Chapter 359 of 404

Notes to Chapter 20

1 Evans, “Activities,” 24, 27.

2 With e.g., Witherington, “Wright quest” (praising this aspect of N. T. Wright’s work). Evans, “Non-Christian Sources,” 472, notes that whereas Burton Mack supposes that Mark’s linkage of Jesus’ teaching and signs to his death is fictitious, these elements also appear together in Josephus’ brief sketch of Jesus (Ant. 18.63-64). While not everyone who spoke like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., was martyred, and while Gandhi and King (unlike Jesus) did not provoke martyrdom deliberately, there remains an intrinsic relationship between their message and their martyrdom.

3 For Jesus’ prophetic act and confrontation with the elite probably leading to his martyrdom, see also e.g., Mk 11:18; Borg, Vision, 176-84; Broadhead, “Priests,” 142.

4 Tan, Zion Traditions, 234. Keck, History, 124, sees Jesus going to Jerusalem to fulfill his costly mission, but no indication that he went to confront the authorities there.

5 Some cite in its favor the appearance of the parable in Gospel of Thomas 65 (e.g., Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 139-40); because I consider Thomas’ version secondary, however, I will not appeal to it here.

6 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 141 (also noting the neglect of the burial in the parable, in contrast to widespread early Christian tradition [e.g., 1 Cor 15:4]; p. 142).

7 Which need not be secondary, pace Nineham, Mark, 311; 4Q500.1 may conjoin Is 5’s vineyard with the temple and possibly even Ps 118, as here (cf. Brooke, “4Q500”; Baumgarten, “4Q500”). The absence of this allusion in GThom 65 could indicate that the original Jesus tradition lacked this detail, but the Gospel of Thomas may as easily have omitted it — its original point certainly would not fit Thomas’s redactional Tendenz, whereas Mark had little reason to invent an allusion that was too subtle for most of his own readers to catch (see also Snodgrass, Tenants; Gundry, Matthew, 425; Carson, “Matthew,” 452, following Snodgrass, “Husbandmen,” for doubts that GThom preserves the original form). Still, the basic triadic outline of Thomas’s parable might vindicate Dodd’s defense of this form (Parables, 100).

8 Ps 80:12-14; Virg. Georg. 2.371-79; Lewis, Life, 125.

9 2 Chron 26:10; Is 1:8; Gundry, Matthew, 425.

10 Anderson, Mark, 272; see further Jeremias, Parables, 74-75. On the care of vineyards, including irrigation, see more fully Hepper, Plants, 96-97; for ideal sites, see Colum. Trees 4.1-5.

11 Klausner, Jesus, 181; Anderson, Mark, 272; on tenants leasing plots of land, see Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 68, who cite Varro Agric. 1.17.2-3; Columella Agric. 1.7; Pliny Ep. 3.19; 9.37. In Palestine, see Kloppenborg, “Growth”; for examples of tenant farmers elsewhere, e.g., CIL 8.25902 (Empire, ed. Sherk, pp. 250-51); Deissmann, Light, 33. Grain legally belonged to the landowner until the lessees had paid their rent (Lewis, Life, 123). (Meier, Matthew, 243 thinks that the landowner here demands all the produce in this parable, mirroring the absolute demands of God’s reign; but “his fruit” simply means the portion the tenants had contracted to deliver to him.) Despite Matthew’s eschatological uses for harvest imagery (3:10-12; 13:39) and “drawn near” (4:17), “proper time” (21:41) need not be eschatological (cf. 24:45), probably referring to harvest in early summer (cf. Jos. Apion 1.79).

12 E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:11.

13 Gen. Rab. 38:9. Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 594, points out that in rabbinic parables, the landlord always represents God, although the share-cropping tenants variously represent Israel (ARN 16:3A) or groups of the righteous (the patriarchs, tithe-payers — Sipre Deut. 312; Ex. Rab. 41:1), or people who should learn Torah (some of whom do and others do not — Deut. Rab. 7:4). Servants in rabbinic parables are more ad hoc: they could represent Israel, Israel’s pious, Israel’s poor, or Israel’s prayerful, but also Gentiles, Egypt, and other referents (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 590).

14 Hengel, “Gleichnis,” followed also by Lane, Mark, 417 n. 9.

15 Young, Parables, 298-301 compares Sipre Deut. 312, in which a king finally expelled wicked tenants from his field after his own son was born; and especially Seder Eliyahu 30/28 (a passage with an early-second-century attribution), in which a wicked guardian killed his son (p. 301), depicting God’s identification with his people in anthropomorphic terms (p. 304). I suspect that the latter parallel, lacking both tenants and vineyard, is too distant, but Young is right to compare the shock value in both illustrations (p. 303).

16 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 154.

17 See further arguments in Hagner, Matthew, 619.

18 Ignoring these factors, Vermes, Religion, 104 rejects the citation as anti-Jewish church polemic, but the saying itself is hardly anti-Jewish.

19 So Stern, Parables, 197 on this parable, though many of Jesus’ parables lack such allusions.

20 Young, Parables, 293-94.

21 Gundry, Matthew, 429, following Black. Jesus may read habonim (“builders”) as if from bun, “understand,” rather than from bnh, “build,” hence apply it to the scribes (Stern, Parables, 196); Young, Theologian, 219 suggests a play among “sons” (banim), “builders” (bonim), and “stones” (avanim). Early Christians naturally accommodated the quotation to the LXX (Perrin, Teaching, 132), although Jesus probably did address the Jerusalem aristocracy in Greek.

22 Gundry, Old Testament, 200. See Mk 2:25; 12:10, 26; cf. Matt 12:5; 19:4 (apparently added to Mark); 21:16; Lk 10:26. The phrase may correspond to “Is it not written” (Mk 11:17), though “It is written” was a common scripture citation formula (Josh 8:31; 2 Kgs 23:21; 2 Chron 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 35:12; Ezra 3:2, 4; 6:18; Neh 8:15; 10:34, 36; Dan 9:13; CD 1.13; 5.1; 7.10; 11.18, 20; 1QS 5.15, 17; 8.14; Test. Zeb. 3:4; m. Git. 9:10; Sanh. 10:1; Mek. Pisha 1.76-77; Sipre Deut. 56.1.2b; Fitzmyer, Essays, 7-16).

23 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 427; Kingsbury, Christology, 150. See discussion below and in ch. 18.

24 Pace Scott, Parable, 249-50, the tenants are not “expected” to challenge the landowner’s honor; custom demands rather that they accept their socially inferior status and act accordingly. While ancient peasants undoubtedly enjoyed their plight no more than other peasants, they would not have identified with the foolish tenants in this story, nor do the actions of these tenants represent a Galilean peasant revolt (Gundry, Matthew, 425, following Rostovzeff, History, 1.269-73; cf. Snodgrass, Stories, 293; pace Dodd, Parables, 97; Jeremias, Parables, 74-75).

25 Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 625.

26 Is 5:2; cf. 3:14; Ezek 17:6; Hos 9:10; 3 Bar. 1:2; Mek. Pisha 1.162; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:9; Ex. Rab. 30:17; 34:3; Song Rab. 2:16, §1; 7:13, §1; Jeremias, Parables, 70, 76-77.

27 Colum. Rust. 1.7.1-2. Later rabbis emphasized treating vineyard tenants fairly (b. Ber. 5b). Details would be specified in legal contracts (e.g., P. Oxy. 1631, from 280 CE), and receipts would be issued for rent paid in produce (e.g., P. Amh. 104, from 125 CE).

28 Colum. Rust. 1.7.2.

29 Cf. e.g., Hom. Il. 7.275-82; Appian R.H. 8.8.53; although some had killed royal tax-collectors (1 Kgs 12:18; Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7). The slaughter of a group of ambassadors (Jos. Life 56-57) or of successive messengers (Life 50-52) appeared morally hideous.

30 Cf. Matt 5:12//Lk 6:23, 26; Matt 23:31, 34//Lk 11:49-50; 1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 2 Chron 24:20-22; Neh 9:26; Jer 26:21-23; 1 En. 89:51-53; Jub. 1:12; CD 7.17-18.

31 Cf. Jos. Ant. 10.38; Mart. Is. 5:1-14; Liv. Pr. 1:1 (OTP 2:385)/§24 in Greek of Schermann, p. 75, line 1; 2:1 (Schermann §25, p. 81.2); 6:1 (Schermann §17, p. 60); 7:1-2 (Schermann §14, p. 51). The killing may allude in the narrative world especially to the Baptist (cf. Petersen, Criticism, 69); many see in the two sendings the former and latter prophets (cf. Scott, Parable, 241). Young, Parables, 288 prefers the Lukan and GThom versions, thinking Matthew’s (and Mark’s) killings represent a later allegorical stage; but Mark is probably our earliest form.

32 For accounts of landholders’ use of violence to expand their holdings (the basis for hereditary wealthy), see especially MacMullen, Social Relations, 6-12.

33 Hence in a later Jewish parable, those who have killed a royal (i.e., divine) messenger fear retribution (Gen. Rab. 42:3; Lev. Rab. 11:7; cf. Ruth Rab. Proem 7). The Romans likewise enslaved a whole people for killing one of their representatives (Eustathius, Paraphrase of Dionysius Periegetes in Geographi Graeci Minores 2.p.253, lines 8-10, in Sherk, Empire, 37); cf. Lk 21:24.

34 Cf. Matt 10:40; Lk 10:16; tos. Taan. 3:2; m. Ber. 5:5; also Scott, Parable, 249. This is entirely aside from how peasants in general viewed landowners in general (Oakman, “Peasant,” 119); this landowner is so benevolent by contrast to most that in an ancient context he may have appeared favorably.

35 Scott, Parable, 250.

36 Herodian 4.1.3.

37 Virg. Aen. 10.492.

38 Because “beloved” sometimes represents “only” (see Keener, John, 412-16, esp. 415; this conclusion also fits the “heir” of Mk 12:7), it heightens the story’s pathos and suspense; most families had several children, but this father has only one heir (Young, Theologian, 217-18).

39 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 152-53.

40 Also Jub. 1:21; Ps. Sol. 14:5; cf. 1QM 12.12.

41 This sort of fruit may also be implied in Mk 11:14, since Mark frames Jesus’ prophetic act in the temple with the cursing of the fig tree.

42 “Come, let us kill him” (Mk 12:7) reflects Gen 37:20 LXX, hence an allusion to the envy of Joseph’s brothers against the one “sent” by their father (Gen 37:13-14), who became their deliverer (cf. Acts 7:9-16).

43 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 427; Kingsbury, Christology, 150.

44 Jeremias, Parables, 73. “Son” usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 587; e.g., also Ex. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 2:5; 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 7:9; 10:4; Lam. Rab. 1:17, 52; 2; Song Rab. 2:16, §1; 5:16, §3), a natural usage (cf. e.g., Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1; Is 1:2; Jer 3:19-22; Sir 4:10; Ps. Sol. 13:9; 17:27-30; 18:4; Jub. 1:24-25); but even in rabbinic parables, special servants within Israel are sometimes intended (e.g., Sipre Deut. 29.4.1; p. M.K. 3:1, §6). Stern, Parables, 192-95, who doubts that Jesus would have foreseen his death, suggests that the son is John the Baptist, whose death at best foreshadows that of Jesus. But in the context of Jesus’ ministry (especially the recent entry and act in the temple) a self-reference is most likely even before interpretation in Christian tradition (cf. also Hagner, Matthew, 619).

45 Cf. McKelvey, “Cornerstone,” for the former; Gundry, Matthew, 429; Jeremias, “?????,” 792- 93 for the latter.

46 1QS 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; CD 2.10, 13; Gärtner, Temple, 16-46; Flusser, Judaism, 37-39; Wilcox, “Dualism,” 93-94. The psalm itself has a temple context (Ps 118:19-20, 27), though it is not clear that the stone refers to it.

47 A later rabbinic tradition plausibly explains the rejected cornerstone as David, repudiated by Saul (Hilton and Marshall, Gospels, 60; Young, Theologian, 219).

48 Kingsbury, Story, 81-84.

49 On the authenticity of Lk 13:31-33, see Tan, Zion Traditions, 59-69. Comparing prophets like Amos and Jeremiah, Freyne, “New Reading,” suggests that Jesus challenged the center; Borg and Crossan, “Collision Course,” believe that Jesus went to Jerusalem to challenge Rome and its allies.

50 Cf. Freyne, “Servant Community,” 109.

51 E.g., Wrede, Messianic Secret, 82-92; Bultmann, Word, 213; idem, Theology, 3, 29 (but cf. Word, 214-15).

52 Schweitzer, Quest, 387-93; Meyer, “Ministry,” 352; Keener, Matthew, 431-35 (where I offer most of the following arguments); Stuhlmacher, “Readiness”; and especially helpfully Brown, Death, 1468- 91; Tan, Zion Traditions, 57-80; McKnight, Death, passim.

53 Keck, History, 118.

54 Keck, History, 118. If Jesus expected his death, however, is it not possible that he also interpreted it (see discussion below)?

55 Bultmann, Word, 29-30.

56 Mk 1:7-13 with Matt 3:7-4:11//Lk 3:7-4:12; Mk 3:28-30 with Matt 12:28//Lk 11:20.

57 E.g., Keener, Matthew, 630. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 432-35, draw connections with the last supper, which they interpret in a way hypothetically relevant to the temple cleansing.

58 See Brown, Death, 1468.

59 Granted, the Gospel writers had literary and theological reasons to include such predictions in their Gospels: many people believed that prophets and wise men could sense their impending death (see Aune, Prophecy, 178; Boring et al., Commentary, 105, 155; cf. Tac. Ann. 6.46, 48); further, ancient narratives regularly extol heroes who could face suffering or danger bravely (e.g., Livy 5.46.2-3; Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; Dion. Hal. 7.68.2-3; Jos. Ant. 3.208; 4.322; 6.126- 27). From a literary perspective, one might object to a deus ex machina or other denouement not anticipated in the plot itself (Arist. Poetics 15.10, 1454ab). But noting incentive to record information (without which biographers and historians would not have recorded anything) is not the same as providing an argument that it has been invented.

60 Brown, Death, 1468-91; Witherington, Christology, 250.

61 Jeremias, Theology, 282; Hill, Prophecy, 61.

62 Cf. e.g., Jub. 23:11-25, especially 23:13; 36:1; 1QM 15.1; Sib. Or. 3.213-15; 4 Ezra 8:63-9:8; 13:30; 2 Bar. 26:1-27:13; 69:3-5; Test. Mos. 7-8; m. Sot. 9:15; b. Sanh. 97a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Eccl. Rab. 2:15, §2; Lam. Rab. 1:13, §41; Song Rab. 8:9, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15; 34:1.

63 Cf. Hill, Prophecy, 57; Aune, Prophecy, 157, 159, 173; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 429; for the influence of John’s death, see also Kraeling, John the Baptist, 157. See especially Tan, Zion Traditions, 57-80, particularly 79-80 (also defending the authenticity of Lk 13:31-33 on 59-69).

64 Freyne, Galilean, 166. Nevertheless, a specific appeal to Isaiah’s servant tradition (also e.g., Adinolfi, “Servo”), like a suggestion concerning Daniel’s son of man tradition (Schaberg, “Predictions”), is less certain than the more general appeal to martyred prophets.

65 Although overstating the case, Adinolfi, “Servo,” is correct that the growing conflicts with his contemporaries could have indicated to Jesus his impending martyrdom (Hill, Prophecy, 61).

66 Jeremias, Theology, 277-86; Dodd, Parables, 57; Stauffer, Jesus, 171-73.

67 See e.g., Keener, Matthew, 432, 497-98; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 431-32 (noting on 432-33 that the act in the temple is historically reliable, and fits Jesus’ prophecy against the temple).

68 In Acts 13:27, proclamation to a Diaspora Jewish audience somewhat mitigates the leaders’ guilt based on ignorance (Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 117; O’Neill, Theology, 86; Pillai, Interpretation, 34). Despite some tensions, later Christians are also unlikely to have invented such a harsh rebuke of Peter (cf. Schweizer, Mark, 165 and Anderson, Mark, 213, both overstating the case; pace Weeden, Mark).

69 Brown, Death, 514.

70 Tan, Zion Traditions, 222. He also notes Jewish beliefs in returned prophets like Elijah (Mal 4:5; 4 Ezra 6:26; Test. Zeb. 10:2-3; p. 221), early expectations of the parousia (222), and Matt 19:28//Lk 22:30b (p. 223).

71 For transitional eschatological eras, see e.g., 1 En. 91:8-17; 3 En. 45:5; Sib. Or. 3.741-59 (preceding 3.767-95); Sipre Deut. 34.4.3; 310.5.1; 343.7.1; b. A.Z. 3b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3:16; 27:5; Gen. Rab. 88:5; see further discussion and sources in Bonsirven, Judaism, 212-13; Aune, Revelation, 1104-8; Moyise, Old Testament, 66-67; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 288; Rissi, Time, 116; Morris, Apocalyptic, 44-45.

72 Hengel, Atonement, 34.

73 E.g., Soph. Oed. Rex 439; Wom. Tr. 1169-73; Dio Cass. 62.18.4; Diod. Sic. 16.91.2-3; Arrian Alex. 7.26.2-3; Jos. War 1.80.

74 Young, Parables, 296; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 94; Vermes, “Jesus the Jew,” 120; Broadhead, “Priests,” 142; on the confrontation, cf. also Horsley, Spiral, 325. Granted, he was not as immediate a political threat as eschatological prophets promising the collapse of Jerusalem’s walls or the parting of the Jordan, given Roman attacks against them (Jos. Ant. 20.167-72; War 2.258-63; Broer, “Death,” 159- 60). His followers did not appear a threat even for some time after his execution. Nevertheless, his activity suggested at least a minor or potential political threat.

75 E.g., Keener, Matthew, 432; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 431-33. This tells against the thesis that the Temple cleansing occurred at the Festival of Tabernacles six months before this Passover (Sanders, John, 287; Manson, Sayings, 78); his enemies would not have allowed him to live this long.

76 Jer 26:11; Jos. War 6.300-9; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 302; see Winkle, “Model.”

77 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 303.

78 Jos. War 6.124-26; Ant. 15.417; Carmon, Inscriptions, 76, 167-68; cf. O’Rourke, “Law,” 174; Segal, “Penalty”; pace Rabello, “Condition,” 737-38.

79 This is not to say, with Hamilton, “Cleansing,” that Jesus’ act in the Temple would have recalled royal appropriation of funds; see the critique by Witherington, Christology, 113-14. The mishnaic claim of execution without trial for violating the Temple (m. Sanh. 9:6; Segal, “Death Penalty”) might have been wishful thinking (cf. Acts 21:31); perhaps more likely, Jesus’ act in the outer court may have been marginal enough to “violation” to require a hearing. He did not enter a prohibited precinct (a profanation punishable also elsewhere, e.g., Hesiod Astron. frg. 3).

80 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11.

81 Witherington, Christology, 109-10.

82 Broadhead, “Priests,” 142.

83 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 364 n. 4. This prophecy is usually regarded as historical as well (e.g., Broadhead, “Priests,” 141-42). One could argue that later Christians composed the narrative to fit Jesus’ prophecy of judgment against the Temple (so M. Goguel, critiqued in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 364 n. 4, who employs the criterion of coherence in a positive manner) or the reverse, but various lines of evidence, some of which we have noted, support the authenticity of the central account.

84 Mack, Myth, 10 n. 4.

85 On 2 Thess 2 see my comments in Matthew, 565-66. That the later church would have grown more eschatologically oriented than Jesus is inherently unlikely, and that they would have invented 2 Thess 2:3-4 after 70, when the Temple was destroyed, is hardly likely.

86 Jn 2:19 further attests this tradition, though published long enough after the Temple’s demise to appear safely on Jesus’ lips.

87 E.g., 1QpHab 9.6-7; Test. Mos. 5:4; 6:8-9 (the content renders unlikely the Testament of Moses’ composition after the event); if genuinely early, cf. Test. Levi 15:1. In more detail, see Keener, Matthew, 561.

88 E.g., Jos. War 6.300-9. See also Test. Mos. 6:8-9, which is very likely pre-70, because only part of the Temple is burned, and the final tribulation follows almost immediately (7:1). The envisioned invasion may be 6 CE, but probably stems from when more of Herod’s sons still held some power (6:7). See other examples in Keener, Matthew, 561-62. Later rabbinic tradition, while praising the Temple, acknowledged its inadequacy to withhold judgment if Jerusalem was engaging in sin (e.g., p. Taan. 4:5, §13, which may compare the amount of bird offerings to mikvaoth, but attributes Jerusalem’s destruction to fornication).

89 See Hill, Prophecy, 62-63; Aune, Prophecy, 174-75; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 365 n. 5; further documentation in Keener, Matthew, 561-62. The tradition about a rabbi in Jesus’ day fasting to prevent the Temple’s destruction (Brown, John, 1:122) is probably too late and apocryphal to provide independent evidence.

90 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 rightly emphasizes (pp. 86-87) that precise expectations varied. Many expected God to build the sanctuary, however (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; fourteenth benediction in Oesterley, Liturgy, 65).

91 With e.g., Stanton, Gospel Truth, 180-83.

92 Pace Vermes, Religion, 185 n. 1. Witherington, Christology, 109, suggests an expectation that the messiah would claim special authority regarding the Temple, but his texts (Jos. War 6.285-86; Ant. 18.85-87) may merely link eschatological prophecy with the restoration of a temple.

93 Borg, Conflict, 171-73; Witherington, Christology, 109-10.

94 Sanders, Judaism, 87.

95 Philo Spec. Laws 1.166-67 claims that priests inspected all the animals, but his apologetic testimony may not be firsthand.

96 Sanders, Judaism, 88.

97 Despite extra Johannine symbolism in many narratives, there is little reason to find it here (for the unlikelihood of potential symbolism, see e.g., discussion in Keener, John, 521 n. 268).

98 Sanders, Judaism, 87-88.

99 E.g., Lev 1:3-9; 4:2-21; 8:2; 22:21; also on special occasions, as in Lev 9:4, 18; 22:23; Num 7:3-88. See also Chilton, Approaches, 164.

100 I treat Sanders’ objections to John’s narrative on this point more fully in Keener, John, 521.

101 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 117.

102 E.g., Borg, Vision, 174-76; Catchpole, “Entry,” 334; Bammel, “Poor,” 124-26; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70.

103 E.g., the Egyptian “Potter’s Oracle” (in Aune, Prophecy, 76-77, 100); Apul. Metam. 2.28. Cynics also engaged in deliberately provocative behavior to jolt observers from their ingrained traditions (Meeks, Moral World, 54-55).

104 Symbolic actions appear most often in the biblical prophets (Aune, Prophecy, 100).

105 Cf. Neusner, “Cambiavalute.”

106 E.g., Avigad, “Flourishing”; Sanders, Judaism, 124.

107 Holding down the prices of sacrifices may have allowed more to be bought and invited more pilgrims, hence was also good for the local economy (Sanders, Judaism, 90).

108 Abrahams, Studies, 1:86, citing m. Shek. 1:3; cf. Haenchen, John, 1:183; Barrett, John, 197. In fact the text he cites refers particularly to activities surrounding the half-shekel tax due some time before Passover (Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 118); yet one should not be surprised if similar accommodations surrounded the major pilgrimage festivals.

109 Abrahams, Studies, 1:87. He cites the merchandising around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Easter and notes that such does not characterize Christianity as a whole (Studies, 1:88).

110 Unless we count the Gospels as supporting the exploitation view, but counting them as such presupposes rather than demonstrates the explanation in question.

111 Witherington, Christology, 110 and Chilton, Approaches, 162, following Eppstein.

112 Chilton, Approaches, 165-66, appealing to “house of trade” (Jn 2:16).

113 Cf. O’Day, “John,” 543.

114 Goodman, State, 57-59. They could make profit by changing buying and selling rates (m. Shek. 4:2).

115 Goodman, State, 57. For their necessity in view of the broader Mediterranean variety of coinage, see Finley, Economy, 167.

116 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 63-65.

117 Sanders, Judaism, 88.

118 Second-century sages warned against those who dealt with sacred merchandise such as Torah scrolls for profit rather than for God’s honor (tos. Bikkurim 2:15). According to tradition some patrician sages profited from the sale of ritually pure merchandise in the Temple (Engle, “Amphorisk,” 120).

119 Jos. Apion 1.103. This practice was expected to continue in the eschatological temple (Zech 14:21; 4Q174, 3.2-4). Similarly, because of their periodic impurities women were always excluded from the court of Israel, though allowed past the outer court when they were not impure (Jos. Apion 2.104).

120 Borg, Conflict, 175.

121 E.g., MacGregor, Pacifism, 19; Glasson, Advent, 149-50; in Mark, Matera, Kingship, 147. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 67-68 doubts that concern for Gentiles was central enough in Jesus’ ministry for this to be persuasive.

122 For evidence, see e.g., Keener, Matthew, 500-1. Jesus’ act recalled Jeremiah’s activity in the Temple (Winkle, “Model”; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 136).

123 E.g., 1QpHab 9.6-7; Test. Levi 15:1; Test. Mos. 5:4; 6:8-9; see Keener, Matthew, 561, 613. Apocalyptic texts frequently critique the priesthood (see Freyne, Galilee, 187-89).

124 Witherington, Christology, 115, comparing Neh 13:4-9, 12-13. See also Evans, “Action,” opposing Sanders’ view, below. Borg, Conflict, 163-99, emphasizes Jesus’ opposition to his contemporaries’ understanding of holiness.

125 Stauffer, Jesus, 67.

126 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 65, cites Mal 3:3; Ps. Sol. 8; CD 5.6-8. He doubts that the temple system as a whole was corrupt (Judaism, 90-91); but the complaints (against the top leaders) are multiply attested in various streams of early Jewish tradition (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.181, 206; 1QpHab. 9.4-5; Test. Levi 14:1; 2 Bar. 10:18; tos. Minhot 13.21 in Avigad, Jerusalem, 130; cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 67).

127 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 68. Qumranites applied requirements for ritual purity of the sanctuary even to Eden (4Q265 fr. 7, 2.11-17).

128 E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 66, 70-76; Harvey, History, 131-32; Aune, Prophecy, 136.

129 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 233. On the new temple, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77-90.

130 A coin from 132 CE, during the Bar Kochba revolt, indicates the hope for a restored Temple after 70 (Carmon, Inscriptions, 81, 178, §§178-79), as do many texts (e.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4; tos. R.H. 2:9; Shab. 1:13; p. Ber. 1:5, §5; Gen. Rab. 65:23; Num. Rab. 14:8; 15:10; Lam. Rab. proem 33); cf. also the plea for Jerusalem’s rebuilding in the fourteenth benediction of the Amida (Oesterley, Liturgy, 65) and surrogate temple features in synagogues (e.g., Friedman, “Features”). Worship may have continued on the site of the temple until 135 (Clark, “Worship”).

131 E.g., 1 En. 90:28-29; Tob 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657-60, 702, 772-74. The Aramaic may diverge from the Ethiopic of 1 En. 91:13, but the reconstruction of the Aramaic is problematic, so 1 En. 91:13 probably also refers to the future temple.

132 11QTemple cols. 30-45; 4Q174, 3.2; 4Q509, 4.2, 12; 4Q511, frg. 35, line 3; notes in Maier, Scroll, 98-116; Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 41; Lincoln, Paradise, 149; Broshi, “Dimensions.”

133 Cf. 2 Macc. 2:4-7; 2 Bar. 6:7-9; 4 Bar. 3:10-11, 19; 4:4; Lives Pr. 2:15, Schermann p. 83 (25, Jeremiah); Rev 11:19; m. Shek. 6:1-2; Yoma 5:2; tos. Kip. 2:15; contrast Jer 3:16.

134 Cf. 2 Macc 2:8; 2 Bar. 29:8; 4 Bar. 3:11; Mek. Vay. 3.42ff; 5.63-65; perhaps 4Q511 frg. 10, line 9; commentaries on Rev 2:17.

135 The Samaritan hope seems to have drawn this conclusion; see Kalimi and Purvis, “Hiding”; cf. Collins, “Vessels”; MacDonald, Samaritans, 365; Bowman, Documents, 89.

136 Thus in the Scrolls (Flusser, Judaism, 43; probably, e.g., also in 4Q176 frg. 1, 2, col. 1, lines 2- 3). Bryan, “Hallel,” rightly argues that the renewal of the Temple suggests its purification rather than its rejection.

137 In Roman literature, cf. perhaps Tac. Ann. 4.38.2 (Sinclair, “Temples”).

138 E.g., Philo Rewards 123, where the wise man’s mind is God’s oikos.

139 E.g., 1QS 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; CD 3.19A; 2.10, 13B; 4Q511 frg. 35, lines 2-3; more fully, Gärtner, Temple, 20-46; Flusser, Judaism, 37-39; Bruce, “Gospels,” 76; Wilcox, “Dualism,” 93-94; McNamara, Judaism, 142; already applied by NT commentators, e.g., in Kelly, Peter, 90; Goppelt, Theology, 2:11; and by Sanders, e.g., in Judaism, 376-77; but cf. suggested qualifications in Caquot, “Secte.” The claims for 4QFlor (e.g., Gärtner, Temple, 30-42) have proved less persuasive (McNicol, “Temple”; Schwartz, “Temples”). The eschatological Temple in 11QTemple follows the design of Israel’s camp in the wilderness (inlay article in Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 42).

140 See Keener, Matthew, 492; m. Pes. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5-7; tos. Pisha 8:22; Suk. 3:2. The Midrash Hallel, by contrast, is too late a composition (see Costa, “Midrash Hallel”) for use here.

141 As often in diverse early Christian traditions, Mk 12:10; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:6-7; cf. 1 Cor 3:10-11; Rev 21:14.

142 Cf. also Herm. 1.3.2, 5-6; 3.9, with the tower/temple in 1 En. 89:49-50; Keener, “Human Stones,” 34-35. Aune, Prophecy, 175, argues that Jesus probably intended the eschatological remnant community, as in the Qumran Scrolls.

143 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 69, 270, citing Jos. Ant. 18.262; Philo Embassy 159, 192, 194, 212-15; Let. Aris. 92-99. Cf. Case, Origins, 56.

144 Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 302-303, citing Jer 26:8; Jos. War 6.300-9.

145 Segal, “Revolutionary,” 211.

146 Segal, “Revolutionary,” 211-12.

147 Segal, “Revolutionary,” 212. Some doubt that the political element was prominent in Jesus’ teaching (Broer, “Death,” 163; cf. Jensen, “Antipas,” doubting Jesus’ hostility toward Antipas); others underline his “political” activity (Horsley, “Death,” 405-8; idem, “Abandoning”; Segundo, Historical Jesus, 71-85; Herzog, Jesus). Part of the issue may be how one defines “political”; Segal’s apocalyptic picture here seems to strike a fair balance. Cf. Segundo, Historical Jesus, 85: Jesus was not a “professional politician,” but human activity cannot be separated from the political in a more general sense.

148 Jos. Ant. 14.175; 15.2.

149 Later rabbinic tradition also suggests his execution near Passover (b. Sanh. 43a), but this tradition is probably derivative.

150 Among the most remote and idiosyncratic suggestions is that of Morton Smith, who connects magical traditions in which recipients feeding on the substance of a magician are united with him (Smith, Magician, 122-23).

151 E.g., Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 131.

152 Bultmann, Mythology, 153; Mack, Lost Gospel, 220.

153 Cf. Moffatt, 1 Corinthians, 170. More relevant would be comparison with teachers like Epicurus who instituted monthly memorial meals in their honor (Diog. Laert. 10.18 in Boring et al., Commentary, 149-50), minus the pagan associations with sacrifices for the dead. More distantly, cf. rabbinic phrases used in naming the deceased: “May so-and-so be remembered [before God] for good” (Lachs, Commentary, 401 cites b. B.B. 21a; Shab. 13b; cf. m. Yoma 3:9), perhaps more relevant to Mk 14:9.

154 For this cult of the dead, cf. e.g., CIL 6.911; ILS 4966 in Sherk, Empire, 234; Plut. R.Q. 86, Mor. 285A.

155 E.g., Bruce, Corinthians, 111-12; Gregg, “Antecedents”; Davies, Paul, 252; Martin, Worship, 147.

156 See Hofius, “Supper,” 103-11; cf. Ex 13:3; Deut 16:3, 12. The language of Passover celebration assumed the participation of current generations in the exodus event (e.g., m. Pes. 10:4-5; tos. Pisha 8:18; b. Ber. 14b). For this meal as a reenactment in the way that Passover was, see e.g., Snyder, Corinthians, 158.

157 Angus, Mystery-Religions, 127; Wilken, “Collegia,” 280-81; Theissen, Social Setting, 131-32; Willis, Meat, 14.

158 Willis, Meat, 47-61. Some associations, however, gathered for specifically religious purposes (e.g., Cic. De Senect. 13.45; Horsley, Documents 1:5-9; Cole, Theoi Megaloi, 36-37), and cultic meals were also standard in pagan festivals (e.g., Burkert, Religion, 107).

159 Bokser, “Description,” 6-7; cf. Pines, “Darkness.”

160 Cf. Justin 1 Apol. 66; Tert. Apol. 39.15; Pliny Ep. 10.96. Minor assimilation begins as early as the Pauline churches (Guthrie, Orpheus, 268; cf. Caird, Age, 96). Paul’s kuriakos, “of the Lord,” may allude to typical Roman usage for “imperial” (Deissman, Light, 357). But early attestation of parallels often come from early Christian writers who interpreted the Mysteries through the grid of their own experience (cf. Campbell, Iconography, 323), as an “imitation démoniaque du Christianisme” (Benoit, “Mysteres,” 79-81), and the rites remained quite distinct (Metzger, “Considerations,” 15).

161 A small following of Dionysus (Henrichs, “Identities,” 160) and Mithraism (which gained prominence in the Empire after Paul; Nock, Gentile Christianity, 133; Metzger, “Considerations,” 13-15) may have been the exceptions which ultimately affected other Mysteries and the later Christian sacramental view.

162 Nock, Gentile Christianity, 74; Willis, Meat, 18-46, 62; Kane, “Cult Meal,” 349-51; pace Willoughby, Initiation, 85, 136-37, 161; Goodenough, Church, 22; Godwin, Religions, 28.

163 Fritsch, Community, 123-24; Cross, Library, 235.

164 Cf. Culpepper, School, 168; Donceel-Vouté, “Coenaculum.”

165 Some scholars have proposed that these meals followed rules for priestly purity (Gnilka, “Gemeinschaftsmal”; Gärtner, Temple, 10), were sacrificial sacred meals (Delcor, “Repas”; cf. 1Qap Genar 21.20-22), were annual and sacramental (Groh, “Meal”) or foreshadowed eschatological meals (Harrison, “Rites,” 32-33; Schiffman, “Meals”; idem, Law, 191-210; Simon, Sects, 77-78; Harrington, God’s People, 41-42).

166 Sutcliffe, “Meals”; Schiffman, Law, 191-97. The meal in 1QS 6 is “pure” because consecrated by the community and the priestly blessing, but is not cultic food; the text merely indicates that a new-comer cannot partake until he has surrendered his own wealth and labor to the community, preventing free handouts.

167 1QSa’s Messianic banquet could simply evoke the common practice of the community rather than the latter evoking the former.

168 E.g., the claim that only men participated at each is based on inference about Qumran practice in general, not just meals, and an inference about the Last Supper that certainly did not obtain in house churches. Jeremias contends that Essene meals are more different from than similar to the Lord’s Supper (Eucharistic Words, 31-36).

169 Van der Ploeg, “Meals”; Driver, Scrolls, 506-16; Lach, “Uczta.”

170 1QS 6.4-5, 20-21.

171 One might also compare the sacred communal meals of the Therapeutae (Philo Cont. 82), although these too are in the Diaspora.

172 Oesterley, Liturgy, 167.

173 See Neusner, Beginning, 27. Among schools of sages in Palestine, study companions often ate together as well (ARN 18, §40B; this may have been partly to save time, ARN 14, §34B).

174 Indeed, Jeremias contends that haburoth meals are undocumented (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 29-31).

175 Oesterley, Liturgy, 79 (citing tos. Ber. 5:1). Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 28, doubts this, but one may compare echoes of the Kiddush blessing in Did. 9.2-3, which far more likely betray Jewish liturgical influence than influence later rabbinic tradition. Later sources indicate that one could also share Sabbath meals in common with other families (e.g., p. B.B. 1:5, §2).

176 Ant. 14.215-16, cf. 14.260-61; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 78; idem, Figure, 202; Rabello, “Condition,” 707.

177 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 50-51 contends that Jewish people drank wine only on special occasions, but even if one merely factors in the regular Sabbath Kiddush meals (e.g., tos. Ber. 3:8; Tannaitic tradition in b. B.K. 69b; Pes. 102a, bar.; later, b. Shab. 23b; Taan. 24a; Safrai, “Home,” 747; cf. Jub. 2:21), which he concedes, they drank it quite regularly (cf. blessings over wine in meals in 1QS 6.4- 5; b. Ber. 33a; 51a). He is, however, probably correct to emphasize that of the many kinds of wines available (on which cf. e.g., b. A.Z. 30a; Paul, “Classifications”), red wine was used on Passover, augmenting Jesus’ symbolism (Eucharistic Words, 53, 290; tos. Pes. 10:1).

178 Many individual elements of the Passover traditions are undoubtedly early, although some scholars have overstated the case (Segal, Passover; Finkelstein, “Documents”; Wright, “Midrash,” 417; Safrai, “Religion,” 809; for some older source critical suggestions on the Pesach Haggadah, see Finkelstein, Making, 13-120). As a whole, however, it is later; most doubt that it belongs to the first century (Stemberger, “Pesachhaggada”; Hauptman, “Haggadah”; Manns, “Pâque” [suggesting anti-Christian polemic in it]; for the current consensus, see Kulp, “Origins”); Leonhard, “Älteste Haggada,” doubts that it predates the tenth century. Yet a prayer recorded in Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition apparently adapts tradition preserved in the Passover Haggada (Kinsella, “Transformation”).

179 Cf. e.g., Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, passim; Stein, Messiah, 203-5; Carmichael, “Haggadah,” 343-44. The generally stricter Shammaite school (regarding Passover, e.g., b. Shab. 18b, bar.) prevailed in his day, but our records were preserved by more lenient, rather than stricter, practitioners. While Smith, Symposium, provides excellent insight on hellenistic banquet settings, he too quickly dismisses Passover as the original setting of the Last Supper tradition (4, 295 n. 5, citing a study from 1967 and another from 1976). While acknowledging strong arguments for the Passover connection (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 423-26), Theissen and Merz doubt the connection because the Lord’s Supper was not annual and they prefer Johannine chronology (426-27). But cultic adaptations can evoke earlier rituals without imitating every point, and I have argued elsewhere that John (who also symbolically adapts the passion tradition elsewhere) diverges from historical chronology precisely here.

180 Cf. Ex 12:8, 12; tos. Pes. 5:2; 10:9. Banquets were, however, commonly at night whether on Passover or not.

181 Some construe Paul’s claim as involving God “handing” Jesus over to death; this interpretation is certainly plausible (Rom 4:25; 8:32; cf. LXX Is 53:6, 12; cf. the Passover lamb in 1 Cor 5:7). Given the abundance of other parallels to the passion tradition, however, an allusion to Judas’ betrayal here remains likelier than not.

182 Luke specifies that the covenant is the “new covenant” (Lk 22:20), i.e., of Jer 31:31-34.

183 E.g., Is 25:6; 2 Bar. 29:4; perhaps 1QSa 2.11-12, 19-21.

184 E.g., tos. Ber. 1:10-11.

185 Sanders, Figure, 263; cf. Bornkamm, Experience, 135; Collins, Corinthians, 430.

186 Jos. Ant. 13.297, 408; m. Ab. 1:1. This language was also intelligible in a broader milieu (Socratics 20; Lucian Alexander the False Prophet 61; Iambl. Pyth. Life 28.148-49; 32.226; 36.265-66; Cornutus in Van der Horst, “Cornutus,” 168-69; Klauck, “Presence,” 60-62; cf. Sen. Ep. Lucil. 40.3; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 195-96). Though the hellenistic world did not usually join the terms together (Metzger, “Considerations,” 17-18 n. 84), it sometimes did (Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.29.621, where they allow for rhetorical improvement). Against the likelihood that Paul’s source was his own vision (Maccoby, “Eucharist”) are the correspondences with genuine paschal custom; the unlikelihood that Mark (who includes other correct paschal details, such as a hymn after the meal, Mk 14:26) derives the tradition from Paul’s vision (for the same reasons we argued against the eschatological sayings deriving from 1 Thess 4-5, in ch. 17); and the implausibility of an analogous argument regarding Jesus’ divorce saying in 1 Cor 7:10-12. Moreover, unlike other cult aetiologies Paul appeals to a tradition of a specific historical event referring to a particular night (Klauck, “Presence,” 64).

187 E.g., m. Ed. 8:7; ARN 25A; b. Kid. 30a; Meg. 19b; Naz. 56b; Pes. 110b; Shab. 108a, bar.; Eccl. Rab. 1:10, §1; cf. Hillel as a disciple of Ezra in Sanh. 11a, bar.; Sot. 48b; Song Rab. 8:9, §3.

188 Gerhardsson, Memory, 321; De Beus, “Traditie”; Davies, Paul, 248; cf. Cullmann, State, 73.

189 See e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 15.

190 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 187; Tan, Zion Traditions, 202. Paul may even draw the Last Supper tradition from a larger passion story already available to him (see Borgen, “Nattverdtradisjonen”), although scholars must evaluate the evidence for this possibility more thoroughly. The appearance of agrapha (Just. Dial. 35; Syr. Didaskalia 6.5.2 in Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 76) in Paul’s context (1 Cor 11:19) may support this thesis.

191 Although the LXX expresses the phrase differently, “poured out” may translate the Hebrew in Is 53:12. “For many,” a Semitism which very likely dates to the first decade of Jesus tradition (see Jeremias, Message, 45), may represent rabbim in this section of Isaiah (Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 227), which Jeremias applies not only to Israel but to the nations (Eucharistic Words, 230-31; cf. Is 52:14-15). “Blood of the covenant” seems to suit first-century Palestinian Aramaic (Emerton, “Mark XIV.24”).

192 Sanders, Figure, 263; cf. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 432-34.

193 Not merely nuclear families, but associations of people could band together for one passover offering (tos. Pisha 9:1).

194 Cf. Safrai, “Religion,” 802.

195 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 56.

196 Some scholars even suggest that early Christians recited the Passion Narrative in this context as a new Passover haggadah, recalling Paul’s phrase: “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (Bruce, Corinthians, 113; idem, Message, 16). Because the standard haggadah comes from a later period, this proposal may exaggerate, but it draws attention to a legitimate connection with paschal interpretation.

197 Curiously, Bultmann, Theology, 46-47, concedes that the expiatory understanding of Jesus’ death may be early, and (47) that it would not have been unnatural in Judaism. Nevertheless, he disallows this understanding in Jesus’ own message (Mk 10:45; 14:24), raising the question what evidence he would accept as compelling against his theory.

198 If we may presume that interpretation from his generation being most guilty in Matt 23:34- 35//Lk 11:49-50 (counting against the generation also Jesus’ martyred followers sent by him).

199 E.g., Cullmann, State, 64-65; Gundry, Matthew, 528; pace Hooker, Servant, 80-82. Collins, “Messiah before Jesus,” 34, argues that the early Christian application of vicarious atonement elements of Isaiah’s servant to Jesus goes beyond traditional messianic expectations.

200 Some scholars think “This cup is the covenant” rather than “This is my blood” is the earlier form of wording (e.g., Dibelius, Tradition, 207) whereas others defend the reverse position (e.g., Davies, Paul, 244-50, esp. 246). In any case, “blood” in some form is multiply attested (Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 27). Crossan, Historical Jesus, 366 compares “poured out” with the language of libation; a common Mediterranean practice, it appears in the OT (for a metaphorical usage with blood, cf. 2 Sam 23:16-17). For the term’s potential sacrificial connotations (e.g., Lev 1-7, 16) relevant to Passover, see e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 528; Carson, “Matthew,” 537; Hagner, Matthew, 2:773. On “the many” and “poured out” together, cf. Is 53:11-12. Certainly Matthew understood it as sacrificial: his “for the remission of sins” (probably borrowed from John’s ministry in Mk 1:4) appears in Targum Neofiti with reference to sacrifices (McNamara, Targum, 129).

201 Romans sometimes fixed criminals to crosses with rope (Xen. Eph. 4.2; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 220-22).

202 McNamara, Targum, 127-28 is surely right that the words here derive from Ex 24:8 and are possible in Palestinian Aramaic; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Ex 24:8 (later) interprets the act with regard to atonement for Israel. M. Pes. 10:6 uses the Passover wine as a metaphor for the blood of the covenant in Ex 24:8 (e.g., Hill, Matthew, 339; Carson, “Matthew,” 537). And while allusions to Jer 31:31-34 and Is 53:11- 12 are probable in this narrative, the Ex 24:8 allusion is the most explicit (Allison, Moses, 257-58).

203 Cf. Heb 8:8; farther removed, Just. Dial. 11.

204 Among the Qumran sect (e.g., CD 6.4-5, 19; 8.21; 20.12; Flusser, Judaism, 44-50; Black, Scrolls, 91; cf. Gemés, “Aliança”) and others (Sipra Behuq. pq.2.262.1.13; cf. Lichtenberger and Schreiner, “Neue Bund”). Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 335-37, finds more direct evidence for it in Jesus’ teaching.

205 For the coherence of Jesus’ martyr ideology and actions, see Meyer, “Expiation Motif,” 33.

206 Martin, Worship, 153 argues this from the Greek and Aramaic, though McNamara, Targum, 127-28 is surely right that the words here derive from Ex 24:8 and are possible in Palestinian Aramaic (cf. Gundry, Matthew, 528; pace Deissmann, Light, 337, who reads the term for covenant here primarily in light of Greco-Roman usage for wills). Some suggest that Jesus being in his body at the time he uttered the words further militates against interpreting the bread as literally equivalent to his body (Moffatt, 1 Corinthians, 168).

207 Related to Deut 16:3 (cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 117).

208 Nevertheless, one can see how even the metaphor (which could sound like cannibalism) would have revolted Jewish hearers (Jn 6:52; 1 En. 98:11; Vermes, Religion, 16), and even most Greeks and Romans (e.g., Herod. Hist. 1.123, 129; Mart. Epig. 10.4.1; 11.31.2), though apparently some cultures demurred (Sext. Emp. Outlines of Pyrrh. 3.207; Herod. Hist. 1.73, 119; 3.99). One can also envision how outsiders could have eventually construed the language as cannibalism (later, cf. Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4, 15; Tert. Apol. 4.11; 7.1; Visotzky, “Overturning”).

209 At this point, the date of various parts of the Passover liturgy is irrelevant, since this pattern was already laid down in Scripture (see Ex 12:14; 13:3; Deut 16:2-3). Paul might even think of somehow acting out elements of the gospel narrative (at least in eating and drinking), somewhat analogous to Passover practice. He might possibly even refer to portraying the crucifixion vividly in Gal 3:1; his language there could, however, suggest simply an appeal to rhetorical vividness (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 162; Polyb. 2.56.8; Jos. Ant. 20.123) as well as to Paul’s crucified life (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 4:10-12).

210 E.g., m. Pes. 10:4-5; tos. Pisha 8:18; b. Ber. 14b. For various conceptions of the memorial value of Jewish rituals among various ancient Jewish groups, see Boccaccini, Judaism, 231-39 (Josephus on 242-45).

211 See e.g., Cohn-Sherbok, “Note”; though Sigal, “Note,” argues for the second. The tradition of the four cups (e.g., m. Pes. 10:1; tos. Ber. 4:8; p. Shab. 8:1, §3; b. Pes. 108a-109a; Gen. Rab. 88:5; Ex. Rab. 6:4; Safrai, “Home,” 748; cf. Salaman, “Haggadah”) may precede the superstitious practice of avoiding drinking an even number of cups, though later teachers harmonized these practices (b. Pes. 109b). (One could drink more than the four required cups — b. Pes. 107b-108a; p. Meg. 3:5, §1.) The custom probably borrows or is related to the Greek use of cups to signal stages in banquets (Boring et al., Commentary, 147 cites Diod. Sic. Library of History 4.3.4; IG 12 3.330, 670).

212 See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 110; Pesiq. Rab. 9:1.

213 Cf. Num 6:4; 30:2; 11QTemple 53-54; Acts 23:12; m. Ab. 3:13; Gen. Rab. 92:5; b. Pes. 2a, bar. On kinds of vows, cf. McNamara, Judaism, 197.

214 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 182-85; Kümmel, Promise, 31; Palmer, “Vow”; cf. Ziesler, “Vow.”

215 See e.g., 1 En. 62:14; 3 En. 48A:10; 2 Bar. 29:4; m. Ab. 3:16-17; 4:16; Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations,” 593-94; for eschatological abundance of wine, see Joel 3:18; Hos 2:22; Amos 9:13-14; 1 En. 10:19; 2 Bar. 29:5; Sib. Or. 3.622.

216 Bruce, Corinthians, 114. Lane, Mark, 508, suggests that Jesus abstained from the fourth cup, having participated in and interpreted the third cup which signified redemption in the Passover liturgy (cf. Lachs, Commentary, 408; also Stauffer, Jesus, 117, though he places the vow after the first cup — p. 115).

217 That discussion should focus on the significance of Passover would fit what we know of later Passover tradition and conform to the desires of the sages for edifying talk (Sir 9:15; m. Ab. 3:2; ARN 26, 29A; 32, §68B).

218 With Daube, Exodus Pattern, 45; Ellington, “Translation”; Meier, Matthew, 321; Carson, “Matthew,” 538; Hagner, Matthew, 2:774. Most Mediterranean banquets emphasized music over lectures (Sir 35:3-4; cf. Plut. Table-Talk 1.1.5, Mor. 614F-615A).

219 Brown, Death, 123 thinks Mark’s audience would think instead of Christian hymns (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Yet even if most of the later Paschal liturgy was not in use or common use in this period, praise was standard in eating the Passover (Jub. 49:6; cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.148). The exact sequence of the Hallel in the liturgy was probably not standardized by Jesus’ day (cf. the differences among later rabbis in tos. Pisha 10:9; b. Pes. 118a).

220 Hengel, Atonement, 9, 19. For Greeks on atoning martyrdom, cf. Robbins, Teacher, 187 (following Williams, Death, 137-254).

221 If one looks further afield, sacrificial atonement is certainly early (see e.g., Gurney, Aspects, 48; Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra, 38; Kitchen, World, 86).

222 Cf. Hill, Matthew, 289; Mack, Myth, 105; Witherington, Christology, 252. In early Judaism, see 4 Macc 6:27-30; 9:7, 24; 17:21-22; cf. 1 Macc 2:50; 2 Macc 7:9, 37; 1QS 8.3-4; Test. Mos. 9; Mek. Pisha 1.105-13; see also the helpful list in McKnight, Death, 168-69.

223 On martyrdom as a sacrifice, cf. further also Thoma, “Martyrer”; on both expiatory martyrdom and glorification here, see Grappe, “Christologie.”

224 Cf. Test. Moses ch. 9; Daube, NT and Judaism, 11. The prayer in 2 Macc 7 offers the closest proximate background for Jesus’ saying at the last supper (with Schenker, “Martyrium”). Vicarious atonement also appears in Tannaim of the early second century — Kim, “Atonement” (summarized on 143-45). In general, though, the association of Jesus’ death with sacrifice is closer to the pre-70 priestly understanding of atonement than to that of later rabbis (cf. Neusner, “Repentance”). (Beyond martyrdom specifically, the Qumran community believed that God had chosen them to atone for errant Israel, probably grounding this understanding of atonement in Isaiah — so Bruce, Time, 30, citing 1QS 8:6-7, 10; 1QSa 1:3.)

225 See e.g., Bruce, Time, 30. Cf. perhaps later the rabbis’ “Messiah son of Joseph” (Mitchell, “Atonement”).

226 If Is 53 is in view, the ransom may satisfy God’s own anger, as in Is 53:10-12. But some argue that the “ransom” incorporates Is 43:3-4, where the price is a redemption price for liberation from captivity (Witherington, Christology, 254, 256, suggesting ransom from Satan’s grasp).

227 Pace Hooker, Servant, 74-79; idem, Message, 93; Anderson, Mark, 257. For the sake of space we abbreviate the argument here, but many scholars see Isaiah’s servant in the saying (e.g., Taylor, Atonement, 14; Cullmann, Christology, 64-65; Argyle, Matthew, 154; Higgins, Son of Man, 43; Jeremias, Theology, 292-93; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 243; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 31; Moulder, “Background,” 127; Gundry, Matthew, 404; Hagner, Matthew, 2:582; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95-97; Stuhlmacher, “Readiness,” 396-97, 409; with less conviction, Kümmel, Promise, 73; Bruce, Time, 29- 30), though some, like Hill, Matthew, 289 and Witherington, Christology, 254, find general language from the Isaian servant without Is 53:11-12. The Dead Sea Scrolls later apply “the many” of Isaiah and Daniel to themselves, “the elect” in a sectarian way (1QS 6.6-21; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 244; Gundry, Matthew, 404), but the rabbis retain Isaiah’s use for the covenant community (Albright and Mann, Matthew, 245; cf. Lane, Mark, 384). For what it is worth, early Christians certainly came to apply Is 53 to Jesus (Lk 22:37; Acts 8:32-35; Jn 12:38; Justin 1 Apol. 50). Among others, McKnight, Death, 207-39, doubts Jesus’ (albeit not his followers’) connection of his death to the servant, preferring the Son of man model (which is admittedly more dominant overall in Jesus’ language). But these models are not mutually exclusive, and the use of one prophetic model may make the other all the more plausible, given evident echoes in our Gospels; the servant comes only after the messianic secret.

228 Flusser, Judaism, 619; for a survey of various scholarly views, see McKnight, Death, 47-75. Mack, Myth, 302, thinks that Mark tones down Paul’s emphasis on Christ cult and sacrifice “toward a more primitive notion of martyrdom.”

↑ Back to top