Chapter 352 of 404

Notes to Chapter 14

1 With e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 139-40. Cf. also others, e.g., Giesen, Herrschaft.

2 I am grateful for dialogue with Richard Horsley on this topic, which helped clarify my thinking. As we have observed, ancient historiography and biography could have political as well as theological agendas; that many of Jesus’ followers during his own ministry had both agendas (and did not readily separate them) seems quite likely.

3 Pace Mack, though the kingdom is not dominant by that language in early Jewish texts, it is frequent (see Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240-69; Chilton, “Kingdom,” esp. 280; idem, “Regnum”; cf. Vermes, Religion, 127-30; Neusner, “Kingdom,” acknowledging its subordinate function). The idea is pervasive, and the language is present.

4 Frequently acknowledged, e.g., Dodd, Parables, 34; Perrin, Teaching, 24; Betz, Jesus, 33; Boring et al., Commentary, 54; see especially Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:240-43; but contrast Aalen, “Reign.”

5 E.g., m. Ber. 2:2; Sipra A.M. pq. 13.194.2.1; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Sipre Deut. 313.1.3; 323.1.2; tos. B.K. 7:5; see Bonsirven, Judaism, 176; cf. Ps 145:2; 146:10. Reciting the Shema accepted this yoke (m. Ber. 2:2; b. Ber. 61b; Deut. Rab. 2:31).

6 E.g., Is 9:6-7; 24:23; 52:7; Zech 14:9; Wisd 5:16 (even despite its hellenistic approach); Jub. 1:28; Ps. Sol. 17:5; 2 Bar. 73:1; Sib. Or. 3.767; 4Q246 col. 2, line 5; 4Q554 Col. 3, lines 14-21, especially 20-21; Test. Mos. 10:1; Mek. Shir. 10.42-45; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.3; Tg. Is. on 40:9. Pace Crossan, this kingdom belongs more to an apocalyptic than a sapiential frame of reference (Freyne, Galilean, 136-37). For further data, cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:423; 2:309; Bonsirven, Judaism, 176-77; Laurin, “Immortality”; Young, Parables, 193; Tg. on Ezek 7:7, 10 in Boring et al., Commentary, 53.

7 See e.g., Oesterley, Liturgy, 65, 70.

8 E.g., Dan 4:26; 3 Macc. 4:21; 1 En. 6:2; 1QM 12.5; Rom 1:18; Lk 15:18; m. Ab. 1:3; tos. B.K. 7:5; Sipra Behuq. pq. 6. 267.2.1; Sipre Deut. 79.1.1; 96.2.2.

9 E.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; p. Kid. 1:2, §24; Matt passim. This is commonly pointed out, both by scholars of Judaism (e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 7; Marmorstein, Names, 93; Moore, Judaism, 1:119) and by NT scholars (e.g., Goppelt, Theology, 1:44).

10 E.g., Test. Ab. 8:3, A; Tg. Is. on 40:9.

11 Witherington, Christology, 242.

12 With e.g., Niskanen, “Kingdoms”; Witherington, Christology, 242; Evans, “Daniel’s Visions.”

13 Some view the fourth beast as Greek but Rome as partaking in it (Caragounis, “Culture”), but the view may depend on the interpreters’ period. Cf. the Kittim, who in at least the earliest Qumran scrolls might be pre-Roman enemies (Rowley, “Kittim”; Avi-Yonah, “War,” 5; Treves, “Date,” 420; Michel, Maître), though many take the Scrolls’ Kittim as Romans (Rabin, “Jannaeus”; Burrows, Scrolls, 123-142; idem, More Light, 194-203; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 167-68; Charlesworth, Pesharim, 109- 10; Bolotnikov, “War”; Vermes, “Elements”; cf. the redactional approach in Eshel, “Sny”), quite plausibly (cf. 4QpNah 1.3; 1QpHab 3.11; 4Q161, frg. 8, 9, 10; 4Q491 A frg. 10, col. 2, lines 8-12; frg. 13, line 5); some take them more generally (Carmignac, “Kittim” [though originally Macedonians]; North, “War,” 86-87; Van der Ploeg, Rouleau, 24-25; Gaster, Scriptures, 388), most plausibly (1QM 1.2, 4, 6; 11.11; 15.2; 18.2-3; perhaps 1QpHab 2.12-14; 3.4, 9; 4.5). The meaning could vary among documents depending on their date (Yadin, Scroll of War, 25).

14 On the four kingdoms, see 4Q554 col. 3, lines 14-21; 2 Bar. 39:5-7; 4 Ezra 12:11; Sib. Or. 8.6-11; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:2; p. Taan. 2:5, §1; Song Rab. 7:1, §1; Midr. Teh. on Ps 40, §4; Collins, “Eschatologies,” 330-31; for early Christian readings, note especially Pfandl, “Interpretations.” Cf. the similar Hellenistic-Roman perspective in Mendels, “Five Empires”; and, more relevantly, four ages of metals from Hesiod to Persian sources and Daniel (Lucas, “Origin”).

15 With e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 146-48, 151-54, 231-32; Allison, “Eschatology”; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:289-397; cf. Burkitt, Sources, 69; Schweitzer, Quest, 223-397.

16 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 43.

17 So e.g., Dodd, Parables; Jeremias, Parables; Young, Parables, 221; Vermes, Religion, 147-49; Borg, Conflict, 249; see also Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:398-506.

18 E.g., Kümmel, Promise, 19-25; Black, Aramaic Approach, 208-11; Nineham, Mark, 69; cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 117.

19 E.g., Dodd, Parables, 44; Argyle, Matthew, 42; though cf. Matt 21:34.

20 Cf. Mk 14:42; see France, Matthew, 90. Somewhat analogous warnings in biblical prophets (Is 13:6, 9; Ezek 30:3; Joel 1:15; 3:14; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14) may connote a prophetic eschatological enthusiasm, but in context can also indicate that nearer judgments foreshadow the imminent end (e.g., Joel’s locusts).

21 That this “Q” saying appears in the midst of the same Markan material in both Matthew and Luke suggests (on the Q hypothesis or something like it) that Mark drew on “Q” as a source here.

22 Matthew undoubtedly changes “finger” to God’s “Spirit,” with Gundry, Matthew, 235; Schweizer, Matthew, 287; Witherington, Christology, 201; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:340; Allison, Moses, 237; pace Rodd, “Finger”; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 45-46. See my fuller argument from Matthew’s context in Keener, Matthew, 364. Given Luke’s emphases, he would not likely remove an explicit reference to God’s Spirit here.

23 See discussion in Evans, “Inaugurating,” noting here the coherence of Jesus’ exorcisms with his kingdom teaching.

24 It is possible to read it thus; see e.g., Dodd, Parables, 28 n. 1; Witherington, Christology, 202; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:413-23.

25 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 134-36; idem, Figure, 177.

26 Ladd, Kingdom, 48.

27 Theissen, Miracle Stories, 278-79.

28 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 134-35; pace Barrett, Spirit and Tradition, 59; Betz, Jesus, 59- 60.

29 The association of the Spirit with miracles other than prophecy does appear in early Judaism, but it was comparatively rare (cf. Menzies, Development, 57).

30 Witherington, Christology, 204. It should be admitted, of course, that the prayer was probably preserved in multiple forms through its usage, problematizing specific redactional analysis at the textual level.

31 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 294. Arguments that Matthew simply created the Lord’s Prayer and Luke followed him (Goulder, “Prayer,” 45; Tilborg, “Prayer,” 104-5) can array little specific support (see Brown, “Prayer,” 869-73). Some allow that Jesus prayed component parts but opine that wisdom followers assembled them (e.g., Taussig, “Prayer”; O’Neill, “Prayer”), but this view fails to account for the coherence of the prayer as a whole against the background of Jewish liturgy; its appearance as a whole in Matthew, Luke and the Didache; the possibility that Jesus would have taught his followers a specific prayer; and the failure of most of its constituent parts to appear as prayers elsewhere in the tradition.

32 For the Kaddish, see Bonsirven, Judaism, 133; Jeremias, Prayers, 98; idem, Theology, 21; Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 136; Hill, Matthew, 136-37; Perrin, Language, 28-29; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371; for the Eighteen Benedictions, see Bivin, “Prayers.”

33 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 293-95.

34 Luke’s context may suggest a present application (the kingdom inaugurated through the Spirit; see Lk 11:11-13), but the “Spirit” in Lk 11:13 is likely Luke’s specification of Q’s more general “good gifts,” since Matthew has little reason to play down the Spirit. Jesus’ original Palestinian Jewish audience, familiar with the Kaddish, would surely have construed this part of the prayer eschatologically.

35 Thus Sanders observes that the prediction’s nonfulfilment, requiring clarification or even revision, supports its authenticity (Sanders, Figure, 181-82).

36 It may stand, together with (if not part of) Mk 13:26-27//Matt 24:30-31, behind 1 Thess 4:15-17. Paul adapts “Son of Man” to “Lord,” the preferred title for Jesus in his circles, and the Synoptics, written later, clarify that only “some” would remain alive. But even in Paul’s early writings, it seems clear that Jesus’ promise was of a potentially imminent parousia, not one that would necessarily arrive immediately (Witherington, End, 45-58).

37 E.g., Stein, Method and Message, 60-79; Ladd, Theology, 70-80; Aune, Eschatology, 3-4; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 89; Harvey, History, 91; Perrin, Teaching, 73-74 (noting the modification in Dodd’s own approach); Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:389; Witherington, End, 51-74; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:10, 289-506; Stanton, “Message,” 57-61; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 275; cf. Young, Parables, 193. Sanders, Figure, 177-78, grudgingly concedes this possibility, but remains doubtful that any authentic passage clearly teaches the kingdom’s presence.

38 See e.g., Brown, Death, 473-80; Keener, John, 289-90; Witherington, Christology, 104, 116; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 234, 307; messianic-type associations in Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 139. See our chapter 18 on Jesus’ messiahship.

39 Cf. e.g., Matt 19:28//Lk 22:30; Mk 8:38. Historically, in the larger context of his ministry, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom has implications for his role (see Beasley-Murray, “Kingdom,” 27-32).

40 See Witherington, End.

41 For transitional periods, see e.g. (some from Aune, Revelation, 1104-8), 1 En. 91:8-17; 93:3-10; 4 Ezra 7:26-44, especially 7:28-29; 12:34; 2 Bar. 29:3-30:1; 40:3; 72:2-74:3; Sipre Deut. 34.4.3; 310.5.1; b. Sanh. 97-99; perhaps Sib. Or. 3.741-59 with 3.767-95; 4Q171 frg. 1-2, col. 2, lines 7-8.

42 Cf. e.g., Culpepper, School, 123.

43 Cf. Flusser, Judaism, 35.

44 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 20-22, 104; Borg, Conflict, 70; Hunter, Gospel According to Paul, 38; Witherington, End, 84-92.

45 Vermes, Religion, 214-15.

46 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 195; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:609-15.

47 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 195; cf. Hunter, Message, 53.

48 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:609-15.

49 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 121; Brown, Donfried and Reumann, Peter, 92; Harrington, Matthew, 29. Christian usage of ekkl?sia clearly originated in a Jewish context, outside which the language would make no sense.

50 E.g., Bultmann, Theology, 1:24; Perrin, Language; Tannehill, Sword, 56; Borg, Conflict, 248-63 (see esp. 257, 261); cf. Bultmann, Mythology, 137-38. Borg, Conflict, 11-12 questions Perrin’s use of “apocalyptic” for a concept that is not in fact apocalyptic.

51 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 7, 27, 125-27; cf. also Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:242; somewhat less helpfully, Scott, Parable, 57.

52 Cf. also Thompson, Debate, 95; Thurman, Disinherited, 20-27.

53 Goldingay, “Expounding,” 354.

54 The exceptions are Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14, all reflecting OT language and explicable without allusion to Jesus’ frequent self-title (though they might reflect cognizance of it).

55 With e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 260-62.

56 Walker, “Origin of Concept,” 490 (the same article appears as “Concept”).

57 See Díez Macho, “Hijo del Hombre,” illustrating from the Palestinian Targums.

58 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 163-68, shows that bar nasha can mean “that one,” which in turn could function as a circumlocution for “I” (some others are less convinced, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 261 n. 1; esp. Chilton, Approaches, 75-76). For “that one” as “I,” see e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §9; Ket. 4:14, §1; Suk. 5:1, §7; Taan. 1:4, §1; 4:5, §11; for “you,” see Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1. But Vermes probably limits the usage too much to focus solely on it.

59 Witherington, Christology, 257-58; idem, End, 170.

60 See e.g., Marshall, “Son of Man Sayings,” 350-51.

61 With e.g., Cullmann, Christology, 138; roughly 100 times in the Hebrew Bible.

62 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 163-68. Even such a phrase as “that one” could refer to significant personages; it became a title for Pythagoras among Pythagoreans (e.g., Iambl. V.P. 18.88; 35.255).

63 Burkitt, Sources, 66-68; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:44; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 160-91; Leivestad, “Exit,” 266-67; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 138; Chilton, Approaches, 75-109. It addresses a prophet in Ezekiel (cf. also the later Apoc. Elij. 1:1).

64 Lindars, “Re-Enter.” Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 41 differentiates the use in Daniel (for Israel), the Similitudes (for an exalted Enoch) and 4 Ezra 13 (for a Messiah), but argues (in keeping with his focus) that all suggest preexistence.

65 E.g., Manson, Servant-Messiah, 72-73; Brown, Death, 514; Witherington, Christology, 239; Wade, “Son of Man”; Hooker, Message, 71-72; Bruce, Time, 27; cf. Wright, People of God, 292; Lohse, Mark’s Witness, 44. Many focus on Daniel but supplement with the Similitudes as a probable source (e.g., Brown, Death, 509-14; Witherington, Christology, 235-36; Hagner, Matthew, 215). Daniel was more widely known than the Similitudes, though early Christians easily could have known both.

66 1 En. 46:3-4; 48:2; 60:10; 62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29; 70:1; 71:13-14, 17. Many scholars find background for the Gospels’ usage here, e.g., Burkitt, Sources, 66ff; Bonsirven, Judaism, 189; Tödt, Son of Man; Sandmel, Judaism, 88-89; Ladd, Theology, 145-58; Lindars, “Re-Enter”; idem, Son of Man, 99; Boccaccini, Judaism, 219; Collins, “Son of Man”; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 40. Against this, see e.g., Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 89-99. Some think this usage also reflected in 4 Ezra (cf. 4 Ezra 13:1-56; Boring et al., Commentary, 143; Collins, “Son of Man”); this connection, however, is less clear, and stems from a period after the gospel tradition was widespread.

67 Some date them to the early second century CE (Hindley, “Date”) or even Medieval period (Black, “Parables”); most, however, date them earlier (see e.g., Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 89; idem, Jesus within Judaism, 39-40; Thompson, “Son of Man”). Some think the title in the Similitudes reflects the Christian usage (Agouridis, “Son of Man”; contrast Thompson, “Son of Man”); some view the Similitudes as anti-Christian polemic, reflecting a different Son of Man (Jas, “Hénoch”).

68 E.g., Casey, “Son of Man in Similitudes”; Ricciardi, “Henoc”; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 18, 88-89; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 41; against this, see e.g., Luke, “Son of Man.” Some argue (plausibly but hypothetically) that Enoch becomes the Son of Man (1 En. 71:14) only in later redaction (Schreiber, “Menschensohn”); E. Isaac (OTP 1:50) argues that “son of man” for Enoch in this passage is a different Ethiopic construction than in the earlier uses.

69 Cf. Cullmann, Christology, 140-41.

70 1 En. 48:6.

71 1 En. 48:5.

72 1 En. 48:4.

73 1 En. 48:9.

74 1 En. 48:10.

75 1 En. 69:26-29. Thus many view the title as messianic (McNamara, Judaism, 107-8). Enoch could be or become a superhuman figure himself (as in some other Enoch literature), like Abel in some sources or (in the rabbis) Elijah.

76 So Collins, “Son of Man” (reading 4 Ezra 13 as a similar attestation of this first-century interpretation of Daniel). Cf. the view that Messiah and Son of Man had been merged by the first century (Davies, Paul, 279).

77 Thus 1 En. 46:3 also alludes to the “Ancient of Days” (Dan 7:9, 13, 22). Possibly even indisputably early portions of 1 Enoch draw on this part of Daniel (see Glasson, “Son of Man Imagery”).

78 Chilton, Rabbi Paul, 45.

79 So Burkitt, Sources, 67, and Bright, History, 457, contrasting the Similitudes.

80 See e.g., Riesenfeld, Tradition, 38; on the conception of corporate personality, for an early study, see Robinson, Personality. Koch, “Menschensohn,” treats it as not messianic, but a single heavenly figure representative for humanity. Witherington, Christology, 241, provides a messianic reading of Daniel’s “Son of Man,” but not all his arguments are compelling.

81 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 169-76, notes that Daniel’s “son of man” did acquire messianic significance, but not (he argues) as a title. See sources noted above. Certainly Justin’s Trypho in the second century read Dan 7 messianically (Dial. 31-32; Barnard, “Old Testament,” 404; idem, Justin Martyr, 48; Shotwell, Exegesis, 73), but this may reflect only Justin’s language (Higgins, “Belief,” 301-2). In later rabbinic discussion, see Moore, Judaism, 2:335-37. Stauffer, Jesus, 163-64, suggests deliberate suppression.

82 E.g., Higgins, Son of Man (e.g., 53, 118); Borg, Vision, 14; idem, Conflict, 221-27; Boring, Sayings, 239-50; Donahue, Christ, 184; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 238-55; Koester, Introduction, 2:88-89.

83 Many scholars have concluded this: cf. e.g., Bowman, Intention, 125-42; Jeremias, Theology, 260-76; Kümmel, Theology, 106; Gerhardsson, Origins, 57; Riesenfeld, “Background,” 94-95; Hill, Prophecy, 183; Marshall, “Son of Man Sayings”; idem, Origins, 63-82; France, “Authenticity,” 113; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:43-50; Witherington, End, 170; Bruce, Time, 27-28; Bock, “Words,” 91; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 42. The negative use of the criterion, by contrast with our approach here, has come in for serious challenges in recent years (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 19; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 143; Young, Theologian, 257).

84 Cf. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 160-61; Witherington, Christology, 234-45; Brown, Death, 509- 14; pace Crossan, Historical Jesus, 238-55.

85 See Manson, Servant-Messiah, 72-74 (emphasizing corporate personality); Riesenfeld, Tradition, 38 (noting corporate personality between king and people); Witherington, Christology, 245, 269; Hooker, Message, 71-72. Doeve, Hermeneutics, instead finds suffering through a midrashic connection with the suffering servant (cf. the favorable review in Boismard, “Review”). Bowman, Intention, 142- 153, thinks Jesus added the suffering aspect to the conventional apocalyptic usage.

86 Matthew also interprets the title in view of Daniel 7 (see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:50- 52). Kazen, “Imagery,” 87, 108, thinks that Jesus and his movement preserved both corporate and individual aspects of the image.

87 Bultmann, Word, 58. See also our earlier argument supporting this claim.

88 See Hengel, Leader, 1-2, 27-33.

89 Schweizer, “Discipleship,” 88; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11.

90 Schweizer, “Discipleship,” 88; cf. Ladd, Theology, 107; Betz, Jesus, 71; see Matt 23:8-10; our chapters on Jesus’ self-understanding (esp. chs. 18-19).

91 Davies, Sermon, 133; Kingsbury, Matthew, 62; Gundry, Matthew, 62; Garland, Matthew, 48. Examples of teachers seeking disciples appear more frequently in the Greek tradition (e.g., Aul. Gel. 5.3.6; cf. Robbins, Teacher, 89-94); but these examples are normally “radical” teachers, exceptions to the customary Greek as well as Jewish tradition. Finding little rabbinic precedent for summoning disciples or promising to make disciples into something they are not (Robbins, Teacher, 104), Robbins locates the Jewish component of those elements’ origin here especially in the divine call in biblical tradition (e.g., p. 115, citing Gen 12:1-2), alongside the Socratic model in Greek tradition (Teacher, 117-18; cf. also Philo, 94-95; and Josephus, 97). It is said that Hillel pursued laborers to get them to study Torah (not just as disciples to become rabbis, however) and receive eternal life (ARN 26, §54B).

92 E.g., m. Ab. 1:6, 16; ARN 3, 8 A; Socrates Ep. 4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.3.

93 Malina, Anthropology, 78; cf. m. Ab. 1:6, 16.

94 Culpepper, School, 222.

95 Cf. Matt 10:6; 15:24 (which is unlikely to have been invented, even by Matthew); Lk 19:10; Witherington, Christology, 131.

96 Jewish people told stories of pagans relinquishing their wealth on converting to Judaism (Sipre Num. 115.5.7), and Greek philosophers told stories of converts to philosophy who abandoned wealth to become disciples (Diog. Laert. 6.5.87; Diogenes Ep. 38). Such stories reflected well on the teacher the students left all to follow (e.g., Diogenes Ep. 9).

97 Disciples were often adolescents, but tradition suggests that at least some of Jesus’ were married by this point (see Mk 1:30).

98 Cf. Safrai, “Education,” 965.

99 On Akiba, Sandmel, Judaism, 246-47; Witherington, Women, 10; on others, Gen. Rab. 95 MSV. Later teachers assumed such long separations consensual (p. Ket. 5:7, §2; cf. Eccl. Rab. 7:6, §2).

100 M. Ket. 5:6; Safrai, “Home,” 763.

101 Cf. Sipre Deut. 48.2.4, 6.

102 Some would have also viewed Jesus’ demands in such cases as violating the law itself (cf. Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 187-99).

103 In both the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish literature (Manson, Sayings, 131; cf. e.g., Ex. Rab. 51:8).

104 Let. Aris. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps.-Phoc. 8. Whereas Roman culture emphasized paternal authority, later rabbis emphasized children’s filial responsibility (Harris, “Aging”).

105 M. B.M. 2:11; p. Hag. 2:1, §10. One who received the sages could be counted as if one had received God himself (Jeremias, Theology, 254; Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 154), a saying similar to Jesus’ in Matt 10:40; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20 (perhaps both reflect the broader Jewish principle of “agency”; cf. also Ex 16:8; 1 Sam 8:7).

106 Deut 13:6; 33:9; 2 Macc 7:22-23; cf. Gen 22:2-12; 4QTest. 16-17; Test. Job 4:5/6. Jewish texts hence extolled those Gentiles who forsook the acceptance of their families by turning to Israel’s God (Jos. Asen. 12:12/11). The Qumran sectarians, distinct from mainstream Jewish society, did require separation from family and other outsiders (4Q477 frg. 2, col. 2.6, 8).

107 Being perceived as antifamily was a much greater danger then than it is today (cf. Derrett, Audience, 39).

108 Cf. Jos. Ant. 4.26-28, 34, 58.

109 E.g., Hengel, Leader, 13-15; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 252, 254, who interpret the passage quite differently. (Witherington, Christology, 118 does, however, see a parallel in Iamblichus Pythag. 17.73.) Hengel envisions an eschatological context for the demand (cf. Matt 10:34-35//Lk 12:51-53; Hengel, Leader, 13); McCane briefly suggests an imminent eschatology in the direction of Schweitzer (“Dead,” 42-43); Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 187-99, argues that Jesus rejected honor of parents as a path-marker.

110 Cf. Ps.-Phoc. 147-48.

111 See further Hengel, Leader, 7-8; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:56 n. 168; Vermes, Religion, 29. For such a figurative death, cf. Lk 15:24, 32; Sir 22:11-12; Philo L.A. 1.106; Jos. Asen. 8:9; p. Ber. 2:2, §9; Taan. 3:8, §2; Gen. Rab. 39:7; Eccl. Rab. 9:5, §1; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 60.4; perhaps 4 Ezra 7:92; Lucretius Nat. 3.1046; Epict. Disc. 1.5.4; 1.13.5; Dio Cass. 45.47.5; Iambl. Pyth. Life 17.73-75; 34.246; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.9; sources in Buchanan, Consequences, 201; Zeller, “Life”; Le Cornu, Acts, 574; Klauck, Religious Context, 225 (alienation in CIL 1.1012, 6.140); some later texts on the second death (e.g., Tg. Qoh. on 9:5; Abrahams, Studies 2:44; McNamara, Targum, 123).

112 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 153; McCane, “Dead,” 41. The suggestion of an original mistranslation from the Aramaic such as “Let the waverers or gravediggers bury their dead” (Abrahams, Studies 2:183; Black, Aramaic Approach, 207-8; Schwarz, “Nekrous”), perhaps based on public responsibility for the burial of the poor or unidentified (cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:176), seems less probable; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 154. Hengel, Leader, 7; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 254 take the saying as eschatologically conditioned rather than proverbial.

113 Sir 22:12; Jdt 16:24; Safrai, “Home,” 782; Apoc. Mos. 43:3; cf. b. Sanh. 47b; Jn 11:19-20; Sandmel, Judaism, 200-1; though cf. Life of Adam 51:2.

114 E.g., Jos. Life 204.

115 Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 26; cf. Vermes, Religion, 29. Cf. similarly the curse in PGM 40.3-4 against a father who apparently robbed his own daughter’s tomb: “May he not . . . bury his parents,” i.e., may he die before them; a parent’s final request might be burial by her son (thereby guaranteeing that he outlived her, Ap. Rhod. 1.280-83). Cf. also Char. Chaer. 3.5.4-6; 8.6.10, requesting the son not to depart until the father has died. For burial as a metonymy for death, cf. Pesiq. Rab. 22:6.

116 See McCane, “Dead”; for the custom, see also m. Sanh. 6:6. McCane, “Bones,” contrasts Jewish ossuaries and later Christian reliquaries. A year’s mourning period also appears in Eurip. Alcestis 336 (cf. 430-31); cf. Sen. Ep. Lucil. 63.13.

117 Cf. Hengel, Leader, 13.

118 Hengel, Leader, 11-12; cf. Jer 15:17; 16:2, 5-8; Ezek 24:16-18; Hos 1:2.

119 Let. Aris. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps.-Phoc. 8; Moore, Judaism, 2:132.

120 Tob 4:3-4; 6:14; 1 Macc 2:70; 4 Macc 16:11; cf. Test. Job 39:10/39:7; Hengel, Leader, 8; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 253-55; Harvey, History, 60; compare also Beare, Matthew, 214. Burial of the dead was an urgent duty throughout Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Tob. 1:17-20; 2:7-10; 2 Macc 4:49; 13:7; 1QM 7:2; Ps-Phocyl. 99-101; 1 En. 98:13; Jos. Apion 2.201; Eurip. Suppliants passim; Plut. Nicias 6.5-6; Epict. Disc. 4.7.31; Diog. Laert. 6.2.52; Char. Chaer. 1.5.25; 4.1.3), and failure to bury one’s father was a heinous offense (Demosth. Against Aristogeiton 54). Even a priest should bury a corpse if no one else was available to bury it (Sanders, Figure, 225-26).

121 M. B.M. 2:11; p. Hag. 2:1, §10; cf. Diod. Sic. 10.3.4. Also, when no son was available, a leading disciple would bury a teacher, as with John’s disciples in Mk 6:29: Diog. Laert. 6.2.78; Diod. Sic. 10.3.4. That one should honor one’s teacher as one honors God (m. Ab. 4:12) was a graphic way of increasing the honor due a teacher without diminishing that due God.

122 Cf. Lk 3:23, again not something an age-honoring culture would have invented.

123 Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 29. Josephus claims that even his command of Galilee at the young age of thirty aroused envy (Life 80).

124 Cf. e.g., m. Ber. 3:1.

125 E.g., Sir 3:7-8; Sent. Syr. Men. 9-10, 20-24, 94-98; Ps.-Phoc. 8, 180; Let. Aris. 228, 238; Jos. Apion 2.206; Philo Drunkenness 17; Spec. Laws 2.234-36; Free 87; Sib. Or. 1:74-75; Jub. 7:20; 35:1-6, 11-13; Test. Ab. 5:3B; Mek. Pisha 1.28; Bah. 8.28-32; Sipre Deut. 81.4.1-2.

126 Deut 13:6; 4 Macc 2:10-12; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps.-Phoc. 8; b. Meg. 3b.

127 Jos. Life 12.

128 See Black, Aramaic Approach, 139-40; Hengel, Property, 24; Jeremias, Theology, 6 n. 2; Flusser, Judaism, 153; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:643.

129 The theme is amplified in Luke (e.g., Lk 5:28; 14:33; cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35), whether based on additional oral tradition (as is likely in Lk 3:11) or simply seeking to clarify and sharpen the emphasis already present in Mark.

130 B. Ber. 28b, bar.; Tamid 32a; cf. Lk 3:10; Acts 2:37; 16:30, though at least some of these references probably reflect Luke’s patterning (following his use of Mk 10:17 in Lk 18:18).

131 It leaves itself open to various interpretations, for which reason Matthew changes it (Matt 19:17; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 385; Goulder, Midrash, 41; Moule, Mark, 80).

132 Most mainstream Jewish teachers probably assumed — as later teachers codified — that one should not give away all one’s possessions lest one be reduced to poverty oneself (Lane, Mark, 367; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 127; one might make an exception if necessary to serve one’s parents — Bonsirven, Judaism, 147).

133 For the dangers of wealth, see e.g., 1 En. 63:10; 94:8; 96:4; 97:8; 1QS 10.18-19; 11.2; CD 4.17; 8.7; Sir 31:8-11; Let. Aris. 211; Jos. War 2.250; Ant. 4.190; m. Ab. 2:7; Sipre Deut. 43.3.1-2, 5; 318.1.1-4. Some other Jewish writers even oppose the uselessness of worldly wealth with the true treasure of the world to come, just as Jesus did: 1 En. 100:6; m. Ab. 4:1; 6:9; b. B.M. 114b; Gen. Rab. 67:5.

134 E.g., scribes changing “camel” to “rope” (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 169). Some commentators speculated that the “needle’s eye” referred to a low gate in Jerusalem peasant homes into which a camel could enter if it cast off its load; there is no evidence, however, for such a gate in this period, and a “needle’s eye” meant then essentially what it means today (cf. m. Shab. 6:3). See Filson, Matthew, 210; most fully, Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 166.

135 Jesus apparently maintained a base of operation in Capernaum (from which most of Galilee was in walking distance — Overman, Crisis, 67) and did not reject property altogether, or demand communal property like the Essenes. He did, however, apparently view possessions as intrinsically worthless (see discussion in the next chapter), demanding radical dependence on the heavenly Father.

136 Abrahams, Studies 2:208; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 230; Jeremias, Parables, 195; Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 166, citing b. Ber. 55b; B.M. 38b.

137 Cf. b. Ket. 67a.

138 The expression persists as late as Qur’an 7.40, though this reference (involving eternal life) might evoke the tradition of Jesus’ usage.

139 Vermes, Religion, 85 (noting that even Bultmann, Tradition, 105 accepts it!).

140 Jeremias, Parables, 218-19; idem, Theology, 242.

141 E.g., Polyb. 15.33. Nevertheless, crosses did also become a natural metaphor for sufferings (e.g., Apul. Metam. 7.16; 10.9; cf. Sen. Dial. 1.3.10; 7.19.3) or the pain of grief (Apul. Metam. 9.31) or anxiety (Apul. Metam. 9.23); for other nonliteral usages, cf. Epict. Disc. 3.26.22.

142 Manson, Sayings, 131; Bruce, Message, 19; Klaasen, Anabaptism, 88.

143 Cf. 1 En. 108:10; 2 Bar. 51:15-16; m. Ab. 4:17; ARN 32, §71B; b. Tamid 32a; Lev. Rab. 3:1; Deut. Rab. 11:10; Eccl. Rab. 4:6, §1; Daube, NT and Judaism, 137. Cf. the funeral meter rhythm here in Jeremias, Theology, 26.

144 Sipre Deut. 175.1.3 (cf. Ex 20:24 with 1 Kgs 18:32).

145 They would also be abundantly supplied in this age (cf. b. Men. 44a, bar.), presumably because believers would share with others in need (Mk 10:29-30), with persecution being a major cost in this age (Mk 10:30); cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; Kee, Community, 109-10; Lane, Mark, 372; Tannehill, Sword, 147-52; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 92.

146 Cf. also Lk 18:14; Jms 1:9; 4:10. For the authenticity of the saying, see Jeremias, Parables, 107.

147 Cf. Is 2:9-12, 17; 5:15; 10:33; 13:11; 52:13; 66:2; also Ezek 17:24; 21:26.

148 Cf. 1 Macc 2:62-63 (on Antiochus Epiphanes). By the late first century teachers were reportedly claiming that one became exalted over (i.e., proficient in) Torah by humbling oneself before it (as well as the reverse — Gen. Rab. 81:2); Hillel reportedly claimed that his humiliation was his exaltation and the reverse, citing Prov 25:7 (Ex. Rab. 45:5), if this is authentic rather than borrowed (cf. dependence on the same proverb in Lk 14:9-10).

149 See 1 En. 46:5-6; 104:2; 1QM 14.10-11, 14-15; 4 Ezra 6:20-24; 2 Bar. 83:5; Test. Jud. 25:4; Sib. Or. 3.350-55; tos. Taan. 3:14; ARN 5; 9; 28A; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1; b. Pes. 50a; Yoma 87a; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Gen. Rab. 21:1; Lev. Rab. 13:3; 36:2; in Jesus’ sayings, cf. Jeremias, Parables, 221-22; for the sayings in Luke, Tannehill, Luke, 109-10.

150 Vermes, Religion, 148.

151 See e.g., Deut 15:7-11; Tob 4:7; CD 14.13-16; Jos. Apion 2.283; m. Ab. 1:5; tos. B.K. 11:3; B.M. 3:9; Demai 3:16.

152 “Woes” appear more commonly in “Q” than in Mark, but do appear in the latter (Mk 13:17; 14:21), and probably do reflect one rhetorical form (in the prophetic lament and mock lament) that Jesus adapted.

153 See e.g., Witherington, Women; Beavis, “Origins”; Ilan, “Studies.” I treat ancient gender ideologies elsewhere (Keener, Paul; idem, “Marriage,” 687-91), but cannot resolve the issue adequately without a separate book, so I do not stake the case for Jesus’ ministry to the marginal on this claim.

154 Tax collectors apparently also heeded John (Matt 21:31-32), although the “Q” saying above associates them particularly with Jesus. Cf. further Lk 15:1; 18:10-14.

155 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 178; cf. Capito in Philo Leg. Gai. 199-202. Ancients might even slay fellow citizens who had allied themselves with enemy conquerors (Diod. Sic. 19.66.6).

156 E.g., tos. Demai 2:17; 3:4; b. Bek. 31a, bar.

157 E.g., b. Sanh. 25b; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Abrahams, Studies 1:54; Jeremias, Theology, 110; idem, Jerusalem, 311. They were as unclean as lepers, communicating impurity to a house by entering it (p. Hag. 3:6, §1; cf. b. Hag. 26a). Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 83 do point out that though tax gatherers render a Pharisee’s house unclean (m. Toh. 7:6), so would any nonobservant person who handled things in the person’s home (in this case, to assess wealth).

158 Cic. De Offic. 1.42.150; Diogenes Ep. 36 to Timomachus; Epict. Disc. 3.15.12; Tac. Ann. 13.50- 51 (abuse even in indirect taxation); MacMullen, Social Relations, 16; Best, Temptation, 139. Overman, Crisis, 126 includes some of these references plus Dio Chrys. Or. 14.14, and among Jewish sources, m. Ned. 3:4; Toh. 7:6.

159 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 46-47; see Jos. War 2.405; cf. Herrenbrück, “Zöllner”; Hoehner, Antipas, 77-78. In some areas of Palestine much of the grain (or perhaps the land on which it was grown) belonged to Caesar (Jos. Life 71, Upper Galilee); some belonged to members of the aristocracy like Bernice (Life 118-19).

160 Cf. Lk 3:12-13; Carmon, Inscriptions, 105, 226; Cic. Verr. 2.3.10.26; perhaps Cic. Ad. Quint. 1.1.2.7; 1.1.11.32-33.

161 Hoehner, Antipas, 78; cf. Philo Leg. Gai. 199. Abuses by tax farmers before and during this period in rural Egypt reportedly included torturing and killing for the sake of locating tax fugitives (Philo Spec. Laws 3.30; Lewis, Life, 161) or beating an old woman because her relatives were behind on taxes (BGU 515, A.D. 193).

162 Lewis, Life, 161-63; a drachma was close to an average worker’s daily wage. Such situations remain common at customs stations in many parts of the world today, sometimes evaded by bribes.

163 Many contend that those who paid both taxes and tithes were paying between 30 and 40% (Stern, “Province,” 332; Neusner, Beginning, 22; Hoehner, Antipas, 75-77; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 25; Borg, Conflict, 31-32; idem, Vision, 84-85).

164 P. Graux 2; P. Thead. 17; Lewis, Life, 164, citing P. Oxy. 2669; P. Ryl. 595; SB 7462, and most significantly PSI 101, 102. Most would not have time, but traditional tax farmers could legally search almost anything but the person of a Roman matron, and seize undeclared property (Quint. Declamations 359; Lewis, Life, 142). Interestingly, the problem continued into the Byzantine period, when Copts fled exorbitant taxes by joining monasteries; see Bianquis, “Egypt,” 164.

165 Gundry, Matthew, 166.

166 E.g., Stern, “Province,” 333; Manson, Sayings, 253-54; Lane, Mark, 101-2; Anderson, Mark, 104; Witherington, Christology, 78; contrast Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 394, who reasonably doubts that customs officers would incur such hatred. For customs toll receipts, cf. e.g., P. Grenf. 2.50 c; P. Ryl. 197 a; Select Papyri 2:28-29.

167 Boundaries of cities and tetrarchies charged customs duties, raising the price of imported goods (Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 686; Lewis, Life, 140; IGRR 1.1183); on Roman customs dues, see Duncan-Jones, “Dues.” Tolls and customs tariffs were usually less than 3% for a given city, and the money collected went not to Rome itself but to municipal treasuries overseen by the municipal aristocracies with whom Rome was allied (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 74; cf. Lewis, Life, 141). Customs officers demanded written declarations of travelers’ possessions and searched baggage (Casson, Travel, 290-91) and may have collected some other government revenues as well (Stern, “Province,” 333).

168 Galilean townspeople undoubtedly preferred their municipal aristocracies to Rome and resented direct taxation of their resources far more than commercial tolls that profited Galilee, though those inclined to accept no ruler but God may have classed them together. Some tax-collectors may have become benefactors to local populations (Jos. War 2.287-88; cf. Sanders, Figure, 228-29; but note that this tax collector had much to lose, and is mentioned in addition to the leading men). While publicani did not collect direct taxes in this period, they could be involved in tolls and other indirect taxes (Andreau, “Publicani,” 181).

169 On the sort of people envisioned in Lk 14:23, see Rohrbaugh, “City,” 144.

170 See e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 174-75; Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 44. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 205 suggests that this pattern may represent Jesus’ “priority of grace to repentance,” though warning that the difference vis-à-vis his contemporaries would not invite violence. Mack, Myth, 80, by contrast, attributes the meal stories to an etiological legend based on the Christ cult ritual outside the Q community. His supposition that a later hellenistic meal is read into the narratives fails to explain (1) why hellenistic storytellers would have done so much research to construct Palestinian Jewish details for the last supper (see comment later in this book); (2) why the narratives, which make sense in their own milieu given the frequency of discussions during meals, focus on conflicts but show little more interest in details of the meal settings themselves except that people ate there; (3) why one should appeal to meals as a common gathering in hellenistic culture (Mack, Myth, 81) but not in Jewish Palestine; and (4) given the commonness of banquets, why even a Greek meal connoted a specifically cultic focus. A better case could be made for Luke’s hellenistic construction of his symposium section (Lk 14:1-24) to which Luke connects eating with sinners (Lk 15:1), but even this is not cultic per se.

171 See Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 209.

172 Cf. e.g., Jub. 35:27; 45:5; Eurip. Cycl. 125; Xen. Cyrop. 8.7.14; discussion in Keener, John, 913.

173 Cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 236; Borg, Vision, 101. Inviting scholars for dinner was good — one would be blessed on their account (ARN 11, §27B; p. Ter. 8:7; Urbach, Sages, 1:434; Jeremias, Parables, 126).

174 E.g., Jeremias, Parables, 132; idem, Theology, 118; Lane, Mark, 103.

175 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 176-99; Witherington, Christology, 73.

176 Later rabbis did look askance at them (m. Ab. 3:11; b. Pes. 49b) and apparently felt that they communicated uncleanness to scrupulous Pharisees (m. Demai 2:2; M.S. 3:3; Hag. 2:7; Toh. 4:5, 8:3, 5; tos. Ahilot 5:11); they probably looked down on those uneducated in the law no less than segments of the modern intelligentsia tend to be impatient with the “masses” (cf. m. Ab. 2:6, 3:11; ARN 36A; b. Ber. 61a; Pes. 49b, including baraitot). Conversely, the rabbis tolerated them (m. Git. 5:9; Urbach, Sages, 1:632-34) and viewed them negatively primarily in relation to the Law as the rabbis had come to understand it (Urbach, Sages, 1:633).

177 Exorbitant tithes were probably favored by the priestly aristocracy and others besides Pharisees; cf. e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.240. Taxes rendered tithes more difficult (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 4:2); later teachers became particularly adamant against eating untithed food even inadvertently (e.g., Gen. Rab. 60:8; Lam. Rab. 1:3, §28).

178 Simon, Sects, 15; cf. m. Kid. 4:14.

179 See e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1.

180 1 En. 100:7-9; Sir 12:4; Ps. Sol. 2:34; 13:1; 14:6-7; Sib. Or. 3.304. (Though it can include any human who sins, as in, e.g., Test. Ab. 10:13A; 4 Ezra 7:138-40, Pharisaic opposition in this context demands a stronger sense of the term here.)

181 See Best, Temptation, 139.

182 Mark neglects the opportunity to portray the Pharisees as class-conscious snobs (a portrayal that would have put off Mark’s readers and thus could have suited Mark’s purpose well).

183 See e.g., m. Dem. 2:2-3; tos. Demai 3:6-7; ARN 32, §72 B. On the untithed food of amme haaretz, see also m. Dem. 2:2; 4:5; Maas. 5:3; M.S. 3:3; b. Bezah 35b; Ned. 20a; 84b; Pes. 42b; eating it could be regarded as deathworthy in late sources (Lam. Rab. 1:3, §28).

184 Goodman, State, 77. We do not argue here that they intended to follow a priestly level of purity, as some have argued; see Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 131-254 (esp. 166-84). While the conflict stories in their current form may represent later developments (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 265) and Markan arrangement (Hooker, Message, 22; Dewey, “Structure,” 400; idem, Debate, 115-16), Christian origins are not comprehensible without some early conflicts (cf. Gal 1:13-14; 1 Thess 2:14-15; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:42); in these narratives Jesus clashed with Pharisees over issues that were defining features of Pharisaism (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 100-1); and first-century Palestinian Jewish groups frequently clashed seriously (albeit generally not violently).

185 Sir 6:7-12; 12:13-18; 13:1; Let. Aris. 130; m. Ab. 1:6-7; 2:9; Sipre Deut. 286.11.4; ARN 16, §36B; Ps.-Phoc. 134; 1 Cor 15:33.

186 Syr. Men. Sent. 148-53, 333-35; cf. Sir 12:4, 7; Borg, Conflict, 78-95.

187 Discussion was a common feature of banquets (e.g., Jos. Life 222), and sages desired edifying talk (Sir 9:15; m. Ab. 3:2; ARN 26, 29A; 32, §68B; 35, §81; p. Taan. 3:11, §4), including at meals (p. Hag. 2:1, §9; 2:2, §5; Safrai, “Education,” 968-69).

188 Because it would be hard to make restitution (e.g., tos. B.M. 8:26).

189 Abrahams, Studies 1:58.

190 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:12; Young, Theologian, 145.

↑ Back to top