The Death of the Divine Warrior

  • 3,199 views
Uploaded on

A study of the Gospel of Mark with a particular emphasis on the use of the Scriptures of Israel in presenting Jesus as the fulfilment of the New Exodus hopes of Isaiah. …

A study of the Gospel of Mark with a particular emphasis on the use of the Scriptures of Israel in presenting Jesus as the fulfilment of the New Exodus hopes of Isaiah.
By Rev Jon Swales, Curate at St George's Church, Leeds

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,199
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. I. Introduction, Outline andMethodology1. Introduction (a) The Warrior Messiah and the New Exodus Hopes of Psalms of SolomonIn 63 BC Pompey captured Jerusalem and violated the Temple. In response to this crisis andas a propaganda tract par excellence in support of the recently displaced Zadokite priests1 thePsalms of Solomon were composed.2 Within this document, a collection of eighteen Psalmsattributed to Solomon, Psalm 17 looks to a future hope in which a Davidic King, the Messiah,will defeat Israels enemies and usher in an eschatological age in which Jerusalem will becleansed (17.22,30), the tribes reunited (17.44) and the nations of the world will pay homageat Jerusalem (17.31). The Messiah is a warrior figure who, in the words of John J. Collins, isundeniably violent.3 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potters jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth. (17.21-24)1. H. C. Kim, Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction (Highland Park: Hermit KingdomPress, 2008), viii.2. For a detailed discussion of date, provenance and theology of the Psalms of Solomon see R. B. Wright,“Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in ed. Charlesworth The Old TestamentPseudepigrapha. Volume Two(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 639-650.3. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other AncientLiterature, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 54. This view is not shared by J. H. Charlesworth, “TheConcept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha,” ANRW II 19 (1979): 188-218, 199, or J. D. Crossan, TheHistorical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992), 108.Crossan writes And this messianic leader does not use violence, neither the actual violence of normal warfarenor the transcendental violence of angelic destruction. Yet as the 17.21-24 show it is the Messiah who willtrample, smash, destroy and shatter the unlawful nations. 1
  • 2. This future deliverer is described in super-human terms. He is free from sin (17.36),powerful in the holy spirit (17.37) and called the Lord Messiah (17.32).4 The nations willcome from the ends of the earth to see the anointed king and, in doing so, shall behold theglory of the Lord (17.31). Although ONeil exaggerates when he places Ps. 17 in a discussionof Jewish texts which show a trinitarian and incarnational theology, this Lord Messiah isclearly a super-human figure who is in some sense divine.5 By using the word divine it is notintended that this means that this person is to be equated with God or that he is an angelicfigure but rather that his existence cannot be explained solely in reference to normal humanand creational categories. He belongs, in a way, as a divine agent to the heavenly realm.Alongside this future Davidic warrior king, Ps. 17 contains ample references to the ultimatekingship of the one God of Israel. The Psalm begins and ends as follows, Lord, you are king forevermore, (17.1) The Lord Himself is our king forevermore. (17.46)These kingly bookends set the theological context for understanding the Davidic messiah. Heis neither on a par nor equal with God but acts to bring God glory (17.32) and is entirelydependent on him; The Lord Himself is his king. (17.34)Robert Rowe, who categorises this view of kingship as two-tier kingship, sums up hisfindings concerning the Pss. of Sol. Thus we see that the Psalms of Solomon, as a collection, not only speak of the coming Davidic Messiah, but also of Gods kingdom, to which the Messiah is subordinate.6The dual kingship of YHWH and his Messiah are spoken of in other parts of the Psalms ofSolomon (18.6-7; 2.30-32; 5.19). Alongside a hope that looks with longing to the coming ofLord Messiah, the Psalms also anticipate the arrival of YHWH himself. YHWH, who hadpreviously deserted Jerusalem (7.1-10), will one day gather the exiled people of God and leadthem on a new Exodus (NE) to be welcomed into a restored Jerusalem. Ps. of Sol. 11, whichis intertextually related to the NE hope of Isa. 40-55, makes this clear.4. Many commentators and translators, including Ralphs LXX and the more recent Lexham Greek-EnglishLXX, emend the text to read the Lords Messiah. However Gk. and Syr. MSS all support the reading LordMessiah. See R. B. Wright, “Psalm of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.”, 627, fn z. Also J. C.O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 96-97. This same title is also found in 1 Sam.24.6; Lam. 4.20 LXX; Superscription of Pss. of Sol. 18; Ps. 110.5. J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (1995), 96-97.6. R.D. Rowe, Gods Kingdom and Gods Son (Leiden:Brill, 2002) 2
  • 3. Stand on a high place, Jerusalem, and look at your children, from the east and west assembled by the Lord... He flattened high mountains into level ground for them... So that Israel may proceed under the supervision of the glory of their God. (11.2; 11.4; 11.6)7YHWH will do again what he did in the Exodus by coming to dwell in the midst of hispeople. Although, in some sense, YHWHs kingship is constant and eternal it is, in anothersense, the eschatological hope of Israel whereby heavenly kingship needs to be manifested inthe spiritual, historical and geographical situation of Israel. Drawing on the NE traditions ofIsa. 40-55 God is portrayed using mythological language as a Divine Warrior (DW) whosubdues creation in his NE march.8The coming of YHWH to Zion and the advent of a future Davidic warrior king should not beviewed as contradictory eschatological hopes in the Pss. of Sol. Rather, the biblical andSecond-Temple evidence suggests that this two-fold eschatological hope, bound together withtwo-tier kingship, formed part of the mental furniture of many Second Temple Jews beingreinforced in story, symbol and ritual and being found in a range of biblical and post-biblicaltexts. (b) Thesis OutlineThe Gospel of Mark, which was more than likely put together in its final form in the years ofthe Jewish War (66-73 A.D.), reflects the eschatological framework of the Pss. of Sol. in itsnarration of the final years of Jesus life. However, rather than being a future hope, the Gospelof Mark looks back to its eschatological fulfilment in the person and work of Jesus. By usingthe phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ repeatedly9 Mark emphasises that Jesus kingdom project andeschatological message concern the establishment of the reign of God. However, the kingly7. Allusions to Isa. 40-55 will be dealt with in the following chapter.8. So T. Longman III, and D.G. Reid, God is Warrior, SOTBT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 72-90. In achapter entitled God Wars Against the Forces of Chaos Longman demonstrates that YHWH, as a warriorsubduing creation, is found across a range of texts including Nah. 1.4; Ps. 18.14-15; 29.10; 24.1-2; 74.12-17;Isa. 27.1.9. Mk. 1.15; 4.11; 4.26; 4.30; 9.1; 9.47; 10.14-15; 10.23-25; 12.34; 14.25; 15.43. 3
  • 4. reign of God is closely connected to the ministry of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah10 and Sonof God.11 In his ground-breaking study Way of the Lord Joel Marcus concludes that Mark is, Following in the footsteps of some of his Jewish contemporaries when he makes the motif of the kingdom of God of central importance and binds it intimately to the notion of the kingship of the Messiah.12Although Mark shares this conceptual framework he transforms it in at least two distinctways. Firstly, as widely recognised in scholarship, the manifestation of the kingdom of Godand the identity of the Messiah comes not through the the military defeat of the Kittim ofRome or the nations but, rather, through the path of suffering, crucifixion and resurrection.Marcus continues: There seems to be no Jewish parallel for Mark’s thought that the Messiah’s kingship and the kingdom of God are manifest already and in a definitive way in his suffering and death.13Secondly, and this points to the content of this thesis, Mark does not draw a sharp distinction,as in two-tier kingship, between the identity of Jesus and that of the one true God of Israel.Rather, Jesus is portrayed in Mark as fulfilling, in himself, the twin eschatological hopes ofthe return of YHWH to Zion and the coming of a divine Davidic messiah. For Mark, it willbe argued, Jesus is in some sense the incarnation or embodiment of YHWH. Furthermore,through his ironic use of Scripture, Mark demonstrates that Israel, in rejecting Jesus, hasactually rejected both the arrival of their Messiah and God.The claim of this thesis flies in the face of much of Markan scholarship which rejects theview that Mark held to a incarnational christology in which Jesus is, in some sense, to beontologically identified with the one God of Israel.1410. Mk. 1.1; 8.29; 14.61-62; 10.47-48; 15.32.11. Mk. 1.1; 3.11; 5.7; 15.39.12. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 202.13. ibid. ,202.14. Frank Matera is typical when he says: If a group of Christians possessed only the Gospel of Mark, they would have a different understanding of Jesus than another group that possessed only the Gospel of John. Both groups would undoubtedly identify Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man, but in doing so, they would interpret these terms in different ways. Believers nourished by the Gospel of John would view Jesus as the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God who dwelt in Gods presence: the Son of Man who descended from heaven and then ascended tot he Father. In contrast to these believers, those nourished by the Gospel of Mark would view Jesus as the obedient Son of God who proclaimed the kingdom of God and died a shameful death of crucifixion. Despite this death they continued to believe that he will soon return as the glorious Son of Man who will inaugurate Gods kingdom in power. 4
  • 5. The overacting structure of this thesis is as follows:The following chapter will offer an in depth study of the Gospel of Mark demonstrating, inthe face of recent critics (such as Hatina and Moyise), that Mark presents Jesus as theembodiment of YHWH who comes as a DW to lead his people on a NE to Zion. This will beachieved, building upon the scholarship of Joel Marcus and Rikki Watts, by noting theintertextual parallels between Mark and the NE traditions of Isa. 40-55.The third chapter of this thesis will demonstrate that Jesus is a divine messiah figure who hascome to be enthroned in Zion. A thorough study of the scriptural traditions standing behindMk. 11.1-11 will show that Mark uses scriptural traditions to portray Jesus as a divinemessiah who is rejected by the the leadership of Jerusalem. The so called triumphal entry,when compared with other entry narratives, is to be understood as being anti-climactic.The fourth and final chapter will show that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus is not theend of the the NE story. Rather, the death of Jesus as both God and Messiah is the means bywhich this NE can actually be achieved. Isa. 40-55 provides a scriptural blueprint for suchthinking.The remainder of this chapter will deal with some methodological issues and an exposition ofmonotheism and the concept of a Divine Messiah within late Second Temple Judaism. F. J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999), 2. W.R Telford, who himself isno stranger to Markan studies, makes the following comment, This is not to say, of course, that Mark is operating with a later Nicene or Chalcedonian understanding of Jesus divinity. Notions of the Son of Gods preexistence, mediatorial role in creation, descent from heaven, incarnation or sinlessness are as yet undeveloped. W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 40-41.Jimmy Dunns significant study Christology in the Making seeks to present a survey of the NT ascertaining howthe doctrine of the incarnation developed. He concludes, As the first century of the Christian era drew to a close we find a concept of Christs real pre-existence beginning to emerge, but only with the Fourth Gospel can we speak of a full blown conception of Christs personal pre-existence and a clear doctrine of the incarnation. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1980), 258.More recently A.Y. Collins writes The Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as preexistent. A. Y. Collins, andJ. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical andRelated Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 209. 5
  • 6. 2. Narrative, Intertextuality and IntratextualityMark does not write as a systematic theologian. Instead, he seeks to communicate hischristological claims through a story. Robert Tannenhill correctly states, in his essay entitledGospel of Mark and Narrative Christology, that we learn who Jesus is through what he saysand does in the context of the action of others.15 However, some caution is required given thepost-modern tendencies in some forms of narrative criticism. Mark, far from being a free-floating narrative with no authorial intent, intends to communicate to a real and impliedaudience. The worldview of Mark and his readers is entirely at home in the world of SecondTemple Judaism. They understand the story of Jesus from within the context of the story ofIsrael, its scriptures and its climactic fulfilment in the person of Jesus.16It is necessary to clarify further what is intended by the phrase implied reader. FollowingHolly Careys suggestion, the reader should be distinguished from the audience.17 Theimplied audience is to be understood as the larger community for whom the Gospel was readaloud, they are listeners who may or may not be biblically competent. Taking on a differentrole, the implied reader is to be understood as the literate individual(s) who would have beengiven the task of reading out the document within, what we may presume to be, a context ofworship to the larger community. These individuals (readers) have the level of education andability to interpret and explain the text to the audience where needed.18 The frequent citationsand allusions to the OT in the Gospel of Mark imply the reader is biblically literate and is at15. R. C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” Semeia 16 (1979): 57-95, 58.16. Although there is great variety in the beliefs and praxis of Second Temple Judaism it is possible to sketchout unifying contours within this plurality. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God:(London: SPCK, 1992), 244. There is a basic worldview, which we can plot, that lies at a deeper and morefundamental level than these variations. Neusner first made the distinction between Judaism and Judaisms J.Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs At the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1987). but, as M. Mach correctly quips, the plural still needs a singular to have any meaning.in ed. C.C. Newman et al. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. AndrewsConference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden:Brill, 1999), 24.17. Carey, Jesus Cry From The Cross (2009), 23-24.18. It must not be assumed that there is a direct correlation between illiteracy and biblical incompetence, for anilliterate leader, particularly of a Jewish background, may likely be steeped in the texts and traditions of Israelthrough liturgical and symbolic formation and the use of orality and memory. Literacy levels in antiquity mayhave been as little as 10%. Christianity, however, sharing the same scriptural roots as Second Temple Judaism,would have a had a particular textual focus. This would be true even for illiterate members of the community.See H.Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (Yale:YaleUniversity Press, 1997). 6
  • 7. home in the scriptures of Israel.19 This implied reader also has a high level of literaryawareness and is assumed to be aware of literary conventions such as repetition, two stepprogression, framing and the placing of episodes in concentric patterns. Mark displays a greatdeal of literary skill which the implied readers are expected to make use of.20 Theconsequences of this are significant in that the ideal reader is able to move backwards andforwards in the text and is not bound to a linear reading. Although the text is to be readsynchronically, this is not to mean that its meaning for the implied reader is uncovered purelythrough a sequential reading of the text. I do not follow Staley who believes that post-Gutenberg readers have distorted readings of the text in being able to flick backward andforward21 and, himself, proposes that the Gospels should only be read in a sequential linearmanner. I concede the obvious point that narratives, as opposed to reference books, should beread sequentially. However, this does not rule out the positing of an ideal reader who is ableto study the texts in both a linear and non-linear manner.22 A non-linear reading can enhance19. The scriptures of Israel played a major role in the formation of the Gospel of Mark which, according toThomas Hatina, contains approximately 30 quotations and up to 200 allusions T.R. Hatina, In Search of aContext: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, LNTS Vol. 232 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,2002), 1.20. His creative skill lies...in the way he has set incidents in relation to each other by means of two related processes of arrangement. The first is the arrangement of the pericopae into a linear sequence to form a coherent plot with its own space and time. The second is the arrangement of a complex web of relationships between incidents by the use of a wide range of compositional, stylistic and literary techniques: repetitional devices, such as two-step progression, three-fold patterns, reiteration of key words; parenthetical constructions, such as intercalcations, insertions, framing passages and the use of inclusio; symmetrical patterns, as such as chiasmus, ring composition, and parallelism; techniques of foreshadowing and retrospection; and extensive use of the dynamics of parabolic speech, such as role reversal, paradox and irony....In summary,... narrative criticism has good grounds for regarding him as an author of considerable literary skill, who regardless of his sources, bears full responsibility for the shape and structure of the final product. So, C. D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989), 20-21.21. J. L. Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel(Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1985). With serious and sympathetic discussion in P. M. Phillips, The Prologue of theFourth Gospel, LNTS 294 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).22. Similarly, Peterson describes the movement back and forth through a text: Parallelism interrupts the merely sequential flow of content through a systematic repetition that requires readers and hearers to move forth and back through the text rather than simply straight through it. Once a parallel is discerned it becomes necessary to pause, however momentarily, and synthesise the relations between the parallels before moving forward through the text.See N.R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26,” HTR 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 185-217, 204. In a similarway Van Iersel, after sketching out a chiastic structure of Mark, describes a circular approach to text which ispresent alongside that of the sequential: A circular construction operates the other way round [to the sequential linear reading]. The reader does not become aware of its presence until he or she has passed the centre of the construction and begins to recognize that the components following the centre correspond in reverse sequence to those preceding 7
  • 8. the ability to compare and contrast various parts of the text—the reader is able to move bothforwards and backwards—and can develop intertextual and intratextual potentialities throughmultiple readings.23 In this study we will use the term intertextuality to refer to the phenomena whereby oneearlier text (e.g. part of the scriptures of Israel) is embedded (through echoes, allusion,citation) within a later text (e.g. Gospel of Mark).24 Although the term intertextuality,originally coined by Julia Kristeva, was framed in a post-structuralist context, it is used inmore general ways within NT scholarship as a helpful reference to the relationship between 25the scriptures of Israel and the NT. Furthermore, we will use the term to refer also to therelationship between one OT text and another, as well as to the relationship between an extra-biblical text (e.g. DSS) and the scriptures of Israel.3. Monotheism and the Divine Identity of the DavidicKingIn advance of my own specific arguments in the following chapter, it is necessary to explorehow, within Judaism it was possible to be both monotheistic and yet believe in a DivineMessiah. We have already hinted at this in our discussion of the Pss. of Sol. but more divineflesh needs to be put on the bone of the Davidic hope. Once this comes into view it is thenpossible to see that the foundation for Marks christological claims develop and modify aview that was already around in the Judaism of his day. This stands in line with the recentwork of Larry Hurtado who argues that the worship of Jesus by the early Christians was not aproduct of Hellenistic syncretism but was, rather, a significant mutation or innovation in it. Whenever the construction is recognized, the reader is invited to look back to what has been read and connect the related elements.B. Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, JSNT (Supp) Vol. 164 (London: T&T Clark, 1998), 85.23. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 42.24. Stanley Porter suggests that the term intertextuality is unhelpful and best dropped from the academicdiscipline of biblical studies. See his “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Commenton Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations andProposals, ed. C. A. Evans, and J. A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). However, the term isso embedded within biblical studies, and has been cut free from its post-structuralist moorings, that it is stilluseful short hand for describing the use of phenomena whereby one text makes use of an older text.25. See discussion by Carey, Jesus Cry From The Cross (2009) 29-36. 8
  • 9. Jewish monotheistic tradition which drew on resources and traditions already found withinJudaism.26 (a) Second Temple Jewish MonotheismA minority of contemporary scholars argue that the term monotheism should be disregardedas being unhelpful or, worse still, inaccurate as a description of the beliefs of Second TempleJudaism. For Hayman, monotheism is misused and a dualistic pattern is to be preferredgiven the evidence demonstrating that Second Temple Jews functionally believed in twoGods.27 In a similar way, Margaret Barker, in line with Segals study, has claimed that manyJews, as well as the earliest christian communities, believed in a second God (YHWH thegreat angel) who can be distinguished from the high God, Elohim.28 Likewise, PaulaFredricksen argues that the term monotheism should be put into retirement, for the ancientJewish world was was filled with gods.2926. L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (SecondEdition) (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1998), 99. He continues By "mutation" I mean that earliest Christian devotionwas a direct outgrowth from, and indeed a variety of, the ancient Jewish tradition. But at an early stage itexhibited a sudden and significant difference in character from Jewish devotion. In this study the focus ofattention is on divine messiah although, as Hurtado demonstrates, a similar line of enquiry can be taken forpersonification of divine attributes (word, wisdom, etc) as well as the divine agency of angelic beings.27. P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” JJS Vol 42.1 (1991): 1-15, 14.28. Margaret Barker writes the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use that word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre- Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of lsrael in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king..Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992), 3. See also the A. F.Segals, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (Brill, 1977) and“Two Powers in Heaven and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking,” Trinity 1.9 (2002): 73-97; also D. Boyarins,“The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94.3 (2002), 243-84, and“Two Powers in Heaven,” The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (Leiden:Brill,2003): 331–70.29. For Fredriksen: Modern monotheism--the belief that only one god exists, arose only with the disenchantment of the universe in the modern period...The ancient world, by contrast, was filled with gods, and the people who lived in it--even members of Jewish and Christian communities--knew this to be the case. They encountered these lower gods and felt their effects fairly often...We could cope with it better too, if monotheism were retired as a term for thinking about ancient religion.Paula Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to 9
  • 10. Although some level of caution is needed, as it would be incorrect to impose a postenlightenment view of monotheism onto an ancient culture,30 the term monotheism may stillbe a useful description of a basic Jewish belief so long as we are clear about its definition.Hayman, for instance, includes creatio ex nihilo as a necessary requirement for monotheism.This definition then supports his view that Second Temple Judaism was not monotheistic ascreatio ex nihilo, assuming the point should be conceded, was not firmly present in Jewishtheology until the Medieval period.31 Likewise, if a definition of monotheism includes therejection of the belief in other transcendent and heavenly beings then Second Temple Judaismcannot properly be called monotheistic. As Hurtado has demonstrated, the best approach is toto define monotheism from an analysis of the Second Temple Jewish sources which professto be monotheistic rather than from external and later contexts. A few examples from withinJudaism which have a bearing on the appropriateness of monotheism should suffice atpresent. There is one sovereign God, ineffable, whose dwelling is in heaven, self sprung, unseen yet seeing all himself alone.32 For he proved first of all that there is only one God and that his power is manifested throughout the universe, since every place is filled with his sovereignty and none of the things which are wrought in secret by men upon the earth escapes His knowledge. For all that a man does and all that is to come to pass in the future are manifest to Him.33 Let us, therefore, fix deeply in ourselves this first commandment as the most sacred of all commandments, to think that there is but one God, the most highest, and to honor him alone; and let not the polytheistical doctrine ever even touch the ears of any man who is accustomed to seek for the truth, with purity and sincerity of heart.34Go,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity,ed. D.B Capes. et al. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 38.30. It is mistaken to assume that we can evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs in terms of whether or howclosely they meet our own preconceived idea of pure monotheism. L. W. Hurtado, “First-Century JewishMonotheism,” JSNT 21 (1999):3-26, 6.31. P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” (1991),3-4. See critique by Hurtado,“First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” (1999), 6 fn 6, and 32-33.32. Sib. Orac. 3:11-12.33. Lett.Arist., 132 (See also 133-138) See also Wisd. of Sol. 13-15 which offers harsh but poetical denunciationof idolatry.34. Philo Dec. 64-65, but also 52-81. Also, Some persons have conceived that the sun, and the moon, and theother stars are independent gods, to whom they have attributed the causes of all things that exist. But Moses waswell aware that the world was created, and was like a very large city, having rulers and subjects in it; the rulersbeing all the bodies which are in heaven, such as planets and fixed stars; and the subjects being all the naturesbeneath the moon, hovering in the air and adjacent to the earth. But that the rulers aforesaid are not independentand absolute, but are the viceroys of one supreme Being, the Father of all, in imitation of whom they administer 10
  • 11. On the basis of the Jewish evidence, Hurtado offers the following definition of monotheism: [Monotheism is] the belief that one Deity is universally supreme and categorically unique from all other heavenly or divine beings, and that worship is properly to be given solely to this one Deity, with worship of any other being regarded as idolatry.35This definition is useful in that it does not rule out the existence of other transcendent figuresor even the possibility that these beings could, in some sense, be called gods. However, as theShema (Deut. 6.4) and the decalogue make clear (Exod. 20.3) the god of Israel is unique andworthy of the highest level of devotion. This understanding of monotheism would actuallygain support, contra Fredricksen, from texts which speak of the uniqueness of YHWH incomparison to the gods of the nations, angels or other heavenly figures. Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?36Margaret Barkers interesting hypothesis, in which she distinguishes between the High Godand YHWH, may also be discounted when looking at Second Temple Judaism. Even if itwere the case that Judaism arose through an evolutionary process from polytheism, throughhenotheism to monotheism, it is the final form of the scriptures which matter to Jews of thelate Second Temple Period.37 In their final form numerous passages assume a directcorrespondence of YHWH with the God of gods. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.38It is also worth noting two other points which cast serious doubt upon her thesis. The first isthat no evidence has, thus far, been produced from the Second Temple period that, as Hurtadoputs it, reflect a bitheistic pattern of devotion. Whatever might have been going on in pre-with propriety and success the charge committed to their care, as he also presides over all created things in strictaccordance with justice and with law. Philo Spec. Laws 1:13.35. Hurtado Monotheism in DTIB, 519-521.36. Exod. 15.11.37. One is reminded of Instone-Brewer, whose outstanding study of the exegetical technique of Second TempleJews shows that they interpreted Scripture as though it were a fixed and perfect law. They regarded every wordof Scripture as consistent and equally important, Scripture was not contradictory as standing behind all texts isthe divine author. D. I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (Tubingen: Mohr,1992), 222.38. Deut. 10.17. 11
  • 12. exilic Israelite religion, it is evidence of Roman-era Jewish practice that is relevant.39 In otherwords, there is no evidence from the Jewish world, outside of the church, that any being otherthan god should be the target of worship.40Secondly, her claim that scholars can uncover earlier bitheistic patterns of religion from theearliest strata of the final edited texts is not without detractors and should not simply beassumed.41Therefore, we may conclude that one of the distinguishing beliefs of Second Temple Judaism,which set it apart from their pagan contemporaries, was their confession that the one God issupreme and worthy of worship. As Tacticus the pagan observer noted, the Jewsacknowledge one God only, and conceive of him by the mind alone.42 Or, in the words of theShema, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.43 (b) The Divine King and MessiahAlongside this concept of monotheism is the belief that the Davidic King was in some sensedivine. That is, his being, identity and function cannot be explained without reference to theheavenly realm and that the king somehow crosses over the usual distinction between humanand heavenly beings. We will discuss the concept of divine kingship below within three39. L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity,(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2003), 34.40. A recent book by James Dunn offers a nuanced understanding of Christian worship. For Dunn, NT worshipis through Jesus, by the power of the Spirit, to God. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (London: SPCK,2010).41. For a helpful history of scholarship see chapter 2 of R. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism inIsrael (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Also, R. Gnuse, “The Emergence of Monotheism in AncientIsrael: A Survey of Recent Scholarship,” Religion 29, no. 4 (1999): 315-36. Of particular interest to MargaretBarkers thesis is J. H. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” Ancient IsraeliteReligion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Augsburg: Fortress, 1987): 157–94; J. D. Fowler, TheophoricPersonal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). whoconcludes that pre-exilic Israelites, on the basis of the frequency of YHWH inscriptions, may be described asmonolatrous and monotheistic with YHWH as their target. Another noteworthy critique is J. C. De Moor, TheRise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997). who argues, onthe basis of ancient poems, that monotheism was firmly established before the exile and that YHWH wasequated with El before the Israelites came into Palestine.42. Tacitus, Histories 5:3.43. Deut. 6:4–7. 12
  • 13. interrelated contexts. Firstly, (i) it appears to be embedded within the canon as part of theideology of kingship which existed during the time of the Davidic monarchs. Secondly, (ii)following the exile, and with the decline of Davidic Kingship, the hopes of a future Davidicleader became part of the eschatological future. As discussed briefly in regards to Pss. of Sol.17, by the first century the concept of a Davidic Messiah had, in some quarters, come to beunderstood in terms of a heavenly, divine or angelic figure. Some support of this position canbe found in (iii) the fusion of the Davidic hope, with reference to the cloud-riding son ofman figure of Dan. 7. (i) Divine King IdeologyPrior to the decline of kingship it appears that the Davidic King was considered to be, insome sense, divine. Given our above discussion in relation to monotheism, we should nowperceive that the divine identity of the king would not necessarily pose a threat tomonotheism itself. A claim that something is divine, or that which exhibits transcendence orpossesses a heavenly identity, is not the same as saying that he/she/it is God or shares in hisontological state.In both Pss. 2 and 89, and in the promise to David found in 2 Sam. 7, the king is explicitlyreferred to as the Son of God. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.44 He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.45 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.4644. Ps. 2.7.45. Ps. 89.26–27.46. 2 Sam. 7.14. David G. Firth writes reflection on this text from within the OT alone justifies the claim that itis the seedbed of messianic hope. D. G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, AOTC (Nottingham: IVP, 2009). 387. 13
  • 14. Furthermore, Ps. 45.6 and Isa. 9.6 make clear the divine status of the King, as he is said to be‫( אֹלהים‬god: θεός = LXX) and ‫( אל גִּבּוֹר‬mighty god) respectively. We may add to this Ps. 110 ִ ֱ ֵwhich speaks of the King sharing the throne of God. The Lord (‫ )יהוה‬says to my Lord (‫:)אדן‬ “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”47Such a view, although bizarre and strange to modern Western sensibilities, would not havebeen considered unusual in either Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. However, a few furthercomments about the ANE parallels are necessary. Firstly, the human king is subordinate toone or more of the leading gods of the pantheon. To use biblical language, the king is not tobe confused with the Most High God. Even Ps. 45, which describes the king as ‫ ,אֹלהים‬places ִ ֱhim in a subordinate position to another god/God when it says God, your God (Ps. 45.7).Secondly, we should exercise some caution in associating divine sonship with incarnation. Itis more likely an adoptionist view whereby the divine being of a king/pharaoh is adoptedupon enthronement, for it is here that they take up the office of kingship. 48Thirdly, even though the language found in Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Jewish texts andinscriptions is often both mythical and metaphorical, the divine-like character and status ofmany kings and leaders would no doubt have been taken seriously by a great number withinthe populous. However, we need to remind ourselves that the scriptures of Israel, bearing amonotheistic stamp, forbid the worship and cultic veneration of anyone aside from the oneGod of Israel.49In summary, we may echo John Collins when he says While the King was not to be confusedwith the Almighty, he was evidently exalted above the common rank of humanity.5047. Ps. 110.1. See also 1 Chron. 28.5, 29:20; 2 Chron. 9.8.48. Egyptologist Ronald J. Leprohon writes: The evidence shows that the living pharaoh was not, as was oncethought, divine in nature or a god incarnate on earth. Rather, we should think of him as a human recipient of adivine office. Any individual king was a transitory figure, while the kingship was eternal. R. J. Leprohon,“Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in ed. J.Sasson Civilisations of the Ancient NearEast 1 (California: Scribner, 1995): 273-287, 275, cited in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 6.49. Collins & Collins King and Messiah (2008), 23. 1 Chron. 29.20 is the closest we may get to such an idea.50. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other AncientLiterature (New York:Double Day, 1995), 23. 14
  • 15. (ii) Post-Exilic Expectation of a Future Divine KingAfter the decline of Davidic Kingship the translators of the LXX did not hesitate to reproducestatements that the king was the Son of God (Pss. 2; 89) or addressed as god (Ps. 45). TheLXX differs from the MT in the case of Isa. 9.6. Although not referring to the future king asbeing a god, he is to be associated with an angelic being as he is referred to as the Μεγάληςβουλῆς ἄγγελος.51 Presumably, as Collins and Collins argue, this is to be seen less as ademotion but more as a clarification. It would never be conceived that the King was the mostHigh God but, rather, that he takes his place alongside other angelic beings who minister andserve in the divine court. In fact LXX Ps. 109.3, in talking about the sharing of Gods throne,seems to stress preexistence as well as membership of the heavenly court. µετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡµέρᾳ τῆς δυνάµεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαµπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων, ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε. With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendor of your holy ones. From the womb, before Morning Star, I brought you forth.52It appears plausible, or indeed likely, that the Psalms, which in their original context referredto a contemporary member of the Davidic line (Pss. 2; 45; 89; 110), came to be understood inan eschatological sense. The prophetic hope of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel53 looked towardsa future Davidic King and it is evident that texts initially referring to enthronement (Ps. 2; 45;etc) came to be understood messianically.5451. See discussion in C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden:Brill, 1998), 175-176. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (2008) , 59-62; W. Horbury, JewishMessianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 90-91. We may add to these verses a number ofother passages which point towards the angelomorphic identity of the king. 2 Sam. 14:17. See also 1 Sam.29.19; 2 Sam. 19.17. And your servant thought, ‘The word of my lord the king will set me at rest,’ for my lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil. The Lord your God be with you!See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology (1998), 175-176; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory ofAdam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 9-13.52. NETS translation.53. Isa. 11; Jer. 23.5-6, 33.17-22 and Ezek. 34.23-24, 37.24-25.54. See Tremper Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings,” in The Messiah in theOld and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 25. A similar argument is made byK. M. Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament 15
  • 16. These Psalms were kept in the Psalter but their meaning for worshippers was transposedinto an eschatological key and became part of the messianic hope. It is clear that withinSecond Temple Judaism Ps. 2 was being used to foster messianic hope. This is mostevident in Pss. of Sol. 1755 but is also found in other texts such as 4Q17456 and 1 Enoch48.10.57The following text, often undiscussed in books concerning messiahship, shows an eschatological future for the house of David in which the line of David is portrayed in both divine and angelic terms.58 And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them. (Zech. 12.7–8)59We will move forward in time to explore post-biblical writings in order to establish whetherthe hope of a divine Davidic messiah was part of the mental furniture of at least some Jews inthe Second Temple period. Attention should be paid to three specific texts, Similitudes ofEnoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which each use son of man language from Dan. 7 to develop theMessianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite et al. (Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 231 for Ps. 72. See also Collins, TheScepter and the Star (1995) 24-28.This is exactly the point which Grant makes with reference to Ps. 2. Whykeep a psalm which celebrates the enthronement of the king when there is no king? It is kept because it hascome to mean something different. Ps. 2, for example, was probably recited at the coronation of each NewDavidic king, but retains its prominent place in the Psalter because its meaning for the covenant community haschanged with their change of circumstances. James A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King,” in ed. Firth andJohnston, Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 111-112.55. In particular see 17.3; 21-25; 30-32.56. 10 [And] yhwh [de]clares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom 11 [for ev]er. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me...[« Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots? The kings of the earth t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together against yhwh and against 19 [his anointed one ». Inter]3 of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch idle plots against] the elect ones of Israel in the last days. (4Q174 Frags. I col. 1, 21, 2 10-11, 19).57. For a full discussion of the reception of Ps. 2 in intertestamental and rabbinic literature see R.E. Watts,“Mark,” in ed. Beale and Carson CNTUOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 122-123.58. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam (2002), 9.59. One commentator makes the following comment. Hopes are still centered on the house of David, whichshall be like God, a bold assertion, modified in the next phrase, like the angel of the Lord. Suppliants hadaddressed David saying he was ‘like the angel of God’ (1 Sam. 29.9; 2 Sam. 14.17; 14.20; 19:27). J. G.Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham: IVP, 1972), 204. 16
  • 17. motif of a coming Davidic King who has a divine identity.60 Although the history of researchon Dan. 7 is voluminous a few words need to be said in support of a Messianic reading ofDan. 7. (c) Daniel 7 - The Son of ManIn Dan. 7 one like a human being/son of man is vindicated and enthroned (7.13-14). Theidentity of this figure, who stands in contrast to the four beasts/empires, is fiercely debated.John Collins, who himself argues that the son of man figure is to be identified with Michaelthe archangel,61 argues that modern scholarly solutions to this problem can be classified in theone of the following categories. (i) The Son of Man is an exalted human being. (ii) The Son of Man is a collective symbol. (iii)The Son of Man is a heavenly being.62Each of these positions, which bear a certain degree of plausibility, cannot be discussed inany level of detail here. Instead, and rather briefly, we will make the case that thesesubcategories are not mutually exclusive and that it is plausible to conceive of a being who is60. One was tempted to include 4Q246, the Aramaic Apocalypse, column II in such an analysis, which clearlycalls the future deliverer son of God. He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks that you saw, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several year[s] over the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a province another provi[n]ce.... Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. ...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay him homage. The great God is his strength, he will wage war for him; he will place the peoples in his hand and cast them all away before him. His rule will be an eternal rule, and all the abyssesIn this passage a future deliverer is called Son of God and Son of the Most High. Fitzmyer considers this textto be speaking positively of a coming Jewish ruler, who may be a successor to the Davidic throne, although hisdenial that it is messianic has more to do with allegiance to the use of the specific word messiah rather than theconcept itself. In this passage we read that the Davidic messiah will usher in an eternal rule. It is unclearwhether we are to presume from this that the Messiah will live eternally. This Davidic figure is an eschatologicalfigure of great significance, a warrior and judge who by Gods strength will fight alongside God. J. A. Fitzmyer,“The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text From Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246)" in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2000), 60. See the discussion in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 65-72.Also, A. M. Wolters, “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents,” in ed. S. E. Porter The Messiah in the Old andNew Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 79-80.61. A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 318.62. ibid., 308-310. 17
  • 18. both divine and human, and who represents the people. Prophets, priests and kings allfunction in such a position. They are all human figures who represent the people but all haveaccess, in one degree or another, to the throne of God and can, therefore, be classified asdivine.63 As both priest and prophet, Moses represented the people before YHWH and wasable to enter the heavenly realm at Sinai (Exod. 19). Likewise, on the day of atonement theHigh Priest represented the people before YHWH and, by entering into the Holy of Holies,passed into the dwelling place of God himself. The Davidic King who, as we have seen, canbe spoken of in divine terms represents the people in a similar fashion. In one sense theAbrahamic covenantal promise falls upon his head (Gen.17.7-8; 26.12; 2 Sam. 7:14), hisethical behaviour has consequences for the community (Deut. 17.14-20) and, according to Ps.110, he has a representative role as a priest. (i) Son of Man as Davidic MessiahIn Dan. 7 we see that Kings/Kingdoms are represented through the four beasts (Dan. 7.16-17;7.23) and, upon the basis of corporate identity, it could quite easily be maintained that theson of man represents a King as well as a people group. The evidence presented belowsupports a Davidic reading of the son of man figure in Dan. 7. It is not being maintained thatthe author of Dan. 7 necessarily intended such a meaning but, rather, that a Davidic messianicreading can be upheld when intertextually read alongside other parts of the biblical text andthat such a reading is certainly plausible for Second Temple Jews acquainted with thescriptures of Israel. This corresponds to the pre-A.D. 70 rabbinic technique known as gezerahshavah, whereby links are made between two texts upon the basis of a shared word or phrase.The assumption behind this being that there is a single, divine authorship of scripture and thatGod as a Divine legislator would always use language in a strictly consistent way.6463. A full discussion of the divine identity of prophets and priests cannot be given here. See Gieschen,Angelomorphic Christology (1998), Prophets: 161-169; Priests:169-175.64. This is taken from a forthcoming publication by D. Instone-Brewer in ed. J Neusner et al The Midrash: AnEncyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. available online at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/TheolHermeneutics.html.(Accessed on 16/3/2012) Seealso Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (1992), 17-18. Instone-Brewers study is highly significant as he demonstrates that rabbinic exegesis prior to 70 AD, regarded every word of Scripture as consistent and equally important, to be interpreted according to its context and according to its primary meaning only, and recognised as a single valid text form. These practices were found to contrast with those of later rabbis who frequently ignored the context, found secondary meanings hidden in the text and who proposed alternate readings of the text for the purpose 18
  • 19. (1) Son of ManFollowing a gezerah shavah method Ps. 80:17 would be of particular interest for a reader.The psalmist, offering a lament from the exilic or post-exilic period, begs that God would: ...let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man (‫/עַל־בֶּן־אָדָ ם‬υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) whom you have made strong for yourself!In this Psalm the term son of man could refer to Israel but more likely refers to a restoredDavidic monarch, given the association of the right hand with Kingship found elsewhere (Ps.110.1). This reading gains support from Tg. Ps. 80.16 which interprets the vine (80.15)messianically.65Although the final form of the Targum of the Psalms cannot be dated to any earlier thanthe fourth century A.D (Tg. 108.11 mentions both Rome and Constantinople), it isextremely likely that at various points these Psalms reflected both ancient and pre-Christian traditions.66 Therefore, this Targum evidences that the son of man figure of Ps.80 was interpreted by some Aramaic speaking Jews messianically and, irrespective ofdating, adds some support to a messianic reading of MT of Ps. 80. If using the gezerahshavah method of interpretation, in which scripture interprets scripture, a reader movingbetween Dan. 7 and Ps. 80 would be predisposed to seeing the son of man figure in Dan.7 as a Davidic Messiah figure. This gains extra credibility when placed alongside thefollowing argument. of exegesis. ibid.,222.65. It reads: And remember this vine in mercy. And the branch that your right hand planted, and the KingMessiah whom you made mighty for yourself. [It is] being burned by fire and crushed; they will perish becauseof the rebuke that [comes] from your presence. Let your hand be on the man to whom you have sworn withyour right hand, on the son of man whom you made mighty for yourself. We will not turn away from the fearof you; you will sustain us and we will call on your name. O Lord God Sabaoth, bring us back from exile; shinethe splendor of your countenance upon us and we will be redeemed. Tg. Ps. 80.15-20 Trans. E. Cook availableonline at http://www.webcitation.org/66CvX8bQf (Accessed on 16/3/2012). See discussion in R.E. Watts,“Mark.” (2007), 134.66. As with W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4: 7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery(Leiden:Brill, 1996), 66-74. The date of composition of Tg. Ps. remains very uncertain. A very tentativesuggestion would be the fourth to sixth century C.E. but this is little more than guesswork. It is possible that itcontains material belonging to more than one period. D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms Vol 2,(London:Liturgical Press, 2001,2. For example, a case can be made that the foolish king of 74.22 is Antiochus Epiphanes. 19
  • 20. (2) Reading Daniel 7 Alongside Daniel 2It is generally recognised that chapters two and seven of Daniel are theologically andintratextually linked and that they serve to interpret and elaborate on each other. In thecontext of a dream-interpretation, both texts speak of four kingdoms which follow each other.The fourth kingdom, associated with iron and brutality in both texts, is destroyed by God(2.44; 7.27).At the end of the interpretation in chapter 2 we read: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone ‫ אבן‬was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure. (Dan. 2.44-45)In Dan. 7 we ask who/what is the Son of Man?, whereas the question in Dan. 2 concerns theidentity of the stone.When looking for scriptural resources to aid the interpretation of Dan. 2,Ps. 118, a Psalm well known within Judaism, comes to mind. It reads [t]he stone that thebuilders rejected has become the cornerstone (Ps. 118.22). The stone of Ps. 118 is likely to have been interpreted in an eschatological sense as a reference to a Davidic King.67 On account of this it is easy to understand how Dan. 2 was also interpreted messianically. Given the close parallels between Dan. 2 and 7, this would provide a clue as to the identity of the son of man figure. This is what seems to be behind Esth. Rab. 7.10 which brings together, messianically, Gen. 49.24; Ps. 118; 22; Isa. 30.14 with Dan. 2.45.6867. This Psalm is discussed in extensive detail in the third chapter of this thesis.68. See C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel:Composition and Reception Vol II, ed. J. J. Collins, and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 508. We must also takeinto account, as the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12.1-12) does, the Hebrew wordplay between stone(eben) and son (ben). Although Dan. 1-7 is written in Aramaic and one could rightly question whether word-play is intended between the stone (‫ )אבן‬of Dan. 2 and the son (‫ בר‬bar) of Dan. 7, we do have evidence from ַJosephus, which itself is preserved in Greek but written in Aramaic, that such specific word-play would still beunderstood. Jos. War 5.272. See K. Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables ofJesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 290 and A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: AnIntertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John, Vol. 2:158, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr,2003), 40-41. Brunson lays out some of the evidence that Second Temple Judaism had come to associate thestone, cornerstone or foundation stone language of OT passages in a messianic and eschatological fashion. SeeTg. Isa. 28.16; Tg. Jer. 51.26; Tg. Zech. 10.4; Tg. Ps. 118.22. This is largely based on the doctoral dissertation ofK. Snodgrass. Christological Stone Testimonia in the New Testament (University of St. Andrews Thesis, 1973).See esp. pages 76-77. 20
  • 21. (3) Rabbinic Support Evidence from the rabbinic tradition demonstrates that Jewish readers steeped in scripture would read Dan. 2 as Messianic, placing it alongside other texts to form a Messianic matrix. Tanhuma (Termumach 7) offers a Messianic interpretation bringing together Dan. 2.34 with Gen. 49.24, Isa. 11.4 and Ezek. 28.26. 69In summary of our discussion so far about the son of man figure; we have made a case for anintertextual reading of Dan. 7 which points towards the identity of the son of man as being aDavidic Messiah figure. We have also seen, from rabbinic evidence, that this reading wasaccepted in some quarters of the Jewish world. Delbert Burkett, in his monograph on thecurrent state of Son of Man research, writes, The one like a son of man in Daniel has been variously interpreted as the Messiah, an angel, or as a symbol for the people of God. Though the vision identifies the figure with the people of the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7.27) Jewish interpreters close to the time of Jesus identified the figure as the Messiah. Thus whether the Danielic figure originally represented the Messiah or not, numerous scholars have believed that the expression the Son of Man in the Gospels refers to the figure understood in a messianic sense.70 (ii) Son of Man as DivineWhilst we have stressed that it is possible to read Daniel as a messianic prophecy, and wehave indeed presented some evidence for this being the case in the Jewish world, we have notyet considered whether this figure can also be described in divine terms. Dan. 7.13 offers adescriptive comparison (like a son of man) rather than just a generic expression (Son ofMan).71 Over a century ago Nathaniel Schmidt argued that the one like a Son of Man did not69. Another later Midrash enquires about the King Messiah ruling on earth (Num. Rab. 13.14). Because it isstated, All kings shall prostrate themselves before him: all nations shall serve him (Ps. 72.11). And it also saysBehold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man... and there was to him given dominion...that all people... should serve him (Dan. 7.13-14); and the stone that struck the image.became a great mountain,and filled the whole earth. (Dan. 2.35).See discussion in C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions ofGod’s Kingdom.”, 508-509.70. D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, SNTS Vol. 107 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999), 23.71. Any investigation of the New Testament son of man traditions must take these distinctions into account.T. B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41.02 (1995): 183-98, 184. 21
  • 22. refer to the Messiah but to the archangel Michael.72 He has been followed, in more recentyears, by John Collins. In support of his argument Schmidt draws attention to several othertexts from Daniel which use a descriptive comparison to speak of an angelic figure (8.15;10.16,18).In the first of these references (8.15) it is clear that the one having an appearance like aman is the angel Gabriel. In 10.16 and 10.18 Daniel is trembling before an unnamedheavenly being and it is not clear whether the character in both verses 16 and 18 refer tothe same figure or whether they are to be distinguished from the main character of thisscene (10.5-6). It is not clear how many supernatural beings are involved in this scene.73Although we disagree with Schmidts rejection of a messianic reading of Dan. 7 thesetexts (8.15; 10.16; 10.18) do suggest that the use of a descriptive comparison languagecould point to the angelic or divine identity of the figure in Dan. 7.13. In Dan. 7.13 theone like a Son of Man has access to the heavenly throne room of God for he comesbefore the Ancient of Days. His method of transport also points to his divine identity ashe comes riding on a cloud. (1) The Son of Man in the Old Greek VersionIn a recent presentation at SBL Benjamin Reynolds sought to show that one of the earliesttranslations of Daniel, that is the Old Greek (OG)74, offers an interpretation of Dan. 7which further stresses both the divine status of the son of man figure and his Messianicidentity. Stressing the divine identity of the one like a Son of Man, Reynolds notes foursimilarities between the one like a Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. Firstly, the sonof man figure arrives as/like the ancient of day, according to the OG72. N. Schmidt, Was ‫ בר נשא‬a Messianic Title?, JBL Vol. 15.1/2 (1896): 36-53; N. Schmidt, “The Son of Man inthe Book of Daniel,” JBL 19, No. 1 (1900): 22-28.73. J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC Vol. 30 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 291.74. There are only three known witnesses to the OG text of Daniel in existence today. Codex Chisianus 88,Syriac version translated from Greek called Syro-Hexaplar and Papyrus 967. 22
  • 23. Papyrus 967 Codex 8875 v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν παρῆν, παρῆν, καὶ οἱ καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν προσηγαγον αὐτῷ. αὐτῷ. v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία βασιλικη, ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα, καὶ ἡ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ, ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ µὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, φθαρῇ. ἥτις οὐ µὴ φθαρῇ.It is significant that in verse 13 the one like a Son of Man does not come to the Ancient ofDays (MT, ESV, Theo.) but, rather, he comes as or like the Ancient of Days. The one like aSon of Man is also like the Ancient of Days. This does not mean that the son of man isidentified as the Ancient of Days but, as a descriptive comparison, it means that just as themysterious figure is like a son of man so he is also like the One God of Israel. Secondly, theOG states that the son of man figure comes ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Theo. uses thepreposition µετὰ which, following MT, shows that the son of man came with the clouds. TheOG differs in that the son of man figure comes on the clouds. In other words it is beingstressed more clearly that the son of man is a cloud-rider and that the clouds are his method75. Supported by Syro-Hexaplar. See B. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greekof Daniel 7.3-14,” Bib. 89 (2008): 70-80, 71. 23
  • 24. of transportation. Elsewhere in scripture clouds signify the appearance of YHWH (Exod.40.34-35; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11; 2 Chron. 5.13-14; Ps. 18.11; Ps. 97.2; Joel 2.2; Nah. 1.3; Zeph.1.14). No other being, including angels, appears with clouds in the OT. Thus, the one like a son of mans coming with the presence of clouds implies the figures similarity with the Lord and most likely indicates a heavenly being greater than the angels.76Thirdly, the OG states, in verse 14, that all the nations will serve him (λατρεύουσα).Theodotion uses the word (δουλεύσουσιν). In the Greek OT this word, λατρεύω, is usuallyused in the context of religious or cultic duties (Exod. 3.12). The verb λατρεύω appears only rarely in Greek literature and appears in the LXX almost exclusively in the religious and cultic sense of Israel’s worship of God. It renders the Hebrew‘āḇaḏ thus clearly distinguished from its Greek synonym δουλεύω, which is more comprehensive in meaning.77In the book of Daniel λατρεύω is used nine times. Three times in reference to the worship ofthe statue which Nebuchadnezzar erected (3.12; 3.14; 3.18) and four times in reference to theworship of God (3.28; 6.17; 6.21; 6.27). The final mention is in Dan. 7.14 where the son ofman figure receives veneration, usually reserved only for the one God of Israel. Theimplication for Dan. 7.13-14 in the OG is that this figure that looks like a human issomething more than human.78Finally, in the MT and Theo. those standing by the son of man present him to the Ancient ofDays. The OG presents something different. Papyrus 967 reads οἱ παρεστηκότες προσηγαγοναὐτῷ whilst Codex 88 has οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. The παρεστηκότες (bystanders)refer to other members of the heavenly court (7.10) who were previously standing before theAncient of Days. In the OG 7.13 these bystanders stand before the one like a Son of Man.Here, we evidently have another similarity between the son of man figure and the Ancient ofDays which, again, serves to portray his exalted state as the Son of Man. (iii) First Century Evidence of Son of Man as both Davidic and Divine76. ibid., 75.77. See EDNT 2:34478. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7.3-14.”, 76. 24
  • 25. (1) Similitudes of EnochThe Similitudes of Enoch, which we will assume is free of Christian influence and datedwithin the first century prior to the fall of Jerusalem,79 makes use of and develops the Son ofMan motif in Dan. 7. In the Similitudes the Son of Man is portrayed as an eschatologicalfigure who dwells in the heavenly realm. His countenance is described as being like that ofthe holy angels (46.1) and it appears that he is preexistent.80 For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity...For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the most high one preserved him in the presence of his power.This heavenly Messiah (48.10; 52.4) sits upon the throne of the most high God and takes amajor role in the eschatological judgement.81 In one particular passage it appears difficult todistinguish between the character of the Lord and that of the Son of Man. It is unclear orperhaps deliberately ambiguous to distinguish which actions are those of the Lord of Spiritsand those of the Son of Man. Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords and said Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows-- if you are able to recognize the Elect One! The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in, and all the oppressors shall be eliminated.... and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and raise their hopes in that Son of Man, they shall beg and plead for mercy at his feet. (62.1-3; 62.9)79. See J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Seconded. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177-193.It is hardly conceivable, however, that a Christian author would have written about a figure called Son of Manwithout identifying him explicitly as Jesus. Neither is it likely that a Jewish author would have used thisimagery after the Christian identification of Jesus as the Son of Man became current. Collins & Collins, Kingand Messiah as Son of God (2008), 87.80. 48.6 also 62.7.81. 51.3, In those days, (the Elect One) shall sit on my throne. and from the conscience of his mouth shallcome out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him 55.4, You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits on the throne of glory and judges Azazel and allhis company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of Spirits 61.8, He placed the elect one on the throne of Glory, and he shall judge all the wicked of the holy ones inheaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. 69.29 for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evilshall disappear from before his face.. 25
  • 26. Here we have a figure who, although separate from the Lord of Spirits, has both an exaltedontological status and functional role. The text goes as far to say that he will be worshipped(cf. 48.5), although there is some debate within the scholarly literature as to what thisactually means.82Despite the fact that no explicit attempt is made to identify this figure as a member of theDavidic house, a number of features point in this direction. Firstly, he is described as beingthe anointed Messiah, which certainly makes it a possibility that the figure is from theDavidic line. Secondly, it appears that in at least two places Davidic intertextual allusionsare used to elaborate on his identity. For instance, 49.1-4, in which the Elect one is said tohave the Spirit of Wisdom and insight, recalls the Davidic figure of Isa. 11. Likewise, theword of his mouth will do the sinners in (62.1) bears a thematic correspondence to Isa. 11.4.Thirdly, 48.10, speaking of the Lord and his anointed, contains language which is associatedwith Ps. 2. Lastly, the fact that the Son of Man shares the Divine throne recalls Ps. 110which speaks of a Davidic King sitting at the right hand of God. Whilst Stuckenbruck iscorrect to say that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link the figure with a Davidiclineage., he is mistaken when he continues, This apocalyptic scenario does not envision therestoration of the Davidic monarchy.83The intertextual evidence laid out above strongly suggests that a link with Son of Man andDavidic lineage may actually be implicit.84 Rowland agrees, There may be some indications that royal terminology, particularly Psalms 110 and 2 and Isaiah 11 have influenced the picture of the Son of Man as it emerges in the Similitudes. For example, the judgement of the Son of Man on the kings of the earth (1 Enoch 46.5f) is reminiscent of language used about the king in Psalm 2.9, and the attribute of wisdom bestowed upon the Elect One according to 1 Enoch 49.3 brings to mind the picture of the ideal ruler in Isaiah 11.2.85We may, therefore, conclude that, at around the time of the composition of Mark, it would notbe unthinkable for a Jew to conceive of a preexistent Davidic Messiah figure who shares the82. See R. Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus in Jesus and the God of Israel(Carlisle:Paternoster, 2008) 154-181.83. L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism,” in TheMessiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 100.84. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 90. Although we will not discuss the position that the son ofman is actually Enoch. 71.14 Then an angel came to me, and greeted me and said to me You, son of man.85. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK,1982), 176. 26
  • 27. throne and eschatological function of the one God of Israel. We may note, in passing, that incontrast to the Markan narrative there is no suggestion in the Similitudes of Enoch that theSon of Man has an earthly existence but, rather, that he seems to dwell and function in theheavenly realm. (2) 4 Ezra 13The book of 4 Ezra, probably composed around 100 A.D.,86 presents the reader with theimage of a future messianic redeemer figure (7.28-29; 11.37-12.1; 12.31-34; 13.3-3;13.25-52; 14.9). Our attention will focus upon the material found in the sixth vision known asThe Vision of the Man (13.1-58). In this dream a man is seen to be coming up from the sea(13.3) and flying with the clouds of heaven, causing all who met him to tremble: And I looked, and behold that man flew with the the clouds of heaven; and wherever he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled and whenever his voice issue from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts when it feels fire. (4 Ezra 13.13-4)This man is attacked by all who had gathered together against him, to wage war with himbut he defeats them with the flames coming from his mouth (13.8-11). Another peaceablemultitude rejoice at this victory. A request is made by Ezra for an interpretation (13.14-20)and is granted (13.21-58). In the interpretation the Most High expands on the identity of theman from the sea. He is the one whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, whowill deliver his creation (13.26) and he is called my son (13.32; 13.37; 13.52).87 Thisdeliverer will stand against those who oppose him (13.32-33) and, from Mount Zion, willdestroy them by the Law (13.34-38). Those who rejoice at his victory are the ten lost tribes ofIsrael and the son will continue to do miracles on the outskirts of the land. Elsewhere in 4Ezra the eschatological deliverer is addressed as my Messiah or my Son/Servant Messiahby the Most High God (7.28-29). The Messiah will be revealed and then die, although thisdoes not mean that his death is salvific but, rather, that he and all humanity will die.86. B. Metzger, The Fourth Book of Ezra in Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha Vol 1., 517-524.87. Translation in Charlesworth. Things are somewhat complicated as the Latin reads, filius which could be atranslation of either the servant or the son. See Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 94-97 and thediscussion in M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Augsburg:Fortress, 1990), 207-208. 27
  • 28. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice 400 years. And after these years my Son the Messiah will die, and all who draw human breath. (7.27-28)From this material we see that this future deliverer is both Davidic and Divine. His Davidicidentity is acknowledged by the fact that he is the anointed Son of the Most High. Moreover,4 Ezra 13 makes use of the Davidic traditions from Ps. 2, whereby the enemy is defeated byan anointed one from Mount Zion, as well as Isa. 11 where the Messianic King destroys thewicked by the breath of his mouth. We may also note that 4 Ezra interprets the flamescoming from his mouth as representing the Torah. This may allude to Deut. 17.18-19 inwhich the future king is to be skilled in Torah (cf. 2 Kings 11.12). In an earlier vision (theeagle vision) a description is given of a lion who confronts the fourth beast (4 Ezra 11.36-46).This likely draws upon Gen. 49.9-10 in which the line of Judah is referred to as a lion. This isconfirmed within the interpretation which states this is the Messiah whom the most High haskept until the end of days, who will come from the posterity of David,88The heavenly or divine character of this Davidic figure is also apparent through the use of thecloud-riding son of man imagery of Dan. 7, the defeat of the enemy and the joyful receptionfrom those who ally themselves with the one God of Israel. 4 Ezra 12 shows that images fromthe larger context of Dan. 7 are intended as it mentions a fourth beast coming from the sea.Although in 7.27-28 the Messiah is said to die, it should be noted that his reign lasts for 400years and he is said to be revealed with those who are with him, implying his preexistenceand bearing some correspondence to Zech. 14 where it is said that YHWH will come with hisholy ones. The description of this Warrior Messiah also includes imagery usually associatedwith theophanic revelations of the God of Israel rather than simply a human figure. Thearrival of the man in the vision is (i) preceded by wind (13.1) (ii) comes on the cloud (13.3)(iii) uses fire as a weapon towards his enemies (13.10) (iv) who melt like wax (13.4). Each ofthese four points come from biblical descriptions of God89 and, therefore, are most likely tobe theologically loaded.88. See Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.” (2007),104-105.89. (i) Preceded by wind. See 1 Kgs. 19.11-12; Zech. 9.14; Job 40.6, etc. (ii) Clouds come before him. Exod.19.9; 19.16; Num. 12.5; 14.4; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11, used as a chariot (Exod. 19.18; Isa. 14.14; 19.1; Nah. 1.3; 68.5).(iii) Uses fire towards enemies. Isa. 66.15-16; Ps. 97.3-4; 1 Kgs. 19.12, etc. According to Ps. 18.9 it issues fromhis mouth. (iv) Enemies melt like wax. Mic. 1.4; Ps. 68.3; 97.5; Judith 16.15; 1 Enoch 1.6; 52.6.See Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (1990), 212. 28
  • 29. (3) 2 BaruchIn 2 Bar., which like 4 Ezra was written after the destruction of the Second Temple (32.2-4),reference is made to an eschatological messiah in a number of its sections.90 The advent of theAnointed One will lead to an eschatological age of Shalom (29.3-8; 73.1-7) and a time whenthose who stand in rebellion to the Mighty One (God of Israel) will be judged (40.1; 30.1-5)and the righteous will rise from their graves (30.1-5). This future deliverer may be understoodas being both Davidic and Divine, and is to be seen as Davidic for the following reasons. (i)He is the Anointed One. (ii) He is said to sit on the throne of his kingdom (73.1) whichimplicitly suggests that he is a King. (iii) The reign that he inaugurates resonates stronglywith the shalomic imagery of Isa. 11.6-9 in which Edenic conditions are restored due to thearrival of the Spirit empowered shoot of Jesse. (iv) The Anointed one is said to return in glory(30.1) which offers an implicit hint that he is of the Davidic line.91 If this does not suggest aDavidic line then it may suggest his Divine identity as the one who was on earth and is nowreturning from the heavenly realm.This Davidic Messiah may also be considered as Divine given the association with Dan. 7. InDan. 7 four beasts/kingdoms are followed by the advent of the heavenly son of man and thedeath of the final beast brings in the kingdom. This corresponds to the sequence of 2 Bar.36-40 whereby the four world kingdoms are succeeded by the advent of the Anointed One92and the death of the last ruler. This, in turn, is followed by the dominion that will lastforever. It appears that, like Enoch, a fusion of the son of man with Davidic Messiah hastaken place. The following chart may clarify what has just been said: Daniel 7 2 Baruch 36-40 Vision (1-14) followed by Explanation Vision (36.1-11) followed by (15-28) explanation (38.1- 40.4)90. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 617-62091. The return of the Messiah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendent from David.Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.”(2007), 109.92. ibid., 110; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages toHimself and His Mission (London: Tyndale Press, 1971), 180. 29
  • 30. 4 Beasts/Empires (4-8; 17) Fourth is 4 Empires. (39:3-5) Fourth is worse worse than its predecessors than its predecessors (39.5) Arrival of Son of Man (13) Arrival of the Anointed One (39.7) Judgement and Death of Fourth Beast/ Judgement and Death of the Fourth King (11; 26) King (40.1) Eternal Kingdom (27) Eternal Kingdom (40.3)(ii) The meaning of the Anointed One will begin to be revealed can be explained withreference to his hiddenness in heaven (as with Enoch) and his preexistence. This is furthersupported through noting that, in the same literary unit, it is mentioned that manna will comedown from high (29.8).Despite obvious differences, the son of man figure found in 4 Ezra, 2 Bar. and the Sim. ofEnoch do have a number of things in common. They all understand the Son of Man as aDavidide as well as further emphasising his divinity. We may then conclude that these textsstand within the tradition of Dan. 7 and that by the first century hopes for a Davidic anddivine messiah were active in at least some quarters. (d) Concluding RemarksIn the third section of this chapter a number of positions have been developed. Firstly, withsome nuance in regard to definitions, it has been maintained that Second Temple Judaism isto be understood as being monotheistic. Secondly, this study has sought to show that thescriptures of Israel considered the Davidic King to be divine. This divinity, however, is notnecessarily a challenge to monotheism. Thirdly, with the decline of Davidic kingship thehope for a coming divine Davidic messiah figure began to grow. Fourthly, the Danielic Sonof Man may be considered as a a Davidic deliverer who is also divine. Lastly, three extra-biblical Judaic texts (Sim., 4 Ezra, 2 Bar.) provide evidence that some Second Temple Jewslooked forward to the coming of a Son of Man figure who was both Davidic and divine.The next chapter will see the launch of our exploration of the gospel of Mark. We will returnto Marks understanding of divine Davidic messiahship as well as Son of Man in the thirdchapter. 30
  • 31. 31
  • 32. II. Chapter Two: The March of theDivine Warrior1. Introduction (a) New Exodus Motif in IsaiahSince the mid-twentieth century a steady stream of articles and monographs have exploredthe motif of a NE in Isaiah/Deutero-Isaiah93. Arguably, the most influential of these has beenB.W. Andersons "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah". Calling attention to ten key texts,Anderson identifies a typological relationship between the eschatological promise for Godspeople under Babylonian rule and that of the deliverance achieved in the first Exodus. 1. 40.3-5 The highway in the wilderness. 2. 41.17-20 The transformation of the wilderness. 3. 42.14-16 Yahweh leads his people in a way they know not. 4. 43.1-3 Passing through the waters and the fire. 5. 43.14-21 A way in the wilderness. 6. 48.20-21 The exodus from Babylon.93. B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in ed. B. W. Anderson, and W. Harrelson Israel’sProphetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of James Muilenburg (New York: Harper, 1962); J. Blenkinsopp, “Scopeand Depth of Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah 40-55,” in ed. Benoit The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition(New York: Paulist Press, 1967); C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, AnBib 43 (Rome:Biblical Institute Press, 1970); B.W. Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and the PropheticTradition,” in ed. F. M. Cross et al, Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: (New York: Doubleday, 1976); M.A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979);D. A. Patrick, “Epiphanic Imagery in Second Isaiah’s Portrayal of a New Exodus,” HAR 8 (1984): 125-41; R. E.Watts, “Consolation Or Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynBul 41:1 (1990):31-59; R. E. Watts, “Echoes From the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah40-55,” JSOT 28:4 (2004): 481-508. For a survey of scholarship on the NE/Way motif in Isaiah see Ø. Lund,Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55, FAT 2:28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 1-21. ClausWestermann was able to say, For Deutero-Isaiah the most important event in Israels history was the Exodus. The great prominence which he gives it is due to the fact that he himself was involved in a situation similar to it. ....Deutero- Isaiah proclaimed the release from Babylon as a second Exodus... The place which Deutero-Isaiah gives to the exodus is so conspicuous that all other events in Israels history recede into the background. An arch which spans the nations entire history has, as its one pillar, the release from Egypt and, as its other, the new and imminent release from Babylon. Isaiah 40-66, OTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1969), 21-22. 32
  • 33. 7. 49.8-12 The new entry into the Promised Land. 8. 51.9-10 The new victory at the sea. 9. 52.11-12 The new exodus. 10. 55.12-13 Israel shall go out in joy and peace.94As YHWH had defeated the Egyptians and led his people to the promised land, so theprophetic voice proclaimed that the Babylonian bondage would end. YHWH, as the DW,would defeat the Babylonian enemy and lead his people on a NE and be welcomed in arestored Jerusalem. The word way (‫ דרך‬in the MT, and ὁδός in the LXX) has specialsignificance within this NE motif,95 being used to describe the path of deliverance whichYHWH and his people will take from defeated Babylon to Jerusalem.96Whilst the recognition of these NE themes can hardly be denied, the question remains as tohow this material fits within the larger context of Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Are the promisesof a NE to be understood as a repeated motif in a collection of independent oracles made bythe prophet, thus indicating that if one changed the order of individual oracular units it wouldmake little difference to its meaning? Or, alternatively, should this NE motif be seen as arepeated motif within a structure which shows some progression of thought and reflects alarger literary unity? More specifically, how should the NE motif be understood in relation toother major themes of Deutero-Isaiah such as the servant passages (Isa. 42.1–4; 49.1–6; 50.4–9; 52.13–53.12) or the trial speeches (41.1-5; 41.21-29; 43.8-13; 44.6-8; 45.18-25), and whatrelationship do the NE themes of Isa. 40-55 have with chapters 1-39 and 56-66? 9794. B. W. Anderson, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah" (1962), 181-82.95. It is used 47 times within 42 verses in the whole of Isaiah, becoming more dominant in chapters 40-66 (1-39, 14x; 40-55, 19x; 55-66, 19x). In each case that Isaiah 40-55 MT uses the word ‫ דרך‬it is translated in the Septuagint as ὁδός or some derivative.96. A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the ‫ דרך‬of the Lord; make straight in the desert a ‫ דרך‬for our God......And I will lead the blind in a ‫ דרך‬that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them. ........Thus says the Lord, who makes a ‫ דרך‬in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, ...Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a ‫ דרך‬in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.......Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the ‫ דרך‬you should go..... saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear.’ They shall feed along the ways; on all bare heights shall be their pasture;...... And I will make all my mountains a ‫ ,דרך‬and my highways shall be raised up. .......Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a ‫ דרך‬for the redeemed to pass over? Isa. 40.3; 42.16; 43.16,19; 48.17; 49.9,11; 51.10. ESV with amendments.97. In recent years Isaianic scholarship has made a general shift towards synchronic, literary and holisticreading of the text. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson describe the current move within Isaianic 33
  • 34. With these questions in mind, this chapter aims to begin an exploration into how one firstcentury text, the book of Mark, creatively makes use of the NE traditions of Isaiah as part ofan integrated reading of Isa. 40-55.98This study is not the first to make these connections between Mark and INE. Joel Marcus andRikki Watts both contend, in The Way of the Lord99 and Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark100respectively, that Mark has structured his gospel so as to draw attention to the Isaianic NEmotif. For Marcus, the use of Isa. 40.3 in Mk. 1.1-3 brings to light the Isaianic DW motif. Inthe original larger context of Isa. 40.3, YHWH promises that he will defeat the enemy andlead his people in glorious triumph to Jerusalem. It is this that Marcus identifies as being amajor theme of the Markan narrative. Also, upon the basis of Isa. 40.3 in Mk. 1.3, Wattscontends that a significant theme of Mark is Isaiahs New Exodus (INE) which had beeninaugurated in the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus.101 Fundamental to their respectivescholarship: [A] great deal of work is now being done on the ways in which the book of Isaiah is shaped and how its component parts relate to one another, so that text-centered questions have now come to the fore. Scholars are thus interested in asking about the purposes behind the shape of the book and how the various component parts engage with one another. “Introduction,” in Interpreting Isaiah (2009), 16.See also J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 48-50. Recent commentarieswhich stress the unity of Isaiah/Deutero Isaiah include B. S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 2001); J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC 24 (Dallas: Word, 2002); J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66,WBC 25 (Dallas: Word, 2002); K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55, Hermeneia(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); R. J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of SecondIsaiah (Academic Renewal Press, 2002).98. No part of the Old Testament was more important to them than the chapters we know as Deutero- Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55)...For the early Christians, these chapters of Isaiah, above all, were the God-Given account of the significance of the events of eschatological salvation which they had witnessed and in which they were involved: Isaiahs vision of the New Exodus, the divine act of redemption of Israel in the sight of all nations and for the sake of the nations themselves also.... The New Testament writers extensive indebtedness to Deutero-Isaiah has been widely acknowledged, even if its precise extent has been debated. What has not been sufficiently recognized is that behind many of the New Testament texts lies integrated early Christian reading of these chapters as a connected whole. Allusions to the narrative of the Suffering Servant in chapter 53 for example should not be read as though early Christian use of this chapter alone can explain them, nor only in connection with the other servant passages in Deutero-Isaiah, but as integral to reading of Isaiah 40-55 as a prophecy of a new exodus which leads to the salvation of the nations. R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlise: Paternoster, 2008), 33-34.99. J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark(London: T&T Clark, 2004). Orig. published as J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of theOld Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1992).100. R. E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). Orig. published as R.E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, WUNT 2:28 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997).101. As part of his argument, Watts also devotes attention to the the Exodus and Malachi citations. However, welimit ourselves in this paper to his discussion of Isa. 40.3 34
  • 35. approaches are three key components. Firstly, Marcus and Watts claim that Mark intends hisreader to become aware of the larger original NE context of Isa. 40.3. Secondly, they bothcontend that Mk. 1.1-3 bears significance for the Gospel as a whole. Thirdly, Marks waysection (Mk. 8.22-10.52), so called because of its frequent use of the word ὁδός, hasintertextual links to INE as well as an intratextual link to Mk. 1.1-3.Not all, however, are convinced by their respective approaches. Arguably, the most vocal ofcritics is Thomas Hatina, who offers a detailed analysis and critique of both Marcus andWatts in his monograph entitled In Search of a Context.He concludes, Marks composite quotation [Mk. 1.2-3] does not function to introduce the Isaianic theme of the new exodus, nor is the quotation regarded as the hermeneutical key for the rest of the narrative.102For Hatina, neither Isa. 40.3 nor the use of ὁδός in the way section, are intended to evokeINE. He argues that the meaning of Isa. 40.3 is to be found primarily in the role or func-tion the words have in their new narrative context, and that the repeated use of the wordὁδός does not carry with it any theological freight from Isa. Furthermore, Hatina puts for-ward a number of linguistic and literary arguments that Mk.1.3 should not be understoodas forming a unit with verse 1 and that it has little significance for the interpretation ofthe rest of the narrative. Steve Moyise is also highly critical of the maximal approachesof Watts and Marcus. Although he does not doubt that some citations may bring withthem some connotations or associations from their previous contexts, he stands withHatina, using many of the same arguments, in his rejection of the Watts and Marcusproposal.103This debate makes it necessary to revisit Mk. 1.1-3 and the way section (8.22-10.52) inorder to establish whether or not Marks story is shaped by Isaiahs NE traditions. Giventhe weight of negative responses to this proposal, for Hatina and Moyise are significantvoices in scholarly discussions about the use of the OT in the NT, it is necessary to dealwith their arguments at several points in the following study.102. T. R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, LNTS 232 (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 138-183, quotation from 181.103. Moyise, Evoking Scripture (2008), 16-20. 35
  • 36. 2. Mk. 1.1-3The first quotation of Isaiah in Marks gospel is found in 1.3 where Isa. 40.3 is placedalongside Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1. This composite citation is introduced by the wordsκαθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ. In the Nestle-Aland text the first three versesread as follows, Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]. 2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ·ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν µου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου· [Exod. 23.20; Mal. 3.1] 3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ·ἑτοιµάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου,εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ, (Isa. 40.3)104Although Mark has a number of composite citations within his narrative105 this particularcitation is unusual in two ways; it is Marks only editorial quotation from the scriptures ofIsrael and it appears within the opening verses of the narrative as part of the Markan prologue(Mk. 1.1-13/15).106104. A thorough analysis of composition history, translation and synoptic parallels can be found in Marcus, TheWay of the Lord (2004), 14; Moyise, Evoking Scripture (2008), 5-7. and will not be described here.105. See also 1.11 (Isa. 42.1; Ps. 2.7); 11.1-11 (Zech. 9.9; Ps. 118.25-26); 11.17 (Isa. 56.7; Jer. 8.11); 12.1-12(Isa. 5.1-2; Ps.118.22-23); 13.24-26 (Isa. 34.4; Josh. 2.10; Ezra 32.7-8; Dan. 7.13-14); and 14.62 (Dan. 7.13; Ps.110.1) See H. C. Kee, “The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11-16,” in Jesus UndPaulus: Festschrift Für Werner Georg Kümmel Zum 70, ed. E.E. Eliis and E. Grasser (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1975).106. Lightfoot successfully challenges the reigning view of Westcott and Hort by extending Marks prologuefrom verse 8 to verse 13. R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Clarendon: Oxford, 1950).Followed by W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); M. D.Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark, BNTC (London: A & C Black, 1991); R. H.Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). Arguments for ending the prologue at verse 13include the identification of key word associations in which words or phrases bind the unit together. Thegeographic location of the wilderness (1.3; 1.4; 1.12-13) changes to the region of Galilee in verse 14 and,similarly, the dominance of the Spirit in the opening verses is virtually absent, at least linguistically, from therest of the Gospel (1.8; 1.10; 1.12). In contrast and in dialogue with Lightfoot, L. E. Keck, argues that theprologue should be extended to 1.15. “The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel,” NTS 12 (1965): 352-70. He isfollowed by Collins, Mark:A Commentary (2007); M. E. Boring, Mark:A Commentary, NTL (Louisville:Westminster/John Knox Press, 2006). Reasons put forward for this include: the use of the the word εὐαγγέλιονwhich frames the prologue due to its presence in 1.1 and 1.15; the designation of Jesus as the messianic king(1.1) is balanced with his proclamation of the kingdom of God (1.15); and the removal of John from thenarrative at 1.14 provides a closure to the prologue. Each of these positions have their own merit and we do notneed to make any hard and and fast decision either way for the purpose of this particular study. Lightfoothimself noted that the introduction consists of the first thirteen verses of the book; but it is also clear that verses14 and 15 are closely connected with the verses that precede them. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark(1950), 20. We will proceed by following Joel Marcus in seeing 1.14-15 as providing a transitional bridgebetween the prologue and the main body of the narrative. J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday,1999), 138. 36
  • 37. (a) Mk. 1.1-13/15 as a Dramatic Prologue (i) The Dramatic PrologueIn Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory107 Dennis Smith identified fourforms of narrative openings which would have been normative in ancient Greek and Latinliterature; that of the (i) preface108, (ii) dramatic prologue, (iii) incipit109 and the (iv) virtualpreface.110 Of particular interest to us is the dramatic prologue, in which the author would setup the action or situation of the play and which bears some resemblance to the the prologueof Marks gospel.111107. D. E. Smith, “Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory,” Semeia 52: How Gospels Began(1991): 1-10.108. The preface (Gk: προοίµιον/φροίµιον, Lt: exordium) was understood to be a formal introduction to awritten work in which the author would state his purpose for writing according to the conventions of the day.Ibid.,1. Aristotle defines the purpose of the preface in rhetoric as follows: So then the most essential and specialfunction of the exordium is to make clear what is the end or purpose of the speech; wherefore it should not beemployed, if the subject is quite clear or unimportant. Art of Rhetoric, Loeb 22, 3.14.6.109. The third category which Smith proposes is that of the incipit. This refers to the use of a brief phrase tointroduce a document or selection from a document. Although incipits could function in an oral culture as anintroduction to a small section of a text—the incipit came to be used as an introduction to lectionary readings—they have also been identified and utilized as a form of an ancient title. Such incipits would then be intended tointroduce, define or describe the document as a whole. Ibid., 4-5.110. Smith concludes his description of beginnings in ancient literature with what he calls a virtual preface. Avirtual preface refers to a narrative that simply begins without any preliminary remarks by the author. It issimply a way of referring to the importance of a beginning of a text even if it lacks formal features. Ibid., 6.111. Aristotle describes the function of the dramatic prologue, otherwise known as an exordium, for speeches,poems and comedies, But in speeches and epic poems the exordia provide a sample of the subject, in order that the hearers may know beforehand what it is about, and that the mind may not be kept in suspense, for that which is undefined leads astray; so then he who puts the beginning, so to say, into the hearer’s hand enables him, if he holds fast to it, to follow the story … Similarly, tragic poets make clear the subject of their drama, if not at the outset, like Euripides, at least somewhere in the prologue, like Sophocles … It is the same in comedy. Art. Rhet., Loeb 22, 3.14.6.In Prologue and Gospel, Elizabeth Harris uses this understanding of prologues to to interpret the Gospel ofJohn, describing the function of beginnings in comedies and dramas. Emerging in ancient religious drama, and continuing in some form into the first century CE, the prologue was intended to inform the readers (or audiences) in advance about the drama to be unfolded. In highly compressed statements it announced past events, intimated the present situation and its cosmic proportions, and introduced the main characters.....The prologue, then, set forth cryptically in advance the religious and philosophical truths which were to be unravelled and explicated in the body of the work.Prologue and Gospel : The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist, JSNTSup 107 (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1994), 189. 37
  • 38. Almost all Markan commentators and interpreters fail to offer any serious discussion aboutthe nature of openings in ancient literature. However, many presume, on the basis ofChristology, that Marks opening functions like that of a dramatic prologue.Lightfoot suggests that the prologue to the gospel of Mark provides the hermeneutical key...in order that we understand the person and office of the central figure of the book.112 A quickChristological sketch of the prologue reveals that this is the case. Jesus is the messiah andSon of God (1.1) who was written about in Isaiah (1.2). He is more significant than John theBaptist (1.7,9) for he is stronger and will baptise with the Holy Spirit (1.8). He is also thebeloved son (1.11) who is filled (1.10) and led by the Spirit of God (1.12). Jesus is the onewho is faithful during the wilderness testing and the angelic beings serve him (1.12).Furthermore, he functions as an eschatological agent who announces the imminent reign ofGod (1.14).Even at the surface level of the text, without any appeal to intertextual echoes, Mark offers atour-de-force of Christological claims. As R. T. France phrases it, the prologue introduces the,main dramatis personae in a context separate from that of the succeeding narrative.113 In theprologue the reader receives privileged information that is withheld from the humancharacters in the story. Hooker remarks, It is as though Mark were allowing us to view the drama from a heavenly van- tage point (whence we see things as they really are) before he brings us down to earth, where we find characters in the story totally bewildered by what is going on.114The above discussion suggests then that Mk. 1.1-13; 1.15 is best understood as a dramaticprologue.115 This is not to say that Mark was necessarily aware of the dramatic prologue as aLikewise Rikki Watts, who will be one our chief dialogue partners in this chapter, makes the followinggeneralising statement, leading the reader to suppose that the dramatic prologue is the only type of formalopening: In literary antiquity the role of the prologue was, by convention, to provide an indication of what is tobe said so that hearers can know before hand what the work is about. Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (2000),54-55. See also S. H. Smith, “A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark’sGospel,” NovT 37: 3 (1995), 218-21, 221. who finds that the form and purpose of the Markan prologue is inbasic conformity with those typical of Greek tragic drama.112. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950), 17.113. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 54.114. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark (1991), 32. Likewise, Boring: the functionof the prologue is to set the stage for the (post-Easter) audience, so that they may see and hear the body of thenarrative in the perspective intended by the author, a frame of reference the (pre-Easter) characters in thenarrative itself do not and cannot yet have. Mark: A Commentary (2006), 33.115. Mention should also be made of the studies by Frank Matera and Eugene Boring which further explore thefunction of the prologue. Matera endeavours to show the interaction the prologue has with the major sections ofthe narrative and, for Boring, the introduction of Marks Gospel functions like an overture of an opera. The 38
  • 39. category in its own right. As with all authors who seek to communicate meaningfully, Markdoes not write in an historical and literary vacuum in producing a sui generis, but consciouslyor subconsciously draws on literary conventions from his own particular position in time andspace. (ii) Mk. 1.1 as a TitleOne other factor, however, requires discussion. A number of recent commentators, includingR. T. France, Eugene Boring, Yarbro Collins and Joel Marcus, identify verse one as being thetitle/incipit for the gospel.116 There are several compelling reasons for this, • It would not be unusual for biblical or Greco-Roman literature to begin a work with a title or incipit.117 • The absence of both an article preceding ἀρχή and any verb corresponds to a titular style.118 • In Greco-Roman literature we would expect that the titles given to βίοι are based around the subjects name and often, but not always, include the word βίοs or vita.119introduction introduces the main themes that recur in the body of the narrative. It has a fourfold purpose,introducing both (i) the main characters (ii), themes, serving to (iii) focalise the following narrative and (iv)relate the time of the Gospel to that of the readers. F. J. Matera, “The Prologue as the Interpretative Key toMark’s Gospel,” JSNT 34 (1988): 3-20; M. E. Boring, “Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel,” Semeia52: How Gospels Began (1991): 43-91.These two studies confirm the crucial role that the prologue plays in theGospel of Mark and highlight the plausibility, at least in theory, that any Christological claims or motifs of INEfound in the prologue may bear significance for the rest of the narrative.116. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002); Boring, Mark: A Commentary (2006); Collins, Mark : A Commentary,(2007); Marcus, Mark 1-8 (1999).117. A title is a subtype of the incipit. This refers to the use of a brief phrase to introduce a document orselection from a document. Although incipits could function in an oral culture as an introduction to a smallsection of a text—the incipit came to be used as an introduction to lectionary readings— they have also beenidentified and utilised as a form of an ancient title. Such incipits would then be intended to introduce, define ordescribe the document as a whole. Smith, "Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory" (1991). Seealso D. Earl, “Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography” (1972).118. Several biblical texts begin with an anarthrous heading yet lack a verb. See Mt. 1.1; Rev. 1.1; Prov. 1.1;Ecc. 1.1, Song of Sg. 1.1. Most prophetic books have verbless headings (Isa., Jer., Hos., Joel, Amos, Obad.,Nah., Hab., Zeph., Zech., Mal.) with most, as with the Psalms, describing their work by an anarthrous noun.119. R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-Roman Biography, SNTSM 70(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 161. 39
  • 40. Mark does not use the word βίοs, preferring instead the word εὐαγγέλιον. However, he does stress the subject of his work as being Jesus Christ [Son of God].120 • Mention should also be made of Joel Marcus suggestion that Ἀρχή may have a double reference. It may point to the beginning of the narrative, that is the prologue (1.1-13/15), but could also refer to the narrative as a whole. The εὐαγγέλιον, which began in the life and ministry of Jesus, continues into the life of the readership in both their experience and proclamation of the risen Christ (8.35; 10.29; 14.9). This perhaps helps to make sense of the seemingly abrupt ending of Mark (16.8) as the reader is encouraged to see themselves as part of the ongoing story. Gen. 1.1 LXX may be a prototype for such usage; Ἐν ἀρχῇ states the theme of the first chapter of Genesis but also introduces the whole book which is a book of beginnings.121Hence, it is possible that 1.1, as well as taking its place within the prologue, has a heightenedrole to play in the Markan narrative as it functions as an explanation about the content of thebook which will be unfolded in the following sixteen chapters. (iii) SummaryTwo conclusions can be drawn thus far. First, the prologue to Marks gospel, as with thedramatic prologue in ancient literature, is particularly significant. It imparts to the readerthe necessary knowledge by which the rest of the narrative should be interpreted. Thissuggests then that Marks use of Isa. 40.3 in 1.3 may have significance for the Gospel as awhole, a point which Hatina himself is willing to concede. He writes,120. There is some debate about whether Son of God was part of the original Gospel. I include the title withinmy own discussion for three reasons. (i) The combination of textual witnesses B, D and W should not readily bediscounted (ii) Its removal from the text can be explained by positing a scribal error in which similarities ofendings in the sacred names, each forming a sequence of six -ου, caused confusion. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ. (iii) Its inclusion in the title would provide a frame, as with the word σχίζω in 1.10 and15.38, with the confession of the centurion in 15.39. See B. A. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the GreekNew Testament (American Bible Society, 1994), 62. However, this thesis is not dependent on any particularsolution to this textual problem.121. Marcus, Mark 1-8 (1999), 146. Davies and Allison have offered an argument that the opening verse ofMatthew—Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάµ.— is to be read telescopically for itrefers not only to the genealogy which follows, or simply to the birth narratives, but to the book as a whole.Matthew Vol. 1 1-VIII, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 153. 40
  • 41. Since the quotation appears in the prologue, and at the beginning of the narrative, the importance of its function should not be minimized.122Secondly, it is possible that Mk. 1.1 is intended to function as a title to the gospel as awhole. (iv) Citation Formulae 1.2 (1) καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ: The Linguistic Unity of 1.1-3If Mk. 1.1 functions as a title for the whole of the Markan narrative then what is the role ofthe composite citation which immediately follows? Should the composite citation be seen asan elaboration of the title? Or, in contrast, does Mk. 1.2 begin the main body of the narrativeand should the composite citation then be understood primarily as an introduction to John theBaptiser?Marcus and Watts both contend123, building on the prior work of Guelich, that the scripturalcitations of Mk. 1.2-3, are used to elaborate on the meaning of the beginning of the goodnews of Jesus Christ rather than simply as an introduction to the work of the Baptist(1.4-8).124 Watts writes, Although naturally not excluding John in that he is clearly related to the beginning, actually implies a great deal about Jesus, who is after all the central focus of Marks good news.125The principal reason for this move is the presence of καθὼς γέγραπται (v. 2) which provides agrammatical link with what precedes it (v. 1) rather than with what follows (v. 4). Guelichproposed a number of reasons for this. Firstly, καθώς (v. 2) is never used by Mark, noranywhere else in the NT, to begin a new sentence.126 Secondly, the καθώς-γέγραπται122. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 163.123. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 17-18; Watts,“Mark”, 55-56.124. R. A. Guelich, “The Beginning of the Gospel: Mark 1:1-15,” BR 27 (1982): 5-15; R. A. Guelich, Mark1-8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 2002). For an exhaustive list of possible syntactical construals of Mk. 1.1-4see Boring, "Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel" (1991), 48-49.125. Watts, "Mark" (2007), 59.126. Mk. 4.33; 9.13; 11.6; 14.16, 21; 15.8, 16.7 Except in the unrelated case of καθώς/οὔτως combination. 41
  • 42. combination elsewhere in the NT always refers to the preceding rather than the succeedingmaterial.127Hatina, by leveraging the findings of C. H. Giblin128, disagrees for the following four reasons:(1) Geulich argues that καθώς always refers to what is cited before it. However, this argumentis fallacious for it fails to recognise that καθώς is regularly preceded by a verb or a clausecontaining a verb when it introduces a clause. But in verse one there is no clause.129 (2) Onthe basis of terminological links, such as ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ, verses 2-3 should be connected withverse four. (3) In Jn. 6.57 and 1 Tim. 3.4 καθὼς begins a new thought. (4) Hatina adds toGiblins argument by suggesting that in 1 Cor. 2.9 καθὼς γέγραπται introduces a newsentence and thereby serves as a notable parallel.130 However, Hatinas arguments are far from persuasive. In response: (1) At issue is the use of the words καθὼς γέγραπται, as to opposed to simply καθὼς. The phrase καθὼς γέγραπται is used 26 times within the NT and 7 times in the LXX131, having a counterpart in the literature of Qumran.132 καθὼς γέγραπται is always placed prior to a quotation of an authoritative text. Given this frequency, it would be correct to say that it functioned as a standard introductory formula in the early Church to refer to the scriptures of Israel or some other authoritative text.133 In all NT cases, leaving aside the disputed case of 1 Cor. 2.9 for now, καθὼς γέγραπται is used to connect the citation with what precedes. One would need extremely strong arguments to defend the view that Mark is going against a standardised use of καθὼς γέγραπται.127. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (2002), 6-7.128. C. H. Giblin, “The Beginning of the Ongoing Gospel (Mk 1, 2-16, 8),” in F. Van Segbroeck, The FourGospels (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 983.129. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 140.130. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1966), 153-54. Although, elsewhereHatina contradicts himself when discussing the meaning of the word gospel. He says there is a clear link bymeans of καθὼς between εὐαγγέλιον in 1:1 and the quotation from Isa. 40.3 in 1.2-3 Hatina, In Search of aContext (2002), 113.131. 4 Kingdoms. 14.6, 23.21; 2 Chron. 23.18, 25.4; Da. Theo. 9.13.132. ‫ כאשר כתוב‬corresponds to καθὼς γέγραπται 1QS 8.14; 5.17; C.D. 7.19; 4Q174 1.12 See J. A. Fitzmyer, “TheUse of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7:4 (1961):297-333, 300; E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 48-49.133. TDNT Vol 1:747. Luke 2.23; Acts 7.42, 15.15; Rom. 1.17, 2.24, 3.4, 3.10, 4.17, 8.36, 9.13, 9.33, 10.15,11.8, 11.26, 15.3, 15.9, 15.21; 1 Cor. 1.31, 2.9, 10.7, 8.15, 9.9. 42
  • 43. (3) John 6.57 and 1 Tim. 1.3-4 should not be allowed any significant weight in the discussion as they simply use the word καθὼς and are not being used to refer to other texts. (4) Hatinas appeal to 1 Cor. 2.9 as support for καθὼς γέγραπται is also unconvincing as the citation makes sense in being connected with what precedes it. Gods ways cannot be imagined (2.9a) stands in contrast to the wisdom of this age (2.6-7) which does not comprehend the saving act of God (2.9b).134 The use of ἀλλά (2.9) which precedes καθὼς γέγραπται further confirms the linguistic connection with what precedes it. (2) Hatina rightly recognises the terminological links between the composite citation and what follows. However, these themselves cannot be decisive on this issue given that it overturns formal syntactical and linguistic convention.135 We may therefore conclude that Hatinas objections to the syntactical arrangement of 1.1-3 proposed by Guelich are unconvincing. Our analysis will proceed assuming the validity of the following construction: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, [Son of God] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way, 3the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.136 (Mk. 1.1–3)134. Gordon Fee shows, contra RSV and NEB, that Hatinas proposed reading destroys Pauls syntax altogetherby missing the adversative force of ἀλλά of v. 9 and running roughshod over the explanatory γάρ that beginsv.10. G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 107.135. R. T. France, although recognising the formal syntax, believes that Mark deliberately goes against it. Hewrites, In separating off v. 1 as ‘the heading’ I am not therefore suggesting any lack of connection with theprologue which follows, and I am consciously overriding its formal syntactical link with v. 2. Its function isbroader than its immediate syntactical status. In these words Mark is alerting his reader to the significance of allthat is to follow. But it is typical of his urgency and lack of formal concern that rather than constructing a neatself-contained ‘title’ he cannot wait to begin’ with that which he has so effectively signalled in the fewbreathless (and verbless!) words of v. 1. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 51.Frances statement is problematic on a number of levels. Firstly, one should prefer a reading of the text whichfollows the syntactical flow of a sentence as opposed to one which goes against it. One would need to make astunningly strong case to read against the syntactical grain of a text especially when, as we will see, it is possibleto have a plausible reading of 1.1-3 as an incipit without consciously overdoing its formal syntactical links.Secondly France, in this case, seems to be stressing the haste and urgency with which Mark composed hisGospel at the expense of recognising his literary skill. There is no doubt that there is a case to be made forMarks clumsy construction but this needs to be balanced against the recent trend in Markan studies whichacknowledges that Mark is capable of immense literary skill as evidenced by his composition of the way section(discussed later in this chapter), and by the fact that the link between 1.1 and 1.2 is relatively straightforwardand does not display the marks of someone writing in urgency. Furthermore, as anyone who has ever written apaper or thesis knows, the opening lines of a document are in fact more likely to be correct as the writer is fullyaware of the impact which they will have upon the reader.136. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 18; Watts, "Mark" (2007), 56. 43
  • 44. The primary role of the composite quotation is an elaboration on the beginning of the gospelof Jesus Christ and so these quotations are used primarily to focus on the identity andministry of Jesus rather than the preparatory role of John the Baptist. Moreover, our previousdiscussion leaves us with two options. It is possible that 1.1-3 functions as a title for theMarkan narrative as a whole. Or, if this is not the case, then these three verses stand as anintroduction to the the prologue itself. Either way, whether as a title or part of a dramaticprologue, the composite citation has heightened Christological, and potentially thematic,gravitas. (2) Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ: Literary Convention orMistaken Identity?Marcus and Watts maintain that the larger original contexts of the texts within the compositecitation should be taken into account (Exod. 23.20; Mal. 3.1; Isa. 40.3). If this is the case thenit must be maintained that Mark would have been aware that technically only one of the threecitations actually come from Isaiah. However, at first sight this appears to be problematic asthe text seems to say to the modern reader at least that all the scriptural citations (1.2b-3)come from Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ (1.2). a) Testimonium or Contextual?Although numerous explanations have been put forward for the irregularity,137 Hatina callsattention to two basic options. On one hand (A) Mark may have purposely included thereference to Isaiah the prophet because he wanted the other two quotations to be read in thelight of the Isaiah quotations. On the other hand, (B) Mark may have included the referenceto Isaiah in the formula because he was unaware of any other scriptural quotations in thisunit.138 The hypothesis of a Testimonium (a precanonical Christian collection of OT texts) ishighlighted as an appropriate context in which this mistake could have been made.139137. A helpful summary is found in Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 143.138. Ibid., 144. Likewise Hooker describes three explanations, Mark may have taken over the combination oftexts from a Christian tradition... and perhaps wrongly assumed that the whole of what he was quoting camefrom Isaiah [B]. Or perhaps he chose to mention Isaiah because it was of special importance to him[A]. Anotherpossibility is that... v.2 was added later. A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark (1991), 34-35.139. Rendel Harris originally proposed the Testimonia hypothesis. Although his thesis did not originally have 44
  • 45. Marcus and Watts take the former approach (A). Marcus upholds that Marks use of Isaiah isnot just identifying the source for what follows in 1.3, but rather is hinting more broadly thathis whole story of “the beginning of the gospel” is to be understood against the backdrop ofIsaian themes.140Watts agrees but offers a more detailed response to the problem. Firstly, he lays out a three-fold critique of the view that Mark is unfamiliar with the source of these texts due to hisuncritical use of a Testimonium. (i) There is no concrete evidence for Christian Testimonia,(ii) Mark is not unfamiliar with combined citations141. (iii) Mark seems aware of thesignificance of such citations, placing them at crucial points throughout the narrative, as H.CKee has shown. This argument is not as persuasive as it first appears, as the presence of (i)Testimonia in the early church, especially in the light of Albls recent study,142 cannot becompletely discounted. Furthermore, the existence of combined citations (ii, iii) at key pointsin the narrative could also be based on their prior position in a Testimonium. Secondly, and on a more constructive level, Watts suggests that Mark is following a common Jewish practice in naming one author with composite quotations,143 and that he has presented his composite citation as part of a sandwich structure. 2 καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ· (Isaiah, I). ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν µου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου· (Exodus/Malachi, II). 3 φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ· ἑτοιµάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. (Isaiah, I).However, the argument for a sandwich construction (I-II-I) is not completely compelling, formuch of a scholarly impact it has made something of a comeback with the discovery of a number of QumranTestimonia. 4Q174; 4Q175; 4Q176; 4Q177 and 11Q13. See J. R. Harris, and V. Burch, Testimonies (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1916); A. Falcetta, “The Testimony Research of James Rendel Harris,” NovT 45:3(2003): 280-99. and the Excurses Testimonia Collections in S. E. Docherty, The Use of the Old Testament inHebrews, WUNT 2:260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 172-75.140. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 20.141. 1.11 (Isa. 42.1; Ps. 2.7); 11.1-11 (Zech. 9.9; Ps. 118:25-26); 11.17 (Isa. 56.7; Jer. 8.11); 12.1-12 (Isa. 5.1-2;Ps.118.22-23); 13.24-26 (Isa. 34.4; Josh. 2.10; Ezra 32.7-8; Dan. 7.13-14); and 14.62 (Dan. 7.13; Ps. 110.1). SeeKee, "The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11-16" (1975).142. The most recent proponent of the testimonia hypothesis is the thorough study by M. C. Albl, And ScriptureCannot be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, NovTSup 96 (Leiden:Brill, 1999).143. Watts, "Mark" (2007), 89. 45
  • 46. it hardly resembles Marks use of interpolations elsewhere in his narrative, in which apericope is broken up by the insertion of another pericope.144 Secondly, the sandwichconstruction only works if Exod. and Mal. quotations are taken together as forming one unit.Although recognising the difficulty involved in either solution (A, B) Hatina favours thelatter (B) suggesting, contra Watts, that Marks reliance on a Testimonium is a plausibleexplanation as to why this error may have occurred. If Hatinas view is to prove convincinghe must demonstrate that the attribution of a composite citation to Isaiah cannot be plausiblyexplained as a common Jewish method. b) Single-Author-In-Composite-Citation TechniqueAlthough Watts overstates his case in describing this single-author-in-composite-citationmethod as common there is reason to believe that the naming of one source for a mixedcitation was not unknown and was an acceptable literary device.145 Although the use of theTalmud for understanding Judaism and Judaic-Christian interpretative and hermeneuticaltechniques pre-AD 70 is not without its problems, we should note with Gundry that it was,Rabbinical practice to quote various persons by one name if a similarity existed between thecharacters of the persons.146 The historical plausibility of this rabbinic technique being usedby the early Church is increased by noting the frequency of single-author-in-composite-citations in the NT.Rom. 9.27-29 offers an interesting parallel to Mk. 1.2-3, as a composite citation of LXX Hos.2.1 and LXX Isa. 10.22-23 is introduced as being from Isaiah alone. Given the prominent role144. eg. In Mark 5 the healing of Jairus daughter is interrupted by the story of the healing of the woman with ahaemorrhage. See J. R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches. The Significance of Interpolations in MarkanNarratives,” NovT 31:3 (1989): 193-216.145. Christopher Stanley, who offers the most detailed study of citation formulae to date, calls attention to bothGreco-Roman and Jewish texts which introduce a composite citation with a single author. Paul and theLanguage of Scripture: Citation Techniques in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, STNTSM169 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992): 284; 309-310. See Heraclitus Homeric Allegories 2.4 whocites Iliad 1.199-201 and Odyssey 6.102-104 whose introductory formula points to the Iliad alone. 1 Edras 1.58, citing, via 2 Chron. 36.21 (see below in main body of text), Jer. 25.12 and Lev. 26.34. By modifying thecitation from Jer. 25.12 to the original futuristic orientation the author shows awareness of the original contextsof the composite citation. Also Bar. 2.29-35 which attributed to Moses involves a conflated citation from Lev.26.12; 1 K 8.47; Jer. 6.15,146. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, NovTSup 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1967),125. 46
  • 47. which Isaiah plays in the writings of Paul, it is unlikely that he was unaware that he wasusing Hosea.147 In a similar way Mt. 27.9-10 draws on both Zech. 11.3 and Jer. 19.1-13 butattributes it to Jeremiah alone.148 This phenomenon is also found in the scriptures of Israel. 2Chron. 26.21 offers a composite citation of Lev. 26.34-39 and Jer. 25.11-12 but ascribes themto the prophet Jeremiah. If the ascription in Mk. 1.2 was an isolated case then it could be putdown to a simple mistake of the writer. However, the presence of several parallels in the NTand the fact that it is a technique used within the Talmud suggest that this is in fact not thecase. c) Mark as a Contextual Reader of the Scriptures ofIsraelHatina posits the possibility of the presence of a Christian testimonium to account for themistake. Whilst we cannot rule out the use of testimonia within the early church, its presencewould lead us to assume that Mark was unaware of the larger original contexts of thecitations. This, however, is unlikely. Mark demonstrates contextual awareness of Mal. 3.1,which he uses in Mk. 1.2. The messenger of Mal. 3.1 prepares the way for the arrival ofGod149. In its original larger literary context, the messenger is identified as the prophet Elijah147. Hos. 2.1 LXX and Isa. 10.22-23 LXX have no doubt been pulled together due to their common usage ofἸσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης. Similarly, Mark may also be aware that Isa. 40.3 MT and Mal. 3.1 MT sharethe word ‫ פנה‬in Hebrew. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 12-17.148. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (1967), 125; M. Knowles, Jeremiah inMatthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction, JSNTSup 68 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,1993), 60-77; W. D. Davies, and D. C. Allison, Matthew III:19-28, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 569; R.H. Gundry, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 557.149. It is necessary to enter into a brief discussion as to the identity of the characters in the following verses: Behold, I (A) send my messenger (B) , and he (B) will prepare the way before me (A) . And the Lord (C) whom you (D) seek will suddenly come to his (C) temple; and the messenger of the covenant (E) in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of Hosts (A). But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? (Mal. 3.1-2)(A) The first-person speaker must be understood, given his explicit identification in verse 5, as YHWH; (B) Ahuman, prophetic messenger; (C) The Lord whom you seek is YHWH for three reasons. Firstly, ‫ אדן‬with thedefinite article always refers to God, A. E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation With Introduction andCommentary, AB 25D (New Haven: Doubleday, 1998), 28.; A. S. Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced inMalachi 3: 1?,” TynBul (2006):215-228, 218. Secondly, YHWH is the owner of the Temple (his temple).Thirdly, the people have asked for the whereabouts of the god of justice. Malachis answer is that YHWH iscoming; (D) Post-exilic Jewish community as the recipients of the prophetic word; (E) The messenger of thecovenant is to be identified with the Lord for, as Malone puts it, that this ‘messenger’ and ‘the Lord’ describe the same individual is easily demonstrated. Both are accompanied by similar relative clauses (‘whom you seek’, ‘whom you delight in’) and both are described as ‘coming’ (using the same Hebrew verb). The parallelism, of clauses and thus of identities, 47
  • 48. (Mal. 4.5). After the opening citation of Mk. 1.1-3 the readership is made aware of John theBaptist. He is described as ἐνδεδυµένος τρίχας καµήλου καὶ ζώνην δερµατίνην περὶ τὴνὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ µέλι ἄγριον (1.6). This description of John the Baptistis undoubtedly intended to conform to the description of Elijah found in 2 Kgs. 1.3.150 Thisdemonstrates that Mark has a sophisticated hermeneutic at work in relation to the scripturesof Israel. He is capable of reading scripture contextually; drawing from both Greek andHebrew texts to make links between different books. Moreover, he is capable of doing thiswith a great deal of subtlety, a subtlety which often evades the modern reader who is lesssteeped in scripture than Marks readers, or at least some of them, are expected to be.This piece of evidence alone makes it unlikely that Mark is using a Testimonium but ratherthat he intends the larger context of his citations to be in view. To maintain the opposite, asHatina does, is to present the untenable position that the parallels between John the Baptistsclothing and that of Elijah being found immediately after the Mal. citation in 1.2 are merelycoincidental and not part of a deliberate contextual method employed by Mark. Hatinasanalysis is impaired because he does not discuss this intertextual and contextual interplaybetween Mk. 1.2; 1.6; Mal. 3.1; 4.5; and 2 Kgs. 1.3.151Thus, we are faced with the following option, either Mark made a mistake, even though hewas aware of the larger context of the Malachi citation, or Mark followed a recognisedmethod in which he introduces a citation using one name, even though he knows where theother sources come from. The second option is the most plausible and should, therefore, betaken. Yet it does raise the question as to why he chose to use the name Isaiah rather than is further encouraged if a wider chiastic structure is recognized.Ibid., 219.150. The messengers of King Ahaziah offer a similar description of the prophet Elijah. ζώνην δερµατίνην περὶτὴν ὀσφὺν is an exact quotation of the LXX 4 Kingdoms 1.8, whereas the clothing of camel skin seems tofollow the Hebrew text as the LXX refers to hairy skin rather than a hairy garment. See France, The Gospel ofMark (2002), 69; J. R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, PNTC (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 32; Collins,Mark : A Commentary (2007), 145.151. Several recent studies have drawn attention to Marks contextual use of scripture. Most notably, Carey,Jesus’ Cry From the Cross (2009), who identifies five strong allusions to LXX Ps. 21 in Marks passionnarrative and demonstrates that this broader context should have a bearing on how the citation of Ps. 22 in Mk.15.34 should be interpreted, 139-170. D. Lee, Transfiguration, NCT (Continuum, 2004), 9-37, explores how thewider context of the Sinai traditions (Exod. 24.1-18; 34.29-35) are taken up by Mark in the transfigurationaccount (Mk. 5.1-20). T. Gray, Jesus and the Temple: A Study in Its Narrative Role (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2010). explores the theme of the Temple in Mark by using and demonstrating the validity of acontextual intertextual approach to the Scriptures of Israel. 48
  • 49. Moses in the case of Exodus or Malachi. Is it simply because Isaiah was the most wellknown of the citations in the early church? Or, to take Watts and Marcus suggestionseriously, is it because he wants to give the Isaiah quotation a more dominant and central rolein either Mk. 1.1-3, the prologue 1.13/15, or the narrative as a whole? (v) SummaryIn our analysis so far, we have, in interaction with Marcus, Watts and Hatina, establishedthree key points. Firstly, that the composite citation of 1.2-3 is grammatically connected tothe opening verse. Secondly, that this opening verse may be seen as not only part of theprologue but also as a title for the gospel as a whole. Thirdly, that the ascription of thecitations to Isaiah is unlikely to have been a mistake but, rather, following a method whichwas used within the early church and in the Talmud, is a legitimate way of introducing amixed citation. In addition to this, we have called attention to the contextual use of theMalachi citation. This has led us to raise the question of whether Isaiah has any significance,above and beyond that explicitly cited in Mk. 1.3, for the interpretation of either the prologueor the larger narrative itself. (b) Marks Use of Isa. 40.3 (i) Jesus as the κύριος of Mk. 1.3 At the surface level of the text the composite citation is quite remarkable; a messenger will prepare the way of the Lord (κύριος, v. 3). On the basis of the contextual use of Mal. 3.1 and the description of John the Baptist, the reader would no doubt be expected to identify the messenger as John the Baptist. Who is the κύριος? Dieter Lührmann and Snodgrass both argue that the referent is God in distinction from Jesus.152 However, it is clear that Mark intends the reader to identify κύριος as Jesus, for he substitutes τοῦ θεοῦ ἡµῶν of LXX Isa. 40.3 for αὐτοῦ. This pronoun, in the light of verse one, would be understood as Jesus. Moreover, a few verses later, John is awaiting someone who is stronger (1.7) and152. D. Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987). ‘Der κύριος, dessen Weg es zu bereitengilt, ist auch bei Mk noch Gott selbst im Unterschied zu dem in 2 angesprochenen Sohn.’, ET (my own) TheLord, who was to prepare the way, is also seen by Mark as God himself and distinct from the Son mentioned inverse 2., K. R. Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging From Isaiah 40:1-5 and Their Adaptation in the NewTestament,” JSNT 2:8 (1980), 34. 49
  • 50. immediately after this Jesus arrives. The designation of Jesus as κύριος is highly significant. Although κύριος can simply be a reverential way of referring to someone, functioning in a similar way to the English word Sir, for the devout Greek-speaking Jews of the first century it had become a way of avoiding the pronunciation of the divine name, YHWH. The Septuagint regularly translates YHWH as κύριος. Isa. 40.3 is one such example of this phenomena; the original Hebrew YHWH text has been translated in Greek as κύριος. Is this then a claim by Mark that Jesus is to be identified with the one God of Israel? Two further factors suggest that this is the case: (i) the use of κύριος elsewhere in Mark, and (ii) the identification of Jesus as the κύριος of LXX YHWH texts within the early church. (1) Marks Use of κύριοςAfter the opening citation the word κύριος occurs fifteen times in the Gospel of Mark.153 Ofthese, only three would be understood by the reader as a reference to Jesus (2.28; 7.28;12.26-37). Other uses identify κύριος with God in distinction from Jesus (11.9; 12.9; 12.11;12.29; 12.30; 12.36). The remaining four uses of the word κύριος are arguably ambiguous,for it is unclear whether the referent is God or Jesus.154The first of these ambiguous cases is found in Mk. 5.19-20. Jesus, having cast the demons outof the Gerasene demoniac, responds to his request that he may remain with him. Jesuscommands the man to go home to his friends and καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοιπεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε (5.19). Jesus command is repeated almost word for word by thenarrator in verse 20, except that ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν is substituted for ὅσα ἐποίησεναὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. It is unclear as to whether Jesus is referring to God or himself as κύριος. If itis the former then the healed man is claiming that Jesus exorcistic power is to be equatedwith that of the God of Israel. If it is the latter then Jesus is making a bold assertion that he is153. Mk. 1.3; 2.28; 5.19; 7.28; 11.3, 9; 12.9, 11, 29, 30, 36 (2x), 37; 13.20, 35 and with the longer ending 16.19,20154. Daniel Johanssons study offers a detailed analysis of passages which κύριός is ambiguous. He reaches thefollowing conclusion: Mark actually identifies Jesus with κύριος (1.3) and throughout his narrative, by means of his ambiguous use of κύριος, links both God and Jesus to the κύριος title......there is an overlap of identity between God and Jesus achieved by means of κύριος, which serves to unite God and Jesus. The ‘inseparability’ is realized precisely through their shared identity as κύριος. Yet, at the same time, Mark maintains a clear distinction. Throughout most of the narrative two figures are linked to κύριος, and Mark never calls Jesus ‘God’ and ‘Father’. These are reserved for the God of Israel and separate Jesus from God. “Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark,” JSNT 33:1 (2010): 101-24. 50
  • 51. the κύριός who heals and has mercy.155 Marcus recognises the ambiguity and writes, whereJesus acts, there God is acting. This does not mean that, for Mark, Jesus is God, but neithercan the two be absolutely separated.156The second ambiguous use of κύριός occurs in Mk. 11.3 where Jesus gives instructions forthe requisition of a donkey for his journey into Jerusalem. καὶ ἐάν τις ὑµῖν εἴπῃ· τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε· ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε. Does κύριος refer to the owner of the donkey, to God or to Jesus? It is ambiguous.The third ambiguous use of the name κύριός is found in Mk. 13.20 as part of theeschatological discourse καὶ εἰ µὴ ἐκολόβωσεν κύριος τὰς ἡµέρας, οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ· ἀλλὰ διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς οὓς ἐξελέξατο ἐκολόβωσεν τὰς ἡµέρας.In verse 19 God is the subject, thereby making κύριος redundant in verse 20 if it also refers toGod. The mention of election in verse 20b points to the identification of κύριος with theelecting God of Israel. However, a few verses later it is the enthroned Son of Man, Jesus, whogathers the elect. To whom does κύριος refer? It is ambiguous.Finally, ambiguity surrounds the mention of κύριος a few verses later (13.35). Is this master(κύριος) of the house to be identified with the returning Son of Man (13.26) or to God (12.9)?This quick survey has demonstrated two things. Firstly, that Mark does not avoid using theword κύριος in reference to Jesus. Secondly, the ambiguous nature of κύριος at several pointsin the narrative may strengthen the idea that Mark is not completely reluctant to portray Jesusas one who shares in the divine identity of the one God of Israel.This examination supports the notion that Jesus is the referent of κύριος in Mk. 1.3 and thatthis could refer, in some sense, to his divine nature.155. Although a full discussion cannot be given here, several scholars have recognised a number of linksbetween Mk. 5.1-20 and Exod. 14.1-15.22 LXX. If so, this would further support the view that Jesus is sharingin the identity of YHWH - κύριος, the one God of Israel. See J. D. M. Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of theGerasene Demoniac,” JSNT 3 (1979): 2-17; Marcus, Mark 1-8 (1999), 349.156. Ibid., 354. 51
  • 52. (2) Jesus as the κύριος of Septuagint Yahweh Texts Several recent studies have argued persuasively that the earliest Christian communities not only worshipped Jesus as divine, but also claimed that Jesus shares in the identity of the one God of Israel.157 As Richard Bauckham points out, the NT writers: include Jesus in the unique identity of the one God. They do so carefully, deliberately, consistently and comprehensively, by including Jesus in precisely those divine characteristics which for second temple Judaism distinguishes the one God as unique.158One line of evidence for this high Christology which has a bearing upon our own study is thatthe early church was not averse to using OT YHWH-κύριος texts in reference to Jesus. DavidCapes offers an analysis of how OT YHWH-κύριος texts are used within the undisputedPauline letters.159 In his analysis he recognises that several of these texts have God as thereferent,160 but also seven of these texts have Jesus as the referent.161 Hurtado reaches similarconclusions.162 Fees recent study Pauline Christology expands this list, finding thirty OTκύριος passages in Paul which are applied to Jesus.163 These studies demonstrate that from theearliest Christian decades it was not unusual for OT YHWH-κύριος texts to be applied toJesus and that they point to an identification of Jesus with the one God of Israel: The application of Old Testament Kyrios passages to Jesus connote and presuppose the conviction that in some profound way he is directly and uniquely associated with God.164If readers of Mark are aware of the Pauline letters it would follow that they would not necessarily find the claim, that Jesus is to be understood as κύριος, unusual. We may conclude then that Jesus is the κύριος of Mk. 1.3 and that readers may equate Jesus with157. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (2005); Bauckham, God Crucified (2008); G.D. Fee, Pauline Christology: AnExegetical-Theological Study (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007).158. Bauckham, God Crucified, 2008, 32.159. D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology, WUNT 2:47 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992).160. Rom. 4.7-8; 9.27-29; 11.34; 15.9-11; 1 Cor. 3.20; 2 Cor. 6.18.161. Rom. 10.13; 14.11; 1 Cor. 1.31; 1 Cor. 2.16; 10.26; 2 Cor. 10.17; 2 Tim. 2.19.162. Hurtado is less confident than Capes that the referent of Rom. 14.11; 1 Cor. 2.16 and 2 Tim. 2.19 is Jesus.163. This expanded list is achieved by taking note of allusions, as well as citations. using disputed Paulineletters and by the permittance of other LXX κύριος passages which refer to God but do not use the divine name.Fee, Pauline Christology (2007), 631-38.164. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (2005), 112. 52
  • 53. the one God of Israel. This can be further supported if the reader is expected to be aware of the original context of Isa. 40.3. (ii) Isa. 40.3 in ContextBoth Marcus and Watts contend that the citation of Isa. 40.3 in Mk. 1.3 is intended to evokethe larger context of the original citation and point to the themes of the DW and INE. Itwould thus be helpful to acquaint ourselves with the original context of Isa. 40.3 beforeexploring its function in the gospel of Mark and the validity of Marcus and Watts thesis.165Isa. 40.3 is found in the prologue (40.1-11) of what is commonly referred to as Deutero-Isaiah. The prophet who has access to the heavenly court hears the command of YHWH, thathis people are to be comforted (40.1) as the punishment of exile is now over and sins havebeen dealt with (40.2). One of the heavenly voices declares that a highway is to be preparedfor the coming/return of YHWH (v3). The way of the Lord (40.3), ‫ ,דּרְך י ְהו֑ה‬refers not simply ָ ֶ ֶ֣to his coming but to his return, for YHWH who had once dwelt in the city had previously left.Although it is explicitly the return of God which is being heralded, Goldingay notes that,probably the highway is implicitly one for the Judeans to march on their own return toJerusalem; the victorious warrior general hardly marches alone (v. 9-11) and YHWHs armywould naturally be assumed to comprise earthly as well as heavenly forces.166 This isconfirmed by verses 9-11 in which Jerusalem is to be a herald of the good news that YHWH,as warrior (v. 10) and shepherd (v. 11) is coming, and that he is bringing his sheep (the exiles)with him. Despite the protest of Motyer that, the picture of the way for the Lord is not anexodus motif of the Lord’s people journeying home167 verses 3-5 clearly evoke the Exodus.(Exod. 3.18, 13.21, 23.20; Deut. 1.31,33). 168165. By this we mean the final form and canonical context. First century readers, as with modern holisticcanonical and literary approaches to the text, paid little attention to the pre-history of the text.166. J. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,2005), 18.167. J.A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993). See commentary on Isa.40.3.168. As Rikki Watts notes: The original exodus pattern—deliverance from Egypt, journey through the desert,and arrival in the promised land—is transformed into the hope of a grander new exodus: deliverance of theexiles from the power of Babylon and its idols, Yahweh’s leading of and provision for his blind people along the“way,” and his arrival and enthronement in a gloriously restored Zion. But Isa. 40.3 is key: without Yahweh’spresence (cf. Isa. 40.5; 40.9-11) there can be no salvation. It is his advent as a mighty warrior that is the sine quanon of Israel’s deliverance (40.10–12; 51.9–11; 52.10–12). "Mark" (2007), 114. Claus Westermann puts it likethis: Of itself, the series of imperatives in 40.1-11 suggests a moment when men are starting out, getting on the 53
  • 54. The larger context of Isa. 40.3 does indeed point to DW and NE motifs, but to what extentdoes Mark expect his readers to have this contextual insight when reading his gospel? (iii) Streams of TraditionIn order to offer an affirmative answer to this question, both Watts and Marcus draw on thework of Klyne Snodgrass who published an influential journal article in 1980 entitledStreams of Tradition Emerging From Isaiah 40:1-5 and their adoption in the New Testament.In this, Snodgrass demonstrates the significant influence of the opening verses of Deutero-Isaiah on other Jewish texts such as OT books and intertestamental literature,169 as well asrabbinic literature.170 By way of example Baruch and the Psalms of Solomon overflow withIsaianic imagery and draw extensively on Isa. 40:1-11.171 Whilst these two texts come fromdiffering historical and geographical locations they both agree in using Isa. 40:1-11 todevelop an eschatological message in which the God of Israel will embark on a NE to bringmove. What is pictured here is the very moment at which the prophet proclaims his message of Gods new act;and with its delivery the new event, the exiles release and the new exodus, is already under way. This is the newthing which, from this point on, is to be the constant burden of Deutero-Isaiahs message. Westermann, Isaiah40-66 (1969), 33.169. His analysis includes documents from Qumran (1QS 8.12-16; 9.17-20), Pseudepigrapha (1 Baruch 5.5-70),Apocrypha (Ass. Mos. 10.1-5).170. Marcus, building on the work of Snodgrass, suggests a connection between the symbolic actions of variousleadership figures— Theudas (Josephus Ant. 20.5.1), the Egyptian (Josephus War 2.13.5) , Impostors (JosephusAnt. 20.8.6), Jonathan the weaver— and INE. In the run up to the Jewish Revolt against the Romans, Deutero-Isaiah fired Jewish hopes for an apocalyptic holy war that would begin in the Judean wilderness and climax inthe liberation of Zion. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 23. However, on closer inspection, the symbolicactions of these leadership prophets bears a typological relationship to exodus and conquest motifs rather thandrawing specifically on Deutero-Isaiah. Theudas, for instance, encourages his followers into thinking that hewill part the waters at Jordan and the Egyptian impostor promises his followers that at his command, the wallsof Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised that he would procure them an entrance into the city. These twoaccounts do not necessarily draw on Deutero-Isaiah but refer to other related scriptural traditions of conquest.See also C.A. Evans, “The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfilment of Scripture in the Gospel of Mark,”in ed. S. E. Porter, Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 101-02.171. There is no reason to limit the passage under investigation to 40:1-5 for 40.1-11 is also part of the sameliterary unit. Bar. 5:5–7 making use Isa. 40.5; 40.9; 40.11, reads as follows.Arise, O Jerusalem, stand upon theheight; look toward the east, and see your children gathered from west and east at the word of the Holy One,rejoicing that God has remembered them. For they went out from you on foot, led away by their enemies; butGod will bring them back to you, carried in glory, as on a royal throne. For God has ordered that every highmountain and the everlasting hills be made low and the valleys filled up, to make level ground, so that Israelmay walk safely in the glory of God. Pss. of Sol. 11 takes up Isa. 40.1-4 Sound in Zion the signal trumpet of thesanctuary; announce in Jerusalem the voice of one bringing good news, for God has been merciful to Israel inwatching over them. Stand on a high place, Jerusalem, and look at your children, From the east and the westassembled together by the Lord. For the north they come in the joy of their God; from far distant islands Godhas assembled them. He flattened high mountains into level ground for them;the hill fled at their coming. 54
  • 55. the exiles back to a restored Jerusalem. Snodgrass draws the following conclusions from hisstudy: Isaiah 40.1-5 was important for two reasons: 1) it was a classic statement of the consolation that comes from God and was understood specifically in the context of Gods eschatological comfort; 2) the focus on the preparation of the way gave specific focus to the eschatological orientation by being interpreted of the return of the exiles or by being understood specifically of a group that viewed themselves eschatologically and expected their ethical behavior to prepare the way of Gods coming.172 (iv) SummaryIsa. 40.1-11 offered a powerful eschatological vision of a future in which YHWH would act,as shepherd and warrior, to deliver his people from the enemy and lead them in a gloriousjourney from Babylon to Jerusalem. This future hope was taken up by many within SecondTemple Judaism and appears to have become an iconic statement of eschatological comfort.Although the historical circumstances had changed, in that it was no longer freedom fromBabylon that mattered, the promise of a future holy war and a NE liberation from exile meantthat Isa. 40.1-11 continued to have significance. (c) Interlude: In Search of a ContextWhat then, given the prehistory of Isa. 40.1-11, should we make of the usage of Isa. 40.3 inMk. 1.3? Did Mark intend a wider message of eschatological comfort than that which isexplicitly quoted to have a part to play in the formation of meaning for the implied reader?Hatina argues that it should not. In order to understand his reasons we need to unpackHatinas larger hermeneutical method, recalling that he has offered the most forceful critiqueof the positions of Watts and Marcus to date.172. Snodgrass, "Streams of Tradition" (1980), 31. Isaiah 40:1–11 may thus be regarded as the locus classicusof Isaianic new-exodus salvation, particularly linking Yahweh’s coming with the end of exile. Watts, "Mark"(2007), 115. 55
  • 56. (i) An Overview of Hatinas Method Thomas Hatinas In Search of a Context, has two key objectives. First, he sets out to evaluate and critique those who propose contexts for the use of scriptural citations which come from outside the narrative. These external contexts include those that focus on Sitz im Leben, the Historical Jesus, the redactional activity of the evangelist, the Jewish exegetical tradition and the original context of the OT citation.173 Each of these approaches fails, to a greater or lesser extent, to explore how Marks use of scripture can be incorporated into a narrative-critical approach whereby the interpretative paradigm is based on Marks own narrative program or the overarching aim of his plot.174 Hatinas second stated objective is his proposal of a model for reading which pays due respect to both the narrative of Marks gospel and the historical setting in which it was written.175 Hatinas aim is to provide a coherent reading of Mark by entering the world of the text through the plot, characterisation, and primarily through the narrators ideological point of view, in order to answer the question How do the individual quotations from Scripture function in the context of Marks story?176 However, Hatina does not seek to totally sever the text from historical critical moorings by entering the waters of postmodern reader-response. At least, in theory, he takes account of the socio-historical reality in which the text was grounded.177 In light of this grounding Hatina insists that historical enquiry be brought to bear on questions of genre, linguistics and vocabulary. He also explores how the ideological point of view for this is connected with historical realities outside of the text itself. Moreover, Hatina maintains that we must proceed with the historical assumption that implied readers were familiar with sacred writings,178 although this does not seem to sit so173. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 2.174. Ibid., 48.175. Ibid., 3.176. Ibid., 49.177. Ibid., 71-73.178. Hatina writes: Perhaps the most explicit indication in Marks narrative that external or diachronicenquiry is important for an informed synchronic reading is the presence of scriptural quotations whichdraw the intended audience instinctively back to these writings... we can assume that the intendedaudience requires little explicit introduction to the quotations or the books from which they areborrowed but this is hardly surprising, for the early Christians, like their Jewish counterparts, were 56
  • 57. well with his suggestion that the mention of Isaiah in the citation formulae is more likely to be explained through the use of a testimonium.179 Before embarking on his study of scriptural citations Hatina, given its significance in both its positioning and content,180 identifies Mk. 1.14-15 as the, hermeneutical key from within the story itself [which] would aid our understanding of Marks reading of scripture.181 For Hatina, 1.14-15 functions programmatically and paradigmatically throughout the gospel. The arrival of the kingdom, the founding of the renewed people God,182 gives shape to the Markan plot and initiates the conflict.183 This is, for Hatina, the context by which scriptural citations should be read. (ii) Critique with particular reference to Mk. 1.3 Hatinas actual interaction with Mk. 1.1-3 and his dialogue with Watts and Marcus reveal a number of weaknesses. First of all (i), his narrative-historical approach does not take history seriously. Secondly (ii), Hatinas focus on the kingdom of God is reductionistic. (iii) Finally, he underappreciates the contribution which scriptural citations can make to understanding the plot of the Gospel of Mark. (1) Refusal to Take History Seriously Hatinas description of his narrative-historical approach stands as a model for a mature use of narrative criticism; it takes the historical location of the texts and its implied readers seriously. In light of this, it is particularly surprising to find that he refuses to take the larger context of Isa. 40.3 and the streams of interpretative tradition which flowed from it seriously: What about Marcuss claim that the composite quotation in Mk. 1.2-3 should be interpreted in the light of early Jewish exegetical tradition?well familiar with their sacred writings. Bar. 5:5–7; making use Isa. 40.5; 40.9; 40.11179. Ibid., 144.180. Ibid., 103.181. Ibid., 93.182. Ibid., 108.183. Ibid., 134. 57
  • 58. There is little question that individual Scripture texts circulated with an accompanying interpretation which may have been instrumental in the authors choice, but again the literary context in which the scripture functions must be the final arbiter.184Although, in theory, Hatina gives a methodological nod to the historical rootedness of theimplied reader, he fails to take seriously the stance that contemporary views of scripturewould have any bearing for the implied reader, or that Mark could possibly be interactingwith such views in his narration of the life of Jesus. As Hatina recognises, the implied readerwould be well-familiar with their sacred writings.185 However, we should also assume thatsome members of the Markan readership would be aware of the iconic status of of Isa. 40.3,either through their own life within Judaism pre-conversion or through their own evangelisticefforts with Jews.Hatina goes on to suggest that use of Isa. 40.3 is much like the process of lexicography, Thesame word, like the same quotation, can express varied nuances and meanings in variedcontexts186 This is true enough if the original quotation is not well known, but falls downcompletely if the author and the implied reader already knows the original context and itsformative role in larger culture. This is not to say that words or quotations cannot gain newmeanings or that they cannot be used to deconstruct the original meaning, but that this canonly take place with the assumption that the author and implied reader know the originalmeaning. In taking a historical-narrative approach seriously the implied reader must beplaced in a real first century environment in which, as in all cultures and communities, someideas, words, phrases and quotations are pre-loaded with theological and ideological content.To offer a reductio ad absurdum, and at the risk of being pedantic, should the meaning ofSatan, Temple, Kingdom of God, or Pharisee only come from the narrative itself? Should wenot recognise that Mark, as with all meaningful communicators, recognised that hisrecipients had some prior knowledge, from life experience and the general religious milieu asto the meaning of these words? Narrative criticism is indeed a useful tool which causes theinterpreter to pay close attention to the text as a whole. However, unless wedded with arecognition of a world existing outside of the text, it can become a fatal methodological flawfor those interested in a historical reading of Mark. Hatina, though seeming to recognise this184. Ibid., 161.185. Ibid., 77.186. Ibid., 161. 58
  • 59. in his opening chapter, appears to be inconsistent with his own methodological approach inhis actual interpretation of Mk. 1.2-3. (2) Focus on Kingdom is reductionistic Another major weakness is to be found in Hatinas suggestion that 1.14-15 serves as a programmatic function for his [Jesus] entire ministry and that, as a theme, the Kingdom of God, takes on a function that is foundational in terms of shaping the readers perspective on Jesus identity and mission.187 He then uses this hermeneutical key to unlock the use of scriptural citations. Holly Carey takes issue with Hatina on this very point: Is the continuity of the story found in a theme, or in the person of Jesus? Is it not sufficient to say that the focus of the narrative is on the person of Jesus and that it is the intention of the narrative to elucidate exactly whom Jesus is that holds the meaning of these scriptural citations and allusions together?188 However, Careys focus on the theme of Christology is also problematic and, like Hatinas, reductionistic. In what sense, we may ask, can the sixteen chapters of Mark be reduced to a single thematic category? Doubtless, the themes of kingdom and Christology are of crucial importance, yet can other themes such as Temple and salvation history really be subsumed under either of them? Furthermore, Hatina expects the scriptural citations by Mark to conform to the kingdom theme which potentially forces itself, as if perhaps a hermeneutical straight jacket, upon scriptural citations. The kingdom of God reading of citations and allusions may be alien to their most natural reading.189 It is hermeneutically dangerous to read all scriptural citations through the lens, however broad, of one thematic category. One should prefer a method which, although sensitive to development of characterisation and plot, allows the scriptural citations of Mark to speak for themselves.190187. Ibid., 103.188. Carey, Jesus’ Cry From the Cross (2009), 11.189. Two examples should suffice to show that Marks use of scripture can point in other thematic directionsthan that of the kingdom (Hatina) or Christology (Carey). (i) The scriptural allusions in Mk. 13 to Isa. 13.10 and24.4 are used typologically to identify the coming destruction of Jerusalem with the fate of Edom and Babylon.(ii) The parable of the tenants (Mk. 12.11-10), in intertextual interaction with Isa. 5, offers a panorama ofcovenantal history from the past through to the present and the future.190. Another important point which we will discuss in the next section is that the kingdom proclamation of Mk.1.14-15 may also be shaped by material from Isa. 40.1-11 (see page 60 of this thesis). If this is the case thenHatinas argument falls apart even if we grant him the view that Mk. 1.14-15 is to be understood as the 59
  • 60. (3) Scripture and PlotFinally, Hatina approaches his analysis of the plot prior to his interaction with scripturalcitations, thereby excluding the possibility that scriptural citations, in themselves, cancontribute to the development of plot. However, [contra Hatina] the frequency of citationsand allusions in the text suggests that Marks use of scripture actually contributes towards theunderstanding of the plot of the gospel by adding further depth to the main charactersincluding Jesus (Mk. 1.10-11/Isa. 42.1; 64.1), his opponents (Mk. 2.7/Isa. 43.25; Mk 4.12/Isa. 6.9-10) and his disciples (Mk. 14.27/Zech. 13.7), whilst also providing shape to thedirection of the plot. (d) The significance of Isa. 40.1-11 in the Markan PrologueHaving discussed Hatinas methodology we will now proceed in our analysis ofwhether Mark intends the larger context of Isa. 40.3, which includes themes of DWand INE, to be taken up by the implied reader. Furthermore, if this point is accepted,we should ask whether, as part of a dramatic prologue and perhaps intimatelyconnected to the title, it may be seen as a hermeneutical key to the gospel. We have,so far, established the following points: (1) Mk. 1.1-3, as part of the dramatic prologue or as a title, is likely to have significance for how the rest of his narrative should be read. (2) The use of the formulae καθὼς γέγραπται links grammatically the scriptural citations with 1.1 rather than 1.4f and amplifies the meaning of the beginning of the gospel. (3) Although the scriptural citations are introduced as being written by Isaiah this does not necessarily mean, given that similar techniques are used elsewhere, that Mark was unaware of the larger contexts. (4) The larger original context of Isa. 40.3 includes the eschatological hope of a return from exile and the themes of the DW and NE.hermeneutical centre of the Gospel. 60
  • 61. (5) In second-temple Judaism the streams of tradition flowing from Isa. 40.1-11 suggest that these verses became a focal point for eschatological hope. (5) The larger original context of the Malachi citation, given the Elijah- like description of John the Baptist, is in view. Marcus and Watts claim that the larger original context of Isa. 40.3 is to be taken into account is further supported by noting a number of thematic and dictional parallels between Isa. 40.1-11 and the Markan prologue. Richard Schneck, in Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark, I- VIII, also stresses the influence of Isaiah on the gospel of Mark. We will interact with his three most convincing claims that affirm that the prologue draws on Isa. 40.1-11.191(1) The use of the word εὐαγγέλιον in both Mk. 1.1 and 1.14 shares lexical similarity with theverbal form εὐαγγελιζόµενος which is used twice in LXX Isa. 40.9.192Hatina, leading the reader to a negative answer, asks rhetorically, It is obvious he wasinfluenced by Isaiah but do individual terms like gospel ... point to the literary context fromwhich the quotation is borrowed?193 However, the presence of a bold contradiction by Hatina must be noted. Elsewhere in hismonograph he calls attention to the Isaianic background of the word εὐαγγέλιον in Mark.Furthermore, he even invokes the use of καθὼς as linking 1.1 and 1.2-3, which is aninterpretation that he himself opposes and which we have previously discussed. Afterciting examples of the Isaianic use of the εὐαγγελιζόµενος he writes: This use of εὐαγγέλιον is almost certainly present in Marks narrative, given its close association with Isaiah....there is a clear link by means of καθὼς between εὐαγγέλιον in 1:1 and the quotation from Isa. 40:3 in 1:2-3.194191. We will not discuss Schnecks weaker arguments in depth. Schneck points out another similarity in that bothinsist on the importance of the proclaimed message (Isa. 40.8, Mk. 1.4; 1.7; 1.14). By itself this argument isweak as there are no linguistic similarities between Isaiah and Mark on this point, although as part of acumulative approach it is more plausible. This illustrates the danger of holistic approaches to the text as onemay be seeing allusions when they are in fact illusions. As a last point in his argument Schneck notes that thetheme of the forgiveness of sins is to be found in Isaiah 40 and in the Markan prologue (Isa. 40.2 LXX λέλυταιαὐτῆς ἡ ἁµαρτία, Mk. 1.4 εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν).192. For an extended discussion see Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 18-19.193. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 160.194. Ibid., 113. 61
  • 62. Leaving this unacceptable contradiction behind we note that, likewise, Steve Moyise isunconvinced about the Isaianic influence in the use of the word εὐαγγέλιον in 1.1 and1.15: The connection between the noun evangelion and the participle evangelizomenos is not as secure as Marcus assumes.195Although the noun form of εὐαγγέλιον is not found in Isaiah, its verbal counterpartεὐαγγελίζω/‫ בשׂר‬does appear..196 Strecker (EDNT) rejects the idea that the Isaianic backgroundfor Isaiah contains the verbal form as opposed to the substantive197 but this, as Adam Winncorrectly states, is a divide that even a modestly creative early Christian exegete could bridgewith ease.198 Furthermore, in my opinion, the most determinative piece of evidence is thattwo of these references to εὐαγγελίζω occur in the same oracle as that of Isa. 40.3. In Isa.40.9 LXX we read: ἐπ̓ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόµενος Σιων, ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόµενος Ιερουσαληµ, ὑψώσατε, µὴ φοβεῖσθε, εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ιουδα Ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑµῶν.2) Schneck also calls attention to the parallels between Mk. 1.7a and Isa. 40.10. ἰδοὺ κύριος µετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται LXX Isa. 40.10 ἔρχεται ὁ ἰσχυρότερός µου ὀπίσω µου Mk. 1.7aIsa. 40.1-11, using DW and NE motifs, encourages a way to be prepared in the wilderness forYHWHs arrival (40.3) in strength. The city of Jerusalem, presumably its inhabitants, are toproclaim good news that YHWH is coming with ἰσχύος. In the Markan prologue John, in awilderness context, announces that one who is ἰσχυρότερός will arrive. As it is an allusion asopposed to a citation we do not have a strong linguistic parallel, however the thematicsimilarities point in favour of a intertextual link between Mk. 1.10 and the DW motif of Isa.40.10.195. Moyise, Evoking Scripture (2008), 15.196. Isa. 40.9 (2x); 41.27 (MT); 52.7 (2x); 60.6; 61.1.197. Looking up the word εὐαγγέλιον in two major dictionaries is enlightening and highlights the differences inthe positions described above. Strecker maintains that The primary basis of NT use of εὐαγγέλιον is probablyto be found in the circle of the Hellenistic ruler cult. EDNT 2:70-74. Whereas, in stark contrast, Gerhard findsthat the most significant thing for an understanding of the NT concept of euangelion is Deut. Isa. [Deutero-Isaiah] and the literature influenced by it. TDNT 2:707.198. A. Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda,WUNT II:245 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2008), 96. 62
  • 63. 3) After his temptation, in what we previously stated may be the transitional passage into themain body of the narrative, Jesus preaches the gospel. He declares that the arrival of Godsreign is imminent— ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· µετανοεῖτεκαὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. (Mk. 1.15). The imminency of the reign of God is a themeshared by the Isaianic prologue, particularly in verses 9-10. YHWH as the DW is returning toJerusalem to be enthroned as its rightful King. Moreover, there is a close parallel to be madebetween the Aramaic Targum of Isa. 40.9 and Jesus proclamation Mark 1.15: ‫991אִתְ גלִיאַת מַלכוּתָ א דַ אלהְכ ֹון‬ ָ ְ The Kingdom of your God is revealedHatina rightly questions whether we can jump from this to making any conclusions aboutMarks theology, although he does accept that the, Targumic usage in its oral stage may havebeen influential for the historical Jesus.200 Three arguments can be put forward as evidence tosuggest that Mark had knowledge of Aramaic: (i) If the traditional case for authorship is correct then the author of the Gospel of Mark is the Jerusalemite John-Mark, for whom Aramaic would be a first language. (ii) Aramaisms within the Gospel point to Marks familiarity with Aramaic (5.41; 7.34; 9.5; 10.5; 13.36; 15.34). (iii) Several scriptural citations/allusions in Mark seem to be dependent on proto- Tagumic material.201 Bruce Chiltons ground breaking A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible demonstrates conclusively that Mk. 4.12 and 9.48 share clear verbal agreement with Targum Isa. 6.9-10 and Isa. 66.24 respectively. This use of scripture is, not explicable in respect to other ancient versions of the Old Testament.202199. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Logos: Hebrew Union College, 2005) ; ET B. Chilton, ed. The IsaiahTargum: Introduction, Translation and Notes, The Aramaic Bible: The Targums Vol. 11 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1987).200. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 159. As Bruce Chilton points out, Although the Targum as a thorough-going paraphrase of the book of Isaiah dates from the periods after the death of Jesus, the conservative nature of its formation, in which the traditions from the past were collected and handed on by the the framework interpreters, suggests that some of the material available in the Targum represents the early Judaism in which Jesus himself believed, and which was the basis of his distinctive preaching.A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah (London: SPCK, 1984), 57.201. C. A. Evans, "The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfilment of Scripture in the Gospel of Mark"(2006), 85.202. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (1984), 107. See also B. Chilton, The Glory of Israel, JSOTSup 23 63
  • 64. Whilst this evidence does not prove conclusively that Mark was aware of the Isaianicbackground to Jesus kingdom proclamation, the evidence certainly points in this direction.Following Schneck we may conclude, given the close proximity of several Isaianic themes,that the redactor is faithful to the tradition.203. We have seen, in agreement with Watts and Marcus, that the Markan prologue is shaped by themes from Isa. 40.1-11. Given the role of the dramatic prologue in ancient literature, and the probable use of 1.1 as a title, the ancient reader may well expect that the themes introduced in the prologue and title appear again in the main body of the narrative. It is important to stress that Isa. 40.1-11 is only one of the themes present in the prologue and that we should not expect the whole of the remaining narrative to reflect DW and NE themes. In the remaining part of this paper we will pursue a line of argument which demonstrates that Isa. 40.3 was intended to be taken up by the implied readership as one of interpretative lenses by which the life of Jesus should be viewed.3. The Use of ὁδός in Mk. 8.22-10.52 (a) The significance of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷWatts and Marcus seek to show the significance of the scriptural citations in Mk. 1.2-3 forunderstanding the rest of the Gospel by suggesting that the word(s) ὁδός(ἐν) τῇ ὁδῷ in thecentral part of the Gospel alert the reader to the Isaianic themes introduced in the prologue.The reader who understands ὁδός in verse 1.3 as pointing to DW and NE themes would, theyargue, be alert to its usage elsewhere: Thus the climactic instance of ὁδός in Mark 8:22–10:52 reflects the Deutero- Isaian picture of Yahweh’s triumphant processional march, and it seems likely that the remaining six instances in this section should be read in the same light. This supposition gains credence when we recall that Mark has placed the(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 77-81.203. R. Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIII (BIBAL Press, 1994), 39. 64
  • 65. Deutero-Isaian passage about the way of the Lord programmatically at the head of his Gospel (1:3).204 However, this view has been challenged by both Hatina and Moyise. Moyise notes that ὁδός, has a variety of functions in the Gospel [which] makes it unlikely that Mark is intending it as a technical term205 Similarly, Hatina says: It is very difficult to justify that the use of very common terms like ὁδός plays a technical role in the formation of a theme, especially when it is used in a variety of ways. It is very equally difficult to sustain that Marks audience would have attached such great importance to a select few uses of ὁδός and perceived Jesus and the disciples journey to Jerusalem as Yahwehs triumphant way to Zion.206Hatina and Moyise are correct to say that ὁδός has a variety of functions in Marks Gospel.Mk. 4.4; 4.15 and 6.8 are a case in point and should be understood as path and journeyrespectively, without reference to the DW or INE motifs. However, as we will show, thecrucial issue is not so much the use of ὁδός but rather the use of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. When comparedwith the other synoptic Gospels two interesting facts emerge. Firstly, the frequency of wordsstemming from the ὁδός lemma, excluding the phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, do not appear morefrequently in Mark than the other Gospels and do not suggest that ὁδός has a particular 207significance for Mark. When the length of the book is taken into account ὁδός is slightlypreferred by Mark, but this difference is negligible. Frequency of ὁδός Frequency/Number of Words in Represented as a % of the 208 ANDNOT ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ the Book (rounded to 5 d.p) total usage of in the Synoptics Matthew 21 0.00114 31% Mark 16 0.00142 38% Luke 22 0.00113 31%204. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 35.205. Moyise, Evoking Scripture (2008), 15.206. Hatina, In Search of a Context (2002), 168.207. Using <Lemma = lbs/el/ὁδός> ANDNOT "ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ" in Logos Bible Software.208. Based on the following word counts. Mt. = 18,345, Mk. = 11,304, Luke = 19,482. 65
  • 66. Secondly, the frequency of the phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ is particularly high in Mark when comparedwith the other synoptic Gospels. Frequency of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ Frequency/Number of Represented as a Words in the Book percentage of total usage (rounded to 5 d.p) in the Synoptics. Matthew 4209 0.00022 21% Mark 6210 0.00053 50% Luke 6211 0.00031 29%Represented as a percentage of the total usage in the synoptics and allowing for the differinglengths of the books, Mark uses the phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ for 50% of the time compared to 21%and 29% for Matthew and Luke respectively.This demonstrates that Mark does have aparticular preference for ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. The question, therefore, arises as to whether this issimply his own style or whether, as Watts and Marcus contend, this has a particulartheological or literary significance. Furthermore, in Mark ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ is restricted to 8.3-10.52and always refers to Jesus and his disciples journey towards Jerusalem. It is significant thatMatthew and Luke almost always offer an alternative (ALT) to Marks ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, therebysuggesting that Mark has a particular purpose in mind for its usage.Table 1: The use of ὁδός in Mark Mark Matthew Luke 1.2 ὁδόν σου 11.10 ὁδόν σου 7.27 ὁδόν σου ἔµπροσθέν ἔµπροσθέν σου σου 1.3 τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου 3.3 τὴν ὁδὸν 3.4 τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου κυρίου 2.23 ὁδὸν 12.1 ALT 6.1 ALT 4.4 τὴν ὁδόν 13.4 τὴν ὁδόν 8.5 τὴν ὁδὸν 4.15 τὴν ὁδόν 13.19 τὴν ὁδὸν 8.12 τὴν ὁδόν 6.8 εἰς ὁδὸν 10.10 εἰς ὁδὸν 9.3 εἰς τὴν ὁδόν209. Mt. 5.25, 15.32, 20.17, 21.8.210. Mk. 8.3, 8.27, 9.33, 9.34, 10.32, 10.52211. Lk. 9.57, 10.31, 12.58, 19.36, 24.42, 24.35. 66
  • 67. 8.3 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 15.32 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ8.27 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 6.13-14 ALT 9.18-19 ALT9.33 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ9.34 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 18.31 ALT10.17 εἰς ὁδὸν 19.16 ALT 18.18 ALT10.32 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 20.17-19 ALT 18.31ALT10.46 παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν 20.29 ALT 18.35 παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν10.52 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 20.34 ALT 18.42-43 ALT11.8 εἰς τὴν ὁδόν 21.8 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ 19.36 ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ12.14 τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ 22.16 ὁδὸν τοῦ 20.21 ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ θεοῦIn light of this, it is not then surprising that this part of Marks Gospel is often referred to asThe way section standing between the Galilee (1.16-8.21) and Jerusalem (11.1-15.39)sections of the Gospel.212 Alongside ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, other factors suggest that this central sectionhas been deliberately shaped and structured by Mark. This central section contains threepassion-prediction cycles (See Table 2) and is framed by two stories of the healing of blindmen. (8.22-26; 10.46-52).Table 2: The Way Section Passion-Resurrection Disciples Dont Understand Teaching on Discipleship Announcement (1) 8.31 8.32-33 8.34-38 (2) 9.31 9.32-34 9.35-50 (3) 10.32-34 10.35-41 10.38-45212. W. M. Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story (Peabody:Hendrickson, 1994), 39-43; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (2000), 132-34; Iersel, Mark : A Reader-Response Commentary (1998), 76-79. Taken up by the commentaries of Lane, The Gospel According to Mark(1974); France, The Gospel of Mark (2002). For further discussion of Markan structure see K. W. Larsen, “TheStructure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals,” CBR 3:1 (2004): 140-60. Although R.H Gundry does not agree,‘Walking through Mark takes us hither and yon with little or no discernible pattern’. Mark: A Commentary onHis Apology for the Cross, Chapters 1-8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1046. However, although notabsolute, a general Galilee-Journey to Jerusalem pattern is evident. 67
  • 68. We will now turn to the question regarding whether ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ is meant to communicate tothe reader the themes of the DW and INE which were introduced in the prologue through theusage of Isa. 40.1-11. (b) The Healing-of the-Blind Miracles and the Isaianic DW motifThe healing of Bartimaeus (Mk. 10.46-52), which frames the way section, provides anaffirmative answer to this question. As we will see, on the basis of thematic and linguisticparallels with a number of Isaianic texts, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ is intended to be understood as part of theIsaianic DW and NE motif. In order to do this it is necessary to focus attention briefly at themotif of blindness, and to a lesser extent deafness, in both Isaiah and Mark. (i) The Motif of Blindness in Isa. and Mk. (1) Sensory-Organ Malfunction Language in Isa.Throughout Isaiah the sensory-organ malfunction language, that is language associated withblindness and deafness, is associated metaphorically with the spiritual condition of anidolatrous and rebellious Israel who is no longer able to see the works, or hear the voice ofYHWH.213 As Greg Beale points out in We Become What We Worship, the language ofblindness and deafness is used because the people are worshipping idols that are both blindand deaf (Ps. 115.4-8; Isa. 44.8-20). Blindness and deafness are things which Israel bringsupon itself (Isa. 29.9-10; 29.19; 43.8; 56.10; 59.10) and which can also be seen as an act ofjudgment by God (6.10).214 The eschatological hope of Isaiah (40-55), in which YHWH actsas a DW to defeat the enemy and lead his people on a NE from Babylon to Zion, includeswithin it the healing and restoration of the spiritually blind and the deaf (29.18; 29.35; 42.7,213. G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008),Ch. 2.214. Ibid., 36-70; also G. D. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9-10: A Contextual,Literary, and Theological Analysis,” BBR 8 (1998): 167-86; C. A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). These three studiesfocus particular attention on Isa. 6 which has implications, not only for the themes of blindness and deafness inIsaiah, but also for how one understands Mk. 4.12. 68
  • 69. 8-20). Craig A. Evans summarises this well by connecting the sensory malfunction with aspiritual condition of obduracy: It would appear, then, that obduracy in the book of Isaiah is meant to be understood as a condition, brought on vicariously by arrogance, immorality, idolatry, injustice, and false prophecy, that renders Gods people incapable of discerning Gods will. This inability leads to judgement and calamity. However, it is also seen to be a condition that God brings about himself, as part of his judgment of wayward people. But Isaiah, if not the eighth century prophet, certainly the canonical book, announces that after judgement, there is restoration, in which perception returns attended by righteousness, justice and trust in God.215Two specific points should also be made about sensory-organ malfunction language in theeschatological hope of Isaiah NE: (i) The healed members of the restored community areexpected to join YHWH is his march to Zion. (ii) Even in the midst of eschatologicaldeliverance blindness is still seen as a persistent problem for some (42.18-20). (2) Sensory-Organ Malfunction Language in Mk.Like Isaiah, the Gospel of Mark uses sensory-organ malfunction language to describe theunbelief of both the disciples and the outsiders. Sharoyn Dowd is correct when she says,The author of Mark has written the Gospel in such a way that the themes of sight and hearingpervade both story and discourse,216 and this is particularly true of extended parabolicteaching of 4.1-34 which revolves around sight and hearing language: Ἀκούετε. ἰδοὺ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων σπεῖραι. (Mk. 4.3) εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε. ἐν ᾧ µέτρῳ µετρεῖτε µετρηθήσεται ὑµῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑµῖν. (Mk. 4.23)The parable of the sower/soils, both in its presentation and allegorical interpretation, is alsodominated by such language (4.3; 4.9; 4.12; 4.15-16; 4.18; 4.20). This use of sensory-organlanguage is not to be understood on a literal level but has as its reference a spiritual capacityof the audience to receive or reject Jesus and his message.215. Ibid., 46.216. S. E. Dowd, Reading Mark : A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel (Macon:Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 45. 69
  • 70. Already in the Gospel there has been a steady increase in opposition against Jesus, a factwhich is born out in the four questions standing between 2.7 and 3.24. The scribes accusehim of blasphemy (2.7) and of being possessed by Beelzebub (3.22). The Pharisees questionhis table fellowship (2.16), his views on fasting and his Sabbath lawbreaking (2.18; 2.24).Jesus responds forcefully and decisively to each of these and the reader is aware of a linearincrease in tension as the narrative moves forward, the opponents move from silentlyquestioning (2.7) through to interrogation (2.16; 2.18; 2.24), potential legal action (3.2) andeventually to murderous intent (3.6).217 Jesus listeners are encouraged to listen and seecorrectly (4.2; 4.23-24) for some are already portraying the signs of blindness and deafnessby their outright rejection of Jesus. This use of sensory-organ language as spiritual capacityparallels Isaianic usage, a point which is made explicit in Mk. 4.10-12.Mk. 4.10-12, which is sandwiched between the presentation and allegorical interpretation ofthe parable of the sower, describing the purpose of parables by offering a condensedquotation of Isa. 6.9-10. This appears to be based on proto-Targumic material given itsvariance from the MT and LXX:218 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ µόνας, ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα τὰς παραβολάς. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ὑµῖν τὸ µυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται, ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ µὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ µὴ συνιῶσιν, µήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς. (Mk. 4.10–12)This passage, and in particular the conjunction ἵνα within it, is one of the most confusing anddebated passages in the NT. Is this to be understood as in order that, indicating that the217. J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6,SBLDS 48 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).218. The MT and LXX of Isa. 6.9-10 do not end with turn and be forgiven but instead end with the words turnand be healed (MT: ‫ ,רפא‬LXX ἰαοµαι). It is the LXX version of the citation which is taken up in Mt. 13.15 andActs 28.27. The Targum, however, has ‫( וי ִשתְ בֵיק להֹון‬and it will be forgiven them) which offers a close ְ ְcorrespondence to Marks ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς. Further reasons for suspecting that Jesus (or the tradition whichfollowed him) used the Targum is that the MT uses imperatives for the verbs of listening and seeing, and theLXX place them in a future tense. However, as Schneck points out, the Targum and Mk. 4.12 use indicatives,indicating the deplorable state of the people and subjunctives, indicating a condition of impending danger forthe people, respectively. Schneck concludes, Thus, the use of verbs for seeing and hearing in Mk. 4:12, seem tocorrespond more closely to Tg. Isa. 6:9, rather than to the MT or 1Q Isa. or to the LXX. Isaiah in the Gospel ofMark I-VIII (1994), 104.Furthermore the MT and LXX imply, using the second person plural, that the prophet is speaking to the people.Whereas the the Targum and Mark agree in using the third person plural. See Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and HisBible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah, 1984, 91. A word of caution is needed, however, as the saying ofJesus does not involve a direct translation of the Targum as it is known to us today. We may maintain, given theverbal agreements, that the Targumic interpretation, perhaps in an earlier oral form, forms the background ofJesus saying. 70
  • 71. intended purpose of Jesus teaching is to bring spiritual blindness? Or is the sense more like aconsecutive clause so that, thereby indicating the result of Jesus teaching? A full discussioncannot be given here although we do note, in passing, that the literary context, being situatedin the middle of the parable of the sower, does seem to lead against a predestinarianunderstanding. The lack of harvest is not down to the intention of the farmer (he wants to seefruit and does sow seed) but to the state of the ground/hearts into which he sows.What is of great interest to us is that that those outside are understood to be blind and deaf inIsaianic terms. The outsiders, who from a narrative perspective may be understood asincluding at least the Pharisees, Herodians and Scribes, are now blind and deaf. Later in thenarrative even those who we would presume to be insiders, the disciples, are portrayed asbeing blind and deaf (Mk. 8.14-21). The reader would be expected to see an intratextualconnection with Mk. 4.10-12 219 (ii) The Intratextual-Structural Significance of the Healing-of-the-Blind MiraclesThe two accounts of the healing of blind men (8.22-26; 10.46-52) are undoubtedly presentedby Mark as actual miracles performed by Jesus. However, as book-ends to the way section,219. This does also note an intertextual link to language of spiritual obduracy found in the scriptures of Israel.Ched Myers calls attention to Deut. 29:2-4, noting the similarity in both order and wording.The same order isfound in both accounts; hearts, ears, eyes. NA27 Mark 8:17-18 LXX Deuteronomy 29:2-4 καὶ γνοὺς λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί Καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Μωυσῆς πάντας τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ καὶ διαλογίζεσθε ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Ὑµεῖς ἑωράκατε πάντα, ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἔχετε; οὔπω νοεῖτε οὐδὲ κύριος ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἐνώπιον ὑµῶν Φαραω καὶ τοῖς συνίετε; πεπωρωµένην ἔχετε θεράπουσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ πάσῃ τῇ γῇ αὐτοῦ, τοὺς τὴν καρδίαν ὑµῶν; ὀφθαλµοὺς πειρασµοὺς τοὺς µεγάλους, οὓς ἑωράκασιν οἱ ὀφθαλµοί ἔχοντες οὐ βλέπετε καὶ ὦτα σου, τὰ σηµεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα τὰ µεγάλα ἐκεῖνα, καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀκούετε; καὶ οὐ ἔδωκεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑµῖν καρδίαν εἰδέναι καὶ µνηµονεύετε, ὀφθαλµοὺς βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούειν ἕως τῆς ἡµέρας ταύτης.If this allusion is intended then it locates the disciples blindness as bearing a typological likeness to the originalexodus. Both the disciples in Mark and Israel in the wilderness have witnessed mighty acts and great wondersbut they remain hardhearted, as well as spiritually blind and deaf. See C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man : APolitical Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988), 225. 71
  • 72. they also take on a symbolic character functioning as acted parables relating to spiritualblindness.220 (1) Mk. 8.22-26The first healing-of-the-blind miracle (8.22-26) is closely linked with both what precedes(8.14-21) and what follows it (8.27ff) as well as with the healing of the deaf mute (7.31-37) • The intratextual connection with the former (8.14-21) is seen through the use of organ-malfunction language, as well as the similarity of the questions that are asked of both the disciples and the blind man (8.17-18; 8.21; 8.23). • 8.22-26 is also linked with what follows as Peters confession shows understanding and the curing of his spiritual blindness. However, like the blind man, the full healing is not immediate. His spiritual (in)sight of recognising Jesus as the Christ is partial as it is followed by a strong rebuke by Jesus indicating his failure to understand the suffering role of the Messiah (8.32).221 • 8.22-26 also has a strong intratextual connection with the healing of the deaf mute (7.31-37).222 They share identical words223 as well as similarities in the request to touch and Jesus response (7.32-33; 8.22-23) in taking the man to the side (7.33; 8.23) and the request for secrecy (7.36; 8.26).We have established that there are four intratextual links from Mk. 8.22-26 to other parts ofhis narrative, namely 7.31-37, 8.14-21, 8.27-31 as well as 10.46-52. This literary device, ofintratextual echoes and foreshadowings,224 serves a theological purpose in connecting thespiritual blindness of the disciples with the healing which Jesus offers. Furthermore, theintertextual use of Isa. 6 in Mk. 4 provides a firm typological connection between theblindness and the idolatry of Israel in exile and the spiritual blindness found in Mark. The220. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark (1991), 19; van Iersel, Mark : A Reader-Response Commentary, 1998, 279; E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 4(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981), 134-43, uses redaction criticism to show the deliberate symbolicshaping of the healing-of-the-blind miracles.221. Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIII (1994), 232.222. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark (1991), 197; Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospelof Mark I-VIII (1994), 231-32.223. Καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτῷ 7.32//8.22; καὶ παρακαλοῦσιν αὐτὸν 7.32//8.22; καὶ πτύσας 7.33//8.23224. E. S. Malbon, “Echoes and Foreshadowings in Mark 4-8. Reading and Rereading,” JBL 112:2 (1993):211-30. 72
  • 73. first healing-of-the-blind story, being woven together with the healing of the deaf, also showsthat the healing is rooted in Isaianic hope (Isa. 6.9; 29.18; 35.5; 42.18-19; 43.8). (2) Mk. 10.46-52 The second healing-of-the-blind miracle is that of Bartimaeus (10.46-52), which provides atransition from the way section to that of Jerusalem. This healing is linked with thepreceding episode, like 8.22-26 with 8.14-21, by the question which Jesus asks. In 10.51Jesus asks Bartimaeus τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω; which parallels the question which Jesus asks ofJames and John, τί θέλετέ ποιήσω ὑµῖν; (10.36). In 10.35-45 James and John are spirituallyblind for failing to grasp that suffering must precede glory. In contrast, Bartimaeus is healedof blindness and follows Jesus on the way (10.52). (iii) The Intertextual Significance of Isa. 35.1-10 in Mk.10.46-52Whilst this intratextual tapestry shows a link with the Isaianic motif of blindness, we willnow show that ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ in Mark is to be understood as rooted in the Isaianic traditions ofthe DW and NE. The basis for this is a strong intertextual link between Isa. 35 and thehealing-of-the-blind miracles. Although Isa. 35 is not part of Deutero-Isaiah, it clearly formspart of the NE matrix: The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus....Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.... And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it. It shall belong to those who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray.... And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.225In a wilderness (35.1; 35.6) setting YHWH leads a NE (35.6) as a DW (35.4) on his ὁδὸς(35.8 3x) to Zion (35.10). On this journey he opens the eyes and ears of the blind and deaf(35.5). This healed community then joins YHWH on his way.225. ESV Isa. 35.1-10 with amendments. 73
  • 74. The healing of Bartimaeus (10.46-52) displays such a striking number of parallels with Isaiah35 that can only be explained as a deliberate echo:• Blindness is healed (Isa. 35.5/Mk. 10.52)• The healed members are on the way to Zion (Isa. 35.10/Mk. 10.32-33)• Those who are healed join YHWH/Jesus on the way (Isa. 35.3; 35.8/Mk. 10.52)• YHWH moving through Jordanian Desert (Isa. 35.2)/Jesus is in Jericho226• Exhortation to take courage (Isa. 35.4/ Mark 10.49)• Healed people leaping for joy (Isa. 35.7/Mark 10.50)• Salvation from God (Isaiah 35.4/10.52, by faith)Moreover, Isa. 35 also mentions the healing of the deaf and mute. This is notable seeing asMk. 10.46-52 is part of an intratextual tapestry which includes Mk. 7.31-37. The Isaianicbackground to the healing-of-the-blind miracles may also be seen between Isa. 42.16 andMk. 10.52. Isa. 42.16 describes the healing of blind men as those who join ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ of theDW (42.13), similarly Bartimaeus once healed of blindness joins Jesus ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ to Zion.In the story of the healing of Bartimaeus, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ is to be understood as the march of theDW to Zion. This being the case then, it appears probable that every mention of ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ,given the structure and intratextual tapestry of this way section, is to be understood in thesame way. Watts and Marcus are therefore correct to argue that the word ὁδός has becomecharged with meaning. The way is not simply a road, but, in the light of the prologue and theintertextual use of Isaiah in 10.46-52, a road in which Jesus as the DW and leading a NEmakes his way to Jerusalem and Temple. In this part of the paper we have sought to show that Isa. 40.3 provides a hermeneutical key which unlocks the Gospel. The following summarises our discussion: Mark 1.2-3, as part of the dramatic prologue, would provide the reader with key insights for understanding the rest of the narrative. The beginning of the gospel is to be understood with reference to the larger context of Isa. 40.3 and calls attention to the themes of the DW and NE. The use of the phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ in the central part of the Gospel demonstrates that the themes pointed to in 1.2-3 have a significance beyond the prologue. The healing-of-the-blind miracles provide evidence that the reader is to interpret the life of Jesus and that of his disciples through a DW and NE lens.226. A desert area near the Jordan. 74
  • 75. 4. Exorcism and INEIn this study so far we have demonstrated that Mark in both his 1.1-3 and the way sectionseeks to draw the implied reader into recognising a number of parallels between the life andministry of Jesus and INE. The reader familiar with Isaiah would see that Jesus journey toJerusalem is, in some mysterious sense, the return of YHWH to Zion. According to the NEschema, this arrival in Jerusalem can only take place because the enemy has already beendefeated (Isa. 40.2; 40.9; 51.3; 52.1). YHWH comes not to defeat the city but to be welcomedas its saviour and king. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion. Break forth together into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem. (Isa. 52.7–9)In INE the inhabitants of Jerusalem are not an occupying force but a liberated city which nolonger lives under a tyrannical Babylonian regime. The watchmen on the walls of Zion do notprepare for war against the arriving army which is led by the DW but instead break intosinging.227 The defeat of the enemy, Babylon, has brought liberation to the city.228 In the final227. In light of this it is surprising that Marcus perceives the holy war tradition of Isa. 40-55 as being one inwhich Jerusalem is an enemy and whom the DW will triumph over, the Markan twist being that he does notdefeat this enemy but is killed by them. An ironic twist, however, has inverted the normal way of painting the Deutero-Isaianic picture of victorious holy war. Jesus announces to his companions that he is going up to Jerusalem not in order to triumph over his enemies in a conventional way but in order to be killed by them.Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 29. The ironic twist, which we will come to in the next chapter, is notthat Jesus does not destroy his enemies but, rather, that he is not welcomed into Zion as its saviour andking. Instead of the watchmen singing for joy at the arrival of the κύριος (52.8) the crowds shout crucify.There is some confusion in how Marcus understands the DW motif of Deutero-Isaiah and itsreinterpretation in the Gospel of Mark, for he also describes the arrival of Jesus in the city as ahomecoming. Are the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be seen as an occupying force or as a welcoming city? Itis a triumphant march of the holy warrior, Yahweh, leading his people through the wilderness to their truehomeland in a mighty demonstration of saving power. Ibid., 29.228. In Isa. 40-55 the contrast between Babylon and Zion could not be greater.. One commentator writes, For Second Isaiah Babylon was polluted and about to be destroyed. Zion is the restored, rebuilt sacred city, the goal of the procession from darkness. Babylon is the land of captivity and of subservience to false gods. Zion is the land of freedom and of true worship and divine manifestationClifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading (2002), 46. 75
  • 76. part of this chapter we will explore how Mark portrays Jesus as one who can embark on a NEbecause he has already defeated the enemy. The enemy, as we will see, is no longer Babylon,nor the present oppressive Kittim of Rome. Instead, the enemy is to be understood as Satanand his demonic axis of evil. (a) Jesus the Exorcist (i) Divine Identity of JesusThe Markan Jesus, from his opening testing by Satan (1.13) to his encounter with thepossessed mute boy (9.14-29), engages in a long running battle with the demonic. Thoughperhaps unusual and bizarre to modern western sensitivities, the author of the Gospel of Markwould have understood unclean spirits229 and demons230 as spiritual beings who, in leaguewith Satan/Beelzebub, the prince of demons (3.22-23), stand as enemies of the one God ofIsrael.231 This conflict takes place primarily through exorcisms which are performed, without229. Mk. 1.23, 26, 27; 3.11, 30; 5.2, 8, 13; 6.7; 7.25; 9.17, 20, 25.230. Mk. 1.34, 39; 3.15, 22; 6.13; 7.26, 29; 9.38. And with the longer ending 16.9,17.231. For the development of the concept of Satan within Judaism see V. Hamilton, “Satan,” AYBD V: 985-989.Sorensen traces the development of demonology from the Ancient Near East to Early Christianity. He writes: The New Testament writings presuppose the Jewish demonology of the intertestamental period. The New Testament also follows the intertestamental literature in painting a cosmology of two opposing powers, which the synoptics identify as the kingdom of God and the rule of Satan.E. Sorensen, Possession & Exorcism in the New Testament & Early Christianity, WUNT 2:157 (Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 118-19. 76
  • 77. dependence on either incantations232, objects233 or the invocations of a higher power.234 Fromwhat we know of exorcistic activity in and around the first century Jesus exorcisms stand outas unusual in both their frequency and method. Jesus is, to use the words of Twelftree, acharismatic exorcist who is able to deal with the demons due to the power and authoritywhich he has within himself. (Mk. 1.10).235 Eric Eve and Sorensen sum this up well whenthey say, The Gospel accounts of Jesus exorcisms make him stand out as quite distinct. He is one of the very few named figures of whom an exorcism story is told, and he is the only Jewish figure of whom a whole series of exorcism stories are told. Again, both the significance and the method of Jesus exorcisms stand out.236232. Both D.E Aune, Magic in Early Christianity, ANRW II:23.2 (Berlin & New York: Walter De Gruyter,1980), 1531-32. and G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus,WUNT 2:54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 153, argue that Jesus does use incantations. However, Jesuswords differ significantly from the more magical incantations found in the Greek magical papyri; his speech isshort and does not involve either foreign or unknown words. A quick cursory look through H. D. Betz, TheGreek Magical Papyri in Translation, Volume One: Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992),demonstrates that incantations are typically extended over several sentences and use words which have nomeaning in any known languages. eg. PGM VII. 643-651, PGM VII 846-61. As J.P Meier argues, the words ofthe Markan Jesus show a quantitive difference to the bulk of the magical tradition yet, contra Aune, thisquantitive difference betrays a qualitative difference. In the magical tradition the extended incantations (orspells) use all kinds of names and nonsensical syllables. These seem to serve as a technique whereby a magicalact can be performed, yet the few words which the Markan Jesus speaks to the demons points to a power whichis to be found in his identity rather than his technique. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. II: Mentor, Message andMiracles, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 571..233. In stark contrast to the magical tradition, as exemplified in the account of the exorcist Eleazor (Josephus,Ant. 8.45-49), Jesus does not use any objects to conduct his exorcisms. The only exception to this is the case ofthe pigs in the account of the Gersasene demoniac, but here the pigs are not used to conduct the exorcism itselfbut is the place where they are sent (5.12-13). This is likely to have been particularly striking to any readeraware of magical practices similar to those found in the magical papyri. Without objects, Jesus conducts hisexorcisms with a simple verbal technique. Indeed, in the case of the Syro-Phoenician the exorcism occurs at ageographical distance and without any actual words being spoken to the possessed girl (7.24-30). Twelftreeagrees, Jesus does not seem to have used mechanical aids. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (1993), 158-59.234. Although he does mention prayer as a necessary requirement for the disciples exorcistic activity (9.29),there is no hint that Jesus himself invokes a higher power through prayer in his exorcisms. He commands andthe demons obey. Although some in the early church took up the exorcistic activity of Jesus they performedexorcisms in his name.235. Twelftree describes two contrasting models of exorcistic activity in the first century. Firstly, there is thecharismatic exorcist who was believed to be sufficiently powerful so that what he said or did was of littleimportance in his success; his mere presence and command were sufficient to send the demon scurrying.Secondly, there are those whose success seems dependent on what is thought or said in the ritual or by theinvocation of a power authority against the spiritual being. Ibid., 22; 38-47..236. E. Eve, The Healer From Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context (London: SPCK, 2009), 38; E.Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, JSNTSup 231 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002),326-49. One of our conclusions from surveying the Jewish material must be that there are extremely fewstories of, or traditions about. individual historical exorcists available to help provide a background toexamining Jesus tradition in relation to exorcism. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (1993), 48. 77
  • 78. For the author of Mark, however, it is less important to portray how Jesus performs exorcisms than that he does perform them, and so to underscore the divine authority behind his ministry.237Although the question of the identity of the exorcist is withheld from many of the charactersin the narrative, the demonic realm is well aware of who it is that has come to destroy them.The man in Jesus first encounter with unclean spirits, or rather the demon who has overtakenhis bodily functions, cries out τί ἡµῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡµᾶς; οἶδάσε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. (1.24). This man is in-dwelt by one demon but his response toJesus is in the first person plural and suggests that he is speaking on behalf of all demons.238In contrast, the Gerasene demoniac that is in-dwelt by a plurality of demons speaks in thesingular, τί ἐµοὶ καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου; ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, µή µεβασανίσῃς (5.7). The demonic witnesses then agree that Jesus has come to do battle withthem, to destroy and torture them. Both also testify to Jesus identity: Jesus is the Holy Oneof God (1.24) and the Son of the most High God (5.7).Is the demonic view the right point of view? Is this perspective one which the reader shouldassume is true? Mk. 3.11 shows that the demonic Christological beliefs are not defective butreveal a true insight, an insight which the reader is expected to agree with. In addition to this,the Christology of the demons corresponds to the divine point of view whereby Jesus isdeclared in both the baptism and transfiguration to be the beloved son of God.239The demons, who speak on behalf of the demonic realm, realise, unlike the human charactersin the story, that there is more to Jesus identity than meets the eye of the human characters.Why is it then that spiritual beings have knowledge about Jesus which is concealed frommost other human characters in the story? The only exception to this is the centurion (15.39).However, even here it is intimately connected with the heavenly realm as his declaration ofdivine sonship occurs immediately after the tearing of the Temple veil, the veil whichconcealed the heavenly realm. In an apocalyptic worldview the demonic are understood asspiritual beings who transcend the heaven and earth divide. Ernest Best suggested that the237. Sorensen, Possession & Exorcism in the New Testament & Early Christianity (2002), 136.238. As with France, Perhaps there is the thought of a multiple possession here, but more likely this particulardemon speaks in this initial encounter on behalf of the whole threatened fraternity. France, The Gospel of Mark(2002), 103.239. As Kingsbury in his narrative approach to Markan Christology pointed out, the demons knowledge thatJesus is the Son of God plainly coincides with Gods evaluative point of view regarding Jesus identity expressedat the baptism. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 86. 78
  • 79. demons are able to detect Jesus divine sonship for they are spiritual beings who are able torecognise another spiritual being. Passing from this to the meaning of the demonic acknowledgment, this can be taken as like recognizing like: the demons being supernatural know supernaturally, the supernatural nature of the prophet of Nazareth.240This could be explained through an adoptionist Christology in which Jesus becomes thedivine son of God when he is in-dwelt by the Spirit at the moment of baptism. Anothersuggestion is that Jesus is recognised by other spiritual beings because, like them, he is orwas a member of the heavenly court.241 Is Jesus, as Margaret Barker controversially argued,being presented by Mark as an angelic being,242 a divine preexistent messiah figure,243 orcorresponding to the new-history-of-religions school, is Jesus to be understood as sharing inthe identity of the one God of Israel?244 This last suggestion correlates with our priordiscussion as to the use of κύριος in Mk. 1.3.On more certain ground we have argued that: (1) Jesus stands on the side of God. (2) Jesus is the destroyer of the demonic realm.These points are best understood as reflecting two types of dualism.245 (ii) Apocalyptic DualismAs indicated above, Mark understands the supernatural realm as operating around a dualismin which two sides are opposed to each other. On one side, stands YHWH and his angelichost, on the other stands a host of fallen angelic and demonic beings. In this sense Mark has240. E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Second Edition), SNTSMS 2(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17.241. S. Gathercole, The Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2006), 55-56.242. Barker, The Great Angel (1992).243. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008).244. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (2005); Bauckham, God Crucified (2008); Fee, Pauline Christology (2007);Gathercole, The Preexistent Son (2006).245. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 252-56. 79
  • 80. much in common with the apocalyptic eschatology that had become more pronounced anddistinctive in the Second Temple period.246The second type of duality within which we should understand Jesus forceful interactionwith the demonic becomes obvious when the the exorcisms and related demonic material areplaced into the context of Marks Gospel as a whole. This type of dualism, which N.T Wrightcalls eschatological duality,247 may be understood as the distinction between this age and theage to come. In the Gospel of Mark the symbolic language of choice to describe the changein the present world order is the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.248The Markan readers would be expected to understand Jesus encounter with the demonicwithin this larger kingdom context. If God is establishing his reign then the powers whichoppose him must fall. Such ideas were not unknown to Jews of the first century.249 The246. D. C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, SNTSMS 88 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996), 35-42; M. C. de Boer, “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in ed. J. Marcus andM. Soards Apocalyptic and the New Testament, JSNTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 174-75.Although there is a certain degree of reluctance in some quarters to say that any text which falls outside of theapocalyptic genre can reflect an apocalyptic eschatology. Mark does not fall into the apocalyptic genre but hisoutlook does have some affinity with the scenarios found in apocalypses. See Rowland, The Open Heaven(1982), 49-72; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (1998), 2-14. Although apocalyptic eschatology becamemore distinctive and pronounced it should be understood as neither monolithic or uniform in its eschatologicalexpectation.247. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 253.248. Mk. 1.15; 4.11,26,30; 9.1,47; 10.14, 15, 23 ,24 ,25; 12.34; 14.25; 15.43. As a tensive symbol the kingdomof God language, sometimes present (4.1-33), sometimes future (1.14-15; 9.1; 14.25), points to the act by whichYHWH, the God and King of Israel, will finally act to bring redemption to his people and set the world torights. It [The Kingdom of God] is a tensive symbol, a multifaceted reality, a whole mythic story in miniaturethat cannot be adequately grasped in a single formula or definition. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. II: Mentor,Message and Miracles (1994), 452.249. C. A. Evans, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” BBR 15:1 (2005):49-75. shows that such ideas were not unusual within Second Temple Judaism. By way of example Jubileesdescribes the eschaton as a time when there shall be no Satan nor any evil destroyer; For all their days shall bedays of blessing and healing. 23.29, cf 50.5. In 1 Enoch the defeat of Azael (Satan) is described as a prelude tothe eschatological age, And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5 And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6 And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. 7 And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. (19.4-6).Similarly, the Test. of Dan predicts the advent of the kingdom in which Jerusalem will no longer be incaptivity with the defeat of Beliar (Satan). And there shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and of] Levi the salvation of the Lord; And he shall make war against Beliar. And execute an everlasting vengeance on our enemies; 11 And the captivity shall he take from Beliar [the souls of the saints], And turn disobedient hearts unto the Lord,And give to them that call upon him eternal peace. And the saints shall rest in Eden, And in the 80
  • 81. Testament of Moses provides an interesting parallel as it brings together the eschatologicaldefeat of Satan and the arrival of YHWH and his Kingdom by using language from Isa.40:1-11. Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end... And the earth will tremble, even to its ends shall be shaken. And the high mountains will be low.... For God Most High will surge forth, the eternal One alone. (Test. of Mos. 10.1; 10.4; 10.7)In Mk. 1.14-15, Jesus announces the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God and thenimmediately goes to teach in a synagogue where he is confronted by a demoniac (1.21). Nodescription of his actual teaching in the synagogue is provided but, given its location, thereader would assume that this was also kingdom proclamation. Within this kingdom teachingthe first exorcism takes place suggesting to the reader that the reality to which his teachingpoints is manifest in the expulsion of an unclean spirit. We note also that the characters whowitness this exorcism associate it with his teaching (1.27). This association of proclamationwith deliverance continues throughout the narrative (1.39; 3.13-15; 6.7-13). (b) Mk. 3.22-27 and the Defeat of SatanAs noted above, the Markan Jesus is not just doing battle against a host of individual demonsbut with the demonic realm as a whole, and the individual exorcisms are probably best seenas a series of battles in a larger kingdom campaign against evil spiritual forces.250 In Mk.3.22-27 this is confirmed. The scribes from Jerusalem present Jesus with a two-prongedaccusation. They suggest that his success in exorcisms stems from him being possessed byBeelzebub and that it is by the prince of demons that demons are cast out. In response Jesus New Jerusalem shall the righteous rejoice, And it shall be unto the glory of God for ever. And no longer shall Jerusalem endure desolation, Nor Israel be led captive; For the Lord shall be in the midst of it [living amongst men]. (5.10-15).250. Richard Hiers, in an earlier attempt to connect exorcisms to the arrival of the kingdom, says Satan and hisminions who stood in the way of its coming were being opposed with violence. Because they were beingovercome it was apparent—to the eyes of faith—that the coming of the Kingdom would soon take place.“Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God,” SJT 27:1 (1974): 35-47. However, for Hiers, the imminence of thekingdom is downplayed and the prior binding of Satan (Mk. 3.22-27) is not allowed to enter into the discussion. 81
  • 82. speaks to them in two related parables,251 the parable of the divided kingdom/house (3.23-26)and the parable of the strong man (3.27).In the first of these parables Jesus, through a reductio ad absurdum, mocks the accusationmade by the scribes that what is happening in his exorcisms is the destruction of Satansrealm by internal division. A kingdom would be committing suicide if it fought against itself(3.24). Likewise a house, perhaps a royal house252, will collapse if divided (3.25). If thescribes really believed what they were saying they should not oppose Jesus exorcisms forSatans end would be coming (3.26). Rather, they should encourage and congratulate him forhastening the demise of the kingdom of Satan.253Two features can be noted. First, Jesus argument assumes that Satan and the demonic are aunited group. Secondly, the identification of this demonic house as a kingdom would appearto the reader, as a dualistic contrast with the Kingdom of God announced in 1.15.The parable of the strong man (3.27) is also to be seen as a response to the accusation thatJesus is a successful exorcist through the influence and power of Satan.254 The downfall of thekingdom of Satan, the strong man, will not occur through internal conflict but throughexternal assault from him who is stronger (1.7). If the strong man is bound (δέω) then hishouse can be plundered and that which was within his power, the demonised, can be released.Stating it another way, the exorcisms which Jesus performs are only occurring because Satanhas already been bound. Although within the Markan story world the scribes would notunderstand the meaning of this, the reader would likely associate this binding of Satan with251. Although the first parable breaks down into two sections, the Kingdom and the House, Joel Marcussuggests that the two parables which Mark has placed together, 3.23-26 and 3.27, offer competing eshatologies.The first story, that of the divided kingdom/house, reflects eschatology in which Satans house is not collapsing,whereas the strong man saying contradicts this by offering an eschatology in which the strong man (Satan) hasalready been defeated. In the parable of the divided kingdom... there is a real and irreducible difference betweenits portrayal of a strong Satan, on the one hand, and the depiction of a paralysed Satan in the Parable of theStrong man. J. Marcus, The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus in eds. Chilton & EvansAuthenticating the Activities of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 260. However, in this paper we are following asynchronic narrative approach that assumes there is unity to be found in the final form of the text.252. This may be an illusion to the rivalry over the high priesthood between the brothers Aristobulus II andHyracanus II, which brought an end to Jewish independence when Pompey led the Roman legions intoJerusalem in 63 BC. Stein, Mark (2008), 183.253. R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg:Trinity Press, 2001), 186. helpfully offers a reading of 3.22-27 which focuses on irony, metaphor and paradox.254. Buchanans suggestion that the strong man is to be understood as Rome fails to take note of its largernarrative context. It is true that many Jews would associate the enemy with Rome, but the evidence that Jesusshared this view is highly questionable. Jesus, the King and His Kingdom (Macon: Mercer University Press,1984), 215-16. 82
  • 83. the account of Jesus temptation in 1.12-13. This point, although not accepted in all quarters,has been most forcefully defended by Ernest Best in The Temptation and The Passion. If westress, as narrative criticism does, that Mark is an interwoven tapestry and was expected to beread as such, this viewpoint has a great level of appeal. The Temptation lies within the ministry as its first decisive act: Satan is overcome; the demonic exorcisms of the remainder of the ministry represent the making real of a victory already accomplished. The exorcisms are mopping-up operations of isolated units of Satans hosts and are certain to be successful because the Captain of the hosts of evil is already bound and immobilized. The defeat of Satan is thus attached to the Temptation rather than to the Passion.255Our discussion of Jesus and his conflict with the demonic realm may help contribute tounderstanding Marks NE typology. In INE, YHWH will defeat the Babylonians and thenlead his people on a glorious march to Jerusalem where he will be welcomed as their trueKing. In Mark, Jesus defeats Satan and his demonic allies to lead his people to Jerusalemto be welcomed as its true King. (i) Mk. 3.27 and Isa. 49.24Before closing this chapter it is necessary to discuss an intertextual relationship between Mk.3.27 and Isa. 49.24, as this will support the idea that Jesus conflict with the demonic is to beinterpreted in the light of INE and that it forms part of Marks NE schema. Although there islittle linguistic similarity between LXX Isa. 49.24 and Mk. 3.27, there are a number of strongconceptual parallels.256 Both passages speak of taking something from a strong man255. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (1990), 15. God impels Jesus, whom he has just declared to be his Son, into the desert to confront Satan in the place of his abode. For forty days Jesus, sustained by angels, is put to the test by Satan. But far from succumbing to Satans assault, which would have alienated him from God, Jesus Son of God proves himself to be stronger than the strong man. Thus he overcomes Satan and binds him, and so inaugurates the eschatological age of salvation. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (1983), 69.Contra J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, SBT 21 (London: SCM, 1957), 28-32; J. Kallas,The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (London: SPCK, 1961), 98; U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness,SBT 159 (London: SCM, 1963), 130, who connects the death of Jesus with the defeat of Satan. In contrastwe stand with Ernest Best, In actual fact the demonic slowly fades out of Mark; highly concentrated at thebeginning it gradually disappears so that in the Passion story it escapes mention altogether. The Temptationand the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (1990), 22. For a survey of scholarship on this issue see pages18-27.256. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark (1991), 116; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodusand Mark (2000), 148-49; Watts, "Mark" (2007), 146. The word γίγαντος has undergone semantic change by the 83
  • 84. (γίγαντος/ἰσχυρός) in an eschatological context. By themselves these conceptual parallels arehardly persuasive, for parallels can be found with material elsewhere.257 However, given ourprevious discussion about the relationship between Mark and INE, we should have aheightened sensitivity to further parallels between the Markan text and Isaiah. (ii) Isa. 49.24 in ContextIn its original literary setting, Isa. 49.24 forms part of a larger unit (49.14-26) which iscomposed of three parts. In each part YHWH responds to critical assertions made by Israel(14-20; 21-24; 24-26):258• Verse 14. But Zion said, The Lord has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.• Verse 20ff. YHWH has no children• Verse 24. YHWH cannot defeat the enemy: Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?YHWH responds to these assertions with a message of salvation by saying: I will not forgetyou (15-16), I will gather you as my children (22-23) and I will defeat those who oppress you(25-26). The assertions and counter claims form part of the Isaianic NE and DW matrix. Inverse 24 the enemy is to be understood in its original and narrative context as Babylon whohas taken Israel captive. YHWH announces (v. 25) that the prey of the tyrant shall be rescuedand the oppressors shall be humiliated. That is, God will act to defeat Babylon so that theexiles can be released. Although elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah the role of Cyrus is pivotal tothe defeat of Babylon (Isa. 44.28; 45.1), this passage makes clear that it is YHWH himselfwho will defeat the enemy. I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (49.26)time of the first century and is virtually absent from texts in the first century. This explains, as well as the use ofthe word ἰσχυρός in Isa. 49.25, why Mark may have used the word ἰσχυρός as opposed to γίγαντος if he werealluding to Isa. 49.24. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (2000), 148 fn. 57.257. No one takes plunder away from a strong man Pss. Sol. 5.3; the binding of demon Asmodeus from Sarah.Tob. 3.17258. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (1969), 217-22. 84
  • 85. Just as YHWH defeated the Egyptians so that his glory would be known to all (Exod. 14.4)so INE will involve the defeat of Israels enemies and making known of the name of YHWH.We may draw two conclusions from this brief discussion. First, if Mark is making use of Isa.49.24, then the defeat of Satan and the subsequent exorcisms are to be understood as part ofthe NE matrix. Secondly, as with Mk. 1.3, Jesus is being identified with YHWH the one Godof Israel who as a DW defeats the enemy.2595. ConclusionsMarks presentation of the story of Jesus has been been shaped by the the story of INE. In ouranalysis of Mark 1.1-3, way motif, and Jesus interaction with the demonic we have seen thatMark has made contextual usage of a number of Isaianic texts (Isa. 40.3; 35.1-10; 49.24). Ouranalysis has shown that these texts appear to be part of a larger unified reading which revolvearound the traditions of the NE. This reading of Isaiah adds typological depth to a number ofelements in Marks narrative including the identity and mission of Jesus, the obduracy ofdisciples and opponents, and the significance of the exorcisms.Jesus as the Isaianic DW has defeated the Satanic enemy and leads his people to Zion to bewelcomed as its true Lord and King. The readers of Mark, like ourselves, already know thaton arrival at Jerusalem Jesus is not welcomed but rejected, instead of the watchmen singingfor joy at the arrival of the κύριος the crowds shout crucify. In the next chapter we will seethat, in the triumphal entry, the typological relationship between INE and Mark breaks downand that Jesus NE project in some sense fails.259. J.R. Edwards writes, In discussing Mk. 1.2-3 and 3.27 we have seen that the attributes of Yahweh are transferred in a direct and undiminished way to Jesus. That is quite remarkable when one recalls Isaiahs insistence that There is no no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Saviour; there is none beside me (45.21). To no other figure in Scripture are Gods attributes transferred- and transferred so inherently-as they are to Jesus."The Servant of the Lord and the Gospel of Mark," in ed. Hatina Biblical Interpretation in Early ChristianGospels, LBS (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 55. 85
  • 86. III. Chapter Three: The Rejectionof the Divine Warrior1. Interlude: Divine Kingship in the Gospel of MarkUpon reflection of the data presented within the opening chapter, it is clear that by the time ofthe first century the concept of a divine messiah had become an active hope for some Jews.For Mark and members of the earliest Christian communities this future hope had becomerealised in the life of Jesus. The previous chapter argued that Jesus is to be equated with theGod of Israel, yet in this chapter we will examine the messianic side of Jesus identity. In theGospel of Mark a range of titles are associated with the figure of Jesus, some of which haveconnections with David. Before the Markan Jesus arrives at Jerusalem the reader has beenintroduced to the word Χριστός only three times (1.1; 8.29; 9.41), yet, as Tremper Longmancommented, the field is well beyond the point of thinking that a concept is limited to a singleword.260 Although much has been made of the messianic secret in Mark (we will not discussit it here) the messiahship of Jesus has not been kept a secret from the reader. A briefexploration of divine sonship, looking at both (i) the prologue and (ii) the use of the phraseson of man, is necessary. (a) Divine Sonship and the PrologueThe authoritative narrator describes Jesus as both the Christ and the Son of God (Mk. 1.1)and his point of view is confirmed by the one God of Israel. Only twice in the Gospel doesGod himself speak and each time he reaffirms the divine sonship of Jesus. In the baptism ofJesus a voice comes from heaven saying: σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός µου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.(1.11). This is almost identical to what is spoken by the heavenly voice at the transfiguration,260. T. Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings” in ed. S.E. Porter The Messiah in theOld and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 14. 86
  • 87. although on that occasion the voice is directed to Peter, James and John and issues acommand that they they should listen to Jesus, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός µου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετεαὐτοῦ. (9.7). For readers acquainted with scripture this is a clear allusion to Ps. 2.7.261 In itsoriginal setting Ps. 2 was a royal poem reflecting the ideology of divine Davidic Kingship.However, Ps. 2 had begun to be interpreted with an eschatological and messianic focuspointing specifically to the future role which a Davidic messiah would play. This is evidentfrom our discussion in the first chapter where allusions to Ps. 2 were found in the apocalypticvisions of 4 Ezra 13, 2 Bar. and the Sim. of Enoch. (b) Son of ManIn contrast to the frequency of the term Christ, the term Son of Man is particularly frequent,occurring twelve times throughout the Gospel.262 Only Jesus uses these words but only everin the third person. This is an implicit self-reference by the Markan Jesus and representsJesus own christology. An intertextual link is made between this title and Dan. 7 three timeswithin the Markan narrative For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” 263 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 264 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 265Given that the Markan Jesus draws on Dan. 7, and that we have noted in the first chapter thatthe Danielic son of man figure is both Davidic and divine, some readers of Mark wouldlikely understand this as an implicit claim to be a divine Davidic messiah.261. Watts, “Mark” (2007), 122-123; R. E. Watts, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’sPerspective on Jesus and the Temple” BibInt 15 (2007): 307-22, 309-313.262. Mk. 2.10, 28; 8.31, 38; 9.9; 9.12; 9.31; 10.33,45; 13.26; 14.21, 14.41, 14.62.263. Mk. 8.38264. Mk. 13.26265. Mk. 14.62 87
  • 88. Further confirmation of the divine side of the Son of Man saying is found when it isrecognised that the term is used twice within a context where Jesus is accused of blasphemy.The first is within his dispute about forgiving sins (2.5-12). The scribes accuse him ofblasphemy in saying that he can forgive sins. They point out that it is only God who canforgive sins. Jesus responds by saying that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgivesins. Even here, the echoes of Dan. 7 are to be found, for the Son of Man figure in Dan. 7 isgiven authority. Jesus, like God, is able to forgive sins. The second accusation of blasphemyoccurs during his trial before the high priest (14.64). He is accused of blasphemy fordeclaring that he is the Son of Man and will come on the clouds of heaven.The Davidic use of Son of Man gains confirmation in two places in the narrative where theterm Christ is closely followed by a reference to the Son of Man, suggesting that the termshave an overlap of meaning. In the first instance, it is seen in 8.27 where Peter calls Jesus theChrist, immediately leading to a discussion about the suffering Son of Man. Some havedisputed whether Peters confession should be positively evaluated,266 but a number of factorssuggest that this is a misunderstanding. Yes, Jesus opposed Peter when he rejected the idea ofa suffering messiah, but this is not a rejection of messiahship itself. As Joel Marcus notes, theprohibitions of publicity found elsewhere in Mark are directed at correct evaluations of Jesus,not at incorrect ones (1.24-25; 3.11-12;). The prohibition actually heightens the importanceof the secret. Peters confession is prefixed with the words ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ,which implies its accuracy and also provides a contrast to the mistaken view of the others.Furthermore, the healing story of 8.22-26, as discussed in the previous chapter, suggests thatPeters spiritual eyes are half opened,rather than that he fails completely to understand whoJesus is.267 Likewise, in 14.62, Jesus responds to the High Priests allegation that he is theChrist, the Son of the Blessed, by saying Ἐγώ εἰµι which should be taken as anaffirmation.268 Mark has Jesus before the highest authority of Israel... having no hesitation.The time for concealment is over and the truth must be declared firmly and openly269266. O, Cullmann. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr. A Historical and Theological Study. 2nd ed (London: SCM,1962), 178-180; J. Dunn. “The Messianic Secret in Mark.”, 116–31, in ed. C.M Tuckett The Messianic Secret(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 126-128.267. Marcus, Mark 8-16 (2009), 612.268. There is a textual variant for Jesus response with some texts reading you have said that I am rather thansimply "I Am. This longer reading is favoured by Marcus who cannot imagine that both Luke and Matthewindependently change Jesus direct statement to an indirect reply. All critical editions prefer the shorter reading,given the overwhelming support of textual witnesses including ‫ ,א‬B , Old Latin, Iraneus, Hegesippus.269. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 611. 88
  • 89. concerning the identity of Jesus270 Jesus then goes onto talk about himself as the Son ofMan, thereby demonstrating that Christ and Son of Man have overlapping semantic range.In our preceding discussion we have established two things. Firstly, in the previous chapterwe sought to show that Jesus is to be identified with the one God of Israel and that his arrivalin Jerusalem is to be seen in terms of INE. In this chapter we have so far endeavoured toestablish that Jesus is to be understood by the reader, as well as characters in the story, as adivine Davidic messiah. In the following analysis we will seek to highlight that Mk. 11.1-11presents Jesus as the Davidic King as well as also being ontologically related to the One Godof Israel. In light of these strong christological claims the welcome received by Jesus uponhis arrival at Zion is all the more shocking.2. Mark 11.1-11Immediately after the way section Jesus draws near to Jerusalem (11.1) and the reader nowenters a different phase of the Gospel of Mark. From now on all events occur in or aroundJerusalem. As well as the change in geographical location, the pace of the narrative, due tothe increased level of detail, becomes slower and points towards the climactic nature of whatis being described. This is not just a city and Jesus is not just a man. Rather, it is the momentwhich the narrative has been anticipating from the start (1.1-3); the arrival of the King toZion. This kingship, in the light of the previous chapter and the preceding discussion, shouldbe understood as both the advent of YHWH to Zion as well as the arrival of a divine Davidicmessiah. In the following (a) we will examine both geographical place names mentioned inMk. 1.1 showing how their use within the Gospel may serve a theological and christologicalpurpose. We will then (b) explore the scriptural traditions behind Mk. 11.1-11, highlightinghow they also strengthen the view that Jesus arrival at the city is that of the DW who is boththe embodiment of YHWH and the long awaited Davidic Messiah.270. This is unlike Matthew and Luke who are far more guarded and circumlocutory. See ibid., 610. 89
  • 90. (a) Mk. 11.1 The Geographic LocationJesus approaches Jerusalem from the direction of Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανίαν πρὸς τὸ ὄροςτῶν ἐλαιῶν (11.1). Why did Mark choose to begin his account of Jesus approach to Zionwith the description of place names? This is all the more surprising given the brevity ofthe Gospel of Mark. Do these four geographic locations―Jerusalem, Bethany,Bethphage and the Mount of Olives― have any particular significance for the readers ofthe story other than offering a plain historical description?271 Upon closer inspection ofboth Jewish scriptures and tradition it appears that each of these place names holdssymbolic value and is deliberately used to add theological depth to the narrative for thosereaders acquainted with scripture and the traditions of Israel. Elsewhere in Mark thegeographical setting of individual episodes has long been noted. The river, the desert, thesea and the mountains all provide a theological atmosphere, as does the movement fromGalilee to Jerusalem. For Mark, the geographical context is often loaded with theologicalfreight which would be taken in account by some ancient readers, as Michie and Rhoadsnote, Context is often quite integral to the story, for settings can serve many functions essential to the plot: generating atmosphere...evoking associations and nuances of meaning present in the culture of the readers...Settings can be no less significant for a story than stage sets are for theatre drama.272Whilst each of these place names are discussed as possessing potential symbolic valuethe cumulative force makes it likely that Mark has a deliberate theological purpose.273 (i) Mount of OlivesAlthough being so close to Jerusalem, there are only two explicit references in thescriptures of Israel to the Mount of Olives. In 2 Sam. 15.30-2 the Mount of Olives isassociated with a sorrowful David who uses the mountain as a place of worship, whereas271. Collins, Mark: A Commentary (2007), 516-517; Marcus, Mark 8-16 (2009), 771-772.272. D. Michie and D. Rhoads, Mark as a Story: Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Augsburg: Fortress,1982), 63.273. This is not to say that Mark is not using place names already found in the Jesus-tradition or that the choiceof route for Jesus approach to Jerusalem does not go back to the historical Jesus himself. 90
  • 91. in Zech. 14.4 the Mountain is the place from which the Lord ‫/יהוה‬κύριος, my God, withall his holy ones will come to Jerusalem to be enthroned (14.9) as King and bring aboutthe eschaton. An implicit reference to the Mount of Olives is also found in Ezekiel whereit is the point from which the glory of the Lord vacated the city and temple (11.23), andthe direction from which he will return (43.2-5).Within Second Temple Judaism the Mount of Olives retains continuing significance withsome evidence suggesting that it had become associated with the coming of aneschatological deliverer. Josephus describes the action of an Egyptian false prophet whosought to break into Jerusalem by force. His entrance to Jerusalem was to be via theMount of Olives (Josephus War 2.262; Ant. 20.169-70). These verses appear to becarrying with them connotations of the coming of God and eschatological triumph.274Did Mark intend for the Mount of Olives to evoke these theological themes of thecoming of God, the Messiah and the arrival of the eschaton? We can push this debatefurther on two fronts. Firstly, we can note that the Mount of Olives appears in Mark atother key points in the narrative, namely 13.3 and 14.26, the former being the location ofthe Olivet Discourse and the link with Zechariah being almost certain given theintertextual and intratextual links between the coming of the Son of Man with his Angels(8.38; 13.26-27) and the coming of God in Zech. 14.5. ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ µετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων. (Mk. 8.38) καὶ τότε ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόµενον ἐν νεφέλαις µετὰ δυνάµεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης. καὶ τότε ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέµων ἀπʼ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ. (Mk. 13.26–27) καὶ ἥξει κύριος ὁ θεός µου καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι µετʼ αὐτοῦ. (Zech. 14.5 )274. J. R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark ( 2002), 334-335; Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 156.They both refer to Josephus source but mention the Rabbis in only general terms. Where are the Rabbinicsources? Later it (Mount of Olives) was associated by the Rabbis with the resurrection of the righteous deadand the coming of the Messiah. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (1966), 453. Mention is made ofthe Mount of Olives in the medieval Jewish apocalypse, Sefer Zerrubabbel. Then the Holy God will stand on the Mount of Olives. His awe and glory will rest upon the highest heavens, over the whole earth and its depths... The Mount of Olives will split beneath Him, and the exiles of Jerusalem will ascend to the Mount of Olives. Cited in eds. Stern & Miskly Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature(Yale, 1990), 67-91, 79. 91
  • 92. The Mount of Olives is also the place where Jesus, after the last supper, is arrested(14.26). This mention of the Mount of Olives is surrounded by a plethora of quotationsand allusions to Zechariah. Joel Marcus offers the following list.275 Mark Zechariah 14.24 My blood of the 9.11 covenant 14.25 That day, dominion 14.4, 9 of God 14.26 Mount of Olives 14.4 14.27 Strike the shepherd, 13.7 and the sheep will be scattered 14.28 Restoration of 13.8–9 scattered sheepA reader who knows, perhaps upon multiple readings, that Mark makes a great deal ofZechariah may be predisposed to viewing the reference to the Mount of Olives asheightening the eschatological tension and would cause one to think that this may,perhaps, have to do with the coming of God or some other messianic figure. (ii) BethanyBethany (Βηθανία) is located on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, lying 3km east ofJerusalem (Jn. 11.1) and would have been a natural last stop for pilgrims on their way toJerusalem.276 It is clear that behind the Greek word Βηθανία is a Hebrew or Aramaic placename which means house of ..... . A previous generation of scholars maintained, upon the275. Marcus, Mark 8-16 (2009), 969; Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 154-164; C. A. Evans, “Zechariah inthe Markan Passion Narrative” in ed. Hatina Biblical interpretation in Early Christian Gospels (London: T&TClark, 2006), 64-80.276. Perkins, AYBD 1:703. 92
  • 93. basis of a Rabbinic parallel whereby an unspecified location is called ‫( בּית־תְ ּאנָה‬b. Hullin ֵ ֵ53a),277 that Βηθανία meant the house of figs. However, this view was dealt a decisive blowseveral years later by Dixons multi-paged critique.278 The strongest point of criticism is thatthe Greek Βηθανία demands that the second component of the Hebrew begins with an a-vowel in the first syllable.279 Several more recent commentators suggest that the name means“the house of Ananiah,” and may be related to Ananiah ‫ ענַנְי ָה‬who is referred to in Neh. 3.23 ֲ(cf. Neh. 11.32).280 If this etymological root is valid it would correlate with the thesis thatJesus arrival at Jerusalem is the coming of God to Zion, for the name ‫ ענַנְי ָה‬is a theophanic ֲname being composed of two component parts ‫ ענַן‬and ‫ ,י ָהּ‬the former meaning appear and the ָlater being a name for God. It may, therefore, be translated as Yahweh has appeared.281However, as with house of figs, caution should be exercised. Brian Capper points out thedifficulty, The Greek transliteration found in the New Testament, Bethania, precludes this possibility, since no alpha appears directly before the iota, implying that none appeared before the yod in the Semitic name.Brian Cappers own suggestion, given many years before in Dixons critique of Lightfoot, isthat the name Bethany means the House of the Afflicted/Poor. Furthermore, Capper arguesthat this place name reflects the fact that Bethany was known as a place where lepers,277. Beth-hene certainly seems to be the same altogether with our Bethany J. Lightfoot, “The Whole Works ofthe Rev. John Lightfoot” Vol. X, Edited by J. R. Pitman (London: JF Dove, 1825), 85.278. An earlier protestor to Lightfoots claim is W. H. Dixon, The Holy Land (London: W. Clowes and Sons,1866), 217-219.279. Dixon, who leveraged the work of Emanuel Deutsch, demonstrates the weakness of Lightfoots position.Dixons argument runs as follows. Firstly, the traditional site of Bethany, El Aziryeh, is not conducive to thegrowing of figs. Secondly, Ania is not found to be among the many names for a palm tree in any Greeklexicons. Thirdly, on the basis of Dixons correspondence with Emanuel Deutsch, it must be observed in thefirst instance that a supposed place ‫ ,בּית־תְ ּאנָה‬Beth Ahine House of Unripe Dates could only have been ֵ ֵtranscribed in Greek as Βηθινη, Βηθαανη, Βηθηνη. In other words the Greek Βηθανία demands that the secondcomponent of the Hebrew or Aramaic begin with an a-vowel in the first syllable. Fourthly, there is no way ofestablishing from the Talmud where Beth-Hene lay and, therefore, no way of matching its geographic locationwith that of El Aziryeh. Fifthly, the portion of Talmudic text under inspection is probably a corrupt reading notfound in earlier parallel rabbinic material (b. Erub 28b).Dixon, The Holy Land (1866). See also J. H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2006), 497; B. J. Capper, “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus” in ed. J. R. DavilaThe Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism & Early Christianity: Papers from anInternational Conference at St. Andrews in 2001 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90-116, 110.280. Marcus, Mark 8-16 (2009), 771.281. GHCLOT. See also J. D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 103. 93
  • 94. outcasts and the needy could be cared for. His persuasive argument, also taken up byCharlesworth, can be summarised as follows.282The Essenes established poorhouses throughout the towns and villages of Judea and verylikely had poorhouses around Jerusalem. Such a view is confirmed by the Temple Scroll(11Q20) which makes mention of three locations east of Jerusalem whereby outcasts, lepersand those with other religious impurities would gather.283 These three poorhouses would havebeen built outside of the city itself as nothing impure could lie within a radius of 3,000 cubits(15,000 yards, 11Q19). The location of present day Bethany stands just outside this radius onthe eastern side of the city. Moreover, the village, being on the the far side of the Mount ofOlives, could not be seen from Jerusalem. As part of the pilgrim route Bethany would havebeen a suitable location for such a house that was dependent on charitable donations.Information from the canonical Gospels appear to correlate with such an understanding. InMk. 14.30 Jesus is at the home of Simon the Leper, and in Jn. 11.18 Jesus interacts withLazarus who had a terminal illness. Both events occur in Bethany. We may add to this byrecounting both the words of Judas and of Jesus in the house of Simon the Leper. Judas statesthat the ointment could have been sold and given to the poor, and Jesus replies You shallalways have the poor with you. (Mk. 14.7) If Bethany was a known place of care for the poorand needy then it provides a plausible and specific context for both Judas and Jesus words.The Church father Jerome, an expert philologist and resident at Bethlehem for many years,maintained that Bethany means the domus adflictionis, house of affliction. Charlesworthexplains,282. Capper, “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus” (2003). See also B. J. Capper,“The Church as the New Covenant of Effective Economics: The Social Origins of Mutually SupportiveChristian Community” IJSCC 2:1 (2002): 83-102; T. J. M. Ling, The Judaean Poor and the Fourth Gospel(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 177. The first to make the identification of Bethany as anEssene poor house appears to be B. Pixner, Paths of the Messiah: Messianic Sites in Galilee and Jerusalem (SanFrancisco: Ignatius, 2010), which includes a chapter entitled Bethany By Jerusalem―An Essene Settlement227-338. Pixner builds upon and challenges the earlier findings of Yadin who sees Bethany as a leper colony butdistances it from any Essene involvement. If my suggestion is correct, this would prove that Jesus had not happened by chance to find himself in the house of a leper, but had deliberately chosen to spend the night before entering Jerusalem in this leper colony, which was Anathema to the Essenes and the Pharisees. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: Vol. 1 Introduction (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 177.283. And you shall m]ak[e three places east of the city, separated from each other, to which shall] [come thelepers, those afflicted with discharge] and the men who ha[ve had a nocturnal emission …] 11Q20 .13 94
  • 95. Jeromes Latin interpretation shows that he understood the name to be derived from the Hebrew beth ani or the identical phrase in Aramaic, beth anya. Both could mean either house of the poor or the house of affliction/poverty, 284This correlates with both Christian and Syriac versions which render Bethany in Aramaic asthe House of the Poor (bet anyâ).These arguments are compelling and it is therefore likely that Bethany received its namebecause it was the Essene poorhouse par excellence, the poorhouse which alleviated povertyclosest to the holy city.285 The mention of Bethany as a place name would not have goneunnoticed by many of Marks readers, for it is not only the route which Jesus takes into thecity but it is also his dwelling place in his final week (Mk. 11.11; 11.12; 14.3). Later on inthis chapter we will observe that Mark makes intertextual use of Zech. 9 to present Jesus as aKing on his return to Zion. In Zechariah this king is described as being ‫“( עני‬poor, afflicted)which correlates with the name of the village from which he makes his approach. 286Jesus, as the King, is welcomed by the poor and outcasts of Bethany but rejected by the city.He is the King returning to Zion, the city of the Great King, but he chooses to reside withthose who are excluded from worship in the temple. (iii) BethphageWhat significance, if any, might be attached to the third geographical location mentioned,that of Bethphage (Βηθφαγη)? In Aramaic the name of the village itself literally means thehouse of early figs.287 One piece of evidence, that has not generally been picked up byscholars, is the use of this place name within rabbinic literature. According to TractateMenahot Bethphage is the only place outside Jerusalem where the Bread of the Presencecould be baked.Tractate Menahot 11.2 says,284. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (2006), 497.285. Capper, “The Church as the New Covenant of Effective Economics: The Social Origins of MutuallySupportive Christian Community” (2002), 97.286. See discussion of Zech. 9.9 below.287. S. Carrol, AYBD 1:715. 95
  • 96. R. Simeon says, "One should always be accustomed to state: The two loaves and the show bread are valid [if made] in the courtyard and are valid if made in Bethpage.288If this tradition is authentic, and there is no reason to doubt that it is, then Bethphage is one oftwo places where the bread of presence was made. In first century Judaism the Bread of thePresence/Face (‫ )לחם פּנִים‬had great significance. It is mentioned within the Pentateuch (Exod. ָ ֶ ֶ25, Lev. 24) and was one of three items required to be kept in the Holy Place, the innersanctum, of the Tabernacle/Temple.289 This sacred bread consisted of twelve loaves whichrepresented the covenant between God and his people (Lev. 24.5-9). Every Sabbath a freshbatch of the bread would be brought to the Temple and arranged before the Lord. Every Sabbath day Aaron shall arrange it before the Lord regularly; it is from the people of Israel as a covenant (‫ )בְּרית‬forever. (Lev. 24.8) ִWhenever the golden table, upon which the Bread of the Presence sat, was taken out of theTabernacle it was to be covered with a cloth of blue, scarlet and goatskin (Num. 4.1-5). Notonly would first century Jews be familiar with these scriptures; they would also haveopportunity every year to view the bread for, during the Jewish festivals, the priest wouldremove the golden table with the bread upon it and present it before the pilgrims. They [the priests] used to lift it up and exhibit the Bread of the Presence on it to those who came up for the festivals saying to them Behold, Gods Love for You.290This may be related to Exod. 34.23 and 23.17 whereby three times a year all males are topresent themselves before the face of the Lord ‫ ,אֶל־פּנֵי הָאָד ֹן יהוה‬reminding ourselves that the ְbread of the presence is the bread of the face.Israel Knohl explains,288. J. Neusner, The Halakhah: An Encyclopaedia of the Law of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 177. On thesame page see also T 11:1. The initial tip-off for such an idea comes from J. D. M. Derrett, “Law in the NewTestament: The Palm Sunday Colt” NovT 13:4 (1971): 241-58, 247 where he mentions the rabbinic source indiscussion of the acquisition of the donkey. As far as my research has allowed, the association of Bethphagewith the bread of the presence cannot be found in any commentaries or monographs dealing with the triumphalentry. Similarly, it is not mentioned in dictionary articles (AYBD, TBD) under the topic of Bethphage.289. 1 Kgs. 7.48; 1 Chron. 9.32; 23.29; 28.16; 2 Chron. 2.4; 13.11; 29.18; Neh. 10.33; also Josephus Ant 3.3.6;3.10.7; Temple Scroll Col. III/8; Heb. 9.2. The others objects being the Ark of the Covenant and the GoldenLampstand. The significance of the bread of the presence is highlighted by Arch of Titus in Rome which depictsthe golden table, upon which the Bread of the Presence was laid, being carried away in 70 A.D.290. Menahoth 29a, also Hagigah 26b, Mishnah: Succoth 5.7; Menahoth 11.4. See discussion in B. Pitre, Jesusand the Jewish roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (New York: Doubleday, 2011),130-132. 96
  • 97. It seems to me that the sages departed from convention and permitted the display of the Temple furniture before the pilgrims so as to allow them to fulfil their obligation to see the face [Exod. 34.23; 23.17). Or, to put it another way, the presentation of these holy items before the large assembly created the experience of a theophany.291Therefore, this bread, representing the face of God, was made in the village ofBethphage. If we use our historical imaginations, recognising the holy significance ofsuch bread for the Jewish people, it is likely that this bread was not simply brought to theTemple, as one would bring bread to the market, but that it was accompanied with acertain level of sanctity and ceremony.292Mark deliberately stresses the location of Bethphage and it is conceivable that itsassociation with the bread of the presence would not be lost on all readers. As with thereference to the Mount of Olives it is plausible that some members of the early Church,particularly with their regular celebration of the eucharist, would not fail to make a linkwith Jesus approach to the city and the bread which manifests the presence of YHWH.In our analysis of the Mount of Olives, Bethany and Bethphage we have suggested thateach would be of particular significance for some readers. Bethphage and the Mount ofOlives would be places associated with the presence of YHWH and Bethany with thepoor and needy. Mk. 11.1 nudges the reader towards a theological reading of the textwhich reinforces a high Christology whereby Jesus is the manifestation of YHWH,whilst also stressing Jesus unity with the poor, needy and outcasts. (b) The Scriptural BackgroundThe last chapter clearly demonstrated that Mark is a biblical theologian who seeks to narratethe story of Jesus as the eschatological and typological fulfilment of the scriptures of Israel.Particular attention was focused upon the NE and DW themes of Isaiah showing, in broadstrokes and upon the basis of Mk. 1.1-3, that they collaboratively form a theological sub-text291. I. Knohl, Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 141. Cited in G. A.Anderson, “To See Where God Dwells: The Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Origins of the Christian MysticalTradition” ed. S. Hahn Letter and Spirit 4 (Steubenville: St. Paul Centre for Biblical Theology, 2008), 25 andPitre, Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (2011), 133.292. Perhaps, although serious caution is needed with this suggestion, the donkey upon which Jesus rode to enterthe city was one of the donkeys used to transport the bread. This fanciful suggestion could be supported bynoting that Mark specifically states that no one had ever sat on the donkey before (11.2). 97
  • 98. for the Gospel. This section will now offer a sustained focus on Mk. 11.1-11 and its use ofGen. 49.8-12, Zech. 9.9-11 and Ps. 118. Ps. 118 explicitly appears in Mk. 11.9 whereas Gen.49.10-12 and Zech. 9.9-11 are only alluded to. We will explore the validity of this claimshortly. For now it is necessary to look closely at each of these texts in order to understandthe quotation/allusion in its original literary context as well as exploring how such a text mayhave been interpreted by the first century. (i) Gen. 49.8-12 (1) Overview of Gen. 49.8-12In Gen. 49.8-12 we read the story of the blessing of Judah. This literary unit, which is part ofa larger series of blessings upon the sons of Jacob (49.1-27), breaks into three sections: Verse 8: The supremacy of Judah over both his enemies and his brothers. Verse 9: The comparison of Judah to a lion. In the ANE the lion metaphor was often used in reference to the King, and later Judaism came to speak of the Messiah as the Lion of Judah. 293 Verse 10-12: Royal leadership will come from the line of Judah which will result in a time of material prosperity.Verses 10-12 are as follows. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes. His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.The future leadership of someone from the line of Judah is clearly in the mind of the author.293. See the fascinating study B. A. Strawn, What Is Stronger Than a Lion?: Leonine Image and Metaphor inthe Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Gottingen: Academic Press, 2005), 54-57. Messianicinterpretations are to be found in 4 Ezra, The Eagle Vision 11.37-46 and 12.32. Also Book of Revelation. 98
  • 99. The staff (‫ )חקק‬and the scepter ( ‫ ) שׁבט‬are symbols of authority(v. 10).294 This leadership isnot merely tribal but refers to the leadership of all the tribes (v. 8) and it is likely, given theeuphemistic use of the word feet, that the phrase between his feet refers to futuredescendants, thus having not just an individual leader but a dynasty as its target.295 To thisJudaic king, and his descendants, shall come the obedience of all people (v. 10).296 Verse 11speaks of male and female donkeys being tied to a vine (49.11a). Although this may strike usas being bizarre it is likely that this refers to a time of material prosperity which will arrivewith the advent of the King, for one would only tie a donkey to a vine if one had enoughvines that it was irrelevant whether one or more was eaten by a donkey.297 Likewise, theimage of washing ones clothes in wine speaks of the abundance of wine which will flow atthe advent of the Judaic King (49.11b). The reference to the future leader as having eyesdarker than wine and teeth whiter than milk could refer to the monarchs beauty but may alsobe a reference to the future abundance of wine and milk (49.12). (2) Messianic Significance of Gen. 49.8-12This passage, along with the conceptually similar Num. 24.17, may have originally referredto the rise of the Davidic King and his descendants. As Tremper Longman comments: From the historical context of Jacobs last will and testament for his sons, it is not hard to think that this oracle anticipates the rise of the Davidic dynasty. It is not anticipating a future eschatological figure beyond David and his dynasty.298294. Numbers 24.17, Ps. 45.7; Zech. 10.11; Num 21.18; Ps. 60.9295. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC (Dallas: Word, 2002), 476. This correlates with other ancient witnesses(LXX, Targums). Cf. Deut. 28.57, Judges 3.24; 1 Sam. 24.3; Isa. 7.20.296. There is considerable debate as to the rendering of the Hebrew word ‫( שׁילה‬shiloh). There are at least fourmajor options. (1) Some prefer to leave the text as it is, reading “Shiloh” as is said to refer to an importantsanctuary found in the tribal territory of Ephraim. (2) By repointing the text some translate it as “until the [or“his”] ruler comes,”. (3) Another possibility, that only requires repointing is “until tribute is brought to him” (soNEB, JPS, NRSV). (4) Lastly some prefer “to whom it [belongs]” based on other ancient versions. GordonWenham, who himself prefers option 3 on the basis that it provides good parallelism with the following line,says all at least agree that this line is predicting the rise of the Davidic monarchy and the establishment of theIsraelite empire, if not the coming of a greater David. And if the primary reference is to David, traditionalJewish and Christian exegetes would agree that, like other Davidic promises, it has a greater fulfilment in theMessiah, Ibid., 478.297. Here it is not the king’s triumph so much as the fruitfulness of the land that fills the poet’s eye. There willbe so many vines that the ruler will not worry about his ass eating the choicest vines, as it surely would if tethered to them. Ibid. , 478.298. Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings” (2007), 24-25. Although this view canbe contrasted with both T. D. Alexander, “Messianic Ideology in the Book Of Genesis” in eds. Satterthwaite, 99
  • 100. However, like the enthronement Psalms, we can easily conceive of texts which once referredto David and his dynasty being reinterpreted in the light of the decline of Davidic kingshipand thereby gaining a messianic and eschatological focus. The future material prosperitywhich looked like it would come to fruition when Israel entered the land becomes, in the laterimagination, a hope for the eschatological future. (Lev. 26.5; Ps. 72.16; Isa. 25.6; Joel 2.24;Amos 9.13). As we trace the tradition history of Gen. 49 we can observe that the messianicand eschatological focuses are heightened. In the LXX the scepter and rulers staff which willcome from Judah is identified as a being a prince from Judah (ἄρχων ἐξ Ιουδα) who is to bethe expectation of the nations (προσδοκία ἐθνῶν). Given the post-exilic historical location ofthe LXX after the decline of Kingship it is implicit that this is referring to a future Davidicprince who will bring in a time of eschatological shalom. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q252, wepossess the remaining fragments of a commentary on Genesis. Column V is explicit inidentifying the coming ruler as the eschatological Messiah. 299Although there is some debate as to the validity of using the Targums to ascertain messianicbeliefs within the first century, the evidence of Tg. Neofiti should be taken seriously as a firstcentury belief given the correlation which this has with 4Q252, a text whose dating is notproblematic. Tg. Neofiti elaborates on Gen. 49.8-12 as follows, Kings shall not cease from among those of the house of Judah, and neither (shall) scribes teaching the Law from his sons sons until the time of the King Messiah shall come whose is the kingship; to him all kingdoms shall be subject. How beautiful is King Messiah who is to arise from among those of the House of Judah..300Hess & Wenham, The Lord’s Anointed (Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 25; and W. C. Kaiser, The Messiah in theOld Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 50-53 who see this as referring to a messianic figure beyond that ofDavid.299. The scepter shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, 2 there [will not] becut off someone who sits on the throne of David. For « the staff » is the covenant of royalty, 3 [and thethou]sands of Israel are « the standards ». Blank Until the messiah of righteousness comes, the branch 4 ofDavid. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of the kingship of his people foreverlasting generations, 4Q252 Col. V.300. The quotation continues continues. He girds his loins and goes forth to battle against those who hate him;and he kills kings with rulers, and makes the mountains red with the blood of their slain and makes the valleyswhite with the fat of their warriors. His garments are rolled in blood; he is like a presser of grapes. Howbeautiful are the eyes of the King messiah; more than pure wine lest he see with them the revealing ofnakedness or the shedding of blood innocent blood. His teeth are purer than milk, lest he eat with them thingsthat are stolen or robbed. The mountains will become red from his vines and vats from wine; and the hills willbecome white from the abundance of grain and flocks of sheep. Trans. McNamara and Maher, cited in C. A.Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 158-159. See also M. B.Shepherd, “Targums, The New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah” JETS 51 (2008): 45, 53-54. 100
  • 101. Also to be noted is that this King Messiah is a military warrior who goes forth to battleagainst those who hate him. He will be so successful in his violent conflict that themountains will be red with the blood of their slain and the valleys white with the fat oftheir warriors.We may conclude then that Gen. 49.8-12 would have been understood by many firstcentury Jewish readers as a prophecy concerning a future messianic deliverer who,through military action, would usher in a time of material blessing. (ii) Ps. 118 (1) Ps. 118 and the Davidic Warrior KingMost scholars agree that Ps. 118 was composed as a royal song of thanksgiving for militaryvictory; and that this is set in the context of a processional liturgy.301 The Psalm may bebroken down into the following sub-sections. Verses 1-4: Call to Thanksgiving Verses 5-18: Conflict and Divine Rescue Verses 19-20: Entrance to the Temple Verses 21-28: Celebration of Rescue Verse. 29: Closing call to thanksgivingThe recent revised study by Martin McNamara offers the following conclusions, The language of the Palestinian Targum can hardly predate the third century CE, and many scholars are skeptical regarding the early date of the paraphrase itself. However, the likelihood is there was in Palestine an early, even pre-Christian translation of the Pentateuch (and presumably the Prophets) into Aramaic, the language spoken by the people. How literal, or how close to the basic translation of our present texts of the Palestinian Targums, this was we cannot say. However, there were also traditions and paraphrases which developed from and around the Pentateuch. A number of these were early and pre-Christian. That a good part of this earlier tradition, continued in Rabbinic Judaism and in the Palestinian Targum tradition, as a continuum, can be reasonably presumed, while granting that some paraphrases in our present texts of the Palestinian Targums are later developments. The question as to the early age of targumic traditions or their relevance for the study of the New Testament cannot be answered in a global fashion. The individual cases have to be examined.M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2010), 135.301. L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, WBC (Dallas: Word, 2002), 165. 101
  • 102. After the initial call to thanksgiving the Psalm portrays an individual who is surrounded bythe nations (cf. Ps. 2) and calls out to YHWH for help (v. 5). YHWH answers and providesthe strength by which the enemy is cut off (v. 10-16). The recipient of this help rejoices in thevictory which has been attained (v. 14-16) by using language from the Exodus (Exod. 15. 2,6). In verses 19-20 the suffering yet vindicated individual approaches the gates ofrighteousness which may be understood as the gates to the city or the gate to the templeitself. From inside the city or the temple comes confession and a blessing upon thisindividual (v. 26). One assumes that the arrival (return) of this vindicated warrior is a causeof blessing for the people. The gates can now be opened, for the enemy has been defeatedand his arrival demonstrates that YHWHs light is upon them. A sacrifice is now to to bemade, although it is unclear whether this is to be undertaken by the warrior figure or thepeople of the city/temple. The Psalm ends as it began with a call to thanksgiving, for the ‫חסד‬of YHWH endures forever (118.1; 118.29).Although no explicit identification of this individual is made it is likely that, in its originalsetting, it was understood that this person would be a Davidic King. Who else, after all, couldbe responsible for the death of the surrounding nations (v. 10)? Ps. 2 can be compared withPs. 118. In Ps. 2 the promise is made that YHWH will vindicate the Davidic Son in thepresence of his enemies and in Ps. 118 this promise is made real.302In Post-Exilic Judaism the association of Ps. 118 with the Davidic line becomes explicit. TheTargum on the Psalms clearly understands this individual as a Davidic King. 303Likewise, the Babylonian Talmud is even more explicit in regards to the identification ofDavid, R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in R. Jonathans name: I will give thanks unto Thee, for Thou has answered me [Ps. 118.21] was said by David;304302. R. E. Watts, “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel” in eds. Moyise & Menken The Psalms in the New Testament(London: T&T Clark, 2004), 30.303. The child the builders abandoned was among the sons of Jesse; and he was worthy to be appointed kingand ruler. “This has come from the presence of the Lord,” said the builders; “it is wonderful before us,” said thesons of Jesse. “This day the Lord has made,” said the builders; “let us rejoice and be glad in it,” said the sons ofJesse. Tg. Psalms 118304. The quotation continues, The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief cornerstone [Ps. 118.22]; by Yishai (Jesse); This is the Lords doing [Ps. 118.23], by his brothers; This is the day that the Lord hath made (118.24) by Samuel. We beseech Thee, O Lord, save now![118.25] was said by his brothers: We beseech Thee, O Lord, make us now prosper! by David; Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord [118.26], by Jesse; We bless you out of the house of the Lord [118.26), by Samuel; The Lord is God, and hath given us light (118.27), by all of them; Order the festival procession with boughs, by Samuel; Thou art my God, and I will give thanks unto Thee (118.26) by David;Thou art my God, I will exalt Thee, by all 102
  • 103. This association of Ps. 118 with Davidic Kingship paves the way for a messianic readingwhich looks to a future Davidic ruler who will bring about the arrival of theeschatological age. (2) Ps. 118 and the Feast of TabernaclesWe have already noted that Ps. 118 is set within the context of a processional liturgy thatconcludes with a sacrifice (118.7). By the late Second Temple period, that is at the time ofJesus and the composition of Mark, Ps. 118 was strongly associated with the Autumnalfestival known as the Festival of Tabernacles. This festival is also known as the Feast ofBooths or Sukkot. Whilst the Jerusalem temple stood Sukkot was the preeminent festival andprimary pilgrimage.305 Although the feast of Tabernacles has always had great significance itis possible to make a distinction between how this festival was celebrated during the Davidicdynasty and also how it was celebrated in later Second Temple times. As there is no full indepth description of Sukkot in the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple literature or Rabbinicwritings it is necessary that a certain amount of scholarly reconstruction takes place. Twomain arguments will be developed in this section. Firstly, it will be demonstrated, asmentioned above, that Ps. 118 has a strong and close association with the Feast ofTabernacles in both the (i) pre-exilic situation as well as in (ii) the period of the SecondTemple. Secondly, we will interact with a number of sources in order to suggest that the Feastof Tabernacles had an (iii) eschatological and messianic focus. From this we will be able toconclude that Ps. 118 would have been well known in the Jewish world as a Psalm which wasassociated with Sukkot and that it would have fostered and encouraged eschatological hope. a) Ps. 118 and the Pre-Exilic Autumnal FestivalExod. 23.16 and 34.22 both mention an autumnal festival called the festival of theingathering. It marks the end (Exod. 23.16) or turn of the year (34.22) when the last of the of them.b. Pesah. 119. See A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New ExodusPattern in the Theology of John, (Tubingen: Mohr, 2003), 40.305. J. L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, (Atlanta: ScholarsPress, 1995), 1. 103
  • 104. harvest has been brought in. In Judges 21.19-21 it is simply referred to as the feast ofYHWH, a time when women dance in the vineyards. This festival is clearly connected withthe agricultural calendar and a time of rejoicing at the end of harvest. (cf. Judges 9.27). Amore lengthy description of this festival is found in Deut. 16.13-15.306It is clear that this is referring to the same festival, as it is also to occur when produce hasbeen gathered from the threshing floor and winepress (v. 13). It is now called Sukkot (v. 13‫ )סכה‬rather than the festival of ingathering. Like Judg. 21.19-21 it can simply be referred toas the feast of the Lord (v. 15) which suggests that the autumnal Sukkot festival was specialand distinguished from its sister festivals.307 According to Deuteronomy the festival is to becelebrated for seven days at the place where God will choose (Tabernacles, Temple, v. 15)and it will be a time of great rejoicing for every member of the covenant community (v.14-15).In Deut. 31.10-13 we read that every seventh celebration of Sukkot will include a completereading of the law. The most detailed canonical discussion of the festival occurs in Lev.23.33-44 and Num. 29.12-34. Each of these passages gives a fixed date for the festival. It isto take place on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 23.34; Num. 29.12) althoughLev. 23.36 extends the festival from seven days with the addition of another day whichbecame known as Shemini Atzeret. In Num. 29 we see that the seven days of Sukkot areaccompanied by sacrifices of bulls, rams and lambs (c.f. Ezek. 45.25). Lev. 23.40 providesinformation about a part of the ceremonial process whereby pilgrims will use four organicobjects in their worship (fruit, palm branches, boughs of trees and willows), On the first day the fruit of splendid trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. (Lev. 23.40)This text does not describe how these objects are used in worship although, as we will see, there is evidence that these natural objects were involved in a ritual during which the words306. You shall keep the Feast of Booths (‫ )סכה‬seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from yourthreshing floor and your winepress. You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, yourmale servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are withinyour towns. For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose,because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you willbe altogether joyful. Deut. 16.13–15307. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995), 15. 104
  • 105. of Ps. 118 were read aloud. In reading these two sources (Lev. 23; Num. 29) one begins to understand that this festival has strong cultic associations and was likely practiced with a certain amount of ceremonial pomp and liturgy.At the end of the Leviticus passage we read that the festival is called Sukkot/Booths/ Tabernacles for all pilgrims are to dwell in booths that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. (Lev. 23.43). Although Sukkot has its roots in the celebration of the harvest, at some point it came to be associated with the Exodus. for to dwell in booths during Sukkot was to relive, in ritual, the flight from Egypt.308Whilst this investigation of the Sukkot, sourced from explicit scriptural texts, is important, itactually tells us little about the content of the festival except that it involves sacrifice, livingin booths and the use of fruit and foliage. Some OT scholars have sought to fill this gap byarguing that the autumnal festival centres around a celebration of the epiphany of Yahweh,the day of his cultic coming and revelation as King.309 This reconstruction is possible for twomain reasons. Firstly, we know, from other ANE sources, the details of how an autumnalfestival was observed in Babylon. Rubenstein sums up a number of studies when he writes, The Babylonian New year festival, the Akitu festival, served as a model for reconstruction. Observed from the the first through the eleventh of Nisan, the Akitu celebrated the annual enthronement of the god Marduk. Priests read the Babylonian creation story detailing the triumph of Marduk over the primordial gods and his acclamation as king. Statues of other gods were brought to Babylon to pay homage to Marduk. A procession of the statue of Marduk along the sacred way, accompanied by great rejoicing and the cry Marduk is king, to a temple known as Atiku-house; outside of the city dramatized the enthronement. Additional rites of confession and a ritual humiliation of the308. Two other passages also demonstrate the significance of Sukkot. In 1 Kgs. 2 and 1 Chron. 5 we note that thejoyful dedication of Solomons temple coincided with the festival which occurs in the seventh month. Also,from the book of Kgs., we note that Jeroboam set up a festival which mirrored Sukkot to encourage people toworship at Bethel as opposed to Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 12.26-32). This suggests that large numbers did in fact attendthe festival in Jerusalem (c.f. Deut. 16.13-15) .309. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John (2003), 29. See also S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’sWorship, (Oxford:Blackwell, 1962), 106-192; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, (London: SCM, 1976), 24;J. H. Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah, (London: SPCK, 1979), 8-36. As the festival focused on theLords kingship, it was appropriate to consecrate there the office of the servant of that kingship, the manchosen and anointed to effect on earth the heavenly Kings will. It is known that in Egypt and Mesopotamiafull inauguration and subsequent renewal of the royal office took place in chief festivals of new year characterwhere the heavenly kingship was celebrated. J. H. Eaton, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary,(London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005), 24. 105
  • 106. king took place, for at this time Marduk determined the destinies of gods and men in the coming year.310Secondly, a number of the Psalms cohere well with such a liturgical and processional setting.The following chart, based largely upon the work of Mowinckel with some contributionsfrom Aubrey R. Johnson and John H. Eaton, shows how such a reconstruction of theliturgical details of the Autumnal Festival is possible.311 It is not exhaustive but illustrative. Liturgical/Cultic Activity Psalm Grand Procession 24; 47; 68; 118; 132 Epiphany of YHWH 29; 46; 48; 76; 93; 96; 97; 98 Enthronement of YHWH 93; 97; 99 Davidic King in Procession 118; 132 Davidic King Participation in Ritual 2; 18; 20; 22; 23;75; 89; Combat 101; 118; 144 Enthronement of the Davidic King 2; 89; 110Scholars who have sought to reconstruct Sukkot on the basis of ANE parallels and the Psalmshave argued that it included a procession in which the Ark of the Covenant would be broughtto the Temple and that this festival would celebrate the present King through a ritualreenactment of his enthronement. One suggestion is that Israel also had, as part of its festival,the kings participation in ritual combat in which the king calls upon YHWH to deliverhim.312 Ps. 118 coheres well with such a setting given its liturgical and processional overtones310. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995),21-22311. Not all scholars are in agreement. Some caution is necessary as there is no explicit mention of such afestival anywhere in the OT, and one would perhaps expect the prophets to critique such an enthronementfestival if it did exist, especially when they condemn other festivals and religious activities. A full explorationcannot be given here although the discussion is pursued in greater detail within the following two books. E. J.Young Book of Isaiah: Vol. I, Chapters 1-18 (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1965) , Appendix III The Festival ofEnthronement offers a critique of the festival. Likewise the prizewinning Allan Rosengren Peterson The RoyalGod: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), criticallytests Mowinckels hypothesis by a full examination of Psalms and the Ugaritic Baal-Cycle. In Petersonsanalysis Mowinckels hypothesis is to be rejected due the circularity of his argument and that scholarship has tooeasily transferred Babylonian customs to other contexts with little basis in the relevant texts.312. In Babylon the king would be humiliated and reinstated as king every year before the god Marduk.Divested of insignia, buffeted, dragged by the ears to bow low before the symbol of the god, he had to recite aprotestation of right conduct before being re-invested and given favourable oracles. Eaton, The Psalms: AHistorical and Spiritual Commentary (2005), 24. 106
  • 107. of a Davidic king who is vindicated despite conflict and makes his way to the temple.313During the exile Sukkot could no longer be celebrated in the same way and even when theTemple was rebuilt the Ark or a Davidic Monarch could not be used as part of the liturgy orprocession.314 Does this mean that the above discussion is irrelevant for understanding thesignificance of Sukkot in the Second Temple Period? The answer to this question isessentially negative for the pre-exilic context provides the tradition in which the liturgicalpractice of Second Temple liturgy and theology developed. The liturgical traditions of the cultof Solomons Temple would continue to have an enduring significance for the Jewish peopleeven after the exile. The Pre-Exilic autumnal festival would no doubt form part of thecultural, religious and social memory of the Jewish people and would be passed on fromgeneration to generation.315 The presence of the Autumnal festival Psalms within the Second313. An extended footnote by Eaton demonstrates how such a reconstruction takes place. (The Psalms arementioned in brackets.) The King as anointed chief minister of Yahweh faces rebellious princes, prepares for war, and warns them of Yahwehs judgement (75; 2; 20). As the struggle begins, the king beseeches Yahweh to save him from the assailing death-powers, so that he can accomplish the festal celebration of Yahweh and health and plenty may come to all his society (144). But the enemies have their hour of apparent triumph. the king is bereft of his symbols of office and pleads for help, with all the resources of skilful intercession, stressing Yahwehs promises, his own role as witness to Yahwehs fidelity (89) and his righteous rule (101). Still deeper he sinks into the death-sphere; the chief resource of his plea now is the pathos of his lament, depicting the horrors of death which envelop him; but he also pointedly pictures the mockery over the man of Yahwehs favour (22A). From this extremity he is rescued and so rehabilitated at the centre of the festal conation, feasting and celebrating the new power of Gods kingship (22B), testifying to the Shepherd who proved stronger than the grim shepherd of the death-valley (23; cf. 49.15). He has been led in joyful procession up the sacred way that was symbolic of salvation, through the Temple gates and around the altar in the court (118). His hymns look back to his deliverance, recounting how Yahweh came riding on a cherub to take him from the power of the underworld (18) or how by invocation of the name of Yahweh he cut down all his enemies (118). He had been brought to the lowest state, a worm, no longer a man (22); he had been like a stone despised and cast aside by the builders (118). But he was now exalted to the head of the nations (18), the chief stone holding firm the whole structure of society (118). So he is set beside Yahwehs own seat on Zion, his chief priest and strong ruler for ever and ever (110), established in the glory and shelter of the most High, guarded by his angels of protection (91; 121). Mediator of Yahwehs judgements, he will bring peace and plenty to his society (72). Better than the costliest sacrifices, he has offered himself; he bears Yahwehs law in his very heart and indeed carries a scroll of Yahwehs covenant on his person (40A). He announces to the congregation of the humble the gospel of the festival: Yahweh has triumphed, Yahweh has come King; Yahweh has saved his Anointed; wrongs will be righted; the earth will flourish.Eaton, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah (1979), 25-26.314. The exception to this general rule is Zerubbabel who stands within the Davidic line and participated in theresumption of the sacrificial cult which occurred at the time Sukkot. Ezra 3.1-6. Although he was of Davidicstock he merely functioned as a governor of the persian province of Yehud.315. Yet the symbolism of the temple far outlives the fleeting empire in which it was built. The crisis of 586B.C. did not diminish the standing of the temple in the collective Israelite psyche, even though the nation wouldnever again see such a golden age. In the exile and beyond, the temple inspired the reunited Jews and animatedmany visions of the future. J. M. Monson, “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem” in eds. Hess & 107
  • 108. Temple Psalter are suggestive of the view that the traditions of the autumnal enthronementceremony would remain active and the constant use of these Psalms in liturgical worshipwould encourage such sacred memory. Adding to this we may also note that a significantnumber of Jews were not at all happy with the rebuilt Temple and this likely reinforced thememory of Solomons temple and the traditions associated with it.316 It is possible that the useof Ps. 118 in the first century generally, and its use in Mark specifically, could evoke thesacred autumnal festival traditions which recall the arrival of both the Davidic King andYHWH himself to Zion. b) Ps. 118 and the Post-Exilic Feast of Tabernacles With the return of the exiles and the rebuilding of the Temple the Feast of Sukkot was celebrated again as part of the temple cult (Ezra 3.1-6) and continued until the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. The most thorough study relating to practice of the feast of tabernacles in Second Temple Judaism is Sukkot by the Jewish scholar Rubenstein.317 Whilst much of Rubensteins discussion is useful, one major of area of disagreement surrounds the question as to whether Sukkot had eschatological significance. In several places Rubenstein fails to recognise that in Second Temple Judaism the feast of Sukkot had eschatological and messianic associations.318 Before dealing with the issue of (iii) the eschatological significance of Sukkot we will summarise the general thrust of Rubensteins study in regards to the celebration of Sukkot in the Second Temple Period.In Second Temple Judaism Sukkot was considered especially sacred and important by theHebrews (Josephus Ant. 8.100) and was to be observed with special care (Josephus Ant.15.50). It was observed in accordance with the ancient liturgical calendar and lasted seven orWenham Zion City of Our God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 22.316. Nicholas Perrins recent study offers a brief study of both the Psalms of Solomon and the Qumran sects. Itdemonstrates that some Jews considered the Second Temple as being defiled and that they looked for a neweschatological temple to replace it. They did not abandon a temple theology but likely looked back to theSolomonic glory days and transferred this into an eschatological hope which included a Davidic messiah figurerebuilding the temple. N. Perrin, Jesus the Temple, (London: SPCK, 2010), 21-37.317. H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles,(Tubingen: Mohr, 1998); K. W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts, (Tubingen: Mohr, 2004); Rubenstein, The History of Sukkotin the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995).318. ibid., 87 fn. 140. Zech. 14 indicates that Sukkot was the temple festival par excellence, not that it possessedeschatological significance, 108
  • 109. eight days, beginning on the seventh month.319 As part of this festival a procession would takeplace led by the high priest and ending up in the Temple.320 It involved magnificentpageantry....the high priest became the centre of attention and admiration as large crowdswatched him perform elaborate festival rites.321 It was a festival of great joy (Jub. 16.28-31;32.18-20) whereby one celebrated the harvest of the previous year and, through participation,guaranteed the next.322 As part of this ceremony the pilgrims would live in sukkot/booths323,offer sacrifices324 and the ritual involving the four organic objects (Lev. 23.40) was widelyobserved. 325According to Rabbinic tradition the Hallel psalms, of which Ps. 118 is part, were recited eachday of the festival. The recitation of the Hallel psalms and the rejoicing are for eight days(m. Sukk. 4.1; 4.8) and, in particular, Ps. 118 was recited (sung) during the procession to thealtar. This procession involves pilgrims carrying willows and waving palm branches.326 In thescholarly literature this is referred to as the willow procession. The following Rabbinicdiscussion indicates that a procession involving willows and palm branches would happeneach day: The religious requirement of the willow branch: How so? There was a place below Jerusalem, called Mosa. (People) go down there and gather young willow branches. They come and throw them along the sides of the altar with their heads bent over the altar. They blew on the shofar a sustained, a quavering, and a sustained note. Every day they walk around the altar one time and say Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord! We beseech thee, O Lord, send now prosperity (Ps. 118.25). R. Judah says, (They say), Ani waho, save us we pray! Ani Waho, save us we pray! And on that day [seventh] they walk around the altar seven times. (m. Sukk. 4.5)327319. See Macc., 1.9; 2 Macc. 1.1-2.18; 2 Macc. 10.5-8; Philo Special Laws 2.202-214, Josephus Ant. 3.244-47.320. Josephus Ant. 13.242, 13.303-308, 13.372; 15.51; 1 Macc. 10.21.321. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995), 100.322. And celebrate for me the festival of booth, and you will take for me the beautiful branch of the tree and thepalm branch and the willow and the cedar and branches of myrtle. And I will remember the whole earth withrain, and the measure of the seasons will be established, and I will fix the stars and command the clouds, and thewinds will resound, and lightening bolts will rush about, and there will be a thunderstorm. And this will be aneverlasting sign, and the nights will yield dew, (LAB. 13.7).323. Jub. 16.21, 29; Jub. 32; 11Q19 27.10-29.1, Philo Special Laws 2.202-214324. Josephus Ant. 3.244-47325. Jub. 16.30, 31; 2 Macc. 10.5-8; 4 Q502, LAB 13.7; Josephus Ant. 3.244-47, Rev. 7.9; Plutarch I Authors1.557-58.326. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995), 55.327. Cited in Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the 109
  • 110. Elsewhere, the Mishnah preserves a debate between the Rabbinic schools of Hillel andShammai which associates Ps. 118 with the shaking of the lulab. 328From this discussion we can conceive that the whole of Ps. 118 was recited but that theexact moment for the shaking of the lulab was debated. Moreover, we see that pilgrimswere expected to carry their palm branch with them all day.We can be fairly confident that this Rabbinic tradition is authentic and refers back toSecond Temple times as it fits well with what can be gleaned from earlier Second Templetexts such as Jubilees. And Abraham took branches of palm trees and fruit of good trees and each day of the days he used to go around the alter with branches. Seven times per day, in the morning, he was praising and giving thanks to his God for all things. (Jub. 16.31)329Although Jubilees does not mention specifically that Ps. 118 was used, it does refer to asymbolic action which involved the waving of palm branches around the altar.The Septuagintal form of Ps. 117 (118) suggests that by the time of the translation it alreadyformed part of the liturgical framework of Sukkot. The Hebrew Bind the festival sacrificewith cords, up to the horns of the altar! is rendered in the 117:27 LXX as συστήσασθεἑορτὴν ἐν τοῖς πυκάζουσιν ἕως τῶν κεράτων τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου which may be translated asJoin the festival with those who cover the altar, or alternatively Join the festival with boughseven unto the horns of the altar.330 Whichever translation is followed this coheres with theclimax of the lulab-willow procession.Theology of John (2003), 38.328. And at what point [in the Hallel Pss., 113–118] did they shake [the lulab]?“At O give thanks unto the Lord(Ps. 118), beginning and end; and at, Save now, we beseech thee O Lord (Ps. 118.25),” the words of the Houseof Hillel. And the House of Shammai say, “Also: At, O Lord, we beseech, thee, send now prosperity (Ps.118.25).”Said R. Aqiba, “I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, for all the people waved their palmbranches, but they waved their palm branches only at, Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord (Ps. 118.25).”He whowas on a trip and had no lulab to carry—when he reaches home, should carry the lulab at his own table. [If] hedid not carry his lulab in the morning, he should carry it at dusk,for the entire day is a suitable time for the palmbranch. J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 285.329. See also 1 Macc. 13.51 and 2 Macc. 10.5-8.330. The first translation is my own and the second is Thackery. The translation differences hinge on how oneunderstands πυκάζουσιν. The lemma πυκάζω does not occur in the NT and appears only 4 times in the LXX(Job 15.32, Ps. 118.27, Hos. 14.8, 3 Macc. 4.5). It does not occur in the BDAG but according to Liddell andScott it means to wrap or cover. In Euripides Tragicus it means to deck with garlands. In my own translation it isdeliberately left more ambiguous as to how the altar is decorated. 110
  • 111. We may conclude from this discussion that Ps. 118 formed an important part of the Sukkot liturgy being used daily as part of the lulab procession which climaxed at the temple. c) The Eschatological Dimension of Sukkot As a festival Sukkot looked both to the past and to the future. It helped to reinforce sacred memory and foster a hope for a brighter future. The symbolic action and liturgy reflect back with thankfulness not only to the previous years harvest but also, by staying in booths, they identified themselves with their ancestors who were delivered from Egypt. As the pilgrims rejoiced in past provision they also hoped that the rains would come in the next year. Moreover, the festival came to be connected with their eschatological future in which the God of Israel would finally act to establish his kingdom, as the following points show. 1. Within the scriptures of Israel and intertestamental literature Sukkot is often portrayed as a time when eschatological visions occur. The prophetic oracle, Hag. 2.1-9, happens on the penultimate day of the feast of tabernacles331 and speaks of a coming Davidic King ( Zerubbabel), the shaking of the heavens, the gathering of the nations (v. 7) and the rebuilding of the temple (v. 9). In 1 Enoch 60.1 we have a vision of eschatological judgement which is dated to the feast of Tabernacles. This passage also suggests that the day of judgement will be on the same day as the vision, that is at the time of Sukkot.3322. In the apocalyptic vision of Zech. 14 we see that the future eschatological battle will result in the the survivors of the nations, that is non-Jews, taking part in the feast of Tabernacles. Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. (14.16)333331. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (2004), 117.332. 1 Enoch 60.1 This day of mercy has lasted until today, and he has been merciful and long suffering towardsthose that dwell upon the earth. And when this day arrives-and the power, the punishment and the judgment,which the Lord of the Spirits has prepared for those who do not worship the righteous judgement, for those whodeny the righteous judgement, and for those who take his name in vain-it will become a day of covenant for theelect and the inquisition of sinners.333. Zech. 14 develops the link further in two ways. Firstly, Zechariah describes the eschatological age as beingan age of continuous light (14.7) which corresponds to the dominant motif of light which is found in the feast of 111
  • 112. The celebration of the feast in the present would then be viewed as a foretaste of the eschatological Sukkot. Given this it is not surprising that in b. Zech. 14 is said to have been the set reading for day one or two of the Sukkot.334 If this tradition stems back to actual practice in Second Temple worship then it reinforces the eschatological focus of the feast for pilgrims. 3. During Sukkot pilgrims would live in booths in memory of the flight from Egypt. As we saw in the previous chapter, the prophetic and eschatological hope for the future was often shaped by hopes of a NE. Therefore Sukkot, like Pesah, gained an eschatological focus as it was celebrated at a time when Israel, in a very real sense, considered themselves to still be living in exile. 4. In the book of Revelation which, although Christian, remains thoroughly steeped in the Jewish worldview, the seer is granted a heavenly vision in which the nations worship God and the Lamb (Rev. 7.9-17). The worshippers are those who have come through the eschatological tribulation. What is interesting, although implicit, is that this worship is to be understood within the context of Sukkot.335 Like Sukkot the worshippers carry palm branches (7.9) and cry σωτηρία (7.10) in the heavenly temple, which corresponds to the feast of Sukkot when words of Ps. 118.25 are being spoken around the altar whilst the lulab is shaken. In Rev. 7.15 the hope is that God will shelter (σκηνόω) his people with his presence which evokes the image of the booths used in the feast of tabernacles. Furthermore, the promise is that the worshippers will never hunger and thirst, correlating with the hope that participation in Sukkot will guarantee the next years harvest. 5. As previously discussed the lulab and the etrog, that is palm branches and fruit, were key festival symbols. It is unsurprising then that these symbols are used in the Jewish art of that period and can be found upon a number of Jewish objects such as oiltabernacles. Secondly, the eschatological age will involve a river flowing out of Jerusalem (14.8, see also Ezek.47) which corresponds to tabernacles as an autumnal festival which specifically asks God to make a judgementabout rain and fertility. If these links are grounded it suggests that some Jews may have seen the festival oftabernacles as a foretaste of the eschatological reality. Additional and more technical arguments are made by C.L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1993), 501; Weyde, The AppointedFestivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts(2004), 210-315.334. b. Meg. 31a.335. H. Ulfgard, “Feast and Future: Revelation 7: 9-17 and the Feast of Tabernacles.” (1989): 180-86. 112
  • 113. lamps and synagogue mosaics.336 Rubenstein concludes, Exactly what this means― other than that the lulab was a popular symbol―is difficult to determine.337 However, we can note two items upon which the lulab and the etrog appear which suggest that they had eschatological significance. Firstly, these chief symbols of the Sukkot appear on coins during the two Jewish revolts (66-70 AD, 132-135 AD). During the first Jewish war the lulab and the etrog appear on coins dated year four (69-70 AD) alongside the slogan Redemption of Zion. We know, from Josephus, that eschatological and apocalyptic hopes were high so it seems likely that their coins and the symbols on them represent and reinforce such a view. The second Jewish war revolved around the Messianic hope in the person of Bar-Kochbah. Jewish coins printed at that time also contain the lulab and the etrog, although at times they appear alongside other temple symbols such as trumpets, lyre and temple facade. For Rubenstein the symbols on these coins do not necessarily express hopes of victory, political independence and the rebuilding of the temple. However, this appears to be exactly the case for the coins sought to reflect and reinforce the eschatological hope that God would at last act to restore Israel and the Temple. Secondly, the lulab and the etrog also appear on sarcophagi and tombs. It is possible that these symbols simply represent that the deceased is part of the Jewish community. More likely, however, is that they symbolically represented an eschatological hope of future resurrection, a resurrection which would occur in the eschaton when YHWH acts to redeem his people, defeat his enemies, and bring in a (messianic) age of prosperity and shalom.338 6. According to Rabbinic tradition Ps. 118, which as we have seen is an integral part of the liturgy of Sukkot, came to be associated with the the last judgement (Midr. Ps.336. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995), 99.337. Ibid., 99.338. In agreement with N. T. Wright that the resurrection was intimately bound up with the end-time hope thatone day God would act to restore his people and renew creation. Of resurrection he writes The language ofawakening is not a new, exciting way of talking about sleep. It is a way of saying that a time will come whensleepers will sleep no more. Creation, itself, celebrated throughout the Hebrew scriptures, will be reaffirmed,remade. The national element in this hope is never abandoned; the promise remains. ...the meanings of bodilyresurrection for dead humans and national restoration for exiled/suffering Israel are so closely intertwined thatit does not matter that we cannot always tell which is meant, or even if a distinction is possible, in relation toparticular passages; that is part of the point. The intertwining adds to the robustness of the emerging belief. Theidea of resurrection was not an apocalyptic invention, intruding into an otherwise easy progression towards aspiritual hope. The Resurrection of the Son of God, (London: SPCK, 2003),128,124. 113
  • 114. 118.10), eschatological war (Midr. Ps. 118.12), Messianic Salvation (Pesiq. Rab. 36.1) and the restoration of Jerusalem (Lev. Rab. 37.4).339 (3) ConclusionPs. 118 is a liturgical text which found a home within the Second Temple Psalter. In pre-exilictimes it may have been used as part of an autumnal festival which has links with the Exodusand the Davidic monarchy. Ps. 118 describes the arrival and vindication of a Davidic Warriorat the temple after he had been involved in conflict. In the latter Second Temple period, forwhich we have more primary data, Ps. 118 is particularly associated with a procession withwillows and palm lulabs which reaches its climax in the temple. It has also been establishedthat the festival of Sukkot fuelled messianic and eschatological hopes for many Jews of thefirst century. (iii) Zech. 9.9-10Of the three texts under discussion Zech. 9.9-10 is the most problematic in at least two ways.Firstly, (a) the length and genre, in the light of competing views, needs to be discussed indetail. Secondly, (b) once we have established the length and genre of the passage it isnecessary to offer an overview of its main theological themes. Thirdly, we will be proposing areading of Zech. 9.9-11 which is virtually unknown amongst NT exegetes and commentators,for we will be (c) arguing that the the King is to be seen as both Davidic and divine and thathe partakes, in some sense, in the identity of the one God of Israel. (1) Length and Genre of the UnitZech. 9.9-10 may be understood as part of a larger unit which begins at verse 1 and continuesto verse 17. The literary unit is shown to begin at 9.1 due to the the use of the phrase burden/oracle of the Lord ( ֙‫/ מַשּׂא דְ בַר־י ְהוָה‬Λῆµµα λόγου κυρίου) which appears again in 12.1 and ָ֤Mal. 1.1 functioning as a literary marker to designate distinct blocks of material.340 The339. Watts, “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel” (2004), 31.340. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (1993), 32; Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (2004), 41-42; P. D. Hanson, 114
  • 115. imperatival use of ask (‫ ,שׁאֲלוּ‬αἰτέω) suggests that 10.1 is the start of a new unit, thereby ַsuggesting that 9.1-17 is a literary unit. As part of the book of Zechariah, and morespecifically Zech. 9.9-14, the prophet writes from a post-exilic situation.In regards to genre we may understand 9.1-17 as a DW hymn. It was Paul D. Hanson whofirst pointed out the similarities between 9.1-17 and other DW hymns. He concluded, thatwhen: The chapter is seen against the background of the ritual conquest and royal procession traditions upon which early apocalyptic literature drew so heavily, a beautifully developed poetic unit is recognized which allows no division.341In order to arrive at this position Hanson compared the structure of Zech. 9 with that of otherDW hymns in the scriptures of Israel such as Exod. 15, Psalms342, Isaiah343 and found a greatdeal of similarity. For, despite some variations within the form DW hymns, all reflect asimilar structure by which an enemy is defeated, a procession takes place, and YHWHs reignis made manifest. By way of example we see that Ps. 48 offers the following themes. Verse 5: Threat: Kings assemble against Zion Verses 6-8: Combat-Victory over the enemy Verse 9: Salvation of Zion. Verses 10-12: Victory Shout Verses 13-14: Procession around city Verse 15: Yahwehs universal reignZech. 9.1-17 breaks down into the following thematic structures, each of which has someparallel in other DW hymns. Verses 1-7: Conflict-Victory Verse 8: Temple Secured Verse 9: Victory Shout and Procession Verse 10: Manifestation of Yahwehs universal reign Verses 11-13: Salvation: Captives released Verse 14: Theophany of the DW Verse 15: Sacrifice and BanquetThe Dawn of the Apocalyptic, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 292-293.341. Hanson, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic (1975), 295. See also P. D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and theRecapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern” JBL 92 (1973): 37-59.342. Pss. 2, 9, 24, 29, 46, 47, 48, 65, 68, 76, 77.17-21, 89b, 97, 98, 104, 106.9-13, 110.343. Isa. 11.1-9, 24-25, 34-35, 42.10-16, 43.16-21, 51.9-11, 52.7-12, 34-35. 115
  • 116. Verses 16-17: Fertility of the Restored OrderIn agreement with the conclusions of Hanson we may state that Zech. 9.9-10 is part of alarger poetic unit which may be described in its totality as a DW hymn. (2) An Overview of Zech. 9Zech. 9 is not an unrelated compendium of short oracles but it has, in its final form, its ownlogic and narrative substructure. It is helpful to examine Zech. 9.1-17 under the followingthree headings: (i) The Defeat of the Enemy, (ii) The King in Zion, (iii) The Restoration ofthe People. a) The Defeat of the EnemyThe oracle begins with a description of the God of Israel taking action as DW against anumber of cities. The geographical location and names of these cities are of significance forthey represent the traditional enemies of Israel and the boundary marker of idealised Israel.344Although some have argued that they actually have a historical referent and refer to politicalevents contemporaneous to the prophet, we must insist that what is presented is an idealisedfuture, a future which no-one, even up until the first century, could really claim had beenachieved. Meyers & Meyers write that the ideal future represented by the toponymicspecificity of Zech. 9 is based on expectations shaped by tradition rather than contemporaryreality.345This idealised Israel appears to include all twelve tribes (9.1), and the reference to theJebusites links this holy war with the actions of David (2 Sam. 5.6-9; 1 Chron. 11.4-9).YHWH moves systematically against these cities in a destructive march towards Zion inwhich he strips, strikes down and devours the northern opponents of Hadrach, Damascus,Tyre and Sidon (1.4). He then moves south to either defeat and subdue enemy cities or absorbthem into the new kingdom that is being established. Arriving at Zion the Lord takes up344. It is the area that the visionaries believed would be restored to the faithful on the day of Yahwehs conqueston behalf of his people. The borders of that area are not arbitrarily set, but outline what ancient Israelites held tobe the ideal kingdom of the Jews. Hanson, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic (1975), 317.345. Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (1993), 93. 116
  • 117. residence in the Temple, which presumably has previously stood empty, and stands guardover his people (1.8). b) ZionIn verses 1-8 the identity of the warrior figure is undoubtedly the one God of Israel. In verses9-10 a kings arrival to the city is mentioned. This coming king, who rides on a donkey, isdescribed as your king (‫ /מלכְּך ָי֣בוֹא לְך‬ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι) which suggests that this ָ֔ ֙ ֵ ְ ַking is he whom the inhabitants were expecting and that he comes as a friend rather than foe.Whoever this king is he speaks peace to the nations because YHWH has cut off the weaponsof war (9.10), and his reign will spread from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of theearth ( 9.10). The reign of the King is only possible because of the prior defeat of the enemyby YHWH. The question remains as to the identity of this king who is welcomed by theinhabitants. We will return to the question shortly after discussing the remaining part of theoracle (9.11-17). c) Restoration of the PeopleThe return of the King to Zion (11-17) brings with it a number of eschatological benefits,including freedom for prisoners through the blood of the covenant. This phrase is also foundwithin Exod. 24.3 in reference to the mosaic covenant. Perhaps this moment of liberationfrom the eschatological enemy parallels the deliverance and covenant loyalty of YHWH inthe first exodus. These ex-prisoners, now liberated, are transformed by God into a weapon bywhich their enemies will be defeated (9.13). The oracle, in which God speaks in the firstperson from 9.7-9.13, now shifts to the third person (9.14). Although the people are turnedinto weapons it is YHWH himself as DW who will fight alongside his people and protectthem. It is unclear as to whether the drinking and roaring refers to the devouring of the enemyor to a victory banquet. Either way what is presented is the obliteration of those who areenemies of God and his people.346 This day of victory is one in which YHWH will save his346. A. R. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah, (London:T&T Clark, 2009), 145-146. 117
  • 118. people and cause them to flourish in his land (9.16). It will bring about fertility in a landwhich was once cursed and exiled (9.17). d) SummaryThe larger literary context in which 9.9-10 is situated (9.1-17) is to be understood as a DWhymn which depicts a future conflict in which YHWH, as DW, defeats the enemy, liberatesand restores his people and ushers in the eschatological age. In the middle of this literary unitis the description of a king who rides on a donkey being welcomed and enthroned in Zion.We will now turn our attention more closely to the question of the identity of the King. (3) The Identity of the KingThe majority of OT scholars prefer a reading of the text in which the king is seen as being afuture Davidic monarch. In fact all NT scholars, of whom I am aware, who discuss the use ofZech. 9 in the NT take Zech. 9.9-10 to imply a Davidic king. R. T. France is not unusual insaying, this is a clearly messianic passage in Zechariah, and Zechariah specialists such asMeyers & Meyers, Boda and Petterson agree. 347Other scholars, such as Leske and Peterson, maintain that this passage is not to be understoodas supporting messianic expectation but, instead, as the promotion of the democratisation ofkingship in which the the king is understood as the faithful people of Judah. Peterson writes,347. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 429. A similar view is found in the following studies: Meyers andMeyers, Zechariah 9-14 (1993). See also C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “The Future Fortunes of the House ofDavid: The Evidence of Second Zechariah” in eds. Beck et al. Fortunate The Eyes That See: Essays in Honor ofDavid Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 207-22.; M.J. Boda, “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and the Messiah” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments,ed. S. E. Porter. 2007), 35-74; Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (2004); Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for theHouse of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009), 135-142; A number of scholars, including Peterson, suggestthat Hanson does not hold to this view. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in theBook of Zechariah (2009), 136 fn 29. However, on closer inspection we see that Hanson, although stressing therole of the DW, also considers that it shows an anointed ruler who is celebrated alongside the divine king.(Assuming of course that alongside means in addition to) .See Hanson, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic (1975),320. All Markan scholars, whom I am aware of, follow such a reading as well as Boda, “Figuring the Future:The Prophets and the Messiah” (2007), 69-65; Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (1995), 215-217; I.Duguid, “Messianic Themes in Zechariah 9-14” in eds. Satterthwaite, Hess & Wenham, The Lord’s Anointed(Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 265-80. 118
  • 119. This is no standard royal or messianic expectation, the return of a real or ideal David... instead the poet focuses on collectivities, addressed through the technique of personification.348A further view, but more marginal, is that the King is to be understood as God himself.Joachim Becker, as an early proponent of this view, writes, In the broader context (Zech. 9-14) there is no reference to an earthly king to be found; rather, the kingship of Yahweh is emphasized. In my opinion, Yahweh appears in Zech. 9-9-10 in the guise of the earthly king. The kingship is thus transferred not to the nation but to Yahweh. 349The view taken in this study is that the King of Zech. 14 is indeed to be identified with aDavidic Messiah figure. However, as the following study shows, this figure is portrayedby the author as sharing in the identity of the one God of Israel. If we remindourselves,—see section entitled The Divine Identity of the Messiah—, that a divineking ideology from an earlier period of Israels history remained an active part of itsmessianic hope we will be prepared to accept, on the basis of the evidence below, thatthis King, although separate from YHWH the one God of Israel, shares in his divineidentity. In what follows we will discuss, in turn, the (i) Human-Davidic King and (ii)the Divine King, and then seek to bring them together in a discussion of the (iii) DivineDavidic King. a) Human-Davidic King i) Messianic Hope in Zech. 1-8 and 10-14There are a number of different arguments and hermeneutical strategies which can be putforward in order to clarify the identity of the king. One of these is to recognise that Zech.9.1-17, although a separate literary unit, is part of a larger work known as Zechariah. In orderto understand 9.9-11 it is important that we have our eye on Zechariah as a whole. AlthoughZech. 1-8 may have been written before and separately to Zech. 9-14 it is important that wepay attention to the canonical final form whereby we allow earlier chapters to shape ourreading of the the later chapters.350348. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009), 59 but seeespecially A. M. Leske, “Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9” CBQ 62:4 (2000): 663-78.349. J. Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), 72-73. The authorof this thesis was first introduced to this as a possible interpretation in a paper presented by Wolter Rose entitledThe Identity of the King in the Book of Zechariah at Tyndale Biblical Theology Study Group, July 7-9th 2010.350. As Brevard Childs says, 119
  • 120. If it can be demonstrated that Zechariah has no interest in Davidic kingship then it weakensthe case for understanding the identity of the king in Zech. 9.9-10 as being a Davidic figure.In fact, the opposite is true and a number of passages through Zech. 1-14 may be understoodas pointing to a future Davidic figure. 1) Zech. 1-8Zech. 1-8 includes the expectation of a Davidic figure by whom the eschatological templewill be built and would usher in an age of peace and prosperity. There is some debate withinscholarly circles as to whether this Davidic figure is understood as being Zerubbabel (Zech.4.1-10; Hag. 2.2-23), a grandson of Jehoiachim and in the line of King David who, alongsideJoshua the high priest (3.1-7), would usher in the eschatological age in which the Templewould be rebuilt (4.1-10), exiles would return, YHWHs presence would return and peace andprosperity would abound.351 One key aspect of the Davidic hope in 1-8 is the shoot ( ‫ ,) צמח‬afigure who appears in 3.8 and 6.12. From a canonical perspective ‫ צמח‬should be understoodas a Davidic king given the intertextual parallels in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Jeremiah23.5 and 33.15 look to a future whereby a ‫ צמח‬will descend from the line of David who willreign as King. Sharing a common metaphor, but different terminology, Isaiah looks to aDavidic shoot (‫/)חטר‬root (‫( )שׁרשׁ‬Isa. 11.1-10) who YHWH will use to bring about the returnfrom exile and a period of eschatological shalom. The Davidic identity of this figure in Isaiahis beyond dispute as he is described as being the root of Jesse (Isa. 11.10).352Some scholars understand the identity of ‫ צמח‬in Zechariah as Zerubbabel. Mowinckel writes, It is important to recognize that the editorial joining of the two parts of Zechariah not only serves to alter the reading of the first chapters in terms of the last, but the reverse dynamic is also set in motion. The presence of Proto-Zechariah significantly affected how the community heard the message of the last chapters. Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 484. For a full discussion of therelationship between 9-14 and 1-8 see pp. 482-485. See also R. L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi, (Dallas: Word, 2002), 242 who highlights the similarities between 1-8 and 9-14.351. Anthony Petterson identifies three scholarly views concerning the shape of the Davidic hope in the book ofZechariah. There are those who see (a) the Davidic hope recast in the light of the failure of Zerubbabel, (b)thosewho see no hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty in Zerubbabels day or beyond him; (c) those who donot think that Zerubbabel was ever seen as the promised future king, but there was clear hope for the restorationof a Davidic king beyond him. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book ofZechariah (2009), 13.352. Ezek. 17.22-24 also shares in this motif. 120
  • 121. Zechariah announces that he is semaḥ, the Branch, the Rod, which has shot up again from the stump of Davids fallen family tree.... Zerubbabel will be king over the restored Jerusalem.353However, in agreement with Petterson, we must state that it is unlikely that any ancientreader of the final form of this text would associate the fulfilment of the eschatologicalpromise of Zech. 3.8 and 6.12 with Zerubbabel. Whilst it is true that the Temple wascompleted under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 516 B.C (Ezra 3.8; 4.2; 5.2; Sir. 49.11-12)this did not in any way match up to the eschatological promise whereby exiles return, thecovenant curse is fully removed and material prosperity abounds (3.10). Moreover, theTemple itself failed to live up to expectation: many wept when comparing it to Solomonstemple (Ezra 3.12-13), no mention is made of a manifestation of YHWHs presence (comparewith 2 Chron. 7.1ff) and the last book of the twelve, Malachi, suggests that the temple cultneeds purification (Mal. 6.6-14). In the light of the failure of Zerubbabel to fulfil the hope ofbeing the ‫ ,צמח‬the vocation of the Davidic branch would still be vacant and the hopes, whichat one time may have been imminent, would have been transferred to a future figure.354 Itwould also seem that by the time of the final form of Zechariah the imminency of theeschaton has been countered by a recognition that, as Boda puts it, the conditions are not yetripe for the realization of the restoration to its fullness.355It can be concluded, then, that Zech. 1-8 does present to the reader a future hope in which aDavidic figure will take his part in the restoration of Israel. It would not be inappropriate tosay that this is messianic despite the fact that the word messiah is not used.353. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, (GrandRapids/Dearborn: Eerdmans, 2005), 120-121, as seemingly shared by Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (2004),338-339. For a full discussion see Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book ofZechariah (2009),13-45 and W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectation in the Early PostexilicPeriod, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 130-134.354. A similar view can be taken of the enthronement Psalms. Although not initially messianic and used forenthronement of a Davidic king, they would have taken on a new messianic significance during the exile. Thispoint is well made by Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings” (2007), 17-20. Indiscussion of Ps. 2 he writes For those who were utterly convinced that God would not lie or deceive, theywould come to believe that the psalm did more than describe present realities.The fact was, as is often pointedout, that even David and other faithful kings never really fit the picture of the world dominating king of Ps. 2.This would allow for understanding that Ps. 2 was not being understood in a completely new way, but rather thatthe later audience was now discerning the deeper meaning of the poem.355. Boda, “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and the Messiah” (2007), 57. See also Petterson, Behold YourKing: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009), 114-128. 121
  • 122. 2) Zech. 11-14Chapters 11-14 also make mention of Davidic leadership. Zech. 10.3-4 provides an indirectreference to a future Davidic King for from the house of Judah will come a cornerstone(‫ ,)פנָּה‬a word which is used elsewhere to refer to leadership.356 Further support for a kingship ִreading of ‫ פנָּה‬is to be found in the very next line which makes mention of a tent peg (‫)יתד‬ ִcoming from the house of Judah. In Isa. 22.23 this also has an association with royalleadership.357On a more explicit level the house of David is mentioned four times in Zech. 12.7-12 (v. 7-8,10, 12) which, if composed at a time when there was no king in Yehud and the hopes ofZerubbabel have been shattered, can only be explained as a future projection that the house ofDavid would one day be restored. Zech. 13.1 also clearly refers to the house of David andlooks to a time when this royal kingship shall be pure and function as true covenant partners(2 Sam. 7; 2 Chron. 7.17-18).358 ii) Allusions to Ps. 72Another reason why modern scholars and ancient readers would view the King as beingDavidic can be found within the intertextual parallel between Zech. 9.10 and Ps. 72.7.356. Judg. 20.2; 1 Sam. 14.38; Isa. 19.13; Ps. 118.22357. This argument is developed by Meyers and Meyers, “The Future Fortunes of the House of David: TheEvidence of Second Zechariah” (1995), 214-215. See also R. Mason, “The Use of Earlier Material in Zechariah9-14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis” in eds. Boda et al. Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion(New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 79-80 who discusses the intertextual links with Ps. 118 and Isa. 22. See alsoKaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (1995), 218-220.358. We have excluded from our discussion messianic potential of the rejected Good shepherd Zech 11:4.4-14and the smitten companion of the Lord (13.7) See Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (1995), 220-227and Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009), 149-245.This will be picked up in the final chapter of this thesis. Other articles relating to the Davidic hope in Zechariahinclude P. L. Reddit, “The King in Haggai-Zechariah 1-8 and the Book of the Twelve” in eds. Boda et al.Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (New York: T&TClark, 2008), 56-82. and A. R. Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope in the Book of the Twelve” JSTOT35.2 (2010): 225-46. which each seeks to look at the role of the house of David in relation to Zechariah in theBook of the Twelve. Petterson writes This strongly suggests that those who compiled the Twelve sought topreserve a robust hope for a future king from the house of David, rather than overturning or muting these earlierhopes. Indeed, if the Twelve is viewed as a coherent whole, the Davidic hope that is present at significant andconsistent points across the collection amply fills any supposed ‘vacuum’. These studies are a timely reminder,particularly to NT scholars, that Zechariah is itself part of a larger unit which may have been viewed as acoherent whole by Second Temple Jews. 122
  • 123. Zech. 9.10 Ps. 72.8 his rule shall be from sea to sea, 8 May he have dominion from sea to and from the River to the ends of sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. (ESV) the earth! ‫וּמשְׁלוֹ מיּ ָם עַד־י ָם וּמנָּהָר‬ ִ ִ ָ ‫וי ֵרדְּ מיּ ָם עַד־י ָם וּמנָּהָר‬ ִ ִ ְ ְ ‫עַד־אַפסֵי־אָרץ׃‬ ֶ ְ ‫עַד־אַפסֵי־אָרץ׃‬ ֶ ְ καὶ κατάρξει ἕως καὶ κατακυριεύσει ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἕως ὑδάτων θαλάσσης καὶ ποταµῶν διεκβολὰς θαλάσσης καὶ ἀπὸ ποταµοῦ ἕως γῆς Zech. 9.10 LXX περάτων τῆς οἰκουµένης. Ps. 71.8 LXXZech. 9.10 quotes Ps. 72.8 almost literally. ‫ וּמשְׁלוֹ‬is being used instead of the jussive form ְ‫ויֵרדּ‬ ָ ְ ְthereby emphasising the predictive and futuristic focus of the text. In its original setting Ps.72 may well have been used in the enthronement of a King of Davidic lineage or as part ofthe autumnal festival of Tabernacles. This Psalm, however, alongside other royal psalmscame to be understood messiancly with the decline and disappearance of the DavidicKingship.359 Readers familiar with Ps. 72 seeking to interpret scripture in the light of scripturewould likely see the King of Zech. 9.9-10 as a Davidic and messianic figure. iii) Relationship to Gen. 49.10-11Another reason for viewing the king as a human messianic figure is that the text appears todraw on Gen. 49.10-11 which reads,359. For further discussion see. K. M. Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72” in eds. Satterthwaite, Hess &Wenham, The Lord’s Anointed (Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 223-48. As Heim notes, it is interesting that Ps. 72:8has an intertextual connection to Exod. 23.31 which thereby connects and transforms and develops the hope ofthe Exodus (land of Sea of Reeds, Desert, to Sea of the Philistines and the Euphrates) to something morecosmic in scope (sea to sea, river to ends of earth). 123
  • 124. Binding his foal ( ‫ )עִיר ֹה‬to the vine and his donkey’s colt ( ‫ ) בּנִי אֲת ֹנוֹ‬to the choice vine, ְ he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes. (Gen. 49.10–11)In Zech. 9 the mount of the king is described in similar terms, he will come riding on adonkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (ִ ‫ .063)עַל־חֲמוֹר ועַל־עי‬Gen. 49.10-11, as we discussed ַ ְearlier, was read messianically by many Jews.361On the basis of the role of the Davidic King in Zechariah and intertextual allusions to otherDavidic/messianic passages we may conclude that the King of Zech. 9.9-10 would beunderstood by some Jewish readers as pointing towards the arrival of a Davidic-Messianicfigure. 362 b) Divine KingWhilst the above evidence strongly suggests that Zech. 9.9-10 refers to a Davidic figure it canalso be maintained, through (i) intratextual and (ii) intertextual considerations that this figureshares in the identity of the one God of Israel.360. See Duguid, “Messianic Themes in Zechariah 9-14” (1995), 266-267.361. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (1995), 50-53; Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in theLaw and Writings” (2007), 24-26; Alexander, “Messianic Ideology in the Book Of Genesis” (1995), 23-27. Thedifferences between the approaches of Kaiser and Alexander on the one hand, and Longman on the other aretelling. For the former the text was always understood as being messianic, whereas for Longman the firstreaders would have associated this as finding fulfilment in David. As with Ps. 72, subsequent readers, especiallyafter the decline of the Davidic kingdom, would look to a future fulfilment in a messianic figure. For ourpurposes we need not be concerned about whether a passage was initially understood as messianic but ratherwhether it was understood messianically at the time of the composition of Zechariah and/or during the firstcentury.362. As with Petterson: These verses do not democratize the Davidic covenant, or reduce the significance of thehouse of David with respect to the coming of Yahweh. They speak of a key role of the king in Yahwehseschatological purposes for his people. This is not just any king; this is the Davdic king of propheticexpectation, the king who will be the agent of Yahweh. Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David inthe Book of Zechariah (2009), 142. 124
  • 125. i) Intratextual Reading of Zech. 9.9-10 1) ‫ מלך‬in Zech.Although hope for a future for the house of David is found in Zech. 1-8 and 9-14 the word‫ מלך‬is never used in Zechariah in regards to an heir of David. ‫ מלך‬appears nine times in thebook of Zechariah. Of these, four refer negatively to a pagan king (7.1; 9.5; 11.6; 14.5 ) and itis used once in reference to a geographical location (14.10). When used positively and in thecontext of eschatological redemption the sole referent is to God. And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one. .... Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. (Zech. 14.9; 14.16-17)363 2) Daughter of ZionZech. 9.9 begins rejoice greatly daughter of Zion. This phrase also appears in Zech. 2.14.364In Zech. 2.14 the people of Zion are urged to sing and rejoice for YHWH is coming to dwellwith them. This parallels 9.9 in which Zion is called to rejoice greatly at the arrival of the363. In 1QMXII we see that Zech. 9.9-10 is placed alongside Zech. 14 and refers to the action of the one god ofIsrael. Rejoice, Zion, passionately! Shine with jubilation, Jerusalem! Exult, all the cities of Judah! Open your gate[s] continuously so that the wealth of the nations can be brought to you! Their kings shall wait on you, all your oppressors lie prone before you, the dust [of your feet they shall lick. Daughter]s of my nation, shout with jubilant voice! Adorn yourselves with splendid finery! Rule over the king[dom of …]This shows that it is conceivable that some Jews saw Zech. 9.9-10 and Zech. 14 as referring to the action of theGod of Israel.364. Zech. 2.14 Zech. 9.9 ‫9גּילי מאֹד בַּת־צִיּוֹן הריעי בַּת י ְרוּשׁלם הנֵּה מלכְֵּך 41רנִּי ושׂמחי בַּת־צִיּוֹן כּי הנְנִי־בָא ושׁכנְתִּ י בְתוֹכְֵך‬ ַ ָ ְ ִ ִ ִ ְ ִ ְ ָ ְ ַ ִ ִ ַ ָ ִ ִָ ְ ִ ִ ‫יָבוֹא לְָך צַדִּ יק ונוֹשׁע הוּא ענִי ורֹכב עַל־חֲמוֹר נְאֻם־יהוה׃‬ ֵ ְ ָ ָ ְ ‫ועַל־עי ִר בֶּן־אֲת ֹנוֹת׃‬ ַ ְ 125
  • 126. king. There are three points of contact between these passages. Firstly, both stand in contextof judgement of the nations (2.8-10; 9.1-8), secondly, both are concerned with the presence ofYHWH in the midst of his people (2.10; 9.8) and thirdly, both note that some nations willjoin themselves to God and his people (2.11; 9.7).365 This intratextual reading suggests thatthe presence of the King (9.9-10) is intimately bound up with the presence of YHWH. ii) Intertextual ConsiderationsZeph. 3.14-17 offers an interesting parallel to Zech. 9.9-10 Zeph. 3.14–17 (ESV) Zech. 9.9–10 (ESV) 14 9 Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your O daughter of Jerusalem! king is coming to you; righteous and having 15 The Lord has taken away the judgments salvation is he, humble and mounted on a against you; he has cleared away your donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 enemies. The King of Israel, the Lord, is in I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and your midst; you shall never again fear evil. the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle 16 On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to weak. sea, and from the River to the ends of the 17 The Lord your God is in your midst, a earth. mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! declares the Lord. Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.365. Mason, “The Use of Earlier Material in Zechariah 9-14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis” (2003), 30.Also see Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009),135-136. 126
  • 127. Zeph. 3.14 Zech. 9.9 14 ‫רנִּי בַּת־צִיּוֹן הָריעוּ יִשְׂראֵל שׂמחִי ועלזִי בּכָל־לֵב בַּת‬ ְ ְ ָ ְ ְ ִ ָ ִ ָ ‫9גִּילִי מְא ֹד בַּת־צִיּוֹן הָריעִי בַּת י ְרוּשׁלם הנֵּה מלכְֵּך י ָבוֹא‬ ְ ַ ִ ִ ַ ָ ִ ‫י ְרוּשׁלםִ׃‬ ָ ָ ‫לְָך צַדִּ יק וְנוֹשָׁע הוּא ענִי וְרֹכֵב עַל־חֲמוֹר ועַל־עי ִר‬ ַ ְ ָ ‫בֶּן־אֲת ֹנוֹת׃‬The similarities of these passages should not go unnoticed. In both passages Jerusalem isreferred to as daughter of Zion and daughter of Jerusalem, a king is announced, and thereader is presented with an eschatological vision of the future whereby hope for the future isoffered. In Zephaniah the king is clearly YHWH. The close affinity between these two textssuggests that they are cut from the same eschatological fabric and that they mutuallyreinforce each other. Although we have described the relationship of these texts asintertextual it should be remembered that the twelve minor prophets never circulated inSecond Temple times as individual texts but were put together in the book of the twelve. Therelationship of the individual prophets is not exclusively intertextual but intratextual. Fromthe Gospel of John we do see evidence that Zech. 9.9-10 and Zeph. 3.14 could be placed sideby side. µὴ φοβοῦ, θυγάτηρ Σιών· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεται, καθήµενος ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου. (Jn. 12.15)This verse is a quotation of Zech. 9.9 but differs from both the Hebrew and the LXX in twoplaces. First, µὴ φοβοῦ is used instead of rejoice greatly which suggests that John also hashis eye on Zeph. 3.16. This is further confirmed by John 12.13 where Jesus is referred to asthe King of Israel which has an intertextual link to Zeph. 3.15.366The parallels between Zech. 9-10, 2.10 and Zeph. 3.14-17 has provided some evidence for aclose alignment between the King and YHWH himself. However, this is not a completeidentification as the speaker of verses 9-10 is YHWH who speaks of the King as someoneother than himself.366. A. J. Kostenberger, “John” in ed. Beale and Carson CNTUOT (2007), 473. 127
  • 128. c) Both Human and DivineFrom this exploration of the intratextual and intertextual links within Zech. 9 we havemaintained that the King is to be identified with a messianic Davidic figure. However, wehave also noted that the arrival of this King would be understood as the arrival of the oneGod of Israel to Zion. Several further considerations suggest that this divine-human tensionneed not be resolved either way but, rather, that the text presents us with a human figure thatis, in some sense, functionally and ontologically identified with YHWH. In two other placesin Zechariah we appear to have texts which seem to identify the future Davidic King withYHWH (12.8, 12.10).367The first of these two passages speaks of the eschatological future as a time when the houseof David will be like ‫ .אלהים‬Whether or not this is to be understood as an ontological orfunctional relationship between God and the future Davidic leader it is certainly extravagantand points to a close relationship between the house of David and God himself. 368Such a view, as we have seen in our prior discussion of divine kingship, has precedent inscripture.369 In apposition to the description of the future Davidic leader(s) as ‫ אלהים‬is thephrase, ‫ .מלאְַך יהוה‬The Angel of the Lord, or perhaps better translated appositionally as the ְ ַangel that is YHWH or angel YHWH is a figure who appears many times in the scripturesof Israel. At certain points when this character appears it is very difficult to differentiatebetween this angel and YHWH himself. Von Rad concludes that YHWH and the angel ofYHWH are one and the same for the angel is the personification of Yahwehs assistance toIsrael370 The closeness of YHWH and the angel is particularly strong in Exod. 3 where the367. On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that dayshall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God ‫ ,אלהים‬like the angel of the Lord ‫ ,כּמלאְך יהוה‬going ַ ְ ַ ְbefore them. (12.8) .And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of graceand pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him,as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. (12.10)368. Later textual versions appear to have softened this position. The LXX says like the house of God and theTargum reads The House of David shall be like princes and shall flourish like Kings. See Mason, “The Use ofEarlier Material in Zechariah 9-14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis” (2003), 156.369. This seemingly extravagant comparison of the Davidides to the deity has precedent in scripture. Meyersand Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (1993), 333. What might it mean to suggest that the house of David will be like adeity? The claim must derive from the universe of discourse attested elsewhere in the Hebrew bible. D. L.Peterson, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 119.370. TDNT 1:77-78. 128
  • 129. figure is referred to as the angel of the Lord being both YHWH (v. 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 18) and God(v. 4-6, 11-16, 18). 371The second passage (Zech. 12.10) takes the close identification of YHWH with a Davidicfigure even further by saying that YHWH is pierced when his human counterpart, the King, ispierced. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. (Zech. 12.10)In the MT YHWH is the speaker so the pronominal suffix ‫ אלַי‬identifies YHWH as the one ֵwho is pierced. Yet in the next phrase this abruptly shifts to a third person referent ‫ .עלָיו‬It ָappears that the one who is pierced is somehow both YHWH and another figure. In Zech.13.7 a Davidic King, known as the shepherd, is struck and it is reasonable to connect thiswith the human suffering figure of 12.10. It appears that the writer can speak of God beingpierced because the Davidic King is functionally and ontologically related to the God ofIsrael. The Davidic king is representative of Yahweh, so when the king suffers it is as ifYHWH is suffering. Such a reading of Zechariah has found a number of supporters. Keilcaptures the mystery and ambiguity in which a King is both distinct yet inseparable from thethe identity of the one God of Israel when he writes, Thus the transition form the first person‫ אלַי‬to the third ‫ עלָיו‬points to the fact ֵ ָ that the person slain, although essentially one with Jehovah, is personally distinct from the supreme God.372or as Petterson writes, It is only the king who could be said to represent Yahweh, so that to pierce the king is to pierce Yahweh. Kingship in Israel rightly understood, saw the king as Yahwehs agent on earth.... there is a real sense in which Yahweh and the king are inseparable.373371. The Angel Yahweh was not all there was to God but was a true and real representation of him, much as avideo conferencing call brings a valuable sense of presence of an individual into a room through a video screenand speaker-visibility and voice-even though the individual is not actually fully present there D. K. Stuart,Exodus, (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2006), 107-113, 113.372. C. F. Leil, “Zechariah” in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Twelve Minor Prophets, Vol. 2,ed. F. Delitzsch. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 388.373. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah (2009), 238-239. 129
  • 130. (4) ConclusionsIn the above discussion of Zech. 9.1-11 it has been maintained that Zech. 9.1-18 is to beunderstood as a DW hymn offering an eschatological vision in which YHWH defeats theenemy and marches to Zion. In Zion a Davidic King, who functions as both YHWH andone who is ontologically related to him, is welcomed into the city. His reign ushers in atime when both the people and creation are restored. (iv) Summary StatementThe three scriptural texts which have been examined, Gen. 49.8-12, Ps. 118 and Zech. 9.1-11all possess a number of common features. • All three texts may be understood as concerning a Davidic Ruler/Messiah who is involved in some kind of conflict. • All three texts foster eschatological hope in which YHWHs enemies are defeated. • Gen. 49.8-12 and Zech. 9.9-10 associate the rule of the Davidic monarch with a time of material prosperity (Gen. 49.11-12; Zech. 9.17). This dovetails with Ps. 118 in that this psalm was used in pre-exilic and Second Temple Judaism within the Sukkot festivities which, amongst other things, guaranteed the harvest for the coming year. • Both Gen. 49-11-12 and Zech. 9.9-10 make mention of a donkey. The specific word used is relatively infrequent in the Hebrew text. • In each text, in both Greek and Hebrew, the word coming (ἔρχοµαι/‫ ,)בא‬in some lexical form or another, is used. Krause concludes that such a collection of ScriptureSee also the excellent overall discussion 224-240. Similar thoughts are echoed by Merril, What emerges from this interweaving of subjects and persons is a distinction between YHWH and the king on one hand and a merging of the two on the other. The merging occurs inasmuch as the king comes into Jerusalem (v. 9c), just as YHWH had done in the less direct allusion in verse 8. A reasonable conclusion is that YHWH, in the person of the king, had undertaken the march from Hadrach south, culminating in His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. “Behold, your king comes! E. H. Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary - Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (Leiden: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 222. 130
  • 131. references around a shared catch word suggests that Mark has intentionally assembled these traditions into his entry narrative. 374 Ps. 118.26 ‫בָּרוְּך הבּא בּשׁם‬ ֵ ְ ָ ַ εὐλογηµένος ὁ ‫ יהוה בֵּרכְנוּכֶם מבֵּית יהוה׃‬ἐρχόµενος ִ ַ ἐν ὀνόµατι κυρίου Zech. 9.9 ‫הנֵּה מלכְֵּך יָבוֹא לְָך‬ ְ ַ ִ ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι 10 Gen. 49.10 ‫ֹלא־י ָסוּר שׁבֶט‬ ֵ οὐκ ἐκλείψει ‫מִיהוּדָ ה וּמְחֹקֵק‬ ἄρχων ἐξ Ιουδα καὶ ‫מבֵּין רגְלָיו עַד‬ ַ ִ ἡγούµενος ἐκ τῶν ‫כִּי־יָב ֹא שִׁיֹלה‬ µηρῶν αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἂν ‫וְלוֹ יִקּהַת‬ ְ ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείµενα ‫עמִּים׃‬ ַ αὐτῷ, καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία ἐθνῶν. (c) Marks Use of Gen. 49.8-12, Ps. 118 and Zech. 9.9-10Our study of these three scriptural texts has taken us on a long and winding road and mayappear far removed from Marks Gospel. This hermeneutical step, however, is mandatory ifone is to read Mk. 1.1-11 with eyes and ears attuned as to how such texts would perhaps haveresonated to those within the fledging Christian community. Mk. 11.1-11 directly quotes Ps. 118 and offers a strong allusion to Gen. 49.9-10 and Zech.9.9-10. These passages are alluded to or quoted in the following order.374. D. Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11.1-10 as a Midrash on Genesis49.11, Zech 9.9 and Psalm 118.25-26” in eds. Evans et al. Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures ofIsrael: Investigations and Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 145. Elsewhere in Markscriptural passages have been brought together because they share catchwords (Mk. 1.2-3, 9.11-13, 12.1-11).See discussion in Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 12-45, 94-110 and 11-129. 131
  • 132. Mk. 11.2-7 Gen. 49.9-10 Mk. 11.2-10 Zech. 9.9-10 Mk. 11.8-10 Ps. 118Each of the following subsections will show how the use of these texts support and enhancethe developing themes of Marks Gospel. The ideal reader, will recognise that these threescriptural texts, which share thematic and textual links, are added to the intertextual tapestryof Marks Gospel with great effect. They contribute to the NE paradigm and add furtherchristological depth to the character of Jesus whilst also serving to bring the entry narrative toits climatic, yet anti-climactic, ending. In what follows, it will be suggested that the use of (i)Ps. 118 heightens the tension by framing Jesus arrival as that of the messianic DavidicWarrior processing as part of the eschatological Sukkot; (ii) Gen. 49 adds support to aDavidic Messianic christology whilst also suggesting that Jesus arrival at the city is theunweaving of the eschatological promise to Jerusalem; (ii) Allusions to Zech. 9.9-10 wouldcorroborate the developing DW theme as well as strengthen an understanding of Jesus inwhich he is simultaneously the divine Davidic messiah and also the embodiment of YHWH. (i) Marks Use of Ps. 118Ps. 118 is the most obvious intertext to spot given that Mark directly quotes from the Psalmin its septuagintal form. This quotation appears on the mouths of the pilgrims who escortJesus. ὡσαννά· εὐλογηµένος ὁ ἐρχόµενος ἐν ὀνόµατι κυρίου· (11.9)ὡσαννά represents a transliteration of the Aramaic ‫ הוֹשַׁע נָא‬which, in turn, is a translation ofthe Hebrew ‫ הוֹשׁיעה נָּא‬found in Ps. 118 25. εὐλογηµένος ὁ ἐρχόµενος ἐν ὀνόµατι κυρίου is an ָ ִalmost exact quotation of LXX Ps. 117 26. In Mark this acclamation is followed byεὐλογηµένη ἡ ἐρχοµένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν Δαυίδ· ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. As wehave observed from internal evidence of Ps. 118, and from its place in the pre-exilic autumnalfestival and its interpretation in the Targum, these words correspond with the Davidic andmessianic theme of the Psalm to which they are attached. 132
  • 133. Three factors in Mk. 11.1-11 suggest that Jesus triumphal approach towards the city isframed within the context of Sukkot. Firstly, the phrase οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντεςis used to describe those who are citing Ps. 118. They are not described as being those withJesus but rather as those going in front and behind him which highlights the processionalnature of the event. Secondly, the words of Ps. 118 are used alongside the στιβάς. The wordστιβάς only occurs here in both the whole of NT, LXX, and Apostolic Fathers. A search ofPerseus reveals that it occurs 56 times in Greek classical literature where it obviously meansleaves, leafy branches.375 During Sukkot leafy branches were required for two purposes, tobuild the tabernacles and as part of the processional lulab ceremony while reciting Ps. 118. Inour previous discussion of Sukkot no mention is made of laying branches on the road, andMark does not refer to the building of tents or the waving of the branches. However, theprocessional nature of the event alongside leafy branches would perhaps be enough to evokethe Sukkot for a reader familiar with Sukkot traditions. For Markan readers this festivalcannot actually refer to an official celebration of Sukkot for Jesus entry into Jerusalem takesplace only a few days before Passover and, therefore, not during Autumn. However, this doesnot automatically mean that readers would have disassociated Jesus action with this festival.An event can still bring to mind a festival even if it occurs at another point in the calendar.The placing of a tree with decorations in a house during summer in the UK would still evokethe traditions Christmas despite it being the wrong time of year. Within the Gospel of Johnthe link between Jesus arrival to Jerusalem and Sukkot is made even more explicit as thebranches used are identified as being from Palm trees (ἔλαβον τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων). Palmleaves being a necessary part of the lulab alongside willow and myrtle.Thirdly, Jesus approach towards Jerusalem is from the the direction of the Mount of Olives.According to Zech. 14 the Mount of Olives is the orientation from which YHWH comes priorto the celebration of the eschatological Sukkot.We may conclude then that the Markan reader, familiar with both the scriptures and traditionsof Israel, would have no difficulty in recognising that the Markan narrative, in its use of Ps.118, is presenting Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who is on his way to the Temple. Moreover,the link with the Autumnal festival would add to the eschatological feel of the passage.Perhaps, now with Jesus arrival at the city, the eschatological Sukkot, with its roots in the375. BDAG, likewise EDNT στιβάς probably refers to bundles of leafy branches. 133
  • 134. pre-exilic Autumnal festival which celebrated the enthronement of YHWH and his DavidicKing, would now bring the story of Zion and Israel to a fitting climax.The use of Ps. 118 also dovetails with the conclusions of the preceding chapter. Just as theNE involves a DW who defeats the enemy and marches on to be enthroned in Zion, so Ps.118 recalls a Davidic warrior who, having engaged the enemy in battle, comes to bewelcomed in Zion. In the beginning of this chapter we examined how Jesus is rejected uponhis arrival at Jerusalem. The use of the texts and traditions of Ps. 118 contribute to theclimactic nature and thus further demonstrate the shocking the nature of Jesus rejection. (ii) Marks Use of Zech. 9.9-10 and Gen. 49:8-12The intertextual use of of Zech. 9 and Gen. 49 take on a more allusive nature. The termπῶλος is only found four times in the Gospel of Mark, each occurring within 11.1-11 (v2, 4,5, 7). W. Bauer argues, on the basis of the word πῶλος, that Jesus was riding a horse.376 If thisis true then it weakens any allusion to Zech. 9. and Gen. 49 which, in Hebrew, mention adonkey but do not refer to a horse.377 Bauer argues that when πῶλος is used without anymore specific zoological designation it always refers to a horse.378 The sharp outlines of our conclusion so far are clear πῶλος, when a certain kind of animal is unmistakably mentioned in its immediate context, means a young animal of that particular species; when it stands alone, it means horse and nothing else.379376. W. Bauer, “The “Colt” of Palm Sunday (Der Palmesel)” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 220-29.377. Bauers argument runs as follows. Firstly, Mark calls the animal a πῶλος four times in a row. Althoughother Gospel writers see a connection with Zech. 9.9, this is not to be assumed for Mark. Secondly, Lukefollows Mark in not explicitly mentioning Zech. 9.9 whilst also showing that he is fully aware of the word ὄνος(Lk. 13.15). He concludes, whoever reads Mark without presuppositions, without being guided by Matt andJohn to the correct understanding, or without becoming a slave to etymological considerations, and hencethinking that πῶλος must mean "foal, filly, colt" can find in πῶλος only the species of the animal in questionBauer offers a survey of how the word πῶλος is used in Greek literature finding that it used to describe all kindsof young animals including elephants, camels, horses, gazelle, doves and grasshoppers. This leads him toconclude that it has a wide range of relationships in which it is found, that πῶλος must be a word that gains itsprecise meaning only by an exact description of the kind of young animal in question...πῶλος without anaddition of this kind would leave the reader completely in the dark. Bauer, “The “Colt” of Palm Sunday (DerPalmesel)” (1953).378. Bauer, “The “Colt” of Palm Sunday (Der Palmesel)” (1953), 222.379. Ibid., 226. Followed by BDAG. a horse is meant when ππῶλος stands alone without indication that it is afoal, and it can refer to any age from the time of being a foal to a grown working animal. 134
  • 135. Upon closer inspection we see that a search of the word πῶλος in the LXX reveals that itappears 7 times in 6 verses. The following chart displays the results and also shows whichHebrew word is being translated. Reference Gk. Word Hebrew Gen. 32.1 πώλους ‫עיר‬ Gen. 49.10 πῶλον ‫עיר‬ Gen. 49.10 πῶλον ‫אתון‬ Judg. 10.4 πώλους ‫עיר‬ Judg. 12.14 πώλους ‫עיר‬ Prov. 5.1 πῶλος ‫יעלה‬ Zech. 9.9 πῶλον ‫עיר‬ Zech. 9.9 πῶλον ‫עיר‬From this we can see that the translators of the LXX used the word πῶλος to translate ‫עיר‬‫ ,יעלה‬and ‫ .אתון‬The first of of these Hebrew words clearly refers to a donkey, that is a maleass, whereas ‫ יעלה‬and ‫ אתון‬refer to a female ass.380 It is then possible for πῶλος to refer to amale or female ass even when no further descriptor is given.On top of this several other factors suggest that such an allusion to Gen. 49. and Zech. 9.1-11is intended. We should note that Mark devotes several verses to describing the acquisition ofthe colt. Four times the evangelist tells us that the πῶλος is bound in the street and should be380. BDB 135
  • 136. released by the disciples. (v. 2, δεδεµένον, λύσατε v. 4, δεδεµένον, λύουσιν, v. 5 λύοντες).This bears a textual connection to the πῶλος of Gen. 49.11 which will be tethered (δεσµεύω)to a vine. The correspondence of πῶλος with the idea of being tethered only occurs in Gen.49.11. Surely such a correspondence would not be lost on the most scriptural literate ofMarks audience, especially given the heightened messianic overtones of Mk. 11.1-11. JustinMartyr, writing around 150 A.D., speaking of Mark says the foal of an ass was bound to avine at the entrance of the village. Although some have claimed that Justin is referring to anearlier textual tradition of Mark381, it is just as likely, if not more so, that he is citing this frommemory and that his interpretation has been shaped by Gen. 49.11.382Having now established that Gen. 49:8-12 is being alluded to we may ask how it contributesto the developing story. Firstly, and quite obviously an allusion to Gen. 49.8-12 haschristological importance as it identifies Jesus as the Davidic Messiah who will usher in theeschatological age. Secondly, and this suggestion is taken from Krause, the stress uponunbinding the colt may imply that the eschatological promises to Israel, through the covenantpromises, will not be applied to Israel. The messianic king is in fact moving his colt from thehouse of Israel. Whilst this may appear fanciful it correlates quite nicely with the rejection ofJesus which will be explored in the latter part of this chapter and with the fact that Markplaces great emphasis upon the coming destruction of the city and the temple. 383Turning to Zech. 9.9-11 we should ask whether an allusion is really intended and whetherMarks readers could realistically recognise a link. Arguments against such a position areultimately unpersuasive for three reasons. Firstly, we may note a correspondence betweenZech. 9.9-11 and Mk. 11.1-11 in that both passages speak of a kingly figure coming to Zionas well as mentioning the same mode of transportation. Secondly, Mk. 11.3 tells us that thecolt is one upon which no-one has ever sat, which corresponds to strengthen an allusion toπῶλον νέον LXX Zech. 9.9-10. Thirdly, as we move into the Markan passion narrative it isclear that Zechariah forms some kind of sub-text. NA27 lists the following allusions toZechariah. Zech. 2.6 Mk.13.27 Zech. 9.9 Mk. 11.2381. P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de Critique Verbale sur St Marc et St Matthieu” JTS (1933): 113, 126.382. Justin Apology I.32.383. D. Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11.1-10" (1997). 136
  • 137. Zech. 9.11 Mk. 14.24 Zech. 13.3 Mk. 3.21 Zech. 13.7 Mk. 14.27 Zech. 14.4 Mk. 11.1 Zech. 14.7 Mk. 13.32384This demonstrates that the intertextual use of Zech. 9.9-11 in Mk. 1.1-11 is part of a largerintertextual tapestry in which numerous allusions and citations are woven together within thepassion narrative. Lastly, both Matthew and John quote Zech. 9.9 in recounting Jesus arrivalat Jerusalem. This suggests that, given Markan priority, they are making explicit what wasalready implicit in the Gospel of Mark.Our study of the larger context of Zech. 9.9-11 established that it is embedded within a largerDW hymn. This in itself is quite interesting as it corresponds with the theological narrative ofa DW leading a NE, which was developed in the preceding chapter as well as with theconflict motif of Gen. 49 and Ps. 118. Furthermore, our study of Zechariah reveals anotherparallel with Marks Gospel. Just as the the identity of the King in Zechariah is ambiguous ―at times he is portrayed as a human Davidic king and at other times as divine and related tothe identity of the one God― so with the Gospel of Mark. For Jesus, as we argued in theprevious chapter, is the embodiment of the God of Israel, whilst also being the fulfilment ofthe hope for a divine Davidic messiah. Jesus, for Marks ideal readers, in some sense fulfilsthe prophetic hope of Zechariah. Yet, in anticipation of what follows at the end of this chapterit is only a partial fulfilment, for he is not welcomed by the inhabitants nor does itimmediately usher in the eschatological age. Rather, the irony is that Jesus is rejected and hisarrival at the city leads to his own death as well as the demise of the city.3. Mk. 11.1-11: Zions Rejection of the DW and NEMk. 11 functions as both a hinge and a transitional passage for the book of Mark andrepresents a significant turning point in the Markan narrative.385 In an anti-climactic way, it384. Evans, “Zechariah in the Markan Passion Narrative” (2006), who also adds Zech. 14.5 in Mk. 13.8.385. Marcus, Mark 8-16 (2009), 767. 137
  • 138. brings to a climax the NE motifs which have been developed in chapters 1-10, but alsointroduces a new phase of the Gospel which, dominated by controversy and conflict, leadsultimately to Jesus crucifixion.The contrast between the Galilee (1-10) and Jerusalem (11-15) sections of the Gospel arewell known in scholarship. Mention may be made of two points of contrast, that of miraclesand of the Temple. The following table highlights the restriction of Jesus miracles to the firstten chapters of Mark, with the only exception being the cursing of the fig tree (11.12).386 1.23 Casting out an unclean spirit 1.30 Peters Mother in Law 1.32 Sick at Evening 1.40 Cleansing of a Leper 2.3 Paralytic 3.1 Withered Hand 4.35 Stilling of Storm 5.1 Demons Entering Swine 5.25 Haemorrhaging Women 5.22; 5.35 Raising Jairus Daughter 6.30 Feeding of 5,000 6.48 Walking on Water 7.24 Gentile Womans Daughter 7.31 Deaf-Mute 8.1 Feeding 5,000 8.22 Blind Man at Bethsaida 9.17 Possessed Boy 10.46 Healing a Blind Man 11.12 Withered TreeAlthough miracles are unacknowledged in chapters 11-15, the theme of Temple, previouslyabsent from chapters 1-10, now dominates. Much of Jesus activity takes place in and aroundthe Temple and the words ναός or ἱερόν occur 11 times in chapters 11-15.387 After the arrival386. Jesus resurrection and the tearing of the temple veil may also be considered as miracles but are excluded asJesus is not actively involved in either of them.387. This includes both reference to ἱερόν as well as ναός. ἱερόν is a more general reference to the templewhereas ναός refers to the sanctuary proper. 138
  • 139. at the city the Temple is consistently portrayed as being under the coming judgement of God.The incident in the Temple (11.15-19), sandwiched388 between the story of the cursed fig tree(11.12-14; 11.16-18),389 reveals Jesus as the one who symbolically enacts the destruction ofthe Temple.390 Likewise, the parable of the vineyard (12.1-12) announces the comingjudgement on its owners, meaning on those who have built the tower (Temple)391. Theextended eschatological discourse of Mk. 13 also has as its target the destruction of both thecity and the temple.392 The transition from Jesus the miracle worker to Jesus the prophet of judgement takes placein Mk. 11.1-11. The healing of Bartimaeus occurs in the passage immediately preceding the388. The withered fig tree (A) and the incident in the Temple (B) share a theological purpose as the respectiveparts of the Markan sandwich (ABA). Mark sandwiches one passage into the middle of another with anintentional and discernible theological purpose, “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations inMarkan Narratives” (1989), 196.389. The most complete and thorough study of the incident of the withered fig tree is W. R. Telford, The BarrenTemple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark’sGospel and its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980);P. F. Esler refuses to acknowledge that the fig tree is a warning of destruction on the Temple/city. I remainunconvinced, given its location in Mark and that it frames the Temple incident. P. F. Esler, “The Incident of theWithered Fig Tree in Mark 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation” JSNT 28 (2005): 41-67.390. This interpretation of what has traditionally been known as the cleansing was put forward by E. P. Sandersand has established itself, with various nuances, as a serious option for the interpretative community. E. P.Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), 61-76; Also Wright, the natural reading of this incident is tosee it as an acted parable of judgement. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996),413-428; 416.391. Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants; in, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to theParables of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 276-297.392. The disciples, after leaving the Temple, comment on the beauty of the Temple. Jesus responds by sayingthat these great buildings will be destroyed and one stone will not be left upon another. Jesus leaves the Templeand sits on the Mount of Olives (v3) and, in answer to the disciples question, seeks to explain (in verses 3-36)when this destruction will take place and what sign will be given for its arrival (v4). These two questions, oftiming and accompanying signs, have been understood in a number of different ways. Hooker, Marcus andBeasley-Murray, amongst others, see the second question all these things (ταῦτα πάντα) as looking ateschatological events beyond these things (ταῦτα). However, there is no textual reason to be confused aboutthis unless, of course, one assumes that the passage is actually about the second coming. The simplest reading isto assume that they are an example of synonymous parallelism in which both questions relate to the same eventof these things/all these things. Mk. 13 shares a number of similarities with Isa. 13 and 14 and there is a directtextual link with Mk. 13.24-25 and Isa. 13.9-10. Isaiah describes the judgement which will fall upon Jerusalem. Isa. 13 Mk. 13 YHWH is acting to destroy Babylon. YHWH is bringing destruction to the Isa. 13.1 Temple (Mk. 13.2) Language of cosmic disturbances is used Language of cosmic disturbances are to set the scene for destruction of being used to describe the destruction Babylon of Jerusalem (Mk. 13.24-25) 139
  • 140. account of Jesus arrival to the city (10.46-1-.52), with the theme of judgement followingimmediately after (11.15-25). This raises the following questions. Why the sudden change? Isthere something about the entry narrative that offers some kind of explanation for the reader?In what follows we will seek to answer these questions by demonstrating that the readers ofthe first century, upon reading Mk. 11.1-11, would then understand why this shift takes place. (a) Triumphal Entry?Second Temple prophetic hope, based upon the scriptures of Israel, looked forward to a timewhen Zion would rejoice at the arrival of YHWH and his representative, as previouslydiscussed. According to Zephaniah the arrival of YHWH would result in singing andrejoicing by Jerusalem. Although Jerusalem is personified here, it is likely that this functionsas a metaphor for the response which will naturally flow from the citys inhabitants. Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! (Zeph. 3.14)Zechariah uses similar language to describe the advent of the Davidic king to Zion. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, This is the Day of YHWHs coming Jesus embodies the presence of YHWH (Mk. 13.3 in the light of prologue.) Destruction will be followed by Tribulation will be followed by the restoration (Isa. 14.1-2) restoration of Gods people (Mk. 13.27)It is likely, given the similarities between Mk. 13 and Isa. 13-14 that the larger context of Isa. 13.9-10 should betaken into account. .If this is the case then Mk. 13.24-25 does not refer to judgement on cosmic events but,rather, the focus of the judgement is upon the locality of Jerusalem and the Temple, In agreement with Hatina,The point which needs to be stressed …. is that the cosmic, universal-type language is used figuratively todescribe the demise of a political entity within history. It is not a reference to the closing act of history. T. R.Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13: 24-27: The Parousia, or the Destruction of the Temple?” BBR 6 (1996): 43-66,53-59.As YHWH came to judge Babylon, he is also coming to punish Israel. As YHWH brought restoration toexiled Israel after the destruction of Babylon, YHWH will bring restoration to his exiles through the Son ofMan. 140
  • 141. humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zech. 9.9)In the Gospel of Mark Jesus is presented as King in two important senses, for he is both thedivine messiah and the embodiment of YHWH. He comes to Zion as the citys true King andGod. The reader would expect, if one did not already know the ending, that the inhabitants ofJerusalem would be excited about Jesus arrival. On the basis of scriptural texts such as Zeph.3.14 and Zech. 9.9 one would expect that the city would be overcome with joy at the arrivalof Jesus. The Markan reader would not only know, from scriptural resources, what theappropriate response of Jerusalem to the arrival of this divine dignitary would be but wouldalso be informed, from the larger Greco-Roman cultural milieu, as to what was expectedwhen a king or dignitary came to town. In recent years three important studies havecompared the account of Jesus entry into Jerusalem with a family of stories from a range oftexts which show the expectations of a city and its leadership when a warrior hero or a kingarrived there.393 The first of these studies, The Triumphal Entry by Catchpole claims thatthese stories have a number of shared features.394 1. A victory already achieved and a status already recognized for the central person. 2. A formal and ceremonial entry. 3. Greetings and/or acclamations together with invocations of God. 4. Entry to the city climaxed by entry to Temple, if the city in question has one. 5. Cultic activity, either positive (e.g. offering of sacrifice), or negative (e.g. expulsion of objectionable persons and the cleansing away of uncleanness).395These shared features highlight that the arrival of a king or dignitary into a city would bringwith it a range of social obligations and expectations. In Catchpoles analysis, Mk. 11contains all these major and recurrent features.396 In The March of the Divine Warrior Paul393. Note Alexanders entry into Jerusalem (Josephus Ant. 11:325-329) and Shecem (Josephus Ant. 11:342-5).Also Apollonius into Jerusalem (2 Macc. 4.21ff); Judas Maccabaeus returning home after defeating Gorgias (1Macc. 4.19-25; Josephus Ant. 12:312) and from another military campaign (1 Macc. 5.45-54; Josephus Ant.12:348f). Jonathan Maccabaeus is welcomed in Askalon (1 Macc. 10.86). Simon Maccabaeus into Gaza (1Macc. 13.43-48) and Jerusalem (1 Macc. 13.39-51). Antigonus into Jerusalem after a military campaign(Josephus Ant. 13:304-306); Marcus Agrippa into Jerusalem (Josephus Ant. 16:12-15); Archealaus intoJerusalem (Josephus Ant. 17:194-239), Alexanders double into Rome (Josephus Ant. 17:324-8)394. D. R. Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal Entry’” in eds. Bammel & Moule Jesus and the Politics of His Day(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).395. ibid., 321.396. Marks story conforms to a familiar pattern in respect of both its determinative shape and some its 141
  • 142. Duff develops many of Catchpoles insights by emphasising not only the similarities betweenMark and other celebratory entry stories but also the radical difference. It appears that Markteases his reader with what seems to be triumphant allusions397 but presents us with an ironictwist in the account of how Jesus entry abruptly and anti-climactically ends.398 We take ourposition alongside Duff in recognising how Mark departs from what we may assume wasunderstood by the population at large (and to which the textual sources bear witness) to be thecorrect way a city would greet the arrival of a heroic warrior king. Catchpole is correct tonote that one of the distinguishing features of entry narratives is that the person who arrives isgreeted and/or receives acclamations but is incorrect to say that Marks account of the arrivalinto Jerusalem shares these feature. Two points are worth stressing.Firstly, although Jesus received acclamation from those outside the city, it is not at all clearthat those who were shouting Hosanna! Blessed is he comes in the name of the Lord wereeither inhabitants or representatives of the city. In fact, by describing the people making theacclamation as οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες, Mark points the reader in the directionof recognising this group as pilgrims entering the city for the celebration of the Passover,indicating that they are not the inhabitants of the city. Moreover, the narrative is silent aboutany welcome being made to Jesus by the leadership of the city. Unlike at the arrival ofAlexander, the High Priest does not come out to meet Jesus. Nor does the Markan Jesusreceive a splendid reception from the city (2 Macc. 4.22). Unlike the city of Askalon, thiscity did not come forth to meet him with great pomp (1 Macc. 10.86). Neither do we read offearful inhabitants, both women and children, awaiting his arrival from the wall of the city. (1Macc. 13.43-48). No one greets Jesus with festal garments, no feast is offered (Josephus Ant.16.11-15) and no army meet him (Josephus Ant. 17.195).Secondly, Catchpole fails to acknowledge that the event of the cleansing of the temple is notJesus first visit to the temple, for immediately after the acclamation from the pilgrims weread, And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany. (11.11)incidental details. ibid. , 321.397. P. B. Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account ofJesus’ Entry into Jerusalem” JBL 111:1 (1992): 55-71, 70.398. ibid. , 70. 142
  • 143. Although the crowds are with him outside the city, the narrator presents Jesus as a solitaryfigure entering the temple alone. This is far from being a triumphal entry but, instead,highlights an anti-climactic rejection of him by both the city and the temple authorities.399Kinman, whose main focus is upon the Lukan account of the entry, is in agreement as to theanti-climactic nature of the entrance account, yet also stresses that set against the backgroundof celebratory greeting in the ancient world, Jerusalems response to Jesus must be regardedas an appalling insult. 400 Jerusalems hardened spiritual condition is epitomized by it failure to recognize its king. He is not met by city officials, nor fêted by the leading citizens, nor escorted back to the city.... Although he is a king, he is not received as one by Jerusalem. Jesus entry in "a-triumphal."401This helps to make sense of the change that occurs between Mk. 1-10 and the latter partof the narrative. The time of miracles is over, for the citys rejection of Jesus not onlyseals Jesus fate but also spells doom and destruction for the city and its inhabitants. Jesuscame to find fruit and that they might respect him. There was no fruit. Instead of ablessing, the city will receive a curse. Instead of respecting him, they killed him and this,in turn, brings about their own destruction.Although this literary unit (1-11) is often referred to as the triumphal entry, it should benoted that it is his approach towards the city which appears triumphal rather than hisentrance, which is somewhat muted and anti-climactic. The traditional description of this scene as the ‘Triumphal Entry’ is therefore inaccurate: it describes Jesus’ approach to the city, not his entry402In the last chapter we demonstrated that Jesus comes to Jerusalem as part of a NEprogram in which he has defeated the Satanic enemy and is coming to be enthroned in399. As well as comparing Mark to contemporary Greco-Roman entrance processions Duff also put forth anargument that the DW traditions of Zech. 14 should be taken into account. Zech. 14 presents us with the figureof the DW that has been transformed into an eschatological figure who will vindicate Israel, destroy Israelsenemies, and usher in a new age of blessedness. Mark alludes to this passage in four ways. (i) the processionbeginning at the mount of Olives (11.1); (ii) the procession into Jerusalem itself: Jesus and his disciples in Mark/the DW and his holy ones in Zechariah; (iii) the reference to vessels in the Temple (11.16); and the TempleCleansing (11.15-17). Although, for now, we shall simply note this in passing, some interaction with his thesisshall take place in our analysis of the use of Zech. 9.400. B. Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus’ A-Triumphal Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19: 28-44)” JBL 118:2(1999): 279-294, 290.401. ibid. , 293-94.402. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 430. 143
  • 144. Zion as King. We have established, in the latter part of this chapter, that the city ofJerusalem did not welcome him but, instead, rejected him.4. Concluding RemarksThis chapter has built upon the work of the preceding two chapters. In the second chapter weargued that Marks Gospel is deliberately presented and structured in such a way that thereader is to see that Jesus move towards the city is none other that the march of the DWleading a NE. The enemy, Satan and his minions, have been defeated and Jesus, as theembodiment of YHWH, moves towards Zion. In this chapter we have looked more closely atJesus actual arrival at Jerusalem and, by examining both place names and the intertextual useof scriptures, we have found support for the view that Jesus arrival at the city was to beunderstood as the arrival of the King, and that this King is to be understood as beingsimultaneously both YHWH and his Davidic messiah. Furthermore, with an eye on both thefunction of Mk. 11.1-11 in the Markan narrative and contemporary entry accounts, we havemaintained that Jesus entry to the city lacked any celebratory welcome from its inhabitantsand leaders. This act, in the light of Jesus kingship, is an affront to his leadership and wouldbe understood by Marks readers as an act of defiance, treason, and rebellion. 144
  • 145. IV. Chapter Four: The Death ofthe Divine WarriorGiven what has been discussed within this thesis so far, one may be led to believe that theGospel of Mark is simply a tragedy moulded around biblical traditions whereby Jesus,coming to Zion as both the embodiment of YHWH and divine messianic king, is rejected andcrucified. However, this is not the whole story, for the Gospel of Mark presents Jesus deathas a triumph which actually accomplishes the NE and the formation of a new covenantservant community. Even prior to his arrival and rejection at Jerusalem the Markan Jesus,and therefore the reader, knows that he will suffer and die (Mk. 2.18-22; 8.31; 9.12; 9.31;10.33-34) and that his death will have soteriological significance. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mk. 10.45)This soteriological intent is also evident in Jesus words at the last supper. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (Mk. 14.24)In the second part of this chapter we will maintain that the death of the Markan Jesus haslinks with the salvific suffering of the the servant in Isa. 52.13-53.13 (following scholarlyconvention we will now refer to to this text as Isa. 53). Before doing this it is necessary toset the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53 in its larger literary context, namely Isa. 40-55, andwithin the theological trajectory of the NE. This, in turn, will allow us to explore thedeath of Jesus within the Gospel of Mark and to plot its relationship to the NE themeswhich have been explored in the previous chapters. 145
  • 146. 1. Isa. 40-55: The NE Postponed Until the Death of the ServantIn the second chapter of this thesis we maintained that Mark intended the larger contexts ofthe NE traditions of Isaiah to set the theological tone and agenda for the Gospel of Mark.Whilst the recognition of these NE themes in Isa. 40-55 can hardly be denied, the questionremains as to how this material fits within the larger context of Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Arethe promises of a NE to be understood as a repeated motif in a collection of independentoracles made by the prophet, thus indicating that if one changed the order of the individualoracular units it would make little difference to its meaning? Or, alternatively, should this NEmotif be seen as a repeated motif within a structure which shows some progression of thoughtand reflects a larger literary unity? More specifically, should the NE motif be understood inrelation to other major themes of Deutero-Isaiah, such as the servant passages (Isa. 42.1–4;49.1–6; 50.4–9; 52.13–53.12) or the trial speeches (41.1-5, 41.21-29, 43.8-13, 44.6-8,45.18-25), and what relationship do the NE themes of Isa. 40-55 have with chapters 1-39 and56-66?403Richard Bauckham has recently suggested that the early church actually had an integratedreading of Isa. 40-55. This chapter will seek to show that this is in fact the case and that aclose reading of Mark reveals his awareness of an integrated reading of Isa. 40-55. He writes, Allusions to the narrative of the Suffering Servant in chapter 53, for example, should not be read as though early Christian use of this chapter alone can explain them, nor only in connection with the other servant passages in Deutero-Isaiah, but as integral to reading of Isa. 40-55 as a prophecy of a new exodus which leads to the salvation of the nations. ]404403. In recent years Isaianic scholarship has made a general shift towards synchronic, literary and holistic readingof the text. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson describe the current move within Isaianic scholarship: [A]great deal of work is now being done on the ways in which the book of Isaiah is shaped and how its componentparts relate to one another, so that text-centred questions have now come to the fore. Scholars are thus interestedin asking about the purposes behind the shape of the book and how the various component parts engage withone another. D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, “Introduction” in Interpreting Isaiah, (Downers Grove: IVP,2009), 16. See also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55 (2002), 48-50. Recent commentaries which stress the unity ofIsaiah/Deutero-Isaiah include Childs, Isaiah (2001); Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (2002); Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (2002); K.Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (2001); R. J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading (2002).404. The full quote is as follows, "No part of the Old Testament was more important to them than the chapterswe know as Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40-55)...For the early Christians, these chapters of Isaiah, above all, were theGod-Given account of the significance of the events of eschatological salvation which they had witnessed and inwhich they wee involved: Isaiahs vision of the New Exodus, the divine act of redemption of Israel in the sightof all nations and for the sake of the nations themselves also....The New Testament writers extensiveindebtedness to Deutero-Isaiah has been widely acknowledged, even if its precise extent has been debated.... 146
  • 147. (a) Isa. 40-55: A Failed New Exodus and the Task of the Servant (i) The Unity of Isa. 40-55A previous generation of Isaianic scholars, being fuelled by diachronic concerns of formcriticism, stressed the composite nature of Deutero-Isaiah, recognising not only that it standsapart from chapters 1-39, but also that chapters 40-55 consist of smaller units covering avariety of forms. In recent years, however, scholarship has paid greater attention to both thefinal form of the book and the intratextual tapestry which is found within it.Although form and redaction criticism have their uses, it is relatively obvious that suchconcerns did not cross the mind of first century readers and it seems that the unity and singleauthorship of the book of Isaiah was simply assumed.405 We will proceed with the plausibleassumption that Mark, as well as the historical Jesus, presumed Isaiah to be the work ofIsaiah in Jerusalem, a view which is shared by Jesus Ben Sira (48.20-25) and Josephus ( Ant.11.6).406Despite the assumed unity of 1-66, this does not necessarily mean that the ancient reader wasunable to distinguish 40-55 from what precedes it, much as the way that Leviticus, whilstforming a coherent unit with the Pentateuch, was still recognised as a separate book.407Perhaps, as the following exploration suggests, that ancient readers perceived chapters 40-55What has not been sufficiently recognised is that, behind many of the New testament texts, lies integrated earlyChristian reading of these chapters as a connected whole. Allusions to the narrative of the Suffering Servant inchapter 53, for example, should not be read as though early Christian use of this chapter alone can explainthem, nor only in connection with the other servant passages in Deutero-Isaiah, but as integral to reading ofIsa. 40-55 as a prophecy of a new exodus which leads to the salvation of the nations." [Emphasis my own.]R.Bauckham, God Crucified (2008), 33-34.405. The discovery of the complete scroll of 1QIsa ‘show that the text was more or less fixed,’ Blenkinsoppconcludes that the book of Isaiah ‘was essentially complete and intact by the the early second century B. C. E7.J. Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry” JBL (1961): 55.406. Although I personally do not share this view, mention should be made of the recent stellar attempt by GregBeale to defend such a position. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges toBiblical Authority, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008), Ch. 5.407. Furthermore, as Goldingay points out, 1QIsa leaves a three line space at the end of a column before goingonto chapter 33 which likely reflects scribal recognition of a major division in the book. J. Goldingay, God’sProphet, God’s Servant: A Study in Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-55, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), 4. If Scribesrecognised a division at 33 then it is also feasible that they recognised other divisions in the book, which ledEvans to suggest that is where the major break in the book is to be found. C. A. Evans, “Jewish Scripture andthe Literacy of Jesus” in eds. Evans & Brackney Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith (Macon: Mercer UniversityPress, 2007). 147
  • 148. to be an integral part of the book of Isaiah as well as being a discreet unit within it.’408Upon studying the significant differences between chapter 40 and its preceding chapter, andalso chapter 55 with what follows, the unity of Isa. 40-55 is evident. Moving from 39 to 40the reader transitions from historical narrative to the heavenly throne room. As we move from55 to 56-66 we experience a shift in tone, from one of confrontation and imminency ofsalvation (40-55) to one of a more distant hope and an exhortation.409 The unity of 40-55 isalso observed with the use of framing whereby 40.1-11 and 55.6-13 form a NE inclusio,cojoined with the sure promise of the word of God (Isa. 40.8, 55.10-11, ).The most persuasive argument for the unity of 40-55 is found in the collaboration of themes,two of which we will focus upon. Firstly, as already explored within the second chapter ofthis thesis, the theme of NE is dominant.410 Another dominating theme is that of the Servant.The word occurs some twenty times throughout Isa. 40-55; thirteen in reference to Israel andthe rest embedded in what is known, since the work of Duhm, as the Servant Songs (42.1–4;49.1–6; 50.4–9; 52.13–53.12).This is not to say that Isa. 40-55 is not part of a larger book; the discovery of substructuredoes not mean it is to be divorced totally from chapters 1-39 or 55-66.411 However, the408. Goldingay, God’s Prophet, God’s Servant (1984), 4. The following arguments for the unity of Isa. 40-55 aretaken from ibid. 4-8 and Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry” (1961), 59-61.409. G. I. Emmerson, Isaiah 56-66, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 43-49.410. In a highly influential essay Anderson identifies ten passages in Second Isaiah which take up this theme: 1. 40.3-5 The highway in the wilderness. 2. 41.17-20 The transformation of the wilderness. 3. 42.14-16 Yahweh leads his people in a way they know not. 4. 43.1-3 Passing through the waters and the fire. 5. 43.14-21 A way in the wilderness. 6. 48.20-21 The exodus from Babylon. 7. 49.8-12 The new entry into the Promised Land. 8. 51.9-10 The new victory at the sea. 9. 52.11-12 The new exodus. 10. 55.12-13 Israel shall go out in joy and peace.Anderson "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah" (1962), 181-182.411. John Sawyers "An Analysis of Explicit Citations of Isaiah in the New Testament" reveals some importanttrends. Two-thirds of the Isaiah quotations in Gospels, Pauls Letters and Revelation come from chapters 40-66.Around 100 verses from 45 of the 66 chapters are either quoted or directly alluded to. We may conclude fromthis that the early Church looked to Isa. 40-66 for theological support and structure in the light of the Christevent. in The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996), 24-31. For Isaiahs reception history in Second Temple Judaism see D. D. Hannah, “Isaiah WithinJudaism of the Second Temple Period” in eds. Moyise and Menken Isaiah in the New Testament (New York: 148
  • 149. difference in locale and themes [of Isa. 40-55] must have been apparent to careful readers ofthe book in every age412 and it is legitimate to find structure within it. (ii) The Dramatical Plot of Isa. 40-55Even though 40-55 form a literary unit, most commentators believe that 40-48 creates a sub-section, on the basis of theme and tone, from 49-55.413 40-48 focus upon Jacob-Israel and therole of Cyrus414, whereas in 49-55 the attention shifts to the enigmatic figure of the servant ofYHWH and the city of Jerusalem. Rikki Watts, building upon the prior work of Schoor415,notes that a change in the speech forms between 40-48 and 49-55. There is a general development of the polemical materials in chapters 40-48 which moves from trials against the nations interspersed with trials involving Jacob-Israel towards a series of increasingly strident disputations with Jacob- Israel. A final important observation is the virtual absence of any polemical materials in chapters 49-55416This highlights the possibility of being able to sketch out a narrative sub-structure for Isa.40-55 that reflects the differences between 40-48 and 49-55.417 In other words, the oracles ofT&T Clark, 2005), 7-34.412. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading (2002), 490.413. Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry” (1961), 59-61; Goldingay, God’s Prophet,God’s Servant: A Study in Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-55 (1984), 19-20.414. Ulrich Zwingli referred to 40-48 as Cyrus and the latter part of the Isaiahs book as Messiah. J. Goldingayand D. Payne, Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 1, (London: T&T Clark, 2006).415. A. Schoors, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Isaiah xl-lv, (Leiden:Brill, 1973).416. Watts, Consolation and Confrontation (1990), 37.417. Michael Toolan offers the following definition of narrative as a perceived sequence of non randomlyconnected events. He writes, The usefulness of this definition is that it highlights the fact that narratives involve a change of state, that is something happens there is a sequence of events. By using the word non random connectedness he means that a pure collage of described events, given in sequence, does not count as a narrative. For example, if each member of a group in turn supplies a one-paragraph description of something or other, and these paragraphs are then pasted together, they will not count as a narrative unless someone perceives a non-random connection. This non-random connectedness should be perceived as such by the receiver. Intrinsic to narratives are characters, setting and plot. By substructure I mean to refer to a narrative structure which undergirds the different oracles and forms of Isa. 40-55. This substructure does not come from outside the text but is arrived at through a close analysis of the oracular units themselves and their location in respect to other units. This substructure of Isaiah should not be seen as random oracles haphazardly connected together but as displaying a connectedness with development in characters, setting and plot. 149
  • 150. Isa. 40-55 can be arranged in story form which, lying behind the surface of the text, providesthe framework by which the individual oracular units should be interpreted. Moreover, wewill maintain that it is likely that the early church used these narratives to provide shape andcontent to their own theology.418Following the literary turn in biblical studies in recent years, a number of Isaianiccommentators have studied the final form of Isaiah from a literary perspective.419 Amongstthese are Rollin Grams and Robin Routledge who have sought to sketch out the narrativestructure of Isaiah.420 Using the structuralist approach of Greimas, Grams endeavours toidentify a narrative substructure which gives meaning to the various oracles.421 He thenrelates this substructure of Isaiah to the Gospel of Matthew.422 Routledge, although notrelating his results to the NT, also leverages Greimas to support the work of Grams byoffering a more detailed analysis of the substructure of Isaiah.423 The approach to be taken M. J. Toolan, Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction, (New York: Routledge, 2001). See also thediscussion in E. Adams, “Paul’s Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes inCreation” in ed. Longenecker Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 2002), 19-24.418. Two studies in particular stand out in this regard. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952). And, more recently, Swartley, Israel’s ScriptureTraditions and the Synoptic Gospels (1994).419. Baltzer, for instance, sees Deutero-Isaiah as a liturgical drama containing six acts being framed by aprologue and epilogue, whereas John Watts considers all of Isaiah as a literary drama containing twelve acts.Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (2001); Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (2002).420. R. G. Grams, “Narrative Dynamics in Isaiah’s and Matthew’s Mission Theology” Transformation 21(2004): 238; G. D. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindess in Isaiah 6: 9-10: A Contextual, Literary, andTheological Analysis” BBR 8 (1998): 167-86.421. Grams, “Narrative Dynamics in Isaiah’s and Matthew’s Mission Theology” (2004), 240.422. Isaiah follows a three point narrative sequence. (1a) Israels initial failure in its mission to nations, (2a) therestoration of Israel from its sin and captivity (3a) the mission of Israel in righteousness to the nations. Matthewtakes this up by announcing (1b) judgment on the leaders of Israel, (2b) restoring Israel (baptism, choosing 12disciples, bringing forgiveness of sins, healing and deliverance) and (3b) sending his disciples out on a missionto Israel. Ibid. 250.423. [T]he narrative sub-structure links the sections of the book of Isaiah together. Though there is not an exact correspondence, the three sections may be broadly linked with the three narrative sequences. Isa. 1-39 focuses on Israel’s call, rebellion and failure; and opens up the need for, and possibility of, restoration. Isa. 40–55 is addressed to Israel in exile; it reaffirms her call as God’s servant and promises restoration in the form of a second Exodus. The restoration and renewal of the people is closely linked with the ministry of the Servant. This moves the narrative on to Isa. 56–66, which includes the promise that a renewed and restored Israel will reveal God’s glory to the nations; and so fulfil her mandate. The narrative structure also links the book of Isaiah with the rest of the Old Testament – and especially with the Exodus, which figures prominently in itRobinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6: 9-10: A Contextual, Literary, and TheologicalAnalysis” (1998), 204. 150
  • 151. here differs from Grams and Routledge in three main ways. Firstly, the difference can be seenmethodologically. For, though the structuralism of A. J. Greimas can be useful forinterpreting biblical texts424, the method risks diverting attention away from the text itself byits use of both specialist diagrams and language (axis of communication, actantial model,etc). Secondly, their analysis covers the whole of Isaiah, whereas we will limit ourselves toIsa. 40-55. Thirdly, and more critically, their analysis of Isa. 40-55 fails to take into accountthe role of Cyrus in 40-48 and also that of his absence in 49-55. As we will see this mayprovide a clue to the narrative substructure of Isaiah.425At a presuppositional level we will proceed with the following assumptions: • The final editors of Isaiah shaped their material, containing diverse forms, into a narrative structure. This story can be perceived through a close reading of the text. •First century readers studied the scriptures for narratives which made sense of the past and brought meaning and order to their own lives. In turning to Isaiah they were able to see that the oracles were non random and interconnected. (1) Consolation or Confrontation in 40-48 ?Many commentators stress that Isa. 40-55 presents a message of salvation and consolation toexiled Israel that features the prophetic voice announcing a NE in which YHWH, actingthrough Cyrus, will bring about a change in circumstances. If this is true it deservedly begsthe question, for the Jewish or Christian reader, as to whether Deutero-Isaiah is a falseprophet for the the glorious future he said YHWH would bring about through his instrument,424. Ibid. It is used successfully by R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure ofGalatians 3:1-4, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). and Wright, The New Testament and the People of God(1992).425. In order to bring clarity to our discussion it may be worth pausing for a moment to offer some clarifyingcomments about what we mean by narrative substructure. Richard Hays effectively brought the concept ofnarrative substructure to biblical studies in his groundbreaking work The Faith of Jesus Christ: The NarrativeSubstructure of Galatians 4:1-4:11 by demonstrating that Galatians as a non-narrative text displays anunderlying narrative structure that is integral to Pauls argument. Whilst bearing some similarities with Hays,our use of narrative substructure is different, for instead of looking for a narrative outside of the the text we willsketch out a narrative which comes from the text. See Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The NarrativeSubstructure of Galatians 3:1-4 (2002). 151
  • 152. shepherd (44:28) and anointed one, (45:1 ,‫ )624משׁיח‬Cyrus, as chapters 55-66 bear witness,427never fully materialised. Whybray remarks, Some of Deutero-Isaiah’s expectations were admittedly fulfilled. Cyrus did conquer Babylon and permit the exiled peoples to return to their homes. The temple at Jerusalem was rebuilt, though only on a modest scale and after an interval of some twenty years. (The restoration of the city itself was delayed for more than a hundred years.) But there was no massive, triumphant return of the exiles, no new and more glorious Exodus, no miraculous journey across the desert. Few, it seems, took immediate advantage of the permission to return home: many preferred to remain. Life for those who did return was hard; and prosperity did not return until several generations had passed. Above all, there was no return to the glories of David’s reign, or even to political independence.428Although one does not want to downplay the salvific tone of much of Deutero-Isaiah with itspromise of a NE and the return of YHWH to his people, the presence and arrangement of thepolemical material in Isaiah illustrates that Isa. 40-55 cannot simply be reduced to anannouncement of salvation. In contrast to an interpretation which sees Deutero-Isaiah asbeing primarily a message of consolation, Rikki Watts stresses that a good deal of Deutero-Isaiah, particularly 40-48, is best described as confrontational. The promises of a NE and therole of Cyrus are surrounded by polemical and confrontational material. In light of this, canSecond Isaiah really be called a prophet of consolation alone? We will comment briefly uponsome of the main confrontational themes in 40-48.Israel is called, as YHWHs servant, to bring justice (‫ )משׁפט‬and torah (‫ )תורה‬to the nations, toopen the eyes of the blind and bring prisoners out from the prison (42.1-4). However, Israel isblind and deaf, and are themselves in prison (42.18-22). Israel is called to be a light and acovenant (‫ )ברית‬to the world (42.6, 49.8) but instead her people question YHWHs plan(45.9). They are, in fact, rebels who are stubborn of heart (46.12).429426. ‫ משׁיח‬may not mean The Messiah, but this should not downplay the significance of the term for it is a titlewhich is used of both the High Priest (Lev. 4 and 6) and the King of Israel (1 Sam. 24, 26; 2 Sam. 1) For furtherdiscussion see L. S. Fried, “Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1” HTR 95 (2003):373-93.427. R. N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 80.428. Ibid. 79-80.429. Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 1 (2006), 51-54; Goldingay, God’s Prophet, God’s Servant:(1984), 106-123. 152
  • 153. Isa. 40-48 proclaims imminent salvation to the exiles, yet this offer is conditional (48.18) andultimately, I would argue, rejected. Although commanded to trust YHWH and his choice ofCyrus by fleeing and leaving Babylon, they refuse and the glorious NE does not take place. Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go. Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea; your offspring would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me." (Isa. 48.17– 19)As Goldingay puts it, She [Jacob-Israel] has heard all about Cyrus, and can put two and two together and see the turmoil he is going to cause shortly in Babylon, but she cannot perceive that this is Yahwehs way of fulfilling his purposes. So he cannot fulfil his purpose through her.430The basic narrative plot of 40-48 may be understood as follows:The nation of Israel are in Babylon due to their own sin but YHWH promises to deliver them.YHWH will embark on a glorious NE in which he will defeat the enemy, free his people andlead them on to Zion. Israel, once again, bears the real possibility of being a light andcovenant to the nations. However, this return from exile is dependent upon their active trustin the promises of YHWH and his choice of Cyrus the Persian. This NE does not materialisedue to the rebellious nature of servant Israel.430. Ibid.,107. 153
  • 154. We may represent this substructure diagrammatically,Figure 1: Isa. 40-48 and the Failed New Exodus Israel are in Exile in Babylon ↓ Announcement (Oracle) of Imminent Salvation involving: •Promise of New Exodus (Liberation, Journey, Enthronement) •Forgiveness of Sins •Use of Cyrus ↓ Confrontation and Dialogue with Israel ↓ Rejection of YHWHs plan ↓ Failed New Exodus (2) The Future Task of The Servant in 49-55As the reader moves on into chapters 49-55 the narrative question is whether this is the endof the line for Israel and the NE. This question is soon answered for NE words of salvationand imagery are revealed in 49-55.431Rikki Watts, building upon Westermanns distinction between the salvation oracle and theproclamation of salvation, argues that what is to be seen is a postponement of the NE.432 Asalvation oracle tends to be general and perfective, an announcement of an event conceivedas already present, while the latter [proclamation of salvation] is promised for the future.433431. 49.10–12, 14–26; 51.1–8, 9–16; 54.4–6, 7–10, 11–17; 55.1–5, 12–13.432. Watts, “Consolation or Confrontation? (1990), 56.433. Ibid. 56-57. 154
  • 155. An analysis of the forms within 49-55 show it to be dominated by proclamations of salvationbut oracles of salvation are virtually absent.Figure 2: Oracles of Proclamation and Salvation in Deutero-Isaiah434 Chapters 40-48 Chapters 49-55 Text Oracle Proclamation Text Oracle Proclamation 41.8-13 * 49.7-12 (13) * 41.14-16 * 14-26 * 41.17-20 * 51.1-8 * 42.14-17 * 51. 9-16 * 43.1-4 * 54.4-6 * 43.5-7 * 54. 7-10 * 43.16-21 * 54.11-17 * 44.1-5 * 55.1-5 * 46.12-13 * 56.12-13 *From this, Watts concludes that the imminent NE salvation of chapters 40-48 has, in 49-55,been postponed until a later date.In 49-55 there is no longer talk of Cyrus but the focus and attention is now upon the figure ofthe servant. Since Bernhard Duhms Isaiah commentary in 1892, scholarship has beenengaged in a lively debate as to the identity of the servant. We will briefly enter into thedebate later in this chapter, however, we will now seek to relate the role of the servant,whether it be understood as an individual, messianically or corporately, to its literary contextand in relation to the narrative story of 40-48.435It is clear that in 40-48 the nation of Israel is referred to as a servant, yet as we move on intothe chapters now under discussion the servant is seen to have a mission to both Israel and thenations (42.1; 49.1-7),436 and now has a redemptive role to play. In the final servant song434. Ibid. 57.435. As with the approach of P. Wilcox and D. Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah” JSOT 42(1988): 79-102, who relate the task of the servant to the narrative of 40-55. They conclude that the servant in40-48 is Israel, whereas the servant in 49-55 is to be identified as a prophet who suffers and dies for the sake ofIsrael and the nations.436. George Hugenberger, taking account of the literary contexts of the servant songs, may be correct to notethat Isaiahs servant figure is to be identified with the Moses-like-deliverer of Deuteronomy (Deut. 18.14ff;34.10ff). This suggestion complements the NE theme which we know exists in Isa. 40-55. This interpretationwhich has textual support from Talmud and other Jewish exegetes, but strangely failed to appear in C. R. Northsclassic summary of interpretative options, gains credibility when the following factors are noted. Some of themost persuasive of his arguments include: (1) As discussed above, Second Exodus imagery is found all overDeutero-Isaiah (2) Second Exodus language appears in context of all servant songs. (42.1-9) Exodus imagery isfound before (41.17-20) and after (42.13-16). The task of the servant is to deliver prisoners which has echoes of 155
  • 156. itself, which is clearly embedded in the hope of a NE (53.1-12), we read that the servant,through his sufferings and death, shall become an ‫ אשׁם‬for the wider community. R. E.Clements relates this to the larger story of Israel living in exile. Plunged into the uncleanness of living among the nations, Israel could do little to escape the the threat posed by disease and guilt. yet without the temple cults to make atonement to remove the effects of such guilt, Israel appeared helpless and faced an impossible dilemma...Now in this remarkable prophetic insight, Isa. 53 asserts Gods unique resolution. Until the regular sin offerings could be restored, the Servant-Israels own suffering among the nations would be the sin offering by which the nations guilt would be cleansed and its diseases carried away.437Clements rightly places the servant in a larger frame of reference but I would suggest that hemisconstrues, on the basis of the wider literary context (40-55), what the larger narrativestructure is. For, in Isa. 40:2, God has already announced the pardoning of Israels iniquity. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.Why, we may ask, does the servant have a role in dealing with transgression (‫ )פשׁע‬andiniquity (53.5, ‫ )עון‬when sins have already been pardoned? Perhaps, as our narrative structureillustrates, it is because Israel refused to heed the voice of YHWH in calling them to flee thecity and embark on a NE. Israel, despite having its sins forgiven (40.2), remains blind, deafand idolatrous and needs to make amends with God if the NE is going to become a reality.438The task of the servant is to be an ‫ אשׁם .אשׁם‬is understood,Exodus (68.7, 13.13, 13.14, 20.2, etc) 49.1-6 is preceded (48.20-22) and followed by exodus imagery(49.10-12). 50.4-9 comes after a description of Exodus (9-11) and before more exodus imagery (51.9-11).52.13-53.12 is preceded by an allusion to the Exodus (52.2-4, 10-12). (3) 63.11-19 reminds the reader in contextof a prayer for deliverance of the role of Moses in the first exodus. (4) Moses is described as servant, fortytimes, of which twenty three times it says servant of YHWH and four times servant of God. (5) Evidencewhich is usually used to describe a royal, priestly or prophetic identity of the servant can be ascribed to aMoses-like figure for he is a prophet (Deut. 34.10) , a priest (Exod. 33.9, 30.31, Ps. 99.6) and he exercised royalauthority (Exod. 2:14, Exod. 18). (6) It provides a solution for the debate over the corporate or individualidentity of the servant for Moses represented the people (Exod. 20.18-20), also 2.1-10, 15; 3.12 parallels the RedSea and flight from Egypt and YHWHs presence with his people in Exod. 19. (7) Moses was rejected anddisdained by those with whom he was sent. (Exod. 2.14, 4.1, 15.24, 16.2-12, 17.2). (8) Moses is described asbeing very humble which resembles (42.2-3). See G. P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘ServantSongs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure” in eds. Hess et al. The Lord’s Annointed: Interpretation of OldTestament Messianic Texts (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 105-40. Whilst Hugenbergers discussion is helpful itdownplays the significance of a Davidic messianic figure which, as we will see later in this chapter, should betaken into consideration.437. Clements "Isaiah 53 and the Restoration of Israel" in eds. Bellinger et al. Jesus and the Suffering Servant:Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 52. See also Goldingay, The Message ofIsaiah 40-55 (2005), 486-487.438. Ibid. 143 fn 74. 156
  • 157. as a technical term for an offering that represents the guilty persons attempt to absolve wrongdoing by making restitution.... The ‫ אשׁם‬merely squared the offender with his God, whose honor had been violated.439The law required that this offering for the cleansing of a leper (Lev. 14.12-28), therape of a slave girl (19.21-22) and the violation of a Nazarite vow (Num. 6.12).440The servant thus functions within the narrative of Deutero-Isaiah as an agent of reconciliationwho, through suffering and death (53:8), makes peace between God and his people thushealing Israel, dealing with her sin and making many righteous. Although called the SufferingServant, this servant is more accurately described as the suffering and vindicated servant, forhe shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted (52.13). Also, though dead he shall see hisoffspring and prosper (53:10, MT).441 The results of the work of the servant can be seen in theclosing chapters of Deutero-Isaiah. Jerusalem will no longer be barren and, instead, blessingabounds and the NE rescue mission is back on track. For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the Lord, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. (Isa. 55:12–13)We previously suggested that the narrative plot of 40-48 may be understood as follows. Israel are in Babylon due to their own sin, but YHWH promises to deliver them. YHWH will embark on a glorious new exodus in which he will defeat the enemy, free his people and lead them to Zion. Israel once again439. R. E. AverBeck, “‫ ”אשׁם‬in NIDOTTE, 554 (Emphasis my own).440. See B. Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place” in The SufferingServant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2004), 48-74. However, I remain unconvinced due to the presence of sacrificial imagery elsewhere(53.7, 12).441. Isa. 53.10 ESV from MT Isa. 53.10 NETS from Septuagint “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; And the Lord desires he has put him to grief; when his soul makes to cleanse him from his blow. an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; If you offer for sin, he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord your soul shall see a long-lived shall prosper in hand. ” offspring. And the Lord wishes to take away from the pain of his soul, 157
  • 158. has the real possibility of being a light and covenant to the nations. However, this return from exile is dependent on their active trust in the promises of YHWH and his choice of Cyrus the Persian. This new exodus does not materialize due to the rebellious nature of servant Israel.This, however, is not the end of the story presented to us in Isa. 40-55. For although the NEhas been postponed YHWH will not abandon his people. A faithful servant will arise whowill suffer and die sacrificially on behalf of others. His death provides the ‫ ,אשׁם‬dealing withsin and transgression so that the glorious hope of the NE may come to fruition. The servanthimself is vindicated, brought to life, and exalted.Figure 3: Isa. 49-55 and the Task of the Servant Israel are in Exile in Babylon ↓ Proclamation of (future) Salvation: •Promise of a NE (Liberation, Journey, Enthronement) • Servant gives his life as an ‫אשׁם‬ • Servant is Vindicated/Resurrected ↓ Successful NE ↓ Israel to be a Light to the NationsHaving sketched out the role of the servant within the narrative substructure of Isa. 40-55 andthe relationship between this figure and the NE it is necessary that we embark upon adiscussion regarding the possibility that a first century Jewish reader would understand thisservant figure as an individual who is the Davidic Messiah. (iii) The Davidic Identity of the ServantIn his essay, The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second Isaiah, Hans-JurgenHermisson rightly points out that the historical and theological understanding of this great 158
  • 159. text will remain controversial till kingdom come.442 A full discussion of the Davidic-Messianic identity of the servant cannot be given here, nor can we engage with all theopposing arguments. Rather, in a concise way, we will attempt to break out of the exegeticalstalemate443 by tracing, with some force, the case for Davidic identity. What we are notattempting to do is show that such a reading was clearly in the mind of the prophet of SecondIsaiah, any redactors of Isaiah, or that this is the sole or main interpretation of the passage upto the Second Temple Period. We will instead restrict ourselves to arguing that it is possible,through an intratextual and canonical hermeneutic, to read the text in such a way (as well ashighlighting that it was in fact read in such a way by some Jewish readers prior to thecomposition of Marks Gospel). However, we must stress in advance that a Davidic-Messianic reading of the text does not exclude or necessarily downplay other trajectories inthe passage regarding the identity of the servant.444The following arguments are, on the whole, dependent upon our previously identified pre-A.D. 70 Rabbinic technique known as gezerah shavah where links are made between twotexts on the basis of a shared word or phrase. The assumption behind this being that there is asingle, divine author of scripture and that God as a divine legislator would always uselanguage in a strictly consistent way.445 David Instone-Brewer has demonstrated that manysignificant Jewish leaders prior to the fall of Jerusalem were reading the scriptures using thismethod, and it is reasonable to think that at least some Jewish members of the early Christiancommunity were aware, whether explicitly or at a deeper subconscious level, of suchmethods. Although the Davidic identity of the Isaianic servant is disputed and denied by the442. H. J. Hermisson, in "The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources" , eds. B. Janowski etal. The Suffering Servant:Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 17.443. As Hermisson does in his essay.444. We have already seen in a discussion above that Hugensburgers Mosaic take on Isa. 53 has a lot going forit especially given the relationship between Moses and the original exodus. Given these mosaic traits I wouldsuggest that the servant figure is composite in nature and that it is not unthinkable that the prophet should hopefor a future Davidic deliver who has mosaic characteristics.445. D. Instone-Brewer, The Midrash: An Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation In Formative Judaism,(Unknown: Brill, Forthcoming). This is an online version available at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/TheolHermeneutics.htm. See also Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in JewishExegesis Before 70 CE (1992), 17-18. Instone-Brewers study is highly significant as he demonstrates thatrabbinic exegesis prior to 70 A.D., regarded every word of Scripture as consistent and equally important, to be interpreted according to its context and according to its primary meaning only, and recognised as a single valid text form. These practices were found to contrast with those of later rabbis who frequently ignored the context, found secondary meanings hidden in the text and who proposed alternate readings of the text for the purpose of exegesis. Ibid. 222. 159
  • 160. the bulk of recent scholarship, there are several factors (1) within the text of Isa. 53, whenread alongside other scriptures, which lend themselves to such a reading. Furthermore, (2) thetradition history of Isa. 53 in Judaism demonstrates that at least some Jews in and around thefirst century period considered the Suffering Servant as a future messianic deliverer.Although John Walton has recently stated that there is no king in sight in this passage, thefollowing evidence strongly suggests that he is mistaken.446 (1) Isa. 53 when read alongside other ScripturesThe Davidic identity of the servant becomes evident when it is read alongside other parts ofthe biblical canon. Five key intertextual parallels can be noted.Firstly, throughout the scriptures of Israel and in earlier portions of Isaiah, David isfrequently called a servant (‫.)עבֶד‬ ֶ For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.447 (Isa. 37.35)Secondly, although David was known as a military commander and a great King, he was alsoknown for his righteous suffering. This is particularly evident in the Psalter. Several of thesuperscriptions of the Psalms attach themselves to particular moments within Davids life. Ofthese all but one relate to a context in which David is suffering from persecution or beingpursued by his enemies (Pss. 3; 34; 52; 56; 59). Given the important role of the Psalter in thethe liturgical tradition of Israel it is reasonable to assume that David was known for hissuffering. Not only was David known for his suffering he was also known, apart from a fewobvious exceptions, as a man of holiness. Putting these together, holiness and suffering, we446. J. H. Walton, “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song” JBL 122 (2003):734-43, 738. Waltons article draws together a number of parallels between Isa. 53 and a substitute king ritual.Whilst the details of his argument are interesting his conclusions are far from compelling. He concludes thatwhat we have is a democratisation of kingship in which a community acts like an anointed king should. Idisagree, and suggest that the Davidic king takes on the vocation of Israel himself. Just as the myth of ritualkingship portrayed someone suffering for the king, Isa. 53 shows an individual, and below I suggest evidencefor a Davidic messiah, who suffers on behalf of the people. It could be then that the substitute king ritual helpedframe Isa. 53 but this would support rather than negate a kingly reading. I would also suggest that Isa. 53displays a suffering one who is vindicated, where as the substitute kingship ritual shows one who is exalted tostatus of kingship then suffering and dying.447. See also as further examples 1 Sam. 23.10; 2 Sam. 3.18; 7.5, 8, 20, 26; 24.10; 1 Kgs. 3.6; 8.24, 26, 66; Ps.78.70; 89.4, 21; Ezek. 34.23. Although one fully recognises that other figures are described as servants of God.‫ עבֶד־י ְהוָה‬is used of Moses (Deut. 34.5) and Joshua (Josh. 24.29). See R. Schultz, NIDOTTE, 4:1183, Servant. In ֶthe superscription to Pss. 18 and 36 he is referred to as the “servant of Yahweh” (‫.)עבֶד־י ְהוָה‬ ֶ 160
  • 161. may say that Davids suffering would be understood as being undeserved. He was a classicexample of a righteous sufferer.448Interestingly, the two Psalms identifying David within their superscription as being the“servant of Yahweh” (‫ )עבֶד־י ְהוָה‬are connected with suffering. Ps. 18 is a psalm asking God to ֶdeliver David from suffering as the cords of death entangled him, where as Ps. 36 invokesthe covenant love of God to protect him from the feet and hands of evildoers (36.11). Afterthe exile and with the decline of kingship many of these Psalms, as part of the Second TemplePsalter, would then be read through a messianic lens and could therefore point towards thefuture suffering of the Davidic messiah. Outside the Psalter a number of messianic texts alsoappear to connect the coming Davidic Deliverer with suffering of some kind. (Dan. 9.24-26,Zech. 3.8-10, Zech. 12.9-11, 13.5-7 and even Gen. 3.15.)449Thirdly, it is said of the servant figure of Isa. 53 that he shall be lifted up and exalted (‫י ָרוּם‬52.13, ‫ ).ונִשָּׂא‬It is an astonishing claim when read intratextually alongside Isa. 6:1 and 57.15, ְfor within these these two texts the God of Israel is pictured as being lifted up high (‫)רם ונִשָּׂא‬ ְ ָin his heavenly court.450 Richard Bauckham correctly points out the implications of this forreaders who use a gezerah shavah, The combination of the two hebrew roots [‫ רם‬and ‫... ]נשׂא‬is rare in the Hebrew Bible, and the verbal coincidence between these verses is striking.... Early Christians would have observed the coincidence and applied the Jewish exegetical principal of gezerah shavah, according to which passages in which the same words occur should be interpreted with reference to each other.451448. 1 Kgs. 3.3, 6, 14; 9.4; 11.6; 11.34, 36; 14.8; 15.5, 11; 22.2. Moreover some have suggested that Pss. 1 and2, as the lack of superscriptions in the LXX, act as a prologue to the whole of the Psalms and are intimatelyrelated. If this is the case then the Davidic King/Messiah of Ps. 2 may be related to the faithful, obedient andrighteous one of Ps. 1.449. See also 4 Ezra 7.29-30; 2 Bar. 30.1; Justin Dial. 39, 89-90; Tg. Zech. 12.10; b. Sukk. 52. See discussion inHorbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (1998), 33; M. Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord,Messiah, (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 50; M. Bockmuehl, “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4QSerekh Milhamah[4Q285]?” TynBul 43 (1992): 155-69.; R. A. Rosenburg, “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament” ZAW 99(1987): 259-61.450. 33.10 could also be brought into the discussion with the use of the word exalted (2.6-22) J. N. Oswalt, TheBook of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).451. Bauckham, God Crucified (2008), 57. 161
  • 162. This finds a parallel in the divine nature of the Davidic King and the future hope of themessiah.452 Ps. 110 indicates that it is the Davidic king, as a divine being, who is invited toshare the throne of YHWH.Fourthly, the servant figure is described in 53.2 as growing up like a young plant (‫ )ינק‬androot (‫ . )שׁרשׁ‬Although ‫ ינק‬lacks an identical linguistic connection to David or his messianicheir, horticultural imagery (tree/plant) is to be found elsewhere in a Davidic/messianiccontext. In Isa. 11 the Davidic hope is said to come forth as a shoot (‫ )חטר‬and reference isalso made to a root (‫ 354.)שׁרשׁ‬These terms would likely be close enough to warrant anidentification of the servant on Isa. 53 with the eschatological messiah of Isa.11. Also to betaken into account is Zech. 3 in which a future deliverer, presumably a Davidic heir, is calledmy servant, the branch. It could be that Zechariah has already made a link between theSuffering Servant figure of Isa. 53 and the Davidic hope.Fifthly, Isa. 53 is not the only servant song and one can see a number of Davidic traits in theother three servant songs. Some caution is needed, as we cannot suggest that the ancientreader has a concept of the Ebed as understood in modern research or that they encounteredthe Servant Songs as discrete textual units.454 In Isa. 49.2 we read that the servant will have amouth like a sharp sword. This finds parallels, again with Isa. 11.2, in which the shoot fromthe stump of Jesse will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth. In both contexts, 49.2 and11.2, the ‫ פה‬of the person whom God is using is described as a weapon. In Isa. 49 the servantwill bring back both Israel and the nations (v. 6). This theme is also picked up in the firstservant song in which the servant will bring justice and the law to the nations (42.2, 42.4),and also appears in the final servant song; for the servant will sprinkle many nations (52.15)Elsewhere in the canon the restoration of Israel and the nations is placed into the hands of aDavidic leader (e.g. Ps. 72.11, 72.17; Gen. 12.1-2). Again it is a feature of the Messianicdeliverer of Isa. 11 who will stand as a signal for the nations, the banished of Israel andgather the dispersed of Judah (Isa. 11.10-12).455 Kings will prostrate themselves before this452. This has been discussed at great length in the first chapter.453. Jer. 23.5, 33.15; Zech. 3.8, 6.12. We discussed the messianic usage of these passages in the previouschapter.454. The citation is from Jeremias New Testament Theology cited in P. Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospelsand Acts” in eds. Janowski et al.The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 148.455. One may also note a further link between Isa. 11 and the servant songs in that the (messianic) signal (‫ )נס‬of11.10, may appear in 49.22. Although 22 is not part of the servant song it follows immediately after and couldbe understood as that which is achieved by the servants work. 49.23, 52.15 also sound Davidic when read 162
  • 163. servant figure (49.7; 52.15) which certainly sounds regal and is part of the promise to thefuture Davidic king (Ps. 72.11). One further parallel between the servant figure and Isa. 11may be stressed, as in 42.1 it specifically mentions that the servant is filled with the spirit, forYHWH says I have put my spirit upon him (42.1) which is also true for the Davidic heir(Isa. 11.2). In the previous paragraph we brought together a number of links between theservant songs and Isa. 11. The following chart shows the extent of this correspondence. Isa. 11 Servant Song Notes 11.1 Stump of Jesse 53.2 young plant, root Share horticultural imagery 11.2 Spirit of the Lord shall 42.1 I have put my Spirit Both messiah and servant are rest upon him upon him empowered by spirit 11.2. Endowed with Wisdom 52.13 Behold my servant shall act wisely 11.3 Pleases YHWH 53.10 will of YHWH (x2); Both the Davidic messiah and 49.5 Honoured in eyes of the servant are pleasing to God YHWH 11.3 Judges (v. 3-4) ‫שׁפַט‬ ָ 42.3 Brings justice (‫ )משׁפָּט‬to The primary duty of a king is ְ ִ the nations to establish and maintain justice in the land (Lev. 19.15, Ps. 72.4l, Prov. 29.14; Zech. 7.9-10)456 To do justice is part of the royal office as in 1 Sam. 8.20457alongside Ps. 2.11 and 72.11.456. See W. A. Van Gemeren, NIDOTTE, 214.457. TDNT III:924 163
  • 164. 11.4 Mouth Like a Weapon 49.2 mouth like a sharp The mouth as weapon motif sword is found in both texts. It appears that Rev. 1.16, 2.16 and 19.15 bring them both together in a composite image458 11.10,12 Stands as a Signal 49.22 in oracle directly after In 62.10 ‫ נס‬is connected to the (‫)נֵס‬ servant song NE hope 11.6 Gather Nations 49.1, 49.6; 42.2 11.12 Gather Israel 49.5 11.16 NE 49.8-11 (2) Isa. 53 in later Jewish Texts459In the previous section we have maintained the possibility that the identity of the servant inIsa. 53, when read intratextually and intertextually alongside the scriptures of Israel, could beunderstood as being a Davidic messianic figure. It is feasible to suggest that Isa. 53 was readin such a way in the first century. However, this argument can be strengthened by looking athow Isa. 53 was understood by some Jews leading up to the first century. In a fairly recentstudy of this subject by Martin Hengel (with additional help from Daniel P. Bailey) entitledThe Effective History of Isa. 53 in the Pre-Christian Period, this position has gained seriousacademic support. Whilst recognising that many Jewish readers did not read Isa. 53 asMessianic, they conclude with several key pieces of evidence in support; Nevertheless, the demonstrated uses of this text [Isa. 53] are enough to suggest that traditions of suffering and atoning eschatological messianic figures were458. G. K. Beale, Revelation NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). Extensive discussion is also to be foundin J. Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and TheirDevelopment, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 117-122.459. G. V. Smith, Isaiah 40-66, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 465-471 (Excurses: The EarlyInterpreters of the Suffering Servant). 164
  • 165. current in Palestinian Judaism, and that Jesus and the earliest Church could have known and appealed to them.460Four sets of texts from Second Temple Judaism will be discussed, that of (a) Zechariah, (b)Targum and Isaiah scrolls from Qumran, (c) the Book of Enoch and (d) a hymn from Qumran(4Q491). a) Zech. 12.9-13.1 and 13.7-9Both Zech. 12.9-13.1 and 13.7-9 speak of the violent death of a leader. In a previous part ofthis thesis we brought forth evidence that this leader was in fact a messianic Davidic figure.In Zech. 13.7 the God of Israel speaks to his sword saying Strike the Shepherd. If theshepherd, as we have maintained elsewhere, refers to a Davidic King, then it is clear that thispassage is saying that YHWH, through his sword, will put the Davidic King to death. Thisbears a close conceptual parallel to the relationship between God and the servant in Isa. 53. Alinguistic link also arises as the servant in Isa. 53 is said to be struck down/smitten by God,using the same verb, ‫ ,נָכָה‬as used in Zech. 13.7, strike the shepherd.461 Although moresecondary, another similarity is found between the sheep being turned away in Isa. 53.6 andthe scattering of the sheep in Zech. 13.7.We have also previously discussed the notion of divine Davidic suffering in 12.10. Theconceptual parallels of this text with Isa. 53 are particularly strong for each death, that of theIsaianic servant and the one whom they have pierced, holds soteriological significance inwhich sins are dealt with. The servant of Isaiah was crushed for iniquities and the death of thefigure in Zech. 12 results in a fountain being opened for the house of David, and theinhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness. (Zech. 13.1).460. M. Hengel and D. P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period” in eds.Janowski et al. The Suffering Servant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2004), 76. Likewise Jeremias, παῖς θεοῦ, TDNT V:686. The Messianic interpretation of certain servant passagesin Deut. Isa. can very probably be traced back to the pre-Christian period.461. See W. A. Van Gemeren, NIDOTTE, 104: Ultimately, the suffering servant would stand in the place ofGod’s people and bear the blows they deserved. “Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yetwe considered him stricken by God, smitten (‫ )נָכָה‬by him, and afflicted” (Isa. 53:4). He had offered his back tothose who beat him (Isa. 50:6). The person of the Suffering Servant pointed to, and was fulfilled in, Christ (Mt.8.17; cf. 26:67; 27:26–30).The smitten messianic figure is also evident in Zech. 13:7. ‘Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against theman who is close to me!’ declares the Lord Almighty. ‘Strike (‫ )נָכָה‬the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered…’ (cf. Zech. 12.10; Mk. 14.27). Also Hengel and Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period” (2004), 87. 165
  • 166. b) The Targum Of Isaiah and 1QIsaThe Targum of Isaiah clearly identifies and interprets the servant figure of Isa. 53 as theMessiah (52.13, also 42.1), although the servant is no longer a suffering figure but atriumphant messiah who is elevated above all suffering.462 The Targum has taken a differenttheological perspective, for the author has transposed the afflictions of the suffering servantof Isa. 53 from the Messiah to Israel or the surrounding Gentile nations.463 The suffering and blows which strike the Servant according to the original Hebrew, culminating in his shameful death, are redirected in the Targum to other groups and entities, including the Gentiles, the whole house of Israel or Israels wicked, and the temple.464Some have suggested that the Targum at this point is an anti-Christian polemic in reaction tothe interpretation of Isa. 53 by early Christians.465 Even if this were the case then it actuallyshows how embedded the messianic understanding of Isa. 53 is, for the author removed thesuffering from the Messiah but was unable to remove the Messiah from the text. Thissuggests strongly that a Messianic reading is of antiquity and predates the rise of Christianity.If this were not the case one would assume that an anti-christian polemic would deny amessianic reading of Isa. 53 altogether. Jeremias makes this same point, The whole section is expounded Messianically because the Messianic interpretation of Isa. 52:13–53:12 was now so firmly established that Tg. Isa. could not avoid it. In abrupt contrast with the original, however, the passion sayings were replaced by the current view of the Messiah.4661QIsa. at 52.14 reads I have anointed rather than MT marring. Given the strong associationof the Messiah, anointed one, with anointing, it is clear that a messianic interpretation is462. J. Adna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah52.13-53.12 in the Targum of Isaiah With Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah.” in The SufferingServant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2004), 191. See also, Smith, Isaiah 40-66 (2009), 471-472. K. Jintae, “Targum Isaiah 53 and theNew Testament Concept of Atonement” JGRCJ 2008:5; “The Targum of Isaiah” Edited by J. F. Stenning,(London: Oxford University Press, 1953).; C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historicaland Critical Study, (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).463. D. W. Kennard, Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours, (New York: Peter Lang Publishers,2008), 302. Although Kennard argues that their dating suggests that they cannot be used for understanding pre-Christian messianic beliefs.464. Adna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah52.13-53.12 in the Targum of Isaiah With Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah.” (2004), 191.465. Jeremias, TDNT V:695.466. Ibid. 695. 166
  • 167. being made more or less explicit. ESV based on MT Isa. 52.14 ET of IQIsa. 52.14 As many were astonished at you— his Just as many were astonished at you, so I appearance was so marred, beyond human have anointed his appearance beyond that of semblance, and his form beyond that of the any (other) man, and his form beyond that of children of mankind the sons of humanity467This,as with the Targum, shows that the author of 1QIsa had a messianic individual inmind.468 c) 1 EnochIn the first chapter of this thesis we maintained that the Son of Man figure in the Sim. ofEnoch is to be understood as a divine Davidic messianic figure.469 This figure is frequentlycalled the chosen one (40.5, 45.3, 51.5, 49.2, 52.6, 55.4, 56.6, 61.5) which recalls the firstservant song (Isa. 42.1). He is also called the righteous one (38.2; 53.6) which may recallIsa. 53.11. After this the Righteous and Elect One will reveal the house of his congregation. From that time they shall not be hindered in the name of the Lord of Spirits. And these mountains shall become flat like earth in the presence of his righteousness, and the hills shall become like a fountain of water. (1 Enoch 53.6)Extra support can be gained for this position by noting in the above quotation the use of NEconcepts, the mountains becoming flat, which are also related to the righteous servant figureof Isa. 53 and the larger literary context of Isa. 40-55. We can maintain from this that servantof the Lord in Isa. 40-55 is picked up by the author of the Sim. of Enoch and is usedintertextually, through the use of chosen one and righteous, to enhance the Similitudesmessianic Son of Man matrix.470 Furthermore, the Enochic Son of man is described as the467. Translations and textual comments in Hengel and Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period” (2004), 104.468. Ibid. 105.469. There are four designations found in the Simlitudes of Enoch... Righteous One, Chosen One, Son ofMan and Anointed One... All these designations are commonly understood as referring to the same figure. B.Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, (Tübingen: Mohr, 2008), 43-49.470. See Hengel and Bailey, 2004, The Suffering Servant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, 99-101. 167
  • 168. light of the gentiles (1 Enoch 48.4) which echoes the second servant song whereby theservant will be a made a light to the nations (Isa. 49.6). Also, 1 Enoch 62.9-10 and Isa. 52.15both present a figure who will cause the kings of the earth to feel shame. d) 4Q491In the Dead Sea Scrolls we have textual evidence of a messianic hymn having beencomposed in the first person. This hymn which scholars call the self glorification hymn isfound in two versions. The first version is found in three different manuscripts (4Q471b;4Q427 frg. 7 and 1QHa col. 26). Version two is found in 4Q491 frg. 11, col. 1 of which therelevant parts have been placed below: Frg. 1 (Baillet 4Q491 frg. 11 col. 1: 8-24) 5 [… et]ernal; a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods above which none of the kings of the East shall sit, and their nobles no[t …] silence (?) 6 […] my glory is in{comparable} and besides me no-one is exalted, nor comes to me, for I reside in […], in the heavens, and there is no 7 […] … I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in the holy congregation; [my] des[ire] is not according to the flesh, [but] all that is precious to me is in (the) glory (of) 8 […] the holy [dwel]ling. [W]ho has been considered despicable on my account? And who is comparable to me in my glory? Who, like the sailors, will come back and tell? 9 […] Who bea[rs all] sorrows like me? And who [suffe]rs evil like me? There is no-one. I have been instructed, and there is no teaching comparable 10 [to my teaching …] And who will attack me when [I] op[en my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips? And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgment? 11 [… friend of the king, companion of the holy ones … incomparable, f]or among the gods is [my] posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king. To me (belongs) [pure] gold, and to me, the gold of Ophir 12 […] Blank […] Blank […] 13 [… exult,] just ones, in the God of […] in the holy dwelling, sing for h[im …] 14 [… p]roclaim during the meditation jubilation […] in eternal happiness; and there is no … […] 15 […] to establish the horn of [his] Mess[iah …] 16 […] to make known his power with strength […] 17 […] … […]471471. Recent research on this text is found in J. Angel, “The Liturgical-Eschatological Priest of the Self-Glorification Hymn” Revue de Qumran 96 (2010): 585-605. 168
  • 169. A reconstructed reading of version one (4Q471b, 4Q427 frg. 7, 1QHa col. 26) of this hymnreads as follows in lines two and three. Wh[o....And who] has been despised like [me? And who] has been rejected [of men] like me? [And who] compares to m[e in enduring evil.472This psalm presents a figure who is counted as a member of the heavenly court (l, 7) and sitson a heavenly throne. This figure is likely to be understood as the Messiah (l.15) and asfriend of the King (11). This vindicated being is the one who alone bears suffering and evil(9). It is extremely likely that this Messianic figure is to be understood as being a divineDavidic figure for he has divine status (Ps. 45:6//4Q491.7,11 ‫ ,)אלים‬has a heavenly throne (Ps.110) and is called Messiah. The reference to who can endure the flow his lips (10) is alsolikely to refer to the Davidic figure of Isa. 11.4 who will come from the stump of Jesse andwill strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and kill the wicked with the breath of his lips.The phrase friend of the king (11) would also be an appropriate reference to the Davidicmessiah. David was known for being a man after Gods heart and Solomon was called ‫י ְדְ י ָה‬which means friend of God (2 Sam. 12.25, GHCLOT).The fact that this Davidic figure is described using terminology drawn from the servant songof Isa. 53 is of particular interest to us. Below, the relevant sections of the two versions arelaid out alongside Isaiah.472. I. Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (London: University ofCalifornia Press, 2000), 76 (with discussion in 133-134). This translation is largely based on that by E. Eshel,“The Identification of the ‘Speaker’of the Self-Glorification Hymn” in The Provo International Conference onthe Dead Sea Scrolls 1996, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 619-35. 169
  • 170. Version 1 Version 2 Isa. 53.3-4 4Q471b, 4Q427 frg. 7, 1QHa 4Q491 frg. 11 col. 1 col. 26 3 Wh[o....And who] has 8 […] the holy He was despised and rejected been despised like [me? [dwel]ling. [W]ho has by men; a man of sorrows, And who] has been been considered and acquainted with grief; rejected [of men] like despicable on my and as one from whom men me? [And who] account? And who is hide their faces he was compares to m[e in comparable to me in my despised, and we esteemed enduring evil 473 glory? Who, like the him not. 4 sailors, will come back Surely he has borne our and tell? griefs and carried our 9 […] Who bea[rs all] sorrows; yet we esteemed sorrows like me? And him stricken, smitten by God, who [suffe]rs evil like and afflicted me?This correspondence between Isa. 53 and these texts in Qumran cannot simply be explainedas coincidental.Both versions of these hymns are followed by another hymn which, again, comes in twoversions.474 This second hymn calls on members of a community to praise God. Given thatthis second hymn follows the self glorification hymn in both versions it seems appropriate toview them as two parts of a single composition.475 Part of this second hymn (Version 1:4Q427 frg, 7 col. 2) reads in translation as follows: 3 [… op]pression […] 4 deceit [ends] and there is no wickedness that is not known; light will appear and en[joyment flourish; …] 5 mourning, and anguish flee; peace will appear, terror cease, the fount of [perpetual] bl[essing] will be opened. 6 There will be healing for all the eternal periods; wickedness will end, plague(s) cease so that there will be no illne[ss; … is eliminated] 7 [… is no] mo[re. Pro]claim and say: Blank Great is the God [who works wonders,] 8 for he brings down the arrogant spirit without even a remnant; and he raises473. Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000), 76 (withdiscussion in 133-134). This translation is largely based on that by Eshel, “The Identification of the ‘Speaker’ofthe Self-Glorification Hymn” (1998).474. Version 1: 4Q427 frg. 7 , col. 1, lines 13-23 and col. 2, lines 1-14; Version 2: 4Q491 frg. 11.col. 1475. Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000), 20. 170
  • 171. the poor from the dust to […] 9 and up to the clouds he extols him in stature and together with the gods in the congregation of the community; and cures [him …]We see here that the thanksgiving hymn speaks in imminent terms about the eradication ofwickedness, mourning and terror for these have given way to light, enjoyment, peace andblessing. It is reasonable to conclude that what is being described is the result of the Davidicfigures suffering referred to in the first hymn. In the same way as the death of the servantfigure of Isa. 53, the death of the messianic figure of 4Q491 bears soteriological significance.Therefore, it is possible to state that some Second Temple Jews understood Isa. 53 to declarethe sufferings of a divine Davidic figure whose death has redemptive significance. (b) The Gospel of Mark and Narrative Substructure of Isa. 40-48The following is a summary of the argument which has been advanced in the last twochapters. However, it will now be placed alongside the narrative sub-structure of Isaiah.Mark, like the prologue of Isa. 40-55, begins his Gospel with an announcement that the longdays of exile are now over (1.3). Jesus as the divine son of God (1.1, 1.7 cf Isa. 40.10) hascome to deliver his people from bondage and to establish Gods reign (1.15). In Isa. 40-48YHWH himself, as divine-warrior and through his anointed ‫ משׁיח‬agent Cyrus (Isa. 45.1),wages war against those who oppress Israel, whereas in Mark Jesus deals with the demonicand satanic strongholds. The allusions to Isa. 40-48 continue throughout the opening part ofMarks Gospel as Jesus declares forgiveness of sins (2.5; cf. Isa. 40.2) and heals the blind,lame and deaf (Isa. 35.5). In Isaiah blindness and deafness are associated with idolatry. As ashepherd Jesus feeds his people (Mk. 6.34-44 cf. Isa. 40.11) just as YHWH provided for hispeople in the first exodus. Jesus as a Galilean, like Cyrus the Pagan, is not what the peopleexpected (6.1-6).In this first section of Mark, the NE of Isa. 40-48 is proclaimed and enacted. As with Isa.40-48 the NE is taking place. However, for it to come to full fruition it is conditional upon thepeoples acceptance. We may represent our findings as follows, 171
  • 172. Isa. 40-48 Mark: Galilee The prologue announces a NE in which Jesus announces the reign of God and does YHWH will act to redeem his people wonders which recall INE YHWH acts as a DW to defeat the enemy Jesus acts as a DW to defeat the enemy and and liberate the captives liberate the captives Israels sins are forgiven Jesus forgives sins Cyrus, as a pagan, is called to bring this Jesus from Nazareth, son of Joseph, is called about to bring this aboutIn Isa. 40-49 the hope of a NE, the messages of consolation, are surrounded by escalatingmessages of confrontation as Israel stubbornly refuses to accept YHWHs wisdom and plan touse Cyrus. Marks Gospel picks up a number of these themes. In his discussion of the purposeof parables in Mk. 4:12, Jesus recalls Isa. 6:9 which, in context, is a classic statement ofIsraels idolatrous heart. Likewise, in his discussion of tradition, Jesus confronts thehypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes (Mk. 7.6, Isa. 29.13). Although these passages are notfrom Deutero-Isaiah they reflect the themes of chapters 40-49.476 As we have alreadymentioned, the way section is framed by accounts of the healing of blind men which, othershave noted, serves to highlight the blindness of the disciples. Jesus is leading his blinddisciples just as YHWH would lead the blind in Isa. 42.16. Isa. 40-48 Mark YHWH confronts the idolatry of Israel, yet Jesus faces conflict and misunderstanding Israel misunderstand YHWH from all quarters. He accuses the religious leadership, using Isaiah, of hypocrisy and idolatry476. In chapter two, in our discussion of the Malachi quotation, we observed that Mark is capable of using abiblical passage (ie: description of Elijah from 2 Kgs. 1.8) to reinforce the teaching of another passage. 172
  • 173. We read in Mark that Jesus arrives at Jerusalem with the intention of being enthroned as theDavidic king, coming to gain respect and find fruit (11.14, 12.6). Yet when he arrives there isno welcoming party and he enters the city alone. The next day, in a symbolic act, he declaresjudgement on the temple (Mk. 11.15, 11.23, 11.12). Jesus, as a Davidic King and YHWH-Warrior, has been rejected by his people and their moment of salvation has passed. The NEhas failed due to the stubbornness of the citys leadership. "There is no peace," says the Lord,"for the wicked." (Isa. 48.22).Isa. 40-48 MarkNE fails as Israel refuse to accept that Jesus is rejected by the leadership of the city.YHWH can use Cyrus. Israels rebellion The NE fails and judgement followsmeans there can be no peaceIn this brief overview we have seen that the Markan story correlates with our understandingof the narrative of Isa. 40-48. (c) The Gospel of Mark and Narrative Substructure of Isa. 49-55Upon reading Isa. 49-55 we are reminded that the NE plan of YHWH has not beenabandoned and that, through the action of his suffering and vindicated servant, it will come tofruition. As will be discussed shortly, Mark portrays Jesus as the Isaianic servant. Thisparallel is not only to be found in key texts like 10.45 and 14.52 but also in thematic parallelsfor Jesus, like the servant in Isa. 53, is vindicated after enduring suffering and death. Like theservant in Isaiah, his death is salvific (10.45, 14.52). Jesus death, in parallel to that of theservant in 49-55, allows a NE to take place. His death brings redemption (10.45) whichevokes the Exodus-New Exodus, and the fact that his final meal is a Passover meal provides afurther NE framework by which his death can be interpreted. This NE will likewise involvethe defeat of the enemy. Although this time the enemy is not to be seen as Babylon (Isa.40-55), or even the demonic, but as the city itself. In Mk. 13 Jerusalem is cast in the role ofBabylon but its destruction will result in the gathering of the elect. There may also be anIsaianic allusion within the call for the disciples to flee the city. 173
  • 174. Isa. 49-55 Mark The actions of the suffering, dying and Jesus, as the servant, undergoes suffering, vindicated servant are salvific and bring death and vindication to bring about the NE about the NE2. Jesus as the Isaianic ServantThe above discussion has been profitable in that the broad strokes of Markan narrative havebeen placed alongside our proposed narrative sub-structure of Isa. 40-55. What is required, inorder to add further confirmation to this proposal, is to demonstrate that Mark intends thereader to understand Jesus as being the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53. A previous generation ofscholars assumed, all too quickly, that Jesus (and therefore the synoptics) identified himselfas the Isaianic servant, and that Isa. 53 was essentially a prophecy which found its fulfilmentin Jesus. In 1948 C. R. North was able to say, It is almost universally admitted that Jesus sawHis way by the light that [Isaiah] LIII shed upon his predestined path.477 When MornaHooker penned her M. A. dissertation, entitled Jesus and the Servant,478 she challenged thisconsensus through a detailed analysis of over 40 possible citations and allusions to theservant in the synoptic Gospels, finding that there is very little in the Synoptics to support thetraditional view that Jesus identified his mission with that of the Servant of the Songs.479Hooker surveyed these allusions, filtering out any reference in which there was no linguisticconnection between the synoptic passage and the servant of Isaiah, and also rejected anallusion unless the ideas found in the New Testament reference have come from, and couldonly have come from, that particular Old Testament passage.480 If Hooker is correct in her477. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study, (1948), 218. S.McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, (Waco: BaylorUniversity Press, 2005), 210.478. M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the NewTestament, (London: SPCK, 1959).479. M. D. Hooker, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ, (Carlisle:Paternoster, 1994), 102.480. Morna Hooker makes the following hermeneutical assumptions:1) Verbal similarity between DI and a passage in the synoptics cannot be taken as conclusive unless it ‘can beshown that the language and ideas found in the New Testament reference have come from, and could only havecome from, that particular Old Testament passage’. 174
  • 175. analysis, then it essentially pulls the rug from under the argument which we have beendeveloping. For how can the narrative of Mark be reflecting the sub-structure of Isa. 40-55 ifJesus is not the Suffering Servant? Is Scot McKnight correct when he quite recently stated,there is negligible evidence that Jesus saw his life as the Servant of Isaiah.?481Hookers thesis sparked a series of responses from those who wanted to defend that Jesusministry was understood as fulfilling the role of the servant. R. T. France rightly noted thather criteria are designed to exclude as much as possible.482 This is mainly because they arebased on an atomistic approach to the Gospel data and thus exclude the probability of anallusion being recognised through the cumulative exegesis the whole of the Gospel. AsJeremias said, She treats the New Testament like a mosaic, and examines each stoneseparately.483 From a methodological point of view it is appropriate, and indeed necessary ifone is undertaking a narrative of exegesis of the Gospel, to focus not simply upon anindividual unit of the Gospel , as if it is disconnected and in isolation from its narrativecontext. Rather the meaning of the text under investigation should be considered inrelationship to the narrative into which it is embedded. Hookers criteria will not allow apassage to have dual referentiality to the OT but adopts a mono-approach in which anyMarkan passage can only evoke one OT passage. Under these conditions Mk. 10.45 cannotrefer to both Dan. 7 as well as Isa. 53. This, however, is a failure to recognise that Mark, onseveral occasions, fuses together a number of different OT citations into one verse orpericope.484 Rikki Watts sums up the findings of Jeremias, France and Kruse, [Hooker and Barretts] works have been criticized for dealing with sayings in a piecemeal fashion, treating linguistic parallels in isolation, and to varying2) If a linguistic connection is made a link cannot be made between the identification of Jesus and the servant‘unless the words are found to apply in both cases to the person or mission of the central figure’.3) If references to the servant are shown to have connections with Jesus’ life it cannot be taken as proof thatJesus saw himself as the Suffering Servant unless it can be shown that Jesus fulfils the ‘unique function of theServant’. Hooker, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (1994),60-63.481. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (2005), 338.482. R. T. France, “The Servant of the Lord in the Teaching of Jesus” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 26-52, 28.483. J. Jeremias, “Review of Jesus and the Servant” JTS 11 (1960).484. H. C. Kee states that the following are composite quotations. See also 1:11 (Isa. 42:1; Ps. 2:7); 11:1-11(Zech. 9:9; Ps. 118:25-26); 11:17 (Isa. 56:7; Jer. 8:11); 12:1-12 (Isa. 5:1-2; Ps. 118:22-23); 13:24-26 (Isa. 34:4;Josh. 2:10; Ezek. 32-7-8; Dan. 7:13-14); and 14:62 (Dan. 7:13; Ps. 110:1) However, the line between quotationand allusions is sometimes blurry. H. C. Kee, “The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark11-16” in eds. E. E. Ellis and E. Grasser Jesus Und Paulus: Festschrift Für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70,(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 165-88. 175
  • 176. degrees failing to take account that the whole is commonly greater than the sum of the parts.485Nevertheless, Jesus and the Servant remains an important book and any serious study of thedeath of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark must interact with her contribution which rightlyreminds us that citations of the OT must not simply be assumed.With these methodological ideas in mind it is necessary to put the argument forward asstrongly as possible that Mark understands Jesus to be the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53.486 JoelMarcus has noted some parallels between the passion narrative and Isa. 53, but we will focusour attention of the sayings of Jesus.487 Our investigation will begin with (a) Mk. 9.12, (b)485. R. E. Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A Crux Revisited” in eds. Bellinger et al. Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 126.486. Since Jesus predictions of his passion, references to his future suffering, and Mk. 10.45, relate to the same event, surely some consideration ought to be given not only to the question of their overall coherence but also to the fact that the former materials constitute the immediate interpretative context for the latter. Along similar lines, assuming an overall unity to Marks Gospel, some weight should also be given to its larger conceptual framework as proposed herein, namely, the INE. Ibid. 259.487. Mark Thematic Links Isaiah 14:10–11, 18, 21, 41–42, 44; handing over 53:6, 12 15:1, 10, 15 14:61; 15:5 silence before accusers 53:7 14:65 spitting, slapping 50:6 15:5, 39 amazement of nations and kings 52:15 15:6–15 criminal saved, innocent man delivered to murder J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 189. 176
  • 177. move onto the passion prediction, (c) focus on Mk.10.45 , as well as examining Jesus wordsat the last supper. (a) The Suffering Servant and Mk. 9.12 Mk. 9.12 Mk. 9.12 (NA27) 12 12 And he said to them, “Elijah does come first ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς· Ἠλίας µὲν ἐλθὼν πρῶτον to restore all things. And how is it written of ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα· καὶ πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ the Son of Man that he should suffer many τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ things and be treated with contempt? ἐξουδενηθῇ;Jesus tells his disciples (Mk. 9.12) that that the Son of Man must suffer and be treated withcontempt (ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ). By using the words πῶς γέγραπται the disciples,and therefore the ancient and modern reader, are encouraged to reflect upon the scriptures forenlightenment as to the meaning of Jesus saying. To which text(s) within the scriptures ofIsrael then does this refer?The self-referential phrase the son of man brings Dan. 7 to mind but it is not explicitly clearthat the Son of Man figure in Dan. 7 actually suffers. The word ἐξουδενέω does not appear inthe LXX of Dan. 7.A straight linguistic link can also not be made to LXX Isa. 53 as the word ἐξουδενέω does notappear. In Isa. 53.3 LXX the word ἀτιµάζω is used to describe the suffering, ‫ ,בזה‬of theservant. However, Rikki Watts argues that Marks ἐξουδενέω may be a fair rendering of theHebrew word ‫ בזה‬which is used in Isa. 53.3. Watts states that, Mark seemed not to regard9.12 as a direct quotation and therefore may feel no compulsion to conform it to the LXXtext.488 In other words Mark does not follow the LXXs ἀτιµάζω but prefers ἐξουδενέω. Thisis supported by a number of factors. Firstly, the LXX usually renders ‫ בזה‬with some form ofthe ἐξουδεν- stem.488. Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A Crux Revisited" (1998), 132. 177
  • 178. The following chart made using Logos Bible Software clearly shows this.Each segment of the pie chart represents the word that the LXX uses to translate ‫ 984. בזה‬Ofthe 32 occurrences of ‫ בזה‬in the MT those stemming from ἐξουδεν stem are overwhelminglythe most frequent. It is perfectly possible then that Mark could allude to MT Isa. 53.3 byusing the Greek word ἐξουδενέω. Secondly, we know of other Greek versions which rejectthe LXXs use of the word ἀτιµάζω and instead use the word ἐξουδενέω.490Therefore, we may conclude that Mark could be alluding to Isa. 53 in Mk. 9.12 by offeringhis own translation of the MT or by using a preexistent Greek rendering of Isa. 53 which usesἐξουδενέω to describe the suffering of the servant.In Mk. 9.12 Jesus goes on to to say that the Son of Man must suffer many things (πολλὰπάθῃ). πάσχω is found 42 times in the NT, 204 times in Philo and 49 times in the ApostolicFathers. According to the BDAG and EDNT, it almost always refers to an experience ofsuffering. In contrast to its frequency in the first century, it only occurs 18 times in the LXX.However, only a few of these have Hebrew textual counterparts.491 These are Amos 6.6; Esth.489. Using Logos Bible Software.490. Symmachus, Aquilla and Theo. See discussion in Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A CruxRevisited" (1998), 262.491. This search was performed on Lexham LXX using Logos Bible Software. The full list is Esth. 9.26; 2Macc. 6.30; 2 Macc. 7.18; 2 Macc. 7.32; 2 Macc. 9.28; 4 Macc. 9.8; 4 Macc. 10.10; 4 Macc. 14.9; Wisd. of Sol.12.27; Wisd. of Sol. 18.1, 18.11,18.19, 19.13; Sir. 38.16; Amos 6.6; Zech. 11.5; Jer. 33; Ezek. 16.5. Rikki Wattsincludes Dan. 11.17 but the word does not occur here. 178
  • 179. 9.26; Zech. 11.15; and Ezek. 16.5. Out of these only Amos 6.6 has the sense of to suffer orto be in pain. In Amos πάσχω is the translation of ‫ חלה .חלה‬is rendered by a number ofdiverse Greek terms in the LXX as the following diagram illustrates.Whilst these words appear in their nominal form in the NT, only two of them are used in theirverbal form in the NT, ἀσθενέω and ἐνοχλέω, and these seem to quite specifically mean to beweak, sickly and to cause trouble respectively.This data gives us the impression that πάσχω has undergone a semantic shift between thetime of the composition of the LXX and the first century. πάσχω means to Greek culture what‫ חלה‬meant to the Hebrews, so that by the first century it is a word which is used commonlyfor suffering.With this in mind we may then ask what passages use the Hebrew word ‫ חלה‬to speakprophetically of something or a people group who would suffer. Neither Dan. 7 nor thePsalms use the word ‫ חלה‬or, in the case of the LXX, its Greek counterparts. However, Isa. 53has three points of contact with some form of ‫.חלה‬ 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief (‫ ; )חֹלִי‬and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he has borne our griefs (ֵ ‫ )חלי‬and carried our sorrows; yet we ָ ֳ esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted....Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief (‫ ;)החלִי‬when his soul makes an ֱ ֶ offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isa. 53.3–4, 53.10) 179
  • 180. Watts concludes, If πολλὰ πάθῃ is intended to evoke a particular OT passage, it is hard to seehow Isa. 53 could not be the primary candidate.492In our analysis of Mk. 9.12 we have seen that two points of contact, ἐξουδενέω and πολλὰπάθῃ, can be established with Isa. 53. Once these two arguments are considered together, theintertextual link between Mk. 9.12 and Isa. 53 become particularly strong. It is thereforereasonable, with a narrative and intratextual hermeneutic, to suggest that the other sufferingpassages in Mark may also have their intertextual background in the servant figure of Isaiah.If we take this data and context seriously, that is A) Jesus declares that his suffering is inaccordance with what is written, and B) he then describes his suffering in language alludingprimarily, but not exclusively, to Isa. 53, then it seems a reasonable initial assumption that thecontent of his other suffering sayings should at least be consonant with this text.493492. Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A Crux Revisited” (1998), 133.493. ibid., 265. 180
  • 181. (b) The Passion PredictionsThe passion predictions may be considered together due to the overlap of words and conceptsbetween them. Mk. 8.31 Mk. 9.31 Mk. 10.33-34 Καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς 31 ἐδίδασκεν γὰρ τοὺς 33 ὅτι ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνοµεν εἰς ὅτι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔλεγεν Ἱεροσόλυµα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν καὶ αὐτοῖς ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδοθήσεται ἀποδοκιµασθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τῶν χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων, καὶ γραµµατεῦσιν, καὶ ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν, καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ γραµµατέων καὶ ἀποκτανθεὶς µετὰ τρεῖς καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἀποκτανθῆναι καὶ µετὰ τρεῖς ἡµέρας ἀναστήσεται. ἔθνεσιν 34 καὶ ἐµπαίξουσιν ἡµέρας ἀναστῆναι· αὐτῷ καὶ ἐµπτύσουσιν αὐτῷ καὶ µαστιγώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν, καὶ µετὰ τρεῖς ἡµέρας ἀναστήσεται.The passion predictions possess a number of conceptual and linguistic connections with theservant figure of Isa. 53. (1) In 8.31 we again have the reference to πολλὰ παθεῖν which wehave already maintained has a link with Isa. 53. (2) Mk. 8.31 and 9.31 state that Jesus will bekilled (ἀποκτανθῆναι, ἀποκτανθεὶς) correlating with κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτὸν θανάτῳ of 10.33.θάνατος is found in LXX Isa. 53.8, 53.9, 53.12. (3) In Mk. 10.33 this death is the result of ajudgement (κατακρίνω) which also correlates with Isa. 53.8 where the servant is taken awayto be killed because of a judgement (‫ ,משׁפט‬κρίσις). (4) 9.31 tells us that Jesus will bedelivered (παραδίδωµι) into the hands of men, which corresponds to 53.6, 53.12. (5) Mk.8.31 and 9.31 both express the hope that Jesus would be raised up after his death (καὶ µετὰτρεῖς ἡµέρας ἀναστῆναι·/καὶ µετὰ τρεῖς ἡµέρας ἀναστήσεται). The servant in Isa. 53 will alsosee deliverance after his death.494 (6) In Mk. 10.34 we see that Jesus envisions a time when he494. See chapters 2-3. J. D. Barry, The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah, (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems,2010). 181
  • 182. will be spat (ἐµπτύω) upon and flogged (µαστιγόω). These words or ideas do not occur in Isa.53, but they do occur in another of the Isaianic servant songs. The Suffering Servant figure ofIsa. 50 gives his back to be flogged (τὸν νῶτόν µου δέδωκα εἰς µάστιγας, LXX 50.6) and isspat upon (δὲ πρόσωπόν µου οὐκ ἀπέστρεψα ἀπὸ αἰσχύνης ἐµπτυσµάτων, LXX 50.6). Thisagain suggests that Mark is aware of the larger narrative substructure Isa. 40-55 and sees thesuffering figure of Isa. 50 and Isa. 53 as being the same person.These six arguments are persuasive and make it highly likely that Mark intends his readers tomake a link between the passion predictions and the Suffering Servant figure of Isaiah. Wattsis correct in stating that the linguistic and conceptual parallels indicate that he derived themajority of his descriptive details from Isa. 53 and 50.495 (c) Mk. 10.45 and the Suffering ServantShortly following the last passion prediction, Jesus comments upon the purpose of his deathin what is perhaps one of the most debated verses within the NT. καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν. (Mk. 10.45)Mk. 10.45 is talking about the same event as both Mk. 9.12 and the three passion predictionsso we may well expect that Isa. 53 may again be lurking in the background. For Englishspeakers a link between 10.45 and Isa. 53 may, at first sight, appear obvious given that bothcontexts, Mk. 10.45 and Isa. 53, speak about a servant. However, matters are not that simplefor it is the the word διακονέω that appears twice in Mk. 10.45, whereas in Isa. 52.13 theHebrew ‫( עבד‬in the MT) is translated as παῖς (in the LXX). Moreover, in Isaiah, as thefollowing table shows, the word ‫ עבד‬is never translated as διακονέω. Isaianic use of the Translation in word ‫עבד‬ the LXX 41.8 παῖς 41.9 παῖς 42.1 παῖς495. Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A Crux Revisited" (1998), 136. 182
  • 183. 42.19 παῖς/δοῦλος 43.10 παῖς 44.1 παῖς 44.2 παῖς 44.21 παῖς x2 44.26 παῖς 45.4 παῖς 48.20 δοῦλος 49.3 δοῦλος 49.5 δοῦλος 49.6 παῖς 49.7 δοῦλος 50.10 παῖς 52.13 παῖς 53.11 δουλεύω 54.17 θεραπεύωElsewhere the LXX does not translate this word using διακονέω. The following Logos BibleSoftware diagram illustrates this. 183
  • 184. All the words in the LXX which are used to translate the word ‫ עבד‬appear around the edge ofthe circle.For this reason Morna Hooker has rejected an allusion to LXX Isa. 53 in Mk. 10.45. Inresponse we note that although διακονέω does not appear in the LXX it is fairly frequentlyused in the NT. This suggests, as with our discussion of Mk. 9.12, that there may have been asemantic shift by the NT era and that διακονέω began to cover some of the same semanticrange as ‫ .עבד‬This is supported by noting that it appears that words originating from the διακ-stem overlap with that of the δοῦλ- stem. δοῦλος not only appears as a viable translation of‫ עבד‬in Isa. 40-55 (see the above chart) but is also found in the verse immediately before Mk.10.45. 43 οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑµῖν, ἀλλʼ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ µέγας γενέσθαι ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται ὑµῶν διάκονος, 44 καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑµῖν εἶναι πρῶτος ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος· 45 καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.R. T. France rightly notes the parallelism of Mk. 10.43-44 which suggests that these wordsshare semantic space and that, in this case, the διάκονος is to be equated with δοῦλος.496496. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (1971), 118. 184
  • 185. There are two additional issues in the latter half of Mk. 10.45b, δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦλύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, which further support a link between Mk. 10.45 and Isa. 53. We willlook at these in turn.Firstly, in Mk.10.45 Jesus anticipates that he will δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. As noted byseveral scholars including Barrett, the thematic and linguistic parallels with Isa. 53. and Mk.10.45 do indeed closely approximate497 (53.10, 53.12). 53.10 ‫אִם־תָּ שִׂים אשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ‬ ָ 53.12 ‫העֱרה למּוֶת נַפְשׁוֹ‬ ָ ַ ָ ֶ ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁµαρτίας, ἡ ψυχὴ ὑµῶν ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ LXX If you offer for sin your soul LXX his soul was given over to death Trans. from MT. When his soul makes an Trans. from MT. He poured out his soul to offering for guilt deathSecondly, Mk. 10.45 uses the word λύτρον to describe the significance of the death of Jesus.This word is used in antiquity, predominantly in reference to prisoners of war, slaves anddebtors. It is the price of release for the liberation of a prisoner or debtor.498 In biblical termsit is occasionally connected with the idea of atonement (Exod. 21.30, 30.12; Num. 35.31). InExod. 30.11-16 the price of release, the ransom, is also referred to as the atonement money.Mark then presents Jesus death as the necessary payment to ensure the release of the many.The text does not explicitly state to whom the payment will be made, nor what captivity themany are in. Does Jesus death bring release from the devil, from the captivity of sin,national exile or perhaps even death itself? We have seen, however, that Mark seeks to framehis Gospel in Isaianic NE terms and that links are already to be found between the death ofJesus in Mark and Isa. 53. It is therefore not surprising to observe that in Isa. 40-55 thelanguage of release from slavery and debt is also used. YHWH himself is the Yahweh asredeemer (‫ )גֹּאל‬and Israel, the recipient of his redemption (nom. ‫ ,גּאוּלים‬redeemed).499 Within ֵ ִ ְthis context Isa. 53 speaks of a servant who will die as a substitute for Israel in order that she497. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (2002), 121.498. EDNT Vol. II:365499. NIDOTTE 1:793. 185
  • 186. no longer stands under the wrath of God but, instead, receives redemption, healing andforgiveness.It is reasonable to now assume that Mark also intends λύτρον to be understood in this Isaianicsense. Along with Peter Bolt we agree that, it is nevertheless fair to say that Mark 10:45provides a perfect summary of the servants vicarious death on behalf of many others.500Jesus death, having already been painted in intertextual Isaianic colours, has redemptivesignificance in Marks Gospel as the payment by which Israel can be released from captivity.Although Israel is living in spiritual exile, and is under both demonic influence and the wrathof God, the hope of a NE still stands. Jesus death is the necessary price by which Israel maybe redeemed. YHWH is redeemer ‫ גֹּאל‬and Jesus death is the sacrificial λύτρον, the ‫,אשׁם‬ ֵwhich means that his disciples, the true Israel, will be redeemed (‫.)גּאוּלים‬ ִ ְ (d) The Last SupperThe passion predictions, as part of the central way section, prepare the theological trajectoryin which the reader can understand the passion narrative. Jesus advance upon Jerusalem isthat of the DW coming to his Zion to be enthroned as its true Lord and King. The reader isbeing prepared for understanding that Jesus coming rejection is not the abandonment of theNE project but rather, in parallel with Isaiah 53, the climactic act which will bring it about.The anticipated rejection begins to take place when Jesus arrives at the city. By the time thereader reaches chapter 14 the crucifixion looms at large upon the narrative canvas. Thepriests are glad that Judas will betray his friend (14.1, 14.11), Jesus body is prepared byanointing for burial (14.4-8) and Jesus prepares his disciples for his own death through thesymbolic sharing of the Passover meal. 501500. P. Bolt, The Cross From a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel, (Nottingham: IVP, 2004), 72.501. Scot McKnight rightly reminds us of the significance of Pesah, that is the Passover meal, for Jews in thefirst century. He writes, We should remember this one thought; when we enter into the world of the various celebrations of Pesah, we are entering into a sacred world, a world in which the Israelite believed that God was speaking, in which time stood still as Israelites told their old story--a story in which meaning was determined by memory and recital of ancient events, and in which a people came together to express its identity in solidarity, worship and memory. When Israelite celebrants began the Pesah, they joined hands with countless predecessors who had been to temple and table-even with with familial, tribal, cultural, linguistic, theological, and political variations--for the same reason: to remember Gods 186
  • 187. By the first century the symbolic meal, rooted within the story of the exodus, not onlyserved to retain the memory of past events but gained eschatological significance in thatit would, as a festival, encourage hopes for a new movement of God in the face ofreligious and political captivity.502 As Bloch concludes, The celebration was designed to keep fresh the memory of the momentous struggle against slavery and the revelation of God through Moses. It was to reassure the people that the Almighty would smite all future tyrants as he had done the Pharaoh.503Likewise, Jeremias commented, The passover is a looking forward to the coming deliverance of which the deliverance from Egypt is just a prototype.504Marks readers would likely have been struck by both the similarities and differences of themeal which Jesus shared with his disciples and that which was celebrated by the Jewishcommunity. Six points of familiarity can be noted. (1) The meal was celebrated on a Passover night (14.12, 14.14, 14.16). (2) The meal took place within Jerusalem. (3) The meal was celebrated at night (c.f. Deut. 16.6). (4) The meal involved wine. (5) Jesus meal explained some of the significance of the liturgical objects. (6) The meal concluded with the singing of a hymn.Yet the ancient reader familiar with contemporary practice would also be be struck by onenoticeable difference. Marks text makes no mention of a Lamb. In order to ascertain the deliverance from Egypt. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (2005), 245. See also T.Prosic, The Development and Symbolism of Passover Until 70 CE, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004).In the Mishnah one is called during Pesah to regard himself as if he has personally has gone forth from Egypt. In every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt, since it is said, And you shall tell your son in that day saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Exod. 13:8). Therefore we are duty-bound to thank, praise, glorify, honour, exalt, extol, and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these miracles. He brought us forth from slavery to freedom, anguish to joy, mourning to festival, darkness to great light, subjugation to redemption, so we should say before him, Hallelujah (m. Pesh. 105).502. Josephus Ant. 17.149-167; 20.112.503. A. P. Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days, (New York: Ktav, 1978),102, 117-118.504. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, (London: SCM, 1966), 137-138. Furthermore, according tosome ancient sources, a tradition arose in which the arrival of the messiah, redemption would occur on Passovernight itself. Mekilta, Exod. 12.42, Exod. Rab. 18.11; 12/42, S. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, (WashingtonD. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008). See B. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist:Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper, (New York: Doubleday, 2011), 67. 187
  • 188. possible significance of this for Mark we should note one important factor regarding how thePassover was celebrated in the Second Temple period. Before being eaten in the home, thelamb had to have been sacrificed in the temple.505 No-one living at the time of the Temple could ever have had any misconceptions about the fact that the first-century Passover was first a sacrifice and then a meal.506Although Mark does not mention the Lamb, he does frame the meal of Jesus within asacrificial context. Attention is directed away from the body of the sacrificial lamb andinstead towards the body of Jesus when he says, Take, this is my body. Likewise, no mentionis made of the bloody sacrifice in the temple (note how Josephus described in gory detailwhat happens to the blood) but attention falls, rather, upon the cup which represents Jesusblood, When we compare Jesus actions to these ancient Jewish Traditions, it doesnt take much imagination to figure out his point. By means of his words over the bread and wine of the last supper, Jesus is saying in no uncertain terms, I am the new passover lamb of the new exodus. This is the passover of the Messiah, and I am a new sacrifice.507A few other factors suggest that the ancient reader would have had no difficulty in seeingthat Jesus death was a sacrifice for a NE. Firstly, Jesus words τὸ αἷµά µου τῆς διαθήκης,my blood of the covenant, resemble closely Exod. 24.8 LXX, τὸ αἷµα τῆς διαθήκης. Oneshould also make mention of the appearance of ἐν αἵµατι διαθήκης in LXX Zech. 9.11.However, in the Passover context of the last supper Exod. 24.8 would be the most dominantintertext and would undoubtedly be better known by the reader.Exod. 19.1-24.18 describe the coming of YHWH onto Mount Sinai which climaxes in aformal covenant community ceremony (24.1-18). The blood of the covenant is the blood ofthe oxen, killed as burnt and peace offerings. Half of their blood is dashed upon the altar, theother half upon the people. In this act YHWH and his people enter into a solemn covenantrelationship. Jesus uses these words to demonstrate that his impending death is the necessaryact which will bring about a covenant relationship with God. As France puts it,505. Jos. War 6.423-427506. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper (2011), 61.507. ibid., 72. 188
  • 189. As God first rescued his people from Egypt and made his covenant with them at Sinai, so now there is a new beginning for the people of God, and it finds its focus not in the ritual of animal sacrifice but through the imminent death of Jesus.508If Jesus last meal and death are connected with a new covenant one is naturally drawn tothe new covenant passage of Jer. 31.31-34. Unlike Luke and Paul, Mark does not describe itas the new covenant, but this is implicit. 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer. 31.31–34)Jer. 31.31-34 describes a day when a new covenant will be given. Furthermore, it tells usthat a new covenant is necessary because the covenant made at the first exodus has beenbroken (31.34). In fact this Jeremiah passage dovetails with our NE reading as thesurrounding literary context of Jer. 30-33 is full of NE overtones.509 Van der Wal lists thefollowing explicit connections. Jer. 31.32 . cf. 31.16 God took the fathers by their hand from hand and led them out of Egypt Jer. 31.9 God will take the people in the future and lead them along flowing brooks. Compare with Exod. 15.17 Jer. 31.2 Refers to wandering in the desert. See Exod. 14.11; 15.22; 16.32; 19.2 Jer. 31.32 Covenant Jer. 30.3 Refers to the gift of the land508. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 570.509. A. Van der Wal, “Themes From Exodus in Jeremiah 30–31” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction,Reception, Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne. (Leuven: Lueven University Press, 1996), 559-66. Which also listsmany implicit connections between Exodus and Jeremiah, 189
  • 190. He concludes that the author of Jer. 30-31 used traditions of Exodus to formulate his hope inthe future saving-actions of God, that he predicts deliverance from Babylon and depicts thedeliverance as a new exodus.510 Readers who interpret Jesus covenant saying through bothExodus and Jer. 31.31-34 would then see that Jesus understood his impending death as thesacrificial act required in order to bring about the new covenant of the NE.The scriptural-theological matrix shaped by the NE traditions continue in the use of thephrase τὸ ἐκχυννόµενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. The blood of the covenant, that is Jesus blood as thePassover sacrifice, will be poured out for many. This appears to be an allusion to Isa. 53:12, Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:12)Although lacking any direct verbal parallel, both texts speak of a salvific substitutionarydeath. This is seen in the use of the word ὑπὲρ, on behalf of. The combination of pouringout and the many also points to the sacrificial death of the Isaianic servant. 511In our above analysis of Mk. 9.12, the passion predictions, Mk. 10.45 and the last supper ithas become clear that Mark has made use of Isa. 53 in order to explain the significance ofJesus death. This therefore allows us to speak more confidently about the relationshipbetween the Gospel of Mark and the substructure of Isa. 40-55 sketched out at the beginningof this chapter.3. The Death of the KingAs the Markan narrative moves closer to the climactic moments of Jesus pre-resurrection lifethe reader is prepared, through the use of of scriptural allusions, to see the death of Jesus asbeing the death of him who is the embodiment of YHWH, the Divine Davidic King and theSuffering Servant. His death, however painful and humiliating, and with the blueprint of asacrificial death firmly in place with the use of Isa. 53, is presented as having soteriologicalsignificance. The rejection of Jesus as King in crucifixion is actually the moment of triumphfor the God of Israel and the successful completion of his NE plan. Though suffering and dy-510. Ibid. 565.511. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 189. 190
  • 191. ing he will be and raised to life and vindicated. This intratextual and intertextual preparationof the reader for the account of Jesus death is further supported by several features within theclosing scenes of his life. The following discussion is deliberately brief and is not intended tobe exhaustive but it attempts to to capture the diverse, yet unified, Kingly threads in the clos-ing panels of the Markan tapestry. We will see in the following that (a) Jesus is presented asthe Kingly Shepherd whose death will be followed by vindication, (b) that the mockery of Je-sus ironically points towards the Roman Triumph and the actual Kingship of Jesus, (c) the in-terweaving of allusions to Ps. 22 in the final moments of Jesus life portray him as the right-eous Davidic sufferer who will be vindicated whilst the (d) moment when he dies and his (e)resurrection point to the his divine identity. (a) The Death and Vindication of the Shepherd KingUpon leaving the upper room and sharing a Passover meal with his disciples Jesus goes up tothe Mount of Olives (14.26). In the previous chapter we established that the Mount of Oliveshas theological significance as it came to be associated, on the basis of Zech. 14.4, with thecoming of God. It is therefore interesting, upon returning to the Mount of Olives, that Jesusturns to his disciples and quotes from Zechariah (Zech. 13.7b). καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς * ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, ὅτι γέγραπται· πατάξω τὸν ποιµένα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται. Mk. 14.27Undoubtedly, Jesus is using this passage to speak about his own impending death as well ashis coming desertion by the disciples (Mk. 14.50). He is the shepherd who will be struckdown and, as a result of his death, the sheep (the disciples) will flee. Elsewhere in this thesiswe have often taken account of the larger original contexts of an OT quotation and here wesee that the original context of the quotation from Zechariah can add theological depth to ourreading of Mark.Zech. 13.7b is part of a larger poem consisting of three stanzas (13.7-9). The first concernsthe Shepherd-King who is struck by God (v7), the second, the decimation of his flock (v8),and the third, the restoration of the remnant and flock (v9).512512. E. H. Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Leiden: Biblical Studies Press,2003), 294. 191
  • 192. In verse 7 the use of the personal pronoun, my shepherd, and the phrase man who is next tome513, suggest that the one who wields the sword, that is YHWH, has a close relationshipwith the shepherd. Elsewhere in Zechariah, and in other parts of Scripture, the shepherd is a 514metaphor for a king or a leader. Zechariah then looks to the future when a King, close toYHWH, will be killed by God. His death will be followed by the scattering of the sheep and atime of suffering. After this YHWHs people will be restored to himself and the covenant willbe renewed.This larger context of the quotation from Zechariah is conceptually similar to Isa. 53 in whichGod crushes the servant figure to death (Isa. 53.5-6, 10). However, it is not at all clear inZechariah that it is not a wicked king/leader515 who is is being referred to and the death of theshepherd in Zechariah is devoid of any soteriological significance.In the Markan narrative Jesus immediately follows this seemingly negative scriptural citationwith the words ἀλλὰ µετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναί µε προάξω ὑµᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν (Mk. 14.28).There is hope. The striking of the shepherd will be followed by his vindication.The dispersalof the disciples will be followed by their regathering.516 The words I am raised, ἐγείρω,517 areused here in a precise and technical way as shorthand for resurrection.518Mk. 14.27-28 corresponds with some of the theological themes developed elsewhere in thisthesis. Jesus is a King who, after being struck down by God, will be raised from the dead.(Isa. 53).513. ‫ , עמִיתִ י‬see also Lev. 6.2, 25.17 ֲ514. eg. Zech. 10.2-3; 11.3,5,8,15,16,17; Sam. 5.2; Ezra 34.8; Isa. 44.28.515. This position is taken up by M. J. Boda. He writes, the image of the Sword is connected with judgement,this Shepherd is apparently someone who is struck as a result of some offence. This is not surprising in light ofthe many negative depictions of shepherds elsewhere in Zech. 9-14. However, precise identification of thisshepherd is difficult to attain Haggai, Zechariah (2004), 512.516. Similarly the passion predictions include the message of the resurrection (8.1l,9.31,10.34-35), and the clearallusion to his death at the Passover meal is co-joined with a hopeful saying about new wine in the Kingdom ofGod. This point is well made by France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 577.517. It is also used elsewhere in Mark to refer to raising in more general terms. Mk. 1.31, 2.9, 3.3, 4.38, 10.49,etc518. 6.14,16; 12.26; [16.6], Ac. 3.15, 4.10, 10.40; Rom. 4.24-25, 6.4, 7.4, 8.11, etc. See EDNT 1:375. and TDNT2:335. 192
  • 193. (b) The Death of Jesus and the Roman TriumphWithin the Markan passion narrative the word βασιλεύς is used of Jesus several times. At histrial Pilate asks him Are you the King of the Jews? (15.2) and twice he refers to Jesus asKing of the Jews upon addressing the crowds calling for his crucifixion (15.9, 12). After thetrial the soldiers mock him saying Hail, King of the Jews (15.26), and at his crucifixion it ismentioned in the charge against him (15.26) as well as it being used as a taunt by the ChiefPriests and Scribes who say Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross thatwe might see and believe.(15.32).This use of βασιλεύς, as a charge against Jesus and in mockery against him, aligns well withour developing thesis that Jesus is the long awaited King returning to Zion. It is ironic thatthe characters in the story do not realise, as the readers do, that this kingship is not that of afailed messianic pretender but rather is the Kingship of YHWH and that of the suffering mes-siah. In particular the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers is filled with irony as they mock Jesusfor being a King by calling him the King of the Jews, clothing him in purple, twisting togeth-er a crown of thorns and kneeling down in homage to Jesus (15.19).519T. E. Schmidt takes the ironic mockery of Jesus even further by arguing that Mk. 15.16-32,when read against the backdrop of the Roman triumph, has been subtly crafted in parabolicform so that the readers would understand that Jesus crucifixion is a triumph and that Jesus isthe triumphator.520 The Roman triumph was a well known civil ceremony and religious ritethat took place in the heart of the Roman Empire. It was held to celebrate the achievement ofa military victor known as the triumphator,521 and was a very costly and ostentatious519. Wayne C. Booth maintained that in the mockery of Jesus there are two levels of irony. The soldiers intendtheir salute to be ironic (they do not actually think Jesus is a King) but are themselves subjected to irony, (forthey do not realise he is actually a king) "A Rhetoric of Irony" (Chicago: Chicago Press, 1975), 70, cited inMerenlahti Poetics of the Gospel: Rethinking Narrative Criticism (London: T&T Clark, 2002) 28-29.520. T. E. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” NTS41:1 (1995): 1-18.521. Central to the Roman triumph, in contrast to the minor triumph or ovation awarded for lesser feats, was theportrayal of the general, consul or caesar as victor and saviour (sōtēr, in the sense of one who brings goodfortune). As the focal point of the procession, the triumphator rode the triumph in a chariot. He was dressed in apurple toga, wore a tunic stitched with gold palm motifs and had a crown upon his head. His face was paintedred and he carried an eagle-crowned sceptre in his hand, all of which were elements taken from the depiction ofJupiter in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The victor was surrounded by his soldiers and by leading exhibits ofthe spoils of war, graphic representations of the significant battle(s) on billboards and placards announcing thepeoples conquered.To be awarded a triumph was the most outstanding honour a Roman general could hope for.He would be drawn in a chariot- accompanied by the booty he had won, the prisoners he had taken captive, andhis no doubt rowdy and raucous troops in their battle gear- through the streets of the city to the Temple ofJupiter on the Capitoline hill, where he would offer sacrifice to the god. The ceremony became a by-word for 193
  • 194. pageant522 In Pauls letters, and prior to the composition of Mark, the soteriological signifi-cance of Jesus was metaphorically compared to that of the Roman triumph. (2 Cor. 2.14).Schmidt maintains that the way of the cross in Mark, the Via Dolorosa, is being comparedwith, and indeed replaces, the Sacra Via of Rome. For Schmidt, Mark designs this anti-tri-umph to suggest that the scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ. Whilst wecannot engage in a full-length discussion of Schmidts proposal, several of his arguments areparticularly convincing in demonstrating a strong correlation between Mark and the Romantriumph, which surely was not left unnoticed by many of Marks readers, 523 (i) Mark makes it clear that the soldiers gathered from the πραιτώριον to torture Jesus(15.16). The word πραιτώριον can be used to refer to a general military headquarters (Acts.23.35) but it was also the common designation in Rome for the place and personnel of theimperial guard.524 We know from elsewhere that the imperial guard always came out enmasse upon the occasion of a triumph.525 The naming of the palace courtyard as πραιτώριονmay be perceived as an incidental detail by Mark, except that he follows this by saying thatextravagant display. Triumphal processions had celebrated Roman victories from the very earliest days of thecity. M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2009), 8.522. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.34.3. Trans. Spelman (Harvard University Press, 1960).523. Some of his arguments are not included here in the main body of the text as they seem particularly weak.Two examples of his less persuasive arguments are as follows (A, B).(A) Jesus is led out out of πραιτώριον into the streets of Jerusalem to be crucified. the (ἐξάγουσιν αὐτὸν ἵνασταυρώσωσιν αὐτόν). The verb ἐξάγουσιν is commonly used within the NT. Schmidt notes that elsewhere itdenotes a procession involving the accompaniment of a key figure by others. Caution, however, should beexercised at this point as its usage elsewhere makes it clear that it is often devoid of processional connotations.See BDAG, EDNT. Acts. 16.37, for instance, also uses the word in reference to being arrested by the police.Although the word itself does not point to a correlation with the Roman triumph, the fact that Jesus is escortedby soldiers does provide a parallel to the the triumphator movement in the parade. In comparison with theprevious arguments (i-iv) this argument can only be seen as secondary.(B) In the Roman triumph a bull often accompanies the triumphator. But the bull is not alone. In nearly everyone of these depictions [from monuments] walking alongside the bull, is an official who carries over hisshoulder a double-bladed axe, the instrument of the victims [bulls] death. In Mk. 15.21 we read And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.Simon, like the official in the picture, carries an instrument of death. For Schmidt, the fact that this man is astranger to the city suggests that Mark envisions his role as being divinely planned (9). This leads him to saythat this practically official function adds to the visual image of instrument bearer for the victim (9-10). As withthe previous argument, this is particularly tendencious and unpersuasive. The official in the Roman triumphcarries the instrument of death for the bull and not for the triumphator. T. E. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: TheCrucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” NTS 41:1 (1995): 1-18.524. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” (1995), 6.525. Suet. Calig. 19.3; Dio Cassius Rom. His. 62.4.3; Tacitus History 2.59; Jos. War 7.5.4 194
  • 195. they, the whole cohort (ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν), were sent out by Pilate to Jesus. A cohort couldnumber anything between 500 or 600 men526 so it would be strange if a cohort was called outto beat and mock just one man. This astonishing detail would evoke a familiar occasion;namely the gathering of the soldiery as the precursor of the triumph.527 (ii) In Marks Gospel Jesus is given a purple robe and a crown of thorns. Thiscorresponds with several existing accounts of Roman triumphs which tell us that thetriumphator would wear a ceremonial purple robe and a crown.528 Indeed, it seems thatpurple robes were outlawed in Rome for anyone of low rank.529 It is unlikely that such acorrespondence between these events would be lost on any Markan reader familiar withthe customs of the Roman Empire. (iii) In the Roman triumph the triumphator appeared in his ceremonialattire prior to the actual procession in order to receive accolades and gifts fromhis soldiers.530 The shout of the soldiers, Hail, King of the Jews, may correspondto this. (Mk. 15.18).531 (iv) The parade of Roman triumph reached its dramatic conclusion at the Templeof Jupiter Capitolinus which stood upon a central hill of Rome. According to Dion, Hal.4.59, there was a legend that during the foundation for a temple in a certain Roman hill, ahuman head was discovered and that this place came to be known as the place of the526. EDNT 500 men; BDAG 600 men;527. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession.” (1995), 6.528. Livy Epit. 10.7.9; 30.15.11; Dio Cassius Rom. His. 62.4.3-6.2; 62.20.2-6; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.47.2-3.For an extensive list see Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman TriumphalProcession,” (1995), 7529. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession.” (1995), 7.530. Dio Cassius Rom. His. 6.23; 63.4.3-6.2; Tacitus History 1.27. Again, see Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: TheCrucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” (1995), 8, for extensive referencing.531. Josephus provides us with a nice account of the Triumph of Vespasian and Titus. Here we see the purplerobe, the crown and the acclamation by the soldiers.And as soon as ever it was day, Vespasian and Titus came out crowned with laurel, and clothed in those ancientpurple habits which were proper to their family.....Whereupon the soldiery made an acclamation of joy to themimmediately, Jos.War 7.5.4 195
  • 196. head. The Latin for head, being the word caput, it is probable that this legend refers tothe geographical location of Capitolinus.In light of this it is a remarkable coincidence that the place of Jesus death in Marks Gospel iscalled Γολγοθᾶ, an Aramaic term which Mark translates as Κρανίου Τόπος. κρανίον, skull/head, is the Greek counterpart of the Latin caput. Schmidt comments This may be a linguis-tic and historical coincidence, but to an audience prepared by the context to look for doublemeanings, it would be a glaring and meaningful coincidence.532These arguments are persuasive enough for us to suggest that any Markan readers familiarwith the Roman Triumph would understand that Marks narrative is a parody of it. Given thatthe Markan reader knows that Jesus is the DW, who has engaged with the demonic forces ofdarkness, it is not unreasonable that they would see that Jesus death, given it hassoteriological significance and is followed by vindication, is a type of Triumph and that Jesusis the archetype triumphator worthy of honour and acclamation. (c) The Death of the Davidic King533In his description of the final moments of Jesus life, Mark chooses to weave in a number ofallusions to Ps. 22. Peter Craigie refers to Ps. 22 as a liturgy for one threatened with death,534although it is important to also note that is attributed to David.This Psalm contains lament (v.2-22), prayer (v.12, 2-22) and praise and thanksgiving(v.23-32). The Psalm begins with a distressing cry to God, My God, My God why have youforsaken me (v.1), from one who is scorned by mankind and despised by the people (v. 6).Yet the Psalmist asks God that he might be delivered from the sword.535 The Psalm ends on acelebratory note in which the one who suffers is assured of deliverance. The sufferer whofeels forsaken will now have the face of the God of Israel turned towards him in compassion(v. 25). The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied (v. 27).It speaks not so much of suffering in general but of Davidic-suffering. As maintainedelsewhere in this thesis, these Psalms, attributed to a Davidic King, came with the decline of532. Schmidt, “Mark 15.16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” (1995), 16.533. See discussion in Watts, “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel” (2004). Particularly Ps. 24.534. P.C Craigie, Psalms 1-50 WBC (Waco:Word Books, 1984), 184.535. One is reminded here of the sword in Zech. 14.7 which was used against the Shepherd. 196
  • 197. kingship to be understood in some quarters messianically . This is perhaps why thesuperscription to this Psalm in the Septuagint (21, LXX) begins with the words εἰς τὸ τέλος,thereby indicating its eschatological orientation.536 In 4Q89 Ps. 22.15-18 is clearly alluded toas a prelude to the eschatological renewal and restoration of Zion. In the words of Marcus, itpresents a vision of the eschatological consummation, and the suffering described in Ps. 22 isviewed as a prelude to the consummation, the tribulations experienced by the community inthe eschatological war.537Although this Psalm describes the intense suffering of the Psalmist, it does not describe hisdeath. There is a thematic correspondence with Isa. 53 in that a righteous Davidic figure suf-fers and is, therefore, vindicated by God. It is not surprising then, given the developingthemes of Marks Gospel, that he clearly alludes to Ps. 22 at several points in the closing mo-ments of Jesus life. The division of Jesus garments (Mk. 15.24, Ps. 22.18), the mocking ofonlookers (Mk. 15.29, Ps. 22.7), as well as Jesus cry of God-forsakenness (Mk. 15.34; Ps.22.1) Mk. 15 Ps. 21 LXX 15:24 Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν 21:19 διεµερίσαντο τὰ ἱµάτιά Sustained Verbal καὶ διαµερίζονται τὰ ἱµάτια µου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Correspondence αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπʼ ἱµατισµόν µου ἔβαλον αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ κλῆρον 15:29 Καὶ οἱ 21:8 πάντες οἱ θεωροῦντές µε Thematic Correspondence παραπορευόµενοι ἐξεµυκτήρισάν µε, ἐλάλησαν ἐβλασφήµουν αὐτὸν ἐν χείλεσιν, ἐκίνησαν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν κεφαλήν καὶ λέγοντες· οὐὰ ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ οἰκοδοµῶν ἐν τρισὶν ἡµέραις,536. See discussion in Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 175 ff.537. ibid., 179. 197
  • 198. 15:34 καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ 21:2 Ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός µου, Sustained Verbal ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ πρόσχες µοι, ἵνα τί Correspondence µεγάλῃ· ελωι ελωι λεµα ἐγκατέλιπές µε; µακρὰν ἀπὸ σαβαχθανι; ὅ ἐστιν τῆς σωτηρίας µου οἱ λόγοι µεθερµηνευόµενον· ὁ θεός τῶν παραπτωµάτων µου µου ὁ θεός µου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές µε;This clear and pervasive presence of Ps. 22 in the crucifixion narrative538 is intended for areason. Mark uses Ps. 22 to present Jesus as the true David whose suffering is to be under-stood as part of eschatological tribulation which is the necessary prelude to vindication andrestoration. Marks readers already know that this death is not the end, for resurrection andvindication will follow and the use of Ps. 22 supports this. (d) The Death of the Divine Son of GodIn Mk. 15.37-39 Jesus utters a loud cry and breathes his last. Mark describes the death of hisking in very sudden and violent terms. These two verses emphasise, in three ways, that theidentity of the crucified one was not comparable with the thousands of others who werecrucified in the first century by the Romans.Firstly, Mark states that a darkness covered the land in the final hours of Jesus life.Elsewhere in Scripture darkness is associated with Gods judgement in a number of texts(Deut. 28.29; Jer. 15.9, Isa. 13.10) and Mark may be using this stock of theological imageryto frame Jesus death in terms of judgement. Collins suggests that Amos 8.9 is evoked by thisdarkness that comes upon the land at midday and that the larger context of this allusionshould be taken into account.539 Some parallels do emerge within this broader context, asAmos prophecy of darkness is within the context of a coming day of judgement and speaksof the death of an only son (Amos 8.10). Although these parallels are interesting the largercontext is not a straightforward prophecy-fulfilment as Amos 1.1 seems to suggest that theseprophecies were fulfilled in the earthquake which happened in Amos immediate future.540538. Watts, “Mark” (2007), 235.539. Collins, Mark: A Commentary (2007), 751.540. Amos could be used typologically in that Jesus death offers some correspondence with what has happened 198
  • 199. Another option for understanding the significance of darkness during the death of Jesus is tonote that we do have accounts of the deaths of famous people, including Caesar, Alexanderthe Great, and Romulus, circulating in the Roman Empire which are accompanied bydarkness and other signs.541Whilst all these interpretative options are interesting another option is perhaps the mostcoherent with the NE themes which have been developing throughout Mark. Perhaps thereader would be led to perceive of the darkness which covered the land as corresponding withthe ninth plague of the ten plagues of Egypt (Exod. 10.21-29).542 In the original Exodus thejudgement of darkness was followed by the death of both the firstborns and the sacrificialPassover lambs. Likewise, in Marks Gospel darkness covers the land before the final breathof the beloved son of God who is also the sacrificial lamb of God.543When Jesus dies a curtain from the Temple is torn in two. Although numerous interpretationsabound as to the significance of this act and as to which temple curtain it is referring to,544 wewill restrict our discussion to noting the intratextual narrative link that Mark makes betweenthe rending of the veil and Jesus baptism. As the curtain was torn (σχίζω) in two so were theheavens opened (σχίζω) at Jesus baptism. This verb only occurs in these two places in MarksGospel and both are followed by a christological confession, the first from God himself andthe second from the centurion. As the splitting of the heavens and the descent of the Spiritconfirm the identity and call of Jesus, so too is his death given christological and cosmicsignificance. Jesus is the divine Son of God and his death has not gone unnoticed in the placewhere God was said to reside.545previously in biblical history.541. Caeser: Virgil Georgics 1.463–68; Plutarch: Life of Caesar 69.4–5; Alexander the Great: AlexanderRomance 3.33.5, Romulus: Plutarch Life of Romulus 27.6. For further examples see Collins, Mark: ACommentary on the Gospel of Mark (2007), 752. Although France urges caution This familiar OT motif makesit unnecessary to search for a background in (mainly) Greek and Roman accounts of eclipses or other unnaturaldarkness marking the deaths of great men. France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 65.542. As with France, The Gospel of Mark (2002), 651.543. The drama [of the crucifixion] is given cosmic and apocalyptic dimensions. The clock which measures thepassing of Jesus is cosmic in proportion. Noonday darkness provides a cosmic commentary on the death ofJesus. In this manner a routine execution becomes a cosmic drama which marks the turning of the ages. E. K.Broadhead, Prophet, Son, Messiah: Narrative Form and Function in Mark 14-16 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994),201-202.544. T. J. Geddert identifies as many as 35 different, although overlapping, interpretations for the rending of theveil. Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 144.545. D. M. Gurtner "The Rending of the Veil and Markan Christology: "Unveiling" the YIOΣ ΘEOY (Mark 199
  • 200. Thirdly, the gentile centurion who oversaw Jesus crucifixion turns towards Jesus directionand says "Truly, this man was the Son of God. Mark emphasises that this confession from thecenturion is a result of him seeing by placing the verb at the beginning of his sentence. Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν· ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν. (15.39)His perception, both physical and spiritual, is in stark contrast to those mocking who do notsee or believe (ἵνα ἴδωµεν καὶ πιστεύσωµεν, v. 32). In chapter two of this thesis we saw thatsensory-organ malfunction language had its basis in Isa. 6.9-10 and that it is taken up in Markand to speak of spiritual obduracy.546 True Israel, in Isaiah and Mark, are those who arespiritually able to see and who embark upon the NE. For Mark, this spiritual perception isfocused upon the ability to recognise who Jesus is. The Centurion, then, is someone who isable to recognise that the crucified one is also the divine Son of God. (e) Resurrection and Vindication of the Divine WarriorThe ending of Marks Gospel is something of a puzzle to many biblical scholars. Almost allagree that it should not include 16.9-20, given that it is not found in the most early andreliable of manuscripts.547 Assuming the shorter ending, we are left with two essentialoptions. Either an ending, unknown to us, was originally included in Marks Gospel, or Marknever had an ending, whether that be a deliberate Markan literary move or for some otherunknown reason. In either case it must be stressed that there is enough within Mark to showthat he certainly believed, and wanted his readers to affirm, the resurrection of Jesus. Notonly is the thought of resurrection present in the passion predictions (Mk. 8:31-32, 9.30-32,10.32-34) but the death of Jesus is followed by an empty tomb and the proclamation by anangel that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. (16.6). Thedivine Son of God, who is also the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53, is, for Mark and hiscommunity, the risen King.15:38-39)": Biblical Interpretation 15.3: 292-306.546. See discussion in T. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark (2010), 194-195.547. The last twelve verses are absent in ‫ א‬and B. For a more complete analysis see B. Metzger, A TextualCommentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible SocietiesGreek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London: United Bible Societies, 1994.) 200
  • 201. 4. ConclusionsIn this chapter a number of theological trajectories in Mark have been explored, particularlyin relation to the the christological and soteriological significance of Jesus death. In the firstsection we spent some time within Isa. 40-55 ascertaining the narrative substructure whichunderpins it, whilst also spending some time unpacking the view that Isa. 53, which speaks ofa coming suffering, dying and then vindicated servant, can be legitimately read as speaking ofa divine Davidic figure. We argued that the structure of Marks Gospel corresponds to thesubstructure of Isa. 40-55. In the second part of this chapter we went to considerable lengthsin establishing that Mark intends to link Jesus death with that of the servant of Isa. 53. Jesusdeath is that of the divine Davidic King whose death has soteriological significance and willbring about the NE. The final part of this chapter, in sketch-form, has shown that thedescription of the final hours and death in Marks Gospel is consistent with the christologicaland NE themes which have been developing throughout this thesis.5. Summary, Implications and Suggestions forFuture ResearchWe began this study of ‘the Death of the Divine Warrior’ by noting that the Psalms ofSolomon presents us with an eschatological hope which looks to the dual kingship of bothYHWH and his Messiah whilst also drawing on the NE hopes of Isa. 40-55. This thesis hasendevoured to show how Mark presents Jesus against this backdrop as both the embodimentof YHWH and as the true divine Davidic King. In the first chapter we prepared the groundfor this by highlighting that Second Temple Judaism, whilst being thoroughly monotheistic,made use of the divine Kingship ideology of its scriptural heritage in hoping for a comingDivine Davidic Messiah. Spending some time in discussion of Daniel 7 enabled us tomaintain, using an intratextual and intertextual biblical theological approach, that the ‘Son ofMan figure could be understood as being both Davidic and divine, this being confirmedthrough our analysis of three first-century Judaic texts.The second chapter of this thesis turned its attention more specifically to the Gospel of Mark,entering into an in-depth discussion about the significance of Isaiahs NE for understandingthe Markan narrative. The NE is understood as the typological fulfilment of the original 201
  • 202. Exodus in which YHWH defeats the enemy and leads his people back to Zion where he willbe enthroned as king and his people will flourish. After this we focused our attention upon thescriptural citations of Mk.1.1-3. Although Hatina and Moyise suggest that the original largercontexts of these quotations should not necessarily be taken into account, we demonstrated,agreeing with but also developing the work of Watts and Marcus, that Mark was aware of thelarger Isaianic context and that Mk. 1.1-3, with its NE theological undertones, is likely toinfluence how the rest of Marks narrative is to be understood. Building upon this, the thirdsection of chapter two sought to show that the central section of Marks Gospel (8.22-10.52),often called the way section, has been shaped by the NE themes of Isaiah through the use ofway language as well as the repeated emphasis upon sensory-organ malfunction language.The use of Isa. 40.3 in the prologue to Marks Gospel was demonstrated to be thehermeneutical key that leads to a more theologically fruitful reading of Marks narrative. AsIsaiahs NE spoke of YHWH leading his people on a journey to Zion, so Marks Gospel, intypological fashion, speaks of Jesus, the embodiment of YHWH, leading his people toJerusalem.In the original Exodus the Egyptians and their Gods were the enemy from whom YHWHdelivered his people. In Isaiahs NE Babylon is the enemy whom YHWH will defeat. In thefinal part of chapter two we endeavoured to show that Mark builds upon the NE hopes ofIsaiah to present Jesus as the DW who defeats Satan and his demonic axis of evil so that hecan lead his people on a NE march to Zion. In our analysis we found that Mark reflects anapocalyptic eschatology in which Jesus, who stands on the side of God, is the destroyer of thedemonic realm. The exorcistic activity of Jesus points to his divine identity for he casts outdemons without the use of long incantations, the evocation of someone elses power, or theuse of objects. He simply speaks, using his own Spirit-enabled authority, and the demonstremble. Demons, as divine beings, are aware of the divine pre-existence of Jesus. Theexorcistic activity of Jesus is understood by Mark as belonging firmly to the NE traditions ofIsaiah, as shown by the use of Isa. 49.24 in Mk.3.27. In the third chapter of this thesis we focused attention upon the entry of Jesus intoJerusalem. Through a sustained analysis of both the geographical locations and scripturalcitations used in Mk. 11.1-11, we reinforced our view that Jesus entry into Jerusalem is to beunderstood as the return of the King to Zion. Chapter two focused upon Jesus as theembodiment of YHWH, whereas the main focus of chapter three was upon the Davidicmessianic identity of him who comes to the city. The latter part of the third chapter comparedJesus arrival at the city with contemporary Greco-Roman accounts which mention the arrival 202
  • 203. of a King or Hero to a city. In the light of this we were able to say that the entry to Jerusalemby Jesus is anti-climactic. Although Jesus arrives as King, neither the leaders of the City orthe Temple go to greet him. It appears, on the basis of this chapter, that Jesus NE project hasin some way failed.The fourth chapter began with a sustained study of the substructure of Isa. 40-55 and therelationship between NE imagery and the servant songs, paying particular attention to Isa. 53,within it. We suggested that Isa. 40-55 speaks of a failed NE but that Isa. 49-55 proclaimsthat YHWH will not abandon his people: a faithful servant will arise who will give his lifesacrificially on behalf of others. Isa. 53, when approached using a biblical theologicalhermeneutic of intertextuality and intratextuality (gezerah shavah), is to be understood asbeing both Davidic and divine. Moving away from the world of Isa. 40-55 we were able tosee that the Gospel of Mark bears a startling resemblance to what we identified as thesubstructure of Isaiah. As the NE is rejected in Isa. 40-48, so Jesus is rejected by theleadership and inhabitants of Zion. Just as Isa. 53 gives soteriological significance to thedeath and vindication of the servant, so Jesus death, followed by resurrection, is thenecessary sacrifice in order for the completion of NE to be fulfilled. The second part of thefourth chapter engaged in a rather technical discussion highlighting that this correspondencebetween Isa. 40-55 and Jesus demise in the Gospel of Mark is not coincidental. At severalpoints it was shown that Mark (Mk. 9.12, the passion predictions including 10.45, and thelast supper) draws upon Isa. 53 to declare that Jesus, as both the embodiment of the God ofIsrael and the Davidic hope of the nation, is also the Suffering Servant figure of Isa. 53 whosedeath, followed by vindication, has soteriological significance. The final part of chapter four,although brief in comparison to other parts of this thesis, shows that the final moments ofJesus life prior to resurrection in Mark are intended to confirm, through the use of thescriptures of Israel as well as in comparison with the Roman triumph, that the one whosuffers and dies is the long awaited King of Israel.The evidence amassed here shows, firstly, that Mark has a much higher Christology than istypically recognised: Jesus is Yahweh incarnate! Secondly, we acknowledge that Mark is acontextual reader of the Scriptures of Israel: knowledge of the larger OT context, and of thestreams of traditions which flow from them, can provide a full and fruitful reading forcontemporary readers both inside and outside of the Church. Thirdly, that a biblicaltheological approach, using the tools of narrative criticism, intertextuality and intratextuality,although necessarily broad in scope, can provide a useful addition to more traditionalatomistic approaches to Mark. We have seen that engagement with large and often 203
  • 204. controversial topics (Isa. 40-55, Dan. 7, Son of Man, Exorcism, Sukkot, PropheticLiterature) as part of a big picture approach can provide theological connections betweenpassages and testaments which have not always been seen before.Although this study has been independently fruitful in many ways, it also paves the way forfurther lines of investigation. I will name just a few of the questions raised: what role doesMk. 13, given its strategic role within Mark and its plethora of scriptural citations, have toplay in the NE theology of Mark? Did Marks NE hermeneutic go back to the historical Jesushimself? How does this analysis of Mark compare with or differ from the use of Isa. 40-55 inother early christian communities? How can this reading of Mark be used to support orcritique the mission and teaching of the Western church in its contemporary situation? It isnot possible to even begin to suggest answers to these questions within this thesis, but webelieve that through this study we have put in place important foundations for future researchon Mark’s Gospel and, more broadly, on NT theology. 204
  • 205. V. BibliographyE. Adams, “Paul’s Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes in Creation” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. B. W. Longenecker. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002).J. Adna, “The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52.13-53.12 in the Targum of Isaiah With Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah.” in The Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 189-224.M. C. Albl, And Scripture Cannot be Broken: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections, (Leiden: Brill, 1999).T. D. Alexander, “Messianic Ideology in the Book Of Genesis” in The Lord’s Anointed, eds. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. 1995), 19-40.L. C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary : Ezekiel 20-48, (Dallas: Word, 2002).———, Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 101-150 (Revised), (Dallas: Word, 2002).B. W. Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and the Prophetic Tradition” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: eds. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke and Miller P. D. (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 339-60.B. W. Anderson and W. J. Harrelson, Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah, (New York: Harper, 1962).G. A. Anderson, “To See Where God Dwells: The Tabernacle, the Temple, and the Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition” Edited by S. Hahn, (Steubenville: St. Paul Centre for Biblical Theology, 2008).J. Angel, “The Liturgical-Eschatological Priest of the Self-Glorification Hymn” Revue de Qumran 96 (2010): 585-605.Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, (London: Heinemann, 1975).D. E. Aune, “Magic in Early Christianity” ANRW Part II/23.2, Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase, (Berlin & New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1980).R. A. Aytoun, “The Servant of the Lord in the Targum” JTS 23 (1922): 172-80.J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1972).K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).H. Balz and G. Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 2 (1990): 344.M. Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, (London: SPCK, 1992).J. D. Barry, The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah, (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2010).R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament, (Carlisle: 205
  • 206. Paternoster, 2008).W. Bauer, “The “Colt” of Palm Sunday (Der Palmesel)” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 220-29.G. K. Beale, Revelation NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).———, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008).———, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008),J. Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980).E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981).———, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Second Edition), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Volume One: Texts, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).J. Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry” JBL (1961): 55-64.———, “Scope and Depth of Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah 40-55” in The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition, eds. P. Benoit, R. E. Murphy and B. V. Iersel. (New York: Paulist Press, 1967), 41-71.———, Isaiah 40-55, (New York: Doubleday, 2002).A. P. Bloch, The Biblical and Historical Background of the Jewish Holy Days, (New York: Ktav, 1978).M. Bockmuehl, This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah, (London: T&T Clark, 2004).M. J. Boda, “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and the Messiah” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter. 2007), 35-74.———, NIV Application Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).P. Bolt, The Cross From a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel, (Nottingham: IVP, 2004).M. E. Boring, “Mark 1:1-15 and the Beginning of the Gospel” Semeia 52: How Gospels Began (1991): 43-91.———, Mark: A Commentary, (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2006).D. Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2002): 243-84.———, “Two Powers in Heaven” The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (2003): 331–70.A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John, (Tubingen: Mohr, 2003).G. W. Buchanan, Jesus, the King and His Kingdom, (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984).D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, (Cambridge: Cambridge 206
  • 207. University Press, 1999).R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),B. J. Capper, “The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest of Jesus” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism & Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, ed. J. R. Davila. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90-116.———, “The Church as the New Covenant of Effective Economics: The Social Origins of Mutually Supportive Christian Community” IJSCC Vol. 2 Number 1 (2002): 83-102.H. J. Carey, Jesus’ Cry From the Cross: Towards A First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship Between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel, (London: T&T Clark, 2009).D. R. Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal Entry’” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).J. H. Charlesworth, “The Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha” ANRW II 19 (1979): 188-218.———, Jesus and Archaeology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)———, Isaiah, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001).B. Chilton, The Glory of Israel, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983).———, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah, (London: SPCK, 1984),———The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible: Vol. 11, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987).R. Clements "Isaiah 53 and the Restoration of Israel" in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, eds. W. H. Bellinger and W. R. Farmer. (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 39-54.R. J. Clifford, Fair Spoken and Persuading: An Interpretation of Second Isaiah, (Lima: Academic Renewal, 2002).A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).———, Mark: A Commentary, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007).A. Y. Collins and J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).———, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, (New York: Doubleday, 1995).———, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 207
  • 208. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de Critique Verbale sur St Marc et St Matthieu” The Journal of Theological Studies (1933): 113.C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 1959).J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, (San Francisco: Harper One, 1992).G. Dalman, Der leidende und der sSerbende Messias der Synagoge im Ersten Nachchristlichen Jahrtausend, (Berlin: H. Reuther, 1888).W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew Vol. 1 I-VIII ICC, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988).J. R. Davilla, G. S. Lewis and C. C. Newman, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, (Leiden: Brill, 1999).J. C. De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, (Leuven: University Press, 1997).J. D. M. Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac” JSNT 3 (1979): 2-17.———, “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt” Novum Testamentum 13:4 (1971): 241-58.J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3, 6, (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).W. H. Dixon, The Holy Land, (London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1866).S. E. Docherty, “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews” WUNT 2:260 (2009).C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, (London: Nisbet, 1952).S. E. Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel, (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2000).P. B. Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem” Journal of Biblical Literature 111:1 (1992): 55-71.I. Duguid, “Messianic Themes in Zechariah 9-14” in The Lord’s Anointed, eds. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 265-80.J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, (London: SCM, 1980).———, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, (London: SPCK, 2010).D. Earl, “Prologue - Form in Ancient Historiography” ANRW I:22 (1972): 842-56.J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, (London: SCM, 1976).———, Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah, (London: SPCK, 1979).———, The Psalms: A Historical and Spiritual Commentary, (London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005). 208
  • 209. J. R. Edwards, “Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives” NovT 31 (1989): 193-216.———, The Gospel According to Mark, (Leicester: Apollos, 2002).———, “The Servant of the Lord and the Gospel of Mark” in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, ed. T. R. Hatina. (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 49-63.E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957).G. I. Emmerson, Isaiah 56-66, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992).E. Eshel, “The Identification of the ‘Speaker’of the Self-Glorification Hymn” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls 1996, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 619-35.P. F. Esler, “The Incident of the Withered Fig Tree in Mark 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2005): 41-67.C. A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).———, Jesus and his Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, (Leiden: Brill, 2001).———, Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 8:27-16:20, (Dallas: Word, 2002).———, “Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan” BBR 15 (2005): 49-75.———, “Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus” in From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith, eds. C. A. Evans and W. H. Brackney. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2007).———, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom” in The Book of Daniel: Composiiton and Reception Vol. II, eds. J. J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 490-527.———, “The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfillment of Scipture in the Gospel of mark” in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, ed. S. E. Porter. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 83-103.———, “Zechariah in the Markan Passion Narrative” in Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, ed. T. R. Hatina. (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 64-80.E. Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).———, The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context, (London: SPCK, 2009).G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).———, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007).J. Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994).D. G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, (Nottingham: IVP, 2009).D. G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson, “Introduction” in Interpreting Isaiah, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 15-17.D. G. Firth and H.G.M. Williamson, Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, (Downers 209
  • 210. Grove: IVP Academic, 2009).M. A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, (New York: Schocken Books, 1979).J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament” NTS 7 (1961): 297-333.———, “The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text From Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246) (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature)” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 41-61.C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (Boston: Brill, 2002).J. D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988).R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001).R. T. France, “The Servant of the Lord in the Teaching of Jesus” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 26-52.———, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission, (London: Tyndale Press, 1971).———, The Gospel of Mark, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002).———, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).P. Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to Go” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, eds. Capes D. B., A. D. Deconick, H. K. Bond and T. A. Miller. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 25-38.L. S. Fried, “Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1” HTR 95 (2003): 373-93.H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers In the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).S. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2003).C. H. Giblin, “The Beginning of the Ongoing Gospel (MK 1, 2-16, 8)” in The Four Gospels The Four Gospels, ed. F. Van Segbroeck. (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 975-86.C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, (Brill: Boston, 1998).R. K. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, (Sheffield: Sheffield 210
  • 211. Academic Press, 1997).———, “The Emergence of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Recent Scholarship” Religion 29 (1999): 315-36.J. Goldingay, God’s Prophet, God’s Servant: A Study in Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-55, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984).———, Word Biblical Commentary: Daniel, (Dallas: Word, 2002).———, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-Theological Commentary, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005).J. Goldingay and D. Payne, Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 1, (London: T&T Clark, 2006).R. G. Grams, “Narrative Dynamics in Isaiah’s and Matthew’s Mission Theology” Transformation 21 (2004): 238.J. A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. D. G. Firth and P. S. Johnston. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005).T. Gray, Jesus and the Temple: A Study In Its Narrative Role, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010).R. A. Guelich, “The Beginning of the Gospel: Mark 1: 1-15” BR 27 (1982): 5-15.———, Mark 1-8:26, (Dallas: Word, 2002).R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, (Leiden: Brill, 1967).———, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 1 - 8, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).V. Hamilton, “Satan” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol V, ed. D. Freedman. (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 985-89.D. D. Hannah, “Isaiah Within Judaism of the Second Temple Period” in Isaiah in the New Testament, eds. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 7-34.P. D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 37-59.———, The Dawn of the Apocalyptic, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).E. Harris, “Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist” JSNTSup 107 (1994): 215.J. R. Harris and V. Burch, Testimonies, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916).W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4: 7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery, (New York: Brill, 1996),T. R. Hatina, “The Focus of Mark 13: 24-27: The Parousia, or the Destruction of the Temple?” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 43-66.———, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” Journal of Jewish studies 42 (1991): 1-15.R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4, (Grand 211
  • 212. Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).H. Hegermann, Jesaja 53 in Hexapla, Targum und Peschitta, (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1954).K. M. Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, eds. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 223-48.M. Hengel and D. P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period” in The Suffering Servant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 75-146.H. J. Hermisson, “New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Carlisle: Eerdmans, 1964).R. H. Hiers, “Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God” SJT 27:1 (1974): 35-47.A. E. Hill, Malachi: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, (New Haven: Doubleday, 1998).M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant : The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero- Isaiah in the New Testament, (London: SPCK, 1959).———, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994).———, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Mark, (London: A & C Black, 1991).W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, (London: SCM, 1998).G. P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure” in The Lord’s Annointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, eds. P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. (Carlisle: JSOT, 1995), 105-40.L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Publishers, 1998).———, “First-Century Jewish Monotheism” JSNT 21 (1999): 3.———, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),———, “Monotheism” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer. (Grand Rapids: SPCK, 2005), 519-21.D. Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE, (Tubingen: Mohr, 1992).———, The Midrash: An Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation In Formative Judaism, (Unknown: Brill, Forthcoming).B. Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place” in The Suffering Servant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. 212
  • 213. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 48-74.J. Jeremias, “Paji Qeou” in TDNT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 687-88.———, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, (London: SCM, 1966).S. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, (Washington D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008).K. Jintae, “Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement” in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, Vol. 5, (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2008).W. C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995).J. Kallas, The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles, (London: SPCK, 1961).S. A. Kaufman and J. A. Fitzmyer, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 2005).L. E. Keck, “The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel” NTS 12 (1965): 352-70.H. C. Kee, “The Function of Scriptural Quotations and Allusions in Mark 11-16” in Jesus Und Paulus: Festschrift Für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70, eds. E. E. Eliis and E. Grasser. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 165-88.D. W. Kennard, Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours, (New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2008).H. C. Kim, Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction, (Highland Park: Hermit Kingdom Press, 2008).J. D. Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).B. Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19: 28-44)” JBL 118:2 (1999): 279-94.“Theological Dictonary of the New Testament” Vol. V, Edited by Kittel, Gerhard, Friedrich, Gerhard and Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).I. Knohl, Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools, (Leiden: Brill, 1992).———, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (London: University of California Press, 2000).M. Knowles, “Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthaean Redaction” JSNTSup 68 (1993).A. J. Kostenberger, “John” in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2007).D. Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11.1-10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zech 9.9 and Psalm 118.25-26” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, eds. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).K. W. Larsen, “The Structure of Mark’s Gospel: Current Proposals” CBR 3 (2004): 140-60.D. Lee, Transfiguration, (London: Continuum, 2004).C. F. Leil, “Zechariah” in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Twelve Minor 213
  • 214. Prophets, Vol. 2, eds. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949),R. J. Leprohon, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 1 (1995): 273-87.A. M. Leske, “Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62:4 (2000): 663-78.J. Lightfoot, “The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot” Vol. X, Edited by J. R. Pitman, (London: JF Dove, 1825).R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Clarendon: Oxford, 1950).T. J. M. Ling, The Judaean Poor and the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).T. Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 13-34.T. Longman III and D. G. Reid, God is a Warrior, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).D. Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium, (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987).Ø. Lund, Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).M. Mach, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden, 1999).E. S. Malbon, “Echoes and Foreshadowings in Mark 4-8 Reading and Rereading” JBL 112 (1993): 211-30.A. S. Malone, “Is the Messiah Announced in Malachi 3: 1?” Tyndale Bulletin (2006): 215-28.J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, (New York: Doubleday, 1999).———, “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus” Edited by B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, (Leiden: Brill, 2002).———, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark, (London: T&T Clark, 2004).———, Mark 8-16, (New York: Doubleday, 2009).C. D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Translations), (Leiden: Brill, 1998).R. Mason, “The Use of Earlier Material in Zechariah 9-14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis” in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9-14, eds. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. (New York: T&T Clark, 2003).F. J. Matera, “The Prologue as the Interpretative Key to Mark’s Gospel” JSNT 11 (1988): 3-20.———, New Testament Christology, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).U Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, (London: SCM, 1963).S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005). 214
  • 215. M. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol. II: Mentor, Message and Miracles, (New York: Doubleday, 1994).E. H. Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary - Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (Leiden: Biblical Studies Press, 2003).B. A. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (New York: American Bible Society, 1994).C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1993).C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyes, “The Future Fortunes of the House of David: The Evidence of Second Zechariah” in Fortunate The Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. A. B. Beck, A. H. Bartelt, P. R. Raabe and C. A. Franke. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 207-22.D. Michie and D. Rhoads, Mark as a Story: Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, (Augsberg: Fortress, 1982).J. M. Monson, “The Temple of Solomon: Heart of Jerusalem” in Zion City of Our God, eds. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1-22.J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993).S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, (Grand Rapids/Dearborn: Eerdmans, 2005).———, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, (Blackwell: Oxford, 1962).S. Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New, (London: T&T Clark, 2008).C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988).J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).———, The Halakhah: An Encyclopaedia of the Law of Judaism, (Leiden: Brill, 2000).J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. S. Frerichs, Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study, (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was?, (Leiden: Brill, 1995).J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).D. A. Patrick, “Epiphanic Imagery in Second Isaiah’s Portrayal of a New Exodus” HAR 8 (1984): 125-41.N. Perrin, Jesus the Temple, (London: SPCK, 2010).N. R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26” The Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 185-217. 215
  • 216. D. L. Peterson, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).A. R. Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope in the Book of the Twelve” JSOT 35.2 (2010): 225-46.———, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah, (London: T&T Clark, 2009).P. M. Phillips, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete & Unabridged, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996).B. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper, (New York: Doubleday, 2011).B. Pixner, Paths of the Messiah: Messianic Sites in Galilee and Jerusalem, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010).S. E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 79-96.T. Prosic, The Development and Symbolism of Passover Until 70 CE, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004).W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896).P. L. Reddit, “The King in Haggai-Zechariah 1-8 and the Book of the Twelve” in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, eds. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 56-82.B. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7.3-14” Biblica 89 (2008): 70-80.———, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John, (Tubingen: Mohr, 2008).G. D. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindess in Isaiah 6: 9-10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis” BBR 8 (1998): 167-86.J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, (London: SCM, 1957).W. H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectation in the Early Postexilic Period, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).R. A. Rosenburg, “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament” ZAW 99 (1987): 259-61.C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, (London: SPCK, 1982).J. L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).D. A. Russell and D. Konstan, Heraclitus: Homeric Problems, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Lit, 2005).E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, (London: SCM, 1985). 216
  • 217. J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).N. Schmidt, “Was ‫ בר נשא‬a Messianic Title?” JBL 15 (1896): 36-53.———, “The Son of Man in the Book of Daniel” JBL 19 (1900): 22-28.R. Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIII, (Vallejo: Bibal Press, 1994).A. Schoors, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Isaiah xl- lv, (Leiden: Brill, 1973).A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism, (Leiden: Brill, 1977).———, “Two Powers in Heaven and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking” The Trinity 1 (2002): 73-97.P. Seidelin, “Der Ebed Jahwe und die Messiasgestalt im Jesajatargum” ZNW 35 (1936): 194-231.M. B. Shepherd, “Targums, The New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008): 45.D. C. Sim, “Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew” SNTSMS 88 (1996).T. B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism” NTS 41 (1995): 183-98.D. E. Smith, “Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory” Semeia 52: How Gospels Began (1991): 1-10.G. V. Smith, Isaiah 40-66, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009).R. L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi, (Dallas: Word, 2002).S. H. Smith, “A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark’s Gospel” NovT 37 (1995): 209-31.K. Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).K. R. Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging From Isaiah 40:1-5 and Their Adaptation in the New Testament” JSNT 2:8 (1980): 34.E. Sorensen, “Possession & Exorcism in the New Testament & Early Christianity” WUNT 2:157 (2002).J. L. Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).C. D. Stanley, Paul and the language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, (London: T&T Clark, 2001).R. H. Stein, Mark, (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2008).“The Targum of Isaiah” Edited by J. F. Stenning, (London: Oxford University Press, 1953).M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, (Augsburg: Fortress, 1990).B. A. Strawn, What Is Stronger Than a Lion?: Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew 217
  • 218. Bible and the Ancient Near East, (Gottingen: Academic Press, 2005).D. K. Stuart, Exodus, (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2006).L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 90-113.P. Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts” in The Suffering Servant : Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, eds. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 147-62.C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970),W. M. Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994).R. Tan and D. A. deSilva, The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint, (Electronic: Logos Research Systems, 2009).R. C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology” Semeia 16 (1979): 57-95.V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, (London: Macmillan, 1966).W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark’s Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980).———, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).J. H. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence” Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (1987): 157–94.M. J. Toolan, Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction, (New York: Routledge, 2001).G. H. Twelftree, “Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus” WUNT 2:54 (1993).H. Ulfgard, “Feast and Future: Revelation 7: 9-17 and the Feast of Tabernacles.” (1989): 180-86.———, The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles, (Tubingen: Mohr, 1998).C. Van der Merwe, The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible, (Electronic: Logos Research Systems, 2004).A. Van der Wal, “Themes From Exodus in Jeremiah 30–31” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne. (Leuven: Lueven University Press, 1996), 559-66.W. A. Van Gemeren, “A ‘Slain Messiah’ in 4QSerekh Milhamah [4Q285]?” TynBul 43 (1992): 155-69.———, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997). 218
  • 219. B. M. F. Van Iersel, “Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary” JSNTSS 164 (1998).J. H. Walton, “The Imagery of the Substitute King Ritual in Isaiah’s Fourth Servant Song” JBL 122 (2003): 734-43.J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, (Dallas: Word, 2002).———, Isaiah 34-66, (Dallas: Word, 2002).R. E. Watts, “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 31-59.———, “Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark” WUNT 2:28 (1997).———, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10.45: A Crux Revisited” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, eds. W. H. Bellinger and W. R. Farmer. (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998), 125-51.———, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000),———, “Echoes from the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah 40-55” JSOT 28:4 (2004): 481-508.———, “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel” in The Psalms in the New Testament, eds. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 25-46.———, “Mark” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 111-250.———, “The Lord’s House and David’s Lord: The Psalms and Mark’s Perspective on Jesus and the Temple” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 15 (2007): 307-22.G. J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 16-50, (Dallas: Word, 2002).C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1969).K. W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the Sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts, (Tubingen: Mohr, 2004).R. N. Whybray, The Second Isaiah, (Sheffied: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).P. Wilcox and D. Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah” JSOT 42 (1988): 79-102.A. Winn, “The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda” WUNT II:245 (2008).A. M. Wolters, “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 75-89.N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, (London: SPCK, 1992).———, Jesus and the Victory of God, (London: SPCK, 1996).———, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (London: SPCK, 2003).R. B. Wright, “Psalm of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2, ed. J. H. Charlesworth. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985). 219
  • 220. Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: Vol. 1 Introduction, (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983). 220