Notes to Chapter 17
Notes to Chapter 17
1 Mack, Myth, 67. Mack emphasizes the incompatibility of Jesus’ wisdom teaching with apocalyptic in Lost Gospel, 31.
2 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 173. Jewish texts sometimes connected healing with eschatology, but there was no automatic connection (Eve, Miracles, 263-66, 379).
3 Tan, Zion Traditions, 237.
4 Cf. Vermes, Religion, 73-74; Ehrman, Prophet, 185.
5 Cf. Robbins, Teacher, 54. Nortjé, “Traditions,” plausibly harmonizes these images by viewing Jesus as a John redivivus: John and Jesus may have both carried on functions of the eschatological Elijah.
6 Cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:1044-45. In view of Q tradition (Mt 11:4-5//Lk 7:22), Jesus probably viewed his miracles as special eschatological signs fulfilling Scripture (especially Is 35; see e.g., Witherington, Christology, 171; Sanders, Figure, 167-68).
7 Jos. Ant. 18.63 (compare the language for Elisha in Ant. 9.182). In a negative vein, the rabbinic sources also preserve this tradition of Jesus as miracle-worker (Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:621; Vermes, Religion, 5). Such sources make it one of the best-attested features of Jesus’ ministry. Guyénot, “Apostle,” thinks that Jesus viewed John as Elijah and Israel’s redeemer; less daringly, Bostock, “Elisha,” suggests that Jesus (as John/Elijah’s successor) views himself as Elisha.
8 See e.g., 1 Cor 14; cf. numerous treatments of the prophetic Spirit in early Christianity, including in Fee, Presence; Forbes, Prophecy; Aune, Prophecy; Menzies, Development; Keener, Spirit.
9 I do not, however, refer here to the scholarly reconstruction of “wandering charismatics” (Theissen, Sociology, 8-16; Gager, “Review,” 176), which seems questionable (for my objections, see ch. 2; somewhat more fully, Matthew, 57).
10 See e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 78-80; Hill, Prophecy, 50-69; Aune, Prophecy, 153-69; Borg, Vision, 150-71; idem, “Disagreement,” 240; Harvey, History, 36-65; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 240-80; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth; Ehrman, Prophet; McKnight, Vision; Broadhead, “Priests,” 140-41.
11 Cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 5; cf. Hengel, Leader. Horsley, Galilee, 152-55 also suspects Galileans’ loyalty to Torah (but see our ch. 12). From a Pharisaic standpoint such suspicions would be justified, but most undoubtedly saw themselves as loyal to Torah as they understood it.
12 Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 3. Borg, Vision, 15 correctly acknowledges that Jesus was “a charismatic who was a healer, sage, prophet, and revitalization movement founder”; yet he denies that Jesus was an eschatological prophet (ibid., 14, basing his view of the majority primarily on a very selective poll — 20 n. 25).
13 E.g., Mack, Myth, 57, 87 n. 7; cf. idem, Lost Gospel, 31-32. This dichotomy, already found in Schweitzer (who opted for prophet), was an important part of twentieth-century history of interpretation (Hallbäck, “Apocalyptic”).
14 Others also question the validity of this contrast (e.g., Van Oyen, “Criteria”), just as sages and mystics were not incompatible (Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 99-113), and apocalyptic and wisdom overlapped (Aune, Prophecy, 113).
15 E.g., McClymond, Stranger, 43; Sigal, Halakah, 154 (both proto-rabbi and “a charismatic prophet-figure”); Pikaza, “Jesús histórico”; cf. Tan, Zion Traditions, 237.
16 Though Josephus allowed for prophecy, the establishment (reflected in Josephus and at a more advanced stage in the rabbis) seems reticent to speak of full-fledged “prophets” in their era (see e.g., Keener, Spirit, 14-15 [but cf. 17]; in Josephus, Leiman, “Josephus and Canon”; Bamberger, “Prophet,” 305; Best, “Pneuma,” 222-25). By contrast, followers of popular prophets either disagreed or, more likely, believed that they lived on the edge of the eschatological era (cf. eschatological expectation at Qumran in Aune, Eschatology), a view prone to the sort of political unrest the establishment would wish to avoid.
17 Cf. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 25.
18 Cf. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 119.
19 Cf. Robbins, Teacher, 114; Sanders, Figure, 153; Witherington, Sage, 201.
20 See Eve, Miracles, especially 384-86.
21 Besides these categories, Webb, Baptizer, also lists “clerical prophets” (317-22, including John Hyrcanus); “sapiential prophets” (322-32, including Essenes [322-26]) and Pharisees (326-32).
22 Webb, Baptizer, 333-39. On these and other types of prophets, see also e.g., Grappe, “Prophètes.”
23 Webb, Baptizer, 339-42.
24 Webb, Baptizer, 348, following here Horsley, “Prophets,” here 462.
25 Jos. Ant. 20.97 (Moses and esp. Joshua), 170 (Joshua); see detailed discussion in Gray, Figures; more briefly, Bauckham, Testimony, 215-21 (with the caveat on 216); Webb, Baptizer, 348; Eve, Miracles, 324; earlier discussion in Barnett, “Prophets” (= idem, “Sign Prophets”); idem, “Eschatological Prophets.” Cf. Rev 11:6. The idea of a new Moses became still more prevalent in later sources, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; b. Ber. 12b; Ex. Rab. 1:5; 2:6; 15:11; 19:6; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Num. Rab. 11:2; Deut. Rab. 9:9; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Eccl. Rab. 1:9, §1; 3:15, §1; Song Rab. 2:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:10; 52:8; cf. tos. Ber. 1:10; p. Ber. 1:5, §8; Longenecker, Christology, 39-40.
26 See Keener, John, 270-71; Eve, Miracles, 115-16, 324. On these sign prophets, see initially Barnett, “Prophets”; now Evans, “Josephus on Prophets”; and especially Gray, Figures, 112-44. Gray contends, probably rightly, that (137) only the cases of Theudas and the Egyptian genuinely evoke the exodus and conquest traditions; but even these two examples offer sufficient evidence to suggest that such views circulated in first-century Judea (whether already in Jesus’ day or perhaps even evoking some early views about him). Philo’s miracles focus especially on “the distant Mosaic past” (Eve, Miracles, 84), like most early Jewish miracle reports (Eve, Miracles, 377, though noting that they were not cessationist).
27 E.g., Sir 33:1-8/36:1-8; cf. 2 Thess 2:9. Eve, Miracles, 263-66, 379, notes that early Jewish sources could connect miracles with eschatology (citing 4Q521; Jub. 23:23-31), but warns (266) that the association was not “automatic.”
28 Consistent with such images, some later rabbis taught that signs offered by biblical signs-prophets anticipated the signs that would take place in the messianic era (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4; cf. related ideas in Marmorstein, Names, 175).
29 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 138, 171; Meeks, Prophet-King, 163-64; Horsley, “Prophets.”
30 See Hill, Prophecy, 28-29; cf. Betz, Jesus, 68.
31 The portrayal of at least some of the apparent revolutionaries in first-century Palestine as “social bandits” has much to commend it (see Keener, Matthew, 59-60).
32 Cf. Harvey, History, 115; Witherington, Christology, 171; Sanders, Figure, 167-68. Qumran also may have combined the very texts to which Jesus alluded here, perhaps suggesting a Palestinian tradition (Evans, “Apocalypse,” 696; LeCornu, Acts, 1388; though cf. Kvalbein, “Wunder”; idem, “Wonders”).
33 See Blackburn, “Miracles,” 372-74; Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 141; see further Twelftree, Miracle Worker, passim; earlier, Ladd, Kingdom, 47. At least one other ancient Jewish source appears to associate God’s reign with exorcism (4Q510 1.4-5; Vermes, Religion, 130), by implying that demons feared God’s greater power, but the explicit association was apparently not common.
34 Eve, Miracles, 324, emphasizes that those reported by Josephus are apparently all later than Jesus.
35 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 308-9. Many scholars have built on the category of “sign prophets” (see early Barnett, “Prophets”). Eve, Miracles, 296-325 (esp. 324), thinks them a disparate group, despite Josephus lumping them together; but he might underestimate common factors.
36 Eve, Miracles, 385 (noting that healings and exorcisms were “not that essential to the prophetic role,” since even most OT prophets did not perform them). On these sign-prophets not performing miracles, especially healings and exorcisms, see also Eve, Miracles, 321.
37 Cf. Hoehner, Antipas, 206; Bammel, “Feeding”; Witherington, Christology, 91, 100
38 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 307-8; Blackburn, “Miracles,” 379 (who notes that Jesus rarely is said to pray before working a miracle); Eve, Miracles, e.g., 386. Nevertheless, the various Jewish proposals are closer than the significantly later Gentile accounts of Apollonius (see Koskenniemi, “Apollonius”; Evans, “Apollonius”); the stories exhibit some features more characteristic of the Middle East (Williams, Miracle Stories, 22-26, 32-33), hence may have taken their current form “in the first three or four decades of the new movement” (Williams, Miracle Stories, 168).
39 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 290.
40 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 309.
41 See also Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 297-301.
42 So also Funk et al., Acts of Jesus, 85; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:119.
43 Yamauchi, “Magic,” 90-91, cites b. Sanh. 43a; tos. Hul. 2:22-23; cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 79.
44 See e.g., Cook, Interpretation, 36-39 (also Porphyry on 138).
45 Cf. b. Sanh. 107b; in paganism, Cook, Interpretation, 36-39, 138. Although rabbinic sources do not recite the charge before the late second century (Flusser, Judaism, 635), Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 166, rightly notes that the charge concerning Jesus must be early; “Why answer a charge that was not levelled?” (see Mk 3:22; cf. Jn 8:48).
46 Jos. Ant. 18.63 in Vermes, “Notice”; idem, Jesus the Jew, 79; see also Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:621; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 74 (arguing that Josephus seeks to report about Jesus with the same neutrality he used concerning John and James); Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 102.
47
Ant. 9.182.
48 See Stauffer, Jesus, 10-11 (though the Mandean and Islamic evidence he cites is too late for actual historical relevance). For Jesus as a worker of miracles (attributed by his detractors to magic), see e.g., Qur’an 5.110. The issue never arises clearly in Paul (except with respect to his own miracle-working), though cf. Wenham, “Story,” 307-8.
49 See e.g., Twelftree, “Miracles”; idem, Miracle Worker.
50 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 113. Miracles are also not widely attached to messianic figures or to the majority of prophets. Using criteria of coherence and dissimilarity, Eve, Miracles, 386, argues for the authenticity of Jesus’ distinctive ministry of healing and exorcism.
51 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 281 (see more fully 281-315). On miracles as fundamental to Jesus’ historical activity, see Twelftree, “Miracles”; idem, Miracle Worker.
52 Wright, “Seminar,” 114 (suggesting that the reports would rapidly assume a standard form, as they were told and retold).
53 Noted by Meier, “Present State.”
54 See e.g., Meier, “Project”; Tan, Zion Traditions, 237; Flusser, “Love,” 154; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 113, 281-315; Kee, “Century of Quests”; Pikaza, “Jesús histórico”; Rusecki, “Kryteria.”
55 Ehrman, Prophet, 197-200, notes that scholars can accept Jesus as an exorcist and healer without passing judgment on whether he acted supernaturally. For cross-cultural perspectives on healing, see e.g., Pilch, “Insights”; Pilch, “Sickness,” 183; Pilch, Healing, 19-36 (esp. 35); for shaman analogies, e.g., Craffert, “Healer” (critiquing Crossan); Davies, “Prophet/healer”; idem, Healer; cf. Borg, Conflict, 73, 230-31, 305, 373. I will treat this cultural context to philosophic approaches further in my forthcoming work on miracles in first-century Christian narratives.
56 For summaries of this consensus, see Blackburn, “Miracles,” 362; Eve, Miracles, 16-17; Welch, “Miracles,” 360.
57 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. Certainly the Gospels portray Jesus’ miracles as “an essential part of that ministry” (Filson, History, 105).
58
Marginal Jew, 2:678-772; for historical evidence supporting Jesus as a miracle worker, see Marginal Jew, 2:617-45; see also Twelftree, Miracle Worker; Blomberg, Gospels, 127-36.
59 Brown, Death, 143-44.
60 Betz, Jesus, 58.
61 Betz, Jesus, 60.
62 Flusser, “Ancestry,” 154.
63 Smith, Magician, 16.
64 Neusner, in “Foreword,” xxvii, and idem, New Testament, 5, 173, offers perhaps the harshest critique of Smith’s magical thesis. The charge of magic against Jesus (hardly invented by Jesus’ followers) may stem from the earliest gospel tradition (Stanton, “Magician,” 175-80).
65 Eve, Miracles, 52 (concluding his discussion of miracle in Josephus, 24-52). Like Josephus, Philo overlaps with the Gospels primarily in miracles of provision (Eve, Miracles, 84-85).
66 Eve, Miracles, 244. They do appear more in later Amoraic haggadah.
67 Eve, Miracles, 253, 378. He acknowledges some exorcists, but questions whether they were common (Miracles, 378). (Given the different focus of most of the other surviving first-century documents, I would not be so sure.) He also notes rightly that some exorcists have magical associations (Miracles, 378).
68 Cf. Sanders, Figure, 154, who thinks “fairly certain” that “healing, especially exorcism,” was the basis for his fame; cf. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 72.
69 Casson, Travel, 130-35, 193-94.
70 See e.g., Jos. War 2.614; 4.11; Life 85; Pliny N.H. 5.15.71; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; Eccl. Rab. 10:8, §1.
71 Jos. War 1.657; Pliny N.H. 2.95.208; 5.15.72; Hirschfeld and Solar, “Hmrhs’wt”; idem, “Baths”; Schürer, History, 157.