Notes to Appendix 4
Notes to Appendix 4
1 E.g., Matthew’s primary source for Matt 24 is Mark, but he supplements at relevant points with “Q” (e.g., in 24:28 = Lk 17:37; 24:38-41 = Lk 17:26-30, 34-35; 24:43 = Lk 12:39), and perhaps at some points by other tradition (his “trumpet” also parallels Pauline language).
2 Ovid Metam. 15.792; Livy 27.4.14; 40.19.2; 43.13.4; Appian C.W. 2.5.36; 4.1.4; Lucan C.W. 1.556- 57; cf. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1165-67.
3 Livy 24.10.7; 25.7.7-8; 26.23.5; 27.37.1; 34.45.7; 35.9.4; 36.37.3; 42.2.4; 43.13.5; 45.16.5; Appian C.W. 2.5.36; 4.1.4.
4 Virg. Aen. 4.453-63; Livy 24.44.8.
5 Ovid Metam. 15.796-97; Livy 24.10.10; 27.11.4; 35.21.4; 41.13.2; 41.21.13; 43.13.3; Appian C.W. 4.1.4.
6 Livy 27.4.11, 14; 32.1.11; 40.45.4; cf. Phaedrus 3.3.4-5.
7 Livy 27.11.5; 27.37.5; 34.45.7; 35.21.3; 41.21.12; Appian C.W. 1.9.83; Herodian 1.14.1; Lucan C.W. 1.562-63.
8
Jub. 23:14; 2 Bar. 27:11-12; m. Sot. 9:15; cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.204.
9
Jub. 23:21; Test. Moses 7:3-4; 2 Tim 3:5; cf. m. Sot. 9:15.
10 E.g., 1QM 15.1; Jub. 23:22-23 (cf. 23:20); 4 Ezra 13:34.
11 Cf. Sib. Or. 2.22; 3.204-5, 636-37, 660-61, 756; Gen. Rab. 42:4.
12 E.g., 1 En. 1:6-8; 53:7; 4 Ezra 6:13-16; Test. Moses 10:4; Bauckham, “Earthquake.”
13
Sib. Or. 2.23; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Gen. Rab. 25:3; 40:3; 64:2; Ruth Rab. 1:4; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15.
14 Wickedness in 4 Ezra 5:10; 14:16-17; 2 Bar. 27:11-12; 69:3; Test. Moses 7:3-10; m. Sot. 9:15; 1 En. 91:7; cf. Hesiod W.D. 181-201.
15 Although this is typically Matthean language (Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:23), it also appears in the eschatological tradition behind 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess 2:3, 7).
16 1Q22 frg. 1.i.7-8; 4Q390 frg. 1.7-9; Jub. 23:9, 16-17; 1 En. 91:7; T. Dan 5:4; Iss. 6:1; Naph. 4:1; Zeb. 9:5; 3 En. 48A:5-6; Sipre Deut. 318.1.10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:9; Pesiq. R. 15:14/15; cf. 4 Ezra 5:1-2.
17 Livy 25.7.8; 29.14.3; 32.8.2; 41.21.13; Lucan C.W. 1.526-43. Comets (e.g., Appian C.W. 2.10.68; Lucan C.W. 1.529) were esp. noteworthy.
18
1 En. 102:2-3 (end of age); cf. Sib. Or. 3.800-4; 5.476-84; 8.190-93, 204; 4 Ezra 7:38-42.
19 The transition between the present age (i.e., the time between the Flood and the End) and the final generation (probably beginning in Jub. 23:14-25, which intensifies the judgments) seems unclear.
20 Many have noted the parallels: see especially Waterman, “Sources” (citing 24 parallels, mostly compelling); Wenham, Rediscovery; cf. also Hunter, Predecessors, 49; Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 12; Hill, Prophecy, 130; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 144-45; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 243-47; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 125; for 2 Thess 2, see also Wenham, Rediscovery, 176-80. The cumulative evidence is, as Ford, Abomination, 22 puts it, virtually “conclusive.”
21 E.g., Koester, Introduction, 2:242; Bailey, “Thessalonians”; Grant, Paul, 6; cf. the mediating approach in Donfried, Thessalonians, xxiii-xxvi, 51-53.
22 See Kümmel, Introduction, 189 (267 in 1975 ed.); Robinson, Redating, 53-54. The precise date of Paul’s execution in the 60s is debated, but if someone other than Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, it was presumably someone who knew Pauline tradition well and wrote before 70. The tensions between an imminent return (attributed to 1 Thessalonians) and one preceded by signs (2 Thessalonians) are no greater than within Jesus’ eschatological discourse itself. Favoring Paul’s authorship, see arguments in e.g., Kümmel, Introduction, 187-90 (264-69 in 1975 ed.); Best, Thessalonians, 50-58; Milligan, Thessalonians, xxxix, lii-lxii, lxxvi-xcii; Neil, Thessalonians, pp. xix-xxvi; Frame, Thessalonians, 19-20, 39-54; Marshall, Thessalonians, 23-25; Morris, Thessalonians, 29-31; Bruce, Thessalonians, xxxix; Ford, Abomination, 195; Carson, “Pseudonymity,” 862; cf. Mealand, “Extent.”
23 Many Jewish teachers emphasized that Israel’s obedience could hasten the end (e.g., Tob 13:6; T. Zeb. 9:7; Sipre Deut. 41.4.3; 43.16.3; b. B.B.10a; Nid. 13b, bar.; Sanh. 97b; y. Taan. 1:1, §7; Ex. Rab. 25:12; Deut. Rab. 3:2; Song Rab. 2:5, §3; 4:8, §3; 5:2, §2; cf. Acts 3:19; 2 Pet 3:12), whereas others preferred fixed schemes, whether able to be determined or known only to God (e.g., Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.3; b. Abod. Zar. 9ab; Sanh. 97ab; Lev. Rab. 15:1; Lam. Rab. proem 21). Some reconciled the two by claiming that the redemption was scheduled but would come early if Israel were obedient (Song Rab. 8:14, §1). Some set dates (see e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 178; cf. Test. Ab. 7B; Gr. Ezra 3:3-4), a position countered by more conservative rabbis (e.g., b. Pes. 54b, bar.; Sanh. 97a; Num. Rab. 5:6; see Daube, NT and Judaism, 289-90; cf. 2 Bar. 21:8). Later rabbis reported both the multiplicity of dates and prerequisites for the Messiah’s coming alongside warnings against speculating when he would come (b. Sanh. 97a-98b). Various texts speak of God delaying the end (1 En. 60:5; 4 Ezra 7:24; cf. 2 Bar. 85:12) to grant time for repentance.
24 Although it is less convincing, some of this other material may also echo the dominical tradition (Riesenfeld, Tradition, 17; cf. Dibelius, Paul, 93).
25 When I initially collected such parallels, I had been considering a dissertation on the topic, an idea relinquished once I realized how many others have addressed the same topic. Because my study was incomplete, I probably underestimated the parallels in non-Christian Jewish works, but the differences are nevertheless illustrative.
26 Some view the “catching up” as an agraphon (Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 14); others plausibly prefer a midrashic implication of the explicit gathering (Wenham, “Apocalypse,” 348); the descent may derive from OT theophany language (see Scott, “Clouds,” 132).
27 Cf. Koester, “One Jesus,” 196; Boring, Sayings, 11, 34 n. 41. 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).
28
1 En. 90:28-29; 11QTemple 29:8-10; cf. the hope of restoration in the seventeenth benediction of the Amida; cf. 1QpHab 9.6-7 (the Jerusalem priesthood); Joshua ben Ananiah in Josephus War 6.300ff.
29 Apparently the final generation.
30 This fits the theme of not seeking signs (Matt 12:38; 16:4), the real sign being Jesus’ resurrection (12:39-40), and a future appearing (24:30), in response to the disciples’ question (24:3).
31 In period between the Flood and the End.
32 One judgment among many, the righteous youths seeking to force their elders to return to the way of righteousness.
33 Nations against Israel, more relevant. This includes the most cruel of peoples and much bloodshed (23:23).
34 But this may be part of a Christian interpolation (God’s Son in 13:32, 37).
35 In period between the Flood and the End.
36 Cf. also the final earthquake, e.g., 1 En. 1:6-8; 53:7; 4 Ezra 6:13-16; Test. Moses 10:4; Rev 6:12; Bauckham, “Earthquake.”
37 But apparently applied differently, to the final judgment (wrath in the day of the Lord, 1 Thess 5:2, 9).
38 Probably this early (cf. 1QH 3.3-18). If not, nevertheless a common image for anguish in OT portrayals of judgment (Ps 48:6; Is 13:8; 21:3; 26:17; 42:14; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 30:6; 31:8; 48:41; 49:22, 24; 50:43; Hos 13:13).
39 If it refers to the community’s suffering.
40 Maybe final judgment rather than tribulation before it. 4 Ezra 4:42 applies to birth pangs for the resurrection in the realm of the dead.
41 The term anomia appears only in Matthew (Matt 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12) in the Gospels (disregarding the cognate in Lk 22:37, from Is 53:12 LXX).
42 One could apply Matt 24:12 to the moral coarsening of society, but in context apostasy of those who already “love” (24:12) and need to “persevere” (24:13) is likelier.
43 The world and esp. Israel (note the covenant in 23:16, 19, 23).
44 The wicked torture the righteous to seek their apostasy.
45 The nuance attaching to a royal dignitary is probably amplified by the use of apant?sis in 1 Thess 4:17.
46 E.g., comets (Appian C.W. 2.10.68; Lucan C.W. 1.529).
47 That the tribes mourning (Zech 12:10) is conjoined with Dan 7:13 in both Rev 1:7 and Matt 24:30 suggests a common source in which they were linked, or that Revelation drew directly on the form of Jesus tradition found in the Gospels (cf. Rev 3:3).
48 For war, rather than gathering.
49 Cf. also Did. 9.4; 10.5; 16:6-7.
50 Sodom is a frequent image in ancient Jewish texts, including elsewhere in the NT; I focus on eschatological destruction (though cf. also Matt 10:15; 11:23-24; Lk 10:12; Rev 11:8).
51 Both 1 Thess 5 and 2 Pet 3 apply this to “the day of the Lord.”
52 In a different context.
53 2 Thess 2:2 mentions the “day of the Lord,” but emphasizes its prerequisites rather than its unexpectedness (cf. 1 Thess 5:2); the two emphases often appear together in collections of early Jewish traditions.
54 But here the children are right in doing so, because of parents’ sin; it could be inversion of the normal moral order (cf. 23:26), but is probably reproaching ancestors for bringing judgments.
55 Elders and younger ones in conflict, along with poor vs. rich, small vs. great — again to return them to the way (23:20).
56 Children shame elders, in a negative portrayal of social inversion.
57 Positive.
58 Negative.
59 “Adulterous” kings, in the “beginning” of the eschatological time (197-98).
60 Using God’s name, “but not with truth.”
61 Unless the line is a later interpolation, the Empire falling “into heresy” (Danby, p. 306) cannot be post-Constantinian, given the early-third-century date of the Mishnah.
62 In the period between the Flood and the End.
63 A great final plague.
64 In the period between the Flood and the End.
65 Gray-haired infants, etc.
66 But this is fulfilled first of all in the exile (Sib. Or. 3.265-281).
67 But this probably refers to shortening of number of days, not their length.
68 But this probably refers to shortening of number of days, not their length.
69 Following Hesiod Works and Days 181; common in Roman lists of “prodigies.”
70 This may be assumed from the sort of Jewish eschatology relevant to first-century Christian works reporting Jesus’ resurrection.