 Mention may also be
made of the Jewish discussion about Elijah as a forerunner, although the
focus is not specifically on a messianic figure (cf. M. Sotah 9.15; Eduyoth
8.7; Jub. 23.9).225

Caution is needed when discussing what terms or titles could and could
not have been used by or of Jesus during his lifetime. This is shown by the
recent striking parallels to Luke 1:32 from an unpublished Aramaic text
from Cave 4 of the Qumran findings. This fragment reads in part: "He shall
be great on the earth ... he shall be called the Son of the Great God ... they
shall call him the Son of the most high."226
 What the evidence tends to show is the presence of a variety of terms and
concepts which Jesus could have employed, if he wished to express to his
audience that he was a messianic figure of some sort. The absence from his
lips of such a term as Mashiach or Ben Dawid would by no means be
decisive in determining whether he had a messianic consciousness. It might
indicate that he did not wish to identify with the most common or popular
forms of messianic expectation of his day. The terms and ideas used to
express messianic hope were sufficiently fluid that Jesus could have
indicated messianic status in other ways, if he wished to do so. We are
constantly reminded that "the creativity of Judaism in the period before and
after Christ may well be its outstanding feature. 11227 Whether he did
express himself in any messianic terms can only be determined by a careful
exegesis of the relevant data, as we have already seen in our study of the
words of Jesus.

At this juncture we will examine evidence that Jesus might have

conceived of himself in terms congenial to the hopes of the revolutionaries
of his day, or terms like those of Psalms of Solomon 17: "Behold, 0 God and
raise up unto them their king, the son of David ... And gird him with strength
that he may shatter the unrighteous rulers, and that he may purge Jerusalem
from nations that trample her down to destruction."
JESUS AS A REVOLUTIONARY

In the new quest for the historical Jesus, one major debate centers on the
extent to which Jesus can be characterized as a revolutionary. In the West,
although this seems related to the rise of the counterculture movements of
the 60s, the question has gained additional interest because of the increasing
influence of developing-nation liberation theologies. Today we hear the
insistent cry that a political key is the one that unlocks the door to the real
historical Jesus.22" Our interest lies not with modern hermeneutical attempts
to bring the life of Jesus to bear on various situations, but rather with the
prior historical questions of what Jesus actually thought of himself. In
particular, we will focus here on how Jesus' self-understanding becomes
evident in his relationship to or with the first-century Jewish revolutionaries.

In the past two decades important contributions have been made by S. G.

F. Brandon, O. Cullmann, and M. Hengel.229 In fact, the impact of
Brandon's study is still being felt because, as recently as 1984, a full-scale
response to Brandon appeared under the title Jesus and the Politics of His
Day. 230 Although Brandon was the catalyst for the modern discussion of
the matter, H. S. Reimarus in his Von dent Zwecke and seiner Junger (1778)
had already labeled Jesus a revolutionary. Brandon does not go as far as
Reimarus but Brandon does see Jesus in essential agreement with the
revolutionaries' goals and perhaps even with their methods. Our task is to
investigate the relevant New Testament data.

Revolutionary Disciples? If it is true that a person may be judged by the

company he or she keeps, then a case can be made for Jesus being a
revolutionary on the basis of some of the names and nicknames of the
Twelve. For instance, it is conjectured that loudas ho Iskariotes is really a
somewhat poor Greek rendering for "Judas who was one of the sicarii."
Simon bar Jona was long ago thought by R. Eisler to mean "Simon the
anarchist," or revolu- tionary.27 Calling the Zebedees "sons of Thunder"
(Mark 3:17) has been taken to mean that they were men who favored
military action against the Romans, a suggestion that might be combined
with such texts as Luke 22:49-50 to produce a plausible conjecture. Finally,
the most important conjecture is that Simon the zelotes (Luke 6:15), which
in Mark as well as in Matthew is Simon ho Kananaios (Mark 3:18; Matt.
10:4) means "Simon the revolutionary."

Turning to this last suggestion, the Markan and Matthean forms of Simon
the zelotes do not likely mean Simon the Canaanite because it is simply the
Greek rendering of the Aramaic word for a person who has zeal (from the
verb gna).232 Even granting this, however, we must raise the question
whether the verb qna, perhaps in its noun form, had become a technical term
during Jesus' day for a revolutionary, or whether we may not rightly make a
distinction between an "Eifer" and a "Zelot"-the former being a person
perhaps like Paul who was zealous for the law but not against the Romans,
and the latter being a person who was a revolutionary opposed to Rome.233
Whether one was an "Eifer" or a "Zelot," either designation could go back to
known uses of the verb qna. Indeed, one detailed investigation of the
gannaim concludes: "qannaim cannot always be regarded as the rabbinic
equivalent to the Greek zelotai."

Further, B. Salomonsen insists that the term can be used of a private

individual who may have been zealous for the law or who may have been a
racial fanatic, but in any case cannot be certainly linked to the Zealots of the
60s that Josephus discusses.234 Remember that even the term zelotes is not
used of any group of the revolutionaries in Josephus's accounts prior to his
discussion of the 60s. Thus it is not necessary to conclude on the basis of
linguistic evidence that even Simon was a revolutionary against Roman rule.

Moreover, according to all the synoptic accounts (cf. Mark 2:13-17; Matt.
9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32), Simon was banded together with at least one tax
collector or customs official, whatever his name may have been. Whether
Matthew/Levi was simply a toll collector for Herod Antipas or one who
collected directly for the Romans, his job entailed collaboration with the
governing authorities. How could such a person openly cooperate in a group
with a revolutionary? This problem cannot be dismissed or passed over.
Even Brandon admits, "The inclusion of Simon the Zealot in the apostolic
band actually points to the probability that Jesus was not a Zealot, and that
his movement was not an integral part of the Zealot resistance against
Rome."2" Notably, only Simon is called a Zealot, which suggests that in this
regard he differed from the other members of Jesus' inner circle. Beyond this
we must insist that if Simon had been a revolutionary, to work harmoniously
with a tax collector he surely must have been only formerly a Zealot, or else
Simon was zealous for the law perhaps like Paul but not against Rome, that
is, he was an "Fifer" not a "Zelot."2"

In regard to Simon bar Jona, Hengel has shown that evidence

convincingly favors taking this name as a simple Aramaic patronymic -
Simon son of John.2" In regard to Judas Iscariot, the more plausible
derivation is "man of Kerioth," and some of the variants in the manuscript
tradition favor seeing Iscariot as a reference to a place of origin.2' More
importantly, in John 6:71 Judas is said to be "son of Simon Iscariot" (cf.
13:26). Are we to think of Judas's father as one of the sicarii as well? It is
more plausible that we are dealing with a place name-Simon "of Kerioth."
The conjecture in regard to Boanerges can equally well be understood as
referring to their temperament, not their political loyalties. In any case, both
with Simon and with the Zebedees we still need to ask how they could have
worked together with one who had collaborated with the occupation powers
if they were revolutionaries? The present evidence persuades that Jesus'
disciples should not be seen as a revolutionary band, although formerly some
of them may have had such an orientation-Simon, in particular. Therefore,
we can tell little about Jesus' attitude toward the revolutionaries from these
conjectures.

Revolt in the Wilderness? A more promising avenue of investigation is to

test how revolutionary Jesus was by examining the one miracle pericope that
all four Gospel writers share,2" which likely goes back to the period of the
Galilean ministry-the feeding of the five thousand. If the Fourth Gospel is
independent of the Synoptics,240 then on the criterion of multiple attestation
there is a good prospect that the story of the feeding of the five thousand in
some form goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. This is more likely if we also
note that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in various details of this
story, which may well suggest that there was also a Q version.241 An
additional possibility is that Mark has preserved two different forms of this
story (the feeding of the four thousand and of the five thousand being
variants of one ancient tradition). This can only mean that the story was
deeply imbedded in the tradition. Another factor favoring the basic
authenticity of the core of this story is that it does not fit neatly into the
normal form-critical categories. Although Bultmann included this story
among his list of miracle stories,242 as Taylor points out, "It has not yet
attained the rounded form of a Miracle-story proper and stands nearer the
testimony of eyewitnesses. "113 He points especially to Mark 6:37 as an
indicator that this story is based on eyewitness tradition, because it is
unlikely that the church would later invent such a question.

Interestingly, features of the Johannine version seem likely to reflect a

Sitz im Leben Jesu. For instance, Brown says of John 6:14-15, "If John was
written toward the end of the first century when Roman persecution of
Christians under Domitian was all too real, then the invention of the
information in vss. 14-15 seems out of the question ... we believe that in
these verses John has given us an item of correct historical information ."2"
The later tradition would not likely add political overtones to the story,
indeed it is easier to believe that Mark may have downplayed such aspects.
Dodd agrees:

In the known conditions under which primitive Christians lived in the

Roman Empire it would be far easier to account for the toning down of
apparently political features if the tradition originally contained such
features ... If there was a tradition of events belonging to this period of
the Ministry which suggested that he was in danger of being made the
centre and leader of a movement of popular revolt ... we can well
understand why in Mark this dangerous feature was glossed over.245

Nevertheless, this story, when it begins to speak of the actual act that is
seen as miraculous, uses language that is deliberately reminiscent of the
material from the Last Supper narrative, so as to make a theological point
about the eucharistic significance of this story (cf. esp. 1 Cor. 11:23-25;
Mark 14:22-24; 8:6-8).246 This may be attributed to the Christian
community recasting the story somewhat to make it more useful for church
purposes. Strikingly, "the Johannine account agrees more closely with the
synoptic parallel than any other pericope of the Gospel."2" This, however,
does not effect the essential historical points that interest us: (1) that Jesus
somewhere in the Galilean wilderness was involved in an event of feeding
with a large crowd;248 (2) that the crowd took this feeding to imply Jesus
was making certain messianic or eschatological claims, perhaps that he was
the latter day Mosaic prophet of whom the Pentateuch had spoken (Deut.
18:15; Num. 27:17) and thus they sought to compel or at least urge Jesus to
become leader of a movement having direct political implications for their
situation; (3) that Jesus would have none of this and withdrew from the
crowd; (4) that this event likely climaxed the Galilean ministry, a fact that
both Mark and John independently attest;24' and (5) that Jesus probably
intended this feeding as an eschatological sign that the Dominion of God had
broken in through his ministry, possibly along the lines that he interpreted
his breaking bread with tax collectors and other outcasts of society. He may
also have seen it as a foreshadowing of the messianic banquet, but this is less
cer- tain.2S0 What is more certain is that the parallels between John 6/Mark
6 and the story of the Egyptian in Josephus's Wars 2.261 and Ant. 20.169,
which Barnett has stressed, are rather impressive.251 They strongly suggest
that Jesus was implying something about the significance of his person and
work by this "sign" in the wilderness, although apparently what he intended
and what the crowd took him to mean were two different things, hence his
withdrawal.

What, then, was Jesus implying by this feeding, and what prompted him
to respond as he did to the crowd? First, Jesus never disclaimed the label
prophet, indeed on more than one occasion he seems to have owned it (Mark
6:4; Matt. 23:37).252 Thus, it is not difficult to believe that Jesus might have
performed a sign meant to indicate that he was a prophet, the final
eschatological prophet because he did not seem to have expected any
successors. As Bammel rightly points out, however, "The proof a person has
given of his prophetic status raises the expectation of a forthcoming political
role"253 (cf. Luke 24:19-21). If the Johannine version of this story is correct
on this point, then Jesus' sign in the wilderness raised the expectation that he
would assume the role of basileus, perhaps even throw off the yoke of
Roman rule, or, because this was in Galilee, that of the client-ruler Herod
Antipas. Yet Jesus rejects this suggestion, and it may be that the fading of
mass support for Jesus was the result of his refusal to accept the acclamation
or suggestion of the crowd on this occasion." H. G. Wood stresses that after
compelling the disciples to leave, Jesus pacifies and dismisses the crowd and
withdraws from Galilee. This likely means, "Jesus refuses to be the warrior-
Messiah of popular expectation [cf. Psalms of Solomon 17] ... the farewell to
the crowd and the night of prayer may point to a decision to break off the
public ministry, at least for the time being. Jesus then withdrew from Galilee
... because of the popular enthusiasm which followed the feeding of the
multitude."2"

This can be taken to mean that although Jesus may well have seen himself
as the Mosaic prophet of the eschatological age, or at least the one who
brings in God's dominion and so foreshadows the coming messianic feast,
nevertheless he rejected the application of popular messianic expectation to
himself. He had not come to be the warrior messiah. This does not mean he
simply rejected any sort of messianic idea when applied to himself, but
clearly he rejected this form of it. Yet it was apparently this form of
messianism that was most often associated with the house of David in Jesus'
day, and he was likely a "scion of the house of David."' Thus, although we
cannot conclude from this story that Jesus had a nonmessianic
selfunderstanding, it must surely count against his having seen himself in the
mold of the Davidic Messiah that was to come as a warrior king. It must also
count strongly against the view that Jesus was in sympathy with the goals
and theology of the revolutionaries.

Testing Jesus' Metal Another passage from the ministry period that gives
insight into Jesus' view of the revolutionaries and Rome is Mark 12:13-17
(and par.). Here we have a classic example of a pronouncement story where
everything prepares the way for a climactic saying. The narrative is reduced
to the bare minimum, and in regard to the saying itself Bultmann avers:
"There are no grounds to think this is a Community product."u' In any case,
it is altogether believable that Jesus would be questioned on what was for
many Jews, especially the revolutionaries, one of the burning issues of the
day: Should the Jews pay tribute money to Caesar and so implicitly
acknowledge his authority over them?
 It is probable that the coin was one of the second series of denarii that
Tiberius issued, one side of which read, PONTIF MAXIM, and the other, TI
CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS.258 For many Jews to even use such a
coin, much less to use it to pay tribute to Caesar, amounted to recognizing
his claims made on the coin to be Pontifex Maximus and divine Augustus.
As Bruce says, the most likely setting for this incident is Judea where "the
tribute question was one of practical moment, with the risk of an impolitic
answer being construed as seditious."259 Thus, it is likely that this question
and Jesus' answer came in the context of his final visit to Jerusalem.26°
Remembering the principle established by Judas the Galilean that it was
immoral and indeed sacrilegious to pay tribute to Caesar, this question
would seem to be meant to reveal the extent to which Jesus was in sympathy
with the so-called Fourth philosophy of Judas.

The question posed to Jesus requests an opinion concerning the legality of

the tribute; the phrase, "is it permitted," refers to permission in the Mosaic
law (cf. Mark 3:4, exestin as here; 1 Cor. 14:34). Jesus' response depends on
the acknowledgment by his audience that these coins do belong to Caesar,
who has minted them and whose picture appears on them. It is well known
that there are various sayings in the Jesus tradition that suggest he did not
have much regard for money, or mammon as he called it (cf. Matt. 6:24;
Luke 16:9, "unrighteous mammon"). Furthermore, he saw the accumulation
of money as a positive impediment to entering the dominion of God (Mark
10:25; Luke 16:19-31). Thus, Jesus' response hardly means simply to be
civic minded and pay your taxes. This saying probably has little to do with
modern theories of two spheres of influence or the separation of God and
state. Rather than being a counsel of submission to earthly rulers, it is more
likely to be a comment on the relative insignificance of the issue in the light
of the inbreaking dominion of God.

Notice that Jesus has no such coin on his person, but his inquisitors do. If
there were any revolutionaries in the audience this would only be seen as a
plus for Jesus because the revolutionaries apparently felt it was impious even
to carry or use Caesar's coins at all, not least because they often bore "graven
images." In light of Jesus' view about the inbreaking of God's reign, it is
unlikely that Jesus would have given any sort of wholehearted endorsement
to Rome or supported its legitimacy. Yet the way he frames his response
would have seemed to revolutionaries "a deplorable compro- mise."261
Such people, however, did not think on the same plane as Jesus, who
believed that God was directly bringing in the divine dominion and that
whether one paid tribute to Caesar neither helped nor hindered the coming of
that dominion.

In short, Jesus disagreed that the paying of tribute was a litmus test
determining one's loyalty to the biblical God. In fact, giving Caesar back his
meaningless pieces of metal that bore his image could even be seen as a
religious duty, thus refusing to have or use anything that ultimately belonged
to Caesar. As Bruce suggests, Jesus was counseling "the handing back to a
Gentile ruler of coins which bore his name and image, coins which for that
very reason no truly pious Jew ought to possess ..."262 By putting the matter
this way, although Jesus would surely have disappointed the revolutionaries,
he would have given his other opponents (notice that Mark mentions the
Herodians and Pharisees here) no cause to report him to the Romans. This
saying could certainly not be construed as seditious, whatever its precise
nuances.

What should one render, or give back to God? Jesus does not say here, but
it is unlikely that he is here referring to the paying of the temple tax,
although that is not completely impossible.263 It is more probable that here
again we have an example of Jesus being concerned with ultimate issuesthe
giving of one's whole self to God, for after all we are created in God's
image,264 we are God's, and in Jesus' view the situation was urgent because
of the inbreaking of the dominion (cf. Mark 10:6).265 Now was the time to
render God's own proper due.

Once again we see no encouragement for the view that Jesus was either a
revolutionary or in sympathy with them. Why should he align himself with a
group whose methodology for bringing in God's reign stood in such contrast
to his own? His approach was to pursue a ministry of preaching, teaching,
healing, and having table fellowship even with tax collectors and sinners. If
anything, his vision was even more directly theocratic than the
revolutionaries' stance. No wonder the choral response at the end of this
pericope in its Markan version is the amazement of the audience; they had
never heard teaching like this before, not even from a "sophist" (to use
Josephus's term) like Judas the Galilean.

A Grand Entrance? If there is a strong case to be made that Jesus had

sympathy with the cause of the revolutionaries and thus saw himself in that
sort of light, then its basis is the last week or so of Jesus' life. For those who
prefer a nonmessianic interpretation of Jesus they must be able to explain
how it was, if Jesus was an interesting but nonthreatening Galilean hasid,
that he ended up being crucified and that, according to strong tradition, the
titulus read "King of the Jews." The form and nature of Jesus' death raise a
major objection against any purely nonmessianic interpretation of Jesus'
words and actions and at the same time seems to give substantial support to a
theory like Brandon's. Thus, when scholars try to evaluate what it was about
Jesus' last week that may have led to crucifixion the focus usually is on: (1)
his entry into Jerusalem; and (2) his actions in the temple, perhaps coupled
with certain oracles about the future of the temple.

Immediately we face difficulties when we focus on Mark 11:1-11 (and

par.) because significant doubt exists as to whether this event happened,
especially in light of D. Catchpole's study.266 Bultmann also concluded that
this is a messianic legend, although perhaps based on an account of Jesus'
entry into Jerusalem with a crowd of expectant pilgrims.26' Thus, we must
examine this material carefully to see whether we can deduce anything about
the historical Jesus.

First, Catchpole appears to be guilty of a common fallacy when pursuing

a fonngeschichtliche approach to a narrative: He assumes that because the
narrative seems to fit a particular formal pattern, one can therefore draw
conclusions about the historical authenticity of the narrative's essential
content. But the fact that this story may be in the form of a legend of the
entry of a king into his city does not rule out the possibility of a historical
basis for the story.2"

Furthermore, Catchpole's formal analysis attempts to place Zech. 9:9 into

a category that speaks of a king arriving after having achieved a victory.
Although Zech. 9:1ff. does speak of victory over foes, these foes are beaten
outside the holy city, at which according to v. 8 the king will encamp "as a
guard so that none may march to and fro." Thus, as he comes to the city he is
indeed triumphant. The final victory, however, has not been achieved.
Indeed, it appears that the holy city has not yet been liberated. Verse 10 says,
"I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the
nations." Thus, the king is not being welcomed into a city already at peace,
prepared for his coming. Nor does his coming inaugurate the era of
peace.269 Rather, the war horses must first be cut off from Jerusalem.
Jerusalem's people should rejoice because their liberator has come, not
because the liberation has already been completely accomplished. In short,
this text probably does not fit the pattern Catchpole has discerned of a king
returning to his city after the final victory and with the acclamation of his
people. Even though the Markan text may be related to Zech. 9:9, it does not
fit the perceived formal pattern.270 Even if it did fit such a pattern, one
could not make a value judgment on the historical substance of Mark 11:1-
11 (and par.) simply because it has been written in light of a recognized
pattern and particular Old Testament texts.

Second, Derrett has gone to some lengths to show that various people
including the disciples of rabbis could and did commandeer animals in Jesus'
era and afterward, following the rules for angaria, the impressing of means
of transportation for some specific limited time and purpose.27' There is no
good reason that Jesus and his disciples could not have utilized such a
recognized practice.

Third, the Markan form of the story does not show the elaboration on
Zech. 9:9 that we find in Matthew and John, although the implicit allusion
seems to be present in Mark as well. Furthermore, Jesus is not hailed as
Lord; at most he is hailed as the one coming in the Lord's name.272 Indeed,
it can be argued that Jesus is simply being accompanied by various pilgrims
who are singing the pilgrim songs, one of which is based on Ps. 118:26ff.
and was certainly used during the Feasts of Tabernacles and Passover .173
(Psalm 118:26 may be no more than a greeting used to address pilgrims as
they approached the holy city.) In short, the Markan form of the story is
primitive and does not capitalize on the christological potential of the text,
unlike the later versions of this story. Taylor concludes:

In favor of the historical worth of the narrative are the local expressions
at the beginning, the vivid character of the account, including the
instructions to the two disciples, the description of what happened, the
restrained nature of the acclamation, and the strange manner in which
the account breaks off without any suggestion of a "triumphal entry" (as
in Mt). These characteristics suggest the eyewitness rather than the
artist.... We must conclude that it comes from the best tradition, with
embellishment only in the phrase concerning the colt: "whereon no man
ever yet sat." With good reason we may assign it to the Petrine
tradition.274

Whether there was in Jesus' day or before a messianic expectation that

involved Zech. 9:9-and the Jewish literature usually cited appears to come
from a later era2n-there is no reason that Jesus could not have conceived of
himself in such terms, in contradistinction to the normal Davidic messianic
expectations. The Fourth Gospel independently gives us a version of this
story, that includes the association with Zech. 9:9. Here again, the criterion
of multiple attestation applies. For our purposes the historical substance of
the story needs only to be the fact that Jesus requisitioned an ass or the foal
of an ass7/6 and rode into Jerusalem upon it accompanied by various people,
presumably including the disciples. It may also be historical that there were
with Jesus pilgrims, presumably from Galilee, who were singing or shouting
some of the Hallel psalms. But even if only the event of Jesus riding into the
city on an ass is historical, then there can be little doubt that Jesus associated
himself with Zech. 9:9.27

We must now inquire into the possible meaning of such an event. Notice
that nowhere else in any of the Gospel stories has Jesus ridden, and this
riding seems to go against the tradition of pilgrims walking into the holy city
together at feast time. Thus, Jesus is deliberately distinguishing himself from
those with whom he was traveling; here he deliberately elevates himself
above his companions, by this symbolic action of self-elevation. That he
intended this to be a symbolic act, one might call it a prophetic sign,rn seems
likely.

That the sign was meant to say something about Jesus' intentions and self-
revelation seems certain. It is not clear however, that either the crowd or the
disciples (cf. John 12:16) took the hint at least until later, although the event
itself was remembered.27 Skepticism about the possibility of such an
occurrence, based on the supposition that the authorities would have acted
against Jesus, is grounded on the assumption that this event was of much
greater magnitude than it likely was. Furthermore, if this event happened
outside the city and in the press of the festival crowd, then it may well have
gone unnoticed by the authorities, unless it was later reported to them. One
must not envision an authority under every bush watching Jesus' every
move.2'0

If Jesus did see himself in terms of Zech. 9:9, then this action might even
be called an antirevolutionary act, meant to delimit clearly what sort of
messianic figure was not consistent with his self-understanding and what
sort of self-image he intended to project. He would not ride into town on a
war horse. Rather, he chooses the route of the peaceable kingly figure or
"Israel's shepherd-king."28' This certainly comports with some of his likely
authentic utterances (Matt. 5:9, 38-48).282

Thus, Jesus does at the end of his career deliberately reveal his
selfperception, but not in the terms of the most popular form of messianic
expectation.283 Indeed, it may be that Jesus was the first one to base
messianic expression on Zech. 9:9. In any event, Jesus cannot be seen as a
revolutionary on the basis of this action; his intent and action were
otherwise, and it is unlikely that an action such as this led to his demise. For
the historical antecedents of the crucifixion we must look to the temple
traditions.

A Temple Tantrum? Assessing Jesus' view of early Judaism entails

examining his view of the three fundamental foci points of that religion:
Torah, temple, and territory (the promised land). The Torah was discussed
when we considered Jesus' relationships with the Pharisees.28' Here,
however, we must examine what Jesus said about and did in the temple.
Careful examination is crucial because Brandon has argued that Jesus,
accompanied by disciples and a crowd, went into the temple and that upon
seeing Jesus' action in the temple, the excited crowd attacked and pillaged
the temple.263 Although the Gospels say nothing about a crowd pillaging
the temple, making Brandon's case largely an argument from silence, even if
Jesus acted alone "it is this event that comes nearest to revolutionary activity
and it is this narrative that contains the watchwords indicating Zealotism:
zelos and lestes."2Bb

Various attitudes about the temple existed in Jesus' day, ranging from the
views expressed in some parts of the Enoch and the Qumran literature that
the temple was corrupt and would be judged or destroyed (cf. I Enoch 89.73-
90.29; 4QFlor. 1.1-12),287 to very positive assessments. Part of the
difficulty lay in the fact that Herod the Great was the one largely responsible
for the present state of the temple building, and even leaving aside the
notorious examples of his immorality, violence, and self-aggrandizing
behavior, his family heritage was Idumean. It is clear that attitudes in Galilee
were rather different from those in Judea. Freyne has assembled data to
show that: (1) many of the Galileans probably did not follow Pharisaic
regulations in regard to the paying of the half-shekel temple tax, but instead
followed the Sadducean position on the matter; and (2) the Galileans were
not scrupulous about tithing. Freyne conjectures that this was not caused by
an antitemple attitude, but in part from the fact that "their attitude can be
interpreted as conservative rather than neglectful, reflecting a refusal to
adopt new ideas in religion any more than in other walks of life, in line with
peasant attitudes everywhere. "188 Some of Freyne's evidence is post-A.D.
70, but it does reflect a trend that existed well before the destruction of the
temple. One should not conclude from this evidence that the Galileans as a
whole were antitemple because both Josephus and the New Testament attest
that Galileans made regular pilgrimages up to Jerusalem (cf. Ant. 118-120;
Luke 13:1).

The point is that there was precedent in Jesus' day for differing from both
the Pharisees and the temple hierarchy about the Herodian temple and its
worth. Even if one supported the concept of temple worship, one might be
critical of corrupt practices within it. Such differing from the Judean or
Jerusalem views of these matters apparently was not unusual in Galilee.

Jeremias has drawn our attention to some extrabiblical material that

suggests there was an association in early Judaism between the coming and
enthronement of Israel's final shepherd king and the renewal of the temple?
89 Besides interesting evidence from outside Jewish circles, Jeremias points
to a text such as I Enoch 90.28-30 which reads, "Then I stood still, looking
at that ancient house being transformed: All the pillars and all the columns
were pulled out ... I went on seeing until the Lord of the sheep brought about
a new house, greater and loftier than the first one, and set it up in the first
location ... All the sheep were within it." From what follows in I Enoch
90.40, it appears that the reference to the Lord is not to a messianic figure
but to Yahweh. Nevertheless, Jeremias is correct to point to texts such as
Ant. 18.85ff. and Wars 6.283ff. where some eschatological expectation is
present in Jesus' setting for a messianic figure to do something about the
temple as a means of making or legitimating a messianic claim.290

Two further preliminary remarks are necessary before examining the

Gospel material. First, there is an interesting passage in the M. San. 9.6
which states that the gannaim may fall upon anyone who steals a sacred
vessel, presumably from the temple. This indicates that zeal for the temple
was assumed to be justified, even if it involved violence against the defiler
or violator. Acts 21:28-29 attests to mob violence against one who was
perceived as violating the sanctity of the temple, in this case, Paul, by
bringing a non-Jew into the temple precincts.

Another important matter is what Jesus might have been directing his
wrath against if he did perform some sort of violent act in the temple. It
cannot be assumed that it was directed purely against the sacrificial system
and its support mechanisms such as the selling of pigeons or the changing of
money.

N. Hamilton has urged that Jesus' wrath was directed against "the whole
economic function of the temple,"291 which included not only the sale of
birds for sacrifice and the money changing operation but also those who
delivered goods to the vendors, merchants who sold and bought cattle,292 as
well as those who would simply be coming to make a deposit in the temple,
which served as the bank for Jewish people. Any or all of these activities
could have been the object of his action.

In regard to the historicity of Jesus performing some kind of action in the

temple, the following considerations seem decisive. First, the later church,
either in its early days when it was still involved in the temple prior to A.D.
70 (cf. Acts 2:46) or later when it was seeking to present itself as a religion
that was not an inherent threat to the empire, would have been unlikely to
have invented a tradition about Jesus taking some sort of violent action in
the temple. Temples of all sorts were protected by the Romans during the
age of the empire, not least because sacrifices for the emperor were to be
offered in these temples.299 As Sanders says, withholding sacrifices was
taken by the Romans as the final sign of a revolt.294 Second, the outer court
of the temple served as the agora for Jerusalem and was very large, some
300 meters wide by 450 meters in length.291 If, as the Gospels all agree,
Jesus acted on his own, then it is possible that a major disturbance was not
created and the Roman soldiers in the adjacent Antonia Fortress would not
have been summoned. If any action was taken at all as a result of the minor
disruption, then it could have been handled by a few temple police who, if
Jesus did not persist in his action for long, could easily have helped to set
matters right and reported the incident to the temple authorities.

Third, even Bultmann allows that a historical background to this story

may be postulated whatever redactional additions may have been made to
the basic tradition. He calls the story (at least Mark 11:15b-d, 16, 17) a
biographical apophthegm." Fourth, as Fitzmyer says, the main objection to
the historicity of this story is the difficulty some scholars have in seeing how
Jesus could have cleaned out the whole court of the Gentiles without
opposition from the temple police. But this objection fails if Jesus did not
cleanse the whole court but took an action limited in time and space, meant
as a prophetic sign and not as an actual attempt at an effective deansing.29
Fifth, according to the majority of scholars the criterion of multiple
attestation here again applies because John's version of this story seems
clearly to stem from a non-Markan tradition and most certainly has a non-
Markan placement that surely suggests the Fourth Evangelist is not
following Mark here." Sixth, if Jesus' anger was directed against the trade
going on in the temple, no good evidence attests that such commercial use of
the court of the Gentiles was a practice of long standing. Indeed, V. Eppstein
has argued that the practice originated in the lifetime of Jesus, perhaps
instituted as late as A.D. 30 by Caiaphas, and that there was great
controversy during this period over this innovation because markets already
existed on the Mount of Olives for the same purposes." Jesus' action then
would be comprehensible as a response to a recent abuse introduced into the
temple precincts, presumably for the profit of the temple hierarchy. We know
that the high priest received a share of the temple tax, so other forms of
revenue raising may also have been introduced (cf. M. Shek. 3.1).300 We
also know that later the so-called shops of the House of Annas were rebelled
against by the people.301

If we grant that an action by Jesus in the temple is both possible and

plausible, the question then becomes which form of text, the Markan or
Johannine, is more likely to preserve the original historical substance of the
event. Most scholars are convinced that the Johannine placement of the story
is likely to be secondary, but this does not settle the question of which
account is closer in substance to the original events. Both accounts mention
the overturning of the moneychangers' tables and both mention the driving
out of those who sold the birds and animals (John adds the driving out of the
animals as well, while Mark mentions the driving out of those who bought).
This seems likely to have been the nature of the original action that stands
behind both accounts.

In John we hear the pronouncement, "You shall not make my Father's

house a house of trade," which may be the Johannine version of, "Is it not
written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer' ... but you have made it
a den of robbers." It is also possible that John's saying is not just an alternate
form of the same saying (cf. Mark 11:16 on traders in the temple), in which
case the background to the Johannine sayings is more likely to be Zech.
14:21 rather than Isa. 56:7/Jer. 7:11 which stands behind the Markan saying.
Some sort of word or words of interpretation to make the action intelligible
likely goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. The Johannine version seems to
have incorporated an additional temple saying, John 2:19, from some other
context.

Next the question about the meaning of this action and Jesus' word of
interpretation needs to be raised. Again there are various possibilities. Was
this action a symbolic cleansing of the temple as it is so often interpreted to
be, or are Jesus' words and deed more a symbolic judgment sign,
foreshadowing a coming judgment on the corrupt institution? To what extent
is Jesus rejecting the temple per se or only some aspect of it, or is this action
more a statement against the corruption in the temple? Should this action be
seen as messianic, perhaps interpreted in light of various traditions that
anticipated that the Davidic messiah would build the eschatological temple
(cf. 2 Sam. 7:13), or is it simply the action of a reformer, one wishing to
restore the original or proper purity of the present temple? These issues are
made more complex because there are various forms of the saying,
suggesting that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. These sayings
also need to be evaluated.

Most scholars are in agreement that in the case of the saying about the
destruction of the temple, John 2:19 preserves the more primitive form, and
Mark 14:58 may be seen either as a somewhat garbled version of this saying
or, more likely, as the misunderstanding of the saying by those who sought
to bear false witness against Jesus before the Jewish authorities (cf. Mark
14:57). Jesus apparently did predict the demise of the temple (cf. Mark 13:1-
2 and par.). If the original form of the saying is along the lines of John 2:19
or Mark 13:1-2, then Jesus does not suggest that he himself will tear down
the temple, but he may be suggesting that he will raise up the new
eschatological temple. It is thus unlikely that Jesus' action in the temple
should be seen as an attempt to destroy the temple. This comports with the
messianic traditions of early Judaism because "in none of the messianic texts
is the Messiah expected to destroy the temple, even as the prelude to the
building of a new temple."302 If Jesus saw himself as in some sense
messiah, then it is unlikely that his action in the temple was meant to be
literally destructive, although it might well have prophetically depicted the
coming destruction. By contrast two texts (2 Sam. 7:13 and Zech. 6:12) were
understood in pre-Christian Jewish circles to refer to the messiah building
the final temple, although probably the majority of Jews in Jesus' day held
the view that God would build the final temple (cf. esp. Exod. 15:17).303

Theissen has encouraged us to see Mark 14:58 in the light of the tensions
between those who dwelt in the city of Jerusalem, a good many of whom
depended on the temple and in particular the ongoing building of the temple
for their livelihood, and those who dwelt elsewhere in the land, perhaps
particularly in Galilee.30' He argues that the early church would not have
created a saying like Mark 14:58 because Jesus did not build a new temple in
that era and because the Romans, not Jesus or the Jews, destroyed the
temple.303 He draws attention to the resistance not only at Qumran, but also
among the ordinary people, to the temple Herod built, especially in light of
the heavy tax burden. Notably, all those prophets who criticized the temple
in the past were from among the people of the land, not from Jerusalem-
Micah, Jeremiah, Uriah (Jer. 26:20). In an already nervous city closely
watched by the Romans, any words or actions perceived to be a threat
against the temple, would be taken as a threat against such groups as the
priesthood, the aristocracy, and the construction and maintenance workers
employed at the temple. Jesus might easily be construed as deliberately
whipping up the visiting pilgrims against the establishment and the city
dwellers. After all, had he not arrived with a crowd of out of town
(Galilean?) pilgrims?

He would have been perceived as all the more dangerous if it was known
that he was preaching the arrival and even inbreaking of the dominion of
God, which had political and social as well as religious implications,
especially for Jerusalem. Any sort of radically theocratic preaching was
bound to make the present human intermediaries between God and God's
people nervous because their positions would be threatened by such a vision
of history. They had most to lose if things could not be maintained as they
were. Furthermore, there was the matter of right standing with God. "The
Jerusalemite had interest on the grounds of the holiness of their City, that is
on the ground of the Temple. Any questioning of the religious status of the
City must also place therefore the material status of its inhabitants in
question."306 These factors make clear that much more was at stake than
just spiritual matters, especially if Jesus performed a prophetic sign in the
temple and perhaps said something sounding like a threat against the temple.

Although Jesus' action in the temple could be interpreted in various ways,

it probably should not be seen as an attempt to interrupt or condemn the
temple cultus per se. This is so because: (1) even as a symbolic act, Jesus'
action would have been singularly ineffective because at least four markets
were on the Mount of Olives where commerce was not interrupted by
him307; (2) various traditions including Matt. 5:23-24 and Acts 2:46 argue
against such an interpretation;30$ and (3) the direction of the sayings in both
John and Mark is against some sort of action or trading in the temple, not
against the temple per se.

How, then, should we understand Jesus' action? One possible view would
be that Jesus' action was a prophetic judgment sign.309 J. Roloff maintains:
"The action of Jesus was accordingly a prophetic sign, that the repentance
and conversion of Israel in the Endtime will be brought about.1131° This
view is plausible not only because of the independent saying about the
coming demise of the temple but also because of the variety of Jewish
groups in Jesus' age, especially at Qumran, who felt the Herodian temple
was radically tainted and corrupt and thus doomed. This conclusion recently
has been supported by C. A. Evans who refutes the views of Sanders.31
Jesus may well have been like-minded, especially if he, like some of his
fellow Galileans, was not enamored with such means as the temple tax and
tithes to obtain money from the populous for the temple and its hierarchy.
Money, particularly the changing of money so that the half-shekel tax could
be paid, seems to be part of what Jesus is attacking in the temple.

A second possibility is broached by Hamilton. He argues that because the

wealth of Judea was concentrated in the temple bank, which functioned like
a state exchequer, and because those who interfered with the economic
affairs of the temple-often appropriating money from it-were always the
kings or rulers of the land, Jesus' action suggested a kingly claim. "Without
the authority of the sanhedrin or Roman procurator such sovereign
interference in the economic affairs of the temple must have been taken as a
direct claim to be king."31: Only royalty would dare interfere as Jesus did.
The only problem with this rather impressive argument is that Jesus does not
actually appropriate anything here; the mere interference with the cultus in
itself was probably not peculiarly regal. Certainly the later actions of the
sicarii and the priestly Zealots in the temple could not all be interpreted in
this fashion.

A third view is that the messiah was expected on the basis of such texts as
Psalms of Solomon 17 to come and cleanse the land, thus creating "the
purified conditions in which Redemption would be possible."313 This view
coheres with Eppstein's with the additional component that Jesus would be
taking on a messianic function, not merely offering a prophetic critique in
cleansing the temple.

A fourth view centers on the fact that this action seems to have taken
place in the court of the Gentiles. The argument is largely based on Mark
11:17, particularly the phrase "for all nations." The point would be that Jesus
was trying to clear the outer court so that the Gentiles too could worship in
God's house. It should be noted that none of the other Gospels includes this
phrase, not even Luke, and most scholars would agree that Mark was
directed toward a predominantly gentile audience. Most scholars would urge
that this phrase is Mark's redactional comment.

A fifth view depends on which form of the saying or sayings was likely
Jesus' original comment on his action. If John 2:16 (or something quite like
it) was Jesus' word of interpretation, then it is plausible that Jesus would be
alluding to Zech. 14:21 and would be seeing himself as bringing in that final
holy time when there would no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord.
This interpretation gains credence if Jesus interpreted himself and his role in
light of the prophecies of Zechariah. In fact, O'Neill has intimated that
Zechariah's oracles could have had a major influence on Jesus' thinking
about some of the matters climaxing during the last week of Jesus' life."' The
problem with seeing the saying in Mark 11:17 (and par.) as original has been
pointed out by A. E. Harvey: Neither half of this saying is apposite when
translated back into Hebrew or Aramaic. The word translated "robber"
means "raider," not "swindler," and so it could refer to a revolutionary but
not someone like a money changer or a simple trader.315 Thus, the
Johannine saying more likely captures the sense of how Jesus originally
interpreted the event.

What may we conclude from all this? The most plausible interpretations
of Jesus' action in the temple suggest that Jesus performed a prophetic sign
that was meant either as a signal of coming judgment on the temple or more
probably as a symbolic action of cleansing, perhaps like that of Nehemiah's
(cf. Neh. 13:4-9, 12-13),316 in which case Jesus was saying that God's final
action was upon the people of Israel and that Jesus was bringing it in."' If the
interpretive word in John 2:16b goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu, then
Jesus would once again be indicating that he saw himself as the messianic
figure of Zechariah who not only brought the final cleansing to Israel at its
center of being, the temple, but who also brought in the dominion of God
that was expected on "that day." In addition, John 2:19 comports with this
view, further suggesting that Jesus saw himself as the one who would build
the eschatological house/temple of God, whatever Jesus may have meant by
such an idea. Thus, we see two attempts, the entry and the cleansing, by
Jesus during the closing days of his life to present himself in a messianic
light, not in accord with popular expectation, but in accord with his own
self-perception, which seems to have been based on the oracles of Zechariah.

That Jesus' action was not revolutionary in the sense that Brandon would
have it is clear from two facts: (1) pace Brandon, none of the Gospels
suggests that this action was anything other than an individual act of Jesus
himself; and (2) neither Jewish sources nor the Gospels record any response
by the temple police against Jesus at the time, which strongly supports the
view that this was not a large-scale action but rather a prophetic, symbolic
gesture. Jesus had not come to destroy the heart of Judaism, but rather to
cleanse it and so make it possible for Jews to see their state of affairs in a
true light. Then the Jews would be prepared to enter the dominion of God,
which was already in their midst through Jesus' own actions and preaching.
Yet by this time Jesus already saw that by and large Judaism was not
responding to his message and methods, so that an oracle about the doom of
the temple or God's judgment upon it was also possible. Nevertheless, this
was not Jesus' last word on the matter. If we are to believe John 2:19b, then
Jesus saw himself as the one to bring in the final day, indeed, to raise up the
final temple of God.

Here we see an individual who had a very different view of messianism

than many of his contemporaries including the revolutionaries. His vision
was chiefly shaped by Zechariah, not the Davidic traditions and their
successors in texts like Psalms of Solomon 17. He had a messianic
selfunderstanding, but it was precisely this that distinguished him from
various popular expectations and the hopes of the revolutionaries, from the
Pharisees, and even from the Baptist. Jesus was in many ways unique,
although not entirely novel, for he too interpreted his life in the light of the
age-old Scriptures, like his fellow pious Jewish contemporaries. Because his
selfperception was based in the Scriptures, his self-expression in word and
deed would not have been totally opaque but certainly new and challenging,
even threatening to the status quo approaches to Torah, temple, and territory.
CONCLUSIONS

That Jesus was crucified, and that the titulus likely read "King of the Jews"
is one of the most well-assured results of the historical critical study of the
life of Jesus."a One will likely fail to explain this outcome to Jesus' earthly
life without seriously entertaining the likelihood that what Jesus said or did
that was perceived as a messianic claim, unless one holds that both the Jews
and the Romans completely misunderstood Jesus' nature and intentions. Yet
a good deal of Gospel evidence suggests that Jesus was crucified because of
what he said and aid, indeed because of who he was, rather than in spite of
these factors. Jesus had said something about the coming demise of the
temple, he had talked about being involved in the setting up of the
eschatological temple, and perhaps most importantly, he had cleansed
Herod's temple or at least performed a prophetic sign that indicated the need
for this. It was these sayings and the final dramatic act in the temple that
both implied certain claims on Jesus' part and led to his demise. It is not
accidental that in the Jewish interrogations of Jesus, questions come up
about what Jesus said about the temple and his identity, while in the trial
before Pilate Jesus is asked about his identity, and in Luke 23:2 we hear that
some thought Jesus had forbidden the paying of tribute to Caesar. All of
these issues were involved in Jesus' teaching and actions during the last few
weeks of his life, and we have sought to treat each of these matters in some
depth in this chapter.

The point is not that one can simply take the various trial accounts of
Jesus as straightforward history writing. Indeed, these are some of the most
complex and difficult traditions in the Gospel. Rather, the point is that the
charges made against Jesus do have echoes from and are in part based upon
what he actually said, did, and claimed at least implicitly in the last few
weeks of his life, however much the accounts have been theologically
elaborated. Indeed, I think we can now present a coherent picture of the last
few weeks of Jesus' ministry.

Jesus lived in an age when there was an ongoing revolutionary movement,

when his own home region was a place where there may have been some
real revolutionary ferment. Jesus seems to have partaken in some of the
disaffection that many of his contemporaries felt with the religious and
political authorities of his day. He seems to have strongly identified with the
outcasts of his society, and he manifested some of the same qualities and
attitudes that other renewal movements of his day shared: a critical attitude
toward Jerusalem, an avoidance of Hellenistic cities of the region, and a
theocratic vision coupled with the conviction of the near or present
eschatological action of God. Indeed, it appears that the eschatological meal
he shared with his fellow countrymen in the Galilean wilderness was
interpreted by many to mean that Jesus was the messianic figure for whom
many were looking-either the sort of Messiah the revolutionaries were
hoping for, or at least the Davidic Messiah in the mold of Psalm of Solomon
17. Yet Jesus rejected this sort of evaluation of himself and his ministry.
Although he agreed with some of the radical critique of his nation's malaises,
he did not agree with the revolutionaries or even the dominant Davidic hopes
about what the solution to these problems should look like. It appears likely
that the feeding of the five thousand was the last act of his Galilean ministry
because after that he withdrew, not wanting to be evaluated in those terms.
Jesus, like many others who sought to lead messianic movements in the first
century, did perform particular, even symbolic actions, which raised
messianic expectations. The sort of expectations they raised, however, were
not what Jesus had in mind, hence his withdrawal.

There is no good evidence that anyone in Jesus' inner circle was a

revolutionary. That Simon is singled out as the Zealot distinguishes him
from the other disciples and may indicate either his former loyalties or his
zealousness (like Paul's) for the law. That there was a customs official or tax
collector among the Twelve counts against the revolutionary theory. So too
does Jesus' saying about paying the tribute money to Caesar-Jesus does not
reject outright the claims of Caesar on the money Caesar minted, although
Jesus sees such claims of little significance in comparison to the claim God
has on his people. The money may be minted with Caesar's image, but
human beings are minted with God's, and God's claim is both higher and
prior to Caesar's, especially in light of the inbreaking dominion of God. It
could be argued that it was a duty for a pious Jew to return Caesar's money
to him, in order to have nothing to do with one who claimed to be Pontifex
Maximus and divine. Jesus then was no revolutionary. Although his
messianic movement definitely had political and social implications, Jesus
did not give in to a purely political solution to Israel's dilemmas. There was
no need; God was already intervening in Jesus' own ministry and God's hand
did not need to be forced.

During the final weeks of Jesus' life, when he foresaw both his own and
the temple's demise, Jesus still pressed forward his case to be a different sort
of Messiah, one after the image that Zechariah had in mind. To this end, he
rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass and performed a prophetic and
symbolic cleansing of the temple. This last action, coupled with what Jesus
had said about the temple, led to Jesus' death, a death by crucifixion.319
Although undoubtedly Jesus' interlocutors during the last day of his life did
not understand the term in the same way, ironically it was a correct
assessment when Jesus was crucified as "King of the Jews." If the narrative
of the interrogations are correct in this one point, then Jesus did not refuse
the title of Mashiach of Christos on the lips of the Jewish or Roman
authorities.320 Still the most plausible thesis about the titulus is that it refers
to the crime of laesa majestas.321 As H. Windisch once said, if Jesus stated
or accepted an assertion about his messianic status, Pilate probably had little
choice but to condemn him.322 It remains to be seen how these assessments
fit into Jesus' vision of his overall mission to Israel and to his community
that he had called out to be his disciples.
JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES

Perhaps no set of relationships better reflects how Jesus viewed himself than
those he had with his followers. Some of Jesus' followers were apparently
with him throughout his ministry, and they are the group with whom he was
most likely to disclose his innermost thoughts and feelings. Conzelmann
points out that "in the relationship of Jesus to his disciples what is specific in
his self-understanding is documented. 11323 Before we study Jesus in
relationship to his followers, however, we need to review the modern
sociological study of "charismatic leaders."

JESUS THE CHARISMATIC LEADER

We will discuss the possibility that Jesus saw himself as a theios aner when
we examine the miracle traditions. This discussion runs into difficulties
because there are no clear cut paradigms for such a person. There are,
however, rather striking parallels between what commitment meant for a
follower of Pythagoras (lamblicus Pythag. 17.73) and what it meant for a
follower of Jesus (cf. Matt. 8:21-22/Luke 9:59-60).724 Caution should be
exercised in applying modern paradigms or models of leadership, such as the
Weberian model of the charismatic leader, to Jesus. Nonetheless, the modern
sociological discussion has led to some worthwhile insights.

B. J. Malina, in his critique of the Weberian model of the charismatic

leader,329 suggests that Jesus ought to be seen as a "reputational legitimate
leader." This sort of person is neither invested with authority by the powers
that be (Jewish authorities in either Jerusalem or the Romans) nor is the
authority based on the sheer force of the person's personality, rather, such a
person is "recognized as wielding authority due to reputation rooted in
socially verifiable influence (teaching) or beneficial power (healing), not on
illusory charisma."926 The reputational leader:

normally emerges in situations where cultural values cannot be realized

in normal human living. This authority derives from the successful
criticism and dislocation of the higher order norms which legitimate the
 authority prevailing in a given society. This sort of authority ... is rooted
in a person's ability to influence change in the broadly encompassing
norms that constrain the recognition of legitimate authority." "n

What is persuasive about Malina's analysis is that most of the recognition

Jesus received and the authority he was perceived to have seem to be based
on his teaching and healing. The first problem with completely accepting
this model as applicable to Jesus, however, is that the reputational leader,
according to Malina, is one who does not fully believe in himself or in his
ability to effect change. He does not seek to bind people to himself, he is just
"a 'collective representation,' a visible symbol of the values and tendencies
of his society rather than a source of those values and tendencies. Jesus thus
personifies the values and goals of those who followed him."3:8

A second problem with this conclusion is that as Malina himself admits,

early Jewish culture was disdainful of glorifying a human individual unless
that person could be seen as the messiah of God. The Jewish culture did not
give complete deference to higher human authority, indeed every form of
human power was very carefully scrutinized and critiqued.329 The question
then becomes, If Jesus was simply a reputational leader, how could an
attitude of reverence and a fixation on the person of Jesus develop so quickly
after his death? How did he come to be crucified as "King of the Jews"?
How could traditions develop that suggest Jesus' absolute authority even
over the law prior to the writing of the Gospels? Why do so many layers of
tradition suggest that Jesus did not embody the values of many of the
opinion shapers in his society with whom he had various controversies, or
even the values of some followers who seem to have expected him to restore
Israel to its Davidic glory, an expectation that he disappointed?

Third, there are traditions suggesting that Jesus bound the inner circle of
his disciples closely to himself and exercised personal authority that went
beyond the category of reputational leader, leading to his demise. In short,
there are too many traditions suggesting that Jesus was something more than
a reputational leader and that the later portrait of Jesus by the Gospel writers
was a development out of factors present in the Sitz im Leben Jesu, not a
creation of the early post-Easter Christian community.
 A fourth problem with Malina's theory is that Jesus proclaimed that the
dominion of God was breaking into history through Jesus' ministry. A person
who believes that such a thing is happening through his own activities surely
perceives himself in ways that go beyond the description of a reputational
leader. Jesus not only proclaimed the dominion, he brought it in as was
evident from the changed lives of individuals. The blind see, the lame walk,
and, as Jesus implied to the messengers of John the Baptist, this should lead
one to see him as a fulfiller of Old Testament promises. He was not just the
man of the hour who arose when a difficult circumstance required a
response. He was one who saw himself as sent by God to accomplish
specific tasks. Thus, while I agree that Jesus was neither a Hellenistic divine
man nor a charismatic leader as Weber defines it, Jesus' personal charisma
and the fact that he bound disciples to himself needs to be given due weight
in an evaluation of what Jesus was like and how he viewed himself. We turn
now to evidence that allows us to see whether our criticism of Malina is
justified, and whether our alternative to his view can be substantiated.
JESUS' SENSE OF PURPOSE

Some of the most important material for assessing Jesus' sense of purpose is
the various elthon sayings. Bultmann's330 scruples against sayings that
begin "I came" or "I have come" seem unfounded in view of two factors: (1)
the form of elthon plus the infinitive probably goes back to ata (ba) le plus
the infinitive, which means, as does elthon plus the infinitive, "I intend" or "I
have the task"; (2) there are various examples from the Qumran literature
where the Teacher of Righteousness speaks in a similar manner in the first
person about himself (cf. 1QH 2.11-12 ("1 became"]; IQH 2.14-15; 1QH
2.32-33 ["my steps proceeding from you"]).331

Particular reasons for accepting the authenticity of Luke 12:49-50 (and

also Matt. 10:34b) are as follows. To "cast fire" seems to be a literal
translation of an Aramaic phrase meaning "to kindle fire," and furthermore
the use of ti here is very Semitic and used like Mah introducing a rhetorical
ques- tion.332 Also the expression Balein eirenen seems to be a Semitism
(cf. Lev. R. 9 [111b], Mekilta to Exod. 20,25; Sifre Num. 16). The ouklalla
structure of Matt. 10:34b speaks for its being the earlier form of this saying,
and indeed it can be translated back into Aramaic.113 In any case, the
unusual form and difficulty of both sayings (Luke 12:49, Matt. 10:34b) favor
their authenticity, and the same applies to Luke 12:50a, although Luke has
made some changes of diction. Matthew 10:34b makes sense in a setting late
in Jesus' ministry when hostilities against him prevented him from being
accepted by many of his peers."' Two facts favor the authenticity of some
form of the baptismal saying (Luke 12:50): (1) it probably does not refer to
water baptism, and thus is not likely a church creation; and (2) it suggests
that Jesus is limited or constrained by larger historical forces or factors-
something must happen to him for him to accomplish his purpose.335 It is
possible that Luke 12:49 and 50 are parallel sayings, which reflect two
different ways of getting the same point across. An independent tradition
(Mark 10:38b) also seems to attest to the ideas that Luke 12:50 expresses.
Further, the "not peace but a sword" tradition seemingly goes against the
Gospel portrayal of Jesus as a man of peace, and this favors its authenticity
(contrast Matt. 26:52 and 10:34). Finally, Matt. 10:34a has the same form as
Luke 12:49: elthon Balein.s36 Thus, we need to ask, What are the meanings
of Luke 12:49, 50, and Matt. 10:34a-b?

First, both Luke 12:49 and 50, in contrast perhaps to Matt. 10:34, refer to
a future activity. Second, there is the contrast between the first and second
saying-one referring to fire, the other apparently to water. Third, the first
saying seems to refer to an activity that Jesus will perform, while Luke 12:50
refers to something that must happen to him, although this could be a means
by which he fulfills his purpose. Before we can settle this issue, however, we
need to determine what is meant by fire.

As A. von Harnack points out,"' when used in a religious sense fire can
have either a positive or a negative connotation. On the one hand it can refer
to the fire of judgment (Luke 9:54; Matt. 13:30), or on the other hand, to a
cleansing or purifying force, or to the cleansing action of God's Holy Spirit,
rather than a purely destructive one (1 Cor. 3:13). Here it seems to refer to
something that has not yet transpired."" There is also the problem of whether
we should translate gen as earth or land (i.e., Israel). It is hard to avoid the
impression that this saying is about some form of (coming) judgment, in
particular on Jesus' fellow Jews. Certainly nothing in the context supports
the idea of a reference to the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. Even Luke
3:16-17 suggests a distinction between the work of the Spirit and fire, the
latter being associated with the winnowing of God's people. It appears that
we have a prophetic judgment oracle: Jesus has come to bring God's decisive
judgment upon the land."9 That it has not yet come to pass suggests that now
is the time for final repentance, for turning to God, for preparation for the
coming maelstrom.-IO

This comports well with the apparent meaning of Matt. 10:34a-b, which
suggests that now is the hour of decision and that how one decides about the
work and person of Jesus and his proclamation of the dominion of God will
affect one's present human relationships and one's final standing with God
(cf. Matt. 10:32-33, 39-40). Furthermore, the use of the sword metaphor to
suggest the inbreaking of eschatological times and particularly
eschatological judgment can be found in numerous Jewish texts (cf. Isa.
34:5; 66:16; Ezekiel 21; 1 Enoch 63.11, 91.12, 100.1f.; 2 Bar. 70.6). As
Arens points out, it was widely believed that the time of Messianic peace
would be preceded by judgment when the righteous would be vindicated and
sinners judged (cf. Psalms of Solomon 17).34'

If this is correct, then perhaps Jesus saw his ministry as preparation for or
bringing in the messianic woes. Because Jesus addresses all or some part of
Israel, judgment is beginning with the household of God. In these utterances
Jesus is going beyond John, not merely proclaiming judgment's coming but
also seeing himself as the one who will "cast fire upon the land" causing
division, decision, and finally judgment on those who do not respond
properly. Arens sums up the meaning of Matt. 10:34a-b by saying that this
text reveals:

a Christoiogical outlook wherein Jesus appears as Messiah. His coming

was the dawn of the messianic times which are marked by acceptance/
rejection and consequent judgment. It is a time of decision. To bring the
sword appears as a circumloquium for the end-times which precedes
peace itself. The perspective is therefore highly eschatological. It
assumes the understanding of the "who" who speaks and concentrates on
the "what" he provokes. With the inauguration of the Kingdom come the
adversities: a messianic paradox brought about by a paradoxical
figure.72

This saying is of particular importance to our study because an investigation

of the wisdom material and other relevant Jewish literature shows that
although the wise man may be called God's son, he is not said to be sent by
God, and although human messengers may be sent by God, they are not
called sons of God, and although angels may be called sons of God, this is
always in a collective context.33 If Jesus saw himself as God's sent one as
well as God's Son, this would set him apart from these other categories.

But lest Jesus sound merely like an angry young man grieved with his
people for their lack of response to him, we must now examine Luke 12:50.
The fact that the saying is future oriented and comes from the time of Jesus'
ministry surely rules out the idea that this is about Jesus' baptism by John. If
this saying is a pair with Luke 12:49, then the question arises whether there
is some sort of sequence envisioned here such as that which Leivestad has in
mind when he comments, "Before he can carry out this lifework, he must
experience a 'baptism' and that must also be a 'baptism with fire."'344 There
is evidence from the later Greek versions of the Old Testament (cf. Ps. 42:7;
69:1-2) and in Hellenistic sources that baptism here could refer to being
overwhelmed by a catastrophe.341 Thus, we see how Luke 12:49-50 may be
linked together. Jesus himself came to cause a trial by fire for Israel, but he
himself must undergo trial by water ordeal.

It would seem that this baptism can refer only to Jesus' sufferings, and in
a context of discussing messianic woes it may be implied messianic
sufferings. As Marshall avers, Luke 12:50 "conveys the idea that the death
envisaged by Jesus ... is no mere fate or accident but a destiny to be fulfilled;
cf. especially 13:32; 22:37... The thought is thus 'How I am totally governed
by this until it be finally accomplished!"'' It appears that at some point Jesus
came to see death as both inevitable and as God's plan for his life. Yet by
challenging Israel to force it to make a choice, he was also bringing a time of
division followed by judgment on at least some in Israel, and he included
himself as one of those who would undergo the ordeal of God's judgment."

There is some justice in the assessment that Jesus saw his task in life to
come and die, enduring God's overwhelming wrath. This text, however,
gives no clue as to the reason that Jesus thought this way or what possible
good enduring such a fate might do. There is the slight hint that Jesus
thought by going through his baptism he and his mission would no longer be
constrained or distressed.348 This hints that he envisioned some sort of
triumph for him or his mission beyond the baptismal ordeal. We must now
ask directly, what did Jesus see as his mission?
JESUS' SENSE OF MISSION

Jesus was a devout individual who believed he had a mission in life. It

appears that having observed the Baptist's work and subsequent
imprisonment, Jesus chose to pursue his calling during what turned out to be
the last three years of his life. This sense of mission is perhaps best
encapsulated in Matt. 15:24 (cf. 10:6), but we need to ask whether such a
saying is authentic.

It has been argued by scholars like F. W. Beare that Matt. 15:24 and 10:6
reflect early Palestinian Christian missionary preaching.349 But where is the
evidence that such early Jewish Christian preaching prohibited going to the
Gentiles, as Matt. 10:6 does? At most it might be argued that the focus was
on fellow Jews and that there was no thought of a positive Gentile mission.
Early Judaism was evidently not opposed to proselytism (cf. Matt. 23:15,
Ant. 20.38-48), indeed some Jews were zealous about making converts,
although an organized effort to get Gentiles into the synagogue is doubtful.
My point is that early Jewish Christians would not have prohibited
approaching Gentiles, although they may not have encouraged it.
Furthermore, this apparent particularism in Matt. 15:24 and 10:6 seems to be
at odds with the universalistic thrust of the First Gospel (cf. Matt. 2:1ff.;
4:15; 12:18-21; 8:11ff.; 15:21ff.; and especially 28:19).350 Jeremias argues
that this saying goes back to an Aramaic original. He notes that the use of
the divine passive apestalen, which is characteristic of the early tradition,
means "God has sent me" or "my God given commission is to ..." Also, eis is
seen by Jeremias as a rendering of the Hebrew Bu; thus, the phrase is a
Semitism."' I conclude that neither Matt. 15:24 nor 10:6 originated either in
early Jewish Christianity or from the pen of the first evangelist, and most
certainly did not come from Hellenistic and gentile Christianity.

The case for the essential authenticity of this material is bolstered when
we discover that a similar viewpoint is reflected in other layers of the
tradition such as in Luke 19:9-10. But what does Matt. 15:24 mean?
 The image of Israel as sheep is traditional and found in various places in
the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 23, Ezekiel 34), and the image of Israel as a
nation of lost sheep is also well-known (e.g., Ezekiel 34 and especially Jer.
50:6). Is Jesus referring to one particular group of Israelites, the lost among
Israel (a view perhaps supported by sayings like Mark 2:17b), or does he
believe all the people of Israel are lost sheep in need of shepherding? The
present contexts of both Matt. 10:6 and 15:24 favor the conclusion that all
Israel is meant."2 In the former saying the lost sheep of Israel is
distinguished from Samaritans and Gentiles, in the latter from a "Canaanite"
woman from the district of Tyre and Sidon."3 The conclusion that all Israel
is meant is also favored by Ezekiel 34 and Jer. 50:6, which surely stand in
the background here.

Although Jesus gave special attention to the "sinners" in Israel, traditions

suggest he had some followers who were good pious Jews, who were neither
poverty-stricken nor outcasts (cf. Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42, and one may also
note the traditions that Jesus dined with a Zaccheus or a Simon the Pharisee).
The fact that Jesus chose twelve disciples suggests that his focus was not on
a particular segment of Israelites but on all of them. This conclusion is
favored by a text such as Mark 6:34/Matt. 9:36, even though this text is an
editorial comment.

Several important points may now be made about Matt. 15:24. First, Jesus
has a sense of urgency about his mission not least because he believes all
Israel is lost and unprepared for the current inbreaking of the dominion of
God. Even his gathering of the Twelve is meant to better reach out to all
Israel with his message and ministry. This is precisely the sense of Matt.
10:6. The disciples are Jesus' agents, given a specific task of limited duration
and the necessary authority and power to carry it out, and working in the
name of their master for the sake of all Israel. His mission is their mission.

Second, the fact that Jesus uses this imagery to describe his mission
suggests that he sees himself as taking on a task that Yahweh is said to
undertake in Ezekiel 34. This implies that Jesus saw himself in elevated
categories because he is undertaking a task previously attributed to Yahweh.
(This phenomenon will also be seen in our discussion of some of Jesus'
meshalim.) This elevated self-understanding is also present in Luke 19:10,
about which Fitzmyer points out, "Thus the Lucan Jesus is depicted as one
sent ... even to act as Yahweh told Ezekiel he would act toward his scattered
people as a shepherd."3u Is this a purely redactional motif? Because the idea
is independently attested in Matt. 15:24, this is unlikely. The authenticity of
Luke 19:10 can be disputed. But if one leaves out the use of "Son of man" (a
circumlocution for "I" in this case), there is every reason to conclude that the
saying goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. As Marshall and Fitzmyer point
out, 1 Tim. 1:15 is what the saying would have looked like, if it had been
derived from a Hellenistic source.351 Thus, what we see in Matt. 15:24 is
that Jesus viewed himself as Israel's shepherd, which implies he believed he
was called to lead, oversee, and even rescue God's people. The image of
Jesus as a or even the shepherd of Israel is widely attested in a variety of
Gospel traditions, both in sayings and summaries (Mark 6:34; 14:27 and
par.; Matt. 15:24; 25:32; John 10:15-27). The question is not whether Jesus
saw himself in such a role-he probably did-but whether he understood
himself as fulfilling the role of a human shepherd of Israel or perhaps
something more.
JESUS AND THE TWELVE

That Jesus had a circle of adherents during his ministry is "self-evident."356

Not self-evident is the nature and extent of that group. The matter becomes
more complex when one tries to discern the relationship of Jesus' disciples in
general to the Twelve in particular. Although there are some who doubt that
Jesus gathered a group of twelve closer disciples around him, the following
factors strongly support the historicity of this idea: (1) by A.U. 50 the
concept of the Twelve is already a fixed idea for Paul (1 Cor. 15:5), even to
the point that they are called the Twelve when apparently there were only
eleven immediately after the Easter events; (2) that Judas the betrayer is
regularly mentioned in the Gospel tradition as one of the Twelve is
something no Christian would have invented (Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16;
Matt. 10:2-4; John 6:67);957 (3) references to the Twelve are also found in
the double tradition (cf. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30), meaning that it was
present in the tradition apart from Mark, as John 6:67 also shows.358
Certainly the evidence that Jesus had twelve disciples is compelling.

Somewhat more controversial is whether the Twelve were seen by Jesus

or the Gospel writers as the only disciples. Despite the impressive case made
by R. P. Meye that the Twelve equals the disciples,319 on balance it falls
short of proof. Meye might have proven his case in Matthew, where it is
apparently part of the author's redactional agenda,-360 but not in Mark, the
focus of his study. Clearly, not only are the Twelve chosen from among a
group of Jesus' disciples (Luke 6:13-17 and perhaps Matt. 10:1, 5), but
others including women are mentioned as itinerating with him (Luke 8:1-
3).361 But for our concerns it is critical to state the reasons that the Twelve
do not seem to be equated with Jesus' disciples or followers in Mark, the
earliest Gospel.

Mark uses the term disciple forty-two times to refer to the followers of
Jesus, the twelve we find only ten or eleven times (depending on how one
reads the text of 3:16), and the term apostle only once (6:30). Mark 4:10 is
critical because it refers to of pen auton sun tois dodeka, and these are all
asking about the explanation of the parable. Now this is rather awkward
Greek and Mark probably did not create the whole phrase, although he could
have added "the twelve" to "those around him" which he found in his source,
or vice versa. As Best points out "those around him" contrasts with the
reference to "those outside" mentioned in the next verse.362 As Freyne
admits, there is nothing particularly Markan about the style of 4:10.167
Thus, we conclude that this verse is a piece of tradition Mark found in his
source.

As to the meaning of Mark 4:10, the most natural interpretation is that it

refers to a group with the Twelve, not a group that is the Twelve. Even if we
translate it "those around him including the twelve, "364 it would still imply
a larger group of which the Twelve was a portion.

Further support for the view that the Twelve are not seen by Mark as all
the disciples can be found in at least three places. First, Mark 3:31-35
implies that Jesus' brothers and sisters would be those who do God's will,
which in view of the context probably does not refer just to the Twelve.m
Second, Mark 10:32 implies a larger group of followers going up to
Jerusalem with Jesus, although he draws the Twelve apart. It may be that this
is a redactional formulation, but it suggests at least two groups of followers-
a wider circle out of which Jesus draws aside the Twelve. This is possibly
also true of Mark 3:14.3"

Thus, we have seen that although in Mark 4:10, this distinction is

preMarkan, here it recurs even if it is redactional. Third, and perhaps most
important, although Mark places no stress on women following Jesus in
Galilee in the narration of Jesus' ministry, he clearly mentions such a group
at 15:40-41 and describes them as functioning as disciples. 367 I conclude
that not only at the level of Mark's own presentation but also in the sources
behind his Gospel, there was no equation of the Twelve and the disciples.

This is important especially if this distinction goes back to a Sitz im

Leben Jesu (and who, in any case, would invent women disciples in early
Jewish Christianity and insert them into the text?). It would seem to imply:
(1) that the Twelve were not seen by Jesus as a sort of righteous remnant of
Israel, gathered to the exclusion of others benefiting from his ministry or
being disciples (the others including women, sinners, tax collectors, etc.);""
and (2) that although the number twelve says something about Jesus and his
followers in relationship to Israel,"' it does not necessarily indicate he was
attempting to establish an exclusive community involving just himself and
the Twelve that would symbolically be the basis of a new Israel. Yet, by
symbolically choosing Twelve and sending them out to Israel, he may have
been implying that he was the one to fulfill the task of the eschatological
gathering of Israel.37° G. Lohfink puts it more strongly: "For Jesus the idea
of the reign of God automatically implied the gathering of Israel."371
Schnackenburg emphatically says that if one denies that Jesus intended to
gather some sort of community, then one "misunderstands the messianic-
eschatological thought of Israel, in which eschatological salvation cannot be
separated from the people of God and in which the community of God
necessarily belongs to his reign."372

It is seldom noted that Jesus never identifies himself as one of the Twelve
in any of the Gospel traditions. This suggests that Jesus did not symbolically
identify himself as or with Israel, any more than he identified the Twelve in
this fashion. Jesus ministered to Israel; he was not and did not see himself as
Israel. One can maintain that Jesus saw himself as a shepherd to and over
Israel and that the twelve were extensions of such a ministry, but not that
either Jesus or his followers saw themselves as Israel proper. Hengel says,
"The instituting of the Twelve itself, who included Matthew the taxgatherer
and Simon the 'man of zeal,' and who cannot have been identical with the
number of disciples called by him ... points to this openness for all Israel. . .
."373 Jesus' claim was on all of Israel, and he does not operate with Isaiah's
notion of a remnant.371
FISHING FOR FOLLOWERS

Best points out that what distinguishes the disciples from the Twelve is that
the Twelve are given the opportunity to participate in Jesus' ministry.375
Indeed, if Mark 1:17 (and par.) is any indication, that commission came with
their initial call to follow Jesus.376 But is this saying authentic? Several
things favor such a conclusion.

First, there is no evidence apart from the Gospel material that the early
church referred to missionary work in terms of fishing for human beings.
Neither in Acts nor in the Pauline or Petrine literature is there anything along
these lines. Portions of John 21 can be read in this way because it is post-
Easter material, but when the discussion actually turns to the matter of
converts, they are called sheep, not fish. Second, if indeed any of Jesus'
chosen Twelve were fishermen, this explains the use of the metaphor to a
large extent and provides a rather unique Sitz im Leben for the saying. It is
doubtful that we can find an equally plausible Sitz im Leben after Easter.

Third, this saying suggests that Jesus recruited followers or disciples,

something Jewish teachers of Jesus' day apparently did not do. "There are no
rabbinical stories of 'calling' and 'following after' analogous to the pericope
in Mark and Q, nor did the summons 'follow me' resound from any
rabbinical teacher in respect of entry into a teacher-pupil relationship. "377
Rather, the student came to the teacher, for example, Paul went to Jerusalem
to study with Gamaliel, if Acts 22:3 is to be believed.378 Jesus' action is to
be seen along prophetic lines, possibly in the tradition of Elijah (1 Kings
19:19-21).379 Fourth, it appears this saying was passed down independently
in a somewhat different context and variant form (Luke 5:10). Bultmann
regards Mark 1:16-20 as a biographical apothegm, an ideal scene based on a
saying or metaphor about fishing for human beings.3°° However, even if the
narrative framework is ideal, the saying could still be an authentic logion of
Jesus, reflecting his call of one or more of the Twelve. In any event, Taylor,
Fitzmyer, and others argue for the authenticity of this saying and of the motif
of Jesus calling an inner circle to himself that at some point was limited to
twelve.381
 I conclude that the arguments for the authenticity of Mark 117 prevail.
The sudden response of the fishermen in the story may reflect the editing of
the original tale, but if some of these men had been involved with the Baptist
and had known Jesus in that context, even the sudden response is not
improbable.

What, then, is the meaning of the saying? If we start with the Lukan
formulation and work our way back to the more primitive version in Mark,
we may find a clue. Luke uses the verb wgron which with ese means literally
"to take alive." This certainly suggests a rescue operation, that is, the Twelve
shall be in the business of rescuing human beings. Based on what we have
already seen of how Jesus accepted the message of the Baptist, the Twelve
will rescue people from the wrath to come-the fire that was soon to be
kindled upon the land. Luke presents the saying in a positive way. Even if he
is presenting an independent version of what we find in Mark 1:16-20,
because he does not reproduce that Markan pericope elsewhere, this would
mean that we have here the manner in which Luke interpreted the original
saying, changing the original verb to make clear its positive focus.

Such a positive focus is much less dear in Mark 1:17, where the text
reads, "Come after me, and I shall make you become fishers of human
beings." In light of the possible Old Testament background to this saying (in
Jer. 16:16; Ezek. 29:4ff.; 38:4; Amos 4:2; and Hab. 1:14-17), there may have
been an ominous overtone to this saying. Especially in the Jeremiah and
Ezekiel sayings, the connotation is one of catching people for judgment,
with either God or an agent of God doing the catching. This led C. W. F.
Smith to say that this phrase is "inappropriate if the mission of the disciples
is thought of as rescuing men or bringing them to salvation."362 This
comment might be apropos, if we ignore the fact that "to win back, to gather,
or to fish a Jew meant to bring him back under the wings of the Shekinah,
which is another way of saying that the omnipresence of God was to become
a living, life-shaping reality to him again."383 J. Manek has reminded us
that in Semitic thought, water, particularly the chaos waters, is seen as the
enemy of God (cf. Ps. 74:13). "In the background of Jesus' picture of 'fishers
of men' it is therefore necessary to see that the waters ... are the underworld,
the place of sin and death. To fish out a man means to rescue him from the
kingdom of darkness, out of the sphere which is hostile to God and remote
from God."76' Possibly, when Jesus spoke of his baptism he was thinking of
the chaos waters flooding over him causing his death.

Part of the problem here may be in the way this saying is perceived. If
Jesus sent the Twelve only to the house of Israel and saw his mission limited
in that way, then the best way to interpret a saying such as this is that Jesus
envisions not the winning of proselytes but the winning back or rescuing of
Jews. Daube has demonstrated that in regard to a verb like kerdaino (cf.
Matt. 18:15), the meaning is not to convert but to win back.'as If Jesus saw
his basic program as winning back the lost sheep of Israel, not converting the
world, in light of the fire from heaven that was hovering on the horizon, then
the use of the metaphor is quite understandable. I wish to stress that the call
to follow entails a call to mission, to being involved in the rescuing
operation that Jesus saw as his own task in life. The metaphor, which had
overtones of judgment, and the urgency may be explained by G. B. Caird:

Jesus was working against time to prevent the end of Israel's world, that
the haste of the mission was directly connected with the many sayings
which predict the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. He
believed that Israel was at the crossroads, that she must choose between
two conceptions of her national destiny . . .3K

Thus, we have seen in Mark 1:17 (and par.) a call to discipleship and to
mission. Apparently the Twelve was formed not to be Israel, but rather to
free Israel in light of what was to come.
TWO BY TWO

Implicit in the calling of the disciples to be fishers of humans is the idea that
at some point they would undertake such a task. This commissioning comes
to us in two different forms and from at least two different sources.3e7 That
Matthew and Luke agree on various points of the charge over against Mark,
for example, in the matter of carrying a staff (Mark 6:8; Matt. 10:10/Luke
9:3), indicates that there was a Q version of this charge.3u Thus, on the
criterion of multiple attestation this charge in some form probably goes back
to a Sitz im Leben Jesu. Luke may even have known yet a third version of
the same charge that he has recorded in the commission to the Seventy
(Luke 10:1-12). Certainly the structure of the charge in Luke 9 and 10 is
closely parallel. In any case, numerous scholars have argued that the
commission of the Twelve is "one of the best attested facts in the life of
Jesus."389

In terms of form-critical judgment of the material, it may be that several

of Jesus' sayings are clustered together on the basis of a similar theme. Yet it
is hard to miss the logical progression from conferral of authority and power,
to commission, to instructions for carrying out that commission. As Marshall
says, "These instructions give the impression of being meant for a particular
time and place; a missionary enterprise in a restricted area of Palestine
among Jews is indicated."30 The way that Luke 22:35-38 refers back to this
commissioning strongly suggests that this material was a unity in Luke's
source, even in Q. Luke seemingly has used material from Mark and Q in
Luke 9 and 10, although some assimilation occurred, but Matthew has
conflated the material from Mark and Q into one passage (Matt. 10:1- 14).
The material in Matt. 10:15ff., coming from a later period, will not be
considered. The first evangelist has also inserted into his material the list of
the Twelve (Matt. 10:2-4). Matthew 10:5-6 will be discussed further because
it was probably an original part of the Q charge.391 Otherwise, Mark's form
of the charge appears to be the most primitive, especially with its reference
to the disciples being sent out in twos (Mark's largely gentile audience would
not have known about Jewish rules of a twofold testimony).
 In the Markan and Q form of the charge to the Twelve, we are told that
the disciples are to assume, even if for a limited time, the same functions
Jesus was performing, such as exorcism, healing, and preaching (cf. the
summary in Luke 9:11, although there is some variation in Mark and Q as to
what preaching by the disciples entailed). Accordingly, we need to decide
whether Jesus saw the Twelve as his agents -shalihim.791

What was the nature and function of a shaliach according to the Jewish
evidence? Manson gives us a useful summary:

First, that he performs on behalf of someone else, whether an individual

or a corporate body, functions which his principal is himself entitled to
perform. Second, that the nature of his activities, and in some cases their
duration, is defined, so that his authority does not go beyond the terms
of his commission. Third, that his commission is not transferable. When
he ceases to exercise it, the authority reverts to the principal. Fourth, that
shaliach is not a term of status but of function. Fifth, that in so far as the
shaliach has a religious commission it is always exercised within the
borders of Jewery, and does not involve what we should call missionary
activity.393

We should consider the charge in light of these concepts because it is only in

connection with the narrative of the charge that the first evangelist calls the
twelve apostoloi (Matt. 10:2; cf. Mark 6:30).394

The important evidence about the shaliach is not to be found in the Old
Testament where, apart possibly from 1 Kings 14:6, the shaliach is never
referred to, but in later Jewish sources such as the Mishnah. M. Rosh
HaShanah 4.9 records a saying of R. Gamaliel (probably the first, but even if
it is the second it still comes from the period A.D. 80-120) about the agent of
the congregation who fulfills the obligation that rests upon the group. M.
Rosh Ha-Shanah 1.3 states that shalihim were sent out to settle calendrical
matters in the Diaspora even while the temple stood. Likewise M. Yoma 1.5
refers to shalihim of the court prior to A.D. 70. It is true that in the Jewish
evidence there is no reference to missionaries as shalihim, but note that the
Twelve are not in the charge passage functioning strictly speaking as
missionaries. Their commission involves Jews only, within the Holy Land at
that, and their work should be seen along the lines of a reclamation or
restoration project. Note there was no precedent in Greek to account for the
widespread use of apostolos in early Christianity. As Barrett says, "There is
only one reasonable explanation of the data: the noun was already current in
some Hellenistic-Jewish circles as an established rendering of Shaliach."3n
Rengstorf makes the point about the Syriac church translating apostolos by
shaliach.36 In view of this evidence, the reference to the Twelve as Jesus'
apostoloi becomes significant. The Twelve were Jesus' shalihim.

Barrett assumes that the Twelve were to be officials and administrators

over the community that Jesus brought into being-the eschatological Israel."'
Against this, note that the commissioning of the Twelve has to do with the
Twelve and the rest of Israel who were not yet disciples, the lost sheep to
whom the disciples were sent. This becomes clear when we examine Matt.
19:28 (and par.). The disciples will not be judged by the Twelve; the
disciples are not called Israel, much less the Twelve tribes of Israel in the
Gospels. We are now prepared to examine the charge in greater detail.

First, in the commission the Twelve are sent out two by two. This fact
seems to be independently confirmed by noting that the first evangelist
groups his list of twelve in six groups of two (10:2-4; cf. Acts 1:13), prior to
recording their commission. Also, Jeremias has demonstrated that it was the
custom in early Judaism for teachers to send out their disciples in twos on
errands or missions of importance, a fact attested in the Gospels (Luke 7:18;
19:29; Mark 11:1; 14:13; Matt. 21:1). There were two reasons that Jesus
might have used this custom in sending out the Twelve: "The Message was
better protected through two Messengers. Moreover, one can certainly see a
second motive, that out of the Old Testament instructions it is to be
concluded that, for all cases of capital crimes [or acts], the harmonious
testimony of two or three witnesses to the charged action shall be a
prerequisite for legal condemnation."39° This suggests that Jesus saw the
mission of the Twelve as part of something vital, even a life and death
matter.
 Second, note that this mission is directed to the lost sheep of Israel. This
phrase is contrasted to going on a road that might lead one to Gentiles or
Samaritans. Thus, this term is a general one used in no fixed manner to
single out one group of Israelites from another. It is not, for instance, a
technical term for the Jewish poor in the land, and it is unlikely that the
phrase is a synonym for the am ha 'aretz.3" The latter phrase referred to
those that were not as scrupulously observant of the law (as were, for
instance, the Pharisees or haberim) usually as a result of ignorance of the law
or inability to follow it due to poverty.400 Thus the mission or tasks
assigned to the Twelve are limited in scope, and in view of texts like Mark
6:30, they must be seen as limited in duration, exactly as was the case with
the Jewish shaliach.

Third, we need to comment on the content of the message the twelve were
to proclaim. Mark mentions that they called the people to repentance (6:12).
However, the Q form apparently entailed speaking about the dominion of
God and its nearness (Luke 10:11; Matt. 10:7). It is likely that both of these
subjects were broached by the disciples because we know: (1) that Jesus did
follow in the footsteps of John preaching repentance to Israel for a time; and
(2) that he did proclaim the coming dominion of God. Thus both of these
ideas may have been a part of the original message of the Twelve, and as
such they were speaking for Jesus. If the message was about the dawning
dominion of God, then the urgency of the mission is readily apparent. That
dawning dominion meant salvation for some, but it meant fire from heaven
for those who did not repent and respond properly to the message.

As most commentators urge, the more primitive form of the instructions

about what to take on the mission tour is probably found in Q where various
items including the staff are prohibited, unlike in Mark. It is possible that
Matt. 10:9 preserves the original form of the instructions, 401 in which case
the instruction amounted to a warning not to make any additional
preparations for the tour (ktesethe, meaning obtain), but simply to go as they
were and rely on the system of standing hospitality in Israel as they visit
each village. It is possible that the original instructions prohibited the taking
of a staff or two shirts among other things. Perhaps there may be some merit
in Manson's conjecture that Jesus is sending out the Twelve like an invading
army meant to live off the land, in view of the urgency of the situation with
no time for detailed preparations or the gathering of provisions.402 If so,
then the Twelve would have been sent out late in the Galilean ministry,
perhaps just before the feeding of the five thousand.

Now, it may be possible that Jesus had two different groups of

discipleswandering charismatics (i.e., the Twelve and some others), and
sympathizers who were perhaps not called disciples but who did support
Jesus financially or otherwise.403 Some of Jesus' instructions, such as the
material we are now evaluating, would apply only to the former group, but it
is possible that Jesus envisioned the supporters in the villages as the ones
who would provide the hospitality when the Twelve arrived in the various
areas of Galilee.'" The Twelve are not called to asceticism, because they are
to have food and shelter, although it is not to be provided out of their own
pockets. The disciples are to expect, as Jesus' shalihim, that they will be
treated as Jesus himself would be treated, whether for good or ill. Since the
Twelve are shalihim, such texts as Matt. 10:40 become understandable-the
acceptance or rejection of Jesus' shalihim amounts to the acceptance or
rejection of Jesus because they are endowed with his authority and mission
(M. Berak. 5.5). But Matt. 10:40 also makes clear that Jesus saw himself as
the shaliach of God, God's agent or sent one, given a specific commission
and mission to God's people.'" This is especially true if the saying refers to
receiving hospitably or receiving in hospitality, thus relating to the remarks
made in Matt. 10:11-14.'06

We have here a crucial clue that Jesus viewed himself as one endowed
with divine authority and sent forth on a divine mission of reclaiming Israel
for God. Jesus saw himself as God's final and thus unique agent on an
eschatological mission to proclaim and bring in God's dominion. Since that
dominion had to do with the hopes and expectations of God's people, Jesus
concentrated his mission upon them. Yet there were consequences to
rejecting God's shaliach, or even Jesus' shalihim.

Fourth, besides the various judgment sayings (Matt. 10:15/Luke 10:12;

and another Q saying Matt. 11:21/Luke 10:13) that indicate rejecting Jesus
or his mission led to divine judgment, we will now consider the implication
of the gesture of shaking dirt off one's feet. There is little dispute over the
authenticity of Mark 6:11.'07 In fact, Caird is willing to say, "The Mission
Charge is better attested than any other part of the Gospel record."0" There
are generally two schools of thought about what the gesture of "shaking the
dust off of one's feet" means. On the one hand, it is similar to what Jews
would do when they left a gentile land because such lands were considered
unclean and thus defiling. On the other hand, it might be a simple gesture of
repudiation, a symbolic severing of an association with that town from
henceforth. In light of Acts 13:50, this latter view is a plausible
conjecture.409 The evidence, however, not only of the judgment sayings but
also of the extrabiblical material would seem to favor the former view.410
The point of the gesture then would be that this town was to be considered
heathen and defiled and thus no Jew should associate with it. 411 Caird has
put this thesis in its most stark form:

The astonishing thing about Jesus' instructions to his disciples is that this
Jewish gesture is now to be employed against Jews, whether as a
warning or threat. The burden of the disciple's message is that God is
now establishing His long-promised reign over Israel, and that every
community in the country must decide whether or not to join with Jesus
in this new chapter of their national history.... Jesus, like John the
Baptist before Him, believed that Israel was facing the great national
crisis to which all the Old Testament prophecy pointed, and that she
must choose either to follow Jesus in his programme of national renewal
under the rule of God or else to follow the policy of nationalism to its
inevitable and disastrous climax of war with Rome.412

This view comports with our conclusions in our study of Jesus and the
revolutionaries. It also suggests that a repudiation of Jesus meant a
repudiation of one's chosen status by God, and hence subjected one to God's
judgment. These drastic consequences are conceivable on Jesus' lips if he
viewed himself as God's shaliach and the twelve as his shalihim. It also
explains why Jesus made such radical demands of renunciation of those who
would be among his traveling followers.
A RADICAL RENUNCIATION

The major differences between following Jesus and following a rabbi are
evident in some of the radical statements about the call to discipleship such
as the Q saying found in Matt 8:21-22/Luke 9:59-60. As Manson puts it:

The life of a talmid as talmid was made up of study of the sacred

writings, attendance on lectures, and discussion of difficult passages or
cases. Discipleship as Jesus conceived it was not a theoretical discipline
of this sort, but a practical task to which men were called to give
themselves and all their energies. Their work was not study but practice
. . . . 413

Of all the sayings about the cost of discipleship, Matt. 8:21-22/Luke 9:59-60
has the best claims to authenticity. Here Jesus seems to be counseling a
violation of one of the Ten Commandments, which apparently he elsewhere
affirms.414 Both the harshness of the logion and its obscurity count strongly
in favor of at least the saying of Jesus in Matt. 8:22 (and par.) being authen-
tic.415 In regard to whether or not this saying goes back to a Sitz im Leben
Jesu, Bultmann maintains that we have an ideal scene, created as a setting
for the authentic saying. Against this is the fact that the saying requires some
sort of context or setting to make sense; it cannot stand on its own because it
is not a general maxim but a reply to some sort of statement or question.
Someone had to have said something about burying someone, in order to
prompt such a reply. Bultmann admits that this saying was handed down in a
concrete setting, but gives no reason that the context we are given for the
saying in Q cannot be original.416 Hengel, who has given the saying its
most thorough treatment, maintains that the original form of the material
included an introduction to the saying such as the following: "Another said
'Permit me first to go and bury my father.' "417 This view is supported in the
latest treatment of Q, which has the saying prefaced by: "But another said to
him 'Lord, let me go and bury my father.' "411 Thus the objection to the
setting of the saying does not prevail. As to whether Luke or Matthew is
closer to the original form, the Matthean form must be given the edge. Luke
has probably shifted the command "Follow me" to the beginning to
introduce the saying and to make Jesus the initiator of the dialog.419
Furthermore, the command that follows the saying about burying the dead
(Luke 9:60b) is usually judged to be Lukan as well.420

It is possible that the first evangelist has made an originally anonymous

interlocutor into a disciple at Matt. 8:21. However, because normally only
those who are disciples address Jesus as kyrie in the Gospel tradition (and
this is always the case in the First Gospel),421 the first evangelist probably
believed that his source material was referring to someone who was already
in the broad sense a disciple, and thus he made this clearer by adding ton
matheton.122 This saying then would be about the claim of Jesus over one
who was already among his disciples. This comports with the fact, too
seldom noticed, that the interlocutor simply asks that he may go and bury his
father first, which implies that he intends to heed the call thereafter. This is
the attitude of one who already considered himself a disciple of Jesus. If the
word "first" is crucial, then this would be a saying about priorities, not a
general remark about the meaninglessness of burial customs and honoring
parents. Jesus would be suggesting that following him was a higher priority
than obeying one of the Ten Commandments-honoring parents was
understood to entail giving them an honorable burial.

The radical nature of Jesus' demand is demonstrated by Hengel's detailed

treatment of burial customs and attitudes about the unburied especially
among the Jews in the first century n.D.4 3 For instance, M. Berak. 3.1
insists that attendance to the duty of burying the dead supersedes even the
most binding of religious obligations (cf. Tobit 4:3; 6:13). Even a priest was
expected to fulfill his filial duty in this regard (S.Lev. 21.3).424 Only two
sorts of persons in the Old Testament were considered exempt from the duty
of burying one's father-a Nazirite and the high priest (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6-
7).

We cannot conclude from this saying that Jesus judged this burial duty to
be insignificant. Rather, as Beare says, the more weight one gives to such an
obligation, the clearer it becomes how urgent and imperative an absolute
response to Jesus' call was. Such duties were important, but the urgency of
the response to Jesus' call took precedence over all else.425 Thus, Jesus' call
to follow him is even more stringent than the call of Elisha by Elijah. Even
Elisha was allowed to make a farewell gesture to his family (1 Kings 19:20).
The conclusion is hard to avoid that someone and something greater than
Elijah and his work is presented here. Hengel urges us to judge this narrative
"in the light of the messianic authority of Jesus."426

Supporting this view is the fact that Jesus sees his mission and that to
which he is calling his disciples as taking precedent over duties found in the
Mosaic law. He thus exercises a certain sovereign freedom over the Mosaic
law. Even Sanders, who does not think that Jesus took such a radical stance
in relation to Torah, is forced to admit:

What is important here is to see the force of the negative thrust: Jesus
consciously requires disobedience of a commandment understood by all
Jews to have been given by God.... At least once Jesus was willing to
say that following him superseded the requirements of piety and the
Torah. This may show that Jesus was prepared to challenge, if necessary,
the adequacy of the Mosaic dispensation.42"

Turning to a detailed interpretation of this saying, the probable basic

meaning is, "Let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead-you come and
follow me." The use of the term death in a metaphorical sense was well
known in Judaism,42s and we have an example of such usage here. The
implication is that those who do not follow Jesus are spiritually dead. This
comports with what we have learned elsewhere: Jesus thought Israel was
like a flock of lost sheep; he had come to shepherd and rescue them in the
face of the coming dominion and judgment of God. This saying also
comports with some of the conclusions we drew in our discussion of Jesus'
relationship to the Pharisees: Jesus felt he had the divine authority to
supersede or replace portions of the Mosaic law, especially in view of the
inbreaking dominion of God.

Whether Jesus made such a radical demand of all his disciples may be
debated. It might be argued that such a demand was made only of those who
desired to (or those he had called to) travel with him. Even if this is so, it
would still mean that Jesus was urging a whole group of people to accept
demands that went beyond and sometimes even against Old Testament law.
This implies Jesus thought of himself in categories different from any other
prophet or teacher of the law. I conclude that Hengel is fully warranted in
seeing an example of Jesus' messianic authority coming into play in this
pericope. This authority is also evident in another saying where Jesus assigns
his own inner circle definitive roles in the final judgment over Israel.
YOU BE THE JUDGE

Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 are critical for understanding Jesus' view of
and relationship to the Twelve. Here Jesus expresses his view of the future
along lines that strongly suggest he shared his people's hope for an earthly
kingdom. For instance, H.-W. Bartsch says, "Behind any messianic hope
stands the vision of the reestablished twelve tribe rule as the center of the
Kingdom of God."4'

Despite the strong protest of Beare,"" this saying in some form has good
claims to authenticity for the following reasons. First, it is doubtful that the
early church would have made up a saying that seems to envision an earthly
kingdom, which did not appear in the first century, and suggests roles that
the Twelve did not assume in relationship to Israel in that same period. An
origin in early Palestinian Christianity might be plausible, as Beare
maintains, if the Gospel of Matthew was written extremely early in the first
century and grew out of such a community. It is certainly not plausible that
the first evangelist would pass along, much less create, such a saying after
70 A.D. when Israel had been shattered and the church was already pursuing
a separate existence. Second, this tradition suggests a role for the Twelve in
contrast to the various sayings about them being servants like Jesus, rather
than dominii like gentile rulers. In view of the importance of the servant
traditions in the early church, this contrasting saying may well reflect a Sitz
im Leben Jesu. Third, Kiimmel argues that this saying is authentic because it
comports with other authentic material in which Jesus envisions a coming
eschatological judgment linked with the present.43t Fourth, Manson protests
how hard it is to imagine the early church inventing a saying which, because
it is placed on the lips of Jesus during his ministry, envisions a throne for
Judas. This may explain why Luke has dropped the word dodeka before the
word throne in his version of the saying.432 Thus, Bultmann and others do
not prevail in seeing this saying as a church crea- tion.433 The
commentators are fairly evenly divided over which saying is more primitive,
with some even urging that it was the last saying to be found in Q. Whether
or not this is the case, it does appear to be an isolated logion that has found
different placement in Matthew and Luke, and thus the context of either
version does not help us much in grasping the original intent. In regard to the
original form of the saying, the Matthean version should be given the edge
because of its reference to "twelve thrones."

In regard to the meaning of the saying, several points require discussion.

First, the reference to the twelve tribes favors seeing Israel as a reference to
the nation of Israel, which comports with what we are told about the
limitations of the mission of the Twelve (Matt. 10:5-6). If the saying goes
back to Jesus, it could not have been understood in any other way originally.
Second, this saying is clear that Jesus does not identify the Twelve as Israel.
The Twelve may symbolically represent Jesus' design to gather all Israel and
may even make clear how Israel ought to respond to Jesus, but they do not
constitute that whole Israel. Third, it is not clear how we should take the
verb krino. It could refer to ruling or acting as the Old Testament judges
did,434 in which case this saying envisions some sort of eschatological age
in the future on earth when the Twelve will rule. On the other hand, krino
could easily refer to the final judgment, as the somewhat similar saying in 1
Cor. 6:3 suggests. Matthew 25:31ff. would also favor this. On this
interpretation we here learn of a special role the Twelve will have in relation
to the nation Israel at the final judgment. This would strongly suggest that
the call Jesus places on the lives of the Twelve is not entirely temporal or
temporary. It will continue to function even at the last judgment. Jesus sees
the Twelve as fulfilling some leadership role over Israel both in the present
and at the eschaton. But if the Twelve have a claim on and over the nation of
Israel, gathered together for the final judgment, note how much more claim
Jesus has who chose the Twelve and gave them their commission. Implicit in
this saying, then, is a self-estimation on the part of Jesus that suggests he
saw himself as the one sent to gather the twelve tribes in the final activity of
God.

Note that this saying probably alludes to Dan. 7:22.4" This suggests that
Jesus conceived of his own role in light of that crucial Old Testament
chapter and that he envisioned the role of his inner circle of followers as
shaped by his understanding of that eschatological and apocalyptic material.
CONCLUSIONS

We began this section by examining Malina's view that Jesus was a

reputational legitimate leader. There are significant problems with this view.
Although many people viewed Jesus as having authority because of his
teaching or healings, there are indications that he saw himself as having
authority quite apart from his performance of such functions. This is evident
in the material dealing with Jesus' calling the disciples, the radical demand
he made upon them (even in contravention of the Mosaic law), and his
choosing of the Twelve for a special mission to Israel that had both
immediate and eschatological components. Such demands and actions point
to a person who was certain of the personal authority he had over people
and, in particular, over Israel. I agree with Barrett that the Gospel "tradition
originated ... in the impression made by a charismatic person."

A more adequate model for evaluating Jesus' self-image and explaining

his sense of authority over both the law and Israel is that of the shaliach.
Jesus saw himself as God's agent endowed with divine authority and sent on
a divine mission to rescue Israel from impending disaster, while at the same
time offering them one last chance to accept the rule of God and God's claim
on their lives. On such a model we can see the reason that Jesus assumed his
words were God's words for Israel, that his agenda was God's agenda for
Israel, and that how one reacted to Jesus would determine one's final
standing with God. But Jesus did not see himself as an agent of God, but as
the final eschatological agent of God who brings in God's reign, and even
casts fire upon the land if God's people do not respond properly to that
inbreaking reign in the ministry of Jesus.

It is striking how Matt. 10:40 confirms that Jesus saw the Twelve as his
own shalihim, and that he saw himself as God's Shaliach. Here we see both
an identification of the Twelve with Jesus in mission and a distinction
between them and him in status. Although Jesus and the Twelve function
similarly in relationship to Israel, the Twelve are only Jesus' sent ones, while
Jesus is God's agent. This explains why Jesus never identifies himself as one
of the Twelve or even as Israel, but assumes authority over both. Thus, Jesus
had a more than ordinary sense of self-importance. It is appropriate to talk
about his messianic self-concept, although even that well-worn phrase is not
wholly adequate to express how Jesus viewed himself. It is not surprising
that he was reticent to use such familiar labels of himself as mashiach
because the possibility of misunderstanding was indeed great, especially in
view of the nationalistic expectations that existed in Jesus' day.

The material suggests Jesus saw Israel as God's lost sheep, and that he
saw himself as their divinely sent and divinely endowed shepherd. Here, too,
Malina's paradigm falls short because Jesus did see himself as both
commissioned and endowed to be a leader of and over Israel, indeed their
final leader who brought in the eschatological reign of God. If Jesus saw
himself in light of such texts as Jer. 50:6, then he may have believed he was
not just another human shepherd of Israel, but one who takes on the divine
role or task of finally gathering the people of God. They must be rescued by
Jesus and his helpers before judgment falls even upon Israel. This sort of
understanding of one's life task implies at least a messianic self-concept.

Jesus neither was, nor considered himself to be, an ordinary person. He

did not conceive of himself merely in terms of a prophet or teacher. Rather,
he saw himself as God's Mashiach and Shaliach, as the final Shepherd of
God's people. It was this self-perception expressed in word, deed, and
especially symbolic action during the last week of his life, that led to Jesus'
death as "King of the Jews."
Christology and the Deeds of Jesus
ONE STRIKING OUTCOME of the nineteenth-century quest for the
historical Jesus was that Jesus became so modernized he sounded like an
advocate for the liberal Protestantism of Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and others.
This image, when it became evident that it was hardly an accurate
description of the historical Jesus, was replaced, according to Schweitzer, by
the image of Jesus as an apocalyptic seer who expected the end of the world
most any time. Jesus the apocalyptic seer dominated the discussion of the
historical Jesus in the twentieth century often because it was assumed
Schweitzer was right, and there was little more to be said on the subject. The
liberal Jesus was replaced by a Jesus so remote from current experience and
the church's portrait of him that he became little more than a historical
curiosity in some circles.

JESUS THE VISIONARY

Since the beginning of the new quest for the historical Jesus in the 1950s,
there has been an increasing uneasiness about Schweitzer's Jesus. One of the
major trends in the new attempt to envision the person of Jesus has come
from both Christian and non-Christian scholars who conclude that Jesus
should be seen in light of charismatic Judaism. According to this
interpretation, Jesus was a Galilean sage and hasid with extraordinary
spiritual gifts, not unlike Hanina ben Dosa or possibly Honi the Circle
Drawer.' This image is posited to replace the portraits of eschatological
prophet or apocalyptic seer.

One warrant for this is the textual evidence that Jesus was a visionary, that
is, that he had what might be called ecstatic experience. This should not
surprise us because the "pneumatic" nature of early Christianity is clear from
Acts and 1 Corinthians, and because Paul clearly did have such visionary
experiences (cf. 2 Cor. 12.1ff.). There is no reason to think Paul invented this
sort of pneumatic approach to religion, and thus it may reflect the original
orientation of Jesus himself. Several texts support this view.

Unfortunately, whenever one begins to deal with paranormal experiences,

it is frequently assumed that such experiences are purely subjective, that is,
they bear no relationship to objective reality. Borg rightly complains,

Texts that report "paranormal" happenings, whether they be visions of

another realm or miracles, are either largely ignored or else interpreted
in such a way that they do not violate oui sense of what is possible or
real. Thus because we do not know what to do with the world of the
Spirit, we tend not to give it a central place in our historical study of
biblical tradition. But the reality of the other world deserves to be taken
seriously. Intellectually and experientially, there is much to commend it.
The primary intellectual objection to it flows from a rigid application of
the modern worldview's definition of reality. Yet the modern view is but
one of a large number of humanly constructed maps of reality.... To try
and understand the Jewish tradition and Jesus while simultaneously
dismissing the notion of another world or immediately reducing it to a
merely psychological realm is to fail to see the phenomena, to fail to
take seriously what the charismatic mediators experienced and reported.
For many of us, this will require a suspension of our disbelief.2

It also will not do to characterize persons as psychotic just because they

have visions that go beyond ordinary human experience. That diagnosis was
offered by some of Jesus' contemporaries, perhaps even his family members
who appear to have failed to understand him (Mark 3:21).' Thus, we must
ask in earnest whether Jesus was a visionary, without allowing our modern
preconceptions of normality to prejudice the discussion.
THE FALL OF SATAN (LUKE 10:18)

One of the most puzzling of Jesus' sayings is Luke 10:18 which sounds like
a quote from the seer of Revelation (cf. Rev. 12:9-12). It is possible that
Luke 10:18 is drawing on the same myth of the casting out of Satan from
heaven as is found in Revelation 12.4 Certainly it is a vignette from a larger
conceptual world that is distinctly Jewish. It presupposes Satan's role in the
heavenly council, as is fond in Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7 where he is seen as the
accuser, troubler, and general adversary of God's creatures (Ha Satan
meaning "the adversary"). We know that by the first century A.D., there was
a rather well-developed Satanology, as is reflected in the New Testament and
other Jewish writings (T. Levi 18.12; T. Jud. 25.3; T. Ash. 7.3; T. Dan 5.10-
11; Assum. of Moses 10.1.; Jub. 23.29). Another passage of relevance is I
Enoch 55.4 which reads, "You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits
in the throne of glory and judges Azaz'el [i.e., Satan] and all his company,
and his army, in the name of the Lord of Spirits."5 There is good reason to
ascribe Luke 10:18 to Jesus; its very strangeness strongly favors its
authenticity." The real problem is what sense to make of it.

First we must determine whether Luke 10:18 is a freefloating logion that

Luke has placed here, or whether it actually goes with v. 17. Most scholars
argue that v. 17 goes with v. 20, and that v. 18 was not attached to v. 17.7
Therefore, we must take it as a general assessment by Jesus about his
success against the strong man (cf. Luke 11:20 and par.).

As to grammatical problems, although it is argued that the imperfect tense

of theoreo represents a continuous or repeated experience," if this saying
goes back to an Aramaic utterance of Jesus then there is only one Aramaic
past tense that lies behind this Greek rendering of the original saying.'
Further, the aorist of theoreo was not a common usage, and so the imperfect
may be used here in its place.10 Second, the participle pesonta is a
constative or timeless aorist expressing a fact, or punctiliar action without
any indication of the timing." Thus, the reference is to Satan's fall, not his
falling. Third, the question remains as to what the phrase "from heaven"
modifies-Satan's fall, or "like lightning." If it modifies "like lightning," then
we may not be told from where Satan fell. Yet even if we translate, "I saw
Satan fall, like lightning from heaven," it could still be implied that Satan's
fall is from the same place from which lightning falls. In any case, the
present Greek word order leads to the following literal translation, "I saw
(watched) Satan as lightning from heaven fall."

In regard to the meaning of the saying, commentators are rather equally

divided as to whether this is to be seen as a visionary experience of Jesus' or
whether he is using a mythical metaphor to describe his (and perhaps his
disciples') triumphs over the powers of darkness through exorcisms and
other means. But if Jesus believed in a real Satan, demons, and heaven, then
there is no reason to see this saying as merely a dramatic way of referring to
the cures that were being worked. Another reliable tradition strongly
suggests that Jesus believed he was in a literal battle with Satan for the lives
of the people he was trying to help and that he had to bind the strong man in
order to loosen his captives (cf. Mark 3:23-27 and par.). Luke 10:18 is of a
piece with those parabolic utterances, suggesting that Jesus saw victories on
earth through his ministry, perhaps through exorcisms in particular, which
indicated that the strong man was already bound, that he had already lost his
former heavenly place and role as troubler of God's creatures.

This saying suggests that Jesus had apocalyptic visions.12 Two other
narratives could be put in that category: the story of Jesus' baptism, and the
story of his temptation. The former has a historical basis in John's baptism of
Jesus; the latter is much more difficult to claim as a historical account. This
is especially so because Mark does not give us the elaborate description of
those temptations that we find in Q, and we have no hint that Jesus may have
related such an experience to his disciples, especially if it came before the
ministry period and was highly personal.

My point is that on the basis of the usual criteria for authenticity, it is

difficult to argue for the historicity of an event that was a private and
personal experience with no outside witnesses. Dunn cautions that most of
the Gospel tradition does not describe Jesus as an ecstatic, "although he did
have one or two experiences which could be called ecstatic, whether
visionary or moments of high exultation. But he did not attempt to stimulate
ecstasy or work up inspiration. 1113 Thus, we will only examine the baptism
narrative as a source of information about Jesus' experiences.
THE RISE OF THE SON (MARK 1:9-11 AND PAR.)

When Jesus was confronted about his authority he offered a counterquestion

about the authority of John's baptism (Mark 11:27-33 and par.). This
tradition surely preserves an authentic memory in the life of Jesus because it
is doubtful that the church created a saying to suggest either that John had
equal authority to Jesus or that Jesus derived his authority from the baptism
of John. Yet, Jeremias has argued, "If his counter question is meant seriously,
it means: 'My authority rests on John's baptism,' and that again will mean in
concrete terms: 'My authority rests on what happened when I was baptized
by John."'" This suggests that Jesus saw his baptism as a definitive turning
point at which he got authorization or at least empowerment for the ministry
he had undertaken. If Jesus did even in part consider himself a prophetic
figure, then it should hardly be surprising either that he had some sort of
prophetic call experience as did various Old Testament figures or that when
queried about the source of his authority or the reason for his ministry he
referred back to that experience. But what we are dealing with in this
narrative seems to be not merely a prophetic call narrative, although it is at
least that, but also the account of some sort of apocalyptic vision Jesus had.ts

The student of apocalyptic literature will recognize that Mark's account of

the baptism has several features typical of apocalyptic literature: the rending
of the heavens, the voice from heaven, and the reference to the Spirit coming
down suggesting communication or even some form of communion being
established between heaven and earth. One need look no further than the
canonical apocalypse to find similar ideas, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's
day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet ... (Rev. 1:10); "After
this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I
heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, 'Come up here, and I will show
you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit"' (Rev. 4:1-2);
"Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a
cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his
legs like pillars of fire" (Rev. 10:1); "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, the
dwelling of God is with human beings"' (Rev. 21:2-3).

There are three notable connections with our text. First, in both Mark and
Revelation, we have an example of the rending or opening of heaven
preceding the hearing of the voice. Second, notice the sequence in both Mark
1 and Revelation 1 of the Spirit and then voice. In both it is when the seer is
in the Spirit that he hears the voice from heaven. It is no accident that we are
told in Mark 1 that the Spirit came down upon Jesus and then he heard a
voice from heaven. Third, beings, objects, or messages can all come forth
from heaven when the heavens are opened, as is attested by both Mark and
Revelation. This should be sufficient to show that what we have in Mark is a
summary account of an apocalyptic vision.

Further, the Markan account of the baptism, as opposed to the later

elaboration in Matthew, is depicted as a private communication and event
between Jesus and God. No crowd is mentioned, although doubtless there
were some people at the Jordan with Jesus and John on this occasion (Luke
certainly thinks so; cf. 3:21; John 1:29-34). The address from heaven is to
Jesus personally ("You are my beloved Son"), whereas the first evangelist
has made it a matter of a public attestation to Jesus from heaven ("This is my
beloved Son," Matt. 3:17; cf. Luke 3:22). Certainly, the Markan account is
more primitive at this point and summarizes a visionary experience-the eiden
in Mark 1:10 indicates that only Jesus saw the Spirit coming down and heard
the voice.

What is the probability that we have here an accurate summary, ultimately

from Jesus, of a visionary experience he had at the Jordan when he
consented to be baptized by John? First, we have noted that Jesus seems to
point to his baptism as the time when he received his authorization or
empowerment for ministry.16 Some explanation needs to be given for the
fact that Jesus, a grown man, felt compelled to begin a ministry after being
baptized by John, considering the lack of evidence that others baptized by
John felt such a compulsion. Second, we must explain why the synoptic
Gospels say that Jesus did not begin his public ministry in Galilee until after
his baptism-a sequential connection seems to be posited.
 Third, there is no attempt in Mark 1:9-11 to portray Jesus' baptism as a
prototype of Christian baptism. Fourth, as Dunn says 'To associate Jesus'
anointing with his baptism by John played into the hands of Baptist sect
apologetic."" Fifth, after Jesus began his ministry and gathered his disciples,
there would have been good reason for Jesus to recount this experience to
his followers at least in summary form, in order to explain how he came to
take up this ministry. Unlike the story of the temptation, here there was a
built-in need for the ongoing recounting and interpretation of this event and
its significance for Jesus and his followers. Sixth, if there was a Q version of
this event, as many Q experts contend, 18 then we have two accounts of
Jesus' baptism," both of which say that Jesus was baptized by John, that the
Spirit descended on Jesus, and that a voice from heaven indicated he was
God's beloved Son.2°

Seventh, why does Mark state that John's baptism is one of repentance for
the remission of sins (cf. Mark 1:4-5), and then immediately recount Jesus'
baptismal experience? It is doubtful that the early church would have
sanctioned either that Jesus underwent a repentance baptism or that his
authorization and empowerment for ministry came during such a baptism.
Barrett rightly notes that the closest parallel to John's baptism is proselyte
baptism, not the Qumran lustrations. Further, if we give some credence to
Josephus's account (Ant. 18.116-19), then John's baptism had to do with
uniting oneself to a group of people, perhaps to those duly prepared to face
and avoid the wrath to come.21 Jesus identified with John's message and call
for preparation to face the coming judgment. This text hardly reflects later
Christian theologizing.

Eighth, in regard to the voice from heaven, although Mark does not give
us the full text of Ps. 2:7, he is probably quoting part of this well-known
verse about the elevation of an individual to the position of king over Israel,
"You are my son, today I have begotten thee."22 It is more probable to
conclude that Jesus believed that in his vision these words had been spoken
to him and that the church later felt it had to pass on the words from this
sacred occasion in spite of their possible adoptionist implications, than to
deduce that the early church without any precedent would have chosen an
adoptionist text to express its theology. None of the evangelists interpret the
text in adoptionist fashion. For them we have here a simple confirmation of
who Jesus is without any statement as to when he became the Son. My point
is that if the evangelists or the early church were the creators of this
scriptural reference, then another text would have been chosen.

Last, would the early church really suggest that Jesus received the Spirit
only when he was baptized by John? We know from the birth narratives that
such an idea was rejected by some early Christians. Yet there is a clear sign
the early church had to admit that in a sense, this was true. In one of the
most primitive fragments of early Christian preaching, we find: "Me word
which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the
baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all
who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him" (Acts 10:37-38).23
Notice the dear sequence: baptism of John, anointing with Spirit and power,
and ministry including healing.

I conclude that Mark 1:9-11 is a very primitive summary about the

decisive turning point in Jesus' life, which goes back to Jesus himself. The
only real evidence of Markan redaction is in the introductory phrase in v. 9
("and it happened in those days") and the use of euthys in v. 10.

Note again that Ps. 2:7 seems to be part of what could be called a
coronation hymn.24 What is significant is that an individual, when assuming
the tasks and functions of king, is at that point called "my Son" by the
authorizing voice, who perhaps was the priest speaking as the vox dei. This
psalm, then, is about investiture into a royal office and the divine approval
being placed on an individual who would be king. In short, the allusion to
Ps. 2:7 in Mark 1:11 brings royal overtones to our passage.

Perhaps here is the best point to discuss the terms mashiach and christos.
We will first summarize the work of M. de Jonge.2' I agree that in Psalms of
Solomon 17-18 and elsewhere, when the coming king is referred to, there is
no rigid distinction between a political-national figure and a spiritual one. In
the evidence we do have, however, the political-national component of the
expectation is a prominent, in some cases a dominant, part of the expectation
about the coming king. What was mysterious to many was that Jesus
eschewed the political-national aspects of the aspirations about messiah,
refusing to engage either the nations in general or the Romans in particular
during his ministry. Nevertheless, Jesus' ministry did have a definite social
component, as R. Horsley has argued.2'

Secondly, de Jonge rightly points out that we find little use of the absolute
term ha Mashiach in the literature.27 Normally, it is "his Anointed" or
"God's Anointed" with a qualifying word (usually possessive); for instance,
in Ps. of Sol. 18.5 we find, "He brings back His Anointed." Another striking
passage is 1 Enoch 48.10 where we read, "For they have denied the Lord of
Spirits and His Anointed. The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed." From
the Qumran literature we may cite 4QPatr 3, which proclaims the coming of
Mashiach Ha Sedek, while commenting on Gen. 49:10. Special attention
should also be given to 4QFlor. 1.18-19 which, after alluding to 2 Samuel 7
and the "Scion of David," quotes Ps. 2:1-2. There is, of course, also the Cave
4 fragment, which seems to address the son of the king and reads, "He shall
be called [son of ] the Ig]reat [God] and by his name he shall be named. He
shall be hailed (as) the Son of God. ..."2° Reference should also be made to
lQSam. 2.12 where we do have the absolute usage Ha Mashiach, and to
1Q161.8-10, which quotes Isa. 11:1-5. In the latter we find the assurance that
the Spirit of the Lord will be on the future descendant of David. De Jonge
reminds us (on the basis of Ant. 6.166-68, among other texts), that there is
some evidence that suggests David was thought to be a prophet and perhaps
an exorcist.29 Although the number of uses of Mashiach are few in the
relevant literature, they are sufficient for de Jonge to conclude,

It denotes the special relationsnip to God of various figures which are

expected in God's future. . . . There is clearly a tendency to connect the
expression especially with the expected king and it is on the way to
becoming a standard expression. Not the person as such, but his calling
and function are of imporiance.30

This material suggests the following: If Jesus had a visionary experience

at his baptism in which he was convinced he was anointed with the Spirit
and was called God's Son with allusion to Psalm 2, then it would be difficult
for him not to conclude that he was God's Mashiach. If he did have such an
experience and drew such conclusions, then a clear explanation can be given
for the course that Jesus chose and for the reason that he acted as one with
sovereign authority and power.

Vermes and Borg attempt to relate Jesus' sense of special sonship to that
experienced by such charismatic Jews as Hanina ben Dosa or Honi the
Circle Drawer." The material about Hanina is drawn from a later period,
however, when Christianity and Judaism were already at odds with one
another, but even in the case of Honi the Circle Drawer (first century e.c.) all
that is said is that he is a "son of the house" before God. Although connoting
closeness to God, messianic overtones are not given, as the reference to all
God's sons in the same text makes clear.32 By contrast, here and elsewhere
in the Synoptics sonship means something distinctive, even messianic. One
further piece of background material may help us to understand the
baptismal narrative. J. A. Davis traced the connections of Spirit and wisdom
in the relevant Jewish literature, such as Philo, Qumran, and Sirach.33 He
concludes:

The highest degree of sapiential attainment in the literature that we have

surveyed may be seen to be consistently attributed to the person who has
had an experience of inspiration, and gained wisdom with the help of the
Spirit. In Sirach it is attributed to the scribe who has been filled with the
divine Spirit of understanding and is enabled, as a result of his
experience, to perceive and pour forth words of wisdom as a sage. At
Qumran, it is attributed to the teachers and leaders of the sect who
receive a knowledge of the hidden meaning of the law and the Prophets
through such divine revelation ... the person of higher sapiential status is
said to have obtained the wisdom that differentiates him from others
through the assistance of God's Spirit."

This is relevant for two reasons. If Jesus believed he had received a special
anointing by God's Spirit, then it would explain the messianic overtones of
his words, deeds, and relationships, especially the reason he often speaks
like a sage using the genre of Jewish sages to convey God's truth (e.g.,
meshalim).
 We are now prepared to examine the baptismal narrative. First, note what
might be considered an odd juxtaposition of the Spirit coming down on Jesus
coupled with a bath qol-a daughter of a voice. In normal Jewish thinking the
latter was given because of the lack of the former. Dunn, however, thinks it
misleading to connect this voice from heaven with the bath qol.

To link the voice with the Bath qol is to miss the whole point. For the
"daughter of the voice" was believed to have taken the place of direct
inspiration of the prophets by the Holy Spirit. And it is at this moment
above all that the long drought of knowing the Spirit comes to an end. It
is not simply that the age of prophecy returns ... but rather that the age of
the Spirit has now come."

Dunn is correct, and the voice from heaven can be explained by the fact that
this is an apocalyptic vision. There is no need to explain the voice in terms
of the bath qol.

Second, although there are certain similarities to prophetic call narratives

(cf. Isa. 6:1-13; Jer. 1:5-19; Ezekiel 1-2), the differences are more striking:
There is no description of Jesus' inner reaction to this experience, no specific
mention of a commission (although calling him son with reference to Ps. 2:7
alludes to his assuming messianic functions), and no reply on the part of
Jesus even at the earliest stage of the tradition." Mark 1:9-11 (and par.)
describes the unique vision that confirmed Jesus' identity and by implication,
his task in relation to God's people. He was to be God's Mashiach.

Third, little should be made of the fact that the Spirit is said to have
descended like a dove. This could be a reference to Gen. 1:2, but it is equally
plausible that in light of the connections to which we have already alluded
between wisdom and Spirit in early Jewish literature, our text is closer to
what we find in Philo Q.R.D.H. 126 where the dove represents divine
Wisdom and elsewhere also the Logos (cf. 234). The reference to the Spirit
being like a turtledove is from a later period (cf. Targ.Song 2.12), as is B.T.
Bab. Hag. 15a, which examines Gen. 1:2 and talks of the Spirit hovering
over the waters. It is germane to point out that Jesus' anointing with the
Spirit is not directly connected with the waters or the physical baptism, but
happens afterward (when "he came up out of the waters")." Thus, the
allusion to the dove may be a wisdom motif, which should not be pressed
because we are talking about an analogy ("like a dove").

In this brief text that summarizes Jesus' apocalyptic vision, we are given
the impression that Jesus had his identity confirmed, his life task set, and the
necessary empowerment granted for him to carry out what God intended for
him to be and do. It may be true that Jesus' visions were infrequent -certainly
what happened to him at his baptism was a singular experience. Thus, it is
going too far to call Jesus an apocalyptic seer; most of his utterances,
although often having a wisdom or eschatological bent, are hardly
apocalyptic in the sense of representing the communication of a revelation
that came to Jesus in the form of a vision. We may wish to call Jesus a
charismatic, one endowed with full measure of the Spirit, but perhaps not an
ecstatic." What our text tells us is that "Jesus thought of himself as God's son
and as anointed by the eschatological Spirit...."" Bear in mind also the
insight of A. F. C. Wallace who points out that revitalization movements
typically come into being through a prophet's "revelatory visions."40
MIRACLES AND MIGHTY SIGNS

How Jesus used the empowerment he received at baptism needs to be

examined. That Jesus performed deeds that were perceived as miracles by
both him and his audience is difficult to doubt. Whether we are dealing with
a case of raising the dead or healing the blind or exorcising a demon, we find
evidence in various sources and layers of the tradition that Jesus was noted
for performing such acts. Borg's conclusion is typical: "Jesus was one of
these 'men of deeds.' Indeed to his contemporaries it was the most
remarkable thing about him. During his lifetime he was known primarily as
a healer and exorcist ."41 If Jesus was endowed with the Spirit, then it
should hardly surprise us that he performed activities like those of Elijah, for
example, who was similarly endowed according to biblical tradition. Herein
lies a problem, however. If Jesus' deeds were no different from those of a
great prophet or Hellenistic wonder worker, then how can they be said to
have any christological weight? One could argue that if raising the dead or
healing the sick proves Jesus to be the messiah, then these same activities
prove Elijah to be the messiah.

It could also be argued that exorcisms, or giving of sight to the blind,

were a sign that the messiah had come, since there was no real precedent for
such acts in the Old Testament. Furthermore, apart from the Aramaic
incantation bowls and the Testament of Solomon that post-date the New
Testament, there is evidence from Qumran Cave 11 that Solomon, Son of
David, was associated with exorcisms. The fragment in question is of a
recension of Psalm 91 and probably dates to the late first century a.c.12
Later rabbinic literature is known to have seen this psalm as a song for
exorcising demons (cf. J.T.Sabb. 6.8b; B.T.Sheb. 15b; and especially
/.T.Erub. 10.26c). Even more striking is what Josephus says about Solomon
in Ant. 8.45:

And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the
benefit and healing of human beings. He also composed incantations by
which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with
 which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And
this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day....

This knowledge of exorcism is associated with Solomon's wisdom. These

examples raise the possibility that Jesus' exorcisms may have been intended
or seen as making some sort of messianic claim." Isaiah 35:5ff. supports the
idea that from at least the late prophetic period there was an expectation that
in the messianic age there would be healing of the blind.
MIRACLES AND MAGIC IN ANTIQUITY

People in antiquity were so primitive, it has been maintained, that they

believed almost everything that happened could be attributed to supernatural
forces. This supposed lack of critical faculty to discern the difference
between natural and supernatural causes has led many moderns to seek
naturalistic explanations for most of Jesus' deeds. Dunn has argued: "There
is no instance of a healing miracle which falls clearly outside the general
category of psychosomatic illnesses."" This is a very dubious deduction. The
raising of the widow of Nain's son, much less Lazarus, and the healing of a
man born blind can hardly be categorized as the curing of psychosomatic
illnesses. More to the point, E. Yamauchi shows that in various Near Eastern
civilizations such as those in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Israel both before
and during the New Testament era, various people could distinguish between
illnesses that were naturally or supernaturally caused or cured.41 My point is
that miracle stories, whatever their historical substance, that cannot be
explained in a reductionistic fashion occur even in the Synoptics. I suspect
that this reductionism is based in part on a false premise about the powers of
critical discernment in antiquity.'" Schillebeeckx rightly cautions:

Anyone who recounts miracle-stories (especially in conjunction with

stories that do not contain miracles) is already living in what is plainly a
"transitional world"; he is no longer a primitive for whom everything in
fact is "miraculous" and accounts of individual miracles make nonsense-
even though he too recognizes gradations in the world of miracles; but
he is not, on the other hand, a member of a secularized, technological
welfare state in which there can no longer be any room for "miracles.""

Bear in mind that modern assumptions about the nonexistence or

impossibility of miracles are as uncritical as the assumption that everything
is miraculously caused. Rather, the evidence for the miraculous must be
weighed and sifted like any other historical evidence, and an explanation
adequate to account for the phenomena needs to be given.
 Schillebeeckx reminds us that even Jesus' opponents did not dispute that
he worked miracles, but they attribute them to the powers of darkness (cf.
Mark 3). Apparently, there were two verdicts about Jesus' mighty deeds-of
God or of the devil. "Such extreme verdicts are not reached in respect of any
old nondescript 'average person'; they presuppose some sort of 'marvellous
phenomenon' perceived and acknowledged as such by all parties."" The
people of Jesus' day were prepared to believe in such phenomena, but was
any distinction made between magic and miracle?

Here we are helped by J. M. Hull and H. C. Kee, who seek to place the
Gospel material in the larger context of ancient miracles and magic.49 These
studies are more useful than those of M. Smith who has a polemical ax to
grind that skews his handling of the evidence.SO

Hull suggests that a miracle is and would have been considered partly or
wholly magical if (1) the miracle has no cause but the will of the miracle
worker, (2) cause and effect are indicated, their interconnection being based
upon a theory of mana or sympathetic bonds; or (3) the cause of the miracle
is believed to be the performance of certain rituals that are efficacious in
themselves. The basic idea behind magic seems to be an interpersonal,
intersubjective transaction, with or without intermediary means." The
ancients had a difficult time separating miracles from magic, and if one
performed the former, then one could have used the latter to bring it about.
One of Smith's claims seems to have substantial support: Jesus was
perceived by some to be a magician, especially when he performed
exorcisms or used clay or spittle to heal a person (cf. Mark 7:33; 8:23; John
9:6). These activities and means were the stock and trade of magicians.
Barrett reminds us, "It is true Jesus must have presented a ... 'pneumatic'
figure as with authority he rebuked the unclean spirits, but so did the
legendary Solomon, and the halflegendary Apollonius ... so too did the
perfectly real Rabbis who exorcised demons, and the equally real magicians
who hawked the magical spells."52 This larger context, not just the Old
Testament background, needs to be kept in mind when we weigh whether
Jesus' mighty deeds have any christological significance.
 It appears from the Gospel data that Jesus does not qualify as a magician
for the following reasons. First, there is clear evidence that he believed he
performed exorcisms by personally using the power of God's Spirit (cf. Luke
11:19-20/Matt. 12:27-28), not by merely exerting his own will against that of
the forces of darkness. Second, there is no dear evidence of Jesus using
spells or magical words to perform his miracles; usually his miracles result
from his spoken word. The Aramaic words Jesus uses in Mark 5:41 are not
an incantation formula but a simple direct address. The use of clay or spittle
does not necessarily amount to a ritual; it may have been Jesus' way of
making dear to his audience that he was in the process of healing someone.
Clearly, he is portrayed as being able to perform the same miracle without
such a procedure, so that he was not dependent on a ritual."

Third, with rare exception Jesus' actions cannot be explained by the use of
such concepts as mana or various forms of sympathetic magic.s' Fourth, the
frequent association of Jesus' miracles with faith distinguishes them from the
extrabiblical traditions," and particularly the theios aner material. But it is
also striking how pistis in the synoptic miracle material has the sense of trust
in Jesus' ability to help, and it is not used in the later post-Easter sense of
faith in Jesus .56 Fifth, there is a striking absence of the use of rings, holy
water, herbs, incantations, or various aids especially when performing an
exorcism, although Jesus does follow the usual procedure of addressing,
obtaining the name, silencing, and dismissing the demon.57 Sixth, Jesus
never gives instructions or directions about natural cures." Seventh, in the
Synoptics Jesus does not follow biblical or later Christian precedent in
performing his cures; he does not pray nor does he invoke the sacred
name.59 Eighth, Jesus performs neither a punishment miracle (unless one
counts the cursing of the fig tree), nor what may be called a liberation from
human bonds (cf. Acts 16:25ff.), nor any purely gratuitous miracle. Ninth,
Jesus does not perform miracles to draw a crowd or draw attention to
himself, in fact, he specifically refuses to do this (cf. Mark 8:11ff. and par.).
It is not surprising that Kee concludes after his study of the Gospel miracle
material that Mark presents Jesus' miracles "within a framework very
different from that of the Magical Papyri."60 This is true because even at the
earliest level of the tradition Jesus was not perceived by Christian tradents to
be a magician and did not intentionally present himself as such. Hull
concludes, whatever others may have thought, "Jesus did not think of
himself as a magician."st He may have seen himself as a prophetic or even
messianic healer, but only an examination of the evidence will bear this out.
Here we can conclude that there are features in the synoptic miracle material
that suggest Jesus was not and did not intend to be seen as a magician.
JESUS AND THE 'THEIOS ANER" CONCEPT

At one time, many thought Jesus was being depicted as a theios aner in some
of the Markan miracles. When Leander Keck wrote his important article on
Markan Christology in 1965, he was surprised that one such as Cullmann
would reject the suggestion that the theios aner concept might be of
relevance to understanding Jesus as a miracle worker or, at least, the
presentation of him as such by the evangelists.u Since that time, two studies
have caused a major reevaluation of this theme's relevance for the analysis
of Gospel miracle material.'' In 1987, G. Downing could say on the basis of
these two studies, "I take it that D. L. Tiede and C. H. Holladay between
them have shown that there was no composite role of inspired teacher-and-
worker-ofmiracles with the title theios aner waiting around for Jesus to be
cast in it."" E. Best is also willing to say, "It is not as certain as it is
sometimes alleged that there was a clear concept of a divine man in the
contemporary world; even if there was, it is less clear that the early
Christians would have consciously formalized their teaching along its
lines.""'

What can we say about the theios aner concept? First, "many scholars
have been operating under the false impression that the term theios aner was
a fixed concept in the Hellenistic world."" It was not; rather, it was an
umbrella concept incorporating disparate and sometimes even contradictory
elements." The concept has been pressed into a variety of uses. Thus, a
divine-man Christology "that can encompass the christologies of the four
gospels and the pre-gospel miracle cycles would have to be too broad a
concept to have much interpretative value."" Second, when one examines
Plato's Socrates or Plutarch's Alexander or Philo's Moses or even Dio of
Prusa's Diogenes, the real basis for calling any of these individuals a theios
aner or recognizing any of them as having divine status "rests upon his
characterization as a sage and possessor of virtue who can serve as a
paradigm for moral edification. "69 In short, it does not rest on their abilities
as wonder-workers. Furthermore, the record of Apollonius's deeds comes
from a much later period than the New Testament material. Accordingly, this
concept is not going to help us much in discerning what sort of miracle
worker Jesus was, or was perceived to be, or was portrayed as being by the
evangelists. Hellenistic wonder-workers or charismatic figures were
numerous (Simon Magus, for example), but in the last analysis, these figures
are not exactly the same thing as a theios aner. I conclude that the theios aner
concept is too amorphous and will not help to understand how Jesus viewed
himself as a wonder-worker.
THE HANDLING OF MIRACLES IN MARK AND Q

Even in the case of John, the Gospel writers do not play up the miraculous
element in the traditions of Jesus' mighty works that they present to us. The
Fourth Gospel does not dwell on the miracles in the sign narratives; in fact,
sometimes they are not even described. Rather, the focus is on their effects
and christological significance. Often, however, there is a stress on the
magnitude (not the nature) of the miracle-the quantity of water changed, the
fact that a man was born blind, the number of days Lazarus was dead. But
this is mentioned in order to magnify the miracle worker, not because of an
interest in the miracle itself. Kasemann says:

For John, too, miracles are indispensable. They are not mere concessions
to human weakness.... Human need is, to be sure, the occasion for the
miracle, but the meeting of human needs is at most a subsidiary aim.... It
is indeed correct to point out that John attacks a craving for miracles.
This is not done, however, on the basis of a criticism of miracles in
general, but in the interest of his one and only theme, namely his
christology. His dominant interest ... is that Christ himself may not be
overshadowed by anything, not even by his gifts, miracles and works.79

When we turn to the material in Mark and Q, we discover a considerable

restraint being exercised in comparison to various extrabiblical and
apocryphal tales about miracles. In the case of Mark, almost all the miracles
are clustered in the first half of the Gospel, making up about forty-seven
percent of that half. The dominant interest seems to be in exorcisms-in a
miracle related to the eschatological inbreaking of God's dominion and
possibly to a messianic figure, but also in a miracle that does not seem to
have been the focus of most of the miracle tales about early church figures
(cf. Acts). It is possible that Mark has drawn on a pre-Markan miracle cycle
for some of this material." It is also possible that "Mark contains two streams
of miracle material: one closely related to the Palestinian scene and the
message of Jesus in its native setting; the other relatively unrelated to Jesus'
message."72 Keck suggests that the material found in Mark 3:7-12; 4:35-
5:43; 6:31-52; and 6:53-56 comes from a later, more Hellenistic source that
does not reflect the concerns of the ministry. Yet this material's focus is on
Jesus' travels in the region around the Sea of Galilee and on his use of a boat
to reach many of these places. A more helpful distinction for our purposes
might be between miracles of an epiphanic nature, such as some of the
nature miracles that seem directly to reveal something about Jesus, and those
of a more indirect nature, such as exorcisms that could be evaluated
variously. We will not study the epiphanic miracles because most scholars
believe they reflect later church interests.

In any event, Mark is clearly interested in miracles, as both the quantity

and the summaries show (1:32-34; 3:7-12; 6:53-56; 8:14-21), but it is hard to
find evidence of Markan redaction that intends to heighten the miraculous."
We see throughout the first half of the Gospel that these miracles can be
variously evaluated. However, although they raise the question of who Jesus
is, they do not provide a clear answer-other than attesting Jesus is a man
with divine power. Best explains:

On the one hand the healing narratives attract men to Jesus; on the other,
they do not reveal his true nature and the real claim he makes on them;
this only comes from the cross. Hence Mark's ambivalent attitude. So he
retains the miracles, but sets them within the framework of a story
dominated by the passion."

Achtemeier sees the matter a little differently. He, too, claims that the
miracles are deliberately set in a larger framework, but his contention is that
Mark uses the miracle material to aid in portraying Jesus as a teacher. This is
seen in the very first miracle story, Mark 1:21-28. "Here, plainly, Mark
wants us to be clear on the fact that the power inherent in Jesus' teaching is
precisely the power that enabled him to overcome demonic forces."75
Achtemeier suggests that Mark wants to state clearly that Jesus is not just
another Hellenistic wonder-worker. "The Jesus who performed mighty acts
is the Jesus who is preeminently the teacher. ..."76 Whether one prefers the
analysis of Best or Achtemeier, the point is that Mark was not in the business
of playing up the miraculous or inventing miracle tales. Rather, he was
trying to place the miracle tales he found in his source(s) in a larger context
so that Jesus would be understood. The issue of the context in which the
Markan miracles are placed is important in another regard as well. What
Barrett says about exorcisms can be said of all the miracles to some extent.
They "draw their significance not from their content, which is commonplace
enough, but from their context; it is the Christological setting in which they
are placed which completely differentiates them from other narratives."77
One may say these miracles gain their christological significance from the
interpretation that Jesus (and others) give to such events. Achtemeier's
suggestion that Mark presents the miracles in the context of depicting Jesus
as a teacher may be explained by what we have just noted.78 For now it
would appear that the only uninterpreted miracles that might have raised
messianic questions would have been exorcisms and possibly giving sight to
the blind. Nevertheless, Mark is careful to warn his audience that miracles
could be ambiguous. After all, they lead Pharisees and Herodians to oppose
Jesus (3:6); cause scribes to think of Jesus as possessed (3:22); leave people
from his hometown unimpressed (6:2-3); cause Herod to imagine that Jesus
is John the Baptist redivivus (6:14-16); and do not eliminate the disciples'
misunderstanding (6:52; 8:17-21).79 Yet miracles are neither dismissed nor
denied nor demythologized, but simply presented in a larger context.

Turning to Q we discover that miracles are mentioned only

occasionallyhardly surprising in what is primarily a sayings source.
Nevertheless, we do find the intriguing story of the healing of the centurion's
servant (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10), which may have been placed right next
to Jesus' response to the Baptist in Q (Matt. 11:5/Luke 7:22).e0 In addition,
there is the important woe saying about three Galilean cities in Matt. 11:21-
24/Luke 10:13-15. Thus, we find in Q the solicitation of a miracle, the
interpretation of miracles, and also the effect of rejecting miracles. Note,
however, that even in Matt. 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10, the real interest is in the
dialogue between Jesus and the centurion, not in the miracle itself.81 In the
important sayings in Matt. 12:27-28/Luke 11:19-20 the focus is on
explaining the significance of Jesus' exorcisms, as opposed to those
performed by others.

I conclude that in Q, as well as in Mark, no real evidence of any desire or

interest to play up the miraculous aspects of Jesus' ministry is exhibited.
Their reality is recognized, and they are considered integral to the ministry.
The focus, however, is on their interpretation and significance as well as on
the implications of responding positively or negatively to them. What I want
to stress about the miracle material and the references to miracles in both
Mark and Q is that neither source evidences any interest in novelistic
expansion or creation of miracle stories. Both found the material in their
sources, yet they tried to give it neither too much nor too little weight. Thus,
we may learn something indirectly about how Jesus viewed himself because
this material appears in our earliest sources with relatively little redactional
expansion or modification of a specifically christological nature.
JESUS' INTERPRETATION OF HIS MIRACLES

Arguments for the authenticity of Matt. 12:28/Luke 11:20 will be dealt with
later. It is doubtful, however, that Matt. 12:27/Luke 11:19 is a creation of the
early church in view of its admission that other Jewish exorcists among
Jesus' opponents were successful and that Jesus, according to words placed
on his lips, might be casting out demons by the prince of demons
(Beelzebul). Nevertheless, we can discern something of Jesus' view of
miracles from these two, perhaps originally separate, sayings.82

Jesus freely admits that his power to perform exorcisms is not his own,
but is derived from a higher supernatural power. This point cannot be
overstressed because it makes clear that Jesus does not perform exorcisms
simply by exerting his will against that of the demons. There is no
interpersonal battle going on between him and the powers of darkness. Thus,
Jesus distinguishes his work from what Hull has defined as magic.

Second, Jesus claims that it is by God's power, not Satan's, that he casts
out demons. This implies a direct consciousness of God's power resident in
Jesus so that he may draw on it whenever necessary, but especially to help
others since exorcisms are always miracles of compassion.

Most important for our purposes is the connection with the dominion of
God. This connection distinguishes Jesus' exorcisms from all others, with the
possible exception of his followers', whom he endows with God's power to
pursue the same purposes. These exorcisms are not just random examples of
God's help to the suffering, but herald the breaking in of the eschatological
reign of God. The importance of this should not be minimized. As Theissen
has put it,

Jesus is unique in religious history. He combines two conceptual worlds

which had never been combined in this way before, the apocalyptic
expectation of universal salvation in the future and the episodic
realization of salvation in the present through miracles ... Before Jesus
there was no comparable combination of apocalyptic and the charism of
 miracle-working.... The eschatological view of miracles is generally and
rightly held to be a peculiarity of Jesus' preaching. Because the negative
web of evil has already been broken it is possible for salvation to come
in individual instances. Because individual instances of salvation occur,
the presence of the end can be proclaimed here and now.e3

Jesus sees his miracles as bringing about something unprecedented - the

coming of God's dominion. Note that Jesus interprets God's reign in terms of
changed human lives, not cosmic or political change. He sees himself as one
who is bringing in and bringing about change within the lives of individual
human beings so that they can relate to God and others as God intends them
to do. This is God's final will for God's creatures. Here we see a person who
believes he has been endowed by God with the power to bring about God's
final transformation of human lives. In view of some of the late prophetic
texts that associate such changes with the messianic age and sometimes
specifically with God's anointed one (cf. Isa. 61:1ff.; 35:5), it does appear
that Jesus is making an implicit messianic claim. Who else had the power to
bring in God's final reign over human lives?

Equally important is Jesus' response to the Baptist. The following factors

point to the authenticity of Matt. 11:4-6/Luke 7:22-23: (1) in view of the
growing tendency in the tradition to make John a witness for Jesus, the
doubts here expressed are surely an authentic note; (2) the absence of any
concluding response of or reply by the Baptist points to the primitiveness of
the narrative; (3) the reference to Jesus as the Coming One is a "very rare
title which is not usual either in Judaism or in later Christianity";" (4) Jesus'
pointing to his miracles, rather than answering the question directly, seems
to be characteristic of the way he responds to questions about who he is; (5)
the lack of reference to exorcism suggests that the narrative has not been
touched up to conform to the actual course of Jesus' activities; (6) other
traditions outside of Q also suggest that Jesus saw his job as announcing
good news to the poor (cf. Luke 4:16ff.; also the Q Beatitude, Luke
6:20/Matt. 5:3);19 (7) in view of the fact that neither early Judaism nor the
church would have characterized the messiah as one who simply comes and
heals and preaches good news to the poor, this too must count in favor of the
authenticity of this material.'"
 In Matt. 11:2-19/Luke 7:18-35, we clearly see that Jesus believes he is on
a mission to fulfill God's promises concerning the final state of God's people.
Jesus came to preach and bring the eschatological blessings of God; how one
reacts to Jesus determines whether or not one will be blessed by these
activities (the negative side of this will be seen when Matt. -11:21/Luke
10:13 is examined). Jesus is willing to allow his preaching and his miracles
to indicate who he truly is. Here is someone conscious of being more than
just a proclaimer or prophet, although he is certainly that. Rather, Jesus sees
himself as one who rescues people, bringing about the condition of
eschatological shalom or salvation in their lives. To be sure, the miracles
involve physical healing, but in view of the frequent stress in the healing
stories on the necessity of faith or trust in Jesus as one who can bring God's
help, clearly something more than mere physical restoration is at issue here.
The larger context of the Old Testament text Jesus cites, Isa. 35:4-6/61:1,
also suggests this. It is doubtful that Jesus made the sort of neat distinctions
between the physical and spiritual realms that moderns do. Here again we
see a claim that, although indirect, suggests Jesus saw himself as more than a
prophet or ordinary miracle worker. He was one in whom and through whom
the promises of God came to pass. This is surely some sort of transcendent
claim, whether or not we call it messianic.

Luke 10:13-15/Matt. 11:21-23a is a Q saying that may be categorized as a

woe oracle like those we find in the Old Testament (cf. Amos 6:4-7; Mic.
2:1; Hab. 2:6-7; Zeph. 2:5)." Its original setting has probably been lost
because the first evangelist and Luke present this material in different
contexts. Most scholars argue that the Matthean form is more primitive,
although it appears that 11:23b-24 was later added by the first evangelist
because this material is not found in Luke." In favor of the authenticity of
the earliest form of this saying, Matt. 11:21-23a, is the fact that it records the
failure of at least one part of Jesus' ministry. 59 Furthermore, the mention of
Chorazin must count in favor of its authenticity because the city is
mentioned nowhere else in the Gospel tradition and an early Christian
mission was evidently not undertaken at this tiny village.90 The saying
presents various hints that it was originally an Aramaic oracle -parallelism,
the use of the divine passive, assonance between Bethsaida and Sidon." Also
in favor of its authenticity is the note of eschatological judgment even on the
people of God, as well as the appeal to repentance, both of which seem to
characterize at least the early period of Jesus' Galilean ministry shortly after
Jesus had contact with the Baptist (who preached in similar fashion).

For our purposes several key insights are gained from Luke 10:13-151
Matt. 11:21-23a. First, Jesus expected the citizens of these villages to see his
miracles as more than just deeds of compassion. They were a visible form of
calling people to repentance in view of the coming dominion of God. Notice,
there is no mention of preaching along with the mighty signs, although that
may have been the case. The point of this saying is that the deeds themselves
should have been sufficient to lead to repentance.92 Second, however, Jesus
admits that the mighty deeds themselves do not automatically produce the
proper response that he desires. These deeds may raise questions about who
Jesus is and what he is doing, but they do not in themselves transform the
hearts of their eyewitnesses and lead them to understand Jesus and his deeds.
Yet it is right to see this oracle as a comment primarily on the
hardheartedness of Jesus' audience because he indicates that if he had
performed the same miracle in famous pagan cities like Tyre and Sidon,
repentance and the signs of repentance would have resulted.

Third, notice that how one reacts to Jesus and his actions now will affect
one's status at the last judgment. This saying, like the previous two we have
examined, suggests that Jesus saw his miracles as evidence of the inbreaking
dominion of God that should lead people to humble themselves before their
God." Jesus, then, is the one who brings the final decisive action of God
upon God's people. How one responds will determine one's final status with
God. This suggests that Jesus saw himself as the final and decisive mediator
between God and God's people.

In conclusion, Jesus saw his miracles as part of his overall effort to bring
in the dominion of God, both as part of the final eschatological blessing
upon God's people and as part of the call to repentance and response of faith
to what was happening in and through the ministry of Jesus. All of this
suggests a transcendent evaluation by Jesus of the importance of his
ministry, including the mighty deeds. Even at the historical level, Barrett's
conclusion is fully warranted:
The general purport of the sayings about miracles which we have so far
considered is that they are acts of divine power wrought through God's
representative. As such they are signs of the coming New Age of God's
salvation, and as such they may be recognized by all who have eyes to
see. It is true that many, even the disciples, are blind, but God's power is
nevertheless prodigally expended in miracles the significance of which
might be grasped by those whose minds are enlightened. Behind the
figure of Jesus as a "pneumatic" person (as he is portrayed in the
miracles themselves) we see the root of his power-his Messiahship, and
his connection with the Kingdom of God."
NO SIGN OF APPROVAL (MARK 8:11; LUKE 11:29)

There is little benefit in investigating various healing narratives in detail

when it is not their content but their context that is of christological
significance. The questions we want to answer at this point are: (1) was
Jesus willing to perform miracles upon request to authenticate his work and
nature? (2) did Jesus perform miracles that might have been evaluated as
uniquely messianic? and (3) did Jesus perform what might be called
prophetic signmiracles? These questions will be addressed in each of the
next three sections.

Attempting to discern the earliest form of Mark 8:11 (and par.) about
Jesus' refusal to provide a sign from heaven is difficult. Most scholars are
convinced that we have in Mark and Q at least one authentic minatory
saying that indicates Jesus refused to produce a sign." The majority of
scholars now think that the Q form is more primitive and that Mark has
edited the saying, leaving out the material about the sign of Jonah due to his
messianicsecret theme. Thus, the Jonah material in some form (perhaps Luke
11:29b) is probably original. For our purposes it is not necessary to focus on
this part of the saying. If the reference to Jonah is a vague allusion either to
Jesus' death (made explicit in later handling of the saying, cf. Matt. 12:40),
or to some other event in the future after Jesus' earthly ministry, then it is
irrelevant to our discussion. It would still mean that Jesus absolutely refused
the request for a sign during his ministry. It is also difficult to discern the
original audience for this saying, although it may be the Pharisees and some
of Jesus' other adversaries who asked him for the sign (cf. Mark 8:11/Matt.
12:38). It is doubtful whether this saying is a response to any request by a
follower of Jesus because the saying responds to those who might be
classified among this (evil) generation.

It may be that Mark intensified the negativeness of the response-the

absolute negative seems to represent a Hebrew oath formula which does not
exist in Aramaic.96 In addition, we have the solemn asseveration formula,
"Amen, I say to you," to introduce the saying in Mark but not in the
parallels. It must be stressed that Jesus is being asked for an oth, or a
legitimating sign from heaven. Schillebeeckx suggests that they were asking
Jesus for his credentials as a prophet.97 It also is possible that they were
asking him to demonstrate his messianic status (cf. Matt. 16:1).9" In either
case, Jesus refuses to produce such credentials.

Let us stress that the request is for what is called in Greek a semion
which, unlike the case in the Fourth Gospel, is a word never used in the
synoptic Gospels to refer to Jesus' mighty works or miracles.99 What
apparently is being requested is some flamboyant sign in the heavens or a
gratuitous and visible miracle that would indicate Jesus' transcendent status.
This request surely comes after Jesus had performed various miracles that
already had been interpreted as to source and nature (benevolent or
malevolent).

It is doubtful that Jesus had been requested to perform an oth if he had not
already done something that raised the question of his possible transcendent
status. Schweizer aptly sums up the possible reason for Jesus' refusal: "The
demand for a sign spells the end of faith. Where guarantees are demanded,
confidence has vanished."100 Paul tells us it was characteristic of Jews to
ask for signs (1 Cor. 1:22). Certainly there was a great craving for the
miraculous and the visibly spectacular in Jesus' day. Jesus, however, does
not see it as his task to meet people's expectations or even their requests, but
rather to minister to their needs and to do the will of the Father.

How, then, do we evaluate Jesus' clear refusal to produce an oth?

Apparently Jesus refuses not because he could not perform such an act, not
because he did not think of himself in prophetic or messianic categories, but
because the questioners were approaching Jesus in a manner that precluded
seeing him and his work with eyes of faith. The philosophy of his
interlocutors was "prove it to us-seeing is believing." Jesus, however,
operated on the principle that believing leads to seeing and receiving
miraculous help, among other things. The key element in this interchange is
the spiritual condition of the inquisitors and the motives behind their request.
They are part of "this evil generation" who are not willing or prepared to
receive what Jesus has to offer.
 There is no contradiction here to the narratives where Jesus heals upon
request-an oth and a mighty work are not the same in any case. Nor is there
any contradiction to the fact that Jesus performed certain prophetic and
symbolic acts like cleansing the temple. Remember that when Jesus did the
latter it was not due to anyone's demand, but because he felt led by the
Father. Whatever else one may make of this saying, it has a certain similarity
to the temptation narratives, where again Jesus refuses to produce a
stupendous and gratuitous deed on demand.

Perhaps Jesus did keep his messiahship secret from those who were
hostile and unwilling to approach him with trust and open-mindedness.101
In any event, this narrative says nothing against the thesis that Jesus had a
transcendent self-concept.
EYESIGHT TO THE BLIND (MARK 8:22-26)

The study of extrabiblical miracle stories certainly enlightens the New

Testament scholar in his or her quest to understand the biblical text. For
instance, when one studies the exorcism narratives and finds that the demons
are the only ones who recognize Jesus for who he is, the scholar familiar
with the Hellenistic miracle material will not immediately conclude that this
reflects the later confession of the church.102 There are notable parallels
from the Magical Papyri, e.g., PGM 8.13: "1 know you, Hermes, who you
are and whence you come and which your city is."103 Such parallels suggest
that the biblical scholar should not be so confident in thinking that the
narrative has been significantly altered in light of later christological
concerns. Such addresses to the exorcist or key figure in the story are
common in these stories. In fact, B. D. Chilton argues that the demons
attempt to bind or control Jesus by using his name, thus attempting to
produce an exorcism of the exorciser!104

The same caution applies to the story about Jesus healing the blind, which
has no parallels in the Old Testament but some parallels outside it. The
reason for considering the possibility that Jesus really did heal at least one
blind person is that this type of mirade is attested (1) in the uniquely Markan
material found in 8:22-26; (2) in the Bartimaeus story (Mark 10:46-52; Luke
18:35-43; Matt. 20:29-34); (3) in the Matthean summary in 15:30; (4) in
John 9; and (5) in Jesus' allusion to Isaiah 35 and 61 in his response to John
(Luke 7:22/Matt. 11:5). By the criterion of multiple attestation, at least some
of this material likely goes back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu, and none of these
stories appears to be more primitive than Mark 8:22-26.

The healing of the blind is found in the intertestamental Book of Tobit. At

11:10-14, Tobit is healed by what appears to be a magical ritua1.105 One
may also point to the now familiar tale of the healing of a Roman soldier
with an eyesalve made of honey and cock's blood (Syll. 1173.15-18).106
Taylor also points to SIG 3.1168 which refers to a blind man who saw a
vision of Asclepius the god of healing and "the first thing he saw was the
trees in the temple precincts."107 Consider also the famous story about the
Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man with the use of spittle (Tacitus Hist.
4.81; Suetonius Vesp. 7).108 These parallels show there was widespread
belief that a miracle such as healing the blind was possible, perhaps through
using a concoction applied to the eyes. As Dunn says, the more credence one
gives to the extrabiblical parallels, "the less significance can be attributed to
Jesus' miracles as 'proofs' of his uniqueness. But then Jesus himself never
used them in this way."109 But this comment overlooks one important
factor. In Palestine, Jesus' actions would be interpreted in light of the Old
Testament, and we already have seen that Jesus himself interpreted his
healings in light of the Isaianic prophecies in Isaiah 35 and 61. The healing
of the blind was not unprecedented, but when interpreted in light of the
prophecies of the Old Testament about the eschatological and messianic age,
they can be seen in a new light. We turn, then, to these key Old Testament
texts.

In the promise about a coming day of redemption the Isaianic prophet

says in 29:18, "The deaf, that day, will hear the words of a book and, after
shadow and darkness, the eyes of the blind will see." At Isa. 35:5, after
referring to Yahweh's intervention for vengeance and vindication, we are
told that when intervention happens, "then the eyes of the blind shall be
opened." In the address to the Ebed at 42:7, the Ebed is commissioned "to
open the eyes of the blind, to free captives from prison." In some cases, such
as Isa. 42:18ff., the reference is to spiritual blindness; nevertheless, there is
enough here to suggest that in the messianic age there would be
transformation of the physically and spiritually blind. This transformation is
not ascribed to any Old Testament prophet; thus, if Jesus did heal the blind,
it would have raised messianic questions. E. Hoskyns suggests that there
may have been a tradition that physical contact by the messiah could bring
God's salvation to an individual.10

As Taylor shows, the form of Mark 8:22-26 is closely parallel to the story
in 7:32-37, the cure of the deaf mute."" This has led to the conjecture that
they are variants of one original tradition. Given the striking differences in
the story, however, we probably have an example of how certain kinds of
miracle stories tended to take on a relatively fixed form as the tales were told
and retold.
 The following factors favor the authenticity of Mark 8:22-26. First, note
that both Matthew and Luke omit this story, probably because they found it
too difficult given that Jesus heals the man, not instantly but through a
process. Second, the statement about seeing men walking like trees may go
back to an Aramaic original. 112 Third, that same statement suggests that the
man was not originally blind. Thus, there is no attempt here to heighten the
miraculous as in John 9, and the statement by the man in v. 24 opens the
door to the suggestion that this might have been the curing of a real but
nonetheless psychosomatic ailment. Fourth, Jesus lays his hands on the man
twice. A later church redactor with a christological focus, much less Mark,
would probably not invent the idea of a cure being partially effected by the
first touch. As Taylor says, "The story itself warrants us in speaking of
tradition, since its realism shows it to be anything but a product of
invention.""' The fact that Jesus takes the man aside also counts in favor of
its authenticity because there is no tendency in this story to turn it into some
sort of public demonstration.

Of all the miracles in the Gospels, this story comes closest to being a
popular miracle tale. Here we see Jesus using a means of gradual cure, like a
Hellenistic wonder-worker. Spittle was almost considered to be a medicine
with curative powers."' In any event this tale, if it has not been cast into
Hellenistic garb by Mark, which I would not rule out, suggests that Jesus
was not afraid to be perceived as a popular wonder-worker if it meant he
could help someone. While Jesus had power to cure, it did not always work
automatically or instantly. Other factors affected the outcome, including
faith, as other miracle stories indicate (cf. Mark 5:34; 6:5-6).'" The
conclusion of the story at v. 26 suggests that Jesus did not want publicity for
what he had done in this case. This verse may be due to Mark's messianic-
secret theory, but it is equally possible that it reflects Jesus' concern that the
man be allowed to return to a normal existence without a lot of fanfare.

This story only takes on larger significance when seen in light of the
contextual interpretation Jesus gives such miracles in his response to the
Baptist. But if Jesus healed even one blind person, then his response to John
must be taken as more than just rhetorical flourish. Jesus sets his miracles in
their proper context, in a context his Jewish audience would recognize and
understand. He sees them as a means of bringing in the long promised
dominion of God that would bring blessing and healing to God's people. As
such, there is an implicit claim to being the one who brings in the final reign
of God -a messianic claim. What makes the healing of the blind unique is
not the act in itself, but the larger Old Testament context in which Jesus
interprets the act. Not only is such a deed promised in the eschatological age,
but the act is set against the backdrop of the fact that no Old Testament
prophet, not even Elijah, performed such an act. Such a healing suggests that
Jesus was more than a prophet.
UNSEASONABLE EXPECTATIONS? (MARK 11:12-14, 20-25)

The story of Jesus cursing the fig tree is thought by many scholars to be
historically, if not also morally, problematic. Here is the only example in the
Gospels of an intentionally destructive miracle. More than one commentator
has concluded on the grounds of moral improbability alone that it does not
go back to Jesus, being so out of character for him. Yet such an assessment
ignores other Gospel traditions that relate that Jesus pronounced judgment
on various people and even destroyed part of the temple. Thus, I conclude
that Jesus was not always gentle and mild, but sometimes in both word and
deed treated the theme of judgment; therefore, our text should not be thought
historically improbable on the grounds of inconsistency with Jesus' known
character.

The second major obstacle to seeing this narrative as historical is that it

seems both pointless and mean-spirited. If it was not the season for figs, as
Mark admits, then what would prompt Jesus to curse the tree? This objection
ignores several factors. First, this action could be an acted parable, a
symbolic prophetic act meant to visibly depict a larger, more important
matter. It is probably not just an example of what happens when Jesus gets
irritated with an unproductive part of God's creation. Second, if, as both
Mark and the first evangelist suggest, this event transpired during Jesus' last
trip to Jerusalem for Passover, then note that in late March and early April
there are already leaves on the fig trees on the Mount of Olives and the green
figs appear even before the leaves. While it is true that the fruit that is eaten
from the fig tree is not harvested until autumn (hence Mark's correct
comment that the first evangelist omits), nonetheless there is edible green
fruit in the spring that Jesus might have expected to find, but did not.116
Jesus may have expected to find the first spring crop of figs on this tree
when he came to Jerusalem, but he did not, perhaps because the tree was
sterile.

The proper matrix for understanding this story is twofold. First, the
prophets frequently used the fig tree as a metaphor for Israel's status before
God (cf. Jer. 8:13; 29:17; Hos. 9:10, 16; Joel 1:7; Mic. 2:12; 7:1-6; Isa.
34:4). Jesus apparently also used this metaphor (cf. Luke 13:6-9). Second,
later prophets were known to have performed symbolic actions, and in some
cases what they symbolized was coming judgment on Israel (cf. Ezek. 4:1-
15; Jer. 13:1-11; 19:1-13; Isa. 20:1-6). Jesus' act becomes clear in light of
these prophetic traditions: he was symbolically indicating the coming
judgment on Israel. Thus Mark, who has divided up the original story into
two parts using his sandwich technique, was nonetheless right to associate
this act with another prophetic symbolic act that possibly hinted at the
destruction of Israel-the cleansing of the temple.117

Some scholars suggest that Mark 11:12-14, 20-25 is a development of the

parable in Luke 13:6-9. Against this is the fact that the parable is governed
by the theme of delay in judgment-the tree was to be cut down if it did not
produce after one more year.118 In our narrative, judgment comes, if not
instantaneously (as in Matt.), then nonetheless quickly and without
opportunity to produce the fruit required. Jesus may have been familiar with
the Q saying in Luke 3:9/Matt. 3:10, an oracle of the Baptist about coming
judgment on Israel. If so, he may have decided symbolically to provide his
own version at the end of his ministry when it became clear that Israel
essentially had rejected him.

Probably, the sayings in Mark 11:22-25 should be seen as later additions

to the end of the story, and so we will not treat them here."' Although I
would not rule out Beare's suggestion that this story developed out of a
saying of Jesus that Israel was like a sterile fig tree with lots of leaves and no
fruit,120 the offensiveness of the story speaks for its authenticity. Because
there are no other miracles of intentional destruction by Jesus, there is no
basis in the tradition to suggest that the Gospel writers would create a story
that could be misunderstood to mean (1) that Jesus was given to fits of rage;
or (2) that he used his power irresponsibly by expecting a tree to provide
fruit out of season and then cursing it for not doing so. Thus, the arguments
in favor of the essential authenticity of this story outweigh those against it.

According to the text, Jesus was hungry and looking for something to eat
from a fig tree, but when he found no fruit, he made a solemn
pronouncement, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." The use of the
optative here indicates a strong prohibition, 121 which is made milder by the
first evangelist who uses the subjunctive. Thus, the saying probably goes
back to a strong curse formula in the Aramaic. Taylor says, "The words are
the equivalent of a sentence of death upon the tree."122 Mark 11:21
indicates just such a curse formula in Jesus' words.

In view of the context, Mark indicates that Jesus meant this as a lesson to
teach his close followers about the impending doom facing Israel and
Jerusalem in particular. This gloomy oracle comes at the end of Jesus'
ministry when it was clear he had been rejected or ignored by the vast
majority of Israelites. The story also may show Jesus' awareness of his own
parallel fate-that the destiny of the nation and Jesus were intertwined. In any
event, this significant act places Jesus within the line of those messengers of
God who performed various symbolic acts foreshadowing the dark future of
God's judgment against the people.'"' This text should not be seen in
isolation from the various times when Jesus proclaimed good news, but it
should make clear that his message was not simply the opposite of John's.
Sometimes he could sound and act much like the Baptist.
CONCLUSIONS

Some evidence suggests that Jesus was to some extent an apocalyptic seer.
Schweitzer was right at least in part. Yet the apocalyptic element is not
central in the synoptic evidence about Jesus' deeds or even his words.

In regard to Christology, we have discovered indications that Jesus saw

his baptismal experience as the starting point for a messianic career of sorts.
Possibly we can consider it a point of confirmation about his identity and
empowerment for mission. The primitive baptismal tradition in Mark 1
suggests that Jesus' sense of sonship contained a messianic component at
least as early as his experience at the Jordan. This is not surprising given that
other figures of Jesus' era claimed messianic status (e.g., Theudas and the
Egyptian) and that some went into the wilderness and had dealings at the
Jordan. We also find in Luke 10:18 that Jesus believed he was involved in a
supernatural struggle with Satan, but that Satan's fall or defeat had been
foreseen and was indicated by the exorcisms and perhaps other activities of
his ministry. (This comports with the material on the basileia in Luke 11:20/
Matt. 12:28.)

Our discussion of the miracles of Jesus focused on the christological

interpretation of his mighty deeds. Both the exorcisms and the healing of the
blind could have led to certain messianic expectations about Jesus. It may be
that Jesus was cognizant of such implications when he performed these
deeds, although his main motive for performing miracles was not to draw
attention to himself but to help others. Much depends on how early
connections were being made between the Son of David and exorcism
traditions. The evidence of Josephus and other early Jewish sources indicates
that these ideas were already alive in Jesus' day.

The concepts and expectations about God's Mashiach were rather fluid in
Jesus' day, as de Jonge's studies propose. On the one hand, caution is needed
when insisting that all Jews were expecting a national-political messiah. On
the other hand, this seems to have been a prominent part of the expectation
in some quarters. Nonetheless, the fluidity of messianic expectations would
have allowed room for Jesus to chart his own course for his messianic
movement. It was not necessary for Jesus to conceive of his task as
confronting the Romans. Thus, that he did not confront the Romans does not
necessarily count against the idea of his having a messianic self-
understanding.

We also observed that Jesus expected his audience to respond to his works
in faith and with repentance. This suggests his duty was more than just
performing acts of compassion. Rather, he was calling God's people back to
their source in view of the inbreaking dominion of God and of the potential
bad news on the horizon for those who rejected the manifestation of that
dominion in Jesus' ministry. The cursing of the fig tree shows that Jesus
foresaw doom for those who did not bear fruit full of repentance. Jesus was
willing to perform prophetic warning signs, but not legitimating miracles on
the demand of his skeptics. The power of God must be used to help people.
Jesus felt no need to make a demonstration of who he was; the words and
deeds would speak for him if one had eyes of faith. Gratuitous miracles
would have been an irresponsible use of the exousia God had bestowed on
him. Jesus had a mission and a message to proclaim, and the response of
faith was necessary to understand both what he was about and who he was.

Thus, our evidence about Jesus' self-image comes indirectly through his
words and deeds. This indirection, or willingness to allow his actions to
speak for him, seems to be characteristic of Jesus. J. H. Gill explains: "This
use of 'indirect communication' serves as a mark of authenticity within the
gospel narratives of a crucial feature of Jesus' historical posture vis-a-vis
other persons."124 There was a certain veiledness to all of Jesus' claims, but
perhaps especially his messianic claims. The purpose of this indirection
seems to have been: "to allow sincere hearers the freedom to ... decide for
themselves ... the kerygma ... must necessarily be sought and engaged in
order to be discerned and appreciated. "125 We have seen this indirection in
examining Jesus' deeds, but it is fully in evidence in his words, and nowhere
is this more obvious than in the fact that characteristically Jesus conveyed
his message in meshalim. But if a Chorazin or a Bethsaida did not draw the
proper conclusions from his deeds and words, then it became evident that
more was at stake in how one responded to Jesus than just receiving
momentary physical aid. As we turn to discuss Jesus and his teaching on the
basileia, abba, Son of man, and related matters, these factors should be borne
in mind.
 4

Christology and the Words of Jesus

MOWS FROM THE sayings material, especially Jesus' teaching and
preaching, tell us more than a little about his self-understanding. We will
first consider the distinctive ways Jesus spoke and the ways he handled
Scripture. In particular we will examine Jesus' rather unique way of relating
Scripture to his own experience, his use of Amen as a means of confirmation
of the truth of his own remarks, and finally his discussion of the Christ using
a form of expression that might be called haggadic. This will be followed by
a detailed discussion of abba, filial consciousness, and finally the Son of
man material.

JESUS AS TEACHER AND PREACHER

C. H. Dodd once urged students of the New Testament to observe that

although the Gospels were written under the influence of a "high"
Christology, nonetheless they all represent Jesus as a teacher with a circle of
disciples.' Actually, this should not be surprising. After all, there is an
overlap in what a teacher, a prophet, or even a leader of a messianic
movement would do in early Judaism; one commonality would be to convey
a message that one felt God would have God's people know.

Doubtless, Jesus was perceived to be a great teacher by his intimates and

others, and thus he was honored with terms of respect like Rabbouni, Rabbi,
or just Teacher. The evidence for these forms of addressing Jesus is found in
various layers of the traditions (cf. Mark 5:35; Luke 6:40/Matt. 10:24; John
20:16). Furthermore, with only two exceptions (Matt. 23:5-7; John 3:26), no
one else but Jesus is called by the term rabbi or Rabbouni in the Gospels.' In
addition, it does not appear that the title rabbi or teacher had any
christological weight for the earliest Christians during the period when the
Gospel material was being formed and gathered. The idea that Jesus was a
notable teacher is, therefore, an authentic motif.' Jesus was also perceived to
be a teacher by those Jews who were not necessarily sympathetic to what he
said and stood for, even in the period after Jesus died. B.T.San. 43a says,
"Jesus had five talmidhim: Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni, and Todah" (cf. also
Aboda Zara 16b-17a). Furthermore, the forms in which Jesus gave his
message were thoroughly in keeping with how a Jewish teacher would
teach-using meshalim, maxims, various forms of wisdom utterances, relying
on various allusions to the Old Testament.4

Few would dispute that the major mode of Jesus' teaching was meshalim,
and this in itself raises certain christological questions because considerable
evidence from early Jewish and Samaritan literature indicates that many
Jews expected the messiah to be a teacher of godly wisdom.' In chapter 1,
we pointed out how Jesus made his teaching not only memorable but also
memorizable by using both poetic and other mnemonic devices. We stressed
that the disciples of Jesus probably passed on the Jesus tradition in the same
fashion as other Jewish tradents passed on their masters' words.6 The system
of elementary education for children six to twelve (or thirteen) years of age
was widespread in early Judaism, and in that context as well as in the
synagogue, certain skills in learning and passing on valued religious
traditions would have been inculcated.' The acceptance of these facts does
not lead us to adopt either the view that Jesus set up some sort of formal
school when he instructed and trained the disciples or the extreme form of
what has been called the Gerhardsson theory. Nonetheless, Gerhardsson's
approach is much nearer the truth and historically more believable in a
Jewish setting than analogies with the development of pure folklore. Jesus
was not a purveyor of fables or short stories as we know them, and even in
the case of his meshalim, Jeremias, Dodd, and others have shown that
considerable restraint was exercised by the Christian community in the ways
they embellished or expanded such material.

As our discussion goes forward we will see evidence that Jesus' basic
indebtedness is to Jewish wisdom, prophetic, and eschatological traditions,
and to a lesser extent apocalyptic traditions (cf. Mark 13). Apparently Jesus
was not and did not set out to be like a "teacher of the Torah" per se, passing
along legal judgments or exegesis of various texts. Rather, he spoke and
preached about the inbreaking dominion of God using meshalim, wisdom
utterances, riddles, and other Jewish forms to get this message across. This is
one of the reasons that Hengel sees Jesus as "a messianic Teacher of wisdom
and the beginning of Christology."e Riesner remarks, "Jesus did not teach
under the call of an external authority, but can lay claim [to expounding] the
will of God directly."9 Even if some of the famous antitheses of the First
Gospel are a product of Matthean redaction,10 some are not, and the form
seems to go back to an authentic contrast or motif that characterized the way
Jesus taught-distinguishing his own teaching from that of others and
allowing his to stand on its own authority.11 Borg rightly says, "Thus the
language of Jesus indicates an awareness of a traditiontranscending
authority, one from the mouth of the Spirit."12 This may be true because
Jesus believed that what he taught and preached was not something he had
learned from Jewish teachers, but an eschatological revelation given by God.
Properly speaking, the disciples had been instructed to pass along both his
teaching and his preaching, and apparently this happened even during his
ministry, if the sending out of the twelve during Jesus' lifetime is a historical
fact.l" It is because of this event that both Schiirmann and Riesner have
argued that already during Jesus' lifetime, there was the impetus and need to
learn and pass on Jesus' words. Because of these factors, I am optimistic that
we can learn something about Jesus from his teaching and preaching
material.

Let us first consider what sort of teacher Jesus was, based on our
understanding of Jesus' social context. We have already noted some reasons
that Jesus does not fit into the category of rabbi. In the main he does not
engage in disputations about the Scripture and in particular the Law, but
rather directly declares the will of God for the present. There also are
difficulties in seeing Jesus simply as a Galilean hasid, or charismatic teacher.
For one thing Jesus does not seem to teach in the same fashion or with the
same focus as someone like Honi or Hanina apparently did (and neither of
them gathered disciples)." Perhaps here is the place to define hasid and to
note similarities and differences between Jesus and the hasidim. is
 The term hasid in early Jewish literature refers to a pious person, one
especially known for his deeds. They are sometimes referred to as or
associated with the "men of action" in the Mishnah (cf. M. Suk. 5.4; M.
Sotah 9.15; T.Suk. 5.2). Figures like Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben
Dosa were numbered among the hasidim, not only because of their piety but
also because they did such remarkable things as healing people or bringing
rain through fervent prayer. Safrai notes other features of the hasidim, for
example, their rigor in observing the Sabbath (e.g., B.T. Niddah 38a, B. T.
Shab. 150b), their insistence on wearing the ritual fringes (B. T. Men. 41a),
their prohibition against killing snakes and scorpions on the Sabbath (B. T.
Shab. 121b), and their noncompliance with all the halakah about matters of
ritual purity (J.T.Av Zarah 22, 11b). Safrai rightly stresses, "The individual
character of the Hasidim and of their Halakhoth, were not reconcilable with
the general outlook of the rabbis."16 They were both more and less rigorous
than the Pharisees and the later rabbis in various matters, 17 and just because
they were very strict in some matters does not mean we should place them
among the haberim.

The hasidim were noted for being first to visit those in mourning
(Trac.Semahoth 12), and for redeeming individuals who had been taken
captive (B.T.Shab. 127a). It appears that the hasidim were pacifistic in
nature, being ready for martyrdom (cf. J.T.Ter. 8.46b). They were noted for
their protracted periods of fervent prayer.'' The hasidim, then, were
individuals especially dedicated to acts of piety and charity.

On the surface there are parallels with the synoptic picture of Jesus. Did
he not also perform miracles and various deeds of piety and charity? Was he
not noted for taking an independent line from various of the Pharisees on
several matters, sometimes being more strict, sometimes less? Did he not
also disdain certain restrictions about ritual purity? Was he not a pacifist?
Are there not traditions that suggest Jesus saw it as part of his task to redeem
people (cf. Mark 10:45)? Did Jesus not visit and help those in mourning? Is
there not a tradition that Jesus wore fringes (cf. Matt. 9:20)? There are
enough parallels to prove that Jesus would have been seen by many as a
hasid. Note that the hasidim were thought by some to be heretics and were
investigated by the successors of the Pharisees (cf. T.Shab. 11.4). Much
depends on whether the relevant traditions in the Gospels actually go back to
a Sitz im Leben Jesu.

Differences also can be shown between the synoptic portrait of Jesus and
that of the hasidim. First, the hasidim are said to bring about miracles only
through fervent prayer; this is not the case with Jesus. Even a text like Mark
4:34 does not clearly mention prayer." Second, none of the hasidim ever
made messianic claims, even indirectly. The traditions about the hasidim do
not even raise such an issue, whereas the synoptic traditions do so at least
implicitly. Third, the hasidim are not said to reject the intrinsic "traditions of
the elders," but are selective in how they follow them, unlike the case with
Jesus.20 Further, the tradition preserves not a single ruling in the names of
Hanina or Honi or even Phineas ben Ya'ir.21 The focus is always on their
actions. This stands in contrast to Jesus at various points. Perhaps, most
importantly, the much discussed passage about Honi the Circle-Drawer,
where he is called a ben bayith (a son of the house), should not be taken to
indicate a parallel sense of sonship to that of Jesus. As Safrai shows,22 this
phrase refers to a royal slave, the term "house born" or "son of a house"
referring to a domestic slave. Honi is simply being called a slave in God's
house. The same applies to the tradition about Hanina ben Dosa in B.T.Ber.
34b, where Hanina is said to be "like a slave before a king." The sonship
material in the Synoptic Gospels does not even suggest such a connection.
Thus, although Jesus may have appeared to be like a hasid, this category is
insufficient to explain all of the arguably authentic material in the Synoptics.
In particular, Jesus' sense of sonship seems unlike that of the hasidim.

Some scholars have sought to determine whether certain non-Jewish

models of pedagogy might better characterize Jesus. For instance, V.
Robbins suggests that Jesus might be like various itinerant preachers and
teachers of the Hellenistic world who come and challenge people to adopt a
new way of thinking and living.2' Part of the problem with Robbins's
examples (from Xenophon, Plato, and Philostratus) is that they come from
either a much earlier or later period than the Gospel material, not to mention
a rather different social context.14 Furthermore, Jesus is not portrayed in the
Gospels as "a paidagogos, or school-teacher, or sophist ... [or] as a
metaphysical philosopher, Academic, Peripatetic, Stoic, Epicurean, or any
other such."u This drives Downing to the conclusion that the popular Cynic
preacher is the closest parallel. Granted, there are certain parallels both in
chosen lifestyle and, to a lesser extent, in message. Yet the teaching material
in the Gospels frequently refers to Jesus' function as a healer, and some of
the healing stories contain important teaching material. This is important, if,
as Downing admits, there are no models or examples of a Cynic healer, and
if Apollonius who is in some ways parallel to Jesus was a Pythagorean.

R. Horsley has pointed out the following problems with casting Jesus as a
Cynic preacher or teacher: (1) the instructions given in the mission charge
(Mark 6:8, cf. Luke 9:3; 10:4) make a dear distinction between what Jesus'
disciples are allowed to carry and the usual equipment of wandering Cynics;
(2) the Cynics appeared primarily in the cities while Jesus seems to have
avoided the cities; (3) the Cynics saw themselves as called to be individual
moral examples for other individuals, but did not feel called to form a
movement, much less a community; (4) the Cynics had no community base,
but were truly vagabonds and beggars, whereas Jesus apparently expects
there to be a communal base of support or hospitality for his followers.26

Thus, there are no comprehensive paradigms or parallels to Jesus as a

teacher-not even the Teacher of Righteousness provides a full parallel.n One
needs to reckon with the fact that Jesus the teacher was, if not sui generic,
nonetheless a complex combination of influences, and no one parallel model
is adequate to categorize him. It seems clear that although there may have
been Hellenistic influences on Jesus' teaching style, content, and lifestyle,
nonetheless these were mediated to him through early Judaism, which had
been affected in various ways by Hellenization. In short, the primary matrix
for understanding Jesus as a teacher is the constellation of Jewish parallels.
But if we admit that to some degree Jesus was a unique teacher, we should
not be surprised that even the Jewish parallels fall short of describing the
nature of Jesus as a pedagogue.
JESUS' HERMENEUTICS

One of the more distinctive aspects of Jesus' use of Scripture is that by and
large,

neither Jesus nor his followers was concerned to produce an extended

exposition [of Scripture) of the order of midrash, pesher, or targum. In
its own way each of the latter three serves as a commentary on a book of
scripture. But Jesus seems to have broken new ground, not in
contemporizing scripture ... but in making God's present activity, not the
text, his point of departure ... he did not use the circumstances of the
present to explain the meaning of scripture; he rather used the scripture
to assert God's meaning for the present."

In short, Jesus used Scripture as a commentary on and means of expressing

God's present activity in his ministry; he did not use the present
circumstances of God's people or his followers to interpret Scripture.
Perhaps the most obvious example of this phenomenon in a Q passage is
Matt. 11:2-6/ Luke 7:18-23.29 Here Jesus answers John's disciples by
indicating that various Isaianic texts are coming to fulfillment in the present
ministry of Jesus.

This example suggests Jesus believed that he was living in the age of
Scripture fulfillment, or the eschatological age, and that he was bringing it
about. His creative use of Scripture was prompted by his awareness of the
kairos-that God was right now breaking into human history and fulfilling
both God's promises and threats concerning redemption and judgment.30
The fact that Jesus uses this sort of existential starting point in his
understanding and handling of Scripture leads us to ask, Did he also see
Scripture as a commentary on himself as well as on God's present activity?
Did he use Scripture and scriptural language to explain, perhaps both to
himself as well as to others, who he really was and why he had to be the
person he was? In short, did Jesus begin with his own self-awareness and
then go back to certain Old Testament texts to provide a commentary on that
awareness? Did he see himself as in some sense the reality of which
Scripture had only previously given verbal foreshadowings?

There are certain Old Testament texts to which Jesus did seem to turn to
express or serve as a commentary on his self-understanding, for example,
Dan. 7:13-14 (which seems to explain his use of bar enasha), the Daniel text
combined with Ps. 110:1, or Ps. 110:1 by itself. Various texts in Zechariah
about the shepherd or Coming One seem crucial to Jesus' sense of identity
or, at least, to his means of expressing who he thought he was. It is hard to
say whether Jesus' self-understanding affected more the way he looked at
these texts, or the texts themselves affected more how Jesus viewed himself
and his mission. Likely there was influence by the Scriptures on Jesus' self-
awareness as well as use of the Scripture to express current self-concepts.

After demonstrating Jesus' use of various passages from Daniel and

Zechariah, among others, in ways that show that he thought these texts could
be used to speak about himself and his mission, France concludes:

In his use of the Old Testament Jesus stood alone among his Jewish
contemporaries, and that not because he took unusual liberties with the
text, ... but because he believed that in him it found its fulfilment. It is
from this basic fact that all the differences [in Scripture usage] spring."

For now it is sufficient to point out that Jesus' rather distinctive way of using
Scripture should alert us not to be surprised if Jesus had a rather unique self-
concept.
AMEN, I SAY"'

Sometimes one learns more about a person by observing how they speak,
than by what they say. Whether or not this is true in Jesus' case, something
can be learned about his self-image by the way he addressed his
contemporaries. To date no one has successfully cast doubt on Jeremias's
study of Jesus' use of amen.92 Thus, for instance, K. Berger's efforts to
explain a prepositive use of amen as being like an oath particle in Greek
(such as nai) have convinced very few scholars."

Although there may be one other example of a prepositive use of amen

from before Jesus' day,' this has been disputed. In this particular case, it is
plausible that the amen concludes the previous line in the letter, rather than
introducing the following one.35 Chilton's suggestion that the use of "in
truth" to introduce certain statements in the Targum of Isaiah (37.18; 45.14,
15) provides a direct parallel to the Gospel use of amen rests on several
questionable assumptions.36 First, we know that the Targum of Isaiah dates
from a period considerably later than that of Jesus' lifetime.37 Second, and
just as important, this Targum is an example of later Aramaic, which differs
in significant respects from middle Aramaic .38 Third, the provenance of
this document and of its form of Aramaic is not the same as the provenance
of Jesus' ministry and reflects a different speech context. Last, Chilton
simply asserts that amen equals "in truth" in the Targum; he does not
demonstrate this.

More critical is the fact that the prepositive use of amen with a verb of
saying is not found anywhere else in the New Testament other than on Jesus'
lips," and it is found there in all layers of the tradition, in all our sources:
thirteen times in Mark, nine in Q, nine in M, nine in L, twenty-five times in
John (as "Amen, amen") .40 In striking contrast is both the Old Testament
usage where amen is a word used to confirm someone else's oath or
benediction or curse or blessing, and the usage of amen in the New
Testament outside the Jesus tradition where it always is used in assenting to
another's words: 1 Cor. 14:16; 2 Cor. 1:20; Rev. 5:14; 7:12. By the criterion
of dissimilarity as well as the criterion of multiple attestation, "Amen I say
unto you" has the highest claims to being derived from Jesus, reflecting a
unique speech trait of his.

David Daube shows that such a modification of the use of amen "did not
go beyond the natural possibilities of actual Hebrew speech" and thus would
have been intelligible, but he provides no examples from before, during, or
shortly after Jesus' era.41 Daube shows that amen in later rabbinic sources
(cf. B.T.Shab. 119b, San. 111a) was taken as an abbreviation standing for
"God faithful king ."41 But this seems to have no connection with the way
amen is used in the Gospels, where it always introduces a significant
statement, such as one about the coming malkut or the present work of Jesus.
Amen indicates that Jesus is about to make a solemn and authoritative
pronouncement, on the basis of his own authority.'3

What, then, do we make of Jesus' habit of introducing his words with

"Amen I say to you"? It is insufficient to compare it to "thus says the Lord,"
although that is the closest parallel. Jesus is not merely speaking for
Yahweh, but for himself and on his own authority -something a prophet did
not do in any authoritative utterance addressed to God's people. He affirms
or confirms the truthfulness and authority of his own words in advance. This
strongly suggests that he considered himself to be a person of authority
above and beyond what prophets claimed to be. He could attest to his own
truthfulness and speak on his own behalf, and yet his words were to be taken
as having the same or greater authority than the divine words of the
prophets. Here was someone who thought he possessed not only divine
inspiration, like David (cf. below on Mark 12:35-37), but also divine
authority and the power of direct divine utterance. The use of amen followed
by "I say unto you" must be given its full weight in light of its context-early
Judaism.

Consideration needs also to be given to what sort of sentences were

introduced in this manner: usually those involving a statement about the
inbreaking dominion of God or Jesus' work, that is, those things that Jesus
either proclaimed, brought about, or did. It was not just a way of affirming
the truthfulness of any kind of utterance. Dunn best sums up the significance
of this phenomenon:
 His authority was charismatic also in the sense that it was immediately
received from God, or rather was the immediate authority of God. This
is the clear implication of Jesus' "emphatic ego" and "Amen" -a style of
speaking expressing a consciousness of transcendent authority.... When
others in the tradition in which Jesus stood expressed the immediacy of
their authority, they prefaced their words with 'Thus says the Lord." But
Jesus said "Amen, I say to you." . . . It is this charismatic nature of Jesus'
authority, the immediacy of his sense of authority together with the
conscious self-reference of so much of his teaching, which seems to set
Jesus apart from other men of comparable significance in the history of
religions."

In light of the uniqueness and context of this form of utterance, only

a person with a self-understanding that goes beyond the sort that arises
out of a prophetic consciousness would speak in this manner. Here one
is confronted with a phenomenon without real precedent, nor did it
spawn attempts at imitation in the early church. This phenomenon
strongly implies that Jesus believed he spoke not merely by inspiration
and thus for God, but also with divine power and authority and for
himself. This implies either a transcendent self-concept or self-
deception or incredible presumptuousness. No ordinary or even
extraordinary person, whether teacher or prophet, spoke this way:

The listener had to draw his or her own conclusions from this speech trait;
it was not the same as a direct claim to divine speech and authority. Jesus
apparently spoke in a fashion that could have led people to the conclusion
that he was someone greater than even David.
DAVID'S SON OR DAVID'S LORD? (MARK 12:35-37)

There was considerable speculation in Jesus' day about the Messiah being a
descendant of David. First is 2 Samuel 7, which had undergone significant
modifications by the time the Chronicler got hold of it (cf. 1 Chr. 17:11, 14)
so that a collective reference to "your offspring" became a specific reference
to "one who shall be from among your sons."'s Later is the prophetic
material in Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5f.; 30:9; 33:15, 22; Ezek. 34:23-24;
37:24; Hos. 3:5; and Amos 9:11. The precise terminology "son of David" is
apparently not attested before Psalms of Solomon 17.23, but thereafter it
seems to have become common parlance (cf. B. T. San. 98a; J.T.Ta'an.
4.8.68d; B.T.San. 97a). Attention also should be given to the Qumran
evidence in 4QFlor. 1.11-13, where the promise to David is interpreted in
light of Amos 9:11. (cf. C.D. 7.16; B.T.San. 96b), and to various Midrashim
on 2 Sam. 7:1.46

There is some evidence of a Solomon, Son of David-exorcist tradition that

may have been extant in Jesus' day, but it is uncertain to what degree this
affected Jesus. Even where there seems to be a connection in the New
Testament between "Son of David" and healing (cf. Mark 10:46-52 and par.),
there is no connection with either exorcism or Solomon.'? Matthew 12:23,
however, is found in a context where exorcism is at issue, but there "Son of
David" is redactional (cf. Mark 3) and of no relevance to our discussion of
Jesus' usage of the phrase "Son of David." What this shows is that the
Gospel writers are not trying to stress such a connection between Jesus and
Solomon. Nevertheless, if such a tradition connecting exorcism and
Solomon was extant in Jesus' day, then it is possible that Jesus' exorcisms
would have raised certain messianic questions and expectations.

Mark seems to have preserved the more primitive form while the first
evangelist has turned this brief passage into a conflict dialog with
interlocutors. Daube presents evidence that we have here at least one
question raised by Jesus that falls into the category of haggadah -the attempt
to raise and resolve questions within or between nonlegal biblical texts
where there seems to be a conflict. Here Jesus would be raising an apparent
contradiction between the scribes' teaching on the "Son of David" and what
Ps. 110:1 asserts." This would count in favor of the authenticity of the
saying; Jesus would be using a familiar technique to raise an important issue.

It has been urged against the authenticity of this saying that: (1) because
there is no speculation about the messiah based on Ps. 110:1 in early Jewish
literature, whereas this is the most used verse in the New Testament for such
discussion, this must be a church creation; (2) the argument here relies on a
play on words that does not exist in the Hebrew, but only in the Septuagint
(Kyrios/kyrios); (3) the saying implies a rejection of the Son of David
tradition in favor of a Son of man or Son of God as messiah tradi- tion;49 (4)
here Jesus uncharacteristically takes the initiative.

Problems are raised by these arguments. First, although there was no

known speculation about the messiah based on Ps. 110:1 in early Judaism,s"
there is no reason that Jesus could not have introduced this text into the
discussion, which would account for its later frequent use in the early
church. The form of the passage suggests that Jesus is introducing a new
consideration that seemingly conflicts with usual scribal teaching about the
messiah as Son of David. Evidence in a separate tradition (Mark 14:62 and
par.) shows that Jesus probably did draw on Ps. 110:1 to discuss messianic
matters.51 If so, then this would support his usage of such a text here. It is
more important to note that the way Ps. 110:1 is used here differs somewhat
from its use elsewhere in the New Testament, which suggests this passage is
not just another example of church usage.52

Jesus does not directly refer this text to himself; in fact, his indirect
approach could even lead to the conclusion that he was referring to someone
other than himself. Furthermore, the Davidic origin of the messiah was too
well established for Jesus to dispute such a matter. Nowhere else in the
Gospel tradition do we have any evidence that he did so. Rather, Jesus is
showing the inadequacy, not the inaccuracy, of such an interpretation of the
messiah. The point is that the messiah is more than a Son of David, not that
he is other than a Son of David. Further, it is doubtful that the church would
create a text that could lead to the conjecture, presently made by various
scholars, that Jesus disputed the Davidic origins of the messiah.
 Second, because Jesus is not reading from a Hebrew scroll but citing from
memory, it is possible that he quoted this text in Aramaic, and the word play
works in Aramaic as well as in Greek: amar marya le marl." Mark uses the
Septuagint version of the Old Testament text with minor modifications for
his own audiences'

Third, there is no evidence that there is an attempt here to replace a Son of

David messianism with a Son of man or Son of God one. In the former case,
this requires our reading Mark 14:62 into this text; in the latter case it
ignores the fact that the point at issue is the messiah being David's kyrios not
God's Son." Fourth, there is evidence in the Gospel tradition of Jesus taking
the initiative (Mark 8:27ff.) and using the method of indirection to make his
point (cf. Luke 7:22ff.). As Taylor says, "The allusive character of the saying
favours the view that it is an original utterance; it half conceals, half reveals
the 'Messianic Secret."'" Here we have no clear dogmatic church
identification of Jesus as either David's Son or his Lord, only a hint designed
to prompt thinking on the subject.

What, then, is the meaning of Mark 12:35-37? Jesus is challenging the

adequacy of simply viewing the messiah as a descendant of David. This may
also imply a critique of the sort of Davidic expectation registered in Psalms
of Solomon 17 and elsewhere in which the messiah is expected to be a
political figure, throwing off alien rule. Jesus did in fact contest the alien
rule of Satan over human spirits, but did not directly confront Caesars'
Taylor suggests that Jesus wishes his audience to consider the possibility that
he might be David's Lord, and thus supernatural in dignity and origin." As
we shall see, in Mark 14:62 Jesus uses this same text to suggest that he will
be invested with (further?) divine authority. Clearly, this text is a crucial one
in Jesus' process of self-discernment and self-understanding. This text, when
coupled with others, strongly suggests that Jesus did see himself in more
than ordinary human categories. Neugebauer is right to caution that the text
focuses on messianology, or the character of the messiah, and not
Christology, or the identity of the messiahs' Nevertheless, the text while
focusing on the messiah's character does imply something about his identity.
JESUS AND THE DOMINION OF GOD

The discussion of Jesus' teaching almost always begins and frequently ends
with the debate about what the phrase basileia tou theou means. Most of the
scholarly world agrees that basileia tou theou was at the heart of and
characterizes the teaching of Jesus.60 Unfortunately, the unanimity ends
there because no widespread agreement exists about what Jesus meant by
this phrase and how it functioned in his authentic teaching. The protest is
warranted that scholars "have internalized, de-temporalized, de-historicized,
cosmologized, spiritualized, allegorized, mysticized, psychologized,
philosophized, and sociologized the concept of the Kingdom of God.-61
Relatively clear, however, is that this phrase has something to do with Jesus'
fundamental eschatological outlook and his belief in the intervention of God
in human history .61
WHAT IS THE BASILEIA?

Despite the protest of Borg,63 the attempt to reconstruct a noneschatological

Jesus, or a Jesus who did not make eschatological matters important in his
preaching and teaching, seems doomed to failure for at least the following
reasons: (1) it requires the dismissal of all the material in the Gospels where
Jesus speaks about the future coming of either the basileia or the Son of
man; (2) it requires that one also dismiss as inauthentic numerous
eschatological sayings that do not specifically refer to the basileia or Son of
man (such as some of the collection of materials in Mark 13); (3) it requires
a reductionist approach to the considerable number of parables that speak
about such things as future judgment and future separation of the wicked and
the righteous; (4) various symbolic and prophetic actions likely performed
by the historical Jesus (cursing of the fig tree, cleansing of the temple)
become difficult, if not impossible, to explain on the assumption of a
noneschatological approach; and (5) the close association of Jesus and John
the Baptist not only in actions but also in some of their messages must be
ignored because it is difficult to deny to John an essentially eschatological
message.

In contrast, I quite agree with E. Schillebeeckx that the Schweitzerian

view of a Jesus who offered an interim ethic since the end of the world was
immediately (or within a generation) at hand can be shown to have
fundamental flaws.- Schillebeeckx asserts: "It nowhere appears from the
texts that Jesus identifies this coming (of the kingdom of God), this drawing
near, with the end of the world.""s Already it is necessary to avoid confusion
by defining some essential terms such as eschatology and apocalyptic.

Eschatology, strictly speaking, refers to the study of the events and things
that conclude human history, or at least bring human history to a climax,
however long the denouement after the crucial events occur. This term can
legitimately be used, however, to refer to events that have to do with a
messianic age that precedes "the end of the world," an age that in the
relevant Jewish literature can last for a considerable period of time before
the "end of the world" (cf. Syr. Baruch 24-30, 4 Ezra 7.29f., I Enoch 91-
93).'6

Apocalyptic literature is not to be identified with eschatological literature

simpliciter, but is a particular genre or type of eschatological literature. I find
the SBL Apocalypse Seminar genre definition of apocalyptic literature, with
D. Helmholm's further additions, to be essentially correct. Apocalypse

is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which

revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient,
disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it
envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves
another supernatural world. (Normally] it is intended for a group in
crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of
divine authority.67

On this definition it appears to me improper to continue to characterize

Jesus' teaching as mainly apocalyptic in form or content." So far as we know
he never produced an apocalypse, nor did Jesus use the sort of narrative
framework that can, broadly speaking, be called apocalyptic, nor did he in
the main speak of visions or things that were happening in heaven or were
hidden behind the visible tapestry of history. His concern was with what was
happening to human lives during and through his ministry in the early first
century. One may contend that there are some apocalyptic elements or
fragments or even images in Jesus' teaching (Satan falling from heaven, for
instance, or possibly some portions of Mark 13), but this material is certainly
the exception and does not predominate.

As to whether Jesus shared an apocalyptic worldview, by which is usually

meant a view that the world's end was necessarily imminent and that this
world's structures were so inherently corrupt and evil that they were
unredeemable, this assumption may also be disputed. Jesus proclaimed the
good news about the possibility of redemption with the coming of God's
dominion. In this regard Borg's critique of the end-of-the-world-Jesus is on
target." Jesus' teaching is most definitely given within an eschatological
framework and has eschatological content, but this teaching only has some
apocalyptic elements and images. There are disconcerting bits of teaching,
such as Jesus' sayings about the family and its ongoing existence, that do not
seem to fit such an outlook.70 Also, Jesus' apparent refusal openly to
condemn Roman rule or taxation does not comport with the usual
apocalyptic vision of a world already gone bad and filled with evil,
satanically directed empires that cause God's people to suffer. To the
contrary, Jesus comes proclaiming good news that God is even now
intervening in history. His dominant message is not a call to perseverance
until some future time when God will act. Furthermore, the parables
themselves fall into the category of wisdom, not apocalyptic, literature" and
as such are like some of the meshalim of the Old Testament in form,
although in content they often do have an eschatological message. Nor
should Jesus' interest in heils- geschichtliche matters be taken to indicate that
his thought or speech patterns were essentially apocalyptic in nature. My
point is not that Jesus' outlook and teaching contains no apocalyptic
elements, but only that he cannot in the main be categorized as an
apocalyptic seer.

Thus, I must reject N. Perrin's approach to the basileia material when he

characterizes Jesus' use of the term as an apocalyptic symbol, or even to
speak anachronistically as a steno- or tensive symbol! Rather, as Hill has
pointed out, the term basilcia is not an apocalyptic symbol, if by that one
means something that designates or points to something other than itself and
so has a referent external to itself.

In these terms "kingdom of God" cannot be a symbol because it has no

literal meaning to point to a symbolic one.... Kingdom of God is not a
symbol ... it may evoke the larger myths but it does not symbolize them
or anything else: rather it is something symbolized in the myth, in the
narrative and in parable as Perrin tacitly acknowledges when he refers to
the Kingdom of God as the ultimate referent of the Parable."

In short, the phrase basileia tou theou refers to a concept or series of

concepts or ideas; it does not symbolize these concepts. The phrase on Jesus'
lips does, however, connote an eschatological idea-God's final intervention
in history to bring it to its climax. This idea is expressed in both more
traditional Old Testament oracles and also in specifically apocalyptic
material in Daniel and elsewhere.

The debate about the basileia tou theou in Jesus' teaching has focused on
two primary questions: (1) definition, and (2) its time element. J. Schlosser
has sufficiently reviewed the literature and the various possible meanings of
basileia,74 so that we can simply summarize the various proposals here.
First, basileia refers to the reign of God exclusively, and all texts that seem
to refer to a realm can be explained by speaking of entering the sphere of the
reign of God. It is generally emphasized on this view that it is God's
dynamic activity intervening in human history, not some static concept of
God's universal and perpetual sovereignty, to which Jesus refers." Second,
basileia refers sometimes to God's reign that is breaking into history in Jesus'
ministry, sometimes to the realm over which God rules, depending on the
text and context. In short, Jesus seems to have used this term in a multivalent
way, although it is not meant to convey two ideas in any one text, rather, the
single dominant sense changes with the context.76 One must bear in mind
that when a first-century person spoke of a king and his kingdom, "It was not
monarchy in the modern sense of a ruler over a clearly defined territory. A
kingdom was rather a sphere of power. Where we would say 'state' or '. . .
kingdom,' the ancients said 'subjects of king (so and so)."'77 Third, basileia
tou theou is a circumlocution for God in strength or in God's activity or in
God's self-manifestation in history .78

These three suggestions occur repeatedly in the literature and none are
without their flaws. All of the major treatments on the subject are, however,
in agreement and correct in pointing out that the term kingdom, which in
English denotes exclusively a realm, is hardly adequate as a translation of
basileia, especially in view of the Hebrew/Aramaic background (malkut in
Hebrew, malkutha in Aramaic). Against the first definition there are too
many texts where the basileia is seen as something that people enter,
appropriate, or even seize, and this hardly seems to comport with the concept
of a reign, even a dynamic reign, or activity of God; how does one seize an
action or activity? The second definition could be said to cover all the data,,
but then the translation "kingdom" becomes inadequate as the sole conveyer
of the term's meaning. The third definition bypasses the whole question of
timing by arguing that the phrase simply refers to God. But it will be noted
that this definition runs into quite a few problems. For instance, the
definition needs to be expanded to mean God in God's activity or God in
God's self-manifestation, and when the matter is defined thusly, it appears to
me that one is basically back to the first definition again with its liabilities.
One needs to ask if Jesus really meant to convey the idea of people entering
God, much less seizing God.

This criticism cannot be dismissed by arguing that what is meant is much

the same as entering life (Mark 9:43) because life is not a being like God but
a force or condition. It also is inadequate to begin talking about entering the
sphere of God, coming into God's orbit or under God's control so to speak,
for when one does this what the individual has entered is not God but God's
control or reign, and so once again we are back to the same problems
entailed in the first view. It seems to me that all the evangelists are quite
clear that this basileia has something to do with events that transpire in time,
such as exorcisms, not merely a timeless Being who is manifested or
revealed through human history.

Consider, for instance, a saying like Luke 12:32. Here God is said to be
pleased to give Jesus' followers the malkut. What is conceived of here is
something the flock does not yet have, something that will come to them as a
gift of the Father, but it is not identical with the Father or even with the
Father in God's activity. Now whether or not this saying in particular is
authentic," it is characteristic of various sayings where God is distinguished
from the malkut. It may be prayed for from God, but it is not the same as
simply receiving God. To be sure, it is God who is involved, but the focus is
on the dynamic action and its results, not on God per se in the phrase basileia
tou theou. That God is melek does not mean we can simply identify God
with the malkut. In other words, the phrase basileia tou theou is not simply
another way of speaking about God's presence but rather the saving activity
of God and its results. As a term that has to do with Heilsgeschichte, its
temporal element cannot be ignored or simply dismissed. In view of the
problems with all three definitions, it will be worthwhile briefly to review
some of the relevant data again and to make a proposal of our own.
 When one begins to search for relevant parallels to the Gospel phrase
"basileia tou theou," neither in Jewish literature of the period, nor before the
New Testament era, nor in many parallels in the Christian literature are they
found in great abundance (cf. Acts 8:12; Rom. 14:17, 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:24).
Nevertheless, the few examples that do exist seem instructive. First, the
Greek word basileia seems originally to have meant the office of the king, or
kingly rule in the secular literature (cf. Aristotle Pol. 3.1285b, 20). In other
words, it could refer either to a position, a state, or an activity.80 Similarly,
the Hebrew term malkut and its Aramaic variant can refer either to kingship
or kingdom -an activity, the exercise of an activity, or the realm or persons
over whom that activity is exercised (cf. Exod. 19:6; 1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5;
Dan. 2:44; 4:22; 7:27)." The Daniel references are especially important
because in the context of the discussion it becomes obvious that malkut is a
term that is seen as parallel to saltan which means rule, authority, or
kingdom.82 In the Qumran literature there are few parallels, but the usage of
malkut in 1QM 19.8 should be compared to 1QM 12.16 (T. Dan. 5.13; T.
Benj. 9.1; 10.7 also seem to refer to God's royal rule).

Of particular interest is Psalms of Solomon 17 which likely dates to

before the end of the first century A.D. In this psalm we read: "And the
kingdom of our God is forever over the nations in judgment. Lord, you
chose David to be king over Israel and swore to him about his descendant
forever, that his kingdom should not fail before you. But because of our sins,
sinners rose up against us, they set upon us and drove us out."63 What is
especially interesting here is not only the parallel between God's and David's
basileia, but also clearly David's basileia is seen as a realm, parallel to the
term Israel, out of which God's people could be driven. Of course, the
eighteenth benediction where the kingly reign/realm of God is invoked could
also be cited, as well as the latter rabbinic parallels from Johanan ben Zakkai
and others about taking up the yoke of the malkut (cf. M.Berak. 2.2; 2.5).34

Interestingly, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms that we have been
discussing have a range of possible meanings. Also, although in the biblical
and relevant Jewish literature it is possible to surmise that the concept of
God's or a human being's reign or dynamic activity is perhaps the dominant
usage, the idea of a royal realm or sphere over which royal power is
exercised is not entirely absent from the literature. As P. Pokorny has
recently put it, 'The kingdom of God is the kingdom of the God who is
sovereign ... and near . . . , but it also is a kingdom. The kingdom of God
means not only the rule of God, thought of as the creator's rule over his
creation ... but a new social and, in a certain sense, a 'spatial' entity. "85
Thus, the term basileia could have meant either the reign or realm when used
in reference to God, and perhaps the best English equivalent that can be used
to refer to both would be the word dominion, which can be used to refer
either to a realm or to the exercise of royal authority or rule or even to an
ongoing reign (have or exercise dominion over). In short, it can refer to
divine activity or its effect or result.
THE COMING AND POWER OF THE DOMINION OF GOD

Although it is virtually undisputed that Jesus taught about the dominion of

God, more than a little disagreement exists as to how to analyze his
dominion teaching. Many would insist that we begin with the most
characteristic or striking form of Jesus' teaching-the meshalim.°6 The
problem with this view is at least twofold: (1) although the parables may be
the characteristic mode of Jesus' teaching, they are certainly an indirect and
metaphorical way of speaking on our subject, and thus it stands to reason
that if there is a more direct and clearer teaching, we should begin with it;
and (2) because of the opaque nature of the parables (since they are not
simply allegories that can be easily decoded), christological questions
concerning Jesus' employment of them are difficult to answer."

Summing Up in Advance (Mark 1:14, 15) 1 think Chilton, Schlosser, and

others are justified in their decision to focus first on the sayings material in
order to discern what Jesus meant by basileia. Perhaps the most obvious
starting point is to begin with the earliest Gospel's material that is relevant to
our discussion. In view of the detailed historical-critical analyses by Chilton
and Schlosser on Mark 1:14, 15°8 we can summarize the probabilities
concerning which portion(s) of this material can be considered likely to go
back to Jesus. First, it appears likely that this material is meant to be a
summary statement by Mark attempting to characterize the early preaching
of Jesus (that is, this is a summary in advance related to the Markan unit 1:1-
3:6).89 Second, it does not follow from this that the unit is purely
redactional because nowhere else is Jesus depicted as preaching a message
that so clearly echoes John's (cf. 1:4 and 1:14, 15) and we know that the
tradition was likely to distinguish Jesus from John as time went on.
Furthermore, both F. Mussner and R. Pesch have characterized the phrase
"the time is fulfilled" as echoing the prophetical herald material in the Old
Testament (cf. Isa. 56:1, Ezek. 7:3, 12) and thus Pesch concludes we have
here "an authentic word of Jesus."90 Chilton has also demonstrated a close
parallel to Mark 1:15 in Targum Isa. 53.1, which provides a plausible
Aramaic background for some of the material in this verse.91 Parallel
diction to Mark 1:15 found in the Q material in Luke 10:9/Matt. 10:7
provides the confirmation of multiple attestation, which suggests this
material likely goes back to Jesus. I thus conclude that although Mark 1:14 is
probably Mark's editorial introduction to this saying of Jesus, there is no
good reason to deny the authenticity of v. 15, at least as an authentic
summary of Jesus' early preaching.92

The most striking thing about this saying as a whole is its focus on
timeone era has been completed and another is now drawing near signaling
the need to announce something about the basileia. Understanding the sense
of this saying depends in large measure on understanding the main verbs in
v. 15. The first of these, plerod, probably renders the Hebrew ml'. The word
in itself is not specifically eschatological, but it can certainly be used to that
effect in eschatological contexts (cf. Tobit 14:5). It is possible, as Chilton
argues,93 that the Aramaic slm stands in the background here, but in any
case the thought behind the use of this verb in Mark 1:15 is best illuminated
by prophetic material such as we find in Isa. 60:22. There God is the one
who, according to God's plan, will bring something about at the appropriate
time, that is, the time God has designated. This verb suggests that Jesus
discerns it is time for Jesus to begin actively pursuing his ministry of
proclaiming the basileia, but this inherently implies that he thinks God is
doing or is about to do a new thing, that one chapter of human history has
finished and a new one is about to begin.

The second main verb, heggiken, has been the subject of enormous
controversy. Again, we need to consider the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent,
which is likely to be qrb rather than ng' or mt'. Despite the vigorous
arguments of C. H. Dodd, 94 heggiken normally refers to the approach or
drawing near of something in time and space. In view of the other parallels
of our saying with prophetic material, it should not be ignored that in the
Septuagint version of Isa. 56:1 and Ezek. 7:7; 9:1, heggiken renders qrb and
refers to the nearness of something. Notice also that this verb is used in the
Septuagint when the nearness of judgment or of God is referenced (Deut.
4:7; Jer. 23:23; Isa. 41:21; 48:16; 51:5; 56:1). Thus, it seems to me that the
conclusion of Black and Schlosser is more than warranted; without further
support in the context of Mark 1:15, Dodd's translation "the kingdom of God
has come" appears to be a matter of special pleading." I hasten to add here,
as does Schlosser, that it does not follow from this that Jesus is referring to a
matter that is in the distant future; rather, it refers to something near at hand,
something approaching.

This leads us to ask the reason that the verb heggiken is in the perfect
here. R. H. Fuller has suggested the tense indicates that "the impending
event, while most emphatically future, is nevertheless operative in
advance."% But what would this mean? If the basileia is operative in
advance, then in some sense it has come. In view of the use of heggiken in
Rom. 13:12; James 5:8; and 1 Pet. 4:7, a translation such as "has drawn
near" best captures the sense of the verb. In any event, the nearness
proclaimed here does not preclude Jesus referring later in his ministry to the
basileia as here. This is the case especially if this verse is no more than a
summary of Jesus' early preaching, when there still seems to have been
influence from his association with the Baptist."

The coming of God's dominion requires a human response -repentance

and faith. R. Leivestad has pointed out the following salient difference in the
preaching of Jesus as opposed to the preaching of John. Although John
simply warns of impending judgment and calls for repentance, Jesus calls for
repentance and proclaims good news." We are not told the content of this
news at this point but clearly some sort of eschatological pronouncement is
indicated, which may go back to Isaianic prophetic material (cf. Isa. 40:lff.).
It is also important to bear in mind a text like 11Q Melchizedek, which likely
demonstrates that the concept of bringing good tidings about an impending
action of God for or among God's people was seen as one of the tasks of the
Mashiach at least by some Jews prior to A.D. 70." H. Merklein, in his
detailed study of the use of the terms metanoia/metanoeo in the Gospel
accounts of the words of John the Baptist and Jesus, also notes the
differences between Jesus' and John's call to repentance.100 John's call is
always associated with the impending judgment on Israel. Not so with Jesus'
call,101 which is associated with Jesus' bringing in the dominion of God
through words and deeds (cf. Luke 10; 13; 15; esp. 11:31-32).102

What, then, may we deduce from this summary about Jesus' view of
himself? It appears clear not only because he picks up where John left off
but also from the content of Mark 1:15 that Jesus sees himself as an
eschatological messenger of God, perhaps even the final such messenger,
who foresees and foretells the approaching intervention of God in the midst
of God's people. This message calls for a change in the people of God in
preparation for God's intervention, but it also proclaims that there is good
news to be grasped and accepted.

The Finger of God (Luke 11:20/Matt. 12:28) Our second critical saying is
found in Luke 11:20/Matt. 12:28. It is probable, in view of the significant
role of the Holy Spirit in early Christian theology, that Luke preserved the
earlier form of this saying referring to the finger of God (in contrast to the
Spirit) as the agent of exorcism. A textual problem, however, exists in the
Lukan form of this Q saying: should the ego, which precedes the verb
ekballo in p75 B and various other witnesses, be taken as original, or is it an
addition based on the Matthean parallel (or possibly on the basis of v. 19)?
In view of early manuscript support for the inclusion of ego, it should
probably be accepted as an original part of the text, although some important
manuscripts such as p45 apparently omit it.

That Jesus was an exorcist, and well-known at that, is certainly one of the
most incontestable facts about his ministry,103 although significant debate
exists as to what sort of cure exorcism actually is (a healing of emotional or
mental illnesses? an actual casting out of supernatural entities?). Our
purpose is not to debate this issue, but only to clarify in what sense he was a
healer of the human spirit as well as of the human body. The fact of Jesus'
acts of exorcism is attested in nearly all layers of tradition, and also by
allusions to exorcism in sayings, narratives, and summaries (e.g., Acts
10:38; Mark 1:21-28 and par; Mark 3:22b and par.; Luke 10:20 and par.).
Furthermore, there is little evidence that exorcism was characteristic of the
ministry of early Christians (only Acts 8:7 and 16:16-18) and is notably
absent from the Epistles and also from the Fourth Gospel.

Schlosser's detailed, critical study has verified both the independence and
the authenticity of the saying in Luke 11:20. Furthermore, this conclusion,
which was already accepted by the majority of scholars, has been reinforced
recently by J. D. G. Dunn.104 Although this saying likely had a setting other
than the one given to it in Q, the saying probably arises out of controversy
over Jesus' exorcisms, such as in Mark 3:20-30. Here, then, we seem to have
a statement by Jesus intended to give his own interpretation of the
significance of his exorcisms. Several aspects of the saying call for detailed
analysis.

First, the anthropomorphism "the finger of God" likely alludes to the

narrative about the third plague in Exod. 8:15 (cf. Deut. 9:10; Exod. 31:18;
Ps. 8:3). The phrase itself seems to convey a sense of the magnitude of the
actor's power-this act is performed by merely lifting a finger. As Dunn
suggests, the deliberate use of the phrase "finger of God" could also imply a
"claim to an action of epochal significance equivalent to the deliverance
from Egypt ... (cf. Dan. 3:10)."106 Fitzmyer suggests that Jesus is
contrasting his power with that of magicians; Jesus performs these exorcisms
without the aid of such things as charms, rings, incantations. 106 A
significant flaw in M. Smith's portrayal of Jesus as a magician is that he fails
to weigh the many points of discontinuity between Jesus and Hellenistic
wonderworkers against the few points of similarity.107 Smith also fails to
define adequately what qualifies one to be called a magician. If by the term
he means one who performs magical incantations, spells, or other magical
rites, or one who summons the powers of darkness to perform miracles, then
there is little or no evidence to support such a view of Jesus, and various
traditions deliberately dispute any connection of Jesus with anything or
anyone diabolical (cf. Luke 11:14-19 and par). In summary, the reference to
God's finger distinguishes how Jesus operates from the ways of those who
rely purely on prayer or invoke the name of God or some other source of
power or authority to perform exorcisms.100

Second, the meaning of the verb ephthasen is disputed, but here it would
seem Dodd has the better interpretation. 109 For one thing, heggiken and
ephthasen are not synonyms.110 The verb ephthasen should be seen as a true
aorist here, precisely because Jesus is making a statement about what is
already true about the basileia as a result of what has already happened
during Jesus' ministry-exorcisms."' The timing of the exorcism and the
basileia need to be seen as parallel or the analogy loses its compelling force.
Jesus is saying that because he is performing exorcisms, something is now
true of the basileia-it has come in some sense. R. Schnackenburg comments,
"Accordingly, the reign of God is seen as an effective power (not as a
kingdom, as an institution, nor as a purely interior reality)."12

Third, the eph humas needs to be analyzed. The presence of this phrase
supports what we have just said because it suggests that something has
already happened in regard to the dominion that Jesus' hearers could grasp or
at least observe. In some sense it has come upon them! The exorcisms of
Jesus are evidence that the dominion of God is already breaking into their
midst. Probably, as Fitzmyer suggests, eph pumas here means "unto you,"
that is, to the present audience, not to some future one."3

This text causes problems, on the one hand, for those like Fuller who wish
to interpret all of Jesus' sayings as referring consistently to an imminent but
not yet present basileia."' On the other hand, texts like Mark 1:15 cause
dilemmas for those who wish to insist upon a strictly realized view- point."s
It is much better to admit that the data do not fit neatly into one category or
the other. This is hardly surprising, given how Jewish eschatological
literature juxtaposes present and future in various ways. It is possible to
construe this as a simple transition in time, that is, Luke 11:20 presupposes
that Jesus has already engaged in his ministry and some exorcisms as a part
of that work, whereas Mark 1:15 seems to be a comment on Jesus' early
proclamation. What Mark 1:15 meant was that God's dominion was near at
hand, at the door; what this text asserts is that it has arrived. These two
statements dovetail nicely, as Schlosser has argued,116 if we take seriously
that Mark 1:15 means the dominion is very near and that Luke 11:20 comes
from later in the ministry.

What may we deduce about Jesus' view of himself from this text? First,
Jesus sees himself not merely as a herald but as one who brings in the
dominion of God. This is more than a simple prophetic role. Notice that the
text says Jesus himself (the ego, if original, is emphatic) performs these
miracles "by the finger of God." This at least means by God's power, as the
use of pneuma in the Matthean form of the saying interprets, but it is not
impossible that more is being suggested. In the Old Testament usage of the
phrase "finger of God," God alone performs acts with God's finger or
fingers. God's human representatives such as Moses are not said to do so.
This suggests a close association between Jesus and God-that Jesus saw
himself as God's eschatological shaliach, or one endowed with the full
power and authority of the Divine in order to bring about God's
eschatological reign. Although there were many other exorcists, so far as we
know Jesus is the only one to interpret his exorcisms as a manifestation of
the inbreaking final dominion of God. This interconnection of eschatology
and exorcism in Jesus' interpretation of these cures is distinctive."' Havener
puts it this way: "The implications of these few words are enormous, for
Jesus is claiming that the exorcisms which he performs are themselves
manifestations of the kingdom of God already present. In other words, the
end time has begun, and Jesus' ministry shows forth the presence of God's
reign.""a If one closely evaluates texts (such as Isa. 24:21-22; 1 Enoch
10.4ff.; Jub. 23.39; 1QS 4.18-19; T.Mos. 10.1; T. Levi 18.12; T.Jud. 25.3;
and Rev. 20:2-3), then part of the Jewish expectation was that Satan would
be vanquished at the end of the age. Jesus, then, would be claiming in a
saying such as Luke 11:20 (which coheres well with other similar synoptic
material; cf. Mark 3:20ff.) that he was bringing in the final eschatological
age. This was evidenced by his bringing about the demise of Satan's control
over human lives.

"On Earth" (Luke 11:2/Matt. 6:10) As almost all scholars admit,19 the
Lord's Prayer in some form probably goes back to Jesus himself. The
petition about the basileia is an adaptation of the traditional Jewish prayer
known as the Kaddish, which actually is more of an Aramaic doxology than
a full prayer.'2° The part that concerns us reads: "May he establish his
malkutha in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of all the
house of Israel speedily and soon." Luke 11:2/Matt. 6:10 is much more
abbreviated than this, but in each case we have a prayer petition in which the
basileia is envisioned as something that comes in the future. It probably read
in the Aramaic original tete malkutak.121 This is a prayer for God's final
eschatological dominion or rule to break into history and set things right.

Two points about this petition are germane to our discussion. First, here
the malkutha is something that God brings in, and thus is the object of
prayer. It is not something an ordinary mortal can set up or establish, so one
can only pray for its coming. But if this is the case, how striking becomes
the saying we have just investigated about Jesus bringing the malkutha
through his miraculous actions. Again, it seems clear that Jesus sees God
working directly in and through him to establish God's final basileia. Yet, if
Jesus believed this about himself, why must this dominion still be prayed
for? A dimension of the basileia is presumably neither on the scene nor said
to be immediately appearing nor just on the horizon.

It is an old, but perhaps still useful, distinction that when Jesus spoke
about the basileia as something present or near he referred to the activity or
reign of God breaking into human history, but when he spoke of entering the
basileia he envisioned the basileia as a realm on earth that would appear only
sometime in the future. This would comport well with the Beatitudes that
speak of inheriting the earth. It also fits most or all of the synoptic entrance
sayings, and furthermore it comports with the few sayings we have outside
the Synoptics that focus on the inheriting or being worthy of the basileia (cf.
John 3:5; Acts 14:22; 1 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 5:5; Gal. 5:21; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Pet.
1:11; Rev. 11:15).

Second, as we have already stressed, here the basileia is seen as purely

future. In light of the fact that in Jewish literature apart from the Kaddish
prayer and in early Christian literature, there is no talk about a coming of a
basileia as we find it in Luke 11:2/Matt. 6:10, then this idea must surely be
seen as going back to Jesus.

Of the many entrance sayings in the Synoptic Gospels, the vast majority
of them, whatever their authenticity, clearly refer to a future entrance into the
basileia, although how far distant in the future is not made clear (cf. Matt.
5:20; 7:21; Mark 10:15 and par.; Mark 10:23 and par.). Mention may also be
made of Mark 9:43-47 (and par.), although there the subject is entering life,
still that entering clearly is seen as something that happens later-after one
has severed oneself from whatever causes one to sin. Again, one may point
to Matt. 16:19, and whether or not it is authentic, it certainly seems to imply
that entering the basileia is something that was not yet happening. In Luke
12:32 the flock is promised the (future) kingdom. There are various allusions
in some of the parables that may be of relevance here (cf. Matt. 7:13-14;
25:10, 21, 23, 30) but they do not suggest any different conclusion.

Luke 11:52, if it is not a variant of Matt. 23:13, really does not bear
directly on the question because the basileia is not specifically mentioned. It
can be argued that entering into knowledge equals entering the basileia, but
this is difficult to prove so we should probably base no conclusions on this
text. This leaves us with the two Matthean logia-23:13 and 21:31. It must be
said that neither of these sayings clearly states that someone is currently
entering the basileia. Thus, for instance, in 21:31 the verb proagousin can be
taken to mean either "take your place in" (Hill) or "are ahead of you"
(M'Neile), in which case we are dealing with a matter either of who obtains a
place or of who comes before the other in line to enter the basileia.122 If this
is a saying of Jesus, then M'Neile is likely right that the present-tense verb
here represents a timeless Aramaic participle, in which case it could just as
easily refer to a future as to a present entering.113 The same may be said for
the use of eiserchomai, which is in the present tense in Matt. 23:13.124 It
may be noted that the following participle likely makes reference to those
"trying to enter." The Pharisees do not allow those to enter who are trying to
do so. This text, then, could be said to imply that those people might
otherwise enter the basileia in the present, but more likely the reference is to
a future entering as a result of such things as present efforts and obedience.
This corresponds with those sayings that speak of feasting in the kingdom
with Abraham in the future (cf. Matt. 8:11-12), and with what appears likely
to be an authentic utterance of Jesus about his drinking the fruit of the vine
later in the coming dominion of God (Mark 14:25).125

I thus conclude that no actual texts speak about entering the basileia
during Jesus' ministry. All the entrance texts refer to a future entrance,
although how distant in the future is not said. It may be added that this
language comports with the general Jewish eschatological perspective about
the basileia of God as something that happens in the future.

It has been noted that the sayings about the future of the basileia and the
future role of the Son of man do not overlap. This observation is
fundamentally a sound one, and it follows that it is likely to be difficult to
determine from future basileia sayings anything clear about Jesus'
conception of himself. This conclusion seems warranted except in two
regards. First, Mark 14:25 seems to suggest not only that Jesus envisioned
participating in that final dominion of God but also, if we read this saying in
conjunction with a saying like Matt. 8:11-12, that he would do so with the
kind of people to whom he seems to have ministered during his ministry.
This does not clarify what the correlation is between involvement in Jesus'
ministry or responding positively to Jesus' ministry now and participating in
the basileia later, but there seems to be some connection. Perhaps this
conjecture finds confirmation in a saying such as the Q logion, Luke
12:8/Matt. 10:32. Second, if Mark 14:25 is any guide, then it appears that
Jesus at least envisioned participation in the dominion after his death (cf., for
instance, Luke 23:43).
THE MYSTERY OF THE MESHALIM

Among New Testament scholars it is almost axiomatic that Jesus' meshalim

(parabolic discourses) are not about himself but, by and large, about the
basileia.'u Thus, discovering Jesus' self-understanding will necessarily be a
matter of inference from what certain parables may imply. Yet, several
scholars are convinced, in spite of what we have just said, that this sort of
inquiry is by no means fruitless. Thus, for instance, J. D. Crossan is
persuaded that the parables "express and they contain the temporality of
Jesus' experience of God; they proclaim and they establish the historicity of
Jesus' response to the Kingdom." Indeed he is even willing to call the
parables the "ontological ground" of the life of Jesus, and thus the cause not
the effect of his other words and deeds. 117 Although this may be a bit
hyperbolic, if there is any truth in Crossan's assertion it is worth exploring
the matter further. A recent study has concluded that "Jesus the parabler is
intimately related to the parables he told. . . . Any teller is implicitly
involved in his tales, and some tellers play out their tales. Jesus belongs to
the latter category."125 A significant effort to pursue these insights at length
has been undertaken by J. Ramsey Michaels who is convinced that the
parables do convey some clues to understanding both Jesus' own religious
experience of God and his vision of the one he called abba.129

With the application of various new methods of literary criticism to the

parables, such as structuralism or the sort of analysis pioneered by A. N.
Wilder, R. Funk, J. Breech, or D. Crossan, New Testament scholarship
entered a new era. No longer was the old approach, which followed the lead
of A. Julicher by deleting allegorical elements and finding the one main
point of a parable, seen as adequate. In fact, rather widespread agreement
exists that the literary creations commonly called parables actually fall into
three different but related categories: (1) the similitude, which is seen
essentially as a simile; (2) the parable, which can be called an extended
metaphor; and (3) the example story, which is more an extended narrative
than just a comparison and is often followed by an application. The major
difference between similitude and parable appears to be not length so much
as focus: a similitude describes typical or ordinary occurrences, whereas a
parable describes something unusual (indeed, unlikely if not impossible,
humanly speaking) happening in the midst of the real and ordinary. Roughly,
the similitudes appear to be deductions based on real life and fall rather
strictly into the category of wisdom literature, but the parables proper seem
to be constructed and based on an assumption about the nature of how God
works in human history or at least on the basis of God's divine plan.130

If, however, we consider all three types of parabolic literature together

under the general term meshalim (which can refer to everything from a
simple proverb to a narrative like that of the Good Samaritan), then Dodd's
definition still seems helpful to explain how these sorts of creations function:
"At its simplest, the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or
common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness and leaving
the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into
active thought.""' Hence, the meaning of the parable will not always be
immediately apparent, especially in our case where we already are
admittedly looking for clues to a subject on whom the parables do not seem
to focus-Jesus himself. But hints seem to be given, especially in four sorts of
meshalim: (1) those that refer to the matter of reversal, which seems to have
been a major theme in Jesus' teaching and preaching; (2) those that
illuminate Jesus' religious experience; (3) the parables and sayings that
include metaphors and images suggesting Jesus applied Old Testament
images for God to himself during his ministry; and (4) genuine parables that
seem to have reflected on Jesus' view of his ministry and how it was being
received.

First, in view of the reversal parables Schillebeeckx maintains:

The fact is, a parable turns around a scandalizing centre, at any rate a
core of paradox and novelty. A parable often stands things on their head;
it is meant to break through our conventional thinking and being. A
parable is meant to start the listener thinking by means of a built-in
element of the "surprising" and the "alienating" in a common every day
event.'32

That Jesus had a special concern for the last, the least, and the lost, cannot
reasonably be disputed, but what is even more striking is that he spoke of
their being first, most, and found. This seems to have irked a considerable
number of his critics because apparently Jesus not only associated with
sinners and tax collectors but he even had the audacity to claim that they
were going away justified or entering the dominion in front of the
respectable and, in particular, ahead of those who were precise about their
obedience to Torah (cf. Luke 13:28-30; 18:9-14; Mark 2:15-17). In this
regard such parables as that of the Good Samaritan or the Pharisee and the
tax collector immediately leap to mind. Or one may think of the rich man
and Lazarus, or the prodigal son, or the great supper (Matt. 22:1-10), or the
two parables about the guests (Luke 14:7-14). Some of this material may be
dismissed as purely redactional, particularly in the case of Luke who seems
to have a special interest in such reversal material (cf. the thematic sermon in
Luke 4:18ff.). But the authenticity of all this material can hardly be denied;
we only wish to contend for this theme being present in some of the
authentic parables.' Further, the reversal theme corresponds with some of the
authentic narrative material that describes those to whom Jesus gave special
attention in his ministry and how he viewed the outcasts of society vis-A-vis
the more respectable members of that society."* Sanders aptly sums up the
probabilities that reversal was a major focus in Jesus' teaching and ministry
when he says,

The novelty and offence of Jesus' message was that the wicked who
heeded him would be included in the kingdom even though they did not
... make restitution, sacrifice, and turn to obedience to the law. Jesus
offered companionship to the wicked of Israel as a sign God would save
them, and he did not make his association dependent on their conversion
to the law.... If Jesus added to this such statements as that the tax
collectors and prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the righteous
(Matt. 21:31) the offence would be increased.135

As Sanders goes on to say, here is an implied self-claim to know whom

God would and would not include in the final dominion. But who knows
such things except God, or perhaps a person who thinks he or she has direct
access to the mind of God about such matters? In short, at the very least this
new vision of who may end up in God's dominion suggests that Jesus
believed he had knowledge that no one else had about God's will and plan
for at least some of Jewish humanity. This implies a claim to personal
reception of God's revelation, but Jesus not only envisions such possibilities
and proclaims them, he also acts on such a vision. Later, when we evaluate
the possibility of Jesus considering himself in some sense God's special son,
we will have occasion to reflect on the so-called Johannine thunderbolt in
the Q saying in Matt. 11:25-27/Luke 10:21-22.

Some such claim of special access to God and God's will seems to stand
behind the parables and teachings in the Gospel about reversal. Because of
the reversal parables, Crossan urges, "Jesus' parables are radically
constitutive of his own distinctive historicity and all else is located in
them."1M Nevertheless, Jesus proclaimed the dominion of God and thus one
should expect at most an implicit Christology in such material. The works of
Funk, Crossan, Wilder, and others have led us to see that the imagery of
Jesus' parabolic preaching cannot in the end be radically separated from the
message it intends to convey. In short, in a real sense the "medium is the
message" and the parables are Jesus' way of making people ponder the
nature of the basiieia that is breaking in through his ministry.

The idea that some parables reflect and illuminate some of Jesus' own
religious experience depends on our accepting the theory that some
meshalim reflect not a master's metaphor but a pupil's.'" These, then, are
stories or metaphors in which Jesus may be a character, not merely an
omniscient and external creator, because they are images Jesus believed he
received from God revealing to him something about the world, the basileia
in the world, and his role and purpose in relationship to both of these.
Michaels urges that some of the meshalim "may be described as stories his
Father told him, or images his Father showed him."131 Could these stories
be the vehicles through which Jesus learned or discerned his own mission in
life? If this is a possibility, then "parables may stand at the very root of
Christology itself. If parables were a mode by which Jesus heard God
addressing him, then we might expect them to have powerfully shaped his
self-understanding."139 Let us consider some examples.

Mark 4 tells the familiar story of the sower who sows seed on different
types of soil, with varied results. It is possible to take this as Jesus' means of
encouraging his disciples about their spreading the Word and its varying
results, leaving Mark 4:14-20 out of consideration because most consider it
Mark's redactional expansion. The basic parable's authenticity is, however,
not seriously challenged by any known study.140 But suppose it in fact is a
story Jesus believed he had heard from God about the failures and success of
his own ministry, not of the later efforts of the disciples?

Jeremias suggested such an interpretation of Mark 4 some time ago,

arguing that Jesus here presents a response to the fact of opposition to and
even desertions from his own ministry.141 Here, then, Jesus draws and gives
encouragement from the eschatological harvest imagery because he himself
received a mixed response to his ministry. In this parable, which Jesus heard
from God, he learned of himself as a sower. Naturally this does not allow us
to give way to wholesale allegorizing of the parables, but when one
compares parables in extrabiblical Jewish literature there is good reason for
at least some of R. E. Brown's conclusion that

Julicher's total rejection of allegory is an over-simplification ... there is

no really sharp distinction between parable and allegory in the Semitic
mind. In the Old Testament, the apocrypha, and the rabbinic writings,
mashal covers parable and allegory.... Therefore, there is no reason to
believe that Jesus of Nazareth in his meshalim even made a distinction
between parable and allegory. 141

I prefer the more limited claim that Jesus' parables could and likely do have
allegorical elements occasionally, a claim confirmed by a detailed study of
all the parables by P. Payne.143

A second possible example may be found in the brief saying about the
binding of the strong man in Mark 3:271 Matt. 12:29/ Luke 11:21, which,
because it involves metaphorical speech, may be counted among the
meshalim. Although it is possible that this saying was not originally part of
the Beelzebul controversy material, it fits suitably in such a setting as it does
appear to be a response of Jesus when challenged about his exorcisms. In
view of the differences between the Lukan form and that in Matthew and
Mark, it seems probable that Luke is following the Q form of this parable
while Matthew simply follows Mark. The Markan form of the saying seems
to be the more primitive because the Lukan version seems to allude to the
Septuagint version of Isa. 53:12. Jesus may here be alluding to some popular
literature that comes from before his day; the Testament of Levi 18:12 says,
"And Behar shall be bound by him. And he shall grant to his children the
authority to trample on wicked spirits." Although this document does include
some Christian interpolations, apart from the phrase "in the water," which H.
C. Kee has rightly bracketed in the new translation of this document, the
verse we have translated does not seem to be an interpolation but rather an
original part of this document that likely dates during the Maccabean
period."' The verse likely speaks of some future messianic priest's role. But
Jesus, in his parable, is speaking of something currently happening-the
plundering of the strong man's goods-which is possible only because the
strong man has now been bound by a stronger one. Jeremias has argued that
the binding of the strong man refers to what happened in Jesus' temptation
period. 141 This may well be so, but if this saying is a comment on Jesus as
a successful exorcist, as it likely is, then it clearly implies that Jesus has
somehow and at some point bound the strong man in order to plunder his
goods.

As Dodd points out, in some Jewish literature God's reign could only
come after the demise of Satan's reign over the earth. 146 This suggests two
things about the speaker of this saying: (1) Jesus saw himself as endowed by
God with supernatural power so great that he could both bind Satan and
liberate his captives; (2) the saying reflects a consciousness on Jesus' part
that he is bringing in the final eschatological dominion of God and the
salvation that comes with it for God's people. In short, this saying manifests
more than a prophetic self-understanding, although I hesitate to call it a
messianic self-understanding because there is no expectation in the Old
Testament that mashiacii would come as an exorcist. He would, however,
come as a liberator, and perhaps in his sayings and his work Jesus redefined
messianic expectations deliberately. In any event, we have seen in these two
parables alone that some of the parabolic material can be fruitfully seen as a
comment on Jesus' own religious experience and so on his religious self-
understanding.
 Another avenue is worth exploring while we are considering the
meshalim. Payne has argued that Jesus made an implicit claim to deity by
means of the images of himself he used in the parables."' Some of the
images to which Payne points, which are applied to God in the Old
Testament, and perhaps are being used by Jesus of himself in the parables,
do not necessarily lead to the conclusion Payne suggests. Thus, for instance,
the explicit or implicit use by Jesus of the shepherd imagery (cf. Matt.
18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7; Mark 14:27-31), which is certainly used of God in
the Old Testament (cf. Psalm 23 and passim), is also used of human leaders
among God's people in the Old Testament (cf. 2 Sam. 5:2; Zech. 10:2; Exod.
34:23). Thus, at most, an image like this found in a parable-if it tells us
anything about Jesus' self-concept -could just as easily suggest that Jesus
saw himself as leader, perhaps a Davidic leader for and over God's people.

A further problem arises when Payne uses parables like Matt. 21:28-32 or
Luke 15:11-32 to suggest that Jesus saw himself as the Father figure in these
parables. Against this, for instance, is the content of Matt. 21:31, which
speaks of people entering the dominion of God, not of the Christ, and this
follows after the command to go and work in the vineyard. Surely it is more
natural to see here a reference to the heavenly Father, of whom Jesus is the
messenger.

Much more promising is the material in Mark 4:3ff. (and par.), which
likely has as its background the use of the sower image of God's messianic
activity in the Old Testament and the Targums (cf. Isa. 61:11; Jer. 31:27f.,
Exod. 15:17; Targ. Yer. I).' " Here we seem to have the implication (if Mark
4:3ff. implies a self-reference as we have suggested elsewhere in this
chapter) that Jesus saw himself assuming a role assigned to God in the Old
Testament. Another possible example is the bridegroom material found in a
variety of Gospel sources (Mark 2:19f. and par.; Matt. 25:1-13). The Old
Testament background seems to be texts such as Isa. 49:14-26; 54:4-8; Jer.
2:2; Ezek. 16:8-14; and Hos. 2:16-23. There is no evidence in Jewish
literature including the Old Testament that the messiah was ever called or
alluded to as the bridegroom. 149 Thus, here again we have material that
suggests Jesus saw himself fulfilling a role that only God is elsewhere
described as assuming. Thus, it is quite possible, if the parables were meant
to comment on Jesus and his mission, that Jesus saw himself as carrying out
a divine role or task. What is not so clear is whether this amounts to an
implicit claim to deity.

A more controversial parable in Mark 12:1-9 (and par.) was widely

regarded as a Christian allegory until three matters were drawn to the
attention of New Testament scholars. First, the version of this parable in
Gospel of Thomas 65 has almost no allegorical features. In Thomas there is
no obvious connection with Isaiah 5 as there is at the beginning and end of
the Markan form of this parable; rather, there is a simple telling of how a
good man who owned a vineyard let it out to various tenants and sent two
servants, one at a time, to collect the fruit of the vineyard. Finally, the owner
sends his son, who is recognized by the tenants as the heir and is abruptly
killed. Note that in this version any reference to a beloved son is absent, and
the servants are not identified as prophets, nor is there an elaborate allusion
to Isaiah 5 making clear the vineyard is Israel, nor are we told that the body
was tossed outside the wall of the vineyard. Rather, we have a
straightforward story.

The second factor that makes it likely this story is authentic at least in the
simplified form, is that, as Jeremias has shown, it is true to life-a
characteristic of many of Jesus' parables. The parable reflects the real
hostility of Galilean peasant farmers to foreign absentee landlords who had
taken over their land and demanded a share of their hard-earned crop.
Jeremias and Dodd agree that the scenario is an apt description of the
resentment of Galilean peasants and thus that the parable could go back to
Jesus.'so Furthermore, it was even possible for a person to exercise squatter's
rights on Galilean land if the owner and all heirs were deceased; thus, the
supposition of the tenants is not implausible. They act in accord with local
laws about ownerless property.

Third, this parable ends abruptly with the death of the son. Were this a
Christian creation we would have expected an allusion to resurrection or at
least a successful resolution of the situation as Leivestad stresses.", We may
add, too, that the parable in its simplified form follows the rule of three with
a dramatic climax, and, furthermore, it perfectly suits the Sitz im Leben Jesu
in that it alludes to a context of hostility and controversy. Nor can one delete
the son from the parable, for otherwise the whole climax and the rationale
for telling the story about tenants who thought they could gain control of the
land by doing away with the heir is lost. I conclude this parable should be
seen as authentic in its simplified form, most nearly represented in Thomas
65.

Now it is quite true that there is little evidence the messiah was called the
Son of God in pre-Christian Jewish literature, but in the royal psalms the
king might be called son by God (Ps. 2:7; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-14), and that is
what the last figure in this parable is called: simply the son. Jesus, who saw
himself as God's last messenger, also plausibly saw himself as in some
special sense God's son, a term that here perhaps would have had messianic
and royal, not ontological, significance because the Jews did not expect a
divine messiah. This parable is believable on the lips of Jesus from a time
near the end of his ministry when, in the context of increasing rejection of
his message, especially by the Jewish authorities and Pharisees, it looked
rather inevitable that he would meet with a violent end if he continued to
pursue the course he had chosen.

What is especially intriguing about this parable for our purposes is not
only Jesus' likely allusion to himself as God's son and the final messenger
sent to the tenants in the vineyard but also the issue over which the son
would lose his life: the rightful claim to be heir to the vineyard. Had Jesus
come to reclaim Israel for the Father? Was he doing so in a context in which
that reclamation project implied a claim on his own part to have authority or
even ownership in some sense over that vineyard and its tenants? If this is
the case, then surely we see here an implicit messianic as well as
eschatological claim-a claim that was both understood and rejected by the
current tenants of the vineyard, for it meant their displacement from
positions of ultimate authority over Israel. If this text tells us something
about Jesus' selfperception and about how he was viewed by at least some of
the Jewish leadership, then it is hardly surprising that the question of Jesus'
authority and its ultimate source arises at various points and in various layers
of the Gospel tradition (cf. Mark 11:28ff. and par.; John 5:27; Luke 10:19ff.;
Matt. 28:18). Jesus believed his authority was such that he might not only
proclaim the truth to Israel, but in fact claim or reclaim Israel for the
truth.'32

Let us sum up what has been discerned in this section. First, we saw Jesus
as an eschatological messenger who announced the near coming and even
presence of the dominion of God. More than this, however, clearly from
Luke 11:20/Matt. 12:28 Jesus saw himself as in some sense bringing in the
final eschatological dominion of God, insofar as it affected the human
condition directly. By contrast, there is little or no evidence that Jesus
thought he was bringing in that dominion in a way that would cause
cosmological change during his ministry. Human history and human lives
are the arena into which he sees the dominion breaking, in spite of the
unchanged nature of the earth, the cosmos, and even the continuing
existence of "this generation" or, as Paul called it, "this present evil age."
God's dominion is breaking into the midst of a dark world without
immediately transforming or obliterating it all. Only those who have eyes
can discern its presence.

We conjectured that Luke 11:20 (and par.) may suggest that Jesus saw
himself as the Shaliach of God, one who acts finally and decisively with the
authority and power of the one who sent him. In the parables, and
particularly in the parables of reversal, we find a message that corresponds
with the description at various points of the character of Jesus' ministry. This
leads one to strongly suspect that the parables must be inspected not merely
as self-contained metaphors or literary devices but also as vehicles to convey
something about the dominion of God and what Jesus' ministry has to do
with that dominion which, by implication, says something about Jesus' role
and self-concept vis-h-vis the dominion. We saw that Jesus appears to have
claimed that he knew whom God would and would not include in God's final
dominion and, in fact, claimed that how one reacted to him and his ministry
affected one's standing in that dominion. This implied not only a claim to
special revelatory insight from God but also a special role in bringing in and
establishing God's dominion.

Indeed, so great did Jesus conceive his power and authority to be that he
saw himself as one who had bound Satan and was freeing his captives, in
short, one capable of doing battle with the ultimate and supernatural sources
of evil in the world. Finally, we also reviewed evidence that Jesus plausibly
saw himself, perhaps in a royal or messianic sense, as God's son, sent into
the vineyard to reclaim God's people for God.

This means that even dealing only with some of the likely authentic
synoptic basileia material, a picture arises of a man who saw himself as more
than just a prophet or a wise man. Here instead we see one who not merely
reveals but accomplishes God's will for God's people, one who saw himself
as God's climactic agent for change among his fellow Jews. Indeed, this man
saw himself as having some sort of authoritative claim to the vineyard of
God itself, being God's royal son and thus God's heir. Herein lies, at least, an
implicit messianic claim.
ABBA AND FILIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

S. Kim urges the New Testament student to see that "both the abba-address
and self designation 'the Son of Man' are the most striking of the unique
features of Jesus, and they express his self-understanding more clearly than
anything else."tsa If this is even remotely close to a correct assessment, then
we need to give due attention to the Gospel evidence on both these topics.
The Son of man material will be discussed in the final section. Here, we will
examine the concept of abba, and two key texts which, if authentic, suggest
that Jesus spoke of himself as a special son of God.
ABBA

The detailed work of Jeremias on abba has met with criticism from those
who claim he has overstated his case for the uniqueness of the use of abba in
Jesus' prayer language.154 We will first examine the evidence used to
dispute jeremias's claim. Then we will reexamine the Gospel evidence that
suggests Jesus used the term abba, and draw some conclusions about what
this usage reveals about his self-understanding.

G. Vermes, followed by Dunn among others, is convinced that Jeremias

was incorrect to conclude that Jesus was unique in his use of abba as an
Aramaic address to God.155 The basis for this skepticism lies in the
following texts: B. T. Taan. 23b; Targ. Ps. 89.27; and Targ.Mal. 2.10. These
are the only texts from the entire later Semitic corpus that could possibly
prove Jeremias wrong. Strangely, Vermes's argument ignores that Jeremias
anticipated an objection being raised on the basis of B.T.Taan. 23b, which is
certainly the most promising of the three texts.

The incident in question involves Hanin ha Nehba, the grandson of Honi

the Circle Drawer, who lived near the end of the first century B.C. During a
drought some school children came to Hanin, presumably because his
famous grandfather had been a noted rainmaker, crying "abba, abba habh Ian
mitra," that is, "Father, father give us rain." After their entreaty Hanin
prayed, "Master of the world grant it for the sake of these who are not yet
able to distinguish between an abba who has the power to give rain and an
abba who has not." As Jeremias points out,156 Hanin does not here address
God as abba in prayer. In fact, what we have is a play on words, so typical of
Jewish teachers and hasids of that era. God is addressed with the proper
phrase "Master of the world." This text does demonstrate, however, that abba
was used by small children of their elders, in this case a revered teacher or
hasid, but it was more commonly used of one's father.

Jeremias also deals with Targ. Mal. 2.10,157 and although interesting, the
text does not invoke God using abba. The one tantalizing text is the Targ. Ps.
89.27, which reads "hu yiqre li abba att." Note that God promises the
Davidic king, that is, God's mashiach, that he will call on God saying, "You
are abba to me, my God." It is difficult to date this Targumic material, but
even if it goes back as early as a Sitz im Leben Jesu, what could we discern
from it? We would learn that a special and unique person, the Davidic
messiah, is promised that he will be allowed one day to address God as abba,
presumably because the Davidic king was thought of as being God's son in
some unique sense (cf. Ps. 89:19-37; 2:7-9). Even here there is no prayer, but
rather a promise from God. This text, if it is early, would lead us precisely to
the opposite conclusion from Vermes's that various people of Jesus' era
likely addressed God as abba. On the contrary, this text could suggest that
Jesus' use of abba counts as evidence that he saw himself as the Davidic
Messiah! Hengel conjectures: "The roots of the address 'abba' in primitive
Christianity-which certainly go back to Jesus-could lie here."1S°
Furthermore, it is an argument from silence to maintain that abba comes
from lower class Palestinian piety.159 What little we know about lower class
Palestinian piety, which has left us almost no literary sources, provides us
with no evidence that ordinary Jews were addressing God as abba.

Dunn, however, points to other evidence to dispute Jeremias's claim: Wis.

14:3; Sir. 23:1, 4; 51:10; and 3 Macc. 6:3, 8.160 All indications are that both
3 Maccabees and Wisdom were composed in Greek and do not go back to a
Semitic original. If so, then it is fruitless to cite such evidence to show that
abba may have been used by Jews before or during Jesus' day. What these
texts may show is that there was a growing tendency in Jewish literature
during the so-called intertestamental period to address God as Father, even
in prayer (Wis. 14:3).

The evidence from Sir. 23:1, 4; 51:10, however, must be evaluated

differently. This document was probably written in Hebrew around 180 B.c.
and translated into Greek a generation or two later.161 God is called abi in
Sir. 51:10, not the Aramaic term of endearment, abba, and in the Greek of
Sir. 23:4 we have kurie paler. Again we have intertestamental evidence for a
growing use of the term father for God, even in prayer. E. H. Schuller has
recently produced evidence from two as yet unpublished Qumran texts (4Q
371 and 4Q 372) for the use of abi as an address to God.162 This is much
closer to the use of abba; but even this material, strictly speaking, does not
provide us with examples of the use of abba at all, much less abba in prayer
language. The word ab with the possessive suffix i means "my father," not
simply Father, the Father, or even Daddy.

Much more substantial are J. Barr's recent arguments.163 Only some of

his critique of Jeremias should stand. First, Barr relies on targums, in
particular the Targum of Isaiah, to make his case. This material is
representative of later Aramaic, and our critique about the use of later
Aramaic in both the dominion material and Son of man material also applies
here mutatis mutandis.I" This is all the more so because with abba as with
bar enasha, we are dealing with words that have the emphatic or definite
termination in -a. Second, some of the evidence that Barr cites, in particular
Targ. Isa. 8.4, supports the conclusion that this is the language of a child
making his first attempt to speak adult language. I quite agree that Jeremias's
analogy with babble is inappropriate, but so is Barr's attempt to deny that we
are dealing with a language style characteristic of children. This is especially
evident in the example of the incident in the life of Hanin ha Nehba. Third,
Barr's attempt to deny a connection between Paul's (and other early Jewish
Christian's) use of abba and Jesus' use is strained at best in view of the lack
of other instances of the use of abbe prior to A.D. 70. It rests at least in part
on the dubious assumption that Paul knew little about the speech and sayings
of Jesus. Fourth, Barr as much as suggests that abbe is the language of
intimacy, not simply the equivalent to the more formal Father when he says
of the incident in the Garden of Gethsemane recorded in Mark 14:36, "Its
special and intimate character caused the actual word 'abbe,' to be noted
here."165

I suggest it is no accident that in the three cases where abba occurs in the
New Testament (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), they are all in contexts
where the intimacy of the speaker's relationship with God is being expressed
in a moment of real passion, using this specific term. It is, of course, entirely
likely that Jesus also used other words for God in other contexts, perhaps
even abi. The point I would stress, however, is that Jesus' use and then the
later Christian use of abba as a term expressing the intimacy of one's
relationship to God is, so far as the evidence now stands, distinctive of Jesus
and the Jesus movement. That the Matthean parallel (Mark 14:36/Matt.
26:39, 42) has 'my Father' is hardly surprising because the addition of the
possessive qualifier seems characteristic of the Matthean redaction of such
prayers (Matt. 6:9 and par.).'"

Accordingly, I find no evidence to dispute Jeremias's claim that abbe is a

unique feature of Jesus' and early Christians' prayer language. But the New
Testament evidence used to support this view needs further scrutiny.

The safest place historically to begin is with the material in Paul, which
dates to the mid-50s if not earlier-Gal. 4:6 and Rom. 8:15-16. In both texts
abba refers to an invocation of God as abba impelled or made possible by the
Spirit that Jesus sent to his followers. From this evidence alone we need to
allow that in early Jewish Christianity some people addressed God as abba.
This is not the kind of address that could have arisen either from gentile
Christian piety or from Diaspora Jewish converts to Christianity (for whom
Aramaic was probably not the language of prayer). In view of Mark 14:36, it
is not plausible that Paul invented this form of address. Indeed, that Paul
assumes his audience will know what he means by the use of abba suggests
the practice was rather widespread in early Christianity.

On the one hand, it would seem difficult to argue that Mark 14:36 goes
back to a saying of Jesus because it seems to be part of a prayer that Jesus
made while he was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane. How would the
disciples have even found out about this prayer's content? On the other hand,
this example of the use of abba is found in the midst of a saying that it is
very difficult to argue the early church would have invented. Would
Christians really have invented the idea that Jesus distinguished his will
about the cross from God's? This is most unlikely. Closer scrutiny of the
Markan narrative reveals the following: (1) Mark says that Jesus took Peter,
James, and John with him when he went off to pray, and that he was only a
little way away from them when he prayed; and (2) we are not told that the
disciples immediately fell asleep as soon as Jesus left the three to pray. It is
possible that one or more of the three overheard the beginning of Jesus'
prayer, which appears to be all we have recorded here.167 It could be argued
that the saying that includes abba is authentic but was placed in this setting
before the Passion narrative was written down. This is also possible, but
even if it is the case it does not affect the conclusion that Jesus prayed to
God as abba.

Further confirmation that Jesus prayed in this fashion is found in Luke

11:2, which is not dependent on Markan material. Jeremias's detailed
arguments show the Lukan form of the Lord's prayer is the more primitive,
and it was originally given to the disciples in Aramaic beginning with the
word abba. Jesus' prayer is probably a modification of the traditional
Kaddish prayer which reads:

Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world which he created
according to his will. May he let his kingdom rule in your lifetime and
in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily
and soon. And to this, say: amen.'"

Luke 11:2 indicates only that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God
using abba; however, whatever degree of intimacy Jesus shared with God, it
was a degree of intimacy the disciples could also share as his followers.
Thus, while one can argue that Jesus made possible the sort of relationship to
God that allows the cry abba, one cannot maintain that it tells us something
exclusively true of Jesus himself. Here, then, we do have clear evidence of
an intimate relationship with abba, but it has no exclusively christological
weight if the disciples can also share in such a form of address to God.
Nevertheless, the following can be said.

First, this form of address does imply a filial consciousness on the part of
Jesus that involved a degree of intimacy with God unlike anything we know
of in Judaism prior to Jesus' day. So far as we can tell from our limited
evidence, no one had previously addressed God as abba. Second, it was only
by being Jesus' disciple that one could dare to take up such a form of
address, for the Lord's Prayer is more properly called the disciples' prayer.
There is a sense in which only through relationship with Jesus does such
prayer language become possible.

There may be further significance in the fact that Jesus apparently urged
the disciples not to call any person or teacher abba (Matt. 23:9). The practice
of calling the elders of Israel "fathers" (cf. Acts 7:2; 22:1) was not unknown,
and possibly certain major Jewish teachers received the honorary title of
abba in Jesus' day, though even this is uncertain.169 We have seen in the
case of Hanin that children might address one such as him as abba. This
suggests that Jesus made a clear creature-creator distinction, as is reflected in
the exclusive use of abba for God. Jesus apparently also spoke of "your
abba" to the disciples and also of "my abba," but never of "our abba."170
Jesus apparently did distinguish between the degree of intimacy he had with
God and the degree the disciples could share. The problem is that because
both Jesus and his disciples may address God as abba, this would seem to be
only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. Again, the christological
weight of such evidence is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, this material
shows that Jesus saw himself as the unique mediator of a relationship with
the Father that could express itself by using the intimate term abba. Thus, R.
Bauckham rightly stresses:

What enables us to move from the distinctiveness of his use of Abba to a

recognition that he experienced his sonship as a unique relationship with
God is the connexion between his sonship and his mission.
Paradoxically, it is in its capacity to be shared that Jesus' consciousness
of sonship appears most distinctive.... This sharing of his sonship with
others belonged to his unique mission as the agent of God's
eschatological salvation. He was the unique Son through whom the
eschatological gift of sonship was bestowed on others ... only as the
disciples of Jesus did the disciples come to know God as Abba.17'
INSIDE INFORMATION (MATT. 11:27/LUKE 10:22)

A controversial piece of evidence is found in Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22, the

"thunderbolt [a better translation might be meteorite] fallen from the
Johannine sky."172 We need to examine this saying because a special sense
of being God's son is implied in Jesus' use of the term abba, and thus he may
have on occasion called himself "the Son" (although perhaps only when he
was with his disciples).1' That this text is crucial for any christological
inquiry about Jesus' view of himself is amply demonstrated by B. M. F. van
Iersel's remark that "the orthodox exegete has regarded it as the cornerstone
of New Testament Christology.... For the liberal exegete it has certainly been
a stone of stumbling."174

In the 1950s scholars dismissed Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22 as a creation of

the early church, but with the investigation of wisdom literature in the
interim, an increasing number of scholars have changed their minds on this
matter. In our discussion of Jesus' relationship with John the Baptist we
examined Matt. 11:16-19/Luke 7:31-35, which showed that Jesus expressed
his selfunderstanding using wisdom language. We must at least entertain the
possibility that Jesus did so on more than one occasion. Our saying seems to
reflect the same sort of exclusive knowledge of God and God's will that we
find in such texts as Dan. 2:20-23, where Daniel is portrayed as the truly
wise man who thanks God for God's unique revelation to him.

It needs to be decided whether Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22 was originally part

of a larger group of sayings, or whether from the beginning it was a free
floating logion. We must also determine the most primitive form of this
saying. We first observe that the larger narrative context of the saying differs
in Matthew and Luke. Thus, for instance, in Luke the saying follows the
return of the Seventy from a mission (Luke 10:1-12), while in Matthew it
follows the discussion about the relationship of Jesus and John (Matt. 11:1-
19). In both Gospels the more proximate context is the woes on the
unrepentant cities (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-15).15 Both Matt. 11:27 and
Luke 10:22 are preceded by the so-called Jebelruf of Jesus about the
revelation of the Father to the nepioi. Note the various parallels in the
sayings of Matt. 11:25-26 and Matt. 11:27. Both sayings seem to be about
revelation, particularly to a select group of Israelites-the followers of Jesus.
As Fitzmyer notes about the Lukan form of the sayings, the contrast between
Father and Son in Luke 10:22 was already implicit in 21b.16 This suggests
the two sayings were originally together in Luke's source. There may also be
some relationship between the tauta ("these things"; Matt. 11:25 and par.)
and the panta (11:27 and par.). It thus appears plausible that Matt. 11:25-27
(and par.) was originally a unit, especially if the wisdom character of this
material is kept in mind. Divine Wisdom was entrusted with the secrets or
revelation of God and with the task of revealing them to humanity (cf. Prov.
8:14ff.; Wis. 2:13, 16; 4:10-15).17' Divine Wisdom, however, was rejected
by the mass of humanity, even the so-called wise, but was accepted by the
poor and unlearned.""

Wisdom 2:13-16, an important parallel to Matt. 11:27, states, "He claims

to have a knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of the Lord . . . and
boasts of having God for his father" (cf. Ecclus. 4:10). This text in Wisdom
2 refers to the virtuous man who has wisdom from God. One may also point
to I Enoch 42.1-2 or 51.3, although these sayings are closer to a wisdom
logion, such as "the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." This material
could have easily arisen out of a Jewish milieu in touch with its wisdom
heritage. Thus, Bultmann's conclusion that Matt. 11:27 (and par.) is a later
Hellenistic revelation saying is unlikely and unnecessary."' The general
content of this material could have derived from the era and environment of
the historical Jesus.

Suggs maintains that the wisdom motifs we find here are attributable to
the redaction work of the evangelists. This conclusion has been rejected by
M. D. Johnson because in the case of Matthew it does not blend in with the
overall Christology of the First Gospel.1'0 It is not clear that portraying
Jesus as Wisdom or incorporating wisdom motifs into his christological
portrait was part of Luke's redactional agenda either. What then of the so-
called Q community?

Here the argument has a certain plausibility in light of the following

sayings: (1) Matt. 11:16-19/Luke 7:31-35; (2) Matt. 12:42/Luke 11:31; (3)
Matt. 23-.34-36/Luke 11:49-51; (4) Matt. 23:37-39/Luke 13:34-35; and (5)
Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22.181 The difficulty is that there is little evidence a Q
community, for whom only certain sayings of Jesus apart from a Passion
story served as the Gospel, ever existed.182 If one points to the Gospel of
Thomas as a parallel, we still have no evidence that it was the only
authoritative presentation of the Gospel that its author or his community of
faith used. Even if one could prove such a case about Thomas's community,
there was a tendency in the more gnostic-oriented communities to focus on
sayings rather than on narrative. What was true in the community out of
which Thomas originated might not have been true in the non-gnostic
communities that made the collection(s) we now call Q.183 Thus, the
argument that there ever was a Q community is based on silence because it is
methodologically unsound to base conclusions on this matter purely on
sayings from the Synoptics. One cannot first assume there was a Q
community and then select certain synoptic sayings to bolster such an
assumption. One must first demonstrate that either external evidence or the
sayings themselves, if they are our only real evidence of the existence of
such a community, suggest the existence of such a unique sayings-oriented
community. Even if one could find evidence along these lines that was not
purely subjective, in regard to our issue scholars have denied that a
consistent wisdom Christology (Christ=Wisdom) can be found in Q.184

C. E. Carlston has demonstrated that various wisdom motifs and ideas

found in Q also go back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu, that personified Wisdom
was a familiar idea in early Judaism, so that Jesus may have appropriated
and used that concept in his own way.181 Furthermore, as A. Y. Collins
makes clear, Q is not simply a collection of wisdom material-a good half of
the material is of another genre.'" It is interesting that Q and the earlier Jesus
material both manifest a mixture of wisdom elements with eschatological
and apocalyptic material, among other things.

None of this denies that collections of Jesus' sayings were made in the
pre-Gospel stage of early church history by various groups of Christians.
Nor does it deny that Q is a useful cipher for such collections, particularly
non-Markan sayings material common to Matthew and Luke. Furthermore,
the first and third evangelists may have had varying forms of Q at their
disposal, which accounts for some of the differences between the Matthean
and Lukan forms of various sayings. Because these sayings collections were
being compiled well before the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion or death
of a significant group of eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus, the
burden of proof lies with those who insist that certain themes in Q do not go
back to Jesus but only to early Palestinian Christianity (e.g., the Wisdom
theme).'"' We are looking at a span of only two or, at the most, three decades
before such collections were available in relatively fixed forms. It is unlikely
that early Palestinian Christianity deviated significantly from Jesus in its
handling of such major themes as the Jewish wisdom motif in Q.'" Thus, the
authenticity of a saying such as Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22 cannot be denied
because it reflects a major Q theme. That Jeremias shows in detail how this
saying goes back to an Aramaic original surely counts in favor of it going
back to Jesus.'" The major argument against its authenticity has to do with its
content, not its form or wisdom theme.

It is sometimes urged that we have in Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22 an example

of early Christian gnosis. This might be plausible if we could eliminate the
phrase "no one knows the Son but the Father," as Harnack tried to do on the
basis of the inversion of the Father and Son phrases in some manuscripts. It
is also true that this phrase is omitted in certain Lukan manuscripts (1216,
1579a). But there is overwhelming manuscript support for including this
phrase and maintaining the traditional order of dauses.190 It is easy to
understand why such a phrase would be omitted by some orthodox copyists;
it suggests that even Jesus' followers do not truly know him. This would
have been equally offensive to orthodox Christians and the Gnostics.191

It is also urged against the authenticity of this saying that the term "the
Son" would not be found on the lips of Jesus. As A. M. Hunter points out,
there are various synoptic texts that would support the view that Jesus could
have and did refer to himself in this manner (e.g., Mark 1:11 and par.; 12:6
and par.; 13:32)." If Mark 12:1-9 (and par.) is authentic, as we have
argued,193 then Jesus could have referred to himself as "the Son" in the
presence of his intimate followers. Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22 does seem to be
the expression of one who feels inspired by God to pass on a revelatory word
of wisdom to a select few. If Jesus offered such a revelatory word, then it
would presuppose that he viewed himself as having intimate knowledge of
God's nature and perhaps also of God's will.

In addition to the abba material, which at least implicitly supports the

view that Jesus thought of himself as God's special son, there is another line
of evidence from the Qumran material that removes obstacles to a
conclusion that this saying may be authentic even with its reference to "the
Son." The title "Son of God" has been shown to be as much at home in a
Palestinian Jewish context (cf. 4QFlor. 1-2.i.10, or 10-14) as in the
Hellenistic world.194 Thus, the title "the Son," which in tandem with "the
Father" can only mean "the Son of God,"195 cannot be dismissed as
impossible on Jesus' lips as being too Hellenistic.

Furthermore, the attempt to dismiss this saying as inauthentic due to its

Johannine character is a weak argument. As Manson says, we cannot dismiss
this text "unless we are prepared to lay down as a canon of criticism that no
saying in the Synoptics which has a parallel in the Fourth Gospel can be a
genuine utterance of Jesus."196 Dunn adds that it is doubtful that a Q saying
was taken from Johannine material that probably dates from the last decade
or two of the first century. 197 It is possible to argue that the fourth
evangelist independently provides evidence for a saying like ours in some
form (cf. John 7:27), perhaps even in the form of a parable (John 5:19-
20a).'98 In the end, all the traditional bases for judging this saying to be
inauthentic no longer will bear close scrutiny.

Probably, the first evangelist has provided us with the more primitive
form of this saying. This is so for the following reasons: (1) Luke uses
ginoskei instead of epiginoskei, a simplification; (2) Luke has an indirect
question in the second and third lines of this saying, making this more useful
for church purposes; (3) Luke, unlike Matthew, has not repeated the verb of
knowing.799

As for the content, if Matt. 11:27 (and par.) was originally connected with
11:25-26, then we have two revelatory utterances-one given by the Father to
the nepioi, the other by the son of the Father apparently to the same group.
We must focus on the second while keeping in mind the first. Jeremias
champions the theory that the essential meaning of our saying, at least in its
middle lines, is a simple proverb: no one knows a father like his son and vice
versa. It is "simply an oriental periphrasis for a mutual relationship: only
father and son really know each other."200

There are several problems with this conclusion. It requires Jeremias to

argue that the words father and son have been given an absolute or titular
sense sometime after Jesus spoke them (originally in the Aramaic the two
relational words were simply used in a generic sense). Against this, however,
is the very character of the saying; it is at least in part about the revelation of
the nature of a unique being-God-and a statement about God's unique
relationship with Jesus. Thus the definite articles are necessary; this is not
about just any sort of father-son relationship. Second, Jeremias's argument
requires that we separate the middle two clauses of this verse from the first
and last ones, but the two middle clauses are integrally related to the first
clause. The unique relationship of Jesus with the Father is the basis for the
claim of special knowledge and for the ability to be a special revealer of
knowledge (clause d). Furthermore, the saying concludes that only Jesus
gives access to such knowledge. If Jesus was simply stating a truism, he
would hardly have claimed that the nature of the father-son relationship
could only be known through a specific revelation by a specific individual.
Worse than that, the statement is not even a broadly applicable truism
because often wives, brothers, and friends know a person more intimately
than their father.201 This was certainly true in Jesus' day when people
married young and when a son at an early age went off to study with a
famous Jewish teacher.

The use of son in the opening and closing clauses is not based on a
metaphor or aphorism.202 Further, the saying in Matt. 11:27 is not grounded
in an analogy with father-son relationships in general, but focuses on a
revelation about God and God's special relationship with Jesus. Put a
different way, the mutual knowledge Jesus and the Father have of one
another cannot be predicated of just anyone, and only Jesus can share it with
others.

Two factors point in favor of this saying's authenticity: it not only refers
to the fact that only the Father knows the Son but also that the content of
Jesus' revelation here is not the son himself. Rather, that Jesus is the son is
the presupposition behind his being able to give such a revelation of the
Father.200 Were this a later church creation we would expect the revelation
to be about the son. Further, as de Jonge points out, there is no attempt to
introduce a specifically christological title, "Son of God," nor is that title
made the object of special revelation. Rather, this saying is about the unique
and unprecedented relationship between Jesus and God that goes beyond
human imagery and imagination.'" Fuller was right to complain against
Hahn that Matt. 11:27 is not a christological contraction, "but an explicit
expression of the implicit Christology of Jesus' own use of abba. "205

What, then, does the saying mean? In view of the use of the language of
revelation at the close of the saying and the verb paradidonai at the
beginning, we should deduce that the "all things" passed on to Jesus by the
Father refers to knowledge, not power or authority, as in Matt. 28:18. If
11:27a is connected to what follows, then the "all things" would refer to
Jesus' intimate knowledge of the Father and perhaps also to his knowledge
of his special relationship with the one he called abba, or perhaps to his
special mission in life. The claim of exclusivity of mutual knowledge of
Father and son should be compared to the claims that state only Wisdom
knows God and vice versa (cf. Job 28:1-27; Sir. 1:6, 8; Bar. 3:15-32; Prov.
8:12; Wis. 7:25ff.; 8:3-8; 9:4, 9, 11). The middle two clauses suggest that
Jesus sees his relationship to the Father in the light of wisdom ideas, and he
may see himself as Wisdom incarnate here. Caution must be exercised,
however, because the term wisdom is absent from this saying. At most we
can argue that Jesus intended his audience to recognize that he was assuming
Wisdom's place and roles -the revealer of God's mysteries who had special
access to that knowledge due to his special relationship with God.

Second, the tense of paradothe suggests some specific point in the past
when this revelation came to Jesus. One might conjecture that this revelation
came at Jesus' baptism, if that tradition is in some form authentic. In any
case, this does not indicate an ongoing awareness, but a very specific event
of revelation in the past by the Father to Jesus, on the basis of which he may
reveal some things to his followers. In short, this saying indicates that Jesus
is dependent on what God has revealed to him for the content of what he
reveals to his followers. This subordinationist note is probably original with
Jesus rather than a creation of the church.

Third, note that there seems to be a contrast between the "all" of Matt.
11:27a and the "no one" in v. 27b. While Jesus knows all things God has
revealed to him (about God or himself?), no one else knows the Father at all,
or at least no one other than Jesus knows God with the intimacy that allows
one to call God abba. This implies a claim that Jesus is the exclusive
mediator of the true knowledge of God or of wisdom from God.

Last, the final clause suggests Jesus may choose to whom he reveals this
intimate knowledge of God, and in this case it is either Jesus' own followers
or perhaps only the most intimate of those followers, the Twelve. The proof
that Jesus bestowed this knowledge of God may be seen in the fact that the
disciples also come to address God as abba. Jesus' revelatory wisdom given
to the disciples in private apparently is not the same as Jesus' public
teaching, which concentrates on meshalim and the dominion of God (cf.
Mark 4:11).

Here, then, we have a saying that, if authentic, (1) draws out the
implications of Jesus' use of abba for his own self-conception; (2) indicates
Jesus saw himself in a unique relationship with God, possibly assuming the
place and role that Wisdom had in various places in the wisdom literature;
and (3) suggests Jesus was given this revelatory knowledge or wisdom for a
purposeto reveal the true nature of the Father to those whom Jesus chose. In
short, Jesus saw himself as the unique mediator of the final revelation of
God, and thus God's unique Son -the one who brings God's people back to a
true and final knowledge of God.206 G. Dalman explains that Jesus is God's
only possible and absolutely reliable revealer.207 Kim argues: "But for this
function of revelation, which is in fact the function of Wisdom ... he does not
use the self-designation 'the Son of Man' but obliquely designates himself as
the Son ... because the latter is the proper term for a revealer."20°
HEAVEN KNOWS (MARK 13:321MA7T. 24:36)

That Jesus' special and unique "communion"209 with God did not include a
knowledge of every truth or secret God might have unveiled to him is made
clear in Mark 13:32/Matt.24:36. This text is less difficult to imagine going
back to a Sitz im Leben Jesu than Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22. In fact,
Schnackenburg says about the troublesome final clause of Mark 13:32,
"There are no grounds for striking out the final words ('nor the Son but the
Father') as long as we accept the genuineness of Matt. 11:27 -Luke
10:22."210 Yet there are significant doubts about its authenticity. There are
three basic positions: (1) that it is wholly authentic; (2) that some of 'ts
substance is authentic, but with modifications in the later handling of the
saying, in particular by adding the reference to "the Son";21 and (3) that it is
not authentic but a Christian addition to an otherwise Jewish apocalypse.212

In terms of text-critical evidence, Luke omits this verse altogether,

possibly because it predicates ignorance of Jesus. It is also true that the
majority of the witnesses of Matthew omit the phrase oude ho huios,
including the later Byzantine text.213 In fact, it is omitted by aleph-a, K, L,
W, Delta, 11, and numerous minuscules, and the omission is witnessed by
such church fathers as Origen, Basil, and Didyinus. On the other hand the
phrase is included in Matthew by the best witnesses of the Alexandrian,
Western, and Caesarean text types (including aleph-b, B, D, theta, and
various Church Fathers). It is probable, then, that this phrase was originally
present in Matthew, as it certainly was in Mark and that it was later omitted
due to the doctrinal difficulties it caused the church.

Few scholars today are willing to dismiss the whole saying as inauthentic.
Furthermore, if the objection to the phrase about the son is based on a lack of
Jewish precedent for such a usage'214 in our discussion of Matt. 11:27/ Luke
10:22 we found such a precedent in the Qumran literature, to which we may
add such Old Testament texts as some of the so-called messianic psalms (cf.
Ps. 2:7) and also 2 Samuel 7.215 Certainly, it is difficult to believe that the
early church would predicate ignorance on Jesus' part about important
eschatological matters (whether "that day" means the day of judgment or the
Parousia).

Yet, Cullmann mentions the possibility that the nonarrival of the Parousia
during the first generation or two of Christians was the impetus for the
creation of such a saying.216 According to this logic the saying was created
either to correct the false impression that Jesus was wrong about the timing
of the end or to explain the delay of the Parousia. On the contrary, this
saying may affirm that he simply did not know (and therefore did not
predict) the timing of the end. The view mentioned by Cullmann is
dependent on the assumption that the so-called delay of the Parousia was a
major problem for the early church, a view strongly challenged by T. F.
Glasson and others.21' But even if many were troubled by the delay of the
Parousia in the early church, surely the logical way to deal with such a
problem would be to create a saying of Jesus that stated he knew the end was
not imminent. Creating a saying about Jesus' ignorance about such matters
only solves one problem by creating another. Concerning Mark 13:32, Dunn
points out:

The earlier we postulate its origin the less need was there to attribute
ignorance to Jesus, since Jesus' generation did not die out for decades
(cf. Mk. 13.30); but the later we postulate its origin, to explain the delay
of the parousia, the more exalted Jesus had become in the thought of the
Christian communities and the less likely the ascription of ignorance to
Jesus would be permitted .... 218

This point is reinforced by examining the textual evidence. This text was
seen by the church, even as early as Luke, as offensive and troublesome.
This is why Taylor says: "Its offence seals its genuineness. '1219 Barrett
notes that this argument can only establish the authenticity of the substance
of the saying, probably without the reference to "the Son. "120 I accept this
critique, but Taylor's view is only one part of the argument for authenticity.
Furthermore, it appears that Barrett finds the phrase "the Son" unlikely on
Jesus' lips because it is "the most honorific title available."221 Yet this is not
the case, for even in the Fourth Gospel the language of sonship is regularly
used in contexts where Jesus' subordination to the Father is stressed, as it is
here. Surely the most honorific title, and the one that most clearly indicates
Jesus' divinity, would be Lord, not Son, as the earliest Christian confession
'Jesus is Lord" demonstrates. Further, there are other texts than Mark 13:32
that suggest a limitation in Jesus' knowledge about eschatological matters.
As van Iersel points out, Mark 10:40 (and par.) may be pointed to, and
probably from a different source Acts 1:7 suggests that only the Father
knows such matters.222

There are structural problems with arguing that the phrase "not even the
Son" is a later addition to this saying. Metzger puts it this way: "'oude ...
nudebelong together as a parenthesis, for'ei me ho pater' . . . goes with
'oudeis oiden"' (he goes on to urge that the whole cast of the saying suggests
the originality of the phrase "not even the Son ').22' Furthermore, as
Kiimmel recognizes there would be little or no point of mentioning the
angels in the other oude clause if the "not even the Son" was not original.224
Rather, the sentence would have most naturally read, "No one knows, except
the Father." Van lersel adds a further point. "The fact that Jesus does not
know . . . is truly seriously problematical, if one thinks that he is the Son of
the Father. . . . '1225 In short, this saying offers offense only to the extent
that it is claiming ignorance in someone who is more than an ordinary mor-
tal.226 To put it another way, if one argues that the reference to the Son was
inserted to compensate for the predication of ignorance to Jesus, then one is
arguing at cross purposes with oneself. The insertion of "the Son" on this
showing only makes this saying more difficult for the church to swallow. I
conclude with van lersel that this saying, essentially as we find it in
Mark'227 is authentic. This conclusion presents the exegete and historian
with fewer problems than the denial of the authenticity of the saying.225
However, even if we were to allow only two aspects of this saying to be
authentic-the predication of ignorance to Jesus and his calling himself the
Son -this saying would be very important indeed. It would show that in at
least two different sources of the Synoptic material (here and Matt.
11:27/Luke 10:22) we have evidence that Jesus called himself "the Son," a
conclusion further supported by the Fourth Gospel.

Mark 13:32 is best seen as an independent eschatological or apocalyptic

saying of Jesus placed here by Mark with other sayings of a similar nature.
Manson's conjecture that this verse is the answer to the question in 13:4 is
plausible, but it is not necessary for our purposes to decide whether or not
this is the case.229 This saying was probably part of Jesus' private
discussions with his inner circle of followers about esoteric matters. It is also
unnecessary for us to determine whether "that day" refers to Jesus' Parousia
(cf. Mark 13:26) or the final day of judgment.230 As Beasley-Murray
shows, in the phrase "that day or hour," day and hour both refer to the same
thing, being used like kairos in 13:33. "To say that no one knows 'that day or
hour' is to affirm a universal ignorance of the time when'the day' will break
or'the hour' will strike. "231 Thus, the saying has to do with Jesus' ignorance
about some crucial future eschatological event-the phrase day or hour being
a metaphorical way of referring to a specific eschatological event in
time.232

This saying seems to present us with, if not a chain of being, at least an

"ascending line" of closeness of knowledge or relationship to the Father.n3
No one knows, that is, no ordinary mortal, nor the angels in heaven, nor the
Son, except the Father. Whether one takes oudeis to include all beings
including the angels and the Son, in which case the oude ... oude singles out
two special examples from among everyone, or whether one takes the oudeis
to refer to ordinary mortals not including angels or the son, in any case the
son is placed closer to the Father than even the angels who are in heaven or
at least as close to the Father. Since the subject is knowledge about an
eschatological event one presumes that the ascending order refers to
closeness in knowledge, and thus it would not necessarily be a statement
about ontological matters. Nevertheless, the Son is singled out here, and the
point of mentioning him last is that despite his closeness to abba not even he
knows that sort of information. What seems implied is that Jesus thought
either that he is in the same category of knowledge of God's will as the
angels or that he knows even more than they do.

It takes an exceptional person even to imply this sort of thing, especially

in a Jewish setting. But it should be noted that this saying, while probably
ranking the son above ordinary mortals in knowledge of God's will and plan
and even ranking him with or above the angels, nevertheless distinguishes
the son from the Father in knowledge; thus, the former is subordinated to the
latter in such matters. Yet in the wisdom literature this seems also to be the
position of Wisdom-intimate with God and knowing a great deal more about
God's will than do human beings, yet also subordinate to Yahweh. If Jesus
saw himself as fulfilling the role of Wisdom on earth, a verse such as this
should not surprise us. We are now in a position to sum up what we know of
the term "the Son" on Jesus' lips.

Jesus was willing to allude to himself as God's son, the final

eschatological messenger of God, and the heir of the vineyard (Mark 12).
Jesus' use of abba implies that Jesus had a unique closeness and relationship
with God, or a unique filial consciousness. More explicitly, in a wisdom
saying found in Q (Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22), Jesus affirms that he has been
given an unparalleled amount of information from God about God's plan and
will, so much so that only the Son can truly reveal the Father to others of his
choice. The reason Jesus has such information is because of his unparalleled
relationship of mutual intimacy with the Father. This saying suggests that
Jesus saw himself as the unique mediator of the true knowledge of God and
thus of God's salvation. Mark 13:32 simply gives further testimony to that
intimacy of relationship, but here it becomes clear that this relationship
between Father and son does not entail that the son knows all the things the
Father knows. In short, although implying the superiority of the son in
knowledge and relationship to the Father over ordinary mortals and even
perhaps over angels, this saying nevertheless implies the inferiority of the
son to the Father in knowledge of eschatological matters. This was surely no
invention of the early church.

While I agree with Dunn that the idea of preexistence is not integral to or
explicit in the thought of any of these three passages, nonetheless, if Jesus
did present himself as the final embodiment of divine Wisdom, then in view
of such texts as Proverbs 8, the idea was probably bound to arise.294 After
all, did not Mark 13:32 suggest that the son has at least equal if not greater
knowledge than those who are in heaven-the angels? This would raise the
question of the status of the son vis-h-vis heavenly beings.
THE SON OF MAN

One of the most complex problems in New Testament studies is how to

understand the one label almost all scholars agree Jesus used of himself-the
Son of man.235 The problems are both linguistic and methodological.
Should we interpret the phrase in light of the later Aramaic usage of bar nash
and bar nasha or in light of the earlier biblical usage of bar enash and bar
enasha? Was there a widespread, ancient Ur-Mensch myth upon which Jesus
could have drawn that would have been familiar to his audience, so that a
mere allusion to "the (that) Son of man" would have conjured up a whole set
of ideas? What bearing do the recent gains in the study of the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical literature by the SBL and SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars
have on this whole discussion?
BACKGROUND ISSUES: ENOCH AND HIS KIN

Studying the extracanonical literature of early Judaism highlights the

multiplicity of titles and functions used in discussions of messianic figures.
Messiah and Son of man appear to be malleable concepts "frequently related
and sometimes used interchangeably. "236 But many more terms were also
used to express messianic thoughts. Of special relevance to our immediate
focus is whether the Similitudes of Enoch existed in some form before or
during the lifetime of Jesus because in this document, the phrase "Son of
Man" is used in a manner not unlike what we find in the Gospels.

The consensus about the Similitudes in the early part of this century was
that they were written about 105-64 B.C.23 Recently, many scholars have
been persuaded, largely in light of certain Qumran finds, that the Similitudes
date as late as the end of the first century A.D. It is thus critical to assess the
Qumran evidence itself.

The evidence can be listed as follows: (1) certain Aramaic fragments of

the Enoch literature were found at Qumran, but they amount at most to five
percent of the total corpus;238 (2) five of the fragments (almost half) come
from the Book of the Watchers (Enoch 1-36); (3) the other fragments (about
one percent of the total corpus) come from the other portions of the Enoch
literature, excluding the Similitudes (Enoch 37-71); (4) thus, we must be
clear that the argument that the Similitudes could not be pre-Christian is an
argument based mainly on only a few Qumran fragments of the Enoch
literaturea miniscule percent of the whole corpus. It should also be
recognized that this is an argument from silence. What one can conclude
from the Aramaic fragments of Enoch found at Qumran is that Enoch was at
least partially composed in Aramaic.239 Furthermore, Knibb has provided
evidence for a Semitic original behind all of I Enoch 37-71.2'0 We must
stress the following conclusion of J. Charlesworth about the Similitudes:

Repeatedly the specialists on 1 Enoch have come out in favour of the

Jewish nature of this section of I Enoch, and its first-century C.E. origin
and probable pre-70 date. The list of specialists on 1 Enoch arguing for
 this position has become overwhelmingly impressive: Isaac,
Nickelsburg, Stone, Knibb, Andersen, Black, Vanderkam, Greenfield,
and Suter ... no specialist now argues that I Enoch 37-71 is Christian and
postdates the first century.""

In short, J. T. Milik's view of the late date and Christian origin of the
Similitudes has been generally discredited. It was always difficult to make
this into a Christian document in view of the fact that the text itself identified
Enoch, not Jesus or some veiled representation of Jesus, as the Son of man
(71.14).

G. Nickelsburg points out several pieces of evidence that suggest at least

the traditions used to compose the Similitudes were known around the turn
of the era: (1) the end of I Enoch 56 may refer to the invasion of Judea by
the Parthians and Medes in 40 e.c.; (2) Similitudes 67.8-13 may be an
allusion to Herod's treatment at Callirrhoe; (3) the judgment scene in Enoch
62-63 seems to be a reworking of Wisdom 2, 4-5 (note also Wisdom 4:10-15
identifies Enoch as the prototype of the righteous one); and (4) various
parallels with New Testament material itself can be also cited, for example,
Matt. 25:31-46 seems to reflect I Enoch 62-63.242

Thus, New Testament scholars should acknowledge the likelihood that the
ideas that went into the composition of the Similitudes were already extant
and probably familiar in Jesus' era. This is important for two reasons. First,
there is a remarkable degree of correspondence between the reference to the
Son of man in the Similitudes and certain sayings about the Son of man in
the Gospels, for example, in both the Similitudes and the future sayings
about the Son of man in the Gospels, the Son of man is depicted as a
judge.243 Second, the use of the demonstrative in various places in the
Similitudes before the phrase Son of man, producing the translation "that
Son of Man" seems to be a possible parallel to the Greek phrase in the
Gospels Ito huios tou anthropou. Thus, there seems to be a background in
the Similitudes of Enoch for a possible semi-titular use of the phrase "the
[wellknown] Son of Man." This does not mean there was an elaborate, even
pancultural, Son of man mythology in Jesus' day; the religionsgeschichtliche
efforts to demonstrate the existence of such a myth are unpersuasive and
now widely rejected. However, the material in Daniel coupled with what we
find in the Similitudes could have provided an adequate stock of ideas and
terms for Jesus to use the phrase Son of man and be understood to mean
something more than just I, or I and those in the same class or position, or
someone, or human beings.2" In the Similitudes as in the New Testament,
the phrase is used of an apocalyptic or eschatological individual.245
JESUS' LANGUAGE

Few scholars dispute that Jesus' main spoken language was Aramaic,
although he probably used Hebrew when reading the scrolls in the
synagogue and Greek when conversing with Gentiles.2" The question then
becomes, Was Jesus' Aramaic more like the Aramaic of the post-New
Testament era, or more like middle Aramaic? First, the titular use in the New
Testament cannot be derived from a Hebrew vocative ben edam, such as we
find in Ezekiel.247 The case seems to be otherwise when we consider the
middle Aramaic phrase bar enas or its hebraized form bar enos. This phrase
is attested in various pre-Christian Palestinian and Syrian texts (cf. Sefire III
16; 1Qap-Gen 21.13; 11QTg.Job 9.9; 26.3) where it has either a generic
sense (a human being, a mortal) or an indefinite sense (someone or no
one).2" It is not found in pre-Christian or early Jewish literature used simply
as a circumlocution, that is, Son of man equals I. There is evidence for such
a usage in some of the Targumic material from a later period, but it is an
argument from silence to predicate such usage in the earlier period when
there is no evidence to support the claim (unless the Gospels provide such
evidence).245

Now, it is crucial to note that in later Aramaic there was a tendency to

drop the initial consonant aleph on words. Fitzmyer stresses that

enas (or the hebraized form enos) ... never seems to occur in any pre-
Christian texts or in any Palestinian Aramaic texts of the first century
A.D. or of the early second century A.U. without the initial consonant
'aleph.... Consequently, the form bar nasha or bar nash immediately
reveals its late provenience, and one should be wary of citing texts in
which this form of the expression occurs as if they were contemporary
with the New Testament material.250

This warning seems to have gone unheeded by various scholars. Also

unheeded by those who have focused on the Son of man issue is the
probability that both the Qumran Aramaic and the Aramaic words and
substratum in the New Testament fit into the grammar and style of middle
Aramaic (200 B.c. to A.D. 200), not late Aramaic (post-A.D. 200). Fitzmyer
insists that "Qumran Aramaic, either slightly prior to the New Testament
period or contemporary with at least part of it-and other first-century
Aramaic, such as tomb and ossuary inscriptions -must be the latest Aramaic
that should be used for philological comparisons of the Aramaic substratum
of the Gospels and Acts."231

This is especially germane because the forms bar nash and bar nasha are
witnessed only in texts reflecting late Aramaic. Texts reflecting the later
Aramaic usage cannot be determinative in discussions of any Gospel
material that has the phrase Son of man. The phrase bar enash or bar enasha
seems to have been used three ways in the time of Jesus: (1) in the indefinite
sense; (2) in the generic sense; and (3) in a titular or semi-titular sense,
probably drawing on Daniel and Enoch. What would have signaled the third
sort of usage would be either when the phrase had the form bar enasha or
when the larger context suggested an allusion to Daniel or the Similitudes of
Enoch.

The distinction between the definite and the indefinite in the middle and
older Aramaic seems to have been as firm as it is in Hebrew and

is one of the main distinctive features of the old West Aramaic dialect as
distinct from East Aramaic, Syriac, or later rabbinic and Targumic
Aramaic... . [It is thus] ... a capital error to assume that ... bar enasha
"the Son of Man" cannot be used as a designation or with titular force
for a particular individual. The designation or title Barnasha for the "Son
of Man" has the same force in the Old Aramaic as does Greek ho huios
tou anthropou.252

These observations have direct bearing on the views of Casey, Lindars,

Vermes, and others who seem to have followed Lietzmann's errors both in
regard to the nature of the force of the definite article in middle Aramaic (for
example, the Aramaic emphatic state) and in regard to the usefulness of
citing examples from late Aramaic where it is true that the emphatic state
was weak.253 Qumran Aramaic makes clear that the emphatic state had not
yet become weak during and before the New Testament period.254 Thus,
attempts to dismiss the possible titular or definite use of bar enasha by Jesus,
and arguments that there was probably no conceptual background for such a
usage-both fail to convince.
BAR ENASH IN DANIEL 7 AND 1 ENOCH

Any study of the use of the phrase Son of man in the Gospels must deal with
previous uses of the phrase and ask whether and how they are similar or
different. This is important because there are clear allusions to Daniel 7,
notably in Mark 13:26 (and par.) and 14:62 (and par.).

The identity of the human figure in Daniel 7 can be gathered into

basically three views: (1) the figure refers to one or more angels; (2) it is a
symbol for Israel, or at least for faithful Israel-the "Saints of the most High"
who endure persecution; and (3) bar enash in Daniel 7 does not so much
represent Israel as present a representative of and for Israel in the presence
of the Almighty.

All three views have a certain plausibility. For instance, in regard to the
first, elsewhere in the Old Testament "holy ones" is a phrase applied to
angels. Furthermore, Gabriel is described in Daniel (1) as having a human
appearance and human voice (8:15-16); (2) as being "like the appearance of
the sons of humanity" (10:16); (3) as a man (9:21; cf. 10:5; 12:6, 7). One
could also urge that Daniel 7 does not identify the figure in question as a
man but kebar enas-one like a son of humanity. The same applies to what we
find in Rev. 1:13, which draws on Daniel 7.255

Against this view the following points can be made: (1) qedosim or hagioi
can also refer to human beings (cf. Ps. 34:10; Wis. 18:9; 1 Mac. 1:46),
meaning that one would have to prove the reference was to angels in the
context of Daniel 7, which is difficult to do; (2) Dan. 7:27 states that the
people of the saints of the Most High will be given the kingdom;' (3) if
angels are meant by the saints of the Most High and the bar enas is one of
them or their representative, it is difficult to see how this would be a comfort
to Jews under pressure. How much real comfort is there in being told that the
angels will receive the kingdom and possess it forever (7:18, 22, 27)?
Furthermore, in what sense had that horn (perhaps Antiochus) been waging
war against the angels, and even more difficult in what sense could he be
said to devastate them by changing feast days and the law?u' This
interpretation has considerable difficulties to overcome not only in the
immediate context of Daniel 7 but also in view of the nature and purpose of
this apocalyptic work.

The second view is more plausible. It can be urged in its favor that the
author has used individual beasts to symbolize earthly kingdoms in Daniel 2-
7 and that an individual human being could be used to symbolize Israel. The
symbolism would indicate the inhumanity or "unhumanity" of the pagan
empires in comparison with the people of God. This view makes sense in
terms of the nature of the document and the immediate context of Daniel 7.
Here then, we would be told that Israel, or at least faithful Israel, will
triumph despite its present suffering.

Better yet is the third view, which takes into account the oscillation
between the one and the many in our text. Thus, for instance, we are told that
the four beasts represent four kings at Dan. 7:17. The king is the
representative of his kingdom, and the two would not have been radically
separated in ancient thinking.2S° Notice also that at Dan. 8:21 the he-goat is
identified as the king of Greece. There are, however, further difficulties with
arguing that bar enas is a pure symbol, that is, it is not a cipher for any real
person or thing. On the one hand, Casey must admit that to bar enas is given
dominion and glory, so that all will serve him because this is what 7:14 says.
On Casey's interpretation, this means that Israel will be given these things in
the future. On the other hand, Casey urges against Moule and M. D. Hooker
that we detach bar enas from the saints of the Most High when it comes to
the matter of suffering.25' Casey says, "It is not that the man-like figure has
independent experiences; he is a pure symbol with no experiences at all,
other than the symbolic ones in vv. 13-14. To that extent he is a separate
figure and he is to be disassociated from the suffering of the Saints."2f0

But it is doubtful that our author meant us to see the experiences

mentioned in 7:13-14 as purely symbolic. They were meant to figure forth a
real hope of future triumph for God's people. One suspects that Casey
concludes as he does because he has already decided that the human figure is
a symbol not merely of Israel but of Israel triumphant.261 Yet it is crucial to
the concepts being conveyed here that the one who receives the kingdom
may also be identified as one who has gone through what Israel was now
experiencing, otherwise the attempted effort to comfort God's people is not
effective because they could not fully identify with this figure. It is no
accident that a human figure, who would be subject to suffering, is portrayed
as ultimately triumphing. There is one further reason for not accepting
Casey's view: the interpreters of this material before and during the New
Testament era did not understand it in this way.

Not only in the Gospels but also in the Similitudes of Enoch as well as in
the Book of Revelation (cf. Rev. 1:13-20), the human figure of Daniel 7
seems to refer to an individual. Note that the imagery of Daniel 7 is used to
describe the experience of the individual Enoch, in what most scholars
believe is a separate piece of Enochian literature-the Book of the Watchers.
Here in I Enoch 14.8 we see Enoch having a visionary experience described
in terms of the imagery used of the bar enas' experience in Daniel 7.262 This
is important because in I Enoch 1-36, we have one of the earliest
interpretations of Daniel 7,263 or possibly even a source for Daniel 7. In
either case, I Enoch 14 refers to an individual's experience.

This leads us to the third view, that Daniel 7 describes in apocalyptic

language the experience of an individual who is a representative of and for
Israel. Immediately in favor of this view is the fact that the kingdoms
previously mentioned are associated with kings, and we are told that bar
enas is to be given a kingdom. The Jewish reader would naturally assume
that 7:14 meant that one individual would be given kingship and glory and
would rule over all nations (notice the distinction here between the one like a
bar enas, and the peoples and nations [plural] who would become his
servants). The reign of the bar enas meant the reign of the saints since he
was their ruler and representative (7:27). "A people is always drawn up in its
head (King)."'" We do not need to resort to any theory of corporate
personality to come to this conclusion.265 Rather, we can conclude about
the figure in Daniel 7 what Lindars concludes about the parallel figure in the
Similitudes of Enoch:

(The) figure of the Similitudes, variously termed, as we have seen, the

Righteous One, the Chosen One, or "that Son of Man," is a leader of the
 righteous and chosen ones, i.e., the faithful Jews. Consequently he must
be seen as a representative figure, embodying the expectation of the
Jews that their righteousness before God will be vindicated, their
enemies will be liquidated, and they will reign with God. . . . It would be
a mistake to suggest that he is in some way a corporate figure, i.e.,
identical with the faithful Jews. But he represents their aspirations and
expectations, and so is the head of them as a group....266

This raises the question of whether bar enas is depicted as a messianic

figure in Daniel 7. Several factors favor this conclusion: (1) the clear
sequence of bar etas following the previous kings who are described in
nonhuman terms; (2) the fact that Dan. 7:14 appears to present an investiture
scene; (3) the fact that the one like bar etas will rule over people and that he
is given a kingdom ("his kingdom"; 7:14d); (4) the fact that this material was
interpreted in messianic terms in one of its earliest uses-the Similitudes of
Enoch;267 and (5) it is also possible, although not probable, that
4QpsDanAa indicates that Daniel 7 was interpreted in a messianic sense.'"

Daniel was a popular book in the first century A.D. as is amply attested
by allusions to it not only in the New Testament but also in Josephus (cf.
Ant. 10.275ff.; 12.321ff.). Indeed, Josephus tells us that Daniel's book(s)
"are still read by us even now" (Ant. 10.267) and that Daniel remained
popular because he was a prophet of good tidings and thus "he attracted the
goodwill of all" (Ant. 10.268).

Moule draws our attention to another interesting point: in the Similitudes

of Enoch 46.1, the Son of man is referred to simply as "another being whose
countenance had the appearance of a man." But thereafter he is always called
"that" or "the" (previously referred to) Son of man (cf. 46.2, 3, 4; 48.2; 62.5,
7, 9, 14; 63.11; 69.26, 7; 70.1; 71.14).269 Moule concludes that this could
explain the continual presence of the definite article in Greek when the
phrase "the Son of Man" is used. Jesus, Moule argues, uses the phrase bar
enasha to allude back to the well-known Son of man figure in Daniel but in
such a way that it became clear that Jesus saw it as his vocation to fulfill
what Daniel spoke of as the bar enas.270 Moule then urges that we take the
allusion to Daniel as our starting point for understanding the use of Son of
man in the Gospels, even when that text is not referred to or alluded to in the
larger context of the passage. F. F. Bruce supports this conclusion:

Jesus' special use of the expression (as distinct from its general Aramaic
use in the sense of "man," "the man," or a possible use to replace the
pronoun '1") was derived from the "one like a son of man" who is
divinely invested with authority in Daniel 7:13f. Because it was not a
current title, it was not liable to be misunderstood, as current titles were,
and Jesus was free to take up the expression and give it what meaning he
chose.271

Only in Daniel 7 do we find the two major leitmotifs of the sayings material
in the Gospels that almost all scholars agree go back to Jesus: the reference
to the malkut and bar mash. This fact cannot be ignored when positing a
plausible background for Jesus' use of bar enasha. Nevertheless, it is odd that
Jesus never seems to refer to malkut and bar enasha in the same breath. It
could be objected that one should not use external data to control the
semantic force of the Gospel usages of Son of man.2n But when one is
dealing with such an enigmatic phrase that may be drawn from apocalyptic
literature and seems to allude to some prior shared context of usage or
shared realm of ideas, a proper understanding of the appropriate background
material is crucial in determining whether we will understand the phrase at
all. Words and phrases have meaning only in specific matrices or contexts,
so understanding the proper larger semantic field and context of the phrase is
crucial to grasping the meaning of the Son of man. Such elliptical phrases,
much like idiomatic English sentences ("he has an ax to grind"), can be
understood only if one studies both the literal meaning and allusions to the
larger and sometimes different set of ideas.

It could also be objected that if one demonstrates that Jesus used the
phrase Son of man to refer uniquely to himself, he was abandoning the
indirect means of self-revelation that seems to have characterized his
approach. Against this it must be urged that (1) the phrase itself was
enigmatic and required thought, as well as a knowledge of Jewish ideas and
literature, to be fully comprehended because its significance was not
immediately apparent to the listener so that the lack of use of this phrase by
the early church points to its enigmatic and uniquely Jewish character; (2)
that Jesus did occasionally indicate who he thought he was. However, one
should not categorize the Son of man material as an example of direct self-
revelation, at least not for most of Jesus' listeners.
POSSIBLE GOSPEL ALLUSIONS TO THE SIMILITUDES
AND DANIEL

If the Similitudes in some form stand behind Jesus' sayings, particularly the
Son of man material, and if Daniel 7 does so, then an effort should be made
to examine possible parallels. It is surprising how seldom this has been
attempted in any systematic way. Here we will be able to examine only a
few possible parallels. To anticipate our conclusions, what the evidence
shows is that there are various parallels between the Similitudes and Gospel
sayings tradition in general, but only a few direct parallels to the synoptic
Son of man material. However, there are more specific parallels in the
Gospels to the Son of man material in Daniel 7 and its surrounding context.
This suggests, as Moule, Bruce, and Marshall among others have
concluded,273 that Daniel is the primary background for interpreting the
synoptic Son of man material.

In both the Similitudes and in the authentic Jesus tradition, the dominant
form of utterance is the parable, a form of wisdom utterance. In fact, almost
all of the Similitudes, like most of Jesus' utterances, manifest one form or
another of wisdom speech. For example, the beatitude in I Enoch 58.1-2
"Blessed are you, righteous and elect ones, for glorious is your portion," is
similar in form to the Lukan Beatitudes with their direct address (cf. esp.
Luke 6:21), but the content has parallels to the fourth Matthean beatitude,
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for what is right: they shall be
satisfied." "

A second feature found in the Similitudes and synoptic sayings material,

including the Son of man passages, is the mixture of wisdom and
apocalyptic or eschatological sayings. As A. Y. Collins shows, both wisdom
and apocalyptic sayings seem to be found in the earliest stages of the Q Son
of man material.274 Third, the idea of a hidden or revealed Wisdom or wise
one is found, for instance, in the primitive Son of man sayings in Luke
17:22-30, which concerns the disappearance of the Son of man, and then in
17:30, which tells about the day he will be revealed. Another wisdom motif-
the rejection of wisdom on earth-is found in 17:25 of this passage. In 1
Enoch 48.6-7 we read of the Son of man who "was concealed in His own
presence prior to the creation of the world ... and he has revealed the wisdom
of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and holy ones." One may argue
that the major role of the Son of man in Enoch, other than as judge, is to be a
revealer of wisdom. Thus, for instance, we read in I Enoch 51.3, "In those
days the Elect One shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his
mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom ...."275 Or again, in 1 Enoch
49.3 we hear of the Son of man that "in him dwells the spirit of wisdom ...
the spirit of knowledge and strength." A more striking parallel to the
material in Luke 17 is found in 1 Enoch 62.7, "For the Son of Man was
concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the
presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and elect ones."

Fourth, the motif of the Son of man as a judge is prevalent throughout 1

Enoch 46-62. Thus, when he is first mentioned in I Enoch 46.1ff. in a
passage that draws on Daniel 7, it is said that the Son of man will open the
hidden storerooms (of wisdom?) and will depose kings from their thrones
and kingdoms. If one compares 1 Enoch 46.6 to 48.10, it becomes dear that
the Son of man is viewed as a bestower of kingship or kingdom and as the
messiah of the Lord of Spirits. At 1 Enoch 51.3 we hear, "In those days the
Elect One shall sit on my throne," and a little later from that throne he judges
Azaz'el and the fallen angels (55.4). All of this material should be compared
to the future and forensic sayings about the Son of man, especially Matt.
19:28, which speaks of "when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne,
you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel." Bear in mind that in Daniel 7 the Son of man is
never said to sit on a throne or to pass judgment; he is given only dominion
and glory. Daniel 7:9 speaks of God sitting on God's throne and mentions the
thrones of the heavenly court who sit in judgment (7:10), but the Son of man
receives only the benefit of the judgment. Thus, the future and forensic Son
of man sayings in the Gospels seem closer to Enoch than to Daniel at this
point.

Fifth, there are a couple of other interesting sayings in Enoch that have
counterparts in the synoptic sayings tradition. Referring to a time of turmoil
and tribulation in the Holy Land and an attack by heathen armies upon
Jerusalem, I Enoch 56.7 mentions, "A man shall not recognize his brother
nor a son his mother." This is similar to a saying in Luke 12:53 found in the
midst of a passage explaining the result of Jesus coming to cast fire upon the
earth, '"They will be divided father against son, and son against father,
mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (Luke 12:53). But
even more strikingly, "And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the
father his child, and children will rise against their parents and have them put
to death" (Mark 13:12 and par.). Finally, I Enoch 62.5, in speaking of the day
of judgment, says, "Then pain shall come upon them as on a woman in
travail with birth pangs ... pain shall seize them when they see that Son of
man sitting on the throne of his glory." This may be compared to the
apocalyptic material in Mark 13:8, which also uses the imagery of birth
pangs to describe that tribulation and explains how horrible it will be for the
pregnant in that day (13:17, cf. Luke 23:29). These images may be drawn
from a conventional stock of such images and thus not reflect any
relationship between 1 Enoch and the Gospels, but one does get the feeling
that in both places we are dealing with the same sort of literature and
material.

For our purposes the crucial parallels are those discussed in the second
and third points above. They are sufficient to raise the possibility of a
relationship between the Son of man material in the Gospels and in the
Similitudes of Enoch. Recent confirmation of this conclusion has come from
the helpful study of Margaret Barker. She argues that the ideas about the Son
of man found in the parables of Enoch provide some of the crucial
background to and explanation of the synoptic Son of man material. In
addition she stresses that the larger field of ideas conjured up by the term
Son of man includes the idea of the Son of man as a messianic and possibly
even a divine or angelic figure.276

It has become conventional to divide the Son of man material in the

Gospels into three categories of sayings: (1) about the ministry of Jesus; (2)
about the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Son of man; and (3) about
the future coming and forensic activity of the Son of man. On the basis of
this division, some scholars are willing to assert that one or another whole
group of these sayings is likely inauthentic.27 Yet Hooker has cautioned us
about overpressing the threefold categorization and drawing conclusions
about authenticity on the basis of it.271 Even if we do categorize the
synoptic Son of man sayings, the Daniel material involves the essential ideas
entailed in all three types of sayings: the frailties of earthly existence,
suffering, and ultimate vindication and bestowal of authority.279

A. J. B. Higgins would rule out all sayings concerning the activity of the
Son of man during Jesus' ministry, "The kernel sayings refer only to the
future activity of the Son of man."280 But Higgins, like others before him,
must assume that Jesus did not identify himself as the Son of man during his
earthly ministry, but either referred to someone else (Bornkamm's view) or,
as Higgins would have it, only to himself in some future eschatological role
he would assume.281 Lindars, using a different sort of razor, would
eliminate all sayings that do not fit the idiomatic use of the generic article
attached to bar enash in which the speaker refers to a group of people with
whom he identifies himself.282 Lindars's approach leaves him with too
small a base of authentic sayings from which to draw any firm conclusions.
Equally unconvincing is Vermes who accepts only sayings that can be seen
to be a circumlocution for "I" and that have no allusions to Dan. 7:13.283

The problem with all of these approaches is that they assume people use
words or phrases only in one way. As Casey protests, in another context
"variation within the normal semantic area of any word [or phrase) is normal
in any author."2M A more balanced approach is found in the works of
Morna Hooker and F. H. Borsch who find that some sayings in all three
categories of Son of man material may be authentic .281 It can be argued
that some sayings in all three categories reflect the influence of Daniel (esp.
Daniel 7).

In Mark 2:10, which may be a Markan parenthesis and thus redactional,

we are told of the Son of man having authority to forgive sins. Daniel 7:13-
14 is probably an investiture scene in which the one like a son of man is
given power and authority over all peoples and nations. The essential thrust
of having authority or power is the same in both texts. In Mark 2:28 we hear
of the Son of man being lord even over the Sabbath. This is a significant
claim in light of Dan. 7:25 where the enemy of God's people (Antiochus?) is
said to change the times and the law. If this is a reference to Antiochus
Epiphanes, as even Josephus holds (Ant. 10.276), then it is significant that
he attempted to place a ban on observance of the Sabbath and other feast
days. Jesus, in contrast to such a despot, would be claiming (or the
evangelist on his behalf) that he is ruler over the Sabbath and that it may
continue to be observed in a way that benefits human beings. Daniel 4:16-23
is a remote but possible parallel to Luke 9:58 which speaks of birds having
nests but the Son of man having nowhere to rest his head.'" Is it accidental
that in Dan. 4:15, another kingly figure is described with the words, "Let
him be wet with the dew of heaven; let his lot be with the beasts in the grass
of the earth"? There is also a reference to the birds of the air nesting (4:21).
In both texts the focus is on an important figure who is experiencing
something less than royal treatment.

There are substantive parallels with Daniel 7 and its surrounding context
in the case of the second category (passion and resurrection) and the third
category (future activity) of Son of man sayings. Because Hooker has taken
pains to draw out the allusions to Daniel 7 in some of the less obvious cases
from the second category,211' we will not pause to reiterate her arguments
here. One point about the future sayings is worth exploring. Casey argues
that the location of the judgment scene in Daniel 7 is not heaven but earth, in
particular, the promised land where the fourth beast, which had come forth
from the (Mediterranean) Sea onto the (promised) land, is confronted. If so,
then we have not only various parallels to numerous texts that speak of God
coming forth to judge the earth (cf. Zech. 14:5; Ps. %:13; Joel 3:12), but also
a clarification about the future Son of man sayings. "Daniel saw the man-like
figure coming down 'with the clouds of heaven. "'2U We thus have a clear
backdrop for sayings such as Mark 13:26, "And then they will see the Son of
man coming in clouds with great power and glory"; and Mark 14:62, "I am,
and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven." Again, Luke 18:8, which also speaks of
a future coming of the Son of man, has as its background Daniel 7.

Thus, the case for Daniel 7 lying in the background of a good many of the
Son of man sayings, and at least some from all three categories or types of
sayings, is a strong one. The case is stronger than the possible allusions to
the Similitudes of Enoch, which nonetheless should be considered.2e9 We
need to now examine some of the sayings about the Son of man that may be
primitive, going back in some form to Jesus, and see what they tell us about
Jesus' self-understanding.
THE SON OF MAN AND HIS ITINERANT LIFESTYLE
(LUKE 9:58/MATT. 8:20)

Luke 9:58/Matt. 8:20 is a Q saying clustered together with other sayings

about the cost of discipleship.2f0 That this is the original and correct context
for understanding this saying is probable in view of the fact that:

Jesus went around in Galilee and the adjacent regions more like a
wandering Cynic preacher than a rabbi.... He and his disciples quite
likely lived on the strength of donations (Luke 8:3), and he rejected the
making of any provision for the future. Consequently "following after"
has primarily the very concrete sense of following him in his wanderings
and sharing with him his uncertain and indeed perilous destiny.2'2

Bultmann, however, argues that this was originally just a well-known

"proverb" (Plut., Tib. Grac. 9.4-5) about human homelessness that was
turned into a Son of man saying by the addition of that phrase.292 Against
this, as Marshall points out, the parallels usually cited to prove this are not
sufficiently dose or convincing, especially in regard to the point of such
passages compared to the point of this saying.2" The problem with arguing
that this was a general maxim is that it is not true of all human beings.2"

More convincing are the arguments that here we have another example of
Jesus alluding to himself as Wisdom who could find no home amongst
human beings.2" We have also reckoned with the possibility of an allusion to
Daniel 4. On balance, it seems that the saying originally belongs in the
setting in which we find it and that the allusions to Wisdom are a secondary
implication.

Theissen builds a great deal on the idea that Jesus proclaimed a radical
ethic suitable only for his itinerant followers. He argues, "The Word of Jesus
represents an ethos of homelessness."2" As exhibit A he cites the text we are
presently examining, and the fact that Didache 11.8 shows that this itinerant
philosophy and the ethic that accompanied it were continued even after
Jesus' death. If he is correct, then this supports the view that this saying is
about the cost of discipleship, the point being made by showing what it cost
Jesus to pursue the course he had chosen. Theissen's case however, has of
late been subject to trenchant criticism by R. A. Horsley and it is doubtful
that Theissen's strong distinction between teaching for itinerant followers
and teaching for less mobile followers can be maintained.297

Luke 9:58/Matt. 8:20 is another saying Lindars uses to support his theory
about bar enasha and here he has a case. His view is that bar enasha means a
person in my position?" But the question has to be asked whether Jesus
intended this saying as a comment on a group of people and thus on himself,
or on himself and thus by implication on those who followed him. My point
is that this is a saying with implications for disciples by the nature of the
saying and its probable original Sitz im Leben. One does not need to find the
reference to the larger group in the use of bar enasha itself. Furthermore, if
the view that this was once a general maxim fails, then so does the view that
the Son of man phrase was added to a general maxim. This saying is not a
comment on all lives but on Jesus' life and by implication on those who
follow him. Lindars is correct that this saying has christological
implications:

Jesus refers to the conditions in which his mission is undertaken. It is

implied that such conditions are unavoidable. Jesus has accepted for
himself the vocation to work which requires some measure of hardship.
Obedience to a divine call is an indispensable feature of Christology.2°9

Here, then, we have a saying reflecting Jesus' sense that he was called to a
unique mission in life that would entail various sacrifices and hardships.

Buchanan has pointed out the kataskenoseis means "encampments" and is

usually applied to soldiers engaged in battle.70° He concludes that the
saying means: Birds were equipped for their outdoor dwelling, but Jesus had
neither a cot nor a military tent. The Maccabean guerrillas had found cover
and protection in the caves in the mountains-the same kind of protection as
foxes found in their holes-but the Son of man still did not have caves at his
disposal. Those interested in the movement Jesus was leading were put
under extreme pressure. They had either to sacrifice a great deal or
withdraw.301 This may suggest that Jesus is distinguishing himself and by
implication his followers from those of a more revolutionary orientation.

Luke 9:58/Matt. 8:20 may also imply that Jesus has been rejected.302 If
so, then there is a certain overlap between this saying, which is a comment
on the present ministry, and some of the sayings that deal with Jesus' coming
passion (cf. Mark 8:31). Thus, the authenticity of this saying cannot be
decided by too rigid an application of the threefold division of synoptic Son
of man sayings. Some of the sayings seem to fit in more than one category.
If we ask why Jesus chose to use bar enasha to make such a remark, it may
be because he had a sense of special mission like Daniel's bar enash or
because Jesus' human frailty is being emphasized. There is also a possible
allusion to Wisdom, and Jesus may have held the view that he was (or was
taking on the role of) Wisdom incarnate.303
THE SON OF MAN MANHANDLED (LUKE 9:44b)

That there was a great deal of reflection by early Christians on the death of
Jesus, and that some of this post-Easter reflection may be seen in the
Gospels-this is a thesis few scholars would dispute. Most scholars, however,
have not been led to the radical conclusion that we can know nothing from
the Gospels about how Jesus viewed his coming demise, despite Bultmann's
typically radical remark: "The great difficulty for the attempt to reconstruct a
character sketch of Jesus, is the fact that we do not know how Jesus
understood his end, his death."3a

The usual approach to our problem is to argue that in Mark 8:3119:311

10:33-34 (and par.) we have three forms of one original saying. Normally it
is concluded that Mark 9:31 is the simplest and thus the most primitive form
of the logion.m However, if Jesus spoke in Aramaic, then it is well to ask
which form of the saying found in Mark 9:31 represents an underlying
Aramaic original, and here Luke 9:44b has a decided edge. Not only does
the mellei paradidosthai point to an underlying Aramaic participle, but eis
cheiras is a non-Greek expression and represents Aramaic lido. Most striking
of all we have a word play: "The Son of Man will be delivered up into the
hands of the sons of humanity" (bar enasha ... bene enasha).30' Jeremias
stresses that this saying has three features characteristic of the authentic
sayings of Jesus: (1) a mashal character; (2) use of the divine passive; and
(3) paronomasia. The original saying in the Aramaic would have read:
'mitmesar bar enasha lide bene enasha.'m

The saying implies that Jesus expected a violent end, but that God would
be involved in this demise: Jesus was to be delivered up by God into the
hands of human beings. Here we should compare such texts as Rom. 4:25;
8:31-32, rather than the texts that speak of Judas handing over Jesus (Luke
22:3). The fact that Luke leaves out any reference to the resurrection speaks
for the authenticity of this saying and also argues for his using an
independent version of the saying found in Mark 9:31 (as does the first
evangelist at Matt. 17:22b). This may raise the possibility of a Q passion
prediction.
 If Jesus did receive a significant amount of resistance and rejection during
his ministry, then we would expect him to entertain the possibility of a
premature death, especially if he considered himself on some sort of divine
mission. Even if Jesus had seen himself only as a prophet, still there was a
considerable martyrology developing around certain prophets that included
building great tombs for the murdered prophets. It appears that Jesus saw
martyrdom in Jerusalem as part of the prophetic office, if Luke 13:33 in
some form goes back to a saying of Jesus. Thus there is nothing improbable
at all in Jesus foretelling his demise late in the ministry when things became
more ominous, especially when he chose to go to Jerusalem. One may also
compare Luke 11:49-51/Matt. 23:34-36.309 What is important for our
purposes is that Jesus saw God's hand in this coming demise. It was neither
an accident nor an inevitable consequence of his rejection, but God's plan for
him.

If this is the case, then we must note that the figure of bar enash in Daniel
is one who is given glory and dominion after a period of suffering by God's
people. If bar enash is a representative of those people, then it may be
implied that he also suffered at the hands of the beasts but triumphed beyond
that period of suffering. Thus, it is believable that Jesus, who saw himself as
fulfilling the roles indicated for Daniel's bar enash, may have spoken of his
vindication beyond death, which was made more specific in the hands of
early Christians, taking on the form we find in Mark 9:31. There is no doubt,
as the early tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3 shows, that this idea of Jesus' death
according to God's word or plan, followed by his triumph beyond the grave,
was well known, indeed considered authoritative teaching only twenty years
or less after Jesus' death. Because it is doubtful that the early church would
have invented the idea that God planned to have Jesus killed, our saying in
Luke 9:44b (and par.), perhaps with an added comment about the Son of
man being vindicated (cf. Mark 9:31), becomes very plausible on Jesus' lips.
A RANSOM FOR MANY (MARK 10:45)

This raises the major question of why Jesus thought God sent him to his
death. Thus, we cannot avoid exploring the difficult saying found in Mark
10:45 (and par.). Whatever one decides about Mark 10:45, the conclusions
drawn thus far will stand even if Mark 10:45 is a later church creation.

The idea of a human sacrificial death atoning for sin seems to have been
very much alive in Judaism during Jesus' era. For instance, in 4 Macc. 6:27-
29 Eleazar says, "You know, God, that although I might save myself from
fiery torments, I am dying for the Law. Be merciful to your people (who
broke the Law) and be satisfied by our sacrifice for them. Make our blood
their cleansing, and receive my life as their ransom" (antipsuchon; cf. 17:21-
22 and 2 Macc. 7:37-38). This text should not be ignored because 4 Macc.
probably originated in the period A.D. 19-54, as the allusion in the text to
the temple being still standing suggests (4:11-12).710 In J.T.Yoma 38b,311
T. Ben. 3.8, and in 1QS 5.6, 8.3-10, and 9.4 we also find the idea that the
death of the righteous atoned vicariously for the sins of others. These texts
indicate that the idea was "in the air" during Jesus' day.312 Thus, whether or
not Jesus viewed his death in terms like those found in Mark 10:45 (and par.)
can be decided only by an examination of the text. The idea cannot be ruled
out either as a later Christian notion or as something that would have been
unthinkable on Jesus' lips.

The objections to the authenticity of this saying are summed up by C. E.

B. Cranfield: (1) this saying is out of harmony with its context, which
focuses on service; (2) the use of elthen suggests a date after the lifetime of
Jesus looking back on it as a whole; (3) lutron and the ideas associated with
it are found nowhere else in Jesus' teaching; and (4) the original form of the
saying is found in Luke 22:27, and Mark 10:45 is a dogmatic recasting of it,
perhaps under Pauline influence.313 We will deal with each objection in
some detail and present reasons for accepting this saying as authentic. We
also need to deal with the contention that this was originally not a Son of
man saying but an "I" saying.
 The fast objection mentioned above is the weakest. The literature dealing
with the Maccabees makes it clear that some Jews believed the ultimate form
of service to and for one's people was to give one's life for them. The saying
is cast in this form for two reasons. First, as Barrett notes, the mention of bar
enasha sets up a certain expectation of a figure associated with glory and
dominion, not service, in view of what is said in Dan. 7:14. Jesus then would
be qualifying such ideas about bar enasha in light of his own concept of his
mission and future. Second, the ou ... alla intends to bring out the contrast-
the Son of man has come "not as you might think, or do think, to be served,
but to serve."314 Yet Jesus would not be really departing from the larger
context of Daniel in this saying because, as Barrett says, "Daniel as a whole
is a book of martyrdom. This is evident in the narrative sections, but it is true
of the rest of the book too."315

The argument based on elthen is also a weak one. First, some elthen
sayings are authentic (cf. Luke 12:49). Second, as Dodd has noted, elthen
with the infinitive of purpose or equivalent Nina clause "is one of the most
widely established forms in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted."316
Furthermore, although elthen can be used retrospectively as in Matt. 11:18, it
can also explain one's sense of purpose or mission without having the sense
of providing an overview after the fact (cf. Mark 2:17).317

Even though lutron is used only here in the Gospels, some of the ideas
associated with it seem to be present in the so-called cup saying in Mark
14:24. The idea of a ransom is a familiar Old Testament concept, as is the
idea of ransoming life back (cf. Exod. 30:12; 31:30; Num. 18:15; Lev.
25:51-52). Furthermore, it is not true that lutron is a Pauline word. The only
place where we have a cognate term, antilutron, is 1 Tim. 2:6, and many
scholars would call this material deutero-Pauline. This word and indeed the
whole sentence in Mark 10:45 is thoroughly Semitic and can be translated as
a whole back into Aramaic.318 Beside bar enasha, one may point to the
epexegetical use of kai, the phrase dounai ten psuchen (which can be
compared to 1 Macc. 2:50; 6:44), psuchen used instead of the reflexive
pronoun, the use of "many" here, as well as the way lutron is used, as
Semitic features of this saying.319 By comparison, 1 Tim. 2:6 seems to be a
later Greek form of the saying.
 Several other objections to the authenticity of this saying will not stand
close scrutiny. As Stuhlmacher shows, it is not convincing to argue that this
material derives from the church's Last Supper theology.320 Those traditions
do not use the key word lutron, nor do we find in them anti pollon, but rather
hyper or peri pollon. Also missing in such material is any use of the phrase
"Son of man." Thus, Stuhlmacher is right to conclude, "There is no real
foundation for a derivation of Mark 10:45 from the Last Supper connection.
"121

Nor is Mark 10:45 (and par.) a product of the early church's use of Isaiah
53. For one thing Mark 10:45 more closely parallels Isa. 43:3-4 than Isaiah
53. In Isaiah 43 we find (1) kofer, the Hebrew word that probably stands
behind lutron (the Aramaic would be purkan); (2) the SMS root that stands
behind the use of diakonein; and (3) tahat, which lies behind the use of anti
(pollon). Strikingly, there is also a reference in Isaiah 43 to Yahweh giving
"a man" for Israel.m

All of this is important in view of the fact that we have no evidence the
early church used Isaiah 43 to reflect on Jesus. By contrast, the servant in the
Septuagint of Isaiah 53 is called ho psis mou, and the word used for service
is douleuein, not diakonein. Likewise absent from this text in the Septuagint
is lutron. Thus, the case that our saying was created by Hellenistic Jewish
Christians out of the Septuagint of Isaiah 53 is weak. I conclude that the
objections to the authenticity of this saying fail.

Has Luke or Mark provided us with the more primitive form of this
saying? Some scholars who are normally strong advocates of some form of
Markan priority insist that the Markan form of the saying is later dogmatic
recasting of the Lukan saying.723 On the contrary, the absence of the lutron
clause and the reference to bar enasha can be accounted for as Luke's
attempt to make the saying comprehensible to a Gentile Christian audience.
As Marshall points out, Luke 22:27b alone seems to correspond to Mark
10:45a, whereas we do not find any form of 10:45b in the Lukan saying. In
short, it is doubtful that Mark 10:45b is a recasting of Luke's saying.324 The
balance of probabilities supports the view that Mark's version is more
primitive. He, unlike the first evangelist, does not seem to be in the business
of reSemitizing non-Semitic sayings.

It has also been argued that this saying reflects the early church's later
attempt to cast Jesus in the light of the Suffering Servant, with Isaiah 53 in
view. Yet Barrett shows that our saying owes less to Isaiah 53 than Jeremias
and Cullman among others would have us believe and can more profitably
be seen in the light of Daniel, the Similitudes of Enoch, and the Maccabean
literature.3 To some extent the saying is a deliberate contrast with Daniel,
but it presupposes Daniel as its frame of reference, and it does draw on some
of the same ideas found in martyrological material in the Maccabean corpus.

In addition, note the extensive defense of the authenticity of Mark 10:45

by Stuhlmacher.326 Among his arguments he stresses that bar enasha in the
definite state appears only on the lips of Jesus, with the exception of Acts
7:56. In Rev. 1:13; 14:14; and Heb. 2:6, we have quotations of Daniel 7
where the Aramaic is bar enash, and thus the Greek follows suit with no
definite article. The burden of proof is on those who think this saying was
originally an "Y' saying turned into a Son of man saying by the early church
.327

Finally, reference should be made to Schurmann and Meyer's arguments

that the "for or on behalf of you" or "for many" motif is an important one in
the synoptic Gospel material and goes back to Jesus (cf. Mark 10:45; 14:24;
Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25).328 There is nothing in Mark 10:45 that could
not go back to Jesus, especially in light of the Maccabean literature.
Schurmann may be right that Mark 10:45, if it is authentic, comes from a
time late in the ministry when Jesus seemed to have been rebuffed. Since the
work of Jesus and the disciples was not fully accomplished, Jesus resolves to
complete it by means of his death for his people.

Mark 10:45a is in the form of antithetical parallelism, which points to its

Semitic origin. This half of the verse stresses that Jesus' purpose, his divine
mission, is to serve human beings, not to be served by them. The implication
of the saying may be that the disciples must revise their understanding of
true leadership. The Lukan form of the saying may point us to a discussion
around the table as to who gets the choice seats and who serves whom. Some
would connect this saying with the Last Supper,329 but this is uncertain. The
tradition found in John 13:1-20 might support such a conclusion, but we will
build nothing on this conjecture.

The crucial word in the second half of the verse is lutron. The basic idea
of this word is "deliverance by purchase,"30 and it is used to describe an act
of redemption, the buying back of human beings. The price of this ransom is
not money, but the life of bar enasha. In view of the word's Old Testament
background and its connection with the preposition anti, a substitutionary
suffering or giving of a life that frees others is in view.71

Barrett stresses that the basic idea is one of equivalence or substitution of

something of equivalent value.332 This view is supported by the famous
quote from Josephus (Ant. 14.107) where the priest Eleazar tries to buy off
Crassus (ten dokon auto ten chrusen lutron anti panton edoken). We are not
told in Mark 10:45b what the many are freed from, although it is not
unreasonable to conjecture, in view of Jesus' exorcisms, that he was thinking
of freeing them from Satan's grasp; freeing God's people from sin may be in
view. In any event, the phrase anti pollon when contrasted with bar enasha
indicates one life given in place of all, the contrast being between the one
and the many."' This is why the later form of this saying in 1 Tim. 2:6 uses
the word "all," thus rightly interpreting the original meaning of the saying.
Barrett, however, suggests that in its original setting the reference to "many"
could have referred to Jesus' concern for the am ha 'aretz, that is, the
neglected masses, as opposed to the pious groups.3m We have shown,
however, that am ha 'aretz is not a technical term for sinners or the wicked
but has a broad general sense of people who are not strictly observant of all
the stipulations of Torah. I would not rule out Barrett's view, but because he
admits that Jesus' ministry was directed to all of Israel, this limitation of the
meaning of "many" probably was not intended in the original form of the
saying. If this is an authentic logion, it implies an exalted sense of selfworth
or value on Jesus' part-the life of bar enasha is equivalent to that of many.

Taking Luke 9:44b (and par.) and Mark 10:45 together, we learn that it is
God's plan that Jesus die and that out of that death a great good will come-
the redemption of many. Thus, even if things seem to be turning out all
wrong, it will still be all right because bar enasha will provide the ultimate
example of serving-giving his life in place of "the many." Now we
understand why Jesus went to Jerusalem. His mission to the lost sheep of
Israel was not completely fulfilled by what he did in life; he had to give up
his life to complete the task. Doubtless this was not the sort of bar enasha
people might ordinarily have conceived of when they thought of Daniel 7,
but it was the sort that Jesus felt called to be. As R. Pesch concludes, "The
passion of the Son of Man was announced by Jesus himself.""
"TRAILING CLOUDS OF GLORY'" (MARK 14:62)

We will conclude our investigation of Son of man sayings by looking at one

example of a saying from category 3-Mark 14:62 and par. Some future
sayings in the Son of man corpus have led scholars such as Bultmann and
Bornkamm to conclude that Jesus did speak of bar enasha who would come
in the future, but that he was referring to someone other than himself.-3'
Only four sayings could possibly support such a theory: Luke 12:8-9 (Mark
8:38 may be a variant of this); Mark 13:26; 14:62; and Matt. 19:28 (thought
to be a church formulation). In view of the numerous Son of man sayings,
including some future sayings that identify Jesus as Son of man, this is a
radical theory indeed that requires us to deny the authenticity of the vast
majority of Son of man sayings in favor of these four (or three if Matt. 19:28
is a community formulation). If just one saying where Jesus identifies
himself as the Son of man is authentic, this radical approach is a failure, for
surely neither Jesus nor the church spoke of two Sons of man. We have
already shown that more than one such saying is authentic, and the majority
of scholars accept a Q saying like Luke 9:58 (and par.) as authentic.

There are several other reasons for rejecting this theory. First, nowhere
else in the Gospel tradition is there so much as a hint that Jesus expected a
successor.B" Second, in passing along the Gospel tradition the early church
apparently saw no difference between sayings like Mark 14:62 and Luke
18:8. They were preserved because they were both thought to be about Jesus.
Third, as Marshall points out, this theory leads to a peculiar conclusion -that
a proper response to Jesus now will lead to some favored status with a
hitherto unknown Son of man. But why should this be the case if Jesus and
the Son of man are not one and the same, or if their connection is never
made clear? In short, this theory raises more problems than it solves and is
based on too little evidence.3a

One suspects that this theory arose because certain scholars had
difficulties believing that Jesus conceived of himself having a role beyond
death or in the future like that described in some of the future sayings.32"
Yet is this role more difficult to conceive of than the early belief that
Christians would arise from the grave and be involved in judging the world
and angels (cf. 1 Corinthians 15; also 6:2, 3)? In short, modern skepticism
should not be a factor in deciding what Jesus could and could not believe
about himself. Of course, if Jesus uttered a saying like Mark 14:62 (and par.)
about himself, then he did not have an ordinary self-understanding.
However, all the evidence about Jesus that we have been examining in this
study suggests that he did not view himself as simply an ordinary mortal.

The question of authenticity of Mark 14:62 is partly bound up with

whether the trial narrative is plausible. We will not deal with that issue
except to say that Jesus' appearance before the high priest may have
amounted to a pretrial hearing to discern whether Jesus could be charged
with some crime and turned over to the Roman authorities.7°

0. Betz has explored messianic expectation in early Judaism in

relationship to the discussion in Mark 14:53-65. His examination of 2
Samuel 7 and how it was interpreted eschatologically at Qumran (cf. 4QFlor.
1-13) and perhaps elsewhere, is especially illuminating."' The oracle in 2
Samuel 7 speaks of: (1) David's offspring; (2) whose reign will be
established; (3) who will build God's house; (4) "1 will be his Father and he
shall be my Son." In the Markan sequence the relevant motifs occur as
follows: (1) (destruction and) construction of the temple (Mark 14:58; 2
Sam. 7:13); (2) "the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One" (Mark 14:61; 2
Sam. 7:14); and (3) definitive enthronement (Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; 2
Sam. 7:13). "As the root of the thematic complex 'temple, Messiah, Son of
God, enthronement,' the oracle of Nathan has thus contributed directly to the
Markan scene's intelligibility and indirectly ... to the issue of its historicity.
"ml

In short, the contemporary interpretation of this text, especially at

Qumran, makes plausible the sequence of questions and some of Jesus'
response in the Markan account, except for one point-Jesus responds not
only in terms of Ps. 110:1, which has an obvious connection to Davidic
speculation, but also in terms of Dan. 7:13-14. To anticipate our conclusions,
it appears that Jesus is depicted as partially correcting Messianic expectation
based on 2 Samuel 7 by interjecting bar enasha from Daniel 7 and the
complex of ideas associated with that text. This comports with what we find
in texts like Mark 12:35-37 (and par.) where again Jesus seems to be
determined to question, if not refute, traditional understanding and Davidic
messianic expectation based on texts such as Ps. 110:1 or 2 Samuel 7.

Kummel argues that Christians could have obtained information from a

Sanhedrin member about these events, which were so crucial for them
(especially if there is any historical basis to a text like John 18:15-16). He
agrees that this scene need not be understood as a formal legal proceeding or
trial. He points out that Jesus' reply has no later analogy (where else does
one find Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14 combined?) and is a prediction that
went unfulfilled. The high priest and the members of the Sanhedrin did not
in fact during their earthly lifetimes see bar enasha sitting at the right hand or
coming with the clouds?" Thus, Mark 14:62 has good claims to authenticity,
for the church would not make up what appeared to be an unfulfilled
prophecy.

Although it is later material and can be taken as an attack on Christian

views of Jesus, J.T.Ta'an. 65B.1.68ff., which records the words of the
Amorean Abbahu, may reflect our scene and provide an independent witness
to it. There we read: "If a man says to you 'I am God,' he lies; 'I am the Son
of Man' he will regret it; 'I will ascend into heaven,' he speaks but will not
achieve it."34" Kim also urges that John 1:51 is an independent variant of
our saying .345

Norman Perrin suggests that the original trial scene had only ego eimi,
and that Mark 14:62 was added later as a Christian pesher on the Old
Testament texts cited.346 But insofar as the contemporizing interpretation of
the texts of Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14 are concerned, we have seen that
Jesus did discuss or allude to these texts in another context, and there is no
reason why he could not have provided the creative pesher here. As Chilton
shows, Jesus was creative in his handling of Scripture, and can be shown to
have proclaimed Scripture fulfilled in his actions. 347

As Marshall points out,148 some of the difficulty in seeing Mark 14:62 as

an authentic utterance of Jesus is based on the assumption that this text
refers to an act of exaltation. No act of exaltation is described, however;
rather, the Son of man is already seated at the right hand and coming on the
clouds (for judgment).349 Furthermore, there is no difficulty in
understanding the transition from discussing messiah to Son of man if the
Similitudes of Enoch are, at least in their oral formulation, from Jesus' era.
Clearly, the Son of man is viewed as messiah in I Enoch 37ff., and this may
also be the case in Daniel 7.

Additional support for the authenticity of this trial narrative can be found.
K. Berger provides us with evidence that the messiah could be described as
the future coming judge.350 Hengel, after examining the early Jewish
evidence, is not hesitant to conclude that "in the few Jewish witnesses about
the Son of Man, this can be always identified with the Messiah ."351 On the
basis of the work of Berger and Hengel among others, Pesch concludes that
the substance of this narrative about Jesus' appearance before the high priest
is not problematical.352

There are some textual difficulties to resolve before we proceed to

analyze the text."3 In some manuscripts Jesus' reply to the High Priest reads
as follows: su eipas hoti ego eimi (theta, fam. 13, 472, 543, 565, 700, 1071,
geo, arm, Or). This has led scholars to conjecture that this may have been the
original reading."' Cranfield also points out that this reading is just different
enough from what we find in Matthew and Luke to hint that it is not a
product of assimilation. If it is original, then (1) we avoid the anomaly of the
first evangelist making more opaque Jesus' christological affirmation; and
(2) we have a form of the saying that comports with the veiled or indirect
way Jesus speaks of himself in public in Mark. Yet the weight of the
manuscript evidence strongly supports the shorter text, ego eimi,"s and in
view of the popularity of Matthew in the early church, it is easy to see how
Mark 14:62, if it originally read ego eimi, could have been combined with
the Matthean text to form the variant text cited above. Furthermore, in
Mark's outline the time for keeping the messianic secret is over. The Son of
man must go as God intended. It is also the case that Matthew's form of the
response, su eipas, is a change to a more Semitic idiom characteristic of that
Gospel, and even in Matthew the response is "affirmative in content, and
reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation.""' I conclude that Jesus' original
response was affirmative in some sense,"' but that he went on to qualify that
affirmation by what he says about bar enasha.

Note that Jesus seems to be deliberately taking Ps. 110:1, a Davidic text,
and applying it to bar enasha."a We find the Son of man in a similar position
in 1 Enoch 45.3; 55.4; and 62.5. Although in the Similitudes there is no
reference to the right hand, bar enasha is clearly said to be sitting on his
throne of glory (and judgment ensues from such enthronement; cf. I Enoch
45.3; 55.4). It is also noteworthy that the basis for the response of Jesus is (at
least in part) a text like Ps. 80:17, "But let thy hand be upon the man of thy
right hand, the son of man (ben adam) whom thou hast made strong for
thyself."319 This is a distinct possibility, but the wording is so close to Ps.
110:1 that it may also be in view. We may reckon, then, with a creative
conglomerate reference involving at least Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14, but
possibly also Ps. 80:17.

The allusion to Ps. 110:1 suggests that Jesus sees himself as one who will
assume a position of divine power and authority as God's right-hand man,
his mashiach. This, however, is not yet his position. There may be some
force in the view that Jesus saw himself as messiah-designate, one who
could not or would not personally claim the title until he had first fulfilled
the responsibility of mashiach.360 Although the second half of Mark 14:62
does not specifically mention judgment, this is probably in view considering
the background in Daniel 7 and I Enoch 37-71, and in light of such sayings
as Mark 8:38. Here we do have a prediction of what later came to be called
the Parousia. The implication of this text is not only that Jesus is to be
identified with this coming Son of man but also that those who judge him
now will be judged by him later-the kind of reversal of which Jesus
apparently spoke on more than one occasion (cf. Luke 12:8-9).'lr How one
reacts to the Son of man now will determine how he reacts to them later.
One's reaction to him is decisive for one's ultimate destiny.
CONCLUSIONS

Barrett believes that "the title Son of Man ... does more than any other to
cement the unity of the Gospel tradition. We have seen that in the
background of this expression both suffering and glory play their part."362
In our investigation of the Son of man material we have found the motifs of
suffering and glory brought to the foreground. The proper matrix in which to
interpret the Son of man material, that which provides the clue as to how
Jesus himself viewed the material, is Dan. 7:13-14 and probably also the
Similitudes of Enoch.

The evidence seems sufficient to conclude that because Jesus used bar
enasha implies a certain form of messianic self-understanding on his part,
although it does not take the form of the popular Davidic expectation.
Indeed, Mark 14:62 suggests that Jesus corrected such an interpretation of
himself by referring to the Danielic Son of man. Only later when he comes
upon the clouds will he assume the role of world judge and, indeed, judge of
the people of God.

Jesus saw it as God's will that he die in Jerusalem to provide a ransom for
many. This conclusion may have come to Jesus only late in the campaign
after it became apparent that the ministry was not fully accomplishing the
task of calling the lost sheep of Israel back to God. In Mark 10:45 we find
Jesus correcting the impression that Daniel 7 may have left in many minds -
that when bar enasha came he would come to be served. Mark 14:62
suggests Jesus did not think his death would be the end of his story or work.
Whether Jesus predicted his resurrection, he did expect vindication of his
cause beyond the grave. That vindication was spoken of both in terms of his
assuming divine power and authority as world judge and in terms of his
coming to earth to perform that final judgment. Here we see a rather
fullorbed picture of how Jesus viewed his life, death, and its sequel.

Barrett is right that the key to seeing the coherence in the story is found in
the Danielic Son of man concept and various of the Son of man sayings that
draw on that concept. Even if we leave out of consideration a text like Mark
10:45, which is so controversial, we still have evidence that Jesus
experienced rejection and expected vindication as Son of man. Jesus'
selfunderstanding may not have been messianic in the conventional sense,
but it was messianic in the Danielic sense, especially as seen through the
later interpretation of Daniel found in the Similitudes of Enoch, among other
places. The conclusions of de Jonge may be endorsed:

There seems to be no reason to deny that Jesus himself did claim a

particular authority, there and then and in the future; thought of himself
in terms of suffering and vindication; and expressed this in the term "the
Son of Man"covertly referring to the destiny of the "one like a son of
man" in Daniel.3"

Our purpose was to examine selected biblical examples that reveal to us

something about Jesus' self-understanding insofar as it went beyond a
normal human self-concept. It is significant that even with the few examples
we have investigated, we can conclude that not one of the three major
categories of Son of man sayings seems to be entirely devoid of allusions to
the Danielic material. More importantly, some material from all three
categories seems to suggest that Jesus had a messianic or transcendent self-
understanding.
Afterword and Conclusions
THE MESSIANIC SECRET theory of W. Wrede has received to this point
only passing mention. Many scholars since Wrede have pursued Wrede's
trajectory and credited the messianic secret motif to Mark's redactional
activity. We have looked at the most primitive source material in and behind
Mark and Q rather than focus on the evangelist's or Q's redactional activity.
Furthermore, our conclusions are not based on texts that are at the heart of
the debate (such as Peter's confession in Mark 8:27-30 or the acclamations
of the demons in Mark 1:24) as to whether or not Wrede was right. The
exorcism narratives were taken as one if not the key to Wrede's case.' What
we have seen is that in Mark, quite apart from texts that purportedly manifest
the messianic secret, much material should be seen in a messianic light.
How, then, are we to analyze Wrede's argument, especially in regard to the
claim that the ministry of Jesus and perhaps the earliest gospel traditions
were non-messianic?2

WREDE'S "MESSIANIC SECRET" MOTIF

Since 1901, when Wrede published Das Messiasgeheimnis in den

Evangelien,' passages suggesting a messianic Jesus have been taken by
scholars to be the later church's theologizing on the non-messianic ministry
of Jesus. Wrede assumed that Mark himself redacted his material so as to
introduce the idea of the messianic secret into the tradition, prompting his
reputation as the progenitor of redaction criticism of the Gospels. But, at the
end of his book, Wrede suggests that the messianic secret motif may have
been present in Mark's source.'

Close scrutiny shows no unified messianic secret motif in Mark. The

secrecy material is not of one piece, and it might be better to talk about a
dominion secret (4:10-12), or a miracle secret (5:43), or a messianic secret
(1:24), or a sonship secret (3:11).5 Awkward for Wrede's theory is that in the
one Markan story where Jesus is called by a Davidic messianic label-Son of
David (10:46ff.)-the one who cries out is not silenced. Was this because
Mark was a careless editor of his source material, or is it evidence that he
was not imposing a messianic secrecy motif on his source material? Several
recent studies of Mark in general and the messianic secret theory in
particular have concluded that Mark was a conservative editor of his source
material, not the creative author many redaction critics claim.' Raisanen, for
instance, agrees with my division of the secrecy material. His conclusion is
that no analysis of the secrecy motif, which is present in some Markan texts,
can remove the tension that exists between secrecy and openness in the
Gospel. Thus, we should not stress the idea that Mark is a creative writer; he
is often more a collector of diverse traditions.'

Let us consider the Markan texts at the heart of Wrede's case. Examining
the exorcism narratives, the command to silence is not found in all of them
(cf. 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29), even though Wrede singles out the exorcisms
as the key to understanding Mark's secrecy theme." Instead, Dunn points out
what could be called a publicity theme in Mark, even in an exorcism story
(5:20) where the Gerasene demoniac is commanded to go and tell "what the
Lord in his mercy has done for you" (5:19f.). Thus, it is difficult to argue for
a pre-Markan collection of exorcism tales with the secrecy motif as a major
theme.

This publicity theme can also be discerned in healing stories (2:12; 3:3ff).
In contrast, other healing stories employ a privacy motif because Jesus is
showing compassion and trying to protect the family or individual from
unnecessary attention (5:43). Further, why is it, after Jesus gives a command
to silence, that Mark records the disobedience to the command (1:25-28; 43-
45; 7:36f.)? I think it could be because he is not concerned to impose or even
consistently stress a secrecy motif. As Dunn says, "If the messianic secret
motif was added to explain why Jesus was not recognized as Messiah, and
part of that motif is the command to demons and men not to tell of their
cures, I am at a loss to understand what Mark was trying to achieve by
adding or at least retaining the publicity sequel."
 This short survey of Wrede's key texts makes clear that the messianic
secret theory both fails to explain all the Markan texts that deal with
messianism, and is a conceptual umbrella under which too many of the
secrecy or privacy texts do not fit. Neither the healing texts that call for
privacy nor the kingdom secret material fit. Furthermore, when the disciples
are instructed in private, sometimes it has nothing to do with a messianic
secret (cf. 10:10-12, where the subject is divorce and marriage, not
messianism). Stuhlmacher concludes:

The so-called Messianic secret is not simply ... a post-Easter theological

construction, and in general it had nothing to do with the attempt after
Easter to hide the fact that Jesus' life had proceeded unmessianically and
beginning at Easter had first been put in the light of Messianism. It is a
question much more of a characteristic of the work of Jesus himselfj10

He goes on to urge against Wrede that Jesus used parables in order to

accomplish the veiling of various aspects of his work and self-conception.
He also points to such sayings as Matt. 11:25ff. that indicate a veiling of the
proclamation to a part of the audience. He finally concludes that Jesus at
times deliberately spoke in elliptical fashion so as not to be misunderstood as
the messiah of popular and political expectation along the lines of Psalms of
Solomon 17.

The Markan secrecy material can be explained by the alternative theory of

Stuhlmacher and others that there was a certain indirectness or veiledness to
Jesus' self-expression in his words, deeds, and relationships, and that Mark
emphasized this fact in certain passages. Furthermore, the command to
silence when Jesus' identity is at issue results from an environment where
there was a variety of misconceptions about God's mashiach, often including
the idea of messiah as some sort of political liberator. Jesus did not wish to
fit into these preconceptions of what the messiah must be like; rather, by
creating his own speech event (his own conceptual world by word, deed, and
relationship) he wanted people to judge him on his own basis. Even at the
most primitive stage of the synoptic tradition, no basis for a completely non-
messianic interpretation of Jesus' self-understanding could be found.
 This conclusion could be strengthened by a detailed study of the passion
narratives in the Synoptics. Because this material has been subjected to a
great deal of christological expansion by its Christian handlers, we have by
and large eschewed basing our argument on the passion narratives or on the
passion predictions. It is, however, crucial to point out, as H. Boers does,
that "attempts to interpret Jesus' messiahship in the light of his passion and
death presuppose that he was understood as the messiah in some sense
already before his passion. The most obvious prepassion conception of his
messiahship would have been as a political pretender."" That Jesus rejected
the role of political pretender does not mean, however, that he rejected all
messianic ideas when applied to him.

Jesus' way of expressing his transcendent self-understanding was by using

metaphorical language, symbolic gestures, and actions that, in the light of
the Old Testament, had messianic overtones. The indirectness was necessary
not only because Jesus was suggesting something that went beyond ordinary
and popular understandings of what mashiach would be like but also because
Jesus sought to provoke a mental effort on the part of his listeners to grasp
the truth for themselves. Jesus believed that keen searching with the eyes of
faith leads to seeing and not that seeing leads to the right and sufficient sort
of believing. This means that Jesus' implicit claim to be someone of
messianic significance would not have been obvious to all his
contemporaries. Only those willing to see with the eyes of faith could grasp
the meaning of God's great parable of redemption- Jesus himself. The
messianic secret motif in Mark is neither a literary device to keep something
hidden from the reader': nor a piece of Christian apologetics;" it derives from
Jesus' attempts, however unsuccessful, to avoid misunderstanding.

In the end, Wrede was right: The secrecy motif was likely in Mark's
source. But this is because it accurately reflected the character of Jesus'
ministry. I find support for this conclusion in Longenecker's presentation of
the following parallels between the synoptic Jesus and both the Qumran
teacher and Simeon ben Koseba: (1) external acclamation; (2) reticence on
the part of the individual to speak of himself in terms used by others; and (3)
awareness on the individual's part that the titles employed are at least
partially valid. Longenecker associates the reticence of Jesus with the Jewish
view that no one can fully accept messianic acclamation until he has fully
accomplished the messianic tasks." The reason Jesus is more open about the
matter both visibly and verbally during the last week of his life is that it is no
longer in order to keep the messianic secret because the messianic tasks are
nearly fulfilled.
JESUS' SELF-PERCEPTION

Because our study of Jesus' self-understanding has led us in many directions,

we need to gather the pieces together and produce a coherent whole. One
major conclusion is that Jesus was a rather unique teacher not only in the
manner of his speaking (e.g., "amen," speaking on his own authority, his
hermeneutic) but also in the matter of his teaching (e.g., his unique exegesis
of Ps. 110:1). Attempts to fit Jesus wholly into one category such as teacher,
prophet, hasid, or magician, so far as how Jesus seems to have viewed
himself, fail, however, because they are inadequate rather than inaccurate. In
particular, these categories require that one dismiss, ignore, or deny the
authenticity of too much of the data that comes from our earliest sources in
order to make these various portraits of Jesus appear adequate.

Furthermore, these reconstructions founder especially on the material

dealing with the last week or so of Jesus' life. The action in the temple, the
trial of Jesus, and his crucifixion as king of the Jews all are more adequately
interpreted as evidence that Jesus did not simply see himself as yet another
prophet or teacher. Teachers and prophets were martyred before Jesus, but
they did not spawn movements that lasted centuries after such a humiliating
form of death. It is striking not only that the Jesus movement continued but
also that it continued to focus on its crucified leader and his crucifixion.
Thus, we must agree with E. Schweizer when he calls Jesus "the man who
fits no formula."" This is not to say that Jesus is in all respects without
analogy in early Judaism. It is rather to insist that although he is similar in
various respects to various other early Jews, he cannot be categorized as
simply a hasid, or a prophet, or any other label one might choose. Even the
term messiah is not fully adequate to encompass the many-faceted
impression Jesus left on his contemporaries.

Whatever theory one espouses of Jesus' view of himself, it must also be

adequate to explain: (1) Jesus' independent approach to the law; (2) his
feeding of the 5000; (3) his interpretation of his miracles; (4) his
proclamation of the dominion of God as present and inbreaking in his
ministry, and his action based on the conviction of the inbreaking dominion;
16 (5) his choosing of twelve disciples; (6) his use of bar enasha; (7) his use
of Amen; (8) his use of abba; (9) the way he distinguished himself from all
his dose contemporaries to one degree or another, including the Baptist, the
Pharisees, the revolutionaries, and even the disciples; (10) his belief that
one's future standing with Yahweh hinged on how one reacted to his
ministry; (11) his understanding that it was necessary for him to die, to
undergo a baptism to rectify matters between God and God's people; (12)
Jesus' sense of mission to the whole of Israel, but especially to the least, lost,
and last, the sinners and outcasts, which led to table fellowship with such
people; and (13) his raising messianic expectations with a repeated pattern of
controversy between Jesus and various of his contemporaries even at the
earliest stages of the Gospel material.

It appears to me that these factors are fully accounted for only if Jesus
saw himself as God's mashiach,17 God's royal Son (at least as early as his
baptism) that he acted throughout his ministry in the light of his belief that
he was called to a messianic mission, and that he had been endowed with the
necessary divine knowledge, power, and authority by God's Spirit to carry
out that mission to Israel. In Jesus' view, Israel as a whole was lost, and it
was his task to call his fellow Jews to repentance because judgment would
soon befall the nation. Unlike the Baptist, Jesus offered both preparation for
and a positive alternative to the wrath to come.

Our study of the abba material suggests that Jesus thought of himself as
having a unique relationship with God. He believed he had an unusual
degree of intimacy with God, and he had an unusual self-understanding that
involved what may be called a filial consciousness. It may be true that Jesus
chiefly understood himself as God's special or royal Son, an idea that
expresses a certain kind of messianic thinking. This special relationship that
Jesus had with God, and the roles and status that accompanied it, were
confirmed to Jesus in an ecstatic visionary experience when he submitted to
John's baptism. Although Jesus' belief in his sonship status was implicit in
his use of abba, it becomes more explicit in contexts where the subject of
knowledge comes up-Jesus' intimate, and in some sense exclusive,
knowledge of the Father (Matt. 11:271/Luke10:22), and also paradoxically
his lack of knowledge of the timing of some events in God's future plans for
his people (Mark 13:32). By the term Son, Jesus made clear at least to his
circle of intimates how he was to be distinguished from all other human
beings with regard to the knowledge of God and from the Father with
respect to his lack of knowledge of divine future plans. Jesus saw himself as
above other humans, perhaps even above the angels, in his knowledge of
God and God's will, but below the Father because ignorance of the timing of
the Parousia could be predicated of the Son. Because of this knowledge
theme and the way it is formulated (especially in Matt. 11:27 and par.), Jesus
casts himself in a role that elsewhere in Jewish literature is given to
personified Wisdom-the one who knows the mind of God and shares that
knowledge.

Jesus chiefly expressed his identity to the general public by the use of the
phrase bar enasha. In our investigation of the "Son of man" material, we
discovered that Jesus' use of bar enasha often reflects his understanding of
himself in light of Daniel 7, but supplemented by the sort of ideas expressed
in the Similitudes of Enoch. If the latter does lie in the background of Jesus'
use of bar enasha, then that phrase may be Jesus' way of expressing his
messianic self-understanding to his wider audience. It is not necessary to
affirm the existence of any mythological Ur-Mensch idea in Jesus' era to
draw this conclusion because the idea is clearly expressed in the Similitudes.
More clearly, Jesus used the term bar enasha to indicate that he saw himself
taking on the role of Israel's representative, both at the last judgment before
God and presently as the representative of suffering Israel on earth. Mark
10:45 should be understood in light of the wider context of suffering
expressed in Daniel and may also owe something to Maccabean martyr
theology.1° Jesus would be the representative of Israel during his life, in his
death, and at the judgment that was to come. At the end of Jesus' life, as all
through the ministry, Jesus was still using the phrase bar enasha to express
his selfunderstanding. Jesus did not refuse the suggestion by the high priest
that he saw himself as the mashiach, but he immediately qualified that assent
by referring to the future coming of bar enasha for judgment (Mark 14:62). 1
agree with Barrett that "the title Son of Man ... does more than any other to
cement the unity of the gospel tradition. We have seen that in the
background of this expression both suffering and glory play their part."19
 Frequently, we observed that Jesus directed his ministry to God's chosen
people-to Israel. This factor comes to light even in the First Gospel, which
seems clear about the church's mission to the Gentiles. The Jews were the
people Jesus came to ransom; even his choice of the Twelve indicates that
was the focus of his attention. This evidence led us to conclude that Jesus
saw himself as the Messiah-the Jewish mashiach. A focus purely on Jews is
something the later church would hardly have invented.

Not to be neglected is Jesus' teaching on God's dominion. Jesus expressed

himself not only in apocalyptic images (bar enasha), which is one form of
metaphorical speech, but also in meshalim, which is metaphorical wisdom
speech. Jesus believed this dominion, as God's liberating reign in human
lives, was breaking in during and through his ministry. Nevertheless, he also
saw the dominion as a realm that could be entered only if one responded
positively to the message of Jesus (and perhaps also of John). The
already/not yet aspects of Jesus' eschatological teaching about God's
dominion need to be held in tension, with neither side being dismissed or
ignored. Luke 11:20 (and par.) strongly suggests that Jesus saw himself as
the agent or shaliach of God, endowed with God's authority, power, and
God's knowledge. As a result of this self-understanding, Jesus sent out his
inner circle as his own agents (apostolol), even during his ministry. Just as
he made possible their sharing in a sonship status so also he made possible a
sharing in God's mission on earth, as agents of God's agent.

In our discussion of Jesus' deeds we noted that: (1) he interpreted his

exorcisms as the inbreaking of God's final dominion; and (2) he interpreted
his other healings in light of the Isaianic vision of future eschatological
restoration. It is in Jesus' interpretation of these deeds that we found at least
an implicit christological claim. The deeds themselves were not
unprecedented. In a Jewish setting, however, there may have been a special
messianic significance to the healing of the blind, and possibly also to the
exorcisms (neither of which are predicated of Old Testament figures). We
argued that these interpretations of Jesus' deeds go back to Jesus, at least in
substance, because the christological overtones are latent and without
elaboration. Indeed, Jesus, in his exorcisms and other acts of compassion,
believed he was doing battle with the powers of darkness-and winning! This
suggests a great sense of supernatural power and authority on his part.

Comparing and contrasting Jesus with his closest contemporaries further

clarifies our understanding. Jesus, like John the Baptist, was initially a
preacher of repentance in view of the coming action of God. But unlike
John, Jesus not only focused on such coming judgment but also stressed
good news about the inbreaking of God's acts of compassion and help for
God's people. Jesus saw such action as already here, but in regard to the
judgment he saw it as hovering on the near horizon, as had John. Hence, a
crisis was upon Israel and the nation must respond decisively to it-time could
not be wasted. Perhaps most striking was that Jesus, unlike John, did not
expect any successors. Jesus' style of ministry, which included his sharing
table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors, contrasted sharply with
John's more ascetical approach to the coming crisis.

Perhaps the group in early Judaism with whom Jesus had most in
common was the Pharisees. Both were concerned about the moral condition
of God's people. Neither advocated a violent political remedy to the
oppression that God's people were enduring; both called the people to
spiritual rejuvenation. Jesus and the Pharisees acted in public, and neither
had written off the mass of Israel, in contrast to more sectarian groups such
as the Qumranites. Both had hopes of bringing the whole nation back to
God. But they radically disagreed about how to recover the lost sheep of
Israel. Rather than spreading the standards of priestly holiness throughout
the land, Jesus went on a rehabilitation and reclamation campaign,
performing acts of compassion and breaking bread even with outcasts, toll
collectors, and sinners.

Jesus both identified himself with and distinguished himself from his
disciples. The identification is clearest: (1) in the sending out of the Twelve
to perform the very same deeds and preaching as Jesus had engaged in, (2)
in the promise that they too, like the Son of man, would have a role in the
future judging of Israel, and (3) in sayings that implied that the rejection of
Jesus' shalihim implied the rejection of God's shaliach and thus of God
himself. Yet clearly Jesus distinguished himself from the Twelve in the
following ways: (1) Jesus never identified himself as one of the Twelve; (2)
he saw it as his unique task to provide a ransom for many (the disciples
might also die, but there is no hint that Jesus ever saw their sufferings as
redemptive); (3) Jesus alone was the one who could initiate a person into
that special filial relationship with God; and (4) he alone was bar enasha, a
term which never became a designation for any of his followers.

In all of Jesus' key relationships we see both elements of identification

and distinction. No doubt this is the reason that people had such a hard time
categorizing Jesus, and still do. We find the Christology of Jesus chiefly in
the way he distinguished himself from his close contemporaries because here
we see the ways he stood out from the crowd, the ways in which he was
unique. Fortunately, it is here that the most widely accepted criterion for
authenticity comes into play-the criterion of dissimilarity.

Apparently, it was not unique in Jesus' era to perceive of oneself as

Israel's messiah. There were various messianic movements in Jesus day, led
by persons who, like Jesus, saw themselves in a messianic light. Messianic
expectation in the early first century took various forms as to what mashiach
might be like and might do. Probably the most popular form of expectation
in Jesus' day involved the hope of a descendant of David who would come
and throw off the yoke of foreign rule.

Jesus, however, deliberately distanced himself from that form of

expectation. Instead, he expressed his self-understanding using the Danielic
bar enasha. Apparently, his self-concept was shaped by some of the shepherd
king material in Zechariah and, to a lesser extent, by some royal psalms. In
Jesus' response to the Baptist, it appears he also saw some of the Isaianic
material as being fulfilled in his life and ministry. Jesus' self-concept was
shaped chiefly by the prophecies in the later prophetical books of the Old
Testament and, in view of the prevalence of both bar enasha and basileia in
the authentic Jesus material, by the apocalyptic material in Daniel.

Study of messianic movements revealed that Jesus by his words and

deeds-even if he never made a single public claim about his messianic status
-meets the criteria so that he can be called the intentional founder of a
messianic movement. He not only served as the catalyst for the criticism of
the existing order but also raised the positive hopes of many that God's
promises to God's people about Torah, temple, and territory were now finally
coming to pass. Further, Jesus offered an interpretative schema that gave the
people a vision of God's ways, a schema distinct from that of the Pharisees
and other major groups in his society; hence, their hostile reaction. The
Pharisees and probably others rightly took Jesus' message as a critique of
theirs.

Jesus critiqued not only the "traditions of the elders," which were so
important to the Pharisaic approach to life, but also the interpretation of
Torah and even Torah itself. God was doing a new thing in Jesus' ministry;
those who witnessed his ministry witnessed the inbreaking of the
eschatological era, the very malkut of God. This being so, new wine could
not always be poured into old wineskins-the law had to be and was
transcended in the ministry of Jesus. He made a radical demand on those
who would follow him, insisting that the priorities of the family of faith
supersede those of the physical family. Even more radical is Jesus' approach
to persons who were physically or morally unclean. In his association with
the diseased and sinners, Jesus not only disregarded the rules of clean and
unclean in the Old Testament, he also indicated that they no longer applied
in the new situation God was initiating through Jesus' ministry. Especially
striking is how Jesus, following John, believed that forgiveness could be had
by repentance and reception of the inbreaking work of God, apart from the
temple cultus. This characterizes one who believed he was God's final and
eschatological messenger, doing a new thing, and not merely someone
interested in the restoration of Israel's former glories.

The conditions in Israel as a whole, including Galilee, were ripe for a

messianic movement. Horsley noted how difficult the social and economic
situation was becoming in Jesus' day with farmers increasingly losing their
land to absentee landlords.20 A growing underclass of day laborers or
indentured servants was emerging just to survive. In such an environment, a
person who went about proclaiming God's inbreaking malkut, and saying
things like "the meek would inherit the land," would be understood as a
messianic figure. More importantly, in such an environment Jesus had to
know that he would be interpreted in that fashion, for surely he was aware of
the Old Testament promises.

If Jesus intentionally performed an act such as the feeding of the 5000 in a

remote area of Galilee, it is hardly surprising that some sought to proclaim or
even make him their king. Jesus' withdrawing from the crowd could be
interpreted either as a rejection of messianic acclaim or, because Jesus seems
to have deliberately provoked such an idea in the first place, as a rejection of
a particular interpretation of messianism. In view of the sequel to the feeding
miracle-Jesus going to Jerusalem, riding a donkey, and performing a
symbolic action in the temple-his reaction to the crowd at the feeding should
not be interpreted as his outright rejection of being the mashiach.

What Jesus rejected is being a Davidic conqueror and not his bringing
significant social and religious change as a messianic figure. Because a
variety of messianic ideas circulated in early Judaism, Jesus' rejection of one
model of what the messiah must look like does not lead to the conclusion
that he rejected all such models.21 Rather, he saw himself in the light of the
shepherd king of Zechariah, the bar enasha of Daniel, and certain royal
psalms. He also interpreted his healing activities in light of the vision of the
eschatological age found in the Isaianic literature. The evidence suggests
that at the end of his ministry Jesus became more vocal and visible about
who he thought he was-as the temple action and dialogue with the high
priest show.

How Jesus reacted to the three pillars of early Judaism-Torah, temple, and
territory -offers a different way to view the data. S. Freyne reminds us that
"any shift in emphasis in regard to one of those symbols inevitably meant a
change of focus on all three, thereby giving rise to a new Judaism."22
Surprisingly, Jesus said little about the territorial doctrine. The significance
is that it shows he was not an advocate of inaugurating the final age by a
retaking of the land. Jesus was no political revolutionary, even though
certain of his actions were socially and religiously radical. God's malkut was
breaking into human lives and changing them, but the call to throw off the
yoke of Roman rule and retake the land is missing in Jesus' message. He did
not use (as far as we can tell) the ancient Near Eastern myth of the divine
warrior to articulate his vision of the coming dominion of God.23

In regard to Torah, Jesus sometimes endorsed, sometimes intensified,

sometimes abrogated or transcended the Torah. This approach to Scripture,
coupled with his hermeneutic of seeing Scripture fulfilled in his ministry,
surely points to a self-conception that goes beyond that of the Old Testament
prophets or the teachers of Jesus' day.

In regard to the temple, if Jesus' prophetic action in the outer court were
either a symbol of God's coming to cleanse out the corruption or a prophetic
sign of God's coming judgment on the temple, then we have an action with
messianic overtones. This is even more the case if Jesus also made a claim to
build the (final) temple of God, especially if it were coupled with a prophecy
of the fall of the present temple. If we add to this Jesus' offer of forgiveness
apart from the temple cultus, then it becomes hard to deny that Jesus saw
himself in a transcendent category. Surely, Jesus' critique of Torah, temple,
and territory went beyond previous prophetic critiques of these key pillars of
Judaism."

Thus, we are on firm ground when talking about Jesus' messianic, filial,
or bar enasha self-conception. At this point, however, we should consider
whether there is authentic material that goes even beyond such categories. In
some parables, Jesus alluded to himself as taking on roles predicated of
Yahweh in the Old Testament. Jesus may have seen himself as God's agent
or shaliach, although the case for such a conclusion is less strong than for
Jesus' messianic self-understanding. The church's later high Christology
seems to build on the observations: (1) that Jesus operated with divine power
and authority; (2) that he was able to bestow such divine power and
authority on some of his followers during the ministry; (3) that he believed a
rejection of his ministry meant a judgment of that person at the eschaton;
and (4) by contrast, that an acceptance of Jesus and his mission got one into
God's malkut and secured a reservation at the messianic banquet.

More speculative was whether Jesus saw himself also as Wisdom

incarnate, the very embodiment of the mind and plan of God for God's
people. There seems to be some evidence for this in Q. Because Q cannot
simply be classified as Logoi Sophoi, the question arises whether or not this
depiction of Jesus as divine Wisdom may be more than merely a redactional
agenda of early Jewish Christians and, in fact, go back to Jesus himself.
Three things support the view that the Wisdom persona goes back to Jesus
himself. First, there is evidence of Jesus being depicted as Wisdom or at
least as a teacher of wisdom in early material that was not only in Q (cf.
Mark 6:2ff. and par.; Luke 2:40-52; esp. Matt. 11:28-30). Second, casting
Jesus as Wisdom is not part of the first evangelist's christological agenda.
Third, and perhaps most important, Jesus chose as his major vehicle of
public self-expression the mashal, a form of wisdom utterance. These seem
to be strong hints that Jesus assumed the persona of Wisdom.

The recent detailed study by R. Piper on Wisdom in the Q-traditionu

provides evidence that Jesus may have seen himself as an envoy of Sophia
and perhaps a good deal more. He concludes his study by saying, "the
agenda is therefore set for recognizing in Jesus that not only 'something
greater than Jonah,' but also 'something greater than Solomon is here."126 If
so, then it is possible that the composers of the early christological hymns
developed the idea of the preexistence of the Son from these hints in the
Gospel wisdom material.

Based on the same material, J. Ernst concludes his study of Christology:

Easter is nevertheless not in an absolute sense the Beginning. Easter has

much more released what was already implicit beforehand. Such a
Christological foundation stone is tangible for all in the words of Jesus,
which have been collected from the earliest days of the Christian
Community, but which let us recognize a pre-Easter Sitz im Leben. The
words of Jesus, in particular any of the hard, scandalous demands to
follow and the rigor of the ethical preaching, make the way free for an
in-depth understanding of the person that Jesus was. 27

In addition, Hoskyns insists:

Only when the Christology is taken seriously and when its fundamental
importance is fully recognized does Jesus emerge as a concrete figure in
 history. Only upon the background of the Christology do the great Logia
which lie scattered about in the various literary strata of the Gospels
cease to be disconnected fragments and come together as component
parts of one messianic whole.2s

One final question: Did Jesus think himself to be divine? In early Judaism
it appears the mashiach was usually expected to be just another human
being, although one with God-given role, power, and authority. It is not
possible to be unequivocal about the shape of early Jewish expectation, for
some material (e.g., the Similitudes of Enoch) seems to suggest that the
mashiach would have a transfigured if not transformed humanity, and thus
would not be just a normal or ordinary human being with an extraordinary
God-consciousness.

Material in the Synoptics hints that Jesus had a transcendent self-image

amounting to more than a unique awareness of the Divine. If, however, one
means by divine awareness something that suggests either that Jesus saw
himself as the whole or exclusive representation of the Godhead or that he
considered himself in a way that amounted to the rejection of the central
tenet of Judaism, (i.e., monotheism), then the answer must be no. Jesus
clearly prayed to a God he called abba, which excludes the idea that Jesus
thought he was abba. Jesus' affirmation of monotheism seems clear (e.g.,
Mark 10:17-18; Matt. 23:9).

Yet, as Raymond Brown points out, if the question, 'Are you God?', had
been asked of Jesus during his lifetime, the question would have meant "Are
you the Father in heaven?" not 'Are you the second person of the Trinity?"29
Later trinitarian thinking cannot be read back into early Judaism. Put in
those terms, Jesus' answer to the question would have been no. In fact, it is
almost impossible to believe that the question would have been raised in
those terms. On the one hand, what sense does it make to ask of a human
being dwelling on earth if he is the Father in heaven? On the other hand, "to
say that the enormous impact of Jesus changed the meaning of 'God' is no
exaggeration. -30 It is also true that what one publicly claims or hints about
oneself and what one believes about oneself can be two different things. We
have sought in this study to go beyond the so-called titles and public claims
of Jesus to his self-concept. One must then ask questions like, What did
Jesus imply when he left the suggestion that he should be seen as David's
Lord? I think he implied that he should be seen not merely as a greater king
than David but in a higher and more transcendent category. What Jesus
implied about his self-conception is as important as what he publicly
claimed.

In conclusion, I can do no better than quote Raymond Brown:

Jesus knew his own identity which involved a unique relationship to

God that we call the divinity of the Son. Christians of a later period were
able to formulate Jesus' identity as "true God and true man," a
formulation better than any other that had been attempted but certainly
not exhaustive of the mystery.... The idea that he was divine I find on
most Gospel pages. An attempt to lessen the self-evaluation of Jesus to
something like "he thought only that he was a prophet" would, in my
judgment, involve proving the Gospels misunderstood Jesus. No Old
Testament prophet acted in such independence of the Mosaic Law; and it
is remarkable that one never finds in reference to Jesus a prophetic
formula such as, "The word of God came to Jesus of Nazareth." ... Jesus'
intuitive knowledge of his self-identity would have been a knowledge of
what we call in faith being God and being man, and certainly such self-
knowledge can have been no less difficult to express than our
knowledge of being human. I regard the term "God" applied to Jesus to
be a formulation of Christians in the second half of the first century
seeking to express an identity that Jesus knew better than they and
which is scarcely exhausted by the term "God" ... It is not evident that
Jesus formulated ... his self-identity in the terms of later New Testament
Christianity, such as . . . God. [Nonethelessl I have no difficulty with the
thesis that if Jesus ... could have read John, he would have found that
Gospel a suitable expression of his identity ... The affirmation that Jesus
had knowledge of his self-identity ... is not meant to exclude a
development in his existential knowledge of what that identity implied
for his life."
Nor does it exclude Jesus from partaking of some of the limitations in
knowledge that humans experience about life, especially in regard to the
future (Mark 13:32). But one sort of knowledge-of himself-Jesus did seem to
have with clarity. There is no evidence in the Gospel material that Jesus ever
had an identity crisis, although there appear to have been some ongoing
uncertainties about how he should fulfill the mission God had given him,
especially in regard to the temptation to be a messianic figure in the popular
political mold, and to avoid the cross.

In this study we have seen that the seeds of later christological

development are found in the relationships, deeds, and words of Jesus, and
that in these three ways Jesus indirectly expressed some of his self-
understanding. In short, he may have been mysterious and elusive at times,
but this was because he intended to tease his listeners into thought and
ultimately into a response of faith or trust. As F. Buechner says, he had a
face that was "not a front for him to live his life behind but a frontier, the
outermost visible edge of his life itself in all its richness and multiplicity. . . .
So once again, for the last time or the first time, we face that face."32
Abbreviations
PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL BOOKS
DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND RELATED TEXTS

TARGUMIC MATERIAL

MISHNAIC AND RELATED LITERATURE

OTHER RABBINIC WORKS
 Bibliography
FOR A FULLER, annotated bibliograpy, consult: Evans, Craig A., Life of
Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.

Abbott, M. "Wisdom and Christology in Q." Paper presented December 1984

at John Wesley Fellows Meeting, Shakertown, Ky.

Achtemeier, P. J. "He Taught Them Many Things: Reflections on Marcan

Christology." CBQ 42 (1980): 465-81.

'The Origin and Function of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae." JBL 80 (1972):
198-221.

"Toward the Isolation of pre-Markan Miracle Catenae." JBL 79 (1971): 265-

291.

Allison, D. C. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the
Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

"Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E. P. Sanders." JSNT 29 (1987): 57-

78.

Anderson, H. "4 Maccabees." DTP 2:534.

Arens, E. The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historico-

critical Investigation. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976.

Aune, D. E. "A Note on Jesus' Messianic Consciousness and 11Q

Melchizedek." EuQ 45 (1973): 161-65.

Avi-Jonah, M., ed. The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 7, The
Herodian Period. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975.

Bammel, E. 'The Feeding of the Multitude." In Jesus and the Politics of His
Day, 211-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
"Is Luke 16:16-18 of Baptist's Provenience?" HTR 51 (1958): 101-6.

------- 'The Poor and the Zealots." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 109-28.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

"Titulus." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 353-364. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bammel, E., and Moule, C. F. D., eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Banks, R. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. London: Cambridge
University Press, 1975.

Barbour, R. S. "Uncomfortable Words. 8: Status and Titles." ET 82 (1970-71):

137-42.

Barker, M. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and its Influence on
Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989.

Barnett, P. W. "The Jewish Eschatological Prophets." Ph.D. Diss., University

of London, 1977.

Barr, J. "'Abba, Father' and the Familiarity of Jesus' Speech." Theology 91

(1988): 173-79.

-. "Abba Isn't Daddy." ITS 39 (1988): 28-47.

Barrett, C. K. 'The Background of Mark 10:45." In New Testament Essays:

Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1893-1958, 1-18. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1959.

-. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1947.

-. "I am not Ashamed of the Gospel." In New Testament Essays, 116-43.

London: SPCK, 1972.

-. Jesus and the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.

-. "Mark 10:45: a Ransom for Many." In New Testament Essays, 22-33.
London: SPCK, 1972.

-. "Shaliah and Apostle." In Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in

Honour of David Daube, 88-102. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

-. The Signs of an Apostle. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Bartsch, H. W. Jesus, Prophet and Messias aus Galilaa. Frankfurt am Main:

Stimme Verlag, 1970.

Bauckham, R. "The Son of Man: 'A Man in my Position' or 'Someone'." JSNT

23 (1985): 35-41.

-. 'The Sonship of the Historical Jesus in Christology." SIT 31 (1978): 245-60.

Beasley-Murray, R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1986.

Becker, J. Johannes der Taufer and Jesus von Nazareth. Neukirchener-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.

Benoit, P. "Reflexions sur la Formgeschichtliche Methode." RB 53 (1946):

481-512.

Berger, K. Die Amen-Worte Jesu. BZNW 39. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970.

-. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum and

im Alten Testament. Ted l: Markus and Parallelen. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972.

-. "Die Koniglichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments." NTS 20

(1973): 79-87.

-. "Zum Problem der Messianitat Jesus." ZTK 71 (1974): 1-30.

Best, E. Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.
Betz, 0. "Die Frage nach dem Messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu." NovTest 6
(1963): 20-48.

Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1%7.

"Aramaic Barnasha and the Son of Man." ET 95 (1983-84): 200-6.

--. "Die Apotheose Israels: eine neue Interpretation des danielischen

'Menschensohn.'" Jesus and der Menschensohn. Ed. R. Pesch et al., 92-99.
Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

-. "Judas of Galilee and Josephus's 'Fourth Philosophy."' In Josephus Studien.

Ed. 0. Betz, L. Haacker, and M. Hengel, 45-54. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1974.

Blackburn, B. L. "THEIOI ANDRES." Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 6, The

Miracles of Jesus. Ed. D. Wenham and C. Blomberg, 185-218. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1986.

Blinzler, J. The Trial of Jesus: The Jewish and Roman Proceedings against
Jesus Christ Described and Assessed from the Oldest Accounts. Westminster:
Newman, 1959.

Boers, H. Who Was Jesus? The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

Booth, R. Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition, History, and Legal History
in Mark 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

Borg, M. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus. New York:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

-. Jesus: A New Vision Spirit: Culture, and the Life of Discipleship. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.

-. "An Orthodoxy Reconsidered: The End of the World Jesus'." In The Glory of
Christ in the New Testament. Ed. L. D. Hurst et al., 207-17. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1987.
-. "A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus." SBL Seminar Papers
25 (1986): 521-35.

Boring, M. E. "How May We Identify Oracles of Christian Prophets in the

Synoptic Tradition? Mark 3:28-29 as a Test Case." JBL 91 (1972): 501-21.

Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Borsch, F. H. The Son of Man in Myth and History. London: SCM Press, 1%7.

Bowker, J. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1973.

Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester: Manchester University

Press, 1967.

-. "Jesus and the Zealots: A Correction." NTS 17 (1970-71): 453.

Braun, H. Spatjudisch-Haretischer and fruhchristlicher Radikalismus. Vol. 2.

Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1956.

Breech, J. The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Brown, R. E. "After Bultmann, What? An Introduction to the Post-

Bultmannians." CBQ 26 (1964): 1-30.

-. "Did Jesus Know He was God?" BTB 15 (1985): 74-79.

New Testament Essays. Garden City: Image Books, 1968.

Bruce, F. F. "The Background to the Son of Man Sayings." In Christ the Lord:
Studies in Christology Presented to D. Guthrie, 50-70. London: InterVarsity
Press, 1982.

-. 'The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative." BJRL 43 (1%1): 336-53.
-. "Render to Caesar." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Ed. E. Bammel and
C. F. D. Moule, 249-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Buchanan, G. W. The Consequences of the Covenant. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970.

-. Jesus the King and His Kingdom. Macon: Mercer, 1984.

Buechner, F. The Life of Jesus. New York: Weathervane Books, 1974.

Bultmann, R. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2d ed. Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1931.

------- The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Trans. J. Marsh. Oxford: B.

Blackwell, 1963.

------- Das Verhaltnis der urchristlichen Christenbotschaft zum historischen

Jesus. Heidelberg: Kerle, 1960.

Burney, C. F. The Poetry of Our Lord-An Examination of the Formal Elements

of Hebrew Poetry in the Discourses of Jesus Christ. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1925.

Caird, G. B. Jesus and the Jewish Nation. London: Athlone Press, 1965.

------- "Uncomfortable Words. 2: Shake off the Dust from Your Feet (Mk.
6:11)." ET 81 (1969-70): 40-43.

Carlston, C. E. "Wisdom and Eschatology." In Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus-The

Sayings of Jesus: Memorial Joseph Coppens. Ed. J. Delobel, 101-19.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982.

Carmignac, J. Christ and the Teacher of Righteousness: The Evidence of the

Dead Sea Scrolls. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1962.

Casey, M. "General, Generic and the Indefinite: The Use of the Term 'Son of
Man' in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus." JSNT 29 (1987): 21-
56.
------- 'The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt. 8:20/Luke 9:58)." JSNT 23
(1985): 3-22.

Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK,

1979.

Catchpole, D. "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. 26:64)." NTS 17

(1970-71): 213-26.

------- "John the Baptist, Jesus and the Parable of the Tares." SJT 31 (1978):
557-70.

------- The Trial of Jesus. SPB 18. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.

------- 'The 'Triumphal' Entry." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 319-24.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Charles, R. H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913.

Charlesworth, J. H. "From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology:

Some Caveats and Perspectives." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn
of the Christian Era. Ed. J. Neusner et al., 225-64. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.

------- Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological

Discoveries. New York: Doubleday, 1988.

------- The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden

City: Doubleday, 1983-85.

Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1979.

Chilton, B. D. A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus' Use of the Interpreted
Scripture of His Day. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984.
------- "Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21-28." In Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 6,
The Miracles of Jesus. Ed. D. Wenham and C. Blomberg, 253-71. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1986.

------- God in Strength: Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom. Freistadt:

Verlag F. Plochl, 1979.

------- "Jesus and Judaism." JBL 106 (1987): 537-39.

Chilton, B. D., and McDonald, J. 1. H. Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Christ, F. Jesus Sophia: Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern. Zurich:

Zwingli Verlag, 1970.

Collins, A. Y. "The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source." Paper

presented at SBL, December 1986.

Collins, J. J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. New York: Crossroad, 1984.

------- "The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of
Daniel." JBL 93 (1974): 50-66.

Comber, J. A. "The Composition and Literary Characteristics of Matt 11:20-

24." CBQ 39 (1977): 497-504.

Conzelmann, H. Jesus. Trans. J. R. Lord; ed. J. Reumann. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1973.

Cook, M. J. "Jesus and the Pharisees-the Problem as It Stands Today." Journal

of Ecumenical Studies 15 (1978): 441-60.

Coppens, J. "Ou en est le problcme de Jesus 'fils de l'homme'." ETL 56 (1980):

282-302.

Cothenet, D. "Prophetisme clans le Nouveau Testament." In Supplement au

Diction- naire de la Bible, 8:1285-86. Paris: Ceffonds, 1972.
Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Baptism of Our Lord-A Study of Mark 1.9-11" SJT8
(1955): 53-63.

Crenshaw, J. L. "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon 'Historical'

Literature." JBL 88 (1969): 129-42.

Crossan, J. D. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York:

Harper & Row, 1973.

Cullmann, O. Christology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1963.

------- Jesus and the Revolutionaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

Dahl, N. A. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg

Publishing House, 1976.

Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Daly, R. J. "The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac." CBQ 39

(1977): 45-75.

Danby, H., ed. The Mishnah. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Daube, D. Ancient Jewish Law. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981.

------- The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone Press,
1956.

------- "Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels." NTS 19

(1972): 1-15.

Davids, P. H. "The Gospels and Jewish Tradition: Twenty Years after

Gerhardsson." In Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the
Four Gospels. Vol. 1. Ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham, 75-100. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1980.

Davies, W. D. "From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi."

JBL 95 (1976): 529-58.
------- The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

------- "Reflexions on Tradition: The Aboth Revisited." In Christian History

and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Ed. W. R. Farmer et al.,
127-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

------- The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1976.

------- Torah in the Messianic Age and/or Age to Come. Philadelphia: SBL
Literature, 1957.

Davis, J. A. Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of I Corinthians 1:13-3:20

against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman
Period. New York: University Press of America, 1984.

Deissler, A. "Der 'Menschensohn' and 'das Volk der Heiligen des Hochsten' in
Daniel 7." In Jesus and der Menschensohn. Ed. R. Pesch et al., 81-91.
Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. Trans. L. R. M. Strachan. Reprint.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978.

de Jonge, M. Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988.

-. "The Earliest Christian Use of Christos." NTS 32 (1986): 321-43.

_."The Use of the Word 'Anointed' in the Time of Jesus." NovTest 8

(1966):132-0.

Delling, G. "Gepragte Jesus-Tradition im Urchristentum." Communio

Viatorum 4 (1%1): 59-71.

Derrett, J. D. M. "Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt."

NovTest 13 (1971): 241-58.
-. "The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple." Downside Review
95 (1977): 55-86.

Dibelius, M. Die Formgeschichte der Evangelien. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,

1971.

-. From Tradition to Gospel. 2d ed. Trans. B. L. Wolf. London: Ivor Nicholson

and Watson, 1934.

Di Lella, A. A. "The One in Human Likeness and the Holy One of the Most
High in Daniel 7." CBQ 39 (1977): 1-19.

Dodd, C. H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1963.

-. 'Jesus as Teacher and Prophet." Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by

British and German Theologians, 53-66. London: Longmans, Green & Co.,
1930.

"The Kingdom of God Has Come." ET 48 (1936-37): 138-42.

-. More New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press,

1968.

-. The Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Scribners, 1%1.

Downing, G. "The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or

Reconstruction." NTS 33 (1987): 439-51.

Duling, D. C. "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David." HTR 68 (1975):

235-52.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,

1970.

-. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the
Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980.
-. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of
Jesus and the First Century Christians as Reflected in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

-. "Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20-A Word of Jesus?" In Eschatology and the New

Testament: Essays in Honor of G. R. Beasley-Murray. Ed. W. H. Gloer, 29-
49. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988.

-. 'The Messianic Secret in Mark." In The Messianic Secret. Ed. C. Tuckett,

116-31. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

-. "Pharisees, Sinners and Jesus." Lecture at Duke University, 1986.

-. "Prophetic 'I'-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing

Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity." NTS 24 (1977-78): 175-98.

Eisler, R. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist. Trans. A. H. Krappee. New
York: Dial Press, 1931.

Ellis, E. E. "New Directions in Form Criticism." In Jesus Christus in Historie

and Theologie, Neutestamentliche Festschrift fur Hans Conzelmann zum 60.
Geburtstag. Ed. G. Strecker, 299-315. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975.

Eppstein, V. "The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the

Temple." ZNW 55 (1964): 42-58.

Ernst, J. Anfange der Christologie. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1972.

Farmer, W. R. Jesus and the Gospel: Tradition, Canon, and Scripture.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

------- "The Palm Branches in John 12, 13." JTS n.s. 3.1 (1952): 62-66.

Ferguson, E. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1987.

Fitzmyer, J. A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Cave 1: A Commentary. Rome:

Biblical Institute Press, 1971.
------- "Methodology in the Study of the Aramaic Substratum of Jesus' Sayings
in the New Testament." In Jesus aux origines de la Christologie. Ed. J.
Dupont, 73-102. Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1975.

---. "Son of David and Mt. 22:41-46." Essays on the Semitic Background of
the New Testament, 113-26. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974.

Flusser, D. Jesus. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969.

------- -Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. 7:1." Israel Exploration Journal 9
(1959): 99-109.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1970.

"Old Testament Prophecy and the Future of Israel: a Study of the Teaching of
Jesus." TynB 26 (1975): 53-78.

Fredricksen, P. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament

Images of Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Freyne, S. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (323 B.C.E. to 135
C.E. ). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press/Michael Glazier, 1980.

------- Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical
Investigations. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York:

Scribners, 1965.

Interpreting the Miracles. London: SCM Press, 1963.

------- The Mission and Achievement of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1954.

Funk, R. "Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: The Parable of the Leaven."

Int 25 (1971): 149-70.

Language, Hermeneutic, and the Word of God. New York: Harper & Row,
1966.
Gardner, R. B. Jesus' Appraisal of John the Baptist: An Analysis of the
Sayings of Jesus Concerning John the Baptist in the Synoptic Tradition.
Bamberg: Theol. Fak., 1973.

George, A. "Paroles de Jesus sur ses miracles (Mt. 11:5-21; 12:27-28 et par)."
In Jesus aux origines de la Christologie. Ed. J. Dupont, 283-301. Gembloux:
Leuven University Press, 1975.

Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript-Oral Tradition and Written

Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup, 1964.

The Origins of the Gospel Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

------- Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Lund: C. W. K.

Gleerup, 1961.

-. "Der Weg der Evangelientradition." In Das Evangelium and die Evangelien:

Vor- trage vom Tubinger Symposium 1982. WUNT 28. Ed. P. Stuhlmacher,
79-102. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983.

Gill, J. H. "Jesus, Irony and the New Quest." Encounter 41 (1980): 139-51.

Glasson, T. F. Jesus and the End of the World. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press,
1980.

-. "The Son of Man Imagery: Enoch 14 and Daniel 7." NTS 23 (1977): 82-90.

Goergen, D. J. The Mission and Ministry of Jesus. Wilmington: Michael

Glazier, 1986.

Grant, F. C. "The Economic Significance of Messianism." Anglican

Theological Review 6 (1924): 196-213; 7 (1925): 281-89.

Gray, J. "The Day of Yahweh in Cultic Experience and Eschatological

Prospect." Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 39 (1974): 5-37.

Grudem, W. "The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians." Ph.D. Dias., University

of Cambridge, 1978.
Guelich, R. Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco,
Tex.: Word Publishing, 1982.

Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel-with

Special Reference to Messianic Hope. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1%7.

Guttgemanns, E. Candid Questions Concerning Form Criticism: A

Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and
Redaction Criticism. Trans. W. G. Doty. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1979.

Hahn, F. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity.

Trans. H. Knight and G. Ogg. New York: World Publishing Co., 1%9.

Hamilton, N. Q. "Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank." JBL 83 (1964): 365-

72.

Harnack, A. von "'Ich bin gekommen': Die ausdrucklichen Selbstzeugnisse

Jesu fiber den Zweck seiner Sendung and seines Kommens." ZTK 22 (1912):
1-30.

Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1982.

Hase, K. A. von. Die Geschichte Jesu. 2d ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel,
1876.

Hasler, V. Amen. Zurich: Gotthelf, 1%9.

Havener, I. QThe Sayings of Jesus, With a Reconstruction of Q by A. Polag.

Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Hempel, J. "Amen." IDB 1:105.

Hengel, M. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Trans. J. Bowden.

London: SCM, 1979.

-. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Trans. J. Grieg. New York:
Crossroad, 1981.
"Christologie and neutestamentliche Chronologie." In Neues Testament and
Geschichte. Festschrift fur O. Cullmann, 43-67. Tubingen: 1. C. B. Mohr
[Siebeck], 1972.

-----. "Jesus als messianischer Lehrer der Weisheit and die Anfange der
Christo- logie." Sagesse et Religion (1979): 148-88.

"Jesus and die Tora." Theologische Beitrage 9 (1978): 152-72.

-. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

"Reviews." JSemS 14 (1%9): 231-40.

-. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-
Hellenistic Religion. Trans. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

-. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

-. Die Zeloten. 2d ed. Leiden/Koln: E. J. Brill, 1976.

Higgins, A. J. B. Jesus and the Son of Man. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.

"Menschensohn oder 'ich' in Q Lk.12,8-9IMt. 10,32-33." In Jesus and der

Menschensohn. Ed. R. Pesch et al., 117-23. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

-. The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1980.

Hill, D. H. New Testament Prophecy. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,

1979.

-. "Toward an Understanding of the 'Kingdom of God."' Irish Biblical Studies 3

(1981): 62-76.

Holladay, C. H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism. Missoula: Scholars Press,

1977.

Hooker, M. D. "Is the Son of Man Problem Really Insoluble?" In Text and
Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black.
 Ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson, 155-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979.

-. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1%7.

Horbury, W. "The Temple Tax." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 265-86.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Horsley, R. A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in

Roman Palestine. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.

-. The Sociology of the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989.

Horsley, R. A., and Hanson, J. S. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular

Movements at the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985.

Hoskyns, E., and Davey, N. The Riddle of the New Testament. London: Faber
& Faber, 1958.

Howard, V. Das Ego Jesu in den Synoptischen Evangelien: Unterschungen

zum Sprach- gebrauch Jesu. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1975.

Hull, J. M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. Naperville: Allenson,

1974.

Hunter, A. M. "Crux Criticorum-Matt. 11:25-30-A Reappraisal." NTS 3 (1%1-

62): 241-49.

Hurtado, L. W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient
Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Isaac, E. "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch." OTP 1:6-7.

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1%9.

-. Jesus als Weltvollender. Gutersloh: E. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1930.

-. Jesus' Promise to the Nations. London: SCM, 1958.

-. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Scribner's,
1971.

"Paarweise Sendung im Neuen Testament." In New Testament Essays: Studies

in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1893-1958. Ed. A. J. B. Higgins, 136-43.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959.

-. The Parables of Jesus. 2d ed. New York: Scribners, 1963.

-. The Prayers of Jesus. Trans C. Burchard et al. Naperville: Allenson, 1%7.

Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,

1980.

Johnson, M. D. "Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew's

Christology." CBQ 36 (1974): 44-64.

Juel, D. Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.

Juster, J. Les juifs dons l'Empire Romain: Leur condition juridique,

konomique, et sociale 1. Paris: Geuthner, 1914.

Kasemann, E. The Testament of Jesus according to John 17. Translated by G.

Krodel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.

Keck, L. E. A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of Jesus in Preaching
and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

------- "Mark 3:7-12 and Mark's Christology." JBL 84 (1965): 341-58.

Kee, H. C. Miracle in the Early Christian World. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983.

Kelber, W. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking
and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1983.
Kim, S. "Jesus-The Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant:
The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Identification of Jesus" In Tradition and
Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis. Ed.
G. F. Hawthorne with 0. Betz, 134-48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

------- The Son of Man as the Son of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Kingdon, H. P. "Who were the Zealots and their Leaders in A.D. 66?" NTS 17
(1970-71): 68-72.

Klappert, B. "King, Kingdom." DNTT 2:373.

Klassen, W. "Jesus and Phineas: a Rejected Role Model." SBL Seminar

Papers, 490-500. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From its Beginning to the

Completion of the Mishnah. Trans. W. F. Stinespring. New York: Macmillan,
1955.

Kuhn, K. H. "Basileus." TDNT 1:570-73.

Kiimmel, W. G. Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of

Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1957.

Ladd, G. E. The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lane, Mark. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lapide, P. "Insights from Qumran into the Languages of Jesus." Revue de

Qumran 8.4 (1975): 483-501.

Lapide, P., and Luz, U. Jesus in Two Perspectives: A Jewish-Christian Dialog.

Trans. L. W. Denef. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

Latourelle, R. "Authenticit6 historique des miracles de Jesus: Essai de

criteriologie." Gregorianum 54 (1973): 225-62.

Lattke, M. "On the Jewish Background of the Synoptic Concept." In The

Kingdom of God. Ed. B. D. Chilton, 72-91. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
 1984.

Leivestad, R. Jesus in His Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings,

Actions, and Eschatological Titles. Trans. D. E. Aune. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1987.

Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduceens. Paris: Gabalda Press, 1972.

Lindars, B. "Enoch and Christology." ET 92 (1980-81): 295-99.

------- "Jesus and the Pharisees." Donum Gentilicium. Ed. C. K. Barrett et al.,
51-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

------- 'Jesus as Advocate: A Contribution to the Christology Debate" BJRL 62

(1980): 476-97.

------- Jesus-Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in

the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

------- -Response to Richard Bauckham: The Idiomatic Use of Bar Enasha."

JSNT 23 (1985): 35-41.

Linnemann, E. "Jesus and der Taufer." Festschrift fur Ernst Fuchs. Ed. G.
Ebeling et al., 219-36. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973.

Lohfink, G. Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith.

Trans. J. P. Galvin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Lohse, E., ed. Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebraisch and Deutsch. Munchen:
Kosel-Verlag, 1971.

Longenecker, R. N. "The Messianic Secret in the Light of Recent

Discoveries." EvQ 41 (1969): 207-15.

Lord, A. B. "The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature." In The Relationships

among the Gospels. Ed. W. O. Walker, 33-91. San Antonio: Trinity
University Press, 1978.
------- The Singer of Tales. HSCL 24. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1960.

------- Slavic Folklore: A Symposium. Philadelphia: American Folklore

Society, 1956.

Luhrmann, D. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WANT Monograph 33.

Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukircher Verlag, 1969.

Luz, U. "The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology." In The Messianic
Secret. Ed. C. Tuckett, 75-96. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Maag, V. "Malkut JHWH." In Congress Volume, Oxford 1959: Supplements to

Vetus Testamentum VII. Ed. G. W. Anderson et al., 129-53. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1960.

McEleney, N. J. "Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23." CBQ 34 (1972):

431-60.

Malina, B. J. "Jesus as Charismatic Leader." BTB 13 (1983): 55-62.

------- The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology.

Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.

Manek, J. "Fishers of Men." NovTest 2 (1958): 138-41.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1957.

------- The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1950.

------- Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. London: SCM, 1%2.

------. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935.

Marshall, I. H. "The Divine Sonship of Jesus." Int 21 (1967): 87-103.

------- The Origins of New Testament Christology. Downer's Grove:

InterVarsity Press, n.d.
------. "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion." NTS 12
(1965-66): 327-51.

Merkel, H. "Zealots." 1DB Supp. 979-82.

Merklein, H. "Die Umkehrpredigt bei Johannes dem Taufer and Jesus." BZ 25

(1981): 129-46.

Meye, R. P. Jesus and the Twelve: Discipleship and Revelation in Mark's

Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979.

Meyers, E. M. "Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical

Reconstruction." BASOR 221 (1976): 93-101.

Meyers, E. M., and Strange, J. F. Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early

Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981.

Michaels, J. R. Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1981.

Moore, E. "BIADZO, HARPADZO and Cognates in Josephus." NTS 21

(1974-75): 519-43.

Morgan, R. "The Historical Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament." In
The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. Ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright,
187-206. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Moule, C. F. D. "The Gravamen against Jesus." In Jesus, the Gospels, and the
Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer. Ed. E. P. Sanders, 177-95.
Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988.

-. "Neglected Features in the Problem of 'the Son of Man."' In Neues

Testament undKirche: FurRudolf Schnackenburg. Ed. J. Gnilka, 413-28.
Freiburg: Herder, 1974.

-. The Origins of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

-. The Phenomenon of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1%7.

Mowinckel, S. He That Cometh. Trans. G. W. Anderson. Nashville: Abingdon,

1954.

Muller, K. "Der Menschensohn im Danielzyklus." In Jesus and der

Menschensohn. Ed. R. Pesch et al., 37-80. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

Muller, M. "Ober den Ausdruck 'Menschensohn' in den Evangelien." Studia

Theologica 31 (1977): 65-82.

Muller, P. Der Traditionsprozess im Neuen Testament:

Kommunikationsanalytische Studien zur Versprachlichung des
Jesusphanomens. Freiburg: Herder, 1982.

Mussner, F. "Gottesherrschaft and Sendung Jesu nach Mk. 1:14 f." In

Pnusentia Salutis: Gesammelte Studien zu Fragen and Themen des Neuen
Testamentes. Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1%7.

Naveh, J. "A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C." IEJ 10 (1960):
129-39.

Neirynck, J. The Miracle Stories in the Acts of the Apostles." In Evangelica:

Gospel Studies-Etudes DEvangile, 835-80. Leuven: Leuven University Press,
1982.

Neugebauer, F. "Die Davidssohnfrage (Mark 12:35-37 parr.) and der

Menschensohn." NTS 21 (1974-75): 81-104.

Neusner, J. Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1984.

-. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. Vol. 3. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1971.

Nicholson, E. W. "The Meaning of the Expression Am Ha Aretz in the Old

Testament." JSemS 10 (1965): 59-65.
Nickelsburg, G. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

---. "Books of Enoch." CBQ 40 (1978): 411-18.

Oepke, A. "Bapto." TDNT 1:530, 538.

O'Neill, J. C. Messiah: Six Lectures on the Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge:

Cochrane Press, 1980.

Oppenheimer, A. The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the

Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Overman, J. A. "Who were the First Urban Christians? Urbanization in Galilee

in the First Century." In SBL 1988 Seminar Papers. Ed. D. J. Lull, 160-68.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Page, S. H. T. "The Authenticity of the Ransom Logion (Mark 10:45b)." In

Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels I.
Ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham, 137-61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.

Payne, P. B. "The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and its

Application." In Gospel Perspectives. Ed. R. T. France, 163-207. Sheffield;
JSOT Press, 1980.

-. "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables." Trinity Journal 2 n.s.

(1981): 3-23.

------- "Metaphor as a Model for Interpreting the Parables of Jesus." Ph.D.

Diss., Cambridge University, 1975.

Pelikan, J. Jesus through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Perrin, N. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in
New Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

"Mark 14:62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?" NTS 13

(1965-66): 150-55.
Perspectives on Christology. Symposium Papers, Florida Southern College,
March 1988, Nashville: Exodus Press, 1989.

Pesch, R. Anfang des Evangeliums Jesu Christi: Eine Studie zum Prolog des
Markusevangeliums (Mk. 1:1-15), Die Zeit Jesu. Ed. G. Bornkamm and K.
Rahner. Freiburg-Basel: Herder, 1970.

------- "Der Anspruch Jesu." Orienterung 35 (1971): 53-56.

------- "Die Passion des Menschensohnes: Eine Studie zu den

Menschensohnworten der vormarkinischen Passionsgeschichte." In Jesus and
der Menschensohn, 166-95. Freiburg: Herder, 1975.

Piper, R. Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Polkow, D. "Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research." In Society of

Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers 26. Ed. K. H. Richards, 336-56.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Pokorny, P. The Genesis of Christology: Foundations for a Theology of the

New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987.

Pusey, K. "Jewish Proselyte Baptism." ET 95 (1984): 141-45.

Raisanen, H. Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium. Helsinki: Lansi

Suomi, 1976.

Reese, J. M. "Christ as Wisdom Incarnate: Wiser than Solomon, Loftier than

Lady Wisdom." BTB 11 (1981): 44-47.

Reicke, B. "The Historical Setting of John's Baptism." In Jesus, the Gospels,

and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R. Farmer. Ed. E. P. Sanders,
209-24. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988.

Rengstorf, K. "apostolos." TDNT 1:414ff.

"lestes." TDNT 4:259.

Riches, J. Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism. New York: Seabury Press,
1982.

Riesenfeld, H. The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits
of "Formgeschichte." London: A. R. Mowbray, 1957.

Riesner, R. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der

Evangelien- LJberlieferung, WUNT 2.7. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981.

"Der Ursprung der Jesus-Uberlieferung." TZ 38.6 (1982): 493-513.

Rivkin, E. "Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Source." Hebrew Union

College Annual 40 (1%9): 205-49.

---. 'Pharisees." 1DB Suppl. 657-63.

Robbins, V. Jesus the Teacher. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Robinson, J. M. "'Logoi Sophon': On the Gattung of Q." In Trajectories

through Early Christianity. Ed. J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, 71-113.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Robinson, W. C. "The Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah." In The Messianic

Secret. Ed. C. Tuckett, 97-115. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Rogerson, J. 'The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-

examination." ITS n.s. 21 (1970): 1-16.

Roloff, J. "Die Anfange der Soteriologischen Deutung des Todes Jesus (Mk.
10:45 and Lk. 22:27)." NTS 19 (1972-73): 38-64.

-. Das Kerygma and der irdische Jesus: Historische Motive in den Jesus-
Erzahlungen der Evangelien. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970.

Roth, C. The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah." NovTest 4 (1960): 174-
81.

Rowe, R. D. "Is Daniel's Son of Man' Messianic?" In Christ the Lord: Studies
in Christology Presented to D. Guthrie, 71-%. London: InterVarsity Press,
 1982.

Rowland, C. Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian

Religion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

-. "Sander's Jesus." New Blackfriar's 66 (1985): 412-17.

Safrai, S. "The Teaching of the Pietists in Mishnaic Literature." JJS 16 (1965):

15-33.

St. J. Hart, H. "The Coin of 'Render unto Caesar ...' (A note on some aspects of
Mark 12:13-17; Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26)." In Jesus and the Politics of
His Day, 241-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Saldarini, A. J. "Political and Social Roles of the Pharisees and the Scribes in
Galilee." SBL 1988 Seminar Papers. Ed. D. J. Lull, 200-9. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1988.

Salomonsen, B. "Some Remarks on the Zealots with Special Regard to the

Term 'Qannaim' in Rabbinic Literature." NTS 13 (1965-66): 164-76.

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

-. "Jesus and the Kingdom: the Restoration of Israel and the New People of
God." In Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church: Essays in Honor of William R.
Farmer. Ed. E. P. Sanders, 225-39. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988.

-. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion.

London: SCM, 1977.

The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTS Monograph 9. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1%9.

Schafer, P. Studien zur Geschichte and Theologie der Rabbinischen

Judentums. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978.

Schillebeeckx, E. Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. New York: Vintage

Press, 1981.
Schlosser, J. Le R2gne de Dieu dans in Dits de Jesus. Paris: Gabalda Press,
1980.

Schnackenburg, R. Cones Herrschaft and Reich: Eine biblische theologische

Studie. Freiburg: Herder, 1959.

-. God's Rule and Kingdom. Trans. J. Murray. Edinburgh: Nelson, 1963.

Scholem, G. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish

Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

Schiirer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 2.
Revised by G. Vermes et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.

Schiirmann, H. Das Geheimnis Jesu. Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag GMBH, 1972.

-. "Mt. 10:5b-6 and die Vorgeschichte des synoptischen Aussendungberichtes."

In Neutestamentliche Aufsatze. Ed. J. Blinzler, 270-82. Regensburg: Pustet,
1963.

-. "Die Symbolhandlung Jesu als Eschatologische Erfullungszeichen: Eine

Ruck- frage nach dem irdischen Jesus." In Das Geheimnis Jesu, 270-82.
Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972.

Ursprung and Gestalt: Eroterungen and Besinnungen zum Neuen Testament.

Dusseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1970.

....... "Die Vorosterlichen Anfange der Logientradition-Versuch eines Form-

geschichtlichen Zugangs zum Leben Jesu." In Traditions-geschichtliche
Untersuchungen zu den Synoptischen Evangelien, 39-65. Dusseldorf: Patmos
Verlag, 1968.

---. "Wie hat Jesus seinen Tod bestanden and verstanden? Eine
methodenkritische Besinnung." In Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der
Synoptiker. Ed. P. Hoffmann, 325-63. Freiburg: Herder, 1973.

Schweitzer, A. The Quest for the Historical Jesus. Trans. W. Montgomery.

New York: Macmillan, 1%1.
Schweizer, E. Jesus Christ: The Man from Nazareth and the Exalted Lord. Ed.
by H. Gloer. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.

Scott, R. B. Y. "Behold, He Cometh with Clouds." NTS 5 (1955-56): 127-32.

Segal, A. F. "The Cost of Proselytism and Conversion." In SBL 1988 Seminar

Papers. Ed. D. J. Lull, 336-69. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Segundo, J. Luis. The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics. Trans. J. Drury.

Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985.

Senior, D. "Jesus and Judaism." CBQ 48 (1986): 569-71.

Sevenster, J. N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First
Jewish Christians Have Known? Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Sjoberg, E. Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien. Lund: C. W. K.

Gleerup, 1955.

Smallwood, E. M. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian.

Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.

Smith, C. E. F. "Fishers of Men: Footnotes on a Gospel Figure." HTR 52

(1959): 187-203.

Smith, D. "Jesus and the Pharisees in Socio-Anthropological Perspective."

Trinity Journal 6 n.s. (1985): 151-56.

-. "Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John." ResQ 25 (1982): 13-
32.

Smith, M. "Jesus and the Zealots: a Correction." NTS 17 (1970-71): 453.

Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

-. "The Origins of the Zealots." NTS 19 (1972-73): 74-81.

-. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century." In Israel: Its Role in Civilization.
Ed. M. David, 67-81. New York: Harper & Row, 1956.

-. "Review of Dunn's Jesus and the Spirit." JAAR 44 (1976): 726.

"Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation." HTR 64 (1971): 1-19.

Stanton, G. N. "On the Christology of Q." In Christ and the Spirit in the New
Testament: Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule. Ed. B. Lindars and S.
Smalley, 27-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Stone, M. E. "Judaism at the Time of Christ." Scientific American 115 (1973):

79-87.

Stuhlmacher, P. "Existenzstellvertretung fur die Vielen: Mk. 10:45 (Mt.

20:28)." In Werden and Wirken des AT. Claus Westermann Festschrift, 412-
27. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980.

Jesus von Nazareth -Christus des Glaubens. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1988.

Suggs, M. J. Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1970.

Suter, D. W. "Ecclesiasticus." In Harper's Bible Dictionary. Edited by P. J.

Achtemeier, 237-38. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Taylor, V. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1933.

Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of tAe

Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1979.

------- The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Trans. F.

McDonagh. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

------- The Shadow of the Galilean. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

------- "Die Tempelweissagung Jesu: Prophetie im Spannungsfeld von Stadt

and Land." TZ 32 (1976): 144-58.
------- "Wanderradikalismus: Literatursoziologische Aspekte der Uberlieferung
von Worten Jesu in Urchristientum." ZTK 70 (1973): 245-71.

Tiede, D. L. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Missoula: Scholars

Press, 1972.

Twelftree, G. H. "Ekballo to Daimonia." In Gospel Perspectives 6. Ed. D.

Wenham and C. Blomberg, 361-400. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

van lersel, B. M. F. 'Der Sohn' in den synoptischen Jesusworten. Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1964.

Van Tilberg, S. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.

Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. Middlesex: Penguin,
1965.

------- Jesus and the World of Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

------- Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels. London: Collins,
1973.

------- Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Leiden: E. J.

Brill, 1961.

Vogtle, A. "Bezeugt die Logienquelle die Authentische Redeweise Jesu vom

'Menschensohn'?" In Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus -The Sayings of Jesus,
Memorial to Joseph Coppens. Ed. J. Delobel, 77-99. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1982.

Wachter, L. "Judische and christlicher Messianismus." Kairos 18 (1976): 119-

34.

Wallace, A. F. C. "Revitalization Movements." In Reader in Comparative

Religion: An Anthropological Approach. 3d ed. Ed. W. A. Lessa and E. Z.
Vogt, 503-12. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

Weber, M. Economy and Society. Trans. G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1968.
Wells, D. F. The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the
Incarnation. Westchester: Crossway Book, 1984.

Westerholm, S. Jesus and Scribal Authority. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1978.

Wilken, R. L. John Chrysostom and the Jews. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1983.

Windisch, H. Imperium and Evangelium. Kiel: Lipsius and Tischer, 1931.

Wink, W. "Jesus and the Revolution: Reflections on S. G. F. Brandon's Jesus

and the Zealots." USQR 25 (1969): 37-59.

------- John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1968.

Witherington, B. "On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and
Other Disciples: Luke 8:1-3." ZNW 70 (1979): 242-48.

------- "Principles for Interpreting the Gospels and Acts." Ashland Theological
Journal 19 (1987): 35-70.

------- "Women and Their Roles in the Gospels and Acts." Ph.D. Diss.,
University of Durham, 1981.

------- Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1988.

------- Women in the Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1984.

Woods, H. G. "Interpreting This Time." NTS 2 (1956): 262-66.

Wrede, W. The Messianic Secret. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1971.

Wright, N. T. "'Constraints' and the Jesus of History." SIT 39 (1986): 189-210.

Wuellner, W. H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1967.
Yamauchi, E. "Magic or Miracle? Disease, Demons, and Exorcisms." In
Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 6, The Miracles of Jesus. Ed. D. Wenham and C.
Blomberg, 89-183. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.