Chapter 356 of 404

78 Eve, Miracles, 274.

72 The springs of Tiberias were well-known (e.g., b. Sanh. 93a; 108a; Shab. 40b; 147a; p. Ned. 6:1, §2; Gen. Rab. 76:5; other references in Urbach, Sages, 1:393; Sandmel, Judaism, 201).

73 E.g., the leper (Keener, Matthew, 259-63); the centurion’s servant (Matthew, 263-70); the paralytic lowered (in Mark) through the roof (Matthew, 288-91); the dead girl and bleeding woman (Matthew, 301-5); miraculous feedings (Matthew, 402-5, 418-19; idem, John, 663-71) and water-walking (Matthew, 406-8; idem, John, 671-75).

74 For brief critiques of Vermes and Borg on the close relevance of charismatic teachers like Hanina and Honi, see Witherington, Christology, 153, 182-83; Chilton, Approaches, 45.

75 Jos. Ant. 14.22. Cf. Eve, Miracles, 277-78, arguing that Josephus’ focus is not on Onias’ rain-making but on his role in the war (which is not coincidentally Josephus’ focus in general). Rain-making is the only miracle common to both Honi and Hanina, and is absent from Jesus’ ministry (Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378-79).

76 The only Tannaitic account is m. Ta?an. 3:8 (Eve, Miracles, 274-75), and W. Scott Green and Neusner both deny reliable information even there (Eve, Miracles, 275-77).

77 One could use drawing a circle for an ultimatum (Livy 45.12.5; Val. Max. 6.4.3).

78 Eve, Miracles, 274.

79 Eve, Miracles, 281, notes that this date is uncertain (on 282 conceding, however, that he was probably from the Second Temple period). Amoraic traditions place him in the first century (see Eve, Miracles, 287-88).

80 Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378.

81 Eve, Miracles, 280-81, cites m. Ber. 5:5; Sot. 9:15 (= tos. Sot. 15:5); Ab. 3:10-11; tos. Ber. 3:20; Mek. on Ex 18:21.

82 M. Ber. 5:5.

83 Tos. Ber. 3:20.

84 Eve, Miracles, 282-83 (four centuries, on the Bavli); Blackburn, “Miracles,” 378 (three centuries, on the Yerushalmi); see further Avery-Peck, “Piety,” 164.

85 Eve, Miracles, 285. None involved exorcism (Eve, Miracles, 294).

86 Eve, Miracles, 289, 295. He also argues (292-93) that the Mishnah’s category for Hanina, “men of deed” (m. Sot. 9:15), need not specify miracle-workers, noting that the semantic range of “deed” is much broader than “miracle.”

87 Eve compares Mexican folk-healer Pedrito Jaramillo, who stood out above other folk-healers of his era (Eve, Miracles, 357-59, 379).

88 See also e.g., Meier, “Project”; Strelan, Strange Acts, 27; cf. Eve, Miracle, 377.

89 For models among signs-sages, see Galley, “Heilige.”

90 See Keener, John, 270-71; Eve, Miracles, 115-16, 324. On these sign prophets, see initially Barnett, “Prophets”; and now especially Gray, Figures, 112-44.

91 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 138, 171; Meeks, Prophet-King, 163-64; Horsley, “Prophets.”

92 See e.g., Villalón, “Deux Messies,” 62-63; Barrett, Acts, 208; citing 1QS 9.10-11; 4QTest (= 4Q175) 5-7; Marshall, “Use of OT,” 548; cf. also Teeple, Prophet, 51-52; Xeravits, “Moses Redivivus” (suggesting also 11QMelch 2.15-21). Some also mention 1 Macc 14:41; and Mosaic-type attempted prophets in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 20.97). Poirier, “Return,” thinks Qumran texts envisioned an eschatological prophet and an eschatological priest, corresponding to Moses and Elijah. The Scrolls may also apply the role (and Deut 18:15-18) to the teacher of righteousness, who may have originally filled this role for them (cf. Aune, Prophecy, 126; cf. Teeple, Prophet, 51-52).

93 A Qumran scroll links the Mosaic prophet (4Q175 1.5-8) with the star from Jacob (Num 24:15-17; 4Q175 1.9-13). This association does not suggest “literary dependence so much as that Qumran and NT authors breathed the same air of eschatological expectation” and used the same Bible (Brooke, “4Q175,” 1207). Although the text is “messianic” (see e.g., Villalón, “Deux Messies,” 62-63), its messianic figure might not be the Messiah in the usual early Jewish sense; the testimonia may address the multiple messianic figures held by the sect (cf. Vermes, Scrolls, 247-48).

94 See e.g., Bruce, Time, 39; Simon, Hellenists, 61, 73. Gaster, Scriptures, 393, notes that the Samaritans used the same testimonia for the Taheb as appear in Qumran testimonia (cf. Gaster, Scriptures, 444-46, citing Deut 5:25-26; 18:18-19; Num 24:15-17; Deut 33:8-11; Josh 6:26).

95 Bruce, History, 37-38; idem, Time, 39; on this reading, the prophetic figure of Jos. Ant. 18.85- 87 might be viewed as the Taheb. On the Taheb (a Mosaic, not Davidic, figure), see Memar Marqah 2.40.28; 4:12 (in Boring et al., Commentary, 264-65); Teeple, Prophet, 63-64; MacDonald, Samaritans, 362-63; Bruce, History, 37-38; Longenecker, Christology, 34; Brown, John, 1:172; Dexinger, “Taheb-Vorstellung”; see further Keener, John, 610, 619-20.

96 Aune, Prophecy, 125-26. Interpreters could apply it to Joshua. Holladay, “Background,” and idem, “Jeremiah,” suggests that Jeremiah viewed himself in these terms; others compare Elijah (e.g., Konkel, Kings, 303). Many prophets may have followed aspects of Moses’ model or calling, but Moses remained special (Num 12:6-8; Deut 34:10-12).

97 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; Num. Rab. 11:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Eccl. Rab. 1:9, §1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:5; Eccl. Rab. 3:15, §1; Tg. Neof. on Ex 12:42 (but Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Ex 12:42 is simpler); Jeremias, “Mωυσῆς 857-62; Mauser, Wilderness, 55-56. Rabbis also compared others to Moses (e.g., Gen. Rab. 100:10).

98 Commentators cite 1 En. 48:6; 4 Ezra 13:52; Justin Dial. 8.4; 110.1; for rabbinic documentation see Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 137-39. See further 1 En. 62:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:8; Num. Rab. 11:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Song Rab. 2:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:10; Glasson, Moses, 103. Most rabbinic attestation is late, but the basic tradition surely does not derive from inferences from earlier Christian sources like John or Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho.

99 See e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:5; b. Ber. 12b; p. Ber. 1:5, §8; Ex. Rab. 1:5; 3:4; 15:11; 19:6; 32:9; Lev. Rab. 27:4; Pesiq. Rab. 52:8; cf. tos. Ber. 1:10; Eccl. Rab. 2:15, §2; probably in CD 5.19 (but cf. 7.21); 4Q389 frg. 2. See more fully Longenecker, Christology, 39-41; cf. Qumran imagery in Hatina, “Exile,” 349. In some late texts the Messiah would lead home the exiles of Israel (Pesiq. Rab. 31:10), i.e., in a new exodus.

100 See e.g., Glasson, Moses, 15-19; cf. e.g., Is 12:2 (with Ex 15:2); Is 40:3; 52:4, 12; 63:11-14; Hos 2:14-15; 11:1, 11. On exodus typology in the OT, see extensively Daube, Exodus Pattern, passim. N. T. Wright has argued most extensively for Israel’s exile as the backdrop for restoration eschatology (cf. also Evans, “Exile”; McKnight, Vision); but some contend that the early Jewish data (Pitre, Tribulation; Bird, Gentile Mission, 39-44) or the NT applications (Bock, “Trial,” 119) are more complex.

101 For Moses as king, see Jos. Ant. 4.327; L.A.B. 9:16; 20:5; Meeks, Prophet-King, 107-17, 147-50, 177-79, 181-96, 236.

102 Bammel, “Poor,” 124-26.

103 Witherington, Christology, 109-10.

104 Cf. Borg, Conflict, 171-73; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 270.

105 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 232-33; cf. Brown, Death, 458. For the eschatological Temple, cf. e.g., Tob 13:10; 14:5; 1 En. 90:28-29; 91:13, Eth.; Sib. Or. 3.657-60, 702, 772-74; 11QTemple cols. 30-45 (which depicts a temple much larger than the current Herodian one — Broshi, “Dimensions”); most extensively, Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77-90, who emphasizes (pp. 86-87) that precise expectations varied. After the Temple’s destruction most Palestinian Jews certainly longed for an imminent new one; cf. e.g., the coin in Carmon, Inscriptions, 81, 178; the fourteenth benediction of the ?Amida; tos. R.H. 2:9; Shab. 1:13; and synagogue mosaics as late as the sixth century (Dequeker, “Zodiaque”).

106 E.g., Jub. 1:17; 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4 (to the extent that the language is intended literally; cf. Test. Mos. 2:4, which applies this image to the first sanctuary; the fourteenth benediction in Oesterley, Liturgy, 65).

107 Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 175. For the Temple as the community, cf. 1QS 5.5-6; 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; perhaps CD 2.10, 13; 3.19. See e.g., Flusser, Judaism, 37-39, 44; Gärtner, Temple, 16-46 (who cites also 4QpIsa d, frg. 1; 1QpHab 12.1ff); Driver, Scrolls, 539; Bruce, “Gospels,” 76; Wilcox, “Dualism,” 93-94; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 376-77; though cf. Caquot, “Secte.” The Temple Scroll even structures the new Temple after Israel’s camp in the wilderness (cf. Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 42). The same concept may appear in a more individualized form in Philo Praem. 123; cf. Herm. 1.vis. 3 (especially if the tower may be identified with the temple by way of 1 En. 89:49-50). Gärtner, Temple, 30-42, argues for it also in 4QFlor, but this perspective has been seriously challenged (McNicol, “Temple”; Schwartz, “Temples”).

108 Contrary to some who share this perspective, however, “their significance” could be “evocative and not constitutive”; see Richardson, Israel, 61.

109 E.g., Jeremias, Theology, 234-35. Thus they mark Jesus’ movement as a renewal movement within Judaism (e.g., Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 138), a frequent scholarly understanding of the earliest Jesus movement (cf. e.g., Horsley, “Movements”).

110 E.g., 1QS 8.1-2; 4Q259 2.9; cf. also 1QM 2.1-3; 5.2; 4Q159 frg. 2-4, lines 3-6; 4Q164.4-5; especially (with 1QS 8.1) 4Q259 2.9. For “twelve” in Qumran and other literature, see also Geyser, “Tribes,” 392.

111 See Bruce, “Gospels,” 75-76; Harrington, God’s People, 39; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 104; Evans, “Typologies,” 59-60; cf. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 82, 89. For the eschatological hope for the twelve tribes, see Sanders, Judaism, 291 (citing e.g., 1QM 2.2-3; 11QT 8.14-16; 57.5-6).

112 Even the twelve signs of the zodiac (e.g., Philo Mos. 2.112, 124-26; Rewards 65; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:5; Pesiq. Rab. 4:1; 29/30A:6; cf. Jos. War 5.217)!

113 Jeremias, Theology, 235; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 96-97; Esth. Rab. 2:14; though contrast some in m. Sanh. 10:5; tos. Sanh. 13:12.

114 Cf. Jeremias, Theology, 235; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98-106.

115 Bauckham, “James,” 430 (citing the views of Spencer and Daube, not his own).

116 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11 (“almost indisputable”), 98-101 (esp. refutation of Vielhauer in 99-100); Witherington, Christology, 126-27; Meier, “Circle of Twelve”; Ehrman, Prophet, 186-87; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 137; on the embarrassment, Zwiep, Judas, 47.

117 Cf. possibly 1 Cor 11:23; whether this verse refers to Judas’ betrayal (Fee, Corinthians, 549, given the last supper context) or not (Hays, 1 Corinthians, 198; Smith, Symposium, 188, citing Rom 4:25; 8:32; perhaps Is 53:6, 12b) is debated.

118 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 101. Such a standardized list would be difficult in any case in the earliest period, given the frequent use of multiple names (see e.g., Acts 1:23). On the list, see detailed discussion in Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 97-108 (esp. 97-101).

119 Luke might follow Q here, Matthew (Matt 10:3) preferring Mark on this point. Although the lists could include different persons at this point, they could also reflect differing traditions of the names of the same person, since individuals often had multiple names in antiquity (e.g., P. Oxy. 494.32; 1273.3, 49; CPJ 2:140, §§248-49; 2:143, §261; 2:145, §§269-70; 2:146, §274; 2:147, §275; 2:147, §276; 2:151, §298; 2:153, §304; 2:154, §311; 2:156, §321; 3:9, §453; CIJ 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879).

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

121 The polemical basis in arguing for or against authenticity, strictly irrelevant to exegesis or historical endeavor, is in any case a moot point. Luz (who rejects the passage’s authenticity for other reasons) is probably correct that the text nowhere implies that Peter would be institutionally succeeded by anyone (Luz, “Primacy Text”).

122 E.g., 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:7.

123 Cullmann, “????o?,” 105.

124 Most critical scholars denied the authenticity of this Matthean material (in contrast to its Markan framework — cf. Montefiore, Gospels, 1:182) until studies confirmed its early Palestinian character; the most common theory then became that it represented a postresurrection saying (Cullmann, Peter, 166-67, 180; Meier, Matthew, 179). Cullmann located it in the Passion story (Peter, 184); see Gundry’s reasoned critique (Gundry, “Framework”). The debate has somewhat receded along with the polemics that supported it; most NT scholars, including both Roman Catholics and Protestants, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Matt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the Popes (Pelikan, “Sees,” 60). Hagner, Matthew, 465-66, also supplies arguments for authenticity; on Jesus’ intention for the church, cf. also Bowman, Intention, 191-225.

125 Cf. Ellis, Matthew, 128-29; Weeden, Mark, 43; Weber, “Notes 1961”; idem, “Notes 1962.” Feuillet, “Primauté,” suggests that Mark omitted it because he depended on Peter, who was too humble to emphasize it.

126 Gundry, Matthew, 330-31.

127 Some deny the likelihood of this logion because it differs from other sayings of Jesus (Goppelt, Theology, 1:213), whereas others find its elements in the earliest strata of Jesus tradition (Michaels, Servant, 301-2). The passage has three strophes of three lines apiece (Meier, Matthew, 179; Gundry, Matthew, 331). Some compare the saying’s structure to Matthew’s love of Semitic parallelism (Gundry, Matthew, 331), but others point to the Semitic language as indicating an early tradition (Ellis, Matthew, 129-30; Harrington, Matthew, 68; Cangh and Esbroek, “Primauté”; Young, Theologian, 203 n. 2; cf. Jesus’ use of beatitudes, etc., in pre-Matthean tradition). Some who doubt the saying’s authenticity nevertheless accept it as pre-Matthean (Carroll, “Peter”; Bornkamm, “Authority,” 111).

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

129 In 1987, Duling, “Binding,” doubted the authenticity of “binding and loosing” because it violated the criterion of dissimilarity, though acknowledging that it fit that of Jewish environment; because I rank the latter criterion much more highly I believe that it cancels the former out.

130 E.g., an angel blesses Aseneth for receiving revelation (Jos. Asen. 16:14/7) and a rabbi would praise his disciples (m. Ab. 2:8). Revelatory eschatological knowledge also appears in 1Q27 1.7

131 Young, Theologian, 199.

132 Some scholars cite against the passage’s reliability Peter’s lack of corresponding prominence in the early church (Beare, Matthew, 353), an argument that (if true) could be turned on its head (why would the early church have created a saying that they knew was untrue in their time?). Other scholars more reasonably find evidence for a measure of Peter’s prominence in the early church (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9; 1 Pet 1:1) and question how he would have obtained this prominence unless he were close to Jesus and somehow appointed to lead the other members of the Twelve (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 105).

133 Some suggest symbolic value here (Matt 12:41; 16:4; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 332-33), perhaps playing off the traditional and similar name we note in John. The imaginative suggestion that “bar-Jona” represents an Akkadian (!) loanword for terrorist identifying Peter as a Zealot or outlaw (cf. Cullmann, State, 16; Theissen, Sociology, 11) has little to commend it (see Brown, Donfried and Reumann, Peter, 88 n. 203).

134 Williams, “Names,” 104 (noting that it never occurs in this period); for a possible occurrence in 4Q130.8-9, see Charlesworth, “Peter.” The name “Petros” might appear rarely and later in some Aramaic Jewish texts (Gen. Rab. 92:2; Ex. Rab. 52:3).

135 Many scholars point to Abraham’s role in Is 51:1-2, as well as to some very late (possibly too late; cf. also Witherington, End, 89; Arnéra, “Rocher”) rabbinic expositions on it (Ford, “Abraham”; Cullmann, “????o?,” 106; Ellis, Matthew, 129-30; Bruce, Time, 60; cf. Chevallier, “Pierre”; Manns, “Halakah”); others object that the differences are too great (Hagner, Matthew, 470). Witherington, End, 89 suggests the foundation of a new temple, citing the language of m. Yoma 5:2 (cf. Jn 7:37-39). The Qumran sect was also founded on a “rock,” a refuge against death (1QH 6.23-28; Driver, Scrolls, 519; Witherington, End, 89; cf. 1QS 8.7; Hill, Matthew, 261).

136 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 146-47; Cullmann, Peter, 19 n. 14.

137 My own argument appears in Keener, Matthew, 426-30.

138 The image is fairly consistent with Jesus’ portrayal of his teachings as a “rock” in Lk 6:47-49// Matt 7:24-27.

139 Boring, Sayings, 213-14.

140 Cf. e.g., Mk 4:15-20, 26-32; 13:5-13 (vs. 13:14-27). (See more fully our discussion in ch. 14.)

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

142 This included teachers who were founding schools of thought (cf. e.g., Culpepper, School, 123).

143 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 121; Brown, Donfried and Reumann, Peter, 92; Harrington, Matthew, 29.

144 Frequently noted, e.g., Bultmann, Theology, 1:38; Foakes Jackson and Lake, “Development,” 327-28; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 54; Richardson, Theology, 285; Meeks, Urban Christians, 79; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:629; cf. 1 Macc 2:56; Jos. Ant. 3.84, 188, 292, 300, etc.

145 Ridderbos, Paul, 328; Bruce, Books, 84; Klaasen, Anabaptism, 112-16.

146 Ladd, Theology, 110; France, Matthew, 255.

147 Ekkl?sia could include any gathering (cf. Deissmann, Light, 112-13), even an army (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.94.1). Most often in regular Greek usage it meant the “citizen assembly” of a local community (e.g., Acts 19:32, 39), including in Republican Rome (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.87.1; 7.17.2; 11.50.1) and Jerusalem (Jos. War 4.162; 7.412).

148 Biblical tradition had often spoken of “building up” the community of God (e.g., Ruth 4:11; Ps 51:18; 69:35; 147:2; Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:4, 28; Ladd, Theology, 109; cf. Prov 9:1); Qumran texts indicate that the usage remained familiar among Jesus’ contemporaries (4QpPs 37.3, 16; Jeremias, Theology, 168), although there God was the builder of his community (Gundry, Matthew, 336).

149 With shorter Markan (Mk 6:7-11) and longer “Q” forms (cf. Matt 10:7-8, 12-13, 15-16//Lk 10:3, 6, 9, 12).

150 Sanders, Figure, 123-24 doubts the disciples misunderstood as much as Mark implies or proved as independent as Matt 10 implies; otherwise it would be difficult to reconcile the two pictures. Yet even in Mark Jesus expects the disciples to exercise more faith, and it is only the especially difficult cases (like Mk 9:18-19, 28-29) that stump them. Disciples were known to sometimes fall short of their masters’ faith (cf. 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15-17; the later story about Levi ben Sisi and two generations after him in p. Taan. 3:8, §2). Since Matthew does not report the results of their mission, it would actually be Mark (if either of them) who would be exaggerating their success (cf. Malina, Windows, 131).

151 Jewish texts contain similar statements in which the sheep represent Israel or the pious among them (1 En. 90.6-17; Tanh. Toledot 5; Vermes, Religion, 89). Nevertheless, Jesus drives home the point still more graphically: his sheep are actually sent among the predators (Vermes, Religion, 89).

152 See b. Bek. 29a; D.E. 2.4; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 226; Lachs, Commentary, 180; cf. m. Ab. 1:3; Sipre Deut. 48.2.7; p. Ned. 4:4.

153 Although possibly a free-floating tradition (the context differs in Matthew and Luke), Wenham, Rediscovery, 101-34 suggests that it was transmitted as part of Jesus’ eschatological discourse.

154 Manson, Sayings, 217.

155 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 100; idem, Figure, 190; Witherington, Christology, 140-41.

156 Cf. the probable reapplication to the whole church even in Rev 21:12-14.

157 Martin, James, 8-9.

158 For Sodom (Matt 10:15; 11:23//Lk 10:12), e.g., Is 1:9-10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46-56; Amos 4:11; cf. Sir 16:8; Jub. 36:10; 3 Macc 2:5; tos. Sanh. 13:8; Shab. 7:23; Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.3; Sipre Deut. 43.3.5. For woes, see e.g., Is 18:1; 33:1; Jer 13:27; 48:46; Ezek 16:23; Hab 2:15; cf. both in Lam 4:6.

159 See Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 229. 160. On the authenticity of the eschatological discourse, see Wenham, Rediscovery; idem, “Apocalypse”; Pitre, Tribulation, 231-53, 264-91, 348-77.

161 Certainly this is the immediate context in Matthew; see Matt 24:15; Meier, Matthew, 274; Baum, Jews and Gospel, 54; cf. Matt 21:13; Jer 12:7; Tob 14:4.

162 The Temple was also “your house” (Jdt 9:13). Later Jewish teachers even used a bilingual play on words to identify Jeremiah’s mission with the Temple’s “desolation” (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:12, same Greek term as here); for them, the house left desolate was plainly the Temple (p. Taan. 4:5, §11), and exile under a foreign power inevitably followed the “desolation” of their city (4 Bar. 5:28).

163 Jos. Apion 1.154.

164 Apion 1.132.

165 Israel saw itself rising or falling with its Temple (Jer 7:3-15); the restored Temple is a symbol of Israel’s restoration and glory in Ezekiel 40-44.

166 Mack, Myth, 10 n. 4.

167 Mack, Myth, 327 thinks the attribution of Mark 13’s eschatological sayings to Jesus is part of Mark’s fiction. Kelber, “Conclusion,” 168-72, contends that Mark, being anti-Temple, must be post-70; Marxsen, however, believes Mark sees in the Temple’s destruction a herald of the imminent end (Marxsen, Mark, 168, 189). But while most Jews would have viewed the Temple as invulnerable before 66, some thought otherwise (see text).

168 Only GThom 71 attributes the statement to Jesus himself, and this version is clearly late and gnosticizing (Aune, Prophecy, 173). Nevertheless Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 73-74 is probably right to suggest that this reflects an authentic (though probably misinterpreted) saying; it is multiply attested and not the sort of threat one would have made up later (also Theissen, Gospels in Context, 113, 194; at length on Jesus’ temple prediction, see Sanders, “Temple”). If the four-beat rhythm in the proposed Aramaic reconstruction is accurate, it may indicate that Jesus originally offered this teaching privately to the disciples (cf. Jeremias, Theology, 22-23).

169 Cf. Hare, Persecution, 6.

170 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 365 n. 5.

171 Cf. Borg, Conflict, 165-70. This was true even in the Diaspora; see e.g., Let. Aris. 100-1; Philo Spec. Laws 1.76; cf. 4 Macc 4:9-12.

172 Test. Levi 15:1; cf. 14:6. This work has at least Christian interpolations, though one need not assume one here.

173 Test. Moses 5:4.

174 Test. Mos. 6:8-9.

175 Sib. Or. 3.665.

176 Sib. Or. 3.657-60. John J. Collins apparently regards this material as pre-Christian (OTP 1:358).

177 Sanders, Figure, 262 cites the repeated expectation of this new Temple (e.g., 1 En. 90:28-29; 11QTemple 29.8-10; cf. the hope of restoration in the seventeenth benediction of the Amida).

178 Witherington, End, 92 (following Juel, Messiah, 204), because some interpreters already took 2 Sam 7:13-14 as Messianic (see 4QFlor).

179 Sanders, Figure, 259.

180 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 359.

181 Jesus could have envisioned the new Temple in partly or wholly “spiritual” forms, or a spiritual present one in addition to a future literal one; Qumran attests belief in a spiritual present temple as well as an eschatological literal one.

182 1QpHab 9.6-7. Scholars debate the identity of the Kittim in the earliest scrolls, but they surely at least included the Romans in the later ones (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; see e.g., Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 167-68; Charlesworth, Pesharim, 109-10).

183 Fritsch thinks that the probable Damascus Essenes were less anti-Temple than the Qumran community, based on CD 13.27; 9.46; 8.11ff (Community, 84); cf. also Davies, “Temple.” Essene opposition sheds light on another point in the Gospels: that Jesus also respected (Matt 5:23-24; 23:16-21) and taught in (Mk 12:35) the Temple does not conflict with his announcement of judgment against it (Mk 13:2); even Essenes reportedly sent sacrifices to the Temple (Jos. Ant. 18.19).

184 Hill, Prophecy, 62-63.

185 Aune, Prophecy, 174-75 lists many of Jesus’ predecessors and contemporaries who prophesied against the Temple or made similar claims: e.g., the Egyptian prophet expected Jerusalem’s walls to collapse (Jos. Ant. 20.169-70; cf. War 2.261-63); Josephus himself claimed to predict the fall of Jotapata (War 3.406) and cites an ancient oracle predicting the Temple’s fall (War 6.96-110; 4.388; he may refer to a biblical oracle, however).

186 Robinson, Redating, 27, following Dodd; cf. Taylor, Formation, 73.

187 E.g., Ps. Sol. 2:1-10; 17:5; cf. Song Rab. 8:12, §1.

188 E.g., Jos. War 6.288-315; Pesiq. Rab. 26:6; cf. Apoc. Ab. 27:3-7; Goldenberg, “Explanations.” Nevertheless, in keeping with prior biblical tradition, they saw the Temple’s destroyers as ignoble (Jos. War 6.95; Gen. Rab. 37:4) and warranting judgment (Urbach, Sages, 1:91-92). Gentile Christians after the first century often saw in the Temple’s demise God’s rejection of Judaism, vengeance for Christ’s death, or the present impossibility of fulfilling the law (Lampe, “A.D. 70,” 153-71; cf. Justin’s hostility in Dial. 16.3-4; Bokser, “Justin,” 205-6); apart from judgment for Christ’s death (in Matt 23:29-24:2, yet with future hope in 23:39; cf. Lk 13:33-35), these associations are absent in the first-century Gospels.

189 Danker, New Age, 198; Kaufman, “Eastern Wall,” 115; cf. the language of Hag 2:15.

190 Sanders, Figure, 257.

191 Cf. what most scholars take as Matthean redaction in Matt 22:7, probably after 70 CE. See also Beasley-Murray, Mark Thirteen, 24; Meier, Matthew, 277, 283; Gundry, Matthew, 475; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:335. For portents of the temple’s destruction (cf. esp. Josephus’ post-70 perspective), see Bedenbender, “Kampf.”

192 Thus Kümmel, Promise, 101-2 sees the Temple prophecy as originally referring to the end of the age rather than to a historical event (cf. Ellison, Mystery, 19ff). “Since the destruction of the temple and the holy city is a theme of Jewish apocalyptic, Jesus’ prophecy is generally and quite correctly regarded as eschatological” (Aune, Prophecy, 175; citing also Bultmann). But Borg also seems correct when he suggests that Jesus prophesied judgment rather than constructed an elaborate apocalyptic schema (Borg, Conflict, 181), though I believe that he is wrong to deny Jesus’ eschatological worldview in other respects (see Witherington, Christology, 30 n. 111).

193 Glasson, Advent, 75.

194 1 Macc 3:45; 3 Macc 1:29; 2:14; 2 Bar. 5:1; Test. Asher 7:2; tos. Suk. 4:28; CD 4.17-18; cf. Ps 74:3- 4, 7; Is 63:18.

195 Philo Embassy to Gaius 209-10.

196 Jos. Ant. 10.37-38; Ps. Sol. 1:8; Apoc. Ab. 27:7.

197 In Jerusalem, “the Wicked Priest did abominable works and defiled the sanctuary of God” (1QpHab 12.7-9); because this Qumran passage interprets Hab 2:17, which refers to bloodshed, it probably refers to the persecution of the followers of the Teacher of Righteousness (cf. 1QpHab 12.6 and context).

198 Cf. Daube, NT and Judaism, 418-20; Hill, Prophecy, 63; Beale, “Daniel,” 5:129.

199 Daniel’s image in at least one or two texts referred to the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed to be deity and oppressed Israel (Dan 8:13; 11:31, 36-39; 1 Macc 1:54-56; 6:7; cf. Jos. Ant. 12.253; Jub. 23:21); another text, however, associates the same phenomenon with the cutting off of some sort of anointed ruler (cf. Payne, Appearing, 146), and this could be closer to the time of Jesus (Dan 9:26). The latest possible date of Daniel is the second-century BC (given a Qumran Daniel manuscript of that date); nevertheless, calculating the “seventy sevens” from the time of the decree to which Daniel refers could (depending on how one counts) bring one to the early first century. This calculation probably increased eschatological speculation among Jesus’ contemporaries (Beckwith, “Date”; on Daniel’s popularity then, cf. Jos. Ant. 10.268-81; 12.322; Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 47). Many scholars today think that Daniel applied only to the Maccabean desecration (e.g., Aalders, “Gruwel”; Colunga, “Abominación”), but both the Qumran pesharim and texts like Lives of Prophets 12:11 (§19 in Schermann, p. 63) indicate that Jesus’ contemporaries freely applied such images for their own era.

200 In the Dead Sea Scrolls the period of tribulation extended forty years (CD 20.14-15; for reinterpretation after delay, see 1QpHab 7.13-14).

201 E.g., b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Song Rab. 2:13, §4; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; 34:1; 36:1-2; see Bonsirven, Judaism, 212-13. Jewish speculation concerning the end-time regularly reapplied Daniel’s figures in various manners (see Bruce, “Qumran and Christianity,” 177; Russell, Apocalyptic, 198-201; cf. Ruth Rab. 5:6).

202 Revelation seems to reapply Daniel’s tribulation period to the period between Jesus’ first and second comings (Rev 12:1-6, 10); some scholars have understood Matthew 24 similarly (cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:369; Keener, Matthew, 577-78).

203 See Schweitzer, Quest, passim; cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 8. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 33-34 doubts the authenticity of agrapha in Papias because they resemble Jewish apocalyptic more than the Gospels (earthly fertility, etc.); but whether or not these agrapha are authentic, such grounds for excluding them appear unwarranted. Similar imagery appeared in Jesus’ Bible (e.g., Amos 9:13; Is 35:1-2; Joel 2:24), and if Jesus could draw on other eschatological images (e.g., Mk 14:25, perhaps evoking the eschatological banquet of Is 25:6; cf. Matt 8:11) and treat the Hebrew Bible as a unified book (Matt 23:35// Lk 11:51) there is no reason he could not have embraced biblical images even different from those most frequently found in his canonical sayings.

204 Cf. Bruce, “Matthew,” 288; Beasley-Murray, Future; idem, Mark Thirteen, 1-18.

205 We do not have a description of Jesus’ heavenly revelations. That Jesus had visionary experiences may be likely, but Quarles, “Mystic,” is right to question the portrayal of Jesus as a merkabah mystic (in Chilton, Rabbi Jesus); Jesus’ known activity does not specifically fit Merkabah mystic practices, and there is no focus on securing visions of the throne-chariot. (Segal’s argument for Paul’s preconversion experience seems more plausible.) One might compare elements of a testament (cf. e.g., Jub. 36:1-11; 2 En. 2:2; Test. Twelve Patriarchs) or more generally a farewell discourse, which often includes eschatological or sometimes apocalyptic features (see Robbins, Teacher, 175). A sage’s imminent death often provides the occasion for paranesis (Perdue, “Death”; Jos. Ant. 4.177-93). On testaments, see Saldarini, “Deathbed Scenes”; Kolenkow, “Genre”; Collins, “Testamentary Literature”; Endres, Interpretation, 199-201; McNamara, Judaism, 89-92; on farewell speeches, see also Stowers, Letter Writing, 55-56; Kurz, “Addresses.” Neusner, “Death-Scenes,” is correct, however, that the analogy is largely formal; the Gospels’ christology necessitates radically different content.

206 Mark could have combined disparate elements of the Jesus tradition (Beasley-Murray, “Second Thoughts”), and may combine apocalyptic with antiapocalyptic motifs (cf. Tagawa, “Marc 13”). After commending Beasley-Murray for a brilliant defense of Mark 13’s authenticity, Perrin responds that many “non-Markan” terms common to Revelation appear in this chapter (Perrin, Teaching, 130- 31); but the data he marshalls for his objection merely confirm the pre-Markan character of the text and the distinctive vocabulary of Jewish eschatology. Likewise, an argument for prophetic language similar to Revelation (Boring, Sayings, 186-95) does not call into question authenticity if one concedes (as Boring elsewhere does) that Jesus himself spoke as a prophet.

207 Ford, Abomination, 28. From the earliest sayings of Jesus, imminence would take effect only after the signs were fulfilled (Bruce, Apostle, 230).

208 E.g., Ford, Abomination, 23; most fully, Theissen, Gospels in Context, 125-65. Caligula’s attempt to establish his image in Jerusalem’s temple (Jos. Ant. 18.259-308; 19.1-20; War 2.184-85; Philo Leg. Gaius 115-16, 188, 346; Tac. Ann. 12.54; cf. Dio Cass. R.H. 59.4.4; Bilde, “Statue”; Stern, “Province,” 354-59; Benko, “History,” 51-53) undoubtedly fueled renewed expectations of the final oppressor, and Jewish tradition recalled him harshly long after his demise (b. Sot. 33a; Song Rab. 8:9, §3). Philo appropriately charges that Gaius Caligula was zealous for “lawlessness” (paranomia), because he regarded himself as law (Embassy 119); some who heard of Caligula’s plans sought to rescue themselves from lawlessness (Embassy 190).

209 Although it is far from clear, some other material in 1 Thessalonians may also echo the dominical tradition (Riesenfeld, Tradition, 17; cf. Dibelius, Paul, 93). The “catching up” may reflect an agraphon (Frame, Thessalonians, 171; Morris, Thessalonians, 141; Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 14; cf. Neil, Thessalonians, 97) or a midrashic implication of the explicit gathering (Wenham, “Apocalypse,” 348; cf. Marshall, Thessalonians, 130); the descent may derive from OT theophany language (see Scott, “Clouds,” 132).

210 See especially Waterman, “Sources” (citing 24 parallels, mostly compelling); Wenham, Rediscovery; cf. also Hunter, Predecessors, 49; Stanley, Resurrection, 82; Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 12; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Minear, Commands, 164-65; Mounce, “Eschatology”; Lane, Mark, 449; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 42; Ridderbos, Paul, 65; Hill, Prophecy, 130; Plevnik, “1 Thess 5”; Robinson, Coming, 113-14; Davies, Paul, 139; Marshall, Thessalonians, 126, 134; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 144-45; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 243-47; Keener, Matthew, 565-66; cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 165; in 2 Thess 2, see besides those above D. Wenham, Rediscovery, 176-80; Milligan, Thessalonians, lxi n. 1.

211 4 Ezra 5:8; 6:21; Sib. Or. 2.154-64, following Hesiod Works and Days 181. On Jesus’ discourse, see e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 478.

212 Glasson, Advent, 175 and Robinson, Coming, 105-7; they rightly find a source for much of the material in the LXX, especially Is 26-27, but miss the one authority behind early Christian eschatology that could combine these varied motifs (cf. similarly Wenham, “Apocalypse,” 348-49).

213 Goulder, Midrash, 166 characteristically thinks Matthew derives the trumpet from 1 Thess 4:16 (cf. Dodd, Parables, 154-55, on 1 Thess 5:2-8 with Lk 21:34-36), but this gives Paul’s correspondence too preeminent and early a role in early Christianity (probably before Christians even collected his letters).

214 Pace Koester, “One Jesus,” 196; Best, Thessalonians, 189-93; Boring, Sayings, 11, 34 n. 41; Aune, Prophecy, 253-56.

215 Prophecies could be written down and preserved (Test. Job 51:4/3); but it does not appear to have been the norm (cf. Aune, Prophecy, 244). (Further, oracles were far more likely to be heavily redacted than didactic traditions were; cf. Collins, “Introduction to Oracles,” 320.) Apart from Revelation, we lack much concrete evidence in early Christianity for recording such prophecies or, with rare exceptions, for their widespread geographic circulation.

216 The cumulative evidence is, as Ford, Abomination, 22 puts it, virtually “conclusive.” See also Waterman, “Sources,” and the many other writers noted above.

↑ Back to top